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

1257105121557025431511821065245731463108

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

Yes

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

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

83860141344971813431229312922126121633171

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

Yes

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

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

340

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

Yes

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

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

4842716133141132111822513264

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

Yes

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

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

95852272514410511713185111371528233135181169

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

Yes

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

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

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

1076146

Yes

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

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

490112810002722103241511022116132171449

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

Yes

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

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

1072037302010610610151510123114

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

Yes

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

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

68163711400353301074469832403304018253159713330

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

Yes

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

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

80153530344688451362512112551343924210

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

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

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

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

0294101150010000051142000202100003021130001020

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

Yes

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

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

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

54312122232631317302142111001067921829

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

Yes

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

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

148012706158662105316113328915152132114102020151251216

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

Yes

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

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

03221125111011321722115310822227

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

Yes

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

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

76845194423420201140449427282110314

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

Yes

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

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

1612463123112113233

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

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

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

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

19712111212211377

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

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

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

800934307020600411333741323164220120432136054220060311226

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

Yes

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

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

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

88607429426503772652448862022143181320215669

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

Yes

234241244246248249251Eradicating hunger and achieving food security remain major challenges to humanity and to sustainability. At the global level, hunger and food insecurity were on the rise in 2019. An estimated 25.9 per cent of the global population – 2 billion people – were affected by moderate or severe food insecurity in 2019, an increase from 22.4 per cent in 2014, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that there are nearly 690 million people in the world who are hungry, or 8.9 per cent of the world population – up 10 million people in one year and nearly 60 million in five years. and the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the problem. At the same time, food systems in their current form contribute considerably to green-house gas emissions, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. Today, food production accounts for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture and about a quarter of the world’s productive lands are degraded. These challenges to securing adequate nutrition to all of the world’s people, generating equitable livelihoods and adapting to, as well as mitigating climate change stand to become even more daunting. Building sustainable food systems and healthy nutrition patterns have been identified by the Global Sustainable Development Report 2019 , as one of six entry points to achieve transformational change toward sustainable development in ways that capitalize on synergies while minimizing trade-offs. On the global stage, 2021 will be a year with food security at its core. In early 2021, the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Population and Development will take on the theme of “Population, food security, nutrition and sustainable development.” In July, the annual High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development will review Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 aiming to zero hunger, along with other closely associated SDGs such as those targeting poverty eradication and climate action. Finally, the Secretary-General will convene the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit in September. To support the UN system’s efforts towards eliminating hunger, and to underscore the interlinkages between SDG 2 and the rest of the goals, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) is holding a global policy dialogue in December 2020 with partners on food security in the context of demographic change and rural development. Internationally renowned experts and professionals on food systems, population trends and rural development will be invited to join as panelists to discuss this urgent and multidimensional issue. The event also will serve as a Food Systems Summit Dialogue aligned with Action Track 4—Advance Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution, giving participants an opportunity to contribute to designing the food systems of the future by informing the Summit process.235241244246248249251Overall, panelists stressed the importance of access to food as a fundamental right for all people and an inextricable part of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Both food producers and consumers carry responsibility to create a more equitable food system and further noted that food producers also suffer from poverty and hunger, arising from inequalities and injustices. In order for food systems to be more inclusive, sustainable and healthy, further efforts are needed to 1) create jobs, 2) raise incomes across food value chains, 3) reduce risks for those most marginalized within the system, and 4) increase value distribution. Additionally, there must be special attention paid to gender equality in food systems, including the need to provide more opportunities for women in agricultural value chains, such as access to land, markets and decisions. Furthermore, panelists highlighted how the three components of the “livelihood-nutrition-environment triangle” are key to eradicating both hunger and poverty and said that moving agricultural production from input-intensive to knowledge-intensive systems and expanding employment efficiency and diversity into value chains are the two priority actions to ensure a positive and harmonious triangle. With regard to the upcoming Food Systems Summit, the stakeholders look forward to working together to transform a wealth of ideas, evidences and recommendations into concrete and practical solutions to advance equitable livelihoods in the food system.236241243244247249Key takeaways from Panel 1: The impact of COVID-19 and population movement on food system livelihoods The first panel discussed recent trends and challenges for ensuring sustainable food system livelihoods from a macro-perspective, in particular the impact of population movement and the COVID-19 pandemic on food systems in developing countries. With regard to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food system livelihoods in developing countries, several panelists noted that digital tools and people’s solidarity were key to remain resilient during the pandemic. In Indonesia, Ms. Endah Murniningtyas, the former Deputy Minister for National Resources and Environment at the Ministry of National Development Planning of the Republic of Indonesia, and co-chair of the Independent Group of Scientists that produced the 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report, noted that the immediate impact of the pandemic was felt through the weakening of national food demands and the closure of many businesses such as caterers and hotels, which led to excess of food production by local farmers. However, people remained resilient by utilizing IT tools to enable “direct selling” by small agricultural producers to local consumers, which ensured many women farmers to continue their businesses and promoted youth participation as digital mediators of food value chains. Digital platforms were also utilized to donate excess food from producers to those most in need, and she cited one recent study which found about a 72 per cent increase in food donation during the pandemic. Similarly, Ms. Izabella Teixeira, former Minister of Environment of Brazil and member of the UN High-level Advisory Board for Economic and Social Affairs, noted that in Brazil, digital tools and e-commerce were utilized as part of national food value chains to connect small and organic farmers with consumers across the country. In this regard, she noted that digital platforms have a bigger role to play beyond providing supply chains and traceability of products. She suggested that e-tools could help optimize production to minimize food waste. On the impact of population movement on livelihood and food systems, Mr. John Wilmoth, Director of the UN DESA Population Division, highlighted that urbanization, which is particularly significant in Africa and Asia, has caused shifts in people’s diets from agricultural staples to more animal-based food and processed food, which requires adjustments in agricultural production patterns. Growth of urban populations is further advanced by the fact that, overall, farms are becoming larger in scale and more mechanized, which is causing declines in demand for agricultural labor and is pressuring many rural farm workers to find alternative labor opportunities in urban areas. In response to a question by the audience regarding the vulnerability of export-based food systems—an element exposed during the pandemic—panelists stressed that countries must ensure more inclusive, transparent, resilient and environmentally friendly agricultural supply chains, both at global and local levels. Furthermore, one panelist noted that producers must cater to more diversified food demands by consumers236241244249251Key takeaways from Panel 2: Sustainable rural development to ensure better food livelihoods The second panel consisted of local agricultural practitioners and researchers and a technical specialist from IFAD. The discussions focused on sustainable rural development as a pathway to ensuring better food system livelihoods, by citing practical examples and solutions from country experiences. Panelists agreed that inclusivity and equity, based on a people-centered approach, is key to ensuring better food livelihoods in rural areas for vulnerable groups including women, youth, indigenous peoples and other communities with distinct livelihood systems. Several panelists noted that skill development, including digital skills related to drones and satellite data, as well as access to finance, are important enablers for transforming farmers into competitive entrepreneurs. This would ensure better economic empowerment of women and attract more younger workers. One panelist also stressed the importance for countries to better target government subsidies to the most vulnerable to maximize inclusion and ensure equitable livelihoods. The importance of partnerships was also underscored, which would enable multidisciplinary collaboration among farmers, NGOs, governments and international organizations to design projects that can connect small farmers with international markets. Panelists noted that better coordination among government ministries is crucial because support for food systems requires the support of multiple ministries.237241251The two youth panelists strongly emphasized that more training is needed for their generation, to keep up with changing digital technologies and not miss opportunities because of lack of finance or because class is canceled because of the pandemic.

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

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

2515251510521151352228113342103212

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

Yes

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

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

1052213610144

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

Yes

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

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

182162161602

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

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

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

76181217321361221813121662610231113

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

Yes

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

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

20712131721122111025122233

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

Yes

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

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

70032635333238

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

Yes

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

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

13003376172261690752022352200214351403140000719283733052400120

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

Yes

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

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

83101131241433

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

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

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

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

4886315133111111274113162

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

Yes

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

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

10001056295475351311123313110640203500002122711340212316278

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

Yes

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

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

1180000

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

Yes

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

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

1990291254050108883

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

Yes

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

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

2601015100111531312162516111

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

Yes

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

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

319351030375432537133287392171757130267

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

Yes

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

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

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

1612318813221106111112

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

Yes

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

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

880538

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

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

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

44044

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

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

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

6604224

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

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

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

55055

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

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

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

54155

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

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

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

44044

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

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

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

7170

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

Yes

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

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

4230102152718121173101016110215821417

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

Yes

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

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

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

4336439340

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

Yes

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

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

55055

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

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

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

51455

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

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

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

3333

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

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

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

12120111111

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

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

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

66066

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

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

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

65133123

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

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

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

571831442531145222521210532121013251332512

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

Yes

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

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

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

9183181223722593225123111

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

Yes

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

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

372259111262212141120122110112211045502

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

Yes

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

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

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

99099

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

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

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

33021111

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

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

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

9907272

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

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

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

11011

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

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

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

5503223

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

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

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

6603333

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

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

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

63035171148157533366545352516534410553032302233

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

Yes

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

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

552431811112252320

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

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

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

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

4417275332328

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

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

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

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

491928264222263333521541014214419

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

Yes

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

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

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

16151022119142441

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

Yes

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

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

400581422002651354077107571020253530713091475186133552015207142

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

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

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

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

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

62043621102932118167162318673151651216

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

Yes

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

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

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

0

No

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

1206258

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

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

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

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

4731151212663131431221110146916110

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

Yes

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

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

162

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

Yes

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

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

132066132107159288205673244015802229000012216435331406116128

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

Yes

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

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

8309482243845239113431841112352612121068

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

Yes

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

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

15641684511797526286151122531511011224511115441192034526312875

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

Yes

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

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

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

22202175517

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

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

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

31301265526

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

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

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

Yes

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

5929306812042693

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

Yes

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

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

2231351175711210111931412514137184654414431004112668106107144221

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

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

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

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

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

2471301125122113141005294192635581220416199059

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

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

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

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

671102724550171681213441121542212147414935

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

Yes

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

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

400619810103001511216173712111023211

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

Yes

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

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

7564425561924122221122111432623843111619

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

Yes

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

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

78022461041371411302312621238111223221613

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

Yes

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

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

019303614040242304433205202112123312111121214111848255

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

Yes

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

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

1921079102600011401011020011000420020400000500

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

Yes

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

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

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

8422461242458292912316193110151211429172255

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

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

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

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

64045010150050400100100503610001001000000100100

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

Yes

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

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

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

126823542810319505712256412005601178501101222141053110817170

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

Yes

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

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

560

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

Yes

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

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

1717012323212

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

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

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

7484322151233219211118111123215101351910

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

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

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

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

128411141124212232

Yes

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

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

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

122115663730506931173498376238862178891213991381101219

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

Yes

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

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

30715711812151191138171293151

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

Yes

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

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

9500

Yes

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

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

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

1293435312114

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

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

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

440112211

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

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

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

338

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

No

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

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

93015402612058350271052110683272010050105102311180000010

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

Yes

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

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

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

311

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

Yes

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

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

5535021541295215315237101278

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

Yes

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

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

61063191131715131011

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

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

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

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

85010353554540851052050

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

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

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

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

1900211144698610402590041451322624991214642020101726231603002798052

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

Yes

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

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

1750985025201057001455115545515105155124

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

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

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

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

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

15510782111112211231182

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

Yes

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

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

175192512177231751021717121

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

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

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

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

172868538134165711979344413111483

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

Yes

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

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

117004040370634957221520441824154291116

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

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

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

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

841146243463812822212251128542211521130111

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

Yes

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

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

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

190213400136024000000601010050001000110031400000620

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

Yes

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

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

5103242310262502311010000250090207012400732350000604014

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

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

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

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

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

9101949148151400151102200021001200014572000022500191002223512

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

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

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

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

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

865

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

No

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

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

903

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

No

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

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

151507625876411531414329240161711031352321243619163154

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

Yes

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

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

9207443371771531415321361143011312322410

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

Yes

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

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

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

13401778336068579103443101555104127100324541034416820101

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

Yes

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

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

331331331331

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

Yes

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

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

34114211774816917113412612210265492102126458

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

Yes

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

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

162266886917131114687237141687111719

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

Yes

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

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

27722651

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

Yes

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

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

46192738892255103102142

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

Yes

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

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

554114

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

Yes

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

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

131327226191401435763331531914148683335

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

Yes

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

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

1241247658341184329521471135815471217710261103

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

Yes

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

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

578165117403325331321523534159213128326

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

Yes

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

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

606341824416238161417253260016711261197

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

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

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

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

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

2751012131417111712114111612951

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

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

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

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

135845121633128851328847

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

Yes

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

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

4621529451

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

Yes

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

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

74132338492512361641914343162

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

Yes

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

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

115631774

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

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

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

7432525

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

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

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

1394621311211332

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

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

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

4663262252167213232511521311112312421814610

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

Yes

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

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

1320568481174553235283852514391151441312514382617

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

Yes

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

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

5656322415552524151516271

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

Yes

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

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

54543222132222231217172411

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

Yes

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

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

176928417441239233165350

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

Yes

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

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

37152238151311233642141313126

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

Yes

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

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

3213115173101045

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

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

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

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

5034232252511115412111166

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

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

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

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

00

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

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

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

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

124315672256521811214436512433115

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

Yes

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

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

23312496131567757103130315133155381052053027103510305036525

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

Yes

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

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

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

39580000011835022813

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

Yes

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

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

2503

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

721430226383467423272043332624443354512241712

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

Yes

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

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

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

999

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

NoN/A

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

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

11197717405776630114122112318826

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

Yes

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

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

3352053262613721468141426814

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

Yes

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

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

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

3061861812271216111223514210

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

Yes

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

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

70248202248101227814332363314131

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

Yes

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

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

270118800198027000000903030030000000340110900001620

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

39172838311322531112117721311131

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

Yes

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

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

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

40102282317285713645228

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

Yes

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

https://youtu.be/U_aLBL6Ovg0

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

48412229127214454502670470593615123553

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

Yes

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

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

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

285167721226262

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

Yes

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

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

123186431916062122815732118193131241136112381307

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

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

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

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

2720609182727

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

Yes

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

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

672531112641515443912636513516

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

Yes

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

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

401010761414673211224521222211121

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

Yes

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

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

3300199581791108319253416012163891002715341020011052174545460938280

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

Yes

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

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

1078731154175535110451734612451422121466141144

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

Yes

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

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

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

131091410111028212

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

Yes

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

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

1101010353020545655555055525525101021055105208

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

Yes

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

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

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

08585552510111793513101241031365964120213157590327233147

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

Yes

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

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

011575166855291211132940491183219151173561351442722109

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

Yes

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

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

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

211231620712054537222114191252113314125174

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

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

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

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

1273323724878213627933211385615175113111928

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

Yes

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

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

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

40

Yes

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

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

35010232001718063121121314521211272331717

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

Yes

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

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

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

620425276402221126542417223161292219312

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

Yes

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

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

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

72

Yes

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

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

30016914368181124173325591422721813043102811572442

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

Yes

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

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

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

5910202093227254230410221142822155

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

Yes

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

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

531120148302324241541714414415212462

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

Yes

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

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

56912201538184232741022221042225342

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

Yes

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

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

15227533834098548885452461242087088488212

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

Yes

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

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

35

Yes

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

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

84023331505317012901573101122643650022225131151318

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

Yes

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

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

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

Yes

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

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

149595130923

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

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

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

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

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

364256133328334

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

Yes

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

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

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

Yes

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

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

4201015134017232513400521010030021541000052521140130121

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

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

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

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

393093244127432243253

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

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

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

473215251251134142972

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

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

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

178837319211126513624148721182672825221212124511141116614

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

Yes

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

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

2911101

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

Yes

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

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

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

01140216473151622216216213662323126323166

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

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

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

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

0052144323531

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

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

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

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

4925101515

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

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

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

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

2351651111

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

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

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

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

77752

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

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

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

142125914

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

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

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

3751381477416226147297434614341535125462737250103129263877223162137438

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

Yes

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

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

14361053256876473318738696272013554214385102511

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

Yes

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

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

150268233959911512112085652254494128821206332321191121015312311

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

Yes

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

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

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

3040503684

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

Yes

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

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

2437210351171371006635231051112134464128292511212269122711103111

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

Yes

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

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

118053625603929111181111612117413196113391297

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

Yes

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

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

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

86094327734371554113911556361651313214239

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

Yes

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

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

1204070108634404032021145102010116066

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

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

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

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

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

40221152261416337217110213924

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

Yes

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

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

402171652515153323317111337

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

Yes

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

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

1161579228828622612622786622318322

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

Yes

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

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

544426242129141513315214113442114142220

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

Yes

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

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

402209227131221103210

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

Yes

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

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

403181182515193436519111036

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

Yes

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

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

563917

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

Yes

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

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

56226244381811183420216311321612

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

Yes

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

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

68521648204811101619210841019456

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

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

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

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

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

191601315271413571074

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

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

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

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

148406241547101142533212891141811032468

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

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

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

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

501337112463812216

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

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

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

1230196733220626011850010259700250154541200022043141423001141740

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

Yes

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

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

0834100031250642222323313262411514

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

Yes

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

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

159972144818112138315135112111521771102

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

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

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

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

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

5919328233621162233336310111312131116

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

Yes

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

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

5543413430251223471554114151451132111

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

Yes

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

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

1012972133225206322911512291411023111810

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

Yes

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

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

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

712422743282285141535213371321310

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

Yes

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

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

17701556314010969

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

Yes

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

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

666244557471

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes

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

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

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

3605209201516541024121212313311114113210

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

Yes

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

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

45526142124312372513121021813

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

Yes

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

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

38013149201226023303513202234200321021236213012002325

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

Yes

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

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

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

120

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

Yes

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

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

7031733631674772268440495306278404942846

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

Yes

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

https://faraafrica.community/fara-net

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

531543441333411901064957319386846573193

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

Yes

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

https://faraafrica.community/fara-net

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

130

All principles for UN Food Systems summit respected

Yes

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

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

303134152211451614232132126274242351

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

Yes

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

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

98

All principles were respected

Yes

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

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

10310323124953122232229933124

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

Yes

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

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

120

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

Yes

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

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

954317361576523021595911761980685957485205

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

Yes

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

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

181121012161531011183

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

Yes

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

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

999

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

No

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Ireland’s Fourth National Dialogue focused on ‘Aligning Domestic and Foreign Policy towards Sustainable Food Systems’. The opening remarks from Mr. Ruairí de Burca, Director General, Development Cooperation and Africa Division, in the Department of Foreign Affairs, outlined how food systems touch every aspect of human existence; and that our central focus on those living with hunger will require sustained action. Ireland was one of the first countries to support the call for a Food Systems Summit and Ireland will work to ensure there is strong engagement across the world especially from those who are often furthest away. The first key note address was delivered by Dr. Susanna Moorehead, Chair of the Development Assistance Committee at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Dr. Moorehead illustrated the challenges facing food systems globally in the lead up to the Summit and spoke about the important role of Ireland’s voice internationally as a champion in the fight against hunger, rooted in a historical experience of famine. Dr. Moorehead outlined the key positive findings of the DAC Peer Review of Ireland, specifically in areas focussing on LDCs, women’s empowerment and gender equality, and support for civil society organisations. The key area of improvement identified in the DAC Peer Review was policy coherence across domestic, development and foreign policy to achieve the SDGs. Dr. Moorehead highlighted the importance of policy coherence across generations, where choices made today will affect future generations. She complimented Ireland on the excellent progress made so far in implementing the Peer Review recommendations, and proposed key areas to consider going forward, including: investing in research and development in developing countries; sharing lessons of what works and what does not; sharing the experiences of tacking difficult policy issues through citizen assemblies; and exploring ways for Ireland to reach ‘net zero’. Dr. Jamie Morrison, Director at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) gave the second keynote address. Dr. Morrison provided context to rising food insecurity globally, driven by the Covid-19 pandemic, with the challenge of achieving the target of eliminating hunger by 2030 now evident. He spoke to the challenge of eliminating hunger alongside the prevalence of overweight and obesity, with the underlying reality that 3 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. This challenge around the affordability of food and the trade-offs that will be necessary will be pivotal in terms of identifying solutions through the National Dialogues process. Dr. Morrison also spoke to the unique integrated approach taken by Ireland in linking research, learning, education and innovation in agriculture. Many of the lessons learned by Ireland are inspirational for others and examples such as supporting learning exchanges with countries in Africa are incredibly impactful. The keynote addresses were followed by two panel discussions. The first panel focussed on ‘Ireland’s Role in Promoting Change Internationally’ and discussed the policy framework and emerging initiatives to leverage domestic capacities within Ireland’s international development policy, A Better World. Key aspects of the discussion were a focus on technology, science and research, mutual partnership-based approaches between Ireland and Africa, and bringing together domestic and foreign policy in a coherent way. The second panel focussed on ‘Policy to Practice: Understanding the Challenges and Opportunities’ where panellists provided a range of perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing developing countries, with a particular focus on the impact of those living in poverty. The panel focused on the political dimensions of food as well as technical aspects in outlining some options for reaching those furthest behind, and the potential for Ireland to support African farmers in increasing sustainable productivity.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251- Partnership-based approaches, infused with mutual respect, open sharing, cooperation and sound planning is the clear way forward in the relationship between Ireland and Africa. - Policy choices to ensure coherence across domestic, foreign and development policies with an awareness of the trade-offs in maximising Ireland’s contribution to achieving the SDGs are necessary. - Ireland’s credibility and voice as a champion in the fight against hunger is a key contribution leading up to the Summit and beyond. - Key investments in research, science and technology will be necessary to support developing countries to develop their food systems. - Focusing on the impact of those living in poverty and the intersection of Conflict, Gender Inequality and Climate Change will be key. - There is a real need to achieve sustainable intensification in Africa given the projections around population growth and the need for Africa to feed its growing population. - A rights-based approach to food systems that emphasises the underlying ownership and access issues is as important as the focus on technical solutions. - Healthy communities with access to social, economic and agricultural services are the foundation of a thriving rural society.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251See attached for full report.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251See attached for full report.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251- Instrumental changes versus transformational changes in terms of an approach to food systems. - The balance between private sector investment and development aid in achieving sustainable intensification. - The impact of conflict alongside climate as a driving factor in hunger where there was a divergence between panel members and audience votes. - Differentiation between food supply and access: an overconcentration of control and ownership even with an increase in supply versus the underlying rights around control and access for primary producers.

2021-06-02 12:22:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12274/203

221

We organized the dialogue based on all the principles of engagement. We invited stakeholders from most food systems stakeholders in the South East Asia region and beyond, from farmers to academics and activists. We emphasized the importance of respect throughout all processes and chose prominent leaders to be the facilitators at each table.The dialogue reflected urgency, respect, diversity, trust, and other principles. This manifested in the feedback we received during and after the dialogue, which was very positive, and a wish to continue the dialogues and implement the solutions.We would advise following the principles of engagements and the FSD method. We have realized it helps create a very positive and productive process

Yes

234240244245246248249250251On the 15th of March 2021, the ASEAN-Climate Resilience Network (ASEAN-CRN), in partnership with the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) and UN FAO Regional Asia Pacific Office (FAO RAP), convened the first series of a three-part Independent Summit Dialogue under the UN Food Systems Summit dialogue process. Meeting brought together over 150 participants to generate innovation ideas to support nature positive sustainable food systems. Building on the innovation ideas gathered, ASEAN-CRN in partnership with GACSA and FAO RAP, convened the second series of the three-part Independent Summit Dialogue series to give stakeholders from the ASEAN region an opportunity to deepen and connect the innovation ideas to strengthen food systems in the region. The second dialogue builds on key outcomes of the first dialogue in this series and takes a deep dive to connect the “innovation idea generation to support nature positive sustainable food systems.” The dialogue was aligned to Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production. This dialogue sought to answer the following key questions: 1. What is needed to catalyze public and private investment in innovation systems for R4D in the region? 2. How can we better realign and coordinate national international research efforts to facilitate innovation and ultimate achievement of the SDGs? 3. Which innovations are ready for scale up and what is needed to take these to scale? 4. How can we strengthen dialogue platforms to promote innovation and idea sharing? To facilitate engagement guided by the values of sustainable development and informed by both science and experience, participants explored opportunities to scale up nature positive sustainable food systems under three main pillars: 1. Protect natural systems from new conversions for food production 2. Sustainably manage existing food production systems 3. Restore and rehabilitate degraded systems for sustainable food production and ecosystem services235240244245246248249250251This dialogue formed part two of a 3-part series dialogue aimed at connecting Innovation Ideas with Food Systems. The major highlights of the key issues emerging from the breakout sessions included: 1. What is needed to catalyze public and private investment in innovation systems for R4D in the region? • Smallholder famers, who still make up the vast majority of farmers in the region, are already actively practicing nature positive agriculture and growing interest in agroecological principles • There is growing interest by private sector in fostering sustainable production models • Each partner comes to agriculture with different expectations, so catalysing action will require different actors to work together in partnership • There is need to understand the gaps between available technologies and the capacity or willingness of farmers to adopt • Focus on partnership also reflects well the investment environment for climate-smart and nature positive agriculture • There are more public and private actors working to find innovative ways to deliver finance resources to farmers and provide incentives for other value chain actors • There is need to improve understanding of stakeholders needs and potential adopt and/or scale up climate-smart and nature-positive innovations for agriculture. 2. How can we better realign and coordinate national international research efforts to facilitate innovation and ultimate achievement of the SDGs? • There is need for new digital technologies that collect and organize information on farm conditions and options to improve productivity, address climate variability and address potential environmental impacts • There is need for more discussion and collaboration on how to help farmers and agri-businesses build and capture consumer markets for sustainable produce • There is a need to show the impacts of improved practices - needs to be improved evidence on how changes in farmer practice can drive improvements in sustainability. This is going to be a crucial for building sustainable markets for nature-positive agriculture. • There should be more attention on the knowledge and needs of farmers and consumers in developing climate-smart and nature positive agriculture products and markets. 3. Which innovations are ready for scale up and what is needed to take these to scale? • There are already be a number of technologies and approaches that we could taking off the shelf - agroecology for example. Such technologies to address interrelated climate and water management risks such as irrigation are perhaps not ground breaking, but will be essential • It was noted that in the past these have been public investment • Some specific on-farm technologies included: o New varieties and the use of underutilized species: farmer-led varietal selection o Agroforestry • There are a number of digital technologies and platforms that are being scaled, for an example how social media and digital platforms have been used in some countries to help link farmers to markets following the impact of COVID-19. In addition to how farmers are increasingly using platforms like YouTube on how to learn about new innovations Innovations are not necessarily something totally new. Innovation is equally about how local, old and new knowledge and technologies can be applied in new contexts or scaled-up. With this basis understanding there are a wide range of innovations ready for scale. Achieving scale may be about aligning interests - takes us back to partnership and respect.236240243244245246248249250251Protecting natural systems from new conversions for food production Key issues: • Public sector’s role on enabling policy environment is very crucial • Leveraging some public funds to scale up innovations such as the livelihood programs for communities in the forest as well as social forestry • Projects that can be funded for scaling up should be localized problems and the solutions are driven by the farmers themselves • One such innovation that also promotes biodiversity conservation is the nursery agri-business. Maybe the government can invest in the multiplication of plant varieties that are resistant to climate change and local varieties, particularly in seed development. • Thailand has been promoting as ASEAN seed hub so maybe this can be linked to projects of the government • Thailand is also promoting this plant-based food hub. This plant-based food hub can be a solution to recover from the pandemic. • The innovation on seaweed as feed to reduce methane gas emission can address concerns for food security as well as climate change. • Involve the academe as they have an important role in empowering and educating the farmers • Philippines has good innovative projects that can be scaled-up e.g., rice network • Private and public sector should work together/collaborate • The public sector referred here may include research organizations, the academe, and civil society organizations • Promote 5P’s and not just the 3P’s: private, public, producer, people partnership • Decision making tools are very important for policy recommendations: forecasting tools; yield forecasting, big data, drones and other tools important for policies or decision making • Role of youth in agriculture should be further explored • Jackfruit can be a replacement for meat. This is an innovation that Thailand would like to promote in ASEAN plant-based food hub. • There should be a way on how society can pay back the farmers as payment for ecosystem services.236240243244245246248249250251Sustainably manage existing food production systems. Key issues: • Investment in irrigation systems and water harvesting technologies, so as to help local farmers adapt to the situation of water scarcity or depletion due to long drought, which is brought about by climate change. • Building water storage and rainwater harvesting systems/capacity of farmers R&D is important to enhance the resiliency of the farmers on the ground • There is need for policies and strategies to manage land-uses and how to mitigate land conversion • There was also a sharing on strong state regulation and management • There is need to look at innovative financial systems • Transdisciplinary action is of utmost importance • There is a gap between technology, the situation and the farmers - innovations should be patent-free and easy access to the farmers • The interlinkages and connections that exist within the global food systems should be leveraged to ensure social protection and inclusivity and environmental and economic sustainability for the entire society. • Investment in state-of-the-art data science methodologies and collection systems. • We must make use of knowledge sharing platforms for inter-sectoral and multi-institutional approaches and inclusive multistakeholder engagement processes should be a priority • I also think that we need strong state regulations to ensure that conservation and management as much as production are taken into account Lessons from COVID has brought elements on technology investment, which is critical such as digital platforms and online platforms The farmer should be enabled and empowered • Farmer end-to-end supply value chain – engagement at policy level and mapping out the value chain We should always have the farmer in the middle and always focus the famer to the private sector and investment and R4D, government. • reduce the distance between Lab to field for the maximum benefit Invest on platforms that promote development of tech and sharing of knowledge and encourage lessons sharing – stimulate the role of development agencies to promote these initiatives236240243244245246248249250251Restoring and rehabilitating degraded systems for sustainable food production and ecosystem services. Key issues: • Adoption of digital technology is common now, but there is a strong need to ensure that digital technology links the value chains more closely. It helps farmers and consumers and production to consumers in terms of using resources and in allocating resources. • Aside from the classic digital technology and softwares, there are also suggestions of using virtual innovation platforms which is a bit more friendly in areas or in countries where communication infrastructure is not really that good like in the Philippines. • Adopting a type of circular economy and the example provided was the use of bio-waste turning it into fertilizer, etc. This is more sustainable in terms of being able to use resources that are already at hand. • In relation to rehabilitating degraded systems, there was a concern about being able to invest, particularly in social forestry. But at the same time, there are issues in going into this type of big projects, which really needs big investments. So, policy will be very important because public investments will be needed especially for long-term projects and for wide-ranging type of social forestry projects. • Solution to support smallholders who produce sustainable products. • There is need to scale up the amount of information so that we are able to inform everyone that there is a market, that there is a demand for sustainable products. • Farm to table concepts to support smallholders - some supermarkets and small shops are already moving towards sustainable products, but this is not yet enough to support the smallholder farmers at this time.237240Not many areas of divergence were brought up due to time constraints.

2021-06-02 12:27:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5132/41

5422311157221021133712313

The Dialogues were organized following the Food Summit Principles of Engagement, where a diverse set of stakeholders had the opportunity to engage in purposeful and respectful exchanges to discuss concrete actions for transforming food systems. Care was taken in the recruitment of participants to have a balance of food system actors present at the Dialogue. In his framing remarks, the Dialogue Curator reinforced the Principles of Engagement, and participants were able to gain of understanding of how the ideas generated throughout the Dialogue would feed into the UN Food Systems Summit. Following opening remark to frame the discussions, participants joined facilitated break-out discussions. Members of the Arrell Food Institute team attended the Curator and Convenor training, and many facilitators attended the training offered by the Summit Dialogues team as well.A large focus of the Dialogue was ensuring multi-stakeholder inclusivity, which was reflected in the diverse set of participants who attended the dialogue. Attracting over 50 participants, the delegates included farmers, researchers, politicians, policy makers, restaurateurs, and NGO representatives. As guided by the facilitators via discussion questions, participants discussed concrete action points and solutions for food system challenges, and the entire Dialogue followed Chatham House Rules so that participants would feel comfortable with sharing their opinions.The advice for other Dialogue Convenors would be to make sure to take advantage of all the resources offered by the Summit Dialogue team, especially the comprehensive Curator and Facilitator trainings. The reference manual offered online is also key resource for gaining understanding of the Summit Principles of Engagement.

Yes

234240241244Ahead of the upcoming United Nations Food Systems Summit, Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph hosted three independent Food System Dialogues to bring together voices from across and beyond the Canadian Food System. The third dialogue explored strategies to put agriculture at the heart of a green economic recovery plan. There were 5 discussion groups in this Dialogue, all of whom discussed one of these three topics: - Canadian agri-food exports being recognized internationally as being the most sustainable on the planet - The agri-food sector as an engine of green prosperity - More Canadian youth are choosing agri-food as a career option and being trained in a way that meets the needs of this rapidly expanding industry Framing speakers: David McInnes, Canadian Agrifood Benchmarking Project Vimlendra Sharan, FAO Michelle Nutting, Nutrien Bill Gruel, Protein Industries Canada235240241244Clearly establish a national sustainability benchmarking process, linked to a robust data collection framework, that transparently shows how Canadian producers perform environmentally on a global stage. Preliminary data suggest that although progress is still needed, our producers are often among the most sustainable on the planet. Canada can embrace the idea that we are the world’s trusted producers of safe and sustainable food and put agriculture at the centre of a green economic recovery program. Recent announcements in the 2021 federal budget move us in this direction. A next step is to create a national sustainability benchmarking program that would give Canada economic advantage in export markets, contribute to our ability to meet our Paris climate commitments and to the UNFSS Action Tracks 3 and 4. Major global trends linked with population growth, climate change, new consumer expectations and novel technologies suggest that the next 10 years may be incredibly disruptive for food systems everywhere. In Canada, we have much to celebrate: our producers are amongst the most environmentally conscious in the world, most Canadians enjoy safe, healthy, and affordable food year-round. Nevertheless, systemic problems of food insecurity and disruptions to the food system caused by the pandemic mean that we need to do better. Together, by putting environmental sustainability at the centre of the Canadian agri-food sector's identity we can ensure Canada has the tools it needs to continue having one of the greatest food systems in the world. This will not only help support domestic producers and consumers as well as allowing those parts of our food system that depend on exporting to international markets thrive and expand over the next generation.236240241244• Improve ag education, at a young age especially • Address land costs/ownership barriers • Record protocols and be more transparent about sustainability efforts and outcomes within agriculture; sharing best practice but recognising that different situations need different approaches. • Explicitly include aquaculture and water-based food production • Consider further digitization of agricultural information beyond productivity – including carbon sequestration • Benchmarking and showcasing sustainability practices and outcomes in regional and national agricultural and food systems237240241244While there were active discussions where divergent views were shared, each group was able to come to a general consensus at the end of their breakout.

2021-06-02 13:49:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7236/45192

2951770181116841128

While the dialogue was convened by the University of Leeds it was done in partnership with multiple universities that were part of the UK-China Critical Zone Programme. These included: University of Sheffield, Queens Belfast University, Nanjing University, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Research Center for Eco-environmental Sciences and Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences. The dialogue built on work previously done in the UK-China project. Each of the partner institutes put forward 10 names to be specifically invited to the event due to their knowledge and expertise in the topic area and supporting subject areas. The names put forward were from a range of stakeholder groups including fertiliser companies and government agencies. This multi-university and continent organising team ensured a wide range of people were invited to the dialogue from both academia as well as government and industry stakeholders. The range of views from a diverse group of people allowed for very open and productive discussions. The dialogue was set up to be a safe space for all views and the transparency on the next steps and potential to be involved in the collective research paper output helped build trust in the group.The UN Food Systems Summit Principles were incorporated throughout the Dialogue. Breakout groups ran under Chatham house rules and we asked that everyone was respectful of each other and sought and allowed time for everyone to put forward their opinion. While we recognised the complexity of the food system and how making changes was difficult and we welcomed differing views from soil scientists as well as water network and sanitation experts. We acknowledge that China has a number of years’ experience with applying organic fertilisers in the field and thus were a good case study to share their experience and data collected from this with the wider world. By building on existing partnerships and work conducted by participants, this brought added-value to the Dialogue. As well as enhancing existing relationships, the dialogue facilitated new connections and broadened future partnerships in this research area. We also envisaged that the language barrier (Mandarin – English) could potentially exclude some dialogue participants. Many academics in China have a good standard of English so can participate in events like this but stakeholders outside of academia may struggle. To ensure stakeholder inclusivity and trust was gained by all participants the event was convened in English but we made sure that strong multi-lingual participants were in each of breakout groups to allow for translation if needed. Facilitators were prepared to allow time for translation and were asked to check and summarise key points before moving on to the next topic. We pushed the “act with urgency” principle by making sure we discussed what needed to be done in the next 5 years to improve the system and make change promptly. Discussions were framed in the context of achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Yes

234239240244249Our drive to increase agricultural production, has been at the expense of long-term sustainability. Under a circular economy the production of agricultural commodities uses a minimal amount of external inputs and nutrient loops are closed to reduce discharges to the environment. By creating an economy in which waste is reused and pollution is mitigated, natural systems can recover. This approach supports the drive to produce food commodities in an environmentally sustainable manner, ensuring the needs of a growing population are met today without any long term negative impacts on food production in the future. The potential benefits for food security under a circular economy approach are therefore enormous. However, this can result in changes to greenhouse gases and nitrogen-related discharges, as well as inadvertently introducing into agricultural systems a suite of emerging contaminants, such as antimicrobial resistance determinants, pharmaceuticals, and plastics. As part of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, this dialogue explored the concept of a circular economy, with a focus on Chinese agricultural systems. China has rapidly transformed their food production systems to meet a “Zero Increase Action Plan” for fertilizers and pesticides, and therefore provides an excellent case study to explore the concept of a circular economy in sustainable food systems further. China is predicted to reduce mineral N use between now and 2050 and organic fertilisers are assumed to help this transition. The aim was to: Share knowledge on the feasibility and risks of using organic fertiliser in agricultural production through adoption of a Circular Economy approach. Discussions in breakout groups focussed on the three key themes: 1. Current policy frameworks and future policy drivers  2. Technical adaptions in waste recovery and use of resources  3. Potential risks and mitigation measures  235240244249250Several key themes emerged from the Dialogue discussions, in the context of understanding existing knowledge of participants, the possibility of translating knowledge from on-going sustainable agricultural systems in China to UK relevant scenarios and exploration of future opportunities to address identified knowledge gaps. Participants could see the benefit and value of adopting a circular economy in agricultural systems as it offered a means of ensuring that current and future food demands are met. This then lead to a discussion considering the risk-benefit of a circular economy. This revealed we need more data to comprehensively understand the risks as well as the benefits but so far research demonstrates that these practices can introduce contaminants into our agricultural systems. This presents a risk to human and ecosystem health. Of particular concern were emerging contaminants. As their name suggests these contaminants are ‘emerging’ and our understanding is only in its infancy in terms of knowledge surrounding the associated fate and risks in agro-environments. We need to continue our work characterising these chemicals in the environment by developing analytical capabilities to ensure we can detect these chemicals at low, environmentally relevant concentrations. A key message was that we need to work with a transdisciplinary focus. This is a complex topic and understanding the risks and benefits of adopting a circular economy cannot be achieved by working solely on our areas of interest and in isolation. We need to adopt a nexus approach bringing together expertise in food, energy, sanitation, environment, human health, and policy. Collaborative thinking will require funding mechanisms to be put in place support future interdisciplinary research initiatives. A key theme emerged that we need to work with a solutions focus moving forward. We have a growing body of knowledge surrounding the risks of using sustainable agricultural systems and in particular the use of organic fertiliser but the benefits of adopting these practices are significant in terms of meeting global food demands. We therefore need to work on developing mitigation options to ensure that these practices are done in a safe and sustainable manner. Participants discussed mitigation options and put forward their own work investigating mitigation options such as additional wastewater treatment and use of biochar to adsorb some of the contaminants. This is an area where future work is needed and there is the potential to build collaborations through this Dialogue to explore this further. New policy developments are underway in the UK, largely driven by the new national strategy following the recent departure from the European Union. Focus areas are carbon reduction, driving down synthetic fertiliser use and pursuit of a circular economy. These mirror the efforts currently underway in China to ensure a zero increase in chemical fertiliser use. However, on a global scale, very little policy exists in terms of regulating the release of emerging contaminants in the environment even though sustainable agricultural practices, such as the application of organic fertilisers, provides a pathway by which these chemicals can enter the agro-environment. Environmental regulators therefore need to harness the latest scientific developments to establish research informed thresholds allowing for the safe use and application of organic fertilisers. This is going to require research outputs to be disseminated to regulators and presented in an accessible format. The Dialogue built on existing relationships and most importantly facilitated new connections with stakeholders and academics in the UK and China who have an interest in the use of sustainable agricultural practices to support future agricultural development. This will allow for combined expertise to address the crucial knowledge gaps identified in our discussions.236238240244249Current Policy Framework and Future Policy Drivers There are current policies and frameworks in place concerning a circular economy in agricultural systems, in both the UK and China, although further development is needed given the complex nature of this system. Policies are driven by the need to reduce our reliance on chemical based fertilisers, recover nutrients and the need to become carbon neutral and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Existing policy is also in place to protect the environment from the presence of contaminants although this policy area is largely fragmented. In China farmers are given 100-500Y per tonne to use organic water-derived fertilizer though these aren’t always evenly distributed. There are also penalties in place for poultry/pork farmers who do not recycle waste and pollute water ways. The Chinese government also produces technical documents which advise farmers on how to use wastewater-derived fertilizers, i.e. how to apply and maximize benefit whilst minimizing risk. UK legalisations set environmental quality standards for contaminants and restrictions on the usages of animal manures given local climate and weather conditions. The UK plans to mitigate flooding partly though soil management policies such as reducing compaction. In the UK the drive to recover nutrients is part of the net zero by 2050 targets. In response to Brexit, new environmental and agricultural bills are in the pipeline which are in line with carbon reduction commitments and in pursuit of circular economy. UK policies include driving down synthetic fertiliser use and to making fertiliser use more efficient, e.g. full life-cycle analysis for nutrient additions. Whether existing legislations are followed is hard to judge or even control. We need to ensure guidance and regulations are clearly communicated and incentivised to ensure maximum support from farmers and land managers. In the UK water treatment companies and government are considering carbon credits to encourage better resource recovery and facilitate farmers to use organic fertilizers and increase soil carbon. Issues have been identified concerning heavy metals (Pb and Cd) and the build-up of these within soils over repeated application of fertilizer. Organic fertilisers can also introduce emerging contaminants into the environment however legislation permitting safe levels of these chemicals in the environment is largely missing. It is therefore important to consider the impacts on human and ecosystem health in development of new policies to account for this. When considering policy implementation in the context of supporting a circular economy, we need to consider nexus solutions. We need to link sectors together (waste and agricultural sector along with food, water, energy, human health and soil) to address relevant systemic issues and identify the primary drivers, concerns and points of intervention. Organic fertilizer is fundamental for improved soil health within agriculture, it also serves as a suitable waste removal technique and therefore has potential to be widely adopted in modern day agriculture over that of synthetic fertiliser. However more attention is needed in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to better control nutrient and contaminant concentrations. Ultimately, organic wastes need to be used in a safe and sustainable manner. In order to both improve global food demand and preserve/improve environmental quality we need to enforce environmental legislation. However we suggest a reduced focus on standardised guidelines, and instead increase awareness and train people to be local problem solvers. Previous experience has shown it is often the implementation of the policies which fail. We need positive incentives and support needs to be in place with a focus on education to reduce barriers to social change in practices which incorporate circularity principles which are nexus-smart. Current legislations and policies only assess the toxicology of single contaminants, more work is required to make this realistic by looking at mixtures of both inorganic and organic contaminants and the risk of antibiotic resistant genes to society.236240244248Technical Adaptations in waste recovery and use of resource? There is much potential to apply technical adaptation in waste recovery. Ultimately, we need to embrace new, more sustainable approaches to farming, rather than trying to alter a broken system. However, this will require a change of approach, focusing on the role of wastewater treatment in terms of making the waste products safe in terms of human and environmental health whilst maximising nutrient recovery to realise the benefits of this reuse. A balance needs to be met here. Current processes which are optimised for effluent waste safety may include significant nutrient losses (e.g. denitrification). We need to investigate how the benefits of waste reuse can be met with only minimal risks. New technologies will need to be developed to complement existing waste infrastructure to ensure we can use these waste products as a resource. When considering waste reuse a significant barrier is the location and transportation of wastes suitable for fertilizer use. This may require significant infrastructure in place to support widespread use. Concerns were raised regarding the transportation and mixing of wastes as this may result in the loss of information regarding quality of the waste and contaminants present. An overarching governance is required in order to achieve this. It is important that research and industry work together in partnership with regulators to collaborate and address these issues. This needs to be supported by appropriate funding required for a sustainable future -is this funding coming from the consumer or cross sector funding primarily supported by waste and agriculture sectors?236238240244249250Potential risks and mitigation measures Both the UK and China have considerable expertise in understanding the risks associated with use of organic fertilisers in sustainable agricultural systems. There is a longstanding research programme in China on the risks associated with wastewater derived fertilizers, from field sites in Nanjing and Ningbo. Hazards include the introduction of inorganic contaminants (e.g. metals), organic chemicals, including emerging contaminants (e.g. pharmaceuticals and personal care products), as well the presence of pathogens (e.g. bacteria, viruses). Use of organic fertilisers can also introduce antimicrobial genes (ARGs) into the agricultural environment. ARGs can enter the food system via uptake into crops but can also damage soil structure by altering the soil microbial community and breaking the soil microaggregates held together by microbial activity. There is a need to both reduce the ARG load in fertilizer manufacturing, and to research how mitigation options can limit the risk of ARGs associated with wastewater derived fertilizers. We need to consider the legacy of existing contaminants and emerging contaminants as these both present a risk to ecosystem and human health e.g. heavy metals are often high in concentration and do not degrade whereas organic contaminants such as antibiotics are low in concentration but still remain bioactive and cause selection pressure on antibiotic resistance genes. Our research has shown that the build-up of Cd and Pb from waste products has resulted in impacts on soil health and the reduction in crop yield. It is important to consider these to achieve food goals as well as retain soil health. It is also critical to consider the effects of transformation products and not just the parent contaminants. Often these transformation products contain bioactive properties and still can influence soil health and organisms present within the environmental matrices. We also need to consider the influence of mixtures of contaminants. We know very little about how chemicals can interact, especially inorganic-organic chemical combinations. This is largely due to the difficulties in addressing mixture effects as well as detections of complex samples. We therefore need to advance our experimental and analytical capabilities to deal with this challenge. Mitigation measures exist which focus on reducing the concentration of contaminants in organic fertiliser through advanced treatment technologies such as anaerobic digestion, liquid-solid separation, and electrolysis. The extraction of struvite is the most advanced commercial operation globally. There is a need to address regional challenges when considering mitigation options as in some cases enhanced waste treatment is not an option when a country has limited sewage connectivity and sanitation options. In this case, bioremediation options may be more appropriate such as pollutant removal via wetlands or composting of faecal sludge from pit latrines. Research in China has evaluated the potential of biochar to become a suitable sustainable method in removing contaminants from environmental matrices. More research is needed to understand currently overlooked issues such as the potential for contaminants to desorb and release slowly into the environment, ecotoxicology (earthworms mortality rate with high biochar %) and the bioavailability of contaminants adsorbed to biochars. In order to overcome potential risks we need to integrate research and industry application and have integrated planning to move forwards. While we could focus on developing sustainable, low cost technology to remove contaminants from the waste stream; perhaps we should stop focusing on adding new processes and innovation to selectively capture an ever-increasing list of contaminants. Instead, focus should be on upstream causes of this contamination, ask why they are present in the waste stream and how we can rectify this. The focus should be placed on the risks of NOT making change (business as usual), rather than focusing solely on the risks of doing something ('least worst'). This allows a more balanced decision going forward.237238240244248249250There were a couple of areas of divergence. The first was around the focus on developing sustainable, low cost technology to remove contaminants from the waste stream. It was suggested that we should stop focusing on adding new processes and more innovation to selectively capture an ever-increasing list of contaminants and instead, focus should be on upstream causes of this contamination. We should be asking why they are present in the waste stream in the first place and how we can rectify this (e.g. source reduction, not mixing waste streams in the first place, rather than paying to fix them further down the line. e.g. producing new, less persistent pharmaceuticals). The second disagreement was over the suggestion of increasing the cost of synthetic fertiliser to make it less economical to overuse. Making fertiliser more expensive will encourage farmers to generate their own free Nitrogen (better crop rotations, cover cropping etc.) which will in itself have numerous benefits and be cheaper anyway for the same Nitrogen production. Counter points focused on instead making diagnostics cheaper to reduce indiscriminate and over-application. Lastly the presentation of the risks and benefits of the reuse of excreta needs to be presented in balance. There is already an overwhelming narrative about the health risks of reusing excreta for agriculture, and it’s the dominant argument used by those who oppose the idea. To encourage and improve the uptake of this very practice it needs to be framed in a more positive light rather than constantly discussing the health risks. There are known risks which need to be mitigated against, but industrial agriculture comes with its own health and environmental risks too. There was a feeling that the risks of excreta shouldn’t be blown out of proportion, and should be compared against the risk of continuing with “business as usual” and to degrade our soil resources and wider environment from industrial farming practices. It was suggested that we shouldn’t wait to be certain it is 100% safe before starting to think about implementing this in a safe and sustainable manner.

2021-06-02 13:52:40205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14557/149

210127001380210000000601000020000000120010800000720

Total 21 people, including representatives of farmers unions, consumers organizations, world organizations, government officials, public institutions and specialists from academia participated.The dialogue mainly focused on issues surrounding ‘food for all’ such as establishing integrated food supporting system, improving public health and nutrition status, and reinforcing agrifood safety management.

Yes

234238249The dialogue mainly focused on issues surrounding ‘food for all’ such as establishing integrated food supporting system, improving public health and nutrition status, and reinforcing agrifood safety management.235238249In relation to 'integrated food supporting system’, the needs for expanding the budget of agrifood supporting program for vulnerables was suggested. Also, it was emphasized that there are needs to support more food to foreign countries which are in vulnerable situation. For effective program operation, it was emphasized to make collaboration between central government, local governments and NGOs, to train field experts specializing in food, and to link food supply and education. Regarding the ‘improving public health and nutrition status’, the importance of education to change public perception for food was emphasized. In order to change public perception, the expansion of education on importance of agriculture and rural areas. The expansion of curriculum to improve public awareness was also proposed. In addition, opinions on importance of balancing the issue of 'nutrition imbalance' with the issue of 'lack of nutrition' were presented along with the needs for customizing support for each target to solve this problem. In relation to 'reinforcing agrifood safety management’, the provision of food safety related information and expansion of food safety communication were suggested. Also, the importance of reinforcing safety measures for microbial hazards was discussed to prevent food poisoning accidents. In addition, the importance of inter-ministerial cooperation and governance for implementing various policies, and the necessity of promoting food policies that are incorporated into daily life even after the UN Food System Summit are presented.

2021-06-02 20:16:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19154/203

1711157103014116

The dialogue was very structured and strongly moderated to share question and answer exchange equitably across participants. The tone of the chat box was extremely positive and supportive. Those who were able to use their cameras were encouraged to pose with a smile and wave for a group shot at the end of the dialogue.Be respectful: the dialogue encouraged respectful consideration of the overall nutrition of refugees; vocational and developmental needs of youth within refugee groups; the wellbeing of the natural environment in food production and consumption; and the wellbeing of host communities through the positive participation of refugees in food systems. Recognize complexity: the interconnectedness of food systems with all SDGs, was recognized explicitly by the Special Envoy as well as youth speakers. Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity: speakers embraced their multiple perspectives and contexts by stating where they are from, and where they are now living.Some speakers had connectivity issues. The chat box was used to include their messages in the dialogue. This might be a challenge to anticipate and encourage speakers to have text ready to cut and paste if necessary, for a very prepared and pre-structured dialogue like this one.

NoNo, the standard dialogue format from the FSSD manual was not used. The alternative method used is described in the Concept Note and copied below: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bNz55irRHGZ80sRZisOKMIrRWhcMgOTP/view?usp=sharing Run of show Open segment – 10 min Welcome remarks and introduction of UNHCR speaker – Hala Opening remarks, and two questions to the SE about her journey from displacement to becoming the SE for FSS - UNHCR Director, NYO, Ruven Menikdiwela (TBC) Response to two questions - Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Food Systems Summit Agnes Kalibata Table tennis dialogue session – 20 questions total 15 minutes – 3 refugees per section Hala invites the Special Envoy to address two questions to the refugees – 30 seconds SE asks two questions – 2 minutes Hala passes the floor to refugee 1 – 10 seconds Refugee 1 responds to first question – 3 min Hala passes the floor to refugee 2 – 10 seconds Refugee 2 responds to second question – 3 min Hala invites refugee 3 to address a question to the SE – 30 seconds Refugee 3 asks the question – 1 min SE responds – 3 min 15 minutes – 3 refugees per section Hala invites the Special Envoy to address two questions to the refugees – 30 seconds SE asks two questions – 2 minutes Hala passes the floor to refugee 1 – 10 seconds Refugee 1 responds to first question – 3 min Hala passes the floor to refugee 2 – 10 seconds Refugee 2 responds to second question – 3 min Hala invites refugee 3 to address a question to the SE – 30 seconds Refugee 3 asks the question – 1 min SE responds – 3 min 15 minutes – 3 refugees per section Hala invites the Special Envoy to address two questions to the refugees – 30 seconds SE asks two questions – 2 minutes Hala passes the floor to refugee 1 – 10 seconds Refugee 1 responds to first question – 3 min Hala passes the floor to refugee 2 – 10 seconds Refugee 2 responds to second question – 3 min Hala invites refugee 3 to address a question to the SE – 30 seconds Refugee 3 asks the question – 1 min SE responds – 3 min Hala thanks participants and passes the floor to the SE for concluding remarks – 30 seconds Closing Statement SE closes the event – 2 minutes

234238241247251Refugee engagement in food systems, addressing challenges as well as opportunities to the problem of food security Refugees’ views, perspectives and ideas on how the Summit activities and country efforts to transform food systems can be leveraged for greater food security, better nutrition and more viable livelihoods for refugees.235238239240241242244247251Reliance on humanitarian assurance is short-term. To be resilient in the long-term, refugee youth need: training and access to information about nutrition, a means of food production, employment opportunities, and voice in decision-making about their future. Investment in new technologies to help overcome environmental and economic barriers to production and sustainability is also important. Refugees have self-determination and are a great force who can produce more than food for their communities. Refugee youth experience many issues that are related to food systems in their context. Too often, people who are living in poverty or areas of conflict end up in refugee situations. Refugees should not be living in subhuman conditions. They should have access to food, water; as basic minimums. Beyond that, it is a basic human right to have a home and a means of food production or a livelihood. We also recognize we are working against ecological challenges in a natural environment that requires more intentional management. Responding to the climate crisis provides an opportunity for young people to share what they are learning about environmental conservation.236238242247251TOPIC 1: Food and nutritional issues faced by refugees All refugees access, consume and buy food. Many also produce food. All are motivated to improve livelihoods and contribute to the economies of the countries in which they live. Yet many barriers exist. In many instances, refugees lack formal education about nutrition, resulting in malnutrition and improper dietary intake. There are also significant limits to refugees having limited access to food distribution and suitable land to produce their own food. Some questions that were raised included: How will food be distributed among people? Who has power over food distribution? For example, some people get half a chicken a month if they are lucky. Why is this inequality happening in food distribution? Unsafe situations such as conflict and violence are also barriers to accessing proper food. Some of the solutions proposed during the dialogue included: Provide formal training to refugees on nutrition. Ensure refugees have a voice in the food distribution process. (see more below) Facilitate safe access to land that is suitable for food production. Educate and incentivize the community to create gardens -(e.g. small gardens/home gardens to plant tomatoes, cabbages - increase food access) Ensure access to resources to buy the necessary food AND access to professional information on nutrition to accompany people in using their resources for a diet that really nourishes them.236238241242247249251TOPIC 2: Youth Inclusion & Voice Youth face the challenge of exclusion from decision-making platforms that influence food systems. How can we ensure an inclusive approach so displaced refugees are part of the food-security system? Solutions proposed during the dialogue included: Provide opportunities for people to voice their needs and challenges Include youth voice in platforms where decisions that affect engagement in food systems initiatives are made. Ensure those voices are translated into action (beyond tokenism). Build capacity through trainings on how to work on digital platforms, share their stories digitally Support young people to conduct exchange visits with different stakeholders for exposure and experiential learning and support peaceful coexistence with the host community.236241245251TOPIC 3: Economic opportunity & empowerment Refugees have self-determination, but there is a significant imbalance of power. Refugees deserve the ability to send their kids to school, feed their kids, and be able to do things everyone should be able to do. But this often doesn't happen because of the restrictions that prevent access to employment, land and capital. Refugees are also unlikely to have access to supports that allow them to cope with market fluctuations. Refugees should have access to productive resources. No refugee wants to stay where they are a refugee. Refugee camps are not meant to be permanent situations; they are there to help them survive. We should be able to provide for that environment so people can return to their countries. We need to engage young refugees productively in food systems as well as providing for the means of life in the time before they can return. Youth should have a role in primary food production, but youth can do more than that. They can do lots of jobs. They should have a living income. Food systems should be able to create many types of jobs. Solutions proposed during the dialogue include: Facilitate refugees’ access and asylum to banking services (eg bank loans) Open an insurance policy to refugee farmers Provide employment and business opportunities for refugee youths Engage governments to ensure refugees can access work permits so they can find job opportunities in their host countries. Make information accessible to youth about how they can access employment in food systems. Promote how farmers and markets can be open to take products to sell and distribute. Invest in human capital (e.g. training of workers on economic risk management and administration)236239240242244248251TOPIC 4: Technology & Sustainability Technology is an excellent tool to share information of any kind. If it is done in the right way, we can help many people with the information they need to access better nutrition. Social networks have become our main means of communication: Instagram, FB, Twitter, etc. Climate change, changing weather conditions, poor soils are all risky to food systems and prevent people from cultivating. Investing in innovation to develop ways to cope with adverse weather conditions is important. Engaging and promoting sustainable and innovative food production and efficient ways of distributing food across countries will help developing countries. Some of the solutions proposed in this area include: Invest in science, technology and innovation, for example: Machinery to enhance food production and preservation (e.g. microwave vacuum - dry up food and keep for longer in refugee setting) New food cultivation techniques (e.g. aquaponic/hydroponic - doesn’t need soil to cultivate) Greenhouses Drip irrigation to help food production in dry places. - keep food production in spite of arain scarcity. Fertilizers Share strategies that help refugees take advantage of what is available Duckweed - plant that grows in pond water - can be food for humans and animals - high in protein - can also purify water - help with water scarcity Creative ways of farming that uses minimal land: vertical farming, container farming (e.g. recycle plastic bottles, tires - create small gardens) One refugee share that she has a YouTube channel to share strategies to cook, gain livelihood and share among youth (e.g. how to make avocado oil from rotten avocados) Ensure that food is affordable because production is sufficient Design opportunities for youth to innovate - think and learn about creative ways to farm - move from thinking that farming is not cool - just for old people - make involvement fun.236238239240241242244246247249251Summary: At the end of the dialogue, there was an emphasis on the interconnectedness of issues. Many refugees were forced to leave their homes due to conflict and violence or environmental disasters. There was a call to the international community to address grassroots causes of conflict. When people are displaced due to violence, there is an increased population in the host country, which causes an economic crisis, leads to more unemployment and lack of education, starting the cycle of violence yet again.237No areas of divergence raised.

2021-06-02 21:43:54205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22931/113

281234

The engagement was organized among national food safety stakeholders to highlight the importance of strengthening national food safety systems by embracing multi stakeholders inclusivity. Food safety is an important component of health security and sustainable development and it is related to everyone. Food safety is a shared responsibility of everyone involved with food, from governments, NGOs, food producers, retailers and consumers. All along the food chain, legislation and controls are implemented to minimize the risk of contamination to enable people to enjoy their right to food. In total, 28 members from various stakeholders attended the engagement which was intended to capture their interest and to show the relevance of food safety system across multiple agencies.Urgency. The engagement highlighted how ensuring food safety can help country to reach the goals set forth in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as support the UN Food System Summit 2021. Commitment. Food safety, nutrition and food security are closely linked. Unsafe food creates a vicious cycle of disease and malnutrition, particularly affecting infants, young children, elderly and the sick. In addition to contributing to food and nutrition security, a safe food supply also supports national economies, trade and tourism, stimulating sustainable development.N/A

NoThe engagement was conducted in a hybrid meeting and turned out to be a good session. There were stakeholders attending in the same place and others joined the meeting by conference call or web conference. The session allowed stakeholders to provide input and solutions that is important to the organizer in ways that utilize their opinions and commitments.

234238246249The engagement major focus was to identify the best mechanism to align food safety and nutrition action strategies across multi agencies in ensuring food security.The goal of the engagement was that to integrate food safety and nutrition into broader food policies and programmes e.g. food security. Access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food is the key to sustaining life and promoting good health.235238245247Main findings are : 1. Malaysia is adopting the Regional Framework for Action on Food Safety in the Western Pacific which provides guidance on strategic action and a stepwise approach to strengthen food safety systems. 2. For smart investments to improve food safety, synergies with other sectors and developments are critical. 3. Food safety is a shared responsibility where all stakeholders from various agencies play an important role. 4. 6 Strategies were proposed to guide the draft action plan for food safety and nutrition cluster to support the food security national policy.236238245247Strengthening the cross sectoral commitment will transform food safety systems and achieve the goal of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. The engagement was successful to support governmental officials, food safety professionals, academia and the broader food systems stakeholders in understanding both the need to transform our food safety system and the available opportunities and solutions in scaling up food safety in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.237238245247There's no significant divergence of opinion within the stakeholders. All stakeholders agreed the importance of partnerships and cross-sectoral responsibilities to keep food safe for everyone.

2021-06-02 22:24:11205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22945/113

694373216105

Urgency. The engagement was organized to introduce the food safety holistic framework for home-based food businesses in Malaysia in regards to solicit inputs and insights for the identified Food System Summit lever of change – women’s empowerment and finance. Complexity. The food supply chain is one of the most complex yet important logistics programs that we need for sustainability. As technology improves, and the need for safe, and fresh food increases, our ability to understand the unique hurdles and come up with effective solutions may be the only way of keeping our food supply fresh and safe to consume. In total, 694 participants from various stakeholders attended the engagement.As above.N/A

NoThe engagement was conducted in 2-ways communication and turned out to be a good session. The participants were already familiar with the topic as it was earlier been promoted and shared in social medias. Zoom became the go-to platform during the pandemic and also a good way to collect a variety of views. The engagement allowed people to provide input and assistance that is important to the policy-making body in ways that utilize their ideas and lived experiences.

234238251During the global pandemic COVID-19, the advantages of online food businesses were obvious, as it facilitated public access to prepared meals and help those food businesses to keep operating. Mostly, food is being prepared in home kitchens (home-based food) and offered on social media such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram etc. This unregulated home-based food through social media/online platform may put the public at risk because it is unlikely would meet the food safety standards. In order to ensure the home-based food businesses meet the same food safety requirements as other regulated food premises, this engagement was focused to give policy advice for further implementation and assist participants in identifying preferred areas of inputs or concerns that are important to the policy-making body in ways that utilize their ideas and lived experience. The goal of the engagement was that all people at all times have access to sufficient quantities of affordable and safe food products. Achieving the goal means increasing the availability of safe and nutritious food, making food more affordable and reducing inequities in access to food.235238251Main findings are : 1. There are demands from the public and consumers for relevant authorities to take proactive measures and regulate home-based food businesses to prevent untoward incidents. 2. Registration of the home-based food businesses is the least requirement to be made to ensure the traceability in the food supply chain if the food caused problems, for instance, food poisoning. 3. More engagement on education and awareness through on line platform to be carried out to outreach more parties due to pandemic Covid-19. 4. Most home-based food business operators are housewives and youth or those doing it to complement their household income on a full-time or part-time basis 5. Identified barriers are the limitation of hands-on information when the engagement was conducted through online platform.236238251A vision for safe home-based food businesses will transform food systems and achieve the goal of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. The ambition of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit is to launch a collective journey of transforming our food systems to give us the best possible chance of delivering on the SDG 2030.237238251There's a positive divergence of opinion within the participants. Home-based food businesses use their home to prepare and handle food for sale. Regardless the size of the business, they have to meet the same food safety requirements as others. And during the global pandemic Covid-19, many people especially the housewives (women) and youth started this home-based food business to earn money from home. There should be some consideration for modification of food safety guidelines and materials for them.

2021-06-03 05:57:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22770/23

390422130034502800000002000000009280000061000200000020

COAST organized this national independent dialogue virtually on 30 May 2021. Before conducting the event, COAST went through a series of preparatory activities for bringing the utmost outputs from all roles and sections that aligned with the Summit’s objectives and principles. These were: Because of the risk of COVID-19 and other challenges, COAST organized this event online by using its own paid zoom channel. At prior, COAST sent an invitation to all through email with a Zoom link and informed them accordingly. COAST had been in contact with the responsible government officials and other representatives (UN agencies and international non-profit organization) to ensure their participation in the event. COAST translated all the PPTs into Bangla to engage all the participants meaningfully. Besides the event was run using the Bangla language. The moderator translated the summary of the discussion issues to our international guests from time to time. To make the event most meaningful, COAST conducted a preparatory meeting with all the farmers' organizations' representatives. The discussion points of the event were: intro and objective of FSS, focusing issues during the breakout sessions, and dividation into groups. A preparatory meeting with the FGD facilitators was also organized to bring out the major game-changing solutions from diverse stakeholders.First of all, the dialogue was organized on 30 May 2021 as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit 2021 and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation both for contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and also to create a driveway as the farmer's voice of our country to be heard at the national to the global level. COAST as a convener of the Dialogue has a strong belief that this platform helped to empower the stakeholders who participated in the national independent dialogue. As all the participants shared their identified problems regarding their local context and the best possible solutions to get out of these. It will also help them for forward-looking, fostering new connections, enabling the disclosure of ways to move forward collectively and innovatively, and supporting the scope of opinions. Now to make the event most purposeful allied with the objectives of the summit, COAST invited 20 small-scale farmers organizations representatives from different regions of our country, and as stated above they shared their most important issues/obstacles, best possible solutions, policy formulation and policy reformation to reach at the target of safe and sustainable food system for our country. Apart COAST organized a preparatory meeting with the participants at the previous day of the final event as they could understand and follow the ground rules of during the dialogue. It was decided that they will listen to each other and be open to the divergent points of view. Point to be noted here that COAST divided the whole event into three parts: opening session, three breakout rooms for FGD and plenary session. All the major findings from FGD including policy interventions were presented at the plenary session. All stakeholders heard these and placed their comments there respectfully. COAST believes that the results that brought out from the event are in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives, and will be helpful to ensure a safe, sustainable food system and to upright the rights of the farmers for their development.No. Just one suggestion that I think the reference manual for food systems summit is a very good and precise guideline to get better understanding about all the contents of this summit as well as the principles of engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249250251The National Independent Dialogue on Food Systems Summit has given a powerful opportunity for the participants to bring together a variety of stakeholders, including voices that are hardly ever heard, and provide a significant opportunity to engage directly in proposing pathways towards sustainable food systems, exploring new ways of working together and encouraging collaborative action. In addition from it has also created a chance for the participants to share their issues/ideas and thoughts which are both critical for reducing the vulnerability and enhance the resilience of food systems from local to the national level in a country and the Summit’s success. COAST organized this event to bring out and implement actions that can change the ways in which food systems operate in Bangladesh. The major focus was to identify the priority issues from the solution clusters of the action tracks which are suited for our country and to share any additional recommendation for the betterment of overall food system.235238239240241242244246248249250251Major findings: • Establishment of a strong sustainable farmers’ platform in Bangladesh. • Allocation of subsidized inputs such as chemical fertilizers, irrigated water, tractor, high-producing & climate-adaptive varieties of seeds, pesticides, etc. • Strengthening Agricultural cooperatives. • It is seen that there is a gap between the agricultural officer and farmers’ community so in maximum time farmers are unable to get government facility from them. • Information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food. • Mainstreaming the climate impact- invest needed for new agricultural seeds that would be stress tolerance. • The price of crops is fixed by the middle right holder and farmers have no power to fix it and farmers are hostage by this middle exploiting class who also make the artificial crisis in the market. • Seed bank establishment and controlled by the government and other responsible directly. • Raising crop production by vegetable garden at the homestead areas and the rooftop through conducting awareness campaigns using social media and small financial support. • Establishment of cold storage and production factory in those areas where production rate is high. It will be helpful to save perishable food items and to give more profit to the farmers. • Support to the farmers for ensuring direct market linkage to get the fair price of his/her produced food items. • Promote climate adaptive technologies and techniques for sustainable food production • Focus efforts on making value chains inclusive through the generation of decent employment and improving resilience through social protection. • Emphasis on Agricultural diversification and rural employment generation and enhanced agro-based economic activities. • More research or scientific evidence is needed to better illustrate challenges and probable solutions.236238239240241242244246248249250251As said before, we divided all the stakeholders into three groups for FGD and fixed action tracks as a discussion topic for them. The group one discussed one action track- 01; group two discussed on action track- 02 & 03 and group three discussed on action track- 04 & 05. Now the outcomes of the breakout discussions are given below: Group One: • Establishment of a strong sustainable farmers’ platform in Bangladesh. • Allocation of subsidized inputs such as chemical fertilizers, irrigated water, tractor, high-producing & climate-adaptive varieties of seeds, pesticides, etc. • Strengthening Agricultural cooperatives. • Seed bank establishment and controlled by the government and other responsible directly. • Raising crop production by vegetable garden at the homestead areas and the rooftop through conducting awareness campaigns using social media and small financial support. • Establishment of cold storage and production factory in those areas where production rate is high. It will be helpful to save perishable food items and to give more profit to the farmers. • Support to the farmers for ensuring direct market linkage to get the fair price of his/her produced food items. • Policy reformation focusing to encourage and involve women and youth in agriculture. Group Two: • From the government effective policy is required for market management and ensuring fair price of food crops of the farmer. Government will take responsibility to buy, sell and preserve food crops. • Ownership of seed is not in the hand of farmers. The seed bank is the solution of this problem. • The price of crops is fixed by the middle right holder and farmers have no power to fix it and farmers are hostage by this middle exploiting class who also make the artificial crisis in the market. • In the farmers’ community, there must have buying and selling center to ensure the legal price of food crops. • In the farmers' community, there is not sufficient opportunity to preserve surplus crops. To solve this problem in the community level cold storage required. The cooperative farmers' group can take initiative to solve this problem. Group Three: • Focus on the groups whose livelihoods (women, youth, indigenous peoples, the disabled, seasonal laborer’s, etc.) are most limited by current food systems practices, and the discriminatory practices and norms that limit equitable livelihoods. • Inclusion of pro-poor nature-based solutions and climate change and environment policies to improve the capacity of the poor to manage risks. • Research is needed in local level connecting the local people and farmers and those who are involved in the food system. • Mainstreaming Climate change, adaptation, resilience in national, sectoral and spatial development & humanitarian development program. • Develop Effective Country Investment Plan (CIP) for Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition.237238239240241242244246248249250251The areas of divergence that emerged during the dialogue could be easily identified from the section outcomes from each discussion topic.

2021-06-03 08:20:09205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8878/153

110

We kept the Principles at the heart of every stage of the planning process. When choosing thematic areas to be discusses, we identified topics that we felt were the most urgent or that are not already being addressed through existing policy to the extent needed, therefore working to complement the work of others. When deciding on who to invite, we ensured that participants would be representative of Rwanda’s food system through the Principle of inclusivity. Being respectful and building trust was central to how we coordinated the event and how we facilitated the Dialogue itself.• Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and recognize complexity: By inviting a representative from Yara to speak on climate smart agriculture, we embraced the complexity of modern agriculture by giving a fertilizer company a platform to speak about its role in creating sustainable food systems. • Complement the work of others: By making the existing National Agriculture Insurance Scheme one of our thematic areas, we sought to identify the gaps in its design and implementation and therefore contribute toward strengthening what is already there.The food systems approach is a way for us to re-conceptualize everything that is being done from a systems perspective and consequently find the gaps we need to fill. The Principles ensure that we keep our thinking at a systems level in the most effective manner possible.

Yes

234242243244248249The focus of the stage 1 dialogue, “Toward Resilient and Inclusive Food Systems in Rwanda: Economic, Social and Environmental Resilience” was Action Track 5. Participants therefore discussed how to build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress, and ensure continued functionality of sustainable food systems in the Rwanda context. The dialogue aimed to facilitate the broad engagement of stakeholders including government, academia, the private sector and development partners. The dialogue divided the action track into three central approaches: • Economic Resilience: Being equitable and inclusive;  • Social Resilience: Producing broad-based benefits for all people for them to be able to recover effectively and efficiently from shocks; and  • Environmental Resilience: Generating positive and regenerative impacts on the natural environment.  The dialogue opened with brief presentations given by invited speakers to help set the scene for participants. The speakers were followed by four breakout sessions where participants were asked to identify gaps and opportunities in Rwanda’s food system on one of the following thematic areas: Regional food trade: The Rwandan food system is strengthened by integration into East African trade that connects smallholder farms to reliable markets and distributes profits fairly across all actors along the value chain. Risk mitigation and insurance, focusing on Rwanda’s National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS): Crop insurance is a risk management tool which provides dependable support to smallholder farmers facing shocks across Rwanda. Insurance coverage during adverse years prevents households from resorting to negative coping that erodes the natural resource base and degrades ecosystems, while supporting access to credit and financial services at more favorable terms and encouraging an entrepreneurial mindset and innovation. Access to insurance is an effective mechanism to de-risk food systems. Early warning systems (EWS): Smallholder farmers and other stakeholders along the food systems value chain receive timely warnings on shocks using better data and mobile technology. Rwanda has been expanding its early warning system to help people prepare for extreme weather events so as to reduce vulnerability and economic losses from these. Climate smart agriculture (CSA): Pervasive use of conservation agriculture, climate resistant crops and other forms of climate smart agriculture (CSA) boost Rwanda’s food systems resilience to natural disasters and environmental stresses caused by climate change. During discussions, each group considered policy, innovation, finance and inclusivity as cross-cutting issues. Objectives 1. To contribute to national efforts for sustainable food systems by 2030, providing participating stakeholders with a deeper understanding of their food systems and how they can be transformed. 2. To create an opportunity for engagement and interconnection among a broad set of stakeholders, enhancing connectivity and relations among national food systems actors. 3. During the Dialogues, participants that represent different stakeholder groups will work out how they intend to contribute to the sustainability of national food systems and, ideally, make commitments for which they are accountable. 4. To engage participants on future endeavors for sustainable food systems, in line with their intentions and commitments, beyond the Summit.235242243244248249Topic 1. Economic Resilience (Regional food trade) Existing Challenge within Food Systems • Lack of awareness of regional compliance standards among stakeholders so that Rwandan produce can become marketable in the regional trade system • Lacking infrastructure keeps transport prices high • Significant gaps in trade standards between East African countries continue to create challenges for trade Game changing solutions Increase the participation of smallholder farmers in regional food markets through a private sector friendly business environment • Harmonize border inspect procedures through regional blocs (namely EAC) • Target infrastructure investments based on market demand to reduce logistic costs and expand participation by smallholders • Capacity building for MSMEs on trade standards Topic 2. Economic & Social resilience (Risk mitigation and insurance) Challenge: • Low awareness of insurance products among smallholder farmers, which affects trust and uptake • Underdeveloped data collection, M&E and Knowledge systems on all aspects related to agricultural insurance, including historical data on yields, losses, weather-related data points, etc… • Despite the government subsidy, perception is that insurance premiums remain too high Game changing solutions Increase coverage of livestock and crop insurance • Continue increasing awareness through national media campaigns • Leverage innovative technologies (including satellite/drone technology) to enhance the data systems linked to insurance, as well as customer feedback mechanisms to ensure use of lessons • Continue initiatives aimed at reducing premium costs through de-risking the sector Topic 3a. Environmental & Social resilience (Early Warning Systems) Challenges: • Underdeveloped data management systems linked to EWS technologies • Limited access to information on EWS, particularly among vulnerable and isolated communities in an accessible and low-cost manner. Game changing solutions Expand access to Early Warning System (EWS) data for enhanced decision making among smallholder farmers • Pilot EWS initiatives in vulnerable districts with a view to stress test and fine tune data sharing protocols • Design human-centered, user-friendly information delivery systems using accessible technology for the end users of information (mainly smallholder farmers) Topic 3b. Environmental resilience (Climate Smart Agriculture) Challenges: • Lack of a multi-sectoral coordination approach to promote CSA practices. • Limited application of CSA practices and technologies that are contextualized for Rwandan agriculture Game changing solutions Increase area under climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices through enhanced coordination and smart incentives for green production • Ensure coordination among stakeholders through strengthened national systems, including public-private dialogues (PPD), value chain platforms (VCPs) among others • Incentivize Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices (smart subsidies, tax breaks), as well as create stronger partnerships with institutes (e.g. RICA) promoting such practices236242244248249Topic 1. Economic Resilience (Regional food trade) Existing Challenge within Food Systems • Lack of awareness of regional compliance standards among stakeholders so that Rwandan produce can become marketable in the regional trade system • Lacking infrastructure keeps transport prices high • Significant gaps in trade standards between East African countries continue to create challenges for trade Game changing solutions Increase the participation of smallholder farmers in regional food markets through a private sector friendly business environment • Harmonize border inspect procedures through regional blocs (namely EAC) • Target infrastructure investments based on market demand to reduce logistic costs and expand participation by smallholders • Capacity building for MSMEs on trade standards Topic 2. Economic & Social resilience (Risk mitigation and insurance) Challenge: • Low awareness of insurance products among smallholder farmers, which affects trust and uptake • Underdeveloped data collection, M&E and Knowledge systems on all aspects related to agricultural insurance, including historical data on yields, losses, weather-related data points, etc… • Despite the government subsidy, perception is that insurance premiums remain too high Game changing solutions Increase coverage of livestock and crop insurance • Continue increasing awareness through national media campaigns • Leverage innovative technologies (including satellite/drone technology) to enhance the data systems linked to insurance, as well as customer feedback mechanisms to ensure use of lessons • Continue initiatives aimed at reducing premium costs through de-risking the sector Topic 3a. Environmental & Social resilience (Early Warning Systems) Challenges: • Underdeveloped data management systems linked to EWS technologies • Limited access to information on EWS, particularly among vulnerable and isolated communities in an accessible and low-cost manner. Game changing solutions Expand access to Early Warning System (EWS) data for enhanced decision making among smallholder farmers • Pilot EWS initiatives in vulnerable districts with a view to stress test and fine tune data sharing protocols • Design human-centered, user-friendly information delivery systems using accessible technology for the end users of information (mainly smallholder farmers) Topic 3b. Environmental resilience (Climate Smart Agriculture) Challenges: • Lack of a multi-sectoral coordination approach to promote CSA practices. • Limited application of CSA practices and technologies that are contextualized for Rwandan agriculture Game changing solutions Increase area under climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices through enhanced coordination and smart incentives for green production • Ensure coordination among stakeholders through strengthened national systems, including public-private dialogues (PPD), value chain platforms (VCPs) among others • Incentivize Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices (smart subsidies, tax breaks), as well as create stronger partnerships with institutes (e.g. RICA) promoting such practices2372422432442482491. Regional food trade: There was divergence between the relative importance of harmonizing trade standards across East Africa and raising the awareness of smallholder farmers to regional standards. On the one hand, there is a gap between East African countries related to trade with Kenya having a higher level of standards than its neighbors for example. One proposal is therefore to bring in expertise on issues related to policies, food safety regulations, and post-harvest handling to harmonize policy. Others noted that while differences in standards exist, there are legal and economic frameworks in place, notable the EAC trade forum to address trade disputes in the interests of vulnerable stakeholders. Following this, raising awareness of differing standards is key so that farmers are able to export to other markets competitively. 2. Risk mitigation and insurance: There was divergence on the percentage of insurance premiums that should be paid for by government. It was mentioned that in some parts of India, 80-90% was required to attract interest compared with 40% in Rwanda. Others noted that this was not feasible in Rwanda and that the emphasis should instead be on integrated crop insurance into existing social protection programmes. There were also difference in the role that insurance companies should play with some arguing that they were not doing enough while others mentioned that the larger problem lies with the lack of trust farmers have in the insurance providers. This fed into the larger theme of public-private partnerships and the balance that must be found between business interests and social protection. 3. Early warning systems (EWS): The use of technology to disseminate EWS information was mentioned as a possible game-changing solution to tackle low awareness but there was divergence on how to make it user-friendly and accessible. The success of an FAO smartphone application that provided information about the weather, hazards, nutrition and animal resources to help farmers deal with climate change was used as a case study. However, the issue of not all farmers, particularly the most vulnerable, not having access to a smartphone was raised. With 80% mobile phone coverage in Rwanda, simple SMS messages could be an alternative although the effectiveness of transmitting complex information in such a limiting format would remain a challenge. 4. Climate smart agriculture (CSA): There was some divergence over the promotion of biodiversity and the use of more nutritious and drought-resistant crop species

2021-06-02 10:06:552021-06-02 10:14:32

2021-06-03 11:21:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17372/203

1936716557

- This dialogue was organised collaboratively - ATNI, GAIN, WBA and Food Foundation were the four leading organisations. We decided to work together as we all had a footprint in different areas of the world and ensuring that we brought together a diverse group of people from different countries and regions was an important factor if the dialogue is to be successful. - We also involved other stakeholders in the planning process, asking them to review the purpose and then outline for the dialogue to ensure that it would be appropriate and relevant for the LMICs we were hoping to include in the dialogue. - We knew that the subject matter was complex and it was important to present a range of case studies in order to help illustrate types of benchmarking initiatives that had been developed by different organisations.- A long and inclusive welcome helped to set the tone for the dialogue by making people feel relaxed whilst at the same time giving people a flavour of the diversity of stakeholders and geographies we had in the 'room'. - In each breakout room we ensured there was a good mix of people from different stakeholders groups and geographical locations so that each discussion was inclusive and diverse - After the plenary we invited Alison Cairns to speak about the UNFSS so that the participants can see how what was discussed in the dialogue will feed into the UNFSS process and build on the existing processes and initiatives that have already been set up by the UNFSS secretariat and wider teams.

Yes

234239243249This dialogue was exploring the feasibility of developing a shared national accountability and reporting framework for the food industry. It seeked to answer the question: how can emerging initiatives that benchmark the food industry and engage with stakeholders such as government and investors be applied to countries outside of the traditional benchmarking regions of Europe and the USA?235239243249The dialogue identified a set of common technical challenges around both national and global benchmarking initiatives. Challenges include how we develop standardised metrics and the importance of using metrics that drive change (for instance whether we build on what is already being measured or thinking about new metrics). How data is sourced (for instance independent versus company data) is another common challenge. Another common challenge was around engagement, who we should be engaging and how to do this in a way that drives change. Key stakeholders to engage are businesses, investors and SMEs. The media are another important stakeholder group. How we involve each of these stakeholder groups and engage with them will produce different outcomes. The difference between ‘naming and shaming’ and league tables was one example provided. The dialogue also identified the need and demand to create a global network to further explore the feasibility and practicality of developing a shared approach for monitoring and reporting food businesses nationally and globally. Global companies behave differently in different countries. Using the same benchmarking approaches in different countries would help to compare companies’ performance in different countries and, if there are discrepancies, use this as a way of driving change and subsequently levelling the playing fields between countries in developed and developing countries. Agreement that there may be a value in developing a set of standard tools that could be applied in different country settings. Individuals came forward in the dialogue to say they would be interested in being part of these discussions going forward.236239243246249Breakout room 1: Benchmarks are useful structures to know what issues & questions we should be asking companies, even in countries like the UK where this is comparatively a lot of info from the countries themselves. There is a rise of interest in corporate responsibility, so investors need to understand the different trends. There are solid financial gains in health & nutrition for companies and benchmarks can ignite change especially where legislation is lacking. Firstly, when we create indicators how do we best define sustainability? What is the right balance of indictors in each context and how are they relevant for consumers, investors, regulators? How do we build indictors in a multistakeholder context? How do we know an index will be useful and create positive change? For instance, with economic sustainability we can look at leading or lagging indicators e.g. how many jobs are created – but is this the right indicator? Or is investment in sustainable finance better? How do we create change, how does it speak to our context and how is it globally relevant? Legislation doesn’t support the translation of the policy into practice. The concern in Bangladesh is the policy translation by governments so governments need support from other agencies to do this. In Egypt the market is full of snack for children that are high in fat, sugar, salt and obesity rates are soaring. The legislative framework and standards and norms for food safety is there, but the infrastructure for application is weak. This is shared in all low- and middle-income countries. I would like very much for Egypt and other African countries to make a survey of acceptability of a benchmarking system to see who would join it. We have working relations with some leading industry players and then the others will follow. The SUN initiative is integral entry point for benchmarking & improving nutrition in African countries. It is an established relationship of stakeholders committed to health and wellbeing of children, a captive committed community already. If you start with the food producers in Egypt say through the Chamber of Commerce or Food industry associations, you will find a lot of resistance. How to create greater harmonization? SDG indicators aren’t perfect – no animal welfare for instance – then you need to weigh up what the indicator is (in terms of data and whether it’s comparable). We don’t want to capture the status quo or mislead. It can be difficult to create indicators when we have to rely on industry best practice for guidance as there is no international standards, e.g. warning labels on foods in Mexico. Some countries oppose regulations or lobby against it but so far there has been some positive responses. Walmart you filter your shopping cart to take out those with warning labels. ATNI is using government endorsed nutrition portfolio ratings and change analysis in the scoring guidelines for individual companies rather than focusing on the league tables as the end result. Breakout room 2: Most of the participants in breakout room 2 represented global benchmarking initiatives. They spent their time synthesising the learning from global initiatives that could be translates into national frameworks: We need to create stronger links between national govt and benchmarks; We need to reach different stakeholders and there needs to be more sharing of successes and failures between different benchmarking initiatives; We need to create more demand for independent, verifiable data. Greater demand for independent data that isn’t just provided by companies who are self-reporting; We recommend a global benchmarking framework that could be adapted in different national contexts; Breakout room 3: Having a benchmark alone is not enough, it’s about driving change and we need a consistent way of measuring. General agreement that a broad framework would be helpful. Within LMICs there is a lack of understanding of what is happening at country level and a need to start benchmarking. We need a globally harmonised framework that records the global impact of farming mechanisms. These need to be measuring based on outcome

2021-06-03 11:27:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18372/203

747442321477473517184844

The dialogue was organised in full respect of all the principles on which the Summit is based. The aim was to create an occasion that would give visibility and a voice to those who normally stand on the sidelines of the debate. In particular, this second meeting focused on the development of real actions with which to achieve concrete change in the food systems. The awareness that change is urgent was present in all those who took part and inspired the identification of common priorities. The structure of the dialogue was designed to encourage open and constructive discussion. The questions addressed to the participants concerned expectations and desires from both the production and consumer side. There are interventions and challenges to be addressed, which are unachievable without the commitment of both sides and that is why the encounter between these two categories can be the fuse from which transformation can come.The premises of this dialogue were to promote inclusive and win-win solutions by adopting a holistic and systemic approach to understanding how to act in a complex system like the food system. In fact, farmers and consumers are the first and last ring in the food value chain and it is essential that they strengthen and reinforce their collaboration, fostering a systems approach to the value chain based on a fairer share of value all along. In doing so, therefore, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced and it was emphasized that everyone is called upon to play their part. The topics covered were multiple and carefully selected to encourage exchanges and reflect the complexity of food systems. The outcomes identified during the previous dialogue were the starting point and the basis for the discussion and further development of this second dialogue. Throughout the dialogue, a balance was sought in the representativeness of both sides and the involvement of all was ensured. The principle of complexity, respect and trust was embraced by all participants, who appreciated the opportunity for interaction and mutual exchange and hoped that cooperation could continue in the future. The starting point for the dialogue was the recognition of the principle of "acting with urgency". The desire to take common action and issue a joint declaration was expressed, accelerating the pace of change and committing to a shared path.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend. Another aspect to consider: it is advisable to share in advance the topics on which the debate will develop, so that participants can be more prepared and participate even more actively. In particular, if the topics addressed are specific, it is recommendable to offer the possibility of getting information in order to put the participants at ease during the dialogue. Lastly, in order to cover all regions of the world - in case it is an international online event - it is recommended to organize multiple sessions in different time slots to allow the participation of representatives from different time zones.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue at stake is the second in a three-dialogue series and is intended to revert to and expand on the topics discussed in the previous one. The structure included a morning and an afternoon session, where the same issues were addressed. Compared to the previous dialogue, the focus was on more specific questions, encouraging debate and the expression of possible differences on controversial points and dig into the issues that are at the heart of the transformation we want to see in the coming years. The aim, in fact, is to develop a vision for the evolution of food systems that takes into account the perspectives and priorities of both sides. One round of break up sessions was organized under the following themes: 1) Transforming consumption patterns 2) Delivering food security and nutrition 3) Sustainable production practices 4) Deconcentration of value in food chains Each discussion that took place in the various break-up sessions was reported back to the plenary by a representative from each of the two sides. At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251This dialogue was approached in a spirit of partnership and inclusiveness, resulting in a united voice of farmers and consumers. Considerable discussion took place on how to reshape the food chain and make it more sustainable. In doing so, however, attention was paid to the needs of both parties, starting with their expectations and concerns. The key points that emerged relate to the need to redefine the food system and redesign the public policies that support it. While farmers and consumers are the main players and potential drivers of change, they are not the only ones upon whom change can depend. There is a very complex food system that is always evolving. The danger in this area is that food has so many different impacts at national level that often the policies and actions that are taken end up being very diluted, delaying the progress that is needed. A core area, which sounds very obvious, concerns the promotion of cross-cutting national food policies. Very few countries have actually adopted policies with common priorities at national level covering not only health, environment and agriculture, but also trade policy, economic growth, education, which -although seemingly unrelated- affect the food system. Aligned governmental guidelines are urgently required across countries, regarding effective parental nutrition labelling, regulation of misleading claims or marketing practices, where there is certainly a role for responsible businesses, but also the need for a governmental framework to support these efforts. We're dealing with global supply chains and global companies across many different jurisdictions. It's really crucial, therefore, to harmonize national laws. Another relevant issue concerns prices and access to affordable food, where the dilemma revolved around being able to produce sustainably at a price that is not prohibitive for consumers. In this respect, the role of technology and digital solutions is crucial. Thanks to blockchain and QR codes, farmers can ensure more transparent and traceable production and share data with consumers who will be able to make more informed choices, on price as well.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251TRANSFORMING CONSUMPTION PATTERNS In this group, much emphasis was placed on education and the importance of bridging the knowledge gap between farmers and consumers. This begins in schools, including school canteens, and it ends in the supermarket where consumers need more information about the way of production in order to make sustainable choices. Furthermore, participants agreed that governments should create policies to bring consumers and farmers closer together, and especially to close the gap between producer and consumer prices.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251DELIVERING FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION According to the reporting speakers, the discussion developed around the following themes. First of all, once again, education was considered to have a key role to play. Both consumers and farmers need to be well informed about existing initiatives and regulations. Furthermore, it is good that farmers master the tools at their disposal in order to improve their production techniques and are updated on available agricultural best practices. However, technology and innovation can be a double-edged sword. Indeed, it is not always optimally used. Furthermore, it is essential to reduce food losses and ensure a functioning and fair food value chain in which all three sectors - from the producer, through the processor to the consumer - complement each other perfectly. Only in this way will it be possible to ensure a virtuous circle and to eliminate food waste. Hence, cooperatives are the winning solution in this process.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION PRACTICES Participants in this session reflected on the possibility that aesthetic and convenience factors often determine consumer choice. Although consumer awareness of sustainability issues has increased, the price and how a food appears can be a determining factor, not realizing that the price does not reflect all externalities and that what comes from the field can appear deformed. At the same time, consumers have expectations regarding access to healthy and nutritious food that are not always met. In this case, enforcement of existing legislation and standards comes into play. Farmers have expressed frustration at this point because there is not always a levelling of standards which makes production very difficult. However, a positive aspect is that farmers are investing a lot in new technologies and digitalisation. This allows them to increase the quality of what is produced, have more control and reduce the environmental impact.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251DECONCENTRATION OF VALUE IN FOOD CHAINS The debate opened with a mutual recognition of good practices on both sides of the food value chain. There was consensus on the need to maintain transparency throughout the food chain, so that even the price of food could be set fairly. In addition, the pandemic has brought to light that alternative models are possible and feasible and has made it clear that direct sales from producer to consumer are viable. Finally, it is necessary to reshape the chain with sustainability and justice at its core. Participants agreed that a just food system is needed and that it is essential to respect the local production, local crops, local types of animals, and to avoid homologation. Each country, each region has its own personality and the base of the system has to be transparency and trust.237All panellists and participants agreed on the positions expressed and elaborated during this second dialogue. Although there was an emerging need to establish practices that can enhance trust between producers and consumers in the food systems, globally.

2021-06-03 11:45:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18375/203

5656362018125211515125322

The dialogue was organised in full respect of all the principles on which the Summit is based. The aim was to create an occasion that would give visibility and a voice to those who normally stand on the sidelines of the debate. In particular, this second meeting focused on the development of real actions with which to achieve concrete change in the food systems. The awareness that change is urgent was present in all those who took part and inspired the identification of common priorities The structure of the dialogue was designed to encourage open and constructive discussion. The questions addressed to the participants concerned expectations and desires from both the production and consumer side. There are interventions and challenges to be addressed, which are unachievable without the commitment of both sides and that is why the encounter between these two categories can be the fuse from which transformation can come.The premises of this dialogue were to promote inclusive and win-win solutions by adopting a holistic and systemic approach to understanding how to act in a complex system like the food system. In fact, farmers and consumers are the first and last ring in the food value chain and it is essential that they strengthen and reinforce their collaboration, fostering a systems approach to the value chain based on a fairer share of value all along. In doing so, therefore, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced and it was emphasized that everyone is called upon to play their part. The topics covered were multiple and carefully selected to encourage exchanges and reflect the complexity of food systems. The outcomes identified during the previous dialogue were the starting point and the basis for the discussion and further development of this second dialogue. Throughout the dialogue, a balance was sought in the representativeness of both sides and the involvement of all was ensured. The principle of complexity, respect and trust was embraced by all participants, who appreciated the opportunity for interaction and mutual exchange and hoped that cooperation could continue in the future. The starting point for the dialogue was the recognition of the principle of "acting with urgency". The desire to take common action and issue a joint declaration was expressed, accelerating the pace of change and committing to a shared path.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend. Another aspect to consider: it is advisable to share in advance the topics on which the debate will develop, so that participants can be more prepared and participate even more actively. In particular, if the topics addressed are specific, it is recommendable to offer the possibility of getting information in order to put the participants at ease during the dialogue. Lastly, in order to cover all regions of the world - in case it is an international online event - it is recommended to organize multiple sessions in different time slots to allow the participation of representatives from different time zones.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249250251The Dialogue at stake is the second in a three-dialogue series and is intended to revert to and expand on the topics discussed in the previous one. The structure included a morning and an afternoon session, where the same issues were addressed. Compared to the previous dialogue, the focus was on more specific questions, encouraging debate and the expression of possible differences on controversial points and dig into the issues that are at the heart of the transformation we want to see in the coming years. The aim, in fact, is to develop a vision for the evolution of food systems that takes into account the perspectives and priorities of both sides. One round of break up sessions was organized under the following themes: 1) Transforming consumption patterns 2) Delivering food security and nutrition 3) Sustainable production practices Each discussion that took place in the various break-up sessions was reported back to the plenary by a representative from each of the two sides. At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251The concept that has been reinforced and reiterated is the will and the need to create an alliance between farmers and consumers, built on trust. This dialogue, then, has been recognized as the first step towards a long-lasting coalition between the two real pillars of food systems: farmers and consumers. It revealed the urgent necessity to redistribute power along the food value chain in order to create more equity and ensure food availability, sustainability and health. Moreover, it opened the door to a deeper understanding of the work done by farmers in their fields and to witness the process of food creation before it reaches consumers' plates. Consequently, the keywords that characterised this meeting were trust and informed choice. Participants expressed a willingness to engage and work together to create something different and reverse the vision according to which the two parties are the most fragmented and weakest in the food chain.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251TRANSFORMING CONSUMPTION PATTERNS In this group, the debate was particularly active and focused on broad themes, seeking mutually convenient solutions. Much emphasis was placed on the role of education and the importance of its accessibility to all. A critical point discussed was the possibility of obtaining reliable information about the environmental impact of products and their sustainability. While consumers assume that food is safe, it is not as easy to find information about sustainability. On this last point, the multidimensionality of the concept of sustainability was underlined, encompassing the economic and social as well as the environmental sphere. Technology helps us in terms of traceability and transparency, alleviating the lack of time that can afflict consumers. Indeed, consumers who want to make informed and responsible choices may not always have the adequate resources and tools. Moreover, correct and complete information is not only consumers' prerogative but also a concern of producers who are keen to communicate to consumers how they have carried out their work and what the food they produce contains. A final point, therefore, concerned shortening the supply chain to strengthen the contact between farmers and consumers.In this group, much emphasis was placed on education and the importance of bridging the knowledge gap.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DELIVERING FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION The discussion opened with the problem of power redistribution along the food supply chain and the flow of information. Frequently as a result of partial knowledge and understanding of the process, there is disconnect between producers and consumers' demands and expectations. Another element that the group focused on is the role that government can play in facilitating or not facilitating sustainable production and encouraging fair supply chain. However, the issue that has most pervaded the debate is the role of proteins in a healthy and nutritious diet. Today, we are witnessing a tendency to replace animal proteins with vegetable proteins, ignoring or neglecting the miraculous effects that ruminants have in transforming cellulose originating from land where cultivation is not feasible into nutrient dense, high quality proteins. Questions were also raised about the true nutrient contribution of processed and transformed foods, which can undermine good nutrition.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION PRACTICES Participants reflected on the spread of misinformation and difficulties in transferring reliable, science-based information. This is the pivotal point for cementing trust between each other. Therefore, changing the message too frequently and not anchoring it in evidence-based research leads to confusion and misinformation. Once again, technology has been recognised as a good vehicle to support evolving agricultural practices. However, there is still a need to make it accessible, especially to farmers in developing countries.237All panellists and participants agreed on the positions expressed and elaborated during this second dialogue. Although there was an emerging need to establish practices that can enhance trust between producers and consumers in the food systems, globally.

2021-06-03 14:36:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10128/203

5901120199595923325610164

Dialogue Curator and Convenors organised the dialogue with full respect and commitment to the UN Food Systems Summit principles of engagement. The principles were integrated and implemented during all phases- from planning to reporting.Dialogue convenors dedicated a lot of time and effort to define the scope of the event to ensure that it respects the complexity and diversity of the food systems and speaks to the urgency of food systems transformation. In addition, the dialogue itself has a very strong focus on multi-stakeholder engagement and inclusivity. The convenors contacted more than 400 representatives across sectors and geographies. Our main focus was to engage civil society groups whose voices are often underrepresented. For that, we put additional effort into reaching out to groups, especially those based in the Global South, regardless of their position/support for the UN Food Systems Summit. The event was invitation-only to ensure a balanced representation across sectors. Trust and respect were the core values guiding the conversation.The principles of engagement are unique since they outline the invaluable aspect of an actual dialogue instead of a lecture series or debate. As dialogue is all about inclusivity, respect and a safe space for discussion, the principles of engagement should be integrated into the process as early as possible.

Yes

23423823924024124224324424524624724824925025150by40 and Action Track 2, led by Dr Gunhild Stordalen, Founder and Executive Chair of EAT, UN Food Systems Summit, convened an independent UN Food Systems Summit Dialogue ‘Engaging Powerholders in Catalysing Food Systems Change’. The event brought together a wide range of stakeholders, including civil society groups, those from the private sector, national, regional, and international bodies. All in all, 59 participants joined the conversation. This was a perfect number to ensure lively and in-depth discussions in the breakout groups, simultaneously allowing a wide range of stakeholders to be represented. The dialogue aimed to generate a critical set of suggestions from civil society representatives for each of the stakeholder groups identified below on how to ensure inclusivity and actionability of the Summit outcomes and determine a pathway for taking these outcomes forward. As a conversation starter, the event serves as an essential step towards the Pre-Summit in July. The dialogue was curated by Lasse Bruun, CEO of 50by40 and Global Civil Society Lead for Action Track 2 of the UN Food Systems Summit. Speakers: - Lasse Bruun, CEO of 50by40 and Action Track 2 Global Civil Society Lead (Dialogue Curator) - Dr Gunhild Stordalen, Founder and Executive Chair of EAT and Action Track 2 Chair - Yon Fernandez-de-Larrinoa, Chief of the FAO Indigenous peoples Unit Facilitators: - Zachary Tofias, Director of the Food and Waste Program at C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group - Helena Wright, Policy Director at the Jeremy Coller Foundation - Lana Weidgenant, Deputy Director at Zero Hour International and Action Track 2 Youth Vice-Chair - Vositha Wijenayake, Executive Director at SLYCAN Trust - Jørgen Torgerstuen Johnsen, Consultant, Food and Nutrition Action in Health Systems unit at WHO - Lina Mahy, Technical Officer, Food Systems Unit of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety at WHO The core part of the event was breakout discussions organised around different stakeholder groups: - Intergovernmental - National - Subnational - Citizens/Consumers - Private Sector/Investors Key question: - What are the concrete steps key stakeholders/powerholders can take, from the perspective of civil society to action recommendations coming out of the Summit? Questions addressed in the breakout sessions: - How to ensure that the key recommendations are both inclusive, ambitious and actionable? - How to make them applicable and linked to other existing processes and multilateral frameworks? - What should actors at each level of food systems do to take these recommendations forward? - How to empower key actors of the food systems to facilitate a successful implementation? Event format: - Introductory statements by a diverse group of relevant and esteemed speakers (30 min) - Breakout discussions with an interactive element using an online collaboration tool called Miro to capture and share thoughts and notes. (60 min) - Sharing key learnings/reporting back (30 min)235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251- It is essential to define key areas and set one strong core message/goal/statement, e.g. Demand for Food Justice to bring to COP26 (prevent from lobbying) - Localise solutions: Focus on local businesses, ensure availability of healthy and plant-based food Meet communities where they are and adapt nutritional recommendations Tailor-made strategies for specific areas Open communication on the politics of how the implications would be for different countries - Distribution of power and capital in our food systems: ensure a fair allocation at all stages of the food chain and include everyone in decision making - from seed production to where we purchase our food - Scale up CSO actions to ensure accountability and transparency (watchdog role) - Identification of responsibilities linked to other processes at a national and international level - Communication: Improve clarity: who is involved in decision-making, identifying success stories and private sector leaders, i.e. who is in the leadership teams of each Action Track? Ensure language used is inclusive, empowering and builds trust (tool kits, key areas to focus on, stakeholders who might be positive to change) - Inclusivity: Having policies and processes that are inclusive and participatory, which include actors who are not focused only on the food sector (holistic approach) Multi-actor processes and having key actors including vulnerable communities at the decision making tables - all groups should be able to participate, including across civil society - Focus on outcomes that feed into existing processes; building on existing entry points and scaling them up to ensure that it is possible to increase ambition - More focus on capacity building and enhancing technical expertise for stakeholders and CSOs to engage in concrete actions - Networks and Connections: It’s critical to connect the dots: Intergovernmental processes need to be better connected, such as COP and FSS Building bridges between stakeholders/ different actors working in silos, i.e. food systems on the environment etc.; networks cross-cutting expertise/actors; national dialogues or committees; Enhancing coordination across sectors at the national level For sub-national governments to be fully included in advancing solution sets that emerge from the Summit, a bridge must be built into the formal National FS Dialogues and the commitments being made at national levels - Actions leading to making the healthy choice the easy choice – accessibility, affordability Identifying how the outcomes could contribute to different national and international processes – contributing to the integration process236238239240241242243246247249250251Intergovernmental: - Investing in testing and pilot projects with farmers and producers, especially in areas with limited resources, to get early feedback to include into the process is crucial - For complete transparency, the FSS government structure should be open to civil society, and an accountability system should be set up, shared and owned by all the stakeholders - Connect all the multilateral frameworks that exist already (including trade aspects to be built on) to change food systems, e.g. UNFCCC, SDGs, Sendai Framework, CFS, regional or bilateral processes - Food Systems have to play an essential role at COP26 - catalyse civil society towards it; this is a role of the UN - UNFSS representatives should take urgent action in engaging underrepresented groups more actively - Informing about the term Food Systems is essential to raise awareness across all levels of engagement - explanation/storytelling is needed to create necessary common approach/synergies - Engage UN Member States as champions for the solutions that the FSS recommends - Stakeholder engagement in different states /cities is necessary to include vulnerable groups - All actions must be transdisciplinary, inclusive, and aligned with rights-based approaches to achieve equitable food systems transformation. - This includes building processes and policy platforms on democratic principles, including transparency, accountability, and inclusive participation to ensure that interventions are both evidence- and rights-based.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251National: - To empower key actors in food systems, the focus on accessibility and affordability as well as the guarantee of technical and financial support provided for the implementation of actions are essential - Enhance coordination across sectors at the national level - Having a mapping of each actor’s role at the end of the Summit to carry forward actions and ensure that they are concretised - Risk management, risk transfer, social protection, and focus on resilience building factors are important - Directly reaching out to national governments is crucial– preparations to engage with existing actors to bring in different actors - Ensure that government subsidies are going towards supporting the vulnerable communities/farmers etc. - Actions that focus on going back to basics – systems thinking and systems innovation, taking into account externalities and systems solutions - Actions that focus on changing the existing thinking which is leading to unhealthy food systems, and food choices - It is crucial to consider qualitative as well as quantitative indicators, and targets are being set up accordingly - It is crucial to balance incremental (no bandage solutions) and systematic approaches (new ways of looking at, trade etc.) - The UN Food Systems System is voluntary – what is the best way to engage countries? (balance to be innovative and conservative in ways that do not scare away countries) - Shifting policies towards focusing more on broader actions and implications - tangible solutions236238239240241242246249Subnational: - Frame actions as collective missions that invite people to contribute to a continuous, evolving journey - It is essential to move the needle further down towards the ground, to empower local leaders better. Resources and decision power should be transferred from the UN and nation-states more to a city-level through different mechanisms and processes. With strong fora and facilitators, we need to start asking questions and empower conversation at a lower level where the issue begins and then build up from there. - Sub-national governments must be empowered to act with resources and tools so they can not only recognise a solution set or Action Area as a priority but also translate it into actual movement/call for change - Layer an accountability mechanism into the summit that gives more power to cities.236238239240241242244245246249250251Individual: - Individuals should change their consumption patterns, but the food system summit needs to create an environment of change for those patterns. - Shared responsibility across stakeholders. The pressure shouldn’t all be on individuals shoulders, and society needs to offer support for change - Procurement is impactful. For example, food in schools/universities can contribute to change towards a more healthy & sustainable consumption which is why more focus is needed on the impact of surroundings - It’s critical to connect the dots: Intergovernmental processes need to be better connected, such as COP and FSS. The food system is a huge contributor to the climate crisis, and there is so much potential to address that issue jointly, but connections being made are not visible - It’s impossible to have an inclusive outcome without an inclusive input - efforts need to be at every level and go beyond the summit - There is a need to come to a common consensus and build up to make change - Acknowledge, boost power of localised advocacy236238239240241242243244245246249250Private sector: - Improve clarity: who is involved in decision-making, identifying success stories and private sector leaders, i.e. who is in the leadership teams of each Action Track? - Match Private Sector goals with already established normative goals - There are many different types of the private sector: some are big transnational ones; some are small-holders. Additionally, the split between Global North and Global South needs to be considered - There is a need to focus more on the large corporations that are significant for the change to a more sustainable system - Realising the importance of “unusual” alliances between NGOs, private and public sector is essential - these partnerships can be useful, but it’s important to find a balance between the partnerships without the risk of greenwashing - Major corporations are often held accountable for their actions - they change due to reputational risks since they are afraid to have these impacts reported in the media. Media transparency and reporting information are crucial to track these issues. - Investors may only know about the environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) risks if reported in the media. - It matters who is using and managing data should not be misused or captured. - Climate change: things are often being defined in terms of climate targets – but for example imported deforestation is an injustice that needs to be addressed accordingly - We need circularity of the economy and of thinking; rather than an extractive model - Progress might come faster from the private sector than the official side of things - For example, EAT Lancet dietary guidelines are being adopted by Denmark and that gives us hope; they have worked on changing norms and showing that people want to change their diet237238239240241242246Some concerns have been raised about corporate co-optation and the legitimacy of the UNFSS as a democratic process, which was also reflected in the conversations during our dialogue. Some participants seemed to be more optimistic about the overall prospect of the summit, whereas, others expressed their concerns about perspectives of the summit itself, the way it is organized, it’s importance and inclusivity aspects. This divergence appeared to be especially visible in our different breakout sessions. Some groups jointly created a sense of hope and focused on future possibilities, however, other conversations turned out to be rather based on underlying legitimacy issues which undermine the process itself. Another divergence that emerged from a breakout session was who would take on the leading role and responsibilities needed to implement and monitor the solutions proposed in the Food System Summit. Whether it should be the UN agencies or Governments while NGOs act as watchdogs. No clear conclusion was met but UN agencies were emphasized to have more of an active and leading role although the lack of power from the UN was recognized.

2021-06-03 19:39:30205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16241/100

11831965274036824281813113127181383214300015671154250805017129

Kuwait recognized the importance of hosting phase two of National Food Systems Dialogue as part of Member State Dialogue. Kuwait was the first Arab country to hold a member state National Food System Dialogue on 30 March 2021. During phase one of the dialogue, many important topics were raised , most importantly improving nutritional status of school children in Kuwait. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build TrustKuwait National Food Systems Dialogues invited multiple stakeholders with a background related to school children health and academia to participate in phase two of the National dialogue in preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021. The dialogue was organized by the Public Authority for Food and Nutrition (PAFN) - Kuwait and was held virtually. Participants included stakeholders from Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Kuwait University, parents, food industry, Non Governmental Organization, activists, research and academic institutions, National security agency, FAO headquarters, Kuwait representative at FAO and most importantly school students. This diverse group of stakeholders provided a comprehensive view of nutritional and health status of school children in Kuwait. Participants shared diverse perspectives, discussed and recommended applicable solutions. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in the discussion.It is very important to appreciate the principles of engagement when preparing for the dialogue. Spending enough time to list all stakeholders related to the topic discussed is important to ensure a successful dialogue. It is also noted that the inclusion of decision makers from Ministry of Education, as well as school students and parents had an added value to the dialogue and ensured that no one was left behind. Every opinion is important, and everyone shared their views in a very respectful manner.

Yes

234238239240242243244245246247248249250251Kuwait held a national phase 2 dialogue addressing improving the nutritional status of school children in Kuwait virtually on 26 May 2021 in preparation for the Food Systems Summit (FSS) in September 2021. Different stakeholders participated in the dialogue representing sectors related to nutrition and health of school students with a total of 118 participants. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of overweigh and obesity among school students which highlighted the following points: 1) Lack of nutritional awareness in the school environment (administration, students and parents). 2) Unhealthy school food environment. 3) Insufficient implementation of physical education curriculum in some government schools. 4) Failure of school administrations to abide by school canteen regulations.2352382392402422432442452462472482492502511. Developing a national nutrition strategy under the umbrella of the Council of Ministers to ensure the achievement of sustainable development goals regarding food security. It was stressed on the importance of meeting nutritional requirements of the population and focus on providing health promotion and education. 2. Mobilize government, private sector, and civil society support to ensure implementation. 3.Develop a national committee for promoting the nutritional status of school children chaired by PAFN with Ministry of Education and School Health Department in the Ministry of Health to implement and monitor WHO/FAO recommendations on school children. 4. Collaboration between PAFN and Ministry of Education to raise nutritional awareness and capacity building among the school administration, parents, and students. 5- Collaboration between PAFN and food industry regarding the importance of reformulating school snacks ( no added sugars, no added salt, no TFA and no sugar sweetened beverages). 6. Enforcing physical education curriculum and adding nutrition and applied nutrition curricula. 7. Developing school agricultural projects and activities to educate students on the importance of sustainable food production , by selling planted school produce in school canteens and motivating students to participate in school farming competitions, in collaboration with Public Authority for Food and Nutrition , the Public Authority Of Agriculture Affairs And Fish Resources and the Environment Public Authority. 8. Conduct research to evaluate and assess the following - before and after implementation: ● Nutrition awareness programs of school canteen staff . ● Dietary food habits among school children. ● The effectiveness of enforcing physical education.2362382392402422432442452462472482492502511) Establishing the national committee for promoting the nutritional status of school children chaired by PAFN with Ministry of Education and school Health Department in the Ministry of Health to implement and monitor WHO/FAO recommendations on school children. 2) Partnership with food Industry for abiding with and reformulation of food products. 3) Conducting research with academic institutions in Kuwait to assess, evaluate and monitor policies and intervention programs. 4) Collaboration with Ministry of Information for promoting nutrition policies and activities in the country.237238239240242243244245246247248249250251There was no disagreement between participants. In fact all participants agreed on the importance of improving nutritional status of school children and developing appropriate and corrective actions to reduce health risks.

2021-06-03 19:42:08205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16258/100

750154611338372643022101208131633001300236031581902010570

Kuwait recognized the importance of hosting phase two of National Food Systems Dialogue as part of Member State Dialogue. Kuwait was the first Arab country to hold a member state National Food System Dialogue on 30 March 2021. During phase one of the dialogue, many important topics were raised , most importantly food loss and food waste management in Kuwait. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust.Kuwait National Food Systems Dialogues invited multiple stakeholders with a background related to managing food loss and food waste in Kuwait to participate in phase two of the National dialogue in preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021. The dialogue was organized by the Public Authority for Food and Nutrition (PAFN) - Kuwait and was held virtually. Participants included stakeholders from government sector, private sector, food industry, Non Governmental Organization, activists, research and academic institutions, FAO headquarters and Kuwait representative at FAO. This diverse group of stakeholders provided a comprehensive view about food loss and food waste in Kuwait and means to manage them effectively and maintain sustainability. Participants shared diverse perspectives, discussed and recommended applicable solutions. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in the discussion.It is very important to appreciate the principles of engagement when preparing for the dialogue. Spending enough time to list all stakeholders related to the topic discussed is important to ensure a successful dialogue. It is also noted that the inclusion of decision makers from Public authority of agriculture and fish affairs, Environment Public Authority as well as food charities had an added value to the dialogue and ensured that no one was left behind. Every opinion is important, and everyone shared their views in a very respectful manner.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The participants focused on the proper consumption requirements which depends on proper production, and the need for clear organization and policy to regulate the process of local productions, marketing them, and encourage food industries by modifying and changing the subsidy policy, and that the subsidy be done according to the quality and not the quantity. There was also a focus on the importance of protecting the local products from competition in the market , due to the inability of local food companies to market their products, forcing producers to throw their products away and waste them. A proposal was discussed to license factories to convert the surplus production to other food products. Participants also discussed the importance of managing water by treating wasted water from residential and industrial units and use it for plant irrigation not for food consumption.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The following are some solutions proposed to reduce food waste : 1. allocating shelves for food commodities that are near their expiration date, to be offered for sale at a reduced value in the food market. 2. Restaurant owners provide meals in different portions at appropriate prices, in order to encourage customers to order meals with small quantities of food at reduced prices, which contributes to reducing waste. 3- involving charities مlike the Kuwait Food and Relief Bank to distribute the surplus food for quick consumption to needy families, with the importance of applying food tracking mechanisms and policies to ensure food safety and consumer protection. 4. Providing information about storage methods for foodstuff and directions for preserving foods on the packaging label. 5- Using modern technology to reduce food waste, such as electronic platforms and applications to reach the needy and distribute food to them as a societal responsibility. Furthermore, excess and surplus meals can be registered and sold the next day at a lower price to low-income people. 6. Emphasize the importance of issuing laws and legislations to reduce food and water waste. 7. Increase consumer awareness: * To encourage buying their needs only without the need to store foodstuff in large quantities. * To ration purchase as needed to reduce food waste. * To amend purchasing and consumption habits so that the consumers prepare a list of their food needed before heading to the food store so that the consumers are obligated to buy only their needs according to the pre-prepared list2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. The importance of establishing a Supreme committee for food security headed by the prime minister and members from PAFN, Public Authority for agriculture affairs and fish resources, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Customs Bureau, Chamber of commerce, Public Authority of Investment, food unions and relevant stakeholders. 2. Establish laws and legislations to allow near expiry date food products to be sold at a lower price while maintaining its safety. 3. Allowing licensed factories to convert surplus production to other form of food products and commodities. 4. Collaborating with Ministry of Information to promote awareness about proper water use and food consumption. 5. Reformulating subsidy policies to widen the variety and diversity to benefit all237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There was agreement among the participants regarding the necessity of finding solutions to manage food and water loss and waste in Kuwait. There were different views of food subsidies. Some suggested increasing the amount of subsidies on some food products, while others called for an immediate need to reevaluate the current protocol of subsidies. Some participants advocated the imposition of food taxation (sugar tax), while others disagreed. There were few participants who advised the increase in the prices of water and some foods, which contributes to the rationing of consumption, while others objected this opinion because it will increased the economic burden on most families.

2021-06-04 09:13:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12208/203

1204872

The dialogue was organized in the framework of a collaboration between Europe (EU) and Africa (AU) in relation to Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture(FNSSA). Through a project named LEAP4FNSSA (Long-term EU-AU Partnership for Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture Project). Participants were mainly stakeholder groups from a range of institutions in Europe and Africa involved in the partnership between EU-AU in relation to FNSSA The dialogue was organized as a virtual dialogue with the various participants. Multi-stakeholder engagement was enabled through participation of actors from Research institutions, Universities, Policymakers from both EU andAU and Development partners. Prior to the dialogue, a study has been commissioned on Food Systems Resilience undertaken by University of Hohenheim. The Dialogue started with the presentation of the Study report. We invited 5 experts who studied the report and participated in the dialogue. The five Experts (3 females/2males from EU-AU Institutions) made contributions through a moderated panel session, which enabled them to address specific issues in relation to the presentation and share their thoughts and perspectives on the Study report and its key outcomes and recommendations. The workshop was designed to be inclusive and participatory, with active engagement of participants through instruments of Chat box, Polling and Mentimeter contributions. Breakout Sessions: Plenary discussions on the Group Reports, showed that there was unanimous agreement across all 4 groups, that the subject of Food Systems resilience is suitable to include in priority topics for the EU-AU Research and Innovation partnership on FNSSA into the future and highlighted some research areas that could be addressed in the bi-continental platform. Polls: In one of the polls ran, 66% agreed that the Study report capture their expectations on what Systems resilience encompassesGenerally, the dialogue cut across the principles of engagement particularly in relating to the urgency, focus on the summit, recognising complexity and the multi-stakeholder inclusivity. A key dimension of the outcomes were seven Guiding Principles that came out of the study which were extensively discussed during the dialogue and this underline the principles of engagement. The seven principles were: i) Maintain diversity and redundancy, ii) Manage connectivity, iii) Manage slow variables and feedbacks, iv) Foster complex adaptive system thinking, v) Encourage learning, vi) Broaden participation, and vii) Promote polycentric governance systems. There were discussions around diversity of understandings and perspectives with regard to Food Systems and three clear recommendations for moving forward were made. The first is the need to develop a Common Understanding of Food Systems Resilience, addressing concept, trade-offs, and metrics. There was a consensus that the UNFSS Dialogues would be a good opportunity to set these processes off. The second was to develop Science-based Policies for Food Systems Resilience, recognizing that the principles of resilience can help to forge resilience strategies in policymaking. The final recommendation was to integrate Food Systems Resilience in EU-AU partnership research agenda.Yes, it is very important to strengthen the issue of commitment to the goals of the summit because of the centrality of Food Systems and giving the challenges of climate change which therefore make resilient and adaptability key element. There is also a need to consider the importance of multi-stakeholder inclusivity. We would like to emphasize the need for balance between the research stakeholder and the development and extension partner partnerships and this needs to be considered in the dialogue to ensure adequate representation.

Yes

234242244248249250251The mentimeter one-word analysis done shows the emphasis on three themes: Resilience, Sustainability and Participation, as core pillars in the concept and promotion of food systems resilience. The dialogue focused on the Action Track 5. The presentation was done in three segments. The first segment addressed the Conceptual Framework of Food Systems Resilience, including aspects of balancing synergies and trade-offs, as well as providing an analysis of methodological approaches used in Food Systems Resilience. This was followed with a segment addressing Resilience to Shocks and Stresses, including policy implications of resilience in Food Systems. The COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on human health and global food security were used as a case study in this analysis. The third segment provided the Conclusions and Recommendations, emphasizing seven Guiding Principles that came out as essential for building Food Systems Resilience in the face of shocks and stresses. These principles were: i) Maintain diversity and redundancy, ii) Manage connectivity, iii) Manage slow variables and feedbacks, iv) Foster complex adaptive system thinking, v) Encourage learning, vi) Broaden participation, and vii) Promote polycentric governance systems.235238241242244248249250251The findings from the dialogue shows that the role of science in improving Food Systems resilience is key for the UN Food Systems Action Track 5 on ‘Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses’. Other conclusions from the dialogue are also listed below: • One of the greatest contributions that the LEAP4FNSSA can bring onboard is bridging the science-policy interface. How can AU-EU Science influence policy in both continents • How do we form a coalition of scientists and policymakers especially within Africa where policymakers are still only asking about how to increase agriculture productivity instead of looking at how our Food Systems can deliver quality diets, good jobs, equitable livelihood within acceptable planetary boundaries for the population. Until the question change, the science-policy interface will remain an interface with frictions and lack common understanding. The EU-AU partnership LEAP4FNSSA will be key here. • Science needs to change in a way that supports the government to ask the right questions and invest in Food Systems in the face of competing needs like health, infrastructure among others. • There are dissenting voices in science that require harmonization. We need a science governance system that brings the best science on the table to support Food Systems transformation. • How do we keep food moving within countries when there are shocks? How does the African continental free trade area policy open trade among African countries and between Africa and Europe? What kind of question should be asked to ensure the free trade area supports the Food Systems’ resilience. We need data on the impact of trade on the Food Systems. How can we build the role of the local Food Systems within the region? In conclusion, participants were charged that, we do not only need sustainable, resilient, or healthy Food Systems, we need just and equitable Food Systems. Inclusion and equity should be key questions in the conceptualization of Food Systems. The study recommendation also include the integration of Food Systems Resilience in EU-AU partnership research agenda. This should include items such as: • Funding of trans-regional and transdisciplinary research • A platform for joint learning, such as on new challenges and emerging crises (e.g. COVID-19) • A better understanding of the interconnections between African and European Food Systems and joint response mechanisms • Include Resilience in the Research and Innovation partnership as a crosscutting theme.236242244248249250251The breakout session which had four groups, gave opportunities to the participants to give their thoughts on two questions below: Q1: Do you think the subject of Food systems resilience is a suitable area to include in priority topics for the EU-AU Research and Innovation partnership on FNSSA in future? How is this important for a bi-continental platform? It was agreed that the concept is important to include. Food systems resilience is a quite recent concept in many Africa where the focus of research has tended to focus on agricultural productivity. There is much that African scholarship can learn from European research on this topic. At the same, there also much that European scholarship can learn from African research, as well as Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Africa. This includes • learning from local farming systems, as well as indigenous crops, species and practices. This will assist with issues of declining biodiversity on both continents, understanding how to build back better, and how to change existing food systems towards more desirable outcomes. • A further reason why this topic is important is that research in food systems is a form of foreign policy, especially since other regions are interested in the African food system, and this is not always to the benefit of the continent. • The final issue related to the importance of promoting inclusivity in both regions, and to closer inequalities in food systems outcomes, and in control over the food systems. This is both between Africa and the EU, as well as within countries in each region. • Pandemic such as COVID 19 has disrupted the food system in both EU/Africa hence need to build resilience • Conflicts are affecting Africa with negative ripple effects in EU due to migration. Food systems are not isolated and joint efforts is needed. Challenges: • Conceptual and terminological confusion/’opaqueness’ • Food Systems perspective not prevalent in existing policy documents • Need to incorporate ‘relevant’ concerns of governments for policy Suggestions: • Policy brief: with proposals for common and operational definitions of Food Systems and Resilience definitions • Re-phrasing of Roadmap (‘refinement’) • Focus on interconnections of African and EU food systems (‘manageability’) • Integrate value chain dynamics in a broader 3-dimensional understanding via FSs Economic, environmental, social Q2: How can Research and Innovation (Research and Innovation) contribute to identifying pathways to more resilient food systems? This is about what research questions/ topics/ areas should be addressed in a Europe-Africa FNSSA platform (or Partnership), and linkage to Policy making. Some areas for research include: • better understanding seasonality, both annual and decadal, research on underutilized crops and species, what products and concepts developed in Europe would fit best in Africa, and vice versa. • Research on informal economies in both regions. A theme was how to democratize science, making it available to all, being inclusive. • Research in the area of seed systems, nutrition are needed? • Intensification: What kind of technology (GAP) do we need to intensify to take care of the increasing population? • How can we intensify and protect the natural resources to help us find solution to provide diverse food to the poor? • Inclusiveness in policy formulation? • Need for transdisciplinary teams • Trade related research topics (addressing policy makers’ concerns) • Study around climate smart agriculture and seed policy to ensure ease of movement of seed across the two continents? • Biodiversity: to look at underutilized food crops in Africa. • Youth population is huge and how can they be included in the discuss? • Circular economy is another area to avoid food waste • Consumer psychology studies will be helpful to understand how consumer choose a product • How (according to which criteria) are credits availed to Producers or to Traders or other actors in the value chain? • Finally, farmer-led research, and research on agro-ecology.237242244248249250251The workshop was designed to be inclusive and participatory, with active engagement of participants through instruments of Chat box, Polling and Mentimeter contributions. Participants were invited to share thoughts, on Research and Innovation themes, topics or issues that they see as crucial for advancing the cause of Resilient Food Systems. There was, as expected, great diversity of views. These are clustered under five broad areas indicated below: a. The need to generate what a Common understanding of what Food Systems Resilience implies. This will include communication and the need for coordination in capturing and disseminating information and data across all levels and geographies B. Indentification of drivers influencing resilience of Food Systems and sustainability. This should include Research and Innovation for contextual recommendations for ensuring the resilience of Food Systems and the importance of Trade-offs related to ensuring Food Systems Resilience. c. Identifying issues of vulnerabilities and losses. This should include environmental sustainability dimensions as well as local solutions based on cultural, social, and ecological systems. d. Local Food Systems and rights-based issues. This will include exploring local Food Systems solutions that are well-resourced, people-centered, ecologically sustainable and socially just. This also include a A rights-based approach emphasizes that those most affected by food insecurity should not only be able to participate meaningfully, but that governments must be accountable for these rights e. Other Areas of mention were 1)Gender issues in Food Systems resilience and 2) Balancing between food production, environmental conservation and management, and improving livelihoods.

2021-06-04 12:36:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2893/93

1123379123229316286841642111221120717321212

The event was organized to convene between 100 - 150 guests to ensure the most diverse exchanges. The theme has been selected as a cross-cutting issue to the Summit and to generate some conversation outcomes across the Action Tracks. Each participant was encouraged to engage in a multi-stakeholder process and for each discussion to touch on the following points: a) Scope the problem that is the subject of their breakout room b) Identify ways to solve the problem c) What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the discussion topic d) How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successfulAfter the opening remarks and fire starter panel, participants were divided into sub “tables” in their own breakout rooms to discuss their topics and report back to the main room. There was a moderator and rapporteur in each breakout room to ensure everyone had an opportunity to be heard and voice opinions. Points of divergence were heard and noted in an open and productive manner.1) If breakout rooms are a part of your event, ensure to have greeters in each breakout room to ease the start of the conversation and ensure guests are not left alone in a room. 2) Arrange for your rapporteur forms to follow the FSDs gateway feedback form to ease the reporting back and ensure the principles of engagements are adequately covered.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251On May 13 2021, 129 leaders gathered in a virtual High Level Dialogue as a contribution to the cross-cutting theme of Gender in preparation for the Food Systems Summit. The need to address gender issues in a holistic manner that ensures all areas and issues affecting women in food systems are necessary to achieve transformation. For example, addressing the lack of access to finance does little if we do not concurrently address the challenges of tenure rights. Policy makers and stakeholders must work together in a coordinated approach to tackle these issues and ensure systemic change. Gender has been identified as a cross cutting lever of change for the Food Systems Summit. Communities of interest were grouped around the following areas during the dialogue: • Human rights • Leadership and women’s voices • Proper maternal services • Nutrition for the first 1000 days • Women’s movement and agency • Education programs • Agricultural extension • Financial services • Access to markets and value addition • Entrepreneurship training Some challenges explored include: • Scoping and identifying ways to solve problems related to gender that will lead to transformation in the food system • Actions required in the next three years to have the greatest impact on the different issues affecting gender • Measures of success of the required actions Key issues which kept resurfacing were: • Policies: Governments, organizations and financial institutions need to incorporate gender considerations into their existing policies. • Accountability: Beyond having policies and guidelines in place, governments, organizations and financial institutions must have accountability mechanisms in place to ensure these policies are implemented and adhered to. • Financing: Investment from both the public and private sector is required to ensure gender programs and initiatives are implemented at scale to reach more women. • Partnerships and collaboration: governments, private sector, communities and other stakeholders including men need to work together to address the issues affecting women. • Data and metrics: Identifying metrics for measurement for programs is important and will contribute to availability of data, measuring success, identifying problems and improving programs. Quality disaggregated data should be built into programs before developing metrics for programs. • Tools/Innovation: Programs and initiatives need to provide the necessary tools to enable access. This includes investing in digital tools and emerging ag technologies.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The UNFSS draft game changing solutions has some major gender gaps which should be addressed urgently. The process will benefit from the inclusion of women as special ambassadors in the action tracks to strengthen the gender elements in the game changers. • Human Rights Access and control are local problems but require global tools to help women’s voices to be heard. Overcoming deeply entrenched systems will require creating channels for dialogue, not for women to just speak but men to be trained to listen, to be fair partners and ‘champions of enlightenment’. Localised dialogues with women in their communities are needed so as to create coherence and to ensure that the discussions are transformed into action and policy. It is also important to understand what empowerment means in different communities. Local engagement is required to understand local perceptions. • Leadership and Women’s Voices There is need to continue creating more opportunities and spaces for women to be represented in leadership positions. Current initiatives must be scaled and encouraged and to bring more women on board. There is need to promote the implementation of existing laws and conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, UN Commitment to end child marriage by 2030. Institutions need to commit to setting gender-based targets, including quotas in boardrooms and organizational hierarchy and in hiring of personnel. • Proper Maternal Services Over half a million women die annually due to maternity complications. Therefore there is need to understand the linkages between women's empowerment, decision making power and maternal health care. Better information and messaging for vulnerable groups is required. Better investment, better education, more health workers and nutritional services are needed to cover these vulnerable populations. A system approach that involves schools and educational departments can help integrate maternal health education into curriculums. • Nutrition for the first 1000 days A mother’s nutrition during pregnancy and the nutrition a child receives in the first two years of life are vitally important influences in determining good health both now and into the future. These first 1000 days of life set us up for good health across our lives. Public health and nutrition education (also using local knowledge) should be incorporated into school feeding programmes which are also a point of entry into communities. There is need to stimulate and increase public private partnership for collaborations to improve nutrition & health. • Women’s Movements and Agency Women’s movements must be all encompassing ensuring women from all walks of life actively participate, from the small-scale farmer to the CEO. There is need to create a collective agenda that integrates smaller movements and unifies them into larger ones. More spaces to demonstrate the importance of women roles need to be created. Policy decisions and regulatory frameworks need to lock in legal protections for women for land tenure, access to capital, and health and nutrition of women and infants. • Education Programs Training and education have to be part of all identified solutions and embedded in other areas. Too often, solutions and financing are delivered without training and skills building. There is need for training platforms on multiple topics including for technical/home management and income generating projects without gender barriers/attribution. New approaches are needed to ensure education programs address the needs and priorities of both men and women across value chains. Governments need to dedicate budgets to enable women’s access to education and rights. • Agricultural extension Agricultural extension services have not attached much importance to reaching women farmers or women on the farm. There is a lack of data that effectively informs who, what, and where things have to be done. In addition, there is lack of communication to transfer knowledge, from scientific presentations into local languages and easy-to-understand language. There is need for holistic approaches that foster access to extension services by women. Private-public alliances that promote the extension of knowledge and new technologies to women must be fostered. Consideration should be given to who should approach women farmers, depending on country, customs, religious contexts. • Financial Services Real transformation in financial services will happen when gender becomes an integral part of the finance discussion rather than being a separate issue. There is need for governments, development partners and private financial institutions to relook and rework their policies to propel equitable financing for women farmers. These should range from assigning loans quotas for women, providing financial education to both recipients and providers of financial services providers, as well as providing the tools and infrastructure to make financial services accessible to women. Governments need to also create incentives for financial institutions by creating and providing co-financing systems. • Access to Market and Value-addition Gender smart programs require a holistic approach based on comprehensive ecosystem of global and local partners. There is need to have women representation along the entire value chain and not just at the production level. Women farmers must be supported to foster entrepreneurship in a holistic way, facilitate access to productive farming resources, information, technology, capacity...236238239240241242247251• Human Rights Gender is a cross-cutting of issue and should therefore be addressed as such. Women’s issues should not be dealt with in isolation. Policies must be gender-sensitive policies and allow women to have access and control of resources. They should be developed using transformative approaches that allow for the engagement of all stakeholders at a community level where gender norms are deeply entrenched. The role of the private sector needs to be recognized and leveraged to advance women’s empowerment.236238241242246249251• Leadership and Women’s Voices Socialize the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women that asserts that all women have a right to hold political offices, own property among a host of other recommendations. Institutions should commit to gender-based targets for leadership positions in the same way the UN requires meeting nationality quotas. The inclusion of women, especially young women in key discussions at global level policy platforms such as the CFS and the UNFCCC is critical. Women and men in leadership positions should be intentional about mentoring women and respecting their contributions. This calls for men to stand up for women, as with the example of “Sofagate” at the EU Council.236238239241242• Proper maternal services Lack of effective maternal health care services can undermine progress on broader human development. Well-designed cash transfer programmes that aim to be sustainable and have adequate resourcing can improve maternal health. Complementary awareness raising activities are critical for changing behaviour and attitudes at individual, household and community levels. Countries should invest in better education, more health workers, nutritional services and messaging for vulnerable groups. For example, Village Nutrition Volunteers - conduct community nutrition activities and nutrition education; help establish home or community vegetable gardens; formulate village nutrition action plan; prepare master list of wasted, stunted, under- and over-nourished children, pregnant and lactating mothers. Cash transfer program – there are good examples of cash transfer programmes that can be scaled up. For example, in the Philippines, women receive monetary support of 500 pesos (10 USD) per month per household and 300 pesos per school child. Beneficiaries must fulfill two conditions: 1) pregnant women have access to pre- and post-natal care and be attended during childbirth by a trained professional; 2) Parents must attend family development sessions which include topics on responsible parenting, health and nutrition.236238241242247249251• Nutrition in the first 1000 days Promote high-quality protein foods to improve health outcomes in the first 1000 days. This can be done by improving women’s access to and control over livestock by women. With the focus on women, there is much higher likelihood that this protein nutrition will also reach the rest of the family. School meals and school nutrition programs can be powerful for children to gain early knowledge on nutrition and health, knowledge that also trickles down to families. Partnerships and collaborations between companies and trusted local NGOs should be stimulated to work on programs related to the theme of adolescent nutrition and nutrition for the first 1000 days, while acknowledging the sensitivities around the topic related to marketing of infant foods. Public Health and nutrition education (also using local knowledge) should include educating men on the importance of adolescent, maternal and child nutrition, and also on available maternal services.236241242246247249251• Women’s movement and agency Partnerships are key in creating more spaces for women’s representations. There is need to create a collective agenda that integrates smaller movements and unifies them into larger ones. Local, national and internal women’s movements need to be strengthened to integrate food and farming issues and the role of women in agriculture. Women’s movements have a role to play in ensuring accountability of different actors, especially in higher levels e.g. companies, policy makers, regulatory authorities and in unlocking opportunities for women.236238239240241242246248251• Education Programs Facilitate girls’ access to go to and stay in school and promote continuing education and vocational training. Girls’ education from an early age is particularly important in addition to women’s education. Formalized mentorship and educational programs for girls tied to other social engagements such as sports and health. These have potential to build confidence and agency. Multi-stakeholder networking platforms should be established to facilitate the sharing of experiences and knowledge. Other actors (e.g., private sector/business) should be included as an opportunity for mentorship and promoting shared experiences/ career knowledge.236240241244246248251• Agricultural extension Extension is top priority for elevating women. Communication of existing policies, programs and opportunities in easy, understandable language and in clear messages to women farmers is important. Improved roads into every village will go a long way in ensuring women farmers have access to markets and services so that they are to sell their agriculture products and to buy much needed production inputs. Gather and standardize gender disaggregated data (sex, age, all categories) so that there is objective and scientific information to work with. Women should be encouraged to transfer technology and know-how among themselves. For example, the Global Farmer Network has a ‘No Till Strategy’ that has farmers working with fellow farmers to transfer knowledge and skills.236238239240241242245246248249251• Financial Services Policies to encourage gender representation in financial services should be adaptive in nature, promote innovation and provide overall direction, capture data and provide a method of evaluation of results. There is need to identify non-tradition assets that can be used as collateral as well as working with communities and financial service providers to ensure that they open women’s ownership of assets. Tools and infrastructure to aid access to financial services should be scaled to reach more women. These include digital savings, digital financial platforms emphasizing women inclusion and payments for environmental services schemes through direct mobile payments. Education programs need to target both financial providers and recipients. Farmers need to understand the financial services business as much as financial services providers understand theirs.236238239240241242245246251• Access to Market and Value-addition Promote the establishment of women cooperatives which could help with market access. Small scale farmers produce smaller quantities, cooperatives can play a critical role in helping small-scale farmers to bundle their produce together. Trade facilitation approaches need to be examined from a gender perspective, reducing trade barriers will have positive impact on women. Tariff escalation keeps developing countries from participating in global supply chains. This keeps women producers from entering the marketplace. Support coaching and training to increase effectiveness of women’s engagement in production and along the food chain. In some countries and for specific products, women are important in agricultural production, unfortunately women are less represented further along the value chain.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Entrepreneurship Training Mentorship and coaching through programs such as bootcamps (e.g. Goldman and Sachs training for women; Erasmus program for entrepreneurs) provide an opportunity for women to learn business skills as well as interact and network with other women entrepreneurs, encouraging and creating a community of practice. Such models should be supported and replicated to allow more women to benefit from the coaching and mentorship. Trainings also need to bring men on board to expose them to the challenges that women face and promote a culture of understanding and break down barriers. Government initiatives should make it compulsory for academic institutions (universities, ag extension services) to offer women-specific training for farmers, students and business owners. Private sector members such as the PSM should make commitments to do voluntary training in their areas of interest. Follow up action should include creation of a portfolio of evidence and action, to encourage peer learning, share lessons learned and scale up. A mechanism to make it easier to access the examples, peer learnings and KPIs are required.237238239240241242251• UNFSS dialogues process should be inclusive and promote the active participation of women and in particular women’s groups representatives. • Gender is a cross cutting issue in all the SDGs and there is need to give it prominence across sectors to make sure women are not left behind. • Gender disaggregated data will facilitate not only the understanding of actual issues women face but would also be very useful to direct attention and efforts into areas that require support. • Mainstream women participation in financial institutions and facilitate women’s access to the finance by communicating gaps and opportunities. • Schools are important entry points to nutrition education and girls/ women’s education is key notwithstanding the region or area in the world. • Malnutrition at birth, due to lack of nutrient reserve of the mother (that is already developed in adolescence) is very difficult to correct. So, timely interventions are key and increasing focus on adolescent women is welcomed. Adolescent age is a key window of opportunity to intervene timely to ensure a healthy pregnancy and good infant health outcome that will last until later in life. • Getting the voices of SMEs and women entrepreneurs into the dialogues, especially the country-level dialogues, within the process of the UNFSS is critical.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/HLD-Gender-Report_FSD-Gateway-format_Final.pdfhttps://agrifood.net/

2021-06-04 17:19:51204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13092/41

442717165233122736123113459

A participant guide was circulated in advance with background on the Food Systems Summit, the Principles for Engagement and the Dialogue’s theme. To encourage high-levels of engagement, participants received instructions on how to participate and the break-out session questions in advance. An inclusive invitation list was derived to ensure a variety of sector and stakeholder perspectives. Link -- https://register.advancingfoodsystems.ca/FSS_Independent_Dialogue_Participant_Guide.pdfThe principles of engagement were also incorporated into the Dialogue. As participants had varying levels of knowledge about the Food Systems Summit, the curator’s introductory remarks outlined the purpose of the Decade of Action and the Food Systems Summit, the need to act with urgency and the focus on transformative solutions. Furthermore, participants were asked to actively engage in small group discussions, moderators encouraged a diversity of perspectives and Chatham House rules were followed to allow for more open sharing of ideas. The breakout questions were chosen to explore the complexity and interconnected nature of our food systems and areas to learn and better work together.The FSS dialogue template and principles of engagement allowed for effective discussion and a unique format to hear from a diversity of food system actors.

Yes

234242243244248249250The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector has placed significant focus to continuously improve the sustainability of agricultural production and its contribution to our national and internationally food systems. As we move towards 2030, Canadian agriculture has a role to play in sharing our learnings, determining areas for further enhancements, and offering solutions for our future food systems. The dialogue brought together a diverse set of food system actors to discuss what has worked best in the development of domestic and international markets for Canada and what “big ideas” are needed advance food system transformation. It had the dual purpose of ensuring the best global outcome while positioning Canada as a sustainable supplier of food in the markets of today and the future created from the Food System Summit. Access to a variety of markets (local, regional, national, and international) is a critical component to building a resilient farm and agriculture sector in Canada and around the globe and to mitigating the impact of vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses – ACTION TRACK 5. Markets are not homogenous and occur at local, regional, national, and international levels. These markets coexist and intersect and, with proper policy and guidance, can transform the future of our food systems to deliver innovative socio, environmental and economic solutions. Core to any food systems are opportunities for farmers to sell what they produce. Markets connect farmers and consumers to opportunity enabling product diversity, nutritious food, and sustainable production and consumption. More largely they support vibrant family farms and rural communities by providing an important risk management function and a strong foundation to advance the Sustainable Development Goals. Canadian agriculture is rooted both domestically and internationally. Whether it be cereals, pulses, canola, soybeans, beef, pork or value-added products, Canada’s agriculture and food system relies on trade. Farmers can sustainably produce high-quality products but, as it stands, our domestic market alone lacks scale and is too small to support all of the Canadians who earn a living in agriculture and food and to ensure the efficiencies of scale to guarantee national food supplies. More largely, Canada imports food to ensure and sustain adequate food supplies and security. While Canada is a trading nation, new value added and farm to fork opportunities and increasing pressures on our food systems are creating new markets domestically. Consumers’ increasing interest in and support for local, regional and national food provides additional opportunities to diversify and to generate healthy food systems. Many successful farm-to-fork businesses have emerged to fill this space, as well investment in renewable fuels to advance our climate change goals. The Dialogue explored the role these different markets play in advancing food system transformations, the interplay, and solutions to increase nutrition and sustainable consumption, to boost environmental sustainability and to achieve more equitable livelihoods and resilience. The major focus was the creation of resilient markets, identification of existing synergies, policy levers to influence change and the food systems of our future and opportunities to better learn from each other and work together.235238239240242243244248249250While various themes emerged and solutions were shared by panelists and participants, common themes emerged. 1) Trade Resilient Ecosystems. A trade resilient ecosystem will provide predictable rules to manage disruptions from external market shocks and to safeguard our food systems from instability. 2) Trade-off between international and local markets. Market diversification activities (local, regional, international) can be pursued with little or no trade-off. Many interlinkages and synergies already exist and can be leveraged to strengthen and enhance our food system. An enabling policy and regulatory environment can protect food safety and enable sustainable consumption while encouraging private sector involvement. 3) Investments in value added and domestic food production. Strong value added and local and regional food systems are needed to increase consumer choice/availability of domestic food supplies and diversify market risk. Increased investment, innovation, and productivity can overcome existing barriers. 4) Innovation to advance system transformations Innovation throughout the supply chain from farm to consumers will drive transformations related to nature positive agriculture, sustainable consumption, food safety and food waste. No one size fits all, and different national/regional approaches, farm sizes and production practices need to be recognized. 5) Non-traditional partnerships. Increased collaboration and non-traditional partnerships are needed to drive a food-systems approach. Partnerships between primary agriculture, dieticians, food retailers and civil society, such as environmental non-government organizations or consumer groups, would create stronger, more collaborative approaches. 6) Policy levers and incentives. Policy should focus on enabling and incentivizing change (and not regulating). Alternative options or products need to be available before widespread change can be expected. Creating economic incentives, selecting appropriate data baselines, and recognizing local and regional context will strengthen engagement in sustainability measures. A competitive environment is required to attract investment in value-added processing.236242248249Discussion question 1 -- Action Track 5 is looking at how to increase resiliency to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress to achieve food system transformations. How do we create more resilient markets? * International trade will play a central role in addressing some of the challenges experienced by our food systems. The COVID-19 health crisis had the potential to become a food crisis nationally, but decisions to keep borders open to goods and essential services and not impose trade restrictions maintained functional supply chains and mitigated impact. Concern with growing protectionism was noted, as was modernization of the World Trade Organizations and global food safety standards to provide predictability and mitigate risk (from external shocks and stresses). * Complementary to international trade, participants expressed interest in building stronger domestic markets – examples cited were value added on the Prairies and national fresh food and vegetables. Diversified market opportunities ensure resiliency by providing opportunities for farmers, reducing over-reliance on one country, supplier, crop, and product type, and ensuring more stable food supply. Participants expressed various benefits to processing raw commodities closer to production (jobs, economic development, hedge against international trade volatility) and shared potential opportunities. Various barriers were noted including Canada’s smaller population base, its geographic size and diversity, scalability, and its regulatory environment. * COVID-19 exasperated Canada’s systemic labour shortage in the agriculture and food sector. Restrictions to the movement of people (within and outside of Canada) and increased health and safety precautions placed significant pressure on our system from production, processing, packaging, and delivery. Canada’s fresh fruit and vegetable supply, livestock and seasonal products were most impacted jeopardizing production (fresh food cannot wait) and availability of food to consumers. * Various examples throughout the supply chain on how innovation can drive solutions were provided. At the farm-level, farmers require a complete toolbox, including biotechnology and crop inputs, to respond to evolving agronomic, disease and consumer pressures and to both mitigate the impact of climate change and contribute to global climate change goals. One size does not fit all, and any efforts to remove technology or apply a singular approach was viewed as counterproductive to the larger SDG and FSS goals. Farmer participants noted concern with singular, prescriptive approaches, such as agroecology and regenerative agriculture, and their applicability to a Canadian context. For value-added, innovation can drive increased productivity in Canada’s food supply (robotics) and address labour shortages. For consumers, clarity in labelling and improvements in packaging to support sustainable consumption (recycling, extends shelf life, portion sizes).236238241242249250Discussion question 2 -- The development of different markets – local, regional, national, and international – is core to a vibrant Canadian food system. Too often they are viewed as mutually exclusive. What synergies exist and how can they be leveraged? * Participants were asked to consider the trade-offs between different markets. From a Canadian context, viewing markets separately was seen as myopic as it fails to account for interlinkages, existing barriers and necessities related to size and geography. Canada is made up of various local, regional, national, and internationally focused markets (imports and exports) where food is required to move from areas of surplus to deficit to meet consumer food demands and sustain the livelihoods of those who rely on agriculture and food production. Imports are required to adequately provide for the food and nutrition needs of Canadians whereas exports support a vibrant agriculture and food sector. * Recognizing and capitalizing on existing synergies were viewed as important. An understanding of supply chains and interlinkages needs to be considered. To maximize production and reduce food waste, sub-products and their markets also need to be understood. For example, soybean meal for feed is a by-product of food and oil as is using all parts of the animal. It was also noted that the ability to access both domestic and international markets was integral to attracting private sector investment to Canada.236242243246248249Discussion question 3 -- What policy levers are needed to both influence change and support the growth of different markets for the food systems for the future? * Food system actors need to work together to articulate policy asks in unison, so the government receives appropriate signals and is empowered to develop the strongest, most effective policy approach. Those most impacted should be engaged in development and design. * Policy approaches should look at how to de-risk access to different markets, to create an enabling environment for innovation, and to attract more value-added processing nationally (food production in Canada). Many of the solutions focused on regulatory improvements such as reducing barriers to inter-provincial trade, improving Canada’s processing competitiveness, addressing labour shortages, and bringing more technologies to farmers. * Policy levers should focus on incentivizing and not regulating changes in behaviour. Alternatives options or innovations need to be available before regulation or policies are set if widespread change is expected. Selecting appropriate baselines and recognizing local and regional context also strengthens policy development. A competitive environment is required to attract investment in value-added processing. Consumer choice and individual needs should be respected (price, locale production method.). * Policy levers, investment strategies and approaches should reflect Canada’s geographical size and terrain, climate, and population diversity. * Adherence to rules-based trade and recognition of global standards significantly increases resiliency of our food systems.236242246249Discussion question 4 -- The Food Systems Summit calls on everyone, everywhere to mobilize towards action. How do we learn from each other? Identify one way that we can work together. * The integrated nature of our food system, as well as inclusiveness and collaboration between actors were common themes. Participants expressed a need for various actors to learn from each other and collaborate on solutions. We are stronger together. * Primary agriculture should adopt a larger food systems perspective and explore opportunities to further engage in food systems conversations to pursue a more integrated and comprehensive approach and understanding. * Build better connections between farmers, markets, and food retailers.237240242243244246249250* Participants recognized the inherent link between environment and trade, and the importance of sustainable production and consumption, but differed on whether sustainability should be embedded into our trade ecosystem and what such an approach would entail given differing approaches and measurement and fear over trade barriers. Preference was noted for a balanced and integrated approach to sustainable agriculture that reflects the unique opportunities and challenges of Canadian agriculture. * Diverging viewpoints on whether farmers are receiving the right signal from government and the market. Farmers need to see the value to their farm, and be financially compensated to account for additional time, cost, and resource burden. Farmers cannot pass on the costs, as they have little to no influence on price. Many of the farmer participants raised the trade-off between regulatory and incentive levers and the importance of transparency and showcasing the value of the proposed approach before deciding on a path forward.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FSS-Independent-Dialogue-Participant-Guide.pdfhttp://www.ccga.cahttps://pulsecanada.comhttps://advancingfoodsystems.ca/community/

2021-06-04 19:47:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20162/105

3101515423242518447

We invited farmer representatives from LENAFU member associations in the 10 districts of Lesotho. We used the 3 (three) factors to guide to organize invitations to the farmers and these were (1) commodity representatives, (2) gender, and (3) youth. While the type of farming practice is an umbrella factor that guided our groupings, we ensured that there is a balance of gender in the dialogue as well as ensuring that the youth is represented. Further to that, the invited participants came from the three agro ecological zones; Lowlands, Food Hills and Mountains. The meeting was held on the 24th May, and was both in person and virtual. We started with an information session designed to inform/educate and update participants on the background to the UNFSS, its structures and processes. Two key virtual presentations were made by SACAU on background on the UNFSS emphasizing the principles of engagement. This was complemented by a presentation by the FAO Lesotho Resident Representative which summarized the concept of the food system. We first tried a simultaneous translation of the presentations but it could not work well for us. So we opted for direct English presentations in which most of the delegates understood. However, in accord with the core principles of engagement, we followed up on the presentation with a summary translated into Sesotho to level the language barriers amongst the delegates. The second segment was a facilitated discussion in Sesotho where participants raised issues emerging from the SACAU and FAO presentations. In the third segment, the delegates were divided into gender-mixed breakaway groups clustered along commodity lines as follows: Livestock groups - Wool and mohair farmers, dairy farmers, piggery, poultry, apiculture farmers; Cropping Farmers: Cereal crops and horticulture farmers. The first set of questions was along a force field analysis into each group sought to unpack the current state of the food systems in their commodity. The second followed a normative approach to project a futuristic state of a food system they want.First the reflection of urgency and commitment to the United Nations Food System Summit. Farmers were made to understand that they are the primary key players in the agriculture and food production system. They have to be proactive on the production of food and also determinant to respond to the requirements and standards agreed with other players in the food system. The delegates were drawn from a range of farmers associations and collectives across all 10 districts of Lesotho. Farmers dedicated themselves with commitment to the exercise as guided and facilitated by questions. Each group was excited about presenting how they have analyzed their food system underlining urgency of reforms and need for players to commit to the transformation of the food system for each commodity. Farmers appreciated their roles and the roles of other actors in the food system. They understand that they operate in a complex and dynamic environment. They are part of a larger collection of people including other farmers, suppliers, traders, transporters and processors, each of whom has a role to play in the value chain. It was underscored that farmers are faced with many challenges, and they become even more problematic when they are fragmented. As a result, the independent dialogue organized by LENAFU was a mix of farmers from different sectors; livestock, horticulture, field crops and apiculture and the representatives from youth and women clusters that are within LENAFU fraternity. The main focus was to build a joint statement on the food system the farmers want that will ensure profit maximization and bearing the consequences for humans’ health and the environmental safety.The principles of engagement should be regarded as a basic toolkit for the undertaking of the independent dialogue on food system. The conveners have to understand that the food system is not only about the challenges within their scope of work, but it goes beyond that. They have to understand clearly how they interlink with other players in the food system so that they can determine the best and profitable food system that would be useful to all while also ensuring the safety of the environment. We need to all appreciate the urgency of having a well-organized food system so that the world is able to feed the people. It is with our wholehearted commitment that we can improve the availability of desired food quality and quantities at all different levels of the value chain. The dialogue conveners should ensure that the events are organized to build the message that promote collaborations amongst the players and complementarity effect on the efforts of different players in the food system. In order to have meaningful discussions and productive resolutions at the end of the day, our advice is that conveners allocate at least two days to really reflect on the food systems. In the first session, we would dedicate time to workshopping the food systems concept and taking one commodity and dissect it along the food system framework. This step is critical for farmers to appreciate the complexity and inter-linkages in the core elements of the food systems and the performance of the value chains structures and players. The follow up session to that would be a breakaway group session to make a facilitated discussion on commodity grouping and interrogating the current state. Ideally, farmers tend to focus on their problems and challenges not the resolutions or strategies. It takes some skill to take them out of the victim mode and have them analytically break down their current state of food chains and how it is structured, how it functions or performs and the nature of problems and challenges inherent in the status quo. again we need a well-organized facilitator

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The following guided the dialogue process on our selected commodities for the discussion; (i) Advancing equity, openness, and fairness in the governance of value chains, including in international trade, (ii) Enhancing availability and equitable access to factors of production, (iii) Technological innovations and adaptations, (iv) Investing in the next generation of farmers, (v) Shifting to sustainable and nature positive production, (vi) Priorities for public and development investments Our focus was rolled out into two key steps: The first was to analyze in detail the current state of food systems by commodity in Lesotho. This was a force field analysis of the current state of food systems. 1. This was set to built towards a farmers’ position paper/ statement on the Food system they want covering the following issues: 1.1 Externalization of production processes, to ensure profit maximization by the farmers and bearing the consequences for humans and the environment. In these output, we shall seek to design systems’ structures and functions as they occur in the current real world as the basis on which a positive concept then identifies points of entry for desirable systems’ changes (Positive Approach) Questions for Discussion a) Please outline the structure of the food system for your specific commodity. Who are the players? What are the key nodes in the structure? b) What are the factors limiting production, productivity, profit margins, farm livelihoods and the environment in your commodity? For each factor, please identify entry points for improvement of current systems. ii) How are these factors affecting your production processes? iii) How are these factors affecting productivity? iv) How are these factors affecting profits? v) How are these factors affecting farm livelihoods? vi) How are these factors affecting the environment? 1.2 A normative statement for a Lesotho Food System that farmers want. The statement shall indicate capacity to deliver immediate benefits to farmers and provide a vision for other value chain players. At this level, we shall seek to postulate a set of objectives and aims to shape the systems to serve the stated objectives of a desired food system. Question for Discussion a) Make visionary statement of the Lesotho you want in agriculture. b) What factors will influence your capacity to deliver immediate benefits? c) Provide vision statements of the value chains in your commodity. 1.3 A participatory, systems-oriented innovation concept statement emphasizing capacity strengthening of farmers with particular attention to women and youth empowerment. Here we seek to take a positive approach to improve the existing system structure. Questions for Discussion a) Analyze the situation in your commodity today? b) Where would you want to be in 10 years’ time? c) What factors can derail your vision and dreams for the farmer you want to be? d) What factors can derail your sectoral vision for the sector you want to be? e) What capacity development is needed to keep your sectoral vision on the rails. f) List and discuss any capacity development needs particular to women and youth? 1.4 A statement on the food system or value-chain approach that link farmers and local traders to markets. Questions for Discussion (Force Field Analysis) a) Please project (futurist) a value chain system that links your commodity to local traders and markets nationally? b) What are the constraints in your commodity that limits your participation in local trading and marketing arena in your districts and Lesotho? c) Please make suggestions on how these challenges can be overcome. 1.5 Formation of a loosely structured coalition of farmers and other local stakeholders that facilitate and manage the agricultural innovation process. The objective here is to explore complementarity of the positive and normative approaches in the theory of food systems. Questions for Discussion a) Please design a network structure (s) that can help your commodity association /club and other local stakeholders (consumers, traders) to facilitate and manage the agricultural innovation process in your commodity.235238239240241242243244245246248249251The main finding for all commodity groups point to a food system stuck in a subsistence production node trying hard to make a transition to a semi-commercial /commercial value chain point. Two livestock commodities are a model for all others. These are the wool and mohair on the one hand, and the dairy production on the other. The first is anchored by a National Wool and Mohair Association which dates back to the 1950s when a drive was initiated to improve the breeding and selection of Angora goats and Merino sheep as the mainstay of the wool and mohair industry. The production node is characterized by a collective of smallhoder farmers depending on intensive grazing in the rangeland commons. It has also been supported by government subsidies in terms of veterinary services and supply of drugs. The greatest failure of the wool and mohair industry has been the inability to develop a processing node in Lesotho rather than exporting a raw product. The natural resource dependence of this industry is often blamed for the current environmental problems in the rangelands commons characterized by soil erosion and land degradation. The second is the dairy industry. This also has evolved under promotion of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security over the last 50 years. The mainstay of the food system has been the promotion of Brown Swiss and Freesian dairy breeds and government support of the breeding improvement programs. This is also plagued by dependence on South African fodder supply because the farming systems in Lesotho have failed to fill up the niche for fodder production with investment in the appropriate farm level technologies to drive and support fodder production. There is a decentralized milk aggregation system in the lowland districts with local district town based milk collection centers supplying the milk processing plant in the capital city. The processing plant has a recognized dairy brand, processed as fresh-pasteurized and sour milk products which has successfully penetrated the wholesale and retail chain stores in Lesotho. Despite this moderately strong footprint in the economy, this odd foot system lacks processing diversity into other milk products and is as a whole plugged by the subsistence supply constraints at the production node of the value chain. The third is the poultry industry with two sub-systems of egg and broiler production. This food chain has evolved under a strong support and subsidy of the Government of Lesotho. The performance of this food system has fluctuated significantly since its inception and has experienced its fair share of political and corruption shocks over time. The feed supply supporting system has always been strongly South African although the emergence of the local flour mills provided a strong local investment in animal feeds which continues to the present day albeit strong competition. The chick supply value chain node has also been characterized by lack of investment locally rendering its dependent on import of chicks and/or laying point chickens. In the early days of the egg industry, a national aggregator system emerged in the form of the now defunct Egg Cycle Institution which was a private sector cooperative initiative with decentralized collection and marketing centers throughout Lesotho. At its height, the institution could meet the egg demand of the country to the exclusion of the South African import. It will suffice to day the institution was shocked to extinction by political and corruption forces within the food system. Currently, the marketing node of the egg industry is disorganized at best but still has a strong weak footprint in the local supply chains although the lions share of the local market is dominated by imports. The broiler production, was similarly promoted and supported by the Government. The production node of the value chain in this food system is also characterized by subsistence level production chains from small farms a few hundreds to large farms of 1000s of broilers. The stock supply chain has gone from failed Government attempts to catalyze chicken supply farms to the current system fully dependent on broiler chick imports anchored by local private sector business players playing a middle man role. Local investment drives for chick production in this sub-sector have been tried but success are far outnumbered by failures despite the apparent potential of the industry. This includes attempts at local aggregation through local investment in abattoirs or slaughter houses. The local demand for poultry meat products far outstrips the supply capacity hence a very strong import supply into the country. The crop based sub-systems of the food chain i.e. cereal production and horticulture (vegetables and fruits) reported a consensus that the current state of the food system is rudimentary and undeveloped. It is characterized by subsistence level operations for production with farm gate sales with undeveloped value chains. In horticulture, in particular, the production nodes are characterized by lack of investment in irrigation and protected agriculture initiatives. There is, however, an emerging World Bank supported initiative for fruit production with potential to provide niche production of fruits with a lead time of about two weeks ahead of the South African supply chain. The system was put to a test in the current season and was able to supply high quality apples for a period of three months with import channels closed.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Piggery Development Envisaged Piggery Food System: The Food System Producers want Producers perceive access to agricultural lands as the most important especially because piggery industry requires well-drained sites far from homestead. Production of breeding stock was highlighted imperative since the standards can easily be regulated and breeding material storage be established. The dream is to have stable and sustainable piggery production, through adequate production to meet the demand and supply international markets. The necessary prerequisites should include: established local input supplies, access to financial recourses, continuous technical support from extension service providers, diversification of piggery products to increase income and active participation in formal markets. The importance of having access to proper sites cannot be over emphasized because the piggery industry require proper drainage systems to protect the environment. The voice of the producers with special attention to women and youth must be considered in the formulation of policies, incorporating among others e-extension services and the clientele be empowered to use these ICT platforms. Open trade needs regulation based on local supply levels. 1.1 Current situation There is a growing involvement of women and youth in piggery industry, with the majority operating at subsistence level and only a few smallholder producers participating in the markets. There are limited agricultural competitive grants in the form of projects that have specified tenure, implying that only a few have access to financial aid. Women and youth do not possess land and this stalls up scaling of enterprises and access to credit facilities. Women and youth in piggery enterprises have technical needs such as know-how on executing veterinary operations. 1.2 Visionary statement Active involvement of women and youth to undertake the piggery industry successfully where their voices are heard and have access to the necessary resources needed for an enterprise to be stable and sustainable. There should be equitable distribution of land to women and youth to enable maximized production and participation in the markets. 1.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Policies that are formulated following a top-down supply driven approaches that do not consider the voices of women and children. To keep the sectorial vision on the rail, policy dialogues giving women and youth an opportunity to give opinions. The UN agencies, non-governmental organization's and national farmers’ unions (LENAFU) provide technical support and hold farmers’ forums where farmers can discuss issues in the industry. 1.4 Value chain linkages Breeder------producer-------market (formal and informal) consumer 1.5 Challenges • Low and unsustainable production. • Most producers operate as individuals and cannot meet the market demands. • Absence of a regulatory body of standards. • Lack of skills to produce acceptable products in the markets, and this reflects lack of extension services. 1.6 Solutions • Establishment of agricultural innovation grants to support farmers and easy access to financial resources. • Farmers be organized to work as groups to encourage collective yields that can meet market demands. Out grower contracts that entails sub-contracting of smallholder farmers by developed producers also makes it possible to meet market demands, thus enabling participation in local trading and marketing. • Establishment of an authoritative body to regulate and enforce adherence to standards. • There is a need for frequent monitoring by extension service providers. 1.7 Coalition of Farmers and other Local Stakeholders that Facilitate and Manage the Agricultural Innovation Process A structure that allows interaction among and between all stakeholders using stakeholder forums, group social media, regular meetings.2362382392402412422432442452462482492512. Fruits and Vegetable Development Envisaged Fruits and Vegetables Food System: The Food System Producers want Farmers envisage a food system where research station is actively involved in generating technologies that adapt to the local environment. Reliable input supplies of high quality standards must be ensured. Access to agricultural land must be granted to those who have interest in engaging large scale production at reasonable costs. The need to grow diversification of production should go beyond canning and drying must be overemphasized. Farmers wants to see fruits and vegetable production undertaken in protective structures to protect against harsh environmental conditions. Sensitization of insurance companies to establish agricultural insurance is imperative. Continual and regular trainings to capacitate farmers on upcoming technologies. Ensure use of climate smart agriculture given unending climatic challenges. Organic farming must be rapidly explored as it yields high profits. To ascertain this vision, farmers recommended that adequate budgetary allocations be considered to ensure that research develops, test and adapt technologies and for extension to disseminate and equip farmers with the skills and knowledge to implement the technologies. Formulation of policies that harmonize the operations of different stakeholders to avoid duplication and waste of resources are also necessary. 2.1 Current situation Participation of women and youth in horticulture is relatively lower than that of males and there are no support programmes for women and youth. They are disadvantaged in terms of possession of land resources. 2.2 Visionary statement There should be education and support programmes that are specifically developed for youth and women to enable them to participate in production of fruits and vegetables. Equal access to land as their male counterparts. 2.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Perceptions that horticultural endeavor is more inclined to males given the labor requirements which might explain the lack of interest of women and youth. In order to develop capacity of women, custom-made education and support programmes must be developed to encourage them to participate, these include field days where motivation can be instigated from other women that are already in the industry. Promote equipment that does not require immense manpower. 2.4 Value chain linkages Research and development------Input suppliers-------Primer------production-----Harvesting------aggregation------storage------Packaging--------Distribution------agro processing------Markets and consumers The farmer plays almost every role, as they produce, process and take the products to markets. 2.6 Challenges • Low and unsustainable production hinders the farmer from participating in formal markets as they require reliable and consistent supply. • Lack of farmers’ dialogue sessions to discuss different aspects of a product from farm to folk was considered as a stumbling block towards participation in local trading and marketing. • Farmers are not organized in cooperatives but in silos that hinder them to produce adequate quantities to meet the market demands. • Producers do not meet contract farming agreement requirement due to unreliable supply and lack of bodies that regulate quality standards. • Producers do not have relevant technical and managerial skills consequent to poor extension services to produce quality marketable products. 2.6 Solutions • Introduce frequent producer meetings to discuss different production aspects. • Develop horizontal and horizontal networks that link all players. • Introduce aggregation sector and promote contract farming. • Conduct value chain and skills capacity development trainings. • Conduct farmer buyer forums to pave way for the producer producer-buyer expectations.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Apiculture Development 3.1 Envisaged Apiculture Food System: The Food System Producers want Farmers dream to have different bee varieties to accumulate as much production and other products as possible. Access to sites that are suitable for bee farming to maximize yields and protect the communities. This will enable increased profits that will support farm livelihoods. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food security should negotiate with financial resource providers to create revolving funds that aid producers to buy modern equipment that support production of high quality and larger quantities. Farmers want to see beekeepers as empowered individuals who can run bee enterprises and compete in local and international markets. All the stakeholders successfully engaged from farm to fork. We need to secure sites that favour the production of different kinds of flowers. Exposure to educational trainings and field tours is much needed to develop the knowledge and skills required for production of bees. Similarly, business skills are also considered important. Local suppliers of the equipment could reduce the heavy costs. 3.2 Current situation Since the industry is still in its primary stage, it is too early to determine the extent to which women and youth participate in this industry. However, women and youth show interest but are discouraged by seasonal profits. 3.3 Visionary statement Farmers envision 60% of women and youth participating in beekeeping as this industry does not require weighty manpower, women and youth would do well. 3.4 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Lack of knowledge and skills thus, training and exchange visits are imperative. 3.5 Value chain linkages Producer ------- Processor ---------Markets and Consumers 3.6 Challenges and solutions Locally produced honey is not available in the formal markets, as production is still very low and farmers are the ones who determine the selling prices without considering the market prices. Expertise on apiculture is needed.2362382392402412422432442462482492514. Cereal Cropping Development Envisaged Cereal Food System: The Food System Producers want Farmers’ vision embrace increased production of cereals adequate to meet the country’s needs. This will be made possible by local availability of reliable suppliers of quality inputs that are suitable for our soils. Access to land regardless of age and gender is critical as this enables equal participation of all groups in cereal production. A future with farmers that are resilient to vulnerabilities and shocks, and access to contingency funds in such times. Formulation of plans and policies cognisant to the current hindrances is urgent. Adoption of conservation and climate-smart agriculture are recommended to address the challenges brought by climate change must be upheld. 4.1 Current situation Males have landholding rights, while women and youth may have none, posing a challenge to their endeavours in this industry. High unemployment is forcing people to try other means of living that include agriculture, yet the desire of women and youth to tap into cereal production is stalled by lack of access to land, financial, technical skills and knowledge. 4.2 Visionary statement Equal access of all parties to land. Trainings and support tailored for women and youth to flourish in cereal production. Financial aids in the form of loans and grants to support the take-off and expansion of existing enterprises. 4.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Lack of enforcement of land laws as agricultural sites are being given up for residential purposes. Lack of clear contracts on block farming. Land should be given to youth and women who are willing to venture in agricultural activities. 4.4 Value chain linkages Producers recommended that buyer-seller meetings and farmers’ market day are frequently held 4.5 Challenges Low production and quality of produce Lack of continuous open markets available to farmers Lack of education on markets Lack of joint operations by farmers 4.6 Solutions Trainings on participation in markets, technical skills and knowledge. Establishment of open markets for farmers to continually sell their produce. Establishment of commodity groups for collective yields that can meet market demands.236238239240241242243244246248249250251Wool and Mohair Development Envisaged Wool and Mohair Food System: The Food System Producers want First and foremost, producers perceive rangeland improvement very important in the improving of the industry. Thus, all relevant stakeholders must play their role to ensure sustainable rangeland management which will in turn improve productivity of wool and mohair in the country. Supplementary feeding was also highlighted as imperative so that when rangelands did not produce adequately due to several factors such as climate change, animals will still have feeds. They perceive the industry to have knowledgeable and skilled producers with technical backup support regarding fodder production and ration formulation. Farmers also confirmed that it is highly important to have local breeders so that the economy of the country increases. Currently, there are efforts to identify and train some of the progressive farmers to become breeders through WAMPP. There should be a consistent mountain of knowledge and skills to ensure that they produce stock that can compete in international markets so that farmers are not tempted to buy stock from outside the country. Establishment of parastatal premised on sound regulatory and institutional framework to govern wool and mohair activities in the country. Wool, specifically, is the number one agricultural commodity. Thus, government support is necessary for wool and mohair to immensely contribute to the economy of the country. The infrastructural development in woolsheds consistent with international woolsheds infrastructure must be developed. Lesotho has been producing wool and mohair for decades and selling to South Africa through brokers and livestock products marketing services (LPMS). However, there are no wool and mohair brands and this poses a challenge of how wool and mohair fibre can be sold in international markets. 5.1 Current situation Women and youth inclusion or participation in the wool and mohair industry is encouraging as it is roughly estimated at 70:30 for men and women and youth respectively. They still need trainings and exchange visits to progressive women farmers to inspire them to participate in large numbers.   5.2 Visionary statement Farmers envisaged active involvement of women and youth in equal numbers as men, competing in production of good quality wool and mohair. They foresee the industry re-engaging, attracting and maintaining youth particularly to be involved in wool and mohair processing. The sole purpose is to tap on their fresh and diverse mind creativity and innovativeness so to produce new designs of wool and mohair products that can attract international markets 5.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Regulatory and institutional challenges that eventually results in the development of wool and mohair industrial policies and regulations that are silent about the needs of women and youth. Hence, numerous policy dialogue fora must be held where different stakeholders with women and youth at the centre, are brought together to consider how they can work and move together for the success of the industry. 5.4 Value chain linkages Breeder ------ Producer-------Wool and Mohair processors. 5.6 Challenges It was emphasized that wool is number one agricultural commodity in Lesotho, nevertheless, there are no niche markets developed – the country is not strategic regarding which markets to sell wool and mohair products. 5.7 Solutions There is dire need to establish niche markets where national wool and mohair products can competitively sell.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Dairy Development Envisaged Dairy Food System: The Food System Producers want Producers wish to produce good quality milk in adequate quantities to satisfy both local and international market demand, that is, they want to commercialize the dairy industry. Thus, a shift from purchasing feeds must be realized and emphasis be on fodder production as dairy cattle can potentially produce enough milk when crazed on fodder with limited supplementary feeding. Producers also perceive availability of milk collection centre in rural areas essential as that will cut off unnecessary costs and gravitate all the efforts towards improving the production and productivity. At least one processing plant must be established in every town and be independent but ensured that it is guided by and adhere to sound regulations. In an effort to accumulate more value on milk, processing must be diversified. This has proved to meet all customer needs and preferences whilst generating more revenue. Use of modern technology must be exploited especially during milking where producers should consider use of milking machines and Artificial Insemination during breeding. 6.1 Current situation The sub-sector is dominated by men, that is, women and youth are rarely involved in dairy industry. Thus, extension service has a lot of work to do to ensure that women and youth see value in this endeavor. 6.2 Visionary statement Sensitization and mobilization programmes must be pursued to capture women and youth interest and eventually inspire them to take action. The sole purpose should be to see women and youth actively engaged in rearing dairy cattle and earning a living. 6.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Societal perceptions that this endeavour can only survive and be sustainable in the hands of men can cloud and even discourage women and youth to consider taking it. Moreover, the fact that they do not own capital assets such as land, makes it difficult for them to acquire credit for lack of collateral. Thus, awareness campaigns and intensive training by extension services and advocacy by civil societies on inclusion and support for women and youth is essential. 4.1 Value chain linkages Producer------ Aggregators-------Processors---------Markets and Consumers. 4.2 Challenges and solutions The biggest problem that hinders producers to participate in markets is low production which is attributable to high costs of feeds. Hence, it is important that educational programmes on fodder production be held for farmers to empower them.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Poultry Development Envisaged Piggery Food System: The Food System Producers want The farmers’ desire is to produce enough chicken meat and eggs meeting the demands of the country. This will be made possible by a local hatcheries that supply quality chicks, reliable supply of quality cages and feeding equipment and quality feed for the broilers and layers. Consistent access to water and agricultural sites will enable farmers to meet the standards of rearing, protect the communities against pollution, make expansion of enterprises possible and enable participation in formal markets. Farmers wish for a poultry industry with functional aggregators and abattoirs in all the regions of the country. The guidance of service providers is central as knowledge and skills on proper rearing is of paramount importance. Women and youth are active in this industry and programs that support and capacitate them are much needed. 7.1 Current situation The participation of women and youth in poultry production is noticeable, but they are faced with challenges of food insecurity. Their desire and efforts could use support through trainings, organising them into groups and easy access to land and credit facilities. 7.2 Visionary statement To have an education system that grooms children into agriculture from a tender age, this will instill and encourage youth to be valuable to these enterprises as some still view poultry industry as inappropriate for them. A support system for women and youth who are already in the industry in the form of trainings among others to capacitate them with the necessary skills and knowledge to thrive in poultry production. Farmers envisage a future where women and youth have landholding rights and simplified means of renting or buying land for production. 7.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Lack of training and support programmes to build on the required skills and knowledge to succeed in this enterprise. Policies and regulations that do not allow women and youth to have landholding rights and credit facilities could be another hindrance. Associations are needed for youth and women, to provide a platform where motivation will be drawn from each other, and this makes them easily reachable for trainings and other forms of capacitation. 7.4 Value chain linkages Layers Hatchery ------- Farmers -------- Markets and Consumer Broilers Chick Supplier------Producers-------Distributor-------Processor--------Market Interactions on poultry farming must include the following stakeholders: • Research and development • Policy makers • Private Sector • International Non-government organisations • Extension service providers • Farmers’ associations 7.5 Challenges • Lack of knowledge and skills on production • Poor quality and low quantity of produce needed in the markets • Lack of corporation within poultry farmers, as this would empower them to meet the demands of the market. 7.8 Solutions • Organising farmers to work collectively to meet the market demand. • Continuous and frequent trainings on bookkeeping, technical skills and knowledge for poultry production. • Financial aids for farmers in the form of loans and grants. • Establishment of an agricultural bank to meet the farmers’ financial needs.237238239240241242243244245246248249251There was a near total convergence of thoughts and analysis in terms of the food systems as they exist now and already summarized above. We, however, recommend that a series of focused commodity based workshops held amongst the farmers and with other actors in the food systems. This will allow the relevant stakeholders to discuss issues pertaining to the development of the food system they all want. While these may be implemented on frequent bases, the results would be a solid view and resolution by the stakeholders on the food system they want that is perceived to be profitable for all and also addressing issues of environmental safety. Under the current arrangement where we tried to extract this issues through simultaneous group discussions in at least seven sub-groups, the kind of focus herein probed was not possible within that short period of time.

2021-06-05 21:52:38204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6508/203

5714289111451213611611714111621910

“Healthier Islands through Sustainable Food Systems: Food as Medicine'' is the second of a two-part dialogue series organized by four partners: 1) Hawai‘i Public Health Institute; 2) City and County of Honolulu- Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency; 3) Hawai‘i Pacific University - Department of Public Health, and 4) University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa - Native Hawaiian and Indigenous Health, Office of Public Health Studies. This core group consists of members representing different fields. These organizations made a commitment to participate in the UN Food Systems Summit through a memorandum of understanding and to build trust. Prior to the Independent Dialogues, a state-wide round table discussion was held on March 31, 2021 which was entitled “Our Health, Our Food Systems, Our Islands, Our People”with the intent to create a process for introducing the UN Food Systems Summit to Hawai‘i. Through this initial event, the organizers developed a better understanding of the complexity of food systems and the need to accommodate a wide range of participants representing different sectors. Subsequently, the Independent Dialogues brought to the table participants working on governance, food systems, agriculture, aquaculture, culinary art, culture, indigenous and ancient knowledge and practice, among others. Participants in this second dialogue included resource persons from Hawai‘i, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Tonga and the Virgin Islands.To show respect to all those engaged, the core group reached out to participants and speakers on a personal basis and had conversations around the dialogue and its purpose. Inclusivity was one of the most important aspects of developing the dialogue topics and inviting participants.The Independent Dialogues on ‘Healthier Islands through Sustainable Food Systems: Food as medicine” exemplifies acting with urgency as the organizers were able to mobilize speakers and participants in a short period of time. A briefing on the UN Food Systems Summit by the curator at the opening of the meeting, provided a context for the Independent Dialogue in relation to global challenges and action and commitment to the summit as a vehicle for engagement with all possible stakeholders, particularly stakeholders in island food systems. Participants in the dialogue reflected multisectoriality by including farmers, teachers, advocates, community champions, policy-makers, project managers, health professionals, lawyers, urban planners and indigenous peoples. Throughout the dialogue, participants were encouraged to share their thoughts and sentiments. Breakout groups were small, enabling more time for participants to share their views. This created a respectful environment where everyone's voices could be heard.Participation in the global orientation and training for convenors, curators, and facilitators was very useful in appreciating the principles of engagement and the potential impact of linked and interconnected efforts on food systems change. Having a core group that represents different fields of expertise is extremely useful in identifying the right participants and speakers. Forward looking statements need to be agreed upon and framed in a way that encourages engagement of a wide range of stakeholders. The UNFSS dialogue manual was very helpful in the development of some of the framing questions that were used to focus the discussions. To create a respectful environment, it is critical that facilitators are prepared and trained to handle different situations during the dialogue. The use of a short video in the plenary enabled participants to grasp the complexity and far-reaching impacts of a food system. Sending out information to registrants prior to the dialogue session helped to inform participants prior for the event and prepare them for a productive event. Putting photographs of the speakers on the invitation is helpful. Given this was a global virtual setting, anticipating any technical challenges beforehand ensured smooth execution of the event.

Yes

234238239243244246247248249Healthier islands through sustainable food systems seeks to underscore the convergence of food systems, public health and nutrition through the forward looking statement: ‘Food as medicine’, as a core strategy for healthier islands through sustainable food systems is a holistic approach to the prevention and control of non communicable diseases like diabetes and risk factors like hypertension and obesity --- as environmental modifications focus on food as a solution and not a cause of ill-health by ensuring that all people in all islands have access to healthier, affordable and locally produced and gathered food from sustainable resources. Unhealthy diets are the leading risk factor for death in many countries of the world. The island populations of the world have the highest rates of noncommunicable disease (NCD), premature death and disability (e.g. strokes, amputations) from conditions like diabetes, hypertension and obesity. Among the underlying drivers of the NCD epidemic, unhealthy diets have the greatest contribution to risk for poor population health outcomes in islands. Overconsumption of unhealthy food is underpinned by food systems that make processed food (e.g. canned, packed, preserved) that are high in salt, sugar and trans fats as well as “fast food” -- convenient, inexpensive and easy to access. At the same time historical and structural drivers (e.g. colonization, militarization, urbanization) have displaced small and indigenous farmers and made production of local food from the land and sourced from the sea expensive and difficult to access. Westernization of the diet in islands is exacerbated by aggressive marketing of unhealthy food and easy availability of snacks and other food products that provide high caloric content but low nutritive value as well as an acquired taste for Western food that negates ancestral heritage and indigenous knowledge about "eating for health". This situation is related to trade policies, hence islands are in a dire situation where “We grow what we do not eat, and eat what we do not grow”. Changing the narrative around the notion of health and the relationship of food systems to population health is of critical importance. We define “health” as not just what is physical, but it includes the mental, social and spiritual dimensions of being. “Eating for health” therefore, is about food that meets the nutritional needs of the body, but also reinforces the “connectedness” of our sustenance to the land, the sea and the seasons. “We are what we eat” - articulates a holistic view of culture and identity in relation to a holistic view of food. Access to “natural” or “ancestral food” is inextricably linked to healing and recovery, especially when one is “unwell”. Eating what is locally produced entails “being comfortable in our own skin” and intuitively leads to balance. In some Pacific islands, people are insulted when taught what to eat. Eating is a natural process and should not be taught. It is important to understand the “natural context” of eating a healthy diet or “healthy eating” as an interaction between human beings in a social and ecological environment where nourishment can come from what is grown and gathered in one’s surroundings. There is a need to reassess the ecological resources for providing food within islands to include not just agriculture but aquaculture and the use of other resources like seaweed. Re-educating families, schools and communities about the benefits of producing and consuming local food is an uphill battle in the face of aggressive marketing and advertising of processed food. Educational institutions play a big role in ensuring that the youth experience food production as a part of learning science and culture. Tourism, the hospitality sector and the culinary arts are stakeholders and partners in promoting local food. Community leadership in shifting consumption to healthier diets is key.235238239243244246247248249251Why we need to act urgently Unhealthy diets and food insecurity are urgent and serious threats to health and survival to more than 63 million people who live on islands.. There are significant data gaps in knowledge about unhealthy diets and food insecurity in island populations.It has been difficult to characterize dietary intake in islands due to research biases in dietary assessment of locally consumed food. Islands have been excluded from the determination of the nutritive content of indigenous food. The US Dietary Guidelines do not contain commonly found food in islands (e.g. “ulu” (breadfruit), jackfruit, sugar apples, “Jacks” (small fish), cassava). The guidelines affect how health advice is given to patients, how institutions purchase food and design meal plans, and how families are fed during emergencies. The Mediterranean diet and DASH have been cited as guidance. A Pacific food guide with 3 food groups - which is more typical of how Pacific Islanders think about the food: proteins, vitamins and minerals and staple food is available http://manoa.hawaii.edu/ctahr/pacificfoodguide/index.php/about-the-guide/ However, this is not widely understood, adopted in a systematic way. Community needs assessments on food security are needed in all islands to enable prioritization of groups at highest risk. What we need to do together Advocates for public health and sustainable island food systems of the world need to demand that research funds flow toward expanding the knowledge base on island diets and the assessment of the nutritive value of local produce. Otherwise, institutional procurement of food (e.g. in schools) will continue to be predominantly imported food items, creating a vicious cycle of dependence and preference for imported food. To shift to healthier diets, communities need to be in charge. Decision-makers need to listen to communities and understand their challenges. Top down approaches alone are not effective. It is important to have a “together approach” - working from the ground up and from the top downward. Restaurants and the food industry influence what people eat and many establishments are shifting to healthier menus. Chefs have a strategic role in popularization of locally grown products through satisfying dishes. Agro-tourism can be a strategy to stimulate local production of food. Action is needed to counteract easy access to cheap and unhealthy snacks and excessive consumption of fast food. Policies that restrict access to unhealthy food might include zoning to regulate fast food locations, taxation and other fiscal measures that impact both on supply and demand. How we will do it Comprehensive approaches/strategies that engage multiple sectors (i.e. health, education, health insurance companies, nutrition, culinary art, hospitality, tourism, producers, retailers) are essential to changing consumption patterns. A research network and centralized data center among island states, territories and jurisdictions is needed to identify and fill knowledge gaps that inhibit policy and programs for food equity ACTION POINT: Establish a multi-centered research initiative involving all island food system stakeholders to assess nutritional content and pricing of local food as an urgent public health measure. Preserve and transmit indigenous and ancestral knowledge and practice in food production by including this in the school curriculum and make it a requirement for graduation. Food production can be an effective way to teach science and culture in a practical way. ACTION POINT: Prioritize the opening of funding tracks to support new educational programs for all youth on food production that links science and culture education. Tourism and the hospitality sector can play a positive role in making healthier diets easier to access. Policies and campaigns to promote local produce can become part of tourism promotion. ACTION POINT: Engage with the tourism sector at global, regional and local levels (e.g. hospitality sector, airlines) to market the local tastes and flavors of indigenous food as part of tourism promotion. “Produce prescription” should be part of the standard of care, covered by health insurance other health financing modalities as a therapeutic model for the prevention, management and control of noncommunicable conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and obesity. ACTION POINT: Establish a global, national and regional network of public health institutions committed to developing guidance on the use of “produce prescription” as a non-pharmacological and community-based intervention that is universally available to communities at risk for NCDs. The medical and public health sector should support advocacy for food sovereignty in all islands in order to achieve better population health outcomes, particularly among farming and fishing communities. ACTION POINT: Create global, national and local coalitions of medical and public health practitioners that will champion transformation of food systems as a strategy to prevent and control NCDs and develop strategies to address the health and nutrition needs of farmers, fisherfolk and other producers. Who the key actors are Food distributors Health workers who provide produce prescription Political leaders Chefs Medical professionals Consumer groups News organizations and media Community leaders Cultural practitioners Tourism sector and organizations Researchers on aquaculture and seaweeds236238239243244245246247248249Health advocates should support food sovereignty of islands, as an intervention to address the epidemic of noncommunicable disease. New coalitions, alliances and networks of health professionals committed to food systems change would be a good indicator of progress Give farmers back their land. Address colonization, militarization, land conversion and urban sprawl. Land ownership and access are difficult issues that require legislative and executive action as supported by communities. Good baseline indicators of marginalized farmers is necessary to set targets. Support should be provided to small and indigenous farmers and fisherfolk by providing opportunities to expand production through financial and technical assistance. National, state and local policy and decision-makers have to move local food production higher in the political agenda and link it to health outcomes, preventable death and social costs. Change the narrative around noncommunicable disease and instead of blaming individuals, address the underlying causes of health disparities, such as the food system as a determinant of health. Public health should focus on social determinants of unhealthy diets and undertake research involving communities to immediately respond to ill-health caused by the food system. Use family-centered approaches within communities to address unhealthy diets. Food prescriptions or produce prescriptions should be expanded as the standard of care for a therapeutic model for noncommunicable diseases and conditions. Community health workers can play an important role in non-pharmacological interventions for better health by enabling communities to grow their own food and consume more fresh produce from land and sea. Current food systems destroy the “connectedness” of people to the land and sea that sustains them. The dominant food culture reinforces the expectation that all food should be available all year round. Seasonality of food is a traditional concept that reminds people that they are part of a larger ecological system that sustains life. At the highest level of governance of islands, campaigns should be mounted to "eat local", "grow and gather local" and "eat healthy" within the context of indigenous wisdom and cultural heritage. Nutrition and healthy diets through sustainable and resilient food systems is the ultimate form of prevention of noncommunicable disease. Public health institutions must include this in their curriculum. Designate national farm lands, in the same way that national parks are designated to protect these. High level decisions need to be made about land use and land use policy to cover the long term impacts of mono-cropping and loss of biodiversity. Communities can manage "endangered agricultural land" by using ancestral knowledge and practice. Research on healthy diets need to be inclusive and useful to the communities. It is of critical importance to engage communities in meeting the gaps in data. Community assessments of needs in relation to availability of food and alternative ways of providing for nutritional needs of various age groups. Economic and financial planners should redirect tourism strategies toward promoting local food production and providing tourists opportunities to eat local food. Agritourism is a viable approach. Organize local food festivals. Shine a spotlight on delicacies and special foods of a region. The education sector needs to be provided with financial support and capacity to educate the next generation in food production and food security as a matter of human survival. Courses need to be developed, teachers equipped and students provided with opportunities to explore how culture, science and values intersect in the field of food production. Use social network analysis and a social constructivist approach to understand how stakeholders are invested and use this to mobilize different sectors toward policy and act Counteract aggressive marketing and promotion through regulations like zoning of locations of fast food establishments, taxation of harmful products, product labelling among others.237238239246247How can islands leverage trade policies? They do not have the economies of scale to negotiate. Colonization and militarization of islands is a continuing policy. How can this be addressed?

2021-06-07 01:30:02205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23728/95

1057530101525151030153025510515

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Food-Tech Companies cohosted by MAFF and OECD held on 14th April 2021, following the presentation by OECD on the new report, “Making Better Policies for Food Systems,” and a question and answer session, MAFF described its activities related to the UN Food Systems Summit. Then, Japanese food tech companies explained how their research and innovations were contributing to realizing sustainable food systems across the different dimensions such as food security and nutrition, livelihoods, and environmental sustainability. Lastly, the dialogue was closed with a panel discussion amongst all presenters along with a representative from the World Food Program.

234238239240241242244245248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244245248249The dialogue was held for the members of the Public-Private Conference on Food Technology under the theme of "How food tech can contribute to realizing a sustainable food system." The main remarks from each panelist are as follows: - The OECD explained the importance of adopting mix policy instruments, R & D investment, etc., rather than taking a single-means policy. - According to a report from Ainan Liberacio Co. Ltd., they found effectiveness of insects such as promoting the growth, improving immunity of cultured fish, and high temperature resistance giving to the insects. The company succeeded in developing an insect-containing feed that is beyond the substitute protein in their functions. - The Center for Rule-making Strategy at Tama University reported that it would be significant for Japan to take the initiative in rulemaking in the field of cellular agriculture against the background of information dissemination and technologies concerning Japanese diverse food culture including wagyu beef. - In the panel discussion, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) mentioned that world food problems relate to not only developing countries but also developed countries. For solving these problems, it is necessary to provide food assistance including from the agricultural sector and accelerate investments into new technologies that can improve food systems. It also emphasized the necessity of collaboration between international organizations such as the WFP, national governments and private sectors. Confirmed in the panel discussion as follows: 1. The food technology, a new method of food supply, be expected to reduce the environmental burden, 2. We should actively promote investments into the field of food technologies, 3. The early rule making is important for investment. It was also confirmed that we would be making a proposal to the UN Food Systems Summit about accelerating investments into innovation in the agricultural sector toward ensuring global food security.

2021-06-07 01:45:11205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23739/95

149514311

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Hokkaido, Yamanashi, Aichi and Tokushima Prefectural Governments held on 28th April 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. Then, participants from the local governments introduced their efforts on transforming food systems of each prefecture and achieving SDGs, followed by exchange of opinions.

234238239240241242244248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244248249The dialogue with Hokkaido, Yamanashi, Aichi and Tokushima Prefectural Governments was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-06-07 10:32:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6354/172

221183715222335567522

Para asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, el Diálogo se ha organizado con una perspectiva multistakeholder con el objetivo de dar la oportunidad a los diferentes grupos de interés involucrados de reflexionar y debatir sobre los retos que existen actualmente en los sistemas agroalimentarios a nivel mundial y las posibles palancas para hacerles frente. Así, han participado representantes de grandes multinacionales, de compañías del sector agroalimentario, así como del sector retail a nivel nacional (Bayer, Heineken, Nestlé, Cerealto Siro Foods, Ebro Foods, El Corte Inglés, Grupo Calvo, Mercadona y Pascual), miembros de Organizaciones no Gubernamentales (Ayuda en Acción, Fairtrade y World Vision), representantes de la administración pública española (Ministerio de Agricultura y el Embajador en misión especial para la seguridad alimentaria), entre otros. Durante todo el diálogo, se preservó una actitud respetuosa y de escucha activa por parte de todos los participantes y se promovió un debate abierto en el que todos los miembros estaban invitados a aportar su visión y perspectiva en todo momento. Además, se generó un espacio de confianza explicando a todos los participantes la importancia de los Diálogos independientes, las diferentes Vías de Acción y la utilidad de sus aportaciones de cara a la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios.Durante el Diálogo se hizo especial hincapié en el sentido de urgencia a la hora de transformar los sistemas agroalimentarios para hacerlos más sostenibles a largo plazo y en el carácter esencial de las alianzas y la colaboración entre todos los grupos de interés para lograr ese objetivo tan ambicioso. Todos los participantes reconocieron la gran complejidad de las cadenas de valor del sistema agroalimentario y la necesidad de desarrollar herramientas y enfoques específicos para involucrar a los diferentes actores, desde las grandes empresas del sector privado hasta los pequeños productores de comunidades rurales. Gracias a la variedad de los participantes, se expusieron perspectivas muy relevantes y complementarias pudiendo conectar a los diferentes grupos de interés clave y abogar por combinar el liderazgo de las compañías, de las organizaciones de productores, de la sociedad civil y los incentivos y regulaciones desde lo público.Al organizar un Diálogo, es esencial asegurar una diversidad suficiente de grupos de interés para garantizar que se comparten puntos de vista y perspectivas diferentes que puedan enriquecer el debate y la reflexión. También es necesario reconocer la complejidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios, principalmente de las cadenas de valor, que se distinguen de otras industrias cuyas cadenas son más lineales y menos complejas. El reconocer esta complejidad favorece el que los participantes tengan menos reparo a la hora de compartir sus retos y barreras en el avance hacia esa mayor sostenibilidad y por consiguiente enriquece la reflexión conjunta y el intercambio de buenas prácticas.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249El tema principal del Diálogo fue una reflexión holística sobre la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios en el largo plazo, analizando particularmente los retos y posibles soluciones a futuro desde la perspectiva pública y privada, así como del tercer sector. Se contó con la presencia de grandes empresas multinacionales y nacionales (Bayer, Heineken, Nestlé, Cerealto Siro Foods, Ebro Foods, El Corte Inglés, Grupo Calvo, Mercadona y Pascual), organizaciones del tercer sector (Ayuda en Acción, Fairtrade y World Vision) y representantes del Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación y del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Unión Europea y Cooperación; todo moderado por Forética. En primer lugar, para sentar las bases del diálogo, se partió de una base de contexto en la que todos los actores reconocieron la urgencia y la necesidad de transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios. El aumento exponencial de la población mundial, el impacto de los sistemas agroalimentarios sobre la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas, la fragilidad del mundo rural y las desigualdades que perjudican a los pequeños agricultores y a las comunidades más desfavorecidas, hacen cada vez más necesaria la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios para asegurar un sistema regenerativo y equitativo que permita producir alimentos saludables, seguros, nutritivos y accesibles para todos. En una segunda parte, 3 grandes empresas vinculadas con el sector agroalimentario pudieron exponer su visión, estrategia y buenas prácticas para hacer frente a esa transformación inminente, así como compartir los retos y soluciones que consideraban a futuro. Así, en primer lugar, BAYER partió de la urgencia de proveer alimentos a una población mundial en constante auge para enmarcar su compromiso con la sostenibilidad a todos los niveles. Se puso de manifiesto el papel de la innovación y de la tecnología como herramientas clave para garantizar las necesidades de casi 10 mil millones de personas en 2050. En efecto, tanto la innovación -asegurando nuevas variedades agrícolas más productivas y resistentes a los cambios climáticos-, como la digitalización -ayudando a los agricultores a optimizar sus recursos monitoreando la variabilidad y las necesidades de sus explotaciones-, constituyen dos de los principales ejes estratégicos para la consecución de los compromisos de sostenibilidad de la compañía. Asimismo, se recalcó la urgencia de colaboración, tanto a lo largo de la cadena de valor para favorecer la reducción de emisiones como por medio de alianzas público-privadas que permitan escalar las soluciones. En segundo lugar, HEINEKEN hizo hincapié en la relevancia de la agricultura sostenible como palanca para mejorar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios; una agricultura sostenible tanto desde un punto de vista ambiental como social, con una visión holística que abarque todos los grupos de interés implicados a lo largo de la cadena de valor. Se resaltó la importancia de la compra local para impactar positivamente en las comunidades (mejora de las condiciones laborales, protección de los ecosistemas, etc.) así como de la colaboración a lo largo de la cadena de valor para alcanzar más rápidamente la reducción de emisiones de carbono ya que las emisiones indirectas provenientes de la agricultura pueden representar casi 1/3 de las emisiones de una empresa productora del sector agroalimentario. Finalmente, NESTLÉ también recalcó todo lo mencionado anteriormente, destacando especialmente la importancia de la agricultura regenerativa a gran escala para asegurar un impacto positivo (y no solo evitar el negativo) sobre los recursos naturales. La colaboración con los actores de la cadena, en particular las alianzas con proveedores para que se alíen en esta promoción de la agricultura regenerativa, supone un aspecto crucial para reducir el potencial impacto ambiental negativo y promover unos sistemas agroalimentarios más sostenibles en el largo plazo. La compañía también mostró un compromiso con la transformación de su cartera de productos para hacerlos más sostenibles y con menor impacto sobre los ecosistemas (más proteína vegetal, gamas neutras en CO2..)235238239241243245246247248249La base del Diálogo se centró mayoritariamente en los grandes retos que existen hoy en día en ese camino hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios. Sin embargo, se subrayó el hecho de que esa transformación ya se ha iniciado, mostrando cierto paralelismo con la transformación que hoy en día están sufriendo ya, a un ritmo más acelerado, otros sectores como el sector energético o el de la movilidad, sin duda por su alto impacto en la lucha contra el cambio climático. Por consiguiente, el objetivo debe ser posicionar la relevancia de la transformación del sistema agroalimentario al mismo nivel en la agenda política mundial para aunar esfuerzos y acelerar la transición. Así, durante el Diálogo, salieron a la luz grandes retos y barreras que se analizaron desde las diferentes perspectivas de los participantes. En particular, las aportaciones de la ONG Ayuda en Acción, basadas en los resultados del informe "Global Hunger Index" fueron especialmente relevantes a la hora de poner de manifiesto estos grandes desafíos. - Problemas de malnutrición: quizás el reto más visible en cuanto a la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios sea la falta de acceso a alimentos de calidad por una gran parte de la población mundial. Además, las más altas tasas de desnutrición y de hambre se dan sobre todo en el ámbito rural, aun y cuando es ahí donde viven los pequeños agricultores que aseguran más del 50% de la producción mundial de alimentos; una contradicción muy vinculada con el siguiente reto. - Desequilibrio de los sistemas agroalimentarios: este desequilibrio perjudica mayoritariamente a las comunidades más desfavorecidas y vulnerables, tanto a escala global como nacional. Por un lado, los países de renta baja y media dependen cada vez más de las importaciones de alimentos baratos contra los que los agricultores nacionales no pueden competir y que por consiguiente ven su papel fragilizado en las cadenas de valor. Por otro lado, incluso en los países más desarrollados, la proliferación de alimentos muy baratos y ultra procesados que en la mayoría de los casos no son saludables, constituye la fuente de alimentación preponderante para muchos colectivos de bajos recursos y vulnerables. - Fragilidad de las comunidades rurales y de los pequeños productores: aunque estos colectivos aseguren la más de la mitad de los alimentos a nivel mundial (y hasta el 80% en algunas zonas), también representan el eslabón más débil de la cadena de valor agroalimentaria. En muchos países donde carecen de sistemas de protección, estos pequeños productores están muy expuestos a las fluctuaciones del precio de alimentos, a menudo generadas por crisis externas (cambio climático, conflictos regionales, crisis sanitaria, etc.) a las que no pueden hacer frente. - Resistencia al cambio: existen fuertes retos culturales, tanto por parte de los consumidores como por parte de los agricultores. En primer lugar, desde la perspectiva del consumidor, es necesario una mayor concienciación y sensibilización para cambiar unos patrones de consumo y fomentar un consumo más sostenible pero también para reducir el desperdicio alimentario. Por otro lado, con respecto a los agricultores, el carácter "tradicional" del sector hace que existan grandes resistencias a cambiar los sistemas de cultivos tradicionales y se observa a menudo una cierta reticencia ante el uso de nuevas técnicas y soluciones innovadoras. - Complejidad de las cadenas de valor: el sistema agroalimentario no se puede reducir a un simple sistema lineal de inputs / outputs; se caracteriza por una gran complejidad y variedad de actores de naturalezas muy diferentes y por consiguiente no puede existir un único enfoque para apoyar al sector privado en la transición hacia una mayor sostenibilidad. En particular, el desigual acceso a nuevas tecnologías genera un gran reto en términos de trazabilidad y control a lo largo de la cadena de suministro ya que muchos pequeños productores no tienen acceso a la tecnología necesaria que les pueden requerir sus clientes para reportar su desempeño en materia de eficiencia energética, generación de emisiones, gestión de recursos, entre otros. Por consiguiente, es necesario tener en cuenta la idiosincrasia de las diferentes cadenas de valor y de sus actores clave a la hora de establecer objetivos y requisitos por parte del sector público. - Falta de alineación con las administraciones públicas: algunos participantes resaltaron la descoordinación que se manifiesta en ciertos casos entre las exigencias y expectativas de las administraciones y la realidad del sector privado. En particular, se mencionó el desajuste que existe en España entre la necesidad de reducir el desperdicio alimentario en línea con la ambición de incrementar la sostenibilidad del sistema y las barreras fiscales que obstaculizan hoy en día las iniciativas de donaciones de productos.236238239241245246247248249A lo largo del Diálogo, los participantes realizaron aportaciones muy valiosas sobre las posibles soluciones y palancas que permitirían hacer frente a los retos identificados y avanzar hacia unos sistemas agroalimentarios más sostenibles. A continuación, se presentan las más relevantes y las que tuvieron un mayor consenso. - La innovación y la tecnología como grandes aliados. Todos los participantes recalcaron su importancia durante el debate y es que, en efecto, la innovación será clave a futuro para asegurar unos cultivos más eficientes y productivos, que a la vez sean más resistentes y seguros. Para ello, es esencial fomentar las iniciativas de I+D que permitan desarrollar este tipo de cultivos a un precio asequible para los pequeños productores. Por otro lado, la digitalización y la escalabilidad de las soluciones tecnológicas a lo largo de la cadena de suministro representan una gran oportunidad, tanto en términos de optimización de recursos naturales como en términos de trazabilidad, fiabilidad de datos y colaboración. - Una mayor gobernanza global. Por un lado, desde la perspectiva pública, se comentó la necesidad de posicionar la relevancia de la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios a un nivel más significativo en la agenda política mundial. En este sentido, la Gobernanza a nivel global aparece como un elemento crucial a la hora de reducir los desequilibrios del sistema y evitar las diferencias de competitividad que pueden existir en función de los sistemas productivos y del lugar de proveniencia de las compañías. Según el punto de vista del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Unión Europea y Cooperación, un primer paso hacia una transformación más rápida y eficaz sería la asunción, por parte de todos los actores del sistema, de las Directrices Voluntarias sobre la Gobernanza responsable de la tenencia de la tierra y de los recursos - promulgadas por la FAO -, que encauzan las prácticas responsables y sostenibles para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria. Por otro lado, desde la perspectiva del tercer sector, se necesitaría un cambio de paradigma en el enfoque de la gobernanza de los sistemas agroalimentarios; hoy en día más enfocada a la comercialización de los alimentos que a una alimentación de calidad para las personas. Este cambio pasaría por una mayor implicación de los pequeños productores, pero también a través de la colaboración entre todos los actores de la cadena de valor. - Foco en los pequeños productores. Durante todo el Diálogo, se hizo mucho hincapié en el carácter central de los pequeños productores, agentes clave del sistema agroalimentario pero que sin embargo se encuentran en el eslabón más vulnerable de la cadena. Por consiguiente, tanto desde la perspectiva pública como privada, incluyendo al tercer sector, se recalcó la importancia de regenerar y de articular el medio rural, reforzando precisamente a los actores que estructuran ese medio, es decir, la agricultura familiar a pequeña y mediana escala. La sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios está intrínsecamente vinculada con el empoderamiento y la mejora de las condiciones de los pequeños productores y tanto desde las administraciones públicas como desde las empresas, ese objetivo tiene que ser una prioridad. - Trabajo en alianzas. Todas estas palancas y soluciones no podrán ser alcanzadas sin una colaboración entre todos los actores de los sistemas agroalimentarios. Hay una gran oportunidad y potencialidad no solo en la colaboración público-privada sino también entre las empresas, la sociedad civil, las autoridades locales, etc. Por parte de la administración pública, se reconoció la necesidad de desarrollar mayores incentivos como puede ser una fiscalidad diferenciada, una prioridad en la compra pública o marcos regulatorios más y mejor definidos que permitan avanzar hacia una mayor sostenibilidad. Además, desde la perspectiva privada, la colaboración con todos los actores de la cadena (consumidores, proveedores, agricultores, etc.) apareció como un aspecto crucial a la hora de ver reflejados los esfuerzos para integrar la sostenibilidad.237No hubo áreas de divergencia durante el Diálogo; todos los participantes estuvieron alineados en cuanto a los retos que supone el avance hacia unos sistemas agroalimentarios más sostenibles así como con respecto a las palancas y posibles soluciones.

2021-06-07 13:37:20205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14580/33

39904826880201502490102830260376401415211941223111110286121212690382905052

The Brazilian National Dialogue was organized by the Ministry of External Affairs (MRE) with active participation from different ministries of the federal government that are responsible for the main subject areas related to food systems policy, with special consideration to specific characteristics of the Brazilian situation and national legislation on Food and Nutrition Security. The Ministry of External Affairs was responsible for convening the dialogue. The Ministry of Citizenship (MC); the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA); the Ministry of Health (MS); the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Advisory Counsel of the Chief of Staff of the Presidency (Casa Civil) were key partners in the National Dialogue. The Ministry of Education (MEC) – mostly through the National Foundation for the Development of Education (FNDE), which is the responsible area for the National School Feeding Program (PNAE) – and the Office of the UN in Brasília were also important partners. Brazil opted to conduct a multi-stakeholder process for the National Dialogue, in order to encompass the various unique perspectives each area can contribute to the discussion. Such multi-stakeholder approach was reflected in the composition of participants in the National Dialogue, which benefited from different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations, from small informal institutions to large international companies. The government created a dedicated website to disseminate information about the National Dialogue and the Food Systems Summit, including reference documents. Regular and periodic announcements about the Dialogue were transmitted through social media. Inscription for the National Dialogue was made through an on-line form, that was available in the dedicated website for about 10 days. The video-conference was held through Zoom and transmitted by YouTube and Facebook for the wider public. The digital file of the video-conference can be accessed in the dedicated digital platform of the National Dialogue.Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. Taking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the Brazilian National Dialogue was conducted in a 100% virtual mode, through video-conferences. The video-conferences dealt with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference (“Promoting Food and Nutrition Security Guaranteeing Equitable Inclusion in the Value Chain”) was held on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference (“Incentivizing a Sustainable Production and Consumption of Health Food”) happened on May 12th 2021 and addressed Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference (“Building Resilient Food Systems”) took place on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas. After the opening address, panelists from government, the private sector and civil society made presentations about the main issues under discussion in Action Tracks 1 and 4. Registered participants were invited to intervene orally during the event. Participants that were not registered to take the floor were invited to send written comments via a dedicated e-mail address to MRE, related to the topics discussed in each video-conference. The combination of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important as it reflected a variety of views about the Brazilian Food System and the Food System Summit. A number of useful suggestions were presented and reflected in the video-conference report.In view of the limited time available before the Summit, multi-stakeholder dialogues through digital platforms allow for wide participation of different segments of the society, productive sector, academia and the government. Such format is consistent with Principles of Engagement and offer an opportunity for dialogue with diverse actors.

NoTaking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, some of the recommendations in the Convenors Reference Manual had to be adapted and revised. Instead of thematic discussion groups, the Brazilian National Dialogue was crosscutting, including all sectors relevant to the Food Systems Summit debate. The National Dialogue was conducted in a 100% virtual mode, through video-conferences, and transmitted by YouTube and Facebook in order to reach wider audiences. In this context, regional meetings were deemed unnecessary, since participants from different localities were able to access and participate of the video-conferences. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for convening and curating the Brazilian National Dialogue. The organization of the dialogue, benefited from the active participation from different areas of the federal government that are responsible for the main subject areas related to food system policy. Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible, in divide into two rounds. In the first round, there were 3 video-conferences dealing with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference was on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference was on May 12th 2021 and was directed mostly to Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference was on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas, which included different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. The combination of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important to reflect the variety of views of key actors. These comments will be considered in the preparation of the National position to the presented to the Food Systems Summit.

234238241245247248249251The first round of the Brazilian National Dialogue was divided in three video-conferences, which dealt with the topics related to the Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. This document focus on the first video-conference, which was held on May 10th, under the theme “Promoting Food and Nutrition Security Guaranteeing Equitable Inclusion in the Value Chain”. It was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4 (“Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all” and “Advance equitable livelihoods”). The first video-conference addressed the specific characteristics of tropical food systems – which differ significantly from food systems of countries with temperate climates. The fight against hunger and food insecurity, as well as the reduction of malnutrition and the improvement of livelihoods and working conditions of the population, especially for the workers of the food value chain, were also central themes in the discussions. The video-conference discussed mechanisms for the reduction of severe food insecurity, access to healthy and nutritious food for all and food and nutritional security. An important topic under discussion was the need to increase both the availability and consumption of healthy foods, in a sustainable manner. The elimination of poverty through full and productive employment and decent work for all along the entire food value chain was also central to the debate. The video-conference brought together panelists from different areas to set the tone of the discussion, notably from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply; the Ministry of Citizenship; and two private sector organizations, the National Confederation of Agriculture (CNA) and the Commerce Social Service (SESC). In selecting the topics and the panelists, consideration was given to the main topics under discussion, representation and interest in food system policy. During the debate, speakers from a variety of backgrounds presented their views, concerns and proposals on the discussion about the role of smallholder farmers to the promotion of healthy diets – including through the role of traditional communities , the roles of women and the youth, the key role of international trade of agricultural products, “green belts” and peri-urban agriculture, as well as the characteristics of Brazilian agricultural systems and methods of production – in their different forms – and of the national food system.235238241245247248249251The Dialogue highlighted the important differences between tropical food systems – such as in Brazil – and food systems in temperate developed countries. Concerns were voiced about the possible use of the FSS to promote European models of food production and consumption, which are not necessarily compatible with other regions of the planet. The Dialogue stressed the key role of trade to ensure the supply of quality and accessible food to expanding world population. It further highlighted the necessity of preventing the Summit from being instrumentalized to justify the increase in protectionism, especially through the establishment of non-tariff barriers. As a global food supplier and a major exporter, Brazil has much to contribute to the international debate, including in the Food Systems Summit. Tropical agriculture in Brazil is efficient, highly productive, resilient and sustainable. The FSS should recognize and promote a multiplicity of food systems – in Brazil and elsewhere – as complementary solutions. In this sense, the Summit should not prescribe specific models of production or consumption, which might serve some populations, but can accentuate inequalities and increase global food insecurity. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, as every country/region has specificities that will require tailored approaches. Whilst it is important to preserve agricultural trade, it is also necessary to ensure the equitable inclusion of the population in the food system. There was strong consensus about the need to consider a human-rights approach to food production and consumption. It was deemed important to facilitate access to healthy food, with a focus on the domestic market needs. To that effect, different policies were mentioned, adapted to the local situation. Emergency income or basic income policies, such and the “Bolsa Familia”, are important to support people in situation of vulnerability and promote social inclusion. The population should have access not only to healthy and nutritious food, but also food at accessible prices. Despite the recent price increase in certain foodstuffs, the cost of the national food basket has fallen significantly over the last 20 years. Specific mentions were made to indigenous, “quilombola” (descendants of former slaves) and riverside communities, among others. Such groups face particularly vulnerable situations that deserve special attention from public policies through the direct distribution of income and food and policies that encourage their own food production. The issue of food security involves socioeconomic aspects (associated with inequalities in the distribution of income and property), as well as technical issues of production. It is necessary to develop policies that tackle inequalities, expand access to healthy food, reduce food loss and waste, foster decent work and generate improvements in the entire production chain, with gains in productivity, sustainability and overall livelihood standards within the value chain. Some recommendations for building and implementing sustainable food systems that Brazil would like to share include: incentives for technology and innovation, availability of credit and financing for adaptation and implementation of production systems with productivity and social gains, and dissemination of knowledge, through training and capacity building.236238241245247249251Tropical agriculture can be more productive (up to three harvests per year) and sustainable (less use of water and preservation of soils) than agricultural systems in developed countries with temperate climates. It is possible to significantly increase food production in tropical systems through productivity gains, without increasing deforestation or land degradation. Given the expected increase in global population on the planet, international trade has a key role in the provision of healthy food at accessible prices. International trade is also important to promote global resilience, by distributing food from producing areas to areas at risk of food insecurity. In this regard, it would be important to reduce protectionism and avoid new barriers to agricultural trade. It is crucial to avoid the imposition of external models that are not suited to local realities. There is an excessive influence of the “European Green Deal” in international debates regarding food systems, given that it is not adequate for most situations in developing countries. Science and technology are essential elements to increase food production sustainably. Brazil, for instance, has increased agricultural production by 6-fold while only doubling the use of land. Therefore, investments in scientific research institutions – such as the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and highly qualified universities – are key to increasing sustainable production of food and the resilience of food systems. Access to credit, training and capacity building for producers, especially smallholder farmers, are crucial. Policies related to credit help avoid migration towards urban areas and foster opportunities in the agricultural sector, as well as increase production and resilience in food systems. By regularizing land ownership, it is possible to obtain productivity gains and promote sustainable production methods. It is important to establish/maintain coordinating institutions or fora, with wide participation of different stakeholders. Such bodies provide inputs from civil society to the government for the implementation of public policies regarding availability and access to healthy foods and provide accountability mechanisms of government actions. Civil society should be an integral part of the process, by facilitating dialogue and ensuring accountability of policies and regulations. Government policies should focus on promoting decent work and better living conditions for workers in the agricultural sector, as well as on reducing the digital gap in the countryside. This is important not only in aspects related to food systems, but also for the achievement of the SDGs. In the current pandemic, it is necessary to tackle the increase in levels of food insecurity and hunger, including by supporting smallholder and family farmers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the strengthening of social policies in Brazil has helped to maintain family consumption and, therefore, the continuity of the functioning of food systems, which reflects directly in their resilience. Public policies are needed to support people/families in situation of vulnerability. Basic income or conditional income policies, such as the “Bolsa Família”, promote food security and help to ensure access to healthy diets. In developing and implementing policies related to food systems, it is useful to adopt holistic approaches. Questions related to health conditions (prevention of non-communicable diseases, obesity and malnutrition), fighting hunger and reducing greenhouse gas emissions coming from land use, for instance, have to be considered together with concerns about food production, security and safety. While preserving choice and respecting cultural traditions, the government has a role in promoting healthy eating habits and sustainable production patterns, which include reducing food loss and waste and implementing adaptation measures to climate change. Public policy may contribute to facilitate the access of the population to healthy food products, fostering healthy diets and increasing the sustainability of the food production.237238241243245247248249251While there was wide agreement about the main issues under discussion, the dialogue also identified areas of divergence. - Different roles of smallholder and commercial farmers. Smallholder and family farmers generally supply the internal market, but large-scale commercial farming also play an important role in domestic food supply. The establishment of a modern export oriented agricultural sector in Brazil was largely responsible for the reduction in domestic food prices over the last 20 years. - Illegal logging and deforestation have been associated with loss of biodiversity and forest cover. However, illegally cleared land is not generally used for production of crops for export. The national forest code offers an effective legal framework for sustainable agriculture, including in the Amazon region where only 20 % of privately owned land can be legally cleared for production. - Promotion of agricultural products for export versus promotion of agriculture for local consumption. There are different assessments of the benefits deriving from policies that promote agricultural production for the domestic and international markets. In fact, the two sectors are interconnected and government policy does not privilege one sector in detriment of the other. - Importance of promoting agro-ecological approaches versus conventional agriculture. While the agroecological/organic sector has been growing strongly in Brazil, the products are costly and do not substitute foodstuffs produced by commercial agriculture. Rather, the two sectors have a complementary role, assuring consumer choice and the diversity of supplies/suppliers. - The role of processed foods in food and nutrition security. There was wide agreement that a balanced and healthy diet should be based on semi-processed or less processed foods. - Nature of the national food guide. The national food guide offers important nutrition information for the consumer, but, ultimately, the consumers should be free to choose their own diet.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videoconferencia-1-doc.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videconferencia01_pp.pdfhttps://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/cupula-2021-sistemas-alimentares-dialogos

English version of reference document prepared by the Brazilian Government to help guide the debates in the video-conference.2021-06-09 12:48:44https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Videoconferência-1-tradução-rev-DCID.pdf

2021-06-07 13:46:44205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14586/33

3872472627821442479272626048631041320194042141110102921111116913721104763

The Brazilian National Dialogue was organized by the Ministry of External Affairs (MRE) with active participation from different areas of the federal government that are responsible for the main subjects that comprise a food system, with special consideration to specific characteristics of the Brazilian food system and the Brazilian legislation on Food and Nutrition Security. The Ministry of External Affairs was responsible for convening the dialogue. The Ministry of Citizenship (MC); the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA); the Ministry of Health (MS); the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Advisory Counsel of the Chief of Staff of the Presidency (Casa Civil) were the main partners during the process of organizing the Dialogue. The Ministry of Education (MEC) and the Office of the UN in Brasília were also important partners. Brazil opted to conduct a multi-stakeholder organization process for the National Dialogue, in order to encompass the various unique perspectives each area can contribute to the discussion. Such multi-stakeholder approach was reflected at the National Dialogue, which benefited from the participation of different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. The government created a dedicated website to disseminate information about the National Dialogue and the Food Systems Summit, including reference documents. Regular and periodic announcements about the Dialogue were transmitted through social media. Inscription for the National Dialogue was made through an on-line form, that was available in the dedicated website for about 10 days. The video-conference was held through Zoom and transmitted by YouTube and Facebook for the wider public. The digital file of the video-conference can be accessed in the dedicated digital platform of the National Dialogue.Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. Taking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the first round of Brazilian National Dialogue was conducted in a 100% virtual mode, through video-conferences. The video-conferences dealt with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference (“Promoting Food and Nutrition Security Guaranteeing Equitable Inclusion in the Value Chain”) was held on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference (“Incentivizing a Sustainable Production and Consumption of Health Food”) happened on May 12th 2021 and addressed Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference (“Building Resilient Food Systems”) took place on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas. After the opening address, panelists from government, the private sector and civil society made presentations about the main issues under discussion. Registered participants were invited to intervene orally during the event. Participants that did not register to take the floor were invited to send written comments to the organizers of the event, related to the topics discussed in each video-conference. The combination of the reception of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important as it reflected the diverse views that integrate the Brazilian Food System and presented suggestions on how it can be improved.The video-conferences allowed for inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogues, with wide participation of different segments of the society, productive sector, academia and the government. Such format is conducive to meeting the Principles of Engagement.

NoThe Ministry of External Affairs was responsible for convening and curating the Brazilian National Dialogue. The organization of the dialogue had the active participation from different areas of the federal government, that are responsible for the main subjects that comprise a food system. Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. The dialogue was 100% virtual – using digital video-conferencing platform – because of time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country. The video-conferences was crosscutting and did not rely on discussion groups. The first video-conference was on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference was on May 12th 2021 and was directed mostly to Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference was on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas, with the participation of different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. Participants were invited to register if they wanted to make an intervention during the event. All the participants were invited to send written comments to the organizers, if they so wished.

234242243244246248249The first round of the National Brazilian Dialogue was divided into three video-conferences, which dealt with specific topics related to the Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. This document focus on the third video-conference, which was held on May, 14th, under the theme “Building Resilient Food Systems”. It was focused on Action Track 5 (“Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shock and stress”). In order to reduce the risks for food insecurity, food systems need to become more resilient. The roles of smallholder farmers, women, government policies, business environment, innovation, adaptation techniques and national legislation are essential aspects of the discussion about resilience. Different countries face distinct realities in order to promote resilience of their food systems. Maintaining the continued functionality of food systems, especially in areas that are prone to conflicts or natural disasters, is crucial in this regard. Actions to increase the economic, social and environmental resilience of food systems, along with measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change, should be addressed with a view to increasing the resilience of food systems. The video-conference brought together panelists from different areas to set the tone of the discussion, notably from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply; the Ministry of Citizenship; and two private sector organizations, Agroicone – a consultancy company focused on agriculture matters – and the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development. When the floor was open for interventions, speakers from a variety of backgrounds presented their positions, concerns and proposals on the discussion about increasing the resilience of food systems, including through the roles of smallholder farmers, women and the youth, as well as the characteristics of the national agricultural methods – in its different forms – and of the national food system.235242243244246247248The Dialogue raised concerns about the predominance of narratives that are not entirely applicable to Brazilian food systems, namely shortening production chains, concentrating on local production and focusing on eco-agricultural methods. Different countries face different realities and have different climates, environments, histories and food systems. As noted, such models can be more expensive, less efficient and incapable to meet the growing demand for food in the world (taking into account population growth estimates in Africa and Asia). Given that not all countries are self-sufficient or will be able to adapt their production systems quickly, even if favorable conditions are present, the world food trade will continue to be fundamental to promote food security and resilience to shocks, in addition to generating wealth in the form of income and jobs. It must be highlighted that this does not mean that local production and short chains are per se harmful. The idea is that each production method has its role in ensuring food security and resilience and need to coexist. Brazil has several experiences of local production – peri-urban agriculture, community gardens – that are important for domestic consumption, but they coexist with large scale commercial agriculture and production facilities. Brazil, as a global food supplier and a major exporter, has much to contribute to the international debate, including in the Food Systems Summit. Tropical agriculture in Brazil is efficient, highly productive, resilient and sustainable. Food production in Brazil has low carbon emissions, compared to similar activities in developed countries with temperate climate. There are some successful national programs that can be used as examples of actions to build resilient food systems. Some of them are: the Rural Insurance Program (PSR), the Agroclimatic Risk Zoning (ZARC) and the National School Feeding Program (which purchases 30% of food items from local family farms in every region of the country). In addition, Brazil is a pioneer in cultivation and production techniques such as low-carbon emission agriculture and could act as a knowledge multiplier for countries with similar climate conditions. Regarding the construction of resilient food systems, it is necessary to take into consideration the multiplicity of existing food systems, which act as complementary solutions to each other. In this sense, the Summit should not focus on reductionist one-size-fits-all conclusions, nor limit its recommendations to specific models of production, which would serve a very small portion of the world population and exacerbate inequalities. The issue of food security involves socioeconomic aspects (associated with inequalities in the distribution of income and means of production), as well as technical issues of production. Public policies should address inequalities, expand access to healthy food, reduce food waste and loss and generate improvements in the entire production chain, with gains in productivity and resilience. Some recommendations for building sustainable food systems that Brazil would like to share are: incentives for technology and innovation, availability of credit and financing for adaptation and implementation of production systems with productivity and social gains, and dissemination of knowledge, through training and capacity building.236242243244246247248249Brazilian tropical agriculture is resilient and sustainable. It can contribute to meet other countries food security needs and strengthen national food systems. Programs related to: i) rural credit; ii) adaptation and low-carbon agriculture policies; iii) rural production insurance; and iv) agro-climatic risk zoning, can be adapted and implemented in other tropical/semi-tropical countries. Such policies can help countries meet their international commitments regarding greenhouse gas emission and strengthen resilience. Farmers become less affected by crop fluctuation outcomes, crops can be chosen respecting environmental conditions of different areas and can be adapted to climate change. The integration between agriculture-livestock -forest helps the implementation of more sustainable and resilient food system. Investment in science and technology is essential for increasing food production and promoting sustainable food systems. In order to achieve present levels of productivity and sustainability, Brazil developed, over the course of 50 years, a tropical agricultural technology adapted to the prevailing soil, climate and water cycle conditions in the country. In particular, investments in scientific research institutions – such as the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and several highly qualified Universities – are important for the development of resilient food systems. Access to credit, training and capacity building for producers, especially smallholder farmers, can play a major role in fostering resilience of food systems. Such policies related to credit address risk and foster resilient food systems. Moreover, land ownership should be regularized in order to promote sustainable agricultural production and ensure more resilient food systems. In Brazil, the agricultural and food sectors contribute not only to economic and social resilience, but also to the achievement of the SDGs. Municipalities in agricultural areas tend to have higher HDI, on average, than in other regions. Formal workers in the agricultural and food sector tend to have higher wages than the Brazilian average. Given the increasing risk of external shocks and crises affecting food systems, it is also important to provide emergency income or conditional cash transfer programs, such as “Bolsa Família”, especially to groups in situation of vulnerability. Such policies promote the resilience as they enable continuous consumption patterns by the population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the strengthening of social policies has helped to maintain family consumption and, therefore, the continuity of functioning of food systems, which reflects directly in their resilience. In this context, it is particularly important to adopt a holistic approach to food systems. Policies to address health, to eradicate hunger and malnutrition, as well as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to land use are interdependent. They are further interconnected to measures to foster food security, resilience of food systems and sustainability. Finally, healthy eating habits and sustainable production patterns, which include reducing food loss and waste and implementing adaptation measures to climate change, may contribute to the resilience of food systems.237242243244248249250- Concentration of the food sector may affect the resilience of food systems. While Brazil has a number of large food and agriculture companies, it is not clear that there is a long-term trend towards concentration, nor that concentration per se harms the consumer and affects resilience. Most food available to Brazilian consumers come from family agriculture. - Reduction of biodiversity affects the resilience of food systems. The Brazilian legal framework, including the national forest code, contribute to the conservation of biodiversity, but requires more active enforcement measures. - International trade contributes to the resilience of food systems. Local production is important, but very few countries are self-sufficient in agricultural food products. They will continue to rely on trade for the foreseeable future to complement national systems, ensure food security and foodstuffs at affordable prices. - Short versus long production and supply chains. Short agricultural production chains may have some benefits, but rarely can a country rely only on local agricultural products. In situations of increasing risk of climate shocks, global chains can provide necessary food supplies from other regions. Such chains must be in place and operational, given that they cannot be built overnight. A very good example is the resilience of the global food supply chains during the Covid19 Pandemic, which have contributed to guaranteeing food security to billions of people worldwide.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videoconferencia-3-doc.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videconferencia03_pp.pdfhttps://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/cupula-2021-sistemas-alimentares-dialogos

English version of the reference document prepared by the Brazilian Government to help guide the debates in the video-conference.2021-06-09 00:39:03https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Videoconferência-3-tradução-rev-DCID.pdf

2021-06-07 15:15:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10167/203

02653213047560111163554113913511122381232512

We worked diligently to ensure the inclusion and participation of different voices and stakeholders in the Dialogue. As a lead up to the Dialogue, MCLD started mobilizing members by inviting people working with the Food Systems Summit in various capacities to speak at our meetings to create an understanding around the Action Tracks and levers of change. We invited members to start thinking about community-led food systems to share best practices through a specially curated blog series (available at https://mcld.org/mobilizing-resilient-community-led-food-systems/) . A committee comprising members from different parts of the world including Benin, Mexico, Netherlands, India and the US was created to design the dialogue process and identify participants and facilitators representing various stakeholder groups. We ensured representation of not just NGOs, INGOs and government, but also small scale farmers, local organizations, academics and multinational corporations. Facilitators ranged from youth activists to CEOs. All facilitators were taken through a preparatory process to ensure that they were familiar with not just their action tracks but also the summit principles. Facilitator guides were prepared along with suggested questions for engaging the participants. Breakout groups were kept small to ensure participation of all people. Three powerful women speakers from three parts of the world were invited to set the tone/agenda for the meeting. They spoke to gender, small-holder farmers and indigenous people’s role in the food systems.Our aim was to provide a platform for Movement organizations to provide their input and hear from a variety of voices on a subject that matters to us all - community-led development. We paired community-level voices with those from international organizations, private business voices with those of local NGOs, and provided an inclusive environment for those voices to be heard. During our dialogue, we essentially practiced what we preach within the Movement, which is closely related to the Summit’s principles of engagement.Inviting such a varied group of stakeholders into the same room can be challenging, especially as we all speak not just different languages but also use the same language differently depending on which part of the sector we represent. We addressed this by providing participants with a pre-dialogue participant kit with information about the Summit and Action Tracks and reading about community-led food systems. This guided our conversation and enabled us to speak the same language around the subjects that mattered to us all. We also created these kits in Spanish and French for our participants and ensured that breakout rooms were available in all three languages- English, French and Spanish - to enable people to participate freely and meaningfully without barriers of language.

NoWe used the method outlined in the Convener Reference Manual, with adaptations to ensure meaningful participation and engagement by the different stakeholder groups particularly small farmers and local CBOs that have limited access to technology and wifi. Our opening plenary consisted of three speakers, who were instrumental in framing the context of our dialogue’s specific topic. Each speaker addressed a different aspect or theme of community-led food systems, and each delivered their remarks in a way that inspired our discussion groups. The importance of having the speakers set the context through their own work and concrete examples was reiterated by many participants in a follow-up meeting a week after the dialogue. Our speakers framed the overall topic but did not introduce facilitators or specific action tracks . Instead, facilitators introduced themselves to their groups and briefly introduced the action tracks. In addition to this, participants already had received kits with relevant information. This ensured they were better prepared for the discussion and that they could directly ask facilitators if they had questions around the AT or the framing of the discussion. Our discussion groups were 40 minutes long - the small size of the groups ensured meaningful participation by all. The groups were organized thematically, each tackling a specific action track. All participants had pre-selected their AT. Groups were pre-created to ensure diversity in the room. The Spanish and French language groups did not focus on a single AT, but on the themes identified by the participants. Additionally, we wanted to engage many speakers throughout our dialogue, so our curator was not the only voice in the event. We elevated youth voices, thought leaders, and Movement members to deliver different parts of the opening and closing remarks. In this way, we truly were acting within the Principles of Engagement of the Summit by embracing inclusivity, recognizing the importance of diverse stakeholders and voices and ensuring that people build on each other’s work,

234238239240241242247251Community-led food systems are systems in which communities have the power to address their own nutrition and food security needs. Projects within community-led food systems are often local, collaborative and engage the entire local food system,. On May 19th, the Movement for Community-led Development (MLCD) hosted an Independent Dialogue which focused on mobilizing resilient, community-led food systems. Our dialogue was centered around exploring localization in global food policy and discussing people-based solutions to the problems our food systems are facing at the grassroots level. The overarching theme of the Dialogue was that resilience starts at the community level and that community-led food systems must be prioritized in order to achieve the Five UN Action Tracks. Prior to the Dialogue, participants were asked to think about their vision for a community-led food system, barriers to strengthening community-based food systems in their community or area of interest, strategies to address these barriers and changes needed at the policy, implementation and funding level to build resilient community-led food systems and the role of different stakeholders in making these changes. In order to explore more specific areas of our focus, MCLD invited three keynote speakers: Dr Jemimah Njuki, (Director for Africa, IFPRI), Dr. Myrna Cunningham Kain (Member of the Food Systems Summit Advisory Committee) and Dr. Madhura Swaminathan (Chair, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation). These speakers situated the role of gender equality, Indigenous knowledge and small-scale farming into the broader discussion of community-led food systems. Following our speaker’s presentations, participants separated out into ten discussion groups based on the five UN Action Tracks to discuss policy proposals for the Food Systems Summit. To learn more about Community-led Food Systems read this paper by John Coonrod: https://mcld.org/2021/03/31/systems-thinking-for-community-led-food-systems/2352382392402412422432442472482492511. Modes of Action: Need for Community and Policy level initiatives The Dialogue highlighted the need for both community-level and policy-level action. Participants agreed that food systems cannot be transformed through homogenous modes of action, but rather through synergies between community-level and policy-level initiatives. In terms of community-level action, participants agreed on the need for advocating with governments and big retailers to prioritize local foods, campaigning to eliminate the use of plastics, and prioritizing education surrounding sustainable and nutritious foods at the early childhood level. In terms of policy-level action, participants discussed the need to shift government policy towards better natural resource management and more nutritious / sustainable systems of production, reduce energy costs for small farmers, invest in research that improves the economics of sustainable / nutritious food, and support international agreements to measure gender data in farming. 2. Working with Indigenous communities and Paired Dialogues The need to establish paired dialogues or partnerships between Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists was reiterated in the Dialogue. Indigenous knowledge, values and practices have traditionally been disregarded and excluded from the discourse on food systems despite the fact that they have created food systems that are biodiverse, nutritious, climate resilient, equitable and rooted in sustainable livelihood practices. Indigenous food systems have not only ensured the food sovereignty, health and wellbeing of Indigenous communities over generations, but have contributed to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development for the benefit of all humankind. A paired dialogue between Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists could therefore generate and improve knowledge surrounding food systems, climate change, the management of crops and seeds and other topics alike. Other solutions for working with indigenous communities included: * Conducting research with indigenous peoples and gathering more evidence on indigenous knowledge systems * Creating a trust fund, managed by indigenous communities, to support work * Supporting indigenous land tenure and community systems of protection and management * Strengthening the landscape approach with a comprehensive and holistic vision that aims to recover and strengthen the production of traditional medicines, seeds, crops, livestock, sources of wild and indigenous foods with high nutritional potential (local superfoods) * Facilitating the commercialization of indigenous products by supporting community-based businesses and economic initiatives of Indigenous peoples 3. Gender Equality through improved policy and data Since women face countless barriers including access to resources, lack of land rights, social norms and institutional barriers, the role (and importance) of women within food systems must be prioritized. Women are typically visible in production, processing and trading sectors, however their visibility diminishes as we move up the value chain. This is problematic as there is a notable connection between gender equality, food systems, food security and nutrition. As our speaker Dr. Jemimah Njuki noted, “the countries with the highest gender inequalities also tend to be the hungriest”. In order to overcome extreme gender inequality within food systems, participants suggested the need for gender-sensitive data collection, gender empowerment programs at the state level and legislative action to involve women in policymaking. ICT can also be used to provide agricultural advisories and training to women in farming communities 4. Youth Involvement for sustainability Discussions revealed the importance of exploring the involvement of youth in food systems in order to strengthen their future structures. Youth have the ability to take ownership of the local food systems in their community. If given the opportunity to positively and meaningfully engage in their local food systems then they can transform these systems and make these systems more sustainable. In countries such as Haiti, succession of food producers is not assured to sustain / safeguard future food systems because younger generations / populations are not interested in a career in producing food. Strategies to effectively engage younger generations in creating a sustainable food system include: * A combination of farm and school structures to build understanding amongst younger generations of their local food systems. * Programs that facilitate conversations between older and younger generations regarding existing food systems. An existing generational difference in communication style can hinder the education of youth in food production. * Younger generations should be involved in village banking so they can save money / begin farming practices. 5. Building Networks of small-holder farmers Smallholder farmers who form the bulk of the global food systems face numerous barriers from access to technology to high production costs, lack of storage facilities and unequal access to markets. Examples from India ( Group Federation of Small Farmers Initiative in Tamil Nadu by the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation)and other parts of the world show the importance of creating federations of small farmers who can not only serve as a pressure group to highlight their interests but also leverage funds from banks and governments and undertake collective action for ensuring better access to technology and local infrastructure.236238244247250251The discussion groups were structured around the 5 Action Tracks along with language groups in Spanish and French which looked at an overview of action required to strengthen community-led food systems: Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Two groups explored this topic. Their vision for creating a community-led food system included implementing policies that are inclusive towards indigenous communities. A key issue discussed was how to best support the longevity of indigenous farming practices. While smallholder farmers produce crops that possess market value, there is a long-term risk of losing indigenous seeds in local food systems. Furthermore, existing policies do not currently support the practices of indigenous communities. GMOs are currently in danger of wiping out the sale of indigenous seeds on the market and nutritious / organic food from local communities are not receiving enough market value. Access to information for farmers, importance of WASH and lack of diversity in the local food plate and in choices available to farmers also surfaced as important issues. Urgent issues towards ensuring the availability of nutritious foods in local communities involve: *Supporting the longevity of indigenous farming practices *Supporting land accessibility for women *Examining policies surrounding food systems that are not region or country specific * Budget contributions towards strengthening the availability of nutritious foods in existing food systems In order to support the inclusion of nutritious food in local food systems, the following solutions were proposed to be undertaken at a community-based level: * Working with communities to prepare better methods of storing food in order to safeguard food against natural and economic shocks * Supporting / continuing practices of growing nutritious foods within households and trading produce between households that occurred during the pandemic. * Rethinking / restructuring the system of local market supply in providing nutritious foods to markets in big cities. This often contributes to lack of nutritious food in local rural markets. * Supporting household farming to encourage farmers to produce foods for local consumption. * Effectively disseminating nutritional information from health experts to communities * Addressing climate change in local farming communities to educate farmers on the importance of crop diversity. * Providing farmers with access to diverse seeds and with capacity strengthening. Some of these actions require work at the policy level while others need community level programming and advocacy by local CSOs, INGOs and community groups.236239244248Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns This group’s vision for community action to shift to sustainable consumption patterns involved supporting early childhood education on sustainable nutritious food, placing community pressure on governments and big retailers to prioritize local foods, building better rural roads and local transport systems to reduce the “time-to-market”, and campaigning to eliminate the use of plastics. They recognised the need for concerted action at the community level and advocacy to ensure an enabling policy environment with the government. Policy ideas included shifting government policy away from solely increasing production towards better natural resource management and a more nutritious and sustainable system of production, reducing the energy costs for small farmers (electricity costs are too high for cooking and they contribute to deforestation), addressing monopolies by fast food companies and investing in research that improves the economics of sustainable nutritious food.236240243245250Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production This group's vision entailed rebuilding the current food system to capitalize on new and knowledge while pairing it with indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainable practices. To achieve this vision, the group discussed solutions that seek to empower communities in tangible ways by investing in them and not imposing solutions imported from the global North. This could be done by providing resources directly to communities, developing strong community level partnerships and providing support for community-based decisions on how to use those resources. This would entail having the decolonizing aid conversation within the food systems framework and shifting power from global to local. Other solutions discussed involved integrating technology and indigenous knowledge, educating local producers on the implications of unsustainable practices, and putting human rights at the heart of community based food systems with land and territory acknowledgement. Solutions that seek to reconcile new technology with indigenous knowledge should be community-focused and include processes, roles, and timelines that allow for community input and influence in the outcome. Suggestions to strengthen the input of the indigenous community in food-system processes included: * Gathering more evidence on indigenous peoples knowledge systems * Conducting more research with indigenous peoples * Creating a trust fund managed by indigenous people to support work236241243249251Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods The group discussed methods to overcome gender inequality for people who identify as women, enabling economic, political and institutional infrastructure that promotes equitable livelihoods, and involving men and boys into the conversation on women in agriculture. Methods discussed to advance equitable livelihoods in local food systems by working with international and state governments, local communities, and men and boys included: *collecting measurable gender-sensitive data, especially around women's work * supporting international agreements to measure gender data in farming (and other activities) * supporting legislative initiatives to address gender inequality like joint land ownership in India * engaging men in discussions of women in agriculture * supporting gender empowerment programs at a state level * recognizing the role of cooperatives in building resilience and ensuring youth are included in these cooperatives Specific examples of cooperatives and collective action were brought in from India. Plant Clinics were established to provide agricultural advisories via phone, tablet, and other information communication technology (ICT) tools to women in farming communities in Tamil Nadu in southern India. This enabled people from all over the region, be they literate or illiterate, to access information in a comprehensible manner, resulting in lower input costs, increased productivity, and the use of safer farming practices (such as using less pesticide sprays). Similarly the Group Federation of Small Farmers initiative in Tamil Nadu consisted of a large number of women and over 800 farming groups mostly from tribal communities in India. They functioned as a Farmer Producer Organization (FPO) leveraging funds from banks and the government to bring new technology to small farmer communities. The group recognized that current economic, political, and institutional structures maintain the unequal power dynamics in our system and made the following recommendations to address these: * Educating community members on issues of farming practices, nutrition, and rights in order to mobilize the voices of individuals, particularly women * Using ICT technology to foster awareness and engage women’s voices in policy issues; demystifying computer and social media skills * Altering “one size fits all” policies that work well in certain areas but poorly in others236242248251Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. This topic was discussed by two groups. The discussion centered around self-reliance in local communities and the engagement of younger generations in transforming local food systems to make them more sustainable. Participants recognized that the current global food systems are unable to deal with shocks; the COVID 19 pandemic clearly demonstrated that when the global systems and supply chains ground to a halt, local food systems proved to be much more resilient to the shock. Barriers towards strengthening community based food systems within this Action Track included difficulties in transporting farm produce, lack of access to farming technologies, lack of youth involvement in community-led food systems, and inadequate local infrastructure to store food. The groups discussed the advent of food insecurity in communities which were heavily dependent on external markets either for getting agricultural produce and seeds or for selling local produce. This was exacerbated by the lack of adequate post harvest storage facilities that resulted in produce going bad and disheartened farmers. In contrast, communities that produced and consumed most of their food locally were less affected by the pandemic induced lockdowns and travel restrictions. Strategies to address these issues include incorporating a use of community pantries to reduce the loss of excess produce, creating community gardens to address issues of food stability during the pandemic, and practice of community-supported agriculture where the produce and profits feed local markets, reducing the transport and infrastructure required to support food systems. The groups discussed specific examples from countries like the Philippines and Afghanistan to address the crisis. These included supporting women to start and run organic community farms in the Philippines which were not only environment-friendly, but also ensured that families dependent on remittances (that stopped due to the pandemic) had a source of income and access to nutritious food. Or using the traditional methods for drying and storing food as in Afghanistan which are inexpensive, have low environmental footprints and require low-technological investment even as they prevent spoilage. Importance of youth involvement in local food systems by providing training and support services like access to banking and farm schools were also considered imperative in order to develop resilience in these systems.236245246249Discussion Group with French-Speaking Participants: All ATs A community-led food system is one that is articulated around local assets, resources, and knowledge. Furthermore, the system is inclusive, and functions on the basis of justice and equality. The main barrier facing our food systems is the lack of a local food system supply chain that values local assets. To overcome this obstacle, we need the involvement of the government, in terms of investment, regulation, training, and communication. Relentless activism of the Civil Society and the support of scientists and researchers is also essential. Solutions proposed towards supporting a community led food system supply chain include the involvement of key actors such as community members, scientists, and researchers. Proposed solutions to this issue are: * Involving the government in investment, regulation, education / training and communication * Incorporating the support of scientists and researchers to support this issue * Supporting an attractive scheme for private sector actors to match social and economic aspects within a resilient food system236244249251Discussion Group with Spanish-Speaking Participants: All ATs Visions for community-led food systems within this group involved incorporating diverse actors such as women and indigenous populations into existing food systems, protecting and promoting local food systems, and generating community ownership of these systems. The recognized the need to speak of not a single food system but the diversity in food systems. Barriers towards achieving these visions of community-led sustainable food systems are a lack of support for small-scale production practices, the impact of climate change on production and crops, and a general lack of access to land tenure and means of production to bolster local food systems. Solutions discussed towards overcoming these obstacles include implementing public policies that are community-centered and strengthening local community members' sense of their own resilience and capability. The group also acknowledged that producers alone are not responsible for ensuring resilient and sustainable food systems - consumers also need to share this responsibility.237240241250One area of divergence that emerged during the Dialogue was the discussion of modern technology within food systems. Although modern technology may present unique opportunities for food systems, many participants raised the concern that community-led food systems often lack access to such technologies, making them unable to reap the potential benefits. Moreover, while certain participants believed that modern technology can offer unique avenues for innovation and improvement, others suggested that it can create a plethora of issues. For instance, the use of modern technology within food systems can create a vast amount of environmental degradation, which can have devastating effects on local ecosystems and livelihoods, as well as climate change. Additionally, while certain aspects of modern technology (i.e. automation) may potentially reduce labor costs of food production and processing, they may also increase energy costs and create displacement, which can be extremely harmful to small-scale farmers and their communities. The conversation of modern technology within food systems also extended to Indigenous communities. Although modern technology has created a variety of issues for Indigenous peoples (i.e. poor water quality, deforestation and displacement), participants alluded to the potential for collaboration between modern technology and Indigenous systems. Rather than prolonging the tension between the two systems and constantly viewing them as diametric, we should find ways to integrate them to promote harmony and resilience. Another area of divergence within the Dialogue was the emphasis placed on supporting Indigenous or small-scale farming communities in order to strengthen local food systems. Discussions around Action Track 1 touched upon how absence of adequate knowledge coupled with low incomes and need for survival may drive small holder farmers to adopt more "marketable crops" and GMOs which may lead to the extinction of indigenous seeds and crop varieties. The dialogue did result in very clear examples and recommendations for strengthening both these stakeholder groups within the food systems. Small farmers experience low, inadequate and fluctuating incomes and face barriers such as high production costs and an unequal access to input and output markets. The Plant Clinics and Group Federation of Small Farmers Initiatives from India demonstrate the positive impact of collective action on the livelihoods and incomes of small farmers. Indigenous people have long been stewards of the land. Traditional indigenous practices and values have not only ensured the food sovereignty, health and wellbeing of Indigenous communities over generations, but have contributed to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development for the benefit of all humankind. National and independent dialogues are necessary to alter the narrative of labeling community-led and indigenous food systems as underdeveloped systems. Dialogues analyzing the relationship between indigenous knowledge and food systems play an essential role in the development of community-led food systems. One area to consider is that could organization of small holder farmers into federations coupled with a strong policy environment that recognizes, documents and seeks to support indigenous crops and knowledge provide small farmers with the information, incentive and infrastructure to invest in local superfoods?

2021-06-07 19:17:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5852/283656

2552732023581084

• une approche intégrée, interdisciplinaire et exploratoire a été adoptée pour tracer les voies vers des systèmes alimentaires durables, un ensemble diversifié de groupes de parties prenantes a été invité à participer au dialogue ; • les participants qui se joignent au Dialogue ont une gamme de profils et d’expériences, une attention particulière a été accordée à l’implication des groupes de parties prenantes qui ne participent normalement pas aux dialogues sur l’avenir des systèmes alimentaires ; • Des groupes de discussion de 8 à 12 personnes ont été au cœur de l’événement. Les sujets de discussions ont mis l’accent sur les éléments ci-après : • changement climatique et pandémie COVID-19 ; • Liens entre les producteurs et les consommateurs alimentaires ; • Moyens de réduire les risques associés aux maillons du système alimentaire (Production alimentaire- Transformation alimentaire- Distribution alimentaire-Consommation alimentaire-Gestion des résidus alimentaires) ; • Questions transversales : finances, innovation, connaissances autochtones autonomisation des femmes, des jeunes et des groupes marginalisés. A cet effet, des leaders de discussion efficaces ont été identifiés en fonction des critères suivants : leaders forts et encourageants de nouvelles connexions, s’assurant que tous les membres du groupe se sont entendus, aident le groupe à naviguer de manière constructive sur les questions litigieuses ; Identification des participants : les participants ont été identifiés selon les secteurs d’activités intervenants dans les systèmes alimentaires.La tenue effective du dialogue sur le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires selon les normes de production et de consommation durable en Afrique a permis de faire ressortir un ensemble de principes pour rendre les systèmes alimentaires plus forts en Afrique. Ainsi, les participants ont reconnu que les systèmes alimentaires sont complexes et sont étroitement liés et ont un impact significatif sur la santé humaine et animale, la terre, l'eau, le climat, la biodiversité, l'économie et d'autres systèmes, et leur transformation nécessite une approche systémique. Le dialogue a également permis aux participants, au regard des thématiques développées par les orateurs et des sujets de discussion de soutenir des processus et des approches multipartites inclusifs au sein des gouvernements et des communautés qui apportent des perspectives diverses, y compris des connaissances autochtones, des connaissances culturelles et des preuves fondées sur la science pour permettre aux parties prenantes de comprendre et d'évaluer les compromis potentiels et de concevoir des options politiques qui répondent à de multiples biens publics à travers ces différents systèmes. Ceci a été rendu percepeptible lors des discussions sur l’implication des connaissances autochtonnes et/ou savoirs endogènes, les déterminants de l’agroécologie, les enjeux et défis des systèmes alimentaires ainsi que sur l’agriculture familiale. Il urge de noter que les échanges menés autour des sujets de discussion/groupes thématiques ont égalment été un levier pour la mis en évidence des approches multipartites inclusifs. Il ressort également, des échanges et discussion, que le système alimentaire traditionnelle a pu se préserver du COVID 19. Ainsi, le respect de l’intégration des cultures locales dans les politiques, pratiques de production et de consommation alimentaires devient une nécessité, pour protéger et améliorer la santé, le bien-être des individus, les moyens de subsistance, la résilience des communautés, la promotion d’une bonne gestion des ressourcesOUI

Yes

234238239240241242Les dialogues indépendants ont permis de rassembler une diversité de parties prenantes, y compris des voix rarement entendues, et d’offrir aux participants une occasion importante de débattre, de collaborer et d’agir pour rendre les systèmes alimentaires durables, forts et équitables. En d’autres termes, les dialogues font partie intégrante du processus du Sommet des Nations-Unies sur les Systèmes Alimentaires (UNFSS 2021). Les dialogues offrent un moyen dynamique d'impliquer les parties prenantes impliquées dans les systèmes alimentaires pour explorer leurs rôles respectifs et comment ceux-ci pourraient être liés à d'autres pour accélérer les actions de transformation à l'appui des Objectifs de Développement Durable (ODD). Ces dialogues multipartites visent à accroître la participation et à contribuer à une compréhension commune des priorités. Ainsi les dialogues indépendants concourent à identifier des solutions durables et/ou audacieuses pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires locaux. Plus précisément, les dialogues ont permis : - D’accompagner les acteurs clés de systèmes alimentaires dans l’acquisition de connaissances scientifiques sur les enjeux et défis liés aux systèmes alimentaires ; - d’organiser des groupes de discussions autour des sujets très pertinents ; - de dialoguer ouvertement, de manière constructive et organisée, entre les différents acteurs du système alimentaire pour identifier les solutions audacieuses et/ou durables pour le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires locaux ; - D’éclairer le processus du Sommet et aider à guider l’action individuelle et collective vers un avenir de l’alimentation durable, équitable et sûr ; - de mettre la question de la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires à l’agenda public et d’éclairer par le fait même le grand public sur le sujet. 2- Sujets de discussions : partager les résultats détaillés relatifs à chaque sujet de discussion (voir résultat groupe thématique) : point de vue des participants sur les actions qui sont nécessaires de toute urgence, qui devrait prendre ces mesures ? les moyens par lesquels les progrès pourraient être évalués et les défis qui pourraient être anticipés au fur et à mesure de la mise en œuvre des actions NB : commentaires sur un maximum de 10 sujets de discussion Les sujets de discussion ont porté essentiellement sur deux principaux points. Il s’est agi d’abord de l’acquisition des connaissances scientifiques sur les enjeux et défis liés aux systèmes alimentaires puis les échanges, partage d’expériences et points de vue sur les principaux sujets ayant fait objet de discussion entre les principaux participants venus de de différents pays Africains dont le Bénin, Burkina-Faso et la République Démocratique de Congo (RDC).235238239240241242- Produire et vivre de l’agriculture ; La production agricole est à la base de tout système alimentaire. C’est la première étape qui consiste à extraire un produit comestible de différents milieux, soit par l’agriculture ou la pêche, en vue de le transformer, de le consommer ou de le commercialiser. Cependant les changements climatiques bouleversent les façons de faire et ajoutent une pression sur la disponibilité de la ressource en eau, en plus de favoriser l’arrivée de nouvelles espèces envahissantes (insectes ravageurs, mauvaises herbes, maladies etc.).L’ensemble du secteur agricole doit toutefois faire face à des exigences, à des pressions et à des changements sans précédent. Quelles sont les actions à prendre maintenant pour assurer le maintien et augmenter la capacité productive tout en respectant l’environnement ?  Protéger le territoire et les activités agricoles Le territoire agricole est une ressource non renouvelable. Chaque hectare de sol cultivable urbanisé est perdu. Ainsi selon l’Organisation des Nations-Unies pour l’Alimentation et l’Agriculture (FAO), Il faut environ 1000 ans pour qu’un centimètre de sol ne se reconstitue, ce qui signifie que nous ne serons pas en mesure de produire plus de sol de notre vivant.C’est pourquoi des initiatives, assurant non seulement la pérennité de la vocation agricole, mais également de la propriété des terres doivent être promues dans les différents pays Africains.  Gérer les ressources naturelles L’agriculture requiert de nombreuses ressources, tant naturelles, humaines que techniques. La plus importante, à la base même de l’activité agricole, est la terre. L’eau, le sol, les intrants et les infrastructures constituent les autres ressources fondamentales pour assurer sa pratique. Ainsi l’eau et le sol doivent faire objet d’une très bonne gestion afin de permettre à l’agriculteur et/ou paysan et/ou producteur ainsi que consommateur final de jouir des biens faits de l’agriculture et de lutter contre la faim.  Développer et mettre à l’échelle de nouvelles technologies et innovations agricoles pour la résilience des systèmes de production et exploitations familiales ainsi que pour la préservation de la santé des agroécosystèmes, des animaux, celle de l’homme et la biodiversité ainsi que la réduction pertes post-récolte Avec les changements climatiques, les besoins en eau des plantes et/ou cultures pourraient augmenter et des investissements en infrastructures, technologies et innovations agricoles pourraient ainsi être nécessaires pour faire face aux périodes de sécheresse, inondations, d’attaques sévères des nuisibles et combler les manques. Tenant compte de l’augmentation de la fréquence des événements climatiques extrêmes, Les conséquences sont variables selon l’intensité et conduisent à des pertes de rendement et de qualité, voire à la perte totale de certaines récoltes. Par exemple, lorsque les sécheresses et/ou inondations surviennent, elles entraînent non seulement des pertes économiques considérables, mais aussi la perte complète des récoltes. Ainsi, le recours à des technologies et innovations agricoles vertes, telles que l’agroécologie, l’agriculture intelligente au climat et/ou les variétés intelligentes au climat, s’avère nécessaire non seulement pour le maintien de conditions assurant la santé des sols et la réduction de la nécessité de recourir à des intrants de synthèse mais aussi pour traiter conjointement les trois objectifs de lutte contre les changements climatiques : la réduction des émissions de Gaz à Effet de Serre (GES) , la séquestration du carbone et l’adaptation au climat futur au sein des systèmes de production et exploitations familiales. En effet, un traitement conjoint permettrait d’éviter les situations dites de « mal-adaptation » (adoption de mesures d’adaptation qui, par exemple, favoriseraient une augmentation des émissions de GES). Cette action vise également la cohabitation-biodiversité. En effet, la biodiversité, ou la diversité biologique, se définit comme l’importance de la variété des différents organismes vivants dans un milieu donné. Une grande diversité témoigne d’un écosystème en bonne santé. Celle-ci peut notamment être améliorée en allongeant le cycle de rotation des cultures (plus de culture en rotation sur une même parcelle). La biodiversité sera aussi favorisée en accordant certains espaces au milieu naturel afin qu’il puisse exercer ses fonctions. Les effets bénéfiques d’un équilibre entre les activités agricoles et l’écosystème dans lequel elles se pratiquent sont connus. La biodiversité peut être utile à l’agriculture comme dans le cas de la pollinisation de nombreuses plantes ou le contrôle des insectes nuisibles par les oiseaux et les amphibiens. Toutefois, la présence de certaines espèces animales peut conduire à des enjeux de cohabitation plus ou moins importants. Par exemple, les chevreuils en surpopulation peuvent occasionner des dommages très néfastes aux cultures ainsi qu’aux vergers. Le manque d’incitatifs encourageant les propriétaires à laisser une partie de leurs terres à l’état naturel, au bénéfice de la biodiversité et de la collectivité, est un frein majeur. Les espaces laissés à l’état naturel, particulièrement lorsqu’ils se trouvent en terres privées cultivables, sont parfois perçus comme improductifs et sources d’un manque à gagner. La reconnaissance et la rétribution financière par la collectivité des biens et services écologiques pourraient être une façon de remédier à cette perception.  Soutenir les différents acteurs intervenant dans les systèmes alimentaires236238239240241242o Point de vue des participants sur les actions qui sont nécessaires de toute urgence, qui devrait prendre ces mesures ? moyens par lesquels les progrès pourraient être évalués et défis qui pourraient être anticipés au fur et à mesure de la mise en œuvre des actions pour faire face aux défis et/ou enjeux du Changement climatique et pandémie COVID 19  Actions qui sont nécessaires de toute urgence Il faudra : • Apporter une assistance humanitaire aux populations en crises et vulnérables ; • Prévenir la mal nutrition chez les enfants et les femmes enceintes ; • Mise en place des initiatives de résilience pour les communautés ; • Mise en place des organes d’alertes et de prise en charge des impacts de la crise ; • Renforcer la résilience et les capacités d’adaptation face aux aléas climatiques et aux catastrophes naturelles liée au climat ; • Incorporer des mesures relatives aux changements climatiques dans les politiques, les stratégies et la planification nationales ; • Améliorer l’éducation, la sensibilisation et les capacités individuelles et institutionnelles en ce qui concerne l’adaptation aux changements climatiques, l’atténuation de leurs effets et la réduction de leur impact, et les systèmes d’alerte rapide ;  Moyen par lesquels les progrès pourraient être évalués L’indice de développement humain se révèle être comme un outil d’évaluation des progrès. En effet, cet outil sert à mesurer les progrès réalisés à long terme dans trois dimensions fondamentales : une vie longue et en bonne santé, l’accès aux connaissances et un niveau de vie décent.  Défis qui pourraient être anticipés • Impulser une dynamique volontaire vertueuse pour pouvoir réviser les objectifs d’atténuation ; • Adopter les mesures en faveur d’une croissance bleue ; une économie verte ; • Adopter des mesures conduisant à des réformes politiques, juridiques et institutionnelles en faveur d’une gouvernance efficace ; • Promouvoir des mécanismes de renforcement des capacités afin que le Cameroun se dote de moyens efficaces de planification et de gestion pour faire face aux changements climatiques, l’accent doit être mis sur les femmes, les jeunes, la population locale et les groupes marginalisés. Il serait donc prioritaire que toutes ces actions soient effectives dans le respect des normes d’équités et principes d’une bonne gouvernance afin de rendre l’économie plus viable et vivable pour toutes les communautés.237240Stimuler la production alimentaire à grande échelle positive pour la nature : quelle approche pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires pour des normes de production et de consommation durable ? : Globalement, l’agriculture familiale a montré sa formidable capacité d’adaptation au travers les siècles malgré les guerres, les crises économiques, les famines et les catastrophes naturelles. Cette résilience trouve notamment sa source dans les caractéristiques de la structure familiale : solidarité, abnégation, dévouement, volonté de transmettre son patrimoine et ses savoirs, acceptation de contraintes temporaires en cas de besoin. Les producteurs pratiquant l’agriculture familiale, grâce à leur enracinement local et à connaissance approfondie qu’ils ont de leurs territoires, constituent des foyers d’innovations empiriques adaptées à leurs contextes locaux respectifs. Elles contribuent également au développement économique de ces territoires en favorisant le maintien voire la création de circuits de commercialisation cohérents avec les économies locales. Malgré ses multiples vertus, l’agriculture familiale est pourtant menacée en Afrique. Elle reste vulnérable face à la pandémie de Covid 19 et le changement climatique sur tous les plans. En outre, il serait opportun de réfléchir à des stratégies de résilience à travers les mesures agroécologiques qui permettront à l’agriculture familiale d’être plus durable. Par contre, l’état des lieux révèle que le système alimentaire Africain est véritablement vulnérable au Covid19 mais néanmoins le système alimentaire traditionnel a pu se préserver. D’où l’installation d’une confiance entre les acteurs autour de système alimentaire territoriale. L’agriculture biologique serait une solution qu’il convient aux producteurs pour un système alimentaire durable.

2021-06-08 00:17:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6387/203

822204012533151033617028024010220302210113520020040223432

The organization of this Africa Region Food Systems Dialogue "Re-imagining Africa's Food Systems Transformation through Data, Advocacy, and Leadership" was largely adherent to the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement. First, deliberate efforts were made to ensure diversity (regional/geographic representation, as well as food systems stakeholder/sector representation). In this regard, Dialogue participants were identified through the following approaches. • Vigorous publicity about the Dialogue, open dissemination of Dialogue details and registration portal for parties to express interest. This included wise use of social media like Twitter with the announcements being retweeted several times • Deliberate/purposive solicitations sent to key food systems stakeholders/actors using a maximum variation sampling (stakeholder, sectors, region/geography, demographics, etc). • Purposive identification of facilitators from all regions of Africa (West, South, North, East, and Diaspora), as well as key partners from the Global North whose work relate to food systems in Africa. On the day of the Dialogue, Dialogue Conveners, Curators, and Facilitators reiterated and reinforced the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement – as detailed below.We summarize below the specific actions taken to ensure our Dialogue is response to the Principles communicated in the Dialogue Conveners’ Manual. • “Act with urgency”: Recognizing the urgency with which food systems transformation actions needed to be taken, the Dialogue Conveners and Facilitators deliberately requested specific policy asks, and critical practice changes required to transform the African food systems as soon as now, and by 2030. • “Commit to the Summit”: Dialogue Conveners, Curators, Facilitators and Participants received orientation at different phases of the Dialogue preparation and execution on Dialogue Principles as well as on how to, and the need to practice what we preach personally and professionally. Including for example “leading from where you stand”, or “advocacy requires all voices, loud or not”. As part of the concluding remarks to the dialogued participants were called upon to seek opportunities to contribute to the UNFSS processes in their respective countries and also during the multiple public engagements that are announced from time to time. • “Be respectful”: Dialogue Conveners incorporated into the facilitation guidelines the need to be respectful of nature, of natural resources, of African traditional cultures, and contexts. Dialogue Facilitators reinforced these during the Dialogue. Participant choices on which breakout sessions they wished to contribute to were respected by allowing them to choose freely which session they wanted to join. • “Recognize complexity”: Cognisant of the fact that food systems are complex and are impacted largely by the actions and inactions of humans, Dialogue Facilitators engaged participants in discussions that facilitated identification of multiple-duty innovations/actions that can influence different parts of this complex system. Addressing data needs for monitoring and evaluation of food systems transformation, and for the related advocacy and strategic leadership to foster positive transformation recognized the complexity of food systems.The Conveners of this Regional Independent Food Systems Dialogue would like to share the following to other Dialogue Convenors (especially those who are yet to implement their Dialogues) • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: - Engage potential participants on the nature and expectations of the Dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of Engagement prior to the event. • Dedicate time to highlight the nature and expectations of the Dialogue, as well as the outlined principles of engagement on the day of the Dialogue • Plan ahead of time but be prepared to think on your toes and act on the spur of the moment. Our Dialogue initially planned to hold 3 parallel discussion sessions on the day of the Dialogue. Upon assessing the number of registrants/dialogue participants on the day, the Dialogue Conveners innovatively duplicated the discussion rooms from 3 to 6 – to accommodate all interested participants without violating the group size (of 8 – 12) communicated in the Dialogue Manuel. This was possible because each group had originally been allocated to facilitators and a notetaker all of whom received facilitation orientation. • Have the required background information for the ‘Official Feedback Form’ recorded via the online registration portal • Remember “photo taking” or screen shots can be done via Zoom. We found the shots taken helpful.

Yes

234238239241242243244246247248249250This Regional Dialogue convened by the Measurement, Evaluation, Accountability, and Leadership Support for NCDs (MEALS4NCDs) Prevention Project/ African Food Environment Research Network (FERN) – in partnership with the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC), Réseaude Recherchesurles Politiquesetles Systèmes Alimentairesen Afriquedel'Ouest (REPSAO), African Nutrition Society (ANS), Federation of African Nutrition Societies (FANUS), Coalition of Actors for Public Health Advocacy (CAPHA), IFPRI-led CGIAR-Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), Rockefeller Foundation’s-led Food Systems Transformative Integrated Policy (FS-TIP), Drivers of Food Choice Program (DFC), Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy (ANH Academy), Chronic Diseases Initiative for Africa (CDIA), & the African Union Development Agency(AUDA-NEPAD) examined how “Data, Advocacy, Accountability, Governance, Leadership, and Leadership Support” can be exploited to help “Transform the African Food Systems”. The discussions covered all areas and were organized around three questions: a) What policy actions or critical practice changes do we want various food system actors (e.g., governments, private sector, academia; farmers, etc.) to adopt to transform the African Food Systems –by 2030?; b) How do we use Advocacy, Accountability Science, Governance, Leadership and Leadership Support to facilitate these transformation of Africa’s food systems? c) Who will need to be involved and what specific actions do we require of them? • Participants examined the current African Food Systems – identifying gaps in, and impediment to data availability, timeliness, quality, data management and overall usability. These are crucial for Food Systems Transformation. • There was consensus on the need to integrate national or regional data, build stronger data repositories, communicate and interpret data in ways that could translate into policies and also “leaves no one behind”. • Emphasis was placed on transparency in relation to the kind of data, data curation, data custodianship, access to, storage, and use of data. • On advocacy and accountability science, participants deliberated on important tools that could prompt national agricultural and food systems transformation, trade policies, food and nutrition security policies to meet the nutritional demands of the population and support livelihoods while protecting the environment. • Participants favored advocacy strategies that are consumer driven, demands transparency and accountability, and co-create knowledge that translates into the right policy actions for lasting food systems change. • Furthermore, leadership, , and collaborations were emphasized as key in harmonizing, and regulating, all aspects of the food systems that could foster policy implementation to deliver sustainable healthy diets to both human and planetary health. • Participants examined the value of inclusive leadership in addressing inequities. Provision of liability protection to vulnerable farmers, especially, small and medium holder farmers who form a large percentage of Africa’s agriculture was highlighted.235238239241242243244246247248249250The breakout sessions were ably facilitated and yielded rich insights. Facilitators effectively managed the sessions such that all participants could ask questions and contribute to the discussion questions. The discussions produced the following key findings: The need to establish a clear strategic plan for food systems data. Data is “the lifeblood of decision-making and the raw material for accountability”. A clear road map for data is needed in Africa. At the moment, there’s an ad hoc approach to data collection and use across Africa. There should be institutionalization of data, where various Government agencies and the private sector can share data on what is happening in the food system. This is important to effectively monitor and direct the transformation in a positive direction. Data financing. Government agencies and the private sector need to find resources to build local capacity for data. Measurements/data generation is costly. The use of technology in gathering data. Use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to link “producers”/”sellers” in the food systems to “consumers”/”buyers” in the system so that consumers can contribute to the production decision-making. Second, AI can be used in drone farming to enhance agriculture operation, to monitor movement of cattle, and facilitate vertical farming. Transparency and accountability in sharing of data. Data should be made accessible to all the actors along the food systems and the private sector should share their rich sources of data for food systems decision-making. Bridging the advocacy gap. All food systems actors should be involved in creating the needed awareness to transform food systems. Awareness and sensitization of what exists in Africa for Africa is important in promoting advocacy and accountability. Advocate for strong regulation of the food environment. Governments need to have tighter control in the food system. We need to advocate for countries to link trade policies and food and nutrition security policies to the nutritional needs of the population. Advocate for legislation and harmonization of standards that are transparent and accountable to control the markets and promote healthy lifestyle changes related to food consumption patterns. Advocate for transparency of the food environment. Inequities in the food environment should be corrected to allow access to fair marketing, competition and capital investment for SMEs. Consumer driven advocacy. Industry often responds to public demands or the demands of the consumer. The current “Transform the Food Systems Movement” could learn from that. Involvement of Celebrities in building demands for sustainable, healthy and safe diets should be considered. The need for Champions/Food Systems Heroes. Participants believe that in every leadership situation, there should be key actors such as the government leaders, community actors, nutrition champions, policy entrepreneurs, academics and other relevant stakeholders who will contribute to a holistic food system. Inclusive leadership from government, media, civil society, and public health experts is needed. This should involve the community and the people at the grassroots levels from all sectors of the food system to enhance ownership and sustainability. Farmers are often left out in the formulation of policies that affect agriculture, yet they are the major stakeholders. Collaboration among Food Systems Actors: Important factors brought up multiple times is the need for innovation, transparency, accountability, and stronger partnership between science, the private and public sectors, farmers and other various stakeholders across food systems. Network all food systems actors. Food systems actors do not know they are in the same system with others. Networking among actors from various sectors and levels of the food chain will enhance sharing of ideas and also facilitate collaboration.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250• Topic 1. Finding a clear roadmap for gathering quality data: Data financing; use of technology in gathering data; and transparency and accountability in sharing of data • The need to establish a clear strategic plan for data. Data is “the lifeblood of decision-making and the raw material for accountability” and for leading the changes required. A clear road map for data is needed in Africa. At the moment there’s an ad hoc approach to data collection and use across Africa. Africa needs a model that takes from an unstructured approach to data to a prepared, demonstrated, intelligent proven model. Moving from ad hoc to prepared data model could take 10 years. When this is realized, there should be institutionalization of data, where various Government agencies and the private sector can share data on what is happening in in the food system. Participants agreed it was important to engage and explore with national statistics agencies to improve data collection strategies. These are the institutions through which Food Balance Sheet Data on agriculture, Demographic and Health Surveys and Income and Expenditure Surveys are currently collected • Data financing. Government should allocate both institutional and financial resources; and the private sector must put together mechanisms of contributing resources to building local capacity for data. Measurements/data generation is costly. • The use of technology in gathering data. Use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to link “producers”/”sellers” in the food systems to “consumers”/”buyers” in the system so that consumers can contribute to the production decision-making. Second, AI can be used in drone farming technologies to enhance agriculture operation, to monitor movement of cattle, and facilitate vertical farming. • Transparency and accountability in sharing of data. Data should be made accessible to all the actors across food systems and the private sector should share their rich sources of data for food systems decision-making. • There should be a clear and deliberate roadmap for food systems data collection. This involves the use of data to guide actions and policies (on all components of the food system). The role of data in informing policies for better food systems cannot be overstated. Food systems actions, practices, and policies must be evidence-informed. Advocacy informed by data can play a role in promoting development on positive policy instruments. • All food systems actors (including SMEs) should be involved in the data value chain. They need data to help monitor actions or inactions of food systems actors, and to help facilitate the transformations that we request of our food systems. • Diets are primary endpoint in food systems. But there is scarce data on diets, in national food systems and sub-national food systems. The following questions are important: Can we track with robust indicators of diet quality? Can we monitor diet quality on ongoing basis? How do we know that the population is eating? How do we know that the population is healthy? We need data to answer all these questions. We need data for planning, and also for decision-making at every level of the food systems. • Data can give voice to the voiceless. • Also, data is very important in influencing politicians. For instance, the moment food insecurity data is released, politicians get so involved because the data can influence their votes. So if there is data on how many people have access to healthy foods. They will be very much involved/interested.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 2. Collaboration among the government sectors, academia, and the private sectors should be fostered: • Such collaborations can help address gaps that currently exist between these actors due to differences in their approaches. • In the past, policies drafted left out farmers meanwhile food security is guaranteed by farmers. • All stakeholders have unique and important roles to play. Policy makers and researchers should work together to have more evidence build a better understanding of food systems. The academia will do research, the private investor will invest, but we need the farmers as well. If the small-scale farmers who are important players of the economy are left out in foods systems decision making, this will perpetuate current inequities. • Private sector must be more engaged by working closely with researchers and policy makers to improve food systems. They have valuable consumer insights that are effective in promotion of their products (whether healthy or not). Such insights should be leveraged to bring about improved food consumption patterns for better nutrition and health and environmental sustainability. • Food environments are changing - but so are built environments, cities and food supply systems. Collaboration and synergizing can help generate the near real-life data needed to appreciate and respond to these changes. • Food environments are gendered. For example, the role of informal food environments where women are the majority who are selling and buying. Policies must account for the gendered components in food environments.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 3. Use of important technological application is crucial: • The use of technological application is crucial in transforming food systems. • The Group identified different ways in which technology use can be critical. • Technology to preserve the nutritional values of food either by processing foods through freezing or drying, • Use technology to increase the shelf life of certain perishable products like fruits and vegetables through the use of some technological means. • There was a suggestion for artificial intelligence to be used, e.g., AI can be used to link farmers to producers and sellers. It can also be used to track data.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Participants from the breakout rooms highlighted the following action areas: • Making use of incentives: What are the incentives for doing the right thing? Smart incentives and disincentives need to be created to align actors in sectors of the food system. • SMEs play large role in Africa food systems and should be provided with incentives for producing healthy, safe and sustainable food. • Perhaps there needs to be a combo of incentives and disincentives. • Disincentives such as making plastic bags expensive so people bring their own cloth bags can also be created. Strategic Policies that will enable SMEs to compete with multilateral organization should be formulated. • Food retailers equally need to understand their role in the food system. When adequately informed, their decisions may influence the food industry to churn forth better products. • The government should regulate the food retail environment. There should be regulatory standards for the food retail environment. For instance, its tax incentives, etc. in order to increase access to healthy foods. • Enforcement of legislative instruments: We do not have strong regulations and standards on food safety and types of additives. Laws should be enforced to ensure food safety standards and apply labelling regulations on food items. There should also be stronger regulation around food advertisement, media, including billboards.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 5. Building demand for advocacy: It is the responsibility of all of us to create the needed awareness to transform the food system. The following actions were highlighted: • Regulatory organizations need to actively be involved in communication, dissemination of information to support advocacy efforts. • Use consumer driven advocacy: Often industry responds to public demand or the demands of the consumer. Advocacy efforts could be used to change food consumption preferences by consumers. • Make consumers aware of the health and nutrition benefits. • Use evidence and science to advocate to consumers: industry would respond to science by making highly nutritious foods available because that is what consumers prefer. An example was shared about the demand for organic traditional foods in Egypt by “high class” individuals. • Industry could lead advocacy of organic foods. Avoidance can also be a strong advocacy strategy, e.g., avoid certain foods. • Re-discovery of lost foods and cooking methods; undiscovered traditional foods ways of cooking that are healthy can be promoted. Recipes with high nutritional value e.g., Quinoa, Fonio and healthy cooking methods could be used as advocacy tools and not only scientific data. • National agricultural transformation: we need to advocate for countries to link national agricultural transformation, trade policies, food and nutrition security policies to the nutritional needs of the population; • Because agriculture is so seasonal, there is a need for a type of policy investment that can be made to find ways to either process foods through freeze drying and other types of technology that preserve the nutritional values. • Need to create awareness by both producers and consumers regarding seasonality of foods. You cannot expect to eat certain products when they are off season. • Build demand advocacy: building demand within the marketplace- the consumer demand for healthy foods; there can be social marketing with celebrities to promote particular products or types of food. Any food system transformation will involve a certain shift in public perception and demand in certain foods. So more of a higher-level strategy to build demand for healthy sustainable diets that align with some of the policy instruments that might be used to improve what is available in the market. • If you need Governments to act, you have to speak in the language that the Government understands. Until governments see the food system issues as having a significant positive or negative impact on the economy, they may not act. Food systems issues are economic issues for governments; food systems issues must be health issues. We need to talk about food systems in terms of people, in terms of dollars, in terms of lives lost or saved. • We need to rationalize, empathize, and humanize the food system conversation/narrative • Healthy foods are not always236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 6. Sustainability of programmes and projects for food system: Programmes and projects at all levels and sectors along the food systems need to be sustained. The discussions identified certain solutions that will ensure sustainability; • Build capacity of local leaders on various actors of the food systems value chain. • Local experts and community food systems actors should be linked to the state institutions in a way that engages them in various planning and execution of food systems actions. The government, the private sector as well as the academia need to support this process. • Advocacy for sustainability: Farmers, Civil society, and other food systems actors need to create awareness regarding seasonality of foods. The UN food systems summit dialogues should evolve into a permanent entity/forum or ongoing advocacy that is inclusive (comprising all food systems actors and not just CSOs) to bring voices from food systems toward private and public sectors • Climate change and sustainability framing - in US and Europe, humans are told they are the cause of climate change, in terms of their excessive consumption behaviors. In Africa, natural disasters/water shortages/stresses/low rainfall/environmental problems affect food systems. Thus, framing plays a role in how food systems have to be reimagined and how data should be collected, because dialogues relevant in one setting may not be relevant in other settings.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 7. Inclusive leadership and networking There should be a responsible and inclusive leadership so that people at the grassroots are included in policy making and also educated on the existence of these policies. • Inclusive leadership from government, media, civil society, and public health experts is needed. This should involve the community and the people at the grassroots levels from all sectors of the food system to enhance ownership and sustainability. • Farmers are often left out in the formulation of policies that affect agriculture, yet they are the major stakeholders. • Leaders need to network and share ideas to collaborate on projects. • Communication must be bi-directional, from leaders to stakeholders and the grassroots members. • Leaders must be attentive and build capacity so the populace can be competent and independent. • Government leaders should ensure capacity building and knowledge dissemination; community actors can engage in building capacity, e.g., Chiefs can provide storage facilities for farmers, whiles nutrition champions and policy entrepreneurs need to be supported. • To monitor food systems transformation in Africa, Africa needs to develop a national or regional index/classification of countries based on their food systems transformation efforts. • We need a platform for leaders to speak to each other and understand each other. • For continuity and sustainability, leaders do not have to be political leaders. All Food systems actors can play leadership roles. Leader from where you stand. • Inaccessibility to land for women and youth are leadership failures: Government policies on land ownership, and use are discriminatory. It would take bold leaders to change this.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250There were some points of divergence: • On the question of who is in charge of collecting data? Two strong opposing views were advanced. One was that Leadership/government is responsible for overall strategy for data collection, data protection, and the financing of it. Governments have to buy into the vision and be held accountable to it. They have to put policies in place across different levels of their countries. They are ultimately responsible. The second view on the contrary indicated that private sector is also responsible for collection of data. Government sector alone cannot do it. • A participant suggested that a disruptive advocacy (for example non-importation of certain foods) should apply to foods that are produced in or available in African countries. Advocating for this could serve to encourage the consumption of local foods. Overall, the future for Africa is to depend on itself for food supply. Another participant fervently disagreed, indicating that disruptive advocacy is not the solution, but what needs to be advocated for is for countries to link national agricultural transformation, trade policies, food and nutrition security policies to the nutritional needs of the population. • The tension between the proponents of technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) by farmers and the opponents. The proponents advanced the view that technology will help with data capturing, e.g., AI could link farmers on the ground to food producers and buyers to help them know what is selling and what is not. But the opposing view intimated the use of AI could be very bad especially if not used properly – especially when it is not clear who/what/when/how data should or could be used. Would need to have that information upfront. • The trade-offs regarding the role celebrities could play to help promote the Food System. There was a suggestion for celebrities to use their influence to promote food system transformation. However, some participants felt involving celebrities may only lead to popularization which is not necessarily transformation. • Finally, there was the question of why the private sector is not engaging as expected, and yet they have too much data that they cannot even manage. They should be more open in sharing data. However, others noted that the private sector actors are business minded; they are interested in the bottom lines, or their profits and so if engaging will not lead to this why should they? Others felt that was their responsibility to engage and serve not just their board of directors, but their clients- all humans. The participant mooted the idea of decolonialization of data and destabilization of information asymmetries if we need to truly transform our food systems.

2021-06-08 08:57:20205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23722/69

7295571264624773222421113122215108126

The Fiji National Dialogue was divided into five separate Action Track dialogues, each focusing on a specific Action Track. This report refers exclusively to Action Track 1 – Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. The Fiji National Dialogue for Action Track 1 was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the curation of the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, the National Food and Nutrition Committee and Ministry of Agriculture as Convenor. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue agenda, framed questions and topics for discussion, developed a group reporting template to focus and guide group discussions and identified themes for discussion across three strands (i) Reducing Hunger (ii) Access to Nutritious Food (iii) Safe Food. The Action Track 1 dialogue was Chaired by the Fiji Ministry of Health and Medical Services, who also led the three main presentations. The prep meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register. This ensured that everyone read and understood the Principles and committed to the SDGs before participating in the Dialogue. A group of 72 stakeholders participated in the Dialogue from diverse, multi stakeholder backgrounds consisting of government ministries, civil society, international and regional agencies (including UN agencies), academia and other key actoAs highlighted above, the Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 1 ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process, and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 72 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement served as important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all five Action Tracks, including the National Dialogue. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

NoThe Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 1 – Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all was held on 10 May, 2021 at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, the Fiji national dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform, using a participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and crowdsourcing platforms such as Slido, polls and the Zoom chat box were also used to crowdsource questions and engage participants in live polls and quizzes throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. Seventy-two participants took part in the dialogue. They represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, women’s groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Relevant resource materials (reading materials, video links etc) (iv) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format ─ Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) ─ Official opening address by the Fiji Convenor ─ Setting the Scene What is the UN World Food Systems Summit 2021? (Video on the Summit by Dr Agnes Kalibata) ─ What is a Food System? (Examination of existing Fiji and Pacific food systems, including strengths and vulnerabilities) ─ Presentations on Action Track 1 ─ Poverty and inequality – Ministry of Agriculture ─ Access to Nutritious Food - Ministry of Health and Medical services (MoHMS) ─ Safe Food – MoHMS ─ Discussion groups on themes and questions focused on questions such as (i) What are the main poverty issues in Fiji? (ii) Is inequality an issue? Who are worse off? (iii) What are the transformations needed in Fiji’s current Food System in order to address this? (iv) What opportunities are needed for increasing incomes across the food system? Social protection? (v) What barriers have prevented this? ─ Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing using Slido questions, live polls, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs ─ Communications and media ─ The outcomes of the dialogue and key messages from the Fiji Convenor were highlighted in a Press Release issued to the media which received extensive coverage by local mainstream media and on social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter). UNFSS hashtags #UNFSS @foodsystems #SDGs and #foodsystems were used in all media content to ensure that messaging had a multiplier effect. Links to media coverage are included in the Attachments section at the end of this report.

234238243246248249The Dialogue focused on a comprehensive exploration of Fiji’s food systems as follows: 1. Access to Nutritious Food, Ministry of Health & Medical Services The nutritional situation of Fiji’s population is determined by data collected from the decennial National Nutrition Survey (latest 2015) and the food availability information from the Food Balance Sheet. Dietary pattern is shifting away from the traditional diet of root crops to more of a cereal-based diet. Starchy staples of root crops provided 22% of total energy in the diet while cereal-based foods contributed 38% to the total dietary energy per day. Fiji has high dependency on food imports where 69% of calories were imported while only 31% was sourced locally in 2010. Fiji is burdened with Non-Communicable Diseases, Communicable Diseases and Micronutrient deficiencies such as anaemia. In the last 10 years, anaemia is still a problem in all age groups from children under 5 years (63%), 5-14 years (45%), 15-17years (43.5%), adult 18 years and above male (32.4%) and female (48.2%) and pregnant women (40%). 2. Poverty and Inequality, Ministry of Agriculture The poverty result of the 2019-20 Household Income and Expenditure Survey was addressed. At national level, the proportion of people living below the poverty line was 29.9%. More people in the rural areas (41.5%) compared to urban areas (20.4%) are living below the poverty line Household heads who have more members in the household are found to be poor. The average household size for poor households is 5.6 while non-poor households is 3.9. The same trend is also observed between poor and non-poor households in urban and rural areas. Poverty rates were also high with household heads that did not complete at least primary education. By employment sector, more poor households are employed with non-subsistence agriculture sector (44%) in comparison to agriculture subsistence sector (41%). People who live with a household head that is employed in the private sector have higher poverty rates than those in public sector. In observing the relationship between agriculture and poverty in Fiji, it was found that 41.4% of the rural population live below the poverty line, whereas 73.4% of the rural population lives in agricultural households. In terms of rural households, 45.5% of rural households live below the poverty line, while 86.6% of these rural households are agricultural households. This reiterates the need to develop the agricultural sector to alleviate poverty in Fiji. 3. Safe Food, Ministry of Health & Medical Services The burden of food borne diseases in the Pacific showed that unsafe food has caused many acute and chronic diseases, with more than 200 diseases spread through food. In Fiji 14 cases and 2 hospital admissions of food borne diseases were reported in 2018. Some key aspects proposed for the discussion include enabling policy and regulatory standards to protect consumers, upgrading and accreditation of current laboratories for testing foods for monitoring and compliance purposes, creating more awareness and collaboration on enforcement to relevant stakeholders, multi-sector collaboration to enable more participation for wet markets to farmers markets, more awareness and understanding of evidence-based approach for food safety, empower consumer voices and innovations in the food safety system. Food safety challenges include limited resources, limited knowledge and understanding with decision and policy makers on Food Safety, multi-sectoral strategy on ensuring food safety.235238243248249Main findings and conclusions A summary of the main outcomes of the Group Discussions is reported in the next section, however, below are additional findings across the three thematic areas: 1. Reduce Food Insecurity Fiji needs to transform its mindset by focusing on a whole of society approach and build capacities on systems thinking. There is a need to identify linkages, break silos, improve food supply chain (market, transport, infrastructure etc) and reposition and market healthy foods to make them more appealing. There is also a need to relook at government policies to support transformation. Opportunities to increase income across the food systems need to be reconstructed and rebuilt to identify the root causes of poverty. There is a need to invest more in the next generation in communities while addressing policies. 2. Increase Access to Nutritious Food Access to healthy foods is an issue in Fiji, with different reasons identified in the Dialogue, as those related to regulations, need to boost national production, infrastructure and high costs of transport from rural to urban areas etc. The high cost of production in Fiji and exorbitant bank lending fees were also identified as barriers to access nutritious foods. Initiatives bring about change require political and should be driven by an overarching authority, as the Prime Minister’s Office. Priority investment by government should focus on agriculture and fisheries since these sectors play second fiddle to tourism. With commitment and investment, implementation can take place and boost industry by the inclusion of insurance policies for farmers, for example. We need to work with financial institutions to provide access to finance for farmers to grow our agriculture sector. 3. Safe Food Pending food safety related policies need to be approved so programmes can be implemented. Some legislation and regulations need to be reviewed as well The Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health need to link together closely on food safety issues and strengthening of food testing capabilities. More technology and training on food safety is required.236238243248249Strand 1 – Reducing Hunger and Inequality Lack of access to land for people to be able to grow their crops and get fresh foods is a key aspect related to poverty in Fiji. This is especially important in urban areas around informal settlements where children and pregnant women are suffering the most in terms of triple burden malnutrition. For example, obesity, anemia, underweight. Inequality, especially with vulnerable groups, worsened after COVID-19. Lack of equal opportunities, access to services e.g phone ownership, employment and resources are all impacted. The game changing solution is to look at poverty from an intersectional lens (gender, ethnicity, education, etc) to ensure no one is left behind. Fiji needs to be more inclusive and nutrition-sensitive in its policies with social protection beneficiaries and should consider basic services for people in this space. Opportunities to increase income across the food systems need to be reconstructed and rebuilt to identify the root causes of poverty and invest more in new generations within communities while addressing policies. Strand 2 – Increase Access to Nutritious Food In Fiji, people are eating more processed foods particularly in the urban areas where the media has played a big role in marketing some of these foods. In order to change that, informal markets should be linked to formal ones, changing concepts and behavior to encourage and promote eating local healthy foods. Small and Medium Enterprises should be supported for mass production of vegetables and fruits in order to ensure availability and affordability at all levels. Some ideas for the way forward included creating a robust online system throughout the value chain in the food system; increase communication access to rural areas to increase marketing opportunities and promote more involvement in the barter system. The challenge of lack of affordability was also addressed through advocating for more planting and production at all levels and Ministry of Agriculture to lead through pilot and model farms, increase tax on imported foods, improve research capacity on productivity within ministries. It is important to increase self-sufficiency and reduce heavy reliance on rice and wheat imports as well as enhancing partnerships to sustain development projects and promote diversification in communities. Legislation should be in place for any house built to have a space for backyard gardening including informal settlements. Regulations need to be reviewed to include High Fat, Sugar & Salt reduction targets to make foods healthier; review the level of fortificants on flour and monitor its iron content. Education plays an important role; the Ministry of Education may revise its curriculum to include food and nutrition security and value chain in the food system. Strand 3 – Safe Food Legislation and regulation approval processes in government are too lengthy. Food Safety Act needs to be reviewed to align with trade agreements requirements. Accessing data and information on food safety is an issue since this is not readily available. More work is required to stop heavy metal contaminants in food and water. Government officers need to be equipped to conduct food safety checks. Technology such as development of Apps is required to track and trace and ensure consumer safety. Awareness is needed on the use of pesticides for farmers and consumers and other alternatives such as home-made solutions that could be used instead of pesticides. Better coordination on reporting of food safety issues from relevant agencies on marine ecosystem as for example fish poisoning. The group identified areas or types of food that need more attention in Fiji such as local vegetables, fruits and root crops, fish and seafood, meat and livestock and food adulteration on local and imported food products. Meat handling needs more attention where illegal slaughtering of livestock is happening in the community especially for social functions or roadside sales. Pending food safety related policies need to be approved so programmes could be implemented. Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health need to link together closely on food s237238243248249Culturally, Fijians and Pacific islanders are not comfortable with disagreeing with one another publicly or in a meeting setting. The Pacific way is through consensus and silence is used to signify agreement in a formal setting. Hence, there were not many issues of divergence emerging from group discussions, although we acknowledge that this may have differed had there been stakeholders with more divergent views present. The one area of divergence occurred during discussions on Strand 1 (Reducing Hunger and Inequality) and was related to land degradation and its negative impact on fisheries; conflicting policies such as poultry/ livestock rearing within residential properties which are contrary to the Public Health Act. Policies prioritizing yaqona and tobacco for economic benefits (which may favour wealthier producers) have negative social and health impacts that need to be considered.

2021-06-08 12:26:21205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2066/85

40520151624141318526122413

The Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary organized the national dialogue in two steps: 1. Recognising the complexity of food systems and the limited timeframe for dialogue a preliminary questionnaire has been sent out, the responses have been summarized and summary was used as the basic document of the dialogue itself. 2. The virtual event of national dialogue was held on 28th of April. The title of the national dialogue was “Dialogue on achieving sustainability in food production and food consumption (economic, environmental, social impacts)”. Our aim with the dialogue was to have an overview of the current status of our food systems from the perspective of the healthy and sustainable consumption and discuss the areas where the next steps on short and long term are needed. The national dialogue was opened by the national convenor of Hungary. Recognizing the importance of complementing the work of others introductory speeches were from different institutions, such as Ministry of Agriculture, National Food Chain Safety Office, and the Ministry of Innovation and Technologies: 1. Participation of Hungary and the V4 member states in research activities on sustainable food systems. How can we involve consumers? 2. The role of the circular economy in sustainability – presentation of the new waste management system 3. Food waste – a global problem or opportunity? Then the participants of the dialogue were divided into small groups, those discussed the topic from different point of views, about the strengths and weaknesses of the national food system, about the possible game-changer initiatives and about the short-term and long-term measures that should be taken in order to improve the sustainability of the national food system, focusing more on food production and food consumption. Finally, a summary of the small groups’ discussions and the whole national dialogue took place at the plenary session.With the national dialogue we tried to promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals. One of the main results of the dialogue was that a wide dialogue has been started between related stakeholders. We recognized that food systems are complex, and are connected to many sectors. During the dialogue we realized that food systems are addressed through several governance processes; however we do not have direct insight into the work of the other ministries and competent institutions, so we will seek to avoid unnecessary duplications. We wish to encourage innovative new approaches that deliver food systems transformation in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives. In agreement with all participants we decided to continue the dialogue, as it is very useful for all involved stakeholders, and further develop the measures which are under elaboration to achieve sustainability of our food system.-

Yes

234238239240243244246248249The title of the national dialogue was “Dialogue on achieving sustainability in food production and food consumption (economic, environmental, social impacts)”. Our aims with the dialogue were: - to have an overview of the current status and a comprehensive overview of our food systems from the perspective of the healthy and sustainable production and consumption, mainly Action Track 2 and 3.; - to straighten and to create contacts between different stakeholders; - to identify the two-three main steps to do in short and in long terms in order to develop sustainability of our food systems.235238239240243244246248249In general participants agreed on the next steps to do on short and long term for achieving more sustainable food systems as follows: 1. Encourage education about healthy diet, environmental education programmes. 2. Proper data collection and agreeing on right indicators, 3. More investment in information technology (apps) and in awareness-raising programmes for consumers. Certified marks and labels for raising the awareness of the public on environmental/ sustainability issues. 4. Preparation of complex, inter-sectoral nutrition strategy and introduction of precision nutrition are desirable. 5. Strengthening of cooperation and coordination between sectors, establishment of a more horizontal approach. Enhance common governmental communication on sustainability. 6. Promotion of organic landscape management and supporting local production, 7. Policy incentives to support more sustainable production techniques. Participants agreed that further dialogues are desired for exploring specific aspects of food systems in greater depth with the involvement of more other stakeholders.2362382392402432442462482491. Already achieved results: Progress in diminishing food waste, establishment of a new waste management system toward sustainability and to achieve circular economy, active research activities on the topic of sustainability, progress in catering sector to promote local products, many activities in education and in attitude formation. Pilot programme to promote healthy nutrition in schools. Booklet on circular economy to SMEs “Hozd magad körforgásba” http://www.hermanottointezet.hu/hozd-magad-korforgasba-utmutato-kkv-k-reszere-korforgasos-gazdasagrol Hungarian version of FAO Booklet „Legyél te is Ételmentő!” http://www.ajbh.hu/documents/10180/2917711/legyel_te_is_etelmento.pdf/df5dbe57-61b2-22c1-df6b-18a0efe100c1 Resolution of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on soil protection http://www.ajbh.hu/documents/10180/2762244/talaj_allasfoglalas_vegleges_melleklettel.pdf/7dcaccce-9932-76de-5ce9-f33ffc3fa93d Resolution of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on implementation of SDGs in Hungary http://www.ajbh.hu/documents/10180/2791084/SDG_elvi+%C3%A1ll%C3%A1sfoglal%C3%A1s_2017_12_19_kiadott.pdf/33b3f4e6-ae40-e743-8d32-2c98b8baea4c Magyar Élelmiszerkönyv - Codex Alimentarius Hungaricus https://elelmiszerlanc.kormany.hu/download/d/64/b1000/2-109_2016-12-21.pdf Educational programmes: Educational programme and documents of the NÉBIH „Wasteless” Oktatási segédanyagok also available in English for special request. Green Kindergarden programme - https://zoldovoda.hu/ Environmental eductaional programme - https://bisel.hu/ « Save a garden programme » - „Ments meg egy kertet!” National School Garden Development Programme - Országos Iskolakert-fejlesztési Program https://www.iskolakertekert.hu/index.php/hu/2362382392402432442462482492. Which are the main areas that need to be developed? - level of organic farming, - harmonized governmental communication strategy on sustainability with the participation of all involved sectors, - agro-technological development, - research activities, - credible data collection and indicators237238239240243244246248249Divergence In the last turn of group discussion we asked participants the following question: “Which are the two most important tasks in the short term and which is the one in the long term that should be solved in terms of making food systems sustainable?” Stakeholders from different sectors had different views about this question, everybody specified the steps to do in the sector where he/she worked. This was not surprising, but the task of the Facilitators was to help participants to come to an intersectoral consensus. Finally we achieved a common view and the „Main Findings” of the Dialogue reflects these achievements.

2021-06-08 13:58:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10039/203165

Yes

2021-06-08 16:00:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14821/194

118196131734804727731114836411527118411252111

We directly addressed each of the seven principles when organizing the dialogue, selecting participants, communicating the objectives of the event and convening the virtual meeting.Act with urgency: all the discussion groups were encouraged to work on immediate solutions. Recognize complexity: the 10 discussion topics reflected the complexity of Southeast Florida food system and its challenges. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: we ensured to have representation for all relevant stake holder groups. Build trust: we enabled new connections and building of trust between stakeholder groups trough the dialogue.Respect the principles related to respect and trust, which are critical since the dialogue brings together stakeholders from diverse sectors and organizations, often with competing goals and agendas. It is crucial to bring them back to the goal and rally them around the UN vision.

NoWe did use the same method as recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual, but we created more in-depth planning materials, including: Detailed weekly-based retro-planning, Participant List, Social Media Plan with different visuals and texts than those recommended in the Convenors Reference Manual.

234238239240241242243244246248249251The focus of our Dialogue was: Envisioning a Sustainable and Resilient Food System in SE Florida by 2030. Ten Discussion Groups were organized: 1) Food access: How do we ensure sustainable, affordable and nutritious food for all communities (Action tracks #1, #2 and #4) 2) Resilience after COVID-19: How to build back better food systems (Action track #5) 3) Food Security: SE Florida’s Agriculture in the Coming Decades (Action track #4) 4) Climate Resilience: How to strengthen the food system in the face of a climate emergency (Action track #5) 5) Food Waste and Recovery: What supply chain solutions can help ensure responsible use of resources, reduce and recover food waste from farmers to consumers (Action track #3) 6) Partnership: Game-changing Solutions for transforming Food Systems (Action tracks #1, #3, #4 and #5) 7) The environmental impacts of Food: How can we eat more responsibly? (Action track #2) 8) Making food systems more inclusive: The role of minorities in food systems (Action track #4) 9) Youth Power: How young people can help shift help shift food systems towards increased sustainability and climate resilience (Action tracks #1, #3, #4, and #5) 10) Community building: How to foster collaboration between food system stakeholders to focus and strengthen collective action (Action tracks #1, 2, 3, 4 and #5)235238239240241242243244246248249251The following solutions have been identified: Education – Education is critical to engage the SE FL community on improving food systems. Includes education of consumers about the environmental impact of diets and shelf-life, young people about careers in Food System and farmers about sustainability. Transparency - is needed and can be made possible e.g. through vizualizations of food system map, audits and research. Communication - we need to communicate to counter misinformation and educate. Governance – stronger leadership is needed. Includes, for example, the creation of a board to oversee food system work. Partnerships/stakeholder collaboration – includes the establishment of partnerships e.g. with churches, and collaborations between farmers. Measurement - we can only manage what we can measure. Needs to use indicators that are holistic and impact-focused (e.g. measure health outcomes). Implementation – can be fostered by bringing in community members of trust. Below are the main findings for each action track. AT1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all We need more transparency on distribution of access points: we should count them, and overlay them with health outcomes. Solutions: identify food deserts, increase the number of community gardens and on-site farms at community facilities, bring food market to the people, increase policy support of urban agriculture. AT2 : Shift to sustainable consumption patterns We need to engage and educate populations about the health and environmental impact of food and food waste: engage communities in garden developments, create partnerships with local grocers, supermarkets and farmers’ markets to provide access to healthy food and funding for gardens, promote plant-based options (e.g. Meatless Monday), implement sustainable nutrition education components in schools, expand composting efforts through a municipal-based pick-up and drop-off system for composting facilities. Local farmers need to 1) diversify their production based on local demand, and 2) create their own composting facility on site to process local food scraps. AT3 : Boost nature-positive production We need to increase support for local farmers and increase regulation: ensure remaining imports are treated and cannot introduce new pests, pass heat standards at the federal level (H.R.3668 - Asuncion Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act) and at the state level so there’s a legal mandate for agricultural employers to provide their workers with rest breaks, water access and restrooms. We need to increase farms’ energy efficiency: invest in technology and pilot projects for sustainable agriculture, convert the power grid to renewable sources, convert septic tanks to sewer systems to avoid nutrient leakage into waterways. AT4 : Advance equitable livelihoods We need to integrate youth into the agri-food system by educating them using technology (social media, apps), having young people talk to other young people to engage them, increase communication on career opportunities in food systems, create a community education component on food systems and community growing in higher education. It is critical to give control back to rural communities and involve them in decision-making, make SNAP available to ex-felons in state of Florida, give farmers contracts for funding, insist on the positive financial impact of transforming food systems to get elected officials involved in giving communities more power over land. AT5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress To increase resilience, we need to: increase use of urban gardens (households, commercial rooftops, public lands) and of household food stocks for emergencies such as hurricanes (stockpiling), develop intra-neighborhood networks to aid most at risk households, use more resilient crops, facilitate households growing their own landscaping plants so that landscaping companies can convert their land to agricultural crops. To build back better from COVID-19, we must prioritize local farmers purchase (supermarkets must have a % of their total purchases coming from local producers, government tax incentives for supermarkets doing so), implement and test the solutions such as programs related to Food Readiness and encouraging the creation of Food Incubators.236238239241243244246248249Food access: How do we ensure sustainable, affordable and nutritious food for all communities Actions urgently needed: 1) Policies: Work with municipalities to work on policies, which can have a higher level of change. Ex: Local food policies that allow for growing food at home and having more urban food agriculture more possible. 2) Urban ag: • Implement community gardens on a certain piece of land and focus on government policy to ensure that the soil is safe and not contaminated to streamlined the process of testing and analysis. • Increase the number of on-site farms at community facilities such as hospitals, schools, etc. (Grow to Heal at Baptist Health) • Increase the number of community gardens and promote the 365-day growing season in Miami • Hydroponic growing and urban growing to preserve farm land and not give that land up. 3) Access and Utilization: • Make farmer’s markets more readily accessible and not considered an event- change the mindset of the community and politicians will show that there is a need for more access. • Increase the number of programs that could be culturally sensitive, ex: Little Haiti could integrate local chefs in the community to create recipes and have fun events to show how they make recipes, give them out, and show how they can eliminate food waste when cooking. Ex: how to cut a pepper to avoid as much waste as possible, and use as much of the food as possible 4) Food waste: Increase composting efforts - It is hard to find places to compost which is a problem in itself, along with the fact that not enough food is composted, but thrown out instead 5) Partnerships: Increase partnerships are needed in general in the tourism industry- opportunity to marry caters, hotels etc. with a community- overflow of foods from events can get donated and there can be incentives for caters and hotels in a form of taxes etc. to reduce waste 6) Priorities: Pin point better the places within neighborhoods that are in most need (access what the community needs and not what we feel the community wants- it’s not about us, it’s about the community) Key stakeholders: • Organizations such as hospitals, (Ex: Baptist Health) as well as schools will change the mind-set of what a farmer’s market is. It needs to be more accessible and more common, and changes in culture can make this happen. Farmers markets are typically on weekends and during limited hours, but this should be more accessible to people. Farmer’s markets are also typically located in affluent areas, and that poses a barrier- Meet people where they are, and bring the market to these areas to eliminate barriers of access. • Refrigerators in Liberty City- allowing the community to come in and take what they wish- donator can put into the refrigerator what they wish. This is innovative and will become more larger and mainstream. Challenges are the health and safety and monitoring of what gets put into these refrigerators. Having good partnerships with donators so that the right foods are going into the refrigerator is imperative Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1) Short-term: examples of increasing access to farmer markets: • Observing the mind-set of people on how they feel about community gardens by talking to people or engaging in focus groups in various communities. This will provide important insight into whether or not these actions are being successful or not. • Counting the frequency and hours in which farmers markets are available is a reat way to quantitatively measure success. This is more immediate measure. 2) Long-term: • General health of population- less access to nutrition food = long term health problems. If over the course of many years, the health of a community improves significantly, we can assess the effect that increased focus on food access has on a group.236242246249Resilience after COVID-19: How to build back better food systems Actions urgently needed 1) Recognize the lack of preparedness for major shifts and the need for restructuring the balance between international supply and local. 2) Carefully manage food supply balance to avoid drastic changes in cost of food 3) Support local farmers and local growers by prioritizing the purchase through educational campaigns 4) Attract young people to farmers, cultivating and incentivizing youth to work in the rural environment 5) Have big supermarket chains choose part of their supply from local farmers (having a % of their total purchases coming from local producers) 6) Create government incentives through tax incentives for supermarkets prioritizing local farmers products 7) Update US food regulations (based in the 19th Century) 8) Amplify the Fresh From Florida database outreach, making it more visible and distributed. 9) Advocate for the changes needed, demanding from local official's tax incentives needed to prioritize local farmer's purchase 10) Incorporate a system thinking approach to food systems 11) Implement and test the solutions such as programs related to Food Readiness and encourage the creation of Food Incubators Key stakeholders • Supermarkets • Local farmers • Government • Public-Private partnerships (Corporations) • Young people • Schools (and the taught content related to planting, food crops, rural) • Doctors Ways in which progress could be assessed: What we have experienced during the Covid-19 Pandemic showed our inadequacy to deal with our global nutrition. The success of our actions will be measured by the level of urgency in acting before the next global challenge arrives - the Climate Crisis. The group recognized the many lessons learned from the Pandemic and the proposed solutions should be put in speed action by our governments now.236241244246248249Food Security: SE Florida’s Agriculture in the Coming Decades Actions urgently needed: 1) Short-term actions: • Increase support for/dependence on local farmers, especially by having grocery stores and restaurants get more produce from South Florida farmers. That would reduce emissions and lower the number of imports, which undercut local growers and drive down the wages of local agricultural employees. • For any imports that remain, move away from using wood pallets or increase regulation to ensure they’re treated and cannot introduce new pests. • Pass heat standards at the federal level (H.R.3668 - Asuncion Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act) and at the state level so there’s a legal mandate for agricultural employers to provide their workers with rest breaks, water access and restrooms. • Maintain the urban development boundary where it is. • Invest in technology and pilot projects for sustainable agriculture in South Florida, especially in partnership with local universities. 2) Longer-term actions: • Work on increasing farms’ energy efficiency and on converting the power grid to renewable sources so that energy used on farms does not contribute to climate change. • Convert septic tanks to sewer systems to avoid nutrient leakage into waterways. Key stakeholders: Most participants would be willing to advocate for most of the issues above if there were clear channels through which they could do so. Some organizations already lobby on the issues of heat protection and the urban development boundary. Priority issues that would benefit from a more organized advocacy effort include buying local produce (especially getting supermarkets and restaurants to buy local) and converting the energy grid. These issues align with many of the advocacy efforts of local climate groups, so perhaps there’s a way to jointly mobilize with them. Many of these organizations would be willing to partner with one another or with universities on pilot projects for sustainable agriculture, if the opportunities and funding were made available to them. Ways in which progress could be assessed: How would success look like? Examples: If the Urban Development Boundary stays where it is. If Congress and Florida’s Legislature each pass laws mandating heat risk protections for ag workers. If there’s increased regulation/reduced use of untreated wooden pallets leading to a decline in the emergence of new pests and diseases. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the economy’s reliance on local farmers are harder to quantify.236242243244246249Climate Resilience: How to strengthen the food system in the face of a climate emergency? Actions urgently needed: 1) Better understand what is happening in the area by creating workgroups and gaining insights into the “lay of the land”: understand the threats, what is already being impacted and how. 2) Implement a plan so that efforts are not duplicated. Other efforts/actions include: 1) Increase use of urban gardens (households, commercial rooftops, public lands) 2) Increase use of household food stocks for emergencies such as hurricanes (stockpiling) 3) Create intra-neighborhood networks to aid most at risk households especially the elderly and shut-ins 4) Make food systems flexible and adaptable as climate threats change 5) Build desalinization plants 6) Increase use of more resilient crops, phase out less resilient crops, for better use of agricultural land 7) Facilitate households growing their own landscaping plants so that landscaping companies can convert their land to agricultural crops 8) Create a public community garden at every public school 9) Counter the effect of the increase in poor diet health problems among people 10) Transition to a more sustainable, less wasteful food system - government/agencies working with industries/corporations 11) Provide equity in food security across race, ethnicity and income Key stakeholders: Actions will require the participation of food organizations, local elected officials, government, farmers, distributors and businesses. Ways in which progress could be assessed: • Determine the impact felt in marginalized communities, which are/will be the most affected; determine number of food insecure people • Monitor food costs, as they will go up if actions are not successful • Access to fresh food will be more difficult if action is not successful • Monitor malnutrition, as it could be a problem. How to ensure nutrients make it to the communities? • House insecurity, homelessness, food insecurity…all interconnected – monitor these to determine success. • If not successful there will be an increase in poor diet health problems among people • There must be equity in food security across race, ethnicity and income • There will be a rise/fall in proportion of fresh produce within diets • Determine the agricultural productivity per acre on vital commodities/produce • Ability to adapt to sudden or unexpected crises • Measurement of unsold food recovered or rescued and diverted to food banks, pantries, homeless shelters, etc.236240Food Waste and Recovery: What supply chain solutions can help ensure responsible use of resources, reduce and recover food waste from farmers to consumers? Actions urgently needed: 1) Expand composting efforts 2) Start with an education campaign at a state level and simultaneously develop a municipal based pick up and drop off system for composting facilities 3) Have municipalities to first provide services to primary education centers, then restaurants, and then households 4) Have municipal governments also incentivize local farmers to create their own composting facility on site to process local food scraps 5) Have local farmers diversify their production based on local demand. 6) Food access needs to be improved to avoid surplus food going to waste by: • Providing research grants to identify food deserts in South Florida • Advocating for zoning policy to allow mixed use • Incentivizing the creation of small local fresh produce only stores within walking distance of food deserts • Subsidizing the purchase of storage equipment for those stores • Accepting food stamps at those stores • Eliminating strict quality standards based on the weight, size and appearance of the fresh produce (fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and dairy) sold • Ensuring the transportation/delivery of locally produced items to above mentioned stores. Key stakeholders: • Local government can carry out public awareness campaigns at the consumer level to encourage a movement away from impulsive to rational consumption patterns. Working with employers to provide free days for workers to attend health/wellness classes (provided by organizations such as; the UF IFAS extension program or local nutritionist) on a healthy diet, purchase planning, making a grocery list (based on daily needs), creating an inventory of supplies, and buying less. • NGO’s can continue their efforts to divert food from landfills by delivering it to food banks and sending scrap for animal feed or to Industrial Use sites (to recover energy). NGO’s can also press for legislation that encourages markets to sell ‘sub-standard’ products that are still safe and of good taste and nutritional value. • Municipal governments can help by developing linkages between farmers and local restaurants, food banks and supermarkets so they better understand local demand and diversify their production accordingly. • Restaurants, the amount of available food per person in restaurants has increased. In addition to providing restaurants with free food waste audits, NGO’s can continue to help them divert their food from the landfill while municipalities set up the composting system. We suggest research be conducted to find ways to address the bi-product waste/packaging created by restaurants providing takeout options for clients. Ways in which progress could be assessed: • Post-secondary education institutions and NGOs can continue to carry out research designed to identify food waste along the value chain of locally produced food. • Universities and NGOs can provide free waste audits at the retail and restaurant level and see how things have improved.236238240241242243246248249Partnership: Game-changing Solutions for transforming Food Systems Actions urgently needed: 1) Increase coordination efforts – necessary to partner and scale up the action 2) Increase clarity and transparency by formalizing partnerships - a way to help simplify some of the challenges that take place when building collective impact efforts. 3) Avoid duplication of work: let others know what each organization is good at, and let other actors do their part 4) Create policies - needed to have an official way of coordinating actions with clarity 5) Staffing/Capacity of partners is an issue: increase collaboration to make up for the capacity issues, to leverage staff time, expertise, diversify programming, etc. Increase multi sector partnerships and collective impact collaborations 6) Create a universal database for food system non-profit database to share data 7) Have more “shared used kitchens”, increase number of food hubs Key stakeholders: • Foodsavers.Org • Feeding South Florida • Humana educational seminars on healthy eating on a budget • Publix is socially responsible and can educate and help out through their grants. • The organization should be responsible for advocating towards education… collaboration with businesses to support these businesses • Dietetic association (Miami and Florida) those members would offer their time: anything about education.236239244248The environmental impacts of Food: How can we eat more responsibly? Actions urgently needed: Developing and providing access to affordable healthier food options that are also sustainably grown: 1) using Patch concept - community gardens in urban areas of low social-economic status; 2) engaging community in garden developments; 3) providing subsidies for fresh local seasonal produce; 4) partnering up with local grocers, supermarkets and farmer’s market to provide access to foods, funding for gardens, employment and volunteer opportunities; 5) promoting Meatless Monday campaigns along with other plant-based options for healthier humans and the Planet; 6) urging school districts to implement sustainable nutrition education components, engaging community on ongoing events and educational sessions on sustainable nutrition.236241245249Making food systems more inclusive: The role of minorities in food systems Actions urgently needed: 1) Increase funding • State level funding could give opportunities to community gardens for access to food. • Give opportunity to growing food locally and distributing, rather than outsourcing foods (ex from California to Miami). Food that travels leads to food waste • Fund local farmers to avoid this issue • Funds (16 bil) weren’t given to rural farmers, only to a select few. Funds weren’t used to increase wages for farmers. 2) Give control back to communities. Rural communities should have access to land for community farming focus on people of color Co-op farming to support real resilience. Actionable Step #1: Make SNAP available to ex-felons in state of Florida. Introduce new legislations. Step #2: Farm to food model, create entrepreneurship opportunities to teach children to grow and give access to food in local communities. Step #3: Initiatives started to have farming Co-ops. Address supply chain model issues and give control back to rural communities. Farms are in rural communities but they have least access to it. Step #4: Give farmers contracts for funding, example farmers in Davie, getting them contracts with the USDA Step #5: What every day consumers can do: Go to city council meetings, make elected officials more involved, grow our own food. Unless city governments can see financial impact, they won’t be as open to being involved to give communities more power over land. Ex. Instead of X would make people healthier, X would lower how much money is spent on X people negatively impacted by X. Step #6: Educate people and give them resources to tools needed. 40% of college students are food insecure, so that students have access to SNAP. Step #7: Consumers can buy local. On an individual level, you can educate people about it. Step #8: Involve people in rural communities and farmers in solutions to food insecurity, don’t exclude them from the conversations.236238240241242248251Youth Power: How young people can help shift help shift food systems towards increased sustainability and climate resilience Actions urgently needed: 1) Increase Youth knowledge on gardening 2) Use technology (social media, apps) to integrate youth into the agri-food system 3) Have young people talking to young people helps engage younger generations 4) Have organizations led by young people to partner with school districts to engage high school students 5) Create a community education component on food systems and community growing in higher education 6) Work on aquaponics system with youth 7) Use waste from tilapia growing system to grow lettuce 8) Education initiative to get young volunteers involved—incorporate lifestyle (example fishing) into food system education 9) Increase communication on opportunities in food system: market, job opportunities, financial perspectives236238239240241242243244245246248249251Community building: How to foster collaboration between food system stakeholders to focus and strengthen collective action? Actions urgently needed: 1) Build the next generation of farmers – critical actors- by educating students and providing them with real-world experiences in farming, community building, and advocating for food rights and sustainability. Integrate food sustainability and security as a component of the political agenda for local elected officials so that they are accountable and connected with the interests of this topic alongside organizations driving for change. The creation of a formal Committee with stakeholders across the ecosystem will yield the greatest returns -- Faith-based organizations, educators, youth, non-profit orgs, relevant special interest groups, and elected officials. Most pressing is ensuring that the actual groups affected most by this challenge have a voice and are a part of this Committee. They should be valued and present at the table for solutions. 2) Give more visibility to mental health and well-being as components of the need for food security, nutrition, and access. The ecosystem of advocacy on this topic should also include mental health professional’s voices. 3) K-12 engagement is critical to building a pipeline for food system advocacy, including future farmers. 4) Integrate the systems approach with the end-user being the community member. Critical to engage them to learn about their pain points in order to create solutions (don’t assume). 5) Encourage, fund, and educate traditional farmers on new technologies to yield higher nutritional crops by using hydroponic and aquaponic.2372382392402412422442462482491) Food security: The extent to which farmers and agricultural producers are responsible for the degradation of Florida’s Everglades and the emergence of “toxic” blue-green algae blooms following discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee. Participants agree that nutrients found in fertilizer and septic tanks contribute to the blue-green algae; however, there was debate over whether these nutrients come from agricultural producers or if they’re mainly the result of leaking septic and sewer tanks. This discussion gets at a broader debate over what amount of Florida’s resources - especially water and land - ought to be used to support human populations. How much land should be urbanized vs. used for agriculture vs. restored or conserved in its “natural” state? What amount of nutrients, if any, is permissible in water? Who should be held responsible for the excess, and should they be made to compensate in some way? 2) Food waste: Packaging: This was an area of contention because packaging makes food last longer but also adds to waste in landfills so, participants suggested consumer groups/NGOs study which packages expand the life span of a product (and can be re-used) and which can be phased out. Participants also suggested considering a tax on food packaging that reflects the product’s true cost based on its environmental footprint. A ‘packaging tax’ (that can partly subsidize municipal waste disposal services) might also encourage consumers to switch away from processed foods to a healthier fresh diet. A scientist in the group suggested continuing to promote innovation/research on products designed to increase life span of produce without packaging. 3) Climate change: There is still denial in the general population about climate change. We must create awareness, education and a call to action. It will not be sufficient to get people facts, and it will be more important to teach people to discern what is important. Critical thinking is a must: what is relevant and what is not. Education involves connecting the dots and showing the consequences of taking action, or lack thereof will show how everyone is affected, some to a greater degree than others. Politicians/elected officials must hear from citizens – it is not enough to just vote. Regulation has very limited reach as business is profit-driven. Outside pressure (e.g., from civil society) is needed. We need to sensitize politicians and CEOs. Advocacy is important beyond vote.

2021-06-08 16:02:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23881/203

146020773811076700857112033210011340113121921102019902011106015019

CropLife International ensured that the Principles were reflected in every aspect of the Independent Food Systems Dialogue that it hosted. CropLife International aims to support the Food Systems Summit by creating opportunities for dialogue and reflection on the role of innovation in agriculture to deliver sustainable food systems. It is for this reason that the Dialogue was centered around opportunities for unleashing innovation in local food systems. It was expected that the Dialogue would help to identify some common global priorities for food systems innovation while also encouraging various regional nuances to come to the surface. With this in mind, the Dialogue’s breakout sessions were organized around six major regions: North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, North Asia and South Asia. This dynamic recognizes the complexity both within and between different systems while also allowing for the possibility of a common path forward – based on shared goals, beliefs and experiences. In terms of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, CropLife International partnered with five organizations (representing diverse stakeholder groups and regions) to enhance the convening power of the Dialogue. These included the Agriculture and Food Systems Institute, Cornell Alliance for Science, Global Farmer Network, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA), and Thought for Food. Each of the partners acted as a facilitator for the regional breakout sessions. Having a strong farmer voice in the Dialogue was also very important for the discussion. Lastly, the Dialogue was held under the Chatham House rule in order to encourage lively and candid discussions amongst the participants and to build trust.In line with the Summit itself, CropLife International sees innovation as a key “lever of change” in sustainable food systems. By convening a broad set of stakeholders as partners and participants in the Dialogue, our hope was to understand more fully the role that innovation can play in delivering future food systems that continue to meet society’s expectations while sustaining the livelihoods of agri-food chain actors and respecting planetary boundaries. The Dialogue was structured into two separate sessions to accommodate the various time zones of various participants around the world. Two farmers were selected to act as the curator with the goal of putting farmers at the center of the discussion.We found it valuable to set a sufficiently broad theme for the discussion so that many stakeholders could contribute meaningfully. We wanted to convene and hear from a broad group of key stakeholders representing as much as possible a cross-section of the agri-food value chain -- from farmers, researchers and private sector representatives to nutritionists, youth and NGOs, with a diverse geographical representation.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The theme of the CropLife International Independent Food Systems Dialogue was “Unleashing Innovation to Transform Local Food Systems”. It was organized around six major agricultural regions, which allowed us to identify the challenges, opportunities, synergies and areas of divergence that exist across these regions – in other words to identify both the common global needs as well as region-specific foci. Each of the regional breakouts discussed all of the Action Tracks, with some key insights summarized below. Participants were invited to participate based on their regional and professional focus. Facilitators first invited participants to introduce themselves, then to present the specific challenges and solutions they see from their individual perspective, and finally to discuss broader regional priorities, successes and lessons learnt. Innovation was defined in a broad way to not only include new technologies but also new approaches, including through novel forms of collaboration and by harnessing new digital tools.235238239240241242243244248250251Some key areas of consensus from the Dialogues included: - Food systems are not a zero sum game: Innovation can create win-win opportunities for people and planet. - There is an urgent need for more innovation to help future food systems meet the ever more complex set of expectations that society places on them – from food security and nutrition to livelihoods, ecosystem services and climate mitigation. - Farmers are the foundation of our food systems and have demonstrated time and again that they can rise to the challenge if they are equipped and supported to do so. - Innovation can take many forms – from researching new technologies, to scaling up of existing approaches and applying new ways of working, partnerships and practices. - Facilitating a better connection between farmers and consumers is essential in order to better understand innovative approaches in the food system. - Young people need to be supported to go into careers in agriculture and get engaged with new technologies and approaches, especially given rural youth unemployment and the ageing population of farmers across many regions. - Scaling existing innovation is as important and will require better communication with farmers and other agri-food chain actors to accomplish, for instance conservation agriculture to improve soil fertility and capture carbon. “Success is contagious so when farmers see the results on the ground, they will adopt it also.”236238239240241242243244248250North America: - Farming has made great improvements over the past decades – “We have a success story to tell.” - Innovation needs to reach the whole agri-food chain. - The gap between innovation and regulation needs to be bridged. - Consumers need to be brought back into the conversation so that they feel connected to where their food comes from. - Focusing on agricultural transformations will help trigger further innovations all along the food chain.236238239240241242243246248249Latin America: - Farmers must be supported and capacitated to adopt new technologies. - Innovation should also focus on ways of collaborating more effectively and widely. - New digital platforms can help connect farmers to markets and to other agri-food chain actors more easily. - Proper legislation and regulation are important to create an enabling environment for innovation. “If that’s right, the investment will follow.”236238239240241242243248249Europe: - Information on food systems is often currently sensationalized, and farmers struggle to keep up. “I’m a farmer, I can’t spend 10 hours on communicating every day.” - Consumer perceptions need to be addressed head-on with more science-based communication. - Educating consumers from a young age about food systems (including farming practices, diets and nutrition) can help them be more informed into adulthood. - Retailers’ marketing efforts to consumers is highly competitive, and different issues can be portrayed as “the enemy” as a way of creating differentiation.236238239240241242243244248251Africa and the Middle East: - The yield gap in Africa remains high, which continues to put pressure on food security on the continent. - There is a need for stronger farmer voices from the field. They need to be better organized to do so. - Training and extension materials are often unavailable in all languages nor “translated” to make complex concepts like climate change understandable. Farmers learn best from other farmers. - Farmers need to be supported as business people and their work treated as such. Uptake of innovation cannot happen if farmers cannot make a profit from doing so. - Researchers need to work more closely with farmers, not in isolation, in order to align their work with farmer needs.236238239240241242243248249250North Asia: - “Communication is just as important as innovation.” Consumers need to better understand the benefits, trade-offs and synergies of different innovations. - Behavioral changes are needed both for consumers and producers. - Producers need to engage more with policymakers and the general public. - Digital agriculture is helping educate young farmers and help them to problem solve issues in real time. - Artificial intelligence is guiding new systems for farming, observing many factors simultaneously like climate controls, water etc. all remotely. - E-commerce is redefining agri-food value chains (accelerated by Covid-19) and is helping more farmers to cut out the middle man.236238239240241242243244248South Asia: - Innovation needs to be focused around farmers’ needs. “There is still a huge gap between the lab and the land.” - There is still a lack of post-harvest processing and storage, lack of access to advanced agricultural science, lack of access to equipment and infrastructure, and poor access to market for many farmers. - Trade barriers need to be further broken down and regulatory environments harmonized. - The private sector needs to be mobilized to rise to the challenge of delivering on the transformations required. - Covid-19 accelerated the use of digital platforms for farmer extension and diagnostics.237238239240241242243244248249250For the most part, participants aligned around the priorities that exist around innovation; however, they flagged a number of nuances based on the context within which these innovations need to take place. For instance: - Several regional breakouts flagged the disconnect that exists between consumers’ stated preferences and their actual behavior. (Most consumers still purchase based on affordability, access and habit more than any other factor.) - Different breakouts discussed where the locus of decision-making actually existed within the agri-food chain, but many flagged both consumers and farmers are the most important stakeholders. - Several breakouts discussed the need for regulation to keep up with innovation, especially around topics like plant biotechnology. - Innovations must also reflect both the socioeconomic and agroecological contexts of the food system to which they are being applied. “As a farmer, what I need is a motorcycle but you give me an airplane.” - More developed markets tended to talk more about sustainability issues (such as water use, soil fertility and carbon mitigation) whereas less developed markets prioritized the need to boost yields (consistently), support farmer livelihoods and improve consumers’ access to affordable, diverse, safe food.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-Europe.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-Latin-America.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-North-America.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-North-Asia.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-South-Asia.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-Africa-Middle-East.jpghttps://croplife.org/news-views/united-nations-food-systems-summit-2021/

2021-06-08 16:46:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13822/203

99961182852921176

The Dialogue was organized as a series of multistakeholder thematic discussions, with the specific objective to promote exchange on promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems in Africa. In order to capitalize on existing initiatives, the dialogue looked at existing efforts and opportunities for acceleration and synergies among different stakeholders.The Dialogue acted in recognition of the complexities of African food systems and the urgency of action to transform them. The dialogue stimulated multistakeholder exchange by bringing to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within government, the business community, civil society, and research.

NoWhile the dialogue engaged a variety of stakeholders across food systems, the format slightly differed from the standard one envisioned in the Convenors Reference Manual. The dialogue featured several focused panel discussions over two days, with a closing plenary at the end of each day highlighting key ideas and commitments that emerged. The dialogue featured 79 panelists and moderators, 2228 registered participants and 11,222 livestream viewers.

234238240241242243244245246248249251The event aimed to identify ways to expand activities, financing, and partnerships to further leverage technology and innovation for the transformation of agriculture food systems in Africa to improve food security and nutrition, help recover from the current crisis and build long-term resilience to climate change and other shocks in the continent. It placed particular emphasis on ways to increase agricultural production, proposing ways to facilitate investments in research, sustainable technologies, and infrastructure, leveraging the private sector to accelerate progress. The Dialogue provided African Leaders a unique opportunity to contribute to the global discourse and to share success stories on home-grown strategies and achievements in scaling up successful innovations. The outcomes of this dialogue laid the foundation for Africa to present a unified voice to step up efforts and partnerships towards reaching the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and they will be presented as Africa’s shared commitments within the UN Food Systems Summit.235238240241242245246248249The key conclusions of the dialogue highlighted the need to strengthen collaboration, establish new partnerships and agree on shared commitments to help modernize and strengthen African food systems. The dialogue culminated with the announcement of a coalition of multilateral development banks and development partners to pledge over US$17 billion in the financing, in a bold bid to address rising hunger on the African continent and to improve food security. In addition, 17 African Leaders committed to concrete actions to boost agricultural production by doubling current productivity levels through the scaling up of agricultural technologies, investing in the development of agro-industrial processing zones to boost national and regional food markets for value-added and nutritious foods, expanding economic opportunities for rural economies through the transformation of agriculture, expanding support to smallholder farmers, especially women and youth, and increasing support for agricultural research and development. They highlighted the following seven areas as those requiring the highest attention: 1. Accelerate agricultural production by doubling current agricultural productivity levels; 2. Increase financing for global, national, regional research and development systems; 3. Enhance support for climate-proofing agriculture in Africa to boost the ability of farmers to adapt to climate change, especially through drought-tolerant crops and livestock, digital weather information and climate advisories, irrigation, better water management, and crop and livestock insurance products; 4. Support infrastructure for the development of special agro-industrial processing zones, to support private sector processing and value addition, logistics, and transport for market development and competitiveness; 5. Expand access to finance for farmers and food systems’ actors, through reducing risks of lending to agricultural value chains, and attract greater private sector financing into agriculture; 6. Build a stronger partnership between the public, private sectors, farmers’ associations, civil society, research, and universities, to ensure that inclusive approaches are used across the agricultural value chains; 7. Accelerate greater access of African countries to more concessional financing resources to support the development of the agricultural sector. The attached Communiqué summarizes the discussions and commitments made during the dialogue.2362382402412422462482491. Successful Policy Interventions for Scaling Technologies The discussion focused on the need for political will to scale up the role of technologies in agriculture, as well as governments’ capacity to take up technologies. The following emerged as game-changing interventions from a policy standpoint: - Stronger mechanisms for political accountability for hunger and food insecurity - Digitalization and the provision of bundles of digital services to farmers (e.g. digital micro-forecasting data and digital curriculums) - Policies that promote the emergence of a local private sector, which in turn will produce employment opportunities and innovation - Policies and national investments in line with the commitments of the Malabo declaration, in order to make technology affordable and available - Institutional innovation and regional alignment as an important basis for a strong science-policy interface (capitalizing on the strong interconnectedness of African Food Systems) - Encourage a shift of development partners from subsidies to markets expansion - Support school feeding programs at scale, as well as investments that are cognizant of climate change and the pandemic recovery needs The Head of States session and the communique mentioned a financing facility for food and nutrition security to support this. The AfDB and IFAD will work to set up the aforementioned facility.2362402422432442452462482492. Innovative Partnership and Financing Approaches for Agricultural R&D Around a third of calories consumed in Africa are imported from outside the continent. Low productivity of major staple crops is at the core of Africa’s food security challenge and the non-competitiveness of its agriculture. The discussion around this topic focused on the need to foster the relationship between national agricultural institutions and regional agricultural institutions, and it looked at some existing solutions with potential for scaling up: - Establish a (sovereign) Regional Research for Development fund to invest in shared agricultural research priorities and address the questions and challenges that would arise as technologies are scaled up and rolled out across Africa. The AfDB and IFAD will work to set up the aforementioned facility. - Capitalize on the Technologies for Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) program: TAAT brings together scientists from international and national agricultural research systems, governments, and the private sector to deliver agricultural technologies to farmers, at scale. Its implementation reveals that increased investments in Agricultural Research & Development and adoption of technology can help in boosting agricultural productivity, with important results for the overall strength of the food system. However, funding for regional and sub-regional research and development institutions has declined, limiting opportunities for investments in innovation and research and development. - Develop a new partnership capitalizing on the complementary roles that both the AfDB and IFAD have in enabling agricultural transformation in Africa, to revamp existing Africa’s Regional Technology Delivery Infrastructure (RTDI), and ecosystems for regional and sub-regional research and development, with the potential to push technologies beyond borders and support strong regional agricultural value chains.2362402412422432452482492513. Unlocking Private Sector Investment to Transform Agriculture Several voices contributed to this discussion throughout the two-day dialogue. It was noted that finance is needed at three key stages of the innovation process: 1. Incubation, 2. Start-up, 3. Acceleration. Among the game-changing solutions proposed were: - Digital credit ratings and credit scoring tools for farmers - Revisiting agriculture curriculums to teach agriculture as a business, encouraging students to become agro-entrepreneurs. - Implement policies that enable modernization of agriculture and promote the emergence of a local private sector - A call for the establishment of a Financing Facility for Food Security in Africa, to scale up climate-resilient and successful agricultural technologies and strengthen commodity value chains for both staple food and cash crops.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Communique_30.04.2021-FINAL.pdfhttps://www.afdb.org/en/events/high-level-virtual-dialogue-feeding-africa-leadership-scale-successful-innovationshttps://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/-/african-development-bank-ifad-and-partners-redouble-efforts-to-stop-hunger-in-africa-and-strengthen-food-security

2021-06-08 19:20:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21790/139

44341033101302210184221026

The dialogue was organized with a multi-stakeholder inclusive approach. Active and committed community participants and representative of local and national bodies were invited. Participants who were fully vested in their communities development and welfare were carefully selected, so experential learning could be transferred back to the local communities, as well as to the organizers completing the UNFSS feedback loop.The dialogue was conducted in an open and respectful, as well as reflective environment, by enabling all the participants to interact with each other, as well as with the moderators and resource people. The Q&A sessions, as well as the FGD allowed for participants to freely express their input, ideas and feedback. Within the FGD section of the dialogue, the groups interacted well together and worked together to validate or express new ideas via a group presentation on the different Action Tracks.The Principles of Engagement provide an informative framework on how to conduct a multi-stakeholder dialog about the complex issues prevalent within a complex food system, while allowing for individual connections to be fostered. We observed that by allowing for Focus Group Discussions to be led by the individuals within the group, increased their interaction, while allowing for all participants to feel like they have contributed. Group presentations by a nominated presenter from within the groups allows them to see their valuable input shared in real time, as well as reflected in the discussions within the dialog. It is suggested to Dialogue Convenors to effectively utilize the FGD component by using the 'Breakout rooms' function within Zoom when conducting the dialogue virtually.

Yes

234240242243244248249251Breakout Group 1 explored the Action Tracks 3 and 5 for workable solutions and levers of change. Main findings included: Recommendation 1 (3.1) Agro Forestry/Community Forestation Subsidies for Marginalized Areas Infrastructure Investment on Mountainous Areas. Recommendation 2 (3.2) Promotion of Indigenous Crops and Livestock Promotion and Incentivize of Organic Production Land Usage plan through community. Recommendation 3 (3.3) Continuous Research and Alternate Income for the pastureland community. Longitudinal study of pastural areas. Recommendation 1 (5.1) Promotion of Food Banking on community level. Recommendation 2 (5.2) Support to the upstream community.235238239248249Breakout Group 2 explored the Action Tracks 1and 2 for workable solutions and levers of change. Main findings included: Food availability, most important is where the food is produced. Farmers should be organized and equipped with innovative techniques./There should be information on market access – good prices and where can they sell/ Farmers’ capacity building/ Resources of the farmers _MFIs, govt investments/Food safety – cold chain, packaging based on the needs ,of the consumers Food security/sovereignty – farmers are the most vulnerable, Farmers are going to the cities/ other people should be considered – policy level approach- there should institutions to provide technical input/ seeds are provided at high prices and you cannot use the harvested seed to plant/Farmers shuuld have control over their supply of seeds, water and other inputs Technology dissemination is very important – governments should also be responsible. Promotion of private investment236241246248249Breakout Group 3 explored the Action Track 4 for workable solutions and levers of change. Recommendations included: 1. Reducing the power unbalancing through affordable financing be available across the board for small farmers to be more independent in terms of purchasing of the inputs, negotiating for selling the crops etc. State bank should create low cost refinancing for small farmers Pakistan Credit Guarantee Company should incentivize such schemes for the commercial banks 2. Contract farming need to be introduced especially in newly merged districts of KP and Baluchistan that will lead to following 3 areas Access to market Access to affordable finance Access to advisory services Further we need to draft and regulate the legal framework for newly merged districts of KP and Baluchistan 3.Inclusive approach for organizing the local institutions (farmer groups, cooperatives etc.) at grass roots level and campaigning must be initiated for increasing the level of awareness and sensitization of those institutions especially using digitization for accessing the all services across the board by ensuring “Leave No One Behind” Digitization of the local institutions and utilization of the digital tools for increasing the awareness and access to the services

2021-06-08 23:37:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8886/203

132660452185476222116201167326842410420129715694246

The convenors attended the dialogue training therefore the learnings around the Summit principles and expected structure were considered from the inception of the dialogue. The dialogue was truly globally representative and whilst the aim of the dialogue was to represent the total global meat & livestock sector in all its diversity, the conveners also encouraged the involvement of various participants from outside the industry (also located globally), bringing diverse perspective to the dialogue. These differences were looked at favourably as in the spirit of the Summit, the dialogue was seen as an opportunity to work through some of these differing perspectives. Following best practice set forward by the UN and the UNFSS leadership team, five keynote presentations were proceeded by smaller, intimate group discussions, where effort was made to ensure a diverse participant list underpinned each session. The dialogue was promoted through the UNFSS dialogue gateway and across traditional and social media using the templates made available by the UNFSS and other developed materials.The following considerations were made to ensure the UNFSS Principles of Engagement were reflected throughout the dialogue: Act with urgency: The focus of the dialogue was to generate outcomes and pathways to creating urgent change to reach the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To this end, two Game Changing Solutions were identified to be put forward to the UNFSS and several current initiatives were brought to light for the wider group to build upon. Commit to the Summit: By way of participation, attendees put aside commercial interests to share information with one another in response to achieving a common goal. Be respectful: The group discussion demonstrated respect for all in attendance by allowing each participant to voice their opinions in a genuine and transparent way. Recognise complexity: Whilst two Game Changing Solutions were identified via this dialogue, the aim was clearly to identify the role of the global meat & livestock sector by providing many individual and diverse examples and noting that these needed to be considered holistically with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The conveners opened invitations to the dialogue to as many voices as possible, with the aim of capturing all perspectives. All participants were invited into the various breakout rooms to allow opportunity for participants to voice their opinions. Complement the work of others: The dialogue provided a platform for participants to share existing work and to connect with others to broaden relationships across the globe and support one another to build upon these initiatives. Build trust: The breakout sessions were held under the Chatham House Rules, which helped to build openness and trust, and enabled participants to reflect on their own lived experience.Short, concise presentations at the beginning of the call helped to set the scene and provide direction for conversation and desired outcomes. Emphasis was placed on the dialogue being solutions focused which meant conversation was forward-looking and productive. Facilitated breakout discussion following the presentations ensured productive conversation and it is ideal to have note-takers during this session to help summarise and capture the discussion in its entirety and to draw out key themes. Our dialogue built in a short break between the facilitated group discussion and a final report of these sessions back to the total group which allowed for facilitators and note-takers an opportunity to come together and summarise their groups findings. The others in the groups spent the break time networking and building connections.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue focused on bringing together participants from all aspects of the global meat & livestock supply chain to discuss the role of the global meat & livestock sector in future sustainable food systems. Participants ranged from smallholder farmers to processors to butchers/chefs to those who sell the final products, to scientists, nutritionists, retailers and government policy makers. This ensured the opportunity was created for a diverse range of views to be presented to reach a shared understanding of the discussion topic. The dialogue was centred around all the UNFSS Action Tracks and the following topics were covered by both a presentation and group discussion: 1. Food security: What is the role of animal sourced protein in feeding the growing world’s population? 2. What is the role of meat in the diet and what are the implications of going without? 3. How can we sustainably manage existing food production systems to the benefit of both nature and people? 4. What is the role of the global meat & livestock sector in future-proofing our food systems and protecting against shocks and stresses? 5. How do we maintain a balanced debate and inclusive narrative? The meat & livestock sector is united in its ambition to bring high quality, nutritious and sustainable food to everyone and is continuously driving towards a carbon positive farming industry with high animal welfare and environmental standards at its heart. It was noted that this dialogue brought together a large representation of the global meat & livestock sector and that conversations of this nature, in an open forum, need to continue. The industry commits to continuing with this activity and thanks the UNFSS for providing such an important platform to do so.235238239240241242243244248249250Two Game Changing Solutions were identified: Game Changing Solution 1 - Facilitate a global capacity which enables knowledge transfer & empowers smallholder farmers in low & middle-income countries (LMICs) to obtain successful solutions & proven, context appropriate technologies. Providing LMICs, such as those in Africa, with the means to improve efficiencies, genetics and environmental impact, would empower these farmers to finally be considered part of the global food system. For example, 20% of the world’s cattle are raised in Sub-Saharan Africa however the region only contributes 2-3% of the world’s beef production and the lowest milk production per cow (1). Cattle are raised by smallholder farmers who historically have been unable to commercialise. The benefits of empowering farmers would enhance the ability to feed a greater percentage of the local population without increasing the herd size, resulting in a lower carbon footprint; and lower local incidence of metabolic illness and alleviation of poverty in an area that will hold 23% of the world’s population by 2050. Game Changing Solution 2 - To holistically achieve sustainable food systems, a comprehensive & unbiased nutritional / environmental index built from high quality science is urgently required. Smart metrics are needed to establish planetary health and human health simultaneously. Such an index should be valid for both individual foods and complete diets and applicable to diverse regional and economic situations. Currently, foods and food systems are often measured on gross rather than net environmental impact and without any consideration of contribution to human health in terms of protein and essential nutrients required for development and optimal wellbeing. If we are truly to understand what sustainable, healthy diets look like we need these metrics to simultaneously track net environmental impact and nutrient density and diversity. Foods need to be evaluated through appropriate local and regional Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) combined with comprehensive dietary contributions. In addition, the following was strongly identified: • Balanced healthy diets require a combination of animal and plant-based foods, adapted to regional cultures, local food availability, distribution systems and climatic constraints. • Animal sourced proteins are a high-quality protein source that provide the full array of essential amino acids and other important nutrients, such as bioavailable iron, vitamin B12 and zinc. • There is no consistent evidence that any one food, including meat, leads to an increased risk of death. The evidence linking red meat with cancer are based on studies that show associations between food and health, not causation. There are many diet and lifestyle factors that contribute to risk factors for chronic diseases, including obesity, sedentary lifestyles and lack of dietary fibre. The methodology of those studies are limited in their ability to accurately measure individual food types. In addition, they are limited in their ability to distinguish between any effect of red meat separately from that of other risk factors. The small size of the association reported suggests residual confounding from unhealthy diet and lifestyle risk factors is the most likely explanation. From a perception perspective, insights suggest health is personal and different for everyone. While consumers tend to filter information and gravitate to solutions that fit their personal mindsets and behaviours, most have a balanced approach to healthy eating and continue to enjoy eating a variety of protein choices. • For livestock, the narrative is focused on gross emissions and claimed negative impact. However, this narrative is flawed in not recognising that, unlike fossil fuel emissions that accumulate, methane from ruminants is naturally cycled resulting in far lower net emissions over time, with well managed systems reducing atmospheric GHG through soil and tree carbon sequestration. • Managed correctly livestock can have a positive impact on global warming by transferring atmospheric carbon to soils through plant photosynthesis. • Livestock enable economic development of marginal land that is unsuitable for alternate food production systems. - Ruminant animals convert grass and other plants with low nutrient value to humans into high quality protein, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals that humans can digest and utilise to function for health and well-being. - These marginal lands have an environmental function and livestock producers for quite some years have been putting practices in place to protect biodiversity of these lands. - Regenerative management practices result in improved soil health, greater water holding capacity and increased plant growth, increasing human food availability in harmony with increased biodiversity and system resilience. • Improved efficiency of livestock production will mean the total global livestock sector’s contribution to temperature will not increase and likely decease and in tandem, will produce more food to help feed additional global consumers. • Livestock also play a key role in converting otherwise ‘waste’ food (e.g. crop residues and by-products of food manufacture) into high-quality, nutrient dense protein for human consumption. This cycle is a crucial part of global food production. Large volumes of crop residues, weather damaged product, vegetable wastes and food system by-products that would otherwise add to waste and GHG levels, are recycled for human consumption.236238239240241242243244247248249250Food security: What is the role of animal sourced protein in feeding the growing world’s population? • LMICs have been left behind in the creation and contribution of the global supply chain as their farmers have not been supported to commercialise, instead they suffer from donor dependency (charity aid). • In addition, the population in LMICs are enduring low protein consumption with diets relying largely on highly refined carbohydrates, which means metabolic illness is on the rise. In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is estimated 25% of adults have metabolic syndrome. (2) • In LMICs it’s important to differentiate protein sources (animal sourced vs. plant) as it is animal sourced protein exclusively that delivers not only protein but bioavailable haem iron and other essential nutrients (including exclusive sources of several nutrients). • Improved efficiency of livestock production will mean the total global sector’s contribution to temperature will not increase. However, it will produce more food to help feed the world. • In addition to food livestock provide many other human benefits including a large array of pharmaceutical ingredients, wool, pelts, leather, hides, organic fertiliser and draught power in addition to acting as a mobile source of wealth, critical to LMIC smallholder farmers. • LMICs, such as Zimbabwe, are calling out for knowledge to deliver their own results by using their own resources and set of values. • In Africa, many of the drivers for raising livestock are also cultural rather than commercial and the more cattle that farmers own, the wealthier they are, independent of the condition of either the cattle or the land. So just imposing "western" solutions (as has been the tradition in the past) on such smallholder farmers does not resolve the dichotomy - similarly government-imposed regulations that farmers "must" appropriately manage their rangelands has not worked hence we do need to use proven productivity improvements. But we also need to find ways to encourage the farmers to take a whole-of-farm system approach (within the local, regional and global food system) to manage their livestock in a commercially relevant way. • The solution for Africa? “Conception to Consumption” - Build capacity (farmers need to see themselves as part of the global supply chain), train farmers, improve genetics, make inputs readily available, bring market to the farmers and focus on traceability and technology transfer. • As a sector, we have the knowledge and practices to create positive change, but we need to improve the open sharing and utilising of this information universally.236238239242243247250What is the role of meat in the diet and what are the implications of going without? • Animal sourced proteins are a high-quality protein source that provide the full array of essential amino acids and other important nutrients, such as bioavailable iron, vitamin B12 and zinc and therefore are a richer source of protein per gram compared to plant protein sources. - This is important particularly in LMICs where hunger and malnutrition are significant and, where supplements are harder to access, and the wide range of plant foods needed to deliver all nutrients would be extremely diverse and large in quantity. - This is critically important for at risk groups such as the very young, pregnant and lactating women, the obese and the aged. - Fulfilling dietary protein and amino acid requirements from red meat reduces the associated calorie consumption due to the unique high ratio of bio-available protein relative to calories. Reduced red meat intake is associated with increased carbohydrate and calorie intake relative to protein and is an important contributing factor to obesity. • The most common nutritional deficiencies in the world are iron and vitamin B12. - Well-absorbed bioavailable haem iron is only found in animal foods - red meat, poultry and fish. The removal of these haem iron foods from the diet greatly reduces absorption of iron. - As there are limited plant-based foods that are a source of vitamin B12 (unless fortified), those following a diet with little to no animal products, particularly women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, are at greater risk of vitamin B12 deficiency and require supplementation. • In addition to a drastic reduction in meat intake, which would see implication around adequate essential nutrients, the proposed EAT Lancet diet contains discrepancies around protein intake vs sugar intake. This will contribute negatively to worsen outcomes of malnutrition, obesity and obesity-related disease. • There is no consistent evidence that any one food, including red meat, leads to an increased risk of death. Instead, it’s known that a range of lifestyle factors have a significant impact on the risk, most notably age, genetics, lack of dietary fibre, inactivity and high alcohol consumption.236240242243244248249250How can we sustainably manage existing food production systems to the benefit of both nature and people? • For livestock, all the narrative is focused on gross emissions and negative impact however, this narrative needs to be balanced to account for the positive impact livestock contributes to global food systems if we are truly to define an accurate picture. • If livestock is managed correctly, we can stop having an impact or even have a positive impact on global warming by pulling methane out of the atmosphere. - Methane from cattle is not only emitted but is also destroyed relatively quickly. This means it’s warming impact should be measured differently than that of CO2. - Methane released by livestock lasts for 10-12 years and does not continue to build up in the atmosphere like CO2 which has a life of 1000 years. With stable livestock numbers, the amount of methane produced balances the methane that breaks down from the atmosphere. - If industry continue to build on innovations to reduce the amount of methane emitted, then in fact, livestock will pull more total carbon (methane/CO2) out of the atmosphere than it emits. - Furthermore, this removal of methane, by livestock, is not currently identified in the accounting of methane, only that which is emitted. This needs to be urgently addressed. • A healthy grazed grassland can create deep carbon sinks. Managing grasslands well also contributes to carbon storage in other ways: by enhancing soil health and water holding capacity to equip land to be more resilient to extreme events. • Livestock enable economic development of marginal land (country specific) that does not lend itself to alternate food production systems. - In addition, ruminant animals convert grass and other plants with low nutrient value and digestibility to humans into high quality protein, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. - These marginal lands have an environmental function and livestock producers for quite some years have been putting practices in place to protect and enhance biodiversity of these lands. • 86% of the global livestock feed intake in dry matter consists of feed materials that are not currently edible for humans (3) Modest improvements in feed conversion ratios can prevent further expansion of arable land dedicated to feed production. • The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) and other regional programmes such as the European Roundtable for Beef Sustainability (ERBS) (4) was established to set clear goals for the reduction of the environmental footprint of cattle and to improve the welfare of the animal and the farmer. Together these organisations have influence on beef produced across the globe. In the instance of the ERBS, national platforms consisting of farming groups, processors, government, retailers, and NGO’s, apply to ERBS for recognition, then implement their activity plans and finally report annually against their progress. This process drives sharing of innovation and provides transparency of the progress towards the goals.236240242243244248249250What is the role of the global meat sector in future-proofing our food systems and protecting against shocks and stresses? The farming of ruminant livestock has multiple public benefits including: - Delivers soil improvement, fertility and health through regenerative management practices which imitate previous wild livestock systems where large herds moved across a landscape. - Carbon sequestration by increased plant growth and long term soil carbon storage at increasing depth. - Optimising biodiversity through stewardship of natural ecosystems. - Nutritional benefits through highly bioavailable and complete protein, macro and micro nutrients. The high protein relative to calorie ratios of red meat reduces the carbohydrate proportion of a balanced diet. - Contribution to the economy. Livestock contribute about 40% of agricultural GDP and provide livelihoods and incomes for at least 1.3 billion people worldwide. - Food security. Ruminant livestock have unique value, particularly in LMIC, as a portable wealth store able to be utilised when required to fund essential and often critical needs such as health emergencies or access to education. Local livestock supply chains are critical for food security in LMIC with over a billion small holder farmers dependant on livestock for survival. • Smart metrics are needed to establish planetary health and human health simultaneously. Currently, foods and food systems are measured on environmental impact without any consideration on contribution to human health in terms of protein and essential nutrients required for development and optimum wellbeing. • If we are truly to understand what sustainable, healthy diets look like we need these metrics to track net environmental impact and nutrient density and diversity. - The point at which the higher carbon footprint of some nutrient-dense foods is offset by their higher nutritional value needs to be a priority area for additional research. • The livestock industry is the only food industry to be measured on gross annual GHG emissions, we need to be measured also on gross annual carbon sequestration to understand what the net annual GHG emissions are for the whole farm business. - Globally, industry need to align on this and push for net annual GHG emissions to be measured. • Meat and Livestock Australia analysis shows that the sheepmeat industry in Australia is nearly carbon neutral. - The point was made that we need to be climate neutral rather than carbon neutral. Carbon is only one element of the climate challenge, and thus focusing on carbon alone is not likely to enable climate targets to be met. • There needs to be recognition of the innovation that has taken place so far within industry and consideration and support needs to be given to allow for continued innovation which will be impactful in mitigating GHG emissions even further. - AHDB highlighted a project they are working on - Envirobench, they are using feed conversion ratio as a proxy to drive productivity in the sector, and Envirobench will enable farmers to make decisions and measure trade-offs between nitrogen and carbon. - Feeding livestock, a seaweed supplement called FutureFeed could simultaneously help to secure global food security and fight climate change by reducing powerful greenhouse gas emissions. (5) • A US example - removing animals from US agriculture would reduce gross agricultural GHG emissions by a negligible amount but would also create a food supply incapable of supporting the US population’s nutritional requirements. (6) • Globally there is a need for industry to align on measurements and initiatives to improve environmental impacts.236238239240241242243244247248249250How do we maintain a balanced debate and inclusive narrative? This group focused a lot on the nuances in the discussions around the role of the global meat sector in future sustainable food systems. The debate is often centred on the negative (gross) impacts of livestock on the environment however as outlined in this report, the total impacts are positive, and this is noticeably missing in a public arena. Industry needs to take on the challenge of communicating the good work and the total benefits delivered internally to ensure everyone in the sector has the awareness and understanding, as well as communicating to the wider public. It is industry’s job to ensure the total picture is depicted but the group recognised support is needed from actors outside of industry to ensure this is heard. There also seems to be a lack of trust by the public in the science. This could be due to the boundless information available via social channels or by the conflicting science they see governments and global institutions arguing over in public arenas. Regardless of industry we all share the same common goal and the same values, we just have different views about how we can solve issues to get there. Perhaps it’s less about attacking opposition and instead align, publicly, on these common goals and focus on how we can, collectively, achieve them.237238239240241242243247250The dialogue also raised concerns that any sustainable, natural and low waste food production system was being focussed on at a time when so much effort is required to address hunger and food waste. It was highlighted that every hour over 1,000 people die because of hunger – and in every hour almost 150,000 tonnes of food go to waste – that is 142 tonnes of food wasted for every life lost to hunger. The other consistent theme was around better alignment of industry in a pre-competitive space. The global livestock sector adds to the confusion around the role we play in food systems as we lack a precompetitive narrative and instead pit production systems, for example, against each other. If we require support from other actors to share our total contribution which we believe to be positive to the public, there is also a job for us to do in aligning our own work.

2021-06-08 23:54:34205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14583/33

40224827378101432545828291604765016152018504204211012282141412710372905103

The Brazilian National Dialogue was organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE/MoFA) with active participation from different areas of the federal government that are responsible for the main issues related food system policy. Special consideration was given to specific characteristics of the Brazilian food system and the Brazilian legislation on Food and Nutrition Security. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for convening the dialogue. The Ministry of Citizenship (MC); the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA); the Ministry of Health (MS); the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Advisory Counsel of the Chief of Staff of the Presidency (Casa Civil) were the main partners during the process of organizing the Dialogue. The Ministry of Education (MEC) – mostly through the National Foundation for the Development of Education (FNDE), which is the responsible area for the National School Feeding Program (PNAE) – and the Office of the UN in Brasília were also important partners. Brazil opted to conduct a multi-stakeholder organization process for the National Dialogue, in order to encompass the various unique perspectives each area can contribute to the discussion. Such multi-stakeholder approach was reflected at the National Dialogue, which benefited from the participation of different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. The government created a dedicated website to disseminate information about the National Dialogue and the Food Systems Summit, including reference documents elaborated by the competent ministries to help guide the debate. Regular and periodic announcements about the Dialogue were transmitted through social media. Inscription for the National Dialogue was made through an on-line form, that was available in the dedicated website for about 10 days. The video-conference was held through Zoom and transmitted by YouTube and Facebook for the wider public.Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. Taking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the Brazilian National Dialogue was conducted in a 100% virtual mode, through video-conferences. The video-conferences dealt with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference (“Promoting Food and Nutrition Security Guaranteeing Equitable Inclusion in the Value Chain”) was held on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference (“Incentivizing a Sustainable Production and Consumption of Health Food”) happened on May 12th 2021 and addressed Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference (“Building Resilient Food Systems”) took place on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas. After the opening address, panelists from government, the private sector and civil society made presentations about the main issues under discussion. Registered participants were invited to intervene orally during the event. All participants were invited to send written comments to the organization of the event, related to the topics discussed in each video-conference. The combination of the reception of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important as it reflected the gamut of views that integrate the Brazilian Food System and presented suggestions on how it can be improved.In view of the limited time available before the Summit, multi-stakeholder dialogues through digital platforms allow for wide participation of different segments of the society, productive sector, academia and the government. Such format is consistent with Principles of Engagement and offer an opportunity for dialogue with diverse actors.

NoTaking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, some of the recommendations in the Convenors Reference Manual had to be adapted and revised. Instead of thematic discussion groups, the Brazilian National Dialogue was crosscutting, including all sectors relevant to the Food Systems Summit debate. Likewise, there were no thematic discussion groups, since it was felt that the issues were interrelated and should be addressed jointly. Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. The dialogue was 100% virtual. The video-conferences dealt with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference was on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference was on May 12th 2021 and was directed mostly to Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference was on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas. They benefited from the participation of different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. Registered participants were invited to intervene orally during the event. All the participants were invited to send written comments to the organization of the event. The combination of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important as it reflected the gamut of views that integrate the Brazilian Food System and presented suggestions on how it can be improved. These comments will be considered in the preparation of the National position to the presented to the Food Systems Summit.

234239240243244247248249250The National Brazilian Dialogue was divided in three video-conferences, which dealt with the topics related to the Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. This document focus on the second video-conference, which was held on May 12th, under the theme: Fostering Sustainable Production and Consumption of Healthy Food. It was focused on Action Tracks 2 (Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns) and 3 (Boost Nature-Positive Food Production at Scale). In order to reduce the risks for food insecurity, food systems need to become more sustainable, while ensuring quantity and quality. Technology must evolve towards processing methods that result in food that is not only nutritious (that is, that contains all nutrients needed), but that is also healthy (does not contain ingredients deleterious to health). Education plays a role in the choice of a healthy diet. A key issue is to supply a healthy diet at affordable prices and necessary quantities. Government action can contribute to that effect. This video-conference brought together panelists from different areas to set the tone of the discussion. The Ministry of Health; the Ministry of the Environment; the National Health Council and Centro Insper Agro Global, a private research center, were the main speakers of the event. When the floor was open for interventions, speakers from a variety of backgrounds presented their positions, concerns, and proposals on the discussion about the sustainable production of food, the supply of safe, healthy, and affordable food, the role of international trade.235239240243244247248249250Brazilian agriculture contributes to national and international food security relying on less than 30% of its national territory. Private landowners abide by the Brazilian Forest Code, which obliges the conservation of natural vegetation and protects springs and riverbanks permanently. Brazilian agricultural practices, such as no-till farming, crop rotation, and other techniques adapted to the country´s geography and climate have been perfected over the last 50 years with significant productivity gains. Brazil intends to continue to achieve productivity gains with minimal increases in planted area, through scientific research - in particular by Embrapa – Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation – and highly qualified Universities, as well as by restoring degraded pastures and fields. The pandemic has challenged the sustainability of global food systems and the access to healthy food. In this context, Brazil plays a central role in worldwide sustainable and resilient food systems, that contribute to meeting international commitments on climate change, preserving biodiversity and fighting against desertification and ecosystem degradation. As a major agricultural exporting country, Brazil has to adhere to some of the strictest international health and safety standards. Malnutrition contributes to bad health – non-communicable diseases. Changes in the average Brazilian diet in the last decades have contributed to obesity, diabetes and malnutrition. Inadequate food habits – insufficient consumption of fresh food – are one of the main causes of disease and death worldwide. Despite recent price peaks, the traditional Brazilian diet – rice, beans, meat and salad – is becoming less expensive over time. However, it has also come to include inexempensive ultra-processed food. Access to a healthy diet – that includes a majority of fresh healthy food – has been affected by the pandemic. The Brazilian Dietary Guidelines provide recommendations on food and nutrition to promote healthy lives and combat the multiple burden of malnutrition and should be used as drivers of healthy and sustainable food systems and public policies in different sectors. Sustainable healthy food systems depend on permanent policies that integrate health, science, agriculture and social sectors. Climate change implies finding new solutions to adapt to problems such as droughts, pests and excess rain.236239240243244247248249250Brazil has a sound legal framework to ensure sustainable, low carbon agriculture, including the National Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan, which provides incentives for the adoption of sustainable productive practices. Additionally, the national forest code obliges farmers to set aside a certain proportion of their agricultural land for environmental conservation, without any additional remuneration. Brazil will be a key player in feeding the world in the next decades, given the expected increase in world population. International trade has also contributed to reductions in the cost of food in Brazil over the last 20 years, as a proportion of family income. Domestically, however, measures and policies to promote better income distribution and increased access are still needed to ensure a sustainable supply of healthy food. In this regard, conditional or basic income policies, such as “Bolsa Familia” contribute to providing access to a sufficient, healthy diet. On average, consumers in developed countries spend a smaller slice of their budget on food than Brazilians. On average, Brazilian families spend 10-25% of their income on fresh food. Obesity and malnutrition occurrence go hand in hand with low incomes. The FSS should promote further dialogue between food producers, academics, technicians from the food industry and civil society representatives from the field of food security to reach balanced positions. The state has a role in providing infrastructure to avoid food waste and facilitate distribution and conservation; regulating the market through taxes and other policies; and income distribution measures, such as the “emergency income benefit” (auxílio emergencial) or conditional income policies (Bolsa Família). Family agriculture and small agricultural business can benefit from government guarantees and incentives, including the provision of distribution infrastructure, technical assistance and price guarantee. The dissemination of independent actions, such as community gardens and urban agriculture, may contribute to the sustainable supply of healthy nutritious food in specific localities. In order to leverage strategies for the promotion of an adequate and healthy diet and to overcome the obstacles identified in this dialogue, healthy and sustainable food systems must be developed, based, among other guidelines, on the Food and Nutrition National Policy and the Brazilian Food Guide. They must also be supported by inter-sector public policies and protective measures that guarantee the access to food and promote a healthy and adequate diet. The Brazilian food guides are of utmost importance to encourage informed choices and, therefore, healthier eating habits. Besides, the aforementioned guides have helped in the construction of policies and programs that broaden the access of the whole population to healthy and adequate food, especially for people in situation of vulnerability.237239240243244247248249250- Domestic food security and the role international trade of agricultural products. The recent rise of international commodity prices has been linked to domestic price increases of foodstuffs. However, over the long run, the increase of agricultural production for export has contributed to a significant reduction in domestic food prices, as a proportion of family income. - Use of pesticides. While it was indicated that excessive use of pesticides may be harmful to the environment and to the health of farm workers, Brazil is not among the highest users of such products relative to agricultural output. It is essential that best practices are in place to guarantee safe and adequate pesticide use. Brazilian government policies promote increased use of biological inputs in order to reduce the use of chemical pesticides. - Agroecological approaches versus conventional agriculture. The agroecological sector has been growing strongly in Brazil, however the products do not substitute foodstuffs produced by commercial agriculture. Rather, the sectors have a complementary role, assuring consumer choice and diversity of supplies/suppliers. - Distinction between family and commercial agriculture. In Brazil, large commercial farming enterprises are often family owned. They provide food for the domestic market, as well as for exports. There is often little difference between family agriculture and small business agriculture. Family and smallholder farming are focused mainly in the domestic market. - Role of government policy in health and nutrition. Government measures, such as the taxation of sweetened beverages may be effective in promoting better health and nutrition. However, the food sector is already heavily taxed in Brazil, compared with the situation in developed countries.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videoconferencia-2-doc.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videconferencia02_pp.pdfhttps://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/cupula-2021-sistemas-alimentares-dialogos

English version of the Reference Document prepared by the Brazilian Government to help guide the debates in the video-conference.2021-06-09 00:34:38https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Videoconferência-2-tradução-rev-DCID.pdf

2021-06-09 10:34:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13718/1222629096100104107118125138148160174178185191200

10721031131122132

The dialogue was focused on youth perspectives and the calls to actions within regional food systems.The dialogue opened space for youth from different sectors to find common actions that would suit the future of the region.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue included the challenges within food systems in the MENA region from all action tracks of the FSS. Primary focus was divided among three regions; the Gulf and Yemen, the Levant, and North Africa as the challenges seen within these sub-regions are closely related. The presenters highlighted economic, environmental, technological, nutritional, social and cultural challenges within their sub-regions.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Our main findings are that food systems should focus on local and regional challenges. Some outcomes displayed in this dialogue are not common discussion points other dialogues include. Of which are: 1) Need to invest in advanced technology in agriculture 2) Embed sustainable agricultural methods 3) Promote lifestyle education 4) Protect heritage 5) Address Yemen food crisis 6) Need to restructure food safety measures and implementations along the supply chain to protect consumers’ health and to avoid wasting food and resources 7) Implement sustainable agricultural practices 8) Need for green entrepreneurship 9) Circular blue economy 10) Using fisheries (seaweed, seagrass, mangrove zones) can increase yield by 25% and reduce methane emissions by 90% if used as feed. 11) Using seed bombing as a method to create feed for cattle during raining seasons Alternative proteins (algae)236The panelists all agree that decision-makers should have regional lenses on food systems and that global discussions and actions might not fit the needed challenges within their sub-regions.

2021-06-09 13:01:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15876/41497984133194

252324141152046237

Our dialogue was organized around the central topic of how innovative financing can advance livelihoods while also building resilience for small-scale producers in Central America. At the outset of the dialogue, our convener emphasized that we need to (1) act with urgency to transform our food system and that we need to (2) commit to the vision and objectives coming out of the dialogue. Following introductions and two short presentations that highlighted (4) the complexity of the issues we face in our food systems, two break-out sessions were held to facilitate ample dialogue between participants. In each break-out session, two questions were posed and discussed in detail between a diversity of stakeholders. Discussions were forward looking and oriented around solving current problems in Nicaragua’s and Central America’s food systems. Following the first and second break-out session, representatives from each break-out room were encouraged to share key findings from their discussions as to (5) embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and provide space for diverse perspectives. Participants were (3) respectful of each other's ideas and (7) trust was built between a diversity of stakeholders within the food system. Outcomes from this dialogue (6) complement the ongoing work MEDA is dedicated to doing throughout the course of the Summit. This organizational format ultimately ensured that the principles of engagement were incorporated and enhanced throughout the dialogue event.The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit and our conversations were forward-looking, fostered new connections, and enabled the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The event was held in Spanish to encourage inclusivity and comfort in expressing views in local languages. Facilitators were trained in advance to ensure that the online space remained respectful for one another throughout the Dialogue. Participants listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Our dialogue also offered an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems in Nicaragua and Central America. We promoted a systemic approach to the conversation by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together. The Dialogue brought together a diversity of stakeholders from within government, the business community, civil society, and research – working across the entire food system. In this sense, it was inclusive by showcasing many different voices and capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. The Dialogue add-value to existing policy processes and initiatives by providing an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good.It is important for dialogue convenors to emphasize solutions-based and forward-thinking dialogue. This can be achieved by carefully selecting discussion questions and allocating plenty of time to explore them in detail. It is also critical that the invitees reflect the diversity of stakeholders within the food system to ensure inclusive and fair discussion. Fair and respectful dialogue can be achieved with proper facilitator training prior to convening the dialogue event. For support in the planning process and to ensure an organized and successful event, be sure to use the resources available for convenors on the Gateway platform. Supporting materials provided by the Food Systems Summit include a reference manual, convenor’s checklist, event invitation template, run of show template, an excel planning tool and more.

Yes

234241243245246249251Our Independent Dialogue explored two significant areas of focus related to Action Track Four: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods. The first topic of discussion for participants was barriers that prevent inclusive and equitable food systems from being heavily adopted, and how to use investment/capital more effectively to promote food systems that result in equitable and lasting changes to peoples’ livelihoods. The second topics of discussion focused on how current interactions between people and businesses within food systems generate smallholder farmer resilience and what practical steps can be taken to help strengthen the resilience of smallholders – exploring the role of investment in such initiatives.235241243245246249251Our Dialogue highlighted the importance of strong partnerships within food systems and value chains, the need for increased gender equality and inclusion within food systems, and increasingly sustainable investment practices that prioritize producer’s needs and increase producer visibility in agri-food systems. Partnerships and Linkages In identifying the importance of partnerships for sustainable, equitable, and resilient food systems, participants recognized that strengthening the value chain has developed capacities in the food production system. In addition, strengthening business strategies to establish alliances and cooperation between various stakeholders (technology sector, financing, NGOs etc.) was considered as a priority. Participants also recognized that partnerships have been fundamental to face the difficulties and build resilience in spaces where everyone can participate, including access to technology and information, technical assistance, and efficient systems for small producers. The search for alliances and complementarity among the key players in the food system has allowed small producers to access more profitable markets that help them establish stronger and more resilient business models. Participants identified a need for increased opportunities within these partnerships, including means of transport, increased marketing channels, and increased access to information. Participants also identified a need for the participation of financial institutions in forming and sustaining close partnerships with producers, recognizing that larger institutions and corporations are better able to adapt to external pressures and stressors than small-holder producers. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Participants identified increased gender equality and inclusion as key aspects of resilient food systems. The lack of gender and environmental lenses for all processes and stages of the food value chain was highlighted by participants as a barrier to inclusive and equitable food systems. Recommendations on this issue included ensuring investment processes have a strong gender focus; for example, reviewing gender aspects when smallholder and producer organizations are offered access to funding. Moreover, participants identified resilience within agri-food systems as diversified systems with gender inclusive practices and identified the importance of smallholder farmers comprehensive knowledge management to better respond and prepare for shocks and risks. In recognition that small producers do not always have strong adaptive capacities to climate change stressors, participants believe that farmers’ resilience must be strengthened to do so, complemented by concrete actions by those with investment capital. The example given by a participant was that training in efficient water management practices must be accompanied by capital so that small producers can effectively acquire these technologies. Productive diversification should be seen not as a strategy focused solely on income at different times of production, but as an approach that also considers the risks associated with production, which will generate capacities to increase or strengthen resilience. Participants recognized the importance of disseminating the word ‘resilience’ so that producers can better understand what it means and work with it more effectively. Producer Agency in Investment Decision Making Participants identified the need for investments that are sustainable and that prioritize the needs of producers. For example, guidelines for the management of capital/investment in agri-food systems are often set by donors, which could diminish the voices and needs of producers themselves. Additionally, participants identified a lack of follow-up to existing investment actions, suggesting that indicators that measure and evaluate investments and results are necessary for sustainable food systems. Within the discourse of sustainable investment, participants also identified need for investment in financial education for market actors to increase financial fluency, including teaching producers the importance of creating business models. Additional recommendations include monitoring the credit granted to small producers to avoid over-indebtedness, and increased efforts to change the high-risk perspective that banks have on the agricultural sector through information and awareness of its importance in food systems.236241243245246249251Discussion topic #1: Barriers: Outcomes from the discussion of barriers that prevent equitable and inclusive food systems include the need for an overall greater awareness of food systems to identify barriers, increase access to technology, competitiveness, and productivity for small producers. Participants identified the need for in-depth understandings of local dynamics and contexts when working with local small-holder producers to overcome the barrier of producers being viewed as a homogenous group. Another important outcome is recognizing that the demands of financial systems are often not adapted to the realities of producers, and as interest rates continue to rise, access to finance and conventional banking mechanisms are not always feasible for small producers. Therefore, approaches taken must be both ethical and highly contextual. Capital: The outcomes surrounding the discussion of capital include the need for increased producer visibility within value chains and in both national and local settings. Participants identified that the national financial system must begin to make small producers visible as reliable customers and consider the supports/guarantees that buyers offer. Participants also identified the need for an increase in gender-aware investment in agri-food systems, discussing that raising women’s awareness of their role within food systems can demystify the risk and aversion that women producers have to investment. Topics for Discussion #2 Resilience: Outcomes within the discussion of resilience in agri-food systems and small-holder producers include increased financial support and partnerships to combat the impact of the pandemic on many development projects. Participants recognized that the complementarity of different actors contributes to resilience, where each can use their knowledge (in issues such as productivity, climate change, access to technology) and tools that allow producers to be more resilient. Participants also identified that, broadly, project objectives have been more difficult to achieve since the pandemic because they are more expensive. Participants identified an opportunity for increased partnerships for financial companies and small producers (as well as other links in the value chain) to accompany processes of capacity-building for producers, accompanied with confidence of the business sector. For example, many of MEDA’s projects work directly with producers and with the business sector. Participants recognized a need for further efforts towards fair trade and rapprochement between producers and final consumers to result in fair prices to contribute to the resilience and sustainability of food systems. Practical Steps: Outcomes identified within the discussion of practical steps to help strengthen the resilience of smallholders include increased training and risk management for small producers, increasing the role of women and youth within agri-food systems, greater producer control of imported technologies, and agricultural insurance. Additionally, participants identified a need for investments that facilitate access to inputs for producers at better prices, having access to the transformation of the product, and ensuring social improvements (including schools and environmental projects). Promoting the nutritional value of foods and encouraging consumption of local foods that increases producer visibility and market integration for small-holder farmers were also identified as distinct areas that require increased attention and effort. Recognizing the importance of relationships and partnerships within agri-food systems and value chains, participants identified the necessity of security and trust in ensuring resilience within markets, production systems, and investments. A recurring theme was the need for youth involvement and advocacy within food systems. Participants identified that it is necessary to promote actions that link youth to value chains, and youth involvement was listed as a practical next step for increasing the resilience of smallholders.237241243245246249251No divergences emerged during the Dialogue.

2021-06-09 13:13:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17357/203

2754511211133

The Dialogue established at the outset that it was to not only achieve but exceed the Principles and uniquely integrated them as a design feature in the dialogue but especially the outcomes as actions of the dialogue. The principles were; Act with urgency - Organise and Deliver, Commit to the Summit - Join and deliver Be respectful - Our total focus was around the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Mindful of Recognise complexity - Our framework is around reducing the complexity of delivering nutritious food Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - Our stakeholders were completely aligned with the possibilities discussed within the dialogue Complement the work of others - All stakeholders brought something unique to the table Build trust - All stakeholders were transparent and completely motivated to participate in a project together.The Food Systems Summit is guided by a set of seven principles of engagement. The AAC Dialogue incorporated these into its discussions and can report significant acceleration of all of them, summarised in the Three Steps. Step 1. Nutrition. Basic Solution. The adequate human nutrition mathematical equation is half/50% fruit and vegetables, quarter/25% carbohydrates and a quarter/25% protein along with water and nutrients. Step 2. Nutrition plus Income. It is difficult to maintain the nutritious integrity of food along the food chain. The basic solution can be disrupted by both time, if drought stops production, and distance if production and consumption are separated. It is greatly disrupted by a city rural decoupling which requires a farm, horizontal or vertical, not a garden to produce in volume to feed the chain from farm to fork. Step 3. Global Fusion. The AAC is especially engaged in the interface with the community. Planetary boundaries fence the global farm, within which fusion from brain wave to global consequences is orchestrated by numerous human constructs to ensure human behaviours meet those required from family to global governance, including the commons. The UN provides the direction through the community derived 17 Sustainable Social Goals. As a contributor we will contribute in identifying and designing the actions. XRX-AG and XCHANGE is our contribution today to the Food Systems Summit as part of the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. The Summit “will awaken the world to the fact that we all must work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food.”Diversity is the key to a robust discussion. Our dialogue involved presentations followed on with questions, and then ended with a facilitated dialogue. Respect of what each stakeholder brings to the table is key. Having a relaxed environment with committed and engaged participants. Better results are obtained with a small number of participants.

Yes

234238243244The XRX-AG Distributed Knowledge Network. Agricultural Education Trends The rapid adoption in Riverina horticulture and agriculture of the new technologies of big data, IOT, digitalisation, precision agriculture, 3D printing, autonomous tractors and cars, robots, renewable energy, genetic engineering, drones and protected cropping requires education to catch up. This especially relates to the primary and secondary education as a feeder to the Universities at Canberra and Wagga Wagga and extended reality can marry immersive learning with experiential learning in this new era. The Big Data era requires big screens for both research and education purposes, inclusive of dynamic 3D projection. Towns in the region have or can have resources for local, on the ground, instruction linked by the internet and nodes to subject experts anywhere on the globe through a XRX-AG Distributed Knowledge Network. Locally derived data will come from drone surveys, fixed cameras, IoT, information and products from businesses and special projects. Local businesses and farms can support and help guide the curriculum most appropriate to their regional area, although the training will be for careers nationally or internationally. The development of 5G and the Starlink network shows that the future will ensure that regional NSW is fully linked to cope with the new capabilities of XRX-AG. It is proposed that especially primary and secondary school children, but any citizen, will have access to an Experience Centre in a school, local hall or business, to give exposure to the science and technology needed for tomorrow’s farmers. Critical to each Centre will be the capability of an XRX-AG Immersive Experience for Learning, coupled to access to reality experiences on local farms, businesses and industries. In addition, the presence of a terminal, node/desktop with links into universities will allow immediate exchange of new knowledge into the regions. This would include Dynamic 3D visualisation of Agriculture with big screen, small screen, AR, VR, VR video and VR 180 experiences. XRX-AG is the era of both big data and extended reality.Content Developments in grassland, cropping and horticulture plant management will be included. Generic engineering, new plant varieties, optimisation of plant growth conditions, water, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles and management. The protected cropping for high quality export crops there will be a VR experience of managing a crop from seeds to dispatch. Understanding climate and weather, modelling and understanding climatic trends and impact on plants and agriculture is central. Drought resilience a feature, as would rainfall and water flows in catchments. Carbon cycling will be central, from energy input, to allocation in plants, to tracking residence times in plants, soils, products and atmosphere. Design and implementation of renewable energy and batteries for on farm and local networks, its production, transmission and storage is included. Immersive learning content will extend from the paddock to the plate. Central to the program will be the markets, customer and consumer requirements. This would be for both export and local markets. It would include all aspects of food, production, processing, preservation, preparation and impact and linkage to human health. This would link to training in agritourism, with hands on experience in meeting, greeting, entertaining, feeding tourists. The use of new media savy, internet tools to promote agritourism and apps for tourists to explore NSW will be included. Uniting all programs will be the financial education about risks and rewards of all actions, modelling the carbon and finance economies. Career Creation The courses and facilities will be online and off line and available to all people of all ages, sex, nationalities, experience and background with immersive and adaptive learning. The approach is let the students set their own journey and pace of exploration and learning with immersive experiences invading all aspects of the value chain from landscapes to human health. The program will emphasise leadership.235238243244Ryan Young • Bring together people who study the problem with people who live with the problem to develop solutions John Clarke • Incorporate digital data and models into education to encourage better decision-making John Troughton • Action solution cluster: Wagga Wagga Framework for Nutrition Tim Brown • Create digital twins of farming land to monitor change over time (e.g. nutrient yields) Tim Gentle • Use dash boards to help improve on-farm productivity as well as improve connectivity with and understanding of consumers (i.e. using individual digital twins to inform food choices) Lisa Castleman • Use digital data to make decisions easier for farmers Andrew and Eleanor • Move towards real-time 3D visualisation Explore existing platforms and embrace the rapid technological change of game engines where appropriate. Robyn Alders Q: how to ground truth digital data? Q: to bring SDG12 into the discussion? Q: how to increase productivity of food with optimal natural nutrient density rather than just increasing the weight or volume of produce? Aiming to improve quality and quantity.236238243244XRX-AG Framework for Nutrition is obtainable with the collaboration and input of all stakeholders. Discussion topic " What the World Needs Now. Wagga Wagga Framework for Nutrition" John Troughton It’s all about Nutrition, which by definition is “the process of producing and procuring the food necessary for health and growth” Process – Digitising and Integrating all Systems and Actions. Link Self to Seed to Self. Producing, Procuring... What is nutritious food? The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 400 g/day for their health and nutrition benefits. Insufficient intake of fruit and vegetables is estimated to globally cause around 3.9m/yr million deaths worldwide 14 % of deaths from gastro-intestinal cancer 11 % of those due to ischemic heart disease, 9 % of those caused by stroke (Afshin et al., 2019 Fruits and Vegetables Grow almost anywhere. Grow almost anytime. Anyone can grow them. Land free, commons Economics, for disadvantaged Energy free CO2 free Labor free Genes free, seeds or propagated Educational gardens are strongly supported in Australia by Governments and Industry Globally There are Millions of Gardens & Food Hubs that need the UN to Recognise & Support URBAN FOOD HUB & LIVING LABORATORY With 100+ species of edible plants,  Ōtākaro Orchard a free edible landscape for everyone, 1,000 kg of fresh produce produced each year, with 780 parks, 26 community gardens, 70 edible school gardens, 5 food forests, and 26,000 fruit trees on public land. From Field to Fork 1. Nutritious Production 2. Maintain Nutritious Value 3. No Product Waste What would be a desirable outcome of this? We need new institutions and frameworks like a global agricultural trading system that has sustainable supply chains as part of its mandate. We need much more investment in the food system, and we need access to jobs and at least minimal social protection for those affected by hunger. Moreover, in the field of food and agriculture, there is, to date, no institution like there is in climate policy, where there is a UN committee, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which provides a clear structure for the interaction of science and policy. Australian Agricultural Centre AAC takes concepts, “Frame” & converts into actions, “Work”, FRAME-WORKS “Ensure” Action: To Produce the Wagga Wagga Framework for Nutrition (Prof von Braun) To Globally Educate, Enable and Execute Actions to Produce Nutritious Food for All Digital technologies for communication and education Digital technologies to allow farmers to sell their products with minimum transaction costs, addressing market failures. Digital technologies will be critical for the Wagga Wagga Framework for Nutrition and plant breeding. 1. Digitise and fuse processes from Seed to Field to Fork 2. Digitise and fuse into processes from Faculty to Farm 3. XCHANGE products, goods or services digitally 4 Digitise, visualise in 3D, video and XCHANGE knowledge by bringing the farm into the house or laboratory or the laboratory onto the farm 5. Incorporate Brain to Biosphere issues into the Digital Circular Economy, communities, farms and gardens from Bega to Botswana to Brazil 1.To take the nutrition message globally, “the processes of production and procurement of the food necessary for health and growth”, into all farms, schools, homes, villages and the food chain. Through XRX-AG. Supporting field staff. From SELF TO SEED TO SELF 2. Win the hearts and minds of the front line farmers and food chain managers and workers. 3. Provide solutions for the hungry, the farmers, food safety, those optimising the food chain. 4. Bring the farms, digitally, into the homes, companies and labs to engage with global experts and revitalise through XCHANGE. Embellish and Visualise the Digital Sister. 5. Return a revitalised, reprogrammed package ready for education, enablement and execution.236238243244Farming Smarter –a soils project for the next generation Lisa Castleman & Rebecca Waalkens Ag Services Team Riverina Local Land Services Why set goals for land-holders? How do you achieve a goal if you don’t set it? Offer landholders on-farm data with science and advisory support We target lime rates which will raise the pH to either 5.2 or 5.8, Our ultimate goal is to raise the soil pH above 5.5, in the 5.5-6.0 range Remember: Acidity needs to be saturated before excess alkali can be produced Lime particles do not move beyond where they were surface applied or incorporated Only excess alkali can move into soil solution and then to depths below the topsoil We also need there to be a soil solution for amelioration to occur Soil moisture and significant rainfall events are important for deeper movement Ensuring a healthy pasture Management factors include:  ameliorating soil pH underlying soil fertility and the addition of inputs  disease and pest management species & cultivar selection  grazing management Seasonal factors such as climate-rainfall, temperature, length of growing season. 236238243244Tim Brown - Director Austraian Plant Phenomics Facility, ANU Node. From Lab to field to farm: Envisioning a continental scale Digital Twin of Australia as infrastructure for enabling a carbon neutral future. We face a triple threat this century Food Security Biodiversity Climate Change Agriculture plays a significant role in all these issues. Carbon neutral is vastly insufficient - Carbon drawdown is a necessity (Changing farming practices) Tackling the challenges of the 21st century with National Infrastructure What can we build - open infrastructure platform for managing data How we can build it - IoT sensors can push precision environmental data to the cloud for every farm/ modern farm equipment/automated drone flights/ privacy can be built in so users use their own data What this enables - Researchers & Breeders: supports continental scale analysis & provides caor infrastructure field trials/ provides farmers with low barrier to entry access to benefits of digital agriculture/ Industry can value-add by building commercial offerings off this infrastructure/ remove4s needs for startups to build full platforms from scratch; enables low-risk/low-cost startu ecosystem . Envisioning the future by looking back. Some tech solutions for building the future - High resolution, high frequency satellite data/Tools for making sense of big data/ Standardising drone and other 3D data. Linking open projects enables scalable solutions Continental scale datasets enable amazing things with ML/AI How we architect infrastructure has a huge impact on outcomes - we need to build an "Internet" layer for data sharing, then innovate on top of that Looking to the Future - Our current tools for data visualisation and managment aren't sufficient for these datasets. Use of gaming systems and digital twins Real time global simulations already exist How will we create the new tools and interfaces that enable the next generation of ecosystem research?236238239243244Tim Gentle - Think Digital XR Trends & Adoption - Is Agriculture Ready? Adoption of XR Agriculture Improve, Safety, Training, education, Marketing, Communication Safe Animal Handling Bio Security Training Australian Agricultural Centre Virtual Campus - Hands on learning by doing. Big opportunity is to increase productivity using XR technologies in agriculture Capturing lots of Data creating data insights 2021 - X - XR Wearings and AI Robotics, use of AR wearables Location specific data - IOT Sensors, Cattle tags, NDVI, Soil Data, Tasks and Instructions, Remote Assistance End Users - Producers and their teams, consultants, corporates, government, education Digital Twins, virtual field days Agriculture + Immersive technology + Communication + Business236238243244Eleanor gates-Stuart & Andrew Hagan Charles Sturt University Creative Industries - extended Reality Collaborative Artistry in Action - Animation and visual effects - Real-Time Visualisation Collaborate with CSU Agripark & Farm Goes beyond story-telling to story living. The XRC empowers bold new research by dissolving distance. We can reduce the perceptual distance between us, be empathetic to alternate points of view, accelerate understanding, and reduce the time from concept to reality. The XRC enables research that can lower physical, environmental or financial risk while achieving high-impact outputs with meaningful societal engagement.236238243244John Clarke Research Team Leader, Regional Projections CSIRO Climate Change Take 2 Climate models do a good job of projecting plausible future climates Climate projections are not forecasts A range of future climates are possible and this will always be so Our actions and impact on Climate Change is in place and will play out for the next 20 years, we just have to stop further damage.237238243244Agriculture generates high volumes of Ag data that is required to be communicated to achieve these goals. Fortunately, in parallel, satellite and communications systems and devices provide the high volume pipe for universal connectivity in real time. This multidirectional communication between all parts of the food system, including food production and nutrition scientists, farmers, transporters, economists, bankers, processors, marketers and consumers, will ensure knowledge is always in any hands, in the right form at all times. Digital Farm Twin, Digital Agriculture Twin plus edge computing Our dialogue saw a snapshot of a rapidly growing and expanding Fusion that matches an expanding nutritional food demand to the supply of food products designed to ensure “Good Health and Well- Being”. The algorithm for good health is transferred back down the food chain to production and in the process meets multiple SGD goals, from 1-17, especially to ensure resilient and sustainable societies, food systems and healthy citizens.There is an amazing food story to tell. From education to application our goal is to capture food data at source, analyse, edge compute, fuse, distribute, create digital twin farms and apply it in all parts of the the food industry, from farm to fork. XR is about implementation, it will personalise the information to each individual from student, to farmer to researcher to policy maker, resulting in actions. Let’s see it. A Celebration of Fusion.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IMG-5304-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IMG-5303-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IMG-5302-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-05-13-at-2.23.30-pm.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Regional-Education-for-Future-Agriculture-Flyer2-1-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-09-at-3.44.28-pm.pnghttp://www.australianagriculturalcentre.com

The Australian Agricultural Centre supports The UN Food Systems Summit and especially the goal “it will awaken the world to the fact that we all must work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food.” It especially addressed, “Action 1 Ensure Access to Safe and Nutritious food for All” The AAC Game Changing Framework for Food, with XRX-AG and XCHANGE The AAC sees urgency in the establishment of such an entity to immediately 1. conduct educational classes to ensure the Framework and its construction is properly developed to include XRX-AG and XCHANGE 2. establish the framework with input from multiple sources and extend to a universal, international operational system. 3. implement at least 3 pilot schemes building on existing entities to demonstrate the approach in a school setting, community garden and commercial operation. The Australian Agricultural Centre through the Dialogue established a Game Changing Framework to unite all peoples and transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food. It uniquely integrated the three dimensions of food, each with specialised but disparate players 1. the micro nutrients in the food to the macro, gardens and farms. 2. the seed to the savoury foods that are eaten. From farm to fork 3. the research laboratories to the steps in the food chain to ensure innovation and nutritious food 2021-06-10 01:39:31https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/DAWE-.pdf

2021-06-09 14:10:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21759/98153189193201202

275866111311113552

All principles were adhered to in our DialogueWe rely on mutual respect while speaking and listeningNo

Yes

234240241242243244245246248251Theme; The main theme of the webinar is to discuss the reality of the state of the smallholder farmers right now and evaluate what are the discrepancies in their involvement in food systems dialogues. What should be transformed to ensure smallholder farmers practice climate smart agriculture?. Smallholder farmers plays an important role in these ongoing discussion, are they being involved effectively? Smallholder farmers are able to reverse the trend of broken food systems if they are given a chance to speak for themselves. We stress about regeneration initiatives, agri-tech, and agroforestry etc, does smallholder farmers aware of these initiatives? If not! How are we going to assist them make their voice heard and counted? Objectives • To highlight the current setbacks that hinder smallholder farmers in agriculture. • Policy makers should create a space for smallholder farmers to engage effectively in the agriculture issues. • Explore ways and opportunities available in climate smart agriculture particularly in Regenerative Agriculture and Agroforestry. • To mobilize governments and policy makers to recognize the role smallholder farmers play in feeding the world.235238239240241242244245246248251Expected Outcomes • To get the governments, organizations and private sector partners to put young people first in Agriculture sector. • To realize the involvement of young people in agriculture as a means of increasing youth employment and scaling of climate smart agriculture initiatives.  Investors, governments, decision makers should invest in farmers led agricultural initiatives to assist them fight climate change, transform broken food systems and heal our planet.  Farmers empowerment in agriculture sector is a debatable issue since most of the farmers are left behind in these important moments. Creating awareness to smallholder farmers in the grassroots level is very crucial.  Smallholder farmers should be drivers of change in Agriculture sector. School clubs should be established to students in order to transmit ideas first hand during early years of school.236239240241242243244245248i. Smallholder Farmers needs digital technology in agriculture ii. Smallholder Farmers needs natural methods to assist their depleted soil so that they can be able to improve soil health and increase income. iii. Smallholder farmers need regenerative agriculture trainings and education to know modern ways of agriculture. iv. Smallholder farmers needs to be empowered in terms of finance and loans to have access to their money. v. Associations for crop harvest stations in order to assist them in deciding the price of their crops produces. vi. Smallholder farmers needs seed banks savers to be established in their villages and communities. vii. The government should assist smallholder farmers in setting up policies that are friendly for them.237238239240241242243244245246248249251Areas of divergence Areas of divergence that emerged during our Dialogue. An area of divergence is an issue where participants held diverse views, different opinions and/or opposing positions. For example, this might be related to a) strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems, b) areas that need further exploration, c) practices that are needed for food system sustainability, d) stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized. a. It was emphasized that smallholder farmers does not need chemical fertilizers, pesticides and GMO seeds while others said it needs time to undergo transition. b. Shifting to nature based fertilizers is not an option right now while others said it depends on the willingness of the farmer to decide whether to use chemical based fertilizers or nature based fertilizers. c. Agro ecology has been recommended as the best way to assist smallholder farmers especially regenerative agriculture and permaculture while others said farmers should be trained in modernized agriculture d. Governments, Financial institutions and Companies should work together to assist farmers in creating friendly infrastructure to make them flourish. While others stressed that government and policy makers has upper hand in making these dreams come true.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ONE-MORE-SALARY-FSS-Dialogue.pdfhttps://onemoresalary.com

2021-06-09 14:19:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21766/42193202

178316124241225212

All principles were adhered toAbsolutely. We conducted Dialogue on mutual respect.No

Yes

234239240242243244245248251We explored the role played by smallholder farmers in food systems transformation, and their needs exactly. We were based on AT2 , AT3 and AT5 levers of change.235238239240241242243244245246248249251i. Young people needs digital technology in agriculture ii. Young people needs natural methods to assist their depleted soil so that they can be able to improve soil health and increase income. iii. Young people need agriculture trainings and education to know modern ways of agriculture. iv. Young people needs to be empowered in terms of finance and loans to have access to their money. v. Smallholder farmers needs seed banks to be established in their villages and communities.236239241242243244245246251The government 1. Should assist youth in setting up agriculture policies that are friendly for them. 2. Associations for crop harvest stations in order to assist them in deciding the price of their crops produces. Because so far business men are the decider of the crops produces prices.236238240241242243244245251The government should assist young people in setting up policies that are friendly for them in agriculture involvement.237238239240242243244245249251a. It was emphasized that smallholder farmers does not need chemical fertilizers now because, toxic chemical fertilizers are destroying their soil and food healthy. b. Shifting to nature based fertilizers c. Agroecology has been recommended as the best way to assist smallholder farmers especially regenerative agriculture and permaculture. d. Governments, Financial institutions and Companies should work together to assist farmers

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ONE-MORE-SALARY-FSSD-Concept-Note-Post-Webinar.pdfhttps://onemoresalary.com

2021-06-09 15:30:27207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7541/203

7444595639276133111231445132218175332331431411

The organizing team paid careful attention to inclusivity by striving to invite individuals from diverse stakeholder groups, sectors, gender, and countries. This entailed going through various iterations of the invitation list, each convening institution drawing on their respective networks. The team strived for regional diversity. The number of participants from each region were as follows: Europe 34; North America 21; Latin America 8; Asia 18 ; Africa 18; Oceania 1. Facilitators were selected and briefed with care, to ensure they create a space for dialogue that is conducive to respect and trust. The discussion topics were designed to complement the exchanges and work carried out under the Sustainable Food Systems Programme. They captured multiple aspects and perspectives of the food systems and water nexus so as to embrace their complexity and linkage. Discussion topics also aimed to focus attention on some of the most complex or contentious issues.The Dialogue reflected the principles of complexity, respect and trust as planned for the design. Discussions in the groups were open and enriching for participants. The principle of inclusivity was very strong, as had been aimed for in the design phase, due to the fact that all those who registered attended. The majority of participants was from Europe but there was good balance in terms of regional representation as well as stakeholder diversity, including farmers. All participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency”, recognizing the importance of accelerating the pace of change in their recommendations and demonstrating commitment to act. All were committed to contribute to the Food Systems Summit preparation and follow-up, recognizing it is an important milestone to catalyse further action on food systems. They emphasised the importance of continuing the dialogue on water and food systems after the event.It is important to pay utmost attention to the composition – namely diversity in the invitation list – and to plan for the fact that not all invited will attend. Furthermore, in the case of international online events, the “no-response”/“no-show” is likely to be higher amongst individuals who live in low income countries, where access to and reliability of Internet may be more challenging. It can therefore be useful to invite more individuals from these regions to ensure they are well represented during the event itself. It is also very important to select and brief the facilitators carefully to ensure they are not pushing their own agendas but instead creating a space for all to express themselves and listen to each other Finally, formulating the discussion topics so that they point to critical issues will help avoid rather superficial conclusions that stop at common areas of consensus.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue focused on the nexus between food systems and water systems, doing so in a way that acknowledges linkages to other systems that are fundamental to the SDGs (e.g. energy, climate, oceans). The discussion topics addressed this nexus from complementary perspectives: • The five Food Systems Summit Objectives and Action Tracks: o ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all, o shift to sustainable consumption patterns, o boost nature-positive production, o advance equitable livelihoods, and o build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. • Key themes and challenges related to the water-food-energy nexus that are also emerging from dialogues held at regional and country levels, such as governance, cross-sectoral collaboration, investments and innovation and knowledge. Achieved outcomes The global dialogue contributed to the following outcomes: • Build awareness about the key role of water in sustainable and equitable food systems • Identify water-related propositions relevant to the five Food Systems Summit Action Tracks • Ensure water is considered as part of the major issues and recommendations that are taken to the Food Systems Summit through the various work streams (action tracks, levers of change, dialogues, scientific group) • Identify key issues regarding the nexus between water systems and food systems that should also be addressed in the water-related policy forums and agenda (e.g. 2023 United Nations Conference on the Midterm Review of the Water Action Decade) The 9 discussion topics were: 1. Food production increases and diversifies to meet growing demand for nutritious foods while minimizing water use and protecting freshwater sources in the context of climate change (thereby boosting water availability for other uses – domestic, industry, environment and livestock). 2. Water-related consumption patterns of all stakeholders in the food systems – from consumers to industry and producers – optimize water use (for processing and packaging, food loss and waste, etc.) to ensure sustainable access to clean water for healthy people and a healthy environment. 3. Integrated watershed and agro-ecosystem management allows access to safe (pollution-free) and sufficient water for food production and human consumption while preserving or regenerating environmental water requirements (forests, lakes, groundwater recharge). 4. The human right to water and sanitation and the right to food are achieved conjunctly by all people everywhere – in particular low-income households, marginalized groups, women and youth – having fair, sustainable and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and water for food production, processing, and consumption including food safety. 5. The resilience of water systems in the face of climate change is strengthened to meet the competing demands of agriculture, domestic use, industry and environmental flows. 6. The cross-sectoral and transboundary strategies and cooperation required to ensure water-food-energy security for all and ensure environmental sustainability are in place (jointly managed systems minimize trade-off and maximize synergies). 7. The governance of water resources (in terms of policy coherence, institutional coordination and access rights) at multiple levels – farm, water basin, country, region – support equitable access to and sustainable use of water resources for food, health and energy. 8. The investments – public and private – required to optimize water use efficiency in our food systems and protection of water resources are mobilized and effectively used, and investments in unsustainable water uses discouraged. 9. Science, innovation, and data access from multiple disciplines and traditional knowledge are harnessed to increase the efficiency of water systems for food, sanitation, industry and the environment.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251In terms of recommendations for action, the following themes emerged across the discussion groups, demonstrating the inter-relations between all the discussion topics: No water = no food: Resolving issues around water scarcity, pollution and wastage is crucial for transforming food production and consumption. The demand for food is increasing: while almost 800 million people are currently hungry, by 2050 global food production would need to increase by 50% to feed the more than 9 billion people projected to live on our planet. However, the annual amount of available freshwater resources per person has declined by more than 20% in the past two decades. Whether it is irrigation or whether it is the water we receive through rain-fed agriculture, water is one of the food systems elements that is most taken for granted. The way we value and manage water is central to how we make our food systems resilient and sustainable for future generations. Food loss and waste = water loss and waste: When water is wasted, food is wasted and when water is scarce, food is scarce. One-fourth of freshwater consumed in global food production is effectively wasted since the food produced with this water is never consumed. Reducing food loss and waste is a clear entry point to mitigate water scarcity. Reducing food loss and waste optimizes water use. Food producers = water managers: The way in which water is used in agriculture is no longer sustainable. We know that irrigation accounts for more than 70% of global water withdrawals. Farmers, with specific emphasis on smallholders, are essential actors and food producers are among the world’s most important water managers. Farmers could benefit from education programmes, including through an improved version of farmer field schools which aims to ensure two-way communication, collective learning and co-design principles. Technical solutions and innovation: Innovation should incorporate the fact that water in agriculture is strongly linked to land tenure and distribution, climate change policies, energy and urbanization policies. Innovative technologies are increasingly important to manage scarce water resources, e.g. desalinization, drip irrigation, harvesting rain water in the face of climate change to meet the competing demands of agriculture, domestic use and industry/energy requirements. Innovative policies will allow better management of competition across various nexus domains, highlight trade-offs and synergies, and reduce conflict risks. Regenerative agriculture, including the storage of water in the soil, seed selection, rebuilding soil biodiversity will improve the water cycling in agricultural systems. Safe wastewater reuse in agriculture is a promising solution particularly in peri-urban settings. Governance: Sustainable water use is enhanced by integration of all sectors in conservation including farmers, governments, the private sector and the general population. Governments would benefit from access to high-quality data to develop sustainable water policies. Good governance is essential to mitigate negative forces that impact water management through establishing policies and setting up regulatory frameworks that provide the right incentives. This requires a departure from the ‘sectoralist’ policies to embrace a cross-sectoral approach including food, health, energy and others. Even though investments can optimize and foster sustainable water technologies and processes, the path to water security needs to rely on the right laws and institutions that work to ensure that water sustainably. Inclusion: There is a need for an inclusive participatory process that gives a voice to marginalized and vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples and future generations. Such empowerment and the democratizing of decision and policymaking can foster the trust between relevant stakeholders that is required to leverage synergies and manage trade-offs between different interests, while ensuring that no-one is left behind. This implies a fundamental shift in the way water is valued, in which water not just understood as a commodity, but instead as core to life, livelihoods and culture. Significant part of the traditional knowledge remains with communities that are detached from technology and bringing their wisdom to the benefit of the broader communities and making it accessible requires deliberate effort. Investments: Investments link to many themes above; e.g. investments in technology that helps manage water better, but need for a governance context that guides investments. This must come alongside a series of region-specific or context-specific indicators, indicating what each SDG, especially those relevant to food and water security, means for each regional setup in terms of investments. Investments can play a significant role in improving water security by recognizing the economic value of water, which should be an essential component for investment mechanisms. Public-Private Partnerships are an essential instrument within water and irrigation systems, but there has been a lack of innovative developments in that field. These tools would help investors identifying the direct and indirect impacts of their investments. The value/role of aquatic foods should also be considered. Connections between biodiversity and ecosystems and the benefits you can get from having a water management scheme need more attention.2362382392402412432442452462482492502511. Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food and safe water "Food production increases and diversifies to meet growing demand for nutritious foods while minimizing water use and protecting freshwater sources in the context of climate change (thereby boosting water availability for other uses - domestic, industry, environment, and livestock)." The discussion group was quite diverse in terms of gender, country, expertise, and stakeholders ranged from youth to seniors, innovators, public and private sector representatives, and international organisations. The group attempted to answer the provided questions with focus on ensuring access to safe and nutritious food and safe water. There was clear consensus on the: • need to foster connection between the food and the water systems; • lack of understanding of the value of water (freshwater system); • mismatch on how to treat the natural resources and freshwater in relation to food system; • food production misses a system approach understanding and implementation; • lack of data to better understand the system; • need for mapping our understanding and natural process, regardless of the many solutions that exist; • lack or harmonization of the legal dimension (water law, management, protection, governance, etc.); • need to shift as users and consumers our interactions with water and food systems (improve efficiency and productivity and reduce waste); and • need for higher inclusion of local communities, youth, indigenous populations, etc. In response to the above, the group highlighted a number of actions: • Map freshwater systems for greater understanding • Understand the status of irrigation systems as most water consumers • Actively engage local communities, youth, and women in the design, development, and implementation of solutions and interventions • Promote innovation, technologies, and smart agriculture to save water for safe food • Promote and establish the legal protection of water bodies, similar to forest protection • Raise government awareness of systemic approach • Promote the recycling and reuse of each water drop to improve its value • Produce nutritious food: shift from cropping food to nutritious food Surprisingly, no areas of divergence amongst participants were identified. The group was able to connect its thoughts and ideas to focus on the problem and proposed solutions.2362382392402412422432462482492502. Sustainable consumption patterns for water and food Water-related consumption patterns of all stakeholders in the food systems – from consumers to industry and producers – optimize water use (for, processing and packaging, food loss and waste, etc.) to ensure sustainable access to clean water for healthy people and a healthy environment. Participants agreed that water was key to food security and underpinned all 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Water plays a role at all stages of the value chain, and we cannot continue using water to the same extent that we are now. Sustainable consumption of water requires global solutions, the effects of which would be felt at the local-level. One participant highlighted three key areas needed to ensure sustainable access to clean water, which framed a large portion of the discussion. These included (1) developing a unified agreement in the water space on what was important, (2) developing a suite of solutions for the global community to act on, and (3) developing a people-focused call to action to raise the profile of water. A key solution would be to break down the silos in the water community. Sustainable water use comes from integration, with the involvement of people from all sectors in conservation. This includes farmers, governments, the private sector, and the general public. Farmers could benefit from education programmes. Governments would benefit from access to high-quality data, allowing for the development of sustainable water policies. There would need to be a paradigm shift in the private sector, away from a risk-management perspective to an approach of water stewardship. Additionally, there is tension in terms of trade-offs and competition between different parts of the water sector which needed to be addressed. For the general public, sustainable consumption would require individuals coming closer to the understanding that water is sourced directly from nature and is essential to life. It would also be necessary to focus on local-level and community management, which would require building trust among all stakeholders. To a certain extent, participants diverged in terms of to what extent they thought the key issue was water scarcity vs. inefficient use of water. Those who framed the primary issue as inefficient use noted that technology and innovation could improve water-use efficiency and water productivity. These participants emphasized that increased demand for water and food requires excess capacity. However, others framed the primary issue as one of water scarcity, emphasizing an increased focus on sustainable consumption through awareness raising. For example, one participant noted that the agriculture sector focuses too heavily on measures that promote “more crop per drop” at the expense of generating awareness around sustainable consumption. Finally, participants highlighted the urgency of the issue. One participant noted that the global community would need to perform a miracle to integrate water action into SDG 17. Another noted that deforestation constantly makes front page news but water is being lost at a faster rate, and raised the question of why we are “here now when we’ve known that we’ve had a problem for so long?”.2362382392402412432442452462472482492502513. Boost/increase nature positive production of food through water management "Integrated watershed and agro-ecosystem management allows access to safe (pollution-free) and sufficient water for food production and human consumption while preserving or regenerating environmental water requirements (forests, lakes, groundwater recharge)." • Obstacles: Corruption, psychological resistance, barriers to knowledge and technologies, lacking and counter-productive incentive structures, financing and inadequate enabling environment (incl. legislation/regulation). • Cross-cutting actions o Inclusion: include marginalized populations, including women, indigenous groups, and youth, and guarantee equitable opportunities through support measures (e.g. subsidies). o Awareness-raising on farming practices and technologies as well as sustainability and equity issues o Governance: Political, institutional and legal change on the national level is central to transition to less water-intensive and more environment-preserving practices. Regulation needs to be developed and enforced, e.g. through rights-based approaches and enforcing voluntary standards. o Effective financing: Effective financial mechanisms/instruments are required to support these changes. o Systems thinking: Stakeholders need to shift from thinking in silos or two dimensions only to system approaches (e.g. water-energy-food nexus) including climate change considerations. Address trade-offs proactively through assessment tools on the landscape level and food systems. • Farmers as managers of land and water resources with fair financial incentive structures around: Farmers should be seen as both water consumers and conservers as they are de facto managers of not only their lands but a significant part of everyone’s water resources. This responsibility/service – if done sustainably – should be rewarded through appropriate incentives. • Promotion of and access to knowledge and technological innovation: Farmers and other stakeholders need better access to existing innovations and prototypes incl. awareness raising and capacity building. Innovators need better incentives and structures to proliferate their innovations. Knowledge of indigenous and marginalized groups must be promoted. Exchange visits between farmers can be a very effective mechanism. Governments need to pass required legislation and can support through subsidies and other means. Innovations can also substantially increase accountability o Innovation partnerships and market-based solutions: Develop new technologies through partnerships of researchers, private sector, finance, and end users. • Irrigation efficiency and crop selection: Irrigation as key intersection pertaining water use in agriculture requires capacity building and technological support for farmers for more efficient and crop-specific irrigation practices. Potential decrease in water consumption of up to 50%. Simultaneously, promote water-efficient and nutrient-rich crops (e.g. quinoa) while avoiding those with strong negative environmental impacts (e.g. crops for certain biofuels that have high economic value) and their support structures. Non-conventional water sources: A shift towards using non-conventional sources of water needs to take place across sectors. Awareness raising crucial due to strong psychological resistance.2362382392402412422432442452462472494. Advance livelihoods and equity through safe water "The human rights to water and sanitation and the right to food are achieved conjunctly with all people everywhere – in particular low-income households, marginalized groups, women, and youth – having fair, sustainable and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and water for food production, processing, and consumption including food safety." Participants shared a range of perspectives to advance livelihoods and equity through water: 1) It is crucial to recognize the paradoxical nature of the global water crisis considering that we live on the “water planet”; in this regard, it was emphasized that the water crisis closely relates to water systems’ health, quality, and sustainability rather than to water scarcity. 2) Leveraging the rights to water and water allocation mechanisms were foundational measures to advance livelihoods and equity through water. 3) Advanced water management technologies (such as drip irrigation, sewage water harvesting and treatment, water desalinisation, prevention of food and water waste, etc.) and sustainable, integrated land and water management schemes were described as paramount to materializing enhanced livelihoods and equity. 4) The role of synergies across sectors and action tracks is central (e.g. landscape and value chain approaches, the water-food-energy nexus, etc.). There is a need of sound water governance, and tailored and coherent food systems/related policies, developed in close collaboration with indigenous people and farmers (e.g. the New Zealand example). Additional considerations include the “intergenerational equity” aspects (“if more water is spent now, there will be less water in the future”), resilience (“considering that not everybody is exposed to the same risks”), and data (“data enable water valuing and good water governance”).2362382392402412422432442482492502515. Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress "The resilience of water systems in the face of climate change is strengthened to meet the competing demands of agriculture, domestic use, industry, and environmental flows." Participants focused on how to build the resilience of water systems in the face of climate change to meet the competing demands of agriculture, domestic use, industry/energy, and environmental water requirements. There was a focus on regenerative agriculture, including the storage of water in the soil, seed selection, and rebuilding soil biodiversity, all of which improve the water cycling in agricultural systems. The continued degradation of soil through agriculture makes droughts much more severe. Regenerative agriculture offers a solution following nature’s principles. The fact that the most agriculture in Africa is rainfed was raised, pointing to the need for systems that predict rainfall for small farmers given that hydrological patterns are impacted by climate change. Rainwater harvesting can also offer part of the solution. The need to use natural systems including floodplains was discussed, farming that is compatible with flooding can maximize benefits. Three main needs were identified: 1) Systems transformation – this transformation is knowledge-intensive, requiring research, monitoring and learning, e.g. small farmers can benefit from a better understanding of when and how much to irrigate. More knowledge about grey/green infrastructure is needed. 2) Better policies– since local action is critical, how can policy impact this level. Faith-based organizations and municipal level actors are key. At the same time, national, regional and global policies can help create an enabling environment. Financial incentives need to change. 3) Changemakers – change will come through the “movers and shakers”; these champions must be empowered to lead. The group agreed that water should be firmly established in the FSS, however, only one of the 25 “game changers” in Action Track 5 focuses on water.2362382392402412422432442462472482492516. Inter-sectoral cooperation to ensure water-food-energy security and environmental sustainability "The cross-sectoral and transboundary strategies and cooperation required to ensure water-food-energy security for all and ensure environmental sustainability are in place (jointly managed systems minimize trade-off and maximize synergies)." Proposed ideas to ensure water-food-energy security and environmental sustainability: - Stop providing free electricity to incentivize lower electricity/water usage. - Raise awareness to the manageable interconnections between water and food systems and break down silos of communities. - More sustainable ways of ensuring we have water security; e.g. more efficient drip irrigation systems, harvesting rainwater, and improved storage for rainwater. - Intersectoral national policies. Key messages: - The value/role of aquatic foods should be considered, not only land-based foods. - There needs to be more investment in RandD for drought-resistant crops, crops with high nutrition profiles, and improved irrigation schemes for rural communities. - Must consider the perspectives of farmers and communities who use water resources (and how they use them) when planning water management strategies. - There should be greater collaboration between the development partner and the private sector. Points of consensus: - For a systems transformation there is a need to both consider the small-scale, looking at the communities and farmers, and the larger scale, a landscape or water basin approach, to address several sectors at the same time; focus on investing in a large number of small projects, rather than a small number of large projects.2362382392402412422432442452462482492507. Governance "The governance of water resources (in terms of policy coherence, institutional coordination, and access rights) at multiple levels (farm, water basin, country, region) support equitable access to and sustainable use of water resources for food, health and energy." This session spoke of the ways in which water resources are (to be) managed effectively to address divergent societal and planetary needs. Participants from different national perspectives shared the ways in which water security is contingent on having appropriate systems in place to process and distribute water equitably. Existing systems would often prove unable to deliver satisfactory results. Multiple participants noted that the need for adequate governance becomes even greater when water resources are strained because of environmental pressures. Participants mentioned a range of factors negatively impacting water security, including climate change, pollution, lack of awareness about sustainable water management, lack of political will, and power imbalances between relevant stakeholders. They agreed that governance is essential in order to mitigate these factors through establishing policies and setting up regulatory frameworks that provide the right incentives and are conducive to effective water resource management. There was consensus, however, that this can only be effective and equitable when it is informed by the values and interests of all stakeholders concerned. This requires a departure from the ‘sectoralist’ policies that often define governance, and the embrace of a cross-sectoral approach that takes into consideration perspectives of the many sectors that rely directly on water, including food, health, energy, and others. Participants stressed the need for a genuinely inclusive participatory process that gives a (preferential) voice to marginalized and vulnerable communities and future generations. Such empowerment and the democratizing of decision- and policy-making can foster the trust between relevant stakeholders that is required to leverage synergies and manage trade-offs between different interests while ensuring that no-one is left behind. This implies a fundamental shift in the way water is valued, in which water is not just understood as a commodity, but instead as core to life, livelihoods, and culture.2362382392402412432442452492502518. Investments "The investments – public and private – required to optimize water use efficiency in our food systems and protection of water resources are mobilized and effectively used, and investments in unsustainable water uses discouraged." Investments can play a significant role in improving water security by recognizing the economic value of water, which should be an essential component for investment mechanisms. However, investments should not focus solely on efficiency but mainly on aggregated water use. Primarily thinking about aggregated water consumption and treating efficiency as essential but insufficient is critical for sustainable investments. So, it's important to understand that, in the end, it's the total water use what we are trying to reduce. Moreover, it is essential to adopt a holistic approach that avoids isolating water as if it were disconnected from other elements along the food supply chain. Water is unquestionably a necessary input for food security and systems, but further inputs such as seed, fertilizers, pesticides, soils, and virtual water should also be considered. When this package is put together, government, farmers, and the private sector come together to make better usage of all those resources combined. Regarding farmers, they must be acknowledged as the number one investor in food systems, and their agricultural water management practices ought not to be discounted. PPPs are an essential instrument within water and irrigation systems, but there has been a lack of innovative developments in that field. Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that they are not the same as public-private dialogue, and there is a significant gap in the way this dialogue is being implemented. This is key to putting the "invisible" actors and factors in the spotlight, making water use more transparent to everybody in the system, help to understand who is affected, and creating synergies between isolated actions. This has proven to be effective in reducing social conflicts linked to water scarcity in Africa and India. In addition, efforts to spread and optimize the use of digital technology for sustainable management of water in what refers to monitoring and data-collection mechanisms are necessary for evidence-based decision making. These tools would help investors identify the direct and indirect impacts of their investments. This would be an excellent water governance approach. Furthermore, education efforts focused on stakeholders must be encouraged to promote sustainable water use because there is a widespread misunderstanding about the meaning and terminology within this topic, as it usually means different things to different people. When spreading awareness about water sustainability, it is essential to communicate it so the various stakeholders along the food supply chain and water streams can see themselves as beneficiaries. That is a great motivational force. Regarding the empowerment of women and youth, it is critical to give them leadership and responsibility by providing them with tools such as terms of reference and deliverables to help them mobilize and promote further engagement. Even though investments and related initiatives by different actors can optimize and foster sustainable water technologies and processes, the path to water security needs to rely on the right laws and institutions that work to ensure that water is sustainably managed. This must come alongside a series of region-specific or context-specific indicators, clearly indicating what each SDG, especially those relevant to food and water security, means for each regional setup in terms of investments. Global indicators are not enough.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502519. Innovation and data for water and food systems "Science, innovation, and data access from multiple disciplines and traditional knowledge are harnessed to increase the efficiency of water systems for food, sanitation, industry and the environment." Four distinct headings emerged from the discussions: 1. Data and information 1.1. Data must be made available to everyone at every level. With a large amount of data available from all kinds of sources, the challenge is to make it available and usable to all. A global, open data platform must be made available ASAP. 1.2. Availability of data should be complemented by measures to make it usable by all that need and can benefit from it. Sophisticated processing, modeling, and analytics are currently not easily accessible nor have interoperability efforts resulted in a convergence. A deliberate and coordinated effort is needed to make this happen, with a slightly longer term than ASAP, perhaps 1-2 years. 1.3. Users of data must be bridged. Topic, sector, issue-based silos and fragmentation work against 1.1 and 1.2 and can undermine them. Bridging across these is fundamentally needed and must be explicitly addressed. 1.4. While the action by governments is essential, a strategic partnership bringing together the private sector, technology firms (including those doing analytics), and the scientific community must be sought from the beginning. Warning: sometimes, government-imposed technologies may be sub-optimal, outdated or biased (Central Asia is a historical example). 1.5. Farmers, with specific emphasis on smallholders, must be involved, including through a reformed/improved version of farmer field schools (FFS), which aims to ensure two-way communication, collective learning and co-design principles. 1.6. The work on data initiated by the High Level Panel on Water needs follow up and can serve/contribute to/complement the above. 2. Traditional knowledge and wisdom 2.1. Significant part of the traditional knowledge remains with communities that are detached from technology; bringing their wisdom to the benefit of the broader communities and making it accessible requires deliberate effort. Initiatives exist (UNESCO, FAO, ICID, academia, others?) but are not coordinated. This coordination can/must start ASAP. 2.2. Re-dissemination and incorporation of indigenous knowledge into policies and practices should be preceded by a validation process. Warning: Not all traditional knowledge is necessarily applicable or desirable. 2.3. Indigenous knowledge and disrupting technologies can harmonize. 2.4. The FFS described in 1.5 can serve the purposes of reaching out to and connecting with communities, validation, and re-dissemination. 3. Softer issues (policy, governance, nexus, equity) 3.1. Governance structures of the past century are fast becoming a barrier to technology and innovation: a reform is inevitable. 3.2. Policy innovation that is based on scientific soundness and that brings in private sector dynamism will trigger action in many domains involved. 3.3. Innovated policies and governance structures will allow for better management of competition across various nexus domains, highlight trade-offs and synergies, and reduce conflict risks. 3.4. Innovation should consistently look after gender equity and equality, smallholder farmers, and youth. 3.5. Innovation should be able to incorporate the fact that water in agriculture (and water for food security) is strongly linked to land tenure and distribution, climate change policies, energy security and urbanization policies. 4. Specific highlights 4.1. Disrupting technologies can make circular economy solutions cheaper (less investment), more profitable (better economic outcomes), more horizontally sustainable (across sectors/resources), and more modular. Support for RandD and start-ups essential. 4.2. Wastewater and water harvesting bear much promise. 4.3. Water quality (fit for purpose) is another highlighted topic. 4.4. Green energy solutions with water explicitly or implicitly incorporated. 4.5. ODF and multiple use of water are promising areas. Nepal serves as an example.237238239240243244There was no divergence among the participants of group 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The only divergence was among the participants of group 2: To a certain extent, participants diverged in terms of to what extent they thought the key issue was water scarcity vs. inefficient use of water. Those who framed the primary issue as inefficient use noted that technology and innovation could improve water-use efficiency and water productivity. These participants emphasized that increased demand for water and food required excess capacity. However, others framed the primary issue as one of water scarcity, emphasizing an increased focus on sustainable consumption through awareness raising. For example, one participant noted that the agriculture sector focuses too heavily on measures that promote “more crop per drop” at the expense of generating awareness around sustainable consumption.

2021-06-10 00:46:13205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23720/69

1063082152446129613838521443372235447159162

The Fiji National Dialogue was divided into five separate Action Track dialogues, each focusing on a specific Action Track. This report refers exclusively to Action Track 2 – Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns. The Fiji National Dialogue for Action Track 2 was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the curation of the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Health and Medical Services and Ministry of Agriculture as Convenor. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue agenda, framed questions and topics for discussion, developed a group reporting template to focus and guide group discussions and identified themes for discussion across three strands (i) Non-Communicable Diseases (ii) Blue Food (iii) Green Food. The Action Track 2 dialogue was chaired by the Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and opened by its Permanent Secretary, Mr. Pene Baleinabuli. The technical experts also led the Blue Food presentation. The prep meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register. This ensured that everyone read and understood the Principles and committed to the SDGs before participating in the Dialogue. A group of 105 stakeholders participated in the Dialogue from diverse, multi stakeholder backgrounds consisting of government ministries, civil society, international and regional agencies (including UN agencies),.As highlighted above, the Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 2 ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process, and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 105 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement served as important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all five Action Tracks, including the National Dialogue. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

NoThe Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 2 – Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns was held on 12 May 2021 at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with restrictive measures and lockdowns. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, the Fiji national dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform, using a participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and crowdsourcing platforms such as Slido, polls and the Zoom chat box were also used to crowdsource questions and engage participants in live polls and quizzes throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. One hundred and five participants took part in the dialogue that was officially opened by the Permanent Secretary of Fisheries, Mr Pene Baleinabuli. Participants represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, women’s groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Relevant resource materials (reading materials, video links etc.) (iv) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format ─ Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) ─ Official opening address by the Permanent Secretary for Fisheries ─ Setting the Scene What is the UN World Food Systems Summit 2021? (Video on the Summit by Dr Agnes Kalibata) ─ What is a Food System? (Examination of existing Fiji and Pacific food systems, including strengths and vulnerabilities) by the Director of Fisheries ─ Presentations on Action Track 2 o Non-Communicable Diseases – Ministry of Health and Medical Services o Blue Food - Ministry of Fisheries o Green Food – Ministry of Agriculture ─ Discussion groups on themes and questions focused on questions such as (i) What are the contributing factors to unhealthy diets leading to the high rate of NCDs in Fiji? (ii) Highlight areas which need improvement in order to enhance healthy diets in Fiji (iii) What are the transformations needed in Fiji’s current Food System in order to address NCDs in Fiji? (iv) Who are the key players that can make transformation happen? (v) Are there barriers preventing this? ─ Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing using Slido questions, live polls, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs ─ Communications and media ─ The outcomes of the dialogue and key messages from the Fiji Convenor were highlighted in a Press Release issued to the media which received extensive coverage by local mainstream media and on social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter). UNFSS hashtags #UNFSS @foodsystems #SDGs and #foodsystems were used in all media content to ensure that messaging had a multiplier effect. Links to media coverage are included in the Attachments section at the end of this report.

234239243246248249The Dialogue focused on a comprehensive exploration of Fiji’s food systems as follows: 1. Strand 1 - Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Ministry of Health and Medical Services The 2011 WHO STEPwise Approach to NCD Risk Factor Surveillance (STEPS) survey found 0.6% increase in those smoking cigarettes (20.7% in total), 9% increase in alcohol consumption (30.6% in total), 8.5% increase in obesity (32.1% in total) and 0.8mmol/L increase in mean fasting blood glucose compared to the previous survey in 2002. This survey also reported that 85% of participants did not consume five serves of vegetables and fruits per day, as it is recommended. Overall, NCDs are estimated to cause 84% of all deaths in Fiji. According to the Economic Burden Report Fiji, 2018, the country loses FJD 406 million (almost 200 million USD) per year due to this problem. Fiji is changing its dietary pattern over the years, as dietary intake studies showed that more people are shifting away from the traditional root crops to a more cereal-based diet with high dependence on food imports. Fiji has joined 22 other Pacific Island countries and territories in the Pacific Monitoring Alliance for NCD Action (MANA) to work on a prioritized list of actions such as reduced salt consumption, trans-fat, unhealthy food marketing to children, food fiscal policies, healthy food policies in schools and food-based dietary guidelines. Major gaps identified from the MANA dashboard include the need for a National Taskforce to have controls on tobacco industry interference, trans-fat, food marketing to children and alcohol advertising. Other areas for action include taxation-based approaches, enforcement, strengthening legislation and availability smoking cessation support. Complementary actions will need more awareness raising and settings-based approach. 2. Strand 2 - Blue Food, Ministry of Fisheries The main focus of the presentation was on Aquaculture Projects, with huge potential in terms of Blue Food and currently spread out in the four divisions in Fiji, involving 470 farmers and 815 ponds. The different initiatives aiming to increase food security, improve the livelihoods of rural people and generate income and employment. The main initiatives include the Aquaculture Project (tilapia farming and freshwater prawn farming), the Freshwater Aquaculture Development Programme (tilapia farming and freshwater prawn farming), the Brackish Water Development Programme (shrimp farming and sandfish farming), and the Mariculture Development Programme (giant clam farming, seaweed farming and edible oyster farming). Limitations identified for this work include the delay in the endorsement of the National Fisheries Policy and Fiji Policy on Food and Nutrition Security. Ministry of Fisheries coastal development programme focused on sustainable development and management, lack of capacities within officers due to high staff turnover and budget shortages to conduct development and awareness programs. As a way forward, the Ministry of Fisheries would like to see the endorsement of policies and bills, robust awareness on the importance of healthy seafood handling, processing and consumption at all levels, enabling platforms for more open communications, data collections and sharing among cross-cutting agencies, focused research on local commodities for sustainable development, targeted fisheries development projects to include healthy diets benefits, seafood post processing and handling and capacity building of officers and communities on the importance of seafood production chain and the importance of healthy diets. 3. Strand 3 - Green Food, Ministry of Agriculture The situation analysis revealed that dietary patterns have changed and moved away from traditional root crops to a more cereal-based diet (imported foods), less consumption of vegetables and fruits. A recent study found that most food outlets within school environment selling sugar sweetened beverages and high availability of sweet and salty snacks in school canteens. Different studies show most farmers in Fiji indicated that COVID-19 restrictions adversely impacted their capacity to produce and sell crops while market vendors repo235239243244246248249A summary of the main outcomes of the Group Discussions is reported in the next section, however, below are additional findings across the three thematic areas: 1. Strand 1 - Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Ministry of Health and Medical Services The main contributing factors to unhealthy diets that could lead to the high rate of NCDS in Fiji include poverty and unhealthy food choices. Processed foods are cheap, healthy foods are more expensive, so behaviour change is a challenge. Other factors identified cultural and religious aspects of food habits, not eating balanced meals from the three main food groups, no dietary diversity, less consumption of fruits and vegetables due to difficult to access them especially during COVID-19 lockdowns and movement restrictions and lack of education and nutritional knowledge (especially for the lower income group and marketing or advertisements of unhealthy foods). Fiji needs transformation in the current Food System to address NCDs. Many key players can make this transformation happen including people living with NCDs, communities, research institutions and universities, government and private sector, development partners, NGOs etc. Some elements that are needed are a bottom-up approach, more technology, increased budget to build a strong economic argument, and building the capacities of many stakeholders. 2. Strand 2 - Blue Food, Ministry of Fisheries Blue food is around the engagement of women and other marginalized groups that are engaged in fisheries - they are critical in the food nutritional security space. The subsistence fisheries space (where women dominate) does not get enough attention, and needs to be better integrated into planning and development of blue food production systems. There is a need to fully engage women and other marginalized groups that are critical in the food nutritional security space, giving them a voice in the blue food dialogue. This means improving our data collection, and improve inclusion in policy development and implementation. Blue foods can contribute to healthier diets by replacing less healthy body building (protein) foods such as tinned meats and other processed foods that are high in salt and are highly consumed in Fiji. Promoting fresh food and less processed foods to reduce NCDs. Impact of COVID-19 is a ground reality in our communities where lockdown restrictions are affecting the production and livelihood of villagers that depends on fish and have turned to barter system (Navakavu Village was mentioned as an example). 3. Strand 3 - Green Food, Ministry of Agriculture Fiji has high dependency on processed foods and a change of mind-set is needed on our young generation through awareness and educational programs. COVID is an opportunity to realise the role green food can play, previously people turned to commercial crops such as ginger but after COVID people moved to other crops and home gardening to feed themselves. Road side stalls, which have been promoted during this period, have offered more opportunities to sell and buy healthy foods locally.Opportunities of e-commerce platforms, capacity, technology (biogas with food waste from the community) to have direct link to the market are also key. During COVID-19, the Market for Change Project (implemented in partnership by UN Women and UN Development Programme, UNDP) observed that due to economic and social issues in the West Division, there was an oversupply of vegetables and lots were wasted. Farm has to provide food and income shift into a more commercial stage of farming, 1-2 Ha; many communities grow cassava and other products that could be exported. Production capacity in the country is not enough with no supply consistency. Value supply chain needs more support with products that are market driven. 70% of products in the rural community go to the markets, 30% support the food security of the producers and their families. Strengthening of linkages among the seeds for some value chains and zoning our food production system according to weather and soil type would be important. Some efforts on scaling up urban environments for production, lower price fluctuations, support settlements, gender transformative approach for women-based violence, family work together in the back yard gardening and other initiatives to bring food to the table were also discussed.236239243244245248249Strand 1 – Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Ministry of Health and Medical Services Some ideas to transform the current Food System in Fiji are the need to transfer knowledge between generations and to teach the value of traditional foods at schools. Informal markets should be moved to formal. The endorsement of the Fiji Policy on Food and Nutrition Security, increasing tax on unhealthy foods, improve the research and development capacity and increase technology involving youth to address the complex food systems, and better data for policy and decision making were also mentioned. Private sectors as gate keepers of the food system could reformulate products to reduce salt, sugar and fats. The ministries of Health and Education should collaborate in the enforcement of canteen guidelines in schools. Multi-sectoral partnerships and Champions to promote healthy living were also discussed. Some of the barriers are resistance to behaviour change, limited resources, research gaps to design better strategies, outdated information, more action on Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health to be included on Food and Nutrition Security, late detection of NCDs, unhealthy environment leading to unhealthy lifestyles and NCDs complexities. Some ideas to overcome these barriers are to shift the focus to positive behaviour outcomes, and increasing education and land investments for agriculture. Strand 2 – Blue Food, Ministry of Fisheries In addition to more inclusive policies, an area that needs to be improved to maximize access to healthy foods in a sustainable manner is the enforcement of regulations. For example those regarding sizes of fish caught and the allocation of the amount of fish per fisherman and marketing regulations for fresh fish at the point of sale (when fish are cleaned and cut up ready for cooking difficult to check if the fish is fresh). Sea foods, farmed fish and prawns need to be made available to consumers due to their nutritional value. Value addition including looking at "waste" and "leakages" in the blue food systems (especially under COVID-19), adopting traditional knowledge of food storage in remote areas and scale up investment within community current practices were also pointed out. Invest in technological innovation and transfer, focus beyond the farm, shift incentives to reward sustainability and storage or quality control. School curriculum may be reviewed with specific emphasis on micronutrients in fish that are healthy and edible. Local markets including virtual options with better information could be strengthened; better package labelling and improving transport and enhanced marketing strategies would increase fish consumption should also be considered. Benefits of eating fresh foods versus canned foods should be emphasised to the public (for example TV programme similar to Pacific Food Revolution). Finance instruments from donor partners could be also explored. Transformation in Fiji’s food system should include boosting blue food production to include community experiences such as the marine protected area (MPA), with spill-over effects showing positives, as shared by the Navakavu community. More awareness on the potential benefits for other communities is needed as well as making them formal through the inclusion of better licensing platform on fishing rights access. Barriers will include making markets COVID friendly in these challenging times. Lack of awareness in promoting attractive cooking recipes for blue food and prices and its affordability in both local and overseas markets. Strand 3- Green Food, Ministry of Agriculture In order to maximise access to healthy foods which are available and affordable, seeds distribution for food gardens need to be accompanied with a training manual in vernacular languages on how to plant and germinate their own seeds. Organic farming should be promoted by the government and linked to community engagement ensuring that they meet the Pacific Organic Standards (IFAD). Value addition and compositing would reduce food wastage.237239243244245246248249Strand 1 – Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Ministry of Health and Medical Services The money from taxation of unhealthy foods could be redirected to Food and Nutrition Security initiatives. Legislations to be applied to unhealthy foods should be mandatory as for the tobacco act. Messages from government, private sector etc. to the public can be conflicting creating confusion for consumers. Need to look through the lens of the local community in terms of consumption of high value foods versus lower nutrients at a cheaper cost. Some participants thought that COVID-19 has attracted too much attention/resources but looking at NCD deaths versus COVID-19 deaths in Fiji, there should be a better balance. Strand 2 – Blue Food, Ministry of Fisheries Regarding marketing practices, some tensions were highlighted between restrictions versus trade and producers versus middlemen (where producers are benefiting less in terms of cost). Another area of divergence relates to the need to be aware of mercury contamination in fish that could also have health implications. A gazette collaboration work between MOF and MOA enforcing the Ridge to reef to help lessening the damaging from feeding ground for fish through deforestation and over use of chemicals. People are too busy at work and cleaning fish is time consuming whereas tinned fish or other processed meat product is more convenient. Strand 3 – Green Food, Ministry of Agriculture There seems to be some divergence between prioritising commercial commodities and food crops. Some participants asked if Fiji has enough food for all, while others though that food exports should be encouraged (as for example root crops). The seeds distribution programme were very successful providing healthy food to many families, however some vegetables flooded at certain points in time and this resulted in waste produce. Some participants thought that pest and diseases should be addressed as this problem could affect export pathways later on and that collaboration with the Biosecurity Authority in regards to clean seeds should be increased.

2021-06-10 02:53:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15502/18

1210105611111191511351511191

We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities that bring in diverse perspectives (including indigenous knowledge, cultural insights, and science-based evidence) to enable stakeholders to find alignment through understanding and to design policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. Our Dialogue brings to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within government, the business community, civil society, and research – working across the food system from knowledge to consumption. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional, and gender-specific perspectives. The multiplicity of voices is captured in the Dialogue feedback. We organized our dialogue inclusively multicultural which will help to create an effective dialogue including diverse cultures' thoughts and persepctive. This will help to have a broader discussion throughout the dialogue. Due to the global covid 19 pandemic and concerning the international value which can bring to the dialogue we organized our dialogue online.Our Dialogue commits to practicing what we preach personally and professionally to contribute to the vision, objectives, and final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. The Dialogue empowers stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. We create Food and Community Dialogue to enable the emergence of fresh and novel ideas to establish the ideas of food connects people as a new scope of opinion to add an extra value to Food System Summit 2021. Within our respective capacities and circumstances, we ensure to promote our dialogue represents multi-faith, multi-cultures and multi-ethnic communities or stakeholders to discuss their experience of food production and consumption practices that enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. We work to ensure the Summit and associated engagement process will promote trust and increase motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement, and implementation within the given time and the idea. We, individual actors, hold ourselves accountable for commitments made with mechanisms in place to uphold this accountability.Yes, We learned them from the UN Food System Summit 2021 convenor and facilitator workshops and the UN Food System Summit website.

Yes

234238239240241244247248251Food seems the first of the essentials of life, our considerable biggest industry, our most significantly indulged pleasure, and sometimes the cause of death and deseas. Despite foods' material value, we here discussed and granted the idea of beyond its material value. We considered food has always been key to connecting cultures. From that perspective, we tried to establish the core focus of our dialogue embracing summit scopes the idea of food connects people and it will help to connect diverse communities bringing peace and harmony simply through taste. It is a significant fact that according to Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin (1755-1826) mentioned "tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are" shows that food represents who you and what you are. We did not talk about the price of food but we discussed the stories beyond the price and how that food origins and came to the table after passing several steps. Food is not simply material but it highly condenses social fact. Our Dialogue tried to bring that social fact out and initiate peace and harmony in our contemporary society. Not only we further discussed how this idea enables equality and a sense of belonging and humanity in a broader perspective.235239240241244245247248249251We found that people love to try different food despite their ethnicity or tradition or culture. According to participants' ideas they often like to eat international cuisine rather than their own palatable food. And especially when they out for meals they connect with other people and network with others. This brings the key idea of connecting people through foods particularly memories and special occasions. Food does not necessarily need to be international but even local food also has a greater power of connecting people when it comes to celebrations like birthdays, Christmas and Easter. The flavours of dishes evoke emotions that allow sharing memories in a safe and welcoming environment. These major objectives have been found to initiate the scopes of respect, inclusiveness, appreciation, and resilience.236238239240241243244246248251Participants now aware and acknowledged that food identifies who we are and where we came from and what we and how it simply represents us. Some participants were being not knowing of how food causes us to connects the community and represents us. They may indeed try to read or listen to more food stories or food histories as a source of knowing food and traditions which are essential for making a safe and harmonious environment in a multicultural city And some people became understandable to be more flexible, resilient and respectful of other cultures.

2021-06-10 10:12:31205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15760/92

673928191612196165

Recognizing the utmost urgency to take sustained and meaningful action to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the dialogues are organized to identify the pathways to food systems transformation. We are committed to practicing what we preach in contribution to the Food Systems Summit. The dialogues empower stakeholders to participate in the preparations of the Food Systems Summit, while fostering new connections, enabling the emergence of new ways to move forward collectively and embracing the entire scope of opinions. Within our capacity and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and the well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Respecting one another is the foundation for a genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues are expected to be attentive and open to a multitude of opinions. We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impacting human and animal health, natural resources, climate change, biodiversity and other related systems. Therefore, their transformation requires a systemic approach.Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities to allow for the design of policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders across the food system. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with these efforts where possible in order to avoid duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches. The Dialogues build on and add value to existing policy processes and initiatives. They provide an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. We will work to ensure that the Summit and its associated engagement process promotes trust and increases motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible. The Dialogues are curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that are shared in the feedback and other media are not attributed to single individuals.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250The “Local implications of global challenges” Dialogue comprises seven round tables, which dealt with the following topics: Biodiversity; Open Landscapes; Invasive species; Water resources & supply; Climate changes; Marine resources; and Waste. The discussions focused on long-term planning to ensure food and water supply to Israel’s growing population regarding the food & water quantity, quality and safety in light of the crucial need to protect the environment. Moreover, long-term planning to ensure sustainable nutrition requires cooperation and synchronization between different government agencies, the industry and the producers. The “Climate changes” table explored intensively Action track#2 in the meaning of reducing the local meat, fish and poultry consumption in different ways, among them encouraging the consumption of plant origin proteins, cultured meat or imposing a “Carbon tax” on consumable products, both local and imported. The “Biodiversity” table mainly explored Action track#3 with an emphasis on the wide meanings of biodiversity regarding the agricultural industries and their specific interactions with nature and the environment. Another focus was on the benefits that agriculture receives from biodiversity, such as soil fertility, pollination and biological pest control. The “Marine Resources” table discussed Action track#1 regarding the aquatic food production, from both fisheries and aquaculture. The marine-source food originates from four different taxonomic groups; Algae, mollusks, crustaceans and fish.; consumption of species of low trophic levels should become more dominant. Bycatch should be reduced or even used for human consumption. In the “Water” table the main focus was on the long term planning and the need to ensure adequate and equitable water supply. Concurrently with seawater desalination and the developing of new techniques, the natural water resources must be preserved and restored. In the “Open Landscapes” table the land designation was under debate; should intensive agriculture be the main purpose of agricultural land or should they be multi-functional and also answer cultural, ecological and other social needs. The “Waste” table focused on the different types of waste through the food chain and the need to identify the specific actions relevant to each type. For example, to reduce waste from crop origin (surplus production), the producers can rely on crop-price insurance.235238239240241242243244245246248249250A major finding in our dialogue was the lack of long-term planning in different topics such as water management (fresh water, desalinated water, reclaimed sewage water), land management, aquatic resources and invasive species. Moreover, different policies may be unsynchronized and this leads to confusion and lack of uniformity, mainly among the food-producers. More transparency is required in the way the government, the supporting bodies, and the producers’ organizations operate. Regulation and enforcement seem to be a weak link in all the topics discussed in our dialogue. Moreover, because of lack of monitoring and supporting data, producers and supporting bodies are missing uniform validated protocols. Innovation and technology need more financial investment in order to create sustainable agriculture. Agricultural lands are under continuous threats due to construction and infrastructures development. The main challenge is to keep the land for agricultural purposes together with multifunctional goals for culture, tourism, landscape and ecology. Economic incentives should be considered in order to develop the multifunctional uses of agricultural land, together with raising awareness in different communities for this goal. We must adopt a dynamic and flexible management of the agricultural lands and the sea resources due to the climate change and its influence on breeding programs or crops selection. The utilization of sea and aquatic resources is expected to rise and in order to minimize the conflict with nature and environment demands, we must plan a head. Use of the term “Food safety” appears to be ambiguous. Food safety refers to preserving soil, water and biological resources but also supporting the producers by investing in research and innovations in order to improve the efficiency and productivity under sustainable approach. We need to improve efficiency in agricultural water use by differentiating the type of water and crops type. The predicted rising price of water due to consumption increase and infrastructure development should be considered. Agriculture must be based more on treated waste water. The organic world-view should be an example for the waste handling and minimizing through all the steps from farm to fork. Israel has a unique geographical and political situation, which hampers the prevention of invasive species. International trade and import influenced by economical pressure can lead to new invasive species, for example with ornamental plants or animal food. Another finding is that compensation mechanisms for the producers are missing in cases of economic damages due to invasive species. The carbon footprint of meat, poultry and fish consumption in Israel is high. We need to improve the awareness and knowledge of the agricultural sector to their influence on the environment and climate change and we should supply solutions and substitutions for this sector and the consumers.236Participants discussed the Challenges of each topic, and their findings are listed in the "Main Findings" section.2371. The role of agricultural land – is it only for intensive agriculture or are there other aspects like cultural, social and ecological roles? 2. Lack of trust between agricultural producers and environmental organizations prevents mutual initiative and interfere.

2021-06-10 10:14:29205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14692/172

248028124564010314041538051003602830832155100336302361111458223815346812

Se ha dado amplia difusión al proceso de la Cumbre y a los Diálogos a través de: - envíos masivos de correos con información de la Cumbre, actividades y eventos relacionados, a más de 600 entidades e individuos interesados - un sitio Web de la Cumbre https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ministerio/ministerio-exterior/cumbre-un-sistemas-alimentarios/ - un buzón de participación bzn-dialogos@mapa.es - amplia difusión de los diálogos en redes socialesEl Diálogo ha sido totalmente abierto en la participación, y en particular se ha fomentado la presencia de grupos diversos de interés

Yes

234238239241246247249251TEMA PRINCIPAL :ANÁLISIS DE LA PERESPECTIVA LOCAL-GLOBAL Lo local y lo global son dos aspectos de la realidad actual inseparables. Las emergencias globales tienen un gran impacto sobre cada territorio, y cada vez más, hechos que acontecen en territorios pequeños y aparentemente inconexos pueden acarrear grandes impactos globales. Al hablar de los sistemas alimentarios, el efecto es el mismo, su conexión y relación es tan fuerte que cualquier impacto negativo a nivel global puede afectar mucho localmente, y viceversa. Y en el actual contexto de pandemia mundial, más que nunca, debemos tener presente estas interrelaciones: la actual emergencia global está teniendo un gran impacto sobre la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de la población en situación de mayor vulnerabilidad. Entre sus efectos, destacan: alteraciones y dificultades en el desarrollo del trabajo del sector primario y la producción de alimentos, causado por el confinamiento; restricciones por parte de algunos países a la exportación de alimentos básicos; pérdida de los mercados de exportación de otros países debido a una disminución de la demanda; dificultades y encarecimiento del transporte; dificultades en la movilidad de los trabajadores; empeoramiento de los hábitos de consumo de la población – por falta de acceso a alimentos nutritivos; o limitación del acceso a alimentos a las personas en situación de mayor vulnerabilidad. El problema actual y global de los sistemas agro-alimentarios es multidimensional, y sus múltiples factores están interrelacionados. Afrontarlo requiere por ello una acción coordinada y un enfoque integral, pero también, la integración de los territorios y el impacto que el comercio a escala mundial tiene en éstos. Es preciso entender que deben existir sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en todos los niveles - en lo global, en lo regional, en lo nacional y en lo local – reconociendo las relaciones entre la singularidad de los territorios con la globalidad y las interdependencias existentes entre las fuerzas globales y las particularidades locales. Asegurar la resiliencia de los sistemas agroalimentarios implica facilitar la disponibilidad de alimentos procedentes de fuentes locales, regionales e internacionales. Las políticas agrarias y los sistemas alimentarios deben impulsar la Agenda 2030 para lograr el desarrollo sostenible, y sus objetivos, en línea con los ODS, deben a su vez adaptarse al contexto en todos los niveles, de lo local a lo global.235238239241245246247249251El derecho a una alimentación adecuada se reconoce como un derecho humano fundamental que los Estados deben defender, y debe ser el principio básico en apoyo de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición. Debemos transformar los sistemas alimentarios con el objetivo de hacer efectivo el derecho a la alimentación y potenciando su efecto palanca para lograr los objetivos de la Agenda 2030. Y ello requiere un diálogo social para integrar cuestiones tan diversas como los impactos en salud y nutrición, la degradación ambiental, y la situación y medios de vida de los pequeños agricultores y de las mujeres. El Derecho a la Alimentación debería figurar en la Constitución. Al igual que el estado proporciona servicios como la sanidad universal, o la educación, también debería garantizar de forma efectiva el acceso a una alimentación nutritiva para toda la población. La alimentación no puede ser un bien de consumo más. Es preciso reforzar el papel de los productores, en particular de los pequeños productores, en la cadena de valor. A menudo la formación de los precios se hace de arriba abajo, y los productores perciben precios que no remuneran suficientemente su trabajo. Es preciso mejorar la organización y la agrupación de los productores para que ganen capacidad de negociación frente a la distribución y los demás agentes de la cadena, y es preciso dotarse de legislación que proteja a los productores de las prácticas comerciales desleales. Es preciso desarrollar políticas que protejan a la agricultura familiar. Las explotaciones familiares producen más del 80% de los alimentos en el mundo en cuanto al valor. A pesar de su función como principales contribuyentes a la seguridad alimentaria, especialmente en los países en desarrollo, los pequeños productores son los más afectados por los retos que plantea el desarrollo, ya que suelen carecer de acceso a los recursos naturales y agrícolas, incluida la tierra, a los insumos y a los mercados – también a la información sobre los mercados y los precios, al crédito, a la mejora de las tecnologías, a los servicios de extensión, a la información meteorológica, a los instrumentos de gestión del riesgo, a la protección social, y con un bajo poder de negociación en las relaciones económicas y políticas. Es necesario reconocer las interacciones y las relaciones que hay entre los sistemas alimentarios, los territorios, y los ecosistemas, que afectan a la sociedad entera. Los trabajadores del medio rural están sometidos a presiones cada vez mayores; no solo ambientales, sino por políticas económicas y sociales. Por ello es de vital importancia apoyar la agricultura familiar, a los pueblos indígenas y sobre todo el territorio rural y las ciudades pequeñas.236238239241246247249251El Derecho a la alimentación. El derecho a una alimentación adecuada se reconoce como un derecho humano fundamental que los Estados deben defender, y debe ser el principio básico en apoyo de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición: para que un sistema alimentario sea considerado sostenible y justo tiene que garantizar el derecho a la alimentación. Los sistemas actuales no logran proveer de dietas sanas y sostenibles a toda la humanidad ni asumen un modelo inclusivo; y ello con vistas a alimentar a una población en aumento. Por ello, necesitamos un sistema alimentario que garantice que los alimentos sean adecuados y asequibles para todos, y que trabaje en favor del bienestar de las personas. Debemos transformar los sistemas alimentarios con el objetivo de hacer efectivo el derecho a la alimentación y potenciando su efecto palanca para lograr los objetivos de la Agenda 2030. Y ello requiere un diálogo social para integrar cuestiones tan diversas como los impactos en salud y nutrición, la degradación ambiental, y la situación y medios de vida de los pequeños agricultores y de las mujeres. Se planteó la necesidad de explorar la forma en que los Estados tengan una implicación más directa para garantizar el derecho a una alimentación sana por parte de toda la población, con especial atención a las personas en situación de vulnerabilidad - población infantil, ancianos y mujeres, entre otros. El Derecho a la Alimentación debería figurar en la Constitución. Al igual que el estado proporciona servicios como la sanidad universal, o la educación, también debería garantizar de forma efectiva el acceso a una alimentación nutritiva para toda la población. La alimentación no puede ser un bien de consumo más.236241242246249251Resiliencia del abastecimiento En España durante la pandemia, las cadenas de valor y el comercio de proximidad han tenido una gran importancia a la hora de mantener la distribución. Las políticas territoriales, la participación de la sociedad civil y la implicación de los consumidores en la toma de decisiones es vital. En España, hay algunos ejemplos de ciudades que están impulsando iniciativas de abastecimiento local y de agricultura de cercanía. El reto actualmente para muchos agricultores es el de asumir la carga burocrática para mantener todas las exigencias ambientales.236241246249Reforzar el papel de los productores en la cadena de valor Es preciso reforzar el papel de los productores, en particular de los pequeños productores, en la cadena de valor. A menudo la formación de los precios se hace de arriba abajo, y los productores perciben precios que no remuneran suficientemente su trabajo. Es preciso mejorar la organización y la agrupación de los productores para que ganen capacidad de negociación frente a la distribución y los demás agentes de la cadena, y es preciso dotarse de legislación que proteja a los productores de las prácticas comerciales desleales.236238239240241242246247249251Agricultura familiar Es preciso desarrollar políticas que protejan a la agricultura familiar. Las explotaciones familiares producen más del 80% de los alimentos en el mundo en cuanto al valor. Al mismo tiempo, de los 570 millones de explotaciones agropecuarias que se estiman que existen en el mundo, más de 500 millones se dedican a la agricultura familiar. A pesar de su función como principales contribuyentes a la seguridad alimentaria, especialmente en los países en desarrollo, los pequeños productores son los más afectados por los retos que plantea el desarrollo, ya que suelen carecer de acceso a los recursos naturales y agrícolas, incluida la tierra, a los insumos y a los mercados – también a la información sobre los mercados y los precios, al crédito, a la mejora de las tecnologías, a los servicios de extensión, a la información meteorológica, a los instrumentos de gestión del riesgo, a la protección social, y con un bajo poder de negociación en las relaciones económicas y políticas. El Objetivo del Decenio de la Agricultura Familiar es movilizar acciones concretas y coordinadas para superar estos desafíos que enfrentan los agricultores familiares, para lo cual, cuenta con un Plan de Acción Mundial.236238239240241242244246247249251La interacciones entre los territorios Es necesario reconocer las interacciones y las relaciones que hay entre los sistemas alimentarios, los territorios, y los ecosistemas, que afectan a la sociedad entera. Los trabajadores del medio rural están sometidos a presiones cada vez mayores; no solo ambientales, sino por políticas económicas y sociales. Por ello es de vital importancia apoyar la agricultura familiar, a los pueblos indígenas y sobre todo el territorio rural y las ciudades pequeñas, ya que aquí viven el 70% de la población mundial, donde se produce la mayoría de los alimentos y donde las políticas públicas nacionales e internacionales han de detenerse para lograr un desarrollo sostenible, la eliminación del hambre y de la malnutrición y la creación de territorios prósperos. España tiene un importante problema de despoblación del medio rural. Es esencial impulsar un nuevo contrato social rural-urbano, para lo cual las zonas rurales han de ser pobladas de nuevo, des-homogeneizar la visión del mundo rural, evitar la segregación de espacios, consolidar redes de actores y de participación pública, evitar las externalidades dañinas y aplicar enfoques de políticas públicas más territoriales. El programa LEADER en Europa, que llevan más de 30 años construyendo territorio y fomentado el desarrollo rural, ha tenido lecciones muy positivas.

2021-06-10 10:16:04205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15765/92

251122810618382141111918

Recognizing the utmost urgency to take sustained and meaningful action to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the dialogues are organized to identify the pathways to food systems transformation. We are committed to practicing what we preach in contribution to the Food Systems Summit. The dialogues empower stakeholders to participate in the preparations of the Food Systems Summit, while fostering new connections, enabling the emergence of new ways to move forward collectively and embracing the entire scope of opinions. Within our capacity and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and the well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Respecting one another is the foundation for a genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues are expected to be attentive and open to a multitude of opinions. We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impacting human and animal health, natural resources, climate change, biodiversity and other related systems. Therefore, their transformation requires a systemic approach.Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities to allow for the design of policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders across the food system. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with these efforts where possible in order to avoid duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches. The Dialogues build on and add value to existing policy processes and initiatives. They provide an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. We will work to ensure that the Summit and its associated engagement process promotes trust and increases motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible. The Dialogues are curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that are shared in the feedback and other media are not attributed to single individuals.

Yes

234238239240242243244245246248249Our dialogue's focus was a comprehensive exploration of sustainable plant food systems, with a focus on the agricultural sector. The FAO defines a sustainable food system as a "food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised". A food system incorporates many aspects, our dialogue focused on various aspects relevant to a sustainable plant food system: 1) Domestic production (quantity and composition); 2) Means of production; 3) Productivity improvement, 4) Sustainable plant production; and 5) Production profitability. Each topic was discussed separately in a round table format. The emphasis of the first dialogue was to identify and define the major challenges in each field.235238239240242243244245246248249250The main findings that emerged from the plant food systems dialogues included challenges related to the supply of production factors (land, water and workers), use of pesticides and fertilizers, climate change, food security, R&D, knowledge transfer, adoption of technologies to raise productivity, marketing, policy and regulatory tools regarding the status of agriculture, waste management, the position regarding imports/local production. Detailed explanation of each category: 1. Supply of production factors: a) Water – high water prices and not enough subsidization for infrastructure development, a lack of information regarding the long-term implications of the use of recycled wastewater. b) Land – limited area available for agriculture, contraction of agricultural area resulting from an increase in other land uses, need to update legislation (e.g. there is no law to encourage agriculture in Israel, absence of definition of "agriculture" in planning and building law, outdated "settlement law"). c) Workers - restricted number of foreign workers along with the fact that most Israelis do not want to do manual work in agriculture creates a shortage of workers. Seasonality of production, administrative allocation and limitations on mobility of foreign workers among farmers result in a suboptimal allocation. 2. Farmers: lack of generational renewal 3. Research and Development, Knowledge transfer – Ensure public agricultural extension, Implementation of research results, ensure budget for agricultural R&D, collaboration with start-up companies. 4. Pesticides and fertilizers – lack of effective environmentally friendly pesticides. Part of fertilizers and pesticides are imported, leading to a possibility of shortage; negative environmental impacts resulting from the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers due to the prevailing climatic conditions and ground structure in the country; frictions with the urban sector and nature. 5. Climate changes – lack of knowledge regarding climate change and its effect on different crops, development of climate change policy for agricultural sector and sufficient investment for climate change adaptation, supplying the necessary information to farmers about tools for adaption and crops that can be grown. 6. Uncertainty of farming in Israel: increased variability of yields resulting from climate change, frequent policy changes increase uncertainty for farmers. 7. Technologies – difficulties in improving and adopting new agricultural technologies. Technologies to reduce food waste. There is a need to improve soil fertility. In recent years, the productivity of the agricultural sector declined – it is necessary to understand the causes and increase productivity. 8. Food security – providing the economic, social and environmental conditions to generate food security and healthy nutrition for the local population. Ensuring that agriculture in Israel is profitable for farmers. Domestic agricultural production is stagnating in recent years. We need to be prepared for future scenarios in which domestic agriculture will need to increase its production substantially: population growth, change in nutrition habits, climate change and emergency situations. The challenge is to create the conditions that will enable the agricultural sector to supply the food necessary in the light of future scenarios. The growing Palestinian population should be accounted for as well. 9. Marketing – coping with aggressive marketing of ultra-processed food. There is a need to ensure profitability of food production in Israel. Steady supply of raw material to the food industry. 10. Policies – Ministries need to collaborate in order to establish a holistic and sustainable policy for the food system with clear long-term objectives. Disagreements about objectives and policy instruments (e.g. importance of agriculture, subsidies). There is a need for long-term policy objectives for the agricultural sector. Differences in requirements for imported and domestic agricultural products. 11. Agricultural waste management – food losses and waste, waste resulting from surplus production, developing an alternative for plastic, creating a standard for compost. 12. Conflicts between environment and agriculture, e.g. overlap of wildlife corridors and agricultural land. Need to find balance between nature and agriculture. Not enough incentives for farmers to use sustainable agriculture. 13. Barriers to the development of urban agriculture236The first dialogue focused on the challenges that are to be address. The challenges are detailed in the "Main Findings" section.2372382392462491. Some participants attributed the lack of technological advances to the availability of foreign workers, while others stated that there are not enough foreign workers. 2. The importance of domestic supply for providing food security in the future in times of climate change and population growth, vs. the importance of imports (is it necessary to protect domestic agricultural production by custom duties to ensure present and future supply of fresh domestic products, or should import restrictions be abolished in order to ensure food supply in Israel and decrease food prices) 3. The importance of agriculture in providing public goods.

2021-06-10 10:27:44205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15798/92

Recognizing the utmost urgency to take sustained and meaningful action to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the dialogues are organized to identify the pathways to food systems transformation. We are committed to practicing what we preach in contribution to the Food Systems Summit. The dialogues empower stakeholders to participate in the preparations of the Food Systems Summit, while fostering new connections, enabling the emergence of new ways to move forward collectively and embracing the entire scope of opinions. Within our capacity and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and the well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Respecting one another is the foundation for a genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues are expected to be attentive and open to a multitude of opinions. We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impacting human and animal health, natural resources, climate change, biodiversity and other related systems. Therefore, their transformation requires a systemic approach.Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities to allow for the design of policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders across the food system. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with these efforts where possible in order to avoid duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches. The Dialogues build on and add value to existing policy processes and initiatives. They provide an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. We will work to ensure that the Summit and its associated engagement process promotes trust and increases motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible. The Dialogues are curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that are shared in the feedback and other media are not attributed to single individuals.

Yes

234The focus of the dialogue was: urban food systems, food security, food industry, food waste and food loss and communication and social media. Urban food systems: Discussed the importance of cities integrating most of the SDG’s, as well as a chance to concomitantly address the need for behavioral change through education and social marketing, and regulatory change through local government. Food security: The dialogue focused on exploring and identifying the policy challenges that Israel faces in achieving Sustainable Food Security, primarily from the perspective relevant to various government agencies (Health, Welfare, Community Resilience, Agriculture, Finance, Defense), with input from academicians and NGOs. Communication and social media: Discussed how different approaches to change food preferences through communication and social media. Food waste and food loss: Focused on the main challenges and/or barriers to reducing food waste? Food industry: Promotion of healthy food and reducing nutrition related diseases facing the food industry challenges235Urban food systems: 1. We discovered the need to address the challenges faced by the different sectors of population in the city, of varying socio-economic levels, and defined by diverse religious, ethnic and cultural characteristics. 2. There is a need to look beyond the city’s boundary, and include the peri-urban agricultural areas in the local food system. It may not be possible for the city to achieve food security on its own, but this should be a feasible goal at the regional level. Food security 1. The overarching challenge identified by this dialog was for the government to shoulder the responsibility for planning, appropriating and regulating a coordinated national food security policy. 2. Food insecurity is an Israeli national security concern. 3. Climate change and water scarcity are projected to increase, potentially contributing to regional instability. 4. Fragmentation: different ministries and agencies, with different, often conflicting priorities and little coordination between them, regulate different aspects of the food system. 5. Solutions are aimed at long-term policies to increase workforce participation and earning power of poor populations, and there are minimal benefits or food aid. 6. The government does not appropriate any significant assistance for alleviating food insecurity nor does it take responsibility for the food insecure population. Communication and social media: • Complexity: The overall issue of sustainable food systems is complex, appears distant, has an image that it is mainly relevant to those who are privileged • Diversity: Challenges need to be articulated and focused on diversity among and within different population groups, and identifying those which do not correspond to healthier and more sustainable food consumption. • Cost and current lifestyle: Economic cost and the convenience of processed foods in a hurried and pressured lifestyle serve as major barriers to healthier and more sustainable food consumption, in particular among groups with low income. • Media: competition with other issues considered more urgent, and journalists that consider it as controversial and attempt to present “both sides.” • Competition and disinformation: Commercial marketing of food products confuses and obfuscates the issue of healthy and sustainable foods by misleading advertising or emphasizing micronutrients, thus diverting attention from non-nutritious or non-sustainable elements. Food waste and food loss: • Significant knowledge gaps - The lack of empirical data and continuous measurement make it difficult to manage the challenge nor to set a coherent policy • The Price Marking Order requires that any goods offered for sale must have their price clearly indicated. This requirement constitutes a significant barrier to the transition to dynamic pricing • Technological gaps might constitutes a significant barrier to the implementation of dynamic pricing in retail networks Food industry: 1. Finding the balance between local agriculture and local production versus import. National food security depends on food independency. 2. Food Waste - Reducing consumer and manufacturer waste 3. Lack of manpower in the food industry 4. The need of Strengthening small and medium-sized industry, strengthening community-oriented industry 5. Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Industry - Providing tools, infrastructure, and goals for the development of fossil fuel free industry, and circular economy236Urban food systems: • The goal of rescuing food is an urban challenge that can both help feed the urban poor, prevent unnecessary dumping, and generate reciprocity among the diverse urban communities. • Urban planning and management must factor into their system the need for access to fresh and healthy food within neighborhoods. • Urban food growing, until now focused on educational and community goals, should undertake the challenge of effective production of greens and fruit-bearing trees in the city. This will require regulatory measures • To address these challenges and to achieve these targets, cities must work together as a network with shared goals, to generate the push needed for regulatory change, which will require approval at the government level. Food security The Topic Outcomes included and urgent need to: 1) Define food security broadly, and consider it a national government priority, for social resilience and domestic and national security 2) Enhance governance, by creating an overarching, integrated, inter-ministerial policy review to develop a food systems master plan to ensure food security in its broad definition. 3) Define outcome measures and targets, assign responsibility for monitoring, formative and evaluative research 4) Develop a master plan for Israeli agriculture taking into consideration sustainability, climate change threats, economic planning 5) Expand economic policy to correct market failures and to accommodate agriculture and health outcomes, to achieve food availability and prices that will contribute to achieving targets for reducing the prevalence of food insecurity and improving the nation's diet and health and environment. Communication and social media:  Identifying socio-cultural and economic barriers and potential solutions for diverse groups within and across populations.  Reframing the issue as one that concerns all and not only privileged groups  Raising the issue in the media and creating engagement and discourse.  Addressing information gaps.  Addressing misinformation and disinformation from public and commercial sources. Food waste and food loss: • Lack of national food waste reduction goals and policies, and as a result lack of success indicators • The lack of governmental budget leaves the challenge of food rescue in the hands of local NGOs • Lack of consistent policy for organic waste management that leads to unreasonable allocation of resources (institutional / commercial versus domestic food waste) • Lack of synchronization between local government and central government Food industry: 1. Regulation: contradicting regulations of different authorities or ministries, contradicting requirements and rapid changes. 2. The challenge of forming multi-sectoral collaborations to achieve the DSGs goals. 3. Designated budget for public research on food and health impacts, including novel foods. 4. The need of balancing between economic needs, public health, the environment and the community237Food security: Should food security be defined broadly or should emergency food insecurity remain defined separately as a poverty issue? Should food insecurity policy focus on welfare and benefits or on poverty reduction measures that emphasize increasing employment (purchasing power) rather than dealing with the high price of nutritious food and health (food system policy addressing market failures, agriculture production, food subsidies, imports, etc( How should food insecurity be measured and targets for policy defined? By subjective measures such as the USDA questionnaire or by econometric criteria? How should health outcomes be factored in? Communication and social media: There were disagreements regarding the potential role of the food industry and concerns about its role in advancing more sustainable alternatives and the way it would promote them. Food industry: Definition of ultra-processed and harmful food

2021-06-10 10:28:26205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15810/92

45029102964112712408112

Yes

234238239Implementation guidelines for healthy and sustainable diet policy235The following challenges were identified: • Lack of public awareness to consume a safe, healthy and less –ultra-processed diet, and the connection to sustainability. • The industry still has place for improvement regarding the development of healthier foods, and sustainable food reformulation and packaging. • Data regarding public exposure, especially in susceptible populations, to foodstuff and dietary patterns is incomplete and biomonitoring data is limited. Government official controls should rely on data to better adjust enforcement measures to the level of risk. • There are limited government resources available to enhance food and nutritional data collections and research regarding epidemiology and intervention studies, including with the academia at the local population levels, in order to establish evidence-based nutrition policy. Currently, most of the available data is based on studies carried out by commercial stakeholders. • The ultra-processed foods are more attractive to the general population, in comparison to fresh foods, for various reasons including lack of nutritional education and lack of economic incentives. • Foods for people with special nutritional needs (such as allergies, non-communicable diseases) is expensive and not always accessible. • Heterogenic populations are exposed to different advertisements for unhealthy foods, including foreign, digital, and specifically targeted messages. Low SES populations are more exposed to the harmful advertisements. • Incorporation of nutrition guidelines through the life cycle faces a few challenges, according to age groups such as the first 1000 days of life, teenagers and the elderly each having their own nutritional needs and challenges. Immigrants, ethnicity-affiliation, religious group and populations in transition, may be affected by malnutrition and therefore are more vulnerable. • Currently, there is no significant nutrition education in the school curricula. There is a need for regulations voluntary nutrition education does not work. • Integrating nutritional education and better health literacy as an integral part of the education system in Israel, focusing on the young ages and various socio-economic strata. • Regulation is non-harmonized, and is addressed by several regulators, each with different requirements. Laboratory testing methods are not always available or optimal in terms of costs and response time. • There is not always an economic justification for developing analytical methods and government laboratories lack the necessary resources to enable them to serve as reference laboratories. • The geographic location of Israel makes it a wild-animals migration hub and therefore more susceptible to zoonotic diseases. • Education regarding the use of packaging and public awareness of sustainability and recycling of packages and single-use-utensils is insufficient. • Healthy sustainable food systems in institutions, companies and local authorities are necessary. There is a need for professional nutritional experts as leaders and for training the workers in the field. • Harmonizing and keeping the food chain safe, healthy, and suitable to the needs of the clients and consumers, in light of quality control. • There is a need to minimize food waste and use of disposable packaging and utensils, through education, and training for sustainable food purchase. • Optimization of development of alternative protein sources and their production, so as to imitate the conventional products and to make them available and accessible to the general public without compromising health and sustainable aspects. • The Government has limited resources to keep up with the rapid development of the food tech taking into consideration the lack of international guidelines and standards. • Local authorities are varied by the level of awareness, budgets and availability of professional experts in nutrition and strategy to implement healthy nutrition in all policies, which result in poor implementation of healthy nutrition strategy. • There are no dedicated defined units responsible for public health within the local municipalities.237• There is inherent tension between the industry's desire to adopt international regulation (EU, US) "as-is" and the responsibility of the regulator to adjust the regulation to the unique circumstances of the country. • There is a contradiction between the need for food safety and longer shelf life and attractive coloring and taste and the need for cleaner labelling. • There is a discrepancy between the right of the consumer to transparency and the limitation of the labelling. • Lack of unanimously accepted definition of ultra-processed food and harmful foods. • The regulator is obliged to prevent additional exposure to unhealthy foods by limiting the industry and the television programs and advertising that encourages unhealthy eating. This should be managed by regulation, whereas the industry prefers pledges/voluntary charters. • There is a need to add health score symbols on the packaging like carcinogenic etc. • There is a need to maintain and enhance the Israeli agriculture from the food security perspective and sustainability in light of the SDG's, and to favor local production over imported foods, despite of lower cost effectiveness. • Who takes the responsibility over the food health risk factors communication; Government, industry, the public? • There is abandonment of traditional eating and use of local crops due to globalization and modernization. • Sustainable packaging and recycling. There is no incentive for the industry to use sustainable packaging, nor to recycle, and excessive packaging is still common. • While several stakeholders proposed the implementation of stricter regulation and enforcement, others suggested adopting a looser strategy relying on the responsibility of the manufacturer/importer. Currently, official controls are partially relying on self-declarations but when analyzed the products might not meet the regulatory requirements. • Lack of food quality and subjective parameters in food tenders regarding nutritional quality, technology, taste and requirement for better equipment in institutional kitchen facilities. • There are disagreements on the need to replace protein of animal origin with plant-based protein. • Disagreement between governmental ministries regarding the need to establish a healthy “food basket” with a fixed price including subsidies. • There is a need to ensure that highly nutritious and appealing foods are served in "dining rooms" at schools lunch-program, these being foods that the children will enjoy eating, without compromising on food safety and quality. • There is a need for every school to have dining rooms in order to encourage good nutritional habits in early stages of life. • On the one hand Israel is currently leading the development of alternative protein technologies while on the other hand there are not enough resources to make the shift to large scale production. • Gap between policies and implementation: although there are basic Nutritional Policies for healthy eating in educational institutes, there is a gap between policy and implementation and a lack of human resources and awareness regarding the existing policies.

2021-06-10 11:40:02205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17668/172

3200341611022301411718252711193922212654323966229311831324239123113437154

Se ha dado amplia difusión al proceso de la Cumbre y a los Diálogos a través de: - envíos masivos de correos con información de la Cumbre, actividades y eventos relacionados, a más de 600 entidades e individuos interesados - un sitio Web de la Cumbre https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ministerio/ministerio-exterior/cumbre-un-sistemas-alimentarios/ - un buzón de participación bzn-dialogos@mapa.es - amplia difusión de los diálogos en redes socialesEl Diálogo ha sido totalmente abierto en la participación, y en particular se ha fomentado la presencia de diversos grupos de interés

Yes

234240241242243244245246248249251Una revisión de la situación de los sistemas alimentarios en España, con especial atención al papel de la innovación y el progreso técnico, así como de la reorientación de los incentivos públicos hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas.235240241242244245246248249251La sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios debe ser plena para poder ser posible: ambiental, social y económica. Es fundamental no descuidar ninguna de estas tres facetas para no dejar a nadie atrás. Al tiempo que se transita hacia la plena sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios, se constata que se necesitará alimentar a una población creciente, y para ello la producción deberá crecer en 2050 entre un 60 y un 70%. Se constata también que, con las actuales tecnologías, muchas de las soluciones hacia producciones sostenibles implican una bajada de la productividad. Por lo tanto, se estima que sólo a través del progreso técnico y la innovación será posible avanzar simultáneamente en las tres facetas de la sostenibilidad. Para ello, será precisa una mayor coordinación entre los diferentes actores, públicos y privados, en el campo de la innovación; se necesitará incrementar sensiblemente las inversiones en este campo, y será preciso poner en marcha mecanismos que aseguren que las soluciones innovadoras son accesibles a todos los actores de la cadena, y que todos se benefician de ellas, incluidos los pequeños agricultores y la agricultura familiar.236240241244245246249251Las repercusiones de la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. Es necesario adoptar un Compromiso firme para hacer que los Sistemas Alimentarios sean plenamente sostenibles en su triple vertiente: ambiental, social y económica. Los avances hacia la plena sostenibilidad tendrán en cuenta en todo momento esta triple faceta, ya que los sistemas no podrán ser plenamente sostenibles si alguna de ellas no es tenida en cuenta apropiadamente. Esto implica que los avances hacia métodos de producción, de transporte, distribución, transformación, consumo y gestión de residuos con menor impacto ambiental deberán tener en cuenta la necesidad de seguir incrementando la producción de alimentos para responder a las necesidades de una población creciente, y deberán proporcionar medios de vida dignos a todos los integrantes de la cadena, con especial atención a los más vulnerables, así como alimentos seguros, sanos y asequibles a toda la población.236240242243244246Prioridades para lograr la plena sostenibilidad ambiental Los Sistemas Alimentarios deben seguir reduciendo su impacto ambiental en diferentes áreas: a) Lucha contra el cambio climático, en la doble vertiente de mitigación y adaptación. España es un país muy afectado por las consecuencias negativas del cambio climático, y el sector agroalimentario debe reducir sus emisiones y actuar como captador de carbono. Igualmente debe reforzar los instrumentos de adaptación al cambio climático. En el ámbito de la mitigación se propone el fomento de acciones tendentes a reducir las emisiones y a aumentar la captura de carbono en los suelos, tales como: • Descarbonizar el transporte de alimentos, ya que es el responsable del 9,6% de las emisiones totales en nuestro país. • Fomento de la ganadería extensiva y la conservación de los pastizales. • Fomento de prácticas agrarias que favorezcan el mantenimiento de la cobertura vegetal, y la reincorporación al suelo de los restos orgánicos de las labores agrarias. • Mejorar la eficiencia de la producción para reducir el uso de insumos y de energía. Los cultivos intensivos como los invernaderos que utilizan luz solar como fuente de energía son un buen ejemplo de eficiencia productiva siendo además sumidero de carbono. • Mejorar la gestión de residuos de las explotaciones ganaderas, reduciendo las pérdidas de metano y de amoníaco y reduciendo indirectamente el uso de fertilizantes de síntesis. • Evitar la deforestación. No se identifica como un problema en el territorio nacional, donde la superficie forestal de la actualidad ha aumentado respecto a la existente a principios del siglo XX, sino de forma indirecta en los países de origen de las importaciones agrarias. En el ámbito de la adaptación se propone: • Investigación y transferencia de conocimiento, que asegure un correcto asesoramiento al sector agrario de las mejores prácticas culturales, variedades vegetales y cultivos adaptados, en el actual escenario de cambio. • Conservación y fomento de razas autóctonas de ganado y de variedades vegetales locales. Mejora, creación y mantenimiento de bancos de germoplasma. • Fomento y apoyo a las herramientas financieras de gestión de los riesgos meteorológicos, especialmente de los sistemas de seguros agrarios. b) Mejorar la gestión del agua, reduciendo su consumo, aumentando la eficiencia de su utilización, y evitando la contaminación de los acuíferos. Es preciso reconocer que la producción de alimentos para una población creciente requerirá seguir utilizando una elevada proporción del agua disponible a este fin, pero existe margen para aumentar la producción sin ejercer más presión sobre el recurso. Para ello será necesario: • Adoptar planes de gestión de las cuencas hidrográficas que permitan evitar la sobreexplotación, • Adoptar medidas de protección de las franjas de terrenos que ejercen de tampón de las cuencas fluviales, • Reducir el consumo de agua en los regadíos mediante su modernización para evitar las pérdidas de agua y mejorar la eficiencia en el consumo de agua y la energía a través de la generalización de las técnicas de riego localizado y la adopción de nuevas tecnologías de precisión y digitales en su aplicación. • Evitar la contaminación de los acuíferos a través de los lixiviados de la producción agraria. • Fomentar la obtención y el uso de variedades capaces de crecer con menos agua y que ofrezcan una mejor adaptación al cambio climático. • Mejorar la formación de los regantes. c) Reducir las pérdidas de nutrientes en la agricultura, reduciendo el uso de fertilizantes de síntesis y mejorando la gestión de los fertilizantes orgánicos. Para ello será preciso: • Fomentar la adopción de técnicas de agricultura de precisión • Fomentar la economía circular en las explotaciones agrícolas y ganaderas • Mejorar la gestión de estiércoles y purines, reduciendo las emisiones de amoníaco y metano. d) Reducir el empleo de pesticidas, en particular de los pesticidas más peligrosos para el medio, y para ello, • Fomentar la gestión integrada de plagas. • Fomentar la agricultura de precisión • Fomentar la investigación y en desarrollo de semillas resistentes a las plagas.236240241242243244246248249Innovación y progreso técnico Se necesita un fuerte impulso a la innovación, al progreso técnico y a la digitalización. Los Sistemas Alimentarios Mundiales deben ser capaces de producir entre un 60 y un 70% más de alimentos en 2050, y ello sin ocupar más tierra, y mientras reducen la presión sobre los recursos naturales. Este reto sólo será posible si se da un fuerte impulso a la innovación y al desarrollo tecnológico para incrementar sensiblemente la eficiencia de la producción, así como de todas las demás etapas de la cadena. Se destaca la importancia de la innovación y el progreso técnico para la reducción de los impactos de los sistemas alimentarios en el medio ambiente. Será necesario incrementar sensiblemente las inversiones en innovación, tanto públicas como privadas, y para ello se apunta la oportunidad que supone el recientemente aprobado Fondo de Recuperación y Resiliencia y la nueva PAC post 2020. Las tecnologías deben permitirnos aumentar la eficiencia de todos los eslabones de la cadena. La producción agraria en España ya es, de acuerdo con las cifras de la FAO, un 30% más eficiente que la media, pero será preciso avanzar mucho más. Algunos ejemplos de tecnologías que será preciso desarrollar con esta finalidad son: • Agricultura de precisión para ajustar los insumos (agua, fertilizantes y pesticidas) a las necesidades de la planta. • La ganadería de precisión en la alimentación del ganado, ajustando la alimentación a las necesidades de cada animal en cada momento, • Desarrollo de aditivos de la alimentación que reduzcan las emisiones de metano y mejoren la eficiencia de la alimentación, • Mejora genética, tanto vegetal como animal, para conseguir plantas y animales mejor adaptados al medio, más eficientes en la producción y que generen menores emisiones. • Desarrollo de nuevas fuentes de proteínas • Desarrollo de técnicas de sensorización e inteligencia artificial En relación con el progreso técnico se hace hincapié en los siguientes aspectos:  La necesidad de poner en marcha mecanismos que aseguren que el progreso técnico es asequible y accesible a las pequeñas explotaciones.  La necesidad de que en los aspectos regulatorios las autoridades se apoyen exclusivamente en la ciencia, evitando que consideraciones políticas o de otra índole limiten el potencial de la innovación y dificulten la transferencia de conocimientos.  En materia de innovación se considera, asimismo, necesario avanzar en la mejora de la posición de los actores de la cadena en los procesos de innovación interactiva, que están ocurriendo a nivel de explotaciones en el sector agroalimentario, y avanzar en la mejora de su coordinación y la mejora de los intercambios de conocimiento a través de herramientas diversas como puede ser una plataforma para el asesoramiento agrario, así como en la valorización y cualificación de los asesores agrarios y su trabajo236240241244246249La sostenibilidad de la pesca y de la acuicultura La sostenibilidad de la pesca y de la acuicultura es un objetivo en el que el sector pesquero español lleva décadas trabajando, abordando el problema de la sobrecapacidad, ajustando el esfuerzo de pesca, regulando la actividad, y mejorando el control de las actividades pesqueras. Es un sector con un elevado grado de apertura internacional, y se identifica la necesidad de evitar la competencia desleal en los mercados de los productos obtenidos sin respetar los mínimos estándares en materia de conservación así como de los estándares sociolaborales. Para ello, se han formulado las siguientes propuestas: a) Es necesario mejorar la gobernanza global de la pesca, fortaleciendo las instituciones internacionales de gestión de los recursos pesqueros para eliminar la pesca ilegal, no declarada y no reglamentada. b) Es necesario asegurar que todas las flotas pesqueras cumplen los estándares mínimos de requisitos sociolaborales de los trabajadores, y que se cumplen las condiciones de seguridad y bienestar a bordo. Los productos que acceden a los mercados europeos deberían cumplir estos requisitos para que no exista competencia desleal con las producciones europeas. c) Se debe favorecer la implantación de etiquetados que informen al consumidor acerca del cumplimiento de las condiciones de pesca responsable y de respeto a las condiciones de trabajo. Se ha puesto el ejemplo del etiquetado “Atún de pesca responsable” de la flota atunera española.236241242246249251Acceso a los mercados Es necesario mejorar el acceso de los productores a los mercados, en particular de los pequeños productores. Para ello, se deben fomentar los mercados de proximidad, que permiten acercar las producciones a los consumidores y que éstos puedan capturar una mayor proporción del valor del producto. También es preciso reconocer el papel que el comercio internacional tiene para los sistemas alimentarios. Así mismo, los mercados internacionales debe ser accesibles a los pequeños productores, con reglas del comercio acordadas en la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Los mercados de proximidad y los mercados internacionales no son excluyentes, son complementarios, y ambos son fundamentales para asegurar la sostenibilidad y la resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios. Es necesario que las reglas del comercio internacional incorporen requisitos de carácter ambiental que limiten el comercio de productos que no respeten unos mínimos estándares ambientales, ejerciendo con ello una competencia desleal sobre las producciones locales.236239240244246249251Potenciar el papel de los consumidores Con su capacidad para elegir, los consumidores juegan un importante papel en la orientación de la producción hacia métodos más sostenibles y resilientes. Es preciso eliminar los frenos que están evitando que los consumidores puedan tener mayor protagonismo en esta transformación. La mayor parte de los consumidores elegirían productos más sostenibles vinculados a certificaciones medioambientales o de calidad, incluso si eso exigiera un mayor esfuerzo económico, pero se necesita más información, con mensajes claros, objetivos, veraces y transparentes.236240241242244245246249El papel de la reorientación de los incentivos públicos La reorientación de los incentivos públicos puede hacer que éstos se conviertan en un importante motor para lograr sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. En España se está procediendo a esta reorientación con dos instrumentos fundamentales: La Política Agraria Común y los Fondos del Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia. Las ayudas de la PAC hace ya años que incentivan la producción sostenible. En el nuevo período de programación que ahora se está preparando, se cambia el enfoque para poner el punto de mira en la consecución de resultados, a través de la elaboración de un Plan Estratégico. Las ayudas directas a la renta se destinarán a los agricultores que cumplan con las normas de conservación del medio ambiente y de bienestar animal a través de la denominada condicionalidad reforzada, y se diseñan nuevos incentivos, los ecoesquemas, para añadir un incentivo adicional a aquellos agricultores y ganaderos que asuman un mayor compromiso ambiental. En conjunto, al menos un 40% del presupuesto de la PAC se destinará a acciones que mejoren la sostenibilidad de las producciones. Los fondos del Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia se destinarán en un elevado porcentaje a promover acciones que fomenten la sostenibilidad: ahorro de agua, energías limpias, economía circular, reutilización de residuos, agricultura de precisión y mejora de la bioseguridad. Es necesario además evitar los incentivos que promuevan prácticas negativas para el medio ambiente, y fomentar una fiscalidad más favorable para las prácticas positivas para el medio ambiente.236238239241242246247249251Nadie debe quedar atrás Las políticas públicas para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios deberán prestar una especial atención a los colectivos sociales más vulnerables: a) Es necesario que las políticas públicas tengan especialmente en cuenta la agricultura familiar, por su papel en el abastecimiento de alimentos y en el cuidado del medio, así como para el equilibrio territorial. Igualmente es necesario mejorar la percepción que la sociedad tiene de los agricultores y ganaderos, reivindicando el indispensable papel que desempeñan. b) Es preciso tener especialmente en cuenta a las mujeres y los jóvenes, logrando la igualdad de género y eliminando posibles barreras socioeconómicas. Se debe contribuir a capacitar a ambos colectivos, dado que son claves para transformar los sistemas alimentarios Son los colectivos que presentan una mayor apertura a las innovaciones y los que más invierten, y además son colectivos clave para frenar el fenómeno del despoblamiento del medio rural. c) Se deberán poner en marcha mecanismos de protección social para evitar la denominada pobreza alimentaria, por la cual determinados colectivos no tienen acceso a una alimentación saludable. Es preciso abordar la mayor incidencia de la malnutrición, y en particular de la obesidad entre los colectivos más desfavorecidos.

2021-06-10 12:24:50205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21873/92

9345029102964112712408112

Yes

236• There will be sustainable nutrition education that includes education for reduction of food waste from the age of 3 onwards while implementing orderly and adapted programs delivered by skilled professionals (nutritionists) to a variety of targeted sub-populations (ages, sectors, socio-economic status etc.) • The educational nutritional programs will be based on the national nutritional guidelines and will be held in appropriate physical facilities and with suitable equipment. The school program will offer the students several menu alternatives, including for vegetarian diets and will encourage preferred nutritional behaviors and choices. • Professional and skilled staff are involved at all stages of the institutional food chain and nutritionists are integrated in the recognition and management of the various food and nutrition systems. • Equipment and infrastructure: For each category of institutional kitchens there are specific regulatory requirements for equipment and the operation, methods in light of the regulatory requirements for a healthy and sustainable diet, including reducing food loss. • Misleading advertising and food labelling will be prohibited and the phenomenon of hidden, sponsored or incorrect advertising in all media will be completely eradicated. • One regulatory body will be responsible for uniform, comprehensive and holistic regulation in the field of food advertising and nutrition recommendations. • Local authorities will enable healthy nutrition as part of the 'good health' policy at the personal, environmental and institutional level and with the assistance of dedicated health departments within the authority. • Urban planning will enable the option of a safe and healthy diet as the norm while strengthening the nutritional resilience within the local authorities and encouraging a circular economy. • There is an awareness and commitment of all stakeholders to take actions that will change the food systems, not only as a solution to the problem of hunger but also for the purpose of reducing diseases related to unhealthy diets and in order to maintain the planet sustainability. • A national program with an appropriate budget will be launched to promote the field of alternative protein, covering all relevant and health aspects in order to encourage both development and production in Israel. • There will be uniformity in regulation for the entire production and marketing chain. One body with official supervisory and enforcement authority will manage the issue in an holistic manner and will develop a data-based policy. Both enforcement and inspection will be proportional to the threat to public health. • Adoption of international horizontal and holistic regulation regarding food packaging produced from all raw materials, encouraging the use of smart and advanced packaging and adoption of existing technologies from the field of medicine to the food industry. • Existence of a broad set of data collection and consumption data from the general population and sensitive sub-groups conducting continuous and extensive surveys, including relying on biomonitoring as a tool for evaluating and quantifying actual exposure and nutritional behavior.237• What would be the best policy: Price reduction will result from encouraging free market economy relying on uncontrolled imports or due to governmental support and subsidization of domestic production. • The way in which the dietary guidelines will be assimilated: top down (from the regulator to the market) or bottom-up (from the free market towards the regulator). • The industry is interested in being involved in regulatory decisions more than is so currently, while the regulator is interested in acting professionally and independently without being influenced by the pressure of stakeholders with self-promoting agendas. • - Disagreement regarding the definition of ultra-processed food in accordance with the "NOVA" classification. • Disagreements regarding the role, the level of involvement and the degree of responsibility of both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health with respect to foodstuff being sold within the educational system facilities and the surrounding areas. • Disagreement regarding the degree of integration of content that promotes healthy and balanced food consumption as a regulatory demand in the study materials for the various ages at the education system. • A defined, healthy and sustainable food basket as standard: Should it necessarily be based on local production or also include imported / processed / alternative foods? • Determining a uniform policy for the institutional market may not be meet the requirements of populations with special nutritional needs. • What is the best equilibrium between the regulator as a single entity outlining policy and the participation of other stakeholders, including industry, who might also promote commercial agendas? • Disagreements about the best labelling method for the front of the package - stick to the existing judgmental dichotomous method (red vs. green) or the adoption of an informative and relative method. • The role of the authority and its involvement in reducing the consumption of harmful food products creates a challenge: whether to allow choice or to produce laws and encourage behavioral norms that prevent unhealthy food marketing. • Is the role of the authority to encourage the consumption of healthy and sustainable food while encouraging and subsidizing or to allow the market to operate freely in accordance with the laws of a free economy? • The degree of need for budgeting and encouragement of local research regarding the impact of new products on health in the short and long term (taste mechanisms, dietary habits, cognition, satiety, microbiome, etc.) • Does the regulator have the ability, means and resources (scientific knowledge, budget, human resources, etc.) to respond in a reasonable time to the many innovations and to the variety of developments in the field of alternative protein? • Should the regulation in Israel rely upon the existing one which is adapted to the local conditions or should it rely upon foreign regulation? If international regulation is adopted, which of the alternatives should be chosen?

2021-06-10 13:40:07205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21866/92

47102512341392732172112816

Yes

234238239240Our dialogue's focus was a comprehensive exploration of sustainable plant food systems, with a focus on the agricultural sector. The FAO defines a sustainable food system as a "food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised". A food system incorporates many aspects, our dialogue focused on various aspects relevant to a sustainable plant food system: 1) Domestic production (quantity and composition); 2) Means of production; 3) Productivity improvement, 4) Sustainable plant production; and 5) Production profitability. Each topic was discussed separately in a round table format. The emphasis of the second dialogue was to define measurable targets for the challenges that were raised in the first dialogue. Using the targets, we tried to determine how our plant food systems would be in 2030, in light of the SDG's.235238239240242243244245246247248249250251The main findings that emerged from the second plant food systems dialogues included measurable targets related to the supply of production factors (land, water and workers), use of pesticides and fertilizers, climate change, food security, R&D, knowledge transfer, adoption of technologies to raise productivity, marketing, policy and regulatory tools regarding the status of agriculture, waste management, the position regarding imports/local production. Detailed explanation of each category: 1. Supply of production factors: The term 'agriculture' needs to be defined properly. Agriculture does not only refer to green fields, but should also refer to something more industrialized. A limited budget that should be used in the crops with the highest yield. a) Water – full utilization of recycled wastewater for agriculture. b) Land – Perhaps the agriculture needs to shift to the southern part of Israel. The army occupies large parts of Israel; therefore, a collaboration with the Ministry of Defense is necessary. Higher output per acre and higher quality of crops. c) Farmers: Maintain "family farms"; Educate the young generation of farmers towards a greener and a more technologically based agriculture. 2. Research and Development, Knowledge transfer – Ensure innovative agricultural R&D (more agriculture with less land). A mapping of data is required (what are the typical foods that comprise the Israeli diet?). 3. Pesticides and fertilizers – improving the use of pesticides and reducing its usage. Shift to biological pest control. Precise monitoring of the usage of pesticides. Lack of effective environmentally friendly pesticides. 4. Climate changes – the agriculture needs to adapt to the climate changes. Cultivation of crops suited for the changes. Increase the use of green houses with climate control. 5. Decrease Uncertainty of farming in Israel: maintain human capital, investments, insurance. 6. Technologies – We need to prepare for an increase in alternative protein based diet, hence it needs to be a main target. Increase in productivity via the use of green houses and urban agriculture. Use of monitoring tools for precise agriculture that can reduce its environmental impact 7. Food security – Israel's agriculture should supply at least 50% of its healthy foods. Fruits and vegetables should be produced mostly in Israel. Concession of the growth of "exotic fruits". 8. Marketing – preference to the production of food for humans rather than food for animals. 9. Policies – 2030 is just around the corner, therefore we need to prepare for 2040 and 2050. Ministries need to recognize the value (security, education) of the Israeli agriculture. Also, the local agriculture is Israel's safety net, therefore it should be protected. There is a need for long-term policy objectives for the agricultural sector that includes a reference to the fact the agriculture is also linked with the protection of open land and environment. Importing of certain healthy foods that cannot be locally grown should be supported. Broadening of organic agriculture. 10. Agricultural waste management – Zero waste produced from agriculture will go to landfills. Utilization of all waste into energy or recycling. Cut down on food losses and waste resulting from surplus production. 11. Conflicts between environment and agriculture – designate wildlife corridors and maintain biodiversity alongside urban use. Promoting environmentally friendly agriculture in open areas (100% of agriculture in open areas should be environmentally friendly); efficient land use (for agriculture and renewable energy) 12. Urban agriculture – in industrial areas, rooftops and vertical agriculture. **The definition of productivity wasn't clear to all the participants.236238239240242243244245246247248249250251The second dialogue focused on trying to define measurable targets that are to be reached in light of the challenges that were raised in the first dialogue. The targets are detailed in the Main Findings section2372382392462491. Without defining pre-agreed strategic goals, there is a methodological difficulty in conducting a discussion based on a common denominator regarding profitability and profitability goals. 2. Market economy (opening the Israeli market to imports) versus manufacturing basic food products and maintaining food security. 3. Protection of open areas and the defining of ecological corridors in the face of urban expansion and preservation of productive agricultural land. 4. Increasing the price of water, reducing foreign workers and raising the price of land compared to demanding efficiency and profitability.

2021-06-10 15:07:12204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12165/60

1291110526224124725

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones privadas que trabajan cambio climático o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica del sector privado. Este diálogo ha tenido 3 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el convocante dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones en el sector privado tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores , que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector privado para participar en los diálogos independiente sobre el cambio climático y su impacto en la producción agropecuaria dominicana, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Los tres diálogos se realizaron de forma simultánea y contaban con un facilitador en cada una de sus mesas, y un administrador por cada diálogo que dictaba las directrices de las preguntas y respuestas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre cambio climático, el convocante del diálogo realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, el administrador recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Un sistema alimentario sostenible es aquel que garantiza la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición de todas las personas de tal forma que no se pongan en riesgo las bases económicas, sociales y ambientales de éstas para las futuras generaciones. Esto significa que siempre es rentable, garantizando la sostenibilidad económica; que ofrece amplios beneficios para la sociedad, asegurando la sostenibilidad social; y que tiene un efecto positivo o neutro en los recursos naturales, salvaguardando la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente. En el caso de este diálogo, la vía de acción correspondiente es: La adopción de modalidades de consumo sostenibles: fomentar la demanda de los consumidores de alimentos producidos de manera sostenible, fortalecer las cadenas de valor locales, mejorar la nutrición y promover la reutilización y el reciclado de los recursos alimentarios, especialmente entre los más vulnerables. Esta Vía de Acción reconoce que debemos acabar con los hábitos de consumo de alimentos que comportan despilfarro; también reconoce que debemos facilitar la transición hacia dietas con alimentos más nutritivos que requieran menos recursos para su producción y transporte. De igual forma, la impulsión de la producción favorable a la naturaleza que optimiza el uso de los recursos ambientales en la producción, el procesamiento y la distribución de alimentos, y reduce así la pérdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación, el uso del agua, la degradación del suelo y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El cambio climático tiene efectos palpables y significativos en los países, la producción de alimentos, el medioambiente y en todos los seres vivos. Las pequeñas economías cargan aún mayor presión por sus características intrínsecas. Los resultados de este este diálogo independiente sobre los efectos del cambio climático circundan en la debida diligencia de los formuladores y ejecutores de políticas públicas para gestionar los efectos del mismo y lograr una adaptación para articular acciones concretas para reducir las emisiones, la correcta gestión de los desperdicios, aumentar ante los productores de la filosofía de reduce, recicla, y reutiliza. En cuanto al agua, para la nación es de vital importancia una mejor gestión de ese recurso tan escaso y valioso para la vida y la alimentación. Y como este elemento (insumo) es uno de los principales insumos del principal alimento de la nación “El arroz”, se requiere de alianzas más profundas entre el sector público y el sector privado para adoptar cambios de paradigmas en el cultivo y disminuir el uso del agua para la producción. En cuanto al manejo de la producción que más afecta por los efectos de invernaderos en la producción pecuaria, se adoptarán mejores prácticas en la producción y la gestión de los sólidos.236238239240241242244245246247248249Podemos disminuir el impacto de cambio climatico en el sector agropecuario dominicano ejecutando las siguientes acciones: -Zonificar las áreas productivas, por cultivos. A realizar por el Ministerio de Agricultura -Capacitar a los agricultores para disminuir el uso indiscriminado de agroquímicos, productos con efecto residual, como el uso del glifosato, debería reducirse o eliminarse, se están alterando diferentes moléculas de esta. -Prohibir la quema de los residuos agrícolas, se está quemando el arroz por motivos productivos, pero a largo plazo hace daño al suelo y los productos. -Dotar al Ministerio de Medio Ambiente de un servicio agroforestal eficiente a productores, y agentes forestales que tengan apoyo para el cuidado de los bosques y remuneración por servicios ambientales. -Fomentar el uso racional del agua, capacitación en esta, información sobre los acuerdos internacionales para la sociabilización e información y construcción de embalses, presas y diques para almacenaje de agua y buen control de esta y financiamiento. -Control de los desechos de plásticos para reciclaje, concienciación sobre el manejo de los restos de basura, aplicar la ley sobre sanciones, y promover el uso alternativo de productos que se puedan reutilizar, dotar de apoyo para centros de reciclado. -Mejorar la extracción de arena en los ríos en base a planes de manejo, disminuyendo los impactos ambientales. -Implementación de técnicas de conservación de suelos, barreras vivas y muertas, alimentación para el ganado alternativo, usar sistemas menos agresivos para el ganado y plantas melíferas polinizadoras para las abejas y otras especies. -Capacitación en agricultura climáticamente inteligente, plantas resistentes a plagas y enfermedades, durar más tiempo en climas adversos (Temperatura, humedad, lluvia). -Incorporar en la ONE estadísticas agrícolas oportunas del sector agropecuario. Para disminuir el impacto del cambio climático en la Republica Dominicana debemos evitar la tala de árboles indiscriminada, prevenir y mitigar los incendios forestales y Trabajar para que se aplique la Ley de Reordenamiento Territorial que es el conjunto de acciones emprendidas por los municipios o distritos para orientar el desarrollo del territorio bajo su jurisdicción y regular la utilización, transformación y ocupación del espacio.

2021-06-10 15:17:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13663/60

51811524176522752323121461711131

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones privadas que trabajan dieta y nutrición o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica del sector privado. Este diálogo ha tenido 6 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el convocante dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones del sector privado, tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores del sector privado, que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector privado para participar en el diálogo independiente sobre la dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. El convocante del diálogo dio unas palabras de bienvenida donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de los diálogos, la importancia de realizarlo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área, lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, el administrador recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238241242243245246247248249250Un sistema alimentario sostenible es aquel que garantiza la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición de todas las personas de tal forma que no se pongan en riesgo las bases económicas, sociales y ambientales de éstas para las futuras generaciones. Esto significa que siempre es rentable, garantizando la sostenibilidad económica; que ofrece amplios beneficios para la sociedad, asegurando la sostenibilidad social; y que tiene un efecto positivo o neutro en los recursos naturales, salvaguardando la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente. En el caso de este diálogo, la vía de acción correspondiente es: Vía de Acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. La Vía de Acción 1 trabajará para poner fin al hambre y a todas las formas de malnutrición y reducir la incidencia de las enfermedades no transmisibles, y posibilitará que todas las personas estén alimentadas y sanas. Este objetivo requiere que todas las personas tengan acceso en todo momento a cantidades suficientes de alimentos nutritivos y asequibles. Vía de Acción 2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles: La Vía de Acción 2 trabajará para fomentar la demanda de los consumidores de alimentos producidos de manera sostenible, fortalecer las cadenas de valor locales, mejorar la nutrición y promover la reutilización y el reciclado de los recursos alimentarios, especialmente entre los más vulnerables. Esta Vía de Acción reconoce que debemos acabar con los hábitos de consumo de alimentos que comportan despilfarro; también reconoce que debemos facilitar la transición hacia dietas con alimentos más nutritivos que requieran menos recursos para su producción y transporte.235238241242243245246247248249250Todas las mesas llegaron a la conclusión de que debemos educar a la población a través de las escuelas, concienciando a los niños, niñas, jóvenes y casas de familias a promover los hábitos saludables como alimentarse correctamente de acuerdo con las necesidades y condiciones de las personas, hacer ejercicios, incrementando el acceso a alimentos sanos y a la vez la vigilancia de los padres en los niños desde su nacimiento, el peso al nacer y la dieta del niño.236238241242243245246247248249250Los participantes entienden que los 3 principales problemas que originan la malnutrición en República Dominicana son: la falta de educacion y conocimiento sobre buenos habitos de consumo e higiene en el manejo de los alimentos, y cultura cerente de habitos saludables, la pobreza, bajo nivel de ingresos, inequidad en el acceso de los alimentos, oy poco acceso a alimentos saludables en los establecimientos de comida, cafeterias de las escuelas, parques, plazas y centro comerciales. Para contrarrestar lo anterior proponen adoptar las siguientes medidas: -Campaña de concienciación a la población, a través de las escuelas (poner una materia, capacitación de los docentes), medios de comunicación, hospitales, supermercados, así como hacer un programa de sensibilización con los padres en el tema de alimentación a través del Programa de Alimentación Escolar. -El programa de Alimentación escolar debe contemplar dietas equilibrado mediante elaboración acorde a una tabla de alimentación calórica. -Establecer y mejorar políticas que incentiven la producción agropecuaria sostenible y su comercialización, promover el financiamiento y las capacitaciones técnicas para mejorar la producción y calidad de los alimentos, especialmente a los pequeños productores. -Programas REALES, que funcionen para todos, no para favorecer a un grupo. Hay programas de inversion en el campo, pero no llegan. -Promover desde las políticas públicas el acceso a bajo costo de una alimentación saludable. -Prohibir los agroquímicos descontinuados en otros partes del mundo, por los efectos nocivos/tóxicos que han sido comprobados que afectan la salud. -Mejorar el programa de capacitaciones técnicas de los ministerios de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente. Incentivar el consumo de alimentos locales. -El Gobierno debe hacer programas de extension agrícola de huertos caseros para producir hortalizas, educar a los niños en la casa y en las escuelas a consumirlos. -Las certificadoras de calidad son extranjeras y muy caras. Deberian haber certificadoras locales a menor costo. Establecer alianzas público-privadas con las empresas procesadoras de alimentos y establecimientos de comida en cuanto a crear estrategias que contribuyan a la seguridad alimentaria del país. También a regular las cantidades y calidad de los ingredientes de los productos procesados, porciones y fomento de los alimentos sanos. -Incluir en los planes educativos (Currículo) la asignatura Alimentación y Salud. -Creación de un incentivo fiscal que proteja a la agricultura familiar y a los pequeños empresarios. -Fortificación de ciertos alimentos. -Regulación del etiquetado acorde a las características del producto.

2021-06-10 15:38:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13667/60

114158287511273131461457242521111

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones del sector privado que trabajan producción y suministro de alimentos, o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica gubernamental. Este diálogo ha tenido 4 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el convocante dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas, tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores gubernamentales, que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector privado para participar en la producción y suministro de alimentos en la República Dominicana post pandemia COVID-19, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Se contó con un facilitador en cada una de sus mesas, y un administrador para el diálogo que dictaba las directrices de las preguntas y respuestas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas. Realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, la administradora recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Los sistemas alimentarios independiente se han requerido adaptación, resiliencia y capacidad de ajuste para enfrentar la pandemia COVID-19. No solo en los aspectos de regulación de la producción sino también en toda la cadena de valor y comercialización. Por lo anterior, Lograr las más diversas, inclusivas propuestas para mejorar los sistemas alimentarios nacionales son requeridos para prepararnos a la recuperación de los aspectos económicos y sociales de la nación.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251La integración público-privada de dicho diálogo considera que crear alianzas estratégicas entre pequeños, medianos y grandes procesadores para agregarle valor a los productos perecederos, las políticas de integración y apoyo para empresas como también productores que incluyan seguridad y pago a tiempo son de los principales hallazgos.236238239240241242243245246247248249Las politicas que se deben de planificar para que la cadena de abasto sea resiliente y adaptable para la reactivacion economica post COVI-19 son: -Fortalecimiento de las estadísticas de producción y consumo. -Fortalecer unidades de inteligencia de mercados. -Promover la zonificación y programación de cultivos implementando nuevas técnicas y tecnologías. -Promover alianzas entre productores y los demás integrantes de la cadena de abastecimiento (supermercados, restaurantes, hoteles, etc.). -Que haya más subsidios para los productores. -Definir estrategias para exportar los excedentes, pues las ventas deben ser abiertas, democráticas y participativas. -Apoyar las entidades estatales especializadas (como los institutos) en los diferentes rubros, que se encarguen de definir estrategias pertinentes y que colaboren en el cumplimiento de los estándares y políticas de calidad. -Darle prioridad a los productores agrícolas para que participen en las licitaciones del gobierno y puedan vender sus productos a diferentes instituciones estatales. -Innovación, investigación y desarrollo. Las TIC’s, tecnología, riego, entre otros, incrementar la eficiencia, la biotecnología. -Dar prioridad a las PyMes agropecuarias, a través de la optimización del Decreto 168-19, el cual establece la compra de productos agropecuarios nacionales directamente a productores, por parte de las instituciones a cargo de programas destinados al alivio de la pobreza, la alimentación escolar, y la alimentación de otros sectores de la población, sin el uso de intermediación. -Financiamiento: blandos, con acompañamiento técnico y financiero, enfocado en pequeños y medianos productores con potencial de crecimiento o hacia la reconversión. Para hacer frente al alza de los costos de los insumos para la producción de alimentos se debe: -Aplicar políticas de regulaciones de los precios a la comercialización y la compra de los insumos. -Buen asesoramiento técnico en cuanto a los productores para los usos racionales y eficientes de los insumos agrícolas. -Producir la mayor cantidad de insumos a nivel local como: pastos, semillas, abonos orgánicos. -Motivar y capacitar a los productores en el uso de insumos orgánicos. -Fortalecer esquemas de compras conjuntas. -Fomentar el uso de energía alternativa. -Promover los fondos de garantías a los préstamos agropecuarios. -Que hayan políticas públicas orientadas a la producción de bio-insumos en las propias fincas, para así depender cada vez menos de productos químicos -Modificación de las Ley de Compras y Contrataciones con enfoque directo a los beneficiarios agropecuarios. Otros tópicos: Las MIPyMES Agropecuarias. Crear un programa para el acompañamiento de las MIPyMES a los potenciales mercados Preparar a las MIPyMES para que produzcan con calidad e inocuidad y así ir limpiando la imagen de la calidad de los productos de elaboración local. Los Procesadores de alimentos.  Promover el establecimiento de una política de procesamiento de productos agropecuarios, que priorice la denominada producción de rechazo y el excedente a la demanda del mercado. La calidad de los insumos.  Facilitarles a las organizaciones de productores comprar insumos implementado la ley de tasa cero, lo que les permitirá seleccionar la calidad de los insumos que necesiten. Fortalecer la capacidad de inspección de los insumos para determinar si cumplen con la composición molecular que dicen tener. El manejo post cosecha. Capacitación a productores primarios y a empacadores de frutas y vegetales para que implementen las buenas prácticas. Darle el manejo adecuado a los productos una vez cosechados, a fin de evitar pérdidas innecesarias en el proceso de comercialización y/o consumo.

2021-06-10 15:52:00205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13650/60

57396132213

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a las autoridades locales, academias y estudiantes del municipio de Santiago que trabajan cambio climático o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo. Debido a la pandemia de Covid-19, este diálogo se ha celebrado exclusivamente virtual lo que ha facilitado la participación de la mayoría de los convocados. La sala sobre Cambio Climático y su Impacto en la Producción Agropecuaria Dominicana contaba con dos administradoras quienes hicieron las preguntas y una facilitadora que recogía en un documento las respuestas dadas. Tanto la facilitadora como las administradoras del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, las administradoras dieron unas palabras introductorias en donde explicaron el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas en colaboración con personas que se dedican a la investigación y estudio del tema, que además pertenecen a una zona muy productiva del país, hemos podido recoger diferentes puntos de vistas de las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el municipio. Invitar a diversos actores de la producción local de Santiago garantiza el planteamiento de problemáticas reales y la búsqueda de soluciones prácticas. Por tal razón hemos promovido: adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados. De igual forma, hemos comprobado que realizar los diálogos de forma virtual no disminuye la calidad de las respuestas de los participantes, por lo que recomendamos a próximos convocantes adoptar esta modalidad.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector público, privado y educativo a los fines de participar en los diálogos locales sobre la dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social, la producción y suministro de alimentos en la República Dominicana post pandemia COVID-19 y el cambio climático y su impacto en la producción agropecuaria dominicana, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Los tres diálogos se realizaron virtualmente de forma simultánea, en los cuales había un facilitador con experiencia en los temas que escribía las respuestas y un administrador experto en el área que dictaba las preguntas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre cambio climático, la administradora del diálogo realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que, debido a que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área, se garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Un sistema alimentario sostenible es aquel que garantiza la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición de todas las personas de tal forma que no se pongan en riesgo las bases económicas, sociales y ambientales de éstas para las futuras generaciones. Esto significa que siempre es rentable, garantizando la sostenibilidad económica; que ofrece amplios beneficios para la sociedad, asegurando la sostenibilidad social; y que tiene un efecto positivo o neutro en los recursos naturales, salvaguardando la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente. En el caso de este diálogo, la vía de acción correspondiente es: La adopción de modalidades de consumo sostenibles: fomentar la demanda de los consumidores de alimentos producidos de manera sostenible, fortalecer las cadenas de valor locales, mejorar la nutrición y promover la reutilización y el reciclado de los recursos alimentarios, especialmente entre los más vulnerables. Esta Vía de Acción reconoce que debemos acabar con los hábitos de consumo de alimentos que comportan despilfarro; también reconoce que debemos facilitar la transición hacia dietas con alimentos más nutritivos que requieran menos recursos para su producción y transporte. De igual forma, la impulsión de la producción favorable a la naturaleza que optimiza el uso de los recursos ambientales en la producción, el procesamiento y la distribución de alimentos, y reduce así la pérdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación, el uso del agua, la degradación del suelo y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Se han identificado puntos de mejoras en cuanto a acciones tomadas por el gobierno, por ejemplo, la necesidad de adoptar medidas para la eficiencia, uso y aprovechamiento del agua, el ordenamiento de siembra de cultivos para que de esa forma evitar que se construyan viviendas y edificios sobre zonas productivas, fomentar la agricultura orgánica y generativa para contribuir con el impacto climático, educar a la población en la protección y uso de los recursos naturales y el medio ambiente, promover huertos urbanos, verticales y en techos, hacer ordenamiento territorial para una mejor distribución los recursos, pagos a los productores por servicios ambientales, hacer conciencia sobre un mejor uso del agua y que se incluya en la educación básica del país, aumentar la capacidad de almacenamiento de agua como respuesta al cambio climático, saneamiento del agua, recomendación del árbol paulonia clima realizar la zonificación de cultivos, tomar en cuenta las investigaciones que hacen las universidades ya que luego de que se realizan, las mismas se quedan engavetadas, involucrar a las ciudades para concientizar a las personas a que se involucren, para la mejoría del impacto climático. En cuanto a acciones a tomar por los ciudadanos, motivar la siembra en los balcones, patios y en los techos de las casas de las ciudades de productos agropecuarios y árboles con la finalidad de contribuir con el medio ambiente, reducir los plásticos.236238239240241242244245246247248249Es necesario implementar un sistema de adaptación y mitigación con lagunas para que los productores puedan utilizarla en tiempo de sequías, limpieza de ríos, cañadas que sirven como fuentes de uso para la agricultura. Asimismo, tomar en cuenta que la siembra de arroz demanda mucha agua, por lo que se recomienda hacer un ordenamiento para la siembra de este producto. Además, dotar zonas que no tienen agua suficiente con lagunas y mejorar el suministro de agua y el sistema eficiente de riego. Como el cambio climático trae como consecuencia un aumento de temperatura global que produce mucha evaporación y por esa razón el agua disminuye, se recomienda el cuidado de las cuencas hidrográfica que están muy descuidadas y desforestadas. Cambiar la ganadería a silvopastoril, eliminar la producción conuquismo y fomentar la producción de colmenas de abejas que ayudan con la reforestación y trabajar con una agricultura climáticamente inteligente. Es importante limpiar las presas para mejorar el almacenamiento del agua, previniendo tiempo de escases y tomar medidas para el manejo de la misma, recomendando la siembra de bambú, que contribuyen para la retención del agua y establecer un costo por el servicio del agua para que los ciudadanos hagan un mejor uso del mismo. Conclusiones adicionales: Los participantes concluyeron que es importante adoptar las siguientes medidas: • Mejorar la comunicación de las investigaciones para que estas sean socializadas a los técnicos y estos a su vez a los productores. De igual manera que las instituciones que investigan se mantengan más unificadas, que todas puedan conocer las experiencias de las otras. • Investigar cómo podemos aprovechar la cuenca de las zonas geográficas. • Disminuir los gases del metano del ganado al igual que del arroz, lo cual provoca desforestación. • Estudiar más la calidad del agua, de esto depende la calidad de la agricultura. • Que las universidades divulguen las investigaciones para que puedan llevarse a la práctica. • Ver como se trabaja más sostenible en el bosque de producción. • Generar variedades que sean menos exigente al agua, como el arroz y que se modernicen los sistemas de riego para evitar el desperdicio del agua. • Fomentar la investigación agropecuaria. • Investigar como acelerar la regeneración de las cuencas hidrográficas. • Mayor investigación para reducir las emisiones de la ganadería, arroz, producción porcina y controlar la deforestación. • Estudiar la calidad de las aguas (usadas en la producción de productos de exportación). • Fomentar los estudios en el sector forestal, para la producción y la protección (sostenibilidad). • Promover la producción de pollos y cerdos en ambientes controlados para evitar muertes en épocas de calor. • Promover la resiliencia de los sistemas productivos • Hacer uso más eficiente del agua. • Mejorar la producción pecuaria en todo sus fases y sistemas productivos, aves, cerdos, ganado vacuno, apicultura y ovicaprinos, aplicando tecnología inteligente. • Criar ganado climáticamente inteligente. • Reforestar con mango y arboles menos exigentes en agua. • Promover la ganadería sostenible (sistemas silvopastoriles, uso diversificado de árboles, forrajes, madera). • Promover el uso de aditivos para el ganado (reducir las emisiones). • Captación de metano para usos energéticos. • La regeneración de la Cuenca Yaque del Norte, Gurabo, Jacagua, Amina, Mao, Bajabonico, otros. • Protección de áreas protegidas (evitar prácticas de agricultura dentro de las áreas protegidas), Loma Isabel de Torres, Monumento Natural Pico Diego de Ocampo, Parque Nacional Armando Bermúdez, Parque Nacional José del Carmen Ramirez • Crear financiamientos para este programa de riego. • Reciclaje de desechos sólidos orgánicos urbanos y rurales. • Producción de biogás. • Uso de tecnologías en la pecuaria (manejo excretas, uso de excretas para producción de energía). • El uso de las heces fecales de gallina y el ganado es el mejor abono. • Control de las emisiones (aplicar medidas) para reducir las emisiones en la producción de pollos. • Financiamiento para tecnologías.

2021-06-10 15:59:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16711/203

2361407913319813267313717151441711044239824110192791100325628

The dialogue brought in diversity of presenters with different experiences and backgrounds from Greece, Costa Rica, Ghana, South Africa, China, Kenya, Uganda, Benin, and Cameroon. It built on this complexity to appreciate diverse operations globally, understand and appreciate the work that others are doing across the world to inspire and impact youth and to in particular engage the youth talent.Diversity was drawn from nationalities, from work of students and youth involved in the delivery of services in the world work. Through the preparation of sessions, all the participants were debriefed in order to garner and build trust.A proper of orientation of the speakers is critical to ensuring that quality dialogue is undertaken.

Yes

234The “Youth as food systems actors and transformers: Global voices for inclusion” dialogue session recognized youth as critical agents for change. Countries seeking to attain the SGDs with the commitment of leaving no one behind ought to engage youth from diverse backgrounds at various levels of planning, implementation and monitoring of interventions. This is particularly because youth are critical thinkers, change makers, innovators, communicators, and leaders of today and tomorrow. This session focused on: 1. Youth and the food systems in Africa: the context for opportunities 2. Youth in active service for marginalized in fragile societies: Lessons from AUB interventions with Refugee communities 3. Young Professionals reshaping the progressive food system: the case of building resilient food systems 4. Building a business dream by gaps in food System: Case of poultry deficit in Nigeria 5. How young people are helping smallholder farmers in Kenya grow their enterprises 6. Innovations needed for delivering food across Africa 7. Learning from Greece: an integrative education for transforming food systems 8. Lessons from China on avoiding environmental harm from agriculture and restoring affected ecosystems 9. Ensuring security using indigenous food systems approach: Lessons from Canada2351. COVID-19 has impacted every country in the world, exacerbated food insecurity in the countries especially in the developing world. The biggest challenge of our life time but there is also opportunity to build resilience and transformative change. 2. There is a strong need for collective responsibility to create pathways to sustainable agriculture. 3. Youth voices are powerful and helpful in helping to mobilize young people to open opportunities in the value chains and other sectors that can enable their meaningful contribution in the sector and economy. By involving young people and their voices, it will create opportunities in a sustainable way. 4. The place of youth in the food systems is in; technological innovation, socio-economic transformation, and political participation 5. Opportunities for youth strongly exist in; entrepreneurship and employment, and transferrable skills development 6. The food system is the biggest employer of the people and owing to the farm to fork arrangements, it is a sector that is heavy on resources and will provide an opening for employing millions of African youth. 7. Technology can be a friend especially for the youth however it can also be an enemy. Thus, there is need to ensure that take advantage of technology for the benefit of humanity. Need to ensure that technology works for the people and keep people in the sector and so that we do not replace the people within agriculture to create another crisis. 8. Africa’s food system needs to integrate the private sector for it to successfully experience a transformation. Without the private sector role, there will be no clear and meaningful transformation. 9. It is important to develop capacities of young people through providing appropriate and relevant education to the young people. 10. Empowering youth is part of a strong part of empowering communities. Three key approaches ought to be considered; Bottom-up approach, Empowerment of youth approach and Inclusivity 11. Young people need to see the large opportunities in the value chains and see these opportunities as their launch pads for entrepreneurship. However, they ought to appreciate that this must be profitable. Further, because Africa has more mouths to feed and the ability to feed these populations, this enables to unlock the entrepreneurship, opportunities of jobs, activate other sectors 12. Youth also need to appreciate that they can only be useful in the value chains if they are adding value to the value chains. They can contribute to this through innovation. and then see the opportunities 13. There is need to support agri-tech start-ups for young people through flexible business models and incubation hubs 14. Africa needs a diversity of innovations; innovation in food science, innovation in food technology and innovations in post-harvest 15. There is need to decolonise indigenous food systems of the world and return them to their sustainable food systems.2361. There is a whole paradigm shift that needs to happen in terms of getting young people into agriculture and garner their active participation in the food systems. It is also important to recognize that not every young person wants to be a farmer but there opportunities for young people beyond the farm. 2. Agricultural innovation and innovation led entrepreneurship is strongly required among African youth if they are to harness the diverse opportunities that the food systems offer. 3. Youth are a strong part of society and their empowerment and full participation in productive processes and sectors of the economy are critical. 4. For African youth, they should see the population growth in the continent as opportunity to ensure they feed them but feeding them provides them financial opportunities and prosperity in agribusiness.

2021-06-10 16:07:44205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13654/60

5221425

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a las autoridades locales, academias y estudiantes del municipio de Santiago que trabajan dieta y nutrición o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo. Debido a la pandemia de Covid-19, este diálogo se ha celebrado exclusivamente virtual lo que ha facilitado la participación de la mayoría de los convocados. La sala sobre Dieta y la Nutrición de la Población Dominicana como Pilar Clave en el Desarrollo Humano y Social contaba con un administrador quien hizo las preguntas y una facilitadora que recogía en un documento las respuestas dadas. Tanto la facilitadora como la administradora del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, la administradora dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas en colaboración con personas que se dedican a la investigación y estudio del tema, que además pertenecen a una zona muy productiva del país, hemos podido recoger diferentes puntos de vistas de las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el municipio. Invitar a diversos actores públicos y pr1vados de Santiago garantiza el planteamiento de problemáticas reales y la búsqueda de soluciones prácticas. Por tal razón hemos promovido: adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados. De igual forma, hemos comprobado que realizar los diálogos de forma virtual no disminuye la calidad de las respuestas de los participantes, por lo que recomendamos a próximos convocantes adoptar esta modalidad.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector público, privado y educativo a los fines de participar en los diálogos locales el cambio climático y su impacto en la producción agropecuaria dominicana, la producción y suministro de alimentos en la República Dominicana post pandemia COVID-19 y la dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Los tres diálogos se realizaron virtualmente de forma simultánea, en los cuales había un facilitador con experiencia en los temas que escribía las respuestas y un administrador experto en el área que dictaba las preguntas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre dieta y nutrición, la administradora del diálogo realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que, debido a que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área, se garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238241242243245246247248249250Un sistema alimentario sostenible es aquel que garantiza la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición de todas las personas de tal forma que no se pongan en riesgo las bases económicas, sociales y ambientales de éstas para las futuras generaciones. Esto significa que siempre es rentable, garantizando la sostenibilidad económica; que ofrece amplios beneficios para la sociedad, asegurando la sostenibilidad social; y que tiene un efecto positivo o neutro en los recursos naturales, salvaguardando la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente. En el caso de este diálogo, la vía de acción correspondiente es: Vía de Acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. La Vía de Acción 1 trabajará para poner fin al hambre y a todas las formas de malnutrición y reducir la incidencia de las enfermedades no transmisibles, y posibilitará que todas las personas estén alimentadas y sanas. Este objetivo requiere que todas las personas tengan acceso en todo momento a cantidades suficientes de alimentos nutritivos y asequibles. Vía de Acción 2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles: La Vía de Acción 2 trabajará para fomentar la demanda de los consumidores de alimentos producidos de manera sostenible, fortalecer las cadenas de valor locales, mejorar la nutrición y promover la reutilización y el reciclado de los recursos alimentarios, especialmente entre los más vulnerables. Esta Vía de Acción reconoce que debemos acabar con los hábitos de consumo de alimentos que comportan despilfarro; también reconoce que debemos facilitar la transición hacia dietas con alimentos más nutritivos que requieran menos recursos para su producción y transporte.235238241242243245246247248249250Los participantes estuvieron de acuerdo en que los principales problemas que originan la malnutrición en su provincia/municipio son: el sedentarismo, la ingesta excesiva de alimentos con alto contenido calórico, altos en grasas saturadas y harinas refinadas, falta de ingesta de la diversidad de alimentos que nos brida el país y el aumento en el consumo de la comida chatarra y la rápida. Pera hacer frente a esos problemas es necesario hacer cambios en la cultura alimentaria de la población en general, producir productos con una base agropecuarias saludable asequible para toda la población, realizar políticas públicas para controlar el uso adecuado de los alimentos ricos en carbohidratos, grasas saturadas y proteínas, educar desde el hogar, luego en las escuelas y universidades, trabajar la meseta de la gastronomía y que todos los sectores se involucren, realizar campañas de concientización en todos los canales de telecomunicación dígase, radio, tv, redes sociales donde se lleve el mensaje de la importancia de consumir una dieta saludable.236238241242243245246247248249Los participantes entendieron que la dieta actual no aporta los suficientes nutrientes para la población de su comunidad / regional / municipio porque a pesar de tener una canasta familiar bien balanceada, la población no sabe aprovechar los nutrientes al máximo ya que al momento de la preparación se le agrega aditivos para la preparación, también el método de cocción es dañino en todo el sentido de la palabra. Asimismo, la población prefiere los alimentos fritos, con muchas salsas, sales y especias artificiales y eso es lo que hace que los alimentos ingeridos actualmente sean dañinos para la salud del pueblo dominicano. De igual forma, proponen realizar promoción de la alimentación saludable y materna infantil incluyendo la lactancia materna, habilitar espacios públicos recreativos para que toda la población pueda realizar actividad física y se alejen de esa vida sedentaria que está afectando a la mayoría de la población, educar a la población sobre el etiquetado de los productos al momento de elegir en el súper mercado sus productos de primera necesidad para su correcta elección y así puedan ingerir una alimentación saludable, sacar los saleros de las mesas, colocar impuestos a los productos que no sean nutritivos, fiscalizar y monitorear que se esté cumpliendo la producción de productos sanos y seguros para el consumo de la población.

2021-06-10 16:15:04205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13659/60

6117141017255217

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a las autoridades locales, academias y estudiantes del municipio de Santiago que trabajan en la producción y suministro de alimentos o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo. Debido a la pandemia de Covid-19, este diálogo se ha celebrado exclusivamente virtual lo que ha facilitado la participación de la mayoría de los convocados. La sala sobre la Producción y Suministro de Alimentos post-pandemia en la República Dominicana contaba con una administradora quien hizo las preguntas y un facilitador que recogía en un documento las respuestas dadas. Tanto el facilitador como la administradora del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, la administradora dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas en colaboración con personas que se dedican a la investigación y estudio del tema, que además pertenecen a una zona muy productiva del país, hemos podido recoger diferentes puntos de vistas de las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el municipio. Invitar a diversos actores públicos y pr1vados de Santiago garantiza el planteamiento de problemáticas reales y la búsqueda de soluciones prácticas. Por tal razón hemos promovido: adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados. De igual forma, hemos comprobado que realizar los diálogos de forma virtual no disminuye la calidad de las respuestas de los participantes, por lo que recomendamos a próximos convocantes adoptar esta modalidad.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector público, privado y educativo a los fines de participar en los diálogos locales el cambio climático y su impacto en la producción agropecuaria dominicana, la dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social y la producción y suministro de alimentos en la República Dominicana post pandemia COVID-19, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Los tres diálogos se realizaron virtualmente de forma simultánea, en los cuales había un facilitador con experiencia en los temas que escribía las respuestas y un administrador experto en el área que dictaba las preguntas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre producción y suministro, la administradora del diálogo realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que, debido a que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área, se garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Un sistema alimentario sostenible es aquel que garantiza la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición de todas las personas de tal forma que no se pongan en riesgo las bases económicas, sociales y ambientales de éstas para las futuras generaciones. Esto significa que siempre es rentable, garantizando la sostenibilidad económica; que ofrece amplios beneficios para la sociedad, asegurando la sostenibilidad social; y que tiene un efecto positivo o neutro en los recursos naturales, salvaguardando la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente. En el caso de este diálogo, la vía de acción correspondiente es: Vía de Acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. Poner fin al hambre y a todas las formas de malnutrición y reducir la incidencia de las enfermedades no transmisibles, y posibilitará que todas las personas estén alimentadas y sanas. Este objetivo requiere que todas las personas tengan acceso en todo momento a cantidades suficientes de alimentos nutritivos y asequibles. Vía de Acción 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. optimizar el uso de los recursos ambientales en la producción, el procesamiento y la distribución de alimentos, y reducir así la pérdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación, el uso del agua, la degradación del suelo y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. En la consecución de este objetivo, la Vía de Acción se propondrá ahondar en la comprensión de las limitaciones y oportunidades que enfrentan los pequeños agricultores. También se esforzará por prestar apoyo a una gobernanza del sistema alimentario que reajuste los incentivos para reducir las pérdidas de alimentos y otras repercusiones ambientales negativas. Vía de Acción 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos. contribuir a la eliminación de la pobreza mediante la promoción del empleo pleno y productivo y el trabajo decente para todos los agentes de la cadena de valor de los alimentos, la reducción de los riesgos para los más pobres del mundo, el fomento del emprendimiento y la lucha contra las desigualdades en el acceso a los recursos y la distribución del valor. La Vía de Acción 4 mejorará la resiliencia mediante la protección social y tratará de garantizar que los sistemas alimentarios “no dejen a nadie atrás.”235238239240241242243245246247248249250• Acciones por parte del Ministerio de Agricultura para identificar lo que se necesita producir y llevar registro de quiénes lo están sembrando, para satisfacer la demanda de alimentos. • Capacitar a los productores sobre cómo mejorar el almacenamiento de los productos. • Planificar los tipos de rubros por región, para que los excedentes no se eleven y la capacidad de consumo no sea menor. • Tener una perspectiva macro. • Actualizar el censo de productores por provincias, regiones, municipio, zonas y subzonas. • Impulsar el tema de fitomejoramiento y buenas prácticas para el uso de semillas y tecnologías que mejoran la calidad de los rubros y los niveles de inversión. • Planificar y organizar la producción de alimentos de acuerdo a la capacidad del mercado local y regional.236238239240241242243245246247248249250Se deben tomar las siguientes acciones para articular el aumento de la demanda del sector más importante del país como lo es el hotelero: • Crear una asociatividad de cooperativas, comercios y la comunidad de manera que puedan suplir la mayor cantidad de las demandas de estas empresas. • Mejorar la capacidad de riego para aumento de la producción. • Conocer la demanda de los hoteles y cómo ha sido su capacidad de abastecimientos post pandemia. Crear un observatorio donde los hoteles y restaurantes puedan ver la trazabilidad de los rubros y a quién eligen para sus compras. • Que se fidelicen los hoteles para que puedan conocer los controles de calidad o requisitos para la adquisición del producto. • Conocer la lista de rubros que demandan los hoteles ya que solo los intermediarios son los que suplen, por tener todos lo que ellos demandan. • Crear una plataforma tecnológica para identificar los potenciales suplidores de rubros agropecuarios a los hoteles sin fines de lucro y regular a todo el que esté dentro de la base de datos. En cuanto al alza de los insumos para la producción, los participantes entienden que se debe: • Promover el uso de productos genéricos de bajo costos y de la misma calidad que las marcas conocidas. • Sortear entre las competencias marcas comerciales específicas y conocidas, de manera que podamos seleccionar la más asequible. • Motivar la creación de cooperativas para generar la capacidad de compra a grandes volúmenes y en colectividad. Incentivar las organizaciones funcionales enfocadas al beneficio de la colectividad. En cuanto a la sobreproducción de alimentos en el municipio, los participantes consensuaron lo siguiente: • Lo primero que debemos hacer es evitarla, tomando medidas preventivas de planificación y asistencia técnica a tiempo. • Procesar y/o conservar los rubros que requieren de estos procesos, sobre todo los de ciclos temporales (cortos), y que las comunidades demandan con mayor frecuencia. • Planificar volúmenes de producción acorde con la demanda. • Acompañar a los productores en los procesos de producción de rubros agropecuarios. Acompañamiento de tecnología en temas de transferencia mediante la participación del Instituto de Innovación y Biotecnologia.

2021-06-10 17:28:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18309/203

2510519211055555510510235

The Nexus Nebraska Dialogue was organized as a panel discussion that was hosted and moderated by Nebraska Sorghum Executive Director, Nate Blum. There were 11 panelists who answered questions deriving from the 17 SDG's. A public comment and question period was held at the end of the 2.5 hour discussion. The Dialogue was recorded and posted in three parts at: https://www.nebraskasorghum.org/nexus-nebraska-un-food-systems-summitThe Dialogue reflected economic development, entrepreneurship, education, resource sustainability, complex food/livestock/environmental systems, and healthy foods.None

Yes

234238239240241242243244245247248249251The Dialogue reflected economic development, entrepreneurship, education, resource sustainability, complex food/livestock/environmental systems, and healthy foods.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251The primary conclusion of the Nexus Nebraska Dialogue was centered on multi-institutional collaboration in place around the 17 SDG's by institutions in and adjacent to Nebraska. As a result of the dialogue, institutional representatives learned even more about partner works and priorities and identified new collaborative opportunities.236238239240241242243244246247248249251Participants identified the need to provide access to clean water and healthy foods to developing populations and populations in refugee encampments. The participants noted that once these basic issues are addressed, it is key to provide education and entrepreneurship training and resources. Further, implementation of sustainable practices in Agriculture and manufacturing which can decrease carbon emissions is a global priority in mitigating future resource-based conflicts and mass migrations of populations.237None

2021-06-10 18:00:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10686/41

1700147557201877934710104015411820136134355970402322015018140111917

La concertation a été organisée par une coalition de divers horizons qui ont en commun une grande préoccupation pour l’alimentation. Nous croyons que l’alimentation répond à des besoins culturels et sociaux ainsi qu’à des besoins physiologiques et qu’elle ne doit pas être considérée uniquement comme un domaine d’activité commerciale. Nous avons rédigé un document résumant le thème principal que nous souhaitions explorer qui est le suivant : la nécessité de rééquilibrer le droit international de manière à permettre aux États de mieux garantir l’autonomie et la sécurité alimentaires de leurs populations. Ce document fait état de la complexité et de l’interdépendance des enjeux sociaux, environnementaux et pour la santé humaine. Les membres de notre Coalition ont ensuite lancé l’invitation pour participer à la concertation à l’ensemble de leurs réseaux qui regroupe des organisations qui s’intéressent à tous les aspects de l’alimentation et qui s’étend à plusieurs continents. Nous avons dû restreindre les discussions lors de la concertation aux échanges en français. Cependant, nous avons publié notre document fondamental en trois langues, soit le français, l’anglais et l’espagnol. Notre Coalition cherche à réunir toutes les personnes et toutes les organisations gouvernementales, privées ou associatives qui partagent notre objectif de Nourrir l’humanité durablement. L’appel est lancé aussi bien aux grands industriels de l’alimentation qu’aux agriculteurs, aux groupes de consommateurs comme aux organismes gouvernementaux, aux transformateurs, aux responsables de la logistique mondiale du transport et de la distribution alimentaire, aux universitaires et aux chambres de commerce, aux pays du Nord et du Sud. Nous reconnaissons qu’il existe actuellement des conflits d’intérêts entre plusieurs de ces parties prenantes. Notre approche ne vise pas à les opposer, mais à les concilier dans toute la mesure du possible, autour de notre objectif principal qui repose sur la réalité de notre humanité commune.Voir réponse précédente.Non

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249Le droit international en matière de sécurité alimentaire ne fait pas le poids face au droit international économique. Ce déséquilibre se répercute dans les droits nationaux et entraîne des effets négatifs sur les systèmes alimentaires. Les effets combinés et cumulatifs de la révolution industrielle, de la révolution verte, de l’augmentation sans précédent de la population mondiale et de la mondialisation des échanges, incluant les denrées agricoles, sont mesurables à plus d’un niveau. L’enrichissement mondial a été croissant durant le dernier siècle, mais au détriment de l’environnement, de la biodiversité, de la santé des populations et des populations marginalisées, dont les ruraux. Un déséquilibre juridique à corriger Le commerce est le socle de la mondialisation et un gage de stabilité. Le commerce des denrées agricoles et alimentaires demeure un élément essentiel à la sécurité alimentaire mondiale. Les pays au climat nordique, les pays avec peu de ressources agricoles, ou encore les pays avec des populations importantes auront toujours recours au commerce des denrées agricoles et alimentaires pour subvenir à leur besoin. La libéralisation des échanges dans le secteur agricole instauré en vertu des accords de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) de 1994 repose sur un système de droit international très efficace. Les accords de l’OMC sont contraignants pour tous les États membres, ou pour ceux qui souhaitent le devenir, et des mesures de rétorsion économique peuvent être imposées à ceux qui ne les respectent pas. Ces accords suivent cependant une logique exclusivement économique. Aucun accord de portée équivalente n’existe actuellement pour assurer la protection de la diversité agricole et alimentaire ni, plus largement, pour garantir la sécurité alimentaire et la sécurité nutritionnelle durable des peuples. D’une manière générale, les droits économiques et sociaux sont assurés par un ensemble d’instruments juridiques peu ou pas contraignant, qui forment un ensemble fragmenté d’application non universelle et difficile à mettre en œuvre. Les effets collatéraux négatifs de ce déséquilibre ne peuvent plus être ignorés, si on se préoccupe de l’équilibre de la planète et de la santé des générations futures : • Perturbations importantes des systèmes économiques et sociaux, accaparement et financiarisation des terres agricoles dans de nombreux pays à la suite de la concentration des outils de production, pression des produits importés sur le développement de l’agriculture locale, perte de contrôle sur leur propre alimentation dans de nombreux pays, exode rural de populations ne pouvant plus subvenir à leurs besoins, dépendance grandissante aux importations pour les produits agricoles de base, perte de patrimoine alimentaire et agricole, et perte des principes de base d’une saine alimentation; • Atteintes à la biodiversité et à la résilience des écosystèmes, risques accrus d’épidémies et prolifération des espèces nuisibles; • Persistance de la faim pour des populations entières, alors que la production mondiale est largement suffisante pour nourrir toute l’humanité et que, simultanément, une alimentation à haute teneur en calories, en gras et en sucre menace la santé des populations sur tous les continents. Aucune solution durable aux principaux problèmes des systèmes alimentaires mondiaux ne pourra être apportée sans corriger ce déséquilibre juridique fondamental. La communauté internationale doit, pour la première fois, préciser les droits et les responsabilités des États afin d’assurer l’autonomie et la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle de leur population, reconnaître l’importance sociale, environnementale et économique de la diversité agricole et alimentaire et celle des systèmes alimentaires, et dégager l’espace juridique nécessaire pour permettre aux États d’assurer leur autonomie et leur sécurité alimentaire.2352382392402412422442462472491. Bien qu’en accord avec la nécessité du commerce international des denrées alimentaires juste, équitable et basé sur les trois piliers du développement durable, les parties prenantes affirment la nécessité de travailler à rééquilibrer le droit international afin d’accorder aux droits de la personne et au droit des pays d’assurer à leur population une alimentation adéquate en qualité et en quantité, sinon une préséance sur le droit international du commerce codifié, notamment dans les accords de l’OMC. 2. Les parties prenantes croient que l’avènement d’un monde où l’ensemble de la population mondiale sera nourri convenablement et de manière durable passe notamment par : a. le renforcement du droit de chaque pays de nourrir convenablement et durablement sa population; b. l’introduction dans les accords internationaux du principe de la réciprocité des normes (phytosanitaires, sociales, telles les conditions de travail et le respect des droits de la personne, et environnementales); c. la préservation des terres agricoles dans chaque pays et l’accès à ces terres par les agriculteurs du pays, la valorisation des métiers de l’agriculture par une rémunération adéquate et des conditions de vie comparables à celles de l’ensemble de la population du pays; d. le renforcement de la durabilité des pratiques agricoles par un usage plus judicieux des engrais chimiques et des pesticides et par de la formation aux meilleures pratiques agroenvironnementales, et du soutien aux agriculteurs pour leur mise en œuvre; e. un effort constant et massif d’éducation des populations sur les principes et les pratiques d’une alimentation convenable et durable, sur l’impact des politiques nationales et internationales, sur la capacité des peuples à se nourrir convenablement et durablement, sur l’impact des pratiques agricoles non durables sur l’environnement et sur l’existence des solutions alternatives qui permettraient d’améliorer à la fois la capacité des peuples à se nourrir et la qualité de l’environnement. 3. Les parties prenantes expriment le souhait de voir surgir des dialogues aussi bien nationaux qu’internationaux entre les pays et entre elles (notamment les producteurs, les transformateurs et les consommateurs). Ces dialogues auront pour objectifs : a. à l’international, de faire valoir des perspectives autres que celles de l’industrie agroalimentaire mondiale et de définir des solutions avantageuses pour le plus grand nombre de pays, tout en respectant l’environnement; b. dans chaque pays, de prendre en compte les besoins et les intérêts de toutes les parties prenantes dans la définition des règles régissant la production, la transformation, le commerce et la consommation des denrées alimentaires.236238239240241242244246247249ÉNONCÉ 1 En 2030, les systèmes alimentaires sont durables et résilients et assurent aux populations de chaque pays leur santé et leur sécurité alimentaire. Ces systèmes intègrent les considérations économiques, sociales et environnementales nécessaires au bien-être des générations futures. Question 1 Dans votre pays, quels sont les changements qui ont amélioré la sécurité alimentaire de la population? La pandémie de 2020 et 2021 a sensibilisé la population et les gouvernements à l’importance de la sécurité alimentaire et de la production agricole locale. Les instances gouvernementales ont joué un rôle essentiel. Les gouvernements du Canada et des provinces ont collaboré à l’adoption d’un cadre juridique international reconnaissant la souveraineté alimentaire des pays comme un droit et permettant d’équilibrer les considérations économiques découlant des accords de l’OMC avec des considérations économiques, sociales et environnementales propres à leur société, par exemple l’impact des gaz à effet de serre et le maintien d’une production alimentaire nationale. De concert avec les milieux agricoles (les producteurs, les syndicats et les représentants), l’industrie agroalimentaire, les régions et tous les paliers de gouvernement se sont concertés pour développer une vision claire, priorisant une gouvernance participative où chaque étape de la chaîne de production agroalimentaire est représentée, soit de la ferme à l’usine et de l’épicerie à la table. Les gouvernements successifs de toutes les formations politiques ont fait de l’autonomie alimentaire une priorité nationale. Ils ont développé une politique de souveraineté alimentaire complétée par un ensemble de programmes de soutien. Cette politique et ces programmes ont pour effet de : • favoriser l’accès à la terre pour les petits producteurs et valoriser l’agriculture familiale; • planifier l’aménagement du territoire pour éviter les conflits d’usage et prioriser l’agriculture sur les terres de qualité; • utiliser l’agriculture comme moteur de dynamisme régional; • favoriser la régénération des sols, minimiser le recours aux pesticides et aux herbicides, encourager les biofertilisants, les jachères et les productions traditionnelles; • soutenir des projets stratégiques, comme les serres écoénergétiques au Québec; • favoriser l’utilisation des produits agricoles pour la consommation humaine plutôt que pour la production de biocarburants; • développer les connaissances des producteurs en matière de pratiques agricoles durables; • réduire les pertes, du champ jusqu’au consommateur et encourager la consommation des produits locaux; • favoriser le maillage entre les producteurs et les consommateurs; • encourager la diversité des productions dans l’industrie agroalimentaire, par exemple pour les protéines animales et végétales; • favoriser la mise en marché de proximité, les circuits courts et l’achat local, la transformation locale (par exemple avec des abattoirs de proximité); • encourager l’industrie agroalimentaire à utiliser les produits locaux de préférence aux produits importés; • attirer une relève agricole nombreuse en misant sur les hommes, les femmes et les jeunes, en revalorisant le métier d’agriculteur, en leur assurant un bon revenu, en instaurant des mesures susceptibles d’améliorer la qualité de vie sur la ferme et en les accompagnant lorsque les circonstances dictent un changement de production ou que le climat affecte les récoltes; • encourager l’implication des travailleurs locaux; • assurer de bonnes conditions de travail aux travailleurs étrangers; • éliminer les obstacles économiques à l’accès à une nourriture de qualité pour les moins nantis; • fournir aux consommateurs une information fiable sur l’alimentation (lire les étiquettes, savoir cuisiner, évaluer la qualité de l’aliment aussi bien que son prix) et les sensibiliser aux impacts de leurs choix alimentaires sur leur santé et sur l’environnement.236238239240241242244246247249ÉNONCÉ 1 En 2030, les systèmes alimentaires sont durables et résilients et assurent aux populations de chaque pays leur santé et leur sécurité alimentaire. Ces systèmes intègrent les considérations économiques, sociales et environnementales nécessaires au bien-être des générations futures. Question 2 Dans votre pays, quels mécanismes, politiques ou autres initiatives ont rendu le système alimentaire plus durable? Les participants ont identifié six grands thèmes d’action permettant de tendre vers un système alimentaire plus durable : 1. Sensibiliser la population — et surtout les jeunes — à l’importance de l’agriculture et des choix individuels de chacun en matière de consommation, notamment par : a. une politique d’étiquetage imposée et efficace; b. un rapprochement des producteurs et des consommateurs (comme l’implication sociale); c. l’encouragement et la promotion de l’achat local; d. l’éducation dès le plus jeune âge (jardins communautaires, cuisines dans les écoles). 2. Valoriser le métier d’agriculteur et son rôle au sein de la société ainsi que la place de l’alimentation, et attirer la relève, notamment en : a. assurant un bon revenu et en améliorant la condition de vie des producteurs; b. favorisant l’accès à une agriculture diversifiée en modifiant le cadre réglementaire; c. internalisant les externalités dans le coût des produits; d. augmentant les budgets publics dédiés à l’agriculture et à l’alimentation; e. misant sur la mise en marché collective des productions; f. avantageant les exploitations de type familiales; g. adressant la détresse psychologique chez les producteurs. 3. Assurer la préservation des terres agricoles et favoriser l’accès à ces terres aux agriculteurs de la relève, notamment au moment du transfert des terres et face aux investisseurs internationaux. 4. Renforcer la durabilité des pratiques agricoles, notamment par : a. une meilleure réglementation de certaines pratiques, comme l’utilisation des pesticides; b. des incitatifs à la consommation de produits plus respectueux de l’environnement (par exemple : taxe sur les produits moins bons pour la santé et l’environnement); c. des politiques bien structurées vers une transition écologique, associées aussi à des normes et valeurs sociales; d. le soutien à de meilleures pratiques agroenvironnementales et la gestion des risques en agriculture (système de rémunération des meilleures pratiques); e. l’accompagnement et la formation des producteurs vers de meilleures pratiques; f. l’implication du gouvernement dans la recherche, le développement et l’innovation pour développer des pratiques plus durables. 5. Décentraliser et territorialiser le système alimentaire, notamment par : a. la relocalisation des maillons, tels que l’abattage et la transformation; b. la mobilisation et la concertation de tous les acteurs derrière une vision locale de souveraineté alimentaire qui est aussi solidaire d’un point de vue international; c. la création de lieux de vente directs du producteur au consommateur; d. la mise sur pied de coopératives et d’entreprises de l’économie sociale; e. la bonification et l’application à d’autres productions du système de gestion de l’offre, qui permet de structurer la production et de répartir des entreprises sur tout le territoire. 6. Promouvoir et favoriser l’importance de l’accès à la nourriture, notamment par : a. une loi anti-gaspillage intégrée dans un système alimentaire durable; b. un meilleur rapprochement entre les producteurs et les acheteurs; c. l’augmentation des seuils de production hors quota pour favoriser la production locale.236238239240241242244246247249ÉNONCÉ 2 Dans un avenir rapproché, les pays du monde se sont entendus pour adopter un cadre juridique international donnant à chaque pays le pouvoir d’affirmer son autonomie alimentaire. Dans ce nouveau cadre, les pays ont désormais la capacité d’opérer une transition rapide vers des systèmes alimentaires plus durables que ceux d’aujourd’hui. Question 1 Comment le gouvernement de votre pays a-t-il utilisé ce pouvoir d’adopter des politiques favorisant cette transition? Quels furent ses premiers objectifs? 1. Favoriser un meilleur équilibre entre l’autonomie alimentaire et le commerce international : a. Reconnaissance de la diversité des systèmes alimentaires propres à chaque pays et de la nécessité de les soutenir face à un système alimentaire mondialisé favorisé par les règles du commerce international; b. Meilleur encadrement du commerce international : - Inclusion dans les accords internationaux du principe de réciprocité des normes en vertu duquel les produits importés doivent avoir été produits dans le respect du droit fondamental des populations à une alimentation saine adaptée à leur réalité, des normes environnementales, des droits des travailleurs, des normes phytosanitaires et de bien-être animal du pays d’importation; - Système international de traçabilité des aliments; - Projets pilotes à l’échelle locale; c. Soutien accru à l’agriculture locale : - Loi-cadre établissant les principes de la transition vers les systèmes alimentaires durables et opérationnalisant les accords internationaux touchant l’autonomie et la sécurité alimentaires; - Quotas d’achats internes pour les grandes franchises; - Gestion de l’offre saisonnière permettant d’interdire les importations lorsque les produits locaux sont disponibles; - Incorporation dans le prix des aliments du coût des externalités environnementales, le prix devant refléter l’empreinte écologique; - Interdiction du dumping international; - Accès des producteurs locaux aux marchés locaux (marchés publics); - Certifications visant l’autonomie alimentaire. 2. Améliorer les systèmes de production : a. Diversification des systèmes, par exemple favoriser la production de fourrages en rotation entre le maïs et le soya pour améliorer la rentabilité sur les marchés mondiaux; b. Utilisation stratégique de notre particularité nordique, par exemple le recours à l’hydroélectricité à tarif préférentiel pour rendre la production en serres 4 saisons plus concurrentielle. 3. Favoriser la transition vers des systèmes durables : a. Réduction du gaspillage alimentaire; b. Utilisation plus rationnelle des ressources; c. Encouragement des pratiques durables, par exemple la construction de toits verts et l’agroécologie; d. Maintien d’espaces de concertation actifs regroupant tous les acteurs de la chaîne alimentaire; e. Promotion des meilleures pratiques existantes qui s’inscrivent déjà dans le nouveau modèle. 4. Valoriser le métier d’agriculteur et maintenir le plus grand nombre de fermes possible : a. Amélioration des conditions de travail et de vie sur la ferme, juste rémunération et accès au syndicalisme agricole, à des services-conseils et à de la formation afin d’assurer aux agriculteurs un niveau de vie comparable à celui du reste de la société; b. Plus grande implication des agriculteurs dans les réseaux de commercialisation afin de leur assurer une juste part des revenus de marché; c. Accès plus facile aux terres, notamment pour les enfants des agriculteurs, entre autres par la création de mécanismes de surveillance des registres fonciers afin de contrôler l’accaparement des terres par des étrangers. 5. Effort constant de dialogue, d’éducation et de sensibilisation : a. Création de réseaux internationaux de consommateurs, de producteurs et d’intermédiaires; b. Maintien d’un dialogue entre les paliers fédéral, provincial et municipal; c. Effort constant d’éducation et de sensibilisation de la population sur des sujets, tels que la consommation locale, l’autonomie alimentaire, les certifications, les normes environnementales et tout ce qui affecte le prix des aliments, afin que le prix ne soit plus le seul facteur de choix pour le consommateur.236238239240241242244246247249ÉNONCÉ 2 Dans un avenir rapproché, les pays du monde se sont entendus pour adopter un cadre juridique international donnant à chaque pays le pouvoir d’affirmer son autonomie alimentaire. Dans ce nouveau cadre, les pays ont désormais la capacité d’opérer une transition rapide vers des systèmes alimentaires plus durables que ceux d’aujourd’hui. Question 2 Toujours dans votre pays, quels obstacles ont-ils été surmontés pour opérer une transition rapide vers des systèmes alimentaires plus durables? 1. Établir un nouvel équilibre dans les instruments juridiques internationaux et nationaux entre le commerce international et l’autonomie alimentaire des pays : a. Meilleure cohésion des normes sociales (conditions de travail, respect des droits de la personne) et environnementales des pays signataires du cadre juridique international, afin d’améliorer la compétitivité des prix des produits locaux face aux produits importés; b. Ajustement des lois pour garantir le principe de réciprocité (application des mêmes normes aux produits locaux et aux produits importés); c. Négociations internationales des quotas dans les productions sous gestion de l’offre; d. Création d’un système international de traçabilité des aliments; e. Prise en compte par le gouvernement du Canada des intérêts des provinces, des régions, des villes, des producteurs, des transformateurs et des consommateurs dans la négociation des accords internationaux. 2. Faire évoluer le consensus social à l’intérieur de notre pays comme à l’international : a. À l’intérieur du pays : - Création de dialogues entre tous les acteurs concernés dans le but d’articuler une vision commune des systèmes alimentaires durables souhaités et de concevoir des plans d’actions efficaces et bien coordonnés pour opérer la transition; - Nécessité d’intégrer les perspectives agricoles, environnementales, juridiques, industrielles et autres dans une approche multidisciplinaire et transversale; b. À l’international : création d’espaces de dialogue entre les producteurs, les consommateurs et les transformateurs. 3. Partout dans le monde, soutenir les producteurs agricoles et les populations vulnérables : a. Valorisation de la profession agricole et soutien à la relève agricole; b. Reconnaissance des services écologiques rendus par les producteurs; c. Meilleur soutien aux producteurs biologiques (au Canada, on soutient la transition vers une production biologique, mais pas la production en tant que tel); d. Soutien aux populations vulnérables (appuis sociaux) afin que celles-ci soient en phase avec ces changements et aient accès à une nourriture de qualité en quantité suffisante. 4. Imposition d’un nouvel équilibre aux géants de l’industrie agroalimentaire mondiale (par opposition aux industries locales) : a. Création à l’échelle mondiale d’une force de lobbying égale à celle de l’industrie agroalimentaire mondiale; b. Meilleur partage des revenus issus de la production agricole avec les producteurs; c. Adoption de normes concernant la transformation des produits alimentaires pour réduire les méfaits de la malbouffe; d. Contrer les tentatives d’écoblanchiment. 5. Éduquer et sensibiliser la population sans relâche, pour maintenir la volonté politique des gouvernements face aux changements, souvent ardus mais nécessaires, et pour contrer l’influence excessive de l’industrie agroalimentaire mondiale : a. Éducation dès le jeune âge et à tous les âges de la vie à l’importance de l’alimentation; b. Valorisation de l’agriculture et de la profession agricole; c. Former et encourager les cuisiniers et les restaurateurs à l’utilisation des produits locaux, des produits biologiques et des systèmes alimentaires durables.237238239240241242244246247249Les principales divergences discutées ont trait aux oppositions existantes entre les impératifs du commerce mondial des denrées alimentaires, comme codifiés notamment dans les accords de l’OMC, et le respect de normes phytosanitaires, sociales (conditions de travail et rémunération) et environnementales compatibles avec des systèmes alimentaires durables. Les parties prenantes font le constat que la mondialisation a conduit à la création de quelques géants de l’alimentation et à la concentration des outils de production dans le monde, avec comme conséquences les plus évidentes : • l’accaparement et la financiarisation des terres agricoles dans de nombreux pays; • la paupérisation des fermiers et des travailleurs agricoles dans de trop nombreux pays où ils sont privés de tout pouvoir de négociation et réduits à accepter des conditions minimales ne leur permettant pas de mener une vie décente. Dans de nombreux pays, la pression de produits importés, souvent lourdement subventionnés, entrave l’agriculture locale. Les pays perdent le contrôle sur leur propre alimentation au profit d’un système mondial. Il en résulte, dans les pays moins développés, l’exode rural de populations entières incapables de subvenir à leurs besoins et la dévitalisation des milieux ruraux, une dépendance grandissante envers des produits importés au détriment des productions locales, une perte de diversité des espèces cultivées ou élevées et une difficulté croissante des populations à s’alimenter convenablement. Par ailleurs, la recherche constante de réduction des coûts se traduit par des exploitations agricoles occupant des surfaces toujours plus grandes, souvent au détriment d’autres habitats naturels, et par un usage immodéré d’engrais chimiques et de pesticides dont les impacts sur la biodiversité et la résilience des écosystèmes sont majeurs et en augmentation constante. Les parties prenantes ont aussi noté l’opposition entre les consommateurs, dont les sondages indiquent qu’ils choisissent leurs aliments principalement sur la base de leur prix, et les producteurs qui peinent à obtenir un rendement raisonnable sur les investissements considérables requis par les exploitations agricoles modernes. Le rôle des intermédiaires — transformateurs, grossistes et commerçants — a aussi été discuté.

2021-06-10 18:46:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13067/162430334446496163787984120133141143144184195198

752550189319313131771317510

El Diálogo se organizó en dos bloques. En el primero se reflexionó de manera crítica sobre las diferentes posiciones que hay en relación a la Cumbre en la región, poniendo en relevancia la importancia de la agroecología y los derechos sobre la tierra para lograr sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y equitativos. En el segundo bloque se trabajó en grupos en 5 temáticas para abordar con profundidad las dimensiones económicas, ecológicas y culturales que tienen los sistemas alimentarios, y el rol que tienen las mujeres, los jóvenes, los pueblos indígenas y las poblaciones campesinas en ellos. Se logró organizar un Diálogo bajo el principio del reconocimiento de la diversidad de los sistemas alimentarios y bajo un enfoque inclusivo. Además, se generó un espacio respetuoso, seguro y confiable entre todos los participantes para articular acciones y una posición común de cara a la Cumbre.Teniendo en cuenta el principio de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, el diálogo logró reunir a un grupo diverso participantes: organizaciones de la agricultura familiar, organizaciones campesinas e indígenas, movimientos por la agroecología, organismos de Naciones Unidas, ONG Internacionales; organizaciones que trabajan en zonas urbanas y rurales, universidades. Además, congregó a hombres, mujeres y jóvenes de diversos países de la región. El Diálogo ha permitido conectar a diversos actores interesados y ampliar las asociaciones para transformar los sistemas alimentarios en aras del bien común, como propone el principio de la Cumbre que busca complementar la labor de los demás.Fue valioso contar con oradoras que expongan aspectos clave de los temas que se abordaron en el diálogo. Sus presentaciones motivaron el intercambio entre los y las participantes, al enmarcar temas relevantes al grupo.

Yes

234238241244246247248249251La tierra es la base fundamental para proveer alimentos y el lugar donde se construyen los diversos modos de vida humana. La producción, la transformación, el comercio y el consumo, que son parte de los sistemas alimentarios, tienen su punto de partida en este recurso. A su vez, es parte esencial en la configuración de los territorios en los que los pueblos desarrollan su propia cultura. Sin embargo, la forma como hoy en día se da la distribución de la tierra destinada a la producción de alimentos, así como el uso y el tipo de manejo que se le da, nos muestran una falla de origen en los sistemas alimentarios predominantes en el mundo. La alta concentración de la tierra, vinculada a las amenazas contra la propiedad colectiva y la pequeña propiedad de la tierra; su sobreexplotación; la predominancia de los monocultivos y el uso de sustancias contaminantes; y el despojo y discriminación de aquellos pueblos que tienen una relación con la naturaleza distinta a la hegemónica, generan impactos ecológicos, agudizan las desigualdades, precarizan la producción y las economías agrarias, y ponen en riesgo la seguridad y soberanía alimentaria, así como la salud de los seres humanos. Este Diálogo Independiente se propuso dos objetivos: a) Identificar soluciones y evidencias, que permitan transitar a sistemas alimentarios agroecológicos basados en la garantía de derechos sobre la tierra para hombres, mujeres y jóvenes rurales, de los pueblos indígenas, afrodescendientes y de las comunidades campesinas y locales. b) Construir un posicionamiento colectivo desde LAC que defienda este proceso de transición que tiene como pilares los derechos a la tierra y la agroecología como propuesta transformadora de los sistemas alimentarios. Además, se propuso conseguir los siguientes resultados: - Se ha identificado de qué manera asegurar los derechos sobre la tierra conduce a una mayor seguridad y soberanía alimentaria y a la construcción de sociedades sostenibles, justas y pacíficas. - Se han identificado los cambios económicos y sociales, así como las condiciones necesarias para que los pueblos indígenas, mujeres, jóvenes y comunidades, incluidos los pastores y los pescadores, tengan seguridad sobre la tierra y formen parte en la construcción de sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles. - Se sustenta la viabilidad de la agroecología para abastecer de alimentos saludables a la región haciendo hincapié en la importancia de la autonomía de las comunidades en el uso de sus tierras y en la producción de alimentos de manera independiente de los sistemas de producción corporativos. - Se han identificado soluciones que permitirán una mayor participación de las mujeres campesinas, indígenas en la gobernanza de la tierra, para transitar hacia sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles y equitativos. - Se han identificado las condiciones que deben darse para el recambio generacional de la tenencia de la tierra y en la producción de alimentos. - Se han posicionado las propuestas de las organizaciones de la agricultura, campesina, familiar y étnica comunitaria en la región de cara a la cumbre.235238241244246247248249251La causa fundamental de la inequidad de la tenencia de la tierra, falta de oportunidades para el desarrollo de una economía familiar campesina, la vulneración de derechos territoriales y humanos de los pueblos indígenas, la situación de exclusión de las mujeres y la juventud, es el modelo extractivista que domina la región. Por ello, este modelo es una amenaza para la preservación de los recursos naturales y para la seguridad alimentaria, pues la tierra ya no puede sostener más los agronegocios y los alimentos ultraprocesados. Frente a ello, se propone llevar a cabo transformaciones sociales, económicas y políticas integrales- entre ellas reformas agrarias que incluyan políticas y legislación que brinde seguridad jurídica a quienes viven en y de la tierra- que pongan fin al dominio del régimen corporativo global actual dentro de los sistemas alimentarios, y a la concentración de la tierra en manos de muy pocos. Garantizar los derechos individuales y colectivos sobre la tierra es pieza clave para que hombres, mujeres y jóvenes rurales, indígenas y campesinos, puedan contribuir de manera sostenible a los sistemas agroalimentarios. Solo transformando por completo el sistema hegemónico actual y transitando a un modelo agroecológico lograremos que los sistemas alimentarios sean sostenibles. Por ello, la agroecología debe considerarse como un motor de transformación en los resultados de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios. La agroecología es una apuesta política que permitirá concretar los cuatro pilares de la sostenibilidad: la sostenibilidad económica, social, cultura y ambiental. Esta apuesta se viene impulsando desde las organizaciones campesinas, étnicas, comunitarias e indígenas de la región, como un paso necesario para transitar a sistemas alimentarios realmente sostenibles y equitativos. Por ello, no debe ser vista solo como una técnica productiva, sino un camino de transformación de la sociedad basado en la equidad, en la igualdad de género, la diversidad biológica, la propiedad colectiva y el conocimiento como un bien público. En síntesis, es una propuesta política que nos permitirá transitar hacia un modo de vida donde la naturaleza y la alimentación sean vistas como un bien común. Por otro lado, se propone territorializar los sistemas agroalimentarios para que funcionen en circuitos cortos de distribución, contribuyendo a una vinculación más directa entre productores y consumidores, movilizando la economía y el consumo local, y disminuyendo la huella de carbono. Apoyar un cambio en esta dirección por parte de los Estados, permitirá que la actividad agrícola sea más rentable para las familias campesinas, y que la juventud rural pueda ver mayores oportunidades de desarrollo en el campo, potenciando el relevo generacional en los sectores rurales. La juventud rural puede contribuir a transformar los sistemas alimentarios actuales si son motivados y tienen respuestas a sus necesidades y expectativas, entre ellas el acceso a la tierra. Su capacidad de innovación, creatividad y el valor que de dan al cuidado del medio ambiente y a la agroecología abonan a hacer este cambio posible. En ese sentido, la juventud rural es una garantía para la sostenibilidad Las prácticas machistas al interior de las comunidades, dificultan el acceso de las mujeres a los espacios de decisión, discusión y participación sobre la gestión y administración de la tierra, especialmente en lo que respecta a la titulación colectiva y, además, limitan su acceso a los recursos. A esto se le suma el desconocimiento e invisibilización de la capacidad productiva de las mujeres, priorizando el otorgamiento de recursos, incluida la tierra, a los varones. Se necesitan cambios estructurales que puedan transformar la cultura patriarcal de las comunidades, sin perder de vista la diversidad de las mujeres rurales. Dado que gran parte de las mujeres rurales tiene posesión sobre la tierra, sin ser propietarias de la misma, se debe exigir políticas de reconocimiento, así como de redistribución: políticas distributivas con equidad, con acciones afirmativas, y propias para las mujeres rurales. Un esfuerzo muy importante que se debe hacer para lograr transformar los sistemas alimentarios actuales, es construir puentes entre el movimiento agroecológico, el movimiento por la tierra y todos los movimientos campesinos, con los movimientos urbanos que luchan por la salud, por los derechos de las mujeres, de los jóvenes y por la alimentación. Ampliar la conexión entre lo urbano y lo rural, implica también hacer alianzas entre consumidores.236238241244245246247248249251Dimensión económica y derechos sobre la tierra en los sistemas agroalimentarios. Desafíos: Persiste la inequidad en la distribución, acceso y uso de la tierra. La inseguridad en la tenencia estimula la migración de los agricultores hacia áreas urbanas y actividades no agrícolas, y debilita las instituciones rurales. La concentración de la tierra favorece la producción agrícola como mercancía y no atiende a las necesidades alimentarias y nutricionales. Hay disputas entre grupos empresariales y las comunidades y pueblos indígenas por el control sobre la tierra y el territorio. El acaparamiento de la tierra y el agroextractivismo, son fenómenos que expresan esta disputa y amenazan la preservación de los recursos naturales, la agrobiodiversidad y la seguridad alimentaria, además de incrementar la pobreza y los conflictos territoriales. Otro problema es la comercialización de alimentos basada en cadenas largas y dominadas por el sistema corporativo de los agronegocios, en desmedro de los sistemas alimentarios localizados en los territorios que permiten un mayor fortalecimiento de sus economías. Frente a esa cooptación, el multilateralismo no está tomando acción, más bien, se produce una captura de los escenarios globales, como en el caso de esta Cumbre, por parte de los intereses corporativos. El totalitarismo que tienen los gobiernos de LAC y su relación con las empresas, representa una dificultad para la exigibilidad de derechos y la construcción de políticas que impulsen cambios en el modelo de desarrollo agrario actual, que tomen en cuenta los medios de vida indígenas y locales, y los conocimientos tradicionales. Soluciones: 1)El acceso a la tierra debe ser central. Ello implica, avanzar en los procesos de titulación y catastro, pero también impulsar reformas agrarias que planteen cambios estructurales y sociales, para una distribución equitativa de la tierra que beneficie a la agricultura familiar, lo que significará mayor eficiencia social en términos alimentarios. 2)Fortalecer los espacios de diálogo entre los gobiernos y las organizaciones para discutir políticas pertinentes. La consulta previa libre e informada es un mecanismo fundamental para construir consensos con los pueblos indígenas. Ello implica reconocer sus prácticas tradicionales, y el respeto por sus derechos fundamentales y territoriales. 3)Modelos alternativos como la agroecología y la agricultura campesina no implica sacar de vista la rentabilidad para las familias campesinas. Implica también impulsar procesos de innovación, para que las comunidades puedan acceder, las que así lo quieran, a niveles de producción para el mercado, y las que no, puedan tener una sustentabilidad efectiva para sus comunidades. 4)Fortalecer los circuitos cortos de comercialización reduciendo distancias y el número de actores que participan en él. Un tránsito hacia la agroecología permitirá que haya un beneficio equitativo entre todos los integrantes de la cadena y que todos puedan tener una nutrición de calidad. 5)Mayores controles por parte del multilateralismo en la verificación de las agendas de negocios para que no se estructuren solamente en función del orden comercial, sino que puedan plantear propuestas de acceso a canales de comercialización para los pequeños productores. 6)Fortalecer el papel del Estado en la regulación del mercado y la producción: regular los precios, instaurar políticas de compras públicas de alimentos a los productores locales, introducir tecnología e infraestructura para mejorar los procesos de la comercialización, promover políticas para fortalecer el acceso a los mercados por parte de los pequeños productores, así como políticas para la producción de alimentos enfocadas en las autonomías alimentarias y la producción interna. 7)La comercialización no debe ser vista solo como un negocio, sino también como un proceso que contribuye al fortalecimiento y a la autonomía de las organizaciones campesinas. 8)Garantizar volúmenes de producción agroecológica para un abastecimiento generalizado y no sólo a unos pocos. 9)Demandar a los Estados sus compromisos con los ODS y la implementación del Decenio de la Agricultura Familiar, y hacer uso de las DVGT.236238241244245246247248249251Dimensión ecológica y derechos a la tierra en los sistemas agroalimentarios. En la región existe una clara correlación entre el deterioro ambiental y los niveles de pobreza; sin embargo, el actual manejo del entorno natural, que responde a los intereses de los grupos dominantes, está agotando la posibilidad de los ecosistemas de ser sostenibles. La alta concentración y uso extractivista de la tierra, la predominancia de monocultivos y el uso de agrotóxicos para garantizar el modelo agroexportador, generan graves impactos ecológicos sobre la tierra que afectan directamente a las poblaciones urbanas y aumentan los conflictos y amenazas sobre los agricultores familiares (comunidades campesinas e indígenas), agudizando las desigualdades y poniendo en riesgo la seguridad y soberanía alimentarias. Los gobiernos se encuentran al servicio del agronegocio, excluyendo organizaciones que hacen uso directo de la tierra de los procesos de construcción e implementación de políticas públicas. Frente a esta situación, la agroecología debe ser comprendida como un camino de transformación de los alimentos y de la sociedad, y no como un conjunto de técnicas aisladas en las que invertir desde el marco del sistema dominante, responsable de la destrucción de los pueblos originarios y del planeta, y de la posibilidad de una alimentación saludable. La convivencia entre la agroecología y los sistemas alimentarios actuales es imposible, al tratarse de dos paradigmas opuestos y en disputa: la agroecología es en sí misma contrahegemónica y se basa en una coproducción con la naturaleza, abogando por un equilibrio basado en la diversidad biológica; mientras que el agronegocio corporativo se basa en la explotación de los ecosistemas y el monocultivo a gran escala. Finalmente, para el logro de una acción ambiental efectiva y una transformación de los sistemas alimentarios hacia su sostenibilidad, es indispensable que los conceptos ambientales y de la ecología sean incluidos en el centro de los espacios de decisión: no abordados desde la periferia, ni comprendidos desde el mismo modelo hegemónico y depredador, desde el que, finalmente, se relacionan a tecnologías verdes que continúan operando bajo las mismas lógicas extractivistas; sino como un nuevo paradigma que habilitaría a los territorios campesinos e indígenas la posibilidad de contar con los medios necesarios para una subsistencia y producción dignas y sostenibles, en capacidad de abastecer de alimentos saludables a toda la población. Soluciones: 1) Es indispensable considerar conceptos clave ambientales y de la ecología como condicionantes de la calidad de vida de los pueblos indígenas y campesinos, contribuyendo a moldear el modelo económico actual, definido en base a una naturaleza sin límites. 2) Las soluciones desde las finanzas son insuficientes: es necesario desinvertir en la agricultura corporativa y visibilizar los fondos públicos/privados destinados a la agricultura hegemónica, responsable de la destrucción del medio ambiente, de los pueblos originarios y de las posibilidades de alimentación saludable de la población. Urge recuperar la capacidad de coproducir con la naturaleza y dar protagonismo a los/las productoras tradicionales. 3) Las organizaciones de base deben formar parte de la construcción, implementación y fiscalización de las políticas públicas. Estas deben apuntar hacia el logro de: decrecimiento (límite en el crecimiento poblacional, acumulación de capital, posesión de la tierra); redistribución; diversificación de los sistemas alimentarios; descentralización (territorialización de los sistemas alimentarios). 4) Denunciar políticas públicas que cooptan la base teórica de la agroecología para dar continuidad al sistema extractivo actual mediante el greenwashing corporativo. 5) Recuperación y fortalecimiento de los sistemas comunales como procesos imprescindibles para la conservación de ecosistemas y resiliencia frente a retos ambientales. Las soluciones propuestas mejorarían la vida de pueblos con propiedad colectiva de la tierra, campesinos/as y familias dedicadas a la AF; y de consumidores y poblaciones urbanas, afectadas por una producción degradadora del ambiente.236238241244245246247248249251Dimensión socio cultural y derechos a la tierra en los sistemas agroalimentarios. Desafíos: 1) Desafío en la articulación entre los actores del sistema alimentario por sus particularidades culturales, aun cuando compartan el territorio. Para comprender estas diferencias y avanzar en esta articulación, cobra relevancia la autoidentificación. 2) El avance de las industrias extractivas en los territorios afecta a las producciones locales y modos de vida. No se respetan las prácticas y costumbres locales y se ponen en juego el acceso a la tierra y la disputa por los medios de producción. La sobrepoblación en los territorios de los pueblos indígenas y campesinos deteriora los ecosistemas y provoca el fraccionamiento de la tierra. 3) El uso de semillas mejoradas no es sostenible a mediano/largo plazo. La agroexportación expone al pequeño productor a depender de la demanda del mercado agroindustrial. La pandemia evidenció la afectación sufrida por los productores debido a la caída de las exportaciones en la región. Debe apostarse por semillas propias y proteger los conocimientos tradicionales vinculados a su uso, así como fortalcer los sistemas de producción internos. La dependencia de los alimentos extranjeros repercute en la soberanía alimentaria, y este es un punto crítico que debe llevarnos a pensar en los beneficios de los sistemas localizados que pueden garantizar la soberanía en la región. 4) Los pequeños productores están transformando sus modos de producción y destinan sus parcelas a la producción de monocultivos para la exportación, para cumplir con la certificación orgánica y responder a la demanda de consumidores en el extranjero. Esto produce una competencia entre países altoandinos, sin una mejora de sus ingresos, y se pierde la agrodiversidad al privilegiar un cultivo. 5) En la región persisten hábitos de consumo de alimentos altos en azúcar y grasas que generan enfermedades crónicas degenerativas, diabetes y obesidad. Hay un gran flujo de productos ultraprocesados que son más baratos y accesibles a la población, incluso más que otros cultivos que se producen en el campo, cuyo consumo excesivo provoca dichas enfermedades. Soluciones: 1) Abordar la autoidentificación en la dimensión sociocultural para fortalecer la articulación entre los actores dentro de los sistemas alimentarios. 2) Recuperar la idea de la alimentación como un bien común y no como un negocio. El Estado tiene la responsabilidad de garantizar dietas saludables para enfrentar enfermedades originadas por una mala nutrición. 3) Las dietas saludables deben ser de interés público primordial. Los gobiernos deben promover el acceso a opciones alimentarias saludables, asequibles y culturalmente pertinentes considerando un enfoque territorial. 4) La educación es una herramienta transformadora de la cultura alimentaria que debe contribuir a un consumo saludable desde la infancia. 5) Proteger los conocimientos ancestrales y reconocer su centralidad en el contexto de crisis ecológica y emergencia climática, para lograr el uso sostenible de los recursos naturales. 6) La concepción de habitar y no de ocupar el territorio es central para redimensionar la agroecología en el aspecto cultural. 7) Impulsar procesos de demarcación y titulación de la tierra colectiva.8) Políticas para contrarrestar el cambio en los modos de producción vinculados al monocultivo para la exportación, además de reformas legislativas y políticas de protección dirigidas a los productores y producción local. 9) Los programas agropecuarios deben tener un enfoque agroecológico para que no se privilegie la transferencia de tecnológica con insumos y tecnologías externas. 10) Los países deben implementar la declaración de los DDHH de los pueblos indígenas y el Convenio 169, también sobre DDHH y empresas. 11) Generar espacios de encuentro entre los diferentes actores de los sistemas alimentarios considerando las particularidades culturales. 12) Plan de legalización de la tenencia colectiva de la tierra. Estas soluciones mejorarán la vida de personas en las zonas rurales y urbanas, en aspectos económicos y de su salud, debido a la mejora de los distintos eslabones de las cadenas de los SSAA.236238241244245246247249251Garantizar los derechos a la tierra y a la gestión de su territorio para las mujeres. Desafíos: 1) Falta de seguridad jurídica en acceso y gobernanza de la tierra y territorio por parte de mujeres rurales a nivel individual y colectivo. Las reglas consuetudinarias en el marco de las comunidades, y en el marco legislativo de los Estados de derecho, ponen en desventaja a las mujeres para el acceso a la tierra en torno a la herencia, divorcio y soltería. Se reconoce al varón como responsable en términos productivos, y es quien encabeza el acceso a créditos, maquinarias, infraestructura, asistencia técnica. 2) Prácticas machistas al interior de comunidades, con sistemas administrativos basados en una cultura patriarcal, dificultan el acceso de las mujeres a espacios de decisión, discusión y participación sobre la gestión y administración de la tierra, especialmente en lo que respecta a la titulación colectiva y, limitan su acceso a los recursos. Se le suma el desconocimiento e invisibilización de la capacidad productiva de las mujeres, priorizando el otorgamiento de recursos, incluida la tierra, a los varones. 3) Avance desmedido del extractivismo y del acaparamiento de tierras por la agroindustria . Limita el acceso a tierras por parte de las mujeres y desconoce los derechos de las propias comunidades a decidir sobre los usos del suelo en sus territorios. Reflejo de ello es la eliminación de los mecanismos de participación ciudadana, como la consulta previa. El modelo extractivista excluye y despoja a las mujeres de su sustento de vida, no solo por el acaparamiento de tierras que sus proyectos implican, sino también por la contaminación y el acaparamiento de recursos. Soluciones: 1) Promover la seguridad jurídica y formalización de tierras para las mujeres rurales mediante políticas y acciones afirmativas dirigidas particularmente a ellas. 2) Acompañar y fortalecer las estrategias propias que las mujeres rurales han gestado para el acceso a la tierra. 3) Fortalecer las organizaciones de mujeres en torno a la gestión del conocimiento, la resiliencia para hacer al cambio climático, el relevo generacional, el acceso a los mercados, otros. 4) Gran parte de las mujeres rurales tiene posesión sobre la tierra sin ser propietarias, y se debe exigir políticas de reconocimiento de la posesión y transición hacia la seguridad jurídica de la tierra, e impulsar políticas de redistribución con equidad y acciones afirmativas para las mujeres rurales. 5) Emprender acciones en el ámbito cultural que permitan cambios estructurales en la lucha contra la cultura patriarcal en las comunidades, sin perder de vista la heterogeneidad de las mujeres rurales (campesinas, indígenas, afro y de frontera urbano-rural). 6) Revalorar el rol de las mujeres y sus conocimientos en la producción agrícola. 7) Fortalecer grupos y organizaciones de mujeres, su formación política para la defensa de la tierra, vocería, liderazgo y representatividad propia; reflexionar al interior de nuestras organizaciones y colectivos sobre las prácticas discriminatorias en la distribución de tierras y en la participación política de las mujeres. 8) La agroecología debe considerarse una propuesta política y un camino de transformación amplio para la construcción de sistemas alimentarios sustentables, incluyentes y democráticos al proponer un cambio de paradigma basado en la equidad de género, contribuyendo a la reducción de la pobreza y de la violencia contra la mujer. 9) Fortalecer iniciativas de mujeres rurales para la defensa de la tierra, el agua y el ambiente frente al extractivismo. 10) Articular medidas de protección a defensoras de la tierra y naturaleza, como mujeres garantes en la defesa del derecho a la tierra para sus comunidades. 11) Afianzar el enfoque territorial de los sistemas agroalimentarios sustentables, donde las mujeres rurales tienen derecho no solo a la tierra, sino también al territorio. 12) Reconocer la diversidad de formas en que las mujeres se relacionan con la tierra y construyen su identidad en torno a ella. Los sistemas agroalimentarios sustentables respetan y resaltan la diversidad de las mujeres y sus relaciones particulares con la tierra.236238241244246247249251Los derechos de la juventud sobre la tierra y el territorio para la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroecológicos. Desafíos.El envejecimiento del campo. Las familias buscan que sus hijos/as migren para que se dediquen a actividades no agrícolas en la ciudad y tengan mayores oportunidades. Un desafío es cómo sostener un sistema de producción rural campesino si es que no se produce un recambio generacional en el acceso a la tierra y en la gestión de los recursos naturales, y la transmisión de los conocimientos sobre su manejo. La falta de acceso a la tierra para la juventud es algo generalizado en la región, pero tiene particularidades en los países. La herencia de tierra en vida es muy limitada y por ello es muy difícil que un joven pueda acceder a la propiedad de la tierra mediante la herencia. Hay países donde existen políticas favorables para que la juventud acceda a la tierra, pero no se implementan, y en aquellos donde se implementan políticas de entrega de tierra en usufructo para la juventud, muchas veces no se promueve un modo de producción agroecológica. El acceso al crédito para adquirir tierra mediante el mercado es muy limitado. El acceso a la educación sigue siendo deficitario en las zonas rurales de la región y no responde las expectativas profesionales y laborales de la juventud lo que constituye un factor de expulsión de la juventud del campo. La educación en carreas agronómicas no contribuye al desarrollo sostenible por su enfoque convencional que no incluye contenidos sobre agroecología y el cuidado de la tierra. El sistema económico actual al no valorizar la labor agrícola y la vida rural favorece la migración a la ciudad. Con ello, afecta la identidad de la juventud rural y la sostenibilidad de los modos de producción ancestrales y agroecológicos. A ello se suma que la mayoría de políticas públicas de los países de la región están dirigidas a jóvenes urbanos e invisibilizan a los jóvenes rurales, dejándolos en la precariedad y en el desamparo del Estado. Soluciones.1)El Estado debe favorecer la permanencia de los jóvenes rurales en el campo, garantizando sus derechos a la salud, educación, vivienda, alimentación, entretenimiento, internet, entre otras necesidades. Ello permitirá que el trabajo agrícola forme parte de sus expectativas de realización personal en un entorno de bienestar. El empalme generacional y la transmisión de conocimientos puede fortalecer la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios.2)Es necesario identificar en qué eslabones de la cadena agroalimentarios la juventud puede aplicar sus conocimientos en el manejo tecnológico. 3)La juventud puede aportar en el proceso de transformación de la materia prima y darle un valor agregado sin perder la historia e identidad del producto, y siendo dinamizadores de canales de comercialización alternativos. Ello contribuye a reducir el rol de los intermediarios. 4)La juventud contribuye al desarrollo rural trabajando en la conservación de la biodiversidad y la gestión cultural, revalorizando y fortaleciendo el arraigo hacia el territorio y su patrimonio. 5)Fortalecer la asociatividad de la juventud aprovechando su disposición para formar redes. 6)Como consecuencia de la pandemia muchos jóvenes han retornado al campo y pueden involucrarse en el modo de producción agroecológica siempre y cuando se les apoye con estrategias innovadoras y tecnificadas. 7)El Estado debe garantizar la seguridad y los derechos humanos de los líderes juveniles en las zonas rurales donde persisten conflictos armados. 8)Recampesinar el campo con familias jóvenes que se empoderen con principios agroecológicos y fortalezcan el arraigo y la identidad. 9) Generar políticas para la juventud rural: establecer mecanismos financieros para incentivar el retorno al campo; impulsar políticas y leyes para heredar la tierra de forma temprana, y para transformar los sistemas alimentarios sobre bases agroecológicas.10)Realizar cambios en la educación para que haya mayor formación profesional en el campo, creando universidades, e incluyendo la agroecología y la nutrición en los contenidos.12)Dignificar a las comunidades rurales a través de estrategias comunicativas desde la SC y el Estado.

2021-06-10 18:48:48205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14783/79

1561268833807185131731101345309123110431101510201183355030112796

-The selection of the two topics 1)Seasonal Hunger and 2)Sustainable Food Systems shows the importance of tackling these key problems of our country by acting with urgency. The proposals of the participants also demostrates the complexity involved with the sustainability of our food systems and the challenges that we have to overcome. -Sectors and stakeholders related to Sustainable Food Systems in Guatemala were summoned widely and publicly to hear and include their different ideas, proposals and solutions in a respectful matter and build trust with the stakeholders and let them trust each other too. -The content and objectives of the Sustainable Food Systems Summit, as well as the results of the First National Dialogue, were published in advance, with this we show our commitment to let stakeholders know about the discussions being held and also our commitment to the Summit and the Summit Dialogues. -A pre-registration was developed to characterize and learn about the participant, their interests, intervention issues and region, as well as the priorities of issues within the framework of the Sustainable Food Systems Summit. This let us enforce inclusivity in the national dialogues process and has helped us add new inputs to Guatemala´s position by recognizing the complexity of our national food systems by hearing the voice of the actors involved.-The Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Guatemalan government prioritized Action Line No. 1 "Guaranteeing access to healthy and nutritious food for all", in which two subtopics are established (1) Seasonal Hunger and (2) Sustainable Food Systems. -To promote intersectoral dialogue processes, five working groups were defined (each one per region). This was the space where the principles of the convention were applied with the greatest emphasis, since the following methods were used: -Each group was made up of participants from each of the regions of Guatemala with representation from different sectors involved with food systems, in order to generate a constructive, inclusive, respectful, and complementary dialogue. -Since the participants were convened, information on the Summit and the results of the First National Dialogue were shared. -The stakeholders were encouraged to propose solutions according to their territorial contexts focused on the strengthening of the different Sustainable Food Systems that exist in the country and their integration into the national dialogues.-It is important to be able to cover the widest number of actors within the country's territory and to be able to include their perspectives within the dialogue in the same way. For example, including the descriptions that different regions give of their own Sustainable Food Systems. -On the other hand, it is important to consider that participation is under equal conditions for all those involved and that they have all the necessary tools and information to perform in the best way during the dialogue. In our experience, during this process, Guatemala has managed to influence the perspectives of the independent dialogues carried out in the country; and in the regional dialogues, focused on the Central American region, which have reached good practices, actions, alliances and possible commitments that will input and reflect the interests of Guatemala for the transformation of food systems ahead of the Summit.

Yes

234238243244245246247248249250251In this Second National Dialogue as a follow-up to the previous dialogue, Action Line No. 1 was prioritized, called "Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all" which is subdivided into two specific topics (1) Seasonal Hunger and (2) Sustainable Food Systems. This aimed to design and implement a process that allows stakeholders to intervene in the development of pathways towards Sustainable National Sustainable Food Systems within the framework of the Sustainable Food Systems Summit, according to the 2030 Agenda, for Sustainable Development. For this second stage, the following results were defined: Outcome 1: Connect the sub-national and national levels. Result 2: Include the participation of local authorities, producers, consumers and SMEs Outcome 3: Analyze options for the sustainability of Sustainable Food Systems from the local context. Outcome 4: Identify options and opportunities for collective action. Result 5: Promote a dialogue that includes Indigenous Peoples and Women • The Dialogue process is part of the Sustainable Food Systems Summit, 2021; • Building a country position to present at the Sustainable Food Systems Summit, 2021; • Strengthening the processes that are already being promoted in the country and; • The integration and search of the perceptions, positions, actions, opinions, and thoughts of the participants. To lead the dialogue during group work, the following themes were developed: • Context of the Sustainable Food Systems in Guatemala; • Presentation of the objective of each sub topic; • Presentation of the generating questions; • Development of intersectoral dialogue and; • The development of the national dialogue.235238243244245246247248249250251The main findings of the Second National Dialogue helped in the process of the Food Systems Summit by adding new opinions, proposals and solutions for Guatemala´s food systems. These findings are separated between the two topics that were discussed in this dialogue: 1) Seasonal Hunger and 2)Sustainable Food Systems. 1) Seasonal Hunger • Propose an economic, political, and institutional strategy to combat Seasonal Hunger. • Promote research projects, as developed by ICTA, related to agricultural production and better livelihoods. • Develop a characterization of Sustainable Food Systems for analysis, evaluation, and execution, carrying out short, medium, and long-term actions. • Establish intervention strategies in both agricultural and non-agricultural territory. Streamline processes for the inclusion of beneficiaries in social care programs. • Make a protection action plan based on the social context and the characterization of the population, determining the degree of impact on the populations. To provide the assistance and protection necessary to generate ad hoc plans to the context with the challenge of food sovereignty. • Develop actions by the State and civil society to prevent Seasonal Hunger caused by extreme weather conditions and inappropriate agricultural practices. • Create community food storage centers to maintain reserves in difficult seasons, especially the rainy and heatwave season. • Promote the sustainable management of natural resources in watersheds and micro-watersheds. • Develop community silos projects implementing safety measures to avoid contamination of pests and rodents in food production. • Maintain a prevention plan and not only humanitarian assistance at the inter-institutional, intersectoral level with the involvement of civil society. • Establish campaigns at the local level, informing about what seasonal hunger is, its development period and what actions are promoted by the community. • Promote the management of knowledge and technology for the management of Sustainable Food Systems including adaptation to new technologies. • Promote the water law to protect and safeguard the reservoirs that remain for the well-being of all present and future. 2) Sustainable Food Systems The production, processing, distribution, preparation, and consumption of healthy and safe food is sought. for the rural and urban population. The following proposals are presented: • Promote technological innovation to increase production with a diversity of crops. • Promote the harvest of fruits and orchards for consumption and marketing. • Promote the diversification of production in plots, to encourage self-consumption and the sale of surplus. • Retake and strengthen the designation of origin for products, such as coffee, cardamom, and tea, as well as agroforestry production, to generate economic income that strengthens family agriculture. • Develop a formal and non-formal education plan on nutrition issues for the entire population. so that they know more about the subject and put this knowledge into practice for the benefit of the whole family. • Promote the integration of all sectors involved to improve agricultural production, with the object to produce and consume healthy and nutritious food, under strict quality control standards, and the approval of the institutional governing bodies. • Design social protection plans with the accompaniment of the Ministry of Social Development. • Generate communication plans that allow the construction of sustainable development processes and policies from a socio-ecological model, that allow adequate decisions to be made to generate changes in favor of communities and the environment and the sustainability of Sustainable Food Systems. • Consider the participation of the Ministry of Social Development and other State institutions to strengthen sustainable agricultural development. • The Ministry of Agriculture should take the leadership as the governing body of agricultural development processes, with the accompaniment of other institutions such as the Ministry of Health, SOCEP, the Ministry of Education, and other related institutions to create an action plan to combat seasonal hunger. With the support of national and international organizations. • Consider the budget issue, to program extraordinary funds for unforeseen or adverse events. • Define a public policy that reflects the State's commitment to adequately manage natural resources, supporting communities with lands with agricultural productive potential, to mitigate Seasonal Hunger. • Application of the Comprehensive Rural Development Policy.236238243244245246247248249250251Region 1 Topic 1: Seasonal Hunger: • Promote access to means of production, land to cultivate; regulate the production of agribusiness and monoculture that are detrimental to food security, promoting the diversification of small farmers' plots for a nutritious and healthy diet. • Promote forestry projects, regulate the proper use of water • Protect hydrographic basins. • Strengthen forestry incentive programs and create an agricultural incentive, aimed especially at micro and small agricultural producers and family farming. • Strengthen the role of the State in providing support in productive infrastructure, bringing appropriate technology to improve living conditions, especially in times of crisis or extreme weather events. • The state must guarantee a food reserve in 2 or 3 years to provide food supplements in periods of greatest problem. Families must provide the necessary infrastructure to prepare for disaster risk. • Educate and sensitize families to prepare balanced meals. For example, in times of drought, the CUSHRUN system is recommended, to maintain soil moisture. Topic 2: Sustainable Food Systems: • Develop a formal and non-formal educational system on the benefits of healthy eating. • Develop new campaigns to make families eat a healthy diet avoiding foods high in fat and preservatives. • A plan for the provision of inputs and resources to be able to produce throughout the year must be worked together with actors from society. It is necessary to use crops that provide the necessary nutrients and train producers to implement good agricultural practices. For times of drought, it is necessary to implement water reservoirs that allow producers to have irrigation in hot times and give the population the necessary tools to survive independently. • The sustainability of the Food Systems will be possible if the producers themselves, the technical institutions are the ones who program, develop, and promote the distribution of the products.236238243244245246247248249250251Region 2 Topic 1: Seasonal Hunger: • Boosting food sovereignty with both technical assistance and agricultural incentives so that those with access to land can take advantage of its resources by cultivating them properly, while generating surplus production to obtain more economic income. • Generate adequate technical assistance and attention processes; not 100% of the population but classifying it according to the degree of vulnerability. • Establish resilience plans to recover damaged lands, and resources that were previously accesible. Topic 2: Sustainable Food Systems • The issue of Food Safety education is relevant for the education and information of the population. Above all, in all different Mayan languages. Informing about health, safety and all issues related to agricultural production systems. • Consider ancestral practices to generate natural agro-ecological products, reducing agrochemicals. • Promote education on issues of nutritional insecurity and malnutrition that currently affect the country. • Promote through the school feeding law, to encourage a change in eating habits and practices, promoting the consumption of healthier foods. • Promote bills to avoid the consumption of ultra-processed foods. • Facilitate the purchase of healthy products. • Taking advantage of growing areas, to use them properly, improving healthier and more sustainable food systems.236238243244245246247248249250251Region 3 Topic 1: Seasonal Hunger • Promote the diversification of crops, recovering native seeds, to make production costs more efficient. • Implement agroforestry systems, forest management, ecosystem services, carbon fixation on community, private, municipal, and national lands. Promote food production on communal lands for those who do not have land and can share their crops. • Diversification of crops to provide a greater variety of food to the populations, both in consumption and for the commercialization of the surplus. • Promote food production that ensures family consumption and the sale of surplus. • Promote community organization to prevent and mitigate seasonal hunger, creating agricultural incentive programs with the support of the government and municipal and local authorities. • Promote the production of agricultural households with the support and control of Ministry of Agriculture, to guarantee the intake of varied and nutritious foods. Topic 2: Sustainable Food Systems • Implement drastic measures and quality control processes in the application of regulations aimed at agribusiness. • Regulations for marking and labeling the nutritional content of products, involving all productive sectors • Promote green and ecologically friendly stamps with the environment. • Promote the positioning of national products such as Coffee, Cardamom and fabrics that are directly associated with the participation of women. • Analyze the conditions of the different areas of the food system and categorize them into the following areas (1) At the policy level, (2) At the institutional level (state services, and private sector services), (3) At the community level, family and individual • Include health and nutritional security programs for parents under the supervision and support of the Ministry of Health.236238243244245246247248249250251Region 4 Topic 1: Seasonal Hunger • Gather experiences and lessons learned from populations with the highest level of vulnerability who suffer from permanent hunger to design and implement assertive measures to reduce Seasonal Hunger. • Strengthen staggered production systems including the necessary tools to work them with public and municipal institutional support. • Avoid monoculture, generating a diversity of nutritious products, with the proper coordination of all sectors of the country. • Strengthen the control, management and protection of forests and biological diversity, including medicinal plants. • Differentiate the diets that exist in the 25 towns of this specific region. And consider food sovereignty and cultural relevance. • Develop a map where the lands to cultivate and that belong to the municipalities are defined so that they can be leased or transferred, for planting food at the community and family level. • Reduce the migration of farmers during the monoculture harvest, promoting local jobs that meet fair wages according to the law. • Develop a communication plan where a simpler and easier to interpret concept for Seasonal Hunger is defined, since it is difficult for populations to understand the idea behind it. • Establish technical assistance programs to provide the number of hectares that are necessary for agricultural production and for forest. With the approval of CONAP, INAB, and the national institutions. • Socialize the proposal of the agricultural incentive of the Family Agriculture Dialogue Space and CALMECAC, to promote food production and the strengthening of family agriculture. • Create government programs both for investment and for strengthening and inter-institutional coordination, that comprehensively address the problems of hunger and malnutrition that allow us to take actions to abolish them. Topic 2: Sustainable Food Systems • Seek less hierachical work strategies, decentralizing the institutions, to take consistent measures with the environment where they work. • Strengthening of CADER groups, providing new inputs and techniques to producers to avoid slashing. • Strengthen the presence of municipal authorities, who, should focus on managing nutritional education programs and diplomas for technicians and professionals, in addition to promote home gardens.236238243244245246247248249250251Region 5 Topic 1: Seasonal Hunger • To present effective proposals for public policies for the sustainable production of healthy foods, in communities, but also for the private sector and social organizations. • Encourage private investment from family remittances for the productive development of healthy food and the care and protection of the environment and natural resources. • Strengthen the economic and productive empowerment of women, providing technical assistance on food security, diversification of crops and the family diet, access to food, availability, and safety of these, promoting a culture of improvement in diet and nutrition. • Prioritize risk areas to support families, improving their crops. • Develop road infrastructure focused on safe food distribution. • Strengthen resilience to climate change, diversifying agricultural and livestock production, which can replace food that has been lost due to climatic situations, and even be able to obtain surpluses to commercialize them. • Encourage the use of products from fruit trees that are produced in the region and use them both for own consumption and for marketing. • Promote systematic and sustainable development, improving soil conservation practices that are regularly promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture. Being an asset that rural families must have the necessary resources for their own development. • School feeding can offer the opportunity for a space and a market that can be sustainable, through the commercialization of local products, boosting the family economy. Topic 2: Sustainable Food Systems Rural families have the possibility of obtaining their resources through three sources of income: • First is that which landowners generate with their own cultivation, cultivating mostly grains. However, they are at risk due to extreme weather conditions; therefore, it has greater consequences of suffering losses, but there are ways to improve them, such as the use of technology and irrigation systems. • The second is that they work outside their homes full or part time. In this case, they try to ensure labor conditions with a salary that allows them to support their households. • The third source are individual ventures. For this, it is necessary to improve the capacities of the families that work them, to develop themselves. In addition to financing to promote them and achieve profitability, through the formalization of activities to obtain funding for their endeavours.237238243244245246247248249250251During the development of the Second National Dialogue, the following recommendations were identified by the working groups: -From Group 1, the protection of natural resources, the new integration of ideas and perspectives to address the country's endemic problems and to be able to convey solutions to citizens, especially the most vulnerable, were highlighted. -From Group 2, it was highlighted to promote food sovereignty through technical assistance and agricultural incentives, in addition to facilitating access to healthy food and integrating ancestral knowledge into food security programs. -From Group 3, the emphasis was on promoting community organization and crop diversification, as well as promoting better nutrition for the population through health programs. -From Group 4, it was emphasized to strengthen the production systems, readjusting them to serve the vulnerable population through assistance programs on issues such as agriculture, nutrition, and health. -From Group 5, the importance of supporting family farming was highlighted, providing the necessary conditions so that producers can find development with the support of the corresponding institutions.

2021-06-10 19:13:01205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13673/60

163463231110

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones públicas/privadas que trabajan cambio climático o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica incluyente y ampliada. Este diálogo ha tenido 2 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el administrador dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas, tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores gubernamentales, que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas de los diferentes sectores para participar en los diálogos nacionales sobre el cambio climático y su impacto en la producción agropecuaria dominicana con un enfoque mundial diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Se contó con un facilitador en cada una de sus mesas, y un administrador por cada diálogo que dictaba las directrices de las preguntas y respuestas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre cambio climático, la administradora del diálogo realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, el administrador recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251Enfoque General Adopción, fortalecimiento e implementación del Plan Nacional a la Adaptación para el Cambio Climático en la República Dominicana (PNACC) Reforzar las políticas de extensionismo/asistencia técnica gubernamental en la gestión de los recursos hídricos/suelo aumentando la conciencia ciudadana a través de la educación en la racionalización del agua, y el correcto manejo de los suelos de los productores agropecuarios. Aumentar los controles de la red de riego nacional para administrar de manera más eficientes el agua. Adoptar los sistemas de alerta temprana y predicciones de inundaciones o sequias para adaptar la producción a los efectos climáticos. Aumentar la inversión en centros de acopio de agua municipales en las principales zonas productivas, sobre todo aquellas que suelen tener ciclos de sequias. Aumentar la implementación de programas de reforestación y aforestación de bosques promoviendo el enfoque de REDD+. Estimular prácticas y tecnologías apropiadas favorables a la conservación de la biodiversidad: bancos de germoplasma, plantas nativas, promoviendo la conservación. Reforzar las políticas de extensionismo gubernamental en materia de pesca y acuicultura para gestionar de manera sostenible los recursos pesqueros, el hábitat, y las costas para adaptar la explotación pesquera a los efectos del cambio climático en la pesca y acuicultura. Reducir las emisiones de carbono, gases de efecto invernadero del sector pecuario adoptando mejores prácticas para minimizar las emisiones.235238239240241242243244245248249250251f) Planes de prevención y respuesta a eventos hidrometeorológicos extremos. Fortalecer de los sistemas de alerta temprana a sequía, y a inundaciones. g) Promover los sistemas de pagos por servicios ambientales. Agua. Gestión sostenible de aguas superficiales y subterráneas (calidad, disponibilidad, acceso, sistemas de gestión comunitarios, gobernanza del recurso, manejo de índices de stress hídrico, entre otros) Ecosistemas. Conservación y uso sostenible de áreas protegidas, Conservación y protección de ecosistemas naturales Restauración de ecosistemas degradados Agua. Gestión sostenible de aguas superficiales y subterráneas (calidad, disponibilidad, acceso, sistemas de gestión comunitarios, gobernanza del recurso, manejo de índices de stress hídrico, entre otros) Ecosistemas. Conservación y uso sostenible de áreas protegidas, Conservación y protección de ecosistemas naturales Restauración de ecosistemas degradados. El PAM-CC deberá incluir medidas para que los Estados diseñen políticas públicas que contemplen: -Uso de energías renovables en el sector agropecuario -Eficiencia y aplicación de tecnología verde en la fuente energética para la producción agropecuaria.2362382392402412422432442452482491.1 El cambio climático se relaciona con el manejo de agua y suelo y su Impacto en la agricultura. Dado que el cambio climático es uno de los mayores problemas que enfrentan los Estados para garantizar la producción de alimentos, La Organización para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) deberá desarrollar un Plan de Acción Mundial ante el Cambio Climático (PAM-CC)que incluya lineamientos estratégicos para que los Estados pongan en práctica medidas que procuren la capacitación de las personas profesionales, que prestan asistencia técnica a las unidades productivas agropecuarias, incluyendo unidades familiares, así como empresas para poder atenuar los efectos del Cambio Climático. 1.2 El (PAM-CC) deberá incluir medidas que propicien el fortalecimiento de las relaciones entre los sectores públicos agropecuario y medio ambiente de cada Estado, poniendo en práctica normas conjuntas para el manejo de los recursos ambientales de manera que los impactos puedan ser mitigados. 1.3 Promover las alianzas público-privada que integren el gobierno, la sociedad civil, las juntas civiles, los organismos de certificación y normalización, el sector de la agroindustria, para adaptarnos y mitigar los impactos de cambio climático. 2.1 El PAM-CC deberá incluir las medidas a ser adoptadas por los Estados para que los Ministerios o Departamentos Gubernamentales involucrados diseñen y pongan en ejecución normas que incentiven el manejo y la conservación del agua, bosques y suelo, estimulen la reforestación masiva para la producción de agua y reducción efluentes- 2.2 El PAM-CC deberá contemplar que los Estados ubicados en una misma zona climática adopten políticas conjuntas orientadas a la conservación de los recursos ambientales, intercambiando informes de avances y retrocesos, así como efectos y causas para retroalimentar las medidas puestas en práctica. También, deberán apoyar campañas de capacitación de técnicos y productores concientización de la población usuaria de los recursos con respecto al cambio climático. 2.3 El PAM-CC deberá incluir medidas para que los Estados diseñen y apliquen normas para una mayor regulación de las Industria, especialmente de plaguicidas y otras industrias emisoras de efluentes nocivos, otorguen financiamiento verde para iniciativas sostenibles (industria, producción agrícola y pecuaria), e incentivos por reducción de uso de recursos y mejoramiento de los sistemas de producción. 3.1 El PAM-CC deberá incluir medidas para que los Estados realicen: a) Diagnóstico de la cadena de valor del sector agropecuario, que permita establecer recomendaciones de políticas (adaptación y mitigación) b) Huella hídrica aplicada a los diferentes sectores, o sea, reducir el consumo de agua por buena gestión). c) Identificar los conflictos de uso de suelo. d) Investigación sobre género y el uso de los recursos. Identificar la participación de las mujeres en la producción de alimentos, sus aportes y porcentaje de participación de la mujer en cada una de las actividades. El tratamiento a cada uno de los recursos ambientales y cómo le afecta el cambio climático. e) Monitoreo de calidad de agua y vigilancia de los sistemas de distribución de agua. 4.1 El PAM-CC deberá incluir medidas para que los Estados recomienden a los Ministerios y Departamentos Gubernamentales involucrados en la gestión del cambio climático: a) Elaboración y aplicación de lineamientos para la producción y el consumo sostenible, garantizando la participación equitativa de hombres y mujeres a la producción. b) Uso de conceptos innovadores y tecnologías para el aprovechamiento de las energías renovables. c) Zonificación agrícola de acuerdo al tipo de suelo, y recursos disponibles, tomando en cuenta la zonificación de riesgo (vulnerabilidad y capacidad) y proyección del clima. d) Promover el reciclaje, dar un seguimiento serio hasta que de alguna forma se "obligue" en el reciclaje en la producción agrícola. Todo producto tiene un envase / embalaje donde se transporta, por ello pienso que el reciclaje de esos envases, podría ser importante. e) Promover el enfoque agroecológico en el control de plagas y malezas, semillas, reducir el uso de agroquímicos en los si

2021-06-10 19:23:37205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13677/60

612331018

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones públicas que trabajan dieta y nutrición o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica gubernamental. Este diálogo ha tenido 3 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el administrador dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas, tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores gubernamentales, que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector público para participar en los diálogos nacionales sobre la dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social, diálogo objeto del presente. Fueron ejecutadas con un facilitador en cada una de sus mesas, y un administrador por diálogo que dictaba las directrices de las preguntas y respuestas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre dieta y nutrición, el administrador del diálogo dio unas palabras de bienvenida donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área, lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, el administrador recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246248249251Un sistema alimentario sostenible es aquel que garantiza la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición de todas las personas de tal forma que no se pongan en riesgo las bases económicas, sociales y ambientales de éstas para las futuras generaciones. Esto significa que siempre es rentable, garantizando la sostenibilidad económica; que ofrece amplios beneficios para la sociedad, asegurando la sostenibilidad social; y que tiene un efecto positivo o neutro en los recursos naturales, salvaguardando la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente.235238239241242243244245246248249251Las respuestas en las mesas fueron similares. Entre las respuestas encontramos que la identificación de los problemas sociales se percibe de forma similar siendo la educación alimentaria y nutricional (EAN) uno de los principales ausentes en la población dominicana. Ante los problemas de la malnutrición en el país, se hizo notar en los grupos de dialogo la identificación de la educación alimentaria como un cambio cultural para reforzar la cartera de nutrientes que recibe la población dominicana. Tanto el estrato social como los beneficios recibidos por el Estado dominicano siendo también parte primordial de los mismos. En resumen, los participantes del diálogo consideran que la falta de educación es la principal problemática ante los problemas de desnutrición en el país. Falta de voluntad política, informaciones relevantes y comprensibles impiden que los dominicanos tengan una buena base de información antes de consumir productos. De igual forma, en el país las comidas con poco valor nutricional son desproporcionalmente más asequible que las comidas hechas con productos orgánicos y saludables. Asimismo, los participantes entienden que la pirámide que tenemos establecida cumple con los suficientes nutrientes; pero la distribución de los micronutrientes es incorrecta, hay un alto consumo de comidas chatarra (alta en grasas, azucares y grasas), bajo consumo de frutas y vegetales y la dieta es muy cargada de carbohidratos.2362382392402412422432442452482492511. La pobreza, Los ingresos insuficientes y el alto costo de la canasta básica, dificultan el acceso a los alimentos, lo cual influye en la inseguridad alimentaria de una proporción importante de la población. 2. Bajo nivel de educación y conocimientos sobre alimentación y nutrición, así como falta de promoción de hábitos alimenticios sanos y nutritivos. 3. Bajos niveles de vigilancia y control de la elaboración de alimentos, especialmente en lo relacionado con la calidad, higiene e inocuidad. 4. Adopción de un Plan de etiquetado y datos nutricionales nacional. Más explícitos, acompañado de un plan de educación nutricional a la población. Proponer el desarrollo de un Plan de Acción Mundial para la seguridad alimentaria y la Nutrición de la FAO e implementar el Plan de Acción Mundial sobre seguridad alimentaria y nutrición en los pequeños Estados insulares en desarrollo. Lo anterior tiene/tendrá las medidas para que los Estados: Pongan en ejecución planes para la reactivación de los sectores productivos para aumentar la oferta de cereales, vegetales, frutas, carnes y productos alimenticios acuícolas y del mar. Políticas de promoción de la educación alimentaria y nutricional a nivel de los centros educativos y medios de comunicación radiales y televisivos. . Acuerdos con las Alcaldías para la celebración de mercados agropecuarios semanales en lugares accesibles para la población de bajos ingresos., Los acuerdos deberán incluir promoción de los mercados y negociación con productores organizados para la disponibilidad de los productos en los indicados mercados. Aunque por lo general la ingesta de la población dominicana, de bajos y medianos ingresos contiene alimentos positivos desde el punto de vista nutritivo, ya que combina alimentos calóricos y proteicos, vegetales y frutas, no es suficiente por la deficitaria frecuencia principal, a nivel de los ingresos bajos. Debido a ello, el Plan de Acción deberá incluir medidas que puedan contribuir a la disponibilidad de alimentos como el pescado a precios accesibles a la población de menores ingresos, a través del apoyo de iniciativas para aumentar la producción acuícola, la pesca marina, crianza caprina, ovina y producción de leche, alimentos cuya adquisición se torna difícil debido a su pecio. El Plan de Acción Mundial deberá contemplar que los Estados realicen una la promoción continua, poniendo de ejemplo la alimentación escolar, donde deberá ofrecerse alimentos frescos y diversificados, con productos autóctonos y no procesados, que no contribuyan a la obesidad. - Promoción de la alimentación saludable materno infantil, incluyendo promoción de la lactancia materna exclusiva. - Programas de mercados agropecuarios semanales ubicados en lugares de fácil acceso para la población de menores ingresos, acompañado de la promoción de las ventas populares y ofertas de alimentos diversificados a precios accesibles. - Reorientación de la alimentación escolar. El menú debe ser alimenticio pero que guste a la población estudiantil estimada en más de 2 millones de estudiantes. ¿Cómo puede contribuir el sector privado la brecha nutricional de los dominicanos? Programas de productos, facilitar y proveer los alimentos saludables a través de una política fiscal. Apoyar programas de alimentos y nutrición. Ejemplo: Banco de leche. Programas de capacitación de Alimentos. Promoción a través de campañas publicitarias de los nutrientes de los alimentos. Políticas para cambiar la administración y suministro de alimentos en el sector turismo (hoteles, restaurantes). Calidad de vida de personas mayores y personas en pobreza. Transporte seguro para que lleguen los alimentos saludables. Incentivos fiscales y acuerdos económicos para hacer llegar alimentos, dando mayor calidad de vida a personas mayores y personas en pobreza. Convenios institucionales para que no se pierdan alimentos, ni desperdicien. Cumplimiento de los acuerdos internacionales sobre el etiquetado frontal y octagonal de los productos de alimentos, para que sea homogéneo. Monitoreo y educación profunda, generando cultura.

2021-06-10 19:31:20205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13681/60

17541851112313

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones públicas que trabajan producción y suministro de alimentos, o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica gubernamental. Este diálogo ha tenido 4 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el administrador dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas, tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores gubernamentales, que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector público para participar en los diálogos nacionales sobre la producción y suministro de alimentos en la República Dominicana post pandemia COVID-19, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Se contó con un facilitador en cada una de sus mesas, y un administrador en el diálogo que dictaba las directrices de las preguntas y respuestas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre producción y suministro, la administradora del diálogo realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, la administradora recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251Mercados de exportación: El Plan de Acción Mundial deberá incluir medidas para el cumplimiento de los requisitos que exigen los países con necesidades de importación de alimentos, principalmente en lo relacionado con la fitosanidad, zoosanidad, inocuidad e higiene de los alimentos. Planes de orientación al productor en materia de comercialización hacia un destino que le garantice mejores precios en sus cosechas y la disminución de los canales de intermediarios. Fortalecer las cuarentenas agropecuarias para garantizar una vigilancia de las plagas y enfermedades que frecuentemente amenazan los sistemas agrícolas.235238241242243244245248249250251Los Se aboga por un sector resiliente capaz de adaptar su cadena de valor productiva, comercialización y consumo de una manera sostenible, adaptable, en cantidades suficientes para todos los consumidores. Como Estado pequeño e archipelágico requerimos de acciones focalizadas en aumentar la eficiencia productiva, la calidad, el suministro y la seguridad alimentaria nacional. El sector oficial promueve la modalidad de agricultura por contrato, donde los productores disponen de la tierra y el Estado les proporciona el financiamiento y mercados, bajo el concepto de cero predios baldíos orientados a lograr los ODS, específicamente el objetivo No.2, Hambre Cero. Se aboga para que se disponga de nueva infraestructura para las MIPyMES que permitan realizar el proceso de post cosecha de los productos, manteniendo los niveles de calidad, inocuidad y rentabilidad, como son: construcción y/o adecuación de centros de acopio, lavado y empaque.2362382392402412422432442452482492502511.1 Que los países acuerden seleccionar a la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) para el diseño de un Plan de Acción Mundial para la Reactivación de la Producción de Alimentos, el cual contenga las líneas maestras en función de las condiciones de cada región. Se debe tomar en cuenta que en la mayoría de los países los planes y normativas existen, pero no están del todo difundido, socializados, de forma que se conozcan e implementen mejor las políticas públicas que inciden en el lograr una mejor planificación de la producción agropecuaria nacional, tanto para la siembra, cosecha, como para la importación de determinados rubros, insumos y productos sustitutos y/o similares. Algunos de estos instrumentos además de darse a conocer, deben ser actualizados, para garantizar la implementación de los objetivos de una producción correctamente planificada, orientada a lo sostenible, haciendo uso de las energías renovables. 1.2 Que cada país actualice sus datos estadísticos de producción y consumo anteriores a la pandemia para ser utilizados en la formulación de sus metas a corto plazo, las cuales presten especial atención a los productos de la canasta básica familiar y el acceso a los mismos por parte de la población de más bajos ingresos. 1.3 Que el Plan de Acción de Mundial incluya líneas maestras orientadas al fortalecimiento de la agricultura familiar, el mayor segmento de producción de alimentos para el abastecimiento de las familias y para el mercado a nivel global. 1.4 Que el Plan de Acción incluya lineamientos estratégicos para el financiamiento de micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas, cooperativas, federaciones y asociaciones de productores a través de planes de negocio que garanticen la inversión y sus resultados. Incluir fortalecimiento y accesibilidad a programas de tecnologías para la producción limpia y competitiva, especialmente a los pequeños y medianos productores/as. 1.5 Que los países incentiven la alianza público-privada para el mejor aprovechamiento de los recursos, y garantizar la gobernanza. 2.1 Los datos estadísticos anteriores a la pandemia indican la demanda del sector. Estos datos pueden usarse para la formulación de las metas a corto plazo, en función de las proyecciones de ocupación. El Plan de Acción Mundial debe íncluir las estrategias a seguir por las regiones en función de los daños ocasionados al sector por las restricciones. 2.2 El Plan de Acción Mundial debe prever que muchas de las empresas suplidoras del sector turístico han desaparecido o están paralizadas en la mayoría de las regiones. En tal sentido, deben contemplarse lineamientos estratégicos que procuren su recuperación, incluyendo inventario de estas empresas y necesidades para su puesta en marcha en función de la demanda de hoteles y restaurantes y la oferta del sector productivo. 3.1 El Plan de Acción Mundial deberá incluir medidas para que los Gobiernos de países productores de insumos propicien medidas en favor de países productores de baja y mediana renta que tienen que importar insumos para la producción agrícola, pecuaria y acuícola. 3.2 Que el Plan de Acción Mundial contemple que los Gobiernos de países dependientes de los insumos importados impongan por un período determinado tasa cero para los insumos fundamentales para la producción agrícola, pecuaria y acuícola y precios garantizados a futuros a través de compras conjuntas regionales. 3.3 Que el Plan de Acción Mundial incluya medidas que incentiven la compra de volúmenes de insumos esenciales por parte de los grupos organizados en función de las proyecciones de precios a futuro, con acceso a financiamiento a tasas de interés blandos. 4.1 El Plan de Acción Mundial deberá contemplar medidas para que en la etapa de recuperación los países de renta baja y media produzcan sobre oferta, a menos que no cuenten con almacenes fiscales para su acumulación de existencias, a los fines de evitar pérdidas al sector productivo o con solicitudes externas de compra de los rubros sobre-producidos. 4.2 El Plan de Acción Mundial deberá proponer acciones para el fortalecimiento de los canales de distribución de alimentos a nivel local.

2021-06-10 20:25:27205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16091/16

Se publicó el diálogo en el Portal de los diálogos de la Cumbre (https://summitdialogues.org/es/) y se convocó a diferentes sectores, incluido el sector privado, academia, ONGs y actores gubernamentales, procurando una amplia representación de sectores, algunos de los cuales tienen un fuerte arraigo en diferentes regiones del país. Aquellos actores que solicitaron ser incluidos específicamente, fueron invitados a algunas de las sesiones. Las discusiones fueron inclusivas y transparentes y las conclusiones fueron leídas al interior de cada subgrupo de debate y luego compartidas con la totalidad del plenario, siguiendo las recomendaciones de los diversos documentos preparados por la organización de la Cumbre. La modalidad virtual aseguró la participación de actores de distintas partes del país.A través de la metodología elegida se buscó involucrar a una diversidad de participantes de varios sectores con los sistemas alimentarios. Se preparó un formato estandarizado, que se repitió en 3 días con actores diferentes, a fin de reflejar diversas posiciones sobre estos temas y generar discusiones productivas. Además, se prepararon temas de discusión que se consideraron relevantes para el sistema alimentario nacional e internacional y que estaban claramente relacionados con los objetivos de la Cumbre. Por último, se recopilaron los resultados a fin de retroalimentar a la secretaría de la Cumbre.La inclusividad está dada no sólo por los actores que se invita, sino por el tiempo que se les otorga para expresarse. La posibilidad de hacer tres diálogos y debates en subgrupos más pequeños brindó la oportunidad a todos y todas para expresarse con tiempo. Los participantes conocían de antemano el tema de debate del subgrupo en el que participarían. Asimismo, se les dio la posibilidad de cambiarse de subgrupo durante el evento y de participar en más de uno en caso de considerarlo pertinente

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251El tema central del diálogo fue “Fortalecer los sistemas alimentarios para el Desarrollo Sostenible”. Al respecto, los debates se dividieron en tres subgrupos, en torno a los siguientes temas: Subgrupo 1: El futuro del sistema agroalimentario argentino: oportunidades y desafíos Subgrupo 2: Prácticas y experiencias de producción sostenible para compartir con el mundo. Subgrupo 3: Sistemas alimentarios sostenibles para dietas saludables236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 1: EL FUTURO DEL SISTEMA AGROALIMENTARIO ARGENTINA: OPORTUNIDADES Y DESAFÍOS OPORTUNIDADES A) Acceso a alimentos El enfoque de Naciones Unidas, en particular de la Cumbre, parece estar orientado a modificar las dietas alimentarias en el mundo. Se considera, en cambio, que la Cumbre debería priorizar el acceso a los alimentos en calidad y cantidad, es decir priorizar la seguridad alimentaria. Para ello se deben fomentar modos de producción que atiendan la sostenibilidad en los tres pilares: social, económica y ambiental, así como modos de comercialización donde el comercio internacional juegue un rol central en la promoción de la seguridad alimentaria. Las reglas multilaterales de comercio agrícola deben alentar la eliminación de distorsiones y restricciones arancelarias y no arancelarias, así como alentar la ciencia como base para la toma de decisiones y políticas de promoción de la producción comercialización y consumo de alimentos y fibras. B) Producción y sostenibilidad Los sistemas productivos y agroindustriales deben basarse en una gestión sostenible a nivel económico, social y ambiental. La descarbonización debe basarse en métodos de producción apropiados para cada país y no imponer modelos productivos únicos. Es necesario rever métodos de medición de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI), aplicando metodología de balance de carbono basada en ciencia y aceptada multilateralmente. De este modo, la ganadería argentina podría alcanzar créditos de carbono. Se debe incluir la investigación y desarrollos locales para el cálculo de balance de carbono y no de captura y de emisiones por separado. En la Argentina, las buenas prácticas agrícolas incorporan rotación de cultivos, uso de cultivos de cobertura y siembra directa desde hace muchos años. Existe alta capacidad en estas temáticas. La producción forestal hace importantes aportes en balance de carbono con sistemas consociados y foresto ganaderos. DESAFÍOS Mantener un diálogo público privado con transición ordenada promoviendo producción sostenible de alimentos y descarbonización en el marco de los ODS y de la Agenda 2030, así como la promoción de esquemas internacionales que desarrollen capacidades nacionales tanto en lo técnico como en lo económico. Sistema multilateral de comercio con normas que resuelvan distorsiones de mercado que aseguren alimentos para el mundo. Incrementar la eficiencia productiva de todo el sistema agroalimentario tanto en lo productivo como en el comercio.236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 2: PRÁCTICAS Y EXPERIENCIAS DE PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE PARA COMPARTIR CON EL MUNDO. 1) Identificación de experiencias y prácticas Es importante rescatar y valorizar los antecedentes de la Argentina en la materia. El camino que plantea la Cumbre ya lo venimos recorriendo. El proceso empezó en la Argentina a fines de los años 80, a partir del interés por mejorar los suelos y un progreso importante fue la introducción de la siembra directa (SD) y luego con la sustitución de agroquímicos a través de semillas mejoradas. Hoy, el 90 % de la producción se realiza con SD y un gran porcentaje de la producción con semillas que permiten reducir el uso de agroquímicos. A esto se suman, en los últimos años, las siguientes prácticas: rotaciones agrícolo-ganaderas y, dentro de agricultura, entre oleaginosas y cereales y con la incorporación de cultivos de cobertura, llegando, éstas, al 20 % de los cultivos. Además, se están incorporando la agricultura digital, tecnologías blockchain y modernas prácticas de uso eficiente de los recursos y, en especial, del suelo. Se complementa el uso de fertilizantes con otras técnicas. Muchas provincias argentinas hacen uso de la receta agronómica para la aplicación de fitosanitarios y se realiza la trazabilidad de los mismos y se gestionan los envases de estos productos. También se habilitan depósitos certificados. En cuanto a las prácticas en ganadería, los feedlots reutilizan los desechos para obtener enmiendas y fertilizantes, como aporte para la economía circular. Se tiene en cuenta la alimentación de los animales y el aumento de su peso de faena para disminuir la emisión de GEI. Se resaltó la necesidad e importancia de la articulación público-privada y de la cooperación internacional como ejes para la seguridad alimentaria. También se destacan en Argentina el desarrollo de plataformas, como la Red de Buenas Prácticas Agropecuarias (PBA), la Plataforma Agroideal y el Acuerdo INTA-FAUBA-AACREA-AAPRESID en Proyecto Redes, así como el inicio de programas de carbono neutro, para certificar producciones. Se está incorporando el trabajo en cadenas, la intensificación sostenible, el enfoque en bioeconomía y en sistemas más circulares. Existen diversas experiencias en materia de sostenibilidad de cultivos, producciones, procesos y técnicas de manejo, atendiendo a la relación producción-sostenibilidad (intensificación sustentable) lo que contribuye a la seguridad alimentaria con sistemas productivos sostenibles. Se atiende a la demanda de sostenibilidad que requieren los mercados y los organismos internacionales y la cooperación público-privada y a nivel internacional es de vital importancia como catalizador de estos procesos. El grupo manifestó su acuerdo con la Declaración del Consejo Agropecuario del Sur “Principios y valores de la región para la producción de alimentos en el marco del Desarrollo Sostenible” (Declaración I – XLII – 2021) del 4-05-21 Se opinó que la organización de la Cumbre no tiene muy en cuenta la visión de América y que debería ser una oportunidad para posicionar a la Argentina y a la región como una de las soluciones para la seguridad alimentaria mundial. Se tiene en cuenta que las huellas hídrica, de carbono y forestal son a veces demandadas por los bloques comerciales y por los grandes compradores a nivel global. Referencias: https://soja.agroideal.org/ar/ INTA: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agrícola FAUBA: Facultad de Agronomía de la Universidad de Buenos Aires AACREA: Asociación Argentina de Consorcios Regionales de Experimentación Agrícola AAPRESID: Asociación Argentina de Productores de Siembra Directa236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 2: PRÁCTICAS Y EXPERIENCIAS DE PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE PARA COMPARTIR CON EL MUNDO. (CONTINUACIÓN) 2) ¿Que se necesita para promoverlas e impulsarlas? Es necesario entender cómo son las demandas sobre estas temáticas a nivel de territorio También se debe jerarquizar a la Argentina en el esfuerzo de cooperación internacional tanto en investigación como desarrollo, por ejemplo, a través del asesoramiento en materia de siembra directa a otros países. Se debe realizar una demanda en la Cumbre en favor de mayores recursos para estos temas. Se deben eliminar algunos prejuicios sin bases científicas que limitan el desarrollo. Las regulaciones se deben basar en el conocimiento científico y no en cuestiones ideológicas o en intereses sectoriales. También hay que propugnar en ámbitos internacionales, como el Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio Climático (IPCC, por sus siglas en inglés), por el uso de sistemas de medición de capturas de carbono y no solo de emisiones, lo que contribuiría a limitar la hostilidad contra el comercio y consumo de carnes. Que el metano no se considere como equivalente a dióxido de carbono. Hay que hacer valer el liderazgo en Argentina en estas prácticas en los ámbitos internacionales, promoviendo un intercambio en materia científica y en materia comercial. Es necesario que las normativas se adecúen de manera de que unifiquen criterios para habilitaciones, certificaciones, etc., evitando superposiciones y diferencias de tratamiento a nivel provincial. Ese avance hacia criterios unificados no implica un cuestionamiento a la competencia de cada instancia reguladora en los distintos ámbitos jurisdiccionales. Se deben desarrollar normativas acordes a cada actividad que garanticen su seguridad jurídica y mejorar el conocimiento, la difusión y el cumplimiento de los requisitos regulatorios. Se destacó que se debe avanzar en el desarrollo de la trazabilidad. Hay que mejorar la comunicación hacia los distintos sectores y ámbitos a nivel nacional e internacional en los temas en discusión. Es necesario revertir una imagen negativa que no tiene fundamentos sólidos, evitando la difusión de falacias o verdades a medias. Se deben elaborar estrategias de comunicación y mensajes en función de las distintas audiencias. Finalmente se concluyó que se debe aprovechar la Cumbre para mostrar las cosas buenas y variadas que hace la Argentina.236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 3: SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS SOSTENIBLES PARA DIETAS SALUDABLES Varios participantes coincidieron en que es muy importante dar este debate en la Cumbre. Argentina, y sus sistemas productivos, tienen un potencial enorme para contribuir al cumplimiento de los objetivos propuestos (dietas saludables y sistemas alimentarios sostenibles). La transición hacia la sostenibilidad en los sistemas productivos, que así lo requieran, debe ser gradual. Se señaló la importancia de la tecnología y de la biotecnología en los procesos productivos. Varios participantes indicaron la importancia de compartir y ampliar el acceso a todos los integrantes de la cadena de producción. Se destacó la importancia de la capacitación y formación profesional. Algunos participantes indicaron la importancia del desarrollo de cadenas cortas locales, como alternativa adicional y complementaria a las tradicionales, por los aspectos positivos en las dimensiones ambiental, social y económica. También se remarcó la relevancia de avanzar en un sistema de rotulado frontal en favor de una alimentación saludable y se expresó que una mayor y más clara información contribuiría a mejorar las dietas saludables. Algunos participantes señalaron la necesidad de una educación alimentaria. Se indicó la importancia de generar huertas en las familias y la capacitación en las escuelas para lograr hábitos saludables para, en alguna medida, complementar la nutrición y la seguridad alimentaria. Además, se hizo énfasis en trabajar en favor de la reducción de pérdidas y desperdicio de alimentos, con una fuerte articulación público-privada. Varios participantes indicaron que, con financiamiento adecuado, las inversiones en nuevas tecnologías e innovaciones tienden a incrementar la productividad de forma sostenible.

2021-06-10 20:35:50205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16096/16

Se publicó el diálogo en el Portal de los diálogos de la Cumbre (https://summitdialogues.org/es/) y se convocó a diferentes sectores, incluido el sector privado, academia, ONGs y actores gubernamentales, procurando una amplia representación de sectores, algunos de los cuales tienen un fuerte arraigo en diferentes regiones del país. Aquellos actores que solicitaron ser incluidos específicamente, fueron invitados a algunas de las sesiones. Las discusiones fueron inclusivas y transparentes y las conclusiones fueron leídas al interior de cada subgrupo de debate y luego compartidas con la totalidad del plenario, siguiendo las recomendaciones de los diversos documentos preparados por la organización de la Cumbre. La modalidad virtual aseguró la participación de actores de distintas partes del país.A través de la metodología elegida se buscó involucrar a una diversidad de participantes de varios sectores con los sistemas alimentarios. Se preparó un formato estandarizado, que se repitió en 3 días con actores diferentes, a fin de reflejar diversas posiciones sobre estos temas y generar discusiones productivas. Además, se prepararon temas de discusión que se consideraron relevantes para el sistema alimentario nacional e internacional y que estaban claramente relacionados con los objetivos de la Cumbre. Por último, se recopilaron los resultados a fin de retroalimentar a la secretaría de la Cumbre.La inclusividad está dada no sólo por los actores que se invita, sino por el tiempo que se les otorga para expresarse. La posibilidad de hacer tres diálogos y debates en subgrupos más pequeños brindó la oportunidad a todos y todas para expresarse con tiempo. Los participantes conocían de antemano el tema de debate del subgrupo en el que participarían. Asimismo, se les dio la posibilidad de cambiarse de subgrupo durante el evento y de participar en más de uno en caso de considerarlo pertinente

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251El tema central del diálogo fue “Fortalecer los sistemas alimentarios para el Desarrollo Sostenible”. Al respecto, los debates se dividieron en tres subgrupos, en torno a los siguientes temas: Subgrupo 1: El futuro del sistema agroalimentario argentino: oportunidades y desafíos Subgrupo 2: Prácticas y experiencias de producción sostenible para compartir con el mundo. Subgrupo 3: Sistemas alimentarios sostenibles para dietas saludables236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 1: EL FUTURO DEL SISTEMA AGROALIMENTARIO DE ARGENTINA: OPORTUNIDADES Y DESAFÍOS DESAFÍOS El mundo, y los países desarrollados en especial, deben hacer aportes para que todos los países puedan alcanzar los ODS y la Agenda 2030. Es necesario promover y fortalecer el alineamiento entre los sectores público y privado. Es importante que producir alimentos y combatir la pobreza sea un enfoque fundamental de la Argentina. Algunos participantes mencionaron el ejemplo de la yerba mate en Argentina: es un producto saludable que, en la actualidad, el mundo demanda. Se están desarrollando nuevas bebidas que se suman a la forma tradicional de beber el mate. Resulta necesario realizar más difusión y darle apoyo para que el producto pueda entrar en nuevos mercados y para ello es necesario estabilizar su producción, profundizar estudios científicos sobre la yerba mate a través de análisis de laboratorio, la diferenciación de calidades (como la yerba orgánica) y el desarrollo de nuevos productos (por ejemplo, la yerba mate en cápsulas). Para esto resultaría necesario el apoyo de países desarrollados. Se resaltó la importancia de que la Argentina promueva la exportación de las pequeñas y medianas empresas (PYMES) PRODUCCIÓN Y SOSTENIBILIDAD Los productores agropecuarios argentinos invierten en sostenibilidad tanto productiva como social, por ejemplo, brindando trabajo, desde hace muchos años. Nuestra economía necesita dólares. Nuestra producción necesita ser sustentable (siembra directa y producción de bajo impacto). La ganadería argentina es muy sostenible desde el punto de vista ambiental. Tenemos muchas demostraciones de que la Argentina tiene muchos servicios ecosistémicos. Lo importante es quién y cómo los miden. Es una visión equivocada decir que la ganadería argentina es negativa porque emite metano. En el caso de la yerba mate la zona de producción es muy pequeña y los cambios en la oferta, ya sea por cuestiones meteorológicas o de otros factores, hacen que sea difícil hacer de ella una producción sostenible en el tiempo, especialmente en los momentos en los que la misma no resulta rentable. La fijación de precios limita el avance de la competitividad de la yerba mate en el mundo. En términos de sostenibilidad social, se trata de una actividad con 15.000 productores, donde no hay capital financiero dominante. El caso del té es similar y el 95% de la producción se exporta. También son muchas las empresas elaboradoras. Se desatacó que el sector de la yerba mate está trabajando con normas de inocuidad internacionales.236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 2: PRÁCTICAS Y EXPERIENCIAS DE PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE PARA COMPARTIR CON EL MUNDO. 1) Identificación de experiencias y prácticas Se realiza un trabajo interinstitucional en la Red de Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas (BPA), desde 2014, con 95 instituciones académicas, científicas, profesionales, comerciales y gremiales, que logra consensos en materia de indicadores de BPAs. Se hacen aportes para la modificación de lo que no se hace de manera correcta como posibilidad para revertirlo. Existe el Programa Argentino de Carbono Neutro, programa privado de adhesión voluntaria, para consolidar una marca que identifique la sustentabilidad en materia de alimentos. También existen la Plataforma Agroideal y el Proyecto Redes (UBA-INTA-AAPRESID-AACREA) . Alianza internacional con productores de maíz de Estados Unidos y Brasil y con la Alianza internacional de Soja, ámbitos en donde se coincide en la necesidad de tener una posición común entre los distintos países. Trabajo en forma coordinada para tener una visión conjunta y evitar problemas en las transacciones de alimentos, siembra directa (SD) y conservación desde hace 30 años. Necesidad de utilizar bases científicas validadas a nivel internacional Existe un para producir alimentos sanos, inocuos y que asegure la sostenibilidad del sistema. Es necesario que se modifiquen los sistemas de medición en ganadería, que solo consideran emisiones de GEIs y no el secuestro de carbono. En ese caso, el balance sería positivo. Se debe considerar el ecosistema en su conjunto y no solo a la producción animal. Es necesario destacar los trabajos en rotación, labranza 0, siembra directa, agricultura de precisión, cultivos de servicio, manejo más eficiente del agua, mayor aprovechamiento del área agrícola y el papel de los avances tecnológicos en los incrementos de la producción y la sustentabilidad. . Los sectores público y privado deben trabajar conjuntamente. - Es importante el impacto de la incorporación de eventos biotecnológicos, con más el 90 % en los principales cultivos, con resultados en indicadores productivos y de eficiencia en el uso de recursos, control de plagas y menor uso de agroquímicos. También el uso de “Agricultural technology” (AGTECH) es importante para reducir el uso estos productos y, además, en Argentina posibilitó la producción en zonas no habilitadas para la agricultura como el oeste de la provincia de Buenos Aires. Hay que destacar los avances en materia de edición génica y defender el uso de la biotecnología ante los mercados que la cuestionan. Es necesario adoptar criterios de acuerdo con la realidad de cada país. Se deben realizar alianzas con otros países del hemisferio productores de soja. Es necesario seguir trabajando en protocolos para reducir la “huella de carbono”. El cálculo de la huella de carbono en trigo, harinas y fideos en la Argentina da resultados destacados en comparación a similares producciones de otros países. Uno de los resultados muestra que, a mayor productividad, menor huella de carbono. Los sistemas de trazabilidad, gestión sostenible y certificación en el ámbito forestal tienen un papel relevante en la Argentina. Este desarrollo de los últimos 20 años del sector forestal se va a expandir al resto de los sectores. Se destaca la necesidad de sistemas de BPA con trazabilidad y auditoría externa. La Argentina tiene mucho para mostrar en este tema, con el 60 % de la superficie forestal certificada, y 1,2 has en conservación por cada ha. implantada. Argentina tiene en marcha un sistema de tecnología Blockchain de certificación en ganadería. Hay una capacidad de ejecución y demostración actual de todos estos avances. En cuanto a la vitivinicultura, los temas sobre salud, ambiente y comunidad son claves en las exportaciones de vinos argentinos. Se han firmado Protocolos de sostenibilidad con socios comerciales, que abarcan la producción primaria y la transformación industrial. En esto han trabajado el sector privado, el Instituto Nacional de Vitivinicultura y la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Argentina tiene más de 60 bodegas certificadas y se buscan avales para avanzar en el mayor reconocimiento a nivel internacional. Se realizó una asociació236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 2: PRÁCTICAS Y EXPERIENCIAS DE PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE PARA COMPARTIR CON EL MUNDO (CONTINUACIÓN) - Aumentar los indicadores de ganadería de cría. - Contar con más información científica propia. - Marcos jurídicos que permitan avanzar con estabilidad en las reglas de juego. - Firmas de acuerdos bilaterales con nuestros mercados externos. - Armonización de normas a nivel global para que no se conviertan en barreras paraarancelarias. - Promoción de la marca país en los mercados externos para estar a tono en la materia con países competidores. Desarrollar una marca sustentable para los productos que Argentina exporta. Se requiere avanzar en metodologías de cuantificación. - Abogar por la facilitación del comercio a nivel internacional. Reducción de aranceles y de barreras paraarancelarias, en muchos casos de índole ambiental, que no cuentan con suficiente fundamento de orden científico. Medidas para evitar la excesiva volatilidad en los mercados. - Mejoramiento genético a través de las nuevas tecnologías. - Equivalencia en materia de aprobación en lo que hace a commodities en el marco del Consejo Agropecuario del Sur (CAS). Trabajo alineado del Estado argentino con otros Estados. - Avanzar para contrarrestar una visión en exceso europea en el marco de la Cumbre y reforzar una visión desde otros contextos geográficos como el que nosotros representamos. - Atención a la demanda de sostenibilidad que requieren los mercados y los organismos internacionales. Reforzar el énfasis en la seguridad alimentaria y no solo en la “alimentación sustentable” en el ámbito de la Cumbre. - Planteo de un sistema de transición hacia la sustentabilidad, basado en un enfoque de proceso, lo que requiere la congruencia e integración de políticas globales e internas. Lograr una visión interna de políticas articuladas y consensos público-privados que permitan un mejor acceso a los mercados internacionales. - Necesidad de una visión a mediano y largo plazo que genere políticas de Estado que vayan más allá de cada período de gobierno. - Necesidad de contar con seguros multirriesgo y desarrollo de otros instrumentos de avanzada en la materia. - Armonizar criterios en lo que se considere “positivo para la naturaleza”. - Necesidad de generar y difundir información en temas como residuos y otros temas que inciden en la calidad de nuestros productos. Referencias https://soja.agroideal.org/ar/ UBA: Universidad de Buenos Aires INTA: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agrícola AAPRESID: Asociación Argentina de Productores de Siembra Directa AACREA: Asociación Argentina de Consorcios Regionales de Experimentación Agrícola236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 3 SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS SOSTENIBLES PARA DIETAS SALUDABLES General. Contexto. Los participantes estuvieron de acuerdo en la importancia que tienen estos espacios de construcción y diálogo de cara a la Cumbre y la relevancia de concientizar sobre dietas saludables y sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Se destacó el rol de Argentina como productor de alimentos para contribuir al cumplimiento de esos objetivos. Desarrollo. En ese marco se señaló la conveniencia de desarrollar más el mercado nacional de manera complementaria a las exportaciones. (Por ejemplo: maní, legumbres). Algunos participantes señalaron la importancia del agregado de valor en origen y el desarrollo de tecnologías aplicadas para lograr mayor producción. Se expresó la necesidad de que los nuevos modelos (transición hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas productivos) se adopten de manera gradual e inclusiva. La producción orgánica se vislumbra como una alternativa de producción y de diferenciación muy válida para un país como la Argentina. Para contribuir a una dieta saludable varios participantes estimaron que son relevantes las estrategias de consumo variado y de promoción de consumo de frutas, legumbres y hortalizas. Se destacó la importancia de la capacitación y la educación alimentaria para lograr consumo responsable y traccionar una producción eficiente. Se estuvo de acuerdo en la necesidad de continuar trabajando en favor de la reducción de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos, con una fuerte articulación público-privada. Se indicó la conveniencia de desarrollar tecnologías y energías alternativas para contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria. Se señaló que no existe un modelo único de desarrollo de los sistemas alimentarios, resultando fundamental una visión inclusiva con soluciones que se adapten a las realidades y necesidades locales, basadas en evidencia científica. En ello se incluyen los esquemas de huella de carbono y huella hídrica. También se remarcó la relevancia de avanzar en un sistema de rotulado que informe adecuadamente sobre las características de los alimentos sin demonizarlos. Asimismo, se expresó que más información y más clara contribuiría a mejorar las dietas saludables. Varios participantes indicaron que, con financiamiento adecuado e inversiones en nuevas tecnologías, se contribuye a lograr sistemas alimentarios sostenibles.

2021-06-10 20:43:20205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16099/16

Se publicó el diálogo en el Portal de los diálogos de la Cumbre (https://summitdialogues.org/es/) y se convocó a diferentes sectores, incluido el sector privado, academia, ONGs y actores gubernamentales, procurando una amplia representación de sectores, algunos de los cuales tienen un fuerte arraigo en diferentes regiones del país. Aquellos actores que solicitaron ser incluidos específicamente, fueron invitados a algunas de las sesiones. Las discusiones fueron inclusivas y transparentes y las conclusiones fueron leídas al interior de cada subgrupo de debate y luego compartidas con la totalidad del plenario, siguiendo las recomendaciones de los diversos documentos preparados por la organización de la Cumbre. La modalidad virtual aseguró la participación de actores de distintas partes del país.A través de la metodología elegida se buscó involucrar a una diversidad de participantes de varios sectores con los sistemas alimentarios. Se preparó un formato estandarizado, que se repitió en 3 días con actores diferentes, a fin de reflejar diversas posiciones sobre estos temas y generar discusiones productivas. Además, se prepararon temas de discusión que se consideraron relevantes para el sistema alimentario nacional e internacional y que estaban claramente relacionados con los objetivos de la Cumbre. Por último, se recopilaron los resultados a fin de retroalimentar a la secretaría de la Cumbre.La inclusividad está dada no sólo por los actores que se invita, sino por el tiempo que se les otorga para expresarse. La posibilidad de hacer tres diálogos y debates en subgrupos más pequeños brindó la oportunidad a todos y todas para expresarse con tiempo. Los participantes conocían de antemano el tema de debate del subgrupo en el que participarían. Asimismo, se les dio la posibilidad de cambiarse de subgrupo durante el evento y de participar en más de uno en caso de considerarlo pertinente.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251El tema central del diálogo fue “Fortalecer los sistemas alimentarios para el Desarrollo Sostenible”. Al respecto, los debates se dividieron en tres subgrupos, en torno a los siguientes temas: Subgrupo 1: El futuro del sistema agroalimentario argentino: oportunidades y desafíos Subgrupo 2: Prácticas y experiencias de producción sostenible para compartir con el mundo. Subgrupo 3: Sistemas alimentarios sostenibles para dietas saludables236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 1: EL FUTURO DEL SISTEMA AGROALIMENTARIO ARGENTINA: OPORTUNIDADES Y DESAFÍOS INTRODUCCIÓN Un sistema alimentario tiene 5 dimensiones que deben estar equilibradas 🕐 Producción y Productividad 🕐 Sostenibilidad ambiental: esta dimensión está tomando un muy alto peso respecto al resto, cuestión que es impulsada por las necesidades de algunos países interesados en sí mismos, lo que promueve políticas distorsivas llevando a un desequilibrio del balance 🕐 Inocuidad 🕐 Nutrición 🕐 Sostenibilidad económica y social El sistema alimentario global fue capaz de incrementar la producción a un ritmo mayor al del crecimiento de la población. Por ello, pudo atender a la demanda creciente de alimentos asociada también a los aumentos de ingresos promedios per cápita. A su vez, se suman nuevos desafíos relacionados con la mejora de las dietas y la calidad nutricional de los alimentos; la sostenibilidad ambiental y la biodiversidad, así como la calidad de vida de los agricultores y el desarrollo rural. ACCESO A ALIMENTOS En la industria de alimentos procesado la primera condición es una situación económica estructural favorable y con infraestructura como por ej. hidrovías, rutas, conectividad general, para promover la relación de la Argentina con el mundo. PRODUCCIÓN Y SOSTENIBILIDAD En los últimos 20 años, se han producido grandes transformaciones y la Argentina ha hecho importantes aportes al mundo en la producción de alimento a través del aumento de la productividad, la incorporación de tecnología sostenible, tecnología en semillas, procesos, entre otros. La Argentina continúa incorporando tecnología de insumos y de procesos y avanza en la intensificación sostenible en la producción de alimentos. La principal expansión de la producción provino más de la eficiencia que del incremento de la superficie. La contribución de las semillas también es destacable con el aumento de rendimiento y de adaptación a diversos ambientes. El desarrollo y fabricación de maquinaria agrícola nacional también hizo grandes aportes al aumento de la producción sostenible (por ejemplo, con la siembra directa). Es importante mirar el comercio como un ensamble de buenas prácticas, ciclo del carbono y del agua, educación, innovación, tecnologías y conectividad. Es necesario fortalecer la cadena de valor interna. Impulsar más análisis técnicos sobre riego complementario. Esto es algo que pueden dar un importante avance en aumentos de producción. DESAFÍOS Frente al crecimiento poblacional, la producción viene aumentando y cubriendo en parte esta demanda. Aun así, existen 700 millones de personas con inseguridad alimentaria. Esto tiene una clara relación con la necesidad de alcanzar un equilibrio sobre los 5 ejes mencionados al inicio. Las políticas públicas deben evolucionar hacia estos objetivos. Es importante un correcto diseño e implementación. El comercio no debe tener grandes intervenciones y debe facilitarse el flujo de alimentos. Actualmente hay muchas restricciones en materia de acceso a los mercados que necesitan corregirse. Eliminar competencia desleal y las distorsiones es indispensable. Es necesario el cumplimiento de normas sanitarias y fitosanitarias a partir de regulaciones que se basen en datos científicos. Que el ajuste de estas normas sean una prioridad mundial. La Argentina es un país productor de alimentos muy eficiente respecto al balance de carbono Es fundamental basarse en la ciencia para tomar medidas en políticas comerciales, productivas y ambientales236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 2: PRÁCTICAS Y EXPERIENCIAS DE PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE PARA COMPARTIR CON EL MUNDO. 1) Identificación de experiencias y prácticas - Trabajo interinstitucional en la Red de Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas (BPA), con instituciones académicas, científicas, profesionales, comerciales y gremiales en la actualidad, que busca lograr consensos en materia de indicadores de BPAs. Este es un ejemplo de espacio de sinergia entre diferentes espacios y actores del sector. - Involucramiento de todos los actores, desde el productor mismo, que nos distingue de otros países, en donde las demandas de soluciones se traccionan desde las bases, complementando las acciones con el sistema científico-técnico. La Argentina ha sido pionera en las redes complejas de generación de conocimiento. - La Argentina y el Cono Sur tienen un potencial especial para destacar que las necesidades de soluciones vienen desde las bases del sector productivo. Alianzas entre AAPRESID-INTA-FAUBA en favor de trabajar en el incremento de la sostenibilidad agropecuaria. Experiencia demostrada a nivel internacional en materia de BPAs y posibilidades de exportarla aún más. Acortamiento de distancias en la adopción e implementación de la siembra directa (SD), manejo responsable de fitosanitarios y otras prácticas, en base a la experiencia adquirida. - Agricultura regenerativa: un concepto holístico que muestra cómo la producción agropecuaria no entra en conflicto con el capital natural y la provisión de servicios ecosistémicos, a efectos de incrementar la producción de manera sostenible y contribuir a reducir la gestión en la interfase entre lo productivo y la conservación de los recursos naturales. Utilizar las soluciones basadas en la naturaleza para reducir el uso de insumos y hacer un uso más eficaz del suelo y del agua, tratando de mantener la biodiversidad. - Mirada dinámica sobre la sostenibilidad. Evolución y sofisticación del concepto, que obliga a un dinamismo permanente en la materia, basado en una mirada científica. Diferentes prácticas como siembra directa, donde la Argentina es líder mundial, rotaciones, intensificación ecológica, cultivos de servicios, mejora de la fertilidad, reducción de Gases de Efecto Invernadero, manejo integrado de plagas basado en prácticas culturales, innovaciones técnicas y biotecnología, agricultura de precisión y “agricultural technology” (Agtechs). Incremento en la eficiencia en el uso de los insumos. - Reconocer la “calidad” de los productores argentinos y su propensión a la adopción de tecnología, lo que contribuye al logro de un círculo virtuoso de mejoras. La responsabilidad que implica la administración de los recursos naturales y que está en nuestras manos. BPAs en manejo de fertilizantes y su contribución a la sostenibilidad. - La Argentina es un país con muchos espacios silvestres en muy buen estado de conservación, con mucha biodiversidad. Es necesario darle importancia al entorno a escala de paisaje (paisajes productivos protegidos). Necesidad de comunicar adecuadamente esta realidad. Existen muchas oportunidades en la Argentina para mostrar una producción asociada al mantenimiento de la biodiversidad y a la protección del ambiente. Referencias AAPRESID: Asociación Argentina de Productores de Siembra Directa INTA: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria FAUBA: Facultad de Agronomía de Buenos Aires236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 2: PRÁCTICAS Y EXPERIENCIAS DE PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE PARA COMPARTIR CON EL MUNDO (CONTINUACIÓN) 2) ¿Que se necesita para promoverlas e impulsarlas? - Superar 3 grupos de barreras: a) señales de la sociedad, que llegan a través del mercado y de las normativas. Aquello que altera las señales de mercado va en detrimento de la sostenibilidad global y dificulta el alcance de las metas. Las normas deben ser claras y simples, su excesiva cantidad y dispersión también constituyen trabas. b) existencia de incertidumbre, que acorta el marco temporal y atenta contra la consideración de la sostenibilidad en las estrategias productivas, fomentando el cortoplacismo en los productores. c) inversión pública y privada en investigación que debe incrementarse. - Es necesario fortalecer el trabajo conjunto público-privado. Formar equipos, reglas de juego claras y previsibilidad, que eviten que el productor se vea tentado solo hacia una actividad. Trabajo con decisores políticos para visibilizar que los logros de resultados productivos son a mediano y largo plazo (como en la ganadería). - La carencia de ordenamiento territorial trae aparejados conflictos que no permiten un desarrollo adecuado. Es necesario contar con sitios para exponer la diversidad de prácticas y a lo largo de paisajes productivos. - Acortar brechas de conocimiento en base al desarrollo de soluciones simples. Evitar la “exageración” en el uso de índices sofisticados. - Mejorar la productividad por hectárea para no avanzar sobre sistemas vulnerables o sobre áreas que resulta necesario conservar o preservar. - Cerrar las brechas, para lo que se requiere el uso de estrategias de manejo que son de mediano y largo plazo, de allí que se requiere previsibilidad. En algunos temas (fertilizantes), ya está identificada la magnitud de esa brecha y se puede saber cuánto más podemos producir de manera sostenible. - Acortar la brecha entre el sector productivo y la sociedad. Déficits en la comunicación en la materia. Se necesitan vasos comunicantes entre los distintos sectores para comunicar un discurso homogéneo a la sociedad, en colaboración con organizaciones de la sociedad civil. - La “mirada productivista” no es ajena al deseo de vivir de manera sostenible. - La sostenibilidad es un tema demasiado importante para ser objeto de análisis de un solo sector, de allí que resulta necesario un involucramiento de toda la sociedad en la temática ambiental.236238239240241242243244246247248249251SUBGRUPO 3 SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS SOSTENIBLES PARA DIETAS SALUDABLES En el inicio del encuentro se señaló la importancia que tienen estos espacios de construcción e intercambios de cara a la cumbre mundial, y se propuso que sean la base para un trabajo a futuro de diálogo entre sector público y privado. Se destacó el papel que tiene nuestro país como productor mundial de alimentos y su contribución a transformar o mejorar los sistemas alimentarios. En particular, se resaltó el rol del productor bajo la visión de cadena y de sistema. Varios participantes señalaron la importancia que tiene el desarrollo de la tecnología, la biotecnología y las buenas prácticas para el cumplimiento de los objetivos de la cumbre y de los ODS pertinentes. Se expresó la necesidad de que la transición hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas productivos se adopte de manera gradual e inclusiva. Y, en ese sentido, la importancia de la ciencia como sustento de las medidas que se adopten. Muchos participantes pusieron de relieve la importancia de desarrollar y promover la tecnología y biotecnología para contribuir a los sistemas alimentarios. Se destacó la necesidad de promover el agregado de valor en origen para lograr mayor desarrollo y sostenibilidad de aquellos. En la transición o mejoramiento de los sistemas alimentarios, varios participantes indicaron que se requiere financiamiento e inversiones en tecnologías y energías alternativas como, por ejemplo, la bioenergía, cumpliendo con requerimiento medioambientales. Para contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria y a los sistemas alimentarios, se indicó la relevancia de continuar trabajando en favor de la reducción de pérdidas y desperdicio de alimentos, con una fuerte articulación entre los sectores. También se recordó el rol que cumplen las organizaciones sociales en el marco de los sistemas alimentarios. Se remarcó la importancia del trabajo en los espacios periurbanos y del mercado de cercanía de manera complementaria a las cadenas de comercialización más largas. Se destacó las ventajas de la capacitación y la educación alimentaria para lograr un consumo responsable y dietas equilibradas (importancia de las dietas variadas en proteínas vegetales y de origen animal). También se resaltó la importancia que tiene la información y la comunicación que se brinda al consumidor sobre la naturaleza de los alimentos que se ofrecen, y que deben tomarse de base la normas con evidencia científica como es el Codex. Asimismo, se indicó el valor de las guías alimentarias de cada país y el rotulado frontal de alimentos envasados para lograr dietas saludables, toda vez que informan sobre las características de los alimentos. Alineados con el objetivo de contribuir a una dieta saludable, varios participantes estimaron como muy importantes las estrategias público –privadas que tiendan a aumentar el consumo de frutas y hortalizas, y que éste sea variado y equilibrado.

2021-06-10 22:01:25204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3965/135

65628314717110231332141061313122

The principles of dialogue were reinforced from the planning stage as stakeholders from the grassroots(farmers) to private sector players up to the policy makers (Government Commissioners for Agriculture) were invited to the program. A well-seasoned journalist who had read and understood the principle of engagement was selected to moderate the dialogue. Furthermore, to ensure diversity, the dialogue information was sent widely across different online media as well as at targeted youth, indigenous farmers and women groups.The dialogue was respectful and recognised the opinion of all persons. The meeting has not stopped as just a dialogue but new partnerships have been formed from the summit and there is more clarity of the capacities of the Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NIMET) and the political will of state governments to bridge the climate information gap for farmers. The dialogue has helped build trust between NIMET and some state representatives.Adopting the principles of engagement enables you to capture your outcomes better in a smart way.

Yes

234242244246248249Our dialogue focused on Action Track 5 only. Specifically an exploration of action track 5 - to build resilience to CLIMATE vulnerabilities, shocks and stress.235Participants at the conference observed the following: 1. Conflict and climate change has been hampering the efforts to ensure food security in Nigeria. Access to climate information is important for farmers in rural communities as timely access to weather information from experts helps farmers to make adaptive decision. The small-scale farmers are not aware of information centres that provide relevant information. 2. NiMet has been at the forefront of providing early warning information/system for all relevant organisations. They produce general information and step-down this into agrometeorological information and its meaning for farmers. Therefore, the climate information needed by farmers is available. 3. However, there is a need for NiMet to increase its in-house capacity in terms of technology and personnel. They do not have access to specific varieties grown in each state, reducing their prediction efficiency. Furthermore, the NiMet model is not yet attuned to processing climate information for the livestock sector. 4. The key challenges for providing agrometeorological information to farmers include, traditional beliefs of the farmers, highly technical forecast information, poor communication skills of information carriers and language barriers. 5. Unfortunately, there is an absence of collaboration among the Ministries, Departments and Organisations that should bridge the gap between NiMet and the farmers. Furthermore, there is no deliberate national, state, and local system that take this information and pass it to farmers. 6. Nigeria’s extension service is poor, and it is required to help farmers to digest this information and enable them to make informed decisions. The ratio of extension agents to farmers is too low. 7. There is a need to leverage on technology to bridge the information gap. Tools such as radio and SMS can be used to update farmers who have little access to the internet.236242243244246249Participants made recommendations at the dialogue. They include: 1. The Federal Government should ensure that the National Framework for the Application of Climate Services is completed. Sub-national governments need to have the political will to support their farmers with the climate information. States and Local Governments must institutionalise proven models that have been used by CSOs, such as the HEDA and IFAD models to ensure that climate information reaches the last mile farmer. 2. NiMet should carry out timely and accurate climate information required by farmers for optimal production. They need to improve their models to support the livestock sector and work with states to produce state/crop-specific climate information. Feedback systems should be created to help NiMet improve their systems. 3. Weather forecast report should be produced in the 3 main languages spoken in the country and be broadcasted. Translated information should be distribute to central points such as worship centres, meeting places, market and CDA offices. Interventions must be community driven, community owned, gender responsive and based on community needs by strengthening indigenous adaptation method. 4. Agricultural research institutions should investigate varieties that are resistant to the changing climate and those that have short gestation period. 5. Governments should work with private organisation/start-up that have the technology to disseminate the information. 6. The extension service should be revamped, strengthened and equipped to disseminate relevant climate information in understandable formats for the small holder farmers.

2021-06-10 22:46:26205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16065/61

429149299728021321511273634335486932145154712672329316390753362727

El primer diálogo en Ecuador hacia la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios fue organizado y convocado por Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG), como un elemento central del proceso de participación y ofreció un foro organizado y con propósito para que las partes interesadas se reúnan para conocer la propuesta de la Cumbre, compartir evidencia sobre el estado de situación del sistema alimentario ecuatoriano y generar ideas para transformarlo. En este sentido respondió a la necesidad de actuar con urgencia reconociendo la problemática del país y el mundo. Reconociendo la complejidad del sistema alimentario del país y la interconexión entre distintas áreas, el llamado incorporó toda la propuesta de la Cumbre, resolviendo que la primera entrada fuera desde una mirada sistémica por lo cual se trataron como temas de debate las cinco vías de acción y tres palancas de cambio. La convocatoria fue amplia e inclusiva, se tuvo la participación de múltiples partes interesadas desde entidades de gobierno, sector privado, academia, sociedad civil, organismos internacionales y sobre todo de los actores directos del sistema que son los productores de alimentos cuya participación fue asegurada por la convocatoria y el apoyo logístico provisto por el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG) que permitió la conexión virtual desde 20 provincias del país.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247248251El Diálogo tuvo un enfoque sistémico del sistema alimentario ecuatoriano y trabajó en ocho temas conformando grupos de análisis y construcción colectiva (un promedio de 30 personas por grupo), enmarcados en cinco vías de acción y tres palancas de cambio propuestas para la Cumbre: 1) acceso a alimentos, 2) consumo sostenible, 3) producción favorable a la naturaleza, 4) medios de vida equitativos, 5) resiliencia, 6) innovación, 7) finanzas y 8) género y conocimientos indígenas. Este enfoque multidimensional permitió recoger insumos para: ● Construir la visión al 2030 del sistema alimentario ecuatoriano, ● Identificar objetivos y líneas de acción para hacer realidad esa visión de futuro, e ● Identificar temas/elementos adicionales que serán profundizados en una segunda convocatoria del diálogo nacional.235238239240241242244245246247248251El diálogo desarrollado permitió consolidar una propuesta de visión del sistema alimentario ecuatoriano que se presenta a continuación. VISIÓN DEL SISTEMA ALIMENTARIO ECUATORIANO Al 2030, el Ecuador contará con un sistema alimentario equitativo, inclusivo, competitivo y resiliente que contribuye a la erradicación de la pobreza y a la soberanía alimentaria, con el establecimiento de subsistemas de producción, transformación y consumo sostenibles, trazables para toda la cadena agroalimentaria, que crean empleo adecuado y cuentan con acceso a crédito preferencial, seguro agrícola diferenciado para agricultores de la AFC, riego tecnificado, tecnología amigable a bajo costo, innovación, asistencia técnica, valorización de saberes ancestrales, conectividad y alfabetización digital, formación básica y profesional y asistencia técnica adaptada a la realidad rural en su diversidad social, cultural y territorial, con enfoque de género e interculturalidad. Esta experiencia del país se constituye como un referente a nivel regional y mundial, debido a que se logra -con política pública prioritaria intersectorial, multinivel y la acción mancomunada y comprometida de múltiples actores- el: • Promover la conformación de sistemas productivos regenerativos, sinérgicos con los ecosistemas que contribuyen a conservar los recursos naturales (agua y suelos), contrastan la pérdida de biodiversidad y se adaptan a los cambios y variabilidad climática (resilientes). • Desarrollar alfabetización nutricional y cambiar los hábitos de consumo de la población. • Reducir la desnutrición (infantil y del adulto mayor -considerando que la mayor cantidad de productores se encuentran en esta edad) y la obesidad de la población • Rescatar saberes y sistemas productivos ancestrales vinculados con la innovación y el conocimiento científico. • Aumentar la investigación científica • Promover permanentemente el fortalecimiento de las capacidades a diferentes niveles. • Provocar alianzas multiactor entre el sector privado, público, comunitario, academia y cooperación • Facilitar el acceso a nichos de mercados especializados, institucionales y a compras públicas, que reconocen los esfuerzos de producción amigable con el ambiente, la multidimensionalidad de la agricultura familiar campesina (AFC) y reducen la cadena de intermediación. • Reducir los riesgos para los más pobres con seguridad social y de salud diferenciados para los productores de la Agricultura Familiar Campesina y poblaciones rurales, en particular mujeres (renta básica universal). • Reducir el desperdicio de alimentos orgánicos. Los temas específicos que se profundizará en un siguiente diálogo son: • Cultura alimentaria, hábitos, patrones de consumo y acceso a dietas saludables. Aumentar el nivel de consumo de “superfoods” (alimentos que reúnen un gran contenido de nutrientes. • Desnutrición infantil y del adulto mayor • Alimentación escolar vinculada a la agricultura familiar campesina (AFC), ¿hacia dónde va el modelo en Ecuador? • Sistemas de producción sustentables: agroecología, producción limpia, alimentos azules, etc • Procesamiento, comercialización y asociatividad • Gobernanza y políticas públicas para el SASN • La protección social reactiva a emergencias para asegurar la funcionalidad permanente de los sistemas alimentarios. • Saberes y sistemas alimentarios ancestrales, vínculos con el conocimiento y la innovación • Modelos de innovación social e institucional, sin olvidar los conocimientos tradicionales e indígenas • Los tipos de productos e incentivos financieros y su funcionamiento para alcanzar un sistema alimentario sostenible. • Rol de las mujeres en las diferentes etapas de vinculación del sistema agroalimentario: brechas, desigualdades, incentivos.236238Tema de debate 1: Acceso alimentos Objetivo: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos inocuos, de calidad y nutritivos disponibles en cantidades suficientes y precios asequibles. Líneas de acción: Reducir el hambre, la pobreza y la desigualdad: • Política pública prioritaria intersectorial y multinivel dirigida a cerrar las brechas de género, edad, etnia y territorio que facilite el acceso a las tierras, crédito, incentivos a la agricultura familiar campesina (AFC) para mejorar la alimentación, entre otras condiciones de vida. • Política institucional para que se aprueben los proyectos plurianuales de seguridad alimentaria y sean dirigidos a personas vulnerables de la zona rural con enfoque de género. • Fortalecimiento de los procesos organizativos y participativos de la sociedad civil, de los pequeños productores y de las nacionalidades • Empoderamiento de mujeres que son parte de la red de productoras, a través de formación continua, con la finalidad de que puedan participar activamente en las decisiones comunitarias sobre medidas para mejorar la nutrición y la alimentación segura. • Incentivos generados para que la industria vincule a pequeños productores. • Gobernanza alimentaria local que promueva la producción y transformación de la agricultura familiar campesina (AFC) y el acceso a consumidores mediante circuitos cortos de comercialización y compras públicas. • Diversificación de la economía rural e impulso del turismo sostenible rural. • Apoyo técnico de parte del Gobierno Nacional. Mayor acceso a alimentos nutritivos: • Elaboración y actualización permanente de un mapa de acceso a alimentos que identifique principales brechas y definir la población prioritaria. • Política pública integral con presupuesto y financiamiento suficiente para la lucha contra la desnutrición crónica infantil en niños menores de 5 años, con énfasis en zonas rurales en pueblos y nacionalidades. • Formación de consumidores para cambio en patrones de consumo y valoración de la adquisición de alimentos sanos, orgánicos, nutritivos limitando el consumo de alimentos de producción convencional y ultra procesados. • Fortalecimiento de Productores locales, con transferencia de conocimiento en medios de cultivos más sostenibles. Alimentos seguros: • Fortalecimiento de capacidades a los consumidores y productores para una producción y consumo sostenible de alimentos. • Establecimiento de sistemas de manejo de cultivos enfocados a la agricultura de conservación, con reducción del uso de agroquímicos de origen sintético y promoción del uso de productos orgánicos a base de microorganismos y extractos vegetales. • Políticas para conservación y acceso a semillas y fortalecimiento de conocimientos vinculados a su uso y conservación. • Reconocimiento a la producción de alimentos en base a saberes ancestrales sobre agricultura y alimentación.236239Tema de debate 2: Consumo Sostenible Objetivo: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible vinculadas al fortalecimiento de sistemas agroalimentarios, al cambio de hábitos de la población mediante la educación integral principalmente de niños y niñas en temas de nutrición y alimentación saludable, adoptando acciones de política pública como la regulación de la publicidad, la alimentación escolar saludable, la innovación en la industria agrícola para producir alimentos nutritivos, revalorizando a pequeños productores como protagonistas de las cadenas de valor y con responsabilidad sobre el medio ambiente. Líneas de acción Mejorar los entornos alimentarios: • Protección e incremento de la producción nacional, principalmente de la agricultura familiar y campesina (AFC), frente a la importación de alimentos, es decir, priorizar las compras públicas hacia la AFC. • Revalorización y difusión de los saberes locales ancestrales agroalimentarios y productivos. • Base de datos reales y actualizadas de la agricultura y alimentos. • Involucramiento del sector privado para el apoyo para generar cambios importantes en su producción. Fomentar la demanda de alimentos producidos de manera sostenible y dietas saludables: • Enfoque en la educación y alimentación escolar, desde allí hay que impulsar los cambios. En este tema, la sinergia entre el sector productivo, alimenticio y el gobierno, es importante con el fin de garantizar el acceso a alimentos saludables y nutritivos, así como optimizar el gasto público y su uso para la dinamización de la economía rural. • Generación de capacitaciones sobre alimentación saludable en las zonas rurales donde existe una gran diversidad de alimentos que son producidos bajo la modalidad de agroecología y vincular más la parte urbana con la rural. • Sensibilización a los consumidores sobre la trazabilidad de los productos que consumen. • Promoción y fortalecimiento de la alfabetización nutricional para el consumo de alimentos saludables principalmente en niños, niñas, mujeres embarazadas y lactantes y en todas las etapas del ciclo de vida, incluir nutrición en la malla curricular. • Generación de procesos de cambio de comportamiento desarrollando un plan de trabajo entre todas las entidades, que a través de indicadores se pueda evaluar la incidencia de las acciones realizadas en el cambio de hábitos alimenticios o de comportamiento. • Regularización de la publicidad, orientado a potenciar en los medios de comunicación la educación alimentaria y nutricional. Fortalecer las cadenas de valor locales: • Asistencia técnica y promoción para garantizar productos locales que satisfagan las necesidades nacionales antes que las extranjeras y controlar el ingreso informal de productos a través de las fronteras, que afectan el equilibrio de los precios internos. • Desarrollo de políticas de comercialización y diversificación de mercados en cadenas de supermercados, compras públicas, institucionales, etc., que incluyan incentivos para productos agroecológicos y de la AFC. • Diversificación de los mercados, nacionales e internacionales. • Organización de los productos de la AFC para crear alimentos saludables y sustentables, que fomenten una nueva cultura alimentaria, creando una mayor demanda de esos productos y bajando los precios a través de la reducción de intermediarios. • Acompañamiento y promoción de iniciativas que generen valor agregado a los productos que se ofertan a través de productores agroecológicos. • Definición a través de acuerdo ministerial o política pública para unificar los envases y precios de los productos agrícolas. • Pequeños productores registrados en el portal de compras públicas como proveedores del Estado. Reducir el desperdicio de alimentos: • Políticas públicas para la prevención y reducción de pérdidas y desperdicio de alimentos en toda la cadena alimentaria.236240Tema de debate 3: Producción favorable al ambiente Objetivo: Implementar un sistema de producción sostenible y libre de deforestación, trazable para toda la cadena productiva, con enfoque de género, innovación e interculturalidad, institucionalizado desde las entidades gubernamentales y de control, que protege y restaura los ecosistemas naturales y sus recursos. Líneas de acción Proteger los ecosistemas naturales • Transición hacia a una agricultura sostenible mediante políticas y normativas que impulsen la conservación y desarrollo sostenible, como la certificación de buenas prácticas agrícolas (BPA) y libres de deforestación, fomento de incentivos, asistencia técnica, reconversión de monocultivos a sistemas biodiversos, entre otros. • Reconocimiento de sistemas de producción favorables como un servicio ambiental, que contribuyen a la captura de carbono, disminución de emisiones de GEI, protección de los bosques e inclusión en mercados de carbono. • Conservación, manejo y restitución de la agrobiodiversidad mediante estrategias relacionadas con ferias de semillas, chacras biodiversas, sistemas productivos ancestrales, entre otros. • Fortalecimiento de la interculturalidad y de los derechos de los campesinos, así como de nacionalidades indígenas; capacitación en conservación de la agrobiodiversidad, agricultura biogénica y prácticas agroecológicas. • Fortalecimiento y acompañamiento técnico a productores y productoras para la implementación de técnicas de producción sostenible y libre de deforestación. • Disminución de prácticas de quema para proteger el suelo y la naturaleza. • Implementación de sistemas agroforestales de producción, que aportarán al sostén del suelo, a la calidad del aire y a la calidad de vida. • Incentivos tributarios, fomento hacia las BPA, priorización de compras públicas (SERCOP), que cumplan con temas ecológicos y exenciones tributarias para la producción libre de deforestación y/o que sean carbono neutral. • Políticas públicas que generen mecanismos de control en la producción de alimentos que atenten contra la naturaleza y la salud de la población. Gestionar sistemas de producción de alimentos existentes de forma sostenible • Desarrollo de la agroecología a través de la capacitación, investigación participativa, desarrollo e innovación hacia la productividad, calidad y sostenibilidad. • Fomentar la producción de productos del futuro (ejemplo: Lentejas: con una huella de carbono 43 veces menor que la de la carne) • Adopción de prácticas agropecuarias regenerativas basadas en la agricultura familiar y campesina como producción agropecuaria limpia, fomento de sistemas silvopastoriles, siembra directa bajo cobertura vegetal, pastoreo rotativo dinámico aportando a la soberanía y seguridad alimentaria de las comunidades. • Fomento de la agricultura y ganadería climáticamente inteligente. • Fortalecimiento de la gestión pública y comunitaria de riego. • Impulso de la modernización y tecnificación del riego. • Generación de una oferta académica de las Instituciones de Educación Superior, con carreras que permitan la formación de profesionales en producción o agronegocios sostenibles. • Socialización en el marco normativo y legal vigente del uso de los suelos a los productores, a través de la generación de grupos promotores que realicen acompañamiento, supervisión y control del cumplimiento de normativa. • Fortalecimiento comunicacional y de sensibilización ambiental con todos los actores. • Formación de implementadores, públicos y privados, a fin de que puedan dar la asistencia técnica a los productores que deseen certificar BPA -y sus módulos adicionales-. Involucrar a la industria transformadora, supermercados y ferias, a fin de que den prioridad y espacios a los alimentos seguros. Restaurar ecosistemas degradados • Promoción de la conservación del suelo y del agua mediante prácticas como: fertilidad biológica, acceso a materia orgánica, cero labranzas, sistemas de riego parcelario, censura a prácticas de quema. • Reducción de sobrepastoreo, alianzas con pequeños y medianos productores para fertilizar el suelo. • Programas de recuperación de franjas ribereñas.236241Tema de debate 4: Medios de vida equitativos Objetivo: Mejorar el empleo, los ingresos y su distribución a lo largo de la cadena de valor, reduciendo la intermediación comercial, los riesgos para los más pobres con seguridad social y de salud diferenciados para los productores de la Agricultura Familiar Campesina y poblaciones rurales, en particular mujeres (renta básica universal), desarrollando la agregación de valor y orientando inversiones para proteger y fortalecer los medios de vida, el capital social y cultura, y; construyendo valor sobre productos salubres (orgánicos) y de calidad, con identidad cultural y territorial, contribuyendo así al bienestar global. Líneas de acción Empoderamiento y construcción de capacidades: • Fortalecimiento y/o desarrollo de habilidades y capacidades en las familias para el manejo de la agricultura sostenible en pequeña escala y la gestión en todos los procesos de las cadenas productivas, evitando que sean solo proveedores de materia prima. • Capacitación en nutrición y preservación de saberes ancestrales de la población rural. • Trabajo interinstitucional con entidades educativas para promover educación integral entre generaciones más jóvenes e incentivar proyectos de innovación desde zonas rurales. • Promoción de la asociatividad como parte del proceso de fortalecimiento organizativo y comunitario y enfocado a contribuir con la soberanía y seguridad alimentaria. • Vinculación de los NNAJ en los procesos de toma de decisiones de política pública, orientadas a su acceso a oportunidades y desarrollo de habilidades productivas. • Generación de empresas asociativas campesinas para ofrecer servicios de apoyo a la comercialización campesina: logística, marketing y valor agregado con alta participación juvenil. • Sellos de identificación de la producción agroecológica impulsados desde organizaciones productoras y consumidores. • Economía circular. Acceso a servicios: • Estrategias para llevar los servicios básicos como luz, agua, teléfono, comunicación y crédito a bajo costo para zonas rurales. • Sistemas de información sobre costos de producción accesible a campesinos para definición de precios justos. • Análisis de productos, los laboratorios deberían estar dentro de las instituciones educativas para que sean un espacio de formación de estudiantes, sus familias y la comunidad, esto les daría sostenibilidad. • Colaboración interinstitucional con INIAP y entidades de investigación para mejorar la calidad nutricional de los alimentos. • Promoción del acceso a tecnologías y conectividad. Intervención del MAG, MINTEL y organismos internacionales. Políticas públicas inclusivas y estrategias focalizadas: • Regulación del salario para el trabajo rural. • Estrategias para mejorar los ingresos familiares de la finca, frente a la pluriactividad precaria. • Incentivos para redistribución equitativa de labores domésticas y de cuidado para incentivar el emprendimiento de la población femenina. • Estrategias para promover el consumo responsable y nutricional en familias campesinas y consumidores. • Normativas diferenciadas en temas tributarios y de normas legales / sanitarias, que permitan la generación de innovación y procesos asociativos de agregación de valor. • Formulación, legislación, y aplicación de leyes acordes a las necesidades ambientales, de producción, consumo, y comercialización para el sector agropecuario; especialmente a los pequeños productores, considerando que la media de edad en la sierra centro es de 55 a 60 años. • Regulación del mercado de productos agrícolas (a nivel de intermediarios) y de la distribución del excedente a lo largo de la cadena de valor. • Inversión para la conservación y protección de suelos y agua, que es uno de los problemas más graves de atención, y los elementos claves de las economías campesinas. • Mejora y reducción de la burocracia para acceder a los beneficios estatales del sector campesino; como créditos, riego y comercialización de productos. Además, acceder a los permisos para un adecuado registro. • Política pública en donde el estado garantice la inversión del productor, así como el estado garantiza a otros segmentos.236242Tema de debate 5: Resiliencia Objetivo: Desarrollar capacidades para la resiliencia y establecer un sistema descentralizado de gestión de riesgos para garantizar que los sistemas alimentarios mantengan su funcionalidad, se recuperen ante los efectos adversos y propendan a su sostenibilidad. Líneas de acción Resiliencia económica • Capacitar a los productores de la Agricultura Familiar y Campesina y de empresarios medianos y grandes en producción sostenible, seguridad alimentaria, nutrición. • Promover el seguro agrícola para reducir el riesgo económico de los productores frente a riesgos climáticos, biológicos y emergencias, garantizando el retorno de la inversión. Resiliencia social • Trabajar en la resiliencia comunitaria (autoestima, colectivo, solidaridad, identidad cultural), contemplando el establecimiento de un sistema de protección social reactivo a emergencias. • Propiciar el diálogo de saberes entre los conocimientos ancestrales y su vinculación con el saber científico. • Incluir en el análisis la malnutrición entre la población adulta mayor, a través de la sensibilización. • Incluir en los procesos de capacitación tanto los módulos técnicos como los de empoderamiento y resiliencia (capacidad de reorganizar, de recuperar). • Promover el empoderamiento de grupos vulnerables (niños, jóvenes, mujeres, etc) para alcanzar resiliencia. • Establecer mecanismos de seguimiento a las políticas públicas respecto del Sistema Alimentario, incluyendo un sistema de protección social reactivo a emergencias. • Focalizar protección social de manera permanente para los grupos vulnerables, en un marco de protección social reactiva a emergencias. Resiliencia ambiental • Asegurar el control del cumplimiento de la función ambiental de todas las unidades de producción, particularmente en el uso de agrotóxicos en el agua. • Fortalecer las capacidades de las Unidades de Gestión de Riesgos de los Municipios para hacer frente a los impactos que afecten la seguridad alimentaria. • Crear incentivos para la conservación de la agrobiodiversidad de las fincas y rescate de saberes en prácticas productivas y alimentarias ancestrales. • Definir mecanismos claros para la protección social al sector agrícola frente a los impactos de las crisis, relacionados con la protección social reactiva a emergencias.236248Tema de debate 6: Innovación Objetivo: Fortalecer los ecosistemas nacionales de innovación y sus actores orientados a las demandas de los mercados nacionales e internacionales, garantizando la seguridad y soberanía alimentaria y con normativa que promueva y garantice la investigación, el desarrollo y la innovación, a través de redes interinstitucionales. Líneas de acción • Desarrollar un diálogo de saberes (interdisciplinario y con conocimientos ancestrales) para generar tecnologías innovadoras y con consideración de economía circular para los SAS • Establecer acciones para promover la entomofagia sostenible como una alternativa alimentaria (incluye la elaboración de normativa y protocolos de producción y manejo sostenible) • Fomentar la cooperación sur-sur, para el intercambio de experiencias en temas relacionados con la innovación de los SAS • Establecer acciones para fomentar la producción diferenciada, eficiente y sostenible para reducir el impacto ambiental con énfasis en la reducción de huella de carbono e hídrica, usando de forma eficiencia los suelos agrícolas • Promover sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles resilientes al cambio climático y con soberanía alimentaria con participación equitativa de múltiples actores • Fomentar la implementación de las buenas prácticas agropecuarias sostenibles, resilientes al cambio climático, con sistemas eficientes y con enfoque de género de asistencia técnica y extensión rural para lograr SAS • Incorporar sistemas de transporte eficientes y sostenibles en el país, para mantener la cadena de logística y suministro de los sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles • Incentivar el reemplazo de combustibles fósiles por elementos eléctricos para reducir la huella ecológica de la cadena de valor y suministros de los sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles • Fomentar el desarrollo de investigaciones sobre el incremento sostenible y resiliente de la productividad de cultivos prioritarios • Incorporar normativa para la trazabilidad de alimentos a través de blockchain para mejorar la competitividad de la industria y manejo responsable de recursos • Generar normativa e incentivos para la cogeneración de energía eléctrica u otro sistema sostenible en la parte rural (solar, eólica, otras), para mejorar la huella de carbono de la cadena de valor • Captar fondos de cooperación internacional para proyectos de investigación, innovación y desarrollo para el fomento de sistemas alimentario sostenible • Crear sistemas eficientes de transferencia de tecnología y conocimientos sostenibles con enfoque de diálogo de saberes y género a los diferentes actores de los SAS de acuerdo a sus roles en el sistema • Fomentar la investigación y desarrollo de la tecnología para prevenir las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos en especial de los productos orgánicos o sostenibles • Establecer ruedas de negocios, ferias tecnológicas, bancos de ideas, para integrar los proyectos propuestos sobre los SAS desde la academia, para que las industrias y promotores las puedan visibilizar y las entidades de financiamiento apoyar • Diseñar una agenda de trabajo para el cambio tecnológico en conservación de alimentos frescos o que requieran mínimo procesamiento, para mantener los componentes nutritivos y afectivos, como es el caso de altas presiones, infrarrojo, fluidos supercríticos y otras • Fomentar el desarrollo de redes de productores, distribuidores y consumidores con sus centros de expendio o tiendas comunitarios (CIALCOS) para el fomento de SAS • Crear incentivos para la generación de huertos urbanos, lo que contribuirá a la sostenibilidad y soberanía alimentaria, así como a la reducción de emisiones en la producción y transporte de alimentos • Establecer objetivos claros de reducción de emisiones y de las pérdidas y desperdicios en el sistema de innovación agrícola y en las cadenas de valor principales • Desarrollar certificaciones, impuestos y normativa relacionada a disminución de emisiones de GEI en las cadenas de valor, de tal manera que los productos locales sean más competitivos, tengan diferenciación y no generen emisiones • Crear un banco de alimentos en las principales ciudades del país.236245Tema de debate 7: Finanzas Objetivo: Garantizar el acceso del sector agropecuario a servicios financieros sustentables y competitivos haciendo uso de nuevas tecnologías que contemplen la articulación de alianzas público-privada, entre ellos: productos crediticios con tasas de interés preferenciales, enfoque agroecológico y asistencia técnica en todo el proceso productivo y una adecuada educación financiera. Líneas de acción • Revisión del marco regulatorio financiero, que permita modernizar el sector y mejorar los procesos. • Generación de confianza entre los actores. • Comunicación efectiva respecto a los servicios financieros, oferta del sector público, para zonas rurales y las ventajas de estos. • Fomento de negocios inclusivos, a lo largo de las diferentes cadenas de valor (desde el productor hasta el consumidor final). • Fortalecimiento de los servicios financieros complementarios que permitan alcanzar la sostenibilidad de los circuitos alternativos de comercialización, reduciendo el número de intermediarios. • Establecimiento de consorcios de varias ONG con experiencia en producción agroecológica y capacidad de brindar servicios financieros; para mejorar el alcance y escala de los mismos. • Desarrollo y adaptación del financiamiento, con productos financieros competitivos acordes al ciclo de la actividad productiva y a la realidad de los productores. • Promoción de educación y alfabetización financiera, y digital. • Recopilación y difusión de experiencias exitosas (mantener el know how); a fin de hacer un adecuado manejo del conocimiento. • Transferencia del conocimiento y la innovación en finanzas rurales a todo nivel, en espacios formativos formales e informales; que contengan técnicas de estudio para adultos, basadas en la práctica. (CGINA-DAIA) • Creación de productos financieros, dirigidos a grupos vulnerables. • Desarrollo de actividades que contribuyan a la resiliencia del sistema financiero local/nacional y sus usuarios. • Desarrollo de incentivos financieros y/o subsidios para fortalecer la agricultura familiar, agroecológica y sostenible. • Fortalecimiento al sistema de cajas solidarias y/o bancos comunales (digitalización, alfabetización financiera, etc.).236251Tema de debate 8: Género Reconocer y visibilizar el aporte de las mujeres en la producción, acceso y consumo de alimentos; promover la generación y aplicación de normativas y leyes con enfoque de interseccionalidad que visibilicen el rol de las mujeres y se genere condiciones favorables para la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres dentro de los sistemas agroalimentarios contribuyendo a alcanzar la disminución del hambre y la pobreza. Líneas de acción Articulación • Generación de procesos de articulación entre el Estado y gobierno local con otros actores, incluida la Cooperación Internacional, para la implementación de herramientas de política desarrollados (ejem. Estrategia Nacional Agropecuaria Mujer Rural - ENAMR) Incentivos • Desarrollo de incentivos y recursos para generar condiciones que faciliten el acceso a tierra, agua, semillas e insumos necesarios para la producción de alimentos y la priorización del acceso a crédito, asistencia técnica y acceso a mercados para mujeres productoras de todos los espacios (área rural y urbana) Normativa • Generación e implementación de normativas/políticas (ENARM y otras) con enfoque de interseccionalidad que permitan la visibilización y valoración del rol que cumplen las mujeres en la producción, acceso y consumo dentro de los sistemas agroalimentarios.237Las áreas de divergencia identificadas son: • Acceso a información en temas de nutrición, rescate de saberes, consumo responsable, etc • Falta de recursos y presupuestos para la ejecución de diferentes planes, programas o proyectos referentes al consumo sostenible de alimentos • Mayor cobertura de las políticas y prácticas de BPA a todo el territorio ecuatoriano. • Escasa capacitación sobre producción sostenible a productores de la agricultura familiar y campesina, empresarios medianos y grandes. • Desconocimiento de vías de acceso directo por parte de los productores a los consumidores (procesos de intermediación) • Desconocimiento sobre normativas diferenciadas en temas tributarios y de normas legales. • Poca información respecto al análisis de malnutrición y hábitos alimenticios sanos y nutritivos entre estratos de población vulnerable, • Limitadas capacidades de las Unidades de Gestión de Riesgos de los Municipios, los productores y el sector privado para hacer frente a los impactos que afecten la seguridad alimentaria y la funcionalidad permanente de los sistemas alimentarios. • La innovación no se trata solo de la tecnología, que por sí sola puede permanecer en la estantería. También se trata, y tal vez es lo más importante, de procesos sociales, económicos, institucionales/organizativos y de políticas, que tengan un impacto en la vida de las familias agricultoras. • Los sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles, requieren de innovación no solo para el sector agrícola, sino para toda la cadena de valor y suministros, adaptado a diferentes realidades y necesidades, y considerando a los agricultores familiares campesinos y la biodiversidad para la alimentación y la agricultura del Ecuador. • Duplicidad de acciones en los actores estatales; se requiere aclarar roles y funciones, y respetarlos. • Escasa oferta de seguros agropecuarios accesibles y acordes a las necesidades particulares de los productores; mejora de la oferta y educación financiera. • Interseccionalidad: generación e implementación de políticas y normativas que no reconozcan únicamente a la mujer rural como la proveedora de alimentos, sino que también, reconozcan a los pueblos, nacionalidades y sector urbano como integrantes de los sistemas agroalimentarios.

2021-06-10 22:49:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14001/41

2262422529182211431782074212415

As many stakeholders know, the environment can be portrayed at odds with industries such as agriculture. One of the goals of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is to connect stakeholdesr with farm-driven approaches that deliver environmental, economic and social sustainability solutions. With this in mind, the participant invite list was designed to include representatives focused on the agriculture industry, the environment, and more neutral affiliations such as trade and international standards benchmarking. Once we had three-way representation from these groups, we sent out the invitation. The goal was to enhance the principles of recognizing complexity and embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity.As addressed above, we invited multiple stakeholder groups in an attempt to reflect the aspects of recognizing complexity and embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity. From there, breakout session facilitators were provided with guidance dossiers outlining the principles of the Dialogue, such as be respectful. These principles were reiterated by our Dialogues hosts and once again by each facilitator at the start of their breakout sessions to great effect.Reach out to as wide of a group of potential participants as possible. This will reduce the likelihood that group diversity is underrepresented in your dialogue (if anyone is unable to make it). Also convey to participants that they are expected to participate in breakout sessions, to ensure that the purpose of the dialogue is fully met. Ideally, this will encourage people not to log out for the breakout sessions.

NoEach facilitator was provided with five key questions on food system sustainability. Points of divergence and convergence were both able to surface, and were recorded by CFA staff serving as notetakers. While notes followed Chatham House Rules and didn't indicate speakers, all voices appeared to have been heard. Moderators also joined the Dialogues host for the closing session, in which they discussed points of agreement, disagreement, and solutions that arose in response to the discussion prompts. Discussion points from each breakout room were then formatted into the feedback forms for review by facilitators.

234239243244246248249250The focus of our dialogue was to examine how the sustainability efforts of farmers could be used to communicate how Canada is meeting its commitments under the sustainable development goals. We began with a presentation from a Canadian Livestock Sustainability Program, the Sustainable Beef Framework, who addressed best management practices in sustainable beef production. From there, we examined how this program and others like it could be aligned with international standards through the process of bechmarking. This involved a presentation from the Canadian Agri-food Sustainability Initiative about the benchmarking services that will be a key feature of their in-development online platform. We closed with a presentation on how high-level sustainability data produced by the benchmarking process could be used to develop metrics. This engagement was delivered by Canada's Agri-food Sustainability Index, who discussed how their in-development agri-food metrics could be used to help track Canada's progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.235239Please publication documents.236239243244246248249250Please see publication documents.237239243244246248249250Please see publication documents.

2021-06-11 01:26:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13469/3344464960617993120143144194195198

0012625156551520161014105

Se entregaron invitaciones a diversos sectores como consumidores, academia, sociedad civil, gobiernos, ong y sector industrial. Además se entregaron invitaciones a embajadas, organizaciones internacionales como FAO, CEPAL, IICA y organismos regulatorios internacionales como FDA, USDA. Participaron representantes de todos los sectores mencionados que aportaron un enfoque que enriqueció la discusión.En los comentarios y preguntas se complementaron los aportes de los demás participantes, se habló con bases a antecedentes conocidos cuando existieron diferencias y se respetó la opinión pero es difícil saber si se creó confianza.Que los diálogos no sean largos por favor. Máximo 1,5 horas, la gente se va desconectando y deja de participar.

NoLos puntos de divergencia se trataron con respeto y con antecedentes con fundamento en ciencia. Todos los que querían opinar se sintieron libres de levantar la mano y comentar.

234242248El Diálogo se basó en la Vía de Acción N°5, ”Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones” El tema central fue • Mostrar experiencias de resiliencia e innovación en la producción y distribución de alimentos para garantizar los Sistemas Alimentarios en Chile, generando un bienestar para la sociedad en tiempo de Pandemia.235242248Como se pudo apreciar La Industria de los Alimentos ha sido Resiliente para mantener Los Sistemas Alimentarios y lograr seguir produciendo alimentos para todos durante esta Pandemia. Se han generado Innovaciones, se ha impulsado el cuidado de los colaboradores junto con lograr una mayor conexión con las Comunidades para entregar un bienestar más integral a la sociedad. Sin embargo La Industria de Los Alimentos tiene grandes desafíos por delante como resultado de los estragos económicos y sociales que ha dejado la Pandemia, -Tenemos que afrontar una mayor Inseguridad Alimentaria -Tenemos que seguir Innovando para disminuir la Pérdida de Alimentos en los campos, los procesos de fabricación y disminuir El Desperdicio de Alimentos en las cadenas de comercialización, -Tenemos que enfrenta un Cambio Climático que no da tregua y sigue perturbando el medio ambiente dañando el Suelo, el Aire, el Agua, las Siembras y las cosechas. Para superar todos estos desafíos necesitamos trabajar en equipo con otros actores como el sector público, los consumidores, la academia y la sociedad civil en su conjunto.2362422481. La Industria de los Alimentos seguirá disponible para trabajar con todos los sectores que aporten a mantener los sistemas alimentarios y pero es necesario dejar de lado los preconceptos para recuperar la confianza. 2.Es necesario que todos los sectores involucrados en fortalecer los sistemas alimentarios frágiles y los sistemas más fuertes disminuyan los egos para estar a la altura para enfrentar una nueva forma de trabajar impuesta por la Pandemia que siguiere que la humanidad es un equipo y como tal se debe comportar. 3. Se necesita tener mayor humildad para adaptarnos a la realidad de los nuevos tiempos para generar Sistemas Alimentarios inclusivos y sostenibles.237242248Frente a una pregunta dirigida a FAO sobre el consumo de dietas basadas en plantas . Se dejo claro que existen protocolos de seguridad e inocuidad alimentaria de FAO/OMS que son sugeridos a los países para que las empresas pequeñas, grandes, de agricultura familiar campesina o cualquier otra empresa de alimentos debieran seguir para poder comercializar en forma segura todos los alimentos. La FAO además subrayó que promueven el consumo de dietas equilibradas y variables y no un tipo de dieta como el mencionado, no hay ninguna publicación de FAO que estimule una dieta basada en vegetales.

2021-06-11 02:59:40205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11752/120

176015695370868812231692771213221921525336621724

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión tranformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar, y la interdependencia entre sectores.o Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre: En este Diálogo estuvo presente el Gobernador de Veracruz, Ing. Cuitláhuac García Jiménez; y el Secretario de Desarrollo Agropecuario, Rural y Pesca de Veracruz, Ing. Eduardo García Cadena Cerón. Con ambos liderazgos, se mostró el compromiso por los temas de la Cumbre y por posicionar al estado en esta agenda. o Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso de la Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asiste en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS). o Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo: Para este Diálogo el gobierno de Veracruz fue co-anfitrión. En el diálogo se aseguró la participación de ONG locales, del sector académico, de funcionarios estatales y municipales, de ONG nacionales, de institutos de investigación, de grupos de consumidores y productores, y de organismos internacionales. o Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de once facilitadores. El equipo de facilitadores está compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), y el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF).Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos para mostrar la inclusividad del proceso. Además, ha mostrado ser útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239240243246249El objetivo del Diálogo fue generar una conversación multisectorial con vistas a la Cumbre Mundial de Sistemas Alimentarios a la par de recoger aportes a la “Estrategia Nacional para una Alimentación Saludable, Justa y Sustentable” en los ámbitos municipal y estatal en Veracruz. La Estrategia tiene como objetivo ser la política alimentaria nacional para los próximos años. Incluye cuatro pilares: 1) políticas públicas, 2) entornos alimentarios, 3) producción y acceso, y 4) acciones individuales e intrapersonales. El trabajo relacionado a la Estrategia Nacional está directamente relacionado con las siguientes Vías de Acción: 1) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos, 2) Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible, e 3) Impulsar la producción favorable para a naturaleza. Abrir los diálogos subnacionales discutiendo una propuesta de política pública es innovador para el país. Esta es la primera vez que la política alimentaria se discute abiertamente entre diversos actores, incluida la sociedad civil y la academia, y que recibirá comentarios y recomendaciones antes de ser publicada.235238239240243246249El grupo coincidió en la necesidad de: • Apoyar al pequeño productor en los ámbitos de comercialización y producción sustentable, sobre todo para aquellos que están trabajando en cultivos orgánicos. • Incentivar la educación de los consumidores para una alimentación sana y sustentable. • Apoyar la protección a la biodiversidad. • Promover el derecho a la alimentación y producción sana y sustentable • Promocionar que la alimentación tradicional. • Desarrollar estrategias de solidaridad que vinculen a la ciudad y el campo con cadenas cortas de suministro. • La alimentación debe ser transparente y contar con un leguaje incluyente basado en una perspectiva de género. • Será necesario construir e implementar planes regionales de transición agroecológica con base en las aptitudes locales. • Favorecer en las áreas marginales espacios de distribución de alimentos agroecológicos integrándolos a los mercados de barrio y tianguis. • Promover la agricultura vertical diversificando ingresos y sumando a la agricultura orgánica, marcando en todo momento la trazabilidad de los alimentos. • Rescatar el recurso hídrico. • Trabajar en el control de la comida chatarra e incentivar el consumo local, ya que sus productos son de alto nivel nutricional como las setas, por ejemplo. Sobre las Canastas Regionales concluyeron que: • Son un acierto, ya que es un trabajo que se ha realizado desde las comunidades, de forma directa. • Es relevante considerar incluir la producción ganadera en las Canastas Regionales. • Pueden ser la vía para orientar hacia una alimentación más sostenible. • Favorecen la transformación estatal y municipal, pero también deben observarse factores como la actividad física, manejo de estrés, entre otros. • Es un modelo completo, los alimentos recrean y rescatan la identidad, considerar las condiciones locales, es importante hacer estudios económicos y sociales, considerar el desarrollo local, considerar el transporte desde donde se producen los alimentos hasta el consumo. • Se requieren campañas de difusión sobre las canastas, promover programas de producción de alimentos sanos y falta hablar de mercado (lo que involucra intermediarios). • Se perciben como una intervención muy valiosa porque partiendo del trabajo con las comunidades / personas lo que garantiza más aceptación y por ende éxito de que funcione. • Es muy importante que estas Canastas se puedan alinear a las Guías alimentarias y canastas normativas que se están trabajando actualmente desde GISAMAC. • Pueden ser muy útiles porque brindan un marco de referencia de los que se cultiva y consume en una región. Sin embargo, se recomienda considerar que en ciertas regiones del país como los desiertos no se producen todos los grupos de alimentos y será necesario completar con alimentos producidos en otras regiones. • Los esquemas de alimentación presentados en las Canastas tienen una desconexión con los requisitos de las instituciones públicas. • Los productos de las Canastas Regionales como conejo y guajolote tienen grandes retos para lograr una industrialización sustentable, las proteínas animales tienen un gran impacto ambiental. • SEGALMEX tiene retos de desorganización en las compras de maíz, una buena alternativa es hacer compras especiales para maíces nativos. (es necesario fortalecer la planeación con enfoque regional). Sobre la Estrategia concluyeron que: • Ampliar la Estrategia para que no sólo se enfoque en la prevención de la obesidad. • Falta incorporar aspectos de educación y la importancia de la nutrición saludable y el cómo lograrla. • Necesario tener un enfoque de todas las formas de mala nutrición (no malnutrición porque es una traducción inadecuada del inglés) dado que situaciones de escasez en los primeros 1000 días de vida tienen repercusiones en estado de nutrición en la juventud o edad adulta (incluidos obesidad y enfermedades crónicas). • Se recomienda incluir una campaña de sensibilización a las familias para aumentar el consumo de alimentos naturales y disminuir los procesados. • Integrar como objetivo prioritario la búsqueda de productividad y competitividad en las cadenas productivas del sector agroalimentario, a través de programas inter- sectoriales coordinados, para garantizar el abasto de alimentos. • Relevante fomentar la demanda de alimentos saludables a nivel individual para que en el resto de los niveles se tenga éxito. • Es importante ver a la seguridad alimentaria como un pilar para la Estrategia, por lo que, sería de gran utilidad realizar diagnósticos que permitan entender las problemáticas en el estado y así implementar medidas con mayor probabilidad de éxito. • Trabajar en una estrategia de difusión interdisciplinaria que aborde los temas de salud y alimentación. • Poner más énfasis en el desarrollo territorial que va más allá del desarrollo rural, para que la estrategia permee en todas las áreas de la población. • Impulsar la información sobre la producción de alimentos y nutrición adecuada con promoción de dietas con alimentos locales a nivel estatal y municipal. • No es visible el concepto de sistema alimentario, a lo largo de todo el sistema Y quizá el mejor momento de hacerlo es en las Cantas Regionales del Bien Comer y ver todos los elementos del sistema • Necesario definir claramente qué es saludable.2362382392402432452462491. Política Pública 1.1 ¿Cuáles son los retos de la política actual respecto al sistema agroalimentario en cuanto a producción, distribución, acceso y consumo? • Dar cumplimiento cabal y oportuno a las leyes aplicables a la regulación y protección del sector agroalimentario, como la Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable, Ley General de Salud, Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentable, Ley Federal de Sanidad Vegetal, Ley Federal de Sanidad Animal, Ley de Productos Orgánicos, Ley Federal de Producción, Certificación y Comercio de Semillas, Ley de Bioseguridad de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados. • Retomar como base la Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable con la idea que las políticas públicas se lleven a cabo partiendo del ámbito local, en coordinación con los tres órganos de gobierno y la sociedad. • Garantizar el derecho de cualquier persona a vivir en un medio ambiente adecuado para su alimentación, salud, desarrollo y bienestar. • Impulsar la integración intersectorial para la operación de programas. El problema de los sistemas alimentarios es multidimensional, debe incluir varias instituciones en su abordaje. • Contar con programas que promuevan y garanticen el acceso a una alimentación nutritiva y saludable que incluya a la dieta tradicional, la cual se encuentre alineada con una estrategia sustentable de respeto al medio ambiente, siendo importante que se establezcan alianzas con el sistema de educación y salud del estado. • Generar un enfoque transversal en las políticas públicas para una mayor coordinación entre todos los niveles de gobierno que los esfuerzos se conjunten de manera real. • Cambiar los sistemas de ganadería industrial hacia sistemas de ganadería regenerativa. Debido a la carga animal (cabezas por hectárea) que rebasan el límite que se necesita para mantenerse en límites resilientes de los ecosistemas. · Las dietas mexicanas son dependientes de doce tipos de alimentos y 4 especies de animales, esto puede amenazar a la prevalencia de la diversidad. · El consumidor no cuenta con información sobre qué es lo que se come ni su impacto ambiental. · Las industrias se ocupan de la alimentación de los mexicanos, el estado no ha tomado el lugar que le corresponde para proporcionar los servicios. · Hacer una diferenciación entre agricultura comercial y agricultura para el autoconsumo. · Aumentar y hacer eficiente la producción a través de acompañamiento técnico y estímulos a la productividad. · Tratar el tema de desperdicio de alimentos y manejo de los productos en anaquel para aumentar su vida útil (por ejemplo refrigeradores en tienditas para los jitomates). · Proteger la política alimentaria de conflicto de interés de la industria transnacional. 1.2 ¿En qué pueden colaborar a nivel individual e institucional para lograr una alimentación saludable, justa y sustentable en Veracruz? • Hacer eficiente el ejercicio del presupuesto desde su asignación, a través de la programación de programas intersectoriales para evitar la duplicidad de acciones. • Impulsar políticas públicas de producción de alimentos, mediante una reconversión, que no parta del interés económico o de la demanda externa, sino de las necesidades reales de las comunidades de productores. • Destacó la voluntad de colaborar y replicar experiencias del estado en otros estados, desde plataformas como el Consejo Mexicano de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable y Proyectos de Desarrollo Territorial (PRODETER). • Desde el DIF se mencionó la posibilidad de conversar para aplicar las canastas a los programas, en particular del Programa de Desayunos escolares. • Espacios como el Observatorio en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional (Universidad Veracruzana) para apoyar en acciones relacionadas con las Canastas e indicadores de monitoreo y evaluación. • Proponer Políticas públicas enfocadas en nuevos hábitos de consumo nutritivos. • La sociedad civil puede aportar una visión multi-sectorial que considere a la salud y la sustentabilidad. • Priorizar el consumo de alimentos nutritivos por encima de alimentos procesados.2362382392402432462492. Entornos saludables, sustentables y resilientes para la nutrición 2.1 ¿Qué consideran que falta en los entornos a nivel estatal para que favorezcan una alimentación saludable y la actividad física? ¿La promoción de dietas regionales podrían favorecer cambios en el entorno alimentario? • Concientización sobre la importancia de una alimentación saludable. • Que se involucre a los estudiantes en el proceso alimentario, de ser posible en la producción, para que puedan apoyar el consumo local. • Activar programas de apoyo específicos para la agricultura sustentable ya que a muchas de las familias no les es redituable producir algunos alimentos en esas condiciones. • Los problemas de los precios hacen que se prefieran alimentos hipercalóricos que alimentos saludables. • Mejorar los entornos para la actividad física en las ciudades (Entornos construidos), las áreas recomendadas para la actividad física se encuentran ausentes de las Ciudades y particularmente en las unidades habitacionales. • Convocar a la sociedad de padres de familia y con al ayuntamiento para que los entornos escolares y el exterior (establecimientos semifijos y tienditas) sean promotores de la buena alimentación, pero no sólo dentro de las escuelas. • Fortalecer las plataformas tecnológicas para transmitir la información a los padres de familia. • Incentivar el intercambio a nivel local, y municipal de productos. • Apoyar a la producción y comercialización de los alimentos locales, ya que se tiene que competir con la mercadotecnia de los productos ultra procesados. • Realizar campaña de capacitación con amas de casa sobre las cocinas tradicionales., a través de por ejemplo el DIF, cocinas comunitarias, etc. • Desarrollar competencias en la población para una vida alimentaria, rescate de la cultura alimentaria (público, privado y escolares), llegar a mayor cantidad de personas • Impulsar de manera integral la información sobre la preparación de los alimentos tradicionales con enfoque de comunidad. • Establecer programas de actividad física con profesores capacitados en educación física y deporte. 2.2 ¿En qué pueden colaborar a nivel individual e institucional para lograr una alimentación saludable, justa y sustentable en Veracruz? • Existe ya trabajo en los huertos familiares y de traspatio, el problema es que se usan un tiempo y dejan de funcionar. Se debe mejorar este rubro. • Continuar con los huertos pero que se certifique como productos orgánicos, para que se pueda comercializar el producto. • Trabajar en las canastas regionales basadas en la orientación alimentaria para que tengan un impacto, que se de una mercadotecnia en salud, campaña de difusión y comunicación, que a su vez deben de ir acompañadas por la estrategia alimentaria, y promover los tianguis itinerantes. • Involucramiento en los trabajos de los huertos comunitarios, locales, municipales y del IMSS. • Propiciar huertos comunitarios y agroecológicos escolares. • Desarrollar una estrategia metodológica que logre la participación de todos los niveles, desde local hasta los tomadores de decisiones. • A nivel institucional con políticas y normas contra los alimentos procesados y chatarra, los cuales sean vinculantes, con sanciones claras. Limitar la publicidad de estos productos que afectan a la salud y nutrición de la comunidad. • Incluir en la estrategia a los sistemas de salud y educación para lograr una alimentación nutritiva, de calidad y sustentable. • A nivel individual fomentar la demanda de los alimentos con mayor aporte nutricional producidos de manera sostenible, y regional para fortalecer las cadenas de valor locales.2362382392402432462493. Producción y acceso a alimentación saludable 3.1 ¿Qué acciones se necesitarían en producción, distribución y acceso en Veracruz para lograr un sistema agroalimentario saludable, justo y sustentable y cómo se vincularían con los Programas Estatales correspondientes • Reconocer la vocación productiva de cada una de las regiones. También el patrimonio biocultural de las regiones. • Reconocimiento de los alimentos que se tienen en las regiones. • Reconocer la producción de semillas, tanto nativas y también las formas de preparación de alimentos • Reconocer el derecho que tienen los campesinos a tener sus propias semillas y reconocer el papel de las mujeres. • Considerar la alimentación infantil, rescatar los alimentos ancestrales que son económicos y eficiente en fortalecer el cuerpo humano. • El papel de educación tanto en niños como adultos Una dieta saludable es justo la diversidad de alimentos y generar buenas prácticas de No depende solo de la oferta, sino del costo del alimento • Que en cada región se realice un análisis número de personas, mercados locales, alimentos producidos. • Considerar el desarrollo local y se han tenido problemas de sacar la producción (considerar transporte). • Analizar el potencial por regiones o el potencial local. • Partir de una estadística básica, cuales son los productos y cultivos, y qué tipo de población y se va a atender • Recuperar los sistemas regenerativos orgánicos, volver a los sistemas holísticos, ello mediante capacitación y educación. Es decir, trabajar para tener alimentos sanos. • Consenso en la necesidad de llevar a cabo transiciones agroecológicas que cuenten con elementos técnicos de conversión hacia sistemas agro-sustentables, esto en función de las condiciones locales. • Se debe tener también un enfoque climático, cumpliendo con los compromisos adquiridos por el país, reduciendo emisiones de GEI e involucrándose en la hoja de ruta de implementación de las Contribuciones Nacionalmente Determinadas. 3.2 ¿En qué pueden colaborar a nivel individual e institucional para lograr una alimentación saludable, justa y sustentable en Veracruz? • Hemos trabajado en producción alimentaria con prácticas agroecológicas y el primer paso es crear conciencia y reconocer que la alimentación es un derecho humano. Considerar que tienen alimentos locales y de temporada. • Tenemos trabajos sobre alimentación básica y educación para adultos mayores • Fomento a la ganadería agroecológica diversificada, la ganadería climáticamente inteligente y la gestión de riesgos climáticos, llevando a cabo para ello un ajuste estructural a los territorios. • Tomar en cuenta experiencias emblemáticas para la creación de nodos educativos. • Fortalecer la gobernanza, experiencias emblemáticas para creación de nodos educativos. • Reconstruir el tejido comunitario y alcanzar la integración comunitaria. • Dignificar nuevamente al campo.2362382392402432462494. Nivel individual intrapersonal, campaña de comunicación 4.1 ¿Qué medios y estrategias de cambio de comportamiento inclusivos y adecuados para el individuo se requerirán para lograr una alimentación saludable, justa y sustentable? ¿La promoción de dietas regionales saludables facilitaría el cambio de comportamiento alimenatrio de los consumidores? • Cabe destacar la insistencia sobre la atención que se debe prestar a factores emocionales negativos que pueden afectar la forma de alimentarse de las personas, principalmente por la situación actual de la pandemia por Covid-19; y la necesidad de modificar comportamientos nocivos de alimentación a través de mecanismos o medios de comunicación o de manera directa para generar una conciencia de los beneficios del autocuidado. • Se necesita a través de los medios educar a la población para que aprendan a alimentarse saludablemente y sobre el sentido que tiene esta acción, es decir, para que sirve alimentarnos, así como aprender sobre las cantidades necesarias que el cuerpo requiere; esta educación se debe realizar desde las regiones y sobre todo con los niños y niñas; fortalecer el rescate o dignificar lo que la gente ya conoce sobre los alimentos tradicionales y su sentido de pertenencia y fomentarlo boca a boca, de manera directa con las personas; fomentar la creación de huertos de traspatio y la forma de obtener las propias semillas, desde las etapas escolares; se requiere abordar a los individuos desde un aspecto integral, realizando la promoción de buenos hábitos de alimentación pero también poniendo atención en el reconocimiento y manejo de las emociones, que aprendan a gestionarlas. Se hace hincapié en un abordaje integral, ya que se considera que el individuo si reconoce lo que le hace daño, sin embargo no da ese paso para lograr un cambio favorable en su alimentación. • Se llegó al consenso de que las preparaciones de alimentos locales y tradicionales son elementales, sin embargo, existen muchas deficiencias en las comunidades productoras locales debido principalmente a que muchas no tienen herramientas apropiadas o formas de preparar este tipo de alimentos, como son las estufas ecológicas. Además, elementos como la higiene personal y general deben tomarse en cuenta 4.2 ¿En qué pueden colaborar a nivel individual e institucional para lograr una alimentación saludable, justa y sustentable en Veracruz? • Obtener información sobre las acciones que actualmente se están realizando a favor de una alimentación saludable justa y sustentable para su difusión; es importante identificar como determinada población se encuentra emocionalmente y como ese estado se complementa con la alimentación; IMSS-Bienestar se encuentra actualmente realizando actividades relacionadas con la buena alimentación a través de sus comités de salud; también se debe buscar una mayor participación de las escuelas y poner atención en las escuelas de la SEP ya que no cuentan con la atención psicológica para atender aspectos emocionales que pueden afectar el estado nutricional de los escolares. • La colaboración es en sí misma fundamental para tener una alimentación correcta y adecuada, así como una articulación efectiva de las Canastas Regionales. Pero tiene que considerarse adoptar estilos saludables de vida a nivel personal de los individuos, que conlleven beneficios a niveles macro. De igual modo, la cooperación entre instituciones y expertos especializados en los temas en cuestión es una manera de colaboración que resultaría efectiva para las Canastas Regionales.237238239240243246249• Se tuvo un disenso con el enfoque de la Estrategia señalando que no sólo se debería de considerar la prevención de la obesidad, sino todas las formas de malnutrición. • Se señaló que los huertos pedagógicos, familiares o de traspatio no eran del todo eficaces porque funcionaban durante un tiempo y luego se perdía la continuidad. • Fue tenue, pero por un lado se resaltó la importancia de los paquetes tecnológicos en la producción de alimentos y por el otro la importancia de la agroecología y los sistemas agrícolas tradicionales como la milpa, huertos y traspatios • Las Canastas Regionales son un compendio de información que no tiene aplicabilidad práctica, ya que la variación de la dieta puede darse en la preparación y no tanto en la disponibilidad del alimento en sí mismo.

2021-06-11 04:20:56205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19137/120

2780201698180160118024314025313751123123211310712694

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión transformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar, y la interdependencia entre sectores.o Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso de la Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asista en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS). o Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con el apoyo técnico especializado en el tema por parte de UNICEF México. Además, un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de once facilitadores condujo los grupos de discusión. El equipo de facilitadores está compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), y el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF). o Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo: En el diálogo se aseguró la participación de organizaciones de la sociedad civil, del sector académico, de funcionarios, de institutos de investigación, de medios de comunicación, y de organismos internacionales.Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos. Esto para mostrar la inclusividad del proceso. Además ha mostrado ser útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239240243246249El objetivo del Diálogo fue identificar los elementos para diseñar un Programa de Comunicación de Cambio de Comportamiento que incentive una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible en la población mexicana. Además, se buscó ecoger aportes a la “Estrategia Nacional para una Alimentación Saludable, Justa y Sustentable”. La Estrategia tiene como objetivo ser la política alimentaria nacional para los próximos años. Incluye cuatro pilares: 1) políticas públicas, 2) entornos alimentarios, 3) producción y acceso, y 4) acciones individuales e intrapersonales. El trabajo relacionado a la Estrategia Nacional está directamente relacionado con las siguientes Vías de Acción: 1) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos, 2) Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible, y 3) Impulsar la producción favorable para a naturaleza. Para este diálogo se consideró que una «teoría del cambio» explica cómo se entiende que actividades planeadas produzcan una cadena de resultados, particularmente en comportamientos deseados en las personas y no solamente adquisición de conocimientos, así como también cambios en la norma social. Se utiliza para cualquier nivel de intervención: un proyecto, una campaña, un programa, una política, una estrategia o una organización. La intervención se define con base en la evidencia y las experiencias y utiliza una combinación de herramientas de comunicación, canales y enfoques.235238239240243246249El grupo coincidió en que: • Se requiere que el elemento informativo de las campañas se encuentre interrelacionado con la acción de las instituciones de salud, educativas y de bienestar para que realmente ocurra el cambio de comportamiento. • Un elemento prioritario es el enfoque de la comunicación horizontal que incorpore los contextos locales y culturales (que las intervenciones de comunicación no lleguen desde arriba). • Es importante que las campañas logren visibilizar problema que existe en México del alto consumo de alimentos procesados, y los riesgos que genera. • Es necesario fortalecer la difusión y el uso del etiquetado frontal en la población con explicación por sectores. • Generar información y la comunicación para pequeños y medianos productores, relacionada con técnicas de producción agroecológica, su distribución y abasto para propiciar el procesamiento mínimo de los alimentos, y reducir su desperdicio. • Es relevante alinear los mensajes a las Guías Alimentarias y Canastas Normativas no solo por congruencia sino también para impactar justamente en sistemas alimentarios, empezando por los locales y luego los nacionales, incluyendo la dimensión de la sostenibilidad. • La meta es colectiva si se desea un cambio social, por lo que se necesita trabajar en conjunto con el sector civil, comunidades, liderazgos locales y respetar las voces. • Los talleres comunitarios, la organización comunitaria, los voluntarios rurales y especialmente las asambleas comunitarias se consideran los mejores medios de difusión efectiva. • La contribución desde las instituciones incluye redes sociales, página web, de cara a cara con la población con la que trabajan y con los aliados que se tienen convenios de colaboración. • Reforzar la idea de que el énfasis está en el cambio de actitud y que la evaluación no se base solo en el número de acciones realizadas, sino en evidencia de cambio de conducta. • Visibilizar en las campañas el problema que existe en México sobre el consumo de alimentos procesados, y bebidas azucaradas y los riesgos del consumo de estos. • Se debe trabajar para difundir el etiquetado frontal y orientar el enfoque de los mensajes por segmentos poblacionales. • La educación en salud debería integrarse dentro del modelo educativo nacional (para las próximas generaciones) desde los primeros niveles de educación • Priorizar en el consumo de productos nutritivos disponibles en cada sector de la población. • Énfasis en la prevención del deterioro de la salud derivado del consumo de alimentos procesados y ultra procesados. • Auto responsabilidad, en el cuidado de la salud a través del consumo de alimentos sanos y nutritivos. • Conectar la salud emocional con las líneas de acción en la Estrategia Nacional de Alimentación, apoyando el fomento de la autoestima como uno de los ejes para el cuidado personal integral. • Insertarlos en los diferentes momentos del sistema alimentario, desde la producción hablando de la revalorización de quienes producen los alimentos saludables y cuidan los recursos naturales; la distribución mencionando las distancias que viajan los alimentos para llegar a los consumidores; el consumo haciendo énfasis en el consumo responsable incluyendo el tema de pérdidas y desperdicios. • Transmitir que la alimentación adecuada es un derecho humano y por lo tanto todas las personas deben poder acceder a ella. • Énfasis en la orientación de campañas, ya que no existen sellos en los etiquetados de alimentos para las primeras etapas de vida y tampoco hay campañas con perspectiva de género. • No hacer publicidad negativa, dejar de enfocarse en enfermedades y focalizar la atención en el consumo de alimentos sanos para una vida saludable. • El mensaje debe ser incluyente con especial cuidado de evitar la estigmatización, considerando la incluir perspectiva de género para no reproducir estereotipos. Sobre la contribución de las instituciones participantes para un Programa de Comunicación de Cambio de Comportamiento concluyeron que: • Compartiendo nuestras metodologías pedagógicas interculturales • Alinearse a una política de salud institucional como parte proponente o como instancia que cumpla. • Seguir promocionando la alimentación como primer aprendizaje de las personas. • Construcción de programas estatales para fomentar la alimentación sana, justa y sostenible. • Apoyo para alinear el programa con las Guías Alimentarias y orientar el lenguaje en función de segmentos poblacionales. • Apoyo para la movilización comunitaria, no solo para el trabajo comunitario per se, sino también para metodologías de participación donde existan verdaderos diálogos y no solo procesos meramente consultivos • Capacitaciones y certificaciones a los establecimientos que brinden alimentos saludables para popularizar una vida sana. • Reforzar la capacitación sobre alimentación desde las instituciones, al contar con personal comunitario para hacer llegar los mensajes correspondientes. • Redes sociales, página web y con medios de comunicación firmados. • Evaluando mediante las cédulas de participación social. • Llevando a cabo un rastreo sobre proyectos piloto existentes.2362382392402432462491. Construcción del programa de comunicación ¿Qué elementos debe tener una intervención de comunicación para lograr el cambio social y de comportamiento (PC3)? • Identificar a quién va dirigido el programa. Se necesita contenido para diversos segmentos dadas las realidades de la población mexicana y especificidades relacionadas con la alimentación como de los niños pequeños o las mujeres embarazadas. • Realizar diagnósticos a nivel regional puede apoyar mucho la construcción del programa, definir buenos objetivos e identificar etapas de acción. • Tomar en cuenta que la intervención necesita acompañarse de otros programas, la comunicación muchas veces convence a la gente, pero pierde su efectividad en el momento en que la persona llega a un ambiente con hábitos nocivos. • Definir los públicos objetivos, si son adultos, jóvenes, rurales, urbanos. Definir también edad, lengua, género, etc. • Asegurar que el objetivo de comunicación sea claro y la información comprensible. • Definir los canales de comunicación a partir de las necesidades y presupuesto disponible. • Dimensionar el aspecto social, familiar y de comunidad, ya que cuando se hacen campañas o invitaciones a nivel individual, los sujetos pueden asumir actitudes de negación. • Enfocarse en los niños para que adquieran los hábitos saludables y fortalecer los mecanismos para hacer llegar la información a los padres y tutores sobre buenos hábitos. • Incorporar el enfoque horizontal para que las intervenciones de comunicación no lleguen desde arriba y logren integrarse con los valores locales y comunitarios. • Evaluar el entendimiento de los mensajes antes de la implementación. • Transmitir información basada en evidencia científica libre de conflicto de interés. • Incluir información de valor de los agentes involucrados en el proceso de producción de alimentos saludables, con la finalidad de crear conexión entre las personas que están detrás de cada producto terminado y los compradores de éstos. • Contar con canales variados de comunicación. • Vincular las intervenciones de comunicación con la regulación de los diferentes entornos. • Atender los usos, costumbres y características de cada sector de la sociedad en las actividades de comunicación. • No excluir a las emociones en el proceso de generación de cambio de comportamiento. • Usar lenguaje fácil de entender y adaptado a las diferentes regiones. · Incentivar la participación comunitaria, particularmente las de grupos más vulnerables. ¿Cuál sería el grupo de mensajes prioritarios para la Estrategia Nacional de Alimentación? · Una forma sería insertarlos en los diferentes momentos del sistema alimentario, es decir: desde la producción hablando de la revalorización de quienes producen los alimentos saludables y cuidan los recursos naturales; la distribución mencionando las distancias que viajan los alimentos para llegar a los consumidores; el consumo haciendo énfasis en el consumo responsable incluyendo el tema de pérdidas y desperdicios. ¿Qué barreras identifica al plantear los objetivos de un PC3 y cómo superaría dichas barreras? • La barrera más importante es querer hacer un mensaje único para todo el país, los principios y la metodología pueden ser unificados, pero necesitamos regionalizar. • Carencia de una visión común interinstitucional. • La presencia de inseguridad alimentaria en la población hace compleja la formulación de mensajes. • La recomendación, muchas veces, impone una carga adicional, sobre todo al rol de mujer. • No hay congruencia entre las recomendaciones que se dan y la práctica. • Las personas están cansadas de campañas de gobierno. • La falta de credibilidad existente entre las poblaciones rurales hacia algunas instituciones. • No se tiene documentado un antecedente o referente con relación a una campaña de alimentación, hace falta una línea base. • La pandemia y el confinamiento han sido una barrera. • Se han medido solo los mensajes transmitidos y no si han generado un cambio de actitud. ¿Cómo mediría el éxito del PC3 para una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible? • La medición depende en gran medida del modelo de comportamiento que se utilice y por ende de los objetivos.2362382392402432462492. Público objetivo para el programa de comunicación de cambio de comportamiento ¿Cuál sería el grupo de mensajes prioritarios para la Estrategia Nacional de Alimentación? ¿Este tema corresponde a un grupo de edad o tipo de población específico? • Los tipos de mensajes deben estar orientados de acuerdo con el tipo de grupo al que va dirigido, ya que todos los grupos de la población son importantes. • Se habló de la importancia de promover alimentos saludables, evitando publicitar los procesados o altos en calorías. • Se hizo énfasis en la orientación de campañas, ya que no existen sellos en los etiquetados de alimentos para las primeras etapas de vida y tampoco hay campañas con perspectiva de género. • Promover el consumo de agua natura y alimentos naturales, dando a conocer sus beneficios ya que con esto se fomentará una mejor nutrición. Es decir, no hacer publicidad negativa, para ello se debe dejar de enfocarse en enfermedades y focalizar la atención en el consumo de alimentos sanos para una vida saludable. • En cuanto a los estigmas, se habló sobre la necesidad de concientizar sobre la gordofobia, se debe dejar de enfatizar las enfermedades y mejor ofrecer alimentos nutritivos para una calidad de vida. • Se habló también de la importancia de evitar el lenguaje agresivo en los mensajes. Se debe evitar responsabilizar a las personas en lo individual, ya que es una responsabilidad colectiva. ¿Cómo adecuar un mensaje a diferentes públicos? · Brindar herramientas como menús y recomendaciones para conocimiento de los alimentos que existen en cada región (con sus distintos nombres y nomenclaturas a nivel nacional), los nutrientes de cada ingrediente, y cómo combinar y prepararlos a fin de darle valor a los alimentos. · Fomentar la siembra de huertos en casa para generar cambios de hábitos, sirviendo alimentos limpios y saludables y transmitiéndolo de boca en boca. · Rescatar la cultura alimentaria de cada región, con un enfoque de respeto a la diversidad. · Estrategia de información, educación y comunicación, donde se emplean tanto medios masivos como interpersonales; y se cuenta con una organización comunitaria. · Elaborar materiales de comunicación desarrollados bajo un enfoque territorial y poner atención en los intereses locales. · Creación de recetarios y guías de adaptación al contexto local para una alimentación saludable. · Socializar con la población para saber qué es lo que necesitan y esperan, y, al mismo tiempo utilizar lenguaje acorde al público objetivo para que se sientan identificados. · Considerar las particularidades de cada público objetivo con información sobre los productos agroalimentarios de las regiones y sin estigmatizar. · Privilegiar en particular a la niñez para tener cambios de comportamiento a mediano y largo plazo. ¿Qué públicos objetivo cree que sea necesario considerar en un PC3 para una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible? Se mencionó que todos los grupos de población son importantes, sin embargo, se hizo hincapié en cuatro grupos: • Mil días de vida, se dijo que es sumamente importante dirigir mensajes a la población con respecto a esta etapa inicial de vida, ya que abarca el embarazo, la lactancia y a los cuidadores durante los primero dos años de vida del infante. • Los niños en la infancia y la adolescencia forman sus hábitos, es por ello por lo que es importante dirigir esfuerzos a este grupo de la población, ya que los niños son más fáciles de educar y en la pubertad refuerzan dicha educación • Se habló también de la importancia que tiene dirigir campañas para el sector de la población de 20 a 40 años, ya que, al ser padres muchos de ellos, son los responsables de la alimentación de sus hijos. Y en consecuencia, deben proveer de una alimentación saludable y nutritiva. • Se mencionó que la alimentación de adultos mayores también es un tema relevante y desafortunadamente no existen campañas de buena alimentación diseñadas para ellos. • Importante la participación de la sociedad civil organizada en sus diferentes niveles, como productores y promotores de alimentos sanos.2362382392402432462493. Implementación del PC3 ¿Qué canales de salida de las campañas de comunicación son los que más utilizan? · Los perifoneos a nivel local son los que mejores resultados han dado, junto con la pinta de bardas. · Talleres comunitarios y teléfonos móviles con aplicaciones como WhatsApp · Las radiodifusoras que usan la lengua nativa. · Medios masivos (televisión y radio tiempos oficiales y de paga de manera local y no nacional · Redes sociales de las instituciones, un buen alcance con un número importante de usuarios y se replican de manera importante; · Cara a cara con la población de cada institución; · Radios indígenas; · En el metro de las grandes ciudades; · El Metrobús · Alianza con quienes se tienen convenios de colaboración con radios y difusoras. ¿Cuál considera que es el mejor medio de difusión para el Programa de Comunicación de Cambio de Comportamiento para una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible? · El medio de difusión con mayor impacto son los talleres comunitarios y el segundo es el de teléfonos móviles con aplicaciones como WhatsApp. · La participación comunitaria es importante y fundamental, particularmente de la dirigencia comunitaria. · Trabajar con voluntarios duales de salud, que son líderes de su comunidad. · No hay el mejor medio de difusión, dependerá de la población objetivo. · Todos los medios son indispensables, pues lo que queremos hacer es cambiar el comportamiento del país · Estrategias diversas, tomar en cuenta la parte cultural de las regiones. ¿Qué canales de salida factibles para el Programa de Comunicación de Cambio de Comportamiento para una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible usted identifica? · Se consideran canales adecuados aquellos que se relacionan con los sistemas públicos del país. · La red de participación comunitaria que se lleva a cabo a través de los voluntarios es un importante contrapeso contra del bombardeo publicitario de comida nutricionalmente inconveniente. · Transferir conocimientos como usos y costumbres locales, a través del intercambio de ferias de conocimiento y muestras gastronómicas. · Un mismo mensaje puede diseñarse para una plataforma de alto impacto y también adaptarse a otros medios de comunicación y lenguajes. · Muros de las instituciones, organizaciones, escuelas, que sea un mensaje unificado. · Alianzas con medios de comunicación y ocupar los convenios de colaboración · Redes sociales y páginas web con un mismo mensaje · Alianzas con las organizaciones y radios comunitarias.2362382392402432462494. Colaboración con otros actores para el PC3 ¿Qué barreras conlleva la inclusión de diversos actores en las campañas de comunicación? Por ejemplo, cuando dichos actores tienen diversidad de prioridades (medio ambientales, de salud humana, etc.). • Una de las barreras es la cultural, ya que quienes utilizan los canales de comunicación en ocasiones no se dan a entender, por ejemplo, una limitante es el idioma materno de algunas comunidades. • También esta la falta de conocimiento de la población a la que nos dirigimos, en el caso de la alimentación, la información debe estar dirigida o hacer referencia a ciertos alimentos y sus propiedades para que las personas de la región lo conozcan mejor y apuntalar las campañas para su consumo y siempre contextualizando por región de que se trate. ¿Cuáles son los grupos de actores que más podrían influir en el PC3 para una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible? • Se necesita una interrelación de todos los actores con la inclusión de los destinatarios de los mensajes. • El gobierno puede influir para designar interpretes en la comunidades donde se requiera para establecer una buena comunicación con los agricultores principalmente. • En este tema, la SEP y Salud necesitan convocar a otras para generar e implementar programas sobre alimentación. • Es importante la participación de la sociedad civil organizada en sus diferentes niveles, como productores y promotores de alimentos sanos. ¿Se le hace fácil incluir a ciertos actores antes que a otros, cuáles son los que le resultan más fácil incluir y por qué cree que esto sea así? · Se deben incluir principalmente a los agricultores y los agrónomos. · Se pueden incluir a profesores y alumnos para crear ferias de la salud. · Incluir a los productores, específicamente a las organizaciones ejidales · Incluir a las autoridades municipales, quienes deben crear las condiciones para la producción local, ya que desgraciadamente en algunas comunidades durante esta pandemia se ha privilegiado la adquisición de productos externos y además no sanos, y no los producidos en la comunidad.2362382392402432462495. Evaluación del PC3 ¿Qué barreras han encontrado en su organización para evaluar el impacto de campanas de comunicación? • No se tiene documentado un antecedente o referente con relación a una campaña de alimentación, hace falta una línea base. • La propia pandemia y el confinamiento han sido una barrera. • Se han medido solo los mensajes transmitidos y no si ha generado un cambio de actitud. En su opinión, ¿cuál es el mejor indicador de desempeño de un PC3? · Levantamiento de una encuesta previa y posterior a la campaña. · Ver cómo se refleja en indicadores indirectos tales como el peso de la población o cuántas personas acudieron a realizar un chequeo, y así cuantificar el impacto en consecuencia. · Identificar las modificaciones que hagan los fabricantes de productos ultraprocesados como resultado de una baja en el consuma asociada a los impactos de la campaña. · Para una medición eficiente, los indicadores deben ser comparables interestatalmente y en todos los niveles de gobierno, y con mediciones repetidas. · Para la creación de indicadores es necesario generar mesas de diseño de éstos para obtener una visión integral que dé como resultado una medición real y objetiva. · Relevante incorporar la medición en conocimiento de conceptos relacionados con huella de carbono y huella hídrica para dar relevancia a esta dimensión de la sostenibilidad. · Los indicadores de resultados también deberían medir si hubo aumento en el consumo de alimentos saludables y reducción en los no recomendables. ¿Cómo miden el éxito de las campañas de comunicación dentro de su organización? • Análisis de alcance en redes sociales y numeralia relacionada. • Mediante la medición del acceso a los alimentos por parte de la población. • A través del número de personas que acuden a consultas médicas. • Al realizar estudios previos y posteriores parea determinar el impacto. ¿Qué procesos conoce para definir indicadores de comunicación? · No se lleva una metodología, se revisa el objetivo de la campaña de comunicación y aquello medible de las acciones a desarrollar. · Establecimiento de metas de población y grupos de riesgo con base en nivel social y cultural. · Mediante encuesta nacionales representativas distribuidas territorialmente. · A través de encuestas a la población sobre cuánto conoce de un tema y qué tanto lo práctica.237238239240243246249· El disenso fue sobre si en el programa de comunicación se debía poner más énfasis en el tema interpersonal y en el tema de los entornos alimentarios, que en el impacto comunitario y social. · Algunos de los participantes desde su ámbito de trabajo tienen un enfoque más individual, otros están más en contacto con las comunidades y finalmente algunos tienen una visión más acorde con el modelo ecológico.

2021-06-11 04:42:08205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25374/157

401443391221201623759254124263564230554118342821245730

A multi-stakeholder / sector wide participatory approach was used in organizing the dialogues to ensure the principles of engagement were observed and used during stakeholder exchanges. The National dialogues were organized as follows: 1. The First Dialogue (Part 1) was 5-half days (9am to 1pm) Focus Group sessions based on the Food Systems Summit’s 5 Action Tracks. Each group had 10-15 persons from relevant Government agencies, private sector, farmers and fishers’ organizations, civil society, and research organizations and academia. The aim of the first dialogue was to consider the initial set of ideas for game-changing and systemic solutions to achieve the goals of the 5 Action Tracks of the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) in the context of Samoa. The groups were tasked to identify gaps/challenges, solutions and areas of divergence based on a rapid assessment of the current situation of Samoa’s food system. 2. The Second Dialogue (Part 2) was a half day (9am to 1.30pm) with an expected audience of 70-100 participants. The discussion groups for the second dialogue were divided into 5 thematic areas – Government / Private Sector / Farmers and Fishers Organizations / Civil Society / Research Organisations and Academia. Guiding questions developed from the FSS’s 5 action tracks were grafted for each of the groups. 3. The Third Dialogue (Part 3) was a half day (9am to 12.00pm) dialogue with development partners. This was an open dialogue between key national actors of the food system in Samoa (government, private sector and civil society) and key development partners (e.g. DFAT, China, MFAT New Zealand). This was important given that a lot of the development programs/projects in Samoa are implemented with technical and financial assistances from donor/development partners. This was a plenary format session with participants provided with a Synthesis Report (analyzing the current status of the food systems in Samoa) and an outcome report of the national dialogue based on the completion of First and Second Dialogues (as mentioned above).The rationale for dividing the groups by thematic areas in the dialogues was to allow members to discuss issues without fear, complement each other’s work within the same genera, the urgency of required actions and recognizing the complexity of food system issues. The dialogues also recognized and used the Government’s sector wide approach to build stakeholder buy-in and commitment, embracing inclusiveness and meaningful engagement.Keep the approach simple and context relevant to social and cultural nuance for effective and meaningful engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue involved a three-fold process: i) focused group discussion; 2) national dialogue; and 3) SFSSD committee and development partners dialogue. 1. The first part of the dialogue was a focused group discussions of key stakeholder organisations with a significant role in the national food systems. The stakeholders were organized as members of the different five Action Tracks, based on their areas of work and interests, with two members selected as lead discussants. The purpose was for participants to explore each of the five Action Tracks, identifying the current status in Samoa, the key issues and challenges and game-changing solutions. The five action track group discussions were held for five days (3-7 May 2021), with one day dedicated to each of the focused group dialogues discussions on each of the five-action tracks. Briefing meetings were held with the lead organisations of the Five Action Tracks to prepare them to lead the group discussions. Participants were all provided with a background information paper - so that they have the necessary background about the purpose of the group dialogue discussions, and how they can better contribute to the dialogue. The dialogue programme included an introduction of the dialogue and its purpose, an overview of the Action Track under discussions at the forum, and the group discussions. It concluded with a wrap up of the day’s session and presenting on the next steps of the overall dialogue. A total of 100 participants representing various stakeholder organisations attended this first session of the dialogue. 2. The second part of the dialogue was the wider National Dialogue, which took place on the 27 May 2021. At the completion of the first part (i.e. the five-action tracks focused group discussions), a meeting of the dialogue working committee and the National Multi-sectoral Coordinating Committee was held to provide feedback and learnings from the implementation of part one, to inform the preparations of the wider national dialogue. Lessons learnt from part one were discussed to arrive at a more suitable structure and format of the wider national dialogue. Participants from across different sectors of the food systems were grouped into five group discussions based on their areas of work or interests: Government ministries/agencies, Private sector, Farmer, livestock and fishers organisations, Civil society, and Research organisations and academia. A group of two facilitators and note takers were selected for each of the groups and were given a methodology, format and guiding questions for the group discussions, with presentation of group findings to the whole audience, followed by a plenary session. A total of 90 people participated in this second part of the dialogue. 3. The third part of the dialogue was a dialogue with key development partners. Findings or key thematic areas from the synthesis report (desktop and literature review) and dialogue report (based on Parts 1 and 2) were used as the basis of the plenary discussion at this forum. A total of 52 people participated in this third part of the dialogue.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Samoa is committed to exploring its Food Systems characteristics to further identify key bottle necks requiring focused action to enhance the nation’s food security and nutrition status. Specific aspects of the food systems deemed as requiring closer inspection and focused action, include the country’s high dependence on food imports and the inconsistent supply and access of locally produced foods for healthy diets. The lack of incentives for the agriculture and fisheries production sectors need further review. Food safety was also a core challenge identified as requiring further attention. Unhealthy diets due to consumption of highly processed imported foods and the lack of access and consumption of local food especially fruits and vegetables has led to high levels of NCD’s, with the country now holding a place in the top ten countries in the world with the highest rates of NCD’s. The food culture and food preference of Samoans which is influenced by accessibility and affordability factors was deemed as contributors to unhealthy diets. Whilst data was limited on the topic, food waste was considered a key issues that required addressing given the need to enhance food supply and ensure optimum use of food available therefore preservation techniques and options of utilizing food in the food cycle needs to be a key focus of Samoa’s actions. Specific attention is needed to address the lack of evidence-based and shared understanding about the status of sustainable management of key natural resources underpinning the sustainability of the food systems (e.g. soil health, available fish, water and land resources, control of invasive species, and use of chemicals), in order to boost production which is centred on nature and biodiversity conservation. Under– utilised traditional knowledge to boost nature-positive production needs to be explored. Whilst the country’s focus on increasing food supply will depend a great deal on commercialisation of the agriculture sector, the impacts this will have on nature- positive production and consumption needs to be at the forefront when planning for this under the supply sector. There is limited support for vulnerable groups to be able to expand and contribute more to food system. There are institutional and systematic barriers (access to land, social norms about roles stereotyping, traditional divisions of labour, etc.), preventing women, youth and persons with disabilities from accessing the needed resources to pursue better livelihoods in the food sector. Capacities and incentives are limited in order to garner interest from youth to entertain the food sector as a livelihood option. Coordination of community programmes targeting food supplies is lacking and there is programme and project fatigue at the implementing village level. Samoa needs its food systems (nature, environment, people, etc.) to be regenerative and circular and be more resilient to shocks. Efforts should empower everyone to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability, and to continue to participate in the sustainable development and management of their food systems, despite shocks and stressors, so that there is a consistent delivery and maintenance of food security, nutrition and equitable livelihoods for all. Inconsistent access to safe and nutritional food is further compounded by the nation’s fragility due to its isolation from the global markets, shortage of arable land and other resources required to encourage local production (e.g. limited local seed supplies and feed supply) and it’s being prone to the impact of climate change. The need to further research and identify key risks to its food systems with the necessary response planning is missing. COVID-19 and its impact on Samoa’s food systems displayed the nation’s susceptibility and lack of preparedness to shocks and stressors. The dialogues stressed the need for a multi-sectoral approach to addressing the concerns listed above regarding Samoa’s Food System. The lack of communication and coordination between partners was viewed as a key step towards improving the accelerating the nation’s food and nutrition security. Utilizing existing platforms and sector plans as a basis of coordination was identified with key players expected to suggest ways in which to ensure a multi-sectoral response. Data was a key gap identified for all of the five action tracks. Evidence based policies is essential to guide the nation’s planning. Despite the fact that there is a numerous policies covering the different parts of the Food , there is a need to ensure that these policies complement one another and all involved are aware these policies exist, including committing resources and time to implement, enforce, monitor and evaluate their effectiveness.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Based on the discussions at the dialogue, the following were the key solutions identified to respond to the key issues and challenges identified under B) above: Transformation of the agriculture sector to boost local production. Consistent local supply of healthy foods to be addressed through incentives for farmers and fishers and encouraging commercialization. Government to lead specific interventions targeting capacity training for value chain actors and addressing of key issues facing production including, high labour costs in agriculture production, water, transport and infrastructure challenges and facilitating local and overseas markets for farmers and fishers. Strengthening food safety and standards practice and systems through better enforcement, awareness and coordination between relevant partners, as well as strengthening the food safety policy and regulatory system in Samoa. Food literacy and targeted consumer awareness to ensure consumers make informed decisions to purchase and prepare healthy tasty and affordable meals. Clear messaging and programmes using attractive and easily understood awareness materials for both urban and rural populations. School nutrition education and school food programmes within the governance and support systems of the community and village institutions starting from early childhood education across to senior school form healthy eating behaviors at a young age. Parents and food vendors to be involved in the formulating, implementation and monitoring of these programmes. School food programmes that encourage consumption of locally available foods with linkages to local producers. Promotion of the consumption and availability of local traditional foods, made from locally available produce for healthy diets. Ensuring products are available for convenient consumption by the public. Strengthened food waste data and evidence base to inform policy and awareness programme development and implementation. Capacity building at both household and retail level to build awareness and capacities on limiting as well as handling food waste. Revitalise and promote the use of traditional and indigenous knowledge in agriculture for sustainable land, marine and terrestrial management production practices to go in parallel with conventional methods of production. Strengthen research and development, and extension services for improved knowledge sharing and capacities among partners and users, especially for information such as status of food resources (soil, forestry, weather etc.) to ensure practices undertaken by farmers and fishers are emphasizing conservation and biodiversity. Strengthen policy and regulatory roles for the sustainable management of the different aspects of the food systems related resources. Coordination and dissemination of information from responsible Ministry to ensure the relevant polices and regulations are shared with, and understood by relevant stakeholders. Strengthen the effective engagement of everyone including the vulnerable groups in the discussions confronting institutional and systematic barriers for equitable participation in the sustainable development of livelihoods within the context of the food systems. Promote the role of women and youth in agricultural activities including providing the needed support (access to land and finance, capacity building, networking etc.). Improve the image of agriculture and fisheries as career options and provide a clear pathway for students to capture their interest in studying food related curriculum from a young age. Role of communities and culture in developing the food systems and equitable livelihoods needs to be strengthened through more research and coordinated awareness programmes, as well as customized civic education. Climate resilient practices and resources for agriculture, fisheries, livestock strengthened through research and development, seeds and stocks availability, and capacity building. Strengthen social protection measures in response to impact of shocks in food supply and consumption. Explore opportunities in digital and technological innovations to boost local production and strengthen value chains237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The following were key areas of divergence identified from the dialogue:  Trade-offs in public policies promoting the development and regulating of the food systems. For instance, while health advocates policy responses promoting reduction in unhealthy supply and consumption food items (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, imported turkey tails), other public authorities are more concerned with employment and food supply development and security (hence may take commercial industry interests into account) which conflict with the nutritional health push from health advocates given the rising burden of NCDs in Samoa.  Trade-offs during policy implementation - there are clearly contradicting targets usually identified at implementation stage of policies. Hence proper coordination and dialogue at the policy development stage is important in order to have shared understanding of these contradictions and how they can be managed.  Push for commercialization versus nature-positive farming. Given inconsistent local food supply, there has been a push for improved commercialization. This requires commercial farmers opting to use more chemicals especially given the decreased labour (but increased labour cost) in agriculture. On the other hand, there is also a promotion of organic and farming pushing for the reduction and/or ban of the use of chemicals in farming.  Trade-offs in the push for strengthening livelihoods opportunities versus ongoing impacts on the environment (e.g. soil degradation, ongoing killing of native species such as the manumea bird, flying foxes and pigeons).  Trade-offs in reducing importation of unhealthy foods and free trade agreements under WTO agreements.  Trade-offs in the regulating of unhealthy products versus the economic development that are needed to boost economic growth, employment and income generation.

2021-06-11 06:23:38205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23300/18

81

In its role as National Convenor for the Australian Food Systems Summit National Dialogues, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment convened a series of thematic dialogues (in the form of publicly accessible virtual webinars) to facilitate open and independent discussions between a wide range of stakeholders on a variety of issues and challenges facing Australian food systems. These provided an opportunity for stakeholders to participate in meaningful discussions and promote Australian stakeholder engagement in broader UN Food Systems Summit processes. There were 81 unique webinar log-ins for the live webinar session – however we are unable to provide detailed participant metrics according to the above criteria. We can confirm that the webinar attendees reflected a broad base of stakeholder and representative groups in Australia including: not-for-profit and advocacy organisations; community groups; academia and the university sector; advertising, marketing and consultancy firms; research and development institutions; federal, state/territory and local government; private sector and industry peak body groups; farmers and farmers peak body organisations; natural resource management groups. Additionally, to promote greater outreach and accessibility for interested parties unable to attend the webinar on the day, recordings and transcripts of the session have been made available on the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s website: https://haveyoursay.awe.gov.au/food-systems-summit-2021The dialogues provided an open and independent platform for Australian stakeholders to share their perspectives on a variety of issues and challenges facing Australian food systems. The dialogue sought to recognise the efforts of various Australian stakeholders (including government, industry, NGOs, think-tanks, consultants and academia) to tackle complex food systems challenges and issues through various initiatives and programs, operating at a range of scales. The dialogue brought diverse stakeholders together to discuss agri-food sector issues and encouraged the emergence of new and innovative thinking, collaborations and approaches. Furthermore, the open and publicly accessible webinar platform sought to encourage and facilitate multi-stakeholder engagement and raise awareness of UN Food Systems Summit processes amongst Australian stakeholders. There was no limits on attendees and the webinar was advertised publicly through social media platforms. The webinar was subsequently made available for both audio and video, by video recording and transcript. Discussions emerging during the dialogue reflected the need for sustained and meaningful action at all levels to give effect to the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals.The ‘Principles of Engagement’, as outlined by the Food Systems Summit, are useful for National Food Systems Summit Dialogue Convenors, and should be considered as a useful starting point. Dialogue Convenors are encouraged to consider modalities and processes which suit their national circumstances.

NoThe series of thematic dialogue webinars convened by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment provided an open and independent platform for Australian stakeholders including experts, academics, industry representatives, farmers, the general public and others to share experiences, ideas, opportunities and solutions on a variety of issues and challenges facing food systems. Discussions between panellists were open and transparent, and as representative as possible. Introductions and panellist presentations covered less than 30% of the available time. Four to five panellists spoke for 5 to 8 minutes each, providing an overview of the work they are engaged with. Some used Powerpoint presentations, some provided pre-recorded video presentations. Importantly, the majority of the webinar focused on the panel answering questions posed by the stakeholder audience. During the webinar, questions on a range of topics reflecting diverse stakeholder views, were received from the audience and posed to the panel for response. There was an ongoing opportunity to provide more ideas and to “keep the conversation going” following each webinar, by submitting additional thoughts and views through the Department’s Have Your Say online consultation forum, open until 10 June 2021. The webinars were independent of Australian Government processes and views. In addition the feedback provided in this form is also independent of Australian Government processes and views.

234238239240241242243244245246248249250As the fourth in the series of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) led Australian National FSS Dialogues, the Australian Food Systems – addressing shared challenges webinar explored: • how we can think holistically about food systems and work to meet the triple challenge of providing food security and nutrition, delivering strong livelihoods throughout the supply chain and ensuring environmental sustainability; • the notion of “trade-offs” and synergies in food systems; and • the need for decisions to be underpinned by rigorous science and evidence whilst acknowledging and managing diverse stakeholder interests and values. We were pleased to have the participation of the following panellists to lead discussion: • Lee Ann Jackson, Head of Division, Agro-food Trade and Markets, OECD • Dr Anne Astin PSM, Chair of the Board, Food Agility CRC • Howard Parry-Husbands, CEO of Pollinate • Krista Singleton-Cambage, Head of Climate and Food Security, World Wildlife Fund Australia.235238239240241242243244245246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. A scene-setting presentation was delivered exploring the webinar themes outlined previously. Key messages highlighted during this presentation included: • The COVID-19 crisis has brought renewed attention to the importance of food systems and their role in meeting the triple challenge – delivering food security and nutrition, providing livelihoods for stakeholders across food supply chains and ensuring environmental sustainability. • Food systems have delivered significant accomplishments in recent decades - including quadrupling of agricultural production since 1960 and decoupling production from agricultural land expansion through efficiency gains – however there remain shortcomings relating to food security and malnutrition and the environmental impact of food production. Better policies can make a difference to solving these issues. • While many of the challenges facing food systems are well-understood, there is often less focus on the identification and development of appropriate policy solutions. Many agri-food policies currently implemented globally are not effectively addressing the triple challenge and may be exacerbating the challenges in some instances. This can include distorting policy instruments – such as those providing production incentives to individual producers – which can lead to significant environmental externalities and international agricultural market distortion. • Developing coherent agri-food policies requires policymakers to be aware of possible trade-offs and synergies with other policy areas. For instance, agricultural sector policy interventions are likely to impact health or environmental outcomes and vice-versa. It is important for policymakers to vigorously evaluate possible interactions across food systems and look to maximise synergies and effectively manage any unavoidable “trade-offs.” There is unlikely to be a “silver-bullet” policy instrument – and there is a need to consider using a mix of policy instruments and approaches. • Sometimes there may be a need for difficult discussions, debate and choices around “trade-offs.” These decisions can be made made more difficult as occasionally stakeholder perspectives on certain issues can be primarily informed by values. There is a need for policymakers to appreciate the role of facts, interests and values in policy debates and to use innovative approaches to bridge gaps and create opportunities for better understanding and collaboration between competing stakeholder interests. Panellists were asked to provide some initial thoughts and reflections on the scene-setting presentation, which included: • Emphasis on the importance of holistic approaches for food policy making – noting in Australia that a core focus has traditionally been on agri-food sector competitiveness to underpin our economic wellbeing. • The importance of overcoming challenges relating to data collection and using it appropriately and effectively to enable better policymaking – while ensuring that food remains accessible, high quality and is aligned with consumer demand. • Recognition that complex systems have fundamental characteristics and traits which need to be acknowledged – for instance, they are constantly evolving and there are complex interactions and consequences (both known and unknown) for different policy interventions. There is likely to be a need for mixed policy approaches which are coherent (for instance across production and consumption sides), recognise complexity and employ “systems thinking”. • The need for taking an inclusive approach which seeks to consult widely and consider the needs and views of diverse stakeholder groups. Through its engagement and leadership in the Asia-Pacific region, there is also a role for Australia in helping our international partners to address the triple challenge through better policymaking for food systems. The question-and-answer session was wide-ranging reflecting strong stakeholder engagement and interest. Some key thematic elements of the discussion related to: • Navigating challenges and opportunities for agri-food policymaking as consumers increasingly make food choices according to environmental, social and ethical considerations. • The role of deliberative processes for effectively dealing with “trade-offs” and ensuring diverse stakeholder engagement and representation, including at the local/regional government level. • The critical need for more and improved data on food systems at the local, national and global level for food systems policy and decision making. • How best to take food systems conversations and discussions forward, to promote improved coherency and policymaking across sectors.236238239240241242243244245246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted – there were a number of additional high-level key messages emerging during the dialogue discussion, including: • Exploration of future food systems and the most crucial actions needed to ensure that our food systems are delivering on the triple challenge of economic livelihoods, health/nutrition and environmental outcomes. These included the need to address current gaps and flaws in data, a lack of diversity in stakeholder engagement, conflicts over facts and interest groups, and a lack of traceability in the supply chain. • It was suggested that consumers may be feeling “guilt-fatigue” as they continue to receive conflicting messages around the ethical and environmental consequences of their consumption choices. For this reason improving traceability could be one of the most promising tools for improving consumer trust and transparency in Australian food systems. Better collection and use of datasets will be crucial along the supply chain to provide assurance of health, environmental and social outcomes to consumers and producers alike. • There is a need to improve data collection and “knowledge production” practices to facilitate better collaboration, assessment and analysis and ultimately policymaking, potentially through the implementation of data standards or a more coordinated approach. This may also involve some consideration of the role of future “data markets” and “data trading”. • Policymakers need access to better quality datasets to inform food systems decision making. There is a need for greater collaboration across the supply chain to better analyse and interpret the data we have, and to identify where there may be gaps. A key priority for food systems policy related data is being able to quantify assessed policy trade-offs and their respective impacts, to inform better decision making. • Effective food systems policy making relies on consultation and engagement with diverse stakeholders. Deliberative processes can be useful in policymaking to overcome differences in stakeholder views, interests and values, and can lead to more transparent and equitable decision-making. • The era of digital technology and innovations provides huge opportunities for producers and other stakeholders in the food sector to reduce inputs and improve efficiencies. This includes proper assessment of the contributions and supporting architecture for satellite technology in helping to collect, manage and store agricultural and food system data.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the key messages already detailed, there were a number of issues discussed which may have signified a divergence of views, including: • The need to consider communications, positive messaging and enhanced “narratives” to highlight the importance of food systems and engender greater understanding in the community of their critical role for achieving important economic, social and environmental outcomes. It was suggested that there is a prevailing dichotomy at play in contemporary food systems, and a desire on the part of the consumer and advocates to be able to classify certain foods, production practices and/or sectors as “good” or “bad” – when the reality is far more nuanced and complex. • It was suggested that since many Australians associate modern agriculture and food systems with challenges and generally have a negative perception which dissuades stakeholder engagement and collaborative discussion. For this reason, it was suggested that reframing the narrative by focusing on “shared food values” and the positive contribution that food systems make to society – may be one way to engage diverse stakeholders in future conversations about sustainable food systems. • The facts, interests and values which determine the reality of food systems (for instance what consumers can choose to eat, or what producers are able to grow) can be constrained by the current limits of knowledge, culture, history and other factors. Reframing problems and challenges in new and innovative ways can be useful when thinking about and addressing systemic challenges. This could involve thinking more fundamentally about what we choose to produce and consume in Australia and for instance, reflecting on the place of indigenous species in our food systems. • When discussing food systems, the term “complexity” may often be confused with something being “complicated”. Complexity involves the interaction of complex systems, while something being complicated means it is difficult to solve. Improving food systems can involve both complexity and complication. Taking a “systems thinking” approach, may involve reframing our food systems as “complex” systems which we aim to “guide” to function better, instead of isolating our focus to unitary outcomes or goals – which may not lead to the best outcome. • There is a need to consider how best to create the space for continuing these types of discussions around the challenges and best-practice approaches and recommendations for sustainable, healthy and resilient food systems. This may involve consideration of the utility of a higher-level food strategy, formalised governance structures or incorporation into political frameworks.

2021-06-11 06:25:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20328/203145

15944674726395183102662124251172212385243592215

We organized the dialogue in collaboration with the government, industry partners, and a multi-stakeholder NGO. We invited participants from both the public and private sectors, academe, farmers’ organizations, and civil society. This reflected the multi-stakeholder diversity of the dialogue, with the principle of inclusivity, respect, and complementation adhered to. The choice of the dialogue’s theme - Innovation and Technology- was based on the outcome of the National Food Security Summit held one week earlier. One of the key strategic interventions to modernize agriculture was to promote innovation, research and development and technology. With this in mind, we organized two focus group discussions - one in precision agriculture and one in precision breeding. In organizing this dialogue, we also acted with urgency and committed to continue doing so as we organize the follow through sessions.The principle of embracing multi-stakeholder diversity and inclusivity was reflected in the good mix of participants coming from different sectors - government, business community, academe, farmers’ organizations and civil society. The participants recognized the complexity of the food systems and the challenges that need to be addressed i.e. pest and diseases, climate change, digital divide, absence of tropical breeds of dairy animals, etc. The breakout sessions surfaced complementation of work among key players i.e. public-private collaboration in precision breeding, consultations on policies enabling precision agriculture, genome editing, landholdings, and labor concerns.Yes. It would be helpful if convenors familiarize themselves with the principles of engagement before starting to organize a dialogue. Convenors should reach out to diverse stakeholders across the value chain. The program flow of having an opening plenary with keynote speakers followed by focus group discussions and then a closing plenary works well. Allocate at least 3 hours for the dialogue.

Yes

234238240243246248249251The multi-stakeholder dialogue focused on sharing some innovations such as drones, biotechnology, and genome editing, and their potential positive impact in helping manage food production systems, a solution area under Action Track 3. The Philippines UNFSS Core Group, through the leadership of the National Convenor, also identified thematic areas that the country will focus on in relation to the conduct of sub-national dialogues in the Philippines. One of these thematic areas is the advancement of innovations and science-based farm production systems. This dialogue aimed to contribute to this. Specifically, it identified key challenges faced by the Philippine agriculture industry in mainstreaming precision agriculture and precision breeding. The session was targeted to gather insights and recommendations on how to scale up the promotion and adoption of innovations around precision agriculture and precision breeding, which can eventually support efforts on achieving food security.235238242243244246248249251I. Precision Agriculture The breakout session on Precision Agriculture was able to impress its importance in the whole gamut of the food systems, yet there are important points raised that need to be addressed. Precision agriculture needs an active public-private partnership. The workshop clearly showed that there has to be an enabling policy, which may partake of a legal framework and/or mainstreaming precision agriculture in the commodity programs of the Department of Agriculture and the crafting of a roadmap. As digital agriculture is largely influenced by information technology, the workshop agreed to decentralize technology and infrastructure development. As to the matter of upscaling digital agriculture, the issue of small landholding is a concern. The emerging consensus along this end is to pursue and support the government’s farm clustering and consolidation approach. The private sector and companies may take the lead in this initiative. Other challenges mentioned during the roundtable discussion included the lack of intensive research and development for all crops, lack of accredited facilities to implement technologies specifically in monitoring residue levels, and poor internet connectivity especially in the rural areas. Moreover, the role of the youth in further promoting precision agriculture was also heavily mentioned during the event but there were recommendations on marrying the skills of the young ones and the expertise and knowledge of the more matured farmers. The role of educational institutions was also emphasized. The workshop agreed that precision agriculture must be included in the curriculum. Ii. Precision Breeding The other breakout session was on precision breeding. The discussions from that group reported the need to scale up the support and promotion of precision breeding in the Philippines, given that the country has been dependent on imported livestock breeders from temperate regions. It also reported the need to modify crops and animals to adapt to the changes happening in the environment, especially given the impacts of climate change and biosecurity threats. Some of the recommendations during the session included the 1) increase in funding and investment opportunities to support the uptake of precision agriculture; and 2) maximization of available resources, systems, and partnerships including the existing breeding institutions, the functional biotechnology regulatory system for genome editing and precision agriculture, and the inter-regional collaborations that respond to the high cost of laboratories, genome editing tools, and licensing. In terms of funding, some shared that the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Agricultural Research could allocate funds to the National Livestock Program to support the establishment of tropical dairy breeding in the country for water buffalos, cattle, and other livestock animals. Also, to respond to the challenge of the weak private-public partnership on precision breeding, PPP should be scaled up and the successful or working models highlighting private sector engagements should be explored. Furthermore, the convergence and harmonization of government institutions was recommended to be done to create an impactful response and establish a pool of funds. These can be pursued through the creation of a consortia, which will lead to the identification of milestone targets and strategies. The Philippine Seed Industry Association (PSIA), citing its membership, network and expertise, volunteered to initiate the establishment of the consortium.236238240242243246248249I. Precision Agriculture As can be deduced, the following outcomes are to be worked out: 1. Enabling policies on precision agriculture should be put in place. This will involve: a) a policy framework or a program (precision agriculture program, as the way of organic agriculture program; b) mainstreaming of precision agriculture as a strategy of the commodity programs of the DA; c) crafting of a road map. 2. Private sector and government to lead in upscaling precision agriculture. It may involve demonstration areas, most preferably following the farm clustering and consolidation schemes to promote efficiency. In the process, will involve the organization of smallholder farmers. 3. Basic infrastructure needs to be addressed. Water and IT infrastructure requirements. It will require convergence initiatives with other agencies of the government. 4. Regulations decentralized to the regions. In the case of drones, permitting and licensing are done at the National Capital Region. 5. Inventory of firms, entities, and expert groups engaged in precision agriculture. This is needed to determine the current breadth and reach of precision agriculture adoption in the Philippines. This is an important component in road map preparation.236238240242243246248249II. Precision Breeding Precision breeding and genome editing are increasingly becoming a practice in the Philippines, where there is an expressed need to repurpose the crops to adapt to the effects of climate change or to tropicalize livestock animals being imported from temperate countries. The multi-stakeholder dialogue obtained the following recommendations and suggested action points: 1. Public-private partnerships to be strengthened, which can commence through the establishment of a national consortia that could identify specific target areas and funding opportunities in support of mainstreaming precision breeding. The discussions enumerated the value of doing this around the following areas: - Investments on laboratories and genome editing tools which are currently very costly in the market - Identification of researchable areas - Harmonization of the efforts of various government agencies such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Science and Technology to complement existing efforts and allocated government funds - Exploration of PPP models to determine what worked or that need to be customized according to the target areas and strategies 2. Enabling policies and mechanisms should be in place. The government is currently working on the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) on genome editing that will be subjected to public consultations. This can kick start the process on creating an enabling environment for precision breeding. Further inputs include the following: - Creation of responsive regulatory policies on licensing. Currently, licensing is expensive especially for commercial purposes, while it is free for research. - Adopting the guidelines set by the National Committee Biosafety of the Philippines on genome editing. The members of NCBP are currently advising the Department of Agriculture on crafting the IRR related to genome editing. 3. Science communication on biotechnology should be mainstreamed. There are negative perceptions of the public on this area, especially on the genetically-modified crops or animals. Some recommendations under this item are the following: - Strengthen social media use among the scientific and research community - Simplification or translation (laymanize) of technical research or reports of scientists and experts237238242245246248249I. Precision Agriculture The issue of the young generations and aging farmers surfaced during the workshop. Others are of the view that precision farming will entice the young generations to go into farming. Others reacted that precision agriculture must also provide opportunities for aging farmers. The latter contend that technology is not only for the young. Older generations have experience and can contribute. There must be no age divide or differential insofar as precision agriculture is concerned. II. Precision Breeding Precision livestock breeding should also be included in the discussion, not just crops. This is to recognize the challenge that the Philippines continues to import livestock animals for 25 years now from temperate countries that are not suitable for the tropical environment of the country. The government should also invest its funds towards establishing an infrastructure for tropical dairy breeding, especially for water buffalos, cattle, and other livestock animals. There are local researchers and experts in the Philippine Carabao Center who are currently tropicalizing the imported animals whose expertise should be maximized. The purported cheaper genome editing tools may not be true after all. The accessibility of genome editing tools especially CRISPR/Cas system may be easy for research purposes but commercialization of products developed may be restricted and entail exorbitant licensing fees. It was therefore recommended to explore other tools such as TALENS that require simple and affordable licensing terms if any. The regulation of genome edited crops remains unclear with the government considering some form of assessment (e.g. testing presence of transgenes) while the industry prefers no pre-market evaluation much like what is done with conventional crops. An advisory team has been tasked by the Department of Agriculture to work out a suitable guideline for genome editing.

2021-06-11 06:26:38205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15370/18

108

In its role as National Convenor for the Australian Food Systems Summit National Dialogues, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment convened a series of thematic dialogues (in the form of publicly accessible virtual webinars) to facilitate open and independent discussions between a wide range of stakeholders on a variety of issues and challenges facing Australian food systems. These provided an opportunity for stakeholders to participate in meaningful discussions and promote Australian stakeholder engagement in broader UN Food Systems Summit processes. There were 108 unique webinar log-ins for the live webinar session – however we are unable to provide detailed participant metrics according to the above criteria. We can confirm that the webinar attendees reflected a broad base of stakeholder and representative groups in Australia including: not-for-profit and advocacy organisations; community groups; academia and the university sector; advertising, marketing and consultancy firms; research and development institutions; federal, state/territory and local government; private sector and industry peak body groups; farmers and farmers peak body organisations; natural resource management groups. Additionally, to promote greater outreach and accessibility for interested parties unable to attend the webinar on the day, recordings and transcripts of the session have been made available on the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s website: https://haveyoursay.awe.gov.au/food-systems-summit-2021The dialogues provided an open and independent platform for Australian stakeholders to share their perspectives on a variety of issues and challenges facing Australian food systems. The dialogue sought to recognise the efforts of various Australian stakeholders (including government, industry, NGOs, think-tanks, consultants and academia) to tackle complex food systems challenges and issues through various initiatives and programs, operating at a range of scales. The dialogue brought diverse stakeholders together to discuss agri-food sector issues and encouraged the emergence of new and innovative thinking, collaborations and approaches. Furthermore, the open and publicly accessible webinar platform sought to encourage and facilitate multi-stakeholder engagement and raise awareness of UN Food Systems Summit processes amongst Australian stakeholders. There was no limits on attendees and the webinar was advertised publicly through social media platforms. The webinar was subsequently made available for both audio and video, by video recording and transcript. Discussions emerging during the dialogue reflected the need for sustained and meaningful action at all levels to give effect to the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals.The ‘Principles of Engagement’, as outlined by the Food Systems Summit, are useful for National Food Systems Summit Dialogue Convenors, and should be considered as a useful starting point. Dialogue Convenors are encouraged to consider modalities and processes which suit their national circumstances.

NoThe series of thematic dialogue webinars convened by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment provided an open and independent platform for Australian stakeholders including experts, academics, industry representatives, farmers, the general public and others to share experiences, ideas, opportunities and solutions on a variety of issues and challenges facing food systems. Discussions between panellists were open and transparent, and as representative as possible. Introductions and panellist presentations covered less than 30% of the available time. Four to five panellists spoke for 5 to 8 minutes each, providing an overview of the work they are engaged with. Some used Powerpoint presentations, some provided pre-recorded video presentations. Importantly, the majority of the webinar focused on the panel answering questions posed by the stakeholder audience. During the webinar, questions on a range of topics reflecting diverse stakeholder views, were received from the audience and posed to the panel for response. There was an ongoing opportunity to provide more ideas and to “keep the conversation going” following each webinar, by submitting additional thoughts and views through the Department’s Have Your Say online consultation forum, open until 10 June 2021. The webinars were independent of Australian Government processes and views. In addition the feedback provided in this form is also independent of Australian Government processes and views.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251As the third in the series of Australian National Food Systems Summit Dialogues hosted by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the major focus of this webinar "Eating for our health and the environment - balancing nutrition and sustainability" was to explore: • current and emerging food choices and the intersection between diet / nutrition and environmental sustainability in Australia • various initiatives, innovations and research along the supply chain which seeks to balance environmental/nutrition considerations • innovative approaches to addressing food loss and waste. We were pleased to have the participation of the following panellists to lead discussion: • Professor Amanda Lee, Professor in Public Health Policy, University of Queensland • Dr Bradley Ridoutt, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO • Mark Barthel, Fight Food Waste CRC • Ronni Kahn AO, CEO and Founder, Ozharvest235238239240241242243244245246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. Three expert panellists explored the webinar themes outlined previously – delivering short presentations to webinar participants. Key messages highlighted during these presentations included: • There can be important synergies between a healthy diet for people and for the planet. Key changes required in Australia may involve decreasing food waste, decreasing energy intake, decreasing intake of unhealthy food and drinks, and increasing the proportion of healthy plant-based foods in diets. • Australia has food and nutrition policy frameworks, yet there is a need for greater implementation of evidence-based actions, regulatory action and renewed engagement with experts and other stakeholders. Approximately less than 1% of Australians consume diets consistent with the food based dietary guidelines. Greater adherence to the current guidelines by the Australian populace would likely deliver significant health and environmental benefits. • There is a perception that healthy food is “too expensive” however there is significant discrepancy as to the relative affordability of “healthy” and “unhealthy” diets for the Australian population, as affordability can be significantly affected by factors such as socio-economic status and geographical. For example, low-income Australians may make dietary choices influenced primarily by monetary cost, and as such “unhealthy” food choices tend to be cheaper than “healthy ones.” There are also significant issues with food access and affordability, particularly in remote communities. • Discretionary foods currently account for over 35% of the total energy intake of the average Australian diet (a proportion much higher than the recommended daily nutritional intake). It was also suggested that the production and consumption of discretionary foods can have a significant environmental and climate impact. • To deliver healthy and sustainable diets, it is important to focus equally on the “production side” (i.e. resource use efficiency, lower GHG emissions associated with food production) as on the “consumption side” (i.e. nutritional guidance and influencing consumer choice). • Food waste is a global issue, including for Australia. Reducing food loss and waste has multiple benefits across the food system including economic benefits for business and households, environmental benefits (particularly water and climate), and increased food availability and security. • In Australia, one-fifth to one-quarter of Australian food waste occurs during primary production, with another one-fifth occurring during manufacturing. In comparison, across other OECD countries, food waste is very heavily concentrated towards the consumption end of the value chain. • One-third of fresh produce is wasted in Australia, which has significant implications for food security given the lost nutritional value from these foods. • There is a vibrant and exciting role for innovation and start-ups focused on transforming surplus food and by-products into valuable ingredients and products. This can help significantly to reduce food loss and waste, create economic value and value-adding industries, reduce environmental pressure and increase the availability of healthy food products. A special-feature webinar panellist gave a short presentation on OzHarvest, an Australian food rescue charity that aims to reduce food waste and feed hungry people. The presentation highlighted: • Various activities undertaken to give effect to the goal of halving food waste by 2030 in Australia • Education programs for youth and children on how to prepare, store and value food • The opportunity for individuals in Australia to significantly reduce their contribution to combat climate change by reducing their food waste • Simplifying messaging around food waste to the mantra: look, buy, store, cook The question and answer session was wide-ranging reflecting strong stakeholder engagement and interest. Some key thematic elements of the discussion related to: • the role of quality health information, advertising, social marketing campaigns, and the standardisation of nutritional guidelines, readily accessible and available to the public (including schools); • local food production environments and the significantly divergent environmental impact of production across regions and production systems; • the role of agricultural technology and innovation for reducing food loss and waste during production; • the interactions between food regulations and specifications and the creation/reduction of food waste • opportunities for value-adding and higher farm-gate return through reduction in food loss/waste and responding to changes in consumer behaviour and demand; • the role of plant-based meat alternatives and their contribution to a health and sustainable diet; • the concept of “food miles” and their utility for determining accurately the environmental impact of food; • complexities associated with sustainable, environmental or GHG emission labelling for foods; • complexities of the health star rating system for foods in Australian supermarkets and the role of food labelling in reducing food loss and wastage.236238239240241242243244245246248249This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted – there were a number of additional high-level key messages emerging during the dialogue discussion, including: • A sustainable and healthy diet is one that has low environmental impact and contributes to food security and health for people now, and into the future. Food systems have a critical role in the provision of health, sustainability, and equity outcomes. Various case studies demonstrate positive changes, including in several remote Aboriginal communities which have successfully improved health, sustainability and equity through dietary change and improved food security. • Trade-offs can become evident when making dietary and policy choices to balance environmental and health outcomes (i.e. lower GHG emissions diet versus adequate macro/micro nutrient intake) and sometimes achieving one outcome occurs at the expense of achieving another – however, there can also be synergies – and these are important to recognise and utilise. • Food systems (including production and consumption patterns) are highly specific to regions and countries – and there is a need to design and implement solutions to improve sustainability and health outcomes, which reflect the reality of national and regional food systems. It was acknowledged that solutions should seek to recognise the importance of achieving outcomes across health, sustainability and be science-based. Australian solutions should draw heavily upon the evidence base from Australia. • Comprehensive and clear national food policies and guidelines, frameworks and targets can be of significant value to both producers and consumers, and can help to underpin improved nutritional and environmental outcomes and encourage a transition towards healthy, sustainable diets. • There is a need to ensure that innovations, solutions, regulation, and research are designed with the needs of all stakeholders across the supply chain and distribution networks in mind. Taking a systems approach when considering how to improve health and sustainability outcomes (including as it relates to reducing food loss and waste) is important, to be able to determine interlinkages and impacts of interventions. • Network diagramming of Australian health and food professionals revealed strong siloing between groups such as academics, decision makers, farmers, nutritionists, and consumers. Compounding this is the level of complexity across the food system. Building relationships, communication and collaboration across the food system will be needed to shift the current siloed culture to overcome complexities and create food systems that are flexible, intelligent, and transparent.237238239240241242243244245246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the key messages already detailed there were a number of issues discussed which may have signified a divergence of views, including: • Exploration of the divergent environmental impact that can be attributed to certain food groups (i.e. red meat, horticultural products, grains, alternative plant protein and other animal products). It was highlighted that environmental impact is highly circumstantial and determined by the highly localised and specific production/consumption context. Assessment of the nutritional and sustainability credentials of food groups is a highly complex and difficult undertaking – which is highly unlikely to be broadly or “globally” applicable. • There is a need to consider how best to manage competing trade-offs “between” different dimensions of healthy and sustainable diets (i.e. between environmental, health and nutrition and economic outcomes). Similarly, there is a need to consider trade-offs “within” one dimension. For instance, food choices can involve differing environmental impacts across a range of indicators including water consumption, GHG emissions and soil quality. Navigating these trade-offs and consumption choices is to some extent dependent on producer and consumer values. • Discussion around new and emerging food products, including around the role of reformulating ‘processed’ foods to improve nutritional characteristics. Similarly there was discussion around plant-based meat-alternatives and their role in healthy and sustainable diets. • Highlighting of potential inefficiencies in Australian food supply chains and discussion of where innovations and change can best be targeted to leverage positive change with the greatest return for investment. • Discussion around the role of education programs in schools that can target a range of dietary behaviours and be responsive to the differing needs of families– including focusing on activities and behaviour change both at home and at school. • Discussion around the value of sustainability labelling for foods for achieving better health and nutrition outcomes. The various complexities associated with developing appropriate metrics were discussed. • Discussion around the roles, responsibilities and opportunities for various stakeholders across food supply chains for improved collaboration, networking and relationship building. Improved connectivity and coordination between stakeholders can generate production, distribution efficiencies and ultimately ensure improved environmental and nutritional outcomes for Australian food systems.

2021-06-11 06:27:25204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9038/45

16881243211111111111111111432

Yes

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/联合国粮食系统峰会·中国说对话-乡村振兴与食物系统转型_translate.docxhttp://www.cbcgdf.org/English/NewsShow/5012/15827.html

On April 25, 2021, a dialogue on the “Rural Revitalization and Food system Transformation” of the United Nations Food Systems Summit “China’s Action” was successfully held online, jointly convened by the UNFSS-AT2 China Action Platform, China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF), the CBCGDF Good Food Fund and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Fund (IFAD). It streamed live on Baidu, and more than 220,000 people watched. The meeting began with speeches by Dr. Zhou Jinfeng, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of CBCGDF, and Matteo Marchisio, representative of IFAD in China. Dr. Zhou said: “Rural revitalization should be guided by the thought of ecological civilization and followed by the harmony between man and nature. Firstly, we should pay attention to collecting, preserving, and promoting the native old seeds. Secondly, we should use natural forces and biological methods to control diseases and insect pests.” Mr. Matteo pointed out that nearly 690 million people are suffering from hunger. “We have difficulty in fighting hunger, and COVID-19 highlights the vulnerabilities and shortcomings of the global food system. We urgently need more efficient, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable food systems. Small farmers are the most basic and largest group in agriculture. It is important to increase their resilience for achieving sustainable food systems.” Mr. Matteo said. Anouk de Vries, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) project manager, presented the goal of Action Track I: to ensure safe and nutritious food for all. “There are three main aspects: first, to strengthen food security and reduce hunger, so that everyone can get enough food; second, to reduce all forms of malnutrition and make it easier for people to have access to nutritious food, and to pay attention to food safety issues to ensure that everyone has access to safe food.” He also mentioned the need to focus on technologies (cold chain) to reduce post-harvest losses of agricultural products and food waste. Nigel Brett, the Director of the Asia-Pacific Bureau of IFAD, noted that IFAD focused on promoting equitable livelihoods. He said that it was essential to consider smallholder farmers and other rural populations as the core of food system transformation and sustainable development goals. It was using the experience and expertise of IFDA to promote action-oriented sustainable food system transformation. Finally, he called on more young people to participate in the dialogue of the food systems summit! Zhao Bing, Director of Department of Food Systems and Smallholder Support at the World Food Programme (WFP), described the context of the United Nations Food systems Summit and the efforts of WFP as the world’s largest humanitarian aid agency in advancing the food system transformation. He said that the international community needed to make more significant efforts to establish sustainable and resilient food systems. Jian Yi, head of the UNFSS-AT2 working group on the “Food Environment” and CBCGDF Good Food Fund founder, introduced the national food system action platform, local food markets, food education, reducing food waste, and improving animal welfare. Sixteen participants took turns speaking and actively engaged in a dialogue on promoting a healthier and more sustainable food system transformation followed by China’s rural revitalization strategy. 2021-06-11 06:58:59Some of the pages were blank when posted, it would be of a lot of help if you could open up the editing for it, thanks!2021-06-16 08:15:38

2021-06-11 06:30:19205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15364/18

108

In its role as National Convenor for the Australian Food Systems Summit National Dialogues, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment convened a series of thematic dialogues (in the form of publicly accessible virtual webinars) to facilitate open and independent discussions between a wide range of stakeholders on a variety of issues and challenges facing Australian food systems. These provided an opportunity for stakeholders to participate in meaningful discussions and promote Australian stakeholder engagement in broader UN Food Systems Summit processes. There were 81 unique webinar log-ins for the live webinar session – however we are unable to provide detailed participant metrics according to the above criteria. We can confirm that the webinar attendees reflected a broad base of stakeholder and representative groups in Australia including: not-for-profit and advocacy organisations; community groups; academia and the university sector; advertising, marketing and consultancy firms; research and development institutions; federal, state/territory and local government; private sector and industry peak body groups; farmers and farmers peak body organisations; natural resource management groups. Additionally, to promote greater outreach and accessibility for interested parties unable to attend the webinar on the day, recordings and transcripts of the session have been made available on the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s website: https://haveyoursay.awe.gov.au/food-systems-summit-2021The dialogues provided an open and independent platform for Australian stakeholders to share their perspectives on a variety of issues and challenges facing Australian food systems. The dialogue sought to recognise the efforts of various Australian stakeholders (including government, industry, NGOs, thinktanks, consultants and academia) to tackle complex food systems challenges and issues through various initiatives and programs, operating at a range of scales. The dialogue brought diverse stakeholders together to discuss agri-food sector issues and encouraged the emergence of new and innovative thinking, collaborations and approaches. Furthermore, the open and publicly accessible webinar platform sought to encourage and facilitate multi-stakeholder engagement and raise awareness of UN Food Systems Summit processes amongst Australian stakeholders. There was no limits on attendees and the webinar was advertised publicly through social media platofrms. The webinar was subsequently made available for both audio and video, by video recording and transcript. Discussions emerging during the dialogue reflected the need for sustained and meaningful action at all levels to give effect to the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals.The ‘Principles of Engagement’, as outlined by the Food Systems Summit, are useful for National Food Systems Summit Dialogue Convenors, and should be considered as a useful starting point. Dialogue Convenors are encouraged to consider modalities and processes which suit their national circumstances.

NoThe series of thematic dialogue webinars convened by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment provided an open and independent platform for Australian stakeholders including experts, academics, industry representatives, farmers, the general public and others to share experiences, ideas, opportunities and solutions on a variety of issues and challenges facing food systems. Discussions between panellists were open and transparent, and as representative as possible. Introductions and panellist presentations covered less than 30% of the available time. Four to five panellists spoke for 5 to 8 minutes each, providing an overview of the work they are engaged with. Some used Powerpoint presentations, some provided pre-recorded video presentations. Importantly, the majority of the webinar focused on the panel answering questions posed by the stakeholder audience. During the webinar, questions on a range of topics reflecting diverse stakeholder views, were received from the audience and posed to the panel for response. There was an ongoing opportunity to provide more ideas and to “keep the conversation going” following each webinar, by submitting additional thoughts and views through the Department’s Have Your Say online consultation forum, open until 10 June 2021. The webinars were independent of Australian Government processes and views. In addition the feedback provided in this form is also independent of Australian Government processes and views.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250As the second in the series of Australian National Food Systems Summit Dialogues hosted by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the major focus of this webinar Future proofing our food systems – boosting resilience was to explore: • the challenges and opportunities posed by future trends and risks, including climate change, potential trade and supply chain disruptions, and changing consumer patterns and demands • how stakeholders across the food supply chain are working to adapt and increase their resilience to potential vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses to safeguard a future food system that is sustainable and stable We were pleased to have the participation of the following panellists to lead discussion: • Peter Gooday, Assistant Secretary, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics • Professor Mario Herrero, Chief Research Scientist of Agriculture and Food, CSIRO • Professor Mark Howden, Director, Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions, Australian National University • David Eyre, CEO, Future Food Systems Cooperative Research Centre • Doug McNicholl, Program Manager, Sustainability and Innovation, Meat and Livestock Australia • Brianna Casey, Chief Executive Officer, Foodbank Australia235238239240241242243244245246247248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. Four expert panellists explored the webinar themes outlined previously – delivering short presentations to webinar participants. Key messages highlighted during these presentations are provided below: • There are five key megatrends likely to influence Australian agriculture and food systems over the short, medium and long term which include: - the growth juggernaut in emerging Asian economies and greater demand for food and fibre and rising expectations around health, provenance and sustainability from expanded middle class consumers; - fractal politics and a more contested international trading landscape; - the need to produce more from less by ensuring continued productivity growth; - cascading planetary risks including climate change and other accelerated changes in earth systems creating risks and challenges but also some opportunities. - disruptive technologies which will alter production, supply chains and consumption patterns. • Food systems transformation is required to effectively address environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss and water impacts, as well as increased incidence of malnutrition and non-communicable diseases resulting from current food and dietary choices. • There is a significant pipeline of technological innovations and developments which will help to re-orient food systems– however overcoming the challenges we are facing is unlikely by relying only on a “technological fix”. There is also a need to engage in dialogue and assess the contribution of values, social sciences, policies and regulation, market incentives to making positive change in our food systems and creating transition pathways. • The impacts of climate change on agriculture in Australia are already being felt – with estimates that there has already been a decrease in productivity of around 22% due to climate change. There have been effective examples of climate adaptation to date in Australia (including in water efficiency and cropping systems) but there is work still to be done. There is a need to recognise the limits of adaptive approaches which seek to increase production efficiencies and research systematic and transformational adaptation across all the elements of food systems (from R&D through to production, supply chains and consumption). • Trade is a key means of climate adaptation and will be increasingly needed under future climates. • There is an important role for value-adding processes in Australian food systems (including by increased development and manufacturing of “healthy” manufactured foods) and a need to better understand and recognise the benefits this offers for Australian agricultural supply chains (including expanded competitive advantage). • Promoting collaboration between stakeholders along the supply chain (including farmers and manufacturers) will be important. Innovative models are being explored in Australia to build relationships between growers, manufacturers, service providers, logistics companies and others to improve value creation along the supply chain. A special-feature panellist highlighted how the Australian livestock sectors are working to increase their resilience and deliver environmental, economic and socially responsible sustainability outcomes, exploring: • The contribution of industry sustainability frameworks and the importance of economic and business models which incentivise industry stakeholders to invest in innovation which supports sustainable development pathways; • The critical role of increased investment in R&D and stable, science-based industry and government policy that incentivises economic development, environmental stewardship and holistic wellbeing of producers, consumers and other stakeholders in the supply chain. A second special-feature webinar panellist gave a short presentation on the role of the food-rescue and food-relief sector for helping to manage supply chain disruptions, exploring: • How stakeholders respond adaptively and employ systems thinking approaches to overcome supply chain vulnerabilities and disruptions to get food to where it is needed in times of crisis, including in response to natural disasters. • The barriers which prevent healthier and more appropriate food options being available to communities and the imperative to ensure that “no one is left behind”. The question and answer session was wide-ranging and reflected strong stakeholder engagement and interest. Some key thematic elements of the discussion related to: • the need to ensure coordination and balance between health, agricultural and environmental outcomes, • structuring of value chains and ensuring appropriate incentives are flowing from consumers (“demand pull”) are in place to encourage producers to ‘grow the right thing’, • the contributions of the red meat sector to increasing resilience, • the role and growth of plant-based alternative proteins in sustainable, resilient and healthy food systems, • the urban/rural divide and how it may exacerbate differences in valuing and understanding sustainable landscapes, • the critical role of technology in tackling food systems issues and boosting resilience, • the role of policy changes and power asymmetries in food systems and how to better “internalise” environmental and social impacts which are currently “externalities” in the true price of food.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted – there were a number of additional high-level key messages emerging during the dialogue discussion, including: • There is a continued need to foster the development of innovative approaches, solutions, and research outcomes that meets the needs of producers, consumers and other stakeholders along the supply chain, in order to boost resilience to future shocks and vulnerabilities facing food systems. • Approaches which emphasise the importance of collaboration will be critically important. Connected, integrated and agile food systems, which are underpinned by robust data and information networks, will be fundamental to resilient food systems, allowing stakeholders across food systems supply chains to make accurate and informed decisions to minimise the impact of future shocks and vulnerabilities. • The flow of information and market incentives from consumers to producers (and vice versa) is an important driver of food systems development and function. It will be important to improve connectivity in the value chain to ensure it is demand driven and reflects consumer wants and values, including relating to provenance. Ensuring the right products are grown in the right regions and facilitating the path to market is important for food security for all Australians. • Increased collaboration and relationship building between different levels of stakeholders in food systems also can bring about positive outcomes – including in the establishment of new “value-adding” industries which can strengthen the agri-food sector and its important contribution to the Australian economy. There are also many positive benefits and efficiencies to be found in further digitalisation and modernisation of the “logistics” of trading regulations and practices. • There is a need to incorporate “systems thinking” in our decision making for our food systems. There is a need to think beyond productivity metrics and consider multiple objectives and values. This will involve a need to consider indirect impacts and trade-offs of certain actions and policies. It will be necessary to promote collaborative approaches to achieve a joint and shared vision for our food systems and the transition pathways we may embark upon to get there.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the key messages already detailed there were a number of issues raised which may have signified a divergence of views, including: • Consideration as to how the “true cost of food” (i.e. environmental, economic and social externalities) can be reflected in pricing structures and production and consumption patterns. Similarly, there was discussion around how best to ensure that factors such as nutrition, food safety and quality, sustainability outcomes can be systematically included as “measures of success” for our agri-food systems, beyond a the metric indicator of profit or economic return. • How to consider food systems challenges and issues in a more holistic manner (i.e. beyond the current predominant siloed approach) and foster policy harmonization between different sectors. There are different perspectives on how best to do this and whether there is a need for new institutions/approaches – but it may involve assessing the opportunity costs and trade-offs of food production in certain regions. • The perspective that the current structure of our food systems leads to increased rates of malnutrition and non-communicable diseases which is costly, both in terms of lost productivity but also direct costs borne by health systems. • Consideration as to how food systems stakeholders, including producers, can best continue to mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts. • The co-existence of plant and animal protein production in the Australian agricultural sector and exploration of opportunities for mutual development and innovation. • While there is a need to consider lower-level adaptations (i.e. incremental advances in production efficiency) there is also a need to simultaneously consider large-scale systematic and transformational adaptations which can change the “efficiency boundary” and the nature of system trade-offs (i.e. genetic technologies, supply chain modification).

2021-06-11 06:38:14205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12922/18

81

In its role as National Convenor for the Australian Food Systems Summit National Dialogues, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment convened a series of thematic dialogues (in the form of publicly accessible virtual webinars) to facilitate open and independent discussions between a wide range of stakeholders on a variety of issues and challenges facing Australian food systems. These provided an opportunity for stakeholders to participate in meaningful discussions and promote Australian stakeholder engagement in broader UN Food Systems Summit processes. There were 81 unique webinar log-ins for the live webinar session – however we are unable to provide detailed participant metrics according to the above criteria. We can confirm that the webinar attendees reflected a broad base of stakeholder and representative groups in Australia including: not-for-profit and advocacy organisations; community groups; academia and the university sector; advertising, marketing and consultancy firms; research and development institutions; federal, state/territory and local government; private sector and industry peak body groups; farmers and farmers peak body organisations; natural resource management groups. Additionally, to promote greater outreach and accessibility for interested parties unable to attend the webinar on the day, recordings and transcripts of the session have been made available on the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s website: https://haveyoursay.awe.gov.au/food-systems-summit-2021The dialogues provided an open and independent platform for Australian stakeholders to share their perspectives on a variety of issues and challenges facing Australian food systems. The dialogue sought to recognise the efforts of various Australian stakeholders (including government, industry, NGOs, think-tanks, consultants and academia) to tackle complex food systems challenges and issues through various initiatives and programs, operating at a range of scales. The dialogue brought diverse stakeholders together to discuss agri-food sector issues and encouraged the emergence of new and innovative thinking, collaborations and approaches. Furthermore, the open and publicly accessible webinar platform sought to encourage and facilitate multi-stakeholder engagement and raise awareness of UN Food Systems Summit processes amongst Australian stakeholders. There was no limits on attendees and the webinar was advertised publicly through social media platforms. The webinar was subsequently made available for both audio and video, by video recording and transcript. Discussions emerging during the dialogue reflected the need for sustained and meaningful action at all levels to give effect to the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals.The ‘Principles of Engagement’, as outlined by the Food Systems Summit, are useful for National Food Systems Summit Dialogue Convenors, and should be considered as a useful starting point. Dialogue Convenors are encouraged to consider modalities and processes which suit their national circumstances.

NoThe series of thematic dialogue webinars convened by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment provided an open and independent platform for Australian stakeholders including experts, academics, industry representatives, farmers, the general public and others to share experiences, ideas, opportunities and solutions on a variety of issues and challenges facing food systems. Discussions between panellists were open and transparent, and as representative as possible. Introductions and panellist presentations covered less than 30% of the available time. Four to five panellists spoke for 5 to 8 minutes each, providing an overview of the work they are engaged with. Some used Powerpoint presentations, some provided pre-recorded video presentations. Importantly, the majority of the webinar focused on the panel answering questions posed by the stakeholder audience. During the webinar, questions on a range of topics reflecting diverse stakeholder views, were received from the audience and posed to the panel for response. There was an ongoing opportunity to provide more ideas and to “keep the conversation going” following each webinar, by submitting additional thoughts and views through the Department’s Have Your Say online consultation forum, open until 10 June 2021. The webinars were independent of Australian Government processes and views. In addition the feedback provided in this form is also independent of Australian Government processes and views.

234238239240241242243244245246248249250As the first in the series of Australian National Food Systems Summit Dialogues hosted by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the major focus of this webinar Growing Greener – food production and a healthy environment was to explore: • how sustainable food and fibre production can help meet the challenges of biodiversity loss, climate change, and an increasing population; • the need to produce more food with less environmental and natural resource impact; • investigate innovations and technology for environmental sustainability, including the role of market-based approaches for valuing environmental services and natural resources. We were pleased to have the participation of the following panellists to lead discussion: • Fiona Simson, President, National Farmers Federation, Farmer and Board Director • Professor Richard Eckard, Professor of Sustainable Agriculture and Director of the Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, University of Melbourne • Professor Andrew McIntosh, Associate Dean (Research) at the ANU College of Law; environmental law and policy scholar, Australian National University • Melinee Leather, Owner/Manager, Leather Cattle Company235238239240241242243244245246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. Three expert panellists explored the webinar themes outlined previously by delivering short presentations to webinar participants. Key messages highlighted during these presentations included: • The important role of industry frameworks, metrics and roadmaps for delivering sustainable agricultural industry growth in Australia out to 2030 – at the industry, commodity and individual farmer level. • Australian farmers and other agricultural stakeholders are already employing practices and innovations to deliver good natural resource management and sustainability outcomes – including relating to emissions reduction and soils monitoring and management. • It can be important to consider the relationship between affordable and environmentally sustainable food production and the structure and role of global food distribution networks when thinking about how to give effect to Sustainable Development Goal 2 – Zero Hunger. • The importance of exploring and promoting “co-benefits” when incentivising more sustainable agricultural production practices (i.e soil carbon may offer benefits in terms of trading and market return, but also improves biodiversity and productivity). • There have been many elements to historical and contemporary agri-enviro policy in Australia – which has sought to incentivise sustainable agriculture practices and protect the natural resource base. This includes the use of information instruments and extension services, direct regulation and use of grant-based schemes. • While there is a continued need for all of these into the future, currently, there is an emerging focus on environmental markets and their potential for integrating conservation measures in a way that compliments agricultural production and provides new revenue streams for agricultural producers. This may include payment for ecosystem services such as carbon and biodiversity. A special-feature webinar panellist gave a short presentation on practices they employ within their cattle farming business to deliver environmental sustainability outcomes including: • innovative use of digital mapping technologies to measure land health; • crop rotations and vegetation management; • introduction of Leucaena and other legumes to increase water infiltration and and reduce GHG emissions; • diverse tree plantings and revegetation to encourage biodiversity; • carbon accounting systems; • use of solar energy; and undertaking other biosecurity activities. The question and answer session was wide-ranging reflecting strong stakeholder engagement and interest. Some key thematic elements of the discussion related to: • the characteristics of a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet; • state/federal government interactions and responsibilities in the agri-environmental sector; • transaction costs involved in measuring ecosystem services; • indigenous plant varieties and the role of traditional knowledges; • consumer behaviour and the role of supermarkets; • urban sprawl and the potential impact on agricultural land; • diversified cropping and farming models and biodiversity conservation; • innovations in fruit and vegetable production and incentivising their increased consumption; • incentivising the uptake of national market-based sustainability schemes; • land-clearing practices; • potential for renewable energy generation on agricultural land.236238239240241242243244245246248249This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted – there were a number of additional high-level key messages emerging during the dialogue discussion, including: • Given the diversity of agricultural business models and within the Australian natural environment, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing challenges in Australian food systems, including those related to environmental sustainability. It was acknowledged that solutions should be appropriate for the local context and science-based. • There is a need for farmers and producers to be provided with accurate and adequate data, information and technology to enable them to make informed decisions appropriate to their business and context. This can be complemented with a range of appropriate agri-environmental policy measures, including information services and extension, regulations, grant-based schemes and environmental markets. • Australian producers and other stakeholders employ and are developing a wide range of policies, programs and initiatives to support and incentivise sustainable agriculture production, build biodiversity and improve climate resilience. This includes individual farmers and agricultural industries (including Beef and Dairy sectors) which promote uptake of practices to deliver positive environmental impacts and are working towards carbon neutrality. • There is a need to ensure that innovations, solutions, and research are designed with the needs of end-users (i.e. farmers/producers and other stakeholders) in mind and that successful practices and implementations can be effectively and appropriately communicated to farmers/producers. A focus on collaboration across scales and levels (local, national, regional and global) will be important. • It is important to emphasise and better communicate the “co-benefits” of sustainable farming practices to promote wider update and adoption. For example, measuring soil carbon can be used for carbon trading and offer potential additional revenue streams, but can also deliver improved biodiversity, greater water retention, greater nutrient recycling and greater nitrogen mineralisation. • Environmental markets and payments for ecosystem services are an emerging feature of Australia’s environmental and agricultural policy landscape. They may offer an effective mechanism to promote improved conservation, biodiversity and sustainability outcomes and should be considered in conjunction with improved information, regulation, and grants-based mechanisms. • There is significant value for producers and consumers in comprehensive and clear industry sustainability frameworks and targets. • There may be opportunities for the agricultural sector to contribute towards environmental sustainability outcomes through renewable energy generation, including by integrating wind and solar on grazing lands.237238239240241242243244245246248249This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the key messages already detailed there were a number of issues discussed which may have signified a divergence of views, including: • Consideration as to how externalities associated with food production (i.e. social and environmental) can be more accurately reflected in food pricing and via existing market mechanisms. It was suggested that “cheap food” may not be “better food” and that consumers can be empowered to factor factors beyond price (such as sustainable agriculture production) into their consumption decision-making. • Exploration of animal-sourced and plant-sourced foods, particularly as it relates to the environmental impact of the livestock sector, dietary choices and the consumption of adequate protein for human nutrition. It was suggested that there is a need for a balanced, evidence-based and context-specific approach which recognises the complementarity of animal and plant production systems, opportunities for sustainable utilisation of rangelands and the role of animal and plant proteins in a balanced, nutritious diet. It was also highlighted that agricultural innovations and technologies will be important to further improve environmental sustainability (i.e. reducing methane in livestock) and helping to boost global food security. • Decision-makers need to carefully consider and assess policy options in order to optimise the return from scarce resources that can be allocated for conservation while ensuring equity and appropriate incentivisation. Initiatives or programmes seeking to promote uptake of innovative or sustainable practices should not inadvertently penalise farmers already “doing the right thing” (i.e. through additionality requirements). • Rather than focusing on sustainably intensifying food production as a means to meet global food needs, global food distribution networks and food loss and waste issues also need to be considered. • There may be high transaction costs for farmers to enter into and participate in environmental markets, and market complexity is currently a major barrier to their widespread uptake. There is a need to develop and use auditing/assessment procedures which provide integrity, but at a lower financial impost. Farmers will need to be provided with sufficient information to participate in these emerging markets, and there will be a need for adequate information and extension services. • Consideration of the role of consumer choice and supply chains in encouraging consumption that can reward farmers and producers for their sustainable practices. Producers and other stakeholders in the supply-chain already aim to adapt and respond to consumer expectations and demand – but this can be further strengthened. • There is a need for more systemic and holistic approaches to address issues such as land-clearing to ensure the appropriate balancing of social, economic and environmental considerations. This may include clarifying differences in between “regrowth” and “remnant” vegetation and ensuring that decisions are science-based, and achieve the desired natural resource management outcomes (i.e. biodiversity and habitat preservation, biosecurity pest concerns, soil degradation).

2021-06-11 07:03:54260https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11735/6999117121129140142157168183188197

7386132107742334954

The Blue Pacific Food Systems Dialogue set out to connect the diverse voices, stories and science that connect our Blue Pacific Food System. As an intergovernmental dialogue, it brought together the knowledge and experience of 22 countries in the Pacific region. It recognised complexity by taking a systems perspective from the outset, and was designed to include interconnected perpsectives from health, agriculture, fisheries, water, climate change, trade, livelihoods, gender and youth sectoral approaches. The dialogue was culturally grounded using Pacific oral methods including storytelling, talanoa, and open, inclusive discussion. Facilitation was provided by a diverse coalition of actors from Pacific regional organizations, UN agencies and civil society.Conducting a pre-dialogue webinar and developing an evidence brief was an effective tool to ensure that all participants were on the same page when they joined.

NoThe Blue Pacific Food Systems Dialogue set out to connect the diverse voices, stories and science that connect our Blue Pacific Food System. As an intergovernmental dialogue, it brought together the knowledge and experience of 22 countries. The Dialogue has offered an opportunity to explore the opportunities and challenges facing the region in the coming decade and reflect on the “game changing solutions” needed to achieve the SDGs in the region. The Dialogue was convened by the Minister for Health for the Kingdom of Tonga, the Honourable Amelia Afuha’amango Tuipulotu, and curated by Karen Mapusua, Director of the Land Resources Division, SPC. Facilitation was provided by a diverse coalition of staff from Pacific regional organizations, UN agencies and civil society. Invites were distributed through national and sectoral focal points, civil society and food system actor networks. The regional dialogue was intended to complement the national dialogues that are underway in the region. The Dialogue was conducted over 2.5 hours using Zoom, with interpretation in English and French. The curation included three major components: 1. Session 1: Short stories stimulate discussion on each of the action tracks. Five diverse actors within the food system gave a 3-minute response to the question: What are the big opportunities for this action track for the future of the Blue Pacific food system? 2. Session 2: Facilitated breakout groups organised by action track, as well as a special topic on atoll food systems. Each of the 15 parallel breakout groups had 3-6 participants, and followed a standardised approach. Each facilitator had the same questions to ask the breakout groups. A special action track on atolls was also organised. 3. Session 3: Panel question and answer on Blue Pacific Food Systems diverse perspectives. The panel included stakeholders from government, civil society, and multilateral agencies. The event closed with a reflection of emerging themes from the different break-out groups, based on a rapid sense-making session guided by the curator and facilitators. The event also had a graphic illustrator to document the process and results. Before the Dialogue, to build momentum and shared understanding, we hosted a public webinar that used story-telling and expert input to build food systems understanding and interest. To complement this webinar, we collected existing evidence of issues and challenges and published it in an Evidence Brief for the Pacific region and partners. These activities paved the way for the interactive dialogue.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251The Blue Pacific Food System dialogue was an intergovernmental dialogue, bringing a unique regional Food Systems perspective to the global dialogue process. The Blue Pacific encompasses the interconnected land, aquatic, coastal and oceanic systems that support subsistence, livelihoods, commercial enterprise and economic development of the region, grounded in the culture, knowledge and the traditions and practices of its people. The dialogue gathered perspectives on multiple food systems dimensions, from agriculture to fisheries, health, ecosystems, economics, and the inseparable connection between food and Pacific culture, knowledge and technology. The dialogue celebrated the unique contribution of the Pacific’s land and oceans to the global food system, while also addressing the challenges facing the region, including urgent attention to the existential threat that climate change poses to the regional food system. Agriculture and fisheries are central to Pacific livelihoods and economies. Between 50-70% of Pacific peoples depend on agriculture or associated activities for their livelihoods. Coastal fisheries provide a primary or secondary source of income for up to 50% of households. Freshwater resources are varied, with future scarcity posing a food security risk. Pacific countries have a significant trade deficit and increasing dependence on imported food. The Pacific, as a whole, is not on track to achieve SDG2. Health outcomes are an increasing challenge, with some of the highest rates of non-communicable diseases in the world, and mal and under nutrition is persistent in some countries. C The focus leveraged from the evidence brief produced for the Dialogue in April 2021 set the context of our Dialogue for each Summit Action Track as follows: • AT1 Ensure safe and nutritional food for all: Traditional nutrition-rich Pacific diets have eroded. Trade systems, while enhancing access to diverse food and facilitating economic growth and prosperity, have also created food environments that lead to negative health outcomes, contributing to an NCD crisis in Pacific countries. The large geographic area and small populations create challenges for food distribution. Climate change and energy shocks create vulnerabilities in the food supply. • AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. The sustainability of international food value chains impacts the Pacific’s ability to source sustainable food. There are high levels of non-communicable diseases, which are one of the leading causes of premature death. Several PICTs (Pacific Islands Countries and Territories) are among the top 10 countries in the world with the highest rates of diabetes.Convenience foods are overpackaged and contribute to increasing waste problems. • AT3: Boost nature positive production: Agroforestry and integrated small-scale systems are common in Pacific Island countries. Land has been cleared for food and cash commodities, causing biodiversity loss, soil erosion and water pollution. Ridge-to-Reef initiatives link coastal areas with agricultural production systems. • AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods: Poverty and inequality are growing in in the Pacific, and this influences the food security of different socio-economic groups. Family-based approaches to farming and community- based approaches to managing fisheries are widespread. Women play a critical role in household nutrition and food security and income, but their contribution is not always recognised or supported. • AT5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress. ‘Slow shocks’ are occurring – such as water quality and availability, soil degradation, NCDs and poverty. ‘Extreme and cumulative shocks’ are also occurring – such as economic, COVID-19, and the increasing frequency and impact of hazards, including of cyclones, flooding events, drought and salinity. This is in addition to existing variability from drivers including El Niño and La Niña. The Dialogue also had incorporated a special focus on atoll countries and communities, that face unique challenges in relation to freshavailability, soil health and the impacts of climate change.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251The main findings from the synthesis of plenary and breakout groups from this Dialogue are: 1. The Pacific Ocean – the largest in the world – plays a critical role in the global food system. The global community has a stake in contributing to it’s sustainable management. Pacific countries have deep knowledge and strong governance systems for the sustainable stewardship of ocean resources. However, further global investment is required in the science, governance and management of this invaluable shared resource in the face of climate change and increasing pressure on fisheries, requiring global community attention. 2. Pacific knowledge and technology (including traditional and indigenous knowledge) is widely used in farming and fisheries and provides a global lever for moving towards localised solutions to food systems. Future food interventions could better leverage traditional and Indigenous knowledge in combination with novel science and technology. Innovative food interventions can use a blend of traditional knowledge with emerging science, social science, policy, business, and technology initiatives. 3. Agriculture and fisheries can be transformed through augmenting sustainable management practices, such as agroecology, regenerative farming and community-based fisheries management. There are opportunities to further integrate agriculture, coastal fisheries, aquaculture and water management through circular, ecosystem-based approaches to support blue-green economies. Innovations in land and sea production include must include local communities, and technology implementation has to be place-based and co-developed with communities and users. 4. Pacific health, livelihoods and food systems outcomes are heavily influenced by global trade systems and local food environments, impacting overall food and nutrition security. A combination of improved food governance, education programs, and incentives for sustainable and healthy food can help transition diets. Investment is also needed in food safety infrastructure and legislation to facilitate access of Pacific food producers to markets. 5. Innovative investment and financing are needed to support the resilience of Pacific Food Systems in the face of shocks and climate change including innovation in payments for ecosystems services. There is a need for investment in regional public goods, including biosecurity, nutrition centred disaster preparedness and response, and insurance. Barriers to climate finance mechanisms in the Pacific need to be addressed and ensure that vulnerable households are better enabled to anticipate, plan and rapidly recover from shocks. 6. Evidence based decision making for disaster management, food security, nutritional composition and agricultural and fisheries monitoring can revolutionise food systems. Robust data collection and management platforms need to understand the behaviour of the food system and support decision making.236238240243244246248249Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all The groups identified the following areas needed to achieve impact: 1. Leveraging Pacific knowledge and governance approaches to support equitable food systems. Food production must be supported by coherent governance and institutional frameworks to oversee the sustainable production and supply of food. Lessons can be drawn from traditional governance of food systems resources, and the contemporary sustainable management of the Western and Central Pacific tuna fishery and Community Based Management systems. 2. Integrating production on land and sea to support sustainable, regenerative and circular value chains. Solutions include linking small-scale farming and home gardens with aquaculture and mariculture for diverse production and ensuring access to open pollinated varieties of seeds for home gardens and commercial production. Commercialisation of crops needs to be developed on more sustainable and resilient models. 3. Researching food systems to support quality data and evidence that is inclusive of Pacific islands peoples and that supports decision making. Data and evidence are needed to support monitoring of nutritious food availability, consumption patterns, and market information, as well as to support better decisions, early warning and action. 4. Supporting the consumption of traditional and nutritious foods. Traditional island foods play an important role in healthy diets in the Pacific. This is an opportunity to link traditional diets with consumption. Divergence requiring further attention. 1. Nutritious food also needs to be part of disaster response and recovery. Food relief following a disaster is often based on white rice. While non-perishables form an important part of immediate response, options for traditional and innovative preservation (transformation and packaging) of local crops such as taro, yam, banana and breadfruit could be explored. 2. There was little to no discussion on the role of poverty and climate induced poverty as a trigger of food security.236239243246249250251Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns The groups identified the following areas needed to achieve impact: 1. Educating current and future generations can have transformative health outcomes. Targeting youth can help save the future people of the Pacific – it can be a leverage point to reduce the NCD crisis. The gendered nature of learning must be embedded into education strategies. 2. Working with governance, trade and taxation systems to establish healthy food environments. This is an environment where adequate and nutritious food is available at an affordable price. Both regional and international mechanisms need to support these healthy environments. Investing in traditional food preservation can spur innovation and local businesses, as well as act as a response measure for building community resilience.236240244245247248249251Action Track 3: Boost Nature-Positive production The groups identified the following areas needed to achieve impact: 1. Securing soil, food, and water resources in an integrated way is core to building future resilience. 2. Food production must amplify traditional, organic, agroecological, and regenerative practices and focus on low-input and low impact farming methods. 3. The circularity between land and sea systems needs to be understood as an integrated and complementary contributor to food security. 4. Gender-responsive adaptation needs to be embedded into short and long-term climate change strategies across all food sectors, rather than just agriculture and fishing. Women and girls need to be recognised as champions in transitioning and driving resilient farming practices. However, womens’ roles and contributions are hidden in the data as subsistence agriculture and fisheries are poorly monitored. This must change. 5. Blending traditional knowledge with science advances presents a unique opportunity in the Pacific. Increasing mobile data coverage, for example, with strong traditional land and resource management systems, can lead to innovative value chain and food monitoring systems. Areas of divergence requiring further attention 6. Socialising the language of food systems and finding local words for systems thinking is important – these can be embedded in different agriculture, fisheries and health programmes. 7. Globally, and in the region, the role of oceans, fisheries and health needs to take a more prominent place in food systems discussions to avoid reverting to a discussion limited to agriculture alone.236241243245246247249251Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods The groups identified the following areas needed to achieve impact: 1. Supporting and improving livelihoods needs to leverage traditional knowledge, scientific knowledge, value chains and markets in an inclusive and coherent way to support livelihoods for all. This includes engaging youth in food system opportunities as a way to expand Pacific knowledge and technology and create opportunities for future generations to develop food markets. 2. Gendered roles in livelihood production need to be addressed. Women and girls often play hidden or under-valued roles in food value chains and are affected differently. Supporting women and gender equity remains core to equitable livelihoods. 3. Food systems strategies need to draw from and link to existing national level sector plans that already have a focus on different parts of the food system. 4. Addressing the differences between urban and rural food system needs and opportunities is important as poverty, livelihoods and food systems are differentiated throughout the region. 5. A focus on the family unit in urban and rural settings is important given how important family is to food production and consumption in the Pacific.236238242243244245246247248249250251Action Track 5 : Build Resilience to vulnerability, shocks and stress The groups identified the following areas needed to achieve impact: 1. Financing is needed to address the Pacific’s unique vulnerabilities. The countries are isolated, are increasingly affected by climate change, and have many underlying vulnerabilities in their systems. Pacific states and territories are currently under-represented amongst recipients of climate related development funding. 2. Biosecurity systems at national and regional levels need strengthening. The introduction of pests and diseases to the Pacific’s unique ecosystems can be devastating to crops, marine species and livelihoods. 3. Early warning systems and integrated multi-sectoral monitoring and reporting systems need to be in place to facilitate timely responses and informed decision-making. 4. Investment in better adapting hazard early warning systems such as satellite-based systems is needed in the Pacific SIDS context where precise geographical accuracy is vital. 5. Increased adoption of anticipatory actions can greatly reduce the cost of humanitarian responses and ensure governments and vulnerable households are better enabled to anticipate, plan and rapidly recover from shocks. 6. Rediscovering both traditional farming skills, production and preservation systems and local crop varieties and biodiversity, especially breadfruit and taro, can support resilience This includes using science to build resilience and advance traditional preservation, replication, cultivation and genetics, including in practices such as agroforestry and organic farming that can help build resilience into farming systems. 7. Strengthening integration of water and livestock management systems in farming systems offers opportunities for policy and science innovation. 8. Data on climate stressors is important to improve anticipatory action. This needs to be supported by the use of early-warning systems and increased investment in hazard mapping and forecasting. 9. Climate risk financing approaches, including Forecast based Financing (FbF) and climate risk insurance, needs to be more widely used in order to increase resilience. 10. Local solutions must be scaled through diverse partnerships including scientists, private sector actors, fisher and farmer groups and citizens, to support common challenges including crop production, food waste and packaging reduction and traditional ways of preparing and sharing food.236238240242243244245247248249Atoll countries and communites Atolls, and atoll countries, have unique food systems challenges and therefore warranted a specific focus within the regional dialogue in the form of a special breakout group. The Blue Pacific continent is home to four atoll countries (Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Tokelau and Tuvalu), with significant populations living on atolls in other nations such as Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. Atoll communities, living on land that rises to only an average of two meters above sea level, have been sustainably managing fragile food systems for generations. These same communities are now facing the existential threat of climate change, along with other drivers of change that threaten their health, food and water resources. • Atoll food systems, and nutrition outcomes, are vulnerable to external drivers such as climate change and international trade. • Sustaining the natural resource base is crucial for the future of atolls - freshwater is scarce, genetic diversity is low and coastal inundation is impacting limited agricultural systems. Innovative atoll solutions that focus on water, climate, and food linkages and their impact on livelihoods are needed. • Urbanization is intensifying in atolls, which have some of the highest urban densities in the world. Limited land in the future means that movement of people within and beyond nations will pose sovereignty and security risks. • Identifying strategies for household nutritious food preparation and consumption is needed.237238239240242244246247249250While the Dialogue had overall agreement around the big thematic topics in Section A of this form, there were some specific areas of divergence. These are part of larger discussions and issues in the region and require ongoing management to support food systems change. One topic that is contested in the region is land tenure and land rights. The Pacific region has 22 countries all with different land governance systems, so land discussions need to be contextual, and place based. There are trade-offs between customary approaches to land tenure and globalisation and liberalisation of food markets and exports. Our Dialogue raised topics that differ from the overall UN Summit, such as strong ocean and fisheries governance, and blended traditional and scientific approaches to food systems. Importantly, the Pacific has a unique context in its inseparable connection between land and marine systems and shared contributors to livelihoods and identity. The Pacific is balancing the governance and management of a global asset (the ocean and its resources, such as tuna) with the local realities of poverty, food insecurity, and climate change. The geographical size of countries and their isolation makes them unique in the global context. Atoll countries and communities also have divergent issues to the larger mountainous Pacific countries. Atolls have very limited freshwater, poor quality soils, and are heavily dependent on food imports. They require unique solutions that deal with increasing salinity intrusion, limited food availability, and limited water supply.

https://www.spc.int/updates/blog/2021/05/blue-pacific-food-dialogue-works-toward-global-impacthttps://www.spc.int/updates/blog/2021/05/pacific-contributes-to-un-food-system-summithttps://www.spc.int/updates/news/media-release/2021/05/pacific-food-systems-dialogue-to-help-advance-global-summit

2021-06-11 07:16:40205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18887/18

73737272304124905107301101110006215114016

• Provided the Principles as pre-reading to all participants • The Curator included them in the Dialogue Introduction • The facilitators were briefed on the Principles in their training and ensured they were adhered to during the small discussion groups • The dialogue has ethical approval from the CSIRO Human Research Ethics Committee• The dialogues reflected the Principles very well. • All participants entered the dialogues with a commitment to the Summit and represented and embraced inclusivity. The presentations and conversations were open, respectful and rich in content, depth and understanding of food systems. This was due in part to the trust that was promoted and built over the dialogue process of planning and implementation. • The dialogue discussion recognised the complexity of the food system and included all elements in their discussion. It provided an opportunity for multistakeholder and inclusive feedback on the draft Vision for an Australian Food System. • Positive feedback provided by the dialogue participants highlighted the Principles in action. • Plenary session with four expert speaker presentations (5 mins each) discussing: o Evidence and Vision, with the vision being: Ensuring Australian food production is sustainable and resilient and our food chains deliver healthy, affordable and accessible food to consumers – whilst also reducing waste o Health/nutrition o Farming o Food processing • Discussion Session (1 hour) when discussions took place in smaller breakout groups (6-10 people in each group). Each group had a facilitator and scribe. We integrated the following perspectives of demand (consumers), supply (production/processing/retail) and integrative policy (regulation) when considering the food system themes, with key areas for discussion being: o Any additions or changes to the vision for Australian food system laid out in the plenary? o What science, innovation and actions are most critical to deliver this vision? o What are the key barriers to overcome and enablers needed to fast track delivery of these actions? o What should our priorities be? o Who will need to be involved? o What are the tensions we have identified and how can we manage them? • Summary Session. In the first part of this section, facilitators provided a summary of the discussion in their groups (2 mins each). In the second part of the summary session, a critical thinkers panel (5 mins eachNo

NoWe used a very similar method to that outlined in the Convenors Reference Manual. Our Dialogue event was a 2.5 hour virtual event featuring three core elements: 1) Plenary session with four expert speaker presentations (5 mins each) discussing: - Evidence and Vision, with the vision being: "Ensuring Australian food production is sustainable and resilient and our food chains deliver healthy, affordable and accessible food to consumers – whilst also reducing waste" - Health/nutrition - Farming - Food processing 2) Discussion Session (1 hour) when discussions took place in smaller breakout groups (6-10 people in each group). Each group had a facilitator and scribe. We integrated the following perspectives of demand (consumers), supply (production/processing/retail) and integrative policy (regulation) when considering the food system themes, with key areas for discussion being: - Any additions or changes to the vision for Australian food system laid out in the plenary? - What science, innovation and actions are most critical to deliver this vision? - What are the key barriers to overcome and enablers needed to fast track delivery of these actions? - What should our priorities be? - Who will need to be involved? - What are the tensions we have identified and how can we manage them? 3) Summary Session. In the first part of this section, facilitators provided a summary of the discussion in their groups (2 mins each). In the second part of the summary session, a critical thinkers panel (5 mins each) provided an integrative summary prompted by the below questions: - What did you hear (vision, actions, priorities)? - Was there anything missing from the conversation? - Using the integrative framing of the grower, maker, seller, eater, regulator – what action priorities do you think are critically needed to drive change towards a sustainable Australian Food System in 2030?

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The CSIRO-led Dialogue facilitated dynamic exchange among a diverse set food system stakeholders across science, policy, food industry, community and implementation, bringing a range of perspectives at a range of scales. The dialogue discussed an Australian sustainable food system vision of “Ensuring Australian food production is sustainable and resilient and our food chains deliver healthy, affordable and accessible food to consumers – whilst also reducing waste” - using integrative system framing of grower, maker, seller, eater, regulator - and the science and innovation needed to address the questions: • What should sustainable Australian food systems in 2030 look like? • How can Australian food producers, processors, policy makers and consumers best contribute to a more sustainable food system? • What actions are needed to achieve shifts in consumption, accessibility, affordability and sustainable production, so that no one is left behind? • How can we speed up change towards developing fair, safe and sustainable supply chains ensuring a responsible use of natural resources and a reduction of food loss and waste, making sustainability the easy choice for consumers? • What Australian agriculture and food policies are needed to promote the production of affordable nutritious, sustainably produced food while remunerating fairly all farmers and food workers? The overall themes of the Dialogue were applying science and innovation to support: 1. Healthy food availability, affordability and consumption 2. Aligning food production with recommended consumption 3. Reducing Noncommunicable diseases, overweight and obesity 4. Environmentally sustainable food production systems that are resilient to climate extremes 5. Ensuring socially equitable and inclusive food systems 6. Establishing new enabling mechanisms and policies and structures 7. Reducing food loss and waste235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO or the Australian Government. - It is time to reassess our values and desired outcomes for our food systems. To do this will require societal conversations to develop a shared vision of more sustainable Australian food systems, recognising there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Solutions will need to be evidence-based, locally appropriate and consider complex trade-offs and shifts in power dynamics to achieve a food system transition. - We need to significantly improve food system governance so it delivers for all food system stakeholders. Mechanisms suggested are developing a representative national food governance body to coordinate research and policy and develop a national food system strategy (currently lacking) that can level the playing field between public good interests (health, livelihoods, environment) with private interests and ensure everyone in the food system has a voice. - The food regulatory system needs reform, so it functions better, for example improving the Health Star rating to become more effective at helping consumers make choices. The science and innovation needed to transform our food systems is already there – it is the implementation through governance, policy, education and political will at all levels around the world, that is lacking. - Australia, like most other countries, has a critical structural food system problem, and a need exists for greater systems thinking to overcome the existing siloes across research and food system elements, including retail, and deliver a holistic systems-based approach. - Agriculture needs to be recognised as part of the solution and not just the source of food system problems. It is responsible for about 2% GDP, 11% exports, 2-3% employment and provides a strong lever for action. Farmers have felt outcast in health and sustainability discussions. - Farming needs to be economically viable in Australia and adopt an intergenerational land management vision, which includes a portion of farm incomes coming from stewardship, environmental services payments and renewable energy farming. - The successful deployment of science and technology solutions depends on understanding the social and cultural contexts in which they must operate and finding ways to reduce social and cultural barriers to adoption and enable the behavioural change needed to transform our food system. Research is not being sufficiently utilised and we need better ways to co-create research, apply it in practice, and introduce it into public discourse to inform policy. - Parts of Australia have limited access to new technology, ideas, public extension and learning. This lack of investment in extension, co-created knowledge exchange mechanisms, dialogue and coordination between sectors has resulted in duplication of effort. Better collaboration between researchers and farmers / communities, with greater participatory research will lead to more effective impacts. - Australia must continue researching and applying practices that sustain and regenerate our environment and our soil ensuring the food system is good for the planet and human health and produces nutrient density from soil health. Poor communication has polluted the national public discourse on food, health, agriculture and environment and there is urgent need to reframe narratives around food and our food systems (now we have everyone’s attention after covid-driven empty shelves) so it has urgency but also provides positive solutions needed for improved food systems that deliver the triple challenges. - Policy priorities are currently focused on GDP and economic interests, rather than public good impacts of the food systems such as health and the environment. Changes to the food regulatory environment are required (and there is good evidence to support this, tobacco industry as an example) – changes to supermarkets (availability and pricing of unhealthy foods), marketing to children, fiscal policies such as taxes on unhealthy foods. Enabling dietary guidelines and nutrition policy will need public will and strong government engagement/support to be effective. - We need to look beyond efficiency metrics when evaluating the performance of food systems and be able to include broader multiple impacts (education, research, health and great benefit to the community) with a similar approach used to measure effectiveness of policy. - Key barriers to a transformed food system include a separation of people from the environments that sustain them. There is a need to re-connect people to land, agriculture and their food using various modes of communication (art, film, music, events) to inform them of the latest science of environment and agriculture. It is critical to bring local and first nation people’s deep knowledge of land management, systems and native foods (placed-based learning) into our education and innovation systems. - Consideration is needed on how externalities associated with food production (i.e., social and environmental) can be more accurately reflected in true cost food pricing and via existing market mechanisms. It was suggested that “cheap food” may not be “better food” and that consumers can be empowered to value factors beyond price (such as sustainable production and health) into their decision-making, while protecting the least well off.236238239240241242243244246247248249250251This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO or the Australian Government. We need to transform our food systems the same way we are transforming our energy systems. We need nationally coordinated governance and research mechanism(s) that can bring together the multiple objectives of food systems (human and planetary health, equity, economic prosperity) to underpin multisector collaboration and cooperation. Acknowleding our current market-led approach to governing our food system, we must ensure all people in our food system - small farmers, small and medium sized food businesses, Indigenous peoples, civil society groups, consumers, experts, future generations, have their voices heard. We need a representative national food governance body that can coordinate research and policy and develop a national food system strategy that can level the playing field between public good interests (health, livelihoods, environment) with the private interests. That will require some major innovation in how we govern our food system, including for example, the establishment of a representative national food governance body and food policy processes that give everyone a voice. This could encompass: • establish a taskforce to look at where the gaps are to bring efforts together; • establish a national level Ministry for Food with a role to develop a comprehensive and unified national food and nutrition plan that provides a framework recognising the multiple objectives of food systems and ensures all food related activities are underpinned by the same goals and reduces the likelihood of policies and activities undermining each other; • maintain a collective action mechanism of sustainable food systems interests to create / maintain pressure and visibility. An atomised approach by individuals will not work. Let these dialogues be the start of this transformational movement.236238239240241242243246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO or the Australian Government. We need to improve communication and reframe the narrative around food and our food systems so it has urgency but also removes the divisive messaging between city and rural communities and provides a sense of hope that we can deliver the solutions needed for improved food systems that deliver the triple challenges. Currently our public discourse is often polluted by fear and ideology (for example, fossil fuels versus clean energy). We need a more coordinated and sophisticated approach to engagement and communication to advance sustainable and healthy diets and food production – that does not demonise some or polarise the debate, for example around plant and meat proteins. These are false dichotomies. We need memes to express the complexity of the food system. This would require substantial commitment from governmental communication agencies.236238239242243246247249251This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO or the Australian Government. We recognise the need to promote transparency, accountability and a level playing field for all actors in food systems. But there is currently a lack of political will at all levels to implement or invest in evidence-based actions and commercial interests drive decisions across the whole food system. We need to create mechanisms to achieve a level playing field where all voices have a seat at the table (modelled on the aims of the United Nations Food System Summit) including people and agencies representing public good interests of health, nutrition, livelihoods and environment, who currently have limited access to policy makers, decision makers and politicians. Policy and regulation are required to change the food environment so that consumers are supported to make healthy food choices. The current food environment encourages the consumption of discretionary foods in many ways including the convenience, pervasive availability, marketing and cheap cost of unhealthy food. Policy approaches for which there is strong public health evidence include reformulation, front of pack labelling, controlling the support and marketing of ultra-processed food particularly to children, product placement and fast food consumption (e.g., connected with sports), and fiscal policy such as a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. All fiscal policies must ensure that they do not increase inequities (e.g., ensuring no disproportional impacts to low income households). Treasury needs to be involved, for example. Improving food literacy can assist with making healthier choices. We need to resolve certain structural problems that make it difficult for consumers to realise healthier diets. Lack of food knowledge and upskilling is needed across all of society. Not everyone knows how to prepare healthy food and this needs to be resolved such that it is no longer a barrier to healthy food consumption. Addressing this through early childhood education can be an effective mechanism for change.236238239240241242246249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO or the Australian Government. There is a need for more systemic and holistic approaches to addressing food system issues to overcome the existing siloes across research and food system elements and deliver holistic systemic approaches like the ‘Farm to Fork’ initiatives. There exists lots of fragmented pieces of policy and research efforts. If we are going to drive a more sustainable agricultural economy, we will need greater coordination of research and policy coherence. All of which will require decisions that are evidence-based and consider multiple benefits and trade-offs.236239240242243244248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO or the Australian Government. Food waste must be approached in a similar manner to questions around healthier consumption. Circular food systems offer potential for recapturing of waste and turning it into a new stream of value-added product. Research is needed not only in developing new technologies that can repurpose waste, but to better understand the reasons for food waste, and the constraints faced in reducing food waste to better design circular systems that can achieve scale in collecting and processing waste for new uses.236239240241242243244246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO or the Australian Government. We need to foster responsible innovation of technologies to help transform the food system and provide greater transparency and accountability of actors and the positive and negative impacts of different technologies and practices. For example, applying technology to track production through supply chain (data on farm / production / processing / logistics) and using this knowledge through Decision Support Tools can help people produce and consume food more sustainably. Tools can be designed and adapted right along the value chain, in manner that is inclusive and user friendly, to bring producers, processors and consumers closer together.237238239240243244247248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions and does not necessarily represent the views of the CSIRO or the Australian Government. Clarification is needed on the roles of animal-sourced and plant-sourced foods, particularly as they relate to the environmental impact of the livestock sector, dietary choices and the consumption of adequate protein for human nutrition. It was suggested that there is a need for a balanced, evidence-based and context-specific approach which recognises the complementarity of animal and plant production systems, opportunities for sustainable utilisation of rangelands and the role of animal and plant proteins in a balanced, nutritious diet. It was also highlighted that agricultural innovations and technologies can, under certain conditions, improve environmental sustainability (i.e., reducing methane in livestock) and help to boost global food security. Red meat consumption – means different things in different places. Misinformation abounds with consumers on both meat and plant-based protein.

2021-06-11 07:39:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19670/203

4323567923412221110364613

A diverse group of keynote speakers with different backgrounds and geographies was invited. Each participant was given an opportunity to shared s/he views as per the topic of discussion and enough time was dedicated for Q&A.The dialogue respected the principle of complexity and embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. All participants declared their support and commitment to ensure the Summit’s vision is met.Yes, dialogue outcomes are meaningful when they respect multiple views. This can only be achieved if each participant is given the opportunity to express his or her mind. The process of inviting participants should be carefully planned and should embrace diversity.

Yes

234238240241242244245246247249251The dialogue focused on conceptualizing a rights-based approach through the identification of priorities for action that could strengthen the most vulnerable, safeguard the environment and ensure equitable Food Systems for the future.235241247249• Acknowledged the fact that Inequalities in food systems are complex issues underpins by poverty, beliefs, and climate change. It must be tackled by addresses the root causes which are more or less country-specific. • All rights are interconnected (human rights, natural rights, rights to a healthy and sustainable environment, etc) except for corporate rights which are frequently prioritized over the rights of people. We must move from theory to action by initiating practical pilot projects within our respective communities. • To further research, take concrete actions, and deepen our knowledge on how the rights of nature can be applied to promote sustainable agro-food systems. • A general call for the recognition and full implementation of the rights to food and the right to a healthy and sustainable environment as a catalyst to the transformation of food systems. • The need to view nature as a legal entity or person with inherent rights to exist, evolve, flourish and regenerate as well as the rights to restoration, recovery, and preservation.236238240241242244245246247249251Human rights advocacy: Recognition and full implementation of the right to food and right to a healthy and sustainable environment. Most participants acknowledged the fact that our current food system isn’t delivering on the human rights obligations to fulfill the right to adequate and nutritious food given the present millions of people still suffer from malnutrition and obesity globally. Our present food systems are causing incredible damage to the environment (increase GHG emissions, deforestation, water pollution, and the increased spread of infectious diseases). One of the powerful ways to achieving a just and equitable food systems transformation is through the implementation of the rights to adequate food. Earth-centered Law: Promote Ecocentric laws through influencing legislation on: • nature’s protection by giving legal status to particular plant species for the example The White Earth Band of Ojibwe -Wild Rice • as a tool to oppose the most destructive agricultural practices for example ecocides. Education, empowerment, capacity building, and training: Education was identified as a key component in achieving mindset transformation. • Align academic programs with SDGs and toward the country’s specific vision e.g flagship program on dryland agriculture offered by Lukenya University in Kenya. • Empower and build the capacity of small-scale farmers in agriculture ecosystem management, fortified youth into agribusiness, and climate-smart agriculture technologies. Policy advocacy: Guarantee and support the adoption of ambitious and stringent national policies that ensure inputs, finance, access to markets, and fair trade to reach the most vulnerable producers and consumers (women, indigenous people, persons living with disabilities, and young people). Agricultural Development: Food systems improvement pathways should be built on the basis that agriculture is a key component of global food and environmental sustainability as well as an essential part of the solution. Without agriculture, there is no food, so the assurance that all people have access to enough food starts with healthy and productive agriculture which is able to provide for both the well-being of producers and rural communities, as well as enough surplus for feeding the rest of society. Strategic Partnerships: Learn and collaborate with existing right-based across the globe. Fostering north-south and south-south cooperation that enables free technology transfer for agro-food development. Investment: Investing in the use of innovative technology that addresses cross-sectoral environmental challenges such as water scarcity, pollution, and droughts e.g RussKap’s Atmosphere Water Generators for drip irrigation and Insitu potable drinking water supply. Raise awareness: Carry out awareness campaigns on the potentiality of right-based approaches as a solution to the world’s greatest challenges.237238240241242244245246247249251Participants had diverged views on the kind of intervention that would best address inequalities in food systems. These views resonated around earth-centered legislations, policy, and rights advocacy, providing incentives, redefining academic curriculum, and empowering the most vulnerable.

2021-06-11 08:28:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16198/203

4053532091172328711448269131413149717981864545131216274791645211159316

• An open invitation was made to ensure a broad participation from diverse stakeholder groups apart from higher education, agriculture advisory services and research networks. • An experienced moderator was engaged to ensure free and orderly participation based on a comprehensive but flexible programme. • A plenary as well as breakout rooms were held to ensure maximum representation and participation of diverse groups including academic, research, policy, farmer groups, SMEs, among others.

Yes

234238240241242The focus of the event was to review existing food systems, emerging and future trends and to identify key actions and policies needed to strengthen the African higher education system, agricultural research and development towards an improved global food system that is inclusive and sustainable. During the discussion, there was a detailed exploration of: 1. Current and emerging food systems trends from the different regions of the world including perspectives from Africa, North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia and China; and, 2. Key actions for strengthening food systems transformation for increased productivity, inclusivity and resilience in line with UN Food Systems Action tracks 1, 3, 4 and 5.235238240241242243245246248249251• Africa has potential to feed the whole world if it puts in place structural, financial, policy and ST& I mechanisms to take advantage of the vast arable land (60% of the world’s arable land), fresh water resources and the young population • Emphasize sustainable systems encompassing all the three angles of sustainability (economic, social and environmental sustainability). This can be strengthened through transdisciplinary research approaches to find the most appropriate solutions to address foods. • Investment in international research and development is required in order to strengthen global foods systems by reinforcing partnerships for advanced research capacity; international development, supporting partnerships to build capacity and advance global science, greater student exchange and globally connected campuses. • There is a need for Governments to be better equipped to address food systems trends and disruptors such as urban growth, increasing population and changing market systems. Future market systems should be more inclusive, sustainable and resilient, more functional and having more social value by mainstreaming gender and youth. • E-agriculture is the future for improved sustainable agriculture and food security, information access to markets, better access to climate information and higher levels of inclusion in the agriculture and rural environments. • Emphasised the need to change the training approach to produce the required quality of agricultural professionals and make agriculture attractive to students as a profession. Agriculture training should foster transformative learning through elements such as entrepreneurship, ethics and care for nature. These values are key for developing agriculture leaders to support the transformation of future food systems. • Opportunities should be extended to economically disadvantaged students to acquire technical and scientific skills in agriculture. This will widen participation to transform food systems and uplift the welfare of families. • The need to redefine research agenda with emphasis on Climate, Conflict and COVID-19 (3Cs) in food security. • There is a need to recognize that agricultural extension, although important, is the weakest part of our agricultural systems. Currently, there is very low investment in rural advisory services. Government support is needed to facilitate access to agricultural services in remote areas. This will require institutional capacity building to empower farmers to take the lead and learn better from each other for example through farmer field schools; • There is a need for a change in the mindset and to develop and adopt digital advisory services. • For efficient advisory services, the different categories of farmers need to be considered and engage private sector. For the private sector, there is a need to; (a) develop commercially viable models; (b) foster development of digital services; and, (c) facilitate access to venture capital; • The approach to Rural Advisory Services should integrate pluralistic, private, digital, demand driven and accountability aspects; • To address non-technical aspects of agricultural research such as access to relevant knowledge, access to capital, secured land rights, infrastructure, and lack of appropriate policies or enforcement structural, financial and political factors, Governments must invest more in these structural, financial and political aspects.236238241242243244245246248249251a) Research and Innovation i. African agricultural systems need to adopt to the tripartite arrangement (Famers-universities-Private sector) which is has been seen to be effective in Burkina Faso being championed by the Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation-GFAR (https://www.gfar.net); ii. Gene editing is very important to Africa, as it will help in alleviating many challenges the continent faces. However, there are key issues to take into consideration: • Gene editing has to be discussed and debated before the UNFSS in October 2021, because of possible tension which may arise during the summit between the pro and those against; • Gene editing is not well understood, many are confusing it with GMO technology. Africa in general lacks sensitization of this technology (the Africans are caught in between the fight of USA and Europe who are advocating for biotechnology and agro-ecology respectively); and, • Africa maybe not well equipped for this because of insufficient funding. iii. Participatory approach is a possible intervention where farmer organisations are encouraged to team up with scientists and submit competitive proposals for funding. iv. Increase in public investment is required for research if significant progress is to be made; v. Political economy is very controversial, but there is need to understand why funding is not available in Africa in particular: • The Ministries of Finance in most African countries have indicated that food security is not a priority as captured in most their national development plans. A mind set change is needed in general; and, • There is limited government investment in agricultural transformation in many African countries and this has to change. • There are so many bottlenecks in Africa, which need to be addressed. vi. Universities need to mobilize themselves to bring practical approaches to food security. b) Re-Imaging Agricultural Rural Advisory Services in a dynamic global food system • There is a need to recognize that agricultural extension, although important, is the weakest part of our agricultural systems. Currently, there is very low investment in rural advisory services. Government support is needed to facilitate access to agricultural services in remote areas. This will require institutional capacity building to empower farmers to take the lead and learn better from each other for example through farmer field schools; • There is a need for a change in the mindset and to develop and adopt digital advisory services. • For efficient advisory services, the different categories of farmers need to be considered and engage private sector. For the private sector, there is a need to; (a) develop commercially viable models; (b) foster development of digital services; and, (c) facilitate access to venture capital; • The approach to Rural Advisory Services should integrate pluralistic, private, digital, demand driven and accountability aspects; • To address non-technical aspects of agricultural research such as access to relevant knowledge, access to capital, secured land rights, infrastructure, and lack of appropriate policies or enforcement structural, financial and political factors, Governments must invest more in these structural, financial and political aspects. c) Fostering global partnerships for collective response • Capitalise on the large number of scientists over 2000 in the AGRINATURA Network to form partnerships for research in food systems and exploit the best ways to change food systems by deploying specific skills sets; • Harnessing information from studies undertaken by AGRINATURA on trends technologies, conflicts and globalisations to strengthen food systems; • Need for intensified collaboration for knowledge creation; • Breakdown the complexity of food systems and make them understandable to common people. Higher education should focus on acquiring complementary skills and constantly innovate how we learn; • Emphasise International cooperation, translational approaches and multi-stakeholder platforms in research for development237245246249• Political economy is very controversial, but there is need to understand why funding is not available in Africa. In particular, the Ministries of Finance in most African countries have indicated that food security is not a priority as captured in their National Development Plans. A mind set change is needed in general that will demonstrate commitment to the targets set by the international and continental frameworks • Gene editing is not well understood as it is confused with GMO technology. Africa needs sensitization of these technologies.

2021-06-11 08:51:07205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21856/92

70440223412923142715131121133622714

Yes

234238239240241242247250251This dialogue focused on proposing goals and solutions for the challenges that Israel faces in adapting its animal-based food systems to meet the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, as posed during the first dialogue. The participants were divided into topic-based groups and asked to share their views on the measurable goals Israel should aim to reach. Four of the groups focused on specific types of animal-based food sources: 1) Livestock raised for meat 2) Poultry and eggs 3) Dairy 4) Fish and other kinds of seafood Three groups discussed general topics relevant to all animal-based foods: 1) Zoonotic diseases 2) Antimicrobial use 3) Animal welfare The last topic was alternative proteins, which is unique in the topic-based groups involved and focused on the challenges in the entry of the alternative protein sector into the Israeli and global markets and food systems by 2030. The alternative protein participants were asked to also share their views on the 2030 Local and Global Food Systems considering the incorporation of alternative proteins, while referring to: • The state of the alternative protein industry and infrastructure in Israel and its impact on the global food systems • Their views on Israel’s government's involvement • Their views on Israel’s academic arena addressing and influencing the food systems, locally and globally235238239241242250251One of the main conclusions drawn from the dialogues is that alongside cultural-driven consumption preferences for animal-based foods, there is a growing trend of semi-vegetarian consumerism due to consumer concerns. This is accompanied by a greater demand for transparency on the part of consumers regarding animal-based foods. However, critical information regarding zoonotic diseases, livestock and poultry feed and housing conditions, antimicrobial use, and animal husbandry conditions is not available to the relevant authorities, let alone the consumers. This information gap significantly hindered our ability to come up with goals during the dialogue. This information gap directly hinders the traceability of animal-based foods. Traceability is crucial for food safety: from farm to fork. It is therefore vital that the regulators - the ministries of agriculture, health, and environmental protection and local authorities - systematically collect information and supervise its accuracy and reliability. This requires appropriate regulation. There is a need to establish connections and strengthen existing ones between all relevant stakeholders and regulators, especially government bodies and professionals in the health, agriculture, and environmental protection fields – in order to share this information and act on it. There is a consensus as to the need to improve animal husbandry conditions, especially in the poultry industry. It is necessary to increase the regulatory threshold requirements for animal welfare, above minimum conditions. This also requires an official body that will professionally train people for the job, initially and periodically. In Israel, 80% of animal-based foods are imported. Most food importation, including that of livestock, is carried out by large companies. This concentrates wealth and power in the hands of monopoles and is detrimental to inclusive economic activity and growth and to local production. It is crucial to build up the local industry, and especially the small-scale producers. Also, it was agreed that food losses must be reduced throughout the production, processing, marketing, and consumption chain. Regarding the two issues unique to Israel which were raised in the previous dialogue – 1) religious dietary requirements and supervision; 2) the regulatory neglect and lack of supervision of livestock issues pertaining to the Arab minority: The costs involved in producing kosher meat are 15% higher than those involved in producing non-kosher meat. Therefore, the law grants privilege to kosher supervisors at the expense of the consumers. It was agreed that social aspects are involved to some extent in the Arab minority's resorting to illegal slaughter. Therefore, it is necessary to develop socially targeted solutions to this issue, which will complement regulation and enforcement. Alternative proteins, including plant-based foods and cultivated meat and milk, may contribute to closing the gap between the limited production capacity of animal-based foods in Israel (a small, densely populated country) and the growing need and demand for these foods. In addition, the animal food industry (especially the meat and dairy industries) has a large ecological footprint compared to alternatives in land use, water consumption, introduction of biological contaminants into groundwater, disease spread and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Alternative proteins and cultivated meat may also serve as an engine for global and national programs for food security, economic development, and carbon neutrality.2362382392402412422432442452462472482491) Zoonotic Diseases: a. It is necessary to create a warning system for infectious diseases, which will serve the ministries of agriculture, health, and environmental protection. b. It is necessary to prepare for disasters and mitigate their impact by monitoring wild animal and insects. c. Traceability is crucial – it is necessary to develop a system for tracing eggs and food products from farm to fork and a method of ranking henhouses, dairies, and slaughterhouses by sanitation and site quality. d. It is necessary to develop burial sites for carcasses and production excesses and find other uses for food designated for destruction, such as compost or food for zoo animals. e. Implementing microchips in farm animals should be considered. f. It is necessary to create accessible sites for testing game meat during hunting season. 2) Antibiotics: a. It is necessary to reduce the use of antimicrobials (AM) in livestock by 30% by 2030 and to eliminate the use of reserved AM and eliminate the use of AM to prevent diseases among livestock. b. It is necessary to create a database with information on the use of AM among animals and humans. The database should include a list of pathogens and AMRs (antimicrobial resistance). c. It is necessary to make reporting and registering AM use in livestock mandatory. d. The use of poultry litter and cattle manure to fertilize fields must be regulated regarding aspects of AM and AMRs. e. Research must be conducted on the quantities of AM used in Israel and on AMR mechanisms in Israel. f. Farmers should be incentivized to reduce the quantities of AM used. 3) Livestock: a. Food sovereignty –It is not possible to reach food sovereignty and meet current consumption patterns. b. Consumption – between the different opinions, there was an agreement of allowing the public to make more informed decisions, i.e, more transparency on health and environmental aspects (such as labeling). Regulators emphasized the need to provide. Other opinions referred setting specific goals to gradually reduce consumption, to 200 grams per capita per week, while increasing accessibility to plant-based protein and creativity in distributing it, as well as healthcare costs involved with high meat consumption. c. Alternative protein - there's a growing demand and growing need to encourage alternative protein consumption and subsidize research and development. d. Importation of live animals – the minimum agreement level was that this practice should not expand and should be humane and environmental. e. Kosher meat – it was agreed that there was a need for accurate figures regarding the scale of demand and the economic implications of kosher meat importation. f. Illegal slaughter- small slaughter facilities in areas where these are missing could mitigate some of the challenges raised. It was debated whether such applications have been filed. g. Different stakeholders referred to a need for regulation in regard to cattle rearing, with regard to animal welfare and planning/zoning.2362382392402412422432442452462472482494) Alternative Proteins: It is crucial to: a. Promote production for local consumption (and by thus decrease the dependency on imports and strengthen food security). Can be measured by: 1. Alternative protein percentage of market share 2. Production v/s imports balance 2020 compared with 2030 3. High productivity employment rate- number of jobs added in the alternative protein (academic and industry) b. Promote exports. Can be measured by: 1. Value/volume/share of finished goods 2. Value/volume/share of High throughput ingredients and machinery 3. Value/volume/share Proprietary knowledge c. Promote local expertise. Can be measured by: 1. Number (and percentage growth) new of startups in the field 2. Number (and percentage growth) mature startups in the field, passed to manufacturing and exporting phase 3. GDP per capita investments in the field YOY change d. Turn alternative protein production into a strategic diplomatic asset in the era of the climate and health crisis, a worldwide pilot and beta site and Basis for international cooperation. Can be measured by the number of multinationals interacting with local players and/or establishing their R&D/innovation centers in Israel. 5) Poultry and eggs: a. It is necessary to implement existing resolutions and regulations regarding public health. b. It is necessary to include environmental and public health factors in the requirements for raising poultry. c. R&D and technological solutions should be promoted – early-sex sorting, innovation in eggs meant for consumption, processes that will minimize the infection of poultry meat by disease vectors. 6) Dairy: a. It is necessary to produce accessible and healthy food for the population. b. It is necessary to promote the physical and social well being of livestock in the dairy industry. c. It is necessary to reduce dairy production's environmental footprint. d. It is necessary to minimize food wase throughout the production process. 7) Aquaculture: a. Israel has one of the highest fresh salmon consumption rates per capita, and consumption levels go up each year. The fresh salmon is flown in daily from Norway and its shelf life is shortened compared to shelf life in Norway, due to a faulty storage and cooling process in Israel. It is necessary to eliminate this consumption or find a local alternative. b. Increasing domestic production Vs growing Import c. Environmental concerns vs reasonable water treatment costs Fish that are not authorized or safe for human consumption could be used as source for fish meal\ biofuel or feed for animals. d. Internal regulation Algae sector is a growing industry with high potential, there isn't enough regulation or formal governmental support. Subsidizing skilled workers is essential for the continuation of the sector's development. The algae sector is a growing industry and should be considered as a VAT free sector. e. Alternative protein sources Israel is a great candidate to develop alternative protein sources, but major investments are required in order to keep the R&D and also the production. 8) Animal welfare: a. It is necessary to create sufficient regulation (by drafting secondary legislation), implement existing regulations, and transfer the authority over animal welfare to the Ministry of Environmental Protection. b. It is necessary to end the live livestock shipments and the illegal slaughter. c. It is necessary to implement mandatory labelling of animal products by the conditions in which the livestock was raised. d. It is necessary to regulate and standardize halal slaughter237238239241242244245246247248249In all production-branch focused topic groups, participants diverged on whether animal-based food consumption and production should be increased, reduced, or maintained at current levels. 1. Livestock a. Environmental aspects of the local industry (extensive and intensive). b. Production – Different approaches ranged between reducing consumption by 50% by 2030 to not setting any goal in this direction. Another approach was to stop rearing cattle locally altogether. c. Consumption – divergence whether there should be affirmative approach towards changing the general public's consumption patterns. d. Food policy regulation - Is the promotion of the national nutrition guidelines a matter for the Ministry of Health or should it be implemented in decisions of other regulators? Should there be an affirmative approach to change? It was also suggested to relate to red meat in the same manner as tobacco, and that environmental and healthcare externalities will be internalized by the industry/retailers (not the farmers). e. Kosher meat – extent of demand; whether changing the mandatory requirement to import kosher meat should a goal in itself; socialpolitical aspects of mandatory kosher meat importation requirement. f. Economic measures – ranged between removing regulation and imposing it. 2. Poultry and eggs a. Maintaining the current quota policy vs. a free economy – On the one hand, the argument was made that eggs are a "hard demand" and therefore prices going down will not lead to an increase in consumption. Cancelling the quotas may harm the livelihoods of hundreds of families in the north. On the other hand, maintaining quotas is detrimental to ensuring accessibility of food, some participants claimed. It should be noted that the quotas are granted to a very specific sector and promote inequality. b. Laying hens welfare – Some participants advocated a goal of 100% cage free hens by 2030 while others considered it unrealistic. Some even claimed that demanding unreasonable goals leads to stagnancy and lack of advance. c. Should consumption be expanded or reduced? 3. Dairy This topic group included a wide range of divergence, from participants advocating the total elimination of dairy products for animal welfare and environmental reasons, to those who advocated increasing consumption and claimed that environmental and animal welfare concerns can be properly dealt with.

2021-06-11 09:13:51205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8205/176

821041223151213211216131517521

The dialogue was broad and information was given on the principles before and during the meeting.It is very important to have an open discussion and provide opportunities for feedback.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250This second stage dialogue reinforced many of the findings of the first national dialogue and went more into depth regarding the vision statements provided there. It highlighted that many solutions are already in place on a local and regional level and that in fact, often government and government agencies are lagging behind. The dialogue presented innovative regional businesses as inspiration. It also highlighted some of the obstacles specific to sparsely populated areas with long distances. For details please see attachment.235Please see attachement236Please see attachement.237Please see attachement.

2021-06-11 09:26:53205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23800/145

0

To ensure inclusivity, we simplified the process in conducting the National Food Security Summit (NFSS). The NFSS was structured on a bottom-up participatory approach which constitutes a more rational means of evaluating alternatives and policies to be adopted for implementation. Discussions on agriculture and fisheries and on food security involved the cooperation, coordination and collaboration of the local government units (LGUs), the private sector and other stakeholders at the local and regional levels where the main contribution of the sector comes from. These activities constituted the Regional Food Security Summits, which were undertaken a month prior to the NFSS. Furthermore, to temper the possibility of an overly parochial orientation of regional summit outputs and ensure integrated and complementary perspectives, national level activities were conducted simultaneously. The results of which are being consolidated and integrated with the Regional Food Security Summit outputs. These include thematic consultations such as the conduct of commodity-specific National Banner Program Roundtable Discussions. The NFSS proper was undertaken through a two-day event with plenary sessions on the Philippine food security agenda and launched activities aligned with the forthcoming UN Food Systems Summit. The NFSS aimed to lay down the ground work and kick start rural development programs, especially those that target to ensure long-term food security through the crafting of a food security plan, which will contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs).For the NFSS proper, close to 2,000 participants attended the plenary sessions, and about 4,000 joined the discussions in the different sectoral breakout sessions that tackled the major banner program food commodities. The NFSS pre-summit activities were private sector-led multi-stakeholder processes that encompassed real, broad-based consultations with stakeholders. These totaled to 16 regional summits, garnering close to 4,000 participants representing local and regional level farmers and fisherfolk organizations; and approximately 400 national pre-summit participants from the agri-fishery industry, the academe, government agencies, the civil society groups, and other stakeholders. The expected output was designed to go beyond generalities. The policy/program recommendations suggest reasonable, attainable, and quantified targets and timelines, as well as accountable agencies, that promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Likewise, activities on ways forward following the NFSS were identified, to be cascaded to all the stakeholders to ensure transparency, promote trust and increase motivation for them to participate through evidence-based, accountable and accessible governance, decision-making, planning, engagement and implementation.Dialogue Convenors should ensure that the food systems dialogues truly engage all stakeholders in the food systems, including those who are not usually included in the discussions. Direct alignment with the principles and methodologies of engagement is of paramount importance. Observing the said principles will enable stakeholders to explore ideas together, encourage their creativity, and empower them to emerge as one but more powerfully through network connections that may be built in the process. Furthermore, a fully curated dialogue on food systems that take into consideration the said principles can come up with comprehensive actions, intentions and commitments of stakeholders working together and shaping national pathways that lead to sustainable food systems in line with the common aspirations towards achieving the SGDs.

Yes

234238241249250251The National Food Security Summit directly focused on major agriculture and fisheries commodities and relevant cross-cutting issues and concerns, e.g. trade, credit, extension services and others, by looking at recent as well as decades-old and persistent agricultural problems, from a different framework. Using key strategies under the “One DA Reform Agenda” of the Philippine Department of Agriculture as operational frameworks, key challenges, gaps and areas of improvement were analyzed to identify, formulate and recommend strategic critical interventions. The “One DA Reform Agenda” has 18 key strategies that aim to steer agri-fishery growth and transformation toward a modern and industrialized Philippine agriculture.235238245246249The following were the findings and conclusions of the 2021 Philippine National Food Security Summit: 1. While the agriculture and fisheries sector has remained resilient during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Philippines remains a laggard among its ASEAN neighbors in terms of achieving food security for its population, based on the Global Food Security Index. The government has been working towards raising the productivity and income of farmers (through the Masaganang Ani at Mataas na Kita mantra) but there is still a long way to go when it comes to attaining food security for the people. 2. In terms of measures, there are many accessible and available opportunities in the agriculture and fishery sector in which farm productivity can immediately be raised, farmers’ incomes are improved, and competitiveness is attained. However, the sector remains grossly underfunded, hence, stakeholders must come together to make a convincing case for the contribution of the sector to the economy and simultaneously develop commodity roadmaps that will attract investments from other sources. 3. The devolution of agriculture and fisheries development to the local government units distributes the accountability for rural agri-fishery development to the rest of government, instead of solely resting it on the hands of the Department of Agriculture. 4. The modern subsector of progressive farmers and corporate farms can lead the way toward achievable goals. If those involved in the development of the sector act cohesively, the Philippines may be able to keep up, if not surpass, the food security level of its ASEAN neighbors. The efforts of the government and the farmers, however, need to go hand in hand with significant investments from the private sector to modernize and move the sector forward. 5. The private sector must realize that upholding national interest and inclusive business models are sustainable pathways to increased profitability. They must be encouraged to include the protection of small farmers and fisherfolk and the supply chains in their corporate social responsibility portfolios. 6. Lastly, this summit envisions farmers and fisherfolk to ultimately seek their prosperity through cohesiveness and ability to be players in the evolving value chains for various commodities, where most margins are generated. Civil society and government should also strive to deliberately support inclusion of small farmers and fisherfolk in the value chains as we go beyond simply increasing yield but more towards value-adding.236238239241242244245246248249250251Rice It was agreed that a diverse set of strategies should be developed, such as soil nutrient management to increase productivity, marketing policies like the imposition of suggested farmgate price, tapping water for irrigation through hydrogeological profiling of possible sources, promoting more active private sector participation in the hybrid rice program to ensure sustainability and seed availability, and the adoption of proven technologies for a more sustainable rice production, among others.236238239241242244245246248249250251Livestock and Corn Top priority were strategies that will revive the livestock industry from the onslaught of African Swine Fever (ASF) were through repopulation and ASF control and prevention programs. Other strategies include increasing productivity through local AI technologies, easy access to production data and market information to be made available online, the establishment of biosecurity facilities like Agriculture Commodity Examination Area as first border inspection facility; and the passage of the long overdue Land Use Act to provide basis for balanced approach in land use planning, management and implementation of livestock farms and facilities.236238239241242244245246248249250251Dairy Apart from genetic improvement and related technologies, top priority includes expansion of the implementation of the National Dairy Authority Buyback Program to procure upgraded animals, and the development of the National Animal Nutrition Program with focus on corn silage production to enhance dairy animal productivity thru the provision of affordable feeds.236238239241242244245246248249250251Poultry Strategies similar to that of the livestock sector were noted identified, such as the harmonization of production and marketing data. The passage of a national law on land use was also recognized as a priority area, as well as genetic improvement through the setting up of local breeding stations. Other recommended strategies were focused on ensuring additional funding for poultry and corn, and provision of incentives for the duck industry.236238239241242244245246248249250251Vegetable Priorities were evenly distributed within the entire value chain from production to consumption. The identified priority interventions were: providing post-harvest facilities; conducting farmer training programs especially on pest and disease management; good agricultural practices certification; building of more trading centers; and running advocacy campaigns to increase vegetable consumption.236238239241242244245246248249250251Fruits The fruits subsector -- composed of banana, mango and pineapple -- has recommended functional strategies. For banana, focus was on enhancing propagation techniques towards having quality planting materials, provision of post-harvest and processing facilities all the way to increased supply, improved quality and export volume. For mango, access to credit, rejuvenation of existing mango trees through farm clustering for easy access to subsidies and other government support like mechanization and other new technologies were identified. Finally, for pineapple, priorities identified include the establishment of nurseries in research stations and SUCs with enhanced technologies for the production of quality planting materials. Improved cultural management practices and capacity building especially on integrated pest management were also identified. These can be enhanced by leveraging the expertise of private companies, SUCs and private extension workers.236238239241242244245246248249250251Cacao and Coffee The development of a Program that will assist processors to develop quality local coffee and cacao products, which can compete with international brands, was on top of the agenda. Coconut Top recommendations encompassed the whole value chain: strengthening extension services; developing integrated coconut-based farming systems; establishing shared processing facilities; and marketing assistance to boost demand for coconut products.236238239241242244245246248249250251Sugar Top priorities for the sector revolved around strategies to improve productivity and income through block farming, or farm consolidation and clustering. These strategies, however, should be complemented with financial support to address agronomic concerns through specific programs as well as costs of farm operations through mechanization.236238239241242244245246248249250251Fisheries and Aquaculture For capture fisheries, strategies -- provision of alternative livelihood opportunities -- related to addressing temporary income loss of fishermen during off fishing season topped the list. The rest were governance- and technology-related strategies. The aquaculture group also recommended the creation of a governance structure to steer the country towards becoming a true maritime nation. This needs to be complemented with the establishment of a national program for aquaculture, which can hopefully provide funds for the rehabilitation and establishment of hatcheries, development of standards or regulations and capacity building activities.236238239241242244245246248249250251Apart from the commodity-based recommendations that emanated from the NFSS breakout sessions, recommendations on various crosscutting concerns were also identified based on the pre-summit thematic consultations and the papers presented by experts during the plenary sessions. 1. The need to operationalize the concept of food security vis-à-vis self-sufficiency. The path to food security policy is not via protection by insulation, but via nurturing and strengthening of farmers with well-conceived and non-distortive assistance that will, among others, improve their capabilities as farm entrepreneurs, not as mere tillers. 2. Agricultural trade policy. Related to food security, this is an area where lines of communication still have to be kept open. The sector needs to increase public investments for productivity enhancement of local producers, in exchange of protecting the rights of consumers to available, affordable and nutritious food. 3. Credit or lending for small farmers and fisherfolk. Two basic recommendations stood out: 1) the creation of a wholly-owned LBP subsidiary dedicated to small farmers and fishers; and 2) the need to facilitate bank compliance with Agri-Agra law to ensure readily available credit portfolios in the banking sector. 4. Immediate rollout of the Province-led agriculture and fisheries extension system or PAFES, to ensure shared accountability for agri-fishery development between national and local governments. 5. Push for farm consolidation and clustering. To ensure that this happens, there is a recommendation to make organizing and sustaining farmer associations as KRAs for the DA and its agencies, as well as the LGUs. 6. Strategic shift from traditional farming into agribusiness. As an adjunct to farm consolidation and clustering, there is a need to ensure that the majority of small farmers and fisherfolk get to be formal players in the value chains. 7. Diversification and promotion of exports. There is a need to diversify into other higher value products. The agriculture and fisheries sector has put much attention on rice, corn, sugarcane and coconut which provide relatively lower income per hectare. It is high time that we diversify and promote exports of high value products to really increase farmers’ income. 8. Promoting innovations, modern technologies and R&D, and human resources development. There is a need to include these in the value chains to really be able to compete especially with other ASEAN countries; 9. Youth and women engagement. We cannot talk about sustainable and resilient food systems if that huge bulge of demographics is not engaged across food systems from production to consumption. We have to ensure that they are empowered, employed and can employ other people so that we achieve together food security, so that we can achieve national security. 10. Call out for the fisheries and aquatic resources sector to beef up its ranks to push for the ultimate ambition of making the Philippines a truly maritime nation. This can be achieved through the creation of an entity dedicated to the attainment of the said objective.237238246249250Although not explicitly discussed in the main dialogues as these are being addressed within the halls of Congress, the areas of divergence involve agricultural trade policies that balance supply and prices of commodities vis-à-vis interests of food producers and clamor of consumers.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Adding-the-Farmers-Viewpoint-on-Food-Security-w-CFH-Comments.docx.pdfhttps://sites.google.com/da.gov.ph/da-icts/home?authuser=0https://www.da.gov.ph/announcements/2021-national-food-security-summit/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s0O_Yxxpuw

2021-06-11 09:33:58205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12257/176

105232238289452412133325436532312229211415341865451

The instructions for the dialogue were used and the curator and facilitators highlighted the principles.

Yes

234Focus: Facilitate a dialog around the key questions; What is social sustainability? What does social sustainability look like in Sweden and in an EU-perspective? Is it possible to measure social sustainability and does it matter when it comes to the attractiveness of jobs now and in the future? Can social sustainability be communicated to a consumer? Does social sustainability contain conflicts of interest and if so, what are they? How do we make sure that the social sustainability continues to be relevant in a transformed food system? These are some of the questions that will be discussed during the webinar on social sustainability in food systems. The dialogue was in the format of a digital webinar in three parts; part one was set up as a seminar with invited speakers who highlighted different aspects of social sustainability in the food system with a focus on the national (Swedish) food system. Part two was organized as group discussions and part three consisted of individual feedback from the participants via Mentimeter followed by sharing of those reflections in plenum. The group discussions and the individual feedback covered the following questions: - Is there any aspect of social sustainability in the food system that has received too little attention and should be highlighted more? - What indicators do you suggest for this aspect? - How can we raise the awareness of the social sustainability dimension nationally?235238239240241242247249251Participants showed great interest in discussing social sustainability in the food system and after attending the dialog the participants had gained a larger understanding of what social sustainability is. Social sustainability in the food system needs to be addressed more often. In Sweden we tend to focus more on economic and environmental sustainability and put less priority on the social dimension. This is a complex subject that inadvertently leads to different types of justice issues and discussions about who/where the price for economic and environmental sustainability is paid. What is the goal and what are the tools to get there? More dialogues and discussion on this topic are needed both in general with people involved in the food system but specific actions by the authorities is also needed. There is a need to engage in continued discussions on this topic at all levels; openly and transparently. We need to dare to highlight practical obstacles to a socially sustainable everyday life for primary producers (holidays/replacements, childcare, etc.). There is a need to review current business models and review the past and ongoing structural rationalizations to understand and learn where change is needed. Different actors need to consider new paths for social sustainability in 'their' part of the system. More resources for research to make social sustainability measurable and explicable is needed. Social life cycle assessment is an accepted concept and helps to shed light on the issue, but there is a need for more and more reliable data. It is important to involve actors that are or can be affected in the conversations and solutions. There exist some indicators to follow up social sustainability in the food system but it that enough and will we achieve the necessary transformation? There are many goal conflicts associated with achieving social sustainability for all parts of the food system (may be in relation to economic or ecological sustainability, or in relation to other parts of society and its social sustainability). We need to have continued cross-disciplinary/cross-sectorial discussions about social sustainability in the food system, what it means and how it can be measured. In that we need to: • Make social sustainability issues visible • Continuously identify stakeholders in order to broaden/develop discussions • Create forums for meetings and discussions • Raise and discuss the question of responsibility • Raise and discuss the issue of indicators and “data”236238239240241242243244245246247249250251The importance of social sustainability in the food system • Appreciated topic of discussion, but difficult (e.g. how to measure?”) and maybe therefor not so talked about • Social sustainability in primary production is important for national food production – both different rules and regulations and the perception of vulnerability among producers – decide if they will continue or discontinue the business • Ecological or economic (growth / profitability) sustainability is more often in focus. It is often with “economic growth” arguments that many actors downplay the importance of strengthening social (and environmental) sustainability. Social sustainability should/must be central within the framework of the planetary boundaries (ecological sustainability) with economic sustainability as a tool for achieving social sustainability. See how this can be illustrated, for instance “the wedding cake” https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-06-14-how-food-connects-all-the-sdgs.html or the “donut economy” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)236238239240241242243244246247249251Indicators of social sustainability • Social sustainability more qualitative (e.g. how things are perceived) than economic and environmental sustainability where it is easier to put quantitative indicators. Hard to measure values such as status, recognition, the relationship with society and consumers and society's norms are perhaps most important for the long-term sustainability of Swedish agriculture. • Social life cycle assessments (LCA) very interesting to develop further because there is always a need to measure. But there is a big lack of available and reliable data. • Are those indicators that are in place enough? Do we measure the things we want to measure? • How can goals around social sustainability be set? And how to deal, in the present, with changed norms around social issues in the future? • How to handle trade-offs between different social sustainability aspects. Which aspects are more important? Where can most damage control be made? Is that possible to decide?236238239240241242243246247249Transparency in research communication good for policy makers • As commented by one of the politicians that were participating in the dialogue: “X’s transparency in her presentation on difficulties and trade-offs in a difficult field of research was very refreshing. It is very important for us politicians, but very toned down in the public debate.”236238239240241242243245246247249250251How to develop how social sustainability is handled/discussed • Food can be seen as a commodity, but you can also look at food as a right. That discussion is large internationally but is not discussed in the same way in Sweden. • It is important to recognize that there are different prerequisites and possibilities in different parts of the country due to geography, climate, population density and more. • Many rules and regulations dealing with social sustainability exist, it is rather the compliance that is lacking. • There is a lack of designated goals in e.g. the national (Swedish) food strategy on social sustainability. Will social issues with relevance to the food system be treated as less important because of that? • The discussion on food production in Sweden often has profitability (economic) as a starting point: “The farmers must get better revenues for their products”, “Consumers must be prepared to pay more for good and nutritious food”: But, how to produce good and nutritious food that does not exclude people/increase social injustice because of higher food prices? • Symbolic questions237Please view answer under question 4C

2021-06-11 11:02:05205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15749/92

79044626304732163726251512511637327141

Recognizing the utmost urgency to take sustained and meaningful action to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the dialogues are organized to identify the pathways to food systems transformation. We are committed to practicing what we preach in contribution to the Food Systems Summit. The dialogues empower stakeholders to participate in the preparations of the Food Systems Summit, while fostering new connections, enabling the emergence of new ways to move forward collectively and embracing the entire scope of opinions. Within our capacity and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and the well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Respecting one another is the foundation for a genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues are expected to be attentive and open to a multitude of opinions. We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impacting human and animal health, natural resources, climate change, biodiversity and other related systems. Therefore, their transformation requires a systemic approach.Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities to allow for the design of policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders across the food system. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with these efforts where possible in order to avoid duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches. The Dialogues build on and add value to existing policy processes and initiatives. They provide an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. We will work to ensure that the Summit and its associated engagement process promotes trust and increases motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible. The Dialogues are curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that are shared in the feedback and other media are not attributed to single individuals.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247248249250The major focus of this dialogue was the challenges that Israel faces in adapting its animal-based food systems to meet the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. This focus was examined through eight topic-based groups. Four of the groups focused on specific types of animal-based food sources: 1) Livestock raised for meat 2) Poultry and eggs 3) Dairy 4) Fish and other kinds of seafood Three groups discussed general topics relevant to all animal based foods: 1) Zoonotic diseases 2) Antimicrobial use 3) Animal welfare The last topic was alternative proteins, which is unique in the topic-based groups involved and focused on the challenges in the entry of the alternative protein sector into the Israeli and global market and food systems by 2030. The participants of the round table were asked to share the following points: 1) The 3-5 most important challenges facing the alternative protein entry into the global food system in 2030 2) The unique challenges of the Israeli ecosystem (research, business sector, government, consumer, other)235238239240241242244245246249250The primary conclusion that emerged, in all groups, was that there is a lack of necessary and appropriate regulation. In certain fields, a lack of regulation is detrimental to food safety and security and in others; inadequate regulation hinders sustainability by damaging small-scale producers (the new food safety law from 2015) or local production (by benefiting mostly large importers). In addition, it was agreed that a lack of transparency is detrimental to food safety and security. The information regarding zoonotic diseases, livestock and poultry feed and housing conditions, antimicrobial use, and animal welfare is not relayed to the consumers or even to the relevant health officials and regulators. It was also agreed that there is a need to establish new connections between all relevant stakeholders, especially government bodies (the ministries of agriculture, health, and environmental protection) and professionals in the health, agriculture, and environmental protection fields – in order to fulfill the One Health approach. An important aspect of adapting animal-based food systems is the economic challenge and the need for funding and infrastructures. The need for health education and promotion, based on relevant and sound research, was established. Several groups found that some stakeholders in agriculture, including regulators, veterinarians, inspectors, and more, face a conflict of interest between their productivity demands and the need to ensure sustainable, safe food and animal welfare. Food waste is a major problem in animal based food systems. Animal sourced food is a sensitive commodity and the risk of food safety hazards is high. Extermination of animals and destruction of food products, as a means of curbing the spread of diseases, are widespread. For example, in 2020, 10 million eggs were destroyed in Israel, causing economic and environmental damage. Two issues unique to Israel are: 1) Religious dietary (kashrut) requirements and supervision, which often conflict with sustainable development goals in economic, welfare, environmental, and health terms 2) The regulatory neglect and lack of supervision of livestock issues pertaining to the Arab minority. At least 80% of the small cattle in Israel is slaughtered in a non-regulated manner in the Arab sector, with grave environmental and health impacts, and this sector also suffers from several zoonotic diseases not found elsewhere in Israel (Brucella, E. granulosus, and more). Many breeding farms lack basic welfare conditions such as clean recumbency areas, prevention of odor nuisances, natural ventilation, etc. These may cause serious environmental hazards, such as land degradation, and may also contribute to disease spread and to further use of antibiotics, which raise economic costs for the farmers.236238239240242244245246248249250Poultry and eggs are the most hazardous and unsustainable food sources in Israel today and require urgent intervention. The most crucial and necessary intervention regards laying hens and egg distribution. Infrastructure upgrades in the field of animal welfare are vital and will contribute to biological safety, poultry welfare, and the reduction of environmental and health hazards. Regulatory supervision, traceability, and labeling of eggs must be implemented with all haste to maintain food safety and security. The majority of the dialogue participants thought that making the animal based food industry sustainable and more environment and welfare oriented will be beneficial, but it is necessary to kick start the process. All stakeholders in the field of animal-based food production should be motivated towards sustainability through education and funding, especially direct funding.. Designated training is required on a wide range of topics in all fields, There is no organized body and / or mechanism designed to regulate the training of workers with animals in the food industry, and such a body or mechanism must be instituted. In order to become sustainable, it is necessary to promote local production over imports. Even with significant improvements in livestock production, meat and dairy will likely remain the most greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive foods on our plates. Emerging technologies to produce cultivated and plant-based meat, fish, eggs and dairy are advancing rapidly. The Biotech and food-tech industry in Israel is well known around the world. Some of the most innovative technologies came out of Israel. Israel’s recognition as a hub for academic research and innovation in the alternative protein arena should be leveraged through these dialogs and capitalized for the local and global food systems. Embracing the importance of innovation and technology as part of the inclusive solution towards the SDG goals, with an emphasis on alternative proteins as part of an inclusive solution towards a transition to a resilient and sustainable food system Creative and sustainable solution should be explored together to food waste and the reduction of economic and environmental cost of religious requirements.237238239240242244245246248249250All groups diverged on the question of consumption of animal- sourced food. Stakeholders from the fields of welfare, nutrition, and environmental protection mostly supported reducing consumption levels, whereas stakeholders from the field of agriculture- farmers, industry leaders, and members of the dairy and poultry associations- supported maintaining current consumption levels or even increasing consumption. There was divergence on the issue of animal welfare on live livestock transfers by sea. On the topic of poultry and eggs, some stakeholders held that the intensive production of poultry and eggs does not harm the environment, while others disagreed. On the topic of dairy, the participants diverged on whether consumption levels should be reduced or maintained/increased. Some participants held that due to the environmental impact (pollution of water sources, greenhouse gas emissions) and health concerns, dairy consumption should be reduced, while others claimed that these concerns can be mitigated through proper management and practices, and that dairy has nutritional importance. On the topic of Livestock, some participants did not share a common ground on the need to take measures in terms of policy and regulation, as well certain data and evidence. Though it was agreed that there is a need for to further develop the discussion on the major issues and advance the ability to provide healthy and sustainable food to the growing population in Israel, considering different challenges and limitations: geographic (agricultural land), environmental, nutritional, social and financial aspects, animal welfare and consumer choices. Food security and ability to adapt to changes (climate, financial, etc.) were also mentioned in the specific local conditions Areas that need further exploration: 1) Lack of professional knowledge in Israel regarding animal welfare 2) Lack of regulation and public knowledge regarding fish welfare and suffering.

2021-06-11 13:25:42205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20392/131

3611233311215137211214295157117251629162513138310620363461

To ensure multi-stakeholder inclusivity, professionals from all parts of the food system were invited to the dialogue. A total of 300 participated. The dialogue built on numerous existing dialogues and initiatives aimed at making the Dutch food system more sustainable and achieving the SDGs. Participants of those initiatives were invited to give an update on progress and to help explore further steps. Chatham House rules and active encouragement to speak freely created an atmosphere that was conducive to a constructive and open conversation among stakeholders. A general, scene-setting, high-level opening session emphasised urgency, identified key features of the Dutch food system and suggested possible directions for solutions. The key challenges and pathways to solutions were further elaborated during six thematic break-out sessions. To reduce complexity, the plenary and the thematic sessions both focused on breaking down long-term goals into smaller, conceivable steps and on identifying the main conditions for these steps.The plenary opening session and the thematic sessions could be attended virtually or for a small selection in person. Participants included representatives of the primary sector, food processing industry, retail, food education, healthcare, science, finance, non-governmental organisations, as well as national and local governments. Frontrunners and the Dutch UN youth representative on food and biodiversity also attended. Session moderators invited input from participants and audience members, encouraging them to express their opinions and ask questions. Each of the sessions sought to reflect on how solutions could contribute to the various action tracks and on the links between sustainability, health, economic inclusion and national and global dimensions. The Member State dialogue was aligned with a public debate on a food system vision that had taken place earlier in connection with the Rockefeller Foundation’s Food System Vision Prize.We strongly support the multi-stakeholder approach for the Summit. The gap between consumers and producers has widened over the years, and needs to be bridged if we are to change the food system. We therefore advocate involving both consumers and businesses from each part of the food production and supply chain. The involvement of frontrunners and young people can also create more scope for new and creative ideas.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The focus of this dialogue was on bringing the different aspects and stakeholders together in a comprehensive approach based on systems thinking. This approach included a broad range of stakeholders with direct and indirect involvement in the food system in order to address the interlinkages in the system. The key questions discussed in the dialogue were: which further steps are desirable and conceivable in order to achieve a more sustainable and healthy food system that produces affordable food, is more nature-inclusive and has fair production conditions; and what do stakeholders need from each other in order to take the necessary steps towards this goal. The dialogue was broken down into thematic discussions on sustainable and healthy diets, the food environment, finance, true pricing, food-feed competition, the Dutch food system in an international context, and new scientific developments.235238239240241242243244245246248249251The main findings of the dialogue are as follows: Policy gaps between the international, agricultural and health agendas need to be identified and bridged. This was underpinned by the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality; the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport; and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as joint convenors. Together, they advocated bringing together actions from different domains to help ensure coherence. Participants expressed the hope that combining the results from the Global Food Systems Dialogues will led to agreement on common goals and a way forward at the Food Systems Summit. The climate agenda and the Paris Agreement were mentioned as examples of such goals and action agendas. To raise awareness and increase involvement, the wide gap between food producers and food consumers must be closed. A growing number of initiatives aimed at improving mutual understanding already exist in the Netherlands, ranging from joint investment in and management of farmland to primary production. The involvement of young people and frontrunners is also necessary in order to break established patterns and help set inspiring examples. Collaboration between science and policy is crucial for impact. The science-policy interface needs to be strengthened to raise awareness and reach agreement on the impact of policies and technologies on food system outcomes at national and international levels, and to arrive at scalable solutions and performance indicators for sustainability. Technology should be designed to work with nature, to improve environmental outcomes. The close cooperation between knowledge institutions, companies and governments in the Netherlands offers a good basis for jointly developing and testing new social and technological models for the food system. The Netherlands can serve as a living lab, with its wide-ranging influence on food systems worldwide (e.g. 40% of all plant seeds worldwide come from the Netherlands). The Netherlands’ experience and global connections can be used to help other countries develop their own independent food production system. The importance of exporting knowledge is expected to grow, relative to exporting products.236238239244249Sustainable and healthy diets For many Dutch consumers, shifting to a more sustainable and healthy diet requires an adjustment in their diet. However, daily food choices are not necessarily individual and conscious choices, as they tend to be determined by the food environment (see below), habits and culture, as well as by food-related skills, including knowledge about buying, preparing and conserving food. The Netherlands Nutrition Centre provides public information on healthy eating, and there are also several national and regional food education programmes for children as well as regional initiatives involving citizen participation. Furthermore, a number of CSOs provide information and transparency on nutritional values and production methods and provide examples of attractive, sustainable and healthy meals. In 2022, the Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition label is to be introduced to make the nutritional value of food more easily available. Nevertheless, a growing number of people in the Netherlands are overweight and make little use of information about the footprint of their meal, which often consists of ingredients from all over the world. In this sub-dialogue, participants discussed how we can help and encourage consumers to make more healthy and sustainable food choices. The main findings of this session are as follows: - Research shows that social norms greatly influence the choices people make. Existing programmes can be supplemented with further education and information activities, including giving examples, aimed at changing the social norm. - Role models who lead by example could be very effective. - Companies with a mainstream outreach can play an important role by setting attractive examples. - - Changes to the promotion of and advertisements for products that do not fit well in a sustainable and healthy diet can also have an effect, by changing the social norm while leaving consumers freedom of choice. - The effectiveness of communication can be increased by focusing on providing information at times of major life events, such as when a young person leaves the parental home. These are times when people are open to adopting new norms. To avoid the risk of losing the connection with consumers, it is important to use a positive message instead of emphasising what should not be done. - Companies themselves can also change the social norm by making healthy and sustainable options the default option. - Finally it is important to realise that changing a social norm takes time and requires a step-by-step approach.236240243244245246248249Finance Until now, the main focus in the Netherlands was on making production more sustainable with the help of defined measures. To leave more scope for entrepreneurship and long-term investment, a shift to a goal-driven approach is desirable. The main findings of this session are as follows: - To make the desired shift towards a goal-driven approach, farmers, the banking sector, CSOs and the government are working on a coherent set of key performance indicators (KPIs). A number of KPIs are already being used, e.g. the biodiversity monitor. Such indicators can be helpful in setting a pathway for progress. - KPIs offer clarity for farmers and financiers considering longer term joint investments, as they enable benchmarking and monitoring of progress. - For further progress, KPIs must be integrated into the whole food production and supply chain, including supermarkets, where they can serve as a tool for informing consumers. Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance to reach agreement at European level on a coherent set of KPIs in order to ensure a level playing field. - Finally, a reliable measurement system is required to verify performance.236238239240241242244245246248249The Dutch food system in an international context The food system in the Netherlands is entwined with the global system of agriculture and food supply in many ways. An extensive global trade network supplies our daily food. The Netherlands is considered a frontrunner in food production, as well as in innovation and technological development in the area of agri-food. As a major food importer and exporter, the Netherlands is also a key player in international trade. The Dutch food system is strongly dependent on the imports of raw materials while the global system faces considerable challenges related to social, economic and ecological sustainability. We therefore have a national and international obligation to make our food systems more sustainable. In this sub-dialogue, various stakeholders discussed what the role of the Netherlands could be in an increasingly global food system, specifically with regard to sustainability. The main findings of this session are as follows: - For the transition towards a sustainable food system, three routes can be taken: establishing international agreements, stimulating international codes of conduct with regard to sustainability and/or price incentives. International agreements and European ambitions can both foster transition pathways towards a more sustainable food system. Examples include the Sustainable Development Agenda, Paris Agreement and the Farm-to-Fork initiative. - If sustainable production requirements are to be integrated into international trade agreements, the Netherlands as well as other importing and exporting countries will need to start a dialogue on more established sustainability standards and incorporate them into bilateral or multilateral trade agreements. - Changing agreements will be time-consuming but the emphasis on dialogue is important: listening to each other in order to understand each other. - In the process of making development more sustainable, cooperation is needed between all stakeholders, from consumers, producers, CSOs and banks to local and national governments.236238239244246249The food environment Our food environment, the way in which food is presented and the proximity of places where food can be bought, has a strong influence on consumers’ food choices. Aspects include, but are not limited to, product range, promotions and advertisements, and the visibility of food. The current food environment regularly seduces consumers into making unhealthy and unsustainable choices, even though many people are open to making the better choice. In this sub-dialogue, participants discussed how we can make it easier for consumers to make healthy and sustainable choices, and how we can adjust the food environment. The main findings of this session are as follows: - Food providers can change the food environment to encourage more sustainable and healthy options, for instance, by adjusting their product range, store design and setup, and nudging. In this way supermarkets seek to inform, inspire and activate consumers to make healthier and more sustainable choices. - The process is not easy as food buyers are guided by their routines and habits. To accelerate change, some stakeholders suggest introducing marketing and pricing measures. The healthy and sustainable choice must be the easier choice, and must also be affordable. In City Deals local governments are working on pilots to shape the local food environment.236239240241243244245246250True price The social benefits and environmental costs of production and consumption are to a limited extent reflected in food prices. Including these benefits and costs in prices can act as an incentive for more sustainable and healthier production and consumption. In this sub-dialogue, participants discussed how we can arrive at a ‘true price’. The Netherlands has a Community of Practice on True Pricing that is experimenting with this. Recent studies were carried out into the potential of several methods of true pricing. The discussion built on these experiences. Key question was to identify the most suitable methods, in terms of reaching both consumers and producers, to reflect the cost of sustainable production. The main findings of this session are as follows: - Key performance indicators (KPIs) can be used as a proxy for true cost/true price. Recognised indicators can be linked to rewards for more sustainable and healthier production methods, like water storage and carbon capture and eco-arrangements in the Common Agricultural Policy. - Quality label initiatives already exist in the market, but these are usually focused on more visible aspects (like animal welfare, hours of pasturing for cattle) or consumer health (such as calories). The steps taken are generally small, as consumers’ willingness to pay for more sustainable or healthier food is limited. - If acceleration is desired, the government can set minimum requirements for sustainability and quality, especially for less tangible ecological outcomes such as soil fertility and CO2 emissions. - In addition, both the Netherlands and other importing and exporting countries will have to embrace more established sustainability standards (key performance indicators) and include them in pricing and (bilateral) trade agreements. Progress with the transition can and must then be assessed on the basis of these international agreements and ambitions at European level. - Additionally, local empowerment and local amenities will help foster social change and social innovation.236238239240242244250Food-feed competition To reduce CO2 emissions, cope with drought and variable precipitation, and reduce nitrogen deposition, livestock production in the Netherlands needs to change. The energy transition and increasing demand for housing put yet more pressure on farmland. Coupled with a growing population and increasing demand for food, we need new solutions to the food-feed competition. Currently, crops that would also be fit for human consumption are often used as feed, or feed is grown on lands suitable for growing food. In this sub-dialogue, participants discussed how we can arrive at a sustainable distribution of land use, and what we would have to change. The main findings of this session are as follows: - It is envisioned that agricultural land will in the future be used as much as possible to produce food for human consumption. - Another top priority is preventing food waste and food loss, as well as high-value reuse of residual flows, for which European Union regulations now offer more scope. - Strict requirements for food safety and animal health will be upheld. Change can be stimulated by frontrunners and leading by example. - Finally, greater transparency for consumers, for instance by using quality marks, will improve their awareness about production methods.237There were no specific areas of divergence, but several points of attention can be formulated. The message on the speed of change needs to be realistic. Radical changes may result, for example, in a loss of consumer involvement. Furthermore, it is necessary to adapt legislation, such as on the reuse of residual flows, without compromising food safety. To maintain a satisfactory rate of progress, good examples and frontrunners may help to show the way with small steps. With regard to formulating goals in order to boost the development of key performance indicators, it is important to consider international arrangements and keep an eye on trade-offs. Key performance indicators need to be complemented with arrangements that link them to rewards, including from consumers.

2021-06-11 13:55:38205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15282/194

16733112222101114414136119211491106117

In recognition of the urgency of organizing the Food Systems Dialogues as contributions to the Food Systems Summit, the United States hosted its second National Food Systems Dialogue (“the Dialogue”) on May 19, 2021. The event centered the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust. See below for specifics.The U.S. National Food Systems Dialogues seek to empower U.S. domestic stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit. The second National Dialogue, held virtually, embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity and included stakeholders from across the food system, ranging from U.S. producers, agricultural organizations, food industry, research and academic institutions, farm and food workers, and civil society groups. The Dialogue included more participants than the first National Dialogue held in January in order to strengthen representation from minority groups, women, and youth in food and agriculture, but all those invited to the first dialogue were also invited to this second. Through multi-stakeholder inclusivity, the Dialogue provided a forum for participants to share diverse perspectives, learn from each other, and collaborate to identify solutions to pressing challenges. Small group discussions at the Dialogue emphasized respect and building trust through facilitation by objective U.S. government experts and researchers. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion and a collaborative approach. The Dialogue discussion topics highlighted the complex challenges and tradeoffs of food systems policy interventions and solutions. To build trust, promote transparency, and accurately reflect the voices of U.S. food systems stakeholders, readout reports and summaries went through multiple levels of review and validation. The notetakers sent anonymized notes from the breakout rooms to facilitators, who developed anonymized reports that were shared and validated by participants before incorporation into the final official UN Dialogues Gateway feedback form. A complementary report highlighting high level outcomes will be posted on the USDA Food Systems website.The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion with a collaborative approach. Only dialogue participants, facilitators, expert researchers for consultation, and note-takers were permitted in each dialogue breakout session. Sessions were by invitation and no observers were invited, which facilitated distribution of participants into multiple breakout sessions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251This report represents the views of U.S. stakeholders invited to the Dialogue; it does not represent the official views of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the United States Government. In following with the guidelines of the UN Dialogues Toolkit and to ensure a systematic, comprehensive approach to assessing food systems, the second U.S. National Dialogue focused on identifying solutions to building more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food systems in the United States. The discussions focused on building on the results of the first U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue, breaking away from the five “action tracks” framework used in the first dialogue. The event agenda consisted of opening remarks, followed by two one-hour breakout sessions with small groups (where each breakout session had a different composition of participants) led by U.S. government experts and researchers, and concluding with read-outs of the breakout session discussions by facilitators. The participants noted in Section 1. Participation of this report are only those who participated in breakout rooms, not including U.S. government facilitators and notetakers. To motivate the breakout discussions, participants were requested to come to the Dialogue with 2-3 solutions addressing one or more of the three overarching challenges identified in the first U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue: 1) information gaps with respect to nutrition and sustainability, 2) inequalities in access to healthy diets and opportunities in farming and food industries, and 3) environmental degradation and climate change. The solutions could be crosscutting and provide benefits to more than one of the overarching challenges or targeted to one specific challenge. Participants were asked to share their solutions in both breakout sessions and to narrow down the top solutions as a group. In the second session, participants were asked to refine their solutions based on something new learned in the first session. This iterative process aimed to build consensus to arrive at a core set of solutions across distinct stakeholder groups. Discussion Questions: To encourage a systematic assessment of solutions, breakouts considered the following questions: • Breakout Session One: o What are two-three top solutions that address the major challenge areas identified in the first U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue and advance sustainable food systems in the United States? o Identify the top three solutions for further discussion to address the three challenges identified in the first Dialogue. Is there any overlap or divergence in the solutions? What is the most promising bucket of solutions to prioritize for discussion? o For each of the three challenge areas:  Does the group note any evidence gaps or tradeoffs related to this solution?  Does the solution respond to the three pillars of sustainability (social, economic, environmental)?  How urgent is implementation of this solution?  Is this solution applicable at a local/regional/national/international scale?  Is there consensus from the group on who would need to implement/finance the solution? What are the costs for implementation?  What are the unintended consequences that could result from this solution? • Breakout Session Two: Same questions as session one, but these solutions should reflect something new learned in the first discussion group, so please highlight what has changed/what is different about your solutions now.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The focus of the second Dialogue was to identify solutions to improving the sustainability of food systems. While the discussion topics were organized around the three overarching challenges outlined above, some solutions addressed a single challenge while others were cross-cutting to holistically consider challenges and tradeoffs across food systems. Conversations aggregated and analyzed individual solutions to arrive at different clusters with greater consensus, or topics for further exploration. The solutions clusters that emerged in response to the challenges were: 1) Technology (including rural broadband) and dietary and food production choice, 2) Bolster the participation of socially disadvantaged groups, infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced, and competitive markets that serve all size producers, 3) Voluntary incentives and technical support for sustainable production, and 4) Food systems policy and planning and youth involvement. • Solutions Cluster #1 (Information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food): Technology (including rural broadband) and dietary and food production choice Dialogue participants identified increasing the application of technology (including rural broadband), clear definitions and standards, and dietary and food production choice as the most promising solutions to address information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food. Some participants expressed that broader access to technology could eliminate information gaps and help consumers and farmers make healthy food choices and produce food in a sustainable manner. Some participants discussed information silos and noted that standardization of nutrition and sustainability definitions could assist in meeting shared goals, particularly with respect to climate and equity. Some participants noted the importance of broadening food choice through public outreach to consumers on nutrition and producers on environmental impacts. • Solutions Cluster #2 (Inequalities): Bolster the participation of socially disadvantaged groups, infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced, and competitive markets that serve all size producers Dialogue participants identified bolstering the participation of socially disadvantaged groups, infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced, and competitive markets that serve all size producers as the most promising solutions to address inequalities in access to healthy diets and opportunities in farming and food industries. Some participants emphasized that centering the voices of socially disadvantaged groups is vital to the success of any food system. Primary avenues identified by some participants to create the conditions for the participation of socially disadvantaged groups in the food system included community engagement, agricultural land preservation and resource access, focus on land tenure laws, public support for community-led and regional approaches, and research and extension. Some participants highlighted that better infrastructure and resilient and equitable supply chains can increase access to nutritious food. Some participants noted that competitive markets that serve all size producers are key to addressing inequalities. • Solutions Cluster #3 (Environmental Degradation and Climate Change): Voluntary incentives and technical support for sustainable production Dialogue participants identified voluntary incentives for sustainable production and technical support for sustainable production as the most promising solutions to address environmental degradation and climate change. There was consensus amongst participants that the provision of incentives for producers of all sizes is a key solution to more sustainable consumption and production. Incentives mentioned by some participants included keeping land in reserve (e.g. easements) to protect the environment, rewarding and recognizing on farm stewardship practices, recognizing the role of retailers and restaurants in reducing food/packaging waste and repurposing food, and supporting sustainable practices that may not be economically feasible in the short-term. Some participants shared support for aligning incentives with national conservation goals. In setting environmental goals, some participants noted the importance of addressing environmental impacts beyond carbon footprints by including issues such as nitrogen, water quality, and waste reduction. • Solutions Cluster #4 (Cross-Cutting): Food systems policy and planning and youth involvement Dialogue participants agreed that cross-cutting solutions require participatory and adaptive food systems policy and planning and the involvement of youth across food systems. Participants agreed that food systems policy and planning should be science and evidence-based, and support inclusive, diverse, and integrated approaches that address all three challenges identified in the first U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue. Some participants elaborated on the approaches needed to achieve sustainable food systems, highlighting voluntary, adaptive, and participatory approaches. Participants agreed that involvement of youth in food systems was a cross-cutting requirement for solutions in all three challenges. One group reached agreement that through additional training on healthy foods, youth will fill information gaps and solve problems affecting food systems.236238239240241242243244245246248249Solutions Cluster #1 (Information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food): Technology (including rural broadband), clear definitions and standards, and dietary and food production choice Participants identified increasing the application of technology (including rural broadband), clear definitions and standards, and dietary and food production choice as the most promising solutions to address information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food. Some participants highlighted that broader access to technology could eliminate information gaps and help consumers and farmers make healthy food choices and produce food in a sustainable manner. There was consensus amongst participants on the importance of rural broadband. Some participants noted that increased access to rural broadband and smartphones could improve information flows as well as increase adoption of novel digital technologies and data management systems. Some participants also noted that rural broadband would serve food system stakeholders ranging from rural communities to the seafood industry who could better monitor environmental conditions on cargo ships. Some participants highlighted that technology should be accessible to diverse users and appropriate for linguistic and cultural differences. Access to technology could address issues such as climate change, some participants noted, along with improving food security. Some participants noted that sustainable, resilient food systems are both a food security and national security issue. The absence of clear and shared definitions of nutrition and sustainability generated concern amongst some participants. Some participants suggested that while nutrition or traceability labels exist, such as in the seafood industry, consistency in labeling would improve public knowledge and information gaps. Some participants noted that components of sustainability including recycling and food waste lacked a common definition. Some participants recommended standardization of nutrition and sustainability definitions and clarity around expectations, goals, measurement, and best practices. Some participants elaborated that information gaps exist because distinct regulatory structures oversee different food products, resulting in a “silo-ing” that produces information gaps. Some participants suggested the creation of an interdepartmental U.S. government task force on food systems to alleviate the gaps in information flows. Some participants noted the importance of food choice. Some participants posited that public outreach is needed to educate consumers about food labels, nutrition, and the environmental impacts of food production so they can make informed choices. Some participants noted the goal of providing consumers and producers with more autonomy to choose what, where, and how their food is grown. Some participants noted the importance of building nutrition literacy, teaching not only the “what” but the “how” and additional awareness around nutritious foods and healthy choices that are tasty. The nutritional needs of different populations were noted by some participants, and as was the need to communicate information to help people better understand the importance of fruits and vegetables and whole grains and share cooking methods and recipes. Some participants noted that culture and tastes should be included in discussions of nutrition and dietary guidelines, and that food choice could be broadened through increased focus on nutrient dense culturally appropriate foods. Regarding health and nutrition, some participants mentioned that we need new partnerships catalyzed by many groups including state, local, and federal government to promote healthy eating to prevent disease. Some participants mentioned that prevention and discussion of nutrition is not currently mainstreamed in the health field, which could potentially generate savings in healthcare costs.236238239241243244245246248249251Solutions Cluster #2 (Inequalities): Bolster participation of socially disadvantaged groups, infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced, and competitive markets that serve all size producers Participants identified increasing the participation of socially disadvantaged groups in the food system as one of the most promising solutions to address inequalities in access to healthy diets and opportunities in farming and food industries. Some participants noted that innovation does not only happen with machines and methods of production, there can be innovations in power structure. As such, some participants noted that creating the conditions for socially disadvantaged groups to have voice and thrive in the food system is a critical part of any solution. Some participants considered that barriers to local and regional food system solutions constitute discrimination, leaving underserved populations without access to healthy and culturally appropriate foods. Primary avenues to increase participation of socially disadvantaged groups in the food system mentioned by some participants included community engagement, agricultural land preservation and resource access, focus on land tenure, public support for community-led and regional approaches, and research and extension. Community engagement was a central focus of discussion, with some participants noting the importance of asking the people who are impacted rather than prescribing solutions using a top down approach. Some participants also noted that programs should center the needs of farmers and producers. Some participants agreed that land tenure and ownership are important to address historical inequities regarding land access. Some participants noted that expanding land access opportunities and succession planning options to ensure longevity are important to assisting with a land transition to next generation and minority farmers. Some participants noted the importance of re-examining and re-aligning public support for agriculture and food systems through regional, community-led approaches that focus on enabling land use and food sovereignty (this term was used but not defined in group discussion) for disadvantaged communities and youth. Some participants mentioned the importance of supporting Indigenous-led systems in Indigenous communities. One form this public support could take, mentioned by some participants, is providing resources to next generation and minority farmers, and leveraging existing programs to enable climate change mitigation. Some participants posited that the impact of public support could be maximized through a regional food systems approach with an emphasis on regional food sovereignty, and a systematic approach to strategic land conservation and tenure policies in generational turnover. Some participants noted the importance of proven, evidence-based practices to address local food system challenges, along with research and extension focused on hard-to-reach small producers and low-income populations. For example, some participants mentioned the model of churches providing land for communities to grow and produce foods to address the problem of food deserts. Specific ideas mentioned by some participants included investment to ensure equitable access to food and technology, support for small and medium sized businesses, regional networks, and urban agriculture, and extension services to produce higher-value products and supply chains that support a diversified workforce. The extension capability of research institutions and land grant universities to support small and medium-sized enterprises, young farmers, and Indigenous farmers was highlighted by some participants. The need to raise wages for food production workers and innovate policies to empower workers, as well as incentivize food worker protection through unions to improve the safety of workers in the entire food chain, was also mentioned by some participants.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Solutions Cluster #3 (Inequalities): Infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced and competitive markets that serve all size producers Participants identified infrastructure to increase nutritious food access and competitive markets that serve all size producers as ways to address inequalities in access to healthy diets and opportunities in farming and food industries. Some participants highlighted using infrastructure to increase nutritious food access. Some participants suggested using the Biden Administration’s transportation infrastructure approach to rebuild the infrastructure of U.S. food systems, and to begin comprehensive food system planning that could include regional food sovereignty, access to fresh foods, or retail available to certain communities. Some participants mentioned food hubs as an example of infrastructure, which bring together local producers with consumers to build resiliency. Some participants mentioned the need to rethink our supply networks, reorienting them so they are adaptable and accessible to assure reliability and equity. Some participants noted that local and regional food systems should focus on processing as well as production. Some participants noted that improved healthy food access goes beyond transportation to food pricing. Some participants mentioned reconsidering the Food Box program to support local and regional food systems and provide nutritious, culturally appropriate foods. Food production suggestions mentioned by some participants included increasing the variety of crops for core consumption beyond staple crops and increasing the contribution of blue and aquatic foods to diets. Some participants suggested that philanthropic organizations could do more to produce, process, and distribute food. Some participants called for more work to ensure markets are competitive and serve all size producers to address inequalities (see further discussion in “Divergences” section of this report). Some participants noted that existing regulations and policies may be harmful for some small producers, highlighting the need to internalize the externalities of food production and consumption, anti-trust, and public investment in local infrastructure. Further, some highlighted the potential for free markets around the world to increase efficiency and a rules-based trading system which is resilient to meet global demand. Some participants noted the importance of removing access barriers to technology and funding technology transfer globally. Some participants elaborated that this could include facilitating trade agreements requiring harmonization and regulation to create environments for technology and innovation to flourish. Additionally, some participants highlighted that not every jurisdiction is equal in terms of what they can produce or export. Some participants posited that improving communities’ access to trade, including global markets, lowers risks and can therefore address this challenge. Some participants hypothesized that this would include reinforcing and establishing key partnerships that include local farmers and global trading players and to open new markets domestically and internationally. Some participants suggested acknowledging that the United States and the rest of the world are interconnected and noted that sustainable U.S. food systems support sustainable food systems across the globe.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Solutions Cluster #4 (Environmental Degradation and Climate Change): Voluntary incentives and technical support for sustainable production Participants identified voluntary incentives for sustainable production, reducing food loss and waste, and technical support for conservation as the most promising solutions to address environmental degradation and climate change. There was consensus amongst participants that the provision of incentives for producers of all sizes is a key solution for consumers and farmers to adopt more sustainable consumption and production behaviors. Incentives mentioned by some participants included sparing land for conservation purposes, rewarding and recognizing practices that protect farmland (including climate smart agriculture and crop rotation, no till, and cover crops), recognizing retailers and restaurants for reducing food waste and repurposing food, and supporting sustainable practices that may not be economically feasible in the short-term. Some participants highlighted the solution of reducing food loss and waste, noting that 30-40% of calories harvested are wasted or destroyed, creating an environmental burden. Some participants noted that use of innovative tools and technologies, such as biotechnology, crop protection products, and precision agriculture technologies could improve sustainability outcomes in agricultural production. Some participants agreed that increasing adoption of the latest technology interventions, such as biotechnology, could address the environmental sustainability and nutrition problems of commodity crops. However, some participants noted that international regulations on biotechnology/biosafety need attention to facilitate free trade. Some participants noted that use of innovative technologies in food production including lab-based meat and fish could improve sustainability outcomes in food production. Some participants noted that targeted investment could help to reach goals with respect to nutrition and sustainability, and the importance of transparency and access to existing incentives, particularly amongst socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Repurposing public support to align with conservation goals was a second solution on which some participants agreed. Some participants posited that repurposing existing public support could better achieve environmental outcomes, including making crop insurance more conservation friendly and reallocating domestic support from large to small farms. Some participants noted that an increased conservation budget would be important and could fund goals such as climate smart agriculture, access to key inputs of land, water, and labor, and the climate resiliency of domestic fisheries. Some participants noted that additional research is needed on the sustainability of regenerative and sustainable feeds, and the nuanced differences between animal production systems that are not fully recognized or considered in the marketplace. Some participants posited that the pathway forward could include the creation of technical and financial support for diversified farming, food processing, outreach and education programs, and food business communities. In setting environmental goals, some participants noted the importance of addressing environmental impacts beyond carbon footprints by solving for issues such as nitrogen, water quality, and waste. Some participants suggested that USDA itself could apply standards in environmental impacts, labor requirements, and equity as it does in procurement and providing funds to farmers or eligibility to various programs.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Solutions Cluster (Cross-Cutting): Food systems policy, planning, and approaches Participants agreed that a cross-cutting solution that addresses all three challenge areas is participatory and adaptive food systems policy and planning. Participants agreed that food systems policy and planning should be science and evidence-based, and support inclusive, diverse, and integrated approaches that address all three challenges identified in the first U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue. Some participants agreed that the goal for food systems is to ensure access to safe and nutritious food that is sustainably produced and contributes to resiliency. Some participants suggested that rethinking our framework for food safety, security, stability, and resiliency is critical to responding to climate change, demographic shifts, and landscape changes. Some participants noted that the cross-cutting nature of the food system and its tradeoffs requires comprehensive planning. One example cited by some participants was that nutritious food affordability is a key component to healthy diets, but low-priced food creates challenges for safe worker conditions and sustainable livelihoods. Another example cited by some participants was the lack of synergy between the dietary guidelines and production incentives, which contribute to high rates of diet related illnesses. An additional consideration noted by some participants is the need to adjust for new consumption and population and growth trends, and scale food systems planning regionally. One of the outcomes of food systems planning mentioned by some participants could be the evaluation of research funding, with some participants noting research should be directed to areas that solve food system challenges. Some participants elaborated on the approaches needed to achieve sustainable food systems, highlighting voluntary, adaptive, and participatory approaches. Some participants noted that solutions are not “one size fits all” and should not pit one thing against another. Some participants highlighted that challenges should be addressed through the creation of targeted incentives that move us towards goals, combined with the removal of incentives that work against goals. Some participants noted that solutions should be adaptive and developed through iteration before reaching scale. Some participants stressed that all stakeholders need to have equitable voice and that solutions should be responsive to needs on the ground. Some participants elaborated that community-centered solutions could include factors such as knowledge systems, innovation, ecological and systems change, and valuing localized approaches. One group reached the following consensus on approaches to sustainable food systems: “integrated, inclusive, and intercultural approach based on science, incentives and innovation to support and advance local change and connect with holistic systems to create common understandings in our language, address inequalities in access to healthy diets, food production, mitigate and adapt for environmental degradation and climate change.”236238239240241242244245248249251Solutions Cluster (Cross-Cutting): Involvement of youth Participants agreed that a cross-cutting solution that addresses all three challenge areas is the involvement of youth across food systems. Participants agreed that involvement of youth in food systems is a cross-cutting solution to all food systems challenges. Some participants highlighted the importance of building a sense of agency in youth, and suggested that policies, discussions, and possible solutions need to be discussed with future leaders in high school and college. Some participants noted the necessity of increasing youth education and training in food systems with a focus on nutrition, economics, science, and technology. Some participants agreed that engaging youth through school and programs such as 4H could promote healthy food messages, and that children and young people are agents of change that can spread awareness about food safety, food loss and waste, new methods of production, and the interconnectivity of food systems. One group reached agreement that through additional training on healthy foods, youth will fill information gaps and solve problems affecting food systems. Regarding youth currently employed in food systems, some participants noted that young people are committed to farming and there was an increase in young farmers in the last census. Some participants noted that programs to bring youth into the agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture sectors (analogous to AmeriCorps) could be a way to increase youth engagement.237238239240241242243244245246248249250Participants expressed divergent views on the role of consolidation and global, regional, and local food systems. Some participants expressed that smaller scale food systems are more sustainable while others countered that smaller is not always more sustainable, as smaller operations cannot always afford to support workers or achieve the efficiency of larger operations. Facilitators flagged this as an area requiring further exploration. One dimension of this divergence focused on modern technologies, including biotechnology. One participant noted the importance of biotechnology to contribute to nutrition, production, worker health and safety, and the importance of science-based agriculture and use of science-based risk assessments as a foundation of food systems for the future. In response, another participant expressed that new technologies could negatively impact the ability of people to feed themselves, concluding that local ownership of the food system and promoting ecological diversity to ensure soil health is also important. Some participants stressed that food production should emphasize quality over quantity and soil health, with fortification of foods an interim solution while soil health practices become more widespread. Participants agreed that the tradeoffs of using modern technologies in agriculture need to be considered and weighed. Another dimension of this discussion focused on resilience. Some participants noted the tradeoffs between sourcing food locally versus externally during emergency situations. Some participants noted that sourcing food locally during emergency situations could stabilize the food supply. For example, in response to COVID19, one organization paid restaurants and community centers to support meals for the public, a model which was initially funded by philanthropy and requires longer term investment to sustain. On the other hand, one participant noted that some local and regional markets are highly dependent on external food sources, citing the example of Hawaii whose entire food supply could be disrupted if ports and airports are shut down. Participants agreed that the United States has an opportunity to lead in producing and providing access to nutrient dense foods at all scales, and that the UN Food Systems Summit should take into account the vulnerabilities and gaps in investment or tools of entry to create market access for all size producers.

2021-06-11 14:31:32205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25665/194

41

In recognition of the urgency of organizing the Food Systems Dialogues as contributions to the Food Systems Summit, the United States hosted a Dialogue entitled “Youth Voices in Sustainable U.S. Food Systems” at the 2021 Agricultural Outlook Forum on February 18, 2021. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust.The U.S. National Food Systems Dialogues seek to empower U.S. domestic stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit. This Youth Dialogue, which was held virtually, focused on elevating the diverse voices of youth in agriculture to generate solutions for building more economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable food systems in the United States. The event embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity and USDA invited all youth that were participating in USDA’s 2021 Agricultural Outlook Forum to participate in the youth dialogue. Forty-one students participated in the “Youth Voices in Sustainable U.S. Food Systems” Dialogue representing institutions from across the United States. Through multi-stakeholder inclusivity, the Dialogue provided a forum in which participants could share diverse perspectives, learn from each other, and collaborate to identify challenges and impactful solutions. Small group discussions at the Dialogue emphasized respect and building trust through facilitation guided by neutral U.S. government experts and researchers. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion and a collaborative approach. Dialogue discussion topics highlighted the complex challenges and tradeoffs top solutions related to food systems solutions. Neutral USDA experts were trained to facilitate small group discussions during the Dialogue and emphasized respect and building trust. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution (whereby comments are not attributed to any individual speaker or their affiliation) encouraged participants to engage in frank and collaborative discussion. Student volunteers were trained as notetakers prior to the Dialogue and sent anonymized notes from the small group discussions to facilitators for validation. This high-level summary is based on the individual summaries of the small group discussions, and a complementary report highlighting high level outcomes will be posted on the USDA Food Systems website.The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion with a collaborative approach. Only dialogue participants, facilitators, expert researchers for consultation, and note-takers were permitted in each dialogue breakout session.

Yes

234238239240241242243244250251This report represents the views of U.S. stakeholders, it does not represent the official views of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or United States Government. In following with the guidelines of the UN Dialogues Toolkit and ensure a systemic, comprehensive approach to assessing food systems, this Youth Dialogue focused on identifying solutions to building more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food systems in the United States. USDA invited all youth that were participating in USDA’s 2021 Agricultural Outlook Forum to participate in the youth dialogue. This included youth that were enrolled in a U.S. college or university including 1862 Land-grant institutions, 1890 Historically Black Land-grant institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and other colleges and universities. The event agenda consisted of opening remarks, followed by one hour-long breakout session led by USDA and U.S. Federal Government researchers and program leaders, and concluding with a read-out of the breakout session discussions by facilitators. The participants noted in Section 1. Participation of this report are only those who participated in breakout rooms, not including U.S. government facilitators and notetakers. This Dialogue focused on identifying solutions for building more economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable food systems in the United States. The discussions centered on five main challenge areas aligned with the UN Food Systems Summit’s five “action tracks”: 1. Safe and nutritious food for all: What are potential solutions for ending hunger and all forms of malnutrition and reducing the incidence of non-communicable disease, enabling all people to be nourished and healthy? 2. Increased consumer demand for healthy diets that are sustainably produced: What are potential solutions for increasing consumer demand for healthy diets and foods that are sustainably produced? What are potential solutions for reducing consumer food waste? 3. Sustainable environmental production: What are potential solutions in optimizing environmental resource use in food production, processing and distribution, to reduce biodiversity loss, pollution, water use, soil degradation and greenhouse gas emissions? 4. Equitable livelihoods across the food system: What are potential solutions for promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all actors along the food value chain and enabling entrepreneurship and addressing the inequitable access to resources and distribution of value? 5. Resilient food systems: What are potential solutions for ensuring the continued functionality of sustainable food systems in case of natural disasters, pandemics, economic shocks, conflict, and other sources of instability? To encourage a systematic assessment of challenges, each breakout discussion considered four general questions: 1. What are some potential solutions? What challenge does this solution respond to? 2. What is the evidence that supports the implementation of this solution? Does the evidence exist or are there knowledge and evidence gaps? 3. What are the tradeoffs among economic, social, and environmental sustainability objectives for this solution? What are the distributional characteristics if the solution were to be implemented? If the group discusses potential solutions that target one dimension of sustainability (for example, social sustainability), what are the potential impacts on the other dimensions of sustainability? 4. What are points of consensus or disagreement amongst stakeholder groups about the solution?235238239240241242243244246248249250251Participants explored opportunities for creating more sustainable food systems in the United States. The goal of the Dialogue was to enable a diverse set of youth in food and agriculture to work together – examining their food systems, exploring options for change, and identifying pathways for these systems to become more sustainable to meet evolving needs and challenges. The focus of the “Youth Voices in Sustainable U.S. Food Systems” Dialogue was to identify solutions and pathways to improving the sustainability of U.S. food systems. While the discussion topics were organized around the five UN Food Systems Summit Action Tracks outlined above, the discussions did not fall neatly into these silos. Instead, participants broadened the discussions to holistically consider opportunities and tradeoffs across food systems and goals related to sustainability and resilience. Some participants shared that their personal backgrounds with food and agriculture informed the solutions they proposed, for instance growing up on a farm or participating in an agriculture science curriculum in an urban school. Four overarching solutions emerged: 1) school-based nutrition and agricultural education, 2) a web-based label scanning tool to provide clear and transparent information on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of food systems, 3) innovative policies and programs, and 4) improved prediction of agricultural supply chains through Artificial Intelligence (AI). See below discussion for further detail on solutions. In all the discussion groups, participants discussed where they thought more research or scientific evidence is needed. Discussions highlighted the lack of good cost benefit analyses of existing food assistance programs, lack of information sharing regarding information on food sustainability, and a data gap on the health of farmers and agricultural supply chain workers. Additionally, some participants noted information gaps on the downstream effects of gene editing in livestock and a lack of data analyzing the types of subsidies needed to transition to more sustainable production systems. Some participants also raised challenges relating to the existence of inaccurate and difficult-to-understand information. Dialogue participants also discussed barriers to implementation of the proposed solutions. All groups noted that the lack of financial resources can prevent the adoption of food systems solutions. Some participants noted that differing food preferences could prevent adoption of healthy diets, that difficulties with voluntary disclosure of information could prevent success of digital consumer-oriented tools, and that systemic barriers in education such as the inflexibility of standardized school curriculums could prevent growth of agricultural and nutritional education. Some participants identified barriers to implementation of urban agriculture including competing interests from retailers. Some participants hypothesized that barriers to improving the conditions of farmworkers included immigration status of workers and the outsized influence of certain industries and corporations. Some participants noted that financial and size limitations of farms could be barriers to implementation of new technologies. Discussion group participants discussed the tradeoffs that might arise in building more sustainable food systems. Some participants noted that certain groups benefit more than others from food assistance, that digital tools like a web-based label scanning app could impact food prices, and that some urban agriculture systems can be energy intensive and have expensive startup costs. Additionally, some participants noted that sustainable agriculture practices may be costly and time-consuming to implement to achieve comparable productivity to conventional agriculture. Some participants raised the concern that automation of agriculture could displace labor. Finally, some participants discussed the potential for unforeseen environmental consequences of innovation as ecosystems are not one-size-fits-all.236238239241243244245249250251Solution #1: School-based nutrition and agricultural education Dialogue participants emphasized the need for increased early childhood nutrition education and agricultural education. Some participants emphasized that nutrition education should be multicultural in nature to reflect the cultures we have in the United States. Other participants agreed that agricultural education could unite rural, urban, and suburban communities. Participants also noted the opportunity to support education across different platforms including schools, existing nutrition education programs, and digital and social media platforms. Some participants hypothesized that agricultural education in public schools could increase awareness of environmental and food production challenges and opportunities to enable individuals to develop solutions. Some participants noted the lack of a cost benefit analysis to substantiate long-term financial investment in nutrition and agricultural education programs. Finally, participants stressed that barriers to implementation included lack of funding, and that tradeoffs could include the need to reallocate public funding towards nutrition education.236238239240241242243244248250251Solution #2: Web-based label scanning tool Dialogue participants championed the creation of a web-based application (app) to provide transparent sustainability information to consumers. Some participants posited that upon scanning the food label, this app could provide economic (i.e., wages), social (i.e., farm labor, fair trade certification), and environmental (i.e., carbon footprint) information related to the product. According to some participants, this app might encourage consumers to choose value-based foods that are produced without damaging the environment and that respect the dignity of the workers who produce the foods. Some participants speculated that such foods might also positively impact local communities where they are produced. Some participants noted that it could be a challenge to compel food producers to share information about their food’s effect on human health, the environment, and society. Some participants noted that tradeoffs could include the effect of the app on food prices, and barriers to implementation could include costs of development and collecting the necessary information.236238239240241242243244246248250251Solution #3: Innovative policies and programs Dialogue participants stressed the importance of policy to achieve food equity for all, with programs implemented by a diverse group of government agencies that reflect the communities they serve. Some participants noted that programs could support soil health and urban agriculture, as well as work to enforce existing regulations like antitrust laws or develop new legislation to address systemic discrimination like the Justice for Black Farmers Act. Some participants emphasized that good soil health practices could help capture and store carbon in soil and benefit plant and animal production and health. Some participants discussed how urban agriculture could mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the need to transport food and could also address urban food deserts. Some participants thought that USDA subsidy programs could be revamped to promote the production of healthier foods. Some participants noted that government outreach programs could build bridges between rural and urban communities and shape sustainable consumption behaviors. Some participants also noted evidence gaps including on the productivity of urban farming and data on the health outcomes for consumers of different diets.236238239240241242243244245248250251Solution #4: Predictive food supply chain analytics Dialogue participants identified improving prediction through Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a solution. Some participants noted that an opportunity exists for U.S. food systems to better harness and share data to improve food distribution, reduce food loss and waste, and enhance precision agriculture. Some participants noted that improved use of data could allow stakeholders to learn from experiences such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Some participants noted a need for further evidence and research on the impacts of increased uptake of AI technology, and noted concerns that tradeoffs could include job loss, unintended consequences as ecosystems are not one size fits all, and social issues related to agricultural extension and education.237238239240241242243244245246248249250251Points of consensus or disagreement included discussion on the value of increased education for sustainable and healthy diets and making healthy choices easier for consumers. Some participants agreed that strengthening the ability to deliver food in emergency situations is important for the food security of low-income families. While some participants agreed that the government could play a greater role in outreach on nutrition and agriculture programs, other participants speculated that government interventions could lead to community push back due to a lack of trust. Some participants noted that local food systems could be a solution to food waste, while other participants noted that access to global markets is key to ensuring food security and combatting economic shocks. Participants also noted that raising awareness of innovative technology can increase adoption of potentially beneficial technology for those initially skeptical.

2021-06-11 14:38:03205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17538/120

10711457269043640815726481373451521022343

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión transformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar, y la interdependencia entre sectores.o Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso d ela Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asista en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS). o Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con la participación especializada del Consejo Nacional para la Evaluación de la Política Social (CONEVAL). Además, un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de diez facilitadores condujo los grupos de discusión. El equipo de facilitadores está compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), y el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF). o Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo: En el diálogo se aseguró la participación de organizaciones de la sociedad civil, del sector académico, de funcionarios, de institutos de investigación, de organismos internacionales, entre otros.Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos. Esto para mostrar que el proceso es inclusivo. Además ha mostrado ser útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239240243246249El objetivo general del Diálogo fue que los participantes propongan mecanismos de seguimiento sobre la evaluación de la política del sistema agroalimentario y la nutrición. Esto con un aterrizaje especial a la “Estrategia Nacional para una Alimentación Saludable, Justa y Sustentable”. La Estrategia tiene como objetivo ser la política alimentaria nacional para los próximos años. Incluye cuatro pilares: 1) políticas públicas, 2) entornos alimentarios, 3) producción y acceso, y 4) acciones individuales e intrapersonales. El trabajo relacionado a la Estrategia Nacional está directamente relacionado con las siguientes Vías de Acción: 1) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos, 2) Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible, y 3) Impulsar la producción favorable para a naturaleza.235238239240243246249¿Qué barreras identifican para lograr una visión común entre los diferentes actores del sistema agroalimentario para lograr una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible? • La intervención de la gran industria de bebidas y alimentos que con sus diferentes tácticas merman esta visión común y la hechura de política pública. Su mayor interés es generar ganancias y no la salud pública por lo tanto es difícil que exista una visión común, de ahí la necesidad de regularles. • Es necesario contar con una guía o visión común que alinea los objetivos de los diferentes sectores, establecer prioridades a nivel nacional (como fue el etiquetado en el que se priorizó la salud de la población) y mecanismos de coordinación interinstitucional. • Los intereses personales dificultan tener una visión más integral y holística para el impacto de diferentes acciones para una alimentación justa y sostenible. • La visión aislada y egoísta de los humanos es el mayor reto, así como la falta de concientización y el no trabajar en grupo. • Una de las principales barreras para lograr una visión común que se enfoque en la alimentación saludable justa y sostenible es el conflicto de interés. Dentro de las oportunidades se mencionaron: • Uno de los elementos que podrían disminuir las barreras, es la gobernanza. • Una manera que pudiera contribuir es tener un mapa completo de los actores del sistema alimentario, con el que puedan identificarse estas aparentes contradicciones. • Que desde Presidencia se apoye a unificar un mensaje claro y fuerte que sea replicado desde muchos otros actores como sociedad civil. • Se destacó la importancia de implementar acciones de blindaje, por ejemplo para los avances en políticas para que los cambios de administración no los amenacen. Sobre el GISAMAC: • En GISAMAC tiene un potencial increíble, pero si no hay institucionalidad y no está operando, es un desperdicio. • Se sugiere que GISAMAC fuera un consejo nacional de alimentación autónomo. Y fijar alguna postura o dar alguna recomendación. Compromiso por parte de este grupo mexicano, que a partir de un sistema alimentario considere el impacto ambiental y el impacto a la salud. ¿Qué indicadores de estructura, proceso, resultado e impacto propondrían para evaluar la política y los programas del sistema agroalimentario y la nutrición? • Los indicadores de proceso deberán establecerse de acuerdo con el detalle de los componentes de la Estrategia Nacional. Se destacó la necesidad de incorporar indicadores relacionados con: a) Gobernanza; b) Transformación de la producción intensiva a sostenible; c) Resiliencia; y d) Actividad física. • Se sugiere tomar en cuenta los indicadores del proyecto INFORMAS Food-EPI, dado que ya se hicieron ejercicios de discusión y consenso en México. • Suele ser más atractivo la evaluación de impacto. Y los indicadores más comunes son los de gestión. Pero es necesario que también se consideren indicadores intermedios como cambios en los entornos, cambios de conocimiento y cambios de comportamiento. • La Agenda 2030 marca un horizonte muy claro. Una muy buena ruta sería hacer una pausa al 2024-2025, y establecer una meta propuesta prorrateada con los ODS. • Es importante introducir indicadores que no existen en el catálogo nacional de indicadores del INEGI y que tienen una viabilidad efectiva al respecto, por ejemplo obesidad y sobrepeso. • Es necesario crear indicadores sobre prácticas agroecológicas. • Se debe reconocer que se tiene pendiente la aprobación de la Ley General para una Alimentación Adecuada y en ese sentido, al publicarse, todas las políticas, programas y normas se alinearían a esta Ley. • Pese a reconocer que lograr las metas de los ODS en los tiempos planteados es una ta-rea muy difícil, se deben de tomar como una guía para acercarnos al tema. • Se necesitan considerar también el problema de pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos. • Otros objetivos importantes es atender los problemas del agua y del cambio climático que tendrán un impacto importante en los sistemas agroalimentarios y la disponibilidad de alimentos que se encuentran interrelacionados con el ODS 2. • La periodicidad para los indicadores debe ser anual, por ciclos productivos y de acuerdo con los objetivos del programa y/o política pública. • Al hablar de un enfoque en sobrepeso y obesidad resulta lógico que los indicadores de ODS no son suficientes y se deben incorporar otros, especialmente la prevalencia de sobrepeso y obesidad en diferentes grupos de edad. 4.2.3 Respecto a la Estrategia Nacional para una Alimentación Saludable, Justa y Sostenible, ¿en qué podrían colaborar respecto a la evaluación? • Es muy buena señal que desde estos diálogos se habla de la evaluación porque la evaluación es un tema de voluntad política y que se debe iniciar la recolección de datos des-de antes de la implementación. • Las evaluaciones son fundamentales y deben ser externas. • La parte académica es muy importante, por lo que necesitan generarse convenios con universidades a nivel estatal y central para tratar de optimizar los procesos de evaluación. Esta vinculación es fundamental con organismos internacionales y con la academia. • Las propuestas mencionadas fueron promover que las personas, como sujetos de derecho a la alimentación, exijan una alimentación adecuada, saludable, sustentable y accesible.2362382392402432462491. Mala nutrición: ¿requerimos en México énfasis en sobrepeso y obesidad? ¿Cómo lograr que las políticas y programas para mejorar la nutrición y sus indicadores aborden y evalúen de manera coherente y complementaria las distintas formas de mala nutrición sin que haya contraposición entre intervenciones? • Importancia de que las políticas y programas sean coherentes entre ellos. Por ejemplo, el etiquetado con otras regulaciones como la de publicidad de alimentos y bebidas, y de entornos escolares. Así también la coherencia política para que todos los sectores (por ejemplo economía) tengan dentro de sus planes de trabajo, objetivos y discursos lograr una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para toda la población. • No debería haber contradicciones ente las intervenciones que abordan distintas formas de mala nutrición, ya que hay intervenciones con doble o triple propósito (como la LM) que atienden diferentes formas de malnutrición y generan sinergias para mejorar la cali-dad de la alimentación en general. • Es importante tener un buen diagnóstico del problema que permita identificar acciones o intervenciones para un tratamiento integral, así como identificar grupos prioritarios. Es importante que a partir de este diagnóstico se construya una matriz de indicadores que sea congruente. • Se reitera la necesidad de que la Estrategia y por tanto la evaluación considere todas las formas de mala nutrición y tenga un enfoque de ciclo de vida. ¿Consideran que el impacto de la Estrategia Nacional de Alimentación debería evaluarse en cambios en la prevalencia de sobrepeso y obesidad o cambios en la prevalencia de sobrepeso, obesidad y desnutrición, o consideran que algún otro indicador de impacto sería mejor? • Existió consenso en que debía ser tanto en prevalencia de sobrepeso, obesidad como de desnutrición y considerando también que incluso estas 2 condiciones se pueden traslapar dado que el origen es la inadecuada alimentación (exceso de calorías pero deficiencia de nutrimentos clave). • Aquí nuevamente surgió el tema de la leche LICONSA, que SEGALMEX se ha enfrentado a este cambio de retirar la grasa pero algunos consumidores no aceptan este nuevo sabor. Se comentó que la leche entera ya no está subsidiada y esto genera molestias entre los beneficiarios. • Para evaluar una estrategia de alimentación saludable se deben considerar cambios en las prevalencias de sobrepeso, obesidad, desnutrición y deficiencias de micronutrientes.2362382392402432462492. Experiencias en implementación de políticas y programas de alimentación ¿Qué políticas y programas implementados en México consideran que han tenido resultados de impacto positivos en sus evaluaciones generando una alimentación saludable y sustentable? ¿Identifican alguna práctica exitosa en otra parte del mundo en políticas y programas de alimentación? • Ha habido numerosas políticas que se han implementado en México para disminuir la mala nutrición, pero es importante que las que han funcionado no tengan un límite de tiempo, a fin de que se retomen las buenas prácticas como las basadas en ciencia y medicina. • La experiencia en México sobre en programas y políticas de alimentación es extensa, y abarca varias décadas, más de 50 años. Desde la década de los 70s se publicaron los Lineamientos para la Evaluación de un Programa de Alimentación y Nutrición coordinado por la Institución que ahora es CONACyT, se continuó con la política del Sistema Alimentario Mexicano, que duró un par de años, durante en el sexenio de López Portillo y en las sucesivas administraciones se tuvieron otros programas y políticas alimentarias como PROGRESA, o PROSPERA y el Programa México sin Hambre. • En esta administración pese a tener una serie de programas orientados a atender a las poblaciones vulnerables y la asignación de recursos, aún no se cuenta con una política específica en materia de alimentación en dónde se hagan definiciones sobre cómo atender la problemática y que esté coordinada al más alto nivel para que pueda ser integral e involucrar a todos los sectores del Sistema Alimentario. • Las experiencias permiten valorar que no se parte de cero. Se deben considerar, adecuar a la realidad actual y complementar con los nuevos elementos de información y de participación. • Retomar la experiencia del Programa de Desayunos Escolares del Sistema Nacional de Desarrollo Integral de la Familia (SNDIF) que tiene sus antecedentes desde 1926 con el Programa “La Gota de Leche”, y coadyuvado en el acceso a una alimentación saludable. Actualmente el programa se integra a la Estrategia de Asistencia Social Alimentaria con otros programas como: “El programa de Atención en los primeros 1000 días de vida”, “Programa de Atención a Población Prioritaria” y el “Programa de Atención a Población en Condiciones de Emergencia o Desastre”. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre la operación, gestión y resultados del Observatorio Mexicano de Enfermedades no Transmisibles (OMENT)? ¿Qué aspectos considera que se deberían mantener y cuáles se deberían modificar? • El Observatorio fue un organismo creado el sexenio pasado, en el que la industria dictaba las directrices a seguir y evitó el avance respecto a políticas de integración de las acciones de manera holística. • Un elemento que dificultó el trabajo del OMENT, es la excesiva interferencia de la industria, que evitaba que se pudiera llegar a algún consenso. En ocasiones eso se traducía en poner trabas, exponer argumentos falsos que generaban contrariedad y que en última instancia no se contribuía a señalar elementos que ayudaran a mejorar la salud de la población. • En este caso es importante mantener los objetivos, pero equilibrar el peso que tienen los participantes de manera tal que los conflictos de interés se eliminen. • Considerar el papel de la industria en los sistemas alimentarios, mejorar la gobernanza y lidiar con el conflicto de interés.2362382392402432462493. Construcción participativa e inclusiva de la política y los programas del sistema agroalimentario y la nutrición ¿Cómo se puede proteger a las políticas públicas y los programas relacionados con el sistema agroalimentario y la nutrición de la influencia e intervención de intereses, ya sean comerciales o de otra índole, que afecten su fin último de proteger la salud de la población y del planeta? • Tener cuidado con la cooptación de las empresas que imponen su visión, como la imposición del uso de agroquímicos que dañan el ambiente. Ejemplo de ello es el glifosato y la soya transgénica. • Renovando las leyes del sistema agroalimentario mexicano, pues es obsoleta ante los retos del presente y futuro. • Generando Normas Oficiales Mexicanas con altos estándares, de tal forma que sea más difícil no cumplirlas. • Otra forma es la transparencia, es fundamental saber cuántos recursos hay, cómo se están destinando y qué resultados hay de su aplicación. • Haciendo que los beneficiarios de los apoyos no sean sólo receptores, sino que sean partícipes de la planeación de estos recursos a utilizar en sus regiones. • Dando cumplimiento a la Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable, principalmente por el Gobierno Federal, la cual carece de un reglamento general que haga que se cumpla la Ley en lo sustantivo, como la promoción de financiamiento y de las actividades agropecuarias, promoción de organizaciones de productores entre otras. • Recuperando una serie de programas que el gobierno ha abandonado, por ejemplo, existía un programa para desarrollar sistemas de riesgo y hoy no existe una iniciativa que mencione algún proceso de tecnificación sobre el mejor aprovechamiento del agua; • Avanzando en la legislación de programas que sean de largo plazo. • Dando una mayor apertura a la participación de la sociedad civil organizada. • Basándose en la protección de los derechos humanos; es decir, generar un ambiente sano con producción sostenible, para ello se requiere enfocarse en la nutrición de las familias. • Por medio de la búsqueda de aliados como FAO, a fin de que ellos avalen el derecho a la alimentación y al mismo tiempo respaldar y proteger este derecho. • Creando redes de evaluación, y que los que evalúen el desarrollo y desempeño de di-chas políticas no sean jueces y partes. Para ello, el tema de las sanciones para el cumplimiento deberá estar bien estipulado. ¿Qué barreras identifican para que la sociedad civil, pueblos indígenas, campesinos y grupos vulnerables en general participen en la construcción de la política y los programas del sistema agroalimentario y la nutrición? ¿Qué soluciones proponen? • Existen barreras en los grandes medios de comunicación los cuales no fácilmente abren foro a los pequeños actores y consumidores. • Toda propuesta de política necesita tener un enfoque ascendente y territorial, se necesi-ta planear desde el municipio, a través de la elaboración de diagnósticos participativos. • Los diagnósticos necesitan ser comunitarios. • Se necesitan esfuerzos territoriales para lograr asambleas donde haya acuerdos y mediación, además de promover campañas de información. • La principal barrera para estos grupos es que no son considerados desde su quehacer en el territorio, se tiene que partir desde este ámbito para establecer políticas públicas. • Los programas de apoyos son individualizados pues no hay trabajo colectivo comunitario y los consumidores no conocen su papel y sus derechos a una alimentación sana y accesible. • La existencia de problemas estructurales y la división entre secretarías, es decir, la no transversalidad e intersectorialidad también representa una barrera, pues esta falta de trabajo integral repercute en el buen funcionamiento de los planes y programas. • Se necesita trabajar para establecer diálogos más incluyentes, con comunidades indígenas, la academia, gobierno, sociedad civil, etc.2362382392402432462494. Presupuesto para la política y los programas del sistema agroalimentario y la nutrición ¿Qué fuentes de financiamiento efectivas conocen o consideran importante explorar para obtención de presupuesto para la política y los programas del sistema agroalimentario y la nutrición, por ejemplo, para no tener barreras entre presupuesto federal y local? Anotar en caso de que mencionen fechas límites para ciertos procedimientos. • Elevar las estrategias a programas presupuestarios. • Proyectos de coinversión. • Mayor impulso de la Banca de desarrollo, columna vertebral de financiamiento. • Creación de un programa especial para la nutrición, con preasignación interinstitucional para asignar montos por dependencia canalizados a la Estrategia Nacional. • 2 vías: 1) Generar programa presupuestario y 2) Generar un programa especial. • Apoyar la Co inversión en concurrencia para reactivar lo que se realiza con FAO. • Invertir en capacitación para todas las instancias involucradas. • Iniciativas de financiamiento con el FIDA (Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agrícola), Sistemas producto, sistemas de producción arroz, maíz, tilapia, soya, realizar coinversiones con ellos. • Reactivar los consejos municipales y distritales • Trabajar con programas de Organismos Internacionales como la ONU. • Las fuentes de financiamiento en general son recursos federales de los programas presupuestarios, programas estatales del ramo 33, INSABI para el bienestar; el principal problema que destacaron es el uso del presupuesto ya que a nivel estatal los recursos se dirigen hacia el pago de nómina y una pequeña parte se ocupa en el objetivo del programa, recomendaron crear alianzas con los sectores privados para contar con más agentes del cambio. ¿Cómo evitar el conflicto de interés en la obtención de financiamiento y el monitoreo de la política y los programas del sistema agroalimentario y la nutrición? • Crear el escenario legal, operativo y administrativo para que las comunidades indígenas, grupos de productores cuenten con personalidad jurídica de para la búsqueda de fuentes de financiamiento. • Beneficios directos al beneficiario, sin intermediarios, apoyos directos a productores y agricultores para acceso a recursos. • Retomar como base el programa PESA FAO. • Responsabilidades diferenciadas en los participantes de programas, atendiendo a la lógica imparcial. • Cuidar la participación de la industria, respecto del tipo de productos y tipo de ayudas. Ejemplo: donación de algunos supermercados con la pandemia de COVID-19. • Medir con claridad a los beneficiarios, población objetivo, universo de la población objetivo. • se propuso que para el monitoreo y evaluación del financiamiento se trabaje con organismos autónomos. • Se hizo énfasis en la importancia de concientizar a los sectores e instituciones transversales, así como a las empresas privadas de la importancia de la salud.237238239240243246249• Algunos participantes enfatizaron en que la alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible resolvía tanto los problemas de deficiencias como de exceso y calidad y que ese debe ser el enfoque de la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. • En cuanto a la periodicidad de evaluación hubo dos posturas: 1) sosteniendo que desde el primer año se puede ver el impacto; y 2) en el primer año se hacen ajustes en los programas, el segundo año se consolida el programa y ya el tercero es cuando se puede ver el impacto. • Hubo un disenso sobre la funcionalidad y relevancia de los indicadores de los ODS. Por una parte, se consideraron necesarios para homologar los esfuerzos realizados y por otra se consideraron muy vagos para ser funcionales. • Una pequeña divergencia fue que el enfoque en general fuera nutrición, como el resultado al que aspiramos y otros pensaban en nutrición y alimentación para incluir a todos los involucrados, considerando a los productores.

2021-06-11 14:41:28205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19896/84

624212211320115155

En el primer diálogo regional se utilizó la estructura de la gobernanza en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con que cuenta Honduras en seguimiento al plan de nación visión de país convocando a los participantes con el apoyo de las mesas regionales de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional incorporando sectores que no han estado participando en las mesas pero que son parte de los sistemas alimentarios .Al comienzo se hizo énfasis en la cumbre, haciendo una recopilación de los esfuerzos globales para mejora de los índices de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y de los sistemas alimentarios con la participación de representantes de Gobierno, cooperación internacional, Academia, Sociedad Civil, ONG’s y empresa privada. asegurando de esta manera la participación de diversos actores vinculados con los Sistemas Alimentarios en Honduras. Previo al evento se socializaron los objetivos planteados en esta segunda fase de Diálogo, la agenda del evento y una pequeña nota metodológica en la que se incluyeron aspectos generales de la Cumbre y los Diálogos, y lo que se esperaba del trabajo conjunto articulado, coordinado con el fin de establecer un fuerte compromiso que nos permita construir un Sistema Alimentario Integral, fortalecer y desarrollar las potencialidades que tenemos y cerrar aquellas brechas de inequidad que se presentan en nuestra población.Actuar con Urgencia: se hizo énfasis en todos los eventos regionales, dada la problémica generada a raíz de las tormentas tropicales Eta y Iota, la actual crisis sanitaria generada por la pandemia mundial COVID 19 y la situación de vulnerabilidad de nuestro país ante los efectos del cambio climático, que el accionar sobre la mejora de los sistemas alimentarios debe ser inmediato con abordaje multisectorial. Comprometernos con la Cumbre: En todo momento se manifestó que el replicar estas iniciativas de diálogo y la Cumbre se convierten en una oportunidad de crecimiento para el país. Reconocer la complejidad: Se recalcó que ya no se trata solo de transformar los sistemas alimentarios sino de orientar su recuperación de la crisis para que sean mucho mejores de lo que teníamos antes y esto solamente puede lograrse con el involucramiento de todos los actores de desarrollo. Adoptar la inclusión de múltiples partes interesadas: se refuerza durante todo el dialogo que es necesaria las acciones coordinadas y articuladas de todos lo sectores vinculados a los sistemas alimentarios, pero sobre todo escuchar y hacer parte a los que tienen las necesidades: la población. Generar confianza Para el desarrollo de los diálogos se está trabajando a través del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional de Honduras, siendo el COTISAN (espacio técnico) y el CONASAN (Espacio político) los espacios donde se estarán desarrollando las diferentes etapas de los diálogos, el hacerlo de esta manera ha generado confianza en los otros actores que se han ido sumando.

Yes

234241242243244245246247248249250251Para el desarrollo de los 3 diálogos subnacionales: Acciones para transformar el Sistema Alimentario en Honduras, se plantearon dos objetivos: 1) Identificar acciones y discutir propuestas hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible en Honduras partiendo del análisis de las vías de acción priorizadas; y 2) Determinar la mejor manera de participar en el proceso de la Cumbre y contribuir a este. El diálogo se centró en el análisis de las vías de acción 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos, y la vía 5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. Siguiendo la metodología del Manual sobre los Diálogos de los Estados Miembro, se formularon preguntas generadoras. El primer bloque de preguntas incluyó aspectos relacionados a las desigualdades en el sistema alimentario en Honduras, partiendo de la siguiente premisa: Promover medios de vida equitativos implica la eliminación de la pobreza mediante la promoción del empleo pleno y productivo y el trabajo decente para todos los agentes de la cadena de valor de los alimentos, la reducción de los riesgos para los más pobres, el fomento del emprendimiento y la lucha contra las desigualdades en el acceso a los recursos y la distribución del valor. La reducción de las desigualdades mejorará la resiliencia mediante la protección social y tratará de garantizar que los sistemas alimentarios “no dejen a nadie atrás”. Las preguntas generadoras fueron: Para reducir las desigualdades en el sistema: 1. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para mejorar los ingresos y los medios de vida de quienes dependen del sistema alimentario para su sustento (agricultores, empleados y MiPymes en los sectores agro, procesamiento, alimentos y asociados)? 2. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para asegurar que todos los estratos socioeconómicos y grupos sociales tengan acceso a alimentos nutritivos?, 3. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para asegurar el acceso a puntos de distribución de alimentos que ofrecen alimentos de calidad a precios accesibles para toda la población, particularmente los diferentes grupos vulnerables? El segundo bloque de preguntas relacionado con Resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones partió de la siguiente premisa: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones para asegurar la funcionalidad ininterrumpida de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en zonas propensas a conflictos, desastres naturales u otros tipos de choques o estresores de naturaleza social, económico, ambiental o de salud. Crear resiliencia busca proteger los suministros de alimentos ante los efectos de pandemias y eventos climáticos, así como garantizar que todas las personas en un sistema alimentario estén empoderadas para prepararse para la inestabilidad, resistir y recuperarse de ella. El fortalecer la resiliencia en los sistemas alimentarios busca ayudar a las personas a participar en sistemas alimentarios que, a pesar de las conmociones y los factores de perturbación, proporcionen seguridad alimentaria, nutrición y medios de vida equitativos para todos. Las preguntas generadoras fueron: 1. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para generar/contribuir/fortalecer a la resiliencia de nuestro sistema alimentario en todos sus componentes ante eventos extremos que interrumpen la producción, distribución y/o consumo de alimentos en el país? Ejemplo: Eventos naturales: Huracanes, inundaciones, sequías/Eventos sociales y/o económicos: sanitarios, políticos, crisis migratoria; 2. ¿Qué acciones debemos realizar en los próximos tres años para generar/contribuir/fortalecer la resiliencia de todo el sistema alimentario (Producción, Almacenamiento, Comercialización, Distribución de alimentos, Procesamiento y Vía de acceso al consumidor)?235241242243244245246247248249250251Se agradece a todos los actores que activamente participaron en las mesas de trabajo conformadas. La riqueza generada derivada de un análisis del contexto regional y la identificación de propuestas de acción para abordar su problemática serán insumos importantes para la construcción de los compromisos que nuestro país presente ante la Cumbre en el mes de septiembre. Se destacan a continuación algunas conclusiones generales: a) Es urgente identificar la ruta más eficiente para que los sistemas alimentarios sean equitativos, pero también que sean adecuados a las necesidades de cada región y para ello las Mesas Regionales de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional son espacios que pueden aprovecharse para este tipo de análisis; b) Hace falta definir cómo aterrizar las políticas públicas con acciones que generen impacto en los grupos más vulnerables, con estrategias diferenciadas e inclusión de la mujer, los pueblos indígenas, jóvenes en todo el sistema alimentario; c) Si queremos apostar a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles se deben reforzar la aplicación de marcos regulatorios internacionales a los que Honduras está suscrito; d) Los acuerdos que salgan de todos estos diálogos deben ser escuchados en la Cumbre, estos acuerdos deben buscar luchar por los más vulnerables (mujeres, niños); e) Necesitamos establecer compromisos y acciones concretas en el corto y mediano plazo para ayudar a construir una sociedad más equitativa y resiliente; f) Diseñar políticas de producción y consumo de alimentos saludables que disminuyan los riesgos en la salud, producción consciente de la variabilidad y cambio climático, precios de los alimentos, redireccionar el poder de compra del estado, priorizar la compra local de alimentos, dinamización de economías locales, apoyo al productor: g) Promover políticas de incentivos que reduzcan la producción de gases efecto invernadero, residuos sólidos y pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos; h) Focalizar esfuerzos para una gobernanza de los sistemas alimentarios que vincule el sector público y privado, estableciendo mecanismos que impulsen la disponibilidad y el acceso a alimentos saludables y la transformación de los alimentos ante el reto de una nueva dinámica comercial; j) Se debe Preparar a los jóvenes en habilidades esenciales par que estén preparados para los retos del futuro; l) La caracterización y focalización de las acciones deben ser dirigida directamente a la población que necesita, con esquemas directos que lleguen al pequeño productor sin intermediarios. m) Reforzar esquemas con la regulación de precios, desburocratizar el acceso a crédito y fortalecer buenos productos de forma directa entre el productor y consumidor. AL participar en la cumbre se espera que como país seamos escuchados, que los lineamientos que se generen sean entendibles, priorizados, alcanzables y que sean236241242243244245246247248249250251Las propuestas de acción para fortalecer la resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades fueron: (a) Mejorar los sistemas de controles y alerta temprana, mitigación y prevención de riesgos para ampliar resiliencia ante los desastres; (b) Establecer estrategias de manejo de cuenca integral, incluyendo microcuencas, proyectos hidroeléctricos y alternativas para cosechar el agua; (c) Fortalecer y promover bancos de granos a todos los niveles (local, municipal); (d) Desarrollar programas de asistencia técnica, capacitación e intercambio de mejores prácticas para incrementar la resiliencia de productores (ej: programas de capacitación por radio, escuelas de campo que permitan demostrar la funcionalidad de sistemas en base a la agroecología); (e) Facilitar el acceso a financiamiento tras sistemas de financiamiento alternativos e innovadores; (f) Legalizar los medios de producción para incrementar la seguridad legal de productores y emprendedores; (g) Incorporar y facilitar a productores nuevas formas de comercializar los productos (ej. redes sociales, formas digitales), incluso desperdicios o productos que no se pueden llegar a comercializar, generar microempresas que puedan procesar los excedentes; (h) Establecer bancos comunitarios de alimentos y crear mini centros de acopio y almacenamiento de granos para reducir las perdidas y asegurar un acceso continuo a alimentos; (i) Fortalecer las capacidades organizativas y la asociatividad en la producción y fomentar iniciativas empresariales, con un enfoque especial en jóvenes y mujeres, para permitir llegar a volúmenes e incrementar el poder de mercado; (j) Fomentar la diversificación en la producción, incluso con cultivos resistentes, adoptando nuevas tecnologías (ej. cultivos hidropónicos) para optimizar la producción; (k) Incrementar programas para incentivar a productores (sueldos más justos, ingresos alternativos como viveros agroforestales y bonos ambientales, acceso a tenencia de tierra); (l) Mejorar la planificación territorial, combatir la deforestación e incrementar a acceso a fondos verdes para conservar la producción y preservar el ecosistema. Para el tema de desigualdad se propone: a) Focalizar esfuerzos para una gobernanza de los sistemas alimentarios que vincule el sector público y privado, estableciendo mecanismos que impulsen la disponibilidad y el acceso a alimentos saludables; b) El estado debe reforzar o fomentar políticas incluyentes (mujeres indígenas, mujeres afrodescendientes, discapacidad, entre otros), políticas orientadas a fomentar la producción de alimentos saludables, consciente de la variabilidad y cambio climático, precios de los alimentos, compra local de alimentos, dinamización de economías locales, apoyo al productor, incentivos que reduzcan la producción de gases efecto invernadero, residuos sólidos y pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos; c) Facilitar mecanismos de acceso a crédito y tierra a pequeños agricultores y mujeres; d) Proponer estrategias donde los pequeños productores y la agricultura familiar sea una de los principales proveedores de alimentos a nivel local y nacional; e) Fortalecer las mesas regionales SAN, ya que son estos espacios donde se pueden identificar acciones en función de las necesidades del territorio; f) Mejorar las vías de acceso para que los productores acerquen los productos al mercado; g) Crear mecanismos de control de la intermediación de los productos , fomentar una economía más solidaria, fortalecer mercados comunitarios; h) Fortalecer el rol de las municipalidades para que tengan un papel más protagónico en la toma de decisión para acciones en su territorio referentes a los sistemas alimentarios con enfoques más inclusivos ; i) El Gobierno debe regular el precio de los insumos para tener un mercado más competitivo; j) Los conocimientos e información, tecnologías deben llevarse al servicio del productor, tanto para generar sus alimentos, como para comercializar sus excedentes.; k) Disponer de información agroclimática, para realizar pronósticos más acertados sobre el clima. Establecer sistemas de alerta temprana; l) Establecer mercados justos para garantizar precios adecuados para los productores.237241242243244245246247248249250251Durante las discusiones en las mesas de trabajo, se dieron ideas de propuestas de acción y dentro de estas algunas presentaba divergencias entre sí. A continuación, el detalle: Algunos participantes mencionaron la importancia de crear nuevas políticas públicas que permitan fortalecer la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, mientras que otros manifestaron que sería mejor aterrizar las políticas sobre Seguridad Alimentaria existentes y garantizar su aplicación de manera eficaz. La segunda área de divergencia identificada sostenía que se necesitaba de incidencia política para mejorar espacios de comercialización de productos, mientras que otros participantes hacían un llamado a una incidencia comunitaria y municipal. Algunos participantes enfocaron sus ideas en la producción de alimentos nutritivos, pero otro participante manifestó que aparte de producirlos había que promocionar su consumo.

2021-06-11 15:18:17205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19894/84

52484557162381418

El segundo diálogo regional se utilizó de nuevo la estructura de la gobernanza en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con que cuenta Honduras en seguimiento al plan de nación visión de país convocando a los participantes con el apoyo de las mesas regionales de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional e incorporando sectores que no han estado participando en las mesas pero que son parte de los sistemas alimentarios, para poder realizar un dialogo inclusivo, al inicio del dialogo se hizo énfasis en la cumbre haciendo una recopilación de los esfuerzos globales para mejora de los índices de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y de los sistemas alimentarios se tuvo participación de representantes de Gobierno , Academia, Sociedad Civil, ONG’s y empresa privada. asegurando de esta manera la participación de diversos actores vinculados con los Sistemas Alimentarios en Honduras. Previo al evento se socializaron los objetivos planteados en esta segunda fase de Diálogo, la agenda del evento y una pequeña nota metodológica en la que se incluyeron aspectos generales de la Cumbre y los Diálogos, y lo que se esperaba del trabajo conjunto articulado, coordinado con el fin de establecer un fuerte compromiso que nos permita construir un Sistema Alimentario Integral, fortalecer y desarrollar las potencialidades que tenemos y cerrar aquellas brechas de inequidad que se presentan en nuestra población. En este dialogo se pudo contar con presencia de sectores que tradicionalmente postergados de la zona de la mosquitia cuya participación en espacios de dialogo es sumamente complicada por la distancia y las dificultades de comunicación en la zona.Actuar con Urgencia: se hizo énfasis en todos los eventos regionales, dada la problémica generada a raíz de las tormentas tropicales Eta y Iota, la actual crisis sanitaria generada por la pandemia mundial COVID 19 y la situación de vulnerabilidad de nuestro país ante los efectos del cambio climático, que el accionar sobre la mejora de los sistemas alimentarios debe ser inmediato con abordaje multisectorial. Comprometernos con la Cumbre: En todo momento se manifestó que el replicar estas iniciativas de diálogo y la Cumbre se convierten en una oportunidad de crecimiento para el país. Reconocer la complejidad: Se recalcó que ya no se trata solo de transformar los sistemas alimentarios sino de orientar su recuperación de la crisis para que sean mucho mejores de lo que teníamos antes y esto solamente puede lograrse con el involucramiento de todos los actores de desarrollo. Adoptar la inclusión de múltiples partes interesadas: se refuerza durante todo el dialogo que es necesaria las acciones coordinadas y articuladas de todos lo sectores vinculados a los sistemas alimentarios, pero sobre todo escuchar y hacer parte a los que tienen las necesidades: la población. Generar confianza Para el desarrollo de los diálogos se está trabajando a través del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional de Honduras, siendo el COTISAN (espacio técnico) y el CONASAN (espacio político) y las mesas regionales de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional (espacio regional) los espacios donde se estarán desarrollando las diferentes etapas de los diálogos, el hacerlo de esta manera ha generado confianza en los otros actores que se han ido sumando.

Yes

234241242243244245246247248249250251Para el desarrollo de los 3 diálogos subnacionales: Acciones para transformar el Sistema Alimentario en Honduras, se plantearon dos objetivos: 1) Identificar acciones y discutir propuestas hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible en Honduras partiendo del análisis de las vías de acción priorizadas; y 2) Determinar la mejor manera de participar en el proceso de la Cumbre y contribuir a este. El diálogo se centró en el análisis de las vías de acción 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos, y la vía 5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. Siguiendo la metodología del Manual sobre los Diálogos de los Estados Miembro, se formularon preguntas generadoras. El primer bloque de preguntas incluyó aspectos relacionados a las desigualdades en el sistema alimentario en Honduras, partiendo de la siguiente premisa: Promover medios de vida equitativos implica la eliminación de la pobreza mediante la promoción del empleo pleno y productivo y el trabajo decente para todos los agentes de la cadena de valor de los alimentos, la reducción de los riesgos para los más pobres, el fomento del emprendimiento y la lucha contra las desigualdades en el acceso a los recursos y la distribución del valor. La reducción de las desigualdades mejorará la resiliencia mediante la protección social y tratará de garantizar que los sistemas alimentarios “no dejen a nadie atrás”. Las preguntas generadoras fueron: Para reducir las desigualdades en el sistema: 1. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para mejorar los ingresos y los medios de vida de quienes dependen del sistema alimentario para su sustento (agricultores, empleados y MiPymes en los sectores agro, procesamiento, alimentos y asociados)? 2. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para asegurar que todos los estratos socioeconómicos y grupos sociales tengan acceso a alimentos nutritivos?, 3. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para asegurar el acceso a puntos de distribución de alimentos que ofrecen alimentos de calidad a precios accesibles para toda la población, particularmente los diferentes grupos vulnerables? El segundo bloque de preguntas relacionado con Resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones partió de la siguiente premisa: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones para asegurar la funcionalidad ininterrumpida de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en zonas propensas a conflictos, desastres naturales u otros tipos de choques o estresores de naturaleza social, económico, ambiental o de salud. Crear resiliencia busca proteger los suministros de alimentos ante los efectos de pandemias y eventos climáticos, así como garantizar que todas las personas en un sistema alimentario estén empoderadas para prepararse para la inestabilidad, resistir y recuperarse de ella. El fortalecer la resiliencia en los sistemas alimentarios busca ayudar a las personas a participar en sistemas alimentarios que, a pesar de las conmociones y los factores de perturbación, proporcionen seguridad alimentaria, nutrición y medios de vida equitativos para todos. Las preguntas generadoras fueron: 1. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para generar/contribuir/fortalecer a la resiliencia de nuestro sistema alimentario en todos sus componentes ante eventos extremos que interrumpen la producción, distribución y/o consumo de alimentos en el país? Ejemplo: Eventos naturales: Huracanes, inundaciones, sequías/Eventos sociales y/o económicos: sanitarios, políticos, crisis migratoria; 2. ¿Qué acciones debemos realizar en los próximos tres años para generar/contribuir/fortalecer la resiliencia de todo el sistema alimentario (Producción, Almacenamiento, Comercialización, Distribución de alimentos, Procesamiento y Vía de acceso al consumidor)?235241242243244245246247248249250251Se agradece a todos los actores que activamente participaron en las mesas de trabajo conformadas. La riqueza generada derivada de un análisis del contexto regional y la identificación de propuestas de acción para abordar su problemática, serán insumos importantes para la construcción de los compromisos que el país presente ante la Cumbre en el mes de septiembre. Se destacan a continuación algunas conclusiones generales: a) A pesar que hay un significativo crecimiento en la producción agrícola; el hambre y la desnutrición sigue siendo un desafío inminente para Honduras. A raíz de los dos fenómenos naturales Eta y Iota sumada la crisis socioeconómica generada por la COVID 19, se identificó para el periodo de diciembre - marzo un aumento en los índices de pobreza en el país. Es por eso que es esencial que se establezcan estrategias para cerrar estas brechas; b) se deben realizar nuevas acciones audaces, soluciones innovadoras, estrategias para transformar los sistemas alimentarios y aprovechar estos cambios para avanzar en el cumplimiento de los ODS, especialmente el ODS 2-Hambre Cero. Se espera que estos diálogos nos den orientaciones para que nosotros desde los distintos sectores podamos apoyar la mejora de nuestros sistemas alimentarios y por ende mejorar la situación de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de la población hondureña; c) es importante reconocer y fortalecer la diversidad de sistemas alimentarios en las distintas regiones del país que corresponde a las diferentes cosmovisiones de las poblaciones, sobre todo las poblaciones indígenas, y aquí recalcar que se debe reconocer, respetar y fortalecer su propia cultura alimentaria; d) Trabajar en el ordenamiento o planificación territorial en la zona para evitar que áreas con potencial productivo se pierdan en los procesos de urbanización y mejorar de esta manera el aprovechamiento productivo de los llanos para producir alimentos en áreas menos vulnerables a inundaciones y para planificar la producción de alimentos en la zona en función de las demandas de alimentos de los consumidores; e) Generar competencias del sector público y de la cooperación para trabajar con las poblaciones con más necesidades de la zona. Por ejemplo: se considera que por el momento no se logra un trabajo efectivo desde estas instancias para con las poblaciones más vulnerables en las regiones indígenas. Una acción efectiva sería el trabajar a través de las estructuras de gobernanza de las comunidades indígenas para la implementación de programas y políticas públicas y de la cooperación para así aprovechar la capacidad instalada en el territorio, y asegurar beneficiar a los grupos con más necesidades; f) Es necesario generar propuestas de proyecto, que nazcan de las necesidades sentidas por cada región, tomando en cuenta los grupos organizados ya que son quien conocen a profundidad sus propias necesidades; g) Empoderar a mujeres y jóvenes de la zona para emprender pequeños negocios alimentarios sostenibles basados en productos locales, que generen ingresos, y que contribuyan a una mejor disponibilidad y diversidad de alimentos desde la zona para otras zonas del país; h) Es fundamental contar con medios logísticos para poder realizar una distribución adecuada de los alimentos (vehículos, barcos, avión) y contar con las vías de comunicación adecuadas que permita movilizar los alimentos a costos adecuados para la población que no tiene acceso a los mismos; i) Asegurar que la cooperación internacional, no esté duplicando acciones. debe asegurar que no se está trabajando en las mismas actividades y con los mismos beneficiarios; j) Adoptar políticas diferenciadas para tiempos de crisis, reforzar los aspectos de prevención y mitigación, incluso con la infraestructura (protección contra las inundaciones, carreteras para no interrumpir el transporte, bordos de contención del agua, entre otros); k) Es importante que nuestras autoridades conozcan de las realidades regionales para que así prioricemos acciones en aquellas zonas donde exista mayor vulnerabilidad. Al participar en la cumbre se espera a) Podamos conocer las prácticas exitosas que otros países han desarrollado para mejorar sus sistemas alimentarios; b) Que los países se den cuenta de lo que Honduras está haciendo. “Doble vía: conocemos y nos conocen”; c) Lograr la visualización de cada uno de los territorios para dirigir eficazmente la cooperación; d) Formar alianzas para intercambiar buenas prácticas; e) Asumir compromisos para la generación de políticas locales; f) Atraer inversión para proyectos que atiendan a los grupos más vulnerables; g) Orientar políticas y estrategias y encaminadas a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y la mejorar de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional; h) Conocer experiencias para incluir la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en proyectos productivos; i) Compromiso por parte del estado hondureño en la implementación de cooperaciones internacionales; j) Podamos salir mejor informados, con una actitud de evaluación de políticas que nos permita mejorar la respuesta, basándonos en ejemplos de la Cumbre. Esto permitirá contar con políticas de mayor alcance, que sea más rápida y acertada su implementación.236241242243244245246247248249250251Propuestas de acción en resiliencia: a) Fortalecer las capacidades locales en temas de ambiente, mercado, posicionamiento de productos en mercado, inclusión social, alimentación y nutrición, almacenamiento, adaptabilidad, uso de variedades resistentes; b) Mejorar los procesos de planificación territorial participativa y con modelos sostenibles e inclusivos; c) incentivar el manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales; d) Incentivar la adopción de metodologías comunitarias exitosas como Escuelas de campo y Campesino a Campesino; e) Se debe tomar en cuenta otros rubros que sirvan como amortiguador ante crisis, promover la diversificación de cultivos como método de prevención, el rescate de semillas criollas que esté comprobado su rendimiento y cultivos adecuados para la zona; f) Las unidades de producción deben trabajar a la par de las unidades de contención/protección de los bordos para evitar la pérdida de cultivos ante eventos naturales; g) Establecer sistemas agroforestales; h) Promover los bancos de semillas familiares o comunitarios; i) Crear espacios para que los productores puedan comercializar los excedentes de producción; j) Identificar áreas con potencial productivo y con poco riesgo al cambio climático apoyando de forma directa estas áreas; k) Inserción de la producción comunitaria a programas sociales como la alimentación escolar por ejemplo; l) Desarrollar mecanismos como ruedas de negocio donde el comercio pueda establecer acuerdos de compraventas de productos con el sector productivo /comunitario; m) Proveer los medios logísticos para realizar una distribución adecuada de los alimentos y contar con las vías de comunicación adecuadas que permita movilizar los alimentos a costos adecuados para la población que no tiene acceso a los mismos; n) En cadenas de valor: facilitar a los productores el acceso a crédito o capital semilla, acercamiento a mercado, formación de capacidades, equipamiento para procesamiento y envasado, simplificación de trámites para permisos (registro de marca, registro sanitario), promoción, etiquetado del producto con información necesaria; o) Incluir la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes en proyectos productivos. Propuestas de acción en desigualdades: a) Mejorar la Infraestructura del sistema alimentario: física, digital y de los mercados. b) Descentralización de la infraestructura que facilite el intercambio de alimentos c) tener claro que los diferentes sistemas alimentarios parten de la cosmovisión de las comunidades indígenas de la zona, por lo tanto hay que partir de allí para poder focalizar de mejor manera la distribución de beneficios de programas que llegan a la zona y así poder enfocarse en los grupos vulnerables d) crear estrategias inclusivas para el desarrollo del territorio e) Que la población tenga acceso a los derechos básicos (educación) para mejorar su nivel de ingresos, (salud) para mejorar su rendimiento y la educación alimentaria y nutricional f) asegurar la calidad del agua y productos químicos que se utilizan para producir y conservar alimentos g) Ofrecer educación financiera para los grupos vulnerables h) promover el consumo local de alimentos nutritivos y tradicionales i) Ampliar la Implementación de programas de educación alimentaria en la currícula académica a nivel medio y superior j) Mejorar la reglamentación de las etiqueta de los alimentos procesados k) Evaluar daños, necesidades y análisis de las cadenas de valor para elaborar un plan de recuperación de las áreas productivas afectadas por las tormentas tropicales ETA y IOTA l) Elaboración de bases de datos de cultivos por región, que considere: productores, diversificación, cultivos no tradicionales y más nutritivos m) Empoderamiento de mujeres y jóvenes para mejorar sus condiciones de vida y la tenencia de la tierra n) Mejorar la planificación y ordenamiento territorial.237241242243244245246247248249250251Durante las discusiones en las mesas de trabajo, se dieron ideas de propuestas de acción y dentro de estas algunas presentaba divergencias entre sí. A continuación, el detalle: ● Algunos participantes hicieron énfasis en la necesidad del gobierno central y mandos políticos para reformar los sistemas alimentarios, mientras que otros participantes manifestaron preferir que se fortalezcan las organizaciones de productores y de las cadenas de valor como primera instancia. ● Algunos participantes instaron a hacer una caracterización regional de los sistemas alimentarios en vez de tener una caracterización nacional ● Se mencionó la idea de aterrizar las políticas sobre SAN existentes cuando otro participante recalcaba que se necesitaban nuevas políticas alimentarias

2021-06-11 15:23:04205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19191/120

218030113641100931250441271926816311123351119354218415822615

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión transformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar, y la interdependencia entre sectores.o Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de diez facilitadores. El equipo de facilitadores está compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), y el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF). o Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso de la Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asiste en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS). o Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo: En el diálogo se aseguró la participación de organizaciones de la sociedad civil, del sector académico, de funcionarios, de institutos de investigación, de organismos internacionales, de asociaciones de productores, de asociaciones de comercio, entre otros.Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos. Esto para mostrar la inclusividad del proceso. Además, ha mostrado ser útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239240241243246247249251El objetivo del Diálogo fue Identificar las barreras que los productores de pequeña escala y las mujeres rurales enfrentan para la producción y comercialización de alimentos recomendables para la salud. Las mujeres rurales constituyen una cuarta parte de la población mundial. En México, de los 61.5 millones de mujeres, 23% habitan en localidades rurales. También representan el 34% de la fuerza laboral, por lo que esta población es responsable de más del 50% de la producción de alimentos en México. Una característica que distingue la estructura agraria y productiva de México es la pequeña y mediana propiedad; nueve de cada diez productores en el sector agropecuario, forestal o pesquero pertenecen a estos grupos. Sabemos que la pequeña y mediana agricultura es capaz de generar grandes ventajas económicas para el país, siempre y cuando se fortalezca la generación de cadenas económicas de valor, en las cuales se pague un precio justo por los alimentos, con el objetivo de dejar de mirar a los pequeños productores y las pequeñas productoras como un grupo vulnerable y reconocerlos como impulsores de la economía y el desarrollo.235238239240241243246247249251El grupo coincidió en la necesidad de: • Difundir la Estrategia Nacional para una Alimentación Saludable Justa y Sustentable a nivel comunitario y en lenguas originarias, con acciones diferenciadas por género, grupo indígena y etario. • Insistir en una Ley de Derecho a la Alimentación para promover procesos como la alimentación escolar, el apoyo al pequeño productor y a las mujeres rurales, pero que sea más específica, y no se centre solo en lo general. • Fomentar buenas prácticas agroecológicas en comunidades y el intercambio de saberes tradicionales para una alimentación saludable justa y sustentable. • Fomentar la recuperación de los alimentos tradicionales sanos y nutritivos, e implementar las canastas regionales en los estados, • Promover los policultivos como la milpa contra los agronegocios con monocultivos. • Difusión sobre el peligro de consumir alimentos ultraprocesados, restringir su acceso. • Apoyar con políticas públicas y programas con recursos fiscales que permitan el fomento productivo a los pequeños productores y el derecho agrario de las mujeres lo cual incidirá en la lucha contra la malnutrición en sus comunidades. • Contribuir creando mercados locales, tianguis, ferias gastronómicas, y cooperativas para generar sostenibilidad alimentaria y mejorar la economía. • Generar programas integrales de sistemas agroalimentarios, apoyo en tecnologías, y proveer insumos. • Fortalecer las conexiones entre productores y consumidores de forma individual y colectiva a través de ideas y acciones para mayor capacitación efectiva. • Articulación de diversos actores para generar sinergias no solo en dependencias de gobierno sino también con sociedad civil. • Los pequeños y medianos productores se enfrentan a barreras para mejorar su producción como el: acceso a insumos, infraestructura, mercados, uso y apropiación de la tecnología e innovaciones, a la investigación aplicada y conocimientos nuevos, distribución de tierras para jóvenes, mujeres, indígenas y producciones sostenibles, apoyo de programas y políticas públicas específicas para pequeños y medianos productores, transparencia por parte de las agencias de gobierno, legislación específica para el sector, violencia, degradación de los ecosistemas y el cambio climático • Los excedentes de la producción pequeña y mediana generalmente son para el consumo local o bien se pierden por falta de tecnología y conocimientos para conservación y procesamiento. • Generar campañas para incentivar la agricultura familiar, la milpa, huerta de traspatio o huertas comunitarias. • Creación de una política nacional similar a “Pueblos Mágicos” en la que los municipios dispuestos a incentivar el rescate y la producción de cultivos locales y tradicionales pudieran recibir apoyo especial en beneficio de la producción local. • Se requieren mecanismos para comercialización justa para los pequeños y medianos productores como cooperativas, redes de apoyo, centros de acopio, intercambio de excedentes, compras institucionales, diferenciación y certificaciones de productos agroecológicos, así como la disminución del intermediarismo. • Se señaló la necesidad de incentivar el reconocimiento y auto reconocimiento de las mujeres rurales como un personaje presente en todos los campos de la actividad agrícola. • Generar políticas que dimensionen los distintos perfiles y necesidades de las mujeres rurales respecto a la tenencia de la tierra, que partan de un análisis del contexto local para no generar nuevos problemas de violencia y revictimización. • Se propuso la certificación “Unión de mujeres”, como valor adicional a la producción que realizan, haciendo con ello el reconocimiento de la labor de las mujeres en el campo, así como el reconocimiento y promoción de estos productos en el mercado agroalimentario. • Generar acciones para que las mujeres rurales logren acceso al espacio público, participación en la toma de decisiones, apropiación de los medios de producción, espacios para la comercialización, acceso a créditos, uso de recursos naturales (agua) y tecnologías de la Información y comunicación.2362382392402412432462472491. Productores de pequeña y mediana escala ¿Cuáles han sido las principales barreras a las que se enfrentan los productores para mejorar su producción? Se agrupan en: • Insumos: semillas de calidad, ancestrales y criollas frente a semillas genéticamente modificadas. • Infraestructura: caminos, granjas, centros de almacenamiento, conservación, y centros para producción. • Mercados: bajo precio de venta, altos costos de producción y entrada en los mercados, baja o nula rentabilidad, intermediarios, importación de alimentos procesados, sustitución de productos locales, dificultad para integrarse en las cadenas de valor grandes. • Tecnología e innovación para: comercialización, valor agregado, conservación, calidad, generadores de electricidad, captación de agua y plantas de tratamiento. • Ciencia y conocimientos: tendencias de mercado, perfiles del consumidor, desarrollo de productos locales y de temporada, sistemas tradicionales de producción, formación de agroecólogos y técnicos al campo. • Tierras para: agricultores jóvenes, mujeres, indígenas y pequeños productores. • Apoyos, programas y políticas públicas (ó mixtas) para: fomentar el comercio justo, pago de una renta campesina justa, apoyos directos a productores pequeños, medianos y especializados, apoyos a productores para traslados o con combustible, acceso a créditos y/o tasas bajas, así como seguros para los productores. • Transparencia: por parte de las agencias del Estado sobre uso de los recursos y apoyos, así como rendición de cuentas. • Legislación: Ley específica para apoyo a productores, programa integral de apoyo para cultivos básicos, normatividad para la recolecta de especias de temporada. • Seguridad: violencia en los pueblos, pago de piso. • Degradación de ecosistemas y cambio climático: sequías y heladas, degradación de suelos, plagas y enfermedades resistentes a los insecticidas, condiciones climáticas extremas, desertificación, urbanización, uso de agroquímicos prohibidos en otros países. ¿Qué hacen con los excedentes y cómo lograr que en caso de comercializarlos sea de manera justa? Destino: • Consumo local o la pérdida por falta de tecnología y conocimientos para conservación y procesamiento. Mecanismos: • Cooperativas, redes de apoyo y centros de acopio. • Disminuir intermediarios, poner énfasis en las centrales de abastos. • Compras institucionales • Generar un padrón de productores • Dotar de valor agregado, mejorar presentación y calidad • Intercambio de los excedentes entre productores • Diferenciación y certificaciones en productos agroecológicos ¿Qué acciones se deberían de tomar para que los productores de pequeña y mediana escala mejoren su producción? • Diversificar la producción por cuestiones climáticas o de mercados. • Fortalecer los agroecosistemas y la autoproducción de insumos. • Capacitaciones en producción tecnificada, cultivos, alternativas a los agroquímicos, inocuidad, calidad, trazabilidad, manejo postcosecha, comercio exterior, mercados, gestión empresarial, liderazgo, trabajo en equipo y asociacionismo. • Planes de mejora con base a diagnósticos previos. • Fortalecer la relación de productores con consumidores y fomentar convencer al consumidor de buscar productos locales, de comercio justo y agroecológicos. ¿Qué tipo de incentivos y apoyos se necesitan para la producción de alimentos recomendables para la salud, por ejemplo, en la agricultura familiar? • Campañas para incentivar la agricultura familiar, la milpa, huerta de traspatio o huertas comunitarias. • Creación de una política nacional similar a la de “Pueblos Mágicos” en la que los municipios dispuestos a participar pudieran recibir apoyo especial en beneficio de la producción local y tradicional. • Créditos blandos y acciones público-privado para la adquisición y creación de insumos en la etapa de producción (eje: capital semilla). • Abrir espacios de comercialización (tianguis y mercados), fortalecer la relación urbano- rural y generar una red de promotores locales.2362382392402412432462472492512. Retos de las mujeres rurales en la producción y comercialización ¿Cuáles son las principales barreras a las que se enfrentan las mujeres rurales en la producción y comercialización de alimentos recomendables para la salud y cómo superarlas? • Falta de acceso al espacio público, la toma de decisiones, los medios de producción, comercialización, créditos, recursos naturales (agua) y Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TICs). • Reconocimiento y autoreconocimiento como sujeto de la actividad agrícola en todos los rubros del sistema alimentario (son productoras de subsistencia, excedentarias, exportadoras, consumidoras y también trabajan en actividades no agrícolas). • Falta de reconocimiento de su trabajo en las actividades del hogar, comunitarias, de cuidados, y gestión del abasto alimentario. • Poca incidencia respecto a la producción y comercialización de los alimentos que ellas generan. • Barreras para la comercialización de sus productos derivado de la poca demanda entre los consumidores, falta de medios de transporte, dominio de la lengua, y marginación o estigmatización por parte de sus comunidades debido a costumbres y tradiciones que no permiten que las mujeres se involucren en la comercialización. • Las mujeres rurales indígenas o afrodescendientes se enfrentan a una doble o triple carga de discriminación. ¿Qué problemas relacionados con la tenencia de la tierra y la producción que enfrentan las mujeres y qué sugieren para solucionarlos? • Existen distintos perfiles y necesidades de las mujeres rurales respecto a la tenencia de la tierra (eje: casos de desaparecidos, migración, etc), las políticas deben contemplar estas variantes y el contexto local para no generar nuevos problemas de violencia y revictimización. • Necesidad de asesoramiento para poner en orden la documentación y apoyos económicos para tramitación • En la estructura social y por usos y costumbres, donde la tenencia de la tierra se hereda por lo general a los hijos varones. ¿Cómo crear entornos inclusivos en los mercados para las mujeres productoras? • Fomentar la participación equitativa, remunerada, y reconocida de las mujeres en el sistema agroalimentario. • Capacitar a los funcionarios encargados de las políticas hacia el campo en temas de género. • Generar mecanismos que faciliten trámites burocráticos para que las mujeres puedan resolver la tenencia de la tierra, el acceso a créditos, financiamientos, y una comercialización directa dentro del mercado. • Crear e implementar programas específicos dirigidos a las mujeres y que cuenten con un seguimiento y evaluación para garantizar su empoderamiento y fortalecimiento de forma individual y colectiva. • Pensar en mercados inclusivos en los que las mujeres sean tomadoras de decisiones respecto de lo que se hace y se genera. • Se propuso la certificación de “Unión de mujeres”, como valor adicional a la producción que realizan, haciendo con ello el reconocimiento de la labor de las mujeres en el campo, así como el reconocimiento y promoción de estos productos en el mercado agroalimentario. ¿Qué acciones sugieren para superar las barreras que impiden la participación plena de la mujer en el sistema agroalimentario, por ejemplo, de aquellas que no tienen una pareja presente y las que sufren violencia de género? • Empoderamiento de las mujeres (capacitación técnica, legal, y financiera, con perspectiva de género y enfoque de derechos). • Apoyar la organización de mujeres rurales, las redes de productoras y fortalecer el intercambio de producción. • Hacer un análisis de la cadena de valor específica para cada caso identificar mercados meta, y evitar los intermediarios. • Otorgar espacios físicos en instituciones educativas que las que las mujeres productoras puedan colocar sus productos y puedan favorecer una alimentación saludable. • Acceso a programas sociales equitativos, considerando las necesidades y situación de las mujeres el intercambio de producción, • Generar espacios y acceso a los servicios para el cuidado de los hijos en las zonas rurales. • Crear apoyos específicos para el rescate de traspatio y hortalizas. • Crear espacios para la toma de decisiones,237238239240241243245246247249251Se identificaron cinco áreas de divergencia: • Una posición consideró que los subsidios son necesarios para incentivar la producción de los alimentos mientras que otra señaló que son paternalistas y crean dependencia en los productores. • Por una parte, se propuso el mapeo de la producción y consumo actualizados y por otra se señaló que dicha información ya existe y que sólo es cuestión de utilizarla. • Una posición planteó que es necesario incrementar los recursos humanos, mientras que otra consideró que ya se cuentan con suficientes profesionales que no están siendo empleados adecuadamente. • Se argumentó en contra de la definición de sistema alimentario sostenible que se presentó en el grupo junto con las preguntas detonantes, señalando que en realidad no existe un sistema alimentario sostenible, ni rentable, por lo que dicha definición se consideró incorrecta. • Por una parte, se planteó la posibilidad de establecer una línea de entrega y/o acopio contra pago para los productores pequeños a través de la institución Seguridad Alimentaria Mexicana (SEGALMEX), en productos como maíz u otros regionales, sin embargo, señaló que dicha institución no distingue entre productos, por ejemplo, entre maíz amarillo y maíz híbrido y paga el mismo precio a todos por igual, sin importar el esfuerzo o costos de producirlo.

2021-06-11 15:53:15205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8709/84

60401548141719518

El tercer diálogo regional utilizó igualmente la estructura de la gobernanza en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con que cuenta Honduras en seguimiento al plan de nación visión de país convocando a los participantes con el apoyo de las mesas regionales de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional incorporando sectores que no han estado participando en las mesas regionales de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional pero que son parte de los sistemas alimentarios al inicio del dialogo se hizo énfasis en la cumbre, haciendo una recopilación de los esfuerzos globales para mejora de los índices de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y de los sistemas alimentarios con la participación de representantes de Gobierno, cooperación internacional, Academia, Sociedad Civil, ONG’s y empresa privada. asegurando de esta manera la participación de diversos actores vinculados con los Sistemas Alimentarios en Honduras. Previo al evento se socializaron los objetivos planteados en esta segunda fase de diálogo, la agenda del evento y una pequeña nota metodológica en la que se incluyeron aspectos generales de la cumbre y los diálogos, y lo que se esperaba del trabajo conjunto articulado, coordinado con el fin de establecer un fuerte compromiso que nos permita construir un Sistema Alimentario Integral, fortalecer y desarrollar las potencialidades que tenemos y cerrar aquellas brechas de inequidad que se presentan en nuestra población. a diferencia de los otros diálogos regionales en este se contó con presencia de grupos de productores y organizaciones que participaron con conexión facilitada por varias instituciones tanto de gobierno local como de las naciones unidas.Actuar con Urgencia: se hizo énfasis en todos los eventos regionales, dada la problémica generada a raíz de las tormentas tropicales Eta y Iota, la actual crisis sanitaria generada por la pandemia mundial COVID 19 y la situación de vulnerabilidad de nuestro país ante los efectos del cambio climático, que el accionar sobre la mejora de los sistemas alimentarios debe ser inmediato con abordaje multisectorial. Comprometernos con la Cumbre: En todo momento se manifestó que el replicar estas iniciativas de diálogo y la Cumbre se convierten en una oportunidad de crecimiento para el país. Reconocer la complejidad: Se recalcó que ya no se trata solo de transformar los sistemas alimentarios sino de orientar su recuperación de la crisis para que sean mucho mejores de lo que teníamos antes y esto solamente puede lograrse con el involucramiento de todos los actores de desarrollo. Adoptar la inclusión de múltiples partes interesadas: se refuerza durante todo el dialogo que es necesaria las acciones coordinadas y articuladas de todos lo sectores vinculados a los sistemas alimentarios, pero sobre todo escuchar y hacer parte a los que tienen las necesidades: la población. Generar confianza Para el desarrollo de los diálogos se está trabajando a través del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional de Honduras, siendo el COTISAN (espacio técnico) y el CONASAN (espacio político), Mesas Regionales de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional (espacio regional) siendo estos espacios en los cuales se estarán desarrollando las diferentes etapas de los diálogos, el hacerlo de esta manera ha generado confianza en los otros actores que se han ido sumando

Yes

234241242243244245246247248249250251Para el desarrollo de los tres diálogos regionales Acciones para transformar los Sistemas Alimentarios de Honduras, se plantearon dos objetivos: 1) Identificar acciones y discutir propuestas hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible en Honduras partiendo del análisis de las vías de acción priorizadas; y 2) Determinar la mejor manera de participar en el proceso de la Cumbre y contribuir a este. El diálogo se centró en el análisis de las vías de acción 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos, y la vía 5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. Siguiendo la metodología del Manual sobre los Diálogos de los Estados Miembro, se formularon preguntas generadoras. El primer bloque de preguntas incluyó aspectos relacionados a las desigualdades en el sistema alimentario en Honduras, partiendo de la siguiente premisa: Promover medios de vida equitativos implica la eliminación de la pobreza mediante la promoción del empleo pleno y productivo y el trabajo decente para todos los agentes de la cadena de valor de los alimentos, la reducción de los riesgos para los más pobres, el fomento del emprendimiento y la lucha contra las desigualdades en el acceso a los recursos y la distribución del valor. La reducción de las desigualdades mejorará la resiliencia mediante la protección social y tratará de garantizar que los sistemas alimentarios “no dejen a nadie atrás”. Las preguntas generadoras fueron: Para reducir las desigualdades en el sistema: 1. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para mejorar los ingresos y los medios de vida de quienes dependen del sistema alimentario para su sustento (agricultores, empleados y MiPymes en los sectores agro, procesamiento, alimentos y asociados)? 2. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para asegurar que todos los estratos socioeconómicos y grupos sociales tengan acceso a alimentos nutritivos?, 3. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para asegurar el acceso a puntos de distribución de alimentos que ofrecen alimentos de calidad a precios accesibles para toda la población, particularmente los diferentes grupos vulnerables? El segundo bloque de preguntas relacionado con Resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones partió de la siguiente premisa: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones para asegurar la funcionalidad ininterrumpida de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en zonas propensas a conflictos, desastres naturales u otros tipos de choques o estresores de naturaleza social, económico, ambiental o de salud. Crear resiliencia busca proteger los suministros de alimentos ante los efectos de pandemias y eventos climáticos, así como garantizar que todas las personas en un sistema alimentario estén empoderadas para prepararse para la inestabilidad, resistir y recuperarse de ella. El fortalecer la resiliencia en los sistemas alimentarios busca ayudar a las personas a participar en sistemas alimentarios que, a pesar de las conmociones y los factores de perturbación, proporcionen seguridad alimentaria, nutrición y medios de vida equitativos para todos. Las preguntas generadoras fueron: 1. ¿Qué acciones podemos tomar en los próximos tres años para generar/contribuir/fortalecer a la resiliencia de nuestro sistema alimentario en todos sus componentes ante eventos extremos que interrumpen la producción, distribución y/o consumo de alimentos en el país? Ejemplo: Eventos naturales: Huracanes, inundaciones, sequías/Eventos sociales y/o económicos: sanitarios, políticos, crisis migratoria; 2. ¿Qué acciones debemos realizar en los próximos tres años para generar/contribuir/fortalecer la resiliencia de todo el sistema alimentario (Producción, Almacenamiento, Comercialización, Distribución de alimentos, Procesamiento y Vía de acceso al consumidor)?235241242243244245246247248249250251Se agradece a todos los actores que activamente participaron en las mesas de trabajo conformadas. La riqueza generada derivada de un análisis del contexto regional y la identificación de propuestas de acción para abordar su problemática, serán insumos importantes para la construcción de los compromisos que el país presente ante la Cumbre en el mes de septiembre. Se destacan a continuación algunas conclusiones generales: a) Existen políticas públicas integrales, que aún no aterrizan con acciones en los territorios; b) las alianzas estratégicas son sumamente importantes y su organización es esencial si queremos realmente generar un impacto positivo de las acciones; c) La formación e información se tiene pero muchas veces no llega a nivel del territorio; d) Seguir fortaleciendo las capacidades de los gobiernos locales y las municipalidades para que puedan integrar en sus planes de desarrollo, la gestión del recurso hídrico, tema esencial para la cumbre, así como las reservas estratégicas de granos básicos; e) Los temas de género, juventud y grupos indígenas deben ser transversales en cualquier plan y compromiso que se presente; f) Estamos observando el gran deterioro de todos nuestros recursos y debemos ir tomando esas acciones que conlleven a rescatarlos. Adicionalmente parte de ese deterioro se da también en el mercado y el consumismo porque que se se están volviendo más exigentes ya que demandan producción de alta calidad y los medios productivos ya no tienen la capacidad, adicionalmente los productores no cuentan con financiamiento y tecnologías adecuados que les permitan dar esa calidad exigida por el mercado y el consumidor; g) Una tercera parte de la producción en toda la cadena se desperdicia, pero tenemos 800 millones de personas en el mundo que padecen hambre, algo no estamos haciendo bien son temas que debemos mejorar con un abordaje multisectorial y multinivel donde no solo la responsabilidad es del productor, debemos educar al consumidor, debe existir una demanda equilibrada con la oferta; h) Esto se trata de como país tener unas vías de acción no solo para mejorar los sistemas alimentarios sino también establecer compromisos a nivel nacional para que cada uno de los sectores asuma su responsabilidad (gobierno, cooperación internacional, sector privado, ONG, academia, pequeños productores, grupos de mujeres, Grupos de jóvenes, entre otros) en la mejora de los sistemas alimentarios de una manera sostenible y equitativa. Al participar en la cumbre se espera: a) Darnos a conocer ante los países desarrollados; b) Que se generen políticas equitativas a nivel internacional, que permitan a los pueblos salir adelante, especialmente a los pequeños productores locales; c) Que sean vinculante y mandatorios los compromisos de los gobiernos; d) Que se deriven compromisos y propuestas concretas, para beneficiar a los más necesitados; e) Que las nuevas propuestas sean inclusivas, que permita que los agricultores sean gestores de su propio desarrollo; f) reactivar el tema de sistemas alimentarios con un trabajo articulado a través de las mancomunidades de municipios y los gobiernos municipales; g) Congelar precios de los insumos y combustibles.236241242243244245246247248249250251Las propuestas de acción para fortalecer la resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades fueron: (a) Fortalecer las capacidades de pequeños agricultores mediante la asistencia técnica innovadora y el apoyo financiero, así como el conocimiento en buenas prácticas agrícolas; (b) Formular e implementar proyectos que sean basados en las necesidades y contexto local (ej. tipos de suelo, semillas); (c) Desarrollar programas de diversificación de cultivo y establecer huertos familiares y comunitarios; (d) Establecer mecanismos de acceso a crédito (ej. créditos blandos) y fortalecer las cajas de ahorro; (e) Fortalecer la asociatividad entre productores mediante redes, ferias del agricultor, mesas interinstitucionales para mejorar la coordinación de acciones y grupos de cooperativas para que almacenen cosechas y vendan a precio de costo en momentos de escasez a la población; (f) Incentivar el establecimiento de reservas estratégicas de granos básicos, hortalizas, musáceas, tubérculos y bancos de germoplasma; (g) Fortalecer el rol de los gobiernos locales tras la descentralización de los recursos y de la inversión, incrementado capacidades de las mancomunidades y municipios; (h) Implementar estrategias y planes de desarrollo sostenible integrales al nivel municipal y local, incluso medidas de mitigación y prevención; (i) Promover el uso de nuevas tecnologías de producción (ej. hidroponía, acuaponia, invernaderos, macro túneles); (j) Organizar a productores en pequeñas microempresas para poder dar el valor agregado a los productos que cosechan; (k) Sistematizar la información académica sobre la producción (ej. mediante acuerdos de cooperación entre universidades y gobiernos locales y la actualización de mapas de vulnerabilidades en cada municipio) para fortalecer la investigación científica y la educación de la población; (l) Contar con normativas de equidad de género para incrementar el liderazgo de mujeres en el sistema alimentario; m) conectar directamente a los productores con los mercados para eliminar los intermediarios. Las propuestas de acción para reducir las desigualdades en el sistema alimentario en Honduras fueron: (a) definir grupos focales que puedan liderar estudios e identificar vulnerabilidades en varias zonas para obtener un panorama claro y establecer estrategias integrales para un desarrollo sostenible e inclusive; (b) establecer mecanismos accesibles, transparentes y equitativos para incrementar la participación y el liderazgo de las mujeres en la producción; (c) mantener reservas estratégicas de granos y asegurar un acceso al agua permanente para fortalecer la resiliencia; (d) promover las alianzas entre productores, municipios y pequeños distribuidores para incrementar acciones de comercialización entre el consumidor y el productor; (e) desarrollar métodos de conservación de excedentes de alimentos y fomentar el intercambio de alimentos, haciendo inventario de los desperdicios y repartirlos en grupos vulnerables; (f) fortalecer la asistencia técnica a los productores (incluso realizando análisis de condiciones agroecológicas y sobre los tipos de suelos) para diversificar la producción; (g) implementar programas inclusivos enfocados en pequeños productores y sus familias con acceso a herramientas, tecnologías y conocimientos que les permiten mejorar sus niveles de vida y capacidades de resiliencia, y permitir que sean autogestionarios y que pueden alimentar a la familia con recursos propios; (h) establecer programas de educación alimentaria y jornadas de sensibilización para educar a la población sobre el consumo de alimentos más nutritivos y sanos; (i) desarrollar programas nacionales de concientización del consumo de la producción nacional, incentivar a la población a comprar productos locales y ofrecer a productores capacitaciones de cosecha de semillas locales; (j) crear políticas públicas que aseguren un acceso más equitativo a la tierra/agua y así mismo regular los precios de suministros y alimentos; (k) promover la organización de cajas rurales, facilitar el acceso al crédito, descentralizar los fondos para que la ayuda sea entregada directamente a los productores237241242243244245246247248249250251Unicamente se reflejó un tema de divergencia : Algunos participantes mencionaron la posibilidad de crear bancos de granos o establecer métodos de conservación de excedentes de alimentos que les permita comercializar el producto en tiempos en donde la cosecha no sea abundante, mientras que otros opinaron que era mejor donar los excedentes a los grupos más vulnerables y cuya seguridad alimentaria estuviese comprometida.

2021-06-11 15:58:18205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23459/11

82085022223594562386810162122251121161212101413

Principles of engagement under UN Food systems dialogues have been respected. The multi-stakeholder engagement was enabled and food systems were discussed from the perspective of all stakeholders. As food systems are complex and covering all three main dimensions (economic, social, and environmental) systemic approach was used. Participants were given the opportunity to listen to each other. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development organized the First National Dialogue on June 10, 2021supported by UNRCO and FAO Albania. The objective of the Dialogue was: -to understand sustainable food systems; and the Albanian context of food and nutrition security - to exchange perspectives on the national and local food systems – know challenges in food production and consumption in Albania, what is working well and what are the challenges. A large number (81) of national and international participants representing governments, business, organizations, academia, civil society as well as university students representing the next generation of sustainability leaders, have been together to define the current status of our food systems from the perspective of the healthy and sustainable consumption and discuss the challenges and areas where the next steps on short and long term are needed. The participants were invited considering the sectors, stakeholder interest groups, profile and engagements of international partners. In addition, interested citizens participated in the live broadcast on the official YouTube. 45 people viewed the recorded video and livestream.Dialogue emphasized listening, honesty and open-mindedness. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank and open discussion with the inclusion of respective stakeholders (with a gender-sensitive and participatory approach). Due to the broad range of participants, all main aspects were reflected. Every participant was given an opportunity to express their opinion either directly or through discussion in the chat box. Every comment, opinion is reflected. The National Dialogue consisted of 2 sessions. The first one was the introduction of the 2021 UN food systems Summit and objectives of the National Dialogues; the second one was focused on national food systems. The 4 thematic Discussion Topics (•1: food, nutrition, and health and • 2: sustainable consumption and production - SDG12 • 3: equitable livelihoods and value distribution •4: resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses) were formulated in the form of short, ambitious statements, to be realized up to 2030. During the second session, four facilitators presented these topics and led the discussions addressed through questionsWe kindly advise our experience: all stakeholders should participate in the dialogue; moderation and presentation of all action tracks should be presented in a clear language and to be focused on the situation of the food system in the country and main challenges that the country is facing. Considering that the food systems are complex, involves multisector, multi-level multidisciplinary stakeholders. The selection of the Action Tracks should represent the situation and the challenges of the country.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251(The action tracks 2 and 3 were treated together in one single action track with the title “sustainable consumption and production”) Entry points presented and discussed under each Action Track: *Action Track 1: Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. •Food security and nutrition challenges (hunger/undernourishment, overweight/obesity, micronutrient deficiency, child stunting, etc.) and the population groups most affected; •The availability and accessibility of healthy and nutritious diets to all population groups. •Main dietary patterns in the country. Any specific concerns with dietary patterns (e.g. consumption of highly processed, high-calorie and low-nutritional-value food items; high consumption of salt, sugar and trans-fatty acids) and diet-related non-communicable diseases; •Policies and initiatives to ensure food systems lend themselves to providing nutritious diets for children and adolescents; •Policies or initiatives in place to promote healthy diets and better nutrition, such as integrated school meals, nutrition education, regulation of advertising and marketing of certain foods not conducive to healthy diets (especially those targeting children and adolescents), regulation of breast milk substitutes, promotion of breastfeeding, food reformulation and large- scale food fortification (such as flour fortification and salt iodization) to improve the nutritional value of food, and food labelling; •Food safety policies and control systems in place to assess the main sources of foodborne diseases and food safety risks and effectively manage and communicate with key stakeholders on these risks; •Main challenges regarding animal diseases (including zoonoses), plant pests and diseases, and preventive management and surveillance systems. *Action Tracks 2 and 3 .Sustainable consumption and production •Policies, initiatives and the raising of awareness among public- and private-sector stakeholders to prevent and reduce food loss and waste9 along the value chain. •Short value chains that respond to consumer demands, providing diverse foods at an affordable price; •Nature and extent of land use for agriculture and other purposes; •Policies to prevent land degradation; management of crop yields and the use of pastureland; •Sustainable and efficient use of water in irrigation and food processing; water quality assurance; •Analysis to understand the overall environmental impacts of the main agrifood value chains, including greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient losses, pesticide emissions, soil and water quality degradation, and estimated biodiversity loss due to food production. •Investment in sustainable agricultural techniques (e.g. organic cultivars, agroecological practices). •Functioning food supply chains with adequate infrastructure for value addition, storage, processing and distribution; connection and cooperation among various actors. • Adoption of measures to strengthen the sustainability of food supply chains (circular economy, food formulation), resource use efficiency, eco-friendly food packaging; •Reviewing support to agriculture, including subsidies, with a view to facilitating the green transition. *Action track 4.Advancing equitable live hoods and value distribution •Access to finance and credit for operators in the food and agricultural sector. •Social protection measures such as input subsidies, innovative insurance solutions to manage extreme weather (e.g. weather index insurance) and climate variability risks on crop and livestock production. For those who may need to leave agriculture, as they cannot transition their small farms into commercial family farms, provision of alternative support through off-farm diversification and other social protection measures. Action track 5. Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses •Measures in place to ensure that country food system are prepared to avoid, mitigate and/or adapt to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses; •Emergency plans ready to be operationalized to address food safety, animal health and plant health threats and outbreaks; •Food assistance program in place, when needed, to contribute to food security and nutrition2352382392402412421. It is necessary to establish strong partnerships between government, local partners, businesses, farmers, academia, education etc. 2. Multi-stakeholder dialogues and needs analysis are necessary to understand the motivations and needs of all stakeholders along with the food systems. 3. Accelerating economic growth and reducing rural/urban disparities, therefore, requires modernizing the Albanian agro-food processing sector. This can be done via deeper integration into regional agro-food value chains, particularly in those sectors (e.g. fruits, olives, and viniculture) for more rapid export growth. 4. Improvements in business and investments climates. 5. Invest in skills to increase financial literacy in small/family farms (particularly among women) 6. Improve farmers resilience by investing in adaptive and mitigation needs to climate change 7. Developing from farm to school schemes 8. Support the expansion of digitalization and ITC. 9. Reduce barriers for small farmers and other particular groups in agriculture through the provision of up–to–date information and adaption of measures. 10. Give attention to emerging food insecurity – households prone to food insecurity – flexible safety nets at the municipal level 11. Promoting value chain development involving food production linked to tourism, beekeeping and medical aromatic herbs – inter alia for rural women’s economic empowerment 12. Promoting local product development – agricultural extension and other rural entrepreneurship/advisory e.g. branding, name recognition and identification with geographic region 13. Awareness and education with school children using school food nutrition programs and from farm to school program 14. Include sustainable food systems in the strategy for agriculture and rural development and 15. Study of the cost for health nutrition to support policy on the sustainable food system. 16. Establishment of a food safety surveillance system associated with the traceability system 17. Vocational and educational trainings programs /curricula 18. Using the innovations ways like as 0 Km, sharing economy, school food and nutrition etc. 19. Agrotourism is an important tool to integrate the social, environmental and economic aspect of food systems, and promote local and organic products. 20. Sustainable use of natural resources (Land, water, forest, pastures, fishery) as an important tool for a sustainable food system.236238243246247249251Action track 1. 1. Establishment of a food safety surveillance system associated with the traceability system 2. Analysis of malnutrition related to per capita income of Albanians 3. Good nutrition in schools using direct products from farmers and producers with a so-called "from farm to school" program. This is a continuation of the School food and nutrition program which has started its implementation in Albania 4. Promotion of local Albanian producers 5. Educating the consumer about healthy choices for the foods he consumes 6. To align the health strategy with sustainable food systems 7. Add an action plan for non-communicable disease and foodborne diseases. 8. Improve the legal framework on labelling, drafting a national plan for food and nutrition as well as a national guide for healthy food consumption. 9. Risk assessment to harmonize and become an essential part of a sustainable food system.236239240243244245246248249250Action Tack 2 and 3 1. The need for an analysis of the environmental, economic and social impact of a sustainable food system 2. Importance of Food Lost and Waste and need to analyze where we have losses, at what levels and why we have losses. 3. Based on this analysis, to design actions to intervene in the food system 4. It is needed to have a close interaction with the producers reaching the contractual relation 5. To analyze the impact on the environment including deforestation. The link between the sustainable food system and the environment. Impact on Green House Gas (GHG) emission 6. Need to analyze the costs of a healthy diet, in such a way as to prepare policy and financial support packages. 7. Need to analyze the pesticides and chemicals in the agriculture production 8. Vocational and educational trainings programs /curricula 9. Agro tourism and short value chain as a tool for SFS236241244245246247249251AT4 1. Strengthening the role of women for better adoption of climate change (Gender Clime Resilience) 2. Role and partnership with the private sector 3. Innovation and use of ITC as an effective tool 4. The need for certification and traceability in production systems, especially related to tourism. 5. Analysis of different approaches (0 Km, sharing economy, school food and nutrition etc.) for adaptation and use in the Albanian situation 6. Use of natural resources for sustainable food systems, especially those related to soil degradation, erosion, forests, and pastures, as one of the important natural resources, which have a contribution to the development of tourism, protection from erosion, but also contribute to the economic aspect and green economy. 7. Promote value chain linked to tourism2362422432442452462482492502511. The link between the strategy for agriculture and rural development and sustainable food systems 2. Plant and animal health emergency plans oriented towards sustainable food systems 3. The importance of ecological and biological agriculture related to the use of pesticides, and the use of the good practice. Linkages with organic agriculture, tourism and consumer health. 4. Impact of climate change, the role of agriculture, forestry and fisheries 5. The important issue is the need for water. Water also has a major impact on biodiversity 6. Use of Micro insurance model in case of natural disaster especially floods that occur in Albania every year.237NA

2021-06-11 16:01:17205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17216/63

292185116138451321542415121

Yes

234238239240243244245246249- El acceso oportuno y permanente a alimentos saludables presenta limitaciones debido a una serie de situaciones entre las cuales se identifican: la pobreza y bajos ingresos familiares, el acceso físico a comunidades y cantones lejanos limita el acceso a alimentos saludables, la falta de comercio local interno que favorece una dinámica económica positiva para productores y consumidores, alta dependencia de alimentos importados que aumenta los precios, las dinámicas de crecimiento poblacional que condicionan la pobreza de las familias, la influencia de las dinámicas externas que causan variaciones en los precios de los alimentos. - El consumo no sostenible se ve altamente afectado por los patrones de consumo de los hogares, los cuales están asociados a escasa difusión de información sobre propiedades de los alimentos y a un excesivo marketing de otro tipo de alimentos, no necesariamente los más saludables. La dependencia de alimentos importados genera mayor carga de contaminación por el mayor uso de transportes en la distribución. - Falta de políticas públicas que permita subsidiar al pequeño productor frente a las limitaciones del mercado, efectos del cambio climático, situaciones emergentes como pandemia, acceso a recursos naturales como tierra. - La falta de diversificación en la producción alimentarias.235238241242244246249- La falta de educación en salud, alimentación y saneamiento afecta directamente la forma en la que las familias acceden a los alimentos. - Los participantes asocian las dinámicas poblacionales (muchos hijos por familia) con la inseguridad alimentaria, haciendo alusión a la falta de educación y salud sexual reproductiva y su impacto en el círculo de pobreza en que viven las familias. - Las comunidades en las que hay mayor inseguridad alimentaria hay un fuerte problema relativo a la poca valorización de los recursos alimentarios y productivos con los que se cuenta, generando dependencia de donaciones o asistencias. - Hay preferencia por la adquisición de alimentos en mercados fuera de sus territorios y poca cultura solidaria y de desarrollo comunitario. - No hay una visión del desarrollo del territorio que sea integral - Durante la pandemia cambiaron los patrones de alimentación de las familias, ya que en algunos casos incrementó la ingesta de alimentos y disminuyó la actividad física, aumentando el sobrepeso y obesidad. - La lactancia materna es indispensable para un sistema alimentario sostenible, porque es un alimento disponible, oportuno y con cero desperdicios, por tanto, su promoción debe ser realizada desde las etapas tempranas. - El productor se ve en la necesidad de vender su producto en mercados informales, sin oportunidad de fijar precio, solo si se cuenta con un registro legal se puede acceder al mercado formal. - La agricultura no es rentable, no se valora, la juventud no está interesada en la agricultura, no existe un relevo generacional, lo que ocasionará una alta dependencia de la producción externa.236238239240241242243244245246248249251- Es necesario apoyar a las familias en general con educación financiera que permita optimizar el uso de los pocos recursos económicos y productivos con los que cuentan. - Hay necesidad de realizar un mapeo de potencial productivo y de comercialización entre municipios - Replanteamiento del rol de los gobiernos municipales en lo que compete al desarrollo de los territorios y la mejora del acceso a los alimentos a través de la dinamización económica de los territorios. - Apoyo urgente a productores y productoras para la diversificación productiva bajo un enfoque de resiliencia y de cuido del medio ambiente - Promover y potenciar la intersectorialidad en el abordaje de la problemática y el diseño de sus soluciones, especialmente incluyendo actores no tradicionales del desarrollo (empresa privada, personas altruistas, grupos de juventud) - Es urgente promover acciones de Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional para orientar mejor la toma de decisiones de los consumidores: para consumir en las familias mejores alimentos y para aumentar la demanda local de alimentos sanos producidos localmente. - Es trascendental para sobrevivencia de los pequeños productores, motivarlos a organizarse y asociarse, produciendo de forma diversificada, motivando a la colaboración y no competencia. - Es importante la regulación de la publicidad y prácticas no éticas de comercialización de alimentos, la cual puede ser reforzada con la implementación del etiquetado frontal de advertencia. - Es importante realizar una transformación cultural de los patrones de consumo de alimentos, motivando el consumo de alimentos disponibles localmente para mejorar la economía local, la eliminación del desperdicio y la disminución del impacto ambiental.237- No se percibieron posturas opuestas o puntos de vista diferentes. Hay coincidencia en la percepción de las problemáticas relativas al acceso permanente de alimentos, que se ve condicionado no solo por la pobreza sino también por el poco aprovechamiento de los recursos y alimentos disponibles en las comunidades y a la insuficiencia de información.

2021-06-11 16:01:22205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17208/63

48325115311720521122321091153121034

Yes

234238239240241242244245247249251- Dependencia del país de las importaciones de alimentos y poca capacidad para producir sus propios alimentos. - La situación de pobreza golpea fuertemente a las zonas rurales, principalmente, de ex bolsones. - Acceso a tierras es insuficiente. - La mano de obra, principalmente de la juventud, no está interesada en el trabajo de producción de alimentos. - Los jóvenes no tienen el apoyo suficiente por eso se decepcionan y terminan migrando u optando por otras opciones. - El país no es resiliente al cambio climático (tormentas, sequias), no hay apoyo directo a las familias. - El comercio intrafronterizo entre El Salvador y Honduras, pone en las manos de los consumidores el acceso a los alimentos, pero estos a veces no son adecuados. - Las necesidades de apoyo a los grupos de población relacionados con la agricultura familiar son amplias (asistencia técnica, estudios de mercado: precios, calidad de productos en venta). - La pandemia vino afectar la diversificación y cierre de mercados. - El tema de inocuidad depende del lugar donde se encuentren los alimentos, pero es muy importante para garantizar la salud y nutrición de los consumidores. - Desempleo que se ha incrementado debido a la pandemia - No hay planes de protección a la agricultura y para proteger a las familias. - Prevalencia de enfermedades en las comunidades asociadas a la mala alimentación. - Los estilos de vida y la falta de educación nutricional en algunos grupos de población, limita su capacidad para alimentarse de forma saludable. - El consumo de comida chatarra y alimentos procesados afecta más a las zonas urbanas. - El impacto del cambio climático en la cadena de producción genera pérdidas para los productores, por lo que tiene que recurrir a la utilización de insumos agrícolas no adecuados. - El recurso agua en calidad y cantidad es escaso para la producción y el consumo.235238241242243245248249251- En necesario analizar si las transferencias monetarias para apoyar la alimentación son adecuadas o no, considerando que a veces la alimentación no es la principal prioridad de las familias. - Es necesario innovar en diferentes espacios de la cadena alimentaria: producción, transporte, comercialización, consumo. - La educación es fundamental para crear conciencia, reflexionar y conocer sobre los beneficios de la alimentación saludable. - Las mujeres en las áreas rurales son violentadas y eso tiene relación con la alimentación, ¿Cómo incorporar la equidad de género en la política, obligatoriedad para promover la corresponsabilidad de la familia en el hogar para el cuidado de los niños y niñas? - En los municipios afectados por la sequía, las familias han adoptado estrategias de afrontamiento, las familias vendieron sus tierras, o fueron a trabajar a otros lugares, obtuvieron prestamos, o remesas. Es decir, que es un abanico de elementos que configuran para que las familias tengan una alimentación mínima suficiente. - La pandemia representó un reto para garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, pero permito que las familias y las mujeres en particular se reinventaran en la producción y elaboración de alimentos en el hogar. - Los espacios para la educación física son insuficientes.236238239240241242244245246247249251- El país no produce lo necesario para abastecer a todas las familias. - Hace falta más participación del gobierno de las diferentes instancias: defensoría de consumidor (vigilancia), salud (inocuidad) etc. - Las familias son pobres y esto dificulta a que puedan acceder a una alimentación saludable y variada (relación ingreso/costo de la vida) - Lo principal es la relación del ingreso de las familias, contra el costo de la Canasta Básica. El salario mínimo no alcanza para cubrir otras necesidades. - El cambio climático, esto ocasiona pérdidas de alimentos en la producción nacional debido a los eventos extremos. - Se visualizan fallas en la logística y transporte. Los intermediarios se benefician más la agricultura local, ellos acaparan y fijan precios. - Problemas fronterizos hace que los alimentos incrementen en sus precios. - Los medios de vida a veces no son diversificados debe apostarse a esas áreas. - No hay una variabilidad de los alimentos que se producen y se consumen. - Es necesario impulsar acciones que promuevan la producción y participación de las mujeres. - Necesidad de fortalecimiento institucional sobre su rol para garantizar la adecuada alimentación. - Es necesario destinar presupuestos etiquetados para la educación en nutrición y seguridad alimentaria nutricional. - Se deben promover los acercamientos de los productores con los consumidores a través de mercados locales - Fomentar la responsabilidad personal y comunitaria en cuanto a la práctica de la alimentación saludable. - Es necesaria la regulación de precios, de la calidad de los alimentos. Los marcos normativos deben ser más estrictos y vigilar su cumplimiento. - Es necesario regular la publicidad y promover la información de lactancia materna, alimentación infantil, adulto, a lo largo del ciclo de vida. - Se deben explorar oportunidades para la transformación de alimentos que son desperdiciados y tenerlo disponibles en todo año.237246247- Surgieron diferencias de opinión respecto a las diferencias y costos en que incurren las personas que habitan en zonas rurales y urbanas, se plantearon las ventajas y desventajas en cada una sin que todos estuvieran de acuerdo. - Se discutió sobre si el país debe atender a la población y familias vulnerables que residen en la zona de los ex bolsones, cuando esta zona corresponde a Honduras.

2021-06-11 16:01:27205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17191/63

42318122192355121421327272511366

Yes

234- Hay poca variedad de lo que se produce, el país no es autosuficiente, se ha perdido la producción casera, local. - La mayoría de familias no tienen un acceso de alimentos sanos debido a diversos factores: compras en el exterior, remesas, pobreza, pérdidas de empleo, desconocimiento de métodos de conservación de alimentos. Relación directa con el salario mínimo (aspecto económico) y Canasta Básica. No alcanza de acuerdo a las dimensiones de suficiente adecuada y de calidad. - El país es afectado por fenómenos climáticos como sequias e inundaciones, tienen un impacto en los cultivos, sumado a la pandemia. - En el área rural la dieta se compone con una gran cantidad de alimentos energéticos y no otros con vitaminas y minerales. - Oportunidades de empleo limitadas, migración, dedicarse a actividades ilegales debido a la reducción de oportunidades de ingresos y empleo. - Falta de educación, aspectos culturales, que no permiten el tener una alimentación adecuada. - La selección de alimentos va en función de la educación y comportamiento alimentario de la población. - Como país se tiene una crisis alimentaria, ya que no nos alimentamos de calidad. - Hay un incremento en los precios de alimentos que afectan la disponibilidad de alimentos debido a factores como: falta de tierras de calidad, problemas de transporte o movilidad para abastecerse y comercializar alimentos en el área rural, distribución intrafamiliar afecta en aspectos de consumo (la mujer es la última que consume alimentos Aspectos de género: la mujer prioriza la alimentación de otros miembros (hombres y NN). - Incrementos de precios de transporte lo cual eleva los precios de alimentos. - Son múltiples causas del poco acceso a alimentos: lo económico en cualquier hogar si hay desempleo o bajos ingresos). Otro problema en la región metropolitana, no hay disponibilidad de espacios físicos y oferta de alimentos saludables, incluso en las tiendas escolares (aunque haya normativa, siempre hay oferta no saludable). Y finalmente la poca sensibilización que tiene la población, para alimentarse sanamente (aumento de consumo de alimentos en grasas, azucares y sodio). No hay cambios de comportamientos de las personas. Además de la educación es necesario profundizar en el cambio de comportamientos. - Desde el punto de vista social (desempleo, cultura inmersa en las poblaciones, preferencias alimentarias que no necesariamente contribuyen en la nutrición), ambiental: provoca la no producción, crear sistema de alerta temprana. - La inseguridad afecta a los productores pequeños que por temor no se movilizan.235- Es necesario cambiar el patrón de agricultura, el país no es autosuficiente, y ello limita la disponibilidad de alimentos. - Es imprescindible la sensibilización y falta de conciencia para alimentarse sanamente. - La importancia de rescatar los conocimientos ancestrales relacionados con la producción agroecológica y consumo. - Es necesario promover un enfoque de sistema alimentario y sostenible, con el tema central de la nutrición ya que aborda la concepción de individuo y que promueva estilos de vida saludables. - Hay problemas de acceso a una alimentación saludable, de acuerdo a las dimensiones de: cantidad, calidad, considerando la brecha existente entre lo económico y el costo de la canasta básica de alimentos, además de agregar cuestiones de desempleo, bajos ingresos, y afectaciones por pandemia.236- Para garantizar acceso a alimentos sanos y de forma permanente, se visualizan espacios para incrementar la producción familiar y nacional, acercar mercados de alimentos al consumo de cercanía, y fomentar la toma de decisiones alimentarias saludables y nutritivas a partir de campañas permanentes y espacios formativos sobre alimentos y sus propiedades. - Se aprecian oportunidades para desarrollar un plan de alimentación escolar a partir de la articulación entre personas productoras y escuelas, que pueda estimular el involucramiento de la juventud en la producción y transformación innovadora de alimentos. - Creación de campañas educativas, para que las personas conozcan el valor nutricional de los alimentos, lectura de etiquetado nutricional con mensajes claros, identificando adecuadamente la población meta - Organización comunitaria como una acción urgente a ser implementada - Promover en las universidades y escuelas - Creación de marcos regulatorios para la comercialización y publicidad de los alimentos, especialmente en la población más vulnerables - Fomentar la investigación y generación de data para la toma de decisión. - Sensibilización y formación de las comunidades sobre oportunidades de la producción orgánica favorable a la naturaleza. - Fomentar el buen uso de agua para el uso en proyectos de huertos familiares. - Contar con herramientas para administrar todo el proceso y almacenamiento. Se requiere equipos para mantener la cadena de frio, buscar estrategias que faciliten el consumo y cambien el comportamiento. - Programas de asistencia técnica en la producción agroecológica. - Mejorar sistemas de riego para la producción de alimentos en la época de verano. - Invertir en el manejo adecuado de suelos, realizando obras de conservación. - Promover desde la academia la formación agrícola y el fomento de técnicas novedosas en la juventud. - Crear y promover un comercio justo, cuido del medio ambiente. - Desarrollar líneas de investigación para conocer y determinar que tenemos y que necesitamos. - Estimular el cumplimiento regulatorio de las cadenas de valor. - Desarrollar mecanismos y normativas que promuevan el acceso a tierras. - Educación y formación para el acceso a nuevas tecnologías enfocado a los jóvenes. - Sensibilización en temas de sostenibilidad ambiental. - Campaña de comunicación estratégica para hacer participar a otros actores. - Aprender a producir alimentos sanos y saludables. - Mejorar la educación del consumidor para que sepa que comprar. - Formación en temas de industrialización e idea de negocios.

2021-06-11 16:02:46205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18790/262

3903112225141425

The Dialogue was organised taking full benefit of the existing rules of procedures and rules of engagement of the EFSA Emerging Risk Exchange Network (EREN Network) and the Stakeholder Discussion Group on Emerging Risk (StaDG-ER). These rules are available on the EFSA website: - for the EFSA Emerging Risk Exchange Network (EREN Network), see https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/emrisknetworksen.pdf - for the Stakeholder Discussion Group on Emerging Risk (StaDG-ER), see https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/news/180119/180119-StaDG-ER-framework.pdf The event was organised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) well in advance of the time frame indicated in the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy for specific actions and targets. EFSA’s approach to incorporate the meeting outcomes within the EFSA emerging risks identification system may help to anticipate solutions to potentially related emerging risks, well in advance to the strategy full implementation. EFSA and its Emerging Risks networks identified four different areas of discussions of high interest for EFSA. Through open discussions among the different groups of interest represented at the meeting, stakeholders’ processes and approaches where analysed within the government and communities perspectives while overcoming the complexity of the many food systems, The members of the Emerging Risks Expert Network (EREN), the Stakeholders Discussion Group on Emerging Risks (StaDG-ER) as well as the collaborators from the European Commission where able to identified potential synergies and join efforts to achieve the Green deal common goals while aiming at ensuring that food safety is not compromised in Europe.Under the coordination of EFSA, members of the represented Stakeholder groups, Member States and EC collaborators volunteered to actively contribute to the event. From a collaborative and active preparative work on the topics to be covered, the outcomes of the meeting successfully reflect multi stakeholder inclusivity and other Principles of engagement such as respect for diverging opinions, engagement to complement the work of others while building trust among big players within the various European Food System. The composition of the two Networks participating in this event is available in the EFSA website: - EFSA Emerging Risk Exchange Network (EREN Network) https://www.efsa.europa.euwas organised /sites/default/files/assets/emrisknetworkerenlist.pdf - Stakeholder Discussion Group on Emerging Risk (StaDG-ER) https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/engage/stakeholders/stakeholders-ER-minutes-selection-renewal.pdfOrganising a UN Food Systems Summits Dialogue from the perspective of analysing challenges and opportunities on already established policies and strategies affecting various food systems in a wide area, such as the European Union, requires a good mix of the participants profiles (EU institutions, Member States Competent Authorities, Industry, NGOs, consumers associations), to allow ample time for discussion and exchange of views, and a good Chair to ensure that the exchange of opinions is done in a constructive and respectful manner.

NoThe initial proposal to organise a discussion to identify challenges and opportunities arising from the implementation of the F2F strategy with a view of anticipating to food safety risks, was discussed at one of the meetings of the Stakeholders Discussion Groups on Emerging risk (StaDG-ER) back in December 2019. The preparatory work for this initial proposal aimed at making the discussions fluent and inclusive to all stakeholders by touching into four specific topics that were identified as of common interest for EFSA and the StaDG-ER members. These were; (i) the reduction of antimicrobial use in farmed animals; (ii) the transition towards a healthy diets; (iii) the reduction of waste in circular economy; and (iv) the reduction in the dependency on chemical pesticides and increased organic farming. The topic selected for this event was first discussed at a dedicated agenda item at the 24th StaDG-ER meeting in December 2020. From the highly interest raised and the fruitful outcomes, the group recommended to extend the discussion to the Emerging Risk Exchange (EREN) Network. Thereafter, and consequent to consultations with European Commission on the preparation on a joint StaDG-ER/EREN meeting, the topic and layout of the event was found to meet with several parameters making it fit under the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual for the UN Food Systems Summits Dialogue. For the preparation of the dialogue, a selected members of the SatDG-ER and EREN networks, with proven expertise in the four topics to be presented, were invited to collaborate with EFSA on the development of the presentations disclosed at the meeting. Comments and remarks from respective services from the European Commission were also collected and considered before the meeting. This methodology allowed capturing interests and views from the different parties in anticipation to the open discussions at the meeting. The initial presentations on each topics were followed by an open discussion where members of stakeholders groups, representatives from Member States and EC openly exposed their views to the challenges and opportunities previously identified, while proposing additional potential risks and possible solutions.

234238239240243244249250This event was organised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and involved its Emerging Risks networks: the Emerging Risks Exchange Network (EREN) and the Stakeholders Discussion Group on Emerging Risks (StaDG-ER). The aim of the event was twofold: discuss on the potential opportunities and challenges derived from the transition to sustainable food systems and anticipate solutions on potentially related emerging risks. The Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy (see https://ec.europa.eu/food/farm2fork_en), at the heart of the European Green Deal, aims to make food systems fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly. The overall goals of the strategy are to reduce the environmental and climate footprint of the food system, to lead a global transition towards competitive sustainability from farm to fork, to tap into new opportunities for businesses, people and the environment, and to create a robust and resilient food system. The strategy includes 27 specific actions to achieve its objectives and four aspirational quantitative targets for Europe in 2030: 1. Reduce by 50% the overall use and risk of chemical pesticides and reduce use by 50% of more hazardous pesticides 2. Reduce nutrient losses by at least 50% while ensuring no deterioration in soil fertility; this will reduce use of fertilisers by at least 20 % 3. Reduce sales of antimicrobials for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 50% 4. Achieve at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming and a significant increase in organic aquaculture Based on former reflections between EFSA and its Emerging Risks networks, the event built on four different areas that are not specified in the quantitative targets, but are still covered by the strategy: • Reduction of antimicrobial use in farmed animals, • The transition towards a healthy diet, • Reduction of waste in circular economy, and • reduction in the dependency on chemical pesticides, excess fertilisation and increased organic farming. Analysing challenges and opportunities from the F2F strategy implementation from an emerging risks perspective may lead to a number of solutions to support the Action Tracks in the scope of expected UN Global Compact Leaders Summit: 2021. To this end, although promoting a reduction on the use of chemical pesticides or the sale of antimicrobial substances could be perceived as compromising food security, the solutions arising from the event aim at ensuring fair and wider access to safe and nutritious food for all. Furthermore, the analysis on the transition towards a healthy diet and increasing organic farming could bring actions prompting the shift to sustainable consumption and more nature-positive production patterns. Finally, the implementation of safe circular economy methods to support the reduction of food waste focuses on closing the biological and technical cycles, contributing as such to reduce the vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses on currently used resource and energy sources and preserve the environment Disclaimer: the content of this report is a reflection of the discussion held with EFSA network groups on emerging risks identification. The views recollected within do not represent a position neither from EFSA nor from the European Commission.235238239240243244249250Reduction of antimicrobial use in farmed animals Potential welfare issues in organic schemes where a decrease in the use of antimicrobials could compromise animal welfare, have been indicated and referred during previous discussions within EFSA stakeholders’ fora. Still, available scientific evidence provides divergence views, potentially associated with the multiple factors related to specific farming systems. Aiming to maintain the effectiveness of antimicrobials, monitoring impact and One Health monitoring measures are recommended. Setting targets at national level should recognise herds’ population dynamics, and prescribed antimicrobials used only when strictly needed. Alternatives to antimicrobials should involve cost-effective, feasible replacements and a positive impact on animal health. Examples include: enhanced farm biosecurity, vaccines, organic acids, probiotics, passive immunisation, bacteriophages, teat sealants and better-quality feed. Regulatory clarity when categorising alternatives would make their development clearer and more attractive. While there is diverging evidence, any drastic changes over a short period could negatively impact on animal health and welfare. Campaigning for achieving reduction goals in antimicrobial sales, may drive consumer or production trends towards new products such as artificial meat, which could be perceived as not needing antimicrobials, but still needs further evidence and research. Towards a healthy and plant-based diet With one out of five deaths in 2017 in the EU attributable to unhealthy diets, the farm to fork strategy aims at moving towards a healthy and plant-based diet to reduce the level of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. A “plant-based diet” is not meant for consumers to become vegetarian or vegans, but to stimulate practices to diversify sourcing of proteins while reducing animal protein intake, consumption of heavily processed foods, and giving preference to seasonal and regional food products. The Mediterranean Diet is an example of a healthy diet with little to moderate amounts of animal-sourced foods. However, to reach a broader population, the solution should attempt to accommodate different cultures and customs. The environment may also benefit from such a change in the diet, with an expected positive impact on water eutrophication, and a cut of related greenhouse gas emissions. It could also lead to a less intensive meat production system in Europe with positive effects on animal health and welfare. Nevertheless, based on some studies, fostering healthy diets in Europe could be 60% more expensive than the cheapest alternative that can provide all 20 essential nutrients that people need to survive. Reduction of food waste in Circular Economy An estimated 20% of the total food produced is wasted in the EU and 129 million tons per year globally. Waste of food is in essence a loss in environmental resources, and generates excess emissions related to farming, processing, and transport. Moreover, food waste is a missed opportunity to feed those in need and is a financial loss for farmers, retailers and consumers. EU initiatives in place are already mitigating the issue of food waste. In 2015, the EU has expressed its commitment to cut food waste by 50% by 2030, in line with Sustainable Development Goals. Tackling food waste is part of the revised EU Waste Legislation and the F2F strategy. Food waste prevention is embedded in the concept of circular economy, which focuses on closing the biological and technical cycles, so that the need for virgin resources and energy use are minimised. The Reduce-Reuse-Recycle approach applies for food waste, where ‘reduce’ implies an improved planning and food production technology, as well as behavioural changes (meal planning, food donation). ‘Reuse’ refers to the use of former foodstuffs used as feed, while ‘recycle’ mainly focuses on energy or manure production from food waste. Reduce dependency on pesticides, excess fertilisation and increase organic farming The F2F strategy contains a broad range of measures supporting the transition to sustainable farming practices. However, drastic changes for European agriculture may lead to unintended effects and negative consequences, e.g. lack of alternatives to chemical pesticides. To ensure that the F2F strategy does not lead to an increased dependency on food imports or an increase of the price for food, coordinated efforts at national and EU level are required together with the application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy. Many of the more harmful pesticides (candidates for substitution) should be removed from the market in the coming 10 years. Alternatives to chemical pesticides supported by research, training of farmers and the implementation of innovative technologies are all key to make the F2F strategy a success. Due to the different structure of European agriculture and the fact that some countries are already more advanced in reaching the targets, different solutions may need to be tailored to the individual Member States’ needs. The Commission is currently in the process of reviewing the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive to strengthen the legal framework where stakeholders were invited to be engaged.236239243244248249250Reduction of antimicrobial use in farmed animals The coordinated monitoring and responsible use of antimicrobials is an important priority, and the reduction of usage should not jeopardise animal health and welfare. The EU aspirational target set by the F2F strategy should be considered at MS level for variation between farming systems, disease status, characteristics of population groups in different species and other local, regional or Member State-related specificities. Monitoring various indicators for health and welfare (e.g. lesions at meat inspection) could show trends and could inform on the impact of reducing antimicrobial use. A Danish case study in pigs, compare these lesions before and after introduction of a Yellow card scheme. It is important to investigate the link between the necessary antimicrobial treatment thresholds requested by organic schemes and the potential risk of compromising animal welfare. The benefits of reduction of antimicrobial usage should outweigh potential disadvantages or unintended negative effects. This could result in low control of infectious disease or increases in lesions at meat inspection, detrimental economic effects being also related to the needs in different farm systems and species in different countries. In Belgium, although no specific studies and scientific data are available, information from pig producers shows that reduced use on antimicrobial has not impact on farm mortality. However, some producers reported economic losses due to carcase quality. On the other hand, preliminary analysis in an Italian welfare study has not identified a relationship between animal welfare and antimicrobial use or the reduction of its use. In some farms, a higher level of welfare improves the health of the animals and contributes to a reduction of antimicrobial use; for others, this reduction can have a negative impact on animal welfare. It is difficult to foresee the extent of this impact as well as setting general rules without accounting for the specific situations. Various strategies, and their combination, support prevention of diseases and improve livestock health. However, those do not substitute the potential need for antimicrobial therapy when health is compromised. The selection of intervention should start with considerations of cost-effective and feasible alternatives to antimicrobials. More regulatory certainty on the current and new options for nutritional management and manipulation of the microbiome (e.g. use of pre-/pro-biotics, bacteriophages) could stimulate innovation in this area. However, some of the alternatives can raise additional safety problems such as research signals on some probiotics potentially carrying resistance genes . EFSA’s work on antimicrobial resistance together with ECDC and EMA to assess links between the use of antimicrobials and development of resistance, found multiple positive correlations between antimicrobial consumption in humans and animals depending on the antimicrobial in use. A number of areas for interventions were assessed leading to recommendations accounting for local situations and integrating several of the options together within national strategies. A One Health approach is important when monitoring antimicrobial resistance in human and animals, but also the comprehensive assessment of alternatives that may have wider significant economic, environmental or social impacts. There is wider recognition of the multifaceted responsibilities for prudent use and voluntary commitments in various sectors, and more stringent prescriptions and application rules. The participants also highlighted the importance to avoid rapid regulatory changes that could lead to drastic changes over a short period, because of potential negative impact on animal health and welfare. Shifting to new systems will cost some ‘learning money’, and is associated with new costs that need to be balanced with benefits. Therefore, the progress towards the aspirational target related to antimicrobial sales, could also benefit from studies on the potential impact on animal health and welfare aspects.236238239243244249250Towards a healthy & plant-based diet Although there is no doubt about the beneficial effects of a healthy diet for consumers, the increase of plant sources (fruits, vegetables, legumes, pulses) in the diet could lead to several challenges. Plants are complex mixtures and may contain undesirable substances, whether naturally occurring (e.g. antinutrients), or contaminants resulting from culture conditions (e.g. sulphates), climate change (e.g. mycotoxins), or properties of the plant itself (e.g. bioaccumulation of heavy metals or minerals/micronutrients). Plants used as/for food have often not been assessed for safety and may expose consumers to undesirable substances. It should also be noted that plant proteins differ from meat proteins in terms of quality (amino acid scoring profile / digestibility). Existing techniques to concentrate proteins, such as alkali-concentration may lead to an increase of lysinoalanine, a metal chelator associated with nephrotoxicity. The importance of the challenges raised during the discussions would need to be relativised, since the transition to healthy diets does not lead to the introduction of a completely new diet in the European Union but rather to achieve better the already existing dietary recommendations, e.g. increasing the amount of pulses and seeds consumed, reducing the consumption of red meat and ultra-processed foods. Moreover, most of the challenges are addressed by existing regulations in place in the EU (e.g. maximum limits of antinutrients or contaminants). The transition towards a healthy and plant-based diet should therefore be seen as an evolution rather than a revolution. Educating the consumers about the healthy diet will be key, as eating more raw products and vegetables, requires new processing / cooking habits to tackle the potential food safety aspects associated with these products. As a general recommendation, the food consumption changes resulting from the introduction of a healthy diet in Europe will require a reassessment of the exposure levels to undesirable substances like the ones previously mentioned. Agricultural considerations were also discussed, with the question whether the European agriculture would be able to address the need for more fruits, vegetables and legumes. The lack of agricultural lands can be compensated through innovation, with the development of new ways of producing plants (e.g. vertical farming), but history has shown that any type of intensification of farming generates unwanted and unexpected issues that will have to be carefully monitored. A second consequence linked to the reduction of meat consumption is that less manure will be available to fertilise soils, and therefore more chemical fertilisers may be needed. This needs to be balanced however with the potential reduced use of agricultural land for plants for feed, and the reduction of nutrient losses in agriculture. The impact on agriculture in terms of economic sustainability was also discussed. The last part of the discussion addressed the issue of the acceptance of the seasonality aspect of this new diet by EU consumers. If consumers continue demanding fresh produce out of season, the introduction of a healthy diet could lead to an increase of imports with the associated emerging risks: introducing new plant pests in Europe, products not complying with EU legal limits, e.g. for pesticide residues, entering the food chain. However, it was noted that regulatory and import monitoring activities already exist in the EU covering those potential risks. Other aspects such as increase of CO2 levels associated to potentially longer transport should be considered. Finally, it was noted that the increased demand for fruits and vegetables will not imply a dramatic increase of imports or a revolution of the EU agriculture if measures are implemented to tackle food waste (see summary of the related session).236239243244248249250Reduction of food waste in Circular Economy New technologies could allow for more efficient use of available resources, and consumer behaviour change has an enormous potential for reducing the waste at the final level of the food chain, which now accounts for ca. 46% of total food waste. The possibility to reduce food waste at the early stages of the food chain is in the contrary limited because of the stable/ increasing demand for food. Several initiatives in Europe aim to tackle food waste. The SAFE campaign "One Man's Waste is Another Man's Treasure" aims to reduce the social and economic impact of food waste by collecting food waste from local shops and its redistribution to local communities in need. However, many challenges have to be overcome when implementing European initiatives aiming at reducing food waste such as reducing availability on feed materials if potato peels are transformed into biofuel, introducing chemical and biochemical risks to food and feed when breeding insects on former foodstuff or the high presence of unknown organic substances as well as heavy metals in biobased plastic food contact materials compared to virgin-made equivalents FCMs. It was noted that EU regulatory risk assessment frameworks should already be well placed to assess potential changes related to circularity in food and feed systems. Food waste reduction can bring environmental, social and economic benefits for EU citizens. Food donation/redistribution initiatives, better forecasting of requirements to reduce surplus, removal of buy one get one free promotion and clearer information for the consumers on food labelling (best before/use by/ecolabelling) aim at raising awareness on staff and consumers as well as improving consumer behaviour towards the benefits of food waste reduction. Food waste reduction will also motivate innovation into the food chain to further develop: (i) novel food contact materials to prolong shelf life, (ii) processes for keeping food losses in the food chain: repurposing food, buying imperfect produce, (iii) new feed sources, (iv) nutrient recovery methods: biofertilizer from composting or anaerobic digestate, (v) methodologies to recover energy from food waste: biogas from anaerobic digestion, rendering, or (vi) techniques for the reduction of emissions in all steps of the food chain. However, all these circular economy solutions and ideas must continue to be monitored closely in order to ensure that food safety is not compromised. Emerging risks related to circular economy include reintroducing pathogens or contaminants into the food chain and allergenicity of novel foods. In the animal health remit, it is, however, important to mention that these risks are mitigated by EU-wide ban on using food waste as animal feed. Feed ban in the EU is very stringent and prevents the reintroduction of pathogens to the food chain. In addition, new EU policies to reduce dependency on chemical pesticides and excess fertilisation, as well as to increase organic farming, can also help to mitigate these potential risks. Issues discussed included: under redistributed food, potential food safety risks (bacterial contamination); under former foodstuffs as animal feed: presence of packaging remnants (plastic, paper, aluminium foil); under food contact materials to prolong shelf life: immunogenicity and allergenicity of bio-based food contact materials, migration of nanomaterials into foodstuff and potential risks to human health – toxicity; under nutrient recovery from food waste: contamination of food and environment by pathogenic bacteria and bacteria carrying antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), potential allergenicity of the insects, food additives; under using food waste for animal feed (not allowed under EU legislation):parasites, bacteria, and viruses; allergens.236240243244248249250Reduce dependency on pesticides, excess fertilisation and increase organic farming The food system is a complex interlinked entity that reacts in predictable and unpredictable ways when one part is disturbed. The use of certain chemical pesticides in agriculture may contribute to soil, water and air pollution, biodiversity loss and can harm non-targeted species (plants and animals). In addition, the excess of nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) in the environment is another potential source of air, soil and water pollution and leads to climate impact. In contrary, the shift to organic farming may have a positive impact on biodiversity and may influence the creation of new employment, particularly for young people in some European countries advanced in organic farming. Achieving the aspirational targets of the F2F Strategy, should allow an adequate time frame for their accomplishments. Successful experiences with the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy have proven to be efficient to reduce pesticides use (e.g. planting fencing or using pest- resistant crop varieties) and should be considered when analysing the effectiveness of these targets. The challenges identified at the meeting relate to the whole food system in Europe. Examples include the limited number of approved pesticides on plant health, the risk of importing of exotic disease (e.g. broad bean beetle, fruit tree canker and Jimsonweed) and the need for safe alternative solutions. The shift from chemical to organic fertilisers could lead to broader risks including microbial contamination of water sources used for food production. In addition, if these transitions take place too fast, the appropriate tools and technologies to adjust to the new reality may not be readily available. Moreover, we should take into consideration the social and economic impact in a global context. In line with the F2F targets, the European Commission will present a proposal for a revision of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD), to significantly reduce the use, the risk and dependency on pesticides and enhance integrated pest management in 2022. Additionally, the Horizon 2020 programme is already providing opportunities to foster innovation through research that can help in reaching the aspirational targets of the F2F strategy in this area. The discussions stressed the need for a holistic food system approach encompassing the effects on food production, environment, and consumers habits. It was highlighted that Europe’s food safety system is one of the best in the world to be kept and safeguarded.237238239240243244248249250Reduction of antimicrobial use in farmed animals Some participants already reported a reduction of antimicrobial use over the last years, and a new 50% reduction target was seen as unrealistic. High antimicrobial usage offers a proxy for structural or managerial deficiencies impacting on animal welfare. Furthermore, non-prescribed antimicrobials may have sub-standard quality and the impact of falsified medicines may increase too. Whilst there are benefits of reduction measures achieved by organic farming such as less multidrug resistance, there are also potential disadvantages or unintended negative effects. Practical investigations on the impact of reduced use of antimicrobials in different pig production systems in Denmark revealed a shift in the type of lesions found at meat inspection. However, Italy and Belgium reported different effects. There is no refined standard to measure antimicrobial usage considering the dose and the age group of the animals, making difficult to establish threshold for usage and compare between various groups. In addition, some concerns were raised whether pre- or probiotics used in animal production would be attained to the same risks and qualified presumption of safety criteria applicable for those for human consumption. Future research and considerations are needed on safe probiotics for animal consumption. Towards a healthy & plant-based diet One area for diverging views among the participants was whether the EU regulatory framework in place is adequate to deal with the transition to healthier and plant-based diet, and the challenges associated with its introduction. If the regulatory framework in place is adequate to address undesirable substances or groups of substances taken in isolation, it is less clear whether it addresses adequately the safety of plant-based foods as a whole. Current legislation foresees a centralised EU safety assessment of plant-based novel foods but for traditional plant-based foods, the responsibility for safety is left to food manufacturers and Member States Competent Authorities. The traditional non-conventional foods previously mentioned was given as an example. A second area for diverging views is regarding the adequacy of existing health-based guidance values (HBGVs) for most contaminants and common undesirable substances (e.g. antinutrients) that could be found in vegetables. Some participants underlined that these HBGVs have been calculated on the basis of current EU consumption patterns, and questioned their validity following the introduction of a healthy diet. Suggestion was made to re-evaluate the exposure to these undesirable substances and the protection level of current HBGVs. Reduction of food waste in Circular Economy The discussions focussed on finding the balance between preventing emerging risks for food safety and the social, environmental, and economic advantages of food waste prevention. Several voluntary and regulatory initiatives in Europe aim to tackle the reduction of food waste. While EU requirements (e.g. certification, trainings and keeping the cold chain), could be perceived as a burden, whilst ensure food is kept safe up to the final consumer. The feed ban is very stringent in Europe and prevents the reintroduction of pathogens into the food chain. Adequate controls should be ensured when food waste is being used as feed elsewhere and imported. Proposals for reduction of food packaging must find solutions not compromising correct food labelling e.g. "best before" date and food safety. Currently there is no life cycle assessment (LCA) on food packaging. Safety of packaging is assessed when used in contact with food but the environmental fate and the safety assessment for its reintroduction into the food chain are still not well described. Food sustainability aspects beyond safety should not jeopardise efforts and achievements carried out in Europe to achieve its current high level of consumer protection. Reduce dependency on pesticides, excess fertilisation and increase organic farming The implementation of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy allows smooth transition to sustainable practices and farmers have until 2030 to reach the F2F aspirational targets. However, although the targets of the strategy have not been regulated, there are ongoing policy initiative such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) or the revision of the sustainable Use Directive (SUD) that stimulates their achievement. The need to supply alternative products and the potential increase of food imports from third countries should be considered. Research initiatives will support innovation and development of new technologies helping to overcome the challenges we confront today. Nevertheless, time should be allowed for producers and consumers to accept these new solutions and for the potential risks to food safety to be assessed. Balancing the benefits of achieving these targets with potential emerging risks requires the participation of all the interested parties. During the discussion it was highlighted that the EU has powerful instruments like the payment of subsidies to farmers through the Common Agricultural Policy, which need to be aligned with the goals of the F2F strategy.

2021-06-11 16:04:35205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25704/30

3025519112161533

Mujeres y hombres han trabajado sobre los sistemas alimentarios en el sector académico, productivo y en el ámbito de la cooperación al desarrollo; sabios de los pueblos indígenas originarios y; personas que trabajan temas ambientales producción primaria, procesamiento, transformación, mercados, consumo y nutrición y disposición de desechos. Este espacio, tuvo por objetivo crear un intercambio de saberes e intercientífico, validar y retroalimentar las preguntas preliminares de análisis para los talleres territoriales de diálogo y aportar al marco conceptual para con base en el cual se elaborará la propuesta país para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247248249250251Vía de Acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos, permitiendo que todas las personas estén bien alimentadas y saludables. La agricultura tiene que ser sostenible en todos los eslabones, incluyendo a la agroindustria y a la agricultura familiar, para lo cual se debe que eliminar el abuso de plaguicidas y organismos genéticamente modificados (GMO). Producir alimentos de forma sostenible permite la adaptación y mitigación a los efectos adversos del cambio climático y genera resiliencia. En este sentido se debe dar prioridad a la seguridad y soberanía alimentaria y una vez aseguradas, se puede pensar que, el resto de la producción se dirija a la exportación. Esto permitiría garantizar la diversidad productiva, reducir costos, mejorar la nutrición y logra que la ecología y la economía vayan juntas. Se debe introducir políticas que ayuden a reducir las importaciones de productos altamente procesados y en su lugar, reforzar la alimentación basada en productos locales, regionales y nacionales, lo que permitiría aprovechar la diversidad y las ventajas agroecológicas del país, que tiene todos los elementos para llegar a un sistema alimentario sostenible. La soberanía alimentaria tiene que relacionarse con soberanía tecnológica y energética. Se debe promocionar la alimentación sana, la información respecto a nutrientes y buscar que los productos saludables sean accesibles económicamente para todos, al tiempo que mejora el ingreso de las familias rurales (no solo campesinas) y se eliminan los productos “no sanos”, a partir de la normativa productiva. Vía de Acción 2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible, promoviendo y creando demanda de dietas saludables y sustentables, reduciendo el desperdicio y promoviendo sistemas alimentarios sustentables. Se identifican dos acciones prioritarias: 1) la educación temprana, formal e informal, sobre la alimentación y nutrición, incluyendo los mitos y conocimientos ancestrales y occidentales, la información transparente y la transformación focalizada en los pequeños productores y; 2) la producción primaria y el consumo local, en directa relación con la identidad y la disponibilidad de alimentos. En el ámbito educativo: • Un tema priorizado es la alimentación escolar con los huertos escolares y las compras al pequeño productor. • Normalmente le encargamos a la mujer la responsabilidad de cuidar a la familia cuando todos somos responsables. • Pese a que Bolivia es rica en alimentos super nutritivos, el consumo de productos locales está disminuyendo, no solo por los costos. En este contexto, es importante reconocer a las mujeres como las cuidadoras de saberes y tomar medidas respecto a la migración de los jóvenes a las ciudades mediante políticas más agresivas para mejorar las condiciones de vida en las zonas rurales. En el ámbito de la producción primaria y el consumo local: • Es importante respetar la identidad cultural, al reconocer que la medicina ancestral forma parte de la producción. • Fomentar la promoción de la agricultura urbana, en creciente aumento en el país, considerando que la alimentación es un acto político, pues cuando hablamos de consumo sostenible, también hablamos de acceso a la dieta sana, y saludable, al consumo responsable y a la disminución de las pérdidas y desperdicios. El consumo sostenible tiene mucho que ver con cercanía del producto. En este sentido, se trata de promover circuitos cortos para tener acceso a productos frescos y sanos. • Incentivar sistemas de protección social sensibles a la nutrición, a las prácticas culturales alimentarias y a la relación entre producción y consumo; priorizando alimentos que la población está acostumbrada a comer. Temas Transversales 1) El rol de la cooperación internacional debe estar definido en una política nacional soberana, fomentando la cooperación sur-sur y acercándonos a otros países. Los países desarrollados deben aportar al desarrollo tecnológico, transfiriendo conocimientos y patentes. El rol de la cooperación es apoyar en función de las líneas que establezca el país, así como a las iniciativas de los pequeños product

2021-06-11 16:08:57205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16688/63

3061010161410252414115711124

Yes

234- La mayoría de las familias no cuentan con alimentos suficientes. - Los recursos económicos no permiten a las familias tener una alimentación nutritiva. - No toda la población cuenta con conocimientos sobre la elección adecuada de los alimentos, desconocimiento sobre el etiquetado nutricional y valor nutritivo de los alimentos. - La mayoría de las familias compra los alimentos. - La variación de precios por temporada para ciertos productos afecta y se generan problemas de adquisición para la población. - La producción de los alimentos está impactando la salud de la población. - El mercado incide a través de la publicidad sobre hábitos de consumo de alimentos. - Existe una dificultad económica para acceder a los alimentos saludables, la mayor parte de la población compra en el mercado informal, donde no existe adecuada manipulación, etiquetado - Los estilos de vida no son favorables a la elección de alimentos, por otra parte, existe dificultad para la promoción de la actividad física, limitado acceso a espacios para el desarrollo de actividad y ejercicio físico. - No existe un fuerte componente de investigación sobre consecuencias y seguimiento de políticas que fortalezca la toma de decisión. - No se cuenta con regulación adecuada para promover un consumo de alimentos saludables y estado de salud y nutrición.235- Se visualiza la necesidad de educar a la nueva generación en las escuelas para que puedan cultivar. - Es necesario reducir las importaciones y compra más producto local. - Por consiguiente se debe apoyar a los productores en temas de comercialización. - Establecimiento de centros de abastecimiento de granos básicos principalmente. - Es necesario realizar campañas para que las personas conozcan el valor nutricional, lectura de etiquetado nutricional. - Intervención del estado a través de la legislación para el monitoreo, seguimiento de las adecuadas prácticas de producción de alimentos.236- Diseñar programas complementarios en el Sistema educativo enfocados a la agricultura desde la educación inicial. - Fortalecer al CENTA en cuento a recursos humanos para dar asesoría técnica y capacitación. - Identificar buenas prácticas productivas locales y replicarlas. - Promover la comercialización y consumo de productos locales. - Identificar tecnologías que ayuden a resolver las situaciones de producción según la zona, por ejemplo, corredor seco. - Coordinación entre Instituciones para poner en práctica normativas y supervisar su cumplimiento para la venta de productos en condiciones adecuadas. - Socializar los alimentos nutritivos propios de El Salvador, rescatar el aporte nutritivo de nuestros alimentos. - Tener un plan estratégico institucional en que cada uno de los temas o ejes de este plan se involucren las instancias correspondientes: salud, educación, agricultura, comunidad, municipalidad, todos los actores que se vinculen a la temática. - Estudios CAP (conocimiento, actitudes y prácticas) que lleven a dar seguimiento los efectos de este plan estratégico articulado para tener una mejor alimentación. Esto debería ser dirigido por el gobierno central. - Lo más importante es la creación y vigilancia de marcos normativos que promuevan hábitos y prácticas saludables. Contar con una ley de alimentación escolar, por ejemplo, es clave, no solo del vaso de leche. Esto les correspondería a las autoridades educativas, salud y central. - Actualización de la normativa legal vigente. - Regular el uso de agroquímicos. - Establecer mesas comunitarias para entender las necesidades de los territorios. - Apoyo de empresas privadas que promueva el crecimiento de los pequeños agricultores. - Cadenas cortas de mercado y economía circular. - Usos de censos y apoyo en ADESCO para promover las asociaciones y mejores oportunidades. - Existe la necesidad de Políticas de apoyo para los agricultores, como el subsidio a los insumos agrícolas, regulación de precios, promover la producción y el consumo interno de producto orgánico, así como facilitar la certificación de la producción orgánica. - Es necesario revisar los impuestos e incentivos fiscales a la producción agrícola. - Es necesario aumentar personal para asistencia técnica que cubran más territorios, incluyendo la capacitación para seguimiento financiero, así como la educación en agricultura a nivel de centros escolares. - La adaptación al cambio climático es necesario para poder subsistir en la producción agrícola. - Debe promoverse programas de emprendimientos que puedan apoyar la economía que hoy solo se basa en la agricultura ya que solo es por temporadas. - Es urgente la necesidad de resolver el tema de regulación de precios y de acceso a la información de mercado para hacer negocios más justos para todos (de insumos y de los alimentos que se producen) - Ampliar las acciones de asistencia técnica para la diversificación de sus producciones para ser más resilientes y generar mayores ingresos - Rescate de la semilla criolla y de plantas tradicionales para los sistemas productivos y la mejora de la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. - Ampliar las acciones de rescate de las cuencas y microcuencas y contribuir al cuido de los recursos naturales. - Mejorar la infraestructura de riego de forma urgente para facilitar la producción permanente de alimentos haciendo un uso eficiente del agua que cada día es más escaza. (Con sistemas de riego y no solo por inundación).

2021-06-11 17:17:10205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25737/87

3553573202712112141210248

The dialogue was organised in the true spirit of the principles of the Summit. An interdisciplinary group was created for inclusive planning and curation of the dialogue process that reinforced inclusion in the very planning stages of the Member state dialogue. Under the shadow of the COVID-19 Pandemic, given the restrictions on movement and in-person meetings, a dedicated webpage on the Nodal Ministry’s website was created to expand and include as many stakeholders. There was a dedicated Take Part option and an option of submitting detailed ideas, challenges and suggested pathways, in recognition of the complexity, embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and be respectful towards the ideas of one and all. The dialogue was held virtually due to the severe pandemic wave, and diverse range of stakeholders, experts and practitioners were invited to present their ideas and highlight the challenges. The 1st level National dialogue marked the beginning of the process that acknowledged and complement the work already done by variety of stakeholders and concrete ideas were discussed to ensure that the momentum generated is continued. The significant in flow of submissions on dedicated webpage, especially from the non-state actors implies the trust and confidence that the dialogue has been able to generate.The dialogue acted with urgency and showed its commitment to the Summit by organizing the event despite the pandemic and took all necessary precautions to ensure stakeholders feel safe and motivated to participate. The dialogue recognized the complexities related to food systems and the various aspects that impact and are impacted by the food systems by ensuring the involvement of diverse stakeholders as well as focusing on inclusivity by providing a platform for representation from all parties involved. Every stakeholder was encouraged to share areas where they need support to promote further efficiencies in their field and this built inter disciplinary trust and complementary approach.No, please.

Yes

234241The Government of India volunteered for Action Track 4, i.e., Advance Equitable Livelihoods but not limited to, given the diversity of our food systems, its impact and linkage with socio-economic-ecological systems, supply, demand and the whole value chain. India can suitability engage and contribute in all the Action Tracks to showcase the best practices and provide ‘game changing ideas’ for the betterment of agri-food systems. Nevertheless, we would like to make more visible contribution in AT4. The dialogue collectively tried to focus on the following areas of concerns and pointedly contemplate on the questions to contribute meaningfully for the success of the dialogue, which were broad enough to include the whole range of ideas, challenges and suggestions across the entirety of the food systems. 1. What are the National pathways towards sustainable food systems in the coming decade in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable development? 2. What are the levers and opportunities to bring pathways to life? This should include practices, policies, actions, infrastructure, institutions, partnerships and commitments. 3. How to cope with shocks and vulnerabilities caused by shocks like COVID? 4. What should be the national ambition and efforts needed to achieve that? 5. How to manage damage to nature caused by food systems? 6. What are the changes needed and mechanisms to balance needs of present and future? 7. Changes needed in national development plans, climate action and sustainable food systems, as well as relevant regional and international agreements? 8. Game changing ideas, experiences and replicable success stories235Please see the attached document.

2021-06-11 19:30:08205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20506/63

622933248214414231323319319

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249- La mayoría de las familias no cuentan con alimentos suficientes. - La mayor parte de la producción de alimentos no cuenta con etiquetado frontal de advertencia. - Exceso de publicidad para niños y niñas de alimentos altos en contenido azucarado y grasas. - Limitada difusión de información sobre alimentos saludables y nutritivos. - La generación de información y evidencia científica en general, de producción alimentaria, disponibilidad y uso de recursos, consumo, enfermedades y población afectada, efectos de las políticas y programas públicos, entre otras, es limitada, desactualizada o poco difundida. - Las necesidades de información son diversas, la toma de decisiones sobre alimentación depende del ciclo de vida de las personas y de los estados de salud. - Existe un alto grado de contaminación de recursos ambientales como el agua por el mal manejo de la higiene y saneamiento. - Los cafetines y comedores no cuentan con supervisión por parte del estado y con regulación sobre la formación del personal que manipula los alimentos. - Se identifica el desuso de tierras con vocación para la producción alimentaria. - Las cadenas con muchos actores en la distribución y comercialización de alimentos encarecen los precios de la alimentación, volviéndolos inaccesibles para muchas familias.235238239240241242244246248249- Existen diferentes iniciativas (políticas, planes agropecuarios, sociales, educativos, de niñez) en construcción que pueden retomar de forma articulada todas las propuestas y sugerencias resultantes en los diálogos. - Solo el trabajo articulado entre las diferentes instituciones del estado a nivel nacional, conjuntamente con instituciones de nivel regional y local, las municipalidades y organizaciones territoriales podría garantizar avances de desarrollo significativos en los sistemas alimentarios. - Se visualiza la necesidad de actualizar y desarrollar los marcos normativos correspondientes a la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, lactancia materna, gestión del agua, uso y acceso de las tierras ociosas, regulación de precios de los alimentos y respuesta a las emergencias y crisis alimentaria. - Existen experiencias muy positivas de articulación a nivel de mancomunidades entre municipios que han desarrollado experiencias exitosas, es necesario conocer y revisar con detalles los elementos que pueden ser replicables. - La producción nacional alimentaria sana y no contaminante requiere de incentivos para transitar a sendas de sostenibilidad. - Considerar un enfoque que diferencie las acciones en tiempos de estabilidad, de aquellas en tiempos de emergencia.236238239240241242243244245246248249251- La diferenciación alimentaria por ciclo de vida y estado de salud es trascendental para recomendar e informar sobre la alimentación más adecuada. Al respecto, la lactancia materna es clave para seguridad alimentaria, en tanto, se debe valorar la política y plan estratégico de la lactancia materna. - Incrementar publicidad y educación para promover consciencia poblacional sobre valores nutricionales, e incluso saneamiento e higiene y su relación con la calidad de los alimentos que se consumen. - Promover y exigir el etiquetado frontal de la producción industrial y artesanal de alimentos. - Acortar la cadena de valor, acercando aún más, el consumidor a los mercados y la producción local en específico. - Promover la alimentación diferenciada para personas en situación de dependencia, garantizando igualdad de acceso y consumo de alimentos, fortaleciendo la independencia. - Es necesario apoyar con líneas de créditos accesibles a la producción alimentaria, especialmente a los pequeños agricultores. - Incentivar las compras gubernamentales a productores locales, brindando acompañamiento productivo y empresarial a productores que no tengan experiencia previa en vender a las instituciones del Estado. - Valorar esquemas de incentivos e desincentivos fiscales para facilitar productos saludables y desestimar aquellos que no lo sean. - Fortalecer el uso de la tecnología y la innovación, aplicable a la producción alimentaria, especialmente en zonas áridas o con alta sensibilidad a la variación climática. - En coordinación con universidades, promover la investigación y difusión de investigaciones existentes. Coordinación con universidades. - Coordinar y sistematizar la generación de datos e información para la planificación de políticas pública basada en evidencia científica.

2021-06-11 19:38:37205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22481/63

19118

Yes

234- La institucionalidad que da seguimiento a los sistemas alimentarios y seguridad nutricional, en la actualidad es débil y necesita ser fortalecida para tener un carácter articulador. - Para avanzar en el tema de seguridad alimentaria, garantizar el acceso a agua limpia y permanente, es un factor primordial, así como su gestión para los diferentes usos productivos. - La intermediación y el acaparamiento de la producción alimentaria incrementa los precios de forma sustancial. - A nivel territorial, no existen muchas iniciativas para promover hábitos saludables. - No hay control ni regulación de prácticas agrícolas de monocultivos que causan daños los recursos naturales y a las personas. - La alimentación adecuada debe ir acompañada de programas de ejercicios que promuevan la vida saludable. Actualmente, y profundizado por la situación de pandemia, la población ha entrado en mayores niveles de sedentarismo, el currículum educativo no contempla la educación física como contenido evaluado y obligatorio.235- Se precisa realizar esfuerzos por articular políticas y normativas para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria en el país. Ley de manejo de tóxicos y ley general del agua, que están a la base de cualquier apuesta por garantizar la seguridad alimentaria. - Es necesario considerar los esfuerzos de seguridad alimentaria con las municipalidades. El gobierno local junto a las escuelas, tienen un papel clave en educar y reeducar a la población en las comunidades. - Los círculos de familia pueden ser espacios claves con el tema de educación alimentaria y nutricional y autocuido. - Es necesario considerar el tema de salud mental, en muchas personas los malos hábitos alimenticios son explicados a partir de traumas y altos niveles de estrés. - Actualmente, el INDES tiene en construcción un programa que incorpora una visión deportiva y recreativa, para que la actividad física sea complementaria a una alimentación saludable. Será un trabajo conjunto con MINED, MINSAL, CONASAN y municipalidades. - Desde el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente hay acciones que mejoran la información y formación de la población. El observatorio ambiental está encaminado a proveer información oportuna sobre las condiciones climáticas que afectan la producción de alimentos. - La experiencia de la Mancomunidad La Montañona, con la mesa de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y protección del recurso hídrico puede representar una experiencia interesante para ser retomada por otras comunidades. - La conformación de redes de producción agroecológica, promoviendo la producción y comercialización de productos sanos pueden ser estrategias importantes para avanzar en los procesos de políticas de seguridad alimentaria. FUNDESYRAM es un caso muy ilustrativo de este tipo de experiencias comunitarias.236- Es importante implementar procesos de educación y sensibilización, el rol de los cuidadores durante las primeras etapas de vida, debe fortalecerse mucho porque es cuando deben inculcarse muchos de los hábitos alimentarios adecuados. - Se debe educar y sensibilizar a los consumidores en cuanto a la alimentación saludable, en articulación con MINED, MINSAL e instituciones interesadas. - Es necesario articular el currículo educativo con alimentación saludable dirigido a toda la comunidad educativa. - Promover el aprendizaje con otros países, continuos y que se promuevan. Como los sistemas de alerta temprana para la seguridad alimentaria. - Promover la investigación sobre la producción, uso y consumo de plantas tradicionales como estrategia para la diversificación nutricional. - Se deben promover dinámicas de producción saludables y de comercialización justa y equitativa. - Es necesario limitar el uso de los agroquímicos en la producción de alimentos, principalmente aquellos asociados con la degradación del medio ambiente. - Los programas de apoyo a la producción alimentaria deben estar muy claros en sus objetivos y definir el tipo de práctica (favorable a la naturaleza) que van incentivar. Asimismo, deben establecer roles familiares no sobrecarguen a las mujeres. Por ejemplo, la producción de patio normalmente ha correspondido a las mujeres. - Será necesario reformar el Código de Salud para incluir todos los temas asociados a la seguridad alimentaria.237- Aunque no generó mayor debate, se mencionó que es necesario regular la producción del monocultivo de la caña de azúcar por ser un cultivo intensivo en agroquímicos y daña los recursos naturales, y porque desplaza la producción de alimentos esto no se tienen alimentos saludables.

2021-06-12 11:36:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20489/67

15002145840098520550005091611010001313215113

The National and regional Dialogues was initiated by Eswatini National Agriculture Union (ESNAU), which is an umbrella body for all farmers in Eswatini. Speakers during the opening session used both the Zoom platform and live Presentations. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture, the President of the ESNAU, WFP, and FAO all made their Speeches Live at the National Dialogue. SACAU, represented by Benito Eliasi, UNDP made their official remarks via Zoom. The Dialogue was facilitated by a Consultant (Dr. W. Sikhondze). Invitations were circulated by the Convener Mr. Lwazi Mamba and ESNAU Secretariat to all the actors in the Sector, including Smallholder Farmers (crops and Livestock); Youth from the whole agriculture sector. To provide an opportunity for as many farmers to participate, four (4) regional Dialogues were conducted to harvest as many views as possible. The National Dialogue was a culmination of all the other 4 Dialogues. In all the Dialogues the reference manual was the guide for the conduct of the dialogue. For the small group sessions, participation was live with a few who participated in the zoom platform. English and Siswati were the two languages used simultaneously in the National dialogue and in the groups.A summary of the deliberations in all dialogues dwelt on the issues of Finance, Climate change, Digital technology, and agriculture policies. In the realization that the Sustainable Development Goals were to be attained by 2030, the sense of urgency to find workable solutions for our local food systems was emphasized. The aspirations of the Summit were communicated to all dialogue participants. Participation was gender-sensitive and youth involvement was solicited from all quarters of the country. It was pretty clear from the Summit deliberations that unless we join heads, like what Swazi farmers did during the Agriculture Summit of 2007, solutions to the ills of the agriculture value chain and food systems can not be solved. The actors in the value chain have to take responsibility and account for all their actions in the Agriculture Value Chain. By so doing, sustainable solutions can be formulated. The different groups had different sets of Questions and Themes to reflect on, in order to come up with solutions to the ills of the Local Food systems and to draw strategies for future success. There was a visible commitment from group participants to discuss in-depth issues pertaining to their given themes. The only setback for all groups was time. In the spirit of the Summit rules of engagement, dialogue participants realized the important roles that each is playing, although lamenting a great deal on markets and finances as limiting factors to their growth and development. They discovered that, even though they perceived themselves as a critical component of the food system, they discovered that other actors are important for creating resilience in the Food systems.The Summit is well organized, as it has guidelines for each activity. The rules of engagement are a critical tool kit and convenors can not falter if they follow them tenaciously in organizing and running an independent dialogue. Secondly, as they do their job Convenors should be mindful that the dialogues are looking for strategies for implementation in the next ten years to transform the food systems. In order to achieve this, group selection and assembly were critical in getting the views from as wide a representation as possible. Linkages among actors in the food systems are critical and convenors must make sure that it is attained. It is important that the Convenors develop reports on the Dialogues to share with participants after the dialogue.

Yes

234238240241242243244245246248249251The dialogue was centered around the following themes: 1). THEME: Advancing equity, openness, and fairness in the governance of value chains including in International trade. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Agree on three strategic interventions that would be necessary to address this by the producers themselves and other chain actors, as well as roles of research and policy in this regard. 2).THEME: Enhancing availability and Equitable access to factors of production. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: For each of the key factors of production, explore at least two ideas that will enhance available and equitable access to primary producers, understanding that they are not a homogenous category. 3). THEME: The groups reviewed the status and level of adoption and scaling up of innovation and technology including digital technology. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Which areas/fields (maxim 5) of research and development/innovations present the greatest opportunities for transforming the lives of farmers and at scale? b) what should be the key principles underpinning the governance of data value chains be based on, particularly with respect to data generated by and from farmers? c) What factors and investments by the different ecosystem’s actors would enable wider adoptions within the shortest period of time- what are the low-hanging fruits? The role of the public and development sector in areas such as backbone infrastructure and capacity, as well as in digital literacy? 4). THEME: Strategic interventions that can increase the pace of involvement of a younger generation of Agri-preneurs in the food system. Delving on the strategies that can be undertaken to contribute towards this and Identify the younger generations' expectations from other ecosystem players. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Identify a maximum of 5 strategic interventions that can increase the pace and scale of the involvement of a younger generation of Agripreneurs. What can the younger generation undertake to contribute towards this, and what is it that they expect from other ecosystem players? 5). THEME: Shifting to sustainable and nature-positive production at scale. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: a) where are the low-hanging fruits in achieving significant shifts to nature positive production by farmers and at scale? What strategic (max 5) investments and infrastructure will be needed to take farmers on a sustainable and scalable nature positive production trajectory in the medium term? What will be the responsibility of farmers in advancing this, and what would they expect from other systems actors, including consumers? Also, consider the role of the public and development sector in de-risking and funding the transitional period. 6). THEME: Priorities for Public and Development sector investments. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: a) Which areas for public sector investments lend themselves to catalyzing the transformation of primary production at scale both in the short and medium-term and similarly for the development sector? (maximum 3 each). Identify a maximum of 5 policy proposals/ideas that you would consider game-changing in transforming the primary production at scale (consider also the role of public and development sector funding in de-risking the transition towards more resilient, sustainable, and inclusive food systems.2352382392402412422432442452462492511). Bargaining Power targeted to Markets: the dialogues resolved that Due to the marketing challenges that farmers are facing, they must establish strong group/s that shall have bargaining power in the market. In this regard, they will be able to obtain the most favorable prices, representation in marketing boards, lobby governments to enact policies that will allow participation of the private sector to alleviate price volatility. The capacity of farmer cooperatives should be strengthened so that they can deliver effective services to members including organizing collective access to inputs and output markets for farmers. Government and development partners should provide infrastructure such as warehouses to support farmers' enterprise bargaining. 2). Agriculture Crop Insurance: The dialogue proposed for a system of risk and insurance sharing which might mitigate the consequences of adverse outcomes or might even allow traders to pursue higher returns but more risky activities. In the absence of formal institutions, proposing that social capital might play this role. 3). Governance of Farmer Organizations: As a matter of policy, the dialogue proposed that Agricultural policies should focus more on the intensification of the agriculture sector, empowering farmers’ organizations, and increase the market orientation of the smallholder farm sector, suggesting that ESNAU should be strengthened to assume this role effectively. Umbrella bodies such as ESNAU must take lead in providing governance mentorship and support to farmer organizations including farmer cooperatives. 4) Climate Change Research: The impacts of climate change on the food systems were observed. The dialogue realized that Climate change can affect food availability, access, utilization, and the stability of each of these over time. It was proposed that Research should take centre stage in unravelling the impacts of this phenomenon if the food system is to be sustained. 5). Access to Finance: In the discussions, finance was said to assume vital and significant importance in the agro–socio-economic development of agriculture both at macro and micro levels. Secondly, it was said to be playing a catalytic role in strengthening the farm business and augmenting the productivity of scarce resources. In a food system access to finance serves to initiate production and sustain the value chain. Financiers should provide farmer-friendly financing products. Government should establish an agriculture fund that will act as collateral for smallholder farmers. 6). Improve adoption, access and use of digital technology; The dialogue noted that today's agriculture routinely uses sophisticated technologies such as robots, temperature and moisture sensors, aerial images, and GPS technology. These advanced devices and precision agriculture and robotic systems allow businesses to be more profitable, efficient, safer, and more environmentally friendly. The government was therefore encouraged to promote these technologies through capacity building forums for Primary Producers. Producers are encouraged to adopt and make use of new technologies. 7). Agriculture Mechanization. The dialogue realized that primary producers in Eswatini are heterogeneous and that mechanization could be an answer to the problems faced by farmers; the dialogue understood that Mechanization covers all levels of farming and processing technologies, from simple and basic hand tools to more sophisticated and motorized equipment., this improves the efficient use of resources, enhances market access and contributes to mitigating climate-related hazards. 8) Promote agriculture in Schools and improve the curriculum- and strengthen Career Guidance; They understood that as long as there is not targeted career guidance for pupils taking agriculture subjects in schools the prospects of generating future farmers in bleak. There is a need to create an organization to advocate and advance the aspiration of agriculture students and guide their career paths. A youth wing under ESNAU can be created, to in the first place target schools. 9). Overgrazing and Land degradation: were serious issues for the dialogue, unit livestock agriculture requires massive amounts of land, food, energy, and water; results in polluted land, water, and air; and causes immense animal suffering. livestock production contributes to the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. The group proposed that farmers must keep the right livestock unit per area (proper Livestock Units). The ministry of agriculture must intensify educational programs. 10). Development and investment agencies could help in providing grants, funds for supporting agriculture projects. Donor funding could make a meaningful difference if they were to support the establishment of a Farmers Bank.2362382402412422432442452462472482492511. AGRICULTURE VALUE CHAINS: - Sale of Produce Agreements: Retailers have a tendency of canceling agreements made with producers without notice, leaving producers stranded with their produce. As a matter of Policy, all retailers must put in place a produce sales Agreement to guarantee the final uptake of farmers' produce. - Production Contract: It should now be a law or a policy developed to require retailers to develop production contracts with Primary produces on the commodities to be produced and quantities, since they had observed that retailers are refusing to sign production contracts with them and there is nothing compelling them to do so. This presents a serious risk to produce loss post-production, especially perishable commodities. - Bargaining power: Producers have less bargaining power in the Market since they are price takers.; and the period for payment of goods is decided by retailers. Producers themselves should build and/or strengthen commodity-specific networks to address marketing; Advocate for fair pricing of produce at all markets and in place, and End-to-end traceability system for farm produce entering the market chain. In order to address the issue of unfair pricing, farmers should be represented in State-Owned Marketing Boards and decision-making platforms that affect pricing. - Agriculture Insurance: There is a need to establish a system of risk and insurance sharing to mitigate the consequences of adverse outcomes and to allow traders to pursue higher returns. Insurance companies should provide comprehensive and affordable insurance packages to farmers. - Land tenure: due to the land tenure system, farmers cannot use the land as collateral in banks since they do not own it but it is owned by traditional authorities. Government must speed up the finalization of the SNL Commercialization Bill or revisit and finalize the Draft Land Policy. Youth must be supported to access production land. Arable land is fast diminishing, therefore must be protected by policy and preserved only for agriculture. Unproductive arable land that belongs to the government must be put to active use, special attention given to local smallholder farmers to use this land. - Mechanization and equipment: the majority of smallholder farmers do not own adequate equipment and tractors, therefore rely on tractor services that are offered by the government. However, this service is very inefficient. Government must improve the delivery of this service, and should consider handing it over to the private sector, preferably to competent farmers' organizations. - Farming support enterprises: Farmer groups should take business opportunities of the nonfarming enterprises that bring solutions to farmers such as farming input trading, produce transport services, warehousing, abattoirs, and cold storages. Through These enterprises, farmer groups have the opportunity of reducing farmers' production costs and increasing dividends for shareholding farmers. - Innovation and Technology: - Adoption and access to technology; agriculture today is becoming more sophisticated and technology is bringing a lot of change and necessary solutions. However, local smallholder farmers are not adequately taping into these opportunities. Government and stakeholders should promote adoption. Proper policies must be put in place to regulate technology and data.  Investment: - Agriculture is the backbone of the country's economy, therefore, the government must prioritize investing in the sector. The Malabo Declaration to commit 10% in agriculture must be practiced by the government. There is a need for more irrigation infrastructure, road networks, internet connectivity, aggregation centers, and cold chain support infrastructure.2362412422452462492512. PRODUCTION FACTORS - AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS:  Soil: Including ph and soil Conditioning. The group noted that Soil is the foundation of food systems and that there is an urgent need to rebuild soil health. This can help maintain harvests, especially for the staple maize and for horticulture and livestock commodities over the long run, and lay a solid foundation for a more resilient food system. Investing in soil health will also benefit the environment. A strategy for periodical application of lime to soils that are frequently irrigated for horticulture crops and in the Highveld of Eswatini which receives above normal Rainfall can guarantee soil productivity over time. That Liming should not be a strategy but be a policy for all regions where it is appropriate. Water for Irrigation: The group felt that intensification and increasing water harvesting and storage facilities in all regions to cater for the irrigation needs of Primary Producers is vital for increased and sustained productivity. They recommended that small reservoirs suited for that group of primary producers can be appropriate instead of constructing large projects that will demand huge resources. Users should properly maintain the irrigation infrastructure that has been put in place.  Farming Inputs. The group picked GMO Seeds and organic fertilizer as inputs needing attention an introduction for use in Eswatini. The participants felt that introduction of GMO seeds can boost productivity per unit area and local food supply. The group wondered why Eswatini does not recommend their use as neighboring countries are using GMO’s. The group proposed that the country can benefit immensely from the use of Organic fertilizer since organically produced crops fetch a premium price in the market. The group was aware that organic farming is also good for the environment. They also proposed intense capacity building for farmers intending to engage in organic production.  Finance: Access to finance is very difficult for primary producers and yet it is a critical production factor. The majority of smallholder farmers are struggling to access finance. The difficulty to access finance is the leading challenge for youth farmers, especially because they have not accumulated assets that they can use as collateral or security. Government should assist by establishing Agriculture Development Fund which will also provide collateral for farmers. Financiers should establish more affordable financial products targeted to smallholder farmers. The group recognized that the input subsidy program is a good initiative but felt that its impact was limited because it only assists 1 hectare per farmer and only 3 commodities. The group also endorsed the proposal for a farmer’s bank, which they hoped will understand the farming cycles and related issues, contrary to Commercial banks.  Mechanization and Farm Machinery. The group was unanimous in their realization that as long as mechanization and tractor hire services are operated by state-owned entities, their contribution to the food system will remain ineffective. They recommended that farmers be the ones who run the tractor hire service because they know the issues and can address them better. They proposed that for every 100 farmers should form a group and under the auspices of ESNAU and buy a tractor. In this arrangement, ESNAU and other stakeholders must assist to secure collateral for these groups. This will guarantee timely availability of mechanization services for all categories of primary producers  Land Inventory: The group realized that arable land is diminishing in Eswatini and yet in every discussion, primary producers are always told that land is available. In this regard, they recommended that a study be conducted to establish and consolidate a land inventory to assess the actual status of available arable land. The data obtained from this exercise must be used to further conduct a land classification and suitability exercise. The results will inform planners whether the country still has land that will contribute meaningfully to the food systems. Arable land must be protected by a policy.2362382392402412422442452462492513. ADOPTION AND SCALING UP INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY  Irrigation: Primary producers recognized that Irrigation was critical for maintaining a steady flow of produce into the food system and that if the majority of primary producers could have adequate access to irrigation infrastructure and technology, a shift from subsistence production to commercial production can be assured and enhanced  Postharvest Handling: Regarding post-harvest handling, the meeting felt that research in this field must be conducted to identify issues, from harvesting, Transportation to Storage, providing recommendations on new and improved methods of harvesting, and promote technologies, methods, and approaches that respond to postharvest needs of maize, and horticulture producers:  Calculating Production Costs; the group realized that the majority of farmers are not able to establish the production cost for a crop prior to production. They felt that it was important to Innovate to reduce production costs, they recommended that the Ministry of Agriculture, farmer organizations, and NGOs must intensify capacity building for primary producers to be able to calculate costs of production.  Climate Change: The group was unanimous in the realization that Climate change is having a considerable impact on the availability of water resources for agricultural production. The increased crop water demand cannot be achieved as long as there is global warming. The group recommended that Climate research must be conducted to establish what strategies must be adopted to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The group further recommends that government and insurance companies must work towards establishing weather-based insurance products and policies for farmers. Government tractor hire services must have readily available tractor drawn implements that are Climate Smart and promote conservation agriculture.  Capacity Building and Development. Dialogue partners realized that capacity training and building in various skills in agriculture production was necessary for the availability of well-skilled primary producers to be effective producers. The dialogue felt that the government need to develop a training Curriculum for farmers, instead of conducting random training programs. All practitioners or institutions that train farmers must be accredited and follow the curriculum to avoid giving different and incorrect information to farmers.  Land Tenure: The dialogues felt that the land tenure system does not promote agriculture business since control of land is in the control of traditional authority and production land cannot be used as collateral for an agriculture business loan. This does not auger well for Business or commercial agriculture. The group also highlighted that various actors in primary production do not have access to land; including Women and youth and there is no room for expansion because the available piece of land cannot be extended nor is there a policy that influences this to occur, save for only when a good neighbor does a favor for the farmer. Government must speed up the finalization of the SNL Commercialization Bill or approve the draft Land Policy. Traditional leaders must protect youth and women from losing family land once parents pass away.2362412452492514. INVESTING IN THE NEXT GENERATION OF FARMERS:  School Curriculum and Career guidance; As long as there is not targeted career guidance for pupils taking agriculture subjects in schools, the prospects of generating future farmers in bleak. The group agreed that the school’s career guidance is not relevant to the needs of the agribusiness Industry. For Pupils studying agriculture in schools, their agriculture career path is no properly guided and nursed in the school setting. Solution: - There is a need to create an organization to advocate and advance the aspiration of agriculture students and guide their career paths. A youth wing under ESNAU can be created, to in the first place target schools.  Lack of access to Finance: the group said that banks generally viewed youth as a risk. In this regard, the group proposed for the review of Banking policies towards youth Agripreneurs. Secondly to stop considering age as a criterion for approving loans but the viability of the proposal as the main criteria for assessing and approving loan applications. The group intimated that Banks always lump all aspects of Agriculture as being tenable in Rural settings. The group proposed that Financial Institutions must understand that it is not the whole agriculture value chain that is implemented in the rural areas, some aspects such as packaging and transport logistics can be carried out in urban centers.  Self-Contained Agribusiness Enterprises. The group proposed that Government must provide and invest in about 100 to 200 ha farms for the youth to establish a whole value chain agribusiness enterprise that encompasses the whole agriculture value chain in this farm. This strategy must include primary producers of crops and livestock; processors, value addition enterprises, packaging, and distributions all in this farm. The farm must employ the latest production, processing, and packaging Technologies to be relevant to the youth. Youth selection and participation must be from all four Agro-ecological regions. ESNAU must advocate that this initiative becomes a policy or enshrined in the country’s policies.  Youth representation in Parliament: The Group proposed that the purposeful appointment of youth representatives is important if youth-friendly policies can be guaranteed in parliament. They even suggested a similar strategy as used for the selection of the four Women Regional Parliamentarians.  Establishment of Youth Agribusiness Dialogues on Social Media; The group felt that this Social group will be mannered and run by a youth already in Agribusiness to encourage other youth to join Agriculture. They can display their enterprises on this platform as proof that indeed agriculture is relevant for the youth also. ESNAU was also proposed to house this initiative.2362402442462495. SUSTAINABLE AND NATURE POSITIVE PRODUCTION:  Use sustainable systems of production; The group proposed the universal use of a sustainable system of production by primary producers including but not limited to the following: - Adopt Drip Irrigation technologies: the group noted that A well-designed drip irrigation system benefits the environment by conserving water and fertilizer. By placing water on the surface, next to the plant, or subsurface, near the root zone, helps to maximized fertilizer uptake and reduces wash off of both soil and nutrients, and maximizing productivity. In dry years, fewer weed seeds germinate between rows because there is less water available beyond the plant root zone reducing the extent of soil disturbance. - Use natural manure: the Extension Service as part of their capacity building must promote the use of Organic Fertilizers and farmers made aware of their importance in sustainable agriculture. The government on the other hand must guarantee availability to primary producers. - Practice Crop Rotations. The group noted that Crop rotation practices can result in increased high crop cover periods, reduced frequency, and tillage intensity. An increase in the use of forages in crop rotations can result in better crop residue management - Plant drought-tolerant crops. It was agreed that there were benefits of planting drought-tolerant crops including producing larger crop yields. Planting climate-resilient maize varieties in most environments leads to increased crop yield because these crops are still able to grow in periods when the rainfall is not enough continuing to maintain soil cover and benefitting the environment. - Employ Soil Conservation to avoid erosion. The group agreed that Soil conservation is key to environmental sustainability: It helps protect natural resources and watersheds, restores habitats for plants and wildlife, improves water quality, and makes soil healthier. Soil conservation also creates economic opportunities including productive and healthy soil that helps farmers meet increased demand for agricultural commodities from a growing population, driving economic growth. - Avoiding veld burning. The group noted that veld fires have affected plants and animals, polluted air and water, and destroyed livelihoods. There were numerous challenges to environmental management and sustainability posed by veld fires include property damage, reduced soil fertility, destruction of vegetation, air and water pollution, and destruction of wildlife. It was therefore the responsibility of Primary producers to make sure veld fires are prevented  Conserve water bodies: A serious proposal was made to the government to invest in local dams and water harvesting structures, suitable for primary producers in their areas to support their local food systems.  Promote the protection of wetlands: The group was clear in the understanding that Wetlands provide vital ecosystem services. They supply water, improve water quality, support primary industries, provide flood and storm mitigation, act as a carbon sink, provide habitat for biodiversity and threatened species, and provide communities with recreation and tourism.2362422452462496. PUBLIC AND DEVELOPMENT SECTOR INVESTMENTS; • State budget: Government must honor the Maputo Declaration, which was also complemented by the Malabo declaration to invest 10% in the Agriculture sector. • Avail Collateral for Primary Producers: Government to set aside funds from its budget to act as collateral for all farmers to enable easy access to finance from commercial banks. The proposed Agriculture Investment Fund should be approved and stakeholders invited to invest in this fund to support farmers and the growth and development of the sector. • Policy: Suggested a compulsory M&E; policy to follow up on all farms leased out to assess how they are used and make recommendations that will benefit the food system. Underutilized government-owned farms must be put to optimal use. • Support by Donor organizations to assist in the establishment of the Farmers Bank interests for Farmers. • Farmers and farmers' enterprises struggle to raize capital to establish business infrastructure such as warehouses, abattoirs or cold rooms, irrigation, etc. Government and development partners are encouraged to assist farmers to establish these under necessary terms and conditions such as lease arrangements.237There were no major areas of divergence there was unanimous agreement on most of the issues discussed in the Regional dialogues as well as in the national dialogie.

2021-06-12 20:21:16205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25341/69

141209722256852477322544511012626156113234215128233

The Fiji National Dialogue was divided into five separate Action Track dialogues, each focusing on a specific Action Track. This report refers exclusively to Action Track 3 – Boost nature positive production. The Fiji National Dialogue for Action Track 3 was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the curation of the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, the National Food and Nutrition Committee and Ministry of Agriculture as Convenor. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue agenda, framed questions, and topics for discussion, developed a group reporting template to focus and guide group discussions and identified themes for discussion across three strands (i) Protect (ii) Manage (iii) Restore. The Action Track 3 dialogue was Chaired by the Fiji Ministry of Forestry, who also led the three main presentations. The prep meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register. This ensured that everyone read and understood the Principles and committed to the SDGs before participating in the Dialogue. A group of 141 stakeholders participated in the Dialogue from diverse, multi stakeholder backgrounds consisting of government ministries, civil society, international and regional agencies (including UN agencies), academia and other key actors.As highlighted above, the Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 3 ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation, therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 72 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues were curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement served as important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all five Action Tracks, including the National Dialogue. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

NoThe Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 3 – Boost nature positive production was held on 19 May, 2021 at a crucial time as Fiji was well into its first month of COVID-19 pandemic with restrictive measures and lockdowns. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, the Fiji national dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform, using a participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and crowdsourcing platforms such as Slido, polls and the Zoom chat box were also used to crowdsource questions and engage participants in live polls and quizzes throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. 140 participants took part in the dialogue. They represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, women’s groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Relevant resource materials (reading materials, video links etc) (iv) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format ─ Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) ─ Official opening address by the Permanent Secretary for Environment ─ Setting the Scene What is the UN World Food Systems Summit 2021? (Video on the Summit by Dr Agnes Kalibata) ─ What is a Food System? (Examination of existing Fiji and Pacific food systems, including strengths and vulnerabilities) o Presentations on Action Track 3  Protect – Wildlife Conservation Society  Manage – Ministry of Forestry  Restore – Conservation International ─ Discussion groups on themes and questions focused on questions such as (i) Highlight areas for improvement in the delivery of services that are critical for nature positive production (ii) Are there barriers for this to happen? (iii) What are the transformations needed in Fiji’s current Food System to boost nature positive production in Fiji? (iv) Are current efforts enough to achieve nature positive production? ─ Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing using Slido questions, live polls, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions, and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs ─ Communications and media ─ The outcomes of the dialogue and key messages from the Fiji Permanent Secretary for Environment were highlighted in a Press Release issued to the media which received extensive coverage by local mainstream media and on social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter). UNFSS hashtags #UNFSS @foodsystems #SDGs and #foodsystems were used in all media content to ensure that messaging had a multiplier effect. Links to media coverage are included in the Attachments section at the end of this report.

2342402432442462482491. Protect, Wildlife Conservation Society The COVID-19 pandemic is contributing to an overlapping crisis in terms of biodiversity loss, climate change and unsustainable development, which is worsening and deepening due to the current health crisis. Government and financial institutions investments in the pandemic recovery are an opportunity to alleviate the global crisis by supporting and protecting natural systems, including our food systems. Nature-positive food production systems recognize that biodiversity underpins the delivery of all ecosystem services on which humanity depends on. Most food production hinges on the wise management of ecosystem services. Protected and healthy ecosystems are the best way to ensure productive agriculture and nutritious foods and biodiversity for Fiji. The current biodiversity crisis is evidence of our unsustainable use of natural systems, with agriculture being responsible for 80% of global deforestation. Drivers linked to food production cause 50% of freshwater biodiversity loss. There are some tools to protect biodiversity such as protected areas, land-sea planning and management and nature-based solutions. Policy and legislation to protect species and natural habitats are also key. We need to understand how the Sustainable Development Goals relate to one another and how these goals relate to our country policy and at the lowest level to protect our food systems. 2. Manage, Ministry of Forestry There needs to be a general appreciation for nature-based solutions, with lot of space for solutions harnessing economic potential especially in these uncertain times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lot of this work is outdoor based, so it is safer in terms of workplace opportunities. There is a pressing need for urban forestry policy and governance as existing policy is fragmented with lots of underutilized land, especially communal spaces in urban areas. Nature-based solutions will lead to optimally utilized resources through the realization of economic potential in food forest nutrition. This can develop open green spaces through urban forestry implementation and provided beneficial outcomes when looking at it holistically. Food forests are complex systems that may have from 3-9 layers with tall trees that act as wind breakers, smaller trees such as nut and spice trees, shrubs and groundcovers. They have the potential to greatly contribute to the economy providing trees to people willing to buy and processing plants and other products to end users that are sold at retail outlets 3. Restore, Conservation International The regenerative productive farming sector can provide benefits and services while creating rural employment and sustaining livelihoods. There needs to be a paradigm shift to address the trade off in land uses and encourages communication and exchange of ideas from all multi stakeholder groups. There needs to be a departure from sectoral and siloed views of landuse to build on complimentary functions within the whole landscape focussing on people centred activities moving away from Eco-centred goals of sectoral management. Sustainable land management involves of all stakeholders and bring about discussion for proper landuse planning and adoption of sustainable practises in the long-term commitment to integrated approaches for land management. Landscape restoration applies ecological concepts and principles to optimise the interactions of plants, animals, and humans to the environment from the ridge top to the coast. By building synergies across landscapes we are conserving above and below ground biodiversity as well as cultural knowledge diversity. This approach incorporates endangered species, carbon sequestration, adaptation to climate change and improve food security, and can be passive as when creating nature reserves where nature looks after it or very active and labour intensive, integrating local knowledge and resources to manage an area. For landscape restoration we need to have enabling conditions such as district level landuse plans, landowners to adopt nature-based solutions, enhance small holder and traditional farming systems, integrate best practises based on locally a2352402432442482492511. Protect Food systems play a huge part in the local ecosystems and would be beneficial for the environment for stakeholders in the food systems to investigate innovative ways of ensuring a safer and healthier environment. Natural ecosystem are amply recognised as part of the food systems in the rural areas but not so much in urban regions. For example, forests are important not only to produce forest products but also for productivity of agriculture, helps to avoid soil degradation, capture water, mangroves, all spices…Community awareness needed for people to understand the importance of protecting the forest as unique space for biodiversity e.g. tree frogs, or plants, protection of watershed/water sources etc. and increase their knowledge and skills for managing sustainably land & forest (restoring degraded land areas, participating in agro-forestry systems etc.). Research, collaboration, and stakeholder involvement including private sector, with an emphasis on data collection and analysis is key in order to understand a way forward to protect our environment. This also includes blue economy for livelihoods, capitalising related services and resources not only the income that it may provide. In this sense, an overarching policy framework needed with collaborations from all the ministries in terms of biodiversity and sustainable use of our natural resources, avoiding silos. Some barriers identified to achieve nature-positive production in Fiji were related to need to review policies and legislation in protected areas; need to strengthen data generation and management within Government; financing of the ministries to carry out the work and implement, monitor and evaluate existing policies; poor coordination between Government agencies and departments; lack of awareness on the importance of the protection of species, impacts of farming on habitats, species etc. People on the ground needs to be informed and understand how to preserve ecosystem, use of pesticides, avoid sea pollution etc. 2. Manage Combined systems with trees, animals and crops (agroforestry, agrosilvicultural, silvopastoral etc.) were identified in the discussion as essential when managing existing food production systems to benefit both nature and people. Other important aspects that need some improvements in the food system are soil conservation, a seed system and prioritizing efforts to include Nutrition as a priority in the Food Systems, with better access (transport, distribution etc.) to nature fresh foods prioritized for consumption versus commodities as flour, rice etc. There is a range of food production systems and potential products that can be applied successfully to different contexts. The smallholder farmers as implementers need to be aware of their farming options and the benefits of protection of ecosystems and biodiversity. A model based on Food System Clusters placing more management responsibilities on the people and less on the government was discussed as a potential solution when there is natural a disaster with unexpected challenges towards Food Security and Nutrition. 3. Restore Restoration is only achieved through inter connectedness with the other areas of Protection and Management. There are some ongoing initiatives that can be used, as the Grow Your Own Food Guide for community training on home gardens existing tools – promoted by the ministries of agriculture and health. This can be complemented by an accompanying app – the Mai Kana app that discusses planting and maintaining home gardens. There is a need to revert to traditional food systems, with crop species that are climate resilient and use of local organic fertilisers. Also important to improve skills for managing fisheries, mangroves – all part of the ecosystem Some barriers identified were related to the empowerment of women and local communities, a more inclusive approach is needed with people able to formulate strategic choices and control resources and decisions. Eg. Women market vendors are left out of village and community discussions and decisions, they are not informed. Ownership is a key factor to ensuring that information is received, absorbed and then used appropriately. Financing and resources to address food system initiatives are still scarce. Pesticide regulations and policy to control the use of pesticides need to be updated.236240243244246248249Discussion within the three groups presented a number of common trends and issues, as described below. Multi-sectoral collaboration An important transformative solution is to strengthen our government capacity to work interactively and collaboratively with other agencies and partners to find better solutions and use best practices. Policies from different sectors on different topics related to the food system (food security, climate change, protection of oceans etc.) need to be aligned. Policy and governance are key to transformation. Holistic approach A Reef to Ridge approach seems relevant for Fiji, looking at agro-forestry systems and encouraging small holder farmers to farm in one particular area while protecting another. In order to protect our oceans, our seabeds we need to first protect what we are doing on land which eventually goes down to the rivers and seas, as for example fertilizers. Some ideas best practices from other countries with similar contexts can help to find ways to support both the nutritional content of food, which can reduce NCDs but can also protect and conserve the environment. Home Gardening should be part and daily routine of our life. Farmers need to add value to their crops (examples Uto flour/banana chips/cassava flour) for self-consumption (producing their own food from available resources) and to improve their markets, for example through food deliveries from rural to urban areas (registering for Bula Market Fiji Programme). Working with the different partners in the food system (food processors) is important to improve the quality of foods being produced, advertised, consumed by the public. Education Discussion has to go into the education system, integrating agriculture science and home economics from primary school level and prioritizing the young generations and involving the Ministry of Education. Strengthen training for the traditional leaders in the landowning units so that they become key advocates to the people on sustainable resource use and protection of our biodiversity. Empower the people with knowledge to strengthen ownership of our natural resources. We need educated farmers that are equipped with both traditional knowledge (traditional crop varieties and climate resilient crops) and the latest scientific technology that takes into account the ecosystem that they are farming in to produce their products. Strategic Collaboration is needed for research and education/training getting together government, regional organizations, international research organizations, national and regional universities, NGOs, communities etc. and sharing resources and knowledge (Vocational Education and Farmer Field Schools (FFS) including the Fijian concept of ‘solesolevaki’ were mentioned as positive examples). Technology The development of digital platforms accessible to farmers/end-users to ensure a knowledge framework providing information and guidance for design, planning and implementation of their activities was suggested. Some technical aspects to be address with digital tools were related to the monitoring of the agriculture activity, a digital plant repository, the environmental assessment of rivers and other waterways, the control of invasive species (crops) and better connection to the market. Block chain technology and digitalization can play a key role, and help to engage younger people in te food system. Some examples (drones for monitoring land use changes, devices measuring changes of ocean temperature etc.) were mentioned. Inclusion Gender inclusivity is important as well as finding better ways of making everyone being part of the solution and decision making. Likewise other minorities, and those less fortunate like the disabled need to be included. To facilitate this, government line ministries may involve municipal councils to get women involved. Information needs to be brought to their level, language, applicability of implementation etc. Behavioral change Food habits need to change. Reduce importation of goods to promote local healthier foods and develop local products. However, demand for processed food still remains high. Better informing and advising is needed.237240243244245246247248249250An area of divergence identified during discussions was related to trade-offs between private sector and commerce and health with regards to the marketing of unhealthy food with some participants more/less supportive of stronger regulation. Some aspects related to industry activity and its impact on ecosystems were also discussed. Governments are trying to reduce emissions, and communication need to be strengthened with the private sector on different topics, as consumption on energy. For example, the food industry should use processing techniques that reduce energy consumption. There are some trade-offs between the need to protect the current ecosystems within a landscape and produce from the agricultural working lands. Sustainable intensification of production that follows the principles of conservation agriculture (climate smart and environmentally friendly) should be prioritised. Finance in the right way can be a solution; others see financial actors as a threat, especially with industries that may be driven by a short-term agenda. Discussion should be inclusive, incorporating public and private sector, farmers, development partners, etc. Responsibility with regards to the Food Systems and the need to protect, restore and manage them should be a matter of survival NOT only as a reporting mechanism. Not only the government is responsible for this, but all the stakeholders may play an advocacy role.

2021-06-12 21:16:57205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25941/69

1571810929167902841593411316111824214218146711591817

The Fiji National Dialogue was divided into five separate Action Track dialogues, each focusing on a specific Action Track. This report refers exclusively to Action Track 4 – Advance Equitable Livelihoods. The Fiji National Dialogue for Action Track 4 was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the curation of the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation, the Ministry of Economy, the International Fund for Agriculture Development, IFAD, and the Ministry of Agriculture as the national Convenor. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue agenda, framed questions and topics for discussion, developed a group reporting template to focus and guide group discussions and identified themes for discussion across three strands (i) Access to Economic Opportunities (ii) Access to Productive Resources and Services (iii) Gender Inequality in the Food System. The Action Track 4 dialogue was chaired by the Fiji Ministry of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation and officially opened by its Permanent Secretary, Ms Jennifer Poole. The preparatory meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register. This ensured that everyone read and understood the Principles and committed to the SDGs before participating in the Dialogue.As highlighted above, the Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 4 ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process, and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 157 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement are an important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all five Action Tracks, including the National Dialogue. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

NoThe Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 4 – Advance Equitable Livelihoods was held on 26 May 2021 at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with restrictive measures and lockdowns. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. This is the fourth national dialogue to be organized for Fiji in May 2021. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, the Fiji national dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform, using a participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and crowdsourcing platforms such as Slido, polls and the Zoom chat box were also used to crowdsource questions and engage participants in live polls and quizzes throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. One hundred and fifty seven participants took part in the dialogue that was officially opened by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation, Ms Jennifer Poole. Participants represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, women’s groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Relevant resource materials (reading materials, video links etc.) (iv) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format ─ Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) ─ Official opening address by the Permanent Secretary for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation (MWPA) ─ Setting the Scene What is the UN World Food Systems Summit 2021? (Video) ─ What is a Food System? (Fiji’s National Food Systems Dialogue) by the Director of Poverty and Monitoring Alleviation ─ Poverty Status in Fiji – Fiji Bureau of Statistics ─ Presentations on Action Track 4 o Inequality in Access to Economic Opportunities: International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) o Inequality in Access to Productive Resources and Services: Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) o Gender Inequalities in the Food System: Department for Women (MWCPA) ─ Discussion groups on themes and questions focused on questions such as (i) Who are the groups with less economic opportunities in Fiji? Has this change after COVID-19? (ii) What are the issues faced by vulnerable/ marginalized groups in accessing economic opportunities in Fiji? (iii) Current status of work in addressing inequality in accessing economic opportunities – marginalized / vulnerable groups (iv) What are the transformational approaches in the food system in achieving equal access to economic opportunity for all. ─ Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing using Slido questions, live polls, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs ─ Communications and media ─ The outcomes of the dialogue and key messages from the Fiji Convenor were highlighted in a Press Release issued to the media which received extensive coverage by local mainstream media and on social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter). UNFSS hashtags #UNFSS @foodsystems #SDGs and #foodsystems were used in all media content to ensure that messaging had a multiplier effect. Links to media coverage are included in the attachments section at the end of this report.

234241243246247248251The Dialogue focused on a comprehensive exploration of Fiji’s food systems as follows: Setting the scene: Poverty Status in Fiji: Fiji Bureau of Statistics According to the 2019-20 Household & Income Expenditure Survey, national poverty rates stand at 29.9 % and more attention should focus on rural areas (41.5%) and the Eastern Division (42.7%) which recorded the poorest. Poverty rates were high amongst individuals living with household heads with low education attainment, employed in the agriculture sector and engaged as subsistence and family/community worker. Employment income accounts for 74% of the total household income. In 2019-20, only 4% of the total household income in Fiji received by the poor compared to 22% of the total household income received by the rich households. Similar distribution was evident in consumption. Strand 1 - Inequality in Access to Economic Opportunities: International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) In addressing inequality in access to economic opportunities, IFAD focused on countries strategies defined by governments, targeting hard to reach poor rural people, strong focus on women and new emphasis on youth. In the Pacific, IFAD has been working through partnership with local NGOs in community development, improving access to markets, designing investment projects that engage civil society, supporting inclusive value chains, promoting integrated farming systems and strengthening farmers organisations. IFAD’s transformative approach include multi-stakeholder engagement, leveraging on different partner’s strengths, and promoting community engagement and capacity building as key aspects to ensure ownership and intervention’s long-term success. Linking small holders into established or new value chains, data is very important: need to know where are the poor, start small, implement, measure effectiveness and scale-up. Strand 2 - Inequality in Access to Productive Resources and Services: Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) A snapshot of farmer’s distribution in Fiji showed that there are 1,544 (2%) commercial, 3,659 (5%) semi-commercial and 65,970 (93%) subsistence farmers in the country. The types of assistance provided by MoA include Infrastructure and Mechanization (e.g construction of farm roads), Processing/Distributing/Marketing (e.g construction of packing sheds) and Services (e.g procurement of wooden & fibre glass boats). In the monitoring of projects, MOA found 73% of implemented projects are successful in achieving its intended objective, 88% of assisted projects have access to stable markets, 14% of assistance has been provided to female beneficiaries in the past 3 years and 5% of farmers registered under the so-called Committee on Better Utilization of Land, CBUL, are women. Some of the issues/gaps identified are lack of systematic approach in capturing participation of women in agriculture, reliance on government assistance and reactiveness to disasters rather than being proactive. The challenges faced are culture and traditional roles and responsibilities of women, accessibility to assistance by maritime and rural communities and general mindset of the population. Game changing solution include communal storage facility (cold storage) for disaster and urban agriculture (planting fruit trees instead of empty green spaces, spice garden, mini-container gardens of edible plants and plant both edible and decorative plants etc.) Strand 3 - Gender Inequalities in the Food System: Department for Women (DOW-MWCPA) The Ministry of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation presented some of the gender issues in the Fiji food systems. Women contributions are less visible and not considered as professional farmers/fishers and more related to subsistence or informal income generation activities. Unequal access to productive resources and services limits women’s productive potential in the sector. Unequal employment opportunities, with heavy workloads for women with many responsibilities despite the lack of resources and being responsible for children, food security and nutrition, were highlighted as part of the barriers faced by women.235241243244246248249251Main findings and conclusions A summary of the main outcomes of the Group Discussions is reported in the next section, however, below are additional findings across the three thematic areas: Advancing equitable livelihoods in the food systems requires an intersectional perspective when considering disadvantaged groups such as women, girls and youth, people with disabilities, low skilled and low levels of educated persons. Policy makers should look at both creating economic opportunities as well as removing the barriers faced by disadvantaged groups so that no one is left behind. These barriers include social, physical, institutional, structural, environmental, distance, class etc. Building resilience These disadvantaged groups are not able to cope with the multiple shocks of natural disasters and pandemics such as COVID19. Therefore, any long-term initiatives to provide economic and livelihood opportunities must also build resilience in these groups through diversification of activities, facilitating access to financial services, encouraging the establishment of home gardens, providing agriculture insurance, recognizing the value of traditional knowledge and practices in sustaining food systems and having a communal storage facility where people can store their crops, livestock, assets during disasters. Strengthening collaboration and coordination There are many innovative and beneficial initiatives implemented by government, development agencies, NGOs etc., that could bring about transformative changes in the food systems on a bigger scale. However, this is not happening as there needs to be better collaboration and coordination amongst the different stakeholders. A mechanism such as a “food protection” think tank should be established to explore how collaboration and coordination amongst the various stakeholders can be improved. Addressing gender inequality Policy makers must recognise women and youth as leaders and influencers of the food system and involve them in decision making at all levels. Women have less visibility in the digital space and this limits their access to economic and livelihood opportunities. Better sex-disaggregated data is needed to understand their needs and priorities and inform policy makers. Digital technology Digital technology is an invaluable educational and information tool in closing the information gap and assessing economic opportunities. Government should ensure women are more visible in the digital space by providing access to mobile phones and internet in rural areas. New opportunities COVID19 has increased appreciation for local produce and food producers. Government to work with food producers and sellers, hotel chefs and continue to encourage use of local produce under Fijian made branding. TV shows and digital platforms should showcase innovative cooking and food programmes showing local and nutritious foods, value addition tutorials, create a gastronomical culture in Fiji etc. Government should work with farmers, and private sector to institutionalize COVID19 safe measures from farm level to plate to avoid disruption of supply chains and inspire confidence of supermarkets and consumers.236241243244245248249251Strand 1 – Access to economic opportunities Groups with less economic opportunities in Fiji have less ability to cope with multiple shocks such as cyclones and the pandemic. Generally, these are people with lower levels of education, women, girls and youth, the informal sector and physically challenged people. These groups also lack information and awareness of the different support mechanisms available to assist them. Creating economic opportunities should include linking subsistence farmers to markets and institutionalizing value chains. Value addition activities should be promoted. Assisting women to access finance is key to empowering women entrepreneurs. Government, land owners and key stakeholders should explore land tenure and finance to attract more investments in the agriculture sector. Need better targeted trainings and capacity building programmes. Sub-division housing policies should include backyards for home gardening needs. School gardens should be brought back into the curriculum. Need more innovative local agriculture, fisheries, cooking segments on TV etc., to educate and inspire Fijians. Digital technology and platforms must be explored to facilitate access to economic opportunities. There are many good programmes implemented by various ministries, development agencies, NGOs and faith-based organisations. Coordination and collaboration must be strengthened and there should be stronger monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Furthermore, the solesolevaki (working together) tradition should be encouraged and supported. Most traditional knowledge and sustainable practices are underestimated in providing economic opportunities for people, particularly during the pandemic. Strand 2 – Access to productive resources and services Social inequalities, power relations, geographical remoteness mean some groups have less access to productive infrastructure and services therefore less likely to have access to economic opportunities. Solutions to address accessibility must take into consideration the impact of climate change, natural disasters and opportunities that digital technology can provide in closing the information gap or enhancing coordination amongst different stakeholders to bring about efficiency. Solutions must be inclusive, reflecting the views of key stakeholders, including traditional leaders, women and youth. Policies must better link nutrition back to agriculture production. They must translate to the local, grass root level otherwise they will not be sustainable – this means genuine collaboration between key government ministries, provincial councils, grassroot mobilizers etc., and the business communities. A “food protection” think tank should be established to continually discuss and propose solutions for food security during pandemics and natural disasters. A key stakeholder in the nutrition agenda of the family is the mother, therefore mothers should be empowered by involving them in discussions so that decision makers are able to better understand the nutrition choices they make. Government to consider having an insurance scheme for agriculture sector. Strand 3 - Gender Inequality in the Food System Markets are an important component of the food system and women make up more than 50% of market vendors in Fiji, providing livelihood and economic opportunities for them. However, they face a number of challenges that further prevent them from benefitting from the same opportunities as their male counterparts, e.g., they have less visibility in the digital space and thus lose out on opportunities for on-line sales. CV19 has further exposed their vulnerabilities as they struggle to transport their produce to the market place due to border restrictions. In order to close the inequality gap, policies must respond to the needs and priorities of women., e.g., internet coverage in rural areas and providing access to smart phones targeting women, women assisting women transport their produce to the border during lockdowns and targeting women for training and capacity building programmes. An assessment of impact of backyard garden initiative on food security, nutrition.237241243244248249250251Some of the areas in which participants had different opinions are described below. Strand 1 – Access to economic opportunities Traditional knowledge and modern knowledge gained need to be translated into ACTIONS, as the ultimate is the BEHAVIOUR CHANGE that needs to happen by individuals within all our households. Implementations of new farming techniques that is more sustainable. Information on economic opportunities are made available in the communities but due to limited understanding or education, people are unable to read properly and/or understand the economic opportunities available Strand 2 – Access to productive resources and services Food producers have food produce but are often faced with access problem due to remoteness and out of existing infrastructures. Empower youths to plant by breaking community perception that farming is just for those who have not been able to succeed in other areas in their lives. Messaging on healthy foods is quite low compared to Coca Cola and Fanta, it might be worthwhile for stronger messages on healthy foods. Getting food from the market doesn't mean it is healthy - farmers need to be aware of the implications of chemical insecticide that we as consumers ingest due to unethical practices. Many policies are discussed only at national level but it is really important to be able to contextualise policies to community level and are sustainable. Transfer of skills and technologies on the various animal science disciplines to make livestock production attractive and profitable to farmers, thus creating employment opportunities, increasing rural incomes and reducing rural urban migration. Strand 3 - Gender Inequality in the Food System At community level there are cultural barriers. Communal work is encouraged in our communities, however women, men and youth have their own groups to carry out their community work. There is a need to break that cultural barrier so that work is not seen to be done in isolation but something through collaboration and inclusive. We need an assessment tool for food distribution in order to identify those in need for food distribution during this pandemic and assist government to focus their intervention. The absence of this assessment tool put those that cannot called the helpline or have access to this service into disadvantage. Free trainings and workshops for women into farming would create some mobility and having investor ready projects supported by government subsidies targeted to women only will be a great incentive. Highlighting successful women in agriculture and hands-on farming through media to motivate women who desire but lack the confidence to step into this field as they are usually left as assistants to their husbands who are active farmers.

2021-06-13 02:31:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6832/203

0710074617

I prepared a draft for my dialogue, and my presentation are all self explainatory on why and how we need to do away or ban all toxic chemical NPK fertilisers for our global crops' agriculture practices. As nature based solutions are easily available, and economical too. I have to emphasise that current production and application of toxic NPK fertilisers are not sustainable nor coherent with UNFCCC, Paris 2015 Agreement to curb emissions. There are already too many dead zones, and toxic red tides all over our major rivers, lakes, oceans and water sources. We need to reform the current toxic agri practices for our SDG goals, and also to make the UN Decade of Restoration successful.

NoSo far I am not able to put my message across to all participants, that toxic NPK fertilisers should be banned. Science and history have proven that NPK fertiliser is irrelevant, and on the contrary never green and eco-friendly in the first place. The major compositions source of ammonia nitrates, phosphates and potassium are just as pollutive and contaminating in their respective extractive industries. Air, soil, land,water & life supporting biodiversity and ecology are all destroyed. Cynobacteria and cynotoxins are laden in all our oceans and water system destroying all our fishery industry, and health of our ecology too. Unless we halt the current toxic chemical NPK fertiliser industry, with statutory Ecocide legislation like the French legislation or like Sri Lanka legislation to ban all chemical use/importations, food security will not be there. With NPK fertilisers application harvests are never safe nor nutritious and without food security too.

2342382402442462482491) All major rivers, water system & oceans are in deep eco suicide laden with plastic waste and leaching from toxic NPK fertilisers. ( Resulting in redtides &toxic algae blooms & dead zones).Refer Nasa satellite images. 2) Unless we stop polluting the water system & oceans it is not possible to have the 30% Marine Protection Area by 2030, and not possible to achieve the UN SDG . There will be no food security from the fisheries or aquaculture industry too. 3) The current practice of using toxic NPK fertilisers for soil to enhance harvest is incorrect.( NPK is Irrelevant too) 4) The NPK fertilisers comes with high carbon intensity, and also from the heavy pollution of extractive industry for phosphate and potash. ( composition of NPK fertilisers). 5) Ammonia nitrate from NPK fertilisers is an existential threats to humanity. ( Food security challenge, Ammonia nitrate is for bomb making purposes & very toxic to soil & degradation to air, water, soil , land, & human health too) 6) The science have proven that nature based solution is the best alternative to all toxic NPK fertilisers. 7) The essence of crops' harvest is from the microbial community within soil, and nature photosynthesis process. 8) There is an urgent need to legislate ecocide law, ( like the French Ecocide Law) to halt degradation to our soil, water system and biodiversity. 9) We need to live in harmony with nature, and to stop all pollution by chemical NPK fertilisers into our water system & oceans. 10) Nature based solutions, with the application of manure from animal husbandry and natural carbon sequestrations should be the new norm for all crops' agriculture. ( " MONIGREEN" from Singapore PRC Global Pte.Ltd. CEO Ron Tan )235239240244246248249Most farmers or policy makers are not aware that the current practices of using and producing chemical NPK fertilisers are so destructive to our biodiversity, ecology and natural life supporting system. As there are symbiotic relationships among, air, water and land (soil). Toxic NPK fertilisers have been to proven to degradate soil, water and oceans.Unless we stop leaching NPK fertilisers into water system and halt all contamination and pollution of ocean, how are we to have a " Decade of Restoration" to succeed. The externalities of extraction industries, of phosphate and potash are very pollutive to our air, water and (soil)land. Ammonia nitrates synthesis from natural gas is carbon and energy intensive, and very contaminating too. Workers working in the blending of chemical fertilisers NPK, if not in proper safety gears are known to have cancers from the pollution of npk fertilisers industry. It is an existential threat and security threats to humanity, if NPK fertiliser industry is not terminated by respective legislations. World Bank and all other financial institutions should revoke the existing financial packages for construction of NPK fertiliser plants, and bring it to an immediate halt.There are no food security in place, if NPK fertiliser industry is not halted. To produce nutritious and safe harvest for food consumptions, NPK fertilisers should never be used in the first place.237239240244246248249The key take aways from my dialogues are for all head of governments as signatory to the Paris Cop21 agreement, and signatory to the UN Convention on Biodiversity, to follow France and Sri Lanka to make pollution by chemical fertilisers NPK leaching into any water system or ocean a very serious crime by respective legislation. To succeed for the "Decade of Restoration" and to protect our Oceans by 30% by 2030. (MPA 2030), there is an urgent need to take actions by all signatories to the Paris 2015 agreement. There is an urgent need to ban all toxic chemical fertilisers industry before we reach any tipping point.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Agriculture2020.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IFWEPROTECTNATURE.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNsa9N4548Ahttps://www.presidentsoffice.gov.lk/index.php/2021/04/22/importation-of-chemical-fertilizers-will-be-stopped-completely/https://www.change.org/o/3048559https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/landsat-satellite-data-warns-of-harmful-algal-bloomshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLwJDgJ-bUA&t=12shttps://www.cdc.gov/habs/general.html#exposure-illness-preventionhttps://​bitly.com/monigreenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbJV5iAQGO4

2021-06-13 08:09:14205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21869/92

5381820422231

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251The focus of the dialogue was: Food security, food industry, food waste and food loss, urban food systems and Social Marketing and Communication and social media. Food security: The Focus of this national dialogue was to discuss participant’s vision for achieving SDG #2 – Zero Hunger by 2030, with an emphasis on solving Israeli’s food insecurity crisis affecting nearly one fifth of the population. The dialog aimed to bring together perspectives from different government agencies and to challenge the conventional wisdom, reflected in current legislation, policy and prevailing ideology. Currently food insecurity in Israelis largely viewed as a poverty and welfare issue, whose solution is to increase participation in the workforce and earning power in the long term, and increase free-market competition and food imports, with health and agriculture as irrelevant to the problem, and accessible food supply and food prices to all, as separate from food insecurity. Participants were invited to discuss their vision of an integrated national food security policy that would overcome these divides and barriers in order to eliminate food insecurity in Israel. Communication and social media: Discussed the goals to achieve by 2030 in terms of enhancing Knowledge and skills, take into consideration Culture and traditions, use different Strategic and Social Marketing Planning to adjust the characteristics of different sectors, and increasing media coverage. Food industry: Dealt with the transformation that the food industry would needs to go through- in terms of organizational changes (from within the industry), operational aspects (the raw materials, the production mix) and regulatory changes together with the required collaborations between science and industry. Urban Food Systems: To lead transformation in urban and reginal food systems, to ensure food security to all, to promote urban agriculture, small businesses with emphasis on innovation' women livelihoods and sustainable local economies.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Food security • Israel’s government must take responsibility for solving the problem of food insecurity. It is inexcusable that one-fifth of citizens suffer from food insecurity and a tenth from severe food insecurity. At the very least, the eradication of severe food insecurity should be defined as a primary policy target. • The narrow policy perspective that views food security primarily as a problem of poverty and welfare must be broadened. Legislative reform is required to grant authority and funding to the council, or preferably to creating an alternative mechanism with broad authority to integrate and coordinate food security policy between ministries including health, economics, agriculture and environmental considerations. • Moreover, solving the food insecurity crisis requires transforming the food system in Israel. This will require policy integration by a leading ministry with the political power and will to convene and coordinate all relevant ministries and settle contradictions and priorities between policy objectives. This could be advanced by establishing an inter-ministerial committee of director generals to integrate food security policy in all its dimensions - and to update policy and legislation accordingly. • To avoid contradictions between food policies of different ministries, a Food Health and Sustainability Impact Assessment should be required much as any policy initiative today requires an Environmental Impact Assessment. • A “Health in all policy” approach must be adopted across all policy impacting the food system, to advance obesity prevention and reduction of industrialized food consumption as required for the health of the nation. Industry participation must be part of the solution; however, a sustainable and healthy food system will require regulation of the food industry, to ensure the improvement of the nutritional values of the national food supply. • Strengthening the purchasing power and promotion of employment and productivity of underprivileged populations is necessary but not sufficient to reduce food insecurity. Food policy must control the high price of food and set targets for an affordable healthy food basket prioritizing Israeli agriculture. This will require an inclusive legislative framework. • All food security policy must include defined objectives and priorities, with mandatory, measurable goals and routine monitoring. These should include including quality indicators of food systems and the extent of food insecurity. Routine periodic surveys must be conducted and published by law. • Evidence based Food Security policy and food system transformation requires collaboration with academia, including funding for independent formative and evaluative research in Israel to examine policy alternatives based on local data. • Civil and consumer society and the media must continue to place the issue at the center of the public agenda to obtain political will for food system transformation. Communication and social media: • To identify the particular circumstances and needs of diverse groups and not treat them as homogeneous, in order to create a viable and culture-centered communication program. • To make knowledge of the issues more accessible to journalists and provide experts with communication training so that they can convey the information in a clear and effective manner. • To create initiatives to provide journalists and social media “influencers” with knowledge and analytic skills regarding ecological issues. Food industry: • Creating a system of incentives and support for small industry, especially for specific products that can be adapted to small industry. • Subsidies and tax incentives for safe and nutritious foods • Improving the recycling infrastructure of packaging and food waste, and creating a specific plan for the food industry to move to a zero emission processes. • Gradual process of changing preferences and taste - gradual reductions in addictive and harmful substances. • Budgeting public research on the impact of food on health • Measurable target presented: By 2030, at least 25% of the products manufactured by the industry will be such there is no debate regarding their health (the World Health Organization list as a reference). Urban food systems • Producing 10% of the national agriculture production by 2030 • To arrange the regulation needed for transforming the urban food system to healthy and sustainable • Allocation of public areas for dual uses including urban agriculture for the local population • Establishing Healthy sustainable nutrition department in all municipalities to lead the transformation • Regulating reducing food waste from the origin and inceptives saving healthy foods from turning to food waste • Promoting healthy and sustainable food procurement and consumption all over food systems236Food security 1) Create a legislative and regulatory framework that will define food security broadly, and consider it a national government priority, for social resilience and domestic and national security. This must be reflected in adequate budgetary appropriations and legislation. 2) Enhance governance, by creating an overarching, integrated, inter-ministerial policy review to develop a food systems master plan to ensure food security in its broad definition. 3) Define outcome measures and targets, assign responsibility for monitoring, formative and evaluative research 4) Find independent academic research to enhance local evidence based evaluation of policy alternatives 5) Include health and sustainability in all food security policy objectives 6) Develop a master plan for Israeli agriculture taking into consideration sustainability, climate change threats, economic planning 7) Enhance the social safety net and create specific government programs for food aid with enhancement of local government involvement, a rebalancing of roles and responsibilities of government vs. third sector NGOs. Communication and social media:  To strengthen the positive attributes of traditional food and home cooking and cultural orientations of frugality instead of the consumption of highly processed foods.  To reinstate respect for the ingredients used and the process of preparation.  To reframe ecological issues so they will not be perceived as controversial and to identify commonly perceived risks or threats to enable public mobilization and support across groups  To develop critical literacy skills in the public regarding misinformation and disinformation regarding food-related issues. Food waste and food loss: • Policy: Allocation of government budgets for academic research on reducing food waste and reducing depreciation, allocation of government budgets for research and development of smart packaging, extending shelf life, etc. • Education and behavioral change: A national campaign to prevent and reduce food waste, assimilation of depreciation management and their prevention in vocational curricula - food engineering, nutrition, cooking schools, etc. Assimilation of food waste, wise consumption, and food supply chain in school curricula • Industry: Establishment of an industrial symbiosis model for the food industry, adoption of dynamic pricing among retail chains , Removing the date labels from fresh produce and other products with long shelf-life, in accordance with the EU Directive on food information to consumers • Food rescue: Establishment of a national food rescue system, allocation of a government budget for the establishment / improvement of a logistical infrastructure for food rescue, Implement in government RFP's an incentive for food donation by setting threshold conditions or bonus points for bidders who present a contract with a food bank • Food waste reduction: Implementing PAYT model among food businesses , Forcing large waste producers (hotels, catering, military bases) to source separate organic waste, Providing incentives to promote the use of by-products of the industry for the production of green electricity on-site Food industry: • Establishment of a national food authority - the unification of authorities will enable solving conflicting regulations, duplication of regulations and outdated regulations. • Establishment of a national enterprise for health promotion, which will include all stakeholders- farmers, industrialists, importers, exporters, retailers, regulators, academics, professionals, academia, etc. • Establishment of a national database that will provide an agreed data (agreed upon all- industry and authorities) on the food market, consumption, and effects on health. • Establishing a joint management of agriculture and industry. Connecting health-oriented agriculture to local production by the industry.236Urban food systems: • Adopting regulation to enable urban agriculture • Establishing Healthy sustainable nutrition department in all municipalities to lead the transformation • Healthy and sustainable nutrition as a core subject thru school years from kindergarten to graduation • Promoting healthy and sustainable food procurement and consumption all over urban food systems237Food security: There was very little disagreement on vision in this policy discussion. Divergence is likely to emerge in the details relating to concrete policy priorities in the solutions phase of the discussion. Communication and social media: • What should be the approach regarding collaboration with the food industry: what could be the benefits and what could be the risks? • The industry has a lot of resources and could use the notion of sustainability to benefit its interests. Food industry: The main area of divergence was the regulation issues: the industry reps demand self-regulation on advertising, for example, and the public reps demand mandatory regulations, including taxes and subsidies. Communication and social media There was a debate on how to recruit the different channels and tracks to the implementation of the nutrition and sustainable challenges ahead

2021-06-13 08:58:31205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21859/92

921723318413361712271107

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250In the second meeting of the “Local implications of global challenges” Dialogue it comprised five round tables, which dealt with the following topics: Biodiversity; Open Landscapes; Invasive species; Water resources & supply and Marine resources. The major focus was to determine our vision and goals for the Israeli food systems in the year 2030. There was a wide consensus that in our vision we will have a clear, detailed governmental “Food safety policy”, and according to this policy, the targets, working plans, monitoring-systems, risk-assessments and feedbacks concerning food and water supply, environmental and biodiversity needs will be determined. In the “Biodiversity” vision we should adopt a holistic point of view regarding nature and environment as crucial-integrated partner in agriculture and food-systems demands. “Marine Resources” vision is to increase the local consumption by concentrating in the local fishery and aquaculture as well as shifting to consumption of species of low trophic levels. In our vision we will develop high-technology methods to enhance prevention, early and quick identification of invasive species. We will to improve agriculture in many aspects and create new synergism like the use of agrovoltaic systems.235238239240241242243244245246248249250The main findings and goals discussed in our Dialogue are listed below according to their round-table topic. Water resources & supply: • Increasing the percentage of treated-wastewater reuse for agricultural needs – today the ratio between freshwater use and treated-water use is around 1:2 and we should strive for 100% treated-water agricultural use. • Improving the wastewater quality and minimizing the amount of lost surplus water. • Minimize the rate of rivers and sea pollution due to sewerage and wastewater faults. • Creating a national standard for treated wastewater. • Increasing the availability of agricultural water around the country, and as a result increasing the agricultural lands in Israel, mainly in the south. • Adding Magnesium to reach levels of 20-30mg/L • Cooperation with neighboring countries regards the treatment and regularization of wastewater. Open Landscapes: • Regulating a new “Sustainable agriculture law” • Generating multipurpose roles for agricultural lands (for energy, environment, culture and social needs). • Generating “ecological corridors “. • Increasing the percentage of agricultural lands cultivated by agro-ecological methods. • Decreasing the production and consumption of animal originated food. • Develop new agricultural technologies. Marine Resources: • Increasing consumption of marine-originated food from local fishery and aquaculture to 10% (compare to 1% today). • Develop breeding programs to enable intensive marine farms for young fish, whereas the adults fish will be grown oversea. • Creating a quota for each taxa according to ongoing monitoring and fishing data. • Develop more terrestrial intensive aquaculture farms. • Reducing financial expenses for aquaculture. • Creating new technologies to minimize the marine environmental damages due to fishery and aquaculture. Biodiversity: • Planning the different agriculture sections according to their impact on biodiversity. • Mapping and identifying agricultural lands which have high importance for biodiversity. • Preserving and reuse of local vegetation for agriculture and food systems. • Researching the importance of the soil and its unique ecology. • Preserving in 3 levels – ex-situ, in-situ, on-farm, according to the taxa (Gene bank, heirloom seeds) • Educating about the interactions between agriculture /food systems and environment, including the economics involved. Invasive species: • Preventing the invasion of new or pathogenic species at the ports, before entering to the country. • Develop mobile and rapid techniques to identify new species invasion which can be easily used in the field. • Creating uniform validated standards of operations to deal with invasive species after their invasion to the country. • Encourage and support research regarding resistant crops • Creating a computerized monitoring and mapping data system, transparent to all users.236see main findings2371. The need for a national natural water standard is under debate. 2. Subsidized and incentivize the producers for environmental and ecological acts is questionable. 3. Ecological corridors area – some fear that ecological corridors will limit and impair agriculture demands and production. 4. Multi functionality of agriculture lands – does all the component in the equation are equal or agriculture demands has priority to environment, culture, social, landscape demands?

2021-06-13 09:16:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16615/23

5912726544141131415218112116112175113313132

The principles were included in a concept note sent to participants ahead of the meeting, including a link to learn about them in more detail. At the beginning of the dialogue it was emphasized that the Chatham House Rules would be followed.One of the strengths of this dialogue was to involve actors from many different sectors. The group sizes were kept small, less than 10 people, which encourage more trust and commitment to an open environment for sharing opinions.Small group sizes make it easier to adhere to the principles.

Yes

234238239240244The country strategy for contributing to the Food Systems Summit involved the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) forming a high level National Committee headed by Secretary, Ministry of Food (MoF) to organize Member State Dialogues. Mr. Khaja Andul Hannan (Additional Secretary,MoF) is representing as a National Dialogue Convener. A Working Group was formed to support several sub-national and national dialogues. The outputs of the current Independent Dialogue will be compiled with other independent dialogues, and considered in identification of actions in the National Dialogues. The current dialogue emphasized solutions to achieve Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production. The focus on AT3 was chosen to fill a gap because this AT was not strongly reflected in other planned dialogues. This dialogue also touched on Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all and Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. The overall objective was to leverage contributions from a diverse group of stakeholders for developing a vision for the future of food system considering environment and climate change issues. Specifically, participants were asked to prioritize solutions for the challenges posed into the development agenda of GOB, research institutes, academia, development partners, INGOs/ NGOs, especially towards achieving SDG’s. The dialogue is therefore part of a participatory approach to address the environment and climate change issues in the food system today and in the future, where a wide range of participants shared their opinions, visions, and recommendations.235239240243244245251All participants recognized the importance of maintaining healthy environments for food production and addressing the impacts of food systems on local environments and atmospheric emissions. Discussion Topic: The environment/degradation and food systems interface will be sustainably managed 1. River ecosystems must be monitored for agricultural pollution and managed more sustainably. Industries and urban areas are known major sources of water pollution. However, fertilizer and pesticide application from farms and manufacturing industries are also likely major sources and overlooked. It is unclear the amount and impact of fertilizers from runoff entering canals, ponds, and riverways, but we do know that fishery production is decreasing, possibly the result of the increasing use of chemical fertilizers and other pollutants. More comprehensive monitoring of nitrogen and other fertilizers in waterways is needed. Monitoring and reporting can be initiated in connection with SDG 6.3.2 Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality, which is currently not monitored in Bangladesh. Data sharing between relevant agencies will be critical for monitoring but will need to be formalized (e.g. between Department of Environment (DoE), Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI), Ministry of Water, Ministry of Industries, etc.). 2. Existing regulations on water pollution from all sources including agricultural must be enforced to protect food systems, in addition to water quality for drinking and irrigation purposes. More evidence needs to be generated to understand the negative impacts of pollution on food systems, and the negative impacts of food systems on the environment. Farmers and farmer organizations should also be made aware of the negative impact of fertilizers and pesticides. More systematic studies that consider agricultural pollution impacts in major agroecological zones may also be necessary. Ongoing activities that strengthen underpinning conditions, such as women/youth engagement, institutional capacity building, farmer access to finance and markets, should continue to be strengthened because they will provide the platforms and resources for promoting environmentally friendly agricultural practices. Discussion Topic: Feasible solutions for mitigating climate change are streamlined in the country’s food systems 3. To achieve climate mitigation in cropping systems, increased conservation agriculture practices and nature based solutions need to be implemented. For example, improved soil and nutrient management at the farm level will reduce the need for fertilizers and reduce CO2 emissions. Simple soil management practices are available that have been shown to reduce farm level emissions. In order to expand these and other climate change mitigation initiatives, finance solutions, policy, research and collaboration are needed. There should be more economic evaluations of ecosystem services and natural resources with emphasis on water and the benefits of all actors of the foodsystem needs to be taking into account 4. All actors of the food system need to be further engaged, not leaving behind farmer and producer needs in development planning for climate change mitigation. One key here, in addition to considering direct and long-term benefit, is capacity building. Multiple sectors need to be included in this area since no one organization or institution can do this alone. Academia needs to be involved in policy making. Private sector can take a leading role in development of new technologies but also need to be supported by laws and regulations. Intergovernmental and non-govermental organizations can support policy makers and provide technical assistance. Discussion Topic: Bangladesh becomes a leader in innovative financing solutions, policy provisions and support mechanisms for “nature-positive production” 5. Higher investment in nature based solutions are needed transform agriculture and food systems. In particular, crop zoning that recognizes natural resource availability and climate stress, both presently and in the future, can be used to better inform cropping decisions and support to successfully develop value chains. Vermicomposting to replace chemical fertilizers needs to be promoted much more. Single plastic use poses challenges to the food safety and food systems. The uses of plastic needs to be controlled in the farming, packaging, transportation and distribution of foods. Investing in solar for irrigation and food processing has good potential and need more development. 6. Innovative financing solutions are required for farmers and businesses to advance the sustainable agricultural commercialization. We should have appropriate financial products for different types of food sector actors, i.e. farmers, agro-processors, private sectors. Each year the government is allocating money to support soft agricultural credit but the loan distribution process is slow and not farmer friendly. Agricultural bank’s policy needs to be reformed and more farmers needs to be engaged in the banking sector. Opening accounts and processing of the agricultural credit needs to be faster. Co-operatives should be promoted in rural areas for collective farming, processing, marketing and financial services. Digital platform should be better utilized for credit disbursement, collection and agricultural information sharing. An underpinning challenge is ensuring that the resources currently accessed are not wasted.236238239240243244245248251To truly embrace and achieve “nature-positive production”, Bangladesh must sustianably manage the envrionment, climate change and food systems interface through three pathways. First, an evidence base must be built which demonstrates the impacts of agriculture sector on the environment, especially more extensive and reliable monitoring of river ecosystems. This evidence should then be used to motivate greater enforcement of exisiting pollution regulations. Second, nature-based solutions that improve soil and water management, reduce pollution, and lower agricultural GHG emissions need to be scaled up. However, scaling up activities must carefully consider trade-offs and harmful consequences towards smallholder farmers and producers. Third, sustainable agriculture approaches that have positive impacts on the environment need innovative financing solutions which make it easier and quicker for farmers and businesses to access finance. Specifically this means strengthening farmer organizations, co-operatives, and digital services that serve as the vehicles for scaling up successful approaches. Finally, women, youth, and the private sector, each play a critical role and need to be engaged for future change. Innovative programs that promote women and youth leadership, behaviour change towards environmental stewardship, and training in job skills should be prioritized. Further dialogues are needed to understand how to effectively engage the private sector in positive environmental changes.237239240244Bangladesh needs to learn from experiences from developed countries to not repeat the same mistakes which led them to degraded agro-ecosystems. So called “modernized” approaches, including increased mechanization and chemical inputs, have not always had positive long-term benefits. Some participants fear the same trajectory will be followed in Bangladesh as it seeks to graduate from its Least Developed Country status, and urged for caution. On the other hand, other participants pointed out that mechanization should continue to be promoted, not limited, as part of the longer-term solution. Agricultural industries have been good for creating new businesses and jobs (spare parts, repairs) in the private sector. Mechanization has therefore done more good than bad and should not be slowed down.

2021-06-13 14:30:50205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17163/135

67114401237302021049323122392217214

As planned through sensitization, mobilization, invitation of the people and Town Hall meeting ApproachAs per the given Principles of Engagement and participatoryTo adopt the above strategy; To increase the number of States/Communities and participants.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue focused on a comprehensive discussion of food system through the discussion and the understanding of the entire food system and all the activities, actors and economic active agents that are involved including their interrelationship and how they affect each other. It considered what must be done along the value chain of production, storage, processing and marketing to ensure that we actually meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of safe and nutritious food for all as contained in the SDGs target. It also considered all the 5 Action Tracks of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all, shift to sustainable consumption pattern; boosting of nature positive production; advance equitable livelihood and building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. The Dialogue focused also on the examination of links among the Action Tracks and levers of change. The other areas of focus are the roles that can be played by all the stakeholders most especially the roles to be played by Government in terms of policy generation, development, formulation and implementation, the roles of the producers, processors and marketers and how these can be improved and enhanced to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Dialogue finally considered and focused on the effects of Climate Change on food production, processing, marketing and storage. Most participants also focused on how to reduce post-harvest losses.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251i) Producers expressed the cogent need for sustainable off-taker of their produce; ii) Processors to improve and deepen their value-addition technologies in their processing activities; iii) Aggressive adoption of improved good agronomic practices; iv) Establishment of conflict Resolution Committees in all Communities; v) Increased adoption of mechanization in all aspects of the various value chains mainly to attract the youths in the food systems activities, enhance efficiencies and improve productivities vi) Increased Extension service delivery at all levels of the food system – primary, production, processing & marketing; vii) Increased access to land especially for the vulnerable groups (women & youths) through land development; viii) Increased adoption of affordable informal irrigation schemes in rural communities to enhance sustainable availability of water for the various food system activities; ix) Increased adoption of organic farming strategies for the production of safe and healthy foods and for the sustainability of the farming environments; x) Rural Infrastructures (Access roads, potable water, electricity, storage facilities) xi) Massive and increased provision of primary health-care delivery facilities in the rural areas; xii) Improved access to credits with less encumbrances (conditions); xiii) Sustained increase in the adoption of E- Agriculture; E- Commerce and improved communication for wider outreach, etc. In the light of these satisfactory dispositions, the participants unanimously agreed and resolved to register and issue the following as the major take-homes (Communique) from the dialogue: 1) That the people of Achalla feel highly honoured and privileged for the opportunity to contribute directly to the very important national and international discourse. 2) That from the presentations, the concept of "Food System" goes beyond the traditional practices of crop and animal production as well as the mere food production and processing to include such other intimately related aspects of livelihoods as healthy living, environmental consciousness, peaceful co-existence and harmonious relationships among people. 3) That "Food System" is all encompassing with respect to livelihoods of everyone in every society both urban and rural. 4) That most rural dwellers involved in primary production activities like farming are getting old and weary while the younger generations are avoiding such productive activities because of the physical exertion of energy and drudgery involved and this informed the unanimous resolution for full mechanization of all farming and processing activities in the rural areas. 5) That the comprehensive food system may not have the expected far-reaching impacts on livelihoods of people if such basic infrastructures as primary health care delivery, schools, all-season access roads, potable water and electricity are not provided in the rural areas to stimulate the rural economies. 6) That Governments should not be left alone to provide for all the identified favourable conditions to enhance healthy living and sustainable food system and so private investors, Organizations, Institutions and Agencies should be encouraged to invest in those areas for the benefit of mankind. 7) That Irrigation and storage facilities should be installed and developed in areas with comparative advantages for primary production (farming) and processing to be able to withstand such shocks as experienced during the recent pandemic. 8) That all forms of open grazing and uncontrolled rearing of livestock should be stopped all over the country having led to loss of lives and caused a lot of problems among farming communities and their activities in the country. 9) Given that most urban dwellers depend on the rural areas for food production and such other primary socio-economic activities coupled with the harsh living conditions in those areas, Governments are urged to consider such incentives as tax holidays/exemptions, scholarships, free medical services, etc for the rural populace. 10) That regular and consistent trainings/capacity building programmes should be conducted for all stakeholders in the rural economies to keep them abreast of developments in their various activities, improve their productivities and increase in incomes and livelihoods. 11) That discussions on Food system of this nature should be conducted from time to time as a veritable means of re-enacting in people the essence of living healthily, productively and cooperatively for the common good. 12) That the participants are full of expectations given the impression that the dialogue is not like the usual Government-sponsored talk-shops and that the practical suggestions agreed upon and presented will be fully implemented and in the shortest possible time.236238243244245246247248249250251Action Track No 1: Question; How to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition Responses: 1) Adoption of Organic Agricultural Practices Mechanization of Agriculture to attract youths (iii) making grants available to youths as input support (iv) regular training of farmers on record keeping and other modern technologies in farming practices 2) Give special training of young farmers in Agriculture with scholarship (ii) Employ Agricultural officers in ministries of Agricultures 3) Ensure security of our farmers 4) Government policies on Agriculture should be consistence 5) Training women on nutrition 6) Construction of access road to enhance food evacuation from farm. Question: How do we accelerate hunger reduction in Nigeria? Responses: 1) Employment of young graduates into the Agricultural sector and civil service and job creation for youths 2) Increased investment in Agriculture by Private sector and Government 3) Declaration of state of emergency in Agriculture (Government should focus more in Agriculture) 4) Proper implementation of Government policies on Agriculture in the state and Local Government Areas. 5) Immediate stop of the activities of killer herdsmen against farmers; (ii) Ranching of animals should be started all over the country 6) Deploy more mechanized farming implements 7) Making available subsidized farm inputs to farmers as incentives 8) Land development and construction of access farm roads Question: How do we make nutritious food more available and affordable in Nigeria? 1) Planting with quality planting materials, use organic manure, ensure value addition during processing, avoid adulteration of food. 2) Encouraging mixed cropping especially in cassava farms 3) Subsidizing the cost of fish feed to reduce the cost of production, breeding of high quality species of fingerlings Question: How do we make food safer from farm to table? 1) Ensure hygienic environment during processing, appropriate drying of fish before packaging 2) Use of rice polisher, de-stoners and sorters during rice-processing 3) Adoption of 3Rs strategies in the use of Agro-chemicals: Right time; Right Dosage/Application of right chemical at the right time to avoid food poison and Right processing of produce 4) Encourage natural fishing with nets and canoe in the abundant water bodies and to desist from the use of chemicals to fish. 5) Ensure quality and natural processing of foods devoid of use of additives and chemicals 6) Involvement of the Sanitary Inspectors at the Local Government Area. Question: What is the potential action that can be taken? 1) Capacity building/Trainings of Farmers, Processors, SME-operators; (ii) farmers to farmer visits/Learning routes to farms and processing centres of excellence for experience-sharing on various activities of Food systems. Question: Who are the main actors to ensure implementation? Farmers, Processors, Aggregators, Service Providers, Marketers, Agro dealers, Rural women in their groups, Youths, Transporters, and other value-chain Actors.236239243244245246247248249250251Action Track No 2: Question: How do we create enabling food environment for healthy and sustainable dietary practices? 1) Avoid all forms of adulteration in rice during processing 2) Regulation and standardization of foods; (ii) Build the capacities of processors. Question: How do we improve the experience of healthier and more sustainable food? 1) Intensification of Nutrition Education 2) Avoid too much spices in food preparations Question: How do we halve food wastes at food service, retail and household levels? 1) Intensification of Home training by parents in the areas of food processing panel and presentation by Mothers particularly 2) Identification of consumer/market before producing (ii) Networking of marketers 3) Quality Value addition to improve taste, shelf-life, packaging and quality of food.236240243244245246247248249250251Action Track No 3: Question: How do we protect natural ecosystems against new conversion for food and feed production? 1) Planting of cover crops, crop rotation 2) Reduce bush burning and encourage compost making; 3) Use of Organic manures and Tree-planting Question: How do we sustainably manage existing food production systems to the benefit of both nature and people? 1) Integrated fish/vegetable farming e.g. channeling fish pond water to vegetable farms 2) Conversion of waste to wealth, proper effluents discharge from cassava processing centres; Cassava-peels for ruminants and other animal feeds; rice-husks into briquettes for cooking and parboiling of rice. Question: How do we restore and rehabilitate degraded ecosystem and soil function for sustainable food production? 1) Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural practices; (ii) Liming/local ash, organic manure; (iii) Efficient and effective use of fragile and marginal topographies for Agricultural purposes236241243244245246247248249250251Action Track No 4: Question: What do we need to consider to address food insecurity and enhance food system resiliency in Nigeria? 1) Embark on non-capital-intensive agricultural Enterprises like (rabbit, mush room, snail) farming, Apiculture 2) Encourage dry season farming using informal irrigation practices 3) Ensure Security of lives and properties of farmers as food security derives from both local and National security 4) Regular capacity building of farmers and processors on modern technologies in production and processing. Question: What are the cross-cutting solutions between economic, social and environmental resilience in Nigeria? 1) Bad roads, insecurity, high interest rate of defaults in agricultural loans, impacts of climate change on the environments generally Question: What solution can we propose to address food insecurity and prevent future sources of conflicts, manage tension? 1) Consistent use of quality inputs: Improved seeds/Planting Materials, Good Agronomic Practices, value addition, conflict resolution committees 2) Every programme should have conflict resolution committee and should be funded by the programme. (ii) Use of modern ranching methods in cattle rearing and land demarcation for different agricultural purposes.236242243244245246247248249250251Action Track No 5: Question: What are the potential actions that could be taken to advance equitable livelihoods in the context of food systems in Nigeria? 1) Unrestricted commitment by all in their various activities in the society to enhance sustainability. 2) Establishment and build-up of food reserves at the various levels of the society strategy. 3) Domestic garden/home garden, (ii) rearing of local birds. (iii) Networking amongst stakeholders. (iv) setting up of designated accounts/budgets for food emergency/crisis by Governments; Question: Who are the main actors that would put this action into place in Nigeria? Processors, Producers, Marketers, Middlemen, Government, NGOs, transporters, Agro dealers237238239240241242245246248249250a) Over dependence on Governments for the various Agricultural Development activities and programmes and thus the cogent need for private sector involvement at all levels of the food system; b) Poor accessibility to credits by Rural dwellers as they craved for easier and less bureaucratic access to finances for their respective activities.

2021-06-13 14:46:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14397/203

1501900025252555552525

This dialogue followed the first four action tracks, and based on the topics, discussions were heldThe dialogue focused entirely on the key issues for each of the first 4 action tracks, but we focused on Latin American agricultureWe organized a two-hour dialogue, with parallel discussions on 4 action tracks.

Yes

234238239240241244245246248249251We focused on food systems in Latin America, from the perspective of education, primary production, processing, trade, consumption, market access for farmers, and also involved supporting isntitutions.235238239240241244245248249250251Latin America is an area of the world with great potential, but a deep transformation is needed to address some of the main challenges. Zamorano University trains professional who work all over Latin America on the issues raised in the 4 action tracks discussed. However, the next generations must think also about wider issues in food systems (such as climate change) to make agriculture and food systems more sustainable.236238244246248249250251Access to nutritious food in Latin America is a multi-dimensional issue which requires intervention in many levels236239244245248249The interest for consumption of traceable agricultural products has opened opportunities for Latin American producers. However, the236240243244248249250Production systems are complex in Latin America and new technologies offer solutions to increase productivity, but these technologies are not always accessible to all. Climate change risks are severe in areas like the dry corridor of Central America (Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador) and the Caribbean, for instance.236241244247249250251Latin America is a continent with many difference in access to resources, placing some groups at risk (indigenous communities, women farmers, youth). Structural changes promoted in the past have not yielded the expected results, new approaches are needed.237241244246247249250There were several areas of divergence which emerged, for example: 1. Use of GMOs vs no use 2. Large-scale farming systems vs. family farming 3. Access to finance, markets: still a challenge

2021-06-13 16:56:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11179/79

120312080305015206192021219772

The dialogue has been in preparation since 2020 and done now in end of May 2021 aligned with the UN Food Systems Summit. The convener part of multiple initiatives, including the Food Systems Dialogues, FACT Dialogue and Taskforce, and Global Shapers Community, they all aligned in integrating multiple perspectives in one dialogue. Especially, the Global Shapers launched the Davos Lab Dialogues to contribute to the World Economic Forum Special Annual Meeting as a roadmap post-pandemic. So, the independent dialogue merged Davos Lab into the UN Food System Dialogue with some of their pillars. Calling on all people who need food to live to join, this was the most inclusive dialogue in Guatemala so far and did to it's best capacity to join together multiple sectors to come together as one. We had 10 focus groups: 1) Nutrition and education; 2) Health and consumption; 3) Social gastronomy; 4) Communication and advertising; 5) Agriculture and environment; 6) Gender, youth and migration; 7) Legislation and public-corporate partnerships; 8) Trade and entrepreneurship; 9) Culture and Identity; 10) Technology for the future of food. Before the dialogue and in initial part, the participants were prompted with a code of conduct for the dialogue in order to respect the participants and their perspectives. Please see more on the document attached.Act with urgency: in the presentation we emphasized to meet the UN SGDs, food systems are at the core to transform Commit to the Summit: personal and professional views and stories were enabled here to address the elephant in the room. Be respectful: radical listening was done and also emphasized to identity the elements in their life/work were stumbling blocks to achieve food systems transformation, and which ones they are willing to give up for the greater good. Recognize complexity: in one single dialogue fixing the food systems is too high aspire, but it sure was a starting point with a new dynamic such as this one. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity Complement the work of others: numerous of the focus groups also touched upon each other. Build trust: having facilitators who are genuinely trusted and committed, to transmit that energy and trust. We also used Chatham House Rules with respect at the core.Know your audience passed the suggested multiple choice of their background. Something to engage people from all walks of life is to identify with simple wording with the problem and the solution. In this sense, in our registration form we asked those registering to comment in two word how the would describe the food system in Guatemala; and then in three words what they are doing to improve it. It is a great sense to know the general perspective and a reality check.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the dialogue was to follow the main title of it: Improving our food by turning the tortilla around... (and us too) [Mejorando nuestra comida al darle vuelta a la tortilla... (y a nosotra/os)] - Improve: bettering our transformation [mejorando] - Food: a colloquial way to refer in Spanish [comida instead of alimentos] - Turning around: using the motto of UNGA "Turn it Around" - Tortilla: a stample food in Guatemala, the most common food from corn (but also subject to numerous diseases and modern slavery that have been normalized). - Turning the tortilla around: a saying in Spanish: [darle vuelta a la tortilla] to really flip the scenario - Our / us: to be part of the problem and the solution, and identify us and all in the food systems (and not just the same, therefore a real "People's Summit" as mentioned by Dr. Agnes Kalibata). The main prompt was to rethink or have in mind: - malnutrition: it's entire focus and not just one form of malnutrition, but their intertwinement (in Spanish not only speaking with the too-frequently used technical term "desnutrición crónica" but incorporate "malnutrición"). - transparent collaboration: there have been too many collaboration from corruption, big benefits for a very few decision-makers neglecting the service to the entire population. - systems thinking: to change system we need to go back to the roots of the issues, back to basics and prepare for perhaps needed uncomfortable moments and questioning to move forward better. The dialogue focused in all five action tracks altogether and by specific focus group. We used Zoom for the dialogue, and once finished, an optional interactive world we called Mejora-Topía (Better-Topia). Convened and Curated by Bibi la Luz Gonzalez (Eat Better Wa'ik - Come Mejor Wa'ik). Thank you for this opportunity, it was incredibly valuable, and hope our findings press into a real change within our country and its commitment to transform to improved food systems.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251With around 60% of attendance of those who registered on time before the closing time, we got a very diverse group of attendees, while also the facilitators experts in their fields (and also plenty more from the focus groups). Moreover, we got registration from various countries and within Guatemala from 16 departments. - Food Systems: the first findings we highlighted (also please see attached here) were the registration form answer of describing in two words the current food system in Guatemala. The majority was negative (with some exceptions). Also, most of them who answered are doing within their reach some improvements. - Education: it is present in all focus groups as the most pressing and needed push and new ways of educating. - Government: not doing nearly enough and let the population down. the need of strong and purposeful public policies and responsible leaders. - Women: major driver and leaders in improving individuals and communities - Identity: go back to basics from our grandfathers/mothers and our own foods, and cultural and heritage respect. - Support: financial support for smallholders and youth (funding and scholarships). - Communication: in all forms (ads, text, visuals) in all spoken languages in Guatemala and way for nutrition to be attractive. - Innovation: doing so having humanity at the core and bring up new skills into Guatemalan to advance forward in technology from food. - Economic realities: disparities on economic opportunities and aspirations. By popular demand, we will re-convene in the same groups, inviting more people after the Pre-Summit in July. This was a fantastic starting point to bring so many stakeholders and people within one single space and dialogue, over broad, overarching and intertwined topics.2362382392412432442452462472482492502511) Nutrition and Education: How do we improve food systems with nutrition and who should do so? - We must link food systems and water systems and the issues concerning both. - We can all engage better with food systems as we are part of it, open our minds and palate. - Smallholder farmers need accompaniment in the production of their produce. - Go back to ancestral plant tradition and everyone should have a home garden / orchard: learning by doing. - Teen and youth nutritional education is a must in order to have a second chance in improving their nutrition and future generations; if there is a process of developing strategic nutritional education, malnutrition will be reduced. Education has the power the impact personal and family decisions on food. We can follow previous learnings from food and nutritional security. - Food systems were already fragile and were fractured even more during COVID. Food systems transformation is everyone’s duty, not only the government. Change must start from local participation and community decisions. What Government does have in full responsibility is to rescue the land / agrarian structure of the country. Food systems beyond being sustainable, equitable, and resilient, especially in a country with weak systems and vulnerable to natural disasters. Education is key to reach an adequate consumption of food: this should be the country’s priority.2362382392432442452462472482492502512) Health and consumption - Nutritional education must be contextualized / specific for the population, ideally easily understandable and accessible to all (schools, health centers, etc…) and for that laws need to be created, including laws to promote companies towards social benefits and cleaner products. - Little shops should sell healthier option and their vendors could be the agents of change, receiving themselves that nutritional education too. - False food concepts and ideas should be torn down and change mindsets, since there is a “food ignorance” that give way on bad consumption habits, related to non-communicable diseases. - Food industries/companies/businesses should seek their clients’ health and not just their profit. - Motherhood and breastfeeding needs improved education, understandable, and re-valued. - Advertisement focalized towards people’s passion, by being “cool”, the misconceptions about brands being better than their milk, beliefs difficult to breakdown. - Wages are a big topic, which limits in their decision making of food, and often being similar price with the healthy foods, they opt for junk food: education. - Guatemala’s economy does not support smallholder farmers and local economy, in Guatemala we have everything healthy but we don’t consume it, hence high overweight/obesity indexes, malnutrition. - Education and learning through the senses: teach what fruits taste without sugar and with no additives.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502513) Social gastronomy - Local/national food has lost its value from the people who produce, and those who comprise its value chain. Also, the consumer in what we are eating. Losing our heritage, people are so disconnected that don’t recognize with what they are cooking, what they are eating, or don’t care the origin of the food they eat. - Globalization has played a major part in big industries to invade the markets (market place), and took advantage of the needs of the people to give food that does not nourish and only “feeds” quick and easy as the norm of food and eating habits. That sowing the connects land, plate and human being was lost the moment the farm workers and agricultural workers got devalued (diminished), hence Guatemalan gastronomical and cultural heritage. - Bargaining to smallholder farmers is diminishing and devaluing. Education plays a big role, since value education in their works worth has not being taught, and also the lack of voicing the importance of their work. And also lack of education of how to maximize (use all parts) of the food. - We must bring awareness into our cultural and wealth in local gastronomy, to humanize the processes from - Social gastronomy is a responsibility of all, for an individual and collective awareness so that all can move forward. We are all channels of communication and education, and that message should be pure, prepared to de-learn and learn adequately the value of food and Guatemalan gastronomy. - Through community kitchens all that cultural heritage can be translated, building community is a key aspect of collective change, to bring workshops for that knowledge to be replicated. Teach mothers to empower them, to recuperate the gastronomical heritage to pass on through next generations. Gastronomy education must also be done at a very early age. It’s in our hands to transmit the information in the most adequate way and in clear formats.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502514) Communication and advertisement - Racism and classism portray images that within food and health “fit”, and the word “profit” is still very constant. - Promote that mothers portray healthy products, even if manufactured, as more attractive, to transform the abstract of nutrition into something interesting, in advertisement, to bring people together, and tastes good. - Needs collective effort to burst out of an “aspirational bubble” and go into the wellness the parents seek with tremendous effort, and how that goes in line with food. - Focus communication towards mothers, access to land and organic farms, and have workshops there. - Labeling is key to warn and inform the consumer in capital and big letter: eg: high in sugar, fat, salt, etc… so as to promote greater repercussion, reflexing, and awareness. Work with colors to make it more inclusive. Ban the use of animals to get kits attention, too much visual pollution with ads. - To bring back the value of produce (in a 3-month methodology) and have worth-wile figure promote it. - Cook book with local produce, such as naturally grown superfood, such as Chaya. It is an ethical manner in which communication is driven, especially towards good, healthy food. - Since the traditional communication is so entrenched, difficult to change in 10 years. The future of communication should be representative, and not related being fit or something nutritious to only a certain group. - Having a city, village, marketplace without so abusive advertisement, and with a more attractive communication of nutritious products for children. - Production of greater products that use dry fruits or any other food from the vegetable kingdom (beets) and create these healthy public-private partnerships. - Having a communication in each language spoken in Guatemala.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502515) Agriculture and environment - Agriculture and environment contribute towards food systems, here are problems and solutions: - Lack of public policy, long term vision, no deepening into local perspectives of politics and policies, there is a reduction of land tenure for production, no sources of accessible funding, food donations, systemic institutional weakening o, and their capacity has been lost. - Solutions: do unexpected (wild) changes with existing cultural and productive models, recuperate institutional capacity (specifically within social and human capital, trained, qualified), investment in watering resources, accessible financial aspects, diversify agricultural (agropecuario) production and consumption (keeping an wary eye on animal protein). Promote regenerative agriculture to recuperate soil fertility. - On public policy: one sole effort that encompasses every stakeholder (much like this dialogue), to unify and bring together needed financial resources, to recover institutions with one motto for animal and plant farming: research + extension + funding for the sustainable food systems to guarantee access, availability and consumption of healthy foods.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502516) Gender, youth and migration - A Guatemala recovered, energized and strengthened from childhood, youth, women and adults, having access to food and quality education, inclusivity of opportunities especially indigenous communities, poverty rates would be low, and education would be a key tool to reduce malnutrition. - Study scholarships and entrepreneurship so as to avoid push migration, to have greater opportunities at home to bring local income. - Specialized support to scholars or involved, and strengthening of communities, with a socio-emotional support. Empowerment of women and also all people. - Continue education with investment, and knit support chains with government, corporate and civil society. - There needs to be political will, and therefore government budget in areas. - Migration is has many push factors, but one of the causes for and from migration is malnutrition. - Increase women participation, especially women leadership: women can turn the tortilla around towards an improved empowerment of women in diverse areas to improve education.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502517) Legislation and public-private partnerships - Legislation is key to bring synergies, convergence, together, and for all to do our part. Partnership take is to greater challenges: how we keep communication with at least minimal common points. - Competitiveness: how to overcome it and look for a common purpose. - If there weren’t any food systems: how would you build it? What are the minimal common points to work to work to reduce topics, such as undernourishment? - What we eat is a great challenge for humanity, and today’s diets are not appropriate for the health of people and of the planet. There is a vicious circle that some population have a food deficit. - A study suggested that during the pandemic, many people opted for canned products because of their long lifespan, and also found that Guatemalans cannot have a balanced diet because of their income. The diet grows in carb since it is the cheapest they can find (or think that is the cheapest). - Food reality depends of economic realities. Sometimes such industrialized products are the only food reaching those who can’t afford. - What is thought will happen is that the food industry will change towards biotechnology, more genetically modified foods, etc. - Fundamental to increase the efficiency of foods and create conditions to do so: partnerships, State, businesses to support those who can’t have food or consume the calories necessary. Today those partnerships are weak, and be better regulated. And even incentivize good positive legislation to enhance good practices (like Chile). - There is still a lot of missing data on food, therefore labelling to enhance consumer decision making. The state of food, a lot of decisions have changed towards processed foods and unhealthy because of the information that media, product and marketing does. There is still a lot of ground to cover in partnerships, these discussions should be transparent and honest to work together.2362382392402412422442452462472482492502518) Trade and Entrepreneurship - Impact hugely in food systems with a big opportunity: packaging from small and medium businesses with smallholder farmers towards sustainability. - Promote a honest market ecological and without packaging, promote local economy, diversity of production (local superfoods), healthier consumption (fresh, diverse). - Importance people understand the real concept in order to have wider business opportunities towards health. - Smallholders farmers into tech tools, information for them to be even more relevant. - Generate sustainability seals throughout ALL the value chain, and us as consumers to take better choices.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502519) Culture and Identity - Has been plagued under multi-causal poverty for years (especially food and nutritional insecurity, no dignified work, access to healthcare and housing) affecting 70% of population. - The State is the big absent to respond to this issue and even solve it, since there are not public policies in ministries nor national development agencies to tend for this, and care for people’s lives as the Constitution seeks. State irresponsibility, coopted with mafias within all institutions, it is practically left for civil society to tend to this, united to demand accountability of irresponsible leaders and head of government on a continued basis, so as to generate a new culture of responsibility, a new culture of inclusion in government plans and action, new shifts toward sustainable consumption, livelihoods, with a spirit to improve, and turn the tortilla around of the change Guatemala needs. State neglects Mayan and ancestral roots - Change a culture of blindness, of a blinding advertising culture of damaging foods (fried, sodas, canned) or agricultural chemicals and pesticides. A need to generate a counter-culture against the unregulated products and propaganda (like in Europe from health entities). - Civil society claim to international organizations to press on government to regulate. - New culture of protection and respect of ancestral Mayan traditions towards the care of the earth, elements, and people. - Education from the fathers, grandfather and grandmothers, to be treated with respect, dignity and continuity of wisdom.23623823924024124224324424524624724824925025110) Technology for the future of food - Humanity can lead to innovation, and has done so with controversy: animal protein accelerates climate change, then meat created in a lab. Agriculture totally modified genetically, now wheat more resistant to plagues and climate shocks, higher nutritional content. Vertical agriculture and underwater, recycling 90% of water. Robotization, automation, biofortified confused with GMF. - Perhaps developing countries are not ready for this, or are they? - Importance then of native seeds, have a bank of native seeds and a record and data of their traceability. - How to adapt technology in food sovereignty, technologies need to adapt to our environment and specificities. - Preserve food to preserve culture, and learn to understand how we function. Need for horizontal communication pathways to understand and be part. - Biodiversity, education in schools, technology education for food. - Water management technology. How to scale cheap agri-labour market with technology, and not replacement. How much of everything do we really need?237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The were almost no divergences in the dialogues and focus groups. Here are some points that brought more tension: - Media and advertisement: although there was a focus group on this, within the group there was resistance to ethically advance when communicating to children (or parents); and other groups also targeted advertisement to negatively influence food decisions. - Ways to cook: using cooking techniques that don't diminish even more the value of nutrients of food (eg: slow cooker instead of pressure cooker). - Large corporation and labor wages: exploitation in rural areas and agricultural lands is a known fact, however there was a corporate entities tried to come afloat. Also, although education was a major finding, if people are not targeted within the first 1000 days, their brain will not function to even improved quality education. - Public sector: the was an extreme convergence that public administration (government) in Guatemala is a major driver of the "catastrophic" outcome of food systems (if any): so it is put here here since there is divergence with outside perspectives with that of the administration's one.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Preguntas-en-el-formulario-de-inscripcion.pdfhttps://www.waikgt.org/2021/05/03/dialogos-del-food-system/

2021-06-13 17:04:40205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19391/135

189111275112663112219214584125114632576652313122

We invited a diverse range of stakeholders from various sectors to participate in the dialogue, this allowed us to capture diverse perspectives and dimensions. Participants were informed of the importance of the dialogue and the need to act with urgency and in unison to address the issues that affect the Nigerian Food systems.During the breakout sessions, the facilitators were polite and received contributions from participants with respect. The discussions were geared towards recognizing the complexities in the food systems, acknowledging the efforts and contributions of stakeholders, identifying areas for improvements and actions to be taken in this regardFuture conveners could ensure to enhance gender inclusivity by sending targeted invitations to youth, women and PWD groups

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the Inception dialogue was a comprehensive exploration of the Food Systems in the Nigerian context. The discussions were held along the five action tracks of the UN Food Systems Summit. The facilitators led the participants to conduct a diagnosis of the food systems, identifying critical actions that need to be taken in the next three years, analyse how the selected actions will be measured, and agree on who the implementers/drivers of these actions will be. The dialogue uncovered the role of policy to improve the performance of the food systems on several fronts (1) access to high-quality seeds and input (2) Regulations on the standards of nutritious food (3) Guidelines that foster financial inclusion for the women, youth and vulnerable groups. The Nigerian agricultural system is threatened by climate change resulting in drought, flooding, erosion, low yields, and high infestation of pests and diseases. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a clear need to minimize the vulnerability of our food systems to shocks and stress. In the next few years, some of the actions that will give the highest impact include climate-smart agriculture (solar, irrigation, rainfed farming, recycling farm waste as manure). The adoption of processing technology, storage/warehousing facilities storage facility technology, will contribute to the reduction in the post-harvest loss while improving road infrastructure around food production centers. Despite several investments in the agricultural sector, the Nigerian food systems are still vulnerable to shocks, stress, and the effects of climate.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251● Standards and Regulations: There is an opportunity to create long-term wins in the Nigerian Food systems if we can implement standards for the quality of food produced in Nigeria across the value chain from high-quality input, good agronomy to management of post-harvest activities, storage, packaging, and distribution. ● Research and Development: The Private and Public sectors can establish a partnership to enhance domestic R&D capacity and ensure the dissemination & adoption of viable R&D output amongst Nigerian farmers. R&D is urgently needed for seed production, GAP, food preservation, etc. ● Awareness: There is a general lack of awareness about the composition of healthy diets. This could be done through the advertisement of healthy foods and products and the nutrients they contain and will stimulate demand for healthy foods. Public awareness should be widespread, including for producers, in schools, rural communities, etc. This will stimulate the demand for healthier options and persuade the sector to deliver on this demand. ● Logistics, Storage and Processing facilities: The private Sector should leverage the demand for logistics, storage, and processing facilities that support the production of healthy foods, including cold storage transportation. This is a key solution to post-harvest losses in several parts of the country. ● Technology and Climate Smart Practices for Resilience: Farmers should be connected to climate information – rainfall, drought, flooding etc. to enhance their preparedness for shocks and stress. To promote further resilience, agricultural technology companies should promote small-scale, low-cost modular energy sources, and technology for farmers and agri-businesses.236238243244245246247248249250251Track 1: Zero Hunger & Improved Nutrition (Access to safe & Nutritious Food for All) Actions with the greatest impact for the next three years ● Collaborate with the government to define/develop a policy direction on the quality of food produced in Nigeria. This policy should include access to high-quality seeds, other input, and storage facilities. ● Deregulate the seed sector to allow for the use of technology to enhance the quality and productivity of seeds. ● Create incentives to make good quality fertilizer availability and affordability in the Nigerian market to enable farmers’ access. ● Strengthen the capacity and availability of extension services to smallholder farmers. ● Enhance domestic R&D capacity and ensure adoption of viable R&D output on seed development by Nigerian farmers. ● Adopt the model of the ISD Tech-Match programme to up-scale domestic productivity and avoid post-harvest losses. Also, create interlinkages between global innovators in the value chain, local adopters, and implementing partners like the government. ● Upgrade the structure of Nigerian markets to include cooling rooms for fresh foods and vegetables to mitigate post-harvest losses. ● Reduce Post-Harvest Waste by improving logistics infrastructure. ● Roll out a policy on improving the capacity of Nigeria’s security capital and infrastructure to facilitate the inflow of investments into the logistics ecosystem. ● Adopt social behavioral change communication tactics to encourage the consumption of nutritious foods, incorporate nutrition education and proper cooking methods into primary and secondary health care advisory to address child malnutrition. ● The government should sustain the creation of awareness on proper nutrition especially in primary schools, secondary schools, and rural communities. ● Encourage private sector players to invest in the production of dried fruits and the adoption of packaging that appeals to children as this will improve their nutritional intake. ● Revise the advocacy or communication strategy for the implementation of proper nutrition to ensure that the benefits of adopting appropriate food & nutrition practices are emphasized alongside the cost of doing the alternative. ● There is a need to emphasize the empowerment of the female gender both educationally and economically as they are pertinent to enforcing appropriate nutrition. ● Consider cash transfers to mothers in the rural areas to enable them to afford nutritious food for themselves and their children. ● The government needs to improve its capacity to enforce and monitor standards and regulations in food production. ● The government should ensure that it creates a level playing field for local manufacturers to compete in the food market. This entails the imposition of tax breaks and low-interest credit for local innovators. Who should take the actions? ● The NESG should collaborate with the government to make a business case for the organized participation of the private sector in the logistics sub-sector of the food value chain, educating the private sector on the prospects of investing in the sub-sector. Ways the actions will be measured ● We will track changes in the number of malnourished children in Nigeria As improve nutrition will lead to a reduction. ● The Availability and affordability of food irrespective of its season will be a major indicator that we have made progress with food storage and processing ● We will measure the average yield of crop per season as an indicator of improved access to high-quality input and good agronomic practices.236239243244245246247248249250251Track 2: Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns (Increase consumption of healthy foods, reduce consumption of unhealthy foods, and reduce food loss and waste at household and food service levels. Actions with the greatest impact for the next three years . ● There should be National Nutrition Criteria to guide producers to develop healthy products and consumers to select healthy products. The private sector needs to create business solutions around providing healthy alternatives to consumers, especially through leveraging local and traditional food products. ● Increased public awareness about what healthy diets are – This could be done through the advertisement of healthy foods and products and the nutrients they contain and will stimulate demand for healthy foods. Public awareness should be widespread, including for producers, in schools, rural communities, etc. ● The private sector should fund research towards the development of healthy food products, including improved food preservation, as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility. ● The private sector should invest in logistics, storage, and processing facilities that support the production of healthy foods, including cold storage transportation. ● Promotion of legislation that discourages producers from the production of unhealthy foods e.g., sugar taxes, but incentivizes them to invest in the nutrition value chain e.g., tax incentives for affordable, healthy foods ● Implementation of easy-to-understand nutrient labeling on food products and adequate regulation to prevent labeling fraud. ● Nutrition should be approached from a business perspective and not a humanitarian intervention perspective – This will encourage private sector participation. Who should take the actions? ● NAFDAC and SON: The agencies need to review their standards to include nutrient content guidelines and ensure that ingredients mentioned on labels are present and carrying out factory inspection to ensure that standards are followed before foods are released to the public ● Ministry of Finance, Budget, and National Planning: The Ministry should convene organisations concerned and nutritionists to work together to produce uniform stance and messages on what constitutes a healthy diet. ● FIRS: The Federal Government should provide tax incentives to Private Sector organizations that actively promote the production and consumption of healthy foods ● National Assembly: Strict regulations should be passed at the National Assembly to deter advertisements of unhealthy foods, food fraud, and promote nutrition labeling. ● Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria, other research institutes, and Universities: Research on infrastructure and technology that will improve the storage, preservation, and production of healthy and safe foods. ● Civil Society Organizations: Provide technical assistance to government agencies and conduct advocacy to the National Assembly. ● Private Sector Organizations, including Transport Unions: Adopt processes and products that facilitate access to and affordability of healthy foods. Ways the actions will be measured ● A major boost in the investment of cold chain infrastructure and other food system innovations. ● Engagement of youth entrepreneurs in the value of horticultural crop chain. ● Increase in the estimated number of policies and publicity in nutritional information that will encourage the consumption of a nutritional diet resulting in the reduction of malnutrition and non-communicable diseases. ● Higher demand for healthier food products by consumers will result in the reduction of micronutrient deficiencies ● Further conversation and formal dialogues around food systems in Nigeria. ● A major accretion in the demand for healthier food products by consumers will increase the nutritional food content produced ● Implementation of family life extension programs into the Nigerian agricultural extension scheme to address socio-cultural issues within rural farming households towards consumption of diversified diets rich in protein, fruits, and vegetables.236240243244245246247248249250251Track 3: Boost Nature-Positive Production ● Development of land restoration, and irrigation system to reduce erosion and tree planting to serve as wind-breaker. ● Introduction of solar systems for irrigation to reduce the total reliance on energy. ● Establishment of a rainwater collection system and the release of the right quantity of water required to save the cost and reduce water waste. ● Proper education of smallholder farmers on innovative ways of improving farming, food, and seed systems, and reducing logistics issues. ● Reduction in post-harvest losses by improving warehouse structures ● Expansion of farm market roads in between warehouses, regulated by the government to move food products easier ● increase in the quality of bags (e.g., low-quality nylons etc.) to encourage reuse by Nigerians. ● Collaboration of NESG with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the coordination of key players to address linkages that can impact the farmers to improve the value chain. ● Leveraging technology between producers and consumers to return used products to the companies. ● Development of policies to encourage private sectors in the production of paper-based bags to reduce degradation of the ecosystem. ● Establishment of free trade zones in rural areas to improve the socio-economic development of the rural areas. ● Conversion of agricultural waste to value-added products and the development of policies to track carbon footprint through the value chain. Who should take the actions? ● Cold hubs- Will build cold rooms powered with solar panels in strategic places in markets and make it sustainable for people to bring their products and pay for their services. ● Saro Africa- will provide an integrated Agric value chain input by: a. Providing improved farm seeds to address the low yield of smallholder farmers. b. Training farmers on good agricultural practice. c. Offering extension service input to farmers. d. Aggregation and link farmers to off-takers ● Policymakers will create a legislative framework that covers the protection of the environment by industries and punishment for defaulting industries that venture into the manufacturing sector. ● Ecological funds from the government constitute 1% of the Federation Account and it is known as the Derivation and Ecology Fund. ● The private sector can contribute to this fund to aid the development of the ecosystem. ● Manufacturing industries can embark on afforestation to replace the trees logged for industrial purposes to encourage a sustainable green environment. Ways the actions will be measured • Build monitoring and evaluation frameworks and tracking systems like dashboards for real-time data across the 36 States on improved agro-ecological and climate-smart agriculture. • Provide technical assistance and capacity building programs to farmers to bridge knowledge gap through improved agricultural extension systems and this can be tracked by the ratio of farmers to number of agricultural extension officers as well as improved policies around agricultural extension system in Nigeria236241243244245246247248249250251Track 4: Advanced Equitable Livelihoods What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? ● Availability and adequacy of capital and data at all levels to stimulate broad-based incentive growth. ● Leveraging government, donors, and private sector resources for coordinated investments in infrastructure, and service delivery in the value chains. ● Mechanism and framework development in transparency and accountability among institutions, systems, and stakeholders. ● System automation to identify and track primary producers, buyers, and regulators in the value chains. ● Intermittent stakeholders’ meetings and agricultural programs to advance an impartial livelihood and emerge the food system in Nigeria. ● The education and coordination of farmers in addressing issues of standards, quality, quantity, marketing, and involving them in incentive-based training through extension agents. ● Synthesis of service centers (registration and documentation of operators in the value chain, mechanization, irrigation, and agro-allied) with the local government and communities. Ways the actions will be measure ● Development of a Policy framework that sensitizes Nigerian especially those in the manufacturing sector to increase the quality of their bags who in turn sensitizes customers to reuse them. ● Post-harvest loss- Develop a policy to synergise the private sector and government to preserve agricultural products in Nigeria. ● Organised private sector should collaborate with small holder farmers to come up with a framework for engaging the government to improve the transport infrastructure for ease of transportation of agricultural products. ● The private sector should present a position paper on some of the issues plaguing farmers to the government to exert pressure on them to ensure a good ecosystem for agricultural practices in Nigeria. ● Private sector and government should educate farmers and sensitize them on Policies currently in place that they can take advantage of for agricultural benefit.236242243244245246247248249250251Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress ● The implementation and renewal of the National agriculture resilience framework (NARF) should be made a priority. ● Establishment of sustainable food system policy for national development and the review of existing frameworks for better implementation and productivity. ● Within CGRI, take on climate risk profiles to map out opportunities to build resilience and quantify investments at the national and sub-national level ● Farmers should have access to climate information – information about impending climate problems should be communicated ● Get insurance companies involved in protecting informal farmers ● Engage state and local government actors in policy agenda ● Help farmers increase their yields – e.g. support for higher-yielding seeds, invest in seed systems, speed up the release process. Who should take the actions? ● Flour Milling Association of Nigeria is funding a survey with NBS on local wheat production. ● Water Life Systems Africa is looking to roll out national programs on wastewater treatment using PPP and grants in Nigeria. Ways the actions will be measured ● Build a measuring mechanism around policy and set key performance indicators ● Measuring mechanism which gathers feedback and information from private sector stakeholder – such as Nigerian export council working with NBS. ● There is a need to create a one-stop forum to monitor and collate the status of information in the agricultural sector: baselines for production, available seed variety, irrigation and extension services.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251● Post-Harvest losses: Surveys show that over 40% of harvested food produce is left to rot due to inadequate storage facilities, poor logistics, and lack of infrastructure. Proposed solutions to mobilise the private sector to invest in transportation of food across the country using specialized storage vehicles. ● Insecurity: the inadequate capacity of security agencies to provide security and the poor state of Nigeria’s transport infrastructure discourages investment into the logistics sector of the food value chain. In the last few years, the farming community in Northern Nigeria has suffered displacement ● Poor quality Input: The unavailability and unaffordability of quality agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and seeds militate against the production of quality foods. ● The duplicity of standards enforcement: Nigeria has consistently failed to meet global food safety standards. This is a testament to poor adherence to food safety rules and best practices in food production in the country. Also, the duplication of food standard enforcement and regulatory mandates in government (SON & NAFDAC) constitute a hindrance to the effective management of food safety ● Market distortion activities such as bans on food e.g., Rice. There should be a plan to Improve local domestic infrastructure from planned food bans before implementation ● Several data sources on the status of food systems in Nigeria need to be harmonized ● Ambiguity in the certification and accreditation regimes. Integrate the regimes for the competitiveness of the stakeholders and operators of the value chains. ● Operation of logistics: Low-cost modular energy sources and technology for farmers and agri-businesses by the private sector.

2021-06-13 20:05:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16627/172

2513109261956851121511611231

Establecimos un grupo de trabajo en nuestra asociación de mujeres con reuniones semanales en las que preparábamos el Diálogo. En estas informamos sobre los principios de actuación y los discutimos. Todas las organizadoras y facilitadoras fueron informadas sobre las sesiones de orientación organizadas por la ONU. Asistimos a las formaciones virtuales (muy motivadoras), y propusimos a nuestro equipo de trabajo participar en al menos una sesión. En la búsqueda de participantes tuvimos en consideración que debían ser de diversos orígenes y con diferentes puntos de vista. El formulario de participación fue muy útil para identificar los sectores y proponer posibles participantes; tratamos de involucrar a los más jóvenes porque son el futuro. Este diálogo del día 29 de mayo (4 grupos presencial) comenzó informando a los participantes sobre los principios, pidiéndoles que estuviesen abiertos a diferentes puntos de vista y se escuchasen unos a otros. El objetivo fue crear un “espacio seguro”, informando sobre los objetivos de nuestro diálogo y la forma en que íbamos a informar a la ONU. Se habló varias veces sobre la complejidad de nuestros sistemas alimentarios, porque sentimos que es importante mantenernos optimistas y no perdernos en este sistema, que parece imposible de manejar, especialmente desde la perspectiva a “nivel micro” que adoptamos en el primer diálogo. Logramos un grupo diverso de participantes, que conectaban de diferente forma con el sistema alimentario, no solo a nivel profesional sino también como consumidores y a nivel familiar como madres/padres responsables de poner comida en la mesa para otras personas. Al final de la sesión preguntamos a los participantes si estarían interesados en participar en nuestro segundo Diálogo; iniciamos también un proceso de “bola de nieve” para la búsqueda de participantes, preguntándoles también si conocen a personas y/o expertos que quisieran participar en la segunda sesión, que pudiéramos contactar. Obtuvimos buenas reacciones y aseguramos de esta manera una mejora para la próxima ronda.Nuestro diálogo se centra en la vía de Acción 2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible, en la conversación mantenida en los distintos grupos del día 29 hemos puesto el foco en identificar acciones individuales y cómo estas afectan a la sostenibilidad del sistema.Los principios de participación se redactan pensando en un determinado grupo de participantes, partes interesadas de alto nivel en el sistema alimentario. Nuestro principal consejo sería tomar los principios de participación y “traducirlos” de manera que se adapten a los diálogos independientes y a (grassroots) participantes de base.

NoSeguimos el método propuesto por la ONU en todo lo posible, aunque tuvimos que realizar alguna adaptación que describimos a continuación. Este diálogo, “Nutre tu optimismo”, estaba planificado para tener lugar únicamente de forma presencial, aunque debido a cambios de última hora (por el COVID-19), una de las sesiones fue virtual. Optamos por un diálogo presencial porque tras un año de confinamientos, queríamos promover el diálogo social “cara a cara”, aunque en conversaciones privadas en grupos pequeños, para poder crear un "espacio seguro" que permita una conversación más personal sin todas las distracciones de la tecnología. Uno de los condicionantes a la hora de invitar a los participantes al diálogo fue “el idioma”, pues queríamos dar voz a la comunidad “extranjera”, con una gran presencia en Andalucía, pero que no dominan el español. Así, hemos trabajado en español e inglés. Soroptimist International Costa del Sol es parte de una ONG internacional, pero a nivel local somos un pequeño grupo de voluntarias. Hemos querido comenzar por una pequeña conversación presencial, antes de llevar el Diálogo a un nivel superior. Así, tras un primer contacto con la gente, podemos ponernos en contacto con posibles participantes para nuestro segundo Diálogo, y conocer los temas que son de interés para nuestra población local. Este primer diálogo, “Nutre tu optimismo”, trata la vía de Acción 2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible, en cuatro sub-grupos de diálogo: “La dieta Mediterránea, Saludable y Sostenible”, presencial en español, en la sede de Soroptimist International Costa del Sol, Mijas Costa. “Nutrición saludable y sostenible”, virtual en inglés, vía Zoom “Soberanía Alimentaria y Desperdicio”, presencial en español, en el Centro de Innovación Social La Noria, Diputación de Málaga. “Agricultura y Líneas de Corta Distribución”, presencial en español, en Sevilla, en un restaurante con jardín. Esta organización no nos ha permitido tener un ponente ni apertura común, o compartir el resultado final en el momento, pero informamos a los participantes y están de acuerdo en compartir el informe final con las conclusiones. Debido a que las dos organizadoras del diálogo en inglés fueron confinadas a 4 días del diálogo, este se celebró de forma virtual vía ZOOM, consideramos que era la mejor solución, para evitar posponerlo y cumplir con el plazo del informe. En relación con la estructura del diálogo, cada sub-grupo comenzó con una introducción general común y la introducción propia de cada tema, los tiempos y la duración del diálogo se acordó igual para todos los sub-grupos, aunque durante la celebración de los mismos se fue adaptando la conversación de cada sub-grupo. Horario establecido: 10:00-10:15h Registro 10:15h Bienvenida, Introducción al diálogo 10:30h 45min Primera parte del diálogo 11:15h Saludo vía ZOOM con los otros sub-grupos 11:30h 1hora Segunda parte del diálogo Las figuras del facilitador y el anotador (todas mujeres en nuestro caso) trabajaron por parejas en la organización y celebración del diálogo. Para mantener el flujo de la conversación, prepararon preguntas rápidas de antemano y se aseguraron de que todos los participantes tuvieran la oportunidad de hablar. Este diálogo se centra en el nivel micro, enfocado a identificar la situación actual, los problemas que vemos día a día, por lo que no se hizo ninguna pregunta directa sobre posibles acciones para la mejora de hábitos sostenibles. No obstante, los participantes han sugerido posibles acciones a implementar a nivel local, nacional e internacional, para promover la mejora de los sistemas alimentarios tan interconectados en la actualidad. Evitamos darle demasiada información sobre el contenido del Diálogo a los participantes, con la intención de que llegasen con una mente más abierta y respuestas que no estaban preparadas, sino espontáneas que surgieran en el momento del diálogo. Los resultados de este primer diálogo, también el aprendizaje en la organización, se utilizará para preparar nuestro Diálogo de seguimiento el 13 de julio, este evento se llevará a cabo “online” y seguirá el método descrito en el manual.

234238239244247249251Análisis de la vía de Acción 2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles. Identificación del arraigo y profundidad de los patrones de consumo en productos alimentarios: individualización y alimentos procesados, en el marco de la sociedad de consumo en transición a la sociedad red. Análisis de los vínculos entre la desconexión con la naturaleza, la ‘ubicuidad’ espacio-tiempo generada por la vida virtual y la unidad de grupo a través del compartir ‘una comida’. Este análisis incluye la identificación de los vínculos entre la vía de Acción 2 y las vías de Acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. Partimos de la premisa de que nuestra aportación a la I Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios ha de ser la de arrojar luz sobre la situación local en este momento. Partimos de la vertiente ‘consumidor’, común a todos, para identificar lo que interesa a la gente que vive en nuestra zona de actuación (Mijas, Málaga, Sevilla), especialmente pensando en el futuro de nuestros niños, que necesitan comida que les nutra y puedan vivir sanos, y en el respeto al medio ambiente, una prioridad.235238239243244247249251Hemos hecho una puesta en común con los hallazgos en los cuatro sub-grupos: Necesidad de unir alimentación con salud pública. o La promoción de hábitos saludables no puede ser únicamente una cuestión de "educación". o Una dieta sana repercute en el gasto en Sanidad pública y privada. o El consumo de alimentos procesados poco saludables, pero “baratos”, tiene un gran coste en atención médica, en la aparición de enfermedades como la diabetes y en la pérdida de la calidad de vida en general. o Las etiquetas de los productos han de ser comprensibles para todos. o Desigualdad económica: ¿Es imposible comer sano si se depende del banco de alimentos o si se tienen muy pocos ingresos? o Necesidad de identificar a los principales agentes capaces de promover este cambio en todos los niveles, local inclusive. o Los desperdicios y la reutilización son una cuestión de salud pública. Mejoras a realizar en el ámbito de la Educación en hábitos saludables y sostenibles. o Alimentación en combinación con ejercicio, también para evitar la pérdida de empatía, la pantalla del móvil entristece. o Programas de televisión como MasterChef junior, cocinando con niños, fomenta y despierta el interés en cocinar. o Mejorar la alimentación infantil. o Promover la vuelta a la huerta y a las cocinas o Repensar las políticas agrícolas sobre el uso de semillas o Concienciación familiar y tareas de cuidados o Dar visibilidad al papel de las mujeres en la industria alimentaria Necesidad de incrementar el consumo de productos locales y reducir la huella de carbono o Sostenibilidad en el transporte. El etiquetado de productos alimentarios ha de incluir un ‘Green Food Print’ con el tiempo de transporte, si es un producto local, la huella de CO2 etc. o Fomentar las cadenas cortas de comercialización y el consumo de productos de temporada que, además de tener un impacto positivo en la economía local, genera menos residuos. o Necesidad de promoción de acciones que eviten el desligamiento actual que tenemos con la tierra. No puede producirse un cambio hacia un sistema más sostenible sin un cambio de paradigma en los intereses de las grandes compañías de alimentación. o Necesidad de cambio en los valores de base de la toma de decisiones de las grandes compañías del sistema alimentario, hacia la elaboración de productos procesados más saludables. o Solo se podrá un conseguir la transformación si las comunidades dan el primer paso, organizándose, canalizando y presentando el problema las autoridades pertinentes. Nuestros gobiernos no despertarán si no ven una demanda social. o ¿Son los “héroes de la comida” actuales, veganos y vegetarianos hippies que exageran? Necesidad de un mayor análisis social de estos estereotipos para el cambio hacia pautas más sostenibles. o Abuso del color verde en publicidad y etiquetado. Cambios en la publicidad y etiquetado de los productos alimentarios, para que incluyan la sostenibilidad del producto y si es saludable. o Es necesaria la búsqueda de vías de actuación para tener un marketing de productos sostenibles, sin ‘Green Washing’ y que respeten la permacultura. o Necesidad de explorar en mayor profundidad el poder de los consumidores. o Tener en cuenta la diversidad y las diferentes culturas, reivindicar la diversidad local Sociedad de consumo o La educación del consumidor es un paso clave, también la concienciación sobre el poder de los consumidores para la transformación social. o La dieta mediterránea que se nos propone desde los medios de comunicación y grupos de presión no es lo mismo que una dieta autóctona basada en la estacionalidad del producto. o Limitación en la oferta de productos, los consumidores tienen una escasa posibilidad de elección, por la manipulación en la industria, utilizando el “Green Whashing”, la ecología usada como instrumento de marketing, pero los productos no son nada sostenibles solo verdes. o Otro ejemplo sería la manipulación de la industria láctea que ha impulsado el consumo de leche desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Asegurándose que el consumo de leche fuese una recomendación gubernamental, lo que dificulta a los consumidores evitar el consumo de lácteos. o Se compra mucha comida preparada y se cocina menos; estamos en un momento crítico, se está perdiendo la cocina “de la abuela”, que con muy poquito y barato consiguen unos guisos muy buenos. o La gestión de comedores, antes los colegios y residencias tenían sus propias cocinas, ahora se han industrializado y las comidas vienen de cátering, que en muchos casos hacen un abuso del glutamato. Hay que volver a las cocinas. o Las prioridades de las mujeres han cambiado antes aprender a cocinar era esencial para casarse, ahora con la incorporación de la mujer a la vida laboral las prioridades son estudiar y encontrar un buen trabajo. o Necesidad de una mayor concienciación de los hábitos de consumo tan arraigados, “del usar y tirar”. Estamos en una sociedad de “usar y tirar” a todos los niveles, productos, semillas y también en el personal. o El COVID-19 y la pérdida de empleo que este conlleva, no han ayudado a entrar en la cultura del ahorro. o Es necesario “resetear” la valoración de lo que tienes, los niños tienen cientos de juguetes, hay un desfase en la valoración en todos los sectores que es insostenible; se empieza por la casa, cada uno ha de tomar su parte de responsabilidad. o Necesidad de multiplicar las campañas de promoción sobre alimentación saludable y sostenible, con productos locales y estacionales. Así, como del abuso de plásticos y de cuidado del medio ambiente.236238239240243244247249251Permacultura y huerta o Cada producto tiene su cosecha, cuando el producto ha viajado o madurado artificialmente lo pierde. o Trabajar en el campo para cultivar productos ecológicos es duro, especialmente porque falta apoyo jurídico. o Grandes empresas como DuPont y Monsanto proporcionan semillas manipuladas. Antes, los agricultores podían usar cada año las semillas, ahora valen por un año y las de la cosecha no se pueden usar. o La normativa favorece a las grandes compañías que además disponen de recursos y medios para hacer un lobby eficaz sobre la política agraria. o Esta limitación en “la huerta” repercute en los consumidores, pues se les impide escapar de un sistema de cultivo industrial, en el que se emplean productos dañinos para el cultivo. o La huerta requiere su tiempo para dar frutos, hay que sentir la tierra, a las plantas y valorar ver el alimento crecer lentamente. Cocinar saludable ¿cuestión de tiempo? o Vivimos en una sociedad rápida, no hay tiempo ni energía para producir una comida nutritiva. o No tenemos tiempo para cocinar, es más práctico comprar alimentos frescos procesados como las bolsas de ensalada, que aguantan una semana en la nevera. Las lechugas de huerta duran un par de días y exigen limpiarlas y cortarla antes de poder comérsela. o ¿Es también una cuestión de dinero? o Habría que mejorar la transferencia de conocimiento “de las abuelas” y adaptarla al contexto social actual. Disminución en el consumo de carne o Una dieta con consumo de carne a diario no es sostenible para el medio ambiente. o La opinión pública sobre este tema está cambiando lentamente, aunque muchas personas todavía consideran poco saludable no comer proteínas animales. o El sufrimiento de muchos animales en la industria alimentaria influye en el comer vegano o vegetariano. o Las personas más en contacto con su cuerpo y con mayor conciencia sobre sus necesidades nutricionales adoptar pautas de alimentación vegetarianas más fácilmente. o Diseño y elaboración de productos alimentarios procesados dirigidos a veganos y vegetarianos, que sin embargo no tienen un buen aporte nutricional ni son más sostenibles. Líneas de distribución cortas o Las medidas de restricción de la movilidad causadas por la pandemia del COVID-19 han provocado una mayor conciencia sobre las líneas de distribución cortas, el origen de los productos y el tiempo de transporte. o ¿Es saludable que las frutas y verduras se almacenen durante meses antes de ser vendidas? ¿y que se envuelvan en plástico? o Hay que fomentar el consumo de alimentos locales, ecológicos, de temporada y frescos. o Leer y entender una etiqueta de un producto es demasiado complicado y no informan sobre el tiempo que tiene un producto agrícola que ha viajado. o Las frutas y verduras “no bonitas” no llegan a los supermercados, se prefiere tirar el producto antes que donarlo a los Bancos de alimentos. Alimentación de los niños y educación alimentaria en la casa y en la escuela o Educación y concienciación en los centros escolares desde muy temprana edad incidiendo en lo afortunados que somos por tener acceso a prácticamente cualquier tipo de alimento y que no se tiene que desperdiciar comida. o La experiencia en el campo debería ser un básico en el sistema educativo. o La enseñanza sobre alimentación comienza en casa, a una edad muy temprana, desde la guardería. o Es problemático que la alimentación de los niños en las escuelas se base en productos elaborados de baja calidad, aunque “fáciles de manipular” para el personal como los fritos, hamburguesas, pizzas, etc. Hostelería y restauración o Necesidad de repensar las políticas de desperdicio de alimentos en el sector servicios. o No es sostenible que hoteles y restaurantes de la costa en Málaga compren el pescado en Madrid que llega por mensajería. o El nivel de desperdicio de alimentos en los hoteles que ofrecen packs de “todo incluido” llega al derroche. o Solo los pequeños restaurantes familiares cuidan la gastronomía tradicional ofreciendo una comida basada en la dieta mediterránea o La separación de orgánico y envases, que no sea vidrio, no se produce por cuestiones de tiempo y espacio.237238239240244247249251Edad en la que comenzar la “asignatura de Nutrición”: Se sugirió empezar a los 6 años en la primaria, pero empezar a enseñar hábitos alimentarios en un niño de 6 años podría ser tarde. La monitora de guardería sugirió que deben comenzar en la casa, no puede ser una asignatura de libro como tal, sino de crear hábitos saludables y que podría iniciarse en la guardería entre el año y medio y dos años. Educación en los centros escolares: Gran parte de los ponentes opinaron que el principal problema de una mala alimentación es por una falta de concienciación y educación en las escuelas. Sin embargo, una participante opinó que el problema no estaba únicamente en la educación, sino en nuestro modelo de vida actual, el cual es en muchos casos rutinario y estresante. Esta persona se puso ella misma como ejemplo: Ella recibió educación desde pequeña de lo importante que es llevar una vida y alimentación sana (nota observatoria: es una persona entre los 30 y 40 años de edad), pero su actual ritmo de vida no le permite siempre el poder llevar una alimentación sana por falta de tiempo (tanto su pareja como ella trabajan todo el día para poder mantener a su familia de varios hijos), por lo que tiene que recurrir “a lo fácil y rápido”, que se traduce en comprar comida procesada y precocinada (no siempre de buena calidad). Se concluyó que habría que repensar nuestro modelo de vida paralelamente a continuar educando a la sociedad a todos los niveles, incluyendo a los gobiernos (locales, regionales y nacionales). Consumo y promoción de productos elaborados de pescado orientados a niños: Esta divergencia de opiniones se produjo al hablar de una promoción del consumo de pescado frente a la carne, con productos elaborados como la nueva pasta de Pescanova, se comentó que era una forma de fomentar el consumo de pescado en niños, pero también se vio como una manera de promocionar alimentos procesados “no reales” desde la infancia. La normativa sobre desechos de productos alimentarios en el sector de servicios: Ya no está permitido dar de comer a los animales los restos de frutas y verduras de la hostelería y restauración; para algunos participantes era una forma de controlar la calidad en la alimentación de los animales, para otros es una medida que promueve el despilfarro y la no reutilización, al mismo tiempo que fomenta el consumo de piensos.

2021-06-14 00:51:32205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26115/95

2524122313210

NoIn Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Japan Food Industry Center Environment Committee, held on 18th May 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. The members from the committee made comments on that.

234239240244In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 2 and 3.235239240244The meeting with the Japan Food Industry Center Environment Committee was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. The main remarks of the participants are as follows: - Regarding food loss and waste, besides working on the reduction at food manufacturing and processing site, we need to pay attention to the actual situation about how much raw materials are discarded at agricultural production site. It is necessary to visualize reality of food loss and waste across the entire value chain and what action is needed by each stakeholder. - For the Food Systems Summit, considering the Recommendations of the TCED(Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures), discussion should be proceeded after outlining the future image of food systems from various world views including 4 degree temperature rise and less than 2 degree temperature rise scenarios. - As an effort to reduce food loss and waste, it is halfway through to review business customaries across food supply chain, including the extension of delivery deadline by food retailers, and more efforts are needed.

2021-06-14 01:02:03205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26125/95

69645267267

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Japan Business Federation Committee on Agriculture held on 18th May 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. The members from the committee made comments on that.

234240244248249251In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 3.235240244248249251The meeting with the Japan Business Federation Committee on Agriculture was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. The main remarks of the participants are as follows: -The Government of Japan expressed carbon neutralization by 2050 and I hope how to reduce carbon emission by 41.1 billion tons will be discussed at the summit. -In the industry of agricultural pesticides, while we continue to work on developing safer and more eco-friendly pesticides, we also need materials for biological pesticides and natural-derived ones to complement chemical ones and, therefore, we would like the government to consider policies to promote the development of such materials. - For making Japanese agriculture an export industry, besides enhancement of productivity through digital transformation, capture of demand-side changes, response to international trends such as carbon neutral or economic security, individual issues have been identified including acquisition of certification, quarantine consultation with the other country and protection of intellectual property. Whereas expanding exports of agricultural produces is one of the pillars to make Japanese agriculture a growth industry, it is also an important theme in terms of attracting young people. - Since environmental changes around domestic and foreign agriculture has been getting dynamic recently, exchange of opinions between private sector and administrative organizations is meaningful.

2021-06-14 08:34:38205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23913/20

45428121291613124111229152241210

A special attention have been paid to ensure the diversity and inclusion of all stakeholders during the Dialogue. Convenor of the Dialogue sent invitation letters to broad and diverse range of both government and non-government institutions to foster their participation in the process. A standardized approach have been adopted for the convening, curation and facilitation of the Dialogue, as indicated in the guidelines of organizing the Dialogue. Throughout the Dialogue, facilitator created a supportive environment for meaningful and open dialogue among the participating stakeholders. Respectful questions have been formulated by the facilitator to encourage dialogues and discussions, clarify some of the ideas mentioned and check understanding. Dialogue opened a space within which representatives of various organizations shared their ideas, positions as well as explored each other’s perspective that are essential to shape the food system in the following years. Forward-looking discussion topics have been chosen to build on and add value to the existing policy processes and initiatives directed to the agricultural development and food system transformation. Importantly, all of the discussion topics were related to the local realities within the country and this in turn made it possible to formulate challenges and define sustainable solutions. Amid COVID-19 outbreak, in line with the local rules, regulations and guidelines, Dialogue was organized using an online platform. It was agreed to communicate via emails to share participants’ comments and views that are not expressed during the meetings.For the organizing team is was essential to guarantee that Dialogue reflects specific aspects of the Principles as planned for the design. All the participants of the Dialogue embraced the principles such as building trust, be respectful, complement the work of others and recognise complexity. Discussions were organised in a way to ensure safe space as well as promote trust among the stakeholders. Participants of the Dialogue respected each other’s view in formulating sustainable food system, agriculture and rural development. Questions and concerns raised during the discussions have been addressed appropriately by the responsible participants. Participants of the discussions also recognised the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful actions to achieve SDG 2030. All of the participants were committed to contribute to vision, objectives and final outcomes of the Food System Summit preparation and follow up, because they are aware that this is an essential milestone to mobilize future actions in transforming food system. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity principle of the Dialogue were not strong as expected. Although representatives of almost all of the invited institutions took part in Dialogue some of them were not active during the open discussions. Nonetheless, this Dialogue provided a unique platform for national stakeholders to exchange their views and interact with each other’s aiming to support food system transformation.During the planning of Dialogue, one should take into account that not all invited institutions will participate in the meetings. In addition, one should also take into account that not all of the participants of the Dialogue will be active during the discussions. Selecting and briefing facilitator/s is also vital for the success. This may ensure that facilitator/s are not pushing their own agenda but creating a space for all to express themselves and listen to each other. Finally, one should design discussion topics that represents the current situation and points critical issues. This certainly will help avoid rather artificial conclusions. Although, after the first Dialogue meeting it was agreed to communicate via emails to share some views, comments, recommendations, however, stakeholders poorly participated in this process.

Yes

234238240249251The main objective of the first meeting was to reach a common understanding among the participated stakeholders on the following areas: (i) the 2021 UN Food System Summit, (ii) the national dialogue process and (iii) the “sustainable food systems approach”. By bringing together key stakeholders contributing to the food systems of Azerbaijan, the Dialogue has become a starting point for an inclusive and collaborative exchange of views on the path to sustainable national food system; as well as for identifying challenges and sharing best practices for improving food systems and ensuring their sustainability in the future. The major focus of the dialogue meeting are: • To provide information to the participants on the importance of dialogue meetings held in preparation for the UN 2021 Food Systems Summit to be held in September this year. In this regard, materials on the topic (also relevant guidelines) were introduced to the participants by both local and international representatives. • Providing participants with general information on food systems. Also, participants were provided with information on sustainability in food systems within the SDG 2030 Agenda, as well as the transformation of food systems to achieve sustainability. • Expected results from the national dialogues carried out by the member countries within the framework of the Food Systems Summit. Some of the participants of the Dialogue raised questions about the expected results of these dialogues, and representatives of relevant governmental bodies answered these questions. • Discussion of issues related to the role of women in the establishment and operation of sustainable food systems in the country, especially in rural areas. Discussions focused on the role of women, including rural women, in agricultural and food production, and agreed that appropriate measures should be taken to assess the role of women and achieve gender equality in these activities. • The discussions also centered on the question of what measures should be taken towards transitioning to nature-positive sustainable production practices. Participants generally agreed on the need for improving monitoring and control systems for the use of agricultural chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides to ensure sustainable food production systems; and the possibility of introducing additional measures for incentivizing and subsidizing natural farming (for example, payments for ecosystem services) instead of chemically intensive agriculture.235241246248249251Main findings can be summarised as follows: • Some participants stated that there is a need for new approach in terms of ensuring sustainability in agriculture. Currently, the main role in the digitalization of agriculture in Azerbaijan belongs to the state, there is a need to expand the role of the private sector, the system of agricultural subsidies should include issues related to sustainability (for example, climate-smart subsidies), as well as, expand the use of biotechnology. In this regard, the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture accepted the need for improvement measures in these areas and noted that the issue will be discussed. • The dialogue was welcomed by the participants in terms of achieving the sustainability goals. It was recommended to achieve consistency in the organization of such meetings, at the same time, the participants expressed their readiness to cooperate in this direction. • It was suggested that the Center for Agrarian Research under the Ministry of Agriculture be identified as a coordinating body in terms of coordinating dialogue discussions. • It was decided to have discussions on conducting a Rural Women's Forum to educate women on the sustainability of food systems and raise awareness campaigns. • Although farmers who receive subsidies are registered by the state, there is no registration of farmers who have small arable land and produce mainly for their own consumption – namely so-called subsistence farmers. The representative of the Ministry of Agriculture stated the urgency of this issue and said that discussions would be held to take appropriate measures. • In comparison to the previous periods, the urgency of food systems including the food security issues in the country is fully recognised. Although a superficial approach to food security issues was demonstrated during the development of the Strategic Roadmap for Agricultural Production and Processing, representatives of both governmental and non-governmental organizations have now acknowledged the urgency of this issue and have expanded included activities related inclusion of food security issues in state strategic documents.236238240242243244245246248249Resilience and sustainability were two important keywords that initiated the discussions. Participants emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic and the escalation of the conflict situation in the country have caused the need to accelerate the transformation of food and agricultural systems to make them more resilient in the face of potential challenges and stresses, including climate change. There was a consensus among the participants that there is a need to introduce new measures and strategies in the “Azerbaijan 2030: National Priorities for Socio-Economic Development”. Discussants also shared some pilot ideas such as: (i) strengthening business development services in rural areas with a focus on promoting agricultural technology start-ups; (ii) strengthening digital extension services to help farmers easily adapt to systems transformation; (iii) stimulating climate-smart agriculture through the introduction of agriculture-specific input subsidy programs and policies; (iv) introducing innovative agricultural practices and green biotechnologies; (v) and promoting the use of sustainable food production and climate resilient farming practices. Participants raised the key challenges and proposed solutions for ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. Actions were discussed in three broad areas: (i) improving access to nutritious foods for subsistent farmers as well as vulnerable groups such as IDPs and people living in remote rural areas, with a particular focus on women and children; (ii) the importance of enhancing the role of women in rural and agricultural areas through the promotion of women's entrepreneurship; and (iv) the need for enhancing of national food safety systems; as well as raising awareness on food security and nutrition concepts. The discussions also centered on the question of what measures should be taken towards transitioning to nature-positive sustainable production practices. Participants generally agreed on the need for improving monitoring and control systems for the use of agricultural chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides to ensure sustainable food production systems; and the possibility of introducing additional measures for incentivizing and subsidizing natural farming (for example, payments for ecosystem services) instead of chemically intensive agriculture. Participants conveyed the need to emphasize, promote, replicate, and scale up existing models that increase women's role in the food systems, as well as generate livelihood opportunities to attract more rural women to the sector. Discussants highlighted the critical importance of empowering women in the agricultural sector by improving their access to extension and business support services. The idea of organizing a forum of rural women at the country level was also proposed to demonstrate the key role that rural women play in food production and security. The need to strengthen digital agriculture was also underlined, with a focus on improving access to agricultural and rural data such as the agri-food supply chain and its stock levels as well as data on landless farmers who therefore cannot register in the electronic agricultural information system.237241243248251During the meeting, several disagreements were observed that are summarised below: • Representatives of the non-governmental institution reported that rural women are unaware of sustainable food systems and sustainable development goals in general as well as government adopted support measures directed to the woman entrepreneurs who are producing food. Government officials as well as FAO Azerbaijan office mentioned that they have conducted several projects directed to improve live of rural woman who are engaged in agricultural production and are part of the food system. It was recommended to take concrete steps to define the role of women's entrepreneurship in the formation of sustainable food systems. • Another interesting opinion stated during the meeting were related to production of health food. It was mentioned that there is an abundance of food products in the market, but insufficient attention is paid to the impact of products on human health, as well as weak control over the use of pesticides. While acknowledging the existence of problems and the need to take appropriate measures to improve the situation, government officials have already noted that the government has already taken steps to establish a mechanism for initial control over the use of pesticides (Electronic Agricultural Information System - EKTIS). • One of the main stakeholders raised his concern regarding to the unified translation of food into Azerbaijani language in order to avoid disagreements and misunderstandings.

2021-06-14 09:23:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10309/145

15015015052111411441221

We invited five speakers with diverse backgrounds to share multiple viewpoints for looking at our food systems.We engaged with multiple stakeholders and framed the work of our invited speakers as possible solutions in promoting fair and sustainable food systems.The principles of engagement is intimidating at first glance but at its simplest it means to…create a discussion that acknowledges the work that people have done, respects different viewpoints, and inspire everyone to take action today to build the food system that is fair for everyone.

Yes

234238239241245246247249Overview of the different actors of food systems in the Philippines and a discussion of high-potential solutions to major food system problems235238239241244245246249251- To consume sustainably and to develop healthy, inclusive and sustainable food systems requires the interplay of multiple agents and actors. Consumers, producers, business institutions, policies, and government leaders all need to come together and work towards a shared vision of the future - Awareness and education are critical pieces. Each individual needs to be able to think critically in order to know how we should move forward and consume sustainably. - Paying for a fair price helps everyone. By giving farmers a decent income, we encourage them to plant better and ensure everyone is fed. By ensuring that food isn't dirt cheap we as consumers can also put more value into the food that we eat. - Tools and enables are usually available, however these are not made simple enough for the people who need it most to avail of it. For example, agriculture loans in the Philippines are available at 0% interest but require farmers, who on average only go to school until the 4th grade, to complete complex business proposals and access online registration forms. - Governments play a major role in enabling innovation and change and developing industries within a country. Getting the young people to exercise their right to vote will ultimately lead to electing capable and content people in government which with steer us all towards better food systems. - Successful initiatives need to be catered to the local context. Regionalization is key in both in winning in the alternative protein segment and in providing the right equipment to the farmers. - We need to correct the language around produce and agriculture in the Philippines. There are a lot of metaphors using farming-related concepts which refer to unfavorable situations/poor237None during the dialogue

2021-06-14 09:36:26205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16717/39

6664614471815332219112211191062588

The dialogue was designed in a manner that it should be respectful, complement the work of others and build trust. In the format used, the roles of Convener and Curator are critical for maintaining that environment. Strict control of time is required to respect the other speakers and to allow enough time for audience involvement in the Q&A session. The curator made provision for the sub-national bodies present each to have time to comment and this is helping to build a stronger relationship with the sub-national level for those provinces having the equipment, experience and a multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral Provincial Working Group to participate.The meeting was curated in a manner that prevented time over runs and also gave opportunities for audience involvement in the Q&A although the limited time was monopolized by some longer questions and responses.Elevator pitches and short (3-7 minute) presentations can help participants extract key take-away messages to better engage in discussion and prioritize issues. The format can help to ensure that there is space for inclusion of specific views, but it must be complemented by a substantial and well-facilitated Q&A session or small group discussions in breakout rooms if there is to be any reasonable chance for diverse views to be heard. This is very important where there are participants from different levels of a hierarchical in a mixed audience.

NoThe method involved keynote speeches followed by a series of short presentations intended to trigger discussion about ‘game-changing ideas’ to transform Cambodia’s food system. The dialogue intended to provide opportunities for some speakers who have not been much engaged in the dialogues to present their ideas. Although the intention was to capture general comments from Q&A sessions, there was not sufficient time to gather a wide range of questions and responses. Questions from the audience sometimes take the discussion off-track but it is very challenging to curb this tendency in the country context.

234238241242246249The focus of the dialogue was on building food systems back/forward better in the context of COVID-19 recovery. No country in the world in 2020 was spared the direct (health) and indirect (socio-economic) impacts of COVID-19; the impacts have amplified vulnerabilities including malnutrition and poverty, but also shed light on opportunities within the food system. Learnings from any crisis can be harnessed to improve systems and prepare for future shocks and stresses. Prior to the onset of COVID-19, Cambodia already suffered from high rates of malnutrition and poverty; one in three children are stunted (low height for age) and one in ten are wasted (low weight for height). Looking forward, what does recovery and building back better from COVID-19 mean for Cambodia’s food system? According to FAO’s Chief Economist Máximo Torero, "we need to link recovery plans with catalytic investments and investment with significant returns on reduction of undernourishment to achieve SDG 1 (No Poverty), 2 (Zero Hunger) and 10 (Reduced Inequalities)." So what are game changing solutions to ensure that the food system nourishes all, offers resilient livelihoods, and stewards the environment? This is the topic of today’s Food Systems Dialogue. Our task is now to prioritize and phase our support going forward. In the work leading up to the Global Food Systems Summit in September and the pre-summit in July, we have the opportunity to conduct a ‘health check’ on the food system. COVID-19 has simply accelerated the need for transformation. This dialogue is an opportunity to explore the actions and the levers for change that will be most likely lead recovery efforts in the direction of improving the food system. A simple tool to guide the discussion is the principle of triple wins: economic, social, and environmental. Game changing solutions touch upon all three of these and offer solutions to build upon the past to create a more prosperous future.235238239240241242246249Priorities for the food system to build back/forward better include ensuring a stronger foundation for the economy and building more resilient systems. It will be necessary to introduce reform measure to respond to compounding vulnerabilities and build these lessons learned into building stronger systems going forward. These include measures to soften impacts on businesses and encourage innovation, vertical and horizontal expansion of social assistance mechanisms, food flows and trade are facilitated, and health systems are more inclusive and prepared for other global threats like the rise of non-communicable diseases. Digitalization is a key avenue for building back better and for being better prepared for a similar situation in the future. Five key areas providing opportunities for game changing actions include: the promotion of healthy diets; community and value chain approaches to market strengthening in the food system; ongoing development of the social assistance framework to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable and soften future shocks; and ensuring better coordination of efforts between the humanitarian response phase and the ongoing development work.236238239242246249251UN Commitments and Game Changers 1 and 2 The UN stands ready to continue its support to the Royal Government, the Socio-Economic Reponses Plan (SERP), and FAO remains committed to support a robust food system that is sustainable, inclusive and healthy and that is prepared to absorb future shocks and stresses. FAO in Cambodia has a broad portfolio that touches upon fisheries, climate smart agriculture, home grown school feeding, and policy assistance. FAO works closely with our UN partners under the umbrella of UN Nutrition – led by WFP, to coordinate our nutrition work. And lastly, the EU-FAO FIRST policy facility remains a flagship program, supporting existing Government frameworks, strengthening partnerships and leveraging actions to address SDG 1 and 2. As a complement to RGC’s cash transfer programmes, FAO is working on “Cash+” interventions to combine cash transfers with the provision of productive assets, inputs, technical training and extension services. This approach is proving an effective tool in providing immediate relief for the livelihoods and productive capacities of the poor and most vulnerable households, while at the same time enhancing their medium and long-term productive capacity, increasing resilience. In 2020, FAO successfully piloted the approach to support 100 IDPoor and vulnerable households in Siem Reap. With funding support from SDC, FAO is scaling up this approach to support around 1500 economically vulnerable households in Siem Reap and Banteay Meanchey. This approach has also been taken up by other UN Partners. Game changers are not silver bullets but should improve livelihoods, food security and nutrition, and steward the environment. In other words, game changers offer triple wins. Game changers: 1. importance of healthy diets during pandemics and building back stronger A healthy diet is one that promotes human health, prevents disease, and protects the planet. A healthy diet is: sufficient and varied enough to provide the right amount of nutrients from foods; and safe and free from harmful substances. A healthy diet should also be affordable, culturally acceptable and sustainably produced. Why we need a healthy diet: Reason 1 – For a healthier population Reason 2 – To protect the most vulnerable Reason 3 – Because hidden hunger is common Reason 4 – For more resilient economies Reason 5 – for a healthier planet Reason 6 – To protect against COVID and other illnesses What can we do? Promote increased production and consumption of vegetables, legumes, fruits, and other healthy foods. Utilize community-based structures to promote healthy diets and improved food production. Expand Social Protection programming to increase access to affordable, healthy diets. Strengthen investment in NCD prevention and treatment through the health system. Explore regulatory, labeling, and taxation approaches to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods. Work with food industry to support efforts to improve agricultural biodiversity. Increase the use of data in analysis, policy and decision-making and improve the availability of data. Game changers: 2. The social protection system and building back better Social assistance programs have quickly adapted to address the COVID-19 situation; school meals have shifted to take-home rations and new programs have been added including cash transfers for ID poor, food assistance, and one-off cash transfers and subsidies for COVID-19-impacted families. The way forward, to Build Back Better as we move beyond response and recovery from COVID-19, will involve: Shock-Responsive Social Protection Framework Provide more systematic, predictable, timely and effective protection of the poor and vulnerable, to mitigate and adapt to shocks and stresses. GS-NSPC is currently developing a Shock responsive Social Protection mechanisms with assistance from WFP. Family Package Integration of cash-based social assistance programs, introducing social assistance single operator supported by an effective management information system.236241242244246249Game changers: 3. Community and value chain development to nourish consumers and offer resilient livelihoods: Build a more resilient agriculture sector with risk informed and more connected and inclusive value chains. Increase investment in collective action such as smallholder farmer’s cooperatives and infrastructure, which could include community markets, hygiene stations, processing and cooling facilities. Promote equitable distribution of incomes and access to inputs, finances, technologies and markets. Work together in full partnership sharing gains and risks (4P Model) Set up a direct-to-consumer delivery system, using short circuits / localized solutions Invest in Women smallholder farmers Build more resilient communities (and not only resilient farmers Themes for promoting value chain integration in Cambodia include a focus on poultry, vegetables, fish, beef cattle, cassava and cashew nut value chains; logistics, market infrastructure and transport; applications for technology in value chains (e.g. cold storage and cool chains); farmer-owned agribusinesses; climate smart agriculture and NRM; one health and zoonoses; skills development and employment especially for women and youth; nutrition and food security; and agri-business recovery plans and assistance. Now more than ever, ending poverty in Cambodia begins with agriculture. The food system of the future should be resilient and equitable. It should be equitable and inclusive at every link of the chain, particularly the weakest ones, and respectful of the environment. Game changers: 4 Bridging the humanitarian-development divide Despite being considered an emergency, COVID-19 underlines major chronic issues that require bridging the humanitarian-development gap. Bridging the gap requires consideration of the following points as we move from humanitarian response to developing stronger systems for the future: While the initial reaction may be to protect and restrict, food systems need to be kept open to remain robust. COVID-19 underlines yet again that healthy diets are the first line of defense against disease. Poverty weakens our ability to bounce back. Compounding vulnerabilities beg for joint targeting. Systemic change required to prepare for future shocks and stresses: e.g. shock responsive social protection. Information needed to make decisions in real time and to prevent future ‘disruptions’ and mitigate impacts. As Cambodia prepares to graduate from Least Developed Country Status, need to prioritize measures to respond to urgency of the present with needs of the future; the six key topics of the Second NSFSN (2019-2023) offer this framework to accelerate action. These priorities help us to identify ‘best bets for building back better’, placing the consumer at the center of our work and ensuring that systems are strengthened and the environment is stewarded.

2021-06-14 12:35:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20809/203

90903654151591041102051991336

This Dialogue is the last in a series of three, whose purpose is to raise the profile of those players in the value chain who, although they are the lifeblood of it, are the weakest. Thus a path has been set out along which farmers and consumers have expressed a desire to bring together the interests of both and to identify concrete and replicable solutions on which to work together and to propose during this Summit through a single, strong voice. The organization of the dialogue was characterized by the respect and application of all the founding principles of engagement. Farmers and consumers met in a spirit of mutual respect and support, each identifying the other as a partner in the value chain. The ambition, therefore, is to strengthen the union and the bond that unites these two and provide an opportunity to break down the silos in order to shape the strategy for tackling the challenges that emerged from these meetings. In particular, this last session focused on developing real actions that take into account both points of agreement and disagreement. The complexity of food systems lies in those differences, which should not be annihilated but rather valued, as it is unthinkable to have a system in which one model prevails over all others: one size does not fit all. The awareness that change is urgent was present in all those who participated and inspired the identification of common priorities. The structure of the dialogue was designed to encourage open and constructive discussion. Questions addressed to participants concerned expectations and wishes from both the production and consumer side. There are actions and challenges to be overcome which are impossible to achieve without the commitment of both sidesThe premises of this dialogue were to promote inclusive and win-win solutions by adopting a holistic and systemic approach to understanding how to act in a complex system like the food system. In fact, farmers and consumers are the first and last ring in the food value chain and it is essential that they strengthen and reinforce their collaboration, fostering a systems approach to the value chain based on a fairer share of value all along. In doing so, therefore, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced and it was emphasized that everyone is called upon to play their part. The topics covered were multiple and carefully selected to encourage exchanges and reflect the complexity of food systems. The outcomes identified during the previous dialogue were the starting point and the basis for the discussion and further development of this last dialogue. Throughout the dialogue, a balance was sought in the representativeness of both sides and the involvement of all was ensured. The principle of complexity, respect and trust was embraced by all participants, who appreciated the opportunity for interaction and mutual exchange and hoped that cooperation could continue in the future. The starting point for the dialogue was the recognition of the principle of "acting with urgency". The desire to take common action and issue a joint declaration was expressed, accelerating the pace of change and committing to a shared path.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend. Another aspect to consider: it is advisable to share in advance the topics on which the debate will develop, so that participants can be more prepared and participate even more actively. In particular, if the topics addressed are specific, it is recommendable to offer the possibility of getting information in order to put the participants at ease during the dialogue. Lastly, in order to cover all regions of the world - in case it is an international online event - it is recommended to organize multiple sessions in different time slots to allow the participation of representatives from different time zones.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This dialogue is the latest of a series of meetings between farmers and consumers culminating in the consolidation of a long alliance. Participants were divided into 4 break up sessions, each tackling a different topic identified during the first two dialogues as key areas in which change is needed for farmers and consumers. The different groups were asked to determine what specific solutions the Summit should deliver and what actions are needed from different stakeholders to facilitate this transformation. One round of break up sessions was organized under the following themes: 1) Consumer information 2) Food standards and trade 3) Fair food prices for all 4) Fairer share of value in the food chain Each discussion that took place in the various break-up sessions was reported back to the plenary by a representative from each of the two sides. At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This last dialogue aimed to identify mutually beneficial solutions for food systems transformation, promoting a systemic approach to sustainable food systems through closer collaboration between producers and consumers, the first and last ring of the food value chain. In the course of the discussion and debate, a number of points of particular importance to both sides emerged. The main question in the dialogue concerned how this alliance could provide a solid foundation to safeguard the rights and interests of the two parties. Farmers, on one side, vehemently claimed their urgency to be recognized as entrepreneurs and to make their activity a viable and profitable business. Consumers, on the other hand, have stressed their right to a transparent value chain. The trait d'union in these two complaints lies in the redistribution of risk and reward throughout the value chain. The ambition is to reduce social costs, to respect the environment and to strongly characterize the territory. Otherwise, we would continue promoting a model that adversely affects the balance along the food value chain, offloading the lost profit onto the weaker parties and producing misinformation for consumers. One of the advanced proposals, for example, concerns a virtuous alliance with large-scale distribution and consumers, which does not penalize producers but enhances their work and their efforts to continue guaranteeing excellence. Once again, the importance of awareness and access to information was stressed, underlining the enormous power consumers have and the ability to influence both what to produce and how it should be produced. For this reason, it is necessary to understand the role that consumers play in the food system. Only in this way will it be possible to reach a level of trust whereby producers better understand the needs of consumers and so that consumers feel more comfortable with all the products that are being produced. The final conclusion here is the will to build and nurture a community populated by these two parties and to make it real.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251CONSUMER INFORMATION A general consensus was reported on the importance of increasing awareness and information among consumers, who are too often victims of both political and commercial biases. The focus of the discussion, therefore, was on the proper use and structure of labels. Labels cannot be the solution. They often report information in a partial or extremely superficial way, failing to reflect the complexity of certain realities such as the issue of sustainability. A feasible solution would be to develop technologies that support both producers and consumers, such as QR codes. In addition, the abundance of commercial and voluntary standards further increases consumer confusion. Finally, the role of governments in this topic was addressed. Education on these issues must be disseminated and promoted from an early age. The issues range from consumer empowerment, to real basic education about food, nutrition, sustainability, to give consumers a chance to truly have an understanding of what they are looking for. In addition to this, it is also important to establish a basic standard to mitigate some of the marketing claims, which are driven by the interest of commercial gain and not necessarily by any sort of sustainability outcome. Consumers desire to be empowered to navigate between the various claims. While marketing and advertising will always exist, people need to be equipped with the right tools to avoid and minimize the risk of greenwashing.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251FOOD STANDARDS AND TRADE The participants of this group agreed on the difficulty of addressing this issue in such a short time. One of the main challenges arises from the diversity of worldwide standards, depending on the geographical area of application. It is therefore cumbersome to apply and implement standards that are fair, unless they are inclusive of socio-economic factors. The risk here is to exclude producers in middle and low-income countries from the most profitable markets. so the emphasis here was on a fair balance between standards that must be universal and solutions that must be local. Surely bringing socio-economic factors into the conversation is a must in order to arrive at standards that are win-win, eventually leading to an international codex.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251FAIR FOOD PRICES FOR ALL The conversation in this group can be summarised in the following points: • Consumer rights also imply responsibility. In the EU, 88 million tonnes of food waste are generally generated each year, with associated costs estimated at one hundred and forty-three billion euros. • It is necessary to reduce the growing imbalance between the developed world where food is too cheap and the developing world where food is still too expensive. • Healthy food is a human right issue. Too often quality and nutrient food is expensive and nutritionally poor food is cheap, which is a real threat to the health of our children globally. • Educating our consumers could be the key. Currently, 55% of the world's population lives in urban areas. This percentage is expected to grow to 68% by 2050. Educating consumers about the cost of producing good food in a sustainable way is vital. • Politicians and legislators need to be informed about the important role of ensuring sustainable solutions for future food security. • The roles of civil society and the private sector need to be clearly defined and actors identified and involved. • We need to understand outcomes, which are often simply driven by price. We should have meaningful conversations about value, which includes quality and price. • We should focus on inclusivity, doing things better in the future and rewarding outstanding sustainable practices to raise the bar for everyone. • We don't reinvent the wheel. We work to highlight established and scientifically proven best practices and celebrate them more in our communications.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251FAIRER SHARE OF VALUE IN THE FOOD CHAIN According to the rapporteurs, there is a perplexity in the actual possibility of connecting producers and consumers at a global level, given the numbers involved and the importance of branding. Branding, in fact, is an integral part of how the product story is told and received by consumers. In addition, the importance of cooperatives, the value they provide and their ability to rebalance the food supply chain was examined at length. recognising it as an indispensable model for the prosperity of the farming sector.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The only points of friction and disagreement concerned the use of pesticides during cultivation and the perspective regarding the production/consumption of animal proteins. In this case, consumers expressed concern about the health and environmental consequences of these practices. However, farmers have articulated forcefully the reasons behind such a choice. First of all, getting rid of animal protein from the human diet, especially in Africa or also in certain areas of Latin America and South-East Asia, where there is a challenge of stunting growth would be detrimental. Conversely, in food systems such as the European one, the challenge is to produce more with fewer resources. However, this is not achievable by getting rid of fertilisers or agrochemicals. Instead, what should be discussed is a smarter and more effective use of available resources to reduce the use of agricultural land. If there is a desire for greater equality along the food value chain, the entrepreneurial dimension of agricultural production must be recognised and dignified. Producing food is what farmers make their living from, and like any business it is profit-driven. If there was no profit in food production, nobody would do it. However, it is vital to be able to make that profit every year. For this reason, no one is more concerned about protecting the environment and aware of the risks of climate change than farmers.

2021-06-14 12:47:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20815/203

7575522316148337101581081158

This Dialogue is the last in a series of three, whose purpose is to raise the profile of those players in the value chain who, although they are the lifeblood of it, are the weakest. Thus a path has been set out along which farmers and consumers have expressed a desire to bring together the interests of both and to identify concrete and replicable solutions on which to work together and to propose during this Summit through a single, strong voice. The organization of the dialogue was characterized by the respect and application of all the founding principles of engagement. Farmers and consumers met in a spirit of mutual respect and support, each identifying the other as a partner in the value chain. The ambition, therefore, is to strengthen the union and the bond that unites these two and provide an opportunity to break down the silos in order to shape the strategy for tackling the challenges that emerged from these meetings. In particular, this last session focused on developing real actions that take into account both points of agreement and disagreement. The complexity of food systems lies in those differences, which should not be annihilated but rather valued, as it is unthinkable to have a system in which one model prevails over all others: one size does not fit all. The awareness that change is urgent was present in all those who participated and inspired the identification of common priorities. The structure of the dialogue was designed to encourage open and constructive discussion. Questions addressed to participants concerned expectations and wishes from both the production and consumer side. There are actions and challenges to be overcome which are impossible to achieve without the commitment of both sides.The premises of this dialogue were to promote inclusive and win-win solutions by adopting a holistic and systemic approach to understanding how to act in a complex system like the food system. In fact, farmers and consumers are the first and last ring in the food value chain and it is essential that they strengthen and reinforce their collaboration, fostering a systems approach to the value chain based on a fairer share of value all along. In doing so, therefore, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced and it was emphasized that everyone is called upon to play their part. The topics covered were multiple and carefully selected to encourage exchanges and reflect the complexity of food systems. The outcomes identified during the previous dialogue were the starting point and the basis for the discussion and further development of this last dialogue. Throughout the dialogue, a balance was sought in the representativeness of both sides and the involvement of all was ensured. The principle of complexity, respect and trust was embraced by all participants, who appreciated the opportunity for interaction and mutual exchange and hoped that cooperation could continue in the future. The starting point for the dialogue was the recognition of the principle of "acting with urgency". The desire to take common action and issue a joint declaration was expressed, accelerating the pace of change and committing to a shared path.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend. Another aspect to consider: it is advisable to share in advance the topics on which the debate will develop, so that participants can be more prepared and participate even more actively. In particular, if the topics addressed are specific, it is recommendable to offer the possibility of getting information in order to put the participants at ease during the dialogue. Lastly, in order to cover all regions of the world - in case it is an international online event - it is recommended to organize multiple sessions in different time slots to allow the participation of representatives from different time zones.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This dialogue is the latest of a series of meetings between farmers and consumers culminating in the consolidation of a long-neglected alliance. Participants were divided into 3 break up sessions, each tackling a different topic identified during the first two dialogues as key areas in which change is needed for farmers and consumers. The different groups were asked to determine what specific solutions the Summit should deliver and what actions are needed from different stakeholders to facilitate this transformation. One round of break up sessions was organized under the following themes: 1) Consumer information 2) Food standards and trade 3) Fairer share of value in the food chain Each discussion that took place in the various break-up sessions was reported back to the plenary by a representative from each of the two sides. At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This last dialogue aimed to identify mutually beneficial solutions for food systems transformation, promoting a systemic approach to sustainable food systems through closer collaboration between producers and consumers, the first and last ring of the food value chain. In the course of the discussion and debate, a number of points of particular importance to both sides emerged. The main question in the dialogue concerned how this alliance could provide a solid foundation to safeguard the rights and interests of the two parties. Farmers, on one side, vehemently claimed their urgency to be recognized as entrepreneurs and to make their activity a viable and profitable business. Consumers, on the other hand, have stressed their right to a transparent value chain. The trait d'union in these two complaints lies in the redistribution of risk and reward throughout the value chain. The ambition is to reduce social costs, to respect the environment and to strongly characterize the territory. Otherwise, we would continue promoting a model that adversely affects the balance along the food value chain, offloading the lost profit onto the weaker parties and producing misinformation for consumers. One of the advanced proposals, for example, concerns a virtuous alliance with large-scale distribution and consumers, which does not penalize producers but enhances their work and their efforts to continue guaranteeing excellence. Once again, the importance of awareness and access to information was stressed, underlining the enormous power consumers have and the ability to influence both what to produce and how it should be produced. For this reason, it is necessary to understand the role that consumers play in the food system. Only in this way will it be possible to reach a level of trust whereby producers better understand the needs of consumers and so that consumers feel more comfortable with all the products that are being produced. The final conclusion here is the will to build and nurture a community populated by these two parties and to make it real.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251CONSUMER INFORMATION Labelling cannot be the only solution and tool for conveying information to consumers. Among these, a large proportion are illiterate in terms of specific and technical descriptions. The intention to shift this burden back to consumers is a hazardous and unfair one. On the other hand, examples were raised on how to deliver a comprehensive scheme on which consumers can rely and compare different products. In this respect, the risk of wrongly demonizing certain foods was emphasised. Rather, it is good to encourage all consumers to have balanced diets and explanatory guidelines on what constitutes a healthy and balanced diet. This, of course, must be supported by widespread education of children. Some of the participants put forward as a solution the introduction of tax policies to discourage the purchase and consumption of sugar-containing, highly processed and low-nutrient foods.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251FOOD STANDARDS AND TRADE Trade has been recognised as a beneficial resource for both consumers and farmers. In fact, through trade, competition facilitates an increase in quality at affordable prices for consumers. Furthermore, it is important to remember that one system does not fit all. There are many differences between different agricultural areas and it is good to enhance them with a policy framework. However, the key to success is trust between consumers and producers. Greater transparency and sharing of data, transferable through the use and development of appropriate technology, is the winning strategy to achieve this goal.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251FAIRER SHARE OF VALUE IN THE FOOD CHAIN The solutions identified by participants are numerous, but it is important that they are multiple and scalable. For example, farmers' markets function very well on a local basis and provide that local engagement with the consumer on the farm. However, it may not be scalable. Therefore a different market solution is needed to make that happen. Inefficiencies are present throughout the supply chain but technologies will help to bring them to light and overcome them. Undoubtedly, transparency of information will allow a better distribution of that value along the food chain. Thus, participants believe that a better balance can be achieved, but any solution will need a strong international legal framework for governance. In addition, the potential for a common taxation approach was discussed. There is a necessity to find a way to encourage virtuous behaviour, but also to manage the unintended consequences of individual choices to ensure the right holistic outcome for the future. In terms of strengthening consumers' purchasing power, educating consumers about their food can help them understand the value of their food, which enables them to pay the prices of different types of food.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The only points of friction and disagreement concerned the use of pesticides during cultivation and the perspective regarding the production/consumption of animal proteins. In this case, consumers expressed concern about the health and environmental consequences of these practices. However, farmers have articulated forcefully the reasons behind such a choice. First of all, getting rid of animal protein from the human diet, especially in Africa or also in certain areas of Latin America and South-East Asia, where there is a challenge of stunting growth would be detrimental. Conversely, in food systems such as the European one, the challenge is to produce more with fewer resources. However, this is not achievable by getting rid of fertilisers or agrochemicals. Instead, what should be discussed is a smarter and more effective use of available resources to reduce the use of agricultural land. If there is a desire for greater equality along the food value chain, the entrepreneurial dimension of agricultural production must be recognised and dignified. Producing food is what farmers make their living from, and like any business it is profit-driven. If there was no profit in food production, nobody would do it. However, it is vital to be able to make that profit every year. For this reason, no one is more concerned about protecting the environment and aware of the risks of climate change than farmers.

2021-06-14 16:27:12204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13010/135

177498038917998104026342929181254132524108271435

The Independent Food Systems Summit Dialogue organized by Choices International Foundation (CIF) and partners ( Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Partnership for Child Development (PCD), the Nigerian Heart Foundation (NHF), and Scaling- Up Nutrition Business Network (SBN) recognized the need to have a different aspect of the food systems captured in the national pathway to build a sustainable food system. It is in this regard that Choices International Foundation and partners put together a dialogue to capture important voices and foster important conversation in a bid to promote the creation of a sustainable food system. To put together a rich dialogue, a wide array of stakeholders were brought on board to contribute and lend their voices to the discussion. Stakeholders ranked from academia, nutrition and health experts, private individuals, and government ministries and officials. The event also connected with the locals directly connected to these children or nutrition intervention programs directed at children. The dialogue also focused on consolidating current progress work in the country by examining programs carried out in the country focused on solving the problem of child malnutrition especially children in the school-aged bracket. One of such is the Home- Grown School Feeding with consideration to how it can be harnessed to improve child nutrition by (1) Making food value chains more nutrition-sensitive (2) Encouraging food value chain activities to address the double burden of malnutrition (3) Incentives and disincentives to encourage actors across the food supply chain and food environment to promote and support healthy diets for children and adolescents. Also, the efforts of biofortification, Large- scale Food Fortification (LSFF), supplementation, Ready-to-use Therapeutic Food (RUTF) to address micronutrient deficiency in the Nigerian population.The dialogue appreciated and recognized the complexity of the problem. This was reflected in how the issues were raised in sequential order to be able to draw connections and patterns between them and how they interact with themselves. In the case of the school feeding program, the complexity of how carrying out the program without having policies that are targeted towards regulating the food environment of the children makes the program less effective. Different angles were reflected in the dialogue about the need for adopting a national food criteria system that improves consumer choices including adopting for children of school age. Various stakeholders were part of the dialogue to draw learnings and patterns in a bid to make recommendations. Partners with the school feeding program gave lessons on what has been done so far and current efforts to make it a focal point of nutrition-sensitive intervention for school-aged children. Local farmers, SME owners in the different states whereby the school feeding programs are in operation also gave feedback on the project and some of the drawbacks. Experts shared the potential role of food standards for creating a healthy food environment and encouraging children to adopt healthy dietary habits. Stakeholders from academia shared how nutrition education and behavioral change programs make significant gains as well, from educating the children, caregivers, policymakers, and everyone involved. Stakeholders from the government also gave an update on working policies to support programs that improve child health and nutrition. Together, every stakeholder present gave complementary recommendations to help chart a way for building a sustainable food environment around school-aged children. The dialogue gave an ambiance of trust-building between various stakeholders as each one reported their contribution to the issue at hand while also identifying gaps that are expected to be filled. This will ensure the accountability of every contributing player in the food system and environment.The principles of engagement are clear guidelines, if followed, which tend to give a rich and easy-to-understand dialogue. The principles are holistic and work at all levels either national, sub-national, or independent dialogues. For anyone trying to organize a dialogue, the implementation of the principles starts at the early stage of planning and should be reflected all through the planning phase till implementation. The understanding of the principles will help in the curation of themes, timing, and facilitators. Appropriate timing is given to the discussion of pertinent issues that align with the overarching objectives of the Food Systems Summit, embrace the complexity of issues, and understanding how they all interact with each other. It is also best to have made grounded research work and bring about excellent conversation starters based on already existing discussions, programs, or interventions in the area of the identified problem. This helps in appreciating and complementing already existing solutions proposed by other bodies.

Yes

234238239243244245246247248249250251Africa is ranked second to Asia as the continent with the most malnourished children in the world. Within Africa, Nigeria suffers the brunt of malnutrition with the most significant proportion of under-nourished children. The National Nutrition and Health Survey (2018) estimated that 32% of Nigerian children under the age of 5 are considered stunted. This implies that about 1 in every 3 Nigerian children suffers from chronic malnutrition. In addition, 7% of Nigerian children under the age of 5 suffer from wasting, 19.9% are underweight, and 1.2% are overweight. Although UNICEF defined a child as a human being below eighteen, children above the age of 6 are rarely included in national surveys, policies, programs, and budgets. Studies carried out on state levels show the prevalence of malnutrition in all its forms among school-aged children and adolescents as well. These data show that Nigeria is suffering from malnutrition in all its forms, and nutrition actions focusing on children in all stages are needed to improve nutrition outcomes. Malnutrition has a direct negative influence on the immune system, making malnourished individuals susceptible to diseases, worsening illnesses, and even causing death. According to UNICEF, undernutrition is the direct or underlying cause of 45% of deaths of children younger than five years. As well as the cause of poor performance in school, which leads to low socio-economic achievement, is one of the functional consequences of chronic malnutrition, that is, in addition to physical growth retardation. The effects of malnutrition in all its forms in childhood are not limited to childhood. They often persist into adulthood by predisposing malnourished children to diet-related NCDs later in life. As a consequence, malnutrition has a long-term impact on both the community and the country at large. Malnutrition can cause a decline in economic development. Thus, countries with higher rates of malnutrition tend to experience retardation in the economy. Given the malnutrition as mentioned above situation among children in Nigeria and its relation to morbidity, mortality and economic development in the country, tackling malnutrition in all its forms is vital to the country. Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has shown a clear threat to food and nutrition security, malnutrition requires urgent prioritization to ensure that past nutrition gains are not lost. A low-quality diet is one of the causes of malnutrition, whether overweight, obesity, or under-nutrition, including micronutrient deficiency and diet-related NCDs. As evidenced by the prevalence of malnutrition in Nigeria, many children do not receive the diets needed in the right quality, quantity, and frequency for their growth and development. The food system's role is to deliver a nutritious, safe, affordable, diverse and sustainable diet. The food system is challenged in supporting food choices consistent with healthy diets and good nutrition outcomes. However, the nutritional needs of children, most especially children above 5, are often not prioritized. This is a missed opportunity because school years represent a critical period for the growth, development, cognitive potential, and survival of children and the formation of long-term dietary and lifestyle habits. Although children in Nigeria constitute almost half of the whole population, they are often neglected in the growing discourse about food systems. The ongoing Food System Dialogues offer an opportunity for shared understanding and experience among various stakeholders working in the Food System to create pathways, intentions, and commitments to improve child nutrition in Nigeria. The overall objective of the independent dialogue is to discuss and recommend workable pathways for the improvement of child nutrition through evidence-based food system actions in Nigeria. To understand challenges and explore untapped opportunities in the food system for better child nutrition outcomes235238239243244245246247248249250251As evidenced by data, Nigeria is suffering from malnutrition in all its forms, and nutrition actions focusing on children in all stages are needed to improve nutrition outcomes. The State of the World’s Children 2019: Children, food, and nutrition report highlighted the prevalence of malnutrition in all its forms among children in Nigeria and other parts of the world. It noted that as children transition to soft or solid foods around six-month-old, many are introduced to the wrong types of diets. As children grow older, they are increasingly exposed to unhealthy food-driven mostly by inappropriate marketing, an abundance of ultra-processed foods high in fats, salts, and sugars in urban and rural areas, and increasing access to fast foods and overly sweetened beverages. Consequently, relevant actors from the government, private sector, donors and implementers, businesses shared understanding and experience to create pathways, intentions, and commitments to improve child nutrition in Nigeria. Recommendations and transition steps include: (1) Develop clear and easy science-based national dietary guidelines for children and adolescents to address malnutrition in all its forms (undernutrition including micronutrient deficiencies, overweight, and obesity). (2) Develop and enforce evidence-based standards (preferably mandatory) aligned with nutrition goals for children and adolescents for school meals, procurement strategies, marketing to children, fortification and bio-fortification, education initiatives, social protection programs such as school feeding programs, etc. (3) Drive food suppliers to seek the best interest of children by incentivizing the provision of healthy, convenient, and affordable foods (4) Build healthy food environments to shape the diets and habits of children and adolescents using evidence-based approaches such as easy to understand front- of- pack labeling or visual cues, restriction on the marketing of unhealthy foods, fiscal policies such as taxation on sugar, etc. (5) Improve nutrition education and behavioral change programs to enable children to learn and adopt healthy dietary habits236238243244245246247248249250251These are the priority actions needed in the next 3 years that will have the greatest impact in improving child nutrition: (1) Strengthening the capacity of all implementers of the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme to ensure that they can use the school meal planner to develop and prepare nutritionally adequate meals and generate predictable demand for commodities from farmer groups (2) Strengthening linkages between farmer cooperatives and the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme demand (3) Addressing challenges to adequate food production by farmers, including limited access to improved planting materials, high costs of inputs, and physical insecurity (4) Increased monitoring of the quality of food delivered through the Home-Grown School Feeding Program and associated feedback. The indicators for success: (1) The volume of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme commodities supplied by local farmers increases (2) Quality, dietary diversity, and nutrient content of meals served to school children meets standards (3) Number of children fed, the number of schools covered, and the number of cooks employed by the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme increases. Actions needed: (1) School-Based Management Committees, including Parent-Teachers’ Associations, must be more actively engaged in monitoring the quality compliance of school meals and reporting shortfalls (2) Civil society organizations such as Consumer Advocacy for Food Safety and Nutrition initiative (CAFSANI) should also be more actively engaged in monitoring the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (3) Increased investment in the school feeding programme by federal and state governments (4) Choices International Foundation to support the establishment of improved standards for meals and snacks served to children in and around schools (5) NEPAD and Partnership for Child Development (PCD) to increase technical assistance to build the capacity of programme implementers to use school meal planner236238243244245246247248249250251These are the priority actions needed in the next 3 years that will have the greatest impact in improving child nutrition: (1) Expansion of mandatory fortification process to local millers, including related regulation (2) Enable linkages between small and medium scale enterprises and research institutes, to facilitate knowledge transfer and increase the production, supply, and affordability of nutritious food products (3) Investment in research institutes to develop product solution to improve nutrition (4) Strengthen and expand/increase platforms that provide technical support for running nutritious food products business to small and medium scale enterprises (5) Assessments to understand the needs of small and medium scale enterprises and tailor financial support according to needs (6) Improve fortification governance and coordination mechanisms (7) Implementing actions to ensure that micronutrients in fortified foods do not get lost during storage, display, and repackaging at the retail level (8) Fortification compliance monitoring, coupled with regulation (9) Identify innovations and/or new food vehicles to increase the reach of micronutrients through mandatory fortification (10) Scale-up and sustain the availability of planting materials for biofortified crops (11) Expand the commercialization of biofortified crops (12) Widespread awareness creation, including at community levels, about biofortified crops and their benefits The indicators for success: (1) The numbers of people consuming biofortified crops will tremendously increase (2) Fortified food products will retain their nutrient contents along the value chain stages from production to procurement by the final consumer Actions needed: (1) Research institutes, including the Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Oshodi (FIIRO), and Nigerian Stored Products Research Institute, need to more widely advertise products that they have developed that can be commercialized by small and medium scale enterprises (2) National Agricultural Seeds Council should be engaged in ensuring the availability of planting materials for biofortified crops (3) Private sector organizations, including small and medium scale enterprises, partner with research organizations to commercialize products from research and increase access to nutritious foods (4) National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON), and Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to monitor and enforce fortification standards more systematically (5) Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) to provide technical assistance to regulatory agencies and increase accountability for monitoring, and enforcing standards (6) Scaling Up Nutrition Movement Business Network (SBN) to provide technical assistance to small and medium-scale enterprises to facilitate compliance with fortification standards (7) HarvestPlus, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), and Scaling Up Nutrition Movement Business Network (SBN) to support the expansion and commercialization of biofortified crops (8) Development partners (including Aliko Dangote Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) to support the effective delivery and scale-up of fortification and biofortification236239243244245246247248249250251These are the priority actions needed in the next 3 years that will have the greatest impact in improving child nutrition: (1) Establishment of nutrient, ingredients, and safety standards for food products, meals, and snacks provided to children, including in or around schools and homes, to ensure that healthy foods are provided to children and adolescents and unhealthy foods are minimized (2) Development of a nutrient profiling system to guide food labeling, nutrition, and health claims, and marketing restrictions (3) Continuous food safety advocacy including education and training of street food vendors and food businesses on basic nutrition and food safety and ensuring fair practices in food chains. The safety of food is paramount; if it is not safe, it is not food! (4) Mandatory food labeling, including front of pack labeling (5) Increased enforcement of standards through sustainable and adequate funding mechanism, larger manpower, and technical capacity for the regulatory system to achieve faster monitoring and evaluation and feedback The indicators for success: (1) Decentralized food registration to geopolitical zones, to help food organizations launch nutritious foods into the market quicker (2) Shorter food registration time: the inclusion of digital processes will reduce delay in getting products to the market (3) Reduced morbidity: safe foods will promote health, but unsafe foods will promote morbidity among the target age groups (4) Adequate monitoring and evaluation will reduce defaulters Actions needed: (1) Nigerian Institute of Food Science and Technology should be engaged regarding street foods and food safety, as they have implemented a successful program in 7 LGAs in Lagos, Nigeria. There is a need to also extend this program to other parts of the country. (2) National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON), and Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission need to be effectively engaged in setting, monitoring, and enforcing standards (3) Choices International Foundation and other partners (including the Nigerian Heart Foundation) to support the development of standards and nutrient profiling system (4) Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) to provide technical assistance to regulatory agencies and increase accountability for setting, monitoring, and enforcing labeling and marketing standards (5) Scaling Up Nutrition Business Network (SBN) to provide technical assistance to small and medium scale enterprises to facilitate compliance with labeling standards236239243244245246247248249250251These are the priority actions needed in the next 3 years that will have the greatest impact in improving child nutrition: (1) Development of food-based dietary guidelines, including child/adolescent-specific guidelines (2) Advancing Nutrition Education: A healthy food environment and nutrition education can foster and support better food choices and practices among/for children. A child’s food environment starts from home, school, and the school environment, there is therefore an urgent need for an appropriate nutrition education both at home for and by parents and the school environment. (3) Children’s eating habits orientation can be changed by using school curricula to provide nutrition education in schools. (4) Community mobilization, sensitization, and extension services through various health care services, to drive nutrition education in guiding parents and caregivers on how to change children’s eating behaviour. (5) Digitalization – Games, apps, infographics, and social media that will shape behavioral change communication among children. The use of social media among school children (6) Nutrition education for producers to deliver nutritious food products The indicators for success: (1) Existence of food-based dietary guidelines to structure nutrition education (2) Nutrition information is provided through multiple settings (including health facilities, workplaces, schools, faith-based gatherings, and communities) and channels (conventional and contemporary) Actions needed: (1) Government agencies to develop policies and programs to increase public awareness of the importance of a healthy diet for children and foster food environments that enable healthy food choices for children (from first 1,000 days to school age and pre-teen children) (2) Academia such as the Nutrition Society of Nigeria (NSN) to build critical manpower for effective nutrition education (3) The private sector, civil society organizations, and development partners to invest and build the capacities of individuals and institutions to adopt food and nutrition practices that promote good health and nutrition (skills).237238239243244245246247248249250251(1)Some stakeholders perceive that the targeting of school-aged children and/or provision of school meals is not a cost-effective or efficient way to improve nutrition. Such stakeholders noted that meals served by the programme were sometimes of poor quality, programme costs did not appear sustainable, and school feeding was disregarding (2) Some key stakeholders perceive that certain foods that are widely accepted and are part of the food culture, including instant noodles, should be mandatorily fortified to increase the reach of fortified products and consequently increase micronutrient coverage. Other stakeholders considered instant noodles to be an unhealthy food and highlighted that there is no point mandating fortification for a product that you would like people to consume less of. (3) It was emphasized that establishing nutrient and ingredient standards for food products targeted at children, around which all stakeholders can converge, will be crucial for decision making around specific products (4) The cost of doing business in Nigeria has a direct implication on the cost of nutritious foods. Compliance with food and labelling standards can increase the costs of doing business and make products more expensive, leading to reduced demand, consequent defaulting by the private sector in a bid to reduce costs, and conflicts between the private sector and regulatory agencies. Costs associated with compliance with improved standards can be managed if most of the raw materials used by the private sector are locally sourced at lower costs. Hence, more efficient production and backward integration need to be prioritized, the responsibility of parents to their children. (5) It was highlighted that school feeding is a global intervention to improve the nutrition of school children and is being implemented in 161 countries across all income levels. Hence, the government should identify innovative financing to sustain the programme and improve the quality of meals. (6) Traditional food culture is not very compatible with millennial and digital parents and employed women, leading to a loss of knowledge about traditional foods and how to prepare them, and an increase in the demand for convenience foods. (7) There is aspirational food consumption towards foods that can be classified as unhealthy, due to modernization, urbanization, economic development, and market globalization. To be effective, therefore, nutrition education must better understand attitudes, beliefs, preferences, cultural factors, market and product factors, and economic factors. This understanding should then be harnessed to inspire, motivate, and enable people to change behaviour, using interdisciplinary methods across the fields of health education, psychology, and sociology, among other fields.

2021-06-14 17:51:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13462/16303344464961637984120133141143144195198

01252100301714722313440006304321010070

A broad invitation was made to various sectors involved with agriculture in several Latin American countries. In this invitation, the Principles of the Summit were shared and the topic was divided into three discussion tables. A friendly space was created in which the urgency and importance of progressing towards more sustainable food systems was discussed, building upon existing innovation and advances. The inclusion of different perspectives and sectors created interesting dialogues within each table, where current policies and scenarios and how to advance them were explored.• We had a diversity of sectors participating, which contributed to the debates with different approaches and with holistic proposals that seek to improve agricultural sustainability in Latin America. • Each participant contributed ideas based on what has already been worked on within their sector, and they explored how to advance on what has already been built. • During the general session and in the debate tables, an open and transparent conversation was created, in which each participant was able to share their experience, perspective and ideas. • The participation of different sectors evidenced the complexity of food systems, and the importance of involving each part of the chain in the discussion to progress towards a more sustainable agriculture. Dialogue is not simple, and requires multiple perspectives to understand and explore the different solutions that can be generated. • The participants were very interested in the subject, and expressed the importance of having these dialogues and of generating concrete solutions to a complex system.The basic principle is to have a great diversity of participants. This will generate an enriched dialogue, lead towards the exploration and understanding of the complexity of the system, learn about the work that is already being carried out, and move forward together and urgently.

Yes

234238239240241242243246248249251The central theme of the Dialogue Agro-technologies, farmer tools for agricultural sustainability in Latin America was INNOVATION and NEW TECHNOLOGIES as solutions to improve agricultural productivity in a sustainable way and respond to the challenges posed by the Pathways of Action of the Summit and the Sustainable Development Goals, SDG. Currently some of the difficulties faced by the adoption of new technologies by farmers in Latin America are: • Over-regulation or outdated legislation • Lack of confidence in science and in the scientific data that support new technologies • The absence of suitable mechanisms to transfer technologies particularly to small / medium farmers. • The educational lag and difficulties of access to information technologies of small farmers. How to overcome these obstacles and move forward with actions that allow the adoption of more sustainable technologies was the challenge we raised in this Dialogue, along with another challenge faced by farmers in Latin America who export their products: the official and private obstacles that are imposed in international trade through private certifications or public policies that ignore the particularities of production in Latin America. The participants in this dialogue discussed these issues in three debate rooms. The main proposals are set out below.2352382402422432442462482491. It is necessary to migrate towards an efficient and comprehensive agriculture based on sustainability that is not defined based on the production system: conventional, organic, hydroponic, ecological, etc. and focus on producing in a sustainable way with the integration of the best possible practices. 2. Small farmers must have greater access to new technologies, particularly information technologies (Apps, GPS, etc.), and maintain over time the adoption of technologies with indicators that allow evaluating their benefits. 3. Technical assistance programs should be strengthened with the participation of academia, governments and large producers with knowledge to share with the small ones. They should include more effective communication about the benefits of new technologies so that farmers can understand, adopt and use them appropriately. 4. A mediating entity can facilitate the transition and implementation of a more sustainable agriculture, connecting producers, marketers, governments and academia to apply sustainable technologies and practices that are valued by consumers. 5. It is necessary to update regulations and harmonize regulatory criteria at the regional level. In addition to science-based regulations, a positive political will is required in favor of the adoption of new technologies. 6. The academic and scientific community must play a more leading role in discussions for decision-making by governments and congresses. Many decisions about technology adoption are made under pressure from public opinion, based on fear, not science. 7. Private certifications in their objective of advancing towards sustainability ignore and minimize the socio-economic context and geographical conditions of the tropical climates of Latin America. As a result, they require production conditions far removed from the reality of Latin American fields, particularly in the control of pests, weeds and diseases.236238240242243244246248Discussion topic 1 How to advance in the adoption of agro-technologies that facilitate the implementation of sustainable food systems? 1. Migrate towards an agriculture based on sustainability that is perceived as part of the solution. The inefficiencies of agricultural production can be solved through the integration and correct use of new and existing technologies, such as drones, NBTs, and precision agriculture, which can be measured by indicators: carbon footprint, efficiency in the use of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium. This effort must be valued by the value chain that goes from the producer, the industry and the consumer, so that it can be consolidated. An integrated, articulated agriculture interconnected in sustainability will be a type of production that can evolve towards continuous improvement with measurable indicators. An integrated system also allows the triple helix, academy-industry-government, to provide solutions on a common goal, which is sustainable production. This requires a validator that allows integrating the system and a value proposition. a. Validator or independent agent For the small and medium farmer to be able to access the main markets and for their effort to be recognized on the basis of sustainability, a dialogue and an alliance with the large marketers, the value chain, and agricultural producers is necessary. This requires that neutral institutions such as IICA have the capacity to bring large buyers to the same table, with small and medium farmers in a dialogue where neutral institutions balance their forces in the disproportion between small farmers / large traders. This mechanism makes it possible to provide sustainable solutions and strengthen the system linked to the triple helix (academy-industry-government) with a view to developing standards and practices that avoid over-regulation, allow economic access to technologies, and recognize the associated value to sustainability by the production chain. b. A value proposition with organized farmers, digital platforms with indicators and recognition of sustainability. It is essential that farmers organize themselves into associations, cooperatives or similar organizations. The consolidation of agricultural producers’ associations should be promoted as the tool through which they can be seen, heard and have the strength and representativeness necessary to work with economic agents (government, market, academia, etc.) There must be a connection of the system through public-private-social digital platforms in favor of sustainable agriculture and having sustainability indicators recognized throughout the chain. 2. It is essential to avoid over-regulation of agricultural technologies Access to technology is impaired by over-regulation and slow and bureaucratic regulations that result in limited access to technologies and, eventually, in the illegal flow of agricultural inputs. On the contrary, science-based and expeditious standards allow the arrival of agricultural production technologies, guarantee formal access, and more sustainable production. The European vision on the use of technologies does not take into account the needs of the main food producing countries, which translates into excessive regulations that ignore, as well as private (secondary) standards, the conditions of production and the geography of Latin America. This over-regulation may end up being imposed in the region with negative consequences by delaying the arrival and adoption of technologies or contributing to the illegal trade of the same. 3. Improving communication of the benefits of innovations and the science that supports them, and reducing the distance between academia and politics, are essential factors for a better understanding of scientific data in the definition of public policies. Although in Latin America academia and scientists have worked to help and inform about science being the basis for legislative and regulatory decisions, greater efforts are needed in this area. It is necessary for universities and academics to be more proactive and willing to take science out of the laboratories and take it into public policy definiti236238240242243246248249Discussion topic 2 How to ensure that the regulation of new technologies facilitates access for all farmers, particularly those of medium and small scale? 1. Regulatory systems must be updated to promote and facilitate the adoption of the SDGs Some of the regulatory frameworks in Latin America must be modernized in light of compliance with the Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, they must also encourage the use of environmentally friendly technologies, prioritize scientific and technical data over public perceptions and be designed with regulatory criteria that are regionally harmonized. The modernization of laws under these approaches will positively impact better access to export markets, as well as greater traceability of the correct use of technologies. 2. It is essential to avoid over-regulation of agricultural technologies Access to technology is impaired by over-regulation and slow and bureaucratic regulations that result in limited access to technologies and, eventually, in the illegal flow of agricultural inputs. On the contrary, science-based and expeditious standards allow the arrival of agricultural production technologies, guarantee formal access, and more sustainable production. The European vision on the use of technologies does not take into account the needs of the main food producing countries, which translates into excessive regulations that ignore, as well as private (secondary) standards, the conditions of production and the geography of Latin America. This over-regulation may end up being imposed in the region with negative consequences by delaying the arrival and adoption of technologies or contributing to the illegal trade of the same. 3. Improving communication of the benefits of innovations and the science that supports them, and reducing the distance between academia and politics, are essential factors for a better understanding of scientific data in the definition of public policies. Although in Latin America academia and scientists have worked to help and inform about science being the basis for legislative and regulatory decisions, greater efforts are needed in this area. It is necessary for universities and academics to be more proactive and willing to take science out of the laboratories and take it into public policy definition scenarios. More effective communication to the general public (consumers) is also necessary for them to understand the use of technologies in agriculture and the science that demonstrates their safe use.236239240242243244246248249Discussion topic 3: How to overcome the obstacles to international trade imposed by certifications and residue requirements that vary according to destination markets by 2030? 1. The concept of shared responsibility is essential to advance the sustainability of agriculture Positioning the concept of shared responsibility is necessary to avoid that all the onus that sustainability demands falls on the farmer, and is shared throughout the value chain, particularly when it comes to export products dependent on private certifications or policies such as the Green Deal of the European Union. 2. Private certifications must recognize the geographic and production characteristics of Latin America The requirements established in private certifications must (i) be the product of a dialogue between the entire value chain, (ii) be based on science and technique, and (iii) pay special attention to production conditions in Latin America, both in terms of the existence of pests and diseases, as in its geography. 3. Consumers must understand the conditions around food production in Latin America Today consumers are more and better informed, and prefer to purchase food produced with certified socio-environmental standards, for this reason it is necessary to sensitize them so that they can dimension food production in all its complexity, especially the conditions imposed by tropical climates.237239243244246248249250Only one area of divergence was presented related to how informed consumers are of food production. The doubts around this issue revolved around: • Are we talking about consumers who have a greater sensitivity to social and environmental issues, or are we dealing with consumers who are not so aware of these aspects and instead their preferences when buying are based on other reasons such as price? • Do consumers who value a certified product really know the conditions surrounding such production? • Is the informed consumer aware of the conditions surrounding production? Are they willing to assume part of the costs and / or financial burdens that the farmer must bear in his activity?

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Official-feedback-Dialogue-CLLA-IICA-.pdfhttps://www.croplifela.org/es/actualidad/noticias/abrazar-la-ciencia-y-la-innovacion-es-clave-para-una-agricultura-mas-sustentable

2021-06-14 21:06:46205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26377/69

1252277233527225710955113165711811792623514147

The Fiji National Dialogue was divided into five separate Action Track dialogues, each focusing on a specific Action Track. This report refers exclusively to Action Track 5 – Build Resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. The Fiji National Dialogue for Action Track 5 was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the curation of the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development and Disaster Management, the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Agriculture as the national Convenor. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue agenda, framed questions and topics for discussion, developed a group reporting template to focus and guide group discussions and identified themes for discussion across three strands (i) Economic Resilience (Being Equitable and Inclusive) (ii) Social Resilience (Producing Broad Based Benefits for all people) (iii) Environmental Resilience (Generating Positive and Regenerative Impacts on the Natural Environment). The Action Track 5 dialogue was chaired by the Fiji Ministry of Rural Development & Maritime Development and Disaster Management and officially opened by its Permanent Secretary, Mr David Kolitagane. The preparatory meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register.As highlighted above, the Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 5 ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process, and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 125 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups, market vendors and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement are an important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all five Action Tracks, including the National Dialogue. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

NoThe Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 5 –– Build Resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress was held on 09 June 2021 at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with restrictive measures and lockdowns. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. This is the fifth national dialogue to be organized for Fiji during May and June 2021. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, the Fiji national dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform, using a participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and crowdsourcing platforms such as Slido, polls and the Zoom chat box were also used to crowdsource questions and engage participants in live polls and quizzes throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. One hundred and three participants took part in the dialogue that was officially opened by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development and Disaster Management, Mr David Kolitagane. Participants represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, women’s groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Relevant resource materials (reading materials, video links etc.) (iv) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format • Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) • Official opening address by the Permanent Secretary for Rural & Maritime Development and Disaster Management • Setting the Scene: What is the UN World Food Systems Summit 2021? (Video) • Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stress Expected Outcome: Chairperson AT5 - Director of National Disaster Management Office • Presentations on Action Track 5 o Economic Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups (Climate Change Unit, Ministry of Economy) o Social Impact of Natural Disasters on vulnerable groups (Social Welfare, Ministry of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation) o Environmental impact of Natural Disasters on vulnerable groups: (Ministry of Agriculture) ─ Discussion groups on themes and questions focused on questions such as (i) What economic impact do natural disasters/climate change and other shocks and stresses have on our food system? e.g. on production, processing, distribution, consumption (ii) How are we currently addressing these economic impacts? What measures/strategies do we have in place? (iii) What barriers are there that limit greater economic resilience in our food system? (iv) What are the transformations needed to further strengthen economic resilience in our food systems? ─ Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing using Slido questions, live polls, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs

234242243244245246248249251The Chairperson of AT5 briefly presented on the Fiji Food System Dialogue elaborating on what is expected from today’s discussion on AT5 before the floor was given to the presenters. Strand 1: Economic Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups (Climate Change Unit, Ministry of Economy) Almost half of those living below the poverty line rely on agriculture for at least part of their income, compared to a quarter of people above the poverty line. Around 64,500 Fiji households (37 percent) derive some form of income from agriculture, approximately 8 percent of GDP (2015 GDP). The climate change-related losses in agricultural productivity could lead to economic losses of 2–3 percent of Fiji’s GDP in the future. Natural disasters caused loss of lives and damages to infrastructure, livestock, and agriculture totally up to F$170 million, F$100 million and F$194.9 million, respectively. TC Winston destroyed crops on a large scale and compromised the livelihoods of almost 60 percent of Fiji’s population with damages amounting to F$2 billion, or 20 percent of GDP. Estimated F$14 million worth of investment is needed to climate proof Fiji’s agriculture sector from a total of F$9,272 million as estimated for a resilient Fijian economy. Climate Smart Agriculture which transforms and re-orientates agricultural systems to support food security. Disaster preparedness efforts and strengthening the resilience of farmers by encouraging the diversification of agricultural produce for subsistence consumption and market sales, improve financial literacy and collaborate with the private sector. Development of an affordable parametric and weather index-based climate risk insurance targeted at the agriculture, fisheries, retail and tourism sectors. Strand 2: Social Impact of Natural Disasters on vulnerable groups (Social Welfare, Ministry of Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation) Some of the psychosocial impacts for vulnerable persons were mentioned as older persons more reluctant to leave home, suffering more chronic medical/psychiatric conditions and increase risk of abuse. Persons with physical/mental disabilities may not search for help because of stigma, abandoned by their families and open for verbal and physical abuse. Children may feel anxiety and distress, changes in school performance etc. Women may give birth in unsafe places, domestic violence, etc. Homeless - Limited capacity to find shelter, scarce support within the community, high prevalence of mental illness and physical illness etc. Possible solutions to these impacts are related to access to resources and protection against abuse and exploitation; medical and psychosocial interventions, education and support of care givers; ensure provision of basic and specific needs (young children, pregnant, lactating mothers, homeless people etc.) and safety, if necessary in separate facilities in Evacuation Centers. Strand 3: Environmental impact of Natural Disasters on vulnerable groups: (Ministry of Agriculture) Future climate predictions for Fiji include temperature will continue to increase with more very hot days, changing rainfall patterns, more extreme rainfall days, less frequent but more intense tropical cyclones, sea level will continue to rise. Climate change affect crop production since most crops are seasonal, affects pest outbreaks, limited diversity, crop yields (rice productivity declines 10% with every 1⁰ C increase in temperature), farm income and economy. In order to build a resilient agriculture system, the Ministry of Agriculture is working on policies, plans and strategies, plant breeding and crop improvement, strengthening gene pool conservation, promoting sustainable land management practices, introducing resilient crop varieties, collaboration with international/regional Institution, traditional varieties & knowledge, review package of practices, tissue culture lab and crop modelling for climate change. The Ministry promotes resilient traditional foods, multiplication and distribution of resilient crop varieties, more collaborative work between stakeholders, adopt improved sustainable farming practices that have been successful in Pacific and Asian.235242243244245246248249251Strand 1 - Economic Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups Participants identified many different impacts, including limited input supply and those related to movement restrictions affecting incomes, food distribution and purchasing and thus consumption. This may increase reliance on imported food and local expenditures. In order to allow farmers to make viable decisions about their investments more data needed, as who grows what, where, and what and soil information. Same situation for ocean data, including salinity and pH to identify which native fish species are effected and how this in turn affects the supply to communities that rely on it for food and livelihood. Involvement of women and youth in agriculture and fisheries farming is still low. In order to minimise economic impacts that affect exports and economy, some new technologies were discussed, as the use of a new app on Pacific Pest Pacific Pests, Pathogens and Weeds and the use of drones for agriculture. A comprehensive view considering the whole value chain is needed, engaging the communities and aiming at moving from subsistence to commercial farming. Capacities of extension officers need to be strengthened, including environmental friendly practices and organic methods. Among main barriers limiting the economic resilience of the food system in Fiji were mentioned legislations and regulations (aquaculture policy is missing); lack of tailor-made disaster and climate resilience plans for specific communities; funding availability; lack of opportunities for female market vendors/farmers on trainings and capacity building in their villages/districts and limited facilities for storing and processing food locally. Strand 2 – Social Resilience (producing broad based benefits for all people) CV19 has put unprecedented stress on Fiji’s food systems disrupting livelihoods and threatening many people’s access to food and income. The informal settlements are particularly vulnerable because the majority lack social protection and have little or lost access to productive assets and health care. Low- and middle-income families could not afford high food costs (especially fruits, vegetables and root crops) after disaster, instead they use alternatives such as canned or frozen foods. This in turn reduces their access to healthy, safe and diverse diet thus increasing prevalence of malnutrition among vulnerable populations. Internal migration on social dynamics on rural & urban drift is a norm in Fiji however, CV19 has seen many people, especially the youth moving back to their villages due to loss of jobs. Barriers that limit greater social resilience in our food systems include lack of infrastructure, data and specialized capacity and stakeholders working in silos. Technical expertise and support in country particularly in information management on emerging vulnerabilities within existing vulnerable groups in communities. Strand 3 - Environmental Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups The discussion found that natural disasters have environmental impacts that affects agricultural production in terms of quantity and quality. Some examples mentioned included heavy rainfalls, sudden changes in temperature etc. that can severely affect water and soil, essential elements for crops and livestock. Fisheries are also affected, impacts on coral reefs, mangroves were specifically mentioned. Natural disasters combined with deforestation and poor land use practice are resulting in an increase in invasive species, more resilient than native ones, and thus affecting the productivity of the food system. Organic options are not so popular after a disaster as other quickest options that are not necessarily the best solution are prioritised. A good example of integrated farming, mixing agriculture and fisheries farming (an example of combining tilapia with ducks in Fiji where poultry birds provide for the fertilizing algae in the tilapia pond), was explained and recommended to be scaled up. Hydroponic agriculture in green houses was also discussed, highlighting the need for funding the high cost involved and capacity building. We need to be building management systems that are responsive and can adapt to change, and new shocks. The inadequate inclusion of women in the climate change/ building of resilience in the food systems space (including fisheries) was raised by some participants. Some barriers limiting greater environmental resilience in the food system were not enough focus on nature-based solutions that enhance environmental systems on which food systems depend; lack of understanding of soil and how to adapt crops to different soil types, a situation that deteriorate with the increase of natural disaster and chemicals being used; and scarce funding to better carry out the work needed and implement policies and strategies. Dissemination of information to farmers and fishers from the ministries and vice versa should be easier if they are registered under MOA and MOF. This would help with market information technical assistance, financing instruments and others.236242243244245246248249251Strand 1 – Economic Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups Among the main transformations needed in the current food system were identified the establishment of digital spaces to improve market access through local and regional opportunities (marine species are high value commodities); the adoption of climate start technologies and genetically improved crops more resilient and tolerant; increase stakeholder engagement from a multi-sector perspective for both agriculture and fisheries and the use of agricultural mechanisms that consider traditional knowledge approaches to support Early Warning Systems EWS and reduce post-harvest lost. Participants alerted of a potential risk of genetic modification, which could affect our biodiversity or reduce the national flora genetic pool since they tend to be more adaptable. Strand 2 – Social Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups Government response is to ensure food security as well as nutrition and Ministry of Health is working with NDMO and local food industries to incorporate package nutrient foods in the food basket using local foods. The traditional ‘solesolevaki’ system should be encouraged especially with the recent migration of people back to rural areas. Educate and empower community health workers on food and nutrition knowledge. Invest on online/digital infrastructure by working with private sector which can assist in transporting local produce to markets. Empower women on locally food production and processing. Important to include women and youth in all solutions and provide resources to integrate such activities into Fiji’s ongoing employment and disaster mitigation and response plans and activities. Some organisations in the Private Sector that have empowered communities and women groups to add value to their Agriculture and Fisheries products. These communities have vulnerable people including women, those with disabilities and marginalised groups as well. We could learn a lot of lessons and best practices and see how we can replicate them at different levels and sections of our communities. Ensure all people have home gardens - supply seeds/seedlings to all households. At the community level engagement - iTaukei Affairs to have arrangements within villages for communal plantings collectively worked. Fiji need to progress the Fiji Policy on Food and Nutrition Security which is inclusive between government, academia, private sector, CSOs NGOs FBOs and community settings, to address some of these issues. Strand 3 - Environmental Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups Food System transformation should consider the Fijian traditional Crop and Fisheries calendar and adjusted it to the current circumstances. This would ensure all year round harvesting despite effects of disaster. Better land conservation practices and enhancing traditional varieties and knowledge together with the use of resilient crop varieties and livestock breeds were mentioned. After a disaster, traditional knowledge on processing may help to make people more resilient, but skills need to be strengthened. Climate smart practices and technologies need to be promoted and adopted, with more investment in soil improvement and conservation. If we keep it healthy, it will mean communities do not need to clear more land and deforestation will decrease. We need to ensure that women are part of the discussions, dialogue, and solutions. So better processes are needed for the inclusion of women, and other marginalized groups. Policies should aim to strengthen villages system, people lost their jobs and are coming back to the villages where better services (education & health, infrastructure and others) are needed. Information/Communication and digital tools can play a role here; linkages to markets, inputs etc. There is a need to look at food systems and disasters/shocks through an intersectional lens, as our responses will need to operate at that level. Need to re-focus food summit on people and emphasise collaboration between stakeholders.237242243244245246248249251Strand 1 – Economic Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups Consumers need to have accessibility not only to food but income to purchase these foods. Increase in imported foods also relates to increase in local expenditure and people are not earning enough during COVID19 to be able to afford. Crop resilient tolerant and genetic improvement by MOA should also take into consideration that genetic modification shouldn't affect our biodiversity that is reduction in our floras genetic pool since they tend to be more adaptable due to their genetic diversity. Due to COVID19 if these newly introduced crops are not identified, it can establish and affect our crop production and also affect the export pathway that will have a major impact on the economy. Agricultural mechanisms to also take into consideration traditional knowledge approaches to reduce post-harvest lost. Strand 2 – Social Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups There is already a lot of food in Fiji since the rural populations grow food, the urban and peri urban areas depend on these rural supplies. Need to address how rural farmers can be supported to get their produce in a timely manner to the populations that can afford them. Intervention required is how to make it affordable without compromising affordability for anyone along the food system chain- from producer to consumer. Empower communities to reduce the idea on food/other dependency from government subsidies which may hinder exploring traditional practices. How can we support existing social protection systems to decrease these dependencies - perhaps improve our financial literacy at rural settings such as cash transfer strategy and other forms of assistance. Strand 3 - Environmental Impact of Natural Disaster on vulnerable groups Food security vs. system damaged that needs to recover; resilience needs to be built; systems already degraded and then facing shocks. Tension: people to adapt and understand the changing climate and ways of doing business.

2021-06-15 01:38:42205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8457/127

5544110193621625323134636

The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation (MOALI) established a Steering Committee and Five Working Groups by action tracks to formulate a National Pathway to Sustainable Food System of Myanmar on 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. Members of these are selected from the relevant Ministries and Private Sector. The first dialogue was organised to gain an understanding of ideas on pathways to food system transformation by 2030 and to encourage the participants, working groups to speak openly, express their views primarily and respect for one another's different views was stressed as an important principle in the discussion. The Curator and the support team went through the training for convening the dialogues to reflect the Principles of engagement especially on Act with urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be respectful and Recognize complexity.Act with urgency: We knew that we need to work quickly as soon as possible towards commencing dialogue activities and urgency actions in order to improve understanding and strengthen food systems. Commitment: To demonstrate the commitment of the state, the five working groups facilitated during the Dialogue focused on nutritious and safe food, sustainable consumption, nature-positive production, equitable livelihoods and resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses. The activation of government representatives has been critical for this initial commitment. Be respectful: The discussions were respectful of the long process of the cooperation of Ministries and private sector. The Facilitators were responsible for respecting and encouraging the opinions of all involved in these groups.These principles are very important in planning the dialogues. We would suggest to invest the appropriate amount of time on developing the national food system and include Diversity and inclusivity with respect and trust in each other.

NoThe MOALI held the first dialogue with the representatives from relevant ministries and one private sector organization for developing the document of National Pathway to Sustainable Food System of Myanmar by 2030. Firstly, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation (MOALI) delivered an opening speech and introduced the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit Dialogues process. After that, Deputy Director General of Department of Planning under MOALI explained the outline of a draft of document to the participants. It was followed the expression of the views and ideas of participants on challenges, opportunities and possible solution for sustainable food system through the five group discussions which has 12 participants each for two hours, and then a question and answer session. Lastly, the dialogue was closed with a feedback and recommendation session led by the curator, Director General of Department of Planning under MOALI on finding of group discussions.

234238239240241242244245246248249The discussion groups by action tracks discussed and expressed of their views and ideas on challenges, opportunities, Potential Game Changing and Systemic Solutions within each following topic: - Reducing Hunger - Increasing Access to Affordable, nutritious foods - Increasing food safety - Food Environment - Food Waste - Sustainable agriculture together with protecting natural ecosystems - Sustainable management for safe food production - Restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate and soil function - Advancing equitable livelihoods - Impacts of Covid-19 pandemic on food system and livelihood - Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses on food system (Climate Change resilience on Environment and Ecosystem, Resilience of food system on Economic shocks, Resilience on occurrence of pandemic, pest and disease outbreaks, and Resilience on internal conflict and instability)235238239240241242244245246248249Topic.1- Reducing Hunger Potential Solutions - Promoting food supply through encouragement in Argo-ecological zones to enhance food production - Enhancing livelihood through increase in on-farm, non-farm and off-farm incomes - Scale up cold chain technology Topic.2- Increasing access to nutritious food Potential Solutions - Scaling up to end malnutrition and improvement of nutrition including ending Anaemia - Increasing Nutritious Food Availability - Strengthening the agricultural industries and agro-food sector - Increasing Awareness on Nutrition - Improving Social Protection Measures Topic.3- Making food safer Potential Solutions - Improve enforcement of food safety measures - Improving the legal and regulatory framework - Strengthening institutions for ensuring food safety along the food chain - Promoting consumer awareness Topic.4 -Food Environment Potential Solutions - Food Systems Framework - City region food strategies Topic.5- Food Waste Potential Solutions - Reuse of Food Waste and Processing Industry Topic.6- Sustainable agriculture together with protecting natural ecosystems Potential Solutions - Transforming commodity supply chains - Strengthening institution and regulatory framework - Improving land use management - Restoring grasslands and shrublands through extensive livestock-based food systems - Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) Topic.7- Advancing equitable livelihoods Potential Solutions - Improve governance of labour markets in food systems - Providing Rural Finance and Vocational Trainings Topic.8- Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses on food system Potential Solutions - Implementation of Myanmar Climate Smart Agriculture Strategy (MCSA) - Agro-Forestry Practices - Early Warning and Climate Services - Fostering monitoring and evaluation - Mobilizing emergency funding and providing financial assistance to the vulnerable people for recovery Topic.9- Cross Cutting Issues - Fostering Resources Mobilization - Enhancing Collaboration - Awareness Raising program236238239240241242244245246248249- The participants recognized that it is useful to increase understanding and awareness of the food systems, how we relate to it and how to transform the pathway of our food system. - The Discussion Topic of each Discussion Group will be a future statement which briefly indicates how food systems will function in 10 years’ time - These ideas will continue to be developed the whole document of National Pathway to Sustainable Food System of Myanmar by 2030 for the summit. - Way Forward # Data and Document Collection #Compilation and Report Writing by Group members #Current situation (Existing situation, challenges, opportunities, future trends) #Potential Game Changing and Systemic Solutions # Comprising the draft

Although the 2nd Stage Dialogue was announced to be held on 15th July 2021 with an online platform, it cannot be arranged due to the Ministry Offices closing to control and limit the spreading of the third wave of coronavirus in Myanmar. However, five working groups by action tracks that were established to formulate a National Pathway to Sustainable Food System of Myanmar on 2021 UN Food Systems Summit have continued to discuss and collect the data and references for compilation and report writing. Currently, each group has been prepared a draft report by Action Track which explores the Current situation (Existing situation, challenges, opportunities, future trends) and Potential Solutions for transformation Pathways to Sustainable Food System of Myanmar. These draft reports will be submitted as an attachment on the dialogue gateway. It is needed to include the ideas and advice from stakeholders of private sectors in the draft reports. We are going to connect ten organizations/ associations from the private sector for getting their ideas and advice on that matter. 2021-08-14 21:01:44https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-1-Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-2-Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-3Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-4Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-5-Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-1-Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-2-Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-3Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-4Draft-Report.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Track-5-Draft-Report.pdf

2021-06-15 11:18:27205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20309/135

138383502110283774194761262115812934627213

The dialogue was conducted virtually and comprised a cross section of commodity value chain groups/actors, academia, private sector actors and farmers. The background information of the necessity and need for the dialogue on the Food systems, including the summary of the outcome of the Inception Dialogue were laid out for the participants. Modalities for the dialogue were set out. After series of goodwill messages, especially from the Representative of the Permanent Secretary, FMARD and the National FSS Dialogue Convenor, the list and titles of the 5 Action Tracks, with their terms of reference were set out to the groups and were transferred to the various discussion rooms. Group discussions took 75 minutes.Participants at the various groups discussed the general outlook of our food systems, reflecting on the need for a dramatic and critical challenges facing our food systems, especially the critical issues concerning climate change, population growth, environmental and soil degradation, greenhouse gas emissions/carbon emission, problems around biodiversity, gender issues, land tenure system, nutrition, income distribution, etc. The groups called for immediate and holistic actions that will turn around Nigeria’s food systems and ensure sustainable supply of adequate and quality diets, inclusive agricultural support, ensuring resilience, sustainability and a system that serves all.Yes, the dialogue should include all the stakeholders along the value chain of the various agricultural commodities. All should be given the opportunity to express their concerns on the food systems and be challenged to proffer solutions

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The global problem of food scarcity is exacerbated by the constant increase in population growth, with no complimenting increase in the output of agricultural produce. Over the years it has become a major focus of most governments, including Nigeria, to provide enough food for the citizenry which will in-turn curb the series of social discord that could emerge if a hunger-crisis breaks out, and create an enabling atmosphere for strategic economic development by providing the working population with one of the most important physiological needs. The rapid globalization of the Agricultural markets has led to the generation of new production and distribution systems, as well as new consumption patterns. One of the objectives of modern agriculture is to reduce to the barest minimum the problems associated with agricultural loss, wastages and output underutilization by ensuring an efficient optimization of all the linkages between the producer and final consumer through the “Value-Chain” concept. The dialogue was an exploration of the Nigeria Food Systems, guided by the Five Action Tracks of the UN Food Systems Summit. The participants, broken into groups based on these Action Tracks, engaged in fruitful and deliberate discourse on our food systems, especially how the system functions, who the major actors, what are the country’s potentials, weakness/vulnerabilities/challenges and what needs to be done urgently to transform or address these issues so that the system can be able to provide, in a sustainable manner, enough quantities and qualities of food that is nutritious, affordable, taking into consideration gender balancing, sustainability and can be all inclusive. From the discussions held, it was generally noted that the Nigeria Food system faces a lot of challenges that make it very difficult to provide food that is affordable, sustainable, nutritious and safe in the right quantity and quality for all citizens. The food systems in the country are faced with heavy post-harvest losses, both at farm level, storage and processing levels. There is also serious food price instability that makes quality food inaccessible to majority of Nigerians in a sustainable way. A sporadic and longer period of insecurity across the country has also made agricultural activity unpredictable, with attendant loss of productive time and resources. The dialogue also focused on food safety, nutrition, youth involvement and gender mainstreaming across all value chain activities. Climate change is real and has serious repercussion on the Nigerian agriculture, thus the dialogue also deliberated serious on irrigation potentials and resourceful intervention in this regard. Environmental degradation and pollution have rendered our soils unproductive, with attendant decline in productivity. Thus a lot of discussion on regenerative and/or conservation agriculture was highly discussed as potential solutions to our declining soil fertility and attaining sustainable and functional food systems. Nutrition has featured strongly across the groups; introduction and sensitization on nutrient dense crops were discussed and recommended. The dialogue also focused on transformation the food systems towards mechanization as a means to rejuvenate and inject intensification towards raising productivity in a sustainable manner.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The current socio-economic trends are the major drivers of the Nigerian food system; the country is facing major challenges, including but not limited to a high population growth, a high number of people living in extreme poverty, unprecedented urbanisation, and thus, agriculture is faced with an abysmally low productivity. Public investments in the agricultural sector are low, resulting in poor rural infrastructure such as access roads, storage facilities and processing facilities. There are also poor or uncoordinated agricultural services like advisory services, poor access to inputs and finance. There are also very weak institutions, poor and uncoordinated links between research and practice, low literacy and poor market access and information, usually with high transaction costs and high investment risks. The major findings of the dialogue include but not limited to the following: 1. Nigeria has an opportunity to reshape its food systems to sustainably impact on its national development aspirations by putting in place strong and proactive national development plans with achievable targets and timelines, through heavy public investments in operational enabling environment, infrastructure and implementation policies. 2. Nigeria needs to coordinate and strengthen our major Value Chains to make them sustainably functional, stable and purposefully apolitical by evolving support programs and provision of needed information and data, and matchmaking services through a national support unit. 3. We need a matchmaking service of private capital and other partners with agricultural know-how to create access to micro-finance for young and/or female entrepreneurs, in combination with business coaching, advisory services 4. We need to develop a technical and vocational training for the youth and women, that can be linked to major value chains and/or processors and also having access to finance, which can lead to the promotion of responsible investment in the sector, thus creating decent jobs. 5. Nigeria needs to embark on public awareness raising and knowledge improvement on healthy diets; (public and private) investments in domestic agricultural production and processing capacities to improve the production of food and cash crops and reduce food losses 6. We need to improve on sharing of data and information as well as technical know-how/technologies on climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for value chain actors. 7. We need a concerted and coordinated national plan and actions to curb insecurity in and around the country to allow productive agricultural activity that would increase quality and quantity of food for all in a sustainable manner 8. Nigeria needs to urgently increase it’s funding to research and development 9. Environmental degradation, especially loss of biodiversity and soil fertility must be reversed in a sustainable manner, taking regenerative agriculture into cognisance to decrease carbon emission and greenhouse gas emission within a specific time frame. 10. Nigeria needs a bold and decisive investment into irrigation agriculture and target mechanization of major field operations While the above will take a long gestation period, it is necessary to, as a matter of urgency, to strategize by taking immediate actions. The following are specific steps recommended to begin the transformation of our food systems: • Ensure speedy passage of the Right to Food Bill • Increase budgetary allocations to the agricultural sector to meet Mobuto declaration target of budgeting 10% of the total annual budget • Ensure sustainable general public security to allow agricultural production activities return to normalcy • Promote the production, access to and utilization of nutritious indigenous foods in a sustainable way. • Ensure enforcement of extant rules by relevant regulatory authorities responsible for the organization and coordination on safety and quality assurance on food. • Design and engage in Vigorous sensitization campaigns on food safety • Improve rail transport system in the country to address challenges of transportation of farm produce. • Create awareness, advocate for, and educate on safe and healthy food consumption • develop Farmers capacity to embrace market-driven production to enhance income and purchasing power • Strengthen linkages between research, policy, and practice • Enforce existing regulation and sanction for environmental degradation • Reposition and strengthen agricultural research institutes. • Establish a Centre of Excellence for Regenerative Agriculture and restoration of ecosystems. • Create and strengthen policies and legislation on protection of the Agricultural Ecosystem enforced • There should be more youth and women engaged in Agriculture by raising level of agricultural mechanization • Develop Strategies aimed at implementing existing gender policies in Nigeria should be put in place. • Encourage and support Private sector to work with public extension outfit to incorporate extension service as an after sales package • Mainstream nutrition into every agricultural programme and education system • There should be massive public enlightenment on the reality of climate change, its causes and effects on agriculture • There must be timely generation and dissemination of weather forecasts and advisories in the language and channels available to local farmers236238243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • Ensure speedy passage of the Right to Food Bill. • Foster more budgetary allocation to the agricultural sector; • Increase and timely release of funds to Research Institutes. • Support farmers by providing appropriate subsidy • Tackle general insecurity particularly on farmlands • Reduce food losses and wastages. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods • Researchers to produce genetically improved higher yielding crop varieties and • High quality crops for enhanced nutrition • Reduce extension agent: farmer ratio to promote good agronomic practices (GAPs) • Efficiently organize value chain actors to produce and deliver wholesome and nutritious food. • Include agro-entrepreneurship in schools’ curriculum at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. • Incarcerated engagement in agriculture to produce more food; while empowering them upon release. • Production of commercial quantities of nutritious indigenous foods in easy to prepare, ready to use forms. • Proliferation of small, medium and large-scale equipment to reduce drudgery and upscale production. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Discourage use of chemicals. • Ensure enforcement of extant rules by relevant regulatory authorities as SON, NAFDAC, CPC etc. • Vigorous sensitization campaigns on food safety • Improve storage and transport facilities. • Encourage the planting of fruits to replace ornamental trees • Ensuring effective post-harvest crop handling What contribution will our organizations make? High-level organization is needed at the various stages of the value chain for the country to reap the benefits that abound in agriculture as significant contributor to GDP and means of youth employment and women empowerment. • Value chain actors identified, recognized and enabled to participate in agriculture transparently. • Organize and coordinate quality assurance by FMARD, NAFDAC, SON, CPC; Farmer associations and Commodity associations. How will it be possible to tell, If these Actions are successful? • Reduction and stability of food prices • Reduction in unemployment indices • Reduction in restiveness as majority are engaged in productive activity • Agro-dealers’ presence not more than 2km away from farm communities to enable farmers access quality inputs • Post-harvest loss reduced due to efficient storage system • Insurance scheme for farmers launched and functional • Use of improved technology to make agriculture attractive • Solar powered equipment for drying and for cold chain transportation functional • Storage facilities for farming communities within a 2-5km radius. • Efficient Transportation (rail and road) systems • System of quality assurance of agricultural produce beginning from farm to market in place • Linkage between all the agricultural value chain actor from production to marketing strengthened • Assurance of Halal content of food chain from farm to fork Cross-Cutting • Strengthen by legislature, link between Agriculture and Industry • Farmer education and awareness improvement • Link between agriculture and health (Food as medicine) • Food security and national security236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed • Create awareness, advocate for, and educate on safe and healthy food consumption • Farmers to embrace market-driven production to enhance income and purchasing power • Dry season farming to ensure all year-round availability • Revisit neglected and underutilised foods • Scale up school feeding programme • Promote integrated farming and backyard farming and work into primary and secondary school curriculum • Promote high yielding crop varieties • Strengthen linkages between research, policy, and practice • Improve rural infrastructure • Adaptation indigenous processing and storage methods, and explore modern technologies • Price control and regulation of activities of middlemen • Provide incentives for healthy consumption and production of healthy food by food and beverage companies • Use community-based extension volunteers for food demonstrations using locally sourced healthy foods • Identify other sources for agricultural financing • Strengthen farmer-groups and other rural associations for community development • Encourage contract farming with buy-back arrangements • Perfect recycling process for agricultural waste • Reposition and strengthen agricultural research institutes. • Create awareness and educate on dangers of unhealthy environment • Enforce existing regulation and sanction for environmental degradation • Regulate chemical use in all aspects of agricultural production • Intensify consumer protection activities Who should take the actions? • Religious and traditional leaders, opinion moulders, community leaders and the media will contribute to awareness creation and education on need for healthy food consumption and environmental sustainability • Ministries of Health and Environment will enforce regulations on environmental degradation • Agriculture research institutes with mandates for processing and storage will develop technologies for processing and storage • Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) will review and revise mandates of Research Institutes in line with current realities. • Regulatory agencies will enforce existing regulations to prevent the nefarious activities of some food and beverage companies • Federal and state Ministries of Agriculture, through the Agricultural Development Projects, will ensure prompt dissemination of information on safe and healthy food consumption, and on environmental sustainability. • The federal and states Ministries of Education will mainstream integrated and backyard farming into primary and secondary school curriculum. • Farmer groups, other rural associations and banking institutions will provide farm credit How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Ways in which progress could be assessed • Reduction in the current rates of malnutrition indices and related deaths • Reduction diet related illnesses such as type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity etc. • Reduction in percentage annual food loss • Increase in demand for safe and healthy foods • Increase in production and utilisation of neglected and underutilised crops • Reduction in environmental degradation • Increased alternative uses of agricultural waste236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale i. Protection of Natural Ecosystems: • Promotion of Organic Farm Inputs • Improve extension services on Organic Farming and environmental protection • Control Bush Burning through stringent laws and awareness campaigns • Promotion of the Practices of Conservation Agriculture ii. Manage Sustainably Existing Food Production Systems: • Improve quality control on food safety and standardization • Promote the adoption of biological pest control • Develop new crop varieties to enhance farmers’ resilience to challenges of climate change • Incentivize Agriculture for the youth iii. Restore and Rehabilitate Degraded Ecosystems: • Restore wastelands such as desert encroached areas, salinity and erosion affected areas etc • Establish a Centre of Excellence for Regenerative Agriculture and restoration of ecosystems in one of the leading Universities of the country. What contributions will our organisations make? • Provide technical and financial support for Extension activities • Spear head awareness campaigns and consultations with both governmental and non-governmental institutions on sustainable food systems to improve policy focus and legislation. • Establish a Centre of Excellence for research on Regenerative and Conservation Agriculture How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Improved adoption of Organic Inputs and sustainable practices in Agriculture by the farmers • Improved capacity of Extension Workers • Improved actionable research findings on conservation and regeneration of the ecosystem for sustainable agriculture • More policies and legislation on protection of the Agricultural Ecosystem enforced • More youth engaged in Agriculture How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Increase in number of Improved adoption of Organic Inputs and sustainable practices in Agriculture by the farmers • Improved capacity of Extension Workers • Increase in number of Improved actionable research findings on conservation and regeneration of the ecosystem for sustainable agriculture • More policies and legislation on protection of the Agricultural Ecosystem enforced • More youth and women are engaged in Agriculture236241243244245246247248249250251Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods and Value Chain distribution What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Actions urgently needed • There must be equitable opportunities for all through equal chances in production, ownership of resources and improved agricultural technology for women and youths. • Policy makers to provide roadmap for equitable distribution of production resources, which will ensure equitable access to resources. • The National Assembly to promote a bill on equitable access to resources for women and youths in Nigeria, which will be enforced in all parts of the country. • Continues advocacy by Agri-Food Industries, Farmer groups and Private organizations to traditional and religious leaders, and Social-Cultural organizations to abolish cultures and norms that discriminates access to resources by women and youths. • Strategies aimed at implementing existing gender policies in Nigeria should be put in place. • Private companies to work with public extension outfit to incorporate extension service as an after sales package. • Changing agricultural production system to accommodate youths for sustainability. • Mainstream nutrition into every agricultural programme and education system • System of production needs to be looked at. Simple and nutritious foods consumed like egusi and daddawa should be promoted to ensure sustainability. What contributions will our organisations make? i. Farmers and farmer groups • Work together to strengthen the value chain of all commodities to improve the food system thereby ensuring sustainability. • Continue the training and retraining of all stakeholders on best practices by farmer and private organisations to improve the food system. ii. Ministry of Agriculture • Plan and implement strategies that will promote the adoption of improved technology in production, postharvest and processing activities, value addition and reduction in food losses. • Ensure that all commodities are included in agricultural programmes being implemented by the Ministry. • Enhance irrigation systems to promote all year-round production of food. • Work with relevant organizations to make sure that quality and unadulterated inputs that meets standard requirements are used in producing healthy and safe food for all. iii. Ministry of Finance • Ensure allocation of resources to Ministry of Agriculture, Women affairs, research Institutes and financial institutions to develop the food system. iv. Non-Governmental and Private organizations • Provision of training and re-training on best agricultural practices and linkages with input suppliers, financial institutions, and off takers of output will put in place. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Increased productivity through acess to quality inputs and value addition, which translates to better income for women and youths • Access to climate smart technologies, structured markets and finance • Women and youths receive tailored training and capacity building to respond, recover and build resilience • Discriminating norms against women abolished and more women given leadership positions.236242243244245246247248249250251Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Promote dry season farming/irrigated agriculture • Conduct massive public enlightenment on the reality of climate change, its causes and effects on agriculture • Farmers and vulnerable communities should be empowered on how to cope with shocks and stress resulting from climate change • Adequate security should be provided everywhere to enable farmers go to farms. • Address farmers-herders conflict to prevent destruction of farmlands. • Promote intensive agriculture (maximise more output from available land) and perennial agriculture (e.g., agroforestry, orchard) • Promote agricultural mechanization • Adopt soil conservation techniques to prevent soil erosion and loss of nutrients • Promote sustainable and climate smart agricultural practices • Generate and disseminate weather forecasts and advisories • De-silt rivers and construct dykes on dams to enable impounding of more water • Commission scientific studies to identify areas vulnerable to flooding • Identify and use local (indigenous) knowledge in predicting, avoiding and withstanding the effects extreme weather events. • Restore urban and regional plans and control development • Avoid deforestation and forest degradation • Plant early maturing and drought tolerant crops • Construct small irrigation infrastructure such as rain harvesting structures, earth dams • Promote the use renewable energy in agriculture • Promote agro-ecology techniques and practices such as System of Rice Intensification (SRI) • Create more carbon sinks in soil and biomass What contributions will our organisations make? • Develop new policies on climate smart and sustainable agricultural practices • Create awareness on vulnerabilities of agriculture to climate change • Recruit and train extension workers on climate smart and sustainable agriculture • Disseminate new technologies and knowledge on climate smart agriculture • Provide seedlings for agroforestry, woodlots, shelterbelts, windbreaks and orchards • Implement measures to curb desertification and land degradation • Provide emergency relief to victims of extreme weather events • Develop drought resistant and early maturing varieties • Identify the best ways of utilizing invasive species as animal feeds Develop nutrients bio-fortified crops How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • New policies on climate smart and sustainable agricultural practices • Agricultural funding, subsidies and insurance reaching hard to reach and very poor farmers • Farmers have access to improved, drought resistant, early maturing varieties • More farmers adopting intensive, integrated, irrigated and perennial agricultural systems • More farmers adopting livelihood diversification initiatives such as apiary and aquaculture.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Improve rail transport to address challenges of transportation of farm produce from farm to fork. • Allow stakeholder shareholdings in transportation sector to prevent possible sabotage of the on-going effort to improve the rail transport. • Pursuing market-driven production to enhance farmers’ income versus low dietary diversity for the family. • Government investment in value addition to agricultural produce to reduce wastage, and failure of government owned businesses. • Contract farming and controversies around contractual agreements in the face of price fluctuations. • Subsidies for agricultural inputs, and targeting of intended beneficiaries – are subsidies needed when they go only to political farmers? • Development of a Social-Business Model of Agriculture, which promotes hard work for greater reward in the sector. This could be achieved through policies, which protects against over exploitation of resources and healthy competition for resources use and control. • Conflict and restlessness amongst youths especially which can be managed through dialogue and conflict resolution. • Vulnerability of women, which might deny them leadership positions which can be managed through leadership training and support. • Insecurity in production clusters which can be managed through adequate security arrangements in communities. Livelihood: Provide alternative livelihood. Insecurity: Improve security in rural areas to make it possible for farmers go to farms Funding: Provide funding and make it accessible to poor and voiceless farmers Technical support: Raise the capacities of extension workers and ensure extension services is available to all farmers Information: Provide weather, market and other information on time to all farmers in a manner they will understand Market: Create marketing channels that will protect farmers from middle-men. Price control: Set guaranteed minimum prices on agricultural produce to make farming economically attractive.

2021-06-15 12:28:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8091/88

52431161002826011801820712103000062102011002111010211134

Dialogue is designed as a forum for discussion involving various parties, especially young people with various backgrounds. This independent dialogue is an effort to involve multiple parties to encourage the transformation of the food system in Indonesia that is more just, sovereign, and resilient. Koalisi Rakyat untuk Kedaulatan Pangan (KRKP) in the Indonesian context, this transformation is also a necessity. KRKP with its mandate to realize food sovereignty continues to encourage the transformation of the Indonesian food system. The thing to do to hold dialogue is to publish and approach and coordinate with the national convenor in this case the Ministry of Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS). The publication is carried out in various ways to include various parties in the dialogue. Publication methods are carried out through social media such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Another thing that is prepared to create and increase participation is to identify participants and invite them specifically. Collaborating with universities, journalists, and various parties in organizing Independent Dialogue. Actively involved in the Independent dialogue held by the national convenor. Involving the facilitators in the preparation process so that they have a way of ensuring all participants have the opportunity to express opinions there are several arrangements.Participants involved in this dialogue were divided into 3 discussion groups. Each discussion group is facilitated by a facilitator, co-facilitator, and report card. Participants in each group are divided based on the main considerations, namely the diversity of experience, the field they are involved in, and origin/geography. Thus, for each group discussion, there can be a diversity of opinions based on different experiences. At the beginning of the session, the facilitator conveys the objectives, scope of the discussion, and the rules. One thing that is strongly highlighted is the right of everyone to express opinions clearly, there is nothing wrong with the opinions expressed, opinions will be well received and everyone will get the same time to have an opinion or provide feedback on other opinions. This is highly emphasized because there are opportunities for participants from eastern Indonesia to feel embarrassed or hesitant to express their opinions. So far, very few voices from young groups in the eastern region have been recognized. During the discussion, the facilitator managed the discussion well by taking into account the adequate gender aspect. In each question-answering session, the facilitator often provides opportunities or invites female participants to express their opinions. In this way, women's voices in this dialogue can be accommodated. So far, women's voices in determining food policy are often ignored. Everyone can express their opinion. To facilitate the discussion, because the time available for direct opinion is limited, the facilitator invites participants to write down their opinions if there is not enough time to speak directly through the jam board application provided by Google or by writing them directly in the chat column. This also happens. When there are participants who need clarification or feedback on the opinions of other participants, they can write them in the chat column. The facilitator will read out all participants' opinions and feedback written in the chat column. Thus all participants can find out all the informationThe independent dialogue that is designed must provide space for the voice of the voiceless to be able to express their opinions and views. Convenors need to prepare well for the implementation and select participants. The selection of participants is expected to provide more variety from the parties involved. Pay attention to the sector and parties involved to create diversity in the discussion.

Yes

234239240241243244246247248249251The Independent Dialogue Youth For Future of Indonesia Food System was carried out not using an action track approach but using an Indonesian local food system approach and the concept of food sovereignty. Food is a basic need as well as a human right for everyone. Everyone needs adequate food in terms of quantity, nutrition, and safety. Thus everyone can live a healthy and productive life. In addition, food is also a symbol of cultural development and human relations with nature. The current pandemic situation is causing the threat of food insecurity and hunger. Disrupted supply chains and declining purchasing power make food difficult to access, especially for vulnerable groups. The food system, as an integral part of the activities of production, processing, distribution, and consumption as well as food waste management. The food system includes the actors and institutions involved in it, with various interests and benefits derived from it. The challenges of the current and future food system are meeting food needs with the challenges of population growth, climate change, and ecological vulnerability, as well as socio-economic inequality, especially small-scale farmers, poor consumers, and other marginal groups. This requires a more just, sovereign, and resilient food system transformation. Strengthening the food system is seen as a means to significantly reduce hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, as well as strengthening global efforts to deal with the pandemic. As a scope, it is divided into three discussion rooms as follows: 1. Sustainable production which includes access to production sources and sustainable agricultural models and revitalization of educational curricula. We now realize that national and global food systems are not working well. The Covid-19 pandemic shows the fragility of our food system that runs from time to time. The food system, which consists of a long series of processes from production, distribution, to consumption, shows its fragility on all fronts. Food production is a process or activity of procuring food by food producers which are then distributed to the consumer level for consumption. To maintain the sustainability of food production while at the same time maintaining the survival of food producers, talking about food production cannot be separated from sustainable production methods. 2. Encompassing fair distribution and trade, fair market, market access for everyone, gastro diplomacy, distribution. Equality and access to added value in the value chain. The main focus in this section is Fair Food Distribution and Trade. The food distribution in question is how food from the land reaches the plate on our dining table. This includes what the value chain is like and the phenomenon of loss does not go unnoticed. Meanwhile, fair food trade is a trading concept based on open partnership, upholding justice, dialogue, and transparency. From these two things, we see many phenomena and situations that occur in Indonesia. Of course, from the eyes of young Indonesians. 3. Consumption of healthy and quality food, including the wealth of local food sources, development of local food systems, access to healthy and quality food literacy. The main focus of consuming healthy and quality food is to identify the situation of food consumption in the communities where the participants live and explore ideas for improving the food system, especially at the level of consumption.2352392402412432442462472482492511. Sustainable production and agriculture • The main findings in this room broadly state that most food producers are unable to access productive sources for food production, especially land. Land problems are a serious problem in the production sector because data shows that most food producers who depend on land only have a minimum of 0.5 ha of land to produce food. • Land issues do not only occur to food producers who sell their products but also to indigenous peoples whose food production is only used to fulfill their daily lives, various cases were also found, such as the non-recognition of their customary territory, the unilateral takeover of land by the company, to the seizure of living space they. • The ability or capacity of food producers is also a requirement that according to participants is something that must be met to achieve efficient and sustainable food production with environmentally friendly agricultural principles. The development of the food sector also needs to consider various things such as the characteristics of local resources, culture, and regional typology. • Farmers are increasingly dependent on external agricultural inputs. This dependence is certainly very dangerous if there is an increase in the price of agricultural inputs, it will also increase the production costs of farmers. Current agricultural inputs Mostly large companies that tend to give rise to injustice. • Food producers' access to finance for production capital is also a serious problem faced by food producers because the requirements to apply for loans are not following the business character of food producers. In addition, the absence of control over harvest prices and production inputs also makes food producers often lose money. 2. Fair distribution and trade. • Prices are not good enough for farmers and are more often played by the market to the detriment of farmers. Farmers get the least profit compared to other chain actors. The bargaining position of farmers is still low due to various obstacles such as weak institutional capacity, inadequate product quality, and contribution, and others. • The food import policy that continues to occur has implications for the suppression of farmers' products. Besides being unable to compete in terms of quality, farmers' products also cannot compete with the prices of imported products that have experienced dumping. As a result, product prices at the farm level fall to a very low level and are detrimental to farmers. • Farmers' products are disrupted and unable to compete when entering modern markets and in urban areas. A long value chain not only causes low profits for farmers but also reduces product quality, especially when handling processes are not good. As a result, agricultural products cannot compete with large-scale agricultural products/companies. Whereas there is a trend of increasing food consumption in urban areas of around 30%. • Large food traders or large retailers are mostly filled with processed or imported food products. Local farmers' products are still unable to compete and fill the food market very little in modern markets. • The food logistics system is not yet adaptive or following the typology of our country, namely archipelagic islands. In addition, our food production is still concentrated in certain areas and is not evenly distributed all the time. Thus there is a food gap in food production centers and consumer centers. The food estate policy promoted by the government has even made the centralization of food production concentrated in certain areas. This centralization will eventually increase distribution costs to other regions. The existing logistical institutions are not yet optimal in managing domestic food logistics. 3. Consumption of healthy and quality food, • The main findings of this room show that the definition of healthy and quality food consumption is still a luxury for most members of society. The lack of literacy about healthy and quality food, both in terms of source and meaning, has caused many sources of healthy and quality food, especially local food, to be neglected. • Market policies that are not transparent and do not favor the use of local food sources as healthy and quality food have created some derivative problems, such as competition for local food as a source of healthy and quality food, low technology, and opportunities for access to local food. Food as a source of healthy and quality food is available in large quantities and is affordable both in terms of area and access. • In some indigenous communities, the imposition of uniformity in planting materials, planting methods to production technology, and land grabbing undermine local food production as an affordable source of healthy and quality food. In the end, it weakens the food security of the community and even causes new diseases for the community, especially indigenous peoples. • There is a change in culture and people's preferences, especially in urban areas, towards food consumption. Urban people prefer to buy food and food that has a good appearance and has health insurance (low contamination, hygienic, healthy products, etc.).2362392402412432442462472482492511. Sustainable production and agriculture In this independent dialogue, participants were also asked what ideas, ideas, and solutions could be done to get out of the situation above and update the national food system. The results of space production and sustainable agriculture are: • Abolition of the job creation law (UU Cipta Kerja) because this law has the potential to hinder small food producers' access and control over land. • Capacity building for food producers and the younger generation; in the form of intensive training provided to food producers to be able to optimize their production, be able to adapt using technology, and implement sustainable agriculture. • Recognition of land rights for small-scale producers; By providing access to productive land that has not been managed so far, this form can be used as an example of customary rights for indigenous peoples, but in this case for small-scale food producers. • Recognition of indigenous peoples' lands; starting from collecting data on indigenous peoples and their living spaces, then recognizing the existence of indigenous peoples by providing clear and firm legality for their existence and living space areas to minimize cases of expropriation of customary law communities' territories by companies and the state. • Revitalization of a more inclusive education system for agriculture; build an education system that is contextual with the region and existing resources to answer the problems of farmer regeneration. • The village government encourages the protection of agricultural production food; the village government must have a strong commitment to maintaining agricultural production areas so that there is no conversion of productive land functions. • Community based agriculture; in increasing the capacity of food producers, organizing is an absolute thing that must be trained, the existing community is no longer trapped in the interest of getting assistance from the government, more broadly with the existing community, food producers can share various kinds ranging from capital, knowledge, to looking for markets their harvest. • Financial access to food producers; access to capital must be simpler and less complicated, state-owned banks must prioritize loans for food producers with various conveniences and low-interest rates. • Sustainable agricultural practices; Sustainable agricultural practice training should be given intensively to food producers through field schools. • Food development adapted to the characteristics of local resources; To maintain abundant food diversity and optimize the use of existing resources, food development must consider various aspects and be based on multi-disciplinary scientific studies. • The government strengthens SOEs to provide inputs, both fertilizers, and other agricultural inputs so that the agricultural input market can be controlled, so that price fluctuations can be overcome. Or it can hand overproduction to the domestic private sector and be supported by regulations that strengthen the position of local entrepreneurs and farmers as consumers.2362392402412432442462472482492512. Fair distribution and trade The thought and ideas of changing the food system at the level of distribution and fair trade generated in the discussion are: • An accountable food import policy so as not to interfere with the production and supply as well as the welfare of local farmers. Fulfillment of food must be from domestic production. The fulfillment of food must also be met in a variety of ways. • Collaboration and partnership also with the private sector to trigger a diverse food distribution and prioritize domestic products. The government must play a stronger role in regulating mutually beneficial collaboration among food value chain actors. Thus, a fair partnership occurs. • Capacity building at the farm level to produce quality, hygienic and healthy products. So that this product can be accepted by consumers and compete in the urban market. • Development of non-centralized food production, such as the food estate model. However, by supporting smallholders to consolidate to produce more efficient, healthy, and diverse food. Non-centralized production also accommodates existing local food resources. • Food institutions as regional logistics warehouses need to be accelerated. The function of the logistics warehouse is not only to accommodate food from outside the region but also to accommodate local food products. This logistics warehouse can also be used as a retailer that provides local food for the government's social assistance program. This can trigger changes in local food consumption behavior. • Optimization of institutions closest to rural food producers, in this case in Indonesia, are Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDESA) and Regional-Owned Enterprises (BUMD) to facilitate the distribution and processing of food in villages. The involvement of higher education and research institutions to produce innovations in optimizing regional institutions is very important. • Control of harvest prices and production inputs; the government must maximize and strengthen the role of BULOG/National Food Agency to disburse funds and absorb farmers' harvests in larger quantities, in addition to controlling production inputs, strict and firm supervision must be carried out so that the provision of agricultural production facilities can be targeted and effective.2362392402412432442462472482492513. Consumption of healthy and quality food After identifying the food situation in their respective locations, participants then exchanged ideas and suggestions to answer the challenges faced in obtaining healthy and quality food. The results of the discussion room for healthy and quality food consumption are: • Change of mindset or mindset about local food. That local food has many advantages and benefits are also healthy. • Efforts are made to change awareness with a public campaign approach, especially by the government, which is oriented to young people. Young people can become drivers of future changes in food patterns to “call for” food issues • Mainstreaming of local food wisdom to the public, especially children through education by developing local content of formal and informal education curricula • Prepare a database of biodiversity, especially those related to local food and its nutritional content to the community. Thus, positive perceptions and knowledge regarding local food will be built. • Strengthening literacy and nutrition education for families, especially parents. Knowledge of local food, consumption of healthy, nutritious, and quality food is an important key in realizing sustainable food consumption patterns. • Popularize the food ingredients produced by our farmers in a contemporary way and disseminated by public figures/influencers to go viral, so that the local food market niche grows well. Gastrodiplomacy efforts by the state to other countries to introduce local food can be a solution.237239240241243244246247248249251Overall the discussion went smoothly, all participants expressed concerns and ideas and complemented each other. Slight differences of opinion occurred in the form of granting rights to food producers, some participants considered that land rights were fully granted to food producers, while other participants wanted the land to remain state property and food producers were given access to cultivating state land. -the land owned, despite differences of opinion, basically the participants agreed that food producers should have the right to cultivate productive land. From the discussion process, the arguments and statements of the participants complement and strengthen the presentations of other participants. The ideas presented also complement and enrich the inputs submitted by fellow participants. This shows that the food situation faced has the same pattern with location-specific case variations.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Note-Discussion-topic-1-Sustainable-production-and-agriculture-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Note-Discussion-Topic-3-Healthy-and-Quality-Food-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/The-Activity-Notes-of-Indonesia-Youth-Food-System-Summit-2021.pdfhttps://youtu.be/ov6gLgitGZkhttps://youtu.be/bHrSwRU03e8https://youtu.be/iLTRAe-k3yshttps://youtu.be/Pkewgw15XWs

2021-06-15 12:54:00204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15672/203

97366133132242537273135222131118

We wanted to organize a dialogue for development practitioners that talked about the importance of communication in agriculture interventions and projects - and specifically one that addressed how communication can be used to create equitable and inclusive food systems. We truly believe that addressing communications, and aspects of inclusion and meaningful interaction is an urgent need when it comes to creating equitable food systems, and that communication, done right, will allow us to meet the 2030 SDGs. It is from that point of view that we chose the topic to look at different ways communications are done in a way that can inform the Food Systems Summit. It was organized to include different stakeholders - from every-day farmers, to organizational representatives that take on different aspects of communication and food systems, to more influential actors in food systems and development. We wanted to ensure these opinions - like when you communicate well - were balanced and reflected in a variety of ways - we did this through arranging speakers, video participants, and polls for general participants over the course of the webinar. We also wanted to tackle the wide reaching effects of communication - it’s an area that interacts with the complexity of the food system as a whole.Urgency Communication is a necessary & important step in engaging farmers in creating sustainable & equitable food systems. During the dialogue, we reflected on examples of the different ways that people and organizations could start doing this type of work now. Commit The entire conversation of the webinar focused on how communications specifically can influence Food Systems & contribute to more equitable systems as a whole. Be Respectful By engaging participants from different aspects of the food systems (from farmers to organizations & higher-level actors) and encouraging questions from all participants we ensured that different opinions could be seen as on similar levels and as similar importance. We thoroughly discussed the importance of respecting farmer’s opinions, views, knowledge, languages & roles in food systems on the same level as interveners. Complexity By discussing gender, relationships & various methods of reaching farmers, we looked at the diversity of methods & impacts communications can have on food systems. We explored how one solution will not have a fit all approach, but rather how different actors are working in different ways to influence food systems. We also ensured that different perspectives are brought out in the dialogue including those of farmers through videos, panellists & the audiences in the Q&A session. Multi stakeholder inclusivity By placing the opinions of farmers side-by-side with experts we placed their knowledge on a level playing field We distinctly discussed the importance of treating rural small-scale farmers as knowledge-holders & as those with the answers when it comes to improving food systems. The discussion also included how communication affects & is affected by different actors across value chains. Complement work of others Each intervention discussed was valued similarly & was recognized as a way to appreciate differences, learn from their solutions, & see how different innovations could compliment others. Trust We sought to motivate different groups to work together to explain how they workFind ways that, despite the medium that you use to convene your dialogue, include different voices who may or may not be able to attend.

NoWe used this dialogue as a precursor to a series of on-air dialogues which are using radio programs combined with live polling to identify the opinions of farmers on various FSS action tracks in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda. We wanted to use this arena to discuss the importance of taking actions like that to communicate with farmers. Instead of discussion groups, we used polling to garner the reactions of participants outside the main speakers, of which you can see the results below. We also tried to convien voices from those outside the digital sphere, by questioning small-scale farmers about communications and their needs and sharing the results via video during the Dialogue itself. Additionally, we had an open discussion and Q&A session at the end of the event to put questions to the main speakers and address points of interest from the dialogue.

234238239241248We explored the link between communications and the open, active, and inclusive participation of farmers in food systems. Our participants explored what it means to have dialogue with farmers and the role of communication in ensuring that the systems we design are designed with farmers to meet their specific needs. We took deep dives into principles of engaging rural communities and farmers, and the different types of tools that are necessary to do each one: whether through radio and music, through active participation, through IVR phone in lines, through systems designed to entertain as well as educate, and through other methods of open communication. Too often farmers and rural folks are left out of the conversations that directly involve and are made to benefit them, so the focus of this Dialogue was to discuss how communications brings farmers and rural folk into the conversation, and what is necessary to do that in a meaningful way. On the program explored the various tools and projects different organizations use to include farmers in the discussion and communicate with them; polling participants to explore the different ways they use communications; and amplifying the voices of some few every-day farmers who explained key communication needs. This Independent Dialogue was a precursor to our on-air dialogues which are using radio programs combined with live polling to identify the opinions of farmers on various FSS action tracks in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda.235238239241248Overwhelming consensus during the Dialogue was that communications should be a key component of any agriculture project or intervention aimed at small-scale or small-holder farmers in rural areas. For interventions to be truly successful, they need to consider how best to reach farmers in accessible and persuasive ways, but also how to fit feedback into all parts of an intervention, from design to conclusion. Key outcomes: - Use of vernacular and local languages encourages participation and respect within programs - Communications should be first, rather than an afterthought, when it comes to the design of programs and interventions - they are strategic openings for possibilities - Rural communities need to be considered as equal players in the agriculture field - they carry solutions, and tremendous knowledge that should be amplified - Without communication, meaningful change to food systems cannot happen - farmers will not be empowered to make transformative changes based on their own circumstances. In this sense, people-based solutions are important. - There is so much relevant information out there to benefit farmers, but there is often a disconnect between that information existing and it reaching farmers. - Convergence of different communication platforms is critical to meet all farmers informational needs (ie phone in lines, in person training, radio programs, and comic books) - Entertainment is as important as information - to drum up interest, as well as provide education, entertainment alongside relevancy should be considered (a lesson from the Shamba Shape-Up TV programs) - A paradigm shift is essential - we consider how to invite farmers to the table at dialogues and during interventions like this - instead we should be doing the work to be invited to the tables of farmers, so to speak. Relationships are key to this. - Gender gaps must be considered when designing communication systems that are effective (ie during radio programs designate time to address needs of women, or on IVR systems include call-in lines for women) - Interactive radio allows conversations between different members of society - brings farmers’ voices up to the same level as authorities in the region. - Solutions such as Farmerline, Shamba Shape-Up, and Farm Radio International's interactive radio programs are examples of interventions that consider communication from the beginning. - For effective food systems we need to ensure that we are responsive to the needs of farmers, and this can happen through effective communications236238241248In terms of survey responses, the responses were as follows: Do you think development organizations are doing enough when it comes to communicating with farmers? 5% yes 25% no 70% they are doing some but not enough What do you think is the biggest barrier to communicating with local farmers: Limited resources 23% Access to technology: 18% Literacy: 13% Infrastructure: 10% Language: 8% Cultural barriers: 8% Gender divide: 8% Distance: 7% Affordability: 3% If your organization communicates with farmers, how does it do it (multiple choice) Radio: 59% Mobile phone: 57% Extension officers: 48% In person: 43% Social media: 28% Internet or apps: 22% In print: 17% Television: 11% I don’t know how best to: 4% Other: 2% How do you involve farmers in your projects (multiple choice) We conduct baseline research with farmers 72% We give them opportunities to give feedback throughout the project 59% They are involved in regular monitoring and evaluation: 51% We involve them in the design and proposal of our project 44% We hire them as trainers for other farmers 36% They are only involved as recipients: 8% Additionally, as part of the dialogue, we featured the voices of regular farmers from Mali and Burkina Faso, who we asked questions about their experiences. Of note were these opinions: “On the subject of aid, you should know that the government often forgets to address the real questions that interest us. They provide aid that does not help us. For example, the government has just bought agricultural machinery that is so expensive farmers cannot buy it.” “For aid, certain partners like the government, and other NGOs come without consulting us, they don’t know our problems, they just come and impose their program. And it never works. We must exchange before any action in order to orient our actions. This is how we will all be satisfied with the collaboration.” “The agricultural officials over here are few and because they are not here a lot it is difficult for them to come one by one to educate us. These are what prevents us from accessing that information.”237238241248250251Further exploration could be taken into what platforms are most effective to reach farmers with - or whether the variety of platforms is the most useful. Also, different platforms came out as different ways of reaching farmers. The gender gap is a key consideration when it comes to designing programs and not enough projects and programs are adequately addressing this. The difference between designing something for farmers, rather than with farmers. There was plenty of discussion on how to involve farmers/reach farmers, but more work needs to be done into including them to begin with, from design and identification of challenges, throughout interventions to place them and value their own knowledge. Additionally: What is a key outcome when it comes to communications? Is it a farmer taking up a new and/or improved practice, or is it a farmer making an informed choice to do, or not do, this same thing? What should the goal of communications be when it comes to this? The issue of young peoples’ involvement in the food system noting that most of the communication platforms target generally adult audiences hence there is need to ensure the balance in targeting between the youth and the adult farmers who are becoming fewer in sub saharan than the burgeoning youth population.

2021-06-15 23:01:41205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16124/46

3952861227416127192621

Este fue el segundo de una serie de diálogos previstos en el país. En él participaron agencias y organismos de cooperación internacional, junto con algunas instituciones nacionales. Cabe aclarar que los diálogos subsecuentes incluirán otros actores para asegurar diferentes puntos de vista que enriquezcan la discusión sobre la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. Dentro del diálogo, cada grupo se organizó de manera tal que se favoreciera la participación de distintas agencias y organismos de cooperación.El diálogo promovió el respeto hacia diferentes opiniones y puntos de vista. También favoreció la participación de agencias y organismos de cooperación de distintos sectores relacionados con la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional; los y las participantes generaron propuestas que apuntan a contribuir con el objetivo de la Cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios. El diálogo reconoció además la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios, a través del abordaje de los retos que enfrenta el país para su transformación y el cumplimiento de la Agenda 2030.No por el momento.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251De manera previa al evento, el equipo coordinador de los diálogos en Colombia llevó a cabo la identificación de las acciones que adelanta el país, y los retos que enfrenta con miras a la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios y su aporte al cumplimiento de la Agenda 2030. Dichos retos y acciones resultaron del análisis de las Vías de acción que propone la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021. A partir de este ejercicio previo, el segundo diálogo se orientó, en primer lugar, a validar esta información y posteriormente, a identificar acciones y retos adicionales, además de propuestas que contribuyeran en la construcción de la hoja de ruta, así como en la validación de la metodología y las temáticas a tratar en los diálogos subnacionales y nacionales subsecuentes. Por lo tanto, se contó con la participación de varias agencias y organismos de cooperación que trabajan alrededor de los sistemas alimentarios. La participación de estas agencias tuvo como objetivo adicional establecer sus contribuciones, desde su experticia y mandato, para enfrentar los retos hacia el logro de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en el país. Los resultados de este segundo diálogo, junto con los del primero, servirán, por un lado, como insumo para la construcción de la hoja de ruta de los próximos diálogos subnacionales y nacionales, y por otro, como un primer paso hacia la consolidación de la apuesta nacional para el logro de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles que contribuyan al cumplimiento de la Agenda 2030. Respecto a los retos identificados por el equipo coordinador, los participantes recomendaron ligar los sistemas alimentarios con la reactivación económica y los impactos de la pandemia y abordar la resiliencia también desde contextos de riesgo y humanitarios, también se manifestó como necesaria una visión integral de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel nacional y regional, así como la integración de los retos identificados, a fin de desarrollar estrategias comunes para enfrentarlos.235238239240241242244245246247249250251Las acciones que viene adelantando el país están orientadas hacia la eliminación del hambre y la malnutrición; el acceso, disponibilidad e inocuidad de los alimentos; el acceso, disponibilidad e inocuidad de alimentos; tierra y recursos productivos; derecho a la alimentación; información, educación y comunicación en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional; la asociación y defensa de los consumidores/as; la gestión integral del cambio climático y de la biodiversidad, la prevención y reducción de las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos; producción y consumo sostenibles; la promoción de las cadenas de valor locales y compras públicas de alimentos; la eliminación de la pobreza y las desigualdades; la resiliencia para la protección social, la reducción de riesgos a los más vulnerables (niños y niñas, mujeres, campesinos/as, migrantes), la gestión integral del riesgo de desastres, y la gestión de la pandemia. A partir de las acciones mencionadas, se identificaron los siguientes retos para alcanzar sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en Colombia: agricultura sensible a la nutrición; fortalecimiento de gobernanza del sistema agroalimentario; mejora nutricional de trabajadores agroalimentarios; fortalecimiento y participación comunitaria en toma de decisiones alrededor de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional hacia el derecho humano a la alimentación; mejoramiento de cadena de transformación de alimentos; promoción de dietas saludables y sostenibles; fortalecimiento de cultura alimentaria local; promoción de ambientes y entornos alimentarios saludables y sostenibles; articulación de la Estrategia de información, educación y comunicación en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional como apuesta de país; implementación de la ley sobre compras locales de alimentos; agroecología y regeneración de ecosistemas y sistemas alimentarios; formalización e implementación de Política de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos; empoderamiento y participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes en los sistemas alimentarios; inclusión de grupos étnicos en los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles; trabajo digno en cadena agroalimentaria; aseguramiento y protección social en la ruralidad y vulnerabilidad; resiliencia de sistemas alimentarios en contextos humanitarios; mejora en calidad de asistencia alimentaria y nutricional en emergencias y su adaptación a los contextos.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251A)ACCIONES ADICIONALES: Política de producción y consumo sostenible; promoción de alimentos ancestrales y biodiversos; Plan Nacional de negocios verdes; Estrategia Nacional de Economía Circular; herramientas educativas para prevenir pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos, proyecto de generación de bioinsumos; mejores prácticas agrícolas y uso eficiente de agroquímicos; promoción de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y seguridad hídrica para su protección; análisis del impacto ambiental de dietas actuales y su adaptabilidad climática; restauración y conservación de ecosistemas; hojas de ruta para nueva alimentación y uso del suelo; fortalecimiento de resiliencia agroclimática en territorios de mayor afectación por múltiples amenazas; fortalecimiento, recuperación y promoción de biodiversidad nativa; Programa de ecosistemas secos; sistemas alimentarios locales adaptados al clima y agrobiodiversidad; acuerdos con subsectores agropecuarios para gestión de cambio climático; mesas técnicas agroclimáticas; inclusión de componente gastronómico, comunitario y local en el Programa de Alimentación Escolar y participación de la cooperación en la formulación de esta política pública; promoción de estilos de vida saludable y acciones en salud en zonas rurales y dispersas; iniciativa “Innovación para la Nutrición – I4N”.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251B) RETOS ADICIONALES: Ciencia, tecnología e innovación; contar con información periódica para realizar monitoreo y seguimiento (estadísticas oficiales, líneas de base, sistemas de vigilancia de pérdidas y desperdicios, inseguridad alimentaria, precios); articular acciones de salud pública con producción de alimentos; articular Guías Alimentarias Basadas en Alimentos con gestión del cambio climático, y fortalecer la sinergia entre esta última y la gestión del riesgo; empoderamiento de consumidores para equilibrar oferta y demanda; armonización de políticas para mejorar eficiencia en inversión pública; gobernanza de recursos naturales y productivos para grupos étnicos, asegurando su acceso y el de pequeños productores y organizaciones locales a programas (protección de la Amazonía como bien público global); implementación del enfoque territorial (respetar vocaciones y condiciones ambientales, fortalecimiento de capacidades a alrededor de equidad y resiliencia especialmente en ruralidad, aplicación de este enfoque al Programa de Alimentación Escolar PAE); fortalecer financiación de instituciones, coaliciones público-privadas locales, municipales y departamentales, e impulsar el emprendimiento en esos niveles; herramientas de protección social sensible a la nutrición, también en atención a crisis y emergencias; vincular la labor humanitaria con acciones de desarrollo; impulso a restauración y agricultura regenerativa y cadena de valor de la producción agropecuaria; ampliación de oferta de alimentos (énfasis en proteínas del futuro con sostenibilidad); estrategias de comunicación efectivas basadas en comportamiento de la producción, transformación y consumo.236238239240241242C) PROPUESTAS: implementación de una instancia de seguimiento a conclusiones de los diálogos y la Cumbre; fortalecimiento de promoción en salud nutricional; cooperación técnica sobre rotulado nutricional; análisis de impactos del cambio climático sobre sistemas alimentarios y medidas de adaptación en sistemas locales; hoja de ruta de protección y uso eficiente del agua; acompañar diseño e implementación de la política pública de protección y recuperación de la agrobiodiversidad nativa; desarrollar laboratorios de innovación comunitaria; observatorio de sistemas agroalimentarios; protocolos sobre protección social sensible a la nutrición; apoyar la I4N como Game changer (HUB de innovación en SAN para Colombia, pacto regional ALC); ampliar acompañamiento técnico territorial para fortalecimiento de Política pública y gobernanza en DHAA y Sistemas Agroalimentarios con enfoque diferencial (facilitar diálogos entre organizaciones indígenas y entidades estatales para desarrollo de acciones conjuntas); implementación de estrategia de recuperación rápida de producción agropecuaria diversificada en contextos de riesgos y humanitarios; acompañar transición de economía lineal a circular; acompañar diseño e implementación de la Política Nacional para la prevención de Pérdidas y Desperdicios de Alimentos; consolidación de una mesa de comunicaciones interinstitucional (gobierno, agencias de cooperación y sociedad civil) para diseñar programa diferencial de cambio de comportamiento en Colombia; lineamientos de agricultura regenerativa; impulsar coaliciones con esquemas de gobernanza innovadores; financiación, canalización de recursos y apoyo técnico para agricultura familiar; apoyar reformulación de Política Nacional para la Gestión Integral del Recurso Hídrico; involucrar medios de comunicación, nacionales, regionales y locales; implementación hojas de ruta para nueva alimentación y uso del suelo; apoyo a implementación de ley de compras públicas; acompañar estrategia nacional para promoción de Estilos de Vida Saludable con participación comunitaria y enfoque territorial.237240244246No se presentaron

2021-06-16 08:45:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8049/135

5922361441414104554723331812513110451211247

At the beginning of the Dialogue, every participant was encouraged to listen to others, raise hands, or use a hatbox to contribute.The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of primary actors from small-scale farmers to multinational businesses to local and international NGOs. Participants listened to one another and respected the view of others in the Dialogue.It is very important because it will encourage participation, inclusivity and project people's voices in the Dialogue

No

234239240242243248249250The focus of the Dialogue was to introduce Nigerian farmers to concepts and examples around Agroecology. The Dialogue featured researchers based in Nigeria explaining what Agroecology is and how sustainable practices can produce food and reinforce resilience in the face of climate change. In particular, the Dialogue delved into how farmers can be adaptive to challenges, create favorable soil conditions, integrate species of crops with trees, and in general, enhance positive biological integrations, improved research and innovation. Researchers explained in practice what this means and used Cassava as an example. Cassava being a staple in Nigerian diets, yet farmers struggle to produce enough. Most speakers who followed also emphasized the need to adapt to change and argued for strategic policy actions from the government both at a state and federal level.235240244A central theme and finding from the Dialogue was “that farmers are left to their own devices”. Many farmers and food producers are unsure how to incorporate sustainable and biodynamic farming practices. Farmers spoke about the need for clear communication and materials that can be disseminated in local dialects. Producers asked for clear examples and a recognition that most families are subsistence farmers. There exists a gap between producers for a family’s needs on the one hand and growing enough to sell at market for a profit. Famers and food producers asked for targeted action plans to assist land reclamation and cultivation. Producers also asked for clearer roles between local and federal level governments. Greater inclusivity in agricultural modernization programs as well as dissemination of knowledge and practices that can increase yields for crops. Both the expert presenters and food producers in the Dialogue highlighted how small farms are in Nigeria compared to other countries. Most farms are run as family-based operations, with whatever knowledge had been passed down through the generations. The cultural context of Nigeria adds an extra burden for women. Women who own land are not perceived as professional farmers, male farmers do not share insights and relevant information with women. Also emerging from the dialogue were the following key points which were proposed; - The right of people to define their own food and agricultural policies. - Rights and control of land, water, seeds, livestock breeds, territories. - Right to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade (e.g. restrict the dumping of products in local markets).236240243Agroecology (a way of building environmental resilience) principles discussed were; Adapting to the local environment – its constraints and opportunities, creating favorable soil conditions for plant growth and recycling nutrients, diversifying species, crop varieties, and livestock breeds in the agroecosystem over time and space – including integrating crops, trees, and livestock from the field to landscape levels. As a conclusion on how agroecology can contribute to addressing major climate and food challenges in Nigeria, what emerged was building the knowledge of farmers, indigenous peoples, and pastoralists, this could be done by government through extension workers or other food organization. Increasing research and innovations and delivering it in the indigenous languages. There's also an urgent need to rethink and transform production models.236238241242244251As a way of building resilience to the economic crisis, Investment in the farming system particularly in the local environment which will improve the farming system and production was stated. Also mentioned is that Government needs to provide policy and justice for farmers. Likewise working hand in hand at the community level i.e. government, private organizations, NGOs, CSOs need to work together for developing a farming system at the local level. Speakers that work with youth and civic society asked for more cooperation with the government and greater participation in government and decision-making.236238242245249251As measures against insecurities suggestions include Government to fight against insecurity and make Nigeria free from security challenges. Also, improving evaluation and monitoring programs, Providing Insurance for farmers, and consistent policy.237239240242244246249250The key area of divergence and trade-off was between using agroecological methods and guaranteeing yields for crops. Most farmers recognize that Nigeria is not producing enough food for its population and want to change that. Famers consider tradeoffs between farming methods tested and tried via their families or newer methods. There needs to be more communication between scholars and researchers involved in biodynamic food production and the actual farmers and cultivators.

2021-06-16 08:46:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6445/135

45162813015133123561142461320923111223

At the beginning of the dialogue, every participant was encouraged to listen to others, raise hands, or use chatbox to contribute.The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of primary actors from small-scale farmers to multinational businesses to local and international NGOs to share their ideas freely without discrimination. Participants listened to one another and respected the view of others in the dialogue. Trusts and alliances were built in the dialogue and feedback will be attributed to everyone.This is very important because it will encourage participation, inclusivity and bring out the best in the dialogue

NoThere was no discussion group. Primary actors were invited to speak and time was allocated to them to talk about the challenges they were facing and innovative ways of overcoming them. All other participants were given the privilege to make contributions and their points were noted. Also, some asked questions which were attended to by others. Because of limited network capabilities, various farmers (small and medium-size), agricultural cooperative representatives, and livestock producers were invited and allowed to address the challenges addressing Nigeria’s food security. Multiple stakeholders discussed how they are addressing the needs of a grower population through their farms and livestock facilities.

234238240241244245246248251Major focal points included land reform and access to land, loans and credits to farmers, transportation and irrigation issues, advancing cooperation and agricultural knowledge among farmers and food producers. Most producers and participants centered on the need to import less food (rice was an example cited), stakeholders mentioned population growth as a result of migration and births. Nigeria is on track to add eighty million inhabitants by 2030, adding stress to a foodshed already impacted by drought. Most stakeholders spoke about the previous year’s shortages and their inability to produce higher yields in their crops because of a lack of irrigation. At least one stakeholder discussed that the government should fund a Nigerian-based irrigation technology school. One participant mentioned how regardless of religious faith, all of the population was united in praying for rain. Thus, indirectly climate change was also discussed in the Dialogue235238240242244245249One of the main findings of the Dialogue is the need to provide agriculture support and training for small and medium-size farmers. This support should include facilitating training sessions on how to increase yields and soil tests. Many farmers and livestock producers shared skills, tips, and resources to manage their business better. Producers spoke about “old” ways of cultivation better suited to small plots of land, not too modern agriculture. One of the floated ideas is creating an app to “lease” machinery by the hour to facilitate harvest and cultivation. Farmers discussed the need for price transparency and better market access. As one farmer put it, “everyone thinks farming is easy just plant the seed” policymakers need to understand that farming requires more tools. Farmers also wanted to know which crops are best suited for their soil. Most farmers wanted to get in touch and communicate these lessons learned with their neighbors Another significant finding was the need to secure “soft loans” and credits. Many farmers spoke about receiving their inputs late and not being able to plant in time. In a particular case, the farmer was not able to grow cotton in time. Transportation issues also were mentioned, as was the lack of fuel. A third significant finding was the need for irrigation techniques and resources. Many farmers spoke about the need to manage water resources and the need to be prepared for climate disturbances such as prolonged droughts.236238240241242245246249250Participants agreed to share knowledge and resources surrounding better agricultural processes. · Need for land reform and agricultural supports in terms of loans, credit, and price support. . Policy that regulates market prices. · Access to markets via transportation (construction of good roads) and ways to process food while it is fresh · Price stabilization and a greater share of profits from food processing · Start preparing for the next food crisis as a result of climate change or pandemics.237238240241242245246249250How to best deal with irrigation issues was an exciting field of divergence. Although for most of the dialogue, farmers and food producers spoke about modernizing practices, they also acknowledged the high cost of modern farming. As a solution, a farmer said about using traditional and older methods of irrigations. Some farmers also discussed how current agricultural practices favor more prominent landowners and not small-scale farmers. A need for comprehensive land reform was discussed as well as being able to put as much land into food production service. Some farmers also asked that Nigeria look into creating a task force to protect farmers and their crops from looters and crop thieves. There was a general agreement amongst speakers that the government should plan for an increase in population and climate related contingencies.

2021-06-16 11:51:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14624/1222629096100104107118125138148160178185191200

30161432421275221743123522

1) The participants were invited to introduce themselves, their work, and their contribution to the food system. 2) The participants were encouraged to stay connected and use the dialogue to network with others who complement their work in the region. 3) The participants were given 70 minutes to discuss their work, challenges, and pathways throughout the dialogue. (2 35-minute breakout sessions). 4) The speakers highlighted the contributions of SMEs and the importance of unlocking their full potential and gave examples of how governmental support to SMEs enhances the country's economy. 5) The participants were encouraged to keep participating by completing the expert survey, registering for the Small Business Agenda for the Food Systems Summit, and for the UNFSS Pre-Summit.1) The attendees were invited to introduce themselves, briefly discuss their work, and share their contact information (if they preferred) in the chatbox and through a poll to stay connected and explore the possibilities of working together or complementing each other's work. 2) The participants came from different backgrounds; some were representatives of SMEs in the MENA region but the dialogue also incorporated representatives from governmental/law sectors, national and international NGOs, business incubators, food researchers, and university professors. 3) The participants were given two breakout sessions (35 minutes each) to speak more in-depth about 1) their work and how it contributes to the food system and the challenges that impede further development and 2) which of the dialogue's suggested pathways they deemed most beneficial for their conduct and how they would reflect on enhancing the food system in the MENA region. 4) The side conversations were then summarized, reflected on, and discussed in the plenary. 5) Speakers from FAO and ICC highlighted the SMEs' role in the food/agricultural sector and how important it is to unlock their full potential and that would be through reducing the cost of doing business, capacity building initiatives, creating a regional network, and sharing information. 6) A case study (Qatar) was used as an example: Qatar supports the private sector, especially SMEs to increase domestic food production through facilitating the legal procedures for starting a business, tax exemptions for small businesses, giving access to lands, transportation, and funds in addition to Qatari business incubators' support in financing, training, capacity building and networking.

Yes

234239240242244245249The focus: A comprehensive exploration of food systems and links between the action tracks - Addressing the components of the food system: farming, food processing, distribution, consumption, recycling, etc, how interrelated they are, and the importance of forming direct partnerships between all the stakeholders in question. - Calling for governmental and non-governmental initiatives for capacity building and training of scientists, researchers, technicians, students, and farmers on the circular economy, non-wasteful production, and recycling of agricultural waste which can produce supplementary organic-matter resources for crop production, or valuable soil amendments. - Initiatives supporting individuals affected by civil wars and plagues to get them back on track be that in terms of funds or capacity building to get them back on track. - The importance of promoting awareness, on the national and regional level, of (1) the nutrients contained in foods in relation to their roles in body maintenance, growth, reproduction, health, and disease prevention and (2) convincing people to change their eating habits toward more environmentally sustainable food consumption. This can be a challenge given that food preferences, choices, and habits occupy a central role in human cultures and food consumption goes far beyond its functional role as a means to survive.2352392412432442462491) Establishing connections between agricultural scientists/researchers and smallholder farmers so they could share knowledge and data on how to deliver sustainable agricultural practices through optimal resource use with smallholder farmers through training and workshops. 2) Creating a channel between environmental scientists/researchers and consumers so they could communicate their findings with the general consumers (everyone, basically) (each to their level of understanding) about the positive impact of responsible consumption and lowering the ecological footprint in the long run on the environment. 3) In most of the region's countries, taxes and fees are still high and administrative procedures are still inconvenient to small and medium businesses. These governments should focus on creating transparent business environments with less overlapping and practical regulations and the media/community should encourage local dining/shopping to help SMEs in the food system grow. (ease of access to the market for small & medium businesses)2362392402412442452462491) Giving SMEs a voice and an enabling environment. through 1) ease of access to funds, training, and basic services 2) adequate representation and networking services 3) less bureaucracy, clearer regulations, and simplified legal procedures 4) lower taxes and fees on starting a small business Who should take these actions: Governments, policymakers, NGOs, and business incubators. 2) Raising awareness on sustainable production and consumption of food through 1) educating stakeholders about how to lower their ecological footprint 2) rewarding responsible (environmentally friendly) production and consumption 3) promoting initiatives for agri-waste recycling Who should take these actions: governments, NGOs, local initiatives, community, scientists and educators.

2021-06-16 16:28:29205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21386/113

2448011

The engagement session was organized in a respectful manner for an open, transparent, and inclusive dialogue between the participants, curators, and moderator. The Dialogue with Malaysian youth is significant to assess the enablers that would increase youth participation in agriculture such as, automation, mechanization, and what it takes to bring youth to be part of the food system. The Dialogue brought a diversity of youth segments from youth associations, university students, and youth agropreneurs working across the food system from production to consumption. The involvement of youth enhances the principle of inclusivity where no one is left behind in the process leading to the Pre-Summit 2021.The dialogue reflected most aspects of the Principles,: Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity and Embrace Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity. Malaysia has joined AT5 and AT1 and has started its engagement session since October 2020, demonstrating its commitment to the Summit. In the Dialogue with Youth, both the Curators and participants emphasized on the readiness of safe and nutritious food at an affordable price, the significant of STI to transform the way we produce, eat, consume our food in the future, the usage of blockchain in the food system to be more resilience during unforeseen circumstances/future shocks/economic uncertainties.

Yes

234238242243244248249251We need to change the narrative, and the youth must be well informed of how lucrative the agriculture sector could be. International Youth Centre started its Urban Farming Programme in 2016 to help its own staff to have their own food because 80% of IYC’s staff is under the urban poverty level. IYC had sent its personnel to Thailand, Japan, and Indonesia to learn their method of urban farming. After 5 years, this program has expanded and now offers guidance to young people within the KL area interested in urban farming activity. MARDI has done a study and based on this study, and middlemen play a crucial role in the marketing value chain. Middlemen involvement has been recurring across all industries, not just within the agro-food sector. Whilst the complete elimination of these parties would be challenging and unlikely, reliance on middlemen can be reduced through upgrading existing distribution infrastructures where applicable to improve direct farmers' access to wholesalers and retailers. A list of initiatives targeting to create new business opportunities along the supply chain should be created (usually the agricultural cooperatives’ function is limited to upstream activities such as distribution of inputs and sales of agriculture produce) to reduce the existence and dependence on middlemen on agricultural produce on distribution and marketing. Food is the most essential need to be alive. Agriculture is not business, but agriculture is life. It is the government's utmost priority to ensure that food security is always kept in check and sufficient for its people. As youth, it’s our responsibility to support the government’s policies and plans in the food system. Since agriculture is not a preferred profession among youths, more effort is needed to encourage youths to get involved in this business. Emerging technologies like IoT, IR 4.0 and other modern inventions have to attract more youngsters. Capital funding, supply chain, agri-education and business sustainability must be assisted by a government-private partnership. People should be educated more on food wastage and the concept of 'Eat to Live and Not Live to Eat'. The collapse of the food system will be a disaster for a country, and it will definitely create chaos in the government's system. The supply must be kept in check and together we can make food an important export to feed the world. Food plays an important role in our everyday life and that’s basically the reason why food is at the base of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Food is crucial for our survival. Innovation and technology will help us be more conscious of our food consumption, better understand what we eat, how we should eat, and how technology will shape the future of food. During pandemics, we have logistical problems due to the lockdown on which access to food is rather difficult. If we use technology to invent food that could be in form of pills, for example, pills for meat, pills for apple, pills for vegetables without reducing the nutritional value of these foods, logistical problems will no longer be a big issue. We can keep the pills for more than 2 years (long expiry date), but they must be affordable for all stages of society.235238242251It is Malaysia's aspiration to have as much feedback from this group because the agriculture industry in Malaysia is not attractive to young and knowledgeable talent and this would be a threat to the sustainability of sectoral growth. Lack of young farmers’ participation in the sector can limit the country’s competitiveness to meet food security in the future. Thus, this engagement session was beneficial for Malaysia to assess the enablers that would increase youth participation in agriculture such as, automation and mechanization, technological advancement, etc.236242249251We should build resilience in our food system, especially post-covid 19. It is high time for us to leverage technologies for resilience building in food systems, such as the usage of blockchain in the supply chain management, to give us a much better able to identify any loopholes in advance. Hence, the agriculture/ food industry can adapt more easily if there are any disruptions. We also can use automation, IoT, or robotics to reduce the labour workforce in planting and harvesting crops. We should learn our lessons from COVID-19 where agriculture workers cannot go to the farm and have to keep social distancing while at the farm, which might jeopardize the yield production. Thus, technologies to reduce labour and automated operations would reduce these kinds of vulnerabilities.

Total of 794 respondents2021-07-12 05:09:04https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Dialogue-Graph-Summary.docx

2021-06-16 19:07:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20041/203

030402014050541510541564381021652432214024105125219

Our Dialogue was a unique attempt aimed to Integrate Indigenous Knowledge with emerging technologies to enhance sustainability & resilience of food system by bringing together complimentary competencies of diverse stakeholders considering the Principles of Engagement of the Food Systems Summit. The Dialogue was organized by recognizing the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action for global marginalized Indigenous communities to attain the respective 2030 SDG’s. We structured the dialogue to compliment and leverage the ongoing efforts of the Scientific Advisory Group of the Summit. Specifically, the wealth of Indigenous Knowledges has not been well-recognized by the practitioners and policy makers of food systems. Therefore, the Dialogue offered an opportunity to safeguard the respect, recognition, and rights of Indigenous Peoples to enhance resilient livelihoods and promote stewardship of natural resources, while respecting their local cultures, contexts, to reconcile with evidence based scientific knowledge. Thus, by recognizing the complexity, it was undertaken using integrated system approach, where we work collectively and leverage all available tools, and supported by 18 experts from 12 countries representing Americas, Asia, Africa, and Europe. By combining enduring knowledge from indigenous peoples with space assets, artificial intelligence, blockchain, citizen science, and other solutions, we can maximize the prospects of delivering smart, more efficient, and sustainable food practices for all. The outcome from the Panel discussions covering all five Action Tracks reflected both the policy issues as well potential workable and replicable solutions, and new development model for improving the food security for Indigenous People, thereby promoting trust and increased motivation for Indigenous youth and girls to participate in developing evidence-based tools for food systems planning and decision-making. Indeed, achieving this outcome the Dialogue committed and delivered wide-ranging benefits to the 2021 Food Systems Summit.As indicated in the previous section, the Principles of Engagement were systematically incorporated and enhanced through the overall organization and structure of this Dialogue. Hence, the Dialogue fully reflected the seven Principles of Engagement for the Food Systems Summit, i.e. (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit, (iii) be respectful, (iv) recognize complexity, (v) embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, (vi) complement the work of others, and (vii) build trust. Food security is a global challenge, and global challenges require global representation. Therefore, our Dialogue being Global strived to be more inclusive and embrace diversity fostering diverse viewpoints and solutions. The issues addressed by this Global Dialogue, focused on challenges and barriers that currently exist related to food systems and how Indigenous Peoples can contribute solutions combined with emerging technologies that can be adapted and replicated. The focus of the discussions at the Dialogue was in combining developments in scientific concepts such as space data, AI, blockchain and identifying solutions to those mandated to deliver the Summit outcome, specifically focusing on Indigenous communities. The Panelists at the Dialogue encouraged analyses, explorations, and solutions that are specific to the local context of Indigenous Peoples. They offered current efforts and case studies of grass-roots communities of Indigenous Peoples covering challenges, barriers and policy issues for Indigenous knowledge and scientific approaches to ensure access to healthy and nutritious food for all and adopt sustainable consumption patterns. The panelists further provide insight into challenges posed by climate change and extreme weather events that may impact the food systems and discussed current efforts, mechanisms, and ideas to integrate Indigenous knowledge for building resilient and sustainable agriculture. Panel moderators representing each of the five Action Tracks shared progress of idea-generation, and recommendations for next steps for Pre-Summit and Summit process.Based on the lessons learned with the planning and organization of our Dialogue, we believe that it is important to structure the Dialogue by recognizing complexity of diverse stakeholders and embracing their inclusivity, which is crucial for building trust moving forward. It is equally valuable to complement the work of others covering both the Summit mechanism as well numerous dialogues underway. For example, we structured the scope and discussion by aligning with the five Action tracks and thereby committing to the Summit process. The additional element for the convenors to consider the goals of the Dialogue aligned with the utmost urgency to reach the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Therefore, it is important to focus on workable and replicable solutions based on key milestones, success criteria and measurable deliverables between 2021 to 2030 period.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251The major focus included (a) comprehensive analysis, (b) addressing all five action tracks, and (c) linkages between the five action tracks with innovation lever of change. 1. Comprehensive analysis: Main topics covered: The Dialogue first highlighted the significance and importance of emerging technologies in the context of indigenous knowledge for food security. For example, Space data, in a sense, game-changers and it is indeed great to see the list of the benefits, as more data and information translate to actionable services, applications, policies, and decisions, this empowers us to create the future we want. However, there are still gaps we need to overcome. What hinders our collective progress is the lack of universal access to space assets and their associated benefits. We cannot leave Indigenous people behind. We must embrace them, and we must ensure their voices are heard. This is where the organizers aim to help bridge the divide. An integrated system approach, where we work collectively and leverage all available tools, to advance sustainable development has tremendous potential. By combining enduring knowledge from indigenous peoples with space assets, artificial intelligence, blockchain, citizen science, and other solutions, we maximize the prospects of delivering smart, more efficient, and sustainable agricultural practices for all. Indeed, achieving this outcome can deliver wide-ranging benefits transcending across all five action tracks of the summit. The 2021 Food Systems Summit is an opportunity to merge new technologies and solutions with the knowledge of rural people from across the world. 2. Addressing Tracks 1 and 2: Challenges, barriers, and policy Issues for integrating Indigenous knowledge/experiences to ensure access to healthy and nutritious food and adopt sustainable consumption patterns. Main topics covered: The panelists discussed their current efforts and case studies of grass-roots communities of Indigenous Peoples covering challenges, barriers and policy issues for Indigenous knowledge and scientific approaches to ensure access to healthy and nutritious food for all and adopt sustainable consumption patterns. 3. Addressing Tracks 3 and 4: Emerging S&T based solutions applicable for integrating Indigenous knowledge/experiences for food security. Main topics covered: • Indigenous community-based food security: A learning experience from Cree and Dene First nation Communities • Indigenous methods of food preparation as a viable means of achieving food security and nutrition in rural poor communities. • Development and implementation of programs that target food security using Indigenous knowledge and an intercultural perspective. • No action track can be achieved if the rights to lands and waters for indigenous peoples are not first guaranteed. • Game changers were proposed using a white paper written by the Global Hub on Indigenous Peoples Food Systems. 4. Addressing Track 5: Solutions for Sustainable and Resilient Food System Strategies and mechanisms for integrating Indigenous knowledge in building sustainable and resilient food system from vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses. Main topics covered: The panelists provided insight into challenges posed by climate change and extreme weather events that may impact the food systems and discuss current efforts, mechanisms, and ideas to integrate Indigenous knowledge for building resilient and sustainable agriculture.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251A. Main Findings from Tracks 1 and 2: • It is recognized that ancestral knowledge is extensive and despite efforts to systematize it, there are still limitations that must be recognized, and deliberate conditions must be created to have policies and resources to incorporate it into food systems where western knowledge predominates. • The summit represents an opportunity to build to recognize the problems and how to implement the solutions that we are mostly familiar with. • Reflecting on the financing of the proposals and how to really get to the political side to make inclusive decisions that promote new policies and legislations. • According to what was presented, there are many and several initiatives that already focus on knowing and valuing ancestral knowledge, they represent an opportunity to strengthen them and give more strength to the proposal of this dialogue. B. Main Findings from Tracks 3 and 4: Discussion results: Disasters are becoming more frequent with climate change and are a significant risk to food security – a risk that is only increasing due to global changes in climate. UN FAO recorded an increase in dollar-cost crop loss in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from $8.8 Bn for the 2000-2007 time to $14 Bn for 2008-2015 (UN-FAO). Crop loss in Latin America and the Caribbean was estimated at $22 Bn for 2005-2015 (UN-FAO). While most of the present diets and farming practices prescribed by yield centric with few monocropping systems are far from the traditional knowledge and wisdom-later rely on the diversity of life, agrobiodiversity, nutrient-rich crops and food sovereignty. These risks need to be handled by understanding symbiotic relationship of 5 elements, the soil, water, air, flora, and fauna. Indigenous wisdom and rights on lands and waters are essential for future smart food and diet diversity, which is driven by indigenous knowledge in synch with emerging technologies. The Global Hub on Indigenous Peoples´ Food Systems recommends: 1. Guaranteeing the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, rights to their lands and waters through policies and reforms will ensure that Indigenous Peoples could advance to more equitable livelihoods. Supporting `networks of Indigenous Peoples will also ensure they have a more active participation at policy level and to be included in the decision-making process. 2. Supporting increased biodiversity and implementing biocentric restoration centers. Resilience is strongly linked to biodiversity, so supporting indigenous communities to keep and restore their biodiversity is crucial not only for food security and nutrition but for life in general. One example of such initiatives is the Potato Park in Peru. 3. In natural systems, the production follows functions. There is an urgent need to leverage technology, diversity, and indigenous knowledge to restore the ecological sound food systems for healthy diets, sustainable living and planetary health. Technology is manured enough to make a difference which requires collective actions for system-level. transformation- it must combine resilience, conservation, and restoration with co-benefits. 4. There are two key drivers of technological innovations, the recent advances in earth observation systems and the increased use of mobile phones –90% of the precision decision making data comes from these two technologies. The transformation requires an “Inclusive Agroecosystems” where use of science, technology help to rich the producers-farmers, connect them to consumers through an institutional framework that uses the digital technologies, enormous agricultural research with the ecological framework - diversification of agriculture with indigenous knowledge and wisdom of the right mixer of crops, varieties, multi-purpose trees, livestock, and people to preserve soil health and biodiversity. Scaling such transformational changes in the food systems requires digital augmentation for collective action to interlink various systems-level solutions for inclusive development. 5. 50 years of Earth observation data coupled with local knowledge is a key to understand the impact of global climate change on food systems and indigenous people are the best stewards of climate balance. These efforts can benefit from space technologies, open data, and geo-intelligence linked with frontier technologies such as machine learning, 3-D printing, digital weather stations and the internet of things (IOTs). C. Main Findings from Track 5: Discussion results: This discussion section of the forum focused on Track 5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses, which had the objective of generating inputs and insights on challenges posed by climate change and extreme weather events that may impact the food systems, as well as discussing current efforts, mechanisms, and ideas based on using S&T tools for building resilient agriculture with focus on indigenous community, according to the concept note for this dialogue. The panelists highlighted the importance of positioning ancestral knowledge and technology under decolonial visions and debates, especially considering our approach to the terms of food security and the difference that exists between food security and food sovereignty. Looking at these concepts integrating the indigenous perceptions and not only from our western perspectives is a challenge that we need to take towards achieving a real participatory dialogue.  2362382392402412422432442452462472482492511. Outcome from Tracks 1 and 2: • It is recognized that ancestral knowledge is extensive and despite efforts to systematize it, there are still limitations that must be recognized, and deliberate conditions must be created to have policies and resources to incorporate it into food systems where western knowledge predominates. • The summit represents an opportunity to build to recognize the problems and how to implement the solutions that we are mostly familiar with. 2. Outcome from Tracks 3 and 4: Recommendations: Panel provided recommendations that may be useful for harvesting indigenous knowledge, utilizing it, and promoting sustainable food production, distribution, and consumption. • Ensure through policy making and institutional change that Indigenous Peoples rights to lands and waters is ensure. Respecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination is also crucial to advance to more equitable livelihoods and support their own processes to build and maintain more resilient communities. • Technology innovation —driven by geotagging, agrotagging, Earth observation, machine learning, and ICT-enabled citizen science, mapping new consumerism —which provides essential entry points for integrating the local knowledge and indigenous knowledge (I am not comfortable with the world intelligence, could you explain what do you mean?) for site-specific advisory, access to services/information that benefits the remote and smallholder farmers and consumers while safeguarding the environmental flows. • Involving and supporting Indigenous Peoples in the process of gathering data and evidence that supports the need to preserve their knowledge, lands, and waters. Those processes should also be led by Indigenous Peoples. • Implementation of low-cost technology solutions may be shared with indigenous populations to improve data quantity and quality. • Collaborative efforts focusing on resilience plans have the greatest benefits. • The availability of space-based data may be used to substantially improve such plans when combined with information from indigenous populations. • The frequency and availability of space-based data may aid indigenous populations in making better decisions about crop management/resilience. 3. Outcome from Track 5: The challenges posed by climate change and its consequent extreme events in the sustainability of food systems of indigenous peoples require establishing bridges between research in science and technology and traditional/ancestral knowledge and practices. These knowledges for years were able to sustain the rich and healthy diet of the indigenous peoples. However, today we observe tendencies towards deterioration. Through these spaces of dialogue, our aim was to listen openly about what indigenous peoples have to say; which builds the necessary complementarity and synergy between technological innovations and traditional practices, to face the current situation that indigenous peoples experience due to the weakening of their food systems.237238239240241242243244245246247248249251Discussion synthesis from Tracks 1 and 2: • According to what was presented, there are many and several initiatives that already focus on knowing and valuing ancestral knowledge, they represent an opportunity to strengthen them and give more strength to the proposal of this dialogue. • Reflecting on the financing of the proposals and how to really get to the political side to make inclusive decisions that promote new policies and legislations. Discussion synthesis Tracks 3 and 4: First of all, no action track will achieve its goals and objectives as far as the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples is not guaranteed as well their rights to their lands and waters. Many of the technologies and indigenous knowledge is preserved within Indigenous Peoples territories and with the daily use of their language and this is how they pass the knowledge from one generation to other. Thus, it becomes imperative to respect their right to self-determination, lands and waters. The discussion helped to define a workable and replicable new development model for integrating emerging science and technology (S&T) based solutions with Indigenous knowledge. The panelists discussed ongoing efforts and new ideas based on their experience in using S&T, especially E Earth Observation (EO) and ICT based tools for food security and food system transformation. It advocated the use of innovations to integrate indigenous knowledge and wisdom for better diet diversity, farming systems and planetary health, and use of Earth Observation and frontier technologies to investigate and integrate Indigenous knowledge for food and nutritional security. Discussion synthesis Track 5: It is of crucial importance to open dialogues about the transmission of knowledge among young peoples of indigenous communities. There is a key role of carrying out the analysis work from their ancestral knowledge but at the same time under the lens of the recovery of this knowledge by the indigenous peoples themselves, especially from the oldest wise peoples to the youth, under their praxis and their own cosmovision.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Report_UNFSS_Global_Dialogue_May_31_2021_Final.pdfhttps://caneus.org/1.UNFSS_Background_Paper_May_31.pdf

2021-06-17 01:50:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9812/33149177

6020355293117151737107613418210

Diversity of participants. The selection of the speakers and moderators followed the Principles of the Dialog and the names’ choice aimed to provide diversity to the debate, with representatives from academia, research, industry and startups. The goal was to provide a high-level exchange about global challenges and opportunities from the perspectives of the three different countries involved (Brazil, South Korea and Switzerland). Hence, we were able to connect stakeholders and foster cooperation for a better future on global food systems. We sought to offer insights from different sectors and areas of knowledge in the search for solutions. Preparation and debate. a. We held preliminary individual meetings with the speakers and moderators to exchange about their work and understand how their experience would contribute most effectively to the Dialogue. Those meetings lasted about 1 hour. The prior interaction allowed us to deepen ideas and prepare the staff for a dynamic and effective event. An important aspect of this preparation was to make clear that the Dialogue would be an open space for the exchange of ideas, with a respectful atmosphere for diversity and different opinions. Finally, we organized a straightforward program with clear and objective topics, which allowed a fluid and seamless conversation.The choice of speakers with different backgrounds allowed us to bring complementary perspectives to the discussion, embracing a multi-stakeholder inclusivity. The need to shift to more healthy and sustainable consumption patterns was presented as a call for action, as urgent changes need to be implemented. The focus on consumers’ education, innovative solutions and cross-borders learning experience reflected the complexity of food systems and its impacts on society. Subjects such as the need to transition to a fairer, more sustainable and healthier model were discussed from the perspective of food production and distribution to provide food security with quality and health. The Dialogue also highlighted the importance of implementing public policies while generating sustainable and viable solutions for the industry. The speakers addressed those and many other topics with studies, examples, initiatives, projects and experiences from different countries in an open and respectful platform, allowing the participants to complement the work and perspectives of others.The Principles of Engagement of the Food Systems Summit not only provide guidelines for diverse and respectful exchanges, but also contribute to enriching the discussions and providing a framework for objective outcomes. Understanding the need to act and sharing that urgency with stakeholders stimulates the participants to contribute with objective ideas and reflections. Recognizing complexity and embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity sets the ground for collecting multiple perspectives and allowing diverse and complementary dialogues.

Yes

234239244246248249The UN Environment Programme estimates that 931 million tonnes of food waste were generated in 2019, 61% of which came from households, 26% from foodservice and 13% from retail. That means that as much as 17% of total global food production is never consumed. Household per capita food waste generation is found to be broadly similar across country income groups, suggesting that actions to tackle food waste are equally relevant in higher, upper and lower-middle-income countries. The lack of education in this field generates confusion among consumers regarding recycling and resource circulation concepts. Other impacts on sustainability derive from agricultural production systems, causing deforestation, pollution, contamination and loss of biodiversity. Innovation also plays an essential role in the AgriFood production chain, bringing new solutions to sustainability from farming to restaurants and consumers' homes. Education and innovation are the keys to building a resource circulating society. This independent dialogue aimed to inspire solutions oriented to grow awareness, modify consumers’ behavior and propose new practices for a transition to a more sustainable production and consumption. Dots between Brazil, South Korea and Switzerland were connected by sharing current initiatives and discussing how they could vehicle the transformation in different cultural and social contexts. Our dialogue focused on topics of high importance for our network, whose goal is to establish cooperation in education, research and innovation between Switzerland the world. ● Collaborative approach: The power of collaboration across the Private Sector, Government, Media and NGOs is key to systematically addressing this issue, creating shared value and convincing stakeholders that they can be part of this change. What are the current status and leading sectors in the specific countries? ● Current initiatives: what are the current initiatives in place at the interface between sectors? How to shift consumers’ behavior, market and industry practices and transform initiatives from exception to standard at local level? ● Cross-borders approach: food waste prevention and reduction is an issue to be tackled by joining forces worldwide. Initiatives aimed at reaching this goal are effective if independent or adaptable to geolocations and wealth conditions. What is still missing? How to build this bridge? ● Role of technology: when does technology start playing a fundamental role? Can innovative food provide viable alternatives to industry standards? How can it be involved in the education of consumers considering different age ranges, cultural background, accessibility, etc?235239241244247249Speakers and participants agreed that steady public policies are essential to support a successful transformation of food systems while providing food security. Different actors should think together and provide solutions that can tackle the challenges of a complex system. Governments, academia, private sector and civil society should take actions together to reduce CO2 emissions, reduce food waste, secure access to healthy food, preserve biodiversity, water and make production more sustainable. Food waste was one of the main discussion topics and it can be addressed by education campaigns or the use of new technologies. In South Korea, education promotion to change consumer’s behaviour has been successful in reducing food waste, also involving a new approach in restaurants. New technologies have been used to monitor and change user behaviour. In Brazil, it’s necessary to implement better monitoring solutions and foster research to generate reliable data and indicators. The country also faces a paradox: while it’s one of the biggest food producers in the world, food insecurity has been increasing again in the last years, after a period of successful public policies to reduce hunger. Switzerland is investing resources to implement solutions developed in the labs. Partnerships between universities and the industry aim at reducing food waste, combating obesity and improving crops, based on international cooperation through a growthing network of specialists. Potential solutions also include plant-based proteins, certifications, alternatives to packaging, recycling and consumer trust building. The efficiency increase of food production must take into account social aspects. Small-scale production, when combined with innovative technologies, may provide positive impact on the quality of food and sustainability.236239241244246247248249The World Food System Center highlighted the potential in connecting partners from different parts of the world. The organization intends to create a network of researchers to share data and information aiming at solving problems in the food system with the support of scientists and industry and training new specialists. Promoting education against food waste and changing consumer’s behaviour are some of the approaches presented by the World Food Program. For instance, South Korean restaurants engaged in a pilot initiative achieved 30% reduction in food loss per client. The Good Food Institute in Brazil supports innovative solutions on food production and advocates for public policies. Their approach is based on plant-based solutions, cultivated meat and fermentation processes, aligned with the Swiss startup product by Planted, which is already available in the market. Sustainable nutrition should support food safety, observe social impacts, reduce climate impacts, implement regenerative agriculture and circular solutions. Actions must be global and not only local, as the supply chains generate effects in planetary scale. The vision to change and improve food systems should be clear and transcend the interest of individual players. Leadership, management, teamwork, collaboration should be embodied through a clear stewardship to move forward.237239244246249Participants’ vision mostly converged on the actions to be undertaken to tackle the transition to more sustainable and healthier consumption patterns. Discussions mainly focused on the roles and responsibilities of different players, especially from government, industry and research sectors, agreeing on the need of a professional figure linking them all in order to make the process efficient and connected. Minor divergences were remarked on the participation and approach of the three countries to the action. In particular, Brazilian paradox consists in being one of the biggest food exporters, but experiencing food insecurity. Public opinion seems sensitive to the topic and the high participation to this dialogue is one of the proofs. Research organizations and young entrepreneurs put high attention on alternative food, relations between producers and consumers, and cost control. South Korean awareness about sustainable consumption seems not to have reached yet a level preventing big amounts of food waste. Government initiatives are more intended to recycle rather than prevention, while international organizations are mostly working with the private sector to accelerate the attention shift through new technologies. However, in a top-down country stronger action of the government in terms of regulations is needed to guide consumers’ behavior. In Switzerland, healthy nutrition seems to be a major land for engagement of the private sector and population. Alternative food is one of the major trends in the bottom-up initiatives characterizing Swiss approach. Cooperation between academia and industry aims to bring new innovative solutions for healthier nutrition. However, “good food” is still associated with high costs and wealthy consumers. The issue requires government support and intervention for higher inclusivity and success of the initiatives.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UN-Independent-Dialogue_final.pdfhttps://swissnex.org/

2021-06-17 01:57:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23317/123

4103191631823159836211136

National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives/NAMAC/ organized this national independent dialogue virtually on 07 June 2021. Before conducting the event, NAMAC went through a series of preparatory activities for bringing the utmost outputs from all roles and sections that aligned with the Summit’s objectives and principles. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, NAMAC organized this event by its paid Zoom application. To make the event most meaningful, NAMAC conducted a preparatory meeting with UN-FOA in Mongolia, the EU delegation office in Mongolia and AFA, and discussed how to organize this event fruitfully and who would be focal participants According to the activity plan, NAMAC identified the focal participants such as government, UN agency and CSO’s representatives and developed agenda. In accordance with that, NAMAC sent an invitation to all through email including a Zoom link and brief information of the event and ensured their participation. NAMAC translated all the PPTs into Mongolian because the event was organized in the local language to engage all the participants meaningfully.The dialogue was organized on 07 June 2021 as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit 2021 and to the elaboration of food systems transformation both for contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. With strong belief for its members’ voices to be heard at national and global Food system dialogue, NAMAC conveyed the National Independent Dialogue among the primary food producers in order to identified problems regarding their local context and the best possible solutions to get out of these. Because the Summit will awaken the world to the fact that we all must work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food. Also, the Summit is known as is for everyone everywhere – a people’s summit which is named solutions summit that will require everyone to take action to transform the world’s food systems. Thus, the participants encouraged and believed that it will help them to move forward collectively for the best solution and policy formulation, and to make a difference in the current food system of the country as well as global. Before the event took place, NAMAC conducted a preparatory meeting with UN-FOA in Mongolia, the EU delegation office in Mongolia and AFA, and discussed how to organize this event fruitfully and who would be focal participants. Accordingly, NAMAC organized the NID on 07 June 2021, and divided the whole event into three parts: opening session, three breakout rooms for FGD and plenary session, and all major findings from breakout rooms were presented at the plenary session. We, NAMAC, believed that the results brought out from the event are in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives, and hope to be helpful to ensure a safe, sustainable food system and to upright the rights of the farmers who are primary producers.None

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The National Independent Dialogue on Food Systems Summit mainly focused on identifying priority issues from the solution clusters of the action tracks which are well-matched for the context of our country and to share any additional recommendation for the improvement of the overall food system. By organizing this Dialogue also was given a chance to participants to deliver their voice and share their thoughts on improving food systems from local to the national level in a country, more importantly, encouraged them that they will play the main role in order to the success of Summit and to reach all goals of SDGs.235238239240241242243244245246248249251• Strengthening small scale farmers and primary producers • Establish cold chain and use natural energy for cellars • Promote quality competition for the introduction of a classification system • Food cluster development • Creating sustainable food consumption • Improving consumers’ knowledge • Promote youth and women decent employment and income in the crop and livestock value chains • Reconsider the network system of food safety laboratories in the import of food products which directly related to food sovereignty. Also, it is very important to take issues of food safety laboratories to the next level at the national and regional levels in case of the export of food that can meet international standards • Introduce good agricultural practices • Provide knowledge on food waste and establish waste processing plants in every region • Protect groundwater • Technological innovation to increase the output of farming • Improving the quality of livestock breeds and developing intensive livestock • Protect pastureland • Conduct soil monitoring and evaluation, and develop a database • Commodity management and soil nutrient balance calculation • For small scale farmers, to develop a model to increase productivity and reduce costs236238239240241242243244245246248249251Group 1: Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all • Strengthening small scale farmers and primary producers • Establish cold chain and use natural energy for cellars • Food cluster development • Creating sustainable food consumption • Improving consumers’ knowledge • Reconsider the network system of food safety laboratories in the import of food products which directly related to food sovereignty. Also, it is very important to take issues of food safety laboratories to the next level at the national and regional levels in case of the export of food that can meet international standards • Improve food control system • Implement a national policy to support primary small scall farmers in providing nutritious food • Focus on the implementation of approved programs related to food Group 2: Action Track 2 and 3: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns and Boost nature-positive production • Introduce good agricultural practices • Promote organic farming • Provide knowledge on food waste and establish waste processing plants in every region • Protect groundwater • Technological innovation to increase the output of farming • Improving the quality of livestock breeds and developing intensive livestock • Protect pastureland • Conduct soil monitoring and evaluation, and develop a database • Commodity management and soil nutrient balance calculation Group 3: Action Track 4 and 5: Advance equitable livelihoods and Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress • For small scale farmers, to develop a model to increase productivity and reduce costs • Promote youth and women decent employment and income in the crop and livestock value chains • Promote organic farming • Improve farmers’ social protection scheme • Integrated cultivation policy, especially in the vegetable sector • Support building competitive Mongolian food brands that meet national and international quality/food safety standards • Local communities and local decision-makers are capacitated to apply sustainable management and restoration of productive landscapes • Promote community and ecosystem-based disaster risk management and climate change mitigation and adaptation237238239240241242243244245246248249251None

2021-06-17 11:21:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14418/112

510203201753545555105255532

The dialogues was convened with respect to all the summit principles of engagements. Particularly the dialogue promoted multistakeholder participation and collaboration by involving all food system key players at the district and community level. The dialogue had the participation of civil societies, women farmers, lead farmers, agriculture traders, government stakeholders and youths.The dialogue identified sustainable actions that would help achieving the SDGs while understanding the complexity of food systems. The dialogue embraced multistakeholder inclusivity to bring diverse perspective especially indegenous knowledge which is essential in understanding grassroot obtsacles that limit individuals promoting sustainable food systems.It is essential to uphold summit principles of engagements when convening a dialogue because they guide the effective way of having a dialogue and for easy reporting feedback which others can follow.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main objective of convening the CSO-led independent food Systems Dialogues was to unearth challenges, actions and opportunities related to the food systems chain in Malawi, from the production side to the consumption side. The discussions from the dialogues are important in informing policymakers at every level of government as well as the UN food Systems Summit outcomes. These Independent Dialogues provided a forum for more people, who are otherwise unheard in the communities, to identify sustainable solutions that are locally based, locally-led and fully adaptable to the different context within Malawi to strengthen local and global food systems. The dialogue was a comprehensive exploration of the districts’ Food Systems along the five UN Food Systems action tracks and crosscutting levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of the food systems, including its functionality, major stakeholders, potentials, vulnerabilities, as well as opportunities for its transformation so that it can deliver high-quality diet that is affordable, healthy, nutritious, inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; as well as able to meet the need of all actors of the food system. It placed particular emphasis on ways to increase agricultural production, proposing ways to facilitate investments in agricultural inputs, sustainable technologies, and extension services, leveraging the roles of each stakeholder in the district (Chiefs, Lead farmer, extension workers) to accelerate progress.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The districts recognize the need to rebuild and strengthen food systems driven by radical thinking, smart partnerships, backed by strong political will and courage to advance the food systems transformation need of the districts. The suggested steps were food diversification with a particular focus on drought resistance varieties, adoption of Agri technologies that increase productivity with less impact on climate, support and promotion of Agri extension workers to reach farmers with new skills and models, the role of agro-dealers in local markets, reduction of tax for Agri inputs, promotion of livestock farming in drought-affected regions and the use of farmers cooperatives if commercial farming in not exploited. The challenges that were observed are, limited agriculture extension workers, climate change, outbreaks of pest and diseases, high prices of inputs and poor markets for buying and selling produce. Participant envisaged a food system that will be development focused that prioritizes healthy diets and affordable nutrition that is inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable while working for everyone, especially the government. To achieve this Potential opportunities identified were the availability of fertile land in many parts of the districts, availability of local CSO to offer advocacy support and bridging the gap between farmers and governments, availability of farmers groups that are working through cooperatives and accessibility of indigenous knowledge on pests and droughts passed from generation to generation236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Each district had a total of 4 breakout sessions. The groups discussed key food systems issues affecting their livelihoods and propose solutions to barriers that have identified. These recommendations will be shared and discuss in the plenary session which will be moderated by the facilitator. Two groups focused on one topic and these were; 1) How to maintain a vibrant food system amidst climate and COVID-19 Challenges and 2) To promote community food accessibility and sustained mechanisms for preservations. Key actions for discussion topic 1 were the promotion of farmers village saving loans during a crisis like COVI-19, enhancing food preservation like mangoes and fruits, reducing food wastage, promotion information sharing and collaboration and use of technologies, Strengthening agricultural extension services, improve roads networks and irrigation. The outcomes for discussion topic 2 were increased farming cooperatives to share knowledge on preservation, tree planting to protect soil and water, planting bananas along with water reservoirs, NGO and government to invest in training farmers about preservation and management of farmland, promote sustainable prices that can benefit farmers to sell producing should promote technology farming and innovation, farmers access to loans, agro dealer should provide new varieties in time and more awareness on food preservation. All discussion groups envision that by

2021-06-17 12:02:08205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13513/177

330218130014190539020207010210001070000162210403012310

The Geneva/Lausanne Food System Dialogue was held virtually on the 6th of May 2021 as the first of three city dialogues conducted in the frame of the Swiss National Food Systems Dialogue. It gathered 33 representatives from many sectors along the food value chains. During this event, the participants took part in three different break-out GROUP DISCUSSIONS on city relevant topics focusing on food systems transformation. These group discussions constituted the core of the event. The diverse life and work experiences, expertise and opinions of participants stimulated lively interactions and DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Each participant was allocated to a discussion group prior to the event. The group discussions brought together a wide range of stakeholders and nominated facilitators allowed for a CONSTRUCTIVE EXCHANGE. The Chatham house rule applied to all the discussions in the break-out groups, to create a SAFE SPACE FOR EXCHANGE. In addition, participants were reminded that MUTUAL RESPECT is the basis of a true dialogue, and that it involves listening and openness to different viewpoints. The stakeholders were encouraged to speak out throughout the event and use the chat function for questions and comments during the plenary sessions at the beginning and the end of the event.To address the different topics through A HOLISTIC APPROACH, MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS GROUP DISCUSSIONS were organized. The topic of the three group discussions were identified and prioritised by the Geneva and Lausanne focal persons out of a list of eight future statements elaborated by the consultative group of the National FSS Dialogue Convenor. The topics discussed in each break-out group were presented as prioritised and city relevant future statements with a time horizon to 2030. Group participants were asked to think of CONCRETE ACTIONS allowing to achieve the statement of their group, bearing in mind potential synergies and trade-offs.N/A

Yes

234238239240241243244245246247248249250251The City Dialogue Geneva and Lausanne is part of the second stage (out of three) of the Swiss National Food Systems Summit Dialogue, convened by the Delegate of the Federal Council for the 2030 Agenda of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) and curated by the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). The 1st national food systems dialogue (23 March 2021) involved food systems stakeholders at national level and discussed 8 future statements developed on the basis of the five Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy put out for public consultation by the Swiss Federal Council, the executive branch of the federal government, until 4 February 2021, as well as of other strategies of the Federal Council. The 2nd round of dialogues focused on context-specific discussions in selected cities representing three linguistic regions, namely Zurich/Basel (German) Geneva/Lausanne (French) and Bellinzona (Italian). The aim of the City Dialogues was to take up current key topics of the cities related to sustainable food systems and to involve a broad range of stakeholders to discuss concrete, feasible measures in these topics. The cities of Geneva and Lausanne proposed the following priority TOPICS for the dialogue: 1. SUSTAINABLE COLLECTIVE CATERING, 2. CONSUMERS AWARENESS and 3. FOOD POLICIES. These topics were formulated as future statements, describing an ambitious situation to be realized within ten years and serving as a common frame for the discussion group. Participants were asked to think of CONCRETE ACTIONS leading to achieve the future statements, by bearing in mind the synergies and trade-offs inherent to the anticipated transformation. These discussions enable representatives to dress a comprehensive exploration of their local food systems and to suggest some solutions, policies, or joint actions.235238239240241243244245246247248249250251The GROUP DISCUSSIONS allowed all the stakeholders to share and have a constructive exchange, in a cordial atmosphere. The different groups reached the following main results and conclusions: 1. DEFINE A SYSTEMIC FRAMEWORK INTEGRATING CLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRITERIA to strengthen the implementation of sustainable food systems. This framework should embed agriculture, environment, nutrition and the public health interests, synergies, and trade-offs. The strategic frame shall ensure healthy and sustainable food for all by defining desirable diets for Switzerland in the next 30 years, reducing meat consumption and food waste, while improving the sustainability of our food system (e.g. preservation of ecosystems, land and soil, viability of the food system…). 2. The strategic frame shall serve the elaboration of a FEDERAL FOOD POLICY. Such a policy should encourage and allow a financial support to the cantons and municipalities initiatives. The right to healthy and nutritious food at national level should also be included. 3. The elaboration of a federal food policy should be built through a HOLISTIC AND TRANSVERSAL APPROACH, that would include all actors of the Food System. 4. In parallel of new policies, the group discussions addressed the importance of individual responsibility in the transformation of the food system. RAISING AWARENESS is therefore a major focus for both YOUTH AND ADULTS. This awareness must be strengthened through a more widespread access to trainings, clear and fair sustainability rating, and a strengthened producer-consumer relationship. Refocusing on the quality of our food would allow a stronger public health, less waste and an economically stable food system in the long term. 5 The FOOD WASTE REDUCTION is also a crucial step for the transformation towards a sustainable food system. A drastic reduction could be achieved through a JOINT EFFORT OF THE CONSUMER AND THE RESTAURANT OWNERS to prepare smaller portion of raw products.236238239240241243244245246248249250TOPIC 1: SUSTAINABLE COLLECTIVE CATERING: The stakeholders discussed how the SHARE OF LOCAL AND ORGANIC PRODUCTS could be increased and how an EXEMPLARY PURCHASING POLICY for the imported products could be set for the public and private collective catering, through a LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK and appropriate FINANCIAL SUPPORT. Participants also discussed current NUTRITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS: 1. The participants declared that AN INCREASED COMMUNICATION is essential to extend the impact of the current initiatives aiming at increasing the share of local and organic products. Communicating on success stories and achieved results is crucial to raise awareness among consumers and producers and to enable further implementations. 2. The second action identified was the need for a COORDINATED FRAMEWORK BASED ON A DIALOGUE BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS. Policies, economic incentives, and penalties should be CONTEXT SPECIFIC MEASURES put in place according to the stakeholder’s dialogues. Such a dialogues would IMPROVE THE STAKEHOLDER’S UNDERSTANDING of the complex collective catering system. 3. Collective catering is a difficult environment because budgets depend on several factors (public-private institutions). PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS should ensure a significant FINANCIAL SUPPORT. This increased economic support from the State would allow restaurant owners to make a transition to sustainable sourcing and, consequently, increase demand for the local producers. 4. The possibility of a TAX ON PRODUCTS WITH A HIGHER CO2 impact has been discussed as a complementary and non-confrontational measure. The participants stated that it is crucial to consider the consumers financial situation while showing the ‘real cost’ of the products to raise awareness and strengthen INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. 5. Collective catering should be used to consolidate PUBLIC AWARENESS. Canteen and restaurant owners are actors of change and can influence the PERCEPTION OF A BALANCED AND SUSTAINABLE MENUS (e.g. by preparing them at elementary schools). 6. The public awareness will result in sustainable consumption habits only if it is combined with more TRANSPARENCY. Consumers should have a complete information disclosure on the products they buy and consume to be able to make healthy and sustainable choices. 7. The participants highlighted the need to update and increase information and transparency on NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS. The dietary recommendations (SSN) do not always reflect state of the art nutritional standards and are often misunderstood by the population (in terms of quantity and consumption of meat). 8. A BETTER IDENTIFICATION OF PLANT BASED PROTEINS IN THE FOOD PYRAMID is necessary. Sustainable catering should not be based on the substitution of animal proteins by vegetable proteins, which is not sustainable and represent a financial burden, but by vegetarian cuisine. 9.The menus should be simplified and served in smaller portion to REDUCE FOOD WASTE. Restaurant owners should encourage clients to use "doggy bags" to recover unfinished food. 10. To adapt their menus, dieticians and cooks should receive adequate TRAINING to enhance their skills and knowledge about using more local, organic products. The reduction of animal products, out-of-season vegetables, and highly processed products would limit the overall costs for restaurant owners. 11. Overall, the participants agreed that a HOLISTIC APPROACH including the prices, the supply system and the kitchen is needed. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES: 1. The participants noticed a LACK OF COORDINATED DIRECT INTERVENTION by the state and municipalities (cantons/communes). The challenge is to have FLEXIBLE FOOD SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK/POLICY at a federal level, which allows context specific implementation by each level of decision making (federal, canton, municipality). 2.The collective catering has the power to influence the offer, but the transition period from conventional to sustainable sourcing can be long. The challenge is TO SUPPORT THE REORGANIZATION/ TRANSFORMATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSING SECTOR to adjust to changing needs by collective catering.236238239240243244246247248249250251TOPIC 2: CONSUMER AWARENESS: Participants discussed about how consumers can be actors of a sustainable food system by buying sustainable, local, and seasonal products and by reducing food waste. Participants also talked about how consumers could have access to healthy and sustainable food and to the relevant information about food and production. I.PRIORITY ACTIONS: 1.The group stated that most of the AWARENESS INCREASE should be achieved through YOUTH EDUCATION. The young generation of consumers can directly bring change in their households. The learning process should include KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS LEARNING, with hands-on activities (guided tastings, nutrition education etc) and experiences in farms, and should be accessible to all. Effort made to help them DISCOVER HEALTHY DISHES should be strengthened. 1. ADULT’S KNOWLEDGE AND KNOW-HOW in terms of sustainable cooking should be improved, to establish NEW HABITS of cooking raw products instead of buying processed products. Activities (tastings, cooking) could be accessible to train consumers without being prescriptive. 3. BRINGING CONSUMERS AND PRODUCERS TOGETHER is an essential axis to create a dialogue and to increase the value of sustainable food from the consumers perspective. Consumers can go to farms (farm visits, direct sales, etc.) or farmers can come to meet them (urban farms, markets, etc.). This relationship makes the consumers aware of the importance to eat seasonal and non-standardized fruits/vegetables to reduce imported products and food waste. 4. FOOD WASTE REDUCTION is a key driver to mitigate climate change. Consumer’s knowledge in preparing food from raw products, their purchasing habits of ‘non-standardized’ products and the understanding about products shelf-life should be improved. 5. Once consumers are aware of their individual responsibility, TRANSPARENCY on the origin of food products, production and environmental impact should be accessible. Federal Office of Environment shall provide frame conditions for healthy and sustainable food consumption that prevent misleading "green" marketing ("healthwashing, green washing"). The indication of origin must be improved, also for products supplied to restaurants. The Nutri-Score and the Eco-score are good tools; however, a single system is needed instead of multiple overlapping labels. 6. The over-consumption of meat has a proven impact on the environment and health. However, it is often replaced by "ultra-processed" foods whose over-consumption is associated with certain non-communicable diseases. Participants agreed that a REDUCTION OF MEAT consumption should be based on AWARENESS AND VOLUNTARY ACTIONS and meat should not be replaced by processed food. 7. Fighting marketing that stimulates buying large quantities of food will contribute to REDUCE FOOD WASTE. In restaurants, we need to change habits; by being able to choose the size of the meals and by having the option to take the unfinished food to go. 8. There is a real necessity to establish FAIR PRICES for the stakeholders (producers, consumers, distributors etc). The participants suggested to impose taxes on unhealthy or ultra-processed products and tax revenues could be redistributed to households unable to afford quality food. The question on true cost accounting in setting fair product price was raised, but a consensual answer was not reached. II.CHALLENGES: 1.We need to contextualize Swiss consumption at a global level. A certain proportion of the meat consumed in Switzerland comes from abroad and has a "spill over effect". This important IMPACT OF SWISS CONSUMPTION ABROAD should be considered. 2. We need to recognize that not all people have the same level of knowledge, interest or commitment about this issue. We need to bring into the conversation actors closer to the social realities of cities. 3.The future food system needs to consider the food insecurity of certain population groups. 4. It is interesting to consider the cultural diversity of the different neighbourhoods in terms of food consumption. 5.The food supply consists mainly of highly processed foods. This offer needs to adapt with the change of the consumers purchasing habits.236238239240241246247248249250TOPIC 3 : FOOD POLICIES: Participants discussed on developing local agriculture to reduce processing, packaging and transportation and how to support local and regional initiatives on awareness raising, information dissemination and training. Participants also talked about the need for a strong link between production and consumption at the federal level, and more precisely how the Confederation could put in place a comprehensive food policy which embeds agricultural policy and other sectoral policies such as health, food quality, nutrition, protection of resources and the environment, economy, and trade. I) PRIORITY ACTIONS: 1. Participants agreed that a NATIONAL COORDINATION was essential. The work done by the associations (civil society) as well as by the cities must serve as a basis. 2. A Food Policy should address a whole population, and ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS should be INCLUDED in the DISCUSSION and the ELABORATION. 2. It is particularly important to involve large retailers, which should have a diverse offer, also of local products, so that the consumer can choose quality products. 4. The stakeholders suggested to organize INTERSECTORAL MEETINGS/ WORKSHOPs at the federal level to build overarching policy addressing agriculture, food, health, and economy sectors (e.g. trade, export and import policies). 5. It is crucial to establish a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEALTH AND FOOD PRODUCTS to transform production into something that is really needed. 6.The health funding should also be revised, as only 3% of the health care spending are spent on preventive health care. There is a necessity to emphasize the orientation of research in the field of health, particularly on prevention, through research on an adapted diet for instance. 7. Participants also stated that EDUCATION AND PROMOTION WORK is crucial to empower consumers. The consumers and the intermediaries need to have access to education and training and a priority needs to be set for the schools - there is a real necessity to train and inform teachers on sustainable food systems. The objective is to restore the appreciation of local products and encourage people to take the time to cook, learn about the products and adapt their consumption (e.g. less but local meat). 8. Empowered consumers require TRANSPARENCY to choose sustainable products. Distributors should provide full product declaration through coherent labelling. A food policy could penalise non-conform declaration and regulate its application with the appropriate governance structure. Moreover, transparency can encourage consumers to accept higher price. 9. We must find mechanisms to have FAIR PRICES for all the stakeholders. It is a necessity to convince large-scale retailers to pay producers well (fair pricing) and reduce intermediaries. 10.These fair prices should be accompanied with support mechanisms to allow consumers with a limited food budget to consume sustainably produced and healthy foods, as the involvement of consumers is essential to make the policies coherent. 11. It is important to integrate the issue of FOOD WASTE by sensitizing value and use of agricultural products (non-standardized products) and by reducing food waste in the shops as well as in the restaurants. 12. The participants expressed that the SUPPORT/INCENTIVES TO LOCAL INITIATIVES must be reinforced and broadened. There is the need to set up a system to promote local products at various levels (e.g. access to markets, access to land, training, information, etc.). 13. Finally, the IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE is still pending and farmer’s role as a food producer should be put at the centre. II. CHALLENGES: 1. A policy coordination at the federal level may be more COMPLICATED, which may take time 2. LOCAL SENSITIVITIES are not always identical with the federal level, and a federal policy could not be adapted to what is offered at the local level.237238239240241242243244246249250The GROUP DISCUSSIONS of the workshop gathered 33 representatives, who affirmed their will to contribute to the transformation of cities food systems, without denying nor shifting responsibilities to other stakeholders. Although participants tended to agree on the issues at stake, several challenges and trade-offs were identified: 1. Organic labels can convey information to consumers in a clear and simple way, which make it easier for them to choose products. However, they can be used for products that do not reflect sustainable consumption. This is especially true for imported products or products grown under greenhouse which, despite the organic label, may have a higher CO2 impact/footprint. Product labels lack of full transparency and prevent informed decision making by consumers. It is therefore necessary to adopt an INCLUSIVE PRODUCT DECLARATION POLICY, rendering local products and fair trade more competitive due to informed purchase decisions. 2. Legislative and promotional efforts do not automatically translate into increased consumption of organic products or plant-based proteins. It is impossible to ask farmers to produce them if the demand does not exist or if they compete with imported products. A COORDINATED APPROACH is needed to promote consumption that is local, organic and healthy. 3. THE OBJECTIVES of efforts towards sustainable consumption are sometimes CONTRADICTORY. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the health aspect, eating habits and sustainability to organize efforts with compatible objectives. This is particularly the case for restaurants serving old age homes, which must reconcile habits of certain segments of the population with the consumption and nutritional guidelines and policies. 4. While laws do have the power to drive change in consumption patterns, the lack of legislation should not be an excuse for inaction. Efforts can be made on a VOLUNTARY BASIS and are said to BE MORE EFFECTIVE than any government effort. 5. While participants highlighted the necessity to have more PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES framed by the state, to have more credibility; others questioned the legitimacy of participatory approaches and pictured it as an obstacle.

2021-06-17 12:02:26205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15588/177

33218131419532271211070162211421231

The Lausanne/Geneva Food System Dialogue was held virtually on the 6th of May 2021 as the first of three city dialogues conducted in the frame of the Swiss National Food Systems Dialogue. It gathered 33 representatives from many sectors along the food value chains. During this event, the participants took part in 3 different break-out GROUP DISCUSSIONS on city relevant topics focusing on food systems transformation. These group discussions constituted the core of the event. The diverse life and work experiences, expertise and opinions of participants stimulated lively interactions and DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. Each participant was allocated to a discussion group prior to the event. The group discussions brought together a wide range of stakeholders and nominated facilitators allowed for a CONSTRUCTIVE EXCHANGE. The Chatham house rule applied to all the discussions in the break-out groups, to create a SAFE SPACE FOR EXCHANGE. In addition, participants were reminded that MUTUAL RESPECT is the basis of a true dialogue, and that it involves listening and openness to different viewpoints. The stakeholders were encouraged to speak out throughout the event and use the chat function for questions and comments during the plenary sessions at the beginning and the end of the event.n/a

Yes

234238239240241243244245246247248249250251The City Dialogue Geneva and Lausanne is part of the second stage (out of three) of the Swiss National Food Systems Summit Dialogue, convened by the Delegate of the Federal Council for the 2030 Agenda of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) and curated by the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). The 1st national food systems dialogue (23 March 2021) involved food systems stakeholders at national level and discussed 8 future statements developed on the basis of the five Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy put out for public consultation by the Swiss Federal Council, the executive branch of the federal government, until 4 February 2021, as well as of other strategies of the Federal Council. The 2nd round of dialogues focused on context-specific discussions in selected cities representing three linguistic regions, namely Zurich/Basel (German) Geneva/Lausanne (French) and Bellinzona (Italian). The aim of the City Dialogues was to take up current key topics of the cities related to sustainable food systems and to involve a broad range of stakeholders to discuss concrete, feasible measures in these topics. The cities of Geneva and Lausanne proposed the following priority TOPICS for the dialogue: 1. SUSTAINABLE COLLECTIVE CATERING, 2. CONSUMERS AWARENESS and 3. FOOD POLICIES. These topics were formulated as future statements, describing an ambitious situation to be realized within ten years and serving as a common frame for the discussion group. Participants were asked to think of CONCRETE ACTIONS leading to achieve the future statements, by bearing in mind the synergies and trade-offs inherent to the anticipated transformation. These discussions enable representatives to dress a comprehensive exploration of their local food systems and to suggest some solutions, policies, or joint actions.235238239240241243244245246248249250251The GROUP DISCUSSIONS allowed all the stakeholders to share and have a constructive exchange, in a cordial atmosphere. The different groups reached the following main results and conclusions: 1. DEFINE A SYSTEMIC FRAMEWORK INTEGRATING CLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRITERIA to strengthen the implementation of sustainable food systems. This framework should embed agriculture, environment, nutrition and the public health interests, synergies, and trade-offs. The strategic frame shall ensure healthy and sustainable food for all by defining desirable diets for Switzerland in the next 30 years, reducing meat consumption and food waste, while improving the sustainability of our food system (e.g. preservation of ecosystems, land and soil, viability of the food system…). 2. The strategic frame shall serve the elaboration of a FEDERAL FOOD POLICY. Such a policy should encourage and allow a financial support to the cantons and municipalities initiatives. The right to healthy and nutritious food at national level should also be included. 3. The elaboration of a federal food policy should be built through a HOLISTIC AND TRANSVERSAL APPROACH, that would include all actors of the Food System. 4. In parallel of new policies, the group discussions addressed the importance of individual responsibility in the transformation of the food system. RAISING AWARENESS is therefore a major focus for both YOUTH AND ADULTS. This awareness must be strengthened through a more widespread access to trainings, clear and fair sustainability rating , and a strengthened producer-consumer relationship. Refocusing on the quality of our food would allow a stronger public health, less waste and an economically stable food system in the long term. 5 The FOOD WASTE REDUCTION is also a crucial step for the transformation towards a sustainable food system. A drastic reduction could be achieved through a JOINT EFFORT OF THE CONSUMER AND THE RESTAURANT OWNERS to prepare smaller portion of raw products.236238239240241243244246248249250TOPIC 1: SUSTAINABLE COLLECTIVE CATERING: The stakeholders discussed how the SHARE OF LOCAL AND ORGANIC PRODUCTS could be increased and how an EXEMPLARY PURCHASING POLICY for the imported products could be set for the public and private collective catering, through a LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK and appropriate FINANCIAL SUPPORT. Participants also discussed current NUTRITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS: (1) The participants declared that AN INCREASED COMMUNICATION is essential to extend the impact of the current initiatives aiming at increasing the share of local and organic products. Communicating on success stories and achieved results is crucial to raise awareness among consumers and producers and to enable further implementations. (2) The second action identified was the need for a COORDINATED FRAMEWORK BASED ON A DIALOGUE BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS. Policies, economic incentives, and penalties should be CONTEXT SPECIFIC MEASURES put in place according to the stakeholder’s dialogues. Such a dialogues would IMPROVE THE STAKEHOLDER’S UNDERSTANDING of the complex collective catering system. (3) Collective catering is a difficult environment because budgets depend on several factors (public-private institutions). PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS should ensure a significant FINANCIAL SUPPORT. This increased economic support from the State would allow restaurant owners to make a transition to sustainable sourcing and, consequently, increase demand for the local producers. (4) The possibility of a TAX ON PRODUCTS WITH A HIGHER CO2 impact has been discussed as a complementary and non-confrontational measure. The participants stated that it is crucial to consider the consumers financial situation while showing the ‘real cost’ of the products to raise awareness and strengthen INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. (5) Collective catering should be used to consolidate PUBLIC AWARENESS. Canteen and restaurant owners are actors of change and can influence the PERCEPTION OF A BALANCED AND SUSTAINABLE MENUS (e.g. by preparing them at elementary schools). (6) The public awareness will result in sustainable consumption habits only if it is combined with more TRANSPARENCY. Consumers should have a complete information disclosure on the products they buy and consume to be able to make healthy and sustainable choices. (7) The participants highlighted the need to update and increase information and transparency on NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS. The dietary recommendations (SSN) do not always reflect state of the art nutritional standards and are often misunderstood by the population (in terms of quantity and consumption of meat). (8) A BETTER IDENTIFICATION OF PLANT BASED PROTEINS IN THE FOOD PYRAMID is necessary. Sustainable catering should not be based on the substitution of animal proteins by vegetable proteins, which is not sustainable and represent a financial burden, but by vegetarian cuisine. (9) The menus should be simplified and served in smaller portion to REDUCE FOOD WASTE. Restaurant owners should encourage clients to use "doggy bags" to recover unfinished food. (10) To adapt their menus, dieticians and cooks should receive adequate TRAINING to enhance their skills and knowledge about using more local, organic products. The reduction of animal products, out-of-season vegetables, and highly processed products would limit the overall costs for restaurant owners. (11) Overall, the participants agreed that a HOLISTIC APPROACH including the prices, the supply system and the kitchen is needed. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES: (1) The participants noticed a LACK OF COORDINATED DIRECT INTERVENTION by the state and municipalities (cantons/communes). The challenge is to have FLEXIBLE FOOD SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK/POLICY at a federal level, which allows context specific implementation by each level of decision making (federal, canton, municipality). (2) The collective catering has the power to influence the offer, but the transition period from conventional to sustainable sourcing can be long. The challenge is TO SUPPORT THE REORGANIZATION/ TRANSFORMATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSING SECTOR to adjust to changing needs by collective catering.236238239240241243244246248249250251TOPIC 2: CONSUMER AWARENESS: Participants discussed about how consumers can be actors of a sustainable food system by buying sustainable, local, and seasonal products and by reducing food waste. Participants also talked about how consumers could have access to healthy and sustainable food and to the relevant information about food and production. I.PRIORITY ACTIONS: (1)The group stated that most of the AWARENESS INCREASE should be achieved through YOUTH EDUCATION. The young generation of consumers can directly bring change in their households. The learning process should include KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS LEARNING, with hands-on activities (guided tastings, nutrition education etc) and experiences in farms, and should be accessible to all. Effort made to help them DISCOVER HEALTHY DISHES should be strengthened. (2) ADULT’S KNOWLEDGE AND KNOW-HOW in terms of sustainable cooking should be improved, to establish NEW HABITS of cooking raw products instead of buying processed products. Activities (tastings, cooking) could be accessible to train consumers without being prescriptive. (3) BRINGING CONSUMERS AND PRODUCERS TOGETHER is an essential axis to create a dialogue and to increase the value of sustainable food from the consumers perspective. Consumers can go to farms (farm visits, direct sales, etc.) or farmers can come to meet them (urban farms, markets, etc.). This relationship makes the consumers aware of the importance to eat seasonal and non-standardized fruits/vegetables to reduce imported products and food waste. (4) FOOD WASTE REDUCTION is a key driver to mitigate climate change. Consumer’s knowledge in preparing food from raw products, their purchasing habits of ‘non-standardized’ products and the understanding about products shelf-life should be improved. (5) Once consumers are aware of their individual responsibility, TRANSPARENCY on the origin of food products, production and environmental impact should be accessible. Federal Office of Environment shall provide frame conditions for healthy and sustainable food consumption that prevent misleading "green" marketing (healthwashing, greenwashing). The indication of origin must be improved, also for products supplied to restaurants. The Nutri-Score and the Eco-score are good tools; however, a single system is needed instead of many contradictory labels. (6) The over-consumption of meat has a proven impact on the environment and health. However, it is often replaced by "ultra-processed" foods whose over-consumption is associated with certain non-communicable diseases. Participants agreed that a REDUCTION OF MEAT consumption should be based on AWARENESS AND VOLUNTARY ACTIONS and meat should not be replaced by processed food. (7) Fighting marketing that stimulates buying large quantities of food will contribute to REDUCE FOOD WASTE. In restaurants, we need to change habits; by being able to choose the size of the meals and by having the option to take the unfinished food to go. (8) There is a real necessity to establish FAIR PRICES for the stakeholders (producers, consumers, distributors etc). The participants suggested to impose taxes on unhealthy or ultra-processed products and tax revenues could be redistributed to households unable to afford quality food. The question on true cost accounting in setting fair product price was raised, but a consensual answer was not reached. II.CHALLENGES: (1) We need to contextualize Swiss consumption at a global level. A certain proportion of the meat consumed in Switzerland comes from abroad and has a"spill over effect".This important IMPACT OF SWISS CONSUMPTION ABROAD should be considered. (2) We need to recognize that not all people have the same level of knowledge, interest or commitment about this issue. We need to bring into the conversation actors closer to the social realities of cities. (3) The future food system needs to consider the food insecurity of certain population groups. (4) It is interesting to consider the cultural diversity of the different neighbourhoods in terms of food consumption. (5) The food supply consists mainly of highly processed foods. This offer needs to adapt with the change of the consumers purchasing.236238239240241243244247248249250TOPIC 3: FOOD POLICIES: Participants discussed on developing local agriculture to reduce processing, packaging and transportation and how to support local and regional initiatives on awareness raising, information dissemination and training. Participants also talked about the need for a strong link between production and consumption at the federal level, and more precisely how the Confederation could put in place a comprehensive food policy which embeds agricultural policy and other sectoral policies such as health, food quality, nutrition, protection of resources and the environment, economy, and trade. I) PRIORITY ACTIONS: (1) Participants agreed that a NATIONAL COORDINATION was essential. The work done by the associations (civil society) as well as by the cities must serve as a basis. (2) A Food Policy should address a whole population, and ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS should be INCLUDED in the DISCUSSION and the ELABORATION. (3) It is particularly important to involve large retailers, which should have a diverse offer, also of local products, so that the consumer can choose quality products. (4) The stakeholders suggested to organize INTERSECTORAL MEETINGS/ WORKSHOPs at the federal level to build overarching policy addressing agriculture, food, health, and economy sectors (e.g. trade, export and import policies). (5) It is crucial to establish a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEALTH AND FOOD PRODUCTS to transform production into something that is really needed. (6) The health funding should also be revised, as only 3% of the health care spending are spent on preventive health care. There is a necessity to emphasize the orientation of research in the field of health, particularly on prevention, through research on an adapted diet for instance. (7) Participants also stated that EDUCATION AND PROMOTION WORK is crucial to empower consumers. The consumers and the intermediaries need to have access to education and training and a priority needs to be set for the schools - there is a real necessity to train and inform teachers on sustainable food systems. The objective is to restore the appreciation of local products and encourage people to take the time to cook, learn about the products and adapt their consumption (e.g. less but local meat). (8) Empowered consumers require TRANSPARENCY to choose sustainable products. Distributors should provide full product declaration through coherent labelling. A food policy could penalise non-conform declaration and regulate its application with the appropriate governance structure. Moreover, transparency can encourage consumers to accept higher price. (9) We must find mechanisms to have FAIR PRICES for all the stakeholders. It is a necessity to convince large-scale retailers to pay producers well (fair pricing) and reduce intermediaries. (10) These fair prices should be accompanied with support mechanisms to allow consumers with a limited food budget to consume sustainably produced and healthy foods, as the involvement of consumers is essential to make the policies coherent.(11) It is important to integrate the issue of FOOD WASTE by sensitizing value and use of agricultural products (non-standardized products) and by reducing food waste in the shops as well as in the restaurants. (12) The participants expressed that the SUPPORT/INCENTIVES TO LOCAL INITIATIVES must be reinforced and broadened. There is the need to set up a system to promote local products at various levels (e.g. access to markets, access to land, training, information, etc.). (13) Finally, the IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE is still pending and farmer’s role as a food producer should be put at the centre. II. CHALLENGES: (1) A policy coordination at the federal level may be more COMPLICATED, which may take time (2) LOCAL SENSITIVITIES are not always identical with the federal level, and a federal policy could not be adapted to what is offered at the local level.237238239240241243244246249250The GROUP DISCUSSIONS of the workshop gathered 33 representatives, who affirmed their will to contribute to the transformation of cities food systems, without denying nor shifting responsibilities to other stakeholders. Although participants tended to agree on the issues at stake, several challenges and trade-offs were identified: 1 Organic labels can convey information to consumers in a clear and simple way, which make it easier for them to choose products. However, they can be used for products that do not reflect sustainable consumption. This is especially true for imported products or products grown under greenhouse which, despite the organic label, may have a higher CO2 impact/footprint. Product labels lack of full transparency and prevent informed decision making by consumers. It is therefore necessary to adopt an INCLUSIVE PRODUCT DECLARATION POLICY, rendering local products and fair trade more competitive due to informed purchase decisions. 2. Legislative and promotional efforts do not automatically translate into increased consumption of organic products or plant-based proteins. It is impossible to ask farmers to produce them if the demand does not exist or if they compete with imported products. A COORDINATED APPROACH is required to transform consumption towards local, organic and healthy supplies. 3. THE OBJECTIVES of efforts towards sustainable consumption are sometimes CONTRADICTORY. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the health aspect, eating habits and sustainability to organize efforts with compatible objectives. This is particularly the case for restaurants serving old age homes, which must reconcile habits of certain segments of the population with the consumption and nutritional guidelines and policies. 4. While laws do have the power to drive change in consumption patterns, the lack of legislation should not be an excuse for inaction. Efforts can be made on a VOLUNTARY BASIS and are said to BE MORE EFFECTIVE than any government effort. (5) While participants highlighted the necessity to have more PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES framed by the state to gain credibility; others questioned the legitimacy of participatory approaches and pictured it as an obstacle.

2021-06-17 12:05:56205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15601/177

5243926262413361061457200371943273362

This City Dialogue was held as part of the 2nd round of the Swiss National Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD). It brought together more than 50 representatives from many relevant sectors from civil society, private sector and authorities. During this event, the participants took part in BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS on four pre-selected topics related to food systems transformation. The selected topics relate to important current processes and policies of the two cities. The group discussions constituted the core of the event (90 minutes). In order to build on each other's experiences, proposals and contributions and to promote a lively interaction, the discussion groups consisted of stakeholders who had SPECIFIC EXPERTISE on the topic discussed in their group, but also of participants who could bring a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. Each participant in the workshop was allocated to a discussion group prior to the event. The group discussions brought together a wide range of stakeholders and allowed for a CONSTRUCTIVE AND FRUITFUL EXCHANGE. The CHATHAM HOUSE RULE applied to all the discussions in the break-out groups, in order to create a safe space for exchange in which NEW IDEAS could be generated and BOLD SOLUTIONS found. The stakeholders were encouraged to be actively engaged in the workshop throughout the event. Besides the break-out group discussions, they were invited to submit questions and comments in the chat of the virtual platform during the plenary sessions.In order to address the challenges, potential and vulnerabilities of our food systems through a HOLISTIC APPROACH, MULTI- STAKEHOLDER GROUP DISCUSSIONS were organised. The topics discussed in each break-out group were formulated in the form of short, ambitious statements, to be realised by 2030. In each group, the participants were asked to discuss three statements linked to the core topic of the group, by thinking of a) concrete measures to achieve the stated goal, b) challenges and trade-offs on the way to achieve the goal, c) necessary forms of collaboration and concrete roles of different actors, and d) controversial points on which the group members had diverging opinions. The 12 statements (4 groups, 3 statements per group) were developed based on four preselected core topics (1. Interlinkages/networks in food systems, 2. Food waste and loss reduction, 3. Public procurement, and 4. Collective gastronomy / Large-scale gastronomy. The statements took reference to the FIVE ACTION TRACKS (ATs) OF THE FSS, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY of the Swiss Federal Council. With its 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy, the Federal Council sets out how it intends to implement the 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT over the next ten years. The strategy draws on the UN Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a reference framework. - In this way, the city dialogue on the one hand contributed to addressing context-specific food system topics of the cities, and on the other hand embedded and linked the discussions to the broader discourse at the national level. The city dialogue did not address all dimensions of food systems comprehensively but made a deeper analysis of a selected number of aspects.N/A

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249The City Dialogue Zurich and Basel is part of the second stage (out of three) of the Swiss National Food Systems Summit Dialogue, convened by the Delegate of the Federal Council for the 2030 Agenda of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) and curated by the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). The 1st national food systems dialogue (23 March 2021) involved food systems stakeholders at national level and discussed 8 future statements developed on the basis of the five Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy put out for public consultation by the Swiss Federal Council, the executive branch of the federal government, until 4 February 2021, as well as of other strategies of the Federal Council. The 2nd round of dialogues focused on context-specific discussions in selected cities representing three linguistic regions, namely Zurich/Basel (German) Geneva/Lausanne (French) and Bellinzona (Italian). The aim of the City Dialogues was to take up current key topics of the cities related to sustainable food systems and to involve a broad range of stakeholders to discuss concrete, feasible measures in these topics. The cities of Zurich and Basel proposed the following priority TOPICS for the dialogue: 1. INTERLINKAGES AND NETWORKS IN FOOD SYSTEMS: The complexity of food systems requires a joint, intersectoral approach beyond thematic or departmental "silos". Food systems are an interplay of actors from business, society, research and the public sector. How can this interaction be better utilised to make the urban food system more sustainable and thus make a contribution to greenhouse gas reduction, sustainable resource use, public health and economic development? What are the examples of good cooperation and networks between actors along the value chain? How can effective cooperation be promoted more strongly and synergies used, and what incentives are effective for this? 2. FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION: On the one hand consumers always expect a full range of food products everywhere. On the other hand, a considerable amount ends up in the rubbish bin or gets lost along the value chain. What are the challenges in reducing food waste and loss and how can they be reduced at the different stages of the production and consumption chain? Who can contribute what and how do the different actors best work together? What can we learn from successful examples in the city and region of Basel? What challenges need to be overcome to make further progress? 3. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF FOOD: By procuring food, a public authority like a city has an important leverage to promote sustainable nutrition and food systems. At the same time, there are framework conditions and requirements from the public procurement law that must be complied with. Where do the stakeholders see the challenges in the supply chain? What can and do the stakeholders/suppliers achieve and how do they deal with the requirements of a city for ecological, health and social sustainability? What is the city of Zurich already doing, what are the goals and challenges for the future and how can solutions be found through effective multi-stakeholder collaboration? 4. COLLECTIVE AND LARGE-SCALE GASTRONOMY: There is big potential for companies in the collective and large-scale catering sector to orient their offer more strongly towards sustainability criteria and trends. The city of Zurich has set itself concrete goals in this regard. Where do the stakeholders see effective entry points for progress? What changes are feasible and desirable both from a sustainability and economic point of view and from a consumer's perspective? What innovative examples can we learn from?235238239240242244245246248249250FROM KNOWLEDGE to ACTION: There was consensus among participants that there is ample knowledge among stakeholders about sustainable food systems and many are committed to contribute to a positive change. But they face challenges in translating their ideas into concrete action, e.g. to find the right partners, access to funding, expert support in specific topics, or access to networks. It was proposed to establish city contact points or advisory centres that support committed companies, associations or individuals in developing and realizing their projects. These centres would act as network and knowledge hubs. Cities were found to be well placed to take a key role in this facilitation process. INTERCONNECTEDNESS as KEY to TACKLE FOOD SYSTEMS in their COMPLEXITY: The multiple dimensions of food systems requires multiple partners from different disciplines and sectors to collaborate. Dialogue and relationship are the fundament of such collaboration. The local level of cities offers ideal conditions for such close relationships between partners to implement concrete, context-specific solutions. LOWERING ENTRY BARRIERS: Cities can take an important role in fostering innovation in the sustainable food sector by supporting initiatives, start-ups etc. by lowering the initial barriers. For example through provision of unbureaucratic funding mechanisms (e.g. competitive grants), infrastructure (buildings, land) or by facilitating legal processes. ROLE OF CITIES in FOOD SYSTEMS = NEW: The role of cities as facilitators of change in local/regional sustainable food systems beyond the classical thematic silos "environment", "health" and "education" was found to be relatively new. Multistakeholder dialogues like this one are seen as important steps towards consolidating this new role. To be successful in this role, cities need comprehensive nutrition and food system strategies (such as the "Nachhaltige Ernährungsstrategie Zürich") that are anchored in and implemented by all relevant city departments. SENSITIZATION AT ALL LEVELS OF THE SYSTEM: To be willing to take own action, stakeholders need awareness about a) the relevant food system issues at stake, and b) the feasible options which they have at their hand to take action. Participants of the dialogue agreed that for this, strong and broad sensitization work is needed at all levels of the food system: with consumers, caterers, retail managers, cooks, school canteen personnel, farmers, traders, procurement officials etc. Within organizations, sensitization needs to reach all levels from employees to the executive suite. REDUCE BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS: A strong claim was expressed by some participants that bureaucratic and regulatory barriers - at city, canton or federal level - need to be reduced in order to promote innovation in the sustainable food system sector, e.g. for building applications, admission of products, funding and tax schemes. Barriers should in particular be reduced for small businesses and start-ups. CITIES AS GOOD EXAMPLES: There was an unanimous claim from stakeholders that cities should perform a convincing role as "good example", both in the internal processes (e.g. public procurement, nutrition at schools) and in their role as facilitator (supporting other actors and initiatives). Cities have high visibility and a strong leverage. They should create space for innovation, foster conscious lifestyles and create incentives. - As a crucial starting point, the cities need a holistic strategy for a sustainable food system. The strategy should provide a common direction for all relevant sectors and departments (health, environment, public procurement, schools, agriculture, allotment gardens, social aspects, etc.), as well as guidance for other stakeholders from business, research and civil society. Good cooperation across departments and with stakeholders is a key prerequisite for the implementation of the strategy.2362382392402412422432442462482501. INTERLINKAGES AND NETWORKS IN FOOD SYSTE STATEMEMT 1: Thanks to coordinated measures from all sectors, the city of Basel managed to reduce its greenhouse gas footprint in the area of food production and consumption by 25% compared to 2020. PROPOSED MEASURES: The city should act as initiator and moderator of coordinated measures: create spaces for information exchange, a public map of actors, an online platform with resources. Stronger coordination need was also identified among the departments of the city administration, and connectedness should not stop at the city borders, but include the wider region. Concrete measures include: increase of organic agricultural land (acc. to EU targets); lowering of animal products (production, consumption; definition of a "Zero Waste" target; and technical guidance to businesses on sustainable nutrition. Also, it was proposed to shift from mostly technical solutions (efficiency) towards a stronger sufficiency approach. The GHG reduction target of 25% was considered as little ambitious and should be increased. As important parts of emissions incur abroad: What scope for action do cities have there? Another challenge is the monitoring of reduction targets (what are the system boundaries?) STATEMENT 2: Thanks to multifaceted networks between actors in the local food industry, new regional value chains and short transport routes have emerged, and the potential for sales of regional products in the greater Basel area is exhausted at 100%. PROPOSED MEASURES: Fostering of dense networks among producers; creation of a virtual marketing platform for enhanced planning and logistics; the city acting as facilitator of knowledge and experience transfer between regional initiatives. Regionality allows the city to negotiate criteria and conditions with food chain actors. Basel being located in the "three-country triangle": How to cope with standards and regulations of neighbouring countries? Other challenges: What impact will enhance regionality at the landscape (agricultural land)? How can local producers meet the demand? Is it in the interest of producers to sell only in their region? Participants claimed that the regionalisation at production level needs to go hand-in-hand with sensitization at consumer level (willingness to buy "regional"). It was further highlighted that surrounding areas are to be more closely involved in the cooperation. Short transport routes are only one aspect whereas direct contact and long-term relationships are other decisive factors of regionalisation. STATEMENT 3: Good cooperation between companies, research, the public sector and civil society organisations (associations, NGOs) has made Basel an innovation hub for sustainable food systems - from food production to consumption and disposal. PROPOSED MEASURES: To boost innovation, new easily accessible funding mechanisms are needed for initiatives, businesses etc. Financial resources are also required to maintain lively networks and relationships. Good collaboration also needs high transparency of information in food chains and access to relevant data (including IT systems). Another action should be the creation of physical spaces and places in the city where people can experience, see, touch the topic and through which the topic gets a strong presence. The idea of a "House of Food"- an interactive place that informs about the topic sustainable food, with events organized and advice offered by experts. Overall, again the need for a coordinated, regularly convened mechanism of dialogue was highlighted to foster interlinkages between actors of different sectors. There is ample knowledge and good intentions at the level of many individual actors, but often they act in isolation. Networks and relationship between different actors are a key towards implementing solutions. There should be a focus on fostering and using existing initiatives and to connect these with new ones, in order to use synergies rather than creating redundancies. Participants identified a strong potential for cities to connect more strongly with partners from the private sector in order to implement innovations in the sustainable food sector.2362392402422442462482492502512. FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION Participants discussed three statements: STATEMENT 1: In the city of Basel, (avoidable) food waste could be reduced by at least by half compared to 2019. STATEMENT 2: In Basel's businesses and institutions, food loss has been reduced as much as possible throughout the supply chain. STATEMENT 3:The majority of consumers and businesses are aware of the important contribution that the reduction of food waste and loss makes to the reduction of greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts and are willing to contribute through own measures. PROPOSED MEASURES: The fundament of actions, as claimed by the group, is awareness raising about food waste, its origins and the options to avoid it. Stakeholders consciousness on where they produce food waste and loss is often limited - at all levels of food chains, but in particular at the individual household level. Fostering awareness is key at the consumer level (including all age groups) to have an impact at household level, where the bulk of food waste occurs. Sensitization is also needed at all levels within businesses and institutions: from employees to the decision makers. - Topics of sensitization may include: shelf life and conservation of food; innovative and tasteful ways of preparing meals from leftovers; tools to measure individual food waste: how much ends up in my rubbish bin? (make the topic measurable at individual level); or ways of food sharing. Awareness raising and trainings should further provide insights into the origins, the production and processing methods and the "value chain journey" of foods, in order to stimulate higher appreciation and emotional linkages to food. The group claimed that food businesses should contribute to the above-mentioned sensitization or, through their campaigns, marketing tools, training of own personnel etc. Further, the group was unanimous that different types of incentives are needed to prompt businesses and consumers to reduce food waste and loss actively. Incentives can be financial (e.g. "waste costs", premiums for saved food), emotional (e.g. stories behind food) or social (e.g. good examples from peers). To avoid food waste and loss, or to find an alternative use of non-utilized food, collaborative efforts by different actors are needed in the food chain. Therefore, functioning networks and relationships among value chain actors are crucial for systematic food waste reduction. As stated by caterers and small food business owners in the group, many clients (consumers) are eager to contribute to saving food. In cities, consciousness about food is a growing trend and part of a "lifestyle". Approaches such as applied by the s"Äss-Bar" (sale of bakery products from the previous day) are popular. The food law constitutes a main constraint for reducing food waste in gastronomy and retail, since expired products - even if they are in perfect state - may not be sold or distributed. Consumer organizations have been claiming respective changes in the food law since long. At the individual household level, the group recommended the establishing of an online platform or hotline where consumers can get immediate advise with regard to the edibility and conservation of foods at home. Such a hotline could be hosted by the canton or the federal administration. Further, there are excellent innovative initiatives around on which further work should build and learn from: TooGoodToGo.ch offers food businesses a platform to sell surplus products to other companies or consumers; SaveFood.ch is an information and network hub on measures to save and share food or to link to local suppliers. Especially for perishable foods such as vegetables and fruits, the group recommends the fostering of exchange hubs between businesses. The fostering of regional, short food chains, of mainly non or low-processed food is seen as another key factor that will contribute to the reduction of food loss and waste. With short supply chains, the produce is usually fresher when reaching households. The fewer the processing steps in the chain, the lower food losses tend to be (see also points about regionalization under TOPIC 1).2362382392402442452462482493. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF FOOD: STATEMENT 1: The city's catering operations achieve the target of "50% sustainable products" in their purchasing. All products meet the city's minimum standards, mainly thanks to innovative offers and good cooperation with suppliers and contractual partners. PROPOSED MEASURES: As a main barrier for consistent inclusion of sustainability criteria in the city's food procurement, the group sees the existing practices according to the procurement law. Therein, the award criteria "price" receives strong weight, and product price often out-weights other award criteria. The group recommends that price should be given less weight in submissions. Food procurements should include sustainability criteria as valid and strong award criteria. It was also proposed to separate the criteria "price" from other award criteria and to consider that label products tend to be more expensive than non-labelled food. As a procedural strategy, the group recommended to apply the 50%-rule to entire product groups instead of single products. Specifying ecological criteria in submissions through "technical specifications" is relatively straight forward and less complex than social standards. The group recommends to use this scope to steer the procurements with regard to ecological sustainability criteria. Potential suppliers should be involved in the submission process at an early stage in order to a) orient procurements better to the existing offer, b) to communicate the city's product requirements (sustainability criteria) to suppliers as early as possible so that they can react to the demand, c) to smoothen the procurement process overall. Further, the group recommends to orient food procurements (e.g. schools, health centres etc.) consistently to the nutrition pyramid. In the case of Zurich, this is already practiced. An open question was whether sufficient supply of food complying with claimed ecological standards products exists. To ensure this, close collaboration with suppliers is required up front. STATEMENT 2: In the ordering process, chefs can reliably access information on nutritional value, allergens, label, CO2 equivalence and environmental footprint. With the help of this information, they can meet the legal requirements and reduce the environmental footprint of their purchases by 10%. PROPOSED MEASURES: There are existing good examples of transparent food order platforms such as the B2B-hub www.hogashop.ch. Further, the group recommends to use guidelines as offered by Eaternity.Org, MyClimate.ch, Beelong.ch, or the Menu Sustainability Index (MNI) developed by the ZHAW and ZFV. - Further, concrete targets and recommendations should be developed for chefs (see also BAFU food recommendations). Also, simple rules should be used as guidance, e.g. one day per week without meat, a daily vegetarian meal etc. At the level of trainings of cooks and catering personnel, sustainability in food chains should be fostered. STATEMENT 3: Centralised logistics reduce the number of journeys per business to a minimum and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and costs. The urban catering businesses buy up to 10% of their goods directly from producers, who also benefit from these logistics. PROPOSED MEASURES: In the "Ernährungsforum Zürich", a working group is foreseen on this topic. The idea of centralised logistics would bring different advantages for collective gastronomy operations. There are existing platforms of which suppliers are part - What would be the added value of a new platform? In procurements, it is often difficult to involve smaller suppliers, but the positioning on sustainability standards offers an opportunity to them. A logistics platform could foster their access to submissions, e.g. through grouped offers. In the large-scale collective gastronomy sector, sales of regional products are not yet big and thus of low financial interest to businesses. Some participants claimed that public buyers, such as cities, have a leverage to increase the share of regionally traded food products, if procurements /tenders are oriented towards these.2362382392402442452462492504. COLLECTIVE GASTRONOMY / LARGE-SCALE GASTRONOMY STATEMENT 1: The environmental footprint per menu has been reduced by 30% on average by 2030, thanks to a combination of purchasing, menu planning and food waste management. Guest satisfaction is maintained or even increased. PROPOSED MEASURES: As a future target, caterers should offer attractive, mainly plant-based menus, using mainly regional and seasonal ingredients that offer clients enjoyment. First step: reduce the offer of meat-based diets. To stimulate awareness and emotional linkages for consumers, the group recommends to invest in broad sensitization, e.g. to work with influencers and "role models" through video messages or social media - bringing the topic of healthy and sustainable diets at home and inspiring individual consumers (bridge between own kitchen and gastronomy). Some caterers made the experience that an explicit marketing of "Vegi-Days" often provokes more antagonism than if it were just implemented without specific advertisement. The group concluded that besides communication a lot can be achieved in menu planning/cooking by creating sust. default options and nudges. To achieve this, a strong need for training and further education among gastronomy personnel was identified, incl. management. The new orientation requires a complete rethinking both among caterers and consumers. Cities should facilitate the process continuously, based on realistic goals, involving chefs, purchasers and clients actively. At schools, the following challenges were identified: Sensitization of school management needs to be intensified (bring them fully on board). Also, as stated by one participant: "children are the most demanding and honest clients". A change in dietary regimes needs to go along with appropriate information work in the schools. STATEMENT 2: Clients do not have to decide about choosing sustainable meals since in 2030, all catering services will meet high sustainability standards. This means that guests can devote themselves entirely to enjoyment. PROPOSED MEASURES: The group agrees that stories and emotions around food remain key for consumers. They create identification, consciousness, attitude and connectedness to the producers and contribute the experience of eating food. Talking about the origins of food remains important. - Still, the group acknowledges that caterers have great influence on the food offer in terms of number and type of menus, purchase, food waste and cooking practices. It is suggested that caterers should communicate the sustainability indexes of menus (existing practice with ZFV). Yet the group recalls that information and stories alone will not be sufficient to prompt consumers to choose the environmentally friendly menu. We are influenced by habits. - How to change these? STATEMENT 3: A tailor-made, practice-oriented advisory service strengthens sustainable (collective) gastronomy. The caterers benefit from further education offers, a pool of experienced, locally based advisors and are supported by the City of Zurich. PROPOSED MEASURES: Further education for chefs about food purchase and planning of menus is considered key by the group. It also recommends the adaptation of training curricula by orienting them better to sustainability and health aspects. The group states that the offer of expert advise is valuable in the transformation process, provided a) it happens at eye level (not idealistic, educational); b) clients are involved, c) the process is supported by the organization, and d) the process is based on realistic goals and approaches. Knowledge and experience transfer is considered important, not only through experts but also peer-to-peer. Some participants propose to link advisory services to certain incentives (e.g. financial, publicity etc). Overall, the group sees the need of clearer, binding targets from politics (see: city of Biel). Such change processes need to be kicked-off top-down by policy makers and management. Low margins in the gastronomy sector are seen as a main challenge for operations to take risk and do major changes. Cities should play a key role in supporting caterers in this change process.237238239240242244245246248249250GOOD AS COMMONS vs. FOOD AS BUSINESS: There had been controversial debates about the question whether food should be treated as a common good as opposed to the (currently prevailing) approach of treating it as a commodity and business. Some participants claimed that a reallocation of market power is needed to bring about a paradigm shift. REAL COST CALCULATION OF FOODS: In some groups, there were controversial discussions on what the real resp. sales prices of food should be. On the one hand there were claims that consumer prices for foods should integrate all external costs (environmental, health, social). According to certain real-cost scenarios, prices for animal foods such as beef could double, whereas other foods (e.g. vegetables) would be cheaper than today. - On the other hand, there were open questions on the social equity of such new price models, especially for lower income groups. INTERCONNECTENESS BETWEEN BIG AND SMALL BUSINESSES: There were non-conclusive discussions in some groups on the question, how small and large businesses (e.g. retailers, caterers, traders) can get equal opportunities to engage in food system transformation processes and how they can best cooperate. Entry barriers for small businesses to invest in innovations are often higher than for large companies with higher risk absorption capacities (financial, staff). Some stakeholders claimed that there should be support programs - e.g. from cities or cantons - targeted at small businesses and start-ups. INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR and DECISION: Several of the proposed measures address the individual behaviour of consumers - e.g. a shift towards sufficiency, zero waste, lower consumption of animal products. Stakeholders differed about the question to what extent individual freedom of decision (personal responsibility) should build the main basis of change, and on the other hand to what extent measures should be guided by limiting or supporting regulations and conditions (positive or negative financial incentives, new norms etc.) which would reduce individual freedom of decision.

2021-06-17 12:05:57205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13517/177

52439262624133610614572371943273362

This City Dialogue was held as part of the 2nd round of the Swiss National Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD). It brought together more than 50 representatives from many relevant sectors from civil society, private sector and authorities. During this event, the participants took part in BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS on four pre-selected topics related to food systems transformation. The selected topics relate to important current processes and policies of the two cities. The group discussions constituted the core of the event (90 minutes). In order to build on each other's experiences, proposals and contributions and to promote a lively interaction, the discussion groups consisted of stakeholders who had SPECIFIC EXPERTISE on the topic discussed in their group, but also of participants who could bring a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. Each participant in the workshop was allocated to a discussion group prior to the event. The group discussions brought together a wide range of stakeholders and allowed for a CONSTRUCTIVE AND FRUITFUL EXCHANGE. The CHATHAM HOUSE RULE applied to all the discussions in the break-out groups, in order to create a safe space for exchange in which NEW IDEAS could be generated and BOLD SOLUTIONS found. The stakeholders were encouraged to be actively engaged in the workshop throughout the event. Besides the break-out group discussions, they were invited to submit questions and comments in the chat of the virtual platform during the plenary sessions.In order to address the challenges, potential and vulnerabilities of our food systems through a HOLISTIC APPROACH, MULTI- STAKEHOLDER GROUP DISCUSSIONS were organised. The topics discussed in each break-out group were formulated in the form of short, ambitious statements, to be realised by 2030. In each group, the participants were asked to discuss three statements linked to the core topic of the group, by thinking of a) concrete measures to achieve the stated goal, b) challenges and trade-offs on the way to achieve the goal, c) necessary forms of collaboration and concrete roles of different actors, and d) controversial points on which the group members had diverging opinions. The 12 statements (4 groups, 3 statements per group) were developed based on four preselected core topics (1. Interlinkages/networks in food systems, 2. Food waste and loss reduction, 3. Public procurement, and 4. Collective gastronomy / Large-scale gastronomy. The statements took reference to the FIVE ACTION TRACKS (ATs) OF THE FSS, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY of the Swiss Federal Council. With its 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy, the Federal Council sets out how it intends to implement the 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT over the next ten years. The strategy draws on the UN Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a reference framework. - In this way, the city dialogue on the one hand contributed to addressing context-specific food system topics of the cities, and on the other hand embedded and linked the discussions to the broader discourse at the national level. The city dialogue did not address all dimensions of food systems comprehensively, but made a deeper analysis of a selected number of aspects.N/A

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249250The City Dialogue Zurich and Basel is part of the second stage (out of three) of the Swiss National Food Systems Summit Dialogue, convened by the Delegate of the Federal Council for the 2030 Agenda of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) and curated by the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG). The 1st national food systems dialogue (23 March 2021) involved food systems stakeholders at national level and discussed 8 future statements developed on the basis of the five Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy put out for public consultation by the Swiss Federal Council, the executive branch of the federal government, until 4 February 2021, as well as of other strategies of the Federal Council. The 2nd round of dialogues focused on context-specific discussions in selected cities representing three linguistic regions, namely Zurich/Basel (German) Geneva/Lausanne (French) and Bellinzona (Italian). The aim of the City Dialogues was to take up current key topics of the cities related to sustainable food systems and to involve a broad range of stakeholders to discuss concrete, feasible measures in these topics. The cities of Zurich and Basel proposed the following priority TOPICS for the dialogue: 1. INTERLINKAGES AND NETWORKS IN FOOD SYSTEMS: The complexity of food systems requires a joint, intersectoral approach beyond thematic or departmental "silos". Food systems are an interplay of actors from business, society, research and the public sector. How can this interaction be better utilised to make the urban food system more sustainable and thus make a contribution to greenhouse gas reduction, sustainable resource use, public health and economic development? What are the examples of good cooperation and networks between actors along the value chain? How can effective cooperation be promoted more strongly and synergies used, and what incentives are effective for this? 2. FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION: On the one hand consumers always expect a full range of food products everywhere. On the other hand, a considerable amount ends up in the rubbish bin or gets lost along the value chain. What are the challenges in reducing food waste and loss and how can they be reduced at the different stages of the production and consumption chain? Who can contribute what and how do the different actors best work together? What can we learn from successful examples in the city and region of Basel? What challenges need to be overcome to make further progress? 3. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF FOOD: By procuring food, a public authority like a city has an important leverage to promote sustainable nutrition and food systems. At the same time, there are framework conditions and requirements from the public procurement law that must be complied with. Where do the stakeholders see the challenges in the supply chain? What can and do the stakeholders/suppliers achieve and how do they deal with the requirements of a city for ecological, health and social sustainability? What is the city of Zurich already doing, what are the goals and challenges for the future and how can solutions be found through effective multi-stakeholder collaboration? 4. COLLECTIVE AND LARGE-SCALE GASTRONOMY: There is big potential for companies in the collective and large-scale catering sector to orient their offer more strongly towards sustainability criteria and trends. The city of Zurich has set itself concrete goals in this regard. Where do the stakeholders see effective entry points for progress? What changes are feasible and desirable both from a sustainability and economic point of view and from a consumer's perspective? What innovative examples can we learn from?235238239240242244245246248249250FROM KNOWLEDGE to ACTION: There was consensus among participants that there is ample knowledge among stakeholders about sustainable food systems and many are committed to contribute to a positive change. But they face challenges in translating their ideas into concrete action, e.g. to find the right partners, access to funding, expert support in specific topics, or access to networks. It was proposed to establish city contact points or advisory centres that support committed companies, associations or individuals in developing and realizing their projects. These centres would act as network and knowledge hubs. Cities were found to be well placed to take a key role in this facilitation process. INTERCONNECTEDNESS as KEY to TACKLE FOOD SYSTEMS in their COMPLEXITY: The multiple dimensions of food systems requires multiple partners from different disciplines and sectors to collaborate. Dialogue and relationship are the fundament of such collaboration. The local level of cities offers ideal conditions for such close relationships between partners to implement concrete, context-specific solutions. LOWERING ENTRY BARRIERS: Cities can take an important role in fostering innovation in the sustainable food sector by supporting initiatives, start-ups etc. by lowering the initial barriers. For example through provision of unbureaucratic funding mechanisms (e.g. competitive grants), infrastructure (buildings, land) or by facilitating legal processes. ROLE OF CITIES in FOOD SYSTEMS = NEW: The role of cities as facilitators of change in local/regional sustainable food systems beyond the classical thematic silos "environment", "health" and "education" was found to be relatively new. Multistakeholder dialogues like this one are seen as important steps towards consolidating this new role. To be successful in this role, cities need comprehensive nutrition and food system strategies (such as the "Nachhaltige Ernährungsstrategie Zürich") that are anchored in and implemented by all relevant city departments. SENSITIZATION AT ALL LEVELS OF THE SYSTEM: To be willing to take own action, stakeholders need awareness about a) the relevant food system issues at stake, and b) the feasible options which they have at their hand to take action. Participants of the dialogue agreed that for this, strong and broad sensitization work is needed at all levels of the food system: with consumers, caterers, retail managers, cooks, school canteen personnel, farmers, traders, procurement officials etc. Within organizations, sensitization needs to reach all levels from employees to the executive suite. REDUCE BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS: A strong claim was expressed by some participants that bureaucratic and regulatory barriers - at city, canton or federal level - need to be reduced in order to promote innovation in the sustainable food system sector, e.g. for building applications, admission of products, funding and tax schemes. Barrieres should in particular be reduced for small businesses and start-ups. CITIES AS GOOD EXAMPLES: There was an unanimous claim from stakeholders that cities should perform a convincing role as "good example", both in the internal processes (e.g.public procurement, nutrition at schools) and in their role as facilitator (supporting other actors and initiatives). Cities have high visibility and a strong leverage. They should create space for innovation, foster conscious lifestyles and create incentives. - As a crucial starting point, the cities need a holistic strategy for a sustainable food system. The strategy should provide a common direction for all relevant sectors and departments (health, environment, public procurement, schools, agriculture, allotment gardens, social aspects, etc.), as well as guidance for other stakeholders from business, research and civil society. Good cooperation across departments and with stakeholders is a key prerequisite for the implementation of the strategy.236238239240241242243244245246248249INTERCONNECTENDESS IN FOOD SYSTEMS STATEMEMT 1: Thanks to coordinated measures from all sectors, the city of Basel managed to reduce its greenhouse gas footprint in the area of food production and consumption by 25% compared to 2020. PROPOSED MEASURES: The city should act as initiator and moderator of coordianted measures: create spaces for information exchange, a public map of actors, an online platform with resources. Stronger coordination need was also identified among the departments of the city administration, and connectedness should not stop at the city borders, but include the wider region. Concrete measures include: increase of organic agricultural land (acc. to EU targets); lowering of animal products (production, consumption; definition of a "Zero Waste" target; and technical guidance to businesses on sustainable nutrition. Also, it was proposed to shift from mostly technical solutions (efficiency) towards a stronger sufficiency approach. The GHG reduction target of 25% was considered as little ambitious and should be increased. As important parts of emissions incur abroad: What scope for action do cities have there? Another challenge is the monitoring of reduction targets (what are the system boundaries?) STATEMENT 2: Thanks to multifaceted networks between actors in the local food industry, new regional value chains and short transport routes have emerged, and the potential for sales of regional products in the greater Basel area is exhausted at 100%. PROPOSED MEASURES: Fostering of dense networks among producers; creation of a virtual marketing platform for enhanced planning and logistics; the city acting as facilitator of knowledge and experience transfer between regional initiatives. Regionality allows the city to negotiate criteria and conditions with food chain actors. Basel being located in the "three-country triangle": How to cope with standards and regulations of neighbouring countries? Other challenges: What impact will enhance regionality at the landscape level (agricultural land)? How can local producers meet the demand? Is it in the interest of producers to sell only in their region? Participants claimed that the regionalisation at production level needs to go hand-in-hand with sensitization at consumer level (willingness to buy "regional"). It was further highlighted that surrounding areas are to be more closely involved in the cooperation. Short transport routes are only one aspect whereas direct contact and long-term relationships are other decisive factors of regionalisation. STATEMENT 3: Good cooperation between companies, research, the public sector and civil society organisations (associations, NGOs) has made Basel an innovation hub for sustainable food systems - from food production to consumption and disposal. PROPOSED MEASURES: To boost innovation, new easily accessible funding mechanisms are needed for initiatives, businesses etc. Financial resources are also required to maintain lively networks and relationships. Good collaboration also needs high transparency of information in food chains and access to relevant data (including IT systems). Another action should be the creation of physical spaces and places in the city where people can experience, see, touch the topic and through which the topic gets a strong presence. The idea of a "House of Food" - an interactive place that informs about the topic sustainable food, with events organized and advice offered by experts. Overall, again the need for a coordinated, regularly convened mechanism of dialogue was highlighted to foster interlinkages between actors of different sectors. There is ample knowledge and good intentions at the level of many individual actors, but often they act in isolation. Networks and relationship between different actors are a key towards implementing solutions. There should be a focus on fostering and using existing initiatives and to connect these with new ones, in order to use synergies rather than creating redundancies. Participants identified a strong potential for cities to connect more strongly with partners from the private sector in order to implement innovations in the sustainabel food sector.236239240242243244246248249250FOOD LOSS AND WASTE REDUCTION Participants discussed three statements: STATEMENT 1: In the city of Basel, (avoidable) food waste could be reduced by at least by half compared to 2019. STATEMENT 2: In Basel's businesses and institutions, food loss has been reduced as much as possible throughout the supply chain. STATEMENT 3: The majority of consumers and businesses are aware of the important contribution that the reduction of food waste and loss makes to the reduction of greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts, and are willing to contribute through own measures. PROPOSED MEASURES: The fundament of actions, as claimed by the group, is awareness raising about food waste, its origins and the options to avoid it. Stakeholders consciousness on where they produce food waste and loss is often limited - at all levels of food chains, but in particular at the individual household level. Fostering awareness is key at the consumer level (including all age groups) to have an impact at household level, where the bulk of food waste occurs. Sensitization is also needed at all levels within businesses and institutions: from employees to the decision makers. - Topics of sensitization may include: shelf life and conservation of food; innovative and tasteful ways of preparing meals from leftovers; tools to measure individual food waste: how much ends up in my rubbish bin? (make the topic measurable at individual level); or ways of food sharing. Awareness raising and trainings should further provide insights into the origins, the production and processing methods and the "value chain journey" of foods, in order to stimulate higher appreciation and emotional linkages to food. The group claimed that food businesses should contribute to the above-mentioned sensitization or, through their campaigns, marketing tools, training of own personnel etc. Further, the group was unanimous that different types of incentives are needed to prompt businesses and consumers to reduce food waste and loss actively. Incentives can be financial (e.g. "waste costs", premiums for saved food), emotional (e.g. stories behind food) or social (e.g. good examples from peers). To avoid food waste and loss, or to find an alternative use of non-utilized food, collaborative efforts by different actors are needed in the food chain. Therefore, functioning networks and relationships among value chain actors are crucial for systematic food waste reduction. As stated by caterers and small food business owners in the group, many clients (consumers) are eager to contribute to saving food. In cities, consciousness about food is a growing trend and part of a "lifestyle". Approaches such as applied by the s"Äss-Bar" (sale of bakery products from the previous day) are popular. The food law constitutes a main constraint for reducing food waste in gastronomy and retail, since expired products - even if they are in perfect state - may not be sold or distributed. Consumer organizations have been claiming respective changes in the food law since long. At the individual household level, the group recommended the establishing of an online platform or hotline where consumers can get immediate advise with regard to the edibility and conservation of foods at home. Such a hotline could be hosted by the canton or the federal administration. Further, there are excellent innovative initiatives around on which further work should build and learn from: TooGoodToGo.ch offers food businesses a platform to sell surplus products to other companies or consumers; SaveFood.ch is an information and network hub on measures to save and share food or to link to local suppliers. Especially for perishable foods such as vegetables and fruits, the group recommends the fostering of exchange hubs between businesses. The fostering of regional, short food chains, of mainly non or low-processed food is seen as another key factor that will contribute to the reduction of food loss and waste. With short supply chains, the produce is usually fresher when reaching households. The fewer the processing steps in the chain, the lower food losses tend to be (see also points about regionalization under TOPIC 1).236238239240244245246248249250PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF FOOD: STATEMENT 1: The city's catering operations achieve the target of "50% sustainable products" in their purchasing. All products meet the city's minimum standards, mainly thanks to innovative offers and good cooperation with suppliers and contractual partners. PROPOSED MEASURES: As a main barrier for consistent inclusion of sustainability criteria in the city's food procurement, the group sees the existing practices according to the procurement law. Therein, the award criteria "price" receives strong weight, and product price often out-weights other award criteria. The group recommends that price should be given less weight in submissions. Food procurements should include sustainability criteria as valid and strong award criteria. It was also proposed to separate the criteria "price" from other award criteria and to consider that label products tend to be more expensive than non-labelled food. As a procedural strategy, the group recommended to apply the 50%-rule to entire product groups instead of single products. Specifying ecological criteria in submissions through "technical specifications" is relatively straight forward and less complex than social standards. The group recommends to use this scope to steer the procurements with regard to ecological sustainability criteria. Potential suppliers should be involved in the submission process at an early stage in order to a) orient procurements better to the existing offer, b) to communicate the city's product requirements (sustainability criteria) to suppliers as early as possible so that they can react to the demand, c) to smoothen the procurement process overall. Further, the group recommends to orient food procurements (e.g. schools, health centres etc.) consistently to the nutrition pyramid. In the case of Zurich, this is already practiced. An open question was whether sufficient supply of food complying with claimed ecological standards products exists. To ensure this, close collaboration with suppliers is required up front. STATEMENT 2: In the ordering process, chefs can reliably access information on nutritional value, allergens, label, CO2 equivalence and environmental footprint. With the help of this information, they can meet the legal requirements and reduce the environmental footprint of their purchases by 10%. PROPOSED MEASURES: There are existing good examples of transparent food order platforms such as the B2B-hub www.hogashop.ch. Further, the group recommends to use guidelines as offered by Eaternity.Org, MyClimate.ch, Beelong.ch, or the Menu Sustainability Index (MNI) developed by the ZHAW and ZFV. - Further, concrete targets and recommendations should be developed for chefs (see also BAFU food recommendations). Also, simple rules should be used as guidance, e.g. one day per week without meat, a daily vegetarian meal etc. At the level of trainings of cooks and catering personnel, sustainability in food chains should be fostered. STATEMENT 3: Centralised logistics reduce the number of journeys per business to a minimum and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and costs. The urban catering businesses buy up to 10% of their goods directly from producers, who also benefit from these logistics. PROPOSED MEASURES: In the "Ernährungsforum Zürich", a working group is foreseen on this topic. The idea of centralised logistics would bring different advantages for collective gastronomy operations. There are existing platforms of which suppliers are part - What would be the added value of a new platform? In procurements, it is often difficult to involve smaller suppliers, but the positioning on sustainability standards offers an opportunity to them. A logistics platform could foster their access to submissions, e.g. through grouped offers. In the large-scale collective gastronomy sector, sales of regional products are not yet big and thus of low financial interest to businesses. Some participants claimed that public buyers, such as cities, have a leverage to increase the share of regionally traded food products, if procurements /tenders are oriented towards these.236238239240244245246248249250COLLECTIVE GASTRONOMY / LARGE-SCALE GASTRONOMY STATEMENT 1: The environmental footprint per menu has been reduced by 30% on average by 2030, thanks to a combination of purchasing, menu planning and food waste management. Guest satisfaction is maintained or even increased. PROPOSED MEASURES: As a future target, caterers should offer attractive, mainly plant-based menus, using mainly regional and seasonal ingredients that offer clients enjoyment. First step: reduce the offer of meat-based diets. To stimulate awareness and emotional linkages for consumers, the group recommends to invest in broad sensitization, e.g. to work with influencers and "role models"through video messages or social media - bringing the topic of healthy and sustainable diets at home and inspiring individual consumers (bridge between own kitchen and gastronomy). Some caterers made the experience that an explicit marketing of "Vegi-Days" often provokes more antagonism than if it were just implemented without specific advertisement. The group concluded that besides communication a lot can be achieved in menu planning/cooking by creating sust. default options and nudges. To achieve this, a strong need for training and further education among gastronomy personnel was identified, incl. management. The new orientation requires a complete rethinking both among caterers and consumers. Cities should facilitate the process continousely, based on realistic goals, innvolving chefs, purchasers and clients actively. At schools, the following challenges were identified: Sensitization of school management needs to be intensified (bring them fully on board). Also, as stated by one participant: "children are the most demanding and honest clients". A change in dietary regimes needs to go along with appropriate information work in the schools. STATEMENT 2: Clients do not have to decide about choosing sustainable meals since in 2030, all catering services will meet high sustainability standards. This means that guests can devote themselves entirely to enjoyment. PROPOSED MEASURES: The group agrees that stories and emotions around food remain key for consumers. They create identification, consciousness, attitude and connectedness to the producers and contribute the experience of eating food. Talking about the origins of food remains important. - Still, the group acknowledges that caterers have great influence on the food offer in terms of number and type of menus, purchase, food waste and cooking practices. It is suggested that caterers should communicate the sustainability indexes of menus (existing practice with ZFV). Yet the group recalls that information and stories alone will not be sufficient to prompt consumers to choose the environmentally friendly menu. We are influenced by habits.- How to change these? STATEMENT 3: A tailor-made, practice-oriented advisory service strengthens sustainable (collective) gastronomy. The caterers benefit from further education offers, a pool of experienced, locally based advisors and are supported by the City of Zurich. PROPOSED MEASURES: Further education for chefs about food purchase and planning of menus is considered key by the group. It also recommends the adaptation of training curricula by orienting them better to sustainability and health aspects. The group states that the offer of expert advise is valuable in the transformation process, provided a) it happens at eye level (not idealistic, educational); b) clients are involved, c) the process is supported by the organization, and d) the process is based on realistic goals and approaches. Knowledge and experience transfer is considered important, not only through experts but also peer-to-peer. Some participants propose to link advisory services to certain incentives (e.g. financial, publicity etc). Overall, the group sees the need of clearer, binding targets from politics (see: city of Biel). Such change processes need to be kicked-off top-down by policy makers and management. Low margins in the gastronomy sector are seen as a main challenge for operations to take risk and do major changes. Cities should play a key role in supporting caterers in this change process.237238239240242244245246248249250FOOD AS COMMONS vs. FOOD AS BUSINESS: There had been controversial debates about the question whether food should be treated as a common good as opposed to the (currently prevailing) approach of treating it as a commodity and business. Some participants claimed that a reallocation of market power is needed to bring about a paradigm shift. REAL COST CALCULATION OF FOODS: In some groups, there were controversial discussions on what the real resp. sales prices of food should be. On the one hand there were claims that consumer prices for foods should integrate all external costs (environmental, health, social). According to certain real-cost scenarios, prices for animal foods such as beef could double, whereas other foods (e.g. vegetables) would be cheaper than today. - On the other hand, there were open questions on the social equity of such new price models, especially for lower income groups. INTERCONNECTENESS BETWEEN BIG AND SMALL BUSINESSES: There were non-conclusive discussions in some groups on the question, how small and large businesses (e.g. retailers, caterers, traders) can get equal opportunities to engage in food system transformation processes and how they can best cooperate. Entry barriers for small businesses to invest in innovations are often higher than for large companies with higher risk absorption capacities (financial, staff). Some stakeholders claimed that there should be support programs - e.g. from cities or cantons - targeted at small businesses and start-ups. INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR and DECISION: Several of the proposed measures address the individual behaviour of consumers - e.g. a shift towards sufficiency, zero waste, lower consumption of animal products. Stakeholders differed about the question to what extent individual freedom of decision (personal responsibility) should build the main basis of change, and on the other hand to what extent measures should be guided by limiting or supporting regulations and conditions (positive or negative financial incentives, new norms etc.) which would reduce individual freedom of decision.

2021-06-17 12:13:37205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13515/177

46819172242119612351304111933331136194

The City Food System Dialogue of Bellinzona, was held virtually on 18 May 2021. It brought together many different stakeholders of local food systems: producers, consumers, caterers, retailers, charities’ and academia members’, municipal officials, local political representatives, etc. The core of the event was four breakout group discussions on topics concerning the sustainability of the regional food systems and the ways to transform them. Each group consisted of people having a specific expertise on the topic but also of people with different backgrounds to ensure a wider diversity of perspectives. Each participant in the workshop was allocated to a group prior to the event and all were invited to discuss candidly but always with mutual respect and most importantly, to be open to different points of view. Group works were guided by a facilitator and took place in accordance with Chatham House rule to allow participants to express safely and freely their opinions and come up with bold solutions. The stakeholders were encouraged to be actively engaged in the workshop throughout the event through the chats. Besides the break-out group discussions, participants were invited to submit questions and comments during the plenary sessions.To explore the challenges of the local food system and outline possible actions to transform it, participants in the City Dialogue were divided in multistakeholder diverse groups. They were asked to discuss statements reflecting an ambitious goal to be reached in 2030 on a specific topic. These statements, elaborated at the federal level for the National Dialogue, were adapted to reflect priorities identified by the City of Bellinzona. Participants were asked to reflect on the obstacles and challenges on the path to achieving the 2030 goals, and put forward concrete solutions. They were also asked to imagine possible synergies and forms of collaboration among different stakeholder that could foster more sustainable local food systems

Yes

234238239241244248249250In preparation for the Food Systems Summit (FSS) in September 2021, Switzerland decided to implement a Multi-Stakeholder Food Systems Summit Dialogue (Fssd) at national level. This Dialogue took place in three stages, from March to June 2021. The City Food systems Dialogue of Bellinzona was part of the second stage which consisted in a series of three dialogues involving 5 cities to discuss solutions at local level. Representatives from all major food systems' stakeholder groups were invited to reflect and propose suggestions and recommendations on 4 topics: 1) Food waste and loss, 2) Sustainable production, 3) Sustainable diets and nutrition, 4) Entrepreneurship, innovation, science, and technology. These topics were chosen by the City of Bellinzona among those identified at national level and discussed during the first stage of Swiss national dialogue. They were formulated as statements of ambition for the city region in 2030. The purpose was to stimulate a discussion on the challenges to be overcome in order to achieve the envisioned goals, to explore concrete solutions and identify necessary trade-offs and possible forms of collaboration among stakeholders.235238239240244248249250The discussions across the four groups highlighted some key common points: 1) It is important to define what kind of food system a community wants to build: what does make it sustainable, what are the main values and the priorities to be achieved and what the necessary trade-offs among the different sustainability dimensions. This would guide decision-making, awareness raising, and education. 2) It is necessary to increase consumers’ awareness on the true cost of food: only if people know better how much efforts it takes to produce food, what is the real environmental, economic, and social cost of bringing it to the tables, will they stop wasting and adopt more sustainable eating habits (i.e. buy more seasonal local food and pay more for products with a higher environmental impact) 3) Raising awareness in schools on the importance of consuming sustainable product it is key 4) A closer relation between consumers and producers can trigger changes at many levels: i.e putting pressure on decision makers to adapt regulations and ensure local farmers a better access to public procurement; defusing certain marketing dynamics that lead to more food waste (such as special offers, aesthetic criteria etc.); shorten the food supply chain allowing producers to improve their revenues 5) Innovation in food systems is not necessarily the result of technological progress, but more a shift in thinking and it will be fostered by the creation of new partnerships and networks among producers, academia and consumers willing to exchange information and ideas, thus increasing collective positive impact on the territory. 6) Local governments have crucial role to play in promoting the sustainability of the food systems through bold comprehensive policies. 7) Micro-enterprises will be the key to future sustainable development, as they are better able to optimize natural resources use and reduce waste. Nevertheless, it is necessary to redefine the relationship between agriculture and the protection of biodiversity in order to allow small-scale producers to maintain the economic sustainability of their farms while respecting the environment.2362382392432442491) FOOD WASTE AND LOSS In this group stakeholders discussed 1) how to reduce avoidable food waste and curb losses along the food chain 2) how to encourage consumers to acknowledge the environmental cost of food waste and act consequently. Participants agreed that food waste is the results of several causes, therefore single actors do not have the solution and a strong coordinated action to tackle this issue is needed. Nonetheless since a large part of food waste occurs at the household level, to raise awareness and educate consumers is key. At this regard it was highlighted that more transparency on all the food related aspects it is needed. Consumers should know what efforts it takes to produce food, what resources are used in the production, what is the carbon footprint of their groceries shopping, how the value is shared along the food supply chain. At the moment food prices do not reflect the true value of food therefore it is easier to waste it. Thus, increase the price of out of season, imported produce and promote seasonal and local ones can help consumers to buy more consciously, in the meantime reducing food losses for local farmers. Yet, expiry dates are too conservative, consumers should learn to determine when a product is still good for consumption. Finally local authorities have fundamental role to play in fostering education and information on food and bridge the gap between consumer and producer. During the discussions some concrete solutions were proposed such as • Introduce a system of double labeling: show on labels not only the price to be paid, but also the price with externalities giving the consumer the choice to pay the real price of food and use the revenues for food waste measures, • Find a way to invite consumers to use their senses to assess whether the product is still good (smelling, looking, and tasting) instead of throwing it away just because the expiry date has passed. • Introduce a system of compulsory recycling/tax on food waste following the steps of South Korea • Create opportunities to increase direct contacts between producers and consumers, so that for instance producers can propose tailored offers on seasonal local food at the weekly market: a way to reduce waste and educate customers. Participants also stressed that food retail sector should act in concert to accept less strict aesthetic standards and more flexible contracts with producers involving the purchase of the entire harvest, thus helping to reduce losses in the field. Only through a better dialogue between consumers and producers can a greater awareness of the cost of food waste be achieved. And local policy has an important role to play in fostering this dialogue.2362382392412442492) SUSTAINABLE NUTRITION In this group stakeholders discussed: 1) how to make people more aware of the importance to adopt healthier and more sustainable diets 2) how to make more sustainable choices available for consumers at a price that includes environmental, social, and economic cost of food. One of the first points raised during the discussion is that to address this complex issue a more systemic and holistic approach is needed: : it’ s not enough to promote local food or raise consumers’ awareness, for example, on food waste if the food supply chain is built to made all kind of food available at every moment in huge quantities, thus encouraging the consumption of products with a higher carbon footprint or causing food wastage. This first consideration led participants to underline the importance for a community to define what is a sustainable food system, what are the shared values and the priorities to be pursued: (i.e., should priority be given to better remuneration of producers -resulting in higher prices-or wider access to food?) so that decision-making, awareness raising, and education can be shaped accordingly. Education is crucial to change consumer’s behavior but should not be limited to schools. A “continuous” education on food and nutrition issues has been called for because well informed citizens can trigger important changes even at the legislative level (as, for example it happened in the past during a campaign against GMO products). Proximity emerged as key element to enhance the sustainability of nutrition. More local products should be served in schools’ canteens, elders’ homes and hospitals even if they are more expensive, but implementation of the national law of public procurement at the regional level is too strict, according to participants in the group discussion. Local governments, then, should change regulations to take into greater consideration criteria related to food sustainability rather than price improving access to public procurement for small producers. Greater proximity between consumers and producers was also called for, for example through new tools such as the digital platform connecting farmers with restaurants being tested in the Poschiavo valley. As regarding price of food, the participants pointed out that currently it does not reflect the true value and costs of food, therefore there is a need to find better ways to take into consideration environmental, medical, and social cost of food production and distribution. One way could be improving the food labeling and certification mechanism and its transparency to avoid corporate green washing but also misleading choices: i.e local food production is not necessarily fair and environmentally friendly.2362392402412422432442452482492503) Sustainable production In this group the stakeholders discussed 1) How agricultural sector can reduce its ecological footprint by making more efficient use of local resources preserving biodiversity and animal welfare; 2) how to improve farmers resilience through the promotion of circular economy, short commercial circuits, and synergies with other sectors. During the discussion, some participants highlighted the fact that often citizens are not aware of the efforts local farmers are already making to transform food production (i.e using renewable energy sources, conservation agriculture techniques, etc.) and the importance of their role as consumers to trigger and sustain a wider production shift. Thus, the group suggested to: • Improve education on food sustainability in schools. • Encourage supermarkets to promote local and sustainable food, for example through special dedicated offers and/or initiatives such as « local food days », but also through invest part of their revenues to supports local projects • Enhance possibilities for farmers to produce directly for end customers (public and company canteens, consumer groups, etc.) thus it would be possible for producers to negotiate an appropriate remuneration and for consumers to have a say on the production systems. • Change local regulation on public procurement because at the moment there are no clear criteria rewarding sustainability in the public procurement law, that’s make it very difficult for cities to prioritize local and environmentally friendly food. • Simply and better regulate labeling standards of food. In Switzerland there are too many labels (30 only for organic products) promoting sustainable consumption and prioritizing different criteria, this can be confusing for consumers. Another important point raised during group works is that existing legal framework on environmental protection must be adapted to allow producers to comply with sustainability requirements while securing their income. Technological solutions and innovations in cultivation techniques can help the transformation of farms but it is still necessary to invest in their improvement and dissemination2362382392402412422432442484) Entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology In this group the stakeholders discussed: 1) how the agri-food sector can apply the results of scientific research and adopts cutting-edge technologies that promote sustainability 2) how companies can promote sustainable and the wellbeing of the community by applying innovative organizational and production systems. The group’s main conclusion was that even if technology will shape our ways to produce and consume, innovation is not necessarily related to technological progress, but rather to a change in thinking about how people are used to acting in today's society. To bring about the needed change marketing campaigns should be carried out on all existing media (digital and non-digital) to promote the true value of food, convince people to adopt different consumption habits and pushing them to support a premium price to promote products that were produced in respect to society and the environment. Boosting local food production is a way to better cope with future challenges related to climate change and reduce carbon footprint from imports. Local food producers should already start to adapt their production to future challenges (environmental changes, increased bacterial risk, etc) by selecting crops better suited to the area. Mapping challenges might help producers to make informed and better decisions. Participants in the group discussion reckoned that micro-enterprises are the key to future sustainable development, as they are better able to optimize land resources and reduce waste. They also stressed the importance of creating partnerships and networks to exchange information and ideas, increasing the collective positive impact on the region. Throughout the dialogue participants underlined the importance of sharing and collaborating, creating partnerships and networks to exchange information and ideas. From academia, where multiple disciplines can and should work together to promote systems transformation. Equally for businesses, where multiple companies can and should work together to create larger scale projects and multiply their impact, to regions which can and should work together even if only by creating joint awareness campaigns and joint projects of larger scale and influence.237238240241244250Areas of divergence Across the discussion on all the four topics some specific issues raised debate or have been highlighted as possible source of debate, in particular: 1) Very little of the income is spent on food. How is it possible to put the right value on food? Sustainable foo choices can and probably should be more expensive, but on the other end not everyone can afford to spend the same amount of money on groceries, so how is it possible to reconcile the need to value the food and to limit practices, such as special offers and price reductions, that fuel food waste with the right to food? 2) Consumers are used to find groceries shops well stocked at all times and restaurants ready to offer a wide choice of dishes which inevitably leads to food being wasted. What is the main cause? Aggressive market practices or consumers demand? And where do you start from to tackle this issue? Participants point out that this Is a vicious circle; if a retailer or a restaurant limit their offer, the majority of consumer would simply just look for another shop or restaurant where they can find a better choice 3) If local production has to be boosted to better answer to future environmental and climate-change related challenges, region’s biodiversity and water sources could be threatened. 4) To enhance sustainability of food productions there Is a need to increase areas dedicated to the promotion of biodiversity within farms (already envisaged in the Swiss agricultural policy ), but “ farmers are not gardeners” and there is a need to protect their steadily decreasing income 5) What to determine the most relevant dimension of sustainability: a clear example of trade-off was brought up during discussions: What’s more sustainable local food or fair-trade products? Are local products fair? Are long distance fair food imports sustainable? 6) Some of the participants pointed out that technological and digital innovations not necessarily end up making it easier for producers and local businesses to carry out their work. In many recent cases this just resulted in an additional bureaucratic burden

2021-06-17 12:59:34205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26880/40

365277121281351312447211446716923249938407253065201041112121525

Les concertations nationales ont été organisées en 3 phases : - Un dialogue au niveau national, qui s’est tenu le 08 Mai 2021, avec pour objectif de déclencher une procédure inclusive dans laquelle les parties prenantes devront s’impliquer au développement des systèmes alimentaires nationaux ; - Des concertations régionales tenues simultanément dans les dix régions du Cameroun entre le 18 et le 21 Mai 2021, avec chacun une cinquantaine de participants en moyenne, constitués d’acteurs diversifiés, représentants : du parlement, des Collectivités territoriales décentralisées, des administrations déconcentrés, des Organisations de producteurs, de transformateurs et de consommateurs (agriculture, pêches, élevage, horticulture, forêts ), de la société civile, des universités, centres de formation et de recherche, les écoles de formation professionnelles, les opérateurs économiques, des Partenaires Techniques et Financiers. - Un atelier national de consolidation tenu le 25 Mai 2021, visant à faire la synthèse des concertations en vue de l’élaboration de la voie nationale.A travers son caractère inclusif et participatif, dans le strict respect des principes d’engagement édictés par le Système des Nations-Unies. Au cours des concertations, aussi bien au niveau national que régional, les débats ont été menés librement de manière démocratique, sans discrimination et ont reflété des points de vue spécifiques des parties prenantes. Des compromis ont été adoptés en plénière autant que les divergences et de manière participative.No

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les concertations des parties prenantes en vue de la participation du Cameroun au premier sommet des nations unies sur les systèmes alimentaires a porté sur les cinq pistes d’actions ci-après : (i) l’accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs ; (ii) les modèles de consommation durables ; (iii) la Stimulation d’une production respectueuse de la nature ; (iv) la promotion des moyens de subsistance équitables et le Renforcement de la résilience face aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress. Parallèlement aux concertations étatiques, des études et concertations indépendantes ont été conduites parmi lesquelles : L’étude d'impact socio-économique des effets de la COVID 19 sur les stratégies paysannes et I ’adaptation des filières agricoles et alimentaires au Cameroun ; l’étude liée à l’analyse des systèmes alimentaires au Cameroun, les concertations indépendantes de la Plateforme Régionale des Organisations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC), et le dialogue d'inclusion de haut niveau sur les jeunes, les femmes, les personnes handicapées et autres groupes vulnérables) facilité par le Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network Global (GCSAYN). Ces initiatives complémentaires ont également permis de dégager les actions en cohérence avec les cinq les piliers ainsi que la position commune des ministres de la CEEAC.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Au terme des concertations, quatre recommandations principales ont été formulées, à savoir : (i) Accroître durablement les productions, (ii) Améliorer l’environnement infrastructurel collectif et l’accès aux facteurs de production et aux marchés, (iii) Renforcer la résilience des systèmes de production, la gestion durable des ressources naturelles, et la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle des populations vulnérables face aux changements climatiques et autres chocs, (iv) Améliorer la gouvernance des systèmes alimentaires. En ce qui concerne l’accroissement durable les productions, il sera question de : (a) doter les structures de recherche de financement adéquat pour booster la production des géniteurs et des semences de pré bases et bases ; (b) mettre en place un cadre incitatif pour le secteur privé dans la création variétale et le renforcement du dispositif de contrôle pour tester la qualité des semences disponibles ; (c) renforcer les capacités des multiplicateurs semenciers; (d) finaliser et vulgariser la réforme foncière en cours ; (e) opérationnaliser la politique de subvention des intrants agricoles ; (f) impliquer les groupes vulnérables dans le processus de prise de décisions pour favoriser leur accès aux facteurs de production ; (g) mettre en place un cadre de collaboration entre les institutions de recherches, les universités, les ministères et les Collectivité Territoriales Décentralisées. S’agissant de l’amélioration de l’environnement infrastructurel collectif et l’accès aux facteurs de production et aux marchés, il sera question de : (a) Réhabiliter les pistes agricoles existantes et créer de nouvelles pour désenclaver les bassins de production ; (b) réhabiliter les infrastructures existantes et construire de nouvelles infrastructures communautaires ; (c) promouvoir le partenariat entre les CTDs et les administrations; (d) renforcer la synergie entre les acteurs étatiques intervenants dans les bassins de production ; (e) vulgariser les normes de productions; (f) renforcer la résilience des producteurs en facilitant leur intégration aux marchés nationaux et régionaux ; (g) renforcer les capacités des producteurs et des consommateurs sur les techniques de conservation ; (h) renforcer les infrastructures de transformation, conditionnement et stockage ; (i) mettre en place des incitations pour encourager le secteur privé à investir dans les installations de stockage et équipement de transformation ; (g) valoriser l’utilisation de l’énergie solaire. En ce qui concerne le renforcement de la résilience des systèmes de production, la gestion durable des ressources naturelles, et la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle des populations vulnérables face aux changements climatiques et autres chocs, il est question de : (a) renforcer les capacités des acteurs sur les politiques publiques de promotion des pratiques agro écologiques, de gestion durable des sols et de l’eau; (b) développer et produire des espèces et variétés adaptées au changement climatique ; (c) anticiper sur les risques et la création d’une structure de gestion des crises ; (d) promouvoir et renforcer les capacités pour la production des aliments à haute valeur nutritive; (e) renforcer le système de protection sociale en faveur des ménages pauvres et autres groupes vulnérables afin de favoriser l’accès de tous aux aliments indispensables et disponibles; (f) élaborer et vulgariser les normes alimentaires minimales et assurer la mise à l’échelle des initiatives; (g) former les acteurs à l’utilisation raisonnée des produits phytosanitaires et vétérinaires; (h) développer des standards et cadre légaux pour booster un changement dans le secteur privé et rendre les compagnies comptables des impacts sociaux et environnementaux de leurs activités ; (i) faciliter l’accès des personnes réfugiés et déplacés interne aux terres cultivables ; (j) développer des outils d’atténuation des conflits Homme-Faune; (k) apporter une assistance multisectorielle aux personnes affectées par les conflits et l’insécurité ; (l) mettre en place au sein des communautés cibles des Plans d’actions pour la Gestion de la Filière viande de brousse. S’agissant de l’amélioration de la gouvernance dans les systèmes alimentaires, il sera question de : (a) structurer les acteurs autour des chaines de valeurs des produits agro-sylvo-pastoraux et halieutiques ; (b) renforcer les capacités des acteurs et les accompagner à la professionnalisation; (c) intensifier la communication autour des programmes d’insertion des jeunes; (e) renforcer les initiatives d’insertion des jeunes dans le secteur; (f) améliorer les services de base en matière d’accès au marché ; (g) produire et diffuser les informations agro-climatologique; (h) mettre en place un système d’information sur les marchés ; (i) développer des partenariats et promouvoir le financement du secteur agropastoral par les établissements de microfinance; (j) développer des mécanismes de financements innovants et de systèmes d’assurances agricoles adaptées et accessibles ; (k) mettre en place un mécanisme de financement endogène des appuis aux filières à partir des prélèvements directs.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 10 : défaillance des Systèmes d’information Il ressort des concertations menées que les principaux problèmes identifiés relativement à ce sujet sont : • les chocs économiques tels que les fluctuations des prix des produits agropastoraux locaux ; • la commercialisation et accès au marché. • l’absence d’informations agro-météorologiques Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes:  la production des informations agro-climatologiques et mise à la disposition des acteurs ;  la mise en place du système d’information sur les marchés ;  la digitalisation du système de collecte et de traitement de l’information sur les marchés.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 9 : Financement Il ressort des concertations menées que les principaux problèmes identifiés relativement à ce sujet sont : • le faible financement des activités agro-sylvo-pastorales et halieutiques; • l’accès difficile aux sources de financement ; • le manque d’information sur les mécanismes de financements existants; • l’absence de formation sur la gestion des financements ; Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes: • le développement des partenariats et la promotion du financement du secteur agropastoral par les établissements de microfinance; • le développement de mécanismes de financements innovants et de systèmes d’assurances agricoles adaptées et accessibles ; • la mise en place d’un mécanisme de financement endogène des appuis aux filières à partir des prélèvements directs.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 8 : Vieillissement et exode rural Il ressort des concertations menées que les principaux problèmes identifiés relativement à ce sujet sont : • la faible organisation et structuration des acteurs ; • l’accès difficile au foncier, surtout les femmes et les jeunes ; • le manque d’intérêt des jeunes pour les activités agro-sylvo-pastorales et halieutiques. Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes:  la structuration autour des chaines de valeurs des produits agro-sylvo-pastoraux et halieutiques ;  le renforcement des capacités et l’accompagnement à la professionnalisation des acteurs ;  l’intensification de la communication (communication de masse, réseaux sociaux, médias…) autour des programmes d’insertion des jeunes dans le secteur agro-sylvo-pastoral et halieutique ;  le renforcement des initiatives d’insertion des jeunes dans le secteur agro-sylvo-pastoral et halieutique pour accroitre leurs impacts;  l’amélioration des services de base en matière d’accès au marché ;236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 7 : Epidémies et Pandémies Il ressort des concertations menées que les épidémies et pandémies exposent les populations à une forte vulnérabilité à cause de :  l’absence de mécanisme de surveillance ;  la destruction de la biodiversité ;  les mouvements migratoires non contrôlés.  les chocs économiques tels que la disponibilité et les fluctuations des prix des produits agropastoraux locaux Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes:  la mise en place d’un mécanisme de surveillance ;  l’intensification dans l’information, la sensibilisation et l’éducation des populations;  le développement des mécanismes d’assurance individuelle ou collective ;  l’augmentation des bains détiqueurs et les sites de vaccination au niveau des frontières ;  le développement du e-commerce à travers l’amélioration de la couverture internet ;  la promotion de l’initiative « une seule santé » : mettre en place dans les zones à risques (forêt, barrage, lac, zones humides, cours d’eau etc..) un dispositif visant à ce que les experts de divers secteurs travaillent ensemble pour s’attaquer aux menaces sanitaires qui pèsent sur les animaux, les humains, les végétaux et l’environnement.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 6 : Conflits et insécurité Il ressort des concertations menées que les principaux problèmes identifiés relativement à ce sujet sont :  la recrudescence des réfugiés et des déplacées internes dans certaines régions du pays qui accentue la pression sur les ressources disponibles;  les conflits agrosylvopastoraux créés par l’absence de zonage et les difficultés de cohabitation entre les éleveurs et agriculteurs ;  les crises sociopolitiques diverses qui conduisent à l’abandon des zones de production (éleveurs et agriculteurs) et l’insécurité des biens et des personnes (enlèvement des personnes, vol accentué du bétail, etc.) Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes: La mise en d’une plateforme de concertation entre les utilisateurs de la ressource foncière ;  la facilitation de l’accès des personnes réfugiés et déplacés interne aux terres cultivables ;  le développement des outils d’atténuation des conflits Homme-Faune ? basés sur une approche participative de prévention et gestion des conflits avec les communautés ;  la redynamisation des comités de vigilance (Nord-Ouest ; Sud-Ouest, Est et Extrême-Nord) ;  le renforcement des capacités des producteurs dans l’utilisation rationnelle et durable des facteurs de production;  l’apport d’une assistance multisectorielle aux personnes affectées par les conflits et l’insécurité ;  le marquage des animaux ;  la mise en place au sein des communautés cibles des Plans d’actions pour la Gestion de la Filière viande de brousse pour prendre en compte : la limitation du territoire et conflits d’usage, la gouvernance locale, la gestion de la chasse, la gestion du paysage et des habitats, la gestion de la filière et la gestion des autres sources de protéines animales.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 5 : Malnutrition et Qualité des aliments Il ressort des concertations menées que les principales contraintes du Cameroun pour l’atteinte de cet objectif sont : l’accès insuffisant aux aliments à hautes valeurs nutritionnelles; les taux élevés de malnutrition et d'insécurité alimentaire ; les difficultés d’accès aux aliments sains ; l’augmentation de la prévalence de surpoids et de l’obésité et des maladies non transmissibles (chroniques) au Cameroun. Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes:  La promotion et le renforcement des capacités pour la production des aliments à haute valeur nutritive (bio fortification, fortification, élevage à cycle court et à moindre coût) notamment par la promotion de l’entreprenariat féminin pour la production et la vente des produits nutritifs peu connus ;  Le renforcement du système de protection sociale en faveur des ménages pauvres et autres groupes vulnérables (filets sociaux, programme d’alimentation scolaires ; assistance alimentaire, programme de prévention et traitement de la malnutrition);  l’élaboration et vulgarisation des normes alimentaires minimales et assurer la mise à l’échelle des initiatives pour améliorer l'accès à des aliments nutritifs, en particulier pour les plus vulnérables ; des programmes communautaires de prévention de la malnutrition associée à une communication sur le changement des comportements sociaux ;  la formation à l’utilisation raisonnée des produits phytosanitaires et vétérinaires sur toute la chaine de valeur;  l’amélioration de l’approvisionnement et l’accessibilité en eau de qualité ;  la mise en place d’un cadre de concertation autour des politiques environnementales cohérentes pour la bonne santé de la population et en particulier des enfants ;  le développement des standards et cadres légaux pour booster un changement dans le secteur privé et rendre les compagnies comptables des impacts sociaux et environnementaux de leurs activités.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 4: Changements climatiques et dégradation des ressources naturelles Il ressort des concertations menées que les principaux problèmes identifiés relativement à ce sujet sont :  La dégradation des sols, des eaux et de la biodiversité ;  Les effets négatifs du changement climatique sur les activités agrosylvopastorales et halieutiques ;  Les catastrophes naturelles (inondation, sècheresse, glissement de terrain) ;  Les mauvaises pratiques de gestion des ressources naturelles (déforestation, la dégradation des terres arables, mauvaises pratiques agricoles, etc.). Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes:  Le renforcement des capacités des acteurs sur les politiques publiques de promotion des pratiques agro écologiques, de gestion durable des sols et de l’eau;  Le développement et production des espèces et variétés résilientes au changement climatique ;  L’anticipation sur les risques et la restructuration de la structure en charge de la gestion des crises.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 3 : Faible transformation et Pertes Post-Récoltes Il ressort des concertations menées que les principaux problèmes identifiés relativement à ce sujet sont :  La faible maitrise des techniques de transformation et innovations ;  Le faible accès aux équipements de transformation ;  l’enclavement des zones de production ;  l’insuffisance d’infrastructures et d’équipements adaptés au transport et à la conservation des produits et denrées alimentaires ;  le coût élevé d’acquisition des équipements de transformation ;  Le coût élevé de l’énergie électrique et l’absence des solutions innovantes ;  l’insuffisance de moyens financiers. Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes:  le renforcement des capacités des producteurs et des consommateurs sur les techniques innovantes de conservation ;  le renforcement des infrastructures de transformation, conditionnement et stockage ;  la mise en place des incitations pour encourager le secteur privé à investir dans les installations de stockage et équipement de transformation ;  la valorisation de l’utilisation de l’énergie solaire.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 2 : Enclavement des Bassins de production Il ressort des concertations menées que les principaux problèmes identifiés relativement à ce sujet sont :  le mauvais état du réseau routier existant ;  l’insuffisance des routes et pistes d’évacuation ;  le déficit d’entretien des routes existantes.  l’insuffisance des infrastructures communautaires (magasins de stockage, adduction en eau potable, marché ruraux) ;  Le coût élevé de construction et d’entretien des infrastructures;  le faible entretien et la maintenance des ouvrages communautaires ;  la faible synergie entre les acteurs étatiques intervenants dans les bassins de production ;  la faible capacité des communes pour prendre véritablement en main le transfert des compétences telles que disposées par le Code Général des Collectivités Territoriales Décentralisées ;  l’absence d’un système d’information sur les marchés. Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes:  l’ouverture de nouvelles pistes agricoles pour désenclaver les bassins de production ;  la réhabilitation des routes existantes et aménagement des nouvelles routes ;  la réhabilitation des infrastructures existantes et la construction des nouvelles infrastructures communautaires ;  la promotion du partenariat entre les CTDs et les administrations telles que le ministère des travaux publics, le CENEMA et la MIPROMALO ;  la distribution équitable des fonds d’aménagement routiers dans les arrondissements ;  le renforcement de la synergie entre les acteurs étatiques intervenants dans les bassins de production ;  la vulgarisation des normes de productions;  Le renforcement de la résilience des producteurs en facilitant leur intégration aux marchés nationaux et régionaux.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sujet 1 : Accès aux facteurs de production Il ressort des concertations menées que les principaux problèmes identifiés limitant l’accès aux facteurs de production sont :  le faible accès aux semences performantes (végétales et animales), autres intrants et facteurs de production (crédit et infrastructures), particulièrement pour certains groupes défavorisés tels que les femmes, les jeunes et autres personnes vulnérables ;  les difficultés d’accès au foncier agrosylvo pastoral, surtout chez les femmes et les jeunes ;  la mauvaise gestion de l’espace agrosylvo pastoral, source de conflits ;  une faible collaboration entre les institutions de recherches, les universités, les ministères et les Collectivité Territoriales Décentralisées. Les actions envisagées pour y remédier sont les suivantes:  la dotation des structures de recherche de financement pour booster la production des géniteurs et des semences de prébases et bases ;  la mise en place d’un cadre incitatif pour attirer le secteur privé dans la création variétale ;  Renforcement du dispositif de contrôle et de certification des semences disponibles ;  le renforcement des capacités des multiplicateurs semenciers;  la finalisation et la vulgarisation de la réforme foncière ;  l’opérationnalisation de la politique de subvention des intrants agricoles ;  l’implication des groupes vulnérables dans le processus de prise des décisions pour favoriser leur accès aux facteurs de production ;  la mise en place d’un cadre de collaboration entre les institutions de recherches, les universités, les ministères et les Collectivité Territoriales Décentralisées.237RAS

2021-06-17 18:38:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12801/757987160194

We created a hybrid dialogue that took the core elements of multi- stakeholder, global participants and thought provoking questions and scaled it down . Rather than focus on a single action track, we created dialogues for each of the 5 Action Tracks. The scaled down dialogues allowed for robust conversation amongst the participants. We designed them so that there would be opportunities for different points of view, points of divergence and of course emergence. We, in our way, hopefully created a platform for dialogue where people come from different traditions, religious belongings, countries, industries, and ultimately points of view for how the food system needs to transform. There was no disagreement that things must change but the why and how of that change differed for all of the participants. This we believe to be the most important part - that there is no single solution and that any solutions that are created must be culturally and geographically appropriate, and meet people as people rather than as commodities or numbers on a page. True change happens in a society due to shifts in values and worldview. The world is on the precipice of such a shift as more and more are becoming acutely aware of the climate crisis and the impacts of adding another 3 billion people to our population by 2050. Tensions are rising and violence is happening but so too are efforts for collaboration and peacemaking. In cultivating this hybrid dialogue, we have created spaces for the grassroots to be in conversation with the grasstops. Change can only happen when we listen and learn from one another in spaces that are egalitarian and democratic so we have tried to create such a space in our dialogues.We consciously chose speakers committed to community development and principles of justice and equity in their work. We committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity and highlighting the complexity of problems and the solutions. Our dialogues are globally diverse, bring together multiple stakeholders, have multi-faith representation, feature Indigenous voices throughout, and privilege the voices of front line communities.

NoWe created a hybrid dialogue that took the core elements of multi- stakeholder, global participants and thought provoking questions and scaled it down . Rather than focus on a single action track, we created dialogues for each of the 5 Action Tracks. The scaled down dialogues allowed for robust conversation amongst the participants. We designed them so that there would be opportunities for different points of view, points of divergence and of course emergence. We, in our way, hopefully created a platform for dialogue where people come from different traditions, religious belongings, countries, industries, and ultimately points of view for how the food system needs to transform. There was no disagreement that things must change but the why and how of that change differed for all of the participants. This we believe to be the most important part - that there is no single solution and that any solutions that are created must be culturally and geographically appropriate, and meet people as people rather than as commodities or numbers on a page. True change happens in a society due to shifts in values and worldview. The world is on a precipice of such a shift as more and more are becoming acutely aware of the climate crisis and the impacts of adding another 3 billion people by 2050. Tensions are rising and violence is happening but so too are efforts for collaboration and peacemaking. Our discussion groups are much smaller but we have created spaces for the grassroots to be in conversation with the grasstops. Change can only happen when we listen and learn from one another in spaces that are egalitarian and democratic so we have tried to create such a space in our dialogues.

234241242244245246247248249250251We focused the conversation on the following question: Where Does Resilience Lie and Who is Responsible for Upholding it? Resilience looks at the whole food system. Resilience must be felt throughout all levels of society and built through various initiatives. It has to be felt through all pockets of the community, individuals, the household community, etc. by scaling up agroecology, regenerative agriculture to build resilience. The more we do this work, needs to Resilience is holistic. It must be integrative, rights based, context specific, take in territorial needs of the urban + rural, and diversify the value chain. In the Massai language, the word “ resilience” is not recognized as resilience is interwoven into how we live. We must deepen our understanding of what adds value to our lives in the land, from the food we eat, to why we find particular food in a particular season. Everything is connected. Resilience lies within ourselves. Then translates into resilience of the community. Humanization of food relationship with environment. We must accept as humans, food systems rely on a healthy environment. If we are harming the environment, we are harming ourselves.235239240241242243244246247248249250251In order to build resilience within our food systems, we must: Strengthen Farmer Relations - Amplify collective buying power to create niche, local markets for farmers so they aren't at the whim of the global market. - Incentivize localization so that farmers are able to grow bioreigonally appropriate foods that serve the community as well as larger markets. - Work with farmers to diversify crop productions and yields to fortify healthy diets -Sit together with big farmers, and private sector and public sector, and small farmers, and experts, and civil society to come together and have conversation not in opposition, but find the causes that bind us together, not issues that drive us apart. Create Education Based Action - Amplify the best science, technology and wisdom of past traditions - religious, indigenous, community based, and other traditional insights. -Create community education projects for homes and community spaces on the importance of small gardens, water storage and management and regenerative techniques that strengthen food resilience + nutrition. -Utilize religious institutions and houses of worship to inspire community action; to transform lands, buildings and lifestyles to be green and more engaged with local food systems. Work With Faith Based Organizations To Change Behavior - Use ritual and practice to deal with impacts of climate change to people's mental health, climate anxiety. - Use teachings and moral education to galvanize change in behavior to be more environmentally friendly, aligning ethical and values based approaches with a just transition towards healthier and more sustainable local food systems. Create Food Sovereignty and Independence - Empower the local bycrafting regulations and focus development funds towards small holder farmers and community development projects. - Build movements detached from global food systems so that there is local resilience. - Improve community based food systems that are able to feed those in need and produce locally to supplement global food supplies. Include Local Communities In Policymaking - Communities being impacted by policy decisions must be at the table where policy is being written and decided. -Policymakers must ensure that every plan created prioritizes access to nutritious, culturally appropriate food. Strengthen Accountability - There must be regulations on governments and agro-corporations to make food systems secure and just. - Strengthen oversight over the entire value chain to mitigate waste, pollution, corruption, etc - Improve community and industry education to train towards regenerative practices and bicultural foods systems. - Institute regulations on agro-corporations to mandate climate mitigating practices and resilience building in their value chain to account for the environmental, social, and economic implications of our food systems.236238239242244246247249End Extractive Food Practices -Commodification of food systems dehumanizes the food system. We must get back to a food system that services people, that lives within planetary boundaries, and ensures access to healthy food for all people. -Our food systems need to be reoriented towards a zero hunger, universal access to food model no driven by profits Increased study needs to be give to look at the environmental, economic, and social implications of our food systems so that they can be tailored towards access and equity -Commodified, globalized food systems create conditions of demand for animal proteins, which is directly tied to the deforestation of the Bolivian Amazon. In order to live within the planet's boundaries we must augment and regulate demands placed on our food systems. -The intrusion of processed and ultra-processed foods into emerging markets disrupts local food economies and ecosystems while simultaneously driving unhealthy diets and a proliferation of NCDs. -Globalization has disrupted the lives of people, what they grow, and what they eat. Food as a commodity automatically devalues its worth and removes cultural traditions that respected and honored food grown by and for the community236239241242246247248249251Community Models for Change -Collaboration, conversation, and trade-offs must enter every level of our actions, from the cattle ranchers to the personal work we do with the land, as it all has an impact on the environment and on our food systems. -Create a sense of community by working together while cooking together creating a complex web of community connections and trust of each other. -Communities need to know and be part of writing policies that impact them. -Utilizing existing resources to create change within our communities. Leveraging what we have and collecting power together. -In pastoral communities, women are key agents of change, meeting with other women, at markets, sharing expertise, seeds, and insights. Community models must include women in positions of power and expertise to create lasting and rippling waves of change.236239240241242244246247248249251Faith Based Action -Religious Tradition’s Spiritual Technologies to create change within and around using our spiritual technologies of psalm, how we approach grief, scriptures, and sacred time, reimagine these to meet needs of current time. -Food creates a feeling of“I am embraced” that feeling connects to everyone. ]go beyond human centered. These sacred forests are temples for everyone. Pollinators, birds, bumblebees are given shelter and food in these forests. Beyond human centric. -Use faith based and work with faith based communities, work with large churches and temples, hold religion accountable. -Utilize existing infrastructure within faith institutions to create change. See programs by Black Church Food Security Network, the Dine Advocacy Alliance, Hazon, EcoSikh, etc. -Within the Jewish tradition, there is no understanding of Nature separate from divine reality. We are all one and connected in a divine reality of oneness. Best resilience is when we recognize this and work together to ensure we are all supported. Contributing to each other’s liberation, humans and non humans. -Empower our community thru black church food sec network to build our own community based food systems that leverage our community resources. -Transform vacant land into community garden. -Transform parking lots into food markets. -Buy bulk and sell to churches that are doing food distributions. -Working through the back church to engage the black community. Always been a hub and resource support. banks, colleges, universities. -Assets found in community structures already supporting community resilience can be leveraged to support local food economies, access, and inclusion -Langar - a community based food system. Organic, veg, sustainable Sikh temples all have kitchens and everyone can eat no matter who they are -Sacred forests - temples for everything. Reimagine the utility of forests and other natural areas beyond their function as commodities for the economy -Resilient and healthy food system require a resilience and rooted tradition in the earth -Community rituals are important for reorienting behavior -Carrying the wisdom of traditional communities. Every step of life is focused on how God made us in nature and the holy way of life. -Build on the networks created by women, create opportunities for the youth to learn from their elders and traditions236241242244245246247248249251Community based food system -Sustainability starter kit -> help them engage with sustainable practices. Food based solutions -> plant rich diets. Recipes and food products and local initiatives and education. -Working with policymakers to ensure those who are marginalized have access to food and prosperity. -We also need to ask the question of why do we have to be resilient? What is driving the need to change? Food apartheid: the systematic destruction of black self determination for control of our food. Inequity marked by segregation and lower rates of land ownership. Resiliency lies on people organizing to create just equitable community centered food systems -Creating niche markets for black farmers. Co op economics -Amplifying our collective buying power. Create niche markets for farmers to sell directly through the community. -Resilience and sustainability cannot solely be found in large institutions that are not grounded in the communities they serve. The small assets to build these systems are found within communities and must be supported. -Food is the thing that brings everyone together -Governments and International bodies must regulate agro-corporate practices to guard against unsustainable, unjust practices -Development incentives need to promote localization, resilience, and climate mitigation -Explore how institution’s like the WHO and UN Nutrition can help us scale local pathways to resilience and community empowerment237None to speak to

2021-06-17 21:07:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11913/203

59120326002037241511202050061400012110100991202000020805

The Social Gastronomy Movement (SGM) commits to this year's historical summit by bringing diverse and often unheard voices to the table and always embracing a multi-stakeholder approach. This dialogue was a part of a series of six independent dialogues convened by SGM, focused on the five Action Tracks and a session focused on the synthesis and our path forward as a global network. In "Looking Back to Move Forward,” we focused on Action Track 3, engaging farmers in nature-positive production. The foundation of this dialogue was the idea that much of the knowledge and methodologies for regenerative agriculture exist, and the clues to a healthier future can be found by understanding indigenous and peasant farming practices. To move forward, we must give credit to the communities around the world who embrace agroecology- starting at its ancestral roots. In doing so, we wanted to ensure that we honored the cultures and histories of those who have been practicing farming in symbiosis with the land for eons- the indigenous communities worldwide. SGM convened the dialogue in a manner that prioritized the Principles of Engagement every step of the way, emphasizing inclusivity. From the start, we invited a cross-sector task force to co-create the agenda. This task force consisted of our curator, facilitators, as well as participants. To catalyze the success of this dialogue, we first asked everyone to discuss the urgency of the concept- and identify the subtopics that would be addressed in each of the breakout rooms. As there is much debate around 'regenerative' and 'sustainable agriculture and the UNFSS overall, we needed to welcome divergence. We invited dissenting opinions and asked members of the task force to ensure we had as many perspectives engaged and represented as possible.A) Urgency-In convening this dialogue, SGM decided on a concept, in collaboration with a cross-sector task force, to address one of the most pressing challenges of our time- regenerative agriculture. It is agreed that we need to transition to food systems that are healthy and accessible for all, and farming that slows climate change- not accelerates it. B) Commitment to the Summit- SGM serves as a bridge for those who are often misrepresented. We opened a breakout room specifically on this divergence to discover action points necessary for inclusion and adequate representation during September's Summit.C) Respect- In planning and communication around this dialogue, we welcomed diverging perspectives and a range of opinions on the subject. At the start of the conversation, in addition to the context setting- we set some house rules. Participants, facilitators, and our curator agreed to embrace the following points as a guide for conversation: 1)Welcome divergence and dissenting opinions 2)Show up, be present, and be open to creating this experience together 3)Speak and listen with truth & love, agreeing or disagreeing with respect and kindness 4)share what you know and try to learn from othersD*) Recognizing complexity* Initially, our concept was focused on sustainable agriculture then shifted to agroecology, in recognition of the complexity and divergence around the terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘regenerative.’ Engaging farmers in nature-positive production is multi-faceted-, we must recognize history, policies, and socio-economic implications that have resulted in our current unsustainable agricultural system.E*) Embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity*We invited youth, small-holder farmers, representatives of multinational corporations, and civil society. For inclusivity purposes we also had simultaneous translation. F)SGM convened this dialogue in a way that embraced the importance of connection, collaboration, and partnerships. G) Creating safe space: By implementing the Chatham House Rules, we ensured that participants could speak authenticallyThe true value is bringing together those who are willing to speak to food systems transformation- and do so for the betterment of our collective future. In a conversation like this, it is much more powerful if a small group of people connects and participates in the planning process from the start. In this case, our facilitators, curator, and some participants were all aligned ahead of the dialogue date. In our prep calls, we were all on the same playing field. Instead opening up with presentations, encouraging people to introduce their projects, we asked everyone in the meeting to answer just three questions- 1) Who are you? 2) Where are you from? 3) Why are you here?These three simple questions set the stage for people to show up and be committed to coming up with solutions, and brings a sense of understanding and togetherness. As the room included a range of individuals from different backgrounds and experiences (Youth to CEOs) this sort of personal introduction leveled the playing field and created a safe space for sharing. In light of the topic, many of our potential participants and facilitators declined our invitation. There is a global boycott of the UN's Food Systems Summit, which is taking place because many peasant and indigenous farming groups feel that there is no place for it their voices within. In communication with these participants, we emphasized the power of these independent dialogues and the People's Summit- as a mechanism for welcoming all into the realm of food systems transformation, but also gave space for those who had grievances to address them in a multi-stakeholder setting. It was crucial for SGM, our curator, and our facilitators that these voices were included in the conversation and had the space to discuss the controversy. We would also advise Conveners to open up to invitations to multiple networks, ensuring that participation is as inclusive as possible. It is also important to invite people into the planning process, so the agenda is co-created and that facilitators are well acquainted. Miro Board for notetakers is great.

Yes

234240244247248249251A comprehensive exploration of Action Track 3: Engaging Farmers in Nature Positive Production Climate change poses a threat to our agriculture systems, but the relationship is mutually violent. Modern industrial agriculture is eroding food biodiversity and creating monocultures of the mind. That being said, today there is fertile ground for innovation in food systems and agricultural transformation. To build a new future for farming that is regenerative, we must take a look at history and ancestral knowledge to inform the way we move forward as global society. Indigenous people and small scale farmers have been practicing other ways of farming and are currently producing up to 70% of the food we eat. Indigenous groups around the world have been practicing agroecology for eons and are safeguarding 80% of the world's biodiversity, while they make up only 5% of the human population. Agroecology and other diverse forms of ancestral farming need to be acknowledged so that a dialogue between modern and ancient ways can move us towards the health of people and the planet. How do we make sure that we do not lose these traditions as we move forward?. How do we reinvigorate a sense of belonging, and honor our own histories in order to move towards a future where food is a commons, or as Vananda Shiva would say, “the currency of life.” In this dialogue focused on emerging ideas, concerns and questions we must be asking ourselves in order to honor our past as the next generation of farming emerges. **Specifically, the Dialogue sought  to address  the following questions:** - How can history and indigenous agricultural practice inform farming of the future and nature positive production? - What innovative pedagogies, methodologies, approaches, and learnings can inform the way that we produce food? - How can acknowledgment of old agricultural practices inform the private sector, governance strategies, and policies, and civil society to create more equitable and healthy food systems? - How can food communities, on a global and local level, emerge as catalysts for nature friendly production on a global scale? - How can we engage young people in nature-positive farming?235240244247248249251- We need to revalue food in a way that prioritizes the use of local ingredients and respects the pivotal role of farmers in our food system across our global economies. - We must develop an innovative and engaging education system that brings the youth back to farming and creates alternatives to the industrialized consumption patterns that dominate our food system. - A bridge must be made between rural and urban, young and old, and indigenous and settler communities to co-create equitable solutions that prioritize human rights- especially the right to nature. - We must shift the historical narratives of our food system by holding institutions and individuals accountable for injustices such as appropriation, colonial and capitalist mindsets, and cultural theft. - Equitable and comprehensive networks among producers and consumers are necessary for sustainable action.236240244246247249Corporate Takeover of the UNFSS: The UNFSS claims to be a milestone event to transform food systems worldwide. Their vision of the future is one with equity and health for all, and the goal is to get there by giving voice to civil society in every country of the world. However, many concerns have been raised about the approach the Summit has taken. Criticisms include: 1)The high-level of corporate influence 2)The lack of grounding in human rights 3)The treatment of diverse stakeholders as equals without recognition of power imbalances or legitimacy on any given issue 4) Lack of transformative vision or policies Hundreds of civil society organizations are boycotting the summit arguing that while the UNFSS claims to be a "people's summit," the approach the Summit has taken undermines democratic institutions and inclusive multilateralism. These dissenting civil society groups are planning their own People's Summit prior to the UNFSS. The UNFSS has sought to encourage public, global conversations through independent dialogues like this one. The dialogues are meant to yield system insights and priority concerns that participants hope the Summit will address leading to solutions. We must make sure that the independent dialogues actually influence the agenda and the concerns of smallholder farming groups are represented at the table come September. In order to do so, we must listen to this global call and understand that local realities need to be reflected in a global agenda. Innovation must come from people coming together, both in an international multi stakeholder setting as well as at the grassroots level. We have to acknowledge the intricacies of each of these issues. Why are we, as a global society, allowing for the continuous oppression and execution of indigenous communities and cultures? Around the world these communities are denied of a voice- whether that be because of a lack of access to technology, visibility, or because of more violent systems of oppression. In the Amazon and Andes, indigenous communities are disenfranchised and displaced. In many of the regions where human rights are violated, it is the state and private companies denying that are denying these communities of what is inalienable. We must enforce a system of accountability to ensure that people are given the right to their land- allowing for ancestral and nature positive production to flourish. In light of the boycott coming from indigenous and peasant farming, we need to make sure that their message is heard at the upcoming Summit. We need to propose to the UNFSS a simple message: everyone must see their role in food systems transformation, not just multi-national corporations and neoliberal civil society organizations. It is crucial that everyone, no matter their political or economic clout, can see their role in food systems change because urban communities and consumers hold power in demanding food systems change with their actions. Reciprocity between producers and consumers; land and mouth; rural and urban connection is crucial. We must build networks of relationships. We must move forward in a way that food- good food, is a commons, land is protected, and small farmers are empowered. We need to be open and optimistic and co-create; we need to be together, unite in the fight. There are so many communities working towards a change, predominantly indigenous populations, if we talk about the future, let's make sure they are included, and their knowledge- amplified.236240245248249251Engaging youth in farming, Embracing technology, & Preserving Culture: Farmers are aging, and it's a problem. In order to move forward with agriculture and allow for more innovation, we must engage youth in farming. In doing so we can embrace technology and promote cultural and ancestral knowledge- blending the old and the new. As a global society, we need more farmers' markets to close the gap between the producers and consumers. Doing so, we have to make nature-positive production something that is attractive for the younger generations. We need more chefs cooking in the farmer markets to create awareness of how we eat, farm, and celebrate the colors and biodiversity. We are also at a turning point where farmers are getting older, but at the same time the new generations are looking to escape cities. People are now recognizing the value of local produce and supporting small farmers, but prices are still a problem. It is essential that we democratize access to good, local food. By connecting farmers with youth entrepreneurs we can empower farmers in ways that we haven't done yet. By doing so, we simultaneously help the aging population of farmers who are often heavily impacted by the digital divide and we are engaging youth in agriculture and innovation. Ecological illiteracy is a huge mindset problem for a generation. Therefore, projects like rural agricultural schools to train future farmers are essential. Bringing value to the farm. Until the farmer only provides ingredients, we will never get out of this broken system. However, youth can engage in intelligent commercial relations and partnerships with farmers to disrupt the system. Regional Education - value what is local. Use technology to spark curiosity amongst youth and make it growing food cool again.236240247Decolonizing our Plates What does decolonizing our plates mean? 1. preserving local farmer's and ancestral practices, beliefs, and more 2. breaking the rural/urban divide and making sure these ingredients become available to everyone, especially those who have lost accessibility along the lines of poverty and disaster, lost cultures 3. adopting a culture that values nutritious food, accountability for people who are complicit in action, asking how we can remove colonial practices from the workplace, what traditional foods can we provide that honors the people we are serving? calling out the 'bullshit' of everyone and constantly asking how we can all do better. Qguring out how to coexist with indigenous cultures 4. the theft of land, opportunity, and traditions. thinking about competition in LATAM to consume colonized products as a sign of social progress 5. all the processed foods found in communities where indigenous communities work make traditional ingredients Questions that emerged: How do we bring traditions back that's not stealing/appropriation? What do we meanwhile while we are trying to keep systems accountable? How do we activate pride? 1. as chefs, creating nutritious dishes and empower the people who create the plate along the way 2. adding value to food through the way we interact/price it. what are we valuing? nutrition? externalities? how do we measure these things? 3. through the education process we can change the conversation Main Takeaways superfoods are being used as a marketing strategy while making products less accessible to indigenous populations. We must implement alternative systems that challenge our capitalist model by consulting local communities and creating resiliency to truly decolonize our plates. Create a system of accountability for appropriation and cultural theft that can make traditional foods accessible to everyone We can shift our narratives on food through education about our histories and by revaluing ingredients in a way that reflects the actual price of food. Communication that brings sensitivity to the consumer. How effective is the use of seals? How can the industry take advantage of this, even restaurants? Education in the industry, education for kids. How do we change our mindset from the way we consume to the industry. Action. Better networks between producers and chefs: Accessibility to local products and income to producers. Better traceability of the products. Governments that value more the work of producers.237240243244245246247249**Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized.** The UN FSS claims to be an inclusive space where all voices will be heard; however, the active participation of large corporations in its agenda and the heavy involvement of the 'Green Revolution' questions the prioritization of civil society's efforts and perspective and, therefore, the possibility of changing power dynamics that perpetuate systems of oppression in the food systems. **Areas that need further exploration** - There was contention on how a capitalist economic model can be used to foster Food Systems Change. Some participants believed that our system could shift the current power dynamics, which create inequity if utilized in the right way. Others believe that a radical transformation in our system is necessary for true, sustainable change. **Practices that are needed for food system sustainability** - Many participants agreed that we must revalue the role of food in our daily lives and create healthier relationships with the food system. However, there was divergence on which actors create the value we place on food. Some participants agreed that it is the way we price food that determines its value. They asked questions such as "which externalities are considered in the price of food?" and "can we start valuing food by its nutritional value?" Other participants believed it is the influence of chefs and food systems leaders that create the standards people use to value food in their daily lives and the global system **Practices that are needed for food system sustainability** - Restaurants can be a platform for food education and behavioral change by promoting local produce and culinary traditions, closing the gap between the producers and the final consumer. Still, some participants believe this is not enough to create radical change. Public policies that foster an agriculture of peace are essential to building a fair food system. Divergence over terms "Sustainable" and "Regenerative" - Regenerative is being co-opted by multinational corporations --- (agroecological? there is a social movement aspect to agroecology- where **food sovereignty is central**) comes down to the question of where power lies within the food system. - Indigenous food practices aren't adopted by society as a whole, because of incorporation of the food system - Over subsidized farming in the Global North has caused the loss of crop-based resources in the Global South. Modern agriculture has had a drastic impact on local economies and threatened age-old agricultural practices and family farming which, for the most part, is characterized by a symbiotic relationship between people and planet.

2021-06-17 21:35:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12773/33798788161194

These dialogues are organized by a coalition of Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) who agreed upon an internal set of principles. Those principles included respect for one another's beliefs and traditions. Commitment to elevating human rights. Being open to difference. Resolving conflict through mediated dialogue. Amplifying underrepresented voices.We consciously chose speakers committed to community development and principles of justice and equity in their work. We committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity and highlighting the complexity of problems and the solutions. Our dialogues are globally diverse, bring together multiple stakeholders, have multi-faith representation, feature Indigenous voices throughout, and privilege the voices of front line communities.

NoWe created a hybrid dialogue that took the core elements of multi- stakeholder, global participants and thought provoking questions and scaled it down . Rather than focus on a single action track, we created dialogues for each of the 5 Action Tracks. The scaled down dialogues allowed for robust conversation amongst the participants. We designed them so that there would be opportunities for different points of view, points of divergence and of course emergence. We, in our way, hopefully created a platform for dialogue where people come from different traditions, religious belongings, countries, industries, and ultimately points of view for how the food system needs to transform. There was no disagreement that things must change but the why and how of that change differed for all of the participants. This we believe to be the most important part - that there is no single solution and that any solutions that are created must be culturally and geographically appropriate, and meet people as people rather than as commodities or numbers on a page. True change happens in a society due to shifts in values and worldview. The world is on the precipice of such a shift as more and more are becoming acutely aware of the climate crisis and the impacts of adding another 3 billion people to our population by 2050. Tensions are rising and violence is happening but so too are efforts for collaboration and peacemaking. In cultivating this hybrid dialogue, we have created spaces for the grassroots to be in conversation with the grasstops. Change can only happen when we listen and learn from one another in spaces that are egalitarian and democratic so we have tried to create such a space in our dialogues.

234239241244247248249251There were three primary focus areas for this dialogue: The first focus area was the human relationship to land and farming, and why that relationship has become strained. The majority of the speakers in our session were from countries that had been colonized by Europeans who exploited the land and people of the colonized territories for the benefit of the colonizing nation. In the words of one of the presenters, Dr. Louis Petersen, “After so many years of colonization and slavery, they look at the land as the scene of the crime.“ This sentiment was shared strongly by the speakers from Senegal, Dr. Aliou Niang, and Dr. Meera Baindur from India, both of whom spoke to the exploitation of land and people alike by colonizing agents. Prior to colonization by the French, the Diola people of Senegal held a sacred relationship with the land and especially with the rice. They did not produce more than they needed and relied upon bartering and generosity to meet the community's needs. When the French introduced peanuts and currency the traditional farming and societal structure of the Diola was broken and led to inequality and oppression from internal and external agents. Much like the practices of modern day agro-corporations, workers and the land are needlessly exploited and the benefit of their outcomes are funneled away from the community into the agents who exploit them. The Second focus area was the role of spirituality, religion, and ritual in reorienting people to the land. There was a point of emphasis put on how we value and objectify the land (and the people who work it ) which causes our relationship to food production to be impersonal and inhumane. Increasingly global supply/value chains are extremely long so that consumers have no relationship with the producers other than a transactional one. Farm and food workers have very little say in what they farm or produce or make or sell which further dehumanizes the relationship between people and the land. An antidote to this broad objectification is to re-engage our spiritual connectedness to the land and recognize the sanctity of the relationship. Dr. Baindur found that her Hindu faith and the practice of praying and giving offerings to the local gods helped center her relationship to the food and land. A Third focus area was on smallholders and localization. Our food systems have become overly commodified and industrialized placing major emphasis, reliance, and money in large argo-corporate producers. This model is driven by profit and metrics on a spreadsheet that give little accord to the health of the land that produces the food nor to the workers who harvest it nor to community based farmers and food workers. The system is unbalanced and this imbalance systematically disadvantages smallholders.235238241244245246247249251Sanctity of human - land relationship -In order to create change within our food systems our food systems must pivot away from a purely consumptive model of production and distribution towards one that take into account the intrinsic value of nature and the people who produce and distribute food. - Land must be recognized as essential and in its own way sanctified and full of meaning beyond that which the markets give it - Land and soil must be protected - The people who work the land and serve food must be treated with dignity and respect, and not as industrialized things to be used and abused. Worker justice - - People and the land cannot be see an objects to be exploited for profit - Workers will not treat the land with dignity if they are not treated with dignity - Farm and food workers need to be provided a living wage. Too many farmers don’t earn enough to adequately provide for their families - Support place based, cultural and ecologically appropriate food growing that empowers local growers to provide for themselves and their communities - Incentivize development funders to invest in community based food systems - Incentive growing models that produce diverse crops that are bioregionally appropriate - For communities reliant on tourism, create ties between tourist boards and indigenous foods and cuisine - Encourage cooperatives and farm collectives to support local growers. - End neocolonial practices of land grabs and worker exploitation that are are tacitly given license though international trade agreements - End practices that cause people to disassociate from the land; - End practices that extracts without replenishing; - End practices that exploit without regard for people or planet -Put an end to the violence of the food system that exploits people and the planet - Put an end to child labor - Even out systemic imbalances built into food systems that disempower smallholder farmers, - workers, women - Move development money away from mega-growers - Create and enforce international regulations to discourage the exploitation of farm workers - Mandate living wages for farm workers - Change worker conditions and pay structures that incentive a reliance on migratory workers and working conditions that allow for abuse and exploitation - Break down socio-cultural mores that disempower and exploits women’s labor - Provide education and early support for women and mothers who are the first to introduce and educate the young about food. - Provide education and support to mothers and families about the benefits of breastfeeding. - Women empowerment and women farmers are discriminated against. Gender based violence. - Social norms that don’t recognize their work or rights. Food systems are mainly run by women yet they are deeply disempowered. - Women are often paid less and are more likely to be farm workers. Must create egalitarian working structures236241247249How can we advance equitable livelihoods for farm and food workers? - Provide protections for farm and food workers through policy. - Reorient the value-chain to bring protections and living wages to workers - Provide incentive and protection structures for smallholder farmers. - Regulate the land and the people who protect the environment and the people in leadership who need to help secure the livelihoods of those who work - Establish cooperatives and collectives to give workers ownership of the lands they work - Engage and empower women. Women compose a majority of the farming workforce and yet have a limited voice due to cultural and religious mores. - Install mechanisms to redistribute the monopoly of power held by major agro-corporations and other big businesses to workers and smallholders - Provide education and opportunities to young people so that they can farm their own land or land help by co-ops to encourage a new generation of healthy, community farms236241244247249251How can faith, religious, spiritual, or Indigenous traditions support farm and food workers? - Revive traditional agriculture and cultural practices around land management and farming to help inform modern practices - Engage spiritual traditions to recover earth and worker honoring rituals to repair the relationship between land and workers. - Emphasize spirituality over religion. Religion too often has been used as a tool of division. Spirituality, however, is deeply personal as well as communal and can be used as a tool to build community bonding based on personal experience - Utilize eco-feminism and eco-theology to empower women and educate men in order to break power structures used to oppress women - Leverage spiritual and Indigenous wisdom about the sanctity of the earth and what we harvest from it. - Use religious and spiritual and Indigenous traditions to break from the Cartesian relationship between humans and non-humans - Provide education in religious institutions to show the integral relationship between human health and environmental health - Leverage religious institutions and power structures to advocate for workers and promote egalitarian ways of farming, working, and being together in community - Spiritually is a major diver for individuals and communities in our food systems. We need to emphasize spiritually more in our systems - Religious, faith, Indigenous and spiritual leaders need to call arbiters of power in our food systems to account for failing food and farm workers due to systemic imbalances that oppress people and planet alike236241242244247248249251How is climate change impacting workers? - From the highlands of Guatemala to the island of Puerto Rico, increased storms and droughts and floods devastate crops. There must be increased safety nets for farm and food workers when-and-if their crops fail - Collectives and cooperatives need be expanded to provide support structures to provide resilience in the face of climate disasters - Protect and preserve and regenerate soil - Plant indigenous and bioregionally appropriate foods to encourage ecosystem health, resilience, and the regeneration of flora and fauna key to local ecosystem vitality236241244246247249251How do our systems need to change to better support workers? - We must reform land tenure and land ownership models. - We need to account for externalities within value chains and not pass them off to the workers, communities, and ecosystems that are negatively impacted - There need to be regulations to support living wages for workers as well as meaningful penalties for employers who exploit workers - Women must be guaranteed equal pay and equal protections. Invest in education for children and rural communities about the importance of soil, crop diversification, and kitchen gardens - We have to break the narrative that food is an economic activity. It is culture. It is who we are. It is spiritual. - Food systems must prioritize the needs of the communities who supply the food. - Cooperative, unions, and collectives can help break the imbalance built into the food system - We must shorten value chains so that people have a closer relationship to the food they are consuming. - We must create safety nets to account for shocks. These safety nets should be funded by governments, agro-corporations, and built into trade deals to protect the workers. - Eradicate child labor -Food systems are mainly run by women yet they are deeply disempowered. We must shift social norms and worker regulations to protect and empower women in the workforce237n/a

2021-06-18 09:55:54205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15352/39

821532536418954311811421343424117136418

The dialogue was structured to give participants an overview of major directions, and then to allow representatives of each concerned ministry or institution an opportunity to present on their commitments. Each Ministry and institution invited to participate was invited to submit commitments in writing in advance of the meeting, with the intention of combining individual contributions under the broader themes of the action tracks. The development partners, civil society, private sector and sub-national level representatives were invited to respond to the commitments by ministries by aligning their commitments with the major directions of government or in filling in gaps. In the follow-up to the meeting, those present and those who had not attended were given opportunity to respond in writing.The dialogue was designed to encourage commitment to the National Dialogue process and to support the roadmap. Formal letters were directed to each relevant Ministry seeking their commitments in writing in advance of the dialogue session. All those presenting were asked to respect other participants by limiting their statement to the most significant contributions from their side. The set of presentations was intended to highlighted the diverse interests in the food system and the opportunities for different ministries to complement each other in their work and for the other partners to complement the government actions. The event was split between different sections to allow government and other partners opportunities to respond to each other.This dialogue was built around formal preparations but to ask ministries to prepare their commitments however, in most cases they did not make these preparations. More time and high level support is needed to ensure that the ministries can prepare a formal statement and that they have adequate understanding of the meaning of the food system and the significance of a systems approach in dealing with new challenges. Similarly, development partners and other actors were reluctant in some cases to make a statement without more formal preparations. It would be useful to allow more time and an iterative process to generate these commitments. There was sufficient discussion to identify potential high-level commitments to support preparations for the pre-summit and summit. We need to allow the dialogue process to run further in order for the paradigm change entailed in a systems approach to take effect.

NoThe format was quite different in that it was aimed at eliciting a formal commitment to actions supporting the action tracks. The process required an invitation to ministries to prepare commitment statements based on current plans and strategies and envisaged steps for sharing these commitments and allowing other non-government partners to identify points of alignment with the goals of the various ministries. Points of convergence between sectors were difficult to establish during the event but are possible in post-dialogue analysis. No major points of divergence were aired in during the event, either amongst the ministries or in the statements of other partners attending.

234238239240241242245246249The dialogue focused on the commitments of different sectors and stakeholders to the achievement of sustainable food systems for 2030. The purpose was to align the activities of the different actors and institutions with particular action tracks and to highlight the key actions underway or established in existing strategies and plans of action. This event built on the initial engagement event conducted at a technical level with staff of ministries and institutions of the Royal Government of Cambodia on 31 March 2021.235238239240241242244245246249251Exploring National Commitments for Sustainable Food Systems for Cambodia in 2030 Line ministries contributing to governance and implementation of activities associated with food systems were invited to make statements of commitments to support sustainable food systems for Cambodia by 2030. The ministries and institutions that responded and the nature of their commitments are summarized below. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 1. Promote competitive production value chain. 2. Increase the support to infrastructure and trade facilitation. 3. Strengthen the management of forestry and fisheries. 4. Strengthen institutions, human resource and legal framework. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport 1. Continue to implement scholarship and school feeding program. 2. Include fundamental life skills in the school curriculum. Ministry of Commerce 1. Control the stock of reserved food, ensuring quantity, quality, technical standard and delivery to people. 2. Assure food allocation aligned with the Royal Government policies. Ministry of Industry, Technology and Innovation 1. Upgrade all production with modern technology. 2. Promote primary food industry. 3. Increase food productivity in accordance with technical standard, hygiene and social demand. Ministry of Environment 1. Maintain water sources for people for farming, especially for villagers who living near the forest. 2. Promote agricultural practices to reduce dependency of people on forest, wildlife or other natural resources. 3. Promote eco-tourism as a source of livelihood to reduce dependency on forest and other natural resources. Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology 1. Expand irrigation systems by 25,000 to 30,000 ha per year. 2. Establish 4 to 5 Community Water User Groups per year. 3. Build new Techo Sen Meteorology Station in Kampong Thom Province. Ministry of Planning 1. Develop legal framework for food fortification. 2. Raising awareness to all levels of people about fortified food. 3. Research into basic types of foods suitable for fortification. Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation 1. Provide cash to pregnant and lactating women and children under 2 years old. 2. Provide cash to suffering families in IDPoor 1 and IDPoor 2 categories. 3. Provide cash to disabled people and orphans. 4. Provide cash to retired officials and veterans. 5. Provide cash to suffering people in lockdown areas and COVID-19 infected people. Other commitments In addition to these statements, IFFAD, the ADB, the NGO Forum, JICA, the SUN CSA and the Provincial Governments of Kampot, Kampong Thom, Kampong Chhnang and Ratanakiri and GIZ MUSEFO Project all made statements concerning the alignment of their contributions and their commitment to supporting the RGC and people of Cambodia in the achievement of sustainable food systems. These various commitments included: support for agribusinesses, market linkages for smallholders, provision of improved services for poor households, digitalization in agriculture and value chains, clean safe and sustainable value chain development for agriculture and food, water supply and sanitation in rural areas, expansion of the irrigated areas for cropping, adapting agriculture to climate change, improved seed supply; promotion of multi-stakeholder platforms and support for sub-national level governance of FSN, nutrition for mothers, infants and young child feeding, promoting food safety and nutrition in schools. It was recommended that this information should be shared with the CDC and that CDC should also be given an opportunity to contribute in terms of the national commitments.237No areas of divergence or emerged in the discussion.

2021-06-18 13:06:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22131/203

01623251133424512224532216254

This is the first National Independent Dialogue conducted for Philippine Farmers and Fishers. There are many farmers federation with competing ideas and strategies. The Convenor saw to it that despite the differences among federations, invitation was open to all including thise highly critical of the FSS process. It was expected that 35 to 50 farmer and fishers leaders will attend the Independent Dialogue, but the number of leaders who joined swelled to 75 participants. It was a mix of moderates and highly critical but are one in engaging the FSS process.While discussions were colorful during breakout groups of FGDs, each group respected the ideas and propositions of other farmers groups and encouraged the formulation of certain ideas into policy proposals and/or solution propositions along the Action Tracks.Yes. In the FSS processes, small producers of food, particularly farmers and fishers, are many times relegated to footnotes or anecdotal. We should encourage small farmers and fishers to contribute in the formulation of game changing solutions. Their experiences, wisdom and initiative are so rich and can contribute in transforming our food systems and achieving the SDGs.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247248249251Based on the group discussions, almost all Action Tracks (AT 1-5) with corresponding game changing solutions have been affirmed by the group as applicable and actionable in different local settings except AT 1 regarding fortifying staples that needs further discussion. In terms of policy proposals, there are many suggestions to look into: (a) marine ecosystem protection (AT3); (b) global environmental facilities which would lead to the preservation and protection of resources under the sea (AT2.) by consistent monitoring and implementing the use of safe fishing methods. It will also promote total prevention of hazardous fishing equipment and chemical inputs; and (c) adopting diversified organic farming system. It was also agreed during the breakout session/focus group discussion that the 3 identified game changing solutions for AT2 (Protect natural and marine ecosystems, manage sustainably existing food production systems and restoration of degraded ecosystems and soil functions are interrelated but the 2nd AT2 proposition which includes agroecology, must be prioritized as it will have a direct impact to both 1st and 3rd identified game changing solutions. There are also policy proposals on Asset Reforms such as the enactment of the National Land Use Act (NLUA), to push for the completion of CARP/ER and the delineation of Municipal waters. There is need to increase social awareness on food systems while some proposals seek the creation of grievance and redress committees with compensation as well as, promote the equal treatment for farmers/fishers (AT4). At the same time, there are policy proposals for the diversification on resilience to food systems, that is, preventive and promoting participatory approaches (AT5).235238239240241244246247248249251In terms of priorities, the groups have identified AT3 (3.2), AT2, AT1. prioritize number 1. A lot of discussions on AT4. Land reform – access to land (farmers as beneficiary), access to capacity building, capital, fair market (especially women), direct funds to FOs not via LGU, representation of farmers/fishers in policy making bodies, reduction of control of market especially on prices. For policy/programme, the group proposed the following: Under AT 3, the institutional global environmental policy at each province, monitoring system, community involvement, education and campaign. It also proposed for the creation of monitoring team involving fisherfolks and farmers that will supervise and observe good agricultural practices per municipal/provincial level. Under AT 2, organic way of farming, information drive promoting local products/food safety, review trade policies on importation (rice tarrification) including food packaging. Under AT 4. strengthen micro entrepreneurs (talipapa) oversight committee. Under AT 5, the curator mentioned the active participation of multi-stakeholders in budgeting and monitoring disasters programs and environmental projects. In terms of actions to follow through, first is to continue this independent dialogue regularly with a system to follow-up post NID activities. Secondly, to look into the establishment of monitoring teams at the provincial level. There are also concrete suggestions from the group like the need to craft Magna Carta for Small Scale producers, extend food assistance for the babies and senior citizens during disasters and even the proper use of funds like the PCIC funds which should not be diverted to other uses (i.e., COVID operations)236238239240241242244245246247249251In this first Independent Dialogue on FSS of Philippine farmers and Fishers, a number of propositions were put forward. All Action Tracks (AT 1-5) along with corresponding game changing solutions have been affirmed by the group except in AT 1 regarding fortifying staples that needs further discussion. He presented the key point shared. In terms of policy proposals, there are many suggestions to look into: (a) marine ecosystem protection (AT3); (b) global environmental facilities which would lead to the preservation of resources under the sea (AT2.); and (c) Adopt diversified organic farming system. There are also policy proposals on Asset Reforms such as the enactment of the National Land Use Act (NLUA), to push for the completion of CARP/ER and the delineation of Municipal waters. There is need to increase social awareness on food systems and some proposals for the creation of grievance and redress committees with compensation as well as, to seek equal treatment for farmers/fishers, agrarian reform (AT4). At the same time, there are policy proposals for the diversification on resilience to food systems, that is, preventive and promoting participatory approaches (AT5)237238244250251There was one area of divergence where participants had opposing views on "Fortifying Staples" under Action Track 1. Two perspective, one is that to allow fortifying staple to ensure healthier intake of food. However, another perspective disagrees on fortifying, arguing that the vitamins and minerals needed by our body should be grown naturally. These needs further debate and exploration but time was limited. The participants agreed to continue the discussion within their constituents and will be a topic in the succeeding Independent Dialogues.

2021-06-18 13:26:39205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26654/96

2527115178014312011331101432

الاردن يدرك الضرورة القصوى للعمل المستمر والهادف على جميع المستويات لتحقيق أهداف التنمية المستدامة 2030 ذات الصلة بالنظم الغذائية . وعليه يتم تنظيم الحوارات كمساهمة في قمة النظم الغذائية ولإعداد مسارات إحداث التحول في النظم الغذائية للمساهمة في خطة التنمية المستدامة لعام 2030.وفي إطار قدراتنا وظروفنا الخاصة، سنعمل على تعزيز سياسات وممارسات إنتاج الغذاء واستهلاكه التي تسعى جاهدة لحماية وتحسين صحة ورفاهية الأفراد، وتعزيز سبُل العيش والمجتمعات القادرة على التحمل والتكيف، وتعزيز المحافظة الجيدة على الموارد الطبيعية، مع احترام الثقافات والسياقات المحلية. وقد تبنى الحدث مبادئ القمة للمشاركة: التصرف على وجه السرعة ، والالتزام نحو القمة ، التحلي بالاحترام، إدراك درجة التعقيد، استيعاب شمولية أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين، وأكمال أعمال الآخرين ، والقيام ببناء الثقة.حوارات الاردن دون الوطنية للنظم الغذائية - تم دعوة العديد من أصحاب المصلحة من خلفيات وقطاعات مختلفة إلى المشاركة في الحوار دون الوطني استعدادًا لقمة الأمم المتحدة المعنية بالنظم الغذائية في سبتمبر 2021. حيث نظمت وزارة الزراعة الحوار دون الوطني والذي عقد بشكل وجاهي ولكن بسبب جائحة كورونا تم دعوة ٢٥ مشارك فقط . كان المشاركون (أصحاب المصلحة ) من مختلف قطاعات النظم الغذائية من المزارعين ، وصناعة الأغذية ، والحكومة ، والمنظمات غير الحكومية ، والنشطاء ، والمؤسسات البحثية والأكاديمية ، والجمعيات النسوية واتحاد المزارعين والنقابات المهنية الزراعية والبيطرية ، تجار التجزئة والجملة والبلديات ، ووسائل الإعلام ، والبرلمان ،وغرف التجارة و الصناعة. قدمت هذه المجموعة المتنوعة من أصحاب المصلحة نظرة شاملة للانظمة الغذائية حيث تبادل المشاركون وجهات نظر متنوعة ، وتمكنوا من تحديد المشاكل والتحديات وتم اقتراح الحلول القابلة للتطبيق والتوصيات .وقد تم تقسيم المشاركين الى ثلاث مجموعات يديرها منسقين اثنين وثلاث ميسّرين حيث تم تخصيص ساعة ونصف (٩٠) دقيقه للمجموعات لمناقشة المسار الخامس و استكشاف اهم المشاكل والتحديات ووضع الحلول والتوصيات وفي الساعة الاخيره من الحوار عاد المشاركون إلى الجلسة العامة وقام الميسر من كل مجموعة بقراءة النقاط المهمة التي تمت مناقشتها وتغطيتها في كل مجموعة وفي الختام قام المنسقين الوطنيين بتلخيص اهم التوصيات المتستخلصه من نتائج حوارات المجموعات .تعتبر أهم خطوات التحضير لعقد الحوارات الوطنية ودون الوطنية هو تحديد اصحاب المصلحة الذين يجب دعوتهم وتحديد المواضيع المنوي مناقشتها والتي يجب ان تتوائم مع طبيعة المنطقة الجغرافية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية ، لضمان عدم تخلف أحد عن الركب وان الجميع يحق له التعبير عن رأيه بحرية وان يتم تبني أرائهم .

Yes

234242244245246249250251التعريف بالمسار الخامس بناء القدرة على الصمود في مواجهة الازمات والصدمات والضغوط التركيز على توضيح الهدف من مسار  العمل الخامس والذي سيعى الى ضمان استمرار إعمال النظم الغذائية المستدامة في المناطق المعرضة للنزاعات أو الكوارث الطبيعية. وسيعزز مسار العمل أيضاً الإجراءات العالمية المتخذة لحماية الإمدادات الغذائية من آثار الأوبئة.يعني تحقيق هذا الهدف التركيز على المحاور التالية: 1.    ضمان الغذاء وقدرة النظم الغذائية على الصمود في المناطق المعرضة للكوارث الطبيعية والنزاعات؛ 2.    تمكين جميع الأشخاص داخل أي منظومة غذائية من التأهب لحالات عدم الاستقرار والصمود في مواجهتها والتعافي منها؛ِِ 3.    المشاركة في النظم الغذائية التي توفر الأمن الغذائي والتغذية وسبل العيش المنصفة للجميع، على الرغم من الصدمات والضغوط. وتم التركيز على المحور الثاني: حماية الإمدادات الغذائية من آثار الأوبئة مناقشة واقتراح التزامات للعمل لتعزيز عمل سلسلة الإمدادات الغذائية خلال الازمات -        ما هو السياق الحالي وكيف يؤثر على واقع النظم الغذائية المحلية؟ -        ما هي الاقتراحات والإجراءات الضرورية التي يمكن تطبقيها على المدى القريب والمتوسط؟ -        كيف يمكننا ان نخلق بيئية مساندة لتنفيذ الإجراءات المقترحة؟ -        ماذا ستكون الإنجازات الحقيقية؟ -        أين يجب ان نركز إمكانياتنا وجهودنا لتحقيق تقدم ملموس؟ -        ما هي الأمور التي يجب استكشافها أكثر؟ -        من هم الشركاء الرئيسين وما هو دور مختلف أصحاب المصلحة؟235242حوار إربد 1. إعداد خطط طوارىء ونظام لإدارة الأزمات 2. ضرورة التزام المجتمع الدولي باستدامة دعم الأردن في مواجهة الأزمات وبشكل خاص تلك المتعلقة باللجوء 3. زيادة حجم المخزون الاستراتيجي وشمول كافة السلع الاستراتيجية 4. تحسين التعاون الاقليمي للتغلب على الأزمات 5. تعزيز الانتاج الأسري والريفي والعمل التعاوني 6. ترشيد استهلاك الغذاء 7. الاستفادة من الاغذية غير المستعملة 8. الاستفادة من الميز النسبية للاجئين 9. ضرورة وجود قواعد بيانات ورصد ومتابعة دقيقة وموثوقة 10. الأهتمام بقضايا التغير المناخي والبيئة والمرأة والشباب 11. ترشيد وزيادة كفاءة استخدام المياه والطاقة وايجاد مصادر بديلة لها مثل الحصاد المائي والمياه الحدودية وطاقة الشمس والرياح وغيرها 12. التركيز على بعض الزراعات مثل التمور والأسماك والاهتمام بتحسين إنتاجية الأغنام

اننا في الاردن ماضون قدما نحو تطوير منظومة وطنية شاملة تقوم على أسس تمكين إنتاج الغذاء المستدام، وتعزيز الإنتاج المحلي، وتنمية الشراكات الدولية لتنويع مصادر الغذاء، وتفعيل التشريعات والسياسات التي تساهم في ضمان الأمن الغذائي في كافة الظروف والمراحل من خلال التركيز على استخدام التقنيات المبتكرة وتكنولوجيا إنتاج الغذاء بما يساهم في استقرار وتنوع سلسلة الإمدادات الغذائية والحد من جميع أنواع الهدر وسوء استغلال الموارد الطبيعية، وضمان سلامة الغذاء وتحسين نظم التغذية، وتعزيز القدرة لمواجهة المخاطر والأزمات المتعلقة بالتغير المناخي والأمن الغذائي. ولأن من أولوياتنا السعي الى تحقيق أهداف التنمية المستدامة 2030 والتعاون من أجل الوصول الى أمن غذائي إنساني ومستدام ، فإننا نؤكد على ضرورة تطوير مساراتنا الوطنية نحو التحول الى نُظم غذائية مستدامة تُسهم في الحفاظ على الاستقرار الغذائي لمواجهة الازمات والصدمات و تعزيز سبل العٌيش المنصفة وضمان حصول الجميع على طعام آمن ومغذي ، كمساهمة في قمة النظم الغذائية وقد حرصنا ان تتوائم الحوارات مع طبيعة المنطقة الجغرافية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية ، لضمان عدم تخلف أحد عن الركب والتأكيد على أن الجميع يحق له التعبير عن رأيه بحرية وقد حرصنا ان يبنى الحوار على مبادئ القمة للمشاركة والتي تتضمن التصرف على وجه السرعة ، والالتزام نحو القمة ،و التحلي بالاحترام ، إدراك درجة التعقيد ، استيعاب شمولية أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين ، وإكمال أعمال الآخرين ، والقيام ببناء الثقة. 2021-06-21 20:31:06حوارات الاردن دون الوطنية للنظم الغذائية لقد تم دعوة العديد من أصحاب المصلحة من خلفيات وقطاعات مختلفة للمشاركة في المرحلة الثانية من الحوار الوطني استعدادًا لقمة الأمم المتحدة المعنية بالنظم الغذائية والتي ستعقد في سبتمبر 2021، حيث نظمت وزارة الزراعة الحوار دون الوطني والذي عقد بشكل وجاهي ولكن بسبب جائحة كورونا تم دعوة ٢٥ مشارك فقط . كان المشاركون (أصحاب المصلحة ) من مختلف قطاعات النظم الغذائية ، بدءًا من المزارعين ، والعاملين في صناعة الأغذية ، والمنظمات غير الحكومية ، والمؤسسات البحثية والأكاديمية ، والجمعيات النسوية واتحاد المزارعين والنقابات المهنية الزراعية والبيطرية ، تجار التجزئة والجملة والبلديات ، ووسائل الإعلام ، والبرلمان ،وغرف التجارة و الصناعة وطلاب الجامعات بالإضافة الى المؤسسات والوزارات الحكومية . لقد قدمت هذه المجموعة المتنوعة من أصحاب المصلحة نظرة شاملة للتحديات والمشاكل التي تواجه الإنظمة الغذائية حيث تبادل المشاركون وجهات نظر متنوعة ، وتمكنوا من تحديد المشاكل والتحديات واقتراح الحلول القابلة للتطبيق ووضع التوصيات . لقد تم تقسيم المشاركين الى ثلاث مجموعات يديرها منسقين اثنين وثلاث ميسّرين حيث تم تخصيص ساعة ونصف (٩٠ دقيقه) للمجموعات لمناقشة المسار الذي تم تحديده لهذه المنطقة وهو المسار الخامس ، حيث تمت مناقشة اهم المشاكل والتحديات التي تواجه الاردن و وضع الحلول والتوصيات ، كما تم تخصيص الساعة الاخيره من الحوار للمناقشة العامة حيث عاد المشاركون إلى الجلسة العامة وقام ميسر كل مجموعة بعرض لاهم النقاط المهمة (المشاكل، التحديات، الحلول والتوصيات) التي تمت مناقشتها وتغطيتها . وفي الختام قام المنسقين الوطنيين بتلخيص اهم التوصيات المستخلصة من نتائج حوارات المجموعات . 2021-06-21 20:43:25

2021-06-18 14:38:36205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16980/63

592831

Yes

234238241247249- El acceso a alimentos suficientes, saludables y variados es muy limitado por la situación económica. - No hay orientación amplia y permanente de lo que es una comida saludable. - Los mercados no son accesibles por el tema de delincuencia; los supermercados son más accesibles pues son más seguros, tienen menos ruido y cuentan con personal a quien preguntar, pero para personas con discapacidad auditiva y visual se dificulta, y además todo es más caro. - No hay información accesible para personas sordas en las plazas de alimento ni tampoco sobre cómo tener una alimentación saludable y nutritiva. - Hay muchas opciones de alimentación no saludable que circula en los medios de comunicación y redes. - Falta compromiso para eliminar barreras para las personas con discapacidades. - No existe infraestructura adecuada para personas con discapacidad. - Programas de salud materno infantil no accesible a los hombres, entonces hay una falta de educación alimenticia para todos en el hogar. - Formatos no adecuados para personas con discapacidad de programas de educación en alimentación saludable235238241247249- Promover que en televisión la información de educación en salud y nutrición tenga interpretes LESSA. - Por las condiciones de las personas con discapacidad visual sería clave facilitar información de educación nutricional en braille, a través de organizaciones de ciegos y por las instituciones de atención a la población. Además, redes sociales y otras plataformas tecnológicas. - El diseño de los productos debería ser universal (es decir comprensible o leído por todas las personas), desde la ubicación del producto hasta los precios. - Para mejorar la accesibilidad a las plazas de venta de productos alimenticios debería cambiarse la accesibilidad arquitectónica de los establecimientos de venta de alimentos. Por ejemplo, que se construyan rampas de acceso de acuerdo a las leyes arquitectónicas, además que se respeten los lugares asignados a las personas con discapacidad.236238239240241247249- Fomentar la alimentación saludable desde la primera infancia, por ejemplo, a través de talleres de cocina para los niños, e incluir la participación de las y los cuidadores de personas con discapacidad. - Promover la creación de huertos caseros para hogares con personas con discapacidad para cultivar su propia comida, y promover el consumo de los alimentos producidos en el país. - Implementación de mercados saludables municipales o centros de abasto por municipio/departamento. - Sería importante que a través de políticas se promueva en las empresas opciones de comida saludable y con reducción de costos. - Imponer mayores impuestos a las comidas chatarras y bebidas gaseosas. - Subsidios del gobierno a los productores agrícolas - Etiquetas nutricionales de los productos (precios y contenidos nutricionales) en forma legible y clara por todas las personas, incluyendo personas con discapacidad. - Publicidad de alimentación saludable masiva en redes, tv, prensa - Facilitar videos con la información de los productos con lenguajes accesibles para todos. - Promocionar información nutricional por medios de comunicación y lenguajes accesibles para todos. - Promover espacios de educación nutricional desde las escuelas de educación especial. - Empoderar a las madres/cuidadores sobre la alimentación saludable para las personas con discapacidad, por ejemplo, tener promotores nutricionales comunitarios ayudaría a llevar información a padres, madres y cuidadores. - Aprobación de ley de soberanía y seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, que incluya a los sectores vulnerables como las personas con discapacidad. - Fortalecer la creación de casas de la cultura donde las personas con discapacidad se acerquen a talleres donde se promueva su salud para evitar la falta de actividad física. - Capacitar en lenguaje de señas a personal de servicio de mercados y supermercados para la atención de personas con discapacidad auditiva. - Subsidios o descuentos en supermercados y mercados para personas con discapacidad. - Capacitar a la población sobre las necesidades específicas de cada tipo discapacidad, especialmente a los equipos del sistema de salud, pues cada discapacidad tiene necesidades alimenticias diferentes. - Promover leyes que favorezcan a las personas con discapacidad en el área rural en la distribución de suelos fértiles. - Promover espacios locales para la comercialización, respetando el diseño universal y apoyando las oportunidades laborales para las personas con discapacidad y su autosostenibilidad.

2021-06-18 14:38:54205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22471/63

6565

Yes

234238239240241244245247249251- Poca conciencia en torno a la importancia de una alimentación saludable. - La pobreza y falta de ingresos son los principales factores que limitan la provisión alimenticia. La situación se complejizó más por las restricciones de movilidad a causa de la pandemia y por las tormentas que afectaron a El Salvador durante 2020. - No existe igualdad de género para poder tener acceso a la tierra o para comprar tierras para cultivarlas. - La falta de agua es un problema muy serio porque sin agua no se puede producir alimentos. - La deforestación para sembrar caña de azúcar o construir infraestructura provoca que disminuyan los mantos acuíferos y las tierras disponibles para la producción alimentaria. - División del trabaja por sexo deja a las mujeres relegadas en actividades de cuido y domésticas, sin participación de los hombres en estas tareas. - Existe desigualdad salarial, las mujeres no reciben el mismo salario que los hombres aun cuando sea el mismo trabajo. - Prevalece la violencia intrafamiliar y económica contra las mujeres debido a que muchas no cuentan con empleos remunerados, y ello dificulta el acceso a la alimentación familiar y las coloca en situación de vulnerabilidad debido a la dependencia económica de las parejas235241245246247249251- La falta de propiedad de tierras no les permite el acceso créditos ni a asistencia técnica brindada por el gobierno para cultivar porque el banco pide garantías. - La mayoría aseguró desconocer programas dirigidos a agricultoras, pescadoras, productoras de ganado o aves de corral, impulsados desde municipalidades o gobierno central ya que persiste la idea que son actividades de hombres. - Si bien es cierto hubo una reforma agraria, pero la población indígena no se tocó (no se benefició); esa es una deuda que el Estado tiene con los indígenas y con las mujeres. Es algo que debería trabajarse desde el gobierno. - Participación de mujeres indígenas en el diseño de políticas y la definición de estrategias para la promoción de los sistemas alimentarios indígenas236239240241244245246247248249251- Es necesario que se impartan capacitaciones sobre nutrición y hábitos de consumo saludable. - Se precisa desarrollar campañas informativas y capacitaciones que fortalezcan el conocimiento y solidaridad entre hombres y mujeres en temas de nutrición, cosecha, producción, preparación e intercambio de alimentos, al interior de las comunidades. - Las Instituciones gubernamentales y las municipalidades deben hacer mapeos de las mujeres para desarrollar procesos de consulta, estimular su participación y retomar sus demandas en el diseño e implementación de proyectos de seguridad alimentaria y economía solidaria. - Trabajar políticas públicas para que se reconozcan los derechos de las mujeres a la tierra, y promover su cultivo por parte de este segmento de la población. - Es necesario que se impulse formación para las mujeres, capacitaciones para desarrollar huertos caseros y otros cultivos, utilizando técnicas agroecológicas amigables al medio ambiente. - Sería clave que se creen productos financieros y promocionarlos para las mujeres, identificando garantías viables para este sector. - Facilitar créditos a las mujeres indígenas para la crianza de animales ya sean gallinas o pollos para el consumo o la venta. - Se deben fomentar las cadenas regionales de comercialización, sin tener que depender del empresariado que compra a precios bajos.237251- Un 50% de los jóvenes creen que no vale la pena dedicarse a las actividades agrícolas.

2021-06-18 14:39:34205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22498/63

19109

Yes

234238239241243244247249- Prevalencia de analfabetismo entre personas adultas mayores. - Falta de atención preferente para personas adulto mayor en supermercados y mercados al momento de compra de alimentos y otros bienes de consumo y cuido personal. - Las limitaciones físicas dificultan el acceso a los mercados por reducir el desplazamiento. - Infraestructura urbana no adecuada para fomentar la actividad física de personas adultas mayores. - Bajos ingresos económicos (pensión) en los adultos mayores. - Falta de educación y sensibilización alimentaria entre las personas adultas mayores y personas que les cuidan. - No se piensa en necesidades especiales de alimentación para el adulto mayor. - Hay deficiencia en los contenidos nutricionales de los alimentos vendidos en el mercado y en el control de calidad. - Los monocultivos, intensivos en el uso de agroquímicos, han desplazado el uso de la tierra con vocación agrícola y producción de alimentos, provocando migración de la mano de obra agrícola.235238241246247249- Mala atención del adulto mayor en la salud pública, - Existen limitaciones de recurso humano especializado en atención de personas adultas mayores (solo 10 geriatras a nivel nacional). - El COVID19 afectó y redujo empleo e ingresos familiares. Las personas adultas mayores son los más afectadas por la pandemia y por la reducción de acceso a alimentos y servicios de salud.236238239240241243246247248249- En los centros de día de atención a personas mayores, deberían brindar capacitaciones sobre el cultivo de huertos caseros. - Educación para la creación de menús saludables, aprovechando frutas de temporadas o alimentos locales. - Educación nutricional en todo el ciclo de vida, especialmente desde las escuelas. - Tener una franja educativa en radio y televisión sobre alimentación saludable. Además de enviar mensajes por WhatsApp y otras redes sociales sobre alimentación saludable. - Considerar una canasta básica diferenciada para adultos mayores. - Crear centros de acopio (abastecimiento) localmente para la compra de alimentos. - Reactivar el Instituto Regulador de Abastecimiento. - Precios diferenciados de alimentos para adultos mayores - Reactivar la agricultura y ganadería con enfoque de derecho. - Brindar información a la población sobre los productos certificados o recomendados por cumplir calidad y que no dañen la salud. - Vigilar la calidad e inocuidad en los lugares en donde venden alimentos. - Población debería ser instruida de como potabilizar el agua. - MINSAL debería regular y auditar las ventas de alimentos. - Regular la publicidad y la producción de alimentos altos en grasas, azucares y carbohidratos. - Se debe colocar viñeta a todos los alimentos, en la cual se informe sobre el contenido nutricional de los alimentos que se comercializan. - Mejorar la canasta de refrigerio escolar en términos de mayor balance. - Debería promoverse y capacitarse a más personas para la atención de este segmento de la población. - Organizar a los adultos mayores en iniciativas a nivel comunitario para la producción de alimentos. - Enseñar y/o brindar opciones para generar ingresos

2021-06-18 14:39:43205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24008/63

331617

Yes

234238239240241242244245247249- No existe total disponibilidad de alimentos sanos en suficiente cantidad para el consumo de la niñez y sus familias. - Más del 40% de la niñez consultada manifiesta que alguien de su familia perdió empleo durante la cuarentena/pandemia y que la mayoría ya está trabajando, sin embargo, son empleos no formales. - Los empleos que se generen son de bajos ingresos y no permiten una vida digna y saludable acorde con los costos de la canasta alimentaria y de servicios; por lo que, la disponibilidad de recursos influye en las decisiones alimentarias y nutricionales. - Se reconocen alimentos saludables y nutritivos, pero no se tiene una visión completa de todos los requerimientos nutritivos para el crecimiento saludable. - El ambiente en el que se desarrollan la niñez consultada aún realiza prácticas de hogar y de cultivos no amigables con el medio ambiente.235238239240241242244247248249251- La mayoría de niños y niñas participantes no ha consumido alimentos sanos y nutritivos, según lo que refirieron. Al consultar sobre alimentos que recomiendan para crecer sanos y fuertes mencionan principalmente verduras y frutas, excluyendo fuentes de proteínas, carbohidratos y grasas saludables. - La mayoría come 3 veces al día y no cinco como se recomienda para ese grupo edad (3 tiempos principales y 2 refrigerios), al preguntarles cuántas veces deben comer, también indicaron tres veces al día. - Sobre el origen de sus alimentos, la mayoría compra en supermercado, pero piensan que deberían cultivarlos y que provengan de sus animales. - Cuando se les presentaron imágenes de alimentos, en las opciones de alimentos sanos, como comida chatarra, la mayoría pudo elegir alimentos sanos y nutritivos. - La niñez que refirió que en su hogar hay desperdicio de alimentos mencionaron que se los daban a los animales. - Al consultar sobre medidas para disminuir el desperdicio de alimentos, la mayoría señaló: servir en el plato solo lo que me voy a comer; recalentarla y comerla después. - La mayoría de niños y niñas identifica que ocurren en su comunidad las siguientes prácticas: quemar basura, uso de venenos en los cultivos y quema de terrenos. - Las prácticas que la mayoría identificó como nocivas para la naturaleza fueron: tirar basura al río; quemar basura y tirar basura al suelo. - Las prácticas para proteger a la naturaleza que fueron elegidas por la mayoría fueron: huertos en casa; ahorrar y proteger el agua; reciclar. - El número de adultos oscila entre 2 a 3 por niña/o consultada/o. - En la mayoría de los hogares trabajan 2 adultos, cuyos empleos son no formales. Las ocupaciones más comunes son ventas ambulantes, ventas a domicilio, oficios domésticos remunerados, agricultura. - La tercera parte de la niñez consultada desempeña trabajo infantil, entre los que se destacan: venta de fruta, apoyo en ventas familiares, labores agrícolas. - Al preguntar ¿de qué te gustaría trabajar cuando seas adulta/o?, la mayoría mencionó empleos que difieren de las ocupaciones ejercidas por los adultos que viven con ellas/os, siendo las profesiones de la salud, profesorado, policía, aviador, ingeniería, las más elegidas. Es posible concluir que el tipo de empleo elegido por la niñez responde a aspiraciones de mejora de sus actuales condiciones de vida. - Un tercio de la muestra consultada manifestó que en su caso hubo menos comida durante la pandemia por COVID-19. - La mayoría de las niñas y los niños refirieron que sus familias no fueron afectadas por las lluvias. En aquellas familias que experimentaron pérdidas, estas fueron principalmente materiales. - Los tipos de superpoderes elegidos son aquellos que servirían para atender emergencias naturales y secundariamente en salud.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251- Implementar programas de Educación Alimentaria Nutricional a nivel comunitario y escolar, siendo protagonista la niñez y cuidadores o cuidadoras, y fortalecer los programas existentes con participación activa. - Implementar programas que aumenten la oferta de alimentos sanos y nutritivos a precio accesible para la población. - Promover programas de reciclaje de alimentos y demás insumos asociados a su producción para evitar el desperdicio. - Desarrollar campañas multinivel para promover el consumo sostenible y emplear estrategias que empoderen a la niñez para ser agentes de cambio que protagonizan y llevan a la acción. - Incrementar el apoyo para huertos familiares sobre los huertos escolares que permitan el acceso inmediato de alimentos para la familia. - Establecer programas de protección a los recursos naturales que tengan enfoque de la totalidad del proceso alimentario y nutricional para facilitar la adopción de medidas de producción y consumo sustentable que incluyan a niños y niñas en el proceso. - Implementar programas de empleo formal que les permitan generar ingresos de forma estable, acezar a alimentos de sanos y nutritivos; así como a mejores oportunidades de educación, cobertura de servicios básicos, entre otros. - Establecer mecanismos de vigilancia y protección de la niñez ante el trabajo infantil especialmente de alto riesgo, al entrar en contacto con extraños o salir de sus hogares hasta erradicar el trabajo infantil. - Promover programas de educación técnica que permita cerrar brechas tecnológicas y de oportunidades de empleos. - Impulsar la generación de empleos a nivel local que permita revitalizar la economía familiar para el acceso a los alimentos sanos y nutritivos, especialmente en el período de recuperación por las emergencias experimentadas en el año 2020 y promover la cultura resiliente con alto enfoque de reducción de riesgos y desastres. - Incluir acciones específicas y sensibles a la nutrición en los planes de respuesta a las emergencias y de respuesta humanitaria, priorizando a hogares con niños, niñas y en condición de vulnerabilidad.

2021-06-18 14:58:39205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20597/63

853946

Yes

234238239240241244246247249251- Hay un desamparo por parte de las instituciones, tanto a nivel local como nacional, de los pueblos indígenas y afrodescendientes los cuales adolecen de altas tasas de desempleo. - La inversión en producción de alimentos es baja y se obliga a utilizar abonos químicos importados. - La tenencia de la tierra, concentrada en pocas manos, limita la producción alimentaria por parte de pueblos indígenas. - Los pueblos indígenas se encuentran en desventaja en la venta de alimentos, el mercado es quien pone el precio de las cosechas y los intermediarios compran muy barato. - Debido a que la población indígena no es propietaria de la tierra, muchas tienen que arrendar la tierra cada año, por lo que se ve obligada a vender su cosecha al precio que ofrece el intermediario para seguir pagando por el espacio para cosecha y asegurar su sustento. - Los pueblos indígenas recomiendan eliminar el uso de agrotóxicos en la producción alimentaria de compañías y transnacionales porque contaminan el agua y los suelos. - Las mujeres no tienen igualdad de salario con el hombre y el mismo acceso a oportunidades. - Las comunidades en ocasiones sufren la interferencia de entes externos que destruyen lo que se han construido en términos de protección y cuido del medio ambiente. - Las comunidades indígenas tienen la percepción de en ocasiones solo haber sido utilizadas, pues hay oportunidades en que se ha llegado con ayudas que aportan poco a las comunidades.235238240241243244245246247248249251- Los pueblos indígenas están trabajando en recuperar la forma de producción agroecológica, rescatando alimentos tradicionales. A partir del año pasado se están aprovechando los productos locales. - Jóvenes en el occidente del país están desarrollando proyectos de producción de alimentos, como huertos escolares y comercialización de especies menores, en los cuáles se están proporcionando activos y capacitando familias para proveerles una fuente de ingresos que les brinde estabilidad económica. Sin embargo, persiste el reto de encontrar organizaciones que apoyen y ejecuten económicamente inversiones en los proyectos. - Los pueblos indígenas observan que en las tierras se están realizando malas prácticas como la tala de bosques, pero no hay protección porque los dueños cuentan con permisos. - Se podría implementar una escuela de formación para jóvenes, pues los jóvenes son el presente de las comunidades y es importante que se les transfiera el conocimiento de generaciones anteriores. - Se puede retomar el Plan de Acción Nacional de Pueblos Indígenas de El Salvador PLANPIES, donde hay mucho material sobre el fortalecimiento de los sistemas alimentarios indígenas. - Se desea contar con un marco jurídico en cuanto a la propiedad intelectual colectiva del uso tradicional de alimentos y alimentación indígena, en concordancia con la legislación internacional adoptada por el país.236238239240241242243244245246247249251- El Estado debe promover la protección y cuidado del medio ambiente, velando por el cumplimiento de normativas y que se eviten prácticas como la tala, la degradación de montañas, los monocultivos, el uso de químicos en producción, la urbanización, y el cambio de uso de suelos. - Hay que invertir en proyectos de reforestación, garantizar el derecho humano del acceso al agua, promover la organización comunitaria, construir políticas a nivel nacional que eduquen a la población en evitar la contaminación, e implementar acciones y políticas municipales para proteger los ecosistemas. - El Ministerio de Agricultura junto al de Medio Ambiente deben promover la defensa de los ecosistemas, actualizar diagnósticos y a partir de esto promover prácticas de protección - Se debe invertir más en agricultura campesina, especialmente en población indígena y afrodescendiente, quienes son las más vulnerables y para quienes no hay políticas alimentarias. - Debe brindarse incentivos al pequeño agricultor y motivar a jóvenes agricultores. - El Estado debe apoyar a los pueblos originarios, indígenas y afrodescendientes, mediante la generación de políticas, planes y programas para acceder a tierras con propiedad y tener medios de vida más saludables y sostenibles. - Es importante que el gobierno se esfuerce por que los productores de granos básicos reciban precios justos, pues así tienen ingresos para invertir en futuras cosechas. - Debe capacitarse a las personas para que mejoren los conocimientos en producción y consumo saludable, con énfasis en jóvenes en educación media. - Se debe progresar en elaborar el censo nacional con la participación plena de pueblos indígenas para obtener datos desagregados, incluyendo el índice de Inseguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. - Realizar un censo de los agricultores, identificando y focalizando la asistencia técnica y financiera donde se necesita. - Debe promoverse la producción interna de alimentos, y evitar la importación. - Los pueblos indígenas cuentan con semillas y cultivos propios, por lo que es importante fomentar la conservación y la protección. - Las instituciones deben revisar los modelos de elaboración de proyectos, tomando en cuenta la realidad de los territorios y a las familias más vulnerables. Se posee un tejido social, gobernanza, y métodos que deben respetarse. El rescate de la producción, alimentación o medicina ancestral son elementos que deben considerarse. - Las instituciones de cooperación internacional deben respetar la organización comunitaria y la autoridad de los pueblos indígenas. - Deben fortalecerse actividades económicas paralelas a los sistemas alimentarios indígenas, como la artesanía y las cadenas económicas que contribuyen a la economía indígena familiar y comunitaria. Proveer apoyo técnico para la permacultura. - Debe evitarse el consumo excesivo de alimentos inadecuados para la alimentación, como los que contienen agroquímicos, a la vez que se fortalecen sistemas de alimentación sanos e implementar nuevas estrategias para que el consumidor coma saludablemente; hace falta implementar buenas prácticas de alimentación. - Se debe consumir de manera sostenible para no dañar los recursos que se poseen e implementar buenas prácticas agrícolas. - Debe fortalecerse y cuidarse el recurso hídrico, pues también es parte de la alimentación. Las comunidades deben preguntarse qué están haciendo por obtener agua y cómo la manejan. - Deben elaborarse protocolos comunitarios referentes a prevención de riesgos de desastres y pandemias desde los conocimientos y saberes indígenas, y entregarse paquetes agrícolas acordes a las propias prácticas de los pueblos indígenas. - Debe abordarse la prevención y mitigación a nivel comunitario y las posibles soluciones de ayuda a corto y mediano plazo. - Tiene que elaborarse una estrategia que genere un clima de negocios adecuado (servicios financieros dedicados, asistencia técnica, discriminación positiva de compras públicas), que permita adquirir experiencia y construir confianza para que el desarrollo de la economía indígena sea exitoso y adecuado a la sostenibilidad de sus sistemas de vida, territorios, recursos naturales e identidad cultural.237240247249- El paquete agrícola que entrega el MAG contiene agrotóxicos. Además, mediante la entrega del paquete se está “obligando” a las personas a producir de cierta manera en lugar de coordinar con las comunidades indígenas y producir la propia semilla. Esto sería un paso importante hacia la seguridad alimentaria. - Las comunidades tienen espacios autónomos que deben ser respetados. Se da el problema que la academia o instituciones del Estado desmeritan las prácticas ancestrales y quieren introducir su conocimiento, aun cuando las prácticas sí funcionan

2021-06-18 15:10:36205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22477/63

20911

Yes

234238239240243244247249- Puede haber una disponibilidad física de los alimentos, pero el tema en el acceso es la capacidad de compra, hay dificultades para adquirir alimentos. Como consumidor no solo se compran los 22 alimentos de la canasta básica, sino que todos los servicios de un hogar; lo que en definitiva dificulta el acceso. - El acceso a alimentos depende de la ubicación, si es urbano o rural. La población consume lo que hay a la mano. En el casco urbano hay acceso a todos los establecimientos, en zona rural es más difícil, y si hay tiendas no tienen todos los productos. - No hay procesos educativos dirigidos a la población para que se alimenten saludablemente. - Sí ha habido cambios en los hábitos alimenticios de los hogares salvadoreños y tiene mucho que ver con la influencia de la industria comercializadora de alimentos. - Hay una incidencia de marketing de los productos alimenticios, pero en relación a la lactancia materna no hay nada en los medios de comunicación. - No hay regulación de la publicidad de la comida rápida - Persisten prácticas dañinas al medio ambiente en la producción, como la quema. - En nuestro país por una parte el desperdicio se da más en la producción, como en las frutas, porque los productores no encuentran las opciones para transportar sus productos (más es perdida). La otra parte se da en la venta y consumo, donde se desperdician; por ejemplo en supermercados hay productos que se vencen, por otra parte el consumidor compra en abundancia teniendo parte que se arruina y se desperdicia.235238239240241243244246248249- Son limitados los canales para recibir información sobre alimentación saludable, generalmente es sólo a través de la escuela. - Se visualiza la necesidad de educar y sensibilizar a la población sobre la sana alimentación y correcta nutrición para fortalecer la toma de decisiones como consumidores. - Fortalecer la comunicación a la familia para que se sientan aconsejadas en relación a la importancia de la leche materna para los neonatos. - Hay una transculturización también de cómo nos alimentamos, obviamos prácticas naturales de alimentarnos como la lactancia materna. Se están haciendo esfuerzos, pero faltan regulaciones principalmente en el tema de publicidad. - Es importante apostarle a la educación de las personas agricultoras en prácticas amigables con el medio ambiente, como el uso de fertilizantes y pesticidas orgánicos. - Hay una gran cantidad de estudios sobre el daño al medio ambiente por prácticas productivas que han sido compartidos, pero es importante que MARN y MINSAL tomen las medidas correspondientes para dar cumplimiento de las regulaciones ambientales.236238239240241243244246247248249- Es ampliamente necesario realizar procesos de educación en alimentación y nutrición en los centros educativos y comunidades, que lleve a cambios conductuales. Es necesario hacer campañas en medios de comunicación sobre alimentación y nutrición, que contrarresten el excesivo marketing de la comida chatarra. - También es necesario regulación de la publicidad de alimentos procesados. - Promover la lactancia materna aún ante eventos de emergencia, como lo fue el COVID. - Es preciso la masificación del etiquetado frontal de advertencia nutricional. - Se debe incrementar el impuesto a las bebidas azucaradas. - Es preciso educar a los productores para el uso de prácticas amigables con el medio ambiente. - Dar seguimiento al cumplimiento de la regulación ambiental existente, por parte de las instancias de gobierno encargadas. - Educación en disminuir las perdidas y aprovechar al máximo los alimentos. - Mayor publicidad para la prevención de enfermedades crónicas. - Existen oportunidades comerciales en acercar a productores y consumidores. - Hay una ley que falta ser aprobada, que favorezca la seguridad alimentaria de la población. - Fomentar el derecho al agua y la alimentación desde la Asamblea Legislativa. - Necesidad de tener mayor presupuesto en nutrición y temas de investigación para generar evidencias para las políticas públicas. - Articulación de las diferentes instancias, incluyendo el Sistema de Naciones Unidas, ejecutivo, privado y sociedad civil - Promover alianzas con gobierno central y municipalidades para brindar sensibilización en el territorio a la población en como alimentarse mejor.237239- Se presentaron divergencias respecto a los eslabones en que se da un mayor desperdicio de alimentos. Una parte de las personas dialogantes consideran que se desperdicia más alimento en el eslabón de consumo, otra parte considera que en todos los eslabones hay desperdicio por igual.

2021-06-18 16:38:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1092/88

152391691100002322002100012431311

We did this Food Summit Dialogue in the middle of a biodiversity garden (we tried to connect via zoom with invited participants). And as a panel of experts there are 5 people, namely farmers. There are many principles of the food system for the Sundanese ethnicity in putting forward the idea of ​​slow food from Sundanese food because the Sundanese are mostly vegetarians and pescatarians from freshwater and brackish water fish commodities. The participants who attended although on a small scale were 15 people, but all of them followed from the opening session, discussion, even to closing, and this showed the seriousness of the participants so that their opinions, ideas could be heard and become a material consideration for food and ethnicity which has such a strong influence in Indonesia.This dialogue does not force participants to agree with the given theme, but this dialogue opens the mind and dialectic of the food system, because the problem of the Indonesian state is the choice of a national diet program without considering the ethnic potential of indigenous or local communities. This dialogue begins with a brief explanation of Sundanese food and the seriousness of slow food for food stock supplies per head of household. After the description is complete, this dialogue begins with a friendly introduction of each participant and then begins to express his opinion in a democratic manner.Suggestions for the organizers are to be closer to the organizers and curators so that there is close communication either through mini forums or the social media used, so that this discussion will continue and every convenor feels appreciated for this opportunity.

Yes

234238243244249251Main focus Please detail your Dialogue focus. For example, it could be (i) a comprehensive exploration of the food system, (ii) an exploration of one of the Summit's five Action Paths or levers of change, (iii) an examination of the relationship between one or more Pathways of Action and the levers of change, (iv) or other specific themes. 1. Food System, in the dialogue study that we held the title was "Sundanese Slow Food, From Local Food to Global Food". The theme of this dialogue is Track 1 of Action Track 1 Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all, because Sundanese food commodities can reach the nutritional value needs of every age group and Sundanese people have their own ethnicity that does meet the standards of dietary requirements and nutritious food if processed or consumed directly. 2. In addition to nutritious food from Sundanese food commodities that are spread in every Sundanese house yard, these foods and food commodities must be safe, this was confirmed by the Sundanese customary community committee, that Sundanese food ingredients are safe, because they carry out permaculture and can ensure it meets organic food standards. 3. Expected changes from the introduction of Sundanese food and ethnofood commodities and Sundanese recipes that dominate from a plant-based diet (original language: Lalab/lalapan/lalab) support the national nutrition program, which is a varied and balanced diet that is expected to meet the calories from each individual. the age phase of the Indonesian people, especially the Sundanese people who are divided into two groups, namely those who live in cities and rural areas and are very serious about nutrition problems, it can be seen from the food policy in Indonesia, namely the Food Law No. must be guaranteed for the food system. This is in line with the principles put forward. 4. Other specific themes we will do the next Independent dialog, Action Track 2 The shift to sustainable consumption patterns with the theme: Sundanese Sustainable Gastronomy where there is a Sundanese food culture and ritual with the resulting diversity will affect the demand for food commodities by quantity and this has an impact on the food balance in Indonesia. Furthermore, Action Path 3 Boost nature-positive production will have a dialogue with the theme "Sundanese Botanical Cuisine", this has been done for 2 centuries and there are many recipe records owned by Sundanese people. Action Path 4 Equitable Livelihoods will elaborate further on the theme "Permaculture for Future Food Systems". Action Path 5 Building resilience to vulnerability, shock and stress will be very sensitive and carries the theme "Holistic and Personalized Gastronomy (Food for Soul).235238249The findings in this dialogue open up new thinking about: 1. The collection of Sundanese food commodities will be carried out by representatives of farmers in each area in West Java in collaboration with student agriculture, biology, nutrition, environment, forestry, and youth communities to conduct ethnofood mapping. 2. This dialogue conveys alternative policies for national nutrition programs, preferably based on ethnic diets, because they are more diverse and logistical. This means not making up according to the rules made and socialized by the government, where the problem faced is the unavailability of these foodstuffs in shopping centers or traditional markets. 3. For generations the Sundanese have had basic principles in farming and making food supply arenas during the dry season, and this is no longer appreciated because of the rampant pop culture influencing young people to do what their parents did on agricultural land, plantations, and agronomy.236238244246247251Participants 1-5 : - Sundanese food is easy to grow - Gardening is the core activity of Sundanese habits. - The Sundanese have an agricultural calendar with the wind direction method. - Sundanese people have close kinship with communities in various locations, so there is mutual cooperation in producing agricultural products and this is done with a sense of family. - As a Sundanese, I regret moving to the metropolitan area because the food in this area is already diverse and contains a lot of preservatives and is not healthy. Participants 6-10: - Land in urban areas is very expensive to return to gardening, while hydroponic techniques are not optimal, because most of the Sundanese food commodities come from forests. - The Sundanese have a style of eating and eating patterns with the principle of eating little but often. - Sundanese farmers forget the buffalo plowing the fields. - What does this Industrial Revolution mean for sustainable Sundanese cooking? It is also threatened by today's food which has no philosophy, so that its impact is immediately felt on the environment, especially food waste. - The national policy will greatly help realize the national dietary guidelines, the Sundanese people are not too fond of eating fat. Participants 11-15 : - There is no ethnic-specific nutrition education. - Sundanese food must be available and cheap. - The food industry should not do green washing on agricultural products that have an impact on the environment. - The world needs to be literate on Sundanese ethnofood, so that's where the plant based diet and planetary diet come in. - It takes a lot of action from various parties if you want to apply as global food.237238246249We found in the dialogue from the 15th participant's opinion that "- It takes a lot of action from various parties if you want to apply for global food", initially refused and it was not possible to propose Sundanese food as global food and he said it was a waste of time. This can only be solved by the village government and the central government in social programs for socialization, because it requires the commitment and willingness of all parties.

2021-06-18 17:55:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10190/41120194

2211334141719131029711012562259316181102313731

The dialogue was organized with the Principles of Engagement in mind, and the moderators shared the Principles as part of the beginning of the Dialogue.All participants were very respectful, recognizing the complexity of the topics, embraced inclusive dialogue, and worked to build trust through our conversations by building understanding and appreciating each other’s presence.It is important to share these Principles for every dialogue to help set the space and remind participants of the diversity and need for inclusion with respect and honor.

Yes

234238241242243244246247248249251The main focus of this dialogue was recognizing the grief, trauma, and care of Indigenous Peoples across North America. As the first dialogue in a series, it was about acknowledging and recognizing where we are collectively with the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of it, including environmental destruction, climate change, food system destruction, and nutritional trauma over generations. We connected our dialogue to Action Track 5: Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stress. Denisa Livingston, (Diné Nation), UNFSS Champion hosted this dialogue and co-moderated with Dialogue Curator, Dr. Rod McCormick is an Indigenous mental health clinician and researcher at Thompson Rivers University in British Columbia, Canada. He opened the dialogue by introducing concepts related to the theme, including challenging the terminology of resilience, Indigenous “relational lens” and Traditional Ecological Knowledge, ecological grief, the importance of grief ceremonies and the concept of the “backswing” in going forward. We questioned the term “resilience” from Indigenous versus western worldviews. Noting that Indigenous Peoples internationally are opposing “resilience terminology” when describing Indigenous Peoples, because it applauds people for surviving and makes it easy for policy makers to avoid looking for real solutions. It shifts responsibility for both the cause of the crises and the solutions. For example, the Maori criticism of resilience theories “is that by definition they assume an acceptance of responsibility for our position as disadvantaged individuals. That is by examining and developing theories and models of resilience we buy into the idea that this is the way it is and we need to simply get better at the idea of bouncing back and being resilient. Resistance, however, represents an approach of collective fightback, exposing the inequitable distribution of power, and actively opposing negative social, political, and economic influences.” Adopting the Indigenous “relational lens” makes things look different and compels investigation into different dynamics in system relationships, such relational lenses are central to Indigenous Peoples’ Traditional Ecological Knowledge systems and healing practices that have sustained their populations since time immemorial. We explored the topic of Ecological Grief. Dr. McCormick has been focused on ecological grief in his clinical work and research, and “Anticipatory Grief” - the emotions, actions and mourning stimulated by awareness of impending loss/death. He shared examples of the ecological and anticipatory grief that Indigenous Peoples’ communities are experiencing as their traditional fishing rivers dry up, the loss of sea ice in the Arctic, as species go extinct, as forests burn, or as lands are cleared or destroyed by extraction. He shared specific examples of farmers in India and reindeer herders in Norway and Sweden are committing suicide at alarming rates. The importance of Grief Ceremonies: Dr. McCormick explained he and his partner developed a grief support program many years ago, and incorporate ceremony as one of the important approaches to grief; further describing that Grief ceremonies help move families through three important tasks: 1. Recognize the loss; 2. Reaffirm the continuance of the family/community; 3. Recognize the altered relationship with the deceased. The concept of the “backswing”. The backswing is needed to generate the power to move an object forward (like a hammer, broom, golf club, baseball bat). The backswing leads to contact and the follow through leads to good results - this metaphor applies to healing. “Re-search” is a search again for what we once knew. In order to proceed on a healing journey, we must first collect the medicines and resources we need. When our families, communities and organizations are facing a crisis then they too need to look back to rebuild their confidence and strength. They too need to review past accomplishments, identify skills and communal attributes and healing resources to prepare themselves to move forward with increased motivation and direction.235238241242243244246247248249251The main findings and conclusions that emerged from our Dialogue are as follows: Generational and Intergenerational Grief and Trauma: There is generational and intergenerational grief and trauma experienced by Indigenous Peoples being separated from each other, from homelands, from cultures, from languages, from food ways, from their health and stories of their elders. There is shared trauma of separation, and also direct and ongoing violence, mistreatment, marginalization, targeted destruction, and disproportionate impacts from COVID-19, poverty, lack of resources, lack of infrastructure, and imposed dependence on unhealthy, commodified, highly-processed foods. Anger and confusion as Indigenous Youth: Many Indigenous participants expressed common experiences of feeling anger and confusion in their youth. Their experiences had to do with not understanding themself as an Indigenous person, having to navigate other non-Indigenous people seeing/thinking Indigenous Peoples are extinct, not being understood or able to express themselves, and watching how Indigenous Peoples are conquered and attached in different ways of current-day society (through business, economy, food) and the trauma from that. All of this has a harmful effect on Indigenous Peoples’ communities across North America. Stuck in Unhealthy Situations: As a result, many Indigenous youth, adults and elders are stuck in unhealthy situations, many involving drug and alcohol addiction, abuse, broken homes and families. Hard to express grief: Some participants expressed it is hard to express the grief, ask for help, and drop the burden they carry in the patriarchy, and that many of them are seeing their elders and parents struggle with this healing. There was a common agreement that they need to reclaim their intergenerational connections in their communities, and to be able to look forward together. Creating better opportunities: There was a common agreement and commitment expressed by many participants to create better opportunities for the younger generations and stay connected to their elders, to serve as role models to their peers, and focus on healing and service for family and culture. Indigenous Spaces for Youth: There was a shared agreement that it is important to create Indigenous spaces of belonging, respect and safety for Indigenous youth so they can learn, express and find confidence in their cultures. Water-rights, Land-Rights, and Climate Change: There was a shared agreement that many Indigenous Peoples’ communities represented on the call of the need to improve access to water-rights and land-rights; and that the impacts of climate change are making access issues even more difficult, dire, and critical. For example, the dry-land farmers can no longer depend on the rain for their crops to receive enough water. The rains are not coming in the same way, and they are needing to rely on irrigation to keep their crops alive. Indigenous Seed Security: There was a shared agreement that Indigenous Peoples need seed security, and this is critical for all Indigenous Peoples’ food systems to survive and be sovereign. Traditional “Transition” Foods for times of Grief and Illness: There was a shared agreement that having access to traditional foods are so important for grieving ceremonies, and during times of illness and death. Many traditional foods are known as “Transitional Foods” like blue corn mush for the Diné. Participants expressed the absence or presence of Traditional Foods is really being felt during the COVID-19 pandemic in their communities. Nutritional Trauma: Participants shared the need to address the on-going lack of access to healthy traditional foods or healthy foods. There was concern of the unhealthy food distributions in Native communities during the pandemic. This is a continual concern to address the food systems that can bring healing foodways and restoration. Unresolved grief, On-going Trauma is connected to Action Track 5 and goals of UNFSS: The unresolved grief, ongoing trauma, marginalization, and resulting impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ communities are barriers to their ability to revitalize and sustain healthier, more equitable, resilient and sustainable food systems. AND the creation and revitalization of their food systems is essential to Indigenous Peoples’ healing, restoration and long-term, generational health in North America (and globally).236238241242243244246247248249251During our breakout sessions, facilitators asked participants two questions: How are you and your communities coping and handling grief and trauma? Are our Indigenous communities, your communities, your tribe empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability or heal from the experiences of the pandemic? What is needed? Are we ready and able to recover? What will it take to achieve that? What will it take to see sustainable food systems in our Indigenous nations? Indigenous-led, community sustained initiatives to heal grief, trauma and provide care in culturally-appropriate and meaningful ways: Many Indigenous participants shared information about the community-led non-profits they have created that are leading to support community needs and create new, supportive opportunities for the youth and stay connected to the elders. To mention a few: Diné Introspective, Inc., Diné Community Advocacy Alliance, OMO, and Elderberry Wisdom Farm. Building curriculum for Historical Trauma: This time during COVID has been transformational. One of the participants who leads a Native led nonprofit in Oregon, and during this time focused on building a curriculum for historical trauma as an important way to reach people who are working through grief and trauma. Through her experience, it’s been a positive experience for those who come out of this type of grief and trauma work, and hardship often strengthens resilience. Created improved relations for those in her community who were overwhelmed by grief and trauma. During this time, she realized that her organization is learning, growing and strengthening ability to help others, and strengthening individual protection for social, health, political challenges. Building cultural connections to land, plants, animals, and food is part of this curriculum. Creating positive, safe, cultural spaces and opportunities for Indigenous Youth: Indigenous-led nonprofit, Diné Introspective, Inc. is focused on creating positive opportunities for younger generations, serving as role model to peers, healing for family and culture, cultivating respect for land and animals, relationship with Creator, having a safe and cultural place to learn songs, prayers, and soaking up as much as possible from culture. Space holding and teaching through tribal communities and experience, growing through our clanship. Addressing the reality that so many youth are stuck in similar situations of not being able to express selves. Offering Cultural Ecology Art and Design Programs for Communities, Youth and Elders: OMO is an Indigenous-led nonprofit organization looking at cultural ecology art and design, finding ways to incorporate youth and elders into programs. The project includes working at a studio to build and create. It also includes exploring Indigenous knowledge and philosophy using art and design to express one’s emotions and traumas as a way to get voices and feelings into the world. Art projects manifest in different activities, including farming, painting, drawing, and sculpting. The participant creating this non-profit works in his community which is in an economically depressed and socially isolated area. Through this work, they are activating lands and getting youth back into community farming. The community has been involved in architecture as a design process and a great way to manifest feelings of trauma and grief through this work. As an example, the interdisciplinary program set up as part of the nonprofit allows youth to design something (chicken coop or greenhouse) and through this process building and creating art through design. They bring families into the process and ecology into the process.236238241242243244246247248249251continued - During our breakout sessions, facilitators asked participants two questions: How are you and your communities coping and handling grief and trauma? Are our Indigenous communities, your communities, your tribe empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability or heal from the experiences of the pandemic? What is needed? Are we ready and able to recover? What will it take to achieve that? What will it take to see sustainable food systems in our Indigenous nations? The discussion outcome topics resulting from our conversations included sharing of on-going actions/initiatives in addition to forward-looking actions urgently needed. Interacting and connecting with one another, sharing the grief and acknowledging what our people [Indigenous Peoples] go through; finding ways of healthy expression. What is weaponized against us- make that clear and known. Ways we are traumatized via food- the suffering involved and lack of assistance available. Through healing with our culture we can help it, but through colonialism still we are unable to identify our true selves lacking our Languages, practices, etc. Without fully expressing ourselves and connecting/living through our culture, we have difficulty understanding what we are capable of. But at same time- we are a hidden pillar, the US would not be where they are without us. We have given so much and still in a place of teaching, giving, and providing. No autonomy for us. Extraction of our people, resources, and wisdom. This space is helpful- truly able to express self. Living in 2 different worlds. Finding ways for healthy self-expression (especially for our young people). Cross-cultural Exchanges and Bridging: Sacred Land, Food and Farming program and Curriculum is focused on interfaith communities and public health through building bridges between Christianity and Indigenous perspectives- spirituality and connections to land, food, and identity. Through the programs and curriculum they are increasing awareness and understanding- especially for those that may not realize the impact of Indigenous spirituality and land/food/identity. Working with Cities to Create Learning Spaces: Inspired by the community-environment of Standing Rock, participants shared experiences and encouragement to work with city governments and municipalities to create community learning spaces in the city where Indigenous and non-Indigenous community members can organize, teach, share, and reconnect to land and each other. In many cities and surrounding public lands, Indigenous Peoples have special access to lands/opportunities for acquiring lands in some places like Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA. Through their initiatives, they are bridging Native communities in urban settings and from reservations, creating opportunities for these communities to come together. They are finding ways to make those spaces shift from food banks to seed banks, and creating community cultural centers. Gathering safely outside with Kids and Community to make it through the pandemic and other stressors: One strategy to cope with COVID-19 has been to get kids into fields to begin building and creating together. Community members have been dealing with trauma by being outside, building, playing, learning from the land. Taking a systems thinking approach that includes looking at communities, cultures, ecology, and arts. These are systems that allow the community to continue to function, and food systems are one vital component of the entire system. Land Access and Land Connection for Indigenous Peoples: There has also been a greater recognition among the group of the importance of being on the land and connecting to it.237238241242243244246247248249251We questioned the term “resilience” from Indigenous versus western worldviews. Noting that Indigenous Peoples internationally are opposing “resilience terminology” when describing Indigenous Peoples, because it applauds people for surviving and makes it easy for policy makers to avoid looking for real solutions. It shifts responsibility for both the cause of the crises and the solutions. For example, the Maori criticism of resilience theories “is that by definition they assume an acceptance of responsibility for our position as disadvantaged individuals. That is by examining and developing theories and models of resilience we buy into the idea that this is the way it is and we need to simply get better at the idea of bouncing back and being resilient. Resistance, however, represents an approach of collective fightback, exposing the inequitable distribution of power, and actively opposing negative social, political, and economic influences.” Strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems: For each of these topics, when in place and well-functioning these attributes are strengths. When these factors are missing, unresolved, and insufficient they are vulnerabilities within Indigenous Peoples’ food systems: water rights, land rights , seed security , community space for supportive, cultural connections, intergenerational connections and learning, respected Indigenous knowledge systems, and working with state/local/national municipalities. Furthermore, unresolved and perpetuated grief, trauma, stressors and shocks to Indigenous Peoples, their cultures, their lands/waters/natural resources, food systems/food sovereignty are all vulnerabilities within their food systems and the global food systems. Areas that need further exploration: Some of the non-Indigenous participants on the call explained that they are involved with food systems work under government grants, which do not talk about trauma when it comes to healthier food environments. They are interested in figuring out ways to blend the government food system grant work with Indigenous perspective. Nutrition science background and also recognizes the grief and trauma of People of Color from religious institutions and interested on how to create spaces to address that trauma and set up opportunities to share. Practices that are needed for food system sustainability: Culturally intact communities with access to water, land, seeds, technologies and traditional knowledge. Intact practices of passing on Indigenous knowledge and teachings from older generations to younger generations. Engaging with and using cultural practices that help community members move through and heal from trauma and grief, with historical and current traumas, grief, shocks and stressors. Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized: Indigenous Peoples of North America, and in all 7 Socio-Cultural regions of the world are Rights Holders who should be, and must be prioritized. Indigenous Peoples are key allies in achieving the outcomes of the Summit and all the Sustainable Development Goals. Furthermore, Indigenous Peoples are among the most affected with the most to lose with inaction or ineffective action when it comes to transforming food systems. Additionally, Indigenous participants emphasized how critical it is to make known and clear how they have been criminalized and harmed by disproportionate violence, arrests, and injustices. Indigenous participants in the dialogue expressed both the frustration and reality that Indigenous Peoples of the United States (and globally) are a “hidden pillar” that have given so much and been extracted from to make the United States of America (and global wealth) what it is today. There is a deep and harmful contradiction between all that Indigenous Peoples have given/all that has been extracted from their cultures, peoples, and natural resources and the severe lack of autonomy/health that Indigenous Peoples have in the United States. Indigenous participants asserted that healing with their cultures, language and ways of life intact they can help the larger work, but through colonialism they will still be unable to identify their true selves and capacity.

2021-06-18 19:39:08204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10195/41120194

32122441141621381912161143865324213252911227231030

The dialogue was organized with the Principles of Engagement in mind, and the moderators shared the Principles as part of the beginning of the Dialogue.All participants were very respectful, recognizing the complexity of the topics, embraced inclusive dialogue, and worked to build trust through our conversations by building understanding and appreciating each other’s presence.It is important to share these Principles for every dialogue to help set the space and remind participants of the diversity and need for inclusion with respect and honor.

Yes

234238240241242243244245246247248249250251The focus of our April 8th Dialogue was on the centrality of Traditional Harvesting in Indigenous Peoples’ food systems of North America, and some of the related challenges and priorities that Indigenous Peoples’ communities are facing with their traditional harvesting. Denisa Livingston, (Diné Nation), UNFSS Appointed Member of the Champions Network, and Mikaila Way, Indigenous Peoples’ Liaison for North America with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, hosted this dialogue and co-moderated with Ken Paul from the Wolastoqey First Nation of New Brunswick, Canada. Ken Paul is the lead negotiator and researcher for his First Nation’s fisheries. Denisa and Ken were joined by guest speakers, Chef Justin Pioche (Navajo), Kerry Prosper (Mi’kmaq First Nation), and Lorraine Netro (Gwitch’in Nation). Chef Justin Pioche recently joined the network of UN Food Systems Summit Food Heroes, he is the executive chef and founder of Pioche Food Group, a Navajo owned and operated food service company. Kerry Prosper, of the Mi'kmaq Nation (in Nova Scotia, Canada) spoke about fish harvesting including the American eels and moose hunting along the Atlantic coastal areas. Lorraine Netro, Gwitchin Nation (in Old Crow, Yukon, Canada) spoke about caribou harvesting, salmon fishing, wild plant harvesting and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Through the dialogues, we incorporated traditional harvesting into the stated goals and priorities of these Action Tracks: Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all by including traditional and safe food products as part of the goal to increase availability of nutritious, traditional food harvests (such as hunting, fishing and gathering), making food more affordable and reducing inequalities in access to food. Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production to optimize environmental resources use to include Indigenous Peoples’ traditional harvesting and stewardship/natural resource management; by addressing constraints facing Indigenous hunters, fishers, and gatherers, along with smallholder farmers and small-scale enterprises; to also support food system governance that realigns connections and regenerative use of traditional lands and waters. Treaties do not give us our rights as Indigenous Peoples, they identify them in legal documents and legally binding agreements between sovereign nations. They are the supreme law of the land, and need to be upheld as such. Indigenous Peoples have and continue to lead long fought political battles for protection: Internationally and domestically, we [Indigenous Peoples] have and continue to lead long, hard fights for protection for the lands, waters, territories, and habitats of the plants and animals central to their food systems and cultures. To open this event, Lorraine Netro of the Gwich’in Nation shared the story of their over 40 year dedication to advocating for the protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska for permanent protection from oil and gas development. The areas within the ANWR are called the “Place where Life Begins” in the Gwich’in language is they are the calving grounds for the Porcupine Caribou Herd that have sustained their People since time immemorial. The Gwich’in Nation’s make their homes along the migratory routes of the Porcupine caribou herd, their traditional territory spans what is now known as Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory in Canada and northeast Alaska in the United States. The recent commitments from the Biden Administration and Trudeau Administration to protect the ANWR and ban any oil and gas development there is a huge victory for the Gwich’in Nation. Elder Lorraine Netro expressed that the Elders and People feel they have finally been heard, and have so much work still to do.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Realities of extreme food insecurity and altered lives from climate change: Lorraine Netro and participants accounted experiences of facing extreme food shortages and insecurities, with some instances directly correlated with the impacts of climate change. Within Indigenous Nations, the hunters, fishers and trappers are the field experts. They have seen dramatic changes in the landscapes, waters, migration patterns, fish runs, and decline in species as climate change impacts of melting permafrost, warmer waters, less ice pack, fires, more extreme storms, more extreme droughts and other environmental conditions change at increasing rates. These changes and challenges impact every aspect of our [Indigenous Peoples’] lives - our health, well-being, spirituality, emotional health, etc. Traditional Harvesting grounds and waters are disappearing as are the animals: For many of our communities, we can no longer hunt and fish on the lands and in the waters where we have been stewarding and harvesting for generations. In some instances, this is because the salmon no longer return to the rivers where they used to run in plenty. In other rivers, due to large clear cuts and deforestation, the rivers have become too warm to sustain fish populations native to the rivers. In the case of migratory species, like the caribou, their migrational patterns have changed because the permafrost is melting and they can no longer cross their historical migration routes. Some of the inland lakes in the far north have dried up, and the animals are no longer in areas that have been traditional hunting grounds for generations. Also related to climate change and changing conditions, the changes and lessening of ice packs is affecting fishers ability to harvest species during the winter such as the American Eels on the Atlantic coast. Where ice packs usually form in November, ice packs did not form until February during Winter 2021. In areas of massive clear cuts, it has altered the species composition of the forest ecosystems leading to disease and massive die off of keystone species like the moose.These are hunting grounds and fishing rivers where we have gone for generations, we can no longer bring our children and grandchildren to these places and teach them the ways of harvesting and sustaining our people with our traditional harvests. This affects all aspects of our lives. High price of food in fly-in communities contributing to food insecurity: For many far North Indigenous communities, they are fly-in communities meaning they have no access roads for supplies delivery, only by plane. Historically and traditionally, these communities’ food security has come from their hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering. As climate change and commercial industries alter the health and availability of plants and animals to harvest, their communities’ food security is directly impacted. As a consequence they have to rely more on food supplies flown into the community, which are often too expensive for families to buy. Examples include, in Gwich’in communities such as Old Crow, Yukon a bag of apples can cost $17 USD and two liters of milk can be $8 USD. For Gwich’in communities and other Indigenous communities of the far North, caribou meat, salmon, and harvested plants are critical to their food security. Food systems have been hijacked by convenience (drive-thrus and gas stations on reservations), dominance of unhealthy foods: While some areas are dealing with high prices and low supplies, other Indigenous communities in the United States and Canada, are dealing with a dominance of unhealthy foods in their food environment, where gas stations and fast food drive-thru restaurants are the only nearby options. This is especially true for Indigenous communities on the reservations in the United States. We are experiencing a dominance of unhealthy foods. This adversely affects our individual and collective health. Shared resources and collective efforts are fragmented in urban settings that are dominated by “individualist” lifestyles: Our cultural practices and traditions of shared resources, collective rights, and collective stewardship of lands and waters is disrupted by the fragmented landscapes and resources in urban settings. We are not able to conduct our collective territorial management practices, nor share our resources in our traditional ways. Instead, for those of us living in urban settings, our lifestyles have become more “individualistic” and less collective. Shrinking Populations of Keystone Species: Participants in the dialogue illustrated many examples of keystone species in their food systems that are in decline and facing health issues. From the shallow, warm rivers affecting fish runs to clear cuts affecting forest animals and plants to coastline development for tourism, and the compounding impacts of climate change - our food systems [Indigenous Peoples’] and our health, food security and cultures are directly impacted by the decline in these keystone species; as are the surrounding ecosystems of our territories.236238239240241242243244246247248249251In dialogue, we discussed two main questions: (1) what are the challenges and experiences that need to be shared about your communities regarding traditional harvesting?, and (2) as we strive to reduce food losses and improve access to our own foods, what are some strategies to improve this? The following discussion outcomes are a summary of the participants’ views on actions that are urgently needed for the protection and preservation of traditional harvesting. Create protected areas: Under the leadership of Indigenous Nations, governments, private landowners, commercial and recreational industries need to create protected areas and agreements that uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination, traditional hunting and sustaining their lifeways. Opportunities for Indigenous Youth: We agreed that Indigenous-led initiatives to educate our youth is a priority to pass down these teachings, language in schools, teachings from the elders. Participants agreed it is of utmost importance that Elders continue to gather to teach the younger generations, and increase these types of programs in other Indigenous communities. Some participants noted that for some elders, traumas are holding them back from teaching their grandchildren. It was agreed that if the elders are willing, these traumas need to be healed for their health and for their ability to share with the grandchildren. Unwavering commitment to future generations: Elders who participated in the dialogue expressed their unwavering commitment and responsibility to teach the younger generations. Lorraine Netro and Kerry Prosper both expressed their personal dedication to teaching and training the younger members of their communities to hunt, fish, gather, and carry forward their traditional harvesting methods, Indigenous languages, and traditional knowledge. They carry forward this dedication despite the challenges and diminishing resources holding onto the beacon that, “when the fish return their children will still know how to fish”. Transmission of Traditional Knowledge and Skills to Younger Generations is being compromised: The changes and challenges to our ways of life from climate change, environmental degradation, and economic hardship are affecting how elders are able to pass on teachings and skills to their children and grandchildren. Grandmothers and grandfathers in the dialogue expressed, “it is my responsibility today to teach my grandchildren, and yet we are challenged in so many ways. To teach our young hunters how to harvest, and our young women our responsibilities.” Further expressing that some of the knowledge and skills cannot be passed on because the places of harvest no longer exist, like fish camps and hunting grounds. Teaching and respecting rights of treaties, change the culture of priorities: Treaty Rights, histories and current arrangements need to be taught at all levels with Indigenous communities. There is a need for a broader understanding and knowledge of the Treaty Rights that Indigenous Peoples hold across the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The teaching and respecting of the treaties, can also be taught in combination with teaching/shifting cultural values towards respect, reciprocity, balance, harmony and relational values. Such teachings and values can be taught in schools, on up through government municipalities, private sector, civil society and conservation organizations, development sector etc. Indigenous Peoples need to come together to form coalitions to exercise their rights: We agreed that too often tribal nations are operating in silos and leading fragmented efforts. Many participants felt that tribal nations, tribal governments, and Indigenous-led initiatives need to break down the tribal silos and start working together, creating more intertribal work. It’s going to take creativity to address these issues, to reactivate our lifeways. How do we adapt to climate change in harvesting food? In all aspects of life? This is an urgent and unanswered question raised by elders in the dialogue, and suggested as one we all need to ask ourselves.236238239240241242243244246247248249251continued - In dialogue, we discussed two main questions: (1) what are the challenges and experiences that need to be shared about your communities regarding traditional harvesting?, and (2) as we strive to reduce food losses and improve access to our own foods, what are some strategies to improve this? The following discussion outcomes are a summary of the participants’ views on actions that are urgently needed for the protection and preservation of traditional harvesting. Importance of community gardens in rural and urban areas: We agreed that community gardens are an important step towards creating the collective resources and food growing spaces we need going forward. These community gardens are important in urban areas as well as rural areas alike. They create opportunities for intergenerational knowledge sharing, learning, while improving the access and quality of local food sources. To carry ourselves with the idea of hope. It took many generations to get to this point of destruction, it may take many generations to recover. In closing, this was important advice shared by some of our speakers. The stories and experiences shared during our dialogue were heavy and disheartening in many ways. The reminder to carry ourselves with hope and a long term vision was an important way to close. The values in our traditions is what the world needs to hear today, our traditional values: there was a common theme through the dialogue and actionable next steps about the importance of our [Indigenous Peoples’] traditional values. This speaks to the core of the issues the world is facing. Our traditional values have sustained our lifeways and relationships of reciprocity with the ecosystems we are a part of, these traditional values are central to our survival and they have much to teach the rest of the world.237238239240241242244246247249250251Many of the participants in attendance had shared experiences and perspectives on the challenges and ways forward for traditional harvesting practices in their communities. Most of the dialogue was held in solidarity and support of contributions made and shared. So while there were not areas of divergence in our dialogue, we touched upon topics such as commercial industries, recreational fishing, pulp mills, coastal developments for tourism, and private landowner access issues that might raise points of divergence with a larger audience with different stakeholders. Private landowners have revoked access to lands and waters of traditional harvesting sites: An additional challenge that many Indigenous Peoples’ communities are facing is reduced and diminishing access to harvesting grounds, fishing rivers and coastal areas due to private property owners revoking our [Indigenous] historical access, and more development that destroys harvesting areas or limits our access. Fishermen and fisherwomen are facing violent attacks when exercising their treaty rights: Some of our brothers and sisters who fish and catch lobster, especially along the Atlantic coast of Canada, are facing violent attacks and targeted destruction of their fishing equipment and warehouses for exercising our treaty rights. They are being attacked by non-Indigenous fishers who are not able to fish at the same times as Indigenous fishers due to the differences and rights stated in our treaties. This conflict has caused great danger and destruction for the Indigenous fishers of the Atlantic coast of Canada. Impacts of commercial industries and government endorsed activity on traditional harvesting: Indigenous food/subsistence fisheries are seeing the impact of commercial fisheries on their food fisheries and rivers. According to Indigenous fishers from Canada in the dialogue, there are a number of court cases endorsed by the Canadian government that continue to mitigate and entice commercial and recreational fishing. This also goes for government leased lands that are permitting the clear cuts of forests for pulp mills. The clear cut areas are affecting the ecosystems of the forests and health of the wildlife, including the moose that Indigenous communities traditionally harvest in the area as a main source of protein.

2021-06-18 20:33:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10198/41120194

17195118911142111631145317829225214181211113

The dialogue was organized with the Principles of Engagement in mind, and the moderators shared the Principles as part of the beginning of the Dialogue.All participants were very respectful, recognizing the complexity of the topics, embraced inclusive dialogue, and worked to build trust through our conversations by building understanding and appreciating each other’s presence.It is important to share these Principles for every dialogue to help set the space and remind participants of the diversity and need for inclusion with respect and honor.

Yes

234238239241242243244246247249251The focus of the April 15th Dialogue was about how Indigenous Peoples of North America and the Hawaiian Islands are Transforming Isolation in their communities and food systems. Denisa Livingston (Diné Nation), Appointed Member of the Champions Network of the UN Food Systems Summit, and Jane Lokomaika'ikeakua Au (Kanaka ‘Ōiwi, Native Hawaiian) Program Director at 'Āina Momona and Pacific representative and vice co-chair of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP), Facilitative Working Group, with Mikaila Way, Indigenous Peoples’ Liaison for North America with United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, hosted and co-moderated the dialogue. This dialogue’s topic, “transforming isolation”, examined the diverse ways communities face isolation, particularly in connection to food, and the ways we are or would like to transform that separation and remoteness to abundance, autonomy, and accessibility. Isolation as a topic included geographic isolation we face in rural and remote areas, the forms of isolation posed by COVID-19 and other historical illnesses, an isolation of resources and inaccessibility to traditional practices and diets, as well as the political isolation and the drastic repercussions it has on our lands, waters, food systems, and our people. Jane Au introduced the topic in direct relation to the ways current food systems in Hawaii are ruled by our geographic isolation. In her community, there is a huge overdependence on barge shipments for their needed goods. Currently 85% of food in Hawai’i is shipped in, and there are very few resources on the island to ensure their food security in the event of disaster. And yet, in light of this alarming fact, there is a firm belief amongst power holders and decision makers that our traditional food ways, which were once able to feed well over 1 million people in their islands, without causing harm or imbalance to the surrounding natural environment, and with no dependance on outside shipping, are unrealistic. Despite the frailty of relying on shipments for over 80% of needed food, there is an unwillingness by the so called “State” to invest in and commit to traditional food systems, leaving us isolated in numerous ways. With the finite space on their islands continually going to foreign development and tourism rather than local food production, and the climate crisis impacting shipments and access to resources worldwide, her communities are in a constant state of vulnerability, and still, our Indigenous technologies and solutions, our traditional practices, and systems, are ignored and deemed unviable. In holding our [Indigenous] worldviews and systems as impractical, we as a people, are cast away, unconsidered, unprotected, and isolated in our own homes. Two of the action tracks connected to this talk are AT4- Advancing Equitable Livelihoods and AT2 - Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns. In addition to the various isolations we face connected to food, we must also consider the isolation caused by our lack of human rights. By our continued colonization and marginalization on our own lands. How do these forms of isolation impact our food systems and land use specifically, and how do we create lasting abundance after generations of scarcity and solitude? Looking at the ways we are conditioned into solitude, into isolation, is necessary for change. It is even more crucial that we look at the ways we have overcome these types of isolation, how we gather and create abundance in our communities, and how we resist the constant pull towards erasure. In dialogue, we explored the topic of isolation with two questions: (1) what challenges and experiences with isolation does your community face? In thinking of food systems specifically, what ways do you face isolation? (2) what must be done to transform current isolations into abundance, liberation, and accessibility? How do we create momentum around these goals?235238239241242243244246247249250251Indigenous Peoples endure isolation in our lived realities: The numerous ways we face isolation in connection to food and wellness in Hawai’i is a predicament that leads us to realize what is perhaps the most pressing isolation we all face, and that is the isolation of our lived realities. The people that we are outside of books, conferences and papers, so often the real struggles we face, the real isolation we feel, is having no viable means to assert our realities - our systems and ways of being, as truth - as something real. As Indigenous People, we continue to face isolation in the constant pressure to assimilate to a colonizing view - of food, of health, of all types of governance. Of all ways of being. Roots of isolation stemming from colonization: While Kanaka ‘Ōiwi (Native Hawaiian) are not typically connected to Turtle Island geographically, when it comes to shared traditions, food, cultures, and language we have more connections to communities in the Pacific. Though when it comes to colonization we [Kanaka ‘Ōiwi] share the government of the United States as a colonizer and as such share many of the same challenges as our siblings on Turtle Island. The present realities of isolation in its different forms and impacts are a modern struggle for us. The seek and conquer, individualistic, and resource division mentalities of colonization have deeply disrupted and caused destruction of our Indigenous approaches and values of collective, shared resources, collective stewardship, shared responsibilities, ruling for the collective wellness, and relational connections with our surroundings and non-human relatives. Isolation was a foreign concept in systems of interconnectedness and international systems of existence. A form of isolation is colonization, there is colonial agriculture of monocropping of pineapple and sugar only with depleted water sources transforming our entire landscapes with land devastation. We have become dependent on unsustainable practices: As an effect and outcome of isolation from our lands, waters, traditional lifeways and diets, knowledge systems, languages, communities, etc. - we have become dependent on unsustainable practices and ways of life engrossed in the current individual-focused and dominant culture society. Oftentimes the foods we eat, the ways we live, the places we live, the jobs we work, the ways we earn money and exist in the present day are reliant on the extractive economies, industrialized food systems, and non-representative political institutes. Our dependence on unsustainable practices has been for survival and default. Indigenous Peoples face isolation in dominant-culture knowledge systems: With colonialism and processes of assimilation, our Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems have been dismissed as inferior, uncivilized, unscientific, folklore, and illegitimate. And yet, our generational systems of knowledge and sophisticated methods of observation, systemic approach, and adaptations have sustained our societies since time immemorial while sustaining and expanding the ecological health and biodiversity of the planet. While there is growing awareness and interest in higher education institutes and research centers to better include and integrate Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems, there is still a wide and deep gap in the recognition, representation, and inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, research, and innovation in dominant-culture knowledge systems. Urban Native communities deal with many forms of isolation: Many urban Indigenous/Native communities are facing isolation from resources to traditional practices and diets, as well as the political isolation of not being represented or having the legal autonomy that tribal governments have on a reservation (USA) or reserve (Canada). As urban Indigenous peoples, many of us lose our access to lands, waters, and natural resources for hunting, fishing, growing, generating and harvesting our traditional foods. We do not have political representation or coverage by the same institutions and government support as relatives are on reservations. Urban centers, like Detroit, are also facing a new colonial process of gentrification concentrating development in the downtown and ignoring neighborhoods where there are larger populations of People of Color, further exacerbating isolation from resources and safe, healthy neighborhoods. Indigenous communities are facing higher risks of resource isolation from extreme weather events: For rural, reservation and island communities, large storms and extreme weather events have caused resource and political isolation as a result of their geographic isolation. For Hawai’i, large storms have caused delays of barge deliveries of food and water supplies leading to extreme food and resources shortages. For reservations, large storms have caused long power outages, sometimes leading to massive loss of frozen meats and traditional foods put up. Power outages can cause huge food loss that happens swiftly and is difficult for some communities to recover from. Isolation from Indigenous cultures, stories, communities and non-human relatives: Isolation or undesired disconnection from their elders, the teachings and stories of their cultures, their non-human relatives from lands and waters, and separation from traditional seeds. These forms of social and cultural isolation are leading to the loss and erosion of our Indigenous knowledge, languages, intergenerational connections and our cultural ways of life. It leaves deep, unresolved longing and emotion.236238239241242243244246247248249251Our dialogue centered around two sets of questions: (1) what challenges and experiences with isolation does your community face? In thinking of food systems specifically, what ways do you face isolation? (2) what must be done to transform current isolations into abundance, liberation, and accessibility? How do we create momentum around these goals? As noted in the main findings, isolation is not something we have felt before as Indigenous Peoples. We must reframe and transform our isolation before it becomes trauma, we must build a network to support each other. Some specific ideas and urgent actions generated from the conversation include: Build our food sovereignty initiatives: urban, rural and intertribally, continue to design and promote programming and support for Indigenous Peoples living in urban and rural landscapes to transform our food landscapes. Creating urban food sovereignty Initiatives and collectives: to address the many forms of isolation that urban Native/Indigenous communities face, participates spoke to the initiatives they are leading in Detroit to build food sovereignty initiatives focused on education, alliance and capacity building, community decision making bodies, public park and urban land use for food growing spaces, and looking at how land resources can be stewarded collectively in urban landscapes. Establish local food sovereignty alliances as a decision-making body for community decisions: A community body for decision-making is a model that has been created and applied by urban Native communities to facilitate community decision making processes. This idea was brought forward as a way to build community capacity and collaborations towards food systems/community transformations. Improve the thought and design behind land and water use: Many participants shared that where they live, land is not being used effectively to improve their communities health or safety. Instead, many expressed the opposite. Our dialogue stimulated ideas and thoughts of how collaborations could be developed in urban and rural communities to transform land and water use so that communities are better cared for, safer, and promote health. In some areas, this may require the cooperation of many municipalities and different stakeholder groups. One such example is approaching city governments for community garden spaces in city parks, this is working in some cities. Focus on local capacity building for growing food and decision-making to produce and preserve food ways: Similar to other urgent actions recommended, in Hawai’i there are strong examples of locally-led, Indigenous initiatives dedicated to achieving environmental health and sustainability through restoring social justice and to de-occupying Hawaiian lands. Teams in Hawai’i are currently working to restore traditional food systems on the island Molokai, where we are also engaged in a number of land back and land restoration initiatives, working to get our aina and resources back into community hands, under the care of our Indigenous stewards. Create Indigenous innovation tracks in higher education institutes: University of Hawai’i - West Oahu has an Indigenous Studies track that includes Sustainable Communities Food Systems course - where students, many who are Native Hawaiian students, are learning foundational practices and values, working with Indigenous Science and transforming their educational experience; there is an entire degree focused on Indigenous led restoration work. These tracks of study are opening up opportunities for Indigenous and non-indigenous students alike to build capacity, be supported in their advancement and give rightful validation to their knowledge base and innovations.236238239240241242243244246247248249251continued - Our dialogue centered around two sets of questions: (1) what challenges and experiences with isolation does your community face? In thinking of food systems specifically, what ways do you face isolation? (2) what must be done to transform current isolations into abundance, liberation, and accessibility? How do we create momentum around these goals? As noted in the main findings, isolation is not something we have felt before as Indigenous Peoples. We must reframe and transform our isolation before it becomes trauma, we must build a network to support each other. Some specific ideas and urgent actions generated from the conversation include: Connect to our environment and teach Youth cultural ways to stay connected: We have to be connected to our environment. We do that by teaching our Youth to do that, by teaching the prayers and ceremonies to provide them with the additional understanding. Indigenous elders on the call are committed to making sure they do their part in teaching the children, the language, the roots of their language, and emphasizing the importance of knowing the traditional words. This is all part of revitalizing our cultural practices and agriculture practices. The teachings include the seeds, the soils, how to care for the space and themselves. The learning goes beyond the land. We need to get knowledgeable to be aware of what our environment is, everyday using this knowledge like an instrument with value to be deeply rooted in our traditional ways. Revitalizing connections to Indigenous Seeds: Indigenous networks across the region are helping connect the seeds with communities of origin; so many places where the seeds are isolated from the people where they are from. There are stories connected to the heirloom and Indigenous seeds, that tell about where the plants are from and how our ancestors migrated with the seeds from different regions to where they are now. These stories of origin are part of the knowledge that needs to be revived in our communities and our youth. Sustain intergenerational connections and teachings: Growing Together is a program in New Mexico that brings youth and elders together to grow food together. The program has been very successful in building strong relationships and honoring ancient knowledge. Elders and youth in this program feel it is so important to have these relationships. It has been difficult to sustain the program through the pandemic. In this opportunity, the elders share sacred knowledge with youth, and youth give their agility and strength to plant, and do the physical work that is hard for the elders. The youth also help to teach the elders about technology and new information. This program is working to ensure the intergenerational relationships and knowledge is kept. Work with allies to amplify stories and advance advocacy: It is important to work with advocates and allies to the federal and local governments that can advance the priorities of Indigenous communities. Some non-indigenous participants share that there is receptivity in allies to make the changes. Allies can help to amplify the stories and priorities from Indigenous Peoples to further propel the needed change. Such cross-cultural and interagency collaborations are important for building relationships with allies and one another.237238239241242243244246247248249250251Many of the participants in attendance had shared experiences and perspectives on the challenges and ways forward for transforming the many forms of isolation in their communities. Most of the dialogue was held in solidarity and support of contributions made and shared. So while there were no areas of divergence in our dialogue, we discussed topics such as imported foods, political isolation, water and land usage, school programming and curriculum, and knowledge systems that might surface areas of divergence with a larger audience with different stakeholders. We exposed areas of divergence which have led to forms of isolation for Indigenous Peoples’ communities and their food systems. Transforming isolation will require engaging with these interrelated areas of divergence.

2021-06-18 20:39:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26055/135

4904090001831063330311110000000200231001066102101101301

Impact Nutrition Africa Initiative as one of the active players in the building of a sustainable food system organized an independent food system dialogue that focused on an important target group, the youths. This in itself incorporated two of the principles of engagement of the summit dialogue by committing to the summit to contribute to the vision and also bringing about way forward to the problems of the food system. INAI also recognizes the need to act with urgency in achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals by fostering conversation and igniting actions from the largest percentage of human population; the youths, which is reflected in the theme of the independent dialogue. INAI is fully aware of the complexity that surrounds the food system, this informed the choice of having the different topic of discussion to be in strata and divided along 5 lines of discussion and all fitted back to get a central picture and also draw patterns and how they link back to each other. In the line of discussion, the team went through careful selection of stakeholders to reflect diversity and have a unified inclusion of all stakeholders in the teeming discussion of the problem and to proffer solution to the identified issues. The diversity of the stakeholders in this independent dialogue allowed the spanning of discussion to far reaching lengths from the perspective of different experts and professionals. The broad discussion also gave more insight into the topic and gave room for more innovative solutions to be proffered. The dialogue was not carried out in isolation, most of the conversation were based on the recent happenings and local context of what has already been done in this regard by various sectors. This was done to avoid having to duplicate things already done or proposing solutions that are not smart or realistic. The participatory structure given to the dialogue allowed all participants to trust the process of discussion and be willing to participate with mutual respect for opinions.One of the foremost principles of engagement that was wholesomely reflected throughout the independent dialogue is the multi-stakeholder inclusivity. Youths were brought from different sectors to give a full representative voice, stakeholders came from the private sector, government, international non-governmental organization, academics and finance. Local operatives like animal scientists, crop breeders and farmers were also brought on board to give a leaning support and report of situations as they are in reality. The entire dialogue is centered around youths in a bid to find smart ways and mediums by which they contribute to the effort of building a sustainable food system. The participants were divided across five breakout rooms during the dialogue with the task of passing around discussion around the sub-divided themes, the ideas and proposed solutions from these breakout rooms were all compiled to commit to the summation of dialogues across the entire country. Participants also shared a similar concern with the reality of the issues raised for discussion bordering along the food system and this served as a medium of building trust among everyone attending the independent dialogue and this motivated better engagement. The general ambience of the dialogue gave off a medium for youths attending to lend their opinions, fears and concerns regarding the issue of food insecurity and consequently nutrition security among the entire population of the country.Yes, the principles of engagement are guiding principles that have been clearly outlined to ease the process of the organizing the dialogue. Its impact can be felt from the inception of the dialogue, in choosing target group to ensuring things are done right in order to build trust. It is indeed the road map to organizing a successful dialogue. We strongly appreciate these principles and recommend that subsequent conveners harness it in planning their dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248249250251Despite Africa’s endowment with abundant arable land and vast water resources, its agricultural sector is unable to supply enough food to the continent. With a rapidly growing youth population expected to double to over 830 million by 2050, youths remain Africa’s greatest asset for its Food System Transformation. Nigeria, the most population African country with over 43% of its population as youths ranks 98th of 107 countries on the 2020 Global Hunger Index. With less youths involved in the food and agricultural sector, the need for youth inclusion in transforming the broken food system is imperative. The dialogue was tagged, “Addressing the Food System Dynamics: Nigerian Youths as Frontline Actors” and focused on five (5) sub-themes all tailored towards the five action tracks. The sub-themes ranked from food and nutrition security, consumer education, climate-smart agriculture, food trade and globalization and finally to fin-tech for resilience. Being an independent dialogue centered on youth inclusion, it served as an invitation to the Nigerian youths to be engaged, to be innovative and to propose solutions while recognizing that one size does not fit all. It emphasized the complexity of the food system and further stresses the need for a holistic approach in tackling the broken food system. The dialogue also served as a learning platform to the youths as it featured panel sessions anchored by adept youths from all spheres across the food system who talked on various innovative approaches, possible challenges and solutions in their respective fields. The overall objective of the independent dialogue is to engage Nigerian youths in unraveling critical issues militating our food system and proffering realistic and workable ways of tackling them.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The recommendations from Impact Nutrition Africa Initiative Food System Summit Dialogue are as follows; 1. The Government should address the insecurity challenges of the country 2. Provision of infrastructures to foster physical and economic access to food 3. Investing in Data to foster decision making 4. Improving extension services among both public and private sector 5. Advocacy on food loss and wastage 6. Reviving regulatory and monitoring agencies 7. Investing in research and technological innovations 8. Encourage youth involvement in Agriculture and food supply chain 9. Reducing greenhouse gases emissions by modifying ruminant diet and embracing ranching system 10. Public-Private Partnership in rendering Agricultural services 11. Development of a national dietary guideline236238243244245246247248249251REPORT FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY In ensuring physical and economic access to safe and nutritious food, a holistic approach involving stakeholders from all spheres across the food system is required. The priority actions needed to achieve this course include;  Ensuring safety of lives and properties of all Nigerians  Provision of modern equipment for farmer at subsidized costs to boost large scale production  Equipping farmers with the technical skills required to operate such equipment  Development of improved and climate-sensitive seeds  Data management to enhance informed decision  Provision of infrastructures like modern storage facilities and good transport network  Regulatory agencies to oversee pricing system Who are the stakeholders needed for the actions  The Government: Tackling the insecurity problem in the country, price regulation, subsidizing farm inputs and equipment  Research Institutes and Academia: Carrying out scientific researches on modern ways of increasing production of nutritious food and man power capacity building  Extension Services: Transforming the research findings and innovative methods from the researches to the farmers and  Non-Government Organizations and Private Sector: Assist in research, funding, training  Nigerian Youths: The task of involvement in the food and agricultural sector falls on the youths236239244246249251REPORT ON CONSUMER EDUCATION The priority actions needed in empowering consumers to make informed and healthy food choices include;  Revision of the national food based dietary guideline  Investing in research  Regulations on product advertisement  Consumer education on food wastage  Use of Front pack labeling system on food products  Adopting behavioral change communication in advocacy  Leveraging on the mass media as a means of education  Incorporating Community Supported Agriculture by consumers as a means of providing food independently  Eliminating misinformation through strong regulations and monitoring of food companies as regard food product labeling Who are the stakeholders needed for this action  Communication Experts: Employ Behavior change communication in educating consumers  Consumers: the will and power to change lies on the consumer  Government: Regulation of food labels and unhealthy products advertisement as well as advocacy through National Orientation Agency  Food Companies: Produce healthy foods and build trust with correct information on labels  Private Sector/NGOs: Help in advocacy, research and training How to measure impact  Employing baseline and post-implementation data on consumer knowledge, attitude and practices Possible Challenges  Adherence to policies and regulation by the food companies  Corruption on the part of the regulatory bodies  Consumer rigidity and unwillingness to accept change236240243244245246248251REPORT ON CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE The priority actions needed to improve climate-smart initiatives while ensure production include;  Employing smart initiatives that require lesser natural resources and produces more food such as hydroponic, aeroponics, etc.  Training and Orientation of farmers on smart and modern initiatives  Harnessing technological innovations like drone system and precision farming  Reducing greenhouse gases emissions by modifying ruminant diet and embracing ranching system  Improved researches on development of climate sensitive inputs  Provision of funding to farmers majorly in form of subsidies Who are the key stakeholders?  Government: Subsidizing the cost of modern tools and improved inputs  Extension Agents: Training and orientation of farmers on modern practices  Private Sector/NGOs: Complement the work of the government Possible Challenges  Illiteracy of most small scale farmers  Unwillingness to accept new methods236241243245246249250251REPORT ON FOOD TRADE The priority actions needed to improve food trade in the food system context include;  Addressing the insecurity in the country in a bid to reduce food inflation  Policy Formulation  Leveraging on Agriculture as a tool for combating youth unemployment  Advocacy for change of unfavourable policies  Provision of funding and support for small-medium scale enterprise  Prioritization of Nutrition and Agriculture Who are the key Actors?  Government: There is need for support, policies and enabling environment that will encourage youth participation in agriculture  Youths: involvement in the food value chain and call for policy change from the government  Private Sector/NGOs: Capacity building and Advocacy Possible Challenges  Unwillingness of youths to go into agriculture Indicator for Success  Increased youth involvement in Agriculture  Reduced unemployment indices  Reduction in Food prices and inflation  Increased in food production236242243244245246248249251REPORT ON FIN-TECH FOR RESILIENCE In Nigeria, small holder farmers contribute more than 80% of Nigeria’s domestic input. However, farmers still make use of age long techniques in the agricultural processes. Because of this, optimal production is not guaranteed with challenges such as; climate conditions, insecurity, poor funding and the likes. The introduction of technology such as precision soil sampling, drone technology, nitrogen censors, data science among others will help improve production and profit for farmers which in turn have an effect on the food system supply chain. However, in Nigeria, for most farmers, this is not the case and this is because of the following challenges: • Poor farm planning • Little/lack of education of farmers leading to inability to make use of some of these technologies • Lack of funding as some of the technology require capital • Lack of technical know-how The priority actions needed for improving resilience to shocks and stress include;  Policy formulation  Provision of funding especially in subsidizing the premium on insurance for farmers in a bid to ensure they are well equipped to tackle risks and future shocks  Public private partnership  Equipping farmers with the technical skills required to handle innovations  Investment in Data Analytics to foresee oncoming stress  Education of farmers on how to access funding, best ways to avoid risks and how to maximize the market for profit  Education of non-farmers on the need to pay attention and get involved in agriculture through investment. The stakeholders needed for the implementation of these actions are;  Government:  Private Sector/NGOs: Partnership with the government in providing technical serv  Extension Officers: There is need for training and education of farmers on modern methods of farming and use of modern equipment  Insurance Likely challenges to be faced during implementation  Illiteracy of most small holder farmers  Lack of will to change from conventional methods  Fear of past experiences237238239240241242244246247248249251• Most stakeholders agreed that tackling the security challenges of our country should be prioritized • Adopting behavioural change communication is imminent for sustainability • Employing climate-smart agriculture to mitigate the effect of climate change is a field that needs further exploration

2021-06-18 23:06:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13296/203

0944422206644720171615428356501062070490304019027

El diálogo se organizó de forma colaborativa entre las cuatro organizaciones convocantes, enfocado en la vía de acción 3, pero con una visión holística de los sistemas alimentarios y de los cambios necesarios en los procesos de ciencia, tecnología e innovación para transformar los sistemas alimentarios en potentes motores de desarrollo rural a través de prácticas más resilientes y una agricultura regenerativa.El diálogo se organizó para obtener propuestas de diferentes grupos de interés de América Latina para enfrentar el reto urgente de un manejo eficiente de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos a lo largo de la cadena de los sistemas alimentarios: producción, procesamiento, distribución y consumo. Evitándose la pérdida de biodiversidad, el agotamiento y contaminación del recuro hídrico, la degradación de los suelos y la generación de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI). Se hizo una amplia convocatoria a más de 270 personas de diferentes países y sectores, de estos se registraron 168 personas y participaron 117.Ser incluyentes en la convocatoria y a lo largo de los diálogos con el fin de lograr recoger la visión de diferentes grupos de interés.

Yes

234240244248249Este diálogo sobre Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para Transformar los Sistemas Alimentarios de América Latina se organizó para explorar propuestas o soluciones innovadoras que permitan avanzar en la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en el contexto de la región, alineadas con las vías de acción de la Cumbre, con énfasis en la vía de Acción 3 de lograr soluciones productivas positivas para la naturaleza. América Latina es una región estratégica para lograr los objetivos de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios (FSS) 2021, ya que históricamente ha proporcionado una gran diversidad de alimentos al mundo, contribuyendo de forma importante a la seguridad alimentaria mundial. Al mismo tiempo, la región enfrenta desafíos propios en la manera que ha venido transformado sus suelos, expandiendo la frontera agrícola y perdiendo grandes ecosistemas. El gran reto está en optimizar el uso de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos a lo largo de la cadena de los sistemas alimentarios: producción, procesamiento, distribución y consumo. Evitándose la pérdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación y agotamiento del recurso hídrico, la degradación de los suelos y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI). Se requiere ahondar en la comprensión de las limitaciones y oportunidades que enfrenta la región para lograr transformar los sistemas alimentarios en potentes motores de desarrollo y equidad a la vez que se trabaje de manera decidida en conservar los ecosistemas y la gran agrobiodiversidad, consolidar y recuperar las prácticas de producción regenerativas, garantizar una alimentación sana y nutritiva, así como reducir las pérdidas y los desperdicios de alimentos. Los escenarios actuales de ciencia, tecnología e innovación nos permiten ser optimistas sobre el logro de esos objetivos. Los avances en biotecnologías, ciencia de datos y tecnologías digitales están estableciendo nuevas fronteras en términos de producción regenerativa y incremento de la productividad, sumando los conocimientos tradicionales y ancestrales. El desafío es enfocar ese potencial para lograr que funcione y se escale a un público más amplio que logre marcar las tendencias con soluciones prácticas. El diálogo se organizó en tres secciones, tal como se establece en la metodología: una sección inicial, con presentaciones breves para aclarar el marco de análisis del tema a abordar y compartir elementos claves de la vía de acción 3. La segunda sección, de casi una hora de duración, se dedicó al trabajo en 8 grupos, a cada uno de los cuales se le presentó un escenario ideal a 10 años para América Latina, con énfasis en algunos aspectos específicos, y un par de preguntas para guiar la discusión. Por último, la tercera sección fue la plenaria en que un relator de cada grupo presentó un resumen de las deliberaciones y acciones propuestas en su tema, seguido de un resumen final del diálogo con sus temas destacados y principales conclusiones.235240243244245248249251El contexto que se destaca en la región de Latino América es su enorme riqueza en recursos naturales, particularmente su biodiversidad, con gran potencial para continuar teniendo un rol significativo en la seguridad alimentaria mundial, en el marco de una producción favorable para la naturaleza para sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Pero para alcanzar este potencial debe impulsar una serie de acciones prioritarias propuestas durante el diálogo y que se agrupan a continuación. En primer lugar, el rol de los gobiernos y de las políticas públicas, que trasciendan los gobiernos y estén respaldadas con presupuestos adecuados, es clave - entre otros roles – para convertir estándares voluntarios en políticas públicas, alinear instrumentos de política e incentivos, promover el financiamiento condicionado, escalar buenas prácticas y asegurar coherencia y coordinación intersectorial e interinstitucional. Por ejemplo, la relación entre salud y agricultura para una alimentación más saludable, o entre ambiente y agricultura para la regeneración y conservación de la naturaleza y el cumplimiento de los compromisos internacionales ante el cambio climático, entre otras. Es necesario desarrollar políticas públicas apropiadas mediante investigación cualitativa y cuantitativa y acompañadas de un incremento en la capacidad institucional en temas de medición, reporte y verificación (MRV). En este sentido, es necesario contar con voluntad política y que las políticas realmente se pongan en ejecución, lo cual requiere un diálogo permanente para que el motor del cambio y la transformación no sean sólo las organizaciones públicas, sino el sector privado, la academia, los productores, los consumidores y los demás actores de la sociedad. Se resaltó el papel del consumidor, ya que es quién puede decidir comprar o no productos en los que se hayan implementado prácticas regenerativas. Por ello, se propone desarrollar campañas de comunicación basadas en evidencias que lleguen a toda la población y faciliten la movilización social a favor de los objetivos comunes. Para lograr concientización y cambio de comportamiento en la población se propone enfocar esfuerzos en el impulso de acciones que incida sobre las poblaciones de niños y jóvenes, en particular a través de programas de educación que aborden una visión integral de la alimentación y su relación con la naturaleza y el equilibrio del planeta. También se identificó la necesidad de promover el cambio desde las organizaciones privadas, a través de iniciativas que presenten información solida que propicien políticas de largo plazo. Asimismo, se identifica es superar el divorcio entre la ciencia y la política pública, a través del diseño de instrumentos e incentivos que promuevan la innovación en los sistemas productivos donde se genere impactos positivos sobre la naturaleza, los sistemas económicos y sociales y la productividad. A nivel de ciencia, tecnología e innovación, el diálogo permitió ahondar en el papel clave que juega la investigación, el conocimiento tradicional y la innovación tecnológica para alcanzar sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles y que generen impactos positivos sobre la naturaleza. Especial atención se le dio a la necesidad de desarrollar propuestas regenerativas desde la ciencia y el conocimiento tradicional. Se enfatizó ampliamente en la necesidad de aumentar la inversión en ciencia y tecnología en América Latina, movilizando esfuerzos hacia la restauración, debido a que no es posible avanzar en la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios y revertir las tendencias realizando proyectos de baja cuantía y a corto plazo. De forma complementaria al incremento en la inversión en CTI, se debe promover un cambio en el enfoque de la investigación, pasando de ser disciplinario a transdisciplinario, esto debido a que los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles implican un abordaje integral de las dimensiones sociales, económicas, políticas, instituciones y tecnológicas. Es indispensable reconocer la gran riqueza en biodiversidad, así como, el conocimiento y las necesidades de los productores. Se recomienda revisar el modelo de investigación vigente con el fin de transitar hacia uno más incluyente, donde se reconozca la diversidad de actores de cambio. También, se hace un llamado al trabajo coordinado, ya que los esfuerzos aislados generan ineficiencias y bajo impacto. Entre los actores claves a trabajar de forma conjunta están las universidades, el sector privado, el sector público y los productores, resaltando que esto últimos poseen saberes ancestrales y sistemas de manejo de gran importancia para la recuperación y regeneración de los ecosistemas. Un aspecto muy destacado durante el diálogo fue la importancia de reconocer el conocimiento local y ancestral, donde las prácticas de los grupos humanos campesinos e indígenas han permitido la conservación de la agrobiodiversidad a través de un manejo ecológico de las tierras y los productos. Para lograr este propósito hay que romper la dicotomía que existe entre el conocimiento local y la ciencia y la tecnología y transitar hacia nuevos paradigmas que los integran, un campo aún incipiente.236240244246248251Tema de debate 1: El tema de debate discutido en la Mesa 1, correspondió a cómo alcanzar el escenario en el que, en 10 años, América Latina ha logrado eliminar la deforestación, así como la conversión de ecosistemas naturales asociados a la producción de alimentos (incluida la alimentación animal), mediante acciones específicas para políticas públicas sólidas y una gobernanza eficiente, efectiva y ágil, teniendo en cuenta las necesidades de todos los actores relevantes, contribuyendo efectivamente a proteger/restaurar la naturaleza y distribuyendo de manera equitativa los costos y beneficios generados. Como parte de las acciones concretas necesarias para alcanzar este escenario, surge la urgencia de implementar acciones de descarbonización asociadas a los sistemas alimentarios, utilizando la propuesta del “balance neto cero”, que ayuda a financiar la transición de estos sistemas hacia maneras de producción más sostenibles. Se requiere, además, diversificar la matriz alimentaria; trabajar en la formación y capacitación sobre la importancia del trabajo de las personas jóvenes en los sistemas alimentarios e impulsar ejemplos de regeneración escalables, como rotación de cultivos, labranza mínima y abonos orgánicos. Este último punto va unido al desarrollo de paquetes tecnológicos de restauración que sean efectivos para preservar los servicios ecosistémicos. Así mismo, es necesario comunicar mensajes claros al productor, desde los precios y el mercado, que permitan la transformación hacia buenas prácticas de producción, donde se evite la deforestación y se incentive la agricultura regenerativa. También, se deben alinear los subsidios que se le brindan a los países con el cumplimiento de metas climáticas y/o estándares sostenibles y acelerar el tema de la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios hacia sistemas sostenibles y eficientes a través de políticas públicas. Dentro de estas iniciativas también resalta el papel del consumidor, ya que es quién puede decidir comprar o no productos en los que se hayan implementado prácticas sostenibles. Aquí surge la importancia de acelerar nuevos procesos de hiper transparencia para lograr la trazabilidad en las cadenas alimentarias. Finalmente, se plantea el papel que juega la investigación, el conocimiento tradicional y la innovación tecnológica para lograr este futuro ideal, ya que se requiere que la investigación responda a problemas reales, que vincule el conocimiento de los pequeños productores, y que, además, logre traducir el lenguaje científico en un lenguaje sencillo que pueda ser entendido tanto por el productor, como por el consumidor final.236240243244245246248249Tema de debate 2: En la Mesa 2, se discutió el mismo escenario mencionado anteriormente, en el que, en 10 años, América Latina ha logrado eliminar la deforestación, así como la conversión de ecosistemas naturales asociados a la producción de alimentos (incluida la alimentación animal), mediante acciones específicas para políticas públicas sólidas y una gobernanza eficiente, efectiva y ágil, teniendo en cuenta las necesidades de todos los actores relevantes, contribuyendo efectivamente a proteger/restaurar la naturaleza y distribuyendo de manera equitativa los costos y beneficios generados. Las acciones planteadas parten de tener una línea base de quiénes son los que están causando la deforestación y ahondar en qué está causando la deforestación realmente, pues en ocasiones puede no ser atribuible a los sistemas alimentarios sino al acaparamiento de tierras. Se plantea la necesidad de crear, mediante investigación cualitativa y cuantitativa, políticas públicas apropiadas, acompañadas de un incremento en la capacidad institucional en temas de vigilancia y verificación. Se propuso también aprovechar el complemento de las fuerzas de mercado como parte del ambiente habilitado, involucrando al consumidor para que tenga un consumo consciente. Se destacó la necesidad de acuerdos entre diferentes actores, incluidos todos los actores relacionados a nivel nacional en ciencia tecnología e innovación que están a lo largo de la cadena/sistema alimentario. Cambiar el enfoque de cultivo al enfoque de agrosistemas podría traer formulación de política pública que complemente las que existen actualmente. Para lograr la voluntad política y que las políticas se pongan en ejecución realmente, el grupo propuso campañas de comunicación para que la información llegue a toda la población y se facilite la movilización social, así como promover la voluntad de cambio también a nivel de entidades privadas, con iniciativas que se presenten desde el sector privado con información concreta para que se puedan tener herramientas políticas de largo plazo. Además de esto, el grupo indica que se debe diversificar la matriz alimentaria para favorecer la biodiversidad y reducir el impacto en los ecosistemas naturales. En el corto plazo, se propuso implementar bonos de carbono e incentivos a la conservación, así como incentivos a los pequeños y medianos productores para disminuir las problemáticas sociales y la migración. Y, en el largo plazo, promover la educación y sensibilización sobre los beneficios que proveen los bosques y otros ecosistemas naturales. Por último, es necesario aumentar la inversión en ciencia y tecnología en ALC, movilizar las inversiones, con un cambio en el enfoque de la investigación, pasando de disciplinario a transdisciplinario, y propiciar no sólo las publicaciones científicas sino también la producción de información técnica.236240244248249Tema de debate 3: El tema tratado en la Mesa 3, plantea cuáles acciones concretas se deben implementar en los tres próximos años para alcanzar el escenario en el que la producción agropecuaria en América Latina es sostenible y permite aumentar la resiliencia de los paisajes productivos de la región, conservando la biodiversidad, la fertilidad de los suelos, la disponibilidad y calidad de agua para las personas y mejorando los medios de vida rurales, así como la disponibilidad de los alimentos diversos y nutritivos, traduciéndose en un beneficio para la naturaleza y el bienestar de las personas en general. Con respecto a estas acciones se menciona que inicialmente, los esfuerzos se deben centrar en sensibilizar a la sociedad sobre el papel que tienen todas las personas para ser agentes de cambio, pues se necesita impacto colectivo para lograr transformaciones a gran escala. Desde la perspectiva del consumidor, se deben realizar campañas de concientización para que las personas reclamen dietas sostenibles, de manera que puedan adquirir productos nativos directamente de los productores. Esto traería consigo no sólo beneficios al agricultor sino mejoras en la salud de la población y del planeta. Para el tema de sensibilización y concientización se deben impulsar acciones con las personas jóvenes, y aprovechar mejor los programas de educación en las escuelas para enseñar sobre la alimentación relacionada con la producción sostenible. Otra de las acciones que se plantean es crear una interacción entre mitigación del cambio climático con economía circular o bioeconomía, así como con eficiencia energética. Más allá de esto, se necesita incrementar la inversión en ciencia y tecnología para tomar decisiones basadas en evidencias científicas. Así mismo, para lograr un impacto real, es necesaria la articulación de diferentes actores para desarrollar políticas públicas que permitan migrar a una transformación agroecológica, que contemplen incentivos fiscales y nuevos marcos de acción. En este contexto, se debe aprovechar el potencial de la innovación y al mismo tiempo, garantizar que se tomen en cuenta los objetivos del agricultor como punto de partida. Para esto, se necesita tener en consideración que hay varios tipos de agricultores, con diferentes objetivos, por lo que es fundamental abrir espacios de diálogo y generar sensibilización, capacitación, movilización y motivación para innovar. Desde el sector público, estos espacios de diálogo deben ser permanentes con todos los grupos involucrados en la producción, ya sea grandes y pequeños productores, pescadores y comunidades indígenas. Mientras que, desde el sector privado, las grandes corporaciones pueden escuchar a grupos menores para lograr una democratización y compartir sus conocimientos de innovación y tecnología. Se necesita crear modelos de negocio que sean atractivos para los inversionistas, con retorno en la productividad, así como en los componentes sociales y ambientales dentro del sector agropecuario.236240243244245246248249Tema de debate 4: En la Mesa 4 se discutió el mismo escenario futuro de la mesa anterior, pero desde la perspectiva de cuáles son las acciones a implementar en los próximos 3 años para resolver los principales retos y aprovechar las oportunidades en términos de adopción de sistemas de producción positivos para la naturaleza, y qué es necesario cambiar en el contexto actual para alcanzar este futuro, así como cuáles actores deben participar en el proceso. Se concluyó que uno de los principales retos identificados es que existe una brecha entre el discurso, las políticas, las acciones y la realidad en el campo. Para tomar decisiones que vayan de la mano con las necesidades demandadas por el sector rural, se debe dar una articulación entre el sector público y el sector privado, que fomente procesos de descentralización de la información y responda a las necesidades locales, promoviendo incentivos, así como priorizando los sectores de acuerdo con las agendas de producción y consumo locales. Además, para mejorar la eficiencia en los procesos de producción y mejorar la toma de decisiones de los agricultores, se debe invertir en conectividad, acceso y uso de herramientas digitales, fomentando el uso de plataformas y canales que permitan el intercambio de información, técnicas y saberes. Sumado a esto, para lograr la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en sistemas de producción positivos para la naturaleza, se debe posicionar el concepto de una salud como eje orientador de la producción agrícola, así como integrar otras herramientas como bioeconomía, información agroclimática y agroecología, claves para el fomento de la agricultura sostenible. En el contexto actual, es indispensable reconocer la biodiversidad, el conocimiento y las demandas de los productores como fuentes necesarias para la seguridad alimentaria, además de reconocer la importancia de fortalecer los procesos productivos locales a través de la investigación y la articulación de los gobiernos e instituciones locales. Por último, dentro de los actores que deben participar en el proceso, se resalta la importancia de involucrar al consumidor en la transferencia de información, que le permita tener un consumo más consciente.236240243244248249251Tema de debate 5: La discusión se basó en el futuro ideal, de que, en 10 años, la producción agropecuaria y el desarrollo de la pesca y acuicultura en América Latina son sostenibles, y aumentará la resiliencia de los paisajes productivos existentes en la región, conservando la biodiversidad presente en esas áreas, la calidad y disponibilidad de agua para las personas, la producción y la naturaleza, mejorando tanto los medios de vida rurales, como la disponibilidad de alimentos diversos y nutritivos. Para resolver los principales retos y aprovechar las oportunidades en este tema, se establece que se debe priorizar la participación de las mujeres y de personas jóvenes especializadas, con el objetivo de impulsar transformaciones tecnológicas en los procesos productivos. También se destaca la importancia de la implementación de esquemas voluntarios de certificación, pues juegan un papel fundamental en la transformación hacia modelos de producción más sostenible, no obstante, se realizan de manera fragmentada y el ecosistema no se ve beneficiado de manera completa. Con el propósito de solventar esta problemática, se debe buscar desarrollar e implementar políticas públicas que definan las buenas prácticas establecidas en esos sistemas de certificación, no como voluntarias sino como obligatorias, a través de incentivos y financiamiento condicionado a la producción resiliente al clima. Estas políticas públicas deben asegurar la participación del sector público y privado, la academia y la coordinación intersectorial y deben alinearse con evidencias científicas para la implementación de paquetes tecnológicos que se traduzcan en decisiones concretas y que además, permitan darles seguimiento y continuidad, a través de sistemas de monitoreo y evaluación. Otras de las acciones planteadas consisten en establecer programas de agricultura familiar para la recuperación de la economía campesina, pues uno de los principales retos es el subsidio de la producción a pequeña escala y la tecnificación de la agricultura para los pequeños productores. También se concluyó que se debe rescatar la cultura alimentaria mediante la creación de bancos de semillas nativas; diversificar la dieta para volver a consumir alimentos ricos en nutrientes; fomentar el mejoramiento genético para renovar variedades susceptibles y vulnerables al cambio climático, y, por último, implementar la agricultura de conservación. A nivel regional, se propuso crear una alianza interinstitucional (IICA, CIAT, CIMMYT, etc.) que incluya al sector privado para promover la apropiación de tecnologías a través de políticas orientadas a pequeños y medianos productores, fomentar la extensión y modelos más participativos de investigación que incluyan el diálogo de saberes locales.236240244248249Tema de debate 6: El tema debatido en la Mesa 6, hace referencia al futuro ideal en donde el conocimiento local y los resultados de la investigación son utilizados y valorados, y donde se establecen mecanismos inclusivos para garantizar que los modelos productivos promovidos y la transferencia tecnológica relacionadas con la producción agropecuaria se basen los diversos tipos de conocimiento. Para guiar esta discusión se planteó cuáles acciones se debían implementar para lograr modelos productivos y programas de extensión agropecuaria exitosos, así como qué cosas debían cambiar, haciendo uso de los diferentes tipos de conocimiento, para alcanzar ese futuro ideal en América Latina. Inicialmente se plantea que, para lograr este escenario, las instituciones públicas deben acelerar su ritmo para hacerlo similar al de la sociedad en la que se encuentran las diferentes tipologías de agricultores, pues son las que proveen de medidas fundamentales para los productores y usualmente poseen un ritmo más lento, lo que además les dificulta tomar acción con otros sectores clave, como el privado. Otro punto discutido es que la región debe invertir más en ciencia y tecnología ya que estamos en una época de transformaciones rápidas y las brechas en ciencia y tecnología en el futuro serán mayores que en la actualidad. Además es necesario revisar el modelo de investigación que se utiliza, para encontrar uno más participativo entre actores y tener todos los tipos de agricultura en consideración, así como utilizar modelos de investigación más participativos, pues es imprescindible considerar los conocimientos ancestrales que son prácticos y generan gran agrobiodiversidad con manejo ecológico de las tierras y los productos. Para esto hay que romper la dicotomía que existe entre el conocimiento local y la ciencia y la tecnología y transitar el camino hacia nuevos planteos científicos y tecnológicos para aprovechar más el conocimiento local. Este es un campo que todavía no se ha empezado a explotar y se propone como la agroecología 2.0. Se plantea la necesidad de reeducar a nuestras/os profesionales, dado que se piensa desde la perspectiva del crecimiento económico y muchas veces se genera información que no es sencilla de llevar al campo y no aporta a la mejora de las condiciones de los productores. En definitiva, debemos repensar el modelo económico ya que existe un síndrome de las commodities y no podemos esperar a más crisis para cambiarlo. Se requieren acuerdos entre técnicos y entre productores, para superar las limitaciones derivadas de la diversidad cultural y la falta de acuerdos. Por último, se debe fortalecer el vínculo entre investigación y los tomadores de decisión porque para que los tomadores de decisión tomen los caminos óptimos, deben estar bien asesorados por gente que genera el conocimiento.236240244248249Tema de debate 7: En este caso, se discutió sobre qué acciones concretas se requieren para que, en 10 años, los paisajes productivos hayan recuperado su capacidad productiva a través del manejo y restauración de ecosistemas, así como para rehabilitar la función del suelo y asegurar que la naturaleza tenga un espacio para la producción, a la vez que preste servicios ecosistémicos clave para contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria, el bienestar socioeconómico y la mejora del equilibrio ecológico. Dentro de estas acciones se planteó que se debe pensar e invertir en la ciencia, tecnología e investigación para la restauración, pues no se puede avanzar en el sistema alimentario realizando proyectos de baja cuantía y a corto plazo. Sumado a esto, no se pueden crear esfuerzos aislados, sino que el proceso debe estar coordinado con la intervención de los diferentes actores clave, como las universidades, el sector privado y los productores, quienes poseen saberes ancestrales y sistemas de manejo de gran importancia para la recuperación de los ecosistemas. Es importante, además, que los esfuerzos estén acompañados por políticas públicas con objetivos a largo plazo que permitan el diálogo entre comunidades y empresas; que establezcan mayores regulaciones sobre el uso del suelo y la expansión de la frontera agrícola, así como incentivos que lleven a implementar prácticas para un manejo sostenible del suelo y para incursionar en modelos de regeneración y reforestación. Estas políticas también deben incentivar la investigación, la ciencia y la tecnología para alcanzar sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles. También es importante mencionar que es clave utilizar mayor diversidad de especies en la producción agroalimentaria ya que estamos usando muy pocas especies a pesar de ser países biodiversos desaprovechando el potencial natural que tenemos. Se debe involucrar a todos los actores en el cumplimiento de los compromisos a nivel de Estado a nivel internacional, por ejemplo, los establecidos en el marco de la COP25. Aunque algunas empresas ya están incursionando en temas regenerativos, hay que ser imperativos en la generación de evidencias científicas que lleguen a todos, incluyendo a la agricultura familiar. La implementación de sistemas forestales que generen servicios ecosistémicos es clave, incluyendo el manejo de cuencas para proteger el recurso hídrico, e implementar acuerdos de deforestación cero.236240243244245246248249Tema de debate 8: El último tema de discusión se basó en el mismo escenario futuro ideal de la mesa anterior, pero desde la perspectiva de cuáles son aquellas acciones que se necesitan implementar para alcanzar una ganadería sostenible y basada en ecosistemas, como parte de las respuestas para la conservación y restauración de sabanas y pastizales naturales en América Latina. En términos generales, se habló de la importancia de generar incentivos en el mercado, mejorar el conocimiento sobre los impactos del metano en la discusión de cambio climático, eliminar la alta dependencia de concentrados y/o suplementos de alto costo y escalar la alimentación suplementaria basada en modelos según el tamaño del productor, la genética animal y la reducción de emisiones de CH4, así como de la necesidad de fortalecer una comunidad de trabajo sectorial que integre aspectos ambientales, sociales y económicos. Se resaltó la necesidad de incentivos o señales del mercado para cubrir los costos adicionales de los cambios, los cuales constituyen un reto para la reconversión a prácticas sostenibles. Otras acciones mencionadas se orientan al desarrollo de campañas de educación e información para explicar de manera clara y transparente que la ganadería sostenible es posible, ya que es clave tener una visión amplia de la cadena de producción y avanzar en aspectos de trazabilidad. Es necesario desarrollar o fortalecer una comunidad para el trabajo sectorial coordinado en aspectos ambientales, sociales y económicos. En términos de vacíos de investigación se habló de la importancia de mejorar el conocimiento sobre los impactos del metano en la discusión de cambio climático y ganadería, y avanzar de la discusión centrada en CO2. Se requieren estrategias de manejo y conservación de suelos que respondan a la realidad de los pequeños productores en todos los climas y suelos. Cada vez es más necesaria la multidisciplinariedad en la investigación para hablar de ganadería sostenible y lograr su escalamiento, ya que no es un aspecto meramente productivo sino que los retos incluyen temas sociales, de educación, económicos, de mercados y tecnológicos. Es necesario también evaluar y reconocer los servicios ecosistémicos que prestan los productores primarios e iniciar con el estudio de la huella de cada forma de producción ganadera para poder gestionarla. Para el escalamiento se debe considerar la combinación de la ganadería, la agricultura y su integración con otros sistemas productivos ya que la ganadería como es clave como flujo de caja para al productor y estabiliza el sistema, por lo cual cambiarla no debe afectar el flujo. La estabilidad económica del sistema ganadero en pequeños productores es muy frágil por los costos y cualquier acción ambiental o climática adicional, puede comprometer su sostenibilidad económica. La investigación e innovación debe estar dirigida hacia el desarrollo social, considerando a la ganadería sostenible como complemento agroecológico integrado al sistema alimentario.237240248En general hubo muchos puntos de convergencia y complementariedad de planteos durante el diálogo. Pero un área de divergencia que se pudo captar es la dicotomía entre los planteamientos que mencionan una secuencia de “investigación, transferencia y adopción de tecnologías” versus los que plantean modelos participativos de construcción colectiva y gestión del conocimiento, al referirse a los procesos de innovación productiva.

2021-06-19 00:48:38204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23654/102203

31071311112010311016920031511

Use the Q&A method to ask specific questions with each participantUsing Principles of Engagement to discussion on important issuesAsking questions should be specific to the farmer so that the farmer is involved in answering the question.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248251Discussing on How to changing solutions in the food system such as: Access to funding for food production and Impact Investment fund, participation of farmers, Manage sustainably on food production systems, Change Consumption behavior, Climate Resilience And the meeting discussion focused on the involvement of young and women in Food system.235241242244247248249a) the need to establish new connections between certain stakeholders Such as: Equality between small and large producers and Organic producers and chemicals producers, foreign investment that affects the environment. Companies investing in the country must have farmers involved with the company. b) the Need to cooperate with farmers' network/ Farmers' organizations. c) Farmers’ innovation (researching climate-resilient crops, upscaling a successful model on new crop variety, etc.)236238239240241242244245248249251the participants had a Discussion on game changing solutions in 5 Action Track Such as: Access to safe nutritious food for all, Sustainable consumption, Nature Positive Production, Equitable livelihoods, and Resilience. Affirmation and addition: AT1 Access to safe nutritious food for all: Promote production on nutrition and or sufficient in households at rural level, educate farmers about nutrition, disseminated Information on safe food consumption and clean, Change Consumption behavior, Establishment of farmer field schools to strength local farmers by providing technical Trainings, exchange experience on Farmer to farmer. AT2 Sustainable consumption: Raise consumer awareness of the importance of clean and safe consumption, Promote Food Security and Reduce Hunger, address malnutrition to reduce child mortality AT3 Nature Positive Production: Offer the government review about Agri-Product Negative environmental impacts such as chemicals, slash shifting cultivation. AT4 Equitable livelihoods: Equality between small and large producers and Organic producers and chemicals producers, foreign investment that affects the environment. Companies investing in the country must have farmers involved with the company, creating jobs to young and Promote youth in Agriculture and access to funding AT5: Resilience: Food Systems Resilience, strafing product after harvest, preserving food and processing. risk management during a disaster or epidemic, Dissemination of information of climate change, capacity building on resilience of Climate change or Covid-19, fluctuations in the market, should be research how to resilience and provide information to confidence in production, Farmers’ innovation (researching climate-resilient crops, upscaling a successful model on new crop variety, etc.), meteorology information, Seasonal pest information And discussion on 3 Action: Action 1: Establish Farmers’ Resiliency Trust Fund for Transformative Food System, Action 2: Establish Farmer Impact Investment Fund, Action 3: UN partnership with Global Farmers Forum. The results of the discussion showed that the participants agreed of 3 actions. If this can be done, it will help solve the problems of the food system in the best way and be beneficial to farmers because it will make it more sustainable, make them more interested in agriculture and reduce the migration of foreign workers.237238239242244248 Change Consumption behavior  Capacity building of farmers  Climate Resilience Such as: Climate change  Rapid of meteorology information and up to date  Farmers’ innovation  the work requires multilateral cooperation and should cooperate with farmers' network/ Farmers' organizations.

2021-06-19 01:13:52https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ANNEX-3-report-Eng.final_-1.docx-1.docx

2021-06-19 01:43:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22894/63

22418

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249- Por razones de economía, las familias buscan alimentos altos en carbohidratos pensando más en llenarse que en nutrirse. - Hay transculturización de la alimentación, es cada vez más frecuente el consumo de comida rápida. - Desconocimiento sobre el procesamiento de los alimentos. - Hay deficiencias en la educación alimentaria, no solo es cuestión de acceso físico, por ejemplo, hay personas con posibilidades económicas pero que están sufriendo sobrepeso. - Se considera que el sector salud no le da la importancia al nutricionista para apoyar procesos de concientización y discusión de problemas nutricionales. - Desinformación sobre temas de alimentación saludable. - Hay ausencia de educación alimentaria y nutricional en el currículo académico. - Uso de prácticas no sostenibles y que dañan los recursos naturales, como la quema en la siembra del maíz y caña de azúcar, afecta la disponibilidad de agua, incrementando la vulnerabilidad de las familias más pobres, porque invierten más en obtener agua para sobrevivir. - La sobrepoblación y asentamientos urbanos deterioro de los recursos naturales. - Muy pocas empresas invierten en proyectos de eficiencia energética o producción de energías limpias medioambiente. - Los marcos regulatorios son débiles para la aplicación de las normas que protejan los recursos naturales. - No hay una regulación que permita disminuir los desperdicios en hoteles y restaurantes. - Deficiente control de calidad en productos que se comercializan. - Los desperdicios se dan un poco en toda la cadena, pero más en el eslabón de consumo.235238239240241243244245248- Hay una limitante económica pero cuando hay un poco dinero, se prefiere adquirir paquetes de telefonía celular y no alimentos. Se compran otras cosas que no son tan saludables para alimentarse. Esto cambiaría con educación a la población. - Se han abandonado en algunos casos, el cultivo de los huertos caseros y cría de especies menores. Deberían fomentarse estas iniciativas. - Transitar de prácticas que deterioran el medio ambiente a otras que no, es un cambio cultural que tiene que ser gradual, que requiere de un proceso de educación y sensibilización. - Retomar experiencias exitosas de otros países para atender las problemáticas de desperdicios de alimentos. - Certificación de los procesos productivos en las empresas. - Afiliación a programas/comités RSE. - Iniciar la implementación de cambios, o proyectos piloto, desde el entorno de trabajo brindando las condiciones adecuadas para hacerlo.236238239240241244246248249- Es necesaria la implementación de educación alimentaria y nutricional en todos niveles. - Es necesario educación y sensibilizar sobre el consumo adecuado de alimentos, e informar a la población sobre los beneficios de tener una alimentación nutritiva y balanceada. - Es necesario trabajar de la mano con el Ministerio de Educación e incluir en el currículo el tema de sostenibilidad en todos sus ámbitos. - La articulación institucional puede ser un factor que facilite los procesos formativos, de seguimiento y evaluación. - Son necesarios impulsar proyectos dirigidos a la descontaminación de los ríos. - Se deben valorar esquemas de incentivos para transitar a prácticas productivas más sostenibles. Esto permitiría que poco a poco vaya cambiando el estilo de producir. - Se deben impulsar proyectos que fomenten la parte productiva en las familias, involucrando a la juventud, por ejemplo, en la producción de especies menores.237- Hubo divergencias en relación a la existencia de regulación fuerte que evite el deterioro del medio ambiente versus la no aplicación de la regulación existente pero que le faltan ciertos elementos para hacerla más robusta.

2021-06-19 09:35:14205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21613/161

177

1-Cérémonie d'ouverture avec les interventions: • une Intervention de la société civile par Monsieur Nadjirou SALL président du Groupe Dialogue Politique de la Société Civile (GDSP) ; • Une Intervention du Groupe Agriculture et Sécurité Alimentaire des Partenaires Techniques et Financiers par Madame Alessandra PIERMATEI, Co-Présidente du groupe et Directrice de l’agence Italienne pour la Coopération au Développement ; • Une Intervention du système des Nations Unies résident par Monsieur COULIBALY Siaka, Coordinateur du Système au Sénégal ; • Une Allocution d’ouverture et de lancement solennel du dialogue par le Pr Moussa BALDE, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Equipent Rural du Sénégal. 2- Travaux Après la cérémonie d'ouverture et de lancement solennel, les travaux débuteront par une mise en contexte de la problématique du développement de systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables aux niveaux local et national au Sénégal. Cette mise en contexte se fera à travers : • la présentation et discussion d’une note introductive du Coordonnateur des concertations sur (i) le contexte, (ii) les objectifs et résultats attendus du dialogue national sur les systèmes alimentaires, (iii) la démarche et la feuille de route. • Des présentations conjointes du Comité national PNIASAN et des principales zones agro écologiques du Sénégal sur le diagnostic actuel Par la suite, 5 Sessions de discussion, par piste d'action, ont été mises en place pour produire et soumettre à la plénière un petit compte rendu, qui récapitule (i) les tendances observées et les moteurs de changements aux niveaux local et national, (ii) la situation actuelle des systèmes alimentaires aux niveaux local et national ; (iii) les grands enjeux et défis, les grandes lignes d’actions prioritaires pour le développement de systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables aux niveaux local et national ; (iv) les engagements des parties prenantes et les modalités de leur collaboration pour le développement de systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables au Sénégal.Les participants à cette Concertation sont les acteurs des systèmes alimentaires à tous les niveaux c'est à dire les organisations des producteurs et de la société civile, le secteur privé, le groupe des PTFs, le système des nations unies résident, le gouvernement, les femmes, les jeunes ... au niveau départemental, régional et central. Les travaux ont été coordonnés par le coordonnateur des concertations avec l’appui d'un comité d'organisation composé du Comité technique multisectoriel du programme national d'investissement agricole, de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition (PNIASAN) et du Groupe politique de la société civile (GDSP) , avec l’appui technique du HUB RURAL (Plateforme d'Appui au Développement Rural et à la Sécurité Alimentaire en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre).Par rapport à notre expérience, les conseils que nous avons à donner: -Organiser des concertations préliminaires sur l'état des lieux des systèmes alimentaires au niveau central et au niveau décentralisé avec tous les acteurs des systèmes alimentaires, -Organiser un partage des initiatives existantes et en cours en vu de leur capitalisations; -Bien identifier les acteurs des systèmes alimentaires qui participerons aux concertations; -Convaincre les acteurs sur la nécessité de se concerter sur les systèmes alimentaires. La mise en oeuvre de ses points nous permis de créer un grand engouement de tous les acteurs sur la question du dialogue national sur les systèmes alimentaires. L'utilisation des plateforme de réunion virtuelle pour les concertations préliminaires et la première concertation nationale nous a permis de réunir plusieurs acteurs autour du sujet tant au niveau central et décentralisé.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251L'objectif de notre première concertation nationale est de renforcer le dialogue national sur les systèmes alimentaires en perspective de leur développement inclusif, équitable et durable. De manière plus spécifique, notre concertation nationale vise à avoir sur chacun des objectifs de changement (pistes d’actions) identifiés par le Sommet des Nations unies : 1) Une évaluation globale des tendances observées (évolutions des 10 dernières années) et des moteurs de changements (principaux déterminants) aux niveaux local et national ; 2) Une description de la situation actuelle (caractérisation qualitative et quantitative) des systèmes alimentaires aux niveaux local et national ; 3) Une identification des grands enjeux et défis, ainsi que des leviers/grandes lignes d’actions prioritaires préconisées (modalités d'amélioration), les engagements des parties prenantes et les modalités de leur collaboration pour le développement de systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables aux niveaux local et national. Ainsi, à la fin de notre 1ère Concertation Nationale, il est attendu : • Sur chaque objectif de changement, un petit compte rendu, qui récapitule (i) les tendances observées et les moteurs de changements aux niveaux local et national, (ii) la situation actuelle des systèmes alimentaires aux niveaux local et national ; (iii) les grands enjeux et défis, les grandes lignes d’actions prioritaires pour le développement de systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables aux niveaux local et national ; (iv) les engagements des parties prenantes et les modalités de leur collaboration pour le développement de systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables au Sénégal, et • De manière globale, une synthèse des conclusions et recommandations sur les 5 objectifs de changement, pouvant être approfondies dans la perspective de la 2ème Concertation Nationale, prévue le 17-18 juin en mode virtuel.235238239240241242243244245248249250251Piste d'action: Accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs Par rapport aux mesures de politiques ou d'accompagnement des dynamiques d'amélioration de l'accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs, le groupe a insisté sur les actions en matière (i) de promotion des technologies améliorées de transformation, de conservation et de conditionnement des produits alimentaires, (ii) de facilitation de l'accès des producteurs nationaux aux marchés locaux et internationaux, (iii) d'incitation au développement de contrats de partenariats entre grands fournisseurs urbains et petits exploitants familiaux ruraux, un approvisionnement alimentaire adéquat des villes, (iv) de promotion de réseaux efficace de distribution équitable des produits alimentaires, (v) de défiscalisation des échanges des secteurs agroalimentaire et pharmaceutique, (vi) de prise en compte des Plans d'Action du secteur de la nutrition dans le document de programmation pluriannuelle des dépenses (DPPD), (vii) de vulgarisation des textes (lois, décrets, arrêtés) et documents de politiques relatifs aux systèmes alimentaires du pays, (viii) de facilitation de l'accès aux ressources financières en faveur du développement desdits systèmes, et (ix) de renforcement des programmes nationaux de recherche sur les problématiques alimentaires et nutritionnelles au Sénégal. En perspective de la mise en œuvre des actions ainsi envisagées, le groupe a achevé l'examen du document de travail mis à sa disposition par des échanges sur les modalités éventuelles de responsabilisation mutuelle des parties prenantes et de promotion d'un mécanisme permanent de concertation inter-acteurs. Piste d'action: Promotion de modes de consommation durables Les cinq catégories de mesures d'accompagnement préconisées et traités par le groupe portent respectivement sur (i) le contrôle des produits alimentaires mis en marchés (réglementation de la publicité, de l'étiquetage, des activités de transformation, de commercialisation et de restauration), (ii) l'évolution appropriée des habitudes alimentaires (intégration de l'éducation nutritionnelle dans les programmes scolaires, conduite de campagnes de sensibilisation aux exigences d'une alimentation saine et nutritive), (iii) la promotion des produits locaux dans l'approvisionnement alimentaire des cantines scolaires, (iv) la facilitation de la transition agroécologique par des mécanismes de subvention des facteurs de production et de soutien des prix au producteur, ainsi que (v) l'endiguement de la concurrence déloyale par l'amélioration des mécanismes de régulation du marché intérieur. A l'instar des autres parties à la concertation, le groupe a aussi examiné les propositions de modalités de responsabilisation mutuelle des acteurs et de pérennisation du processus de concertation inclusive pour la promotion de modes de consommation durables. Piste d'action 3: Stimulation d'une production respectueuse de la nature Les mesures de politique soumises aux débats en faveur de systèmes de production durables concernent, quant à elles, (i) les allégements fiscaux, exonérations et subventions nécessaires à l'équipement adéquat desdits systèmes et à leur approvisionnement convenable en intrants bio, (ii) l'aide au renforcement de capacités et à l'accès aux services d'appui-conseil, ainsi que (iii) la régulation des importations et exportations en soutien aux dynamiques et mécanismes de promotion du "consommer local". Les engagements respectifs des parties prenantes dans la mise en œuvre des actions susvisées ainsi que les modalités de pérennisation du processus de concertation nationale pour le développement durable des systèmes alimentaires au Sénégal ont aussi fait l'objet de discussions au sein groupe. Piste d'action 4: Promotion de moyens de subsistance équitables En vue de l'accompagnement de ces investissements par des mesures de politiques idoines, le groupe a échangé sur la nécessité (i) d'adopter une politique de subvention adossée à un dispositif efficace de suivi-évaluation permettant d'atteindre les vrais bénéficiaires, (ii) de lancer de vastes campagnes de communication et de sensibilisation pour le consommer local, (iii) de revoir les législations pour leur adaptation aux réalités locales et aux besoins des groupes vulnérables, et (iv) d'adopter des lois améliorant les cadres d'élaboration et de mise en œuvre de programmes et projets favorables à la répartition équitables des moyens de subsistance. Le groupe a aussi discuté des modalités de responsabilisation des parties prenantes dans la mise en œuvre de ces actions et de mise en place d'un dispositif permanent de concertation inter-acteurs pour des systèmes alimentaires durables et favorables à une répartition équitables des moyens de subsistance. Piste d'action 5: Résilience des systèmes alimentaires face aux vulnérabilités et chocs Les mesures envisagées en la matière sont (i) l'élaboration d'une charte de produits alimentaires prioritaires à exonérer de taxes, (ii) la consolidation de l’accès des producteurs aux marchés locaux de produits alimentaires, (iii) la facilitation de l’implication du secteur privé au développement des chaines de valeur agroalimentaires, (iv) l'allégement des procédures administratives en faveur des entreprises privées nationales, (v) l'incitation au déploiement de relations contractuelles et partenariales entre acteurs des chaines de valeur agroalimentaires, (vi) la promotion de systèmes de labellisation pour la baisse des exportations de matières premières (produits alimentaires bruts).236238243244245246248249250251En termes d'actions envisageables pour l'amélioration de l'accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs, le groupe a consacré sa réflexion aux types d'investissements et de mesures de politiques envisagés. Ainsi a-t-il délibéré sur l'impact potentiel d'actions (i) de réinvestissement des ressources financières de l'exploitation pétrolière et gazière dans le développement des secteurs agricole, industriel et nutritionnel, (ii) de mise en place de mécanismes de financement de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition, ainsi que (iii) d'investissement dans les divers domaines du développement des ressources humaines du système alimentaire, des énergies renouvelables, des infrastructures de désenclavement, de la bio-fortification des aliments, de la modernisation des systèmes de production, de transformation et de stockage des produits locaux. Le groupe a réfléchi sur la portée des défis soumis à son appréciation, en ce qui concerne notamment (i) l'incitation du secteur à s'engager davantage dans des activités de production et de commercialisation d'aliments locaux respectueuses des normes de qualité idoines, (ii) la maîtrise (disponibilité et accessibilité) des facteurs de production que sont l'eau agricole, les semences certifiées, les engrais tant minéraux qu'organiques, les biopesticides et pesticides à faible toxicité, les matériels et équipements de production et de transformation agroalimentaires, ainsi que l'extension des aménagements de mise en valeur des vallées fluviaux et basfonds cultivables. Le Gouvernement et ses bailleurs d'une part et les autres acteurs des systèmes alimentaires pourront effectuer les actions. En perspective de la mise en œuvre des actions ainsi envisagées, le groupe a achevé l'examen du document de travail mis à sa disposition par des échanges sur les modalités éventuelles de responsabilisation mutuelle des parties prenantes et de promotion d'un mécanisme permanent de concertation inter-acteurs.236239243244245246248249250251Les enjeux et défis découlant de cette situation, tels que stipulés dans le document de travail du groupe, ont également fait l'objet d'échanges soutenus. Il était ainsi question de considérer les gains d'amélioration de la durabilité des modes de consommation apportés par le renforcement (i) de la situation sanitaire des consommateurs, (ii) de la qualité des produits consommés, (iii) des systèmes d’information sur l'alimentation et la nutrition, (iv) des infrastructures du réseau des distribution et de commercialisation des aliments, (v) des mécanismes de facilitation de l’accès des acteurs ruraux aux marchés, et (vi) des instruments politiques de régulation des marchés pour l'existence de conditions concurrentielles plus soutenables pour les filières naissantes du système alimentaire national. Relativement à ces enjeux et défis, les propositions d'actions examinées par le groupe en fonction de la préoccupation centrale de promotion de modes de consommation durables, ont concerné, en termes d'investissements, (i) la mise en place de systèmes d'information et de communication pour faire du consommateur un acteur efficace du processus de promotion de produits sains, de circuits courts et du "consommer local", (ii) la promotion de plateformes de développement de PME/PMI de transformation des produits locaux, (iii) le renforcement infrastructurel des dispositifs de contrôle des aliments, des systèmes d'éducation à l'alimentation et la nutrition (y compris en destination des enfants à bas-âge), des systèmes d'information de marchés (SIM), des actions de désenclavement de zones de production et des circuits de commercialisation, y compris le stockage et la transformation des produits. Le Gouvernement et ses bailleurs d'une part et les autres acteurs des systèmes alimentaires pourront effectuer les actions. A l'instar des autres parties à la concertation, le groupe a aussi examiné les propositions de modalités de responsabilisation mutuelle des acteurs et de pérennisation du processus de concertation inclusive pour la promotion de modes de consommation durables.236240243244245246248249250251Les enjeux de développement durable de systèmes de production qui ont fait l'objet d'une réflexion approfondie du groupe . Ainsi, il a débattu des gains de durabilité desdits systèmes que le pays peut tirer (i) de la promotion de l’agroécologie et de l’agriculture biologique intelligentes face au climat, (ii) de l’utilisation et de la vulgarisation des résultats de la recherche, (iii) du renforcement de la gouvernance sectorielle, (iv) de la réduction des pertes post-récolte, (v) de mécanismes d'aide à l’accroissement durable de la production et de la productivité, (v) de l’amélioration de la production de données statistiques agro-sylvo-pastorales et halieutiques, (vi) de la promotion de modèles de gestion durable des ressources et systèmes de production, (vii) de la mise en place de dispositifs de gestion et de maintenance des infrastructures productives rurales, ainsi que (viii) du déploiement de stratégies efficaces de financement axées sur une production durable. Relativement à ces enjeux, le groupe s'est aussi investi dans l'examen des défis portés à son attention. Ceux-ci sont principalement liés (i) à l'émancipation de la trop forte dépendance aux produits importés pour s'assurer une autosuffisance alimentaire salutaire (réduction du déficit commercial, atténuation de la vulnérabilité aux perturbations des marchés mondiaux), et (ii) à la nécessité d'une augmentation sensibles des revenus monétaires des ménages ruraux, en vue d'une réduction nette de la pauvreté en milieu rural. Étant donnés ces enjeux et défis, le groupe 3 a contribué à l'identification des actions idoines de stimulation d'une production respectueuse de la nature en procédant à la consolidation des propositions envisagées tant pour ce qui touche aux investissements qu'en ce qui concerne les mesures de politiques censées accompagner ces derniers. Les investissements préconisés ont porté sur (i) l'aménagement de terres destinées à l’agroécologie et à l’agriculture biologique intelligente face au climat, (ii) la construction d’infrastructures de stockage, de conservation, de transformation des produits alimentaires, (iii) l’aménagement de pistes de production, (iv) la mise en place d’institutions de facilitation de l'accès aux financements favorables à la conservation de la base productive, (v) le développement d'un tissu industriel axé sur la transformation agroalimentaire, (vi) le renforcement des capacités des acteurs, (vi) la consolidation des systèmes de production et de diffusion de statistiques de qualité, (vii) la promotion de l’assurance rurale, tous sous-secteurs inclus, et (vii) le renforcement des capacités d'utilisation effective des ressources budgétaires locales (collectivités territoriales) destinés aux activités forestières. Le Gouvernement et ses bailleurs d'une part et les autres acteurs des systèmes alimentaires pourront effectuer les actions. Les engagements respectifs des parties prenantes dans la mise en œuvre des actions susvisées ainsi que les modalités de pérennisation du processus de concertation nationale pour le développement durable des systèmes alimentaires au Sénégal ont aussi fait l'objet de discussions au sein groupe.236241243244245246248249250251Discutant des enjeux que pose cette état de la répartition des moyens de subsistance au sein des systèmes alimentaires sénégalais, le groupe s'est appesanti sur les suggestions relatives à la nécessité (i) d'assurer à terme la sécurité, voire la souveraineté, alimentaire du pays en vue d'une répartition plus équitable des moyens de subsistance, surtout en cas de choc sanitaire aussi grave que la pandémie de la COVID-19, (ii) d'accroitre la productivité des exploitations agricoles pour permettre aux producteurs de générer des revenus suffisamment décents, (iii) d'adopter des systèmes de gestion durable des terres pour conserver les ressources naturelles qui restent la principale composante des moyens de subsistance des exploitations familiales, et (iv) de maintenir une cohésion sociale et une sécurité civile suffisante par une répartition plus équitable des moyens de subsistance. Pour ce faire, les défis sur lesquels le groupe a réfléchi ont porté sur les obstacles que représentent (i) le caractère extraverti des modes de consommation urbain empêchant l'accroissement des parts de marché des produits locaux, (ii) les difficultés (problème) de ciblage des bénéficiaires empêchant souvent l'atteinte des vrais nécessiteux dans la distribution d'aides alimentaires et/ou de subventions de facteurs de production, (iii) les difficultés d'accès aux Innovations techniques empêchant la modernisation des exploitations de petits et moyens producteurs ruraux, (iv) les conséquences du changement climatique entraînant une dégradation accélérée des ressources naturelles, (v) les difficultés d'accès aux ressources financières empêchant les groupes vulnérables de renforcer leurs capacités économiques, (vi) la persistance d'une concurrence déloyale entravant la lutte contre la pauvreté rurale, (vii) la concentration des industries agroalimentaires dans les agglomérations urbaines de Dakar et Thiès au détriment du développement d'autres pôles économiques potentiels. Dans ses échanges sur les modalités d'amélioration de la situation, le groupe a traité des investissements et mesures de politique suggérés à l'issue du processus de diagnostic participatif et inclusif. Les propositions d'investissements examinées ont respectivement concerné (i) le renforcement infrastructurel des chaines de valeur du secteur en fonction des spécificités de chaque zone agroécologique, (ii) la mise en place de dispositifs de promotion de solides entreprises privées dans le secteur agroalimentaire en vue de l'émergence de champions nationaux, (iii) la création de niches favorables au développement de partenariats publics privés internationaux pour le transfert de technologies agroalimentaires appropriées au secteur privé national (entreprises privées comme exploitations familiales), (iv) la mise en place de fonds destinés au financement des petites et moyennes unités nationales de transformation agroalimentaire suffisamment adossées à des mécanismes de coopération (certification, central d’achat) pour accroître leurs capacités de contribution à la création d’emplois, (v) la recherche-action permettant d'accroître la connaissance des potentialités et besoins pour accroître les performances des systèmes de production et améliorer leur accès aux ressources financières, (vi) l'organisation des acteurs des chaines de valeur agroalimentaires du pays pour réduire fortement la dépendance alimentaire extérieure, (vii) les systèmes de formation, d'information et de sensibilisation des acteurs pour une répartition plus équitable des moyens de subsistance, (viii) l’aménagement du territoire pour une utilisation responsable des ressources, (ix) la réalisation d'aménagements hydroagricoles, (x) le développement de filières prioritaires (préférences nationales) fortement concurrencées par les importations malgré l'existence de réelles potentialités nationales de développement, à l'exemple de l'oignon, de la pomme de terre, et de la volaille, (xi) la création de magasins de stockage et chambres froide pour réguler l'offre de produits alimentaires (réduction des méventes), (xii) la mise en place de dispositifs de promotion d'entreprises privées et d'aide à l'émergence de champions236242243244245246248249250251Réfléchissant sur les actions d'amélioration envisagées, le groupe a, d'abord, porté son attention sur les suggestions d'investissements axés sur (i) les dispositifs de prévention des crises et chocs (renforcement de la résilience en amont), (ii) la mise en place de fonds de développement technologique du maillon de la transformation, (iii) la valorisation des produits agricoles locaux, (iv) la diversification des systèmes de production, (v) la fortification des produits alimentaires, (vi) la promotion de modes de consommation à forte demande de produits locaux transformés, et (vii) le désenclavement des zones de production pour une résilience accrue aux chocs commerciaux. Dans cette lancée, le groupe a, ensuite, échangé sur les mesures de politiques susceptibles de bien accompagner les acteurs (exploitations familiales et entreprises privées nationales) dans leurs efforts d'atténuation des vulnérabilités et fragilités face aux risques de chocs.

2021-06-19 20:59:34205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26660/96

021283012133100361128223821133

الاردن يدرك الضرورة القصوى للعمل المستمر والهادف على جميع المستويات لتحقيق أهداف التنمية المستدامة 2030 ذات الصلة بالنظم الغذائية . وعليه يتم تنظيم الحوارات كمساهمة في قمة النظم الغذائية ولإحداث تحول في النظم الغذائية للمساهمة في تحقيق أهداف التنمية المستدامة 2030 في إطار قدراتنا وظروفنا الخاصة سواء كانت الجغرافية والإقتصادية والاجتماعية ، حيث سنعمل على تعزيز سياسات وممارسات خاصة بإنتاج الغذاء واستهلاكه وتقليل الفاقد والمهدر منه و حماية وتحسين صحة ورفاهية الأفراد ، وتعزيز سبل العيش وتعزيز قدرة المجتمعات المحلية على التحمل والتكيف مع الازمات والضغوط والتغير المناخي ، وتعزيز المحافظة والاستغلال الامثل للموارد الطبيعية ، مع احترام الثقافات والسياقات المحلية . وقد تبنى الحوار مبادئ القمة للمشاركة : التصرف على وجه السرعة ، والالتزام نحو القمة ، التحلي بالاحترام ، إدراك درجة التعقيد ، استيعاب شمولية أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين ، وأكمال أعمال الآخرين ، والقيام ببناء الثقةحوارات الاردن دون الوطنية للنظم الغذائية - لقد تم دعوة العديد من أصحاب المصلحة من خلفيات وقطاعات مختلفة للمشاركة في المرحلة الثانية من الحوار الوطني استعدادًا لقمة الأمم المتحدة المعنية بالنظم الغذائية في سبتمبر 2021. حيث نظمت وزارة الزراعة الحوار دون الوطني والذي عقد بشكل وجاهي ولكن بسبب جائحة كورونا تم دعوة ٢٥ مشارك فقط . كان المشاركون (أصحاب المصلحة ) من مختلف قطاعات النظم الغذائية ، المزارعين ، وصناعة الأغذية ، والحكومة ، والمنظمات غير الحكومية ، والنشطاء ، والمؤسسات البحثية والأكاديمية ، والجمعيات النسوية واتحاد المزارعين والنقابات المهنية الزراعية والبيطرية ، تجار التجزئة والجملة والبلديات ، ووسائل الإعلام ، والبرلمان ،وغرف التجارة و الصناعة. قدمت هذه المجموعة المتنوعة من أصحاب المصلحة نظرة شاملة للانظمة الغذائية حيث تبادل المشاركون وجهات نظر متنوعة ، وتمكنوا من تحديد المشاكل والتحديات واقتراح الحلول القابلة للتطبيق والتوصيات . لقد تم تقسيم المشاركين الى ثلاث مجموعات يديرها منسقين اثنين وثلاث ميسّرين حيث تم تخصيص ساعة ونصف (٩٠ دقيقه) للمجموعات لمناقشة المسار الذي تم تحديده لهذه المنطقة وهو المسار الخامس ، حيث تمت مناقشة اهم المشاكل والتحديات التي تواجه الاردن و وضع الحلول والتوصيات ، كما تم تخصيص الساعة الاخيره من الحوار للمناقشة العامة حيث عاد المشاركون إلى الجلسة العامة وقام ميسر كل مجموعة بقراءة النقاط المهمة (المشاكل، التحديات، الحلول والتوصيات) التي تمت مناقشتها وتغطيتها في كل مجموعة وفي الختام قام المنسقين الوطنيين بتلخيص اهم التوصيات المتستخلصه من نتائج حوارات المجموعاتتعتبر أهم خطوات التحضير لعقد الحوارات الوطنية ودون الوطنية هو تحديد اصحاب المصلحة الذين يجب دعوتهم وتحديد المواضيع المنوي مناقشتها والتي يجب ان تتوائم مع طبيعة المنطقة الجغرافية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية ، لضمان عدم تخلف أحد عن الركب وان الجميع يحق له التعبير عن رأيه بحرية وان يتم تبني آرائهم .وأن يبنى الحوار على مبادئ القمة للمشاركة والتي تتضمن التصرف على وجه السرعة ، والالتزام نحو القمة ، التحلي بالاحترام ، إدراك درجة التعقيد ، استيعاب شمولية أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين ، وأكمال أعمال الآخرين ، والقيام ببناء الثقة

Yes

234238243244245246247248249250251لقد ركز الحوار على إستكشاف لأحد مسارات العمل الخمسة وهو المسار الاول والذي يركز على كيفية ضمان حصول جميع المواطنون على طعام مآمون ومغذ. وقد تم التركيز على سبل القضاء على الجوع وجميع أشكال سوء التغذية والحد من الإصابة بالأمراض غير المعدية، على ان يتاح لجميع الناس في جميع الأوقات إمكانية الحصول على كميات كافية من المنتجات الغذائية المأمونة والميسورة التكلفة. يعني تحقيق هذا الهدف مراجعة المحاور التالية: 1- جعل الغذاء ميسور التكلفة والحد من أوجه عدم المساواة في إمكانية الحصول على الغذاء؛ 2- توافر الأطعمة المغذية؛ والتأكيد على سلامة الغذاء. التركيز على المحور الثالث: سلامة الغذاء مناقشة واقتراح التزامات للعمل على جعل الطعام المتوفر أكثر أمانًا على صعيد المحافظة - ما هو السياق الحالي وكيف يؤثر على واقع النظم الغذائية المحلية؟ - ما هي الاقتراحات والإجراءات الضرورية التي يمكن تطبقيها على المدى القريب والمتوسط؟ -كيف يمكننا ان نخلق بيئية مساندة لتنفيذ الإجراءات المقترحة؟ - ماذا ستكون الإنجازات الحقيقية؟ -أين يجب ان نركز إمكانياتنا وجهودنا لتحقيق تقدم ملموس؟ -ما هي الأمور التي يجب استكشافها أكثر؟ من هم الشركاء الرئيسين وما هو دور مختلف أصحاب المصلحة؟2351. توجيه الدعم والحوافز لخدمة المزارع والمنتج وتحويل النظم الزراعية 2. زيادة الموازنات المخصصة للزراعة والصناعات الغذائية 3. توجيه المساعدات الحارجية لخدمة أهداف التنمية الزراعية 4. حماية المزارعين والمصنعين من الاغراق 5. الاهتمام بسلامة المنتج المحلي والمستورد 6. الاهتمام بالجوانب التغذويةوالانماط الاستهلاكية وهدر الطعام 7. مراعاة الابعاد البيئية وقضايا التغير المناخي 8. الأمن الغذائي متطلب رئيسي وشرط مسبق للأمن الوطني 9. ضرورة توفير المعلومة الصحيحة 10. الاستفادة من الميز النسبية للأردن 11. إنشاء شركات تسويق خاصة 12. التعامل مع مديونية المزارعين كقضية تنموية 13. ترشيد العمالة الوافدة وتدريب الشباب على المهن الجديدة والتي تلبي حاجات السوق 14. تخسين كفاءة استعمالات الأراضي والمياه 15. توفير متطلبات تنفيذ السياسات والخطط الزراعية 16. استبدال محاصيل الفائض بمحاصيل العجز 17. تشجيع العمل العائلي والأسري 18. اشراك القطاع الخاص في كافة مراحل صنع القرار

اننا في الاردن ماضون قدما نحو تطوير منظومة وطنية شاملة تقوم على أسس تمكين إنتاج الغذاء المستدام، وتعزيز الإنتاج المحلي، وتنمية الشراكات الدولية لتنويع مصادر الغذاء، وتفعيل التشريعات والسياسات التي تساهم في ضمان الأمن الغذائي في كافة الظروف والمراحل من خلال التركيز على استخدام التقنيات المبتكرة وتكنولوجيا إنتاج الغذاء بما يساهم في استقرار وتنوع سلسلة الإمدادات الغذائية والحد من جميع أنواع الهدر وسوء استغلال الموارد الطبيعية، وضمان سلامة الغذاء وتحسين نظم التغذية، وتعزيز القدرة لمواجهة المخاطر والأزمات المتعلقة بالتغير المناخي والأمن الغذائي. ولأن من أولوياتنا السعي الى تحقيق أهداف التنمية المستدامة 2030 والتعاون من أجل الوصول الى أمن غذائي إنساني ومستدام ، فإننا نؤكد على ضرورة تطوير مساراتنا الوطنية نحو التحول الى نُظم غذائية مستدامة تُسهم في الحفاظ على الاستقرار الغذائي وضمان حصول الجميع على طعام آمن ومغذي ، كمساهمة في قمة النظم الغذائية وقد حرصنا ان تتوائم الحوارات مع طبيعة المنطقة الجغرافية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية ، لضمان عدم تخلف أحد عن الركب والتأكيد على أن الجميع يحق له التعبير عن رأيه بحرية وقد حرصنا ان يبنى الحوار على مبادئ القمة للمشاركة والتي تتضمن التصرف على وجه السرعة ، والالتزام نحو القمة ،و التحلي بالاحترام ، إدراك درجة التعقيد ، استيعاب شمولية أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين ، وإكمال أعمال الآخرين ، والقيام ببناء الثقة. 2021-06-21 20:58:35

2021-06-19 21:34:44205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27310/96

205114137319251119233

الاردن يدرك الضرورة القصوى للعمل المستمر والهادف على جميع المستويات لتحقيق أهداف التنمية المستدامة 2030 ذات الصلة بالنظم الغذائية . وعليه يتم تنظيم الحوارات كمساهمة في قمة النظم الغذائية ولإحداث تحول في النظم الغذائية للمساهمة في تحقيق أهداف التنمية المستدامة 2030 في إطار قدراتنا وظروفنا الخاصة سواء كانت الجغرافية والإقتصادية والاجتماعية ، حيث سنعمل على تعزيز سياسات وممارسات خاصة بإنتاج الغذاء واستهلاكه وتقليل الفاقد والمهدر منه و حماية وتحسين صحة ورفاهية الأفراد ، وتعزيز سبل العيش وتعزيز قدرة المجتمعات المحلية على التحمل والتكيف مع الازمات والضغوط والتغير المناخي ، وتعزيز المحافظة والاستغلال الامثل للموارد الطبيعية ، مع احترام الثقافات والسياقات المحلية . وقد تبنى الحوار مبادئ القمة للمشاركة : التصرف على وجه السرعة ، والالتزام نحو القمة ، التحلي بالاحترام ، إدراك درجة التعقيد ، استيعاب شمولية أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين ، وأكمال أعمال الآخرين ، والقيام ببناء الثقةحوارات الاردن دون الوطنية للنظم الغذائية - لقد تم دعوة العديد من أصحاب المصلحة من خلفيات وقطاعات مختلفة للمشاركة في المرحلة الثانية من الحوار الوطني استعدادًا لقمة الأمم المتحدة المعنية بالنظم الغذائية في سبتمبر 2021. حيث نظمت وزارة الزراعة الحوار دون الوطني والذي عقد بشكل وجاهي ولكن بسبب جائحة كورونا تم دعوة 20 مشارك فقط . كان المشاركون (أصحاب المصلحة ) من مختلف قطاعات النظم الغذائية ، المزارعين ، وصناعة الأغذية ، والحكومة ، والمنظمات غير الحكومية ، والنشطاء ، والمؤسسات البحثية والأكاديمية ، والجمعيات النسوية واتحاد المزارعين والنقابات المهنية الزراعية والبيطرية ، تجار التجزئة والجملة والبلديات ، ووسائل الإعلام ، والبرلمان ،وغرف التجارة و الصناعة. قدمت هذه المجموعة المتنوعة من أصحاب المصلحة نظرة شاملة للانظمة الغذائية حيث تبادل المشاركون وجهات نظر متنوعة ، وتمكنوا من تحديد المشاكل والتحديات واقتراح الحلول القابلة للتطبيق والتوصيات . لقد تم تقسيم المشاركين الى ثلاث مجموعات يديرها منسقين اثنين وثلاث ميسّرين حيث تم تخصيص ساعة ونصف (٩٠ دقيقه) للمجموعات لمناقشة المسار الذي تم تحديده لهذه المنطقة وهو المسار الخامس ، حيث تمت مناقشة اهم المشاكل والتحديات التي تواجه الاردن و وضع الحلول والتوصيات ، كما تم تخصيص الساعة الاخيره من الحوار للمناقشة العامة حيث عاد المشاركون إلى الجلسة العامة وقام ميسر كل مجموعة بقراءة النقاط المهمة (المشاكل، التحديات، الحلول والتوصيات) التي تمت مناقشتها وتغطيتها في كل مجموعة وفي الختام قام المنسقين الوطنيين بتلخيص اهم التوصيات المتستخلصه من نتائج حوارات المجموعات.تعتبر أهم خطوات التحضير لعقد الحوارات الوطنية ودون الوطنية هو تحديد اصحاب المصلحة الذين يجب دعوتهم وتحديد المواضيع المنوي مناقشتها والتي يجب ان تتوائم مع طبيعة المنطقة الجغرافية والاجتماعية والاقتصادية ، لضمان عدم تخلف أحد عن الركب وان الجميع يحق له التعبير عن رأيه بحرية وان يتم تبني آرائهم .وأن يبنى الحوار على مبادئ القمة للمشاركة والتي تتضمن التصرف على وجه السرعة ، والالتزام نحو القمة ، التحلي بالاحترام ، إدراك درجة التعقيد ، استيعاب شمولية أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين ، وأكمال أعمال الآخرين ، والقيام ببناء الثقة

Yes

234241243244245246247248249250251سعى هذا الحوار لإستكشاف لاحد مسارات العمل الخمسة وهو المسار الرابع ، ويسعى هذا المسار إلى العمل على المساهمة في القضاء على الفقر بتعزيز العمالة الكاملة والمنتجة والعمل اللائق لجميع الجهات الفاعلة على امتداد سلسلة القيمة الغذائية، والحد من المخاطر التي تتعرض لها الفئات الأفقر في العالم، وتمكين تنظيم المشاريع، والتصدي لعدم المساواة في إمكانية الحصول على الموارد وتوزيع القيمة. يعني تحقيق هذا الهدف التركيز على المحاور التالية: الوصول العادل إلى سبل العيش والوصول إلى فرص عمل مناسبةوالوصول إلى الموارد الإنتاجية والأسواق التركيز على المحور الاول: تعزيز العمالة الكاملة والمنتجة والعمل اللائق للجميع في سلسلة القيمة الغذائية، والمحور الثاني: تمكين ريادة الأعمال وتقليل المخاطر مناقشة واقتراح التزامات للعمل على الوصول العادل إلى سبل العيش خاصةً البنية التحتية، الخدمات، المهارات، المعرفة والمعلومات وللعمل على الوصول إلى فرص عمل مناسبة للفئات الأكثر فقرا وهشاشة - ما هو السياق الحالي وكيف يؤثر على واقع النظم الغذائية المحلية؟ - ما هي الاقتراحات والإجراءات الضرورية التي يمكن تطبقيها على المدى القريب والمتوسط؟ -كيف يمكننا ان نخلق بيئية مساندة لتنفيذ الإجراءات المقترحة؟ - ماذا ستكون الإنجازات الحقيقية؟ -أين يجب ان نركز إمكانياتنا وجهودنا لتحقيق تقدم ملموس؟ - ما هي الأمور التي يجب استكشافها أكثر؟ من هم الشركاء الرئيسين وما هو دور مختلف أصحاب المصلحة؟2351. ضرورة ايجاد مزيد من المشاريع المدرة للدخل والموفرة لفرص العمل 2.استقطاب الاستثمار وتشجيعة وخاصة في مناطق بؤر الفقر 3. توفير الخدمات الأساسية والبنى التحتية للانتاج والتصنيع 4. تحديد حد أدنى عادل ومنصف للاجور 5. تشجيع الانتاج والاقتصاد المنزلي والاستفادة من الحصاد المائي 6. ربط الانتاج المحلي والأسري بالتغذية المدرسية وبرامج المساعدة الاجتماعية 7. تحسين شروط وبيئة العمل 8. تشجيع التضامن الاجتماعي والمسؤولية المجتمعية 9. تعزيز الاصلاح المؤسسي والتشريعي 10. تشجيع وتحفيز الاعمال الريادية والمجددة وخاصة في مناطق الريف والبادية والمناطق الأقل حظاً 11. تقنين العمالة الوافدة ما أمكن 12.إيجاد تشريعات لاستعمالات الاراضي ووقف الزحف العمراني 13. ايلاء مزيد من الاهتمام والدعم للزراعة 14.الاهتمام بتحسين قدرات العاملين 15. نشر انشطة التجارة الالكترونية وربط حلقات سلسلة الغذاء 16. توزيع الواجهات العشائرية من خلال منح حقوق استخدام طويلة المدى للجمعيات المحلية236لقد تعددت وجهات نظر المشاركين حول الإجراءات المطلوبة بشكل عاجل،وتمت الاشارة الى أن كل من الحكومة والمنظمات الدولية والجهات المانحة هي من يجب أن يتخذ هذه الإجراءات وقد تعددت وجهات النظر وفقا لخلفيات المشاركين وتضمنت ما يلي: ضرورة ايجاد مزيد من المشاريع المدرة للدخل والموفرة لفرص العمل واستقطاب الاستثمار وتشجيعة وخاصة في مناطق بؤر الفقر و توفير الخدمات الأساسية والبنى التحتية للانتاج والتصنيع و تحديد حد أدنى عادل ومنصف للاجورو تشجيع الانتاج والاقتصاد المنزلي والاستفادة من الحصاد المائي و ربط الانتاج المحلي والأسري بالتغذية المدرسية وبرامج المساعدة الاجتماعية وتحسين شروط وبيئة العمل و تشجيع التضامن الاجتماعي والمسؤولية المجتمعية و تعزيز الاصلاح المؤسسي والتشريعي بالاضافة الى تشجيع وتحفيز الاعمال الريادية والمجددة وخاصة في مناطق الريف والبادية والمناطق الأقل حظاً و العمل على تقنين العمالة الوافدة ما أمكن وإيجاد تشريعات لاستعمالات الاراضي ووقف الزحف العمراني مع ضرورة ايلاء مزيد من الاهتمام والدعم للزراعة والاهتمام بتحسين قدرات العاملين و نشر انشطة التجارة الالكترونية وربط حلقات سلسلة الغذاء ولتشجيع المجتمعات المحلية على العمل بالزراعة ان يتم توزيع الواجهات العشائرية من خلال منح حقوق استخدام طويلة المدى للجمعيات المحلية

2021-06-20 09:27:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15571/203

413921116168210124131115132591

Participation to this dialogue was on invitation to the technocrats from RUFORUM Network member Universities. As a University -Policy dialogue it was intended to gain consensus on areas of focus for universities as they target food systems in AfricaIt was a moderated participation which encouraged all participants to be part of the discussion. It included a presentations, discussion and agreement on the areas of focus and the next steps with the statement from the Vice Chancellors was free and open

Yes

234238239241242243244248249250251The future transformation of food systems in Africa requires innovative research, education, and training approaches that are rooted in local contexts. Universities in Africa need to adapt and create knowledge to strengthen and transform the food systems through strengthening links and improving production, processing, storage, transport, food quality, and businesses that link them and consumers. Universities must play a crucial and more effective role in anticipating the skill-sets and knowledge demanded by rapidly changing food systems, and provide these skills and information in ways that trickle through the entire economy. In turn, the universities need to translate knowledge created into innovations that transform and develop potential to drive their own and Africa’s food system transformation. Now is the time to reassess and redesign the African universities and assist them to build their capacity to deliver Africa’s food system transformation. The dialogue therefore targeted a) University contribution to: i) Zero Hunger, access to nutritious food and food safety: Approximately 300 million people in Africa are undernourished and food insecure; ii) Elevating the voice and role of Smallholder farmers in Food Systems interventions- Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress - b) Long-term investment and policy for Food Systems research, higher education and innovation. i) Enhancing Human Capital development to support the transformation of Food systems- Advance equitable livelihoods235239243246249The African Agriculture Sector/Context 1. Africa is home to nearly 1.4 billion people (about 17% of the world’s population). The vast majority of these people live in rural Africa, deriving their livelihoods from agriculture and related resources. With sixty percent of Africa’s population dependent on agriculture, a vibrant agricultural sector must be part of the solution for creating inclusive development on the continent. 2. Vibrant agri-food-systems and institutions engaged in production to consumption of food are key to delivery of the continent’s development agenda, Africa We Want, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Smallholder Farmer Focus 1. Africa produces its food from two main types of systems: smallholder-based, highly diversified production systems and “progressive” semi-to-extensive production systems that are increasingly owned and managed by urban elite. 2. The smallholder farmers that feed and employ the vast majority of people, with women accounting for up to 70% of the labour force. 3. The primacy of Africa’s smallholder agriculture to underpin sustainable and equitable food systems that support food and nutrition security for all, for the present generations and posterity, is unequivocal and must be integral in discussions on global food systems. 4. The weak linkages between African smallholder farmers and research/extension, as well as agricultural markets must be strengthened. 5. Due to low technological advancements (hand held hoe) and other factors, African agriculture is not attractive to most youth. Strengthening Human Capital Development (Skilling) 1. For Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, to realize its full agricultural potential to bolster its food systems, there is need for significant investments in key productivity-enhancing innovations to harness science solutions for growth. 2. Only a fraction of smallholder farmers has requisite entrepreneurial ability, productive assets and skills potential for value addition. Skilling such populations, and in general, improving the labour productivity is critical for African agriculture to play a greater role in meeting local to global food demand, in a competitive and cost-effective and competitive manner. 3. A more holistic human capital development is required to build the agricultural workforce, from production, to research and innovations, as well as entrepreneurship. African universities are pivotal in designing and implementing human capital development programmes. 4. Universities themselves have to change how they do business and respond to emerging needs and advance processes and mechanisms that ensure that graduates appreciate agriculture and agribusiness as a source of employment and livelihood. 5. Africa must not outsource its food security (export jobs) but build capacity to bolster its global food production and export markets.2362382392412422432462482492502511. Strengthen production fundamentals, such as research and innovation, to direct how we leverage our production resources, generate relevant technologies, guide threat surveillance, and inform policy design and accountability. 2. Institute industrial policies that promote private investment and job growth in local non-farm sectors, essential to attract investment in agri-food systems (the focus on agro- industrialization) 3. Scale up of technologies developed by universities to make them available for youth and use within the country. Foster Intellectual Property and patenting. 4. Invest strongly in the education value chain, from universities to vocational colleges, to leveraging on secondary and primary education to upgrade the skill levels of young people entering the labour force. 6. Work collaboratively with African universities and other actors in and outside Africa to marshal the needed response to strengthen Africa’s food systems and for scaling out best practices. There is need to bridge the disconnect between academia and government and between technocrats and politicians who allocate resources to support food systems enhancement. 5. Foster global partnerships to develop more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems that consider the needs of smallholder farmers and youth. 6. Strengthen commitment to Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development (CAADP) financing and implementation, Africa’s Agenda 2063, STISA 2024 and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCTA). 7. Invest in preparedness (i.e., data science, foresight, and building response capacities) to manage emerging and future challenges with keen attention to the 4th Industrial Revolution 8. Establish startup/venture capital funds that will enable young graduates to adopt agriculture as a career for self-employment and to employ peers. 9. Appeal to the United Nations Food System Summit (UNFSS) to: a. Support the efforts of Africa to invest in and transform its food systems and build the capacity needed to develop and implement a sustainable, inclusive food system. b. Recognize that co-developing, co-ownership, and joint implementation of UNFSS agreed game-changers for food systems transformation on the African continent must be inclusive, and provide equitable opportunities. 10. Endorse the international community support for the formation of an African Multi-stakeholder Capacity strengthening platform for sustainable, inclusive African food systems (Capacity Strengthening Platform for African Food Systems). 11. Facilitate improvement in the information flow from research to the government where it can be utilized to advance food systems and livelihoods. 12. Strengthen the link between university and government as a precursor for evidence-based decision making and to lobby government for resource allocation towards Food and Nutrition Security.

2021-06-21 06:54:00205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15453/146

3801271910181823200307018020010200302111101202000000303

The Dialogue was carried out so that all stakeholders – producers’ organisations, supply chain representatives, professional recipients, as well as representatives of all interested administrative authorities – could have their part in co-creating and consulting the project design from the very beginning. The design was shaped through an intense series of workshops during which the Participants demonstrated considerable involvement and diligence in achieving the objectives of enhancing the quality and reliability of food. Much attention was paid to all aspects of the current situation and of the solution designed. The discussion on these topics ensured that all voices were heard.Act with urgency: The intense series of workshops allowed us to develop a detailed design in as short time as possible. Be respectful: Most of all, the design aims at enhancing the quality of food, and providing support for producers and processors who operate with utmost diligence. Recognize complexity: Given the large number of dependencies, processes, and Participant groups, as well as legal, organisational, and technological aspects that had to be accounted for in the system developed, we chose a working method that best supported us in solving complex challenges. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We have been working in a large and diverse team from the very beginning, and thus were able to approach the challenge from various perspectives, so that no important aspect was left untouched. Complement the work of others: In our designed solution, we accounted for compliance and complementarity with the solutions that already exist in our country and Europe. Build trust: We made the effort to ensure the design process was understandable and transparent for all, and that works were carried out in an open, trustful, and respectful environment.The involvement of the representatives of all key groups in co-creating the design from the earliest possible stage allowed us to develop solutions that address real needs, as well as to diagnose risks at an early stage and manage them effectively.

NoThe National Dialogue was integrated with the works on “Passports for Polish Food” project, which was launched independently in 2020. The assumptions concerning the working method for the project corresponded to the assumptions of the UN method: - identification and involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders; - works carried out in subsequent series of workshops, during which smaller groups searched for solutions to problems identified during previous meetings, engaging different points of view. Furthermore, - the project concerns the whole food chain / corresponds to Action Track 1, and partly to Action Track 2 in subject matter; - the project is innovative in nature; - the project concerns building a specific tool that enhances the functioning of food systems; - the idea of the project is to continuously expand it in terms of both product groups and Participants by drawing conclusions from the subsequent stages of its development, with a view to covering a wide range of products; - the project is a bottom-up initiative. The working method used was tailored to the specific nature of the challenge and to the Participants’ needs. The collaborative working method, making use of design thinking and User-Centred Design helped to develop a detailed design based on the real needs of people in all important aspects of product-related, systemic, organisational, legal, and technological nature. The respective stages involved considerably more stakeholders than indicated in Section 1 (which shows Participants in the follow-up meeting). The participation of associations representing interest groups (such as agricultural industry producers) meant that, in fact, the joint opinions and demands of the given environment were taken into consideration.

234238239243246248250Building a food identification system in Poland that allows actors in the food chain to access transparent and reliable information on where and how food is produced falls into Action Track 1 – Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all – and ties in with Action Track 2 – Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. The actors in the food chain, and in particular industry organisations on the market in beef and potatoes, and then in pork, have indicated that the current market environment presents them with a series of problems that hamper or restrict the development of the agri-food sector, and contribute to unfavourable conditions for sustainable development. These include the lack of easily and quickly accessible information about food products, growing number of intermediaries, untransparent supply chain, deteriorating trust in products, and frequent instances of food contamination and adulteration. This state of affairs requires action to prevent these phenomena, so that their negative impact on the agricultural sector is limited and eliminated.235238239243246248250The answer to the problems identified is to build a food identification system which allows actors in the food chain to access transparent and reliable information on where and how food is produced. Such a system should achieve the following objectives: - enhance the positive perception of food produced, and support the sustainable development of the agri-food industry; - yield tangible benefits also for the authorities responsible for supervising the safety and quality of food through enhancing their operations and limiting the costs of inspections; the use of the IT system should also eliminate instances of food adulteration, thereby limiting the need to recall and dispose of batches of products in the supply chain (preventing loss and waste of food); - develop a dedicated API once the designed project is launched (should the pilot run confirm that technological and organisational capacities can be met), thanks to which the consumers will gain access to exhaustive information on food products.236238239243246248250In conclusion, the project/National Dialogue Participants have deemed in the course of discussions that the implementation of a digital system tracking the process of production would bring diverse benefits. The system built will provide a wide range of information about food products, primarily thanks to innovative functions, and will also allow integration with the existing reference databases. This way, the Polish agri-food industry will gain a system that features high-quality, reliable, and unfalsifiable data on agri-food products which, ultimately (after the pilot run), will be made available to all actors in the chain, including consumers, making it considerably easier for them to make conscious purchases.237238239243246248250The Dialogue Participants have agreed as to the diagnosis of existing problems and the need to build a food identification system which would address them. The discussions/areas of divergence primarily concerned the technical aspects of this venture. The most significant areas of divergence concerned: 1. the assessment of the current situation – to what extent the existing procedures and data sources could be used, and what changes to them are needed; 2. data availability and integration challenges – how to obtain data that are currently not available in a digital form; 3. the construction of the system and technological aspects – the advantages and disadvantages of building a single system for all participating sectors versus separate systems for the respective types of food; 4. the scope of data collected (content of the so-called passport).

2021-06-21 07:12:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23084/203

23612111871211122477250

The dialogues was convened with respect to all the summit principles of engagement. Particularly the dialogue promoted multistakeholder participation by gathering together participants from academia, research, government, civil society, development agencies, farmers organisations and the private sector. The dialogue identified sustainable actions that would help achieving the SDGs while understanding the complexity of food systems. The dialogue embraced multi-stakeholders inclusivity to bring diverse perspective and experiences which are essential in understanding grassroot obstacles that limit sustainable food systems. The dialogue ensured all participants could take part to the discussions and tracked all reactions.Act with urgency: We recognized the urgency of action at all levels to link climate change and nutrition. Commit to the Summit: We commited to practice what we preach personally and professionally to contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. Be respectful: Within our respective capacities and circumstances, we promoted food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and promote protection of natural resources. Recognize complexity: We recognized that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We supported inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities that bring in diverse perspectives, and assessed potential trade-offs. Complement the work of others: We tried to ensure that the dialogue aligns with, amplifies and accelerates these efforts where practicable. Build trust: We worked to ensure the dialogue promoted trust and increase motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement and implementation.It is essential to uphold summit principles of engagements when convening a dialogue because they guide inclusion and effectiveness of the conversation. They also provide a foundation for easy reporting on the dialogues outcomes, and allow to produce meaningful feedback. We had an open invitation event: this allowed for great live social media reporting and visibility. Encouraging the use of chat box and Q/A discussions was also instrumental and the interpretation in three languages with Q/A answered in three languages contributes to break language barriers and increased participants’ involvement.

Yes

234238241242243244245249250251Climate change, food systems and food and nutrition security are strongly interlinked. The food we eat and how we produce it will determine the health of people and planet, according to the EAT Lancet Commission. Extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency, intensity and severity. The World Meteorological organisation (WMO) indicated that the years 2015–2019 were the five warmest on record and that the 2010–2019 average temperature was the warmest on record. Since the 1980s, each successive decade has been warmer than any preceding one since 1850. There is increased evidence that the effects of climate change have an impact on livelihood choices, work options and time spent on care and other nutrition-related activities, undermining current efforts to reduce hunger and promote nutrition. Evidence suggests that climate-related changes in diets may contribute to 500,000 additional deaths for malnutrition. Furthermore, the effects of climate change on nutrition vary based on wealth status and livelihood and contribute, therefore, to increased inequalities and vulnerability of marginalized groups. The 2020 Global Nutrition Report revealed that progress is too slow to meet global targets to end malnutrition in all its forms. We know that major changes must be made to increase access to affordable healthier diets for all people and planet. The thematic areas covered by the discussion include: 1) The body of evidence showing the interlinkages between climate and nutrition and the existing research gaps; 2) The potential solutions, that optimize synergies between climate change and nutrition and minimize trade-offs; 3) The policy and programmatic approaches adopted by governments and development partners to address present and future challenges. The objective of this dialogue was to enhance understanding and awareness on interlinkages between climate change and nutrition in agricultural investments, as well as their importance for sustainable food systems and solutions to address existing trade offs.235238239242243244245249250251The dialogue recognized the nutritional benefits of climate resilient agriculture and the need for detailed analyses of the interplay between food security and climate change, and their impact on the most vulnerable groups, through a food systems lens. The discussion was focused on the trade offs between human and planetary health to show how transforming food systems is necessary in order to (i) meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, (ii) ensure that diets are no longer a major risk factor for disease and death, and (iii) avoid increasing zoonotic diseases spillover. Ensuring both human and planetary health will depend on several factors and possible solutions, including: - decision making based on systemic approaches and cooperation; - generation and use of evidence for decision making; - political will and action, combined with stronger accountability; in particular, systems of mutual accountability are needed to ensure that actors and institutions involved in food systems contribute fully to the common goal of achieving a sustainable diet for all; - empowerment - negotiation and provision of incentives - data to inform and predict future scenarios - greater consideration towards consumers' choices; for example, promoting healthy and local food by changing consumer behaviour is a crucial element, especially among young people, through creative and innovative ways to make traditional crops, neglected and underutilized species attractive through a formula that meets modern needs. To achieve a healthy and sustainable diet, it is important to contextualize national goals based on local conditions. At country level, designing and implementing climate and nutrition smart agricultural policies and investment plans also requires knowledge about micronutrient deficiencies and their geographic and age distribution. Getting policy makers to implement some of the solutions and advocating for innovative solutions, together with building good partnerships, were identified as key practices for successful stories. Among the main opportunities for positive change it emerged: the adoption of a gender equality approach, the importance of credit schemes, access to land, and continued collaboration through facilitated multi-stakeholder partnerships, a combination of cash transfers and improved home gardening, policies to promote gender transformation in value chain activities to ensure women participation and to increase their adaptive capacity to adequately respond to climate change challenges. For a transition towards more sustainable food systems, it is essential to adopt a horizontal approach, going beyond the sectoral one, for integrated food policies that are able to be implemented in line with the peculiarities of each context. Furthermore, it is important to ensure adequate participatory monitoring and evaluation of projects and activities, especially with young people.236238242243244245248249250251Participants agreed on the importance of adopting a horizontal approach, going beyond the sectoral one, for integrated food policies that are able to be implemented in line with the peculiarities of each context. Stakeholders should focus more on knowledge and capacity building to contextualise actions and find out appropriate solutions tailored to the specific context.236238242244246249Policy coherence and institutional coordination in the climate change and nutrition nexus shall be strengthened by integrating the nexus in existing national and regional multisectoral platforms. One example is provided by the National Executive Secretary of the National Nutrition Development Council of Government of Senegal. It was recognised that one big challenge is related to the fact that currently developed plans for the management for the incorporating climate change nutrition nexus do not exist or are very limited. Also, anther problem is that many programs originate from either nutrition structure/actors or climate ones and dialogue among them need to be facilitated.236238242243251It was stressed the importance of participatory monitoring and evaluation of projects and activities, especially with young people.236238239240241244251In order to impact the whole system it is important to start at both ends of the chain as well, such as engaging with consumers and change the conversation about local food and its social and ecological implications, pushing for local healthy diets and benefitting local farmers, chefs and entrepreneurs.236238243244Most research on the impact of climate change on the nutrient content of crops has focused on staple crops; to date, very few studies have examined how climate change may influence changes in production and consumption of non-staple food groups. More research is needed on how different kinds of crops – particularly those that are nutrient-dense such as fruits, vegetables, and legumes – will fare in a +2 C degree world.236238241242243244246249250251Having both human and planetary health depends on and needs the following: : - Decision-making: prioritizing, cooperating, systems thinking - Evidence: generating it, sharing it, using it - Political will and action: being cautiously bold, learning from the past - Empowerment: of who, for who, and with balance - Negotiation: providing room to move and incentives - Data: to inform and predict future scenarios of decisions - Sharing the planet: global citizenry and sustainability237238239241242243244248249250251During the discussion subject of “combining human health and planetary health", there were some areas of divergence on promotion of healthy diet and EAT diet on specific context that have not reached food security yet. The debate was constructive and all participants agreed on the need to contextualize the choices and having different balances among climate and nutrition considerations according to the contexts. There was also much focus on women empowerment as main generators of changes and sustainability. Another issue raised concerned the massive increase in the human population being the driver of un-sustainable food systems; a paper by UNDP coming out in few weeks should analyze the issue of demography and food systems more deeply and provide some additional and new evidence.

2021-06-21 14:55:08204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10768/203

74435251433112711112191321155311521461446110544

"Be Respectful": To ensure that during the event participants listened to each other and were open to the coexistence of divergent points of view, we engaged 7 experienced facilitators, one for each roundtable, developed a facilitators´ guide, and made sure it was read and understood by all of them. "Recognize Complexity": The dialogue embraced the complexity of food systems by (1) Setting up 7 roundtables on different key elements of food systems (Seed systems, Food Loss and Waste, Digitalisation, Nutrition, Finance, Responsible Business Conduct, and Natural Resources Management); (2) Involving multiple actors from different sectors, constituencies, food systems activities, backgrounds, and nationalities, with different interests and values; (3) Suggesting a few broad and open questions for each roundtable discussion and leaving room for the facilitators to adapt to the issues raised by the participants in relation to the roundtable topic. "Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity": The dialogue (1) Was organized by 7 co-convenors, representing 5 different constituencies (financial sector, private sector, civil society, knowledge institute, public sector); (2) Had 4 high-level keynotes from the international sector, national public sector, private sector, and civil society; (3) Had participants from different sectors, constituencies, food systems activities, backgrounds, and nationalities to enrich the dialogue and make it inclusive; (4) Each roundtable discussion was kick-started by 2 presentations of successful multi-stakeholder platforms on the respective roundtable topic. These presentations were selected to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional, and gender-specific perspectives. "Build Trust": (1) The curator and facilitators were briefed via specific guides to make sure they generated a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect; (2) Chatham House rules were applied; (3) The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that are shared in the feedback and other media are not attributed to single individuals."Act with Urgency": One of the objectives of the event was to “recommend concrete elements on how to integrate working through multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) within the Areas of Collective Action proposed by the UN”. With this, we urged the participants to come up with concrete “solutions” and recommendations on how MSPs can foster food systems transformation, and also give concrete recommendations for scaling up, based on lessons learned from existing MSPs on 7 key food systems-related topics. "Commit to the Summit": (1) We used the FSD format for this event to empower stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. (2) We included in the objectives of the event “add value to the UN FSS 2021 preparatory processes, both in the Netherlands and internationally” and worked hard under tight deadlines to make sure we could organize this event timely, before the Dutch national Food Systems Dialogue in June 2021, the UN Pre-Summit in July 2021, and the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021. (3) We designed the roundtable sessions set-up (a guide to facilitators, leading questions, etc.) to make sure the dialogue was forward-looking, fostered new connections, and enabled the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. "Complement the work of others": This dialogue aims to add value to (1) The 15 Action Areas defined by the UNFSS 2021, in particular the Governance one, cutting across all five action tracks; (2) The Dutch national Food Systems Dialogue in June 2021; (3) The UN Pre-Summit in July 2021; (4) The UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021. Additionally, this dialogue brought together key experts and practitioners in the field of MSPs working on sustainable food systems (WUR, UNDP, Oxfam Novib, Rabobank, etc.) to build on their own work on multi-stakeholder platforms. It provided an opportunity (keynotes and roundtable discussions) to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good.(1) Invite participants from different sectors, constituencies, food systems activities, backgrounds, and nationalities to enrich the dialogue and make it inclusive. (2) Make sure you have the needed capacity to follow up after sending the invitations, to make sure a good mix of participants attends the dialogue. If you have different roundtables, make sure this balance is also achieved for each roundtable. (3) Make sure your curator and facilitators are properly briefed, using the guides and tools provided in the FSD platform, and emphasize their role to create an atmosphere of trust and engagement during the event and the roundtable discussions. (4) Make sure Chatham House rules are announced and applied. (5) Share the concept note and the agenda of the event with the participants before the Dialogue, to allow everyone to prepare and be involved during the dialogue discussions. (6) Make sure you consult with different and diverse stakeholders to decide on the leading questions for the dialogue and the relevant sub-topics. (7) Consider having thought-provoking opening pitches in each roundtable to kick-start discussions. In this dialogue, we had 15 presenters from a wide variety of constituencies presenting 15 multi-stakeholder platforms experiences related to the 7 roundtable topics defined (2 presentations per roundtable, 3 for the roundtable on Natural Resource Management). This catalyzed interesting discussions on challenges, solutions, and recommendations for scaling up multi-stakeholder platforms for each roundtable topic. (8) Ensure sufficient time for meaningful discussion during the roundtables. Often we’re inclined to squeeze in too many presentations and/or contributions which sometimes comes at the expense of time for proper discussion. (9) Ensure you fully understand existing issues and topics of contention with regards to the theme discussed, and have a full overview of the state of play and actual actors that need to be at the table and the potential complementarity and contrast of their contributions and stances.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There is a growing recognition that complex and multi-dimensional issues such as achieving sustainable food systems require innovative, cross-sectoral, and holistic approaches, pooling together the resources, knowledge, and perspectives of different stakeholders. Participants concur that collective stakeholder engagement is indispensable to bring about the policy changes and investments required to achieve sustainable food systems. The Netherlands is well-positioned to contribute to the preparations for the UN Food Systems Summit with innovative evidence-based proposals of “game-changing” initiatives in the agri-food sector, based - amongst others - on its rich experiences with multi-stakeholder collaboration. The Dutch are engaged in many public and private partnerships in and with many different countries and stakeholders in the field of food and water management and climate mitigation. The so-called Dutch Diamond approach, in which government, business, civil society, and knowledge institutions work together is known for this. Multi-stakeholder collaboration is widely recognized as a key “game-changing solution” to achieve sustainable food systems, cutting across the 5 action tracks defined for the UN FSS 2021. This independent dialogue was convened by the Netherlands Food Partnership, Rabobank, Wageningen University and Research, the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW), Oxfam Novib, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It showcased examples, shared practical recommendations, and discussed opportunities for scaling up multi-stakeholder platforms that can be replicated and scaled up in different parts of the world, focusing on its achievements, challenges, solutions, and contribution to systemic change to reach SDG2. Specific roundtables were organized on Multi-stakeholder Platforms in the following domains: *Seeds systems *Food loss and waste *Digitalisation *Nutrition *Finance *Responsible business conduct *Natural resources management -Purpose: *Add value to the UN FSS 2021 preparatory processes, both in the Netherlands and internationally, based on the internationally recognised experience and expertise of Dutch and international partners with Multi-Stakeholder Platforms. *Recommend concrete elements on how to integrate working through multi-stakeholder platforms within the Areas of Collective Action proposed by the UN. -Outputs: They will be captured in a format to feed into (1) the Dutch national Food Systems Dialogue in June 2021 (The Netherlands/online), (2) the UN Pre-Summit in July 2021 (Rome/online), and (3) the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021 (NYC/online).235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The multistakeholder approach is one of the 3 key Dutch priorities for the UNFSS 2021. In general, participants agree multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) are key for SDG2 and the 2030 agenda. Only together stakeholders can address the challenges ahead. Despite the challenges they face, for instance, to level the playing field for each stakeholder to participate and contribute meaningfully, participants agree MSPs can be a good vehicle for the much-needed transitions of food systems, provided they respect a few crucial rules. In this regard, the following suggestions were made for replicating and/or scaling up MSPs working on sustainable food systems: *Legitimacy and efficiency: Core to viable multi-stakeholder platforms are the interlinked notions of legitimacy and efficiency of the structure and the process. -Representation and inclusiveness: These are fundamental key pillars to build the trust necessary for legitimacy. Recommendations raised during the independent dialogue in this regard include (1) making sure from the beginning that all stakeholders affected by the given issue are included and equally represented in the MSP; (2) giving special attention to including minority groups and “unusual suspects” (such as street food vendors, women cooking in markets and other settings). -Political will: Additionally, participants indicated that a strong political will is crucial for effective MSPs, and can also help to convey legitimacy. -Ownership: Furthermore, legitimacy relies on the adequacy of the process to engage stakeholders in a meaningful dialogue in which they feel a sense of ownership and the possibility of gaining benefits. This requires transparency, continuous communication, openness, and respect. In this regard, participants highlighted the importance of (1) having an independent convenor; (2) establishing and respecting transparent processes and governance mechanisms in the MSP; (3) defining clear principles, and in particular, making sure human rights are respected, and (4) instead of having a pre-defined agenda and solutions, ownership requires focusing on country, local and community-owned challenges and solutions. A specific call was made during the keynotes for (funding) “donors and global players to “change their behavior to align to country priorities and respect country ownership”. *Effective collaboration: -Diversity: Fostering a working relationship based on trust, mutual respect, and open communication also requires an understanding of each other's strengths and weaknesses. Stakeholders bring to MSPs their own mandates, interests, competencies, and shortcomings. Unless these factors are openly acknowledged and processes are in place to facilitate stakeholder discussions and negotiations, effective collaboration will not be achieved. Recommendations in this regard included: (1) setting up continuous learning processes; (2) having a clear and uninterrupted communication strategy, including sharing and celebrating results; (3) building on each other’s differences, value those different skills, perspectives and make them work together; (4) recognizing each other’s expertise and strengths, and come together to find common ground; and (5) applying the principle of “sufficient consensus” rather than full agreement on every issue to proceed and move on. -Power relations: Multi-stakeholder platforms have been criticized for failing to address asymmetries and unequal power relations. In particular, the treatment of diverse stakeholders as equals is seen as problematic as it does not recognize the differences in authority, legitimacy, interests, and power of different stakeholders. In this regard, participants indicated the importance of addressing power relations through standards and internal mechanisms and processes for inclusivity, transparency, and accountability. -Effectiveness and accountability: Additionally, MSPs also raise questions related to the effectiveness and accountability of these kinds of mechanisms. In this sense, the dialogue identified as crucial recommendations: (1) defining clear responsibilities for each stakeholder involved; (2) having a clear shared agenda and goals (with time frame) based on a shared analysis; (3) having internal mechanisms in place to make partners accountable; (4) focus on concrete solutions; (5) monitor and evaluate impact; and (6) invest in (mutual) learning about multi-stakeholder approaches. -Time and resources: Finally, participants stressed that multi-stakeholder collaboration requires sufficient time and resources. Time to build trust, withstand internal and external changes, align different stakeholders, build their capacity, and organize processes where they can give input, feel connected and committed, and feel confident and empowered to engage in collaborative work. A specific plea was made to move from a siloed funding approach, which still prevails, so that MSPs can address health and planetary challenges together. Independent MSPs can be a space for constructive and productive deliberation. Participants concurred that multi-stakeholder dialogue in MSPs is useful to make everybody´s voices heard, change behaviors, and empower all actors. In other words, the outcomes of MSPs go beyond the concrete solutions adopted. Multi-stakeholder approaches can be real game-changers to advance food systems transformation. It’s important to note however that decisions taken within multi-stakeholder collaborations should be complementary to, and not substitute democratically accountable and rights-based decision making around food.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Roundtable 1: Seed systems The participants identified several challenges that collaborative efforts in this domain are expected to address, starting with empowering smallholder farmers to access and use quality seeds to improve their harvest and business. Two cases of multi-stakeholder collaboration were presented, the story of Seed NL, an MSP initiated by Plantum, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Sowing Diversity = Harvesting Security Programme of Oxfam Novib and partners. One key challenge of multi-stakeholder collaboration initiatives is that they need to have everyone on board, and to be aware of the unequal power relations that might be reproduced in multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs). Trust building and making sure that all stakeholders invest time is key for lasting results. Often, there is a lack of or only partial evidence informing the design of (seed-related) policies. In addition, there is often incomplete data and a lack of analytical knowledge about project impact, or MSP impact in particular. At the same time, the economic sustainability of projects is of key importance. Recommendations: -When implementing MSPs for seed systems in a particular country, a long-term vision needs to be created for the development of the seed sector in that country. As plant breeding is a long-term process, there is a need for long-term thinking and commitment. Funders need to acknowledge and cater for this as well, moving from project-based to longer-term programs-based funding. -Any collaborative initiative needs to start with an identification of needs, before solving the problem. Also, it is necessary to bring evidence to the table in policy-making and design processes. -Farmer breeding and seeds systems need to be recognized. -MSPs must move beyond controversies, building trust by having transparency and accountability mechanisms in place. There should be regular outreach to involved actors, especially farmers, and a neutral convening partner. -MSPs in developing countries need more and more diverse (Dutch) private sector involvement. Private sector branch organizations such as VNO-NCW and Netherlands Africa Business Council can play an important role herein, whereas possibly the legislative and regulatory bar for Dutch companies to step in should be lowered. -MSPs and investment by Dutch/international actors in local seed systems need to be aligned with existing national agricultural investment plans. Cases presented: Case 1: SeedNL https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/218/Seeds_case_1-SeedNL_Slidedeck.pptx.pdf Case 2: Sowing Diversity = Harvesting Security Programme https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/214/The_sowing_diversity_is_harvesting_security_program_Bram_De_Jonge.pdf236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Roundtable 2: Food loss and waste After the presentation of two multi-stakeholder platforms focused on food loss and waste (Food Waste Free United, and the Cool Move), the dialogue at this table identified several common challenges. One of them is that it may be difficult to convince participants of the added value of the MSP in the kick-off phase, due to the high costs involved in terms of time, effort, and money. It is also demanding to get all members to commit and follow through on a similar level of actions: some actors may join with enthusiasm at the beginning but then lose interest along the way and will need to be pushed. In particular, public and private collaboration may be challenging if there is no alignment of objectives, and when there are divergences of visions among partners. In the next three years, working in multi-stakeholder platforms could have the greatest impact if stakeholders get the urgency of the food systems’ transition on the table and create momentum. This would imply creating consensus and celebrating successes. Recommendations: -Some key conditions need to be in place for a successful MSP, such as having a strong and independent driving group of convenors/facilitators, and having a shared ambition and agenda, which creates a sense of community and participation in a joint social impact initiative. -Additionally, it needs to be clear what’s in it for partners in the MSP, and a clear set of incentives needs to be there, such as the ability to create synergies by working with partners that complement each other. -It is also important to create ownership especially among local actors - this is not easy, and will take time and energy - and to ensure political commitment to allow all actors to meaningfully engage. This entails setting robust standards for transparent engagement, to allow less powerful actors to be involved and give them a clear mandate. It is crucial to grasp opportunities for the alignment of powerful players with less powerful actors. -A clear scaling strategy is necessary to scale successful MSPs (also as a visual, based on an integrated view of the value chain), as well as identifying and engaging scaling partners. Such scaling strategy needs to follow a regional or national/local approach, as there is no one scaling strategy that applies to all. -Another key aspect for well-functioning MSPs is to provide quality information and data along the whole value chain, to improve measuring, monitoring, and learning. -To develop effective MSPs there is a need to guarantee the long-term funding, also for facilitation, and the (overhead) cost of a professional coordinating team. -Creating peer exchange networks between partnerships working towards the same goal can help to share learnings and scale-up. Cases presented: Case 1: Food Waste Free United https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/213/Multi-stakeholder_platform_working_on_halving_food_loss_and_waste.pdf Case 2: The Cool Move https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/219/FLW_case_2-Rabobank_The_cool_move.pptx.pdf236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Roundtable 3: Digitalisation This roundtable discussion was informed and inspired by two examples of multi-stakeholder platforms: Auxfin Burundi and Digifarm. The dialogue continued identifying challenges and opportunities of working in MSPs in this domain. Theynmay help create more collaboration and alignment in the digital-for-agriculture sector, with the potential to tackle the often seen duplication of efforts. In this sector, competition between MSP partners may hamper data sharing and co-creation of digital solutions, and limit cooperation to foster the interoperability of systems. Open source for example is seen as a dilemma: it may contribute to the adoption of innovations at scale, but it can also limit the financial sustainability for the creators. The latter is a challenge in this sector: much of the infrastructure for digital solutions still needs to be built up, so large investments by (big) players are necessary, with the resulting need to earn back the cost. Recommendations: -Multiple actors working on digitalisation in agri-food should take responsibility to develop this sector further to deliver on food security outcomes. They can grasp opportunities to improve the performance of this sector through cooperation. -The Netherlands should invest in digitalisation as a contribution to food security, and Dutch actors can share their broad experience in this domain with LMIC actors. -Stakeholders working on digitalisation and mainstream organisations need to capitalize on their differences. Introducing technology and creating infrastructure is only one aspect, adoption of digital tools by farmers requires cooperation between different actors. -MSPs in digitalisation can learn from each other and from collaborative platforms in other domains. They may particularly benefit from dedicated support to balance interests and powers. As new partners are introduced to address challenges of MSPs, balancing interests is needed. -When there is competition around sharing data or open/closed source code, a middle way can be found by sharing some types of data or working with partly open/closed source. It is not all or nothing. -Actors active in the digital-for-agriculture domain need to document how food security benefits from digitalisation. -Digital industry standards of world regions should be aligned. Common standards and regulations can improve the enabling environment by creating a bigger playing field for digital for agriculture actors to scale and cooperate more easily. Cases presented: Case 1: Auxfin Burundi https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/212/UMVA.a_Digital_Food_Systems_Service_platform_Yannick_Chokola_Roundtable_Digitalization.pdf Case 2: Digifarm https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/216/DigiFarm_Sieka__Gatabaki_Roundtable_Digitalization.pdf236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Roundtable 4: Nutrition Improving nutrition security requires a systemic approach, which combines for example creating demand with improving the enabling environment and the supply of nutritious foods. This makes it more complex and is why it is not always easy to deliver outcomes at the level of improved diets (i.e. which are more diverse, safe, healthy, and affordable). But it is also why working through a multistakeholder approach is promising. These were among the findings of a recent evaluation of nutrition PPPs commissioned by the Netherlands Working Group on international Nutrition (NWGN), the preliminary outcomes of which were shared during this independent dialogue. The other successful example presented was the Vegetables for All project in Tanzania, an initiative that benefited from the complementarity between its partners: Rijkzwaan, TAHA, Rabobank, World Vegetable Centre, ICCO, WUR, and GAIN, who collaborated in a whole vegetable chain approach from seed to stomach. Currently, some of the instruments used in international cooperation are not (yet) designed to achieve these systemic outcomes or to take such systemic approaches, which may make (potential) coalitions risk-averse and slow down progress. Recommendations: -When developing food and nutrition security initiatives, 'nutrition' should not be considered as a theme to choose, but rather as a topic that needs to be mainstreamed. -Approaches need to be about food AND nutrition security to prevent that it is food OR nutrition security. -Financing and investment for nutrition needs to be enhanced. -National and international donors and impact investors should improve on the conditions of their instruments, i.e. being more explicit on the nutrition outcomes they intend to achieve. -Monitoring and evaluation must pay attention to potential trade-offs that could occur as a result of project selection criteria: some criteria for effectiveness may limit the inclusion of certain farmers or consumers. -It is important to manage expectations of public-private collaboration for nutrition. In some cases, this may imply lowering certain expectations if some are not realistic. -Communication about healthy diets and nutrition with different stakeholders in different parts of the world could benefit from clearer messaging, and from integration as part of broader approaches. Cases presented: Case 1: Evaluation PPPs in Food and Nutrition Security https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/220/Nutrition_case_2-NWGN_Evaluation_PPPs_in_FNS.pdf Case 2: Vegetables for All project in Tanzania https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/221/Nutrition_case_1-GAIN-Veg4all.pptx.pdf236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Roundtable 5: Finance The dialogue started with the presentations about the Agri3 Fund and the case of Cooperative Development in the Chilean Food and Agriculture sector, based on the Dutch diamond approach. Among the challenges identified in this group was that time, effort, and money are usually required but not always available to develop ambitious ideas to start an MSP initiative. Also, a challenge is the different language and corporate culture which different stakeholder groups represent - e.g. bankers vs civil society vs government. Smallholder farmers are too often deemed to not yet be “relevant” players in food systems and are hence overlooked in policies, sustainable transformation, and finance. Moreover, the difference of power within the multi-stakeholder platforms might hinder the voice of smaller players. This implies that multi-stakeholder initiatives in this domain need to proactively address communication, trust, and alignment challenges, fostering continuous engagement and knowledge sharing. Working with neutral academic and knowledge institutions may help tackle the lack of trust, if applicable. It is also important to build a core team, and a delivery unit. In addition, these initiatives also need to carefully balance and deliver on various development impact domains, including economic, social, and ecological sustainability. This needs a clear vision and a common policy: ‘SMART’ objectives, concrete data, and a delivery model. It also needs investment in resourcing through manpower and funding. Recommendations: -To build a multi-stakeholder platform that incorporates or focuses on finance, it is important to involve specific key stakeholders: commercial banks, who have a local infrastructure; public and private investors; clients (traders, aggregators, producers, farmers), governments (local, global), academic institutions, NGOs. -Clear roles have to be defined, and every stakeholder should have a stake in the MSP governance. -Ensure there is a business case for each of these MSP partners, be it through impact, financial returns, changing practices, and/or others. -Explore innovative financing mechanisms like blended finance, and simultaneously build knowledge and capacity through technical assistance allowing research engagements and sectoral analysis. -MSPs working on finance for SFS should take into account that digitalisation and sustainability are two key trends that are becoming more and more important for involved stakeholders and customers. -Use a local sector approach and/or landscape perspective to present common themes like regulatory improvement or to identify the sustainability agenda, developing research, and finding sustainable business cases. -Share learnings within and beyond the MSP (i.e. with other MSPs and sector actors) to drive further change. -As many organizations tend to work in silos, MSPs may require a change in operating models individually and not only collectively. -Agility and diversity are important too: In changing circumstances, use the capacity of different organizations to create solutions and create value opportunities. Cases presented: Case 1: Agri3 Fund https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/222/Finance_case_1-Rabobank_Agri3.pptx.pdf Case 2: Cooperative Development in the Chilean Food and Agriculture sector https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/217/Chilean_use_case_Smallholder_framers_as_part_of_food_chain.pdf236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Roundtable 6: Responsible Business Conduct The dialogue started with presentations about the global partnership for the True Price of food, which plans to deliver a global measurement standard, an open-source benchmark database, scientific foundations, a policy toolbox, and support for SMEs and farmers. The other MSP example on responsible business conduct presented was RSPO, a not-for-profit that unites stakeholders from the 7 sectors of the palm oil industry: oil palm producers, processors or traders, consumer goods manufacturers, retailers, banks/investors, and environmental and social non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to develop and implement global standards for sustainable palm oil. The roundtable identified the challenge for multi-stakeholder platforms to systematically engage rural communities and bring in their perspectives. Experience shows that it is necessary to have the involvement of (local) governments to build political will, while businesses also need to be part of the conversation. It is important to realise that when working with different stakeholders results will never be perfect and to be aware that there may be power asymmetries between businesses and other stakeholders. It is key to build trusted coalitions and share knowledge. Another challenge is to have a long-term perspective as well as good incentives, which are more than just having a (future) profit and are based on real problems. Finally, there is a need to effectively link multi-stakeholder platforms’ work in (potential) LMIC markets with work in OECD markets. Recommendations: -For MSPs to be effective, both businesses and local communities need to be engaged from the beginning, as well as representatives of the government. All relevant stakeholders are needed to generate a successful initiative, develop incentives for action, and build political will. -MSPs on Responsible Business Conduct should include aspects of certification, standards, verifiability, shared accountability, incentives, living wages, as key ingredients for a multistakeholder approach to be successful. -Co-create new visions and stories about what is “sustainability”. Internalising external costs in prices will also provide new incentives for the farmers directly; while it will be motivational for them to know additional money will be spent on projects (e.g. restoring biodiversity). -Ensure an equitable share of costs and benefits. -Promote access to information for everyone, in particular for people at the beginning of the value chain, by applying, for example, open-source principles. -Improve land governance, by adhering to land tenure rights, including the gender dimension, as a framework. -Bring in the local voices - Focus on the vulnerable (e.g. legal aid) and include the community. Invest in empowering local representatives and other stakeholders, if needed to balance power asymmetries. -Don't shy away from the elephant in the room: the critical perspective, also among friends, is needed for a successful MSP. -Global partnerships and coalitions are needed for scaling up MSPs. -Learn from others, share best practices, and act fast. Crises can create opportunities for multi-stakeholder collaboration. Cases presented: Case 1: True Price of food https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/223/CSR_case_1-Trueprice.pptx.pdf Case 2: Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil https://rspo.org/about236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Roundtable 7: Natural Resources Management The dialogue started with the presentation of three cases of multi-stakeholder platforms focusing on natural resources management: (1) the Cisdoma land-use efficiency case for organic pepper small-holder farmers in Vietnam, (2) Rikolto´s case of sustainable landscape management to save the lake Maslago, which feeds Nicaragua’s cities, and (3) the IDH Sourceup case, a multi-stakeholder coalition promoting sustainable intensification while reducing deforestation and generating income in Mato Grosso, Brazil. The group identified several challenges of working in multi-stakeholder platforms, starting with the management of power dynamics. From the beginning, issues such as who takes the initiative to start the MSP, if it was born from a specific interest, and the common concern that provides an entry point for collaboration, influence the MSP dynamics and outcomes. Additionally, the scalability of often small initiatives is considered a risk, as is the quality of data available to and from different stakeholders. The role and involvement of the government - at all levels - needs careful attention. Finally, another challenge is the sustainability of multi-stakeholder platforms beyond projects and programs. Exit strategies are often an afterthought, and even if local actors can take over, additional resources are often no longer available. To address those challenges the participants stressed the importance of a holistic approach - integrated landscape management, which involves a whole region and all stakeholders. The leadership and participation of all actors are key in that approach, as is the use of validated methods and tools and neutral facilitation. Recommendations: -All MSPs need to have a clear purpose and respond to a clear need. They are not an end in itself or the answer to everything. -MSPs should be designed in such a way that they could be changed or dissolved. Scaling is not always necessary. -There is a lot of experience, also at the micro-level. Lessons and experiences need to be documented and shared. -At the actor level, the participation of actors should be needs-based. To involve all actors, the leadership and participation of local actors through a holistic approach can be facilitated using integrated landscape management. -The neutral facilitation can be organised for example using an online platform: actors can be connected to each other; companies can be connected to their clients. -The government needs to put a strong effort in scaling up, supporting the connections, and different actions. Their support is essential. -It is crucial to look beyond the value chain mentality and understand the system and system dynamics. -Additionally, we should work towards solutions; and we need the right stakeholders to find these solutions; in agriculture, this is often through multi-stakeholder collaboration. “We need to work as coalitions of change, agents of change that take actions!” Cases presented: Case 1: Sourceup case in Mato Grosso, Brazil https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/224/NRM_case_1-IDH_-PPI_landscape_approach.pdf Case 2: Land-use efficiency case in Vietnam https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/215/Land_use_efficiency_smallholder_farmers.pdf Case 3: Sustainable landscape management in lake Maslago, Nicaragua https://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/documents/211/MASLAGO_Saving_the_lake_that_feeds_Nicaragua_Fausto_Rodriguez_Roundtable_Digit_dpNuyvj.pdf237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Most discussion groups did not generate explicit areas of divergence, though it became clear across the seven tables that these areas existed and are part of the challenge of developing effective multi-stakeholder initiatives. Several groups stressed that divergence is important, as it broadens perspectives, and surfacing and appreciating differences is a key step towards becoming an effective MSP. The key areas of divergence that emerged during the dialogue are as follows: -Different actors have different views on how successful the various multi-stakeholder platforms have been. These different perspectives have been voiced during the dialogue sessions and were the background against which recommendations for success were made. -Participants realised that they may have different expectations on the effectiveness of a multi-stakeholder initiative. Some of them indicated that some initiatives, which have been initiated from The Netherlands for example, may not be responsive to the needs and perspectives of the less powerful food systems actors in Africa or Asia, even when its design is of good quality and the Dutch or international actors involved have the proper expertise and experience. -Funding instruments that have been created to facilitate public-private collaboration in the agrifood sector are considered innovative and helpful by some, whereas others find them too bureaucratic or hard to work with. -Some participants indicated they missed the discussion on access to land - as a crucial discussion to have. -Multi-stakeholder platforms risk being just ‘talk shops’ for some, who are reluctant to engage in them if there is no concrete action and if they don’t see a clear benefit or added value for them. -While some participants think we shouldn´t "impose" top-down blueprint solutions but develop local solutions, others think that solutions that have already proven successful in a given context can be scaled up and replicated in other settings. -Some participants called for more attention to end ‘siloed’ thinking and to working in a more integrated manner.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/180521-Concept-Note-Independent-Dialogue-MSPs-for-SFS.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/180521-Agenda-Independent-Dialogue-MSPs-for-SFS.pdfhttps://www.nlfoodpartnership.com/

2021-06-21 15:47:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17858/203

12928643061715442920283341242422216115161157143234011

The co-convened dialogue was widely publicised within the MENA region and targeted participation from a diverse group of food systems actors. MENA based organisations, Universities, Financial institutions and Farmers. The Dialogue provided for sharing lessons from across Africa but mainly from the MENA region.Key note speaker presentations and subject specific discussions were made. Participants had a plenary engagement and group discussions based on the core discussion topics for the improvement of food systems in water stressed regions.

Yes

234238241242243248249250The dialogue was premised on the need to understand if the results from the diverse research topics are effectively reaching the food systems end users notably, policy makers, farmers and consumers. Strategic alliances between scientific institutions, universities and practitioners (farmers, indigenous groups, women, youth, chefs, etc) to foster transformation and prepare the next generation to have a more holistic and systemic perspective are an important pathway for exploring the inter-linkages for sustainable food systems. Mot especially in arears with both diverse and common contexts such as the MENA region.235238240241242243248249General Overview • Despite COVID-19 crisis, it has provided opportunity for FS transformation • But the pandemic adds to the MENA additional burden on top of; oil crises, political transitions & food imports • Agri-food system in the MENA region has shown some resilience but in a varied manner across countries &; across sub-sectors e.g. aromatic plants less affected but fruit sectors heavily affected in case of Jordan • The food systems in the MENA and the policies that support them have contributed to poor nutritional outcomes. • Agricultural subsidies and food security policies in the region generally favor energy–rich staple food production, without sufficient attention to promoting nutrient–rich foods. • The food system has also economic, social, and environmental outcomes • Social cash transfers have been used as one of the strategies for mitigating the impacts of the COVID-19 in Egypt, Sudan and Jordan • Agriculture &; Agri-food systems is well positioned for post-covid 19 recovery but good to learn from successful countries; in terms understanding public investment, policy frameworks.. • Integrating private sector to lead growth in the agri-food systems • In order to increase food production in a sustainable and healthy manner, research and innovation is critical Research and University Engagement • Research and innovative technologies should target conservation of the food products/system: • The main issue in processing is product conservation to minimize waste. Simplifying supply chains (connecting consumers to farmers) • Providing policymakers with data and analytics to better understands supply and demand imbalances • The transformation of food systems requires interventions beyond research and technology innovations • Shift from linear approaches to research in food systems toward more interlinked and interdisciplinary process of food system research and analysis Implications going forward • Need to be cautious that improving economic outcomes of FS seems to be the main driver of digitalization..often ignoring aspects such as environmental aspects • Entrepreneurship innovation as a critical point for valorizing technology and innovation • Universities are supposed to be drivers of change and innovation but most of the innovations from universities have not been able to create startups but rather there has been a string emphasis on publications • Need to create entrepreneurship enabling environments at universities • Working on IT valorization at universities • Adopt a food systems approach that acknowledges inter-system linkages and the multiple outcomes of the food system. • Transformation is a shared responsibility that involves partnerships among all sectors of society and transparency is a prerequisite for the success of those partnerships236238240241242243248249250251Strengthening Food Systems Research and Innovations: What new Frontiers are needed? • Food Systems are inter-linked and run across the value chains. • Food Systems need to be sustainable in all that we do, there is need for research and capacity development across the Value chain • Adapt technologies and innovations to local context and need to adopt feasible technologies that make sense from the income perspective of farmers • Promote partnerships including reverse linkages across countries within financial institutions to promote engagement operations Target robust solutions which are scaleable and demand driven- consider for example indigenous foods and the scientific solutions must make sense to the indigenous people Human Capital Development for enhanced sustainable and inclusive Food Systems Productivity and Resilience Interventions • Efficiency in agriculture: needs to improve the efficiency of our local food production systems • Encourage and attract young people into agriculture: Our education systems in the universities…previous processes taught simply what was on offer but today, there is a switch to agriculture as business…thus…show youth that agriculture is beyond food production • Collaboration: need to come together to address the common problems • Transition of agriculture to food value chains: looking beyond traditional production for household food security (availability)…unlocking the income potential of agriculture is critical in lifting smallholder farmers Institutional arrangements • Policy making and financial making should be complementary to those existing at country level • Policy should focus on improving on the enabling environment including; technology, inputs, and value chains &infrastructure to enable active actor participation • Take advantage of digital agriculture • Share the models and piggy back how to address institutional challenges • Provide a mechanism for lesson sharing and solution building • Bringing the private sector to in particular enhance the deployment of ICTs to enhance functioning of FS • Bring on board financial institutions to enhance FS e.g. production processes, support the enabling of credit • Create harmonization that can enable ease of movement of goods and services across regions

2021-06-21 16:10:38204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13549/2339878897101113123130139145180

83020421744142251345

Given the complexity and sensitivities around the food systems summit, hence the need to build trust among stakeholders, the co-conveners organised a session to raise awareness among interested stakeholders from Asia region about land issues and food systems and the UNFSS processes, in April prior to the actual independent dialogue (ID). The pre-ID session assisted in building a wider commitment from stakeholders to participate in the ID and other summit processes. It also emphasised the need to act with urgency given the interdependency between the 2030 agenda and the food systems. The actual ID was held virtually, embraced the UNFSS stipulated principles of engagement within its possible parameters. The ID was published widely via social media and other channels for a multi-stakeholder participation. The ID was started with a keynote speech to set a tone for the discussions framed on land and food systems. In order to accommodate the diversity of opinions among the participants, the discussion was clustered into four thematic areas conducted in sub-discussion groups: i. Women and youth ii. Indigenous peoples’ land and territories iii. Pastoralists, and iv. Landless communities and farmers. Facilitators and notes takers of each of the group were briefed prior to the ID on the principle of engagements. (Some facilitators participated in the facilitator training offered by the UNFSS secretariat). The ID was concluded with a plenary session where each sub-group presented to the audience a summary of their discussion including key recommendations. The audience was given an opportunity to ask questions or make any comments.The ID was announced via social media and other communication channels of the co-conveners. This resulted in 82 people participating in the ID from all parts of the region. The participants represented women, men and the youth from family farming organisations, peasant and indigenous organisations, agroecology movements, UN agencies, international NGOs, organisations working in urban and rural areas, universities etc. The Dialogue paved the way to build new and/or strengthen and broaden the existing partnerships. The wider participation, the input provided and the commitments expressed were reflection of building trust, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and overall commitment to the summit. Overall, the ID was a constructive discussion which respected diverse opinions among the participants. The solutions suggested for the identified challenges in the discussions recognises the interconnectedness and complexity of food systems and the need to find broader and holistic solutions. The diversity within the participants brought to light the complementarity in each other's work in relation to certain common challenges highlighting the need to find common solutions. For example, the challenges linked to customary land tenure issues were common to many of the sub-groups which emphasised the necessity of working horizontally among these groups.The introductory session organised before the ID was helpful to bring urgency to the summit’s focus, dealing with current sensitivities attached to the summit and build a larger buy-in. (build trust, act with urgency, commit to the summit) Having a keynote speech at the beginning of the ID was helpful to both save time in thematic discussions to avoid dealing with generic issues together with paving the way for a more focused discussions. (recognise complexities, build trust, commit to the summit) Building alliances with a group of organisations to co-convene the ID was helpful to reach out to a wider stakeholders base, increase visibility and build legitimacy to the ID process. (embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, compliment the work of other, build trust)

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The principal focus of the independent dialogue was to bring attention to the centrality of secure land rights in building sustainable food systems with the objective of brining land issues to the discussion processes of the summit and integrate into its outcomes. The entire food system of the world is inextricably connected to land. Hence, if there is a fundamental positive change in the way we manage land we can make the global food systems sustainable, whilst simultaneously reaching the targets of climate-change mitigation and averting the dramatic loss of biodiversity. Overall, it will cater to achieving the intended targets of the 2030 sustainable development agenda. The current food systems are evidently inadequate in addressing poverty, hunger and malnutrition worldwide. Almost 80 percent of the world’s poor and food insecure live in rural areas, mostly depending on agricultural production for their subsistence; i.e. an important number of the world’s hungry base their livelihoods on access to land and other natural resources. Given land’s economic, socio-cultural and political importance, tenure security is critical to livelihoods and food security. Strengthened resource rights increases the likelihood that farmers invest in their land, boosting productivity and contributing to food security. Secure tenure of Indigenous Peoples over the forests they live, dramatically reduces deforestation and other forms of environmental degradation contributing to climate change mitigation. According to the research conducted by the International Land Coalition with its members, land inequality directly threatens the livelihoods of an estimated 2.5 billion people involved in small-scale agriculture, as well the world’s poorest 1.4 billion people, most of whom depend largely on agriculture for their livelihoods. Global inequality experts blame the upward trend of land inequality partly on the increased interest from corporate and financial actors, such as investment funds and agricultural land investments. As corporate and financial investments grow, ownership and control of land becomes more concentrated and increasingly opaque. Today, the largest 1 percent of farms operate more than 70 percent of the world’s farmland and are integrated into the corporate food system, while over 80 percent are smallholdings of less than two hectares, which are generally excluded from global food chains. Indigenous peoples and local communities look after 50% of the earth’s surface protecting eco systems and bio-diversity. But they have legal rights only over 1/5 of it. Secure land tenure rights lead to planned food systems based on individual or collective community choices and community driven demands. Land tenure rights for a given duration empowers deciding on efficient, scheduled, appropriate and suitable cropping system and serve as a strong foundation for economic empowerment. It is the basis of human dignity of all communities including indigenous peoples, pastoralists, local communities and landless farmers forming the pathway for right to food among these communities and beyond.235238241242244246247249251Land is where people grow food, hinge upon for its storage, selling, cooking or preparation and utilise to manage food waste. Hence, who owns and controls land have significant impact on how food is produced, processed, marketed and consumed. A large portion of the world’s poor lack quality access to land. Even those with access have limited possibilities to choose over their land. The current food systems are inadequate in addressing poverty, hunger or malnutrition. It is a system that relies on biodiversity loss, land degradation, resource exploitation and pollution. It is a system where the poorest and hungriest people are the small-scale farmers who produce large portion of the world’s food; youth is not attracted to agriculture; unclear and insecure property rights exacerbate conflicts and further contribute to land and environmental degradation discouraging land investments; massive land acquisitions for agribusinesses displace communities affecting local food systems and making communities more vulnerable. Without land tenure rights continuity of native or local seeds die, labour becomes a commodity and character of production and generation of food systems changes. As a result, mobile livelihood systems and occupations relating to food are dismantled. Land tenure is linked to land use systems where types of food generation and production are practiced. Land insecurity disrupts this link limiting the food generation and production systems. To tackle these challenges: - Future food systems should recognise security of tenure as an integral part of building sustainable food systems and take measures to guarantee both formal and customary ownership of land of women, men, indigenous peoples and local communities - Take all possible measures to guarantee equal land ownership between women and men - Make policy decisions enabling women, men, youth, indigenous peoples, local communities and other groups with formal or customary ownership of land to access bank loans, credit, seeds, markets, technical assistance, social welfare and other relevant government services. These policies should be further strengthened by making them legally enforceable as relevant - Improve land tenure systems relating to pastoralists and recognise pastoralists as food producers and build their capacity to meet market demands - Increase investments to ecosystems restoration recognising its importance in building sustainable food systems among local communities particularly of indigenous communities and pastoralists - Revive traditional practices and methods especially the ones held within pastoralists, indigenous peoples and other local communities in efforts to ensure food security - Recognize Indigenous Peoples as agents to allow their self-determined food generation and production systems and practices in finding solutions - Building partnerships among formal and customary land owners resolving conflict among people, communities, governments and the private sector recognising each stakeholders’ role and importance in building sustainable food systems - Address land issues of landless and smallholder farmers through local institutional and regulatory frameworks recognising their role in building sustainable food systems236238241243246247249251Women and Youth Challenges A large proportion of women live in rural settings and contribute to the agricultural sector. For example, women contribute to 80% of the agriculture in Asia. In Bangladesh, nearly 80% of the women live in rural setting and 72.6% of them are engaged in agriculture. Over the years, as men migrate to cities and abroad in search of stable and higher income jobs, women’s participation in agriculture has gradually increased. Despite this increase, women are often not recognised as farmers in many countries and left with little or no decision making powers over the land that they are engaged with. The absence of recognition of their control over land and contribution prevent them from being eligible for government concessions extended to farmers and/or accessing facilities such as credit or bank loans. This also prevents women from effectively and competitively accessing markets and their capacity to organise themselves for collective bargaining. These condition increase the vulnerabilities for land grabbing, evictions or even simply rejecting their access to land with significant impact on their livelihoods. Often government prioritise large scale infrastructure development programmes over individual and collective land rights of the people. Although significant improvement were achieved over the last decade, still in some jurisdictions, women have no property rights or their land rights are registered under male custodians. This prevents single or widowed women from owning land. The Covid 19 pandemic brought many of these vulnerabilities to the surface. Return of men from urban areas led to land grabbing or evictions depriving women from their livelihoods causing loss of income and severe food insecurities among women and their families. Engagement of young people in agriculture is decreasing as often farming is not considered to be economically empowering. Awareness among the youth on land rights and availability of land for agriculture is low. Many countries lack policies on land and youth. Complicated and cumbersome land inheritance policies discourage youth from pursuing agriculture as a livelihood. Solutions - Take measures to guarantee both formal and informal women’s ownership of land. Such measures should be proposed in consultation with the affected communities - Establish joint land titling between wives and husbands - Issue identity cards for women farmers in order for them to access government services such as educational programmes and trainings - Make policy decision for both land owners and women and youth farmers to have access to bank loans, credit, seeds, markets, technical assistance, social welfare and other relevant government services. Some of these policies should be further strengthened trough making them legally enforceable - Build capacities among women and youth farmers about their rights - Create space and make resources available for civil society organisations to work with development agencies to advocate for implementation of enacted laws and policies Stakeholders and partnerships - Governments - Civil Society organisations - Development partners - Indigenous groups, pastoralists and local communities - Public service including local authorities236238240241243246247249Pastoralists Challenges Pastoralists have a unique relationship with nature and territory. Their contribution to the food systems is clearly different to the agribusinesses. It is important that rangelands pastoralists own the land to guarantee a sustainable and healthy food production. It is impossible to invest resources aiming at medium or long term solutions that bring benefit to food systems without transparent and sustainable land tenure for this group. There is a lack of availability of information about rangelands. This co-relates to the lack of legal ownership of land among pastoralists. The lack of full access to rangeland by pastoralists impede mobility, their participation in restoration of rangelands and lack of building infrastructure for their food productions. It also increases conflicts over land. Overall, there is less recognition and acknowledgment of contribution by pastoralists as important players in food systems particularly as legitimate food producers. Solutions - Recognise and guarantee land titles for pastoralists. Information technology can be used to provide data on pastoralists’ populations and their land use - Improve land tenure systems relating to pastoralists and guarantee the contracts for land use - Recognise pastoralists as food producers and build their capacity to meet market demands. Promote pastoralists food/production i.e. through food festivals and other ways to give visibility to what they produce and increase their economic resources - Analyse incentives and disincentives for different users of land resources through participatory approach and manage rangelands to get better achievements - Invest on mobility as a strategy for maintaining a healthy pastoralists system and to use rangelands in a sustainable way, to preserve natural resources. Investments must be done as a way to improve the environmental friendly productions. - increase investments to rangeland ecosystems restoration - Revive traditional practices and methods especially the ones held within pastoralists in efforts to ensure food security - Develop the mobile and distant services for pastoralists Stakeholders and partnerships - Governments at national level - International institutions with platforms which supports and promote the work of pastoralist organisations - Community organisations - Private sector - International donors/investors - Social networks/ Mass media236238241244246247249Indigenous Peoples Challenges Indigenous peoples and their food productions are challenged in numerous ways. With the increasing involvement of big corporations in food production, frequently IPs are forcefully evicted from their traditional lands. This hampers the food produced by IPs using traditional knowledge, increasing food scarcity within these communities. The focus on economic crops such as rubber, cocoa etc. impedes traditional agricultural crops and systems. In certain cases, ecotourism has invaded the land occupied by IPs limiting their engagement with the land. Solutions - Recognise indigenous community lands and their customary lands systems as part of building sustainable food systems - Recognize Indigenous Peoples as agents to allow their self-determined food generation and production systems and practices in finding solutions - Scale up government land distribution policies to indigenous peoples - Establish partnership with the local governments to identify and map the IP territories - Systematically register land recognising IPs right to land - Building capacity & raise awareness among IPs and their leaders about their rights in relation to their land and territories. Engage government officials in these programmes. - Devise mechanisms to resolve land conflicts among IPs, governments and the private sector Build a close network at local, national and regional level for supporting IPs with a particularly emphasis on youth Stakeholders and partnerships - Local government authorities - Youth - National governments - Relevant public servants at national, regional and local levels - Private sector - Indigenous peoples and other local communites236238241243244245246247248249251Landless and Smallholder Farmers Challenges Absence of legal provision in some countries to recognise community/collective land rights of the people, adversely affects the food production by landless and smallholder farmers. Given the lack of recognition, landless farmers are often excluded from discussion tables. Sustained control over land is the basis for sustainable food systems and livelihoods among smallholders and landless farmers. Land tenure insecurity in these two groups adversely impact on food productions through increased conflicts. Secure and stable land tenure is key in accessing government support programmes and first easy step in seeking help from land administration overcoming complex administrative structures and regulatory barriers. If land tenure security is provided, smallholder farmers can play productive role to increase economic capacity of their localities by engaging communities in post-harvest and value added activities. (including food processing, marketing, catering etc.) Landless farmers are often excluded from discussion tables. Solutions - Address land issues of landless and smallholder farmers through local institutional and regulatory frameworks. Land policies should particularly pay attention to the issues of landless and smallholder farmers - Take measure to protect access to commons (e.g. assuring access to non-wood forest products) as they are often key to livelihoods of landless people and contribute to ensure sustainable management of local biodiversity and land restoration - Build partnerships with women and youth constituencies within this group - Share knowledge capturing practices from other countries to resolve issues Stakeholders and partnerships - Women and youth including regional and international women and youth groups - Civil society and international organisations - National and local government authorities - Financial institutions237241243244245246247248249250251Given the paramount significance of secure land tenure for sustainable food systems, we need the attention of all stakeholders including governments, civil society organisations, private sector, international organisations, multi-lateral organisations and donors to come together to strengthen land tenure security of women, men, youth, family farmers, indigenous peoples, pastoralists and landless farmers and other communities as relevant. The stakeholders can be facilitated to come together through multi-stakeholder platforms to identify challenges, find solutions, implement and monitor solutions, channel resources as needed and celebrate successes. The 2030 sustainable development agenda can only be achieved if secure land tenure for all is achieved facilitating to achieves the targets on eradicating poverty, zero-hunger, general equality, climate actions and building peaceful and just soceities.

2021-06-21 18:15:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9111/139

185642991251714111132341321412431330212944

To ensure that participants were respectful, rules of engagement were set at the beginning of the dialogue. In recognizing complexity, the dialogue focused on water’s transformative role in food systems. The objective was to bring key outcomes of a national discussion on food and water systems in a changing climate to the global policy level and to provide tangible inputs into the UNFSS. To embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, the Pakistan dialogue was open to a wide range of stakeholders in the water, energy, food and related sectors ranging from intergovernmental organizations; regional, national and local government departments/entities, development partners; non-governmental organizations; the private sector, research for development organizations; academia; farmers’ groups; and networks. Complementing the works of others, we introduced a plenary session comprising of global and national speakers who discussed the role of water-energy-food nexus in achieving food security transformation for Pakistan. The Dialogue was conducted under Chatham House Rules, where participants were free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, could be revealed. One of the principles had to be adapted: i.e. Commit to dialogue in the lead up to the Summit - the reason for this is that we had invited panelists who were especially critical of the UNFSS process, and through their institutions, have rejected being part of it, and have organized separate Food Systems Dialogues. We needed to allow participants to opt out of committing to the Summit itself, but asked them to commit to the dialogue and achieving food systems transformation in Pakistan in this process.The Dialogue was organized with a focus on developing contributions to the FSS and elaborating pathways toward food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals. The choice of focus on water security for food systems transformation very much addressed the lack of the direct attention to water within the UNFSS structure. The participation of multiple stakeholders was encouraged by bringing together a diverse group of actors in addition to those that typically engage in the area of water, food security, energy and climate change. The Dialogue invitation was sent to key stakeholders in research and academia, international donors, government agencies, farmers and private sector. The Feedback from the eight breakout groups discussions provided new insights from a wide range of stakeholders. Participants were five times engaged using Menti software during the dialogue. Breakout room discussion topics covered eight thematic areas that are highly important for food systems transformation in Pakistan, including both more technical and more policy-oriented topics. 1. Sustainable and renewable energy for food production 2. Climate Change impacts on water and food security 3. Policy coherence, implementation and institutional coordination in water, food, energy and climate change that operationalize the WEF nexus 4. Enhancing performance of water systems across multiple sectors (agriculture, domestic, industry and environment) demands 5. Advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales 6. Enhancing resilience and productivity of irrigated agriculture through the WEF Nexus 7. Community strategies to operationalise equitable WEF nexus approaches 8. Socio-Economic synergies and benefits of WEF NexusWe opted for a 'by invitation only' event conducted under Chatham House rules. While this contributed to establishing a safe space for all to discuss and engage freely, it also limited inclusivity to some extent. Next time, we may consider having an open invitation event and not restricting discussion to Chatham House rules. This would allow for great live social media reporting and post-event outreach. It is recommended to set the stage early on regarding the ‘purpose’ of the Dialogue by explaining the UNFSS’ objectives and vision and action tracks, particularly for the benefit of the stakeholders who may be unfamiliar. This event was an Independent Dialogue with a national focus. Engaging participants’ active audio-visual interventions by way of live polls (using Menti) and encouraging chat box discussions, actions or comments and questions increased participants’ involvement.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251Water security is imposing serious challenges for the social and economic development of Pakistan, listed as the 5th most climate-vulnerable country in the world. Extreme climatic variability (drought/floods) has highlighted the need to manage water resources more sustainably in Pakistan. Being an agrarian country of 220 million people, water resources play a vital role in serving a large population and sustaining the ecosystems. More than 90% of all withdrawals of the available freshwater resources of the Indus Basin are being used for the agriculture sector. Groundwater exploitation due to surface water scarcity, unsustainable irrigation and agricultural practices, and industrial effluents are affecting water quality and worsening the overall health of the basin and its ecosystems. The Indus is vulnerable to changes either due to climate change or due to transboundary conflicts at both national and inter-provincial levels. Groundwater has played a major role in augmenting 60% of irrigation supplies through the privately-installed 1.5 million plus tube-wells for crop production in the basin. There is little credible scientific information available on groundwater monitoring, database development, regulation, environmental implications, and management. The situation gets more severe when tube-wells start tapping into brackish groundwater, accelerating the secondary salinization of irrigated soils, which damages crops and reduces yields. In this regard, groundwater demand management is still a big unknown. Conventional market approaches – of water rights and scarcity prices – are either too unwieldy or too unpopular to implement, while a ‘command & control’ approach has limited effectiveness and very high transaction (implementation) costs. Community-led groundwater management has also had limited success. That leaves us with the ‘nexus approach’ – using energy and food policies to shape pumping behaviour. The Government of Pakistan has developed several national policies for various sectors including water, agriculture, energy, climate and environment. Presently, there is a lack of coherence between the developed national policies for water, food security, energy, and climate change which hinders implementation on the ground in Pakistan. The Water-Energy-Food (WEF) challenges highlight a wider array of issues surrounding smallholder resilience and the complexity of pressures being felt. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted with devastating effect how vulnerable many livelihoods are and how few assets poor farmers (and poor urban workers) have to fall back on. Climate change will exacerbate and multiply the potential impact of future shocks. This regional dialogue therefore seeks to unpack the questions: how can food systems be localized for regional benefits including trade and transformed in a water-constrained Pakistan in a manner that acknowledges WEF nexus linkages? The UN Food Systems Summit Pakistan dialogue highlighted eight key thematic areas on which participants were required to engage in an interactive manner that allowed for small group discussion, collective brainstorming, and agenda setting. The thematic areas covered by breakout groups were: 1) Sustainable and renewable energy for food production; 2) Climate Change impacts on water and food security; 3) Policy coherence, implementation and institutional coordination in water, food, energy and climate change that operationalize the WEF nexus; 4) Enhancing performance of water systems across multiple sectors (agriculture, domestic, industry and environment) demands; 5) Advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales; 6) Enhancing resilience and productivity of productivity of irrigated agriculture through the WEF Nexus; 7) Community strategies to operationalise equitable WEF nexus approaches; and 8) Socio-Economic synergies and benefits of WEF Nexus. Expected key outcome of this dialogue was getting involved and sharing the views of Pakistan stakeholders to better understand WEF nexus under a changing climate and guidance to develop a more climate-resilient water and land solutions in the Indus Basin.235238239240241242243244246248249250251A holistic approach and reliable database on water resources and their use across Pakistan is the key to achieving food, water, and energy security in the fifth most climate-vulnerable country in the world, participants of the UN Food Systems Summit Independent Dialogue (Pakistan) have reported. The Dialogue highlighted the need for transformative approaches to promote equity and inclusion in water energy food (WEF) nexus governance for sustainable water, energy and food systems. Other outcomes from the discussion was the need for a substantial increase in research and development funds for the agriculture sector through active dialogues with donors and development partners. Dialogue participants emphasized improving policy coherence among key ministries through better inter-sectoral coordination and capacity building and raising awareness among researchers, policymakers, government officials, and farmers about the benefits of WEF nexus modelling approaches to optimise agriculture production in the Indus Basin. Furthermore, the participants laid stress on the need for sizable interdisciplinary projects to realise true systems transformation and WEF nexus operationalization through pilot projects in the Indus Basin of Pakistan that hosts one of the world’s largest contiguous irrigation networks. The objective of the dialogue was to discuss how a shared vision for water, energy and food security could be achieved in a changing climate for Pakistan. Research shows that water security is posing serious challenges for the social and economic development of Pakistan, an agrarian country of 220 million people, amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Around 100 participants from 12 countries had shared rich and diverse views on key bottlenecks in implementing the operationalization of WEF nexus in the context of Indus Basin. It was agreed that There is an urgent need for promoting inter-sectoral cooperation through evidence based information to ensure water-food-energy security and environmental sustainability for food system transformation in Pakistan. The event provided an opportunity for in-depth dialogues to take place between diverse actors from across food systems, development partners, government, think tanks, universities, and international organisations. The Pakistan dialogue highlighted eight key thematic areas around which participants engaged in group discussions; 1. Sustainable and renewable energy for food production Key question: How can we sustainably produce more food in the region using low greenhouse gas energy sources? 2. Climate change impacts on water and food security Key question: How can we sustainably enhance food security without compromising water security in the context of climate change? 3. Policy coherence, implementation and institutional coordination in water, food, energy and climate change that operationalize the WEF nexus Key question: What practical steps can/should be taken to ensure policy coherence and institutional coordination to improve water, energy and food security in the region? 4. Enhancing performance of water systems across multiple sectors (agriculture, domestic, industry and environment) demands Key question: How do we enhance resilience of water systems to meet the competing demands of multi-sectors (agriculture, domestic, industry and environment)? 5. Advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales Key question: How can WEF nexus models/tools facilitate new understanding of interdependencies and trade-offs in the WEF nexus, as well as foster data sharing and enhanced decision-making in the region? 6. Enhancing resilience and productivity of irrigated agriculture through the WEF Nexus Key question: How do we build more resilient food and livelihood systems while protecting critical water sources, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services while satisfying growing water demand? 7. Community strategies to operationalise equitable WEF nexus approaches Key question: How can we promote equity and inclusion in WEF nexus governance to create opportunities for transformation towards more just and sustainable food, water and energy systems? 8. Socio-Economic synergies and benefits of WEF Nexus Key question: What steps needs to be taken to assess the benefits and trade-offs across sectors, especially from a socio-economic point of view (employment, health, migration, equity, GDP, etc)? Finally, the dialogue provided a knowledge platform to better understand WEF nexus under a changing climate and guidance to develop a more climate-resilient water and land solutions at multiple scales (farm, irrigation system, basin, country, and regional) in the IBIS. The outcome of this dialogue has provided a technical knowledge for proposing climate adaptation interventions at various scales leading to reduce water consumption from the agriculture sector in major areas of water basins such as the Indus.236239240241243244245246248249251Sustainable and renewable energy for food production Key question: How can we sustainably produce more food in Pakistan using low greenhouse gas energy sources? The group agreed that food production heavily relies on pumping groundwater using more than 1.5 million tubewells in the Indus Basin. These pumps are typically fueled either by diesel or kerosene, or they depend on subsidized electricity leading to high carbon emissions. The WEF nexus provides pathways to examine water, energy, and food security that are inextricably linked in the context of rapid population growth, growing multi-sectoral water demands, and sustainability challenges within and between countries. The session discussed the role of renewable energy sources in the agricultural sector as a means of enhancing sustainable food security, and explored existing technologies, policies, along with emerging opportunities in renewable energy application in the agricultural sector. Following recommendations were proposed; a) Revisiting Agro-Ecological Zoning: The current agro-ecological zoning must be revisited in the context of the WEF nexus approach. Based on which we can map the surface water availability and designated areas for higher delta crops. Areas with less surface water availability would be supplementary irrigated with groundwater. Such areas should be designated for lower delta crops. b) Groundwater governance: There is a need for introducing groundwater governance for estimation of quantity and quality for allowable extraction of water in areas of less surface water availability. Then work on system of incentives and disincentives for the introduction of renewable energy systems and high-efficiency irrigation systems. c) Financial incentives: Incentives are pre-requisite for making possible substantial saving for energy use at the farm level particularly for groundwater pumping. There is also a need to replace the traditional primitive methods of water application with other efficient methods through better extension service. Thus financial incentives through proper policies and strategies should enable farmers to adapt the modern and renewable energy technologies in the farming systems. Such technologies, if adapted on larger scale, will tap the exploitation of groundwater sources like solar pumping system. d) Incentives for small farmers: Policies must be modified so that they can provide incentives to the small farmers who are 70-80% of the farming community for using renewable energy for pumping. e) Capacity building of farming community: 1.5 million farmers having tube wells must be educated for optimal pumping and efficient use of water. That is possible by activating our extension system. f) Integrated energy plans: There is a need for the integration of diverse set up of energy generation resources with storage component to accommodate the productivity load of pumping units. Thus an integrated energy strategy may include energy production at different sources and requirements by different sectors, and finally the supply and gap analysis. We need new ideas like floating solar panels on water surfaces which can reduce water evaporation. g) Bio-Waste Management for Renewable Energy Production: There is a need to convert that waste into energy. All the waste either going into the landfill, while the waste from the agriculture fields is being burnt causing smog. Proper and well-planned policies are required to harness the potential energy from bio-waste. h) Improve efficiency practices in food production: Renewable energy utilization should be complemented with efficient water application. This must be followed by a proper value chain including reduced losses transportation, storage, etc. i) Social Enterprise Mechanism for Sustainability: Social enterprise mechanisms must be a part of implementation frameworks of different policies and strategies to ensure timely and cheaper sustainability of the renewable energy systems used in the farming system. There is a need to work on policy analysis, and evidence-based options for policy reforms, advocating private sector led growth strategies and building the capacity of stakeholders.236238239240242243244245246248249251Climate change impacts on water and food security Key question: How can we sustainably enhance food security without compromising water security in the context of climate change? All participants of the discussion group were agreed that climate change through changes in temperature, rainfall patterns, frequent flooding, drought, and other extreme events is having an unprecedented impact on water and food security in Pakistan. Water scarcity, crop water requirements, and salinity have been increased on the account of climate change and all dimensions of food security- availability, access, utilization of food as well as stability of food systems have been compromised due to these increased risks of climate change. Because of these challenges, participants discussed that the following actions in the next 3 years will have the greatest impact on the discussion topic; • Water security issue needs to be tacked through implementing water accounting and auditing system to re-assess sectoral water demands and needs • Climate smart practices need to be identified and upscaled along with promoting innovative techniques for water saving among farmers • Early Warning Systems and data sharing system need to be improved and provide sufficient early information to end-users to protect them and their livelihoods from negative impacts of extreme events such as floods, droughts, and extreme temperatures including heatwaves • A central level project management system may be introduced at the federal level to avoid duplication of the projects and to keep track of all the projects being implemented in the water and agriculture sector • Integrated support system for agriculture can be introduced with improved access to resources and services (advisory and credit) to enhance food productivity to meet growing needs On the consumption side, there is a need to educate the public to diversify their diets and to reduce their dependence on a single major staple crop – wheat. In addition, the nutrition of the diet should also be considered. All participants also discussed various potential contributions from organizations to make these actions sustainable and useful to sustain food and water security under changing climate. The possible contribution from different actors may include the following; a) Federal and provincial governments and aligned departments: • Develop sound policies for agriculture, water and environment keeping in view of the local needs in addressing food security in relation to changing climate • Devise an effective and improved coordination mechanism for provincial and federal department to discuss ways to make our food systems more resilient b) Development Cooperation/ International organizations: • Support governments in identifying and upscaling innovative climate-smart solutions to make food systems resilient to climate change as well to make them able to meet the growing food demands • Provide more support to the government to revise their policies and translate policy into action and enable them to have sound governance mechanism for implementation of relevant policies c) Academia: • More research on quantifying the impact of climate change on different dimensions of food security as well as water security • Research on institutional mechanism and networking with a particular focus on climate change adaptation d) Civil society/ communities: • Civil society organizations need to use their influence to educate farmers in adopting adaptive measures that improve their resilience to climate change such as water saving, improved varieties, change in dietary patterns, use of nutritious diet. • Communities need to participate in relevant capacity training being organized by various donors or government organizations to learn new ways of protecting their livelihood from extreme events.236239240241242243244245246248249250Policy coherence, implementation and institutional coordination in water, food, energy and climate change that operationalize the WEF nexus Key question: What practical steps can/should be taken to ensure policy coherence and institutional coordination to improve water, energy and food security in the region? Pakistan’s agriculture is valued at US$50 billion and contributes to 20% of the GDP but uses 90% of the water and has the potential to generate US$350 billion with science-based management. Pakistan requires a vibrant agriculture system that addresses poverty and inequality, stemming from evidence-based policy making. To achieve significance on the discussion topic, it is imperative to work on the following areas a) Reducing policy overlaps through institutional coordination. More than 18 agencies working in the water sector, hence overlapping of power—resulting in weak accountability of poor decisions. There is a National Water Policy (2018), while Punjab, KP, and Sindh have their policy. Measures are needed to bring about policy coherence and coordination. The federal government and provincial governments should work within boundaries as per the constitution and be brought under the umbrella of an agency that can be held responsible for overall food systems and agriculture. Bring together IPPs and farmers on board for policymaking. Much headway has been made by various departments, but there is still a lack of political will and mechanism to bring the different projects in the water, food, and energy sector under one umbrella. b) Federalism and lack of clear authority. Pakistan has a hybrid system. Post-18th amendment the perception is that WEF is a provincial subject, however, the federal government has the final say, for instance, in setting subsidies. There is a need to outline a clear mandate if WEF is a national concern. Federal and provincial governments must spell out what is the priority they accord to Food Systems Security with support from the highest level of government and governance. c) Pakistan’s crops have become political crops. Decisions are based on political will and not on scientific research or macro-economic priorities. Incorporating political economy in research and policy discussion is essential for highlighting the negative consequences of political decisions. d) Equity in water is essential. Tailenders crops also have the right to adequate water to protect their welfare. Disseminating the data regarding the transition in dietary habits of households can have a significant impact on policymaking. The recent shift in households’ consumption pattern from an unhealthy diet to a more nutritious diet can be taken as a guide to shift from water thirsty crops to Water thrifty crops. e) Water has to be taken as a commodity otherwise savings in water may not be possible. Revisiting the subsidies in the water sector is critical. Work is required on mapping and modeling water subsidies and creating space for sustainable agriculture by measuring the costs and benefits attached to each subsidy. Likewise, distortions created by such programs must become transparent. f) Crops driven by technology: Technology based remote sensor monitoring and water modeling on cropping patterns and pricing may yield great benefits. The focus should be on exploiting technology and statistical modeling for forecasting production, pricing and consumption. Ways should be explored to make the existing agriculture system more productive. g) Land fragmentation needs to be addressed. As per the 2010 agriculture census, almost 85-90 percent of the land farm size is less than 5 hectares. Linkage of small farmers with multinational and agricultural value-chains, such as through contract farming, needs to be promoted to combat land fragmentation. Moreover, protecting agricultural land that is being taken over by housing societies should be discouraged. Agro-ecological zone-based policy recommendations should feature high on the policy agenda. h) Smuggling of staple crops and misappropriation needs to be tackled. Rampant and unchecked smuggling of agricultural produce out of Pakistan threatens food security in the country.236239240242243244245246248249Enhancing performance of water systems across multiple sectors (agriculture, domestic, industry and environment) demands Key question: How do we enhance resilience of water systems to meet the competing demands of multi-sectors (agriculture, domestic, industry and environment)? All participants agreed that the following important actions needs to implemented in true letter and spirit during the next three years: • Implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management approach to meet increasing demand and competition among various sectors and users • Development of water accounting system for the sectors and improvement of these databases according to water use and disposal • Determining the value of water for each sector and appropriate pricing for all sectors according to the uses • Investment in drinking water supply systems with proper pricing • Treatment, recycling, and reuse of wastewater using the decentralized approach thus protecting vital ecosystem • Use of non-conventional water resources such as wastewater, saline water, rainwater The institutions can help develop water accounting for all the sectors, can provide solutions – simple to complex issues and can provide science based evidence for addressing those issues through conducting adoptive research. They can also help build the capacity of the policy makers, planners, and practitioners to adopt technically feasible, economically viable and environmentally sustainable technologies/practices. They can also help developing policies and regulations for better governance of water resources. Through knowledge sharing, they can develop consensus and trust building among various stakeholders. The following outcomes will help decide about the success of the proposed actions: • Comprehensive national water accounting is available • Sectoral database is developed with open data sharing policies among various sectors • The process of integrated water resources management has been initiated • Financial sustainability of irrigation system is achieved • Safely managed drinking water supplies are improved • Wastewater is treated at the sources before disposal • Groundwater recharge zones are developed and artificial groundwater recharge technologies are practiced. • The quality of water resources for eco-systems is improved.236238239240241242243244245246248249250Advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales Key question: How can WEF nexus models/tools facilitate new understanding of interdependencies and trade-offs in the WEF nexus, as well as foster data sharing and enhanced decision-making in the region? All participants agreed on the following action points. a) There is a need for a comprehensive review of the state of the art in WEF modelling, which seems to be sparse and partial given our discussions. Although there are models on water, energy, and food subjects (economic models, hydrological models, crop models, etc.), they are disciplinary and do not provide adequate, integrated insights and solutions. Hence, fully integrated WEF models are needed for synergy and trade-off analyses, and to assess water-energy-food interdependencies in an integrated way. Currently, many organizations are working on developing multidisciplinary models with a system approach. However, WEF models are still too often academic exercises and, therefore, the implementation of WEF models for policy and investment purposes is limited. b) The discussants suggested that the focus in the coming years should be on tying research organizations together to reach across silos in research as well as government organizations. For example, IFPRI and IWMI collaboration in partnership with local/national partners can help to foster the collaboration of departments of agriculture and irrigation. The discussants raised this point because WEF is a nexus approach, whereas most organizations in Pakistan are working in silos that are often built around individual disciplines. International research institutions can organize dialogues across all stakeholders, arrange awareness campaigns on WEF models, and organize training sessions to showcase the importance of working in an integrated way. c) The discussants agreed that there should be a focus in coming years on selected examples, like solar tubewells, which provide a connection between hydropower, irrigation and even food security in the Indus basin. Examples such as solar tubewells will demonstrate the value of more comprehensive WEF models. Some discussants were of the view that solar irrigation can result in overexploitation of groundwater aquifers and hence question the sustainability of groundwater use, whereas other discussants thought that such issues will provide an opportunity to integrate different institutes to address sustainable use of resources. The group concluded that our institutions could engage in developing WEF models further and can assist in designing protocols for data collection and management (including sharing of data) It will not be enough however just to develop models and protocols, but the capacity enhancement and policy dialogues will be equally important activities that our organizations can take on. For example, building the capacity of local academic and research institutes to work with WEF models, so that they can understand and implement them, will add to the sustainability of these efforts. To successfully achieve this capacity enhancement, ongoing stakeholder and policy dialogues on the usefulness of WEF models as applied to critical issues in the country are needed. As this process proceeds, our organizations can assist in identifying barriers to legal and governance issues that limit the implementation of WEF models. Finally, this session identified the silos that exist and limit the usefulness of WEF models at present, so our organizations need to work together to maximize the impacts of outputs derived from modeling and data management exercises. Thus, coordination on the international research side is also required.236240241242243244246248249Enhancing resilience and productivity of irrigated agriculture through the WEF Nexus Key question: How do we build more resilient food and livelihood systems while protecting critical water sources, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services while satisfying growing water demand? There are tradeoffs between the use of water and the use of energy for agriculture and other purposes. It is important to bring in biodiversity and ecosystem in this challenge and try to improve the resilience of productivity of irrigated agriculture through water energy and food Nexus. It is significant to understand the impact of climate change on the availability of water and food production while addressing food security in irrigated agriculture. Climate change in Pakistan especially in the Indus basin is bringing erratic rainfall patterns. Climate change is shifting the water availability, for instance, unprecedented rainfall, increase in temperature is changing crop water requirement, that affects crop maturity, crop growing is shortening, often monsoon starting earlier or later, etc. There is a lot of uncertainty in terms of water availability in terms of temperature increase during day and night and for both Rabi and Kharif seasons. Therefore, we need to increase the productivity of irrigated agriculture by effectively utilizing the land and water resources while ensuring that alternative energy sources are not being misused. The Government of Pakistan is promoting solar power and extraction of water from the ground but there is a need to do some research and determine how this would increase productivity and improve the food systems. There is a role of solar panels and solar electricity that is not only beneficial in pumping out the groundwater but also have a significant role in pumping out saline water which is particularly used in Sindh with scarp tubewells. Probably there are ways to put control how much water can be extracted from freshwater areas. Around 1.5 million tubewells are operational in Pakistan yet there is no data on the extraction of water and stress water zones. A better approach would be to set and identify the stress groundwater zones, and allocation of each zona needs to be agreed upon with the community and relevant stakeholders so that the people are aware of the fact the water level is depleting. Community-based engagement of stakeholders in managing aquifers and groundwater is extremely important to address the availability of water issues for productive agriculture. Moreover, a systematic approach is needed with much more information for balancing tradeoffs. While making a decision, consider a link between managing the canal and groundwater, and determine the impacts and implications of canal risk management. Canal management is an intervention tool, for recharging groundwater. Conservative water management is important that is already happening in Pakistan however, there is a need to further improve the traditional water management to adopt a water balancing system approach and to understand the availability of resources to be used efficiently. In summary, a systematic approach is required to improve productivity by integrating packages that include pumping, storage, efficient irrigation systems, tools, technologies/techniques/practices, etc. to increase productivity–isolated solution does not work sustainably. There is also a need to realize limits- the system is already touching limits against the growing demands - need to prioritize science and technology. Tools and models shall not be used only for decision-making but also to encourage discussion with stakeholders through effective participation. It could be a difficult process, but to tackle the complex problems difficult solutions need to be proposed. Existing systems need to be updated and parallel to that introduce the latest technologies. Also within irrigated agriculture, water counting and water balancing are required, to identify hotspots of water productivity, and do more analysis of why water productivity for some crops in one area is more than others that will help in addressing the issues.236238239241242243244245246248249250251Community strategies to operationalise equitable WEF nexus approaches Key question: How can we promote equity and inclusion in WEF nexus governance to create opportunities for transformation towards more just and sustainable food, water and energy systems? Various strategies adopted at community levels can be scaled up to promote inclusivity and equitability in the WEF nexus. Some small-scale programs can be expanded to achieve the desired results. For instance, a project in Punjab that aimed to develop the capacity of women involved in rice production by including them in every step of the crop’s value chain can be implemented at the national level to increase the representation of women in the market value chains. Enterprises can be established to develop the capacity of women in pre-and post-harvest activities. Moreover, market infrastructures can be developed to support the increased participation of women in the value chains. Female extension agents can be employed to increase access of female producers to technology and market information. Another project that equipped female agricultural producers with high-efficiency irrigation systems (HIES) successfully increased their crop yields and encouraged the adoption of more efficient technologies. However, the success of this project was not sustainable due to constraints such as lack of resources/capital and inadequate support from families and government institutions. Thus, to ensure the success of such a project on a larger scale, an expansion in credit facilities for women and other minority groups and implementation of policies that promote the adoption of innovative technologies among the marginalized groups are needed. Employing ICT is a recommended approach to increasing equitability in the WEF nexus. Barriers such as mobility constraints, lack of access to information and technologies, lack of credit services can be addressed by using ICT tools in disseminating information, increasing communications, and providing credit and technical support. Increasing the participation of women and other minority groups in political bodies can increase their representation in decision-making processes and can ultimately include their perspectives in the WEF nexus. However, several challenges exist in increasing the participation of marginalized communities in decision-making roles. Reforms need to be introduced to eliminate structural and institutional barriers that prevent the participation of these groups in decision-making bodies. Moreover, awareness and educational campaigns need to address the gender stereotypes that are deeply rooted in our societies. In conclusion, a bottom-down approach needs to be adopted to include the perspectives of groups ignored in the WEF nexus. However, success can only be achieved when such measures are accompanied by policies and reforms that address the existing challenges that marginalized communities face in accessing equal economic, social, and political opportunities. Several steps need to be taken by public and private institutions to increase inclusivity in the WEF nexus. Firstly, a lot of government projects such as social safety net programs target larger farmers. . The government institutions need to partner with NGOs and other organizations working with underrepresented communities such as women, small farmers, and other marginalized groups, to design interventions specifically for these population groups. Secondly, the national and provincial policies developed are often generic and not inclusive. Moreover, a top to bottom approach is adopted in the implementation processes which ignores representation from such marginalized groups. The government needs to work with research institutions and organizations working in the field to help them design policies that address the key challenges faced by various groups. The policy formulation process needs to be made more demand-driven, in that key stakeholders should be involved in the formulation of policies, to ensure that the issues of all the relevant stakeholders are addressed. Thirdly, the private sector can be involved to promote equitability in the WEF nexus.236238240241242243244245246248249250251Socio-Economic synergies and benefits of WEF Nexus Key question: What steps needs to be taken to assess the benefits and trade-offs across sectors, especially from a socio-economic point of view (employment, health, migration, equity, GDP, etc)? a) Population: Pakistan has a population growth of 2.9%, three years back demand of wheat was 25 million tonnes whereas now it is 29 M-t. Agricultural land area is shrinking, cropping intensity has increased but still, it is low as compared to other countries in the region. Increased cropping intensity has resulted in the deterioration of soil health. The problem of population growth needs to be analysed from the demand and supply sides. On the demand side, a large population will need more water and more food. On the supply side, in Pakistan food is exported and imported at the same time. Before 2013 Pakistan was a net exporter of food now it is a net importer. Some necessary foods are now being imported which were produced within the country in the past. At the macro scale, it is important to keep food and water balance. To address the challenge of population growth, we need to take on board religious leadership. b) Migration: Scarcity of water leads to migration. For example, in rural areas of Baluchistan Karezes have dried and people are unable to grow their food. Scarcity of water also leads to loss of livelihoods. Some families in rural areas have installed solar irrigation pumps but it solves the problem to only some extent. Though installation of tube wells has helped with agriculture, it has resulted in the lowering of the groundwater table. This has led to migration from water stressed areas. c) Urbanization: Due to unemployment in the rural areas, people are migrating to cities and cities have been expanding. Thus, causing food and income insecurity. Migration to urban centers can be both voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary migration to cities takes place in search of better livelihood. Involuntary migration to cities can take place as a result of climate change events like drought and flood. In any case migration to cities gives rise to challenges of overcrowding, water scarcity, and solid waste management. d) Alternative Energy: The cost of lifting water for more than 130 meters is huge, there is a dire need to make sure that energy requirements should be met. Energy security can be achieved through the promotion of renewable energy. Rising energy demand in wake of population growth can be met by the government through subsidizing solar energy for farmers. At the same time abandoning electricity as an alternative source of energy to solar energy should be made mandatory by the government for farmers adopting solar energy. Focus on renewable energy should be prioritized through favorable legislation and required support for the farmers. e) Water Resource Development: Investments should be made in water resource development. Previously, water issues were managed through the community. Now the community has been disrupted by migration. Water harvesting can be used to improve water availability and reduce water wastage. Vulnerable water stressed areas should be targeted at the watershed level, watershed management should be focused through the use of remote sensing. f) Value Chain Development: Value added agriculture should be focused to improve the GDP contribution of the agriculture sector. Industrialization for value chain development should be done in rural areas to stop migration from rural areas. g) Water Storage: Along with water efficiency, we need to improve water storage by building small and large dams. Increased water storage capacity will lead to an increase in water availability which will result in food security and livelihood opportunities. h) Investment in Agriculture Sector: Pakistan’s investment in the agriculture sector is the lowest in this region. R&D can focus on energy efficient crop varieties and the use of renewable energy. Institutions working in silos is one major barrier in addressing above mentioned challenges effectively through research. For research to bear fruits practically institutions need to effectively cooperate and collaborate237238239240241242243244245246248249250251During the discussion subject of "Sustainable and renewable energy for food production", the participant had no significant divergent, only caveat water to manage groundwater before we move to solar pumps. Participants identified the following divergences during the discussion subject of "Climate change impacts on water and food security". • Inefficient and disparity in water pricing system make it difficult for Pakistan to sustainably manage its irrigation system. There is a serious need to revise water pricing and to have a groundwater policy to address the issue of acute water shortage and manage the water needs of all sectors including water for the environment. • Poverty and limited access to resources often coupled with small landholdings is another big challenge identified in the discussion. For this purpose, improved access to resources along with a well-established support system to support climate-smart agriculture for enhanced food and nutrition security in Pakistan. • Lack of coordination or limited coordination between different departments at the provincial and federal level is another major divergence in sustaining food and water security under changing climate revealed in the discussion. In order to improve coordination, a multi-stakeholder approach may be adopted giving fair chance to all stakeholders to present their point of view and make a consensus to make agriculture resilient. • High use of water for irrigation agriculture has become a major issue challenging the sustainability of water systems as well as food security in Pakistan. Farmers need to be educated for improved and cost-effective solutions to enhance water and land productivity and enhance their resilience to climate change. The group which discussed Policy coherence, implementation and institutional coordination in water, food, energy and climate change that operationalize the WEF nexus: Contrary to the common belief, rapid urbanization and mushroom growth in housing societies are one of the most serious threats to the water, energy, and food nexus. Housing societies are not only encroaching the arable lands but are also having adverse effects on water utilization. Ring-fencing the agricultural land to save it from urbanization is a critical step for ensuring sustainable agriculture and water. A group that discussed the topic Enhancing the performance of water systems across multiple sectors highlighted that the systems are faced with the issues of poor revenue collection ultimately leading to the unsustainability of the institutions. One way to manage these gaps is to think about reallocation of water according to the “willingness to pay principle”. The use of secondary treated wastewater in agriculture may be a potential option to reduce stress on the groundwater. Similarly, the saline water/drainage effluent offers a great potential to reduce the gap between water demand and supply. Developing a database is essential. However, it would never be enough. Therefore, there is a need to manage water systems with certain uncertainties. Likewise, complex technologies may provide solutions to management problems at a large scale but the importance of simple technologies cannot be ignored for small scale and community run operations. While considering the value of water there is a need to prioritize according to its use. If the value of water is estimated properly, the environment would underpin all other sectors. There is a need to explore other solutions such as the promotion of recreational activities and eco-friendly tourism on the properties of irrigation systems. The group which discussed topic advancing technical WEF models, tools and framework for decision making at multiple scales had different viewpoints about how important pursuing WEF models would be. Some discussants felt that in many instances current hydrological or economic models would be sufficient to address most issues. Moreover, the broader WEF models have not yet really led to impacts on very many topics, so the need to demonstrate the power of WEF models was not always seen uniformly by members of the discussion. While less discussion addressed potential benefits, it seemed that using only narrow, discipline-based research approaches, solutions to the complex problems posed in water, energy, and food security topics could often be missed. These possibilities can best be understood using WEF models in comparison to more traditional single-discipline approaches. Community group discussion: Marginalized groups, primarily women are often ignored in the WEF nexus due to its top-down approach. Women and other minority groups are usually left out from the decision-making processes at the community/provincial/national level. While at the household level, women are responsible for managing food, energy and the water supply, their representation on decision-making bodies such as the village council is very limited. The deeply ingrained patriarchal social norms act as barriers for women and other groups to participate in the bureaucratic system that is responsible for making decisions related to the WEF nexus. This fact is verified from the low levels of representation of women and other minority groups on political bodies. The inadequate representation of these groups on such forums limits their ability to effectively voice their concerns, and thus, they are neglected in the management of the WEF nexus actions.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-Pakistan-New.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-Pakistan-Independent-Dialogue-Concept-Note-20210418.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-Pakistan-Independent-Dialogue-Invitation-20210414.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/1-1.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/3.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/4.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9111/https://wle.cgiar.org/event/unfss-independent-dialogue-pakistanhttps://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/2021/04/data-funds-and-dialogue-key-to-water-energy-and-food-security-in-a-changing-climate-for-pakistan/https://nation.com.pk/25-Apr-2021/panellists-on-iwmi-dialogue-discuss-how-pakistan-can-achieve-food-water-and-food-securityhttps://www.dawn.com/news/1620425/ways-discussed-to-achieve-water-energy-and-food-securityhttps://dailytimes.com.pk/749545/experts-on-iwmi-led-dialogue-discuss-how-pakistan-can-achieve-water-and-food-security/https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/826034-reliable-database-on-water-resources-stressedhttps://pakobserver.net/iwmi-led-dialogue-discusses-how-a-shared-vision-can-turn-the-tide/https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2021/04/25/panel-discusses-ways-to-achieve-food-water-and-energy-security/https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/26-Apr-2021/unfss2021pakistandialogue-data-funds-discussion-vital-to-achieve-water-food-security

2021-06-21 20:01:06207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23166/203

32614318219613310421011236358959311146515197504361203356

Each of the speakers, panellists and table facilitators was invited to briefing sessions, in which they discussed the principles, objectives and approach of the Dialogues. This proved extremely helpful to ensure that all entered into the Dialogue in the same spirit. The support of 4SD in hosting some of these briefing sessions was highly valuable. In selecting speakers, panellists, facilitators and participants, we were mindful of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, seeking to bring together people from diverse professions and regions. While the event had a strong mix of public and private investors, agri-business and regions, it could have been stronger with greater participation from farmers, producers, indigenous groups and rural communities. The keynote speakers and panellists also helped to reinforce and enhance the Principles of the Dialogues through their open and respectful discussion, and the themes that they set up for the group. David Nabarro also played a key role as curator in clarifying the principles of the event and in creating a sense of trust, inclusivity and openness among the group.Key aspects of the Principles were highlighted in the keynote speeches and panel discussion in the first half of the Dialogue event. Speakers underlined the need to act with urgency while recognising the complexity of the system, the importance of the opportunity provided by the Summit and the ways in which this can garner greater commitment to action. By bringing together diverse speakers (including multinational agribusiness leader, SME entrepreneur, public and private finance), the keynote speeches and panellists also demonstrated the critical importance of multistakeholder inclusivity. The design of the event was intended to complement the work of others, by bringing together those leading thought pieces and pioneering projects/ solutions and inviting them to frame their discussions around what would be most helpful to improve and advance their work. Finally, in preparing participants for the event, we emphasised the importance of being respectful and building trust among one another.Securing diverse facilitators and participants can create the conditions for more interesting and informative exchanges. Reaching out to facilitators and participants well in advance of the Dialogue can help to maximise the chances of a diverse group, by giving people sufficient notice and giving the organisers sufficient time to ensure the balance of participants is right.

NoThe method of the Dialogue was broadly in line with that recommended and outlined by the Convenors Reference Manual. David Nabarro acted as the curator of the discussion, playing a key role in ensuring that all voices were heard in the panel discussion and setting the tone for exploratory and inclusive discussion in the Dialogues. Where the event diverted with other Food Systems Dialogues was the variety of topics across the tables: 11 distinct areas were explored across 11 discussion tables. Table facilitators were those working on thought leadership and/ or pioneering solutions relevant to the given theme. This meant that they were able to provide framing points to inform the discussion, as well as curating the questions with us to ensure that these were the most pressing and pertinent. Table discussions are below. Table discussions brought up a range of perspectives, reflecting a variety of perspectives (although this would have benefited from greater involvement of farmers/ producers, indigenous groups and rural communities). There were relatively few points of tension or divergence unearthed, with the groups largely agreeing on the priorities for action. As Sunny Verghese (CEO, Olam; Chair, WBCSD) highlighted, the more unchartered territory is how to translate solutions into action. Table Discussion Themes 1. True Cost of Food. Facilitator: Sheryl Hendricks, University of New Zealand 2. Vision for Change. Facilitator: Berry Marttin, Rabobank (on behalf of Finance Network) 3. New Incentives to support sustainable flows. Facilitator: Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla, IFPRI 4. Sustainable flow of funds: A country perspective, Facilitator: Mohamed Manssouri, FAO 5. Financing the food transition – getting financialisation right. Facilitator: Simon Zadek, Finance 4 Biodiversity 6. Policy Priorities. Facilitator: Helena Wright, FAIRR 7. Accountability & Reporting. Facilitator: Gerbrand Haverkamp, World Benchmarking Alliance 8. Innovation to scale finance for sustainable agriculture. Facilitator: Jennifer Baarn, CoSAI 9. Building inclusive food finance systems. Facilitator: German Velasquez, Green Climate Fund 10. De-risking investment into food and agriculture. Facilitator: Bettina Prato, SAFIN 11. Scaling investment in regenerative business models. Facilitator: Marcio Sztutman, P4F Latin America

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251A comprehensive exploration of what is needed to build sustainable food finance systems. Participants considered the range of outcomes associated with each of the five Action Tracks. They discussed how to tackle barriers to investment flowing to sustainable practices that can help to deliver on these outcomes, and not to unsustainable practices and projects. And they explored how to build an ambitious shared vision of a Food Finance Architecture that mobilises largescale capital for more sustainable food systems.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Participants entered with a shared recognition that financing a more sustainable food system is critical if we want to curb climate change, protect biodiversity, tackle poverty, create jobs, support covid recovery, ensure food security, build resilience and improve human health. Discussion was rich and varied. But the following points were identified as priorities for action across the dialogues: (1) The need for an ecosystem & locally-sensitive approach: interventions to transform food systems need to account for the complex nature of international value-chains and financial systems, as well as varied local contexts. Financing challenges vary significantly across countries – including the nature of public subsidies, the formal financial sector’s contribution to agricultural GDP and the role and performance of financial institutions. An ecosystem approach can bring together diverse stakeholders, accounts for the complex web of ecosystem risks and is tailored to local contexts. (2) Account for the true cost of food: many tables discussed the need to internalise both the negative and positive impacts of food systems. Food systems have environmental, social and health impacts that are not factored into market prices, yet the world is paying for these in terms of degenerated environments, high health costs and social inequities (such as unfair wages). Accounting for these costs can help to transition towards more sustainable systems by raising awareness and informing investment and other decisions. Interventions to do so include true cost accounting, carbon prices/ taxes, awareness raising, and the emergence of regenerative business models that create value from sustainable practices. It is critical to ensure that this shift does not disproportionately affect poorer consumers as a result of reduced food affordability. Support mechanisms may be necessary to secure a just and orderly transition, even if ultimately accounting for the true cost of food leads producers to shift to more sustainable products and practices that benefit all. (3) Risk mitigation: negative externalities of the food system generate significant risk. At the same time, risks associated with the transition from current practices and business models to new ones hold back investment (i.e., uncertainty around technology trajectory, costs, future demand). Opportunities to mitigate these risks and unlock sustainable investment include mandatory risk disclosure, blended finance and other tools to de-risk private investment, and interventions to reduce the burden of risk placed on farmers. (4) Redirect incentives: there is strong recognition that current incentives do not yield desirable outcomes for the economy, livelihoods, environment or human health. While the capacity to redirect public subsidies is constrained, there are opportunities to rethink the structure of agricultural subsidies and redirect funds, including to R&D. Consumers also need to be considered: directing incentives to encourage the consumption of sustainable, healthy products will have a knock-on effect on what is produced to meet this demand. (5) Innovation is needed across policy, business models, technology & finance. Priorities include R&D investment & finance for technology and solutions; business models that create value from sustainable practices; financial instruments that help to crowd-in/ mobilise private investment; policy interventions to shift system settings; & empowering farmers & rural communities. (6) Improve access to information and education: many tables discussed the importance of addressing data gaps, lack of transparency and limited awareness of the impacts of food systems – and the availability of solutions – to facilitate transformation (7) Implement clear and standardized reporting measures for climate and biodiversity, e.g., development of meaningful biodiversity metrics that are both context specific and scientifically-grounded. While many reporting frameworks have emerged to assist companies with disclosing the relevant sustainability data, the finance system is demanding the harmonization of the sustainability standards and the development of widely recognized definitions. It is also important to ensure that reporting on sustainable food systems encompasses issues across the environmental, social and nutrition sphere. (8) Scale and roll-out interventions to secure more inclusive food systems. Access to finance remains a major challenge to sustainable agriculture and regenerative businesses, with significant numbers of small farmers, MSMEs, indigenous groups and rural communities unable to access to finance in order to invest in sustainable practices. Smaller firms can fall into a category of the “missing middle” – too big for microfinance yet not eligible for formal credit or loans from domestic banks, impact funds and DFIs. Priorities to build more inclusive food finance systems include social payments/ social assistance subsidies, improved contractual relationships, inclusive blended finance solutions, project-level support to build capacity and incubate regenerative models, digitisation and bolstering the enabling environment for investment (9) Great collaboration and ambition across public and private actors is needed to deliver this transformation agenda. The Food Systems Summit represents a critical moment to raise ambition, place food system transformation on the top of the political, business, financial, humanitarian and research agenda, and profile, replicate and scale interventions and solutions that work.236238239240241242245(1) Vision for Change: there is huge opportunity in transforming food systems: consumer interest is driving global value-chains into the sustainability space and companies increasingly recognise the risk attached to unsustainable practices. Priorities to transform food systems discussed include: (1) An ecosystem approach is required for sustainable food finance to work. - Stakeholders: commercial banks, smallholders, agri-SMEs linking smallholder to market, and investors must be viewed as interconnected actors, with solutions built around this. - Data: a fragmented data landscape directly impacts smallholder access to finance for working capital, as a lack of data leads commercial banks to view smallholders as a risky loan. Connecting actors through a data ecosystem, accompanied by technical assistance for smallholders, will be an important step to improve finance access. - Risk: ecosystem risks are not accounted for in the current productivity-oriented, commodity-specific frame, encouraging smallholders to maximize cash crop production to cover costs at the expense of natural systems. An ecosystem frame could strengthen the case for paying for ecosystem services, diversifying incomes, reducing emphasis on maximizing production, and lowering land use intensity. (2) Equitable distribution of risk through the value chain. To support their deployment of potentially costly nature-positive production techniques, producers need downstream actors like commercial banks to take on risk. This requires a legal enabling environment. A fragmented legal landscape disincentivises commercial banks from engaging in risk-sharing. (3) Evaluation and reporting on the value of ecosystem services and the cost of nature/ society-based risks. We need to rollout measuring and reporting across the value chain, including food processing (where micronutrients can be lost). A global standard on Measurement, Reporting and Valuation (MRV) for climate, social, nature and food waste risk, supported by a robust legal framework, would help to address expense and complexity of these technical solutions. (4) Increased ambition from food system actors across the value-chain to reach Paris Climate Agreement while feeding the world, particularly on nature-based risk reporting. Food companies will only undertake reporting if either mandated by policymakers, or strongly encouraged by investors. A clear set of reporting asks and a step-change in courage from food system stakeholders are required in both scenarios. “Ambition and courage are key, but they must be met with clear asks on reporting for value chain actors.” New policies and partnerships are needed, including producer associations and cross-chain collaborations. (5) Divergence: there was some disagreement on who holds responsibility for measuring nature-based impact. While some participants saw this falling more to those engaged in food production, others saw more value in an end-to-end approach including consumers. Success stories • In India, collective farmer organisations are filling input gaps to capture the opportunity in natural (pesticide/ fertiliser-free) farming as a potential business opportunity; starting their own organic ventures, supported by the government • A project in which the financing bank had a capital stake in produce sold at market, rather than charging interest on smallholder loans. This spread risk and unified incentives into a ‘value chain cooperative’ -style model. Call to Action: there is a need for an overarching Call to Action on raising the ambition on financing food systems transformation. This call was met with the announcement for a Finance Network for Food Systems, to be launched through the Finance Lever at the Food Systems Summit. This would take the form of an open letter signed by investment and finance actors, articulating the indispensable role of food in solving the pressing environmental and human problems of our time, including malnutrition, climate change, poverty and nature loss.236238239240241242243244245246248249250(2) True cost of food: Food systems have environmental, social and health impacts that are not factored into market prices, yet the world is paying for these in terms of degenerated environments, high health costs and social inequities (such as unfair wages). • Accounting for the externalities of food systems would help transition towards a healthier, more sustainable and more equitable food system by exposing the value associated with environmental, health and social externalities and enabling producers, consumers, retailers, and policymakers to make more informed decisions to improve human and planetary health. • Tension: not all stakeholders accept the necessity to internalise costs of the food system. At the CFS discussions in 2021, countries did not concur on the issues of true costing & pricing. • Mechanisms for true cost accounting: carbon taxes could be used to internalise food system externalities, incentivising stakeholders to adopt human & planetary friendly production methods. This would effectively mainstream the “green premium” that high-end sustainable brands currently have to choose to implement (e.g., Sabrina Mustopo shared that Krakakoa pays contracted cocoa farmers 2-3 times prevailing market price to incentivise sustainable cocoa production). • Creating a business case for action and creating a value for hidden costs / valuing sustainable practices could make some of these tradable, e.g., soil improvements factored into property values. Inclusivity is key: true cost accounting could reduce food affordability among poorer consumers and create challenges for farmers who lack the means to transition to sustainable practices. Interventions to ensure a just transition include: • An inclusive price-based adjustment, beyond imposing third-party abatements or penalties; • Investment in cleaner production technologies to enable producers to transition • Redistributive policies to mitigate negative effects, including reconsideration of poverty line • Repurposing subsidies to cover the costs of the transition, incentivise more sustainable production systems and reduce losses and waste Priorities for action include: • Fix financial systems to leverage investments and cultivate regenerative agriculture that ensures nature protection and integrity and makes this a tradable asset • Develop internationally accepted harmonised true cost accounting (TCA) principles to ensure validity and comparability of results & implementing inclusive price-based adjustment. This requires further development as these are new fields of scientific advancement. • Educate key stakeholders on the true value of food by integrating TCA into educational systems, front of pack product labelling, and leveraging digital tools (messages, media) to educate the public & shift behaviours collectively in the food industry and individually. • Conduct national dialogues on food systems to provide information to all stakeholders – including farmers, consumers and retailers – on the importance of sustainable food systems and healthy consumption & the business case for action. • Create a national policy toolbox to implement short-term true pricing based on impact studies • Support SMEs and smallholder farmers who want to sell their products at a true price to businesses and consumers • Governments can increase investment in food systems through infrastructure, technology, human capacity building and R&D236238239240241242244245246249(3) New Incentives for sustainable flows of funds: how can we ensure that six flows of funds support sustainable food outcomes? (i) consumer expenditures on food, (ii) agrifood business profits and savings, (iii) fiscal measures (public expenditures & taxes), (iv) international public finance (ODA and MDBs), (iv) bank finance, (vi) capital market finance. International flows & domestic budget decisions require information to inform decision-making, linked to enhanced accessibility of data, monitoring and assessment. FAO has been working to produce greater information as a public good. Market incentives provided to farmers trickle down into food systems, influencing how they operate. These have helped to make food more affordable but have come at great cost to the environment and health. • We cannot simply abolish food subsidies: this could have a negative impact on food prices and affordability. Instead need to consider how to change incentive structures more thoughtfully. • Redirecting funds towards R&D: redirecting just 1% of $700b into R&D (e.g., improved technology for agriculture) could yield a 30% reduction in GHGs while stimulating true productivity growth and improving food affordability. • This must be coupled with other incentives to support farmer shifts. Farmers require support to adopt new technologies (e.g., training, access to technology/ inputs/ finance). This requires a rethink of structures for agricultural subsidy schemes. • Geographic & political economy considerations: the $700b is not equally distributed across the world, but instead heavily concentrated in countries, e.g., China, India, EU, USA. We need to consider whether/ how we could redistribute and repurpose incentives, taking into account political economy aspects. Social assistance subsidies were discussed, combining support to address poverty, enhance productivity and act as custodian of the environment. • Social payments can deliver improved food system outcomes: the countries that have made greatest progress in reducing hunger have strong social protection systems or have managed to improve these. Transfers are typically small but can have transformational impact if designed properly. Most effective when income protection is used to strengthen production capacity, particularly in very low-income contexts. • Social payments provide opportunity for risk management. Could we explore ways to tie social funding, cash-based transfers and risks related to the transition to more sustainable forms of production? • However, social payments will not be sufficient to transform food systems. Other interventions – including redirecting incentives on producer and consumer side – are essential. Bank finance/ banking system: we need to work with local system actors and design interventions that address underlying needs of financing. o Develop local financial systems, if possible with sustainable/ SDG lens o Leverage blended finance to target externalities with public money, while limiting bureaucracy and challenges linked to transaction o Scale-up digital technology to get financing on the ground: we have seen with social protection cash flows that digital technology is becoming more and more important. WBG projects where countries are setting up their own digital systems, trying to get money on the ground. We cannot wait for consumer attitudes to shift. Consumers lack awareness of the impact of food systems; limiting their capacity/ incentive to change behaviours. There is a disconnect between consumer professed concern about the environment vs. where they spend their money. This in turn reflects a lack of transparency on food systems; limited use of labelling to convey true cost/ impact of food. o Need to improve transparency and consumer awareness o Need to consider incentive structures that drive healthier, more sustainable consumer choices – and therefore production, e.g., taxing unhealthy/ unsustainable foods; subsidising healthier food Considerations • Partnerships across donors to go beyond public sector measures • Regulation for companies & capital markets – including international - for food safety & climate/ nature236238239240241242243244245248249(4) Sustainable Flows of Funds: A Country Perspective. The country level is critical in thinking about financing for food systems because that is where policy and public and private investment decisions are made. In most countries, there is a huge financing gap, especially among the smaller and informal food system actors. This includes demand for all types of financing. Challenges - Financing challenges vary across countries, incl. (i) the formal financial sector’s contribution to agricultural GDP and (ii) the role and performance of financial institutions (public and private banks, MFIs, etc) - Lack of information/ visibility of farmer productivity and credit worthiness makes it difficult for bankers to assess risk - Country capacity: Stakeholders need to help enhance potential clients’ capacities. - Fragmentation & informal actors: small informal producers (smallholders & SMEs) produce most of the food in many regions (esp Africa) & are difficult to reach via formal channels. In Africa &South Asia, many small, informal financiers add to fragmentation. In Africa, there are also many informal savings groups. - Missing middle: smaller firms are too big for microfinance, yet are not eligible for formal credit or loans from domestic banks, impact funds and DFIs because they cannot meet the financial reporting, audit, and collateral requirements. Opportunities for action - Shift value-chain finance to serve multiple financing needs of smallholders (as consumers and producers), e.g., by involving financial institutions within tripartite arrangements - Financial education is needed, e.g., tools for financial management for farmers - Female financial inclusion is key – i.e., via social and economic platforms. Usually, women have lower literacy rates and access to smartphones in low-income countries. - Digitisation can enhance access to finance across the value-chain. Applications include: o Enabling informal actors to build financial histories & access finance from formal sources o Risk management, including monitoring finance o Data generation & credit worthiness assessments, e.g., enrolling smallholders and SMEs onto digital platforms to collect data and information o Tracking multiple income sources: helping banks to track farmer incomes across different crops/ seasons o Fintech (largely youth-driven) also creates employment opportunities to develop technology, onboard and train farmers. Priorities & recommendations • Develop an integrated framework to provide finance where it is need most and place financing food systems on the top of the political agenda, with priority in budget allocation by governments (especially Ministries of Finance). This would avoid having a plethora of vertical funds; reduce the risk of mushrooming single-issue products at the cost of frameworks/ coordination mechanisms. • Use public resources to leverage private investments. At the country level, scarce public resources need to be used strategically to mobilize more and better private investments. Finance also flows through self-financing among smallholders and SMEs; this needs to be enhanced and leveraged. • Diversity of Instruments. We need to think about how the existing diverse instruments work together and conceptualize tools to mitigate risk. We need instruments that blend grants with private finance but also with knowledge and TA that are the first points of de-risking investment. • Put in place a non-discriminating policy environment to allow different actors to function. Currently, larger players might have disproportionate advantages. • Introduce policies to help aggregate demand, esp. in agribusiness sector to leverage finance • Target incentives better • Use intermediaries innovatively to facilitate finance / innovative intermediation. • Increase flexibility of public lending. Setting aside financing for cross-cutting activities could enhance the impact of direct financing. • Help reduce delivery costs. The high cost of delivery is an unavoidable factor, e.g., better mechanisms to target funding to demand. Using existing partners can reduce costs. • Provide financing for digital solutions • Boost & share knowledge236238239240241242245246248249(5) Aligning agricultural finance with the Paris Climate Agreement for public & private capital Barriers to sustainable food systems • Significant financing gap / access challenges for smallholder farmers: not registered as businesses, challenging for investors to invest in cooperatives or associations, development finance is too bureaucratic, not served by local governments or companies, small team sizes and limited capacity. • Current prices do not internalise the impacts of food systems: not just carbon, but also nature. Challenge to account for the true cost of food while managing prics and feeding people. Priorities • Boost accountability and transparency: needed by investors (to assess companies), by industry/ voters from governments (on regulation for orderly transition); by citizens and consumers to understand health and environmental impacts, and how food environments are shaped by private actors. Transparency should extend to corporate political expenditure and lobbying actions of trade associations. o Technology can enhance transparency, e.g., supply-chain monitoring • Improve access to information to make clear the risks of current system, including risk of stranded assets. • Enhance in-house expertise and understanding of climate, biodiversity, social and health issues, with greater integration into main investment teams • Implement strong policy & regulation: “If regulation is not strong enough, information alone won’t get you there”. • Provide clarity on likelihood and timing of regulation and policy to provide signals and enable companies/ investors to prepare: “Investors act on what they think will happen in the future.” • Ensure correct framing, consensus building and further research are key to identify and flesh out needed transition pathways & build shared vision and understanding. Also critical in terms of technical options, e.g., greater clarity required on where subsidies are going. • Tailor interventions to local contexts: heterogeneity across country contexts (i.e., enabling environments) Priority levers Incentives and risk mitigation • Repurposing subsidies & fiscal policy measures to eliminate perverse incentives and negative environmental/ social impacts, while enabling market to adjust with repricing. Shift from harmful inputs (e.g., chemical fertilisers) towards fruit & vegetables/ sustainable R&D. Create conditions for nutritious and sustainable products to become cheaper • Carbon pricing (& the risk of future carbon pricing) and other methods to value true value of food/ internalise externalities will shift investors. Agriculture needs to be included in scope. • Mandatory climate disclosure (and nature/ biodiversity) from companies is key for investors & financial markets to mainstream recognition & integration of risks, ensure transparency and provide comparable data on company transformation. • Enhance enforcement capacity Regulation and standards • Clear and standardized reporting measures for climate and biodiversity, e.g., development of meaningful biodiversity metrics that are both context specific and scientifically-grounded • Regulation enforcing meaningful accountability and extended responsibility beyond immediate operations (c.f., extended producer responsibility in plastics) • Standards and initiatives to stop investment in greatest harms, e.g., EU taxonomy • Investigation and evidence to further expose supply-chain issues Boosting investment and access to finance • Government R&D investment, e.g., in blockchain, GPS/ GIS for traceability • Financial policies that support financial solutions, including new forms of blended finance that cater to not-for-profits, non-incorporated companies, smallholders, cooperatives etc; exploring new ways to finance hybrid models for food; microfinance and cooperative finance. • Standard setting for investment products Shift narrative • Regulate advertising & explore options to shift consumer views/ behaviour: can public budgets be used for advertising healthy foods? • Move away from “commodity” language towards COP26 and beyond: numerous indigenous groups236240243244245248249(6) Accountability & Reporting Enhancing company disclosure and reporting has been recognized as an important factor to mobilize finance for a food system transformation. Investors and other stakeholders can use company disclosure to: • Better understand sustainability issues throughout the whole food value chain and hold companies accountable. • Shed light on companies’ best practices and sustainability initiatives across industries and geographies. Progress to-date: the finance system is still grappling with formulating expectations for food companies. • While many reporting frameworks have emerged to assist companies with disclosing the relevant sustainability data, the finance system is demanding the harmonization of the sustainability standards and the development of widely recognized definitions. • In response IFRS, SEC and the European Commission have started the development of mandatory disclosure frameworks. Challenges • Question whether these frameworks adequately capture the sustainability issue at play in the food system. Reporting on sustainable food systems encompasses issues across the environmental, social and nutrition sphere. • Current frameworks are well-articulated with respect to issues like climate and human rights but less so on issues like health and nutrition – a very material issue for food & agri business • A lot of the hidden costs are associated with the availability and affordability of healthy foods, but financial institutions are struggling to identify the right data points to properly engage with the companies in which they invest. Opportunities for action • Health insurance companies are potentially best positioned to play a front role in driving company disclosure on health and nutrition by food and agricultural companies: their asset investment arms invest in food and agricultural companies while the insurance arm will have an interest in healthy and nutritious foods being widely available to the people whose health they insure. (7) Scaling investment in regenerative business models Context • Complexity: it is hard to put all the pieces together with so many practices and stakeholders while thinking about monetizing the opportunities • Farmers face barriers to access finance & transition: the many local issues they deal with, such as expensive access to credit, dealing with many intermediaries, reporting to different partners (traders, government), anticipating climate shifts, etc. • Access to long term finance is expensive for Brazilian farmers when competing with other farmers elsewhere that have access to cheaper finance Priorities for action A. Patient capital • Grant funding: Designing a market-based grant funding structure requires specialized expertise, patience, timing and stakeholder management. • Financial sustainability: Most projects do not consider generating revenues to jump into the next step and ignore the interplay between natural and capital assets. B. Farmers at the center • Scale up science-based design to ensure financing has the impact expected • Design interventions with farmers in mind C. Policy alignment • Policy alignment: we cannot move to scale without the right policies in place talking to each other (financial incentives, climate change, environment, and biodiversity policies) • Use guarantees as a form of safety nets to smooth farmers transitions. If they start losing their land while transitioning, most of them will not be able to continue. • Shift blended finance design to enable access for smaller businesses: currently, regenerative business ticket size is too small to justify the cost of the reporting mechanism. Only large organizations can leverage these instruments.236238240241242244245248249(8) Innovation to scale finance for sustainable agriculture Context: • Innovation is under-funded: the current level of investment in the food system is staggering ($700B of public sector funding for farmers, $2T of private investment in the food system and $87T, or 12-15% of global GDP, spent by consumers in the food system). By contrast, the current level of investment in innovation to support sustainable agriculture intensification (a critical tool for future food systems), of only about $50-70B annually is far from sufficient and is not explicitly targeting environmental and social requirements of future food systems. This affects the ability to transform the global food system into one that is equitable, inclusive and part of the solution for the climate. • Innovation takes many forms. It is not just about science and technology embedded within the value chain. Innovation needs to be in policy, financial instruments, institutions etc. And it needs to be inclusive of value chain actors and those in the enabling environment. • Sustainable innovation: we need to consider the nature of innovation. Economic benefits will drive farmer adoption, but innovation needs to also address environmental & social requirements of future food systems. It is critical that we innovative to scale finance for sustainable agriculture, but finance alone is not enough. Scaling finance needs to be part of a diverse public and private effort. To ensure the success of innovation as we scale finance for sustainable agriculture, we must: • Empower farmers, linking them to markets and building capacity through the value chain, including within the finance enabling environment (incl. banks & other investors) • Educate key actors, such as banks and investors, on opportunities in agriculture and innovative solutions to facilitate access to finance. • Provide capacity building as finance is scaled for the end user (e.g. smallholder farmer), other actors in the financial instrument delivery & those benefiting from the scaled financing. • Recognize that innovation comes in many forms both within the value chain and as enablers of the value chain. Scaling finance needs to support various forms of innovation at all stages. Priorities for financing • Bring the ecosystem together (public, private, philanthropic) to de-risk investment • Ensure financing instruments enable and de-risk access to new markets (e.g., carbon markets) for farmers & other members of the value chain to. • Ensure new & emerging instruments (e.g., blended finance) are accessible to smallholder farmers and are part of a holistic financial package, including credit & risk mgmt. options. • Bundle various options of financial instruments and empower actors to choose the right instrument. • Scale finance through existing hard and soft infrastructure linked to previous public, private and philanthropic investment to ensure impact through trusted channels of engagement. • Go beyond just financing: ensure link to markets, policy setting, nutrition outcomes for sustainable business outcomes Success stories • Eggs to school children in Rwanda vertically integrated into school feeding programs, geographically (e.g. investment corridors) focused to bring in diverse value chain with similar financial and market access issues, and a link to basic services (education and health) through the integration of agriculture improvements. • Farmers benefiting from agriculture improvements supported by religious-based charities236238240241242244245248249(9) Scaling Finance for Food – Building Inclusive Food Finance Systems Access to finance remains a major challenge to sustainable agriculture and regenerative businesses. Barriers preventing access to finance for sustainable practices include: • Agricultural subsidies do not incentivise sustainable practices. In addition, ineffective and ad hoc public policy can 'crowd out' private investment. • Market signals from developed countries (e.g., Europe, USA) are absent in developing countries, making it difficult to understand demand for sustainable agriculture and regenerative businesses. • Dispersed agricultural value chain & weak relationships between value-chain actors limits opportunities for an aggregated value chain approach to encourage sustainable business. • Barriers for SMEs, smallholder farmers & farming communities o Lack of access to credit: without a credit history, many subsistence farmers have limited access to finance, even when available. Low and unpredictable harvests limit the ability of farmers to secure a stable income, further limiting access to credit. o Informal land titles do not allow farmers to obtain credit & contributes to poverty o Lack of collateral and/ or means to take on high interest rates o Global markets are hard to penetrate for MSMEs, particularly from developing economies. o Private companies lack support from government, financiers and others to tackle immense challenges in establishing and running business in sustainable agriculture. o Lack of proposal-writing skills & experience to access developmental & blended finance o Key finance solutions – including blended finance – are often inaccessible for MSMEs. Mismatch between ticket size risks & transaction costs financiers willing to take and size of investment projects are seeking/ hurdle rates the project developers can consider. Opportunities for action Enabling environment interventions • Implement policies & regulatory measures to support MSMEs in sustainable agriculture • Encourage the use of digital technologies to improve yields and collect data – in some cases using this to establish credit score (e.g., agri-tech, precision agriculture, AI, fin-tech) • Recognise land tenure and land rights to increase the availability of crop-based financing • Raise awareness of emerging regenerative business models & value-chains, e.g., seaweed Supply-chain interventions • Improve contractual relationships between value-chain actors. Efforts can be made to offer non-financial benefits e.g., training, knowledge sharing & engaging farming communities. • Improve access to data on what loans are performing vs. not performing to guide small investors & create opportunities to replicate & scale success stories. • Provide project-level support to rebuild the farming system: regenerative agriculture needs & methods are site and project specific; approaches & mechanisms must be tailored • Shift approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning to account for the real impact of projects on-the-ground rather than simply the number of beneficiaries & financial flows Financial instruments • Design accessible blended finance mechanisms that are accessible for MSMEs • Scale insurance facilities help mitigate risk for farming communities, e.g., weather impacts • Scale use of community managed microfinance institutions to unlock financial bottlenecks • Enhance availability, design and promotion of non-banking financial instruments to improve access to finance for MSMEs, often less regulated, more nimble, typically digital Success stories • SLOW Forest Coffee, Laos: agroforestry project integrating agriculture & fintech236238240241242243244245248249(10) De-risking investment into food and agriculture What types of investment risks need most urgent attention to catalyze transformative finance in the sector, and why? • Main risks centre on the kind of investments required to transition from current practices & business models to new ones, i.e., transitional investments & business model innovation (from production to retail etc.) o Business model transition risk largely centres on technology – including companies and projects working in the technology space (e.g. agtechs) but also companies and projects developing or scaling new business models around the use of sustainable and inclusive technologies. o Transitional investments: critical to address risks resulting from fact that market demand (or indeed, proper markets) around post-transition products and services are not quite there in most contexts. Food system investors are not sure of future demand / whether policy mandates or incentives designed to be phased out after market demand kicks-in will be stable/ long enough to make journey worthwhile. • For investors operating outside food systems, transition-related risks and more established risks associated with the sector closely intersect. E.g., agronomic risks or risks related to high costs of monitoring the different components of fragmented portfolios are present both with BAU investments and with transitional investments, but the latter bring about additional challenges related to uncertainty about MRV for green investments on a small/decentralized scale (e.g. small-scale agriculture). What is the actual and potential impact of blended structures in addressing these risks, what are their limits, and what is holding them back from reaching scale? • Blended finance can be effective in de-risking specific investments or demonstrating possibilities. But to have systemic impact and/or impact at scale it needs to be positioned into a broader toolbox and accompanied by clear strategies for market development. • Analysis of the reasons why scale is not reached (incl. SAFIN/Convergence) was validated by the observations made the group. Other key models or tools to facilitate stakeholder alignment to de-risk a diverse flow of private capital towards food system transformation • Adress risk and the economics of transitional investments and innovative business models at the same time. E.g., via approaches that address both the economic incentives for the transition and risk at the same time, looking at this from the perspective of both value chain actors (and investors within food systems) and external investors and financial institutions. • Develop & implement measures to accelerate the development of markets around post-transition models, including: o Developing the institutional underpinnings of carbon markets (for sequestration and reduced emissions) o Mainstreaming the integration/ layering of different revenue streams around individual investments and/or around individual value chain actors (e.g. farmers deriving revenues both from products and from carbon sequestration) o Leveraging the role of policy and public finance to “reward good food” (e.g. through public “quality seals’ for sustainably produced food, etc.). • Launch partnership and actor-alignment models that make transparent and actionable both the investment opportunities and the risks and costs holding back finance (or allowing finance to align to BAU). This may include existing models like the WB-supported “innovation hubs”, landscape financing approaches, investor platforms (e.g. TLFF), etc. Advantages of these models include: convening finance and food system actors (and others); identifying clear opportunities around “change” & targeted financial and de-risking solutions; creating spaces to address governance issues (esp. intersection of social and environmental impact), which often require intense engagement to support and enrich inclusive local governance mechanisms.237238239240241242243244245246248249250There were limited areas of divergence across the tables. In one case, there was some disagreement on who holds responsibility for measuring nature-based impact. While some participants saw this falling more to those engaged in food production, others saw more value in an end-to-end approach including consumers. Elsewhere, divergence emerged around how to implement solutions and priorities upon which the groups aligned.

Context: • Today’s global food system is unsustainable environmentally, socioeconomically and in terms of human health. • Finance shapes food systems, influencing production methods and creating positive impacts – by increasing capital investment and other required financing, and negative impacts – by increasing externalisation of negative costs and reinforcing market concentration. • The key challenge is how to attract private finance under the right conditions (i.e., internalising negative externalities, climate nature and poor health; reducing the absolute cost of affordable nutrition; and ensuring adequate, aligned financial flows for investment and consumption • Shaping positive financialisation – framing points: financialisation reflects “the increasing importance of financial markets, financial motives, financial institutions and financial elites in the operation of the economy and its governing institutions”. Financialisation is crowding in private capital needed for the transition; it needs to be shaped to mitigate negative and amplify positive features. This requires a shift to financial systems that are: o Efficient: internalise costs through financial market efficiency o Empowered: citizen action in shaping financialisation o Directed: enhancement of financialisation’s innovation power o Innovative: policy to shape financial market logic • This would help to deliver the food system we want: o Soil-based agriculture shifts from capital intensity to labour, local knowledge, healthy foods and affordability o No-kill protein localises and diversifies production, shortens supply-chains, lowers costs, increases nutrition and increases resilience o Healthcare providers, e-commerce and insurers shift to incentive-based models of promoting healthy foods (e.g., behaviour calibrated health insurance) Opportunity areas • No-kill proteins is potentially one of the biggest disruptors: participants discussed that lab-based meats are not restricted to rich countries; highly processed foods are found in “poor” countries as well. Finance will play a huge role in shaping whether emerging disruptions in the food sector deliver positive or negative outcomes – including role of nudges. • Food systems summit represents an opportunity to look at financial issues from system perspective & explore whether/ how financialisation can be shaped: we have begun to look at broader systemic issues around climate over the past six years; we can begin to do this for finance. We should seek to push this agenda gradually in the lead-up to the Summit and beyond. • The financial sector can speed-up & scale-up finance to more sustainable forms of agriculture through balance sheet financing and greater risk disclosure and stress testing – including climate and nature risks. o Question of how to get capital to disruptive companies more quickly, given banks do not play in the VC space: how to capitalise these companies more quickly/ engage a broader section of the investor community? o Key to tackle the issue of acquisition & transaction costs: transaction costs are higher for agri-food than energy, in part due to the ticket sizes being smaller. Need to find the right incentive to tackle this issue, e.g., smart subsidies to cover the costs (c.f., Singapore) o Need to address the issue that the way agriculture is subsidised from national governments/ regional agencies currently prevents innovation 2021-06-28 06:47:20

2021-06-21 21:15:31260https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19989/274960637984133141

05713885181127172023368514346351501018114070100045223251858712221111342941

Los trabajos en grupo fueron dirigidos por un equipo de facilitador y relator, conformados por personal de agencias internacionales como PMA, FAO, CIAT, IICA, CEPAL, la UCR y el SICA; todos con conocimiento del tema y experiencia previa en procesos de diálogo de diversa índole. La distribución de los participantes en los grupos se realizó de manera aleatoria y se promovió activamente que todos tuvieran la oportunidad de expresar sus opiniones desde los diversos sectores representados. El trabajo se realizó en un ambiente (virtual) de respeto y reconocimiento a las opiniones diversas, promoviendo una visión integral de los sistemas alimentarios, el sentido de urgencia y necesidad de realizar cambios importantes en los sistemas alimentarios en la región para asegurar la inocuidad, el acceso y la sostenibilidad de los mismos. Por la naturaleza intergubernamental del diálogo, la discusión se orientó hacia aquellos temas donde hubiese ventajas comparativas desde lo regional, tratando de enfocarse en acciones que trascendieran lo local y nacional.

Yes

234238242En el marco de la Presidencia Pro-Témpore del SICA por parte de Costa Rica, el diálogo trató las vías de acción 1 y 5, desde una perspectiva regional, dada la naturaleza intergubernamental del mismo, siendo convocante el Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería de Costa Rica. Las acciones se orientaron hacia los temas en los cuales la visión regional y la institucionalidad de la Integración ofrecen ventajas comparativas y valor agregado, como son la Gobernabilidad Regional de los Sistemas Alimentarios entendidas como Estrategias, Políticas, Institucionalidad y Financiamiento; Ciencia y Tecnología; Producción, Transformación y Cultura Alimentaria; Transporte y Comercio Intrarregional. El acto de inauguración contó con la participación del Presidente Vinicio Cerezo, Secretario General del SICA; el Sr. Juan Diego Ruiz, Jefe de la Oficina regional del Fondo Internacional para el Desarrollo Agrícola; el Sr. Renato Alvarado, Ministro de Agricultura de Costa Rica y el Sr. David Nabarro, asesor del Secretario General de la ONU para la Cumbre Alimentaria. A continuación, se hicieron dos presentaciones magistrales, por parte del Sr. Máximo Torero, Economista Jefe de la FAO y la Sra. Gerda Verburg, Coordinadora del Movimiento Scaling Up Nutrition. Las palabras iniciales en su conjunto proveyeron un marco conceptual sobre los sistemas alimentarios, así como la perspectiva regional, que fue de gran importancia como orientación para el ejercicio del diálogo. Igualmente, la participación de los equipos de facilitación, conformados por el personal de las agencias internacionales colaboradoras fue clave para la orientación de las discusiones de los grupos.235238242SISTEMAS LOCALES ROBUSTOS, SOSTENIBLES Y RESILIENTES Antes de pensar en un sistema nacional o regional debe pensarse en el fortalecimiento y robustecimiento de un sistema alimentario en los ámbitos locales, trabajando con los gobiernos a ese nivel para construir gobernanza. Se requiere el fortalecimiento de las habilidades locales para después articularlo en un sistema nacional y regional. Se indicó que algunos países piensan en exportar cuando la producción aún es limitada. Se debe buscar aumentar la producción en la región para reducir la dependencia, garantizar el alimento a la población y no depender de la producción externa. Los productores requieren asistencia técnica para sus procesos productivos, para avanzar a sistemas sostenibles, más amigables al medio ambiente y con un mejor uso de los recursos. Avanzar hacia una agroecología empezando con intercambio de conocimientos y retomando las buenas prácticas de otros países para hacer una sinergia regional. ETIQUETADO, EDUCACIÓN E INTERCAMBIO EXPERIENCIAS Regulación del etiquetado frontal de propiedades nutricionales de alimentos (Etiquetado frontal de advertencia nutricional, EFAN) con información de cantidad de azúcar, grasas y sodio que han puesto en mayor vulnerabilidad a la población frente a la pandemia del COVID-19. CERRAR BRECHAS ENTRE PRODUCTORES Y CONSUMIDORES Se reconoce al consumidor como el primer agente de cambio por ello se habló de un enfoque del tenedor a la granja, es decir, que la oferta de las empresas responda a la demanda informada del consumidor. Es importante educar e informar a los consumidores para cambiar los patrones alimentarios hacia preferencias por alimentos más sostenibles; sensibilizar a los consumidores con un lenguaje común para pasar de un concepto técnico o teórico a una herramienta eficaz como una canasta básica alimentaria comprensible y accesible para todos. La brecha existente entre productores y consumidores condiciona la elección de los alimentos menos nutritivos y sustentables. Es importante promover mecanismos exitosos sobre almacenamiento y distribución de alimentos que tienen impacto en los precios y la cantidad en que estos llegan al comercio local. Es importante incidir para que los alimentos nutritivos lleguen a los consumidores con precios accesibles. Promover el encadenamiento de los pequeños productores con las pequeñas y medianas empresas de procesamiento de alimentos y otros comerciantes, así como promover la comercialización directa entre productores y consumidores para compras locales. Eliminar la merma y el desperdicio de alimentos en todas las partes del sistema alimentario, no solo en la producción y el consumo final. RECONOCER LAS SOLUCIONES QUE RESIDEN EN LA BASE CULTURAL NATIVA DE LAS COMUNIDADES (INDÍGENA, AFRODESCENDIENTE). En el saber ancestral y la base cultural de las comunidades hay soluciones para muchos de los problemas que están enfrentando actualmente nuestros sistemas alimentarios, como la desnutrición y el sobrepeso. La utilización de plantas endémicas mediante, por ejemplo, el rescate de la cocina tradicional, es una de las vías que se pueden explorar. Organizaciones representantes de la sociedad civil, como la Fundación Costarricense de Gastronomía (FUCOGA), participantes del Movimiento SUN (Scaling Up Nutrition), y entidades académicas como la Universidad Central de Costa Rica, que actualmente realiza un trabajo comunal alrededor de la tradición alimentaria, están dispuestas a servir de enlace en el proceso de encadenamiento interinstitucional en torno a esta vía de acción. Incorporación de prácticas sostenibles como la transición hacia lo orgánico y la producción de cultivos subutilizados.236238242244248251Comercio Intrarregional. Los países centroamericanos y República Dominicana son altamente interdependientes. Para garantizar el acceso a alimentos, sobre todo en tiempos de crisis, es fundamental mantener abierto el tránsito de alimentos por las fronteras intrarregionales. No obstante que existen esfuerzos importantes para promover el comercio electrónico, se requiere> •Crear políticas públicas que incentiven las prácticas amigables con el ambiente y favorezcan la comercialización en mercados cercanos al consumidor. •Potenciar el aprovechamiento de la Unión Aduanera y el comercio intrarregional, cuyos beneficios potenciales no se conocen a nivel de los territorios. •Fortalecer capacidades empresariales y organizativas de los grupos de productores y grupos de mujeres, para salir a los mercados locales y regionales de forma competitiva. •Seguir facilitando la integración intrarregional del comercio, reconociendo que gran parte son alimentos. Eso incluye protocolos y normativas armonizadas para la producción, transporte, comercialización y etiquetado de alimentos. •Planificación regional de las necesidades productivas. Conectar las necesidades de consumo con la producción. Gobernanza regional. Los sistemas alimentarios son complejos y multidimensionales, con la participación de los más diversos sectores como producción básica, hasta los transformadores, comercializadores y consumidores, transporte, industria alimentaria, sector de servicios, turismo, etc. Los SA reflejan aspectos culturales de los pueblos. La institucionalidad regional debe dar un valor agregado que trascienda lo local y nacional para el funcionamiento adecuado de los SA. Se debe lograr una agenda compartida por parte de instancias de integración o cooperación con prioridades para el fortalecimiento de SA sostenibles y saludables, así como el fomento de políticas pública regionales que incentiven el desarrollo rural, la agricultura familiar, el comercio regional para mejorar la disponibilidad y acceso de alimentos inocuos y nutritivos, así como el máximo aprovechamiento de los recursos disponibles Debe promoverse una mirada integral del sistema alimentario regional que aborde de manera prioritaria temas tales como la atención prioritaria de grupos vulnerables, cambio climático, afectaciones de la región por situaciones sociales y educación alimentaria y nutricional como principal estrategia para el cambio alimentario, así como una revisión crítica de la conformación de la canasta básica alimentaria. Ciencia y tecnología •Contar con acceso a financiamiento para invertir en tecnología, investigación y en opciones de producción sostenible que reduzcan el impacto ambiental. •Impulsar la innovación y tecnología digital que permita intercambiar información climática y contar con un •sistema de alerta temprana dirigido a pequeños productores, incluyendo a grupos marginados y jóvenes. •Desarrollar programas de extensión rural con nuevas tecnologías •Promover el uso de tecnología limpia en los procesos de producción y transformación agrícola •Impulsar un programa de transferencia tecnológica que permita conocer y diseminar nuevas tecnologías para adaptación al cambio climático y producción de alimentos bio-fortificados, a las fincas de los pequeños productores, en términos de generar cadenas de valor con alimentos sanos e inocuos, •Impulsar buenas prácticas para la cosecha de agua, que resuelva las dificultades de disponibilidad de agua para la agricultura en época seca •Mejorar el acceso a internet en las áreas rurales. Participación y Ciudadanía Alimentaria Incentivar la activa participación ciudadana en coordinación con las entidades gubernamentales y otros actores para avanzar hacia sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en cada uno de nuestros países y en la región •Garantizar la participación de la sociedad civil en los procesos de construcción de acciones, para comprender mejor las necesidades y fortalecer las acciones que permitan suplir las identificadas. •Fomento del empoderamiento de las mujeres considerando su situación, su rol en la producción y fortalecimiento de sus economías familiares.237•Concepción de que la industria alimentaria puede resolver el problema alimentario. Si bien la industria alimentaria es un aliado muy importante para favorecer sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y saludables, hasta el momento, han realizado lo contrario generando una oferta alimentaria inadecuada que ha promovido alimentos baratos y de muy bajo contenido nutricional que ha favorecido los indicadores de sobrepeso y obesidad que se poseen actualmente. En este sentido, es necesaria un trabajo de sensibilización de la industria sobre su papel como actor clave en dicha construcción. •Predomina aún un enfoque con el productor como el centro del sistema y nos cuesta visualizar oportunidades de acción desde otros puntos del sistema o para mejorar las condiciones para otros actores en el sistema. •Las comunidades más excluidas (indígenas y afrodescendientes) perciben la resistencia de muchos otros actores dentro de los sistemas alimentarios, para incorporar estos enfoques con base cultural nativa a su cosmovisión. Se mencionó la ‘occidentalización’ del pensamiento como una barrera para reconocer y apreciar el potencial que ya existe en las dichas comunidades excluidas. •Hay recursos económicos, técnicos y financieros pero se encuentran disociados, por lo que es difícil para los actores identificar cómo se puede generar la sinergia entre las partes para realizar acciones conjuntas que permitan hacer uso de todos los recursos disponibles, para ello se planteó la necesidad de articular mejor entre el sector público, inclusive dentro de los mismos ministerios, y generar alianzas público-privadas o con academia para facilitar la generación de información, tecnologías y capacitación en pro de la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios.

2021-06-22 09:54:28205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25539/23

56

The Dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food Systems Summit through gaining an understanding about the district itself and how its several aspects are affecting the pathways to food system transformation, along with challenges that are contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Dialogue brought a diversity of stakeholders from the Government Departments, Semi-autonomous and Autonomous Organisations, Private Sector Organisations, Business networks, Civil Society Organisations, and Grass Root level Representatives– working across the food system from production to consumption. The Convenor and the team went through detail preparation for convening the dialogues to reflect that the outcomes were incorporated and enhanced during the Sub-National Dialogue.The dialogue reflected most aspects of the Principles, which particularly includes Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity and innovation to solution, Embrace Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity. Bangladesh was the first country to host the Sub-National Dialogue on Action Track 1 demonstrates the urgency and the commitment of the state. In terms of Being Respectful, the four working groups facilitated during the Sub-National Dialogue focused on nutritious and safe food, with a broad lens ranging from production to consumption (seed to stomach) as well as vulnerabilities and inclusion. As a result, the linkages with other tracks were also discussed and covered during the working group facilitation. The respected guests of the Sub-national Dialogue addressed mass awareness and accountability of all level to be key area for improvement in terms of ensuring safe and nutritious food. In Recognising Complexity and Embracing Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity, Government Departments, Semi-autonomous and Autonomous Organisations, Private Sector Organisations, Business networks, Civil Society Organisations, and Grass Root level Representatives highlighted the significance of working coordination as well as make people aware of what they consume and how the food can be safe. In addition, imperfect Supply chain, gradually decreasing agricultural land and at mass level, habit of fast-food intake, climate change effects were some other areas highlighted as few of the challenges in the way of ensuring safe food consumption. Participants emphasized the importance of mass level awareness range from duty bearers to consumers as the prime measure to reduce food unsafety. Alongside, being accountable and responsible from own side as a citizen would be highly appreciated and should be in practice, promoting climate resilient agriculture, developing more inter-departmental coordination, controlled use of fertilizer, pesticides, poultry feed etc should be active to ensure safe food and value chain cycle.Firstly, the National Convenor of Bangladesh focusing on Action Track 1, recognises that it is crucial to organize dialogues with participation from multisector and multi-stakeholder agencies, considering the complexity of food system. In addition, it is critical to develop a small working group with multiple stakeholders, including private sector, duty bearers, government departments, grass root level representatives and youth to show the interconnections between the different action tracks. It will create the options to facilitate dialogues on different issues around food system, beyond merely focusing on one action track. The principles of engagement for learning is highlighted in the previous question.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249The major focus of the dialogue is to identify the major challenges and solution to those considering the geographical, economic and social perspective of Satkhira with a broader objective to complement the target- improve food and nutrition security through food system approach. In the discussion of the dialogue, Action Track-1 i.e. ‘Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all’ was considered with a prime importance. However, connections with the other Action Tracks were also considered for the improvement of food and nutrition security situation in Bangladesh. In the group discussion session of the dialogue, the following four thematic areas (discussion topics) were considered: i) Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious Food; ii) Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector; iii) Consumer behaviours, nutrition and food safety; iv) Climate vulnerability, inclusion and governance. For ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all, it is important to include all vulnerable population in the social protection programme. Government of Bangladesh has given emphasis to support people affected by the flood, drought, natural disaster, other adverse climatic events. In addition, it is also important to support people residing in the marginalized and geographically hard-to-reach areas, and families which are economically and socially vulnerable to food and nutrition security. Besides, special training programs for private sector, mass awareness and knowledge building on safe food and food supply chain and agricultural sector rehabilitation and mitigation measures could benefit these vulnerable and excluded people.235238239240241242243244246248249Despite having act and law enforcement, percentage of people’s practice of consuming safe food is not satisfactory. Lack of knowledge, clear concept about safe food and ignorance are the reason behind this. At the same time, mass people are not accountable and responsible to ensure safe food. Though Safe Food Authority has been working on creating awareness among people and make them develop practice of safe food intake, due to lack of adequate human resource, it becomes challenging to cover entire population. Food intake, transportation, and process- in all these areas, people are quite unaware and negligent. From food production to consumption-, the process is huge. the food chain from production to consumption is not perfect.in this entire process foods get contaminated in 3 ways- physical (low), biological (man-made) and chemical (Man-Made). Too much consumption of fast food is leading to idleness among people. This is the area that can be noticed and given priority by Food Safety Authority for a solution. Agricultural lands are being occupied for infrastructural development and lands for crop cultivation are decreasing every day. This leads of lack of organic crop and creates dependency on processed food which is not a healthy food option. chances of stunting as well as ill health and brain development remain significant in our country. Everyone should be aware and acquire relevant knowledge and turn this to a practice from their position. Mass awareness will be created through organizing meeting. Seminar, symposium across the country under the leadership of Food Safety Authority Chairman. Capacity building and awareness training to the food sector’s business community as well as hotel business cooperatives can be provided. Lack of nutrition has a long terms and permanent effect on public health. Though the country is food-secured, still it is high time to shift the focus on the nutritional aspect f the food that has been consumed regularly. Unplanned use of pesticides and uncertainty in using good quality seeds. Poultry sellers insist famers to buy and apply antibiotics. This causes harms to the poultry because, unless and until a specific amount of time passes, poultry with these antibiotics applied, cannot be used as meat, but this time gap in most of the cases are not being followed and this creates risk for human health. Use of poultry bone and meat in fish food is hazardous for human health as well. But use of these has not been stopped yet. Left out leathers from tannery are often being used in fish feed. Good agriculture practices, Good aquaculture practices, Good livestock practices, Good industrial practices will help to ensure nutritious safe and quality food products. Among these, draft on good aquaculture practices has been developed and undergoing the review process before finalization. Use of antibiotics outside existing rule must be restricted. Poultry and fish feed producers are requested to review these structures once again to ensure the restriction. To avoid diseases like mad cow and all, use of meat and bone must be stopped. An advocacy is going on from BFSA’s side with BSCIC and ministry of Industries to stop the use of leather in poultry feed immediately. People in official responsibility and duty, their vigilance should be increased. Issue-based TVCs are broadcasting in a regular basis and are visible on billboard. Mobile Laboratory van for poultry and fish quality testing is active in Dhaka level. Soon in all divisional cities more vans will be launched to ensure these tests at grassroot level. Farmers should be aware before using the pesticides and chemical fertilizer. Each fertilizer has different validity time. If farmers do not follow this that then residue can be left with the crops after harvesting. This is another hazardous deed that risks human health. Upon the instruction of Honorable Prime Minister, age focused nutritious and balanced diet chart is under process. Once this is done. This too will be disseminated through proper campaign. Hotels will be labeled based on the quality and category. Initiatives have already been taken to motivate and train hotel employees to ensure quality service for achieving food safety.236238239240241242243244245246247249251•Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious Food: Outcomes: Challenges: Water logging, Salinity, Crop land decreasing, Indiscriminate use of pesticides, Natural disasters, Poor marketing facilities/ supply chain system, Lack of capital for farm operation, Insufficient quality seed supply, Poor irrigation facility, Less/ no veterinarian/ skilled human resource, Lack of feed and fodder as Satkhira is a disaster-prone area, Inadequate lab facility, Lack of sufficient training, Lack of waste management system, Lack of awareness among people. Way Forward: Re-excavation of canal river and water bodies in a planned way; Saline tolerant variety cultivation; Land zoning (proper implementation of land use), Possible best use of pesticide (environment friendly pest management; Embankment management; Organized supply chain; Shortening the supply chain timing will be helpful here; Low interest and hassle-free credit facilities, Demand forecasting and timely supply of seeds; Appointment of sufficient veterinary officials in field level, Laboratory setup at regional level; Waste recycling and management; Sufficient water supply, Good quality seed and feed; Establishment of disease control lab; Short supply chain. • Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector: Challenges: Excessive degree of milling in rice mills; Mixing unsafe ingredients in shrimp; Collecting shrimp spawn is expensive (distance and location); Challenges in mango preservation and processing; Challenges in vegetable preservation. Way forward: Prevention of rice over milling and increase awareness on this; Awareness increase, monitoring and law enforcement to solve shrimp problems/ challenges in export-import cycle and how the farmers and middle man deal with the entire process of product marketing; Necessary measure for mango preservation; Necessary measure such as cold storage and drying etc. need to be taken to preserve vegetables; Establishment of direct communication and networking foreign investors. • Consumer behaviors, nutrition and food safety: Challenges: Lack of awareness in taking nutritious food; Lack of affordability in taking nutritious food due to poverty; Challenge in ensuring safe food in production and marketing level; Lack of positivity and awareness regarding safe food; Gap in proper implementation of safe food act; Health problems caused from unhealthy and junk food consumption. Way forward: Aware people for nutritious food consumption; To take initiative to increase people’s purchasing capability; Initiate campaign to enlighten people at farmers, seller and consumer’s level; Mass campaign, meeting, symposium and courtyard session regarding food safety; Ensure active role of local administration, legal aid organizations and relevant committees for proper implementation of safe food act; Disseminate correct message regarding excessive nutrition and lack of nutrition. • Climate vulnerability, inclusion and governance: Increased health hazards, especially for women; Destruction of natural resources due to non-diversified livelihood; Destruction of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. -Destruction of cultivation land due to dry season, repeated natural disaster, salinity, water level rise etc; Extinction of sweet water fish species; Excessive use of saline water accelerate aging process; Degradation of soil quality; Degraded law and order situation; Tidal surge creates permanent water logging; Cyclone destroys critical infrastructure and livelihoods; Jeopardize the bio diversity of sundarban; It will lead to the rise of sea level which will ultimately result in sub-merging most of this area under the water; Poor condition of the forest reservation; During and after Cyclones Sidr and Aila, a lot of people have become homeless; A big portion of this homeless people have migrated to other places outside this area for livelihood purpose; Due to migration, hazards like occupational hazards, health hazards, absence of good governance. Way Forward: Building dams and sluice gates; Applying alternative cultivation system; Strengthening evacuation process; Steps to be taken to get the proper share of Ganga’s water.237238239240241242243244245246248249All the identified areas were highly interlinked and have fallen in a clear structure of the emerging challenges and possible way forward to those challenges. Rather the team has identified few areas in organizing the dialogue that should be addressed more carefully in future dialogues and should not be repeated. Considering this dialogue is the 1st among the 6 regional dialogues of UN Food Systems Summit, it is really appreciating the way stakeholders participated and were involved to find out solutions to the existing challenges of Satkhira in terms of establishing safe and nutritious food system. This report records important recommendation from the dialogue and along with that focuses on few areas that needs attention and needs to be avoided in coming dialogues: - Guest participation was not up to the expectation. This needs to be fixed in next 5 dialogues. If support from GAIN is required, GIAN would be happy to being a part of guest follow up and confirmation. Relevant and specific stakeholders are highly required for these dialogues, particularly representative from local business communities.. - Challenges and recommendation need to be more specific. Satkhira dialogue has a series of challenges identified and way forward to solve those, but most of those are generic. Considering the GAME CHANGING IDEA, these dialogues need to be more issue focused with a clear break down of both the challenge and solution.

2021-06-22 10:06:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20122/1023294587127130139

20658945041011052538257534433628283271711710144128822

We organised this webinar as one of the independent dialogues in the run up to the UNFSS, with the aim of bringing together the diverse voices of partners from the Hindu Kush Himalaya region – or, as the UNFSSS emphasizes, to “help the world hear all voices of food systems”. The topic of ethnic cuisines was compelling given the region’s diverse ethnicities, traditions, and food cultures. Although ethnic cuisines are intrinsically linked to local production systems, cultures and traditions, food and nutrition security, and rural livelihoods and economy, the topic is often overlooked. Our aim was to draw attention to this neglect and to highlight how the revitalization of ethnic cuisine can lead to improved nutrition outcomes, nature positive food production, and equitable livelihoods. Complementing the work of our partners in the regional member countries, ICIMOD had a discussion with key resource persons on possible discussion ideas for the dialogue. We formed an in-house team of conveners, curators, moderators, and knowledge facilitators, and discussed questions with potential speakers. Once the speakers agreed, a detailed agenda was drafted. Aligning with the principle of being respectful, we sent a formal invitation to the panellists and speakers. While identifying the key speakers, we ensured a balance of country and gender representation. A keynote on the gender lever of UNFSS was also included to ensure that solutions for transforming food systems are gender transformative and responsive to the needs of different groups and sectors. Through this dialogue we also recognized and highlighted complexity. We examined the ethnic cuisine discourse from a holistic perspective, inviting discussions on the environmental, economic and socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability. We also embraced multi-stakeholdership by ensuring wide outreach and participation by posting the event on our website, sharing on social media, and spreading the message through our institutional partner networks in the regional member countries.The seven principles of engagement were reflected as follows: Act with urgency: The HKH dialogue on ethnic cuisine highlighted urgent research, management and policy topics and underlined the need to explore innovative pathways to food systems transformation in the Hindu Kush Himalaya; Commit to the summit: As one of the independent dialogues of the UNFSS, this dialogue was an opportunity for experts and stakeholders from ICIMOD’s regional member countries to voice their perspectives and commit to meaningfully transform food systems in the mountain context, focusing on the innovative but overlooked topic of ethnic cuisines; Be respectful: The dialogue drew upon perspectives, ideas, viewpoints, knowledge, and experiences of participants and panellists from diverse groups and sectors. The online platform allowed participants to ask questions and express their views; Recognize complexity: The dialogue adopted a systemic approach to food system transformation and allowed participants to view ethnic cuisines from the dimensions of science, practice, and policy. Embrace multistakeholder inclusivity: The HKH dialogue brought together diverse stakeholders – government agencies, businesses, civil society, development partners, and academia – with due emphasis on gender and social inclusion. As per the registration statistics, the dialogue had a balanced gender representation with 51% female and 49% male registrants; Complement the work of others: Building upon the existing work of partners in the HKH, we invited speakers from Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan to share their experiences, broaden the understanding on ethnic cuisine and food systems, and to foster future partnerships, innovation and approaches that can deliver systems-level transformation; Build trust: The HKH dialogue was curated and facilitated to foster and strengthen partnerships and encourage sharing in in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. The outcome of the dialogue is shared and owned by the participants and is not solely attributed to individuals.We encourage other convenors to recognize, understand, and appreciate the seven principles of engagement outlined by the Summit. The Convenors’ Handbook is a useful tool, and it efficiently explains the meaning and importance of these principles. These principles truly make the summit a “people’s summit”. The principles of engagement can guide the entire process of event organization and organizing collective outputs so that it has the ownership of everyone involved in the process. The principles also help the organizers think about how the dialogue can be made more meaningful to the audience, and how it can both complement their work and align to the broader sustainable development goals. The principles provide a useful reference for the convenors to understand the complexities of the process that goes into developing a global policy instrument, and the importance of bringing together the voices of diverse stakeholders. This will also guide the facilitators and moderators to be respectful and open to the views and perspectives of all food system actors, and to explore possibilities of wider partnerships and connect among them. For our dialogue, we followed the founding design principles and they aligned with our institutional mandate of promoting robust regional cooperation among the eight member countries, driving collective and urgent climate action, and strengthening incentives and means for mountain communities to conserve and manage ecosystems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249250251The main objective of the HKH dialogue was to bring together a range of stakeholders – academics, policy makers, practitioners, businesses, and communities – to discuss how the revitalization and promotion of ethnic cuisines can contribute to healthier, more sustainable, and equitable food systems. The aim was to discuss key research and management issues regarding ethnic cuisines, and the policy environment necessary to promote and sustain them, which in turn would ensure a pathway to sustainable food systems, nature positive food production, and equitable livelihoods. On the science front, the event deliberated on: - Prospects of science and research around ethnic cuisines, how they could influence nature positive production, use of food for health and nutrition, identification of priority future research areas around ethnic cuisines, and healthy agroecosystem management for the mountains - Changing perspectives on ethnic cuisines and associated knowledge given rapid economic development, changes in lifestyle and food cultures, and possible actions to push the agenda of a healthy and safer food culture in the mountains On the practice front, the event deliberated on: - The role of home gardens in local cuisine, the role of communities in maintaining home gardens as repositories of diversity, and the role of women in managing home gardens for better dietary diversity and nutrition security of their families. - The essence of local food and its relation to effective utilization of food, minimization of food loss, acknowledgement of local knowledge on nutrition, prospects of local food in informal food markets and the evolution of future smart foods, and how to support local food movements for better dietary awareness in the mountains - Food based livelihood opportunities and value chains, and how ethnic cuisines can be integrated into businesses so that the health of farms and economic wellbeing of mountain communities are not compromised On the partnerships and policy front, the event deliberated on: - Current partnerships between governments and other institutions in promoting ethnic cuisines, nutritious food and healthy diets, and how research and development institutions and government agencies can work together - The need for policy innovations to promote food diversity in an era of homogenization of food markets and food system transformation, and enabling mechanisms necessary to support local food, local knowledge and local farming systems for better dietary choices for mountain communities The HKH dialogue on “Revitalizing ethnic cuisine for improved nutrition, nature positive food production, and equitable livelihoods” was appropriate as we identified in consultation with our partners that preservation and promotion of ethnic cuisines is one action that is well-aligned with the objective of sustainable food systems, and that awareness of the value of ethnic cuisines can help transform the way the world produces, consumes, and thinks about food.235238239240241242243244246248249250251The main findings and takeaways from the keynote presentations and discussions are summarised below: Ethnic cuisines are immune boosters: Ethnic cuisines are healthy and nutritious, especially fermented foods, which are rich in antioxidants and have many other immunity boosting properties. Ethnic communities use traditional knowledge to prepare the food from locally available ingredients, making them diverse in terms of their organoleptic characteristics. Ethnic cuisines diversify food systems: Ethnic cuisines use a variety of ingredients –conventional agricultural crops, livestock and fishes, and non-conventional food resources such as wild edible plants, insects, animal sourced food, and neglected and underutilized species. Ethnic cuisines revitalize and sustain diverse food source and ecosystems, and help tackle the homogenization of production systems and loss of agrobiodiversity resources. The key aspect here is that ethnic cuisines are a reflection of diverse ‘food systems’ and not ‘farming systems’. Documentation and research of ethnic cuisines in urgent: The diversity of food and food habits in the HKH is immense, but there is poor documentation of this diversity and assessments of the nutritional values and efficiency of several non-conventional foods and cuisine ingredients, including aspects of food safety. Traditional food systems are already transformative but require recognition and support: Cross-learning, scaling out, and partnerships are required to strengthen local cuisines and local food systems. There is a need for agricultural policies to shift focus from intensive agriculture to diversifying the food system, food ecosystem and food web, and for recognition of these spaces as globally and nationally important agricultural heritage sites. Home gardens are key to sustaining ethnic cuisines: Home gardens can improve access to food in marginalized areas, and can ensure household food security. Home and kitchen gardens may not be new ideas but they need greater recognition and dedicated support from governments. Home gardens are not only repositories of daily food ingredients, but also of local seeds and genetic resources. They can also serve as spaces to experiment on future food crops, and to diversify local culinary knowledge. Ethnic cuisines link communities to business: Communities can meaningfully engage in food-based value chains and the hospitality industry, promoting diversified food commodities for consumers and markets. This appropriately places local cuisines in the era of technological development and the consumer-driven food industry and helps communities enhance their livelihood options. Engagement of youth and technological innovations is crucial in revitalizing ethnic cuisines: It is vital to involve the youth through programmes such as fellowships to promote local cuisines, and ensure conservation of traditional knowledge and agrobiodiversity. Likewise, use of appropriate technology across all food system actions can enhance the volume, quality, and branding of ethnic cuisines. The GESI perspective is important: Women are key actors in food systems, and ethnic cuisines are important pathways to address not just food and nutrition security, but also structural inequalities based on gender and social identities. Speakers and participants highlighted the need for more research partnerships to highlight the nutritional values of local and ethnic cuisines so as to promote them as healthy and nutritious foods. They also called for greater support for the maintenance of local food systems, especially home gardens, for improving household food security.236238243244248In his keynote presentation, Jyoti Prasad Tamang from Sikkim Central University highlighted how people in the HKH region prepare and consume about 1,000 region-specific fermented foods and more than 3,000 ethnic non-fermented foods. Ethnic and traditional cuisines, with their simple preparation and ingredients sourced straight from farms and forests are a good and ready source of nutritious food. Many of the fermented foods prepared and consumed across HKH have high nutraceutical properties. Therefore, promotion of such foods can be beneficial for health and nutrition. Wild edible plants also have very high nutritional value and are part of many ethnic cuisines. However, there is a need for additional research and scientific evidence on nutritional and functional benefits of ethnic cuisines and their diverse ingredients, including research around toxicology and food safety. Home gardens must be promoted at the household level as they serve as a reservoir of diverse ingredients for ethnic cuisines, as local seed banks and a ready source of safe and nutritious food. The diversified crops, plants, and livestock in home gardens are crucial and accessible resources for providing year-round food supply for the household, and surplus which can bring income to the family, thereby supplementing the livelihoods of poor rural households. Further, there is a need to promote sustainable food production, soil health management and organic production, so that the ingredients of these ethnic cuisines are free of harmful chemicals.236239243244246248251Many people have become health conscious and are opting for ethnic cuisines to boost their immune system. People have been drawn to the nutritional and therapeutic properties of ethnic cuisines. For example, finger millet is gluten free, fermented milk contains plenty of probiotics, and fermented soybean (kinema) is antioxidant and prevents osteoporosis. Ethnic foods are also easy to prepare, inexpensive, affordable and sustainable. The consumption of local food/ethnic cuisines for taste and nutrition is also growing. As one speaker highlighted, highland barley has become a popular menu item in most parts of Tibet. People in Tibet have become more conscious about nutrition and are shifting their dietary focus from grains and rice to dairy products, fruits, and vegetables. Awareness of the ingredients and their health benefits triggers sustainable consumption of fresh and unadulterated food. Families in rural areas manage home gardens and they play an important role in meeting the nutritional needs of women, men, and children, especially in these areas. Young people should be targeted for raising awareness on ethnic cuisines and local foods to ensure the long-term viability of local food production systems, value addition, promotion, and sustainability. On the demand side, it is crucial to build trust and confidence among consumers through scientific research on the values of these foods, ensuring hygiene and food safety, and highlighting the health and environmental benefits. Ethnic cuisines can replace food imports and promote gastronomy tourism, contributing to the local economy. Product diversification through research and development of ethnic cuisines can motivate consumers to consume safe and healthy food regularly. With the market dominated mostly by processed foods, there has been a decrease in the consumption of ethnic foods. Therefore, dietary awareness and food literacy programmes are necessary to rekindle interest in ethnic foods. Value addition through developing good recipes and promoting ethnic food in local cafés can also reinforce sustainable consumption. The way we consume food and our eating habits also determines how food is assimilated. Traditional customs such as eating food with our hands, washing hands and mouth before and after eating, sitting cross legged on the floor while eating are aspects of dietary rules and etiquette in many communities that are said to have good health benefits.236240243244246249250251One of the speakers highlighted how agriculture policies in the HKH are mostly farm focused rather than food focused. The focus has been on simplifying farming systems for enhanced production and economic returns rather than for diversifying food systems for enhanced ecosystem services and food diversity. Promotion of ethnic cuisines is necessary to promote nature positive production as they are directly linked to the management of traditional genetic resources on-farm and wider food sources in the natural landscape. Ethnic cuisines have always been associated with sustainable production and management of the natural landscape and this needs to be recognized. Hence, there is a need to diversify food production systems not only to enrich food and dietary diversity but also to reduce vulnerability to production environment and avoid climatic and market risks. Revival of ethnic cuisines has become crucial in protecting the cultural heritage of communities, thereby protecting the whole agroecosystem. Ingredients for ethnic cuisines are often locally sourced, thus making them adaptive to climatic shocks. This can be promoted as a way to adapt to climate change. Home gardens, with their diverse and rich composition of plant and animal species, are also an integral part of local food systems in the HKH. Hence, they become ideal sites for promotion and management of genetic material in a sustainable manner. Technological support with regard to various methods of house farming such as vertical farming, rooftop farming, pot farming, and hydroponics, can support families who have little or no land. These local production system are mostly default organic as they utilize kitchen waste, animal manure and other organic residues. Shifting cultivation landscapes are a good reservoir of diverse crops, both cultivated and non-cultivated, which enhances in-situ conservation of underutilized species. Research and development of indigenous seeds, local food products, traditional farming systems and improved diets for communities need to be a priority for the region. There is also a need for agricultural policies to shift their focus from intensive agriculture to diversifying the food system, food ecosystem and food web, so that we can reduce poverty, hunger and malnutrition. Revival of ethnic cuisines and engagement of indigenous communities in maintaining land resources for diversified food is only possible through incentive-based, and culturally-driven conservation.236241243245248249251Ethnic foods from the Himalayas have gained popularity in the global food market. Product diversification and proper branding with nutritional and therapeutic values can also promote the culture and heritage associated with such food items. Ethnic communities can highlight food as an important aspect of their cultural heritage and attract tourists, which can help them diversify livelihood options. Enterprises around ethnic cuisines also need to be encouraged, which can enhance income opportunities, boost the local economy, and advance equitable livelihoods. The ethnic food market can grow through product diversification and proper branding (for example, dog chews made from traditional hard cheese, and cardamom masala from the HKH region). SAARC Business Association of Home Based Workers (SABAH) Nepal has brought together ethnic communities, their food products and cuisines together, contemporized their presentation and promoted these cuisines through enterprises, which not only contributes to the conservation of traditional cuisines and food system knowledge, but also support the livelihoods of small, farm-based women communities. Tourism packages and homestays serving ethnic food can also be an option for livelihood diversification. Ethnic food based enterprises can also help place indigenous communities as important strategic partners in the food value chain, not just as producers of the ingredients. Government-led programmes should also prioritize mechanisms for engaging small farmers and small family-based farming in agribusiness and food-based value chains.236242243244246248249250251To build resilience, the focus must be on food systems and not on farming systems. The food system incorporates wider food resources beyond the farm, for example from forests, wetlands, and home gardens – and therefore spreads risk and improves the ability to cope with shocks and stress. Future partnerships between the government and development partners must prioritize sustainable food production, food safety, reducing food waste, improving food value chains, and revitalization of neglected and underutilized crop species. Government and non-government organizations, with the common goal of improved dietary diversity, nutrition, and health, should work together to revitalize ethnic cuisines and diverse food systems. There is a need from all levels of stakeholders, especially from policy makers, to support the growth of community-based food system initiatives and food policies that prioritize food systems and value chains in a holistic manner. Food and food cultures have evolved with human civilization. Safeguarding ethnic cuisines enhances the traditional and cultural identities of ethnic and indigenous communities in the HKH region and encourages them to conserve diverse food production systems. Preservation of ethnic cuisines also helps reinforce cultural identities, empowering these communities to create resilient food systems. The nutritional and health benefits of ethnic fermented foods provides good prospects for future foods. Strengthening the food value chain is key in bringing mountain food products to the market, which can ultimately enhance livelihoods of mountain farmers and producers. By buying directly and locally, we can also help build the resilience of women, small farmers, and vulnerable populations. Youth who have gained experience and skills from working abroad and returned due to COVID-19 could be engaged in revitalizing ethnic cuisines and addressing issues of hygiene and food safety. The young generation should be encouraged to take part in revitalizing ethnic cuisine and conserving agro diversity and associated traditional knowledge. Capacity support to communities, including extension and inputs services are crucial. Protecting ethnic cuisines helps in maintaining local food production systems and agrobiodiversity, along with long term management of ecosystem services. Conservation of ethnic cuisines feeds into the conservation of agrobiodiversity, and proper management of soil, water, forests, biodiversity, culture, traditions, and economy. Seed banks, ex-situ conservation, and data management and documentation of genetic resources for food and agriculture is closely linked to the revitalization of ethnic cuisines. Protection of ethnic cuisines also enriches the tradition/cultural identities of many ethnic communities, which can further encourage them to better manage on farm diversity. Furthermore, diversified food production systems not only lead to better diets but also increase agrobiodiversity, and reduce vulnerability to environmental, climatic or market challenges and shocks.237NA

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-ICIMOD-Ethnic-Cuisine-Dialogue_Stephanie-Gallatova_08June2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-ICIMOD-Ethnic-Cuisine-Dialogue_Panelists-point_Tulsi-Gurung_08-June-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-ICIMOD-Ethnic-Cuisine-Dialogue_Panelists-point_Hassan-M-Bajwa_08-June-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-ICIMOD-Ethnic-Cuisine-Dialogue_Panelists-point_Pius-Ranee_08-June-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-ICIMOD-Ethnic-Cuisine-Dialogue_Panelists-point_Khaing-Khaing_08-June-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-ICIMOD-Ethnic-Cuisine-Dialogue_Panelists-point_Robin-Amatya_08-June-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS-ICIMOD-Ethnic-Cuisine-Dialogue_Panelists-point_Amba-Jamir_08-June-2021.pdfhttps://www.icimod.org/event/revitalizing-ethnic-cuisine-for-improved-nutrition-nature-positive-food-production-and-equitable-livelihoods/https://www.icimod.org/ethnic-cuisines-for-healthier-more-sustainable-and-equitable-food-systems/

2021-06-22 10:12:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14959/203

141571143101117142322

Act with urgency: participants were asked to propose concrete social and policy changes required to empower women across all stages of food systems, in light of the unique opportunity for radical change implied by the COVID-19 pandemic. Be respectful: The webinar focused on the role of women in food systems in their capacity as agents of change and leaders of sustainable food systems. They were not framed as mere victims of unjust food systems, but rather as active transformers of food systems and caretakers of the wellbeing of their communities. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: participants represented social movements, global public institutions, academia, non-governmental organizations. The diversity of the panel symbolized the need for inter-sectoral collaboration and spoke to the fact that that healing the world requires everyone’s participation. Complement the work of others: The dialogue was organized in a way that the first speakers in each session gave an overview of the flaws/challenges of agri-food systems that fall disproportionately on women and an ethical reflection that empowering women in food systems is a moral imperative. These reflections were followed by 1/2 technical presentations that articulated the actions and policies to achieve women empowerment. Finally, we showcased testimonies that exemplified where these actions are being taken today.Commit to the summit: participants identified challenges/shortcomings in today’s food systems and offered concrete policy proposals to rebuild food systems in a more resilient, sustainable and inclusive way (action-oriented). Proposals were complemented with real-life testimonies of women and organizations involved in food systems in Africa and Latin America that highlighted the differential vulnerability of women to food insecurity and “best practices” that are leading this change today (people-centred). Recognize complexity: the dialogues convened experts from multiple sectors and sought to analyse present-day food systems in light of their origins and consequences on the environment, economics, peace and health. The objective was to come up with holistic proposals for food systems that neutralize tradeoffs between feeding the world and destroying the environment. Build trust: The Vatican as a convenor opening a space for dialogue among women. Under the framework of a UN event, it responded to the Vatican COVID-19 Commission’s mandate of being a “fertile soil” – facilitating and supporting others to promote the change.

No• Initial proposal to host a series of independent dialogues inspired by the levers of change was born from conversations between the Vatican COVID-19 Commission, the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See and the UNFSS Organizing Committee • Drafting of an initial concept note, responding to the WHAT, WHY, HOW of the event. • Definition of the theme of the dialogue around the first lever of change: women’s empowerment. • Definition of the unique framing that the conveners of the dialogue can bring: food justice as a moral issue and an integral and holistic approach to the transformation of food systems as a whole. • Definition of the unique contribution that the conveners of the dialogue can bring: leveraging the convening power of the Church to create space for interdisciplinary dialogue in light of the principles of Catholic Social Teaching and highlighting the voices of the most vulnerable • Selection of Dialogue Curator • Convening dialogue facilitators and participants (partnerships) • Drafting the agenda: determining discussion topics, based on the profile of invited speakers • Confirmation of invited speakers and of the final program • Announcing the dialogue on UNFSS page • Announcing on Holy See press office and starting promotion • Drafting participants brief including: i) introduction to the dialogue series, so that participants could have a clear idea of the process they are involved in, ii) technical background - challenges and opportunities for women in food systems – describing why the theme is important to discuss, iii) framing and the position of the Church on this issue to frame the discussion, iv) objective of the dialogue (stimulate a dialogue, advance proposals and share experiences about the role of women in promoting integral human development, rebuilding resilient food systems and improving relations with others and with the planet, v) guidelines for participants. Common set of questions to which the different disciplines represented in the panel, contribute to and complement their viewpoints. Participants were given detailed background information to prepare their participation. 2. Curators briefing sessions – meetings with dialogue facilitators to reiterate and reinforce the goals of each discussion 3. Participants briefing session – meeting led by Dialogue curator, with facilitators and participants to exchange ideas and coordinate/ complement the key messages conveyed, and set the “rules” of the dialogue (respecting time, other participants). 4. Final outline of the dialogue discussions sent to participants 5. Final brief prior to the event 6. Dialogue – dialogue facilitators ensured participants respected the time allotted. They collected the key messages and then guided participants in the dialogue. Their questions encouraged participants to provide forward-looking, action-oriented answers and proposals.

234238240241242243244247250251Responding to the first lever of change of the UNFSS, women empowerment, the focus of this dialogue was the unique role of women in promoting human development, with emphasis on how to support their leadership in shaping resilient food systems across the globe. Women represent approximately 40% of the world’s rural agricultural workforce – nearly 50% in low-income countries – and they are crucial contributors to agri-food value chains as farmers, businesswomen, entrepreneurs and community leaders. They are central elements to ensuring food security and nutrition in their families and communities. However, they suffer from a higher vulnerability to food insecurity in relation to their male counterparts: as smallholder farmers, they produce the majority of the food in their countries, but few own the land they cultivate, and many don’t have access to public services and lack basic rights. At the same time, removal of forests, wetlands and wild eco-systems for annual cropping, removes habitats from which women source foods, medicines, energy and untapped biodiversity for future opportunities. Finally, women’s voices have largely been neglected in COVID-19 decision-making processes due to an enduring underrepresentation in senior positions in key fields of medicine and politics. This implies that the unique contribution of women to the regeneration of food systems in the post-COVID world remains largely unexplored. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the vulnerability of countless women across the world, yet they continue to be fundamental pillars in the transition to sustainable and resilient food systems, capable of producing enough food for all. The Catholic Church’s teaching has long recognized the equal dignity of men and women, especially with regards to their roles in public life and seeks to enhance their participation in processes addressing their exclusion from public life. Therefore, the focus of this dialogue was to i) listen to the injustices and challenges faced by women in food systems, ii) connect experiences of organizations, institutions and actors working to build up the capacity of women in food systems, and iii) inspire holistic proposals to promote the participation, representation and leadership of women in rebuilding resilient food systems and improving relations with others and with the planet.235238240241242243249250251The first session focused on the challenges and opportunities faced by female rural workers and small-scale farmers around the world. It featured presentations by Daniela Fumarola, Confederal Secretary of Italian Confederation of Trade Unions (CISL) and Ndaya Beltchika, Lead Technical Specialist for Gender and Social Inclusion at International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), who stressed the critical role of women in food production and the insufficient recognition of their contributions. The absence of specific data to measure the contributions of women in food systems, as well as their specific challenges and needs (e.g. their exclusion from necessary productive resources like financial instruments, technology, training, etc.), places them at greater risk of being left behind by development processes. Speakers affirmed the need for desegregated data to measure and give visibility to the work done by women (both formal and informal), so as to target national policies and budgets to their special needs and support their leadership in ensuring food security. Following this discussion, Romana Koech of the AVSI Foundation in Kenya, Betty Rose Aguti and Musamba Mubanga from Caritas Uganda and Zambia respectively, brought the real-life testimonies of women in these countries, who are nurturing the development of their communities through their work in food production. These stories showcased how the “three Cs” aggravating present-day global hunger - Conflict, COVID, Climate Change - can be overcome with other, more positive “Cs”: Care for life, Culture of life, Community of life. The second session was centred around the contribution of women to food security through their participation in international political processes. The discussion was opened by Daniela Ropelato, Director of the Doctoral School of the Sophia University Institute, who asserted the “culture of care” (Laudato Si’, 231) as the necessary paradigm for holistic and collective action. Engaging political processes relating to food systems through the lens of care, would allow for the appreciation of the complementarity between men and women in political processes and forge necessary alliances in decision-making. Afterwards, Lola Castro, Regional Director for Southern Africa, World Food Programme (WFP), urged audiences to move beyond the interpretation of women as victims of an unsustainable, unjust and fragile food system, and recognize them as “agents of change” and leaders in the reformulation of systems. She reiterated the need to formally recognize their contributions across all stages of food systems, and enhance their participation in political processes destined to shape them. She stressed the importance of increasing the involvement of women in early prevention and response strategies to food crises, and increasing their representation in leadership positions. The panel was completed by Gabriella Arrigo, Head of International Relations at the Italian Space Agency (ASI) and Susie Snyder, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) who gave testimonies of successful international cooperation projects involving women in leadership positions in fields normally reserved to men. The novelty of their presentations was the relation between space missions and nuclear disarmament to the promotion of sustainable and inclusive food systems, particularly through the collection of data and the promotion of peace. The final session featured presentations by Marcela Villarreal, Director partnerships, advocacy and capacity development, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); Prof. Vera Zamagni, Professor of Economic History, University of Bologna; and Prof. Linda Ghisoni, Undersecretary of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, on the contribution of women to sustainable and inclusive food systems as household leaders. While Dr. Villareal reiterated the need to recognize and enhance the role of women in food systems through national policies and incentives, and increase their participation throughout decision-making processes, Prof. Vera Zamagni and Linda Ghisoni focused on the role of women as educators for a new “culture of care”. They explored the work of women in educating future generations on a better use of agricultural resources, nurturing the integral development of communities, and transferring knowledge in support of resilient, inclusive and sustainable food systems. This work, often unrecognized in public spheres, should also be supported through political and economic measures. The session was closed by Catalina Hinojosa López, from the Agriculture and Justice Village of the Economy of Francesco, who gave an inspiring testimony of her experiences with indigenous women in Ecuador and their role in perpetuating the buen vivir philosophy, by transferring knowledge to future generations about how to live in harmony with their communities and their environment. Working the land to ensure food for all, while caring for the earth and its people is possible.236238240241243246251Speakers affirmed the need for desegregated data to measure and give visibility to the work done by women (both formal and informal), so as to target national policies and budgets to their special needs and support their leadership in ensuring food security.236241242243246249251Speakers affirmed the need to formally recognize women's contributions across all stages of food systems, and enhance their participation in political processes destined to shape them. Of special importance is the involvement of women in early prevention and response strategies to food crises, and increasing their representation in leadership positions.236238240242243244249251Need to support women's role in educating future generations on a better use of agricultural resources, nurturing the integral development of communities, and transferring knowledge in support of resilient, inclusive and sustainable food systems. This work, often unrecognized in public spheres, should also be supported through political and economic measures

2021-06-22 10:28:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14962/203

054633448391912392512351912026227182161027

A large cross-section of stakeholders was invited, with particular attention put on also ensuring a global invitation list. This enabled us to understand how the topic of food safety is progressing in different areas of the world, and across different stakeholder groups. As well as briefing facilitators on how best to incorporate different ‘voices’, participants were told from the outset that we wished to create an inclusive environment for dialogue, in which they could input their professional knowledge but should also think about their answers, if relevant from the point of view of consumers of food and participants in the global food system. Further, it was stressed that this was an international dialogue so there should be open-mindedness to different opinions and operating contexts. Facilitators were encouraged to be welcoming and as this was an online dialogue, we also set an expectation of being able to participate using an online chat function and to be on or off camera depending on what individuals felt comfortable with.Act with urgency – there was a wide range of knowledge on the most pressing issues around food safety, with some of the audience fascinated by the statistics around much of the worlds’ population not having access to safe food. Commit to the Summit – some participants had heard of the Summit, but many had not, leading to great interest in following it later in the year and the recommended outcomes. There was particular interest in how findings from Independent Dialogues might actually be incorporated into the Summit. Recognise Complexity – it was clear from the dialogue that many felt more needed to be done between different stakeholder groups to shed light on the issues at hand and to adopt a more multidisciplinary approach to the problems around food safety. We believe that people were able to make new connections at the event with a view to the further principle around ‘Complement the Work of Others’. Promote Trust – The issue of trust was a big topic in all participatory groups, with an emphasis on how trust in policy and governance might be increased, but also a recognition of the challenge of doing so against a backdrop of a complex media and information landscape and the sources of trust that individuals adopt to make decisions about food.The principles and supporting information provided were comprehensive and easy to follow. We would recommend that convenors inform prospective participants about the Principles of Engagement from the outset so that a consistent narrative is adopted from beginning to end. We found that all participants were clear on these Principles and why they were important.

Yes

234238243244247248249This Independent Dialogue was titled ‘Food: Knowing What’s Safe’ which tallied with Action Track 1: Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. Featuring participants from over 25 countries from science, industry, policy, healthcare and academia, it focused on how we could come together to discuss tangible and positive changes. The Dialogue adopted a positive, if urgent tone on how we might approach how the world produces, consumes and thinks about food in a safe and sustainable fashion. The Dialogue Convenor, Lloyd's Register Foundation, is an independent global charity that has a unique mission to engineer a safer world. This includes ensuring that people across the globe have access to information about food safety, that is accessible, trustworthy and understandable. The topic of Food Safety was chosen on the basis of the Foundation previously launching the World Risk Poll, surveying 150,000 people in 142 countries, statistically representing 98% of the world's population, including many people who don't usually have a voice, to look at perception and experience of risk in everyday life. It was clear that food safety - and specifically access to safe and nutritious food for all - was a major concern. Four percent worldwide, the equivalent of 300 million people said that unsafe food or water were among the two biggest threats to their safety. The Dialogue therefore looked at how we could manage the increasing demands of food safety, specifically relevant to the Action Track 1 and its relationship with Action Track 2 (Sustainable Consumption Patterns). However, the topic of Food Safety has significance across all tracks, including 3-5 in that it underpins all food systems. Participants were asked to consider what could be done to make information about safe food available to all, and the introductory session which framed the debate also highlighted the need for policymakers to have more accurate data, the needs of developing countries and the scarcity of data in low-income geographies. Other statistics and points brought to attention in framing the dialogue included: • Number of people who knew someone who had experienced serious harm from eating food • The UN has declared safe food to be a universal human right (yet the WHO estimates that 600m people fall ill yearly from eating unsafe food, 420,000 people die - with children and the elderly being particularly vulnerable) • Current perceptions of harm from food • Sources of trust around food and the sources of food safety information most trusted - often being heavily weighted towards family and friends, closely followed by food labels, then medical professionals, celebrities and religious leaders and correspondingly, low(er) trust in food safety authorities The dialogue also used expert testimony on how food safety is linked to population growth and its direct impact on food safety, along with the impact of climate change. Specifically: • The impact of climate change on increased crop infestation and subsequent loss of crops leading to an increased use of pesticides, causing issues around food safety and trading • The impact of climate change on the rise in fungal infections in crops • The melting of the polar ice caps, which contain the biggest source of mercury, now being released into seas and accumulating in fish that we consume • The shortage of fresh water available for one third of the world's population • The topic of sustainability and move to more plant-based diets/debate around eating less meat • The rise in ultra-processed foods, which can increase the risk of food fraud • The importance of transparency in the world food supply system and impact of the digitisation of food supply systems Participant groups, having gained these insights, then focused on 4 key areas in their groups: 1. Ensuring accurate, consistent and easy to understand information about safe food available to all consumers by 2030 2. Ensuring consumers across the world can identify the source of food they buy quickly and reliably 3. Ensuring food safety information will be trusted by consumers 4. Ensuring the food industry in all countries has sufficient skill235238243244247248249The main findings of the Food: Knowing What's Safe are as follows: 1. There is a lack of coordination between key parties across the global food system around food safety 2. There is a need for better and in some cases minimum food safety standards in the developing world 3. There is a lack of public trust in authorities around food safety, with many people relying on friends, family, celebrities and religious bodies for their knowledge of safe food 4. Food safety is not a key focus area in discussions around food security, global food systems and climate change, even though an increase in food safety standards, knowledge and production methods would have a significant impact on much of the world's population 5. More collaboration is needed across different stakeholder groups to focus on tangible and positive outcomes around food safety236238243244247248249Participants recognised that the global debate around food safety needs to be a core part of food security planning, considered against a backdrop of increased globalization of food production. They also noted that factors such as increasing global population growth and urbanisation required greater intersectoral and concerted international action in this area. Four key discussion topics were chosen, each of which gave rise to rich thinking on potential remedial action: 1. Ensuring accurate, consistent and easy to understand information about safe food available to all consumers by 2030. People are individuals living in individual communities – as a result we need more global, granular level detail around the perceptions and behaviours to determine who people trust, the corresponding communication methods and the channels required to overcome challenges around accessibility of information. There is no one-size fits all solution, but we should look at broader education about food and more transparent communications which are tailored to communities and which people can understand and trust. In many parts of the world, the consumer, who may be facing significant economic and environmental challenges will be under pressure around the food decisions they make so public stakeholders together with the private sector need to collaborate to develop better standardization and certification. This in turn will also increase trust. There is a schism between the level of understanding knowledge and standard of food safety in the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’ world, , In the developed world, food safety standards are often taken for granted but here too, standards need to be raised and there needs to be a level of localisation. We need structured governance around food safety regulations especially if we see food safety as a universal human right. There is a lack of coordination between food regulatory authorities in different countries which can be confusing for the consumer, revealing a considerable opportunity to have more regulatory coordination which people across the world can understand. People rarely trust one source, they trust several, so public information that depersonalises information and presents it in a clear way can play a big role in food safety. We need to ensure that everyone purchasing, preparing and consuming food can access this information regardless of their situation. Proposed solutions put forward by the group were as follows: 1. The creation of an online database with food safety and food source information that could be accessed by multiple stakeholders including consumers 2. Ensuring that the private sector is encouraged – or required – to develop their food labelling practices and transparency around the source of food and potential risks associated therein 3. Encouraging the building of national and international farm to fork strategies, encompassing areas such as environmental standards to also have a food safety component 4. Reviewing how information is communicated and adapted to cultural and economic settings. This includes ensuring transparent, fit-for-purpose food safety information in geographies with and without access to digital communications. For example, using media such as radio, which is still a key source of information in certain parts of the world (especially where there is less digitization) to communicate with and educate consumers using influencing groups such as religious leaders and local celebrities 5. Incorporating food safety into campaigns around nutrition, diet and wellbeing2362382432442462472482. Ensuring consumers across the world can identify the source of food they buy quickly and reliably Food labels are heavily relied on, but consumers are often overwhelmed by labels. As diets change and people move away from traditional foods or cook less, our approach to food safety labelling also needs also change. Education can play a key role in raising awareness about food safety (labels and otherwise) and be tied into a broader education around food systems, climate and similar issues. We need better educational initiatives, such as early school education programmes on food and nutrition, as currently these are often woefully inadequate. This affects all parts of the world, even parts with abundance. Campaigns can be very pejorative. As the global population grows, food safety and food fraud are also more interconnected – we need to categorise food risks accordingly and make sure that consumers do not have an over-abundance of information and/or mixed messaging that impacts what they can assess and how. We need to do more to understand informal food markets with a lack of formal structure to ensure poorer populations are not affected. Government support is needed to help transition to higher standards and more understanding. In order to communicate well with consumers, we also need to have more transparent supply chains and understand what we need to communicate so consumers can make an informed choice when buying food. Proposed solutions put forward by the group were as follows: 1. Reviewing minimum standards for how government and industry work together in communicating food sources and factoring this into revised public health goals 2. Reviewing the potential to expand expectations around food labelling beyond nutritional sources to including food source and sustainability considerations 3. Encouraging, where possible, ‘eat local’ food campaigns and consider the agricultural and food production infrastructure needed to do this 4. Utilise technology and more holistic labelling to assist consumers when making food purchase choices that encompass food safety, nutritional value, packaging and sustainability along with value2362382432442472482493. Ensuring food safety information will be trusted by consumers Food fraud information is shared in varying channels, but food safety data is not shared in the same way. The private sector needs to do more to be transparent on food safety incidents, why recalls happen and their role in keeping consumers safe from harm. More can be done to involve the private sector in food safety policy-making to take account of production needs with mutual sharing of research and data. In order for food safety information to be trusted we also need to be realistic about the fact that much of the world doesn’t eat food that comes directly from large companies or complex supply chains, it comes from local producers who sell directly to consumers, for example through road stalls. In high-income countries there is a large organised supply chain with companies who oversee it. The challenges are very different in informal structures where there may be a lack of food hygiene. In order to increase trust, we also need to make use of and understand the changing use of media and how people access information. Proposed solutions put forward by the group were as follows: 1. Moving food safety up the public health agenda, especially in countries without stringent food safety production, monitoring and retail standards – moving from prevention to cure 2. Mobilising local and community training as a powerful tool to share knowledge with consumers, along with corresponding and continued training at the industrial level 3. Ensuring that food safety systems keep pace with the way food is produced and consumed, so that food is safer by the time it reaches consumers at their purchase point 4. Understanding where trust lies, for example by gaining insight into perceptions, behaviours and cultural norms to understand sources of trust that are not associated with regulation, the food industry or authorities such as the government 5. Looking beyond food labels and product information to how technology can support around the use of social media and traceability systems to increase consumer knowledge of consumed food products 6. Understanding that people obtain food safety information from multiple sources including friends, family, television and that therefore food safety information needs to be disseminated across multiple sources236238243244247248249Ensuring the food industry in all countries has sufficient skills and knowledge to prepare safe, nutritious and affordable food even in times of disruption. The food industry can do more, especially with regards to sharing information about the journey of food from a factory or food-service environment to the individual preparing the food, but consumers have an important role to play. Food safety needs to be discussed more holistically and within national cultural journeys, in the context of changing diets and around education. We need to fundamentally relook at how we build the future food system. Food safety is a global conversation and as we have seen from Covid-19, the world is interlinked, as are our food systems. We are all consumers with a vested interest in food. More work is needed to join up local, regional and national government, policy, food manufacturing and producers, educators and the retail sector. Food safety also needs to be contextualised against the backdrop of broader global challenges around a growing population, sustainability, climate change and inequality. The public health sector, which has gained more prominence with Covid-19 may also have an increasingly important role to play if given the chance. We need to take a look at the bigger picture of food risk and the role of food safety within that, looking at food safety not just from the perspective of immediate risks and hazards, but also around the topic of changing diets and areas such as climate change. Proposed solutions put forward by the group were as follows: 1. Ensuring that food safety is tied in with food security and factored into the evolving need for resilience planning on a national level, as highlighted through the Covid-19 pandemic, and also taking into account international linkages due to food supply chains 2. Improving the educational and training framework around food safety 3. Reviewing the divergent frameworks under which the food industry across its supply chain is operating ‘from farm to fork’ 4. Greater data collection and sharing is needed at various levels, from the national to the international level and in tandem with this, looking at the role of technology in determining how food safety data might be shared 5. Looking at where international institutions can support and extend influence at the national level around building and developing better food systems and infrastructures, including laboratories and scientific expertise to respond to and prevent food safety risks across the food supply chain237238243244247248249The key areas of divergence and debate were as follows: 1. Where responsibility for food safety sits between consumers, public health bodies, food safety authorities and regulation 2. How to put public health and food safety in a position where it is not seen as being in opposition to commerce and trade, as the private sector has a key role to play and carries investment and development costs 3. What role the growth of plant-based products has, the need for novel proteins and increased production of ultra-processed foods might play in triggering new food safety challenges in the future 4. How the gap between science, academia and the consumer is best bridged and how the sciences is made understandable and when 5. What the level of knowledge is that regulators need in order to better regulate and who holds ownership for communicating about food safety 6. What role technological advancements, digitisation, novel foods and evolving processing methods might play in enhancing food safety, and correspondingly, nutrition and livelihoods. In particular, food, being a basic human need and the emotional, cultural and economic sentiments attached to it generated debate around what role technology could play in food.

2021-06-22 10:45:19205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25564/23

50419

The Dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food Systems Summit through gaining an understanding about the district itself and how its several aspects are affecting the pathways to food system transformation, along with challenges that are contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Dialogue brought a diversity of stakeholders from the Government Departments, Semi-autonomous and Autonomous Organizations, Private Sector Organizations, Business networks, Civil Society Organizations, and Grass Root level Representatives– working across the food system from production to consumption. The Convenor and the team went through detail preparation for convening the dialogues to reflect that the outcomes were incorporated and enhanced during the Sub-National Dialogue. While organizing the dialogue, the Convener along with the core team had engaged different government ministries and departments into the process. Ministry of Food is leading the process in Bangladesh, but it has simultaneously engaged the Department of Agricultural Extension, Department of Livestock Services (DLS), Bangladesh Food Safety Authority (BFSA), and directorate of national consumer rights protection. Together with that, participation and engagement of other relevant stakeholders, for example, farmers/ producers, food processors, farm owners’ associations, vendors, restaurant owners, retailers, consumers’ associations, small entrepreneurs, and public service providers, High-school level youth representatives, teachers, have been ensured. The dialogue emphasized on the fact that, local level service providers and govt. authorities need to be equally committed and accountable along with central government bodies to practice and contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit and foresee a long terms plan to ensure food and nutrition security and food safety for all.In terms of Being Respectful, the four working groups facilitated during the Sub-National Dialogue focused on nutritious and safe food, with a broad lens ranging from production to consumption as well as vulnerabilities and inclusion. As a result, the linkages with other tracks were also discussed and covered during the working group facilitation. The respected guests of the Sub-national Dialogue addressed mass awareness and accountability of all level to be key area for improvement in terms of ensuring safe and nutritious food. In Recognising Complexity and Embracing Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity, Government Departments, Semi-autonomous and Autonomous Organizations, Private Sector Organizations, Business networks, Civil Society Organizations, and Grass Root level Representatives highlighted the significance of working coordination as well as make people aware of what they consume and how the food can be safe. In addition, imperfect supply chain, lack of cold storage facility, farmers not getting proper price of the crops they produce due to a unstructured practice of business led by the middle men, lack of safe water supply, poor irrigation and dredging system, lack of adequate initiatives to protect local fish as well as promote local and seasonal crops and fruits, gradually decreasing agricultural land and at mass level, climate change effects and result of frequent natural disasters were some other areas highlighted as few of the challenges in the way of ensuring safe food consumption. Participants emphasized the importance of mass level awareness range from duty bearers to consumers as the prime measure to reduce food unsafety. Alongside, being accountable and responsible from own side as a citizen would be highly appreciated and should be in practice, promoting climate resilient agriculture, developing more inter-departmental coordination, controlled use of fertilizer, pesticides, poultry feed etc. should be active to ensure safe food and value chain cycle.Firstly, the National Convenor of Bangladesh focusing on Action Track 1, recognizes that it is crucial to organize dialogues with participation from multisector and multi-stakeholder agencies, considering the complexity of food system. In addition, it is critical to develop a small working group with multiple stakeholders, including private sector, duty bearers, government departments, grass root level representatives and youth to show the interconnections between the different action tracks. It will create the options to facilitate dialogues on different issues around food system, beyond merely focusing on one action track. The principles of engagement for learning are highlighted in section 2(ii). Though there were challenges but the response, range of participation as well as the feedback, participants gave during the dialogue were really appreciating.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249251dialogue, Action Track-1 i.e. ‘Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all’ was considered with a prime importance. However, connections with the other Action Tracks were also considered for the improvement of food and nutrition security situation in Bangladesh. In the group discussion session of the dialogue, the following four thematic areas (discussion topics) were considered: i) Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious Food; ii) Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector; iii) Consumer behaviors, nutrition and food safety; iv) Climate vulnerability, inclusion and governance. Barguna is a district in the division of Barisal, Bangladesh. It is situated in the southern part of Bangladesh. Barguna's economy is primarily dependent on agriculture. Principal crops include rice and pulses. Jute cultivation was once important, but it gradually lost popularity as a cash crop. Being a coastal district, Barguna has a thriving fishing industry. Produce of the district includes betel leaf, pulses, bananas, betel nut, molasses, marine fish, and shrimp. Total area of agricultural land is 104231 hectares. There is no major industry in this district. A number of small manufacturing industries comprise mostly rice mills, saw mill, soap factory, flour mill, ice factory and pen factory. Majority of the industries are in the sadar area (adjacent areas of district head quarter) and the remaining are in different upazilas (sub-district). Traditional cottage industries such as weaving, bamboo and cane art work, goldsmithing, blacksmithing, pottery, wood work, and tailoring also thrive in rural areas. Barguna has been located as one of the coastal areas of Bangladesh that is being hit by cyclones almost every year. Cyclone season in the Bay of Bengal, mainly occurs pre and post monsoon season, between April- May and October-November and that causes death during a cyclone disaster, due to drowning. Further damage is caused by inundation of low-lying coastal areas, erosion, and damage to soil fertility, crops, fisheries, vegetable etc. as well as loss of buildings and transport networks. Cyclones that make landfall at high tide create higher storm surges and are therefore more destructive. Considering this geographical reality, to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all, it is important to include all vulnerable population in the social protection program. Government of Bangladesh has given emphasis to support people affected by the flood, drought, natural disaster, and other adverse climatic events. In addition, it is also important to support people residing in the marginalized and geographically hard-to-reach areas, and families which are economically and socially vulnerable to food and nutrition security. Besides, special training programs for private sector, mass awareness and knowledge building on safe food and food supply chain and agricultural sector rehabilitation and mitigation measures could benefit these vulnerable and excluded people.235238239240241242243244245246249Covid-19 Pandemic has situation the existing challenges in food supply chain area even worse and more challenging. Food safety as we know is a part of food security; another step of it is- supply chain- from production to consumption. The dialogue tried to find out the existing challenges and effective way forward from country’s one of the diversified districts. And key areas indicated that the district still faces difficulties in roads and in modes of communication. It still remains as a big challenge in most of the areas. Due to flood and natural disasters these road have become more unsustainable. Reaching to the communities living in remote places becomes very much difficult. As a result, during disaster or in time of emergency, nutritious food cannot be ensured for people living in these areas. Transportation of food products becomes difficult and uncertain. Situation has become more challenging due to lack of cold storage facility and it is affecting the income of the farmers as well as a good number of crops/ fruits/ vegetables are being wasted in a regular basis. Farmers, due to their geographical locations and lack of network, still depends on the middleman for marketing of the crops they cultivate and produce. These middlemen do not give the farmers the proper price of the crops. In many cases, as we have found from the group discussion during the dialogues that middlemen keep the farmers waiting for selling the products and continue bargaining to buy the products in low price; and at the end of the day farmers are left with no other options but to sell their products in low price as there is not option for preserving or storing the products. Natural disaster in Barguna, undoubtedly is another key challenge people face regularly. Cyclone, flood, river erosion etc. are the most common phenomena that people of Barguna face around the year. River erosion is causing gradually decreasing cultivating lands and there are more. Along with these, lack of awareness among mass number of people is making situation more difficult to overcome. Despite having act and law as well as law enforcement team, percentage of people’s practice of consuming safe food is not satisfactory. Lack of knowledge, clear concept about safe food and ignorance are the reason behind this. At the same time, mass people are not accountable and responsible to ensure safe food intake.2362382392402422432442452462482492511.Availability of diversified, safe, and nutritious food: Challenges: Lack of improved technology and management in rearing buffalo; Outbreak of several diseases in poultry that interrupts poultry rearing; Critical use of nets considering Fisheries; lack of local fish species; Inadequate irrigation systems and salinity in agriculture Way Forward: Appoint skilled workers at union level for reproduction of livestock and poultry; - Strict implication of Law enforcement Restrict and stop production of nets that are already banned; - Ensure irrigation through the installment of buried pipe; - Cultivate fruits and vegetable using trench system. 2. Transformation, delivery, access, and role of private sector: -Challenges: Imported fruits dominates the local markets; Price of crops is a challenge as no specific range is fixed, as a result, farmers do not get proper and right price; Inadequate employment; Local market environment. Way Forward: Establishment of storage and improvement of communication system; Fix specific place for farmers in local markets; Cooperative selling system; Build more dams, canal excavation, and drainage management; Improvement of product selling system considering the public health issues; Regional industry establishment (milk, auto rice mill, fisheries etc.); arrangement of livestock’s health check- up. 3. Consumer behaviors, nutrition, and food safety: Challenges: Lack of awareness on nutrition consumption; Excessive application of pesticides on vegetables; Lack of financial solvency; Lack opportunities of diversified income generating opportunities; Inadequate food processing and preservation system; Lack of safe drinking water in disaster-prone areas; Acute malnutrition among children; Increasing trend of non-communicable diseases ; Outbreak of water-borne diseases such as diarrhea; Way Forward: Awareness raising; Market monitoring; Expand of agro-based industries; Regular monitoring of food production and food producing infrastructures; Need more infrastructure facilities to ensure the supply of fresh drinking water; Improvement of economic scenario through multi-sectoral and sustainable professions; Invention of salinity-resilient crops and multi-level use of lands; Integrated agriculture management; Storage system and industry establishment under govt. and non-govt. structures; Increase initiative related to health education. 4. Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance: Challenges: Long term damage of cultivating lands due to saline intrusion during natural disasters; Crop production hampers due to saline intrusion as the dams are not strong enough to prevent this intrusion and lack of water drainage system; Beneficiary under different social safety-net programs is not organized and irregular as well not maintained; Fishermen face food insecurity due to lack of alternative income generation activities during the time when fishing id declared to be restricted; Losing of assets, households and migration due to climate change and natural disasters; Huge damage causes in fisheries by collecting minnows; Lack of shelter for cattle causes alarming number of death of livestock during disasters; Damage of fisheries due to lack after production fisheries processing; Food supply chain gets damaged during disasters; Ultra- poor and poor people during disaster suffers from food insecurity due to lack of alternative income generating activities. Way Forward: Reduce the damage of crops and fisheries through proper water management during disasters; Repair, renovation and construction of dams and sluis gates and strengthen the water dredging system; Install rain water harvesting system for post-disaster safe drinking water supply; Establishment of shelter for cattle Create option of alternative income generating activities for fishermen during fish-catching banning period; Activate ‘Emergency Food Bank’ for urgent food support during post disaster time; activate early-warning system to minimize post disaster damages; - include social safety-net for income generating for third-gender people and align and merge this plan in central social safety-net programs237238239240241242243244246248249There was no major area of divergence among the participants. All the participants have emphasized on infrastructural development to control floods, cyclone and river erosion, and improvement of flood and cyclone resistant transportation and communication facilities which they think can improve the food production and transportation situation of the area.

2021-06-22 11:00:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17889/203

1341262546785241813445728112211344712116848241222317

The dialogue was inclusive and drew participation from different countries across the African continent. It included participation from multi-national agencies and key decision makers at the national, regional and inter-continental level. This would be a demonstration of commitment at the different decision making strata

Yes

234238239240241242243244245248249251Provide a platform for agri-food sector stakeholders for dialogue to generate solutions and actions to inform the deliberations during the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 To explore engagement opportunities and chart a common pathway for strengthening Africa’s Food Systems, considering the diversity of food systems on the continent The dialogue was exploring how national governments and regional bodies could contribute to sustainable food systems through investment in local institutions including universities and research institutions. This is one mechanism to ensure safe and nutritious food for all as well as building resilience to shocks, vulnerabilities and stress. Further noting that to build sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems, there is need to examine existing systems and policies. Government leaders and policy makers, the private sector, civil society, universities, research institutions, and smallholder farmers and other value chain actors have a stake in shaping pathways for resilient and sustainable national food systems aligned with SDGs and Africa’s Agenda 2063. . The dialogue looked at • Renewed commitment for US-Africa partnership on agricultural advancement in Africa • Perspective from European Union Commission • World Bank efforts to rebuild and strengthen agricultural development and food systems in Africa and globally • Current status of food systems in Africa and implication for poverty, food and nutritional security in the continent Focus was on providing feedback on what emerged from the dialogues and country assessments, opportunities foreseen from the different member states for strengthening the food systems; recommendations on the key actions towards the five action tracks; and, developing key messages for consideration by the Presidents Summit on 1st July 2021235238239240241242243244245248249250251• Key messages from the Technical experts, policy makers and in line with the Vice Chancellor’s Statement calling for a dialogue with policy makers to explore engagement opportunities and chart a common pathway for strengthening Africa’s Food Systems, taking into account the diversity of food systems on the continent. • Vibrant Agri-food-systems and institutions engaged in production to consumption of food, are key to delivery of the continent’s development agenda, Africa We Want, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). • COVID 19 was a wake-up call to the glaring fragility and inequality of the global, regional and national agri-food systems. This calls for considering sustainability, inclusivity and resilience of food systems an urgent matter which requires building existing systems and policies. All stakeholders in the agri-food system including smallholders have a role to play in shaping the pathways for resilience and sustainability • The future transformation of food systems in Africa requires innovativeness in research and education approaches that are rooted in local contexts • Universities in Africa need to adopt and create knowledge to strengthen and transform the food systems through strengthening links and improving productivity, processing, storage, transport, food quality and business that link them with consumers • Universities need to anticipate the skills set and knowledge demanded by the rapidly changing food systems and provide this information and skills in ways that trickle through the entire economy. Universities then need to translate the knowledge created into innovations that then transform and develop potentials that drive their own and Africa’s food system • There is need to reassess and redesign the African Universities and assist them to build their capacity to develop and deliver Africa’s food system transformation • Linkages amongst smallholder farmers need to be strengthened • Human capital development for sub-Saharan Africa is important in enabling Africa realize its full agricultural potential to boost its food system. There is also need for targeted investment in key productivity enhancing innovations to harness scientific solutions for the targeted growth. • Smallholder farmers have limited entrepreneurial ability, productive assets and skills potential for value addition. This warrants skilling such populations and improving the labor productivity. This will enable African Agriculture meet local and global food demand. • Member States have to strengthen production fundamentals including research and innovation that direct how we leverage production resources to generate relevant technologies; guide threat surveillances and inform policy design and accountability • Member States need to institute industrial policies that promote private investment and job growth in local non-farm sectors essential to attract investment in agri-food systems • Member States need to scale-up technologies developed by Universities to make them more available for the Youth and use within the different countries • Need to strengthen investments in the entire educational value chain to increase the numbers of Young people entering into the labor force • Member States need to work with their universities and other actors within and outside Africa to Marshall the needed response to strengthen Africa’s food system and scale out best practices • Member States need to foster global partnerships for sustainability and inclusivity, resilience and sustainability of the food system • Member States need to strengthen their commitment towards regional, continental and global frameworks by increasing investments, financing and implementation, including CAADP, STISA 2024, AGENDA 2063.236238239240241242243244245248249250251i. Majority of the 1.4 billion population on the African Continent is very Youthful with over 60% of the entire population highly dependent on agriculture, thus warranting need for a vibrant agricultural sector; vibrant agri food systems and institutions engaged in the production-to-consumption of food. This is key in delivering the Agenda 2063 of the African Continent, the 17 SDGs and STISA 2024. ii. Investments in preparedness need to be increased to enable scientists forecast and build response capacities for African Countries to enable them manage emerging and future challenges. iii. Start-up venture capital funds are needed to enable young graduates to adapt agriculture as their careers iv. There is need to build the capacity for scientists to lobby for science for the development of a particular aspect of the respective country v. There is need for collaboration beyond the boundaries of jurisdiction and in particular within the East African Region. This will enable joint efforts towards tackling a challenge cutting across several countries vi. Very few countries have fulfilled the Malabo declaration of allocating 1% of the Gross Domestic Product towards agriculture. A different approach needs to be employed to ensure that the voices of the stakeholders are heard and the resources required are appropriated. Renewed commitment to pursue sustainable agri-food systems noting that 1. Africa’s burgeoning market is an opportunity for agriculture and food systems transformation but that challenges particularly poverty and malnutrition especially among rural households primarily smallholders in Africa remain high. 2. Agriculture, food product development and food accessibility need to be at the core of investment together with the knowledge and technologies to energize the transformation. 3. Co-developing, co-ownership and joint implementation of UNFSS agreed game-changers for food systems transformation on the Continent must be inclusive and provide equitable opportunities. 4. Commitment to Africa’s Agenda 2063, STISA 2024 and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCTA). 5. Urge the international community to support an African multi-stakeholder Capacity Strengthening Platform for Sustainable Inclusive African Food Systems (Capacity Strengthening Platform for African Food Systems).

2021-06-22 11:05:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15508/76

48

Yes

234238241242244246The Accra Metropolitan Assembly and key local stakeholders shared their experiences and strategies for a more resilient city-region food system that seeks to build and maximize the benefits of rural- urban linkages. Discussions moved beyond the short term responses to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Accra’s food system, to more long term approaches for ensuring continued access to nutritious and safe food in the face of climatic shocks. Additionally, the city and stakeholders discussed potential opportunities for strengthening Accra’s role across the whole food value chain for a resilient and nutritious City-region food system. Aim of the dialogue On the overall the dialogue explored strategic ways in which Accra City can strengthen its role across the food value chain as well as maximise the benefits of integrated city- region linkages for long term resilience of the food system. Discussions and presentations were guided by these key questions: •What is the vision for Accra’s City-region food system in the short and long term? Does it contribute towards building robust rural-urban linkages? •What are the key factors that support or undermine the sustainability and resilience of Accra’s city-region food system? •How can Accra strengthen its role in the food system? What are the opportunities for Accra across the food value chain? •What are the main shocks affecting the local food system and how prepared is the city to handle these as well as other climate and health related shocks? •What policies, institutions and technologies can enable locally driven design of resilient city-region systems integrating multiple actors? •As a food systems stakeholder, how can your work contribute towards building a more resilient Accra city-region food system?235238241242244246Rural-urban linkages were identified as relevant for the continued access to nutritious food for Accra City especially after the impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown regulations. Most of the foods consumed by Accra residents is produced and transported from rural areas. As the population is rapidly expanding, there is an urgent need for the city to be innovative about how it is collaboratively working with key stakeholders to secure access to nutritious food and meaningful livelihoods for its citizens. The Mayor of AMA offered a great provocation: “Imagine the rooftop of the City Hall at the Metropolitan Assembly converted into a lively rooftop garden growing organic vegetables. We can if we put our minds to it. We can make intensive backyard gardening especially of vegetables and fruits more attractive and accessible to city residents. Importantly, the context of digitization needs to be discussed and promoted by government.” In addition, the model of the dialogue was recognised as a valuable way for local governments to engage with different stakeholders such as the CSOs, academia, business, among others, and the city would like to draw in additional stakeholders and dialogue around particular issues affecting the local food system. These were some of the priority food system areas that were identified by different stakeholders for Accra City: •Nutrition and access to food within the city: obesity and malnutrition were identified as key concerns as well lack of sufficient food within the city •Environmental sustainability: managing organic waste pollution, sustainable agricultural practices •Infrastructure development: transport and market infrastructure •Capacity building across the food value chain from urban food producers, municipal officials, agricultural extension officers, waste collectors formal and informal traders, among others •Sourcing adequate funding and finance to support especially the small scale food systems actors. •Food sensitive urban planning that is geared towards building territorial resilience of Accra A representative from Accra metropolitan Assembly noted that the city is committed to looking into the different ways in which the above issues can be systemically addressed. Importantly, the city is committed to increasing efficiencies across the transport sector within the city as well as networking more with different stakeholders to ensure that food security, food availability, and good nutrition for all is achieved.236238241242244246During the discussion session, the opportunities identified were cross cutting across the action tracks, where if one opportunity is well implemented, it can have rippling positive effects across the different action tracks. Question 1: Where do the opportunities lie in building a robust* city region food system that contributes towards the attainment of a robust and resilient city-region food system? •Large scale infrastructure development especially transport infrastructure (road and rail), ICT infrastructure and ideal food storage and retail infrastructure can go a long way in increasing efficiency across the food value chain as well as managing food loss. For the transport infrastructure, AMA needs to work closely with the national government to ensure that strategic road and rail infrastructure is built/ upgraded to support stronger city-region linkages. •Additionally, value-addition to agricultural produce to increase lifespan can be done in the city and this can also reduce levels of food waste as well as increase employment opportunities. As there are already initiatives to intensify agricultural production in the city, food processing and value addition initiatives should also be ramped up to support the production initiatives. •Education - extension services need to be improved and expanded with the greater Accra Metropolitan Area through Farmer-field schools (FFS). Education is needed in order to improve shelf life of agricultural produce. Also market extension officers should be deployed as food markets are very important in the Accra Metropolis. These officers teach food actors about food hygiene, food safety and food processing. This can be expanded and government support is important for this. •Engagement of multiple stakeholders. Not limiting it to producer-actors but manufacturers, retailers, market traders, informal traders, media outlets, food certification agencies, among others. Effective stakeholder consultation, collaboration and raising awareness. •Waste reuse to improve soil conditions (crop). Development of organic waste composting centres in different locations within the city. This should be made available to farmers at subsidised rates. Accra has carried out a waste characterisation exercise in the bid to produce energy from waste, if these projects are developed, the sludge from bio digesters can be sold to farmers at subsidised rates. •Explore alternative sources of water for irrigation for urban farming such as intensive rain water harvesting. •Promoting Agro-tourism as a way of encouraging agricultural production especially in indigenous food species, getting youth interested in agriculture and a means for creation of livelihoods. People need to be capacitated in business development for such unique agricultural business models. •Rooftop gardening, home gardening as well as other forms of intensive urban agriculture should be institutionalised and promoted across the city of Accra. Intensive system for livestock (grasslands - identify suitable spaces within city) - ditto for aquaculture •Links with educational institutions to promote awareness and build capacity on the opportunities along the food system value chain (primary, secondary schools and universities). Awareness programs should also be incorporated in institutions such as prisons and hospitals. In addition, explore utilization of available/vacant land adjacent to schools for urban agriculture as well as other activities along the food value chain236238241242244246During the discussion session, the opportunities identified were cross cutting across the action tracks, where if one opportunity is well implemented, it can have rippling positive effects across the different action tracks. Question 2: What instrumental policies, incentive mechanisms and initiatives can be adopted to spur systemic transformation of Accra’s City-region food system? We have a number of good policies and regulations in place in Ghana that are directly or indirectly related to the food system. There is a good system of generating policies but not implementing them. For instance the whole of Accra Metropolis has only three extension officers. Moreover, the Coordinated Programme of Economic and Social Development Policies (CPESDP 2017-2024) is a good policy. However, there is a challenge of implementing these policies due to poor accountability and lack of monitoring and evaluation frameworks for some of the rolled out policies. •Financing and resource mobilisation strategy at local level is important: Currently there is a programme that is looking into food and jobs - from 2017 to 2022. The programme is being funded by the Government of Canada. Donor funds have become more regular and reliable but have a short lifespan. Local government needs to step up its financing responsibility and formulate creative financing mechanisms especially for small scale and informal actors. For example partnering with savings cooperative societies could help to close this financial gap. In addition, Accra Metropolitan Assembly must lobby at the national level to have more resources allocated towards the transformation of the food system directly or indirectly. Especially through financial support and skills development. •There is need for regulation and oversight in terms of food environments and awareness as there is rising obesity in the nation including Accra. Hence regulation on advertising is important in order to disincentive promotion of unhealthy foods •Food Safety Guidelines adopted at national level and localised to assist local governments with ensuring that food handling and preparation across the food value chain is safe for consumers •Enforcement of spatial planning legislation for the city and review of land tenure system to accommodate farmers to ensure balance and access to land for food production as well as other activities across the food value chain. The Urban Policy (currently being reviewed - opportunities to include food systems elements in specific action plans at local level) •ICT policy: this will be useful in highlighting a way forward for access to services such as the internet which is essential for creating opportunities across the food value chain but also increasing efficiencies237N/A

2021-06-22 11:26:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16692/203

741443133151212143131841214312973163162125116

The dialogue was organized with all the members universities, and the line ministries in the member states-The dialogue recognized the complexity of the food systems, and that the issues of food systems are being addressed by several stakeholders, committed to the objectives of the summit, considered inclusivity of all key stakeholders. A four hours zoom meeting was organized with participants from the Central Africa sub-region. Speakers were coming from AUC, Universities and WFP. The dialogue was facilitated by a Professor from a University in Benin. Presentations covered the following aspects: • Overview of the Food Systems in Africa with particular focus on Central Africa-needed actions to improve productivity, inclusiveness and resilience • Highlights of current status, challenges and opportunities of food Systems in Burundi Cameroon, Chad, Congo Brazzaville, DRC & Gabon along the five action tracks • Participants were free to ask questions to the presenters either through the moderator or through the chat. All voices were heard.

Yes

234Presentations covered the following aspects: • Overview of the Food Systems in Africa with particular focus on Central Africa-needed actions to improve productivity, inclusiveness and resilience • Highlights of current status, challenges and opportunities of food Systems in Burundi Cameroon, Chad, Congo Brazzaville, DRC & Gabon • Ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for all • Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns • Boosting Nature-Positive Production at Sufficient Scale • Advancing Equitable Livelihoods and value Distribution • Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stress235238239240241243244245246248249250A consensus was reached on the following : In central Africa sub-region, small scale farmers are dominant, and crop productivity is generally affected by conflicts and climatic shocks. Demographic pressure is relatively high except for Gabon. This is likely to contribute to food insecurity. The majority of the people are employed in the agricultural sector and yet production has remained very low, with high post-harvest loss. In addition, the region has very low value added index, infrastructure index (road, energy and irrigation, supermarket per capita and consumption index; and higher malnutrition, stunting and obesity. Recommendations Increase crop productivity and production, enhance value addition, promote linkage to the market and youth participation; and creation of multi-stakeholder platforms which include decision makers. There is also need to: • Improve our crop systems and monitor on a regular basis the consumer needs, improve the visibility of what is produced in the region. • Establish capacity gaps in the region and develop strategy to address them • Promote the SDG in secondary school and churches • Strengthen the supply chains • Strengthen the small-scale farm groups • Improve food storage and transport systems • Improve access to credits • Create and strengthen partnerships in the food systems • generate data to assist decision making and particularly on climate change risks and adaptation2362382392402412422432442452462482492502511. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all: a. Ensure increased food production b. Reduce post-harvest losses and improve food transformation and packaging c. Create multi-actors platforms for concerted decision of food and food products d. Promote linkages between producers, transporters and markets and increase participation of the youth to agriculture 2. Shift to sustainable consumption patterns a. Sensitization SDG through secondary and churches and mosques b. Promote research c. Enhance access to existing market d. Create more awareness on food nutrition e. Use of school and churches to create awareness on health food 3. Boosting Nature-Positive Production at Sufficient Scale • Promote crop suitability studies and develop and implement policies on of land use • Strengthen farmers’ groups • Encourage dialogue between decision makers and other land actors • Government to provide incentives to farmers in form of reduce taxes and credits 4. Advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution Panelists agreed that inclusivity and equity is key to ensuring better food livelihoods in rural areas for vulnerable groups including women, youth, indigenous peoples and other communities. Several panelists noted that skill development, including digital skills, use of earth observations tools will be useful to improve access to information (market, inputs, extension), hence increase agricultural production and create the necessary transformation. 5. Building resilience to vulnerability, shocks and stress The panelists agreed that the region is one of most fragile on the continent and is experiencing several climatic shocks (drought, landslides, floods, heavy storms etc). It is therefore important to strengthen people capacity to monitor and assess vulnerability. To enhance resilience, there is also need of policy reforms and harmonization, coordinated investment, leverage resources to support ongoing efforts, improve governance, use of traditional and scientific knowledge to trigger innovation, generate sufficient data for evidence based recommendations and actions, and need to empower women and youth.

2021-06-22 12:15:06205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22095/149

15021280015704500000060103102001100033001060100510

The fifth national dialogue was held on June 1, 2021 to gather public opinions in order to establish directions for sustainable food system policy prior to the UN food system summit scheduled for this September. Total 22 people, including representatives of congress, farmers unions, consumers organizations, world organizations, government officials, public institutions and specialists from academia participated.

Yes

234238240249Based on previous national dialogue results, fifth dialogue mainly focused on collecting public opinions for setting the direction of national food policy and for preparing UN food system summit and pre-summit.235238239240241242249In relation to 'food security', the emphasis was placed on improving food self-sufficiency, supporting farmers for stable production, and ensuring stable income in preparation for food crises. In particular, producer groups offered various opinions, such as price guarantee for expansion of domestic wheat production, organization of producers centered on small farmers, securing farmland, and expansion of domestic production manpower. In addition, guaranteeing production costs and stabilizing supply and demand through the expansion of consumption of domestic agricultural products in public meal service were also mentioned. It was emphasized that each stakeholder needs to play an adequate role in relation to ‘sustainable production and consumption’. Producers should minimize production waste and consumers should maintain adequate consumption level and refrain use of disposable products. The government should expand promotion for environmentally-friendly agriculture. In addition, for the sustainability of the agricultural sector, the necessity of education on agricultural values and localization of food production and consumption were suggested as solutions. In relation to issues on 'food for all', the importance for resolving nutritional imbalance rather than nutritional deficiencies was emphasized. The needs of cooperation between various ministries to alleviate nutritional imbalance was suggested. In addition, the necessity of resolving nutritional imbalances for relatively vulnerable groups such as the elderly and young people in rural areas was suggested. Finally, in order to establish a sustainable food system, practical measures such as ‘building a governance system’ and ‘establishing a cooperative system between stakeholders’ were discussed. In this regard, various opinions were presented, such as the establishment of a governance system that accompanies cooperation between government agencies, the cooperation between producer organizations and the government, and the cooperation between producers, consumers and the government were suggested.

2021-06-22 15:09:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12040/203

13742764111111315214

Act with urgency: participants were asked to propose concrete socio-economic measures and policy changes required to harness the capacities of agri-labor forces, emerging technologies and finance to promote dignity and justice across all stages of food systems, in light of the unique opportunity for radical change implied by the COVID-19 pandemic. Be respectful: The dialogue convened people of diverse disciplines and faith backgrounds. It brought hard science and ethical/religious perspectives together in a complementary and respectful fashion. Both sides spoke of the realities of those left behind and excluded from today's food systems, and highlighted the need for the latters' participation and leadership in promoting the transition. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: participants represented UN organizations, accademia and international think tanks, public institutions, and local non-governmental organizations. The diversity of the panel symbolized the need for inter-sectoral dialogue and collaboration to combine research and action to ensure inclusivity and sustainability. Complement the work of others: The dialogue was organized in a way that the speakers in each session gave an overview of the flaws/challenges of agri-food systems that disproportionately affect workers (eg. insufficient labor protections and exploitation) and that are amplified by the current application of technologies and finance (eg. pollution and financial speculation in food prices). Guided by ethical reflections about applying existing tools to the service of the common good, participants articulated the actions and policies necessary to reformulate the use of technology and finance so that they may better serve human dignity and the care for the environment. Finally, we showcased testimonies that exemplified where these actions are being taken today.Commit to the summit: participants identified challenges/shortcomings in today’s food systems and offered concrete policy proposals to rebuild food systems in a more resilient, sustainable and inclusive way (action-oriented). Proposals were complemented with real-life testimonies of local NGOs and social service workers involved in food systems in low and middle-income countries that highlighted the differential vulnerability of women to food insecurity and “best practices” that are leading this change today (people-centred). Recognize complexity: the dialogues convened experts from multiple sectors and sought to analyse present-day food systems in light of their origins and consequences on the environment, economics, peace and health. The objective was to come up with holistic proposals for food systems that neutralize tradeoffs between feeding the world and destroying the environment. Build trust: The Vatican COVID-19 Commission acted a convenor, opening a space for a dialogue between faith and science. Under the framework of a UN event, it responded to the Holy Father's mandate of working with others to solve the structural issues underlying current food systems and regenerate a world in which there is food for all.

NoInitial proposal to host a series of independent dialogues inspired by the levers of change was born from conversations between the Vatican COVID-19 Commission, the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See and the UNFSS Organizing Committee Drafting of an initial concept note, responding to the WHAT, WHY, HOW of the event. Definition of the theme of the dialogue around the levers of change: human rights, finance and technology Definition of the unique framing that the conveners of the dialogue can bring: food justice as a moral issue and promoting an integral approach to the transformation of food systems as a whole. Definition of the unique contribution that the conveners of the dialogue can bring: leveraging the convening power of the Church to create space for interdisciplinary dialogue in light of the principles of Catholic Social Teaching and highlighting the voices of the most vulnerable Selection of Dialogue Curators, convening dialogue facilitators and participants (partnerships) Drafting the agenda: determining discussion topics, based on the profile of invited participants Confirmation of invited speakers and of the final program Announcing the dialogue on UNFSS page and on Holy See press Office Drafting participants brief including: i) introduction to the dialogue series so that participants could have a clear idea of the process they were invited into, ii) technical background - challenges and opportunities surrounding dignified labor and the ethical use of technology and finance in food systems (answering the question of why the theme is important), iii) explaining the framing of the discussion and the position of the Church on this issue, iv) objective of the dialogue (stimulate a dialogue, advance proposals and share experiences of technology and finance applied to resilient and sustainable food systems, v) guidelines for participants, vi) common set of questions to which the different disciplines represented in the panel contributed to so that they could each complement their viewpoints. Participants briefing session – meeting led by Dialogue curator with participants to exchange ideas and coordinate/ complement the key messages conveyed, and set the “rules” of the dialogue (respecting time, other participants). Final outline of the dialogue discussions sent to participants and final brief prior to the event. Participants appreciated this methodology as they felt supported throughout the process. Dialogue – dialogue facilitators ensured participants respected the time allotted so that all could have a chance to be heard. They collected the key messages and then guided participants in the dialogue. Their questions encouraged participants to provide forward-looking, action-oriented answers and proposals.

234238240242244245246247248249250In light of the "human rights, finance and technology" levers of change, this dialogue emphasized the importance of dignified work, finance and innovation in rebuilding sustainable food systems in the post-COVID future and how they can be effectively used in a way that serves everyone equally. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified pre existing structural injustices in global labour and financial markets, that have made some better capable than others to navigate the pandemic. According to the latest Oxfam report, while hundreds of millions of jobs have been lost since the start of the pandemic - with direct consequences on access to food and nutrition -, by the end of 2020 stock market activity had increased the collective wealth of the world’s billionaires by $3.9 trillion. The 10 richest billionaires in the world witnessed an increase of $540 billion in their collective wealth; a figure exceeding the amount necessary to guarantee universal access to COVID-19 vaccines and food security. Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase throughout 2020, determined to be the warmest year on record globally, thereby threatening the integrity of ecosystems and their capacity to sustain agri-food systems in the future. As environmental and social disparities are more evident than ever, there is an urgent need to find new ways of re-articulating and re-building food systems to become more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable. When employed in the right way, innovation and finance can be essential tools for developing models of economically-viable food production, capable of recognizing farmers’ rights, strengthening supply chains and ensuring the integrity of ecosystems for future generations. While the Church rejoices in the capacity of technological innovations to serve the common good as they are the fruits of God-given talents and creativity. “Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings. How can we not feel gratitude and appreciation for this progress [...]?” (Laudato Si’, 102-103). Moreover, it embraces finance as an “instrument directed towards improved wealth creation and development” (Caritas in Veritate, 65) by connecting those with innovative ideas to serve the common good, with those with the resources to bring them to life. Applied to food systems, this entails ensuring equitable access to financial services for food producers to enhance food security and food justice, while also nurturing innovations that are designed and used in a way that cares for our common home and respects human dignity, of which labour is an essential component. “All this calls for an alternative way of thinking. [...] if we accept the great principle that there are rights born of our inalienable human dignity [including the right to food and nutrition: Fratelli Tutti, 189], we can rise to the challenge of envisaging a new humanity. We can aspire to a world that provides land, housing and work for all.” (Fratelli Tutti, 127). Therefore, the objective of this dialogue was to listen and share experiences on the role of dignified work, finance and innovation in ensuring fair and sustainable food systems, while addressing the need for a new development paradigm that could guide their application and use in favor of regenerative models of food production.235238240242244245246247248249The first session focused on the challenges and opportunities specific to agricultural workers across the world. Mons. Robert Vitillo, General Secretary of the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), began with an analysis of the fragility of food systems, amplified by the pandemic, and the real consequences these have on the people at every stage of the food system. He elevated solidarity, subsidiarity, equity, and the respect for human dignity as essential pillars to guide international action towards resilient food systems, starting from the enhancement of local food production to ensure greater availability and affordability of food and youth engagement programs to integrate future generations into food systems, based on a renewed set of values. Dr. Maurizio Martina, Deputy Director of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), followed and spoke of the need to re-value agricultural labor. In order to ensure adequate remuneration for agricultural workers and combat exploitation in food systems, states and public institutions need to assume heightened regulatory responsibilities, through stronger and more targeted policies, to regulate market competition and ensure equitable prices of final food products. The panel was closed by Ms. Harriet Cynthia Nakasi, Executive Director of the Advocacy Coalition for Sustainable Agriculture (ACSA), who gave an overview of food systems in Uganda and ongoing work by grassroot advocacy groups in support of smallholder farmers (supporting local innovation, guaranteeing access to land and financial resources, etc.). The second session was centred around how to apply emerging technologies and innovations to transform food systems in a way that benefits all and leaves no one behind. Dr. Esben Larsen, fellow in Food, Forests, and Water Program, World Resources Institute (WRI) proposed; i) a global research and innovation pact between the world’s largest economies to conduct research and innovate so as to improve conditions in Global South and promote sustainable practices in the Global North, ii) guarantee the Global South real access to technology, and iii) increase opportunities for vocational training in agri-food production to equip workers to optimise the use of available technologies. Faith communities can play a special role in providing thought leadership and convening decision-makers to employ available technologies and listen to local knowledge to accelerate concrete action towards resilient, inclusive and sustainable food systems. Dr. Ismahane Elouafi, Chief Scientist at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), thereafter stated that technology and innovation can enable the elimination of world hunger, while staying within planetary boundaries. She called for institutional innovation along the lines of a lifecycle approach, integrated policy and local empowerment. In order to minimize trade-offs between ensuring universal access to food and caring for our common home, multi-stakeholder dialogue, coordination across sectors and among policy arenas are required to articulate concrete and holistic measures capable of rebuilding food systems from the grassroot-level, up. She praised the centrality of human dignity, fairness and justice in the webinar, as they are often absent in global dialogues on the topic. Finally, Bishop Paul Tighe, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Culture urged the adoption of a systemic approach to technology, capable of recognizing its impacts on social and natural ecosystems. Technology, such as artificial intelligence and big data, can help achieve a more nuanced judgement of how the use of technological innovations impact food systems as a whole by constructing data sets that comprise diverse disciplines, wisdoms and local knowledge. The adoption of this approach at global level can provide the necessary framework for local initiatives to thrive and promote an awareness of individual participation and responsibilities in food systems. The panel was closed by Mr. Houman Haddad, Head of Emerging Technologies at World Food Programme (WFP), who presented WFP’s Building Blocks project, which employs blockchain technology to coordinate humanitarian aid and food assistance to Rohingya and Syrian refugees. Maximo Torero, Chief Economist at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) opened the session with an overview of the state of global food insecurity and the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing fragilities and inequalities. He called for a more concise and targeted destination of COVID-19 recovery funds to solve the urgent food crisis while laying the foundations for a long-term transformation of global financial architectures so that they may sustain resilient and inclusive food systems. Jeanne-Maureen Jorand, Head of Food Sovereignty and Climate Advocacy Unit, CCFD-Terre Solidaire stated the need to revisit global and local governance structures to truly recognize food security as a fundamental human right and empower local communities as key drivers of change. Finally, Sr. Helen Alford outlined the role and responsibility of the Church in guiding international debates towards the common good. The universal church must be active in mobilizing its resources to connect COVID-19 recovery plans with the people who need support, and enrich global discussions with values that can promote systemic change towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals once and for all. The panel was closed with success stories of targeted financing for agroecology projects.2362382412422472482491) Need to enhance local food systems to ensure greater availability and affordability of food 2) Need for more youth engagement programs 3) Need for stronger and more targeted policies to regulate market competition and ensure equitable prices of final food products2362382402412422432442482491) Need for a global research and innovation pact between the world’s largest economies to conduct research and innovate so as to improve conditions in Global South and promote sustainable practices in the Global North 2) Collaborative political action to guarantee the Global South real access to technology 3) Increase opportunities for vocational training in agri-food production to equip workers to optimise the use of available technologies. 4) Institutional innovation along the lines of a lifecycle approach, integrated policy and local empowerment 5) Multi-stakeholder dialogue, coordination across sectors and among policy arenas are required to articulate concrete and holistic measures capable of rebuilding food systems from the grassroot-level, up 6)Technology, such as artificial intelligence and big data, can help achieve a more nuanced judgement of how the use of technological innovations impact food systems as a whole by constructing data sets that comprise diverse disciplines, wisdoms and local knowledge2362382402412422442452462492501) More concise and targeted destination of COVID-19 recovery funds to solve the urgent food crisis while laying the foundations for a long-term transformation of global financial architectures so that they may sustain resilient and inclusive food systems. 2) Renew recognition of food security as a fundamental human right and empower local communities as key drivers of change 3) Universal church must be active in mobilizing its resources to connect COVID-19 recovery plans with the people who need support, and enrich global discussions with values that can promote systemic change towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals once and for all

2021-06-22 15:34:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23761/203

206319701124131710104106318

The Principles were implicitly incorporated in the organisation of the Dialogue, by highlighting the urgent need for commitments and investments in women nutrition and enhancing women abilities to play their roles in the food system, especially as the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated health and nutrition status of women and their children. Through the choice of speakers we demonstrated commitment to the Summit and the need for sustainable and inclusive food systems that provide access to affordable and healthy diets for all. The dialogue recognized complexity of food systems and the need to include perspectives of multiple stakeholders, through the comments of the speakers, especially for women in agriculture and women entrepreneurs. They spoke of empowering women as food producers and providers through a systems approach via financial incentives, gender-sensitive policies, nutrition-sensitive interventions and targeted education and training. ‘Multistakeholder diversity’ was ensured by including speakers and participants from diverse sectors (Govt. to agriculture) and backgrounds (nutrition to trade and commerce), thereby capturing the multiplicity of voices in the discussions. This dialogue ‘complemented the work of others’ by focusing on an often-neglected area-women nutrition- beyond their reproductive potential. Moreover, it expanded existing conversations around women empowerment, gender equity and food systems transformation through the lens of women nutrition. The dialogue strove to ‘build trust’ by being curated and facilitated in a way that created a safe space for everyone to voice their opinions. The session was livestreamed on You Tube, recorded and simultaneously translated in French and Spanish, thus increasing its accessibility and inclusivity. Social media engagement allowed transparency and accountability.The dialogue was inspiring, engaging and thought provoking. Global experts from diverse backgrounds brought different viewpoints together on a single issue- women nutrition- urging governments, donors, policy makers to invest in women nutrition, beyond their roles as mothers, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the key points that this session brought to the forefront was that “women matter at all stages of their life cycle”. Highlighting the devasting impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on women’s health because of their greater nutritional needs and critical roles in families and communities, brought a sense of monumental urgency to this topic. Speakers spoke about how food and health systems have failed women, causing detrimental effects on their health and resilience, stating, “Women are not the problem, the system is the problem”. Two global entrepreneurs shared how they have empowered women through a systems approach via education, gender-sensitive policies, nutrition-based interventions thus enabling them to take charge of their health and improve their well-being and productivity. This highlighted the complexity and interlinkage of food and health systems and their impact on nutrition and health. This session complemented other dialogues that focused on women empowerment, gender equity, maternal and child nutrition by tying these threads to women nutrition. Statements such as “Women’s voices need to be heard on platforms such as the UN Food Systems Summit” and “ Women need a seat at the table” were echoed during this session. The session was attended by participants from around the world, through diverse sectors and backgrounds, as indicated through the poll questions, who engaged in Q&A session with global experts allowing a stimulating and transparent dialogue to take place respectfully, in a safe space. The Nutrition for Growth Commitment Guide was talked about and shared to inculcate a sense of accountability. There was no sense of blame, rather, a sense of shared responsibility to improve women nutrition worldwid1. Include speakers from diverse backgrounds with different viewpoints focusing on a single issue. 2. Plan the session to allow for exclusive talk-time for speakers and then allot a specific slot to let participants speak, because stimulating a conversation by asking questions through the chat function does not engage participants sufficiently. 3. Choose a skilled discussion moderator, who is both knowledgeable and passionate about the topic. 4. Promote the talk extensively through various channels to increase the numbers and diversity of participants. 5. End the session with specific goals and commitments emerging out of the discussion to be held accountable later on.

NoThis session was part of the Food System Health Talks, organized by WHO and partners in the week of 4-10 June 2021. It did not follow exactly the recommended set up of a Dialogue as per the manual. This was a one-hour webinar in which 7 speakers set out in 5 minutes each their perspectives on the role of women in food systems, the challenges – specifically of women nutritional status - , the solutions they worked on or recommended. Speakers also indicated how women were considered in the game-changing solutions or clusters which were being prepared in the run toward the Food Systems Summit. Participants were encouraged to ask questions in the Q&A, to be discussed during the moderated dialogue in the second half of the hour. Also, questions were prepared and posed to the participants, encouraging them to write their thoughts in the chatbox and react to one another. The questions posed in the Q&A were all brought forward to presenters by the moderator. However, engagement with participants through the chat box did not work out as we did not receive and response to the question posed. Participants did make general comments however, mostly responding in support of the points made by the presenters (convergence). Also, participants reached out to each other, for instance to propose collaboration. Convening was done by the Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Consortium (Marti van Liere, event convenor, Anna Kotenko and Rijuta Pandav) hosted by the Micronutrient Forum and by Anna Lartey (discussion moderator).

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251A comprehensive discussion on the role of women's empowerment and nutrition in resilience building post pandemic with a focus on solutions that can empower women across food, health and social protection sectors. Strong focus on Lever of Change: Gender Mention of solutions relating to all Action Tracks. Strong focus on Action Track 1 (Women's Leadership and Empowerment Cluster) and Action Track 5 (Resilience Building)235238239240241242243244245247248249251Overall framing: The well-being and resilience of women is essential to the strength and resilience of their families, communities and the broader social and economic development of nations.  Investing in women has multiplying effect on communities. "If you educate a woman you educate a whole nation" - improving women's nutrition needs to be game-changing within the FSS. "Women need to be at the table and be heard." Convergence in opinion between all participants that women play an essential role in all aspects of the food chain, yet in 2021 we are still fighting for women's rights. Overall, women's work - at home and at work - is unquantifiable. At the same time, while a huge number of women are involved in production and trading, few women have positions higher up the value chain. Other important discussions include the fact that women have higher nutritional needs than men (e.g., x2.5 iron intake) Yet, women eat last and least around the world. Overall, women have significantly higher levels of malnutrition than men. Poor women's nutrition is an equity issue - A study by the World Bank on poverty and nutrition in 30 sub-Saharan African countries found that nearly 75 percent of underweight women live in households with a male head who is not underweight and nearly 75 percent of underweight women and undernourished children do not live in the poorest 20 percent of households. Solutions Clusters proposed/discussed: Cluster: Women's leadership Cluster: Social norms and influencing women's access (and allocations) to nutritious foods Cluster: Addressing the gender finance gap Cluster: Changing policies to make food systems gender transformative Fundamentally, there was consensus on the need to engage men and have male champions for women, especially in agribusiness. Example actions put forward by AGREA - Redesign Farm Schools to promote and support women - Invest in ethical micro-finance and training to support women - Change policies for banks and rural banks to include women - Ensure simple agriculture tools are adapted to use by women Example solutions put forward by Nourishing Africa (Nigeria). Important context: In Nigeria male entrepreneurs earn 60% more. - Enable policies that push for inclusion. - Actively invest in female extension workers throughout the agriculture landscape - Invest in business development for women - Allocate catalytic and patient capital (in particular, to support the introduction of new products). Summary question: How can women be a part of the move to resilient and sustainable food systems? - Ensure that men champion women leaders in the food system - Intentional support women by adapting farming and technology and ensure women are involved in the design. - Disincentivize banks that do not provide banking services for women - Women need to bring their seat at the table and be championed by men - Challenge norms and systems that prevent women and youth from participating - Involve women in designing (farm and other) technology - Disaggregate data to get a good understanding of issues women face. - Give women entrepreneurial role models and connect women236238239240241242243245246247248249251Cherrie Atilano, CEO AGREA, Ambassador for SUN, UN Food System Champion and Philippine Ambassador - Working with 30,000 smallholder farmers. - Sad reality that people and women working in the food and agriculture sector is poorest. Crime against humanity that those at top of food chain are the ones who profit. - AGREA is hosting a leading farm school. - Trains women on money, mentor and market - capacity building. Finding opportunities for women in rural and agricultural rural development. - Education opportunities for women farmers include working on food supply chains (processing) and teaching agribusiness, managing savings etc. Youth friendly women's farmers' federation increases economies of scale to be able to access to markets and improve consistency of supply. - Initiative to inform , inspire and include women. - Advocacy targeting congress and domestic policy changes.2362382412432452462472492502512. Jessica Fanzo, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Global Food Policy and Ethics at Johns Hopkins University, High Level Panel of Experts on Food and Nutrition Security, EAT-Lancet Commission Saskia Osendarp, Executive Director Micronutrient Forum, Associate Professor at Wageningen University, co-lead of the Standing Together for Nutrition Consortium, Women eat last and less, and have higher nutritional requirements. More than one third of women are suffering from anemia. 75% of all under nourished women do not live in 20% poorest households. Matter of equity than poverty. Women play an important role along aspects of food chain - realisation of women's rights. less access to productive resources, markets, training, social protection, and earn considerably less. On top of this, women have difficult home lives. Enforced by cultural norms and traditions. Face heavy physical workloads that undermine their wellbeing. While unfair to women, it is a tragedy to households, to communities, to communities, to enabling girl's and women is essential not only to build productive and resilient food systems but for development of countries overall. Food systems need to ensure access to diverse foods, complemented with interventions such as fortification, and women need adequate antenatal care to ensure maternal micronutrient interventions, such as MMS - anemia (which is an indicator of poor women nutrition). Need other interventions that address Poor women's nutrition needs to be addressed as an equity issue - Anemia Action Alliance game-changer proposal is part of Women Solutions Cluster.236238240241242245246247248249250251Ndidi Nwuneli, Managing Partner Sahel Consulting Agriculture and Nutrition Ltd. Nigeria, Managing Director AACE Foods and Founder of Lead Africa - Power of SMEs that are co-founded by women. Mama programme - supports women to distribute their product through building an inclusive supply chain and access to market and training and finances. - Dairy Value Chain - advancing local dairy in Nigeria - empowering SMEs to source locally - while men own cows, women own the milk. Ensuring financial and nutritional education through cooperatives to move women on a path to agency and empowerment. - Nourishing Africa - helping entrepreneurs, providing knowledge and access to training and financing.236238240241243245246247248249251Michael Oja, GAIN Country Director, Nigeria Solutions that are having an impact in Nigeria include: - Multi-sectoral policies and partnerships that bring key sectors together. - Quality implementation of interventions, such as fortification of staples - Co-ordination of mulit-sectoral approach. - Disaggregated information on what women are selling and eating.236238239241242245246247249251Jemimah Njuki, Head Africa IFPRI, Custodian for UN FSS gender equality - Propositions are developed with a gender lens - guiding principles: - Elevating women's voices and positions in food systems, access to resources. - Proposition: Women's Leadership and Empowerment Cluster - Proposition: Gender financing gap - Proposition: Resilience and building women's assets - Social norms - influence food allocation and access to assets. - Policies - make food systems policies gender transformative237238241242245247249250251Investment in maternal and women's nutrition is often linked to women's reproductive roles as mothers. There was common agreement that investment needs to happen because of women's innate rights -- as people. However, there was some divergence about the extent to which messaging should focus on women's innate human rights vs their economic roles and ability to contribute to GDP and output.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Proposal-women-nutrition-session-WHO-Food-Systems-Health-week-20May2021-1.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JagNCf_McrQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rS8sNv87gohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC-i6bauvmY

2021-06-22 16:02:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14976/203

92322724512132

Act with urgency: participants were asked to propose concrete social and policy changes in light of the unique opportunity for radical change implied by the COVID-19 pandemic; and highlight the role of the Holy See as a moral guide and global convenor in preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: participants represented social movements, UN agencies and pontifical academic institutions with the goal of combining scientific knowledge with the richness of Catholic Social Teaching and its ethical prescriptions in order to articulate morally-sound proposals for action. Speakers from the UN elevated these proposals with a global call to action. Complement each others' work: the dialogue was organized in a way that the speakers in each session gave an overview of the intricate link between food security and peace and how food insecurity disproportionately affects the poor. Guided by ethical reflections about human dignity, the care for the planet and social justice, participants spoke of the need for holistic and collaborative action to service of the common good through ensuring peace and food for all. Finally, testimonies from social movements and local NGOs in Latin America and Africa showcased where such actions are being taken and where this change is already happening. these actions are being taken today.Commit to the summit: participants identified challenges/shortcomings in today’s food systems and offered concrete policy proposals to rebuild food systems in a more resilient, sustainable and inclusive way (action-oriented). Proposals were complemented with real-life testimonies of local NGOs and social service workers involved in food systems in low and middle-income countries that highlighted the differential vulnerability of the poor to food insecurity and conflicts and “best practices” that are leading the change towards resilient, inclusive and sustainable food systems (people-centred). x Recognize complexity: the dialogues convened experts from diverse backgrounds and sought to analyse present-day food systems in light of their origins and consequences on the environment, economics, peace and health. The objective was to come up with holistic proposals for food systems that neutralize tradeoffs between feeding the world, ensuring peace and destroying the environment. Build trust: The Vatican COVID-19 Commission acted a convenor between high-level representatives of the UNFSS and those working for the poor. The dialogue, which explored the structural issues and inequalities underlying current food systems, sought to bridge the gap between the poor who are excluded from their right to food, and the high-level political actors that are working to service their needs, with the ultimate goal of building-up trust in the UNFSS process

Yes

234238241242246247On the 31st of May 2021, the Holy See Secretariat of State and the Pontifical Academies for Science and Social Science hosted an online event on Food Conflicts and the Future of Food Systems. This was the final webinar of the “Food for Life, Food Justice, Food for All,” series, born from the collaboration between the aforementioned organizations, the Permanent Mission of the Holy See to FAO, WFP & IFAD, the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development and the Vatican COVID-19 Commission. Building on the knowledge generated in the previous two webinars on The Role of Women in the Promotion of Integral Human Development and Jobs, Innovation and Finance at the Service of Food Justice, this webinar deepened the analysis of responses to food conflicts and how the Church can best contribute and collaborate to address hunger and food inequality around the world. It featured presentations from H.Em. Card. Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See; Dr. Qu Dongyu, Director General of FAO; H. Em. Peter K.A. Turkson, Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development; Dr. Agnes Kalibata, UN Special Envoy for the Food Systems Summit and many more.235238241244246247The first session focused on the current state of global food insecurity, its driving factors and present-day opportunities to reformulate them. Cardinal Turkson opened the panel with a presentation inspired by the knowledge and proposals shared in the previous two webinars. Following a see-judge-act methodology, His Eminence reiterated that conflict, climate change and COVID-19 are the main drivers of global hunger today, and emphasized integral ecology, human dignity and the common good as guiding principles for a holistic regeneration of food systems. He highlighted the need to bring the voices of vulnerable communities to the center of international political debates, promote circular models of food production and consumption, enhance local and traditional knowledge to ensure better protection of natural resources and reform present-day technological and financial structures to support the transformation of food systems. His intervention was followed by FAO Director General, Dr. Qu Dongyu who highlighted the interconnection between global conflicts and food insecurity and the need to guarantee food for all as a fundamental premise for world peace. In that regard, he called for further collaboration and partnerships, especially between humanitarian and development workers, to address the root causes of food insecurity and ensure coherent and sustained actions are taken to end the cycle of hunger, poverty and instability. Dr. Dongyu’s remarks were followed by a deepened analysis of the economic dimension of food systems by Prof. Stefano Zamagni, President of the Pontifical Academy for the Social Sciences. Given that national and global policies determine the availability, affordability and quality of available foods, these must aim at; i) enhancing and diversifying local food markets and curtailing monopolistic tendencies so that food may be immediately available at fair prices to all; ii) promoting quality-based strategies for food production in light of growing consumer sovereignty and demands for ecologically and socially responsible food systems, iii) reformulate financial astructures to support the transformation of food systems, and iv) nurture partnerships to ensure food for all in the context of mass urbanization. The panel was closed with a testimony from Fr. Fabio Mussi, Coordinator of Caritas of the Diocese of Yagoua, Cameroon, who offered examples of concrete, creative, community-based solutions to responses to malnutrition in Western and Central Africa. The second session sought to address the topic of conflicts and food systems from an interdisciplinary perspective. The discussion was opened by Dr Agnes Kalibata, UN Special Envoy for the Food Systems Summit, who insisted on the need to address poverty and inequality, which are at the root of global conflict and hunger. She called for deeper dialogue in light of the UNFSS, to emphasize the idea of human beings as a critical element of agroecology and the necessity to come through for the people who need it most. Following her presentation, Professor Joachim von Braun, President of the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences, spoke of the long-term consequences of food insecurity and conflicts (armed conflicts, resource conflicts, conflicts derived from food insecurity) on social fabrics and ecosystems. He called for renewed political action to affirm access to food as a fundamental human right, and heightened investment into the development and empowerment of local communities affected by food conflicts. Maurizio Pitzolu and Virginia Solis of the Agriculture and Justice village of the Economy of Francesco brought the voices of youth leaders and changemakers involved in the transformations of food systems. They shared the work of the village across the world and highlighted the opportunity to respond to the pandemic through a unified response to the cry of the earth and the poor. The panel was completed by Professor Vincenzo Buonomo, Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University, who expressed the need to develop a stronger sense of moral responsibility toward creating and governing food security, and the need for structural change on the basis of the common good. Concluding remarks were given by His Eminence Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See, who reiterated the need for concrete action to transform food systems, especially in the wake of the pandemic, which has exacerbated all humanitarian crises. A new paradigm with integral ecology and respect for human dignity at the core is needed to put people at the center.2362382392402422442462472501) Bring the voices of vulnerable communities to the center of international political debates 2) Promote circular models of food production and consumption 3) Enhance local and traditional knowledge 4) Reform present-day technological and financial structures to support the transformation of food systems 5) Need for further collaboration and partnerships, especially between humanitarian and development workers, to address the root causes of food insecurity and ensure coherent and sustained actions are taken to end the cycle of hunger, poverty and instability 6) Strong policies to; i) enhance and diversify local food markets and curtailing monopolistic tendencies to ensure availability and affordability of food products; ii) articulate quality-based strategies for food production in light of growing consumer sovereignty and demands for ecologically and socially responsible food systems, iii) reformulate financial structures to support the transformation of food systems, and iv) nurture partnerships to ensure food for all in the context of mass urbanization2362382402412442452462471) Emphasize the idea of human beings as a critical element of agroecology at the UNFSS 2) UFSS to renew political action to affirm access to food as a fundamental human right, and increase investments into the development and empowerment of local communities affected by food conflicts

2021-06-22 16:57:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14541/203

76

In 2021, UN Secretary-General António Guterres will convene a Food Systems Summit as part of the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”) by 2030 with the intention of inducing collaborative efforts to Build Back Better , and transform the way society produces, consumes, and considers food, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic revealing the sharp inequalities within the agricultural food system, and the risks of zoonotic diseases deriving from unsafe food practices. The Summit supports nutrient-rich Food Systems Dialogues, one of the five priority workstreams, which provides an opportunity to engage multi-level stakeholders (including governments, communities, academia, etc.) in discussing food systems and identifying ways to improve their resilience – especially against future pandemics and other crises. Against this background, the UN Environment Management Group (“EMG”), in close collaboration with UNU Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (“UNU-FLORES”) will organize a Food System Resilience through Integrated Natural Resource Management (7 June 2021) Nexus Dialogue as an independent dialogue of the Food System Summit, respecting the three key features : respectful of the Summit’s three principles of engagement; featuring structured conversations among stakeholder groups with different perspectives; and contribute to the Summit.Food System Resilience through Integrated Natural Resource Management Nexus Dialogue advances both the Economic (advance the sustainable recovery of food sectors) and Environmental (transforming our relationship with nature) building blocks of Sustainable Recovery under the auspices of Stockholm+50, and the Task Group of the One Planet Network and International Resource Panel. Additionally, it will share from- and feed into- UNU-FLORES’ projects , including stimulating the Science-Policy Interface, and exchange inputs between the UN system and multi-level stakeholders: • Address Resilient Food Systems through INRM, at all spatial levels (local to global), and from an interdisciplinary- and systemic food systems-perspective, especially for the Global South. • Contribute to the Discourse of Resilient Food Systems, via nexus understanding of integrated approaches for a sustainable relationship within the context of ongoing climate change. • Further an Integrated understanding of Food Security Drivers, both current and future: Environmental, Demographic, Socio-economic, Technological and Institutional. • Discuss the Integrated Prioritization of Resources across food, energy, and water sectors, and highlighting trade-offs and synergies for resilient food systems production. • Improve Capacity to Build Resilience for Food System and Nutrition, through the One Health Approach – recognizing the interconnections between humans, animals, plants, as well as an understanding of the role of natural resource systems.

Yes

234238239240242243244246249Resilient and Sustainable Food Systems are connected to every facet of the 2030 Agenda, either through primary, secondary, or tertiary system connections – and are, therefore, a Nexus of economic, social, and environmental development. Because of the broad, multi-level impacts of food systems, we believe that focusing on Integrated Natural Resource Management (“INRM”), as a high-impact leverage point can expedite and optimize the effect that food has on a variety of environmental and socioeconomic impacts, such as poverty, health, ecosystem integrity, industry, etc. A few exemplary connections are delineated. Poor Food Systems --> Poor Ecosystem Integrity Currently, an estimated 821 million people are currently undernourished, representing the failings of the global food system . Food systems are under the simultaneous pressure of environmental change (e.g., land degradation, biodiversity loss, and changes in climate/weather), and non-climate stressors (e.g., population/income growth, and demand for animal-sourced products ). On the causal side, food systems may negatively affect the environment by depleting natural resources, and polluting both surface and groundwater, with pesticides and chemical fertilizer . INRM can support the sustainable yield of food systems, in particular within the ecosystem and biosphere’s capacity for renewal. Poor Food Systems --> Poor WASH Management --> Poor Health & Nutrition Food systems are dependent on water resource management, with inadequate water supply and sanitation, being inextricably linked to poverty. For example, poor sanitation practices can produce untreated wastewater which cause water quality changes (e.g., in lakes, rivers, oceans), damaging aquatic food sources, exacerbating food insecurity and malnutrition , . Food security relies on water security, and the provision of water, sanitation, and hygiene (“WASH”) services particularly in impoverished communities. INRM, with a focus on water resources management, can meet the needs of a global population by ensuring the fundamental safety and integrity of life below water. Poor Food Systems --> Poor Productivity --> Poor Economy / Higher Poverty Food insecurity leads to mal-/under-nutrition, which has adverse effects on the physiological and mental capacity of individuals . Malnutrition and poverty are mutually-reinforcing, creating a vicious cycle that hampers productivity levels, exacerbating countries’ poverty levels . Failing to address undernutrition continue to yield significant losses in potential, in both humans and economies. Poverty, along with socio-economic and political marginalization, disenfranchises women, children and the elderly with regard to climate change and food insecurity7. INRM can reduce trade-offs, increase productivity, food security, and a better quality of life for all – in order to help achieve not short-term relief, but rather - long-term sustainability. Therefore, Food System Resilience underpin the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs – committing to leave no one behind. In the long-term, and the knowledge and implementation of INRM will increase the ability of agri-food and forest systems to (i) ensure supply of goods (e.g., food, fodder, fibre, wood, and bio-energy) and ecosystem services (e.g., store, filter and transform nutrients, substance, and water, biodiversity and carbon pool) that human benefits from and significantly rely on, (ii) preserve natural resources that are non-renewable (soil and water), and (iii) enlarge social and economic benefits by reducing environmental costs and impacts.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250Key messages include: • The current food production system is upheld by 1.5 billion smallholders, concentrating power locally; therefore, science-policy interfaces must translate into planning that is simultaneously top-down and bottom-up (e.g. living labs ), to effectively mobilize the nexus approach on INRM. • Further, top-down food policy may not align consistently in national development plans, as governmental ministries and institutions lack communication with each other, despite working with equal information, yet feeding into different databases. • With regional FAO initiatives run by multidisciplinary teams operating in various countries, it is essential for institutions to have a joint knowledge base to ground strategies upon. • The EC- Soil Health and Food Mission Board identified that farmers/producers eschew “to-do lists”, but rather responding best to quantitative evidence backing that “what is good for the environment, is often very good for business.” Contact between researchers and farmers in Living Labs is essential to produce viable results. • UNEP’s Sustainable Rice Platform yielded two major lessons : o It is important for the UN system to translate siloed research into a multi-goal format with principles, standards, and time-based deliverables, and; o Human empathy is required to communicate science, without judgement, in order to convene diverse stakeholders (e.g., Syngenta, BASF, Mars, Ben’s Original, etc.) • Food systems refer to the entwined relationships between humans and natural biophysical resources in systems. It is important, therefore, to have trained professionals who can: 1. Listen and understand other disciplines; 2. Discuss clearly with stakeholders, and 3. Present findings and participate effectively in policymaking. The lack of transferable skills in current professionals in the space (i.e., listening, discussing, and presenting) constitutes a capacity gap. • Furthermore, despite the importance of multidisciplinary thinking in INRM for food system resilience, there is a dominance of water-related researchers, in the Soil- Water-Food-Energy Nexus. The other three domains are missing representation, and therefore capacity. • Connecting “the dots” between research and practice, requires finance – constituting a capacity gap. In many countries, finance sectors influence the velocity of money and change. • As sustainable food systems require significant water inputs, FAO has developed six principles to base INRM strategies on when coping with water scarcity: Knowledge, Impact, Capacity, Coherence, Preparedness. • Supporting Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) in order to combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, UNCCD is currently supporting 127 countries that have committed to setting their voluntary targets of which 104 have successfully set their targets. The scientific conceptual framework for Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN-SCF) that underpins these guidelines comprises five modules, which describe the overall approach to LDN. • To translate science into actionable ideas for producers, IWMI-CGIAR is designing a leadership programme to directly bridge this gap, noting that a forthcoming Water-Food-Energy-Forest-Biodiversity Nexus Initiative seeks to significantly redesign research agendas. • Storytelling and case studies operationalize the science, helping it seem more relatable, and as it feeds into policy – achieve greater political uptake and stakeholder acceptance. • Food resilience and INRM are embedded in the SDGs, but due to a lack of concrete definitions, guidelines, and handbooks to define INRM, conventional agricultural practices are still promoted as supporting SDG 2&3, despite its often negative impacts on SDGs 6, 10, 13, 15, and 16. It is recommended that the UN system produce a guidance policy document on INRM’s efficacy on food systems. • Furthermore, governments should seek to integrate INRM and the Nexus Approach into existing processes, e.g., national implementation of the SDGs and the Voluntary National Review process. • Food production (including its socio-political issues, energy needs) is inextricable from land use and degradation, and it is highly recommended that the UN system and policymakers view food policy through the land lens. • Addressing food system resilience and transformation recommends that policymakers appreciate the need for upfront long-term investment and capacity development (e.g., groundwater management, reforestation) despite the time lag between investment and payoff. A stable and sound governance system is needed to provide an enabling environment conducive to long-term innovation funding earmarked for environmental and social sustainability in food systems. The rationale is set. There is a need for a coalition created among the key UNU institutes, UNEP, IWMI-CGIAR, FAO, and other relevant UN system agencies to engage in interagency collaboration to produce a policy/guidance document which: 1. Lays out the guidelines of a common INRM approach supporting current and future food systems resilience; 2. Support countries in identifying a pathway which ensures compatibility between sustainable consumption and production needs, and; 3. Feeds an actionable narrative and concrete recommendations to be included into the CBD, COP 26, and Stockholm+50 ongoing intergovernmental processes.236241242243244246249The rationale is set. There is a need for a coalition created among the key UNU institutes, UNEP, IWMI-CGIAR, FAO, and other relevant UN system agencies to engage in interagency collaboration to produce a policy/guidance document which: 1. Lays out the guidelines of a common INRM approach supporting current and future food systems resilience; 2. Support countries in identifying a pathway which ensures compatibility between sustainable consumption and production needs, and; 3. Feeds an actionable narrative and concrete recommendations to be included into the CBD, COP 26, and Stockholm+50 ongoing intergovernmental processes.237240242243244245246250• Food systems refer to the entwined relationships between humans and natural biophysical resources in systems. It is important, therefore, to have trained professionals who can: 1. Listen and understand other disciplines; 2. Discuss clearly with stakeholders, and 3. Present findings and participate effectively in policymaking. The lack of transferable skills in current professionals in the space (i.e., listening, discussing, and presenting) constitutes a capacity gap. • Furthermore, despite the importance of multidisciplinary thinking in INRM for food system resilience, there is a dominance of water-related researchers, in the Soil- Water-Food-Energy Nexus. The other three domains are missing representation, and therefore capacity. • Connecting “the dots” between research and practice, requires finance – constituting a capacity gap. In many countries, finance sectors influence the velocity of money and change. • Food resilience and INRM are embedded in the SDGs, but due to a lack of concrete definitions, guidelines, and handbooks to define INRM, conventional agricultural practices are still promoted as supporting SDG 2&3, despite its often negative impacts on SDGs 6, 10, 13, 15, and 16. It is recommended that the UN system produce a guidance policy document on INRM’s efficacy on food systems. • Addressing food system resilience and transformation recommends that policymakers appreciate the need for upfront long-term investment and capacity development (e.g., groundwater management, reforestation) despite the time lag between investment and payoff. A stable and sound governance system is needed to provide an enabling environment conducive to long-term innovation funding earmarked for environmental and social sustainability in food systems.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Food-System-Resilience-through-INRM-ND_Outcome-Report_Final.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Food-Systems-Resilience-Infographic.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EMG-ND-on-Food-Systems-Resilience_Final.pdfhttps://unemg.org/food-system-resilience-nexus-dialogue/

2021-06-22 17:09:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17640/23

0181167012017640140148361841284232452161828

This was a consultative process dialogue, co-organised by the FAO and WorldFish. The formulation of dialogue thematic areas and group discussions was also consultative and represented different stakeholder interests and critical areas of aquatic food systems in Bangladesh. The group facilitators and discussants were nominated and selected based on their technical expertise. Facilitators were briefed prior to the dialogue and created open and inclusive debate that allowed participants to freely contribute and identify actions or policy recommendations that will leverage aquatic food systems' capacity to contribute to sustainable, equitable, resilient, safe aquatic foods and the attainment of SDGs by 2030 in Bangladesh.A keynote speaker with expertise in aquatic food systems and vast experience in global, Asian region and Bangladesh context was identified to outline the main issues, success stories, challenges, potentials and future scenarios of the aquatic food systems in Bangladesh. The keynote speaker laid the foundation for, and stimulated participants' discussions and contributions to the dialogue. The thematic areas selected represented the complexity and urgency of aquatic food systems. Discussion thematic areas included: i) enhancing aquatic food and nutrition security, and sustainable consumption; ii) promoting nature-positive production and building resilience to vulnerabilities and shocks; iii) advancing equitable livelihoods in aquatic food systems; and iv) strengthening aquatic food systems governance and policy dimensions. The dialogue ensured inclusivity of all stakeholders, including fish farmers and fishers, fish processors and market actors, consumer representatives, policy makers, research institutions, and development partners. All participants were respected and were encouraged to freely contribute to the dialogue. The dialogue followed the Chatham House rule of confidentiality, without alluding any suggestions to particular individuals.Briefing facilitators on conducting break away sessions and applying the dialogue principles is crucial in simulating participants' discussions and capturing contributions that represent the diversity of participants. Gender inclusivity and different sector affiliation representation should be encouraged as it enriches discussion to resolve complex issues surrounding food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue's main focus was on identifying and understanding the specific challenges faced in the aquatic food systems and proposing possible necessary actions or policy recommendations that would leverage the aquatic food systems capacity to contribute more to sustainable, equitable, resilient, safe aquatic foods and the attainment of SDGs by 2030 in Bangladesh. As entry points, the dialogue focussed on four thematic areas: i) enhancing aquatic food and nutrition security, and sustainable consumption; ii) promoting nature-positive production and increase resilience to vulnerabilities and shocks, iii) advancing equitable livelihoods in aquatic food systems; and iv) strengthening aquatic food systems' governance and policy dimensions.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251The aquatic food systems is an important sector of the Bangladesh economy and its citizens’ livelihoods. The sector contributes about 4% of national GDP, 60% of animal protein, 2% of national exports and engages over 17.5 million people. The sector’s potential to contribute to the national economy, food and nutrition security, poverty reduction and other SDGs is higher, but faces a number of challenges which include: 1) Low consumption of fish by the poor and low income households, who usually, experience high malnutrition levels. Therefore, urgent actions have to be undertaken to increase sustainable production, ensure access of safe and nutritious aquatic foods, promotion of nutrition-sensitive aquaculture and fisheries policies, and measures to tackle malnutrition. 2) Increased degradation of fisheries resource natural habitats by among others, siltation, eutrophication, over-exploitation and illegal fishing. There is urgent need to enrich open waters with aquatic biodiversity restoration and improve ecosystems management. 3) Low climate resilience and limited capacity to withstand shocks. Actions are required to accelerate productivity and resilience through climate smart investment. There is urgent need to promote generation and adoption of climate resilient technologies in the aquatic food systems' value chain, generation of climate information, development of insurance products and safety nets to compensate fish farmers during disasters. 4) Huge inequalities leading to exclusion of poor fish farmers, especially women who have restricted opportunities to participate in aquatic food systems. There is urgent need to increase access of poor farmers including women, to public water bodies. Additionally, financial opportunities should be developed and accessible to small-scale fishers to enable their participation in the profitable aquatic food systems' value chain. 5) Need to strengthen governance and policy dimensions of aquatic food systems. Enforcing regulations to reduce unsustainable production oriented policy systems, to more sustainable production and equality oriented policy systems, promote data generation, technology development and uptake.236238239240241242246247249251Discussions under thematic area one: Enhancing aquatic food and nutrition security, and sustainable consumption. Discussion topic 1: Increasing aquatic food consumption in family diet. Actions are needed to improve consumption levels of fish in resource constrained and vulnerable families, and especially by women and children in both rural and urban areas. One way is to promote production and consumption of micronutrient-rich small indigenous fish. There is also need to increase nutrition awareness and improve understanding on consumption of aquatic foods to meet nutritional requirements at different stages of the life cycle for people living in different social, economic, cultural and environmental context. Promotion of nutrition-sensitive aquaculture measures can help tackle the existing challenges of malnutrition. Nutrition education should build awareness and knowledge about processing, cooking and preparation of food mixed with nutrient rich fish for feeding minor children. Production and consumption of fish based products (fish powder and fish chutney) can help meet nutritional requirements of pregnant women, lactating mothers and minor children. Fish based products should also be included in school feeding programmes. The country should develop aquatic food based dietary guidelines and make it available to all people of Bangladesh. Discussion topic 2: Improving productivity and quality. Effective and efficient production and distribution systems are needed to ensure access by all, and especially the poor households. There is need to promote pond ownership at household level and to ensure access to public water bodies by resource restricted families, as fishers and most marginalised communities' livelihoods depend on common water resources. Aquatic food standards and regulations on safe aquatic foods without detrimental effects to health should be enforced along the entire value chain i.e. from production, processing, transportation and marketing. Discussion topic 3: Improving aquatic diversity. Diversity should be improved in terms of both production and intake of aquatic foods. This would address observed species diversity loss due to unsustainable practices that in turn affect fish species and production. There should be promotion of eco-nutrition that integrates environmental health, human nutrition and conservation of natural resources. Habitat restoration and community based management need to be promoted. Both government and other stakeholder may promote the establishment of adequate fish sanctuaries and sustainable management, along with awareness campaigns. Ensuring proper implementation of existing Fishing Regulation Act is very important to enhance fish biodiversity and sustainable production in the open waters.236240241242243244246249Discussion under thematic area two: Promoting nature-positive production and increase resilience to vulnerabilities and shocks. This thematic area focussed on how to boost aquatic food production to meet the fundamental human right to healthy and nutritious food, whilst following sustainable production practices and building resilience to shocks including climate disasters. Discussion topic 1: Urgent need to curb the natural habitat degradation for fisheries resources and optimize resource use. Along with climate change, heavy pollution from agricultural land, over-exploitation, and unregulated fishing are the key issues in the fishery habitat degradation. There is need to collectively strengthen awareness and promotion of nature based approach with the active engagement of relevant stakeholders to ensure social, economic and environmental benefits. Identification of highly degraded ecosystems should be undertaken and accordingly, upazila/sub-district or community level fishery ecosystem management plans should be developed and support should be provided to ensure their effective implementation. Discussion topic 2: High input cost and low aquatic food product prices, specifically during shocks. Cost of inputs such as seed and feed is observed to be usually high during times of disasters, however prices offered to to resource constrained fish farmers are low. Government should support, for instance the reduction of production cost by reducing electricity tarrifs and providing subsidies for feed and seed. Efforts to create and enhance online market platforms for fish products to improve farmers' returns should be strengthened. Insurance services and products that can easily be accessed and are affordable by vulnerable communities should be developed to provide compensation during loss and damage. Alternative off-farm livelihoods options should also be devised and promoted as emergency support measures during disaster. Discussion topic 3: Building resilience to climate change impacts. Currently the affected communities have limited capacity to plan and address climate change impacts. There is need to promote research and generation of technologies or adaptation practices. These may include ecosystem-specific climate resilient fish species that are tolerant to different climatic risks such as high temperatures and salinity levels, pond depth and aeration, fast growing species, integrated crop and aquatic farming practices, and promotion of cage culture. Discussion topic 4: Limited access to early warning systems. Specifically for the most vulnerable communities, there is need for community based early warning systems particularly for floods and cyclones. Additionally, different stakeholders may support climate risk vulnerability assessment to identify the different climate risks in the most vulnerable areas, communities or hotspots. This would improve community understanding of the specific risks and development of short and long-term participatory community adaptations plans to address and respond to the identified risks. There is also need to improve coordination among stakeholders that undertake or support climate risk assessment in different regions throughout the country, to share and create a common information database. The harmonised risk and vulnerability assessment database would improve knowledge generation and planning for disasters . Discussion topic 5: Deteriorating indigenous aquaculture production and biodiversity. The indigenous aquaculture production and bio-diversity (species, genetic, beels, haors, baors and estuarine ecosystem) is under threat. Preservation of indigenous genes, species and ecosystems is urgently required and should be promoted. There is need to sensitise communities on existing innovative approaches, ideas and adaptation measures especially indigenous adaptation processes. Deliberate efforts should be made to assess and tap voices and knowledge of farmers and fishers.236241242244245246247249251Discussion under thematic area three: Advancing equitable livelihoods in aquatic food systems. This group discussed how aquatic food systems may contribute to equitable livelihoods through active participation and involvement in productive employment and decent work for all actors along the aquatic food systems' value chain. Issues highlighted, included how to reduce risks for the poorest; enable entrepreneurship and promote equitable access to resources and improve resilience through social protection to climate-vulnerable communities. Discussion topic 1: Access to finance and affordable credit services. Currently poor farmers have limited access to formal finance which forces them to seek loans from informal money lenders at exorbitant interest rates, that end up trapping poor families in a vicious cycle of poverty and oppression. Under current lending terms provided by the informal money lenders, poor farmers end up losing all their resources and properties to pay back the loans. Action is needed to end such exploitation of poor farmers by informal financial agencies. Fish farmer associations should be empowered to create and run own credit operations for fisher communities. Addition efforts can be made where loans at low or concessional interest rates may be provided. This would require capacity building and start-up funds with close monitoring and regulation by relevant government agencies. Discussion topic 2: Access to fishery resources. While there is policy provision that small-scale fishers should have access to government owned water bodies, the situation is often different, with large fishers having most access and small fishers having very limited access. There is need to ensure that there is equality in access to public water bodies. Co-management approach would be the best option to including the poor fishers and other resource users in accessing government owned public water bodies. Discussion topic 3: Limited opportunities to participate in aquatic food systems value chain. Most poor fish farmers and fishers sell fish at very low prices and are often unable to even recover production cost. Due to social barriers, female farmers especially, have less access to supply chain. Women farmer cooperatives should be established and more collection points or more women friendly fish markets should be created to enable women farmer participation and access to better markets. Discussion topic 4: Financial support to aquatic food systems input suppliers. Fish seed producing hatcheries do not get expected support as compared to other sectors in times of emergencies. The government support which is extended to other agricultural sector in times of emergencies such as Covid -19, should be extended to aquatic food systems input suppliers. This will also have positive multiplier effects along the value chain. Discussion topic 5: Promotion of alternative livelihood options. Livelihood options, especially during emergencies and fish ban periods, are limited to many poor households. There is need to create permanent livelihood options to complement the poor fisher families' income generation. Capacity building of the resource constrained fishers and alternative livelihood options are required to ensure alternative means of income generation.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251Discussion under thematic area four: Strengthening aquatic food systems governance and policy dimensions. This group focussed on policy dimensions regarding sustainable use of water and fishery resources, building climate resilience and mitigation of climate change impacts, and enhancing welfare of the fisheries communities during disasters. Discussion topic 1: Improving aquatic food production and value chain. There is urgent need to promote research on small scale or artisanal fisheries to promote low-trophic, diversified, environmental-friendly, economically viable, and socially acceptable aquatic foods. This would involve technology/innovation generation, capacity building from production and throughout the value chain (small storage facilities, insulated transport vans to minimise post harvest loses, small landing sites in inland water areas, and quality control along the entire value chain). Reforms as suggested in other thematic groups are required to increase access to finance. A revolving fund mechanism may be created to support fishers’ input quality procurement to improve productivity. Additionally, efforts to improve and adopt co-friendly management approaches to promote a more sustainable farming system are required. Discussion topic 2: Improving livelihoods through aquatic food systems Mechanisms should be put in place to improve livelihoods by combating social exclusion, vulnerability, and poverty. Adoption of model fishing villages which have potential to transform livelihoods should be upscaled. Empowerment of women fishers through savings and capacity building should be encouraged. Provisions should be made for fishers and fish farmers to have complementary economic activities such as feed production, artisanal production of fishing gear, operation of fish feed mills, shrimp de-heading for processing, mat-making, bee-keeping, tree plantation, horticulture, tailoring, etc. Discussion topic 3: Promoting management of climate change impacts. Climate change impacts are evident everywhere in Bangladesh. There is urgent need to promote technologies for adoption and build capacity for planning and implementation of climate resilient interventions. Firstly, information on climate change should be generated and analysed to understand the various risk posed to different regions and communities, and guide decision making. Climate risk and vulnerability analysis should be undertaken for all hotspot areas and specific technologies analysed for suitability in those areas. Communities should participate and be involved in formulation of community adaptation plans. Discussion topic 4: Promotion of guidelines for sustainable small-scale fisheries (SSF). In the context of food security and poverty eradication, the Voluntary Guidelines for Small Scale Fisheries (SSF) should be promoted. Proper functioning of the multi-scale and multi-level inclusive governance systems should be enhanced by creating and enabling community spaces to contribute to transformative changes in the management and sustenance of SSF in Bangladesh. It is also necessary to enhance the Marine Protected Areas (MPA) to promote the balance between biodiversity and livelihoods. To improve safety at sea, fishermen should be supported and equipped with GPS and other necessary warning systems.

2021-06-22 17:16:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14776/203

890134427537511541451111208335111182571814118

- The dialogue convenors paid attention to multi-stakeholder inclusivity, both for the dialogue invitations as well as for dividing break-out groups. This included striving for balance and inclusivity in stakeholder groups, sectors, gender, age and geographic representation. - The curator and break-out group facilitators were selected and briefed with care, to ensure the principles of engagement were incorporated and that guiding questions for facilitation allowed for embracing the full complexity of topics of food systems issues and complementing ongoing work in the frame of the Food Systems Summit preparatory process and beyond.- The dialogue programme, including targeted break-out group discussions in combination with the use of IT-supportive tools, offered a dynamic way for a diverse range of stakeholders to explore how they can unite – with urgency - around transformative action in support of valuing the often-neglected impacts and dependencies that food systems have on nature, people and society. - The dialogue programme allowed for an open, safe and respectful space for participants to feel comfortable engaging with one another. One hour of break-out group sessions (6-10 participants) made that each participant was listened to, and different inputs including divergences in opinion were collectively welcomed.- Participant registration reports were analyzed two weeks in advance of the dialogue to identify underrepresented groups and this allowed us to send out additional invitations to attempt mitigating inclusivity issues in registered participants. - Interactive IT support tools (eg. mentimeter) complement and dynamize feedback sessions (reporting back on +10 break-out groups is very time consuming) - Carefully crafting guiding questions in break-out groups allows for embracing complexity, pointing at critical issues, and going beyond superficial areas of consensus into areas of divergence of opinion

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There has been growing recognition that a Food Systems transformation lays at the centre of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. If we are to succeed in addressing the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, social inequities and human health, we need to bring the value provided by nature, people and society to the forefront of decision-making to transform food systems. The dialogue focuses on how valuing nature and people in food systems can help us to deliver on many global and national priorities. The term ‘True Cost Accounting’ has emerged as a central priority in the UN Food Systems Summit preparatory discussions and is presented in a number of game-changers across Action Tracks. Specifically, the Action Track 1 ‘Cross Cutting Action Area’ Food Systems Pathways and Data features multiple True Cost Accounting propositions and on 1 June 2021 the UNFSS Scientific Group published a paper focusing on The True Cost and True Price of Food. True Cost Accounting (TCA) is an evolving holistic and systemic approach to measure and value the positive and negative environmental, social, health and economic costs and benefits to facilitate policy , business, farmer, investor and consumer decisions. This term True Cost Accounting is not exclusive - other actors use ‘impact assessment/management’ and ‘a capitals approach’ to mean the same. Indeed, the capitals – natural capital, social capital, human capital and produced capital – form the foundation of food systems. By understanding how food systems impact and depend on the capitals, policy-makers, civil society, consumers and businesses can make holistic decisions that redefine the value provided by nature, people and society. Participants had a discussion in facilitated break-out rooms about the following four guiding questions: (1) What actions are required for the value provided by nature and people to be consistently integrated into public and private decision-making processes for agriculture and food systems?; (2) What are barriers for uptake of a value-based decision-making in existing practice? How can these barriers be addressed?; (3) How can we strengthen the political support for comprehensive food systems evaluations (at the Food Systems Summit and beyond)?; (4) How can comprehensive food systems evaluations contribute to recognizing trade-offs? How can cross-pollination between sectors help to manage these trade-offs? In the following sections we will highlight the main findings and actions proposed as outcomes of these break-out room discussions.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Participants emphasized that systems thinking is required to embrace the Summit’s Principle ‘Recognizing Complexity’. Systems thinking, as part of comprehensive food systems evaluations, can illuminate how natural, human, social and produced capital linked to food systems are interconnected. Systems thinking requires that game changing solutions are not considered in isolation within their action tracks but that capital impacts and dependencies of solutions are assessed across all action tracks. It was noted that recent progress in establishing standardized rigorous ways of collecting statistics (eg. UN SEEA; business reporting standards) can enhance a broader recognition of holistic food systems evaluations, while at the same time making them more robust and credible. There is a need to be able to capture externalities and assign value in a way that is tangible and comparable. The TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework was highlighted as an internationally accepted harmonized framework for holistic food systems evaluations, which was developed by 150 scientists from 33 countries. The uptake of comprehensive food systems evaluations in the context of the Food Systems Summit process is needed. Participants stressed the importance of determining how comprehensive food systems evaluations can inform decision-making. Getting the right information to the right people was identified as a barrier, and therefore goes beyond ‘getting the metrics right’. Participants pointed at the role of inclusive stakeholder-driven processes creating positive change in food systems using a ‘capitals approach’. Various tools and databases were highlighted for food system decision makers to recognize, measure, manage and reward responsible stewardship of the capitals. The importance of effective framing and messaging to shift decision-making, with a focus on a positive (value-based) decision-making narrative was highlighted. For example, repurposing subsidies can create value for nature, people and society. Indeed, internalizing in policy and regulatory frameworks the natural, health and social costs that are currently unaccounted for, will facilitate upscaling of sustainable and healthy food production and consumption. Consumers are considered as drivers in their demand for more sustainable and healthy food. The need to highlight the importance of TCA in capturing the value of i) nutritious food, and ii) nature-positive agriculture. Emphasis was put on how TCA and associated approaches can support the creation of enabling environments for agroecology and regenerative approaches to flourish and benefit all, including local institutions, communities, smallholder farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and women. Participants referred to the power of TCA to inform policy decisions that allow markets to do a better job at rewarding responsible stewardship of the capitals, ie. rewarding sustainable, affordable and healthy food production and consumption. There is a need to enhance collaboration: comprehensive food systems evaluations take an integrated approach by design and can therefore enhance cross-sectoral collaboration between ministries (finance, agriculture, environment, health, spatial management/planning) and also between actors (government, civil society, private sector, academic community); Finance actors need to be brought on board, given their role in getting the market incentives right, support the transition and correcting market failures (ministries of finance). Private sector representatives highlighted that regulation is critical to create a commonly accepted framework to support business decision-making. Making trade-offs and synergies visible was highlighted as a crucial contribution of comprehensive food systems evaluations. Trade-offs between: Nature and people; Food for profitable crops versus food for healthy consumers; Choices that consumers/producers make, and the results in terms of consequences to human health, planetary heals, livelihoods and equity; Types of value and capital, between stakeholders and with different priorities and values; Countries; Mono-crop and multi-crop; agriculture and biodiversity; Increasing producer prices and keeping healthy food affordable for vulnerable populations globally. Synergies between: Health and environmental outcomes of just and sustainable production; And around agroecological practices and positive outcomes for environment, livelihood and the economy. While recognizing ground realities that science-based policy and decision-making advice is just one of the factors in a dynamic decision making process, participants identified a wide range of barriers and solutions for the uptake of value-based decision-making. This included: a lack of comprehensive data (or access to data) to accurately measure and compare impacts; a narrow concept of evidence; a gap between businesses and investors wanting to use TCA due to the lack of auditing and regulatory support and standards for TCA and the absence of TCA related metrics on P&L statements; short-termism of decision-makers limiting long-term recommendations to be taken-up; lack of guidance on how to assign risks and responsibility; not burdening consumers with higher prices; capacity and multidisciplinary expertise gaps, entrenched policies and lock-ins in which scientific policy advice is just one of the factors in a dynamic decision-making process.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Urgent action required Participants voiced the need for urgent action for transforming our food system, based on approaches that measure and value the contributions of natural, social, human, and produced capital to food systems.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Standardization and comparability needed A focus on standardization in terminology and practices, also to create transparency and comparability across the value chain (eg. integrated profit and loss statements). The private sector calls for the creation of a measurement matrix that values both positive steps but also targets negative interventions. This will allow different stakeholders to compare each of these diverse aspects and make decisions based on more ‘complete’ information, not just between businesses, but across the full value chain from farmer to consumer.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Grow coalition Participants highlighted that, in order to build political support throughout the Food Systems Process, there is a need to actively involve a growing coalition that is already supporting the measurement and valuation of often-neglected impacts and dependencies that food systems have on nature, people and society. To scale-up rapidly, participants highlighted the pivotal role of champions and the impact of demonstrations to inspire further action. Uptake of comprehensive food systems evaluations in the context of the Food Systems Summit process: the wide socialization of concepts and issues; ensure national and regional momentum and ownership; strengthening a growing coalition of practitioners and policy champions; and highlighting best-practice examples at different levels: policy, region, business, investment or product; engage with smallholder farmer groups to understand the diversity of what farmers and farmer workers value and possible lock-ins; Ensure a multi-value perspective in particular to the role of Indigenous and local knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (including cultural values, knowledge on local varieties); develop a multi-stakeholder platform/coalition supported by strong data and information.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Effective framing and messaging In relation to effective framing and messaging to shift decision-making the following actions were formulated: i) promote a focus on positive messages including long-term value in terms of the environmental and health benefits of food systems transformations, rather than focusing only on the negative impacts (identify and value/account for positive impacts); ii) communicate to stakeholders groups in a tailored and comprehensive way with solid scientific grounding; iii) improve the articulation of the business proposition on True Cost Accounting and value-based decision-making to stakeholder groups; iv) engage in a forward-looking approach, with a focus on future visions and opportunity pathways; v) the need for inspiring case studies; and vi) the need to translate numbers into concrete policy recommendations.236238239240241242243250Trade-offs and synergies In relation to trade-offs and synergies, participants expressed various key elements to take into account when conducting True Cost Accounting: i) the utility of TCA to reveal the web of interactions, allowing decision makers to reduce trade-offs and increase synergies , ii) the importance to consider and analyse distributional impacts of trade-offs between different stakeholders including smallholder farmers, iii) the need to consider spatial scales (e.g. beyond the farm gate) and temporal scales (e.g. short-term and long-term impacts), iv) the need to understand the local context and role of local actors in negotiating the prioritization of trade-offs, for example in development planning processes, v) to illuminate the interconnectedness of SDGs and potential trade-offs and synergies between those, particularly linked to poverty reduction, climate action and food security, vi) and the dependence of trade-offs on national government priorities across the food systems value chains.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Private sector engagement Private sector representatives highlighted the pivotal role the government should play through regulation and the creation of a level playing field to support the transition to more sustainable business models. A safe level playing field is needed to support businesses to transition to value-inclusive business models in a competitive space. A commonly accepted framework would support business decision making. Incentive structures through financial mechanisms should be in place in order fund the transition to a more sustainable system and reward a value-based approach.The financial sector needs to be educated and provided with information on what a good investment looks like to support the transition. Private companies need to be made financially accountable for the impact on our food systems through accounting standards. For example, repurposing subsidies can create value for nature, people and society.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251While the “True Cost of Food” narrative has shown effectiveness in awareness raising and exemplifying a systems perspective, further steps are required to lead to policy change. The risk was voiced that the word ‘cost’ in many people’s mind relate to the costs that consumers pay (ie. price), as opposed to the value provided by nature and society to food systems. As such, this narrative may be wrongly interpreted as making food more expensive/less affordable and not the ongoing but unaccounted for costs to society (e.g diminished health) and the environment (e.g. pollution). To respond to this, participants voiced the need to create a positive (value-based) decision-making narrative (ie. identifying, valuing and accounting for positive impacts) and to shift incentives to support and enhance these positive impacts. Concern was raised that True Cost Accounting could be linked to higher food prices, raising equity issues and excluding vulnerable populations. Participants suggested a ‘true value’ approach to True Cost Accounting, as well as focusing not only on pricing externalities (taxing the ‘bad’ instead of the ‘good’) but also on public investment and regulations. The core assertion was reiterated that prices have failed to reflect the true value of the natural world, and the economic systems that we are using are broken. It is therefore about addressing the economic invisibility of important things that we value. The important difference between price (the quantity of one thing that is exchanged in sale for another) and value (relative importance or worth) was highlighted in this context. Even though we may seek where possible to monetize changes in capital stocks, it was recognized that in some cases it is neither appropriate nor possible to do so. Overall, participants expressed optimism that together we have the tools and information necessary to put nature and people at the heart of food systems and achieve equitable economic prosperity throughout the agrifood value chain. While some emphasized the need for simplified tools and frameworks for the technical application of valuation, others iterated that this should not go against the need to showcase the complexity and variability of the system pertaining to different contexts and geographic locations. Different suggestions were made to improve the articulation of the business proposition around True Cost Accounting to different stakeholders. There was divergence in opinion about changing the narrative of ‘externalities’ towards ‘impacts’ with regards to illustrating a more holistic view of the value provided by nature, people and society in food systems.

2021-06-22 17:52:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28399/12

1111111

Пяп пяп.Пяп пяп.Пяп пяп.

Yes

234238243Пяп пяп.235238243Пяп пяп.236238243Пяп пяп.237238243Пяп пяп.

2021-06-22 21:24:44205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10963/141

1496187

Las consultas se desarrollaron siguiendo un enfoque participativo e inclusivo, con diversidad de grupos de interés vinculados a los diferentes procesos de los sistemas alimentarios, propiciando un espacio de discusión que genere un intercambio abierto entre los participantes. Para la identificación de participantes, el Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario promovió el evento entre su red de actores de la cadena alimentaria, lo que garantizó la participación de organizaciones con mucha experiencia dentro de la cadena alimentaria. Mientras tanto, el Ministerio de Desarrollo Social promovió paralelamente la consulta nacional entre su red de organizaciones especializadas en múltiples aspectos del desarrollo sostenible, incluyendo entidades sin fines de lucro que representan voz de actores priorizados en la política social, como la juventud, la mujer, indígenas y afrodescendientes, organizaciones en defensa del medio ambiente, entre otros. La Consulta Nacional fue auspiciada por el Ministro de Comercio e Industrias, S.E. Ramón Martínez, quien inauguró el evento y dio la bienvenida a los participantes.La consulta nacional se enfocó principalmente en darle voz a la mayor cantidad de actores posibles. Por ello, la metodología de trabajo obligo a contar con un un facilitador para organizar y administrar la discusión de manera que todos los participantes tengan oportunidad de exponer su punto de vista, tanto verbal como por escrito a través del sistema de mensajería rápida de la plataforma virtual. Además, cada mesa contó con un relator quien asumía las tareas de captación ordenada del contenido de manera que el facilitador pudiera optimizar su trabajo de promotor de la participación amplia.La Consulta Nacional contó con un impulso mediático importante consecuencia de una actividad previa de lanzamiento, que tuvo lugar el pasado 14 de abril, que contó con la participación directa de las más altas autoridades gubernamentales, gremios nacionales, la empresa privada y el Sistema de Naciones Unidas. Esto ayudó a crear conciencia ciudadana sobre la naturaleza del evento, especialmente entre los actores más relevantes de los sistemas alimentarios del país.

Yes

234238239241242246247249251El objetivo de la Consulta Nacional es determinar la futura dirección de los sistemas alimentarios en el país, hacia la consecución de los ODS explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030. Teniendo como base las vías de acción determinadas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios y grandes temas de interés nacional asociados con los sistemas alimentarios, Panamá adopta las siguientes cuatro preguntas orientadoras que se han utilizado en todas y cada una de las sesiones de consulta realizadas. Las dos primeras hacen referencia a algunas acciones que se pudieran impulsar y nuestro papel como actores para avanzar hacía un sistema alimentario sostenible, mientras que las dos últimas tienen que ver con el abordaje de estos sistemas en las políticas públicas. Las preguntas orientadoras son: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? 2. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? 3. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? 4. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes?235238239241242243246249En términos generales se contó con una participación de diversos sectores de la sociedad panameña en las consultas realizadas, podemos señalar que se contó con participación de entidades gubernamentales, organismos internacionales, sector académico, ONGs, empresa privada, productores, centros de investigación, gobiernos locales, cooperativas y estudiantes universitarios. Se evidenció el gran interés de todos los sectores y grupos convocados en los sistemas alimentarios y su importancia para la salud y seguridad alimentaria de toda la población y la necesidad de impulsar acciones que conduzcan hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible. Fue señalada también la necesidad de contar con políticas públicas que aborden temas como la producción, comercialización y consumo, la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con incentivos a los productores y compradores, fortaleciendo la agricultura familiar y modelos asociativos facilitando el acceso oportuno a alimentos saludables.236238239241242243246249Pregunta guía 1: ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? Entre las acciones que tendrán mayor repercusión se identificaron: • Políticas de Estado que garanticen la inversión en productos de alto valor nutricional, formulando y fortaleciendo distintas normativas como una ley de etiquetado frontal y educación nutricional para facilitar el acceso a las dietas saludables. • Creación de incentivos para los productores y compradores, para fortalecer la agricultura familiar y pequeñas cooperativas creando espacios directos entre los productores y los comercios para abaratar los costes de producción e incentivar la compra de productos de buena calidad a los consumidores. • Hay que fortalecer mecanismos que garanticen la participación ciudadana, analizando con el Ministerio de Salud la sostenibilidad de los patrones de consumo actuales y sus recomendaciones en cuanto manejo de una alimentación saludable. • Necesidad de fortalecer la educación escolar en temas relacionado a una alimentación saludable (orientación alimentaria), perdidas y desperdicios de alimentos y reciclaje. • Aumentar las campañas de sensibilización en la población sobre la sostenibilidad alimentaria. • Se debe fortalecer la extensión agropecuaria, de esta manera robustecer las capacidades de nuestros productores y pueda ser sostenibles en el tiempo la producción nacional para tener soberanía alimentaria. • Se debe trabaja conjuntamente con el MEDUCA para que el Agricultores Familiares puedan comercializar sus productos a través de los distintos proyectos de compra de alimentos que mantiene el Ministerio de Educación. • Se deben establecer políticas integrales con sinergia entre todos los actores, Gobiernos, Sociedad Civil y Sector • Es necesario un monitoreo más estrecho de los planes de gobierno, con distintos indicadores y dar seguimientos los diferentes Programas.236238239240241242246247249Pregunta guía 2: ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? • Es necesario realizar análisis del mercado para transmitir a los productores que lo que se decide producir va en línea con que el mercado necesita y lo que está dispuesto a comprar. • Los productores deben comenzar a transformar su producción hacia una economía circular en donde no se generan desperdicios y se reutiliza. Por ejemplo, la piel de la tilapia, la cual es utilizada en diversidad de opciones, incluso medicinales. • Se deben encontrar estrategias para incluir a los pequeños productores, especialmente aquellos dispersos y en áreas remotas para equilibrar su poder de mercado con los intermediarios y otros comercializadores, en especial aquella que cierre las brechas tecnológicas que también ejemplifican inequidades dentro de cada grupo de actores de la cadena. Esperamos que el bienestar de los pequeños productores también se traduzca en menor riesgo y daño a las áreas de recursos naturales protegidas que son frontera con los territorios de producción agrícola que usualmente explotan pequeños productores. • Trabajar para encontrar oportunidades para explotación de las mermas producto de los procesos de comercialización para que se aprovechen y generen bienestar a la sociedad, utilizando las medidas de inocuidad pertinentes. • Debe existir una nueva institucionalidad y gobernanza en los sistemas alimentarios, que permita equilibrar la participación de los pequeños productores ya que actualmente la gobernanza se conforma sin estrategia. • Se debe reflexionar en el sistema alimentario, que tiene que ver con, cómo acercamos la relación entre el productor, el consumidor y todo los que intervienen, para que en la medida de lo posible, no represente grandes aumentos de costos que puede poner en riesgo el acceso a la canasta de alimentos. • La relación productor y consumidor se debe hacer más cercano a donde se produce los alimentos. Haciendo esto, se abarataría costos, se tendría alimentos más sanos, frescos, se evitaría el aumento de costos en toda la cadena. • Además de mirar los medios de producción debemos enfocarnos en hábitos de consumo. Para ello, la población debe recibir la información que se requiere en términos de la importancia del sector productivo y toda la cadena. • El gobierno debería también publicar periódicamente propuestas de menús saludables con la utilización de todos los alimentos que se producen en el país. Toda la variedad gastronómica que ofrecen los productos del campo. Y hacer boletines nutricionales, donde los ciudadanos conozcamos cómo reemplazar los alimentos por su valor nutricional. • No olvidar sobre lo frágil de nuestros sistemas alimentarios (considerando shocks como el COVID-19), que ha implicado la desigualdad para el acceso a alimentos, perdida de productos. Sobre esto, planificar como abordamos la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios desde golpes como el ocasionado por el COVID. • Necesitamos fortalecer sistemas adecuados de manejo de residuos sólidos (vertederos a cielo abierto) es un serio problema que las industrias (no solo las alimentarias) no pueden resolver. Pensar desincentivos a la contaminación sobre todo en temática del agua y la deposición de desechos sólidos.236239241242243246247249251Pregunta guía 3: ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera sería el reto para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? • Se requiere definir los problemas, y contar con datos estadísticos actualizados que permitan identificar los problemas y priorizarlos, con base a efectividad. • No hay evidencias del uso de los recursos públicos. Se invierten sin ver los impactos, avances y retrocesos. • Determinar cuál es el cumplimiento de Panamá en los ODS. • Encontrar distorsiones a nivel de producción, de cadena de comercialización y en el consumo. • Se requieren políticas públicas incluyentes y que cumplan parámetros que lleven a cambios. • En los temas de tenencia de la tierra y agua hay que determinar cuáles son las distorsiones. • Actualización a nivel nacional de las estadísticas y que sean incluyentes; que lleguen también a las áreas de difícil acceso y que incluya mujeres y jóvenes rurales. • Las políticas públicas en agricultura familiar deben ser inclusiva y diferenciada y no debe verse solo como agricultura de subsistencia. • Inyectar recursos para fortalecer los procesos y crear sinergias y acuerdos comunes entre los diferentes actores de los sistemas alimentarios. • Destinar recursos económicos para educar al consumidor. • Se debe trabajar en reducir las pérdidas de alimentos postcosecha. • Buscar mecanismos para bajar costo de los alimentos. El intermediario repercute en estos costos. • Se requiere invertir en la educación sobre las enfermedades no transmisibles. • Los agricultores que viven en áreas de difícil acceso no tienen acceso al agua. • Se requiere la coordinación interinstitucional y políticas integradas y eficientes, que incluyan a las personas que más lo necesitan. • Se debe resaltar el rostro humano de Panamá en los sistemas alimentarios. Hay mucha gente, naturaleza y cultura. Hay que destacar el aporte desde el corazón de los territorios. • Fortalecer e incluir a los pequeños agricultores a los mercados.236238239241242243244245246248249251Pregunta guía 4: ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? • Realizan monitoreo permanente de los mercados, de la canasta básica de los alimentos para la ciudad de Panamá y para las provincias. A través de los monitoreos pueden brindarle al consumidor el precio para conseguir la misma. • Recomendamos la creación de los mercados periféricos, que compitan con la estructura que hay actualmente en el mercado (supermercados, minisúper, abarroterías), acompañado de educación para el consumidor y para los que constituyan estos huertos caseros. Estas acciones son importantes para garantizar la alimentación de la población, también garantizar la vida de los que producen los alimentos. • Cuando se abastece a la población con alimentos más cercanos a donde fue producido se tiene una concentración de nutrientes y la conservación es mucho mejor, además, se garantiza una mejor alimentación. • La importancia de vida regulatoria, como el etiquetado frente a la advertencia se ha discutido en el país, las regulaciones en las escuelas para garantizar que las políticas sean más coherentes con la salud, agricultura, agrobiodiversidad del país, justicia social, equidad. • Otras políticas que tienen que ver con la regulación de impuestos, publicidad, que son las que pueden hacer este reequilibrio en favor de las personas, en favor de la vida. Solo cada individuo tiene la dificultada de cambiar si las políticas no le brindan el apoyo. • Seguir trabajando políticas energéticas a largo plazo que consideran el acceso a la energía su uso racional y deficiente, disparidades de género, planificación dentro del sistema interconectado nacional, la movilidad eléctrica, el uso de las fuentes renovables para las producción de energía porque contribuye al desarrollo de la agroindustria local. • Es necesario apoyar la creación de empresas públicas privadas, en donde el productor pueda tener ese vínculo directo para la seguridad de la comercialización de los productos. • Facilitar en muchos productores que tengan la oportunidad de legalizar sus bienes inmuebles, para que sean sujetos a créditos. • La política pública necesita reconocer 3 barreras que se ven en los sistemas alimentarios: la falta de reconocimiento a nivel mundial al derecho a la alimentación que aunque cuenta con un marco legal carece de evidencia científica; y los desequilibrios que persisten en el sistema alimentario y los conflictos de intereses, tanto en organizaciones, industria influye mucho para lograr el objetivo en materia de salud pública y de nutrición. • Este reto necesita una coordinación multisectorial en gran número de agentes, organismos sectores, también es importante el cumplimiento y la rendición de cuentas. • Es necesario contar con un mapa de la política pública alimentaria para que los actores puedan conocer los recursos con los que se cuenta y los actores responsables en cada una de ellas. • Necesitamos mecanismos que puedan involucrar la temática de género, el derecho a las mujeres a la tierra, empoderamiento económico de la mujer en los sistemas alimentarios, liderazgo de las mujeres a los sistemas alimentarios, acceso al a tecnología digital, cambios legislativos e identificación de barreras institucionales y políticas de sistema agrícolas alimentario con perspectiva de género. • En el Tema de Juventud, necesitamos fortalecer sus capacidades, reconociendo su potencial de liderazgo desde las escuelas y las universidades en el tema de las carreras agropecuarias. • El importante considerar los retos que persisten en la actual infraestructura de transporte, ya sea terrestre, aéreo y marítimo para lograr que los sistemas funcionen de manera efectiva e incluyente. • Es importante impulsar mayor trabajo intersectorial, con instituciones que ya existen, como la Secretaría Nacional para el Plan de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional.

2021-06-23 03:54:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22674/199

053962822221126

Make a careful and detailed planThe Dialogue reflects specific aspects of the Principles through presentations and discussions.

Yes

234238239240241242243248a comprehensive exploration of food systems an exploration of the five Action Tracks and some other solutions to address the issues relating to Food Systems235238239240241242243248249- Raise awareness, provide information completely and timely for farmers on environmental protection, clean agricultural production, enhance the nutritional value of products. - Promote value chain, collective models, solve ideological problems of a part of farmers; support farmers to produce according to standards related to food hygiene and safety, designs, packaging, product certification, and traceability; promote “linking 6 houses” (farmers, government, scientists, enterprises, banks, journalists), link farmer-farmer to share experience in production, consumption; coordinate between Farmers’ Union and enterprises, banks to help farmers access loans to expand productions, extend loan term and reduce the interest rate. - Build policies and mechanisms related to population planning, production areas, invest in key models, build agricultural policies to support the family through cooperatives, promote agricultural transformation towards ecological sustainability. - Develop agricultural insurance system to help farmers reduce the risks of natural disasters. - Strengthen capacity for farmers in management, application of science and technology in production, processing and consumption through training courses. - Promote the process of digital transformation in agriculture - Strengthen the mobilization of resources, programs and projects to support farmers in developing sustainable agriculture, ensuring nutrition and food safety.236238239240241242243244248249Government: The State should have special preferential policies to attract investment in processing industry, strengthen the state management of inputs in agricultural productivity (fertilizers, animal feeds, veterinary drugs, plant protection drugs, etc.); support for farmers participating in agricultural insurance; strengthen cooperation with other countries, especially China in the consumption of agricultural products, invest funds to support farmers produce agricultural products that meet VietGAP, GlobalGAP standards and traceability, invest in building large-scale animal feed material areas to reduce import dependence, build policies and mechanisms related to population planning, production areas, develop agricultural insurance system. Vietnam Farmers’ Union at all levels should strengthen propaganda and mobilization to raise awareness and participation of farmers in eco-friendly production and nutrition improvement through agriculture, promote the development of collective economy, establish cooperatives, promote supporting services to help farmers to associate in production and consumption, promote “linking 6 houses” (farmers, government, scientists, enterprises, banks, journalists), organize and coordinate with relevant ministries, sectors to provide training courses, training workshops on capacity-building for farmers, mobilize domestic and external resources to develop agriculture, farmers and rural areas. Enterprises should associate with other parties to support farmers in production, distribution and consumption, provide technical support and technology transfer. International organizations, non-governmental organizations should develop projects to support farmers to apply new technologies in production, design capacity-building program for farmers, send experts to provide technical assistance.237238239240241242243244248249- Difficulties and challenges faced by farmers when they perform their roles in the Food systems. - Solutions to address the issues relating to the Food Systems.

2021-06-23 04:14:55205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25572/23

430328750385

While organizing the dialogue, the Convener has engaged different government ministries and departments into the process. Ministry of Food is leading the process in Bangladesh, but it has simultaneously engaged the Ministry of Agriculture, departments of agriculture extension and marketing, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, departments of livestock and fisheries, food safety authority, and directorate of national consumer rights protection. Together with that, participation and engagement of other relevant stakeholders, for example, farmers/ producers, food processors, farm owners’ associations, vendors, restaurant owners, retailers, consumers’ associations, small entrepreneurs, and public service providers, have been ensured. It has also focused on the fact that, not only the central bodies of the government, but also the local level service providers and authorities also commit to practice and contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit.Climate change and augmenting natural disasters are posing substantial threat to food security of Bangladesh. Government of Bangladesh is committed to take urgent actions at all levels to mitigate those impacts on food system while reaching the respective Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, which has been reinforced through the sub-national dialogues. The dialogue has also welcomed innovative ideas and thoughts that can transform the local food system, considering the natural disasters it faces, while conserving the bio-diversity of the area. The need for more sustainable use of natural resources, such as underground water, cultivable lands, and surface waterbodies, has also been emphasized. The call for ensuring fair prices and enhanced access to markets and extension services for smallholder farmers has been reiterated. Several government initiatives have been placed to address some of those. The local level potentials for have been explored and informed to policy-makers. This will pave the way to make the regional, as well as, the national food systems more inclusive, resilient, and equitable.Ensuring participation or representation of different stakeholders is important in order to explore the local food system as a part of the national food system in greater depth. Participation in the dialogues sparks enthusiasm among all to explore, engage, and contribute more into the process. Thus, Dialogue Conveners should create and widen the opportunities for everyone to stay involved.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249Jamalpur, one of the northern districts of Bangladesh, is situated on the bank of the river Brahmaputra. It has been chosen to have a territorial dialogue for the United Nations Food Systems Summit because the district represents an important agro-ecological zone of Bangladesh, the river bars (char). The char areas are significant into the food systems as they are used to pursue agricultural activities such as, cropping, grazing land for cattle, and fishing, as well as to establish settlements. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) report of 1997 suggests that in the relatively lower reaches, where land is more fertile, cropping intensity in the chars appears to be between 150 and 185, which is quite similar to the average intensity of 165 for the entire country. The perennial availability of water in the rivers provides year-round opportunities for fishing to many of the char communities. Although, vital for food production and offering rehabilitation and livelihood opportunities to some extent for the smallholder farmers who loose homes and cultivation lands every year, the chars are extremely vulnerable to erosion and floods. Impact of climate change has resulted in increased frequency of floods, storms, and river erosion in these areas. Besides being hit by natural disasters, the char areas are extremely hard to reach as they lack necessary infrastructure and basic service delivery peripheries. People barely have access to agriculture extension services, markets, formal sector traders, and financial services. Thus, the dialogue was organized with an objective to learn their challenges related to food systems better and to facilitate a process where they can find solutions to their challenges.235238239241242243244245247248249Government and the private sector actors should invest together to establish cold chains and other necessary storage facilities to reduce crop loss and to ensure fair prices for farmers. Public-private investment is also required to develop food processing industry in the area, which has a very good prospect, considering the abundant food production. The Export Processing Zone (EPZ) that is under construction is expected to draw more private sector investments into the area, encompassing the food processing industry. The area also has potentials to grow large scale dairy-based industries. Communication barriers, especially in the char areas, are hindering the private sector dairy processors to invest there. Joint initiatives from the government, financial service providers, dairy processors, and agro-tech companies are required to reap the benefits. The government is committed to make infrastructural improvements to control floods and river erosion in the area. The Bangladesh Water Development Board has already passed a plan to construct a 113-kilometers protective dam with sluicegates on the river Jamuna from Dewanganj to Sharishabari Upazila (sub-districts) which will help to control floods and reduce river erosion, as a part of the master plan to control floods. Re-excavation of Jamuna river is also going on, which will help further to reduce losses due to floods. Government is also working to rehabilitate the people who lost homes due to river erosion in this area. Construction of accommodations, along with cattle shelters, in government-owned lands for them is underway. Once completed, it is expected to provide settlement for many landless people. The representatives of hotels and restaurant owners associations has expressed intentions to cooperate with the government in ensuring preparing and selling safe, hygienic, and healthy foods. Representatives from various agriculture and livestock farm owners’ associations have also shown interest to get training on producing safer products. Food processors urged to have only the safe ingredients in the markets, so that they do not need to worry about the quality of the ingredients they are using for food processing. Potentials for climate-smart and flood-resilient agricultural practices should be examined in greater depth. Studies can help to suggest the crop varieties and farming practices most suitable for the area, in order to avoid crop losses due to floods.2362382392402412422442452462491: Availability of diversified, safe, and nutritious food: Challenges: Prevalence of diseases and insects in crops and vegetables is increasing due to recurring floods. Farmers use hormones to grow crops quickly and pesticides to prevent insects, which make the food unsafe. Cultivation of flood resilient crop varieties have not expanded much. Thunderstorms and heavy rainfalls also harm crop production. There is shortage of cattle feed, and during floods the scarcity reaches an extreme. Prices of cattle feeds are increasing sharply. There is no means in the local level to check whether the grain-based cattle feeds available in the markets are adulterated. There is no shelter to keep cattle during floods, thus the low-income households have to sell out their cattle at a very low price during flood. Exposure to flood water increases prevalence of diseases in cattle, which also leads to lower milk production. Due to communication barriers, farmers cannot access services like artificial insemination. Way Forward: A plan to construct 113 kilometers protective dam with sluicegates on the river Jamuna from Dewanganj to Sharishabari Upazila (sub-districts) has been approved by the Bangladesh Water Development Board which will help to control floods and reduce river erosion, as a part of the master plan. Chars have good potentials for cattle farming, as the households have favorable conditions for cattle rearing. The char lands can be turned into grazing lands, as good quality grasses can be grown there and the fodders produced in char lands are of very high quality. 2:.Transformation, delivery, access, and role of private sector: Challenges: The recurring floods not only damage crops, but also hampers seed production. Roads are damaged due to floods every year, which disrupts the transportation and distribution of agricultural inputs. The district does not have improved waterways for communication; rail communication is also very limited. Thus, transportation costs for crop production and marketing is very high, which surges further during the flood season. There is no cold storage or preservation facility available at farmers’ level, especially for the cash crops like maize and chili. Farmers do not get proper price for their products, as they have to sell to middlemen and middlemen concentrate on their own profit. Way Forward: Excavation of rivers, construction of dams, repairing roads, and improvement of waterways and rail communication is required. Setting up shared storage facilities by government and private sector for small farmers, especially in case of crops which are heavily produced in the area, will help reducing food loss and waste. Digitization of the market system (i.e. giving farmers to sell directly to end customers using online platforms) can also enhance market access for farmers. 3: Consumer behaviors, nutrition, and food safety: Challenges: Lack of awareness. Excessive use of unsafe colors, artificial flavors, additives, and unhealthy oils prevail in the area. Ready-to-eat food vendors including hotels, restaurants, fast food shops, and bakeries/ confectionaries prepare food in unhygienic condition. Way Forward: Raising awareness about nutrition and standard (balanced) diet is required. Farmers are required to be trained up about proper use of fertilizers and pesticides. Food processors, vendors/ traders and restaurant should get awareness about the permitted limits of use of colors, artificial flavors, and other additives. 4: Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance: Challenges: Floods, recurring flood (four times in 2020), and river erosion are not only causing losses of crop (including loss of cash crops like jute) and cultivable lands , but they are also harming the fisheries farms. There is no food processing facility in the area, thus perishable crops have to be sold at low price right after harvesting. This also hinders ensuring fair price for the farmers. Way Forward: Proper dams and embankments with sluicegates should be constructed for flood control. Proper water drainage system should be in place. Excavation of Jamuna River is underway, It should be completed quickly.237238239240241242243244245246249There was no major area of divergence among the participants. All the participants have emphasized on infrastructural development to control floods and river erosion, and improvement of flood resistant transportation and communication facilities which they think can improve the food production and transportation situation of the area. One of the issues raised by the group discussants to the government representatives was that although the government is subsidizing 70% on the imports of agricultural machineries, the rate of mechanization of agricultural activities at the individual farmers’ level has been very low. Thus, discussants have urged to the agricultural department to take other complementary initiatives to promote mechanization of agriculture at the grass-root level and to reach these facilities to the smallholder farmers.

2021-06-23 06:16:35205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27454/179

4014264012142515121223252111114112

The participants were invited by invitation letter according to their field of expertise, belongness to the food or agriculture other related sectors and wish to attend the dialogue. The participants were introduced with FSS goals and (tasks) and key principles to be pursued during dialogues through power point presentation in the local language. The attendance form for participants was shared and interpreted to ensure its proper understanding. All participants responded yes on understanding and following FSS principles.The participants agreed on giving respect to the different views and thoughts on challenges and attainments of the national food systems. Most of them were highly impressed by international movements toward changes anticipated for wellbeing and agreed on its urgency. However, they mentioned difficulties in resolving some food systems-related challenges due to their complexity, by which they recognized its complexity. Most of the participants agreed on a multisectoral approach in addressing food systems challenges i.e. wider involvement of the public and private sector bodies like associations, government authorities, NGOs, Academia, and Food control bodies. The dialogue was carried out in a friendly environment and no prejudiced ideas or thoughts. The media source highlighting the event did not disclosure any privacy aspects of the participantTo have effective dialogue it would be expedient to enhance the invitee awareness of FSS goals, objectives, and principles in advance of the dialogue date. For this would be good to have a booklet or brochure to be shared among not only anticipated participants but also with key representatives of the national or regional agriculture sector, food industry etc

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue run with discussion of the National Food Systems strength and weaknesses and ways to address them The discussions mostly focused on activities to be implemented for addressing prioritized challenges like legal framework, unification of small farms under cooperatives or associations to enhance their access to finance, machinery, water resources and release from tax pressure. Ne of the key pint of the discussion was gender inequality which also reflected in attendance of the dialogue (only woman). It was noted that due to intense labor migration women became dd fact and in some extend de jure farm owners and are less competitive with man headed farms that should be addressed by specific state programme. Improving investment of agriculture sector and decreasing credit commissions, strengthening capacity of competent agencies responsible for food control. Introduction international standards like ISO, GAP, GHP Codex Alimentariues were also closely discussed by participants during group work session and their presentations2352382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. While thinking over food sytsems sustanability and effectiveness a vital is to think not only hiw to make food available but also tways on how food will be made available 2. Recognition the vitality of the achievements of the SDG goals and it’s interconnection with addressing priorities have been developed and toward which we have to work on in the framework National Development Strategy - 2030 3. Empowering women role in society and their wider involvement in decision making process of food industry and agriculture policy development 4.Unifying small farms under cooperatives and resolve tax obstacles applied for cooperatives (since a cooperative is a legal entity, higher taxes are applied, which can become a barrier). The government can promote the idea of tax incentives for cooperatives at the state level and may establish incentives and other measures for increasing women’s access to and benefit from cooperative membership 5. Consolidate efforts of public and private sectors as well as development partners across addressing degradation, depletion and overexploitation of natural resources along with the prevention and mitigation of the natural disasters and enhance nature friendly agriculture practices that are leading factors contributing in low agriculture productivity and ecological crises 6. The strategic direction should address further reformation of the agriculture be based on the principle of participatory management of pastures and forestry, with emphasis on the restoration and protection of natural resources, as well as recycling; promoting sustainable land management and fertilizers usage; promoting methods and technologies for water management and storage; cultivation of local, drought-tolerant crops, etc., which directly strengthens the state of food security in the country must be further pursued in all agricultural programmes 7. In order to offer Tajik citizens the level of protection they deserve, and to enable Tajik exports to participate and compete in global agri-food trade, International standards and best practice must be the benchmark for changes and improvements 8. Improving the country’s agricultural productivity will play an important role in advancing overall economic growth, reducing poverty, and improving food security; 9. Improve knowledge and skills of framers and processors headed both by men and women through development and implementation of progammes and curricula of the short courses demand based trainings on specific topics 10. Initiate assessment of the food losses and wastes and based on outcomes establish effective monitoring system and address the challenges identified with compressive national programme and applying multi-sectoral approach. 11. Climate change poses a high risk to farmers, where the responsibility is entirely imposed on farms, demotivating agricultural producers. A comprehensive programme should be developed and implemented to mitigate farms vulnerability to the climatic factors; 12. Improving irrigation infrastructure and derange systems to prevent land degradation and erosion; 13. Improve knowledge of the farmers on responsible use of water resources and water management (according to norms); 14. Adequate application of the crop rotation approaches to improve land fertility; 15. Improve consumers awareness on responsible food consumption and biodiversity safeguard 16. Improve consumers awareness on needs for diet diversification, refraining from consumption of mostly wheat and wheat by products, making informed decision in selection of quality and safe food products; 17. Ensure availability of diversity food products in the domestic markets for different population groups such as children, women and pregnant women, disabled people 18. Improve awareness of farmers, producers/processors on environmentally responsible growing, processing, and production including their responsiveness toward production of safe food. Introduction of the quality and safety standards such as ISO, GAP, GHP, GMP; 19. Enhance capacity of competent authorities responsible for food control to enable them to apply modern control and inspection approaches (accreditation of laboratories, transition to the risk based food control system, interdiction international quality and safety standards such as OIE, Codex Alimentarius, control of contaminants residues and GMO); 20. Strengthen control of food products and drinking water to prevent foodbrone and waterborne diseases; 21. Population of rural areas mostly remote areas are suffering of malnutrition which along with food diversity challenges is due to inadequate practices of breastfeeding and nutrition of infant children 22. Another nutritional problem is micronutrient deficiencies, which have a significant negative impact on the health of children and future generations, which is reflected in the prevalence of stunting among schoolchildren and iodine deficiency and iron deficiency anemia amongst women 23. Ensure accessibility of staple food for marginalized population through increasing their purchasing power under framework of the government programmes; 24. Need to explore the mangnitude of the food wastes and development of the programme to address chalanges identified 25. Strengthen storage capacity and ensure refrigeration where it is necessary; 26. Strengthen customs control to prevent import of the low quality pesticides and fertilizers 27. Enhance and extend school feeding and food fortification programmes to mitigate stunting, wasting iron and iodine deficiency prevalence;237241242245246249251There was only divergence of views on elimination of the farms holding less than 5 hectares of land.

2021-06-23 07:39:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24071/23398788113127130145180199

78748185344412643106941004

Acknowledging that food is a basic right and that Indigenous Peoples are major players in conserving and sustaining their food systems, therefore, the importance of bringing regional Indigenous Peoples' voices to the UNFSS, the dialogue was organized in about 2 weeks. A team was assembled from Tebtebba to address technical, logistics and coordination with the regional coordinating group. Participants were invited through an open invitation posted on social media and emailed to networks and organizations of indigenous peoples, women and youth in the region including CSO's working with indigenous peoples communities or organizations. A link to the concept of the dialogue, including the workgroup guidelines were also shared with with the online invitations to provide participants advance information. Aside from the zoom platform, the dialogue was broadcasted live on Tebtebba's facebook page to allow access by other participants who have not registered on or have difficulties with the platform. Comments and questions were encouraged using the chat box and facebook comments which was monitored, aside from the oral interventions during the Q&A sessions. Three polls were conducted to get the views from participants. Presentations were shared to the the participants through the chatbox . The dialogue was documented and recorded.The dialogue started at 11:00 a.m Philippine time in consideration of the time differences within the region vis the convinience of the participants and speakers. With the diversity of IPs and languages in the region, English was the medium of dialogue but interpreters were provided for Bahasa, Nepali, Vietnamese, Khmer and Thai language speakers. Participants come from 39 indigenous communities in 11 countries with various age groups and walks of life. There are also participants from support/advocacy groups. There were 633 reported viewers of the event through the facebook livestream. Speakers were chosen based on their expertise, work and experiences from different perspectives in relation to indigenous food systems to steer the discussions of the 3 subregional workgroups. The dialogue was aimed at analyzing issues and problems towards identifying specific and game-changing solutions , guidelines and strategies for human rights-based actions to transform to a more sustainable, healthy and just food systems for Indigenous Peoples. Participants were divided into the respective subregional workgroups i.e. Mekong, South Asia and Southeast Asia to discuss the status, challenges and risks associated with production, processing, distribution, consumption, waste management and the roles of stakeholders and proposed solutions to sustain indigenous food systems. They introduced themselves through the chatbox. Speakers were invited based on their expertise and work experiences in different aspects related to indigenous food systems. Speakers' presentation were shared to all participants through the chatbox. Facilitators were assigned from the members the regional coordinating group to guide the workgroups and ensure participation of members. The discussions were documented, synthesized and presented in the plenary with some time given for clarifications and further discussions. All participants expressed satisfaction with the recommendations shared and synthesized from the workgroups at the end of the dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249251The dialogue's major focus was on the integrity of Indigenous Peoples of rights to their food systems and its links to the broader aspects of their lives, identities, culture and environment within and outside their communities. Speakers and participants through the workgroups reiterated the primacy of the recognition of their collective rights to their territories as a lever for change that the UNFSS should advance. How this is intricately linked to resource and biodiversity conservation and the sustained well-being of people and planet cannot be overemphasized. The workgroups revolved around the major factors in agricultural production, production method and inputs (Action Track 3); variety, quantity and quality of produce (Action Track 1); and coping with climatic changes in indigenous food systems (Action Track 5). Participants also described how food processing is done, how their products fared in the market (Action Track 4) and consumers’ feedback on the processed foods and on indigenous foods in general (Action Track 2). These surfaced the divergence between IP food systems and the broader food system and the recommendations advanced herewith.235238239240241242244245246247248249251Transforming the current food systems to reach the SDGs requires an approach that responds to the fulfillment of the basic human right to safe and nutritious food. For IPs, this translates to the formal recognition of their rights to their lands, territories, resources and the practice of their culture, traditional knowledge and to determine their development, including food systems . The recognition of these rights is an indispensable instrument for evolving equitable and sustainable food systems. The discussions were underpinned by Indigenous Peoples' right to food and food systems and revolved around elements such as production, processing, distribution and consumption and cross cutting issues like waste management and the roles and contributions of women, youth, elders, government, the private sector, NGOs/Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations (IPOs) and donors/financial institutions. It included status, risks, challenges and opportunities along the food systems and proposals to ensure protection and resilience. Based on the Poll results, participants regard land (83%) and water (58%) as most important factors of production. In rotational farming, inputs include seeds, traditional knowledge and practices, values and stable climate conditions. The main challenge in sustaining indigenous food production is the absence of formal recognition by countries of IPs’ rights to their lands, territories, resources and the practice of their culture, traditional knowledge and to determine their development, including food systems. Other challenges are diminishing labor supply, loss of seeds, erratic climate and disintegrating traditional knowledge, values and practices; and discrimination of rotational farming as backward, problematic, illegal and even criminalized in some Asian countries. Fish, wild edibles and other non-timber forest products are disappearing due to the entry of extractive industries and monocrop plantations, among others. Such progressive disruption of Indigenous Peoples' food systems and livelihoods are resulting to insecurity and vulnerability to shocks especially in times of emergency like the impacts of climate change ( la nina, el nino) and the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, challenges in food processing and marketing,in general, such as lack of post-harvest infrastructure, processing facilities, processing technologies, product development and problems related to marketing and transportation affect IP initiatives and innovations. There is also a general lack of basic social services in most IP communities to enable their access to information, services and support to their agencies. Food preference have changed in favor of convenience/fast foods especially among the young generation. The high regard traditionally held for food is deteriorating due to unsustainable production and consumption patterns resulting from influences of migration, media and other external factors. This also includes discrimination where indigenous children and youth refrain from traditional food lest be despised and bullied by their non-IP peer group. Women possess and apply important indigenous knowledge, systems and practices in the food systems including on wild edible plants, seeds, etc. but they have limited access to the other means of production, processing and distribution. There is an increasing feminization of indigenous food systems due to migration of males in search of paid labor/jobs coupled by the declining interest of the youth in the food systems. Their roles and contributions in the food systems are not recognized and are not included in decision-making processes. Sadly, they continue to be sexually harassed. Elders continue to perform traditional rituals related to food production and IPs’ relationship with lands/forests and nature/environment but there are cases of censorship by government affecting its vitality and could lead to disintegration. With the progressive impact of the broader system and other factors, however, IPs cannot do this alone. It requires partnership among women, men, youth, elders and persons with disabilities and appropriate financial, technical and technological support of governments, the private sector, NGOs/Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations (IPOs) and donors/financial institutions. The recommendations advanced from this dialogue are proposals by Indigenous Peoples to enable effective response not only to the goal of ending hunger but also of sustaining the planet for the next generation. The UNFSS should clearly repudiate the marginalization of indigenous food systems. Consitent to its principles of engagement, it should champion the promotion and advancement of indigenous food systems as an equitable and sustainable solution while creating opportunities to strengthen these not only for food security but also because of its intersecting function in biodiversity and resource conservation, and ,climate change mitigation and resilience.2362382392402412422432442452462472492511. Indigenous Peoples commit to continue and/or revive their food systems and transfer associated traditional knowledge and practices to the next generation and broader society if conditions allow. These enabling conditions are enumerated in the following recommendations below. Further, at the community level, the dialogue recommends that Indigenous Peoples :  Develop, disseminate and implement community protocols to ensure that their food systems are protected and sustained; this includes documentation and establishing mechanisms to prevent theft and patenting of indigenous food materials and knowledge/intellectual property but without prejudice to IPs who are inclined to such, provided, they are fully and effectively informed and their consent provided;  In cooperation with NGOs/IPOs, establish strong partnerships and networks with all stakeholders in the food systems such as but not limited to other IPs, governments/relevant agencies and institutions (health, trade, education/trainings), the private sector, academe/science.  In partnerships with IPOs, colleges/universities, governments and donors, (i) undertake research and documentation of indigenous foods, including wild/uncultivated, and food systems (production, processing, distribution and consumption) and associated knowledge and practices; (ii) conduct nutrition analysis; and (iii) prepare educational materials in popular forms.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492512. For States/Governments to formally recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories, natural resources including customary rights, traditional knowledge and cultures including practices. In countries where there is formal recognition to i) fully, effective and immediate implementation of the laws (i.e. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act, 1997 in the Philippines; Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, 1997 in Bangladesh); and ii) amend existing laws that do not fully recognize these rights (i.e. Forest Act 1927 as amended, Bangladesh). Where formal recognition is absent, to enact laws respecting these rights (i.e. A law based on a Ministry of Culture’s Cabinet Resolution of 3 August 2010 providing guidance for the restoration of traditional livelihoods in conjunction with Articles 43 and 70 of the 2019 Constitution (Kingdom of Thailand). Specifically, such recognition should translate, but not limited to :  State investment on the provision of infrastructure, financial and technical /expert support for IPs to innovate and increase production, improve food processing and marketing. o To establish community seed banks to be managed in partnership with IPs and provide relevant trainings to enhance their knowledge and practices on indigenous seed preservation, regeneration and seed exchange/sharing among and between IPs to increase varieties and volume of stocks. o Construct and maintain appropriate irrigation systems, farm to market roads, post-harvest facilities such as but not limited to cold storages and warehouses in IPs’ farms. o Provide relevant extension services and experts related to post harvest management, processing and marketing, and trainings on indigenous resource management and social enterprise development for IPs.  States should also invest on the strengthening of the roles and contributions of indigenous women, youth, elders and persons with disabilities and their agencies. States should provide an enabling environment for them to fully contribute to end hunger and malnutrition through capacity building activities to leverage informed and effective decision making; financial support and other logistics for their participation at village, local, national and international processes; recognize women's right to own property, including land and find ways to fulfill these without prejudice to the collective right to land and territories.  State as Models in Food Governance - For government agencies to integrate the promotion of healthy and safe indigenous food in their programs/projects and daily activities i.e. : o indigenous foods in the meal/feeding components; and o discussions on the nutrient/safe properties of indigenous foods in the education components in conditional cash transfers to poor families to improve health, nutrition and education of children; o to require school canteen operators to serve/sell indigenous foods and totally ban unhealthy (junk/fast food and sugar-laden drinks) food including in government functions and activities; o develop and include in their school curriculum, subjects/lessons on indigenous foods, food systems, and nutrition and responsible consumption from pre-school to universities/colleges, including tapping into IP knowledge holders and experts as teachers/lecturers.. o refrain from processed commodities and instead prioritize procurement of locally available resources, including indigenous food in disaster/emergency/humanitarian response; promote and support self-help initiatives such as those that emerged from the COVID – 19 pandemic i.e. community pantries, food exchange and collective gardens, among others.2362382392402412422442452462472482492513. For all other stakeholders including governments and the private, donors and financial sectors to refrain from commodifying everything from land, natural resources, knowledge, labor, culture, values, etc. and discriminating indigenous food systems as backward and problematic. These contribute tremendously to the erosion of indigenous food systems, specifically, and ultimately, IPs’ identities and rights. Moreover, changing mindsets entails commitments to collaborative actions from all stakeholders to address the divergences above.  Ensure that programs/projects to be implemented partly or entirely in indigenous peoples’ lands/territories or those that will impact on indigenous peoples’ lives o undertake full and effective consultations with IPs to be affected consistent to the rights of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior and informed consent; o respect community protocols; o institutionalize/require the following as programs/projects standard components in all initiatives : define, with IPs i) a benefit-sharing scheme and mechanisms for implementation in partnership with IPs themselves and/or organizations/institutions endorsed by IPs; ii) accessible grievance mechanism; and iii) waste segregation and recycling policies ensuring allotment of resources for implementation, monitoring and exit strategies; o take into account gender disparities and other factors of marginalization of other members of IP communities in the above processes;  To fund and/or include the above recommendations in their programs/projects as appropriate.  Support the strengthening of indigenous food systems by supporting community initiatives and linking them to various experts for capacity building towards social enterprise development, support/organize meaningful food festivals in schools/colleges, urban centers and in communities where they operate including creating champions for indigenous food and food systems. Indigenous community social enterprise can influence the reversion of migration for income purposes, especially among the youth; women and youth collectives and initiatives should also be encouraged to facilitate knowledge transfer noting also the roles and capacities of the youth to influence transformation towards gender equality.  Instill the value of proper waste management as consumers and participants in the food systems. Include proper waste management such as but not limited to composting (i.e. establishing community composting facilities in support of community gardens); stop the use of plastics in packaging and give rewards to communities/institutions/organizations that reach zero-plastic use; and develop and support waste to energy initiatives.237238239240241242244245246247248249251Based on the IP perspective of food and food systems, there were not much divergence of views among participants. The divergence, however, as stressed by participants, results from the ‘other’ ( i.e. government/policy, science and academe) perspective as observed in practice. Addressing these divergences is the only way to food security, at least for some 370-500 million of the world’s population and the protection of the last remaining biodiversity frontiers critical to sustain the people and the planet. IP Perspective vs. "other" 1) Food and health are basic rights vs. Food and health are becoming commodities and a privilege which IPs, generally, cannot afford. 2) IPs maintain a sacred relationship with nature because it supports their lives and wellbeing. IP territories are the primary factors in food production. This includes not only the land but all the resources and the services they provide that supports food production and regeneration vs. Land and resources are economic commodities that can be procured for profit-oriented development and/or best interest of the state/majority like extractive industries and monocrop palm oil plantations, etc. in the name of addressing local employment and poverty among others. 3) Land is a community property for the common good vs. Land is an individual/private property. 4) IP food and food systems are safe, nutritious and sustainable vs. Indigenous food systems are backward, are against resource conservation and negligible in the context of mass production/ commercial scale therefore promotion of hybrid/HYVs, fast growing agricultural stocks and technology closely related to heavy use of chemical inputs for large-scale production which is considered the ‘best option’ to address hunger; 5) IP traditional agriculture ( i.e. Jhum/rotational) respect resource regeneration, biodiversity conservation and the rights to food and livelihoods of the future generation vs Prohibited or criminalized in state forest, protected area and conservation policies; 6) IP food systems developed from collective indigenous knowledge and practice based on principles of reciprocity and equitability vs Knowledge can be isolated and patented for individual profit. 7) Respect IPs who want to preserve and develop their food systems or prefer not to engage/link with the broader food systems ( i.e. hunters-gatherers/IPs in voluntary isolation) vs. Communities are target markets

2021-06-23 07:57:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24282/87148191

2517624210202323411

Orientation program through zoom calls Google form stated the principles. Ensuring that we opened and structed few questions that addressed all the 5 action tracks as they where interrelated. Provided a safe space to hear multi level stakeholder voices. Posed reflective questions. Used social media campaign to amplify voices, especially of the youth.Me and my theme has surveys and podcast and call for action through social media which resulted in creating the dialogue long "localization" to build back better. This reflected most of the principles and engaged in a intergeneration youth led platform for further involvement.Touching base with participants prior to the event helped us to co create a conducive platform of engagement. I would advice pre and post dialogue involvement to keep the group interested and foster many more dialogue that is to follow in the future,

Yes

235Localization is the new globalization. Bottom up approach considering community needs. Globalize when it is absolutely necessary, not as a luxury.236238240244250Localization of food system is nature positive and shall build back better and sustainable. However this requires the active handholding of the globalized market with reduced marketing and misinfodemic. We could create a planet with localized hubs to optimized production and scale without compromising inequality. However, one needs transparency when it comes to policy and food systems.237239240As much as localization was a welcome spree and a possible solution to the food system, it was quite a complex problem for global citizens who are used to high end products and the luxury that come with it. The notion that good food cant be cheap was a diverging point. Framers claim it could be if done right and within the community. The lack of education , the market conditions and the demand of eating fast food as promoted by influencers was also discussed.

2021-06-23 12:55:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15559/111231355153627177929396104107116124125136147162167172178185186

341191413213823225216112144112107

The UNFSS had already organised a global Dialogue on water. The Dialogue we organised was constructed specifically to contribute to current initiatives in the Mediterranean region. While recruiting, we ensured we included a certain number of people who are familiar with the main theme of discussion and already understand the problem so they could contribute and discuss solutions from a solid basis of knowledge. We asked every participant to commit to the “practical” outcome of the dialogue and to only bring to the table solutions that they would themselves be willing to follow through with in practice. Since water scarcity is a complex issue, depends on many different factors, and requires action on multiple levels to be managed, we decided to look at the responsibilities of each stakeholder group in separate discussion groups, to avoid cross-sector-blaming – which often leads to inaction. We worked hard in the recruitment phase to find and make space for people from varying sectors, considering cultural, geographical, time-zone, and language issues. We brought together people from different backgrounds, even where perspectives and agendas may be wildly different, e.g. multinational corporations and small farmers. We were transparent with participants about the outcome of the dialogues, and explained we would be taking notes according to Chatham House rules, promising to treat comments confidentially and anonymously. We told participants that we would have liked the conversation to be very spontaneous and positive, trying to build on top of each other’s ideas respectfully. We also said we didn't want anyone to feel that they didn’t have enough expertise to contribute to the conversation – if they had been chosen to be there, it’s because we wanted to hear what they had to say.Act with urgency. We made sure that the conversation focused on the next 3-5 years and revolved around specific realistic and practical solutions. Be respectful. Everyone in the dialogue was encouraged to be respectful of others’ perspectives. Every friction and divergence was dealt with a constructive approach. We promoted food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, communities, and ecosystems – while at the same time respecting local cultures and contexts. Recognise complexity. Throughout the dialogue, we always recognised that food systems are complex, and closely connected to human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy, and geopolitics. We allowed and encouraged disagreement with proposed solutions and recognised that solutions likely won’t be easy to implement. We recognised that solutions were needed on multiple levels, and asked participants to vote on each group’s main suggested solutions. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity. We encouraged conversation between members of different stakeholder groups, and ensured that everyone was always involved in the conversation and invited everyone to express themselves on each topic of discussion. Complement the work of others. We developed our own unique and relaxed style of hosting in an effort to stimulate new discussions that would lead to creative solutions. Build trust. We committed to creating a relaxed and friendly atmosphere to build trust and open airing of truthful views. We created an optional shared spreadsheet where each participant could drop their personal details in case they wanted to be contacted by other participants or by us. We let participants know that we would send the final feedback report to them. Participants also know that they might be offered follow-up opportunities with FoodUnfolded to reach our audience about important issues.We have found that creating interactive polls during the plenary session allowed us to stimulate engagement from the very beginning of the event and to keep a higher level of attention throughout the Dialogue. Using polls also made it possible to democratically vote on the solutions that the majority of participants thought should take priority.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249The Dialogue on "Why we need water ethics" revolved around water scarcity in the Mediterranean. Water scarcity is an increasing problem in our world, with around 4 billion people already living under conditions of severe water scarcity for at least 1 month a year. With an ever-increasing global population and rising temperatures, water scarcity is predicted to increase across all continents. The Mediterranean basin is one area of the world that will suffer heavy consequences of climate change. Besides temperature increase, most models consistently predict rainfall decreases throughout all seasons in the Mediterranean. This will have a significant impact on water availability for food production and water consumption in the region – in just two decades, an additional 250 million people will suffer from water scarcity due to droughts in the Mediterranean alone. In this dialogue, to which we invited mainly millennial participants from different countries and backgrounds, we reflected on which ethical frameworks we need to adopt in order to change our future water management and consumption so that everyone can get access to this resource. A big question was about how we can move beyond our exploitative mindset when thinking about our relationship to water. We mainly focused on solutions related to the actions of four different stakeholder groups: 1. Farmers’ and industry’s responsibility; 2. Consumers’ responsibility; 3. Political responsibility; 4. Financial responsibility. Farmers and industry’s responsibility. This group focused on the practices that farmers and industry should adopt over the next few years in order to decrease their water footprint. Consumers’ responsibility. This group focused on the ways consumers can already reduce their water footprint related to food consumption. Political responsibility. This group focused on the policies that could help accelerate the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices and consumer behavioural change. Financial responsibility. The group focused on the importance of financial incentives to improve efficiency in water use. The group discussed the use of fines, limits to consumption, taxes, subsidies, tax reductions, and prizes.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250While technological innovations are in theory already available for farmers to grow food more efficiently, in reality farmers often can’t access these innovations as they do not have the financial means to implement them. The issue is that farmers, especially small and medium, are usually too focused on breaking even to have the headspace to think about how to be more sustainable. Participants discussed the hypothesis of shortening supply chains and connecting consumers and farmers more directly, allowing farmers to make more profit. On the consumer side, the main obstacle most commonly faced when trying to reduce one’s water footprint is the inability to find reliable, easily accessible, and not contradictory information to guide decisions. Financial incentives for consumers are also currently lacking – it seems that the products which require more water to be produced are also the cheapest and most subsidised. For these reasons, most participants identified policy makers and governmental bodies as the most powerful actors to drive change – besides also agreeing on the fact that there is a shared responsibility and we all have to play our part to mitigate the issue. The groups discussed the importance of policies and financial support that promote more sustainable practices, such as nature-based solutions, regenerative agriculture, and vertical farming, as well as incentives for better managing waste. On the other hand, participants agreed that we would also need “restrictive” policies, to penalise bad management of water and to prevent criminal acts in water scarce areas. There was a strong sense that governments need to think beyond their national borders to be able to solve this issue. Everyone agreed that water, as a basic human right, should remain a public resource and should not be privatised. At the end of the Dialogue, all participants voted on the solutions that they thought should be the ones to take priority. These are: 1. Working off long term economic models, which help to share costs and benefits across generations and ensure inter-generational equity. 2. Giving economic incentives to reward sustainable practices, and penalisation for bad water use. 3. Creating programmes that successfully raise awareness of these issues and lead consumers to revaluing water by education. 4. Moving beyond nationalism, funding innovations in different countries.236238239240241242243244245246247248249Discussion Group 1: Farmers’ and Industry’s Responsibility Participants acknowledged that innovations for more sustainable production are in theory already available to farmers. However, the small and medium scale farmers who took part in the dialogue said that farmers are often unwilling or financially unable to take up these innovations, it seems important to create incentives for farmers to actually adopt these technologies. One way could be through financial support and incentives from governments, another would be through the purchasing power of more aware consumers. According to participants, there are four possible solutions that farmers and industry could adopt directly. - Shortening supply chains and connecting directly with consumers. By removing some intermediaries who take a big cut of farmers’ profit, farmers would make more profit and would be able to focus more on employing sustainable practices rather than only having the headspace to focus on staying afloat. - Recovering old ways of farming. Implementing regenerative agriculture methods, such as composting or crop cycling. - Better managing waste. Not just waste water, but waste in general, so that all the input that goes into producing food is creating output that’s consumed and does not end up in landfills. - Vertical farming as a new frontier. Shifting away from conventional horizontal farming to maximise efficiency of food production for the global population.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Discussion Group 2: Consumers’ Responsibility In this discussion group, consumers conveyed the difficulty of accessing information about water usage in food production. There was a widespread consensus that good, reliable, and unbiased information is hard to find. The top three solutions consumers could adopt are: - Educating themselves more about water footprint. Revaluing water by becoming more aware of how precious a resource it is. - Reducing food waste, in order to not waste the resources that were used to produce their food. - Reducing footprint through dietary choices, choosing foods that involve lower water usage.236238239240241242243244245246247248249Discussion Group 3: Political Responsibility The group recognised that policies have an impact on industry practices, consumer behaviour, and farmers’ livelihoods. These are the main solutions identified by the participants: - Funding international schemes. Innovation helps better manage water, but there is a need to fund innovation also in poorer countries. One of the obstacles to this solution is to find ways to convince wealthier countries to act internationally even in a situation where the emergency could be still hard to grasp within their own national borders. - Policies for restricting wasteful water use. Policies should be introduced to reduce the amount of water wasted by farmers and industry. - Policies preventing criminal acts. Criminal groups exploit the problem of water scarcity and infrastructure, as already seen in Turkey. There is a need for policies that prevent these crimes from taking place. - Establishing connecting bodies. There seems to be a lack of understanding and communication between different government bodies (e.g. local/regional municipalities and national governments). As different regions need to deal with different realities, they tend to have different approaches to water management. There could be space for the role of “ambassadors” who help connect these different groups.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Discussion Group 4: Financial Responsibility With this group, there was a strong sense that what really needs to change is the perceived value of water, across all stakeholders. Here are some specific solutions found at the financial level: - Penalising bad use of water. Taxes and fines could penalise inefficient use of water. For example, water intensive products would be paid more, there could be caps to the amount of water farmers and industries can use, there could be different taxations for different types of water (e.g. producers using treated wastewater would need to pay less than producers using freshwater). There could be fines for releasing untreated water in the environment. - Rewarding efficiency in water use. Incentives and subsidies could support the implementation of new technologies, water monitoring, and change in production systems (for example hydroponic cultures). - Public water banking. This practice was mentioned as a useful tool to reallocate water according to criteria of equity, efficiency, and sustainability.237238239240241242243244245246247248249Some participants disagreed that innovation and technology is the best way to improve irrigation practices. They felt instead that we should look back to traditional forms of farming, where farmers were able to use resources efficiently without having to rely on high-tech solutions. Others believed that even traditional techniques would need modernisation to work on a large scale. There was also some divergence on the importance of certifications like “organic” or “bio”, because these agricultural practices can be more sustainable, but they are not affordable if farmers have to pay large amounts to get the certification. Some participants identified industry and farmers as being most responsible for causing and having to solve the issue whereas many participants thought politicians and institutions have the biggest responsibility as policy drives consumers’ and producers’ behaviour. The participants were however unanimous in considering that all actors, including consumers, have a share of responsibility and power to change the situation. Some participants agreed that economic growth needs to still be a priority. Others think that economic priorities and national self-interest are intrinsically at odds with the protection of the environment and communities. Some policy officers think that talking about the greater good does not work in practice, and it is important to change the narrative to show to stakeholders why it is in their economic interest to manage water more efficiently.

2021-06-23 16:05:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18258/719293203172191192194

200120011

We talked to food tech entrepreneurs who are revolutionising the food system through their companies committed to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.Our Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusion by including representatives from the UN system and 5 entrepreneurs from different verticals of the FoodTech industry on the panel. These included: vertical farming to alternative proteins such as plant-based meat, algae ingredients, the transformation of food waste into protein through insects, and molecular dairy. Panelists included experts from different countries, and half of them were women. All panelists shared their experiences and knowledge with mutual respect and understanding. Moreover, the event was open to everyone interested in the topic, from young people with no experience to people with more expertise in the field. In total there were 200 participants.N/A

NoThe engagement took place in an online Zoom meeting. We started with a short speech from the founder and CEO of Forward Fooding, Alessio Dantino and an introduction about the UN Food Systems Summit by the dialogue’s convener and UN Food Systems Champion Dr Anne Le More. This was followed by a keynote speech by Dr. Martin Frick, Deputy Special Envoy to the UN Food Systems Summit. Then took place a panel discussion with 5 FoodTech founders from leading FoodTech 500 companies, operating at different levels of the supply chain.The companies were : Infarm, Gold & Green Foods, Algama Foods, Better Origin and Better Dairy. And finally we had a Q&A round.

234238239240244245246248249We focused our dialogue on exploring the different sustainable approaches of foodtech entrepreneurs, the impact they want to create and the challenges they are facing along the way, as well as the evolution of both investor and consumer acceptance. We asked several entrepreneurs from the following Vertical Farming, Alternative Proteins and Waste Managements verticals within the foodtech world to share with us about their solutions to transform our industry into a more sustainable one. We made a journey through different technologies, from vertical farming to alternative proteins such as plant-based meat, algae ingredients, the transformation of food waste into protein through insects, and molecular dairy.235238239240244245246248249The main conclusions reached on the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in undertaking sustainable solutions to combat the current fragility of the food system, are the following: One of the biggest obstacles is mainly in the minds of consumers, and their rejection of new products because of the lack of education. So educating people and making them understand what the new normal is, is key. And it is not only about educating the consumers but also about reaching out to the big corporations and making them understand the need to create a change in the supply chain. Regulation and policy must play an important role in the future. Helping and working with the regulator to unlock certain packages to drive the industry forward, is a key priority. The importance of policy, if we are to introduce sustainable solutions on a large scale, is very significant. Many new technologies take time to become cost-effective, but if policy makers help entrepreneurs by offering carbon credits, emissions taxes or providing real incentives, it would be a big boost to overcome this initial moment of inertia and to have a wider choice available more quickly. The Covid pandemic highlighted the fragility of our supply chain and the importance of local production and safe food. To help change towards the creation of an alternative, sustainable and healthier food system, we need to embrace transparency, open thinking, to claim loudly and boldly what is wanted to be achieved and how it is to be achieved. Be more inclusive and also welcome feedback and ideas from peers, innovators and consumers. One of the keys is the willingness to invest in factories and hardware. Without infrastructure, foodtech companies cannot do research on their own. Fortunately, we are seeing more and more investors willing to invest in it. All concluded that the evolution on the food tech acceptance has been very positive in recent years. 50% of consumers on the next decade will be millennials and generation z, and they are already very much educated and informed and prefer local, healthy and diverse products. To make sure that this evolution continues to grow, it is necessary to make sure to make food very affordable and to create solutions that are accessible to most people on the planet.236238239240244245246248249Action Points: Ensure affordability and accessibility Educate consumers and companies Make changes in the regulation and policy to unlock the evolution of new food technology237N/A

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/DIALOGUE-Official-Feedback-Form-Structure.docxhttps://youtu.be/bEyqcHWKsOE

2021-06-23 16:58:29205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24903/30

0106113105728020200031551101004555001055550501000902010735

1. Los principios se presentaron en la introducción al diálogo, explicando el propósito de cada uno de ellos. 2. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores convocó a un proceso de diálogo de saberes e intercientífico, plural, abierto, buscando una amplia participación que incluya a mujeres, jóvenes, pequeños productores, empresas, área urbana y rural, y pueblos indígenas originario campesinos. De este diálogo han participado organizaciones indígenas, productores ecológicos, academia, gobierno nacional, gobiernos departamentales y municipales, cooperación al desarrollo, asociaciones de productores privados, colectivos ciudadanos, adoptando un enfoque inclusivo de diferentes grupos de interés. 4. Se ha aplicado la metodología de trabajo propuesta en los manuales elaborados para la Cumbre que, fue implementada con apoyo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, en su calidad de convocante; los ministerios de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras, de Desarrollo Productivo y Economía Plural, y de Medio Ambiente y Agua. También se contó con el apoyo de la Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra; la Organización de Naciones Unidas en Bolivia (ONU Bolivia) y sus agencias; el Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe (FILAC) y, de un conjunto de expertas y expertos en sistemas alimentarios. 5. La metodología ha hecho énfasis en el respeto entre los participantes, el reconocimiento de la complejidad, el enfoque inclusivo como tema transversal a todas las líneas de acción y la búsqueda de complementariedades entre los diferentes actores. 6. Mediante un equipo de más de 40 personas, entre personal de entidades públicas, personal de la FILAC y personal y voluntarios del SNU, se organizó, facilitó, moderó y sistematizó el taller, buscando crear un clima de confianza que propiciará el diálogo respetuoso y permitirá a todas y todos los participantes tomar la palabra y compartir sus ideas.El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia asumió los compromisos de la Cumbre, reconociendo la complejidad del tema e impulsando a todos los actores convocados al diálogo, a actuar con urgencia. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. Se buscó encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y confianza. El diálogo tuvo como objetivos: • Generar visiones compartidas y complementarias de la región. • Recoger insumos de los distintos sectores de la sociedad boliviana en la zona del altiplano, particularmente de Pueblos Indígenas Originarios y Campesinos, pequeños productores y mujeres. • Iniciar un proceso de generación de alianzas público – privadas y comunitarias, que se consoliden y continúen trabajando más allá de la Cumbre, para alcanzar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles, más allá de la Cumbre.Ninguno.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DIÁLOGOS REGIONALES RUMBO A LA CUMBRE SOBRE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS DIÁLOGO REGIONAL DEL ALTIPLANO Representantes de diversas organizaciones, instituciones y entidades de los departamentos del ecosistema del altiplano boliviano (La Paz, Oruro y Potosí), se reunieron para dialogar respecto a los sistemas alimentarios. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan a todo el entramado de actores y actividades interconectadas que conciernen a la alimentación de la población: es decir, producción, recolección, transformación, empaquetado, distribución, venta, almacenamiento, comercialización, consumo y eliminación. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan los recursos naturales, el medio ambiente, la economía, las preferencias de las personas, la cultura, los conocimientos científicos y tradicionales, incluidos los de los pueblos indígenas, las políticas, el comercio, la tecnología, el transporte y otros. Por lo tanto, mejorar los sistemas alimentarios da lugar a un mundo sin hambre, con mejor nutrición y salud, protección y resiliencia de los ecosistemas, la biodiversidad y personas resilientes y empoderadas. El parágrafo II. del Artículo 6 de la Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia señala que: “El Estado tienen la obligación de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria, a través de una alimentación sana, adecuada y suficiente para toda la población”, en ese sentido, se han promulgado diversas leyes con relación a los sistemas alimentarios para lograr su sostenibilidad. Bolivia cuenta con 2.5 millones de personas ligadas a las Unidades Productivas Agrícolas (CNA, 2013). En el país existen sistemas productivos de agricultura familiar y comunitaria (indígena originario campesino, comunidades interculturales y pueblos afrobolivianos), convencional y agroindustrial. Territorialmente, la mayoría de las unidades productivas generalmente se encuentran en la región interandina del país (diversas condiciones de altura, suelo y acceso al agua). Los sistemas productivos cuentan con gran tradición y riqueza socio-cultural. Además, El 76% de las semillas utilizadas activamente en Bolivia son criollas o nativas. Desafortunadamente, debido a la homogeneización de los hábitos alimentarios en Bolivia la alimentación de menor calidad es de más fácil acceso que las especies nativas.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El proceso de diálogo se inició el mes de mayo y continuará hasta el mes de julio de 2021 con el objetivo de elaborar participativamente la posición del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia sobre Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en la perspectiva de complementar y enriquecer sus políticas internas y presentar su posición ante la Cumbre Mundial. La metodología se basó en la propuesta en los manuales de la cumbre, aunque se adaptó a la realidad del país con base en dos diálogos iniciales: uno con entidades públicas relacionadas a la temática y con agencias del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y; otro con expertas y expertos que participan en los sistemas alimentarios del país. El propósito de estos talleres preliminares fue recoger y validar las prioridades inicialmente identificadas a través de publicaciones e investigaciones, políticas públicas (leyes y decretos), declaraciones y otros, considerando las 5 líneas de acción propuestas por la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios en apoyo a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. En ese sentido el proceso de diálogos en el país contempla un Diálogo Intersectorial y Multidisciplinario; un Dialogo de Expertas y Expertos (FASE 1), tres Diálogos Regionales en Altiplano, Valles y Llanos; un Diálogo con la Academia; un Diálogo con pueblos indígenas (FASE 2) y un Gran Diálogo Plurinacional (FASE 3), cuyo desarrollo se basa esencialmente en el método propuesto en el Manual de Referencia para los Convocantes de los Estados Miembros. En esta oportunidad, el Diálogo Regional del Altiplano contó con la participación de representantes de los departamentos de La Paz, Oruro y Potosí. Luego de una sesión inaugural e introductoria, los representantes asistentes fueron divididos en 5 grupos diversos y multidisciplinarios para debatir sobre cada una de las 5 vías de acción con base en preguntas orientadoras. Cada grupo contó con un facilitador, un sistematizador y un relator. En una sesión plenaria los relatores presentaron las principales conclusiones a las que había llegado el grupo. Los principales hallazgos y conclusiones a las que se llegaron convergen en torno a los siguientes puntos: Se hizo énfasis en lograr la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel sub-nacional incorporando el enfoque de género y las visiones de los pueblos indígenas originarios y campesinos. Asimismo, en promover la creación de redes y observatorios para el monitoreo de los sistemas alimentarios relacionados a los ya existentes como el de seguridad alimentaria. También se sugirió llevar a cabo acciones inmediatas para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia causada por covid-19 en los sistemas alimentarios. Finalmente, se describieron lineamientos para fortalecer el enfoque hacia los Sistemas Alimentarios del Vivir Bien y el Saber Alimentarse para Vivir Bien. Las conclusiones específicas de cada grupo de trabajo se encuentran descritas en la siguiente sección.236238244246249250251Vía de Acción Nº1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 1) Se accede a los alimentos través de los mercados en los que el sistema agroindustrial (arroz, azúcar) está ganado espacio, rompiendo la tradición de la diversidad alimentaria. 2) La población accede a los alimentos a través del mercado o feria más cercana. 3) No se cuentan con políticas diferenciadas para los pequeños productores. 4) El país cuenta con importantes leyes de fomento a los productos ecológicos, pero se debe cambiar los hábitos de consumo. 5) Se cuenta con pocos alimentos identificados como nutritivos, solo se hizo este esfuerzo para la quinua, se deben promocionar otros alimentos. 6) Las mujeres las que guardan las semillas y la biodiversidad en su territorio, así como los conocimientos y saberes en cuanto a la alimentación y los sabores. 7) Hay que tomar en cuenta que cuando se habla de migración, son las mujeres las se quedan en el campo a trabajar cuando hombres y jóvenes migran a la ciudad. Se propone para los próximos cinco años: 1) Tener políticas de fomento diferenciadas para agricultura familiar y los pequeños productores. Se sugiere implementar un registro desde el Estado que identifique a las familias y comunidades productoras. 2) Ampliar la escala de la implementación del diálogo de saberes tradicionales con la ciencia. 3) Fomentar el precio justo para el productor campesino. 4) Educar, desde el Estado, sobre las partes de las platas que son comestibles y que no son parte de la alimentación cotidiana y promover la investigación. 5) E) Generar medios, espacios y políticas para tener los medios para actualizar y/o modernizar los saberes tradicionales para que también fomenten la ser competitividad de los productos.236239244245248249250Vía de Acción Nº2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible. 1) Valorizar los productos locales en función a su riqueza proteínica; transforma los alimentos nutritivos para promover su consumo, las hamburguesas y barras de quinoa son un ejemplo; promover el consumo de alimentos locales mediante la educación formal y no formal, mediante medios de comunicación y redes sociales; generar facilidades para las compra de alimentos locales en tiendas de barrio y supermercados; buscar que el alimento sano sea accesible en su precio; continuar con la alimentación escolar a través de productores locales; promover la producción local; aprender de las buenas prácticas durante la pandemia en materia de provisión de alimentos; fortalecer el “saber alimentarse” en todos los niveles entrando en nuevos ámbitos como los mercados; mejorar los mercados para que la población pueda acceder a los alimentos a precios justos para tener un consumo familiar adecuado; generar políticas públicas que ayuden a los productores y favorezcan a los consumidores finales/familias. 2) Economía comunitaria y apoyo al pequeño productor. 3) Incluir la ciencia y tecnología en la producción y conocimientos locales; invertir en investigación; visibilizar el potencial de nuestra producción; implementar tecnología en el área rural: tractores, fertilización complementaria orgánica porque los suelos están pobres. 4) Conservación de suelos para mejorar la producción, uso del abono orgánico; el precio es algo que tenemos que trabajar, esto tiene que ver con el contrabando y la compra de productos “malos” y extranjeros. 5) Como servicio agropecuario y primario, fortalecer la producción primaria de productos agropecuarios que acompañe la transformación (no industrialización): con financiamiento de parte del gobierno y los municipios para la infraestructura, caminos, electricidad, etc. Históricamente, el apoyo a la producción primaria ha sido reducido. Tenemos leyes que no se pueden implementar por falta de recursos; hay que priorizar y orientar la inversión. Aun teniendo financiamiento, existen obstáculos para proveer insumos, herramientas, equipos, maquinarias a los productores familiares. Promoción de productos locales. Respecto al desayuno escolar, la mayoría de los productos son procesados, hay una serie de exigencias sanitarias y de presentación que son difíciles de cumplir por los productores locales. Para exportar, hay que cumplir con los estándares internacionales, habría que dar facilidades para esto. 6) Visión dentro de 5 años: Masificación de la producción orgánica. Ha disminuido la migración de la gente joven porque existen oportunidades en la producción local de alimentos. 7) Es importante generar valor agregado en los productos locales a través de políticas públicas y de la educación para producir y exportar, diversificando la producción y enriqueciendo los suelos, por ejemplo, a través de fertilizantes orgánicos. 8) La educación es vital en este sentido, la política del desayuno escolar es muy relevante, pero se deben dar facilidades para que los productores locales puedan proporcionar alimentos sanos a las escuelas, no solo en las zonas rurales sino en las urbanas, en las que los productos son procesados e industriales, perjudicando a los niños y niñas y a los propios productores. Asimismo, se deben dar facilidades a las familias productoras, reduciendo la burocracia, proporcionándoles asistencia técnica y financiera para mejorar el sistema comunitario productivo. También hay que involucrar a las familias en la alimentación sana, para que no compren productos industriales y baratos y sean conscientes del valor nutricional de los productos naturales, sanos y nutritivos.236240243244245246248249250251Vía de Acción Nº3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. 1) El sector privado y el gobierno deberían trabajar juntos para poder producir más, con productos sostenibles y de calidad. 2) Una manera de promover los productos alimentarios nacionales sanos y saludables, es enfocarse en toda la cadena de producción, realizando diferentes productos de la misma materia prima. 3) Eficiencia alimentaria en el proceso; fomentar buenos hábitos de consumo; medición del impacto de huella de carbono de la producción de alimentos; ; articular al productor de alimentos con el consumidor final; involucrar a los diferentes sectores a este tipo de cumbres. 4) El cambio climático perjudica a la producción de alimentos del agro. 5) Se necesita apoyo tecnológico en las áreas rurales para apoyar a la producción y se necesita agua para poder producir. 6) El estado debe dar seguridad jurídica para garantizar la producción. 7) Un sistema sustentable y sostenible solo es posible por medio de la complementariedad de los actores y de las cadenas de producción y comercialización, el sistema por tanto requiere de una política de estado permanente, que fortalezca las cadenas de producción con visión estratégica. 8) Pensar en la posibilidad de establecer sociedades comunitarias mixtas en las que, los empresarios, las comunidades y el propio Estado participen. 9) Es fundamental el fomento de los buenos hábitos de consumo, el cuidado y mitigación de la huella de carbono, así como las buenas prácticas de producción. Es fundamental el uso eficiente de los recursos escasos como el agua, es necesario fomentar la cultura del comercio equitativo y en el campo promover la gobernanza eficaz. 10) Es necesario que el Estado realice el mapeo de los actores y productos que desde una perspectiva de complementariedad puedan definir nuestras vocaciones productivas y nuestra influencia a nivel regional y mundial. 11) Es fundamental la inclusión de los jóvenes para fortalecer la fuerza productiva y la sostenibilidad, disminuyendo la migración campo ciudad, la herramienta debería ser la educación que, bajo un criterio de los saberes ancestrales, permita su complementariedad con la ciencia moderna. 12) No hay suficientes abonos adecuados y hay un ineficiente manejo del agua. Se requiere un mayor apoyo al agro para generar las condiciones de productividad que deseamos. 13) Finalmente, para que haya seguridad alimentaria no debería haber semillas hidriadas o modificadas. Se debe proteger a las semillas andinas y tener un banco de semillas público o privado. Se debe promover el Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología para la información técnica en el sector agrícola y evitar la migración.236241243244245246247248249Vía de Acción Nº4: Promover medios de vida equitativos. 1) Desde la coordinadora de comercio justo, se busca la equidad de género, y de las instancias de gobierno se trabaja en la misma línea promoviendo un mayor acceso de la mujer a las tierras. 2) Existe un sistema machista relacionado con la fuerza de trabajo del varón. Pero la mujer es más cuidadosa con los productos se debe rescatar ello. 3) Dar más oportunidades a las mujeres para que trabajen en unión. 4) Ver mecanismos para adaptarse a los efectos del cambio climático, pero principalmente a sus efectos sobre el agua, de manera que las comunidades sean más resilientes. 5) Promover planes de adaptación al cambio climático. 6) Fomentar el uso de distintas tecnologías para adaptarse al cambio climático. 7) Realizar estudios que permitan generar adaptaciones al cambio climático. 8) Las empresas transnacionales deben asumir responsabilidad por lo que están generando. Inducen a los productores para que produzcan con sus insumos. Se debe buscar una transferencia de tecnología en la que no sean solo ellos los beneficiados. Están envenenando la producción tradicional, se debe combatir a los transgénicos. 9) La cooperación se canaliza a través del gobierno, creemos que hay iniciativas, pero no interactúa con los pequeños productores. 10) Las ONG deben acercarse más a los pueblos indígenas y conocer mejor los medios de vida de estos y buscar más empatía. 11) También es importante promover proyectos concursables que fortalezcan las capacidades, esto promoverá una menor migración y un interés para que los jóvenes trabajen los campos. 12) La cooperación pide una contraparte, la cual no siempre es fácil atender. 13) La pandemia causada por Covid-19, ha sido una oportunidad para valorar nuestros alimentos y al productor boliviano cierre de las fronteras ha fomentado la producción y Bolivia se ha autoabastecido. Se han generado diferentes dinámicas como las reuniones virtuales y los espacios de comunicación, se ha fomentado el intercambio con los sabios y amautas para trabajar la enfermedad, y se ve la falencia de la medicina convencional. 14) Para ser sostenibles los sistemas alimentarios se debe dotar mayor infraestructura para la producción de alimentos, y mejorar el sistema educativo. Lograr que los productores tengan acceso a laboratorios y conocimientos científicos, sistematizar los conocimientos ancestrales, y evitar el contrabando. 15) Respecto a la crisis climática, buscar mecanismos para reducir la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero. 16) Fomentar la producción de las comunidades, y valorar su trabajo, han dado sus vidas para alimentar a las ciudades. Por eso hay que fomentar una mejor vida en el área rural. 17) Concientización a los productores y consumidores. 18) Aplicar la normativa, promover el consumo ecológico como dice la norma y evitar que otros programas públicos difundan insecticidas. Se quiere que CARANAVI sea declarado un territorio ecológico de producción de café.236242243247248250Vía de Acción Nº5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. 1) Producir más de lo nuestro para el desarrollo productivo y tener una alimentación sana para todos los bolivianos. 2) Tener en cuenta a los productores bolivianos de todas las provincias para apoyarlos y promocionar el consumo de nuestros alimentos. 3) Tener el apoyo del gobierno para el acceso a maquinarias e instalaciones de agua y luz en diferentes regiones s y de esa manera reducir el desempleo. y Fomentar el consumo de nuestros productos alimenticios. 4) Promocionar nuestros alimentos con el apoyo del gobierno y de las alcaldías de las diferentes regiones e invitar a las personas a que consuman nuestros productos. 5) Tener en cuenta a los productores bolivianos de todas las provincias y ayudarles a promocionar sus productos. 6) Fortalecer la comercialización de los productos naturales de la agricultura campesina, pues los transgénicos son más baratos.237Los diálogos se desarrollaron en un ambiente de respeto y de diversidad de opiniones, los representantes asistentes asumieron visiones amplias y destacaron puntos en común para lograr consensos, por lo que no se presentaron áreas de divergencia y las conclusiones se adoptaron por consenso.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Submission-Bolivia-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-ES.pdfhttps://cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4366http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/ru/c/1411494/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/845594099666033/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/986218258803021/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/2988649051384307/

2021-06-23 17:00:40205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25366/30

0125812204638152030267121921262500145545040122090307545

1. Los principios se presentaron en la introducción al diálogo, explicando el propósito de cada uno de ellos. 2. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores convocó a un proceso de diálogo de saberes e intercientífico, plural, abierto, buscando una amplia participación que incluya a mujeres, jóvenes, pequeños productores, empresas, área urbana y rural, y pueblos indígenas originario campesinos. De este diálogo han participado organizaciones indígenas, productores ecológicos, academia, gobierno nacional, gobiernos departamentales y municipales, cooperación al desarrollo, asociaciones de productores privados, colectivos ciudadanos, adoptando un enfoque inclusivo de diferentes grupos de interés. 4. Se ha aplicado la metodología de trabajo propuesta en los manuales elaborados para la Cumbre que, fue implementada con apoyo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, en su calidad de convocante; los ministerios de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras, de Desarrollo Productivo y Economía Plural, y de Medio Ambiente y Agua. También se contó con el apoyo de la Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra; la Organización de Naciones Unidas en Bolivia (ONU Bolivia) y sus agencias; el Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe (FILAC) y, de un conjunto de expertas y expertos en sistemas alimentarios. 5. La metodología ha hecho énfasis en el respeto entre los participantes, el reconocimiento de la complejidad, el enfoque inclusivo como tema transversal a todas las líneas de acción y la búsqueda de complementariedades entre los diferentes actores. 6. Mediante un equipo de más de 40 personas, entre personal de entidades públicas, personal de la FILAC y personal y voluntarios del SNU, se organizó, facilitó, moderó y sistematizó el taller, buscando crear un clima de confianza que propiciará el diálogo respetuoso y permitirá a todas y todos los participantes tomar la palabra y compartir sus ideas.El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia asumió los compromisos de la Cumbre, reconociendo la complejidad del tema e impulsando a todos los actores convocados al diálogo, a actuar con urgencia. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. Se buscó encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y confianza. El diálogo tuvo como objetivos: • Generar visiones compartidas y complementarias de la región. • Recoger insumos de los distintos sectores de la sociedad boliviana en la zona del altiplano, particularmente de Pueblos Indígenas Originarios y Campesinos, pequeños productores y mujeres. • Iniciar un proceso de generación de alianzas público – privadas y comunitarias, que se consoliden y continúen trabajando más allá de la Cumbre, para alcanzar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles, más allá de la Cumbre.Ninguno.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DIÁLOGOS REGIONALES RUMBO A LA CUMBRE SOBRE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS DIÁLOGO REGIONAL DEL VALLE Representantes de diversas organizaciones, instituciones y entidades de los departamentos del ecosistema de los valles bolivianos (Cochabamba, Chuquisaca y Tarija), se reunieron para dialogar respecto a los sistemas alimentarios. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan a todo el entramado de actores y actividades interconectadas que conciernen a la alimentación de la población: es decir, producción, recolección, transformación, empaquetado, distribución, venta, almacenamiento, comercialización, consumo y eliminación. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan los recursos naturales, el medio ambiente, la economía, las preferencias de las personas, la cultura, los conocimientos científicos y tradicionales, incluidos los de los pueblos indígenas, las políticas, el comercio, la tecnología, el transporte y otros. Por lo tanto, mejorar los sistemas alimentarios da lugar a un mundo sin hambre, con mejor nutrición y salud, protección y resiliencia de los ecosistemas, la biodiversidad y personas resilientes y empoderadas. El parágrafo II. del Artículo 6 de la Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia señala que: “El Estado tienen la obligación de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria, a través de una alimentación sana, adecuada y suficiente para toda la población”, en ese sentido, se han promulgado diversas leyes con relación a los sistemas alimentarios para lograr su sostenibilidad. Bolivia cuenta con 2.5 millones de personas ligadas a las Unidades Productivas Agrícolas (CNA, 2013). En el país existen sistemas productivos de agricultura familiar y comunitaria (indígena originario campesino, comunidades interculturales y pueblos afrobolivianos), convencional y agroindustrial. Territorialmente, la mayoría de las unidades productivas generalmente se encuentran en la región interandina del país (diversas condiciones de altura, suelo y acceso al agua). Los sistemas productivos cuentan con gran tradición y riqueza socio-cultural. Además, El 76% de las semillas utilizadas activamente en Bolivia son criollas o nativas. Desafortunadamente, debido a la homogeneización de los hábitos alimentarios en Bolivia la alimentación de menor calidad es de más fácil acceso que las especies nativas.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El proceso de diálogo se inició el mes de mayo y continuará hasta el mes de julio de 2021 con el objetivo de elaborar participativamente la posición del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia sobre Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en la perspectiva de complementar y enriquecer sus políticas internas y presentar su posición ante la Cumbre Mundial. La metodología se basó en la propuesta en los manuales de la cumbre, aunque se adaptó a la realidad del país con base en dos diálogos iniciales: uno con entidades públicas relacionadas a la temática y con agencias del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y; otro con expertas y expertos que participan en los sistemas alimentarios del país. El propósito de estos talleres preliminares fue recoger y validar las prioridades inicialmente identificadas a través de publicaciones e investigaciones, políticas públicas (leyes y decretos), declaraciones y otros, considerando las 5 líneas de acción propuestas por la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios en apoyo a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. En ese sentido el proceso de diálogos en el país contempla un Diálogo Intersectorial y Multidisciplinario; un Dialogo de Expertas y Expertos (FASE 1), tres Diálogos Regionales en Altiplano, Valles y Llanos; un Diálogo con la Academia; un Diálogo con pueblos indígenas (FASE 2) y un Gran Diálogo Plurinacional (FASE 3), cuyo desarrollo se basa esencialmente en el método propuesto en el Manual de Referencia para los Convocantes de los Estados Miembros. En esta oportunidad, el Diálogo Regional del Valle contó con la participación de representantes de los departamentos de Cochabamba, Chuquisaca y Tarija. Luego de una sesión inaugural e introductoria, los representantes asistentes fueron divididos en 5 grupos diversos y multidisciplinarios para debatir sobre cada una de las 5 vías de acción con base en preguntas orientadoras. Cada grupo contó con un facilitador, un sistematizador y un relator. En una sesión plenaria los relatores presentaron las principales conclusiones a las que había llegado el grupo. Los principales hallazgos y conclusiones a las que se llegaron convergen en torno a los siguientes puntos: Se hizo énfasis en lograr la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel sub-nacional incorporando el enfoque de género y las visiones de los pueblos indígenas originarios y campesinos. Asimismo, en promover la creación de redes y observatorios para el monitoreo de los sistemas alimentarios relacionados a los ya existentes como el de seguridad alimentaria. También se sugirió llevar a cabo acciones inmediatas para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia causada por covid-19 en los sistemas alimentarios. Finalmente, se describieron lineamientos para fortalecer el enfoque hacia los Sistemas Alimentarios del Vivir Bien y el Saber Alimentarse para Vivir Bien. Las conclusiones específicas de cada grupo de trabajo se encuentran descritas en la siguiente sección.236238244248249250251Vía de Acción Nº1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 1) Muchos de los productos reducen sus rendimientos por la falta de acceso al agua y por la falta de oferta por parte de los productores. Se necesita acceder a más mercados, para poder vender los productos a precios justos y directamente al consumidor. 2) Se tiene que reforzar los análisis nutricionales de varias de las especies nativas de la región para revalorizar los alimentos y convertirlos en parte de la dieta diaria, educar al consumidor y promover el consumo. 3) Se necesita garantizar la participación de las mujeres y de los jóvenes en las asociaciones, proyectos y programas nacionales (51% o más). 4) El rol de las mujeres es muy importante, porque generan conciencia en la producción y el resguardo de las semillas. Debemos rescatar sus conocimientos tradicionales para las siguientes generaciones. 5) La pandemia ha dado la oportunidad de buscar alimentos con mayor valor nutritivo, y de esa manera aprovecharlos y protegerlos. Se han revalorizado ciertos productos a los que antes no se les daba importancia. 6) Los proyectos y programas nacionales deben ser adaptados al cambio climático, e incluir subcomponentes de mitigación. 7) En términos del rol de las transnacionales y de la cooperación, se debería apoyar a las políticas definidas por el gobierno. 8) La producción sostenible está articulada con la producción ecológica. Establecer el valor nutritivo de productos nativos es importante, tiene que ver con la valorización de estos productos. Poco a poco se está perdiendo su producción y consumo, por eso tenemos que revalorizarlos. 9) Se debe apuntar al consumo de productos locales y a la integración de mercados a nivel internacional. La promoción del consumo de la producción local es muy importante, como también favorecer en compras estatales a productores locales. Sería ideal que los pequeños productores puedan vender a los supermercados.236239243244246248249250251Vía de Acción Nº2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible. 1) La clave para generar reservas está vinculada directamente con las cadenas de suministros. La cadena de Bolivia invisibiliza la producción local de los pequeños productores. Revalorización de especies nativas y su variabilidad genética. Si promovemos las cadenas de suministro más cortas, podemos abastecer y almacenar a nivel nacional. 2) Para generar reservas de alimentos, se debe considerar la conservación de las semillas nativas, base fundamental para guardar especies que llevan años adaptándose en nuestro medio. Las mujeres juegan un rol fundamental como productoras y cuidando la semilla, son indispensables para el área rural. Para las zonas urbanas, se debe trabajar en huertos urbanos; esto se ha visto evidenciado con la pandemia. En el ámbito educativo, los niños deberían aprender cómo cultivar, tener huertitos y valorar la naturaleza. 3) La educación es clave, por ejemplo, en la temporalidad de la producción. Las personas que viven en la ciudad deberían entender que hay que respetar los ritmos de la naturaleza, ser menos exigentes. Podemos aprender de nuestros ancestros, recuperando su sabiduría. 4) Garantizar que la oferta pueda cubrir la demanda. Elaborar un cronograma agrícola para saber si se puede garantizar una cantidad de cosechas al año, asegurando reservas de alimentos. Así se podría ver si se puede dar respuesta a la demanda (por ejemplo, de la papa). Ajustar el calendario agrícola teniendo en cuenta los cambios climáticos, para producir todos los productos que son solicitados, estableciendo, por ejemplo, en número de cultivos. Así podríamos estar generando una reserva de alimentos, evitando las subidas de precios y garantizando la producción. 5) Si logramos acercar a los consumidores con los productores, estaremos fomentando y visibilizando la labor de los pequeños productores. La cooperación internacional debe: i) promover el conocimiento ancestral, ii) apoyar en temas de tecnología adaptada a nuestros sectores (riego, conservación, etc.), iii) reproducir y distribuir las semillas nativas, iv) capacitar a las nuevas generaciones acerca de la alimentación, v) apoyar en dar ventajas a las comunidades para que pueden convertirse en proveedoras de los almuerzos escolares. 6) Reconocer el rol fundamental de las mujeres en la conservación de la diversidad genética de nuestro país. Otro rol es en la misma alimentación, ya que muchos de los emprendimientos que dan valor agregado a las especies del país son liderados por mujeres. 7) El problema de la migración de los jóvenes a las ciudades, buscando mejores opciones de trabajo da lugar a la pérdida de conocimientos y trae prácticas dañinas para los suelos. Se debe crear mayor consciencia, hacerles parte de los sistemas productivos, desde la escuela y la universidad. 8) En materia de control sanitario el Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria e Inocuidad Alimentaria. (SENASAG) debería controlar la calidad y conservantes de en los productos. Debemos implementar laboratorios de suelo para ver qué nutrientes necesita la tierra. Los ministerios de medioambiente y desarrollo rural y tierras deberían ampliar el asesoramiento técnico que brindan.236240244245246247248249250251Vía de Acción Nº3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. 1) Se debe de apoyar a las áreas rurales que tienen menor acceso a recursos, ya que en ellas habitan personas que aportan al sistema alimentaria, muchas de las cuales se ven obligadas a migrar a las ciudades por falta de tecnología y acceso a tierras agrícolas. 2) Tomar a la semilla y el suelo como principios fundamentales. En Bolivia no siempre se puede producir papas de calidad porque no hay un buen manejo de las semillas. La tecnología debe rescatar las buenas prácticas de nuestros ancestros, como por ejemplo el uso del estiércol, que diluido r libera nutrientes para el tratamiento de las semillas.; estas técnicas pueden ayudar al productor grande, mediano y pequeño, teniendo como resultado mayor rendimiento. 3) Reducir las pérdidas de alimento en las cadenas de producción y distribución y utilizar los subsidios como un medio de apoyo a la alimentación de la población. En la producción de la cadena alimentaria se debe de trabajar con todos los departamentos con sus diferentes variedades agrícolas. 4) Los trámites legales y administrativos de provisión de servicios alimentarios deben ser más simples y accesibles en cada territorio, no debe de ser tan burocrático y lejano del lugar de producción. 5) Promover el acceso a la innovación a los pequeños productores. En ese sentido, es necesario hacer inversiones para la generación de tecnología, en marco de dialogo de saberes. 6) Los municipios se deben articular más a los diferentes niveles de Estado para dar apoyo al productor o proponer proyectos. Dando acceso a alimentos sanos a la población. se cuida la alimentación y mejora la salud.236241243244245246247248249250Vía de Acción Nº4: Promover medios de vida equitativos. 1) No está comprendido el concepto de consumo responsable, la gente se va al precio más bajo sin conocer los detalles nutricionales entre uno y otro alimento. Esto impide articular mercados de circuitos cortos. Por lo tanto, no hay posibilidad de brindar buena información porque en las ferias no participan los pequeños productores sino los intermediarios; la idea sería r articular mercados sostenibles donde los productores interactúen con la demanda de familias. 2) Se sugiere modificar las normas básicas de contratación del Estado de manera que faciliten la participación de pequeños productores. Asimismo, se sugiere clasificar a los productores, aquellos que no tienen condiciones para producir en exceso y producen solo para autoconsumo; aquellos que tienen un pequeño excedente y finalmente aquellos que pueden inclusive exportar, como experiencia en 2012 no se pudo llenar el cupo de exportación de amaranto. 3) Fomentar la realización de programas radiales y televisivos y campañas de información en distintas instituciones sobre los productos ecológicos, para crear una conciencia crítica para que las personas puedan diferenciar entre productos con químicos y productos orgánicos. 4) Es necesario facilitar y hacer accesible la certificación de productos orgánicos provenientes de la agricultura familiar campesina para que se genere confianza en los consumidores en torno a estos productos. Por otro lado, se debe hacer que los alimentos orgánicos sean más baratos, mediante subsidios del Estado. 5) Se reconoce que en los valles se tienen muy bajos rendimientos, el manejo de los suelos y su enriquecimiento es muy importantes, se deben incorporar tecnologías o manejo de suelo para producir más y más barato. La solución sería capacitar a los productores de manera adecuada. 6) En la época de restricción en el marco de la pandemia por el Covid-19 aunque los mercados estaban cerrados se en las ciudades se logró acercar al productor con el consumidor. Uno podía comprar muy cerca, esto muestra que los mercados grandes se pueden descentralizar. 7) Otro aspecto importante es que el INE dé a conocer oportunamente en qué épocas existe desabastecimiento o sobre oferta de productos. Esto permitirá articular a las instancias correspondientes el abastecimiento. La cooperación debe llegar previamente a los pequeños productores, para apoyar a las OECAS, tecnificarlas y en concreto ayudar a producir semillas.236242243244247248250251Vía de Acción Nº5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. 1) Promover la realización de actividades comerciales para lograr canales de alimentos fortalecidos en su producción agrícola. Las estrategias en biodiversidad generalmente se trabajan sin mucho conocimiento específico. Asimismo, se debe promover el uso de la variedad genética. 2) Promover la soberanía alimentaria para tener acceso a los alimentos orgánicos y a la seguridad alimentaria y así tener una mejor salud para combatir a la pandemia. Se debe tener un sistema productivo que cuide del medio ambiente y de las tierras, para así tener una producción sostenible. 3) Se sugiere la creación de más plantas de transformación de frutas, para generar los mecanismos y fortalecer los sistemas productivos, a través instancias privadas y públicas con inclusión de los jóvenes y mujeres. 4) Conservar la biodiversidad de plantas medicinales y fortalecer al pequeño productor. Únicamente con sistemas alimentarios fortalecidos, una buena dieta y ecosistema sano y balanceado podremos combatir las enfermedades. 5) Se promueve la participación de la mujer, ya que es muy importante en la recolección y cosecha. Se deben difundir los conocimientos de los pueblos indígenas y ancianos.237Los diálogos se desarrollaron en un ambiente de respeto y de diversidad de opiniones, los representantes asistentes asumieron visiones amplias y destacaron puntos en común para lograr consensos, por lo que no se presentaron áreas de divergencia y las conclusiones se adoptaron por consenso.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Submission-Bolivia-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-ES-1.pdfhttps://cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4366http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/ru/c/1411494/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/759067681377649/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/273907831087098/

2021-06-23 17:01:44205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28757/30

0156911305840015306031181328397470014107910152113090406025

1. Los principios se presentaron en la introducción al diálogo, explicando el propósito de cada uno de ellos. 2. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores convocó a un proceso de diálogo de saberes e intercientífico, plural, abierto, buscando una amplia participación que incluya a mujeres, jóvenes, pequeños productores, empresas, área urbana y rural, y pueblos indígenas originario campesinos. De este diálogo han participado organizaciones indígenas, productores ecológicos, academia, gobierno nacional, gobiernos departamentales y municipales, cooperación al desarrollo, asociaciones de productores privados, colectivos ciudadanos, adoptando un enfoque inclusivo de diferentes grupos de interés. 4. Se ha aplicado la metodología de trabajo propuesta en los manuales elaborados para la Cumbre que, fue implementada con apoyo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, en su calidad de convocante; los ministerios de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras, de Desarrollo Productivo y Economía Plural, y de Medio Ambiente y Agua. También se contó con el apoyo de la Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra; la Organización de Naciones Unidas en Bolivia (ONU Bolivia) y sus agencias; el Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe (FILAC) y, de un conjunto de expertas y expertos en sistemas alimentarios. 5. La metodología ha hecho énfasis en el respeto entre los participantes, el reconocimiento de la complejidad, el enfoque inclusivo como tema transversal a todas las líneas de acción y la búsqueda de complementariedades entre los diferentes actores. 6. Mediante un equipo de más de 40 personas, entre personal de entidades públicas, personal de la FILAC y personal y voluntarios del SNU, se organizó, facilitó, moderó y sistematizó el taller, buscando crear un clima de confianza que propiciará el diálogo respetuoso y permitirá a todas y todos los participantes tomar la palabra y compartir sus ideas.El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia asumió los compromisos de la Cumbre, reconociendo la complejidad del tema e impulsando a todos los actores convocados al diálogo, a actuar con urgencia. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. Se buscó encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y confianza. El diálogo tuvo como objetivos: • Generar visiones compartidas y complementarias de la región. • Recoger insumos de los distintos sectores de la sociedad boliviana en la zona del altiplano, particularmente de Pueblos Indígenas Originarios y Campesinos, pequeños productores y mujeres. • Iniciar un proceso de generación de alianzas público – privadas y comunitarias, que se consoliden y continúen trabajando más allá de la Cumbre, para alcanzar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles, más allá de la Cumbre.Ninguno.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DIÁLOGOS REGIONALES RUMBO A LA CUMBRE SOBRE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS DIÁLOGO REGIONAL DEL LLANO Y AMAZONÍA Representantes de diversas organizaciones, instituciones y entidades de los departamentos del ecosistema de los llanos y Amazonía bolivianos (Pando, Beni y Santa Cruz), se reunieron para dialogar respecto a los sistemas alimentarios. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan a todo el entramado de actores y actividades interconectadas que conciernen a la alimentación de la población: es decir, producción, recolección, transformación, empaquetado, distribución, venta, almacenamiento, comercialización, consumo y eliminación. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan los recursos naturales, el medio ambiente, la economía, las preferencias de las personas, la cultura, los conocimientos científicos y tradicionales, incluidos los de los pueblos indígenas, las políticas, el comercio, la tecnología, el transporte y otros. Por lo tanto, mejorar los sistemas alimentarios da lugar a un mundo sin hambre, con mejor nutrición y salud, protección y resiliencia de los ecosistemas, la biodiversidad y personas resilientes y empoderadas. El parágrafo II. del Artículo 6 de la Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia señala que: “El Estado tienen la obligación de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria, a través de una alimentación sana, adecuada y suficiente para toda la población”, en ese sentido, se han promulgado diversas leyes con relación a los sistemas alimentarios para lograr su sostenibilidad. Bolivia cuenta con 2.5 millones de personas ligadas a las Unidades Productivas Agrícolas (CNA, 2013). En el país existen sistemas productivos de agricultura familiar y comunitaria (indígena originario campesino, comunidades interculturales y pueblos afrobolivianos), convencional y agroindustrial. Territorialmente, la mayoría de las unidades productivas generalmente se encuentran en la región interandina del país (diversas condiciones de altura, suelo y acceso al agua). Los sistemas productivos cuentan con gran tradición y riqueza socio-cultural. Además, El 76% de las semillas utilizadas activamente en Bolivia son criollas o nativas. Desafortunadamente, debido a la homogeneización de los hábitos alimentarios en Bolivia la alimentación de menor calidad es de más fácil acceso que las especies nativas.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El proceso de diálogo se inició el mes de mayo y continuará hasta el mes de julio de 2021 con el objetivo de elaborar participativamente la posición del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia sobre Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en la perspectiva de complementar y enriquecer sus políticas internas y presentar su posición ante la Cumbre Mundial. La metodología se basó en la propuesta en los manuales de la cumbre, aunque se adaptó a la realidad del país con base en dos diálogos iniciales: uno con entidades públicas relacionadas a la temática y con agencias del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y; otro con expertas y expertos que participan en los sistemas alimentarios del país. El propósito de estos talleres preliminares fue recoger y validar las prioridades inicialmente identificadas a través de publicaciones e investigaciones, políticas públicas (leyes y decretos), declaraciones y otros, considerando las 5 líneas de acción propuestas por la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios en apoyo a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. En ese sentido el proceso de diálogos en el país contempla un Diálogo Intersectorial y Multidisciplinario; un Dialogo de Expertas y Expertos (FASE 1), tres Diálogos Regionales en Altiplano, Valles y Llanos; un Diálogo con la Academia; un Diálogo con pueblos indígenas (FASE 2) y un Gran Diálogo Plurinacional (FASE 3), cuyo desarrollo se basa esencialmente en el método propuesto en el Manual de Referencia para los Convocantes de los Estados Miembros. En esta oportunidad, el Diálogo Regional del Altiplano contó con la participación de representantes de los departamentos de La Paz, Oruro y Potosí. Luego de una sesión inaugural e introductoria, los representantes asistentes fueron divididos en 5 grupos diversos y multidisciplinarios para debatir sobre cada una de las 5 vías de acción con base en preguntas orientadoras. Cada grupo contó con un facilitador, un sistematizador y un relator. En una sesión plenaria los relatores presentaron las principales conclusiones a las que había llegado el grupo. Los principales hallazgos y conclusiones a las que se llegaron convergen en torno a los siguientes puntos: Se hizo énfasis en lograr la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel sub-nacional incorporando el enfoque de género y las visiones de los pueblos indígenas originarios y campesinos. Asimismo, en promover la creación de redes y observatorios para el monitoreo de los sistemas alimentarios relacionados a los ya existentes como el de seguridad alimentaria. También se sugirió llevar a cabo acciones inmediatas para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia causada por covid-19 en los sistemas alimentarios. Finalmente, se describieron lineamientos para fortalecer el enfoque hacia los Sistemas Alimentarios del Vivir Bien y el Saber Alimentarse para Vivir Bien. Las conclusiones específicas de cada grupo de trabajo se encuentran descritas en la siguiente sección.236238244245247248250251Vía de Acción Nº1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 1) Se necesita mayor accesibilidad a créditos productivos, en especial para los pequeños productores. Adicionalmente, es importante tener acceso a seguros agropecuario-forestal no maderable. 2) Existe necesidad de apoyar y fomentar el uso de las semillas nativas de nuestra región, que son nutritivas como también medicinales. Se deben estudiar las variedades nativas de las cuales no se conoce sus propiedades nutricionales. Se necesita promover mercados, y recibir mayor asistencia técnica para el manejo de la tierra y de la productividad. 3) Las restricciones que existen a la producción, por parte del Estado, son una limitación. Se debe incentivar la producción, no frenarla. Necesitamos producir más para abastecernos y poder llegar a más mercados. 4) Se necesita promover cambios en las costumbres de las prácticas alimentarias que tenemos en el país. Por ejemplo, promover el consumo de carne, leche, el chocolate de regiones, el asaí, la castaña, la guayaba, las frutas de las regiones, el algarrobo, y la harina de yuca/plátano, entre otros. Estos productos también pueden apoyar a contrarrestar los efectos del COVID-19. 5) Las mujeres están muy conectadas a los saberes y conocimientos de los productos y valores de los alimentos, tanto en las áreas rurales y urbanas. Deben estar involucradas en el sistema alimentario de manera integral. 6) El rol de la cooperación internacional puede ser fundamental para lograr tecnificar el sector, recibir asistencia técnica y conseguir acceso a nuevos mercados. 7) Se deben crear, a nivel local y en las regiones, centros de acopio, de investigación y de industrialización o transformación, para fomentar la producción artesanal e industrial y a los pequeños productores. Actualmente, cada productor debe buscarlos por sus medios y pasar por intermediadores.236239243244248250251Vía de Acción Nº2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible. 1) Aplicar acciones y estrategias para transmitir (medios de comunicación) capsulas gastronómicas, recetas dando prioridad al producto local y estacional, rescatando recetas ancestrales, adaptándolas a la modernidad, concienciando acerca de las propiedades de cada producto. 2) Se necesitan sistemas de trazabilidad de producción ecológica para demostrar que realmente que los productos son ecológicos y orgánicos. Esto a través de capacitación y tecnología. 3) Se necesita un balance alimentario real del país. El gobierno, en sus tres niveles, con apoyo de la cooperación internacional, debe llevar a cabo investigaciones, inversiones en tecnología, estudios de caracterización de la producción. 4) Establecer protocolos transversales sanitarios y de protección para los productores locales. Hay que proporcionarles medios de seguridad y producción. Generar una articulación con trasnacionales para coordinar la producción de forma efectiva, teniendo en cuenta el balance alimentario del país. Hay que aprender a trabajar de forma conjunta. Fortalecer el modelo educativo desde una mirada intercultural. El Ministerio de Educación debe articular políticas en los tres niveles del estado para que la población sea consciente de lo que se hace en el sistema productivo. 5) Todo lo que se plantea, se debe manejar teniendo en cuenta las diferentes visiones y conceptualizaciones que existen, las diferencias entre campo/ciudad, desde una mirada integral. El modelo educativo debe empezar desde la casa, no solo en la escuela, incorporando nuevos sistemas de alimentación, rescatando lo ancestral, tradicional y orgánico. En el campo, se debe realzar la labor de la mujer en este sentido, trabajando directamente con ellas para empoderarlas y que ellas mismas valoren su trabajo, así como los usos y costumbres de las comunidades. Trabajar también con profesores, puesto que ahora están fomentando la migración de jóvenes a las ciudades. 6) Tomar en cuenta a las comunidades indígena originario campesinas, proporcionándoles apoyo técnico y financiero para producir. Capacitaciones en las comunidades para fomentar la eficiencia en la producción. 7) Trabajar en políticas públicas para que haya un plan de información y difusión a nivel de consumidores. 8) Fortalecer los bancos de semillas para conservar nuestros alimentos y no perderlos.236240244247248250Vía de Acción Nº3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. 1) Las instituciones ya existentes deben ser reforzadas en todas las áreas con base en la experiencia ya obtenida y no crear más instituciones, puesto que son recursos utilizados innecesariamente. 2) Si no hay semillas de calidad no hay seguridad alimentaria, se debe apoyar al productor para que realice un buen manejo de semillas. 3) La suma de las fuerzas entre instituciones ayudara al uso de nueva tecnología en el área de la agricultura y una seguridad alimentaria eficiente. 4) La cooperación internacional tiene resultados de impacto. 5) Se debe de aceptar la realidad que en el país se consume productos transgenéticos, porque se come aceite de soya que produce en el oriente, el pollo alimentado por la cascara de soya y maíz transgénico es consumido por la población. 6) Las ONG dan resultados de impacto al sector agroforestal dando semillas y plantines con el objeto de que haya alimento. No se tienen proyectos del gobierno que estén funcionando. 7) Para tener una vida digna debe haber apoyo al sector campesino originario, sí hay proyectos, pero no son para los campesinos en su totalidad.236241243244245248250251Vía de Acción Nº4: Promover medios de vida equitativos. 1) Se debe elaborar un plan de contingencia para la seguridad alimentaria; valorizar las rutas de circuitos cortos, mercados locales, zonales, barriales; fortalecer la diversificación de la producción y el consumo; organizar la producción y el consumo para dar respuesta a la emergencia con la participación de pequeños productores y promover los huertos urbanos y la agricultura de patio. 2) Rescatar los conocimientos locales; generar sistemas de información para productores y consumidores que permitan valorizar la producción (precio, canales de comercialización, valor nutritivo de los alimentos, formas de producción). En los sistemas de información deberán participar diferentes niveles de gobierno y actores, para que sean dinámicos y accesibles. Asimismo, trabajar hacia la construcción de sistemas de comercio justo (precio justo). 3) Promocionar la Producción Agroecológica diversificada para el consumo; establecer una ruta crítica para la transición hacia sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y se genere información para la concientización de los productores y los consumidores. Así como, ajustar la normativa nacional y regional para el fomento a la producción ecológica. 4) Los jóvenes están migrando del campo a la ciudad, se precisa generar diferentes acciones para incentivar que se queden. Hay que tener una visión de paisaje, es decir de respeto al uso y capacidad de producción de las tierras, redistribuir la tierra en función a los sistemas de producción sustentables y generar un programa para el acceso efectivo a las tierras para las mujeres. 5) Se sugiere que la cooperación internacional pueda apoyar en la generación de información, en la generación de capacidades internas y en el financiamiento de la agenda nacional y las agendas locales.236242243244245246248249Vía de Acción Nº5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. 1) Seguir impulsando la construcción de caminos y carreteras para el transporte de alimentos, así como brindar capacitación empresarial y promocionar los productos de pequeñas y microempresas, hacer llegar de manera directa lo que se produce el productor al consumidor, con precios justos. 2) Las entidades estatales deben atender las demandas de los productores según sus necesidades, deben atender a todas las regiones y conocer sus necesidades. Así como hacer posible el establecimiento de mecanismos simples para acceder a préstamos financieros. 3) Es importante que se faciliten permisos para mejorar el tránsito de los productores. 4) Se promueve la creación de plataformas en las que los agricultores puedan acceder gratuitamente a información que advierta sobre plagas, riesgos, informe sobre el control de enfermedades, de modo que se pueda actuar oportunamente. 5) Se sugiere la creación de sistemas de información en cada región, desarrollar la cultura del uso de la información en la agricultura familiar, fomentar los sistemas de transferencia de tecnología y poner a disposición de los pueblos rurales herramientas tecnológicas.237238240242243244246247Los diálogos se desarrollaron en un ambiente de respeto y de diversidad de opiniones, los representantes asistentes asumieron visiones amplias y destacaron puntos en común para lograr consensos. Las conclusiones se adoptaron por consenso. Únicamente, se observaron diferencias de posición en torno al rol de las transnacionales, algunas personas dijeron que se debe coordinar con ellas, otras proteger a los productores de estas.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Submission-Bolivia-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-ES-2.pdfhttps://cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4366http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/ru/c/1411494/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/528731911586719/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/774166629938430/

2021-06-23 21:09:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19523/194

35001212902015215632015

This dialogue was organized as a balance between inclusivity of multiple stakeholders, and the commitment to generating forward-looking solutions for the specific issues facing an otherwise complex food system. To that end, we focused primarily on the issues facing Black farmers. Our dialogue included farmers spanning generational groups; urban and rural; male and female; and small-to-medium sized farmers. This focus in the dialogue allowed us to pay respect to the diversity of issues these groups face and allowed our dialogue to adequately provide space for their voices to be heard. Moreover, our goal was to foster trust within the dialogue participants that this space was safe for voicing concerns: for example, while including government officials or political representatives may have increased the multiplicity of stakeholders, this would have likely come at the cost of building trust among all participants to create a single safe space for dialogue. Thus , we believe that our approach of focusing on a particular--but still diverse in itself--subset of individuals was the ideal way to incorporate, reinforce, and enhance the principles for this dialogue.The content of our dialogue reflected specific aspects of respect, trust, and inclusivity. In particular, a large amount of discussion went into "enhancing resilient livelihoods and communities", particularly with respect to pay and equitable market access for small- and medium-sized farmers (Ref Manual, p.7). Additional discussion surrounded accountability for political commitments to agriculture in the United States (for example, evaluation of USDA training programs ) and addressing systemic inequalities that impede successful policy solutions. From leadership and facilitators , our dialogue prioritized building trust--that is, creating a safe space to "promote trust and encourage mutual respect"--and building a culture of respect, focusing only on a few key questions and allowing participants to dialogue with one another organically. This allowed for a space "open to the coexistence of divergent points of view", and provided participants the space to fully articulate their views.Make sure to encourage diverse viewpoints . Build trust so that every participant feels comfortable expressing views in his or her own voice, reinforcing the principle that the dialogue is inclusive and not designed to achieve a prescribed consensus.

Yes

234241245246247249251Our dialogue focused on three primary areas: (1) Addressing racial discrimination against black farmers (2) Best practices that farmers currently use to address food access, food justice, or food sovereignty. (3) Resources needed to be in place to advance equitable livelihood. Our purpose with these questions were primarily information gathering and synthesis. Organizers of the dialogue put together these questions in an effort to allow participants to prioritize their answers organically. In the three breakout rooms, facilitators asked this question to the participants, allowing them to provide answers and to dialogue back and forth (where applicable) on each topic.235241245246247249251With reference to BLACK farmers in the Southeastern United States, there are two evident conclusions that can be drawn with respect to sustainable food systems over the next decade and beyond. First, the very foundations of the food system--namely, the Black farmers who grow food--are at high-risk of failure. This is due, in great part, to historic structural inequities since the 250+ years of enslavement of People of Africa and the legacy of Jim Crow and racism upon their descendants including today. At the peak, Black farmers used to own 16-19 million acres (roughly 6.5 million hectares), now Black farmers own 3.6 million acres (roughly 1.5 million hectaces)--less than 1% of the farmland in the US. Especially among Black farmers, the majority of this population, on average, is aging. . Although there is evidence of younger generations expressing new interest, this needs nurturing and investment. At the same time, The intergenerational incentives for younger farmers to maintain the system seemed to be of great concern to all of our participants--particularly those who ran smaller farms. Though a variety of reasons were provided for this concern, one theme rose up above the rest: the up-front costs of breaking into farming are high for beginners, and the current crop of farmers are not being compensated enough to motivate the youth to pursue farming in the first place. Participants emphasized the low compensation as driving the youth away from farming, and they pointed to lack of start-up resources as driving away even youth who may already be somewhat interested. This is a key failure point in the food system and cannot be dismissed or overlooked as a mere gripe over wages. Without incentivizing younger people to choose farming over other, perhaps more lucrative industrial or white-collar career paths, the entire human foundation of the food system would be at risk of collapsing. This cannot be understated, and as a matter of policy, investing in the individual benefits accrued from farming--such as the awarding of government grants or funds--should be an immediate priority to preserve the future of sustainable food systems. A second theme arose around the question of equitable access. More specifically, this included access to economic markets as well as the need for streamlining the connection between the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and individual farmers. Farmers spoke extensively about the barriers to qualification that exist in order to compete for lucrative contracts. For example, the certifications and qualification standards often change rapidly, and without a robust infrastructure to connect regulatory bodies with individual farmers, these individual farmers cannot keep up with rapidly changing requirements. Additionally, the language and jargon involved with the complex legal bureaucracy is often inaccessible to smaller farmers: simply put, the increased bureaucratization of agriculture in the United States has weakened the links in the food system between political systems and the individual farmers. This, again, creates a highly concerning failure point within the food system: namely, the risk of alienating (and the potential to entirely lose) small farmers from the overall food system. Without building the requisite infrastructure to connect bureaucracy to individual farmers--including the simplification of language and streamlining the communication of updated regulations--small and mid-sized farmers are at risk of being left behind in the current food environment.236241245246247249251First, we examined the question of addressing racial discrimination. Participants identified multiple points of concern with respect to alleviating this discrimination. This included access to capital: for example, venture capital to expand farms, or government capital and investment to establish markets. It is noteworthy here to pause and briefly emphasize that this was, again, not merely a complaint about desiring more wealth. Farming is uniquely multi-generational in terms of both ownership and geographic location: as such, past inequities and injustices in a given location and upon a given farm are inextricably linked to modern-day outcomes as previously stated. Inequitable access to capital in the past has left many Black farmers behind in terms of their success, to the point where their capacity to farm has not kept pace with overall societal trends. For example, participants commented on the increasing price of land, and the increasing acreage necessary to sustain a family farm: given that these communities have been systemically disadvantaged, the pace of their own economic development has not kept up with the pace of inflation in terms of prices or competitiveness. This results in a food system which, over time, will systematically exclude Black farmers from starting, maintaining, and/or expanding their farms. In this vein, a concerted and substantial transfer of capital--for instance, (recommendation 1) establishing a separate fund for Black farmers, run by Black farmers--seems to be a key solution for redressing their exclusion from the food systems. They also pointed to access to government resources. For example, Black farmers are often either rejected or dismissed at USDA offices, with some participants describing a "good ole boy" culture within these offices, where officers do not devote sufficient time and energy to communicate key information to these farmers. (Recommendation 2) Here, an affirmative attempt to institutionally include Black farmers (or allies) in government offices, especially in tandem with expanding government infrastructure into marginalized areas, may help begin to redress these cultural issues. This moves into the second discussion topic of resources. Here, we saw two primary themes. First, building off the previous section, participants emphasized the lack of infrastructure for accessing government resources. For example, the issue of storage units was raised multiple times: without equitable access to approved storage units and transportation mechanisms, these same farmers will not have enough access to meet stringent regulatory requirements, and thus will be systematically excluded from selling to certain markets. In other words, without the requisite infrastructure (both in terms of access and competitive pricing for using it), there is a direct line to systemic exclusion to markets--causing an unsustainable cycle for these farmers with the eventual risk of excluding them from markets entirely. Small family farms must have continued, strong access to infrastructure so as to keep the barriers to entry attainable for new generations of farmers to access, build, and enrich new links to the existing food system. (Recommendation 3) Black owned and operated related resource arm that provides loans, capital, etc., advocacy etc. that is a user-friendly gateway to correct previous mistreatment, access, etc.? Relatedly, participants discussed difficulties in accessing markets. Again, this had to do with both capital resources (for example, advanced transportation methods) and also systemic discrimination from markets. Some of these discriminatory practices are more subtle than others: for example, in the United States especially, the aesthetic demands of crops can favor larger-scale farmers who use industrial-scale methods to selectively breed marketable crops. This causes smaller family farms to be excluded from the market, and again can lead to destructive cycles of eroding the connection between food systems and small- to mid-sized farmers.237241245246247249251There were two areas of divergence among the participants of this dialogue. In both cases, the disagreement related to methods of expansion and sustainable farming. In the first case, there was a surprisingly lengthy discussion about whether or not access to export markets would be a viable strategy for sustainably growing a small farm. This has implications for developing future resources and infrastructure in the name of streamlining the experience for small farmers. For example, one participant raised the experience of facing difficulties navigating the regulations of importing and exporting his products; much like domestic regulations on crops, this points to the need for building deeper community roots for government regulatory agencies, where farmers can turn to for advisement. Another participant pointed out that given how competitive the developed-country market can be (such as the United States), small farmers may find their best opportunities by exporting to other countries. However, this assertion was countered by the equally valid concern that this strategy underestimates the massive capital requirements for exporting. Not only does it require accessing massive infrastructures that small farmers would not already have access to (placing an undue burden on them with respect to expansion), but it also downplays both the capital and the volume required to mitigate the risks associated with exporting to developing markets. For example, exporting to developing markets can bring with it failures to pay; this could be catastrophic for smaller farmers whose margins are already thin, and who already do not have sufficient access to resources to weather that loss of crop. Moreover, the amount of crop necessary to actually make exporting profitable--given the intricacies of transporting goods at scale--may be difficult or entirely unachievable to render exporting an insufficient strategy for smaller farmers. Overall, this discussion provided useful and important context to the discussion of where to prioritize educational and infrastructural resources for small to medium sized Black farmers. Relatedly, a second area of divergence came from whether or not achieving "large farm" status is, itself, a sustainable strategy for national or global food systems. This speaks to global issues of climate and resource sustainability: if the only path to success in agriculture is achieving large-farm status, then by definition all small to medium sized farms will scale themselves towards these industrial-scale strategies. These strategies may not be sustainable for the future, given the climate and resource implications of industrial-scale agriculture. Thus, there is a systemic question of whether the aspirations of farmer success should be restricted to the modern large-scale agriculture practices. This has major implications for how countries allocate resources to small, medium, and large farms: if this aspiration is in fact unsustainable (which many of our participants argued it was), it becomes the responsibility of governments to transfer substantial monetary and capital resources to small- and mid-sized farms, such that these farms can achieve large-farm levels of monetary success without the unsustainable practices that come with it. This area of discussion seems to have the most global implication, though it remains a difficult one to define more concretely. This discussion was furthered with the concern that local and state markets discriminate against Black Farmers and contractual relationships with schools etc. are not favored with Black Farmers. There was concern that small-scale farm should also include community farms (gardens) and therefore redefining and clarifying eligibility requirements for governmental and private support.

2021-06-24 08:17:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12109/170

33480121112281952

A decision was made to convene the dialogue in May. Recognizing time limitations, a core team was immediately established to plan the event and outreach was made to key persons from government agencies and the private sector to help facilitate the process and get buy-in. Given COVID-19, and other restrictions, it was decided to host the event online. Communication was kept with the UNFSS contact to seek guidelines/clarifications on issues not readily available/clear on the UNFSS siteHow did you reflect specific aspects of the principles?  Act with urgency: Once there was agreement to convene the dialogue, actions were taken promptly.  Commit to the Summit: There were many challenges in planning and executing the dialogue. Apart from the COVID-related issues, load shedding (electricity cuts) is a real issue in South Africa, which posed concerns about efficiencies in preparatory meetings and execution of the dialogue. Nevertheless, commitment to the summit, ensured that we persisted. Additionally, the agenda was tailored to align with the objectives of the Summit.  Be respectful: All actions for the dialogue were undertaken in an environment of respect, collegiality, and open communication. During the dialogue, participants’ input and feedback were encouraged and there were no discord/confrontational responses throughout the sessions.  Recognize complexity: Attempts were made to ensure that multiple stakeholder representatives participated. Given above-mentioned limitations, there had to be selectivity re topics of focus and related stakeholders invited to present. Nevertheless, the decision to support and informal network related to the theme of the dialogue was to ensure that discussions continue beyond the dialogue to better address complexities.  Embrace multistakeholder inclusivity: See point above  Complement the work of others. The presenters were selected because of alignment of their activities and the focus of the dialogue. The South Africa Agritourism Organization was invited to present on their work but did not participate.  Build trust. This process began in planning and executing the dialogue and is expected to continue during activities beyond the Summit, including via the above-mentioned networkThe principles are practical advice and contribute to successful outcomes

Yes

234238239240241243244245248249251Major topics of focus? The themes of the dialogue related most to Action Track 2, although there are also strong linkages with Action Tracks 1,3 and 4. The overall goal of the Dialogue was to present a market-based approach to addressing broken food systems. In this case, the focus is on market opportunities in the agritourism sub-sector The objectives of the dialogue were to:  Increase awareness and generate discussion among stakeholders on key market opportunities in the agritourism sub-sector to support all dimensions of food systems sustainability including food security & nutrition, sustainable job creation, and environmental conservation.  Identify key policy and program interventions to support maximizing agritourism market opportunities for transforming South Africa’s food system.  Generate interest in establishing an informal Agritourism food systems network for continued dialogue and action beyond the Summit. The theme of the dialogue was premised on the position that agritourism markets can provide strong incentives for transforming food systems. Functioning markets in which buyers and sellers exchange goods and services acts as a central organizing principle of successful economies. They can stimulate competition, place pressure on producers to improve products and services, and in turn offer better value for consumers . The topics were categorised around 4 areas 1. Case studies – the objectives were to increase awareness on (i) various business approaches to the agritourism-sustainable food system agenda; (ii) good practices; (iii) benefits; and (iv) challenges 2. The culinary industry – the objectives was to explore the role of chefs in facilitating productive linkages between agritourism activities and the food system agenda, with particular emphasis on how facilitating farmers’ inclusion in agritourism and food value chains 3. Challenges/Needs – the objective was to explore binding constraints to South African stakeholders to maximize agritourism market opportunities and learn what institutions are doing to help address them 4. Solution Brainstorming – the objective was to outline, within 4 working groups, agritourism market solutions to support the sustainable food system agenda235238239240241243244245248249251Main Findings? 1. Case studies – All three case studies - !Khwa ttu (https://www.khwattu.org); Setšong African Tea Crafters (https://setsongtea.com), and V&A Waterfront (http://waterfrontfoodmarket.com) highlighted their operations’ positive impact on the agritourism agenda through many of the following dimensions, among others: a. Creating new, unique, nutritious, and tasty food and beverage products using indigenous and local produce, which market data show are of high interest by tourists (domestic & international) b. Displacing food and beverage products, traditionally supplied by large multinationals, with healthy options using local ingredients and services c. Using indigenous ingredients, other cultural assets, and environmental resources to create services that raise awareness of the country’s heritage while promoting the value of healthy eating/lifestyle and environmental conservation d. Facilitating market access to smallholder farmers e. Reducing food supply chains f. Creating related off-farm jobs, particularly for women and the youth 2. Chefs – They play several important roles, including as: a. Food activists to help raise awareness on food sovereignty, biodiversity, healthy diets, and food waste management b. Facilitators of value chain inclusivity. For example, they source directly from small-scale farmers. They also work with them to educate on ingredients that are in high demand and how to use competitive marketing tools c. Creators of nutritious, tasty foods using local ingredients to respond to consumer trends 3. Challenges/Needs – There was agreement that education, innovation, access to land and finance, marketing, infrastructure, and stakeholder coordination are priority issues. Available institutional support was also identified (see dialogue report) 4. Solution Brainstorming -See section "Outcome for each Discussion Topic"236238239240241243244245248249251The aim of the working group discussions (solution brainstorming) was intended to identify some concrete business proposals to respond to the market opportunities and address related challenges highlighted in the other focus areas. These discussions resulted in  A proposal: Indigenous 2.0 – The Next Generation Project.(Found in the Dialogue Report attached)  A supporting Position Paper (Policy Brief) (Found in the Dialogue Report attached. Also attached as a separate document)237238239240241244251Areas of divergence?  Some participants felt more emphasis should be placed on urban farming. While this is an important focus, the emphasis on rural areas is important for at least two key reasons: (i) incidence of poverty and malnutrition predominate in rural areas; (ii) strengthening rural economies offer opportunities for stemming the migration from rural to urban spaces. Population increase in urban cities is expected to explode within the upcoming decades. This scenario – without appropriate structural economic transformation - lends itself to compounded development challenges. Additionally, while the emphasis is on rural spaces, the proposed activities and expected impact do not preclude urban farming.  Some participants felt that there should be a lowering of standards regulating food products/agricultural produce, particularly for those operating in the informal economy. Acknowledging challenges faced by small-scale producers with standards compliance, emphasis should be placed on facilitating these stakeholders to comply. The impact of lowering of standards on South African agribusinesses to competitively engage in regional, global value chains and to assure consumers of food safety (particularly after COVID-19) needs to be carefully considered  Activities proposed as business solutions by some of the participants focused on promoting plant-based diets, while others emphasized meat consumption. It was agreed that it is important to focus on sustainable livestock rearing and agricultural practices, education and awareness on food nutrition and benefits, and to allow consumers free choice.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Independent-Dialogue_SMMARY-REPORT_June24_2021-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Position-Paper-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Food-Systems-Summit_Independent-Dialogue_SA_AgTourism-Markets_June-8-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/List-of-Participants.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VACvW0XKqnQhttps://agriluxemarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/List-of-Bios_Independent-Dialogue-2.pdfhttps://agriluxemarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Independent-Dialogue_Opening_JS3-1.pdf

2021-06-24 12:35:44205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24610/160

81036511206912121145335211223103324761271023111117

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia National Dialogue was organized by the Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA) by respecting all the Principles of Engagement framed to guide UN Food Systems Summit. In this dialogue, 79 participants representing governments, science, academia, international organizations (FAO and IFAD), national and multinational corporate sector, farmers (small/medium/large), United Nations, and financial services were invited onsite and online to participate in a meaningful discussion that aimed at making the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Food System more sustainable and resilient. The high-level opening session emphasized on the urgency, key features of the Kingdom Food System, and their inclusive engagement with multi-stakeholders. The key challenges and future directions were discussed during the four thematic parallel break-out sessions to pave the way to reduce the complexity and transform the local food system under evidence-based decision-making for implementation.The National Dialogue for Sustainable Food Systems in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia embraces multi-stakeholder inclusivity across the Saudi food systems, ranging from food produces (farmers), government, industry, academia, agricultural organizations, financial sector, corporate sector, civil society, and research centers. This national dialogue provides an opportunity for the participants to broaden their knowledge and to get updated about the status of various national programs, initiatives and government’s urgency to overcome the pressing challenges, and contribute to the achievement of 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. In this dialogue, each participant was invited to express their opinion during the discussion session. Small group discussions during the break-out parallel sessions emphasized on the need for trust-building, respect, and share innovative new thinking and approaches to tackle the complexity of food systems.The national dialogue should be in national (local) language to fully engage all the stakeholders so that all the stakeholders could interact easily and share their fair opinion and find the local solution to address global challenges.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251MAJOR FOCUS The MEWA-led national dialogue focuses on bringing together a wide range of perspectives from the stakeholders ranging from science, industry, policy to the community involved directly and indirectly in the food systems to facilitate the dynamic exchange of knowledge and address interlinkages in the food system. The dialogue agenda comprised of Opening remarks, followed by one seventy-five minutes first session about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Food Systems. The second session was organized in parallel break-out sessions with small groups with different composition of participants under the following four themes covering all the five action tracks of the Summit. Theme I: Sustainable agricultural rural development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (10 min presentation + 65 min discussion) Theme II: Role of innovation and technology in the National Food Systems of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (10 min presentation + 65 min discussion) Theme III: Saudi Efforts Fighting against Food Loss and Waste (10 min presentation + 65 min discussion) Theme IV: Empowering women and youth engagement in the Agri-food Systems (10 min presentation + 65 min discussion) In order to motivate discussions during break-out sessions, participants were encouraged to provide their opinion to overcome the challenges highlighted during the first session in order to develop sustainable, and resilient national food systems. After breakout sessions, participants were reunited to listen each session moderator outcomes for discussion in the presence of all the stake-holders that ultimately led to final concluding remarks.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251- Scientific research, modern technologies and cutting-edge innovations attain huge potential to transform the agriculture sector by introducing new farming concepts such as vertical farming, digital agriculture, circular agriculture, seawater farming aquaponics etc., to achieve sustainable agriculture development in drylands. There is a need to scale up and reflect in the policy instrument. - The FLW is a serious global issue that demands novel practices and innovative approaches. We should actively play our role in fostering and supporting initiatives contributing to the global reduction of FLW as well as the enhancement of food security. There is a dire need to set FLW intermediary targets for each country or region based on value chain specificities. Furthermore, enhance cooperation to develop mechanisms in order to promote coordination between value chain players responsible for interrelated food issues, such as marketing, storage, handling, pro-cessing, quality, and safety must be encouraged at all levels. - It is of utmost importance to invest in the capacity/capability of the local farmers and infrastructure. Such responsible investments in agriculture are of great potential in meeting the increasing demand for food and rural development. - It is the need of the hour to benchmark current farming systems through water use efficiency of crop income/mm of rainfall over the cropping sequence in order to devise a realistic system approach to achieve sustainable agricultural development in drylands. - Bridging the gap between science and policy through collaboration is very much crucial to develop efficient, affordable, and cost-effective solutions/technologies for impactful agricultural transformation. - A better understanding of the interdependence of Water, Energy and Food (WEF Nexus) is critical for developing policies and innovation that enable a sustainable food system at a global scale, enable resource use efficiency, protect biodiversity and ecosystem services, improve livelihood, empower people, ensure food security and nutrition and optimize sustainable economic benefits. In this regard, there is an urgent need to shift the idea of WEF Nexus from THINKING to ACTING through muti-disciplinary collaboration and close cooperation between companies, knowledge institutes, and government sector.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Food Systems Food Systems of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is tightly connected with global food systems. However, biotic and abiotic stresses along with dryland conditions under the implications of climate change adding complexityto our local food production systems. Therefore, KSA food systems are passing through a transition by following a pathway of holistic systems-based approach and coordinated actions to incorporate scientific and technological innovations and best practices into our policy-making. In this session, several dimensions related to the national food production systems and food security strategy and safety were discussed under the presence of multi-stakeholders inclusivity across the Saudi food systems. The most important findings contributing to the entire food supply chain in this session are as follows: 1. Local Food Production: - Encourage Research & Development for interdisciplinary collaboration to transform agriculture in drylands, which are supporting different types of food production systems. - Adaptation choices and risk management actions across temporal and spatial scales and contexts will need to build on robust methods of designing, implementing, and evaluating detailed development pathways. Such pathways, yet to be fully elucidated, must strengthen climate-resilience and limit trade-offs between different actors. - Controlled environment agriculture is the inherent need due to the agro-climatic conditions, and natural resource scarcity. The in-depth research is needed on various aspects to preserve the environment and natural resources enhanced productivity, and sustainably develop them to grow strategic food crops. - Providing real-time ongoing extension support services to farmers for decision making on individual entities by carefully blending local knowledge with modern science and technology that account for all dimensions of sustainability including environmental, social, and economic. - Advocating Nature-based solutions to protect ecosystems and biodiversity services for sustainable food system at national and global scale. - Prioritizing Science-based solutions to enhance resource use efficiency, empower people, and improve livelihood. - Invest in basic research and its translation into food security outcomes via Government/Private Sector Partnerships as an important component for long-term strategic planning to increase domestic production and foster food self-sufficiency. - Transboundary pests and diseases are serious threats to food production systems at all levels. The economic damages caused by them are worsening year by year. It is the right time to accelerate global efforts to scale up international response against transboundary plant pests and diseases to secure sustainable food production by avoiding agriculture losses due to Transboundary and Emerging Plant Pests and Diseases. - Encouraging the compliance of Saudi Good Agricultural Practices (SAUDI G.A.P.) standards to increase consumers' confidence in food safety and traceability. - Climate-smart practices are important to reduce the meteorological disasters loss by enhancing crop productivity, stabilizing yield, and ensuring global food security and nutrition. 2. Food Supply Chain - Due to high food import bill, it is the need of the hour to introduce fully integrated international and domestic food and agriculture monitoring system to ensure the provision of food to all parts of the Kingdom, efficiently and effectively, together with an early warning system for low levels. - Diversification of investment in importing food items bearing in mind the Virtual Water Trade and food value chain efficiency - Infrastructure development related to the agricultural sector and supporting sectors such as ports, railways, and roads at the level of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to ensure efficient and smooth flow of goods between them. - Preparing clear standards and controls for value-added chains, agricultural marketing mechanisms and services, and ensuring that they meet the requirements of the beneficiaries. 3. Consumption - Campaigns on social media platforms are very important to raise society'236240241242243244245246247249251Sustainable agricultural rural development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia The Sustainable Agricultural Rural Development Program (2018-2025) was mainly launched to target eight sectors including 1) Smallholdings and traditional agriculture; 2) Production, processing, and marketing of Arabic coffee; 3) Beekeeping and honey production; 4) Rose cultivation and marketing; 5) fruit production and marketing; 6) Small-scale fisheries and fish farming; 7) Smallholder livestock production; 8) Rain-fed crops. The mission of the program is to achieve sustainable agricultural rural development in all regions of the Kingdom by strengthening the capacities of small-scale agricultural producers and their cooperatives and rural institutions to enable them to have access to productive resources, agricultural services and markets. The most important findings of this session are as follows: - Support and encourage the contribution of productive families and small enterprises in the agricultural sector. - Providing technical and logistical support to small farmers to grow promising crops such as coffee, roses and tropical fruits, etc., is very important. - Electronic extension services are critically important for capacity building and evidence-based decision-making about farming. - It is important to engage International Organization working on rural development for maximum returns. - The program will ensure sustained access to healthy food, while increasing women’s participation in the labour market as envisioned in Vision 2030. - Organic farming is providing exciting opportunities for rural development by increasing employment, reconnecting consumers with producers, and ecosystem services. - Rural development is crucial to fight poverty and improve the income level of family farming (FF). It is important to strengthen efforts to support small-family farming by improving their access to education, technology, and market, as rural development is directly linked with global food security. There is a need to empower youth and women because of their catalytic role in rural development. - R&D should be encouraged and incentivized to identify and deploy high-impact solutions across the value chain. The private sector can also play a key role in identifying commercially viable solutions for family farming. This includes the promotion of affordable technologies and the implementation of integrated innovative practices tailored to the needs of small-scale family farms and producers.236238240242243244246248249251Role of innovation and technology in the National Food Systems of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Modern agricultural practices and cutting-edge agri-tech innovations have enhanced the potential for partnering with farmers to promote sustainable agriculture development. Investment in agricultural technologies to increase crop and animal production is one of the most promising pathways for achieving sustainable agri-food systems and food security. Therefore, it is the right time to focus on the transition in agriculture by investing and adopting on all the available innovative technologies by keeping in mind megatrends and especially focusing our younger generations and women participation to fulfill the needs of future farmers to develop farm technologists instead of farmers. The most important findings of this session are as follows: - Research and innovation, policy intervention and educational measures are essential for meeting the five pillars 5P of the SDGs that are people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership - Research should focus on targeted areas focusing on technology and content-specific research. The main focus of research to invent, advance, and further develop local farming techniques. - Allocating funds to Research and Development to government bodies and private sector to answer various implementation questions to co-create tailor-made approaches, adapted to the local needs of farmers, rural communities, value chains, and consumers. - The use of ICT technology can help to improve water management, for example, remote sensing technology, to monitor and diagnose the water and nutrient status of crops, and artificial intelligence models. Such technology is very important in determining the water and fertilizer demand of the crop, so as to supply water and nutrients for crops at the appropriate stage, and reduce the luxury consumption of water, and fertilizer and protect the soil and water in the environment. - Seawater farming and saline agriculture is an exciting opportunity to unleash the potential of these resources for sustainable agriculture development - The concept of modern farming (Vertical farming, Hydroponic, Aquaponic) should be given priority to research, development and efficient use, and in this regard much research should be done on various aspects to start the cultivation of basic and strategic crops in such farming systems. - Vertical Farming is a specialized form of growing target crops, however, it is very important to optimize Vertical Farming to local climate and to the local situation from the design of the farm to the harvest of the produce. - There should be more discussion related to use of food produced through modern technologies, for example, culture meat, and these technologies can be considered a future priority areas of research. - Water, energy, and food security are key pillars for sustainable food production, human well-being, and rural poverty reduction. A better understanding of the interdependence of Water, Energy and Food (WEF Nexus) is critical for developing policies and innovation that enable a sustainable food system at a global scale, enable resource use efficiency, protect biodiversity and ecosystem services, improve livelihood, empower people, ensure food security and nutrition, and optimize sustainable economic benefits.236238239243244245246247248249Saudi Efforts Fighting against Food Loss and Waste Food Loss and Waste is a global problem of enormous economic, environmental, and societal significance contributes to a considerable portion of the global food supply. Its ramifications are part of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), both directly and indirectly. In order to tackle food sustainability challenges, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has launched several initiatives to ensure sustainability in our food system and preserving natural resources. In this regard, Saudi Grains Organization (SAGO) under the umbrella of MEWA launched a national program to reduce Food Loss and Waste based on the evidence of the magnitude of FLW. The first edition of this initiative revealed that overall 33.1 % of the total available food in the Kingdom is lost and wasted during the entire food supply chain that translates into 4.07 million tons of food per year. In this regard, establishing the intermediate targets to achieving SDG commitment 12.3 taking into account each country’s specific circumstances will be the way forward to tackle FLW. The most important findings of this session are as follows: - There is a need to quantify FLW by individual drivers across the supply chain - It is important to develop or amend legislative instruments to support the reduction of FLW and setting clear targets in line with SDG 12.3, a roadmap to achieve the desired objectives - The concept of Circular Economy, which mainly aimed to maximize resource efficiency, and reduce the environmental impacts by waste management hierarchy is pertinent in this context to recover nutrients and energy from wastes. - The regional and global efforts and awareness events with respect to sharing knowledge, best practices and experiences on FLW prevention activities along the entire food supply chain will help to tackle this growing issue at the country, regional, and global level. - FLW awareness campaigns were launched on responsible consumption patterns, it is important to maintain continuity. - Organizing events targeting young people to innovate and develop solutions to reduce food loss and waste. - The promotion of Food banks concept could help to rescue massive volumes of wasted food as an important element of food waste management strategy. - FLW is creating opportunities and attractive avenues for science and technology to provide tailored made innovative solutions to curb FLW.236241242243244245246247248249251Empowering women and youth engagement in the Agri-food Systems In this session, the most important challenges facing the food systems in the Kingdom were discussed (from the point of view of women and youth), and the reasons for the reluctance of young people and women from agriculture, which were represented in many aspects, including problems related to manpower, unfair competition, training and efficiency, and others. The most important findings of this session are as follows: - Empowering women and youth and enhancing their role in participating in the food and agricultural supply chain in the Kingdom. - It is very important to engage youth and women for the development of future sustainable and resilient food production systems. - Raising awareness and developing capabilities, by conducting training programs for women and fresh graduates through an integrated and flexible methodology. - Providing financial support to women and youth through the Agricultural Development Fund through long-term soft loans, to encourage investment in the food supply chain. - Support and enable agricultural associations with youth and women participation in the technical and marketing fields to develop mechanisms for marketing operations locally and abroad. - Capacity development of the rural youth through vocational training and extension for services to enhance employment outcomes and secure global food security

2021-06-24 12:36:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17025/203

01566557845722432144151004642941281434

The Dialogue was organized after reading the principles of engagement and they were taken into account to guarantee respect for all these principles. However, the basis of the UNDFF includes the SFS principles. The topics and the methodology were thought to reach concrete action to act with urgency. The participants came from different sectors and from different constituencies from local farmers' organizations, CSO, governmental institutions, UN organizations, and academia. All participants recognize the complexity but the strength of multistakeholder’s dialogue is complementary to their ideas.Act with Urgency: The dialogue with the working group brings concrete actions to implement actions. Commit to the Summit: The dialogue on the UNDFF invited partners who participate in Action Tracks and are involved in the FSS Be Respectful: The dialogue ensured the respect of ideas and opinions on a common basis to sustainable and inclusive food systems. Recognize Complexity: The UNDFF gathers the complexity of food systems with solutions to transform food systems into sustainable, resilient, inclusive, and viable food systems. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The UNDFF is an ongoing process of multistakeholder working together for a common cause. Complement the work of others: In order to complement the work of others and build trust to achieve the objective, one solution presented in the Dialogue is the National Committee of Family Farming, which is a platform in which each actor brings its expertise.-

Yes

234238239240241242244246249251The UNDFF has recognized the key role of family farmers towards ensuring global and local food security, strengthening sustainable food systems, eradicating poverty, protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development. The global independent dialogue explored the different (game-changing) opportunities created by the UNDFF to enable family farmers to contribute to, and benefit from, sustainable, inclusive, viable and resilient food systems. The event brought together different stakeholders in order to explore debate and shape pathways to sustainable food systems centered on family farming. The dialogue took a participatory approach combining two panels of keynote speakers, discussions in plenaries and in working groups, in order to ensure knowledge sharing between the different participants. Simultaneous English, French and Spanish interpretation was provided to ensure effective participation of all participants from different countries.235238239240241242243244246249251During the Independent Dialogue, the importance of highlighting NCFFs’ experiences of exploring farmers' needs and placing them on the political agenda was clearly shown. The NCFFs are diverse and their richness and specificity should be preserved. They should participate in the debate on food systems as key actors. The UNDFF proposes a set of coherent, inter-connected policies and actions to address the environmental, economic and social dimensions of rural development and provide a bridge between emergency relief, recovery, and development contexts while placing family farmers at the center. Furthermore, the NCFFs are involved in the process of drafting and implementing the National Action Plans of the UNDFF (NAP), which are coordinated plans to outline tangible measures and specific actions with regard to family farming, especially in terms of public policies, programs and regulations, and which act as a roadmap for countries and regions in their efforts to support the sustainable development of family farming. In other words, the NAPs transform the needs and priorities identified by various stakeholders into measures, policies and processes in favour of family farming, considering the programs and mechanisms already in place and trying to align and coordinate efforts in order to overcome the challenges of the current food systems. By stimulating the development of public policies and investment to support family farming from a holistic perspective, the UNDFF is, indeed, a key game-changing solution for local food systems. The implementation of the UNDFF 2019-2028 will unleash the unique potential of family farming in shifting towards more sustainable, inclusive and resilient food systems and addressing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).236238239240241242246249251Family Farming at the center of sustainable food systems Enabling and supporting family farmers can increase the availability of nutritious, sustainably produced and culturally appropriate food. Viable family farming-centered food systems can offer new economic and attractive employment opportunities, social inclusion and equity, while at the same time increasing rural-urban linkages and synergies through short food supply chains, which can offer promising solutions towards reducing food loss and waste. Apart from producing food and crops, family farmers develop multiple and crucial roles within their communities. Among others, they ensure the sustainable livelihood of territories and they preserve the environment, reinforcing the efficient and sustainable use and management of natural resources, the conservation of biodiversity, as well as the prevention of soil depletion, water pollution and environmental degradation. It is essential to recognize and enhance the role of young and women farmers. Agro-ecological practices were highlighted as a contribution to the resilience of family farming. The inclusiveness of the food system should take into consideration a human rights approach, including appropriate access to land and water and access to appropriate technology. There is a need to strengthen the awareness of the key role that family farmers play in overcoming poverty and malnutrition, in environmental protection, as a source of employment, and their enormous contribution to sustainable food systems. Fostering the direct link between producers and consumers was highlighted as fundamental to guarantee the demand for quality and local products is aligned with family farming production. However, this enormous potential should be stimulated, with holistic and appropriate public policies. Among the different measures that were underlined during the dialogue were: access to rural credit, access and control over land and natural resources, technical assistance, appropriate technologies, digital marketing, and transformation processes. To design these policies, quality statistical data is needed which clearly measures the different contributions of family farmers. The promotion of family farmers’ articulation and association with other actors was also highlighted during the meeting.236238239240241242246249251Multistakeholders’ processes to contribute to sustainable and resilient food systems. The UNDFF is an on-going process, characterized by the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders - including governments (both national and local), parliamentarians, specialized agencies and other relevant bodies of the United Nations, international financial institutions and other international mechanisms, farmers and producer organizations, academic and research institutes, civil society organizations and the private sector – in the design of specific measures to enhance family farming. It makes a very clear connection of the global, regional, national and local levels, from the Global UN Declaration –that places the issue among the top priorities in the international agenda-, to the local level -promoting concrete and contextualized actions, legal and institutional frameworks to address the different challenges and promoting the effective participation of organizations and local governments at the municipal level. It also contributes to ensuring the rights and the creation of opportunities for women farmers and rural succession for young farmers, who will indeed be responsible for food production and the sustainable management of natural resources in the future. The collaboration between the different family farmers’ organizations, the UN agencies, FAO, FAO, governments, cooperation agencies, and other relevant stakeholders is of huge value in the UNDFF process and needs to be reinforced. In this sense, the role of the National Committees of Family Farming (NCFF) and other platforms for dialogue was highlighted and recognized. The NCFFs provide broad and inclusive platforms to the different stakeholders in the country for interaction, reflection, debate and negotiation on the current state of the agricultural sector, the strategies, programs and plans to unleash family farmers’ potential, while, at the same time, contributing to the strengthening of the role of civil society, and especially of farmers´ organizations, in the policy decision making process.236238239240241242246249251Setting the scene: The catalytic role of the United Nations Decade of Family Farming towards sustainable, inclusive, resilient and viable food systems. The United Nations Decade of Family Farming (UNDFF) 2019-2028 calls on family farming to lead substantial transformations in current food systems, promoting actions which encompass the economic, social and environmental dimensions of family farming. The UN Resolution on the UNDFF offers the international community an extraordinary framework in which to achieve a positive shift in food systems. The Covid-19 pandemic highlights the need to redesign the way we produce, consume, trade and organize food supply chains in order to better prepare for future crises, ensuring more equitable sustainability in the food supply chains. Family Farming gained visibility during this pandemic, as the importance of local and sustainable food consumption has been highlighted during the crisis.

2021-06-24 13:31:32205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29262/95

1812618315

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Municipal Governments (Tsuruoka City, Yokohama City, Niigata City, Ohnan Town, Maniwa City and Itoman City) held on 27th April 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. Then, participants from the local governments introduced their efforts on transforming food systems of each municipality and achieving SDGs, followed by exchange of opinions.

234238239240241242244248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244248249The dialogue with Municipal Governments (Tsuruoka City, Yokohama City, Niigata City, Ohnan Town, Maniwa City and Itoman City) was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-06-24 13:40:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20125/203

121441264605564153242162723524721161291965424

The Organizing Committee for this event was a geographically, culturally and socially diverse collection of leaders from organic farmer organizations of the organic sector from the Pacific and French Territories, Australia and New Zealand in order to maximise the input of different stakeholders. The Invitation distributed via partner networks and social media channels was deliberately inclusive starting with French and English translated documents and messages. Follow up activity for registration included repetition and personalized outreach to members and supporters within the circles of influence of the Committee members. To set the stage for the Dialogue, a Discussion Starter document was created in English and French. The paper emphasized the critical urgency of reviewing, repairing, restructuring and re-inventing current food systems. It reiterated our commitment to organics, INOFO and the UN Food Systems Summit process, and the importance of input from stakeholders throughout the network. Plenary speakers presented in English and French with simultaneous interpretation. Three English and one French Breakout rooms were set up as choices during registration to engage participants in their area of interest and expertise.Our Dialogue was a unique event tailored to the broad organic representation/stakeholders e.g. subsistence and commercial farmers and farmer organisations/sector bodies – incl. indigenous, certification/audit, education, farmers market, business owner, and to the Boosting Nature Positive Food Production Action Track, yet it was modelled on the UN Convenors’ Reference Manual as well as other virtual Dialogues that members of the organizing committee had attended. In the lead up to the Dialogue, Breakout Room Facilitator and support team instructions clarified the importance of including as many voices as possible, anonymity through the Chatham house rules, and to set an atmosphere of equality and judgement-free brainstorming in order to capture every idea. During the Dialogue, welcoming remarks from INOFO President Shamika Mone and others laid out the principles, stressing inclusiveness of ideas, the urgent need to change the food system, and the importance of organic principles in the plan.• Be prepared! Organizing, coordinating and executing an event like this virtually has many challenges. Pay attention to details and have contingency plans for as much as possible. Give the team plenty of time, map out and stick to a timeline. Adequate lead time for quality planning and to attract widespread participation is essential. Be sure to include someone on the planning team who fully understands the technology and is prepared to manage it. • Crystal clear communications are critical. Despite our best efforts we still had miscommunications between us and with registrants. If possible, assign one person (possibly with as assistant) as the single point of contact and another in charge of all public facing messaging. Communication planning needs to include clear Action Items of who is responsible for what before during and after the event. • Creating a safe space for open, honest discussion in the dialogue rooms can be challenging. Choose Facilitators with people skills in addition to technical knowledge. Encourage inclusiveness and a diversified representation of voices (by country, gender, age..) from the planning phase to ensure that the Dialogue will capture voices from the Region and reach out meaningfully to the each targeted audience • Quality motivational speakers to stimulate discussion are important but the crux of the event is the Discussion, so focus on making that successful. Create adequate dialogue time for all voices to participate, consider a policy where everybody speaks once before anybody speaks twice in order to facilitate rich and open discussion. The prompting questions in the Reference Manual were helpful. Facilitators should meet together to discuss how to modify them for their audience, and how to bring consistency to all of the Breakout Rooms. • Create a simple anonymous Evaluation Survey and send it to all of the participants immediately after the event and again with a post-event Thank You message. The feedback will show the planners what worked and how to improve.

NoWe tailored our event from the recommendations in the Reference Manual yet adapted it to our audience, geography, and to the need for a virtual platform, therefore we will include the following explanation with this report. This was an interactive and independent Dialogue titled Uniting the Voices of Oceania Pasifika Organic Farmers through the Intercontinental Network of Organic Farmers Organisations. The dialogue prioritized and targeted organic farmers in particular and brought together Pacific Organic stakeholders to brainstorm and propose evidence and experience-based, radical, game-changing solutions that propose transformative food production systems that will or would work for both people and nature. It provided a platform for diversified voices, ensuring fair and equitable representation of people of different genders, ages, and from different countries, territories and sub-regions. The Dialogue was Convened by the Intercontinental Network of Organic Farmers Organisations through the Pacific Organic and Ethical Trade Community (POETCom) of the Pacific Community, and Curated by Stephen Hazelman, INOFO Convenor for the Pacific Region. Facilitation was provided by a diverse coalition of colleagues from Pacific regional organsiations, IFOAM Organics International and civil society. The Dialogue was conducted over 2.5 hours using Zoom. We targeted our focus on Action Track 3: Boost Nature Positive Food Production with a deliberate effort of establishing linkages to the other Action Tracks. The curation included three major sessions: 1. Session 1: Inspirational presentations where participants heard from five inspirational actors within the organic food system. • Dr Failautusi Avegalio, University of Hawai‘i Mānoa Shidler College of Business – speaking on Cultural values and strengths. Moko Morris, Te Waka Kai Ora – speaking on Hua Parakore – Māori organics, validation and Indigenous rights, food sovereignty, community building. • Andre Leu, Regeneration International – speaking on Human and environmental health and imported foods including the scientifically proven dangers of pesticides. • Gilles PARZY TEHAU, POETCom Founding Member, BioAgriCert: International Certification Body, Organic Consultant – French Polynesia – speaking on the innovation of Agroecology Nature-positive production – regenerative, resilient • Franck Soury-Lavergne, BioCaledonia – speaking on the innovation potential for livelihoods of organic farmers. 2. Session 2: Facilitated breakout group discussion whereby stakeholders engaged in the work of Action Track 3: Boost Nature Positive Food Production at Scale. Through the registration process, participants chose from one of four virtual Breakout Talanoas (a traditional Pacific conversation): 1. People, Culture and Tradition – English 2. Health (inc. environment, social, economic) – English 3. Innovation (including science and research) – English 4. All topics – French Each discussion group was instructed to focus on statements zeroing in on systemic Solutions to food system problems. Participants were encouraged to create linkages across the three topics as well as the other UN Action Tracks in order to identify trade-offs, synergies, challenges and opportunities, and to co-design game-changing solutions. Participants were also invited to address some of the key crosscutting issues: such as gender and social inclusion issues, and climate change. All ideas were welcomed and appreciated under the Chatham House Rules. 3. Session 3: Our voices from the farms – Participants viewed short videos from Pacific Organic farmers as presenters organized their groups’ input, followed by presentations from each Talanoa highlighting the significant Game-changing Solutions. The event closed with a reflection of discussion feedback including Game Changing Solutions from the four Talanoas, based on a rapid sense-making session by the Curator and Facilitators. The event was also livestreamed.

234240241242243244245246247248249251The Dialogue was centered around using organic practices to boost Nature-positive food production, emphasizing the linkages where organic agriculture is the vehicle to address; building resilience, advancing equitable livelihoods, shifting to sustainable consumption patterns, and ensuring that everybody has access to safe and nutritious food. We were not discussing only certified organic agriculture but organic agriculture based on the Principles of Health, Ecology, Fairness and Care. Shared regional values of love, kinship, relationships were a driver with the aim to go beyond sustainability – but to regenerate and find balance and harmony with our environment. In particular, the role of organic producers, their organizations and the communities they are part of as the drivers of these changes and who frequently do not have a voice in food system policy discussions was a major focus. Farmers tend to be ‘acted upon’ by Governments and agencies rather than recognized as primary actors and agents of change and custodians of the land and ecosystems they work within. It also focused on the ‘Oceania Pasifika’ region consisting of Australia, New Zealand and the 22 Pacific Island countries and territories. A diverse region both culturally and geographically but with strong commonalities, shared history including connections between the indigenous communities of the region, and shared values on which the Oceania Pasifika Organic Food Systems Dialogue was focused. Our Dialogue strayed somewhat from the three UN defined aspirational outcomes of Protect, Manage and Restore to three aspirational outcomes inherent to Organics in the Oceania Pasifika region: Culture and Tradition, Health and Innovation. Culture and Tradition: The region has strongly held and maintained traditional cultural systems that provide not only valuable traditional agriculture and food perseveration techniques but also governance and leadership. This is a great strength of the region. Health: The region has amongst the worst health statistics in the world with soaring rates of NCDs. We also have extremely vulnerable eco systems, the health of which is being severely impacted by practices of the current food systems and climate change. This is one of our most significant challenges. Innovation: the remoteness of the region and the large distances between us has contributed to a strong culture of innovation and invention and a hunger for learning and creating new ways to meet our challenges. This is where opportunity lies for us. These 3 areas also have applicability across all action tracks and will facilitate synergies. The outcomes were fleshed out in the pre-dialogue Discussion Starter document along with open-ended questions to start people thinking of how to contribute to the dialogues. This decision proved to work well as the participants, especially the Organic Farmers, who are familiar with the principles, needed little prompting to begin the Talanoa discussions. The modern, industrialized, input dependent, export focused, agricultural Food System is failing, and the detrimental effects on Health, Equitable opportunities, Lifestyle, Environment, Climate Change and Local Economies is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in Pacific Island Countries and Territories [PICTs] as well as Australia and New Zealand. At the same time, Organically Managed Food Systems, including Pacific Organics, which includes Culture and Tradition, coupled with Science and Innovation, and the broad definition of Health to include Soil, Forest, Livestock, Fisheries Health, and including Social and Gender equity, are proving to be the solution to these challenges. New and emerging approaches, when adopted alongside the use of traditional knowledge, and organic, regenerative and inclusive practices (such as agroecology, sustainable fishing and democratic food governance), give the potential to transition to nature-positive food production systems – ones that deliver a larger diversity of plants and animals to a growing population, without degrading the functional integrity of ecosystems, whilst meeting the nutritional needs of all current and future generations.235239240241242243244245246247248249251As expected, each Talanoa had their own discussion with unique ideas and solutions, and also as expected, many of the same levers for change were identified in multiple groups. This overlap shows a strong precedence to prioritize the areas of agreement, while also recognizing the value of stand-alone solutions. Although the Presenters and Facilitators worked hard to drive the conversations towards future statements and systematic solutions, all groups reported discussing the root causes, many of which are familiar themes. It seems that this was not altogether bad though as defining the problem is the first step to brainstorming solutions. As detailed in the section below, the main findings or Game Changing Solutions identified include: 1. Leveraging culture and tradition, community knowledge and governance. Pacific Islanders and aboriginals are proud of their heritage. Culture and tradition must then be incorporated throughout our food systems, all the way up to policy and including indigenous governance training. Leadership buy in is essential, including National Governments as well as local, traditional and religious leaders. A successful revised food system will require a tremendous amount of policy, infrastructure and support. Our region is rich in Culture and Traditional Governance which can act as a lever for change and a framework for action. 2. Education, training and empowerment. Education, capacity building and knowledge products are critical and will look very different in an Organic Food System than they do in the present industrial model. Education will need to start in the early grades and continue through University and Extension outreach training. Education should include traditional knowledge. For this to happen we need to Capture and archive oral traditional knowledge and practices around sustainable living and food systems components. It also includes capacity building and awareness at community level. As some traditional knowledge is already being lost farmers and communities need awareness about the biodiversity they hold and the value of traditional practices for resilience – other parts of the world can learn from these. 3. Organic Farming must be recognised as a valued profession. They are the experts that lead the change. Organic farmers, are trusted experts with real-life experience which is respected and trusted. They are the ones who need to train not only other farmers but Extension staff, academics etc. Their involvement will never end but will need to be supported ongoing in order to keep the system practical, understandable and therefore successful. Farmers must be fully engaged in research and research funding needs to be realigned to organic. Farmers must also be properly compensated and full cost accounting implemented so they are also compensated for provision of ecosystem services. 4. Localisation. Supporting a local market economy is very important with food sovereignty and environmental sustainability as a goal. A comprehensive and wholistic approach to value chain development is required from production to markets. This includes using locally developed approaches for extension and training, for example the family focus works well in many places in the region, and research for local solutions. Also diversifying products to reach out to a wider market segment developing transformed products made from local raw materials.236239240241243244245246247248249251Within our major discussion topics, we present what was discussed in terms of action areas to support impact. All groups acknowledged the interconnection between the action tracks. Talanoa 1: Culture and Tradition Pacific farmers are smallholders and indigenous by nature, resilient, sustainable, independent, rich in tradition and culture. In the Pacific region, organic production is both traditional and new. It is traditional in the sense that most producers to this day use tried and tested practices handed down through the generations that are generally in harmony with the environment and with modern organic principles. And it is new in that Pacific countries and territories are realizing the benefits of organics for obtaining access to markets, and the need for research and training to develop the sector. Game-changing solutions captured in this Dialogue include 1. Leveraging community knowledge and governance. Pacific Islanders and aboriginals are proud of their heritage. Cultural preservation is a high priority. Most cultures are oral however, making the first priority to capture and archive them in order to preserve and pass them to future generations. Culture and tradition must then be incorporated throughout our Organic systems, all the way up to policy and including indigenous governance training. The Pacific Organic Standards already capture culture and tradition as a key guiding principle. The principle needs to be applied to Organic in an integrated and holistic approach to ensure the sustainability of our interventions. This includes applying a GESI perspective to untap potential of individuals (regardless their gender, age, socio-economic status…) and overall sector. 2. Tapping into academia and reaching out to youth must be prioritized. 3. Crosscutting with Health and Innovation, instilling indigenous knowledge into appropriate technology development, research and development, and implementation at scale is critical.236238240243244245246247248249251Talanoa 2: Health Working on the premise of Health from a systems-wide perspective comprised of soil, plants, animals (including people), ecosystems, community/society and economy, etc., discussions revolved around the concept of food systems with the potential to improve health from many directions. Game-Changing Solutions can be grouped under three broad concepts. 1) Create top-down, whole country support for organics at the national level. Country-wide bans on GMOs and synthetic and other inputs modelled on examples of islands like Cicia (Fiji), and countries including Bahrain, Sri Lanka and parts of India. In order to successfully ban chemicals, Governments must also scale up infrastructure for nutrient capture and recycling, as well as retrain Extension toward the elimination of chemicals. Cuba serves as an example of a country that has successfully changed their food system from one dependent on inputs, to a self-sustaining, nutrient cycling organic system where 80% of fresh produce consumed is grown within five kilometres of where it is consumed. In addition to Political buy-in, significant investment in education will be necessary. University and related educators will also have to change from chemical use to teaching traditional methods, natural plant protection, vermiculture, seed saving, animal production etc. 2) Exemplify Best Farmers and Best Practices. Farmers want to be taught by farmers not “from the desk”. Success will need support per #1 above to establish Learning Farms and curriculum based on real-life experiences. There is a strong crossover here with Innovation. 3) Applying a comprehensive approach to value chain development with the focus on Local. Generally speaking, Pacific Countries including Australia and New Zealand are fully capable of meeting the nutritional needs of their populations and need to shift from importing food and inputs to self-reliance, food security and soil sovereignty. This solution links very strongly to the other four Action Tracks. Exports are important for economic health but must remain secondary to developing local markets and taking care of the local communities/society. Market development, including to the hospitality sector, and value addition will need to be prioritized.236240243244245246247248249251Talanoa 3: Innovation Organic farmers are innovative, successfully blending traditional methods with modern scientific knowledge. We know that the use of pesticides and inorganic fertilizers in these fragile Pacific ecosystems is problematic, yet farmers have become significantly dependent on them logistically and financially. We also know that natural nutrient cycling and Pest Protection Materials are possible for most agricultural needs. Due to the relatively recent appearance of Organics as a player in the agricultural arena, leading to the fact that organic farmers are significantly underserved in R&D and product development, the area of innovation is especially important for reinventing our Food System. Game-changing Innovation ideas include 1. Investing in labour and time saving technologies, methods and techniques to make the profession of Organic farming more attractive to a wider number of people. Without mimicking conventional practices that are not regenerative, farmers switching to Organic need to know they can do so as a commercially viable alternative. Much of the innovation depends on sharing of current knowledge and technologies, which need to be collected, curated and in some cases scientifically tested. 2. As mentioned above under Culture and Tradition, this group also proposed exploring innovation into indigenous and traditional knowledge and practices. The Pacific Oceania community does not let go of their roots and highly values indigenous and traditional socio-ecologic farming and cropping systems. The region is more than ready to be proactive and pioneering on all levels. Based on their unique island and community structures, a multi-level approach with system transformation are likely to be successful in the Pacific. 3. Public and private funds and efforts to support research and innovation are critical and will need to shift focus from chemical/industrial research to sustainable practices. On the farming side this would include research on composting at scale, natural plant protectants and natural based livestock feed. On the production side, value added production without food additives and Organic compliant phytosanitary alternatives are among the top priorities. 4. To overcome barriers, lack of understanding and fear of change, the group identified the need for education at the community level an important and basic Organic and regenerative way of farming through a collaborative National and Organic Partnership incorporating already on the ground Organic certified farmers.237239240241242243244245246247248249251With a group of participants as passionate and diverse as this, divergence is inevitable. Yet, when challenges are offered respectfully, dialogue can continue and ideas are strengthened. There was considerable discussion concerning the role of government and universities, with agreement on the importance of Policy and Education coupled with experience that there is a significant need to implant Organic practices into these institutions. Discussions in all three Talanoas touched to some degree on people’s resistance to change with first-hand experiences of farmers reluctant to take up Organic practices. Consensus realizes that this will be a major challenge for scaling up. Along with resistance to change was some disagreement on the extent of challenges including labour, infrastructure, baseline data and data capture. When discussing markets there was divergence on how much emphasis should be given to local versus exports.

2021-06-24 13:53:57205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29284/95

11921138

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Municipal Governments (Obihiro City, Hanamaki City, Toyama City, Kyoto City, Toyooka City, Chikuzen Town) held on 7th May 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. Then, participants from the local governments introduced their efforts on transforming food systems of each municipality and achieving SDGs, followed by exchange of opinions.

234238239240241242244248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244248249The dialogue with municipal governments (Obihiro City, Hanamaki City, Toyama City, Kyoto City, Toyooka City, Chikuzen Town) was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-06-24 15:44:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15825/203

27204311161051241212142424

The moderator explained the Food Systems Summit and the importance of this Independent Dialogue and youth engagement with the food systems. Each of the four panellists spoke about the importance of a sustainable food system, innovation in agriculture and sustainable alternatives in agriculture. The participants were encouraged to be involved in the discussion through the chat function and the questions and answer session.There was an equal gender balance on the panel (two male and two female), from three countries. Each were from diverse backgrounds creating an inclusive dialogue. Open conversation was encouraged between the panellists and participants, which resulted in respectful discussion in the questions and answer session.Have a diverse panel (e.g. age, background, gender, occupations, etc) to increase interest in the dialogue and encourage more conversation.

Yes

234238239240242244245246248249251This independent dialogue was created by young people for young people. The purpose of the event was to hear from young farmers across Europe. They shared their experiences as young farmers and agri-entrepreneurs and discussed the supports young farmers require in order to create a sustainable food system. The panel consisted of four inspiring farmers, agri-entrepreneurs from Ireland, Scotland and France. Throughout the Dialogue similar themes and concerns emerged. Creating a sustainable food system involves many interlinked topics such as environment, innovation, social and economic. Policy changes need to be implemented but the responsibility is also on individual farmers and consumers to create change. Innovation in farming is key in creating a sustainable food system. Highlighting the voices of young farmers is very important in the success of the UN Food Systems Summit. The enthusiasm of young people to be a part of this dialogue was evident in the lively questions and answer session.235238239240242243244245246248249251• Sustainability in farming includes environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability. • The whole food chain needs to take responsibility for the risks. At the moment only the farmers hold the risk. • Generational renewal must be the centre of public policy to preserve food resources. • The farmers and consumers need to be at the centre of decision making. • Decent and reliable income is a necessity, through long term contracts to create stability and resilience. • Public financial support through infrastructure improvements in rural areas and rural development is required. • Consumers play a large role in driving demand and increased transparency in labelling is necessary to aid concise decision making. • Innovation in farming is the future with public policy supports. • Support for older farmers, including retirement plans and land transfer plans/structures need improvements. This should include access by young and new farmers. Alternatives to land ownerships need to be explored. Looking to Scotland for instance, there are a number of ways to have land including tenancy, rental, shared farming and employment. • Taxation in farm renting needs to be amended in certain countries to encourage generational farm transfer. • Bureaucracy in farming is dependent on policy and there needs to be incentives for farmers to change farming methods to sustainable alternatives. • Having reliable and trustworthy news sources is important when researching new sustainable farm practices. • Young people and young farmers feel the responsibility and burden of the climate crisis. • Farmers must play their role in mitigating the effects of climate change through e.g., carbon storage, green energy production, increase organic farming practices, research and innovation. • Innovation in farming technology and practices have huge potential to mitigate climate change and protect farmers against the effects of the ever changing environment. • Regenerative farming is growing in popularity and should be further explored, to protect wildlife and land quality. Simple conscious mowing practices can have a great impact, e.g. nature strips - leaving a three meter margin on the outside of fields untouched to protect local wildlife. • Animal management, genetic selection, multi species swords and reducing use of tractors and quads are all important elements in creating a sustainable food system. • Sustainability can be inexpensive, small changes can make a huge difference and make a big impact. • Preventable equipment for climate change needs to be increased and invested in these innovative technologies. Effective data collection is very important in this development research process. Technology for example Grasshopper, can be used to increase and utilise grass and analyse farm data to use the land meat effectively and sustainably. • Silage plastic and wrap is a big issue in farm waste management. • Wool should be explored more as it is an underestimated material in recent years. • The contrast between two panellists in organic farming and technology heavy farming practices gave great variety and insight into different approaches but all created a positive effect on creating a sustainable food system.236See main findings for details.237239240244245249There was a difference between the definition of sustainability for the panellists along with having different sustainable food system priorities. They included; climate change effect, increased yield in a more environmental way, policies or self-driven changes.

2021-06-24 19:42:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24396/203

333101031716545131022109103312014

We consulted stakeholders for possible participation, reached out to speakers and engaged with interested individuals who agreed to volunteer in taking roles as breakout session moderators, panel speakers and added them to WhatsApp group.It was open and inclusive, even though independent, it was as interactive as possible with participants directly engaging and asking questions from speakers. An opportunity to collaborate for action was available to all participants in the break out sessions where guiding documents for dialogue breakout sessions received inputs based on the number of participantsIt is important to respect the principles of engagement of the dialogue. The existing principle is solid and reflective of an inclusive approach to bringing people together to speak about the future of food systems.

Yes

234238240242243244245246247248249250251What solutions already exist on AgTech Innovation, Digital Transformation in disaster and risk prevention for a resilient and shock proof food system? We need to address growing demand of food with using significantly fewer resources Climate smart practices are being used to combat disasters Most farmers are now practicing agroforestry and other methodology with positive results FinTech solution for inclusive social coverage and financial inclusion to rural farmers Normally it takes 8 months for repayment. Now with mobile technology and weather forecasting, insurance firms or governmental insurance firms can pay quicker (by verification of GPS and sending confirmed pictures) Agro-meteorological advisory through mobile apps (Seasonal Rainfall Prediction) Normally farmers grow in Sri Lanka what they are used to plant Information could tell climate trends for the island Information could inform about market trends Example: one has a Major and Minor season in Sri lanka. Farmers grow paddy stable crops and additional vegetable crops like big onions but require not heavy rain Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning to predict best crops on best soils by aggregating relevant databases from satellites, soil measures, weather stations. Soil measurements for higher quality (biodiversity, carbon, nutrient content). Higher carbon content will help retaining the water, which is good for heavy rain or droughts. Drone visuals for growth differences of crops on soils and measure which certain soils spots perform less. Block chain for food monitoring and traceability via block chain and sealed products. Agrovoltaics solutions for energy efficient solutions like irrigation systems, biomass processing and growing biofertilizers Challenges and constraints are basically strictly due to limitations of small holders to access these technologies. however, on Agrovoltaics in Nigeria we are actively working with Stakeholders in managing and coordinating data from Technology Needs Assessment for these farmers Climate smart farming, surveillance by drones help across the value chain, how -> extension agents Food visibility by block chain for confirming the flow of products. This improves food safety away from bulk products and could link to consumers that can pay higher. Downside: data/evidence base required for fintech/digital solutions/etc. might not be sufficient in many countries Digital financial services require financial literacy and inclusion as well as technology access World Resources Institute has also a lot of information, use information about weather forecasts etc, that can be used for crop managing.235238241249How can technology leverage transition towards more resilient food systems and what are the downsides? Technology that is being invented is labour intensive and if manpower is now available it cannot be used The benefits are too long-term This dissuades people from using it Sustainable supply energy needs to be used for a huge impact Solar panels, and biofuels lack of access to finance is an issue that impairs innovation There should be grants or waivers for those who are practicing techniques with technology would promote and grant access to the tech Lower taxes Technology can positively impact the food systems by empowering youth with knowledge and skills to provide and design solutions that impact and effect the weak sectors in the food system There are not many youths engaged in this activity Those who are engaged have low skills to do so If they were empowered, they would have a larger impact Tech in the market sector needs to happen Products are purchasing online It would be easy for a farmer to market products online A smartphone where farmers could sell their products and attract other farmers and individuals to the products Technology is needed to help with the 20 to 40% post-harvest food loss Technology to gain this back would have a large impact Hydroponics can be used to solve this Food can be produced next to urban centres Shortens the distance from producer to consumer Insetu production Wholefoods can produce food in the rooftop and sell in their stores Downsides Efficiency of technology We cannot be too reliant on technology on food process or any other everyday use and we need to have contingency plans in place An alternative way to collect data into the resources we need Internet of things tool to become more efficient. To automatize things that farmers do in the greenhouse Parametric insurance schemes through mobile access (but not a one-size-fits-all solution) Downside: microclimatic variations can lead to farmers even within a small area being affected very differently by climate impacts/disasters, potential mismatches between pay-outs and damages (basis risk), farmers often are not aware of insurance options or don’t trust them Downside: transition costs and technical expertise needed can be an access barrier for smallholder farmers digital literacy / mobile phones there are, but computers less Dependence on new service providers that work as monopoly instead of building on technology Improving supply chain redundancies and losses: enhancing the connection between growers and end-users leveraging on technology to aggregate data Swarm technology and small tractors can support healthy soil, due to less depletion. Also, multi-cropping improves health to crops and supports pest and disease protection. What would be the first key areas of action to improve technological implementation for all? Youth engagement More people our age are learning and adopting to new technology and learn it They can empower and teach others how to use the new technology This could help with technology implementation Vocational training schools These provide hands-on resources beyond universities that focus on research Vocational trainings can go beyond taking those people who do not have college experience and they can get trained for 6 months to become proficient in technology Technology needs to be more adaptable For people with disabilities to be more inclusive Submitting projects to a corresponding government entity Youth organizations Leverage social media This spreads awareness and adoption Digital advisory and extension services including digital market linkages To ensure smallholder farmer specific technologies in irrigation and other allied activities and making it accessible for everyone. Investment for capacity building in technology use What solutions already exist to make (technological) innovation accessible to all food system workers? Building multi-actor partnerships and strengthening links between different actors (including farmers, supply/value chain actors, local and national government, private sector, financial institutions, telecommunications providers, research institutions etc.): https://www.slycantrust.org/multi-actor-partnership-on-climate-and-disaster-risk-financing-and-preparedness-in-the-context-of-the-insuresilience-global-partnership How can small holders be safe guarded from exploitation by service or product providers? Independent monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment mechanisms Involve vulnerable and marginalized groups and communities and design interventions/technologies in a way that is inclusive, gender-responsive (or gender-transformative), accessible and free or affordable, context-specific, available in local languages, and with an interface that is intuitive and easy to understand/learn The government should screen new technology coming into the people Decentralization -- top down approach The community members have agreed to use the technology before it is brought in Regulation should be done by the curator of social media rather than the government For countries that want to limit the power of social media Governments need to approach the end users of the technology A discussion forum needs to be in place for the farmers and the government Most farmers do not understand the technology and how it can be used in their daily activities The user needs to be educated on how to interact with the technology and how it applies to their lives so it can be used effectively The technologies need to be tried a few times first236Right based approach to resilient food systems What is the value of a rights-based framework in terms of desired changes in the environmental and social impacts? Basic right based approaches to include technology Transformation of the food systems is hinged on the foundations of the rights to land, land use act protection for indigenous people, right to technology for technology inclusions needed in provisioning the attainment of sdg 7, 2, 5, 8 Technological advancements are hard to measure success for. Adoption and important not to forget the traditional methods and economic aspects of small holders. small scale farmers are the stakeholders most in need for empowerment. Organic Agriculture as an innovative solution for small scale farmers to reach the organic market Governments should encourage more public and private partnerships and enabling partnerships….and mass communication for internet accessibility for small scale farmers. I would say that small scale farmers need to be heard, they are mostly the ones producing food in third countries. And we need to include them in the decision-making process because most of the solutions and decisions need to be applied by them indeed, solutions don't need always to be technology oriented. I also think that simplification of knowledge provided by researchers to small scale farmers will bridge the gap between the research providers and people in need for that knowledge. small scale farmers are the stakeholders most in need for empowerment. Many technology availability -- need someone to consolidate this and create a centralised hub Make internet accessible available for everyone making these solutions locally led and adaptive are great practices for smallholders

The dialogue had relevant stakeholders across industry, community organizations, academia, local and international businesses, NGOs and experts in sustainability and innovation around the food systems. The dialogue was convened taking the Chatham House rile into consideration and the main session and breakout groups were as interactive as possible with stakeholders highlighting the challenges, needs and proposing best approach toward an engaging mechanisms to adopt in making tecffhnologiccal and digital solutions and innovations accessible, affordable to small holder farmer. Considering the past experiences and challenges small holders currently face through exploitative technological and innovative solutions. Discussions of solutions were around assessing rural farmers and urban farmers to be able to ascertain specific needs and deploy such needs transparently without breaking the value chain, holding in high esteem best and global compliant impact standards for measuring guarantees, finance, insurance and right based approach to land use and natural resource use. Issues bothering on farmer insurance, crop, livestock micro insurance and sustainability of the food value chain were also brought to discussion. Cohesive policy towards food safety was a key component of the discussion with the need to adopt mature possitive approach to farming and minimised use of biofertilizers which are detrimental to food safety and human health as well as it's impacts on climate and environment. The need to adopt and include locally led Adaptation practices into the framework of food systems is an important approach which needs interventions of experts, academia and scientific outcomes2021-06-25 15:06:01https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Independent-Dialogue-Outcome.pdf

2021-06-25 08:18:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25062/134

4420139015415

Ce Webinaire a été organisé en étroite collaboration avec HC3N et les parties prenantes notamment le Platforme des Organisations Paysannes, le représentant des Unités de Production, les chercheurs de l’Université de Abou Momouni de Niamey. En effet, le sujet présenté lors du Webinaire est la résultante de plusieurs discussions entre des acteurs intervenant dans le secteur de la recherche, de la production et de la transformation des aliments locaux sur les questions de qualité et d’innocuité des produits alimentaires. Il faut noter que le consommateur devient de plus en plus exigeant quant à la qualité des produits alimentaires et surtout de leur provenance d’où la nécessité de mettre ensemble les producteurs des matières premières et des transformateurs des produits alimentaires.Des réunions préliminaires ont été organisées sous l’auspice d’I3N avec non seulement du monde de la recherche, mais aussi des SNU (PAM, FAO), les OP (producteurs et transformateurs), les Organisations Faitières, les ONG et les services étatiques. Ces réunions ont permis de faire le choix de sujet, de discuter sur les modalités de l’organisation, le schéma d’animation et les questions logistiques. Le Gret assurant le lead des concertations indépendantes, en collaboration avec I3N et la FAO a assuré la modération du Webinaire.Il faut surtout anticiper sur le choix du thème, ainsi que sur la participation des parties prenantes. Il faut surtout prévoir une participation active des acteurs au niveau opérationnel.

Yes

234238239240242248250251L’axe majeur traité lors de cette concertation est le renforcement des liens entre les Unités de Production de farines infantiles et les Organisations Paysannes productrices de matières premières au Niger. Les enjeux qui ont été discutés lors de cette concertation sont la promotion de l’agriculture sensible à la nutrition et la valorisation des produits alimentaires locaux, utilisés dans l’alimentation et la nutrition des jeunes enfants, notamment sous forme de farines infantiles. Au Niger, on trouve des farines infantiles locales fortifiées en vitamines et minéraux ayant pour objectif de prévenir la malnutrition des enfants de 6 à 24 mois. Ces farines qui doivent être abordables pour les ménages les plus vulnérables ont un prix d’achat faible et constant. Or, les matières premières utilisées : mil, soja, sorgho, arachide, sont achetées par les Unités productrices à des prix fluctuant, et la qualité de ces matières premières est également variable suivant la période de l’année. Cette variabilité de leur qualité est directement due à la qualité des semences utilisées et des variétés trouvées sur le marché au cours de l’année. Les unités de production d’aliments nutritifs ne sont pas toujours en mesure de respecter le cahier des charges établit pour leurs produits, et ne sont pas capable de faire des bénéfices sur leurs ventes de par les variations des prix des matières premières. De plus, la chaîne d’approvisionnement actuelle s’avère ne pas être génératrice de revenus décents pour les petits producteurs, ou organisations paysannes, qui manquent d’équipements et de formations pour réussir à tirer un revenu de leurs récoltes. Ces observations démontrent une faille dans le marché local qui se caractérise par l’instabilité des approvisionnements et de l’accès à une alimentation saine. La promotion de l’agriculture sensible à la nutrition pourrait permettre aux producteurs d’être considérés davantage par les pouvoirs politiques, et ainsi leurs besoins pourraient être entendus et l’approvisionnement des denrées alimentaires pourrait être stabilisée et sécurisée. Nous savons que les systèmes alimentaires sont fragilisés par les chocs sécuritaire, sanitaires, climatiques ou encore démographiques. Au Niger, ces différents types de chocs sont présents, or cela diminue les disponibilités des aliments sains et nutritifs. Le renforcement de liens entre producteurs et transformateurs autour des questions de nutrition est donc une opportunité à saisir par les deux parties pour stabiliser le système alimentaire. Cette concertation a donc contribué à rechercher en quoi les liens entre les organisations paysannes et les unités de production sont défaillants, et quels bénéfices pourraient tirer ces deux parties à un renforcement de leurs liens. Les causes probables de ces problèmes ont été soulevées par des représentants de chacune des parties prenantes, et le dialogue pour le renforcement des liens a été ouvert en identifiant des axes d’améliorations du système alimentaire local. Le débat a également été alimenté par les retours d’expériences de la FAO - Niger et du PAM - Niger.235238239240241242248250251Le GRET, dont les projets appuient le développement des unités de production de farines infantiles fortifiées, a mis en avant les opportunités liées à cette filière. La production de tels produits engendre un gain de temps au niveau des ménages, une amélioration du statut nutritionnel et une accessibilité physique sur le marché de produits à haute valeur nutritionnelle à bas prix pour les jeunes enfants, qui en plus est produit à base de matières premières locales (mil, arachide, sorgho). L’intérêt est fort de par les demandes des organisations internationales pour des commandes institutionnelles, mais aussi aux niveaux des enjeux nutritionnels des populations vulnérables. Cependant, cette filière est confrontée à quelques difficultés. Notamment, malgré une progression des efforts de production et de commercialisation (marketing, promotion), les informations sur les bienfaits et la disponibilité de ces farines infantiles n’accèdent que trop peu aux villages reculés et ne permettent pas encore d’augmenter significativement leur consommation même en milieu urbain. D’autant plus que ces produits locaux subissent une concurrence déloyale vis à vis de produits importés, soit au marketing marquant, soit inadaptés à l’alimentation des jeunes enfants mais vendu comme farine infantile à des prix très bas. Au niveau de la production, ces unités de transformation sont soumises à une fluctuation importante du prix et de la qualité des matières premières. Ce problème de qualité est d’autant plus important que la traçabilité des matières premières est inexistante, et ce dès la période de semis. L’approvisionnement des unités de production auprès des organisations paysannes est difficile en raison d’un manque d’organisation et d’anticipation des deux acteurs. Le lien entre qualité et traçabilité des matières premières et des produits finis est plein d’enjeux avec le respect des normes nationales et internationales, la stabilité des prix, la sécurisation de l’approvisionnement et le développement solidaire et social des paysans et des groupements féminins producteurs. Une étude de filière du mil, de l’arachide et du soja menée par les chercheurs de l’Université Abdou Moumouni de Niamey a permis de formuler des recommandations pour le développement et la sécurisation des filières par l’accès aux semences améliorées et certifiées, l’appui aux capacités techniques des producteurs et la mise en place de crédit d’équipement agricole. Mais il sera également judicieux de restructurer les circuits d’approvisionnement en intrants et d’étudier les marchés potentiel pour redéfinir le circuit de commercialisation. Au niveau des Organisations Paysannes, il a été remonté que les manques d’organisation et de traçabilité constatés sont dûs notamment à l’analphabétisme en milieu rural qui est élevé. Il y a également un manque de vulgarisation des recherches en agriculture qui pourraient permettre aux paysans d’entrer dans un système de production durable et productif. De plus, les consommateurs souhaitant des produits de bonne qualité mais peu chers ne permettent pas aux agriculteurs de vendre leurs récoltes à un prix raisonnable pour leur assurer un système équitable. La prise en compte de la qualité des matières premières dans la question de la nutrition constitue un espoir, au sein de la plateforme nigérienne des organisations paysannes, de visibilité et de communication autour des problématiques agricoles. Le renforcement des liens entre les unités de production et les organisations paysannes permettrait donc d’améliorer l’organisation de ces filières et des marchés. Il apparaît donc qu’en établissant un plan d’approvisionnement et en contractualisant ensemble, les producteurs et transformateurs pourraient s’assurer des stocks réguliers en mil, arachide, sorgho et soja à des prix définit, constituant un revenu décent à chaque partie prenante. De plus, cela favoriserait un circuit court et faciliterait la mise en place d’un plan de traçabilité efficient.236238239240241242247248250251Les discussions ont menée à établir des axes importants pour atteindre un système alimentaire plus durable et équitable. Notamment il a été recommandé de travailler avec les pouvoirs politiques afin de mettre en place des subventions qui pourraient aider les paysans à investir dans des équipements de bonne qualité et faciliter leur travail et l’atteinte d’un rendement de production satisfaisant. Ces subventions pourraient également permettre d’investir dans des semences de qualités et certifiées, et dans des intrants agricoles durables pour une production respectueuse de l’environnement et sans risque pour la santé des consommateurs. De plus, cela permettrait d’améliorer la production, en termes de quantité et de qualité, sans pour autant voir les prix des matières premières et aliments de base du régime alimentaire local augmenter et le pouvoir d’achat des Nigériens diminuer. Avec des subventions pour les intrants agricoles, il sera plus facile pour les paysans de s’assurer un revenu et d’instaurer un système alimentaire équitable. Pour garantir la disponibilité des matières premières pour les unités de production de farines infantiles fortifiées, il serait nécessaire d’augmenter les volumes de production. Pour produire davantage de ces matières premières il faudrait agrandir les espaces cultivables et étendre les zones de production. Cette recommandation vient renforcer la précédente concernant le renforcement des capacités des paysans en termes d’équipements. Le renforcement des capacités agricole passe également par la vulgarisation des recherches sur les semences, les types de sols, les techniques alternatives de lutte contre les maladies et insectes, etc. L’encadrement des organisations paysannes autour de la formation agricole et qualité par des organisations telles que la FAO et le PAM, dans des projets comme présentés lors de la concertation, doivent continuer à être mis en place. Il est également important de former la jeunesse aux problématiques liées au système alimentaire et à la production agricole, afin qu’ils puissent appuyer et accompagner les organisations paysannes. Pour cela il est important de prendre en compte ce sujet dans les universités. Ceci participera à la vulgarisation et à la transmission des avancées de la recherche. Les débats de la concertation ont également permis de rappeler que les normes nationales et internationales doivent être adoptées en lois afin d’être rendues obligatoire. Aujourd’hui, la norme pour les farines infantiles n’est pas transposée dans la loi nigérienne. Or, ceci pourrait arriver donc il est important de préparer la chaîne de production de ces aliments sensibles au respect de cette norme. De plus, pour assurer la qualité et la sécurité sanitaire de ces farines infantiles il est important d’appuyer les producteurs et transformateurs dans la mise en place de la traçabilité et de démarche qualité (bonnes pratiques d’hygiène et de fabrication, HACCP ...). Afin de rendre ces démarches obligatoires, il serait important de formuler dans un premier temps une norme sur la traçabilité des denrées alimentaires, qui pourrait être par la suite adoptée en loi. Pour pérenniser les échanges entre les producteurs et les transformateurs il faudrait établir, en concertation avec tous les acteurs, un cahier des charges sur les caractéristiques attendues pour les matières premières des farines infantiles. Ce cahier des charges pourrait comprendre les qualités des récoltes, la qualité / certification des semences, la traçabilité du semis à la vente, etc. Enfin, il est important, comme le prévoit ces concertations, que tous les acteurs, transformateurs, organisations paysannes, secteur public, secteur privé, universités, organisations internationales travaillent en synergie et appuient en fonction de leur expertise le renforcement des liens entre eux, la mise en place d’un plan de traçabilité et le respect de normes sur les denrées alimentaires, notamment la norme des farines infantiles.237Il n’y a pas eu de points de divergence relevés au sein de cette concertation. Les différents acteurs ont des visions communes à propos des liens entre les producteurs et les transformateurs. Les autres acteurs sont motivés à participer en utilisant leurs expériences respectives dans l’atteinte du but commun : pérenniser le système alimentaire local de manière durable et équitable.

2021-06-25 19:35:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10249/135

190107590132110791472013410101091052206111910151063633030304310113135172

The Dialogue gave all participants equal level of engagements. At the opening, participants were acquainted with the outlined Principles of Engagement.Participation of stakeholders was highly inclusive. Discussion was respectful and submissions highlighted inputs from all participants.It is important to work with a dedicated team and a workable plan of action. The FSSD "Run of Show" template is a handy guide to rely upon.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247248249251✔ Bridge the gap between the disenchanted youth and an unproductive agricultural sector. ✔ Create the opportunity to access more alluring employment opportunities in the agricultural space with gender mainstreaming. ✔ Ensure food security through investment in smart agriculture. ✔ Augment the demographic dividend and Strengthen higher education in agriculture. ✔ Create platforms and policy frameworks that would allow youth determine the parameters of what, according to them, would be a successful agricultural transformative engagement.2352382392402412422432442452462482492511. Investments towards building sustainable systems that guarantees safe and nutritious food right from farm to fork. 2. Promoting innovation and knowledge on risk-sharing to minimize losses and build resilience. 3. For youth, boosting nature-positive production can be started at a low-scale and scale up in a manner that manages, protects and sustain the natural ecosystem. 4. Initiating comprehensive compliance on foods and other consumable products by regulatory Agencies. 5. Adopting Train-of-Trainers (ToT) approach towards enhancing agribusiness through technology and innovation. 6. Provision of curriculum on climate smart agricultural practices and training youth as key actors as prerequisite for building resilience to shock and stress. 7. Planning, development and maintenance of social, economic and technological infrastructures. 8. Proper data management is urgently needed to accelerate equitable support systems. 9. Reliable insurance systems should be incorporated as core components of trainings as the basis for guarding investments.236238246249251Nigeria has massive land and large influx of produce, in which, with appropriate mechanization and management would be capable of reducing fake and imported processed foods. Youth at the dialogue therefore, strongly implored stakeholders to increase investments towards building sustainable systems that guarantees safe and nutritious food right from farm to fork. In order to cut down on the high rates of food poisoning, the dialogue reached that it is therefore incumbent on regulatory agencies to initiate comprehensive compliance on foods and other consumable products producers.236239246249251(i) Adequate sensitization is required in order to advance food producer and other actors (within the value chain) to embrace innovation and obtain knowledge on sharing risk to minimize losses and build resilience. (ii) As pertains sustainable consumption, the business, health and academic sub-sectors players including -dietitians, doctors, chefs, respective Ministries, Department & Agencies, have respective roles to play in advocacy and awareness creation through policies and curriculum upward reviews.236240244246248251Young people are encouraged to start-up the practice of regenerative farming as a means of boosting nature-positive production. It can be started at a low-scale and scale -up in a manner that manages, protects and sustain the natural ecosystem. For instance, through green house and home gardening. Incentives and support systems, opportunities for programs and competitions should be included as part of policy implementation.236241245246248249251As a means of ensuring adequate technology and innovative knowledge transfer, youth insisted that investment in Train-of-Trainers (ToT) on modern techniques (especially for agriculturalist experts and interns) is urgently needed as primitive agriculture techniques cannot provide timely and needed outputs to meet the demands of an increasing population. Participants are of the opinion that to boost food production and advance equitable livelihoods for all, government and all other stakeholders are called to be responsive and take responsibility for the provision of infrastructures to promote socioeconomic livelihood of in the sector as well as impacting the citizenry. To advance equitable livelihoods of youth and secure their inclusive interest in Agriculture, the dialogue noted that seemingly invisible barriers be lifted. For instance, the Land Use Acts needs to be reviewed and allowed for access to land for agricultural purposes in addition to enable access to farm inputs and financing.236242243245246248249251Building Resilience to shocks and stress: (i) Food banks should be created to tackle food shortages and hunger. Investment in food preservation would create employment for young people. (ii) Understanding climate conditions requires adoption and deployment of low-end land mapping and space technologies to improve yield and increase food production. (iii) Stakeholders in the sector are called to develop curriculum on climate smart agricultural practices and train youth as key actors as part of the sustainability plan for building resilience to shock and stress. (iii) Governments at all levels are asked to develop social, economic and technological infrastructures that supports the food systems. (iv) Proper data management is urgently needed to accelerate equitable support systems on food insecurity, food consumption pattern and resilience strategy. (v) Reliable insurance systems should be incorporated as core components of trainings as basis for guarding investments. (vi) A bolster multi-sectoral approach is needed in advancing research and development to transform the agricultural sector, expand the value chain and achieve sustainable food systems in Nigeria.237There were no particular areas of divergence as topics were well discussed and outcomes reached.

2021-06-25 20:41:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21034/203

9852221312521522

The selection of participants involved geographical consideration for organic farmers from different locations, religions and ethnic groups in Africa. INOFO and Seed Savers Network had developed a concept with clear objectives for the dialogue. The participants were briefed on the expectations of the dialogue using local languages in order to deepen their understanding. To enrich the dialogue, the organic farmers worked in 8 small groups in Kenya and also in Mauritius a group of farmers were also in a hall. This helped them to share their experiences, ideas and concerns amongst themselves and amplify their voices. There was a plenary session which was open to all participants and comments, questions, suggestions and clarifications were made openly and recorded. French and English interpretations were providedThe structure of the dialogue enhanced high level interaction which was self-driven. Participants were treated equally despite their origin, religion, ethnic group or social status. Both local and international languages (French and English) ensured full participation and contribution without any language barriers through interpretations. The dialogue was organic farmer centered which ensured only issues and concerns of this group were the basis of the dialogue. Participants were accommodative and respected the experiences and challenges shared by other participants. Moderation supported the dialogue by ensuring the participants remained on the predetermined objectives. This ensured optimal utilization of the set time for dialogue. All the strategies set to guide the dialogue enabled farmers and participants to articulate their issues freely.Organizing a dialogue with diverse participants requires more planning and adoption of strategies that recognize and embrace each of the participants. Any deviation from this would lead to dominance of the dialogue by a few participants and also result in inequality. These would compromise the quality of the deliberations as it will be skewed towards the few. Thus designing a dialogue which is participatory requires integration of principles of engagement to ensure equality and transparency. This will enrich the deliberations as participants will share freely amongst themselves issues affecting them.

NoThe dialogue was coordinated by INOFO Africa secretariat. Secretary General Mr.Famara gave an overview of the INOFO focus and its membership. Participants who had not heard of the organization sought for clarifications. There were 2 keynote speaker: M/s Claire coordinator-African Network for the Right to Food from Togo. She unpacked more details on the UN Food Summit and shared the intent which was geared towards coming up with resolutions which will be adopted by different countries and included in the food system. She retaliated that sustainability should be the focus by adopting supportive standards to help develop environmental conservation. Therefore the UN Summit will impact on the policy direction of the government and shape the interventions to be adopted in the food chain. She gave insights on the possibilities of having outcomes on the voluntary sustainability standards that focus on small scale farmers by ensuring that big corporates do not overshadow them. This can only be achieved when small scale farmers participate and are involved in the UN Food System Summit. Therefore, it will be important for family and organic farmers at the national and international level, in Africa, submit their issues and amplify their voice. M/s Anne Maina National Coordinator-Biodiversity and Biosafety Association from Kenya. Her contribution was the issue that civil society has raised regarding how the UN Summit is organized. This relates to the position of African Green Revolution Alliance (AGRA), with headquarters in Nairobi , headed by Dr Agnes, as key organizers of the summit. She reported that over 1 Billion USD has been invested by AGRA in Africa since its establishment and the impact is not visible. She also shared that 20% of African population are food and nutrition insecure. The approach of AGRA in Africa has been one of promotion of inorganic fertilizers, hybrid seeds and pesticides which is not acceptable in agro ecology or organics. Therefore their involvement in the summit puts agro ecology at a bigger risk, if the resolutions are made within the context of conventional agriculture. She also shared on the efforts of Alliance for food Sovereignty in Africa by promoting transition to agro ecology and recognition of food sovereignty where farmers have control and ownership over their seeds. Corporates have hijacked the food chain and are striving to create a monopoly through mergers like what happened recently to Monsanto and Bayer. As a case study, she shared the Kenyan punitive laws in agriculture quoting potato regulations which are affecting farmers directly as well as the Livestock Bill, 2021 which is requiring bee farmers to register and failure to which a heavy fine is provided. The dialogue also involved group and plenary discussions. Participants interacted freely physically or virtually. The group that was hosted at Seed Savers hall had a one on one discussion of various issues in the current food system. All the participants had a constructive and valuable engagement in the zoom meeting where they exchanged ideas and shared their plight in the food chain. Interpretation was provided in French and English to enhance the communication.

234Objectives and Focus of the dialogue To create awareness on the Un Food System Summit to stakeholders in Africa Access of information is critical in advocating for a fair and just food system. The dialogue provided an avenue to bring together various stakeholders from governmental and non-governmental organizations to engage meaningfully and timely to develop their proposition regarding what is desirable in the food chain. This required dissemination of vital information regarding the Summit and why it is very important to us all. To enhance this, Seed Savers Network and INOFO invited a number of experienced Organic farmers and activist in the food system who have taken lead in campaigns against genetically modified organisms and pesticides in Kenya.235241242243244246247249251To facilitate a dialogue for organic farmers to air their opinions on the shortcomings of the current food system in regard to organic food Organic farmers are faced with numerous challenges ranging from limited access to seeds, production and marketing constraints. This can be attributed from policy framework and interventions which are skewed towards conventional agriculture in Africa. Thus offering a platform where the farmers deliberated on these issues and gave their suggestions on how the current food system can be improved was needed. This was achieved through this dialogue where organic farmers got a chance to sit on the round table to share on their challenges and offer a practical way forward that can reshape the current food system. To deliberate on how organic farming can safeguard food sovereignty in Africa The current food chain is skewed towards commercialization and input driven production systems. It continues the dependence on multi-national companies in supply of seeds, which are overpriced, and harmful chemicals. This is detrimental to the livelihood of small-scale farmers who are living below the poverty line, as a majority earn $2 or less per day. The farmer is already disadvantaged economically and is further deprived of their freedom to use inputs available in their localities for food production. It therefore becomes automatic that the farmer cannot make decisions on what to plant independently as s/he relies on what is available in the agro vets. This reduces crop diversity and food diversity on what the farmer feeds to their family. The situation creates food and nutritional insecurity which can be intervened when farmers have right and control on what and how to produce their foods. Outcomes Organic farmers in Africa shared challenges and suggestions of their desired and ideal food system that serve their needs as follows: Challenge: High Production and marketing of harmful chemicals Suggestion: Developing an institutional framework to monitor and assess chemical toxicity. This means respective countries will have mandated institutions and laws that will restrict the use of chemicals that endanger the survival of mankind and biodiversity. Challenge: low Involvement and participation in decision making processes. Suggestion: Proper representation in the summit by real farmers who understand grassroots problems in agriculture. The voice of the farmer is not being represented by farmers but agents without mandate. Challenge: High cost of certification Suggestion: Localizing certification by recognizing local certification schemes. This will ensure affordability Challenge: Minimal Organic agriculture training and courses Suggestion: Raising awareness on the benefits of organic farming and supporting institutions to train agriculture professionals and farmers. Challenge: Marketing of organic Produce and improving organic farmers livelihood Suggestion: Developing organic agriculture markets and government interventions in supporting organic agriculture. Challenge: Policy and laws that discriminate against organic farmers Suggestion: Protection of farmers rights on seeds and in using local soil fertility amendments. Challenge: Loss of agro biodiversity Suggestion: Food system should have diverse crops and recognize the contribution of farmers managed seed systems. The summit therefore should put mechanisms to control bio piracy of pl

2021-06-27 04:39:44205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26150/39

451231652124244111471128132833113313

Designed to give youth participants space to discuss and ask questions by restricting attendance of others. Limited circulation of the invitations. This was important to build trust and allowed them to talk freely in their breakout group discussion.By limiting the number of older participants we tried to create space for building the trust of youth. The organization of the event also complemented the successful work of the Youth Nutrition Champions supported by Ms Bormey Chhun and Helen Keller International. Senior members of the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development and the Ministry of Planning joined staff from Helen Keller International and FAO at the event, demonstrating a clear commitment and leadership on the part of government listen to youth and to encourage youth to be actively engaged in the governance of the food system.For a youth dialogue it is important to provide them space to interact and to enjoy their event. Make a strong effort to listen to views of all and then to address feedback directly to youth. Avoid general discussion and keep answers short and direct. Maximize opportunities for youth to speak to build youth confidence and for them to know that they are being listened to. Make sure that a youth representative is moderating and facilitating the discussion to keep a youth focus on the discussion. Ask all others to focus on listening youth – not telling them what to do. From this dialogue, we learned that time should be adequately allocated for youth to ask questions to the older generation. After telling us their future roles, challenges and solutions, youth intended to ask older generations to support them to realize the fulfillment of those roles.

Yes

234238239240241242246249251The focus of the dialogue was on the Vital Role of Youth for Sustainable Food Systems in Cambodia. The dialogue was directed at youth and attendance was mainly reserved for youth to ensure that their viewpoint remained the focus. Older participants were separated for the small group discussion. The dialogue was focused around three key questions for youth and a similar set of questions for the older participants to address in a separate breakout room. The questions posed to the youth for discussion were: 1. What are the key roles of youth in contributing to achieving sustainable food systems in Cambodia? 2. What challenges will youth face in performing those roles? 3. What are the possible solutions to those challenges? The man diverse roles that youth can play in food systems were discussed ranging from agricultural producers to young entrepreneurs. They can be involved in many ways that contribute to sustainability, including organic farming, encouraging recycling, reducing waste and in efficient use of natural resources. Youth can bring new insights on accessing markets. They can also help by training other youth in communities because of their understanding of media, especially social media for spreading ideas. They can serve as opinion leaders, role models, influencers and educators by extending knowledge to the general community. Despite many challenges that youth face, there are many things that can be done to address these challenges. Those solutions need to start from within ourselves. Individuals need to pursue a healthy diet and then this translates into consumer interest in the food system. Every individual can contribute to driving the food system towards sustainability through their purchase decisions, provided they are educated and informed. We need to eliminate agricultural stereotypes for Cambodia that reflect an association with poverty and hardship. A short video or animated story on food systems could help to promote new thinking about the importance of food systems and the opportunities of young people within the food system. Youth networks should provide information and healthy diets should be incorporated in the school curriculum. In turn, the youth prepared questions for the older generation present, including asking: 1. What is the vision for the youth engagement? 2. How should youth prepare themselves to be leaders in future? 3. Is there a roadmap for sustainable food systems for 2030? How can we access these documents? 4. Are there any organizations making progress in exploring food systems? How can we find out about these? The time to discuss the questions from youth was very limited. Nonetheless, the senior representatives of government present made recommendations to youth to make a commitment to improving the food system and to combine the knowledge they get from school with the practical know-how that comes from experience. It was acknowledged that this is not an easy matter for young people in the community. They were encouraged to recognize that the food system offer many opportunities for livelihood and for the improvement of our lives. These opportunities extend well beyond agriculture and youth are encouraged to see how the whole system operates and the opportunities that exist within the system.235246249251The introduction to the event provided a short explanation for the rational for taking a food systems perspective, as opposed to the siloed approaches which have tended to break down issues into areas of sectoral interest. The systems approach incorporates the three main spheres concerning the value chain, the food environment and the consumer interests and looks into the situations, relationships and transformations occurring as food is produced, processed, packaged, distributed, sold and consumed. Economic, social and environmental aspect are all linked to sustainability of the system. The food system is a core sphere of interest for the SDGs, with major concern for the transformation of food systems to be more productive, pro-poor, sustainable and resilient, and providing for nutritious and healthy diets for every person. Under the decision made by the RGC under Notification 934 dated in 20 October 2020, CARD is mandated to work with ministries, institutions and academia to establish Youth Nutrition Champions to participate in the policy process at national and provincial level. We need to recognize that with so much of the population currently under 30 years of age (56%), it is critical that youth are directly involved in the planning, decision making and commitments that will define their future and country. As the so-called Bamboo Shoots of society, it is our duty to ensure that they are given every opportunity to develop as intelligent, healthy and strong foundations for the future. We must make sure that new blood (young generation) is injected into different institutions, so that new ideas, innovations and initiations are developed for rapid growth of our society. Malnutrition in all forms, including overweight and obesity weaken this potential, with lack of knowledge and lack of physical activity contributing to the extent of these problems. We must prioritise youth in terms of their education, health, and social development. We need to engage directly with youth to promote FSN through healthy diets. This is increasingly an issue of choice for young people, although deprivation remains a persistent problem due to under-nourishment. In the situation of the COVID-19 Pandemic, we need to recognize that FSN contributes to good health, livelihood and family harmony. We need to give youth opportunity in developing themselves through active participation in food security and nutrition events and platforms. In addition, youth should be provided opportunity to engage activities related to income generation, so that they have disposal income for their own expenditure, allowing them to do volunteer work. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Promote engagement and awareness of nutrition for students; mobilize youth and sensitize them on the cooking and traditional diets for Cambodia and encourage moderation in the use of salt, sugar and fat; and fight against COVID-19 by eating a healthy diet, eating vegetables and fruit, cooking and eating in a clean environment, wearing masks, washing hands, drinking safe water and following hygienic practices. We must build the capacity of youth and their influence as leaders of the future. There should be a mechanism in place to motivate the public to participate more actively in these issues. We need to show a commitment that includes both budgeted actions on the part of government and commitment from individuals to address their own responsibilities and the consequences of their choices.236238239241246248249251WHAT ARE THE KEY ROLES OF YOUTH IN CONTRIBUTING TO ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS IN CAMBODIA? Youth are engaged with food systems in many roles from agricultural producers to young entrepreneurs. They can be involved in many ways that contribute to sustainability, including organic farming, encouraging recycling, reducing waste and in efficient use of natural resources. Youth can bring new insights on accessing markets. They can also help by training other youth in communities because of their understanding of media, especially social media for spreading ideas. They can serve as opinion leaders, influencers and educators by extending knowledge to the general community. Youth can serve as role models, sharing what they learn, promoting local food production, monitoring the quality and safety of food, participating in learning events and exploring the food system. They can be volunteers, encourage the production and consumption of organic food and advocate for healthy diets by their own example. The older group addressed the question of HOW WE CAN SUPPORT YOUTH IN PLAYING AN ACTIVE ROLE IN BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEM? The group suggested that support for youth should include: 1. Capacity building should be provided to youth both in and outside school at national, sub national and community levels. Informal learning is a powerful new force and should be channeled in positive directions. 2. Finding ways to get youth inside the government structure, making sure that youth representation is sustained in these structures (such as the PWG-FSN). 3. Encourage youth to bring their energy and enthusiasm to the private sector, to generate income and support society. 4. Youth can bring the same energy to government and institutions and we must help to showcase their abilities and achievements in contributing to innovation and policy and other areas. 5. We must support youth with access to technology and information and to share what they learn. 6. We must support youth with access to decision making process related with development of FSN policies and strategies236246249251WHAT CHALLENGES WILL YOUTH FACE IN PERFORMING THESE ROLES? The mindset of young people is that they are not interested in learning about the food system because they think this is about agriculture or working as farmers. They are generally not interested in this. Youth are interested in consumption but they are not much interested in producing food. The concept of the food system is not really understood. The community members and leaders are not really willing to cooperate or listen to youth. Youth lack any organization at the provincial level to focus interest on food systems and healthy diets. There is also a perception that the community does not really pay attention to youth. Youth have limited knowledge and experience and they are not influential in the community. Youth initiatives always face budget constraints, there is a general lack of knowledge and the habits of youth are not very good, particularly their dietary habits. There is a lack of support from government and NGOs for activities both in the school and outside with the community. There is a lack of information about volunteer opportunities with NGOs. Challenges also include the lack of information available to youth, securing youth commitment to something like the food system, the perceived lack of control or influence over these matters and the limitations for youth in terms of livelihood and equity. There are different opportunities for women and men and there are differences in the situation for rural and urban youth. In this bigger picture, youth participation in the decision making process related to food security and nutrition policies and strategies has been limited. Youth engagement with food security and nutrition events (meetings, forums, workshops) at national and sub national levels has also been limited.236246WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THOSE CHALLENGES? Solutions need to start from within ourselves. Individuals need to pursue a healthy diet and then this translates into consumer interest in the food system. Every individual can contribute to this provided they are educated and informed. We need to eliminate agricultural stereotypes for Cambodia that reflect an association with poverty and hardship. A short video or animated story on food systems could help to promote new thinking about the importance of food systems and the opportunities of young people within the food system. Youth networks should provide information and healthy diets should be incorporated in the school curriculum. The community needs to understand more about youth and their interests. This can contribute to the well-being of the whole community. We need to promote local products and ensure that they are produced to proper standards. The government should restrict imports and expand market access for farmers. We should promote small-scale projects that introduce food system thinking at a local level. There should be greater use of the social media to attract youth interest and to provide information. Youth groups should be encouraged at provincial and district level and activities promoted at the community level. This needs government support and encouragement of debating and learning. The food system concept should be included in the school curriculum.

Short reports on the training provided to youth prior to their participation in the Youth Dialogue2021-07-11 01:57:01https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Youth-Training_May-12.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Youth-Training-_-Basic-Nutrition-Training-Report-May-20.pdf

2021-06-27 17:57:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25890/203

8880

These are truly important days that we are living in. Days of the corona virus pandemic and crisis and the continuing surviving aftermaths, days of the Black Lives Matter Social Movement and their combined critical impacts on how we see each other, and engage with each other. These times have seemed to shape our hope for a better today, and better future- to build back better. In all this, our hope has not been taken away. As the nation experienced system breakdowns, farmers were deemed essential service providers. Small farmers were able to provide their provide their good nutritious produce to the communities. Small farmers and their produce provided an essential service to their local communities and to the nations. The 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit Dialogues should bring together a diversity of viewpoints and healthy nutritious food system pathways, inclusive of a diversity of local grassroots vulnerable stakeholder groups - small farmers, women, youth, indigenous peoples, and migrants. Using a participatory capacity building approach, INOFO North America worked together to provide dialogues that laid pathways for systems change through engagements, building relationships, and inclusion of local stakeholders and local change agents - the voices and participations of underserved small farm populations, agroecology and organic Black Indigenous farmers and farmers of color-communities (referred to in North America as BIPOC or socially disadvantaged farmers) and their farmer organizations. The Principles of Engagement were integrated into the INOFO North America participatory approach.The INOFO North America Dialogue was created as a participatory learning capacity building session. Small farmer participants represented socially disadvantaged farmers, Black Indigenous farmers and farmers of color (BIPOC) and their farmer organizations who farm using agroecology farming practices and organic agriculture systems that support wellbeing of soils and environments, and promote nutritious food systems and healthy communities. Using a participatory capacity building approach, BIPOC small farmer- speakers gave their insights in pathways for supporting food systems change that is inclusive of BIPOC small farms, small farmers and their communities. The Principles of Engagement were integrated into the INOFO North America participatory approach. Our methods supported continuous engagements, enabling relationships and inclusion of local stakeholders and local change agents voices - the voices of underserved small farm populations, agroecology and organic Black Indigenous farmers and farmers of color and their farmer organizations. The outcomes of the INOFO North America Independent Dialogue will inform the Summit process and help to guide individual and collective action towards a future of healthy nutritious food that is responsibly grown by small farmers and their organizations to promote agroecology farm practices and organic agriculture, and their benefits – supporting food that is safe, nutritious, accessible, sustainable, equitable and resilient for all.Yes, the Principles of Engagement encouraged a participatory process and space for dialogues, listening and learning and co-leading the session’s discussions. It encouraged participatory capacity building, inclusiveness in the synthesis of essential food provider-stakeholder recommendations and deliberate actions - from small farmers, Black Indigenous farms and farmers of color and their communities - that promoted their voices, benefits, impacts, solutions to bring about positive wholistic pathways that support transformation to nutritious food systems that are accessible to all.

NoThere are many many reasons and cause for concern about the UN Food system summit, many have chosen not to take up any formal role in the Summit, meaning champions, action track leaders, or members of any formal body, in the formal architecture. Our INOFO North America Dialogue-United Nations Food Systems Summit Dialogues received enormous pressure from organizations not to participate in the our session. Small farmer groups participated representing BIPOC farmers and their farmer organizations.

234238239240241242244245247248249251During the COVID-19 pandemic and crisis, when the United States experienced the shock of system breakdowns, people sought out healthy produce, pesticide free, and fresh local produce for their families. We also experienced the role of small farmers in our communities – as essential service providers. Using alternative marketing strategies and armed with the COVIC-19 protocols farmers provided their local fresh nutritious food to the communities. Agroecology-regenerative, and small organic Black Indigenous farmers and farmers of color were successful in continuing to provide their local grown fresh produce and value added products to communities and urban areas, effectively serving in their role as essential service providers to the nation.235238239240241242244245247248249251We appreciate the main findings that emerged from the UNFSS Dialogue that follow: BIPOC small farmers/underserved small farmers and their communities recognize the need to build infrastructure and capacity for safe nutritious food systems: increase access to land and capital, connect younger farmers to the land, address heir property issues making sure that land is deeded to someone, build strong partnerships with 1890 Land grant Institutions and community NGO organizations. BIPOC small farmers/underserved small farmers and their communities and their farmer organizations realize that it is important to build local farmer markets, provide alternative food access to our communities, and develop and maintain diverse alternative distribution strategies to avoid system breakdown and outbreaks. It is critical to address our community’s food deserts and work to increase access to affordable fresh local nutritious food for our communities; and address our community health issues and lack of access to healthy fresh nutritious foods. BIPOC small farmers/underserved small farmers and their communities realize that it is important to increase production, small farm sustainability, access to fresh local nutritious foods, and a build resilient nutritious food systems. Livelihood trainings on alternative marketing strategies including cooperatives, community supported agriculture (CSAs) strategies; high tunnels and innovative systems, agroecology- regenerative agriculture; and sustainable organic farming skills/farmer knowledges; entrepreneur training, are important to empower BIPOC small farmers and their communities and support resilient agroecology-organic livelihoods and wellbeing. BIPOC small farmers/underserved small farmers and their communities and farmer organizations recognize that seed saving and the work of seed keepers provides a critical food systems pathway that promotes a value added product (the seed) while promoting relationships with farmers and future generations of farming and supporting food security and sustainable resilient food systems. Seed saving livelihoods strengthens and enables the sustainability of small farm populations/BIPOC farmers and farmers of color and limited resource farmers and their communities - and empowers the whole nutritious food system. Good nutritious food should be for everyone, not just the great and famous. Liberty is key: It is important to experience our liberty and freedom in a manner to operate a regenerative agroecology-organic small farms and demonstrate the benefits to our communities and nation. Deliberate actions towards these challenges and hindrances would enable resilient small farms and BIPOC small farm livelihoods, increase food security to all communities, ensure and strengthen local healthy food systems, grow wellbeing among BIPOC communities. . . Extending the benefits of agroecology and organic agriculture, resilient organic-regenerative agriculture and these nutritious food systems to all environments and all communities - for all human beings.236238239240241242244245246247248249251What is the greatest barriers, hindrances and issues to Black Indigenous farmers and farmers of color success? Despite historical barriers and inequities, Black indigenous farmers and farmers of color and their communities have not lost hope. BIPOC small farmers have the ability to increase and be successful in our environments, communities, on our small farms enterprises, and to work together to grow diverse nutritious food systems. Black Indigenous small farmers and farmers of color (BIPOC) and their farmer organizations recognize that it is important to listen, learn, and share information with each other and other communities. Black Indigenous farmers and farmers of color - small farms and their food systems would benefit from additional: • Resources and infrastructure; equipment access and availability; capital; entrepreneurship opportunities that add value to their products; • Mentors and sustainable models that demonstrate small farm-good stewardship; land ownership models and seed saving models; • Business credit and knowledge about Business credit; Understanding alternative cooperative models, development and management for small farms; • Innovative agroecology farming practices, regenerative-organic agriculture small farm models; • Continual learning and mentorships/and youth mentorships and trainings in agroecology, organic regenerative farming, and organic farming; • Access to skill and knowledge on relationships and wellbeing to land, water, and the earth; and • Knowledge on regenerative mind, land and food ways that grow sustainable conscientious life, agroecology and organic agriculture, and that support viable healthy nutritious food systems and quality of life. Holistic deliberate inclusive capacity building actions would enable wellbeing, positive change, and healthy local nutritious food systems in BIPOC communities and all communities.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251What do you envision that the United Nations could do to help BIPOC farmers and their communities and underserved small farmers and their communities? As small farmers we have the same challenges, we have a need for the same successful models - we want to work together. Black Indigenous small farmers and farmers of color and their farmer organizations hope that the United Nations would help with the following innovations: • Removing barriers to access appropriately scaled small farm equipment for small acreage, for example small farm combines. The United Nations could help in trading these small farm equipment, tools and items instead of guns; • Promoting active virtual learning opportunities between small farmers around the world. • There is a need to share insights and learn about indigenous treaty rights to ensure that indigenous people have land for their children; • Taking eminent domain off the table in our communities and nations; • Promoting active learning between small farmers on research and quantifying agroecology and organic farming systems farming strategies and their benefits to farm, farm family, farmworkers, surrounding environments, supporting food securities and healthy nutritious food systems; • Promoting active learning between BIPOC small farmers and all small farmers (global) on successful cooperative models from small farms around the world. We could work together. • Developing incentives for markets and grocery stores to help small farmers through developing alternative strategies that support BIPOC small farmers by purchasing directly from BIPOC small farmers or BIPOC small farm organizations; • Increasing investments in BIPOC small farmer’s production, Increase incentive programs that promote building relationships with local Black Indigenous farmers and farmers of color, and local Black Indigenous people and people of color that ensures inclusive access to safe and nutritious food for all.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251What is your final word on the INOFO North America Dialogue event and the impact that you hope it will have with the United Nations, and the UN Food Systems Summit. • We want our words to be impactful. We work hard and we hope our words will be taken at value and seriously. • Black Indigenous small farmers and farmers of color are endangered. We need your support. Our young farmers need even greater support. • Black Indigenous small farmers and farmers of color need to know how to develop strategies to be recognized and to speak across borders and issues - to empower the ability of BIPOC small farmers/socially disadvantage farmers to exist beyond this generation. • Our participation in this (UNFSS) effort will help amplify the voice of our cause. Small farms, Black Indigenous small farmers and farmers of color are important for local diverse food production, enabling local nutritious food security and the capacity for local nutritious food systems that reach everyone. • Increasing agroecology, organic-regenerative, and organic BIPOC small farms increases food security no matter the catastrophe, we cannot control catastrophes. But we can work to ensure healthy ongoing resilient agriculture, robust sustainable farming communities, with increased food security, increased ability to feed our children and communities • Enabling the benefits of resilient healthy food production, healthy environments and healthy communities for all human beings.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251Summary of the INOFO North America Dialogue – 2021 United Nations Food System Summit Dialogues Access to food, healthy nutritious food, is a human right. Agroecology and organic BIPOC small farmers are important for local healthy food production, nutritious food security and growing the next generation of resilient small farmers and their communities; and to extending the benefits of agroecology farming practices and organic farming systems to all environments, all communities, and inclusive of all human beings. The INOFO North America Dialogue added the voices of small farmers, agroecology and organic Black Indigenous farmers and farmers of color and farmer organizations from North America to the 2021 UN Food System Summit Dialogues and Summit Process, and enabled a platform of as we shared our history, our great resiliencies, deliberate actions, and hopes. Hope for a better today, hope for a better inclusive tomorrow, to build back better - together. The outcomes of the INOFO North America Independent Dialogue will inform the Summit process and help to guide individual and collective action towards a future of healthy nutritious food that is responsibly grown by small farmers and their organizations to promote agroecology farm practices and organic agriculture, and their benefits – supporting food that is safe, nutritious, accessible, sustainable, equitable and resilient for all.

2021-06-28 04:38:17205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28191/113

0

Act with Urgency: This webinar on National Food Security, organised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industries (MAFI) and Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute(MARDI) is indeed timely, considering that Covid-19 has led to severe and widespread increases in global food insecurity. Commit to the Summit: The webinar further elaborates on pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Complement the work of others: This webinar discussed the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on food security in Malaysia, deliberate on the mechanisms in place and examine viable solutions to support the nation and ensure they have access to safe and nutritious food. The Dialogues build on and add-value to existing policy processes and initiatives. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity & Build trust: More than 3,500 participants from all over Malaysia, both from the public and private sectors joined this very important event to partake, update and broaden their knowledge on the issues, status and way forward of food security in Malaysia.By engaging in the knowledge sharing process, the webinar creates a new unique knowledge resource. During the webinar, eight speakers from the various agricultural related industries shared their perspective and experiences in the irrespective business ventures, how Covid-19 has impacted their business and their way forward to remain resilient. To further enrich this event, two technologies and two books from the Malaysian Agricultural Research and DevelopmentInstitute(MARDI) were launched.N/A

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249250251a) An extensive exploration of issues pertaining to sustainability and food security in agricultural development in Malaysia. b) An exploration of strategies and policies in Malaysia in securing food security and nutritional security. c) Review the roles of supply chain logistic, modern agriculture and related ecosystems in ascertaining food security.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251a) Covid-19 pandemic laid bare the frailty of the food system especially in the sectors of the food supply chains. Malaysia also realised its heavy reliance on imports and foreign labour and this poses a threat to national food security. b) There is an urgent need to place food security at the highest priority level and come up with a clear and workable food security plan. c) Malaysia should be prepared and be ready in overcoming the food security crisis and this demands an integrated and holistic approach to crisis preparedness to combat future uncertainties. d) A “whole-of-government strategy” is needed where there should be a concerted effort across all agencies and ministries to: i. Establish national policies geared towards self-sufficiencies. ii. Increase the volume of domestically produced food. iii. Diversify import resources to ensure a continuous supply of foods that cannot be produced locally. iv. Support local farmers in their technology adoption to maximise productivity v. Enhance investment in the agri-tech research and development vi. Deploy various strategies to encourage youth to venture into agriculture by providing incentives in terms of providing suitable and, technology etc vii. Identify under-utilized urban spaces that can be converted into indoor farms viii. Develop and build school curricula in the relevant areas of agriculture ix. Provide special emphasis and support to small farm holders.236240241242243244245246248249251A “whole-of-government strategy” is needed where there should be a concerted effort across all agencies and ministries to: i. Establish national policies geared towards self-sufficiencies. ii. Increase the volume of domestically produced food. iii. Diversify import resources to ensure a continuous supply of foods that cannot be produced locally. iv. Support local farmers in their technology adoption to maximise productivity v. Enhance investment in the agri-tech research and development vi. Deploy various strategies to encourage youth to venture into agriculture by providing incentives in terms of providing suitable and, technology etc vii. Identify under-utilized urban spaces that can be converted into indoor farms viii. Develop and build school curricula in the relevant areas of agriculture ix. Provide special emphasis and support to small farm holders.236240242243244246248249251A logistic chain that can connect farmers to businesses, open up new markets, there by improving the national food security while enhancing export business. Key elements in making agriculture successful and more resilience are to ensure that: i. High-quality seeds or breed that is adaptable to the local climate are used. ii. To have a good and strong business model. iii. Stay relevant in the market, improve continuously through technology. iv. Venture into the area of vertical, complete control environment farming. v. Emphasise sustainability.237239240242243244246248249251There's a variation of constructive opinions among the participants. Such as the comparative advantage of business models and entity, issues and challenges of the agriculture industry, practices that are needed for food system sustainability and self-sufficiency and the best model in agriculture.

TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 100 participants2021-06-28 04:50:13

2021-06-28 13:18:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18613/176

1974525011122411

The invitation was sent out through multiple channels, and directly to underrepresented groups. We strove to get a good representation of organizations. We made sure that the dialogue moterators were aware of the principles, and to share feedback. Introductory presentations were chosen with the principles in mind.Our specific angle was to discuss the role of youth, and we shared the invitation with youth organizations and related stakeholders broadly. We had the ambition to hold a high quality dialogue and were happy with the amount of participants, seen to the amounts of persons that they in turn represent.

Yes

234238239240241244246247249251The dialogue was centered around the role of youth in sustainable food systems. Our angle was to invite stakeholders that represent youth organizations: young farmers, chefs, students at agricultural colleges, environmental youth organizations etc. The dialogue took its start in three keynote presentations followed by a dialoge around four statements that had been prepared by the convenors. The statements are as follows: - As a decisionmaker I have made it easy for young people to choose sustainable food by… - There are incitaments in the food system for food producers to produce in a sustainable and fair manner, and social as well as ecological aspects are not weighted lower than economic aspects. - As a company in the food supply chain we have enabled young people to eat ecologically and socially sustainable food. - The food system makes use of the diversity in food cultures and traditions, and creates meeting places and dialogue centred around food.235238239240241244246247249250251General findings of the dialogue shows that there is a big need for just inclusion of young people in the conversation on sustainable food. There is a fear of "youth-washing", that young are being invited in general, but not listened to. Tokenism was also mentioned, and that there is a real need to actually act on what youth bring to the table. A general signal from the dialogue to the food systems summit is that political stakeholders and corporates such as retail and large food corporations need to listen better and engage in order to achieve a food system within planetary boundaries. The stakeholders in the dialogue were interested in continued dialogue, and the convenors are prepared to act on this. The dialogue also shows how different stakeholders perceive the discussion on sustainable food. The need to include meat in a sustainable diet, the need to define local and that there is no single silver bullet solution was brougt to the table and we can absolutely say that consensus was not established during such a short time. However, the session served well to bring the stakeholders to the table and to initiate a continued dialogue.236238239240241244246249251- As a decisionmaker I have made it easy for young people to choose sustainable food by… The participants brought up policy intstruments, political arenas (global/national/local)as well as the need to base actions in an understanding of the cultural context. The three major conclusions: 1. Legislation and policy instruments must be used in a more strategic way to redirect the food system within planetary boundaries. Both production and consumption need to be included in a political framework. 2. We have to use politics to make food a voting issue, and to enable a public conversation about food politics. This is the most important tool in a democracy - to vote and to have a political conversation and this is lacking in food today. 3. Food is culture and connection, this must be highlighted in the work going forward. The narrative needs challenging, there are many ideas of what is traditionally eaten and where we should go with the food system. There were no major disagreements, however, there were different strategies among the stakeholders to reach people: raising alarm or using inspiration. Both perspectives were deemed neccessary, and complementary to some extent.236238239240241244245246249250251There are incitaments in the food system for food producers to produce in a sustainable and fair manner, and social as well as ecological aspects are not weighted lower than economic aspects. Major conclusions: 1. Use and change the economic system. What destroys our planet should cost, what is good should be promoted. True cost accounting is needed, and we should use subsidies and taxation in a way that will lower the burden on the planet. 2. The rural setting has enormous potential that is not used in a sustainable way. Much focus is on urban lifestyles, but bringing consumers closer to production can bring many benefits including a way of integrating food production in all society. 3. Put a larger part of the responsibility on retail and larger food corporations. The primary producers and consumers are weaker parts, and the economic burden should be more fairly distributed. There was a larger discussion on if the existing economic system can be used and built on, or if we should strive for disruptive change. There was also a lengthy discussion on how young people can be involved in the food system as farmers and entrepreneurs. There is a great need for more youth in the production system, and this will also help bridge over to consumers.236238239240241244246249251As a company in the food supply chain we have enabled young people to eat ecologically and socially sustainable food. - The primary production was in focus here, and that there needs to be more dialogue and knowledge around how food is produced. Changing diets has been in focus, but participants wanted to emphasize the ”how is it produced” rather than the ”what do we eat”. - Retail has a large responsibility in the corporate sector. The economic power lies here, and there is great potential in aiding consumers to sustainable choices. - Companies can help politicians overcome ”fear of action” - Public procurement is a relatively small part of the food system, but is important as an expression of political will and to ensure a stable market for producers. - From a nutritional perspective we eat wrong in Sweden, and companies have a strong responsibility here. They often refer to that consumers want to have choices, but deny that they are a part of the problem.236238239240241244246247249251The food system makes use of the diversity in food cultures and traditions, and creates meeting places and dialogue centred around food. - The participants agree that food culture is an underrated discussion. Sensitivity to culture issues is vital, and can also have potential to restoring the food system to sustainable levels. - Local varieties can also help with resilience issues. - Understanding of the food system needs to take its basis in the school system. A whole school food approach is vital, and school gardens can help increase understanding of where food comes from. - A specific suggestion came up that there should be a school program to get students to visit farms and primary production. - short supply chains help establish contact between producers and consumers, and increase understanding of different cultures.237238239240241244246249251Areas that need further exploration are: - The need to develop, or to fundamentally change the economic system, since the true costs aren´t integrated into the economic system today. - The need to focus on how we produce food or what food is consumed - some participants felt that too much attention is given to diets when we should be discussion how food is produced. - The need to raise alarm and share a sense of urgency, as opposed to the need of inspiring and getting people to change through inspiration and a feeling of "we can do it".

2021-06-28 14:19:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17145/131203

77518451260423222616086000235031701342863400331550201030612

Everyone who signed up had to sign an agreement based on these principles, stating they had read, understood and agreed to them. We did have some participants drop out because of this requirement.We made sure throughout the registration process to encourage people with tools, and concepts that centered around how to build trust.We also were sure to complement the work of others with updates and sharing in our community their contribution, our appreciation and showcasing them in a uplifting and elevating way. Some of our participants were very pleased by the exposure they received, and the accolades shared among their fellow colleagues, and possible new consumers. We embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting not just industry leaders, but policy makers, teachers, and regular citizens who may not have ever known about this food system. We wanted to consider the whole market, and aspect of food community, who is in and how to help people navigate that complexity to find their unique place in the solution. We set up the beginning of the dialogue with one of our community leaders, Kimberly Buffington about how to respect people’s time, how to create a safe space of inclusion, and how to recognize the complexity of the topic we were all committed to sharing our ideas and solutions about.

Yes

234238The focus of our dialogue was to bring high-level experts to dialogue with regular citizens about ways we can use sharing and technology to close the gap between commercial and community opportunities. We did comprehensive exploration on food systems, exploration around action track 1, and focused on ensuring access to healthy and nutritious food for all. We were able to identify five areas where there were potential for levers of change, and action through collaboration and resource sharing that digital tools could provide. While many of them overlap, we found it helpful to break into 5 groups and then discuss those overlaps, and using the multidisciplinary interaction to amplify the ability to discover how we can move users within a food system from being passive and to more active.235238The key findings that emerged from our dialogue is the huge access gap that exists between communities being able to invest and have access to their own food supply, and being completely dependent on monopolistic commercial and governmental control of the food supply and farming systems. We also discussed questions such as why is food and farming made available for communities with subsidies or taxes that often go toward infrastructure, water, waste, energy. And why are more investors not making an impact in their community, particularly, said food and ag companies, to support the local community in free food growth. Findings were that a simple investment could be made with dynamic returns, and has been done in many communities around the world. Using these as an example and also the ideas that we appreciated came from the collaboration in each cohort. An agreement of actions that were expressed among participants were that we need to move market investment from new innovative companies who receive first pick when it comes to implementing innovative market solutions, and shift them to community driven DIY projects, which require less front end investment and provide better returns collectively, and overtime. SkyFarms is one of these solutions and many of the participants are eager to work on the digital tools and network that will tackle things like fragmentation and flooded market, and inclusion to opportunities to invest in community support projects that turn food deserts into food oasis. Additionally, the use of data, and citizen science will make a big difference in identifying the capacity of food that needs to be grown in any given area, and to map insights about those local opportunities, spaces, stakeholders and resources that are freely available for such community actions. The following action points arose from these dialogues and are presented here in the hopes that they might be useful in the upcoming United Nations Food Systems Summit. ACTION POINTS: Dialogue and bringing people together as fundamental Strengthening the agency of small and medium food producers and suppliers Empowering consumers to be drivers of change Imbedding a hybrid of new agriculture technologies, vertical, hydroponics, greenhouses, to enable communities places to grow anywhere, anytime Addressing economic and social inequities through creating circular and shared value chains A focus on the local level, but connecting those local systems together to share data, and knowledge globally.236238But I wanted to mention that the first issue is about just being able to actually own the problems even before you can own the solutions and how, in some parts of the world. People are farming the land and are unable to make choices about their own crops or their own technology and are still in some form of exploitation or semi slavery and so that's the number one issue in this. Area towards making progress, but we focused a lot on education and the power of collaboration and how we can. Increase awareness of what's possible for growing food year round, and these technologies. A lot of areas are doing this at the research level but it's not getting into the hands of people who needed the most or who could start their own small business. And contribute to the economy by having that access and so just looking at how can we continue to share information around circular economy entrepreneurship. And city planning at that level of including people's voices and. Looking at the systems view so from our solution point of view, we saw, we need to be influencing at the grass tops level with people with influence over policy. And capital access and then the smaller scale grassroots level and just being able to give individuals, the power to be leaders in their own Community food systems. We also talked about having access to equipment for food processing and preserving and cooking and being able to help change some of the norms around that. Moving away from mono cropping and industrial agriculture into more of that. Revival level and regenerative when we see the power of co OPS, or people working together to eliminate food waste or coming into a piece of the supply chain. And filling a niche so that others can really play their part, well, instead of having all of this hyper competition in ways that's not really spreading best practices. I don't know that we had any conclusions to share other than knowing that we all have to take our own torch forward and continue to communicate with each other through ally ship. And knowing where there are good proof of concept about what we can do, and just keeping that hopeful attitude that we are working towards these UN goals with good best faith.237238Among the participants there was some disagreement that needs further exploration. Particularly surrounding inclusion, and equity. Not only did we anticipate this, but help a space in the start of our dialogue for dissenting voices to be heard, and held a training in the start of the call about conflict resolution and how to talk about diverging ideas, opinions and facts. One of the biggest areas to focus on was why so many people who are involved in farming are being left behind by not only the UNFSS, but by the industry leading companies that claim to be solving a problem, but are only solving the problem at the level it was created at therefore perpetuating systemic problems that need to be deeply addressed. We have several stakeholders within our network who are boycotting the UNFSS based on several concerns expressed here. Excessive emphasis put on technological solutions that are introduced as a universal solution to food systems problems. The Food System Summit’s process is directed vertically by a non-institutional body, with a private secretariat and out of any control of the member countries. The initiator and main partner of the summit is the World Economic Forum (WEF), which brings together the richest and most powerful corporations in the world. These corporations are largely responsible for the degradation of the environmental state of the world, the rise in inequality and food insecurity. The UNFSS has not been validated by the UN General Assembly. Civil society organisations and in particular organisations of food producers (peasants, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, rural women, pastoralists, agricultural workers, etc.) have been sidelined throughout the process leading to the “summit” The lack of democratic inclusion of food producers’ organisations (and particularly small-scale food producers) within the bodies created to manage the process Joint Letter to UN Signed by 500+ Orgs: SLOWFOOD: A GROWING CULTURE: Peasants Press Forum: Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples' Mechanism for relations with the UN Committee on World Food Security LANDWORKERS ALLIANCE: LA VIA CAMPESINA SOUTH ASIA

https://trello.com/b/4F5HRP3J/un-food-systems-independent-dialogue

2021-06-28 14:42:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16769/203

6515301530355115103425138765175727

- Act with urgency - We framed the Dialogue as being part of a context where a sustainable agricultural transition was entirely necessary, and action to take it forward was needed at all parts of the supply chain. - Commit to the summit - The aim of the Dialogue was always to deliver outcomes with the Food Systems Summit, and the different action tracks in mind, and this influenced our framing of the discussions as well as our closing remarks to participants. - Be respectful - Our briefing of Facilitators emphasised the importance to make sure all felt welcome and encouraged to participate, and that everyone's contributions were valuable. - Recognise complexity - In our preparation of Facilitators, we made clear that we wanted discussions to include a systemic approach that recognises all the actors and impacts of agricultural transformation, and encouraged them to make sure this was recognised in their breakout groups. - Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity - In sending invitations to potential participants we carefully considered the mix of individuals and businesses represented to ensure a diverse mix of stakeholders with a wide range of perspectives would be able to participate. - Complement the work of others - Individuals participating in other governance processes to address food systems were invited to be the Facilitators, so they could use their experience and knowledge to guide the discussions. - Build trust - we emphasised the collaborative aspect of the Dialogue and that everyone's views were valued, and would be part of our overall feedback.The key Principle we wanted to make a specific focus of our Dialogue was embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity. Throughout our entire development process, and conduction of the Dialogue itself we wanted to ensure views from a wide range of stakeholders were heard and contributed to a discussion about how to ensure a sustainable agricultural transition that works with and for everyone. We did this by inviting a broad range of individuals and appointing Facilitators that brought a range of expertise from across the agriculture industry. We also individually organised the breakout rooms to ensure one sector and one background did not dominate, to encourage a conversation where individuals could share different perspectives. As part of the framing of all of our discussion questions we kept the language broad enough that it did not speak to a particular expertise and would be able to have a wide range of opinions contributing to it.It is key to brief all potential speakers and Facilitators about the Principles and approach you want to take to ensure that the entire Dialogue is conducted in a manner that reflects these.

Yes

234240244246248249250The focus of this Dialogue was on exploring a just and sustainable transition for the livestock sector globally in the context of innovation and climate change. The sustainability of meat production and consumption has become one of the most controversial conversations of the past decade. At the same time, meat plays a vital role in meeting nutritional needs in many developing countries and, despite the awareness of the negative impacts of the meat sector, meat continues to be in high demand in developed economies as well. There are ways to produce meat that can address negative impacts and ensure farmers are central to any solutions. We need to focus on how to promote these types of models to transform the meat sector and deliver better outcomes for people and planet. This dialogue explored: - How current environmental, social, health, and economic best practices can be scaled up; - Different types of innovation in transforming meat production; - What is the role of government/policy to facilitate innovation and achieve ‘better’ meat production; - Opportunities for partnership and coalitions across food systems to ensure inclusivity in the transformation; - How to build resilience across meat production systems while creating a more equitable system overall.235238239240241242244246248249250Participants concluded that in order to drive best practices in the agricultural transition there needs to be recognition of the diversity of regions and the need to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach in defining what is needed. To drive this change, greater collaboration and links are needed all along the supply chain, particularly between consumers and producers, to share existing knowledge and support a full system change, and to incentivise and reward producers for taking action. It is also most important that the phasing out of least favourable activities is done in a way that reflects a "just transition", incorporating all existing stakeholders. Participants felt that the role of innovation needs to be encouraged and facilitated to drive forward the agricultural transition. Two types of innovation in particular were highlighted - incremental innovation that works alongside existing practices; and transformational innovation that brings new technologies to innovate new ways of doing agriculture. Significant conclusions were that it is key efforts are made for innovation to be inclusive and work with stakeholders rather than leave them behind. Government will need to play a role in supporting these producers in the transition, and also needs to move faster to keep up with innovation to ensure the appropriate regulation is in place to support innovation and provide consumer trust. The need for more diverse coalition forming was agreed as key by participants. In particular the need for unconventional partnerships, and bringing in actors outside of the supply chain to ensure that all viewpoints and needs are reflected in the transition was highlighted. It was suggested the supply chain needs to be reconceptualised as a web to broaden the idea of who counts as a stakeholder. Coalitions were agreed to be key as a way to give farmers, particularly smaller farmers, a voice, and there needs to be more work to make livestock farmers part of the agricultural transition rather than vilified. In addressing the issue of resilience, participants agreed that although supply chains are a major point of weakness to be addressed there needs to be recognition of the benefits and drawbacks of more localised supply chains. The approach to improving resilience must be a holistic one that considers how global dynamics play out a local scale.236239240243244246248249250Discussion topic: Leveraging best practice: How do we replicate environmental, social, health, and economic best practices, and scale them up effectively? There was agreement that in defining best practice it is key to take a holistic approach as best practice varies by region, industry, and social circumstance and it is key to not take a one-size-fits-all approach. To accommodate this participants felt that there needed to be a shift in terminology of best practice to focus on outcomes as those are more universalised with underlying principles across food systems. There was also recognition of the tension between not reinventing the wheel and operating in silos, but because of the urgency of the climate crisis it is important for all actors in the supply chains to share best practices. In discussing the major barriers to implementing best practices, communication was emphasised by participants. Participants from the agricultural sector felt that the biggest barrier they have found is communicating to farmers the overall benefits of certain practices. There was also reflection on the role consumers play in driving best practices, but if there is not strong consumer awareness and transparency of the impacts of certain practices it is more challenging to send a price signal to farmers to shift practice. The transparency issue was felt to be a significant one as there is often a major felt separation of many consumers from the farm, so it also contributed to another conclusion that it is key to form stronger links between producers and consumers in driving best practice. To overcome barriers it is key for all stakeholders to work together, with policy also contributing through regulation but with consultation and consideration of how regulatory changes would impact farmers. In considering the least favourable activities to be phased out, the participants were in agreement that the most obvious was the phase-out of the medically important antibiotics in meat production. They however emphasised the importance of phasing these out in a holistic way that is mindful of negative trade-offs. Other problematic issues to overcome highlighted was that of consolidation, and independent farmers increasingly having less control over their own production systems. The issue of farmers having control was related to issues around deforestation where it is tightly connected to needing a more just and equal land ownership system. Social problems to overcome that were raised were also key issues around bankrupted farmers, increased farmers approaching retirement age, and finding a way to incorporate new practices in farming with all stakeholders. The practice of incremental innovation to make existing systems better as well as transformational was raised as a solution. All participants emphasised that the most important thing to consider in the phasing out of least favourable activities that it is a just transition, and no one is blamed.236239240241244245246247248249250Discussion topic 2. Innovation: Exploring various types of innovation in transforming meat production and identifying potential conflicts and synergies. Two types of innovation were discussed as important for driving the agricultural transition - Incremental innovation that works alongside existing practices; and transformational innovation that brings new technologies to innovate new ways of doing agriculture. These are both felt to be key for an inclusive approach that allows all stakeholders to participate and be part of innovation. Innovation should not work in a way that leaves behind certain stakeholders. Major specific innovations that were highlighted was animal feed innovation to drive decarbonisation. Participants agreed that an important role for government and policy related to innovation is putting in place the correct regulations to make consumers feel comfortable with novel agri-technologies like alternative proteins, and to facilitate the creation of innovation ecosystems that drive innovation. It is also felt that government need to play a consistently supportive role to farmers to assist them in the transition alongside driving innovation.236238240241243244245246248249Discussion topic 3. What is the role of government/policy to facilitate innovation and achieve ‘better’ meat production, and what are examples of policies that could be adopted? The participants agreed it is key for government to be a partner to innovators, making the path to market clear. Government's also need to catch up with innovation to ensure that any regulatory rulebook is sufficiently adapted to new areas. It is important naturally to address sensitivities around new products but there needs to be a way to move faster. This is also important for communicating to consumers and the public. In driving innovation the two types of innovation (incremental and transformational) were highlighted, but that incremental growth in efficiency cannot meet the growing demand on its own and therefore needs to be supplemented by more structural changes - policies need to find a way to widen the ways to feed the population and encourage farmers to implement new techniques. Harmonising approach to innovation across countries was agreed to be challenging, but that consensus at a national level is possible, and this needs to be resolved to provide more clarity for innovators. It is important that this is also always balanced with the needs of the farming industry. A key consistent barrier that arose was a lack of consistent data and methodology that then impacts the ability of policy to set harmonised, standardised guidance which then impacts consumer trust - policy then however needs to manage risk.236238239240241244248250Discussion topic 4. Coalitions: Identifying non-traditional allies and opportunities for partnership across food systems that can foster ‘better’ meat production, and ensure inclusivity in the transformation. In considering which parts of the supply chain need stronger partnerships, the participants discussed that the idea of a linear supply chain is what needs to change, with it being considered more of a web to facilitate engagement with more stakeholders outside the supply chain. This is particularly key for consumer relationships as the disconnect between producers and consumers complicates lots of change being driven down the supply chain. It is also important for supporting smaller farmers to have access to the same kind of public-private partnerships that typically bigger companies access to help them scale-up. Coalitions between farmers and businesses were agreed to be key for giving farmers a platform. Unconventional partnerships are increasingly important - traditional meat producers are increasingly interested in engaging with alternative proteins, in working together to address the problem of protein shortage. This is also important for the issue of ensuring livestock farmers and producers have a voice which the participants discussed. Participants reflected on the way that livestock farmers can work with newer plant-based entrants to avoid vilification of meat while still driving forward sustainable innovation. There was agreement that there needs to be a more nuanced message surrounding livestock production that is more about the different production methods than a blanket ban. The participants discussed how to ensure different forums are diverse and reflecting a wide range of stakeholder views. An example of positive behaviour to encourage is connecting with on-the-ground action and transferring that upwards. The need to ensure that coalitions come together to actually advance sustainability and shift mainstream production practices was emphasised, and participants highlighted the need for further communication to stakeholders outside of these associations to actually drive forward change.236239241242244246250Discussion topic 5. Resilience: How do we build resilience across meat production systems while creating a more equitable system overall that meets demand? The participants discussed how to build resilience in terms of building a safer world where humans and animals can co-exist. The small scale farm model was raised as a positive example to be replicated, while recognising that there is also a question about sufficient food supply. There needs to be a clear framework for the "true cost" of food including externalities of environment and public health, which should be a driver for real change. Supply chains were highlighted by participants as a point of concern in addressing resilience, with a need to move away from having the single point of failure as highlighted by covid-19. However, the point was raised that although there are benefits to a localised food system there have been many historic famines that were highly localised. The difference between animal farming and crop farming was raised, as localised systems are more challenging for animal farming. Some foods are also more sustainable produced in specific regions, and consumers now expect food from around the world. There needs to be a way to get the benefits of small scale and local production without the risk associated, while also making the system more productive. The role of consumers in also driving responsible consumption was emphasised to increase resilience. It is important to take a holistic approach when addressing resilience issues, considering how global dynamics play out at a local scale. Every ingredient needs to become resilient to have a resilient supply chain. A local solution might not work for a global system.237239242244250There were few areas of real divergence as all participants recognised in all cases the need for multiple solutions that encompass all stakeholders viewpoints. Some points of slight divergence occurred around: - Whether the phasing-out of certain practices needs to be driven by government or whether it will happen organically through replacement with improved practices. - How to encourage the benefits of local, small scale farming, while others raised the risks from localised food systems.

2021-06-28 15:47:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22283/12118125185

59016281230243501280300211121051023856008267300704001631

L’UMNAGRI a veillé dès le début à choisir une thématique pertinente pour sa concertation qui soit partagée par tous les pays de la région. En effet, cela est une condition nécessaire pour assurer l’implication de toutes les organisations membres dans l’organisation et les travaux de cette concertation. Toutes les étapes de définition des thèmes de la concertation, de désignation des intervenants et d’organisation ont fait l’objet d’échanges participatives entre les membres de l’UMNAGRI. Dans sa communication envers toutes les parties impliquées dans l’organisation et les travaux de cette concertation, l’UMNAGRI a insisté le principe de la diversité et de l’inclusivité. Ainsi, les membres et les facilitateurs ont été encouragé à impliquer des intervenants représentants toutes les parties prenantes et à respecter les éventuelles divergences de positions qui ne peuvent qu’enrichir les outputs de la concertation. L’UMNAGRI était conscient de la complexité des systèmes alimentaires et des enjeux à relever en particulier par l’agriculture qui en constitue le socle principal. Cette complexité a été prise en compte dans le choix d’un thème bien précis permettant de focaliser les échanges et d’aboutir à des pistes d’amélioration concrètes. La question du financement de l’agriculture a fait l’objet de travaux antérieures. La concertation a intégré les outputs de ces travaux dans la mise en contexte qui a été partagée avec les participants au début de la concertation et a constitué un point de départ pour les discussions dans les groupes. Les différents participants et parties prenantes ont été sensibilisés sur l’importance d’une réponse internationale coordonnées aux défis des systèmes alimentaires. Ainsi, les outputs de cette concertation étaient destinés à alimenter et enrichir les réflexions qui auront lieu lors du sommet mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires. Plusieurs échanges préliminaires ont été organisés par l’UMNAGRI entre coordinateur, animateur, facilitateurs et représentants des organisations nationales afin de bien expliciter les principes d’engagement.La concertation a vu la participation de plus de 60 acteurs représentant 4 pays de la région et issus de différents secteurs (agriculture, administration, sociétés civiles, commerce, bailleurs de fonds, organisations paysannes,…). Cette diversité des origines et des secteurs a permis d’avoir des échanges riches en expériences et enseignements lors des plénières et des discussions dans les groupes. Les comptes rendus des groupes reflètent cette diversité et richesse d’expériences. En effet, même si la problématique de financement de l’agriculture est une préoccupation majeure dans les 4 pays de la région, cela n’empêche que dans chaque des pays des tentatives de mise en place de réponses innovantes ont existé. Le partage de ces expériences a constitué en soi un acquis important de cette concertation. Les facilitateurs ont été très sensibilisés sur la nécessité d’impliquer tous les participants dans les échanges et de préparer des questions permettant de provoquer les débats et de cerner tous les volets de la thématique. Cela a été mis en œuvre lors de la concertation et au sein des groupes de discussions. Le coordinateur et le facilitateur ont pu suivre le déroulement des différents groupes et veiller à ce que ces règles soient respectées. La dimension régionale et internationale a été aussi prise en compte en abordant des questions sur le rôle que pourraient jouer l’UMNAGRI, les bailleurs de fonds et les organisations internationales dans l’amélioration du dispositif de financement de l’agriculture. Des pistes de recommandations ont été identifiées dans ce sens par les participants et formulées dans les comptes rendus.Il est important d’accorder suffisamment de temps et d’efforts au partage de ces principes avec les intervenants dans les concertations et particulièrement les facilitateurs. En effet, en plus des aspects techniques, il est nécessaire que les facilitateurs soient suffisamment imprégnés par ces principes et les assimilent parfaitement pour les intégrer dans l’animation et la gestion des groupes de discussion. Les systèmes alimentaires est un sujet très complexe et difficile à cerner dans sa globalité lors d’une seule concertation. Le choix de l’UMNAGRI a été de cibler une problématique transversale qui touche un maillon de ce système et constitue un préalable pour développer des systèmes alimentaires performants et équitables. Ce choix s’est avéré très judicieux dans la mesure où les échanges ont pu approfondir les différentes facettes de la problématique et de partager des expériences intéressantes entre les pays participants. Il était aussi important de sensibiliser les facilitateurs que l’objectif de la concertation est d’identifier des pistes d’action qui pourraient orienter les stratégies des décideurs mondiaux en ce qui concerne le développement futur des systèmes alimentaires. Ainsi, les échanges ont pu être orientés davantage vers les solutions à proposer.

Yes

234240241242245246248249251Le thème principal de la concertation indépendante organisée par l’UMNAGRI a été « Accès au financement : un préalable indispensable pour une agriculture performante en Afrique du Nord à l’horizon 2030». En effet, le financement demeure une contrainte majeure empêchant tout développement réel de l’agriculture en Afrique du Nord qui constitue le fondement de tout système alimentaire performant. Malgré sa contribution très importante dans la création de richesse nationale, l’agriculture reste le secteur le moins servi en termes de financement dans la région de l’Afrique du Nord. En effet, la part de l’agriculture dans le PIB des pays de la région avoisine les 11% et atteint 18% en Mauritanie. Elle contribue également à près de 21% des emplois. Toutefois, la part de l’agriculture dans le financement de l’économie ne représente que 4% au meilleur des cas et ne dépasse pas 1% dans certains pays de la région. De même, les dépenses publiques orientées à l’agriculture ne reflètent pas son importance dans l’économie et la sécurité alimentaire des pays de la région. Cette contrainte du financement, en plus d’autres insuffisances, n’a pas favorisé le développement d’une agriculture performante et adaptée aux contraintes écologiques et économiques de la région. Ainsi, la balance alimentaire reste globalement déficitaire avec un déficit moyen d’environ 10 Milliards de $ par an. Plusieurs facteurs intrinsèques et extrinsèques expliquent cette contrainte de financement de l’agriculture dans la région de l’Afrique du Nord se rapportant à : - L’absence d’une offre de financement adaptée - Le morcellement des exploitations et leur capacité de remboursement limitée - Le manque d’implication des établissements de financement privés pour des considérations de risque et de rentabilité - La question du foncier agricole - La sous-instruction des agriculteurs et l’absence d’un accompagnement adéquat - Les contraintes procédurales Partant de là, cette problématique générale a été abordée dans cette concertation à travers 4 thèmes majeurs qui ont été discutés dans des groupes thématiques portant sur les volets suivants : 1. Une offre de crédit bancaire accessible et adaptée aux besoins des petits producteurs nord-africains. 2. Un accès facilité des femmes agricultrices aux différents mécanismes de financement 3. Un dispositif et des mécanismes d’incitations adaptés aux nouveaux défis de l’agriculture Nord-africaine 4. Des mécanismes de financement stimulant l’innovation dans les systèmes de production et les chaines de valeur.235240241242245246248249251Les échanges entre les participants ont permis de confirmer certains constats et insuffisance caractérisant le financement de l’agriculture qui sont commun à tous les pays de la région à savoir : - L’agriculture est un secteur qui est sous représenté en matière de financement et de dépenses publiques - L’agriculture dans la région fait face à des défis climatiques, sociaux et économiques importants nécessitant une politique de développement et de financement volontariste de la part des pouvoirs publics. - La sécurisation des systèmes alimentaires dans la région passe par un développement et une amélioration des performances de l’agriculture. - La petite exploitation domine largement la physionomie du secteur agricole dans la région et reste le maillon faible dans le système alimentaire et dans les chaînes de valeur - Le problème de morcellement des exploitations et la situation des fonciers sont des problèmes majeurs qui compliquent l’accès au financement des exploitations agricoles dans la région - Tous les pays ont mis en place des mécanismes de financement et d’incitations mais, qui restent cependant insuffisants e peu performant - Les femmes agricultrices rencontrent des difficultés additionnelles spécifiques pour accéder au financement et foncier dues à des considérations culturelles, religieuses et sociales - Il y a une prise de conscience que l’innovation technologique est un élément moteur pour transformer l’agriculteur dans la région et l’aider à relever les défis climatiques et économiques pressants. Cependant, le vieillissement des exploitants et le manque d’instruction ne favorisent pas une adoption accélérée de ces nouvelles technologies. Les expériences des pays sont cependant riches en enseignements avec des expériences intéressantes qui méritent d’être échangées et généralisées dans la région. Ainsi la structuration des agriculteurs à travers un mécanisme d’agrégation adoptée au Maroc est une piste intéressante pour contourner le problème de morcellement et améliorer l’accès au financement. De même, la Tunisie a mis en place un cadre réglementaire de l’économie sociale et solidaire qui prévoit des incitations et des mécanismes de financement adaptés qui devrait favoriser l’émergence de d’entreprises solidaires permettant aux agriculteurs de bénéficier d’un appui technique et commercialisant et conduisant à terme à une meilleure répartition de la valeur. L’implication des pouvoirs publics dans l’aménagement des périmètres agricoles et le financement des campagnes en Mauritanie est aussi un mécanisme intéressant. Les discussions ont permis d’identifier des pistes d’actions améliorer le financement de l’agriculture de manière générale et particulièrement le financement de petites exploitations, des femmes et de l’innovation ainsi que le développement de mécanismes d’incitation. Il s’agit de la mise en place de mécanismes adaptés, l’amélioration des conditions, la régularisation de la question du foncier, la structuration des exploitants,… ces recommandations sont listées dans les résultats des groupes de discussion ci-dessous. Les participants ont souligné que la concertation a constitué une occasion pour les acteurs des pays de la région pour échanger des expériences et débattre d’une problématique majeure pour l’agriculture dans la région. Il s’agit d’une première du genre dans la région et de telles concertations et échanges devraient se renouveler de manière plus fréquente. En effet, pour plusieurs intervenants, rien que cet échange d’idées et d’expériences est très bénéfique pour identifier des bonnes pratiques à généraliser. Un appel a été lancé à l’UMNAGRI pour planifier d’autres concertations dans le futur sur la thématique du financement et d’autres sujets qui constituent des préoccupations communes aux agriculteurs de la région. L’échange d’expériences devrait être renforcé pour s’inspirer des bonnes pratiques dans chaque pays.236240241245249Groupe 1: Financement des petites exploitations agricoles Ce groupe de discussion a regroupé des producteurs, des représentants des structures publiques, des entrepreneurs, des représentants des structures agricoles ainsi que des établissements de financement. Les questions de départ, identifiées pour animer le débat par le Facilitateur, étaient: - Quels sont les principaux mécanismes de financement des petites exploitations et sont-ils efficaces ? - Quelles sont les contraintes limitant l’accès des petites exploitations au financement ? facteurs intrinsèques et extrinsèques ? Faut il revoir ces mécanismes et dans quel sens ? - Y’a-t-il des expériences de mécanismes efficaces dans la région ou ailleurs à dupliquer ou à s’en inspirer ? - Comment les organisations des producteurs nationales et l’UMNAGRI pourrait jouer un rôle pour faciliter l’accès des petites exploitations au financement ? Les principaux constats relevés par les acteurs ont été les suivants : - Les petites exploitations est le maillon faible dans les systèmes alimentaires - Les dispositifs de financement aux petites exploitations sont assurés essentiellement par des acteurs publics avec une efficacité insuffisante. - Des banques spécialisées existent mais, en pratique, l’accès aux crédits reste très difficile pour ces exploitations - La Tunisie et le Maroc ont mis en place des mécanismes spécifiques mais, qui restent à renforcer - Les conditions de financement sont peu adaptées (taux d’intérêt, durée, crédits de campagnes,…) notamment en Tunisie et en Algérie - Le Maroc a mis en place une stratégie d’agrégation dans le cadre du plan Maroc vert qui a permis d’améliorer relativement le financement des petites exploitations en impliquant notamment des grandes structures comme agrégateurs. - La question du financement est intimement liée à celle de l’absence d’accompagnement et d’assistance. En effet, moyennant un accompagnement approprié, l’accès des petites exploitations au financement aurait pu être amélioré. - Ce manque de disponibilité de financements a donnée l’opportunité aux intermédiaires pour contrôler le secteur et imposer leurs conditions aux petites exploitations. En effet, ces intermédiaires préfinancent les producteurs en contre partie d’une exclusivité d’achat à des prix assez bas. - Quelques expériences de projets de coopération ont constitué une alternative de financement dans certains pays de la région. Néanmoins, leur champ de couverture reste limité et ces projets ne pourraient pas combler toute la défaillance des systèmes nationaux de financement. Les principales recommandations qui se sont dégagées des échanges ont été les suivantes : - Développer et renforcer l’encadrement et l’accompagnement des agriculteurs dans la préparation et le montage des dossiers de financement. - Revoir les conditions de crédits aux petites exploitations en prévoyant des taux, des produits et des délais adaptés - Diversifier les produits de financement - Développer la coopération internationale pour mettre en place des programmes d’assistance et de financement des petites exploitations - Développer un mode de financement intégré basé sur les chaines de valeur236240241242245246249251Groupe 2: Financement des femmes agricultrices (FAs) Dans un contexte de crise alimentaire grandissante, le financement des initiatives portées par des femmes rurales révèle toute son importance, étant l’instrument incontournable dans toute politique de développement agricole. Il constitue une condition essentielle à l’impulsion de toute dynamique productive sous réserve d’agir en parallèle sur les autres contraintes de développement agricole. Il permet l’augmentation des investissements afin l'expandre la production agricole pour permettre de réduire la pauvreté rurale et d'améliorer la sécurité alimentaire. Les FAs ont des difficultés d'accès au financement, conséquence directe de l'accès limité à la terre et aux obstacles à la participation aux projets de développement, au renforcement de leur capacité et aux programmes d’encadrement. Par ailleurs, les FAs sont faiblement représentées dans les organisations professionnelles agricoles. Les FAs sont des acteurs incontournables pour lutter contre la pauvreté rurale, la faim et la malnutrition - étant près de 50% de la main d’œuvre agricole. Leur accés à la production et au marché passe nécessairement par la garantie de l'accès au financement, à la formation et l'encadrement, les technologies, le conseil agricole, sans oublier la représentativité dans les organisations agricoles. Il est urgent de s'attaquer aux nombreux obstacles que le filles/femmes rurales (FRs) doivent franchir, afin de leur éviter les emplois informels non qualifiés et mal rémunérés, sans aucune protection juridique ou sociale. Une mise à disposition égalitaire des services et infrastructures est inconturnable pour favoriser le renforcement des leurs compétences et l'accès à l'éducation et aux ressources productives. De plus grands efforts doivent être déployés pour améliorer la représentation des FAs au sein des institutions de prises de décisions. Il est également nécessaire veiller à l'allègement de leur charge de travail, à la reconnaissance de leur contribution, à l'accès à une rémunération et à des conditions de travail équitables. Pour ce faire, il est nécessaire de mettre fin à la marginalisation des FAs qui puise ses origines dans des mœurs et pratiques socioculturelles et d'intégrer davantage la problématique de l'égalité entre les sexes dans les politiques d'incitation pour le secteur agricole. Les discussions ont permis d’identifier les priorités suivantes: - Améliorer la scolarisation des FRs et la représentativité des femmes dans les organisations professionnelles - Favoriser la discrimination positive des FRs en matière de financement - Sensibiliser la population rurale à l’intégration des femmes dans développement - Assister les FAs pour passer à des échelles de production plus importantes, sans se limiter aux activités subsidiaires - Renforcer les capacités des FAs avec un accompagnement dans le montage de leurs projets - Prévoir des réservoirs fonciers dédiés aux FRs - Favoriser le Partenariat Public Privé pour encourager l’accès des femmes au foncier et au financement - Encourager les FRs à s’associer et prévoir des aides financières spécifiques pour ces groupements - Organiser des rencontres régionales pour favoriser l'échange d’expériences entre FAs - Prévoir des programmes de labellisation des produits des FAs avec un appui à l’exportation - Diversifier l’offre de la Formation Professionnelle Agricole par la promotion de l'entrepreneuriat des FRs - Créer d'espaces d’accueil, de formation et d’accompagnement dédiés aux jeunes entrepreneuses - Monter des partenariats nationaux et internationaux pour financer les projets des FRs - Renforcer l’économie solidaire et sociale favorisant l’entrepreneuriat féminin L’UMNAGRI peut jouer un rôle important à travers : - La création d’une cellule d'appui et de formation technique pour les FRs nordafricaines - La programmation de visites techniques, d’échange d’expérience et de Salons régionaux dédiés aux FAs - L’ organisation de séminaires sur la dimension genre et l’entrepreneuriat agricole féminin - La création d’un réseau pour la commercialisation des produits des FAs nordafricaines236240241242245246249251Groupe 3: Les mécanismes d’incitation aux investissements agricoles Les intervenants ont soutenu que les mécanismes d’incitation de l’agriculture existent bel et bien et sont multiples. Ils se manifestent à plusieurs niveaux. D’abord sur le plan politique, le lancement saisonnier des campagnes agricoles par les autorités des Etats en encourageant les forces vives de la nation à prendre part à ce défi. Ensuite, l’Etat finance et supporte le coût des aménagements hydro agricoles des terres cultivables et des ouvrages structurants qui les restitue aux exploitants. On note également des mécanismes plus concrets qui sont l’octroi des terres, les exonérations importantes des droits de douanes, l’octroi de machines agricoles (tracteurs, moissonneuses etc.) et la création de caisses de crédit agricole. Il y a aussi la fourniture à titre gratuit des intrants agricoles (les engrais, les semences, les pesticides etc.) et la création de société d’aménagement pour résoudre les problèmes urgents qui se posent aux agriculteurs. La plupart des pays disposent de réglementation d’incitation à l’investissement agricole avec des agences de promotion spécialisées. Il s’agit particulièrement de subventions à des taux variables et diverses exonérations fiscales. Cependant, le problème reste la difficulté d’accès des agriculteurs, notamment les petits, à ces incitations. Les points de blocages sont à différents niveaux : - Le problème foncier des terres agricoles avec une grande majorité d’exploitants qui ne disposent pas de titres de propriétés limitant ainsi leur accès aux incitations - Le manque de communication sur les incitations - Les contraintes de procédures et d’exigences difficiles à assurer par les agriculteurs - Le manque de structuration des exploitations - L’insuffisance des budgets alloués aux incitations par les pouvoirs publics Les questions de départ, identifiées pour animer le débat par le Facilitateur, étaient: - Quels sont les mécanismes d’incitation aux investissements agricoles dans la région ? prime, accompagnement, exonération,.. Ces mécanismes sont-ils suffisants ? comment ils se situent comparés à d’autres secteurs (industrie, tourisme,…) Quel est impact de ces mécanismes sur l’investissement agricole ? - Comment les développer et les adapter aux besoins de l’agriculture dans la région ? - Comment les développer pour tenir compte des enjeux de développement durable et des défis qui s’imposent à l’agriculture dans la région - Y’a-t-il des mécanismes qui ont montré une grande efficacité dans les pays de la région ? comment les généraliser ? Plusieurs pistes de recommandations ont été formulées par les participants : - Enlever les entraves administratives et réglementaires pour améliorer les mécanismes d’incitation et faciliter l’accès des exploitations à ces mécanismes - Renforcer le partenariat Public-Privé notamment dans l’agriculture industrielle et la promotion de chaines de valeur - Régler la problématique foncière pour promouvoir l’agriculture ; - Séparer les incitations pour la petite agriculture des grands investissements agricoles ; - Renforcer la formation et l’accompagnement des exploitations agricoles - Structurer les petits agriculteurs et les mettre en réseau pour avoir un poids dans les différentes négociations avec leurs partenaires. L’expérience du Maroc en matière d’agrégation pourrait être prise comme modèle. - Améliorer l’accès des jeunes et des femmes au foncier agricole; - Promouvoir la Digitalisation de l’agriculture à travers des incitations adaptées.. La prise en compte de ces remarques et recommandations pour les prochaines années est de nature à impacter les mécanismes d’incitation de l’agriculture236240241242245246248249251Groupe 4: Financement de l’innovation dans le secteur agricole Le financement de l’innovation est un sujet d’importance renouvelée afin d’accroitre l’efficacité, la compétitivité et la résilience dans le domaine agricole et dans le but de résoudre un certain nombre de problèmes surtout dans le contexte actuel de la révolution numérique, des changements climatiques, des problèmes de sécurité alimentaire et de la pénurie et manqué d’eau , de salinisation des sols et de la crise Covid-19. Le créateur d’innovation dans le domaine agricole peut ne pas avoir une idée sur la question de financement donc il semble nécessaire de l'informer pour qu’il comprenne les enjeux et les contraintes de chacune des formes de financement. Les participants à ce groupe ont pris en examen la multiplicité des sources de financement: les caisses spéciaux pour la subvention de l’innovation, les fonds gouvernementaux, les programmes de coopération, les banques et associations de développement… Les membres du groupe qui ont créé des startups ont confirmé que le financement des nouvelles idées repose sur leur faisabilité. Cependant, ils ont indiqué qu’avant de parler de financement de l’innovation, il faut tout d’abord étudier la physionomie de la population des agriculteurs dominée par des personnes âgées et peu instruits et peu ouverts à l’innovation et les nouvelles technologies. Il faut donc tout d’abord travailler à changer les mentalités et à sensibiliser les gens aux bienfaits de l’innovation surtout dans ce contexte des changements climatiques et des enjeux de durabilité des ressources naturelles. De leur côté, les représentants des projets de coopération ont valorisé la contribution des financements octroyés à l’innovation pour inciter à s’investir dans les nouvelles technologies et ils ont proposé, pour améliorer l’efficience des ressources financières, d’être plus flexible dans la détermination des lignes budgétaires et la durée d’exécution des projets. Les représentants des instituts de recherche ont exprimé leurs soucis envers les enjeux écologiques et climatiques. Selon eux les politiques publiques menées par les pays du nord de l’Afrique n’accordent pas l’importance requise au financement de l’innovation qui peut apporter une réponse aux défis. Les questions de départ, identifiées pour animer le débat par le Facilitateur: - Dispose t’on d’un mécanisme pour financer et appuyer l’innovation agricole dans la région ? - Y’a-t-il une articulation suffisante entre la recherche et l’agriculture dans la région ? Quel est l’effet du financement dans cette situation ? - Comment l’innovation peut contribuer à développer l’agriculture et les chaines de valeur dans la région ? - Quels types de financement à adopter pour stimuler cette innovation et son adoption par les agriculteurs nordafricains ? Plusieurs pistes de recommandations ont été formulées par les participants : - La mise en place d’une stratégie et de mécanismes de financement efficaces élaborés en partenariat entre les acteurs publics et privés et ouverts à l’échange d’expérience avec les pays développés. - La révision des stratégies agricoles implémentées en Nord-Afrique en faveur du financement des projets de l’agriculture durable - La création d’un comité multinational nord-africain pour favoriser l’échange d’expériences et de bonnes pratiques dans le financement de l’innovation. - Le recours aux plaidoyers auprès des pouvoirs législatifs pour réviser les réglementations douanières peu favorables à l’importation des outils innovants (taxes, procédures, délai,…) - La création d’une organisation regroupant les « startupeurs » nordafricains pour un plaidoyer efficace. - La multiplication des incubateurs/accélerateurs des projets agricoles innovants pour les jeunes entrepreneurs. - Créer des assurances agricoles pour les projets innovants pour encourager l’investissement avec moins de risque - Création d’un système d’évaluation des politiques d’incitation à l’investissement dans le domaine agricole basé sur le respect des mesures suivants : o La préservation des ressources o La rentabilité des projets o Le respect des filières de production o La stabilité des projets;237240241242245246248249251Il faut noter que les débats lors de la plénière ou dans les groupes de discussion n’ont pas dégager des divergences de fonds. En effet, les intervenants étaient d’accord sur les principaux points de constat en ce qui concernant l’insuffisance des financements et de incitations alloués à l’agriculture et les difficultés particulières des femmes et des petites exploitations pour y accéder. L’innovation dans le secteur agricole ne bénéficie pas également de suffisamment d’appui. Ainsi, l’agriculture dans la région reste peu performante et surtout très exposée aux aléas climatiques de plus en plus impactant. Les pistes de solutions à envisager étaient très riches avec des stratégies et des approches très différentes selon les pays et les participants. Ainsi, certains voient que l’Etat doit jouer le rôle le plus important dans le financement de l’agriculture et l’appui aux agriculteurs en mobilisant les moyens et les ressources nécessaires. D’autres intervenants, insistant davantage sur le besoin d’une auto-structuration des agriculteurs et la création de réseau ou des synergies avec des grandes structures (industriel, distributeur, organisation,…) pouvant assurer un rôle d’assistance et facilitation dans l’accès au financement. Le partenariat public-privé est pour d’autres la voie à suivre pour une meilleure complémentarité entre les intervenants.

2021-06-28 21:27:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14668/203

183144

NoThe Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore arranged a Dialogue on “Transforming Food Systems through Climate Smart Agriculture” for the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit, on May 25, 2021, at 05:30 GMT (10:30 PST.) The dialogue was focusing on climate change, food security and the main aim behind all this work was to contribute something in achieving the 2030 sustainable development goals. Keenly, the main interests were Action Track 3, Boost nature positive production, and Action track 5, Build resilience to vulnerabilities shock and stress. The webinar started with the recitation of the Holy Quran. Dr. Bilal Chatta welcomed all the participants, introduced keynote speakers, and briefly highlighted the objectives of the webinar that the discussions would be on these topics: • GHG and its impact on the food system. • Carbon Sequestration for mitigating Climate Change. • Development of Practices and Policies for a sustainable future. • Implementation of Climate-Smart Agricultural practices, policies, and value chain. Patron Prof. Dr. Muhammad Saleem Mazhar, Pro Vice Chancellor, Punjab University delivered his message and appreciated the efforts of the team for organizing such an amazing webinar. Guest of Honor Prof. Dr. Muhammad. Afzal, Vice Chancellor Baba Gur Nanak University, Nankana Sahib added his message and appreciation. Prof. Dr. Mumtaz Cheema spoke on Carbon sequestration and linked it with climate change. Hazelle Tomlin explained the Global Research Alliance (GRA) and how it is associated with Green House Gases. Mr. Peter Ettema shared his knowledge of GHG monitoring and its impact on food systems. Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad discussed that how climate resilient crop productivity can be accelerated by applying omics and artificial intelligence. Mr. Adnan Zahid held a panel discussion with all the speakers and asked multiple questions on behalf of the audience. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Saleem Haider thanked all the speakers and acknowledged the efforts of the organizing team. Dr. Sajid Ali said thank you words to all the participants, appreciated the efforts of student organizers (Numan Ali, Sohaib Ahmad, Syed Agha Armaghan, Muhammad Haseeb, Hamza Rizvi, Sheharbano Rizvi, Laiba Sharif, Aqdas Batool), and the webinar ended here.

2021-06-29 01:32:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27316/45

131125711033226

This dialogue is centered on the core topic, "How to promote sustainable food education into the formal education system today? The dialogue was divided into five sub-topics, and guests from food education and related fields were invited to discuss the topic. At the end of the discussion session, all the guests will have a free dialogue and concluding remarks around the core topic. The principle of participation will be integrated into the dialogue and enhanced in the dialogue.Act with Urgency: In the "Clarification of Opinions" session, all participants are invited to share their thoughts and action plans. Be Respectful: The speaker, Ms. Yang Wenping (Principal of Hao Tang Village Primary School, Pingqiao District, Xinyang City, Henan Province), has been practicing food education activities in Hao Tang Village Primary School to protect and improve the personal health and well-being of school children (mainly left-behind children) while respecting the local culture and national context of the Hao Tang Village area. Recognize Complexity: The dialogue convener, Mr. Jian Yi, and Professor Shahbaz Khan, Director of UNESCO China, both focused on recognizing the complexity in their presentations. Inclusivity: Ms. Zeng Hui, Researcher, China Food and Natural Resources Program, World Resources Institute (USA) Beijing Office, and Ms. Zhang Qin, Director, Hong Kong Institute of Education for Sustainable Development, presented the importance of including stakeholders such as government, community, and business in the vision of food education.The principles of participation can help make the dialogue more diverse and thoughtful, and it is recommended that all participants be made aware of the principles of participation in an appropriate manner before the dialogue begins.

Yes

2342382392442462472482502511. How to promote sustainable food education into the vision of the formal education system? 2. What are the needs or expectations of education systems for sustainable food education? 3. What are the challenges in implementing sustainable food education? 4. Case studies of sustainable food education in domestic schools 5. Case studies of sustainable food education in international campuses 6. What role can extra-curriculum education play in the promotion of sustainable food education? 7. Education on the Water-Food-Energy (WFE) Nexus for Sustainable Development 8. Action Tracks: Through sustainable food education, the public will be informed of the content of the five action tracks and how to translate them into concrete actions.2352382392432442462472482492502511. Sustainable food education is important to promote public understanding and practice of sustainable food behaviors. 2. Sustainable food education can promote positive youth development. 3. The concept and popularity of sustainable food education in China is still in its infancy 4. Sustainable food education organizations and stakeholders in China need to unite and take action.2362382392442462472482492502511. What are the needs or expectations of the education system for sustainable food education? Sustainable food education needs to be more systematic and easily accessible on campus.2362. What are the challenges in implementing sustainable food education? There is a lack of sufficient understanding of sustainable food education among the public and government education departments; scarce supply of teachers with a background in sustainable food education.2363、Sustainable food education cases in domestic schools Daohe Education: Food education for the 24 solar terms. Hao Tang Village Primary School, Xinyang City, Henan Province: Rural campus food education.2364. What role can informal or extra-curriculum education play in the promotion of sustainable food education? To provide more structured curricula for sustainable food education. To lead and complement sustainable food education on campus.237238239Principals of rural elementary schools believe that educating students about sustainable food focuses primarily on Action Track 1: Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. The founder of the Daohe Group, on the other hand, believes that educating students and parents about sustainable food focuses on Action Track 2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns. Analysis of why: Children in some rural areas of China still lack basic knowledge about food nutrition and safety, while urban families are more concerned about how food is produced and its environmental and cultural significance.

2021-06-29 12:28:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27440/130

352312322310821233221

The event was organized online in the zoom meeeting.We encouraged the participation of diverse stakeholders and provided safe space for everyone to speak up.Not specifically

Yes

2021-06-29 12:46:26205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6201/17

11761410522114512111124231351

The second Dialogue of the Republic of Armenia (FSSD) was held based on the results of the first dialogue. Following topics were selected for presentations and discussions: (1) Recommended actions for Effective Land reform; (2) Investing in Food Systems: Multi - sectoral approach for Food Systems Development; (3) Transforming Agriculture Education and Research for resilient food systems; (4) Value Chain Approach to promote Green Agriculture; (5) Strengthening Public and Private partnerships for food systems transformation. The selected format allowed presenters and participants to engage in discussions and exchange ideas on how to develop strategic actions for each discussion topic. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust. Therefore, also for the second dialogue comprehensive preparatory work has been done with presenters and dialogue participants for making sure that their engagement contributes to the Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation in adding value to SDGs. As a result, the dialogue has turned to a “safe space” for promoting trust, encouraging mutual respect, and establishing an effective platform for debate, collaboration, consensus-building, and shared commitment making. In addition, The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion with a collaborative approach. Only presenters, dialogue participants, a facilitator, and one note-taker were permitted discussion sessions.For the second dialogue the emphasis was placed in inviting and engaging stakeholders able and willing to take actions with regard to selected discussion topics and being an effective contributor to long-term multi-stakeholder dialogue processes. Five main stakeholder representatives were selected across the food system, ranging from Armenian public sector, research and academic institutions and international organizations. In order to address the dialogue topics, presentations were held followed by moderated discussions focusing on specific actions which should be undertaken for a smooth and smart transformation of Armenian food systems. Key points were summarized by the curator and presented to participants for encouraging a structured effective dialogue.Clear set of rules should be set by the dialogue convenors in line with the Summit principles of engagement. Moreover, these rules should be explained and strictly followed throughout the preparation phase and the final implementation of the event. In the case of the first Dialogue of the Republic of Armenia the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion with a collaborative approach. Only dialogue participants, a facilitator, expert researcher for consultation, and one note-taker were permitted in the dialogue sessions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249250The third stage of the Armenia National Dialogue focused on developing recommendations and action plans to: (a) ensure the availability of safe nutritious food; (b) boost nature-positive production at scale and, (c) strengthen capacities to resist vulnerabilities and the often changing economic environment; thus, building more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food systems in Armenia. The presentations and discussions were broken into five main action areas identified during the first National Dialogue and aligned with the UN Food Systems Summit “action tracks” as outlined below: 1. Recommended actions for Effective Land reform – The main focus was placed on presenting and discussing mechanisms for sustainable and effective use of agricultural land in Armenia. Several suggestions have been discussed on how to bring unutilized land into production, improv farm structures, increase productivity and efficiency, develop a land market (bank) and effectively regulate access and control of agricultural land. 2. Investing in Food Systems: Multi - sectoral approach for Food Systems Development – Strategies have been presented and discussed on how to enhance food security through an inclusive multi-sectoral approach. A special emphasis was put on the collaboration for improved nutrition and ensuring safe, quality, and nutritional food for all for building resilience to shocks. 3. Transforming Agriculture Education and Research for resilient food systems – The role of education and research sector was particularly highlighted in discussions for sustainable food systems transformation. Needs for action were identifies in order to achieve a new stage of technological development and e-agriculture as a key enabler of agricultural and rural development. 4. Value Chain Approach to promote Green Agriculture – Based on the approaches applied in the frame of the “EU Green Agriculture Initiative in Armenia” (EU-GAIA) project, several strategies along selected value chains have been presented and discussed for promoting green agriculture and sustainable food supply chain. The focus was put on resource efficient, innovative and eco-friendly technologies. 5. Strengthening Public and Private partnerships for food systems transformation – Mechanisms have been discussed on haw to deepen strategic cooperation between government and private sector organizations as well as research and academic institutions and international organizations. It was emphasized that only an effective dialogue mechanism can enable sustainable development and boost investments in different segments of the food value chain.235238239240241242243244245246248249250The main conclusion drawn from the discussions was that a continuous and target-oriented dialogue is needed between public and private sector actors for effectively transforming Armenian food systems. Thereby, research and academic institutions such as the Armenian National Agrarian University and international organizations such as the UN World Food Programme could play an important role in order to enable technological development, boost investment and contribute to the process of building resilient food systems. Based on the discussion results a strategy will be elaborated on how to enhance food security through an inclusive multi-sectoral approach for making food systems more resilience against shocks and thus, improving nutrition for all. The example of EU-GAIA project on promoting Green Agriculture through targeted approaches along different food value chain could serve as a reference on how to develop inclusive and sustainable food supply chains in the frame of multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral dialogue processes. At the same time, there was an overall agreement that fragmented and ineffective use of agricultural land remains as the main challenge for the development of agricultural sector and thus, the starting point for transforming food systems in Armenia. Therefore, all invited representatives have expressed their commitment to get engaged in the process of developing mechanisms for sustainable and effective use of agricultural land in Armenia for improving farm structures and increasing productivity and efficiency of agriculture.236238243244246248249Ensure the availability of safe nutritious food Since food safety is directly and indirectly interconnected with various other sectors of economy, during the dialogue much importance was attached to the coordinated approach towards solution of food safety problems as major outcome of the discussions. The engagement of the private sector actors was highlighted as a key in the form of co-financing initiatives for ensuring the availability of safe nutritious food. The EU-GAIA representatives made clear that innovative systemic solutions are needed along different value chains for increasing productivity and implementing safety standards with the example of animal husbandry and horticultural crops value chains. The government representatives highlighted that also for legumes and cereals production communities have a need for systemic support along the respective value chains. Investments could make these crops attractive as nutritious food, and the government is willing to scale-up successful models for the entire country.236240243244246248249Boost nature-positive production at scale Two possible approaches were presents by government representatives for consolidating agricultural land and implementing effective reform processes - voluntarily or with state intervention. The discussion showed that fragmented land hinders private sector actors investing in agriculture. Cases were presented where unclear distribution of land and incorrectness in land cadaster certificates cause challenges for starting production and using the existing potential. It was agreed that the establishment of a land agency could speed the land reform process and help to clarify land right issues. Moreover, the land agency could play an intermediary role between investors and farmers for boosting agricultural production in Armenia.236242243244245246248249Strengthen capacities to resist vulnerabilities and the often changing economic environment The need of transparent and inclusive collaboration mechanisms between different food system actors in Armenia was mentioned as a precondition for meeting challenges and strengthening capacities to resist vulnerabilities and shocks. Based on the results and findings of the discussion by this outcome the focus lies on the research and education and the transformation processes in this sector. The representative from the Armenian National Agrarian University presented several examples on how to better link academia, practice and policy making, e.g., by providing trainings for farmers and cooperatives as well as consultancy to the respective line ministries. At the same time several challenges were presented related to cooperatives in agricultural sector. It was highlighted that successful example of collaborations - such as the farmers’ cooperative “Tavsho Hatik” - should be disseminated and scaled-up across the county. Finally, in order to boost investments and strengthen capacities in food systems, the Enterprise Armenia (EA) was presented as the national investment promotion authority with the main mission of promoting and facilitating foreign and domestic investments, attracting new foreign direct investments as well as supporting and providing financing to farmers and SMEs.237238240242243244245246248249250There was mutual understanding on all five dialogue topics and no major divergencies during the discussion were found out.

2021-06-29 14:55:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23184/203

4922665511253

Le dialogue continental a été organisé par visioconférence le 17 juin 2021. Il a regroupé les 5 réseaux régionaux (EAFF, PROPAC, ROPPA, SACAU et UMNAGRI) ainsi que d’autres partenaires de la PAFO. Le nombre total des participants enregistré est de 73 participants. Des questions générales sur le thème ont été préparées afin de faciliter les échanges et engager le débat. La concertation a permis de de faire participer et d’intégrer les préoccupations des diverses d’acteurs (agriculteurs et institutionnels), afin de recueillir les propositions des stratégies et des solutions qui permettront d’accélérer la transformation des systèmes alimentairesL’organisation du dialogue continental s’est déroulée dans le respect des principes d’engagement édictés par le Système des Nations Unies. Malgré les contraintes imposées par la situation actuelle (pandémie COVID 19), au cours de al concertation, les débats ont été libres, sans discrimination. C’est ce qui a permis de refléter certains aspects spécifiques et des points de vue des participants. Les compromis adoptés, l’ont été d’une manière participative.Une parfaite maitrise des questions relatives aux Systèmes alimentaires et s’inspiraient des documents produits par le Système des Nations-Unies sur ce thème. Une bonne répartition des tâches lors de la préparation de la concertation Une communication fluide avec les participants pour susciter leur adhésion

Yes

234238240241242244245247248249251Le Dialogue indépendant des organisations paysannes africaines sur les systèmes alimentaires organisé par la PAFO porte sur la piste d’action 4 : Promouvoir des moyens de subsistance équitables et sur le thème : « La vision stratégique des systèmes alimentaires africains à l’horizon 2030 ». Ce dialogue s’est déroulé le 17 juin 2021 et a regroupé les leaders des différents réseaux régionaux membres de la PAFO. Au vu des contraintes actuelles liés à la pandémie COVID 19, se dialogue a été organisé en vidéo conférence sur une durée de 2 heures. Il a été préparé et modéré par la PAFO. A l’origine, ce dialogue devait se tenir après finalisation des documents des différents réseaux régionaux. Il devait avoir comme objectif de présenter et valider la position commune des différents réseaux de la PAFO. N’ayant pas eu l’ensemble des documents dans les délais, il a été décidé de modifier légèrement la méthodologie et de consacrer ce dialogue à l’élaboration d’une position commune en prélude à la réception des documents des différents réseaux. Dans sens, le dialogue a permis non seulement à la PAFO d’avancer sur les contours de la position commune, mais a donner également l’occasion aux réseaux d’échanger entre eux et d’affiner leurs positions respectives facilitant ainsi la finalisation de leurs documents. Ainsi l’objectif et le résultat attendu du dialogue ont été légèrement modifiés : - Objectif : échanger avec les réseaux régionaux membres de la PAFO autours des questions qui seront soulevées lors du pré-sommet des Nations Unies sur les systèmes alimentaires. - Résultat attendu : les contours d’une position commune des différents réseaux régionaux sont élaborés est validés. Le format utilisé est celui qui a été préconisé par le Système des Nations-Unies. Les discussions ont touché différents domaines : politique, législatif, environnemental, genre, finances, et opérationnels, en se basant sur les expériences et connaissances des participants, et en s’appuyant sur la documentation de la FAO sur les Systèmes Alimentaires, le rapport d’étude de la PAFO sur les systèmes alimentaires etc.). Ces discussion et échanges ont finalement abouti à un partage des réflexions sur chacun des sujets abordés, et à la synthèse des résultats qui sera mise à la disposition de tous ceux qui participent à la préparation du Sommet.235238239240241242244245246247248249250251Recommandations au plan politique et institutionnel : (i) Instaurer une réelle décentralisation permettant aux zones rurales de prendre en main leur destin ; (ii) Plaidoyer pour l’augmentation des budgets alloués au secteur agricole ; (iii) Accompagner les Gouvernements dans l’élaboration des mesures d’application des politiques agricoles ; (iv) Impliquer les OPA et les populations concernées l’élaboration des politiques agricoles ; (v) Adapter les politiques agricoles aux spécificités des petites exploitations familiales ; (vi) Plaidoyer des OPA sur les enjeux de l’agriculture et des agriculteurs ; (vii) Réguler les coûts des intrants et moyens de production en fonction des revenus des agriculteurs (subventions, fiscalité favorable, droits de douanes, …) ; (viii) Favoriser les échanges intra-africains pour assurer une meilleure disponibilité des intrants et de moyens de production ; (ix) Impliquer les OPA dans les discussions sur les investissements impliquant du foncier agricole ; (x)Plaidoyer pour une meilleurs protection du foncier agricole. Recommandations au plan opérationnel : (i) Vulgariser les politiques agricoles et leurs mesures d’application ; (ii) Impliquer les OPA dans l’identification des besoins en intrants et moyens de production et de leur distribution ; (iii) Vulgariser l’utilisation des intrants dont l’utilisation pose problème ; (iv) Améliorer les conditions de stockage et de conservation des intrants en Assurant un contrôle de qualité au niveau de chaque maillon de la distribution ; (v) Sensibilisation/vulgarisation/formation sur l’adaptation au changement climatique et aux autres risques ; (vi) Valoriser et améliorer les connaissance et savoir-faire locaux ; (vii) Mettre en place d’un fond de gestion/aide aux exploitations familiales ; (viii) Travailler de concert avec les chercheurs pour proposer des modes de productions plus résilients ; (ix) Mettre en place des plateformes pour la gestion des conflits fonciers ; (x) Assouplir les procédures de sécurisation foncière ; (xi) Elaborer des mécanismes pour la gestion durable des terres agricoles ; (xii) Plaidoyer pour créer des mécanismes facilitant l’accès au foncier agricole pour les femmes et les jeunes ; (xiii) Simplifier les démarches pour l’accès aux crédit agricole ; (xiv) Mettre en place des mécanismes de financement adapté aux petits producteurs ; (xv) Mettre en place des IMF, des mutuelles de solidarité, … dans les zones dépourvues ; (xvi) Amélioration les infrastructures dans les zones rurales pour maintenir les jeunes sur place ; (xvii) Sensibilisation pour la promotion du rôle de la femme dans l’agriculture ; (xviii) Création de mécanisme d’aide et d’incitation à l’investissement des femmes et de jeunes dans le secteur agricole ; (xix) Améliorer les infrastructures dans les zones rurales (y compris le réseau routier) ; (xx) Favoriser la création de petits groupements au niveau local pour la commercialisation. Recommandation transversale : Plaidoyer pour mettre fin aux conflits socio-politiques, protéger les populations contre l’insécurité, et développement socio-économique des populations vulnérables face aux crises sanitaires.236238239240241242244246249251Sujet 1 . Les politiques agricoles Question 1. Les politiques agricoles sont-elles favorables au développement de systèmes alimentaires durables et innovant ? Contraintes : - Politiques agricoles non adaptées aux besoins des populations et aux spécificités locales ; - Les politiques en œuvre se heurtent à plusieurs contraintes notamment le manque de volonté de la part des Pouvoirs Publics, l’existence de conflits d’intérêts et le manque de moyens financiers pour leur mise en œuvre ; - Manque de mesures d’application des politiques agricoles ; - Faible vulgarisation/sensibilisation de ces politiques agricoles au niveau de la base ; - Faiblesse des installations et infrastructures dans les zones rurales ; - Manque et/ou absence de mesures incitatives pour favoriser l’investissement dans les zones rurales. Résultats : - Meilleure implication de la population dans l’élaboration des politiques agricoles - Impliquer d’une manière plus importante les OPA dans l’élaboration des politiques agricoles. - Mieux adapter les politiques agricoles aux spécificités des petites exploitations familiales - Accompagner les Gouvernements dans l’élaboration des mesures d’application des politiques agricoles. - Vulgariser les politiques agricoles et leurs mesures d’application - Les OPA doivent jouer un rôle (au niveau local, régional, national et international) en termes de plaidoyer pour sensibiliser les décideurs aux enjeux des agriculteurs236238239240241245246248249Sujet 2 . aux intrants et aux moyens de production Question 2. Quels sont les défis à relever en termes d’accès aux intrants de qualité et aux moyens de production pour assurer un système alimentaire durable et innovant ? Contraintes : - Faible accès aux intrants et aux moyens de production ; - Mauvaise distribution des intrants et des moyens de production (mauvais ciblage/distribution non raisonnée) ; - Méconnaissance de l’utilisation de certains intrants ; - Coût élevé par rapport aux revenus des agriculteurs ; - Les intrants sont souvent de mauvaise qualité ; - Les conditions de conservation et de stockage ne sont pas satisfaisantes ; - Faible accès des agriculteurs aux innovations technologique par faite d’une bonne connexion/relation avec le domaine de la recherche. Résultats : - Implication des OPA dans l’identification des besoins en intrants et moyens de production ; - L’implication des OPA dans la distribution des intrants et moyens de production ; - Vulgarisation sur les intrants dont l’utilisation pose problème ; - Réguler les prix des intrants et des moyens de production en fonction du niveau des revenus des agriculteurs pour rendre le coût des intrants plus accessibles (subventions, fiscalité favorable, droits de douanes, …) ; - Impliquer les OPA dans la sélection des produits ; - Améliorer les conditions de stockage et de conservation des intrants en Assurant un contrôle de qualité au niveau de chaque maillon de la distribution.236238239240241242244245246247248249251Sujet 3 . aux changements climatiques, aux aux différents chocs et stress ainsi que la reprise post Covid 19 Question 3. Quels sont les principaux leviers en mesure de promouvoir la productivité face aux défis des changements climatiques et des différents chocs et stress ? Quels sont les mesures à prendre en compte pour une reprise post Covid 19 ? Contraintes : - Absence de mécanismes d’alerte et de prévision accessible aux agriculteurs ; - Faible accès des agriculteurs aux NTIC ; - Absence de mécanismes d’assurance et prise en charge en cas de catastrophes naturelles ; - Baisse de la productivité agricole face à la pandémie Covid 19 (la disponibilité des intrants a fait défaut) ; - La méconnaissance des effets du Changement Climatique sur la production agricole ; - Fragilité des producteurs face aux catastrophe naturelles et aux autres types de stress, - Banalisation des connaissances et savoir-faire paysan par les accompagnateurs ; - Absence d’instruments de gestion de risques accessibles aux exploitations familiales. - Résultats - Sensibilisation/vulgarisation/formation ; - Valoriser et améliorer les connaissances locales (travail entre à mener entre la recherche et OPA). Les paysans disposent d’un savoir-faire ancestral pour s’adapter au changement climatique. Ce savoir n’est malheureusement pas pris en compte et n’est pas valorisé. Un travail dans ce sens, impliquant les chercheurs en collaboration avec les OPA se révèle être nécessaire ; - Mise en place d’un fond de gestion/aide aux exploitations familiales ; - Travailler de concert avec les chercheurs pour proposer des modes de productions plus résilients (dans un démarche recherche – développement) ; - Favoriser les échanges intra-africains pour assurer une meilleure disponibilité des intrants et de moyens de production.236238240241242244245246247248249250251Sujet 4. Le foncier agricole Question 4. Comment assurer un meilleur accès au foncier agricole ? Contraintes : - Multiplicité des conflits sur le foncier agricole (par exemple celui entre éleveurs/agriculteurs) ; - Expropriation des terres des petits agriculteurs par les grandes firmes ; - Problème de procédure pour la sécurisation foncière ; - Difficulté d’accès au foncier agricole pour les femmes et les jeunes. Résultats : - Mettre en place des plateformes pour la gestion des conflits fonciers ; - Favoriser la création de couloirs de transhumance pour atténuer les conflits entre éleveurs et agriculteurs ; - Impliquer les OPA dans les discussions sur les investissements impliquant du foncier agricole ; - Plaidoyer pour une meilleure protection du foncier agricole ; - Assouplir les procédures de sécurisation foncière ; - Elaborer des mécanismes pour la gestion durable des terres agricoles ; - Plaidoyer pour créer des mécanismes facilitant l’accès au foncier agricole pour les femmes et les jeunes236238240241242245246247249251Sujet 5. Le financement agricole Question 5. Quels sont les défis du financement agricole et quels sont les mesures à mettre en place pour améliorer la situation ? Contraintes : - Le financement agricole est géré en exclusivité par les des institutions financières. Les conditions imposées par ces dernières ne facilitent pas l’accès aux petits agriculteurs ; - Les modalités des institutions financières ne sont pas compatibles avec la structure agricole. Aussi, les modalités de remboursement sont incompatibles avec les revenus saisonniers des agriculteurs ; - Faible budget alloué par les différents gouvernements ; - Faiblesse des mécanismes, outils et instruments de financements ; - Faible accès des producteurs aux crédits (processus complexes, conditions, taux d’intérêt, garanties, …) ; - Absence d’un type de financement spécifique pour les exploitations familiales ; - La faiblesse des fonds des institutions de micro finance ; - Inexistence des Institutions de Micro finance (IMF) dans certaines zones. Résultats : - Plaider pour l’augmentation des budgets alloués au secteur agricole ; - Simplifier les démarches pour l’accès au crédit agricole ; - Mettre en place un mécanisme adapté aux petits producteurs ; - Favoriser l’installation des IMF, des mutuelles de solidarité, … dans les zones dépourvues.236238239240241245246247249251Sujet 6 : L’inclusion des femmes et des jeunes Question 6. Comment assurer une meilleure inclusion des femmes et des jeunes dans l’agriculture ? Contraintes : - Réticence des jeunes au métier d’agriculteur ; - L’accès limité au crédit, à la santé et à l’éducation (pour les femmes) ; - Poids des coutumes et des rites ; - Faible accès au foncier agricole. Résultats : - Amélioration des infrastructures dans les zones rurales pour maintenir les jeunes sur place ; - Sensibilisation pour la promotion du rôle de la femme dans l’agriculture ; - Création de mécanisme d’aide et d’incitation à l’investissement des femmes et de jeunes dans le secteur agricole.236239240242245246247249251Sujet 7 : L’accès au marché Question 7. Comment améliorer l’accès au marché aux petits producteurs ? Contraintes : - Faible accès des producteurs au marché ; - Manque d’infrastructures au niveau des marchés ; - Réseau routier défaillant ; - Le marché numérique totalement absent. Résultats : - Améliorer les infrastructures dans les zones rurales (y compris le réseau routier). - Favoriser la création de petits groupements au niveau local pour la commercialisation. - Développer des plateformes numériques pour la commercialisation de certains produits (produits de niche).237238239240241242246248249Les échanges et débats entre les participants n’ont pas soulevé des points de divergence. Cependant aspects exigeant une clarification ont été abordés par le modérateur au cours de ces échanges. Il s’agit notamment de : - La confusion entre formation/vulgarisation est sensibilisation des agriculteurs. Des précisions ont été nécessaires pour clarifier la différence entre les trois démarches et leur degré d’adaptation avec les agriculteurs ; - Le point concernant la taxe élevée sur la production agricole a été soulevée comme contrainte par certains participants. Mais comme ce cas ne peut être généraliser. En effet, dans d’autres cas, certains participants ont soulevé cette contrainte à propos des taxes sur les intrants et les moyens de production et non pas sur la production agricole ; - La proposition de développement des plateformes numériques pour la commercialisation des produits agricole est certes intéressante mais n’est, à ce stade, pas directement liés à la sécurité alimentaire. Elle peut y contribuer indirectement sous certaines conditions.

2021-06-29 19:26:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23679/203

62929467332511131833153513117191114111717

The dialogue was organized by the Inter-continental Network of Organic Farmers Organization, a global netowrk of organic farmers organization within the IFOAM - Organics International. INOFO organized five (5) Regional dialogues so that context, realities, solutions and recommendations are based on regional realities and situation. The participants of the dialogue came from South East Asia (Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam), South Asia (India, Sri Lanka) and the Pacific (Australia). Each countries, excluding Australia, presented and proposed solutions to the five tracks of the UNFSS with focus on environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political dimensions. The dialogue was also coordinated with the INOFO country conveners and is open to the local stakeholders so that they will be able to share and discuss their perspective and important role in crafting recommendations for the UNFSS. Majority of those who participated are from the agriculture sector, followed by the environment and ecology sector, then those who came from other different sectors. Each participant has the opportunity to share their recommendations during the open forum, giving enough time for each to speak their minds and are ensured that their points will be included in the report. There was no unfriendly debate, only sharing of perspectives and point of views while facilitators ensured that sharing are not going far from the objectives of the dialogue.Act with Urgency and recognition of complexity- The participants discussed the importance of acting on SDG #1,2,3,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 since most of them are from the agriculture sector and are directly involve in the whole food value and supply chain, including partnership with instituions and government units and agencies at the local and national level. The participants were also those who have first hand experiences in the challenges of the current food systems, from land rights issues, rising prices of inputs and labor, unfair market treatment and trader relationships, climate change, declining soil fertility, ecosystem and biodiversity destruction, corporate takeover of the whole food system and more. These challenges are being felt by the farmers, specially small scale farmers in the developing South who lack structural support from their own government and have difficulty reeling from the effects of climate change every cropping season are now coming together to propose a working solutions that addresses many of the SDGs from land to market - but with focus on the environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political dimensions of farmers and their communities’ everyday realities. Commit to the summit - as many optioned to boycott the UNFSS, INOFO and its member organizations chose to engage and propose appropriate solutions to the realities of the majority of the farmers globally, that is more than 80% of the world’s total population of farmers. The current food system has done a great damage to the small farmers, to the local ecosystem and the environment as a whole, small organic farmers contribution will mean a lot to the improvement of the current food system. Respect and embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - Respect is the working principle in the conduct of the entire summit. Since the participants are coming from different sectors, each were given the chance to speak their minds and their contibutions as a sector, there were no unfriendly debate, only passionate discussion and proposal of solutions.The principles of engagement are quite basic and simple, however, building trust is not as simple as it seems. There has been a lot of agreement, specially with governments, to uphold the prinicples and unities in every agreement, however, until now, many government have not implemented many of international agreements. For other conveners, it is important to read, understand and keep in mind the principles during the conduct of the dialogue to be guided in every step, from the development of topics, assigning speakers and asking the right questions during open forums. These are helpful in crafting questions and developing guides in the presentation and overall structure of the dialogue.

NoINOFO Asia’s dialogue followed the method as recommended in the reference Manual , but we have added a component where we invited speakers from diffrent organizations with highly successful implementation of actions, programs and projects which we see as important basis in the crafting of solutions for the UNFSS. The topics presented by each speakers were also in accordance to the objectives of the UNFSS, the dialogue itself and the organization to educate its members of the importance of the activity and being involved in the process. The speakers also came from the member organizations of INOFO and their presentations reflect what their members are doing on the ground which are important to highlight what has been already working and deserves recognition by the UNFFS as solution. Aside from that, there is also no break out group. We decided to have a plenary session instead so that all participants will have the chance to hear each point, if they agree or disagree with the presentations or they have other solutions that may be relevant for them. In the process, participants were also able able to understand the different context and perspectives of other nation in the practice and implementation of organic production system. The flow of program is as follows: I. Opening remarks/rationale II. Presentation of speakers (10 minutes each) - 5 topics aligned to the 5 tracks of the UNFSS • Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress - India • Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all - Indonesia • Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns - Sri Lanka • Boosting nature-positive production - Philippines • Advancing equitable livelihoods - Vietnam III. Plenary session (50 minutes) - discussion and recommendations were compiled, including that from the speakers IV. Closing In the end, the point of divergence and convergence were clearly identified. The points of divergence are mostly about the priorities of each organization in the operation of their programs, however, the point of convergence were clearly about the issues that farmers are experiencing in Asia, from land rights issues, priorities in policies and programs of the government, climate change, biodiversity collapse in diverse rich countries of Asia and farmers rights as a whole.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251INOFO is a network that facilitates relationship between organic farmers unions through the autonomous, self-organised infrastructure within which farmer organizations consult & cooperate on matters of common concern and speak in any forum with legitimate professional voice. With its mission to unite organic farmers and support their voices at all levels of food systems development, towards producing healthy, nutritious food and preserve mother earth, INOFO Asia is conducting the independent dialogue to discuss the issues and challenges of the present food system, from seed to table and propose just, equitable, sustainable and healthy solutions with the farmers at the core and forefront. The objectives are of the dialogue are to: discuss and draw up solutions to the challenges and issues of the current food systems, covering the five Action Tracks of the UNFSS, based on the realities and on-ground situation of the farmers and their communities in Asia; and make use of the Independent Dialogue to put the voices of the small farmers and the marginalized in setting the agenda and proposing pro-farmer, pro-people and pro-planet solutions to the Food Systems Summit.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251A. Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all a) There is increased initiatives from the community and consumer participation is important, especially during the pandemic, where production became in harmony with nature. b) There is also exploring the potential and documenting local food and food ingredients, especially non- timber forest products, and maintain the continuity of native local varieties in organic agriculture. c) Theres should be trainer of the trainer for small organic – agroecology farmers and training on market access. Small organic farmers can also have collaboration with university, local NGO, CSR program as well as farmers exchange education. d) There should be support in Partisipatory Guarantee System, conduct training on this aspect and marketing of product. e) Seed bank for family farming which is important in the preservation of local variety. f) Collaboration with local government to make center of local food production at specific area specially product from small farmers and indigenous people, farmers should work hand in hand with local government. g) Food product-based innovation in local varieties is related to local wisdom of the community based on geographical uniqueness. There are training for women community and educate consumers about the nutritional value and goodness to return to the forgotten local and how to process local materials and food. B. Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns a) Sustainable use of resources can only be possible with a good working knowledge of those resources. b) Organic farmers work in range of ecosystems -there is a maximum sustainable yield of each ecosystem from any landscape and what’s happening today is from forests to farms that are managed organically but as we move towards urbanization, you will find that the impervious surfaces - a tremendous amount of capacity to produce ecosystem services is lost. c) The price is that fossil led development is creating climate change. d) In the future, monoculture, corporate farming will not work. It will be too hot for it. Therefore, we should stop thinking monoculture small farm and think of farms that are surrounded by trees and tree crops, landscapes that are diverse and developed, this has to be landscape to survive climate change and as small farmers, this is our strength. C. Boosting nature-positive production a) The world has shrink into a small world and that whatever happens to it, affects everyone so that the call is to deglobalize and relocalize food systems. We have to argue as well that global Free Trade under WTO is not favorable to small farmers. b) Environmental components of nature-boosting production: Regenerate and conserve soil/reduce soil degradation; Efficient water harvesting /uses renewable energy; Seeds/planting materials; Conservation of agrobiodiversity, genetic and species diversity: intercropping / polyculture; Agro-forestry; Crop-livestock integration; Functional biodiversity (biological mgt of pests/disease/weeds); Holistic landscape management c) Local/farmers market (short food mileage and a mitigation to climate change) and to enhance food security of the local systems. Farmers should determine market price of products, enhance fair, distribution webs that are interconnected locally so that this is more sustainable and has more contribution to local food security and sovereignty. Farmers need to have a sustainable livelihood and steady income, without it, there will be no more farmers and the so called “farming without farmers” and ultimately moving into corporate agribusiness farming which will create more socio-economic and political problems of feeding the hungry. d) Grow the food that you eat, eat the food that you grow! e) Organized/Strengthened farmers organization is needed. We need stronger participation of farmers/consumers in decision-making about food and agriculture. Lobby for public policies in support of farmers/ IP; decentralized, collective participatory governance of farming and food systems and farmers control of seeds, land, market price set by producers. f) Develop a new food system that is for small scale farmers, for sustainability, for the earth and for the coming generation. D. Advancing equitable livelihoods a) Improved access to organic markets through a guarantee system for small scale producers as costs are mostly in the form of voluntary whihc is very important and usefule for small scale farmers. b) Promote short supply chains and local market development because farmers already have quite a lot of access to internet , mobile phones so short supply chains will be very good. c) Strengthen international cooperation to exchange experiences, study and improving human resources d) More local enterprises, including local processors and retailers should be invited and benefit from organic projects. These are the powerful engines of small organic producers. Farmers should learn how to do business so they could control their own enterprise and do not depend on traders anymore. e) E. Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress a) Farmers used to grow different varieties for different purposes. b) Farmers not only check the production, but they also check the cultural use and diet. c) Varieties are being used for medicinal purposes and we shou2362382392402412422432442452462472482492511. increased awareness on the UNFSS, its objectives and tracks - the discussion on improving our food systems that revolves around recognition of farmers rights to resources and other support, will not end after this dialogue but will become the basis for more discussion, lobbying, practice and campaign for a world of Regenerative and Sustainable Food Systems for All . 2. Stronger cooperation between members of INOFO in the promotion of agroecology and organic agriculture and for exchange of experiences, study and improving human resources. 3. Stronger conviction on the importance of existence as individual and as a farmer. Participants were in the dialogue for no reason. People have been exposed to systemic apathy, the whole education system (and that includes the education in agriculture) has been dominated by West and the industrialised way of farming. That chain of empathy should be broken. 4. Stronger call for rights recognition. Food is right for all. Moving the food management fully by corporation without farmer's role is something impossible. ight pricing and market recognition of small scale producers. Farming and agriculture is about culture, life of nature, life in Asia. We must push our gov’t to recognize the rights before agriculture is culture and heritage. 5. Reiterating calls to UN-FAO: UN should make a program with concrete actions to promote family farming. Can guide small farmers especialy in highland/ mountainous area where available conditions for organic/agroecology and link thier products to markets. To make it happen, think about road transportations those for connecting people, knowledge and markets. 6. Proposal to create a hub to promote business , selling not only locally, in a country but doing business without borders in this group. Thus, the larger the market, the greater the market demand. We need a really good logistics team to solve the paperwork problems for farmers who lack business skills. 7. Highlighting small farmers in all aspects of production, processing and marketing: Food system by corporate won't be beneficial for the small farmers, because all the capital and source will be controled by the big corporate. Farmers have their indigenous knowledges about farming and live in the unique cultures that different each village. So points are : a) Farmers must have an organization or cooperative b) Farmers must have a fair price in the market that tolerate to their production cost c) An alternatif market for farmers, so would be easy for farmers to deliver their harvest d) Farmers must feel free to do their technical when doing farming that comes from their own knowledges not from corporate guidelines that only consider about the market.237238239240241242243244245246247248249251There is not much divergence in term of principles and what are the participants are trying to convey to attain a better food systems. They are united that there should be strong implementation of biodiversity conservation policies nationally and internationally, better support structure for small scale producers - from production to marketing, including infrastructure, impelementation of climate change policies nationally and internationally and stop the corporatization of agriculture. The divergence is mainly in the priorities at the national level since many countries in Asia are not getting enough support, specially vaccine, to be able to continue producing more food. In the Philippines, farmers have produced more during the pandemic however, the challenge was the transportation of the food to the urban centers that caused overproduction and wastage in the rural area and insufficient supply of food in the urban communities. With this, the priority now is to bring the harvest to the urban centers but not in supporting farmers have better marketing skills and improve the production and processing capacities so that food do not go into waste. The same is happening in many countries in Asia, priorities of the governments are misplaced, which are pushing small scale and marginalized farmers further in the periphery. The proposed solution are all in the agroecology framework of FAO, but as part of the output of the dialogue, there is a strong recommendation to include the political dimension, specially farmers right recognition, to bring the back the resources (land, biodiversity, knowledge, technology, market) into the hands of the farmers, as this is basic requirement to have a better food systems.

2021-06-30 02:55:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29430/41

464426401229546

This was a youth-led Dialogue, which took advantage of existing student organizations at McGill University, and student groups at other Montreal area universities. The McGill Food Security Club provided the leadership in organizing the Dialogue and mobilizing youth participation. Two McGill faculty members, Professor Chandra Madramootoo and Professor Leroy Phillip, provided support and feedback to the student organizer group. The Dialogue was organized around the 5 Action Tracks. The event was advertised by e-mail and social media; prospective participants were required to register in advance, indicating their preference for contributing to a specific Action Track. The Dialogue was conducted virtually (via Zoom) over a three-hour period, on April 14, 2021 from 7-10pm EST. There were 5 planning meetings prior to conducting the Dialogue. At the opening of the Dialogue, a 30-minute plenary session preceded 5 breakout sessions, each of which dealt with an Action Track. There was an additional breakout session, conducted in French for francophone students; this session dealt with Action Track 1. Each breakout session had a moderator and rapporteur. At the end of the 5 breakout sessions, each rapporteur presented the highlights of the discussion. In a spirit of openness and inclusivity, all participants were encouraged and permitted to fully share their views.We used the Action Tracks to set the framework for the Dialogue but encouraged participants to be unconstrained by current understandings of the food system, and to envisage the transformations needed for a sustainable future food system. The students came from diverse disciplines that included human nutrition, animal and plant sciences, bioresource engineering, environmental sciences, business management, and law. The Dialogue took advantage of this diversity in academic background and experience and encouraged the students to engage in multidisciplinary thinking about the food system. Students recognized that urgent reforms are required to better food systems globally. Many proposed short-term and long-term solutions regarding agricultural techniques, education, ethics, funding and international relations. Students also acknowledged that systemic shifts take time, yet the Global Community must begin a sustainable transition now. Accordingly, students believe bottom-up policies are an empowering vehicle of change, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity. They also discussed the complexity of a sustainable food system transition. Students from various programs have a unique vision of the global food system. Additionally, students find that culturally appropriate interventions are essential to respectful interactions.Advice to Dialogue Convenors: a) encourage and place emphasis on grassroots participation to maximize input to the Dialogue; b) foster youth self-confidence and ownership of the process throughout the entire Dialogue.

No1. The entire Dialogue was curated and moderated by the student groups. 2. The senior academics (2) who participated in the Dialogue did not overshadow the contributions of the students. 3. The President of the McGill Food Security Club, who also serve as “student organizer” of the Dialogue, summed up the success of the Dialogue in the following words: “There were only positive feedbacks from our discussion on Wednesday. It was, for sure, a very successful event! It also gave us hope in our future leaders, seeing how involved and passionate the youth is in creating changes in our current food systems”. 4. All voices were heard throughout the Dialogue thereby ensuring inclusivity of viewpoints; this is reflected in the summary reports of each breakout session, 5. There was no suppression of divergent views.

234238239240241242244246248251We developed the following 3 central questions to guide discussions across all 5 Action Tracks of the Dialogue: 1. What are the innovations in science and technology that you see improving the sustainability of our current food systems by 2030? You can think about all points along the entire value chain from food production and processing, to marketing and sales, to consumption and health outcomes (eg. food type, post-harvest losses and food waste, storage, distribution, nutrition, and dietary patterns). 2. The current structures, policies, and systems (in the broadest possible terms) are perhaps the root causes of today’s unsustainable food systems. What transformations do you envisage being required to make the fundamental changes needed for the “food world” of the future? 3. Who are the key stakeholders that would need to be mobilized and become more prominent (than currently prevails) to allow the above innovations and transformations to materialize? These questions were designed to prompt discussions about food system transformation and identifying levers of change. The following themes are examples of levers of change identified during the Dialogue: • Food waste; crop and diet diversity; consumer awareness of healthy eating; healthy food marketing; improved food labelling and packaging for consumer education; • Advanced technologies, food ethics and GMOs; • Urban agriculture- home gardening, community gardens; community food sharing • Food forests; respect for indigenous and cultural food habits; • Food subsidies and government regulation.235238239240241242243244245246248249251Action Track 1 • Need for more accountability & responsibility by companies profiting from the current food system • Enhanced consumer awareness of food system sustainability and healthy eating • Need for Public policy enforcement of livable wage for healthy eating and sustainable living Action Track 2 • Shifts to more localized food production • Nutrition education of consumers • Government incentives and subsidies for production and market access to local foods • Production disincentives for unhealthy foods • Aligning consumption with seasonality of produce • Diet diversity and culturally appropriate food systems • Youth education and awareness of food waste and recycling Action Track 3 • Enhanced government regulations (of food marketing?) • Changes in ethics and economics of environmental sustainability • Rights-oriented food system • More localization of food production and supply • Governmental support programs for diversified food production • Emphasis on food system resilience and skills training • Free trade and agriculture Action Track 4 • Including women and more minorities in the food chain • Community gardens • Access to fresh local food • Reduce food waste- incentives • Food education for consumers • Shifts to plant-based rather than animal-based farming • Public-private partnerships • Fair trade • Incentives to localize food production • Encourage basic living wage • Knowledge sharing Action Track 5 • Change in marketing language; • Nutri-score (nutrition label that converts nutrition value into a 5 letter code) • Vertical agriculture • Diversification in agriculture • Make farming more popular among youth236238243244245246247248249250251Action Track 1 • Mobilization of people and communities • Changes in the food industry (reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods)236Action Track 2 • Youth engagement • Commitment of government institutions • More involvement of medical & health care community • Responsible land ownership and land utilization • Changes in school cafeterias and supermarkets • Enhanced corporate social responsibility236240Action Track 3 • Engage all society • Strong political leadership236241Action Track 4 • More active role of Governments in ensuring equitable livelihoods for small holder farmers • Food affordability for consumers236242Action Track 5 Strengthening public-private partnerships237238239240241242A major area of divergence was the perceived conflict between traditional livestock production (especially ruminants) in terms of its large environmental footprint and the health implications of high levels of meat consumption. There was a high level of advocacy for a more plant-based diet and for cell- cultured meat.

2021-06-30 03:51:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27047/203

6762020116427403103210162010239112410

The Food Cares: shifting awareness to energize food systems program was organized in line with the UNFSS 7 principles for independent dialogues. The program was advertised broadly on social media and 67people from 12 countries attended the event. The event was open to anyone to encourage a multi stakeholder discussion. The guest panel included a spiritual leader, an NGO Director, a scholar/activist and an official UN youth representative. Panelists included indigenous, cultural and spiritual aspects in their comments to supplement scientific understandings.Many connections were made between personal health and environmental well-being – and the complex, intricate food system that connects them. Panelists complemented each other in their suggested approaches to promote sustainable consumption policies and practices and support all workers along the food system chain, and the natural resources that lie as the source of all our nourishment. Participants participated in the dialogue through the chat box, a zoom poll, questions and answers. Everyone was challenged to become more aware of what they eat and where it comes from – and to shift the food system by first shifting their awareness. This initial dialogue was the launch of a three month ongoing dialogue process with Food Care Initiatives a dedicated series of events for supporting the UNFSS urban areas. We believe our first dialogue built trust with our constituency that may not usually consider the importance of food systems, and helped them see the role everyone has to play urgently in developing a greater awareness about how their food choices impact others and the wellbeing of the planet.Adhering to the principles of the engagement not only brings more expertise on the table , it also allows more wide variety of reflections possible for audience who attends. it gives more opportunities of discussion and therefore enables more fruitful action.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247248249250251The major focus of the dialogue was considering a shift in awareness as a significant lever of change for all five action tracks. That shift, to a Food Care system, is an innovative approach that encourages people to take a values-based and spiritual approach to all their interactions with food and the food system. This approach instills in everyone an understanding that a change in our inner consciousness is what will have a significant impact on the outer food system.235238239240241242244246247248250251The main findings of the dialogue were that all individuals have the opportunity to make choices that will have an impact on food systems. Globalized food systems, as they currently exist, are a vast interconnected economic system that do not have the well-being of people and the planet at their core. Tackling the transformation of such a system can seem overwhelming. However, every individual has some ability to chose how they interact with the system and millions and billions of these individual choices will eventually lead to a change in the system. This aspect made it possible for the organisers to deliver their message in a detailed yet lucid manner and hence for the individuals to incorporate this understanding of conscious food choices in their lifestyle with at most ease. The insight that emerged, and was endorsed from the dialogue, was that “we are what we eat” and individual conscious choices about the food we eat and knowing how it gets to our plate can reorient the food system in a positive, sustainable direction. Some of the themes that came out of the dialogue where: 1. Food and consciousness 2. Food and choices – mindfulness, the power to recognize and change 3. Food and sacredness 4. Appreciating interconnectedness of our food systems 5. Honoring nature’s role in our food systems 6. Instilling values into our food systems 7. Creating sustainability in our food systems 8. Taking action to shift how we think about food and food systems It became clear from the dialogue, the sharing between panelists and with participants, that efforts to bring issues such as conscious and sacredness into more discussions of the food system are important. Based on this the convenors are committed to the following actions: • With BK Youth India • With BK centres • Other faith institutions • BK network internationally • With UN youth connections The conveners are also committed to continue their work in exploring global and local food systems in more detail and understanding the actors at every step in the process, the interconnections and the environmental, socio-cultural, and political-economic dimensions of food systems. In doing this the team will develop workshop and teaching materials that will be translated in to multiple languages (eg. English, Hindi, …) and shared to target groups and made generally available on the BK environmental websites. Some of the specific materials that will be developed include: • Video that captures themes • Tool kit for workshops • App for colorful plate of food • Poster of themes • Briefing note on themes236238239240241242244246247248249251The Poll results conducted during the session: find in attachments Key points that were shared during the discussion:- Sister Jayanti “One sacred aspect of life is that all food ultimately comes from nature.” “We are in the same boat, if one part of the boat has water coming into it, how long is it going to take to reach the rest of the boat.” “It’s only through a shift in our consciousness and coming back to the awareness of one family that we are able to say that we cannot continue, we have to make a change and we are the ones who can do it.” “Personal change is what generates systemic change” David Fletcher “To have a sustainable system we need to recognize we are a part of the system” “Revalorization for the producers who are close to the land and water and take the energy that’s put into our food and an understanding that, that is where the system starts would be helpful to put the sacred energy back into people and will make a difference to the food systems.” Gopal Patel “Change begins from inside and it is the shift in inner consciousness that will reform the external food systems” “It is important to understand that whether we are from a particular faith or not we are all concerned with the social issues we face today and we need to connect these concerns with the food system and act responsibly” Pramisha Thapalia “Unless we know our problems we can’t move to solutions” “The youth can have a significant impact on the food systems through education, empowerment & advocacy” “Young people are not only the future leaders but the leaders of today” “Action is the most important step to bring a change in the food systems”237238239240241242244246247248249251Food like language exists as a medium for expressing culture. It has the power of being both a necessity for our body as well as a deeply symbolic artefact, one that expresses our identity. So naturally there will be some reluctance and difficulties in making a shift to conscious food choices for individuals from different cultural origins. This barrier was addressed by the organizers and different opinions were expressed. One of the organizers held the view that if we can understand that the food choices we make are for our own health, for the future of our planet, and realize that the food will notably affect our state of mind, then it’s not going to be seen as a cultural or a border issue but as a need of the moment for the human survival. The other speaker expressed his view regarding the same by sharing one of his experiences with the young students from all over the world. He believes that the awareness of the origin of the food and the industrialized process it undergoes and the understanding of our connection with nature can bring a change in our awareness and we will be able to make more conscious food choices as individuals of one big family. The dialogue emphasized on shifting one’s consciousness and becoming aware of the interconnections in the food systems. With regard to this the speakers held different perspectives. One of the speakers expressed that they are in line with the idea that understanding the system, how it works and that we have an influence on that just as that has on us means that there are choices we have to make about how we interact with the food and food systems. The other speaker held that its only through a shift in our consciousness and coming back to the awareness of one family that we are able to say that we cannot continue, we have to make a change and we are the ones who can do it.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/POSTER-2-FOOD-CARE-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/last.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Poll-results.xlshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upMS_-JH6oc&t=1366s

2021-06-30 10:29:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12144/11283236374048566876939698106111112125126131134135150153161164170171172174182189192193201202

1200464823307048212049107

Given the complexity and sensitivities around the food systems summit, hence the need to build trust among stakeholders, the co-conveners organised a session to raise awareness among interested stakeholders from Africa/EMENA region about land issues and food systems and the UNFSS processes, in April prior to the actual independent dialogue (ID). The pre-ID session assisted in building a wider commitment from stakeholders to participate in the ID and other summit processes. It also emphasised the need to act with urgency given the interdependency between the 2030 agenda and the food systems. The actual ID held virtually, embraced the UNFSS stipulated principles of engagement within its possible parameters. The ID was published widely via social media and other channels for a multi-stakeholder participation. The ID was started with a keynote speech to set a tone for the discussions framed on land and food systems. In order to accommodate the diversity of opinions among the participants, the discussion was clustered into five thematic areas: i. Women and youth ii. Indigenous peoples’ land and territories iii. Pastoralists, iv. Landless communities and farmers and v. Land Investments. Facilitators and notes takers of each of the group were briefed prior to the ID on the principle of engagements. (Some facilitators participated in the facilitator training offered by the UNFSS secretariat). The ID was concluded with a plenary session where each sub-group presented to the audience a summary of their discussion including key recommendations. The audience was given an opportunity to ask questions or make any comments.The ID was announced via social media and other communication channels of the co-conveners. This resulted in 120 people participating in the ID from all parts of the region. The participants represented women, men and the youth from family farming organisations, peasant and indigenous organisations, agroecology movements, UN agencies, international NGOs, organisations working in urban and rural areas, universities etc. In order to accommodate linguistic diversity, the discussions were held in English and French. The Dialogue paved the way to build new and/or strengthen and broaden the existing partnerships. The wider participation, the input provided and the commitments expressed were reflection of building trust, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and overall commitment to the summit. Overall, the ID was a constructive discussion which respected diverse opinions among the participants. The solutions suggested for the identified challenges in the discussions recognises the interconnectedness and complexity of food systems and the need to find broader and holistic solutions. The diversity within the participants brought to light the complementarity in each other's work in relation to certain common challenges highlighting the need to find common solutions. For example, the challenges linked to women’s ownership of land were common to many of the sub-groups which emphasised the necessity of working horizontally among these groupsThe introductory session organised before the ID was helpful to bring urgency to the summit’s focus, dealing with current sensitivities attached to the summit and build a larger buy-in. (build trust, act with urgency, commit to the summit) Having two keynote speeches (in English and French) at the beginning of the ID was helpful to both save time in thematic discussions to avoid dealing with generic issues together with paving the way for a more focused discussions. (recognise complexities, build trust, commit to the summit) Building alliances with a group of organisations to co-convene the ID was helpful to reach out to a wider stakeholders base, increase visibility and build legitimacy to the ID process. (embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, compliment the work of other, build trust)

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247249251The principal focus of the independent dialogue was to bring attention to the centrality of secure land rights in building sustainable food systems with the objective of brining land issues to the discussion processes of the summit and integrate into its outcomes. The entire food system of the world is inextricably connected to land. Hence, if there is a fundamental positive change in the way we manage land we can make the global food systems sustainable, whilst simultaneously reaching the targets of climate-change mitigation and averting the dramatic loss of biodiversity. Overall, it will cater to achieving the intended targets of the 2030 sustainable development agenda. The current food systems are evidently inadequate in addressing poverty, hunger and malnutrition worldwide. Almost 80 percent of the world’s poor and food insecure live in rural areas, mostly depending on agricultural production for their subsistence; i.e. an important number of the world’s hungry base their livelihoods on access to land and other natural resources. Given land’s economic, socio-cultural and political importance, tenure security is critical to livelihoods and food security. Strengthened resource rights increases the likelihood that farmers invest in their land, boosting productivity and contributing to food security. Secure tenure of Indigenous Peoples over the forests they live, dramatically reduces deforestation and other forms of environmental degradation contributing to climate change mitigation. According to the research conducted by the International Land Coalition with its members, land inequality directly threatens the livelihoods of an estimated 2.5 billion people involved in small-scale agriculture, as well the world’s poorest 1.4 billion people, most of whom depend largely on agriculture for their livelihoods. Global inequality experts blame the upward trend of land inequality partly on the increased interest from corporate and financial actors, such as investment funds and agricultural land investments. As corporate and financial investments grow, ownership and control of land becomes more concentrated and increasingly opaque. Today, the largest 1 percent of farms operate more than 70 percent of the world’s farmland and are integrated into the corporate food system, while over 80 percent are smallholdings of less than two hectares, which are generally excluded from global food chains. Indigenous peoples and local communities look after 50% of the earth’s surface protecting eco systems and bio-diversity. But they have legal rights only over 1/5 of it. Secure land tenure rights lead to planned food systems based on individual or collective community choices and community driven demands. Land tenure rights for a given duration empowers deciding on efficient, scheduled, appropriate and suitable cropping system and serve as a strong foundation for economic empowerment. It is the basis of human dignity of all communities including indigenous peoples, pastoralists, local communities and landless farmers forming the pathway for right to food among these communities and beyond.235238241243244246247249251Secure land tenure allows farmers to live on land with security, grow food and supply productions to consumers. It is an empowering tool for farmers and communities to invest on land and manage their eco-systems sustainably where relevant. How, when, where and by whom food is grown are essential elements of food sovereignty. Farmers who grow food should be able to produce seeds for their cultivation. They hold knowledge on locally driven demands. Security and control over land by farmers and local communities are essential elements in both growing seeds and food. Building sustainable food systems holds its foundation at the local level based on understanding local needs, retaining local knowledge and talents, job creations to production of seeds and agricultural products. Local and small-scale farmers are both producers and consumers. Their families and local communities depend on their farm products. There is no food sustainability when farmers cannot access and control production factors, primary of which is land. Over the years, climate change has brought severe challenges to local food productions. If efforts on mitigation and adaptation measures are to be successful, local communities should be able to participate in mitigation and adaptation measures and restore their local eco-systems. Having security of land is the first steps in this process. Policies on resource allocation should focus on supporting and strengthening communities and their ecosystem values through improving local governance structures, extending technical assistance such as skills relating to agroecological management. The Covid19 pandemic unravel the economic and social inequalities among local farmers. Protecting land rights of these communities is the first step towards protecting their socio- economic rights and food security. To tackle these challenges: • Secure land rights of all to build sustainable food systems: women, youth, IPs, pastoralists & small holders/landless farmers • Recognise right to land as a fundamental human right • Revisit current value system in food systems (land use in global south for food & timber for global north) • Recognise importance of both formal & informal land ownership in building sustainable food systems • Recognise pastoralists as food producers (social & environmental value of land) • Recognise indigenous community lands & customary land systems as part of building sustainable food systems/ their contribution to mitigate climate change & protect nature • Take measures to protect access to commons as part of securing food systems of local communities • Increase transparency & accountability in land investments & make sure that agreed plans are followed through citizen monitoring236238241243247249251Women and Youth Challenges Despite their contribution to agriculture, a large proportion of women in the region do not have access to or control over land. Even with legal assurance for women’s ownership of land, in certain social circumstances, male-dominant hierarchical societal structures prevent women from having full ownership of land. Both weak legal and discriminatory social structures for women to own land make them further vulnerable in situations of large-scale investments. Lack of confidence among youth about farming as a sustainable form of livelihood, attracts fewer from the youth for agriculture. Solutions - Right to land for all should be a constitutional right. This is the first step in paving the way for legal frameworks which recognise and facilitate equal ownership of land among women and men - Focus more on the implementation of laws and policies which guarantee women’s ownership of land - Simplify administrative procedures that facilitate women’s access to land. Such procedures should be easily understandable and accessible - Tackle cultural norms which hinder women ownership of land with sensitivity - Include women and youth in decision making processes particularly relevant to customary tenure systems - Discriminatory practices based on patriarchy should be addressed through confidence building showcasing the benefits of achieving gender equality - Accessing common land can be the basic opportunity for women and youth to access land. To achieve this, the natural and socio-cultural values of the commons should be recognised at local, national and regional levels. Further, development of a chain or mode of marketing of the communal production give them incentive and allow them to better position themselves in the market. - Study the existing customary rights and traditions and remodel them to adapt to the present socio-economic circumstances Stakeholders and partnerships - Multi-stakeholder platforms consisted of government, CSOs and international organisations - Public officials particularly working on land and agricultural issues236238241243244246247249Pastoralists Challenges Having access to land is the source of a sustain livelihood system for pastoralists. This should be recognised by the law. Food sovereignty among pastoralists rely on land as the key supply source of food. Land degradation, interest of investors and large private sector businesses impend the land rights of pastoralists. They are often not a part of compensation schemes in situations where their land is taken over by governments. In certain circumstances, tensions exist between farmers and pastoralists in relation to commons. Despite legal and policy guarantee, there are serious gaps in their implementation in certain jurisdictions. Governments often do not make resolving challenges relating to pastoralists a priority. Modern economic models should recognise and respect the contribution by pastoralists to food systems. Solutions - Recognise pastoralism as a way of life and custom. - With recognition of pastoralism, government should demarcate land for pastoralists - Develop natural resources user contracts recognising the land rights of pastoralists living in conservation areas - Allocate resources (funds) to strengthen land use among pastoralists and develop infrastructure to increase food production among them - Raise awareness about issues relating to pastoralists recognising them as legitimate land users - Develop community by-laws to protect rights of pastoralists - Build capacity among pastoralists to stand for their land rights Stakeholders and partnerships - Governments - Inter-governmental organisations - Civil Society236238241243244246247249251Indigenous Peoples Challenges The relentless rise of land grabbing and timber logging, prevent indigenous peoples from producing traditional food needed by their own communities. Often operated under governments’ patronage, these deforestations deprive communities their land use for traditional and sustainable agricultural practices. Indigenous peoples rely on the food they grow and hold the land they grow food in sacredness. Given land particularly owned by indigenous peoples are not documented, they become vulnerable for land grabbing. Absence of land security, deprive indigenous peoples and communities of their food and livelihoods, hence adversely affecting their welfare and human security. Over the years, thousands of IPs have been evicted from their land. These eviction create both knowledge and support gap for fauna and flora otherwise held and practiced by these communities. Tree-based systems and related tree value chains, including tree fodder and meals, among IPs are paramount aspects of food security. As IPs lose their right to food, indigenous crops and knowledge associated with them disappear. In turn, they are forced to embrace cash crops losing their food sovereignty. With eviction from their land, IPs are deprived of hunting animals. In some countries, hunting is categorised as poaching, barring IPs from their traditional activities. Losing or banning access to traditionally held land contribute to loss of beekeeping that provide millions of IPs a source of livelihood. Loss of land among IPs, put them in competition with other community groups such as pastoralists increasing inter-communal violence. Loss of land for IPs is loss of their identity, traditional lives and food security. Forced assimilation undermines human dignity and right to life of these communities. Governments do not make IPs issues a priority including implementation of laws where it exists or even implementation of judicial decisions. Solutions - Facilitate platform for IPs to come together and raise their voice - Revisit the current value system in food systems. Use of land in the global south for food and timber for global north should be stopped aiming for an equitable food systems across the global respecting traditional values in food systems - Promote agricultural diversity and indigenous crops as part of solutions to global food crisis. IPs and local communities should be allowed to use their traditional seeds and crops - Undertake more research on IPs and their land ownership showcasing their contribution to sustainable food systems - Protect land rights of IPs and other local communities preventing land grabbing and evictions - Channel resource for proper and effective implementation of laws - Build capacity of IPs to stand and protect their land rights. Mobilise resource to this end - Promote traditional knowledge which contribute to sustainable food production - Enact laws to end acquisition of community owned land without prior knowledge of traditional users of land - Formulate policies to develop integrated community land mapping with the participation of local land users Stakeholders and partnerships - Local government authorities - Youth - National governments - Relevant public servants at national, regional and local levels - Private sector - CSOs - International and regional organisations including multi-lateral agencies236238241243244246247249251Landless and Smallholder Farmers Challenges Small-scale farming is an important aspect of livelihood of many and vital source for healthy and nutritional diets. However, their contribution to sustainable food systems is not supported or acknowledged as these farmers are often left alone, vacuum of a formal support system. The definition of smallholder famers is ambiguous varying from near landless to small-scale commercial farmers. State policies often disregard them particularly those who own small plots and further rely on additional sources of income in addition to their small-scale farming. Land ownership is recognised and/or granted through statutory laws or customary practices. Smallholder rural farmers often fall under informally recognised customary regimes resulting them not being recognised under a specific tenure framework with an enabling set of rights. Hence, smallholder farmers cannot access credit and other formal services which otherwise could help them to increase their contribution to food systems. Smallholders and landless farmers are less motivated or unable to make long-term investment plans without security of tenure. This also affects their food security as short term susceptible tenure prevent long term sustainable investments for food security. Smallholder farmers are also affected by state led development projects especially large scale land based investments. Displacement of these farmers by large scale investments disrupt their food production activities and force them to migrate to other economic activities. Solutions - Recognise smallholders and landless farmers as productive contributors to sustainable food systems. If adequately supported their contribution can further be increased for robust and resilient food systems making them economically empowered - Make legal and policy arrangements to grant land rights to these farmers (including long term tenure security where applicable). This will increase their contribution to food systems - In the absence of long term tenure security, bring protection measures to prevent them from other forms of exploitation including eviction and land grabbing - Build support networks to advocate for the rights of these farmers. These support systems could focus on building their capacity and resource mobilisation to sustain advocacy efforts Stakeholders and partnerships - Multi-stakeholder land networks (national, regional and international) consisted of smallholders farmers, landless people, CSOs, governments and other relevant stakeholders - Agro ecological networks to mobilise support236238239241242243244245246247248249250251Land Investment Land tenure recognised through customary systems offer less security for landowners. International or national investments can easily undermine locally existing tenure arrangements. Unless clearly pronounced and protected linking to a legitimate tenure security framework, land investments can take over land from their owners and dwellers. Absence of tenure rights give less or no bargaining power excluding local communities from negotiations and/or making them vulnerable to corrupt practices. Giving land an identity of a financially valued commodity leads to land concertation and related power imbalance in food systems. This makes farmlands more expensive making it less affordable and accessible to local farmers. Giving only a commercial value to land with the objective of increasing investments trigger land grabbing. This is detrimental to smallholder farming. In Europe family farming is diminishing and big farms supported through large scale investments are taking over. This bear adverse socio and environmental impact. Absence of recognition for customary tenure system prevent farmers from accessing formal financial support preventing investment on land by them. For example, in Zimbabwe, land with customary ownership is considered to be ultimately owned by the state and having a deed is one of the first requirements for negotiations. In many countries, there is no security for farmers who hold customary land against taking over their land by investors. Customary land owners are excluded from negotiations and not considered in compensation schemes with broad and sever impact on their food security. Even in cases where customary land owners are given limited rights, (e.g. temporary ownership with limitation on selling their land), such limited rights are not considered to be good enough be invited to be at the negotiation table. Demarcation of land as peri-uban or urban to take them over for urban development projects (to accommodate increasing urban population) directly affect family farmers and the consumers who depend on their products. Solutions - Recognise land beyond its economic value embracing social and environmental values of land. Such recognition would assist in mobilising collective interest for certain landscapes which require such collective efforts for their preservation. Commodification of land would lead to giving only economic values to land associated with commercial food production or exploitation of natural resources. Commodification of land perpetuates poverty, cause environmental degradation and deterioration of cultural practices exist among traditional communities. - Increase transparency and accountability in land investments and make sure that agreed plans are followed through citizen monitoring - Recognise all forms of tenure (including the commons, lease agreements and user rights) - Build and mobilise global support in order to create an enabling environment to advocate for collective land rights and recognise and include people for land investment negotiations - Gather stories on how agricultural modernization (large scale monoculture & industrialised agriculture) is destroying family farming, bio diversity, soil erosion and the environment both in global north and the south and reach out to communities to raise awareness - Despite progressive guidelines and standards in certain jurisdiction, implementation of those fall far short of expectations. Bring attention and resource investments to legal and policy implementation with the involvement of local communities as relevant - Strengthen advocacy capacity of family farmers and local communities to fight for their land supported by research - Present securing agricultural land as a means to promote agricultural work among youth and women, showcasing it leads to sustainable way of life - Declare certain land as protected for agriculture and food systems as relevant to build security among farmers and local community against forced investments - Revisit and revise customary landownership systems to support long-term sustainable agricultural practices - Integrate land mapping into land policy and bring commu237238241246247249Given the paramount significance of secure land tenure for sustainable food systems, we need the attention of all stakeholders including governments, civil society organisations, private sector, international organisations, multi-lateral organisations and donors to come together to strengthen land tenure security of women, men, youth, family farmers, indigenous peoples, pastoralists and landless farmers and other communities as relevant. The stakeholders can be facilitated to come together through multi-stakeholder platforms to identify challenges, and solutions, implement and monitor solutions, channel resources as needed and celebrate successes. The 2030 sustainable development agenda can only be achieved if secure land tenure for all is achieved facilitating to achieves the targets on eradicating poverty, zero-hunger, general equality, climate actions and building peaceful and just societies.

2021-06-30 12:26:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10133/203

1232741203634281131621135131102

The purpose of organizing the Dialogue was to act with urgency towards sustained and meaningful action targeting the double-burden of malnutrition. NCD Child, the organization that convened this Independent Dialogue, decided to commit to the Summit, to empower stakeholders from the sub-Saharan Africa region to amplify their voices and work together on a global platform. NCD Child identified two local co-convenors from the sub-Saharan Africa region, the South Africa NCD Alliance and the Ghana NCD Alliance, through an NCD Child Governing Council member living and working in the region. The co-convenors then facilitated introductions to potential speakers, participants, and facilitators. This invitation strategy helped to achieve an inclusive and multi-stakeholder event, with representation across different countries and groups. The keynote speaker and plenary panelists also spoke to diverse issues under the Dialogue theme, to encourage participants to approach the topics in the breakout sessions from different angles. NCD Child hosted a number of training sessions for facilitators in advance of the Dialogue, to ensure that each of the principles of the summit would be incorporated and reinforced during the breakout room discussions. In particular, these trainings emphasized the following principles: to be respectful, recognize complexity, embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complement the work of others and build trust. The following actions were encouraged to promote these principles: allocating sufficient time for each stakeholder to introduce themselves, gently inviting quieter stakeholders into the conversation to prevent 1-2 voices from dominating the discussions, and allowing participants to engage in various ways (such as verbally or written). The Dialogue was hosted over 2 days to enhance the trust that was formed among participants. To ensure the workshop was inclusive of French-speaking participants, French language interpretation was offered during the plenary sessions, and one breakout room was devoted to French-speaking participants.Many of the stakeholders who participated in our Dialogue were already making progress in the malnutrition space and thus acting with urgency. The convenors of the Dialogue were able to silently observe the breakout room sessions, and ensure that stakeholders were consistently respectful towards one another in their interactions. The breakout room topics were meant to stimulate discussion on the complexity of the food system and be broad enough to accommodate/recognize the complexity of the work being done by the participants in their settings. The Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity as we had over 50 participants in the breakout sessions from over 24 countries across sub-Saharan Africa. There was also substantial youth representation in the Dialogue (as both facilitators and participants), as youth participation was recognized as one of the gaps in Action Track 1, and because NCD Child is a coalition championing the rights and needs of children, adolescents, and young people. The Dialogue aimed to complement the work of others, by linking participants to different resources from various organizations; during the summary sessions on both days and via email following the event, links to additional webinars, and documents were shared. We also encouraged participants to share their own work/resources with others during the Dialogue. The Dialogue built trust by engaging with participants over 2 days; as the participants became more familiar with one another, they became more inclined to participate actively in both the breakout room sessions and in the plenary sessions. In addition, because the Chatham House rule was in effect (whereby neither the identity nor the affiliation of participants were revealed in the discussion notes, and breakout sessions were not recorded) the participants trusted that their engagement would be anonymous.Convenors should build the principles of engagement into their training sessions for the facilitators. If time allows, Convenors should also reference the principles of engagement during the plenary session of their Dialogue, to reassure and reinforce to participants, that the Dialogue is being conducted in accordance with the UN Food Systems Summit. For Dialogues involving participants with different language requirements, translation services should be available to all, to ensure inclusivity. There should also be low or no cost to participating in the Dialogue, and participants should be supported in their participation (e.g., if they require a formal letter to take time away from work). Dialogue Convenors should also consider co-convening their Dialogue with local partners due to the importance of understanding local context, and to ensure that the participant invitees and breakout room topics will lead to productive discussions aligned with the needs of the region. Convenors should offer to circulate resources for participants, and should create a listserv for participants who would like to be involved after the Dialogue. Convenors should also build unscheduled time into the Dialogue, so that participants can network, speak more informally to one another, and share work.

Yes

234238247249251The specific theme of our workshop was ‘The Double-Burden of Malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Engaging Youth in Access to Nutritious Food’. This theme emerged from Action Track 1 (ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all), and one of the priority areas of the summit (youth empowerment). As NCD Child is particularly interested in the needs of children, adolescents and young people, and addressing the inequities that this group faces when it comes to their health and well-being, one of the levers of change of the Summit, human rights, was also used to frame the discussions. Participants from across sub-Saharan Africa, working to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition and/or working to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases were invited to share their current actions or new ideas on how to ensure youth have access to sufficient quantities of affordable and safe food products (Action Track 1, Strand 2), and how to engage youth in these actions. The participants were also meant to discuss the projections and scenarios for actions that can reduce the number of people who cannot afford a healthy diet (e.g., reallocations of subsidies for food production, food production R&D reallocations, lowering taxes on nutritious foods, productivity increases in nutritious foods, pro-nutrition changes in trade rules and regimes, etc.), that were produced by the Summit’s Science Group. These actions, and others, such as the commercial determinants of malnutrition, and social protection programs for malnutrition, were recognized as being able to reduce the triple burden of malnutrition, and poverty and inequality (Action Track 1, Strand 1). To a lesser extent, participants were meant to focus on ideas for vocational programs for rural youth that offer integrated training in multiple skills (Action Track 1, Strand 1); vocational programs for agriculture have the potential to do more than just secure access to food, they have the potential to economically empower youth. The four topics of our breakout room sessions were: 1) youth-lead solutions to the triple-burden of malnutrition; 2) youth engagement in strengthening food systems; 3) integrating approaches to multiple NCDs and risk factors; and 4) food systems and the double-burden of malnutrition during COVID-19.235238246247249251Many key conclusions emerged across breakout rooms sessions. Participants agreed that actions would need to be taken to tax unhealthy foods and make healthy foods more accessible/affordable. Participants also agreed on the need to establish connections between youth and policy-makers; participants felt that youth should be supported to advocate and develop solutions for their own cause. Participants further highlighted the need for funding and capacity-building for youth initiatives, and in particular, initiatives in agriculture. Another key conclusion to emerge across breakout room sessions was the importance of expanding the school curriculum. Participants felt that nutrition courses (where available) should include lessons on climate change, agriculture and cooking. However, participants also recognized the utility of life-long learning, and suggested that education/courses be provided beyond the classroom, within the community, or health care facilities. It was also suggested that these lessons be accompanied by the creation of gardens, as a practical application of the course material. Participants also agreed on the need to establish connections between different stakeholders along the food supply chain (I.e. consumers, producers, local farmers, etc.). They felt that this strategy could contribute to consumer knowledge and empowerment. Finally, shame and inequality were two major themes to emerge from the breakout room sessions. Participants felt that hunger was stigmatized within communities, and noted that this would be a challenge to overcome the burden of malnutrition. Participants also recognized inequality, and in particular, gender inequality, as a challenge to food access; it was stated that girls and women were not prioritized for meals, and that disparities in school attendance could also prevent girls from being empowered to participate in advocacy and agriculture through education.236238251Actions for Impact Participants felt that the burden of diet- and nutrition-related NCDs could be reduced through a de-colonization of the African diet; since the African diet was once predominantly fruits and vegetables, a diet centered on these foods (and additional nutrient dense crops such as soy) and attentive to healthy means of preparation, could significantly impact the triple-burden of malnutrition. Participants said that to encourage a shift to this diet, healthy foods would need to be made affordable, and unhealthy foods would need to be taxed. Food policies with health and environmental goals were recognized as critical to achieving this, and participants recommended that youth groups working on NCDs and climate collaborate, and be consulted by policy-makers. However, participants noted that for youth to participate in policy-making processes, they would need more information about their rights, and current policies and legislation that impacts them. Participants also noted the importance of working with youth across the gender spectrum, different geographic settings, socioeconomic statuses and experiences. Participants stated that strengthening the relationship between consumers and (local) producers, and prioritizing agro-ecological practices (e.g. using ecological pesticides, supporting soil health, and developing agro-forests) could positively impact the triple-burden of malnutrition. Participants believed that greater diversity on farms would translate into greater nutritional diversity. Participants also felt that students, their parents, community members and farmers should be engaged in holistic health education, including physical activity and nutrition components (with modules for different diets, such as plant-based diets, and culturally appropriate ways of eating healthy) and that these individuals could cascade this education to the rest of the community. Participants recommended several actions for schools: investments in gardens, actions for improved school attendance, the addition of climate change topics to the curriculum, and the development of safe and engaging youth platforms (I.e. youth clubs and social media). Some participants also spoke about: improving the food environment in health care facilities, food processing and the need for safer regulations, and greater corporate social responsibility. Moreover, participants felt that actions should be multi-sectoral (including the private sector, agricultural sector, and education sector) and empower the consumer. Assessing Progress Participants felt that progress could be assessed through: (1) rates and trends of malnutrition in all its forms, (2) levels of dietary diversity at the household level​ and (3) changes to school feeding programmes. Participants also stated that assessments should involve youth, use both qualitative and quantitative methods, and would benefit from effective monitoring from planning to implementation. Further, they noted that organizations already doing work in the community should be accessible to youth for assistance and/or that youth could self-report behavioral changes in their eating habits. Finally, participants noted that capacity-building would take time and may be difficult to measure, and that the theory of change should be outlined early on and clearly so that successful efforts could be replicated. Challenges Participants mentioned that school feeding programmes, though beneficial for providing meals to children, do not contribute to food security of households. Additionally, participants cited the increase in processed food consumption as a challenge. Participants further explained that processed food consumption has risen in part because the responsibility of the food system has been given to corporations which are more concerned with profits than nutrition. Finally, participants noted the gap between the concepts of culture and nutrition, and the social challenges that might make eating healthy difficult.236238247251Actions for Impact Participants felt that more funding should be provided for youth involvement in food systems, and that the government should do more to encourage multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder involvement (i.e. involvement of both those affected by food insecurity and those with the power and influence to change this) using existing resources and toolkits for guidance. Participants said that the capacity of youth to advocate for food systems should be leveraged and strengthened with agricultural training. Participants also stated that to impact youth engagement in strengthening food systems, information and knowledge shared on this topic should be easy to understand, accessible, and specific to diverse groups (such as pregnant and lactating women, children, etc.). They further explained that information critical across the life course should be communicated in the school curriculum, as students would be able to share this knowledge with their broader communities. Additional recommendations for education included: (1) teaching children to diplomatically interrogate the barriers in their setting, (2) expanding the school nutrition curriculum (to include meal preparation and context-specific food production and access), and (3) providing nutrition education to health care students and workers. Participants recognized the utility of technology and social media to market and communicate advocacy projects, and connect youth to one another. Participants recommended that future projects combine aims (I.e. agriculture promotion and youth engagement, or addressing the double-burden of malnutrition and economic empowerment). They also stated that strategies that have been proven to work at the local level should be scaled up or tested in other settings.  Finally, home gardens and livestock farming, linking to markets for surplus trading to enhance access to foods, and the language and positioning of the issue of hunger were all identified as areas for impact. In particular, participants noted that the issue of hunger should be positioned as a human rights issue, to mitigate the stigma/shame associated with hunger. Assessing Progress Participants noted that social media platforms could translate into data using back-end analytics and that google forms could then be used to enter profiles of engagers on social media. These profiles in turn could be used to help focus campaigns to identified key areas and motivate policy reform lobbying with policymakers. In addition, participants suggested that existing research institutions gather evidence on barriers to youth involvement at the local-level, and assess progress of new interventions. Challenges Participants recognized that communities often do not feel a sense of ownership of the programs that are brought in by ‘outsiders’; thus, two challenges to youth engagement in the food system will be to advocate for greater involvement of the local community in existing programming and to advocate for participatory approaches with incoming development organizations. Other challenges noted by the participants included: low visibility/understanding of the right to nutrition when compared to the right to health, lack of women’s empowerment in food systems, and the absence of platforms for youth to share their ideas on nutrition-related topics.236238248Actions for Impact Participants stated that attention should shift from communicable to NCD risks and prevention, and extend beyond nutrition topics, to healthy environments and good sanitation. They also said that advocacy, mentorship and funding opportunities for youth could assist with this shift. Participants also mentioned that children should be taught to enjoy nutritious food through creative means (such as cartoons) to combat fast-food marketing, and agreed that governments should tax unhealthy/processed foods and harmful substances such as tobacco, and reduce taxes on traditional foods/healthy foods. In addition, participants recognized that consumers must be empowered to choose traditional rather than processed foods through other means. Improving primary school curriculum to integrate NCD information with nutrition and agriculture topics, was also said to be critical to teaching about NCDs and improving the overall health literacy of the community. At the university-level, it was recognized that male students purchase more fast foods than their female counterparts (as most young men do not cook in the African context), underscoring the importance of teaching young boys about nutritious foods, and eliminating the stigma around cooking.  Moreover, promoting gender equality, through the sharing of domestic and agricultural duties, and through encouraging men to attend health services with their wives and children ( to receive health information), were recognized as important actions. Participants also recognized the importance of teaching people living with non-communicable diseases (PLWNCDs) the specifics of their dietary needs and risk factors (such as overconsumption of animal protein) and providing this education at health institutions. The also discussed the impact of COVID-19 on jobs, and how opportunities in agriculture (I.e., growing food) could have supported families both economically and nutritionally.  Participants suggested that farmers be incentivized to cultivate nutritious (and staple) foods within the community, and use farming techniques that improve fruit and vegetable yields. Several other actions were put forward as ideas to impact the prevalence of NCDs: (1) employing best practices from other similar contexts, (2) gathering additional data on some of the most pressing issues to inform policymaking, and (3) involving youth and community leaders in creating policies on nutrition that support agriculture, and food production, processing, and marketing. Assessing Progress Participants suggested several ways to assess progress, such as using: (1) statistics on PLWNCDs, (2) surveys on consumer food purchase decisions, (3) shadow reporting, or policy-monitoring to hold policy-makers accountable, and (3) pre/post intervention data on key indicators. Participants noted that this data should be collected and shared transparently and accessibly, and monitoring and evaluation systems should be robust, especially within school programming. Participants also recommended engaging with research participants online, and conducting assessments on the effectiveness of data collection methods and implementation strategies. Challenges At the community level, tobacco use was said to deplete household income and divert funds from basic expenses like groceries. Behavior changes and belief systems were also stated to be challenges as information about healthier lifestyles might not be well-received in some communities, and there are some misconceptions around food additives/chemicals in Africa. Disparities in access to nutritious foods within communities, and large family sizes (due to lack of access to, or acceptance of family planning methods) were also said to be challenges to sufficient access to nutritious foods. At a systemic level, participants said that policies do not translate to the local-level, and community members find it difficult to share their experiences with influential stakeholders due to low confidence. Further, it was said that the right to food is not understood well enough for community members to hold their governments accountable.  236238244249250251Actions for Impact Participants said that governments should increase taxes on unhealthy food (especially ultra-processed foods), and encourage or support local production of healthy food to prioritize the public health interests of the community.  In addition to these reforms, participants felt that policies should be developed to ensure transparent branding and packaging of foods. Participants also agreed that school-aged children should be taught about nutritious foods, but that continuous education throughout the life-course would be critical to sustain the impact of these programs. In addition to nutrition education, participants felt that more should be done to educate and empower youth on farming opportunities. Farming was to seen as a means of both securing nutritious foods and economically empowering youth. Moreover, engaging and meaningfully involving different sectors and stakeholders, including the most vulnerable and marginalized, was recognized as a critical action by participants. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the power structures within the food system, and the need to empower local people and systems became evident. To do this, participants said that the barriers to participate in agriculture should be minimized, and contract farming should be supported by the government. Participants also recognized the importance of strengthening the food value chain, conducting food safety tests before export and developing local agricultural systems to ensure a balanced diet can be achieved (i.e., nutrition-sensitive agriculture). Finally, participants spoke to the double-burden of malnutrition in the context of NCDs. Participants felt that more should be done to understand the local causes of NCDs, and that civil society organizations, and NCD departments (where available) should work to address these policies together. Assessing Progress Participants cited various ways in which progress towards food systems and the double-burden of malnutrition during the COVID-19 pandemic could be assessed: (1) the degree to which youth self-report feeling empowered to act on these issues, (2) the degree of collaboration between stakeholders on these issues and (3) the participation level of marginalized groups in decision-making spaces on these issues. Challenges Many challenges were discussed during the breakout sessions. Participants stated that before the COVID-19 pandemic the cost of food prices had increased, especially healthy and nutritious food compared to processed food, and that availability of nutritious food vs. processed food was also a challenge in some regions. However, lack of adequate education on how to combine locally available foods to maintain a balanced diet was also stated to be a challenge where food was/is available. Participants also recognized the role of cultural/power dynamics in access to food. For example, in some communities, economic decisions are made exclusively by the heads of household, and where there is gender inequality, girls may not be given priority for meals. Further, food waste and lack of adequate storage facilities for food products were also seen as challenges by participants. Some other challenges included: (1) belief systems surrounding food (i.e., that it is for satisfaction rather than nutrition), (2) the influence of aggressive modes of fast-food advertising on consumer purchasing behavior, and (3) the threats that forest degradation and rapid population expansion pose to food security. All of these were said to be exacerbated by poor involvement of locals in implementation and decision-making on interventions, and inadequate collaboration between sectors involved in food systems and malnutrition.237238245247249250251Participants held diverse opinions on who should be engaged as “champions” or advocates for the double-burden of malnutrition. While some participants felt that high-profile individuals or young professionals would be best equipped to elevate these issues, others felt that youth working at the grassroots level, or “authentic” youth could better speak to the reality of the burden of malnutrition in all its forms, and should be encouraged and equipped to become champions for their own cause. Participants also differed in opinion on the utility and efficacy of the media and technology in disseminating information pertaining to the double-burden of malnutrition. While the media and technology in general were suggested as effective advocacy tools, they were also recognized as exclusionary to the most vulnerable and marginalized. Thus, many participants felt that alternative, and context-appropriate platforms should be pursued. Participants also held opposing positions on the best approach to advocacy for healthy diets. Some participants felt that advocacy efforts for healthy diets should not commence within a region until access to these healthy foods could be secured for the community, while others felt that advocacy efforts for healthy diets and knowledge sharing should commence even in the absence of a stable food system. Diverse opinions emerged on who should drive change. Some participants stated the need to educate families about growing healthier food crops and cooking nutritious foods at home, and that children should be the drivers of change via education through school or health clubs. However, other participants stated that industries should be educated and incentivized to produce and provide nutritious foods that are affordable. There were also opposing views on the stakeholders who should be prioritized. Some participants felt that local farmers should be given priority over mass producers within the food system, however, arguments were put forth for both stakeholders. Participants reasoned that supporting local farmers could reduce the carbon footprint of the food supply chain, and also minimize barriers from farm-to-table. However, participants also stated that the costs of local produce from small-scale farms might be higher, and that small farms may not be able to sufficiently support entire communities. Alternatively, mass producers were said to be capable of providing greater quantities of food and at lower cost, but the environmental costs and risks associated with supply-chain breakdown were said to be higher.

2021-06-30 12:31:05205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24202/92

201522611781821142112017

Yes

234238239240Our dialogue's focus was a comprehensive exploration of sustainable plant food systems. The FAO defines a sustainable food system as a "food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised". A food system incorporates many aspects, hence the dialogue included five different topics: 1) Sustainable agriculture; 2) Local production; 3) Means of production; 4) Productivity; and 5) Production profitability. Each topic was discussed separately in a round table format. The emphasis of the third dialogue was to point out weaknesses and strengths in the local plant food systems, with a focus on the agricultural sector, to identify gaps in knowledge and regulation, and propose actions towards sustainable plant food production and marketing.2352382392402422432442452462472482492502511. Israeli agriculture is advanced and reaches high levels of productivity under difficult conditions. Israeli agricultural sector is based on an advanced R&D system, government-supported research and innovative start-ups, educated farmers open to innovation and an extension service connecting between farmers and research and facilitating the adoption of innovations. The wide variety of crops and different growing conditions in a small geographical area facilitate the testing new technologies. These advantages can enable an increase in the development and export of agricultural knowledge and technologies. This can make a real contribution to raising productivity and tackling climate change in other countries, in addition to contributing to national food security worldwide. 2. Despite these advantages, we observe a decline in productivity in recent years. Agricultural production is stagnating, few young farmers take up agricultural production, and risk of production is increasing because of climate change, changing market conditions and frequent policy changes. To provide regulatory stability and ensure the future of the Israeli agricultural sector it is necessary to develop and adopt a strategic plan for the agricultural sector, to set clear medium and long-term targets for domestic food production, and provide the incentives and means to reach these targets through sustainable intensification of agricultural production (especially plants). 3. A unanimous agreement about the importance of Israel's agriculture. There is a need for statutory acknowledging the importance of agriculture ("Law of Agriculture"), to ensure the means of production for the future of the agricultural sector, and enable the development of a sustainable domestic agricultural sector, which will continue to provide most fresh agricultural produce for a growing population. 4. Ensure the availability of production factors necessary to increase plant production (land, water, labor). The value of land for agricultural production has to be taken into account in decisions of building and infrastructure development. Investment in infrastructure to increase the availability of water for irrigation. Decrease the dependence of foreign labor through mechanization. 5. Ensure production profitability for farmers. This entails a variety of measures, which are detailed in the following points: 6. Increase productivity in crop growing by encouraging and investing in the research and development of new technologies. Facilitate and encourage the use of 'big data' in decision making. 7. Increase investment subsidies to farmers, to facilitate the adoption of new technology but also encourage investing in existing proven technologies, which can improve productivity, decrease risk, decrease the dependence on foreign workers and reduce negative environmental impacts. 8. Strengthen the safety net provided to farmers by increasing the government support to insurance and by providing new instruments of insurance. This is especially important in light of the climate crisis. Risk management also entails the growing of a wide variety of crops and the investment in infrastructure to minimize risks (e.g. drainage). 9. Strengthen competition and the position of farmers in marketing by encouraging cooperation of farmers, and by developing alternative market channels (e.g. digital platforms, direct marketing, a modern wholesale market) 10. Consider encouraging people to change their consumption habits towards nutrition mainly based on plants by a variety of means (education, labeling schemes, incentives). 11. Encourage and strengthen cooperation of farmers, especially family farms, to enable knowledge sharing and economies of scale in production and marketing, strengthen the bargaining position of farmers and enable sustainable agricultural projects on a regional scale (e.g. integrated pest management). 12. Collaborations with the local industry regarding the treatment of agricultural waste. 13. Encourage a young generation to enter agricultural production. Decrease entry barriers for people who would like to take up agricultural production but are not from a farming family. Decrease barriers for the development of urban agriculture. 14. Minimize the regulatory burden, which is encountered by many farmers (e.g. joint production, precision agriculture). Minimize barriers and regulatory burden for farmers who want to take up activities related to agriculture or complementing their agricultural production and enabling them to increase earnings and the viability of their farm. 15. Increase subsidies for agriculture. It is necessary to combine a variety of instruments, and adapt them to agricultural sectors and regions, based on concrete targets (strategic plan for agriculture – see point 2), and an impact assessment (cost-benefit analysis) of the different policy instruments. Because of the uncertainty involving policy changes pilot programs and gradual changes are essential. 16. Actions to improve the environmental sustainability of agricultural plant production and to adapt the agricultural sector to climate change and decrease emissions. The Ministry of Agriculture is developing measures to decrease the environmental impact of agricultural production and to tackle climate change impacts. Knowledge gaps have to be closed. Many concrete actions with regard to improving the environmental impact of agriculture were suggested (e.g. increase cooperation and policy coherence between the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, increase cooperation.236The third dialogue tried to provide answers to the following questions: 1. What actions are necessary in order to reach the goals by 2030? 2. What are Israel's strengths regarding plant food systems? How can they be leveraged and used to enhance our food systems? 3. Which regulatory tools should be used? The answers and outcomes of each question in provided in Main Findings.237No areas of divergence emerged during the third dialogue.

2021-06-30 14:58:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19904/45

120174021032110401103152

Facilitator and curator did the training online and were particularly respectful and sensitive to context, dealing with technical difficulties as well as cultural differences. Chose facilitator familiar with context ( living/working in China) and with knowledge of the eco-village community where it was set. During the dialogues, facilitator ensured everyone was on track and that all were invited to speak. The Dialogue was a hybrid in-person and online event. A group of people met physically in Beijing with 1 interpreter based in Shanghai and the rest joined by Zoom. There was a technical rehearsal the day before and adjustments were made to ensure sound quality and interpretation channels.1. The local convenors ( HOI ecovillage community) are fully committed to practicing what they preach , personally and professionally , and have signed up to the Good Food Pledge. 2. HOI are forward-looking, fostering new connections with other agencies such as the Global Ecovillage network ( GEN) and Holistic Centres Network ( HCN) and forming working partnerships with other organisations within China. 3. HOI are respectful of local cultures and contexts, while promoting food products and consumption that are both innovative and sustainable. 4. HOI recognise the complexity of food systems and offers examples of old/new technologies such as viticulture and home grown marine products 5. In this way they hope to complement the work of others and to build trustThese principles of engagement are fully transferrable to other contexts as they are very useful principles to find ways to fully co-operate with others, in order to build positive changes together. As such , they are worth learning and utilising in any teams or cooperative group situation.

Yes

2342382392481.Community-based nature education and kitchen culture 2.Exploration of the practice of Good Food Pledge on various platforms 3.Exploration of platforms that support “Business for Good” 4.Exploration of nature-friendly production methods as well as sustainable consumption pattern235239240Topic 1:The role of eco community in the context of food education Dorota Owen, GEN ambassador, mentioned that there are four sections to the education program of Global Ecovillage Network: economy, environment, social and culture. And food comes into all the four aspects. At the House of I, people love to grow, harvest, cook and eat together. It’s a social experience and part of the local culture. We all understand that people need to grow food and then to sell it within an environment. But it’s so much better to sell food locally. Because the minute you sell food nationally or internationally, you have to transport it , which costs energy - what we call ' food miles'. Topic 2: Solutions for a sustainable lifestyle Ms. Luo, a Zhanjiang Daily journalist, shared the case of using eco enzyme in order to create more zero-waste communities and villages in Hangzhou city of China. A detailed action plan regarding the use of eco enzyme is available now for more communities and villages throughout China. Then, Ms. Yang, who represented Bor Shang at the meeting, shared her ideas on solutions for a more sustainable lifestyle. First of all, Ms. Yang talked about a system which allows shrimps or fish to live together with vegetables or other fruit plants. This system can be practiced at people’s own homes. The first step is to build a pond. In this system, the feces of shrimps or fishes will become perfect fertilizers for the growth of those plants living above them. Then, Ms. Yang shared her opinions on the benefits of “home cooking”. Nowadays most people in China choose to eat outside in restaurants which is very likely to cause food waste. By practicing more “home cooking”, we can each make our own contributions to the pursuit of sustainable living and consumption. Topic 3: How could an eco education base connect more parties together to push forward “ Business for Good”? Outcomes: Ms. Fan Zhihong from Beijing Normal University said, “ What the House of I and Bor Shang has been doing together is of general significance. At the beginning, the House of I was only practicing sustainable development within its own community, including food education and exploration of sustainable food. Later, it formed a close partnership with Bor Shang since they share common values regarding sustainable business development. Now, both are working together to bring the concept of “sustainable development” to more communities, pushing forward interactions among different provinces as well as interactions between urban and rural areas, enhancing communications and collaborations among various sectors. Ms. Annie Yang, founder of the House of I, said, “The House of I hopes to practice on various platforms in a holistic manner. We tend to be more open and inclusive, respecting the unique cultural traditions of each industry, making contributions to the social values of sustainable development in a larger ecological chain.” Topic 4 : Exploration of nature-friendly production methods as well as sustainable consumption pattern. There were questions relating to this aspect which raised a lot of discussion and various points of view were presented. The effects of relying on a monoculture for animal feeds was raised, as well as overall changes to the planet such as climate change and rising sea levels , which will impact food production in future.236238239Topic 1:The role of eco community in the context of food education Identify the role of HOI as an educator in its various platforms to ensure knowledge is disseminated and change ensured in both production and consumption. Examples: less meat , more plant based , no food waste, ensuring composting and regrowth , completing the food cycle. Ensure the whole community has access to this education and awareness of the need for sustainable food production and consumption. Topic 2: Solutions for a sustainable lifestyle Ensure that animals ( in this case, marine animals) bred for consumption are still part of an ecosystem. Particularly , how does the production of animal feed as a monoculture fit in with the principles as above? Topic 3: How could an eco education base connect more parties together to push forward “ Business for Good”? Even during the dialogue, questions were asked which showed different points of view and the importance of working together as teams successfully despite their differences. Bringing together different points of view shifts our thinking and makes solutions more effective. Topic 4 : Exploration of nature-friendly production methods. This was discussed , but as yet no conclusions were reached.237239244One area of divergence was noted when one producer of marine products which can be grown in a small pond near to the home was asked about the sustainability of such a project , given the importance of maintaining the integrity of an eco system. While discussing the case shared by Bor Shang, one participant asked about the food source for animals in aquaculture. He was concerned about how foods for shrimps were produced as well as the way they enter the aquaculture system. Two representatives from Bor Shang responded to this concern, respectively. However, the stakeholders will keep thinking and communicating about whether the choices for food materials and food production in aquaculture are sustainable in terms of the overall food system.

2021-06-30 18:27:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17658/203

380201530016220670121011000470107410000110503100000814

With the recruitment, we specifically asked people who applied for their motivation to join the dialogue and what discussion topics they would want to bring to the table. Based on a mix of demographics, sectors and motivations, we selected the people we invited to the dialogue. We asked every participant to commit to the “practical” outcome of the dialogue and to only bring to the table solutions that they would themselves be willing to follow through within practice. Since the topic of True Cost and considering the environmental, social and human dimensions of value into food chains, is a complex and broad issue, concerning many different stakeholder groups, we decided to collaborate as FoodUnfolded (EIT Food) with a partner: the international NGO Rikolto. In that way, we widened our networks. Being the public-facing brand of EIT Food as FoodUnfolded, we were able to recruit a large young consumer audience. With our EIT Food network, we were able to reach people working in multinational corporations, researchers and policymakers. Rikolto has particularly a big network of smallholder farmers and young entrepreneurs from the global south and they reached out to these groups. To not exclude stakeholders coming from different parts of the food chain, we decided to form the groups around different languages: English, French and Spanish. In that way farmers from Latin America and Africa were able to join as well, also considering time zones. We were transparent with participants about the outcome of the dialogues and explained we would be taking notes according to Chatham House rules, promising to treat comments confidentially and anonymously. We told participants that we would have liked the conversation to be very spontaneous and positive, trying to build on top of each other’s ideas respectfully. We also said we didn't want anyone to feel that they didn’t have enough expertise to contribute to the conversation – if they had been chosen to be there, it’s because we wanted to hear what they had to say.Act with urgency. We made sure that the conversation focused on the next 3-5 years and revolved around specific realistic and practical solutions. Be respectful. Everyone in the dialogue was encouraged to be respectful of others’ perspectives. Every friction and divergence was dealt with a constructive approach. We promoted food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, communities, and ecosystems – while at the same time respecting local cultures and contexts. Recognise complexity. Throughout the dialogue, we always recognised that food systems are complex, and closely connected to human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy, and geopolitics. We allowed and encouraged disagreement with proposed solutions and recognised that solutions likely won’t be easy to implement. We recognised that solutions were needed on multiple levels, and asked participants to vote on each group’s main suggested solutions. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - We encouraged conversation between members of different stakeholder groups and ensured that everyone was always involved in the conversation and invited everyone to express themselves on each topic of discussion. Complement the work of others - We developed our own unique and relaxed style of hosting, targeted towards the millennial audience, in an effort to stimulate new discussions that would lead to creative solutions. Build trust - We committed to creating a relaxed and friendly atmosphere to build trust and an open airing of truthful views. We created a spreadsheet where each participant could drop their personal details in case they wanted to be contacted by other participants or by us. We let participants know that we would send the final feedback report to them. Participants also know that they might be offered follow-up opportunities with FoodUnfolded to reach our audience about important issues.We have found that creating interactive polls during the plenary session allowed us to stimulate engagement from the very beginning of the event and to keep a higher level of attention throughout the Dialogue. By using polls, followed up by an explanation, we made sure the problem was clear for all attendees. We encouraged people to use the chat function as well. Using polls also made it possible to democratically vote on the solutions that the majority of participants thought should take priority. During the break out sessions we asked everyone to introduce themselves, but also asked them to answer a short ice breaker question: What did you have for breakfast? In that way, the atmosphere in the group was less formal from the start.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue on “True Cost of Food - Accessibility to Sustainable & Healthy Diets for Everyone” revolved around the question: How can we consider the environmental, social and human dimensions of value into food chains -- to make fair, healthy and sustainable food systems the new standard? The ‘True Cost of Food’ is the price of a product that accounts for all external costs—including environmental, social and economic-generated by the creation of food. Today, these environmental and social costs are more often than not included in the production chains of products. Costs not included in the market price of food are called ‘external costs’ or ‘hidden costs’. External costs can include ecological effects, environmental quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, animal welfare, social costs associated with labour, and public health effects. The UN World Food Organization FAO estimates that the annual hidden costs to the environment total $2100 billion. The hidden social costs are estimated to be even higher, at $2700 billion. In this dialogue, to which we invited mainly millennial participants from different countries, continents, and backgrounds, we discussed who should be responsible for covering the huge hidden costs of food production to have fairer, healthier, and more sustainable food chains. And more importantly, we discussed solutions to move us toward that. During the breakout session, the dialogue was structured around five main questions as anchor points for the discussion: What are the biggest barriers for the different stakeholders to commit to fair and sustainable practices? Could a ‘true cost’ food system, in which social and environmental costs are included, provide a global solution to unjust and unsustainable practices? What is the role for (smallholder) farmers, businesses, and retailers further up in the food chains, governments/authorities, and consumers to achieve a more inclusive and just food production system? Which role can or should specifically the younger generations play within their organisations to make this happen? How do we make sure all actors prioritise and commit to these environmental, social and human values, in a universal collaboration? We formulated subquestions to these main questions as guidance for the facilitators. The conversations were in practice more flowing, focused on finding solutions, and not that strictly structured. The last ten minutes of the dialogue we spent on formulating and summarizing the main solutions that had come up during the dialogue.235238239240241242243244245246248249251Education was a keyword that came back in all break out-groups. The lack of knowledge of consumers on the value of food, but also farmers lack knowledge on the true cost of producing their food. Consumers do not know much, they should arbitrate on the part of the budget to be devoted to food to better reward the producers. This education must be given from a young age so that they become aware of the whole production process up to the finished product offered to the consumer. You can for example link between city youth and rural youth, to create an enabling environment and stimulate inclusive, sustainable and just practices. Youngsters are the ones who can promote the new norms. It would help if people knew the true cost, e.g. through an application or innovative labelling. E.g. a climate change stamp on food, helping consumers to lower their GHG emissions. Producers underestimate the cost of labour when family members work with them in agricultural production. In addition, they do not account for certain resources such as water, even though they spend money to acquire it (installation and maintenance of wells for market gardening, for example); as a result, the true value of products is not really estimated. The impact of the environment is not always taken into account, and a lot of awareness-raising is needed for the actors to be aware of it and take it into account in the future. It is the role of NGOs to teach producers to make the right calculations, the cooperatives do not have enough power to influence the prices determined at the international level (in the exchanges). Related to education is the keyword transparency: increasing transparency in the food chains is crucial to reducing anonymity in supply chains. Very often it’s not a smiling happy person who picks up one’s food. Anonymity is one of the leading causes of large-scale collective action problems. This problem can be solved by creating shorter food chains e.g. with direct trade via CSA programs. Governments have also a key role in increasing transparency and creating local development of agriculture. Creating a competitive playing field for sustainable standards. Now, the consumer is offered a variety of fair trade and non-fair trade products in supermarkets. These products cannot compete. Governments can implement incentives and create competitiveness for sustainable products and as such move companies in a different direction. International standards on how to produce x product sustainably would also level out the international market, so the consumer wouldn’t even have to think about what the sustainable option is. A concrete solution that came forward to stimulate competitiveness for fair practices and incorporating hidden costs into food systems - implemented by governments and policymakers - is a tax reform that would reduce VAT for fair trade products. This reform should also include subsidising sustainable producers. Another solution is to work on public-private partnerships to create a pre-competitive level playing field. True price should be a key discussion topic in board rooms and by company stakeholders. Partnerships with governments or interest organisations could work to set ambitious, science-based targets and goals together. It shouldn’t just be company goals, but joint goals that take into account different stakeholders’ views. Multistakeholder collaboration is key to find systemic solutions. As for the responsibility of the different actors in the food chains, it is shared. It is difficult to say which actor is the most responsible, but governments have definitely a big role to put things in motion. We have to put the actors together and think from there. It is important to go together to make things change, pool ideas, find solutions that will have impacts on the food system. Enable managers from different sectors to work together. It is important that these sectors talk to each other in order to set up transversal food policies.236238239240241242245246248249Discussion Group 1: English 1 Participants acknowledged that you would level the playing field for sustainable produce if you’d give more power to the government to install regulations around sustainably produced products. But, you’d also need international agreements, or sustainably produced products still wouldn’t be competitive on the world market. The top three solutions to move toward a true cost food system the group came up with were: Consumer education: transparency is key Educating consumers about what a true price is, e.g. via an application, building your supermarket around sustainable products, ensuring transparency about the product's origins and what happens to the price increase, helping consumers make the right choice. Consumer education is very powerful because we are all consumers. Consumers also make policies and sit in boardrooms. Yet, this alone is not enough: some consumers cannot afford it or have other things on their minds while shopping. Governments as regulators of markets and systems (international standards) Governments can create a competitive playing field for sustainable products and, as such, moving companies in a different direction. International standards on producing x product sustainably would also level out the international market, so the consumer wouldn’t even have to think about the sustainable option. Public-private partnerships should get implemented to create a pre-competitive level playing field. True price should be a key discussion topic in board rooms and by company stakeholders. Partnerships with governments or interest organisations could work to set ambitious, science-based targets and goals together. It shouldn’t just be company goals, but joint goals that consider different stakeholders’ views. It’s not very original, but public-private partnerships are needed to create a pre-competitive level playing field.236238239240241242244245246249251Discussion group 2: English 2 In this discussion group, the participants saw a major role for governments in getting things in motion towards fairer and more sustainable food systems. Change should start from global political alignment. Calling for a very big conversation that needs to reveal the costs of government subsidies and much better collaboration between public and private. At the same time, there was a consensus amongst everyone that it’s not just governance, but that collaboration is how we are going to get out of the status quo. We need a complete value shift. In reality, overconsumption is the problem, and we waste so much food. It’s about revaluing ourselves, our values, our collective behaviour. The top four solutions to move toward a true cost food system the group came up with were: Governmental support (subsidies) to smaller producers. Government should protect their local producers with subsidies. Now, most of the subsidies are not going to sustainable practices. Direct trade between producers and consumers. There should be more local producers selling directly to consumers (CSA). Now, it’s probably a relatively small group of people that care enough about knowing where their food is coming from and that it’s sustainably grown, but that’s where it starts as a snowball effect. Demand and importance of local produce have already increased a lot during the global COVID pandemic. Educating consumers on the origins of their food. In general, people have no idea what the cost of their food is. We need to educate people about where their food comes from. There is a big role for schools and education. We need to educate people from all sorts of backgrounds and age groups. Increasing transparency in the food chain. It’s crucial to reduce anonymity in supply chains. Anonymity is one of the leading causes of large-scale collective action problems.236238239240241242244246248249251Discussion group 3: Spanish group This discussion group emphasises the role of young entrepreneurs and the role of the youth in general. We should target the younger generations, since they will be the ones establishing new, more responsible and inclusive consumption trends, and kick start innovations in recognizing and revaluing the role of food producers. The top three solutions to move toward a true cost food system the group came up with were: Incidence with large food industries - show evidence Advocacy with large food industries through evidence on the value of more sustainable and fair practices is key. Evidence must be built and systematized about the true cost of food. Also, establish changes in economic, tax and incentive regulations that promote sustainable production and make companies responsible for their practices. Governments have a key role in transparency and local development of agriculture. Fairer food systems start with local changes, then scale regionally, nationally to eventually build global changes. Also, establish new local models of more sustainable production and scale up so that it can be available to all consumers (not just a small group with greater purchasing power). Develop short production circuits that feed the cities. Make links between city youth and rural youth. Youth need an enabling environment and there must be a strong education on sustainable food chains. Younger generations are the ones who will take on the new roles in society in the future. We need education campaigns and consumer awareness about external costs. Inform about the impact on people's lives and the planet during the purchase of a product.236238239240241242244246247249Discussion group 4: French Group The participants of this group put forward that we have to put all actors in the food chains together and think from there. The top five solutions to move toward a true cost food system the group came up with were: Accompany producers to identify & quantify costs and improve their negotiating position. Producers must be well informed and trained on the variables to be taken into account in the cost of production. Thus, they will negotiate better contracts and this will allow them to set prices close to reality. Reduce waste to improve efficiency and reduce costs (distribution) The losses at the level of the distributors are enormous; they can go up to about 40%. Distributors must pay for unsold and discarded products. To reduce these costs, they can donate to associations and/or give for processing. This reduces costs. Tax reform (reduced VAT for fair trade products) + subsidize sustainable producers. The State could reduce value-added taxes for fair trade products to incentivise more sustainable and fair practices by producers. Consumer education: transparency through labels Labels, an ethical purchase label could have an effect, it could lead the consumer to orientate himself towards the product. Generally, labels work quite well. Facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogues and develop a transversal food policy. We need Multi-Stakeholder platforms and a national transversal food policy that cuts across sectors to prioritise key issues and identify solutions collectively.237238239240241242246249Some participants identified consumers as being most responsible for driving change towards considering the environmental, social and human dimensions of value into food chains. Many participants thought governments and institutions have the biggest responsibility as policy drives consumers’ and producers’ behaviour. However, the participants were unanimous in considering that all actors, including consumers, have a share of responsibility and power to change the situation.

2021-06-30 18:48:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26437/203

9311843011111226161514111153151135

La Convocatoria se plantea desde la perspectiva de una invitación a escuchar las voces de todos los actores, de los Sistemas Alimentarios sanos y cercanos de las y los productores agroecológicos de América Latina, buscando de esta manera estimular una variada y amplia participación de ese sector que generalmente no participa en los eventos, por falta de información, por falta de recursos para asistir o simplemente porque nunca se le invita, también es importante cuando se plantea un dialogo independiente porque es otro elemento que limita la expresión de los sectores campesinos, quizás falta en algunos países más conexión con los muchos sectores que vienen trabajando la Agroecología desde las bases y también faltan países de la región con mayor conexión para poder participar, pero los principios se van aplicando a medida que más organizaciones de pequeños y medianos agricultores van incorporándose a la Red INOFO, también la diversidad de enfoques con el sector, la academia, la comercialización, el Sistemas Participativos de Garantías, aun tímidamente los consumidores, el sector salud que debe estar, todos se van uniendo a participar en un dialogo que debe llevar a la construcción participativa de propuestas y política que conduzcan a una mejor realidad del sector campesino Agroecológico.Desde al inicio con las voces de dos representaciones en español desde INOFO y desde IFOAM dando la bienvenida y desde la presidenta de IFOAM, con traducción simultáneo inglés-español, haciendo referencia a las causas de fondo de la problemática alimentaria desde el evidente efecto de hambre como de la pobreza que afectan a la población mundial, haciendo el llamado a manifestarse libremente a los participantes para llevar el mensaje a la Cumbre. Se destacan entre los temas planteados por los participantes, dar mas importancia y participación a los consumidores, el tema salud asociado al rescate de productos locales, ancestrales, mercado local y autoconsumo, en relación alimento territorio, el logro del reconocimiento de los derechos de los campesinos y la construcción de políticas públicas en toda la región, el desarrollo de herramientas como protocolos para la salud del suelo, el cielo y para promover la participación, llevar estos temas de la Cumbre a niveles mas locales, desde las organizaciones de la agricultura familiar, eventos regionales para tener mas elementos desde las propuestas de las familias productoras la participación fue diversa pero la mayoría fueron agricultoresCreo que es necesario socializar más la realización de la Cumbre con sus objetivos y todo lo relacionado con el evento en cada país con las organizaciones de agricultura orgánica y agroecológicas, que se conozcan estos procesos que se dan cada tiempo a nivel global para que desde las regiones, pero primero desde las localidades, se posibilite la participación de los agricultores y agricultoras que en un evento mundial muy pocos podrán expresarse, en el mundo campesino ni siquiera se conoce, en muchas regiones que hubo un año de la Agricultura familiar, que va a haber una Cumbre que se refiere al problema alimentario, que hay o pueden haber políticas que permitan mejores oportunidades para la producción familiar campesina, si se pudiera hacer coordinadamente esa participación desde lo local a lo regional, a lo nacional, se podrían recoger mejores propuestas para llevar a la Cumbre. la FAO reconoce que el 70 % de los alimentos son producidos por campesinos “en una Cumbre sobre al Sistema alimentario, el 70 % de los participantes deberían ser productores campesinos y el 70 % de ese 70 deberían ser mujeres”

NoSe realizaron reuniones y eventos desde INOFO en otros continentes que sirvieron de ejemplo para la región de América Latina que realiza el último Encuentro, a nivel regional se dialoga previamente entre INOFO coordinación central con la región y luego IFOAM A L con el pequeño grupo de convenors de América Latina y así se va definiendo el programa y la participación de dos ponentes para el evento, las intervenciones de bienvenida y cierre con la coordinación de IFOAM A L, se planteó la discusión con preguntas guía en tres mesas de trabajo, pero se presentaron inconvenientes en la conexión virtual por lo que se hizo una sola mesa con los 3 coordinadores por mesa que fueron haciendo las preguntas orientadoras y recogiendo los principales aportes de los participantes.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251Considero que la invitación a participar libremente, sin barreras para expresarse desde la perspectiva del productor y participante latinoamericano, que implica otra visión, por las condiciones sociales, económicas y políticas, fue muy clara, desde la convocatoria enviada hasta las palabras de bienvenida y saludo desde INOFO e IFOAM A L. el promover la presentación de experiencias y perspectivas desde visiones latinoamericanas diversas y en dos países también enriquece los elementos para invitar al dialogo, lastimosamente no se pudieron realizar por separado las 3 mesas lo que hubiera permitido mayor participación de los asistentes, sin embargo, en las notas recogidas por los responsables de las mesas se expresan opiniones, visiones y propuestas muy diversas e importantes que demuestran que hay un conocimiento, un trabajo de años en los temas relacionados y el interés manifiesto de participar en la construcción de una visión diferente, en aportar a encontrar soluciones a una problemática tan sentida más aun en la actual crisis ambiental y de salud, es un momento propicio para trabajar desde nuestra mirada latinoamericana no solo de cara a la Cumbre, sino de cara al futuro de la región, nuestras generaciones venideras y del planeta.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Pregunta 1 Vías de acción para escalar la pequeña agricultura, cuales los mayores retos Patricia. Trabajar con el consumidor, fomentar el consumo de producto sanos Juan Manuel. Los diálogos sobre los Sistemas Agroalimentatrios, desde IICA se promueve la Red de Campeones, dialogo al interior del IICA con un Seminario Internacional la Agricultura familiar con gestión socio empresarial, articulación al mercado, fortalecimiento de las capacidades de los agricultores, investigación sobre los productos poco conocidos o poco utilizados en la alimentación Julia. La alimentación moderna es monótona, se usan pocos productos, se deben recuperar los productos ancestrales, nutritivos, en las fincas pequeñas se protegen estos y se usan en la alimentación, se debe tener cuidado con no caer en la trampa que puede impulsar el comercio como paso con la quinua en Peru que el mercado se lleva el producto y el país no lo puede consumir. Luis Gonzalez. De OPA organización por los derechos agroecológicos de Parana, llevan 25 años en la construcción de un Instituto de Desarrollo Rural del Estado Vanessa. Desde lo pequeño se produce, se lleva a los mercados locales, depende mas de las temporadas de producción por cosechas, en una relación de alimento con el territorio, no como los supermercados que mantienen de todo, importado, no fresco Jeronimo. Con el Covid hubo un aumento en el consumo de productos procesados, esto va en contra de la misma salud Grupo 2 Julia Acciones propuestas a la Cumbre Cristina. De IFOAM en Roma, Dice que hay un debate en Naciones Unidas, hay un documento del Comité para la Seguridad Alimentaria donde se pone en duda el apoyo a la agroecología, si es o no importante, si es reducir el uso de plaguicidas como uso racional, Mexico propone eliminar el glifosato para 2024, no todos apoyan Dice que se deben promover las políticas públicas, el mercado internacional perjudica a los pequeños, la lucha política es difícil, se deben lograr el reconocimiento de los derechos de los agricultores, como incidir en los gobiernos locales para que en los eventos tengan posturas que apoyen y no lo contrario, políticas como cortar el subsidio a los agroquímicos y dar apoyo al pequeño agricultor Luis. Con la alcaldía de Piracuara en Curitiba, la Asociación Agroecológica local logra incidencia política en la municipalidad, se pide desde alli, una moción de apoyo a esta experiencia, seguir trabajando desde lo local Margarita. En el evento grande, plantear como es el uso del agua , del aire, la producción de alimentos, por ejemplo la producción de aguacate (palta), en Europa a 3 por 1 euro, la demanda esta promoviendo el crecimiento del monocultivo que como consecuencia en los países productores esta acabando con el agua, podría haber como un jurado internacional que regule a las empresas, que hayan políticas locales y globales, trabajar el tema de conciencia de la población (ejemplo con las papas nativas) Julia. Los mercados estimulan los monocultivos, considerar unas regulaciones regionales con reglas de juego para incidir en el consumidor Juna Manuel. Algunas organizaciones plantean no participar en el evento, la Cumbre, pero eso también es dejar “la cancha libre”, no dar la batalla, no dejar el terreno libre porque las transformaciones no van a venir de arriba, las propuestas vienen de abajo, debe haber una suma de fuerzas desde pequeños núcleos. La Ley Nacional de agricultura orgánica en Argentina, se definen regiones orgánicas con gobiernos locales. Llevar propuestas concretas a la Cumbre desde el IICA, desarrollar protocolos para la salud del suelo, planes de financiación Leticia. Como agricultora orgánica, juntar fuerzas, una alimentación sana, Foro Brasileño y Foro Latinoamericano, otras formas de comercialización, luchas políticas y sociales 3. Vanessa. Que acciones para divulgar mas allá de la Cumbre Margarita. Llevar estos eventos a nivel país, la gente no sabe de la Cumbre, muchas organizaciones de agricultores contribuyen a aumentar la visión política, difundir en medios de comunicación, las ONG de Agricultura Familiar por país deben promover la reflexión Jerónimo. SPP Red de pequeños Agricultores promover los métodos de cultivo y consumo, unir esfuerzos del movimiento orgánico y agroecológico, hay puntos comunes, en pequeña escala hay fuerza colectiva, horizontalidad, hay dialogo con

2021-06-30 20:09:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24310/203

122012310114113211322161421263

The dialogue was build in the following way: We started with a panel of 5 speakers in a moderated discussion. The speakers were selected based on gender, background, stakeholder group, and age. Everyone from the participants could ask questions and contribute to the discussion. When time run out for the panel discussion we went to the breakout rooms where participants could continue the discussion. These discussion groups were again moderated to ensure a safe space where everyone could speak up. The participants were invited prior to the dialogue and, based on a Google Form, the progress of sign ins could be monitored to ensure a diverse group. Unfortunately, many participants did not show up, despite being given a reminder. Also, from some of the participants, no contact details or personal details were available from the sign in. That is why some of the numbers above do not match up (not all details available).Act with urgency: The dialogue will be a contribution to the FSS. Commit to the summit and embrace multi-stakeholder: With this dialogue the goal was to have a diverse group of stakeholders, sectors, ages, genders, etc. The expert panel with which the dialogue started had a diverse age range, sector background and stakeholder background. Also the participants of the dialogue were from diverse groups as was shown with sign ins. Infortunately, many participants did not show up. Be respectful and build trust: To promote respect within the group, all moderators were explained to give every participants the change to speak and share their thoughts in a safe space. Participants were explained that recordings and names will only be used for the feedback form. Also, with divergent points of view, these were specifically highlighted. Complexity: We highly recognize complexity and therefore invited many different stakeholder from all parts of the world. They all have their own experiences and thoughts on the system. Complement the work of others: Before the dialogue the summary of the synthesis reports were read to ensure building on previous dialogues. In addition, examples from participants were asked to complement on their knowledge and work.1. Have at least a sign in of 250 people, expecting a 20% show-up. We stopped with inviting people becuase we were afraid we would have to many participants. 2. Make sure you have note-takers for the break out rooms. 3. Have a minimum of 3 experts in a panel discussion.

NoThe curator lost internet connection. Therefore the convenor had to take-over. Luckily, participants did not notice this. The convenor/curator received good reactions. One of the participants reached out because se loved the insights she got from the dialogue. Most facilitators were also enthusiastic about the panel discussion, although there were problems with internet connection mainly from African participants. This sometimes slowed the discussion. In addition, because many participants did not show up, the groups were quite small. This could have made the participants feel a bit exposed. Nevertheless, from the facilitators, I received feedback that all voices were heard and all had great additions to the discussion.

234241242244247248Session Objective: • Identifying solutions to overcoming barriers to technologically supported regenerative agriculture transition This dialogue was curated to discuss the following: • Highlighting challenges with resilience in agricultural business, implementation of innovative solutions, and barriers in adopting technological solutions. • Identify solutions for the implementation of, and improved access to innovative, inclusive, fair, and sustainable development for all. • Describe ideas towards constructive, inclusive and mutual cooperation and partnership between researchers, farmers, and government along the value chain. • Determine key areas of action towards more resilient, fair, social, and healthy food systems. Main findings of the dialogue: The Independent Dialogue was participatory and participants came from different institutional and stakeholder groups to deliberate on the future of food and suggested actions towards transformational food systems adopting new technologies, leveraging existing solutions and blending action best impact standards with society approach for inclusive participation to achieving The Objectives of The Food Systems Summit and overall objective of SDG 2 while sustaining the planet, promoting innovation, improving global food safety and conserving natural resources through adaptive use of resources (SDG 12). The discussion also addressed specific interconnected SDGs and suggested actions to adopting best impact standards in the food systems value chain and across all other action tracks.235241242245246247248249251Issues addressed in the Main Session Discussions - One of the issues in Africa and other (developing) countries is that the governments promise subsidies for innovations, also in times of this pandemic. However, money doesn't reach the farmers efficiently and gets stuck somewhere in the top-down process. A solution for this is a system where the subsidies can be monitored or controlled, maybe via cooperatives or larger farmers communities to get a stronger voice compared to all the smallholder farms individually. Another issue is digital traceability. Now it is unclear where products that consumers buy exactly come from. With a passport (for example a QR-code) on a product, you create certain transparency on where a product comes from and what it contains. With a clear view of the production chain and ingredients of a product, the consumers will be more aware of what they buy. In both issues, blockchain can offer major benefits by improving transparency. - Often technology is developed outside of the country where it is intended to be used. Most of the farmers know the context in which they work than most of the technology developers. Famers also have a different idea of priorities and problems that can be supported with technology. This creates trust issues and a lack of adoption of technology. In addition, in big countries, farms can be found in regions all over the country, which all deal with different climate conditions. When new technologies are introduced in farming within these countries, it might be wise to adapt training for the farmers on their specific region. As the climate conditions might affect how to implement a certain technology in your work. Look in this to new business models and co-creation in the process of technology development. It is important to work with the rest of the supply chain and investment should also be in training local people with skills to manufacture, repair and maintain the technology. Making these solutions locally-led and adaptive are great practices and building multi-actor partnerships and strengthening links between different actors (including farmers, supply/value chain actors, local and national government, private sector, financial institutions, telecommunications providers, research institutions etc.) could help in this. - We must channel the energy of young people. Most students have problems finding a project in school on a good topic. Let them do relevant topics for the community and build on these projects for future studies. More people our age are learning and adapting to new technology and learn it. They can empower and teach others how to use the new technology. In addition, governments could provide vocational training for people who do not have college experience and train them for 6 months to become proficient in a certain technology. - Smallholders can be safe-guarded from exploitation by service or product providers by having community members agreed to use the technology before it is brought in. In addition, independent monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment mechanisms are important. A national or local discussion forum could be used for this. - There are already many different technologies available, there is a need to consolidate this and create centralised hubs, improving visibility. Here shared resources can be made available. For instance, cold chain infrastructure or good internet access with great weather forecasting for all. Internet entrance should therefore be a fundamental right. - Another issue is that technological advancements and success of adoption (without forgetting traditional methods/knowledge and economic aspects of smallholders) are hard to measure. It is therefore important to explore better assessment methods for effective adoption of technology, meaning adoption that co-exists and is co-developed with small-holders, local communities, and that support traditional methods and cultures. - Solutions don't always need to be technology-oriented. Simplification of knowledge provided by researchers to small scale farmers will bridge the gap between the research providers and people in need of that knowledge.236241242245246247248249What solutions already exist on AgTech Innovation, Digital Transformation in disaster and risk prevention for a resilient and shockproof food system? 1. We need to address the growing demand for food while using significantly fewer resources 2. Climate-smart practices are being used to combat disasters a. Most farmers are practising agroforestry and other methodology with positive results 3. FinTech solution for inclusive social coverage and financial inclusion to rural farmers a. Normally it takes many months for repayment. Now with mobile technology and weather forecasting, insurance firms or governmental insurance firms can pay quicker (by verification of GPS and sending confirmed pictures) 4. Agro-meteorological advisory through mobile apps (Seasonal Rainfall Prediction) a. Normally farmers grow in Sri Lanka what they are used to plant b. Information could tell climate trends for the island c. Information could inform about market trends d. For example, one has a Major and Minor season in Sri Lanka. Farmers grow paddy stable crops and additional vegetable crops like big onions but require not heavy rain 5. Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning to predict best crops on best soils by aggregating relevant databases from satellites, soil measures, weather stations. 6. Soil measurements for higher quality (biodiversity, carbon, nutrient content). Higher carbon content will help to retain the water, which is good for heavy rain or droughts. 7. Drone visuals for growth differences of crops on soils and measure which certain soils spots perform less. 8. Blockchain for food monitoring and traceability via blockchain and sealed products. 9. Agrovoltaics solutions for energy-efficient solutions like irrigation systems, biomass processing and growing biofertilizers a. Challenges and constraints are strict due to the limitations of smallholders to access these technologies. b. however, on Agrovoltaics in Nigeria, we are actively working with stakeholders in managing and coordinating data from Technology Needs Assessment for these farmers 10. Climate-smart farming, surveillance by drones 11. help across the value chain, how -> extension agents 12. Food visibility by blockchain for confirming the flow of products. This improves food safety away from bulk products and could link to consumers that can pay higher. a. Downside: data/evidence base required for fintech/digital solutions/etc. might not be sufficient in many countries 13. Digital financial services require financial literacy and inclusion as well as technology access 14. World Resources Institute has also a lot of information, use information about weather forecasts etc, that can be used for crop managing.236241242244245248251How can technology leverage transition towards more resilient food systems and what are the downsides? 1. Technology that is being invented is labour intensive and if manpower is now available it cannot be used 2. The benefits are too long-term • This dissuades people from using it 3. Sustainable supply energy needs to be used for a huge impact • Solar panels, and biofuels 4. lack of access to finance is an issue that impairs innovation • There should be grants or waivers for those who are practising techniques with technology that would promote and grant access to the tech • Lower taxes 5. Technology can positively impact the food systems by empowering youth with knowledge and skills to provide and design solutions that impact and affect the weak sectors in the food system • There are not many youths engaged in this activity • Those who are engaged have low skills to do so • If they were empowered, they would have a larger impact 6. Tech in the market sector needs to happen • Products are purchasing online • It would be easy for a farmer to market products online • A smartphone where farmers could sell their products and attract other farmers and individuals to the products 7. Technology is needed to help with the 20 to 40% post-harvest food loss • Technology to gain this back would have a large impact 8. Hydroponics can be used to solve this • Food can be produced next to urban centres • Shortens the distance from producer to consumer • In situ production • Wholefoods can produce food on the rooftop and sell it in their stores 9. Downsides • Efficiency of technology • We cannot be too reliant on technology on food process or any other everyday use and we need to have contingency plans in place • An alternative way to collect data into the resources we need • Internet of things tool to become more efficient. To automatize things that farmers do in the greenhouse 10. Parametric insurance schemes through mobile access (but not a one-size-fits-all solution) 11. Downside: microclimatic variations can lead to farmers even within a small area being affected very differently by climate impacts/disasters, potential mismatches between pay-outs and damages (basis risk), farmers often are not aware of insurance options or don’t trust them 12. Downside: transition costs and technical expertise needed can be an access barrier for smallholder farmers 13. digital literacy / mobile phones there are, but computers less 14. Dependence on new service providers that work as monopoly instead of building on technology 15. Improving supply chain redundancies and losses: enhancing the connection between growers and end-users leveraging on technology to aggregate data 16. Swarm technology and small tractors can support healthy soil, due to less depletion. Also, multi-cropping improves the health of crops and supports pest and disease protection.236241242246247248249251What would be the first key areas of action to improve technological implementation for all? • Youth engagement • More people our age are learning and adopting new technology and learn it • They can empower and teach others how to use the new technology • This could help with technology implementation 2. Vocational training schools • These provide hands-on resources beyond universities that focus on research • Vocational training can go beyond taking those people who do not have college experience and they can get trained for 6 months to become proficient in technology 3. Technology needs to be more adaptable • For people with disabilities to be more inclusive 4. Submitting projects to a corresponding government entity 5. Youth organizations • Leverage social media • This spreads awareness and adoption 6. Digital advisory and extension services including digital market linkages 7. To ensure smallholder farmer specific technologies in irrigation and other allied activities and making it accessible for everyone. 8. Investment for capacity building in technology use236241242245246247248249251What solutions already exist to make (technological) innovation accessible to all food system workers? SLYCAN Trust Building multi-actor partnerships and strengthening links between different actors (including farmers, supply/value chain actors, local and national government, private sector, financial institutions, telecommunications providers, research institutions etc.): https://www.slycantrust.org/multi-actor-partnership-on-climate-and-disaster-risk-financing-and-preparedness-in-the-context-of-the-insuresilience-global-partnershipHow can smallholders be safeguarded from exploitation by service or product providers? 1. Independent monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment mechanisms 2. Involve vulnerable and marginalized groups and communities and design interventions/technologies in a way that is inclusive, gender-responsive (or gender-transformative), accessible and free or affordable, context-specific, available in local languages, and with an interface that is intuitive and easy to understand/learn 3. The government should screen new technology coming into the people • Decentralization -- top-down approach • The community members have agreed to use the technology before it is brought in • Regulation should be done by the curator of social media rather than the government • For countries that want to limit the power of social media • Governments need to approach the end-users of the technology • A discussion forum needs to be in place for the farmers and the government 4. Most farmers do not understand the technology and how it can be used in their daily activities • The user needs to be educated on how to interact with the technology and how it applies to their lives so it can be used effectively • The technologies need to be tried a few times first • A long-term trial should be done to gauge the effects and to ensure the desired results will come as a result of the technology implementation What role could the community and the government play in this fair and accessible implementation? 1. Participation of communities and community-based organizations in policy- and decision-making processes; involvement of the community in data collection and monitoring processes; co-designed technological solutions and mechanisms 2. To add to the previous comment, learning diversity needs to be addressed for users/students of technology 3. Most vulnerable and marginalized people need to be purposefully included and capacitated, so they are not left behind. Most technology is adopted currently in urban areas.236241242245246247248249What is the value of a rights-based framework in terms of desired changes in the environmental and social impacts? 1. Basic right-based approaches to include technology Transformation of the food systems is hinged on the foundations of the rights to land, land use act protection for indigenous people, right to technology for technology inclusions needed in provisioning the attainment of SDG 7, 2, 5, 8 2. Technological advancements are hard to measure success for. Adoption and important not to forget the traditional methods and economic aspects of smallholders. 3. small scale farmers are the stakeholders most in need of empowerment. 4. Organic Agriculture as an innovative solution for small scale farmers to reach the organic market 5. Governments should encourage more public and private partnerships and enabling partnerships….and mass communication for internet accessibility for small scale farmers. 6. I would say that small scale farmers need to be heard, they are mostly the ones producing food in third countries. And we need to include them in the decision-making process because most of the solutions and decisions need to be applied by them 7. indeed, solutions don't need always to be technology-oriented. I also think that simplification of knowledge provided by researchers to small scale farmers will bridge the gap between the research providers and people in need of that knowledge. 8. small scale farmers are the stakeholders most in need of empowerment. 9. Many technology availabilities -- need someone to consolidate this and create a centralised hub 10. Make internet-accessible available for everyone 11. making these solutions locally-led and adaptive are great practices for smallholders237242247248There was some discussion on trust in technology. Although most believe that small-holders but also other stakeholders want to stick to what they know and that there is lack of education. However, another problem that was addressed was that most often technology is produced somewhere else and then most money goes to marketing and not educating the people in the areas to use the technology or maintain it. Also, the technologies often do not prioritize the main problem because it is not developed in cocreation with the community. Internet entrance was mentioned as a crucial point to empower small-holder farmers. However, the main question is how to make internet accessible to them. More research is needed on this. More research is needed on new business models and effective ways for cocreation in the process of technology development. It is not only education, but also working together and understanding main priorities in the food community.

2021-07-01 03:02:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11783/45

32823876698843132136172541433733851

Changes in the food system are of vital importance to achieving climate goals. Among the solutions that shift to sustainable consumption patterns, there are three most important measures to change human health and the health of the planet: large-scale shifts to plant based diet, reducing food waste, and changing the way food is produced.Three parallel forums were set up around the topic to discuss the importance of plant diet to the current food system from different perspectives - faith based communities and plant based diet, the 2030 goal of reducing meat consumption by 30%, and the promotion of plant protein and veganism. Post dialogue roundtables were organized as well by industries and regions to carry out more in-depth exchanges and discussions.It is important to clarify the issues that the dialogue hopes to solve or discuss; various stakeholders need to be taken into consideration, from topic design to guest speakers selection and open discussions that engage the audience. During planning stages, it is important to maintain open communication with the guest speakers to ensure alignment and consensus on the objectives of the dialogue.

Yes

234239243244248The focus of this particular UNFSS "China Dialogue" is to explore how plant based diet can contribute to the transformation of the food system. The transition to a plant based diet has a direct and far-reaching impact on the transformation of the current food system, as well as public health (chronic diseases, zoonotic diseases), planetary health (carbon neutrality, biodiversity), animal welfare, food security, and rural revitalization. Whether it can be timely and effective depends largely on how the vegan community utilizes systematic thinking, integrates issues of humanity, international policies, and modern scientific research methods to promote plant based diet and lifestyle creatively.2352392432442481. Traditional Chinese religions and their principle beliefs (i.e. vegetarianism of Chinese Buddhism and its principles of compassion), have a positive impact on food transformation. Our keynote speakers discussed plant based diet from a Taoist longevity perspective, and others advocated for plant based diet as a new way of practicing mercy release (the practice of purchasing live animals sold for food for the purpose of freeing them in nature). The combination of traditional wisdoms and the daily practices of the new generation can and do provide solutions for various challenges. 2. Engagement of government agencies and corporations play a crucial part in the transformation of the food systems. Key decision makers can and do support the process of achieving fundamental changes on a regular basis. Solutions rooted in practical needs of industries and social development are particularly impactful and effective. 3. The research and development of plant based foods have been rapidly growing around the world, especially in Europe and America. In China, as of 2020, new types of plant meat, dairy and egg products have also begun to flood the market. This new development domestically is still in its early stages. Compared with Western countries, consumer response is very different. Opportunities and challenges for the development of plant based products in the country coexist. The objective of many brands is to establish effective communication with consumers in a positive way to better contribute to changes in diet and food systems.2362392442481. How do faith based communities contribute to healthy and sustainable food transformation? In the 2020’s, faith based communities can make contributions in the following ways: - Share wisdoms of faiths and provide the public with alternative options. - Utilize traditional wisdoms of faiths practical ways so that they can be easily practiced and used to meet daily challenges. - Continue to advocate for plant based diet as an alternative to the practice of mercy release, which has environment consequences; these purchases in such high quantities still support the local factory farms thus not solving the issue at its root. - Inspire members of the faith based community into practices of healthy and sustainable food transformation with its guiding principles, so that the wisdoms of faiths can be implemented into dietary practices. 2. How to maximize the influence of institutions and activists to jointly promote the "2030 Initiative" (the goal of reducing meat consumption by 30% in 2030)? Explore ways in which the plant based community and its supporters can collaborate, form consensus, and jointly promote our shared objectives. Sustainable transformation of the food system, animal welfare, youth leadership, and other initiatives promoted by the Good Food Fund, World Animal Protection, Act Asia, and other related organizations play an important role in enhancing the public's concept of plant based diet. Projects that solve practical issues and provide inspirations for diet transformation can support the process. For example, the Good Food Fund announced the launch of the “Meatless Monday” project in China and a list of initial participating restaurants and organizations. Representatives of some award-winning institutes also shared keynotes and visions for how they would promote this initiative. 3. How can domestic and international plant based products contribute to changes in diet and food systems in a positive way? Guests from domestic and international plant meat and dairy brands shared with us their experience in achieving this goal. From the perspective of the supplier, it begins with product innovation, offering the public an opportunity for lifestyle changes, and ensuring quality of products and users experience Food suppliers use localized brand strategies to spread a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, advocating young people to establish sustainable consumption habits, and obtain more recognition and support from consumers, thereby turning to more sustainable food consumption.237239243The practice of "mercy release" by Buddhists has a more obvious faith based background, and the key audience may be limited to faith groups and individuals. When communicating with the public, it is easy to form a stereotype of "veganism in connection to faith". Faith based communities are vegetarians. It is possible, however, to achieve more cooperative and innovative ideas in terms of advocacy.

2021-07-01 03:14:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24871/45

1941581121211315211134

• Pre-event: To reach a larger group of audience, we proposed a marketing plan to attract the youth to join discussion through our social media outlets. We also work collaboratively with different organizations to increase the impact of the dialogue. • During the event: o We support transparent communication by adding English-Chinese interpretation. o We featured observation from local people on the beauty of and challenges faced by wet market in their own neighborhood. o Aligning with SDGs, we emphasized the meaning of WET, which stands for well-being, ecological sustainability, and transformation. o We emphasized the complexity of transformation by discussing interdisciplinary approach and the importance of collaboration between different stakeholders.• Act with urgency: The dialogue was held under the background of rapid disappearance of wet markets in Chinese cities, such as Beijing. Compared with supermarkets and online delivery service, the value of wet markets were underrated by local government and the young generation. We highlighted the potential of WET market transformation in food system transformation. • Be respectful: We embraced different opinions from both audience and invited speakers. • Complement the work of others: Best practices from Vietnam, Kenya and America shed important lights on vision of a WET market and systematic approach fit for China. • Build trust and recognize complexity: Diverse perspectives were ensured by inviting panelists from different fields. For example, officer from local health department, researchers in policy making and practitioners promoting sustainable travel were invited. Panel discussion effectively helps audience understand complexity of wet market transformation and recognize work done by local government, researchers, NGO and entrepreneurs.• Talk to someone with rich experience on marketing an event to maximize the impact • Take time to revise the agenda to keep it in line with the Principles of Engagement • Make the goal of the dialogue crystal clear to speakers and audience • Propose multi-stakeholder strategies to revitalize wet markets in China

Yes

234238239241244245246247248249250251• Identify the value and challenges for wet markets in China • Analyze problems of current interventions • Explore the trend of development of markets • Propose effective strategies to revitalize wet markets in China235238239244245246247248249250251• Adaptation on market management and a shift on consumption behavior (through education) among young people are equally vital. • Inspiring ideas along with worldwide best practices should be collected in guidebook and introduced to practitioners in China.236239244245246247248249250251• Adaptation o Market management: the value of a WET market should be widely recognized by vendors, local government officers, consumers and market management team. One innovative idea is to utilize night market as places where the youth can learn how to cook, where to find food that tastes good, and where to incubate future livelihoods. This considers time constraints and busy schedules of young people living in urban areas in China. o Consumption behavior: It is emphasized that consumption habit can be guided and adapted to a more sustainable way. One solution proposed is to involve chefs in the transformation. Chefs, especially celebrity chefs, can help promote a plant-based diet while guiding young consumers to re-appreciate food from production to consumption end.236238239244245246247248249250251• Recognize uniqueness of challenges faced by each market o Gentrification follows as economic develops at a rapidat rapid rate in cities in China. City planners should be aware that food can promote gentrification in certain way. Thus, food price and access to healthy food should be ensured in every community, especially in those vulnerable groups (eg. low-income groups).236239242244245246248249• Local government (i.e., Beilun District, Ningbo City, China) will find guidebook launched in the dialogue a helpful tool to help advance WET market transformation. o Through dialogue, together with EAT Foundation, the policy boot camp developed by Dr Nazia Mintz Habib would like to provide research tools for Beilun Bureau of Health on policy systems reform. The boot camp is expected to propose transformation plans fit for Beilun wet markets.236239244245246249250Communication with real estate developers -Increased transparency of communication can facilitate WET market transformation.236239244246247249250251Equitable livelihood (i.e., women empowerment) -WET markets can advance equitable livelihood and this underrated benefit should be discussed more and considered as a goal in future projects.236239244245246248249250• A need to create a coalition for market owner and researchers in related fields. -It is of great significance for non-profit organizations to unite researchers and stakeholders to work collaboratively to address challenges and manage wet market for public good.236239244245246247248249250251• Incentive programs that provide founding opportunities and help vendors start online business needs further discussion. • Sustainable farming and ways to shorten supply chain of fresh produce in China need further exploration.237238239242244245246247248249250251• Participation of capitalism in leading the market transformation -Should the government lead the project for public good? -Will the competitive bidding process bring a positive impact as expected?

2021-07-01 12:08:23205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13519/177

11201565311050611710302033372208801026000003142737290907113116

The third stage of this Swiss National Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD) was held virtually on 8 June 2021. It brought together more than 110 food systems representatives. During this event, the participants took part in BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS on topics related to food systems transformation. These discussions constituted the core of the event. In order to build on each other's experiences, proposals and contributions and to promote a lively interaction, the discussion groups consisted of stakeholders who had SPECIFIC EXPERTISE on the topic discussed in their group, but also of non-expert participants who could bring a NEW AND DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. Each participant was allocated to a discussion group prior to the event. The group discussions brought together a wide range of stakeholders and allowed for a CONSTRUCTIVE AND FRUITFUL EXCHANGE. The CHATHAM HOUSE RULE applied to all the discussions in the break-out groups, in order to create a safe space for exchange in which NEW IDEAS could be generated and BOLD SOLUTIONS found. In addition, participants were reminded that mutual respect is the basis of a true dialogue, and that it involves listening and being open to different points of view. The stakeholders were encouraged to be actively engaged throughout the event. Besides the break-out group discussions, they were invited to submit questions and comments in the chat of the virtual platform during the plenary sessions.In order to address food systems issues through a HOLISTIC APPROACH, MULTI-STAKEHOLDER GROUP DISCUSSIONS were organised. The topics discussed in each break-out group were formulated in the form of short, ambitious statements, to be realised by 2030. In their exchange, the participants were asked to think of concrete actions allowing to achieve the statement of their group, bearing in mind potential synergies and trade-offs. The eight statements – discussed in eleven groups – were developed on the basis of the FIVE ACTION TRACKS (ATs) OF THE FOOD SYSTEMS SUMMIT (FSS), and of the food systems approach of the 2030 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (SDS), as well as of other strategies of the Federal Council. In this way, the dialogue also contributed to the discussion in Switzerland on the development and implementation of various policy instruments. With its SDS, the Federal Council sets out how it intends to implement the 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) over the next ten years. The SDS indicates four strategic directions to accelerate the transition to more sustainable food systems in Switzerland and abroad. These directions are: 1) fostering sustainable diets; 2) decreasing food wastage; 3) increasing sustainability along the food value chain; and 4) strengthening the resilience of the food system.N/A

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251In preparation for the Food Systems Summit (FSS) in September 2021, Switzerland decided to implement a MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FOOD SYSTEMS SUMMIT DIALOGUE (FSSD) AT NATIONAL LEVEL. This Dialogue took place in THREE STAGES, from March to June 2021. Through this innovative approach, interested actors had the opportunity to contribute to the FSS by discussing their roles within their food systems, reflecting on new forms of joint action, and getting involved in building the food systems of the future. The third stage of this Swiss National FSSD was held virtually on 8 June 2021. Under the title "From Challenges to Actions", it brought together more than 110 FOOD SYSTEMS REPRESENTATIVES, with the aim to identify pathways to sustainable food systems by 2030, to discuss how to implement these pathways, and to talk about possible intentions from the different stakeholders. For this purpose, the participants were invited to engage in BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS on a specific topic of importance for the transformation of our food systems. These discussions constituted the core of the event. The EIGHT TOPICS proposed for this third stage were: 1) Sustainable food environment; 2) Sustainable food demand and sustainable diets; 3) Sustainable production; 4) Climate change mitigation; 5) Adaptation to environmental changes, resilience and food security; 6) Food wastage (avoidable waste and losses); 7) Socio-economic dimensions of the agri-food sector; and 8) Entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology. These topics were formulated in the form of short statements, describing an ambitious situation to be realised within ten years and serving as a common goal for the discussion group. In their exchange, the participants were asked to think of CONCRETE ACTIONS to be undertaken by themselves or their respective organisations IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS in order to achieve the statement assigned to their group by 2030, bearing in mind the synergies and trade-offs inherent to this transformation. The eight statements – discussed in eleven groups – were developed on the basis of the FIVE ACTION TRACKS (ATs) OF THE FSS, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (SDS) of the Federal Council. In this way, the dialogue also contributed to the discussion in Switzerland on the development and implementation of various policy instruments. The SDS indicates four strategic directions to accelerate the transition to more sustainable food systems in Switzerland and abroad. These directions are: 1) fostering sustainable diets; 2) decreasing food wastage; 3) increasing sustainability along the food value chain; and 4) strengthening the resilience of the food system. All of the eight topics of the FSSD were aligned with these four directions of the SDS. This event constituted the third and last stage in the process of the multi-stakeholder National FSSD of Switzerland. It built upon a first national workshop held on 23 March 2021 during which participants addressed the challenges of their food systems and discussed concrete actions to support their transformation, and a series of “City Dialogues” organised in May 2021 in three linguistic regions of the country by the Cities of Bellinzona, Basel, Geneva, Lausanne and Zurich in collaboration with Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation on behalf of the Federal Office for Agriculture of Switzerland (FOAG) to discuss possible solutions at local level.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The GROUP DISCUSSIONS allowed for a constructive and fruitful exchange, in a pleasant atmosphere, and reached the following main results: (1) Participants called for the development and implementation of a HOLISTIC, CROSS-SECTORIAL FOOD STRATEGY, respectively POLICY, which would cover agriculture, nutrition, environment and public health, with QUANTITATIVE TARGETS. Its objectives should be defined at national level by the Confederation. Some participants suggested revising the Swiss Food Pyramid, to integrate in it the three dimensions of sustainability. Others expressed the need to develop a COMMON UNDERSTANDING of what healthy and sustainable foods are. (2) In addition to policy measures, participants recommended to seize the momentum created by the preparations for the Food Systems Summit to establish a REGULAR DIALOGUE with a SYSTEMIC APPROACH at national level. In one group, the stakeholders discussed the creation of a “HOUSE OF FOOD – IMPACT HUB”, mainly as an independent body supporting existing local networks and ensuring their coordination, bringing together main actors and experts. Collaboration must take place with ALL STAKEHOLDERS ALONG THE VALUE CHAINS and with the WHOLE SOCIETY. Currently, the population seems not to know the Swiss agriculture well enough. (3) We should tackle the WEAKNESSES and IMBALANCES along our food value chains, such as the inequitable REPARTITION OF THE VALUE ADDED, unfair prices, and low income of farmers. Some participants were of the opinion that we need to change our paradigm, by considering the value/quality of food holistically, rather than seeking to maximise its output/quantity. Several responses exist, such as: increased TRANSPARENCY and the setting of the TRUE COST OF FOOD; income security for farmers through a guarantee or scheme to share risks; and a better recognition and remuneration of ecosystem services. (4) Participants identified AWARENESS RAISING and EDUCATION as primary means to transform of our food systems. In order for the consumers to take INFORMED DECISIONS, we need a system that collects, processes and publicises information, in a – again – TRANSPARENT and HOLISTIC manner. We should set up a clear, consistent and comprehensive LABELLING. In several groups, participants supported the introduction of a SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR for BOTH DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED products, or even of a double system providing the PRICE TO BE PAID and the TRUE PRICE/COST OF FOOD INCLUDING EXTERNALITIES. MARKETING targeted at children should be limited. (5) In contrast to efforts building upon our individual responsibility, participants also discussed BANNING unsustainable items from our shelves. In other words, WE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE CHOICE ANYMORE TO BUY UNSUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS. To accompany these measures, we would need an adequate social policy for households with reduced financial means. On a related note, criteria of sustainability should complement, or even replace, those of prices in PUBLIC and PRIVATE PROCUREMENTS. (6) RESEARCH, INNOVATION, DIGITALISATION and NEW TECHNOLOGIES were considered crucial to transform our food systems, provided that they are SITE-ADAPTED. Innovation must be understood broadly, including non-traditional knowledge generation. PREPAREDNESS activities, such as surveillance, should be better communicated to producers, bridging the gap between farmers and scientists. The legal framework should better support the application of new technologies, including through entrepreneurship, and help young farmers start farming. (7) Some of the current farming methods and practices must be reviewed if we want to MITIGATE our environmental impact – on climate, but also on biodiversity. Participants considered using feed additives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, applying a carbon tax, and renouncing to SOYBEAN meal from tropical regions in livestock feed. One major suggestion to ADAPT to climate change consisted in developing models to determine which elements of our food systems would be most affected. Some participants stated that local consumption and short supply chains should be favoured, in order to retain control over how food is produced. Finally, the AGRICULTURAL VOCATIONAL TRAINING should integrate the topics of climate change and sustainability. (8) In terms of FOOD WASTAGE, we must optimise our valorisation of BY-PRODUCTS and facilitate access to SURPLUSES, as well as improve the legislation on BEST-BEFORE DATES. We also need a legal basis to apply already existing technologies assessing EDIBILITY of food items. In addition, the stakeholders communicated a wide range of intentions during the break-out group discussions, related to several sectors along the food value chains.236238241243244245246249250251TOPIC 1: SUSTAINABLE FOOD ENVIRONMENT In two separate groups, participants discussed how the food environment in Switzerland could become more sustainable, involving stakeholders in the processing, retail and catering industries, and enabling consumers to eat according to the recommendations of the Swiss Food Pyramid, as follows: (1) A “HOUSE OF FOOD – IMPACT HUB” should be created, as an independent body to support existing local networks (e.g. through providing data measuring sustainability along the value chains) and to ensure their coordination. This House of Food could possibly bear an additional supervisory, normative function. It should be organised as a network, or permanent working group, bringing together the main actors and experts. However, participants also wondered how to fund this House of Food, and to guarantee its independence. (2) A REGULAR DIALOGUE with a SYSTEMIC APPROACH should take place at national level. The participants suggested that, to ensure exchange and networking between actors, the House of Food could hold an annual conference. In general, they recommend that this dialogue utilise existing structures (e.g. platforms), and reach “multipliers” (e.g. teachers, all levels of administration, and food industry). Amongst others objectives, it should seek to communicate on the 2030 AGENDA, to bridge the gap between producers and consumers, and to focus on major levers such as the plant-based proteins VS animal source foods, as well as the fight against food waste. (3) We should better DISSEMINATE KNOWLEDGE. Issues related to sustainable food systems and sustainable diets should be integrated into EDUCATION CURRICULA (e.g. of pupils, students, doctors, dietitians, restaurateurs, and intermediaries), both theoretically and practically. We need to communicate on the value and meaning of food. Several initiatives already exist, but due to lack of capacity, resources and/or interest from teachers, they sometimes have difficulties to reach beneficiaries in schools. In addition, increased TRANSPARENCE (e.g. labels on sustainability for both domestic and imported items) and AWARENESS RAISING should facilitate the transmission of information to consumers, and make sure to reach people who are not yet sensitised. The participants advised to target young people, and recommended to make use of social media and work with influencers. Specific funds should be dedicated to these different activities, through commitment at political level. Some participants also suggested revising the Swiss Food Pyramid, in order to go beyond its currently exclusively nutritional approach and to integrate the three dimensions of sustainability. (4) Our FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS should support the implementation of more sustainable food systems. In particular, participants called for the creation of a HOLISTIC FOOD POLICY and more COHERENCE AT FEDERAL LEVEL (e.g. nutritional recommendations VS agricultural policy on sugar, and shift of subsidies to healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables). Overall, CROSS-SECTORAL COORDINATION should be improved at local and national levels, through sectoral agreements, related policies, virtual marketing platforms and local networks. (5) PROCUREMENT, both PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, could serve as powerful way to make our food environment more sustainable. A related ALLIANCE should be constituted. The participants underlined that criteria of quality should be re-thought (e.g. to market crooked carrots), as well as quantity (e.g. not to have all items available in supermarkets until closing time).236239240241243244245246249250TOPIC 2: SUSTAINABLE FOOD DEMAND AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS In this group, stakeholders discussed how to make people better aware of the importance of sustainable diets – in their environmental, socio-cultural, healthy and nutritional dimensions – and how to encourage them to better observe the recommendations of the Swiss Food Pyramid, as follows: (1) In order to foster sustainable food consumption, participants identified several measures, such as: RAISING AWARENESS of consumers and providing them with adequate INFORMATION on supplied items; in SCHOOLS, having compulsory nutrition courses, making fresh and sustainable products more easily available (e.g. in vending machines and canteens), and organising field visits to farms; establishing the TRUE COST OF FOOD through taxes; in the CATERING SECTOR, limiting the size of portions and offering the possibility to take home unfinished meals; and maintaining BORDER PROTECTION to guarantee access to fresh, quality products. Although participants talked about the food demand, they called for a transformation of the FOOD SUPPLY, towards more sustainable products. These various measures require the involvement of all stakeholders, and a good collaboration between political representatives, public actors, the civil society and the food industry. (2) Specifically, we should set up a more consistent and comprehensive LABELLING, and reduce its current complexity. The participants supported the introduction of a COMMON SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR for domestic and imported products, which would facilitate the comparison between all items. As a condition to this, we need to develop a COMMON UNDERSTANDING of what healthy and sustainable foods are. In addition, MARKETING targeted at children should be limited. (3) Participants discussed the definition of a 2050 FOOD POLICY, which would cover agriculture, nutrition, environment and public health, in a CROSS-SECTORIAL manner. This definition process should be bottom-up, and provide a framework for joint reflection (e.g. (extra-)parliamentary committee). The means dedicated to the 2030 Agenda should be increased.236240243244245246247248249250TOPIC 3: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION In two separate groups, stakeholders discussed how plant and animal productions, as well as the processing, retailing and catering sectors, could promote a more sustainable agriculture, with regard to local conditions, biodiversity, animal welfare, nutrients, natural resources, as well as circularity, as follows: (1) PLANNING AND INCOME SECURTY for farmers should be ensured by political framework conditions. Participants pointed out the fact that markets require swift (re-)actions, while producers only have limited room for manoeuver, as they depend on natural processes (e.g. from seed selection to harvest). Therefore, they need a guarantee, respectively a scheme to share risks, in order to make sure to sell their products on fair terms. In addition, the participants called for a better REPARTITION OF THE VALUE ADDED along the supply chains, as part of the economic dimension of sustainability. To achieve this, farmers need, on one hand, to tackle the issue of margins and prices, in particular those set at the retailing level. In their exchange with the retailers, farmers should seek to involve representatives from the industry/sector and some decision-makers. On the other hand, they should reduce their dependency on inputs suppliers (e.g. for seeds and plant protection products). On a related note, participants asked for more TRANSPARENCY, together with the TRUE COST OF FOOD (e.g. black box between producers’ and consumers’ prices). Finally, the provision of multiple ECOSYSTEM SERVICES by farmers should be better RECOGNISED, VALUED AND REMUNERATED (e.g. food production, cultural landscape preservation, biodiversity conservation, and cultural values). (2) Collaboration must take place with ALL STAKEHOLDERS ALONG THE VALUE CHAINS and with the WHOLE SOCIETY. Some participants identified CONSUMER education as essential to transform our food systems, and suggested to have a direct dialogue between farmers and consumer organisations. Currently, the population seems not to know the Swiss agriculture well enough. In response to this situation, farmers should communicate more concretely about what they do. The TRADING, RETAILING AND CATERING sectors must as well participate to the efforts towards more sustainability. A good example of economic value added and improved sustainability lies in the selling of regional products. In procurements, criteria of sustainability should replace those of prices. Finally, the INDUSTRY/SECTOR and the ASSOCIATIONS have an important role in defining what sustainability means to them, and in setting related goals, possibly on a voluntary basis. We should develop a FOOD POLICY, for instance through a food parliament or citizens' council. (3) INNOVATION, DIGITALISATION and the adoption of NEW TECHNOLOGIES were considered crucial means to make agriculture more sustainable, however under the condition that they give a direct benefit to farmers. Participants warned that technological innovation is not a silver bullet and that it must be SITE-ADAPTED. They recalled that globally uniform solutions could cause a loss of biodiversity (e.g. seeds), and that we should pursue a sustainable intensification and increase resilience in the system (e.g. animal breeding). Specifically in terms of digitalisation, one meaningful application could be the implementation of a tool to collect data on the environmental footprint of all actors in the food value chains. Finally, the participants also asked themselves how to foster the TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE.236238239240241243244245246248249250TOPIC 4: CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION In this group, stakeholders discussed how to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of the domestic final food demand along the whole value chain in Switzerland and abroad, as well as the GHG emissions of the domestic agricultural production, acknowledging that this transformative process should ensure fair socio-economic conditions to affected actors, as follows: (1) Some of the current FARMING METHODS AND PRACTICES need to be reviewed if we want to lower our environmental impact – on climate, but also on biodiversity. Participants identified several options, such as: the utilisation of QUOTAS to decrease livestock; the use, in animal nutrition, of FEED ADDITIVES to reduce GHG emissions; the creation of a CARBON TAX; and the introduction of CERTIFICATES by units of fertilisers. In implementing these measures, the Confederation should publish guidelines, and the research should evaluate their impact. One important additional step would consist in renouncing to SOYBEAN meal from tropical regions in the livestock feed, through incentives rather than bans. In general, the production should be SITE-ADAPTED. We should think of which foods could be produced locally around cities, then in the broader region, and then at national level or even beyond. In the same line, we should prioritise seasonal products over imported ones. Finally, the AGRICULTURAL VOCATIONAL TRAINING should integrate the topics of climate change and sustainability. (2) Participants agreed that we should adopt a SYSTEMIC, CROSS-SECTORIAL APPROACH (e.g. addressing sustainability, environment and health). Amongst others, they discussed: the setting of sustainability criteria in PUBLIC PROCUREMENTS; the introduction of LABELS; and the fight against FOOD WASTE (e.g. through a better use of proteins from slaughterhouse waste, harmonised methods of measurement, and awareness raising for consumers). Beyond this, the general COMMUNICATION around climate change should be improved. We should show that all parties have a role to play, and that a broad coalition of willing actors already exists.236242243244245246247248249250251TOPIC 5: ADAPTATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES, RESILIENCE AND FOOD SECURITY In this group, stakeholders discussed how the Swiss food system could become more adaptive to the consequences of global warming and to other environmental challenges, and more resilient to crises and shocks, while ensuring food security and nutrition for present and future generations, as follows: (1) PREPAREDNESS activities, such as the surveillance of natural disasters, plant pests and animal diseases, should be better communicated to producers, to bridge the gap between farmers and scientists. We should not only respond to climate change in Switzerland, but also abroad, underlining that the domestic and foreign food systems are closely interlinked. In addition, we must regain DIVERSITY and ensure practices, varieties and breeds that are locally ADAPTED (e.g. through replanted seeds). Generally, TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATION are crucial to strengthen our resilience. The legal framework should better support their application, including through entrepreneurship. One major suggestion consisted in developing models to determine which elements of our food systems would be most affected by climate and other environmental changes. Participants also recommended to identify the foods that we should produce primarily in Switzerland. (2) WEAKNESSES and IMBALANCES along our value chains should be tackled. Some participants were of the opinion that our current political and economic framework hinders the realisation of sustainable food systems in their socio-economic (e.g. unfair prices, and low income of farmers) and environmental dimensions. We need to change our paradigm, by considering the value/quality of food holistically, rather than seeking to maximise its output/quantity. Citizens should be sensitised and empowered (e.g. through urban farming). In terms of FOOD SECURTIY, local consumption and short supply chains should be favoured, in order to retain control on how food is produced. Incentives should help young farmers start farming and adopt new technologies. Regarding imports, it was even suggested to enter into international “solidarity” agreements with countries, to ensure fair conditions to producers abroad.236238239240241242243245246248249250TOPIC 6: FOOD WASTAGE (AVOIDABLE WASTE AND LOSSES) In this group, stakeholders discussed how to reduce avoidable food waste in Switzerland and avoidable food losses along the value chains of food consumed in Switzerland – ensuring that food produced in Switzerland and abroad reaches Swiss consumers, as follows: (1) AWARENESS RAISING and EDUCATION are key to fight food wastage. Food skills should be strengthened (e.g. knowledge about best-before dates, recipes on the use of leftovers, and improved information on packaging), involving the administration(s), media, schools, farmers, and industry. Related criteria could be integrated in sales promotion measures. In addition, employees in the industry/sector should be better sensitised about food donations – the initiative should be taken within companies, not imposed from the outside. A double system providing the PRICE TO BE PAID and the TRUE PRICE/COST OF FOOD INCLUDING EXTERNALITIES should be introduced, and a bold pricing policy should be implemented to internalise as much as possible these external costs (e.g. raising prices of out-of-season food items). (2) We must optimise our valorisation of BY-PRODUCTS. We should seek to increase the demand of consumers for by-products (e.g. wholemeal flour) through information and awareness raising, to better use by-products for feeding animals (e.g. whey proteins instead of soybean proteins), to facilitate access to by-products for start-ups to develop new products (including non-food), and to recycle by-products or convert them into energy. We should also ensure an easier and quicker access to SURPLUSES. We could develop apps informing donation recipients, and IT systems controlling processes and ensuring coordination. We should adapt the legislation on BEST-BEFORE DATES – participants noted, however, that in Switzerland it is often indicated "to be consumed preferably before" on packages, and suggested to have an extended best-before date to facilitate resale or donations. Finally, technologies assessing EDIBILITY already exist (e.g. droplets placed on packaging to inform if its content is still consumable), and we now need a legal basis to apply them.236241243244245246249250TOPIC 7: SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF THE AGRI-FOOD SECTOR In this group, stakeholders discussed how actors along the food value chains could benefit from a fair distribution of the value added and decent employment conditions, in Switzerland and abroad, as follows: (1) Participants identified consumers’ AWARENESS RAISING and EDUCATION as important measures to support people with their food choices. Related topics should be taught (e.g. at primary, secondary and/or vocational level). We should focus on kindergarten and schools (e.g. provisions of sustainable, including healthy, food for children), as well as catering in high schools, universities and large companies. Campaigns should be launched, and advertising of unsustainable products should be limited (e.g. in case of high amounts of sugar, similar to the situation with nicotine and alcohol). In addition, we could bring together famous cooks via social media. These various efforts should be targeted at those who are not convinced by the necessity to transform our food systems, yet. Ultimately, consumers are responsible for getting information and applying it (e.g. check ingredients, as well as production, processing and distribution conditions). On a related note, PUBLIC PROCUREMENT should make sure to favour sustainable food, including for imported products, beyond the exclusively economic criteria of prices. (2) The TRUE COST OF FOOD should be set (e.g. through price premiums determined on the basis of sustainability report by stakeholders, the introduction of incentives in the form of taxes, the complete alignment of the Swiss direct payments with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or declarations on water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of products). To calculate this true cost of food, a coherent methodology should be developed. Our system should become more TRANSPARENT, including by disclosing the DISTRIBUTION OF THE VALUE ADDED along the value chains.236242243244245246248249250TOPIC 8: ENTREPRENEURSHIP, INNOVATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY In this group, stakeholders discussed how to make the agri-food sector more sustainable, entrepreneurial and innovative, while considering its know-how and the quality of its products, applying results from scientific research and development, using the latest technologies, benefitting from digitalisation, being future-oriented and ensuring food security and nutrition, as follows: (1) In the first place, participants declared that we need a FOOD STRATEGY, with clear QUANTITATIVE TARGETS related to our food systems (e.g. on food waste and greenhouse gas emissions). Objectives should be defined at national level by the Confederation. It is regrettable that Switzerland’s Long-Term Climate Strategy, which specifically addresses the greenhouse gas emission from the food and agriculture sector, does not include any target on food consumption. Likewise, there is no holistic food strategy comprehending both sustainability and health issues. (2) The participants also recommended seizing the momentum created by the preparations for the Food Systems Summit and CONTINUING THIS NATIONAL DIALOGUE, possibly in the form of an annual event, as well as through working groups, exchange platforms and living labs. In general, the communication, collaboration and networking between stakeholders along the value chains were considered beneficial, in particular for what regards producers and consumers. (3) We need to ensure that CONSUMERS are in a position to take INFORMED DECISIONS. For this, we need a uniform system that collects, processes, consolidates and publicises the necessary, adequate information, beyond an exclusively economic approach, in a TRANSPARENT and HOLISTIC manner (e.g. through labels, check-tools, and databases). DIGITALISATION can play a key role in implementing it. Participants argued that the private sector should seek to be more involved – acting beyond purely marketing purposes – and that the public sector should lay the foundations for such a system. They stressed that, to make sure to reach consumers and to support them in making sustainable purchases, the provided information needs to be clear. AWARENESS RAISING activities, with concrete indicators making possible to assess their impact, as well as EDUCATION, can complement these measures. (4) In contrast to efforts aiming at providing information and raising awareness amongst consumers, which build upon our individual responsibility, participants also discussed the applications of requirements and conditions that would lead to ban from our shelves the unsustainable items. In other words, WE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE CHOICE ANYMORE TO BUY UNSUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS. In implementing these measures, the participants recognised that we would need to accompany them with an adequate social policy, to guarantee the access to sustainable products to all households, including those with reduced financial means. (5) INNOVATION and RESEARCH should be promoted. For this, silos must be overcome, including at federal, canton and city levels. Innovation must be understood more broadly, including non-traditional knowledge generation. On a strategic level, niche projects must serve as a basis for scaling up activities, and innovative, progressive projects should allow for fostering transdisciplinary activities, even on a small level. Finally, there is also a need for participatory, bottom-up research.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The GROUP DISCUSSIONS gathered more than 110 representatives, who affirmed their will to contribute to the transformation of our food systems, without denying nor shifting responsibilities to other stakeholders. Although participants tended to agree on the issues at stake, several challenges and trade-offs were identified: (1) POLICY FRAMEWORKS: There was considerable discussion concerning the role and impact of politics, including at federal level. Although measures from government in form of regulations and prohibitions could be effective in transforming our food systems, participants also pointed out that this would strongly interfere with the market. It was also argued that only individual responsibility could ultimately generate sustainable patterns of action. While some participants emphasised that even small, local projects can make waves and are promising due to their bottom-up character, others objected that no fundamental change is possible without adequate political framework conditions. Similarly, awareness raising was declared as important, but in general, it has a limited impact compared to more structural measures such as subsidy policies and imports regulations. The groups concluded that a healthy mix of all factors is necessary: bottom-up and top-down processes; large distributors and the state; initiatives at local, regional and national level; regulation and personal responsibility. (2) PRICING: The discussions identified the pricing policies as a sticking point in the sustainable transformation of our food systems. On the one hand, some participants were convinced that the Swiss population generally spends little on food, and that producers and other stakeholders need to be compensated adequately in order to switch to more sustainable practices. Some considered pricing mechanisms and the distribution of the value added and margins to be a black box. On the other hand, it was noted that no one wants to buy unsustainably, but that pricing is still crucial for certain segments of the population when it comes to purchasing decisions. With this in mind, there was a divergence on how true cost accounting could positively contribute to sustainable behaviour. (3) STANDARDS AND LABELLING: There was some disagreement on the effectiveness of standards and labelling. In particular, some participants argued that it is difficult to properly evaluate and measure the compliance with these standards (e.g. on greenhouse gas emissions). In addition, standards and labels might limit access to markets for smallholders and even allow greenwashing. (4) CONSUMERS’ LEVERAGE: There was a divergence on the question of what elements and/or activities of the value chains has the bigger leverage effect in making our food systems more sustainable. Whereas some participants found that direct marketing and a relationship between consumers and producers are crucial, others stated that the “large” market is still the driving force in our food systems and can in turn be less influenced by consumers. Also, advertisement, understanding of sustainability, political frameworks, time and income are key. Thus, transparency is important and relevant but does not guarantee action. (5) HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS: Whereas many participants emphasised the need for information and awareness raising about healthy nutrition, others countered that there is no recognised definition of what sustainable (including healthy) diets are. Participants also expressed the necessity to revise the Swiss Food Pyramid in order to include the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and environmental) in it.

2021-07-01 23:43:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27670/194

92556232111213125256854462211046

The dialogue was organized as a cross-cutting discussion prior to awareness of the UNFSS principles; however we were excited to discover that the presentations and discussions underscore and emphasize the stated Principles of Engagement. While all principles were present in the framing of the discussions, a few were reinforced to a greater extent since there is a need to “Recognize Complexity” by “Embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity.” The path to developing alignment across silos involves “Building Trust”, and the best way to “Act with Urgency” is to build on that trust by developing strategies and workflows that “Complement the work of others".RFSI's Rooted in Health honored the Principles with urgency, commitment, and respect built into the foundation of the event and the community that RFSI has built over the past two years that trust the organization as a hub for knowledge and conversations happening around regenerative agriculture. Additional thought and work was put into ensuring that the event was digestible in explaining the overlapping significance of soil and human health, complementary to a suite of existing work across sustainable agriculture and human health, and a diverse set of professional and lived experiences in dialogue with each other. The event centered the complexity of moving forward food systems that prioritize soil health as a means to address many social and environmental issues, especially human health and nutrition. It pulled together speakers that are envisioning and actively working on building a new food system based on the connection between soil microbiomes and gut microbiomes. This is complementary to existing work in that it is bridging the divide between separate conversations that are happening around soil health and human health, while also having a unique audience of regenerative agriculture leaders in North America. The event had a suite of participants across different demographic and professional backgrounds, including doctors, investors, startups and corporates, nonprofit leaders, and scientists. Most important and often left out of food dialogues are the farmers themselves, so highlighting farmer experiences was a major part of the event. This included the farm partners that have been transitioning their farms to regenerative agriculture practices and have been working with the investors and research institutes on funding and measuring their impacts.1. Pulling from across your network and your partner's networks to ensure a diversity of expertise and lived experiences from the participating speakers. This includes having speakers with deep expertise on niche subjects that can complement each other, as well as speakers and conversation facilitators that can translate between various subjects into a cohesive narrative around food systems. 2. Building a strong community base for your organization to ensure that the event is broadcast to as many people as possible and encourages deeply engaged and varied participants. This includes making sure that participants understand the tone and quality of your events enough to be able to feel a level of comfort to bring in their questions and actively participate in breakout sessions. 3. Ensuring complementary work starts with engaging and understanding the work of many others; and then figuring out how to bring that work together in a way that can be newly enlightening and bridge building across multiple impact areas that people care about in food systems work.

Yes

234238239240241242244245247248249250The way we do agriculture, the way we manage our soils, the way we process our food, and the way we get our food from farm to table all influence the levels of nutrients we find in our food. Conversely, there are also many things that influence our body’s ability to use what nutrients are available. Better understanding this complex relationship between agriculture, food, and health is of increasing importance as we face both environmental and health crises ranging from climate change to chronic illness and exorbitant costs due to a primarily reactive healthcare system. Regenerative food systems – ones that value nutrient density from soil to stomach – are seen as a solution to these challenges and present enormous opportunities for further learning, development, and investment. RFSI’s Rooted in Health event dove in to the under-explored connection between regenerative agriculture and nutrition, the pathways to improving human health through agriculture that already exist, the work yet to be done, and the investment levers that can be pulled to advance human health and nutrition. Addressing an issue as complex as this requires a systems-based, multi-stakeholder approach. This event is for investors and practitioners across the agriculture, food, and health spectrum and is designed to provide: 1. A foundation of understanding of the connections and complexities that exist between agriculture, food, and health; 2. A roadmap for work to be done by various stakeholders involved; 3. An exploration of the investment and funding opportunities that exist along the path from soil to stomach; 4. A vision for what comes next and how you fit in. The event frequently highlighted the importance of working on these two areas in tandem with each other as they are complementary and tackled this topic as something that covers across all five Action Tracks. This includes building the connection between food and health, supporting sustainable farming practices that promote carbon, water and other ecosystem services, supporting rural economies and nutrition access, and creating climate smart agricultural systems. Building the connection between soil and human health is a two way street in ensuring that nutrient dense food makes its way from the field to the person, but also that consumers are primed to accept and assimilate nutrients from regeneratively grown food. It will also require breaking down siloes between different industries and sectors to ensure that people are recognizing the holistic and interconnected dynamics of agricultural practices and nutrition.235238239240242244245247248249250Main findings included: 1. The directionality of food system towards quantity instead of quality has been deleterious to human and environmental health. The way it is possible to breed for a cardboard tomato shows the potential to breed for more nutritional and regenerative food products. 2. Growing more nutritious foods influences human health and shows the connection between how we manage landscapes and how manage epidemiological health. There is an opportunity to not only improve health outcomes and food equity, but also store carbon and support other ecological services through regenerative growing practices that produce more nutritious foods. 3. Soil ecologies and agriculture systems if continually perturbed can go from a stable to an unstable state and the same happens with the human gut leading to immunity and inflammatory issues. 4. There are some relatively easy principles and a framing of nourishment, healing, or nutrition wisdom that can interrogate the complexity of these individual issues and allow people to understand the connection between soil health and human health. 5. Breaking down the siloes between food, agriculture, health, insurance, policy, finance and other sectors are key to having a systemic approach that acknowledges the connection between responsible growing practices, increased nutritional quality, better tasting food, and more accessible better foods. 6. There is a great deal of interest to continue to figure out the dark matter of nutrition to understand all of the unknown compounds within foods, the variation of nutritional quality in different foods and their connection to different growing practices, and how to better educate not only consumers but also policy makers and the medical community around the importance of nutritious food that come from responsible growing practices. 7. Food is a human right, not only enough quantities of food, but also nutritious food that nourishes the body and regenerates soil systems. 8. The growth of the idea of food as medicine and the immediate opportunity to expand this on a societal level lies with businesses and innovation to make changes as the medical community and public policy moves more slowly.236238239240241242243244245248The first session was Digging into Agriculture's Ties to Human Health Outcomes, highlighting the expertise of the Bionutrient Food Association, the Croatan Institute, and Basil's Harvest. The session mainly covered the findings of an upcoming report from the Bionutrient Food Association and the Croatan Institute around the nexus of soil and human health. Human bodies and agricultural ecologies mirror each other. The session highlighted the four levels of nutritional interventions that exist in the space: 1. Replacement, including healthier options and whole foods; 2. Free from chemical and drug inputs; 3. Differentiated nutrient density, including how we begin to select food that has nutrient levels that are differentiated and detailed; 4. Microbiome centric, meaning a more harmonious relationship between microbes in the environment and microbes in our bodies. Moving forward this work will require a focus on: 1. Prioritizing more nutritious food; 2. Harvest and processing to ensure that harvest and transport time is optimized to maximize nutrition, and midstream practices are changed to stop separating whole foods from their core nutritional components (e.g. as happens with wheat); 3. Purchase, access and preparation as systemic racism and inequities have created a major lack of food access, high cost around regeneratively grown food, and increasing difficulty around having the time, energy and resources to properly prepare food to make the nutrients most available; 4. Digestion and absorption, meaning ensuring that human guts and bodies are in healthy places (free from chemicals, stress and chronic illnesses) in order to best absorb nutrients. 5. General human health to ensure access to more nutrients, reduce chronic health issues, and improve the health of the gut microbiome. Dialogues throughout the session briefly mentioned some other key ideas: 1. The idea of nutritional dark matter and the lack of information/science that we have around nutrition. 2. Compost application can greatly improve the health of soil systems as mirrored with human gut microbiomes that can have improved health with increasing research around fecal transplants. 3. Society needs a new vocabulary around this nexus as regenerative agriculture, nutrient density and other individual terms do not cover the suite of how interdependent these relationships and work are. 4. There is a need for a stable and profitable market to pay farmers and investors that are valuing these contributions.236238239240241242243244248The second session was around Making the Case for Integrating Soil Health and Human Health. The session consisted of presentations from Brightseed, North Start Transition, and Axten Farms. Brightseed shared their work connecting soil and human health. Plant rich diets lead to health as diets deficient in plants are 3x more deadly when measuring global deaths attributed to diet. This is why many small molecule drugs (63%) come from natural sources. Plants have proteins, starches, lipids, and other compounds. Only 100,000 compounds are known in the academic space, but there are millions or ten of millions in existence so Brightseed works to map compounds. They have started with 700,000 identified through artificial intelligence systems that index commercial placts, create a database of plant compounds, and connect to a digital model of human health. Their process found a plant compound in black pepper that can improve metabolic health, with impending clinical trials around the research. Metabolic health is the top reason after age for COVID complications, which includes fatty livers and little to no treatment options. North Star Transition shared the investment case for deploying capital in this space. There is a movement for integrated corporate reporting with sustainability but there is still a gap for corporations to acknowledge the soil health connection to human health. The reason there is no change at the systemic level is because the issues are treated in siloes. For example, the health service in the UK really only works with food when discussing obesity and also lacks information and focus around the nexus of soil and human health.They have been working on regional change within the country of Wales in order to explore what systemic scale can look like across a region of 3 million people. They brought together 35 organizations across sectors in order to break down the silos of conversations. They have crafted four ambitions for Wales: i) land use that leads to revitalized connections between the land, air and water that optimizes positive impact for nature, community and carbon; ii) the Welshe food system is optimised for the wellbeing of citizens, community and nature; ii) the hidden voices of nature and future generations are present for all decisions in government and business; and iv) integrating community and nature in the delivery of scaled-up prevention to improve wellbeing outcomes. Axten Farms shared their work managing a family farm in Saskatchewan, Canada. They have farmed in a water limited area for over a hundred years. They faced a series of weather events that made them vulnerable and saw that perennial crops had greater resiliency. So they began adopting practices to build resiliency, such as cover crops, reduced synthetic inputs, stripper headers and stubble retention, diverse cash crops with companions, compost and carbon based inputs, compost extract and biostimulants, and synergistic crops. The idea of how big of a difference soil management practices could make really stuck with the farm as they learned about the practices of others, such as Gabe Brown. They built a seed cleaning facility that cleans all grain grown on the farm to food grade and the seed market, as well as regeneratively grown flour, that they directly market and control the end to end process. An important part of this work has been around community and socioeconomics as they have seen the loss of fellow farmers so they aimed to build a process that could employ and retain more people in rural communities. They have also conducted grain nutrient testing to highlight the major difference their practices have made on nutritional quality, and that has also translated to more flavorful products.236238241242243246248250The third session was Bringing Back Nutritional Wisdom. The panel consisted of American Heart Association, Health Research Institute Labs, Link Market, and BeingBrigid Nutrition. Ideas covered included: 1. Increased focuses and research on nutrition from the NIH to US government agencies to the Periodic Table of Foods Initiative to catalog nutrients and their connection to growing practices. The importance of public policy bodies to learn more from existing work and build this into altered or new policies. 2. How much is left to learn about food and nutritional dark matter, and the role dietitians are playing to spread more knowledge about this place and build the connection to responsible agricultural practices. Conventional medicine focuses more on a diagnosis as opposed to thriving, having the right nutrients, reducing inflammation, maximizing metabolic health, and failing individuals. Historic and traditional medical practices made the connection between food and nutritional quality with health, but there has been a lack of science for this that has steered conventional medicine away from nutritional wisdom. Medical schools teach as little as a single session around nutrition that future doctors can bring into their future practices. The health care community needs to catch up through community shared knowledge, nutrition education for the medical community, strategic partnerships between nutrition and medical entities, partnerships between responsible food service and medical institutions. 3. Link Market’s free grocery delivery services to seniors and a publicly funded brick and mortar grocery story in public housing in St. Louis. They only sell food that meets guidelines laid out by the American Heart Association. They have worked deeply on finding the balance between sourcing affordable food and that food coming from responsible sources that have grown food in more nutritious ways. They have also been part of Food Rx work for medical professionals to recommend healthier food through prescriptions that can be filled by grocery store kiosks on site. 4. Difficulties around food access and nutrition from food swamps, people being failed by profit and drug and surgery centered medical systems, marketing of the cheapest and most affordable foods that destroy physical and mental health, lack of nutrition education available to people (e.g. understanding the difference between feeling full and having nutritious foods), the lack of affordability for healthier and responsibly grown food. 5. How to educate more people around nutritional wisdom. This could be specific to individual health and dietary needs, people learning more about their bodies and being their own health advocates, guiding them through the change of mindset and confidence in what they are doing, increasing comfort around cooking healthier foods, bring in people that are good communicators. This also includes educating farmers to understand that they have the ability to do something better and deliver high quality nutrition, or other supply chain actors to recognize this and fund farmers for that work.236238239240241242243244245246248249250The fourth session was Nutrient Density from Farm to Body and What We Still Don't Know. The session was led by Danone North America on the regenerative agriculture programs with their family farms. Panelists included Peak Origin, Bionutrient Food Association, Brightseed, and TeakOrigin. Ideas covered included: 1. The bad history and current state of nutrition and agriculture. Nutritional guidelines in the US have not been updated in decades. 70% of US healthcare goes to chronic diseases that can mostly be attributed to poor nutrition. Only 12% of Americans are without high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or pre-diabetes and diabetes. Obesity is the most common medical disqualifier for military service. A study comparing diets of the same foods but grown differently showed significant inflammation differences between those eating the same foods from responsibly grown practices than those eating conventionally grown foods. 2. Bionutrient Food Association has been working on figuring out the variation of nutrient density within food items to define the spectrum variation and averages, correlating that with growing practices, and building the instruments needed to figure out nutritional information in real time. We have the ability now to develop the data at scale around plant compounds, growing practices, and human health outcomes. 3. A common way to understand the connection between regenerative growing practices and nutrition needs to be established in order to avoid confusion and further barriers to scaling. There is no way to certify or market food that is nutritious and grown regeneratively. All existing ones are binary modes of assessing, but it is a continuum where personal spectrometry products or more targeted nutrition science can allow people to have a holistic understanding of the food in front of them and how it connects to the idea of food as medicine. 4. There are opportunities to educate consumers around food and nutrition, and the existing food in low cost grocery stores that can serve nutrition needs and access to better tasting foods. Investors should be aware that food fits impact categories that investors are trending towards as one of the literal greenest investment categories. 5. There is a huge opportunity to come together on these topics to ensure that there is global nutritional density and equity, but it will require a level of collaboration and framing that doesn’t exist. Better collaboration is needed across both spaces and the spaces together as there are many existing organisations tackling regenerative agriculture, nutrition wisdom, food equity and access, and other overlapping categories. This will also be important in elevating local knowledge and issues that need to be addressed for food equity and access.236239240242243244245249The fifth session was How Investments in Farmland Can Drive Nutritional Outcomes. The panel conversation was led by RFSI and consisted of Mint Creek Farm, Iroquois Valley Farmland REIT, and the Rodale Institute. The session focused on: 1. What has happened to soils in the past century as the connection has been lost between growing food and soil health. Farmers have increasingly paid less attention to soil heath as they have been told that the most important metric is yield and biology has been replaced with chemistry. This has also included the fact that the idea has been lost that soil is teeming with life. For example, a teaspoon of healthy soil has more microorganisms than there are people in the planet. 2. How this degradation of soils has impacted human health from a medical professional on the panel. The medical professional shared their observations over multiple decades of observing human health from increased inflammation related diseases to increased obesity. These medical issues are highly connected to the amount of chemical inputs in agriculture that damage the microbiota of gut, reducing the body's immune system while also causing inflammation. Obesity can also be tied to the consumption or overconsumption of empty nutrient meals lacking the substance needed for the body to feel satisfied. 3. The difficulty that farmers face as they try to manage better agricultural systems. This includes the burden of farmers having to educate consumers on why regenerative practices or humane treatment is important, the difficulty of running a small business, lack of financial resources, lack of partners with the capacity and expertise to work with farmers that want to have better practices. 4. The importance of technical and financial assistance to transition land towards regenerative practices. The panel, including a farm owner, shared their experiences with consultancy and digital education efforts funded by state (e.g. Pennsylvania) or national governments for farmland transition programs that current land grant universities are not serving. Iroquois Valley Farmland REIT also discussed their work offering mortgages and lines of credit from 600 investors towards transitioning farmland across the US. 5. The Rodale Institute shared their increasing consultancy work assisting farmers supported by public funding. This includes a 2022 4-day summit for the medical community to have first hand experience with on farm soil health practices and their relevance to practicing medicine.236239240242243244245249The sixth session was The Wyse Guys: Two Brother's Journeys to Regenerative Agriculture Outcomes. It was a conversation facilitated by RFSI between the two Wyse brothers and their journey across farming, soil science, and investing. The brothers both had varied but similar journeys across the food system moving from scientific research on regenerative agriculture practices and ecological principles to academia to investing. One brother continues research through the Forever Green Initiative to develop the next generation of perennial and biodiverse crops for the Upper Midwest. The other brother runs a venture capital firm investing in early to mid stage enabling technology companies for the regenerative agriculture space, including precision agriculture technologies, robotics, and genomics. Some key ideas mentioned: 1. The importance of the economics of climate change and agriculture by monetizing the ecosystem services of improved practices. For example, the low carbon fuel standard and carbon crediting system in California works with farmland in an effort to improve the economics of regenerative agriculture. 2. The increasing global demand for plant protein that can have lower demands on the land and people than current livestock sources.236239240242243244245246248249250The seventh session was Supporting Entrepreneurs in Building Nourishment Economies. The panel consisted of The Croatan Institute, 1st Course Capital and Food Systems 6, and Nourish^N. Topics covered included: 1. Success stories from the panel. For example, Noursih^N was able to work on a water funding mechanism in Quito, Ecuador where funds were gathered from large water consumers in the city to support upstream water friendly farming practices. They also had a project in Zambia they want to replicate elsewhere working with Camaco and farmers across the country to gather soil data and determine carbon offsets. The resulting work has been able to support elephant conservation goals (a rare instance of major biodiversity outcomes from agricultural work) and supporting rural regenerative food and farming practices. 2. 1st Course Capital discussed their investing parameters and ideology focused on regenerative agriculture and early stage companies. VC makes sense in this space for capital efficiency and scaling of startups, but it's critical to have the right type of capital for the right type of innovation and startup. There is a growing space and work that can support this space around integrated capital, intelligent matching, and blended finance. 3. The importance of community and knowledge sharing for the work that entrepreneurs are doing. Not all entrepreneurs are motivated by financial returns and there are benefits of coming together in a community that are important for investors to understand. 4. The need to understand the various types of support that entrepreneurs need. This includes back office support, regulatory knowledge for the food industry, service providers that understand unique startup challenges, community and resiliency to support burning out, and other areas of expertise or network engagements. 5. The need for more messaging around soil health's connection to nutrition as the market needs more companies to push this engagement. This evolution will need different language and metrics, recognition of the interconnection, increased focus on quality of foods, and the overlay of wellness over sustainability trends. This space makes sense for entrepreneurs as they are recognizing the market demand of both and bringing them together.236238239240242243244245246247249250The eighth session was Challenges and Opportunities to Building Health Food Pipelines. The session highlighted the expertise of the Bionutrient Food Association and Pipeline Foods. This session focused on the broad challenges and opportunities across the supply chain. Ideas included: 1. Connecting regenerative agriculture and organic agriculture with institutional health care. Some of the worst food in the world is presented at healthcare facilities, but people don’t understand the true scale of the sector. This includes hospitals, senior care facilities, long term care facilities, and community based food services (e.g. meals on wheels) that have not contributed to the human body with true nutrition towards some of the most vulnerable population. It is a $16b marketplace almost entirely serviced with conventional food, with 40% of this spend on animal protein. 2. The increasing connection between nutrition and the wider medical field because of the pandemic. Antibiotic free, chemical free, higher nutrient density, anti-inflammatory is what is needed. The public policy piece will follow what the medical community wants, as medicine can be a push for some bi-partisan areas. 3. Use of whole animals as something not accessible for the regenerative agriculture community because of a lack of infrastructure and demand to minimize waste. The problem exists for pastured animals to find a place for all of the pieces. Grassfed beef leans towards high end cuts, and the rest of this can still go towards cut for food service, and avoiding the balance of the animal from getting flushed into the commodity channel. There is a demand from offtakers in pet food, nutriceuticals, fashion that can spread out the premium across the entire animal and offtakers, but the processing facilities do not exist yet to have identity preserved and separate channels. 4. Entry points for investors from the need for blended financial models for local and regional supply chain development, to increased conversations across financial entities (e.g. private equity, family offices, philanthropy, banking) for them to work together to derisk investments in the space.236238239240241242244245246249250The final session was Policy's Role in Moving From Conversation to Results. The panel included Funder for Regenerative Agriculture, Grace Communications Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Day One Project. Ideas shared included: 1. Breaking down policy siloes in the US that are relevant for both health and agriculture. The Food and Drug Administration manages drug use and approvals, antibiotics for animal production and aquaculture, monitors chemical use on vegetables, food safety parameters (e.g. safety of compost). The US Department of Agriculture monitors for meat, soil, land conservation with the Natural Resources Conservation Science, Agriculture Marketing Services. Pesticide safety and approval lies with EPA, so do manure and antimicrobial cleaners. And these are not areas that overlap or converse with each other. For example, health is not frequently part of conversations at the USDA. Antibiotic use has been a uniting topic as there have been inter-agency panels with the CDC. 2. The ability for recent policies to bring these separate departments and advocacy groups together, such as carbon banking or true cost accounting. 3. Low hanging fruit opportunities for policy. For example, 23 states still have subsidies for fossil fuel based fertilizers as they are tax exempt. This should be the opposite to tax fossil fuel inputs and chemicals that are damaging towards nutritious food and ecosystems. Another example includes EPA regulations that make it easier to spray antibiotics on crops where there is no proof of its utility. 4. The role for multistakeholder groups. The movement needs scientists, lobbying power, a good coalition of people, a good social media campaign, end purchasers, investors to provide risk capital for these folks to work together and be able to create new models that policy can build off of, and the need for a network of environmental justice communities that can work together as the same issues happen all over the place.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The two day event also held two breakout sessions with multiple topics. 1. Exploring Agriculture and Human Health Connections 2. Expanding Nutritional Literacy 3. Innovating in Nutritional Dark Matter 4. Early Adoption of Regenerative and Nutrient Dense Foods 5. Agriculture Investment Strategies for Human Health Outcomes 6. Supporting Research and Innovation at the Intersection of Agriculture, Food and Health 7. Policy's Role in Advancing A Healthy Food System237239240244248249There were differences between voices that are urging waiting before acting on early research and results around the soil and human health nexus. There was some discussion that many of those voices are the ones that are benefitting from the current status quo of prioritizing quantity at the expense of quality of foods. There was disagreement over how valuable carbon markets will be for the growth of appropriate practices and policies in regenerative agriculture. Carbon markets can be seen as a reductionist method to put all impacts into one measurement when there is a risk of little long term benefits and carbon accounting does not include enough of the measurements of the additional benefits, e.g. around water. That is why there needs to be a greater linkage of carbon to other impact areas, such as nutrition.

2021-07-01 23:51:35205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12701/39

3027310203030

The dialogue was organized in consultation and collaboration with the Stung Treng provincial administration as well as district and commune chiefs. Participants were selected on volunteer basis in collaboration with Plan International. Equal chance was given to boys and girls who are within the age range of 10 to 19 years old. Explanation was given to the participating children and their parents/guardians ahead of the meeting. The objective, methodology and expected outcomes of the meeting was explained and they have been informed that they do not have to take part if they do not want to. After the explanation, they have signed on the consent form which was jointly prepared by UNICEF and the Wester Sydney University. The pre-meeting explanation helped to build trust and among the young participants and their parents. It also helped them to recognize how important the dialogue is and its contributions to the Global Summit. Inclusive and participatory methodology was designed to properly handle the complexity of the topic. For most of them, the new insights from this dialogue complements with the prior engagement they had through youth clubs. Special consideration was given to implement the Do’s and Dont’s for prevention of COVID-19 transmission by using face masks, sanitizing the venue, materials used. The dialogue was conducted in four sessions to minimize the number of participants less than 10 at a time.Activities have been designed to allow participants to freely express ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions are sometimes deliberately broad and open to interpretation and precise definitions are not necessarily provided. Facilitators have been trained on how to handle participants in respectful manner, recognized the complexity of the topics and specific interests of these age groups. When participants struggle with an activity, facilitators helped them to rephrase questions or use additional prompts to get them started or encouraged them to take their thinking further. They have been mindful to limit their influence and avoided judging participants’ responses. Because the key aspect of the dialogue was to gather children’s insights with minimal adult intervention so that we can better understand what matters to them. The conversations were able to build the confidence of the participants and they managed to freely express their ideas during the oral discussion as well as in completing the exercise worksheets. The exercise was with fully inline to the commitment of the summit which was linked with action tracks 1 and 2. The Dialogue used the basic principles and methods recommended by the convenors. However, more specific manual was prepared for school age children and adolescents dialogue due to the fact that it involved full engagement of children from 10-19 years (Annex 1. Manual attached).The dialogue was focused on two major topics – (1) Food Environment and (2) Climate Changes for the Food Systems. As background, the discussion covered what is food systems mean and why it is important for school-age children and adolescents. Children and youth need good nutrition to support their physical and mental development. Unfortunately, many are vulnerable to malnutrition due to factors including limited access to safe and healthy food, low income, poverty, neglect, and prevailing cultural norms, including suboptimal feeding and care practices during early childhood which lead to lifelong stunting. The period of adolescence is a second window ofSpecially for the dialogues with such young participants, it is important to have a flexible methodology to give them more open spaces to reflect their ideas and views.

Yes

234238239242244246251The Council of Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) and UNICEF held four national dialogues sessions with a total of 30 children between the ages of 10-19 years with the main objective to seek their insights on food systems, and brainstorm on future of nutrition in Cambodia. This subnational dialogue was held from 24-25 June 2021 in Stung Treng Province. Cambodia is one of 20 countries participating in the dialogues with school age children, which will help guide the United Nations’ upcoming Food Systems Summit, a high-level coalition launched by Heads of States and the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2021. All the dialogues being held with UNICEF support worldwide will culminate in a high-level advocacy event on behalf of the youth participants during the Food Systems Summit. The dialogue sessions are guided by child-friendly methods and materials which have been developed in collaboration with UNICEF and The Western Sydney University. The dialogue was focused on two major topics – (1) Food Environment and (2) Climate Changes for the Food Systems. As background, the discussion covered what is food systems mean and why it is important for school-age children and adolescents. Children and youth need good nutrition to support their physical and mental development. Unfortunately, many are vulnerable to malnutrition due to factors including limited access to safe and healthy food, low income, poverty, neglect, and prevailing cultural norms, including suboptimal feeding and care practices during early childhood which lead to lifelong stunting. The period of adolescence is a second window of opportunity to avoid further malnutrition through targeted nutrition services. As the food systems are currently affected by secondary impacts from COVID-19 and climate changes and children are likely to be amongst the most impacted, so seeking their engagement at this stage is essential. For young people the stakes are high when it comes to food systems. Not only do they need healthy, sustainable nutrition to grow and learn, but they will have to live on a planet that can be severely impacted by how food systems operate. We know that food systems contribute to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and use of fertilizers and pesticides can also have a devastating ecological impact. We need young people to be part of the decisions that will directly impact their futures and we need their innovative thinking to reimagine a new way of building food systems, one that serves healthy people and a healthy planet.235238239242244246247248249251The voice of children and adolescents often left out of discussions, despite the fact they experience the failings of current food systems as part of everyday life, have their own views and perspectives and letting to contribute for future decision-making. Engaging children and adolescents meaningfully in this process acknowledged that young people can be both recipients and active participants of food system transformation. The below are just some examples quotes from the participants “In my commune, our struggle is drought and a lack of water sources, some years our crops yielded less harvest and in some seasons everything died during dry season because there was no water to grow rice and crops," said Hean Sopheap, a 14-year-old schoolboy who participated in the dialogues. "I want our community to develop better animal and plant breeding skills, so we can have more crops yields and meats without using chemical substances to accelerate production.” Lao Oudomsokun: (Female 15 years old, in grade 9) “If we have to go too far places, we would like to bring only water with us.” “ Because with water we can drink, growing crops like rice and vegetable.” Hean Sopheap: (Male 14 years old, in grade 9) “I want our animals to get vaccines so they won’t die because of diseases.” Say Lakcy: (Female 18 years old, in grade 12) “If the water and food are clean we don’t need have diarrhea and dizzy while eating those foods” Climate Change: Ken Koun: (Male 21 years old,) “We need to reduce chemical substance and plastic daily, after this we must raise awareness in our community about impact on environment and climate changes that can create drought. Have a chemical neutralizer machines in order to reduce pollution to water, air and land especially keep clean water for villager’s utility without illness and harmful to their health. Raising awareness and knowledge on climate changes, pollution and impacts on environment to create a better earth for everyone.” Request on food system to Government and UN: Sem Sokin and Thy Vika: “we want to have accessible water sources and irrigation system, better road for crops transportation, demanding market, and government to heard our voices from children about food system, so we can work together to sustain food system for longer times.” UNICEF will compile and publish a final report on the specific findings from these dialogues. The final report will provide a tangible pathway for school-age children and adolescents to meaningfully contribute to strengthening the global and national narratives around the food system transformation. The syntheses will also contribute to the development of guidance tools not only at national level but also global and regional levels. In addition, these dialogues will culminate with a final high-level advocacy event at the Summit in September 2021 focused on food systems for children and adolescents.236238239244246247248249251FOOD POVERTY The participants reported their understanding about food and food systems. They have discussed about food journey mapping telling about initial source of foods and its journey until those foods are prepared for meal. They discussed about what foods they want to eat but ever eaten or eaten not regularly, and the reasons why they can’t eat food they want. Besides, they involved and discussion to identify place whereby foods are vulnerable, why those foods expose to vulnerability, who will affect referring to gender, and how to reduce or mitigate the food vulnerability. They have raised their voice for top leader related to food poverty. Lastly, they have presented collective qualitative information on food system, accessibility and availability, and vulnerability using worksheet exercise and group discussion.236238240242244246247248249251CLIMATE CHANGE The children and adolescent participants reported their understanding about meaning of food and food systems. They learned also about food journey mapping telling about initial source of foods and its journey until those foods are prepared for the meal. For food journey, they also discussed about what foods they want to eat, where they eat foods, and how they got those foods. Besides, in relation to food journey, they have discussed about how foods are made, transportation need, food processing, foods being sold in the market, income generation for food accessibility, how their diet look like, and where food wastes will go. They were involved in discussion about identification of places where there are harms to damage and negatively impact on climate and environment, and they have identified harmful factors and practices. They have done worksheet exercise about concentric circles including individual and family, community, large scale farms and companies, and government and international organizations to identify and suggest what actions should be taken to minimize harms such as carbon dioxide, chemical wastes and mitigate the negative impacts due to climate change. Lastly, they have developed collective qualitative information on food system, harms, and impacts on climate change through group discussion.

2021-07-02 09:58:55205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14026/39

50935629212331411411112714315291114

The event was organized with the Cambodian Food Manufacturers Association with the support of the SUN Business Network Coordinator to ensure that the private sector was well represented. This was a key opportunity for increasing inclusion of the private sector in the National Dialogues.The private sector was well represented and had good opportunity to express views and representatives of government, UN, DPs and civil society were also present to join in the discussion sessions. Short welcoming remarks were provided to set the scene and to provide perspectives from the UN, the private sector and government. Following these remarks, the participants were divided into six groups of approximately 10 persons to consider the focus questions and to obtain diverse views on the topics of interest.Private sector actors had some trouble with online registration, especially for the smaller businesses with less experience in use of the online platform. Additional assistance may be necessary to assist those unfamiliar with video conferencing to more easily join the event when face to face or blended events are not possible.

Yes

234238241245248249The dialogue brought together about 50 participants mostly from private sector to discuss and explore the role and contribution of private sector in improving nutrition. The outcome of the dialogue will serve as important inputs for the development of the pathway for a sustainable and inclusive food system 2030. The private sector is huge and relatively untapped potential both technical and expertise and financial to help closing the gap of sustainable and robust food system that has the ability to drive the achievement of all 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The focus of the dialogue event was to discuss the role that the private sector can play in enhancing nutrition in Cambodia and to consider ways in which nutrition can serve as a good business opportunity for the private sector. These business opportunities arise through product development and innovation; demand generation and improved understanding of consumer behaviour; quality management product safety and packaging systems; and the through the promotion of nutrition and healthy diets in retail settings. The dialogue event aimed to highlight the importance of the private sector as a source of innovation and creativity and the importance of profit as a foundation for sustainability for the food system.235238241245248249251The private sector is recognized as being essential for achieving good nutrition in Cambodia, at all stages of the value chain, in shaping the food environment and in meeting consumer demand. The private sector makes a vital contribution in terms of the variety of food available, the nutritional content of food, food safety and food affordability. The private sector can also make a vital contribution through the fortification of staple foods, fish and soy sauce and for iodised salt. It is further recognized that COVID-19 has affected the availability and access to healthy food and that all sectors must come together to improve the food system to ensure stability and resilience. There is scope for improvements all along the value chain and for the greater use of technology to promote efficiency in the food system and livelihoods. Many challenges were identified in the discussions and key recommendations for increased private sector activity suggested to support nutrition included: improved regulation, standards and compliance; support for research and innovation; capacity building for industry; access to finance; promotion for local products, based on improved quality of the products. It was agreed the SUN Business Network can play a crucial role in bringing together diverse stakeholders, providing advocacy and giving greater voice to the private sector for matters relating to nutrition. As a small country, Cambodia finds it difficult to compete with imported goods. Electricity and transport costs in Cambodia are high and this compromises the competitiveness of local manufacturing. It is necessary for Cambodia to engage youth and encourage women entrepreneurs in dealing with the many challenges to promote innovation and contribute to improved job opportunities and livelihoods. Both producers and consumers need more education about nutrition and healthy diets and producers offering unsafe products or using misleading labelling need to face the consequences of their actions through enforcement of laws and regulations. The state media should help to promote local products and to raise consumer awareness and demand.236238239241245248249PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION THE CHALLENGES: Several Challenges have been identified through the vibrant and inclusive discussion. The major challenges are highlighted below: - Lack of Research & Development Capital, high costs for smaller businesses, especially family business and difficult to protect the investment, lack of access to reliable information on packaging and machinery - Lack of experience, lack of space to prototype ideas and limited exposure to new ideas - Limited knowledge & skill and limited access to food safety expertise - Apparent lack of market as consumers appear to prefer imported good - Limited institutions to support research and innovation and, especially to connect to the private sector and the concerns of property right protection - Very little understanding of production chains and unwillingness of producers to test product quality or understand the benefits of doing so, and the limited knowledge on investment prioritization - Limited knowledge on eco-friendly packaging. Note that consumers are an important consideration in terms of these challenges. There is little understanding of consumers’ interests and orientation of product development around these needs. Producers are frustrated by consumer preferences for imported products as they must invest a large amount to improve product quality and many times, they lack the training to make this investment work. WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVED NUTIRITION? There should be more research studies to better understand the existence of consumer demand and understanding what consumers value as well as an enabling environment to make sure the investors could capture a return on investment through a supporting regulatory environment and legal protection. There is an important role for government to support product development and innovation with various policy instruments because of the relatively small scale of businesses and the lack of existing institutions to promote research and innovation. The businesses involved must also develop a culture of responsibility for their products and their impacts. This can be supported by requirements for place of origin of products, nutrition labelling, certification of agricultural practices, fair trade and ethical practices. Many of these ideas are new for Cambodian consumers and producers. Apps can be used to increase product traceability and transparency in practices.236239245246248249DEMAND GENERATION FOR SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD THE CHALLENGES: While there is an uptick of demand of safe and nutritious food as the likelihoods and the awareness on the benefits of safe and nutritious food have improved, there still several challenges remain. A number of challenges have been identified through the dialogue: - Awareness and knowledge of the consumers and the producers on nutrition and packaging are still limited. - Safe and nutrition food are still expensive. For many, price of food is still the most important consideration and cannot afford healthy diets. - Partnerships between the government, development partners and private sector are also challenging. - Youth prefer to go out to eat where foods are not always safe and nutritious - Lack of regulation/laws and adequate measures to prevent the consumption of unsafe and unhealthy food, - Advertisement of unhealthy food by companies. - Enforcement of the existing laws and regulations is still a big challenge - Lack of awareness campaign/drive on nutritious and safe food at school - Lack of human capital in the private company on food safety and nutrition WHAT NEEDS TO BE PUT IN PLACE TO IMPROVE THE DEMAND FOR SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD? - Awareness raising for consumers on nutrition and healthy diets; innovations in marketing, including on social media and public setting and share knowledge through workshop, meetings, etc. - Strengthen the enforcement of existing laws and regulations - Strengthen the awareness on food safety and nutrition for producers, processors and consumers. - Affordable and acceptable safe and nutritious food prices for consumers - Promote local production and reduce reliance on import products, and - Continue to provide technical training on safe food production to farmers to meet the demand for local food.236238241246248251WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES IN IMPROVING QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT OF PACKAGING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS? Several mandatory and voluntary standards are available in Cambodia that could be implemented to ensure quality, safety, and healthy products for the consumers. Among these are quality management system (ISO 9001), food safety management system (ISO 22000), HACCP, GMP, BRC, organic standards. However, there are many challenges to successfully implement them. Those challenges were identified in the discussion and are listed below: - Lack of technical knowledge and basic skills, funds and resources by the private sector to implement the standards including limit access to operational guidelines. Low awareness and knowledge by workers. - Limited access to external support including food safety, quality management system experts and institutions that provide the consultation services. - The involvement of private sector in implementing food quality management and packaging is limited. - Lack of incentives and willingness by private enterprises in implementing existing standards - Demand for food safety certified products is perceived as low - Consumers’ preference for the imported products. - Overall lack of knowledge by food producers and processors; lack of awareness on packaging and food safety issues and on the benefits of improved packaging and safety systems; poor storage and handling techniques as most SMEs are family owned. - Standards are not implemented along the value chain i.e. the issue of quality of raw materials - Limited access to information and supply of raw materials, packaging technology, as well as limited knowledge and skills by workers that affect the packaging quality. WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT OF PACKAGING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS? In order to improve quality management, packaging, and food safety management, several conditions must be met and require the efforts of all actors including the government, DPs, private sector and consumers. - There must be a shift from traditional to modern practices and mindset; build the mission and vision to produce safe and quality food products for consumers. - Strengthen private sector both at management and technical level through capacity building programs and direct assistance to the private sector and service providers on standards, quality and food safety management systems, labelling and nutrition facts. - Establishment of the operational guidelines for relevant food standards and make them available to the public. - Establish incubation centers. - Raise broader awareness to both the public and all actors of the food value chains (producer, handler, processor, distributors, retailers…) on the benefits of safe and quality food, quality management system, packaging and their role and responsibilities in ensuring safe, quality and nutritious products. - Build brands for Cambodian products to increase trust of the consumers and more interest in Cambodian foods. - Enforce regulations and laws, develop corporate social responsibility, ensure availability of local raw materials, improve access to finance for SMEs, promote competitive prices, link the national and sub-national levels; promote behaviour change; and promote women and youth in enterprise development. - Support development of financial plans for investing on technology, packaging and quality assurance system. - Establish forum for private sector to exchange experience on production and packaging - Strengthen the local supply of raw materials.236238241245248249WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES IN PROMOTING THE NUTRITION AND HEALTHY DIETS? THE CHALLENGES: There are lots of challenges in promoting nutritious and healthy diets. The main challenges identified in the dialogue are: - Price factor. Nutritious foods are expensive, - Traditional behaviors and cooking culture, - Seasonal food availability, - Strong competition from imported products which have lower market prices. - Knowledge of producers and consumers is still limited, and - Low incomes and inability to access/afford heathy diets. WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE TO PROMOTE NUTRITION AND HEALTHY DIET? - Strengthen the capacity of Cambodian producers, processors and relevant key players to produce and process nutritious food. - Consumers must be willing to make changes in their diet; Promote the awareness campaign including through social media and the state media should help spread the key messages - Royal Government of Cambodia support the promotion of nutrient dense foods; - Educate consumers about the nutritious food and which type of foods the body needs. - Education plays an important role in promoting nutrition since childhood. - Improve advertising to make products more attractive and include products labels that help consumers better understand the nutrition facts.236238239245246248WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR PRIVATE SECTOR TO CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVING NUTRITION? The dialogue has also discussed how the private sector could contribute to improving nutrition. The following recommendations were identified: - Government shall provide incentives for promoting nutrition. For example, tax exemption policy for food products with nutritional standards or simplify and speed up the registration process of companies. - Provide technical assistance to build capacity of private sector to produce safe and nutritious food including but not limited to training on food safety, product development, nutritious products, entrepreneurship, resource efficiency. Programs and project directed at supporting private sector shall have longer timeframes. - Provide financial assistance both loans and grants to scale up or improve production. - Strengthen awareness on healthy diets and nutrition to retailers, traders, and consumers in order to steer demand. - Facilitate and simplify product testing to validate the information on the labeling of products. - Establish a directory of producer/process and suppliers - Create an enabling environment for fair competition among private sector and imported products - Establish a taskforce to build capacity for private sector as needed. - Facilitate the dialogue between private sector and government at management and technical levels in a regular basis. - Having a clear plan (roadmap) to support private sector to process safe and nutritious food as well as supporting market linkages. - Regular dialogue between DPs that support nutrition and private sector to ensure that private sector received updated information on the scientific evidence on nutrition. - Support to reduction of production costs so that products can be more affordable. - Promote local producers of packaging. - Strengthen implementation of laws and regulations on fortified product (e.g. imported product shall be fortified too) - Request to MoYES and media to lower the cost of advertisements for nutritious and safe products. - Develop networks and spaces to share experience and facilitate innovation, related to nutrition and food safety. - Raise awareness of consumers on safe and nutritious foods including fortified food. - Strengthening research and development and innovation. - Innovate on the use of new products that are more nutritious (e.g. cricket…) - Improve information sharing to consumers (e.g. App that can tell about the nutrition quality of the product). - Strengthening Public-Private -Partnerships237241249250While advocating the role of the private sector there are still many expectations that the incentives for the private sector should be provided by government and requests for protection from competition. The general perception is that imported goods are unfair competition.

Speech that could not be attached previously2021-07-03 07:29:14https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/3.PSDialogue_SPEECH-by-Sok-Silo.pdfSpeeches that could not be attached 2021-07-03 07:39:18https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/1.PSDialogue_WFP_remarks.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2.PSDialogue_Meav-Soktry-Speech.pdf

2021-07-02 12:38:51205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22578/74

243174618

Considering the scope of discussion topics of the Dialogues, our objective was to invite and engage all respective stakeholders of food systems in the discussion including producers, value-chain representatives, scientists, researchers, representatives of NGOs, international and donor organizations, government agencies, youth organizations, etc. All three Dialogues were announced well in advance to let every invited participant join the meetings. As food systems are complex, a holistic approach of three key measurements (economic, social, and environmental impacts) was applied. The participants of the National Dialogues shared opinions with each other. In particular, a representative of the private sector exchanged ideas with the government representatives, a food producer - with the consumer, etc. Participants of the Dialogues shared their feedback and suggestions in writing as well. The final draft of the document was sent out to all participants for their perusal. Based on thorough analysis and discussions, the key trends and the respective activities were outlined which shall be considered during the elaboration of the respective policy, implementation of which will ensure strong food systems by 2030, thus better and sustainable future for the country.The first stage meeting of the National Dialogue of Georgia of the UN Food Systems Summit was convened on April 16, 2021. Fifty participants including representatives from the private sector, NGOs, scientific circles, public agencies, and international organizations outlined the key trends for sustainable food systems in Georgia. The second stage meeting of the National Dialogue was held on May 20, 2021. Fifty-four representatives from all municipalities of Georgia attended the meeting, discussed the identified key trends, and amplified the existing initiatives with their own visions about the food systems. The third stage meeting of the National Dialogue of the UN Food Systems Summit was convened on June 4, 2021, which brought together the participants of the previous two preparatory meetings who summarized and agreed on the findings. All three National Dialogues brought together a wide spectrum of stakeholders. All participants were very active and detail-oriented during discussions. Eventually, all their suggestions and recommendations were taken into consideration, summarised, and compiled under the key trends and objectives. All participants had the opportunity to present their feedback on the final draft of the document as well. Proposed recommendations seem crucial to ensure sustainable food systems in the country by 2030.

NoThe first National Dialogue of the UN Food Systems Summit brought together fifty participants including representatives of the private sector, NGOs, scientific circles, public agencies, and international organizations. During the introductory part of the session, the National Convener and the Curator made presentations about the importance of the Food Systems Summit and the National Dialogues. The concept note of the food systems was elaborated. After the introductory part, the participants were grouped in break out rooms and were assigned to discuss the following questions: • Objective of the development of food systems in the country – outcomes by 2030; • Areas for improvement of food systems – identification of key trends and priorities; • Recommendations/ Actions; • Who shall be engaged in the actions? • Cooperation and partnership mechanisms. All participants were actively engaged in discussions. The facilitators of the groups presented the findings of the discussions that was followed by a wrap-up session. The second preparatory meeting of the UN Food Systems brought together fifty-four representatives from all municipalities of Georgia. The National Convener and the Curator opened the session with the presentations and introduced the findings of the first National Dialogue to the participants, including the key priorities for the sustainable food systems, as follows: • Ensure competitive value-chains in food systems; • Ensure effective systems of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection; • Sustainable use of natural resources, environmental protection, preservation of ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation; • Elaboration of effective systems for crisis management. The participants were grouped into four groups. Each group was assigned to outline recommendations for the specific priority through the support of a facilitator. After group discussions, the facilitators presented the findings, which reinforced and enhanced the previous recommendations. The third National Dialogue of the UN Food Systems Summit brought together the participants of the previous two preparatory meetings. The National Convener presented a draft roadmap of the sustainable food systems, which summarised the recommendations and the key trends outlined during the first two National Dialogues. The participants had opportunities to amplify the proposed recommendations and to finalize the draft document.

234Development of the full value chain in food systems and stimulating rural economic activity is crucial for sustainable development and inclusive economic growth in Georgia. The vital responsibility of the next decade will be to reinforce the development of quality and production technologies, which ensures competitiveness in both local and international markets. Despite implemented and ongoing reforms and development-oriented programs, the food system still faces challenges, which need to be solved as a precondition for the social-economic growth of the country. Our priorities for the next decade are to ensure the existence of a competitive value chain in food systems; To develop an effective system of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection; Sustainable use of natural resources, environmental protection, preservation of ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation; Elaboration of effective systems for the crisis management.235Involvement of the civil society sector in policy performance along with the public agencies is of utmost importance. It is vital to actively communicate with the direct stakeholders of the food systems such as producers, unions, associations, NGOs, scientific circles, donors, international organizations, higher educational and vocational institutions, local municipality representatives, and the civic sector in the municipalities. Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models as well as the establishment of a Civil Committee can be considered as one of the best mechanisms of cooperation. Collaboration at the level of Municipalities, for instance, with rural councils is worth noting as well236Ensure competitive value-chains in the food systems (Action Track 1, Action Track 3) - Increase the competitiveness of the agricultural products in Georgia and develop their value-chains; - Ensure availability of the respective infrastructure for the compliance of products with marketing standards at all stages of value-adding; - Ensure additional supportive policy for the small farmers and the households; - Promotion of engagement of women and young producers in agri-food sector; - Increase awareness of agri-food primary producers in agricultural practices; - Improve access to mechanization; - Develop agricultural land market; - Develop highly-qualified services and ensure capacity building of human resources in the retail market of agricultural production inputs; - Expand the roster of veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) and plant protection products (PPPs) in municipalities, enhancing controls; - Establishment of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and improvement of technological processes; - Improve access to funds, agricultural insurance (to cover more risks) knowledge, information, and awareness-raising; - Improve logistics in food systems; - Provide support to the diversification of the rural economy; - Provide support to agro/eco-tourism; - Ensure efficient quality infrastructure (standards, labs, certification bodies) in the agri-food sector; Introduction of international standards in primary production; - Support the development of organic agriculture; - Establishment of producers’ associations, their enlargement, and cooperation as well as the improvement of access to the market; Ensure availability of high-quality agricultural production inputs and creation of agri-food processing capacities; - Promotion of digitalization in agri-food systems; - Develop infrastructure such as green-houses, storage facility, hydro-melioration, mechanization, transport, energy, roads, internet, etc. - Supporting the development of animal husbandry and animal breeding activities; refining preventive actions and control procedures for animal diseases; ensuring compliance of management, quarantine, and eradication measures for especially dangerous diseases with international standards; - Conservation of Biodiversity, collection of local varieties, restoration, improvement, and creation Gene bank; - Increase accessibility of high-quality agricultural production inputs; - Improve irrigation and drainage systems; - Provide support to the sustainable development of aquaculture.236Ensure effective systems of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection (Action Track 2) - Increase qualification of personnel involved in food safety and food controls; - Achieve continuous development goals for integrated food safety system in the country through the mechanism of developing guidelines, standard operational procedures (SOPs), and instructions, both for competent authorities and food business operators; - Bolster extension and consultation services to provide pertinent information on food safety issues to farmers and food producers; - Research “Actual Food and Nutrient Consumption” in the country, undertaken by relevant authorized bodies; - Improve food environment, raising population awareness on food safety and healthy nutrition, with particular emphasis on adolescents and young people; - Enhance risk assessment capacity in food safety (refining risk assessment methodology), risk assessment and management, risk communication, and effective enforcement of food safety legislation as well as a systematic approach to risk assessment procedures. - Improve laboratory capacity in the country; adopting new methods for laboratory test diagnostics in the area of food safety, veterinary and plant protection; expanding accreditation; capacity building for laboratory employees; - Enhance and strengthen post-harvest storage and processing systems.236Sustainable use of natural resources, environmental protection, preservation of ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation (Action Track 3) - Awareness-raising about climate change – conduct training for the representatives of municipalities, hold frequent meetings with communities about climate change and its impacts, and organize training for school children on environmental issues; - Sustainable use of water, land, and forest resources as well as prevention of soil, air, and water pollution; - Establishment of early warning systems; Ensure efficient management of the natural disasters; - Restoration of windbreaks and promotion of planting trees for this purpose; - Promotion of climate-smart and energy-efficient activities as well as elaboration and implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation action plans; - Effective utilization of renewable energy sources; - Support the development of a circular economy.2364. Elaboration of effective systems for crisis management (Action Track 5) - Ensure food security; - Ensure crisis management plan is in place; - Establishment of supply management systems for food and other basic needs; - Establish an effective communication mechanism between the state and the private sector for a force majeure situation, which ensures effective management of crises and shocks. - Management of food losses and expired food and improvement of related processes.

2021-07-02 14:48:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23974/194

15301053010102030

We included the link to the Principles in every communication that was sent regarding the Summit. It was also sent communication the day before the event with a note of encouragement to read the Principles prior to the event. Our host, Catherine Bertini, also reviewed the Principals at the beginning of the event. Our virtual event included breakout rooms, and pre-selected leaders were asked to reinforce the Principals in small group discussions.Our guests included representatives from many areas of College campuses and there was great respect for the complexity each campus has. We were inclusive of the local community, welcoming area food banks and government officials.I would suggest providing relevant articles or reading materials to guests prior to the event.

Yes

234238241244249251Much of the discussion focused on Track 1 and 4. Our event included a panel discussion and breakout rooms. All attendees actively participated in the conversation with other leading experts in the areas of food security, environmental sustainability, hunger and other facets of the food systems. Panelists include: Dr. Yanna Liang Professor and Chair, UAlbany Department of Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Kate Shearer Director, Corporate Responsibility Solution Design, Sodexo North America Dr. James Malatras '99, '00, '08 Chancellor, SUNY Dr. Marion Terenzio President, SUNY Cobleskill Breakout Room topics included food waste, food access, food quality, food utilization and food transportation. Our focus was how to make the food system in higher education function equitably, practically and sustainably.235Please see attached feedback forms for breakout room main findings236Please see attached feedback forms.

2021-07-02 15:12:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2345/194

60

Please see summary reportPlease see summary report

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see summary report235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see summary report236See summary report237see summary

2021-07-02 15:18:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23996/194

57818132511132155121174

Since the start of the Zero Hunger Pathways Project Dialogue series, which began in March 2021, steps have been taken to incorporate, reinforce, and enhance the Summit’s Principles of Engagement. This included discussions to increase awareness of the Principles among Co-chairs and Working Group Members, integration of the Principles into the audience curation and outreach process, and using the Principles to inform the Dialogue format, including sharing the principles of engagement with session moderators of breakout sessions in preparation for their session, and verbal reinforcement of the Principles throughout. Dialogue 3 was planned using feedback provided previously through anonymous surveying of past dialogue participants, and Working Group members were asked to reach out to colleagues and stakeholders with relevant expertise, in order to complement the work of others and ensure a productive, respectful, inclusive discussion that was committed to the summit. All Principles were taken into account when planning the Dialogue, including inviting expert speakers to join and discuss their work and facilitate breakout sessions on related topics.These speakers were from the Millennium Institute, Texas A&M University, Georgia Rural Health Innovation Center, and the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance. Bringing in these experts as conveyors and facilitates allowed the dialogue to complement the work of others. In addition, the Zero Hunger Pathways Project Dialogue series has always embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity and diversity, and ensures this principle is a part of outreach for the event. We recognize that the metrics used for evaluating the various pathways being considered need to be developed in participation with cross-disciplinary experts and cross-sectoral stakeholders and decision makers, and attempt to bring in the perspectives of those affected by food insecurity while grounding recommendations in evidence-based research.Zero Hunger Pathways Project Dialogue 3 acts on the urgency of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by using a systems approach to address hunger in the United States. The Dialogue hopes to harness the political opportunity posed by the Building Back Better Agenda laid out by the Biden-Harris administration, which both depends on making progress on hunger and offers an opportunity to adopt new approaches that address the intersectional issues that contribute to existing high rates of food insecurity in the US. In order to achieve SDG # 2 by 2030, the Zero Hunger Pathways Project acknowledges that actionable, scalable, and innovative solutions are needed. Business as usual will return us to pre-pandemic rates of food insecurity that were unconscionably high to begin with. Dialogue 3 Commits to the Summit by working towards a report that will outline social, policy and technical recommendations to reach Zero Hunger and identifying education, engagement, and research activities the SDSN USA coalition and partners can undertake to reach Zero Hunger in the United States by 2030. This dialogue connects stakeholders, seeks input from a variety of perspectives, and identifies ways to move forward collectively and creatively. Dialogue 3 is based on the knowledge that our food system exerts significant pressures on interconnected resource systems and to global greenhouse gas emissions, recognizing the complexity of these systems. New approaches are needed, which could align strategies, outcomes and measures, especially across food, health, education, employment and social protection systems to have a lasting impact and to address intersectional issues and historic inequities. This includes the development of a suite of technical, social, and policy levers whose trade-offs need to be properly evaluated. Models and scenario-based tools can play a role in catalyzing a multi-stakeholder and policy dialogue about the trade-offs associated with different pathways toward zero-hunger.Advice for other Dialogue Convenors about appreciating and fulfilling the Principles of Engagement include: accepting that not all discussions will come to consensus in the given time; embracing the differences in opinions; and encouraging moderators and facilitators to try their best not to take sides in order to respect and elevate the perspectives of all participants.

Yes

234238239240241242243244247248249250The Zero Hunger Pathways Project (ZHPP) is a collaboration that applies a systems approach to end hunger in the United States. The collaborative aims to chart equitable, resilient, and sustainable pathways to profoundly improve availability, accessibility, utilization and stability of healthy food for all. Dialogue 3: Trade-Offs Evaluation and Science-Policy Communication focused on identifying: 1) tools and models to evaluate pathways for improving food and nutrition security in the US; 2) multi-faceted evaluation metrics that reflect food systems sustainability, equitability, resilience, and health outcomes; 3) mechanisms and barriers for proper stakeholder engagement and trade-off dialogue; 4) mechanisms and barriers for science-policy communication. This event brought together cross-disciplinary scientists and expert groups as well as cross-sectoral stakeholders and policy makers.235238239240241242243244247248249250251Hunger must be recognized as an equity issue and in order to do so, researchers must get to the root causes of food insecurity. These issues include poverty, systemic racism, income levels, gender disparities, age gaps, and many other societal factors. By addressing these and increasing access to resources, through a holistic and multidimensional approach to equity that takes into consideration people and their vulnerabilities, food insecurity is likely to decline. Increasing multidimensional efforts at the community level will ensure that local buy-in is supported. Community efforts can include grassroots advocacy, community gardens, local health centers and locations where people are able to safely gather and learn about food systems. In order to promote resilience, our response to COVID-19 requires a systems thinking approach concerning the investment in sustainable communities in the United States. Efforts need to be taken to ensure we don’t just recover to pre-pandemic levels of food security, but rather are able to create systems that are sustainable and resilient long term and can anticipate shocks like COVID-19, extreme drought or natural disasters from climate change, etc. There is room to improve health education by highlighting food as medicine and teaching about the health effects of food insecurity. Identify who the “story tellers” are to create effective science policy communication. The best storytellers are not the academics and experts of the field, but the people who live within and experience the systems. Ensure that stories encompass the whole system, and answers the question of why this problem persists. In addition to identifying storytellers, interdisciplinary researchers also play a role, in close coordination with cross-sectoral stakeholders, in developing evidence to support informed decision making by policy makers.236238239240241242243244245246248249250Tools and models: Tools and models can be useful in supporting evidence-based decision making related to addressing hunger-related challenges. They can aid in the evaluation of different policy interventions. However, these tools do not necessarily offer a holistic assessment of the impact that might be expected by adopting different scenarios. For example, impact on GDP is not does not cover the complete impact of a scenario, unless paired with other development indexes (ex: Human Development Index) and social-economic metrics which can better assist researchers in creating more effective programs.236238239240241242243244246248249250Evaluation metrics: It is necessary to approach hunger while also acknowledging the other connected issues that Americans are facing. We cannot fix food insecurity without fixing parallel issues that are tightly interconnected with hunger. Additionally, data is inconsequential if we are unable to facilitate change on complex, interconnected issues. Some discussion members argued that a greater focus on research and information gathering distracts from acting on hunger based on what we already know to be the root causes and solutions. The evaluation and metrics side of hunger can correspond to the four values in order to broaden the way in which we view hunger in the US. Hunger can be examined at the individual, household, local, and national level. Do they differ? Is it worth it to examine hunger on different levels if the end goal remains the same? Is current national data the best measure of hunger? Is examining heterogeneities or homogeneities more effective for systemically implementing food security? Participants also suggested the examination of rural vs. urban perspectives.236238239241242243244245246247249250251Stakeholder engagement & trade-offs: In this session, participants examined the definition of ‘Stakeholder’ within the context of food insecurity systems. In tackling issues of food insecurity, it is vital for individuals to recognize their multifaceted role as consumers, stakeholders, and agents of change in their communities. The most effective ways to bring about transformative stakeholder change within American food systems is to start organizing at the grassroots level, as well as to utilize the value of pathos and storytelling to engage people in supporting the fight for zero hunger. As organizing can be difficult due to varying levels of access within communities, the group discussed existing barriers people may have for engaging stakeholders, and expressed the need to acknowledge power imbalances which prevent active change from occuring in the United States. The discussion ended with brainstorming specific policies to enact communal change, such as the USDA partnering with and supporting Black farmers to alleviate food insecurity in the country’s largest food deserts (which are primarily composed of American BIPOC communities).236238239240241242244247248249Science-policy communication: This session focused on the relationship between systems-thinking and storytelling. It is difficult to capture a complex system in a narrative, but it is doable. It is important to have a “story bank” of useful narratives to pull from. Additionally, it is important to select good storytellers. The best storytellers are not the academics and experts of the field, but the people who live within and experience the systems. Stories must encompass the whole system--many stories try to break up the system and describe only fragments of it, leading to inaccurate stories (e.g. farmers are the key to fixing hunger). It may be simpler to show a fragment- who is hungry-, but needs to go beyond and shift to why they are hungry. There needs to be an increased focus on discovering why hunger persists and what the systemic issues are. Story-telling hunger provides an opportunity to explain a complex system that isn’t always included in the narrative- the SDGs. Story suggestion: there are statistics about minority farmers in the U.S. and systeming challenges against them, but no one is telling this as a story. (Black farmers were also mentioned in topic 3).237238239240241242243244248249250There is a lack of models and tools that are representative of the complexity that comes with exploring solutions to hunger related challenges and all the systems interconnected with it. We need tools and models that acknowledge these interconnections, and that are able to holistically quantify the impact of adopting different policies. There are trade offs found in prioritizing health vs equity; group members suggest incentivizing healthy choices rather than restricting SNAP users. Group members supported the idea of food sovereignty and food justice, due to evidence that suggests that when people have a choice they often feel more free to make healthy choices. Elevating efforts to advance equity can positively impact the other pillars. There are trade-offs between short-term versus long-term solutions for reaching zero hunger. Representing short-term solutions, focusing on increasing the eligibility and benefits of the SNAP program (in the context of the U.S.), as well as maintaining low food prices nationwide is presented as a viable solution for immediately addressing American food insecurity. Representing long-term solutions, focusing on changing the economic policies and systems of the United States so that wealth inequalities decrease overtime is presented as a viable long term solution for addressing American food insecurity. While it could be useful to do both simultaneously, some solutions are at odds. For example: immediate solutions, like availability of cheap food, often times that is more highly processed and lower in nutrients, cause ‘low diversity’ on plates (not enough variety of healthy and available foods) which leads to ruptures in long term sustainability (ex: soil health, water cleanliness) as well as a health cost. Having a long term view allows us to understand the real cost of cheap food on health/nutrition, resilience, sustainability, and equity, making systems level solutions worth the investment over time. TLDR: opposing viewpoints on whether solutions which focus on supplementary nutrition assistance programs as a solution to hunger, or solutions which focus on the root causes of hunger as it links to equity, health, systemic racism, etc., are more valuable. Some group members view innovative solutions including urban agriculture and food banks to decrease food waste, and/or increase food availability as good priorities, while others criticize these as not on a large enough scale to solve the problem. However, localized and diversified systems are much more effective for alleviating food insecurity. Identified a need for more research on the trade-offs of different models of agriculture.

2021-07-02 20:06:02205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26639/161

Après la cérémonie d'ouverture, les travaux débuteront par une présentation du FIDA sur le potentiel agricole des zones agro écologiques du Sénégal et une autre de la direction générale de la planification et des politiques économiques sur l’état de mise en œuvre des ODD au Sénégal en 2019. Par la suite, 5 Groupes de discussion du 7-8 juin vont poursuivre leurs travaux pour produire et soumettre à la plénière un petit compte rendu dont le canevas est en annexe. A la fin des travaux de sessions de discussion, sera organisée une grande session de restitution des conclusions par objectif de changement, de discussion générale pour élaborer des conclusions et recommandations de la 2ème Concertation nationale sur l’ensemble des 5 objectifs de changement. Les participants à la 2ème Concertation nationale sont les acteurs des systèmes alimentaires à tous les niveaux : départemental, régional et central. Les travaux seront coordonnés par la DAPSA et facilités par des membres du Comité technique PNIASAN et du GDSP, avec l’appui technique du HUB RURAL.A la suite des présentations, les participants à La Concertation nationale ont été répartis dans cinq sessions de discussion correspondantes aux 5 objectifs de changement ou pistes d’actions. Les mêmes groupes constitués lors de la première concertation ont été maintenus. Pour rappel, les travaux de groupe avaient pour objectif d’approfondir les analyses de la première concertation en vue d’identifier les éléments constitutifs de la position du Sénégal au Sommet mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires durables. De manière spécifique, il s’agissait de s’accorder pour chaque objectif de changement (ou piste d’action) sur (i) la vision pour des systèmes alimentaires durables, (ii) les Objectifs stratégiques et impacts attendus, (iii) les Résultats attendus et les bénéficiaires, (iv) les axes stratégiques d’intervention ou domaines d’actions, et (v) pour chaque axe stratégique, les investissements prioritaires et les mesures de politiques publiques. Les travaux de groupe ont eu comme support les présentations introductives et la synthèse des résultats de la première concertation.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250Cette deuxième concertation nationale pour des systèmes alimentaires durables, inclusiFs et équitables avait pour objectif d’approfondir les analyses de la première concertation en vue d’identifier les éléments constitutifs de la position du Sénégal au Sommet mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires durables. De manière spécifique, il s’agissait de s’accorder pour chaque objectif de changement (ou piste d’action) sur (i) la vision pour des systèmes alimentaires durables, (ii) les Objectifs stratégiques et impacts attendus, (iii) les Résultats attendus et les bénéficiaires, (iv) les axes stratégiques d’intervention ou domaines d’actions, et (v) pour chaque axe stratégique, les investissements prioritaires et les mesures de politiques publiques. En sus de ces éléments d'analyse par piste d’action, et dans la dynamique de préparation de la rédaction de la position du Sénégal, il s'agissait aussi de contribuer à la définition de la vision globale, c'est à dire les ambitions du Sénégal en matière de systèmes alimentaires à l'horizon 2030. Cette vision passe par un énoncé clair du type de systèmes alimentaires que le Sénégal veut promouvoir à l'horizon 2030. Pour atteindre les résultats attendus de cette concertation, le déroulement des travaux a été articulé autour (i) d'une séance plénière avec deux présentations introductives sur l’avenir de l’agriculture du Sénégal et sur l’état de mise en œuvre des ODD au Sénégal, (ii) des échanges de groupes selon les cinq (5) objectifs de changement ou pistes d'action, et (iii) de la restitution en plénière des résultats de travaux de groupes.235238239240241242243244245246248249Suite à la restitution, les différents groupes de travail ont été félicités pour l’excellent travail abattu. Les résultats obtenus prouvent que le Sénégal regorge de compétences dans tous les domaines. Le souhait exprimé par Dr Ibrahima Mendy, Directeur de la DAPSA, est de maintenir l’engagement et la mobilisation de tous les acteurs pour la suite du processus. Les commentaires des participants tournent autour de quelques points ci-après : (i) le consommer local : malgré les initiatives de transformation des produits agro sylvo pastoraux, leur commercialisation dans les centres urbains notamment Dakar reste un défi de taille, (ii) en plus de la construction de chambres froides pour la conservation des produits agricoles, il est nécessaire aussi de promouvoir la transformation des produits locaux et la contractualisation pour la mise en marché, (iii) pour assurer la résilience et la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires, il est proposé de prévoir une ristourne par les entreprises pour la mise en œuvre d’actions de préservation de l’environnement, (iv) le besoin de définir des normes pour les farines infantiles enrichies pour accompagner les femmes productrices et transformatrices dans la recherche d’autorisation de vente et la contractualisation, (v) la nécessité de promouvoir la maitrise de l’eau et notamment des systèmes de récupération des eaux de pluies permettant ainsi les productions hors saison, (vi) le nombre de priorités différant d’un groupe de travail à l’autre et les divergences notées entre objectifs et axes stratégiques dans leurs libellés, ce qui posera certainement des difficultés dans la synthèse. La proposition est de fixer un nombre limite d’axes stratégiques et de définir comme sous axes les domaines d’intervention. Concernant les farines infantiles, il a été précisé plus tard que l’Association sénégalaise de normalisation (ASN) a porté le processus de définition et d’adoption des normes avec toutes les parties prenantes. Ces normes viennent d’être adoptées, mais la vulgarisation n’est pas encore effective.236238239240241242243244245246249250251A la fin de la restitution des travaux de groupe, la synthèse des travaux d’analyse et de restitution, Dr Yamar MBODJ, chargé de l'animation du processus de concertation nationale sur les systèmes alimentaires au Sénégal a fait le point sur les travaux, conclusions et recommandations de la seconde concertation. Le but global de la rencontre était de procéder à l’approfondissement des analyses déjà effectuées lors de la première concertation. M. Mbodj a jugé les résultats obtenus appréciables, même si des améliorations sont encore possibles dans le cadre d’un processus de dialogue qui a démarré récemment et qui se poursuit. Sur la base des résultats, sera produit un document de capitalisation d’où seront extraits les éléments constitutifs de la position du Sénégal. Cependant, sur proposition du secrétariat du Sommet, ce terme « position » a été remplacé par «Feuille de route » pour avancer sur 2030. L’information postée sur le site officiel du Sommet, indique que cette feuille de route ne devrait pas dépasser 5 pages. Par ailleurs, les objectifs de changement sont appelés « pistes d’actions » et les axes stratégiques « domaines d’actions ». Pour améliorer le rendu des travaux de groupe, l’animateur du dialogue national a suggéré de se concentrer sur les priorités et de définir 2-3 axes stratégiques ou domaines d’actions qui sont les leviers pour parvenir à des systèmes alimentaires durables. Les investissements prioritaires et les mesures de politiques publiques devraient être également plus synthétiques. Il a demandé aussi aux groupes de faire un effort supplémentaire en disposant dans un seul tableau de synthèse les axes stratégiques, les investissements prioritaires et les mesures de politiques publiques pour plus de clarté dans la présentation des résultats. Il est conscient des difficultés qu’éprouvent les groupes pour rédiger en grand nombre et discuter de planification dans une rencontre multi-acteurs, mais l’amélioration des présentations permettrait de mieux comprendre et de vendre les résultats obtenus. Pour que les groupes puissent se construire un document final de travail, il a conseillé de fusionner la synthèse des résultats de la première réunion remise au groupe comme aide-mémoire et les résultats de cette deuxième concertation. Concluant l’exercice de récapitulation, M. Mbodj suggère plus d’ambitions, plus de chiffres et d’évidences en faisant référence à la présentation du FIDA pour améliorer les documents produits.

2021-07-02 20:38:03205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17706/195

9994175619291490304829527930411262450191154187494192074127682118501013005601011797303124643021511432937183

El Diálogo Nacional “Uruguay: Hacia Sistemas Alimentarios más saludables, sostenibles e inclusivos” fue convocado por la Vicepresidente de la República, Beatriz Argimón por invitación de las Naciones Unidas. Durante todo el proceso previo de organización, convocatoria y realización del presente Diálogo Nacional los principios de actuación de la Cumbre fueron tomados en cuenta para cada decisión en las diferentes etapas. La necesidad de actuar con urgencia, de asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre y de ser respetuosos constituyeron los principios que orientaron la organización del evento. El equipo coordinador del Diálogo constituido por los Ministerios de Relaciones Exteriores, de Ganadería Agricultura y Pesca, de Ambiente y de Salud Pública y el Equipo de la Vicepresidente, implementó un enfoque inclusivo en el que se identificaron a todos los actores involucrados en los sistemas alimentarios, a lo largo de toda la cadena productiva. Se promovió la participación de partes interesadas de todo el territorio nacional por medio de la inclusión de todos los niveles de gobierno, incluyendo legisladores, sociedad civil, sector privado y academia. Reconociendo la complejidad de tan amplia temática, se definió que los temas de género y educación serían discutidos de forma transversal en todo el Diálogo Nacional. El Diálogo fue realizado tomando en cuenta que los temas debatidos ya están siendo abordando en otros procesos de gobernanza mundial, por la tanto fueron considerados los avances normativos existentes y experiencias exitosas ya consolidadas, evitando de esa manera la duplicación innecesaria. De igual modo, se tomaron en cuenta nuevas ideas y enfoques audaces e innovadores para producir una transformación sistémica. Por último, a través del presente proceso de discusión nos responsabilizaremos de los compromisos que hayamos asumido, empleando los mecanismos establecidos para respetar el principio de rendición de cuentas.El Diálogo Nacional llevado adelante por Uruguay fue pensado como una oportunidad para abordar de manera urgente una temática de vital importancia para el país teniendo en cuenta los aspectos productivos, ambientales, sanitarios, sociales y culturales de los sistemas alimentarios. De esa manera, el presente Diálogo complementó el interés manifestado por nuestro país en los diálogos globales que tienen lugar en las siguientes Vías de Acción: 1 Garantizar el acceso a alimentos inocuos y nutritivos para todos, 2 Cambio hacia patrones de consumo sostenibles y 3 Impulsar la producción positiva de la naturaleza (Action Tracks). Respecto al principio de inclusión, entendemos que todos los sectores de la sociedad fueron invitados a participar en el presente Diálogo. Entre los sectores concurrentes se encuentran: Gobierno (nacional y local), Parlamento, Sector empresarial, Agricultores, Organizaciones No Gubernamentales, Sector Científico y académico, Sindicatos, Consumidores, Estudiantes y Organizaciones Internacionales. La inclusión de los sectores mencionados también se basó en el reconocimiento de la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios con un importante impacto en la salud humana y animal, la tierra, el agua, el clima, la biodiversidad, la economía y otros sistemas. Por último, entendemos que el Diálogo Nacional de Uruguay consistió en una excelente oportunidad para escuchar a todos los interesados en el tema. Las visiones de todos los participantes, tanto escritas como orales, fueron incluidas en la elaboración del presente informe y se tomarán en cuenta en la elaboración de la Hoja de Ruta Nacional para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en apoyo a la Agenda 2030.Se entiende que los principios de respeto, inclusión, tratamiento con urgencia de la problemática, promoción de la confianza entre los diferentes actores y complementariedad de visiones son esenciales para el abordaje de tan compleja e importante temática con consecuencias no solamente en las generaciones presentes sino también futuras. La inclusión de todos los actores interesados constituyó una excelente oportunidad para que la posición nacional refleje todos los elementos necesarios y permita defender sus intereses, poner en práctica sus principios y relacionarse con los demás actores internacionales de manera coherente con sus opiniones, en un ambiente constructivo, de respecto y con vocación de cooperación y coordinación internacional. De ese modo, entendemos que los Estados Miembros de las Naciones Unidas, organización intergubernamental concebida para alcanzar ciertos fines, son los responsables de la implementación de los compromisos asumidos a nivel internacional en coordinación con los demás Estados. Por dicha razón, es necesario que los documentos resultantes que emanen de instancias internacionales surjan de un espacio de negociación destinado a los Estados teniendo en cuenta sus visiones, intereses, consideraciones y fundamentalmente el diálogo entre actores soberanos. Por último, resulta imprescindible reconocer la diversidad y especificidad de los países respecto de los sistemas alimentarios, evitando simplificaciones y generalizaciones en relación a los mismos.

NoEl equipo organizador del Diálogo Nacional del Uruguay utilizó como guía el Manual de Referencia para Convocantes de los Diálogos y participó de las sesiones informativas públicas por zoom dirigidas a los Convocantes. Como referencia, se utilizaron los siguientes criterios: - Principios de Actuación y Diálogos de la Cumbre - El método de los Diálogos de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios (incluyendo el formato del diálogo, la duración de las sesione, facilitar debates pertinentes, preguntas guía) - Funciones clave y competencias críticas - Formulario oficial de comentarios - Cronología de los Diálogos de la Cumbre - Estrategia de comunicaciones Sin embargo, no fue posible reproducir en el Diálogo Nacional la organización de pequeños de grupos de debate en simultáneo debido al corto tiempo disponible para la organización del evento. Para remediar este punto, se solicitó a todos aquellos participantes que por motivos de tiempo no consiguieron manifestarse oralmente, enviaran sus intervenciones en forma escrita. De ese modo, se puede concluir que todos los actores relevantes involucrados en la temática fueron considerados para la elaboración del presente informe. Por la misma razón de tiempo, no fue posible para el Uruguay organizar una nueva sesión del Diálogo a fin de procesar todas las propuestas recopiladas en el evento que tuvo lugar entre los días 22 y 24 de junio de 2021. Finamente, quisiéramos aclarar que el total de participantes fue de 1138 personas, sin embargo, el sistema sólo permite registrar 999 como máximo.

234240243244248249Este Diálogo Nacional se realizó en base a tres de las cinco vías de acción del diálogo global preparatorio para la Cumbre Mundial, enfocándolo en temas de interés para nuestro país, en función de su realidad y características particulares. Los tres ejes temáticos en los que se centró el Diálogo Nacional fueron: impulsar la producción de alimentos favorable a la naturaleza; adoptar patrones alimentarios saludables y sostenibles; garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos. Cada uno de estos tres ejes fue abordado cada uno en un día de discusión, con una serie de presentaciones disparadoras del intercambio participativo. En la primera jornada se abordó el eje temático vinculado con Impulsar la producción de alimentos favorable a la naturaleza (Action Track 3), aunque contiene elementos transversales a los demás ejes temáticos del Diálogo Nacional. Este eje temático procuró impulsar sistemas de producción positivos (favorables) para la naturaleza, buscando optimizar el uso de los recursos naturales en la producción, procesamiento y distribución de los alimentos, protegiendo de esta manera la biodiversidad y reduciendo la pérdida de biodiversidad y la contaminación, optimizar el uso del agua, evitar la degradación del suelo y disminuir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, promoviendo la capacidad de adaptación y la resiliencia de los agroecosistemas. Para lograr este objetivo, se propone profundizar en la comprensión de las limitaciones y oportunidades que enfrentan productores y empresas a lo largo de la cadena de valor de los alimentos. Asimismo, se propone apoyar una gobernanza de los sistemas alimentarios que minimice las pérdidas de alimentos y otros impactos ambientales negativos. El sector agropecuario y productor de alimentos representa para Uruguay un 6% de su Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) y las exportaciones agroindustriales corresponden a aproximadamente el 80% de las ventas externas del país. A su vez, el sector agropecuario es muy vulnerable a los efectos de la variabilidad y el cambio climático y representa el 75% de las emisiones nacionales de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) del país y el 100% del secuestro de CO2. Las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero de Uruguay representan un 0,04% de las emisiones globales de GEI. La conservación y el aprovechamiento de la diversidad biológica en forma sostenible y el buen funcionamiento de los agroecosistemas aportan a la producción sostenible de alimentos. La quema de combustibles fósiles, la intensificación y expansión de la frontera agrícola, la urbanización sin una correcta planificación y el avance de las especies exóticas invasoras, son algunas de las crecientes presiones sobre los ecosistemas que es necesario atender para lograr una producción sostenible. Para abordar ese desafío, nuestro país trabaja con el objetivo de lograr una producción agropecuaria cada vez más sostenible, con bajas emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en términos relativos, protegiendo sus ecosistemas naturales, la biodiversidad y cuidando los suelos de la erosión, a través de diferentes políticas. Atendiendo a ese desafío, nuestro país ha definido objetivos ambiciosos referidos a la biodiversidad y al cambio climático con la Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad y en la Primera Contribución Determinada a nivel Nacional de Uruguay al Acuerdo de París respectivamente, y actualmente está implementando medidas específicas para su cumplimiento, enmarcada a su vez en la Política Nacional de Cambio Climático. El acceso a la información y la mejor difusión de tecnologías y buenas prácticas de producción son pilares esenciales para la transición hacia sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles. Garantizar la producción de alimentos y la seguridad alimentaria de nuestro país y del mundo es clave para el desarrollo, el cual entre otros aspectos, será sostenible si se logran impulsar sistemas de producción favorables y positivos para la naturaleza. Ese es uno de los desafíos que nuestro país tiene por delante para lograr sistemas agroalimentarios más saludables, sostenibles e inclusivos.235240243244248249Los temas que se trataron en los dos paneles desarrollados durante la primera jornada del Diálogo nacional, se centraron en primer lugar en el vínculo entre la producción sostenible de alimentos y el cambio climático y, en segundo lugar, en la conservación de los recursos naturales y la alimentación. En su calidad de país productor responsable de alimentos, uno de los grandes desafíos de Uruguay es seguir trabajando para incrementar su producción salvaguardando la seguridad alimentaria y en línea con el Acuerdo de París, e impulsar sistemas positivos (favorables) para la naturaleza, buscando optimizar el uso de los recursos naturales. Desafíos y avances: - Compatibilizar la producción de alimentos con la preservación de los servicios ecosistémicos. Es decir, minimizar el impacto asociado al aumento de la productividad sobre la biodiversidad: El principal reto que tiene el país está asociado al aumento de la producción de bienes agropecuarios preservando los servicios ecosistémicos. - Sobre este punto se destacó el largo recorrido de Uruguay en formulación de políticas públicas y programas vinculados a la implementación de los lineamientos estratégicos en el sector agropecuario hacia un Uruguay Agro-inteligente, medidas que buscan favorecer la adopción de tecnologías de gestión del forraje en las fases de cría y recría vacuna en base a pastizales naturales, así como medidas de manejo animal, que permiten aumentar la eficiencia en la producción de carne vacuna, reducir la intensidad de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de producto, al mismo tiempo que eliminan las pérdidas de carbono de los suelos y pueden aumentar sus stocks. Es prioritario avanzar en la propuesta de regulación para la protección (como existe para bosque nativo y suelos) de ecosistemas prioritarios, sobre todo para los que se encuentran fuera del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas - La necesidad de desarrollar capacidades, a través de la adopción de nuevas tecnologías, incrementar la inversión en investigación e innovación, debe ir en línea con la estrategia de desarrollo del país. El enfoque debería ser hacia la sustentabilidad agroecológica considerando asimismo la viabilidad económica de la explotación agropecuaria. Al respecto, se evidenció la necesidad de que las nuevas tecnologías sean accesibles, flexibles y de fácil manejo, de forma que no existan limitantes o barreras para que todos los productores (especialmente los de menor porte) puedan adoptarlas. - Otro de los grandes desafíos es la necesidad de valorar los servicios ecosistémicos incorporando su aporte en términos económicos. A partir de su valoración será indispensable determinar regulaciones para la protección de ecosistemas prioritarios y evaluar de forma integral los límites ambientales de la producción agropecuaria. - Se recordó que el país contribuye en un bajo porcentaje a las emisiones globales de gases de efecto invernadero, aportando únicamente el 0.04% del total. Sin embargo, es muy vulnerable a los impactos del cambio climático y la variabilidad y especialmente lo es el sector agropecuario. Este sector es responsable del 75% de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero que emite nuestro país, al tiempo que es el sector por el cual se captura el 100% de dióxido de carbono. Por tanto, Uruguay ha definido estratégicamente focalizar sus esfuerzos en la adaptación al Cambio Climático. A eso se suma que los fenómenos meteorológicos extremos son cada vez más intensos y frecuentes, como las precipitaciones, sequías y otros, que han provocado pérdidas económicas nacionales, principalmente en la producción del sector agropecuario. - Otro desafío que tendrá que enfrentar el país es el de contrarrestar, con evidencia científica, la nueva narrativa que plantea de forma negativa la alimentación en base a productos de origen animal desde lo nutricional y desde el bienestar animal. Durante el diálogo se enfatizó en la importancia de la proteína de origen animal para la seguridad alimentaria. Asimismo, se presentaron experiencias concretas en el sector ganadero de Uruguay, que demuestran que el país se encuentra trabajando hace muchos años en la investigación sobre estos temas, existiendo diferentes políticas públicas, planes, proyectos y buenas prácticas, así como ámbitos de coordinación interinstitucional, que permiten que el país se consolide como un exportador de productos confiables, inocuos, 100% trazables, respetando el bienestar animal y el ambiente. Más recientemente, el país ha conformado un grupo interinstitucional para determinar la huella ambiental de la ganadería, lo que contribuirá a demostrar que el país ya produce alimentos de origen animal de forma respetuosa y ambientalmente sostenible, aportando a la mitigación del cambio climático y a mejorar la resiliencia de los sistemas a través de la promoción de prácticas climáticamente inteligentes en el sector ganadero. - Vinculado a este tema, hubo consenso en reconocer la complejidad de las interrelaciones de los efectos de los sistemas ganaderos sobre el ambiente y la salud, siendo necesario un abordaje holístico y en la necesidad de demandar que la ciencia sea la base de toda “decisión política y regulatoria”.236240243244246248249251En la jornada de diálogos nacionales, quedó demostrado que el país ya cuenta con fortalezas para llevar a cabo los grandes desafíos que se le presentan a mediano y largo plazo, entre los que se destacan: - La importancia de apoyar las prácticas agroecológicas. La necesidad de desarrollar y aplicar criterios agroecológicos en los sistemas de producción de alimentos es innovador y transformador. En Uruguay actualmente se está discutiendo un Plan Nacional de Agroecología en un proceso ampliamente participativo. En este sentido, el debate debería centrarse en las oportunidades y limitaciones de la adopción de prácticas agroecológicas por parte de los productores, ya que a través de la misma es posible producir alimentos sin deteriorar los sistemas naturales. - La necesidad de desarrollar o mejorar políticas públicas sensibles a los problemas específicos de los productores (ya sean grandes, pequeños o micro), en lo posible políticas de estado que trasciendan gobiernos. Se ve necesario impulsar más investigación y desarrollo en métodos sostenibles, con criterios agroecológicos necesarios para adaptar los sistemas productivos a sistemas compatibles con la conservación de los servicios ecosistémicos. - Se observa la importancia estratégica de los polinizadores en un país productor de alimentos, donde el 40% de los apicultores desaparecieron. Se trata de un servicio que se da naturalmente, reforzado por la actividad apícola, pero actualmente existe una reducción del 27% de las abejas. Se debería proteger los servicio ecosistémicos que brindan los polinizadores. - La urgente necesidad de evaluar y profundizar las regulaciones al uso de agroquímicos. - Se enfatiza en la necesidad de fomentar e incentivar aquellos proyectos que han demostrado ser exitosos en cuanto a mejorar la calidad de vida de las personas. En ellos se produce con el objetivo de procesar los excedentes de la producción y reutilizarlos para la elaboración de dulces y conservas, logrando un círculo virtuoso y reutilizando los desperdicios. - La importancia de promover las huertas en casa, techos verdes, enverdecer las azoteas, la producción de alimentos para llevar a la mesa, el autocultivo y el auto compostaje. En este sentido, se entiende necesario profundizar en actividades de comunicación y capacitación al respecto hacia toda la población. -Se destacó la importancia de no contar con controles bromatológicos nacionales (actualmente están acotados a nivel de cada departamento), para poder comercializar y producir en todo el país. - La necesidad de contar con equipos de salud capacitados, que conozcan los sistemas productivos y sus riesgos para prevenir las afectaciones derivadas del sector y de su actividad específica. - Los impactos directos del cambio climático en la salud (olas de frío y de calor, nuevos vectores), así como también los impactos en la producción de alimentos, afectan indirectamente en la salud humana y la nutrición. Sobre este tema se indicó que es necesario contar con sistemas de vigilancia que analicen el alimento que llega a la mesa con control estricto, programas nacionales y recursos. - La gran afectación que sufre el sector de la pesca debido al Cambio Climático, por la desaparición y migración de las especies por cambios en los ecosistemas marinos. En relación a la proteína de los peces, tendrá un rol clave en la seguridad alimentaria en los próximos años. - Importancia del uso de los animales en forma responsable y la preocupante estigmatización del consumo de carne a nivel global. Para Uruguay, como país ganadero, es fundamental demostrar que en el país se desarrolla la producción con respeto del medio ambiente y atendiendo el bienestar animal. - El rol clave de la mujer para la transformación de los sistemas productivos. Son las responsables de transmitir prácticas ancestrales de producción, como por ejemplo la agroecología; son agentes de cambio fundamentales para promover cambios de paradigmas; tienen un rol preponderante en todos los sectores productivos incluyendo el sector de la pesca artesanal. Importante que el país se siga trabajando en cómo fortalecer la participación de mujeres en espacios productivos.237240243244249Luego de realizado el diálogo nacional se puede afirmar que en términos generales entre los actores involucrados en los sistemas alimentarios nacionales no se encuentran grandes divergencias. Es importante señalar que en los paneles desarrollados se previó que existieran presentaciones con diferentes visiones y representantes de diversos ámbitos y sectores. Estuvieron representadas las instituciones públicas, la academia, la sociedad civil, productores agropecuarios y el sector privado. Sin embargo, entre todos los actores coincidieron en destacar el buen desempeño y posicionamiento del que dispone el país como productor responsable de alimentos. Todos coincidieron en que el país tiene una gran oportunidad de constituirse como exportador de productos de calidad y no solo de commodities. Se constató que el sector en su totalidad entiende necesario agregar valor a su producción, a través de la incorporación de mejores estándares medioambientales y prácticas sostenibles. Es cierto que el país cuenta con herramientas y disposición de actores políticos, de la sociedad civil, la academia, de productores y de empresarios para realizar los esfuerzos necesarios tendientes a lograr dicho objetivo. El país ya cuenta con un cuerpo normativo robusto en relación a regulaciones medioambientales, asimismo quedó demostrado que a nivel privado ya existen emprendimientos y proyectos en los que se utilizan nuevos paradigmas de producción que son efectivos para alinear la política medioambiental y la sostenibilidad, la estrategia país y los estándares internacionales de consumo. Tanto productores como sociedad civil actualmente optan por invertir en innovación y adoptan prácticas de producción más sustentables. Algunos de los proyectos presentados cuentan con financiamiento internacional, aspecto que demuestra la importancia de acceder a financiamiento para el desarrollo de capacidades, innovación y nuevas tecnologías que hagan posible la transición de los sistemas de producción hacia modelos ambientalmente sustentables, rentables y potencialmente adoptables por la gran mayoría de grandes y pequeños productores. En este punto conviene señalar que Uruguay al ser un país recientemente graduado de la Ayuda Oficial al Desarrollo, debe hacer frente a éstos y otros desafíos para avanzar con serias dificultades para acceder a tecnologías y conocimiento técnico especializado necesario para ello. El país apuesta y entiende fundamental fortalecer la cooperación en todas sus formas, incluyendo las modalidades de cooperación Sur-Sur, Triangular y regional, a efectos de enfrentar y desarrollar estrategias en conjunto con países y actores involucrados, en un tema que afecta a todos y cuyo dinamismo e incertidumbre exige actuar ahora. El sector nacional de producción de alimentos ha entendido cabalmente el concepto de respeto y adopción de estándares ambientales, así como la importancia para el país sobre la percepción internacional de su cumplimiento en los productos y servicios exportados, de forma de contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria global y a la estrategia de desarrollo nacional. Por tanto, el sector es consciente que la calidad ambiental se constituiría en un requisito para la competitividad y clave para que el sector exportador siga accediendo a los mercados más prometedores. Por esa razón, el sector presenta amplio consenso para seguir transformando su base productiva, al tiempo de incrementar su producción y no perder su rentabilidad. Es esperable que en el proceso se encuentren tensiones entre los productores y las regulaciones que la limiten en pos de la conservación de los agrosistemas y la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, desde el punto de vista institucional el sistema político se ha preparado para ofrecer garantías para todos los actores involucrados para alinear los intereses que persigue la política ambiental con el del sistema productivo nacional.

2021-07-02 21:03:00205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19158/195

9994175619291490304829527930411262450191154187494192074127682118501013005601011797303124643021511432937183

El Diálogo Nacional “Uruguay: Hacia Sistemas Alimentarios más saludables, sostenibles e inclusivos” fue convocado por la Vicepresidente de la República, Beatriz Argimón por invitación de las Naciones Unidas. Durante todo el proceso previo de organización, convocatoria y realización del presente Diálogo Nacional los principios de actuación de la Cumbre fueron tomados en cuenta para cada decisión en las diferentes etapas. La necesidad de actuar con urgencia, de asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre y de ser respetuosos constituyeron los principios que orientaron la organización del evento. El equipo coordinador del Diálogo constituido por los Ministerios de Relaciones Exteriores, de Ganadería Agricultura y Pesca, de Ambiente y de Salud Pública y el Equipo de la Vicepresidente, implementó un enfoque inclusivo en el que se identificaron a todos los actores involucrados en los sistemas alimentarios, a lo largo de toda la cadena productiva. Se promovió la participación de partes interesadas de todo el territorio nacional por medio de la inclusión de todos los niveles de gobierno, incluyendo legisladores, sociedad civil, sector privado y academia. Reconociendo la complejidad de tan amplia temática, se definió que los temas de género y educación serían discutidos de forma transversal en todo el Diálogo Nacional. El Diálogo fue realizado tomando en cuenta que los temas debatidos ya están siendo abordando en otros procesos de gobernanza mundial, por la tanto fueron considerados los avances normativos existentes y experiencias exitosas ya consolidadas, evitando de esa manera la duplicación innecesaria. De igual modo, se tomaron en cuenta nuevas ideas y enfoques audaces e innovadores para producir una transformación sistémica. Por último, a través del presente proceso de discusión nos responsabilizaremos de los compromisos que hayamos asumido, empleando los mecanismos establecidos para respetar el principio de rendición de cuentas.El Diálogo Nacional llevado adelante por Uruguay fue pensado como una oportunidad para abordar de manera urgente una temática de vital importancia para el país teniendo en cuenta los aspectos productivos, ambientales, sanitarios, sociales y culturales de los sistemas alimentarios. De esa manera, el presente Diálogo complementó el interés manifestado por nuestro país en los diálogos globales que tienen lugar en las siguientes Vías de Acción: 1 Garantizar el acceso a alimentos inocuos y nutritivos para todos, 2 Cambio hacia patrones de consumo sostenibles y 3 Impulsar la producción positiva de la naturaleza (Action Tracks). Respecto al principio de inclusión, entendemos que todos los sectores de la sociedad fueron invitados a participar en el presente Diálogo. Entre los sectores concurrentes se encuentran: Gobierno (nacional y local), Parlamento, Sector empresarial, Agricultores, Organizaciones No Gubernamentales, Sector Científico y académico, Sindicatos, Consumidores, Estudiantes y Organizaciones Internacionales. La inclusión de los sectores mencionados también se basó en el reconocimiento de la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios con un importante impacto en la salud humana y animal, la tierra, el agua, el clima, la biodiversidad, la economía y otros sistemas. Por último, entendemos que el Diálogo Nacional de Uruguay consistió en una excelente oportunidad para escuchar a todos los interesados en el tema. Las visiones de todos los participantes, tanto escritas como orales, fueron incluidas en la elaboración del presente informe y se tomarán en cuenta en la elaboración de la Hoja de Ruta Nacional para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en apoyo a la Agenda 2030.Se entiende que los principios de respeto, inclusión, tratamiento con urgencia de la problemática, promoción de la confianza entre los diferentes actores y complementariedad de visiones son esenciales para el abordaje de tan compleja e importante temática con consecuencias no solamente en las generaciones presentes sino también futuras. La inclusión de todos los actores interesados es una excelente oportunidad a nivel interno para la elaboración de una posición nacional que permita al país defender sus intereses, poner en práctica sus principios y relacionarse con los demás actores internacionales de manera coherente con sus opiniones, en un ambiente constructivo, de respecto y con vocación de cooperación y coordinación internacional. De ese modo, entendemos que los Estados Miembros de las Naciones Unidas, organización intergubernamental concebida para alcanzar ciertos fines, son los responsables de la implementación de los compromisos asumidos a nivel internacional en coordinación con los demás Estados. Por dicha razón, es necesario que los documentos resultantes que emanen de instancias internacionales surjan de un espacio de negociación destinado a los Estados teniendo en cuenta sus visiones, intereses, consideraciones y fundamentalmente el diálogo entre actores soberanos. Por último, resulta imprescindible reconocer la diversidad y especificidad de los países respecto de los sistemas alimentarios, evitando simplificaciones y generalizaciones en relación a los mismos.

NoEl equipo organizador del Diálogo Nacional del Uruguay utilizó como guía el Manual de Referencia para Convocantes de los Diálogos y participó de las sesiones informativas públicas por zoom dirigidas a los Convocantes. Como referencia, se utilizaron los siguientes criterios: - Principios de Actuación y Diálogos de la Cumbre - El método de los Diálogos de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios (incluyendo el formato del diálogo, la duración de las sesione, facilitar debates pertinentes, preguntas guía) - Funciones clave y competencias críticas - Formulario oficial de comentarios - Cronología de los Diálogos de la Cumbre - Estrategia de comunicaciones Sin embargo, no fue posible reproducir en el Diálogo Nacional la organización de pequeños de grupos de debate en simultáneo debido al corto tiempo disponible para la organización del evento. Para remediar este punto, se solicitó a todos aquellos participantes que por motivos de tiempo no consiguieron manifestarse oralmente, enviaran sus intervenciones en forma escrita. De ese modo, se puede concluir que todos los actores relevantes involucrados en la temática fueron considerados para la elaboración del presente informe. Por la misma razón de tiempo, no fue posible para el Uruguay organizar una nueva sesión del Diálogo a fin de procesar todas las propuestas recopiladas en el evento que tuvo lugar entre los días 22 y 24 de junio de 2021. Finamente, quisiéramos aclarar que el total de participantes fue de 1138 personas, sin embargo, el sistema sólo permite registrar 999 como máximo.

234239243244246249Este Diálogo Nacional se realizó en base a tres de las cinco vías de acción del diálogo global preparatorio para la Cumbre Mundial, enfocándolo en temas de interés para nuestro país, en función de su realidad y sus características, los cuales fueron: impulsar la producción de alimentos favorable a la naturaleza; adoptar patrones alimentarios saludables y sostenibles; garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos. Cada uno de estos tres ejes fue abordado en paneles temáticos, cada uno en un día de discusión, con presentaciones disparadoras del intercambio participativo. En la segunda jornada (23 de junio) se abordó el eje temático vinculado con Adoptar patrones de consumo sostenibles (Action Track 2). En Uruguay, al igual que otros países, la malnutrición afecta a las personas durante todo el curso de vida y sus efectos pueden prolongarse durante generaciones adoptando múltiples formas: desnutrición, carencia de micronutrientes, sobrepeso y obesidad y enfermedades no transmisibles relacionadas con la dieta. A pesar de que a nivel mundial el cambio económico ha sido un elemento clave para alcanzar reducciones en los problemas de malnutrición por déficit, también ha tenido repercusiones en importantes cambios en el sistema alimentario global relacionados con un menoscabo de la alimentación tradicional y autóctona y la adopción de patrones de consumo ricos en azúcares, grasas, sodio y bajos en nutrientes esenciales como hierro, ácido fólico, zinc y fibra. El sistema alimentario actual impulsa un aumento en el consumo de productos ultraprocesados, haciendo que los mismos sean más baratos y estén disponibles en muchos puntos de venta, con mayor publicidad, particularmente dirigida a los niños. Los entornos alimentarios comprenden los alimentos disponibles y accesibles para las personas en las zonas cercanas a ellas y la calidad nutricional, la inocuidad, el precio, la facilidad de preparación, el etiquetado y la promoción de estos alimentos. Estos entornos deberían asegurar que las personas tengan acceso en condiciones de igualdad a suficientes alimentos inocuos y nutritivos que satisfagan las necesidades y preferencias alimenticias a fin de llevar una vida activa y sana, teniendo en cuenta los diversos factores físicos, sociales, económicos, culturales y políticos que influyen en este acceso. Para muchas personas, el acceso a dietas saludables puede resultar problemático, ya que pueden no estar disponibles o no ser asequibles. Para lograr esto se debe actuar en las diferentes áreas vinculadas al tema como puede ser estimular el suministro de comidas escolares saludables por medio de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, o bien lograr por medio de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, que las dietas saludables sean más asequibles para los hogares con mayor vulnerabilidad socioeconómica a través de programas de protección social, por ejemplo, transferencias monetarias, programas de alimentación escolar, entre otros. En este marco es necesario remarcar el rol de las guías alimentarias basadas en alimentos, de acuerdo a la evidencia, que definen las dietas saludables específicas de cada contexto teniendo en cuenta diferentes factores. Las guías deberían utilizarse para la aplicación de políticas de alimentación y nutrición en los centros educativos, examinar los planes de estudios para incorporar los principios de la nutrición y las prácticas sostenibles, con el fin de lograr que las comunidades locales, los trabajadores y sus organizaciones, participen en la promoción y creación de entornos alimentarios saludables. Un cambio que trascienda requerirá del desarrollo de acciones en todos los sistemas alimentarios, desde la producción y el procesamiento, pasando por el comercio y la distribución, los precios, el mercadeo y el etiquetado, hasta el consumo y el manejo de desperdicios. En este contexto, la mirada de los diferentes actores del sistema alimentario es central para iniciar el proceso construcción en forma conjunta una visión de futuro sobre cuál es el camino nacional para lograr un cambio en los patrones de consumo de la población uruguaya basados en sistemas alimentarios saludables y sostenibles.235239243246247249251En primer lugar, se destaca que los temas de educación y de género marcaron transversalmente la agenda de discusión de este segundo día del Diálogo Nacional. En ese sentido, tanto presentadores como público general que participó del Diálogo Nacional reflejaron el amplio acuerdo en torno a la necesidad de trabajar en educación, en la inclusión de la mujer y su empoderamiento y en la difusión de prácticas saludables en todos los sectores de la sociedad. Específicamente, se mencionó el papel de las guías alimentarias y de la participación comunitaria de las personas con una perspectiva de género, además de las medidas regulatorias para modificación del sistema alimentario. Como otro tema transversal, se identificó el desafío de la publicidad que tiene efectos en el consumo de alimentos con exceso de grasas, azúcares, sal y con déficit de nutrientes. En ese sentido, hubo acuerdo en exigir normativa que proteja a la población de publicidad engañosa, especialmente a los grupos vulnerables y a los menores de edad. Mediante la participación de todos los asistentes, panelistas y personas que hicieron llegar sus aportes por escrito, se reconoció la importancia de los sistemas alimentarios para alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible en Uruguay y en el mundo. Por su parte, se reconoció que el país ha realizado múltiples progresos en nutrición y en la reducción del retraso de la talla. A su vez, hubo consenso en que los grupos vulnerables deben ser priorizados en las acciones que tome el Gobierno en materia de acceso a alimentos saludables por medio de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Se hizo énfasis en los trabajos realizados con las Guías alimentarias de la población uruguaya, siendo el documento que más se descarga de la página oficial del Ministerio de Salud Pública. Asimismo, la Ley 19.140 de Alimentación Saludable en Centros Educativos Públicos y Privados se constituye como un marco de actuación en la materia y el Rotulado Frontal de Alimentos de reciente aplicación es otro de los avances registrados. Por otro lado, Uruguay ha acompañado múltiples compromisos internacionales entre los que se destacan la Declaración de Roma sobre Nutrición y Decenio de Acción sobre la Nutrición. Es necesario que Uruguay tome los avances del país como guía y exporte su cultura del manejo de los recursos naturales y su forma de producción de alimentos como estrategia de proveer productos saludables a todo el mundo. Se hizo énfasis en la necesidad de sistematizar y difundir información basada en evidencia y la relación de importancia de consumo de hierro en embarazadas y en los primeros 1000 días de vida. De igual manera, se pudo apreciar el acuerdo en que los temas incluidos en la temática de la salud y de la alimentación deben ser abordados de forma multisectorial, incluyendo la participación de diversos actores e instituciones en todo el territorio nacional, promoviendo la coordinación entre los mismos. Se identificó que las diferentes acciones se deben enfocar con una perspectiva de derecho a la salud y a una alimentación adecuada donde todo ser humano tiene el derecho fundamental a no padecer hambre, pudiendo acceder a una alimentación adecuada que comprende los aspectos cuantitativos, cualitativos y de aceptabilidad cultural. Para finalizar esta sesión, se puede concluir que durante el segundo día de debate se logró reunir miradas de sectores diversos, con el aporte de experiencias exitosas que nos transmiten que tenemos capacidades para enfrentar los problemas, pero que también no son suficientes en un contexto en el que la pandemia ha exacerbado las tendencias de sobrepeso y de déficit de nutrientes. Se ha mencionado a la educación como fundamental, pero ésta no es suficiente ya que la publicidad y el entorno alimentario inciden desde edades tempranas en la elección de alimentos no saludables ni sostenibles. La participación del Gobierno Nacional, departamental, municipal, la sociedad civil, la academia y el sector privado, abarcando todo el territorio nacional, son necesarios para cumplir con los avances que ya existen en la materia y la elaboración de otras normativas que incluyan, nuevas visiones y nuevos estudios científicos sobre la materia. Se mencionó también como una situación ideal la adopción de una Política de Estado que aborde esta temática y que exceda un período de gobierno teniendo en cuenta el equilibrio entre la salud, lo ambiental y lo productivo. Otras acciones identificadas: ● Visibilizar el trabajo de pequeños grupos de agricultores que intercambian semillas, conocimientos, técnicas, plantas, con el fin de dar a conocer experiencias comunitarias y locales. ● Se identifica la necesidad de retomar las Políticas de reducción de sodio, que busquen modificar la composición nutricional de ciertos productos, como lo es la reducción de sal en panificados artesanales, teniendo en cuenta la realidad local y desarrollando un plan de monitoreo que garantice el cumplimiento de la medida. ● Desde organizaciones internacionales, continuar apoyando el trabajo interinstitucional, monitorear el desperdicio de alimentos y el uso de tierras por parte de mujeres.236239243246247248249251Mediante la Ley de Relaciones de Consumo Nº 17.250 los consumidores tienen plasmados sus derechos pero también con responsabilidades y dentro de ellas, demandar alimentos de calidad, sanos y nutritivos y a precios accesibles. Por esta razón, se señaló como prioridad la necesidad de un compromiso político para formular políticas públicas intersectoriales. Desde una perspectiva derechos humanos, se cuestionó cuál es la mejor forma de asegurar el derecho a una alimentación adecuada y se señaló la necesidad de generar consensos y un orden de prioridades que marque una hoja de ruta para los próximos años en materia de alimentación. Se necesita más voluntad política. La pregunta que deberá inspirar futuras acciones es: cómo modificar un sistema de producción para que produzca con calidad, con diversidad y con precios justos para productores y consumidores, que sea sostenible, sustentable, de regeneración eco sistémica y que incluya la soberanía alimentaria como elemento importante de garantía del derecho. En educación, se planteó la necesidad de inclusión en el currículo educativo los temas de alimentación y su adaptación a contextos específicos; la importancia de educar con una visión prospectiva para evitar la obesidad y el retraso en la talla; y la coordinación interinstitucional, como sucede con la comisión de seguimiento a la aplicación de la Ley 19.140. Para evitar el desperdicio de alimentos, se han identificado experiencias exitosas relacionadas con donaciones. Uruguay tiene diferentes programas para reducir las pérdidas y desperdicios con un proyecto de rescate de frutas y verduras. Se identificó que la destrucción de alimentos de las empresas sea regulada con un marco jurídico adecuado. Uruguay tiene identificado el objetivo prioritario de facilitar compras de cercanía para reducir distancias desde la producción al consumidor. Existen programas estatales de adquisición de alimentos a productores familiares y pescadores artesanales. Se identificaron otros desafíos tales como: ● Generar sistemas de vigilancia del estado nutricional, con base a información actualizada, haciendo énfasis en la infancia y la adolescencia. ● Incluir en encuestas nacionales el monitoreo sistemático de la inseguridad alimentaria. ● Regulación de publicidad de alimentos y bebidas. ● Lograr aprobación total del Código Internacional de Comercialización de los Sucedáneos de la leche materna. ● Estrategia de vigilancia para hacer pública cualquier sanción que se aplique a empresas, la posibilidad de deterioro de la imagen preocupa más que el monto de una multa. ● Incorporar agregados de edulcorantes, cafeína y alérgenos como gluten a normativa de advertencias nutricionales. ● En etiquetado de advertencias nutricionales (Decreto 34/021) impulsar la consideración de una nueva etapa de reducción de los límites definidos con prioridad en los límites definidos para el azúcar agregado en lácteos. Esto requiere un trabajo conjunto con la Industria. Priorizar en las discusiones en el ámbito del MERCOSUR la progresividad de la medida. ● Impulsar otras medidas como impuestos a alimentos con altos contenidos de grasas, sal, azúcares y destinar la recaudación a medidas educativas o al subsidio de alimentos saludables. ● Posibilidad de subvencionar productos específicos para diabéticos y celíacos o aplicar descuentos para pacientes. ● Declarar de interés nacional la lucha contra la obesidad. ● Favorecer proyectos para la implantación de huertas. ● Evitar la exposición de niños y niñas de edades tempranas a productos ultraprocesados. ● Incluir mayor regulación del alcohol para combatir la obesidad. ● Eliminar el uso de grasas trans de origen industrial en la elaboración de alimentos (Decreto Nº 114/018). ● Aumentar medidas que favorezcan habilidades culinarias en todo público, con perspectiva de género. ● Fomentar Rutas Gastronómicas de productos con identidad junto a organismos de Turismo. ● Fomentar la interconexión de las zonas productivas con ciudades y el desarrollo de espacios intermedios. Inducir a la innovación en estos territorios y disponer de información basada en evidencia científica para resaltar el rol de estas áreas y su influencia.237239243244246249Fueron señaladas las dificultades que afrontan los grupos de celíacos en materia de accesibilidad a productos para su consumo relacionados con el precio y la calidad de los alimentos que pueden consumir. En ese sentido, se indicó que la Ley 16.096 del año 1989 que exige la inclusión de opciones para celíacos en Menús no está siendo cumplida por lo que se hace un llamado para su fiscalización. En otro orden, se hizo un llamado de atención a las autoridades con relación a la biodisponibilidad del hierro y del ácido fólico que por Ley Nacional deben ser incorporados de manera química a algunos alimentos. En ese sentido, se sostuvo que existe una diversidad de alimentos que proveen de esos elementos de manera natural y con mayor biodisponibilidad y en consecuencia, con mayores posibilidades de ser absorbidos por el organismo. Por esa razón, se solicitó que el Plan Nacional para el Fomento de la Producción con Bases Agroecológicas declarado de interés nacional en 2019 sea apoyado con recursos económicos a fin de lograr su plena puesta en funcionamiento. Asimismo, se señaló que en cualquier tipo de debate es inevitable que surjan diferentes visiones como la "industria vs natural", la promoción de "vegetales vs. carnes", por lo que nada se puede dejar de lado. De esa forma, se recordó que desde la academia existen numerosas publicaciones y estudios, la gran mayoría en publicaciones internacionales de escasa difusión en nuestro medio local y de poca llegada a las comunidades. Entonces ¿por qué no generar un repositorio de literatura nacional en español donde estén al menos en forma resumida el contenido de estos trabajos de forma accesible? ¿en lenguaje de fácil compresión? Algunos ejemplos de temas estudiados son la agroecología, bioaccesibilidad de nutrientes en diversos alimentos de producción local, entre otros. Finalmente, es dable destacar que hubo aportes por escrito de personas que señalaron su preocupación por temas que no fueron expuestos en las presentaciones orales, tales como: ● Formación de profesionales de la salud en temas de nutrición. ● El control del uso de fertilizantes y la incorporación de prácticas naturales de cultivo. ● Las dificultades aduaneras para los envíos exprés de suplementos nutricionales que no se encuentran en el mercado local. ● La contaminación de los cursos de aguas y la pesca. ● Necesidad de modernizar el organismo estatal responsable del abastecimiento de agua potable en el Uruguay (OSE) para una mejor gestión del agua, principalmente controlar el uso de cloro. ● Es sabido que la tradición ganadera de Uruguay está íntimamente relacionada con la imagen y la marca país. Sin embargo, la introducción de la temática de los sistemas alimentarios deja planteado un cambio de paradigma en el cual la educación, la búsqueda de alternativas, el fomento de la agricultura, la investigación en general, y la comprensión de todas las aristas involucradas en este proceso, brinda una oportunidad de abrir nuevos ámbitos de debate y discusión. En ese sentido, se destaca la preocupación por la inexistencia de menús vegetarianos y veganos en la alimentación que reciben estudiantes de educación pública ● Colaborar con los pescadores artesanales de río, (del norte), para contribuir a la productividad comercial y sostenida, generar fuentes de trabajo formal y facilitando el consumo por parte de la población.

2021-07-02 21:22:42205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19163/195

999417561929149030482952793041126245019115418749419207412768211850101300560101179730312464302141432937183

El Diálogo Nacional “Uruguay: Hacia Sistemas Alimentarios más saludables, sostenibles e inclusivos” fue convocado por la Vicepresidenta de la República, Beatriz Argimón por invitación de las Naciones Unidas. Durante todo el proceso previo de organización, convocatoria y realización del presente Diálogo Nacional los principios de actuación de la Cumbre fueron tomados en cuenta para cada decisión en las diferentes etapas. La necesidad de actuar con urgencia, de asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre y de ser respetuosos constituyeron los principios que orientaron la organización del evento. El equipo coordinador del Diálogo constituido por los Ministerios de Relaciones Exteriores, de Ganadería Agricultura y Pesca, de Ambiente y de Salud Pública y el Equipo de la Vicepresidenta, implementó un enfoque inclusivo en el que se identificaron a todos los actores involucrados en los sistemas alimentarios, a lo largo de toda la cadena productiva. Se promovió la participación de partes interesadas de todo el territorio nacional por medio de la inclusión de todos los niveles de gobierno, incluyendo legisladores, sociedad civil, sector privado y academia. Reconociendo la complejidad de tan amplia temática, se definió que los temas de género y educación serían discutidos de forma transversal en todo el Diálogo Nacional. El Diálogo fue realizado tomando en cuenta que los temas debatidos ya están siendo abordando en otros procesos de gobernanza mundial, por la tanto fueron considerados los avances normativos existentes y experiencias exitosas ya consolidadas, evitando de esa manera la duplicación innecesaria. De igual modo, se tomaron en cuenta nuevas ideas y enfoques audaces e innovadores para producir una transformación sistémica. Por último, a través del presente proceso de discusión nos responsabilizaremos de los compromisos que hayamos asumido, empleando los mecanismos establecidos para respetar el principio de rendición de cuentas.El Diálogo Nacional llevado adelante por Uruguay fue pensado como una oportunidad para abordar de manera urgente una temática de vital importancia para el país teniendo en cuenta los aspectos productivos, ambientales, sanitarios, sociales y culturales de los sistemas alimentarios. De esa manera, el presente Diálogo complementó el interés manifestado por nuestro país en los diálogos globales que tienen lugar en las siguientes Vías de Acción: 1 Garantizar el acceso a alimentos inocuos y nutritivos para todos, 2 Cambio hacia patrones de consumo sostenibles y 3 Impulsar la producción positiva de la naturaleza (Action Tracks). Respecto al principio de inclusión, entendemos que todos los sectores de la sociedad fueron invitados a participar en el presente Diálogo. Entre los sectores concurrentes se encuentran: Gobierno (nacional y local), Parlamento, Sector empresarial, Agricultores, Organizaciones No Gubernamentales, Sector Científico y académico, Sindicatos, Consumidores, Estudiantes y Organizaciones Internacionales. La inclusión de los sectores mencionados también se basó en el reconocimiento de la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios con un importante impacto en la salud humana y animal, la tierra, el agua, el clima, la biodiversidad, la economía y otros sistemas. Por último, entendemos que el Diálogo Nacional de Uruguay consistió en una excelente oportunidad para escuchar a todos los interesados en el tema. Las visiones de todos los participantes, tanto escritas como orales, fueron incluidas en la elaboración del presente informe y se tomarán en cuenta en la elaboración de la Hoja de Ruta Nacional para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en apoyo a la Agenda 2030.Se entiende que los principios de respeto, inclusión, tratamiento con urgencia de la problemática, promoción de la confianza entre los diferentes actores y complementariedad de visiones son esenciales para el abordaje de tan compleja e importante temática con consecuencias no solamente en las generaciones presentes sino también futuras. La inclusión de todos los actores interesados es una excelente oportunidad a nivel interno para la elaboración de una posición nacional que permita al país defender sus intereses, poner en práctica sus principios y relacionarse con los demás actores internacionales de manera coherente con sus opiniones, en un ambiente constructivo, de respecto y con vocación de cooperación y coordinación internacional. De ese modo, entendemos que los Estados Miembros de las Naciones Unidas, organización intergubernamental concebida para alcanzar ciertos fines, son los responsables de la implementación de los compromisos asumidos a nivel internacional en coordinación con los demás Estados. Por dicha razón, es necesario que los documentos resultantes que emanen de instancias internacionales surjan de un espacio de negociación destinado a los Estados teniendo en cuenta sus visiones, intereses, consideraciones y fundamentalmente el diálogo entre actores soberanos. Por último, resulta imprescindible reconocer la diversidad y especificidad de los países respecto de los sistemas alimentarios, evitando simplificaciones y generalizaciones en relación a los mismos.

NoEl equipo organizador del Diálogo Nacional del Uruguay utilizó como guía el Manual de Referencia para Convocantes de los Diálogos y participó de las sesiones informativas públicas por zoom dirigidas a los Convocantes. Como referencia, se utilizaron los siguientes criterios: - Principios de Actuación y Diálogos de la Cumbre - El método de los Diálogos de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios (incluyendo el formato del diálogo, la duración de las sesione, facilitar debates pertinentes, preguntas guía) - Funciones clave y competencias críticas - Formulario oficial de comentarios - Cronología de los Diálogos de la Cumbre - Estrategia de comunicaciones Sin embargo, no fue posible reproducir en el Diálogo Nacional la organización de pequeños de grupos de debate en simultáneo debido al corto tiempo disponible para la organización del evento. Para remediar este punto, se solicitó a todos aquellos participantes que por motivos de tiempo no consiguieron manifestarse oralmente, enviaran sus intervenciones en forma escrita. De ese modo, se puede concluir que todos los actores relevantes involucrados en la temática fueron considerados para la elaboración del presente informe. Por la misma razón de tiempo, no fue posible para el Uruguay organizar una nueva sesión del Diálogo a fin de procesar todas las propuestas recopiladas en el evento que tuvo lugar entre los días 22 y 24 de junio de 2021. Finamente, quisiéramos aclarar que el total de participantes fue de 1138 personas, sin embargo, el sistema sólo permite registrar 999 como máximo.

234238243244246248249251Este Diálogo Nacional se realizó en base a tres de las cinco vías de acción del diálogo global preparatorio de la Cumbre, a saber: impulsar la producción de alimentos favorable a la naturaleza; adoptar patrones alimentarios saludables y sostenibles; garantizar el acceso a alimentos inocuos y nutritivos. Cada ejes fue abordado en un día de discusión. En la última jornada (24 de junio de 2021) se abordaron dos ejes temáticos fundamentales de los sistemas alimentarios: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos inocuos y nutritivos para todos (panel 5) y el Rol de la mujer en la producción y provisión de alimentos (panel 6). Respecto a los temas discutidos en el panel 5, en los últimos años ha habido cambios a nivel de los entornos alimentarios como ser el rápido crecimiento demográfico, la urbanización, la globalización y el crecimiento económico, lo que ha generado una transformación en los hábitos de consumo, que pone a prueba la capacidad de los sistemas alimentarios y percepción de los consumidores sobre la disponibilidad de alimentos inocuos y saludables. Para hacer frente a estos desafíos es necesario un enfoque sistémico que aborde el alcance y las oportunidades que tiene Uruguay sobre estos retos de una manera integral y sostenible. Es necesario avanzar hacia la transformación de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles para que sean capaces de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria y nutrición, pero que además aseguren una alimentación adecuada a las generaciones futuras. Esto ofrece distintas oportunidades para diseñar políticas que ayuden a que las cadenas de suministro alimentarias y los entornos alimentarios sean respetuosos del ambiente, la cultura y la sociedad. Uruguay tiene una oportunidad única para establecer una fuerte política dirigida a producir, consumir, importar y exportar alimentos saludables y nutritivos reconocidos a nivel nacional e internacional. Sobre el panel 6, las políticas llevadas adelante por el Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca (MGAP), apuntan a que el país logre un mayor volumen de producción de alimentos de forma sostenible, minimizando el impacto ambiental asociado a las actividades productivas. Son puntos relevantes, la inocuidad de los productos, la bioseguridad a nivel productivo, la adaptación al cambio climático, la incorporación de productores familiares a las cadenas de valor y la incorporación de la perspectiva de género en las políticas y acciones implementadas. La fase primaria agropecuaria cuenta con un total de 140 mil puestos de trabajo (2019), de los cuales el 20% corresponde a mujeres. En la industria vinculada al sector agropecuario que ocupa unos 80 mil puestos, el 34% son mujeres, según la Encuesta Continua de Hogares de 2019. En el sector agroindustrial la participación de las mujeres ha sido creciente, pasando de representar el 28% en 2006 al 34% en 2019. Por subsectores, la mayor proporción se observa en hortifruticultura en donde la participación de las mujeres es de 30%). En tanto que sectores como la forestación, el sector arrocero o los servicios agrícolas y ganaderos cuentan con participaciones reducidas (10% o menos). La participación de las mujeres en el mercado laboral agropecuario y agroindustrial es menor que en el promedio país que se ubica en 45% del total de ocupados. Diversos factores afectan la situación de la población rural en general y de las mujeres en particular. En primer lugar, la menor participación y escaso empoderamiento de las mujeres rurales frecuentemente se traduce en ingresos por trabajo inferiores a los de los hombres o incluso son nulos. En este contexto, y en un esfuerzo interinstitucional conjunto liderado por el MGAP, se elaboró el Plan Nacional de Género en las Políticas Agropecuarias (PNG Agro) publicado en 2021, que proporciona lineamientos estratégicos para trabajar en próximos años en acciones que permitan reducir desigualdades de género en el sector agropecuario del país.235238243244245246248249251En el panel 5, se destaca la importancia de que el mundo conozca cómo se está trabajando a nivel de los sistemas alimentarios en Uruguay y fomentar y mantener diálogos interinstitucionales a nivel nacional y regional de manera de construir un mensaje que sirva de respuesta a posiciones que llegan desde regiones que no conocen nuestros sistemas alimentarios ni nuestra cultura. Se expresa la necesidad de establecer alianzas con Estados Miembros con sistemas alimentarios de características similares a las de Uruguay, para adoptar una posición común en las Naciones Unidas, donde se vea respetada su soberanía y los compromisos se generen en base a evidencia científica. Muchos de los informes respecto al tema a nivel internacional tienen componentes políticos radicales que establecen que los sistemas alimentarios son disfuncionales. Ello no tiene en cuenta las especificidades biológicas, ambientales y sociales que tienen los sistemas alimentarios. A lo anterior se suma, que existen ópticas diversas de cómo deben desarrollarse los sistemas alimentarios: visiones basadas en la oferta que se focalizan en la productividad, en los mercados (por ejemplo los precios), en los consumidores y sus preferencias, otros basados en la gobernanza, pero se entiende la necesidad de adoptar un nuevo enfoque de los sistemas alimentarios poniendo la alimentación como centro y su vínculo con la salud y nutrición. Es necesario generar innovación no sólo a través de la ciencia. La innovación puede realizarse a través de políticas, cambios organizacionales o mediante la aplicación de diferentes tecnologías a nivel de los tres componentes fundamentales del sistema alimentario. Uruguay viene promoviendo la generación de una Comunidad de Práctica (integrada por varias instituciones) en alimentación, salud humana y nutrición, como herramienta clave para vincular el sector agroalimentario con la salud humana y la nutrición. Se destaca el problema en el acceso a los alimentos saludables, donde la ciencia puede ser clave para el desarrollo sostenible. En esa línea, se subrayan los nuevos desarrollos de nuestro país, por ejemplo, la diversidad genética de algunos productos, caracterización nutricional de los agroalimentos, producción orgánica y la agroecología. Se identifica como punto de interés el desarrollo de tecnologías que permitan generar dietas personalizadas para cada individuo. Para mitigar las amenazas y potenciar las oportunidades es importante conocer mejor las preferencias de los mercados. Desde la institucionalidad se requiere contar con recursos humanos capacitados que brinden soporte técnico para las empresas que quieren obtener alimentos más saludables, reformulación de los alimentos, ajustes de procesos, trabajar en las tecnologías de procesos y envasado para extender la vida útil, reducir la huella y generar la información para el consumidor. Las empresas pueden orientarse a la transformación hacia alimentos más saludables, mediante materias primas saludables y aplicando tecnologías de envasado, lo que se vería potenciado con la educación de la sociedad sobre alternativas sostenibles y saludables. En el panel 6, se reconoce al Plan Nacional de Género en las políticas agropecuarias como una herramienta fundamental para generar sistemas productivos más inclusivos. Se basa en 83 compromisos que marcan la hoja de ruta de los próximos 4 años. Se declara que visibilizar el género es el primer paso para que hombres y mujeres juntos trabajemos por la igualdad de género. Se entiende que las mujeres aportan a su trabajo las características propias de ser mujer: el cuidado, la protección, la dedicación, ser conscientes, comprometidas con los recursos naturales y la familia. A nivel empresarial se plantea que es necesario pasar de “presencia” a “influencia” femenina. Se cita a las Empresas B como una nueva forma de hacer negocios, como un campo social adecuado para trabajar por la equidad de género. No obstante, en la actualidad, esto aún no se traduce en puestos gerenciales y/o directivos ocupados por mujeres. Existe una percepción de que las mujeres líderes aportan en “habilidades blandas”, pero no así́ en tareas visualizadas como más “duras” o vinculadas al retorno económico, a pesar de los estudios empíricos al respecto. Debemos construir inteligencia colectiva con presencia e influencia femenina para dar respuesta, a partir de un liderazgo integrador, a los desafíos globales. Se reconoce el rol dinamizador y transformador que tienen los jóvenes, particularmente a nivel de las gremiales rurales. Además, a nivel empresarial se destaca la creación, a nivel de la Unión de Exportadores, de una unidad de Género con el objetivo fundamental de apoyar a las empresas en la adopción o la mejora de políticas de género.236238243244245246248249PANEL 5: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos inocuos y nutritivos para los consumidores de Uruguay y del mundo Se entiende necesario profundizar el debate inerno sobre los sistemas alimentarios nacionales a través de bases amplias y plurales, abarcando todas las ópticas que fueron descritas por los participantes del diálogo. En este sentido, el Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca ha impulsando la creación de una Comunidad de Práctica que jerarquice la alimentación como centro, y su vínculo con la salud humana y nutrición y las posiciones como una política única de gobierno. Respecto al posicionamiento internacional del tema, se está trabajando en foros internacionales de forma activa para demostrar las oportunidades y los avances que Uruguay ha hecho para avanzar en sistemas alimentarios capaces de producir alimentos saludables, nutritivos e inocuos. Se destaca la relevancia que tiene la innovación y la tecnología para lograr la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. En relación a este punto, todos los integrantes del Diálogo coincidieron en lo fundamental que es invertir en tecnología para lograr la mejor calidad nutritiva y saludable. Otros hallazgos: • El acceso a los alimentos fue un punto destacado del diálogo. Es importante que el productor cuente con más recursos económicos para lograr que sus productos sostenibles y nutritivos lleguen a diferentes puntos de distribución. • Importancia de reducir los altos costos para cumplir con normas sanitarias y de producción de alimentos. En este marco, los expositores coincidieron en que los altos estándares de calidad deben mantenerse, pero sí debe buscarse una forma de aliviar los costos para los productores. • Se reconoció al desperdicio de alimentos como un gran desafío, ya que afecta no solo a la productividad, sino a la sostenibilidad de la producción. • Para mejorar la toma de decisión de los consumidores es necesario revisar los sellos de conformidad de los productos, que los mismos estén otorgados en base al cumplimiento de requisitos claramente establecidos, con certeza metodológica • Reconocer el aporte de la ganadería y el sector cárnico como parte de la solución para alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible y las metas del Acuerdo de París. • Reconocer la complejidad de generar una sola visión sobre los sistemas ganaderos en el mundo, ya que cada realidad tiene una base económica, social y cultural específica. • Reconocer la complejidad de las interrelaciones de los efectos de los sistemas ganaderos sobre el ambiente y la salud, siendo necesario un abordaje holístico. • Demandar que la ciencia sea la base de toda decisión política y regulatoria. • Reconocer que la alimentación saludable se basa en la diversidad de productos que requieren de una combinación equilibrada de alimentos de origen animal y vegetal. • Teniendo en cuenta que la producción y exportaciones agropecuarias de los países del MERCOSUR y de América del Sur tienen un papel fundamental para contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria mundial con sistemas sostenibles se advirtió que la Cumbre debería prestar especial consideración a: a. El rol del comercio internacional como mecanismo fundamental para facilitar la seguridad alimentaria. b. La conveniencia de apoyar la continuidad de los aumentos de productividad. c. El derecho de los consumidores a elegir libremente su dieta, encuadrado en la responsabilidad del Estado de informar. d. El rol del MERCOSUR y de América del Sur en la seguridad alimentaria mundial.236238243246249251PANEL 6: “Rol de la mujer en la producción y provisión de alimentos” Uruguay se caracteriza por la promoción de una producción agropecuaria sostenible, con salvaguarda del bienestar animal. Es un país exportador de alimentos, en el cual, las mujeres están presentes en toda la cadena de producción, de industrialización, de comercialización, en definitiva, en la producción y provisión de alimentos. Es necesario rebatir algunas de las injusticias y visibilizar el trabajo y la contribución económica y social que miles de mujeres hacen diariamente a sus familias y al país. Se concluye que el rol de la mujer debe ser reconocido y a su vez intensificado en todos los aspectos de la producción de alimentos, destacando la gran tarea que realizan las mujeres no sólo en la parte de producción sino en la toma de decisiones y liderazgo, tanto en el ámbito laboral como dentro de la familia, siendo un pilar en las familias rurales. En relación a este punto se destaca la importancia que conlleva un trabajo en conjunto entre las entidades públicas y privadas. Dotar de más recursos a pequeñas productoras ayudaría a visibilizar su trabajo, logrando así una mayor equidad y empoderamiento, a la vez de incrementar la producción sostenible y saludable de alimentos. En este punto, se considera de gran valor que existan planes integrales de género, que pongan foco en la mujer rural, y de esta forma se logre una mejor equidad en el sector. Igualmente, se destacan los desafíos de estos planes de acción, entre los que se encuentran lograr cuantificar y medir los avances en cuanto al rol de la mujer, dado que, a pesar de que en la actualidad es muy alto el grado de participación, sigue estando invisibilizado. El rol de las empresas B se muestra como posibles agentes de cambio, para lograr una transformación a la sostenibilidad, sacando el foco del lucro, llevándolo al beneficio común de varios agentes, como la empresa, el consumidor, el medio ambiente, la sociedad como un todo. Asimismo, en este punto se destaca que las empresas B pueden ayudar a empoderar a las mujeres, resaltando principalmente la inteligencia colectiva que se puede generar si se cuenta con participación de mujeres en roles de liderazgo, llevando a mayor eficiencia y sostenibilidad.237238243244245246249251Resulta importante destacar que el diálogo se llevó a cabo en un clima cordial, de respeto, y en la mayoría de los puntos de tratados existieron más convergencias que divergencias, acuerdos y compromisos en cuanto a trabajar conjuntamente para lograr un sistema alimentario sostenible, saludable e inclusivo. Las principales divergencias en el panel 5 se focalizaron en: - Por qué existen problemas de malnutrición en Uruguay si el país produce para 28 millones de habitantes según estimaciones. - Sobre el alcance de la producción orgánica en Uruguay. Esta producción que favorece los circuitos cortos (del productor al consumidor) y fomenta la producción familiar no logra escalar como en otros países. - El debate entre los productos naturales versus los ultraprocesados. Mientras, la Asociación de Ingenieros de Alimentos defiende la transformación adecuada de los alimentos y el rol que su profesión cumple, otros participantes promueven la producción y venta de productos en su estado natural. - La implementación del análisis de riesgo en inocuidad de los alimentos para fortalecer las medidas de control respecto a plaguicidas, residuos químicos, entre otros - Se debatió sobre revisar los sellos de conformidad otorgados por instituciones privadas versus las públicas. Se mencionó el alto costo de análisis de laboratorios para analizar la inocuidad de alimentos. - La accesibilidad de productos de buena calidad, muchas veces artesanales, por la falta de promoción de mercados locales u otras estrategias de marketing como slow food, comercio justo, etc. - Los costos asociados a no tener registro único nacional de productos. - La falta de promoción del consumo de productos locales y la promoción de la diversificación de la producción de alimentos. Falta de valorización de nuestros alimentos. - La salubridad de los alimentos: productos naturales o posibilidad de extender la vida útil de los productos. Reconocer cuando los productos son saludables como la carne proveniente de la ganadería pastoril. Es necesario recabar evidencia al respecto. El consumidor tiene que reconocer las propiedades nutricionales de los alimentos, en la misma forma que la existencia actual de alertas de los alimentos como el rotulado frontal (“etiquetas verdes” versus “etiquetas negras”) - El rol de la semilla en la producción de alimentos. Es un sector que no se ha dimensionado correctamente y la normativa para su promoción no está actualizada en Uruguay. - El contrabando de alimentos y el rol del Estado en los Pasos de Frontera. Si bien se informó de la creación del Sibaf (Sistema Inteligente de Barreras Sanitarias en Frontera) del MGAP, aún resta mucho por combatir esta práctica desleal que incide no solo en la inocuidad nutrición de los alimentos sino también en la competitividad de los productores y en particular en los productores familiares. En referencia al panel sobre género, las principales tensiones se manifestaron en: - la menor participación y escaso empoderamiento de las mujeres rurales y trabajadoras del sector agropecuario frecuentemente se traduce en ingresos por trabajo inferiores a los de los hombres o incluso son nulos. - un persistente vacío de conocimiento e información sobre esta temática; por ejemplo, no se cuenta con información sobre la producción generada por mujeres en el sector y se ha identificado faltante de perspectiva de género en las estadísticas del sector. - la ausencia de “equilibrio” entre el hombre y la mujer en las oportunidades y en su reconocimiento a la labor en el aprovisionamiento de alimentos. El desafío de construir equidad de género. Terminando con la bifurcación mental de liderazgo masculino y femenino y co-creando un liderazgo Integrador. - la falta de participación de jóvenes y mujeres en los principales retos que enfrentan los sistemas alimentarios.

2021-07-03 00:47:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13633/203

107656414485912651145231312462112113232311

**PLEASE NOTE: In the Participation demographics section above, I indicated that we had 24 "small-scale *farmers*" as there was no option to indicate small-scale *fishers*. Just over half of these small-scale "farmers" were actually fishers.** The Principles of Engagement were central to the structure and content of this Dialogue event. We invited stakeholders from a wide variety of geographies and backgrounds, featured a panel discussion with small-scale fishers and farmers from 8 different countries and drastically different contexts, and carefully crafted our breakout groups to ensure people would feel most comfortable to share their unique perspectives and concerns. We referred repeatedly to how efforts to implement nature-positive production systems can and must contribute to achieving the SDGs, and directed people to consider a near-term future in envisioning a transformed food system. This Dialogue was part of a series of 3 that we helped to convene in partnership with the Blue Foods Assessment and WWF that sought to highlight the value of aquatic foods for food and nutrition needs, elevate the voices of small-scale fishers, and this final Dialogue designed to facilitate the sharing of lessons between small-scale fishers and farmers who have been working to implement nature positive production. We thus built off of the work of others, and are carrying this work forward in our ongoing engagements.Through the panel questions we posed as well as the breakout group discussion question (see our attached Detailed Agenda) we explicitly directed speakers and participants to articulate their views with a sense of urgency, and to consider specifically what must happen at the Summit itself to enable success. We embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by ensuring a variety of small-scale producer perspectives were well-represented among our participants, as well as bringing food and nutrition policy and decision makers into the "room" with these voices to connect groups who don't often have a chance to make themselves heard at the government level with these key decision-makers. We also took steps to ensure a respectful Dialogue environment, and to recognize and face head-on the complexities involved with efforts to transition to nature-positive production. In addition, we provided simultaneous translation to ensure all participants felt empowered and comfortable to share their views.Marginalized groups are not necessarily going to able to engage in these Dialogue events without direct engagement and extra efforts to ensure they have the capacity to participate, such as hosting events in time zones that align with the groups you hope to reach, connecting them with technical support and providing simultaneous translation. Small-scale actors like fishers and farmers are not (necessarily) combing the internet for opportunities to get involved in UN-developed virtual events, so if we truly want to hear their voices we (the NGOs, governments, and other highly-engaged agencies) need to be the ones to actively seek them out and to create these opportunities in a way that will be truly accessible to them.

Yes

234240241242244245246247248249250There are numerous ways that land- and sea-based food provisioning systems can transition to nature-positive production, but there are also numerous and significant challenges to doing so, especially at a scale and pace sufficient to meet the world’s growing food and nutrition needs. Protecting biodiversity, ensuring sustainability, building resilience to climate change, and fostering equity will require bold action and sensitivity to the needs of vulnerable communities. This Dialogue sought to bring together smallholder stakeholders producing food across both land and sea who are working to achieve nature positive production. Our aim was to foster collaboration that can help move the needle across sectors, and to channel their voices to food system decision-makers. We believe we achieved 3 primary objectives: • Shining a spotlight on similar challenges and opportunities for solution implementation across sectors; • Sharing lessons learned from each sector that could be valuable for the other; • Identifying areas where food system decision-makers could be better supporting these small-scale actors.235239240241242243244245246247248249250251Our key findings fall roughly into three high-level categories: 1) "Opportunities"; 2) "Challenges"; and 3) "Support Needs and Calls to Action" (including action items for the Summit.) *Opportunities:* ~ Transitioning to nature positive production can generate more food for people who need it most, while aligning production with capacity of the environment and building resilience to climate change. ~ Nature positive production gives people living in regions with high insecurity and uncertainty the agency and capacity to produce their own food and livelihoods. ~ Nature positive production safeguards producers' ability to continue working and living as farmers and fishers, to maintain customs, traditions, and ways of life. Also potentially makes farming/ fishing appealing to the youth again. ~ In some cases, nature positive production can even contribute to climate change mitigation efforts (e.g., regenerative aquaculture; enriched agricultural soil; etc.) ~ Maximizing connections across land and sea can help solve shared challenges, e.g., how to develop new markets, scale operations, and access funding. ~ Small-scale producers are the most vulnerable to food insecurity, system shocks, and affects of climate change, but they are also at the forefront of efforts to transition food production systems to nature positive techniques – they need more support! *Challenges:* ~ Governments are not listening to the needs of small-scale producer communities. ~ Small-scale producers have little agency and are not empowered to engage in decision-making. ~ It is extremely challenging for small-scale producers to change fishing gear/ farming techniques (especially at scale) without government support and funding. ~ Equally challenging for them to access or develop new markets and scale new operations. ~ Ecosystem services are undervalued/ not valued in government policies. ~ Climate change impacts are advancing much faster than small-scale producers can adapt on their own. *Calls to Action:* ~ Avoid demonizing producers and instead bring them in to be part of solution development. ~ Support community organizing, knowledge sharing, and collective action – management is about people, not just production! * Center needs and ideas of small-scale producers in decisions. * Build capacity of existing local organizations and create strong laws that support their rights and abilities to engage. * Collect and utilize community-generated data, and ensuring community members are informed about management decisions ~ Build and strengthen secure tenure rights for small-scale actors, ensure they are allocated and regulated according to Tenure Guidelines. * Where such rights don’t exist, focus on improving access to technology/ digital tools to enable collaboration, organization, and advocacy. ~ Policies must address climate change and support small-scale communities in staying ahead of the climate change curve. ~ Value ecosystem services and count food in terms of micronutrients that are critical to vulnerable communities. * Implement “conserver benefits” (converse of “polluter pays”) principle. * Ensure markets value food and nature positive production. * Support small-scale producers in helping to meet *local* food and nutrition needs. ~ Governments should allocate more budget to adaptation of, and compliance with, nature positive techniques and gears - support the transition, and then ensure strong compliance. ~ Policies must be integrated across land and sea, with coordination throughout Ministries of Production, Environment, Health, etc.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251We chose to ask each of our 8 breakout groups to address the same discussion topic (see attached Agenda). Here we present a compilation of the outcomes of these discussion groups, organized into Key Actions and Key Challenges. *Key actions that governments and the international F&N community should take to support small-scale producers as they seek to transition to nature positive production:* ~ Strengthen organizational capacity of local organizations, center and amplify the voices of small-scale producers, and support the technical and economic needs identified by these communities (including women and youths). * Support small-scale producers with economic and technical transitions to nature positive production. * Support participatory, equitable data collection that uses technologies/instruments that are adaptable and flexible to different contexts. ~ Apply a climate lens to planning on land and sea. Climate is changing this landscape. We need to be forward thinking about what we produce and how. * Much climate adaptation happens at the local scale - we need to support these small-scale producers and invest in them, then scale up. * We must re-imagine "protected areas" through a climate lens, and must ensure small-scale producers are engaged in design. E.G., Can we create "blue carbon zones" that can fit many things like reforestation, producing food, eco-tourism, wind farms, etc. * Support diversification both within and outside of the sector E.G., growing/catching diversified species; diversification of livelihood options. * Support circular use economies, E.G. utilizing waste products as fishmeal and fertilizer instead of harvesting an entirely separate stock for these uses. ~ Respect, value, and invest in traditional, Indigenous, and cultural values and resource management techniques, especially in vulnerable and isolated communities. ~ Support development and application of low-cost and flexible technologies, and use existing scaled technologies (e.g., telecommunications) to facilitate nature positive production at scale. ~ Work together across sectors to tackle the huge challenges we face. Take a system-wide view. * Consider creating Ministries of Food. * Coordinate across countries to establish governance structures and learning networks that support and facilitate nature-positive production techniques, keeping in mind that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. ~ Recognize the contribution small-scale producers make to nutrition, food security, and climate adaptation and abatement, not just production. ~ Support private transitional investors (those filling the void between NGOs and traditional banks). ~ Nature positive production techniques can make farming more attractive to the youth again. *Biggest challenges/ obstacles facing small-scale producers seeking to transition to nature positive production:* ~ Small-scale producers are generally not included in decision-making - only large-scale producers. When they are included, it's not in a meaningful way. E.G., "open comment periods" on laws vs. actually having a seat at the table to design the law. ~ Every geography has different characteristics and context, so solution development must be rooted in local knowledge (making it hard to scale solutions). ~ Lack of funds/ safety nets to see producers through the transition to new techniques. ~ Very difficult to market new "nature positive" products at scale to create viable new sectors. ~ Lack of locally-relevant data, especially ecosystem-scale and climate impact data. ~ Illegal harvest and low enforcement of regulations is still a major challenge, especially for small-scale fisheries. ~ Many policies and existing ownership structures (e.g., ownership of land, of fishing rights, etc.) encourage only short-term thinking and action on the part of the producers. ~ Lack of supportive systems (e.g., linkages for products, etc, policies to help smallholders compete) for smallholders. The systems are geared toward larger players.237None identified in this Dialogue.

Recording of the keynote talks and panel discussion that took place during the first hour of this event. All panelists have been dubbed into English to allow for automated subtitling (by YouTube) into any language. If you are interested in viewing an un-dubbed version of this video, please contact the event Convener at wbattista@edf.org.2021-08-10 18:28:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00s66BNnDmU

2021-07-03 07:23:41205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21322/39

848552016024411112720121153315313231716

The key stakeholder groups for the integration of WASH and Nutrition are the WASH-Nutrition Sub-Group of the Technical Working Group for WASH and the Technical Working Group for Food Security and Nutrition. Forpurposes of inclusiveness these groups were invited to join together for discussion. The Sub-Group brings together representatives from CARD, MRD, MoH, MoP, MoI and the National Committee for Sub-National Democratic Development (NCDD), the donors, UN, civil society and the private sector.A broad mix of participants will bring some fresh ideas and connections to light to expand the voices heard in the discussion and to increase the opportunities for novel solutions to emerge. Participants from the irrigation sub-sector, from fisheries, agriculture, industry, health, planning and rural development were all encouraged to join, Representatives from national and sub-national level, women, youth, the public and private sector and civil society were also welcomed.

NoBecause of relatively large number attending the dialogue was designed around a key presentation and panel discussion with opportunity for a question and answer session. Relatively few people were able to participate in the discussion as some questions tied up time available. Strong curatorship is needed to ensure questions are relevant and constructive. The objective of drawing in diverse views was satisfied in terms of government and non-government speakers, but not so much in terms of the broader importance of water to food systems.

234242244249Access to WASH in rural Cambodia is still low and Nutrition-Sensitive WASH faces many challenges in practice at the local level. These challenges include identifying who has the responsibilities and the interests to take action and what their role and terms of reference (TOR) should be. There is a strong need for SBCC and the establishment of regulations, protocols and reporting systems. Those responsible for WASH at a local level complains of a lack of incentives. Lack of budget and focal points to drive improvement have been critical constraints in practice. Priorities for Nutrition Sensitive WASH, in order of importance, include: Access to and use of latrines; Handwashing with water and soap; Access to and use of safe drinking water; Clean houses / yards. This event will expand beyond the dialogue and documentation for the 2nd NSFSN, to look into the relationship between Nutrition-Sensitive WASH and the food system as a whole. Water has huge role to play in food systems as an essential requirement for life itself, a habitat for aquatic species, the basis for crop and livestock production, critical for processing activities, a transport medium, source of energy and also, potentially, as the medium for transmission of disease and cause of floods and drought. Water is something of profound importance in food systems. Nutrition-sensitive WASH has more direct implications for nutrition and thus a key role for food systems as established in the2nd NSFSN. Our purpose in this dialogue is to look into the implications of nutrition-sensitive WASH for the food system, to identify the critical issues and to discuss the actions required to promote sustainable development and sustainability in the food system for 2030. The dialogue examined the current start point, the implications of COVID-19 and for COVID-19 Recovery and on into the future, looking into the roadmap towards sustainability of the food system and the critical contributions of nutrition-sensitive WASH. The dialogue helped to review the contribution of Nutrition-Sensitive WASH for food systems and also to explore the broader implications of water as a critical resource for the food system.235238239244246247249WASH can serve a critical entry point for management of COVID-19 and nutrition-sensitive WASH provides critical linkages for sustainable food systems. Universal WASH coverage and access to safely managed water, hygiene and sanitation services critically impact urban and rural communities. Several ministries have a key role to play in this including MRD, MoWRAM and MISTI, municipal and local governments. WASH is recognised as a key sector for the 2nd NSFSN 2019-2023 and nutrition-sensitive WASH is a joint priority for multi-sectoral coordination. Behavioural change and communication campaigns have a strong influence on individual behaviours and help communities to prioritise community efforts for promoting access to safely managed water and eliminate open defecation. The clear vision of the RGC is that by 2025, every person in the rural areas of Cambodia will have access to safely managed water and sanitation. This is a substantial commitment and relies heavily on the motivation of households and the engagement of the private sector. In addition, industries and particularly SMEs have important roles in producing, processing and in preparing and selling food and the hygiene aspects relating to SMEs are critically important for food safety. In the bigger picture, water is critical to all life and ecosystems. Water supports, life, ecosystem services, productive activities of all kinds and is especially important to the functioning and health of the food system. We should especially recognise the importance of rainfall and water flows and irrigation for agriculture and the contribution of freshwater and the marine environment to the production of aquatic food sources. Water is also a key constraint to production and at times the lack of water, excess water or unseasonal variations are the basis of many of the natural disasters and climate induced changes that are associated with shocks and stresses to the food system

2021-07-03 11:56:20205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26031/135

11628583080333148210612145621041166191161131828237134

The participants cut across the various facets of the food system, and the selection embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. Participants were mobilized to bring in diverse perspectives, including indigenous knowledge, cultural insights, and science-based evidence. None of the action tracks was given more importance than the other.Build Trust/Be respectful: The participants were mobilised through the leaders they are used to; and in about 3 instances, the women participated in their groups and had questions and contributions translated into the languages they understand easily. The women are also able to make contributions the same way.Holding the dialogue either physically or virtually, but not as a hybrid, makes the process seamless and easy to manage. Hybrid dialogues should be resorted to only if it is impossible to bring all participants together in one place either because of fund constraints or when a critical participant has conflicting assignments.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the Exploratory dialogue by Women Groups in Food and Agriculture challenges in Nigeria is to identify challenges and opportunities for the participation of Women in the Food System and deliberate on what a food system that includes and empowers women would look like. The focus also includes the identification of what needs to be done for women’s roles and contributions to be recognized and valued, for women to be able to exercise control over resources and assets for effective participation in the food systems and have a voice in key processes, and for institutions to be supportive of women. Because of the importance of women in the food systems, there was a felt need to galvanize inputs of women into Nigeria’s submission to the Global Food System Summit. Women are actively involved in food systems in a range of roles from production and processing to retailing and consumption. Women grow and manage crops, tend livestock, work in agribusinesses and food retailing, prepare food for their families, and much more. However, their socio-economic contributions and entrepreneurial potential often remain unrecognized and untapped. Prevailing socio-cultural norms commonly limit women’s ability to exercise power and autonomous decision-making; women therefore often continue to be disadvantaged in access to productive resources, innovative technologies, market information, financial services, education, and training. Other vulnerabilities such as ethnicity, age, and poverty further impact how women engage in food systems, e.g., married women may face additional challenges of caring for young children or other family members, or lack the resources required to do business in the food system. Addressing these inequalities in food systems means that women and men participate equally in and benefit equally from agricultural markets and rural economies to better sustain and improve their livelihoods, while preserving the natural resource base and adapting to climate change. Other vulnerabilities including ethnicity, age, and poverty further impact how women engage in food systems. For instance, young women seeking to become entrepreneurs can face multiple constraints based on gender, age, and the nature of work in the informal sector. If they are married, they may face additional challenges of caring for young children or other family members, or lack the resources required to do business in the food system.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251 Addressing the barriers faced by Women within the food systems will not only increase women participation in the Food system but will also address issues of unemployment of women, improve food security, and enhance sustainability.  Improving/facilitating women involvement in the food system has the potential to reduce the endemic rural poverty among women as well as reducing rural -urban migration.  Poor handling of relationships within the food system can result in socio-economic crisis that threatens education, health, human rights, as well as peace and security.  Food insecurity is likely to increase if challenges faced by women within the food system are not identified and addressed.  Women are not a homogenous group; it is therefore very important to look at the needs of women from diverse angles – producers, consumers, and entrepreneurs  Coordination of interventions aimed at improving the participation of women in the food system is very important – MDAs, other stakeholders to the community level.  It is important to bring forward many ‘he for she’; men that have been converted to support women.  Some strategic and immediate steps to be taken suggested during the dialogue include: - Integrating women in decision making at all levels – very important so that well intended policies may not achieve their aim. - Promoting household food production among both rural and urban women - Providing strong support for land clearing and promoting mechanisation of agriculture by Government and private sector players. - Strengthening the Agricultural Extension Services for knowledge transfer, guidance, and support through the entire food system. - Promoting women’s groups as aggregators to guarantee stability of food prices. - Encouraging crop diversification, including production of bio-fortified foods. - Facilitating access of women to improved packaging materials for preservation; and to solar technology for drying. - Promoting small-scale animal husbandry for household access to animal source foods and for income generation - Promoting the rational use of fertilizers and agrochemicals by farmers and food traders and promoting organic farming. - Encouraging local production of agricultural implements and processing machines. - Facilitating access of women to improved seeds and other production inputs - Addressing gender stereotypes and cultural practices that put women at a disadvantage. - Facilitating the formation of women cooperative societies for easy access to cheap credit and inputs, as well as equipment for processing - Building relevant infrastructure, and road networks to improve transportation to markets, and prevent spoilage and wastage. - Designing nutrition education targeted at communities and schools, empowering community members and school children to make healthy food choices and highlight the dangers of unhealthy diet. - Revisiting traditional foods, which are healthy and locally available and affordable but have been abandoned due to globalization and changing food patterns and raising their profile. - Regulating advertisement and marketing of unhealthy foods. - Raising children as change ambassadors through nutrition education embedded in school curriculum for safe, healthy, and sustainable food consumption. - Identifying and scaling up evidence-based interventions that target reduction of food wastage e.g., the promotion of micro-agro processing enterprises focused on women participation. - Promoting proper water conservation and water harvesting techniques and recycling - Formulating ‘Safe seeds’ Policies, promote cultivation of crops that are resistant to drought and are early maturing. - Creating awareness on the importance of equal opportunities for all including the women in the food system. - Setting up a system to fast-track registration of food products and eliminate barriers and frustration in registering products with the regulatory agencies - NAFDAC, SON - Facilitating the inclusion of women in decision making positions in associations. - Facilitating market access for women, including access to market information, direct and strong linkages with transporters, and creating fixed physical market spaces and schedules so women do not resort to mobile markets that are unsustainable and offer poor prices - Identifying locally appropriate/sustainable storage and packaging solutions to extend shelf-life of agricultural products - Establishing micro-processing hubs to facilitate processing of highly perishable foods and reduce seasonal price shocks - Diversifying livelihood sources for women along the food system - Facilitating increased availability of insurance products, farmer subscriptions for insurance, and regulation of insurance practice so that claims are addressed promptly. - Improving security of communities and women, and of transportation systems for food, e.g., strengthening of local vigilante groups so that they provide first-line defence; assigning farmlands to women in easy to reach, central locations; early warning systems and peace building skills for all communities - Developing and expanding platforms for reaching women with information, including market and weather information, and information about how to register processed products and expand business.236238243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Women Groups and reduction of hunger and inequality, increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods and ensuring food safety Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • Provision of rural infrastructure, including access roads, power and facilities for storage and processing. • Implementation of massive irrigation programme to enable year-round farm production. • Facilitation of access to farmland for women. • Promotion of food production among both rural and urban women across the agricultural value chain. • Strong support by government and private sector players to land clearing and promotion of farm mechanisation. • Strengthening of Agricultural Extension Services, for knowledge transfer, guidance, and support through the entire agriculture value chains. • Encouragement of small-holder farmers to form cooperatives, for better access to financing and inputs, as well as equipment for processing. • Promotion of women groups as aggregators to guarantee affordability and stability of food prices. They can also better negotiate prices for the produce with agro-allied industry. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods • Expansion of the variety of farmed crops, including bio-fortified foods. • Promotion of processing to enable product development, including blending of various foods as means of fortification. • Promotion of urban farming. • Promotion of small-scale animal husbandry, for supplementary feeding and income enhancement. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Adoption of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) to assure good food safety standards, and increased marketability and exportability of the produce and products. • Promotion of organic farming. • Availability of improved packaging materials for preservation. • Massive adoption of solar technology for drying produce for preservation. • Sustained awareness campaign against abuse of fertilizers and agrochemicals by farmers and food traders, and inappropriate application of pesticides to stored products such as maize and beans, dried yam etc. • Campaign against food adulteration as well as inappropriate application of harmful chemicals, including calcium carbide to force ripen fruits.   Cross-cutting • Massive local production of agricultural implements and processing machines by facilitating local development and assisting fabricators. • Vigorous enhancement of security in rural areas and farming communities. • Promotion of household food production Who should take the actions? • Linkage of outcomes of research projects in tertiary institutions to the private sector, for greater efficiency and productivity in the food system, as well as for food products development. • Robust relationship with development partners and multilateral organizations, particularly in the provision of technology and market development, for global competitiveness and agricultural value chain expansion. Ways in which progress could be assessed • Implementation of Monitoring and Evaluation system. • Feedback mechanism, particularly through NGOs.236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed • Make policies that empower women and give them access to landholding for farming to improve food production. • Address gender stereotypes and cultural practices that put women in the food value chain at a disadvantage through high-level advocacies and community sensitization. • Give women agency and decision-making power at all levels of the food value chain. • Improve the women’s economic capacity for food production, processing, distribution, and consumption by providing them with access to loans without collaterals and forming them into groups e.g., cooperative societies to give them a stronger voice. • Provide access to production knowledge, technology, and resources to upscale their contribution to the food system • Build relevant infrastructures, road networks to shorten supply distance in order to aid food logistics management and avoid spoilage and wastage. • Address insecurity which threatens women involved in farming • Design nutrition education targeted at communities and schools, empowering community members and school children to make health food choices and highlight the dangers of unhealthy diet. • Raise the profile of locally available healthy food in packaging and marketing to make them more desirable choices for children. • Regulate advertisement and marketing of unhealthy food (sugary beverages, ultra-processed food) through increasing tax/tariffs. • Address food preservation and storage challenges encountered by women who have no access to adequate knowledge of the right chemical to use and space for storage. • Introduce women to mixed cropping • Design strategic behavior change communication targeted at addressing barriers to healthy food consumption, attitudinal barriers, cultural barriers, etc. • Raise children as change ambassadors through nutrition education embedded in school curriculum for sustainable food consumption. • Use windows of opportunities to address consumer behavior – healthy food choices for pregnant women, breast feeding for children 0 – 6month children, complementary feeding for 6-23month children, children under-five, school-aged children, and adolescents. • Address malnutrition in children by encouraging early introduction of children to locally available and affordable healthy meals. • Return to traditional foods, which are healthy and locally available and affordable but have been abandoned due to globalization and changing food patterns. • Identify and scale up evidence-based interventions that are targeting reduction of food wastage e.g., the promotion of micro-agro processing enterprises focused on women participation in Adamawa and Borno states under the Feed the Future Nigeria integrated agricultural activities. Who should take the actions? • Continue to mobilize women and empower women at the grassroots level to participate in the food system. Ways in which progress could be assessed • Improving access to landholding by women • Increasing decision-making power seeded to women • Increasing and stronger contribution of women in food production, storage, processing, distribution, and consumption. • Increasing capacity of women and children to make healthy food choices236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Boosting nature-positive food system Actions urgently needed • Soil Testing and the use of improved seeds, improved processing especially on fruit and vegetables that is available and affordable. • Use of improved seeds to boost vertical agriculture could be adopted where access to land is an issue. • Plant tree and use of organic manure, Avoid the use of harmful chemicals • Improving our farming system and acquiring more knowledge on agriculture and extending to the rural women • Reducing overuse of land through crop rotation, less use of chemical fertilizers • Use of organic manure, total stoppage of bush burning • Avoiding the use of growth promoters and antibiotics on plants animals and birds (poultry) • Planting leguminous crops to the soil, proper water conservation and water harvesting techniques and recycling • Education and awareness and training of farmers on modern agriculture. • Reduce the energy use. • Safe seeds Policies, cultivating crops that is resistance to drought and planting early maturing seeds. Who should take the actions? • Encouraging of waste residue to transform into cooking energy (Charcoal) instead of cutting down trees for cooking energy. • one of the reforms can be processing machines • Community Farmer forums sessions to encourage shared learning through women and youth farmers initiative consultative meetings • Access for women and youth to modern technology. • Collaborating with INGOs NGOs Government, ADPs on farmer’s pre- season capacity building in states involvement all stakeholders. Ways in which progress could be assessed • Deliberate monitoring • Data collection, analysis and well-documented. • Glaring Sustainable programs demonstrated in the communities. • When value can be seen in the use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for improved food yield • Natural ecosystem and Biodiversity restored with less pollution of land and water in our communities. • More and improved food production despite climate change.236241243244245246247248249250251Group 4: Advance equitable livelihoods and value distribution Actions urgently needed • Identify women in the food system with their various strength, diversity, areas of indulgence, areas of needs, limitations etc and group them into different sectors or sections • Produce a desegregated data of women in different sections of the food system chain • Outline achievable, short, medium, and sectional objectives to improving the impact of women in the food system • Orientate these women and their male counterpart using the community-based approach on the important of all inclusive and equal opportunities for all including the women in the food system. • Ensure that all women trained, and their capacity and skills developed be supported with a starter (which could be financial or giving farm or processing equipment) • Create synergy among stakeholders in the food system and boost coordination to align their interventions to the community needs in agriculture with special attention to the vulnerable such as the women • Fast-track registration and standardization of Agro- processing products and eliminate most of the barriers and frustration in registering in the regulatory agencies e.g., NAFDAC, SON • Strengthen the women in agricultural societies, cooperation, associations, and communities to give them a voice and resources needed to run the association. • Ensure women are allotted certain positions in decision making bodies, such as the formation of community structures, marketing boards, processing, transportation etc • Ensure that all interventions in agricultural related programs, women are effectively involved and consulted before, during and after implementation. • Increase women registration in association, societies or cooperative bodies in the food system Who should take the actions? • To collaborating with higher institution like college science and technology to produce cost effective simple improved farm tools and Agro processing tools for more output in agriculture. These tools are given to women through loans or at subsidized price. • To create more access to loans for women with flexible payment plans • To strengthen already existing financial scheme such as village savings scheme, rural farmers savings scheme through accountability. Financial appropriations • To ensure functional market information system which indigenously localized to the include all women including those with language barriers • NGO’s should implement women tailored interventions   Ways in which progress could be assessed • Through appropriate disaggregated data for women in various section of the food system chain • Through continuous monitoring of the data base by tracking the number of women being identified in the food system • Tracking the number of women that register in association, societies or cooperatives in the food system chain • Through using set objectives evaluating if the objectives are met • Regular meetings of women in various sector of the food chain are held in a year2362422432442452462472482492502515: Economic, social, and ecological resilience is built for women, as participators in the food system and consumers from the food system Actions urgently needed for: Economic resilience: • Support for small ruminant production, including creating access to vaccinations • Facilitate increased market access for women, including access to market information, direct and strong linkages with transporters, and creating fixed physical market spaces and schedules so women do not resort to mobile markets that are unsustainable and offer poor prices • Establish micro-processing hubs to facilitate processing of highly perishable foods and reduce seasonal price shocks • Improve food production, including expanded access to land and other assets, green and sustainable mechanization, and other production inputs • Identify locally appropriate/sustainable storage and packaging solutions to increase shelf-life • Establishment of contractual agreements that facilitate access to commodities for local industry. Large companies often go to rural areas to offer higher prices and mop-up supply • Increase access to commercial loans, including by reducing interest rates to lower single digits • Increased organization of women into groups/cooperatives and facilitate access to services and assets, including establishment of savings and loans schemes • Diversify livelihood sources along food value chains, as opposed to primary production livelihoods only Social resilience: • Strengthen women groups/cooperatives and increase group absorptive capacity Ecological resilience: • Expanded sharing of information about weather patterns which is collated by Nigerian Meteorological Agency and facilitating access to varieties suited to weather patterns per time. Weather information can be disseminated through National Youth Service Corps • Rainwater harvesting in parts of the country where such systems are underutilized, to reduce flooding in rainy season and increase availability of water for dry season irrigation • Increasing production diversity to strengthen environment (and economic resilience) • Increased availability of insurance products, farmer subscriptions for insurance, and regulation of insurance company practices (so that claims are responsibly addressed) Cross-cutting: • Critically and urgently improve physical security of communities and women, and security of transportation systems for food. Actions should include strengthening (training and arming) of local vigilante groups so that they provide first-line defense; assigning farmlands to women in easy to reach, central locations; early warning systems and peace building skills for all communities • Develop and expand platforms for reaching women with information, including market and weather information, but also information about how to register processed products and expand business, information about available groups/cooperatives and how to join Who should take the actions? • Local agricultural and other research institutions to develop contextually appropriate solutions to challenges women face as participants (producers and processors) in the food system Ways in which progress could be assessed • Increased women’s assets and access to inputs • Existence of platforms for early warning237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251D) Areas of divergence Please share the areas of divergence that emerged during your Dialogue. An area of divergence is an issue where participants held diverse views, different opinions and/or opposing positions. For example, this might be related to a) strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems, b) areas that need further exploration, c) practices that are needed for food system sustainability, d) stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized. Please describe all of the areas of divergence in under 800 words. Note: Please do not attribute any views to named individuals 1. Some believed that women should be organized into groups, e.g., cooperatives for stronger participation while others felt that most women in farming are already formed into producer groups, cooperatives, and associations in many communities, the challenge is in most cases is access to production knowledge, technology, and resources. 2. Apparent differing perspectives about actions to prioritize. Participants reached consensus that improving security should be paramount. Fear for safety and/or life has a debilitating influence on any other action to improve resilience. 3. Review of Government policies on improved yield 4. Use of Agrochemicals and its implication on human health 5. Price regulatory system should not only be favourable to women but should include all; The regulatory board should be constituted with equal representatives of all persons in the food system chain. 6. The dialogue should not only focus on the food system but other sector that adds value to the food system such as education, health; there should be effective collaboration of the food system chain with other sectors this will improve the overall wellbeing of the actors and players in the food system chain.

2021-07-03 12:46:06205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26047/135

10655351675301171621061255622104361493212156282352536

We invited a diverse range of young people from various sectors to participate in the dialogue, as this allowed us to capture diverse perspectives and dimensions from them. Participants were informed of the importance of the dialogue and the need to act with urgency in order to address the issues that affecting youth and young people around the Food systems in Nigeria.The Dialogue was guided by the United Nations Five Action Tracks and also explored key cross-cutting issues like value addition, technology and empowerment of young people which can be mobilized to ensure that food system in Nigeria is inclusive, resilient, and sustainable in order to deliver quality diet and livelihood. During the breakout sessions, the facilitators were polite and received contributions from participants. The discussions were more directed towards recognizing the complexities in youth engagement in the food systems, acknowledging the efforts and contributions of youths, identifying areas for improvements and actions to be taken in this regard to enhance the food systems in Nigeria.Future conveners should enhance more gender inclusivity by sending targeted invitations to youth groups working across all the value – chain in the food systems including PLWD.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the exploratory dialogue by Youth Groups in Food and Nutrition challenges in Nigeria is to identify challenges and opportunities for the participation of youths in the Food System and deliberate on what a food system that includes and empowers youths would look like. The focus also includes the identification of what needs to be done for youth’s roles and contributions to be recognized and valued, for young people to be able to exercise control over resources and assets for effective participation in the food systems and have a voice in key processes, and for institutions to be supportive of youths. Because of the importance of youth in the food systems, there was a felt need to galvanize inputs of youths into Nigeria’s submission to the Global Food System Summit. Youths are actively involved in food systems in a range of roles from production and processing to retailing and consumption. Youths cultivate crops, tend livestock, work in agribusinesses and food retailing, and much more. However, their socio-economic contributions and entrepreneurial potential often remain unrecognized and untapped. Prevailing socio-cultural norms commonly limit youth’s ability to exercise power and autonomous decision-making; therefore often continue to be disadvantaged in access to productive resources, innovative technologies, market information, financial services, education, and training and thereby not making agriculture attractive for youths. Addressing these challenges in food systems means that youths participate and benefit from agricultural markets and rural economies to better sustain and improve their livelihoods, while preserving the natural resource base and adapting to climate change. Other vulnerabilities including ethnicity, age, and poverty further impact how young people engage in food systems. For instance, young person seeking to become entrepreneurs can face multiple constraints based on age, and the nature of work in the informal sector.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251 Addressing the barriers faced by youths within the food systems will not only increase youth participation in the Food system but will also address issues of unemployment of youths, improve food security, and enhance sustainability.  Improving/facilitating youth’s involvement in the food system has the potential to reduce the endemic rural poverty among youths as well as reducing rural -urban migration.  Poor handling of relationships within the food system can result in socio-economic crisis that threatens education, health, human rights, as well as peace and security.  Food insecurity is likely to increase if challenges faced by youths within the food system are not identified and addressed.  Youths are not a homogenous group; it is therefore very important to look at the needs of youths from diverse angles – producers, consumers, and entrepreneurs  Coordination of interventions aimed at improving the participation of youths in the food system is very important – MDAs, other stakeholders to the community level.  Some strategic and immediate steps to be taken suggested during the dialogue include: - Integrating youths in decision making at all levels – very important so that well intended policies may not achieve their aim. - Promoting household food production among both rural and urban youth - Providing strong support for land clearing and promoting mechanisation of agriculture by Government and private sector players. - Strengthening the Agricultural Extension Services for knowledge transfer, guidance, and support through the entire food system. - Promoting youth’s groups as aggregators to guarantee stability of food prices. - Facilitating access of youths to improved packaging materials for preservation; and to solar technology for drying. - Promoting small-scale animal husbandry for household access to animal source foods and for income generation - Promoting the rational use of fertilizers and agrochemicals by farmers and food traders and promoting organic farming. - Encouraging local production of agricultural implements and processing machines. - Facilitating the formation of youth cooperative societies for easy access to cheap credit and inputs, as well as equipment for processing - Building relevant infrastructure, and road networks to improve transportation to markets, and prevent spoilage and wastage. - Designing nutrition education targeted at communities and schools, empowering community members and school children to make healthy food choices and highlight the dangers of unhealthy diet. - Regulating advertisement and marketing of unhealthy foods. - Raising children as change ambassadors through nutrition education embedded in school curriculum for safe, healthy, and sustainable food consumption. - Identifying and scaling up evidence-based interventions that target reduction of food wastage e.g., the promotion of micro-agro processing enterprises focused on women participation. - Promoting proper water conservation and water harvesting techniques and recycling - Formulating ‘Safe seeds’ Policies promote cultivation of crops that are resistant to drought and are early maturing. - Creating awareness on the importance of equal opportunities for all including the youths in the food system. - Setting up a system to fast-track registration of food products and eliminate barriers and frustration in registering products with the regulatory agencies - NAFDAC, SON - Facilitating the inclusion of youth in decision making positions in associations. - Facilitating market access for youths, including access to market information, direct and strong linkages with transporters to encourage them more. - Identifying locally appropriate/sustainable storage and packaging solutions to extend shelf-life of agricultural products - Establishing micro-processing hubs to facilitate processing of highly perishable foods and reduce seasonal price shocks - Diversifying livelihood sources for youths along the food system - Facilitating increased availability of insurance products, farmer subscriptions for insurance, and regulation of insurance practice so that claims are addressed promptly. - Improving security of communities and youths, and of transportation systems for food, e.g., strengthening of local vigilante groups so that they provide first-line defence; assigning farmlands to youths in easy to reach, central locations; early warning systems and peace building skills for all communities - Developing and expanding platforms for reaching youths with information, including market and weather information, and information about how to register processed products and expand business.236238243244245246247248249250251Track 1: Access to safe & Nutritious Food for All Action urgently needed • Successful women in agriculture can be invited to dialogues such as this to encourage other females willing to venture into agriculture. • Women have a greater opportunity in the value chain and value addition space. • Women are creative and know more about aesthetics. • The government can introduce some form of subsidy that would make inputs such as fertilizers, improved seedlings, and herbicides cheaper for young people. • Industrialization: Government can get the equipment; give it to young person’s at affordable price. • There should be a more determined drive run by public/private investors to provide proper education and training. • Attention should also be paid to internships as conventional education may not be the only way to learn agriculture. • Agricultural extension workers can help teach the farmers how to package food for onward transportation from the farm to the market. • The quality control unit of the need to be up and doing to ensure that foods taken to the market are safe for consumption. • Creating a unified entry point into the market. Cross-Cutting All the issues above have to do with poverty and sensitization. More young people need to be educated on the need for them to be involved in agriculture. When this is out in place, the government must also ensure that youths are given the enabling environment to be in agriculture. There must be a collective effort from the government, young people, CSOs, the private sector, and so on. What contribution will organizations make? • We need to be resilient and not give up despite the challenges in the sector. • We can serve as advisers to the government as it regards to bring more young people into agriculture. • We need some form of value reorientation so that they can focus on feeding the nation and making the environment better rather than just making money. • We have to be creative. Government obstacles should not be a limitation. There is a solution in every challenge. • Our role in ensuring food nutrition security starts with getting them involved in policy and decision-making process as it relates to agricultural processes and its value chain. How will it be possible to tell if actions are being successful? When these solutions are put in place, there will be a visible and positive shift in the rate and number of youths who get involved in agriculture. However, there must be sustainability and accountability. We need to ensure that the policies created or amended are enforced and that the government is acting on their commitments regarding young people and food/nutrition security.236239243244245246247248249250251Track 2: Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed • The government must charge organisations like the National Orientation Agency to develop awareness campaigns on healthy and sustainable food consumption. • Private sector and individuals must leverage on social media to disseminate information. This will include engaging celebrities and influencers to support the campaign. • Extension workers need to train farmers on safe and healthy production methods. • The government should use incentives such as price regulation to increase the accessibility to healthy foods. • Farmers need to adopt sustainable and healthy agricultural practices to ensure food safety. • We must promote the adoption of home gardening, backyard farming and urban farming to increase the access and availability of vegetables, legumes and fruits. • Government must include nutrition in schools curriculum as well as introduce and support school gardens to increase access to nutritious. • The government must ensure regulatory agencies such as NAFDAC monitor the food processing units as well as the open markets to ensure the safety of foods. • There must also be tighter regulations on imported foods to ensure that they uphold best international food safety standards. • There must be tighter regulations on the use of agrochemicals and hormonal drugs on farms. • The private sector must be incentivized with policies that allow them collect and process foods from hot spots such as farm gate and markets. • There is an urgent need to build road/train network and improve logistics to ensure that food is not wasted along the value chain. • The youth and private sector should leverage on technologies to solve the food waste problem. Cross cutting • There is a need for government and private sectors to build agric hubs to enable state have access to food equally. • There is a need to increase finance and investments in the agriculture sector How will it be possible to tell if the actions are successful? • Increased demand for healthy foods such as vegetables, legumes, nuts and foods rich in fibre. • Lower post-harvest losses across the country. • Lower incidences of food poisoning because of poor processing and preservation techniques. • Increased awareness on safe and sustainable foods. • Increased access to safe and nutritious foods among school pupils. What contribution will our organization make? • Youth present at the dialogue have volunteered to form a coalition to champion Action Track 2. • The group also agreed on promoting Hackathons to allow the deployment of technology to solve the issues that were raised. • Promote school and home gardens • Promote diversity in our food choices.236240243244245246247248249250251Track 3: Boost Nature-Positive Production Actions urgently needed • Promotion of Climate Smart Agriculture practices • Adoption of technological solutions for optimum food production and protection of the ecosystem. • Change from traditional animal production practices to modern practices. • Education of the youths and sensitization of the masses on the essence of agriculture. • Active participation of Extension Services (Private and/or Public). • Governments and Stakeholders awareness, inclusion and participation about the identified problems and proposed solutions. What contribution will organization make? • Advocacy and sensitization of the youth and the masses on their influence on nature. • Formation of a coalition of Stakeholders in the Food System to oversee actualization of the highlighted solutions of the dialogue. • Movement or formation of government policies that synergize with the core implementation of the proposed actions. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • To measure the success of the above actions, the indicators below could signal the progress; • Optimum crop yield by farmers which indicates achievement of a good ecosystem. • Increase in food accessibility, quality and affordability through friendly market price. • Reduction in food importation as a result of sustainable food sufficiency in the country. • Youth awareness and interests in working to make a safe ecosystem and achieve Food Security. • Efficient data management should be in place for monitoring and evaluation.2362412432442452462472482492502514: Advanced Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution Actions urgently needed • Tackling poverty from a multidimensional perspective among the vulnerable populations • Gender/ Women perspective. It is no doubt that women are deprived of their rights to land ownership and other sources of livelihood. • Infrastructural development as a mean of incentivizing young people into faming and creating a sustainable source of livelihood. • Create awareness to local farmers on how important they are and the value they contribute to the economy. • Teaching farmers to understand the marketing skills that would improve their profitability. • Leveraging the power of relations such as social network. Beyond faming, there is need for mentorship process that ensures that these young. • Mindset change: Most young people have low interest in agricultural activities. • The government and its relevant agencies should improve their orientation programmers’ through seminars, conferences. • Flexible funding and credit facilities should be in place to encourage young people. • Introduce programs/engagements to catch them young which are targeted to adolescents and teenagers. • Mechanized faming should be encouraged through governments’ intervention programs. • Policies that encourage free trade zones for exporting agricultural products and produce should be setup by the Government. • Create agricultural parks and processing hubs • Government and relevant agencies should provide research and development R &D Centers across the states. • Agricultural policies should be incentivized as a way of encouraging and boosting young people interests in farming activities. • Government should provide an enabling environment for farmers in both rural and urban areas. • Security for the farmers and their produce • Urban farming through hydroponics and greenhouse technologies should be institutionalized Cross-Cutting • Regular town hall and stakeholder engagement with the government, private sector, Donors and actual farmers represented by cooperative heads across all value chain including crop, dairy, livestock etc. Should be conducted. • These town hall meetings should help support the creation of policies, laws, and targeted innovative agro programs/initiatives. • Communication should be prioritized providing status reports to various stakeholders as wins are achieved and challenges are encountered and addressed. What contributions will our organizations make? • NGOs can support with proving decentralized training and project monitoring and evaluation across the agricultural allied value chain. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Success would be through strong monitoring and evaluation of the purpose indicators pre-identified for the projects • Regular monthly, quarterly, biannual and annual reporting would be conducted to ensure on site activities are effectively documented.236242243244245246247248249250251Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress Actions urgently needed • Give access to lands to farmers and young people who know the technical know-how • Create a level ground for government, policy formulator and farmers to ensure policy formulation. • Forming a Food Value Chain Action Group consisting of smallholder farmers, transporters, processors and consumer • Adopting the Agroecology approach to strengthen the food system and improve biodiversity to provide more employment • Develop resilience food through breeding to help adapt to the changing climatic trends and the shocks from post-COVID19 • Develop training management plans for farmers to give them hands-on technological skills to improve • Create a unified system of food planting, crop production in all state. • Create a flexible method on yield for farmers per hectare • Give equal focus for agricultural activities to the inter-lands and not restrict agricultural productivity to specific regions • Invest in Agricultural research to improve the quality of food. • Create a reliable source to transit produce from farms to market. • Ensure the regulation of quality seeds, good post-harvest handling and the use of green pest control methods • Create a channel that can improve access to information, particularly for farmers Cross-Cutting • To improve the technical know-how of farmers and access to information and creating a Youth-centered Social Medium group to foster more action, knowledge and inclusion. • Create a more balanced approach between crop farmers and herdsmen to reduce crisis and accessibility of food • Creating more avenues to improve livestock production • Encourage more scaling particular at rural level through availability of funds and its accessibility What contributions will our organizations make? • Deploy the suitable approaches to improving communications among farmers, leveraging indigenous languages • Deploy training and vocational skills to farmers quarterly to help build more resilience • Create more innovative approaches to farming, adopting the Stover approach • Push forward policies to help create a unified method of producing produces to increase quality and quantity • Adopt the floating farm and the use of the breeding approach. • Ensure inclusion of farmers in decision-making and project formulation where applicable. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • When there is an increase in food availability • More employment among farmers • More informed farmers • More access to land for young people • Availability of resilience crops • Informed policies that can help reduce inequality237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Participants strongly believe that in Nigeria, we need to first ensure food security before we discuss healthy and sustainable food consumption. By creating awareness, we can let people understand that we can achieve both at the same time. • Some participants also suggested that the government support existing farmers rather than new entrants into agribusinesses. However, others agreed that the government can do both simultaneously, but they must have strong monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure results. • To ensure food accessibility and price stability, the government should buy directly from the farmers not off-takers. • Poverty: Due to poverty, young people are unable to access healthy and nutritious foods. • Youths are not willing to go into agriculture because modern tools that would ease work are not available. So, agriculture is seen as a punishment rather than a legitimate career or source of living. • Failure of the government to revitalize the farm settlement system where young people can be empowered to start on their own with the produce collected, branded either for local use or export. • Unavailability of land. Where land is available, it is inaccessible to the young people. There is also the issue of the Land Use Act. • Young people see Agriculture as an old-people thing because of various reasons such as the poor use of technology as compared to the western world where machines are employed in almost all agricultural process; Poor extension services; near zero quality check, value addition has been neglected. • The government has no clear—cut policy aimed at attracting young people into agriculture. • Insecurity: The increasing spate of insecurity in the country is enough reason to scare anybody from the farm. No young person would like to go to the farm only to be abducted or killed. The government needs to address the issue of security more seriously. • The high cost of technology for agriculture, research etc • Poor pricing pattern is a huge source of discouragement to young people who want to take up agriculture. • Bureaucratic bottlenecks, government officials seeking bribe before your application is treated etc. • Lack of enabling environment: Poor road facilities linking farmers to their target market, poor storage facilities thereby leading to waste, high cost of fertilizers and other farm inputs.

2021-07-03 13:01:10205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8734/149

901800081000000000900000000000000000000900000000

A special dialogue was held among the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, the Presidential Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Policy, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs(MAFRA). This is the result of the last dialogue, the first National Dialogue, in which producers, consumers, and experts attended and requested for participation from related ministries other than agricultural ministry.

Yes

234238239240249In this dialogue, four relavant ministries gathered to discuss how to implement the Korea’s National Food Plans developed by the Presidential Committee and relavant ministries this February. The plan had been discussed since July 2019 and aimed to secure sustainability of agriculture and fisheries through harmonizing economy, society and environment.235238239240249Participants rechecked the details of the National Food Plan and agreed that cooperation among the relevant ministries was essential to address the issues such as food & nutritional education and food waste, in particular. It was acknowledged that continuous consultation between ministries was an achievement in itself on matters of disagreement between ministries or unconfirmed sources of finance. MAFRA said it would develop MAFRA’s National Food Plan which contains implementation of the existing National Food Plan, and requested the cooperation of other ministries in the process. In addition, related ministries agreed to participate in the next National Dialogues hosted by MAFRA and KREI.

2021-07-04 04:21:11205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31627/39

1367103531222155

This event was organised as a webinar. The purpose was to create an event that could be widely seen and to ensure that the panellists gave sufficient diversity of views.This webinar event promoted inclusiveness being associated with World Food safety Day and open to wide participation as a webinar. During a period of restricted gatherings, the webinars give a chance for many people to see events relating to our national dialogue, especially for students and academia who were targeted for the event.It is best if the webinar is recorded and available for viewing after the event and efforts continue to provide the web links that will enable viewers to interact via comments. Use all available web pages in the dialogue network to promote the dialogue, even after the live event has taken place. while the webinar has the advantages of openness to many participants, it was not possible to keep record of the participants details as would be the normal case for the event registration.

NoThe event was prepared as a webinar. This meant there was scope for wide audience and awareness of the topic. There was limited opportunity for audience participation.

234238239242246249Prime Minister Hun Sen has urged strengthening the food safety and quality control system in Cambodia to enable healthy diets which he said are vital to human capital development. He made this call to mark the 7th National Nutrition Day, which falls on November 6 each year. The Prime Minister also called on the food sector to change how they process food and do business and enable people to maintain healthy diets in the wake of food chain disruptions caused by Covid-19 and severe flooding. The UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) set up an online panel of the scientific community, food safety regulators and the private sector under the theme “Fostering Food Safety through Partnership” to mark the 3rd World Food Safety Day on June 7. The discussion was part of a three-week-long campaign designed to raise awareness of food safety issues in Cambodia and seek areas for future intervention by various partners and the government. The panel discussion explored possible future roles and partnerships between academia, government and the private sector to address the challenges of food safety in a holistic manner for solutions in Cambodia. Food safety is a shared responsibility and that building strong partnerships with a robust mechanism across academia and the public and private sectors is essential. The partnership will go a long way in ensuring the health and wellbeing of all people. The panel agreed that sharing experiences, understanding the problems and identifying solutions, and building partnerships are the best options to promote innovation in the food sector and support the private sector. Equally important, the panel agreed that mobilising necessary resources to sustain such partnership is key to a long-term solution.235238239242245246249The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) plans to further enhance skilled human resources in Cambodia with the aim to strengthen the competitiveness of post-harvest agribusinesses with a focus on fisheries. UNIDO Chief Technical Advisor component of the so-called CAPFISH (Cambodia programme for sustainable and inclusive growth in the fisheries sector), Shetty Seetharama Thombathu said that UNIDO is establishing Food Technology, Research and Innovation Platform bringing together academia, government and private sector to support research and innovation for value addition of agro-producers. The platform will strengthen the competitiveness of post-harvest agribusinesses, especially fisheries. With a strong commitment and sustainability plan, such a platform could be an excellent mechanism for addressing food safety issues in the country. “With strong commitment and sustainability plan, such platform could be an excellent joined mechanism for addressing food safety issues in the country,” said Shetty when marking the Third World Food Safety Day themed Fostering Food Safety Through Partnership yesterday. To mark the event, a panel of the scientific community, food safety regulators and private sector was set up to explore possible future roles and contributions of the partnership between academia, government and private sector to address the challenges of food safety in a holistic manner for meaningful solutions in Cambodia. Institute of Technology of Cambodia (ITC) Deputy Director General, Thavarith Chunhieng said ITC was ready and keen to collaborate by bringing its expertise and knowledge to solve societal challenges in food safety and beyond. The food system is part of poverty reduction and right now we have Covid-19 which is affecting production. Fisheries Post-Harvest Technologies department director, Chamnan Chhou said the implementation of food quality control is important as unfortunately, street food does not meet this standard as it is of poor quality due to dust, pollution and an unhygienic environment. Science Technology & Innovation department director, Sokny Ly said most of the food manufacturers are from the small and medium industry and they do not provide data to regulate their food production and that poses a big challenge. She said there is a need to inspect these premises to ensure they follow the food quality standards. Ministry of Economy representative, Lao Poliveth said that this is the first time Cambodia participated in the online discussion and many issues were raised that could help strengthen the economic food development and some areas that will benefit the producers and consumers in terms of food safety and quality. Camilla Lombard, Deputy Head of Cooperation for the EU Delegation to Cambodia, said the EU was committed to supporting Cambodia’s efforts to improving food safety and production. Further support to food safety in particular, and sustainable food systems in general, is envisaged under the next development cooperation programme between the EU and Cambodia for the period 2021-2027 which is currently being designed.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Panel_Discusion_FOSTERING_FOOD_SAFETY_THROUGH_PARTNERSHIP_CAPFish.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UNIDO_CAPFISH_Fatcsheet.-ENG-26.06.2020.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UNIDO_CAPFISH_Fatcsheet-Kh.26.06.2020.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/cambodia/news/rss/detail-events/en/c/1411148/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bL2jTKmIag

2021-07-04 11:52:39205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24189/92

441253304375423261311313214126129

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249This dialogue was dedicated to exploring ways to implement the 2030 SDGs in the Israeli food system. In particular, it addressed the following topics: 1. Israel's strong points in animal-based food systems and ways to leverage them in order to improve food system health in Israel and globally; 2. Actions that need to be taken immediately in order to reach the SDGs; 3. Which actors need to be brought on board in order to reach the SDGs; 4. Which knowledge and technological gaps exist that need to be addressed; 5. Where are regulatory tools needed, and which tools are necessary?235238239240243244245246248249Israel has many crucial strong points in the field of animal-based food systems. These can be applied internally – some branches of production have unique strong points that can be transferred and applied to the benefit of other sectors – and externally, to contribute to our neighbors and to global food systems. A. A main strong point raised in nearly all discussion groups was Israel's technological prowess and R&D abilities, which can be leveraged to solve many of the problems raised and even to foster necessary regulation. Specifically, regarding alternative proteins, Israel is a production and development hub. B. An additional strong point is Israel's wealth of excellent and extremely capable health care professionals. C. Israeli agricultural producers are generally educated, which allows for meaningful dialogue and cooperation. D. Israel is a vegan "superpower" and public awareness of animal welfare issues is high. E. Israeli dairy production is very efficient, which means that less livestock is required and the production impact can be significantly mitigated. F. Many advanced technological solutions implemented in Israel have produced outstanding results, especially in the fields of aquaculture and dairy production. The actions that need to be taken immediately mostly pertain to the following topics: 1. Urgent collection of reliable information on all aspects and stages of animal-based food production (housing conditions, livestock origin, use of antimicrobials, zoonotic diseases, etc.), and transparency of this information; 2. Facilitating cooperation and information-sharing between the relevant ministries (Agriculture and Rural Development, Health, and Environmental Protection) regarding food safety, food security, sustainability, and animal welfare. These ministries must pass on their findings and professional recommendations to the Ministries of Finance and the Economy; 3. Education and health promotion – educating the public to become knowledgeable consumers in aspects of sustainability, animal welfare, food safety, and food security. Educating professionals and stakeholders on these topics as well. 4. Dismantling conflicts of interest and reducing the concentration of power in certain interest groups – for example, in the bovine intensive farming industry, most intensive farms are affiliated exclusively with two major companies, which are the major importers as well as owners of the largest slaughterhouses, creating a duopoly market structure. Another example is from the poultry industry, which has the Poultry Industry Council, a statutory body created by law which has an inherent conflict of interest in its roles. It is supposed to plan the extent of production, to monitor production, and to regulate it. However, one of its main stated goals is to increase production and consumption - leading it to expand production as much as possible at the expense of animal welfare, sustainability, and even food safety. A similar conflict of interest exists in the Israel Dairy Council 5. Stopping or significantly reducing the live imports of livestock. 6. Changing the growing conditions for laying hens and the marketing conditions of eggs. The conditions in which laying hens are raised in Israel are very inadequate, compared to other countries, and the eggs that reach the market generally are not adequate for sale due to poor sanitation, storage, and shipping conditions. The main actors that need to be brought on board are the three Ministries (Agriculture and Rural Development, Health, and Environmental Protection) and professionals from those areas; the decision-makers in the fields of economy and finance, the producers, the industry, and the agricultural cooperatives. Besides these obvious actors, it is also crucial, in Israel's unique situation, to include the decision-makers in the fields of religious dietary restrictions and the Arab sector. The most urgent information gaps are detailed under article 1 above. Evidence-based information gaps that require further research exist mainly regarding animal welfare and sustainability. There is a specific need for such information regarding the environmental footprint of animal-based food production and how it compares to alternatives, and on food waste and its solutions. Israel is a start-up nation with great technological developments and innovations. Hence, the main technological gap is the lack of information-sharing databases and other IT issues. Regulatory deficits were raised in all discussion groups. In some sectors, the necessary regulation does not exist, in others it is not implemented, and in others the regulation that exists is detrimental to the goals set.2362382392402412432442452462482491. General findings:  It is necessary to develop and implement the relevant regulations.  Cooperation between ministries and between stakeholders from industry, academia, and the government must be encouraged and fosters.  Research and development must be encouraged and supported financially. This is in order to accumulate relevant information on the different sectors, especially on their hazards and sustainability.  It is necessary to receive and document relevant information regarding livestock diseases from the farm level and antimicrobial use, and to create relevant centralized databases.  Circular economy – It is important to responsibly reuse resources (such as cattle manure) while maintaining biosecurity.  Labeling products with relevant information regarding animal welfare, sustainability, origin, and production methods.  Animal welfare must be improved through regulation, supervision, incentivization and transparency (by including such information on labels as listed above). It was also widely raised (although not unanimously agreed) that the responsibility for animal welfare should be transferred to the Ministry of Environmental Protection.  It is important to implement education and training, for the public and for the relevant professionals and farmers, regarding healthy consumption, sustainability, antimicrobial use, and more. 2. Zoonotic Diseases  There is a need to establish an advisory committee and an inter-ministerial coordination factor.  Need to set threshold values for all factors in order to make operational decisions. Recommendation for the establishment of a uniform and nationwide monitoring program for all parties dealing with the issue of supervision. (Health, Agriculture, Environmental Protection, Nature and Parks Authority and Laboratories in the public health)  There is a need to update reporting diseases (especially parasites and eukaryotes)  Building a uniform and orderly training program for investigators.  Adding uniform legislation to all morbidity factors. (Sampling and threshold values)  Recruiting opinion leaders to promote the importance of making information accessible to citizens. 3. Antimicrobials (AM)  It is necessary to create large databases, accessible to all with standardized information (an agreed upon list of AM resistant microbes and standard directives for treating the different types of livestock and animals). It may also be useful to create a computer application to document the use of medicine at the farm level and integrate the information to a central database.  It is crucial to raise public awareness to educated use of AM and to influence the market, using campaigns and advertisements. The influence of the Covid-19 campaigns and advertisements can provide an example. In addition, awareness should be raised among producers, caretakers, physicians, instructors, etc.  A uniform standard for raising livestock without AM for the consumer should be implemented.  Biosecurity should be fostered in order to prevent preventative AM use – for example, by cultivating mixed breeds.  It is crucial to develop a list of critical AM to be used only on humans, and to institute regulations that make reporting and documenting their use mandatory.  The use of AM for treating livestock and AM should be minimized. It should be noted that the environmental impact resolves itself, however, there have been cases in which AM resistant microbes have remained in the environment despite the discontinuation of use.  Measures to monitor and enforce educated AM use should be implemented at the farm level and at the veterinary level, with appropriate regulations.  Parties that need to be brought on board – political figures, the public, physicians, veterinarians, One Health environmental professionals, the kashrut branch of the Chief Rabbinate, the Ministry of the Economy, and the veterinary services.2362382392402412432442452462482494. Livestock  Optimizing the local production – elevating the weaning rate of calves from 60 to 70-75 percent in current pasture land, through better veterinary coverage; reestablishing institutional laboratories for diagnosing diseases; improved distribution of vaccinations and cooperation with international veterinary services.  Planning and zoning – limiting the scope of cattle in intensive farming, based on space and distance requirements from residential areas. Shifting the major use of cattle farms for local production.  Supporting alternatives - improving vegetarian options in institutional kitchens, workplaces etc.; adopting one or two meatless days a week (before and after the weekend); educating the public on healthy nutrition, advantages of legumes, improving accessibility and nudges; support R&D for alternative protein.  advertising and packaging – apply similar measures as tobacco, such as limiting advertising aimed at minors; plain packaging.  Daycare menus- amending regulation to reduce red meat consumption.  Food loss prevention by charging only production costs towards the end of the day.  Economic measures – it was suggested to apply environmental regulation on the cattle industry as any other industry, including polluter pays principle; carbon tax; redistribution of subsidies to sustainable practices and plant protein; VAT exemption on legumes; creating a “healthy food basket” (change in price-controlled products).  Importation of kosher meat - eliminating the mandatory requirement for strictly kosher meat importation should reduce prices (thus could also balance other methods) and improve sustainability. To the least it should be accommodated to the part of the population that consumes kosher meat.  Illegal slaughter- establishing small/community slaughter facilities in the Arab society to mitigate risks and challenges. Amending regulation that harms small producers and generates inequalities. 5. Alternative proteins  It is important to provide the regulators with the necessary tools to "catch up" with technological advances. 6. Poultry and eggs  Cages should be prohibited for fattened poultry and pullets.  Forced molting should be ceased.  The food industry should be encouraged to switch from broilers to less-intensively reared birds. 7. Dairy  The sector should be made more inclusive by bringing in farmers from the Arab sector. 8. Aquaculture  Offshore fish farming is a main growth potential promise for local and sustainable production of healthy food. Limiting factors of service ports and improved insurance conditions should be provided by the governments, as well as profound investment support.  RAS projects must be of large production scales of several thousand tons per year to ensure economic efficiency.  Increasing production capacity as a path for improving the sector's capability to cope with high level environmental regulation should be considered upon the local environmental carrying capacity. This parameter as well – must be based on quantitative methods, models, and most of all – balanced approach considering all stakeholders.  Balancing public health, environmental and social requirements in countries exchanging products is important for fair competition and for improving global food production sustainability. 9. Animal welfare  The planned reform in the egg industry must be stopped.237238239241243244245246248249The main areas of divergence, by topic, were: 1. Dairy  Can dairy be produced without causing an environmental burden compared to the alternative?  Dairy consumption benefits vs. harm. Some participants claimed that dairy products are rich in sugar, saturated fat, and sodium and therefore should be consumed to a minimum, while others pointed to their nutritional benefits as a source of calcium, protein, and more.  Who should supervise animal welfare? 2. Livestock  Importation of livestock - it was debated whether this practice should be gradually prohibited by legislation or whether by introducing market mechanisms to affect its scope and balance supply and demand. Such measures include: • meat importation - deregulation and tariff exemption (also simplifying the importation licensing process by the Ministry of Economics). • livestock importation- reintroducing tariffs on livestock importation, reducing the quota for tariff exempted importation of livestock.  It was also debated whether livestock importation should be replaced with meat or plant-based/alternative protein, and to what extent.  Characterization of supply and demand- it was argued by several participants that the scope of livestock importation and red meat production were affected by the extremely consolidated market conditions. A reservation was made claiming that production and supply rates were essentially a measure to meet demand. 3. Poultry and eggs  Production quotas – some participants supported maintaining the quotas, while others claimed that they harm the egg production sector's efficiency, professionalism, and quality, and lead to high prices. Those who opposed supported direct subsidies to farmers.  Should a transfer from animal consumption to alternatives be encouraged?  Should the responsibilities for preventing animal cruelty under the relevant law be transferred from the Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development to the Ministry of Environmental Protection? 4. Aquaculture  High trophic fish farming has a drawback of using higher level feed and represent less ecological efficient solutions. However, maximizing the benefits of high nutrition content of these species might compensate.  Disagreement was raised concerning the enforcement of animal welfare regulation in fish farming. Also, the potential conflict of interests of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development was raised, since this Ministry is in charge of food production on one side, but also on welfare regulations on the other side. 5. Animal welfare  Is regulation the right tool to end the live imports of livestock? Should more stringent import welfare standards be implemented, or should the shipments be discontinued altogether? It was stated that studies abroad have proved that the suffering in live imports is inherent and cannot be prevented through measures such as expanded enforcement.

2021-07-04 12:13:18205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24182/92

4502910296411271240811292

Yes

236Technology challenges and opportunities a. Public health aspects: 1. Making the nutritional healthy habits a normative behavior available for all with the ideology of sustainability in all aspects and as the easy choice in all places. 2. Implementing Health nutritional behavior in the urban area in schools at working places, and in the food markets. 3. Independent research funds in multiple areas of nutrition, health, Food-Tech food marketing and nutritional and food security and the interactions between all. 4. Regulations: global regulation with national adjustments in accordance with local health and nutritional guidelines and needs with transparency to all. Regulation, supervision and enforcement should be concentrated under one central body with powers and budget in order to prevent contradiction and / or duplication of regulation on the one hand and to fill regulatory gaps on the other. 5. Ultra-processed food needs a universal definition in light of new products and the level of processing with accompanying research for the health influence of different ultra-processes categories. 6. The Ministry of education will add nutritional curriculum in all school levels with nutritionists as the teachers and also a Food-Teck . The food built environment and eating facilities will include dedicated dining areas according to healthy nutritional and sustainable guidelines. 7. Institutions: Human capital with advanced education in nutrition and food as a standard in all institutions with leading nutritionists. E.G. The army camps, hospitals, working places and more. Equipment and infrastructure tailored to ensure food security and customized food as needed. 8. Local authorities, establishing health department as a standard in all local authorities with an urban nutritionists, Local Urban planning: The infrastructure of the Urbanism architecture will be based on healthy food environment in all places. 9. Laboratories budgeting and staffing in Israel in a way that will make it possible to respond to a wider range of contaminants, nutritional values in food in a professional, fast and cheaper manner. b. The individual level: 1. Developing and implementing of advanced applications that monitor healthy lifestyles and nutrition through incentives to improve and maintain motivation to improve nutrition and health, including assistance in preparing healthy and accessible foods in varies ways. 2. The regulations and local authorities will make the healthy nutritional sustainable and secured food choice, the easy one. 3. Developing a healthy nutritional discourse in both formal and informal educational settings c. Food technology Allocation of resources to the regulator in order to enable support for the advancement of the FoodTech in Israel by maintaining continuous contact with various parties involved in the field., dialogue between the regulator and industry already in the early stages of development, a panel of experts from Israel and abroad and more. Establishment of infrastructure and knowledge centers - such as a national food and nutrition institute that will enable the availability of infrastructure, pilot facilities and will operate as a knowledge center. Establishing a professional team entrusted with risk assessment and risk management, while investing resources in collecting real-time data from Israel, in a way that will make it possible to adjust supervision and enforcement to the degree of risk to public health. The regulator initiates a horizontal move of standard adoption and / or binding regulation for all the raw materials used for food packaging and food utensils. At the same time, the industry will take responsibility for any issue of reducing unnecessary packaging, promote the development and use of smart packaging and encourage recycling.236The regulator will make assessments of consumption and exposure (including biomonitoring) and will set up a computerized and advanced system, which will include all data collected, and will allow its storage and analysis according to needs. The regulator will work to formulate up-to-date and individual recommendations for sensitive populations and these will be transparent and available to the public.237Discrepancies Widening the food categories for green labeling Transparency regarding various processes of re-formulation and detail such as palm oil, artificial sweeteners on the front of the package labeling. Adding a relative front of pack labeling and not only negative and positive ones. Allow for variety and variety of opinions in the field of nutrition versus clear guidelines of allowed and forbidden Preventing the publication of harmful food to the public on all platforms and media by formulating binding regulation versus voluntarily one or target only to children and adolescents The field of alternative protein in Israel is a wide area that need regulations and research on various health impacts. Establishment of curricula in the field of food-tech with an emphasis on alternative protein from a young age (division / high school) to academia or the natural vegetarian food rich protein products.

2021-07-04 15:20:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27697/39698788102145173199

2102090651014069159151010255021212190101031065105015202

The dialogue was organized by the Inter-continental Network of Organic Farmers Organization, a global network of organic farmers organization within the IFOAM - Organics International in partnership with Asian Farmers Association (AFA), Pacific Islands Farmers Organization Network (PIFON) and World Farmers Organization (WFO). The participants of the dialogue are farmer members, NGO partners, representatives from the Local Government Units and from the value and supply chain groups coming from South East Asia (Philippines, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam), South Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Nepal) and the Pacific (Fiji, ). Five presenter shared the proposed solutions on how the UNFSS can enhance, scale up and scale out agroecology and organic agriculture starting with seeds, traditional food, agroforestry to marketing. The dialogue was also coordinated with the INOFO country conveners and is open to the local stakeholders so that they will be able to share and discuss their perspective and important role in crafting recommendations for the UNFSS. The diversity of participants who joined the discussion is a reflection of the interests of the different sectors as organic agriculture and agroecology gain popularity as solution to the worsening impacts of the current food systems to the environment, farmers health and productivity. However, the dialogue did not only focused on environmental and economic dimension of agroecology and organic agriculture but also delved in culture, society, justice, equity covering the socio-cultural and political aspects to attain sustainable food systems. Each participant has the opportunity to share their recommendations during the regional break out session, giving enough time for each to speak their minds and are ensured that their points will be included in the report. There was no unfriendly debate, only sharing of perspectives and point of views while facilitators ensured that sharing are not going far from the objectives of the dialogue.Act with Urgency and recognition of complexity - The participants discussed the importance of acting on SDG #1,2,3,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 as participants are mainly from the agriculture sector, particularly small scale farmers in the developing South, and are directly involve in the whole food value and supply chain. They are those who have first hand experiences in the challenges of the current food systems, specially with the pandemic which worsens the impacts of climate change and its effects and corporate takeover of the whole food system. Commit to the summit - as the viable solution to the problems of the current food systems, participants actively engaged and propose appropriate solutions to the realities of the majority of the farmers globally. The current food system has done a great damage to the small farmers, to the local ecosystem and the environment as a whole; with this, organic farmers efforts in conservation of biodiversity, local knowledge and traditions and methodologies that revolve around the needs and realities of the communities. Respect and embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - Respect is the working principle in the conduct of the entire summit. The participants who came from different sectors, each were given the chance to speak their minds and their contributions, there were no unfriendly debate, only passionate discussion and proposal of solutions. Most of the contributions are complementary and differences in ideas were welcomed since the participants are coming from different realities, perspectives and priorities. Complement the work of others - the need for stronger cooperation and complementation are reflected in the recommendations of each speakers and the participants, specially with the government and private sector, in terms of policies, programs and projects. Production and marketing will be enhanced if there are working mechanisms and enabling environment to support to the producers and other stakeholders in the value and supply chain.The principles of engagement should be read, understood well and kept in mind during the conduct of the dialogue, from the development of topics, assigning speakers and asking the right questions during open forums. These are helpful in crafting questions and developing guides in the presentation and overall structure of the dialogue. The principles will also help conveners to avoid biases in the conduct of the dialogue and practice inclusivity so that participants will be more active and will not show any reservation in speaking.

NoThe dialogue Sustainable Food Systems driven by Agroecology and Organic Production Systems followed the method as recommended in the reference Manual , but was added with a series of presentation from invited speakers from different organizations with highly successful implementation of actions, programs and projects which were seen as important basis in the crafting of solutions for the UNFSS. The flow of program is as follows: I. Opening remarks/rationale II. Issues and Challenges Facing Organic Farmers and the need for agroecology III. Presentation of speakers (10 minutes each) - 5 topics aligned to the 5 tracks of the UNFSS Seed, knowledge and traditional utilization and conservation Agroecology in Agroforestry Preservation of traditional food systems, including knowledge, traditions and local People's Rights, Sri Lanka Strategy for Small Farmer’s Autonomy and Sustainability During Pandemic: Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) Organic quality and supply chain development IV. Plenary session (40 minutes) - discussion and recommendations were compiled, including that from the speakers V. Response and closing remarks The presentations helped in the break out session by becoming the baseline information and points for discussion. However, the facilitators ensured that the participants in each break out group will not be repeating the same points already discusses by the presenters so there were three (3) guide questions to be asked that were previously agreed upon by the dialogue organizers to be asked, they are: A. Aside from what has been presented, what are other initiatives, innovative solutions to the barriers and challenges would you recommend to the UNFSS? B. Are there specific strategies or innovations that have successfully addressed the challenges or barriers of women and young fishers? C. Please enumerate ways for scaling out and scaling up implementation of the solutions, initiatives presented (e.g. make agroecology the new normal; provide funding for transitioning farmers, policy intervention, program development, investments, intervention from the financial institutions) With these questions, the break out group where participants from sub-regions of South Asia, South East Asia, South East Asia (Mekong Region) and the Pacific were able to have an in-depth discussion of the dialogue topic and answer the questions in their respective break out session groups. After the break out session, the results were shared in the plenary session where other participants were also able able to hear and understand the different context and perspectives of other nation in the practice and implementation of agroecology and organic production system. Each break out session group was facilitated by the partner organizations representatives of the week-long dialogue namely AFA, INOFO and PIFON. In the end, the point of divergence and convergence were clearly identified. The points of divergence are mostly about the priorities of each organization in the operation of their programs, however, the point of convergence were clearly about the issues that farmers are experiencing in Asia, from land rights issues, priorities in policies and programs of the government, climate change, biodiversity collapse in diverse rich countries of Asia and farmers rights as a whole. The participants were also able to hear from the agroecology team of FAO where he shared the programs and what FAO has been doing in terms of tools and approaches under the Scaling Up Agroecology Initiatives.

234238239240241242244246247249251INOFO is a network that facilitates relationship between organic farmers unions through the autonomous, self-organized infrastructure within which farmer organizations consult and cooperate on matters of common concern and speak in any forum with legitimate professional voice. With its mission to unite organic farmers and support their voices at all levels of food systems development, INOFO Asia is conducting the independent dialogue to discuss the issues and challenges of the present food system, from seed to table and propose a sustainable food systems driven by agroecology and organic production systems as these two topics encompasses the five action tracks of the UNFSS. Agroecology is a scientific discipline and a recognized social movement that nowadays is underpinned by a considerable evidence base for various production contexts. The HLPE report on Agroecological and other innovative approaches, and the FAO Agroecology Hub are considered common denominators for the definition and framework of Agroecology. It mimics natural ecological systems’ principles for resilient and healthy food production while addressing systemic challenges such as, depletion of soils and natural resources, biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change. Alternately, civil society groups define agroecology as a holistic approach to sustainable agriculture and food systems. Beyond its biophysical and ecological aspects, we look at agroecology as being strongly grounded on the environmental; social and cultural; economic; and political dimensions of sustainability, as defined and outlined by the Coopération Internationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité (CIDSE). Complementing agroecology, "organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, banning chemical fertilizers and pesticides and taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, where possible, agronomic, biological, and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfil any specific function within the system." (FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1999). Organic farming protects all living creatures in the ecological food web of life - the microbes, insects including butterflies, amphibians, birds and the entire biodiversity gets adversely affected by the use of chemical fertilizers and the pesticides which then affects the pollination, soil carbon and closing of these ecological cycles ultimately leading to unsustainable, toxic food systems that affect our health and environments. Farmers do understand this but with limited or no access to these alternative resources for pest control, they succumb to what is available and easily accessible to control the pests. With the increased use of chemical pesticides, the farmers are now becoming aware of the resistance to chemicals by the existing pests and how this is a never ending vicious trap. Hence, many farmers are resorting to more sustainable alternatives of employing low cost, locally sourced, farm made organic pest repellents, advocated under the Organic Production Systems. Agroecology and Organic Farming is practiced widely all over the world, often by small-scale operations but when it comes to the ground realities of a farmer in his/ her locality, it’s still a huge struggle to convince the neighboring farmers, consumers, municipalities and ultimately Governments about the importance Agroecology and the innovative approaches to conversion to more regenerative practices. With this, the dialogue aimed to: a) Inform and educate the participants about the issues and challenges of the present food system and the role of agroecology and organic production systems in addressing these issues; and b) Make use of the Independent Dialogue to put the voices of the small farmers and the marginalized in setting the agenda and proposing pro-farmer, pro-people and pro-planet solutions to the Food Systems Summit.235238239240241242244246247249251The main findings of the dialogue are as follows: A.Issues and Challenges Facing Organic Farmers and the need for agroecology The contradictions of the current Food System: Food producers stay hungry (821M people are hungry, mostly food producers); Food is increasingly not for humans (about 53% for biofuels, livestock, etc.); Food is wasted (1.3 B tons is wasted) Reiteration of the findings of IAASTD, which assessed agriculture for the past 50 years and what should agriculture be in the next 50 years, where business as usual is no longer an option; Radical change is needed in agriculture policy and practice; Systematic redirection of investment, funding, research and policy focus towards needs of small farmers Deglobalize and Relocalize our food systems so that it is sustainable, a mitigation to climate change and it addresses the broader objective of society of addressing poverty, hunger, sustainability, food sovereignty and equitability. Stop biopiracy; biodiversity and ecosystems destruction; stop dumping/ unnecessary food imports; stop land grabbing and development aggression; oppose suppression of legitimate social movements. B.Seed, knowledge and traditional utilization and conservation Farmers innovations and indigenous traditional knowledge is the basis of agriculture system, it they are lost, everything will be gone. The traditional knowledges are also reflected in culture associated with diversity in food systems. Traditionally, food is the medicine, but now it has become a poison. In hybridization, there is no nutrition and nutrient security is lost. Conservation, Cultivation, Consumption, Commercialization is needed to develop opportunities for livelihood. Decentralized Seed Banks and put them on village and cluster level seed banks which are not just storage of seeds and display, but a live seedbanks. It is not just conservation for the sake of conservation, seeds have some uniqueness for different needs. Demystify knowledge and develop on farm centers in the field, with the people involving communities. C.Agroecology in Agroforestry Solidarity among farmers provide services to members that enables them to manage natural resources in an environmentally friendly manner, produce quality products that meet market demands, achieve fair and sustainable returns for their work and improve the wellbeing of all members of farming families. Diversification is key strategy to coping with uncertain conditions, promoting innovations in integrated farming, which involves a combination of food crops, cash crops, livestock and forest products. Through Farmer to Farmer Learning (F2F), members gain new knowledge on organic agriculture production diversification The action research help farmers do the research by themselves. Recognize the Local knowledge and wisdom on agroecological approach to farmer Youth engagement is important for continuity and sustainability. D.Preservation of traditional food systems, including knowledge, traditions and local People's Rights Rice has always been the staple and brings wisdom and the inter-relation of having a great diversity in culture. Traditional food have medicinal roots. People don’t just eat to be fed, but with the value of the medicine, with different varieties having different medicinal properties. Food that have different cultural and nutritional values. The issue of micronutrients deficiencies, such as iron deficiency, is high on the government agenda, this is NOT needed. Even in this UN Food Systems Summit, the private sector people are encouraging food fortification. It is not the solution, there are traditional food where you can get the nutrition. Food fortification is a myth, a lie. The traditional and local food, with all the nutrition, is what organic farming is all about. E.Strategy for Small Farmer’s Autonomy and Sustainability During Pandemic through (PGS) In many country, the government only allow certification of organic by 3rd party which is expensive for small scale farmers. An alternative approach for them is through the participatory guarantee system or PGS whic is intended for the local market. PGS encourages farmers to create autonomy in providing their own production inputs . Many activities in the PGS opened opportunities for farmers to solve their own problems creating empowerment. PGS opens access for farmers to seek markets because the guarantee system includes customer and provide opportunity for farmers to open their own market During the first semester of the Covid-19 pandemic, there was panic buying and farmers were still able to send their harvests to consumers, without being tied to market opening hours and consumers do not need to leave the house to get healthy food. F.Organic quality and supply chain development Building supply chains - Since the farmers cannot bring their products to the market, and with very lo volume, those products were needed to be brought to the market so producers, consumers and authority in the local to support the farmers. Setting conditions to get involve in supply chains - Farmers has to register in groups, work in a group, and must be trained organic standards and technique. The main stakeholders include farmers, retailers, consumers and all interested will join functional teams assigned to manage and support farmers. Flow should be = Integrity management on farm through adherence to standards and rules; postharvest management by bringing products to one place or packing house for handling together; organic products are stamped with QR code.236238239240241242244246247249251The following are the outcomes of the dialogue: 1.Increased awareness about agroecology and organic agriculture - The principles and practices of agroecology and organic agriculture are there, many farmers around the world are already practicing sustainable food production system that cuts across the challenges presented, it’s just a matter of recognizing, promoting, supporting and directing resources into organic agriculture and agroecology by the national governments and international institutions such FAO. 2.Stronger cooperation between members of INOFO in the promotion of agroecology and organic agriculture and for exchange of experiences, study and improving human resources. Farmers exchange and training to diagnose the problems and they are equipped with the technology & management techniques are able to assist with plant health in their communities. 3.Stronger call for rights recognition of women and youth - Food systems have been developed against the disadvantaged. We should develop agriculture for women and young people so that agriculture systems could become beneficial to people. There is a need to organize the youth creatively for them to encourage the youth to engage in agriculture. A lot of youth are discouraged to go to the field to do agriculture. The goal is to also break the stigma in farming, because their mindset is that farming is boring or dirty and not profitable. 4.Call for stronger unity, engagement and cooperation among stakeholders. Farmers and consumers should organize themselves, government and agencies should respect farmers rights so that there could be a foundation of lasting food systems around the world. There needs to be an improvement in consumers’ knowledge about organic food. This includes community engagement activities involving research with other partners to focus on ecological research & livelihoods, engaging the communities to participate in the research themselves to better understand, better understanding so that they work towards improving what they eat, plant. 5.Recognition of the rights of the farmers to resources as a cornerstone for the recognition of their role in food production. The recognition of the rights of farmers to the production of food. We have to go back to the basics and further push this in the UN food systems summit. I think we have to address the basic problems to address these rights. In organic agriculture, it's difficult if farmers do not have access to land and water. This would be helpful in the recognition of their rights. 6.Stonger call for GMO seeds to be controlled strictly and GMO seeds must be labeled so that people can easily recognize them. 7.Proposal to support and scale up organic farming and agroecology through financial models for organic farming and maybe consider awards for farmers pursuing this. 8.Push governments to create policy to reduce use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Ban these. Promote organic fertilizers. Policies that support small scale organic farmers to create favorable environment for them to thrive and become productive. It should include policy to introduce good post harvest facility for farmers. Subsidy not adequate. Some more support for farmers to store product to get better price for products. 9.Call to recognize IAASTD findings where business as usual is no longer an option. 10.Call for deglobalization and relocalization of food systems.237238239240241242244246247249251There is not much divergence in term of principles and what are the participants are trying to convey to attain a better food systems. They are united that there should be strong implementation of biodiversity conservation policies nationally and internationally, better support structure for small scale producers - from production to marketing, including infrastructure, implementation of climate change policies nationally and internationally and stop the corporatization of agriculture. The divergence is mainly in the priorities at the national level since many countries in Asia are not getting enough support, specially vaccine, to be able to continue producing more food. In Asia, many countries faced the challenge of transportation of the food to the urban centers that caused overproduction and wastage in the rural area. With this, the priority now is to bring the harvest to the urban centers but not in supporting farmers have better marketing skills and improve the production and processing capacities so that food do not go into waste. Priorities of the governments in many countries are misplaced, which are pushing small scale and marginalized farmers further in the periphery. The proposed solution are all in the agroecology framework of FAO, but as part of the output of the dialogue, there is a strong recommendation to include the political dimension, specially farmers right recognition, to bring the back the resources (land, biodiversity, knowledge, technology, market) into the hands of the farmers, as this is basic requirement to have a better food systems.

2021-07-05 08:48:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24972/3798112153189193

80235251862151452355553276225113713135583352332453

1. By practicing what we preach. We invited speakers and panellists who are passionate and champions in the areas they were addressing, have a proven track record in the same. As a champion for women empowerment in Food Systems, it was important to on board respected, realistic, sustainable and progressive panellists. 2. Being respectful to all. Protecting diverse cultures and beliefs while promoting food production and consumption policies and best practices. We recognise and respect the diversity of our stakeholders and especially the dialogue participants. By respectiful addressing pertinent issues around food security, health, resilient livelihoods and good stewardship of natural resources, we invited men as well to speak and participate, religious and indigenous people through careful consideration of our partriachial and diverse religious and cultural beliefs within Kenyan communities. 3. We applied multistakeholder approach in our invitations..both for speakers and pannelists and were lucky to get a diverse representation of participants. This was important to cover the complexity of food systems where the panel covered actions across the food systems including policy, infrastructure, Financial inclusion, partnerships, fiscal justice among other critical areas that provide potential synergies and trade offs. 4. Our dialogue was inclusive. We invited diverse voices from across the food systems and across the country. We even had a session for a rural woman farmer and a youth to give feedback after all the speakers had spoken.. to openly express their views on whether the topics were relational. The break out sessions allowed more voices to give feedback. The group sessions are where the participants come up with recommendations that provided local solutions. The group sessions allowed diverse voice to speak and every view captured as within the time limit. The dialogue embraced multistakeholder inclusivity. 5. The dialogue offered a safe space for stakeholders to engage openly, transparently and share feedback and recommendations confidently. Trust.1. Commit to the summit. Our dialogue was specific in topic and content to reflect on the summit's core objectives. Women play a key role in Food Systems thus, to transform the food systems, they must be brought to the fore, listened to and empowered to take action. The dialogue reflected the reality on the ground and the recommendations project the needed action in order to achieve the set goals. 2. Be respectful. Kenya is a patriarchal society with diverse cultures and beliefs. It was our core objective to respect this diversity as we promoted gender judt policies and practices, resilient livelihoods and good stewardship of natural resources in our dialogue. The panel was as respectful in their delivery. Our registration form was designed to capture the diversity in order to inform us on delivery of the dialogue. 3. Recognise Complexity. This was the first dialogue of its kind in Kenya where we were specific on addressing women in Food Systems. It was therefore critical to capture the major gaps that hinder women from progress by bringing a diverse panel each addressing a major gap. Involving multiple stakeholders enriched our dialogue with possible actions across the food system with potential synergies to reduce existing gaps and achieve the desired transformation in food systems. The issue of fiscal policies had been a thorn in the flesh hindering growth and deepening vulnerabilities for small scale women in food systems. It was a very welcome topic and the policy makers were well represented to hear this views. 4. Embrace multistakeholder inclusivity. This was well captured in our choice for the panellists and speakers. They were diverse representing different areas of interest for women in Food Systems. The participants were also drawn from across the food systems giving the dialogue the diversity of voices and views across the different actors and communities. 5. Build Trust. It was critical to promote trust through allowing open conversations with no judgement. Everyone was allowed to share their feedback freely but respectfully.It is important to embrace the principles of engagement as a convenor. They guide your preparation all the way to the dialogue. The principles are fair and just, allowing inclusivity, respect and diversity. They help the convenor pick our the panel much more carefully in order to capture the actions more elaborately as well as guide in the group discussions that came up with recommendations. The principles are well thought through, the participants feel part and parcel of the dialogue making them own the outcomes thereof. That makes partnerships much more easier when you involve them through out the dialogue. They identify areas of synergy and are happy to plug in. The outcomes are realistic and stakeholders own the process making it easier to implement.

Yes

234238240241242244245247248249251Levers of Change - Gender. Title: Strengthening and amplifying the voices and leadership of women in food systems. The dialogue focused on the role that women play in food systems, the gender inequalities that women face in food systems, challenges in women contribution towards food systems, measures that can allow better inclusion, and solutions that are already in place to allow for better inclusion in policy process and gaps. Five key topics guided the dialogue which are 1) Access to markets and infrastructure at scale 2) supporting women farmers and agri-entrepreneurs with technology, finance, capacity and legal rights 3) Fiscal justice and an enabling environment for policy, leadership and decision making, representation and budgeting 4) climate change and green financing and 5) youth and development in foods systems. Key challenges explored Women do not benefit from most resources available (land, financial products) yet they provide 42-65% of the agricultural work force. Ownership of land for women is still a major hiccup leading to limited access to finance due to lack of collateral and consequently resulting in productivity gaps of up to 30% between men and women. The triple burden of malnutrition affects women and their households more in African households and this has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Gender inequality is one of the causes and results of unsustainable food systems. Increased under-representation of women and youth in food systems Women are inadequately involved in decision making and this has had an impact on: (1) health, (2) poverty levels and (3) general quality of life. Women led micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) are less likely to access formal finance loans and support. Key issues raised. Food system and Value chain development: The complexity of food systems requires holistic and coordinated approach throughout the value chain. It also requires the integration of various actors from education, finance and gender equality. Tackling gender issues should ensure inclusion of both men and women and assurance that women and men participate and benefit equally from agriculture. This is because in most cases, women experience equitable constraint to agricultural resources compared to men. In addition, women have a crucial responsibility in the food systems as they provide food for their families, produce fruits and vegetables for nutrition and they also act as transporters and vendors. Therefore, to include and empower women, it was reported that FAO had put in place various strategies to lead a more resilient and sustainable food system. Financing for Women: Financing of the agricultural sector by the Kenyan banking industry is currently very low (below 5 percent). What makes the situation worse is that there is skewed access to the finance provided against women. Three key solutions that were discussed that can be used to ensure women are included in financing include: a) Digitization b)Development of Women centred products c)Finance plus On the issue of fiscal policies which is key in determining economic equalities and inequalities, it was highlighted that there are ways of ensuring equality and having gender specific policies on taxes. The highlighted points include: - Revenue redistribution which investigates the different levels of incomes in the economy and ensures that those that earn less pay less and vice versa. - Repricing of products, which affects people behaviour. - Representations- this was noted as a key problem in tax policies and there was a need for representation of women to evade economic inequalities. Partnerships and collaboration: It was noted that strengthening of women’s capacity can be done through policies that are gender inclusive and through government and multisectoral partnerships. Policies and regulatory frameworks: As most dev't partners and gov't are supporting women, it could be enhanced by putting in place enabling factors that sustain women participation in food systems. Find more key issues and details on all above in the report attached.235238240241242244245247248249251Findings and Recommendations. Gender Integration in food systems. Research has shown that empowering women leads to several positive outcomes along the food value chain and hence addressing the unique challenges faced by women is key. Moreover, research has shown that when women farmers have equal access to agricultural inputs (fertilizer and seed) as men, yield can increase by 19%. Considering all the challenges that women face, several strategies need to be put in place or those already in place should allow for better inclusivity. Foremost, there is a need to factor in women when structuring policies and ensure that women also occupy positions of leadership. Subsequently, there is need for policies that ensure women have access to productive resources such as fertilizer and seed. This can be executed through subsidies for inputs that can be accessed through digital platforms i.e. the E-voucher system. Also, digitalization would help deal with the time constraint faced by women. Further, support for women led MSMEs to ensure they have equity in accessing markets and attain greater bargaining power is instrumental and increase for energy supply for running production and value addition processes carried out by women farmers, need to be factored. A clear focus should be made on women and youth farmers to strengthen their participation in agriculture. There is therefore (1) need for redirecting policies to focus on gender inclusivity and financial inclusivity (2) need to follow policy implementation for successful outcomes on gender equality in food systems and (3) need for sustainable collaboration and establishment of partnerships, globally and locally, for increased women empowerment within the food system and gender equality. Market and infrastructure. Need for digitalization and ensuring women are aware of inclusion in digital market access Developing strategies for women to be able to access funds especially in the case that loans require physical collateral and have high interest rates which women are not able to pay back Need for partnerships that engage women in policy making on various food systems and agricultural activities Support women businesses and allow them to be part of the partnerships Bank customer segmentation to address the financial needs of women Capacity building in terms of market access. Establish data driven programs to enable women to grow profitable products Finance- structure right finances to look at the cycles between payment of loans and farmers’ harvest time Digitalization- establish easy platforms such as USSD platforms that share information such as market information on pricing, consumer products demand and extension support. Fiscal justice for women working in food systems Promote exports to generate more income for the women and revenues for the government Surplus- be resourceful about surpluses Mandatory registration of women in cooperatives to ensure access to finance Equitable access to resources (production, capital, extension services) Partnerships support for women in agriculture Improving partnership with financial institutions to enhance women access to funds Extend capacity building to rural women (partner with the national, county governments, Financial Institutions and the grass root women) Connect grass root women to multistakeholder platforms to share their experiences and challenges Link research organizations and various ministries with grass root women to create awareness on new technologies Nutrition- train and provide knowledge on preparation and consumption of nutritious foods to women Partnership with national and county government to implement policies that are gender mainstreamed to support women in agriculture e.g. on issues of land rights, gender just climate solutions among others. Climate action and inclusive financing- Access to green finance Inspire confidence among ladies to tap into funds that can help them invest in agriculture. A member mentioned the climate action fund that has been initiated by the world-bank. One of the members also stated that there is a lack of awareness among women on such initiatives and there is therefore need for awareness creation one such programmes are started. Kenya is largely arid and semi-arid (89%) and therefore innovative ways should be sought to shift reliance from rain-fed agriculture. These include: Irrigation machinery, irrigation pumps and drilling of water ponds, climate smart agriculture local innovations Create financial products at the bank level that cater for women such as agricultural insurance products that support women. Agro-forestry- This can be done through encouraging tree planting among faring households especially fruit trees that can help mitigate on the effects of climate change. Soil health - support and promote soil rejuvenating through local solutions to enhance productivity and conserve biodiversity. Promote urban farming and use of kitchen gardens among land constrained women and urban farmers.236238239240241242244245247248249251Way forward. Increased awareness on women inequalities and the need for gender integration in food systems and policy is required. This can be done via capacity building, mainstreaming gender in policies and supporting women to increase agricultural productivity. Moreover, complementing financial services with advisory services on how women can optimize their yields and revenues is important for this to be maximally productive and effective. Lastly, establishing sustainable partnership for all actors (at the bottom and on the top) is important in strengthening and amplifying the voice of women in food systems, for women empowerment in Kenya.237238240241242244245247248249251Communities of interest were grouped around the following areas during the dialogue: Each topic was discussed by a panellists and later explored during group discussions. Each topic was discussed openly and respectfully allowing all voices and views. There were divergent views within all groups meaning all topics, especially in ascertaining the severity of vulnerabilities, government action through policy and explaining what inclusion really looks like. Here are the topics: Religion Science and food systems nexus with a focus on women in food systems. Supporting women in entrepreneurship Fiscal justice / enabling policy for women in food systems Building partnerships for gender equality and food systems transformation in Kenya Women access to equitable resources in agriculture Institutionalization of policies to benefit the grass root women who are not aware of the existing policies. Digitalization in support for women in food production Support for women amid climate change in green financing Building resilience to food systems shocks and stresses

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Report-Women-in-food-systems-independent-dialogue-30th-June-2021-1.docxhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/IMG-20210617-WA0019.jpghttps://gainhealth.zoom.us/rec/share/6jX8puUUSyztFSLvjQ4spxfhJ13Sq0PMXo2sWNIUNCJnRexB4pKVC_ZkfaowMzw.3RAdc08Gi0YeJ2aT

2021-07-05 10:06:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12007/203

730280313142192175435120492082513711712710617322158760362164112148

The organizing committee reviewed the Principles to ensure they were addressed in the agenda design and participant engagement process.‘Act with urgency’, ‘Commit to the Summit’ and ‘Recognize complexity’: The dialogue was framed as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit by highlighting the need to recognize the complex interconnections between human, animal and planetary health and thus a need for systemic and integrated approaches to food systems transformation. ‘Be respectful’ and ‘Build trust’: We asked participants who were not designated speakers and panelists to share their insights and questions online via the chat and Q&A functions. We asked participants to engage with each other and with the speakers in a respectful and constructive way. We informed participants that all input will be summarized as input to the Food Systems Summit and shared with participants. ‘Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity’: We explicitly sought to engage the participants from the health sector, government actors as well as healthcare and public health professionals, as underrepresented perspectives to date in the Food Systems Summit dialogues. ‘Complement the work of others’: We identified two themes where there has been significant activity at government, health sector and community level to address human health (malnutrition in all its forms and antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses) to highlight the interconnections between human, animal and planetary health, the need for a new food systems narrative that upholds the three dimensions, and the call by diverse stakeholders for an integrated, holistic approach to policy reform and coordinated action across the food and health sectors.

NoAs this was a high-level global independent dialogue, we curated the speakers and panelists to balance a high-level global perspective with national/local perspectives ensuring diversity from a variety of geographic regions, sectors and gender balance. We made a special effort to engage the 15 supporting organizations to help us reach out to and engage participants from member state governments representatives engaged in health policies, the public health and health care sectors, animal welfare as well as food system actors as target audiences for this event. The event started with high-level speeches from the leaders of key UN organizations and/or UN initiatives integral to the food-health nexus. The session was then divided into three deep dives, the first two focused on two different dimensions of where human, animal and planetary health intersect from the perspectives of three different countries. The third session focused more broadly on the interconnections between human, animal and planetary health. Each session was kicked off with a panel of diverse perspectives. During registration, we asked participants to respond to questions related to the focus of the dialogue to get a better understanding of their perspectives. In each of the sessions, we engaged the participants encouraging commentary in the chat, offering questions to the panelists and engaging in several polls. The event concluded with a call to action from a youth representative.

234238239240241242244246249251The COVID-19 pandemic not only brought on a healthcare and economic crises, it has also radically exacerbated the world’s ongoing food security, nutrition, and climate crises. At the same time, the outbreak is deeply connected to today's fragile food systems that degrade the environment through unsustainable land-use. As broken food systems push human, animal, and planetary health to their limits, policymakers and public health professionals alike must change the discourse surrounding food systems and come together so that transformative food systems change and health are put at the centre of the pandemic recovery agenda. In this Dialogue, experts from across the health, environment and food communities explored how a new narrative about health and food systems can be used to stimulate action and drive decision-makers towards commitment making, from policies to investments, that deliver on better health outcomes for people, animals, and the planet. Participants discussed intersection points across the health-food systems nexus, identifying where targeted, multi-stakeholder action could take place and create a multiplier effect across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Dialogue Objectives: • Promote health and food systems resilience as critical to COVID-19 recovery and to realize progress across the SDGs; • Communicate why new food systems narratives centered around upholding human, ecological, and animal health are needed (i.e., One Health), demonstrating how dominant narratives are undermining all three dimensions of health as well as the pandemic recovery process; • Catalyze support for an integrated, holistic approach to policy reform and coordinated action across food and health sectors, exploring opportunities for health and food systems actors to work together; and • Elevate examples from around the world, showcasing how government leaders, the health sector and other food systems actors can design policies and practices that delivered better health and sustainability outcomes for all.235238239240241242244245246247248249250251The dialogue reflected on how COVID-19 has exposed the fragility of our food systems as well as the interrelated challenges of public health, food security and labour. The root of many of the world’s most pressing threats to human, animal, and planetary health have been unhealthy, inequitable and unsustainable food systems. “Building back better”, reducing the risk of future pandemics, and building long-term resilience requires bold leadership and commitment to both global health security and food systems transformation based on an integrated approach, addressing multiple challenges in a holistic way. Now is the time to address the root causes of food systems failures and, together, strengthen the demands for transformation with health at the centre. Three priorities arose: 1. Adopt a new narrative that nurtures health at every stage of the food system 2. Embrace a One Health approach that addresses the deep interconnections between humans, animals and the environment. 3. Work across sectors through social dialogue to harness the comparative advantages of governments, UN, the private sector and civil society to find collective pathways forward. This new narrative needs engagement by the health sector to position food systems transformation as a critical pathway to a healthy and resilient future. The way food is produced, distributed and consumed affects people’s health through five main pathways: 1. Unhealthy diets and food insecurity has an impact on multiple forms of malnutrition, such as diet-related noncommunicable diseases (including obesity), undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies; 2. Unsafe animal food production practices can lead to the spread of zoonotic pathogens and to antimicrobial resistance; 3. Unsafe and adulterated foods, including the ingestion of foods containing pathogens, chemicals, and toxicants, leads to several forms of foodborne disease; 4. Inadequate agricultural practices can lead to pollution of soil, air, and water and biodiversity loss; and 5. Growing, harvesting and transforming food exposes food workers to occupational hazards and may have an impact on their physical and mental health. It needs engagement by labour unions. Agricultural workers regularly face poor working conditions, high levels of working poverty, and lack of access to rights. In some countries they are specifically excluded from key legal protections, such as minimum wages, paid and/or parental sick leave, the right to organise or social protection. For the many casual or migrant agricultural workers, the situation can be even more precarious. Agriculture is one of the most hazardous sectors. It accounts for a large proportion of all fatal workplace accidents. Millions of agricultural workers suffer workplace injuries or poisoning by agrochemicals. Yet, despite all these risks, food and farm workers have continued to work during the pandemic, to ensure our food supply. In doing so they have increased their own exposure to COVID-19, as witnessed by the multiple virus outbreaks at food processing plants and farms around the world. Guaranteeing safe and healthy working conditions, better incomes, and greater protection for agri-food workers is critical, if we are to build food systems that can withstand current and future crises. It needs government ownership and accountability based on the articulation of a shared vision defined by common interests and values. Governments need to work across silos to address interlinked challenges, e.g., ensuring affordable, healthy and nutritious foods along with social protection and decent levels of income for all. Governments can manage complex trade-offs and synergies through the adoption of a package of policies and instruments that link food systems to the nutrition, health and climate agenda, to support food system workers, farmers and fisherfolks who often have poor labour conditions to organize themselves and create negotiating power, to make multinational companies accountable for their behaviour and impact across the whole value chain, to encourage employers to provide healthy and safe food for workers, maternity care for women, and health insurance for the whole family, and to make healthy and nutritious food more affordable and accessible than junk food and other highly processed foods. Governments need to understand spillover effects from policies and instruments, i.e., through the application of True Cost Accounting. It needs engagement especially by young people, students, and young professionals as agents of change and the carriers of the consequences of the decisions made by policymakers today. They see firsthand the impacts today and the implications for their future. They are calling for equitable, nutritious and sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets for all. They will be there to make their governments accountable for the commitments made but this means engaging them meaningfully in decision-making, policymaking, implementation and evaluation.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Topic: Malnutrition in all its forms—undernutrition and diet-related NCDs (including obesity) Perspectives were shared on approaches taken in Pakistan, Mexico and Nigeria. Pakistan faces a high prevalence of undernutrition as well as overweight and obesity, and other diet related non-communicable diseases such as diabetes. While the number of people experiencing hunger has decreased in Pakistan over the last 20 years, it has not translated into better access to or consumption of healthy foods, nor improved health outcomes. This has impacted the country’s health systems and the economy. Food system transformation requires policies that support economic growth and provide social protection. The government established a National Nutrition Coordination Council and the Prime Minister made malnutrition and stunting a priority by launching Ehsaas Health and Nutrition Conditional Cash Transfer Program for children under two and pregnant and lactating mothers. While Mexico has tackled undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies over the last 25 years, the prevalence of overweight and obesity doubled in adults and quadrupled in adolescents over the same period. Although it has implemented policy measures to reduce the promotion, accessibility and purchase of unhealthy and highly processed foods and beverages, it has not addressed the production and supply of healthy and sustainable food, healthy food processing, food waste, or healthy and sustainable diets. Thus, the government created a multisectoral program (GISAMAC), which includes the ministers of health, agriculture, environment, education and economy, as well as NGOs, academia, and UN organizations. The plan includes a package of interventions in agriculture (i.e., incentives for agroecology and small farmers, food loss, public procurement, regulation of glyphosate), health (i.e., targeting children’s first 1000 days, revised dietary guidelines, public awareness campaigns), food environments (i.e., taxing unhealthy processed foods, front-of-pack warning labels, food advertising restrictions), and school environments (i.e., space, curricula, and nutrition standards). The number of people in Nigeria facing acute food insecurity has increased due to COVID-19. Food insecurity leads to poor nutrition and many other negative health outcomes such as poor physical and cognitive development among children and diabetes, hypertension and obesity among adults. Food banks respond to population health needs by targeting the most vulnerable populations, especially in contexts without a social safety net. They address community health disparities through food and related services, serving as critical infrastructure for the healthcare, educational, economic, and social sectors. The Lagos Food Bank provides meals for students, and mothers and children living in underserved communities. It also empowers women through training on how to grow their own food and sell part of what they produce, which creates pathways for more self-reliance and community resilience. Participants agreed that current food systems have not eliminated undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies, while contributing to the obesity and NCD epidemic and the deterioration of planetary health. We cannot solve the problem with isolated small interventions; we need a package of interventions based on systemic multisectoral, multi stakeholder approaches. Actions mentioned include: - Analyzing the type of food supported by public policy and investments and shifting focus from production of grains and tobacco for export to support for nutritious whole foods for local consumption. - Placing equity at the center of our solutions and especially targeting vulnerable communities. Ensure that basic services are provided to low income and vulnerable populations. The same communities that face food insecurity also lack access to sanitation, clean water and healthcare systems. - Collaborate with non-profits that work closely with local communities. Participants voted on the biggest opportunity for governments to address malnutrition in all its forms with the top option being an integrated approach to policy.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Topic: How antimicrobials and increased emergence of zoonoses are diminishing animal health and exacerbating the human health and ecological crises Too much antibiotics and antimicrobials are used in food and health systems. Antimicrobials are used especially in intensive farming systems to enhance productivity—for routine mass disease prevention and to promote rapid growth in food producing animals. It is also used extensively on crops. This use or misuse is the result of our current relationship with food and how we produce it. It is about how animals are reared, if they have access to the outdoors, how many are stocked in a facility, how more resilient breeds are disappearing, and it's about our diets. This reliance increases the prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in animals and people. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a silent pandemic that is affecting humans, animals and the environment. Our excessive dependence has caused our systems to become unsustainable and our treatments less effective, to the extent that it is projected to kill 10 million people each year by 2050. Perspectives were shared on approaches in the UK, Thailand and India to address these challenges. The UK adopted a collaborative multi-sectoral voluntary approach to antibiotic stewardship in livestock production, involving the government, industry, civil society and the public. As a result, antibiotic sales for food producing animals in the UK has fallen and it is now one of the lowest users of antibiotics in agriculture amongst those countries with a significant livestock farming industry. Collaboration and sharing best practices is key. Thailand has adopted a One Health approach by supporting multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary coalitions to manage zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial resistance in food production systems. Following the 2004 avian influenza, Thailand established the National Executive Committee on Preparedness, Prevention and Response to Emerging Infectious Diseases chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister. The secretariat is composed of relevant departments from the Ministries of Public Health, Interior, Agriculture, and the Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation. The Office of the Food and Drug Administration established the Thailand National Strategy on AMR to regulate human food and animal feed and coordinate all concerned sectors including public health and all food animal health. The One Health approach has been further strengthened through the implementation of laws and regulations, i.e., at provincial levels to actively manage public health threats. Developing countries, such as India, and many in Africa, are not yet entrenched in over chemicalizing or over toxifying their food systems. Low and middle income countries face multiple challenges such as access to life-saving medicines, maintaining food productivity, and ensuring farmer livelihood security. They cannot afford pollution clean up or the high cost of medical treatments when common antibiotics have stopped working due to rising AMR. It is the responsibility of the global community to provide the right guidance and indicators to reflect a necessary reframing of our relationship with food and how we grow it. Participants agreed that we need food and health systems based on a preventative health agenda and holistic approaches that take into account interconnected challenges. This requires: - working towards the same goal through national strategic plans and committees, building a multi-disciplinary workforce, i.e., bringing together medical, veterinary, public health, pharmacists, field epidemiologists, farmers, fishers and other food systems actors, as well as effective law enforcement, effective risk communication, and a shift towards ecologically beneficial farming methods. - working across silos to create a common platform that fosters collaboration and innovation on a holistic, integrated approach. Participants voted on how One Health can be strengthened to address human, ecosystem and animal health, with the top 2 options being improving governance mechanisms and advocating for national One Health action plans.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251Topic: Systemic action for human, animal and planetary health A source of both past and future pandemics is industrial animal agriculture or factory farming. Keeping thousands of animals crammed and confined creates the perfect breeding ground for disease. Industrial agriculture is also a major driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, a consumer of more than two-thirds of the world’s antibiotics, and the biggest source of food waste. The pandemic has highlighted that overreliance on long, complex and consolidated supply chains reduces the resilience of food systems to disruptions. Short supply chains have also suffered due to the closing of informal and open-air markets, where most people in the Global South still obtain their food from. Prolonged closures of restaurants and schools, logistical disruptions, and shortages of migrant labor to harvest crops have resulted in unprecedented amounts of wasted agricultural output, which has reduced supply and led to increased food prices for consumers. Physical-distancing and lockdown measures have significantly reduced people’s incomes and global food demand. Poor dietary health is one of the most important risk variables impacting COVID-19 mortality. The virus disproportionately affects individuals struggling with obesity, overweight, diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Obesity, a condition exacerbated by the consumption of highly processed foods and beverages high in fats, free sugars and salt, increases the risks of hospitalization and death from COVID-19. Participants agreed on the need for a new food systems paradigm that improves the health of people and the planet, protects biodiversity and ecosystems, and is based on ecologically beneficial approaches to food production. Approaches such as agroecology and agrobiodiversity have proven to produce nutritious food with less external inputs, which means less pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, lower water consumption, reduced biodiversity loss, and healthier soils. In the context of pandemics, climate change and biodiversity loss, the following actions to target the system drivers were mentioned: - Promoting healthy and sustainable whole-food diets - Reducing consumption of animal-sourced meat and dairy, especially in overconsuming contexts (i.e, middle and high income countries), and supporting access to nutritious animal foods for those whose diets would benefit from a little more (i.e., low and middle income countries) - Shifting to agroecology and regenerative agriculture - Ending industrial animal agriculture For successful food systems transformation, participants emphasized the need to: - Place people and health at the center and create a sense of devolved ownership - Foster collaboration between business, finance, governments, the UN, civil society and farmers. - Set measurable targets by food companies for the reduction of livestock products, shunning those from factory farms and diversifying protein offerings - Ensure public and private finance only supports the transition toward nature-positive regenerative farming practices - Adopt multi-sectoral policies jointly created by the ministries of environment, agriculture, health, rural development, and other relevant areas to address human, animal and planetary health as one challenge - Direct subsidies to support regenerative practices and the uptake of alternative non-animal-sourced proteins - Shift investment in research away from marginal sustainable intensification to agroecology and regenerative systems Participants stated their hopes for the UN Food Systems Summit: - Set out a long term vision with political courage to uphold the public interest - Ensure equity and inclusion of leading regenerative farmers - Recognize that a "one size fits all" approach is not appropriate and that proposals are science-based, built on verified facts - Inspire action at all levels, especially at the community/local level - Accelerate diet-shifts away from a dependence on global industrial livestock and fishing practices towards plant-rich diets - Channel more resources towards regenerative farming systems237238239240246249250A number of tensions arose: - Definition of affordable food and fair prices, both for consumers and producers - Power of commercial interests, which prioritize profits over health and nutrition, which for example weakens attempts to regulate the marketing of unhealthy foods, and conversely a lack of agency of many people to make healthy and nutritious food choices - Power asymmetries due to corporate influence creates conflicts of interest - Role of animal agriculture in healthy and sustainable food systems Concerns mentioned: - Solutions that decouple the food systems with nutritional outcomes - Corporations undermining global health with cross-promotion and marketing - Policymaking is free from the undue influence of transnational corporations (Partnering on solutions with those who drive the crisis creates conflicts of interest) - Paths to progress will accept tiny changes in the system as big successes due to deference to vested interests - Aggressive marketing by retailers and food processing industry of products high in fat, sugar, and salt and other ultra processed foods - Reliance on pesticides and artificial fertilizers in addition to antibiotics

2021-07-05 11:13:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10994/203

58083019103123418124200200306200090010011101684000201347

The dialogue convenors – UN Global Compact, Seafoor Business for Ocean Stewardship (SeaBOS) and the Stockholm Resilience Centre- engaged with their own organizations as well as a diversity of facilitators and rapporteurs to discuss the approach to the dialogue. Particular emphasis was placed on ensuring multi-stakeholder participation in a respectful and evidence-based setting. As such, a considerable portion of the dialogue (two thirty minutes sessions) was organized as breakout groups in which the number of participants was generally 10-15 individuals, enabling frank discussions among diverse stakeholders. When inviting participants, youth networks, early-career groups and representatives with networks across Africa and Asia were contacted to seek broader participation. In addition, the Dialogue was planned at a time that enabled participation across Africa/Asian/European timezones. Since the final list of registrants included both familiar names/organizations for the organizers as well as many new ones, remarks from panelists and the main facilitator included basic information about food production, employment and livelihoods associated with the seafood industry and small-scale fishing.The Dialogue’s main facilitator and the four breakout group facilitators were selected not only due to their professional expertise, but also their demonstrated capacity to engage respectfully and inclusively with diverse stakeholders with a variety of perspectives. Particular attention was paid during the invitation of Dialogue participants to ensure representation from across different stakeholder groups, geographies, and segments of the seafood industry.Start early with identifying and inviting participants that will ensure a diverse multi-stakeholder discussion in the Dialogue. Organizing a Dialogue in line with the UNFSS guidelines will take more time than you expect, and establishing a core team of co-convenors to share this workload is key.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246249The focus of this Dialogue was to convene policy-makers, the seafood industry, retailers, science and civil society in an engaging discussion on the role of the ocean in producing the food we need for a healthy, sustainable, equitable and climate friendly food system. By sharing seafood industry perspectives on ocean stewardship and lessons learned from the science-industry collaboration SeaBOS (Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship), the objective was to contribute to positioning seafood at the heart of the food system debates and help mobilize the broader seafood industry to take an active part in food system transformation. Furthermore, the dialogue was designed to help identify key priorities for science-industry collaborative action to accelerate sustainable seafood production towards 2030. Much of the event involved active participation by invitees in facilitated conversations in breakout rooms with a focus on two topics. (Topic 1): How do we arrive at a global food system in 2050 that has fully integrated sustainable seafood from fisheries and aquaculture? (Topic 2): How can the SeaBOS science-industry model help support the seafood industry, its value chain and policy makers to take action towards accelerating more sustainable seafood production? The event was moderated by Martin Exel (Managing Director, SeaBOS), with keynote presentations by: Dr. Henrik Österblom (Professor, Science Director, Stockholm Resilience Centre), Dr. Darian McBain (Global Director of Corporate Affairs and Sustainability, Thai Union), Dr. Audun Lem (Deputy Director, Fisheries Division, FAO), Wenche Gronbrekk (Global Head of Sustainable Development, Cermaq Group, and Senior Advisor, Oceans, UN Global Compact) and Helena Delgado Normann (Responsible Sourcing Manager, Tesco). Action tracks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Keywords: Seafood, Ocean, Finance, Policy, Governance, Environment and Climate235238239240241242244245246249- The seafood industry can contribute significantly to the UN’s vision of a healthier, more sustainable, equitable and inclusive food system for all – it has a fantastic story to tell on all aspects. Its problem is that it is not good at communicating this story. The UNFSS can contribute to change this and create an integrated arena for food from both land and sea. - In the food system debates, there is a need to connect land and ocean. - Food industry leadership based on science can result in climate resilience - Aquaculture has a big role to play in the future of food, and it is necessary to push the frontiers of aquaculture towards more mariculture and a diversification of species, so that aquaculture also can be an ecosystem service provider. - Regeneration of oceans is a key component in scaling sustainable Blue Food. - Guidance from science is effective, it creates a snowball effect through the food value chain - Science-industry collaboration allows for the development of global frameworks that enable a sustainable development of seafood as well as access to funding. - Science provides the ‘guardrails’ for the seafood industry – paving way for a long-term strategy - Role of Blue Food in the low carbon economy is also an important narrative, particularly in the context of COP26 and Food Systems Summit - Co-production of knowledge creates conditions for action (on climate, antibiotics, endangered species, etc) - “Ocean stewardship” is becoming mainstream concept in the seafood industry (e.g. in the High Level Panel for Sustainable Ocean Economy, UN Global Compact) - Nobody owns the oceans, but if we all collaborate, we can make real change and avoid tragedy of the commons - There is a clear role of science for achieving the SDGs – without science-based decisions/data, we cannot have effective fisheries management and won’t achieve the targets - Retailers are furthest from the “problems” of the seafood industry, but closest to the public eye – they have a crucial connecting role as closest to scrutiny and consumers - Retailers have role of creating “safe space” – need to be able to ensure there is right due diligence in place along supply chains, and need to be able to adequately respond to customer and investor requests and questions, which are getting progressively more detailed, and science is key in responding - The industry-science collaborations that have worked well, share some characteristics: a clear task at hand, a clear and time bound strategy and goals that are aligned with other initiatives including the SDGs as a common anchoring point. - To really enable a sustainable food system, it is necessary to take a step back to understand the global food system distribution (e.g. local vs global, effect on diets of different policies). - Many of the main findings emerged during two breakout group discussions, which are described in detail in the following section. Action tracks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Keywords: Seafood, Ocean, Finance, Policy, Governance, Environment and Climate236238239240241242244245246249(Topic 1): How do we arrive at a global food system in 2050 that has fully integrated sustainable seafood from fisheries and aquaculture? Discussions across four breakout groups addressed this question from different dimensions, with some of the key points and recommendations in bullets below: - Seafood sector is not good at telling stories. Its image is not good, and huge potential exists here, including by communicating its role in relation to other food systems, and its potential as a nutritious and healthy food option - But fundamental questions like “what is seafood” need to be effectively communicated – this encompasses a huge diversity of species – over 3,000 – and each has its unique environmental footprint and nutritional value. - Aquaculture is playing growing role, but must be sustainable, and need to push frontiers to more mariculture and develop more sustainable feed ingredients - Focus on sustainability should be consistently broadened – it’s not just about environmental sustainability, but also social sustainability and human rights dimensions. - Large corporations have a responsibility to incorporate this into their criteria, policies, and practices, and in this regard, science based frameworks serve as an effective guide (e.g. ASC, MSC, Global GAP) - Large-scale / industrial and small-scale fisheries (SSF) shouldn’t be considered in isolation or as binary opposites, but require novel thinking related to their interconnections and attention to existing positive examples. - While industry, NGOs, civil society and others have a large role to play, ultimately leadership also needs to be taken by governments (and regional fishery management organizations, for instance) - Through engagement with entrepreneurs and clearer guidance by financiers and governments, there is more potential to fully incorporate seafood as an element of the global food system - Cold chains and transport of seafood should be a focus when considering how to achieve a more sustainable system that is transparent and traceable based on interoperable systems - Countries could consider establishing “Food Ministries”, rather than having separate ministries for agriculture and fisheries, to ensure holistic food policies. This can also be established through cross-governmental task forces. - Private sector needs to integrate local ecological knowledge, which may be something unfamiliar and challenging for companies. - Important to consider equity dimension of achieving food security goals and SDGs - Adequate and inclusive ocean management, using tools such as Marine Spatial Planning, is important to advance seafood in an increasingly busy marine environment236238239240241242244245246249(Topic 2): How can the SeaBOS science-industry model help support the seafood industry, its value chain and policy makers to take action towards accelerating more sustainable seafood production? - Science-industry collaboration is “crucial”, “very important” and “essential”. - Representing 10% of global seafood production, SeaBOS can create ripple effects through the value chain, as the companies start to implement measures for enhanced sustainability and transparency - Science has a cost – expensive – should not be a one-time thing, so is a continuous investment and cost - Role of policy is to support that science so it can support a long-term sustainable and equitable seafood system - Potential to set up a Global Fund to support developing nations implement science-based food systems - Science should be integrated into operations of companies – should help to identify and solve problems and set priorities - Companies and scientists should promote species with higher nutritional value and lower environmental footprint. - In policy frameworks for sustainable food production, it is worth considering developing indicators for industry to provide data on nutrition per kg/ton produced as well as climate or biodiversity footprint per kg/ton produced - Greatest impact (and snowball effect through value chain) possible when science, industry and policy come together. - Time-bound strategies and goals need to be aligned with macro-goals as anchor points (e.g. SDGs) - Key standards set up in seafood industry (e.g. ASC, MSC) are based on science - Important to take a step back and consider global food distribution system, and implications of keeping some aspects more localized, and what type of impacts this would have on diets - Role of Blue Food in low carbon economy is also an important narrative, particularly in the context of COP26 and Food Systems Summit - 2050 is too far away, and action is needed now. - COVID19 is showing the importance of science in enabling transparency and traceability across value chains, including to small-scale production levels so that monitoring is possible throughout. - Potential for companies to seed incubators to develop and grow technology solutions - Benefits of SeaBOS are evident, particularly from a global focus, but important to also take regional focus when relevant - SeaBOS is helping to shift social norms within the seafood industry related to labor abuse, illegal fishing, etc. - Ultimately, science communicates how biosphere is the foundation for humanity and as well as all corporate activities, so underscores the need for stewardship by all Action tracks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Keywords: Seafood, Ocean, Finance, Policy, Governance, Environment and Climate

2021-07-05 17:07:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31938/4042434856

688445111228152821728245172421198471671054514254

Les concertations ont été organisées en 2 phases : (i) Au niveau national dans 5 pays (Cameroun, Congo, RCA, RDC, Tchad), les 26 et 27 mai 2021 ; (b) La deuxième phase s’est tenue en vidéo-conférence dans les locaux-siège de la PROPAC le 28 mai 2021. Il s’agissait de faire participer et d’intégrer les préoccupations des diverses d’acteurs (agriculteurs et institutionnels), afin de recueillir les propositions des stratégies et des solutions qui permettront d’accélérer la transformation des systèmes alimentaires. Ces sessions ont été techniques et politiques. Elles comprenaient les discussions sur l'état actuel des systèmes alimentaires dans chaque pays ciblé et au niveau régional, soulignant la complexité, les défis, les opportunités et la voie à suivre, en tenant dûment compte des crises actuelles, y compris de la COVID-19 et des événements météorologiques extrêmes récurrents. Ce Dialogue a combiné à la fois le partage d’expériences, les exposés qui présentaient le contexte politique et stratégique et donnaient le ton à des discussions constructives ; les panels de discussion et les sessions en plénière. Le Consultant jouait le rôle d’accompagnement technique pour les différentes réflexions et propositions. Il concevait le cadre, l’organisation et les outils nécessaires à l’émergence des idées pertinentes et il proposait aux facilitateurs nationaux les méthodes de facilitation participative et interactive à appliquer pour susciter les débats constructifs et recueillir plus d’informations. Chaque pays a transmis son Compte rendu au consultant régional pour la consolidation et la synthèse. Ces comptes rendus des concertations nationales ont été synthétisés de manière à refléter les objectifs du Sommet. Le rapport régional consolidé a été restitué aux parties prenantes des niveaux national et régional pour validation avant de le transmettre au Sommet au cours d’un atelier virtuel et en présentiel.A travers son caractère inclusif et participatif, dans le strict respect des principes d’engagement édictés par le Système des Nations-Unies. Les consultations ont réuni un ensemble d’acteurs clés impliqués dans les chaînes de valeur des systèmes alimentaires : les agriculteurs familiaux, les femmes rurales, les jeunes ruraux, fournisseurs d'intrants agricoles, les producteurs d'aliments, les transformateurs, les transporteurs, les distributeurs, les commerçants ; les consommateurs les représentants des institutions publiques, Les Communautés économiques régionales, les partenaires techniques et financiers, les organisations du système des Nations Unies. Au cours de ces concertations, aussi bien au niveau national que régional, les débats ont été menés librement de manière démocratique, sans discrimination et ont reflété les aspects spécifiques des points de vue des parties prenantes. Des compromis ont été adopté en plénière de manière participative.Pour réussir une telle organisation, les facilitateurs et coordonnateurs devraient avoir une parfaite maitrise des questions relatives aux Systèmes alimentaires et s’inspirer des documents produits par le Système des Nations-Unies sur ce thème. Ils doivent également bien identifier les acteurs clés impliqués dans la chaîne de valeur des systèmes alimentaires qui participeront aux concertations. Avoir une communication fluide avec les participants pour susciter leur adhésion.

Yes

234240241242244245246247248249251Le Dialogue indépendant des organisations paysannes d’Afrique Centrale sur les systèmes alimentaires organisé par la PROPAC porte sur la piste d’action 4 : Promouvoir des moyens de subsistance équitables et sur le thème : « Promouvoir les systèmes de production alimentaires innovants et durables, respectueux de la nature pour créer des emplois, sécuriser les moyens de subsistance des petits exploitants agricoles familiaux ». Ce dialogue s’est déroulé en deux phases : (a) La 1ère phase s’est tenue le 27 mai 2021 dans cinq (05) pays : Cameroun, Congo, RCA, Tchad et RDC. Ces consultations nationales se sont déroulées en présentiel (dans le strict respect des mesures barrières contre la Covid-19) dans le strict respect des principes d’engagement prescrits par les Nations-Unies. Elles avaient pour but de recueillir les avis pertinents des agriculteurs (agriculteurs, éleveurs, pêcheurs et sylviculteurs) et de leurs organisations sur le thème ci-dessus mentionné. Les consultations regroupaient chacune en moyenne 35 participants. Au terme de ces consultations, chaque pays a transmis son compte-rendu au coordonnateur régional, pour la consolidation et la synthèse. Ces comptes rendus ont été par la suite synthétisés de manière à refléter les objectifs du Sommet (b) La 2ème phase s’est tenue en vidéo-conférence à la PROPAC à Yaoundé le 28 mai 2021. Elle regroupait, les Leaders d’organisations paysannes et des producteurs des dix (10) pays d’Afrique Centrale, les représentants des institutions partenaires de la PROPAC (FIDA, FAO, CEMAC, Forum Rural Mondial), les facilitateurs nationaux, ainsi que le personnel technique de la PROPAC. Il s’agissait au cours de cette concertation, de procéder à la restitution des recommandations issues des Dialogues Indépendants nationaux, de les consolider, de mettre en cohérence, ensuite de les faire valider par toutes les parties prenantes en vue de l’élaboration d’un Document de Proposition des OP d’Afrique Centrale. Les formats utilisés sont ceux qui ont été prescrits par le Système des Nations-Unies. Les discussions ont touché différents domaines : politique, législatif, environnemental, genre, finances, et opérationnels, en se basant sur les expériences des acteurs des chaînes de valeur alimentaire et agricole, et en s’appuyant sur les connaissances endogènes des producteurs /trices, la documentation de la FAO sur les Systèmes Alimentaires, le rapport d’étude de la PAFO sur les systèmes alimentaires etc). Ces discussion et échanges ont finalement aboutit à un partage collectif des réflexions sur chacun des sujets abordés, et à la synthèse des résultats qui sera mise à la disposition de tous ceux qui participent à la préparation du Sommet.235238239240241242244245246247248249251Recommandations au plan politique et institutionnel : (i) Plaider pour que chaque Etat d’Afrique Centrale consacre au moins 10% de son budget au secteur agricole, conformément aux engagements pris dans les Déclarations de Maputo en 2003 et de Malabo en 2014, afin de mieux promouvoir les systèmes de production alimentaires innovants et durables, respectueux de la nature ; (ii) Plaider pour le régime foncier et les droits fonciers favorables aux agriculteurs et particulièrement les femmes et les jeunes, l’accès à la terre sécurisée afin d’inciter aux investissements ; (iii) Instaurer un environnement des affaires propice à la transformation des produits agricoles, à travers la mise en place de législations et règlementations efficientes à même de promouvoir un développement de l’agro-industrie piloté par le secteur privé , y compris les exploitants agricoles familiaux, le renforcement des capacités institutionnelles pour l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre des politiques et des programmes, ainsi que pour leur suivi et évaluation. Recommandations au plan opérationnel : (i) Accroître la productivité à travers la diffusion à large échelle de technologies innovantes pour le développement des systèmes production alimentaires résilients aux changements climatiques et promouvoir l’agro-écologie ; (ii) Investir dans la recherche-développement axée sur la demande ; (iii) Accroître des financements destinés aux investissements dans les infrastructures physiques (eau, électricité, routes, entrepôts et équipements marchands,….) et renforcer les capacités de production et de transformation ; (iv) Promouvoir la digitalisation des chaînes de valeur agricoles et alimentaires ; (v) Promouvoir et mobiliser des flux de financements adaptés ciblant les besoins des exploitants agricoles familiaux à travers entre autres, l’institution de facilités de financement structurées pour attirer des capitaux privés (y compris institutionnels) vers la transformation des produits locaux, et la promotion de l’inclusion financière ; (vi) Plaider pour la mobilisation des ressources internes pérennes en vue du soutien à long terme des projets destinés aux agriculteurs, principalement aux jeunes et aux femmes ; (vii) Plaider pour une meilleure coordination des activités des différents acteurs intervenant dans le secteur et promouvoir la cohérence des objectifs et engagements communs, ainsi que des plans d’intervention et de l’allocation des ressources. (viii) Capitaliser et diffuser les bonnes pratiques dans les systèmes alimentaires au niveau national, régional, continental ; (ix) Accroître le soutien aux OP à l’échelle nationale et régionale, pour transformer les systèmes agroalimentaires innovants et durables. Recommandation transversale : Plaidoyer pour mettre fin aux conflits socio-politiques, protéger les populations contre l’insécurité, et renforcer les systèmes de santé et de protection des populations vulnérables face aux crises sanitaires.236238239240241242244245246247248249251L’axe centrale de nos concertations (nationales et régionale) a été la présentation des systèmes alimentaires actuelles, suivie de l’organisation à partir d’un questionnaire, de débats (en groupes et en plénières) sur la promotion des systèmes de production alimentaires innovants et durables, respectueux de la nature pour créer des emplois, sécuriser les moyens de subsistance des petits exploitants agricoles familiaux. Ces débats ont permis de mener une réflexion profonde sur les forces, faiblesses, menaces et opportunités des systèmes alimentaires actuelles ainsi que les défis et enjeux qui se présentent pour leur transformation d’ici à 2030. Les échanges et débats ont été centrés sur les systèmes alimentaires innovants et résilients, et la promotion d’un meilleur accès et un travail décent pour les femmes et les jeunes. Sur la base d’un questionnaire, les réflexions ont porté sur les sujets relatifs aux politiques agricoles, la production, les infrastructures rurales, l’accès au marché, le financement et l’investissement dans le secteur agricole, l’accès au foncier, l’accès à un travail décent pour les femmes et les jeunes dans l’agriculture, les changements climatiques. Cet exercice a permis d’écouter toutes les parties prenantes a abouti aux constats et résultats suivants : Sujet 1 : Les politiques agricoles Question 1 : Les politiques nationales et régionales en matière de production et de transformation sont-elles favorables au développement du secteur agricole et la transformation durable des systèmes alimentaires ? Contraintes : - L’absence de politiques agricoles volontaristes soucieuses de la préservation de l’environnement et de la biodiversité et répondant aux besoins nutritionnels. - Le Faible investissement par les Etats dans la production agricole en Afrique Centrale conduit à une faible production et à des cultures de moins bonne qualité et souvent moins nutritives. Ce qui rend les aliments locaux moins compétitifs par rapport aux importations alimentaires subventionnées. - La faiblesse des budgets que les Etats de l’Afrique Centrale allouent au secteur agricole ; - La faible implication des agriculteurs dans l’élaboration, l’exécution et le suivi des politiques agricoles. - La faible intégration des producteurs dans les chaînes de valeurs qui affecte le développement et la performance de l'ensemble du secteur. - Le Faible accès des petits producteurs, notamment les femmes et les jeunes à la propriété foncière sécurisée dû à la faiblesse dans la gouvernance foncière dans plusieurs pays. Résultats 1/6 : Les politiques agricoles - Plaidoyer par les organisations paysannes dans chaque pays envers les décideurs politiques pour une augmentation des locations budgétaires dédiées au secteur agricole ; que chaque Etat d’Afrique Centrale consacre au moins 10% de son budget au secteur agricole, conformément aux engagements pris dans les Déclarations de Maputo en 2003 et de Malabo en 2014, afin de mieux promouvoir les systèmes de production alimentaires innovants et durables, respectueux de la nature et une plus grande implication des agriculteurs dans l’élaboration, l’exécution et le suivi des politiques agricoles - Améliorer la gouvernance foncière pour les régimes fonciers et les droits fonciers favorables aux agriculteurs et particulièrement les femmes et les jeunes. - Renforcement des capacités et des compétences des producteurs pour une meilleure implication et leur participation dans l’élaboration, l’exécution et le suivi des politiques agricoles - Prendre en compte les questions relatives au genre dans l’élaboration et l’exécution des projets/programmes agricoles et mobiliser des ressources internes pérennes en vue du soutien à long terme des projets destinés aux agriculteurs, principalement aux jeunes et aux femmes.236238239240241242245246248249251Sujet 2 : La production des aliments sains et nutritifs en quantité et respectueuse de l’environnement Question 2 : Certains des plus grands défis pour lesquels sont confrontés les agriculteurs sont les difficultés d’accès aux intrants qualité, aux moyens de production et de transformation des produits agricoles (végétaux, animaux, halieutiques, sylvicoles). Pourquoi ces défis persistent toujours malgré toutes les interventions réalisées à ce jour ? Quelles sont vos suggestions pour améliorer cette situation ? Contraintes - Faible disponibilité et utilisation d'intrants agricoles de bonne qualité, entrainant une faible productivité qui conduit à des coûts de production et de vente élevés des produits alimentaires ; Résultat : accroitre la disponibilité et l’accessibilité des agriculteurs aux intrants ; - Faibles ressources allouées à la recherche-développement et absence de liens entre la recherche-développement et les acteurs de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire, ce qui est à l’origine d’un nombre très limité de recherche et développement agricoles axés sur la demande ; Résultat : plaider pour l’augmentation des ressources dédiées à la recherche-développement et renforcement des liens entre la recherche-développement et les acteurs de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ; - La faiblesse et/ou la déficience des infrastructures physiques (eau, électricité, routes, entrepôts et équipements marchands,….), ainsi que les infrastructures immatérielles ; - La faible vulgarisation des technologies innovantes et adaptées aux conditions agro écologiques des différents pays ; - Faibles capacités (techniques, organisationnelles, et en gestion…) des acteurs de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (végétale, animale, halieutique) – production ; entreposage et distribution ; transformation et conditionnement ; vendeurs et consommateurs, en ce qui concerne la qualité et la sécurité des aliments. Résultats 2/6 : La production des aliments sains et nutritifs en quantité et respectueuse de l’environnement 1. L’accès aux intrants et plus particulièrement aux semences de bonne qualité et sains constitue un axe important pour aéméliorer la capacité de production. Des solutions développées : - L’accompagnement à la production de semences saines à l’échelle locale, nationale ou par bassin de production ; - Le développement et la consolidation des circuits d’achat de semences et d’intrants auprès de fournisseurs privés ; - La mise en relation des producteurs avec les multiplicateurs des semences, et de fournisseurs d’intrants ; - La disponibibilité des variétés demandées sur le marché ; - Exonération des frais de douane pour les intrants agricoles par les états. 2. Amélioration de la production : Pour faire face aux pressions croissantes des maladies sur les cultures et aux difficultés d’accès à l’eau, plusieurs actions doivent être menées : - Mise en place et/ou consolidation des dispositifs de conseils agricoles efficaces au service des producteurs ; - Diffusion d’itinéraires techniques adaptés aux différents systèmes de production et renforcement des compétences techniques des producteurs et des dispositifs d’appui technique ; - Promotion des pratiques agro-écologiques (engrais organiques, biopesticides, utilisation limitée et raisonnée d’intrants chimiques…) favorisant les systèmes de production durables et adaptés au changement climatique. Les bonnes pratiques et outils pédagogiques (manuels techniques, vidéos…) pourront être partagés et diffusés ; - La maitrise des maladies ; - La sensibilisation et la bonne maitrise des gestes sanitaires pour limiter la propagation des maladies (rotation de cultures, accès aux semences de bonne qualité et saines, gestion de l’eau…). - Accroissement du soutien aux organisations paysannes afin qu’elles renforcent les capacités (techniques, organisationnelles, et en gestion…) des acteurs des chaines de valeurs agricoles ; 3. Construire les infrastructures rurales et améliorer l’accès au marché Les infrastructures rurales feraient prendre conscience aux paysans de leur capacité à produire davantage pour le marché et à s’organiser en vue de développer les chaines de valeurs ag236238239240241242244245246248249251Sujet 3 .Résilience aux changements climatiques et aux aux différents chocs ainsi que la préservation de biodiversité Question 3 : Quels sont les principaux leviers sur lesquels l’on peut agir pour promouvoir la productivité, la durabilité et la résilience aux différents chocs ? Question 4. Quels sont les éléments importants en matière de recherche-développement qui peuvent permettre d’obtenir des résultats efficaces et tangibles sur la préservation de la nature et la biodiversité (dans les domaines de la production et de la transformation) ? Contraintes - Le changement climatique, par exemple, influence à la fois la production alimentaire (par exemple en affectant les rendements des cultures et les niveaux de nutriments) et en résulte (puisque l'agriculture est une source d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre). - De nombreuses variétés de semences utilisées - qui sont souvent également recyclées plusieurs fois - ne résistent pas au changement climatique, l'agriculture étant encore largement pluviale et le temps devenant plus difficile à prévoir. Ces facteurs rendent la production agricole risquée pour les ménages ruraux. Néanmoins, la principale raison d'une plus grande utilisation de l'agriculture pluviale est son coût, en effet il est abordable par rapport au système d'irrigation qui est cher pour les petits paysans avec peu de terres et des ressources limitées. - En dépit de son fort potentiel, le secteur agricole en Afrique Centrale est confronté à une faible productivité et un faible rythme de croissance de la production des aliments aussi bien végétaux, animaux qu’halieutiques liées notamment au manque d’adéquation entre la demande et l’offre de recherche agricole. A cela s’ajoutent d’autres contraintes importantes portant sur : le financement de la recherche agricole ; - Faible vulgarisation des technologies innovantes et adaptées aux conditions agro écologiques des différents pays, conformément au pilier IV du PDDAA/NEPAD ; - Absence d’une mutualisation des ressources, des connaissances et des expériences des différents acteurs de la recherche et développement agricole en Afrique Centrale ; et faible mécanisme de dialogue et de concertation permanente entre la recherche et les organisations des producteurs qui permettraient de débattre des questions importantes sur le développement durable des systèmes alimentaires en Afrique Centrale Résultats 3/6. Résilience aux changements climatiques et aux aux différents chocs ainsi que la préservation de biodiversité - Plaider pour la recherche et le développement agricoles axés sur la demande - Accroître les investissements dans la recherche agricole - Renforcer et soutenir les cadres de concertations OP-Recherche en Afrique Centrale - Développer et transférer aux producteurs les technologies agricoles innovantes et résilientes aux changements climatiques et aux chocs environnementaux236238241242244245246248249251Sujet 4. Financement agricoles Question 5 : L’un des plus grands défis auxquels les paysans en Afrique Centrale sont confrontés est l'accès au financement. Pourquoi ce défi persiste malgré toutes les interventions qui ont été mises en place pour résoudre ce problème et quelles sont vos suggestions pour améliorer cette situation ? Contraintes - Les carneaux des appuis ne permettent pas de contacter directement les paysans. Les fonds destinés initialement aux paysans passent par plusieurs intermédiaires. - Les institutions financières sont réticentes pour l’octroi des crédits aux organisations des producteurs. - On note aussi les coûts très élevés des taux d’intérêts et les services de la dette très lourds pour les paysans. - Les paysans et leurs organisations ne présentent toujours pas les garanties exigées par les institutions financières. - De plus, les services financiers offerts par ces institutions ne sont pas toujours adaptés aux besoins des paysans et du monde rural. Résultats 4/6 : Financement agricoles - Développer les outils et accroître l’accès aux services financiers adaptés au monde rural avec un taux d’intérêt acceptable à un chiffre : Un meilleur accès aux services financiers tels que le crédit, l'assurance et les mécanismes d'épargne financière peut aider tous les paysans, mais en particulier les petits paysans qui sont plus exposés au risque et ne disposent pas de sources alternatives de capital privé. Les services financiers peuvent aider à accroître la productivité à la ferme et le développement des entreprises tout au long des chaînes de valeur du système alimentaire en fournissant un mécanisme de gestion des risques, en investissant dans des technologies améliorées, en mécanisant les systèmes agricoles ou en se développant dans des entreprises plus viables ; - Les services d'assurance pourraient aider les paysans et les entreprises à gérer les risques, en particulier ceux associés aux conditions météorologiques, aux maladies des cultures et à d'autres facteurs imprévisibles dans l'agriculture. Il existe des synergies entre l'assurance et le crédit. Avec une assurance, les paysans peuvent être plus disposés à contracter des prêts bancaires et les banques plus disposées à accorder des prêts. Des projets pilotes pourraient être mis en œuvre pour tester des services d'assurance et des mécanismes d'accès adaptés aux besoins des paysans africains et des entreprises rurales. De plus, les gouvernements et le secteur privé peuvent aider à promouvoir ces services et éliminer les contraintes qui limitent leur disponibilité et leur accès. - Que les interventions en direction du monde rurale soient conformes aux priorités et les besoins réels des paysans. - Que chaque Etat constitue un fonds de garantie pour les crédits octroyés aux paysans et à leurs organisations236238240241242245246247248249251Sujet 5. Prise en compte des femmes et des jeunes dans les investissements du secteur agricole Question 6 : Comment promouvoir un travail décent et durable pour les femmes et les jeunes dans l’agriculture ? Contraintes : - Implication limitée des femmes et des jeunes ruraux sur des questions d’intérêt concernant l'agriculture et faible accès au foncier. Résultats 5/6 : Prise en compte des femmes et des jeunes dans les investissements du secteur agricole - Promouvoir l'inclusion des jeunes et des femmes dans l’agriculture. Pour que l'agriculture en Afrique Centrale prospère, l'implication des jeunes et des femmes dans les systèmes agricoles et alimentaires est cruciale. Les femmes sont principalement le visage des petits exploitants agricoles et un lien direct avec la nutrition et la sécurité alimentaire des familles africaines et leurs conditions de subsistance durables. L'Afrique Centrale a la population la plus jeune du monde. La jeune main-d’œuvre souhaite s'engager dans un esprit d'entreprise innovant et rémunérateur et la croissance de la chaîne de valeur du système alimentaire crée des opportunités prometteuses pour les jeunes. - L'investissement dans des infrastructures améliorées, la mécanisation et les technologies peut jouer un rôle de catalyseur pour attirer les jeunes dans l'agriculture. - L’agriculture et les systèmes alimentaires doivent être traités comme des entreprises rentables et viables pour devenir plus attractifs pour les jeunes et les femmes africaines en pleine croissance. - Sensibiliser les jeunes pour changer leur mentalité et la perception qu’ils ont de l’agriculture - Investir dans les infrastructures rurales et sociales (routes, électricités, internet, airs de jeux, centres multimédias etc), pour maintenir les jeunes en milieu rural et les intéresser à l’agriculture - Mettre en œuvre des projets et des programmes spécifiques pour les femmes et les jeunes .236238239240241242243244245246247248249251Sujet 6 : Vision stratégique pour des systèmes alimentaires innovants et durables Question 7 : Quelle est votre vision stratégique en vue de transformer les systèmes alimentaires actuels en systèmes alimentaires innovants et durables Question 8 : Quelles sont vos attentes par rapport au Sommet des Nations Unies sur les Systèmes Alimentaires ? Résultats 6/6 : Vision stratégique pour des systèmes alimentaires innovants et durables - Parvenir à l’autosuffisance alimentaire sur les produits de base (riz , maïs, poisson, volaille..) d’ici à 2030 ; - Libérer le potentiel des bananes et plantains ainsi que des plantes à racines et tubercules - Réduire progressivement les importations de riz et de blé, et favoriser la production et la consommation des produits locaux - Accroitre significativement la production de céréales et du bétail pour instaurer la sécurité alimentaire dans le sahel - Accroitre significativement la production de soja, maïs, produits laitiers et volaille dans la zone de savane guinéenne - Accorder la priorité aux programmes agricoles sensibles à la nutrition - Les attentes par rapport au Sommet des Nations Unies sur les Systèmes Alimentaires : Prendre en compte les résultats de nos concertations, amplifier nos plaidoyers auprès de nos décider et des organismes d’appui au développement ; soutenir les organisations paysannes de l’Afrique Centrale237238241242244245246249Très peu de points de divergence ont apparu et ont été rapidement clarifiées grâce aux explications apportées par les facilitateurs et par certains participants.

2021-07-05 18:49:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13621/203

1221065425576327051712144193875129422114

**PLEASE NOTE: In the Participation demographics section above, I indicated that we had 19 "small-scale *farmers*" as there was no option to indicate small-scale *fishers*. All of these "farmers" were actually fishers.** The Principles were incoroprated in the themes of our presentations, and were central to the Discussion Question we posed to the groups. We referred repeatedly to how our efforts can and must contribute to acheiving the SDGs, and directed people to consider a near-term future in envsioning a transformed food system. We were very careful and concious in our efforts to invite and engage stakeholders from a wide variety of geographies and backgrounds, and carefully crafted our breakout groups to ensure people would feel most comfortable to share their unique perspecives and concerns. In addition, we provided simultaneous translation to ensure all participants felt empowered and comfortable to share their views. Our presentations/ presenters were selected to showcase not just the emerging research on the value of small-scale fishery resources in meeting food and nutrition goals, but also to feature the voices of on-the-ground practitioners working to address hunger and of the small-scale fishers themselves. We then sought to ensure these perspectives were well-represented among our participants, as well as to bring food and nutrition policy and decision makers into the "room" with these voices to ensure multi-stakeholder inclusivity and to connect groups who don't often have a chance to make themselves heard at the government level with these key decision-makers. This Dialogue was part of a series of 3 that we helped to convene in partnership with the Blue Foods Assessment and WWF that sought to highlight the value of aquatic foods for food and nutrition needs, with this one seeking to elevate the voices of small-scale fishers. We thus built off of the work of others, and are carrying this work forward in our ongoing engagements.Our Discussion Question was posed as follows: Imagine a future roughly 10 years from now where Small-Scale Fisheries have been centered in your country’s National Food & Nutrition Provisioning Plan, such that the resources that flow from these fisheries are being directed to the people who need them most. Consider the following questions as guidelines for articulating pathway(s) to this envisioned future: i. How are countries and communities ensuring their local food security and nutrition needs are met? (i.e., What data is being collected, by whom, and how is it being used?) ii. How are countries balancing this goal with their overall prosperity and boosting national food and nutrition security? iii. Who are the actors directly involved in decision-making? How are marginalized and vulnerable groups represented? iv. What do supply chains look like, and how have they developed to support or detract from this goal? v. How are the impacts of climate change being addressed/ responded to? vi. What other actions are needed to enable this future and address current obstacles (e.g., infrastructure changes, etc.)? vii. What happened at the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit to catalyze the changes that have enabled this future to become a reality? We thus explicitly directed participants to articulate their views with a sense of urgency, and to consider specifically what must happen at the Summit itself to enable success. In addition, our efforts to ensure a diverse group of small-scale fishers, representatives, and Indigenous community members could and have their voices elevated along with government officials and food/nutrition decision-makers was in serivice of ensuring a respectful and inclusive space for multi-stakeholder discussion. Finally, we sought to build trust with participants through careful pre- and post-event communications, adherence to the Chatham House Rules, and through the provision of simultaneous translation to ensure everyone felt valued. We will also be sharing a draft of this report with the whole group for feedback ahead of submission.Marginalized groups are not necessarily going to able to engage in these Dialogue events without direct engagement and extra efforts to ensure they have the capacity to participate, such as hosting events in time zones that align with the groups you hope to reach, connecting them with technical support and providing simultaneous translation. Small-scale actors like fishers and farmers are not (necessarily) combing the internet for opportunities to get involved in UN-developed virtual events, so if we truly want to hear their voices we (the NGOs, governments, and other highly-engaged agencies) need to be the ones to actively seek them out and to create these opportunities in a way that will be truly accessible to them.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249250Small-scale fishers are especially vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity as well as climate change impacts. Small-scale fisheries can also have an outsized role in meeting a country’s food and nutrition needs and goals because they catch species that are high in key missing micronutrients, and that are local, culturally appropriate, easy to store and transport, etc. However, current policies that treat fish primarily as a commodity to be exported undermine the ability of small-scale fishers to help meet this need. The aim of this Dialogue is to bring together representatives from SSF sectors around the world with key decision-makers who think about fisheries management and food and nutrition policies in order to spur discussion on what can be done to better utilize and support small-scale fishers in national food and nutrition plans.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Our key findings fall roughly into three high-level categories: 1) "top-down" changes (i.e., things that governments and/ or food and nutrition decision-makers must do) which are necessary to support small-scale fishers (SSFs) and better utilize the resources they are catching to help meet national and global food and nutrition goals; 2) "bottom-up" changes (i.e., things that fishery managers, scientists, and other local stakeholders must do); and 3) action items for the Summit. *Top-Down Changes*: ~Consider the fishing sector, and specifically the resources of small-scale fishers, as a key element in national and global nutrition policies. ~Emphasize the value of small-scale fishery resources for consumption and F&N needs, rather than for export -- find a way to value fishery resources in terms of micronutrients or mouths fed rather than pounds or dollars. Design policies to ensure aquatic foods are available at a fair price to the people who catch them. ~Engage and center SSF needs and perspectives in policy discussions and empower them to help shape decisions. ~Emphasize contributions of SSFs to local economies and formalize the sector. ~Break down siloes between production sectors – consider creation of a "Food Czar" to help bridge gaps. ~Design policies to align incentives for diversification of production and consumption to increase resilience to shocks and climate changes. ~Empower local groups to develop and implement policies locally through community-based management. ~Fund capacity building efforts and support innovations developed by SSFs seeking to build resilience and transition to nature-positive production systems. *Bottom-Up Changes*: ~Expand management "lens" and jurisdictions to encompass the whole food system – Look at production on a watershed scale, for example. And remember that humans are part of the ecosystem and must also be part of ecosystem management. ~Utilize data and traditional knowledge held by SSF communities. ~Strengthen SSFs’ role as protagonists through policies/initiatives/capacity building efforts to give them more agency and power. ~Improve access to tools and training programs that can enable SSFs to take control of their own businesses. ~Emphasize value over volume – and clarify value to *whom*, with a focus on equity – in management goals. ~Prepare for, don't just react to, climate change. Implement forward-looking management that develops and incorporates an understanding of the climate-driven changes expected (and being experienced) in a given community. ~Prioritize infrastructure and other supply chain improvements to improve resilience of small-scale fisheries. ~Seek to incorporate perspectives of marginalized racial, ethic and gender groups, and recognize that the groups that are marginalized will be different in each context, and thus tailored approaches are necessary. *Action Items for the Summit*: ~Ensure SSFs are represented in every Action Track. ~Emphasize the need to meaningfully incorporate aquatic resources into food and nutrition plans in order to reduce food insecurity and malnutrition and to improve the sustainability and lower the footprint of food production and consumption. Emphasize value of aquatic foods beyond just for protein. ~Highlight especially the potential value of small-scale fisheries in meeting these goals, as well as the specific challenges faced by small-scale fishing communities. ~Catalyze the commitment of funding and financing for "bottom-up" changes. ~Draw attention to economic policies and trade structures that are creating negative incentives, pushing SSF resources away from the groups who need them most. ~Rather than focusing on trade-offs, center human rights, livelihoods, and wellbeing of SSF communities in order to identify *synergies* between sustainability and food and nutrition goals. ~Address *social causes* of food waste, not just technical ones. ~Center climate change in all decisions and support SSF communities in preparing for climate change impacts with funding, capacity building initiatives, and increased access to data on impacts. ~Overcome the overwhelming incumbent emphasis on agriculture and terrestrial food systems → policymakers are not thinking about aquatic foods, let alone SSFs. These resources may be subsumed under broader food programs and thus ignored. ~Recognize the responsibility of the developed world to diversify fish consumption beyond the few species primarily eaten by wealthy consumers, to reduce food waste, and to support sustainably sourced seafood.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251We chose to ask each of our 10 breakout groups to address the same discussion topic (see Principles of Engagement section, above). Here we present a compilation of the outcomes of these discussion groups, organized into main topic areas. *Key actions and solutions identified to enable better utilization of small-scale fishery resources, and better support of small-scale fishers, in national food and nutrition plans:* ~Governments should promote access to fishing resources with the goal of increasing food sovereignty for small-scale fishers. ~Governments should support small-scale fishers through granting of secure and exclusive tenure rights for fishing to avoid competition with industrial sectors, and through investment in capacity building to enable co-management. ~Governments should fund and support initiatives to enhance the food and nutrition value of products (e.g., processing and packaging fillets to be ready for the table and to last longer in transit), strengthen infrastructure, and broaden market access. ~Governments should support national/ local seafood consumption programs targeting the groups most vulnerable to malnutrition. E.g., integrating sustainably caught local seafood into school lunch programs. ~Ecosystem-based management should be prioritized and catalyzed to build system resilience ~Interventions should focus on building small-scale fisher capacity and agency. E.g. shortening supply chains so fishers capture more value; increasing access to electronic technology and pricing info; more shoreside facilities to process and market catch; etc. ~Sustainability, food sovereignty, climate-resilience, and equity interventions should be developed in an inclusive, participatory way at the local level, and then scaled up through national support, funding, and enforcement. ~Climate change must be central in policies and plans. *Biggest challenges/ obstacles*: ~Meaningfully incorporating the needs, perspective and the risks taken by the SSF communities into decision-making processes and food and nutrition policies. Currently small-scale fishers are completely absent from these processes in virtually every country -- officials engage only with the large-scale sectors who have more financial and political power if they engage with producers at all. ~Redesigning international trade systems so that small-scale fishery resources may be profitably directed toward local consumption rather than export. I.e., Not treating fish as a commodity, but instead as a way to provision food and nutrients; Avoiding pressure to channel small-scale fishery resources to fishmeal factories; etc. ~Finding balance between using small-scale fishery resources to generate income and keeping necessary aquatic nutrient sources accessible to the people who need them locally/ within the country. ~Climate change impacts are coming too quickly for small-scale fisheries to respond to on their own - we must start preparing, not just reacting. ~In many countries small-scale fisheries are not managed at all and the sector is not formalized. This could be seen as an opportunity to "leapfrog" ineffective policies and implement sustainable, equitable, climate-resilient policies right from the start, but it would be naive to ignore the gaps in capacity, data, infrastructure, and enforcement. ~Competition with larger Blue Economy development--offshore energy, tourism, etc. ~The Pandemic has highlighted the struggles facing women in small-scale fisheries, which are not (generally) being addressed with any targeted or systematic efforts. ~Tackling illegal and unreported fishing, especially by distant water fleets. ~What works in one place may not work in another. *Big “unknowns,” data and/or knowledge gaps remaining*: ~Social and cultural data, such as data on the importance of fish in people’s diets, is lacking. ~Silos and gaps between the ecological/biological side of fisheries management and the socioeconomic side. ~Case studies to illustrate regional nuance. ~Coordinating and communicating among disparate/proliferating “blue foods” projects. ~Supply chain tracing is lacking in most small-scale fisheries. Not being captured in global databases.237238239240241242244246247249250Some participants pointed to a potential area of divergence between centering the needs and livelihoods of small-scale fishers and centering sustainability, however others argued that by focusing on the former with a long-enough time horizon and clear enough understanding of system dynamics, fishery impacts, and the effects of climate change, the latter goal will be synergistically achieved. Some participants identified a potential area of divergence between "valuing small-scale fishery resources in terms of food/nutrition provisioning abilities" and the call to "center the livelihood needs of small-scale fishers." There may be contexts where these two goals are at odds with each other - where valuing fishery resources in terms of F&N provisioning may be less lucrative for the small-scale fishers themselves. Relatedly, we must be careful to respect and understand the cultures and preferences of these small-scale fishing communities in terms of what they eat and what they do with their incomes. We can't force people to eat the fish they catch just because we think it will be good for them. Related to this last point, it will be critical to find balance between the ability of a country to have foreign exchange reserves and to keep certain aquatic nutrient sources accessible to the people who need them locally/ within the country. This balance will likely be different in each country.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UNFSS-Dialogue_SSFs-in-National-Policy_Agenda.docxhttps://youtu.be/ec5nCOD9Bg8https://youtu.be/AlljjfqJlzg

2021-07-05 20:01:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14532/2840424348505672134161

104

The dialogue was organised with full respect and commitment to the Principles of Engagement: Act with Urgency In light of this urgency, the Dialogue was organized as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Commit to the Summit The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. All stakeholders were consulted about ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The dialogue was organised around 2 main discussions which happened in small sub-groups to allow the most participative and safe open-discussions. Be Respectful Respect for one another is a foundation for genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Each sub-group was facilitated by experienced facilitators who ensured everyone had an opportunity to express his/her opinions. Recognize Complexity Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within SMEs, Ecosystem Support Organisations (ESOs), the broader business community, small-holder farmers and civil society – working across the food system from production to consumption. Complement the work of others The Dialogue built-on and added-value to existing policy processes and initiatives. It provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. Build Trust The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogue are not attributed to single individuals.

Yes

234238239240241242How to boost the role of SMEs in providing good food for all? Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are vital to our food economies. Each country is different, but SMEs are often over 90% of businesses in the agri-food sector, creating half the economic value, providing more than half the sector’s jobs, and handling more than half the food consumed. Their tenacity and agility sustain food supplies and access through the COVID pandemic. What pathways will enhance the contribution of SMEs to the food system? Wasafiri here offers six promising pathways to boost the impact of food SMEs. Which are most important in your context? What is missing? What actions will advance them? How are they interdependent? 1. Elevate the Voice of SMEs Food entrepreneurs are incredibly diverse. Hence, collectively they neither easily influence nor hear the policy decisions that determine their future. Policymakers are often simply unaware of this quiet majority and are instead swayed by more powerful voices that are easier to engage. Positive examples exist of institutions and processes that elevate the voice of SMEs. The best of these also manage to amplify more marginalised entrepreneurs such as women, youth and indigenous people. Replicating these efforts around the world will ensure our food systems are designed and managed in ways that realise the positive contribution of SMEs. 2. Reduce the Cost of Doing Business In emerging economies, many basic challenges undermine the commercial viability of food SMEs, for example poor roads, intermittent power, red tape, corruption, unpredictable trade policy, and internet access. Wherever these improve, SMEs grow and proliferate. Access to finance also improves as lenders and investors have more confidence. Cross-sector collaboration can strengthen this basic enabling environment, reducing the risks and costs of doing business in the agri-food sector, and accelerating the “quiet revolution” through which SMEs are already transforming food systems. 3. Reward Positive Outcomes Our food systems are currently designed to reward the mass production of cheap calories. Different incentives are needed for markets to produce food that is more sustainable, nourishing and equitable. From impact investing to carbon credits, from product certification to sugar taxes, there are diverse mechanisms to reward positive outcomes and disincentivise negative ones. These must be designed and scaled in ways that work for SMEs, rather than adding complexity and cost. 4. Target Support at Food SMEs Well-resourced business development support for SMEs is a proven driver of inclusive economic growth. Targeting such support at food SMEs offers additional benefits, due to the importance of the sector to public goods such as health, the environment, and livelihoods. Youth, women and other groups face additional barriers to starting and growing a business. Support to them unlocks fresh entrepreneurial energy into the sector and addresses equity gaps. 5. Democratise the Digital Food Revolution COVID has accelerated a long-term trend towards digitisation of the food system. Whether it is digital farming, block chain for supply chain management, or virtual marketplaces, the food system is undergoing a tech revolution. The vast flows of data could serve the common good or entrench control within a few powerful actors. By design and policy, the data services and digital markets must be accessible to SMEs. This could unlock myriad innovations from payment for ecosystem services, to direct farm-to-consumer sales. 6. Make Good Food Matter For decades, the food system has been valued for its efficiency in feeding billions of additional mouths. This era witnessed the rise of industrial agriculture. The Summit marks an inflection point. Food systems must now also be valued for nourishing people, regenerating nature, improving equity and resilience to shocks. In this new paradigm, SMEs are in a stronger position with their closer, more nuanced relationships with communities and landscapes.235238239240241242Need to change the agrifood system. Actions to be taken at several levels. Food standards for all, appropriate equipment, training, technical support for SMEs, access to finance, land, creation of cooperatives. Concern about producing and distributing quality products, wastewater, packaging, worker hygiene, storage, etc. At all links in the value chains. SMEs must remain competitive and therefore need solutions and support.236238239240241242Discussion was around the 2 following questions: 1. What is your and your company's contribution to the food system? 2. What are the challenges that limit this contribution? Feedback 1 • Creation of a favorable environment to allow the circulation in the member states of products that are processed and consumed in the community space both in the UMEA or at the level of the CAC. • Example of Niger where they are developing practices that allow good quality Nigerien products to compete with imported products containing potentially harmful / harmful materials. • Initiatives to stimulate creativity and innovation. Exhibitions and awards ceremony for the best companies with an example on organic packaging. • Actions by incubators who supervise young people: agribusiness projects such as fish farming, forestry, food crops, etc. to stimulate the market • Training for the improvement of production techniques by supporting especially the small farms which supply most of our urban markets in Central Africa (and particularly in the DRC). Tax inconsistency which is a major challenge because it does not allow companies to promote their activities. Feedback 2 Production and processing. Main problem being the lack of equipment. Lack of machinery in standards and packaging. Pb certification to reassure consumers about the quality of products in order to be able to market them. Certification is essential for commercialization. Another pb, import taxes which make products more expensive, intervene on marketing and indirectly on production because there is no point in producing if we cannot market afterwards. Another pb: organization of SMEs as an umbrella organization. Feedback 3 Important supply routes for SMEs, better results when they are short. Role that SMEs can play to limit intermediaries and facilitate short circuits. Post-harvest losses: actions of SMEs. And the importance of developing stable and sustainable distribution channels. Solutions: government support with the example and experience of Niger. 3N initiative which has supported SMEs since policy development by creating a framework and allows dialogue between SMEs and government, support / advice structures, structuring financing structures, credit to small producers. Constraints: financing, raw material taxes and supply difficulties. Feedback 4 1. Question of local supply that can be assumed by short-circuit SMEs (highlighted with the covid crisis). A real asset for SMEs as longer supply chains encountered real challenges during the covid crisis. Real added value for SMEs with examples of localized production (e.g. urban agriculture) 2. Creation of direct and indirect jobs, which makes it possible to have a dynamic at the level of the territories and therefore to locally create purchasing power 3. Inputs with SMEs more anchored in the territories, which can be close to producers, provide suitable offers, training. Relocation of production systems, with creation / production of organic inputs, local knowledge, new products etc. Challenges - Taxation, heavy, complex and for companies that make transformation, taxation intervenes at several levels. - Human capital, training and technical assistance - Infrastructure and access to finance: banks and MFIs who do not trust agri SMEs, lack of qualified people who understand how to finance the agri / agro sector. Guarantees that arise for SMEs. - Problems of conservation and processing in rural areas.236238239240241242Discussion around concrete actions to get things done and find solutions The Future: How to boost the role of SMEs in providing “Good Food for All”? 1. Make SMEs heard 2. Reduce the cost of doing business 3. Reward responsible conduct 4. Tailor support for food SMEs 5. Democratise the digital food revolution 6. Make good food matter Feedback 1 3 courses of action discussed: 2/4/6 Track 2- improved trade and fiscal policies to protect producers, promotion of local agrifood products Track 4- favor access to industrial zones especially for women / residential areas, pursue commercial policies with exemption from taxes / customs fees for equipment imported especially for processing. Reduction in profit tax weighs heavily on SMEs and discourages SMEs from formalizing. So stay informal. Investors and donors should give more importance to social business and not just for profit business because it is important. Grouping necessary between SMEs (pooling) especially in the field of transformation, to achieve better results. Support processors in new technologies, innovations, training, more organic production, production quality Track 6- develop policies that promote local products and limit imports, act on trade policies, promote strategies around healthy eating (young children focus), quality / health control service at all levels, promotion of tools for 'balanced diet. Feedback 2 Tracks 4 and 6 Track 6: importance of raising awareness / informing consumers (and SMEs!) About what healthy and sustainable food is so that they can make conscious (!) Enlightened choices, put the consumer at the center / heart of the system food so that they push and influence SMEs to produce and transform better and better. Requires a policy framework favorable to the development of SMEs and financial support. Proposes to set up a “knowledge” platform on SMEs aimed at informing commercial banks and building confidence for investments. Track 4: Emphasize the financial and political dimensions. Track 1: advocacy, integrate SMEs on legislative issues. Important to consult SMEs! Track 5: support and structure for SMEs integrating digital Feedback 3 Tracks 4 and 1 Track 4: capacity building, need for coaching, training (online !!) etc. But the cost of training is high ... Track 6: that SMEs can take part in decisions. Difficulties: access to energy and raw materials (especially with security issues in the Sahel at the moment), labor and access to land. Structure SMEs among themselves to make them stronger and greater decision-making power. Risk aversion for investors Difficult quality control: no labs with certifications to guarantee product quality. Feedback 4 Set up networking between countries to link SMEs, organization of webinars etc. newsletter to educate consumers on the importance of good nutrition. Customs charges on imported equipment, difficult Promotion and promotion of local products Role of SMEs in the fight against malnutrition Policy framework / environment favorable to SMEs for investments and access to equipment

2021-07-05 23:45:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14699/88145180199

3104161100161502900000423200300100921170000211207000000

Recognizing the importance of farmer involvement in creating healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable food systems, the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture and CropLife Asia organized an independent dialogue in support of the UN Food Systems Summit. There is an urgent need to create an environment that assures technology and its accompanying knowledge can be used in transforming agri-food systems in a sustainable way. To enable this, transformational leaders from government, research and development organizations, and the private sector must work together in operating change modalities that are appropriate to the local context. In this dialogue, what underpins an environment that supports smallholder farmer change will be determined directly from farmers. The three breakout sessions focus on particular action tracks: 1. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; 3. Boost nature-positive production; and 5. Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress. These sessions help determine actions from the government, academe, and private institutions to support farmers in the transformation towards sustainable agri-food systems. Dialogue participants came from various backgrounds from Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam to ensure that various groups are represented to offer inputs coming from their rich and diverse on-the-ground farming experiences. At the beginning, the purpose and the need for engagement were discussed with the participants. They were also encouraged to freely express their ideas on the focus areas of the dialogue. Translators were also arranged to ensure that participants are able to participate fully during the discussions. The dialogue curator and facilitators are all expert practitioners from the academe, industry, and the government. They also attended the recommended training sessions to be familiar with how they will be able to lead the discussions with the principles of the summit in mind.The Dialogue was kept within the suggested 2.5-4 hour time frame. Keynote presentations on the purpose and objectives of the UNFSS and the Dialogues were given to orient the participants on the goals and how they could meaningfully participate in it. The Curator provided an overview of the opportunities and challenges for farmers in transforming Agri-Food Systems in SEA, in the context of the Summit Action Tracks, the complexity of food systems, and how the Dialogue could help shape pathways for the future of equitable and sustainable food systems. The Dialogue was able to get the necessary action points from the people who are exposed to the agri-food systems on the ground. All of these fall under principles 1 (act with urgency) and 2 (commit to the Summit). As for principles 3 (be respectful), 4 (recognize complexity), 5 (embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity), 6 (complement the work of others), and 7 (build trust), the breakout sessions served as platform that provided a comfortable environment through: acknowledgement of farmer-participants’ backgrounds and level of knowledge prior to the discussion; highlighting the importance of their roles in agri-food systems alongside the programs/initiatives of the other stakeholders; allowing them to speak in their mother tongues through translators; by being given brief presentations on the topics that will be discussed to clarify some relatively technical concepts to the farmers before going deeper; and by giving all a chance to speak about the situation in their respective countries and the needed programs to solve the problems through their lens. This was complemented by the Plenary session by making them understand better that they have a major role to play in the transformation of agri-food systems as frontliners of the sector, and that they can even do so much more by becoming transfarmers.Based on the learnings from the hosted dialogue and other similar fora that SEARCA has convened, it is important that the hosting organization share the objectives of the summit and have them aligned to its mission. It is also good to partner with like-minded organizations with on-the-ground experience. This is extremely useful in selecting participants known to have a good knowledge, experience, insights, and vision. This ensures that they can significantly contribute to the dialogue. A facilitator who is an expert and respected in the particular area should be identified and should be briefed on the background of participants. Since the Dialogue is designed as a targeted by-invitation only event, it is essential for the Convenor to assemble a relatively small group of participants based on its knowledge of and linkages with relevant professionals and organizations in the region. There is also a need to prepare a schedule in a way that is flexible and would not limit the flow and exchange of ideas during the discussion while keeping it within the limits of the dialogue. This does not just give more time for an unhurried in-depth discussion, it also opens up opportunities to broaden partnerships in transforming food systems for the common good.

Yes

234238240242244246248249251This independent dialogue was organized in response to the global call to transform food systems towards achieving all the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by helping establish the direction for food systems through collective action with the involvement of all the key players under the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. SEARCA, together with CropLife Asia, convened this independent dialogue in recognition of the major role of smallholder farmers in the facilitation of transformation of the agri-food systems. This is the third independent dialogue organized by SEARCA under the Summit. In the process of transformation, smallholder farmers need access to appropriate, affordable, profit-enhancing technologies and crop systems. However, it is essential that these technological interventions be sustainable and do not perpetuate the ecological degradation or social conditions so often seen in agricultural development. In this dialogue, the important aspect of what underpins the environment (involving the mix of enablers, transformational leaders, government institutions, research and development organizations, and private sector groups) that must be created to support smallholder farmer change will be determined directly from the smallholder farmers. In particular, three breakout sessions were conducted under this independent dialogue that focused on the UNFSS action tracks namely: Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production; and Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress. Through these sessions, SEARCA and CLA have determined the actions from the government, academe, and private institutions to support farmers in the transformation towards sustainable agri-food systems based on the perceptions/responses of the smallholder farmers to the following key questions: How can academia and research use digital technologies, work with farmers to produce safe and nutritious food for all? How can government institutions translate policies into actions in creating an enabling environment for nature-positive production? How can industry partners contribute to building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress? All of these aim to make typical farmers become “transfarmers” (combination of ‘transformer’ and ‘farmers’) - by exploring innovative ways to work together with the academe, the industry, and the government in transforming food systems. The objective is to elevate the quality of life of the agricultural farmers through sustainable and resilient livelihood, access to modern networks and innovative market, and eventually to achieve a sustainable, inclusive, environment-friendly, and resilient food systems. At the same time, these interventions will ensure the production of safe and nutritious food from farm to table, and farmers will get their fair share of the economic development.235238240242244246248249251The dialogue has utilized various tools to provide the convenors rich information on the perceptions of the smallholder farmers in the Southeast Asian region in line with the various stakeholders and technology that can help improve their lives.These are: 1) pre-dialogue survey containing 25 questions given to the dialogue participants; and 2) the UNFSS 2021 Independent Dialogue proper. Below are the main findings for each utilized tool: Tool 1: Survey among dialogue participants Prior to the actual dialogue, a survey questionnaire was circulated by the organizing teams to the participants. For this survey, a total of 18 respondents provided answers to 25 questions, and the common threads in their responses are as follows: 1. No shortage of initiative to help farmers from government, NGO, and the private industry; 2. Lack of awareness among farmers of food as part of a system that influences consumer health and nutrition, as well as the environment; and 3. One consequence of the above is production and farmer income-centered responses, concerning risks in farming, improving yield and efficiencies. Wish list of farmers (items that are not being adequately addressed by current support programs; not in order of importance): 1. Economic Risk Reduction ; 2. Environmental Stewardship; 3. Value Chain Management; 4. Logistics Support; and 5. Organizing Farmers – to achieve economies of scale. Tool 2: Simultaneous breakout dialogue sessions During the dialogue proper, three simultaneous breakout sessions were conducted to gather answers to the key questions. The dialogue outcomes are as follows: 1. Less emphasis on consumer concerns for healthy and nutritious food. 2. Less emphasis on nurturing of traditional foods. 3. Some concern about the environment is reflected in government programs and farmer practice, but more information is needed to heighten farmer awareness and involvement in environmental stewardship​. 4. Discussions focused on farmer empowerment through associations, technologies for cost reduction and yield maximization in the context of monoculture. 5. CONCLUSION: There is a general lack of understanding of the food systems concept and the role of farmers in shaping it. New programs needed based on the responses of the participants: 1. Enhancing farmer understanding of their role in food system transformation, specifically​ focused on their role in the following: a. Stewardship of the environment​; and b. Providing for nutrition and health of consumers​ 2. Training of farmers to be entrepreneurs and involvement in developing value adding processes. 3. Scaling up of existing programs, particularly those involving diversification and involvement of small farmers in value-adding activities. 4. Scaling up of diversification is particularly generally useful because it addresses the major deficiencies in the existing food system. 5. Recruiting a new generation of farmers (the youth) who can better execute the above programs and easily adapt to new and innovative technologies.236238244246248249251Key Question: How can academia and research use digital technologies, work with farmers to produce safe and nutritious food for all? Outcomes: 1. The dialogue participants acknowledged the importance of the agri-food systems and the need to be aware of their role as stakeholders in the production of safe and nutritious food for all. 2. New digital technologies, especially the ones shared and presented during the breakout sessions, are of interest to farmers though some recognize that they are not that tech savvy and lack enough understanding about the technology. 3. Farmers consider the high costs for investing in new digital technologies; the generation and technology gap add up to the concerns on technology adoption. 4. Universities that carry out the high levels of research should be grounded and results should be easily translated in ways that farmers understand. Farmers expressed that research studies that are conducted to address their specific concerns are better for them. Next steps: 1. Farmers and researchers are encouraged to think beyond production and must consider the implications to the whole value chain system. 2. Develop “trans-farmers” by making farmers understand that agriculture is beyond farming and there is a real business in agriculture. 3. Harnessing the benefits from digital technology will improve the current practices of farmers and they will evolve to agri-entrepreneurs, agri-businessmen, or agri-traders and marketers . 4. Educate more farmers on the new technologies and their level of application in agricultural activities. 5. Research outputs will be packaged in a way that will allow smallholder farmers to easily use and apply the technology.236240244246248249251Key Question: How can government institutions translate policies into actions in creating an enabling environment for nature-positive production? Outcomes: 1. The government is active with a good number of policies and programs that ensure protection of environment/natural resources along with food production. Examples include Good Agricultural Practices, organic farming, PalayCheck or Rice Integrated Crop Management, crop rotation, and intercropping. However, the problem lies in the implementation. 2. The role of extension is critical in strongly capacitating farmers in food production, as well as in promoting and implementing nature-positive production systems. Youth participation is important. They are next stewards of the natural production areas and the direct beneficiaries of the ongoing interventions. Currently, farmers are old. 3. Crop diversification is being done, but has not been widely practiced. 4. Land condition limits adoption of technologies promoting nature-positive production. 5. Technology and insurance for farmers are also needed. 6. For GM crops that promote nature-positive production, these are hindered by anti-groups. 7. There are no issues with regards to female farmers. There is no issue in adjusting the system to take their limitations into consideration. Next steps: 1. Effective capacity building programs should be put in place to develop farmers. This must be complemented with science-based information that will promote and convince farmers that the programs really have an effect on the environment. 2. Technology should be made available to support the programs and insurance for farmers. Likewise, funds/credit to access the technology as well as infrastructure must be available. 3. Engage the youth. 4. Programs are there (e.g., Good Agricultural Practices, integrated pest management, etc) but there should be strict implementation/adherence. 5. Nature-positive production must be set as a national agenda for action to happen. 6. Incentives must also be provided such as insurance and market/income.236242244246248249251Key Question: How do industry partners contribute to building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress? Current programs to build resilience - There are current programs provided by the government, private sector, and NGOs to support farmers to improve their productivity, knowledge, and income (e.g. subsidies program for farm input, training on Good Agricultural Practices and agronomic practices, market accession tools, etc). The following are some examples given by each country: The Philippines - Banana and mango farmers are getting good support from the government and from the private sector through training programs. However, there is still a need for banana farmers to get disease resistant varieties to improve their production. Thailand - The government has a policy to guarantee the price of corn grains being purchased from farmers Indonesia - Support is given to rural areas, including technology provision provided by a member of the private sector and through subsidiary programs for farm inputs provided by the government Vietnam : The government supports the new rural program, sustainable agriculture development program and capacity building for farmers. There are recommendations to sustain the programs by engaging all stakeholders in the agricultural sector. More importantly, each stakeholder should be able to commit contributions to the program. Online platforms and innovative technology - Online platforms such as marketing tools, mobile apps to have market access are made available in all countries. However, training should still be provided for some farmers in rural areas who are not well equipped with these online tools. In terms of innovative tools for farming, all countries are suggesting that drones should be supported to be used for their production (spraying program). Gender equality - Female farmers are recognized in most countries, except for Vietnam where gender equality is a concern. Since women are only seen as house workers, they have less access to training and knowledge transfer programs in agriculture and farming. Next Steps 1. Some responses are directed towards commodity specific interventions: Banana: Collaboration and investment on research and development from the government regarding new technologies (e.g. drones, resistant varieties against diseases). Mango: Need to sustain government programs through the Philippine Mango Industry Roadmap; assistance provided by CropLife in line with pollination 2. Prioritize setting up the best ecosystem for multi stakeholder collaboration to support the increase of income of the farmers. 3. Need for weather forecasting equipment for accurate forecasts and actions/responses by corn farmers and in general develop agricultural resilience 4. Government support for enhanced information dissemination that reaches the farmers through the use of various modalities e.g., radio, TV, and online platforms 5. Environment-friendly agriculture and promote the use of technology in production especially drones. 6. Enhance the use of online platforms such as on marketing produced through developing websites/online selling agricultural products (Lazada and Shopee)237238240242244246248249251There is a much needed boost in helping farmers become more aware of their role and value in improving and ensuring the sustainability of agri-food systems. The focus of agricultural education should not be solely on the science and technical aspects of agriculture. Much needs to be done on what it can do for society, primarily on empowering smallholder farmers as transfarmers --- agents of good nutrition, stewards of the environment, and drivers of economic change. This Dialogue was able to touch base with farmer leaders who, at their level, have not fully realized and understood that they play a major role in maintaining a healthy world. How they view themselves as farmers are very much focused on simply providing food to the population and for them to earn money for their respective families. To fully ensure that they would be able to actively play their role in the transformed food system, they should realize and function as partners of various stakeholders in environmental stewardship and in producing healthier products from the lens of nutrition. Agricultural research should not be limited to ways that improve processes, but should be able to address the most pressing concerns of the farmers. The research results must be translated in layman’s terms in order for them to be utilized. Though the farmers fully acknowledge that the government, private sector groups, and NGOs have been providing helpful programs and projects to them, it appears that there is a need to improve science communication. By translating research results and information about new technologies into something that farmers can easily relate to or something that would address their pressing concerns will minimize perceived risks from adopting new practices. This adds up to what they know about their farms and will improve efficiency, safety, and sustainability. There is also a need to closely monitor and evaluate (M&E) the impact of programs/projects for farmers in line with their respective objectives, particularly the new technologies being introduced to the farmers so that they can be further improved by the service providers. By doing so, it will be easy to understand how well the farmers on the ground are actually benefiting from such interventions. Feedback, on the other hand, provides more information about their concerns, emerging issues, and gathers inputs on areas for further uptake of innovations. Farmers that are engaged and motivated will be easily integrated in a more inclusive agri-food system since their voices are consistently heard. Farmers should be considered as partners and key players, and not mere beneficiaries. Farmers possess valuable indigenous knowledge for agricultural research and development that researchers could learn from and integrated in the overall knowledge systems and approaches.

2021-07-06 06:59:30205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30386/192

987

Although some of the dialogues took place in 2019, the Principles remained a key part throughout all of the UK's engagements.

NoMore information on the method of engagement can be found in the respective reports. The UK convened numerous sessions with food industry stakeholders which discussed industry collaboration with Government and the barriers faced in driving sustainability and/or resilience in the food system. Views on food system transformation were also collated from consultations by the Devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement held by the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Global Food Security Programme. More information on the method of engagement can be found in the respective reports. Please note: We are not able to publish the Northern Ireland report but this will be supplied to the Secretariat.

234238239240241242243244246247248249The dialogues explored the whole food system, covering the areas of all action tracks.235238239240241242243244246247248249Please note: This report represents the views of food systems stakeholders, it does not represent the official views of UK Government. UK industry highlighted their enthusiasm for sustainability and environmental initiatives including Government and industry roundtables to drive sustainable supply chains for palm oil and soy, Courtauld 2025 commitments, the Red Tractor assurance scheme, commitments to the FAO Dairy Declaration of Rotterdam, achieving Net Zero in farming goals and the Climate Change Levy discount scheme. Further coordination between industry innovation schemes to share innovation and best practice was suggested. Key barriers to achieving sustainability goals highlighted by industry were time, financial resource, and long-term policy and business trajectories. The need for applicable and enforceable sustainability and environmental goals on an international rather than national scale was noted as being key for success. More widely recognised and applicable sustainability and biodiversity metrics were also suggested. Multiple industry attendees flagged the need to utilise lessons learnt during the Covid-19 pandemic to build resilience in the food chain and achieve sustainability and environmental targets. Most industry attendees appreciated the food industry and Government’s close collaboration during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some attendees desired greater Government intervention in the future whereas others were more content to return to normal. Attendees noted that resilience should be an integral part of the definition of sustainability. Adopting a whole-Government food policy framework that supports sustainable food production and healthy diets was suggested. Industry flagged that the impacts of new environmental regulations upon all actors within the food system should be evaluated, and highlighted the need for a greater alignment of wider legislation (e.g. recycling and packaging legislation) with food policy, to ensure that regulation is not a barrier to progress. Attendees highlighted the need for enhanced consumer education on packaging, waste, sustainable food systems and food justice, to allow consumers to make more informed choices. Working with all members of civil society to build a social revolution promoting a sustainable food system was another key action identified. More cohesive national and local strategies, e.g. recycling schemes, as well as a focus on local supply chains and supporting sustainability within local food businesses and enterprises were recommended. Wider access to, and promotion of, healthy, seasonal and local food, with greater education on the links between health issues and food was highlighted. Legislation and taxation on unhealthy foods were mentioned by attendees.236238239240241242243244246247248249Please see attached.237Please see attached.

2021-07-06 07:18:37205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18523/39

926602517219152230214113143134112158341211013

The dialogue was organized around opening remarks, a presentation by a special guest speaker and then a panel discussion bringing together diverse topics and speakers to touch on different element of the food system relevant to fisheries. This format was necessary to accommodate the relatively large numbers interested in the topic and the challenge for facilitating numerous small group discussions. A longer question and answer session was devised to encourage participants to express views and ideas. This approach was respectful of senior representatives of Government and others present while at the same time allowing for expression of diverse views.The extended opening and keynote speech ensured that the different parties involved were respectful and encouraged an environment of trust. Government was given ample opportunity to lead main topics and other stakeholders had opportunity to present on diverse topics.This event generated a great deal of interest and spanned many different areas relevant to the sustainable future of fisheries. Ideally, the dialogue should be followed up by smaller events on specific topics of interest where all the diverse inputs could be collected using conventional small group discussion in break-out rooms.

NoUse of break out rooms was difficult due to the need for many facilitators and note takers to capture all the views. A facilitated panel discussion with diverse speakers and topics enabled a more structured exploration of the topic. It was apparent that this was a rich area of dialogue with good potential for further discussion.

234238240241244249251We need to clarify the meaning of the concept of Fish to Fork in relation to building a sustainable fisheries sector in Cambodia. The simplest parallel is from agriculture where for many years the term Farm to Fork has been commonplace. The term fish to fork is a simple adaption of the concept to thinking about fisheries. The fundamental thinking centres on the concept of the value chain. Value chains are relationships between actors to link production activities, processing, distribution and marketing to consumers in such a way that the needs of the consumers create the value of the product or service and the actors along the chain share a part of this value according to their contributions. This is a model of cooperative activity within the chain to maximise value and to reward firms for their value adding. This thinking is every bit as relevant to fisheries as it is to farming! The fish to fork concept is not something new. Our purpose was to generate a discussion of the fish to fork concept as a way of entering into a dialogue about fisheries, sustainability and food systems. The natural resource base, the production activities and value chains are all part of the food system, so too is the environment in which the consumers are presented with food choices, and the consumption and disposal of waste. It is not easy to think about the whole system, its many people and processes but experience shows us that a more holistic approach – a systems approach –not only leads to better outcomes for problem solving, it help us identify opportunities leading to better lives and livelihoods for all involved. A failure to move to a more systems approach in our management of food now threatens the quality of life for the whole planet and at both the global and regional scale, we see a growing number of people who are growing hungry. The dialogue event examined the challenges and opportunities for the adoption of the fish to fork approach in Cambodia. Keynote presentations included diverse aquatic foods to nourish people and planet; the role of fisheries in enhancing food security and nutrition; climate change and human development impacts on Cambodia fisheries. Various perspectives were presented in panel discussion moderated by Dr Olivier Joffre including gender and child labor in the fisheries sector; the post-harvest value chain; an overview of development challenges and progress; community fisheries; and a consumer perspective on fish species in Cambodia. Fish and fish products are fundamental to the Cambodian diet. Fish and fish products constitute the second largest dietary component, standing at 57.8 Kg/person/year and provide about 80% of the total animal protein intake. The sector is also key to the national economy, representing about 8-12% of gross domestic product (GDP) and employing directly and indirectly 6 million people. Despite hosting the most productive inland fisheries in the world, Cambodian fisheries are under increasing pressure. Several factors are stressing the sector including rising demand for fish and fish products, illegal fishing, agriculture expansion and land degradation, changes in hydrological cycles due to climate change and the construction of hydropower dams along the Mekong River. To address these challenges, the sector needs to adopt a systems approach to ‘do no harm’ and to leverage win-wins for different actors and activities along the food supply chain and their outcomes – social, economic and environmental – which are all connected.235238240244246249The strategic planning for the Fisheries Administration spans both freshwater and marine environments and the capture, aquaculture and rice field fisheries. Some immediate priorities for the Fisheries Administration lie in job creation, ensuring food security and nutrition, and the scaling up of activity at the sub-national level for engagement with the smallholders. We need to place a priority on recovery from COVID-19 and to ensure that our efforts are directed at the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. These are vital concerns for the development partners, just as are they for the Royal Government. In remarks released today, Samdech Prime Minister Hun Sen has expressed his thoughts and practical recommendations at the 2nd virtual Seoul Summit of Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030 for resilient and sustainable development for the post COVID-19 crisis. These recommendations serve as very strong guidance for our future work in support of the Royal Government. Likewise, the EU and other countries are focusing their efforts on Green Growth. In Cambodia, the EU concerns for Green Growth will include Food systems, building on current investments for inland and marine fisheries and agro-value chain development, including issues of food safety, accessibility, sustainability, livelihoods, and access to markets. Other development partners including the international finance institutions are also embedding green growth and value chain development in their programmes, on top of the cross cutting concerns for the engagement of the private sector, the empowerment of women, the creation of jobs under decent conditions of employment and the elimination of child labour. To transform food systems to enable diverse aquatic foods to nourish people and planet, three key messages were presented to influence change: 1: We must move from feeding people to nourishing people and nations. 2: Policy recommendations and the investment infrastructure must change to ensure well-nourished people and nation. 3: Markets and facilities for supply chains of diverse aquatic foods and products, through partnerships with stakeholders, including the private sector, must be developed and maintained.236238239240241243244245246248249251How do we transform food systems to enable diverse aquatic foods to nourish people and planet? Dr Shakuntala Thilsted, WorldFish, World Food Prize Recipient 2021 Cambodia consumes a lot of fish and other aquatic foods, with an estimated national consumption of 58 kg/person/year, almost three times that of the global average. This high national consumption value masks grave inequalities - both seasonal and among different population groups. Children from 6 months of age - the recommended age for introduction of complementary foods - are not fed fish and other aquatic animals. Poor women, during pregnancy and while breastfeeding do not have a sufficient intake of aquatic foods. The poor and vulnerable, including women and young children are unable to take full advantage of the value of aquatic foods and products as super foods for nourishment. In Cambodia, almost 50 % of women of reproductive age suffer from anemia and 24 % of children are underweight. The situation is especially dire for the poor and marginalized groups of the population, with poor nutrition resulting in poor brain and cognitive development and poor growth in children, and poor health and well-being of women. All of this results in the inter-generational burden of malnutrition with negative consequences for national development. Message 1: We must move from feeding people to nourishing people and nations. Multi-sectoral stakeholders must all understand and make the transition from feeding people to nourishing people and nations. We cannot rely on the traditional food production systems with priority given to producing large quantities of staple foods; rice in Cambodia. The focus must shift and we must consider all parts of the food system - not just production and inputs to production. We must use a food systems framework - considering, all aspects of the food systems. We must make more space for highly nutritious super foods, including diverse aquatic foods - and these foods must be well-liked, safe, affordable, accessible and equitable. Indigenous small fish provide multiple, highly bio-available essential micronutrients and essential fatty acids. Message 2: Policy recommendations and the investment infrastructure must change to ensure well-nourished people and nation. Evidence-based policy recommendations and investments are necessary to ensure that food systems transformation has maximum impact. Data paucity, including on the food intake, quality of diets - nutritional quality and food safety, and nutrient composition of aquatic foods, prevents the development of policies that are nutrition-sensitive, and thereby cannot address the malnutrition issues of the nation. Investments are necessary to guide research and obtain quality data that can shape policy changes across various levels, such as the inclusion of diverse aquatic foods into the national food-based dietary guidelines. Better use and management of community fish refuges is vital to sustain the rice-field fisheries sector. We extended the nutrition-sensitive aquatic food systems to include polyculture of micronutrient-rich small fish and large fish species in homestead ponds and rice fields in the dry season. This can be complemented by integration of nutrient-rich vegetable production to add to dietary diversity. Message 3: Markets and facilities for supply chains of diverse aquatic foods and products, must be developed and maintained through partnerships with stakeholders. The aquatic foods supply chains are weak and constrained by many factors In order to drive transformation, we must broaden the engagement and facilitate better access to markets and supply chains, through targeted investments. We must tap into the opportunities the private sector offers such as the work of Vissot Company Limited producing, a wafer, filled with small fish powder that is being used to treat malnourished children. This success is one of its kind - globally - and builds on strong scientific evidence by Cambodian and Danish research fellows, showing that dried small fish products are equally beneficial as internationally-used products, made from milk powder - to sustain growth and development.236238239241244246249251Role of Fisheries in Enhancing Food and Nutrition Security Touch Bunthang and Poum Sotha, Fisheries Administration of the MAFF How can the fisheries sector contribute to reduced malnutrition in Cambodia? Fish production: secure/increase supply (fisheries management and conservation and aquaculture development). Improve utilization and accessibility of fish from catch to consumption: Develop value chains for processed fish-based products targeted at children and women. Increase the accessibility of diverse species of low value small-sized fish species at household level. Preparation of recipes using a higher proportion of micronutrient-rich foods, i.e. fish; Food preparation methods that preserve micronutrients: short cooking times, steaming, adding food to boiling water rather than cold water, and boiling rather than intensive frying. Food eating habits and behavior changes (make use of local knowledge and perception on fish, incorporation of fish in the meal, distribution of fish in the family). Eating parts of fish and other aquatic animals such as eyes, head, skin, and meat; and processed fish products that are rich in micronutrients such as iron, zinc calcium, vitamin B complex and Vitamin A with the aim of incorporating these species into cultural practices. A communication strategy can be used to promote dietary behaviors changes that increase consumption of micronutrient-rich fish species and foods of women and children. Recommendations Government should provide the legislation and commitment to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management for maintaining sustainable fisheries and protection key habitats and spawning areas Policy-makers should consider to keep the Mekong mainstream clear of hydropower dams to preserve the integrity of the fisheries, protect spawning grounds, and protect food security Dialogue should be maintained between LMB countries on mitigation transboundary impacts from water infrastructure development projects in both up-and downstream of Cambodia Communities fisheries should be empower to manage and conserve fish at a local level and deal with illegal fishing practices and habitat destruction Close monitoring and evaluation of the contribution of fisheries to national food security and nutrition should be carried out systematically to inform policies and decisions related to water management, land management, energy and food security Promote aquaculture development including research on aquaculture technique and improvement of fisheries value chains Promote nutritional education program in partnership with development partners such as the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) and the National Maternal and Child Health Center and the National Nutrition Program on safe water, sanitation and hygiene aspects, cooking methods, food preparation and preservation, food eating habits and behaviors changes, in all Child and Maternal Nutrition programs.236242244246250Climate Change and Human Development Impacts on Cambodia Fisheries Mr. Thay Somony, Director, Department of Aquaculture Development, Fisheries Administration; Mr. Ouk Vibol Director of Fisheries Conservation, Fisheries Administration; Mr. Ing Try, Deputy Director General, Fisheries Administration Potential impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries in Cambodia Increased stratification and reduced mixing of waters, esp. lakes, reducing water quality (DO) and primary productivity and ultimately food supplies for fish species: Implications for Reduction in fish stocks and catch Potential loss of species and alteration of species Changes in timing and success of migrations, spawning and peak abundance: Potential loss of species or shift in composition for capture fisheries; Impacts on seed availability for aquaculture. For aquaculture, altered culture species and possibly worsened losses to disease (and so higher operating costs) and possibly higher capital costs for aeration equipment or deeper ponds. Higher temperatures destroy fisheries habitat: Coral Reef bleaching occurred from 40-99% in 2010 when water temperature increased up to 34% (optimum temperature for coral reef is 28-30oC). Higher temperature leads to occurring drought and fire in the flooded area and to habitat loss. Erosion and sedimentation leads to shallower waters (in case of 8 Great lake Fish Sanctuaries). Higher or lower temperature would cause spawning productivity to fall. Lower salinity caused by more rainfall in the wet season damages seagrass beds along the shoreline in Kampot Province. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON FISHERIES Population growth brings over-fishing, illegal fishing and habitat destruction. Hydropower dams interfere with fish migration and spawning grounds. 77 to 88 dams expected in the Lower Mekong Basin by 2030 (ICEM). Only 16 existed in 2000 & 227 dams in operation or planned for Mekong Basin by 2030. The Tonle Sap Lake produces 60% of all Cambodia’s capture fisheries and the Mekong provides approximately 57% of water for Tonle Sap Lake - inter-connectivity is very important NATIONAL EFFORTS ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AND BUILDING CLIMATE RESILIENCE IN FISHERIES Conservation of the fisheries resources and habitat restoration; Enhancement of fisheries productivity; Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) of the fishing activity; Support to Community Fisheries (CFis) & Community Fish Refuges (CFRs); Development of policies, management strategies, legislation; Research, to generate evidence for policy and legislation development and evaluation; Programme/projects addressing climate change in Fisheries, covering both adaptation and mitigation under Technical Working Group on Fisheries (TWGFi) and its various Sub-Groups.236238241242245246249Panel Discussion. Importance of the government enabling environment for development of the fisheries sector and key elements for the sustainability of the sector as a component of the food systems H.E. Dr Lim Song (Fisheries Administration) Main mandate of the government is to ensure that laws, policies and regulations are aligned and respond to the current and future needs and to disseminate them to all stakeholders, specially to the communities that manage fisheries resources. All stakeholders need to be efficient in the implementation of the regulations to ensure fisheries resources are managed sustainably while enhancing food security and poverty alleviation. KEY ELEMENTS FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SECTOR - Adequate management and conservation of capture fisheries, development of aquaculture sub-sector as well as safety and quality of fish products - Enforcement of laws and regulations and coordination amongst stakeholder - Climate change, increasing population, hydropower dam development, competition between water uses, destruction of fish habitats are key challenges for the sustainability of the sector. - Close collaboration of government and private sector for aquaculture development. There is a need to increase demand for fisheries products from aquaculture. - Capacity building to aquaculture producers on food safety and processing for adding value. - Aquaculture will assist in meeting the demand for fish products but we cannot forget that capture fisheries are still very essential to food security and nutrition in Cambodia. Fisheries sector is crucial to increase the livelihoods’ resilience of Cambodian population.236238241242244245246249Community Fisheries in supporting resilient fish systems Mr Mam Kosal, Community Fisheries specialist. WorldFish. 50% of Cambodian population is employed in a (at least) part-time basis in the fisheries sector. Currently there are 470 Community Fisheries and 870 Community Fish refuge registered with MAFF. Community fisheries play an important role in sustainability fisheries productivity. Some achievements are improved participation, regulation compliance, resource management and governance, habitat restoration, improved community nutrition and women participation and leadership. Most climate and human induced impacts go beyond community management solution. However, there are measures that can be implemented at community level to cope with draught such as implementing microhabitat pond, manage forest fire, reducing fishing pressure by imposing stringent regulation on fishing in the community, switching or developing alternative livelihood. Control access and use of water body should be delegated to the appropriate level of authority for better coordination. There is a need to enhance community ownership in managing fisheries to ensure everyone in the community is actively engaged in. Community fisheries are currently dependent to external funding. To reduce this dependency some communities have developed eco-tourism activities to self-finance the cost of, for example patrolling which is high.236238241245246249251Vision for the fisheries sector by 2030 from a gender perspective and addressing child labour in the sector. Ms Bettina Gatt. International Expert on Gender and Child Labour for the EU- FAO CAPFISH project VISION Cambodia has a centuries old tradition of catching, processing and cultivating freshwater fish, where women and men -ever since- fill distinct, but complementary roles. In small-scale fisheries both, women and men play valuable roles throughout the whole fish value chain: starting from the pre-harvest preparation of fishing gears and boats, but also in the capture, as for example in the Tonle Sap lake, where women and men tend to fish together in boats; or women collecting snails or craps in rice fields or other aquatic animals and plants in the mangroves to feed their families and generate income by selling in the market. Women comprises up to 90% of the workforce in post-harvest activities, like smoking, fermenting or drying fish and selling the fish products in the markets: products like prahoc are of vital importance for many poor Cambodians during periods of low fresh fish availability, and key nutrients for their well-being. Women are the unseen backbone of the fisheries sector, supporting local food security and ensuring that fish are processed and prepared for sale at regional and national markets. Yet, the fisheries sector tends to be defined as male-dominated. Lack of data gives rise to gender-blind policy-making or gender-blind program design, which in turn translates into inadequate funding for the spheres that women are concentrated in, like the post-harvest processing. Unfortunately, women are rarely chosen for leadership or managerial roles, meaning that they often do not have a voice in decisions, including the distribution of resources, like budget allocation, or fair working conditions. Governments and other stakeholders should promote gender equality by recognizing the often invisible work and responsibilities women take on in the fisheries sector, acknowledging them as entrepreneurs and key actors in food systems, targeting women’s needs through extension services, programmes and projects; and create the necessary conditions for women to fully realize their potential. We have to acknowledge that women and men from small-scale fisheries are instrumental in making food systems more productive and sustainable by strengthening their meaningful participation in fisheries governance. Economy and productivity growth remain essential for better nutrition, but we need to adopt a systems approach to ‘do not harm’ CHILD LABOUR There is huge potential to reduce child labour in Cambodia as nearly 30% of its population is under 15 years old. However, 60% of children living in rural areas experience some kind of child labour in the agriculture sector, including in fisheries. This vicious cycle not only effects the healthy development of the children, but also the social and economic development of the whole country. We need to protect children from hazardous work in both in the private sector but also in family setting. To tackle child labour we need to: • Addressing the underlying causes of child labour • Build more knowledge on the subject • Raise awareness on hazardous work in the fisheries sector • Support the integration of child labour considerations in national policies, programs and projects and contribute to compliance with these standards, in particular in newly emerging industries in the processing and the aquaculture sector • Vocational training for youth • Strengthening fisheries management and governance to offer long-term solutions in multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder and multi-level coordination and actions.236238239245246248249Post-harvest value chain Dr Shetty Seetharama Thombathu, Chief Technical Advisor, CAPFish - Capture Project for UNIDO Post-harvest loses are significant in Cambodia even though there are no recent studies or data on this matter. Value chain infrastructure for transport and trading fish is really basic in Cambodia. Lack of cold chain. Food safety and quality controls are just starting. The regulatory framework is in place. There are several projects supporting capacity building to the government to make sure fish consumed is safe but this is in the initial stage. Processing is really important for domestic markets. The sector is currently looking at exporting to new markets, not only regional but also others such as the EU or Japan, so there is a need to transform reorganize the value chain to meet international standards. MAIN CONSTRAINTS OF PRIVATE SECTOR IMPEDING THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF POST-HARVEST FISHERIES SECTOR IN CAMBODIA - Most of the private sector operators in the fisheries sector are family business. - Poor infrastructure and poor technology in the post-harvest area. There is minimum added-value and products do not comply with any food safety standards - Public infrastructure such as landing centers or ice factories are not enough which leads to high post-harvest losses. Recent studies show that post-harvest losses from landing to consumers are between 15% and 20%. That means losing 200 ton yearly. - Poor access to finance. Most of the post-harvest operators are micro or small-scale with no access to public finance. - Value chain governance. Lack of influential leadership within the private sector. Lack of strong producers’ association which can play a greater role in terms of advocacy. - All these challenges are hindering the contribution that the sector could contribute to the economic development of the country. PROMOTION OF POST-HARVEST DEVELOPMENT BY PRIVATE SECTOR. First steps - Make Cambodian fish products competitive through improving practices, updating infrastructure, and adopting food safety systems (certification). - Invest in operation and practices. Register business to have access to public support. Government has an important role in supporting private sector.236238239243246Consumers’ views Mr Adolfo Ruiz, Technical Director, CAST-Cambodia. CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR CONSUMERS IN CAMBODIA - There are different niches that touch on different types of buyers - Markets have to be differentiated between wet markets and modern markets. The latter is a growing segment in Cambodia in the last 5-6 years which is attracting consumers who are sensitive to hygiene and safety - Transparency of origin is important in both types of markets. Consumers want to know where fish is coming from. - Having a food safety certification HOW TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND MAKE BETTER MARKET LINKAGES - Creating bulletins, market price platforms, digitalization as it has been done in development for the las 20 years. However, besides data sharing, development project should be more intentional in creating market linkages between buyers and sellers in the field. Make different actors seat together to better understand what the markets needs are.237238241242243244246249250Cambodia has a growing population and rising demand for aquatic foods. The major inland fishery of the Tonle Sap Lake has been converted from commercial to open access and community fisheries to provide a resource for the poor and for resource dependent communities around the lake. It will be increasingly difficult to meet the growing demand for aquatic foods, as capture fisheries are also subject to increasing environmental pressures. This places an increasing pressure for increased productivity of aquaculture and rice field fisheries. Growing environmental threats, posed by climate change and human interventions, especially the construction of hydropower dams in the Mekong Basin, all pose major problems for the future of Cambodia’s fisheries. The trade-offs involved are often of an international nature and offer differing prospects for upstream and downstream nations, industries, communities and the environment. There are growing indications that the biodiversity, productivity and sustainability of major inland fisheries are threatened.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Antonio-Schiavone-Fish-to-Fork.docxhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/HE-Silo-speech-fish-to-fork.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SHT-Aquatic-foods-for-Nourishing-People-Nations-and-Planet.docxhttps://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&ei=UTF-8&p=Dr+Shakuntala+Thilsted&type=E211US1263G0#id=4&vid=35069c3db2603b2a745136cb15b16877&action=view

Additional attachment for the Closing Remarks for the Fish to Fork Dialogue2021-07-30 09:23:04https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Closing-remarks-on-fish-to-fork-on-2-June-2021-docxa.pdf

2021-07-06 08:19:15205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31190/71

350350101111111111111111111

Le ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Didier Guillaume, a lancé la concertation le 11 février 2019 lors d'une réunion avec les représentants des différentes parties prenantes en vue de l'élaboration d'une stratégie sur les protéines végétales. Il a confié un premier chantier aux filières afin qu'elles identifient les actions qu'elles peuvent mener conjointement, sur la base de leurs plans de filière. Un second chantier a été confié à l'INRAE pour qu'en lien avec les instituts techniques un diagnostic de la dynamique de recherche actuelle soit établi. Les différents ministères concernés ont également été mobilisés pour identifier les leviers relevant des politiques publiques. La stratégie a été finalisée et validée par le Ministre Julien DeNormandie , qui a souhaité pour la compléter signer une charte d’engagement des acteurs des filières. Le 1er décembre 2020, le Ministre a réuni l’ensemble des acteurs de la vaste concertation menée sur les protéines végétales pour présenter la stratégie nationale protéine co-construite et la charte. Pour renforcer les principes, le processus s’est effectué sur un temps relativement long ce qui a permis d’approfondir les sujets et ce qui a permis à chacun de prendre le temps de s’écouter et de mieux se comprendre. En opérant des concertations à différents niveaux (national, régional), à la fois avec des réunions physiques et des consultations électroniques, il a été possible de toucher un très grand nombre d’acteurs et de garantir une grande inclusivité. La tenue de chantiers spécifiques (chercheurs, filières, ensemble des parties prenantes) permet de reconnaitre la complexité des sujets, de se donner les moyens d’en saisir les facettes et de repérer les lacunes éventuelles. De même cela est en ligne avec le principe de « compléter le travail des autres » en permettant un dialogue entre des filières et acteurs complémentaires.Ce travail conjoint a été mené pendant plusieurs mois en associant l’ensemble des parties prenantes concernées : experts, chercheurs, professionnels agricoles de l’ensemble des filières concernées, interprofessions, entreprises, associations de défense de l’environnement. Le principe d’inclusion était au cœur de ce processus. Plus de 350 acteurs divers – experts, chercheurs, professionnels, entreprises, associations de défense de l’environnement ont été associés à la concertation. Il y a eu une combinaisons de concertations nationales et régionales, réunions et consultations électroniques La participation des chercheurs, des acteurs des filières, et des ONG a permis de prendre en compte l’ensemble des enjeux, objectifs, intérêts et contraintes dans leur diversité et dans leur complexité, afin de définir des solutions appropriées. Il a fallu opérer des arbitrages qui ont pu être ainsi explicités.Importance de disposer de données et d’un diagnostic co-construit à partir d’expertise complémentaires (chercheurs, acteurs de terrain, utilisateurs/consommateurs/citoyens). Importance de se donner le temps pour une consultation approfondie, les sujets sont complexes et ne peuvent pas être traités de manière sérieuse, appropriée et complète sans un processus comprenant plusieurs étapes et consultations. Importance de veiller à la bonne représentativité des acteurs (inclusivité)

NoLa méthode utilisée a consisté en la mise en place d’un comité de pilotage (administration) et la réalisation de plusieurs consultations très ouvertes, après une phase de diagnostic (atouts/ faiblesses/ opportunités/ menaces) La stratégie a ainsi été élaborée sur la base d’une large consultation des parties prenantes, dont l’objectif était de construire une vision partagée de la situation ainsi que des défis et des opportunités. Il s’agissait aussi de créer les conditions d’un travail commun entre toutes les filières, végétales comme animales, entre les divers acteurs de la recherche, et de consulter l’ensemble des parties prenantes dont la société civile, y compris de manière décentralisée. Plusieurs phases ont été nécessaires : - 11 février 2019 : réunion plénière de lancement de la concertation et des trois chantiers : - Chantier « filières » (construction d’une vision partagée entre toutes les filières concernées) - Chantier « recherche » (états des lieux des défis en terme de recherche) - Concertations régionales (mobilisation des acteurs des territoires à partir d’ateliers régionaux et de contributions via des processus pré-existants) - 24 juin 2019 : 2de réunion plénière (présentation des conclusions des chantiers à l’ensemble des parties prenantes, et lancement de la concertation écrite sur la trame de stratégie) - Automne 2019 : synthèse des contributions, rédaction de la stratégie, échanges avec les acteurs, validation politique et arbitrage (notamment en terme de moyens financiers) - Décembre 2019 : lancement de la stratégie et premiers engagements pris (chartes) Au cours du processus, 350 acteurs et experts, représentant les filières professionnelles, les entreprises, les associations de défense de l’environnement, les instituts de recherche et les instituts techniques, ont été impliqués (aux niveau national et régional). 300 propositions ont été formulées par les parties prenantes sur la base du projet de trame de la stratégie. L’ensemble des ministères concernés a été impliqué dans le processus, piloté par le ministère de l’agriculture et l’alimentation. Toutes les voix ont été entendues. Des points de convergence et de divergence ont émergé (cf les autres rubriques renseignées). En parallèle de ces travaux, le comité de pilotage inter-ministeriel mis en place par le MAA a eu pour objectif de synthétiser les objectifs de la stratégie et d'identifier les leviers de politiques publiques pouvant être mobilisés pour les atteindre.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251L’axe majeur de la concertation portait sur l’amélioration de la souveraineté alimentaire en protéines végétales à travers la définition d’une stratégie nationale visant à améliorer l’autonomie en protéines de la France. La stratégie s'inscrit dans le cadre de l'ambition du Gouvernement en faveur de la transition agro-écologique à la suite des Etats Généraux de l'Alimentation. Elle est complémentaire avec les autres politiques publiques, et en particulier : - la stratégie nationale bas carbone et le Plan climat - la stratégie nationale de lutte contre la déforestation importée - la stratégie nationale de mobilisation de la biomasse - le Programme national nutrition santé et le Programme national pour l'alimentation - la stratégie Ecophyto II+ - le plan semences et plants pour une agriculture durable - le programme Ambition bio 2022 - le Programme national de réduction des émissions de polluants atmosphériques - la Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité Le développement des filières protéines était une forte attente exprimée par l’ensemble des parties prenantes lors des Etats généraux de l’alimentation, les EGA, qui se sont tenus en 2017 (cf descriptif des EGA en pièce jointe). La feuille de route des EGA prévoyait en effet le développement des filières protéines végétales. Les constats de départ sous-jacents étaient les suivants : - vulnérabilité liée à la forte dépendance au soja importé avec des risques liés de déforestation mais aussi aux engrais importés, à différentes échelles: UE, FR, territoires, exploitations - un système protéique générateur d’externalités négatives environnementales : besoin d’agir sur la simplification des rotations et la déconnexion animal/végétal, lutte contre la déforestation liée au soja importé - au plan nutritionnel, un trop faible niveau de consommation de légumineuses par rapport aux recommandations nutritionnelles - des opportunités : marché en forte croissance, en particulier en alimentation humaine, opportunités pour faire émerger de nouvelles filières en légumineuses et opportunité pour faire monter en gamme les filières animales Résultats (cf autres chapitres) : La concertation a permis l’élaboration d’une stratégie dont la première partie dresse le diagnostic et définit l’ambition, la seconde partie décline les axes et les actions de la stratégie. En complément une charte d’engagements a été signée entre l’état, la filière des huiles et protéines végétales et les filières d’élevage lors du lancement de la stratégie protéines végétales le 1er décembre 2020.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Cette vaste concertation a permis de définir des objectifs, axes stratégiques et mesures partagées et a révélé un consensus autour de la nécessité de développer la production de protéines végétales en France. Sur la base des résultats de la concertation, et des échanges avec les membres du copil, une trame de la stratégie a été élaborée reposant sur les principes suivants : - la mise en parallèle de quatre défis (environnemental, souveraineté, économique, nutritionnel), tous assez largement partagés, ce qui permet d'aborder la question de manière systémique, et d'éviter une approche axée exclusivement sur un objectif d'autonomie ; - des objectifs généraux de la stratégie reprenant en partie les objectifs issus du chantier filières, en particulier en matière des surfaces en légumineuses, mais complétés par des objectifs relatifs à la durabilité, et à l'alimentation humaine. - une priorité horizontale accordée aux légumineuses (à graines et fourragères), approche largement partagée, en raison de leur capacité à répondre aux quatre défis simultanément et de la faiblesse actuelle de ces cultures orphelines ; - une insistance sur l'aval des filières, sur le volet alimentation humaine et sur la dimension européenne de la stratégie ; - un horizon à 10 ans, pour conduire la transition sur la durée ; - une logique de co-construction mettant l'ensemble des acteurs en responsabilité, identifiant des pilotes clairs sur chacune des actions, les pouvoirs publics ne faisant qu'accompagner certaines d'entre elles. Les objectifs globaux retenus et partagés par l’ensemble des parties prenantes sont : - une amélioration de l'autonomie protéique de la France : La stratégie doit conduire à améliorer de 10 points l'autonomie en protéines pour l'alimentation animale (herbe et fourrages compris) et de 15 points l'autonomie en matières riches en protéines. - le doublement des surfaces en légumineuses pour atteindre 2 Mha, soit 8 % de la SAU totale à horizon 2030. Toutes les légumineuses ont vocation à contribuer à cet élan : soja, protéagineux, légumes secs, luzerne déshydratée, mais aussi l'ensemble des légumineuses fourragères y compris en mélange. - l'accompagnement de l'objectif du Programme National Nutrition Santé et de la Loi Egalim en matière de consommation de protéines végétales, notamment par une hausse de la production de légumes secs. Les régimes accordant une plus large part aux protéines végétales sont encouragés par les recommandations nutritionnelles du PNNS et par la Loi Egalim. La hausse de la consommation de légumineuses est particulièrement visée puisque 4 Français sur 5 n'en consomment jamais. Cet objectif doit en parallèle s'accompagner d'une hausse de la production de légumes secs afin de mieux couvrir les besoins de la consommation intérieure. - le positionnement de la France comme référence internationale et territoire attractif dans le secteur des protéines végétales pour l'alimentation humaine Ils se déclinent en plusieurs axes stratégiques : - Engager une transition vers des systèmes de cultures diversifiées et riches en légumineuses - Renforcer l’autonomie alimentaire des élevages et le recours aux protéines fourragères - Encourager les synergies cultures-élevages à l’échelle des filières et des territoires - Faire de la France un leader de la protéine végétale pour l’alimentation humaine - Mobiliser les moyens de la recherche, de l’innovation et de la formation - Promouvoir une stratégie à l’échelle européenne et développer les partenariats internationaux - Se donner les moyens de suivre et évaluer la stratégie La stratégie prévoit un ensemble de mesures concrètes visant à soutenir : - la structuration des filières - des actions de recherche développement innovation - des investissements et achats de semences chez les agriculteurs/éleveurs - l’innovation dans les entreprises en matière d’obtention variétale et de développement de nouvelles formes de protéines alternatives (insectes, microalgues) pour l’alimentation animale - la promotion de la consommation de légumes secs (lentilles, pois chiche, etc.) dans l’alimentation en particulier des enfants, selon les recommandations du Programme National Nutrition Santé. Par exemple il s’agira d’appuyer des «Projets alimentaires territoriaux» (PAT) et de développer une mesure «cantine scolaire» qui faciliteront l’intégration des légumineuses dans les repas et les circuits courts, ou encore la formation des cuisiniers de la restauration collective dans l’utilisation des légumineuses. Certaines actions nécessitent de la recherche sur un calendrier plus long. Ainsi une «feuille de route de la recherche» sur les protéines végétales a été élaborée par les principaux acteurs de la recherche française publique et privée dans le cadre de la concertation. Elle identifie les principaux verrous à lever dans les prochaines années. Il s’agit en particulier de combler le déficit historique de recherche dont ont souffert les espèces légumineuses. Ce besoin de recherche/développement/innovation à moyen-long terme sera porté dans le cadre des stratégies d’accélération qui permettront de mobiliser certains crédits du 4e programme d’investissement d’avenir (PIA4) parmi les stratégies d’accélération (volet alimentation durable, piloté par le ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation) – crédits qui permettront de financer la recherche fondamentale sur les protéines végétales. Lors de la réunion de lancement de la stratégie, une charte d’engagement a été signée entre l’état, la filière des huiles et protéines végétales et les filières d'élevages.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les principaux sujets qui ont fait l’objet de divergence portait sur les questions suivantes : - les biocarburants, et leur place dans la réponse au défi des protéines : prudence de certaines parties vis-à-vis des effets potentiels sur la sécurité alimentaire, risque de substitution avec effet d’accaparement de terre/déforestation importée versus opportunités économiques, diversification des débouchés, intérêt en terme d’alternatives énergétiques soulignées par d’autres parties - degré d'autonomie à atteindre : risque de ne plus pouvoir satisfaire les besoins en alimentation animale évoqués par certaines parties, versus risque de déforestation souligné par d’autres parties - divergences sur les actions à prendre ou pas, et leur degré, en terme de consommation de viande - échelon pour raisonner l'autonomie (échelle exploitation, nationale, européenne) - les produits « ultratransformés », et la place de ceux à base de légumineuses dans les recommandations nutritionnelles (l'ANSES rappelant qu'elle ne disposait pas à ce jour des éléments suffisants pour se positionner dans ce débat) - le périmètre de la stratégie en termes de sources de protéines : si la priorité sur les légumineuses est largement consensuelle, concernant les autres sources plusieurs questions ont été soulevées dans les contributions sur la pertinence de prendre en compte certaines matières premières (colza, blé, insectes et autres « protéines du futur » comme les algues, microorganismes, protéines animales transformées (PAT) et opportunité de leur réintroduction dans les élevages monogastriques…)

2021-07-06 09:30:21205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24207/92

81820422231

Yes

234238239242243244245246247249250Food security: The Focus of this national dialogue was to discuss participant’s solutions in light of the challenges and vision expressed in the previous two dialogs. Participants were asked to present their solutions as answers to 5 questions: 1. What are Israel’s strengths in this area, and how can they be leveraged to transform food systems in Israel and the world? 2. What can be done here and now to achieve SDG goals for 2030? 3. What are the knowledge and technology gaps? 4. What regulatory and legislative tools are needed? 5. Who must be recruited to realize the goals? Food waste: The focus of this dialogue was to discuss possible solutions and opportunities in relation to the food waste challenge. Participants were invited to discuss their vision of the main the strengths of Israel in regard to food waste, measures to the near future, key stakeholder that need to be involved in the solution, technological and knowledge gaps, as well as regulatory guidelines that can promote best practices. Food industry: The dialogue focused on the future of the food industry and the changes that need to take place to promote an industry that produces healthier and more sustainable food. The ways to improve products' quality on the one hand and the regulations required to make the sustainable and healthy foods more available and accessible than Ultra processed food on the other hand. Urban food systems: The participants discussed the dilemma of choosing what should be done in an ideal world, as opposed to setting an achievable goal. It was decided that while we must be realistic and pragmatic, we must allow ourselves to keep our ideal within sight, even if it is not immediately achievable. Communication and social marketing: The current dialogue focused on the challenges characterized in previous sessions: 1. Increasing wide-scope media coverage of healthy and sustainable nutrition issues. 2. Social marketing and communication in diverse populations 3. building an efficient strategy to promote the issue in a variety of communication platforms, social channels and information centers 4. Regulation The following part belongs to the Main findings section: Communication and social marketing: The need to address the lack of knowledge in the general population about the tight relationship between nutrition and sustainability, the information gaps between groups, the barriers related to economic, cultural factors, availability, and accessibility together with lifestyle barriers need to be addressed in every strategy that aims to encouraging and adopting a healthy and sustainable diet in public discourse and raising it to the media focus. The foundation of the different solutions presented in the outcomes section should include: • Strengthen traditional foods from different cultures that are based on healthier food and the use of natural ingredients. • Changing Consumer environment: Encourage supermarkets to display healthier products and make them more accessible; to display information on the content of unhealthy products in large font and languages of the consumer populations on the shelf of the product because reading the content on the product is often difficult; create opportunities for members of the public to experience the preparation of or taste healthier and more sustainable food. • Regulation: Subsidize healthier food products; to label healthy products and what should be consumed instead of an emphasis on what should be avoided; in every official event the food served should only be healthy food, and avoid waste. Finally, Adjusted and updated media communication (timing): each holiday/season/event provides an opportunity to focus on more sustainable food preparation and consumption, including special sales on food products, and create information campaigns that include tips regarding healthier food preparation, consumption, and avoiding food waste.235238239242243244245246247249250251Food security: Israel’s strengths in this area include • A strong civil society in the area of food (in)security and a longstanding tradition promoting social welfare • An excellent well developed public health care system • Health and welfare promotion infrastructure in local government and municipalities • Advanced agricultural R&D and willingness to implement innovative solutions to local conditions • Strong cooperative institutions in the farming community What can be done here and now to achieve SDG goals for 2030? • Known and existing solutions such as the National Nutritional Security Council law (2011) and the national food security initiative must either be implemented effectively or reformed. • Food assistance programs must be adequately appropriated in the state budget • Existing government data in the national insurance institute, welfare ministry, education ministry, health ministry, municipalities, central bureau of statistics and other agencies should be aggregated and used to guide policy • Economic policy to mitigate food security must explicitly address food process and agriculture to reduce food insecurity in addition to strategies to increase earning power and reduce poverty • Health promotion, nutrition security and environmental sustainability must all be integral to reforming the food system. Existing legislation, programs and infrastructure in these areas can be directed to improving awareness and advancing food security. • Resources must be allocated to closing disparities in food security within different sectors of Israeli society • Political will should be harnessed, for example through the establishment of parliamentary interest groups. What are the knowledge and technology gaps? • Targeted research is needed to map out the extent of food insecurity and threats to food security involving both government agencies and data collection, and transparent data sharing and collection by NGOs. • Research must consider and clarify salient differences between distinct sectors in Israeli society such as the Arab and Ultraorthodox communities What regulatory and legislative tools are needed? A national master plan for a fair, sustainable and health promoting food plan should be enacted by law. This should include a national nutrition security law and a national agriculture law. A government agency should be tasked with overseeing national nutrition and food security, and integrating policy across ministries. The agency should be assigned responsibility, authority and a budget by law, and the law must define food security in its broad sense including food availability, access and food insecurity. Ideally the agency would be located in the Prime Ministers Office, similar to the national economic council, so that it would have the resources and authority to coordinate and manage inter-ministerial conflicts over policy priorities. The state budget must explicitly appropriate funds for nutrition and food security including agriculture and food production and targeted food aid to mitigate food insecurity. Food price controls and other economic policy must be enacted to regulate the price and ensure accessibility of a health food basket, against demonstrable market failures and centralization Food waste: • Knowledge gaps exists in several areas. First, Israel has no systematic measurement of food waste production, nor an understanding of the main hotspots. Second, it is not clear whether the current (voluntary) courses of action are indeed influential. • There was a broad agreement that one of Israel main strengths is the sophisticated food waste rescue array which currently based on NGO's. Israel's food banks have a complex logistics system that connects hundreds of donors with food distribution associations. • Participants have identified several regulatory gaps: o Encouraging food donations among food producers and retail chains through positive incentive, such as tax relief and/or government funding of logistics and manpower o A National Food Directorate that functions as an integrator that connects all stakeholders (food donors, food distribution associations, and beneficiaries), map and manage surpluses on a national level o The current Item-Pricing Law needs to be changed and a smart two-dimensional barcode system needs to be adopted. The adoption of electronic price tags should also be promoted. o An incentive to food waste source separation needs to be adopted Food industry: Israel is a small country, which allows for rapid product development and a rapid transition from development to production. Collaboration with academia and the agricultural sector is essential for developing circular solutions to improve the food system. • To enable consumers' better food choices, food advertising on media and social networks should be restricted • To enable healthier food, technological developments to improve processed and ultra-processed health food are needed. • To enable the industry to develop better products, goals must be set (such as reducing the variety of harmful foods, reducing environmental footprints, time frames for reformulations, etc.) Urban food systems: The need for regulatory measures at all levels and in most of the areas discussed was seen as an obstacle, but one needing to be tackled. On the other hand, the group saw a tremendous opportunity if investment were to be made in in depth education and social marketing for all age groups, in formal and informal frameworks alike.236238239242243244245246247249250251Food security: As in the previous dialog, the Topic Outcomes included the urgent need to: 1) Create a legislative and regulatory framework that will define food security broadly, and consider it a national government priority, for social resilience and domestic and national security. This must be reflected in adequate budgetary appropriations and legislation. 2) Enhance governance, by creating an overarching, integrated, inter-ministerial policy review to develop a food systems master plan to ensure food security in its broad definition. 3) Define outcome measures and targets, assign responsibility for monitoring, formative and evaluative research 4) Find independent academic research to enhance local evidence based evaluation of policy alternatives 5) Include health and sustainability in all food security policy objectives 6) Develop a master plan for Israeli agriculture taking into consideration sustainability, climate change threats, economic planning 7) Enhance the social safety net and create specific government programs for food aid with enhancement of local government involvement, a rebalancing of roles and responsibilities of government vs. third sector NGOs. food waste: Measures to be promoted on the national level: • A National Food Rescue Directorate that will institutionalize existing activities and create a national food surpluses information system • Establishment of regional committees to deal with food insecurity and food rescue at the local level • Allocation of budgets for food rescue - support for food banks, support for retail chains that donate food • Transferring responsibility for food waste reduction and food waste management from the central government to local authorities. The Ministry of Environmental Protection should set the goals but not the measures to reach these goals. • Local food waste prevention and healthy eating campaigns • Funding field surveys and researches at the municipal level • Promoting a joint move by the Ministry of Health and the food industry to facilitate the use of expired food items (that carry "Best Before" labels) that are less susceptible to microbial spoilage Food industry: The regulatory actions that was recommended by the representatives of civil society and public health to take: • Prohibition of harmful food advertising, unhealthy food taxation, and subsidies on healthy food. • The new food approval process will also take into account the health value of the product • Regulation for a circular economy - a comprehensive plan for an array of circular economy. Actions that need to be promoted: • Establishing consortiums for developing food production with high nutritional value and budgeting a national initiative to promote health, including goals for reducing obesity and promote public health. The consortiums will include industry, academia, government, and civil society. • Establish an independent research center that will facilitate the development of products and adjusted nutrition recommendations specific to Israel, based on evidence. • Promote health-oriented agriculture. • Reducing waste- improving the collection and sorting of waste for recycling and providing technological tools for improving infrastructure. • Reliable education for healthy and sustainable nutrition in schools and the development of an educational body for consumer awareness to balance the advertising and marketing burden of unhealthy food. • Favoring food companies (by a governess and public institutions) that promote health and thereby encourage the pursuit of health excellence.236238239242243244245246247249250251Urban food systems: • Our country must establish a “National Food and Nutrition Authority”, in order for food systems in Israel to play their much needed role in achieving the SDG’s. This government authority would enable all the food stakeholders to share challenges and find solutions. • Technological solutions are needed to enable urban food-growing to become sufficiently productive. This will require national investment in research, and collaboration among all levels of government to overcome regulatory obstacles. • In a future reality, we must strive to make healthy food choices cheaper, more accessible and more popular. To achieve this, a three-pronged national campaign will 1. Target the food industry to make it an ally, instead of being the main source of the problem. 2. Introduce food education from the baby clinics through all age-groups as a compulsory component. 3. Each local authority will establish its own interdisciplinary food council, in order to coordinate and maximize its efforts to improve its food systems. Communication and social marketing: Recommended solutions to increase communication of healthy and sustainable nutrition: • News media: Establish a forum/organization/center, which will involve scientists and media professionals for the purpose of raising food systems sustainability issues in the news agenda. It will create and disseminate reliable content, provide communication training for scientists and training for journalists and media content writers from diverse groups on food systems sustainability. •Provide information and skills training: To provide relevant information at consumption sites and offer “how-to buy healthy” training to members of diverse groups. •Media channels and platforms: Promote, stimulate and also sponsor the inclusion/infusion of sustainability content in various entertainment and consumer programs, social media, and not only in programs dedicated to food or ecology. •Information “Hotline”: Create an information “hotline” as a resource for professionals and the public. •“The Israeli Kitchen”: Create a national campaign of a healthy “kitchen”, which combines traditional with contemporary cooking of diverse groups, emphasizing health and sustainability, community and national pride. •Framing and positioning: Instead of emphasizing only health or sustainability to also emphasize positive rewards and interest, such as frugality, creativity, variety.237238239242243244245246247249250251Food security: There was some divergence over the correct balance of government and civil society partnership in addressing food insecurity, with civil society representatives emphasizing the importance of maintaining centralized food banks and local pantries and kitchens, while calling for greater government funding of the NGOs, with government responsibility for establishing the local end-point agencies to help distribute the aid. This would require regulation of the content and criteria for providing aid, with NGOs being reluctant to limit their autonomy in return for public funding. Currently, the major philanthropic food banks compete for the same funders and are reluctant to be regulated, to prioritize health and nutrition vs. caloric sufficiency and are reluctant to share data transparently. So long as they are to be part of the solution NGOs will need to increase transparency to help design and provide evidence of efficiency and equity in publically funded solutions. Further questions arose as to the appropriate balance of direct cash transfers for food aid (whether restricted or unrestricted) as opposed to additional food aid provided as commodities. The appropriateness of food banks as a food waste reduction policy tool and whether they are scalable and truly win-win solutions for beneficiaries, farmers and others in the value chain, is also a matter for evidence-based deliberation. Food industry: Representatives of the civil society and representatives of public health sectors presented great importance on regulation as described in the discussion outcomes section. In contrast, industry representatives presented the importance of setting goals for the industry and working with academia and government. That self-regulation of the industry is the right solution.

2021-07-06 10:21:29260https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18955/70

121184947750711384623710383251368552618210103152810

The Nordic Council of Ministers meets annually in each policy sector: ministers of agriculture, food, fisheries and forestry have traditionally their meeting in June, this time on June 24th. Always on the day before the ministerial meeting a stakeholder consultative forum is organized. This time it was organized in the format of the FSS Dialogue. All five Nordic countries, including the autonomous regions of Greenland, Faroe Islands and Åland, were asked to invite participants from all parties involved in the food chain; natural resources, production, environment, processing, trade, consumption, nutrition, health, research, administration etc. All together 10 to 25 participants from each country. The invitation included information on and links to the FSS. All registered participants got an info package on food systems in advance. The dialogue discussions were set on existing work: two introductory speeches 1) on the ongoing PoW of the Nordic Council of Ministers and 2) on the research done by the Stockholm Resilience Centre on Nordic food systems.The participants had a good advance understanding of the task and experience on such a dialogue between the Nordic countries. Trust and respect is self-evident.It was repeatedly said that a dialogue itself is a strong element of a well functioning food system. That is certainly the case among the Nordic countries, where a long tradition of collaboration, consultation and coordination exists. This is important in building trust and respect, for better understanding the complexity of food systems and for making use of the intellectual resources of all stakeholders.

NoThe method needed to be adapted for the situation: Five countries plus three autonomous regions, variety of food systems problematiques; national dialogues already being organized, and in order not to repeat work done, a different set of working groups was chosen. The dialogue was curated by Dr Sebastian Hielm, the Director of Food Safety of the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, a renown expert and active person in the Nordic cooperation. The choice seemed to be appreciated. In order to have a genuine dialogue there is a practical maximum number of participants. Therefore, the invitations were channeled through the national administrations in the countries, and send to persons already having showed interest in such a dialogue on the national level. This, logically, narrowed the spectrum of participation in some degree. Nevertheless, it was not seen as a major weakness for the quality of the dialogue.

234For the entire dialogue, and specifically for the working groups, the following tasks were given: The aim is to identify action, new avenues of innovation, structural reforms that will lead the Nordic counties towards sustainable food systems and, furthermore, what are the solutions we can offer for the global food systems and for the to take a look on the food systems of the 2030’s: strengths and challenges of today; skills and advantages that help to reach the targets; trade-offs and win-win opportunities; actions needed to compensate those who lose; values and assets that cannot be displaced; regulatory action and guidance needed; needs for administrative reform; opportunities for international action, partnership and cooperation. And finally: concrete partner countries. Ideally, readily planned packages of action, identifying actors, describing processes, sketching financial needs. a) what are the characteristics of the Nordic food systems on which a reform can be built: strengths, opportunities, challenges. - The outcome of the session is expected to list strengths of the Nordic countries, on which we can build our food systems sustainable; points where we have to reform our systems and where it is likely to be painful choices to be made; furthermore: how could/should the Nordics contribute to the global food systems reform: our expertise, our experience, our resources. The list does not need to be complete; fresh ideas, feasible solutions are best for this purpose. The Webinar was chaired by Dr Sebastian Hielm, Director of Food Safety, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. The program, speakers list, background documents, briefing documents were put together by Mr Jyri Ollila, the Convenor of the National Dialogue, Finland. Mr Jari Leppä, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland opened the webinar dialogue. Mr Leppä highlighted the good ground for such dialogue: there is a long tradition of dialogue, concertation and collaboration amongst the stakeholders and the wider civil society in general and especially in the field of food and agriculture. The five Nordic countries have a lot in common when it comes to food, and this makes cooperation between the five countries very natural. The Nordic Nutrition recommendations are an excellent example of that tradition of working together. Ms Katja Svensson, Senior Adviser at the Nordic Council of Ministers reflected the work program of the Council of Ministers in relation with sustainable development and food systems. The strategic Vision 2030 of the Council aims at becoming “the most sustainable and integrated region in the world.” The three elements in the Vision are 1) green, 2) competitive and 3) socially sustainable Nordic region, and they are divided into 12 measurable objectives. Food, consumption, recycling, biodiversity, sustainable land use and other food system related themes are included in the sub-objectives. The central theme of the sectoral agri-food-fish-forests work program is sustainable food systems. Dr Amanda Wood, researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre referred to the recent publications “Nordic Food Systems for improved health and sustainability” and “Eight ways to change Nordic food and livestyles” and “Cookbook for Systems Change” of the Centre. The Nordics are doing rather well in regard to several SDGs – ranked amongst the top places of a global SDG comparison - but lagging behind in SDGs 2, 12,13,14 and 15. The environmental impacts, especially related to extinction of species, N and P nutrient use are significant. Consumption of processed meat is a health concern. The outsourced environmental and climate impact is considerable, especially in water use, GHGs and cropland use. Overconsumption is a serious health issue: 47% on Nordic adults are overweight or obese, and so is one in seven children. Efforts against food loss and waste must be strengthened, even though the Nordics are doing well in overall circular economy.235The five Nordic countries have organized dialogue events during the spring. Many of them have followed the Action Track logic. In order not to repeat these discussions, a different set of topics, topics that were known to be close to people's minds in the Nordic societies, was chosen. For each of the parallel working group, a top expert on the given topic was chosen to moderate the dialogue, one from each of the five countries, with the exception of Finland having two groups to moderate. The six working groups had the following titles: 1. Avoiding waste and loss, recycling – Nordic solutions (moderator: Troels Mandel Vensild, Denmark) 2. Sustainable consumption, nutrition and health – Nordic Dietary recommendations (Annica Sohlström, Sweden) 3. Safe food for all; AMR, One health – Nordic experience (Cathrine Steinland, Norway) 4. Sustainable use of renewable natural resources; natural resources; interlinkages food-water-forest-oceans-energy – Nordic view (Arni Mathiesen, Iceland) 5. Food systems and society; inclusiveness, equity, equality, fairness – Nordic way (Kaisa Karttunen, Finland) 6. Tomorrows perspectives; new technologies, global markets – Nordic horizons (Elina Lehikoinen, Finland) The main findings of the dialogue are listed in the working group reports below. Dr Jaana Husu-Kallio, Secretary General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland, made the following points in her closing remarks: • It is of great value to have existing structures of dialogue among the Nordic countries; together we can make a difference – we speak the same food language • Our duty is to enhance global solutions, not only solutions for ourselves • the SDGs are not met without reforming food systems • the Nordic Council of Ministers has been early in taking food systems reform on the agenda, also the present program of work is a major effort for the reform • dialogue is just a starting point; it must lead to action • collaboration between all actors is imperative The outcome of the dialogue was reported the following day to the meeting of the five Nordic counties' ministers of agriculture, food, fisheries and forestry. Ministers discussed food systems and gave a common statement on the issue. The statement is attached to this feedback report.2361. Avoiding waste and loss, recycling – Nordic solutions • Scientific and data based voluntary initiatives in partnership through the entire value chain • we must build on incentives and win-win solutions, good public and private procurement practices and supporting legislation • change of consumption patterns through education and improved awareness • Minimize food waste along the entire food chain, including smaller portions, smaller plates. • new circular production methods and better use of side streams • telling the story of food: awareness leads to appreciation • legislation for novel foods: longer shelf life • overweight is food waste2362. Sustainable consumption, nutrition and health – Nordic Dietary recommendations • The strengths of the Nordic countries are the nutrition recommendations, school meal systems, awareness of and aspiration for healthy and sustainable diet • Nordic countries have a similar approach to the term "prudent use" of veterinary medicinal products, and the fact that there are not economic incentives for veterinarians to prescribe medicinal products. • We focus too much on increasing production. Instead we should look how we produce and how to minimize food loss and waste • Surveillance is important, but not enough. We need to transfer experience into "practical change" and make sector specific action plans. • Private enterprise can be drivers to sustainable development. Marked players need to be further included in the strong Nordic "interaction model". • Inform and educate about the benefits of the "Nordic model" of strong collaboration between authorities/academia/private sector. • Translate the strong collaboration into the education systems, including the areas of medical, veterinary and environmental studies but also early education of children – the future consumers. • Nordic countries are strongly engaged in developing aid, and this could be an area of stronger Nordic collaboration. • “be bold” – politicians should dare to speak for the change. We in the richer and educated part of the world should afford the transformation, if anyone. • municipalities to work for the local food2363. Safe food for all; AMR, One health – Nordic experience • Th Nordic countries have monitored the AMR more than 20 years, longer than anywhere else • work on global level is a challenge; exchange of information and experience takes some effort but is as important as the work on national level: How can we improve our collaboration with the developing countries? • continuity of the work is important; we should not be awake only when there is a pandemic of a war going on • consumers are a strong drivers for change – we should mobilize them • cooperation between competitors is necessary • education on use of medicals2364. Sustainable use of renewable natural resources; natural resources; interlinkages food-water-forest-oceans-energy – Nordic view • Our renewable natural resources are in a relatevely good shape: imports should be substitutes by local production when possible • planetary boundaries: we must not outsource our environmental impact • innovations are needed, systemic change is necessary • more information is needed on changes of consumption patterns • blue production sector; great potential – good governance a prerequisite • Nordics have a relative advantage in ruminants/natural conditions2365. Food systems and society; inclusiveness, equity, equality, fairness – Nordic way • we need changes in the food systems, from production to consumer behavior; every action counts • everyone should have access to healthy food • there will be painful choices to be made; citizens must be involved in the decision-making – participatory processes • Global justice; one should keep in mind that choices made in the North have global impact • there is a lot of competence and knowledge in the Nordics; how are we going to share this with the rest of the world • appreciation of each other’s work; awareness of farming2366. Tomorrows perspectives; new technologies, global markets – Nordic horizons • Challenges for the Nordic countries: dependency on imports and lack of labor • Food sector should be made more attractive for young people to work; How? • Innovations are needed; rigid legislation should not hinder new ideas • A gradual transformation; tradition with innovation • Mistakes should be allowed; innovation takes courage237No major point of divergence emerged. This was probably partly because the participants represented a rather established set of discussants; persons having already the experience of a national FSS dialogue and also other engagement in dialogue between the Nordic countries. Furthermore, the topics given to the working groups were knowingly chosen to be of strong interest in the Nordic societies. The purpose was to discuss topics where the Nordic countries could have experience and best practices to offer for the benefit of other countries.

2021-07-06 14:05:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3175/203

03714397001721142895400000072000150281636010804271420742107154833

The Principles were integrated into all aspects of the SDC FSD process, from the identification of participants to the communications provided to all actors before, during and after the dialogues, to the work with facilitators and notetakers, to the holding of dialogues, to the reporting itself. A core team of staff from SDC’s Global Programme Food Security and backstoppers Helvetas and HAFL worked closely together on the design and implementation of the dialogues, taking the Principles as a point of departure, and ensuring they were not only known to participants and resource persons, but that they were fully applied in the dialogues. For example, the Principles were prominently referenced in communications within SDC and beyond and they were emphasized during each step of the preparation and implementation of the dialogues. The overall design of the dialogue process was also driven by the Principles. This is why the original FSD design from 4SD was adapted to include: * Two Rounds of discussion separated by ca. 3 weeks, to foster familiarity amongst breakout group participants as well as to give them the opportunity to fully and collectively reflect on the respective vision statements before going deeper into considerations of practical recommendations and proposed solutions * Two sets of breakout groups within each Round, to promote an iterative and highly interactive approach to the complex challenges posed by the vision statements * Three sets of dialogues, one in English, one in French and one in Spanish, to provide participants with the opportunity to interact in the language most comfortable for them * Introductory presentations in Round 1 for each language, to situate the SDC FSDs within the broader ecosystem of FSDs and the UN FSS, and to illustrate the linkages between the Principles and the dialoguesThe above description of the process indicates how all Principles were reinforced throughout. More specifically, in introductory presentations and in instructions for group work, the combined need to act with urgency and at the same time ensure mutual respect and trust, multistakeholder engagement, acknowledgement of complementary efforts, and the complexity of the issues confronting the world, were reinforced in the dialogues. All of this was explicitly linked to the goal of having a real impact on the FSS, particularly as the FSDs represent the most significant opportunity for the voices of non-state actors to be heard. As mentioned, the SDC FSD process design was also purposely aimed at embedding the Principles in various ways, including: * Customised 2 hours orientation sessions for facilitators and notetakers to ensure they were cognizant of the need to orchestrate dialogues that upheld the Principles as a set of mutually reinforcing elements of successful FSDs and the FSS. Facilitation techniques in support of all of the principles were both discussed and applied in these sessions in role play exercises * The process of having two Rounds, where the first was designed to not only give participants the space to fully grasp the vision statements, but equally to create the conditions for mutual respect and trust-building and agreement that different stakeholders have different and equally important perspectives. The second Round was aimed at fulfilling the Principles related to urgency, influencing the Summit, complementing the work of others and engaging in action-oriented dialogues in the context of complex challenges, and to recognizing what has already been achieved or is underway. * Incorporating the Chatham House Rule in group discussions. * Integrating the Principles from the beginning in communications: messages to SDC colleagues and strategic partners, who helped to identify participants from a variety of stakeholder groups; Communications to participants, which presented the rationale for the FSDs and how they fit into the broader FSD-FSS ecosystem.The main advice we would provide relates to the design of the FSD process: there are significant differences between online and face-to-face (f2f) interactions. We are aware that the FSD process was originally designed to fit a f2f modality, which had to be adapted to a virtual one. The main observations we can share about these differences are: * Virtual interactions – particularly intensive ones – require more time. This is not simply a mechanical or technical issue, but it relates to how much time should be spent creating the conditions for respectful and productive dialogues. * Although we would also advocate an iterative approach to FSDs in a f2f context, a virtual one dramatically increases the utility of such an approach: if participants are forced to ‘move on’ to work towards the desired outputs before having established a mutual rapport and a common understanding of the issues under discussion, this can totally undermine the adherence to the Principles and the whole effort to achieve meaningful results * Having such diverse groups of participants come together around exceedingly complex challenges (also with widely differing levels of familiarity with some of the specifics) requires an approach that allows for different participants to move at different speeds. To put this another way: some participants will move (or want to move) more quickly through some aspects of the discussion, where others need more time. From a facilitation point of view, there is a delicate balance to achieve in giving the former a sense of forward momentum at the same time as giving the latter enough space to not feel ‘bullied’ into coming to conclusions (or worse, accepting the conclusions of others) * Since the work of both facilitators and note takers is so important, it might be worthwhile thinking of engaging people who really have a good facilitation and note taking record and not volunteers. A question that needs to be also asked - whether participants of such a dialogue should selected on recommendation, also to ensure to achieve the planned diversity of stakeholders.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) as the coordinating agency of Swiss international development cooperation is in the unique position to mobilise a broad landscape of potential dialogue participants from all its partner countries and organisations. The Global Programme Food Security (GPFS) of SDC together with its Agriculture and Food Security (A+FS) Network hosted three series of two independent food systems dialogues in English, French and Spanish, bringing together 290 participants from 69 countries to reflect on such questions as: * What targets and action plans are needed to make progress in food security; agro-ecology and climate resilience; socially and culturally acceptable and affordable nutrition; healthy diets; a circular economy of food based on more sustainable supply and value chains, a reduction of food loss and waste, social equity, better use of new knowledge, social organisation of producers and consumers, competitiveness and import & export regimes, policy, data & certification and improved rural livelihoods? * How should Swiss funded development stakeholders shape their programmes and activities in order to enhance sustainability of food systems? The organizers used this set of questions to formulate 12 vision statements around food systems, with each of the visions representing ambitious projections of the future that provoked participants of the dialogue to imagine something that is altogether better. The visions provided a comprehensive exploration of food system challenges and actors, focusing on a specific area, like fair trade policies, conducive research partnerships, and healthy school meals. It is important to note that the dialogues were short sessions of visioning/brainstorming. The recommendations should inspire local actors and participants of the UNFSS. The exact actors and specific actions (Who and How) need to be adapted in the future to closer reflect local context. Similarly, the groups did not have the opportunity to in-depth discuss the complexity of power dynamics and contextual factors, including disaster risk, resilience, climate change and conflict. Due to the structure of the FSD reporting template, the outcomes of the discussion for visions 5 and 6 (nutrition awareness and healthy school meals) and visions 11 and 12 (agroecological farming and intact natural resources) had to be combined. These discussion topics deserve further separation of recommendations per topic and should be further elaborated. Vision statements: 1. Society will valorise the role of farmers in food systems through real costing/pricing. 2. Strong social movements and networks between households at national and community level will allow equal opportunities for men and women. 3. More sustainable production and shorter supply chains will link producers and consumers more closely. 4. National agriculture and food policies will support sustainably produced regional and seasonal food and information on healthy and sustainable diets. 5. Integration of nutrition in school curricula, maternal and infant care, will contribute to healthy diets, and the production of diverse and sustainable foods. 6. The promotion of agro-ecologically sourced meals in school & community kitchens will improve performance of students in school and people in their work. 7. Land and judicial reforms will allow the improved and equitable access to land and justice for all, explicitly also for women and youth. 8. Import, export and tax regimes in countries will allow farmers to focus on products that are competitive on national, regional and international markets. 9. A national system on accurate, safe and reliable data and certification of agricultural products will inform legal frameworks and resource allocation. 10. International agricultural research partnerships take into account regional contexts and make their findings available to all. 11. An agroecological diversification of production and low-impact farming practices will reduce the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs. 12. Switching to locally adapted crops, soil conservation methods and sustainable irrigation systems will allow for efficient production235238239240241242243244245246248249251Key emerging findings across the different language dialogues and visions focused on three core needs: (1) the need for the international community to create inclusive, facilitated dialogue platforms (digital and in-person), (2) the need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and change behaviour through awareness raising campaigns, and (3) the need to develop enabling policies and environment to deliver progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The discussion groups also stressed the central role of appropriate responsible co-production and use of data for agriculture (production, logistics, demand, weather etc.) underpinning most proposed solutions. Inclusive dialogue platforms (digital and in-person) would close knowledge gaps, such as access information on prices and markets. Delivery of training and knowledge management resources via a digital platform would enable peer-to-peer exchanges and would facilitate collection and operationalization of agricultural data. Having a peer-to-peer element at its core, the platforms would enable the actors to not only share, but also co-produce knowledge related to agroecology, and other knowledge-intensive and context specific areas. A critical success factor for such platforms is the use of participatory approaches in design of technologies to enhance access and openness, rather than a roll-out of platforms developed by the international development community and governments. Multi-stakeholder dialogues with the most relevant actors that need to be at the core of platform development, can then be also used to develop the base for national digital strategies and data platforms. At the same time, developing inclusive dialogue platforms requires strong involvement and investment from the private sector. Another core finding is the need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and change behaviour through awareness raising campaigns. The participants felt that a way to bridge the information and knowledge gap was by implementing large-scale awareness campaigns on the value of food production and its role in environmental sustainability, targeting both consumers and producers. The next step in moving from awareness raising to behaviour change for healthier food choices is focusing on youth at schools and local women’s groups. By involving the next generation of change makers through dedicated school programs, and women as potential agents of change at the community level, it is possible to influence family decisions. Another mechanism for raising awareness is through legislation, and promotion of packaging and labelling standards. The packaging and labels need to inform consumers on the nutritional value of their consumption. Here there is a wealth of experience to build on, particularly in North America and Europe. Some of the key quotes related to this solution included: * Awareness-raising actions should not just be limited to knowledge but also to practice. E.g., planting vegetable gardens and cooking * Where trade is involved, build capacity for border staff so they know which laws exist and understand them. * Information on healthy and sustainable diets, agroecological management must be disseminated on a large scale while valuing local knowledge and know-how. Also, disseminating good consumption criteria, reducing huge post-harvest losses, incentives and scaling up certain practices that facilitate access to food such as e-commerce will help make the transition. * Provide regular information on product prices, taking advantage of social networks so that small producers know where to take their products and not sell at below-market prices. * Generating public information platforms is important. In addition, it is important to raise awareness among all actors and those who design the data capture/monitoring systems, so that they work at all levels and the information is returned to producers. The participants of the dialogue outlined that in order for the actions, solutions, and strategies to deliver progress there also needs to be a set of enabling policies, partnership and investment opportunities developed at national levels: * Transparency related to large scale land investment (domestic and international) is essential: contracts should be made open. To balance access to data with privacy concerns, national governments should have a clear role in indicating how data privacy/safety/security as well as sharing are guaranteed. * Another core area for national governments is the focus on favourable fiscal policies that would lower border taxes for sustainable products (e.g. reducing CO2-emissions) and help strengthen local supply-chains. * An idea that came across strongly in Spanish language dialogues is that governments need to set up and/or strengthen the functioning of traditional (so-called informal) markets, short marketing circuits or EcoFairs in different places in peri-urban and urban cities on a massive scale (without many restrictions on agro-ecological products). * It is critical that the international community invests in building public-private-partnerships (governments, civil society, and private sector) to foster policy-engagement and mobilize the marginalized voices. The private sector presented with the right set of incentives can create an interface between informal and formal economies. At the same time, international research partnerships should inform both policies and knowledge shared with communities and provide various options/products for local partners to choose from in adapting policies.236238239240241244245246247249250251Discussion topic: Fair prices - Society will valorise the role of farmers in food systems through real costing/pricing Recommendation 1: prices faced by farmers should adjust to reach a fair level and truly reflect the value farmers bring to society and the environment. Farmers’ remuneration needs to improve and there should be equal participation and integration of all stakeholders in decision-making on food markets Who: local governments/governors, farmers’ organisations. How: this can be achieved through dialogue between food systems stakeholders with the setup of inclusive platforms, allowing for open, transparent, and evidence-based discussion and negotiation on food costing/pricing, and valorisation of food production as an activity. The platforms support the build-up of effective networks, enable everyone to be informed and understand ‘fair business’. Ultimately, the platform would contribute towards fair prices, and a more level playing field on food markets and a well-functioning food system. Food system stakeholders will trust each other, and farmers will have their voices heard. Recommendation 2: there needs to be a radical change in valorisation of food triggered throughout society; production and services delivered by farmers need to be valued beyond production costs; consumers should be more aware of all the services provided by the farmers beyond production of food (e.g. ecosystem services) Who: local governments (Min of Ag, Min of Finance), farmers and consumer associations. How: this can be achieved through awareness campaigns targeting both producers and consumers on issues of fair trade and the value generated by farming to society. Recommendation 3: national, regional, and global trade regimes need to shift to become more favourable to smallholders in developing countries and incentivise sustainable production methods Who: WTO, international institutions, governments, international farmers’ organisations. How: this can be achieved through global communication, lobbying, and political advocacy in favour of fair trade and a more equitable food system. The new trade rules need to acknowledge current imbalances in global food trade and seek to support the competitiveness of smallholders in developing countries and the environmental sustainability of food production. Recommendation 4: farmers’ productivity and profitability need to increase, allowing to boost investment as well as quality and safety of food, improving market conditions, farmers’ livelihoods, and involvement in decision-making processes Who: government authorities in partnership with farmers’ organizations, the private sector (input suppliers, water and electricity providers, tech companies) and other relevant stakeholders. How: higher levels of productivity and profitability for farmers will be achieved by establishing an enabling context (water, electricity, infrastructure including innovative technology), expanding contract farming, supporting trade fairs and marketing to advertise local foods, leveraging the potential of new tech to communicate on innovative farming techniques, and capacity building for youth wanting to start agribusinesses. Governments should help set up and/or strengthen the functioning of traditional (so-called informal) markets, short marketing circuits or EcoFairs in different places in peri-urban and urban cities on a massive scale (without many restrictions on agro-ecological products). Recommendation 5: A food system can only be sustainable if producers receive adequate income. This requires ensuring access to healthy food to groups/communities with limited means without limiting free market and additional controls of food prices by the government. Governments need to instead adopt social measures to facilitate access to healthy food for poor groups/communities. Who: governments, international organizations (for example, this approach is already active in a number of WFP operations). How: this can be achieved by ensuring use of healthy food as part of school meals, and issuance of vouchers for food at responsible distributors/ (re)sellers.236238239240241242243244246248249250251Discussion topic : Strong Social networks - Strong social movements and networks between households at national and community level will allow equal opportunities for men and women Recommendation 1: There is need to promote participatory approaches in design of technologies and to enhance access and openness Who: Farmers’ organisations, governments, UN, civil society, private sector. How: By incorporating farmers in the design of technologies and promoting use of available toolboxes (sets of technologies and innovations) and platforms that integrate communications and empower the target groups to benefit economically. Creating partnerships with the governments; linking in with the private sector and academia. Measuring success: Availability of decentralized and localized technology toolkits of best practices for wider use, and adaptation. Recommendation 2: Integrate social networks as an extension tool Who: UN, civil society, producer cooperatives and farmer organisations, private sector, and governments How: Make use of available tools such as social media; working through seed groups, incorporating the private sector, making use of digital technology to close knowledge gaps. Some best practice examples have been cited in Ghana and Nigeria. Measuring success: KPIs would include click numbers, downloads, sharing numbers on social media and other parameters. Recommendation 3: there is a need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and to shorten value chains. Who: Governments, industry leaders/retail and merchandising, UN, Farmer organizations, consumers, civil society How: this can be achieved by influencing structural changes and food consumption patterns, such as direct trade, direct communications between the producers and consumers; segmenting the markets. Creating awareness about the food products that we consume. There is a need to enhance trust in the value chains and promote value networks rather than individual actors. At the same time, the actors of the social networks need to ensure there are mechanisms to support the most vulnerable in the communities so that their situations don’t further deteriorate. It is important to consider gender as a core part of social networks: by encouraging women and young people to form associations, by involving men to encourage and enable their wives to engage in production. The palm oil industry is an example of positive steps towards these consumer-producer changes. Another example is the chocolate industry where smaller firms establish partnerships with local producers. Measuring success: the effectiveness of the measures can be assessed by examining the number of movements; sensitization programs; available digital services to support farmers and youth and attract them in the value chains. Recommendation 4: Promote greater agro-ecological production in adequate quantities without polluting the environment, without degrading nature, incorporating local practices (a recommendation specific to Spanish-language dialogues) Who: Government, UN, Farmer organizations, civil society How: this can be achieved by incorporating local seeds in the value chain, focusing on territorialisation of agri-food systems, and recognising local capacities and territorial complementarities between primary producers and processing (such as conditions and facilities for post-harvest processing and storage). Additionally, this can be achieved through strategic alliances for the exchange of knowledge and technology, which allow for developments that are more nature-positive and build on local capacities. Recommendation 5: differentiate rules for local products and for export products. Current international certification standards often impose limitations on local products. (a recommendation specific to Spanish and French-language dialogues) Who: WTO, UN, national governments. How: introduce differentiation of food sanitary measures, certification and labelling from the local market to the global market. It is necessary to promote the labelling of local production for better market access.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Discussion topic : Sustainable production - More sustainable production and shorter supply chains will link producers and consumers more closely. Recommendation 1: Developing an enabling environment needs to be based on a systems perspective that includes a change in power structures (land rights), farmers empowerment (through farmers organization) and economics (access to capital). Who: governments and international financial institutions for loans. At the same time, farmer organizations need to be formed bottom up by farmers themselves rather than government. How: The role of the state should be that of an investor to guarantee sustainability, guarantee infrastructure and the required support. Specific action can include ensuring better rural roads so smallholder farmers have access to markets, adopting policy that supports land rights for farmers, and working more closely with the private sector to ensure easier access to capital and investment for farmers, especially women and youth. The majority of smallholder farmers need to organize themselves into producer cooperatives or other similar systems (youth and women in particular). Service provision to individual smallholders can never become financially viable. Recommendation 2: Promote digital solutions across value chains. Who: venture capital/ private sector. How: in ten years all smallholder farmers need to have access to digital technology, access needs to be free for especially vulnerable groups. It is crucial that companies develop a viable business model for digital service provision to farmers. So far digitalization in smallholder farming has been donor driven and failed to scale. Recommendation 3: increase demand for more sustainably produced products. Consumer behaviour is one of the strongest instruments for change. Who: consumers, farmer organizations, civil society How: By focusing on awareness-raising campaigns and promoting transparency of systems for shareholders and consumers. This should be specifically targeting school children as actors of change in families and communities. Recommendation 4: the need for shorter supply chains requires global market regulations, as the current free trade systems favour big corporations. It also requires a shift towards higher demand for local products and investment in local market infrastructure to meet the demand. Who: national governments, municipal governments, private sector, large corporations and civil society. How: national governments need to develop public policies focused on small enterprises, with public funds and provide access to smart credit. Municipal governments could also form alliances with neighbourhood councils and territorial or indigenous farmers' organisations. The private sector should provide efficient digitally supported logistics systems, large corporations need to adopt a higher degree of global responsibility (this can be influenced by shareholders, investors, and customers). Recommendation 5: Natural resource management and local biodiversity are key - water and soil are key elements to sustain biodiversity and lower climate impact. Poverty remains a major obstacle to proper natural resource management. Who: private sector and national governments to develop and enforce legislation, farmer organizations. How: balancing the demand and utilization of water through solutions like the smart water system (Internet of Things). A prerequisite for the recommendation is better soil data. To improve soils, governments need to encourage the use of biodegradable products and promote the use of technology to valorise biodegradable waste. Local governments and farmer organizations should inventory and use more neglected species (with local nutritional value/agroecological virtues) as they are the ones that promote biodiversity. Communities and farmer organizations can promote ancestral practices, where importance was placed on the planting of diverse species of "lesser" economic utility but containing other values (e.g. various trees that shelter flora and fauna). Governments and communities should organise small areas that rebuild natural biotopes (protected micro areas).236238239240241242243244245246249250251Discussion topic : Conducive policies - National agriculture and food policies will support sustainably produced regional and seasonal food and information on healthy and sustainable diets. Recommendation 1: increase awareness on principles of agroecology, sustainability, and nutrition Who: governments, producers, civil society How: the government should inform communities, the private sector, and the population more about agroecology e.g. through TV, education, including school meals. The consumer could be informed about the sustainability and nutritional quality of a food through traffic light type communication systems. This labelling should be regularly updated with the best available data. Also, labelling could include aspects of "storytelling" to give a voice to the producers behind the products. Recommendation 2: there needs to be a shift to systemic vision in public policies Who: governments, civil society How: Public policies should adapt to the systemic character of food systems, moving away from sectoral organisation and towards coherent and systemic management.. Linked to the systemic vision, careers should be cross-cutting, including concepts such as “healthy living”. Member States are called upon to play a leading role in the transformation of food systems. Market access should be promoted by small farmers and indigenous peoples. Recommendation 3: developing and ensuring systems of accountability and standards in developing and adopting policy measures. Who: governments, with support from international organisations How: The measures required and implemented must be clarified at each level (national, regional, communal) and by each actor. The principle of subsidiarity (taking decisions as close as possible to the problems) is key in clarification of responsibilities of the actors at different political levels. There is a need to focus on effective decentralisation. This will allow policies to be implemented locally with much more effective implementation (framework for the implementation of the policy). Recommendation 4: Monitoring systems should be put in place to measure policy improvements. Who: international organizations, civil society, governments, academia How: Potential indicators include the proportion of food produced in the country compared to food consumed; child malnutrition rate; malnutrition rate; proportion of food produced and processed in the country; innovation rate; biodiversity rate; impact indicators (including footprint and thus sustainability of products). A global framework should be put in place as has been done for biodiversity and water to define indices and targets at regional level (South America) and for each country, with a monitoring system to be able to observe evolutions. The summit should encourage the role of academia, as it plays an important role in validating data and statistics. Scientists should be able to actively participate in decision-making. The concept of "science" should be broadened to include empirical, social, indigenous knowledge.236238239240241243245246249251Discussion topic : Nutrition awareness/ Healthy school meals: Integration of nutrition in school curricula, maternal and infant care, and promotion of agro-ecologically sourced meals in school & community kitchens will improve performance of students in school and people in their work. Recommendation 1: ensure schools have adequate food production units and complementary infrastructure Who: policy makers, schools, local communities How: schools need to have adequate access to land, vegetable beds, water, and complementary infrastructure, specifically storage and canteen facilities and the administrative capacity to manage the entire process from procurement to serving food on premises. Other recommendations include providing recipe books for school chefs, opening up school canteens to local communities (E.g., in the evening as income generating opportunities), using nearby food kiosks to assist and complement school meals. Recommendation 2: multiple actors need to be involved in awareness-raising strategies on healthy eating and responsible consumption aimed at the general population, taking into account the intercultural nature of communities. Who: governments, civil society, farmer networks, teachers, parents How: the school canteen must be a vector in society for the message of healthy eating. This will require accompanying school canteens with didactic/educational tools such as school gardens and field trips on sustainable food production. It is necessary to remain within a sustainable production system by strengthening the capacities of support institutions, farmers, and partner operators. All this must be included in national programmes and appropriate school modules developed in school curricula. Dedicated programmes should reach canteen operators and parents. Raising awareness on healthy nutrition should not only focus on school and maternal-infant care, it should target the entire value chain and consider the specific context. Recommendation 3: healthy nutrition should be better integrated into the political discourse and programs at various scales (local, national, and international) and should also be integrated into other programs (e.g. food security). Better integrating “nutrition” in political discourses also implies better coordination between food-related policy messages (e.g. in terms of food production, food security, markets). Who: policy makers, community-based organizations How: The critical stakeholders need to be brought together: Ministries of Agriculture (and Livestock), Ministries of Education, and Ministries of Health. More clarity on budget and mandates is essential. Achieving this needs people that understand all 3 areas and are able to convene and facilitate policy dialogue. Recommendation 4: ensure adequate term definition: “healthy nutrition / diets / foods”, and include water aspects (e.g. safe drinking water), in policies, guidance and curricula Who: international actors, civil society, and governments How: use of the term agro-ecologically produced – does not guarantee healthy food. In connection to school meals and awareness raising efforts it is important to emphasize safety and diversity of foods, and also recognizing that due to seasonality and locality, some food will necessarily be imported or not local. In school meals it is important to use diversified food products (and include them if necessary, in the programme at production level) whose combination will ensure nutritional balance. However, fortification of food products as appropriate could be recommended. Recommendation 5: facilitate procurement and access to finance for school meals suppliers Who: Farmers' organisations supplying food, buyers, donor organisations, bank and non-bank financial institutions. How: identify and provide information on bank and non-bank financial entities that have as services "bank guarantee credit lines for food suppliers" that allow the financing of suppliers that have signed contracts with buyers at the school level.236238239240241242243244245246247249250251Discussion topic : Access to land: Land and judicial reforms will allow the improved and equitable access to land and justice for all, explicitly also for women and youth. Recommendation 1: Harmonise formal/modern land laws and traditional land management systems in an inclusive manner by including all actors and ensuring real ownership of decisions Who: state and local authorities How: Formal legal texts need to be disseminated, people need to be made aware of actual land laws and regulations (e.g. in Togo women have been excluded from the right to land based on traditional land management practices) without creating problems at community level. Recommendation 2: secure agricultural areas and implement structural investments (irrigation, storage, and conservation of products) for optimal use of agricultural land by women and young people Who: state and local authorities, with support from civil society and international organisations How: due to low economic returns from agriculture, farmers are selling off land they have received through individual property rights (in countries where land ownership was state-owned). This must be prevented by revaluing agriculture (which will restore the value of agricultural land) and by regulating investment in real estate. Recommendation 3: integrate Indigenous Peoples' visions of land tenure (specific to Spanish-language dialogue) Who: governments, civil society, and international organizations How: national land policies need to take into account biodiverse communal lands considered by the indigenous populations as ancestral/community lands and ensure their integrity and protection via legislation. Recommendation 4: Develop permanent dialogues between land custodians (i.e. landowners), land users and local authorities so that access to land is facilitated. Who: state and local authorities How: development and cooperation agencies can contribute with dialogues and information management, so that marginalised groups (Indigenous Peoples, Women, Youth) are aware of their rights, and of tools such as the “Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas". Recommendation 5: Carry out the cadastre in order to have a national land file to be able to monitor and verify land transactions to avoid land selloffs, land grabbing and land speculation. Who: state and local authorities, with support from civil society and international organisations How: it is necessary to define/confirm production/agricultural areas and prohibit land transactions in these areas to other parties. Transparency related to large scale land investment (domestic and international) is essential: contracts should be made open (allocation of land rights, sales, payments for concessions, environmental impact assessments, M&E report) be made available by investors and concerned governments (host and target countries).236238239240241242243244245246249250251Discussion topic : Fair trade policies: Import, export and tax regimes in countries will allow farmers to focus on products that are competitive on national, regional and international markets. Recommendation 1: address urban migration by developing rural areas and providing the youth and women (gender mainstreaming) with meaningful jobs and income Who: policy makers, private sector How: this can be achieved by developing rural areas and decentralizing the rural system in order to address urban migration, by providing especially the youth and women (gender mainstreaming) with meaningful jobs and a fair income. The producers should be well organised to contribute to the rural development and be competitive in the food systems that affect them. Recommendation 2: build public-private-partnerships to foster policy-engagement and mobilize the marginalized voices Who: policy makers, civil society, private sector How: include civil society and private sector in order to widen policy-engagement on particular inefficiencies. This will make food systems more inclusive and relevant. Recommendation 3: present a clear agenda and incentives for the private sector to create an interface between informal and formal economies (formalize trade) Who: policy makers, civil society, private sector How: to formalize trade, there should be incentives for the private sector and an agreeable agenda, where it is clear what will be achieved, what actions are required and stakeholders this will affect. Recommendation 4: use a bottom-up-approach by reaching out to groups and networks of people to get all relevant information in statistics Who: governments, civil society How: the approach should be bottom-up and based on principles of fair-trade (safe working conditions, protecting the environment and transparency) and moving from informal to formal trade to capture all relevant information in statistics. Part of the solution would be to develop dialogue roundtables or other spaces through federations, cooperatives, farmers' associations, SME chambers, chambers of industry and commerce. Recommendation 5: it is necessary to have standards and transparency with an effective monitoring mechanism to which all actors commit (producers & consumers) Who: an international organization (potentially WTO) How: it is necessary to adopt standards and transparency. There needs to be a clear baseline and a set of indicators for tracking progress. We need to check, if the WTO should be mandated to pick this up as a key task. Recommendation 6. Reduce tax, allow lower tariffs and less charges on products for producers and consumers to ensure fairer prices (customs unions and governments) Who: national governments and customs unions How: it is necessary to reduce taxes and remove unnecessary trade procedures and cost from products. To achieve this, actors like customs unions and governments should find actionable solutions and measures. Trade should be used to promote sustainable development, and improvement of production systems with producers at its core. Recommendation 7: Simplify cross-border-trade Who: national governments, with support from civil society and international organisations How: through facilitation of borderless alliances using a certification system and a uniform set of rules on products (cacao, palm oil), as well as lower border taxes for sustainable products (e.g. reducing CO2-emissions). Governments and trade unions should analyse international trade instruments (tariff policies) between countries to make them contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).236238239241242243245246248249Discussion topic : Reliable data & certification: a national system on accurate, safe and reliable data and certification of agricultural products will inform legal frameworks and resource allocation. Recommendation 1: hold dialogues to inform and map data and stakeholder landscapes - who is capable to provide/collect data by what means/tools, who is interested in using data, is there a platform to match these two) Who: national governments How: bring together the 100 most relevant actors in data/certification space within a country. These consultations can be used as a base for digital strategy and data platform(s). During the discussion the actors need to identify which data is needed immediately, and which data is still valid after a year or ten. The actors providing their data should be aware of the benefits of this action. As an example of incentives, it could be - in countries without health benefits - to provide health insurance to all producers involved in data delivery actions. Recommendation 2: develop national digital strategies, policy, and legal framework Who: should be led by a public/private body, with leadership from representatives of the different social/productive organisations How: based on the outcomes of key stakeholder dialogues governments need to develop Digital Strategies (including data architecture: how data is organized and used for policy making), establish independent certification bodies/ expert panels to validate data before sharing (symbiotic relationship between the certification bodies and the National Institute of Statistics helps to reduce the costs of certification), and identify required capacity building/training on the job/coaching (strengthening institutions with the right skills and tools). All data should be shared unless embargoed (needs protection) Recommendation 3: invest in appropriate infrastructure to support digital solutions Who: Ministries of Infrastructure / Communications + private actors (mobile companies) How: national governments need to invest in mobile networks and power access, as well as ensure connectivity to digital data services (foreseeing demand and the need for scale).236238239240241242243244245246249251Discussion topic 9 : Conducive research partnerships: international agricultural research partnerships take into account regional contexts and make their findings available to all. Recommendation 1: research partnerships need to adopt a participatory approach Who: civil society, academia, farmers, consumers How: The participants of the group discussions agreed that local stakeholders (especially farmers and consumers) should have a stronger voice in agricultural research. The decision on the orientation of research should not be left to governments but involve civil society actors to assure that research is based on real demand. Research itself should be organized as a participatory process with a strong role for local actors. This setup needs mechanisms of participation and enabling spaces; some may already exist (for example farmer field schools), some may have to be developed. A continuous exchange between research and application should lead to innovations that are in the interest of all stakeholders. Recommendation 2: it is critical that research organizations share research results Who: academia, civil society, international organisations How: research results should be made freely available, exchange and cross-learning should be encouraged, transparency is key. This also ensures that existing knowledge is considered. One of the break-out groups stated that research results should be used for advocacy of an agroecological transformation of food systems. Recommendation 3: research partnerships need to rethink the role of donors Who: governments in the North and international institutions How: dependence on funding from the North is problematic for a number of research partnerships. Rather than define research priorities, governments in the North and international institutions should act as facilitators accompanying local processes. Donors should increase support for agricultural research that takes into account the priorities of the Global South. Recommendation 4: research organizations and key stakeholders need to question the research focus Who: academia, civil society, international organizations, consumers How: The discussion participants agreed that research should be demand-led and that it should involve all relevant disciplines. There was not a clear agreement whether agroecology should be the guiding principle. One of the break-out groups mentioned neglected species and livestock farming as important research topics that should not be overlooked. Recommendation 5: research partnerships need to ensure participatory monitoring and evaluation of the findings Who: academia, civil society, international organizations, governments, and consumers How: participatory monitoring and evaluation empowers actors to demand accountability. While it makes sense to use internationally recognized indicators (such as those associated with the SDGs), participants of the dialogues underlined that regional and local indicators and development strategies should also be taken into account.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Discussion topic : Agroecological farming and intact natural resources: an agroecological diversification of production and low-impact farming practices will reduce the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs; switching to locally adapted landscape approaches will allow for (cost-)efficient food production. Recommendation 1: launch a peer-to-peer program focused on application of agroecological concepts for farmers (potentially also for other actors in the food system). Who: local governments, civil society, producers, farmer organizations How: this would require in-person exchange and inclusion of the farmer communities (both small holder farmers, as well as large scale exemplary farmers). Recommendation 2: deliver training and knowledge management resources via a digital platform Who: local governments, academia, civil society, donors willing to fund the development, rollout, and maintenance of the platform. How: the digital platform would enable peer to peer exchange, as well as collect and operationalize agricultural data. Having a peer-to-peer element at its core the platform would enable the actors to not only share, but also co-produce knowledge related to agroecology. Building networks around agroecology and developing a collection of good/ best practices could then also influence relevant policy change towards agroecological principles. It is important that there is a dedicated space on the platform for women/ women’s groups/ female farmers. Recommendation 3: at the public policy level it is necessary to generate actions to promote agroecology with governmental support. Who: national governments How: governments can provide technical (including quality) and financial support to producers for the promotion of agroecological product consumption and shorter value chains; improve the accessibility of roads and distribution routes for agroecological products; ensure policies are disseminated to relevant stakeholders and producers using media. Recommendation 4: promote development of green finance to contribute to the development of agroecology. Who: UN, development banks, national governments How: The UN has created a line of financing contributing to sustainable development by mitigating the effects of climate change. Development banks at the national level also manage this financial model, which needs to be made more widely accessible to national level agroecological producers. Recommendation 5: orient nations towards sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity; guide territorial planning considering the potential for land use, generating a balance between conservation of natural resources and development. Who: national governments (National Protected Areas Service, Ministry of Environment and Water and the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands), academia, international organizations and civil society. How: in order to make the landscape approach practical and applicable on the ground, the stakeholders will need to be clearly identified at different levels – local, regional, and global with their roles being identified clearly and linkages between and among them. It is important to consider “hotspots” - priority conservation areas and intact resources, which contain high biodiversity. National governments should consider enhancing these environmental functions and orienting towards a sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity, such as wild cocoa, açai, jatata, etc. - food systems that enhance the use of forest resources. It is also important to strengthen the interface between academic research and the needs for information and responses to the different problems on the part of local governments.237One of the areas of divergence included the role of subsidies in achieving fair prices. The participants had different views on how to ensure that subsidies do not distort markets and how to ensure communities understand the approach behind subsidies for farming systems. The groups discussing fair prices highlighted that the pros and cons of subsidies need to be better understood as some form of “smart subsidies’ may in fact contribute to fair prices. The positive application of subsidies includes: * use of subsidies as incentives over a transition period towards sustainability; * subsidies to farmers for application of ecosystem services (agroecology) in the communities. In the French language dialogues participants brought up the question of how can stakeholders ensure a transparent and constructive dialogue when there is an asymmetry of power between the actors? What support should be given to producer and consumer organisations for quality participation in business dialogues and in dialogues with public authorities to influence food and nutrition policies? It was discussed that potentially the role of removing the power imbalances may rest with the donors. The donors should support the creation of level dialogue by including all relevant stakeholders and having specific objectives for each group (consideration of social, economic, health and ecological aspects). In the Spanish language groups a strong area of concern is linked to rural-urban migration and the increase of the urban population. Some groups had shared that the migration could be the cause of additional environmental problems, more poverty, greater vulnerability, and additional risk scenarios. It was stressed in a number of break-out groups that national governments need to address the issue and build stronger linkages between the rural-urban populations, preventing migration to the cities. The groups also brought up the question of trust in technologies, especially with new technologies such as blockchain tech, and how in the use of digital there remains a focus on top-down solution

2021-07-06 14:39:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12795/203

1702861152131113112111623114

Состоявшийся 23 апреля 2021 г. независимый бизнес-диалог в рамках подготовки к саммиту ООН по продовольственным системам был проведен РСПП совместно с Группой «Черкизово». В фокусе участников диалога, объединившего представителей ключевых компаний, отраслевых союзов и ведущих экспертов в сфере АПК, оказались ключевые вызовы международной и национальной продовольственной безопасности, а также возможные ответы на них, отражающие интересы российского делового сообщества.В рамках проведенного независимого диалога были разработаны рекомендации по преобразованию продовольственных систем для повышения их устойчивости и прозрачности. В диалоге приняли участие представители агропромышленного сектора: от отраслевых союзов, отечественных и международных компаний до представителей научно-исследовательских кругов и представителей органов власти. Такой формат с привлечением многочисленных заинтересованных сторон позволил обеспечить комплексный подход при обмене мнениями о текущем состоянии продовольственных систем, а также способствовал налаживанию связей и расширению партнерских отношений в рамках общей цели: преобразования продовольственных систем ради общего блага.Нет

Yes

234238239242244245246249250Обеспечивая устойчивость: вклад российского бизнеса в развитие глобальных продовольственных систем235238239242244245246248249250Устойчивое функционирование рынков сельскохозяйственной продукции и обеспечение продовольственной безопасности занимают важное место в повестке российского бизнеса и, несомненно, важны для поступательного развития всей национальной экономики. В этой связи российские участники независимого бизнес-диалога отметили следующие пункты, которые следует отразить в решениях Саммита ООН по продовольственным системам: 1. Устойчивое развитие продовольственных систем – сквозная тема, затрагивающая не только приоритеты отдельных отраслей и секторов АПК, но и многие смежные отрасли, фактически всю национальную экономику. В этой связи принятие решений в отношении развития и регулирования АПК, а также потребления производимой им продукции должно учитывать кроссекторальные позитивные и негативные эффекты, включая динамику благосостояния населения, качества и доступности производимой продукции, отдачу от масштаба и т.д. 2. В целях комплексного использования потенциала АПК на международной арене, включая вклад в укрепление международной продовольственной безопасности, необходимо скоординированное наращивание усилий всех заинтересованных сторон, включая национальные и международные органы власти, производителей и потребителей. Необходимо обеспечивать эффективную гармонизацию интересов с партнерами и продвигать их на всех ключевых многосторонних международных площадках, противодействуя инициативам, оказывающим негативное воздействие на обеспечение международной продовольственной безопасности, одновременно стимулируя трансфер технологий для ее повышения. 3. Необходимо корректное целеполагание и формирование приоритетов на национальном и международном уровнях в ходе диалога с ключевыми участниками рынка. С учетом роста числа людей, находящихся в уязвимом положении с точки зрения доступа к продовольствию, приоритетной задачей является обеспечение доступа мирового населения к продовольствию. Необходимо отказаться от создания дополнительных необоснованных рационально барьеров, препятствующих обеспечению населения питанием достаточной степени калорийности, замещая объективные потребности не вполне очевидными задачами, связанными с продвижением неоправданно дорогих видов и типов продовольствия, не обеспечивающих решение основной задачи. 4. Необходимо прилагать усилия для развития стабильного и адаптивного национального и международного регулирования, способствующего справедливой конкуренции и отражающего национальные условия и уровень развития экономики и ее отдельных секторов. Необходимо отказаться от навязывания избыточных требований в отношении производства продукции, в случае отсутствия особой необходимости. В этой связи представляется необходимым обеспечить адекватность и соразмерность принятия и реализации международных обязательств в различных формах (включая стандарты и регламенты) на национальном уровне с учетом национальных приоритетов и задач развития. 5. Необходимо в большей степени уделять внимание комплексному решению не только проблемы производства продукции, но и переработки и уничтожения образующихся отходов, а также повышения глубины переработки производимой и добываемой продукции (рыба, аквакультура и т.д.), с учетом задач и потребностей всех ключевых секторов АПК и потребителей продукции. При этом производство и поставки на международные рынки продукции с более высокой добавленной стоимостью и переработкой должны не замещать текущие, а дополнять их, способствуя расширению предложения и формированию более благоприятных условий для потребителей продукции. 6. В условиях высокой международной неопределенности и волатильности рынков сырья вместе с высоким уровнем международной задолженности необходима реализация политики, способствующей повышению конкурентоспособности и ресурсообеспеченности бизнеса в АПК, не создающей дополнительного давления на издержки производителей и потребителей и опосредованно влияющего на рост цен продукции АПК. 7. Необходимо переосмыслить возможности и потенциал существующих многосторонних институтов международного сотрудничества (ФАО, ВППООН, Международные товарно-сырьевые организации, ОФСТ, МФСР), включая принятие решений по их координации действий и «разделению труда» (alignment). Целесообразно выработать программу действий по использованию их потенциала для продвижения интересов национального бизнеса и реализации инвестиционных проектов. 8. Необходима выработка и реализация политики, способствующей развитию кадровой обеспеченности ключевых секторов АПК и стимулированию повышения производительности труда с использованием потенциала цифровизации, обучения в течение всей жизни (lifelong-learning), программ по развитию человеческого капитала (capacity building) и иных долгосрочных и оперативных образовательных решений. 9. Необходимо развивать международное сотрудничество в области ветеринарии и санитарии, способствуя эффективному сбалансированному оперативному противодействию трансграничным эпизоотиям и болезням растений. Целесообразно продвигать формирование системных механизмов оперативного признания регионализации и допуска на рынки для поддержания устойчивости и неразрывности цепочек создания добавленной стоимости в АПК. Одновременно необходимо развивать сотрудничество в области стандартизации и корректного отражения вклада АПК в климатические изменения с комплексным участием и правом голоса национального бизнеса при принятии решений. 10. Целесообразно инициировать запуск обсуждения международного соглашения о торговой политике в целях развития, ограничивающего применение рестрикций и необоснованных ограничений в отношении продукции АПК.2372382392422442452462482492501. Участники разошлись во мнениях относительно приоритетности поддержания национальной и международной продовольственной безопасности: какие цели должны быть более значимы? На фоне необходимости поддержания устойчивых цепочек поставок за рубеж непростой видится задача обеспечения национальной продовольственной безопасности. 2. Повышение качества производимого и потребляемого продовольствия и связанное с этим внедрение инноваций и распространение «особо здоровых» видов продовольствия не должно приводить к ограничению доступа широких, включая самых бедных и уязвимых слоев населения по всему миру к доступному калорийному продовольствию. 3. Необходимо взвешенное и прагматичное отношение к влиянию АПК на климатические изменения, включая определение фундированной доказательной базы соответствующих изменений.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Предложения.pdfhttps://rspp.ru/events/news/rossiyskiy-biznes-razrabotal-predlozheniya-k-sammitu-oon-po-prodovolstvennym-sistemam-60830f02b76f1/

2021-07-06 17:19:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2509/203

03714397001721142895400000072000150281636010804271420742107154833

A single report was generated for all three language dialogues: https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3175/official-feedback-3175-en.pdf?t=1625580329 The Principles were integrated into all aspects of the SDC FSD process, from the identification of participants to the communications provided to all actors before, during and after the dialogues, to the work with facilitators and notetakers, to the holding of dialogues, to the reporting itself. A core team of staff from SDC’s Global Programme Food Security and backstoppers Helvetas and HAFL worked closely together on the design and implementation of the dialogues, taking the Principles as a point of departure, and ensuring they were not only known to participants and resource persons, but that they were fully applied in the dialogues. For example, the Principles were prominently referenced in communications within SDC and beyond and they were emphasized during each step of the preparation and implementation of the dialogues. The overall design of the dialogue process was also driven by the Principles. This is why the original FSD design from 4SD was adapted to include: * Two Rounds of discussion separated by ca. 3 weeks, to foster familiarity amongst breakout group participants as well as to give them the opportunity to fully and collectively reflect on the respective vision statements before going deeper into considerations of practical recommendations and proposed solutions * Two sets of breakout groups within each Round, to promote an iterative and highly interactive approach to the complex challenges posed by the vision statements * Three sets of dialogues, one in English, one in French and one in Spanish, to provide participants with the opportunity to interact in the language most comfortable for them * Introductory presentations in Round 1 for each language, to situate the SDC FSDs within the broader ecosystem of FSDs and the UN FSS, and to illustrate the linkages between the Principles and the dialogues.The above description of the process indicates how all Principles were reinforced throughout. More specifically, in introductory presentations and in instructions for group work, the combined need to act with urgency and at the same time ensure mutual respect and trust, multistakeholder engagement, acknowledgement of complementary efforts, and the complexity of the issues confronting the world, were reinforced in the dialogues. All of this was explicitly linked to the goal of having a real impact on the FSS, particularly as the FSDs represent the most significant opportunity for the voices of non-state actors to be heard. As mentioned, the SDC FSD process design was also purposely aimed at embedding the Principles in various ways, including: * Customised 2 hours orientation sessions for facilitators and notetakers to ensure they were cognizant of the need to orchestrate dialogues that upheld the Principles as a set of mutually reinforcing elements of successful FSDs and the FSS. Facilitation techniques in support of all of the principles were both discussed and applied in these sessions in role play exercises * The process of having two Rounds, where the first was designed to not only give participants the space to fully grasp the vision statements, but equally to create the conditions for mutual respect and trust-building and agreement that different stakeholders have different and equally important perspectives. The second Round was aimed at fulfilling the Principles related to urgency, influencing the Summit, complementing the work of others and engaging in action-oriented dialogues in the context of complex challenges, and to recognizing what has already been achieved or is underway. * Incorporating the Chatham House Rule in group discussions. * Integrating the Principles from the beginning in communications: messages to SDC colleagues and strategic partners, who helped to identify participants from a variety of stakeholder groups; Communications to participants, which presented the rationale for the FSDs and how they fit into the broader FSD-FSS ecosystem.The main advice we would provide relates to the design of the FSD process: there are significant differences between online and face-to-face (f2f) interactions. We are aware that the FSD process was originally designed to fit a f2f modality, which had to be adapted to a virtual one. The main observations we can share about these differences are: * Virtual interactions – particularly intensive ones – require more time. This is not simply a mechanical or technical issue, but it relates to how much time should be spent creating the conditions for respectful and productive dialogues. * Although we would also advocate an iterative approach to FSDs in a f2f context, a virtual one dramatically increases the utility of such an approach: if participants are forced to ‘move on’ to work towards the desired outputs before having established a mutual rapport and a common understanding of the issues under discussion, this can totally undermine the adherence to the Principles and the whole effort to achieve meaningful results * Having such diverse groups of participants come together around exceedingly complex challenges (also with widely differing levels of familiarity with some of the specifics) requires an approach that allows for different participants to move at different speeds. To put this another way: some participants will move (or want to move) more quickly through some aspects of the discussion, where others need more time. From a facilitation point of view, there is a delicate balance to achieve in giving the former a sense of forward momentum at the same time as giving the latter enough space to not feel ‘bullied’ into coming to conclusions (or worse, accepting the conclusions of others) * Since the work of both facilitators and note takers is so important, it might be worthwhile thinking of engaging people who really have a good facilitation and note taking record and not volunteers. A question that needs to be also asked - whether participants of such a dialogue should selected on recommendation, also to ensure to achieve the planned diversity of stakeholders.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) as the coordinating agency of Swiss international development cooperation is in the unique position to mobilise a broad landscape of potential dialogue participants from all its partner countries and organisations. The Global Programme Food Security (GPFS) of SDC together with its Agriculture and Food Security (A+FS) Network hosted three series of two independent food systems dialogues in English, French and Spanish, bringing together 290 participants from 69 countries to reflect on such questions as: * What targets and action plans are needed to make progress in food security; agro-ecology and climate resilience; socially and culturally acceptable and affordable nutrition; healthy diets; a circular economy of food based on more sustainable supply and value chains, a reduction of food loss and waste, social equity, better use of new knowledge, social organisation of producers and consumers, competitiveness and import & export regimes, policy, data & certification and improved rural livelihoods? * How should Swiss funded development stakeholders shape their programmes and activities in order to enhance sustainability of food systems? The organizers used this set of questions to formulate 12 vision statements around food systems, with each of the visions representing ambitious projections of the future that provoked participants of the dialogue to imagine something that is altogether better. The visions provided a comprehensive exploration of food system challenges and actors, focusing on a specific area, like fair trade policies, conducive research partnerships, and healthy school meals. It is important to note that the dialogues were short sessions of visioning/brainstorming. The recommendations should inspire local actors and participants of the UNFSS. The exact actors and specific actions (Who and How) need to be adapted in the future to closer reflect local context. Similarly, the groups did not have the opportunity to in-depth discuss the complexity of power dynamics and contextual factors, including disaster risk, resilience, climate change and conflict. Due to the structure of the FSD reporting template, the outcomes of the discussion for visions 5 and 6 (nutrition awareness and healthy school meals) and visions 11 and 12 (agroecological farming and intact natural resources) had to be combined. These discussion topics deserve further separation of recommendations per topic and should be further elaborated. Vision statements: 1. Society will valorise the role of farmers in food systems through real costing/pricing. 2. Strong social movements and networks between households at national and community level will allow equal opportunities for men and women. 3. More sustainable production and shorter supply chains will link producers and consumers more closely. 4. National agriculture and food policies will support sustainably produced regional and seasonal food and information on healthy and sustainable diets. 5. Integration of nutrition in school curricula, maternal and infant care, will contribute to healthy diets, and the production of diverse and sustainable foods. 6. The promotion of agro-ecologically sourced meals in school & community kitchens will improve performance of students in school and people in their work. 7. Land and judicial reforms will allow the improved and equitable access to land and justice for all, explicitly also for women and youth. 8. Import, export and tax regimes in countries will allow farmers to focus on products that are competitive on national, regional and international markets. 9. A national system on accurate, safe and reliable data and certification of agricultural products will inform legal frameworks and resource allocation. 10. International agricultural research partnerships take into account regional contexts and make their findings available to all. 11. An agroecological diversification of production and low-impact farming practices will reduce the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs. 12. Switching to locally adapted crops, soil conservation methods and sustainable irrigation systems will allow for efficient production.235238239240241242243244245246248249251Key emerging findings across the different language dialogues and visions focused on three core needs: (1) the need for the international community to create inclusive, facilitated dialogue platforms (digital and in-person), (2) the need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and change behaviour through awareness raising campaigns, and (3) the need to develop enabling policies and environment to deliver progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The discussion groups also stressed the central role of appropriate responsible co-production and use of data for agriculture (production, logistics, demand, weather etc.) underpinning most proposed solutions. Inclusive dialogue platforms (digital and in-person) would close knowledge gaps, such as access information on prices and markets. Delivery of training and knowledge management resources via a digital platform would enable peer-to-peer exchanges and would facilitate collection and operationalization of agricultural data. Having a peer-to-peer element at its core, the platforms would enable the actors to not only share, but also co-produce knowledge related to agroecology, and other knowledge-intensive and context specific areas. A critical success factor for such platforms is the use of participatory approaches in design of technologies to enhance access and openness, rather than a roll-out of platforms developed by the international development community and governments. Multi-stakeholder dialogues with the most relevant actors that need to be at the core of platform development, can then be also used to develop the base for national digital strategies and data platforms. At the same time, developing inclusive dialogue platforms requires strong involvement and investment from the private sector. Another core finding is the need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and change behaviour through awareness raising campaigns. The participants felt that a way to bridge the information and knowledge gap was by implementing large-scale awareness campaigns on the value of food production and its role in environmental sustainability, targeting both consumers and producers. The next step in moving from awareness raising to behaviour change for healthier food choices is focusing on youth at schools and local women’s groups. By involving the next generation of change makers through dedicated school programs, and women as potential agents of change at the community level, it is possible to influence family decisions. Another mechanism for raising awareness is through legislation, and promotion of packaging and labelling standards. The packaging and labels need to inform consumers on the nutritional value of their consumption. Here there is a wealth of experience to build on, particularly in North America and Europe. Some of the key quotes related to this solution included: * Awareness-raising actions should not just be limited to knowledge but also to practice. E.g., planting vegetable gardens and cooking * Where trade is involved, build capacity for border staff so they know which laws exist and understand them. * Information on healthy and sustainable diets, agroecological management must be disseminated on a large scale while valuing local knowledge and know-how. Also, disseminating good consumption criteria, reducing huge post-harvest losses, incentives and scaling up certain practices that facilitate access to food such as e-commerce will help make the transition. * Provide regular information on product prices, taking advantage of social networks so that small producers know where to take their products and not sell at below-market prices. * Generating public information platforms is important. In addition, it is important to raise awareness among all actors and those who design the data capture/monitoring systems, so that they work at all levels and the information is returned to producers. The participants of the dialogue outlined that in order for the actions, solutions, and strategies to deliver progress there also needs to be a set of enabling policies, partnership and investment opportunities developed at national levels: * Transparency related to large scale land investment (domestic and international) is essential: contracts should be made open. To balance access to data with privacy concerns, national governments should have a clear role in indicating how data privacy/safety/security as well as sharing are guaranteed. * Another core area for national governments is the focus on favourable fiscal policies that would lower border taxes for sustainable products (e.g. reducing CO2-emissions) and help strengthen local supply-chains. * An idea that came across strongly in Spanish language dialogues is that governments need to set up and/or strengthen the functioning of traditional (so-called informal) markets, short marketing circuits or EcoFairs in different places in peri-urban and urban cities on a massive scale (without many restrictions on agro-ecological products). * It is critical that the international community invests in building public-private-partnerships (governments, civil society, and private sector) to foster policy-engagement and mobilize the marginalized voices. The private sector presented with the right set of incentives can create an interface between informal and formal economies. At the same time, international research partnerships should inform both policies and knowledge shared with communities and provide various options/products for local partners to choose from in adapting policies.236238239240241244245246247249250251Discussion topic : Fair prices - Society will valorise the role of farmers in food systems through real costing/pricing. Recommendation 1: prices faced by farmers should adjust to reach a fair level and truly reflect the value farmers bring to society and the environment. Farmers’ remuneration needs to improve and there should be equal participation and integration of all stakeholders in decision-making on food markets Who: local governments/governors, farmers’ organisations. How: this can be achieved through dialogue between food systems stakeholders with the setup of inclusive platforms, allowing for open, transparent, and evidence-based discussion and negotiation on food costing/pricing, and valorisation of food production as an activity. The platforms support the build-up of effective networks, enable everyone to be informed and understand ‘fair business’. Ultimately, the platform would contribute towards fair prices, and a more level playing field on food markets and a well-functioning food system. Food system stakeholders will trust each other, and farmers will have their voices heard. Recommendation 2: there needs to be a radical change in valorisation of food triggered throughout society; production and services delivered by farmers need to be valued beyond production costs; consumers should be more aware of all the services provided by the farmers beyond production of food (e.g. ecosystem services) Who: local governments (Min of Ag, Min of Finance), farmers and consumer associations. How: this can be achieved through awareness campaigns targeting both producers and consumers on issues of fair trade and the value generated by farming to society. Recommendation 3: national, regional, and global trade regimes need to shift to become more favourable to smallholders in developing countries and incentivise sustainable production methods Who: WTO, international institutions, governments, international farmers’ organisations. How: this can be achieved through global communication, lobbying, and political advocacy in favour of fair trade and a more equitable food system. The new trade rules need to acknowledge current imbalances in global food trade and seek to support the competitiveness of smallholders in developing countries and the environmental sustainability of food production. Recommendation 4: farmers’ productivity and profitability need to increase, allowing to boost investment as well as quality and safety of food, improving market conditions, farmers’ livelihoods, and involvement in decision-making processes Who: government authorities in partnership with farmers’ organizations, the private sector (input suppliers, water and electricity providers, tech companies) and other relevant stakeholders. How: higher levels of productivity and profitability for farmers will be achieved by establishing an enabling context (water, electricity, infrastructure including innovative technology), expanding contract farming, supporting trade fairs and marketing to advertise local foods, leveraging the potential of new tech to communicate on innovative farming techniques, and capacity building for youth wanting to start agribusinesses. Governments should help set up and/or strengthen the functioning of traditional (so-called informal) markets, short marketing circuits or EcoFairs in different places in peri-urban and urban cities on a massive scale (without many restrictions on agro-ecological products). Recommendation 5: A food system can only be sustainable if producers receive adequate income. This requires ensuring access to healthy food to groups/communities with limited means without limiting free market and additional controls of food prices by the government. Governments need to instead adopt social measures to facilitate access to healthy food for poor groups/communities. Who: governments, international organizations (for example, this approach is already active in a number of WFP operations). How: this can be achieved by ensuring use of healthy food as part of school meals, and issuance of vouchers for food at responsible distributors/ (re)sellers.236238239240241242243244246248249250251Discussion topic : Strong Social networks - Strong social movements and networks between households at national and community level will allow equal opportunities for men and women. Recommendation 1: There is need to promote participatory approaches in design of technologies and to enhance access and openness Who: Farmers’ organisations, governments, UN, civil society, private sector. How: By incorporating farmers in the design of technologies and promoting use of available toolboxes (sets of technologies and innovations) and platforms that integrate communications and empower the target groups to benefit economically. Creating partnerships with the governments; linking in with the private sector and academia. Measuring success: Availability of decentralized and localized technology toolkits of best practices for wider use, and adaptation. Recommendation 2: Integrate social networks as an extension tool Who: UN, civil society, producer cooperatives and farmer organisations, private sector, and governments How: Make use of available tools such as social media; working through seed groups, incorporating the private sector, making use of digital technology to close knowledge gaps. Some best practice examples have been cited in Ghana and Nigeria. Measuring success: KPIs would include click numbers, downloads, sharing numbers on social media and other parameters. Recommendation 3: there is a need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and to shorten value chains. Who: Governments, industry leaders/retail and merchandising, UN, Farmer organizations, consumers, civil society How: this can be achieved by influencing structural changes and food consumption patterns, such as direct trade, direct communications between the producers and consumers; segmenting the markets. Creating awareness about the food products that we consume. There is a need to enhance trust in the value chains and promote value networks rather than individual actors. At the same time, the actors of the social networks need to ensure there are mechanisms to support the most vulnerable in the communities so that their situations don’t further deteriorate. It is important to consider gender as a core part of social networks: by encouraging women and young people to form associations, by involving men to encourage and enable their wives to engage in production. The palm oil industry is an example of positive steps towards these consumer-producer changes. Another example is the chocolate industry where smaller firms establish partnerships with local producers. Measuring success: the effectiveness of the measures can be assessed by examining the number of movements; sensitization programs; available digital services to support farmers and youth and attract them in the value chains. Recommendation 4: Promote greater agro-ecological production in adequate quantities without polluting the environment, without degrading nature, incorporating local practices (a recommendation specific to Spanish-language dialogues) Who: Government, UN, Farmer organizations, civil society How: this can be achieved by incorporating local seeds in the value chain, focusing on territorialisation of agri-food systems, and recognising local capacities and territorial complementarities between primary producers and processing (such as conditions and facilities for post-harvest processing and storage). Additionally, this can be achieved through strategic alliances for the exchange of knowledge and technology, which allow for developments that are more nature-positive and build on local capacities. Recommendation 5: differentiate rules for local products and for export products. Current international certification standards often impose limitations on local products. (a recommendation specific to Spanish and French-language dialogues) Who: WTO, UN, national governments. How: introduce differentiation of food sanitary measures, certification and labelling from the local market to the global market. It is necessary to promote the labelling of local production for better market access.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Discussion topic : Sustainable production - More sustainable production and shorter supply chains will link producers and consumers more closely. Recommendation 1: Developing an enabling environment needs to be based on a systems perspective that includes a change in power structures (land rights), farmers empowerment (through farmers organization) and economics (access to capital). Who: governments and international financial institutions for loans. At the same time, farmer organizations need to be formed bottom up by farmers themselves rather than government. How: The role of the state should be that of an investor to guarantee sustainability, guarantee infrastructure and the required support. Specific action can include ensuring better rural roads so smallholder farmers have access to markets, adopting policy that supports land rights for farmers, and working more closely with the private sector to ensure easier access to capital and investment for farmers, especially women and youth. The majority of smallholder farmers need to organize themselves into producer cooperatives or other similar systems (youth and women in particular). Service provision to individual smallholders can never become financially viable. Recommendation 2: Promote digital solutions across value chains. Who: venture capital/ private sector. How: in ten years all smallholder farmers need to have access to digital technology, access needs to be free for especially vulnerable groups. It is crucial that companies develop a viable business model for digital service provision to farmers. So far digitalization in smallholder farming has been donor driven and failed to scale. Recommendation 3: increase demand for more sustainably produced products. Consumer behaviour is one of the strongest instruments for change. Who: consumers, farmer organizations, civil society How: By focusing on awareness-raising campaigns and promoting transparency of systems for shareholders and consumers. This should be specifically targeting school children as actors of change in families and communities. Recommendation 4: the need for shorter supply chains requires global market regulations, as the current free trade systems favour big corporations. It also requires a shift towards higher demand for local products and investment in local market infrastructure to meet the demand. Who: national governments, municipal governments, private sector, large corporations and civil society. How: national governments need to develop public policies focused on small enterprises, with public funds and provide access to smart credit. Municipal governments could also form alliances with neighbourhood councils and territorial or indigenous farmers' organisations. The private sector should provide efficient digitally supported logistics systems, large corporations need to adopt a higher degree of global responsibility (this can be influenced by shareholders, investors, and customers). Recommendation 5: Natural resource management and local biodiversity are key - water and soil are key elements to sustain biodiversity and lower climate impact. Poverty remains a major obstacle to proper natural resource management. Who: private sector and national governments to develop and enforce legislation, farmer organizations. How: balancing the demand and utilization of water through solutions like the smart water system (Internet of Things). A prerequisite for the recommendation is better soil data. To improve soils, governments need to encourage the use of biodegradable products and promote the use of technology to valorise biodegradable waste. Local governments and farmer organizations should inventory and use more neglected species (with local nutritional value/agroecological virtues) as they are the ones that promote biodiversity. Communities and farmer organizations can promote ancestral practices, where importance was placed on the planting of diverse species of "lesser" economic utility but containing other values (e.g. various trees that shelter flora and fauna). Governments and communities should organise small areas that rebuild natural biotopes (protected micro areas).236238239240241242243244245246249250251Discussion topic : Conducive policies - National agriculture and food policies will support sustainably produced regional and seasonal food and information on healthy and sustainable diets. Recommendation 1: increase awareness on principles of agroecology, sustainability, and nutrition Who: governments, producers, civil society How: the government should inform communities, the private sector, and the population more about agroecology e.g. through TV, education, including school meals. The consumer could be informed about the sustainability and nutritional quality of a food through traffic light type communication systems. This labelling should be regularly updated with the best available data. Also, labelling could include aspects of "storytelling" to give a voice to the producers behind the products. Recommendation 2: there needs to be a shift to systemic vision in public policies Who: governments, civil society How: Public policies should adapt to the systemic character of food systems, moving away from sectoral organisation and towards coherent and systemic management.. Linked to the systemic vision, careers should be cross-cutting, including concepts such as “healthy living”. Member States are called upon to play a leading role in the transformation of food systems. Market access should be promoted by small farmers and indigenous peoples. Recommendation 3: developing and ensuring systems of accountability and standards in developing and adopting policy measures. Who: governments, with support from international organisations How: The measures required and implemented must be clarified at each level (national, regional, communal) and by each actor. The principle of subsidiarity (taking decisions as close as possible to the problems) is key in clarification of responsibilities of the actors at different political levels. There is a need to focus on effective decentralisation. This will allow policies to be implemented locally with much more effective implementation (framework for the implementation of the policy). Recommendation 4: Monitoring systems should be put in place to measure policy improvements. Who: international organizations, civil society, governments, academia How: Potential indicators include the proportion of food produced in the country compared to food consumed; child malnutrition rate; malnutrition rate; proportion of food produced and processed in the country; innovation rate; biodiversity rate; impact indicators (including footprint and thus sustainability of products). A global framework should be put in place as has been done for biodiversity and water to define indices and targets at regional level (South America) and for each country, with a monitoring system to be able to observe evolutions. The summit should encourage the role of academia, as it plays an important role in validating data and statistics. Scientists should be able to actively participate in decision-making. The concept of "science" should be broadened to include empirical, social, indigenous knowledge.236238239240241243245246249251Discussion topic : Nutrition awareness/ Healthy school meals: Integration of nutrition in school curricula, maternal and infant care, and promotion of agro-ecologically sourced meals in school & community kitchens will improve performance of students in school and people in their work. Recommendation 1: ensure schools have adequate food production units and complementary infrastructure Who: policy makers, schools, local communities How: schools need to have adequate access to land, vegetable beds, water, and complementary infrastructure, specifically storage and canteen facilities and the administrative capacity to manage the entire process from procurement to serving food on premises. Other recommendations include providing recipe books for school chefs, opening up school canteens to local communities (E.g., in the evening as income generating opportunities), using nearby food kiosks to assist and complement school meals. Recommendation 2: multiple actors need to be involved in awareness-raising strategies on healthy eating and responsible consumption aimed at the general population, taking into account the intercultural nature of communities. Who: governments, civil society, farmer networks, teachers, parents How: the school canteen must be a vector in society for the message of healthy eating. This will require accompanying school canteens with didactic/educational tools such as school gardens and field trips on sustainable food production. It is necessary to remain within a sustainable production system by strengthening the capacities of support institutions, farmers, and partner operators. All this must be included in national programmes and appropriate school modules developed in school curricula. Dedicated programmes should reach canteen operators and parents. Raising awareness on healthy nutrition should not only focus on school and maternal-infant care, it should target the entire value chain and consider the specific context. Recommendation 3: healthy nutrition should be better integrated into the political discourse and programs at various scales (local, national, and international) and should also be integrated into other programs (e.g. food security). Better integrating “nutrition” in political discourses also implies better coordination between food-related policy messages (e.g. in terms of food production, food security, markets). Who: policy makers, community-based organizations How: The critical stakeholders need to be brought together: Ministries of Agriculture (and Livestock), Ministries of Education, and Ministries of Health. More clarity on budget and mandates is essential. Achieving this needs people that understand all 3 areas and are able to convene and facilitate policy dialogue. Recommendation 4: ensure adequate term definition: “healthy nutrition / diets / foods”, and include water aspects (e.g. safe drinking water), in policies, guidance and curricula Who: international actors, civil society, and governments How: use of the term agro-ecologically produced – does not guarantee healthy food. In connection to school meals and awareness raising efforts it is important to emphasize safety and diversity of foods, and also recognizing that due to seasonality and locality, some food will necessarily be imported or not local. In school meals it is important to use diversified food products (and include them if necessary, in the programme at production level) whose combination will ensure nutritional balance. However, fortification of food products as appropriate could be recommended. Recommendation 5: facilitate procurement and access to finance for school meals suppliers Who: Farmers' organisations supplying food, buyers, donor organisations, bank and non-bank financial institutions. How: identify and provide information on bank and non-bank financial entities that have as services "bank guarantee credit lines for food suppliers" that allow the financing of suppliers that have signed contracts with buyers at the school level.236238239240241242243244245246247249250251Discussion topic : Access to land: Land and judicial reforms will allow the improved and equitable access to land and justice for all, explicitly also for women and youth. Recommendation 1: Harmonise formal/modern land laws and traditional land management systems in an inclusive manner by including all actors and ensuring real ownership of decisions Who: state and local authorities How: Formal legal texts need to be disseminated, people need to be made aware of actual land laws and regulations (e.g. in Togo women have been excluded from the right to land based on traditional land management practices) without creating problems at community level. Recommendation 2: secure agricultural areas and implement structural investments (irrigation, storage, and conservation of products) for optimal use of agricultural land by women and young people Who: state and local authorities, with support from civil society and international organisations How: due to low economic returns from agriculture, farmers are selling off land they have received through individual property rights (in countries where land ownership was state-owned). This must be prevented by revaluing agriculture (which will restore the value of agricultural land) and by regulating investment in real estate. Recommendation 3: integrate Indigenous Peoples' visions of land tenure (specific to Spanish-language dialogue) Who: governments, civil society, and international organizations How: national land policies need to take into account biodiverse communal lands considered by the indigenous populations as ancestral/community lands and ensure their integrity and protection via legislation. Recommendation 4: Develop permanent dialogues between land custodians (i.e. landowners), land users and local authorities so that access to land is facilitated. Who: state and local authorities How: development and cooperation agencies can contribute with dialogues and information management, so that marginalised groups (Indigenous Peoples, Women, Youth) are aware of their rights, and of tools such as the “Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas". Recommendation 5: Carry out the cadastre in order to have a national land file to be able to monitor and verify land transactions to avoid land selloffs, land grabbing and land speculation. Who: state and local authorities, with support from civil society and international organisations How: it is necessary to define/confirm production/agricultural areas and prohibit land transactions in these areas to other parties. Transparency related to large scale land investment (domestic and international) is essential: contracts should be made open (allocation of land rights, sales, payments for concessions, environmental impact assessments, M&E report) be made available by investors and concerned governments (host and target countries).236238239240241242243244245246249250251Discussion topic : Fair trade policies: Import, export and tax regimes in countries will allow farmers to focus on products that are competitive on national, regional and international markets. Recommendation 1: address urban migration by developing rural areas and providing the youth and women (gender mainstreaming) with meaningful jobs and income Who: policy makers, private sector How: this can be achieved by developing rural areas and decentralizing the rural system in order to address urban migration, by providing especially the youth and women (gender mainstreaming) with meaningful jobs and a fair income. The producers should be well organised to contribute to the rural development and be competitive in the food systems that affect them. Recommendation 2: build public-private-partnerships to foster policy-engagement and mobilize the marginalized voices Who: policy makers, civil society, private sector How: include civil society and private sector in order to widen policy-engagement on particular inefficiencies. This will make food systems more inclusive and relevant. Recommendation 3: present a clear agenda and incentives for the private sector to create an interface between informal and formal economies (formalize trade) Who: policy makers, civil society, private sector How: to formalize trade, there should be incentives for the private sector and an agreeable agenda, where it is clear what will be achieved, what actions are required and stakeholders this will affect. Recommendation 4: use a bottom-up-approach by reaching out to groups and networks of people to get all relevant information in statistics Who: governments, civil society How: the approach should be bottom-up and based on principles of fair-trade (safe working conditions, protecting the environment and transparency) and moving from informal to formal trade to capture all relevant information in statistics. Part of the solution would be to develop dialogue roundtables or other spaces through federations, cooperatives, farmers' associations, SME chambers, chambers of industry and commerce. Recommendation 5: it is necessary to have standards and transparency with an effective monitoring mechanism to which all actors commit (producers & consumers) Who: an international organization (potentially WTO) How: it is necessary to adopt standards and transparency. There needs to be a clear baseline and a set of indicators for tracking progress. We need to check, if the WTO should be mandated to pick this up as a key task. Recommendation 6. Reduce tax, allow lower tariffs and less charges on products for producers and consumers to ensure fairer prices (customs unions and governments) Who: national governments and customs unions How: it is necessary to reduce taxes and remove unnecessary trade procedures and cost from products. To achieve this, actors like customs unions and governments should find actionable solutions and measures. Trade should be used to promote sustainable development, and improvement of production systems with producers at its core. Recommendation 7: Simplify cross-border-trade Who: national governments, with support from civil society and international organisations How: through facilitation of borderless alliances using a certification system and a uniform set of rules on products (cacao, palm oil), as well as lower border taxes for sustainable products (e.g. reducing CO2-emissions). Governments and trade unions should analyse international trade instruments (tariff policies) between countries to make them contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).236238239241242243245246248249Discussion topic : Reliable data & certification: a national system on accurate, safe and reliable data and certification of agricultural products will inform legal frameworks and resource allocation. Recommendation 1: hold dialogues to inform and map data and stakeholder landscapes - who is capable to provide/collect data by what means/tools, who is interested in using data, is there a platform to match these two) Who: national governments How: bring together the 100 most relevant actors in data/certification space within a country. These consultations can be used as a base for digital strategy and data platform(s). During the discussion the actors need to identify which data is needed immediately, and which data is still valid after a year or ten. The actors providing their data should be aware of the benefits of this action. As an example of incentives, it could be - in countries without health benefits - to provide health insurance to all producers involved in data delivery actions. Recommendation 2: develop national digital strategies, policy, and legal framework Who: should be led by a public/private body, with leadership from representatives of the different social/productive organisations How: based on the outcomes of key stakeholder dialogues governments need to develop Digital Strategies (including data architecture: how data is organized and used for policy making), establish independent certification bodies/ expert panels to validate data before sharing (symbiotic relationship between the certification bodies and the National Institute of Statistics helps to reduce the costs of certification), and identify required capacity building/training on the job/coaching (strengthening institutions with the right skills and tools). All data should be shared unless embargoed (needs protection) Recommendation 3: invest in appropriate infrastructure to support digital solutions Who: Ministries of Infrastructure / Communications + private actors (mobile companies) How: national governments need to invest in mobile networks and power access, as well as ensure connectivity to digital data services (foreseeing demand and the need for scale).236238239240241242243244245246249251Discussion topic : Conducive research partnerships: international agricultural research partnerships take into account regional contexts and make their findings available to all. Recommendation 1: research partnerships need to adopt a participatory approach Who: civil society, academia, farmers, consumers How: The participants of the group discussions agreed that local stakeholders (especially farmers and consumers) should have a stronger voice in agricultural research. The decision on the orientation of research should not be left to governments but involve civil society actors to assure that research is based on real demand. Research itself should be organized as a participatory process with a strong role for local actors. This setup needs mechanisms of participation and enabling spaces; some may already exist (for example farmer field schools), some may have to be developed. A continuous exchange between research and application should lead to innovations that are in the interest of all stakeholders. Recommendation 2: it is critical that research organizations share research results Who: academia, civil society, international organisations How: research results should be made freely available, exchange and cross-learning should be encouraged, transparency is key. This also ensures that existing knowledge is considered. One of the break-out groups stated that research results should be used for advocacy of an agroecological transformation of food systems. Recommendation 3: research partnerships need to rethink the role of donors Who: governments in the North and international institutions How: dependence on funding from the North is problematic for a number of research partnerships. Rather than define research priorities, governments in the North and international institutions should act as facilitators accompanying local processes. Donors should increase support for agricultural research that takes into account the priorities of the Global South. Recommendation 4: research organizations and key stakeholders need to question the research focus Who: academia, civil society, international organizations, consumers How: The discussion participants agreed that research should be demand-led and that it should involve all relevant disciplines. There was not a clear agreement whether agroecology should be the guiding principle. One of the break-out groups mentioned neglected species and livestock farming as important research topics that should not be overlooked. Recommendation 5: research partnerships need to ensure participatory monitoring and evaluation of the findings Who: academia, civil society, international organizations, governments, and consumers How: participatory monitoring and evaluation empowers actors to demand accountability. While it makes sense to use internationally recognized indicators (such as those associated with the SDGs), participants of the dialogues underlined that regional and local indicators and development strategies should also be taken into account.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Discussion topic : Agroecological farming and intact natural resources: an agroecological diversification of production and low-impact farming practices will reduce the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs; switching to locally adapted landscape approaches will allow for (cost-)efficient food production. Recommendation 1: launch a peer-to-peer program focused on application of agroecological concepts for farmers (potentially also for other actors in the food system). Who: local governments, civil society, producers, farmer organizations How: this would require in-person exchange and inclusion of the farmer communities (both small holder farmers, as well as large scale exemplary farmers). Recommendation 2: deliver training and knowledge management resources via a digital platform Who: local governments, academia, civil society, donors willing to fund the development, rollout, and maintenance of the platform. How: the digital platform would enable peer to peer exchange, as well as collect and operationalize agricultural data. Having a peer-to-peer element at its core the platform would enable the actors to not only share, but also co-produce knowledge related to agroecology. Building networks around agroecology and developing a collection of good/ best practices could then also influence relevant policy change towards agroecological principles. It is important that there is a dedicated space on the platform for women/ women’s groups/ female farmers Recommendation 3: at the public policy level it is necessary to generate actions to promote agroecology with governmental support. Who: national governments How: governments can provide technical (including quality) and financial support to producers for the promotion of agroecological product consumption and shorter value chains; improve the accessibility of roads and distribution routes for agroecological products; ensure policies are disseminated to relevant stakeholders and producers using media. Recommendation 4: promote development of green finance to contribute to the development of agroecology. Who: UN, development banks, national governments How: The UN has created a line of financing contributing to sustainable development by mitigating the effects of climate change. Development banks at the national level also manage this financial model, which needs to be made more widely accessible to national level agroecological producers. Recommendation 5: orient nations towards sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity; guide territorial planning considering the potential for land use, generating a balance between conservation of natural resources and development. Who: national governments (National Protected Areas Service, Ministry of Environment and Water and the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands), academia, international organizations and civil society. How: in order to make the landscape approach practical and applicable on the ground, the stakeholders will need to be clearly identified at different levels – local, regional, and global with their roles being identified clearly and linkages between and among them. It is important to consider “hotspots” - priority conservation areas and intact resources, which contain high biodiversity. National governments should consider enhancing these environmental functions and orienting towards a sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity, such as wild cocoa, açai, jatata, etc. - food systems that enhance the use of forest resources. It is also important to strengthen the interface between academic research and the needs for information and responses to the different problems on the part of local governments.237One of the areas of divergence included the role of subsidies in achieving fair prices. The participants had different views on how to ensure that subsidies do not distort markets and how to ensure communities understand the approach behind subsidies for farming systems. The groups discussing fair prices highlighted that the pros and cons of subsidies need to be better understood as some form of “smart subsidies’ may in fact contribute to fair prices. The positive application of subsidies includes: * use of subsidies as incentives over a transition period towards sustainability; * subsidies to farmers for application of ecosystem services (agroecology) in the communities In the French language dialogues participants brought up the question of how can stakeholders ensure a transparent and constructive dialogue when there is an asymmetry of power between the actors? What support should be given to producer and consumer organisations for quality participation in business dialogues and in dialogues with public authorities to influence food and nutrition policies? It was discussed that potentially the role of removing the power imbalances may rest with the donors. The donors should support the creation of level dialogue by including all relevant stakeholders and having specific objectives for each group (consideration of social, economic, health and ecological aspects). In the Spanish language groups a strong area of concern is linked to rural-urban migration and the increase of the urban population. Some groups had shared that the migration could be the cause of additional environmental problems, more poverty, greater vulnerability, and additional risk scenarios. It was stressed in a number of break-out groups that national governments need to address the issue and build stronger linkages between the rural-urban populations, preventing migration to the cities. The groups also brought up the question of trust in technologies, especially with new technologies such as blockchain tech, and how in the use of digital there remains a focus on top-down solutions.

2021-07-06 17:19:51204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2511/203

03714397001721142895400000072000150281636010804271420742107154833

A single report was generated for all three language dialogues: https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3175/official-feedback-3175-en.pdf?t=1625580329 The Principles were integrated into all aspects of the SDC FSD process, from the identification of participants to the communications provided to all actors before, during and after the dialogues, to the work with facilitators and notetakers, to the holding of dialogues, to the reporting itself. A core team of staff from SDC’s Global Programme Food Security and backstoppers Helvetas and HAFL worked closely together on the design and implementation of the dialogues, taking the Principles as a point of departure, and ensuring they were not only known to participants and resource persons, but that they were fully applied in the dialogues. For example, the Principles were prominently referenced in communications within SDC and beyond and they were emphasized during each step of the preparation and implementation of the dialogues. The overall design of the dialogue process was also driven by the Principles. This is why the original FSD design from 4SD was adapted to include: * Two Rounds of discussion separated by ca. 3 weeks, to foster familiarity amongst breakout group participants as well as to give them the opportunity to fully and collectively reflect on the respective vision statements before going deeper into considerations of practical recommendations and proposed solutions * Two sets of breakout groups within each Round, to promote an iterative and highly interactive approach to the complex challenges posed by the vision statements * Three sets of dialogues, one in English, one in French and one in Spanish, to provide participants with the opportunity to interact in the language most comfortable for them * Introductory presentations in Round 1 for each language, to situate the SDC FSDs within the broader ecosystem of FSDs and the UN FSS, and to illustrate the linkages between the Principles and the dialogues.The above description of the process indicates how all Principles were reinforced throughout. More specifically, in introductory presentations and in instructions for group work, the combined need to act with urgency and at the same time ensure mutual respect and trust, multistakeholder engagement, acknowledgement of complementary efforts, and the complexity of the issues confronting the world, were reinforced in the dialogues. All of this was explicitly linked to the goal of having a real impact on the FSS, particularly as the FSDs represent the most significant opportunity for the voices of non-state actors to be heard. As mentioned, the SDC FSD process design was also purposely aimed at embedding the Principles in various ways, including: * Customised 2 hours orientation sessions for facilitators and notetakers to ensure they were cognizant of the need to orchestrate dialogues that upheld the Principles as a set of mutually reinforcing elements of successful FSDs and the FSS. Facilitation techniques in support of all of the principles were both discussed and applied in these sessions in role play exercises * The process of having two Rounds, where the first was designed to not only give participants the space to fully grasp the vision statements, but equally to create the conditions for mutual respect and trust-building and agreement that different stakeholders have different and equally important perspectives. The second Round was aimed at fulfilling the Principles related to urgency, influencing the Summit, complementing the work of others and engaging in action-oriented dialogues in the context of complex challenges, and to recognizing what has already been achieved or is underway. * Incorporating the Chatham House Rule in group discussions. * Integrating the Principles from the beginning in communications: messages to SDC colleagues and strategic partners, who helped to identify participants from a variety of stakeholder groups; Communications to participants, which presented the rationale for the FSDs and how they fit into the broader FSD-FSS ecosystem.The main advice we would provide relates to the design of the FSD process: there are significant differences between online and face-to-face (f2f) interactions. We are aware that the FSD process was originally designed to fit a f2f modality, which had to be adapted to a virtual one. The main observations we can share about these differences are: * Virtual interactions – particularly intensive ones – require more time. This is not simply a mechanical or technical issue, but it relates to how much time should be spent creating the conditions for respectful and productive dialogues. * Although we would also advocate an iterative approach to FSDs in a f2f context, a virtual one dramatically increases the utility of such an approach: if participants are forced to ‘move on’ to work towards the desired outputs before having established a mutual rapport and a common understanding of the issues under discussion, this can totally undermine the adherence to the Principles and the whole effort to achieve meaningful results * Having such diverse groups of participants come together around exceedingly complex challenges (also with widely differing levels of familiarity with some of the specifics) requires an approach that allows for different participants to move at different speeds. To put this another way: some participants will move (or want to move) more quickly through some aspects of the discussion, where others need more time. From a facilitation point of view, there is a delicate balance to achieve in giving the former a sense of forward momentum at the same time as giving the latter enough space to not feel ‘bullied’ into coming to conclusions (or worse, accepting the conclusions of others) * Since the work of both facilitators and note takers is so important, it might be worthwhile thinking of engaging people who really have a good facilitation and note taking record and not volunteers. A question that needs to be also asked - whether participants of such a dialogue should selected on recommendation, also to ensure to achieve the planned diversity of stakeholders.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) as the coordinating agency of Swiss international development cooperation is in the unique position to mobilise a broad landscape of potential dialogue participants from all its partner countries and organisations. The Global Programme Food Security (GPFS) of SDC together with its Agriculture and Food Security (A+FS) Network hosted three series of two independent food systems dialogues in English, French and Spanish, bringing together 290 participants from 69 countries to reflect on such questions as: * What targets and action plans are needed to make progress in food security; agro-ecology and climate resilience; socially and culturally acceptable and affordable nutrition; healthy diets; a circular economy of food based on more sustainable supply and value chains, a reduction of food loss and waste, social equity, better use of new knowledge, social organisation of producers and consumers, competitiveness and import & export regimes, policy, data & certification and improved rural livelihoods? * How should Swiss funded development stakeholders shape their programmes and activities in order to enhance sustainability of food systems? The organizers used this set of questions to formulate 12 vision statements around food systems, with each of the visions representing ambitious projections of the future that provoked participants of the dialogue to imagine something that is altogether better. The visions provided a comprehensive exploration of food system challenges and actors, focusing on a specific area, like fair trade policies, conducive research partnerships, and healthy school meals. It is important to note that the dialogues were short sessions of visioning/brainstorming. The recommendations should inspire local actors and participants of the UNFSS. The exact actors and specific actions (Who and How) need to be adapted in the future to closer reflect local context. Similarly, the groups did not have the opportunity to in-depth discuss the complexity of power dynamics and contextual factors, including disaster risk, resilience, climate change and conflict. Due to the structure of the FSD reporting template, the outcomes of the discussion for visions 5 and 6 (nutrition awareness and healthy school meals) and visions 11 and 12 (agroecological farming and intact natural resources) had to be combined. These discussion topics deserve further separation of recommendations per topic and should be further elaborated. Vision statements: 1. Society will valorise the role of farmers in food systems through real costing/pricing. 2. Strong social movements and networks between households at national and community level will allow equal opportunities for men and women. 3. More sustainable production and shorter supply chains will link producers and consumers more closely. 4. National agriculture and food policies will support sustainably produced regional and seasonal food and information on healthy and sustainable diets. 5. Integration of nutrition in school curricula, maternal and infant care, will contribute to healthy diets, and the production of diverse and sustainable foods. 6. The promotion of agro-ecologically sourced meals in school & community kitchens will improve performance of students in school and people in their work. 7. Land and judicial reforms will allow the improved and equitable access to land and justice for all, explicitly also for women and youth. 8. Import, export and tax regimes in countries will allow farmers to focus on products that are competitive on national, regional and international markets. 9. A national system on accurate, safe and reliable data and certification of agricultural products will inform legal frameworks and resource allocation. 10. International agricultural research partnerships take into account regional contexts and make their findings available to all. 11. An agroecological diversification of production and low-impact farming practices will reduce the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs. 12. Switching to locally adapted crops, soil conservation methods and sustainable irrigation systems will allow for efficient production.235238239240241242243244245246248249251Key emerging findings across the different language dialogues and visions focused on three core needs: (1) the need for the international community to create inclusive, facilitated dialogue platforms (digital and in-person), (2) the need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and change behaviour through awareness raising campaigns, and (3) the need to develop enabling policies and environment to deliver progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The discussion groups also stressed the central role of appropriate responsible co-production and use of data for agriculture (production, logistics, demand, weather etc.) underpinning most proposed solutions. Inclusive dialogue platforms (digital and in-person) would close knowledge gaps, such as access information on prices and markets. Delivery of training and knowledge management resources via a digital platform would enable peer-to-peer exchanges and would facilitate collection and operationalization of agricultural data. Having a peer-to-peer element at its core, the platforms would enable the actors to not only share, but also co-produce knowledge related to agroecology, and other knowledge-intensive and context specific areas. A critical success factor for such platforms is the use of participatory approaches in design of technologies to enhance access and openness, rather than a roll-out of platforms developed by the international development community and governments. Multi-stakeholder dialogues with the most relevant actors that need to be at the core of platform development, can then be also used to develop the base for national digital strategies and data platforms. At the same time, developing inclusive dialogue platforms requires strong involvement and investment from the private sector. Another core finding is the need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and change behaviour through awareness raising campaigns. The participants felt that a way to bridge the information and knowledge gap was by implementing large-scale awareness campaigns on the value of food production and its role in environmental sustainability, targeting both consumers and producers. The next step in moving from awareness raising to behaviour change for healthier food choices is focusing on youth at schools and local women’s groups. By involving the next generation of change makers through dedicated school programs, and women as potential agents of change at the community level, it is possible to influence family decisions. Another mechanism for raising awareness is through legislation, and promotion of packaging and labelling standards. The packaging and labels need to inform consumers on the nutritional value of their consumption. Here there is a wealth of experience to build on, particularly in North America and Europe. Some of the key quotes related to this solution included: * Awareness-raising actions should not just be limited to knowledge but also to practice. E.g., planting vegetable gardens and cooking * Where trade is involved, build capacity for border staff so they know which laws exist and understand them. * Information on healthy and sustainable diets, agroecological management must be disseminated on a large scale while valuing local knowledge and know-how. Also, disseminating good consumption criteria, reducing huge post-harvest losses, incentives and scaling up certain practices that facilitate access to food such as e-commerce will help make the transition. * Provide regular information on product prices, taking advantage of social networks so that small producers know where to take their products and not sell at below-market prices. * Generating public information platforms is important. In addition, it is important to raise awareness among all actors and those who design the data capture/monitoring systems, so that they work at all levels and the information is returned to producers. The participants of the dialogue outlined that in order for the actions, solutions, and strategies to deliver progress there also needs to be a set of enabling policies, partnership and investment opportunities developed at national levels: * Transparency related to large scale land investment (domestic and international) is essential: contracts should be made open. To balance access to data with privacy concerns, national governments should have a clear role in indicating how data privacy/safety/security as well as sharing are guaranteed. * Another core area for national governments is the focus on favourable fiscal policies that would lower border taxes for sustainable products (e.g. reducing CO2-emissions) and help strengthen local supply-chains. * An idea that came across strongly in Spanish language dialogues is that governments need to set up and/or strengthen the functioning of traditional (so-called informal) markets, short marketing circuits or EcoFairs in different places in peri-urban and urban cities on a massive scale (without many restrictions on agro-ecological products). * It is critical that the international community invests in building public-private-partnerships (governments, civil society, and private sector) to foster policy-engagement and mobilize the marginalized voices. The private sector presented with the right set of incentives can create an interface between informal and formal economies. At the same time, international research partnerships should inform both policies and knowledge shared with communities and provide various options/products for local partners to choose from in adapting policies.236238239240241244245246247249250251Discussion topic : Fair prices - Society will valorise the role of farmers in food systems through real costing/pricing. Recommendation 1: prices faced by farmers should adjust to reach a fair level and truly reflect the value farmers bring to society and the environment. Farmers’ remuneration needs to improve and there should be equal participation and integration of all stakeholders in decision-making on food markets Who: local governments/governors, farmers’ organisations. How: this can be achieved through dialogue between food systems stakeholders with the setup of inclusive platforms, allowing for open, transparent, and evidence-based discussion and negotiation on food costing/pricing, and valorisation of food production as an activity. The platforms support the build-up of effective networks, enable everyone to be informed and understand ‘fair business’. Ultimately, the platform would contribute towards fair prices, and a more level playing field on food markets and a well-functioning food system. Food system stakeholders will trust each other, and farmers will have their voices heard. Recommendation 2: there needs to be a radical change in valorisation of food triggered throughout society; production and services delivered by farmers need to be valued beyond production costs; consumers should be more aware of all the services provided by the farmers beyond production of food (e.g. ecosystem services) Who: local governments (Min of Ag, Min of Finance), farmers and consumer associations. How: this can be achieved through awareness campaigns targeting both producers and consumers on issues of fair trade and the value generated by farming to society. Recommendation 3: national, regional, and global trade regimes need to shift to become more favourable to smallholders in developing countries and incentivise sustainable production methods Who: WTO, international institutions, governments, international farmers’ organisations. How: this can be achieved through global communication, lobbying, and political advocacy in favour of fair trade and a more equitable food system. The new trade rules need to acknowledge current imbalances in global food trade and seek to support the competitiveness of smallholders in developing countries and the environmental sustainability of food production. Recommendation 4: farmers’ productivity and profitability need to increase, allowing to boost investment as well as quality and safety of food, improving market conditions, farmers’ livelihoods, and involvement in decision-making processes Who: government authorities in partnership with farmers’ organizations, the private sector (input suppliers, water and electricity providers, tech companies) and other relevant stakeholders. How: higher levels of productivity and profitability for farmers will be achieved by establishing an enabling context (water, electricity, infrastructure including innovative technology), expanding contract farming, supporting trade fairs and marketing to advertise local foods, leveraging the potential of new tech to communicate on innovative farming techniques, and capacity building for youth wanting to start agribusinesses. Governments should help set up and/or strengthen the functioning of traditional (so-called informal) markets, short marketing circuits or EcoFairs in different places in peri-urban and urban cities on a massive scale (without many restrictions on agro-ecological products). Recommendation 5: A food system can only be sustainable if producers receive adequate income. This requires ensuring access to healthy food to groups/communities with limited means without limiting free market and additional controls of food prices by the government. Governments need to instead adopt social measures to facilitate access to healthy food for poor groups/communities. Who: governments, international organizations (for example, this approach is already active in a number of WFP operations). How: this can be achieved by ensuring use of healthy food as part of school meals, and issuance of vouchers for food at responsible distributors/ (re)sellers.236238239240241242243244246248249250251Discussion topic : Strong Social networks - Strong social movements and networks between households at national and community level will allow equal opportunities for men and women. Recommendation 1: There is need to promote participatory approaches in design of technologies and to enhance access and openness Who: Farmers’ organisations, governments, UN, civil society, private sector. How: By incorporating farmers in the design of technologies and promoting use of available toolboxes (sets of technologies and innovations) and platforms that integrate communications and empower the target groups to benefit economically. Creating partnerships with the governments; linking in with the private sector and academia. Measuring success: Availability of decentralized and localized technology toolkits of best practices for wider use, and adaptation. Recommendation 2: Integrate social networks as an extension tool Who: UN, civil society, producer cooperatives and farmer organisations, private sector, and governments How: Make use of available tools such as social media; working through seed groups, incorporating the private sector, making use of digital technology to close knowledge gaps. Some best practice examples have been cited in Ghana and Nigeria. Measuring success: KPIs would include click numbers, downloads, sharing numbers on social media and other parameters. Recommendation 3: there is a need to reduce the gap between consumers and farmers and to shorten value chains. Who: Governments, industry leaders/retail and merchandising, UN, Farmer organizations, consumers, civil society How: this can be achieved by influencing structural changes and food consumption patterns, such as direct trade, direct communications between the producers and consumers; segmenting the markets. Creating awareness about the food products that we consume. There is a need to enhance trust in the value chains and promote value networks rather than individual actors. At the same time, the actors of the social networks need to ensure there are mechanisms to support the most vulnerable in the communities so that their situations don’t further deteriorate. It is important to consider gender as a core part of social networks: by encouraging women and young people to form associations, by involving men to encourage and enable their wives to engage in production. The palm oil industry is an example of positive steps towards these consumer-producer changes. Another example is the chocolate industry where smaller firms establish partnerships with local producers. Measuring success: the effectiveness of the measures can be assessed by examining the number of movements; sensitization programs; available digital services to support farmers and youth and attract them in the value chains. Recommendation 4: Promote greater agro-ecological production in adequate quantities without polluting the environment, without degrading nature, incorporating local practices (a recommendation specific to Spanish-language dialogues) Who: Government, UN, Farmer organizations, civil society How: this can be achieved by incorporating local seeds in the value chain, focusing on territorialisation of agri-food systems, and recognising local capacities and territorial complementarities between primary producers and processing (such as conditions and facilities for post-harvest processing and storage). Additionally, this can be achieved through strategic alliances for the exchange of knowledge and technology, which allow for developments that are more nature-positive and build on local capacities. Recommendation 5: differentiate rules for local products and for export products. Current international certification standards often impose limitations on local products. (a recommendation specific to Spanish and French-language dialogues) Who: WTO, UN, national governments. How: introduce differentiation of food sanitary measures, certification and labelling from the local market to the global market. It is necessary to promote the labelling of local production for better market access.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Discussion topic : Sustainable production - More sustainable production and shorter supply chains will link producers and consumers more closely. Recommendation 1: Developing an enabling environment needs to be based on a systems perspective that includes a change in power structures (land rights), farmers empowerment (through farmers organization) and economics (access to capital). Who: governments and international financial institutions for loans. At the same time, farmer organizations need to be formed bottom up by farmers themselves rather than government. How: The role of the state should be that of an investor to guarantee sustainability, guarantee infrastructure and the required support. Specific action can include ensuring better rural roads so smallholder farmers have access to markets, adopting policy that supports land rights for farmers, and working more closely with the private sector to ensure easier access to capital and investment for farmers, especially women and youth. The majority of smallholder farmers need to organize themselves into producer cooperatives or other similar systems (youth and women in particular). Service provision to individual smallholders can never become financially viable. Recommendation 2: Promote digital solutions across value chains. Who: venture capital/ private sector. How: in ten years all smallholder farmers need to have access to digital technology, access needs to be free for especially vulnerable groups. It is crucial that companies develop a viable business model for digital service provision to farmers. So far digitalization in smallholder farming has been donor driven and failed to scale. Recommendation 3: increase demand for more sustainably produced products. Consumer behaviour is one of the strongest instruments for change. Who: consumers, farmer organizations, civil society How: By focusing on awareness-raising campaigns and promoting transparency of systems for shareholders and consumers. This should be specifically targeting school children as actors of change in families and communities. Recommendation 4: the need for shorter supply chains requires global market regulations, as the current free trade systems favour big corporations. It also requires a shift towards higher demand for local products and investment in local market infrastructure to meet the demand. Who: national governments, municipal governments, private sector, large corporations and civil society. How: national governments need to develop public policies focused on small enterprises, with public funds and provide access to smart credit. Municipal governments could also form alliances with neighbourhood councils and territorial or indigenous farmers' organisations. The private sector should provide efficient digitally supported logistics systems, large corporations need to adopt a higher degree of global responsibility (this can be influenced by shareholders, investors, and customers). Recommendation 5: Natural resource management and local biodiversity are key - water and soil are key elements to sustain biodiversity and lower climate impact. Poverty remains a major obstacle to proper natural resource management. Who: private sector and national governments to develop and enforce legislation, farmer organizations. How: balancing the demand and utilization of water through solutions like the smart water system (Internet of Things). A prerequisite for the recommendation is better soil data. To improve soils, governments need to encourage the use of biodegradable products and promote the use of technology to valorise biodegradable waste. Local governments and farmer organizations should inventory and use more neglected species (with local nutritional value/agroecological virtues) as they are the ones that promote biodiversity. Communities and farmer organizations can promote ancestral practices, where importance was placed on the planting of diverse species of "lesser" economic utility but containing other values (e.g. various trees that shelter flora and fauna). Governments and communities should organise small areas that rebuild natural biotopes (protected micro areas).236238239240241242243244245246249250251Discussion topic : Conducive policies - National agriculture and food policies will support sustainably produced regional and seasonal food and information on healthy and sustainable diets. Recommendation 1: increase awareness on principles of agroecology, sustainability, and nutrition Who: governments, producers, civil society How: the government should inform communities, the private sector, and the population more about agroecology e.g. through TV, education, including school meals. The consumer could be informed about the sustainability and nutritional quality of a food through traffic light type communication systems. This labelling should be regularly updated with the best available data. Also, labelling could include aspects of "storytelling" to give a voice to the producers behind the products. Recommendation 2: there needs to be a shift to systemic vision in public policies Who: governments, civil society How: Public policies should adapt to the systemic character of food systems, moving away from sectoral organisation and towards coherent and systemic management.. Linked to the systemic vision, careers should be cross-cutting, including concepts such as “healthy living”. Member States are called upon to play a leading role in the transformation of food systems. Market access should be promoted by small farmers and indigenous peoples. Recommendation 3: developing and ensuring systems of accountability and standards in developing and adopting policy measures. Who: governments, with support from international organisations How: The measures required and implemented must be clarified at each level (national, regional, communal) and by each actor. The principle of subsidiarity (taking decisions as close as possible to the problems) is key in clarification of responsibilities of the actors at different political levels. There is a need to focus on effective decentralisation. This will allow policies to be implemented locally with much more effective implementation (framework for the implementation of the policy). Recommendation 4: Monitoring systems should be put in place to measure policy improvements. Who: international organizations, civil society, governments, academia How: Potential indicators include the proportion of food produced in the country compared to food consumed; child malnutrition rate; malnutrition rate; proportion of food produced and processed in the country; innovation rate; biodiversity rate; impact indicators (including footprint and thus sustainability of products). A global framework should be put in place as has been done for biodiversity and water to define indices and targets at regional level (South America) and for each country, with a monitoring system to be able to observe evolutions. The summit should encourage the role of academia, as it plays an important role in validating data and statistics. Scientists should be able to actively participate in decision-making. The concept of "science" should be broadened to include empirical, social, indigenous knowledge.236238239240241243245246249251Discussion topic : Nutrition awareness/ Healthy school meals: Integration of nutrition in school curricula, maternal and infant care, and promotion of agro-ecologically sourced meals in school & community kitchens will improve performance of students in school and people in their work. Recommendation 1: ensure schools have adequate food production units and complementary infrastructure Who: policy makers, schools, local communities How: schools need to have adequate access to land, vegetable beds, water, and complementary infrastructure, specifically storage and canteen facilities and the administrative capacity to manage the entire process from procurement to serving food on premises. Other recommendations include providing recipe books for school chefs, opening up school canteens to local communities (E.g., in the evening as income generating opportunities), using nearby food kiosks to assist and complement school meals. Recommendation 2: multiple actors need to be involved in awareness-raising strategies on healthy eating and responsible consumption aimed at the general population, taking into account the intercultural nature of communities. Who: governments, civil society, farmer networks, teachers, parents How: the school canteen must be a vector in society for the message of healthy eating. This will require accompanying school canteens with didactic/educational tools such as school gardens and field trips on sustainable food production. It is necessary to remain within a sustainable production system by strengthening the capacities of support institutions, farmers, and partner operators. All this must be included in national programmes and appropriate school modules developed in school curricula. Dedicated programmes should reach canteen operators and parents. Raising awareness on healthy nutrition should not only focus on school and maternal-infant care, it should target the entire value chain and consider the specific context. Recommendation 3: healthy nutrition should be better integrated into the political discourse and programs at various scales (local, national, and international) and should also be integrated into other programs (e.g. food security). Better integrating “nutrition” in political discourses also implies better coordination between food-related policy messages (e.g. in terms of food production, food security, markets). Who: policy makers, community-based organizations How: The critical stakeholders need to be brought together: Ministries of Agriculture (and Livestock), Ministries of Education, and Ministries of Health. More clarity on budget and mandates is essential. Achieving this needs people that understand all 3 areas and are able to convene and facilitate policy dialogue. Recommendation 4: ensure adequate term definition: “healthy nutrition / diets / foods”, and include water aspects (e.g. safe drinking water), in policies, guidance and curricula Who: international actors, civil society, and governments How: use of the term agro-ecologically produced – does not guarantee healthy food. In connection to school meals and awareness raising efforts it is important to emphasize safety and diversity of foods, and also recognizing that due to seasonality and locality, some food will necessarily be imported or not local. In school meals it is important to use diversified food products (and include them if necessary, in the programme at production level) whose combination will ensure nutritional balance. However, fortification of food products as appropriate could be recommended. Recommendation 5: facilitate procurement and access to finance for school meals suppliers Who: Farmers' organisations supplying food, buyers, donor organisations, bank and non-bank financial institutions. How: identify and provide information on bank and non-bank financial entities that have as services "bank guarantee credit lines for food suppliers" that allow the financing of suppliers that have signed contracts with buyers at the school level.236238239240241242243244245246247249250251Discussion topic : Access to land: Land and judicial reforms will allow the improved and equitable access to land and justice for all, explicitly also for women and youth. Recommendation 1: Harmonise formal/modern land laws and traditional land management systems in an inclusive manner by including all actors and ensuring real ownership of decisions Who: state and local authorities How: Formal legal texts need to be disseminated, people need to be made aware of actual land laws and regulations (e.g. in Togo women have been excluded from the right to land based on traditional land management practices) without creating problems at community level. Recommendation 2: secure agricultural areas and implement structural investments (irrigation, storage, and conservation of products) for optimal use of agricultural land by women and young people Who: state and local authorities, with support from civil society and international organisations How: due to low economic returns from agriculture, farmers are selling off land they have received through individual property rights (in countries where land ownership was state-owned). This must be prevented by revaluing agriculture (which will restore the value of agricultural land) and by regulating investment in real estate. Recommendation 3: integrate Indigenous Peoples' visions of land tenure (specific to Spanish-language dialogue) Who: governments, civil society, and international organizations How: national land policies need to take into account biodiverse communal lands considered by the indigenous populations as ancestral/community lands and ensure their integrity and protection via legislation. Recommendation 4: Develop permanent dialogues between land custodians (i.e. landowners), land users and local authorities so that access to land is facilitated. Who: state and local authorities How: development and cooperation agencies can contribute with dialogues and information management, so that marginalised groups (Indigenous Peoples, Women, Youth) are aware of their rights, and of tools such as the “Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas". Recommendation 5: Carry out the cadastre in order to have a national land file to be able to monitor and verify land transactions to avoid land selloffs, land grabbing and land speculation. Who: state and local authorities, with support from civil society and international organisations How: it is necessary to define/confirm production/agricultural areas and prohibit land transactions in these areas to other parties. Transparency related to large scale land investment (domestic and international) is essential: contracts should be made open (allocation of land rights, sales, payments for concessions, environmental impact assessments, M&E report) be made available by investors and concerned governments (host and target countries).236238239240241242243244245246249250251Discussion topic : Fair trade policies: Import, export and tax regimes in countries will allow farmers to focus on products that are competitive on national, regional and international markets. Recommendation 1: address urban migration by developing rural areas and providing the youth and women (gender mainstreaming) with meaningful jobs and income Who: policy makers, private sector How: this can be achieved by developing rural areas and decentralizing the rural system in order to address urban migration, by providing especially the youth and women (gender mainstreaming) with meaningful jobs and a fair income. The producers should be well organised to contribute to the rural development and be competitive in the food systems that affect them. Recommendation 2: build public-private-partnerships to foster policy-engagement and mobilize the marginalized voices Who: policy makers, civil society, private sector How: include civil society and private sector in order to widen policy-engagement on particular inefficiencies. This will make food systems more inclusive and relevant. Recommendation 3: present a clear agenda and incentives for the private sector to create an interface between informal and formal economies (formalize trade) Who: policy makers, civil society, private sector How: to formalize trade, there should be incentives for the private sector and an agreeable agenda, where it is clear what will be achieved, what actions are required and stakeholders this will affect. Recommendation 4: use a bottom-up-approach by reaching out to groups and networks of people to get all relevant information in statistics Who: governments, civil society How: the approach should be bottom-up and based on principles of fair-trade (safe working conditions, protecting the environment and transparency) and moving from informal to formal trade to capture all relevant information in statistics. Part of the solution would be to develop dialogue roundtables or other spaces through federations, cooperatives, farmers' associations, SME chambers, chambers of industry and commerce. Recommendation 5: it is necessary to have standards and transparency with an effective monitoring mechanism to which all actors commit (producers & consumers) Who: an international organization (potentially WTO) How: it is necessary to adopt standards and transparency. There needs to be a clear baseline and a set of indicators for tracking progress. We need to check, if the WTO should be mandated to pick this up as a key task. Recommendation 6. Reduce tax, allow lower tariffs and less charges on products for producers and consumers to ensure fairer prices (customs unions and governments) Who: national governments and customs unions How: it is necessary to reduce taxes and remove unnecessary trade procedures and cost from products. To achieve this, actors like customs unions and governments should find actionable solutions and measures. Trade should be used to promote sustainable development, and improvement of production systems with producers at its core. Recommendation 7: Simplify cross-border-trade Who: national governments, with support from civil society and international organisations How: through facilitation of borderless alliances using a certification system and a uniform set of rules on products (cacao, palm oil), as well as lower border taxes for sustainable products (e.g. reducing CO2-emissions). Governments and trade unions should analyse international trade instruments (tariff policies) between countries to make them contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).236238239241242243245246248249Discussion topic : Reliable data & certification: a national system on accurate, safe and reliable data and certification of agricultural products will inform legal frameworks and resource allocation. Recommendation 1: hold dialogues to inform and map data and stakeholder landscapes - who is capable to provide/collect data by what means/tools, who is interested in using data, is there a platform to match these two) Who: national governments How: bring together the 100 most relevant actors in data/certification space within a country. These consultations can be used as a base for digital strategy and data platform(s). During the discussion the actors need to identify which data is needed immediately, and which data is still valid after a year or ten. The actors providing their data should be aware of the benefits of this action. As an example of incentives, it could be - in countries without health benefits - to provide health insurance to all producers involved in data delivery actions. Recommendation 2: develop national digital strategies, policy, and legal framework Who: should be led by a public/private body, with leadership from representatives of the different social/productive organisations How: based on the outcomes of key stakeholder dialogues governments need to develop Digital Strategies (including data architecture: how data is organized and used for policy making), establish independent certification bodies/ expert panels to validate data before sharing (symbiotic relationship between the certification bodies and the National Institute of Statistics helps to reduce the costs of certification), and identify required capacity building/training on the job/coaching (strengthening institutions with the right skills and tools). All data should be shared unless embargoed (needs protection) Recommendation 3: invest in appropriate infrastructure to support digital solutions Who: Ministries of Infrastructure / Communications + private actors (mobile companies) How: national governments need to invest in mobile networks and power access, as well as ensure connectivity to digital data services (foreseeing demand and the need for scale).236238239240241242243244245246249251Discussion topic : Conducive research partnerships: international agricultural research partnerships take into account regional contexts and make their findings available to all. Recommendation 1: research partnerships need to adopt a participatory approach Who: civil society, academia, farmers, consumers How: The participants of the group discussions agreed that local stakeholders (especially farmers and consumers) should have a stronger voice in agricultural research. The decision on the orientation of research should not be left to governments but involve civil society actors to assure that research is based on real demand. Research itself should be organized as a participatory process with a strong role for local actors. This setup needs mechanisms of participation and enabling spaces; some may already exist (for example farmer field schools), some may have to be developed. A continuous exchange between research and application should lead to innovations that are in the interest of all stakeholders. Recommendation 2: it is critical that research organizations share research results Who: academia, civil society, international organisations How: research results should be made freely available, exchange and cross-learning should be encouraged, transparency is key. This also ensures that existing knowledge is considered. One of the break-out groups stated that research results should be used for advocacy of an agroecological transformation of food systems. Recommendation 3: research partnerships need to rethink the role of donors Who: governments in the North and international institutions How: dependence on funding from the North is problematic for a number of research partnerships. Rather than define research priorities, governments in the North and international institutions should act as facilitators accompanying local processes. Donors should increase support for agricultural research that takes into account the priorities of the Global South. Recommendation 4: research organizations and key stakeholders need to question the research focus Who: academia, civil society, international organizations, consumers How: The discussion participants agreed that research should be demand-led and that it should involve all relevant disciplines. There was not a clear agreement whether agroecology should be the guiding principle. One of the break-out groups mentioned neglected species and livestock farming as important research topics that should not be overlooked. Recommendation 5: research partnerships need to ensure participatory monitoring and evaluation of the findings Who: academia, civil society, international organizations, governments, and consumers How: participatory monitoring and evaluation empowers actors to demand accountability. While it makes sense to use internationally recognized indicators (such as those associated with the SDGs), participants of the dialogues underlined that regional and local indicators and development strategies should also be taken into account.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Discussion topic : Agroecological farming and intact natural resources: an agroecological diversification of production and low-impact farming practices will reduce the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs; switching to locally adapted landscape approaches will allow for (cost-)efficient food production. Recommendation 1: launch a peer-to-peer program focused on application of agroecological concepts for farmers (potentially also for other actors in the food system). Who: local governments, civil society, producers, farmer organizations How: this would require in-person exchange and inclusion of the farmer communities (both small holder farmers, as well as large scale exemplary farmers). Recommendation 2: deliver training and knowledge management resources via a digital platform Who: local governments, academia, civil society, donors willing to fund the development, rollout, and maintenance of the platform. How: the digital platform would enable peer to peer exchange, as well as collect and operationalize agricultural data. Having a peer-to-peer element at its core the platform would enable the actors to not only share, but also co-produce knowledge related to agroecology. Building networks around agroecology and developing a collection of good/ best practices could then also influence relevant policy change towards agroecological principles. It is important that there is a dedicated space on the platform for women/ women’s groups/ female farmers Recommendation 3: at the public policy level it is necessary to generate actions to promote agroecology with governmental support. Who: national governments How: governments can provide technical (including quality) and financial support to producers for the promotion of agroecological product consumption and shorter value chains; improve the accessibility of roads and distribution routes for agroecological products; ensure policies are disseminated to relevant stakeholders and producers using media. Recommendation 4: promote development of green finance to contribute to the development of agroecology. Who: UN, development banks, national governments How: The UN has created a line of financing contributing to sustainable development by mitigating the effects of climate change. Development banks at the national level also manage this financial model, which needs to be made more widely accessible to national level agroecological producers. Recommendation 5: orient nations towards sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity; guide territorial planning considering the potential for land use, generating a balance between conservation of natural resources and development. Who: national governments (National Protected Areas Service, Ministry of Environment and Water and the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands), academia, international organizations and civil society. How: in order to make the landscape approach practical and applicable on the ground, the stakeholders will need to be clearly identified at different levels – local, regional, and global with their roles being identified clearly and linkages between and among them. It is important to consider “hotspots” - priority conservation areas and intact resources, which contain high biodiversity. National governments should consider enhancing these environmental functions and orienting towards a sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity, such as wild cocoa, açai, jatata, etc. - food systems that enhance the use of forest resources. It is also important to strengthen the interface between academic research and the needs for information and responses to the different problems on the part of local governments.237One of the areas of divergence included the role of subsidies in achieving fair prices. The participants had different views on how to ensure that subsidies do not distort markets and how to ensure communities understand the approach behind subsidies for farming systems. The groups discussing fair prices highlighted that the pros and cons of subsidies need to be better understood as some form of “smart subsidies’ may in fact contribute to fair prices. The positive application of subsidies includes: * use of subsidies as incentives over a transition period towards sustainability; * subsidies to farmers for application of ecosystem services (agroecology) in the communities In the French language dialogues participants brought up the question of how can stakeholders ensure a transparent and constructive dialogue when there is an asymmetry of power between the actors? What support should be given to producer and consumer organisations for quality participation in business dialogues and in dialogues with public authorities to influence food and nutrition policies? It was discussed that potentially the role of removing the power imbalances may rest with the donors. The donors should support the creation of level dialogue by including all relevant stakeholders and having specific objectives for each group (consideration of social, economic, health and ecological aspects). In the Spanish language groups a strong area of concern is linked to rural-urban migration and the increase of the urban population. Some groups had shared that the migration could be the cause of additional environmental problems, more poverty, greater vulnerability, and additional risk scenarios. It was stressed in a number of break-out groups that national governments need to address the issue and build stronger linkages between the rural-urban populations, preventing migration to the cities. The groups also brought up the question of trust in technologies, especially with new technologies such as blockchain tech, and how in the use of digital there remains a focus on top-down solutions.

2021-07-06 18:42:28205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12530/44

1405090252351527709355015

Se ha organizado invitando a múltiples actores de distintos sectores a lo largo de nuestro país, para reforzar el principio de “adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés” donde se logra convocar a: académicos, agricultores, funcionarios públicos, representantes de empresas privadas, jóvenes universitarios, representantes de pueblos originarios, entre otros, para obtener comentarios y percepciones desde la diversidad que tienen los sistemas alimentarios a nivel nacional, de esta manera “reconocer las complejidades” de estos en la salud humana, la naturaleza y su biodiversidad, vinculado al enfoque de nuestros programas gubernamentales hacia una transformación de sistemas alimentarios para alcanzar dietas saludables para todos y todas. Además, consideramos el principio de actuación de “Promover la confianza”, y de “Actuar con urgencia” para apoyar y aportar a los compromisos de Chile para el logro de los ODS al 2030.Se realiza la sesión de apertura y bienvenida por los miembros organizadores del gobierno y FAO, invitando a los participantes a opinar libre y activamente, con énfasis en lo valioso de todas las intervenciones para un avance en conjunto a nivel nacional que permita transformar el sistema alimentario chileno. A continuación se realiza una presentación donde se exponen los objetivos de la Cumbre. Se realiza la sesión informativa de las administradoras del diálogo. Luego se pasa a una sección de grupos para trabajar en subtemas, incentivando a que todos opinen, manteniendo un ambiente respetuoso y aceptando la diversidad de puntos de vista, dejando registro de cada comentario con aprobación de quién lo emitió. Se mantiene anonimato de cada comentario emitido. Las preguntas realizadas estaban orientadas a identificar la problemática del sistema alimentario en cada subtema, posibles soluciones a corto, mediano y largo plazo. Además, quiénes deben participar en dichas soluciones, qué herramientas se puede utilizar para lograr las soluciones y finalmente un resumen con los acuerdos de soluciones identificadas como las más relevantes para cada grupo. Posteriormente se pasa a una plenaria donde se exponen los resúmenes de lo dialogado en cada grupo. Para finalizar se realiza el cierre del evento con palabras de autoridades, poniendo énfasis en la importancia de la partición de todas y todas para mejorar nuestro sistema alimentario nacional.Se recomienda que se invite a múltiples actores a los diálogos, de manera de conocer la diversidad de los puntos de vista y aterrizar las realidades de cada sector para lograr acuerdos fortalecedores y metas claras. Además, que el mayor tiempo se destine al trabajo en grupo, donde se puede dialogar y debatir las temáticas específicas.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249"Sistemas Alimentarios sostenibles que permitan garantizar el acceso a dietas saludables, promoviendo políticas públicas de producción y consumo, y mediante la creación de entornos alimentarios escolares y comunitarios más saludables, así como el cuidado del medio ambiente”235238239240241242243244245246247248249Muchos de los comentarios plantean que la creación de la nueva Constitución en Chile es una oportunidad para incorporar las temáticas de sistemas alimentarios saludables y sostenibles, el derecho a la alimentación adecuada como un derecho humano, y la producción con respecto a la naturaleza, resguardando los recursos naturales como suelo, agua y biodiversidad. Se plantea también incluir estos temas en leyes vinculadas a una alimentación saludable, con pertinencia social, territorial y cultural. También se destaca el desconocimiento general de la población sobre lo que significa una alimentación saludable, la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios y su vínculo con el medio ambiente. Otro punto relevante que se considera es la necesidad de reconocer la malnutrición en todas sus formas, y especialmente la obesidad, como una enfermedad. Mientras que, a nivel profesional, se destaca que hay desconocimiento del vínculo de la alimentación saludable, con las tradiciones culturales y el territorio. Como solución a estas problemáticas se determinó que el factor de Educación es importante y que se debe educar desde la base y a lo largo del curso de vida. Desde la primera infancia, hasta la educación universitaria, con profesionales vinculados a las áreas de salud y de las ciencias naturales y sociales. Se reconoce la diversidad del territorio y por lo mismo, que sus problemáticas deben ser resueltas mirando políticas públicas ajustadas a las necesidades locales. Además, se destaca la importancia de los pueblos originarios en la producción sostenible, local y con identidad, lo que podría permitir fortalecer la soberanía alimentaria. Para esto es importante vincular proyectos y programas con ellos de forma participativa, respetando sus tradiciones y aportarles con innovación y tecnologías. Como un intercambio de experiencias y saberes en pro a mejorar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios. A su vez, se resalta la importancia de mejorar las condiciones de los pequeños agricultores, pescadores y las pequeñas empresas, donde la problemática es el modelo actual del sistema agropecuario que está enfocado más bien en la producción convencional. Se plantea como solución, dar más acceso a los pequeños y medianos productores a la comercialización de productos, lo que permitiría potenciar la agricultura y pesca con una producción más sostenible y con respeto a la naturaleza. Otro de los puntos relevantes dentro de la problemática, fue la falta de información y comunicación de alimentación saludable, acceso físico a esta, las definiciones y caracterización de desiertos, pantanos y oasis alimentarios y la temática de pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos. Todas ellas tenían en común como solución, generar una “líneas base”, para hacer un diagnóstico de la situación actual e implementar las mejoras en base a datos concretos y fijando metas claras. Finalmente, se cree que toda solución debe venir acompañada de la participación de todos los actores de la cadena agroalimentaria, asegurando tanto de la participación comunitaria como el nivel científico. Las políticas públicas que se generen deben ser inclusivas y a la vez debe existir un mecanismo de monitoreo con planteamiento de objetivos intersectoriales.236238239240241242243244246247248249DERECHO A LA ALIMENTACIÓN ✔Elaborar marco regulatorio de la alimentación y promover dietas saludables, con protección del sistema agroalimentario a nivel internacional, nacional y local ✔Incorporar en el proceso constituyente y en la Constitución el Derecho a la Alimentación ✔Fomentar leyes que promuevan la alimentación saludable y acceso económico y físico a los alimentos saludables ACCESO FÍSICO Y ECONÓMICO A ALIMENTOS SANOS Y NUTRITIVOS ✔Mejorar acceso con puntos de venta de alimentos sanos con foco en escuelas y zonas con pantanos y desiertos alimentarios ✔Generar nuevos instrumentos y fondos para georreferenciar las ferias libres/puntos verdes ✔Implementar Política Nacional de Alimentación y Nutrición existente ✔Acortar cadena de intermediación mediante generación de alianzas y fomentar circuitos cortos ✔Escalar proyectos ya realizados CREAR RESILIENCIA ANTE LAS VULNERABILIDADES, LAS CONMOCIONES Y LAS TENSIONES ✔Establecer mesas públicas-privadas con mecanismos de participación vinculante de la sociedad civil, en la creación de políticas públicas alimentarias inclusivas ✔Crear sistemas de seguimiento/evaluación de los compromisos de tratados, convenios, y protocolos ratificados por Chile. Promover participación de organizaciones fiscalizadoras para rendición de cuentas en políticas alimentarias GOBERNANZA E INSTITUCIONALIDAD ✔Fortalecer la política pública con enfoque intersectorial ✔Incorporar un enfoque de gobernanza local, que fortalezca las capacidades de los territorios y actores ✔Monitoreo/evaluación de la política pública ✔Mejorar indicadores sobre los alimentos saludables para la evaluación LA INDUSTRIA EN LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS Y LA PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE ✔Crear/mejorar institucionalidad y regulaciones para producción sostenible con fiscalización efectiva y aplicación de sanciones por incumplimiento de normativas ✔Fomentar la economía circular en el sistema agroalimentario como una política pública ✔Invertir en investigación/tecnologías para la producción de alimentos saludables y protección de la biodiversidad SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS, EQUIDAD DE GÉNERO Y MEDIOS DE VIDA EQUITATIVOS ✔Acción intersectorial enfocada en poblaciones vulnerables ✔Formación técnica a tomadores de decisión y elaborar un diagnóstico con enfoque transversal de género y mirada intersectorial ✔Visibilidad y valoración de trabajadores/as del sector agroalimentario y en sectores no productivos PÉRDIDAS Y DESPERDICIOS DE ALIMENTOS (PDA) ✔Establecer línea base de PDA, mejorar conocimientos y coordinación entre actores y visión sistémica con una herramienta digital ✔Relevar la Comisión Nacional de PDA para lograr un trabajo intersectorial para impulsar políticas públicas y generar plan nacional ✔Movilizar al estado para mayor voluntad política en relación a PDA, liderado por organizaciones sociales ✔Invertir en investigación/innovación, análisis cualitativo/cuantitativo de desperdicios ✔Implementar microbancos de alimentos ✔Ley de incentivos para que empresas tengan planes para ODS y ley REP aplicada a PDA SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS TRADICIONALES, PUEBLOS ORIGINARIOS, Y PRODUCTOS ANCESTRALES Y SALUDABLES EN EL COMERCIO NACIONAL E INTERNACIONAL ✔Reconocer el Derecho a la Alimentación con identidad ✔Diálogo de sistema alimentario con los pueblos originarios. Escuchar saber alimentario ancestral ✔Fomentar instituciones que puedan velar por el uso de alimentos ancestrales ✔Reforzar modelos productivos ancestrales, su alimentación, y conservación de semillas con planes territoriales ✔Promover mercados de pueblos originarios y asesorar a los productores indígenas para que puedan producir de mayor volumen, con trabajo decente, empleo verde y comercio justo. Asegurar que consumidores sepan si los alimentos apoyan los pueblos indígenas, conservan recursos y la diversidad IMPACTO DE SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS EN LA SALUD, PROGRAMAS ALIMENTARIOS, Y EDUCACIÓN ✔Lograr consenso social para implementar regulaciones como impuesto alimentos no saludables ✔Implementar política que trasciendan gobiernos ✔Reconocer la obesidad como enfermedad ✔Volver a la alimentación natural y ancestral ✔Descentralizar los recursos relacionados con la alimentación237238239240241242244246247249Dentro del diálogo se habla bastante sobre la educación como una solución frente a las problemáticas de sistemas alimentarios relacionado con salud, nutrición y medio ambiente, y que hay que enseñar desde la primera infancia a cómo elegir los alimentos, lo que son las dietas saludables y la producción sostenible. Es este grupo quienes son clave para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en el futuro. Es por esto que se planteó la necesidad de involucrar a niños, niñas y adolescentes en los diálogos y en la discusión en general, generando instancias que los integren y que sus voces sean escuchadas. Uno de los grandes temas de discusión fue el mejoramiento del modelo de agricultura actual, tanto desde la producción como la comercialización. Se considera que los pueblos originarios, los pescadores artesanales y la pequeña agricultura familiar, juegan un rol fundamental para mejorar el modelo a una forma más sostenible, resiliente y con respecto a la naturaleza. Por otra parte, también surgió el tema del comercio internacional, que puede lograr una mayor disponibilidad y precios más competitivos de productos. Se requiere reiterar los compromisos de los países para garantizar comercio internacional fluido, transparente, y abierto. Por último, si bien se reconocen los avances de Chile en políticas alimentarias, se menciona que, si bien hay información de las temáticas tratadas y varios programas públicos en beneficio al desarrollo sostenible y la alimentación saludable, se considera que no hay una efectiva comunicación ya que la población en la práctica no cumple con las recomendaciones alimentarias, Además muchas veces el enfoque de los programas y proyectos no están bien vinculados al territorio y las necesidades específicas de una localidad. Además, se comenta que diferentes actores del Estado tienen políticas que se solapan pero que no conversan, por lo que falta mayor coordinación entre diferentes políticas del sistema alimentario. En conclusión, se solicita mayores esfuerzos para la efectividad de los programas públicos, con miras a mejorar los sistemas alimentarios, la salud de las personas y la sostenibilidad de los territorios, incluyendo a todos y todas.

2021-07-06 21:06:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22368/203194

2816174005230353017201020130008002000502011000205010

The session opened with a reminder of the purpose of the UNFSS Independent Dialogue sessions. Attendees were reminded of the seven principles, how to engage with one another, and to draw upon ideas that are applicable, replicable, and scalable.The group of stakeholders for this Dialogue represented a wide range of sectors and stakeholder groups. In order to encourage the Principles, facilitators reminded participants to allow for pause in between contributions, so that everyone felt comfortable sharing. Participants were also reminded that lived experiences are a form of expertise and that it was appropriate to tell specific stories that related to the questions and topic.

Yes

234238247248249251The focus of this dialogue was on solving hunger and improving levels of nutrition, enabling all people to maintain nourishing and healthy lives. This group of stakeholders represented a range of community members from Northeast, Pennsylvania. All of these stakeholders were involved in emergency food systems, either directly or indirectly. The opportunity to participate in this dialogue served as a chance to reflect on food systems, solving food and nutrient security, addressing issues surrounding poverty, and reflecting on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. In this way, the convener and facilitator tried to keep this conversation “close to the ground,” highlighting real experiences of food insecurity and grassroots efforts to address them.235238247248249251Reducing the stigma associated with food insecurity is a primary goal and necessary step in delivering on zero hunger and building healthy food systems. When people associate shame with food insecurity, they are more likely to hesitate to come forward and receive what they need in order to raise healthy children, maintain quality of life, and address the other challenges they face. Individuals working in emergency food systems need to be able to be creative and address the systemic issues that contribute to food insecurity. When serving food insecure people, the structure and programs in place should prioritize dignity. When individuals visit food pantries or receive food donations, they need to have agency, choice, and be respected first and foremost. This requires communities to understand and dismantle the assumptions we hold about poverty and food insecurity. For instance, childhood food insecurity is an adverse experience that can contribute to trauma, having lifelong effects. Food emergency systems must recognize the importance of how we address and ensure that young people receiving food know that they can look to their future with pride. With this, all community members should be equipped to solve poverty-related hunger within their realm. In order to build a network together, the lived experiences of individuals, particularly those that have faced adversity or experienced food insecurity themselves, needs to be acknowledged, valued, and respected. Finally, all community supports and institutions need to be equipped to screen for and address food insecurity in innovative ways. This includes academic institutions, healthcare settings, local businesses, and employers of all types. Screening for hunger and having a community structure in place to refer people is necessary. Too often organizations work in silos, and collaboration is necessary to deliver on zero hunger.236238247248249251This conversation was a very productive time for stakeholders in Northeast Pennsylvania, United States, to get to know each other. In this way, the outcomes represent actions steps that are immediate and applicable to that context. (1) This region is rich in academic institutions that will improve opportunities for educational scholarships for students facing food insecurity and grow emergency food distribution programs in the next six months. This is a critical step of equipping future generations to envision their future with pride and to know that their participation in delivering on zero hunger is critical. (2) Continue to build partnerships and efficient supply chains between small businesses, regional farmers, and food emergency systems over the next two years. Advocate and efficiently use funding provided for the Pennsylvania Agricultural Surplus System (PASS), a state-specific initiative that provides money to purchase produce from area farmers for the food insecure. These funds should prioritize fruits and vegetable purchase from regional growers and fair prices, and even more so, aim to support small growers and those from marginalized backgrounds. This produce is then redistributed to Food Bank and food pantries so that clients have fresh, quality, local produce. Restaurants also process this produce to create foods that are more accessible for the unhoused and those with limited cooking equipment. (3) Ensure that the education of healthcare workers and nutrition professions is one where they understand, deeply, the connection between food insecurity and community health. These future workers should know how to screen for food insecurity, reduce the stigma associated with it, and prioritize dignity in how they interact with and care for clients.237238247248249251There was some potential divergence in the PASS purchasing program when considering where funds should be allocated, to support small versus large growers and what is the most beneficial to the regional and state economy, in a sustainable manner, in the long run. Some of the language and terms used in the dialogue, such as “dignity” and “stigma” may mean different things to different people. While there could be areas of disagreement in practice and it may be challenging to measure the effectiveness of promoting “dignity” within a food emergency program, this UNFSS Dialogue session believes that it is still incredibly important to value this conversation and continue to commit to learning together. In the end, building resilient food systems and delivering on zero hunger is work that happens, first and foremost, in relationships. Therefore, having these conversations together so that we can understand each other, is an important step towards that direction. Researchers and policymakers should remember the importance of these conversations, in prioritizing the lived experiences of those impacted by inequities in our food system, and value input from people on the ground. As a coalition, and specifically as a coalition of workers in Northeast, Pennsylvania, in the United States, we will inevitably come across disagreements, but we must prioritize our work as a coalition and always seek to understand and learn from one another first.

2021-07-06 23:07:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11787/41

20305120361055201612442010

By including the word “Emergency” in the title of our forum, we framed the entirety of our discussion in the context of “acting with urgency.” We used the action tracks as the basis for organizing the breakout groups of our first session, thereby “committing to the summit.” We invited speakers and participants from all parts of our regional food sector, thereby “recognizing complexity” and “embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity.” We invited those with expertise on particular aspects of the food system to talk about their projects and allowed participants to form relationships with these experts in breakout sessions. In this way we “complemented the work of others” and “built trust” among those we engaged.By including the word “Emergency” in the title of our forum, we framed the entirety of our discussion in the context of “acting with urgency.” We used the action tracks as the basis for organizing the breakout groups of our first session, thereby “committing to the summit.” We invited speakers and participants from all parts of our regional food sector, thereby “recognizing complexity” and “embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity.” We invited those with expertise on particular aspects of the food system to talk about their projects and allowed participants to form relationships with these experts in breakout sessions. In this way we “complemented the work of others” and “built trust” among those we engaged.We had in attendance stakeholders from all parts of our local food system. Throughout the forum, our speakers and facilitators guided these participants in building trust with each other, while having the opportunity to learn about, and complement, each other’s work. In our first session, we had participants choose specific action tracts from the UN Food Systems Summit to focus on, prompting them to think about their work within the context of these levers of systemic change. We embedded our forum within the framework of the Human Right to Food and The Dish with One Spoon Wampum Covenant, which calls for mutual respect and the equitable sharing of resources among all of those who live in the Great Lakes region, which includes the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario, Canada). This supported focusing on sustainability, inclusivity for people of many cultures and decent livelihoods for all workers and producers in the food system.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249251The Emergency Food Forum started in 2019, with the realization that our land, soil,  food, and food supply are being threatened by destructive farming practices, delicate global supply chains, exploitative labour practices and rapidly changing climate. The first EFF was convened to build a community of individuals that wanted to take action in creating a healthy, sustainable and resilient food system. In March of 2020, over 100 people and 73 organizations gathered online to discuss the breakdown of our food supply and the growing food and economic insecurity the COVID-19 pandemic was causing. On April 14, 21 & 28, 2021 we held the 3rd annual Ontario Emergency Food forum to continue the conversation, review the lessons of 2020 and build on our successes for a better, more resilient and just food system. At the EFF this year, we focused on identifying issues and generating actionable solutions while looking through lenses of equity and human rights, the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Covenant, Black and Indigenous food sovereignty, the UN Action tracks, and the Human Right to Food.235238239240241242244246247249251In order to organize and identify gaps and possibilities we created a spreadsheet of food system solutions. The sheet was first separated into eight different goals or intentions that had been drawn out during our break-out groups, as well as continuing conversations from the Emergency Food Forum of 2020 (ex. Indigenous Access to Local Land Spaces, Policy Demands, and Food Awareness and Literacy etc.). Under each goal we included three columns: role, resource, need, opportunity; person, organization, strategy to offer; and groups or organizations already connected to this work. The first two columns would be filled by someone offering or looking for something, and the third could be filled by another person who sees how this offer/ask fits in somewhere else. This provides an opportunity for networking and identifying gaps and opportunities. Some key areas of interest for our participants included a) collaborating and supporting existing BIPOC food sovereignty initiatives, b) building the capacity of our “Food Corps,” which helps provides labour for small-scale agro-ecological farmers and healthy food for hungry food insecure communities, c) the creation of a farm training curriculum for our volunteers, d) calling for urgent action from our government regarding the current food crisis in the form of an open letter (see attached).236238239240241242244246247249251The first session introduced two lenses through which participants could discuss the food system: The Dish with One Spoon Treaty and the Human Right to Food. The first half of the event was spent familiarizing participants with these lenses, as well as with the ongoing work of the Eco Just Food Network.  The participants were then invited to attend one of five breakout rooms based on the five Action Tracks. Each group had at least one facilitator and one note taker and all participants were encouraged to view and add to a virtual white board. After their discussion, the group’s designated note takers and facilitators gave summaries of what their breakout groups had talked about.236238244247248251Group 1: Access to Safe and Nutritious Food (framed by Action Track 1) This group began by discussing the different ways we grow food, whether that be in soil, or using hydroponics or aeroponics, then went on to speak in more detail about the benefits of non-soil based agriculture such as increasing yield and preserving forested land. The group also talked about the limitations of food banks in addressing the food needs of diverse communities. Participants spoke of the experience of using food banks, feeling watched, judged, and not having access to healthy or culturally relevant food choices. Finally, the group talked about the challenges of living in capitalism and ways to overcome or mitigate those challenges. Some options were discussed like a universal basic income as well as time banks and other alternative economies.236239245246247Group 2: Ecological Consumption (framed by Action Track 2) First, this group talked about what ecological consumption meant to everyone: consuming and growing foods native to the lands we’re on, ensuring living wages and good working conditions for agricultural workers, transparency in the entire chain of production to consumption. They also provided a breakdown of sustainable consumption in our notes. The group then discussed their struggles to consume sustainably during the pandemic, characterized by an increase in online services and use of plastic. If one is trying to consume in an ecologically friendly way, their choices are often limited. One might have to choose between going plastic-free, local, or organic, but rarely get the option to have all three. Time banking was once again proposed as one way of shifting the frameworks of who/what we value in our economic system. Other forms of alternative markets, such as buy-nothing groups, were also mentioned, and the concept of mutual aid came up time after time.236240245247248249Group 3: Ecological Production (framed by Action Track 3) This group started by defining ecological production, as well as talking about the importance of mother earth and grandmother water. Different forms of economies were also discussed by this group, focusing on sharing economies, but also talking about cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology as decentralized, egalitarian ways of sharing equity. The group then moved to a discussion of land and land use. They talked about seed sharing, genetics of plants and animals being held in a commons, getting more people to farms, getting young people on farm land, providing resources and access to land, as well as the importance of shifting subsidies away from big agriculture and to supporting local, enriching farming practices.236241244247251Group 4: Work, Income, and the Food System (framed by Action Track 4) First, this group identified two trends in agriculture today:  1. Regenerative agriculture: low tech, lots of manual labour and 2. Digital/automated agriculture: high tech, data-driven. The group discussed the need to embrace helpful technology while also fostering employment and keeping a sacred connection to the land, this being particularly true for communities in Northern Canada. Farmers talked about how difficult it can be to get started or to even gain a foot-hold in the food system. There is a simultaneous need in urban communities for healthy food and often an abundance of it for farmers at harvest, so what is necessary is to bring these folks together. Time banking, as well as the Food Corps program being offered by the Eco Just Food Network, were discussed. Some of the concerns around time banking were issues around trust, reciprocity, as well as the difficulty of getting folks to move away from values based on our current economic system.236242243246247Group 5: Food System Resilience (Framed by action Track 5) This group started off by looking at resilience as a historical system built over time, but also shared different views of what resilience can look and feel like. Two important questions came up: 1. Do we need new systems or do we need to work with what we already have today? 2. How can we do both? The group agreed that our current agricultural system has made us less resilient, and that there is a great need for education about all of this, as well as a need to organize together. The group ended with a discussion about the power of stories and storytelling and the importance of grounding our work in our material conditions and our lived realities. They emphasized that the food system needs to be a system of relationships and not rooted in elitism and corporate power.236239243244245246247Session Two The second session was meant to get participants not simply talking about the problems we are facing, but “cultivating solutions” to those problems together. The first set of breakout rooms encouraged folks to think of solutions together, while the second set focused on “driving policy change” in the food system.  Group 1: Time Banking & Alternative Economies This group started with an overview of the Eco Just Food Network’s Food Corps program, which connects folks from urban communities to rural farmers in need of help. This led to a discussion of the program’s use of a time bank, as well as of how that time bank connects to the St. James Town Community Co-op’s time bank. The reciprocity of this relationship, as well as reciprocity as one of the foundational concepts of time banking was also discussed. The group also talked about how living inside a capitalist system shapes our attitude towards work such that we need these alternative economic systems to make it easier for us to recognize and reward the labour that keeps our communities and our food system going. 236241244246247251Group 2: Co-operative, Alternative Food, and Land Access  This group discussed concrete ways of getting around lack of access, such as collective ownership models and land trusts. They gave examples of organizations doing this work like Local Food and Farm Co-op, St. James Town Community Co-op, Liberating Lawns, and the Eco Just Food Network. They also enumerated obstacles farmers face to land access such as bureaucratic red tape and zoning requirements. 236238239240241242244245246247248249250251Group 3: Black Food Sovereignty and Cultural Food This group began by talking about everyone’s ancestral background as well as where each of the participants was coming from in their work. They discussed the history of food on this land and how colonization also brought foreign food which did not naturally grow here before. The great diversity on this land, both in food and in the people living here today was of particular significance to this group. Upcoming actions and events around Black food sovereignty were also mentioned as a way for participants to keep the ball rolling.  Group 4: Climate Change, Urban Agriculture, and Infrastructure This group talked about problems with zoning, red tape, and bureaucracy when dealing with accessing growing space in the city. They also talked about ongoing actions to mitigate the impacts of climate change on our communities, such as St. James Town Community Co-op’s OASIS Food Hub. Another possible solution discussed was to partner with existing institutions who already have access to space, such as schools, businesses, or faith buildings.  Another issue the group outlined is the lack of support from local politicians who too often say all the right things but have not been following through on their promises to our organizations. Ways of applying pressure to politicians such as creating campaigns were also discussed.  Group 5: UN Food Summit and Canadian Policy The group first went over the 5 UN Action Tracks, then built on that with some of their personal experiences working in food policy.  Participants mentioned the belief that our local governments in Ontario are actively getting in the way of helpful initiatives, as opposed to other places in the world which can sometimes be more welcoming and supportive to their citizens. The group talked about the human rights abuses going on in Canada and proposed actionable solutions for holding our own dialogues and getting our story out there.  Group 6: Open Letter/GTA/Ontario This group talked about the open letter which can be found at the end of this report. The letter was written as a result of the previous Emergency Food Forum; consequently, part of the group’s discussion centred around how the letter has been used in the past year, how many individuals and organizations have signed on, and how to work on advancing and actioning the letter’s demands. Despite the government’s perceived eagerness to address our current climate crisis, the group felt that their local representatives were not doing enough to address the real needs of their constituents.  Group 7: Black Food Sovereignty  This group talked about the importance of engaging Black communities, especially Black youth around Toronto and the GTA in Black food sovereignty initiatives. The group stressed the significance in listening to communities who know what the problems are and often also have great plans for how to fix those problems.  During the pandemic, the government showed a lack of strategic planning and the importance of local, grassroots movements was evident. The group also discussed how to organize Black communities, especially in the context of the ongoing pandemic.236238239240241242243244245246247249Session Three The final session was spent organizing what next steps the participants could take to bring action to the previous sessions’ discussions. Participants broke up into three breakout groups: one focusing on direct action, one on local/regional policy, and one on international policy. The group on direct action focused on developing and growing our “Food Corps” team, which provides small-scale farmers with volunteering support and hungry urban communities with access to healthy food. The regional policy group discussed strategies for working with our municipal and provincial governments to address our urgent food crisis, through such means as our open letter (attached). The third group discussed how to involve ourself in the UN Food Systems Summit itself.237238244245246247One are of divergence we as organizers encountered was one between advocacy and action. Some participants felt strongly that action oriented solutions, such as our “Food Corps,” were best suited to tackling the current food crisis. Others in attendance saw political advocacy as the most effective method of change. As organizers we attempted to structure the dialogue so that participants could hear from speakers with expertise in both advocacy and action, and then choose breakout sessions related to which topic they preferred.

2021-07-07 00:40:54205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23493/120

3920822197113017022022213159512584341573112811357178103424231

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión transformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar y la interdependencia entre sectores. Además, en este diálogo hubo un co-convocante, que fue el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI).o Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de doce facilitadores. El equipo de facilitadores está compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), y la Organización de la Sociedad Civil Salud Justa. o Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso de la Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asista en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS). o Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo: En este diálogo participaron representantes de liderazgos indígenas de todo el país.Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos. Esto para mostrar la inclusividad del proceso. Además ha mostrado ser útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239240241243246247249251El objetivo del Diálogo fue Identificar las barreras y los retos para garantizar el derecho a la alimentación de los pueblos indígenas y afromexicanos e identificar las problemáticas, retos y áreas de oportunidad de los sistemas alimentarios indígenas para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios.235238239240241243246247249251El grupo coincidió sobre: a) Sistemas alimentarios y conocimientos tradicionales de los Pueblos Indígenas y Afromexicanos. • Evitar el desplazamiento de la alimentación culturalmente pertinente, principalmente por la publicidad de alimentos ultraprocesados, y los productos importados. • Generar proyectos de autosuficiencia alimentaria con capacitación e información sobre la alimentación sana. • Rescatar y promocionar la alimentación de la milpa, huertos familiares y granjas de traspatio con animales endémicos como las aves de corral, así como los cultivos y productos nativos. • Oficializar la Guía de Alimentación de la Dieta de la Milpa, pues no ha llegado a nivel normativo y es necesario. • Limitar el uso de agroquímicos y proteger las semillas nativas y criollas. • Fortalecer la transmisión del conocimiento alimentario y mejorar la percepción del valor de la comida tradicional. • Revalorizar la alimentación con pertenencia cultural desde las escuelas y centros de trabajo. • Contrarrestar la dificultad de transmisión del conocimiento que se deriva de la migración a las ciudades o a otros países. • Defender y reconocer los conocimientos tradicionales que poseen los productores y las productoras. • Incentivar la producción colectiva dentro de programas de la Secretaría de Bienestar, como Sembrando Vida, que tienen áreas de acompañamiento técnico. • Promover talleres de cocinas tradicionales con alimentos locales para hacer en casa. • Rescatar medicina tradicional y herbolaria (los nombres de vegetación y productos en ocasiones sólo están en lenguas originarias). • Desarrollar proyectos que promuevan los saberes y los conocimientos ancestrales para poder integrarse a las cadenas de valor. • Reconocer que no todos los conocimientos tradicionales pueden aportar a una sustentabilidad. • Incluir una educación intercultural para que desde pequeños(as) se involucren y valoren cómo se trabaja la tierra. • Disminuir gradualmente el uso de agroquímicos y promover abonos y fertilizantes 100% orgánicos para minimizar impactos al medio ambiente, y tener una producción de alimentos sostenibles. • Hacer frente a la introducción de cultivos transgénicos que ocasionan la desaparición gradual de los productos agropecuarios locales y elevan su dependencia de las patentes de semillas de las empresas transnacionales, provocando un alto endeudamiento. b) Derecho a la alimentación y tenencia de la tierra. • Proteger, respetar y validar los derechos indígenas y afromexicanos sobre los medios naturales (agua y tierra), conocimientos productivos, cultura y semillas nativas. • Garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, el acceso a semillas y tierras. • Dotar de certeza jurídica sobre títulos de la tierra. • Concientizar sobre la tenencia de la tierra para las mujeres, reconociendo que las situaciones de cada pueblo y comunidad son complejas. • Dificultad para acceder a pagos justos por sus productos. • Mejorar la instrumentación y eficiencia en los niveles locales para garantizar los derechos existentes y convenios firmados por la Organización Internacional de Trabajo (OIT). • Fortalecer legislaciones como la Ley del Maíz y revisar las contradicciones entre programas públicos, pues hay algunos que imponen el uso del maíz transgénico. • Reglamentar la Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable en el artículo 5to y 17, de seguridad y soberanía, con la atención prioritaria da zonas marginadas. • Tener certidumbre sobre la tenencia de la tierra para poder sembrar, producir y comercializar. • Armonizar el marco normativo con usos y costumbres de pueblos indígenas y facilitar la reglamentación de la tenencia de la tierra. • Diseñar mecanismos de acompañamiento para trámites de regularización de tierras que disminuyan las barreras idioma y distancias. • Proteger frente a factores externos como efectos del cambio climático, exceso de las industrias y los megaproyectos. • Generar estrategias del gobierno federal, estatal y municipal para fortalecer en las comunidades el derecho a la alimentación. • Generar mecanismos de oferta Estatal de alimentos saludables. c) Papel de las mujeres indígenas y afrodescendientes (transversal): • Dotarles de herramientas económicas y de comunicación a las mujeres indígenas y afrodescendientes para la transmisión y retención del conocimiento. • Que se apropien del conocimiento sobre sus derechos ejidatarios y temas de tenencia de tierras. • Promover el auto reconocimiento del valor cultural de sus sistemas alimentarios, y de la necesidad de mantener la transmisión de éstos. • Reconocer a las mujeres como principales cuidadoras de las semillas nativas, y del cultivo tradicional para generar apoyos específicos en la materia. • Buscar los mecanismos para que las mujeres logren el acceso equitativo a la tenencia de la tierra y a la producción de ésta. • Abrir espacios de comunicación y participación para las mujeres, donde se sientan seguras y motivadas. • Crear una red de mujeres indígenas para fortalecer sus derechos. • Mayor inclusión y defensa de los derechos de las mujeres indígenas dentro de las asambleas comunitarias.2362382432462472491. Retos y desafíos para garantizar el derecho a la alimentación de las comunidades indígenas y afro mexicanas ¿Qué son los alimentos culturalmente pertinentes? ¿cómo lograr que los alimentos sean culturalmente pertinentes en el sistema agroalimentario mexicano? Los alimentos culturalmente pertinentes son aquellos que: • Están en concordancia con las condiciones regionales, climáticas y medioambientales. • En armonía con las creencias, costumbres y actividades de la comunidad. • Están equilibrados, mínimamente procesados, con poco uso de agroquímicos y directamente relacionados con los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y nutritivos como la milpa. • Son endémicos y asociados con la agrobiodiversidad, influyen en la alimentación de la comunidad a través del tiempo. Para el logro se propuso: • Comercializar o intercambiar productos de traspatio, cultivados tradicionalmente de acuerdo a la zona. Apoyarse con promotores en la comunidad y/o desarrollar estos liderazgos. • Generar vínculos con unidades médica rurales, hospitales, proveedores de insumos, etc. • Mejorar medios y conocimiento para comercializar los productos. • Desarrollar pequeñas unidades productivas como viveros y cría de pollos. • Fortalecer las capacidades de las comunidades en: educación, interculturalidad; organización; captación de agua y separación de desechos. • Reivindicar los indicadores de la salud, mejoras en la dieta. Se dieron algunos ejemplos de programas: • Piloto “Vida Mejor” (53 comunidades en Chiapas) y Proyecto “Casa de la mujer, la niña y el niño” ¿Las comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas acceden a alimentos recomendables para la salud? Falta de acceso por: • Insuficientes recursos económicos. Alimentos de baja calidad pero a menor precio. • Condiciones orográficas adversas y tierras que no producen para satisfacer las necesidades. • Poca educación alimentaria, y sobre la alimentación tradicional. • No tener derecho a la tierra. • Lejanía de las comunidades. • Crisis climáticas, plagas y degradación de los suelos. • Insuficientes semillas orgánicas y apoyos a producción local. ¿Cuáles son las principales barreras para que sea garantizado su derecho a la alimentación? Zonas rurales • Desvalorización de trabajo agrícola: poco involucramiento de jóvenes en la producción • Competencia desleal en los precios y falta de pagos justos por los productos. • Requisitos excesivos o inadecuados en las reglas de operación de programas. • Problemas de tenencia de la tierra, el avance de la mancha urbana. Compra de terrenos por extranjeros, • Políticas públicas -algunas vigentes- que incentivan los monocultivos y el uso de agroquímicos. • Financiamiento inviable, no acorde a las posibilidades de las comunidades indígenas. Zonas urbanas • Migración y cambio en los patrones de consumo y alimentación. Creer que los alimentos de la ciudad son mejores. • Estigmatización de los alimentos tradicionales. • Publicidad de las agroindustrias a favor de los ultraprocesados. ¿Qué necesita el marco normativo actual para promover el derecho a la alimentación? Publicar: • Ley General para una Alimentación Adecuada. • Leyes para el cuidado de las semillas nativas. • La Guía de Alimentación de la Dieta de la Milpa. Regular: • El uso de agrotóxicos. • Los intermediarios. • Concesiones estatales en territorios indígenas para proyectos de gran escala y/o extractivos. • Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación con asignación suficiente para operar los programas. Priorizar: • Ejecución, evaluación y seguimiento del Programa Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas 2018-2024. • Acceso efectivo de las mujeres a la tenencia de la tierra. ¿Qué acciones se sugieren para garantizar el derecho a la alimentación? • Seguridad alimentaria como una política prioritaria del gobierno. • Identificar las cadenas de valor productivas y mejorar comercialización. • Economía circular dentro de las regiones. • Innovación social y tecnológica. • Capacitar a las comunidades en la producción de alimentos de la región. • Apoyos en caso de desastres naturales. • Autodeterminación y el respeto de los usos y costumbres, trueque. • Reivindicar el trabajo de campo y de2362382392402432462472492. Relación entre conocimientos y sistemas alimentarios indígenas con el conocimiento científico ¿Cuáles serían los conocimientos asociados a sistemas alimentarios indígenas y afromexicanos? Conocimientos asociados a: •Suelo y fertilidad. •Diversidad en los cultivos y las semillas y la rotación de éstos. •Del territorio y de frutos nativos. •Temporadas de siembra y las ceremonias Se señaló que: •Se debe valorar el conocimiento ancestral en la producción de alimentos. •El conocimiento científico y tradicional se pueden complementar. •Poseer semillas nativas genera un potencial de conocimiento. •Se debe respetar los fundamentos culturales, las raíces de identidad. •No todos los conocimientos tradicionales pueden aportar a la sustentabilidad. ¿Cómo se debe equilibrar la relación entre conocimientos indígenas y afromexicanos y conocimiento científico? ¿El extensionismo, y de qué tipo? El extensionismo ha sido importante porque: •Permite que los campesinos adquieran nuevos conocimientos respecto a las cadenas de valor. •Da seguimiento en el desarrollo de labores y las dudas que puedan llegar a surgir en los productores y productoras. El extensionismo necesita: •Ser participativo y comunitario reconociendo que el saber como extensionista es limitado al llegar a los territorios. •Ser respetuoso de costumbres de los pueblos y complementario al conocimiento tradicional. •Llevar a cabo evaluaciones continuas. •Regular el uso de herbicidas, •Ser cercano al campesino para saber si sus investigaciones son aptas. •Dar reconocimiento a los sistemas alimentarios indígenas, que en muchas ocasiones terminan apropiados por empresas. •Estar enfocado a necesidades reales, muchas veces no están enterados de las necesidades de la población. •Tener enfoque regional y local. Por ejemplo, Sembrando Vida sólo se estructuró para una región y no se adapta a todo el país. ¿Cómo incluir los conocimientos indígenas y afromexicanos para fortalecer las cadenas de valor locales? Fortalecer las cadenas de valor, a través de: •Destacar la importancia de los conocimientos tradicionales insertos en a la producción de alimentos pero sin ser reconocidos. •Apoyar a los mercados locales, la integración a las cadenas para reducir gastos, acortar los canales de distribución. •Promover las tiendas cooperativas para eliminar los intermediarios y obtener mejores precios. •Capacitar para el emprendimiento, la mejora en la presentación y procesamiento de los productos. ¿Por qué es importante la relación entre conocimientos indígenas y afromexicanos y conservación de la biodiversidad? •En los sistemas alimentarios indígenas se da el consumo de productos herbolarios, y ello promueve la conservación de plantas nativas. •Importancia del sistema de la milpa. •Los conocimientos indígenas restauran y conservan bosques y bienes naturales. •Dar apoyos de capacitación para crear abonos orgánicos. •Insistir en el papel de los pueblos indígenas en las zonas que producen alimentos para los territorios urbanos. ¿Cómo promover la recuperación de conocimientos indígenas y afromexicanos en el consumo de alimentos? •Incentivar la participación y organización de grupos de personas con conocimiento y poseedores de prácticas tradicionales (referencia al proyecto del Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas INPI, PROBIPI). •Promover en ferias, eventos, talleres, foros los proyectos que tengan el objetivo de preservar los saberes indígenas y afroamericanos. •Incentivar en los institutos proyectos para la recuperación de alimentos y conocimientos, por ejemplo la larga tradición de cultivo orgánico. •Partir de la base del valor de los conocimientos indígenas en cuestión de la alimentación y producción. •Generar los bancos de semillas y su intercambio. •Promover desde los mercados locales, y apoyarse de medios electrónicos y digitales. •Interacción entre enseñanza tradicional y la tecnología. •Incentivar desde las escuelas la conservación de semillas y sistemas agroalimentarios. •Preservar desde la educación intercultural un modelo de dialogo de saberes. •Impulsar el interés por el trabajo del campo como un modelo de vida. •Recalcar que el conocimiento tradicional no es estático.2362382392412432462482492513. Papel de las mujeres como custodias de conocimientos asociados a dietas indígenas/afro mexicanas saludables y sostenibles ¿Cuáles son los principales desafíos y barreras que enfrentan en la preservación de los conocimientos? Desafíos y barreras identificadas en: •Falta de medios para comunicar. •Insuficiente acceso a la información sobre alimentación. •Insuficientes recursos económicos. •Desprecio a los conocimientos tradicionales por las nuevas generaciones •No hay productos locales en las tiendas. •Cultivo de maíz transgénico. •Falta de oportunidades y equidad de género. •Programas públicos sin enfoque de género. •Deterioro de los recursos naturales, tierra y la falta de agua. •Efectos del cambio climático cambian los tiempos de siembra (generan desánimo). •Programas públicos que desplazan los cultivos familiares y la milpa. •La educación formal no contempla los conocimientos ancestrales, se requiere una educación intercultural. ¿Cómo ha cambiado el patrón de consumo en las dietas? •La globalización altera los materiales, herramientas, y la forma de preparación de la comida, así como el valor nutrimental (ejemplo tortilla). •La migración del campo a la ciudad o al extranjero genera abandono de la tierra y rompimiento en la transmisión de los conocimientos ancestrales, pero también la importación de la comida rápida. •Nuevos patrones culturales y de consumo sustituyen productos tradicionales por los procesados. •Por doble carga de trabajo y cuidados, ya no hay tiempo para poder dedicarse al cultivo o cocinar. ¿Cómo promover la participación en la transformación del sistema agroalimentario mexicano? A través de: •Capacitar sobre la importancia del trabajo que realizan y conocimientos que tienen. •Aprender a capitalizar sus conocimientos y obtener beneficios económicos a partir de ellos. •Talleres donde las mujeres transmitan sus conocimientos sobre la comida, ingredientes locales, forma de preparación y sazón, degustación gastronómica, y recetario. •Recuperar la alimentación de las madres y abuelas, y darla a conocer a jóvenes a través de pláticas y talleres. •Promover el papel de las mujeres campesinas en la comunidad. •Producción de alimentos de subsistencia. •Apertura de espacios de comunicación y participación para las mujeres, donde se sientan a gusto, seguras y motivadas. •Aprovechamiento de los traspatios y fomento de la implementación de huertos escolares para involucrar a niñas y niños. •Enfoque de género en las políticas públicas, lineamientos y programas, acompañados de acciones, educación intercultural y el capital semilla. •Programas agroalimentarios enfocados a las mujeres que brinden capacitación para mejorar la forma de producir hortalizas para su autoconsumo y comercialización. •Políticas para generar productos agroecológicos, frente al uso de fertilizantes. ¿Qué medidas sugieren para mejorar la tenencia de la tierra? •Otorgar a las mujeres el derecho efectivo a la tenencia de la tierra. Reformas legales para asegurarlo en la práctica. Jurisprudencia del país o los estados para modificar o cambiar leyes que violenten este derecho. •Talleres de concientización sobre equidad de género y derechos de las mujeres en las comunidades. •Inclusión de la mujer en la toma de decisiones. Informar a las comunidades indígenas sobre este derecho. •Transformar pensamientos de que la tierra se le hereda a los hombres. •Fomentar la participación directa en las asambleas de la comunidad para visibilizar el derecho a la tenencia. •Sensibilización para la igualdad de derechos, la vida libre de violencia, la vida productiva y la igualdad en el hogar. •Dar estímulos e impulsos a grupos de producción de mujeres. ¿Se necesitan nuevos programas de desarrollo? Sí, para implementar proyectos: •Únicamente de mujeres porque cuando son mixtos los hombres acaparan la toma de decisiones. •Orientados para que puedan independizarse social y económicamente del hombre. •Ayuden a capitalizar los conocimientos de la medicina tradicional y alimentarios para obtener poder económico y social. •De único acceso a la participación femenina para crear ambientes seguros y libres de violencia donde crear ideas y proyectos conjuntos.2362382392402432462494. Relación entre el derecho a la tenencia de la tierra y la producción de alimentos saludables y sostenibles ¿Por qué es importante garantizar el derecho a la tenencia de la tierra para la producción de alimentos saludables y sostenibles? • Implica proteger las costumbres, la salud y el fortalecimiento de sus sistemas alimentarios. • Permite ingresar a programas de apoyo del gobierno y financiamiento. • Pueden realizar inversiones, mejorar la producción e incluso innovar en producción sostenible. • Coadyuva en la defensa de la soberanía alimentaria. ¿Es adecuado el marco normativo que protege la tenencia de la tierra de comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas? • La tenencia de la tierra en México no es homogénea, se divide en tres tipos, la ejidal, la comunal y la privada, y cada región o estado tiene sus especificidades y deben tomarse en cuenta estas diferencias. • Las comunidades indígenas tienen todos los derechos universales garantizados por la ley, sin embargo, la problemática radica en la ineficacia de los mecanismos de implementación de estos derechos. Pese a tener el convenio 169 de la OIT y las declaratorias firmadas por México ante la ONU, eso no se traduce en la práctica en los territorios. • En México, el derecho positivo tiende a salvaguardar derechos, pero la ejecución de ese derecho tiene muchos problemas. Se escoge la vía de llevar el rigorismo procesal más allá de garantizar el derecho de las áreas indígenas El sistema es muy retardado, incluso para ejecutar las sentencias. • El marco normativo mexicano prioriza el rigori procesal sobre el derecho humano. • Se necesita armonizar el marco jurídico actual con el uso y costumbres. • Los derechos que se deben de garantizar deben ser derechos incluyentes, a las mujeres indígenas y a personas de bajos recursos. 3. ¿El acceso a la tenencia de la tierra es punto nodal para fortalecer los circuitos económicos de producción y consumo saludable y sostenible? • Sí, para acceder a financiamiento y recursos de dependencias de gobierno. • La certidumbre en la tenencia de la tierra es importantísima, para que sobrevivan la multiculturalidad, la salud, las formas de vida, el comercio, la medicina ancestral, la producción. 4. ¿Qué medidas se sugieren para promover la producción de alimentos saludables y sostenibles con apego al derecho a la tenencia de la tierra? • Políticas públicas de precios de garantía a alimentos saludables y sostenibles. • Congruencia en las políticas para no distribuir insecticidas y los agroquímicos. • Eliminar programas de gobierno que proporcionan agrotóxicos. • Inculcar a los niños sobre las buenas prácticas de alimentación y producción saludable. • Retomar los conocimientos ancestrales de cómo cultivar la tierra, cómo producir alimentos sanos que promuevan la salud. 5. ¿Cuáles son los principales desafíos y barreras que enfrentan las mujeres indígenas/afromexicanas en torno a la tenencia de la tierra? • No se reconoce el derecho de la mujer a ser propietarias de la tierra en las comunidades. • Cuando son ejidatarias se les llama a las asambleas, pero no les dan acceso a los cargos, (o sólo a cargos menores) y no tienen acceso a toma de decisiones. • En ocasiones tienen documento de la parcela o ejido, pero solo en representación de un hombre. Al no ser titulares no acceden a programas. • En tierras de propiedad comunal, a veces sólo el hombre puede ser comunero. En estos casos, si la mujer queda viuda, no se le permite el uso y usufructo de la tierra. • Por temas culturales, no es común heredar la tierra a las mujeres y en ocasiones tampoco se les permite el arrendamiento de las tierras para la producción. • Normalmente sólo pueden producir en pequeños espacios, o comunales porque no se tiene el terreno. • Cuidan sin reconocimiento las semillas nativas, y preservan el cultivo tradicional en las comunidades.2362382392402432462495. Aporte al sistema agroalimentario nacional de los sistemas alimentarios indígenas y las dietas indígenas y afromexicana. ¿Cómo transformar el sistema alimentario mexicano tomando en cuenta las comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas? • A través del desarrollo sustentable, con el propósito de erradicar la pobreza, porque sólo de esta manera se pueden satisfacer las necesidades actuales sin comprometer los recursos y posibilidades de las futuras generaciones. • Se deben considerar los conocimientos tradicionales, ya que ha sido una dieta más saludable, tomando en cuenta el manejo racional de los recursos naturales que se encuentran en nuestro entorno. • Recuperar el tejido social entre los pueblos y comunidades indígenas para que en forma colectiva e incluyente participen y se unan a mejorar la producción local. • Implementación de buenos sistemas de riego y cuidado del agua. • Se planteó que se debe de tener en cuenta el intercambio/trueque de los sistemas alimentarios indígenas, su cooperación como comunidad y como familia. ¿Cómo las comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas se pueden favorecer con la transformación del sistema alimentario mexicano? • Con la implementación de proyectos y programas de desarrollo sostenibles, en el que se puedan producir sus cultivos de una mejor forma y tengan las herramientas necesarias para comercializar sus productos de una forma justa. ¿Cómo fomentar o recuperar las dietas indígenas y afromexicanas saludables en sus comunidades para desincentivar el consumo de alimentos no saludables en estas comunidades (por ejemplo, bebidas azucaradas, alimentos ultraprocesados)? • Mediante la creación de nuevas políticas en las que se tome en cuenta a los pueblos indígenas. • Fomentar un nuevo etiquetado frontal (como el que ya se maneja para los productos ultraprocesados) para productos orgánicos y sanos, en los que se invite o se incite a que sean mayormente consumidos. Con precios justos. • Se considera importante la difusión del etiquetado frontal dentro de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas, así como de los productos locales especificando que son orgánicos (en lenguas indígenas). • Dar restricciones a los productos procesados que llegan a sus pueblos y comunidades. • Fomentar la cultura de traspatio y de parcelas, ya que eso asegura la alimentación familiar. ¿Qué iniciativas se necesitan impulsar para la producción de alimentos (por ejemplo, milpa, policultivos, huertos de traspatio, aprovechamiento forestal, etc.)? • Sembrar barreras vivas que sean comestibles. • Hacer un ordenamiento en los terrenos para poder tener mayor producción de cultivos. • Que los cultivos sean previamente estudiados y sea sostenible su producción. • Contribución de especialistas en el tema para lograr una producción de manera consciente y responsable. • Establecer mayores vínculos entre productores para conocer mejores técnicas, compartir conocimientos y que de esta forma fomenten la diversidad de productos por región. • Respeto al derecho a la tierra y con paridad de género • Reconocer en todo momento la cosmovisión de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas para la producción a gran escala. • Que todos los programas del gobierno sean enfocados a la sostenibilidad. • Mayores programas de apoyo económico o de semilla que garanticen la siembra. • Que se mejore el programa de Sembrando Vida para que participen más productores. ¿Cómo diseñar políticas y programas incluyentes que tomen en cuenta las comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas y sus sistemas normativos? • Los programas y políticas que se tengan que implementar siempre deben de ser establecidas por las personas que van a ser beneficiados, ya que sólo ellos saben sus necesidades, lo que requieren para que sus proyectos tengan un beneficio, así como el déficit presente en cada proceso. • Tener planes integrales desde la política pública que considere los conocimientos tradicionales. • Realizar mayores asambleas y reuniones en las que puedan participar diciendo qué es lo que quieren producir.237238239240241243246247249251Se identificaron varias áreas de divergencia: • Sobre si los conocimientos indígenas no son equiparables con los científicos. • Algunos ven como positiva la investigación y aplicación científica para mejoramiento en cultivos y otros contradicen esa idea, se cree que la tecnología ha sido un retroceso y se debe encontrar un equilibrio. • Algunos participantes consideraron que se puede dejar el extensionismo, ya que no hay nada que enseñarles a los pueblos, la territorialidad es suficiente, los pueblos indígenas tienen sus propias formas de producción, comercialización. Sin embargo, otros participantes señalaron la necesidad de una capacitación externa para la producción y el comercio. • Un grupo señaló que hace falta dar un reconocimiento a las formas de producción tradicionales ya están incluidas en la cadena de valor, mientras que otro grupo mencionó que no existen conocimientos innovadores. • Una participante mencionó: ‘No me gusta que nos cataloguen como indígenas, todos somos seres humanos y somos iguales”. • Algunas participantes coincidieron en que sí se debían crear nuevos programas específicos para mujeres, mientras que otras apelaban por adecuar los programas con los que ya se cuenta. • Un grupo señaló que el problema no era el que se indicaba en la pregunta sobre el marco jurídico, sino que el punto crucial es que las leyes y todo el constructo jurídico está fundado históricamente desde una base patriarcal, que solamente beneficia a una parte de la población que son los hombres. • Algunos de los participantes señalaron que el marco normativo mexicano era bueno y sólo se requería de su aplicación práctica, mientras que otros participantes señalaron que el marco normativo aún tenía deficiencias para proteger a las comunidades indígenas y afrodescendientes. • Se encontró disenso en el tema del empoderamiento de la mujer indígena, un grupo de participantes, principalmente hombres, señalaron que existe una deficiencia en las políticas públicas para empoderar a la mujer indígena, mientras que otro grupo, principalmente mujeres, señalaron que no hacen falta políticas para empoderar a la mujer indígena, sino políticas para otorgarles todos los derechos que les corresponden.

2021-07-07 01:00:04205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26979/120

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión transformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar, y la interdependencia entre sectores.o Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de once facilitadores. El equipo de facilitadores está compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), y la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO). o Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso de la Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asiste en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS).Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos. Esto para mostrar la inclusividad del proceso. Además ha mostrado ser útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239240241243244246249El objetivo del Diálogo fue identificar los mecanismos para articular cadenas agroalimentarias sostenibles de verduras y frutas para lograr medios equitativos de vida de los productores, mejorar la salud de la población mexicana e influir en la reducción de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos.235238239240241243244246249El grupo coincidió en la necesidad de: • Tomar en cuenta las cadenas de cosecha, almacenaje y distribución, y factores externos como el cambio climático para el componente de demanda de alimentos. • Contar con mayores herramientas en materia de sanidad e inocuidad y dar información a los productores sobre metodologías para producir frutas y verduras de mejor manera. • Estimular las estrategias de cultura agroalimentaria, a través de la recuperación del valor de identidad del uso del suelo y de variedades de semillas y sabores locales. • Importancia de medir e identificar los tramos de producción donde se tengan pérdidas. • Reutilizar lo que se ha perdido/desperdiciado y educar sobre los aportes de las compostas para rehacer los suelos. • Promover tecnologías agroalimentarias para conservación de frutas y verduras o aumentar su vida de anaquel sin comprometer su calidad nutritiva. • Realizar estudios socioeconómicos en las comunidades rurales para establecer patrones de consumo y ubicaciones óptimas para producción y venta de productos locales. • Fomentar cadenas cortas para dar valor agregado y generar mosaico de opciones y oportunidades tecnológicas para temas de sostenibilidad a fin de evitar que los productos como frutas y verduras que llegan al consumidor sean caros o de mala calidad. • Estimular canales de comercialización exclusivos para pequeños y medianos productores y tomar en cuenta su tipo de demanda y capacidad. • Mejorar las condiciones actuales de los pequeños productores a través de políticas públicas orientadas a que puedan organizarse, así como percibir mayores aportaciones e incrementen el valor de sus productos, especialmente si son orgánicos. • La necesidad de generar mecanismos que distingan las producciones agroecológicas de los pequeños y medianos productores, ya que las certificaciones orgánicas son elitistas y dejan fuera a estos sectores. • Fomentar la participación de las universidades en la capacitación y asistencia técnica requerida, maximizando de este modo la intervención de profesionales. • Promover tecnología e innovación orientada a la pequeña y mediana escala, centros de investigación cuyas líneas se enfoquen en los pequeños y medianos productores y difusión de la innovación para cerrar ciclos de producción. • Creación/actualización de una estratificación de productores para definir políticas públicas concretas para las necesidades locales, considerando a los actores subnacionales en la parte productiva y la coordinación supranacional que facilite los procesos de producción, comercialización y consumo. • Impartición de talleres, cursos y/o capacitaciones para que la población en general pueda tomar mejores decisiones sobre consumo saludable e higiene. • Contar con trabajos colegiados entre las partes productivas e institucionales, así como con sinergias de redes y canales institucionales en beneficio de productores y consumidores de sectores vulnerables. • Las frutas y verduras de mejor calidad no se quedan en México, sino que son exportadas. • La amplia disponibilidad de alimentos menos saludables y que éstos se preparan más fácil y rápido, además del sabor adictivo. • Carencia del apoyo de los padres para consumir una alimentación saludable, ya que son éstos quienes compran los alimentos. • No se inculca desde la niñez el consumo de verduras y frutas, por lo tanto existe un rechazo • Necesidad de consensar sobre las bandas de temperaturas como áreas de investigación y aplicación tecnológica, así como sobre la clasificación oportuna de las operaciones unitarias en que pueden subdividirse las aplicaciones de la frigotecnia en el área de comercialización y conservación de frutas y hortalizas. • Falta de insumos para la producción y almacenamiento tales como el acceso a semillas de calidad, maquinaria adaptada a la escala pequeña y mediana de producción, centros de almacenamiento y conservación. • Falta de incentivo al mercado internos, altos costos de producción, intermediarios, comercio desigual por parte de las grandes importadoras de alimentos, sustitución de los productos locales por otros a nivel regional o internacional. • Políticas públicas enfocadas en concientizar sobre el valor del trabajo del productor, para evitar el regateo de precios y la discriminación hacia este sector. • Necesidad de relacionar a los productores pequeños y medianos con iniciativas para la disminución de la pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos (Bio-insumos, ciclos cerrados de energía, compostaje a gran escala, biodigestores, rumen, intercambios entre productores, bancos de alimentos). • Incluir las verduras y frutas en programas federales, tales como SEGALMEX y DICONSA para que exista una mayor disponibilidad de estos productos a lo largo de más regiones en el país.2362382392402412432442462491. Producción de verduras y frutas para el consumo nacional: barreras e incentivos (4200 caracteres) 1.1¿Cuáles con las principales barreras para la producción de verduras y frutas para consumo nacional en México? Identificar dichas barreras de producción a pequeña, mediana y gran escala •No existe una cultura del consumo de verduras y frutas, particularmente entre los mismos productores. •Falta de incentivos a los aspectos propios de la producción de frutas y horta-lizas: logística, almacenamiento y mayor tiempo de vida en anaquel. •Falta de políticas que se orienten a las ganancias de los pequeños producto-res, el fomento de la producción local, que garanticen un comercio justo y la equidad. •El acceso al mercado, ya que los productores no se arriesgan a producir a gran escala porque no perciben una certidumbre que les pague el costo que tuvieron que invertir. •Falta de capacitación técnica a los productores para el manejo post cosecha de sus cultivos. •Se dedican al monocultivo lo que genera pérdidas a los pequeños productores cuando hay poca demanda. •La incertidumbre climática, la sequía en varios estados. •Faltan políticas públicas enfocadas en concientizar el trabajo del productor, para evitar el regateo de precios y la discriminación hacia este sector. 1.2 ¿Cómo se podrían reducir las pérdidas de verduras y frutas? •Diseñar programas que fomenten el desarrollo de capacidades a pequeña y mediana escala de producción, acompañados de esquemas descentralizado que faciliten la distribución. •Se requiere infraestructura, en muchos casos no hay para refrigerar o man-tener en fresco las verduras y frutas. •Apertura de los terrenos parcelarios cuando ya se termina de cosechar, que las personas de escasos recursos entren y recolecten lo que encuentren en buen estado. •Realizar convenios, sociedades cooperativas para que todo lo que se genere ahí se aproveche. •Apoyar los centros de investigación que desarrollan tecnologías para la con-servación y procesamiento de alimentos 1.3 ¿Cómo podría incorporarse el desarrollo sostenible en sus tres dimensiones (económica, social y ambiental) en la producción a gran escala de verduras y frutas? •Promover la diversificación de la producción. •Apoyar a los productores para que puedan ir escalando sus cultivos, generando eficiencias, mediante capacitación y asistencia técnica. •Recuperar lo asociado a los nutrientes del suelo, como el uso de la milpa, el rastrojo o hacer la composta o lombricomposta. •La diversificación de trabajo y la enseñanza de nuevas metodologías para producción. •Sistemas de transición agroecológicos, que incluyan la autoproducción de insumos para el manejo de plagas y enfermedades. •La necesidad de valorar los sistemas de producción indígena y tradicional. •La visión de una agricultura pensada en ciclos de bioenergía y de sistema termodinámico cerrado. 1.4 ¿Qué acciones en la comercialización podrían llevarse a cabo para mejorar los me-dios de vida de los productores de mediana y pequeña escala de verduras y frutas? •Programas de compras públicas de producción de pequeña y mediana escala con esquemas de comercio justo. •Iniciar con la caracterización de la pequeña y mediana escala para identificar sus necesidades. •No se debe pensar solo en colocar productos locales en puntos de venta, sino que también debe buscarse que la gente también sepa de ellos y los quiera consumir. •Mercados, convenios e instituciones que legislen y trabajen para garantizar que la producción va a tener un destino específico y que las pérdidas no sean una opción. 1.5. De lo que plantea la Estrategia Nacional para una Alimentación Saludable, Justa y Sostenible, ¿en qué pueden colaborar a nivel individual o institucional? Mencionar áreas de oportunidad que identifiquen con base en las respuestas anteriores. •Sumar la experiencia de movilización comunitaria, visión y conocimiento local. •Capacitación y asistencia técnica proveniente de las universidades, mediante prácticas profesionales y servicio social. •Realizar eventos y foros sobre producción y consumo. •Generar material operativo para que se haga reflexión y diálogo al interior de los equipos de trabajo.2362382392432462492. Consumo de verduras y frutas en México: barreras e incentivos 2.1 ¿Cuáles son las principales barreras para que la mitad del volumen de alimentos que consume la población mexicana sean verduras y frutas? •Falta de aplicación de nuevas tecnologías para la distribución de fruta y ver-dura producida. •Precio elevado para alimentos que los hacen inaccesible para comunidades en estado de vulnerabilidad. •Falta de conciencia de la “fuga de dinero” que existe al comprar productos industrializados y falta de conocimiento de cómo adquirir frutas y verduras de la región que impulsan la economía de la población y favorecen las finanzas (y la salud) de las personas que las adquieren. •Influencia negativa en los entornos, especialmente en usos y costumbres. •Importación de frutas y verduras, lo que hace que los productos mexicanos sean menos consumidos, y terminen malbaratándose. •El rechazo de estos alimentos, ya que no se les inculca desde la niñez su consumo. •Los monocultivos están provocando la pérdida de la variedad y diversidad de los productos, dando como resultado la perdida de la autonomía y soberanía alimentaria. •La falta de educación o en su defecto información sobre los beneficios de consumir frutas y verduras desde los niveles escolares. 2.2 ¿Cómo se podrían reducir los desperdicios de verduras y frutas? •Educación y disponibilidad de información respecto a dónde realizar las com-pras y qué productos comprar. •Difundir información respecto a la conservación de alimentos y formas de co-cinarlos para maximizar su uso. •Fomentar el darle una “segunda vida” al desperdicio en forma de composta y así fomentar el cultivo de alimentos. •Incentivar, dar a conocer, y/o conformar bancos de alimentos para el rescate de éstos. •Una buena estrategia puede ser el intercambio de alimentos con los vecinos. •Necesario hacer uso de la tecnología para el intercambio de alimentos, ejem-plo de esto son las Apps que existen en el mercado. 2.3 ¿Qué acciones consideran prioritarias para incrementar el consumo de verduras y frutas en la población mexicana? •Fomentar que exista educación alimentaria de padres a hijos. •Que los precios sean más accesibles para comunidades en condiciones de vulnerabilidad •Promover la cultura de comer para alimentar y no para “saciar”. •Sensibilizar sobre el consumo de las frutas y verduras medio maltratadas, fomentar su consumo ya que no pierden sus propiedades nutricionales. •Se requiere el fomento a la producción para autoconsumo. •Se pueden incorporar juegos como la lotería de las verduras y frutas, donde los niños y adultos puedan conocer más acerca de los productos que con-sumen. •Se debe implementar una política pública que incida directamente en las cooperativas de las escuelas para que incluyan la venta de frutas y verduras. 2.4 ¿Qué acciones se pueden realizar para articular cadenas agroalimentarias cortas de la producción al consumo de verduras y frutas? •Concientizar a las poblaciones de las implicaciones de la agricultura local en la salud y en la economía de las personas. •Usar la tecnología disponible para hacer planes regionales/nacionales para colocar eficientemente productos. •Crear, difundir y alimentar un sistema de información y mercadeo en peque-ñas poblaciones. •Crear círculos virtuosos en donde se impulse el autoconsumo, el trueque, las cadenas cortas y los tianguis agroecológicos. •Campañas para preferir el consumo local, por ejemplo crear un sello donde se mencione el origen del alimento. •Trabajar para poder lograr que las compras públicas puedan hacerse directamente a los pequeños y medianos productores de manera local. 2.5 En términos generales, de lo que plantea la Estrategia Nacional para una Alimentación Saludable, Justa y Sostenible, ¿en qué pueden colaborar? •Que las autoridades hagan uso de las investigaciones y el conocimiento existentes. •Involucramiento de la ciencia y la investigación sobre los componentes nutricionales de los alimentos. •Capacitación y asistencia técnica proveniente de las universidades, mediante prácticas profesionales y servicio social con productores. •Creación de programas entre productores y consumidores para que exista apoyo mutuo.237238239240243249•Se cuestionó la idea de mantener una producción a gran escala, frente a los problemas de cambio climático y se propuso en pensar en una producción eficiente. •Los disensos fueron en 1) sobre si lo tradicional siempre es lo mejor y 2) en el uso de agroquímicos.

Por un error, en la publicación original de esta plataforma no se incluyó la sección de participación. Aquí se comparten los datos faltantes. • Número total de participantes: 157 • Número de participantes por rango de edad o 0-18 años: 0 o 19-30 años: 29 o 31-50 años: 66 o 51-65 años: 52 o 66-80 años: 10 o 80+ años: 0 o Sin dato: 0 • Número de participantes por género o Mujer: 85 o Hombre: 71 o Sin identificación de género: 1 • Número de participantes por sector: o Agricultura y cultivos: 11 o Agroforestal: 8 o Comunicación: 1 o Educación: 16 o Medio ambiente y ecología: 2 o Servicios financieros (trade and commerce): 3 o Atención médica: 7 o Gobierno nacional o local: 74 o Nutrición: 11 o Comercio: o Otro: 19 o Sin dato: 5 • Número de participantes por tipo de grupo de interés (stakeholder group): o Grupo de consumidores: 1 o Comercio minorista de alimentos, mercados: 1 o Institución gubernamental y nacional: 75 o ONG Internacional: 3 o Autoridad local: 11 o ONG Local: 16 o Agricultor grande: 1 o Sector científico y académico: 31 o Pequeño/ mediano productor/ artesano: 1 o Naciones Unidas: 4 o Sindicatos: 3 o Otro: 9 o Sin dato: 1 2021-07-07 01:07:53

2021-07-07 02:55:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7142/145

111998802011418517285222117256120205357110040026119002020054011000

Urgency: Upon learning about this UN FSSD activities, our center decided to set aside our earlier plan to conduct an international conference, to prioritize convening this Independent Dialogue. We felt this dialogue was relevant to the increasing malnutrition among school children and their families due to lack of access to nutritious food. Commitment: We aimed for the results of the Independent Dialogue we convened to be shared and contribute to the UNFSS. Participants appreciated the possibility that they can contribute to the global dialogue. Respect. Being respectful of the ideas and circumstances of others is an inherent trait of Filipinos so each one showed respect to others’ ideas. Participants remained respectful even in expressing divergent ideas. Complexity: At the onset, we reminded our facilitators who in turn reminded everyone in their breakout session groups, of the complexity of the food systems issues and the importance of recognizing the diversity of ideas from various stakeholders. The holistic systems approach was used to guide the panel discussions. Inclusivity: We designed the event to capture diverse perspectives by inviting multi- stakeholder groups. We enabled them to participate actively as panelists by encouraging them to do most of the talking but within the 3-minute limit per panelist to give a chance for others to speak. Complement the work of others. As the invited stakeholders presented their programs and activities they learned from each other about similar, unique or complementary programs they have. Towards the end of the event there were many exchanges of contact details for those who plan future collaboration. Build trust: Instead of one big plenary event, we opted to have five breakout sessions in smaller groups where discussions focused on only one of the Action Tracks per breakout session. Smaller groups create a “safe space” where it is easier for people to express their concerns, promote trust and mutual respect.Intentionally, there were no long plenary presentations, we opted for the smaller group breakout sessions with a set of multi-stakeholder panelists. The facilitators presented guide questions to help panelists focus on the Action Track issues per group. The panelists felt more free to share and exchange ideas in small semi-formal breakout sessions. The online audience were also able to learn by listening to the exchange of ideas among the panelists while they can use the Chat Box to send their ideas and questions. This process embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. Doing these visualized discussions online was a good way to hold the attention and interest of all the participating actors. It lent a sense of inclusiveness and transparency when ideas of everyone were shared for all to see, not just for the panelists and facilitating team but to a wider (online) audience. The plenary presentation of outputs per Action Track breakout sessions encouraged the healthy exchange of diverse ideas.The Principles of Engagement were appreciated by both the participants and organizers because the E-Dialogue was designed to enable them to experience those principles instead of being told or read about them. It helps organizers to have experience in using a combination of methods like participatory and visualized meta-plan brainstorming. The visualization was important to help the panelists and facilitators organize their thinking processes given the complex and inter-related issues. The plenary presentation of outputs per Action Track breakout session enabled the participants to appreciate and embrace the interconnectedness and complexity of the Five Action Tracks. This gave the participants a wider perspective and systems approach in analyzing the challenges and finding opportunities to address challenges to food systems. Both organizers and participants saw the need for multi-stakeholder inclusive partnerships and for putting their acts and resources together so that organic agriculture can better contribute to sustainable and resilient food systems.

NoThis Independent Dialogue followed the Food Systems Summit Dialogue (UN FSSD) Reference Manual with modifications. We combined simultaneous discussion sessions, plenary presentations and blended it with the “Fish Bowl” method1 and Meta-plan Visualisation2 technique using the Jamboard3 app. The invited panelists, online audience participants and our facilitation teams appreciated this. The full-day activity with a brief noon break actively engaged everyone up to closing time. Towards the end of the E-Dialogue, the Chat Box had many requests for a Directory of Participants and requests to plan similar activities in the future. This E-Dialogue was convened by the Interdisciplinary Studies Center on Organic Agriculture (IdSC OA) and volunteer researchers and faculty of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB). The welcome speech was given by UPLB Chancellor, Dr. Jose V. Camacho, Jr. followed by high-level speakers: (i) UN Special Envoy for Food Systems Summit, Dr. Agnes Kalibata (video message); (ii) Executive Director, of SEARCA and UN Champion for Food Systems Summit, Dr. Glenn B. Gregorio (live online); and (iii) Chief Executive of BERAS International Foundation and Executive Director, Global Alliance for Organic Districts, Mr. Jostein Hertwig (live online from Norway at 2:00AM). Brief video presentations of the (i) UN FFSD and the (ii) Organic Agriculture: A Path to Resilience provided the context of the E-dialogue. For this opening session, the Master of Ceremonies is one of the contributing authors of the 16th High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the UN Committee on World Food Security and the Youth Alliance for Zero Hunger, Chair, Mr. Jim Leandro Cano. The convenor briefly presented the rationale and main goal of the E-Dialogue in relation to the 5Ps (People, Planet, Prosperity, Partnerships and Peace) for sustainable development. The curator gave the mechanics of the five (5) Zoom breakout sessions corresponding to each of the five UNFSSD Action Tracks. Each of the five simultaneous breakout sessions had a team of IdSC OA members and volunteers assigned as Facilitators, Documenters and Communication Link. We invited five sets of 8-10 mixed stakeholder groups who served as panelists per Action Track breakout session. They shared and exchanged their practical experiences, knowledge and skills on organic agriculture and how it can contribute to sustainable and resilient community food systems. Key ideas from the different panelists were visualized using the Jamboard app. Ideas were clustered and summarized into Priority Issues and Challenges. As each of the five visualized simultaneous dialogues between the facilitators and the panelists ensued, they were watched live online via Zoom and FB by about 35-40 audience participants who can also share ideas and ask questions through the Chat Box. The outputs per Action Track breakout session were shared through presentations in the plenary with an open forum and a synthesis of the outputs. The first main breakout focused on recognizing the sector panelists: their profile, programs, dilemmas and challenges in promoting organic agriculture for sustainable and resilient community food systems. The second main breakout continued by charting pathways towards Ambitious Future for organic sustainable and resilient community food systems. Lastly, they identified short term goals, follow-through activities and lead sectors to initiate action for change. The program closed with a synthesis of the whole day’s key points, reflections from stakeholder representatives from each of the Action Track breakout sessions, way forward, closing message and vote of thanks. The event ended with an enthusiastic note of new, continuing or revitalized partnerships, plans and pledges for action towards sustainable organic and resilient community food systems. 1 Fish bowl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1q7WbWc8dE 2 Meta-plan Visualization: https://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/Metaplan_Basiswissen_Englisch.pdf 3 Jamboard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mknxFD9I3c8

234238239240241242244246249251The Independent Dialogue we organized was titled, “E-Dialogue on Organic Agriculture for Sustainable and Resilient Community Food Systems” (OA-FSSD 2021). This Food Systems Summit E-Dialogue aimed to provide a platform to: (i) Share and synthesize knowledge and experiences, science research outputs, indigenous and traditional knowledge systems, good practices, opportunities, and innovations by which organic agriculture contributes to the five UN Action Tracks (i.e. ensuring food security; shifting to sustainable consumption pattern; boosting nature-positive production; advancing equitable livelihoods; and, building resilient communities); (ii) Identify strategies and pathways to mainstream organic agriculture’s significance towards building sustainable resilient community food systems; and, (iii) Promote innovative collaborative mechanisms to strengthen community food systems towards sustainability and resilience through organic agriculture. Among other agricultural systems, there is growing advocacy towards sustainable regenerative organic agriculture and food systems (Moyer, et al., 2020). Significant contributions to sustainable regenerative and resilient community food systems can be made possible through the four principles of organic agriculture namely, health, care, ecology and fairness. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) promotes Organic3.0 “to enable a widespread uptake of truly sustainable farming systems and markets based on organic principles and imbued with a culture of innovation, of progressive improvement towards best practice, of transparent integrity, of inclusive collaboration, of holistic systems, and of true value pricing” (IFOAM 2016). Points of convergence between Organic 3.0 and the UN FSSD Principles of Engagement can be identified as points of complementation, respect and commitment to contribute to the SDGs. We focused on community food systems since this is where each of us in our communities can be the starting point to make the changes towards contributing to the SDGs. Investments at the grassroots community level can directly benefit marginalized people. We believe in using participatory development approaches and synergism to support programs that will engage people towards self-management as well as sharing responsibilities and sharing the benefits. We covered all the five Action Tracks to provide our participants a holistic and systems perspective of food systems. As this event carries the name of the UN FSSD, we also conveyed the message that the challenges of food systems as a worldwide concern can start with transformations and changes locally, at the household and personal level.235238239240241242244245246247248249250251Action Track 1. • Need strong promotion among children and adults on nutrition, food safety and effects on health. Provide nutritional information about organic products. Reduce food wastage. • Need to educate farmers and producers about underlying principles of organic agriculture beyond crop production. Need topics on entrepreneurship, marketing, organizational strengthening, as well as post-harvest technologies, packaging and processing of food and non-food organic products, organic standards and certification. Lack of competent trainers on relevant topics. • Farmers are still at the mercy of traders. • Much focus on Agri-tourism results to land not fully-utilized to scale-up organic crop or animal production. Organic crops are mainly for display and special food for paying guests. • Low technology adoption by farmers. Need conscious effort for results of Research and Development to reach farmers. Need for proper diagnosis of farmers problems and circumstances. • Lack of organic inputs like standard quality and enough volume of organic soil amendments and almost no local production of organic vegetable seeds. Some resort to imported inputs which are expensive. • Lack of certified slaughter-houses dedicated for use of smallholder organic animal raisers, cold chain facilities, refrigerated transport. Action Track 2. • Limited market and access to OA products which are more expensive than non-organic ones and not always available in the market • Inadequate institutional support system and incentives to producer groups that provide safe, nutritious and healthy food; • Limited appreciation of the consumers on safe, nutritious and healthy diets; to those who can appreciate, they cannot afford the higher price. They resort to buying cheaper non-organic products. • Need to enhance information dissemination via the social media educate the consumers about true cost accounting in organic production systems. • Need to lobby with the concerned government agencies for incentivizing the providers of healthy and safe food; • Strengthen collaboration with the different stakeholders to increase the public and consumer’s knowledge for informed decision-making when they buy organic products. Action Track 3. • Boosting nature-positive production is multidimensional. It cuts across ecological, education, policy, social and economic dimensions. Promote true cost accounting of ecological and societal benefits. • Despite the diverse ideas, participants agreed on a common goal of striking a balance between and among the five dimensions. • Promote the importance of soil health to food production, environmental conservation and addressing climate change. • Address threats to biodiversity and the environment due to habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution. • Commit to conduct youth education that integrate biodiversity in organic agriculture. • Open consultations among stakeholders • Need academe and private sector/industry linkages. Action Track 4. • Promote agricultural enterprise development with policy reform on labor wages and employment opportunities in agriculture. Need options to address seasonality of labor in agriculture. • Need adequate infrastructure support to address basic agricultural productivity constraints like farm mechanization, irrigation, post-harvest and processing facilities) and socio-cultural constraints to bring the community to act for change. • Need flexible and accessible financial instruments to wean farmers away from unscrupulous traders and money lenders. • New strategies to motivate the youth to agriculture. Action Track 5. • The Philippines ranks 3rd as the world’s most natural disaster-prone countries thus the strong need for disaster risk-reduction and mitigation (DRRM) strategies. • Increase participation of stakeholders including farmers in program planning, implementation and monitoring progress of DRRM programs. • Limited opportunities to earn supplemental income while waiting for crop harvests or during disastrous events. • Inadequate local government policies for organic agricultural systems, certification and participatory guarantee systems. • Minimal policy support for promotion and adoption of indigenous knowledge systems and practices. • limited knowledge and awareness on OA practices, related to climate change adaptation and mitigation.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251Action Track 1. - Improve Research and Development to address real problems of organic producers. Ensure new technologies and research results reach farmers, processors and consumers. - Promote application of digital technology. - Strengthen competency of stakeholders through knowledge-sharing and access to science-based information on organic agriculture, nutrition, food safety, health and sustainable food systems plus economic, environmental and social value to boost demand and encourage farmers to increase availability of organic products for all. - Mobilize resources to level-up organic agriculture supply and value chains through effective partnerships and linkages among industry players, local authorities, academe and government. Action Track 2. - Mobilize youth groups to spearhead action and to improve the visibility of healthy, safe and nutritious organic products via capacity building (i.e., training, discussion series, farm visits, information campaigns) and via social media to motivate demand and shift of consumers to sustainable consumption patterns. - Collaboration among academe, private sector and government agencies such as DA-ATI, BAFS, BPI and BAI. - Create information hubs to link consumers and producers on the distribution of healthy and safe food (i.e. Agri-Aqua Hub Project of PCAARRD). Action Track 3. - Prioritize early age youth environmental education that highlight the role of organic agriculture in promoting Biodiversity Enhancement and Environment Sustainability (BEES), climate resiliency and with economic gains. The academe and organic agriculture enterprises should actively and continuously engage in information dissemination. - Make organic agriculture a profitable livelihood. Strengthen the marketing of organic produce by linking the producers to the right market. - Implement the National Organic Agriculture Program Roadmap (2017-2022) more effectively. - Synergize roles of local authorities, organic enterprises, farmers and academe, to lead people into community action through systemic solutions to food systems problems. Action Track 4. - Facilitate collaboration, synergy and technology-sharing among farmers, NGOs, private sector and academia. - Review and implement policies to enable stronger support to micro, small and medium enterprises. - Give incentives for greater private sector investment in agriculture. - Promote multi-stakeholder collaboration to provide inclusive, holistic and system-wide participatory analysis of problems and action planning to upgrade agricultural systems. - Plan strategies for better disaster resilience and risk management, provide crop insurance and other financial instruments. - Update or redevelop the existing elementary and secondary school Basic Education Curriculum to strengthen the integration of youth entrepreneurship and financial literacy in agriculture. Action Track 5. - Strengthen people’s organizations through leadership training and financial literacy for livelihoods and disaster preparedness. - Strategize securing food resources and farm production inputs for quick recovery from disasters. - Provide climate-resilient infrastructure for farming communities. - Provide financial and innovative technical support. Promote off-season farming. - Capacitate local authorities on the unique socio-economic and environmental benefits from organic agriculture to get their support for enabling policies and programs. - Educate consumers about organic agriculture so they will demand for it. - Localize training and knowledge products adopting relevant indigenous knowledge systems. - Multi-stakeholder partnerships for continued capacity building for self-reliance of indigenous peoples and upland farming communities while promoting forest protection and conservation. - Create various communication platforms in hard-to-reach-conflict areas. - Provide safety-nets for farming communities (i.e., scholarships for farmer’s children). - Put up farmer field schools that integrate climate resilience and sustainable organic farming.237238239240241242244245246247250251Action Track 1. How to balance promotion of Agri-tourism versus maximizing the use of land to scale up organic crop and animal production Action Track 2. Promotion and awareness campaigns towards healthy and sustainable consumption patterns need to be accompanied by ensuring those healthy foods are readily available and affordable. Action Track 3. The challenge remains on how to balance the economic and ecological dimensions of organic agriculture for sustainable food production. Costly 3rd party certification remains a challenge. The new law on Participatory Guarantee Systems should be supported and studied closely how best it will serve organic farmers, animal raisers and small-medium processors and enterprises. Action Track 4. How to make agriculture profitable without sacrificing the principles of organic agriculture (care, health, ecology and fairness) Action Track 5. The combination of natural and man-induced (anthropogenic) disasters is a huge challenge for an archipelagic country like the Philippines. The expansion of GMO corn production by clearing vast upland sloping areas in typhoon-prone heavy-rainfall areas of Northern and Southern-most Philippines frequently result to massive floods due to swollen rivers rushing through several towns and provinces. The loss of lives and livelihoods is daunting. How do we appeal to the conscience of promoters of these “modern” technologies to be accountable?

2021-07-07 04:01:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30084/101

59743712929001127133245213291251215710

Диалог был организован в виде научно-практической конференции для обмена результатами и вопросами, над которыми стоит поработать для достижения устойчивого развития продовольственных систем в Кыргызской Республике с точки зрения научного сообщества. Каждый докладчик был специально отобран организационным комитетом, кроме того форма приглашения была разослана во все ВУЗы и НИИ Кыргызстана, в том числе в регионы. Мероприятие проходило в онлайн и оффлайн форматах, так что принять участие смогли практически все заинтересованные стороны.Докладчиками являлись преподаватели, ученые, аспиранты, магистранты и студенты разных направлений из разных университетов, также разных возрастов и пола. 2-4 докладчика имели исследования в одной сфере, но с разных сторон, разными принципами и небольшими дифференциациями. Перед началом докладов, были вступления странового Представителя из системы ООН (Страновой директор Всемирной продовольственной программы ООН), представителей из министерств и академиков НАН КР, которые акцентировали свои доклады и видение на важности обсуждаемых проблем и давали направление в обсуждениях. После окончания докладов точки зрения и вопросы каждого были учтены, после чего была принята резолюция с дальнейшими планами, рекомендациями и ролями заинтересованных сторон. По результатам конференции будет издан специальный выпуск научного Вестника КНАУ с докладами и презентациями участников.нет

NoКаждая вовлеченная сторона в конференции осознавала и принимала вышеуказанные принципы. Было много докладов и исследований, можно было провести параллель и даже цепочка между исследованиями. Каждый доклад дополнял и даже были продолжением другого. Каждый участник понимал важность данного мероприятия и пытался внести свой вклад в улучшение продовольственных систем с точки зрения своего научного и профессионального опыта в выбранной сфере исследований и обучения студентов. Хотя в мероприятии принимали участие представители из региональных ВУЗов Кыргызстана, один из участников предложил организовывать персонофицированные и региональные диалоги в офлайн формате, чтобы учитывать местность, население, возможности как экономические, так и физические, т.к. например, организм человека в разных местностях может реагировать на одну и ту же пищу по-разному. В работе научно-практической конференции приняли участие учёные, аспиранты, магистранты и студенты более 10 ВУЗов Кыргызстана из Бишкека и регионов. Инициатором и организатором научно-практической конференции выступил Кыргызский национальный аграрный университет им. К.И. Скрябина. Данная конференция представляет собой независимый диалог академического сообщества, как один из проводимых национальных и независимых диалогов в Кыргызской Республики, которые были организованы для активного обсуждения широким кругом заинтересованных групп людей и специалистов, и формирования национального пути развития устойчивых продовольственных систем на ближайшие десятилетия. Научно-практическая конференция, организованная в рамках подготовки к Саммиту ООН по продовольственным системам включала в себя основную главную цель - создание платформы для активного обсуждения проблем в области продовольственной и биологической безопасности на уровне академического сообщества, а также повышение научной информированности учёных, аспирантов, магистрантов и студентов о глобальных проблемах продовольственной и биологической безопасности в Кыргызской Республике. В рамках проведения конференции состоялся активный обмен опытом, мнениями и научными достижениями в области обеспечения продовольственной и биологической безопасности. Были рассмотрены вопросы актуальности подготовки высококвалифицированных специалистов, владеющих инновационными технологиями, навыками и компетенциями в области сельского хозяйства для поддержания продовольственной и биологической безопасности в Кыргызской Республике. Обсуждались наиболее актуальные вопросы, такие как обеспечение продовольственной и биобезопасности страны, здоровье сельскохозяйственных животных и тенденции производства продукции животноводства, биоразнообразие лесных ресурсов и система удобрений полевого севооборота, проблемы обеспечения пищевой безопасности и влияние продовольственной безопасности на здоровье людей, кластеризация сельского хозяйства и развитие агропромышленного комплекса, и многие другие наиболее актуальные вопросы. Каждая из рассмотренных тематик охватывает основные сферы и концептуальные основы функционирования продовольственных систем в Кыргызской Республики. Включая весь спектр видов деятельности, товаров и услуг, связанных с производством, переработкой и потреблением. Как показали события предыдущего и текущего года, продовольственные системы, производственные цепочки и продовольственная безопасность не готовы к серьёзным внешним и внутренним потрясениям и стрессам, таким как внезапная пандемия и повсеместные карантинные меры, последствия изменения климата и природных бедствий, политическая ситуация и приграничные конфликты. Академическое сообщество серьёзно обеспокоено возникающими проблемами в сфере аграрного производства, всех отраслей сельского хозяйства и смежных сфер деятельности и обслуживания. Участие более 170 учёных страны в настоящей конференции показало высокую ответственность, понимание и решительность действий, которые помогут привести к стабильности и изменениям в привычной практике функционирования продовольственных систем в условиях проявления внешних воздействий, потрясений и стрессов.

234238239240241242243244245248249250251Данный диалог был организован и проведен в форме научно-практической конференции, основной темой которой были комплексные исследования продовольственных систем и ее компонентов. Ключевыми темами же оказались продовольственная и биологическая безопасность в стране во время пандемии. Исследования покрывали в большинстве случаев текущее состояние продовольственных систем во время пандемии, с какими проблемами столкнулись люди, вовлеченные в сельском хозяйстве, как боролись с этими проблемами и какие решения предлагаются. Исследования были выполнены учеными, аспирантами, магистрантами и студентами. Обсуждались наиболее актуальные вопросы, такие как обеспечение продовольственной и биобезопасности страны, здоровье сельскохозяйственных животных и тенденции производства продукции животноводства, биоразнообразие лесных ресурсов и система удобрений полевого севооборота, проблемы обеспечения пищевой безопасности и влияние продовольственной безопасности на здоровье людей, кластеризация сельского хозяйства и развитие агропромышленного комплекса, процессы и перспективы аграрного образования и науки. Каждая из рассмотренных тематик охватывает все сферы и концептуальные основы функционирования продовольственных систем Кыргызской Республики с точки зрения академических кругов. За последние два года, в нашей стране произошли разные события, такие же как и во всем мире, которые оказали серьезные потрясение и стресс не только для продовольственных систем, но и для каждого жителя страны в частности. Внезапная пандемия с жесткими карантинными мерами, последствия изменения климата и природные бедствия, политическая ситуация и приграничные конфликты нанесли как прямой так и косвенный вред продовольственной системе страны. Так как продовольственная безопасность является одним из самых важных факторов для страны, то она имеет отношение ко всем остальным факторам в стране и может образоваться порочный круг разрушающий ее. I. Обеспечение доступа к безопасному и полноценному питанию для всех людей: 1. Непосредственное обеспечение населения качественными продуктами питания для поддержания здорового и активного образа жизни; 2. Экономическая доступность к продовольствию для всех социальных групп населения, в том числе на наиболее уязвимых; 3. Физическая доступность безопасной и питательной пищи для всех в равной мере; 4. Внедрение инспекторов продуктов питания, для которых требуются разные квалификации на разных этапах пищевой цепи, например, на этапе первичной продукции требуются специалисты сельского хозяйства, ветеринары, инспектора по мясу и инспектора рыбного хозяйства; в области розничной торговли и обслуживания питанием требуются специалисты по cанитарии окружающей среды или инспектора продуктов питания; а при расследовании случаев болезней, вызываемых продуктами питания, требуются специалисты санитарно-гигиенического профиля и врачи; 5. Инспектирование помещений, где находятся продукты питания, на предмет выполнения правил гигиены; 6. Проведение ревизии систем управления безопасностью пищевых продуктов, созданных на основе системы анализа рисков и определение критических точек контроля; 7. Официальный отбор проб и тестирование продуктов питания; 8. Составление свода передового опыта в области безопасности питания; 9. Обеспечение соответствия программ инспекции международным стандартам качества; II.Переход к устойчивым моделям потребления: 10. Обеспечение приоритетного статуса мерам политики в сфере продовольственной безопасности и питания, необходимого для того, чтобы к 2030 г. достичь Целей устойчивого развития, в частности ЦУР 2; 11. Пропагандирование среди населения культуры рационального потребления продуктов питания; 12. Создание условий для снижения послеуборочных потерь при хранении и реализации продукции. III.Стимулирование экологически безопасного производства: 13. Привлечение международных доноров на развитие интенсивного садоводства в Кыргызской Республике; 14. Привлечение инвесторов на развитие рыболовства и аквакультуры в Кыргызской Республике; 15. Усиление лабораторного контроля за особо опасными болезнями животных;23523823924024124224424817. Широкое использование послеуборочных растительных остатков (измельчённой гуза-паи) хлопчатника, что является основой ведения органического сельского хозяйства; 18. Внедрение современных органических, почвозащитных, ресурсосберегающих практик и методов адаптации к изменению климата. IV.Продвижение принципов справедливости при создании источников средств к существованию: 19. Создание рабочих мест в сельской местности и в малых городах; 20. Улучшение сельской и пастбищной инфраструктуры, а также доступа к рынкам, в том числе при выстраивании местных цепочек добавленной стоимости с равными условиями для местных производителей. V.Развитие способности продовольственных систем противостоять неблагоприятным воздействиям, потрясениям и напряжённым периодам: 21. Определение целесообразных методов реформирования агропромышленного комплекса, создание современных форм переработки и сбыта сельскохозяйственной продукции; 22. Наличие производственных мощностей, пастбищных, земельных угодий, значительные водные ресурсы и поддержание их природного потенциала способствовало бы созданию устойчивой системы продовольственной и биологической безопасности республики; 23. Развитие отечественного аграрного сектора и его государственная поддержка; 24. Для эффективного подхода к формированию квалифицированных специалистов необходимо совершенствование практико-ориентированного обучения и прямая связь с производителями; 25. Одним из направлений государственной политики в сфере обеспечения продовольственной безопасности, является развитие различных отраслей АПК за счет внедрения отечественных технологий, основанных на новейших достижениях науки; 26. Строительство в республике современных биолабораторий за счёт международных проектов. Основная задача биолабораторий научное исследование вирусных инфекций человека и животных и контроль над сохранением биологической безопасности страны. 27. Строительство современной ветеринарной клиники на базе факультета ветеринарной медицины и биотехнологии КНАУ за счет международных проектов; 28. Разработка проектов по улучшению экологического состояния и продуктивности пастбищных угодий в Кыргызской Республике; 29. Создание на базе Кыргызского национального аграрного университета Центрально азиатского центра по продовольственным системам; 30. Автономность и экономическая самостоятельность национальной продовольственной системы; 31. Развитие логистических центров в Кыргызской Республике; 32. Обратить внимание на решение проблемы создания прочной кормовой базы, ветеринарного обслуживания и целенаправленной селекционно–племенной работы в стадах, а также организации производства и государственной поддержки отрасли в законодательном и финансовом аспектах; 33. Научная, финансовая и экспертная поддержка функционирования продовольственных цепочек создания добавленной стоимости; 34. Добиться внутренней согласованности и межсекторальной интеграции проводимой государством как в сельском хозяйстве и перерабатывающей промышленности, так и в области образования, науки и др.; 35. Содействовать диверсификации пищевого производства путем использования местного сырья, новых технологий, притока в отрасль квалифицированного персонала; 36. Возродить Программу развития яководства в Кыргызской Республике; 37. Для администрирования и внедрения пищевого законодательства требуется квалифицированная, профессионально подготовленная, эффективная и честно работающая служба контроля над продуктами питания; 38. Сбор улик при нарушении качества продуктов питания и привлечение к ответственности; 39. Стимулирование подготовки кадров и просвещения в области обеспечения безопасности пищевых продуктов; 40. Постоянное повышение квалификации сотрудников и специалистов в вопросах пищевой и биологической безопасности; 41. Кластеры КР должны вести работы по справедливому распределению доходов во всех звеньях и проводить работы в следующих аспектах; 42. Сохранение генофонда яблони Западного Тянь-Шаня нужно считать важнейшим стратегическим приоритетом Кыргызстана. Для чего нужно провести инвентаризацию и паспортизацию всех дикорастущих насаждений яблони на территории Кыргызстан; 43. Выделить в ареалах произрастания яблони генетические резерваты по сохранению вида in situ (заповедники, заказники, национальные парки); 44. Проводить лесовосстановительные работы, способствующие естественному возобновлению посадочного материала; 45. Сохранение дикорастущих видов яблони в естественных условиях их произрастания; 46. Поддерживать формирование среды для творческого, инициативного и инновационного развития молодых учёных, магистрантов и студентов; 47. Развивать академическую мобильность преподавателей и студентов аграрных направлений, в том числе проведение летних школ, практик, гостевых лекций и др.; 48. Поддерживать участие учёных в международных симпозиумах, конференциях и семинарах; 49. Усилить связь ВУЗов с потенциальными работодателями, фермерами, международными организациями и проектами; 50. Внедрять в университетах специализации, связанные с обучением специалистов в области продовольственной безопасности, адаптации к изменению климата в сельском хозяйстве и др.; 51. Поддержать создание современных обучающих лабораторий с инновационными технологиями и возможностями по моделированию и анализу потенциально неблагоприятных ситуаций, связанных с последствиями изменения климата, процессов деградации, чрезвычайных ситуаций и др. явлений с их влиянием и последствиями на отрасли агропромышленного комплекса; 52. Оказывать всестороннюю поддержку фермерам по повышению потенциала, сопровождения аграрного производства и консультирования.236242244248Доклады были объединены в несколько общих тем 1. Животноводство - исследование вирусных инфекций, так как здоровье животных напрямую связано со здоровьем человека, для того чтобы иметь возможность предотвращения появления новых патогенов и их распространения; - проведение большего количества исследований, форумов или конференций о бруцеллезе и эхинококкозе, так как они являются самыми распространенными заболеваниями; - предотвращение чрезмерного употребления антибиотиков, что ведет к повышенной резистентности бактерий и вирусов; - возобновление разведения хайначки. Для решения вышеуказанных проблем и достижения целей, нужно вовлечь государство, фермеров, малый и средний бизнес, а также разных инвесторов и доноров. В первую очередь должны быть подготовлены специалисты в этой сфере и далее уже проводить различные научные исследования. 2. Растениеводство - улучшение системы поставки семян, а также увеличение экспорта, т.к. в настоящее время импорт больше экспорта в пять раз; - использование кластеризации в отраслях сельского хозяйства. В частности - кластеризация хлопка и сахарной свеклы, были активными темами во время обсуждения на конференции; - устранение диспаритета цен в свеклосахарном кластере; - увеличение производства и использования органических удобрений; - повышение урожайности возделываемых культур, путем улучшения семенного материала, селекции и улучшенных практик агротехники; - проведение лесовосстановительных работ; - сохранение генофонда яблонь. Для достижения данных целей, требуется помощь государства фермерам, малому и среднему бизнесу. Также ожидается поддержка и вклад международных инвесторов и доноров. Для достижения некоторых целей требуется внедрение сертификации. Проблема страны в отсутствии государстенной сертификации. 3. Образование - на данный момент в КНАУ открыты новые направления, такие как «Садоводство», «Рыболовство и Аквакультуры», «Ресурсоэффктивная логистика производства» и «Управление пастбищами»; - требуется построить лаборатории для проведения исследований вирусов, инфекций, генетики, качества продукции и много другого; - постоянное повышение квалификации преподавателей, ветеринаров, а также самих фермеров, производителей. Один из докладчиков предложил начать обучать население по продовольственной безопасности с раннего возраста (возможно с детского сада); - организовывать разные мероприятия на актуальные темы, чтобы студенты, преподаватели, производители и все заинтересованные стороны могли обмениваться результатами и информацией. Также помочь студентам и ученым в участиях в международных симпозиумах и конференциях для повышения квалификации. 4. Роль человека во время стрессовых ситуаций. Основными стрессовыми ситуациями в стране за последние годы стали пандемия, смена власти и несколько революций, пограничные проблемы, изменение климата и их последствия. Большинство из этих ситуаций повлекли за собой снижение экономический и физической возможности обеспечения продуктами питания. Что также повлекло снижение здоровья и иммунитета населения. Последствия изменения климата создали группу проблем в первую очередь фермерам. Также пандемия и карантин перекрыли пути фермерам к ветеринарам и другим специалистам для поддержания жизнеспособности животных и растений. Для решения и адаптации к подобным проблемам КНАУ открыли несколько направлений при поддержке международных инвесторов. Новое поколение специалистов поможет исследовать проблемы в сельском хозяйстве и постараются найти решения, а также поддержат фермеров и производителей на данном уровне.237Диалог состоял из докладов исследований и обсуждения были короткими. Поэтому расхождений во взглядах не было.

2021-07-07 07:52:51205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28146/100

99014552730455405168336312130101312121001201251214531280301471

Kuwait recognized the importance of moving forward to host phase three of National Food Systems Dialogue as part of Member State Dialogue on 30 June 2021. Kuwait plans to come out with a written document containing working plan to move forward and strengthen its food systems. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust.Kuwait National Food Systems Dialogues invited multiple stakeholders and decision makers from different sectors related to food systems to participate in the final phase of the National dialogue in preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021. The Public Authority for Food and Nutrition (PAFN) - Kuwait arranged all stages of member state dialogues and all were held virtually. Participants included stakeholders from across the food systems, ranging from government officials, ex-ministers, food industry, Non-Governmental Organization, research and academic institutions, activists , entrepreneurs, media ,financial institutions and others. This diverse group of participants was able to add value to the issues discussed and was able to set measurable goals in the food systems chain to be able to translate them to short , medium and long term plans to be achieved by 2030.It is very important to appreciate the principles of engagement when preparing for the dialogue. Spending enough time to list all stakeholders and decision makers is important for a successful dialogue. It is advisable to encourage women to voice their opinions as they have proved themselves in many developmental sectors such as academia, environment, social issues and more. Every opinion is important, and everyone shared their views in a very respectful manner.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251It is important to note that the opinions mentioned in this report reflects the opinions made by the Public Authority for Food and Nutrition and does not reflect the government opinion. Stage 3 of the dialogue focused on ways to move forward regarding developing policies to enhance applicable and achievable intervention programs to improve the nutritional status of school children through partnership between the Public Authority for Food and Nutrition (PAFN), Ministry of Education (MoE), Ministry of Health (MOH), media and food industry. This partnership aims to take the concept of school canteens (SC) to a new level; to provide appropriate food snacks with added nutritional value, and to adhere to the school canteen’s approved specifications, standards, and requirements. Moreover, this collaboration will ensure the implementation of nutrition awareness programs targeting students, school administrators , teaching staff, and parents. The latter intervention activity requires collaboration with nutrition health educators in related sectors to utilize their expertise and skills in this field. The MoE will comply and adhere to the health measures and social distancing guidelines to combat Covid-19 pandemic with regards to school canteen in the event of reopening of schools in the next academic year in September 2021. The dialogue also focused on steps to move forward on developing water and food security in Kuwait. Water security is threatened and it is vital to adopt digital system to provide and analyze data. Kuwait imports more than 90% of its food which puts it in an extremely challenging position in times of crisis as has happened during the Covid -19 pandemic. Despite the latter, the authorities in Kuwait were able to find new opportunities with new trade partners to ensure availability, affordability, accessibility, safety and nutritious food in a sustainable way.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There were many key findings during stage 3 of the dialogue. In order to make substantial and rapid progress towards national food security, coherence and convergence are fundamental elements among policies and programs in the country. COVID-19 pandemic exposed the different challenges that faces food systems at the global and national levels. Kuwait relies heavily on food imports to ensure sustainable food supply because of the many challenges it faces to meet the local demand for food. These challenges include desert climate, scarcity of water resources and the increase demand for food due to population growth . Hence there is an urgent need to develop national water and food security strategies and legislations to achieve sustainable food systems in Kuwait. . It is important to use knowledge , research , capacity development and innovative technologies to explore new venues for water resources and promote biodiversity. It is vital to form a collaboration between relevant stakeholders to unify joint efforts towards strengthening food and water security in Kuwait. Other findings highlighted the importance of managing water and food loss and waste in the country through the enacting laws and legislations. Kuwait is a pioneer in the region for implementation of its policies on energy ,food and water subsidies. However, there is a need to review and reformulate policies on these subsidies to optimally manage these important resources quantitatively and qualitatively. Overweight and obesity in Kuwait is a huge health burden and rates in school children have reached 36%. The main contributing factors are high calorie consumption, physical inactivity and lack of nutrition awareness. Furthermore, focusing on the younger generation ensures effective impact of intervention programs. Thus, Kuwait has prioritized this age group for developing healthier food environment culture which involves capacity building of teachers, canteen procurement officers, students and parents . It also includes enhancing applied nutrition, school farming and managing food waste in school curricula. Therefore, collaboration between PAFN , MoE and MoH is inevitable to improve the nutritional status of school children.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251PAFN has communicated with the National Security Bureau (NSB) to establish the Supreme Committee for Food and Water Security in Kuwait. This committee will be led by NSB with all relevant stakeholders as members. The committee will develop , implement and monitor strategies with measurable action plans and SMART goals. Progress of the action plans will be assessed by key performance indicators (KPIs). Meanwhile, there will be challenges facing this committee such as the overlap of responsibilities among different stakeholders, resistance to change the current situation and lack of commitment. PAFN will establish and chair the National Committee for Improving Nutritional Status of School Children with the membership of both MoE and MoH to address the health and nutritional challenges that were of major concern among the participants during all stages of the dialogue. PAFN will also collaborate with UNICEF on research to promote healthy eating behavior in school children. Successful partnership with food industry will ensure reformulation of food items that are acceptable by students and provide healthier choices. Nevertheless, food industry might not comply to the agreement specially that this affects their sales and profits. Another challenge is related to the acceptance of these newly formulated food items by the students or their families. It is important to engage with members of parliament to legislate laws and regulations regarding food and water loss and waste. This will ensure commitment and accountability by relevant sectors. However, this might take a long time to implement and might face some resistance by people. PAFN is collaborating with the Ministry of Commerce and industry to review and amend subsidized food items, qualitatively and quantitatively to optimize nutritional health. This will increase the potential of food diversity and encourage entrepreneurship that will eventually strengthen the food system. This may contribute to improve the food consumption patterns and possibly reduce food waste. This reformulation may face opposition from the citizens and pressure from food industry. PAFN will collaborate with Kuwait Institute for scientific research (KISR) in developing research areas related to food security and achieving sustainable food systems and conducting training programs for capacity building. Budget constraints can be a major challenge facing this initiative. PAFN is aware of the pivotal role the Ministry of Information plays in food and nutrition awareness based on a strategic plan with related entities. Ministry of Information needs to fulfill its responsibilities by collaborating with media influencers and experts in the field of food and nutrition for accountability especially in times of emergencies. Challenges facing this collaboration is mainly lack of commitment to the action plan.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There were no areas of divergence in the dialogue regarding collaborations and commitments that are needed to be taken.

2021-07-07 09:35:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21923/203

03010668658151110417132124114105195116754526463202718

Acting with Urgency: The dialogue was organised with an effort to bringing together women agri-food entrepreneurs, governments, financing partners, regional and national agri-food buyers, and development partners for a better understanding of constraints, opportunities and action areas for empowering women on agri-preneurship and food trade within the Continent. The dialogue was co-organised with key stakeholders that have a special interest on the inclusion of women in sustainable food systems. To ensure all participants’ voices were heard, the dialogue had a total of 10 breakout sessions to give all participants a chance to give their views. Participants were given the opportunity to choose their breakout theme during registration, allowing participants to contribute to a theme of their interest. Being respectful: Every breakout session was facilitated by a key stakeholder with the technical expertise in that particular subject. In preparation to the dialogue, the facilitators and their session rapporteurs were prepared in advance to ensure that they would allow for participation of the group participants. Recognizing complexity and embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The dialogue was organised and co-hosted with a diversity of stakeholders from within women agri-entrepreneurs, governments, financing partners, regional and national agri-food buyers, and development partners. The event was hosted at continental level capturing diverse cultural background with a specific focus on catalysing women's agri-entrepreneurship and food trade in Africa. The dialogue was building on Country consultations and had country speakers representing the different African regions and cultures that is (West Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa). Complimenting the work of others and building trust: The planning of the event entailed mapping out of different stakeholders recognizing their strengths and expertise on the theme of the dialogue. The organizers then reached out to the mapped stakeholders.The attendance attracted participants from over 30 countries including speakers who were from across Africa and beyond. The breakout session groups had an average of 20 participants per group, which allowed for an interactive session by giving each participant a chance to contribute to the discussions. Facilitators were given a chance to choose a topic based on their technical experience in order to have a more productive sessions by asking the relevant questions and also getting the right key points and messages from the discussions.We advise other dialogue conveners that it is very important to follow these principles to have a very productive and rich dialogue that not only bring diverse ideas from various levels of stakeholders but ideas that are also dependable. We also recognise that the principles of engagement should not only apply to UNFSS dialogue but to every other convenings meant to foster sustainable food systems development.

Yes

234241251Dialogue main theme: Catalysing women's agri-entrepreneurship and food trade in Africa to advance equitable livelihoods. Dialogue specific themes: Evolve a collective understanding of the issues, challenges, and opportunities prevalent in the 11 countries where the mini Dialogues have been held Share on headlines, solutions that are emerging from country consultations through selected country memorandums Bolster African women’s voice in the UN food systems Dialogue and strengthening the continental platform for women in agri-food entrepreneurs Inform and influence continental partners, policy and regulatory actors on the needs and aspirations of women in agri-food enterprises Refine and or contribute to game-changing solutions on women in agri-food enterprises, for the United Nations Food Systems Summit Breakout themes: • Gender responsive business environment • Business growth and formalization • Women’s business segment • Business leadership • Women’s associations in agripreneurship • Women’s access to information and business networks • Women’s access to affordable and innovative finance and capital • Women’s access to mechanization and digital technologies • Women’s access to high-value markets • Women’s involvement in cross border and food trade235241251Our key finding are outline below: It was clear that in many African countries gender favourable policies have been put in place however they have not been operationalised, therefore there is need for operationalization of gender policies. The dialogue findings affirmed the need for addressing legal dualism by formulating policies that address cultural interference in policy implementation. Capacity limitation for women entrepreneurs emerged as the key constraint hindering their equal participation in food systems, therefore a recommendation was made to develop the capacity of women entrepreneurs in technical, business and soft skills. Given the emerging digital economy amplified by COVID-19 pandemic coupled by Africa's wide digital gender gap, the need to promote interventions that increase women’s access to digital technologies and strengthen digital literacy proved to be imperative. It was observed that the current extension and advisory services are not gender responsive hence the need to design and support gender responsive extension and advisory services to reach women agri-preneurs more effectively. It was broadly agreed that the key factors that impede women agri-preneurs’ access to finance and capital are lack of collateral, high interest rates and poor collaboration between stakeholders, therefore developing gender responsive financial and business support services coupled with diverse financial schemes, interest free loans and grant to small enterprises, incentives to financial institutions to accept alternative forms of forms of collateral. Finally, it was concluded that there is need to support innovation and research addressing gender and business success.236241245248251There was a call for a fundamental change in how ‘value’ is perceived by companies and at the broader society as present systems undervalue women’s contributions, especially in the area of unpaid care work. It was agreed that developing gender responsive systems will require making fundamental changes to meeting women’s needs. Rather than trying to make women fit into current systems or practices, new systems that are women friendly need to be devised to include alternative collateral systems, gender responsive procurement to ensure women can engage in value chains. Participants attributed limited business growth among the majority of women owned agro-enterprises in Africa to poor access to finance, market information, technologies and women’s limited technical and business capacities and knowledge. The absence of post-training support and follow-up also contribute to low business growth. They identified fostering a growth-oriented mindset among women entrepreneurs through training and mentoring as a potential solution. It was observed that women entrepreneurs tend to be concentrated in specific value chain areas partly because most women go into agribusiness out of economic necessity to provide for their families as opposed to pursuing an opportunity. It is thus necessary to provide open-source business and market information and step by step business guidance through channels and format that are easily accessible and attractive to women. It was underscored that the existence of well-established networks including VALUE4HER, AWAN-Afrika, Nourishing Africa among others, that provide platforms for women in agribusiness to raise their voices at local and continental level. Better connectivity has helped to strengthen women’s networks but opportunities for improvement in this area still exist. Participants pointed out that women members of cooperatives and producer associations (estimated at 30%) tend to be older and noted that the poorest and least educated women tend not to join these groups or choose people to represent them who do not have their best interest at heart. It was emphasized that it is important for women not to just belong to collectives, but to take ownership of these groups to make their demands heard. Most African women agri-preneurs, particularly in rural areas, have limited access to information and business networks. It was noted that the switch to virtual communication, e-opportunities and on-line platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased women’s marginalization. It was voiced that improving women’s access to information and business networks is critical for moving women agri-preneurs away from production related activities to more profitable processing and value addition enterprises. Participants broadly agreed that the key factors that impede women agri-preneurs’ access to finance and capital are lack of collateral, high interest rates and poor collaboration between stakeholders. They suggested developing diverse financial schemes for different agricultural products like different schemes for seasonal crops, annual, and perennial crops, providing interest free loans and grants to micro and small enterprises Women agri-preneurs’ low use of digital technologies holds them back in several areas, notably, accessing digital financial services, markets and information and prevents them from taking full advantage of social media and digital agribusiness platforms such as VALUE4HER to grow their agri-enterprise. It was emphasized that publicizing information on agriculture related tools and equipment particularly through information channels used by women producers, explore innovative ways to improve women’s digital education and use of digital technologies and spaces by, for example, organizing women agri-preneurs into collectives headed by a tech-savvy leader.237241251While lack of access to capital to purchase or use mechanized technologies was identified as the biggest challenge, others believed it was the general lack of awareness about tools and equipment and their costs, a lack of knowledge and skills on how to use tools and equipment and many women being intimidated by tools, technologies and equipment that are largely used by men that hinders women from using mechanization services.

2021-07-07 10:32:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28789/76

0921385201491812117122122415123176525210111

The organizers of the dialogues at WACCI, acted with urgency and made panelists and participants aware of the urgency in working to deliver on the SDGs by 2030. Commitments to the global food summit was incorporated and reinforced during the dialogue. The Convenor gave a speech to open the dialogue, and, in his speech, he intimated the need for the call to action by the UN Secretary General. The dialogue was organized and facilitated by professionals who were very courteous, respectful of every participant and allowed contributions from the more than 100 participants although we were limited by the time constraints. In recognizing the complexity of the food systems and the multi-faceted nature of the actions that will be required for transformation, we engaged actors from industry, media, academia and government covering: researchers, lecturers/educators, business leaders, students and the general public. In the spirit of the principles, we recognized the works, efforts and initiatives currently on-going towards food systems transformation in Ghana. Trust and motivation was increased during the dialogue among the panelists and discussants especially as we engaged them in thinking about the critical issues, problems, solutions and necessary actions required for developing innovations, interventions and policies for the food systems transformation.The concept on the Dialogue was developed weeks before the event and was shared with the panelists and discussants. This concept was structured to have background/context on the food system, the SDGs and the urgency to achieve the SDGs in the coming decade. This provided a good reflection on the principles and provided to the panelists and discussants good information for the preparation for their participation in the dialogues. The issues to be discussed were well identified and grouped into sub-sections called sessions within the dialogue. This structure provided clear guidance on the critical issues and the scope of the discussions. The webinar started at 2:00 pm with an opening statement from the facilitator, Mr. Joseph Opoku Gakpo, a journalist with “Multimedia Group Limited”. There were introductory speeches by the convenor, Prof. Eric Danquah as a prelude the discussions. This speech provided information on the context, the Ghanaian food system, interventions and key issues that need to be addressed for proper food systems transformation. Guiding the discussions, the Convenor’s opening statements were clear and indicated the need for all to work together in responding to the call of the United Nations Secretary General to participate in the global dialogues and engage in the Global Food Summit. Lead discussants for each of the three sessions gave presentations covering key issues, challenges, opportunities, and interventions for transformation of the foody system. In a respectful manner, each session had contribution from four panelists, followed by questions, comments, and suggestions from participants (see Annex 1 for program). Key findings and outcomes of the dialogues were presented at the end of the dialogue. The first session of the webinar focused on discussions to identify innovations needed for food systems transformation. This session focused on research and development projects that are required for the transformation of the food systems. It discussed the problems, challenges and requirements necessary for countries to establish institutions thaThe manual for convenors communicates clearly the principles and methods to be used in organizing independent dialogues. The principles are in line with ethical standards and requirements for multistakeholder engagements to find solutions to a complex problem. We will advise convenors to use this manual and the principles to guide the processes and the spirit of engagement of stakeholders during the dialogues. It is recommended that we all act with urgency in transforming our food systems and hence the dialogues should be organized quickly, and all actors should be motivated to act urgently in working together to organize the dialogues, identify the key issues and prepare plans for addressing these issues in a timely manner. A lot needs to be done in order to address key bottlenecks necessary for food systems transformation a major requirement in meeting the 2030 targets for the SDGs. It is advisable to engage stakeholders to develop, motivate and ensure commitment to the objectives of the food systems summit hence, we encourage all convenors to engage actively in organizing these independently dialogues using the manual stipulated by the UN. Convenors should be advised to ensure that all dialogues are organized in an environment that will encourage mutual respect, openness and honesty for people to feel free and contribute immensely to the discussions. Without promoting such an environment of mutual respect, people will not openly engage and share their views on issues and this will limit the outcomes of the dialogues greatly. Also, Convenors must recognize the complexity of the food systems and the need for inclusivity in engaging panelists, discussants and participants for all relevant institutions. Complementing the work of others helps to reaffirm and encourage them to act and participate in future programmes which the UN or convenors will be organizing hence it is important the peoples and institutional efforts and initiatives which are ensuring food production are acknowledged. This also helps to build trust and motivation in actors which is required if

Yes

234238243244248A) Major Focus The dialogue focused on three areas; (i) Innovation for the food system transformation, (ii) Interventions for the food system transformation, (iii) Policies for food system transformation. Innovation for the food system transformation This session focused on research and development projects that are required for the transformation of the food systems. It discussed the problems, challenges and requirements necessary for countries to establish institutions that will accelerate the development of ground-breaking innovations for food systems transformation. The discussion covered the following topics: - Structure and Governance of Research Systems - Sustainable funding for research systems - Support for accelerated innovations development - Key sectors that require accelerated innovations development - Platforms for Innovations and Knowledge Management - Public – Private Sector Relationships for Innovations Interventions for food system transformation This session focused on identification of key interventions needed for food systems transformation. The discuss covered the following: - Bottlenecks in the Food Systems across Africa (using country specific case studies) - Structural changes for Food Systems transformation - Key interventions for sustainable funding of agribusinesses - Transformation of Extension – Research – Farmer Linkages for increased productivity - Support for accelerated innovations development - Key sectors that require actions for transformation - Public – Private Sector Relationships for Agricultural Transformation Policies for food systems transformation This session identified policies that will be transformational and impactful in the food systems development. The dialogues will covered the following: - Policy gaps in Food Systems across Africa (using country specific case studies) - Changes in Policy Formulation Processes for Food Systems transformation - Sustainable Funding for Dynamic Policy Development - Governmental Policies for Food Systems Transformation - Policies for Innovations and Technology Integration into Food Systems - Policies for Effective Public – Private Sector Initiatives for Agricultural Transformation235238242243244248249- We need to redesign our food systems to achieve the SDGs. Science based research driven actions are needed to transform the food system. - There is the need to increase investment in research and development for the transformation of food systems in Africa. - Urgent need to establishment of a national research fund. - Need for private sector participation in collaborating and funding agricultural research. - Governments should more proactively support the development and use of new technologies, including ICTs and biotechnology. - Commitment to strengthening the capacities within research institutions. - Incentivize innovations and investments that help lower agriculture’s vulnerability to climatic/environmental impacts and lead to more affordable healthy food consumption. - Reduce interest rates for the benefit of smallholder farmers and also encourage savings among smallholder producers. - Develop a digital driven agricultural policy aimed at attracting the youth engagement in food systems. - Need for effective public-private-partnership. - There should be a national focus on developing value chains of key staple crops. - More collaboration between universities and research institutions to do basic research on new innovations. - Need to for science research journalism to communicate innovations effectively to end users. - Strengthen research-extension-farmer linkages. - Need for mechanization, irrigation, improved varieties that are adapted locally. - Need for standardized markets for agricultural commodities. - Link farmers to reliable markets. - There is the need to diversity crops being cultivated including indigenous crops and develop value chains for indigenous crops. - Develop efficient monitoring systems to be able to track progress and identify gaps to be addressed. - Place more emphasis on post-harvest technologies, especially in food processing. - There is the need to emphasis on efficient fertilizer and water utilization for sustainable productivity and environment. - Establish innovation platforms for interaction among actors in the commodity value chains. - Prioritize food safety issues to reduce postharvest losses. - Improve infrastructure to make technology accessible to farmers. - Sustainable funding sources for dynamic policy development. - Make government policies for food systems more inclusive. - Need to actively involve the youth in agriculture. - Focus on climate smart agriculture.2362382422432442481. Establishment of a national research fund: We need to prioritize investment in agriculture. Government should set up a dedicated fund purposely to support research. Government should commit to make budgetary allocation to this fund. Private sector should be encouraged to invest in the research fund. 2. Need for private sector participation in collaborating and funding agricultural research. Private sector should collaborate with researchers in setting objective research agenda to drive innovation in Africa. This requires a constructive stakeholder dialogue for a clear transition path. Partnership with private sector should be at the onset of research objectives. Research institutions should know how to relate with private sector. The research institutes should coerce the private sector to work with them and give the private sector the advantage of commercializing new products. 3. Governments should more proactively support the development and use of new technologies, including ICTs and biotechnology. There is the need to promote ICT to take advantage of the youth bulge in Africa that portends for a more technology-induced food systems transformation. There is need to develop a digital driven agricultural policy aimed at attracting the youth engagement in food systems. 4. Need to for science research journalism to communicate innovations effectively to end users. The media is too silent, not communicating science-based innovation to the populace. There is the need to train media on science-based communication. 5. Commitment to strengthening the capacities within research institutions. There is need to train more research scientist. Also, there should be more collaboration between universities and research institutions to do basic research on new innovations. Also, strengthen collaboration with advance research institutions. 6. Strengthen research extension farmer linkages. Extension agents should be aware of new innovation developed by researchers and disseminate innovations to farmers. Private extension has role to play in spearheading the transfer of information from the researcher to the farmers. 7. Prioritize food safety issues to reduce postharvest losses. 8. Need for mechanization, irrigation, improved varieties that are adapted locally. Link farmers to reliable markets 9. Improve infrastructure to make technology accessible to farmers. 10. There should be a national focus on developing value chains of key staple crops.237238242243244The private sector actors believe that they are doing their best to contribute to research and development whilst academia and researchers believe that the private sector has a lot more role to play in food systems transformation when it comes to setting the agenda for research and in funding research. Private sector actors intimated that researcher do not know how to deal with private sector or businesses and that research cannot be funded without profit generation as the ultimate goal in the short-medium term. Therefore, researchers must know how to work closely with the private sector in order to attract funding. The issues of leadership in the delivery of extension services (dissemination of innovation) was also a point of divergence as stakeholders intimated that the private sector can play the leadership role as the public extension services are woefully inadequate.

2021-07-07 11:06:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29646/203

Yes

2021-07-07 14:34:58https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Summary-of-the-Side-Event.pdf

2021-07-07 12:21:46205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31069/185

13602080366066

La concertation nationale a été organisée dès le départ à travers une approche participative multipartite. Ceci a commencé par un webinaire organisé le 28 mai au cours duquel un échange consensuel a été engagé pour le choix des thèmes principaux et des sous-thèmes du Dialogue National. Un climat de respect mutuel a été favorisé par le coordonnateur national du dialogue et par le facilitateur, favorisant des échanges libres et libérés de toutes contraintes liées aux fonctions et à l’appartenance des participants à leurs structures respectives. Malgré la grande diversité des participants au niveau de leur background et de leur appartenance au secteur public, au secteur privé, aux organisations professionnelles et à la société civile, les échanges et recommandations se sont toujours effectués dans un cadre positif et d’ouverture d’esprit avec comme dénominateur commun l’identification des pistes et propositions de solutions pour améliorer l’atteinte des ODD à l’horizon 2030 et en prenant compte l’engagement de la Tunisie pour le sommet à travers des réflexions qui prennent en compte à la fois la dimension locale et globale. Le long du processus du dialogue national, le coordonnateur et le facilitateur se sont engagés dans un processus transparent d’organisation des différentes rencontres qui se sont toutes organisées à distance, exception faite de la concertation nationale du 28 juin de restitution et d’échange autour des résultats des concertations thématiques dont le format était hybride (présentiel et à distance). Les participants avaient été mis à l’aise par le coordonnateur national par rapport à leur participation aux différentes étapes du dialogue où il a invité les participants à être créatif et à proposer des solutions innovantes en faveur de la transformation des systèmes alimentaires.La concertation s’est basée sur une liste exhaustive de participants et de structures publiques, privées, professionnelles et ONG multisectorielle et multidisciplinaire (Agriculture – Industrie – Santé – Nutrition - Environnement – Culture – Recherche – Communication – Syndicats – Patronats - ONG …). La concertation multipartite a été organisée de manière à stimuler les réflexions et les échanges croisés à travers l’ouverture des esprits à de nouvelles possibilités offertes par des liens inédits entre les différents secteurs et parties prenantes pour créer des contributions riches dont les effets pourront être durables. Le coordonnateur et le facilitateur du dialogue ont accordé la même importance à tous les participants quel que soit leurs profils ou leurs structures d’appartenance. Ils ont traités sur un même pied d’égalité tous les participants qui se sont exprimés d’une manière libre. Le dialogue national s’est articulé autour du webinaire préparatoire (28 Mai 2021) pour le choix des thèmes prioritaires et des sous-thèmes liés, des journées de concertation autour desdits thèmes prioritaires (14 – 16 et 18 Juin 2021) ainsi que la journée nationale du dialogues (28 juin 2021). Ces concertations ont constitué une chance : - D’échanges divers, utiles et respectueux entre les différents acteurs des systèmes alimentaires ; - De stimuli pour le Sommet convoqué par le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies ; - De se concentrer sur des sujets de discussion qui définissent une voie vers la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires à long terme.Les concertations doivent être multipartites et multisectorielles, inclusives, participatives, constructives, sans tabous ni censures, dans un climat d’échange ouvert d’esprit et convivial, en respectant tous les participants et toutes les idées. La considération et le respect de tous les participants sur le même pied d’égalité constitue un facteur de succès des concertations, de leurs conduite et de la génération d’idées et de solutions.

Yes

234238239242243244245246248249250251La concertation s'est articulé autour des trois thèmes prioritaires et sous-thèmes liés détaillés ci-dessous et convenus lors du webinaire du 28 Mai 2021 : Thème principal N°1: Promouvoir des modèles alimentaires régionaux favorisant l’accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs - Sous-thème 1 : Promotion de l'adhésion au modèle alimentaire de la diète méditerranéenne - Sous-thème 2 : Garantie de la disponibilité et de l’accès abordable à des aliments sains et nutritifs aux populations les plus vulnérables - Sous-thème 3 : Renforcement de la sécurité sanitaires des produits alimentaires et promotion de la qualité et la labellisation des produits alimentaires Thème principal N°2 : Passer à des modes de consommation et de production durables : - Sous-thème 1 : Education à la consommation - Sous-thème 2 : Réduction des pertes et gaspillages alimentaires et valorisation des déchets organiques - Sous-thème 3 : Renforcement du développement durable des chaînes de valeurs et de l’entreprenariat dans les métiers verts - Sous-thème 4 : Optimisation des ressources en eau et en terre Thème principal N°3 : Renforcer la résilience aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress - Sous-thème 1 : Souveraineté alimentaire - Sous-thème 2 : Anticipation des crises et des pandémies - Sous-thème 3 : Changement climatique235238239242243244245246248249250251Ci-après, les propositions d’actions et recommandations des sujets de discussion se rapportant aux trois thèmes principaux et les sous-thèmes liés: Thème Principal N°1: Promouvoir des modèles alimentaires régionaux favorisant l’accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs : - Création et/ou renforcement des partenariats entre les parties prenantes concernées, tout le long de la chaîne alimentaire, par la diète méditerranéenne pour: o Mieux documenter l’historique, les bienfaits et les spécificités régionales et locales de la diète méditerranéenne o Exploiter les données existantes pour mettre en exergue les spécificités et le savoir-faire caractérisant le modèle de consommation alimentaire des tunisiens o Développer davantage la labellisation des produits tunisiens favorables à la santé (AOC - Bio – Terroir – Agriculture responsable – Commerce équitable, …) - Amélioration de l’étiquetage alimentaire pour le rendre lisible et à la portée des consommateurs conformément à un référentiel nutritionnel spécifique aux produits agroalimentaires - Conduite de campagnes de sensibilisation et d’information sur l’alimentation saine, équilibrée et diversifiée, à travers les technologies digitales et permettant à des start-up de s’impliquer dans ces programmes - Examen de la faisabilité de la transformation des subventions aux prix de vente en une aide aux revenus plus massive, versée en faveur de ceux qui en ont le plus besoin - Mise en place un système d’alerte permettant d’informer régulièrement et de façon claire les consommateurs sur les risques pour la santé d’une alimentation impropre à la consommation, sur la base des normes alimentaires, lignes directrices et codes d’usages du Codex Alimentarius Thème Principal N°2 : Passer à des modes de consommation et de production durables: - Mobilisation des ressources financière et managériales pour renforcer la mise en œuvre des projets et programmes se rapportant à l’éducation à la consommation et à la production durable à tous les niveaux avec l’implication des parties prenantes ; - Recours aux technologies digitales pour la production de supports d’éducation à la consommation et à la production durable (applications, jeux, réseaux sociaux, …) - Encouragement de l’étiquetage intelligent avec l’examen de la possibilité de la mise en œuvre de l’étiquetage sur la base des couleurs ou symboles - Amélioration des conditions logistiques en particulier pour le respect de la chaîne du froid et le stockage des produits alimentaires - Encouragement aux initiatives pour le développement et la diffusion d’applications digitales favorisant le réseautage en vue de la récupération et la redistribution des produits alimentaires comestibles et des restes des repas - Promotion de l’entreprenariat à travers le développement durable des chaînes de valeur valorisant les spécificités et qualités sensorielles et gustatives des produits (Terroir – Biologiques – Signes de qualité), tout en intégrant les domaines des énergies renouvelables, le recyclage et la valorisation des déchets - Utilisation des TICs (Blockchain) pour le renforcement de la traçabilité - Promouvoir la durabilité de la production alimentaire à travers: o L’optimisation des ressources en eau à travers:  La sensibilisation de tous les usagers sur la nécessité de protéger les ressources en eau et la mise en place de nouvelles pratiques et techniques de production adaptées au contexte de la rareté de l’eau  La sécurisation de l’utilisation des eaux usées et de mobilisation des eaux non conventionnelles  L’instauration d’une agriculture intelligente accordant un intérêt particulier à l’amélioration de la productivité et le choix des modes de cultures o L’optimisation des ressources en sol à travers:  Le développement de l’agriculture urbaine  La redynamisation et préservation des bonnes pratiques agricoles anciennement utilisées dans certaines régions du pays (  Protection efficace des ressources en sol contre érosion et aléas climatiques Thème Principal N°3: Renforcer la résilience aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress - Renforcement des capacités de stockage des céréales - Augmentation de la productivité tout en en réduisant les pertes et gaspillage - Rationalisation de la consommation des céréales - Meilleure utilisation des terres agricoles et répartition des superficies des cultures selon une carte agricole adaptée - Mise en place d’un Système d’alerte et de veille sur l’approvisionnement et les prix sur les marchés internationaux - Négociation des règles du commerce international pour les rendre plus adaptées aux exigences du système alimentaire durable. - Mise en place d’un dispositif dynamique de ciblage des populations pour un meilleur accès à l’alimentation en temps de crise - Renforcement des systèmes d’alerte et digitalisation de l’agriculture pour une meilleure gestion de l’information et sa diffusion o Développement des modalités de gestion des crises (stratégie d’adaptation, plan d’action, protocole d’anticipation, ...) à travers une meilleure collaboration avec les instances et réseaux internationaux et régionaux - Mise en œuvre des orientations découlant de la stratégie nationale des changements climatiques en impliquant les parties prenantes et en adoptant un plan de mise en œuvre national avec allocution budgétaire - Mise en place d’instruments économiques et de financement pour l’adaptation, l’atténuation et l’indemnisation des dommages liés au changement climatique - Mise en place d’un référentiel de bonnes pratiques en matière de résilieence au changement climatique236238239242243244245246248249250251Thème Principal 1: Promouvoir des modèles alimentaires régionaux favorisant l’accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs : Création et/ou renforcement des partenariats entre les parties prenantes concernées, par la diète méditerranéenne pour: Mieux documenter l’historique, les bienfaits et les spécificités régionales et locales de la diète méditerranéenne Exploiter les données relatives aux spécificités et savoir-faire caractérisant le modèle de consommation alimentaire des tunisiens Labellisation des produits favorables à la santé (AOC - Bio – Terroir – Agriculture responsable – Commerce équitable) Etiquetage alimentaire lisible et à la portée des consommateurs conformément à un référentiel nutritionnel Sensibilisation et information sur l’alimentation saine, à travers les technologies digitales Examen de la faisabilité de la transformation des subventions aux prix de vente en une aide aux revenus, versée en faveur de ceux qui en ont le plus besoin Système d’alerte sur les risques pour la santé d’une alimentation impropre à la consommation, sur la base des normes alimentaires, lignes directrices et codes d’usages du Codex Alimentarius Thème Principal 2 : Passer à des modes de consommation et de production durable Mobilisation des ressources financière et managériales pour renforcer la mise en œuvre des projets se rapportant à l’éducation en faveur de la durabilité à tous les niveaux Recours aux technologies digitales pour la production de supports d’éducation à la consommation et à la production durable (applications, jeux, réseaux sociaux) Encouragement de l’étiquetage intelligent avec possibilité d’utilisations de couleurs ou symboles Amélioration des conditions logistiques pour le respect de la chaîne du froid et de stockage Développement d’applications digitales favorisant le réseautage en vue de la récupération et la redistribution des produits alimentaires comestibles et des restes des repas Promotion de l’entreprenariat à travers le développement des chaînes de valeur valorisant les spécificités et les qualités sensorielles et gustatives des produits (Terroir – Biologiques – Signes de qualité), tout en intégrant les domaines des énergies renouvelables, le recyclage et la valorisation des déchets Promouvoir la durabilité de la production alimentaire à travers: La sensibilisation de tous les usagers sur la nécessité de protéger les ressources en eau et en sol et la mise en place des pratiques et techniques adaptées au contexte de la rareté de l’eau La sécurisation de l’utilisation des eaux usées et de mobilisation des eaux non conventionnelles L’instauration d’une agriculture intelligente accordant un intérêt particulier à l’amélioration de la productivité Le développement de l’agriculture urbaine La redynamisation/préservation des bonnes pratiques agricoles anciennement utilisées dans certaines régions du pays Protection des ressources en sol contre l’érosion et les aléas climatiques Thème Principal 3: Renforcer la résilience aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress Renforcement des capacités de stockage des céréales Augmentation de la productivité tout en en réduisant les pertes et gaspillage Mise en place d’un Système d’alerte et de veille sur l’approvisionnement et les prix sur les marchés Négociation des règles du commerce international pour les rendre plus adaptées à des systèmes alimentaires durables. Mise en place d’un dispositif dynamique de ciblage des populations pour un meilleur accès à l’alimentation en temps de crise Renforcement des systèmes d’alerte et digitalisation de l’agriculture pour une meilleure gestion de l’information et sa diffusion Développement des modalités de gestion des crises (stratégie d’adaptation, plan d’action, protocole d’anticipation) à travers une meilleure collaboration avec les instances et réseaux internationaux et régionaux Mise en œuvre des orientations découlant de la stratégie nationale des changements climatiques y compris des instruments économiques et financier pour l’adaptation, l’atténuation et l’indemnisation des dommages237238239243246Vu la nature des propositions, nous n’avons pas rencontré de points de divergences exception faite de la nécessité d’application de normes strictes au niveau de l’étiquetage, la teneur en sel pour le pain. Des échanges ont également eu quant à la dimension géographique relative aux modèles alimentaires régionaux. Certains se sont focalisés sur l’importance de revenir aux modèles alimentaires locaux authentiques et spécifiques à des localités géographiques particulières (exemple : berbère), en plus de la relance des modèles alimentaires régionaux à l’instar de la diète méditerranéenne. Malgré que la question de la souveraineté nationale a été traitée sous forme de propositions de mesure en faveur de cette question, elle n’a pas connu une définition claire et explicite.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/3.-Concertations-nationale-sommet-sys-alimentaire_28-juin-2021_Theme-principal-1_Jalila-El-Ati.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/4.-Concertations-nationale-sommet-sys-alimentaire_28-juin-2021_Theme-principal-2_Darine-Dogui.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/5.-Concertations-nationale-sommet-sys-alimentaire_28-juin-2021_Theme-principal-3_Hamed-Daly.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/WL-37-Tunisie-Edited-.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Article-Prospective-Agricole-Tunisie-OCL.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/actions-being-taken-eu/farm-fork_frhttp://www.onagri.nat.tn/uploads/Etudes/tun169254.pdf

2021-07-07 14:14:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25820/203

188105623212105

To ensure that the dialogue principles were incorporated, reinforced, and enhanced, we organized the dialogue in the following way: 1. The call to participate in the dialogue was open and inclusive. We reached out to (including but not limited to ) the youth ambassador community within Real Food Systems and also youth stakeholders of United Nations Food Systems Summit. 2. The whole dialogue process was quite engaging as it included briefing from the speakers first and then followed by the smaller discussions in breakout groups followed by reporting in the main plenary.Our dialogue reflected the specific aspects of the principles as: 1. Act with Urgency -Ocean is part of the solutions to the food systems problems but there has been less attention to it. So, our dialogue gave a message to the participants about how ocean solutions and regenerative farming could be a driver to achieve the 2030 agenda, and how different stakeholders need to act urgently. 2. Commit to the Summit -We have committed to the vision of the summit with the principles of inclusivity and mobilization, acknowledging that this is a People's summit. We believe that the outcomes of our dialogue would be properly integrated into the summit process. We have followed all the protocols of the summit. 3. Be Respectful -The dialogue was conducted with the principles of respect and inclusivity so that everyone's voice is heard and acknowledged. 4. Recognize Complexity -We also noted that one-size solution doesn't fit in all systems and areas thus, we also recognized the complexities of our system and challenges on the way. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity -Our participants were from diverse groups and backgrounds, from science, non-governmental organizations, students, young people, and people from both land-locked countries and countries with ocean, which helped to embark interesting discussions and unique insights. 6.Complement the work of others -One of the main objectives of the summit is to work together and build synergies around each others' works, which our dialogue also acknowledged. Our speakers and participants had different experiences and work areas, which we totally acknowledged. 7. Build Trust -If there wasn't trust, the dialogue wouldn't have been pulled together. Within the Real Food Systems, we always value the importance of trust and respect , and the dialogue also held the principle of trust.Since all the dialogue convenors go through the preparatory training and handbook, we all are quite aware of the Principles of Engagement so, we just want to advise that, be prepared, follow the principles of the summit, and follow the principles of engagement for the dialogue. Be generous, inclusive, and participatory!

Yes

234240244249Major focus: Ocean Solutions: Regenerative farming. Exploring the current problems in our exploitation of oceans and given sustainable farming examples, suggest solutions to the crisis in our ocean. Speakers highlighted the main threats facing our oceans and provided ethical farming solutions (model being The Seaweed Company). Another focus was “In relation to the session topic, what actions can you recommend and how best can they be supported at personal, community or government level that help both ocean biodiversity and human food supply?”235238239240241242244247249251Main Findings: Part 1: • The ocean is under threat - discuss five drivers- heating, deoxygenation, acidification, marine plastic, and chemical pollution o Global ocean heat content change in the upper 2000m is rising - fish follow warm currents which flux around the globe with currents so these changing currents and temperatures will greatly change fish migration in an arguably unpredictable manner. And we depend too heavily on these stocks of food. o Also we mentioned deoxygenation. Can be activated by ocean warming from climate change. Heating from climate change leads to increasingly separated water columns as water doesn't mix. So, the circulation of cooler oxygenated water occurs less, and less oxygen is exchanged from the atmosphere into the seas. This causes stress on marine life. Deoxygenation also occurs due to runoff from human activities like in agriculture. Excess nutrient runoff from fertilizers, untreated sewage cause eutrophication and the manifestation of dead zones in our oceans. The ocean lost 2% of its oxygen from 1960-2010. This by extension affects humans, not just aquatic life. Deoxygenation reduces biodiversity, biomass and habitat for fish, leading to reduced fish landings, lower economic profit and adversely affects smaller scale fisheries limited in technology and ability to fish elsewhere. o The rate of marine acidification is alarming. Since industrial revolution, CO2 emission have made the oceans ~30% more acidic. Although it has been as low as today before, this was 20 million years ago, and current life is not adapted to these levels and many may not adapt fast enough to endure it given the fast rate of pH decline. Shellfish and coral (contain Calcium) are weakening, making species vulnerable to predation, infection and developmental abnormalities that decrease fitness. We depend on these species directly or indirectly for food. o Marine plastic and chemical pollution: directly kill all creatures from small invertebrates to large mammals, making food chains less stable and vulnerable to collapse • Many unsustainable practices that are avoidable continue to occur (overfishing, subsidizing fuel for ships, bottom trawling, squid fishing continuously, shark finning only taking fins and dumping the body overboard, transhipments, slavery, bad practise unintentionally catching birds) • The biosphere underpins society and our economy. It is in our best interests to support a planet with strong foundations to support development and improvement of our economies. This requires us to radically change aspects of our ocean food systems to move to more sustainable livelihoods. Part 2: • CEO of The Seaweed Company which provides an ethical solution to the oceans crisis that supports a biodiverse ocean as well as human food production. • Farming greed red and brown seaweed in geographically suitable conditions for these taxonomic groups and supporting local people to set up these farms so they then buy the harvest off them. Decentralising the practice, providing income, and increasing income for smallholder farmers rather than leaving them behind in the move to more sustainable ocean farming after unsustainable practices or market competition puts smallholder farmers out of business, threatening coastal community livelihoods. It also supports ocean regeneration which benefits human health and wellbeing.236238239240241242244247249251Discussion Topic Outcomes: Question: “In relation to the session topic, what actions can you recommend and how best can they be supported at personal, community or government level that help both ocean biodiversity and human food supply?” Overarching themes: 1. Actions that benefit both biodiversity and food supply are possible but often, to see benefits to food supply one must look into the long-term benefits of sustainable actions 2. Biggest difference will come from governmental, top-down policies that better regulate sustainable relationships with the ocean and support sustainable practices whilst not leaving fishermen behind in the transition ▪ Governments should shift subsidies to more sustainable farming practices (such as The Seaweed Company) or provide alternatives for farmers to transition to sustainable practises, supporting them economically and not leaving them behind ▪ Stop blaming consumers for the broken system 3. However, the collective actions of lots of people and changing consumer behaviour through educating them on the ocean’s environmental issues and making it easier for people to live sustainably. This is important as there often exists a vast psychological distance between consumers and the sourcing, journey and impacts of their food. • Personal level: 1. Sustainable packaging, reducing plastic packaging, reuse grocery bags for routine shopping 2. Exercise purchasing power 3. Purchase in bulk 4. Reduce food waste 5. Stop storage of food in plastic for long term to avoid chemical transfer 6. Positive reinforcement for positive action in plastic reduction and plant-based diet advocacy • Community level: 1. Cleaning the rivers and water bodies that feed oceans Increase advocacy 2. Applaud plastic action in plastic cleaning and proper disposal 3. Increased Advocacy 4. Share experiences 5. Enforce by-laws 6. Educate fishermen on how to work sustainably or change their methods (e.g., to aquaculture combined with other practices) and financially incentivise them to cooperate • Government level: 1. Laws to separate organic food from non-organic using non plastic packaging 2. Regulate plastic use for single use (EU single plastic directive) 3. Regulate plastic export since it is now considered hazardous waste like in the UK 4. Incentives to plant-based advocates 5. Invest in better marketing sustainably sourced foods 6. Subsidies for plant-based agricultural production and transition away from subsidizing animal agriculture/ reduce it at least. Importantly, include animal farmers in the transition, help them move to plant-based farming through training, loaning material and supporting them economically 7. Support smallholder farmers more and less support of monopolies, decentralizing the system237239241244247Areas of Divergence: • Participants disagreed sometimes about whether the consumer should have to pay for more ethically sourced food from the oceans or not! • There was discussion on the ability to live sustainably with the ocean while extracting resources from it, especially for the local people.

2021-07-07 15:00:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23434/6987145180

13838604083551251121362

Co convenors come from different farmers and fishers organizations in the Asia Pacific region and --- ---practised consensus-building measures in designing the concept and program of the event ----were in charge of inviting their constituencies and in identifying speakers for the session. ---- divided the tasks of moderating/facilitating and notetaking. ----ensured there are women., men and youth in their list of participants ---ensured there is translation for every national language where participants will come from ( In Asia , usually, one country, one language. And farmers usually cannot speak and read English) ---invited NGOs and government and farmers and fishers; groups at national and sub national levels Break out groups per sub region done to increase interaction among participants. In the break out group, participants shared their issues, their initiatives/ solutions and their priority recommendations to scale up and scale out these solutions. Qand A was done during the Dialogue proper.

Yes

234238240241242244246247249251Small scale fishers play a key role in ensuring food and nutrition security, and eradicating poverty. Aquatic food systems strategies can help address the complex issue of the “triple burden of malnutrition” (food insecurity, undernutrition and overweight). Many coastal and inland populations rely on fish as the most accessible source of animal protein. In addition to high-quality protein, fish, especially small fish consumed whole, can be rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins A, D and B, and minerals such as calcium, zinc, iodine and iron, while seaweed represents an excellent source of fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. Fish farming is dominated by Asia, which has produced 89% of the global total of volume in the last 20 years. An estimated 59.51 million people were engaged (on a full-time, part-time or occasional basis) in the primary sector of capture fisheries (39.0 million people) and aquaculture (20.5 million people) in 2018. Women accounted for 14 percent of the total, with shares of 19 percent in aquaculture and 12 percent in capture fisheries. Of all those engaged in primary production, most are in developing countries, and most are small-scale, artisanal fishers and aquaculture workers. The highest numbers of workers are in Asia (85 percent), followed by Africa (9 percent), the Americas (4 percent), and Europe and Oceania (1 percent each). When post-harvest operations data are included, it is estimated that one in two workers in the sector is a woman. Small fishers are facing plethora of challenges in Asia and elsewhere. Owing to their poor economic status and often marginalized social status, their voices are not heard by the policy makers adequately. Small fishers are facing worst crises today. Apart from poverty and discrimination, the added perils are climate change induced extreme weather conditions and depletion of species. Access and control over natural resources has always been a contentious issue for poor fishers, who face hurdles to access sea beaches, to park their boats and dry their nets due to indiscriminate grabbing of coastal land for tourism and other industrial purposes. Also dumping effluent near the coast and in deep sea adversely affect their catches. Though there are rules restricting trawlers from fishing near the shore but violation of that rule is rampant and regulation is very weak. On social entitlement front too fishers are disadvantaged. Existing social schemes, various pensions and insurance schemes fall short to the need. This is simply because these schemes are not developed keeping fishers issues/challenges in mind majority of fisherwomen are in fish vending with no hygienic and secured workplace at markets. They suffer from lack of transportation facilities (often local regular transport refuse to take them due to smell of fish and dipping water etc), inadequate knowledge of market prices. Encroachment of big companies in the coast for industry, tourism and dumping of effluent etc further impoverished poor fishers and they are losing their grounds fast. Increased price of fuel and other essential items have added to their misery. Last but not the least lack of coordination among different government departments (lack of apt policies) has slowed down the pace of serving poor fishers through existing schemes. In the light of the contributions of the fisheries sector in food and nutrition security, and in the light of the issues and challenges faced by small scale women and men fishers who form the majority of the labor force in fisheries, this Independent Dialogue would like to gather together representatives of small scale fishers’ organizations in a discussion on the solutions they have undertaken to overcome these challenges while contributing to sustainability of the oceans, of the lands , and the eco system in general. In this Independent Dialogue, we would like to hear their voices, their perspectives, their solutions and their recommendation so that as small scale women and men fishers, they can play their utmost part in contributing to the global goals of ending hunger and poverty , first amongst their communities, and next, to the whole society.235238240241242244245246247249251Context of Small Scale Fishers  97% of SSF are from developing countries, 85% of whom are from Asia  90% of those in fishing community are SSF, 50% of which are women.  68% of global produce are from Asia.  95% of produce is consumed locally.  Fish is affordable and a major source of protein, vitamins and minerals for the poor. Challenges faced by SSF Fish is one of the most affordable and nutritious food products. Therefore, it is all the more necessary now in the scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet very little is being done to save small scale fisheries (SSF). SSF play a key role in ensuring food and nutrition security, and eradicating poverty. Unfortunately, they are being continuously subjected to various forms of social discrimination, competition from big companies encroaching on coastal fisheries areas, violence against women, lack of access to credit, steeping down the value chain, weak implementation of fisheries policies, and the list goes on. Below are the economic, social, gender based, technological, and environmental challenges SSF face. A. Economic Challenges  Access to resources  Low investment in SSF  Alternative/allied livelihood B. Social Challenges  Social entitlements  Involvement in policy making  Marginalized C. Gender based Challenges  Lack of recognition  Access to market  Not involved in decision making D. Technological Challenges  Need for technical knowledge  Storage  Access to equipment and trainings E. Environmental Challenges  Low fish catch and depletion of species  Climate change  Disaster risk Solutions 1. Women empowerment 2. Drying fish 3. Fish mobile vans 4. Increase access to market 5. Mangrove reforestation 6. Integrated pond management 7. Probiotic fish feed 8. Small scale hatcheries 9. Advocacy for sustainable artisanal fishing 10. Participation of SSF in local level decision making 11. Learning exchange program 12. Advocacy and participation in local and national fisheries councils Recommendations 1. Review various government policies using the VGSSF as tool. 2. Establish strong SSF organizations so that they are able to provide service to members with governments and other organizations supporting them with access to finance, pre and post-harvest facilities, capacity building, fishing technologies for marine and fresh water resources. 3. Provide spaces for women and young fishers to act. 4. Invest in post-harvest value chain, access to credit. 5. Check encroachment on coastal areas. 6. Prior access of SSF to commercial fishers. 7. During fish bans, provide support mechanisms. 8. Educate and enforce practices for sustainable fisheries. 9. Empower and organize women and youth fishers. 10. Rehabilitate fishery resources. 11. Conduct policy research on current status of implementation of VGSSF and documentation of good practices. 12. Establish ministry/department of fisheries (India, Philippines) 13. Recognize the role of SSF and IP communities, as well as their organizations and cooperatives, to restore, co-manage, conserve and protect local aquatic and coastal ecosystem. SSF Message to UNFSS  Increase investment in SSF.  Review various policies in fisheries by using VGSSF as tool.  Recognize the role of SSF and IP communities to restore, conserve, protect, and co-manage local aquatic and coastal ecosystem.  Livelihood protection.  Promote gender equity and equality in SSF sector. “According to studies, unless we act now, there may be no fish left in 2048.” (Boris Worm et al, 2006)236238240241247249251Solutions for Sustainable Fishing with Small scale women and men farmers: 1. Women empowerment 2. Drying fish 3. Fish mobile vans 4. Increase access to market 5. Mangrove reforestation 6. Integrated pond management 7. Probiotic fish feed 8. Small scale hatcheries 9. Advocacy for sustainable artisanal fishing 10. Participation of SSF in local level decision making 11. Learning exchange program 12. Advocacy and participation in local and national fisheries councils Recommendations to scale up and scale out Solutions : 1. Review various government policies using the VGSSF as tool. 2. Establish strong SSF organizations so that they are able to provide service to members with governments and other organizations supporting them with access to finance, pre and post-harvest facilities, capacity building, fishing technologies for marine and fresh water resources. 3. Provide spaces for women and young fishers to act. 4. Invest in post-harvest value chain, access to credit. 5. Check encroachment on coastal areas. 6. Prior access of SSF to commercial fishers. 7. During fish bans, provide support mechanisms. 8. Educate and enforce practices for sustainable fisheries. 9. Empower and organize women and youth fishers. 10. Rehabilitate fishery resources. 11. Conduct policy research on current status of implementation of VGSSF and documentation of good practices. 12. Establish ministry/department of fisheries (India, Philippines) 13. Recognize the role of SSF and IP communities, as well as their organizations and cooperatives, to restore, co-manage, conserve and protect local aquatic and coastal ecosystem. SSF Message to UNFSS  Increase investment in SSF.  Review various policies in fisheries by using VGSSF as tool.  Recognize the role of SSF and IP communities to restore, conserve, protect, and co-manage local aquatic and coastal ecosystem.  Livelihood protection.  Promote gender equity and equality in SSF sector. “According to studies, unless we act now, there may be no fish left in 2048.” (Boris Worm et al, 2006)

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Day-3-FSS-ID-2021.06.16-final-draft.docxhttps://www.dropbox.com/home/2021/2021.06.07-11%20Asia-Pacific%20FSS%20ID/Day%203%20Sustainable%20Fishing/Video%20Recording?preview=Day+3+Video+Recording_Shared+screen+with+speaker+view.mp4https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/69jt8dpqjz3xczl6u7djh/Success-Stories-India.pptx?cloud_editor=powerpoint&dl=0&rlkey=6uuqd9z3uouknx4fuea2roqmyhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/z34hcphzprr2ti3/PIFON%20-%20Women%20in%20Fisheries%20-%20Neomai%20Matawaqa.mp4?dl=0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8MFIzRd6jQhttps://www.canva.com/design/DAEg_4FwhQE/F2YZIMV37gw3drRyG-87Bg/view?utm_content=DAEg_4FwhQE&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=publishsharelinkhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/8r3o1hc2ybe6wqy/Small%20Scale%20Fisheries%20in%20Asia%20Final.pdf?dl=0https://www.dropbox.com/s/abp5kc13inr24kt/Women%20in%20Fisheries%20-%20Lily%20Chow.mp4?dl=0

2021-07-07 15:00:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13402/203

53828143223147171711411012161741141872

We did our utmost to follow the guidance provided in the method for convening, curating and facilitating dialogues as we felt they provide practical guidance for applying the principles. We encouraged the facilitators to attend the facilitator training - which half of them joined - and held a specific briefing for the curator and facilitators together to share the principles and how they can ensure it is respected. Special efforts were made to be inclusive and expand our networks as part of the invitation process. This was the most difficult part. in the end, the participants reflected the constituency our organisations are a part of (international NGOs operating at global level) with a focus on environmental issues for example. This meant there were not as many representatives of businesses (of all sizes), indigenous peoples and governments as we hoped (or had invited). But nevertheless, we were pleased with the diversity in terms of countries (24 nationalities for 53 participants) and regions (Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America, Pacific islands).The dialogue reflected in particular the principle of respect, both in the way it was curated and facilitated, but also by the nature of the topics which were discussed - compassion, connection to Nature, inter-generational solidarity. People shared their insights "from the heart", starting with powerfully inspiring guest speakers and a very welcoming curator, who made it easy for participants to feel trust in the process and also speak from the heart. We also applied the principle of complementing existing work: indeed, this dialogue was inspired by the fact that many dialogues discuss what needs to be done (from agro-ecology to nutrition education and value chain development, legal frameworks, science...), but few look at the core values that underpin the actions that need to be taken to transform food systems. Efforts were made to ensure participation was as inclusive as possible. This did not prove easy but the group was particularly diverse in terms of nationalities.Create a good team to organise the dialogue, in particular a diverse team that can access different networks and people from various countries. It's very useful to brainstorm in gradual steps about the content and discussion topics, as they can mature over time. Start thinking about them early, discuss them often and allow time to fine-tune them. Make extra efforts to reach out to those you don't know so well or don't usually engage with. Expect the response rate to be lower in this group so invite more than you would like to see at the event! Practical tips: Make sure to use a registration system that captures the data you need to fill the statistics above! And ask note-takers to prepare a clean summary you can copy and paste in the form. And most importantly: Have fun as you prepare - the quality the team work and atmosphere of motivation in the team transpires in the event itself.

Yes

234238239240241244246247251This dialogue “Transforming our Food Systems with the Golden Rule: from Listening to Action” focused on the fundamental cultural and spiritual values and attitudes that should underpin and guide the technical, financial and functional solutions being discussed for the Summit if they are to genuinely lead to sustainable and equitable food systems. It was inspired by the “Golden Rule”: “treat others and the planet as you wish to be treated”. The discussions focused on the following six topics which were guided by the following framing: 1. The role of compassion, care and listening in food systems transformation Since learning to control fire, the hearth has been at the heart of what has bound Homo sapiens together. The specialisations of cooking, hunting required new skills in our ancestors cooperation, empathy, trust and communication. Where do these capacities for empathy reside in our food ecosystems today? Is there empathy between the consumer and producer? Between the seasonal fruit-picker and the supermarkets? Between the dairy farmer and the cow? Between the farmer and the land? How do we build a true empathy between these different nodes in our system in the next decade? 2. Reconnecting and Listening to the Earth to guide food systems transformation Since Descartes split mind from body, and human from Nature, humans from many parts of the world have learned to see themselves outside of the natural world, and absorbed the credo that our role is to dominate, control and exploit its resources. A technocratic analysis of food production has served us well in maximising yield every year- and yet now threatens to collapse the very ecosystems on which we depend. How do we reshape our cultural connection with the natural world, and retain our sense of embedded- ness within nature, as part of its inherent cycle, rather than its master? Can we foster a sense of respect, wonder and the sacred into our relationship with food? 3. Drawing upon the voice of our elders and supporting the youth: Intergenerational solidarity In the Global North, our enhanced diets and healthcare are lengthening our lifespans and thereby transforming our societies where the elderly are in the majority. The Global South, by contrast, is overwhelmingly young. At the same time, our parents’ generation is consuming planetary resources at a rate which will bequeath our children with a badly damaged biosphere. How can we acknowledge in our food systems solidarity between our ancestors and our descendants? How can we encourage our children to shape new, better habits, while acknowledging their rights to give them a chance of sustainable, nourishing ecosystem in ten years 4. Education Education – whether in the home, in schools or society at large - is the process whereby we seed the practices of our next generation while adapting the current practices of all generations. If we were to change the culture of food in our society, where would we start? What are the best habits to acquire as a child? How can education ascribe a deeper purpose to the food that we eat and prepare? 5. Partnerships and dialogue Food systems are often pyramidal and vertical, with engrained power imbalances and values distortions. The supply chain from farm to fork is a silent one, disconnected and silo’d. How can we move our relationships in food from a one-way broadcast to a conversation? Who is excluded from this conversation? How do we listen to them? And if we were to treat the Earth as a partner rather than a supplicant, what would be the terms of engagement look like? 6. New citizenship and the Life Economy - valuing Nature, health, care John Perkins says that we need to enable A ‘Life Economy’, one in which we prioritise living, organic ecosystems; what we have now is the opposite, a ‘Death’ economy. A life economy is one that pays people to clean up pollution and regenerate destroyed environments. A life economy also develops new technologies that do not ravage the Earth. What would a global citizens charter look like that had a life economy at its core? What role would food play in such a charter?235238239240241244246247249251Two issues stood out as core challenges: the loss of connection essential for the well-being of people and planet, and the negative impacts of exploitative economic models. But the conversations focused mostly on the solutions to reestablish connection and compassion to foster food systems that are regenerative, equitable and nourishing in all senses of the word. Loss of connection and compassion Participants observed a loss of connection at several levels: “As food systems shift from local production through to larger industrial methods, there is often a disconnection with land and scaling down of compassion.” “Food has been disconnected from story, people, and landscape.” The culture of food is generally inherited from one’s parents but today “this inheritance has been broken” as “food is just something on a supermarket shelf and has no story”. Destructive economic system and power imbalances “The pandemic revealed the limits of globalization and unrestricted capitalism.” “We take food from this food system that entails labor violation, soil exploitation, etc. This is destructive on so many levels, but it is sold to us like happy farms.” “Our current centralised distribution of food extinguishes dialogue (…) 90% of the retail economy belongs to dominant corporates leading to expensive and definitely not local food.” The limits of this model were illustrated by an example from Senegal, where people used to produce their own organic food, share meals and assure more food security and less waste. The introduction of cash crops broke this equilibrium: today what used to be savanna is a desert. People living near the river can’t drink the water because of pesticides or parasites. Emphasis was given to the economic difficulties faced by the more vulnerable and less represented, especially agricultural workers and small farmers whose rights are seldom ensured, who lack livelihood security and have limited options, as well as poor consumers. One group observed: “Until we decouple the food system from economic growth, it will be challenging to change things.” Love, empathy and compassion These were the starting point and heart of all discussions: “The predicate for all those working in the food system must be one of empathy.” “We need to find ways of extending love and compassion across all levels of the food system”, from the farmer caring for the land to a cook preparing food with love. Participants aspired to see “mechanisms of inter-relatedness and inter-connectedness” restored. They called for “community, reconciliation and healing.” How can this be done? Reconnecting to Nature The importance of reconnecting to and valuing Nature was central. “Nature has its rules: if we understand them, we can implement a new, symbiotic economy” and “while dominant cultures sustain a sense that our species stands apart from the natural world, others have always nourished a deep sense of connection and harmony with Nature.” Bridging indigenous knowledge and science can help foster a “mindset reboot”, including one that “accords trees, water, soil the dignity and intelligence of living things”. Education Education was seen as the key to changing mindsets and heart-sets. “With knowledge comes compassion so together we can collectively manage a more sustainable system.” Education is essential to understand where food comes from, to awaken one’s sensitivity to Nature, to encourage youth to engage in agriculture, to understand the 9 planetary boundaries, and to transmit core values. The following have a fundamental role to play: governments, schools, universities, parents and families, the private sector, NGOs, chefs, industry leaders, farmers, and indigenous peoples. “We also need to let food itself be the teacher.” Communication and dialogue One group called for the need to “evolve a common language of empathy between ourselves and the Earth, and at every junction of the food chain.” It highlighted the opportunity of digital spaces as “open public infrastructure where we can connect as farmers and citizens.” Appreciating true value We need to understand the true value of food and its true social and environmental cost. Some called for “food equity” supported by legal measures, investment, and policies. We require a “new economy” and “a more sophisticated and attuned understanding of financial flows, especially what we invest, and the necessity of seeing those investments flow into the hands of those who have their hands in the soil.” Some observed that “there’s more money in circulation than ever but we are not happier” and called for the need to “redefine basic notions”, such as “health, wealth and happiness”. Going local The group exploring partnerships emphasized the importance of going local: “The ecology of the future will be place-based with energy and action resting with local authorities. This will lead to better governance, and engagement with people and authorities.” “Any platform through which people can communicate, must bring voices from the ground to obviate restrictive hierarchies.” Inclusivity, respect and dignity All groups called for inclusivity, respect and dignity, recognizing the need to hear the voice and empower farmers, women, youth, indigenous peoples and minorities. Participants advocated for nonconventional partnerships and open dialogue that fosters creativity. In brief: “We can support reconnection by asking ourselves: ‘is this choice going to cause harm to people or nature?’ And realise that these are both the same.2362382392402412422442462472492511. CARE AND COMPASSION Vision : Care and compassion for ourselves, others and Nature, inherent to the way food is produced, processed, sold and consumed. a) We need to see love and compassion at all stages of the food system and across all actors, from farmers, through to production, processing, packaging, distribution, consumption and disposal. ● Love and compassion is most commonly associated with the production level of the food system, particularly small farmers, who are so connected to the ebbs and flows of the land through their daily work. ● But love can be experienced at all levels of the food system, including consumers, it all depends on the individual actors. For example, mothers cooking for their families or chefs cooking display love. ● As food systems shift from local production through to larger industrial methods, there is often a disconnection with land and scaling down of compassion. We need to find ways of extending love and compassion across all levels of the food system, possibly through fostering a greater connection to the land. Also, by learning from the other elements in the food system, we can raise awareness of how one’s own behaviour can be influential. With knowledge comes compassion so together we can collectively manage a more sustainable system. b) We need to find ways of supporting and engaging small farmers. It’s a difficult career which young people aren’t attracted to, partly because the conditions are tough and there is limited legal protection. This is creating uncertainty in the long-term and farmers could disappear. By engaging universities and academics more, we could connect young people more to farming/the land, and create a different vision. c) We need love and compassion for those actors in the food system who are more vulnerable and less represented. In particular, attention is not being paid to agricultural workers including their rights and compensation. They are often not recognised and lack livelihood security and assets such as land ownership. They are not represented by Trade Unions. We need to find ways of protecting these actors. d) Anywhere in the world there are conditions and constraints that need to be considered, and which are being impacted by climate change: - The constraints and conditions are so problematic in our current food system that farmers don’t have any options. They have so much feeling for the land, but the constraints are uncontrolled. A farmer needs to be incentivised by owning the land, so they can apply sustainable practices. We need to support them to adapt with sustainable practices. e) Until we decouple the food system from economic growth, it will be challenging to change things.2362392402442462492. CONNECTING AND LISTENING TO NATURE Vision: A renewed and deepened connection to the natural world, nourished by respect, wonder and a state of listening, guides the transformation of our food systems towards restoration and equity. In places like Senegal where people used to produce their own organic food, share meals and thus assure more food security and less waste, the introduction of cash crops broke this equilibrium. Today what used to be savanna is a desert, nature is becoming poorer. People living near the river can’t drink the water because of pesticides or parasites. Nature has its rules: if we understand them, we can implement a new, symbiotic economy. As a society we are part of a whole, bigger macrobiotic which embeds nature: we must realize that our well-being and survival depends on Earth, and viceversa. While dominant cultures sustain a sense that our species stands apart from the natural world, others have always nourished a deep sense of connection and harmony with Nature. We can integrate indigenous people into academy, master classes, where they can support reconnection with nature. Education is the key of future generations; building bridges between indigenous knowledge and sciences may lead to a mindset reboot. Paradoxically, business people who contribute to the disruption of the ecosystem may seek restoration of nature in their free time. Can we help people drop this mask, bearing in mind that actions should be coherent with values, and deepen our connection with nature in business and negotiations? Be curious about how food arrives on our tables. When we use chemicals on food, we have to be aware that we are consuming them. The pandemic revealed the limits of globalization and unrestricted capitalism, we have a chance to pursue the few big companies who control the food industry. Policy makers must seize this by encouraging regenerative approaches and pushing action more toward the SDGs. We need to drive the the global food system in regenerative agriculture and redefine profitability. We need to redefine basic notions: what are health, wealth, happiness? There’s more money in circulation than ever but we are not happier. We must find ways to connect with nature while feeding everyone. We need to consult everyone in order to solve these challenges: divisions will not work in terms of food security and nature regeneration, efforts to restore Nature must be participatory. By according trees, water, soil the dignity and intelligence of living things, we can support reconnection by asking ourselves “is this choice going to cause harm to people or nature?” And realise that these are both the same thing.2362382392402412422442462472492513. INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY Vision : Our food systems are grounded in and foster solidarity between generations. They provide opportunities for the youth, build on the experience of our elders, and meet the needs for nutritious of all generations. Food has been disconnected from story, people, and landscape. Connection with food is generally inherited from parents but, generally speaking, today “inheritance has been broken”. There is little to inherit in a world where “food is just something on a supermarket shelf and has no story”. Our parents encouraged good practices at home, but these are lost once we start school and emerge into the wider world. The food system we in the West inherit from our parents is the 40-50’s food system of convenience and which was supported by an emerging advertising sector which focused on the spectacularizing of food. In Michigan, speakers mentioned “Taste the Local Distance”, an organisation whiose core idea is “taking the small holder farms and making them more mainstream.”, specifying that it is not just about artisanal food, but also about building ties with education: “a real change can be made when children go get food and see and know how that food was made and who made it”. “We need A 10 year program and should take national funding to do that”. Another participant agreed on the “broken connection in this intergenerational food transition”, reflecting upon the fact that in multicultural societies all of the beautiful food traditions have been subsumed by the industrial food production and processed foods. An interesting aspect that he brought up was the perception people have of the background of the food they consume: “we take food from this food system that entails labor violation, soil exploitations etc. This is destructive on so many levels, but it is sold to us like happy farms.” What he would wish were done for the next generation is thinking more about local food and labelling and focusing attention on understanding where our food comes from, eliciting more interest in indigenous food systems. The role of “indigenous knowledge in food systems” was commonly stressed.2362382392402412442462482492514. EDUCATION Vision : The education and cultural values shared with children and all consumers empowers them to make healthy food choices for them, the planet, and for all members of society. The group identified 8 areas where education on food and nutrition needs to happen. First, governments have an important role to play in guiding the public and private sector towards healthy food through taxes, policies, funding, etc. Second, schools should ensure that education on healthy food and nutrition is included in curricula and that healthy diets are promoted in school meals. Food is vital for children to be able to learn. However, education on food and nutrition is so much more than just memorizing facts. Education on food and education should be needs-based and experiential for children. Third, parents and families at home also have a role to play in teaching children about the value of food, especially through important cultural experiences, such as cooking or farming. In this context, ancestral knowledge on food and nutrition should be promoted. Fourth, the private sector can also leverage its marketing and advertising for good and help educate children through labels or packaging. This is especially vital as children do not only learn in school but also in supermarkets when they see food advertised and marketed. Fifth, NGOs and other stakeholders in the area of food and nutrition need to use synergies and collaborate more often rather than working independently. Sixth, chefs and other thought or industry leaders can also help with education on food and nutrition by making it fun. Seventh, farmers can bring us the production side of food closer to us and educate us on how to farm. And lastly, we need to learn from food and let food be the teacher itself.2362382392402412422442462492515. PARTNERSHIPS AND DIALOGUE Vision : Cooperation, empathy, trust and communication establish the foundations for partnerships that enable food systems to provide nutritious foods and social, cultural and economic opportunities for all. The empowerment and the voice of local, indigenous farmers and their networks is key. A sustainable food system of partnerships will be a movement at the local level, and that of the town, city, public institutions. The ecology of the future will be place-based with energy and action resting with local authorities. This in turn will lead to better governance, and engagement with people and authorities. Our current centralised distribution of food extinguishes dialogue. Very few farmers can perhaps manage more than 3 partnerships, and 90% of the retail economy belongs to dominant corporates such as Tesco or Walmart, leading to very expensive (and definitely not local) food. The priority must be absolutely all about getting the value of the food trade really reaching where it’s needed. If Via Campesina - the practising farmers working with nature- is boycotting the Food Summit, we need to engage them and why they feel it’s not listening to them and their needs. We therefore need practical actions involving key stakeholders - farmers, workers, etc- that will work with real practical legal, investment, policy, and other solutions We recognise we live in challenging times. Promoting biodiversity will only proceed in dialogue with policy makers. But the wrong governance emerges when we exclude women’s voices, minorities and indigenous peoples Any platform through which people can communicate, must bring voices from the ground to an obviate restrictive hierarchies. The predicate for all those working in the food system must be one of empathy, in which nonconventional partnerships are allowed to emerge, inc National representatives from the local farmers. Discussions must remain open, formulated around an action plan with a necessary creativity with whom you engaged, bringing those who really know the food system, giving people a voice, actors that live there, maintaining the environment, visions together. Stop the world: People have the right to negotiate The food system in the future will embed values and principles ● Community and reconciliation ● A healing, almost medicinal resiliency ● Dialogue and engagement ● Our energy, supply, network, dominated by large companies, will be reconfigured more equitably from centralized to people, and especially more representative of women Food equity will include increasing income for small farmers; favouring farmers more as participants, and consumers less so, with more accessible financing and easing capital flows to farmers directly.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502516. LIFE ECONOMY Vision : Citizens actively engage in the construction of a “Life Economy” which recognizes, protects and nurtures life - namely health, Nature, social and personal well-being and creativity. By 2030, we want to re-establish a regenerative relationship with the soil based on traditional practices, but which also facilitates transitional systems to bring food producers and consumers into a new economy. We need to establish a common understanding of essential baseline markers and substances, such as the wellbeing of our soil and the watershed. Simultaneously, we require a more sophisticated and attuned understanding of financial flows, especially on what we invest, and the necessity on seeing those investments flow into the hands of those who have their hands in soil. We need a better and more commonplace understanding of the 9 planetary boundaries and learn best the language of the wellness of the earth and how it correlates to the wellness of the beings. We need to see the climate crisis in terms of crisis management and use learnings from how we deal with man-made conflicts- and realise that we are indeed at war- and get smart fast. We need to see the mechanisms of interrelatedness and interconnectedness, equal to complexity, restoring our sense of complexity and learning from nature. Policy makers need to look at the true value of food, not just look at its cost but also its impact on people and health We require a design that supports living systems, where humans are understood as interlopers, all we need to do is allow earth to do what it knows best. Value is currently distributed, and captured at retail level. if you want to change, you have to act on consumers, not just production and producers. Poor people can’t afford to buy food for a healthy diet, so they cannot make that choice. We need to think how we empower those two groups, think about how policies are set, as both voters and consumers. Many of the dialogues are dominated by public sectors and large NGOs and we need to think about how to bring these other voices into the decision making process. Business is increasingly looking at the necessity of having a systems approach. On this level, we need to understand the true value of food, and also the true cost associated with it: the social and environmental cost. Science, data and innovation are key, reflecting the hidden cost of land use, and who bears this cost. We need to evolve a common language of empathy, between ourselves and the earth, and at every junction of the food chain, where we have accord respect and dignity to every vendor, consumer, retailer, farmer, butcher, restaurateur and even to the animals and soil itself. We require a language of equity, working with natural bio-markers such as soil and watersheds, to create a common language amongst all stakeholders. We need to bring all parties with us, using digital spaces as open public infrastructure where we can connect as both farmers and citizens.237No particular areas of divergence emerged amongst participants.

2021-07-07 15:07:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32240/203

160570602058080801010103020

The Global Indigenous Youth Forum adhered to the principles of the Summit in various ways. - By bringing voices of Indigenous youth together to address issues of resilience and sustainability relating to food systems, the Forum acted with urgency, also underscoring the need for urgent to ensure continuation of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. - The dialogue was committed to the Summit, as it specifically contributes to its objectives and vision of inclusivity, by bringing together Indigenous youth from across the world specifically for the purpose of bringing their insights to the UNFSS. - The Global Indigenous Youth Forum was respectful, recognizes complexity as well as embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by bringing together Indigenous youth, actors who are normally not included in policy discussions to a sufficient extent, but bring vast, diverse and unique knowledge for stewardship of natural ecosystems, resilient food systems, protection of local cultures and practices for sustainability. - Further, it provided a safe space, focusing extensively on building trust with Indigenous youth, who are in many settings exploited or exposed to extractive exchanges with non-Indigenous actors. It is crucial that we ensure reciprocal relations when requesting their views and perspectives.The Global Indigenous Youth Forum adhered to the principles of the Summit in various ways. - By bringing voices of Indigenous youth together to address issues of resilience and sustainability relating to food systems, the Forum acted with urgency, also underscoring the need for urgent to ensure continuation of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. - The dialogue was committed to the Summit, as it specifically contributes to its objectives and vision of inclusivity, by bringing together Indigenous youth from across the world specifically for the purpose of bringing their insights to the UNFSS. - The Global Indigenous Youth Forum was respectful, recognizes complexity as well as embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by bringing together Indigenous youth, actors who are normally not included in policy discussions to a sufficient extent, but bring vast, diverse and unique knowledge for stewardship of natural ecosystems, resilient food systems, protection of local cultures and practices for sustainability. - Further, it provided a safe space, focusing extensively on building trust with Indigenous youth, who are in many settings exploited or exposed to extractive exchanges with non-Indigenous actors. It is crucial that we ensure reciprocal relations when requesting their views and perspectives.Inclusive dialogues, and the creation of safe spaces for youth, women, Indigenous peoples and other groups placed in marginalized positions is of key importance. Firstly, they all hold invaluable knowledge of their own living situations, as well as innovative practices for more resilient and sustainable food systems. Secondly, to adhere to the principle of leaving no one behind, we must ensure the participation of all stakeholders. These groups must thus be involved from the very beginning of the planning of the dialogue, to ensure that their views, ideas and approaches are respected and integrated.

NoThe event was held on both a global and regional level to ensure the possibility for Indigenous youth to have a safe space to consult within their regions before they brought back feedback to the three Global Sessions. - Regional session structure: The regional sessions were held to ensure a safe space for all interested Indigenous youth to voice their concerns, demands and solutions with regards to the future of Indigenous Peoples’ Food systems, and topics such as sustainability, food security and climate change. The sessions were be held in five socio-cultural regions, moderated by one local Indigenous youth or elder. The sessions' outcomes were presented in the Global session held on the 17th of June, and finally integrated into a declaration which was read out on the 18th of June with the political recommendations and demands from Indigenous Youth to the UN Food Systems Summit. The regional consultations were held over 2 hrs, consisting of an introduction of the Summit, then breaking into Break out rooms where they were asked the following questions: 1) What are the challenges and issues of indigenous youth in promoting indigenous food systems. What has been the actions and learning of indigenous youth? 2) What do you want to commit too to protect and promote Indigenous Peoples’ food systems? What do you want others to commit to protect and promote Indigenous Peoples’ food systems? 3) What do you want the world to stop doing?/How can others ( states and other stakeholders ) support/safeguard Indigenous Peoples’ food systems? The Global Sessions were held over 2,5 hrs on the 16th, 17th and 18th of June, in order to accommodate for participation from all time zones in the world. They were structured as panel discussions, Q&A sessions, yet also as an open plenary following the presentations from the regions, where all Indigenous youth were welcome to voice their opinions, concerns or questions. We found that points of divergence and convergence were both able to surface, also as this space was reserved for Indigenous youth, allowing them to speak freely, without constrain as they are often facing in different settings, because of limitations to formatting or criminalization of Indigenous Peoples' practices. The curation model was very well received by the participants, and allowed for an interactive dialogue, also in the chat during the sessions. The Declaration was developed by a drafting team, also consisting of Indigenous youth, integrating reports from all Global Sessions as well as the regional reports.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Focus of the dialogue was to explore Indigenous youth's concerns, needs and innovative solutions for food systems transformation. It relates to all five action tracks and most solution clusters, as Indigenous youth are largely affected my the majority of these policies, yet have not had a say to have them adjusted to their realities. The Forum aimed to open a space for them to have a say, and have their perspectives brought forward to the UNFSS Process.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main findings were summarized in a Declaration issued by Indigenous Youth with the following recommendations (an excerpt): Indigenous youth urge the UN Secretary-General, Member States, and other relevant stakeholders to adhere to the following recommendations: 1. Recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples within the framework of Human Rights and the obligations of the United Nations Charter, regardless of the population size of the people concerned. Member States must recognize the criterion of self-identification. Indigenous Peoples right to self-determination in all aspects affecting their food systems should be duly respected. 2. Recognize the customary law of Indigenous Peoples over our territories and the ancestral ties with our lands and territories; we Indigenous Youth are the current and future custodians of our lands and territories. 3. Meaningfully engage with Indigenous Youth in the Action Tracks and Action Areas, recognizing Indigenous Youth as experts on resilience and sustainable food systems, keepers of first-hand experiences with extreme climatic changes, and holders of rich cultural traditional knowledge of our food systems. 4. Fully integrate an understanding of the characteristics of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems into the Summit process, as well as an understanding of the importance of these food systems for food system transformation towards resilience and sustainability, into the development of new game changing solutions, policy proposals and commitments. 5. Consider Indigenous Peoples’ food systems a game-changing solution in themselves, for their unique characteristics and holistic nature, as well as the lessons to be learned by the rest of the world from our food systems. 6. Value Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge equally as scientific knowledge. We, Indigenous Peoples, are the local observers and experts of the environment. The value of our traditional knowledge also calls for equitable inclusion, and very importantly, fair compensation as established in the Nagoya Protocol on access to benefit-sharing to traditional knowledge. 7. Work with Indigenous Peoples to establish intercultural education programmes; recognising Indigenous Youth need to learn about our traditional food systems, cultural heritage and key knowledge to sustain our food systems. 8. Develop Intellectual property legislative frameworks recognizing and protecting Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge systems. Guarantee Indigenous Peoples’ control over our Traditional Knowledge for effective intergenerational transfer of our knowledge, without the risk of misappropriation or misuse by third parties. 9. Biocentric ecological restoration must be urgently prioritized by Member States and relevant stakeholders, as it is the insurance for our collective future on the planet and the surest way to mitigate the impacts of climate change. 10. Develop emergency preparedness, response and climate change adaptation plans with us, that respect our traditional governance and decision-making processes. We have agency in our preparedness and responses. 11. Ensure that Indigenous Youth are granted access to our lands and territories in order to protect and uphold our cultural rights and carry forward our food systems. 12. Grant Indigenous Youth tailor-made affordable credit facilities to allow them financial stability to carry forward Indigenous Peoples Food Systems and to support the development of Indigenous Youth’s enterprises. Create spaces for Indigenous Peoples to sell our products. Ensure decent equal employment opportunities that guarantee labour rights free of discrimination and with social protection. 13. Develop training plans for new technologies in Indigenous languages that allow, within the framework of interculturality, to develop the capacities of Indigenous Youth to create local plans for the conservation of traditional knowledge through actions of innovation that combine ancestral knowledge with new technologies. 14. Commit to investing in infrastructure and capacity building for and by Indigenous Peoples’ communities to build accredited processing centres for foods, community gardens/growing areas for traditional foods, and connecting to composting, recycling systems and networks to reduce waste. We ask funders, private sector and government to commit funds to Indigenous-led programming and training for Indigenous Youth’s capacity development and education. We Indigenous Youth recognize the historical struggles and demands of our peoples. The struggle begun by our grandmothers and grandfathers resulted in the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which contains the basic demands and priorities for a dignified life. Today, we, the Indigenous Youth, assume the fundamental task of making these rights real and possible at all levels in the pursuit of a world where all may live in harmony with Mother Earth. We acknowledge the collaborative nature of this work, and call upon Member States, UN Agencies, NGOs, Scientific community and the Private Sector for better coordination, to stand in solidarity with us, and to value us as essential partners. At minimum, we ask all parties to ensure our inclusion and uphold existing legal frameworks, such as legal recognition and FPIC. We ask all parties to centre reciprocity in processes with Indigenous Youth and Indigenous Peoples, while respecting and valuing our knowledge and governance systems.236238239240241242243244246247248249250251High Level Remarks on Indigenous Youth: Aiwan Minz We need to protect our Indigenous food systems We can use technology to preserve, promote and sustain our Indigenous food systems Mr. Geoffrey Roth: UNPFII has repeatedly called on States, UN agencies and funds to enhance participation of Indigenous youth, build capacity and advocacy skills of Indigenous Youth Recognize youth as equal partners in developing lasting partnerships at local, regional and international levels In consultations leading up to the UNFSS, Indigenous youth have shared how they’d like to see the maintenance of Traditional Knowledge related to food systems and environment. They are concerned with adverse effects of climate change, and loss of lands and traditional livelihoods. Free and prior informed consent should be at the center of all initiatives. Exchange between youth and elders and intergenerational cooperation is key and crucial for the future of our way of life H.E. Ambassador Alexandra Bugailiskis: As we move towards the UNFSS, it is critical for Indigenous youth to be at the table. It is about your future. H.E. spoke of recent policy changes in Canada, which could serve as examples for the way forward: Appointment of Commissioner of Indigenous languages to lead independent office of the Commissioner of Indigenous languages. Allowing Indigenous people to use their Indigenous names in their passports and other official identification National Food policy that recognizes Indigenous rights and self-determination, informed by extensive consultation with Indigenous organizations. H.E. Ambassador Mr. Miguel Jorge García Winder: Strengthen the education (access to higher and formal education) Strengthen the infrastructure to access the education (buildings, roads, internet access) Strengthen the legislation effecting Youth Ms. Beth Bechdol: Hopes this forum is just the start and a turning point to ensure more meaningful dialogues with indigenous youth She spoke of FAO initiatives that are good practices and policies: Implement FPIC in all projects Implement the VGGTs Promote the co-creation of knowledge through platforms such as the Global hub Ms. Hindou Ibrahim: Indigenous Youth need to be at the table and part of decision-making. They will be the next entrepreneurs of their communities to sustain food security. Legislation needs to be changed to enable youth participation: to secure land rights and tenure. Indigenous Peoples need mechanisms and spaces and access to funds/funding. How else can we develop the programs and projects that allow young people to stay at home to do and value these activities? Ms. Mai Thin Yu Mon: The UNFSS should carry forward the recommendations made by Indigenous youth through this forum This will not be the final forum, but the opening of a platform for Indigenous youth from all over the world to voice our concerns and contribute into worldly matters Ms. Jessica Vega Ortega: we need to de-colonialize, respect human rights, take into account Youth, children, women, Mr. Yon Fernández-de-Larrinoa: Appeals to all Ambassadors and countries to come up with intercultural policies, schooling and educational plans that do not destroy marginalize indigenous peoples’ cultures and food systems. The Rome Statement made by Indigenous Youth in 2017 is a major contribution made by indigenous youth to end food insecurity This forum will result in a robust declaration from indigenous youth to inform the way forward.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Session 3: Panel with 7 youth from all socio-cultural regions: What do Indigenous youth have to tell the world about their food. Mr. Malachi Johnson: Teach our younger kids the significance of traditional food, cultural knowledge. It is very important that we keep connecting to country because it will help lead us into a healthier life. Education to improve Indigenous Peoples quality of life and agency in managing their resources Navadu, Mother Earth. Heals and provides everything. We are all siblings, we need to take care of each other. Control corporative business that are taking away the lands and traditional food sources Ms. Antonia Benito: Strengthen the legal framework Recognize the Holistic approach: food sovereignty and right to self-determination Strengthen Intergenerational transmitting of traditional knowledge Revitalize practices Ms. Qivioq Nivi Løvstrøm: Ending mining/resource extraction on Indigenous Peoples lands as opposed and protested by the people Teaching traditional food harvesting and preparation in schools Food sovereignties need to be recognized: ICC Alaska food sovereignty summit has generated shared priorities and vision for managing traditional food resources Tackle rising costs of food. Mr. Subodh Chaudhary: Our concern must be the food processing technique and the food preservation method. We must recognize our Indigenous foods, preserve them and scale them exponentially. We all need to come together to pressure governments to positive change for food security. Ms. Mariah Gladstone: Building gardens for community members, Supplying traditional foods through emergency food pantries Provide funds to Indigenous community members grow traditional food plants and provide tools to create businesses for these foods, which are purchased through public procurement programs Community celebrations sharing traditional food processing methods and sharing, experiencing traditional foods Mr. Yves Minani: Policies that strengthen food security, land access Issue policy specific to young Indigenous people, give access to land and natural resources Study the structural conditions that lead to unequal access to resources, loss of traditional ways of life Support the initiatives of youth Indigenous people, empower the youth Ms. Sargylana Atlasova: Finance construction of transport and logistical infrastructure facilities to create upper links of value chains, technical equipment and provision of life for Indigenous People to maintain traditional forms of economy and preserve their way of life Environmental policy needs a change in attitude to the land resources, particularly concerning the mining industry: Provide equal right to the land, follow up principles of SDGs Enhance local legislation for agricultural development, and programs for supporting farm enterprises, considering traditional knowledge and traditional forms of economy of Indigneous Peoples Develop a program for adaptation of agriculture in the north to global climate change. Pathway for youth to be involved and develop source of income from traditional livelihoods to allow more option for Youth to remain in their rural communities236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Session 4: Regional presentations and open discussion Commonalities: land, rights, going back to our spiritual base, there is no food without our land. Multiple regional reports mentioned integrating traditional foods into schools or other community centers, importance of land rights, decriminalization of foodways, Indigenous Peoples represented in policy decisions Jairo Gualinga Protections for land grabbing in Latin American countries Carson Kiburo Need capacity building for intergenerational knowledge sharing Youth need to be included, women need to be included in the policy making process, the whole process, from the start Need to have access to land and affordable facilities - equitable structures in place such as credit lending Malachi Indigenous habitats, environments, and resources need to be protected Legal and regulatory rights - cultural rights to hunt, gather, trade and traditional resources Need to introduce Indigenous knowledge in schools and curriculums Intellectual property rights to protect Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous medicines in the marketplace Demilitarization, decolonization, decriminalization Sarah Rourke Ask UN member states to support traditional harvests and the integration of traditional foods into schools. Stop criminalizing Indigenous foodways Indigenous access to land, provide sponsors for equitable compensation for knowledge, end exploitation in the food system, uhold our right to transmit our knowledge systems Miriam Andrew-Ming Indigenous Peoples need collective rights to land realized, as well as access to local education Must use FPIC and protection of collective rights as mechanisms in our countries236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Panel 5: Indigenous youth's innovation and traditional knowledge for food systems transformation. Ms. Mariah Gladstone, Founder of Indigikitchen (Indigenous digital kitchen), USA Entered this work because food systems have been targeted by colonial governments to stop our resistance. Quote: “It is cheaper in the end to feed the whole flock for a year then fight them for a week” = putting us on cheap rations and restricting our ability to feed ourselves was cheaper than fighting us. Native people for a time were almost completely dependent on rations - things we did not even view as food, they were not our traditional meals. Then, a transition into subsidized meals, and now, the commodity food program. There are clear negative health impacts within our communities due to these foods - diet related illnesses. The disconnect from our food systems is not due to limitations to obtain food, but due to a disconnect from our knowledge systems and traditional foods. I started indigkitchen to help close this gap. It incorporates Indigenous foods, but in a modern way - utilizes social media, our modern kitchen but revitalizes our ancestral knowledge with an emphasis on fresh and healthy food and rebuilding our food systems. Mr. Nutdanai Trakansuphakon, Co-founder and Owner of Little Farm in Big Forest, Thailand Social enterprise work based on traditional knowledge focused on rotational farming. We use this process to understand and respect nature. It is a sustainable mechanism to maintain resources in our community. We want to communicate this to more communities, and we use our food and the number of species we are able to grow to share the importance and benefits (such as increased biodiversity) of rotational farming Little Farm in Big Forest connects storytelling to communicate base knowledge by using social media to help communicate traditional knowledge. It also helps build awareness from space of experience to customer: tastings, rotational farming workshops, learn together, bring in people from outside the community and all bring together ideas Capacity building and community funding, making space to transmit knowledge, use a local curriculum and elders come to teach in the schools including nutrition education. Mr. Amoz Yator, Member of Kipkandule Code Area, Kenya We want to preserve the food systems within the communities considering it is being endangered by the current plight of Indigenous youth into urban areas (which is due to factors from global warming, advancement of tech and modernization). In the wake of this plight the rural areas were left without anyone to continue the food systems. Main activity of the KCA group is to share information - intergenerational sharing of information - the youth have access to modern education compared to the elders - so we wanted to merge the modern and the traditional ways. Originally nomadic pastoralists with only a small bit of farming, but due to global warming and reduced lands, have limited space to practice nomadic pastoralism, so transitioned to more farming. Youth is the largest proportion of the population in most of the communities ~ 75% so they need to play a bigger role in preserving Indigenous food systems, and harness their knowledge from formal education, and access to smartphones and internet compared to elders, and increased financial services (we are using whatsapp now, to bring knowledge from the youth and various specialists to the community on how to incorporate modern ag into the food systems) In order to bridge the info generational gap we need to develop mobile apps that can store info on important Indigenous food information to help preserve information and ways to preserve food systems. It would also let the youth incorporate more modern tech Ms. Claudia Albertina Ruiz, Chef, Mexico- Traditional gastronomy - I try and get the youth to connect to the flavors of the dishes, connect to the experiences and show them the holistic involvement, bringing what they are eating back to who grows the foods Still lots of discrimination still towards Indigenous Peoples. There is a lack of connection to food these days.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Session 6: Intergenerational dialogue on traditional knowledge: Indigenous youth and elders together. Mr. Antine Sonde We need to ensure basic rights to land, and also explicitly include nomadic pastoralists in the conversation surrounding solutions for food systems Dr. Mariam Wallet Aboubakrine Transmission of Indigenous knowledge systems must be protected There should be avenues for access to traditional knowledge and Indigenous food system ways - such as an incorporation into school curriculums Ms. Sandra Bandura In the steps towards reconciliation we need to protect against the extraction of knowledge Academic research should be conducted following Indigenous peoples’ ways and values Mr. Clayton Brascoupe There needs to be investment into communities to create opportunities for young people to remain in their communities without setting themselves further behind237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The whole Forum highlighted areas of divergence between Indigenous Peoples' food systems and conventional food systems. This relates to the difference between food production and food generation (as practiced by Indigenous Peoples), taking into account environmental dynamics and the thresholds of our ecosystems. Further, Indigenous Peoples are facing great challenges while trying to protect and maintain their food systems which must be addressed. See the main findings for more information. The Forum also showcases multiple practices which are needed for food systems sustainability as Indigenous Peoples' food systems are among the most sustainable on the planet. A distinct panel was held where Indigenous youth showcased their initiatives of innovation and resilience.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/EN-Indigenous-Youth-Global-Declaration-on-Sustainable-and-Resilient-Food-Systems.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/youth/en/

2021-07-07 15:09:38204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8270/203

14268222608216912911

Our dialogue on "Diversification for climate resilience and food security" led by FFF and the Viet Nam Farmers Union - invitedi nputs from farmer organisations from ten countries - prompted by the urgency of finding solutions to climate resilience and climate action within the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. By giving voice to farmer organizations on these issues we demonstrate commitment to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. Our approach was respectful of the need to let people hear the real efforts by farmer organizations to become resilient in the face of climate change - and we offered an inclusive platform for men and women to present their views We recognized complexity by bringing examples from Africa and Asia to showcase different strategies for resilience - all of which involved ecological, economic and social diversification to reduce risks of climate-linked failure We sought to build on the work of others such as the Global Resilience Partnership in developing our thinking on how best to ensure climate resilience in food systems Our whole approach at the FFF is based on mutual trust between four partners (FAO, IUCN, IIED and Agricord) and more than 200 forest and farm organizations who we support across ten partner countries and through a regional and global programmeOur dialogue drew on inclusive processes through which ten case studies of climate resilience by different farmer organisatios were selected and documents. Three of these case studies were chosen for presentation based on the timezone for the dialogue. An open plenary and virtual 'Mural' post-it board was used to ensure that everyone had the chance to shape, register comments and help to revise six main propositions emerging from the dialogue.

Yes

234241242243244248251This dialogue "Diversification - Building food security and resilience into climate change mitigation" on Wednesday, 9 June 2021 11:00 – 13:00 GMT+2 was scheduled as an official dialogue under the ‘Food System Summit – Action Track 5. Build resilience to vulnerabilities, stress and shocks’. Global climate is changing ever faster. Forest loss both contributes to this change (through carbon emissions). Forest loss is also accelerated by climate change (through climate-related droughts, fires, storms, pests and disease outbreaks that kill forests). It’s a vicious circle. The World Meteorological Organization records recent years of “exceptional global heat, retreating ice and record sea levels driven by greenhouse gases from human activities.” The world’s forests and its climate require a helping hand. Fortunately, the world’s 1.5 billion smallholder farmers (<2hectares) embody 3 billion helping hands. They are an efficient and professional bunch. Most smallholder farms (83%) are in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. While operating only 12% of the world’s agricultural land, they produce more than 70% of the food calories to people living in those regions. But they, too, are vulnerable to climate threats. What can be done to help them? This dialogue aimed to collect stories from around the world to show that it is possible to secure food from more resilient landscapes, stop forest loss and mitigate climate change at the same time. The secret lies in organized smallholders diversifying into more resilient agroforestry systems, tree planting and natural forest protection at landscape scales. It’s a brilliant nature-based solution! Following significant early impacts, the Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) Phase II (2018-2022) has continued to support the tremendous potential of forest and farm producers’ organizations (FFPOs) to develop inclusive business models that both improve livelihoods and enhance climate-resilient landscapes. This virtual dialogue showcased how FFPO diversification has built both food security and climate resilience while also mitigating climate change at significant scales. The mobilization of large farmer organization to spearhead diversification within and between their multiple membership groups can drive a paradigm shift away from large-scale corporate monocultures, which are highly inequitable and vulnerable to climate threats. FFPO businesses embody greater diversity and equity because they are founded on the multiple diverse smallholdings and democratic interests of their members. Diverse baskets of products produced from these FFPOs spread risks of climate-related failures and reduce overdependence on the market price stability of single products. Diversification has also stood smallholders in good stead during market shocks triggered by COVID-19. Following an overview of FFPOs and cimate resilience, four country case studies from Ghana, Madagascar, Nepal and Viet Nam attempted to answer the research question – “what elements of diversification (ecological, economic and social) have made a telling contribution to resilience for different contexts?” There was then an open discussion and mural post-it session to allow participants to add their views.235241242243244248251Participants discussed and endorsed a series of statements that they felt reflected the current potential of smallholder farmers and their organizations to build climate resilience for food security, their current marginalisation from decision-making and direct climate finance, and steps that needed to be taken to address that gap. The farmers organizations committed to working with the Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) to further develop farmers understanding of climate resilience through peer-to-peer knowledge exchanges facilitated by the FFF, through new training and information materials and through active small grants programmes funded by the FFF. A set of 30 resilience options for forest and farm producers will be widely circulated as the basis for increasing farmer knowledge of these issues. Particular emphasis was placed by participants on the resourcefulness of forest and farm producer organizations that is borne out of acute need and chronic stress. More direct support for such organizations especially to engage in peer to peer knowledge exchange can help people adapt more successfully. Investments that strengthen local organizations capacity to engage and negotiate were recommended - and while difficult to realise at a global level, there were felt to be real gains to be had in creating space and building capacity for local organizations to find a voice in local and national fora. Above all, the dialogue felt some consensus around the need for farmer organizations to be both better represented in decision making and more frequently the direct recipients of climate finance.236241242243244248251Participants discussed six main discussion topics relating to: (i) the nature and scale of farmer smallholdings; (ii) the type of landscape in which resilience actions were required; (iii) the diversity of forest and farm products and services requiring resilience; (iv) the nature of the shocks across climate, economic, political and helath concerns (v) the best route towards resilience in food systems; (vi) the priority going forward. Participants had the opportunity to shape, edit and revise a series of six statements based on food security in forest and farm smallholders and indigenous people’s territories. The final edited statemenets are as follows: 1. In comparison with industrial agriculture, the collective smallholdings of forest and farm producer organizations (FFPOs), and the territories of Indigenous Peoples together constitute substantially the largest private sector food system with greatest reach to the worlds poor. 2. In contrast with industrial agriculture, FFPOs and Indigenous Peoples territories routinely integrate biodiverse patchworks of agricultural land with forests in agroforestry systems, woodlots, fallow lands and conservation areas that are offering inclusive climate resilient development. 3. In contrast with industrial agriculture, the patchwork forest and farm landscapes of FFPOs and Indigenous Peoples routinely produce a wide diversity of subsistence agroforestry foods (including the wood energy to cook with, and the construction materials for shelter) alongside cash crops that together are constituting an integrated approach to food security (stable, nutritious, available, accessible and sustainable) 4. For their own survival, FFPOs and Indigenous Peoples territories are by necessity becoming resilient in sophisticated ways to climate change, economic shocks, pandemics, political inequalities and conflicts that embrace multiple socio-cultural, ecological, economic and physical / technological diversification strategies and both adapt to and mitigate climate change over collectively vast areas. 5. Strengthening the organizations of FFPOs and Indigenous Peoples territories from local groups, through regional associations to national and international federations constitutes a much neglected but efficient route towards climate risk reduction and management. 6. Increasing the decision making processes such that they invite greater representation of FFPOs and Indigenous People’s territories in national and international decision-making and action on food systems, and in global climate negotiations, finance, and implementation modalities represents a huge opportunity for upscaling climate change adaptation, mitigation and resilience.237241242243244248251There was some divergence as to whether it was improved farmer representation that was needed to shape more resilient food syastems or better processes of decision-making that actually made representation possible. Some participants felt that in addition to climate change adaptation and resilience - more emphasis needs also to be placed on how smallholder food systems can frequently outcompete lindustrial agriculture in terms of climate change mitigation - and that smallholder farm organizations ought to be channels for climate mitigation programmes such as REDD+ - rather than all the finance ending up with borkers and consultants. Finally there was some discussion about the best arena in which to act - with some preferring to work towards farmer unions and federations with substantial numbers and power - while others felt that often, local federations and local authorities had the capacity to shape more enabing environments for climate resilience (e.g. through local infrastructure development)

2021-07-07 15:30:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27359/60

59681125113211211121011

We designed the event to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity—Reassuring in the establishment of the database. At the beginning of the event, we discussed the principles of the food systems summit.We had varied participation of multiple actors who respectfully carried out dialogue to include their observations and recommendations as a roadmap of Climate change and its impact on Dominican agricultural production of the Dominican Republic.Es importante seguir con la metodología diseñada para que los procesos desde la concepción hasta el reporte post diálogo a los grupos de interés sea inclusivo.

Yes

234242244251Se hizo un análisis de las causas del cambio climático, las fuentes y el impacto de los Gases del Efecto Invernadero (GEIs) en República Dominicana. Se estableció el vínculo de las medidas de adaptación en el sector de seguridad alimentaria en la NDC-RD 2020. La importancia de eficientizar el uso del agua para la producción de alimentos, se incluyen las medidas de cambios de cultivos y el calendario de siembra. La inclusión de un proyecto paisaje productivo integrado a través de la planificación del uso del suelo, restauración e intensificación sostenible del arroz en las cuentas Yaque del Norte y Yuna; gestionar la oferta de aguan mediante la mejora y construcción de infraestructura y equipamiento hidráulico, promover la gestiona ganadera climáticamente inteligente y promover la adopción de sistemas silvopastoriles en fincas ganaderas y otras practicas mejoradas para demostraciones de explotaciones amigables con el medio ambiente.235242244248-Establecer bajo las condiciones adversas que supone el cambio climático la capacidad productiva de nuestros principales acuíferos, comunicar y sensibilizar a los productores en base a esos resultados y propiciar de forma participativa y con base científica medidas que permitan producir de forma sostenible. -Crear balance de cultivos intensivos que degradan suelo y requieren mantenimiento y recursos intensivos, estos también producen pérdida de biodiversidad -Buscar alternativas de productos para diversificar el consumo de alimentos como los cultivos intensivos - Imprescindibles los incentivos a los productores y el fomento del seguro agrícola nacional -Se necesita más voluntad y acción y también la implementación de más educación técnica para el sector agropecuario -Mas cuidado a la tierra de danos causados por fertilizantes y pesticidas, aplicaciones de biotecnología -Soluciones automatizadas para la protección de los cultivos vulnerables que son una parte tan grande de la producción agropecuaria dominicana.236242244245248251- Hay carencias en financiamientos, personal, medios tecnológicos, el establecimiento de responsables y mecanismos de monitoreo -Falta de voluntad y acción a base de los procesos de planificación ya existentes -Se necesita más adaptación a la situación agrónoma del país cuando viene a sus cultivos y técnicas -Más apoyo gubernamental para implementar ideas y normativas existentes para traer más acciones sostenibles -Se necesita solucionar los problemas de riego, hidráulicos y la explotación de los recursos vulnerables necesarios para el sistema agrónomo. -Se debe de implementar tecnología, no como problema principal, pero se necesita para solucionar los problemas multifactoriales a largo plazo. -Mas organización en la protección de los recursos, a nivel burocrático. -Promover el uso de la Biotecnología -A causa de que el país tiene tantos cultivos vulnerables como el cacao, el café, la habichuela impactados por el cambio climático las personas están parando de producir y estos han aumentado de precio. Inclusive no hay relevo generacional para la producción. Solamente empresas grandes han continuado la producción de estos cultivos que también se producen para la exportación. -A causa de esto se deben de producir más soluciones orgánicas, aunque estas no presenten resultados a la rapidez que los pide el mercado. La primera preocupación debe de ser la seguridad alimentaria y no la producción agrícola rápida. Esto protege al sector de largo plazo. -Un problema que puede causar esto es que ya que los productos orgánicos no contienen pesticidas que previenen organismos, (dañinos o no) estos productos si contienen estos organismos no son permitidos para la exportación. -Mas planificación a largo plazo, no soluciones para problemas de ahora, pero los que vendrían en el futuro -Ya que es un problema social también como económico y ambiental el cambio climático, la educación de problemas y planes para prevención deben de ser implementados. -A nivel municipal se debe aplicar también y accionar los planes al nivel micro antes del macro para ofrecer una base estable para la adaptación futura cuando conlleva a estos temas se debe de subdividir el desarrollo.237N/A

2021-07-07 15:54:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28003/60

22121635171332214111310165211212

We designed the event to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity—Reassuring in the establishment of the database. At the beginning of the event, we discussed the principles of the food systems summit.We had varied participation of multiple actors who respectfully carried out dialogue to include their observations and recommendations as a roadmap of Climate change and its impact on Dominican agricultural production of the Dominican Republic.Es importante seguir con la metodología diseñada para que los procesos desde la concepción hasta el reporte post diálogo a los grupos de interés sea inclusivo.

Yes

234238245246247248251En el diálogo conversamos sobre los avances significativos, a lo largo de las últimas décadas, en materia de seguridad alimentaria y nutrición de la República Dominicana. Tanto la subalimentación como la desnutrición infantil crónica han declinado de forma considerable, mientras los indicadores nutricionales en la población escolar han mejorado notablemente. Sin embargo, se estima que más de un 12 % de la población está subalimentada, siendo la prevalencia de la desnutrición infantil crónica significativamente superior en los hogares de menores ingresos y en aquellos en los que el jefe o la jefa de hogar tienen relativamente bajos niveles de instrucción escolar. Al mismo tiempo, de acuerdo a la Escala Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Seguridad Alimentaria (ELCSA), más del 85 % de la población está en inseguridad alimentaria y casi la mitad vive en la misma situación, pero de manera severa. Nos enfocamos en la vía de acción 1 sobre la importancia de garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todas/os.235238247248251La mesa de diálogo sobre dieta y nutrición como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social estuvo guiada por Hubert Reyes, director de Feed the Planet, República Dominicana y creador de la solución ganadora del Game Changers Lab para los sistemas alimentarios, Humans for Food Alliance y Mireya Sepole, del PMA. El diálogo inició con una presentación introductoria sobre los problemas de salud relacionados a la alimentación persistentes en República Dominicana, y la necesidad de detectar y actuar sobre los problemas puntuales que afectan a la población. La mesa de diálogo estuvo compuesta por diversos expertos en materia de la salud y nutrición, así como también personalidades de diversas ramas como gastronomía y agricultura. La fusión de criterios, en respuesta a las preguntas expuestas, dieron como resultado la detección de una serie de problemas y soluciones que deberían tomarse en consideración para los fines que buscamos.236238239245246247248251• Un segmento de la población experimenta hábitos alimenticios saludables, sin embargo, nuestra dieta está muy basada en carbohidratos lo cual puede responder al poder adquisitivo, donde los alimentos altos en carbohidratos son fáciles de obtener, las proteínas en cambio son más difíciles. Hemos visto el factor obesidad y los problemas cardiovasculares como unos de los problemas en los estratos sociales bajos, debido a la limitación en la diversidad de alimentos consumidos, ya sea que solo comen carbohidratos, productos fritos listos para comer y la poca proteína obtenida se fríe también. • En los estratos sociales más altos se ha observado un desbalance de la dieta básica, los porcentajes de obesidad van en aumento, el estilo de vida actual limita a que el desarrollo de un hábito alimentario saludable sea efectivo, sumado a esto, el estado emocional de muchos habitantes, a raíz de la pandemia del COVID-19, ha sido un factor para la inestabilidad de los hábitos alimentarios. • Apoyo a los agricultores para desarrollar productos saludables de manera saludable, lograr ampliar la variedad y diversidad de frutas y vegetales que pueden ser de aporte al valor nutricional de la canasta básica. Brindar orientación adecuada para los campesinos en materia de nutrición y darles participación en la toma de decisiones sobre la soberanía alimentaria. Incentivar huertos colectivos e individuales. Inclusión en comercio local por zonas. • No hay campañas de información o educación, públicas o privadas, con visibilidad masiva sobre el valor nutritivo de los alimentos. Hace falta articular los problemas y beneficios de la alimentación saludable, a nivel nacional. Quienes brindan información son las marcas, en sus productos específicos. Hay que normalizar el hábito de alimentación saludable en todas las escalas. Campañas turísticas (local o internacional) gastronómicas para promover algún producto nacional el cual tenga mucha producción • La información del valor nutricional para la población en general es deficiente. La población no sabe leer y entender los etiquetados, a esto cabe destacar que muchos de los etiquetados son deficientes y deberían ser la fuente principal de información en los alimentos que lo requieren. En adición, tenemos las informaciones dispersas por el internet y medios alternativos, no existe una guía confiable de información nutricional en el país. • Una observación sobre la información de las etiquetas es que deben ser más grandes y leíbles, que brinden la información real y el riesgo de consumo, no para prohibir, sino hacer conocimiento de su contenido. • Profundizar en la garantía de la calidad nutricional de los alimentos que vemos en los supermercados, asegurar que lo que dicen es lo que es. Crear impuestos para los alimentos y bebidas no naturales, procesados, que no aportan a la salud, que se usen para el desarrollo de productos agropecuarios adecuados y nutritivos. • La educación alimentaria necesita ser implementada desde los planteles educativos. Normalizar la educación nutricional, a nivel básico, industrial y social. Aprender a comer saludable solo se logra con educación, los colegios y escuelas deben tener en su currículo escolar la enseñanza de comer saludable desde niveles primarios y básicos, enseñar sobre alimentos saludables, no procesados, alimentos orgánicos, sin pesticidas, sin aditivos, conservantes y con alto valor nutricional. Esta educación debe aplicarse con un lenguaje entendible para la población. • La implementación de educación culinaria para mejores prácticas de cocina, son parte de esta educación que se quiere inculcar, es importante el aporte de técnicas y métodos de cocción que permitan preparar alimentos de manera saludable para toda la población. • La importancia de los comedores económicos para diferentes grupos de intereses, que preparen alimentos nutritivos y con el valor calórico necesario para alimentar a los individuos. Hay que asegurar que los alimentos brindados reduzcan los niveles incidencias de salud. • A través de instituciones especializadas de alimentación y/o programas gubernamentales acompañar a jóvenes atletas en su alimentación.237N/A

2021-07-07 16:13:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29611/60

1576278211221113122513110

We designed the event to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity—Reassuring in the establishment of the database. At the beginning of the event, we discussed the principles of the food systems summit.We had varied participation of multiple actors who respectfully carried out dialogue to include their observations and recommendations as a roadmap of food production and consumption and its impact on Dominican agricultural production of the Dominican Republic.Es importante seguir con la metodología diseñada para que los procesos desde la concepción hasta el reporte post diálogo a los grupos de interés sea inclusivo.

Yes

234239245248249251Por ello, en el caso de este diálogo, la vía de acción correspondiente es: • Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos (Vía de Acción 1). Poner fin al hambre y a todas las formas de malnutrición y reducir la incidencia de las enfermedades no transmisibles, lo cual posibilitará que todas las personas estén alimentadas y sanas. Este objetivo requiere que todas las personas tengan acceso en todo momento a cantidades suficientes de alimentos nutritivos, asequibles e inocuos. • Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. Optimizar el uso de los recursos ambientales en la producción, el procesamiento y la distribución de alimentos (Vía de Acción 3), y reducir así la pérdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación, el uso del agua, la degradación del suelo y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. En la consecución de este objetivo, la Vía de Acción se propondrá ahondar en la comprensión de las limitaciones y oportunidades que enfrentan los/as pequeños/as agricultores/as. También se esforzará por prestar apoyo a una gobernanza del sistema alimentario que reajuste los incentivos para reducir las pérdidas de alimentos y otras repercusiones ambientales negativas. • Promover medios de vida equitativos. Contribuir a la eliminación de la pobreza (Vía de Acción 4), mediante la promoción del empleo pleno y productivo y el trabajo decente para todos los agentes de la cadena de valor de los alimentos, la reducción de los riesgos para las personas en mayor condición de pobreza en el mundo, el fomento del emprendimiento y la lucha contra las desigualdades en el acceso a los recursos y la distribución del valor. La Vía de Acción 4 mejorará la resiliencia mediante la protección social y tratará de garantizar que los sistemas alimentarios “no dejen a nadie atrás.”235239245246247248251Dentro de las principales acciones sugeridas de estos diálogos, en torno a la Producción y Suministro de Alimentos, se tienen los siguientes: • Identificar las necesidades de producción, con el debido registro y/o calendarización de siembra, cosecha, así como quiénes están sembrando, para satisfacer la demanda de alimentos y la exportación de los que así se dispongan. Se debe contemplar la satisfacción de la demanda de la agroindustria. Se debe diferenciar la demanda interna y la demanda de exportación. • Actualizar el censo de productores por regiones, provincias, municipio, zonas y subzonas. Punto importante. El ultimo censo fue realizado en 1982 y aunque se realizo un pre-censo en el 2014, no se puede considerar un censo en su totalidad. • Al tiempo que se habilitan los centros de acopio requeridos, capacitar a los/as productores/as sobre cómo mejorar el almacenamiento de los productos, y gestionar acuerdos con el sector privado para el uso de aquellos que se encuentran subutilizados. Observar este punto. Sector privado maneja prácticamente todos los centros de acopio del país. También definir si estos centros existen o se habilitaran a futuro. Observar el concepto “Centros de Acopio”. Contemplar plantas empacadoras para la distribución de producto. • Impulsar el tema de fitomejoramiento y buenas prácticas para el uso de semillas y tecnologías que mejoran la calidad de los rubros y los niveles de inversión. Observar el término “impulsar”. Esto implica que no se está realizando? No todos los productores pueden aplicar fitomejoramiento. El financiamiento para el fitomejoramiento le corresponde al Estado. • Planificar y organizar la producción de alimentos de acuerdo con la capacidad del mercado local y regional, de forma que los tipos de rubros por región no generen excedentes, si no hay capacidad de exportación y/o de consumo interno de estos. Modificar narrativa: Agregar mercado de exportación en la planificación y organización. • Es indispensable incentivar la producción primaria a nivel nacional, hacer un levantamiento en cada comunidad para cuantificar necesidades y priorizar las ayudas. Asímismo, mejorar aspectos de almacenamiento cuando los alimentos sean perecederos, facilitar herramientas para garantizar mayor producción de rubros alimenticios en función de la reactivación económica (mayor facilidad de créditos, asistencia técnica y transporte). Definir “incentivar”, esto se refiere a financiamiento? La tasa preferencial es un incentivo. Contemplar la participación de otros sectores. Tomar en cuenta grupos de mujeres vulnerables, tienen poco acceso a estos incentivos y posibilidades de financiamiento. Observar programas de incentivos existentes y fortalecer la participación de las mujeres en estos. Las condiciones crediticias de los bancos no permite la participación de los pequeños productores, se debe contemplar intervención del gobierno para facilitar el acceso a estos programas por parte de los pequeños productores. • Crear alianzas estratégicas entre pequeños, medianos y grandes procesadores para agregar valor a los productos perecederos, incorporando aquellas políticas de integración y apoyo para empresas y productores, que incluyan seguridad y pago a tiempo. Check. Observar. Sugerencia de narrativa: Agregar encadenamiento productivo. • Diseñar un Plan de Acción Mundial para la Reactivación de la Producción de Alimentos, el cual contenga las líneas maestras en función de las condiciones de cada región, con apoyo de las organizaciones internacionales relacionadas a la alimentación y la agricultura, que incluya (entre otras) líneas maestras orientadas al fortalecimiento de la agricultura familiar, el mayor segmento de producción de alimentos para el abastecimiento de las familias y para el mercado a nivel global. Observar concepto “Plan de acción Mundial”, esto se focaliza a nivel nacional? Como se interviene en otros países. Adaptar este concepto a “Plan de Seguridad Alimentaria” donde se contemplen los pilares de la seguridad alimentaria y su vinculación con la producción y suministro. • Mercados de exportación: El Plan de Acción Mundial deberá incluir medidas para el cumplimiento de los requisitos que exigen los países con necesidades de importación de alimentos, principalmente en lo relacionado con la fitosanidad, zoosanidad, inocuidad e higiene de los alimentos. Asimismo, deberá contar con planes de orientación al productor en materia de comercialización hacia un destino que le garantice mejores precios en sus cosechas y la disminución de los canales de intermediarios. Fortalecer las cuarentenas agropecuarias para garantizar una vigilancia de las plagas y enfermedades que frecuentemente amenazan los sistemas agrícolas. Existe un plan de fomento a las exportaciones y buenas practicas de manufactura que ya incluye estas medidas. El fortalecimiento de las cuarentenas agropecuarias es una actividad continua que siempre se realiza. En el proceso de preinspección intervienen otras instituciones de Gobierno a parte del Ministerio de Agricultura, seria bueno contemplar reforzar el personal técnico por zonas responsables de este proceso. • Se aboga por un sector resiliente capaz de adaptar su cadena de valor productiva, comercialización y consumo de una manera sostenible, adaptable, en cantidades suficientes para todos/as los/as consumidores/as. Como pequeño Estado insular requerimos de acciones focalizadas en aumentar la eficiencia productiva, la calidad, el suministro y la seguridad alimentaria nacional. • El sector oficial promueve la modalidad de agricultura por236Otros aspectos destacados en los diálogos PRODUCCIÓN AGROPECUARIA PLANIFICADA. Políticas públicas requeridas para impulsar la planificación en la producción de alimentos, de forma resiliente, adaptable y que responda a los encadenamientos productivos necesarios: • Dar a conocer las normativas existentes en materia de ciclos de siembra, cosecha, así como aquellas relativas a comercialización tanto en el mercado nacional como en el internacional, y aquellas otras normativas que pueden ser aprovechadas en términos de encadenamientos, de alianzas público-privadas, de compras públicas, de incentivos a la producción agropecuaria y agroindustrial. Esto así, para que se conozcan e implementen mejor las políticas públicas que inciden en lograr una planificación óptima de la producción agropecuaria nacional, tanto para la siembra, cosecha, como para la importación de determinados rubros, insumos y productos sustitutos y/o similares. • Actualizar aquellas políticas y/o legislaciones necesarias para garantizar la implementación de los objetivos de una producción correctamente planificada, orientada a lo sostenible, y al consumo saludable. Este punto trata varios temas. Desagregar. • Involucrar a las autoridades de las comunidades en el proceso para que asuman una responsabilidad con las comunidades que representan de manera que se enfrenten los problemas vitales, se procedan a las soluciones y se dé buen uso de los recursos que se dispongan. • Facilitar herramientas para garantizar mayor producción de rubros alimenticios en función de la reactivación económica (mayor facilidad de créditos, asistencia técnica y transporte). • Clasificar rubros y suministrar material de siembra con calidad genética para lograr una mejor producción y productividad. • Incentivar mediante campañas para que la población consuma alimentos de forma más saludable, tomando en cuenta aquellos de producción local, nacional, que son propios de la dieta nacional, junto con otros que requieran ser importados de otros países, tanto por tema de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, sino también como complemento en la diversidad de dicha dieta. • Fomentar las compras públicas a pequeños productores y agricultura familiar. • Que los procesos de planificación se realicen tomando en cuenta el enfoque territorial. • Dar a conocer las normativas relacionadas con las Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas y las Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura, así como aquellas relacionadas a la disposición de residuos, entre otros; con el fin de garantizar una producción, procesamiento, comercialización y distribución de alimentos más sostenible, adaptable al medio ambiente, y que permita implementar estrategias de economía circular. • Que se creen los mecanismos para que la capacitación a los/as pequeños/as y medianos/as productores/as sea una constante, para producir de manera sostenible, en condiciones óptimas, garantizando la productividad y rentabilidad, fomentando habilidades/ técnicas para la comercialización. • Hacer esfuerzos conjuntos, desde el Gobierno, las empresas, agroindustrias y demás actores, para que se pueda producir de manera sostenible y con los elementos de nutrición requeridos por la dieta de la población dominicana, contemplando una adecuada planificación de lo que se produce, importa y exporta. • Contemplar cuotas para exportación de ciertos rubros agropecuarios, para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria en ciertos periodos de déficit en la producción de éstos. • Fomentar la implementación de planes de producción agropecuaria y agroindustrial, haciendo uso de las energías renovables. • Fortalecer y hacer asequibles los programas de tecnologías para la producción limpia y competitiva, especialmente a los/as pequeños/as y medianos/as productores/as. • Es importante invertir en las comunidades cercanas a las empresas que producen y exportan, y que ya tienen incluido en sus planes y operatividad, programas sociales y sostenibles con los que se motiva seguir y trabajar para lograr los objetivos que se tienen como nación, en torno a la producción sostenible de alimentos y el acceso a alimentos saludables y diversos, conforme la dieta nacional y de las características de los terri237n/a

2021-07-07 17:01:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13947/203

500301820013370211025103021024033110000018258010000001303

We actively recruited stakeholders from different backgrounds to contribute and discuss solutions based on their professional knowledge or personal experience. To kindle the spirit of a people’s summit, we incorporated talking points requested by the participants prior to the dialogue. We organized the dialogue at a time most suitable to accommodate participants from different time-zones. Considering cultural, geographical, and language challenges, we brought together people from different backgrounds in the same discussion groups - even where perspectives and agendas may be wildly different, e.g. parent consumer and marketing manager. Since sustainability is a complex issue, it depends on many different factors, and requires action on multiple levels to be managed, we decided to look at the responsibilities of each stakeholder group in separate discussion groups, to avoid cross-sector-blaming – which often leads to inaction. We asked every participant to commit to the “practical” outcomes of the dialogue and to only bring solutions to the table that they would themselves be willing to follow through with in practice. We were transparent with participants about the outcome of the dialogues, and explained we would be taking notes according to Chatham House rules, promising to treat comments confidentially and anonymously. We told participants that we would have liked the conversation to be very spontaneous and positive, trying to build on top of each other’s ideas respectfully. We also emphasized we didn't want anyone to feel that they didn’t have enough expertise to contribute to the conversation – if they had been chosen to be there, it is because we wanted to hear what they had to say.Act with urgency: We made sure that the conversation focused on the next 3-5 years and revolved around specific realistic and practical solutions. Be respectful: Everyone in the dialogue was encouraged to be respectful of others’ perspectives and every friction and divergence was dealt with a constructive approach. We encouraged food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, communities, and ecosystems – while at the same time respecting local cultures and contexts. Recognise complexity: Throughout the dialogue, we always recognised that sustainability in the context of our food system is complex, and closely connected to human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy, and geopolitics. We allowed and encouraged disagreement with proposed solutions and recognised that solutions likely will not be easy to implement. We recognised that solutions were needed on multiple levels, and asked participants to vote on each group’s main suggested solutions. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We facilitated conversations between members of different stakeholder groups, and ensured that everyone was always involved in the conversation and invited everyone to express themselves on each topic of discussion. Complement the work of others: We developed our own unique and relaxed style of hosting in an effort to stimulate new discussions that would lead to creative solutions. Build trust: We committed to creating a relaxed and friendly atmosphere to build trust and open airing of truthful views. We created an optional shared spreadsheet where each participant could drop their personal details in case they wanted to be contacted by other participants or by us. We let participants know that we would send the final feedback report to them. Participants also know that they might be offered follow-up opportunities with FoodUnfolded to reach our audience about important issues.We have found that creating interactive polls during the plenary session allowed us to stimulate engagement from the very beginning of the event and to keep a higher level of attention throughout the Dialogue. Using polls also made it possible to democratically vote on the solutions that the majority of participants thought should take priority.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251The Dialogue “Sustainability: Just A Buzzword?” focused on overcoming the abstract and vast nature of the term ‘sustainability’ used in our political, industrial, academic, media and social landscapes, as a barrier to real sustainable progress. The primary goal of the Dialogue was to find common solutions to help different sectors qualify, quantify and reinforce sustainable practices and policies related to our food system. Sustainability has been a central talking and action point across all sectors - however, the concept of sustainability is complex and multi-faceted. The absence of a common framework for what is or is not sustainable impedes the sustainable progress for all actors in our food system. In this dialogue, we invited millennial participants from different countries and backgrounds to discuss how we can more clearly define and measure sustainability within the food system. We reflected on which frameworks we need to adopt in order to move our food system towards more sustainable practices. We focused on solutions related to the actions in five different areas : 1. Policy and Public Sector; 2. Agriculture, Business and Supply Chains; 3. Marketing and Food Labelling; 4. Research and Innovation; 5. Domestic and International Development. 1. Policy & Public Sector. This group focused on the role of policy and the public sector, to establish clear parameters around sustainability in our food system. 2. Agriculture, Business & Supply Chains. This group focused on the solutions needed in agriculture, business and supply chains to implement sustainable practices in the food system. 3. Research & Innovation. This group focused on the role of research and innovation that could help accelerate the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices, policies, and consumer behavioural change. 4. Marketing & Food Labelling. The group focused on the role of marketing and food labelling, and what would be required in/by these sectors for sustainable smallholder development and consumer behavioural change. 5. Domestic & International Development. This group focused on the barriers and solutions needed to sustainably develop the food system in low-income or low-resource regions.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Obstacles: -There is a strong sense that ‘sustainability’ is now overused or misused in our public and private domains. This is a barrier to consumer knowledge. -Sustainability values seem to differ between different stakeholders: governments are thought to prioritize economy over environment and social sustainability. -There is no straight-forward solution to creating a sustainable framework. The challenge lies in the multi-faceted and complex nature of sustainability - where do we begin to qualify what is or is not sustainable? -There is not enough (quality) dialogue between different stakeholders about sustainability. This includes lack of communication between stakeholders in the same sector (e.g. small farmers and shared knowledge) and across sectors (e.g. scientists and policymakers). -‘Sustainability’ is too politicized. -Sustainable practices and consumption will vary by region, and sometimes fall out of the scope of rigid regulation. -On the consumer side, there is generally a lack of education and disconnection to food production and the system, let alone sustainable food production. -The burden of choice is currently on the consumers: consumers have to choose between more sustainable or less sustainable products. However, packaging labels on food are also too confusing, and do not always cover all the complexities of sustainability. -For many populations, food security and poverty challenges need to first be resolved (or simultaneously) for them to begin considering environmental sustainability. There is a general lack of awareness on the concept of sustainability and its benefits in these regions. Conclusions & Solutions: -Most participants agreed that governments and industry have the greatest power to drive sustainable systematic change. However, all stakeholders need to engage and collaborate to make change possible. -For this reason, policymakers must be bold and draw hard policy lines to stop unsustainable practices, while encouraging the use of sustainable methods. -These policies need to accept variations in circumstance and flexes to account for regional differences in people’s livelihoods and perspectives. -Legislation must also be backed by solid scientific indicators. Researchers and scientists need to develop a common sustainability framework, with the metrics that capture different aspects of sustainability (e.g. water, ghg emissions, farmer income, workers wages and conditions). -Developing sustainability frameworks also requires the collaboration and experience of different groups like Indigenous people and smallholder farmers. Data collection must then be feasible and affordable for these groups that may lack the time, resources and tools to do so. -A stronger connection between policymakers and scientists, NGOs and the public through open access science-policy co-creation sessions is needed to create policies that reflect what truly is or is not sustainable. -Public funding needs to be available for information brokers (e.g. science communicators) to act as communication bridges between different stakeholders. -Financial investments and monitoring from richer countries is needed to support low-income and -resource regions in their shift to sustainable agriculture -Although a global agenda for a sustainable food system is needed, fundamental solutions begin at the local level. -Businesses must adopt sustainable practices in accordance with clearly defined sustainability parameters. -Small farmers should support and learn from one another in their transition to sustainable practices. So, there needs to be greater systematic support for cooperatives. -Tax incentives and penalties are needed, based on set sustainability metrics backed by strong research and evidence, to support and ensure farmers and businesses truly implement sustainable practices. -Education is needed to bring consumers closer to sustainable food production at a younger age. School curriculums need to create experiences for early learners to experience where their food is from. For low-resource regions, providing school meals could be an incentive for education. -Advertising standards for ethical marketing and labels that provide transparency on social, economic and environmental sustainability metrics. -Labels should have procurement incentives (e.g. concrete plans towards net zero goals) for well-established businesses. -Sustainable certifications should be made affordable and accessible to small-scale farmers. -At the end of the Dialogue, all participants voted on the solutions that they thought should be the ones to take priority. These are: 1. Workshops and dialogues between policymakers and scientists (science-policy co-creation sessions) 2. Re-establish connection between consumers and food, including early education curriculum 3. Food labelling procurement incentives, market barriers & ethical restrictions for sustainable marketing 4. Turn sustainability from a single word into a multi-dimensional framework of metrics that captures more context, including social, ethical, environmental and economic impacts. 5. Financial incentives and monitoring from richers countries to support shift to sustainable agriculture in low-resource countries/regions236238239240241242243244245246248249Public Sector and Policy Participants acknowledged that there is no universal, “scientifically-approved” model, agreement or definition of sustainability. The term is very holistic, hard to quantify, misused and often time-dependent. The group recognized that the public sector is broken when it comes to creating, implementing and reinforcing sustainable policies. However, solutions and initiatives are possible both at the big and small scale and can play a huge role. For example, some participants mentioned local initiatives by municipalities in reducing meat consumption in schools in favour of organic and locally produced vegetables. The group concluded that the public sector is not very connected with the public, or even scientists and smallholder farmers, and needs to take bolder decisions towards sustainability. In other words, it is time for policymakers to take action, implement the information coming from research on sustainability and SDGs. There is a sense that policymakers listen to lobbyists from big corporations, while there should be more dialogue with scientists and more opportunities to engage and empower the consumers. The decision process at the political level is complex, fragmented and not-transparent. To overcome these barriers to sustainable progress, the participants agreed to the following solutions: 1. Information brokers (e.g. science communicators) to act as a bridge between the public sector, scientists and communities. They should be funded by the public sector ideally. 2. Science-policy co-creation sessions: Workshops and dialogues between policymakers and scientists 3. Engaging the public in open access forums, so things/decisions are more transparent and citizens have the change to understand what happens behind the scenes and decision makers will feel more accountability236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Agriculture, Business and Supply Chains In this discussion group, participants agreed that there is a general lack of communication about sustainability, as well as sustainable standards. This group strongly felt that a holistic approach is needed, which includes all stakeholders. Consumers need to be involved in the paradigm shift for more sustainable practices, as they have the biggest effect on food production through demand - however, there is a lack of education on our food system and on which practices are actually sustainable or unsustainable. There needs to be a stronger connection between consumers and farmers, as well as farmer to farmer to share best practices and sustainable knowledge. The group also acknowledged that big companies have more power to mislead in respect to sustainable practices, so businesses must actually commit to sustainable practices if the system is to make any progress. Participants agreed on the following solutions to prioritize: Supporting cooperatives to increase small farmer visibility and give farmers more control of their prices. This provides more economic freedom and supports knowledge sharing/peer to peer learning. For consumers to understand where food comes from and the complexities farmers face to produce food, the public sector needs to push for an education curriculum that re-establishes the connection between early learners and the food production system. Businesses and farmers can commit to sustainable practices, so long as there are clearly defined parameters & guidelines for “sustainability” (production, processing, consumption), as well as in “green communication” (e.g. marketing)236238239240241242243244245246247248249Marketing and Food Labelling The group recognised that marketing and food labels have an impact on consumer behaviour - which in turn affects food production. The participants agreed that the term ‘sustainability’ is vague and overused, creating barriers to consumer knowledge. They also acknowledged that food labels can mislead, oversimplify, ‘greenwash’ & fail to capture the full picture (i.e claim sustainability in some ways but not others). To limit this, there is a need for increased transparency, governance and regulation in marketing/labelling so these can be trusted by consumers. The group also agreed that achieving a sustainable food system cannot rely solely on labels/marketing: it requires a multi-pronged approach from policymakers, regulators, consumer advocacy & education. These are the main solutions identified by the participants: 1. Labels are valuable tools for communicating with consumers, but these need to be transparent, regulated and governed in order to be trusted by consumers and to create meaningful impact. 2. Labels should capture social, economical and environmental sustainability metrics. 3. Labels need to be supplemented by consumer knowledge & engagement: be it through the education sector, independent research etc. 4. Small-scale farmers should be incentivised or given affordable access to sustainable certification to dismantle barriers between small-scale farmers and consumers.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Research and Innovation This group generally agreed that a key challenge to defining ‘sustainability’ is that the term is used perhaps too broadly to be really useful. Since sustainability encompasses so many different factors, it can be difficult to know what aspect to measure. The participants agreed that the current economy defines ‘sustainability’ with carbon emissions alone, potentially ignoring other important impacts. With regard to sustainable consumption patterns, the group generally agreed that the burden is now on consumers to assess the sustainability of the things they buy, leaving companies free to use ‘sustainability’ to suit them. This needs to shift to companies being obliged to provide more information and context. Policies and regulation can be useful tools to legally establish sustainable metrics, but only if they are enforced, applied globally and relevant for all contexts. Innovative new uses of data (including satellite data) could help to make companies more accountable. Even if a comprehensive framework for assessing sustainability can be agreed, this will require solid metrics and accurate data collection, which could put pressure on producers. The group agreed on the following factors to consider when conceptualising ‘sustainability’: ‘Sustainability’ is defined differently depending on context, and how a person is impacted. Decision making around sustainability tends to concentrate on individual (country) needs, but we should be thinking more globally. ‘Sustainability’ is best viewed as a multi-dimensional framework, with environmental, social, economic and ethical domains. It should represent the interests of communities and individuals; present and future generations; and humans and non-human organisms. Understanding these factors, the group agreed on the following solutions: 1. Turn sustainability from a single word into a multi-dimensional framework of metrics that captures more context, including social, ethical, environmental and economic impacts. 2. Focus on finding the right ways to collect the data we need that are affordable, cheap and efficient for small producers - including innovative new approaches. 3. Move the burden of proof from consumers to companies, in a way that spans international borders and works in all contexts. 4. Co-develop metrics and policies for sustainability with communities and different interest groups. 5. Ensure that the interests of all affected parties (including future generations and non-human organisms) are listened to and taken into account during decision-making processes. 6. Make life cycle analysis (LCA) software and tools more widely available, and train companies in how to use them.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Domestic and International Development The participants in this group unanimously agreed that governments are key players in a more sustainable food system, because they initiate and move policies. This group mentioned several factors for real sustainable progress: -Everyone (all stakeholders) must be involved in dialogue. This includes taking into account traditionals views and practices (e.g. Indigenous practices). -However, the concept of sustainability is being discussed in ‘different languages’ (e.g. in Indigenous populations it is about how you live, in some countries it is about driving an electric car, for scientists it is about quantitative measurements like emissions.). There needs to be a unification for how different stakeholders discuss sustainability. -Solid scientific indicators for legislation are needed. -The importance of education and communication to help all individuals of different socioeconomic backgrounds to become aware of sustainability and its benefits. One of the biggest barriers for sustainable development in low-income regions is poverty and food security. This must be addressed as a part of sustainable development. -Additionally, poor quality Aginputs (that wouldn’t meet the standards of other wealthier countries) are being sold to developing countries. This needs to be regulated at a policy-level. The participants also agreed on the following solutions: 1. Promotion of sustainable education is needed in low-resource areas - perhaps through the incentive of free school meals. 2. Start working at the local level. There could be a global agenda, but initiatives should start at the local level. 3. Financial investments and monitoring from richer countries to shifting to sustainable agriculture.237238239243246248249While participants agreed that policymakers need to work more closely with objective scientists, some participants disagreed on who should be classified as ‘objective scientists’ (e.g. independent or industry researchers). Some believe that if scientists are paid by the private sector, they are not 100% free and objective. Academic participants also mentioned that some researchers are not willing to speak up in the political domain, because they believe that scientists should not be activists. Some participants mentioned the need of a multidimensional labelling to clarify whether products are sustainable at the social, environmental level or both. Other participants pointed out that such certifications would make the products more expensive, and less accessible. Certifications also create a binary choice between what product is more sustainable and less sustainable (even if both options may not be sustainable). Some participants believe this is necessary to progress the food system towards more sustainable products, while others believe that the burden should not be with the consumer to choose between sustainable/unsustainable products, but that all products should have a sustainable baseline. Several participants questioned the effectiveness of labels in creating real, meaningful impact. The reasons for this were twofold: 1. Consumers may not prioritise buying ‘sustainable’ over other factors such as price and taste; 2. Due to widespread greenwashing, consumers may doubt the truthfulness of labels and therefore disregard them. Two participants in particular defended the value of labels and marketing, viewing it as a vital platform to reach, educate and engage consumers. For several participants, labels were not considered the answer - policy and regulations should lead the way.

2021-07-07 17:09:16https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Sustainability_UN_Summary_Manifesto_scaled-scaled.jpg

2021-07-07 17:18:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14974/194

131017802683785430516132121131131681415161131213181

We utilized this opportunity to bring together multiple city departments and partners agencies to organize and facilitate this event. Many of the facilitators attended the United Nations training offered by the Summit Dialogues team. Stakeholders across various sectors were invited to participate in the dialogue. A panel discussion from an inclusive group of leaders working in the realm of food systems kicked off the Dialogue. Participants were then able to join two different facilitated breakout sessions. The aim of this dialogue was to learn more about the work already being done, and to initiate a respectful conversation with a diverse group of community members and organizations aimed at improving the sustainability and resiliency of the city’s food systems. In addition to raising community awareness regarding the complexity of sustainable food systems and the challenges, the Dialogue intended to identify linkages, overlaps and gaps between the existing programs related to these topics, as well as to create new synergies and partnerships city-wide.The principles of engagement were shared with participants on the registration form prior to the event. To open the dialogue, a land acknowledgement was presented by a local tribal chairman of the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas. The Mayor of the City of San Antonio and local panelists shared their role and commitment to building partnerships to plan for the future of our local food system. The event streamed live on social media, with an estimated 486 views. During the breakout sessions, videos were played to share local programs and initiatives that support different sectors of the foods system. After the event, participants were encouraged to provide feedback on the event. We hope to count on their interest and involvement in future events which will result in the development of a roadmap for a sustainable and resilient food system.One suggestion for Dialogue convenors would be to attend the Summit Dialogue Guidance for Convenors, Curators and Facilitators training offered by the UN Summit organizers. Attending this training was beneficial in understanding and appreciating the Principals of Engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245247248249The focus of this dialogue was to explore our local food system’s current challenges and opportunities to build sustainable partnerships for the future. All five of the action tracks were discussed among various sectors of the food system, stakeholders, community organizations, institutional partners, government leaders and community members. Common key words throughout the summit were centered around human rights, governance, policy, data, innovation and empowering our community to take part in advocating for an equitable food system. There is a need to improve transparency, gain trust and build partnerships to develop a strategic roadmap for a resilient food system that can flourish despite any shocks or stressors. Planning future forums will help align ideas, programs, and help to identify roles of stakeholders and community members so that we can transform our food system. To ensure a more equitable food system, improving policy was an important theme throughout the dialogue. Changing policy to improve agriculture, land use, food procurement, and health disparities in our community will be key to changing the current infrastructure and roadblocks that we have in our food system. To advocate for policy change, obtaining data on our local food purchasing, production, and distribution is needed. Additionally, innovation and investments at all levels of the food chain is crucial for sustainable changes. Technology advancements throughout the food chain, from farmers to consumers, will be key in addressing disparities. Stakeholders in the food service industry should have an opportunity and role to think creatively on new ways of addressing food insecurity to ensure there is nutritious food for all. Lastly, community engagement and participation will be the foundation to addressing many of the challenges in our food systems. A common theme among all breakout groups was to focus on education and getting the community more involved in learning about the food system. Building a strong education and communication plan will help connect the community to local initiatives and support advocacy to strength our food system. Suggested education topics included learning about the food culture from past ancestors, growing your own food, connecting food to health, and the understanding the economic and environmental impact of shifting to a sustainable movement.235238239240241242243244245247249An agreement during the dialogue was that returning to “normal” post the COVD-19 pandemic should not be an option due to preexisting inequalities in the food system. Participants expressed a willingness to help influence changes to the structural inequalities that our current food system has in place for those working on the frontline to consumers. More discussions and exploration of all sectors of the food chain are needed to include more voices at the discussion table. It will be important that city leaders listen to the voices of the community to drive the changes needed in policy reform, securing funding for green infrastructure and economic development, and in identifying a clear path to ending food insecurity in our community. To secure more investment opportunities on any of these initiatives, collecting data will be essential in developing clear actions, determining indicators for success and identifying roles for each stakeholder. Another conclusion of the dialogue was to have more transparency, collaboration, and a clear plan in place during times when our food system is prone to shocks and stresses like the COVID-19 pandemic or natural disasters. There was an agreement that during an emergency response we should not have a top-down or government centered approach, but instead a bottom-up community driven approach. Building a network of community partners should be a top priority during times when our food system is disrupted. Additionally, there is a need to focus on education. Education was a top priority among participants throughout all the actions tracks. Incorporating more hands-on learning activities throughout the lifespan was encouraged through school and community gardens. Focusing on the history of native foods in our region and educating on traditional cooking techniques is crucial to appreciating the abundance of food that surrounds our community. There is also a need to educate the community on how climate change affects food availability, cost and distribution. Finding ways to optimize environmental resources by eliminating wasteful patterns of food consumptions, reducing water use, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions sill needs to be further discussed.236238243249Action Track 1: There were several outcomes or action items discussed among the group to help ensure access to safe and nutritious food. First, there is a need to increase fair pay and social protection for farmers. This could be accomplished through advocacy and changes to current legislation centered around the Farm Bill. It will be important that we find ways to connect the community to local growers and native foods within community to build support for these changes. Additionally, educational programs should focus on the health benefits of food, the importance of purchasing or growing native and local foods and learning about the history of food preparation methods from past cultures. Another important outcome to be addressed is the need to change and improve health and socioeconomic disparities that exist in the community that make it more challenging for all individuals to obtain nutritious food. Some strategies to improve access to nutritious foods was to work towards eliminating food desserts, decreasing food swaps, and improving the logistics of food distribution in our community. It was also noted that ending health disparities and increase living wages can help ensure all individuals can afford nutritious foods. To accomplish this, an inclusive partnership among all of those involved in the food system needs to be convened. This type of collaboration will lead to productive changes and a closer step to eliminating inequities in ensuring access to nutritious foods. Suggestions for progress indicators were to identify changes in consumption patterns, tracking socioeconomic patterns or creating an annual food systems impact report at various levels of the food chain. It was stated that more research on determining progress indicators still needs to be determined to ensure all voices are included in measuring success.236239246249Action Track 2: One action item for determining shifts in sustainable consumption patterns is the need to set aside funding to obtain data on food production, distribution and purchasing. Participants mentioned the need to better understand all sectors of the food systems and the role stakeholders can have on supporting each sector. It’s also important to highlight and recognize all businesses that currently promote sustainable initiatives. Creating healthy environments in schools, institutions, and workplaces is essential in shifting healthier behaviors in food consumption. While making these shifts, it’s important to promote education within the community on native plants and the benefits of growing or purchasing local produce. Empowering the community, particularly the youth, to take part and advocating for these initiatives is essential to building a foundation for change. It was noted that everyone in our community has a role to play on improving our food system.236240246249Action Track 3: Participants focused on implementing initiatives to support nature-positive food production and distribution particularly during times of a natural disaster. A community emergency response approach was favored as opposed to having government officials navigating and managing a crisis response. Creating an inclusive network of farmers, local food vendors, community health workers, community/faith-based organizations, city departments and academic institutions to response to a crisis is key to ensuring food is distributed to those in need. Another discussion outcome was to focus on maintaining virtual work environments to continue to make progress on reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, there were suggestions to focus on incentivizing businesses to manage food waste and land use for green initiatives. There creation of food forests throughout the city was well supported among participants. At the same time, there is a need to engage the community on advocating for these changes by bridging the knowledge gap on climate change and how it affects the availability and cost of food. More discussions on this topic is needed to determine ways to optimize environmental resources throughout the food system.236241243245247248249The discussion around advancing equitable livelihoods (Action Track 4) was focused on improving human rights and social disparities that exist among our community. The disparities that currently exist were highlighted because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s clear that returning to “normal” or pre-pandemic living is unacceptable. There is a need to focus on improving economic conditions, food access and living wages to work towards a future of equitable livelihoods.236242246247249Finally, Action Track 5 focused on defining a resilient food system and the actions needed to move towards this vision. A resilient food system was defined around being diverse, ensuring equitable access to nutritious food, and flourishing despite shocks or stress. It was highlighted in our discussion that improving emergency response strategies, communication, and reliability is needed to improve our food system. There is a need to focus on a bottom-up, community-rooted response rather than top-down approach. This type of approach could help all individuals working in the food systems to prepare and recover from instabilities. Possible indicators discussed were to evaluate lower rates of poverty and health disparities, chronic diseases and evaluating demands of the local food supply. Some challenges that might be anticipated are determining how to prioritize action items, allocating funds for implementing and supporting strategic initiatives and identifying the roles of stakeholders. Further discussions are needed to determine future action items.237238239240241242244246249An area of divergence in ensuring access to safe and nutritious foods is that we have a high rate of food security and an abundance of food waste. To have a sustainable food system, managing food wastes must be a priority and a responsibility for all. Also, there is a need to strength and increased food distribution while also looking at strategies to reduce our City’s carbon footprint. Creating food hubs and food forests within the community and in food desserts was an idea to overcome this issue. We also need to continue to focus on fair pay for all individuals working within the food system as well ensuring all nutritious food is affordable for all. Finally, prioritizing all the challenges we currently face in our food system is an area of divergence. There are local issues that need to be addressed but also federal legislation that can create roadblocks to building a resilient food system. Further discussions are needed.

2021-07-07 17:36:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22353/79

872124616110493816300004311228163502354320104914730102003117

El Comité Consultivo de la Integración Económica -CCIE-, es la entidad empresarial más grande de la región, conformada por 17 Federaciones, alrededor de 95 Cámaras y Asociaciones empresariales y más de 50 mil empresarios. CCIE con el apoyo del CCAFS, CGIAR, WWF e ICC, con el objeto de visibilizar el proceso de la Cumbre, así como intercambiar información sobre las acciones que las diferentes instituciones, llevaremos a cabo el diálogo sobre "Producción sostenible: avances y oportunidades en la Región". Dada la importancia de los temas que se abordarán en la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios organizado por la Organización de Naciones Unidas y programada para el mes de septiembre de este año, por primera vez como sector privado organizado, nos hemos involucrado en la realización de diálogos regionales con la participación de representantes de los principales organismos centroamericanos, los gobiernos de los países Centroamericanos, la sociedad civil, y los distintos grupos de interés.Con el objeto de impulsar una participación efectiva y oportuna de la región centroamericana en el proceso de preparación de la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios , prevista a realizarse en septiembre de 2021, El vía de acción No. 3 la cual nos motiva a Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza, para optimizar el uso de los recursos ambientales en la producción, el procesamiento y la distribución de alimentos, y reducir así la pérdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación, el uso del agua, la degradación del suelo y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. En la consecución de este objetivo, la Vía de Acción se propondrá ahondar en la comprensión de las limitaciones y oportunidades que enfrentan los pequeños agricultores y las empresas de pequeña escala a lo largo de la cadena de valor de los alimentos. También se esforzará por prestar apoyo a una gobernanza del sistema alimentario que reajuste los incentivos para reducir las pérdidas de alimentos y otras repercusiones ambientales negativas. Así como promover la confianza, reconocer la complejidad y ser muy respetuosos con las posición de los distintos multi-actores de toda la cadena productiva hasta el consumidor, creo que es muy importante el adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés.Es muy importante convocar a tiempo, esto nos permite darle la divulgación adecuada y contar con una buena participación que sea inclusiva. Asimismo, la preparación de los facilitadores es esencial ya que por medio de ellos recabaremos los insumos adecuados. Si la actividad es virtual es necesario contar con una buena logística, una plataforma segura, un buen equipo para que el evento se desarrolle con normalidad.

Yes

234240243248En el marco de la cumbre de los sistemas alimentarios con el objetivo de invitar actores que nos proporcionen elementos importantes para la producción sostenible y que avances se pueden lograr a través no solo de un país si no de una región, tal como es la Región Centroamericana. En base a la vía de acción 3 la cual nos alienta a que se produzca de una forma favorable a la naturaleza para optimizar el uso los recursos ambientales y reducir la perdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación, el uso adecuado del agua, evitar la degradación del sueleo y el cuidado al efecto invernadero. En esta actividad se le hizo la convocatoria a el Instituto Privado de Investigación sobre Cambio Climático ICC en la que estuvo participando su Director Ejecutivo, Alex Guerra, en la reutilización de residuos de la producción de azúcar de caña y sus beneficios ambientales y climáticos en Guatemala. Esfuerzo que se ha venido realizando no solo con el tema de reutilización de residuos, si no también en la biodiversidad biológica, uso adecuado del agua y la acción climática, el sector azúcar ha buscado la ciencia para tener una economía circular. En la conferencia magistral Alex Guerra nos comparte los siguientes elementos: 1. Uso de residuos del proceso de producción de azúcar. 2. Energía eléctrica a partir de los biomasa de la caña. 3. Emisiones evitadas por la generación con biomasa. 4. Biomateriales derivados de la caña de azúcar. En el proceso de producción de caña de azúcar se busca la que cada residuo tenga una función especifica, cuando un camión de caña llega a un ingenio se le practica una limpieza y a través de ella se genera un desecho llamado compost seco o húmedo lo cual se reutiliza como abono, posteriormente la caña ya limpia se va al molino la cual produce un segundo desecho que es el bagazo el cual se utiliza como un desecho que es generador de energía eléctrica, al momento se concentra un jugo la cual se envía a las purificadoras que genera nuevamente un desecho que es utilizado como abono y se obtiene un jugo claro que es llevado a un proceso con centrífugas, para que se genere ya sea el azúcar a granel, generando otro tipo de desecho que es la melaza, la cual ha sido durante años para el alimentos de animales bovinos, la melaza también es una oportunidad para que inicie un proceso de fermentación para que se obtenga el etanol y así como la generación de la vinaza y el metano para la producción de energía. Oportunidades que se generan a través de este proceso: - Oportunidades de negocio. - Disminución de los costos. - Contaminación evitada o reducida. Beneficios a través de este proceso: - No se contamina los ríos. - Se devuelve parte de la materia fértil al suelo.236240Tema #1: HUELLA DE CARBONO: En un principio, se definió como tema principal identificar las oportunidades y acciones que deberían de hacerse para reducir la huella de carbono. Se resalto la necesidad de conocer más sobre la emisión en nuestros sistemas de producción y como podemos disminuirla. A su vez, se resaltó que hay grandes oportunidades sobre los costos de transporte y dentro de la misma cadena de producción; lo que podría resultar en un incentivo para reducir la huella de carbono. Se hizo mención del rol que juega el sector agropecuario dentro del problema de contaminación, haciendo alusión a la responsabilidad de este para contruibuir con una solución. Como segundo punto, se hizo enfasis a la necesidad de ver a la cadena de producción como “un todo”. Lo que significa que no se pueden obviar a los pequeños productores, agricultores o mano de obra durante toda la cadena. Bajo esta idea se propuso identificar incentivos para promover que los agricultores que ya han cambiado su forma de trabjar, continuen con ello y que se genere un efecto bola de nieve. Cómo último punto se resalto la importancia de los esfuerzos en conjunto. Primero se hizo alusión al impacto positivo que tendría la puesta en común de las diferentes experiencias en la región. Así mismo, evaluar el impacto de la tecnología para mitigar la huella de carbono, siempre trayendolo a la realidad nacional. Por último, se cerró haciendo consciencia de la importancia del monitoreo. Y como este es vital para poder seguir avanzando en la región.236Tema #2: REUTILIZACIÓN DE RESIDUOS: La conversación giró alrededor de la pregunta sobre ¿cómo se puede promover la reutilización de residuos? La propuesta del grupo fue la generación de capacidades y conocimiento a través de la educación. Se les dio mayor importancia a dos segmentos poblacionales: los niños y los jóvenes universitarios. Los niños son importantes para poder generar cambios a largo plazo. Mientras que se le dio importancia a la academia a los jóvenes, con el fin de poder acercar a las nuevas generaciones de profesionales a la economía circular. Como siguiente punto, se hizo énfasis en la necesidad de investigar y enfocarnos en el desarrollo para poder adaptar las nuevas técnicas a la realidad de cada país. A su vez, se hizo un gran énfasis en la importancia del apoyo intersectorial. Es importante que se den enfoques sectoriales en donde se puedan compartir conocimientos y también poder evaluar los beneficios económicos de la reutilización. Otro punto que el grupo tocó es la importancia de identificar como y cuales son los eslabones de la cadena de valor. Esto con el fin de poder observar cuales son los residuos de cada una de estas partes y como se pueden reutilizar dentro de la misma cadena. Por lo que se propuso un acompañamiento en los diferentes eslabones para alcanzar resultados, sobre todo con las pequeñas y medianas empresas. Un tema que el grupo consideró importante es el análisis del marco regulatorio sobre el tema reutilización de residuos. Ellos creen necesario analizar posibles incentivos o condiciones que hagan la reutilización posible. Es importante que se reconozca el rol de las gremiales en la tarea de poder incentivar el conocimiento sobre este tema. Se planteo un acercamiento con los diferentes gobiernos para que ellos puedan accionar formas que hagan que a reutilización vaya permeando. Por último, se mencionó la necesidad de crear espacios para que se puedan compartir los diferentes aprendizajes en la región. Sobre todo, analizar los beneficios económicos y las lecciones aprendidas. También se propuso generar espacios en donde se pueda involucrar y educar al consumidor. Cómo cierre, el grupo decidió mencionar, cuales eran los actores importantes para lograr la reutilización y se determino que el mercado es el medio más efectivo para hacer llegar estas prácticas.236Tema #3: REDUCCIÓN DEL DESPERDICIO DE ALIMENTOS El grupo inició el diálogo estableciendo que la reducción del desperdicio de alimentos es en realidad una práctica transversal. No solo se encuentra como meta de los ODS, sino que también es elemental para lograr otros ODS relacionados con seguridad alimentaria, nutrición y medio ambiente. El grupo identificó tres recomendaciones importantes para lograr esto: 1. Tener claro que cantidad de alimentos se desperdician, cómo, dónde y por qué. 2. Ser claros sobre las razones y objetivos de la mitigación del desperdicio de alimentos. 3. Comprender de que manera las estrategias que se puedan sugerir, puedan afectar a los objetivos previamente mencionados. El grupo hizo énfasis en reconocer que tratar de mitigar el desperdicio de alimentos va a representar cierto tipo de costos, aunque también reconocieron los posibles impactos positivos a largo plazo. A su vez, identificaron que una de las causas en la región son los estándares centroamericanos. Según el grupo estos estándares son bastante imprecisos y se alude cierto impacto sobre el desperdicio. Se propuso una revisión de estos para que permitan mejorías en las cadenas de producción. También identificaron dos oportunidades: primero ven la oportunidad de educar al consumidor que desconoce sobre la reutilización de los alimentos. Como segunda oportunidad, creen que se puede potenciar la infraestructura existente, así como implementar distintas tecnologías que permitan disminuir el desperdicio de alimentos. Por último, el grupo propuso la promoción de capsulas informativas sobre la planeación estratégica, especialmente en la compra. Esto con el fin de evitar que el consumidor compre más de lo que necesita. Es importante iniciar el proceso de identificación de lo que corresponde al desperdicio y cuanto es lo que consideramos desperdicio. Así mismo, se hizo alusión a la educación nutricional, sobre todo al evaluar el valor nutricional y la inocuidad de los alimentos.237No hubieron...

Huella de Carbono: Es un tema que tiene muchos aspectos que discutir e ideas las cuales se plantearon de esta manera 1. Oportunidades de las acciones para reducir la huella de carbono 2. La medición de la huella de carbono 3. Reducción de costos en los sistemas de producción Grandes retos como sector privado pero somos parte importante que aportar a la solución Cuales son los incentivos y oportunidades para generar compensaciones a los sistemas productivos que están reduciendo su huella carbono. Tres puntos para la huella carbono 1. La importancia de conocer las experiencias que se están trabajando en la región 2. Uso de tecnología 3. Monitoreo constante de las acciones que estamos implementando para dar a conocer que somos parte de la discusión. Reutilización de residuos Como promover la reutilización de residuos en los sistemas productivos Crear capacidades a todo nivel, desde la educación primaria hasta las universidades a través de los pensum se forme a los futuros empresariales. Así como las grandes, medianas y pequeñas empresas que tengan conocimientos sobre la economía circular. Es necesaria la investigación y desarrollo de tecnologías para responder a las necesidades de cada uno de los países. Enfoques sectoriales que se pueden compartir experiencias que traigan un beneficio con el manejo de residuos. Fortalecimiento de las instituciones reguladoras, que crean los incentivos para que esto se de en los países Rol de las gremiales de hacer llegar la información necesaria para que se crean espacios de lecciones aprendidas, investigaciones nuevas e involucrar a todos los actores de la cadena para que se tengan resultados exitosos. Incentivos económicos y fiscales y los marcos legales. ¿Cómo reducir el desperdicio de alimentos y residuos? Todo lo que es un reducir la perdida del desperdicio de alimentos es transversal, es un no negociable es una meta importante de los ODS. Al hablar de este tema solo podemos ser eficaces si los esfuerzos están enfocados solida comprensión del problema Que cantidad de alimentos se desperdician - ¿Como? - ¿Dónde ? - ¿Y porque? Razones por que queremos mitigar el desperdicio de alimentos comprender y medidas y estrategias que vamos a utilizar Hay un desconocimiento de la reutilización de alimentos por lo que esto crea una oportunidad de mejora para establecer a través de tecnologías aprender sobre el uso adecuado y la reutilización de los residuos para que estos disminuyan considerablemente. Progresivamente proponer que estos estándares de exportaciones que estén basado en inocuidad y conocimiento científico y que nos ayuden a disminuir la perdida. Promover una planeación estratégica de compra para que no haya excedentes y no tengan que tirarse, publico, privado y población en general. Cuando hay excedente es muy importante la evaluación nutricional y la inocuidad de los alimentos, cuando se habla de estos dos temas. Cuantificación acertada que es perdida y desperdicio en la región centroamericana para que se tengan datos para promover políticas públicas y estrategias para la disminución de estas. 2021-07-22 20:37:06

2021-07-08 11:00:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25576/203

9146450156101347

Specifically multistakeholder inclusivity: In our dialogue we had participants from the UNFSS sciencific group as well as a panel of friendly critical to help us explore the topic of science for Food System Policy and specifically data gaps. Our paneillsts and invited attendees were selected based on their regional, gender and expertise to ensure a diversity and views from across various elements of the food system and the challenges facing it. Invited participants included stakeholders engaged in Action Track deliberations, UNFSS Scientific Group, policy makers from various organizations and countries.

NoThis was a closed event with a limited number of participants that were invited by the convening organisations to keep the conversation tight in the short space of time and to be able to run break out groups focusing on data gaps for the 5 Action Tracks. The goal for this Dialogue was to create a better understanding of the evidence gaps currently holding back action to transform food systems, and consequently to kick start the definition of a priority research agenda. This dialogue thus acted as a preparatory step towards the Science Days on July 8-9, and was organised in collaboration with the Scientific Group. Importantly, the Dialogue focussed on the content of the research agenda and did not cover the question how science for food systems policy should be organised institutionally, a question which is currently being studied in other fora.

234238239240241242243246248249250As stated above, the goal for this Dialogue was to create a better understanding of the evidence gaps currently holding back action to transform food systems, and consequently to kick start the definition of a priority research agenda. This dialogue thus acted as a preparatory step towards the Science Days on July 8-9, and was organised in collaboration with the Scientific Group. Importantly, the Dialogue focussed on the content of the research agenda and did not cover the question how science for food systems policy should be organised institutionally, a question which is currently being studied in other fora.235238239240241242243246248249250Finally, an important point raised in the discussions was who gets to define what the “evidence gaps” are. The consensus which emerged is that this should be a dialogue between researchers, policy makers and stakeholders.236238239240241242243246249250Main insights by Action Track on evidence gaps In the Action Track 1 discussion, a distinction was made between data, evidence, and what we can do. There are considerable data gaps on many issues relevant to food security and nutrition. For example, much of the data on food safety issues is fairly old; there is a lack of accurate data on the burden of foodborne disease. In other cases, estimates are not sufficiently granular; e.g. food waste estimates tend to be at the global level; on many issues, data is not disaggregated by gender. There is also a gap in basic data on diet quality (e.g. what people are actually eating), or which food environment they face. Tracking along food value chains is similarly limited. An important gap is around the question of “agency” – i.e. what influence people have themselves. Evidence is missing on policy effectiveness – for example, how could nutrient gaps be filled? How could we influence food environments, and how would this in turn shape consumer behaviour? There is also not enough evidence on how to make healthy food more affordable. Faced with these gaps, we also need to have better insights on what we can do concretely. Evidence mapping could be a good place to start. In the Action Track 2 discussion, a number of similar issues came up, including the lack of information on what people eat and why (consumer psychology, values, culture, and the role of policies in shaping demand). An important question is how far progress on healthy diets will get us (e.g. in terms of reaching sustainability objectives), which touches on the broader point of synergies and trade-offs of different policy instruments. On the one hand, it feels as if enough is known about what constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet to start moving policy; on the other hand, we don’t always know specifics of current dietary patterns, drivers, and policy effectiveness. In the Action Track 3 discussion, five main themes were raised. A first point is that we do not always understand the effects of (current or proposed) policies, and their synergies or trade-offs. A second and related point is that assessments of policies sometimes overlook the social and/or the environmental dimension, but both are needed to identify solutions which can be adopted and scaled. Third, knowledge can come from different sources, and the role of traditional and indigenous knowledge has often been overlooked. A fourth issue is that it is not always clear when trade-offs are real, and when they are simply a narrative – i.e. distinguishing facts versus myths. A final point is that more knowledge is needed on how to drive long-term trends to stimulate positive change. In the Action Track 4 discussion, recurring and intersecting themes were the role of data, the role of structures and localisation, and the role of agency. For example, information is often sparse on the number of people working in food supply chains, and their vulnerability, as well as on the different pathways taken by different households. The role of agency (i.e. how much influence people themselves have over their own lives) is key to the work of Action Track 4, but very little is currently known about how much agency people have, and it is not obvious how this should be measured, nor is there much evidence on how various policies would affect agency and what their costs and benefits would be. There are also numerous open questions on structural and local aspects, e.g. the role of land rights, the impact of small-scale versus large-scale farming, etc. In the Action Track 5 discussion, a central concern was the link between the social and environmental aspects of systems. Information is often missing on the social aspects of systems, as well as on “tipping points” for both social and environmental systems. Cost benefit analysis is also missing on the impact of various possible initiatives to build resilience.237238239240241242243246248249250Feedback from the critical friends A panel of four “critical friends” (Elise Golan, Geeta Sethi, Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla and Karim el-Aynaoui) and an additional special guest (Shakuntala Thilsted) reflected on the ideas generated in the Action Track breakout sessions. Some of the points raised were the following: ● Development is a learning process – and permanent. We will never fully overcome data or evidence gaps, our knowledge will always be incomplete. While this means that we may need to act before we have all the facts, we should still remain flexible and try to avoid rash decisions. ● Trade-offs are inevitable, and not well understood. It is important to recognize and follow or measure them, but be careful trying to always minimize them. For example, given some current estimates of the externalities associated with food, internalising these costs could hypothetically double the price of food. Some of the necessary transformations of food systems may similarly create negative effects on people’s employment and livelihoods. But the fact that trade-offs exist should not become a reason for inaction. Some policies may indeed make some people worse, but may still be what is needed. ● Based on the reflections from the various Action Tracks it seems that information on preferences, values, cultural aspects, desirability… are particularly lacking. ● While the discussion focused mostly on identifying evidence gaps where more research is needed, we should also be thinking about how we make better use of the existing evidence. In fact, given the knowledge we currently have, we’re not doing great in terms of policies. We should think about issues around communicating science to policy makers; these are equally important. ● Information is often missing at the local level, for example on local foods (and their nutritional content, prices, etc). But a creative use of existing information (e.g. moving back and forth between information on the production side and on the consumption side) can often reveal “entry points” for change. There is a need to better capture of what is happening in the informal sector, which is so important for the agri-food domain. ● The importance of safeguarding the operating space for science behind the policy formulation process was also highlighted.

2021-07-08 12:56:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16368/203

6601936830214411936164191813810188121617

The Social Gastronomy Movement (SGM) is committed to this year's UNFSS and intends to bring diverse and often unheard voices to the table through its trusted network and partnerships, always embracing a multi-stakeholder approach. This dialogue is part of a series of 6, convened by SGM, encompassing all 5 action tracks, and a final 6th connecting the dots dialogue. We chose to focus action track 2 on Food waste since we believe that if we activate our ecosystem around Food waste awareness we can together think about solutions that support us in reducing, using or even up-cycling food waste. According to SOS Bali, 1/3 of all food in the world is wasted annually while over 174 million people suffer from acute starvation. At the Social Gastronomy Movement community we have several examples of the power that sustainable collaboration models can have. One great example is the Food Solidarity Fund, launched by SGM in 2020, where with the support of our partner World 50 best we were able to distribute funds for 10 different organizations around the world. Their work resulted in 12,371.447Kg of ingredients that were going to waste being saved, besides the 337k meals served. So in this dialogue we wanted to think about collaborative sustainable collaboration models to create circular food waste products and that is why we designed a dialogue that focuses on: - Hearing the community and exploring what are the solutions they have already found to make food a circular commons and how to replicate those. - Discussing the disparities between consumer and producers needs and how we can prevent food waste by changing the consumption patterns in a way that is beneficial for both. - Identifying how we can foster and adapt collaboration models across the different sectors to make sure the surplus of the food systems are being directed to solving hunger Understanding the complexity of the food waste dynamics we broke the topic down in 6 breakout rooms with different themes.We really felt that all participants embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. We had participants from different sectors. From start-ups, mulitalerals but also individuals who were just motivated to learn more about food waste. Next time we would like to make sure that if we talk for example about public policy we have also decision makers in this field participating to get more insights during the dialogue in this field. During the break out rooms participants were very open and embracing different perspectives and through the dialogue we were able to build trust between the facilitators and the participants which is even going beyond this dialogue. Many people felt connected and wanted to stay active and connected through our network.We specifically encourage other dialogue convenors to engage diverse voices and thus ensure multi-stakeholder inclusivity. Hearing different opinions and hopefully starting to understand and appreciate them can lead to strong cross-sector collaborations, which we believe are crucial in order to achieve the 2030 sustainable development agenda. We especially advise other convenors to not be afraid of diverging opinions. When bringing together people of many different backgrounds, it is clear that not everyone will agree on all points of discussion. Yet, those divergences lead to a better understanding of different perspectives, and hopefully to concrete actionable outcomes between sectors and stakeholders. In order to create a safe space where areas of divergences can be discussed without withholding, we encourage convenors to invite a trusted network. This way, trust with participants is already established which can foster more in-depth conversations and room for disagreements.

Yes

234239248249In this dialogue, our main focus was on understanding what is necessary to work as a collective on new collaboration models to approach together the problem of reducing, using, and upcycling food waste. Initially one of our ideas was to focus only on product creation but since it is a multi-sectoral approach there are different components we wanted to discuss with the social gastronomy community before we talk about food waste product development that focuses on rescuing food excess. The components we decided to discuss were: 1) discussing the importance of the farming sector as they are the start of the food cycle and can influence a lot on how much is wasted and reproduced. 2) rethinking our multi-sectoral collaborations to create a future that leaves no space for food waste 3) understanding the role of public policies as it plays an important role in encouraging food waste reduction and fostering innovations around the subject. 4) contrast the powerful consumer voice and needs with the producers' point of view since we believe that shifting consuming and production behaviors can encourage a fairer food system. 5) exploring how we can improve the distribution of healthy food surpluses for food-insecure people and how these systems can become economically sustainable for community organizations and farmers, producers, and suppliers?2352392482491) Farming sector We must engage all parts of the food system to create multiple solutions that will collectively foster sustainable change. We need to create a system of accountability for consumers, governments, small/medium businesses and corporations Empowering farmers and making farming sexy again. We must harvest the talent of female, minority, and youth populations. 2) Multi-sectoral collaborations Build a global campaign with multiple sectors around food waste – improving the chains of communication between producers, consumers, and large supermarkets (donate) Educate young minds on the importance of preservation of ingredients and acknowledging the entire products, for example through traditional culinary methods Educate the producers on how to meet the demand of consumers more responsibly, for example by not overstocking (and more possibilities) 3) Role of public policies Education. If we are going to generate change, we need to focus on education. It is the true pillar for change. We need to educate on resources and systems, and teach people the real value of food. Partnerships. We would like to see incentivization of profitable networking. Partnerships are key for change. There should be an incentive for collaboration. Transparency. The system cannot change, if systems aren't transparent.. Trust makes change. We can only trust food systems if they are transparent. 4) Consumer voice and needs with the producers point of view Food literacy as a tool for mindset shifts in every part of the food chain (teaching the value of good food and impacts) Giving visibility and responsible messaging about the solutions that currently exist, their added value and impact in the food systems. The power of togetherness and networks of networks; creating an ecosystem of change. 5) Distribution of healthy food surpluses for food insecure people NURTURING EQUITY across our food system: We need to build models that support economic equity and benefit all stakeholders in order to see true systems change. By creating examples and mechanisms how sustainable practices can bring value and opportunity. With this we can build a new culture around the value of our food EDUCATION IS KEY to bridging inclusivity and social equity across all cultures. EDUCATION needs to be democratised: accessible and recognized by all class systems to ensure adoption and a shift in behaviors. It should also be responsive to the diverse communities and represent food customs and heritage The need for a GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE owned and supported by governments that expresses the value of our food system, recognizes how their countries' systems are interconnected and asks for commitments that will positively influence and incentify sustainability, health and equity236239244248249251Outcomes breaking room 1: Role of the farming sector The farming sector starting the food cycle can influence a lot on how much is wasted and reproduced. Many participants outlined the following challenges during the session: - consuming in ethical ways can be out of people's possibilities and that the logistics of maintaining food waste creates winners and losers - waste of talent, especially among farmers and on the farm - relationships are lacking between chefs and farmers - the issue of food waste has to be seen from a wide perspective that considers government while creating alternative systems for farmers After understanding and discussing the challenges the participants moved quickly to the ideation of solutions: - empowering farmers to create products could provide an income all year long and change the way people view farmers - changing the way we consume and not taking advantage of biodiversity - looking at the value chain and implement regulations on the value of food - creating infrastructures that teach farmers how to invest and grow their portfolios - consumers need to start caring and the youth needs to be empowered and be connected to the land - food in schools is a way to support local farmers and teach kids about the biodiversity that surrounds them - hosting zero food waste events at farms - women are the farmers that must be empowered and have their own economic weight to pull in their communities - we can co-create projects that preserve foods and then be given to food pantries - integrate too good to go into our community to help solves these problems - cocreate a system that feeds itself with value. this can be done through political change pressured by consumers236239246248249Outcomes breaking out room 2: Rethinking our multi-sectoral collaborations to create a future that leaves no space for food waste? Our Food System already involves multi-sector partnerships but resources such as food are still wasted. That is why we want to explore together how to rethink our multi-sectoral collaborations to create a future that leaves no space for food waste. Participants outlined how hard it is sometimes to partner with big companies because of branding and food manipulation guidelines. Companies don’t want to be liable. Another problem many mentioned is that there are no communication channels established that support in announcing overproduction from the private sector to NGOs and to businesses who treat food waste. Also the connection between companies and farmers is not well established. Farmers have a big challenge with overproduction and have no efficient ways to connect and deliver in an efficient way their products for food processing to avoid it getting wasted. And last but not least the consumer. There is no real discussion and connection between the producers of food with the end consumer. Even if many countries have food banks who have taken over that role of being an articulator and connector, a big challenge is their capacity of distribution and logistics. They do not have enough funds to bring food at the right time to the right stakeholders. That is why we came up with different solution approaches that we recommend to investigate further: - Create chains of communications between all – create a marketplace where all actors can easily exchange information around food waste - Communicate and build awareness in the consumers and the restauration sector on the food waste and methods to fight against it - Convert kitchens in laboratories where chefs can experiment recipes and apply traditional techniques through fermentation for example. - Support more entrepreneurs who cook home and sell food at home and promote their Ideas on how to reduce food waste in the food delivery system. The idea of cloud kitchens is definitely a concept to research and explore further. - promote education with consumers focusing on teaching traditional methods of preservation - work together on a global campaign undermining that we don’t get our money and throw it in the trash! Food is money. Food has value. - acknowledging food ingredients and their virtues. Create awareness within the consumers, educate young minds at school, professionals at hospitality, producers etc., on traditional methods of preservation and that throwing away parts of ingredients that are perfectly edible is throwing away energy (water, work, light, effort etc.). - composting systems must be re-enforced - Communicate overproduction - we need to know how much to actually become active!236239245246249Outcomes breaking out room 3: Role of public policies Public policies play an important role in encouraging food waste reduction and fostering innovations around the subject. In our session we asked ourselves how effective are those in creating circular collaboration models that incentivize the production of products. What needs to change in order to leverage more impact through policies? Most of the participants agreed that this is a very delicate subject. Often organizations or companies have very good ideas and projects, but if they are not supported by real state policies, they will disappear when the new government comes, especially in Latin America. That is why one of the main recommendations is that we need to focus on collective impact programmes engaging: Government, Private, and Society. Projects need a common ground between these sectors.In order to achieve that collaboration we need one key ingredient: Communication. Only through active dialogues we can achieve alignment, understanding and TRUST. All agreed that only trust makes change. We believe that the government can become one of those food system game changers, incentivizing people to join the farming business, and encouraging the next generation to trust and get involved. Public policies definitely CAN make a difference. But very often only if not only the government is committed but also other actors in the food system especially because some policies are very hard to implement. So we need to find a good mix between laws and action-driven collaboration to solve food waste challenges. Here are the most discussed solution approaches for fostering public participation and collaboration: - Get specific funds and bring either tax benefits or other incentives to allow people to get started. They often want to act, but don't know how. This can also have a snowball effect. Have specific - If we are going to generate change, we need to focus on education. It is the true pillar for change. We need to educate on resources and systems, and teach people the real value of food. - We need more transparency. The system cannot change, if systems aren't transparent.. Trust makes change. We can only trust food systems if they are transparent. - underline that eating is a political act - redesign social conscience of restaurants, and educate them. Government can encourage restaurants to repurpose food and therefore help the community. - Normally we need to educate the consumer - but it's very hard to educate 6 billion people. Maybe what we can do is try to educate food manufacturers. They should be more aware of the real value of food; it is not just a commodity. A simple solution could be with labeling, for example, labels about expiry date can be confusing and food that is still very edible is thrown away as a consequence. - Create a network where everyone can share knowledge but also needs. What can be an ingredient for someone, can be a waste for someone else. - create workshops on how to reduce food waste - learn how to use composting bins, and use it for the fields. Reward system: If citizens recycle and create only little waste, you have to pay less for the rubbish. It can be implemented locally by governments (example: is already implemented in Switzerland where you pay per bag of waste)236239Outcomes breaking out room 4: Consumer voice and needs with the producers point of view Shifting our consuming behaviors in order to produce less waste and encourage a more fair food system is more important than ever. Many from us work in communities that would not consume certain products. How can we reach them and make them part of the consumption chain? How can we drive consumer demand for sustainable food systems that reduce waste? What innovations/solutions already exist around our consumer culture that we can replicate in other markets/regions ? How do we make by-products more accessible and desirable? In this discussion all agreed that this will only be possible if we start building bridges between the consumers and producers. We need to think about bridging the gap between. These are the ideas that have been worked on to building bridges: - Bring visibility to positive impact initiatives - A chef in its restaurant can be a platform to educate and bring awareness to the consumer - support farmers to offset their food waste with a network of restaurants & chef partners - create a coalition of local farmers, create a stall to offer their products and meet the farmers. - Food education as a main connector. How can we foster these knowledge transfers in Hospitality and culinary schools in order to create a new mindset for culinary students. - create an open source supplier network and look for new mechanisms for more shared ownership236239248Outcomes breaking out room 5: Community solution around food waste Whilst tons of food is wasted every day people are suffering from food security around the globe. In front of us are two problems that share common solutions to enable healthy, equitable, well-fed communities and sustainability of our food system. Social responsible actions can be led at the community level and help strengthen resilience for those most vulnerable. Our discussion will address these 2 challenges with the goal of improving and sustaining access to healthy fresh foods while setting the foundation for social and economic equity. That is why we discussed three main questions based on these challenges. 1) How can we improve the distribution of healthy food surpluses for those food insecure? - Create a recovery chain within the city to transform the waste for ones into opportunities for others through distribution points. Change the system that is set up to perpetuate hunger - We need to redefine econ opportunity of waste/losses and change the culture of how food is perceived in the hospitality industry - Tackle the undernourishment of culture that can walk together with hunger but also alone perpetuating hunger - Food and class systems: while in Europe waste zero culture makes you a modern citizen, the concept of waste in poor countries where to waste demonstrates power (e.g. in Latam) - understanding government role and what countries produce - democratising local and indigenous food 2) What role industry can play to shift consumer behaviour to be truly sustainable: - redirection of Government subsidies and investment to support local farmers to create their circular economies and not only profit-driven - companies should offer a variety of food to allow consumers to choose what's right for them - incentivize local stores to invest in local food; and not just resell big corps highly processed products 3) How can we ensure these systems are economically sustainable for community organizations and farmers, producers and suppliers? - putting pressure on governments to force restaurants to have ecological and waste plans - build opportunities for people to realize the benefits to shift their behaviour: social stewards to connect social equity to economic equity - EDUCATION needs to be democratised: accessible and recognized by all class systems and in that process create channels and awareness - We need a global perspective on economic value of food and universal understanding about the value of our food system237239We did not identify many divergence points. Only one of the notetakers noted the following: "I do not believe in fast change". The only way to get change is to educate the whole society. Kids and teenagers are our future, so we have to ensure projects keep getting carried on in 20 or 30 years. Education is key. We need to teach kids how the food systems work, and how important the whole cycle is. We have to be conscious about what we eat. During the session the notetaker recorded all outcome on a Miro Board. For more information you can access the board with the link attached.

2021-07-08 14:13:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31130/203

118

Yes

234238239240241242In various UNFSS Action Tracks and Food System Dialogues, agroecology emerged strongly as a key concept for inclusive food systems transformation by fostering the diversity of knowledge systems, ecosystems and nutrition. There is increasing evidence that agroecology is a powerful approach to reduce trade-offs between productivity and sustainability. The objective of the webinar was i) to identify and discuss knowledge and implementation gaps on agroecology in general as well as ii) to share knowledge and evidence on the role of agroe-cology to foster diversity in production, value chains and nutrition to improve resilience of farm-ing and food systems. Each of the two topics was introduced by a short input followed by a panel discussion. The majority of the 118 participants (over 260 registered) work in the agricul-ture and environment/ecology sector for science/academia, NGOs, UN-Organizations, and na-tional governments. The audience had the possibility to interact with speakers and panellists via chat and Q&A function.235238239240241242The discussion revealed that in a world characterized by continuous change and uncertainties, resilient agricultural and food systems are an important precondition for sustainable transfor-mation. Diversity at different levels such as production systems, farms, landscapes and in how knowledge is shared and developed is an important prerequisite for resilience. Although results are mixed and further research is needed, a positive relation between agricultural diversification and diversified diets, is true for many different farming systems. Agroecology does not deliver immediate results. Different voices highlighted that despite the broad and holistic innovation strategy agroecology is offering, there is a need to address challenges such as the time lag be-tween the moment when agroecological measures are implemented and the moment when the effects become visible or measurable. Currently, the focus of agricultural policies is often limited to a production-oriented focus with a particular emphasis on food security. However, such a perspective appears to be too limited. There was consensus that given the planetary bounda-ries, the large environmental footprint of food systems and the complex and manifold health challenges related to nutrition, the focus of policies should be extended beyond targeting food security only and include other key aspects in food systems such as land, nutrition, and envi-ronmental security. This calls for action on the way we create and share knowledge using partic-ipatory learning methods, bringing farmers and other food system actors, scientists, extension services and policy makers together. In order to allow a long-term perspective on food systems performance and resilience, policy targets need to shift away from high-input systems focussing on high yields, towards incentivizing diversity in agricultural and food systems. Given the potential of agroecology in sustainably providing safe, nutritious food without com-promising on environmental quality and ecosystem services of agricultural landscapes, there is a need for a policy framework bringing all these different roles together. To unlock the potential and the holistic nature of agroecology, new approaches are required to measure success and impacts of agriculture and food systems. The Side Event called on all actors that are supportive of agroecology, to get actively engaged in the respective action coalitions that are forming under the UNFSS, to ensure the momentum that has been built up around agroecology will be main-tained after the Summit

2021-07-08 16:43:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23190/203

7493119211545167141121116311993112144

Our independent dialogue was organised with the explicit aim of providing a space for constructive and critical engagement with the Summit’s seven Principles of Engagement as a means of stimulating broader discussion about how to enhance Summit governance. The dialogue was informed by a crowdsourcing initiative, in which respondents answered survey questions relating to the Summit principles and offered suggestions for complementary and/or alternative principles (see attachment below for details). The dialogue itself comprised four presentations by expert speakers, followed by small group discussions in which participants were tasked with: - reflecting on the strengths and limitations of the seven Summit principles - considering scope to learn from governance practices in related contexts - examining how transparency and accountability in the Summit process might best be strengthened. This focus reflects our recognition that realising the objectives of the Summit depends on the development of governance mechanisms that are widely seen as appropriate, effective and legitimate. The FSS Principles of Engagement have been presented as advancing the vision of an equitable and healthy future, and their acceptance is a pre-requisite for participation in Summit Dialogues. However, the Principles themselves are the subject of much criticism, alongside other aspects of Summit organisation and governance. Dissatisfaction with these terms of engagement underpins the decision of many civil society organisations to boycott the Summit, while there are indications of significant concerns among those participating across key fora. Such concerns often focus on how multi-stakeholder approaches are being operationalised and on the absence of measures to manage conflict of interest with commercial sector actors, and are compounded by a lack of clarity about how the Principles were developed. To date, synthesis reports on summit dialogues have largely neglected such concerns, and our dialogue highlights the importance of subjecting the Summit Principles to critical examination.The first part of the Dialogue comprised presentations from four speakers who reflected on the significance and implications of the Principles for FSS governance: - 'Designing a People’s Summit: lessons for the UN FSS and beyond', Christine Campeau CARE International and Sherpa to UNFSS Action Track 4 - 'Managing interactions with commercial sector actors: Lessons from nutrition', Fabio da Silva Gomes: Advisor, Nutrition and Physical Activity, Pan-American Health Organization/WHO - 'Lessons from developing principles of engagement for Nutrition for Growth', Meaza Getachew, Global Policy and Advocacy Manager, 1,000 Days - 'UN FSS and the global governance of food systems', Molly Anderson, Middlebury College, and International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) Following an overview of preliminary results from a crowdsourcing exercise (Jeff Collin, U. of Edinburgh), dialogue participants were then asked to consider and respond in small groups to the following questions that had been circulated ahead of the Dialogue meeting: 1. Principles: What are the key strengths and limitations of the FSS Principles of Engagement? 2. Practices: Are there practices in related contexts that can be adopted or adapted to strengthen FSS governance? 3. Process: How can transparency and accountability in FSS governance be enhanced? Groups questioned the operationalisation of the FSS Principles. For example, how is multistakeholder inclusivity ensuring that marginalized voices do not get excluded? There were many concerns about transparency and accountability, and some participants noted that trust should not be an FSS Principle, agreed to ex ante, but could be an output of the process providing there was sufficient transparency.Our experience in convening this Dialogue suggests a need to provide further opportunities for stakeholders to critically engage with the Summit Principles and process. There were high levels of interest and participation in this Dialogue, and many who did not attend indicated they would like to have done so but were unable to make the time-slot. The dialogue was enhanced by participants having the opportunity to reflect on the Principles and to hear different speakers’ views on the extent to which the Summit’s governance and organise supported these principles. Participants appreciated the opportunity to reflect on and discuss the FSS Principles of Engagement. While a majority of participants supported these principles in general terms, concerns were raised about how specific values were defined and operationalised, and the extent to which the principles could be meaningfully upheld via the Summit processes. We would suggest that convenors of future independent dialogues may wish to create space for participants to discuss the Summit principles and the potential for these to be strengthened in order for the Summit process to be perceived as transparent and legitimate, and to increase the likelihood that its outputs will support the development of equitable and healthy food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242246247249Our Dialogue provided an opportunity for participants to engage constructively and critically with the Summit’s Principles, seeking to inform pragmatic actions and develop recommendations to enhance Summit governance and to support transformation of food systems.235238239240241242246247249While participants broadly agreed with the Principles of Engagement, dialogue discussions highlighted widespread anxieties about the operationalization of these principles in the Food Systems Summit. In particular, participants expressed concern over what were perceived as inadequacies in FSS governance with respect to managing conflict of interest and to defining terms of engagement with commercial sector actors. These themes are consistent with academic and civil society critiques of the opacity of the FSS process. In particular, participants expressed concern that: ● The legitimacy of the UNFSS is undermined by lack of clarity about the process by which its Principles of Engagement were developed ● The organizational structure of UNFSS lacks accountability and transparency ● The process for implementing Summit-generated solutions is unclear ● UNFSS governance risks neglecting rights-based approaches A common concern was that the development and governance of the FSS exacerbated existing power imbalances between different types of actors, in that stakeholders with substantial economic and political power are better able to engage with and dominate FSS discussions while less influential groups (including food workers, Indigenous communities, and other minority groups) will find it more difficult to engage effectively in the Summit. (To illustrate this point, we quote one participant who made the following comment in small-group discussions: “I have had no capacity to engage. And I’m privileged. I am fully employed, a stable job in academia. I’m not working on the front lines, as an unprotected restaurant worker, trying to manage kids at home, etc. It’s impossible to engage fully in this process if you aren’t paid to do it, and it’s confusing about how you can engage, even for me. I didn’t understand until today what the real issues were.”) Many participants felt that meaningful participation of less advantaged groups was unlikely to occur given they hadn’t been directly involved in the development of the Principles of Engagement and their operationalisation in Summit processes. A key conclusion of the dialogue was that a more participatory and legitimate Summit should combine recognition of power imbalances between relevant actor groups with a process for managing conflicts of interest. Summit principles and practices tend to assume that all actors and stakeholders have equal capacity and resources to engage in Summit discussions and shape outcomes. This is incompatible with demonstrable power imbalances and substantial evidence that multi-stakeholder dialogues tend to favour privileged actors and fail to generate effective solutions. This danger is compounded by the assumption that all actors participating in the process can be expected to contribute positively to the achievement of Summit objectives. The inclusion of actors with economic interests in maintaining harmful and inequitable aspects of contemporary food systems challenges this assumption, creates risks of generating tokenistic solutions, and highlights the need for governance mechanisms to actively manage such conflicts of interest.2362382392402412422462472491. Principles: what are the key strengths and limitations of the FSS Principles of Engagement? A majority of participants were broadly supportive of the Principles of Engagement, although many participants noted a lack of clarity in what they meant in practice (e.g. the processes via which they would be operationalised). Some principles were regarded as potentially ambiguous, or underspecified. This included principle 5 (emphasising ‘multi-stakeholder inclusivity’ – which could be seen as a basis for allowing commercial actors to engage on an equal basis with less powerful actors); and principle 7 (where establishing ‘trust’ might require very different things for different stakeholders). For example, one participant asked “how do you build trust if there is no transparency and you don’t address conflict of interest?” At the same time, participants noted some key deficiencies in the Principles, including the absence of commitments: i) to human rights (particularly the right to food); ii) to ensuring independence from commercial interests; and iii) to recognising and managing conflicts of interest between participating stakeholders.2362382392402412422462472492. Practices. Are there practices in related contexts that can be adopted or adapted to strengthen FSS governance? Dialogue participants felt that many of their concerns could have been addressed if the FSS had adopted norms and practices that are already familiar in related policy contexts. A large majority of participants felt that FSS governance would be enhanced by the principles of engagement developed for the Nutrition for Growth process, and by the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) principles for managing interactions with the private sector. Participants felt that effective governance required the identification and management of potential conflict of interest and ensuring the independence of Summit processes from commercial interests. There was a strong sense that the Summit should explicitly recognise and promote the human right to food alongside other human rights principles, treaties and covenants.2362382392402412422462472493. Process: How can transparency and accountability in FSS governance be enhanced? Many participants felt there needed to be more direct discussion of how and why the FSS was initiated without direct involvement from existing UN bodies and processes concerned with food systems – including the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), the FAO Committee for World Food Security (and the FAO Right to Food office), and the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSM). Several positive suggestions were made for how FSS governance could be enhanced by adopting norms and practices that are already familiar in related policy contexts. There was particularly strong support for drawing on the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition’s principles for managing interactions with the private sector, including: - Identification and management of potential conflict of interest - Ensuring independence from commercial interests - Differential safeguards to protect policymaking and to identify private sector organisations whose activities best align with nutrition objectives - Promoting and respecting human rights principles, treaties and covenants Other suggestions advanced by participants to enhance accountability and transparency in FSS governance included the following: - Provide a clear definition and process for managing conflict of interest - Develop a ‘risk and opportunity assessment’ process to identify business entities that should not be represented at Summit meetings (including pre-Summit workshops) and that should not be invited to make UNFSS pledges. - Provide a clear account of how various UN bodies were involved (or not) in initiating, developing and leading the Summit - Provide greater transparency regarding which organisations and individuals are involved in the Summit, including how members of the Scientific Group, Advisory Committee and Action Track Leadership Teams were selected. - Provide greater transparency regarding the funding of the Summit and its associated meetings. - Provide adequate time for public input and scientific review of proposed actions / solutions emerging from the Summit Many participants noted that civil society groups were effectively prevented from engaging with the Summit because they lack the financial resources to do so. Some suggested that funding support was needed in order to ensure meaningful participation of civil society groups in the Summit. There was a strong sense that future Summits needed to be initiated and organised more transparently, with the involvement of Member States and existing UN bodies and processes.237238239240241242246247249There were diverse views as to whether the UNFSS is capable of providing an effective forum for accountable and transparent discussion, given concerns noted above. Some participants felt that – with appropriate adjustments – the Summit can have a positive impact on the development of sustainable and equitable food systems. Other participants felt the Summit’s limitations are too fundamental for it to provide for meaningful and effective engagement, and that the most appropriate action at this stage is to not participate. While there were limited expectations that the FSS would itself generate significant progress in addressing food systems, many participants felt that that discussion around FSS governance created opportunities for indirect benefits in stimulating broader and longer-term discussions about effective ways of engaging relevant actors in this agenda.

2021-07-08 16:56:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25106/203

15219705211856720515742631025713274421115916

The dialogue was organised in full respect of all the principles of the summit. Specifically, this dialogue promoted and embraced the multi-stakeholders inclusivity as its core. Indeed, the diversity of participants ranged from farmers to the private sector, from international organisations to research institutes. The occasion facilitated the identification of concrete actions aimed at developing strategies to be proposed within the Food Systems Summit in support of sustainable and fair solutions for all. The creation of a safe space in which attendees felt free to express their opinions, experiences and visions always with mutual respect among the presents was encouraged. Moreover, the event was organised and convened through a consultative process through which the participants developed a better understanding of food systems.The organisation of this independent dialogue provided a comprehensive view of the context in which global challenges can be addressed and offered an opportunity to commit to the Food Systems Summit as a vehicle to act with urgency and build trust among the various actors. One of the most important aspects on which the dialogue focused was the axiom that food systems are complex and one size cannot fit all solutions. It was acknowledged that there is no simple answer: it is necessary to take into account the differences existing at the local level and to adopt a flexible approach to current global needs.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces as some do not attend. Another aspect to consider: it is advisable to share in advance the topics on which the debate will develop so that participants can be more prepared and participate even more actively. In particular, if the topics addressed are specific, it is recommendable to offer the possibility of getting information in advance, in order to put the participants at ease during the dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue has been jointly organised by the World Farmers’ Organisation and the International Seed Federation, ISF, with the technical expertise of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV. The aim, in fact, was to explore and discuss the needs, expectations and constraints for farmers around the role of innovation in agriculture, with a focus on new improved plant varieties for the sustainability of food systems. One round of break-out sessions was organized under the following themes: 1) How can new improved plant varieties contribute to sustainable food systems? 2) How do we ensure that new improved plant varieties are suitable for sustainable food systems and viable for the farmers? 3) What is needed to facilitate the use and access of new improved plant varieties in food systems? Each discussion that took place in the various break-out sessions was reported back to the plenary by a representative from a farmer and from a representative of the seed sector. At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Main findings: • A consultation carried out with the farmers’ community highlights the farmers’ utilisation of new improved plant varieties (71 % of the respondents) • Farmers look at new improved plant varieties with an innovation lens to ensure better yields, the economic stability of the farms, also ensuring resilience over shocks, but also to make farming easier and less labour/input-intensive; • New improved plant varieties can be key to tackle the challenges of climate change and for the sustainability of food systems: ensuring resistance to droughts, better pests and diseases management; enabling sustainable use of inputs, getting closer also to consumers demand; • New Improved varieties can be key to build trust around the farming activity with financial partners (insurance companies), ensuring reliable yields; • There is a need to ensure access to seeds for farmers (in terms of availability and affordability); • Organized Agriculture has a key role: Farmers Organisations’ are key actors to ensure that farmers of all sizes and everywhere have access to the best available innovation; • It is important to ensure access for farmers to training, information and knowledge on New Improved Plant Varieties, first and foremost through their Farmers’ Organisations; • There is a need for an enabling regulatory, innovation and scientific framework to encourage the development of, and access to, new improved plant varieties; • Consumers’ education is important in order to build trust around new varieties thanks, among others, to traceability systems; • Partnership between the private and public sector is crucial to ensure development and access to innovation; • There's no one-size-fits-all solution and it is key to ensure farmers have the widest possible choice of seeds: providing the right choice to the farmers that they can access, including improved varieties; • Cooperation in the value chain is essential: only a true involvement of all stakeholders in the innovation process, starting from research, from farmers to breeders and all the actors involved, can ensure that we can develop a product that responds to the farmers’ needs; • Breeders always need to work with farmers to understand their downstream needs. This cooperation should address not only the different agronomic and productivity aspects but also the information needs of value chain stakeholders and consumers to increase transparency and traceability; • There is a need for a global/harmonized regulatory framework on new improved plant varieties that covers the entire process, starting with intellectual property rights (plant variety protection), in order to encourage investment in plant breeding and seed production, through regulations to ensure good quality seed is available to farmers for completing the food chain to the consumers; • Predictability and transparency of the regulatory pathway is absolutely essential for sustainable agriculture; • it is not innovation for innovation sake, but improved varieties targeted to support the farmers in the day-to-day business, to help to achieve sustainable development goals.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251How can new improved plant varieties contribute to sustainable food systems? On the issue raised, participants emphasized the importance of selecting and developing new plant varieties according to the expectations expressed by both farmers and consumers regarding yields, quality, diversity and nutrition. In order to do this, it is crucial to involve farmers, taking into account the diversity of local systems and communities. In addition, the simplification and streamlining of a coherent policy environment cannot be overlooked. In terms of sustainability, efforts should be made to improve products’ quality and reduce perishability for a longer shelf life and better transportability. Therefore, not only improving agronomic traits, but also traits that are particularly important for consumers. There was also a discussion on how to make varieties more available to farmers, which requires a good regulatory environment. This includes intellectual property rights (plant variety protection), to encourage investment in plant breeding and seed production and seed laws that guide and do not hamper regulation for new breeding techniques, which should be science-based and predictable. Finally, the last point is information. Information and dialogue with legislators, policy makers on the science behind latest breeding methods, educating farmers with better extension services and educating consumers to give them a better choice on what to buy.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251How do we ensure that new improved plant varieties are suitable for sustainable food systems and viable for the farmers? The participation and involvement of all stakeholders at the discussion table on product development and on future needs has been recognized as a key point in the spread of new plant varieties. Farmers recognize the need to be partners in the process of developing new plant varieties, with the involvement of the public and private sectors, to provide investment in areas where there is not necessarily a sizeable market return as well as in those minor crops. Also, it is necessary to ensure that farmers' interests are represented and to support the extension and transfer of knowledge necessary to guarantee that new plant varieties are produced appropriately and take advantage of all new technologies, while securing sustainable farm incomes, because without sustainable profitability at farm level, the system collapses. Hence a recognition of risk and reward sharing and fairness in the supply chain is needed to keep the whole system sustainable. This entails a collaboration between farmers, plant breeders and seed producers. Finally, it is important to consider that availability and accessibility are crucial, both to breeders and to farmers, because no sustainable solution is really viable if it is not affordable.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251What is needed to facilitate the use and access of new improved plant varieties in food systems? One of the highlights was that farmers learn from peer groups, so increasing awareness of access to seeds is crucial. However, information is not always fully shared with farmers, so they are not aware of the availability of resources. Therefore, it is very important that farmers' needs and expectations can be included by those (private or public actors) that would like to undertake the research and development work for new varieties in accordance with farmers' demands. Last but not least, the collaboration between the public institution and the private company is a very important process, which can speed up the diffusion of innovation. Such partnerships rely on regulatory systems that enable the public sector, private sector and farmers to meet their objectives.237All panellists and participants acknowledged the positions expressed and elaborated during this dialogue.

2021-07-08 18:08:29205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32548/137

873255

The meeting took place as an all-digital event over two and half hours. The opening session included a welcoming speech from the national convenor. He described the preparations for the UN Food System Summit, key features of the national food system and underlined the importance of working together across sectors to build a sustainable food system. Six invited speakers, from the public and private sectors representing research, the agriculture and aquaculture industry, youth, civil society and indigenous people (The Sami Reindeer Herders' Association) gave short comments explaining their role in and expectations to a sustainable food system. The participants were divided into eight groups to discuss themes relevant for a sustainable food system: Group 1: Food security and sustainable consumption Group 2: Sustainable use of natural resources Group 3: Sustainability in the food value chain Group 4: Food security preparedness in a changing climate Group 5: Access to updated, correct and necessary research, knowledge and competence Group 6: Economic and social sustainability Group 7: Various forms of production and production factors Group 8: Norway in the worldThe themes for the groups were presented to the participants a few days before the dialogue meeting. The participants were randomly distributed to the groups by the organizers. This ensured a mix of people with different, but relevant, backgrounds in each group. Each group had a pre-selected moderator and a rapporteur. The group discussions had a duration of 45 minutes. After the 45 minutes of group discussions, all participants came back to a plenary session for a summary of the breakout session. The group moderators reported back from their respective groups according to pre-prepared questions given to them by the organizers. At the end of the meeting the national convenor made a short summary of the highlights from the discussions and the way forward to the UN Food System Summit in September.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249250The Dialogue focussed on a comprehensive exploration of food systems. In his summary, the National Convenor emphasized that the dialogue has shown us the complexity of these issues and that this kind of dialogue is important in our efforts to establish a common platform of knowledge. The ambitions in the 2030-agenda can be fulfilled only if we secure the same kind of competency throughout society for sustainable and incremental change. He also underlined that a 60 % increase in food production as such by 2050 is not possible. Food and nutrition security can only be achieved through concerted action for sustainable production, better distribution of food and a reduction of food loss and waste. In Norway, national and international food security is linked in a number of ways. We are a large exporter of fish and seafood, and a large importer of feed ingredients. International seasonal workers are important in national food production, especially in the production of vegetables. However, this production is equally dependent on the national resources in terms of land/acreage and production inputs. We need both to secure this part of the food system and cooperation is the key here and not something we can take for granted. SDG 17, on cooperation, is therefore fundamental to tackle the challenges within countries and across borders. Our main job ahead is not the preparations for the summit, but rather our efforts after the summit to achieve the SDGs.235The discussions in the groups were varied and rich, and the dialogue was good. In general, there was broad consensus around many of the main issues and challenges as well as possible measures to ensure sustainable food systems. Key messages from the dialogue were summarized in a report under thematic headings as a more focused input from the dialogue and may serve as a guidance to the more detailed summaries from the groups. Both are uploaded as attachments to this feedback. However it was also stressed that the food systems and the understanding of sustainability are complex issues. Given the relatively short time available for discussions, the participants had limited time to delve into details of proposed actions or to elaborate on possible divergent views and priorities.236238239240241242243244246248249250The discussions in the groups were varied and rich, and the dialogue was good. In general, there was broad consensus around many of the main issues and challenges as well as possible measures to ensure sustainable food systems. Key messages from the dialogue were summarized under the following thematic headings : Sustainable management of natural resources Important building blocks in the Norwegian food system Blue and green food production Skills, knowledge and competency Research, technology and development Consumers and the role of labelling Sustainability in the entire food value chain Production factors and production forms Regulations and subsidies - the role of the state Sustainability is context-specific237238239240241242243244246249250In general, there was broad consensus on many issues. Despite this, some divergence in views were identified in regards to the following: - The degree of urgency: some stress the urgent need for rapid change of the food systems, while others are of the view that changes should be gradual and step-wise. Some highlight the dilemma between the need for rapid transformation in food and agriculture whereas change in this sector is normally slow and incremental. There is broad consensus that changes and transformation should be knowledge based. - The need for transformation: Some stressed that the challenges in Norway are different from other parts of the world and there is less need for transformation. Others highlighted the potential for improvement also in Norway and that e.g. more improved Norwegian food systems, including reduced import of feed and climate emissions, could also have positive impacts in the rest of the world. There is also a lack of consensus of what constitutes a sustainable diet. - Possible options for transformation: some highlighted that there is huge potential for transformation also in Norway. E.g. large areas are used to grazing and more plant based diets could be more efficient land use. Others stressed the challenging topographic and climate of Norway, with limited potential to cultivate different crops. Broad consensus that public support and clear regulations are prerequisite for improved sustainability in food systems.

2021-07-08 21:00:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22022/41194

3722111211720394235247427213131279212711831

The dialogue was organized with the Principles of Engagement in mind, and the moderators shared the Principles as part of the beginning of the Dialogue.All participants were very respectful, recognizing the complexity of the topics, embraced inclusive dialogue, and worked to build trust through our conversations by building understanding and appreciating each other’s presence.It is important to share these Principles for every dialogue to help set the space and remind participants of the diversity and need for inclusion with respect and honor.

NoThis 2nd Listening Session was a follow up to the December 2020, “High-Level Expert Seminar on North American Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems, towards the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit”. The focus of this session was to consolidate actionable recommendations from North American Indigenous Peoples for the country delegations and the UN Food Systems Summit Secretariat to act upon in the planning and preparation of the Pre-Summit (July) and Summit. The opening session included updates on the UN Food Systems Summit process, contributions from Indigenous leadership thus far, and a brief description from Indigenous co-authors about the recently finalized, “White/Wiphala on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems”. Following the opening session, participants split into breakout groups with facilitators for a working session to collect input. During this breakout groups, participants focused on advancing the general statement from the December 2020 Seminar, into actionable recommendations for the country delegations and UN Food Systems Summit leadership. Further, each breakout group responded to three questions from UN Special Envoy Dr. Agnes Kalibata to the 5 Action Tracks. The three questions were: What do you want to commit to do? What do you want others to commit to do? What can others do to support and safeguard Indigenous Peoples’ food systems (reframed original: what do you want the world to stop doing?). Participants were encouraged to make their responses and recommendations actionable and scale specific with a temporal component. Inputs from all breakout groups are consolidated into specific recommendations in this report.

234238239240241242243244246247248249251The Breakout Groups covered all 5 Action Tracks of the UN Food Systems Summit, each group focused on specific Action Tracks in their discussion to develop actionable recommendations. The major focus of the discussions was to provide feedback and comments on proposed game-changing solutions per each Action Track, as well as respond to the 3 questions posed by the UNFSS Special Envoy, Dr. Kalibata as mentioned in the methodology.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251(See more detailed findings in the attached documentation) Action Track 1: We [Indigenous Peoples of North America] are dedicated to maintaining our traditional ways of life, prioritizing our youth, teaching the next generations, and taking care of our resources to ensure viability for future generations. There is a growing recognition and request for consultation about our longstanding ability to sustainably live in our environments through our own management systems. Not only do Indigenous Peoples need to be consulted with the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) principles, we must also be an active part of the entire processes – not solely “knowledge sharing”. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems are a game changing solution, but only with Indigenous leadership and control over our own systems. To this end, fundamental to ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all is the protection, respect and actualization of Indigenous Peoples’ rights – at all levels. In no case should a people be deprived of their traditional subsistence. States are obligated to protect these rights. We ask for protections to land and water rights, rights to practice our traditional food systems including the freedom to hunt and fish by our own systems, and protection of our seeds and intellectual property rights. We have crucial perspectives and willingness to bring about a needed paradigm shift. It is not sufficient for only Indigenous Peoples to commit; we need Member States’ commitment and the creation of opportunities to get involved in food systems in order for our [Indigenous Peoples] commitments to be actionable. Action Track 2: We need Indigenous led curriculum in public schools and community education settings to teach people how to support their local food systems and better understand Indigenous Peoples’ cultures, rights, knowledge and practices. There are good examples of these types of curriculums and programs being led by Indigenous Peoples in the United States and Canada. To reconnect and/or sustain our sustainable consumption patterns we need to be able to carry out hunting, fishing, and harvesting on the ceded territories, where perpetual right to hunt, fish, and harvest traditional foods is guaranteed by the treaties. This requires the environments to be healthy and free of toxic contaminants, and federal/state governments to prevent harassment by upholding the treaty rights and educate law enforcement and the public on Indigenous Peoples’ rights to harvesting and land/water access. Teachings and strategies from Indigenous Peoples’ approached and practices can provide essential solutions in reaching the SDGs. There is opportunity for Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and programs to collaborate on these shared goals. First we need a change in mentality to see Indigenous Peoples’ food systems as vital to the solutions, which can help inspire the change to sustainable consumption. Action Track 3: There are current movements to return space and land to Indigenous Peoples for protection, management, and restoration following Indigenous biocentric restoration practices. Recognizing the collective human and tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples is crucial to Indigenous Peoples’ ability to revitalize traditional practices of generating food and stewarding lands/waters. Indigenous Peoples’ practices and systems of knowledge are needed to restore healthy, balanced populations of native and non-native species in regions. To support the exchange of knowledge and practice with the native plant species, regulations are necessary to protect the intellectual property rights of Indigenous Peoples and protection measures and consultations/consent are needed to safeguard against further issues with invasive plant and animal species. We need to start supporting agroecological systems and Indigenous Peoples’ food systems with the same way we support industrial production systems through comparable allocation of resources, extension services, trainings, research, and land designation. This would include increased localized production through market incentives for local economies of scale, incentives to promote agrobiodiversity working with local chefs, restaurants and markets, and increased support of conservation and biocentric production. Action Track 4: A multi-faceted approach is required to advance equitable livelihoods for North American Indigenous Peoples. We need to focus on creating opportunities for strong partnerships and alliances, such examples include in the carbon exchange and land/water/natural resource management. Existing programs and tools with organizations and governments can be improved with direct feedback from Indigenous Peoples/practitioners. Indigenous youth must be prioritized in the creation of opportunities and programs. It is important to use Indigenous curriculum and learning models that support Indigenous health, wellness, and advancement. Action Track 5: As the impacts of climate change intensify and affect more people, expanding Indigenous Peoples’ management practices and adaptation strategies is critical. Many Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and traditional governments in the United States and Canada have created climate change adaptation plans for their communities and territories. They have prioritized long-term water security in their planning. Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders and communities need to work together to implement climate change adaptation strategies and regional plans.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251These four points cut across all Action Tracks as encompassing pillars needed for the success of the expressed commitments: We want the world to commit to… - Increase awareness and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Increase and embrace opportunities for the inclusion of, and complete validation of Indigenous youth perspectives. - Stop ignoring us, instead build respectful, reciprocal collaborations and partnerships. - Understand our systems of management and see our Indigenous knowledge is the basis for many current practices, value our ways and technologies, respectfully employ them. In response to the three questions of commitment: Action Track 1: To ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all: 1. We are willing to commit to Indigenous leadership to sustain and safeguard Indigenous Peoples’ food related practices and food systems. We are willing to commit to maintaining our traditional ways of life, teaching the next generations, and taking care of our resources. 2. We ask Member States and conservation organizations to commit to allow us the freedom to hunt and fish by our own management systems without being impeded by “Western models”. Work with us and recognize we share conservation goals. Recognize and respect our rights to traditional subsistence and to change misconceptions that Indigenous hunting and fishing practices are a threat to ecological biodiversity (ie. whaling). We ask that in no case should a people be deprived of their traditional subsistence. 3. We ask Member States and others to recognize our [Indigenous Peoples] food systems and leadership can contribute to the regional and global needs and goals. 4. We ask others to practice Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, and not commit/appropriate our food practices into “universal access” through taking, patenting, and marketing of Indigenous Peoples’ foods. 5. We ask Member States, UN Agencies, Multinational Corporations and Private Sector to respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights and protection of their seeds and food products against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). We ask for regulations to be in place and implemented to protect Indigenous Peoples’ food systems and lands. 6. We ask FAO, other UN Agencies and others to think of food as an ancestor, recognizing the spiritual significance, and as a relationship that needs to be maintained; we are asking the FAO and other parties to make a paradigm shift away from a market-based approach towards an approach of respectful health and well-being for food systems. 7. We are committed, and ask Member States and associated parties to join us, in educating the younger generations about our connection to the Earth through our food systems, teach how to sustain the holistic nature of Indigenous Peoples’ food practices and culture, and provide opportunities to learn and maintain the legacy of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, land tenure and natural resource management. They are our best allies and central to the future of food systems. Action Track 2: To shift to sustainable consumption patterns: 8. We ask Member States and others to commit to granting and protecting unfettered access to ceded territories for Indigenous Peoples to practice traditional harvesting rights, including fishing, hunting and foraging. We ask Member States to educate law enforcement and public on Indigenous Peoples’ protected harvesting rights, so to stop further harassment. 9. We commit and ask all parties to commit to restoring and maintaining pristine environments; addressing the agricultural and other contaminants in watersheds and lands. 10. We commit to leading and ask other parties to support Indigenous-created and led curriculum on food systems in public schools to teach people how to support their local food systems.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Action Track 3: To boost nature-positive production: 11. We ask regional governments to continue giving land and space to Indigenous Peoples to protect and restore land and watersheds through Indigenous restoration practices and traditional management styles. We commit to engaging with regional governments partners to lead ecological restoration and enhance biodiversity. 12. We ask Member States and all parties to recognize and learn from us that Indigenous Peoples’ traditional methods of hunting, fishing, and harvesting can be regenerative for ecosystems. 13. We commit to exercising our treaty rights as Indigenous Peoples, and ask non-Indigenous peoples to recognize, respect and learn about our treaty rights and the legislature that enforces them. 14. We ask all parties to respect and protect our intellectual property rights, and in return we commit to sharing our Indigenous knowledge that can support sustainable agricultural practices. 15. We ask all parties to support scaling up agroecological and traditional systems with the same focus and resources allocated for industrial production systems. 16. We commit to, and ask others to join us in increasing localized, sustainable production and food generation for local consumption, as well as local economies to promote increased agrobiodiversity, including Indigenous chefs and businesses Action Track 4: To advance equitable livelihoods: 17. We commit to aggregating Indigenous landowners and entering the carbon exchange market. 18. We commit to improving existing tools and programs for food producers and generators with government agencies and other organizations. 19. We commit to, and ask others to join us, in embracing Indigenous youth voices, input, and engagement in Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. 20. We commit to, and ask others to join us, in developing and using Indigenous curriculum and learning models to support Indigenous Peoples’ health and well-being. 21. We commit to and ask others to support Indigenous agriculture/food system exchanges to expand knowledge sharing and capacity-building. Action Track 5: To build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress: 22. We recognize climate change is affecting more and more people. We commit and ask for all parties to include Indigenous Peoples’ leadership, knowledge, and management practices to face and mitigate impacts of climate change. 23. We commit to and ask all parties to join us in focusing on long-term water security by prioritizing watershed health, decontaminating streams and rivers, and working towards restoring potable water sources across large regions. 24. We commit to and ask others to join us in recognizing that the other actions in preceding action tracks will contribute to building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress. Recommendations specific for the UN Food Systems Summit coordination: A. Member State delegations from the United States of America and Canada invite and include Indigenous Representatives to join the country delegations for the Pre-Summit and Summit, online and in-person. B. That Indigenous leaders/experts be added to solution clusters - at minimum, all 27 clusters that include Indigenous Peoples and Action Track committees. C. That Indigenous scientists be invited to join the UN Food Systems Summit Scientific Group. D. That in all after Summit actions and implementation strategies, delegations of Indigenous Peoples (building upon existing mechanisms in the UN system) be included from the beginning with resources allocated for proper compensation.

2021-07-08 21:32:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28371/415770137152176194

363055297245

The dialogue was organized with the Principles of Engagement in mind, and the moderators shared the Principles as part of the beginning of the Dialogue.All participants were very respectful, recognizing the complexity of the topics, embraced inclusive dialogue, and worked to build trust through our conversations by building understanding and appreciating each other’s presence.It is important to share these Principles for every dialogue to help set the space and remind participants of the diversity and need for inclusion with respect and honor.

NoThe Inuit Circumpolar Council, Saami Council, FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit, and UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues co-coordinated the first regional dialogue with Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic in preparation for the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit and Summit. The focus of the first session was to identify contributions, key messages, and “game changing” solutions from Arctic Indigenous Peoples to the forthcoming United Nations Food Systems Summit. This Arctic dialogue is one of the regional and global sessions organized by and for Indigenous Peoples to advance their political and technical inputs and engagement in the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. This dialogue spanned across two days, with three-hour sessions. As this dialogue served to be informative about the UN Food Systems Summit as well as bring together regional leaders from the Inuit and Sámi, the dialogue included a line-up of speakers to speak on key topics in addition to discussion on the second day. The first day included a line of speakers from the FAO, UN Food Systems Summit, Saami Council and the Inuit Circumpolar Council, as well as Indigenous Scientists from the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples Food Systems. The opening session speakers provided a briefing on the White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems; Connected the 2019 “Indigenous Peoples’ Rome Declaration on the Arctic Region Fisheries and Environment” with the UN Food Systems Summit; and presented the guiding question of – what key messages the Arctic Indigenous Peoples want to bring to the UN Food Systems Summit. Inuit and Sámi speakers followed with presentations on: (1) Key Elements of Inuit and Sámi Food Systems; (2) Challenges and Threats to Inuit and Sámi food systems; (3) Solutions – best practices and policies to sustain and safeguard Arctic Indigenous Food Systems. The second day included Indigenous Youth speakers from the Inuit – Emerging Leaders Program, and the Chair of the Youth Council of the Sámi Parliament in Finland; followed by Inuit and Sámi speakers on “How to influence global policy from an Arctic view? On Climate Change and Resilience”. The majority of the second day was a brainstorming session to generate specific recommendations toward the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit that respond to the priorities and challenges raised on the first day. (2344 characters with spaces)

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Currently, Indigenous Peoples in the seven socio-cultural regions are coordinating regional consultations in preparation for the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit and Summit. Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations and Experts of the UNPFII, in collaboration with UN agencies are leading the coordination of these regional consultations. The inputs and recommendations from Indigenous Peoples’ regional and global consultations will be presented to UN Special Envoy of the Food Systems Summit, Dr. Agnes Kalibata in June. In this dialogue, we discussed Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, expanding on the work of the 2019 Expert Seminar on Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Peoples’ Fisheries in the Arctic Region. Inuit and Sámi have developed hunting, fishing, herding, farming, and harvesting systems intimately tied to the unique environment of the Arctic. Our food systems have allowed us to feed our communities, while at the same time maintain and sustain the biodiversity of the region. Our traditional languages reflect the richness of our cultures and the deep connections that we have with our territories. Our ways of life continue to this day and, through our efforts within the Food Systems Summit, they will continue long into the future. The goal of the first dialogue was to identify possible contributions, key messages, and “game changing” solutions from Arctic Indigenous Peoples to the forthcoming United Nations Food Systems Summit. Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ representatives were invited to contribute their perspectives on the recommendations towards the UN Food Systems Summit. The Arctic Dialogue also included an update on the status of the Summit and Indigenous Peoples’ contributions thus far, working sessions to prepare recommendations, and finished with elements for recommendations and a way forward that is inclusive of the distinct way of life of Inuit and Sámi.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251We emphasize the fundamental and direct link between our food-systems, our right to self-determination, and our rights to lands, territories, and natural resources. Respecting our right to self-determination, securing land rights and ensuring the continuity of our traditional livelihoods and occupations are fundamental elements to strengthen and maintain our food systems. Ensuring our full and effective participation of Inuit and Sámi is a key element, at national, regional, and international level. We underscore the fact that our traditional livelihoods are practiced in a sustainable way and as such allows nature to restore itself. Our proven sustainable fishing, hunting, and harvesting practices reflect the primary dimensions of Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ food security. Our Indigenous Knowledge has sustained our peoples and our cultures for thousands of years, and our fishing, hunting, and harvesting practices should be respected and used in relation to research and policy- and decision-making concerning the interrelated dimensions of our food systems as well as intergenerational sharing and transmitting our knowledge to future generations in order to maintain and strengthen our knowledge. Indigenous Knowledge and our practices are distinct from science yet complementary to such practices, and this needs to be recognized. We insist upon recognizing and respecting the role of Indigenous Knowledge in relation to our food systems and the opportunity for the ethical and equitable engagement of our knowledge through genuine co-production of knowledge processes, research and decision-making. Our status, rights, and role have been recognized and affirmed in national law and policy as well as in diverse international human rights instruments and within regional institutions, including the Arctic Council, the United Nations, the ILO, and the Organization of American States. Therefore, we reject the use of the terms “local communities” and “peasants” in the context of our legal status, our distinct human rights, and our role as distinct peoples within diverse national and international political arenas and other intergovernmental fora. Inuit and Sámi self-determination and self-governance, including management and co-management of our lands and natural resources will ensure our self-reliance as well as our capacity to define our own needs and values in order to achieve genuine food security. We insist upon the recognition of and respect for our own definition and characterization of our food systems within a rights-based framework, including our rights to our lands, territories, and resources as well as free, prior, and informed consent, and the rejection of the false dichotomy between the developed and developing world in the context of Indigenous Peoples.236For full reporting, please reference the summary statement and outcome document attached to the official feedback form. OUR FOOD SYSTEMS: In contrast to dominant society, for Inuit and Sámi food is not just about calories or nutrients. It is a core part of our culture, identity, and pride. Our food systems provide the foundation of our existence and our holistic world view. Our distinctive and profound relationship with our lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources includes the understanding that we are an integral part of the environment. As such, we must uphold our responsibilities to future generations in this regard. We are not farmers, we are primarily hunters, gatherers, herders, fishers, and mobile peoples, traversing our lands and waters to maintain our way of life and the systems we depend upon. Our food systems depend on a healthy environment and access to traditional resources and play an important role in maintaining our cultures, knowledge, and identities as well as our physical and mental health and well-being. Our food systems are practiced in a sustainable way, we take only what we need, and allow nature to restore itself. Our traditional languages, hunting tools, art, cultural expressions, clothing, cultural gatherings, spirituality, and knowledge reflect the richness of our cultures and the deep connections that we have with our territories. Our ways of life continue to this day and, through our efforts within the Food Systems Summit, they will continue long into the future. We need our food systems to survive in the Arctic. The right of self-determination is recognized as the pre-requisite for the exercise and enjoyment of all other human rights, and it is fundamental to the maintenance of our unique food systems. Securing recognition of our rights to lands, territories and resources will ensure the continuation of our proven sustainable food system practices thereby safeguarding the Arctic and supporting biodiversity. Furthermore, we are uniquely positioned to ensure our own food sovereignty and security based upon centuries of accumulated knowledge, adaptation, resilience, and genuine respect for our natural world. CHALLENGES: We express concern over threats to our traditional practices, customs, spirituality, and food systems, including state-imposed laws and regulations that hinder our rights and access to resources, as well as industrialized fishing, shipping, tourist fishing, aquaculture, and extractive industries. These threats reduce the conditions to practice our traditional livelihoods and limit our main sources of food. This also causes waste of sustainable produced foods. Also, environmental changes caused by competitive land usage are impacting our key food resources making our traditional livelihoods and maintenance of our knowledge more challenging. Climate change is of primary concern. Its multiple impacts are adversely affecting our societies, triggering migration and displacement, impacting the health and well-being of youth, and threatening our food security and food systems – our ways of life – by damaging and disrupting the natural elements of our lands and marine ecosystems that are at the heart of our food and water sources. Overcoming these diverse impacts requires adaptive, holistic management of the resources that we depend upon.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251CHALLENGES (CONT.): There is a fundamental and direct link between our food-systems, our right of self-determination and our rights to lands, territories, and natural resources. The lack of respect for and recognition of our rights to self-determination, to our management and co-management of our resources to ensure their productive capacity, and impediments to recognition of our knowledge are resulting in adverse impacts upon our livelihoods, our ability to sustain ourselves, and our food production. Transmitting our knowledge to future generations and lack of respect for and recognition of Indigenous Knowledge based upon our long-standing sustainable way of life are also of increasing concern. The lack of equity, meaningful engagement, and real partnership in international and national processes and decision-making bodies is a persistent concern. Many intergovernmental actors and processes do not understand, support or acknowledge the content of meaningful engagement from an Indigenous human rights framework or perspectives. RECOMMENDATIONS: (read full recommendations in the attached declaration document) In our recommendations, we call upon Member States, UN Agencies, NGOs, international organizations, and the private sector to respect, recognize, uphold and strengthen our rights to self-determination; rights to land, waters, and natural resources; and traditional occupations and livelihoods. In relation to climate change, we call upon UN Member States, in collaboration with Arctic Indigenous Peoples, and with their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, to develop national climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies that are responsive to our concerns and that ultimately safeguard our food systems. We emphasize that global emissions must be curbed and significantly reduced by means of developing renewable sources of energy, but the measures taken to limit climate change must not bear a negative impact on the culture and living conditions of Arctic Indigenous Peoples. For capacity-building, research on our food systems and diets, and our Indigenous knowledge, we call upon all parties, in collaboration with Arctic Indigenous Peoples, and in cooperation with UN Member States, research institutions and other stakeholders to continue work through research and advocacy to support Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ food systems and traditional livelihoods of fishing, herding, hunting, harvesting; as well as study Inuit and Sámi diets to increase and advance recognition and appreciation of Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ diets, food systems, food security, and food sovereignty, in particular in relation to the outcomes of the United Nations Food Systems Summit and to learn directly from Sámi and Inuit, including reviewing the literature and material produced by Sámi and Inuit. Further, we urge policy makers to increase participation and inclusion of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, youth, and knowledge in policy discussions and decisions to sustain our traditional food systems through the Arctic; to respect and recognize the ethical and equitable engagement of Indigenous Knowledge in research, policy and decision making in all governance systems that may impact Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. Alliances and Enhanced Participation of Indigenous Peoples: We urge all parties to continue to strengthen its engagement with Arctic Indigenous Peoples in its future work by organizing high level expert seminars on other relevant technical fields. We urge the FAO, IFAD, WFP and other relevant Organizations based in Rome to organize an annual meeting with Indigenous Peoples from all seven socio-cultural regions in order to have a systematic dialogue with Rome based agencies to ensure coordination and coherence on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in relation to our food systems.237238239240241242248250Many of the participants in attendance had shared experiences and perspectives on the challenges and priorities to sustain their food systems – Inuit or Sámi - depending on where they were from. Most of the dialogue was held in solidarity and support of contributions made and shared. So while there were no areas of divergence in our dialogue, we discussed topics such as traditional harvesting methods being criminalized, Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ traditional diets being labeled as “unhealthy” by outside, non-indigenous entities including international conservation organizations, lack of access to political power for traditional management and protection, the expense of imported food, the negative impacts of dominant-culture education on the youth, the undervaluing of Indigenous food products in market, the use of the Arctic waters for international trade, as well as the impacts of climate change and the climate change mitigation attempts. These topics might surface areas of divergence with a larger audience with different stakeholders. We exposed areas of divergence which have challenged the food security and sovereignty for Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ communities. Securing Indigenous Peoples’ food security and sovereignty in the Arctic regions isolation will require engaging with these interrelated areas of divergence.

This declaration was prepared after two dialogues led by the Inuit Circumpolar Council and Saami Council in preparation and coordination towards the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. The declaration defines the unique food systems of the Inuit and Sámi, as well as the challenges they are facing with key recommendations towards the Summit. Also included are the programs from the 1st and 2nd Arctic Indigenous Peoples' regional dialogues. 2021-07-20 22:13:28https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FINAL-ARCTIC-REGION-Declaration-in-preparation-for-the-FSS_29062021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/June-3-4-Final-Agenda_-1st-Arctic-Regional-Dialogue_June-3-4-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/June-24-25_-2nd-AIP-Regional-Dialogue-on-Food-Systems.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/arctic/en/http://www.fao.org/north-america/news/detail/en/c/1415049/

2021-07-09 11:39:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13283/10208997101139179186187196

414011724312116721364

The independent dialogue was designed considering the needs of the 10 Member Countries of the ECO in compliance with the principles of engagement. ECO-RCCFS invited all relevant stakeholders from ECO Member countries and aimed to facilitate a better understanding of the complexity of food systems, its practices as well as the purpose and processes of the dialogues for the UN Food System Summit. Also, the dialogue aimed to provide the participants with an opportunity to exchange their experiences in addressing the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on food supply. Turkey shared its experience in multi-stakeholder approach to reducing food losses while stimulating consumption of nutritious foods during the pandemic. An introductory session was devoted to the Summit and the principles. Another session about food systems provided further emphasis on transformation of current systems in a more sustainable way, including transformation phases as four distinct policy objectives as availability, accessibility, affordability, desirability for all. Key steps that need urgently to be taken were defined. Important steps of the transformation were underlined as: 1. Empower cross-party and cross-ministerial working groups to reconcile political and economic trade-offs across sectors, 2. Build engagement and momentum across all stakeholder groups 3. Establish specific responsibilities and accountability mechanisms for commercial and civil society entitiesECO-RCCFS acted urgently to meet the needs of the Member Countries in learning experiences and good practices of addressing the impact of the pandemic. Resolve/reconcile policy distortions and incoherence in incentives, identify multi-win targets that can be attractive to multiple constituencies, leverage existing interventions that can be made more food-system friendly, protect the most vulnerable and ensure a ‘just’ transition were reviewed by the participants. Also a special session included on the purposes and modalities of the Member Country dialogues. Since most of the participated countries had not organized the MS dialogue, the session was useful for the preparation of the dialogues.Participants of the independent dialogue listened each other and opened to the co-existence of divergent points of view.The importance of multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach was emphasized across the dialogue.A comprehensive and detailed presentation was made for unpacking the complexity of the food systems approach and the need for transformation of food systems.This is followed by a facilitated discussion on the need for multi-stakeholder approach, policy cohesion and understanding of power balance.The independent dialogue took place in a multi-stakeholder manner with stakeholders from the ECO region in various fields of agriculture, food security, forestry and food safety and with different perspectives.Sharing of experiences and innovative ideas for transforming the current food systems were encouraged among the participants in line with the principles and objectives of the Summit.A case study on the food systems approach to timely address the negative effects of the pandemic on aquaculture sector was presented by Turkey, emphasizing the benefits of coordination of the government and private sector. ECO-RCCFS curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. Establishing specific responsibilities and accountability mechanisms for commercial and civil society entities was underlined as an important stepThe Principles of Engagement provides a very useful framework for the successful conduct of independent dialogues. It is also important to involve multiple sectors and actors, beyond traditional stakeholders of food and agricultural sector, so that participants can learn the need for cohesive action for transforming food system. In our independent dialogue, significant progress has been made in providing the knowledge of the participants on food systems concept, the urgent need for transformation and also the need for continuous awareness rising among the stakeholders across the food systems.

Yes

234238239242243249250Major focus of the independent dialogue was to support the member countries of Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) to better understand food systems concept and approach, as well as the objectives and processes of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. Accordingly, the dialogue had a comprehensive and detailed presentation on the concept of food systems and data and evidence on food systems by a leading expert, followed by interactive discussions among the participants. The rationale, purpose and modality of member country dialogues including 5 Action Tracks was explained by FAO. Lastly, as an ECO Member Country, Turkey shared its experiences in reducing food losses, protecting livelihoods those along food supply chains and supporting the consumers in accessing nutritious foods during the Covid-19 Pandemic, as a case study of food systems approach.235238239242243249250• Food Systems of ECO member countries are vulnerable to various shocks. Those shocks include not only natural disasters, but also socio-economic stresses and health crisis. • Governments need to take a leading role to ensure food systems continue to function during such crisis. However, coordination and collaboration with private sector is critical, particularly for ensuring food supply, since private farms, processors, traders and retailers play critical role in any food supply chain. • Identifying multi-win solutions is important. Potential trade-offs need to be analyzed carefully but action with speed is required. • Many of food system workers are highly vulnerable to socioeconomic and natural shocks. Social Protection is critical during crisis time. It is important to understand the vulnerability of food system workers (who they are, where they are, when, why and how they are vulnerable). • Continuous effort for capacity strengthening is important to continue the effort for transforming food systems after the Summit. Regional organization such as ECO-RCC has a critical role to play in providing such opportunities. • Enhancing availability of and access to data on key elements of food systems and outcomes is important for facilitating evidence-based discussion and policy development236238239240242243246249Topic 1: Transformation of food systems • The participants shared a common understanding on food systems by reviewing the definition, conceptual framework and various elements of the systems. • The participants discussed and understood what transformation of food systems mean and why the transformation is needed. • The participants understood the potential cost of not transforming the food systems. Various data was presented, reviewed and discussed. • The participants understood that a business as usual approach to food systems won’t get us to the Paris climate change targets. The presenter shared relevant data. • The participants understood that the multiple burdens of malnutrition are massive in the ECO region and universaland the double burden of malnutrition is rising in low- and middle-income countries. • The participants understood that food and agriculture have a big part to in the rise of zoonotic spillover events - animals are in close proximity to humans, either because their natural habitat has shrunk or been destroyed, or they are moved from their habitats.236238239240241242Topic 2: Purposes and modalities of UNFSS National Dialogues • The participants were briefed on the main objective of the UN Food Summit. • The participants were updated on the progress of the member countries of ECO in the preparation for the UNFSS, including the nomination of the national dialogue conveyors, the national dialogue process. • The participants were introduced about many opportunities for national dialogue conveyors and stakeholders to learn about food system concept, approach and preparatory work for the food system summit.236238241242246249Topic 3: Food Systems Approach to COVID-19 Pandemic • The participants were given examples of how governments can take notice, act with speed and often, act in their own interest when threatened. • The participants understood that “We are all in this together” type problems (such as the pandemic) require strong public institutions at national and supranational levels. • The participants discussed the importance for ensuring food supplies by keep cross-border and domestic trade open during the crisis. • The participants agreed that supporting and protecting food system workers is important • It was suggested by participants that social protection programs to delivering healthy diets should be strengthened, during the crisis in particular. • The participants discussed the needs for cross- country research to promote One Health • The participants discussed the needs for a systematic global effort to monitor pathogens emerging from animals.237238239240241242Some participants raised their concern about the absence of discussions on the role of education in spreading food systems approach, highlighting the needs for nurturing future leaders of food systems.

2021-07-09 18:39:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14933/41

46218441642

This was a Youth Dialogue involving University undergraduate and graduate students from McGill University, University of Guelph and the University of British Columbia. Student participants were mainly drawn from the Faculties of Agriculture, Food and Land Systems of the 3 universities. Due to COVID restrictions and to overcome the geographic distances from eastern Canada to the western Pacific coast, the Dialogue was held by Zoom with facilitated breakout sessions. We used emails, social media, and word of mouth to promote the Dialogue among the students at each of the 3 universities. We had a steering committee comprising professors and administrators of the 3 Faculties (6 people), who decided on the logistics, the format, and the broad themes of the Dialogue, based on the guidance material from the UN Food Systems website and accompanying resources. This oversight group developed the overall scenario and program of the Dialogue. The steering committee met by Zoom about 6 times and communicated frequently by email. Student volunteers were identified in each university to work with a Dialogue Coordinator from the Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph to help with selection of chairs, facilitators and rapporteurs of each breakout session. The principles of the Dialogue were incorporated and reinforced by selecting 8 themes and having a set of questions for each theme. Students were randomly divided into breakout rooms covering each theme, and came up with a series of recommendations for each theme. These were reported back in a closing plenary.The Dialogue was held on May 06, 1:00-3:00PM EST. We had professors from McGill, Guelph and UBC serve as co-moderators of the Dialogue and took turns handling different segments of the program. The Guelph coordinator and the IT team from Guelph were responsible for all event logistics, program coordination and event management. The first 30 minutes formed an introduction to the Dialogue with welcome remarks from the professors at the 3 universities. The opening plenary was framed around the goals and objectives of the Summit with a focus on Youth, in this case being university level students. A student from each university was asked to make opening remarks on questions that were rooted in the Summit expectations. We then moved in the following breakout groups: Food Access; Sustainable Consumption; Agricultural Production Inputs for Sustainability; Resilient Food Systems; Cultural and Indigenous Access to Foods (2 breakout sessions); Careers in Agriculture; Food Insecurity (2 breakout sessions- one in English and one in French). There were approximately 6-10 participants in each breakout room. As noted form the above topics, the sessions were built around a combination of the Action Tracks, the SDGs and youth interest. Each breakout session lasted 60 minutes and then we came back together in a plenary for reporting back of the key points that emerged from each breakout session. There was then concluding wrap up remarks from the professors of the 3 universities.

Yes

234238239240241242Max: 3600 characters (approx. 600 words) The Discussion Topics and the points that were considered in each Topic are shown below. It will be observed that we used 10 year horizon for each Topic, given that the Summit is aimed at what the food system will look like by 2030. Discussion Topic: In 10 years everyone in Canada has access to safe and nutritious food 1. What approaches would you recommend? 2. What outcomes would you expect in 5 years? 3. What type of collective action do you envisage to start this process? Discussion Topic: In 10 years, Canadian consumers choose [and are able to access] sustainably produced food 1. What recommendations would you make to improve diet diversity among Canadians? 2. What would you recommend as indicators of progress towards improving diet diversity in 5 years? 3. What civil society-based initiatives would you imagine as drivers towards this goal? Discussion Topic: In 10 years, Canada will have reduced agricultural input use while boosting production of healthy food 1. What recommendations would you make to improve the sustainability of the food system? 2. What could be measurable socio-economic and environmental indicators of progress in 5 years? 3. What type of collective action would be required to achieve this goal? Discussion Topic: In 10 years, Canada’s food system will be resilient to extreme events such as shocks like pandemics 1. What changes in public policy and corporate social responsibility are required to build food system resilience? 2. What do we expect to see if we are successful in 5 years? 3. What type of collective action would be required to achieve this goal? Discussion Topic: 10 years, everyone in Canada has access to culturally appropriate and traditional food. 1. What programs need to be funded or extended to support that? 2. How do we intersect various traditions and cultures in the food system? 3. What type of collective action do you envisage to start this process? Discussion Topic: In the next 10 years more Canadian youth are choosing agri-food as a career option and are being trained in a way that meets the needs of this rapidly expanding industry 1. What actions and commitments in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the discussion topic? 2. How will it be possible to tell if these actions and commitments are being successful? 3. What contribution can I or the organization I represent make? Discussion Topic: Dans 10 ans, le Canada aura éliminé la pauvreté et l'insécurité alimentaire dans toutes les communautés. 1. Trois recommandations politiques pour y arriver 2. Qu'espérons-nous voir si nous réussissons dans 5 ans? 3. Quels changements de gouvernance et d'institutions seraient nécessaires pour accélérer les progrès vers cet objectif?235238239240241242Access to safe and nutritious food Better education of consumers; monocultures do not necessarily produce more nutritious food; eliminate waste in consumption; water and food must be considered basic human rights. Consumers chose sustainably produced food Promote diet diversity at all levels of society including in schools; there is a lot of mis-information about health foods; learn to cook and grow local and indigenous foods; farmers offer fresh foods to food banks Reduced ag inputs for healthy food Increase efficiency of production by reducing waste and greenhouse gases; encourage regional solutions based on climate and farmers site specific conditions; undertake surveys to better understand farmers’ practices; demonstrate and share sustainable practices Resilience to extreme events, shocks, pandemics Youth are thinking more about climate change; inclusion of smallholder farmers in the discussion; more proactive support for climate smart faming and permaculture Access to culturally appropriate and traditional food Need a comprehensive audit of cultures and food traditions; universities are food melting pots and can hold food culture nights; Canada food guide has nothing on this topic Agri-food as a career option Not enough is being done on career training; students are not aware of the diversity of agri-career options; there are few role models speaking to schools to encourage youth about careers in agriculture Elimination of poverty and food insecurity More affordable housing and higher wages can lead to elimination of poverty and food insecurity; fair wages for fair work; move away from food banks and charities; encourage more local food consumption at home and in institutions, eg. hospitals236238239240241242Access to safe and nutritious food More women are required in farming; end subsidies on monoculture; we need stronger electoral accountability to ensure access to safe and nutritious food; introduce food knowledge (culture, nutrition, sustainability) into school curriculums; start to highlight people incl. farmers who are doing good deeds in agriculture; bring an end to globalization and concentrate on local markets. Consumers chose sustainably produced food Reduce animal consumption to increase land availability for other crops; move beyond a monopolized grain industry to support for other crops; diet diversity can be improved by promoting local community food systems; support local farmers to partner with schools and teach children to grow and cook diverse nutritional foods; build stronger links between healthy eating and health costs; need a standard methodology and labelling for selecting healthy food choices Reduced ag inputs for healthy food Increase the commitment to corporate social responsibility; more research is required on historical and traditional farming practices; there has to be more transparency across the food system; use efficiencies of inputs to protect ecosystems and water. Resilience to extreme events, shocks, pandemics Need a back up supply of diverse raw materials that are locally supplied; reduce food waste and make room for marginalized communities; make stronger rural-urban connections; given the interest of youth in climate, get them involved in various associations to solve the problems. Access to culturally appropriate and traditional food Have students and universities create food maps; need an indigenous food guide and preparation book; access to education on the topic is highly important. Agri-food as a career option Create a bank of agri-food professions and professionals that can be used by career counsellors at high school; use Tik Tok to attract youth to these careers; more professional development programs need to be created to bring youth into the field; make better use of social media and digital tools Elimination of poverty and food insecurity Have tax credits to procure local purchases; buy local; support polyculture; governments need to commit to food security and to understand the desire of Canadians to grow local and eat local; strengthen the link between climate change and food insecurity237A divergence of opinion was expressed around plant vs animal agriculture. It can’t be an either or scenario. There is room for both sides and people have to be respectful of diverse opinions. Similarly the differences between large scale commercial agriculture and small holder agriculture was expressed. There is room and a place for both and this needs to be better explained, especially since there is a view that large commercial agriculture and grocery chains are symbols of globalization and politics of food

2021-07-09 20:09:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11694/198

450972450252001135322712011541

Realizamos una convocatoria amplia y diversa desde el punto de vista de los actores y sus enfoques sobre los sistemas alimentarios, y a su vez, tomando en cuenta que la relación de Acción Campesina con dichos actores se ha basado en el respeto, la confianza y la cooperación mutua de cara a los desafíos más urgentes en el contexto de la emergencia humanitaria compleja que vive Venezuela. Esto nos unió en términos de las acciones que podríamos estar visualizando a futuro para favorecer a los distintos sectores productivos y las poblaciones vulnerables. Atendiendo no solo a la situación actual, sino trazando un horizonte para alcanzar un desarrollo sostenible.El diálogo permitió identificar áreas comunes de trabajo que posibilitan el reconocimiento entre actores en función de ubicar puntos de acción conjunta, tomando en cuenta las complejidades locales, al calor de los procesos globales. A su vez, este encuentro tributó positivamente en el fortalecimiento del tejido organizativo de la sociedad civil venezolana, propiciando un campo fértil para el desarrollo de propuestas innovadoras y adaptadas a las exigencias presentes en el mundo actual, desglosándose de ello un conjunto de insumos para el diseño de planes, políticas públicas e iniciativas con anclaje territorial que pudiesen mejorar la gobernanza sobre los recursos naturales.

NoEl método se estructuró con base a tres niveles de trabajo. En un primer momento se diseñó una consulta a través de una encuesta con un conjunto de temas con implicaciones directas sobre los sistemas alimentarios. Esta encuesta estuvo dirigida a un variado número de actores y organizaciones que trabajan en el área desde distintos ámbitos: (Comunitario, Académico, ONG). Este ejercicio permitió establecer un panorama de intereses que posibilitó la definición de temas que serían discutidos en el evento central realizado el 23 de junio del presente año. En un segundo nivel y en paralelo al proceso de consulta, se desarrollaron acciones a escala local en los territorios donde Acción Campesina tiene presencia con proyectos agro productivos. En este sentido se ejecutaron los denominados Diálogos Campesinos en 9 municipios de 5 estados de Venezuela. Esta iniciativa nos permitió conocer de cerca el planteamiento de 221 hombres y mujeres dedicados a la producción de alimentos en pequeña y mediana escala, del sector comercio, la institucionalidad pública nacional y municipal, artesanos, pescadores, emprendedores, organizaciones comunitarias, entre otras instancias de gran relevancia pertenecientes al sistema alimentario venezolano. Finalmente llegamos al evento central con 4 ponencias centrales. Una primera ponencia titulada “Los Sistemas Alimentarios desde la Agricultura de las Américas. Propuesta de temas para su transformación”, una segunda ponencia “Diálogos Campesinos: La Voz de la Agricultura Familiar, una tercera “Retos del Sistema Alimentario Venezolano para una Nutrición Adecuada” y finalmente una última ponencia titulada “Elementos Claves en la Dinámica Agroalimentaria Venezolana” Posterior a estas presentaciones se conformaron 5 mesas de trabajo abarcando los siguientes temas: Agricultura Familiar: Contribuciones a la Seguridad Alimentaria, Rol de la Mujer Venezolana y su aporte a los Sistemas Alimentarios, Sistemas Productivos en Venezuela: Desafíos para su Sostenibilidad, Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en Venezuela: Retos y Potencialidades, Retos y Desafíos Tecnológicos para la Recuperación de los Sistemas Alimentarios en Venezuela. A través de la plataforma Zoom se estructuró por separado cada mesa y cada una contó con un facilitador y un relator, así como con un tiempo estimado de 60 minutos para generar el conjunto de propuestas fijadas en el presente documento.

234238239240241243244247248El diálogo tuvo como centro de análisis los sistemas alimentarios en Venezuela, vistos estos desde un enfoque integral que permitiera ubicar sus principales debilidades, fortalezas y desafíos. En este espacio destacamos principalmente el papel de los agricultores familiares y las mujeres como actores fundamentales para alcanzar la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. El análisis se circunscribió en el contexto de la emergencia humanitaria compleja en Venezuela y la pandemia de COVID-19, la cual terminó de develar el conjunto de precariedades, realidades y carencias que afrontan los grupos antes mencionados en términos de infraestructura: vialidad, sistemas de riego, tecnologías agrícolas. En lo jurídico, un total desamparo por falta de titularidad de tierras y en relación a los servicios públicos, el deterioro progresivo de los servicios de agua, luz, gas, conectividad, así como el servicio de salud. Si bien estos temas se perfilaron como temas de mayor inmediatez y urgencia, el análisis se orientó a considerar que el enfoque de los sistemas alimentarios implicaba ver el concepto de Seguridad Alimentaria ampliamente y no como un concepto reducido a los problemas coyunturales de corto plazo, sino como una temática estructural que debe verse como un objetivo de desarrollo que requiere de esfuerzos multisectoriales e interinstitucionales para alcanzar la meta de eliminar el hambre. Con base a lo antes enunciado, se determinó la importancia de referirse a la Seguridad Alimentaria como un derecho humano. Sucesivamente se definieron un conjunto de líneas de trabajo vinculadas a las vías de acción. En relación a la vía de acción número 4 se abordó lo referente a las tecnologías, tomando en cuenta la creación de plataformas apalancadas por las nuevas tecnologías digitales, tecnologías para el monitoreo de sistemas de riego inteligentes, la creación de bancos de semillas y su mejoramiento genético. Sobre la vía de acción nº 2 se destacó la importancia de visualizar estrategias para mitigar el desperdicio de alimentos y en función de la vía de acción nº 3 se esbozaron ideas para el diseño de planes de capacitación a productores para un uso eficiente del agua considerando el manejo de cuencas y la gestión de agua de lluvias. Concretamente se insistió en hacer público un Plan Nacional de Sequía para monitorear sistemáticamente el impacto de las temporadas de lluvias sobre el sector agrícola, al tiempo que pudiese fortalecerse la lucha por la desertificación de los suelos a través de acciones de reforestación para atender los desafíos asociados al cambio climático. Finalmente se profundizó en la empleabilidad con especial atención en los sectores rurales, lo cual atiende a la vía de acción nº 4. De igual manera se abordó la promoción de distintas formas de asociatividad, bien sea a través de programas integrales de producción o programas de empresas que logren combinar características sociales y productivas.2352392402412422432442462472482492511. A través del diálogo se ha reconocido de forma consensuada que la pandemia por el COVID-19 ha agudizado la crisis venezolana, la cual ya tiene larga data y se resume en la declaratoria por Naciones Unidas de una Emergencia Humanitaria Compleja en el año 2015. 2. En función de ello se reconoce conjuntamente que mientras esta situación persista debemos fortalecer las ayudas humanitarias en lo que va de este año (2021) y el próximo (2022) tomando como referencia las acciones humanitarias en otros países. 3. Si bien el punto antes expuesto atiende a lo más inmediato y urgente, las discusiones han encontrado como punto común el trascender este enfoque a través del fortalecimiento de los medios de vida, con fines de superar el período de emergencia y pasar a la etapa del desarrollo del país, haciendo de la Seguridad Alimentaria un concepto amplio y estructural con enfoque de derecho. Esto nos convoca a su vez a mirar holísticamente las cadenas agro-alimentarias. 4. En virtud de estos elementos resulta importante preservar los sistemas de producción que han sobrevivido a la crisis general y en particular la crisis de la producción agroalimentaria nacional. 5. En relación al punto anterior es vital destacar el papel de los agricultores familiares con énfasis en la participación activa de jóvenes y mujeres, quienes han sorteado, en buena medida, parte de los embates de la crisis. Este reconocimiento a su labor pasa por desarrollar un marco jurídico favorable a través de políticas públicas que propicien condiciones para facilitar su trabajo. 6. Referirse a los agricultores familiares amerita seguir profundizando conceptualmente en este sector productivo y además tratar de dimensionar el tamaño e impacto de la agricultura familiar en el país. ¿Cuánto empleo se genera a partir de la agricultura familiar? ¿Cuánto contribuye a la alimentación de los venezolanos en términos de cantidad y variedad? ¿Qué tanta integración familiar pudiese estar produciendo a nivel comunitario? ¿Cuál es su contribución a la sostenibilidad ambiental? Partiendo del hecho que apelan a semillas autóctonas, abonos orgánicos, bioinsumos, cultivos asociados. 7. Este esfuerzo de medición requiere de un robusto sistema de recolección de información. En este sentido, se ha reconocido serias debilidades en la producción y socialización de datos por los organismos gubernamentales. Si bien las organizaciones de la sociedad civil, ONG’s y demás centros de investigación han logrado colectar un volumen de información importante con respecto a los sistemas alimentarios venezolanos y la seguridad alimentaria, toda una campaña de desacreditación y criminalización por parte del gobierno nacional recae sobre estas entidades dificultando incluso el despliegue en los territorios mediante la aplicación de sanciones. 8. Se reconoce conjuntamente que la aplicación de sanciones por el Estado venezolano ha debilitado considerablemente no solo la actuación en terreno, sino todo el tejido social organizativo comunitario. En buena medida se han desmembrado organizaciones productivas territoriales de gran trayectoria, en algunos casos siendo permeadas por el partido oficial de gobierno para convertirse en un apéndice del mismo. 9. De lo antes expuesto se deriva una necesidad colectiva de hacer una recomposición de todo el tejido social organizativo venezolano. De manera tal que, pese a las dificultades que puedan presentarse, existan organizaciones solidas con capacidad de respuesta en escenarios de fragilidad institucional y política. 10. Para responder a esta necesidad se visualiza establecer más plataformas colaborativas que sean sostenibles desde el punto de vista administrativo, que se tracen metas realizables y concretas que permitan alcanzar los niveles necesarios de solidez organizativa.236240241242243245246247249Tema de debate 1: Agricultura Familiar: Contribuciones a la Seguridad Alimentaria: 1. Dimensionar el aporte de la Agricultura Familiar a través de un estudio exhaustivo ¿Quiénes deben participar de este estudio? Las organizaciones de base, de la sociedad civil (OSC), el sector académico: universidades, centros de investigación, el Estado y las organizaciones multilaterales. Entre otros actores. 2. Crear un marco jurídico que garantice la propiedad para los agricultores con los mismos atributos que tiene cualquier propiedad (casas, vehículos, otros) 3. Diseñar políticas públicas y prácticas institucionales que favorezcan el desarrollo de la agricultura familiar abarcando: Asistencia Técnica, mejoramiento de la infraestructura: vialidad y telecomunicaciones, asistencia sanitaria y financiamiento 4. Instar al Estado venezolano a que garantice la seguridad de los bienes y las personas.236239241242246247249251Tema de debate 2: Rol de la mujer venezolana y su aporte a los sistemas alimentarios 1. El contexto de la pandemia por COVID-19 ha reforzado la carga de trabajo de las mujeres. Las mujeres manifiestan sentirse agobiadas por esta sobrecarga. Aunque no está tipificado en ley, como un tipo de violencia actúa como tal dado que el trabajo doméstico se ha incrementado debido a la suspensión de responsabilidades inherentes a la familia por parte del estado, imponiendo a las mujeres, jornadas de trabajo doméstico intensas causándoles: agotamiento extremo, reducción de tiempo para sí, tensiones sobre la administración de la casa y en algunos casos depresión ante la responsabilidad que recae sobre ellas. 2. Este escenario de tensiones se agudiza cuando en los hogares las mujeres han tenido que convivir con parejas violentas, enfrentándose a situaciones de violencia basada en género. 3. Ante estas situaciones es importante propiciar espacios formativos que posibiliten un ambiente de cooperación equitativa en relación a las diversas tareas de la vida cotidiana, a fines de que el hombre y demás miembros de la familia se conviertan en aliados de la mujer. 4. Deben fortalecerse las políticas públicas dirigidas a mujeres. Al tiempo que puedan mejorarse los canales de denuncia en caso de violencia de género. 5. En este sentido es importante el enfoque de género en cualquier abordaje que pretenda desarrollarse sobre los sistemas alimentarios venezolanos ya que las mujeres están desprotegidas desde el punto de vista alimentario y tienen una carga importante en la producción de alimentos. 6. El levantamiento de cualquier información para la creación de bases de datos con respecto a los sistemas alimentarios venezolanos debe estar transversalizada por el enfoque de género. 7. Existe una gran brecha con respecto al acceso a la tierra y los recursos en lo que refiere a las mujeres y son tareas pendientes sobre las que avanzar en términos de titularidad de tierras. 8. Deben desarrollarse medios de vida que posibiliten el empoderamiento de las mujeres en función de erradicar las desigualdades y brechas que tienen consecuencias por ejemplo en términos de violencia, trabajos riesgosos como medios de vida (prostitución y trata de niñas y mujeres) 9. Es importante impulsar redes de mujeres donde puedan develarse este conjunto de desigualdades. De manera que las mujeres puedan tener decisión sobre si y puedan manifestarse.236238239240241242244245246248249Tema de debate 3: Sistemas productivos en Venezuela: Desafíos para su Sostenibilidad. 1. Aumentar sustancialmente la producción agrícola vegetal y animal, para contribuir efectivamente a conformar una oferta de alimentos que sea suficiente, que contribuya al logro de la seguridad alimentaria con aporte mayoritario de la producción nacional 2. Usar tecnologías, prácticas agronómicas y productivas amigables con el ambiente, que garanticen mejoras de productividad y beneficios económicos para los productores que a su vez convivan con las tecnologías vigentes para ir generando progresivamente procesos de adopción de nuevas tecnologías menos susceptibles de generar impactos en el ambiente 3. Ejecutar un programa de reforestación nacional y de recuperación de las cuencas hidrográficas. Abordar la inseguridad personal y las continuas violaciones a la propiedad privada en las áreas rurales (invasión y expropiaciones de unidades de producción agrícolas) las cuales obstaculizan que la producción agrícola tenga mayor sostenibilidad236238239243244246247248249Tema de debate 4: Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en Venezuela: retos y potencialidades. 1. Activar el Sistema Estadístico del país, especialmente el relacionado con la seguridad alimentaria como son: Sistema de Vigilancia Alimentaria y Nutricional (SISVAN), La actualización de la Canasta Alimentaria Normativa y la Canasta Básica de bienes y servicios, La Hoja de Balance de Alimentos y las Encuestas de Consumo Alimentario, las cuales tienen un período de más de siete años sin actualizarse. 2. Reactivar el Comité del Codex Alimentarios como un mecanismo para el control de alimentos, no solo de los producidos en el país, sino también para los de origen externo de cara al factor inocuidad, como condición requerida en el consumo de alimentos seguros para toda la población. 3. Fomentar los diálogos intersectoriales y complementar acciones, para obtener mayor eficiencia y eficacia en la utilización de los recursos bajo la premisa de la Seguridad Alimentaria como Derecho Humano y mecanismo para el fortalecimiento de los medios de vida. 4. Elaborar un paquete de indicadores que permitan el monitoreo y la evaluación de las acciones y los resultados236239240241243244245246247248249Tema de debate 5: Retos y Desafíos Tecnológicos para la recuperación de los sistemas alimentarios en Venezuela: 1. Tomar acciones no solo en la producción primaria, sino en todas las funciones vinculadas a los sistemas alimentarios, desde la finca hasta la mesa partiendo de un enfoque holístico. 2. Fortalecer los desarrollos territoriales locales 3. Enmarcar todos los esfuerzos de los sectores productivos en el marco del cambio climático. No solo con relación a las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y la deforestación, sino en sus contribuciones con la des-carbonización, uso del agua y otros recursos. 4. Aprovechar las alianzas globales y regionales que se han venido conformando a través de plataformas donde participan múltiples actores para temas vinculados con la Agenda 2030, los 17 ODS y ahora la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios (incluyendo sus cinco vías de acción) ya que por esta vía se actualizan conocimientos y capacidades 5. Elaborar el Plan Nacional de Sequía y monitorear sistemáticamente el impacto de las temporadas de lluvias sobre el sector agrícola 6. Aumentar de forma drástica la innovación agrícola y el uso de las nuevas tecnologías por parte de los agricultores (de la agricultura familiar y otros) para eliminar la pobreza, satisfacer la creciente demanda de alimentos y hacer frente a los efectos adversos del cambio climático. 7. Desarrollar una reforma integral de los sistemas nacionales de innovación agrícola, mejorar la eficacia del gasto público y promover cadenas de valor agrícolas inclusivas con una mayor participación del sector privado.2372432462472491. Las actuaciones restrictivas del Estado venezolano con respecto al funcionamiento de las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG), organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC), organizaciones comunitarias, centros de investigación y otros, ha producido un temor de publicar datos sobre las situaciones encontradas. 2. En este sentido se considera prioritario facilitar la acción de las organizaciones de ayuda humanitaria, con fines de ejercer mayor libertad, considerando el bienestar de las poblaciones afectadas. 3. Este escenario de confrontación política actual en Venezuela debe atenderse conciliando los objetivos e intereses comunes de los sectores de la población más afectados, los más vulnerables. 4. Dirimir las diferencias pasa por establecer diálogos intersectoriales con activa participación de gobierno nacional, agricultores familiares, gremios agrícolas-agroindustriales, la academia entre otros actores. 5. En el marco de la mesa Sistemas Productivos en Venezuela: Desafíos para su Sostenibilidad un punto divergente importante fue que la reducción del uso de agroquímicos mejora la sostenibilidad pero ese no podía ser el único medio para la preservación del ambiente y la biodiversidad en Venezuela, ya que los sistemas productivos se encuentran muy afectados por la crisis y en un primer momento se tendrá que convivir con las tecnologías vigentes. Atender sistemas productivos tan afectados apelando en un principio a métodos agroecológicos podría disminuir sustancialmente la producción y los rendimientos agrícolas.

2021-07-10 12:03:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2321/87

730271740020280010560201011307100605011105020711

The idea to host the Seaweed Dialogues started with us recognizing the complexity of seaweed in India. We wanted to understand how we might build a better value chain for seaweed that puts people and communities at the centre. For the same, we brought together multiple stakeholders who were committed to this statement - either through being experts working with seaweed or experts from other parts of the food system who wanted to learn more about seaweed in India and share expertise from their own fields. By being active participants we understood the importance of inclusivity, trust and respect and envisioned this dialogue as a first step to complementing and building upon the existing community knowledge and scientific research keeping in mind the 2030 SDG’s. Special thanks to our conversational leaders, facilitators and experts for volunteering their time to drive this conversation: Madhu Sundaran, Snigdha Sehgal, Shivani Unakar, Khushboo Gandhi, Arina Suchde, Aaron Lobo, Anumitra Ghosh, Nandini Mehrotra, Avinash Kumar, Dhyani Pareekh, Amala Mhaiskar, Dhaval Vargiya, Nisha D'souza, Monica Kavale and Nichola Dyer.1. Act With Urgency: Participants were asked to visualize how the seaweed supply chain should function by 2030, as well as understand immediate actionables or steps that respective stakeholders can take to achieve those goals. 2. Commit to the Summit: Through our communications prior to the event and at the event, the Summit goals were mentioned. We had Vincent Doumeizel, Senior Advisor at United Nations Global Compact on Oceans and Director for the Food Programme for the Lloyd’s Register Foundation as our keynote speaker. Vincent emphasized on the need for more action and innovation on seaweed in India and how this dialogue and future dialogues on seaweed in India were important contributions to the Food System Summit goals. 3. Be respectful: Our moderator, Takshama Pandit, guided the participants over listening and participating through ones perspectives, experiences, and questions, keeping in mind diverse backgrounds within each breakout room. 4. Recognise complexity: We had Gabriella D’cruz, a marine conservationist with a Masters in Biodiversity Conservation and Management from the University of Oxford present a brief overview on seaweed in India to set the content and emphasize the complexity of the value chain. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Our dialogue aimed at creating a space for people from conservation, policy, innovation, food, technology to come together and discuss the present and future of seaweed in India. 6. Complement the work of others: Participants were encouraged to share perspectives, experiences, and questions. 7. Build trust: This dialogue on seaweed in India was the first of conversations by our project Seaweed Saturdays. Through our diverse backgrounds itself this dialogue tried it’s best to build a space to represent as many voices from the seaweed value chain.We encourage other dialogue convenors to emphasize the importance of involving multidisciplinary stakeholders. We felt that having individuals from academia as well as other professions allowed for a richer discussion. We were, unfortunately, not able to involve coastal communities directly in this conversation due to the technological gap, but instead invited individuals who have closely worked with them, and hope to involve the communities further during our next steps. We also believe that leaving the Summit with as many questions to ask, as were answered, is a good start since some of the topics being explored, like seaweed in India, are at a relatively nascent stage. We further believe that giving our complete attention to the Summit, while also pursuing other full-time jobs, was a challenge that proved to be easily overcome by planning in advance, and sharing the load with the team and volunteers.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251The Seaweed Dialogues in India were held to focus on mapping the seaweed landscape in India, and understanding how seaweed impacts ecology, climate change, livelihoods, and nutrition in India. In India, the states of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu dominate large-scale seaweed production. 282 seaweed species have been reported along Tamil Nadu's 1,000km (621 miles) coastline alone and in total, as many as 841 species of seaweed thrive along the Indian coast, though only a few are cultivated. The government’s policies are likely to stimulate production further across various states. As seaweed garners importance, we aimed at hosting a conversation that provided an understanding of what the seaweed space currently looks like in India. We also wanted to understand how it can engage audiences in safe production and responsible consumption of seaweed without adversely affecting biodiversity and the ecosystem. The Dialogues were aimed at creating a platform for a rich and engaging conversation from individuals, organizations, experts, and novice enthusiasts from various sectors. Since the industry is at its nascent stages in India, we invited participants from technology, policy, innovation, conservation, and food to discuss all the facets of seaweed. Our focus was to bring together as many experts, who often operate in silos, to come together and engage. We also began an online community called Seaweed Saturdays as a precursor to the Seaweed Dialogues to provide context to individuals who may have expertise in livelihoods, or innovation, but are still new to seaweed. The reason for bringing these individuals together followed Action Track #1 “Ensure access to safe and nutritious food”, as India has a high proportion of vegetarians who often lack protein, and seaweed has the ability to bridge that gap. It is touted as the next “superfood” but also holds the potential to meet the nutritional requirement for a larger population. This was a part of our conversation in the Discussion Group labeled “Conservationist Approach to Cooking and Eating with Seaweed,” We focused on Action Track #2 “Shift to sustainable consumption patterns” - by bringing in speakers and participants from demand markets, e.g. innovators and chefs. The goal of this was to look beyond seaweed as a superfood and explore how to sustainably use the ingredient. The conversation also involved how to sustainably source particular species of seaweed and the building of direct connections with the communities involved in farming and harvesting seaweed. This was a part of our Discussion Groups labeled “Sustainable Seaweed Innovation” as well as “Conservationist Approach to Cooking and Eating with Seaweed.” Action track #3, “Boost nature- positive production” was a part of our conversation on sustainably farming seaweed, and the Discussion Groups “Mapping Seaweed in India” and “Seaweed Production & Policy”. The first aimed at using technology to map seaweed species along our coastlines, while the second looked at the benefits of growing seaweed for the environment and coastal communities. It also evaluated how to do so conscientiously, and explored how policy can shape better practices. Currently, India has no policy that looks at seaweed, but as it increases the budget spends for seaweed, we wanted to bring in the discussion of how policy can be a tool in ensuring native species are encouraged and the biodiversity is retained, in an effort to balance people, planet, and profits. Action Track #4 “Advance equitable livelihoods” and Action Track #5 “Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress” were both a part of our Discussion Groups “Equitable Livelihoods” and “Seaweed Production & Policy”. We explored how the coastal communities, and primarily the women in these communities, can be provided fairer rates, and what can be done to safeguard their lives and incomes by evaluating safety standards and market practices. Post our dialogues, our focus remains to continue these multi-disciplinary conversations in an effort to chart the actions that are required to positively impact the production and consumption of seaweed in India via Seaweed Saturdays.235238239240241242243244246247248249251Drawing on the current situations of other supply chains like cacao, seafood, etc. we recognized that it's important to have conversations on seaweed in India now, at an early stage rather than in hindsight, when the industry has grown to a point where we don't have a lot of control over it. In the Discussion Group on Equitable Livelihoods, the conversation revolved around how organizations like C-Scapes would be responsible for translating the discussions and having conversations with coastal communities that are the most important stakeholders in the seaweed value chain. India needs more inclusivity, more safety standards, more involvement from banks and governments, and more research. Right now, the seaweed industry is dominated by a top-down or industry-led movement that looks at solely creating revenue from seaweed, but ideally, it should be from communities that are most affected and have the highest stake in this particular value chain. Safety standards and pricing could be improved too. In the group Mapping Seaweed, we saw that it's important to have a conversation about how we can map seaweed and look at its intrinsic value. India has incredible seaweed reserves that contribute significantly to our biodiversity. Hence, developing ways of mapping the seaweed so that we can secure it for current and future generations is essential. We need to do it inclusively and have stakeholders, such as members of the fishing community, also involved. In the group that focused on Nature Positive Seaweed Production, it was observed that there's not enough research to look at specific seaweed species. Right now, there’s a large push to farm Kappaphycus Alvarezii, and Gracilaria Xorticata, or seaweeds commercially viable for hydrocolloids. But if we're developing more food products or nutritional products, then we need to look at the farming methods that grow those types of species. Land-based seaweed production can also grow seaweed in an integrated way, for example with shrimp farms, and open ocean farming methods such as Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA), can be used wherein which seaweed can be grown along with other species like mussels, oysters, and certain local fish to mimic natural ecosystems. The next group, Sustainable Seaweed Innovation, explored how a range of seaweed ingredients could be produced for the health food market and the beauty industry. We saw that further conversations in innovation need to be guided by science as one may not want to get into a market where a rare seaweed is required, or a species is overharvested. We observed that it is important to have some safeguards developed along with the growth of these innovations. For the final group, Cooking with Seaweed, it was noted that seaweed has a lot of potential as a food source. Seaweed forests are very biodiverse and important for our coastline. Therefore, we need to first look at how we can have a precautionary and sensitive approach to cooking with seaweed before we exploit it for the market. The government is currently incentivizing the expansion of seaweed industries for pharmaceuticals, feed industries, etc. but we need to look at it in terms of conservation. We need to be asking a lot of questions at this stage, such as - Who are the main players in the current market? Who has the most power along the supply chain? How can we get more communities integrated into the system? Instead of a traditional top-down way of forming policy, we need to use a more localized and biodiverse approach to growing our seaweed industry. At last, an action plan needs to be more inclusive than the Dialogues held. It would not be fair to have an action plan that doesn't include more conversations with communities and stakeholders that haven't been mapped yet.236240244247249251Breakout Room 1 - Production and policy The most important outcome of this breakout room was the realization that India has inadequate policies for the safeguarding and sustainable harvesting of seaweeds. Four main policy gaps recognized were: 1. Lack of policy for the mapping and safeguarding of seaweed forests ( seagrass beds are notified as protected areas under the Coastal Regulation Zone Rules 2011, however seaweeds are not given this importance) 2. Lack of guidelines for the industry when it comes to the the sustainable harvest and production of seaweeds. 3. Lack of safety standards when it comes to communities ( largely women) harvesting and producing seaweeds in rough waters. 4. Lack of policy when it comes to using seaweeds in foods that have the potential to improve the nutritional quality of food ( for example - there was a suggestion to include seaweeds into common salt so it could be used as a natural form of iodized salt for communities lacking in iodine). When it came to discussing the actual farming of seaweeds there were additional gaps discussed were: - Lack of awareness of seaweed farming - Lack of information on local seaweeds and how to farm them - Low pay for seaweed farmers - Limited zones where seaweed can be grown ( limited to shallow bays and islands) whereas better production methods could allow for deeper water seaweed production Some suggestions for actions to close these gaps: - Toolkits and training for farmers to diversify into seaweed production - More research and funding into seaweed production (especially native seaweed) - Consider seaweed in food security policy - Private sector integration for support for seaweed-based nutrition - Diversification of aquaculture landscapes, of cultivated species, of seaweed based applications and solutions. Here there was the suggestion to use Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture (IMTA) to grow seaweed along with other species such as muscles and oysters. - Designing of different/safer seaweed farms to protect safety of coastal communities (mainly women) who farm, harvest and process (at present most of the women who harvest are dependent on men to drive the boat to the rafts/farms) - Hold seaweed consuming/ dependent industries accountable to fairly pay those at the grassroots. - Incentivize the use of seaweed based materials/products by shifting the perceived value of seaweed products The group also identified certain actors needed to take this forward - Researchers and research institutions - Farmers - Coastal communities - Private sector industries - Policymakers - Conservationists - Designers How could these actions come to fruition? - Incentivizing shifts in the existing models - Incentivizing procurement of seaweed - Incentivizing the expansion of landscape under seaweed production - Incentivizing the exploration of native species and their production and potential - By creating a shift in the value assigned to seaweed and its derived productions - By applying technology to make the use of seaweed-derived products more efficient, cost-effective and lucrative - By considering all stakeholders involved in the production and use of seaweed - By considering seaweed ecosystems as rich, diverse ecosystems, similar to land forests, and treating them as such.236240242243Breakout Room 2 : Seaweed Mapping This breakout room had an expert with a background in robotics and mapping. The expert discussed the various reasons mapping seaweed is important and methods through which this could be carried out. The group envisioned the seaweed value chain to be one where seaweed forests were mapped to understand their diversity and ensure harvesting and farming was carried out in a sustainable manner. 1. Transparency: Right from harvesting to remuneration, where it is going and what it looks like ecologically. All of these combined should make the value chain adaptable and manageable. 2. Data: To create an equitable industry around seaweed, we have to make sure that it is done without exploiting the ecological balance. Both in terms of food security and climate solution, seaweed is considered a great solution. But before we begin to extensively work within the ecosystem, we must have baseline data to work with to know how much can be harvested sustainably. We must collate this data before launching an industry around it. 3. Conservation: To create a sustainable supply chain we need to know where and what species of seaweed is present to better conserve them. Discovering tide pools, marine creatures, documenting species in the particular area will help provide an understanding of the intrinsic and ecosystem value of the seaweed forests 4. Coastline Management: Mapping seaweed can be useful for managing the coastline better and understanding the biodiversity and ecosystems present in these areas. The coastline is one of the most vulnerable spaces to climate change. It in addition isn’t very well regulated. The laws that can change the way the coastline looks in the future, as Goa has seen recently with the new Coastal Regulation Zone Plan. If seaweed forests are mapped - then the government can avoid designated spaces that have seaweed forests to ports or other large maritime infrastructure projects and can instead plan for demarcating these areas for conservation and as traditional fishing zones. What are the actions needed to create a climate-resilient, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable seaweed value chain? 1. Seaweed mapping can be carried out through Spatial Analysis carried out in macro scale where the whole coastline is documented bit by bit and they can be stitched together to create high resolution images. 2. This method can be used to identify potential tide pools or sites with seaweed. Satellite data and aerial drones are flown over the potential areas to collect the data. A tide pool mapping can be as short as 20-30 mins. Processing the data requires bandwidth and some technical skills. Most projects can be done within a week. Software like Mappillary can be used in the process. Challenging side is the actual plan and design for the particular project, the legalities, social, ecological, how to use the data etc 3.The data collected does not have to be technical, it can be done with a community of people as a learning experience. A GPS tagged photo is valuable as well in seaweed mapping or identifying sites. A collaborative approach would be very valuable in bringing out this outcome. Mapping seaweed forests can be a very effective citizen science initiative. 4. Identifying the species present in these areas are also incredibly important to the mapping process.Photos of marine species can be added to any citizen science platforms like iNaturalist helps you identify what you see can be a good learning experience and data for others.Using platforms available to everyone is extremely important to the mapping of seaweed and marine life present.These are all the different levels of mapping that vary from least expertise needed to the highest level where technology comes in the form of robotics. All of these methods will lead to more comprehensive data. 5. An ideal way of going about mapping seaweed forests and tidepools would be an interdisciplinary mapping process of the tidal ecosystem using tech, ecologists, social scientists etc.236238239248Breakout Room 3 : Sustainable Seaweed Innovation Sustainable Seaweed Innovation was one of the most attended breakout-rooms with attendees from a range of backgrounds ranging from chefs, to material designers to tech entrepreneurs. The following discussions took place with regards to imagining a seaweed value chain over the next decade. 1. More efficient ways of processing seaweed to allow for the creation of a larger range of products. The current processing method involves harvesting the seaweed wet, then sun drying it and storing it. The shelf life of algae varies according to climatic conditions and storage process, however there is a lot of intervention needed at the processing stage to be able to improve the quality of seaweed for the market. 2. A range of potential products were discussed including, biofertilizers from seaweed, polysaccharides from seaweeds, anticidal pesticides for the land based farming sector, plant based protein, new forms of superfoods for eg Energy gels, and seaweed masks. 3. There was also a conversation around Indian influenced seaweed products that could be created such as Chaas (buttermilk) + powder and seaweed garnish for various Indian street foods or fast foods. Plant based meats from seaweeds were also discussed. 4. There was also talk around making seaweed an affordable nutrient source and particularly protein source for everyone. One gets all the necessary micro and macro nutrients from one source i.e. seaweed. Dairy protein is not enough and cheese and milk is often not affordable for the masses. A protein rich and nutrient rich seaweed product would be a great product for the larger Indian market. 5. Different sectors of potential application could be explored such as energy, textile, print, fiber, packaging , adhesive, paint etc other than medicine, food, cosmetics and food additives. What are the actions needed to create a climate-resilient, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable seaweed value chain? 1. Start processing and manufacturing seaweed by-products in India. Example - Propylene Glycol Alginate is not made in India, Pectin price keeps fluctuating, so having a production of certain seaweed based gels that are currently not available would be an interesting move. 2. Adapting the taste of seaweed. Making it a direct edible food source. 3. Introducing new products in the market for direct consumers. Positioning it as a superfood. 4. Encouraging Startups to sell seaweed-based products. That will create demand. 5. More innovation needed for farming seaweed but also for processing and extraction of certain elements from seaweed. Which actors will need to be involved? 1. Large established businesses such as Amul and Tata Salt, that can create products such as a seaweed protein. 2. Local businesses who can encourage the growing seaweed industry 3. Government bodies to approve food licenses for seaweed based products. What are the tensions we have identified and how can we manage them? One of the main tensions identified was how the kind of seaweed industry that evolves, will influence the price and value of seaweed farmed or harvested. For eg the phycocolloid industry requires higher biomass of seaweed however the seaweed is bought from farmers at a low cost. In a similar way, even though there is an interest in creating seaweed based packaging, there is also the need to be cognizant about how making seaweed cheap enough to make seaweed bioplastic, will reduce the cost of seaweed at source. This will then impact not only the seaweed farmers as they will earn less per kg of seaweed but they might also continue to overharvest seaweed to make up for the lower price. Alternatively creating a high value market might lead to increasing the market price of seaweed and allowing the farmers a better income.236240241242243244246249251Breakout Room 4 - Equitable Livelihoods The following discussions took place with regards to imagining a seaweed value chain over the next decade. -Need for diversified livelihoods: Seaweed collection is highly seasonal (for example collection lasts only 2 months in Kutch). Different activities (fishing or tourism) can supplement income. -Training & Education: Group training programs across fisheries sectors can be a start to working towards integrating communities for diversified livelihoods. Educating farmers about processing, to help them understand the process and value of their product better. -Multi-trophic aquaculture approach: Local seaweed livelihoods simultaneously allow for other livelihoods like sustainable fish farming, farming bivalves, mollusks, and cleaning coastal water as well. -Support the small scale farmers: We need to devolve decision-making, include people in different subsystems and invite a diversity of people to a seat at the table. Seaweed farmers and fishers need to have stronger involvement in decision making. In India, whether seaweed farmers or fish farmers, they have a greater interest in biodiversity, and when they earn they spend in local economies. Bringing them into the decision making circles would be a way of strengthening the functioning of policies as well as making sure these policies are more effective on ground as they have been co-created. Self organization for better cooperation was also suggested. -Enabling infrastructure: Right now only a tiny fraction of the end price of coastal products reach the farmer. Farmers also need to understand the current seaweed value chain and be able to better influence prices. -Role of Women: Women are the ones managing the ecosystem at the local level and women in the coastal community are also some of the most affected by climate change. Coastal women need to be invited to decision making spaces and their aspirations and fears need to be addressed if there is going to be change in the industry. -Value chain building: There is a lot of economic stress felt by the fishing and seaweed farming community and an immediate shift in the industry could leave members without work and pay and that will be dangerous to the wellbeing of many members. If the supply chain is short and direct, there is less room for value to not accrue to farmers/collectors. Need for better means of impact assessments along the supply chain and having an end-customer education piece so people know and care about your equitable practices was discussed. -Policy: There is a need for policies for seaweed’s impact on climate change mitigation: eg could be Blue carbon credits and payment for ecosystem services -Data Gap: There is an enormous data gap when it comes to both mapping the seaweed supply chains as they exist today as well as mapping the ecosystems that seaweeds are extracted from and there is a need for reliable data within an institutional framework. Having the farmers be involved in it is also important. FAO collects some data, but it's very unreliable because it relies on country information, therefore local data is needed. Having someone be responsible for data whether an agency or university department or government is vital. What are the tensions we have identified and how can we manage them? One participant stated that the conflict between conservation and livelihood generation was present in some seaweed farming areas and there should be interventions that ensure this doesn’t happen on other farms. One of the participants had visited the Self Help Groups in the Gulf of Kutch to see how they harvest seaweed. The farmers said over time plastic pollution is increasing and oceans are warming and it now takes them longer to purify and clean seaweed, and the harvest is less in quantity as before. They mentioned that other farmers get subsidies on grinding machines, they would like this too. A certain Indian research institute had studied seaweed farming in closed ecosystems, however some of the species including kappaphycus alvarezii ended up escaping into the ocean. Safeguards for dealing with invasive or pest species of seaweed should be put into place.236239244248Breakout Room 5 - Cooking & Eating Seaweed Visualize how the seaweed supply chain or ecosystem should function by 2030 -Community/Farmers are taken care of and educated on the importance of harvesting sustainably -Fair pricing and minimal to no middlemen/agencies -Shorter supply chain -Local bodies/governments controlling policies -Less dependence on imported varieties -More consumer awareness/demand Actions needed to take this forward -Keeping the community at the core of the industry -Educating fisherfolk about seaweed cultivation and harvesting practices -Education and Awareness among coastal communities/farmers as well as chefs and consumers --Research and data records -NGO/Non-Profits working with local authorities to help create fair policies and make sure the industry is not exploited -Making sure to build upon systems that already exist rather than create a parallel industry -Research and data on mapping locations and suitable species of seaweed. Actors that need to be involved -Local panchayat/state governments -Local coastal communities -Marine Scientists -Conservationists -F&B Industry -Consumers Tensions that need to be resolved: -Overharvesting – Best way to manage this is constant training and education -Big industries/companies taking over areas and the coastal communities being exploited – Making sure the community has more control over the cultivation, harvest, and sale. Fair policies and support from authorities. -Lack of awareness and education among consumers – More research and information needs to be published to show people the importance of seaweed in our environment and our diets and ways to incorporate it into our regular meals237238239244248249In the Discussion Group “Sustainable Seaweed Innovation”, a divergence emerged concerning the use of seaweed for edible and non-edible purposes. Out of a group of over 25 people, only 3-4 individuals thought there was potential to use it for non-edible purposes. There were also a few strong comments on the fact that seaweed should not be used for packaging etc. There were also discussions on using non-edible seaweeds or by-products of edible seaweeds for packaging, textiles, etc. Seaweed markets: Some want to move into bioplastics and biofertilizers which is mass harvesting/ farming and low value whereas others feel more niche markets like food and cosmetics are better as they are low biomass and high value industries. Conflict between conservation and livelihood, wherein seaweed farms are touted as good for fisher livelihoods, however some seaweed farms that grow an invasive species of seaweed ( kappaphycus alvarezii) are harmful for the local ecology. An important discovery was that although there was a lot of interest in seaweed from the audience that attended the conference, members from the “ Sustainable Seaweed Innovation “ breakout room admitted to having no tactile or physical or visual connection with seaweed to explore applications. They expressed an interest in knowing more and there was also an apprehension in terms of not knowing what seaweeds are edible or not. There is clearly a need to explore the various ways in which people perceive seaweeds and how they can be further brought to engage more actively with the seaweed value chain.

2021-07-11 16:58:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27759/88

10201010302102714194256122058

We convened this independent dialog after learning about "Good Food For All" as a public campaign for the United Nations Food Systems Summit that aims to encourage thoughts and actions around food as a solution to drive prosperity for people and Planet Earth. This is not prescriptive but does prompt the question "what does 'good food' mean?" for various stakeholders in various locations. Good Food For All recognizes our emotional and cultural connection to food as a source of love and livelihood while reflecting the impact food has on all areas of human life. At the Dialogue Session we presented the Summit principles and objectives, followed by trigger speakers who are public speakers talking about what good food means for them, so that participants will be encouraged to share their opinions.ACT WITH URGENCY: We informed participants that the Dialogue provides input to Summit. Also that Mr. Guterres, the UNSG stated that food is a common thread that connects all 17 SDGs (to be achieved in 2030). COMMIT TO THE SUMMIT: We discussed the process of the Summit, including Action Tracks, and the three dialogues (global, member states, independent). BE RESPECTFUL: We informed participants about "GOOD FOOD FOR ALL," a campaign for the UN Food Systems Summit, and appreciate all inputs . RECOGNIZE COMPLEXITY: We provided examples of statemets prior to the independent dialogue, that will help participants understand the complexity, and what is expected. EMBRACE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER: Our participants are those showing interests in the food systems representing the variety of professions and locations. We also have trigger speakers, public figure that explained what good food means to them. COMPLEMENT THE WORK OF OTHERS: In addition to the sessions prior to the dialogue, participants share their professions and activities, supporting their opinions. BUILD TRUST:. We discussed the transparency of the summit process and information platforms, including an opportunity to be Food Systems Heroes, showing that the process is for all to be involved.Since the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 is a People's Summit, it is important to include wider audience in the Independent Dialogue. In other words, we should not limit the participants to those who work or active in agriculture and food only. AS an example we could invite bankers and creatives such as artists, musicians, painters, poets, etc.

Yes

234238239240243244246248251We convened the independent dialog on the occasion of UN Sustainable Gastronomy Day on June 18, 2021, with the following objectives: 1. To be familiar with the UN Sustainable Gastronomy Day and the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2. To learn about "Good Food For All" and record each participant's opinion and reflection on what Good Food means 3. To build a network of individuals who care about sustainable food systems and good food, and are committed to taking real action for humanity.235238239241243244248What "Good Food" means to our independent dialog participants could be categorized into" 1. Good Food means prepared with love and can unite family, friends, relatives or even strangers 2. Good Food means good for human and planetary health 3. Good Food means supporting local producers236238240241243247248251"Good Food means prepared with love and can unite family, friends, relatives or even strangers" Good food for one mother of three children is food that is prepared with love and can unite family, friends, relatives, or even strangers Good Food for a mother of four is nutritious food that meets the needs of children's growth and development, is healthy for metabolism, slightly processed, tastes good, cooked with love, purchased from local vendors and farmers, and provides physical and spiritual benefits for the family. Good Food food is food that relates to anyone involved in it (farmers, transporters of raw materials, cooks, etc.). Good food is our culture and our love for the food. What's important is that good food should only benefit anyone involved in it. Good Food is creating healthy future generations. Good Food is about love that creates positive emotions and comfort. Good Food is functional food that feeds our spiritual needs Good food creates intimate relationship, especially if it is delicious and nutritious with good quality236238239240241242243244246247248"Good Food means good for human and planetary health" Good Food is the source of human and planet health. Good Food is food with minimal supply chain, easy to process and environmentally friendly. Good Food is local food that is processed properly and protects the environment. Good Food has integrity and authenticity and defined by the ingredients, cooking techniques and simple preparation. Good Food is healthy food. Good Food means good for the palate, good for the body, good for the producer (in the supply chain), and good for the earth.236238239240241243244246247248"Good Food means supporting local producers" Good Food for one farmer means harvested from own garden and consumed on the same day. Good and organic food is one that can be traced to its origin, who the farmer is, where the seeds come from, what is the pattern of planting or cultivation, or even if necessary for what and to whom the product is sold. Good food is not only limited to food that is usually eaten and limited to taste. But it is also related to how much our lives are not influenced by things outside of us (the spirit of independence).It is necessary for us to improve the ability to process food even when (for example) there is no electricity or rice. That is the importance of mutual support and there is a bond of trust between producers and consumers, so that they can build an ecosystem, which has lots of plants in a mutualistic symbiosis with the surrounding environment. Good Food for one chef means local, fresh, minimum waste, organic based on trust, and obtained from first hand producers. So that farmers, fishers or foragers get much greater benefits. Good Food os good for health, good for local farmers, and good for economy. Good Food can support local producers and the sustainability of food sources. Good Food recognizes that food justice is intersectional.237241243247As we are collecting opinions on what good food means to individuals, there is no areas of divergence. Other participants are interested in hearing or reading what others have to say.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FLYER-WHAT-DOES-GOOD-FOOD-MEANS-TO-YOU.jpghttps://www.watyutink.com/topik/berpikir-merdeka/Good-Food-For-All

2021-07-12 06:31:07205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16789/202

Yes

Stage 1 National Level Food system dialogue2021-07-12 07:11:50https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Stage-1-Feedback-form-National-dialogue-of-3-June-2021-in-Harare-FINAL.pdf2021-08-05 10:10:57https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Stage-1-Feedback-form-National-dialogue-of-3-June-2021-in-Harare-FINAL-1.pdf

2021-07-12 06:49:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28965/203

120

First, we selected a topic that reflected the urgency of action while showing successful experiences from countries. The focus of the discussions was how scientists can better support policymakers in the design of integrated long-term strategies towards food and land use systems, that identify the synergies and tradeoffs of different courses of action. We selected a panel that could represent geographical diversity to show and compare different experiences, and common challenges, working on the same topic. Given the complexity of our food systems, the methodology that was discussed by the different scientists involves a series of stakeholder consultations to ensure that the pathways are technically feasible and that the results are owned by all stakeholders.1) Act with Urgency: The discussions focused on how scientist can support policymakers to design integrated strategies towards sustainable food and land use systems, raise the level of ambition and implement feasible strategies based on science and data. 2) Commit to the Summit: The discussions were centered on the need for a systemic approach to address the complexities, trade-offs, and synergies in food and land systems. The discussions connected key issues central to UNFSS Action Tracks, such as shifts towards healthy diets, land use, water management, climate, biodiversity, equity, socio-economic aspects. 3) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The panel showcased country cases where scientists are working to design mid-century integrated pathways towards sustainable food and land use systems, in consultation with multiple stakeholders including government agencies, industry groups, other scientists, etc. The panelists represent country teams that are part of a consortium of knowledge institutions from over 20 countries, working together across the globe with the same mission: to understand how countries can transition towards sustainable food and land-use systems. 4) Complement the work of others: The focus of the discussion was how scientists and policymakers work closer together and involve other stakeholders from across sectors, to develop integrated strategies. 5) Build Trust: The event highlighted the importance of transparency, open-access information, and evidence-based decision-making to achieve the transformation of food and land systems.It is important to have a geographically diverse panel and audience. This helps ensure the discussions and questions are comprehensive and reflect different points of view.

Yes

234238239240241243244246249250A comprehensive exploration of food systems. The presentations showcased how scientists critically assess synergies and trade-offs from transforming food and land use systems, focusing on equity and resilience. The discussion focused on how to strengthen the science-policy interface so that existing evidence can effectively inform policy and better use science to support the transition to sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems.2352382392402411. Need to promote a transition towards country-driven healthy diets: Call for the transformation of agri-food systems to ensure availability, accessibility, and affordability of healthy diets. To ensure healthy diets, countries need to also address inequities, poverty, and food insecurity. To ensure cultural appropriateness, government-led dietary guidelines should not only take into account health and climate but also the agronomic conditions and topography at the national and regional levels. This can help increase the acceptability and accessibility of healthy diets and thus facilitate the transition. 2. Need to ensure an equal transformation: The livelihoods of smallholder farmers should be at the center of these transformations. Policies promoting trade liberalization should ensure these benefit national trade balances and smallholder welfare. To ensure this, regulations to set standards are needed (e.g. preventing dumping). The African Free Trade Area is an opportunity to promote economic growth and regional resilience. According to the Report on Green recovery for Africa, investing in energy, food security, and nature-based solutions brings the best return in terms of jobs created and value addition. Climate-smart agricultural practices can help reduce climate impacts and increase resilience at the community level. Science-based evidence needs to be embedded in the trading system, prioritizing food security. Assessment of environmental impacts along the value and trade chain is essential if we want to achieve an equal sustainable transformation. 3. Need to align across sectors: There is increasing awareness and concern among policymakers about the urgency to act and respond to climate change and implement policies that are long-term. However, there is a lack of scientific assessments and tools that take a long-term perspective and that are accessible to all policymakers in all countries. In addition, policymakers are pressured by short-term goals and face silos between ministries. E.g., environmental and climate policymakers do not work closely with those working in agricultural and food policy. Countries need to align their national targets with the global targets on climate and biodiversity. They also need to align their national and subnational policies across food security, biodiversity protection, and climate change accordingly.236238239240241243244246249250Need for integrated long-term strategies for food and land systems: Countries need long-term integrated strategies that recognize the complexity of our food systems. Integrated assessment models can serve as a tool to support this endeavor. Integrating agriculture, climate, biodiversity, water, trade, and socio-economic indicators into one pathway can illustrate the system-wide implications of certain policies and support government decision-making. Climate change is eroding socio-economic improvements. African countries spend on average 5%/year of GDP on climate disasters, in some scenarios, climate change might cost up to 50% GDP by 2030. Moving forward, models should seek to improve the inclusion of key indicators, such as inequality, in their integrated assessments.237239240243244246248249250Areas that need further exploration: 1) We need to strengthen bottom-up approaches for the transition to sustainable food and land systems. Countries need to support and strengthen local scientific research, community engagement, and local knowledge to provide a country-specific pathway. Supported by shared knowledge, technology, and good practices, policymakers should adopt an approach that not only is integrated but also that is based on the local agronomic conditions, trade opportunities, and cultural heritage. This can increase acceptance and support for the transition to healthier diets, sustainable agricultural practices and sustainable consumption patterns. 2) We need to strengthen the integration between climate, biodiversity, food, and socioeconomic components. Modeling socio-economic indicators such as land abandonment, changes in cropland composition, and agricultural trade balance under mid-century pathways can help illustrate the impact that certain climate and agricultural policies can have on the economy, and particularly, on smallholder farmers. Further analysis and exploration on this topic are needed.

2021-07-12 08:14:47205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20005/39

9316622316726681041223513211331041151110237111910

The dialogue was jointly convened by the Council for Agriculture and Rural Development, the World Food Programme, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as part of a comprehensive National Food System Dialogue. A very diverse group of stakeholders joined the meeting, which also included small-scale farmers, consumer groups, and indigenous peoples who were invited to the dialogue and provided opportunities to express their opinions and thoughts that matter to them. Recognizing that food safety is a very complex, multi-sectoral, and multi-stakeholder issue means that inclusiveness and respect for other opinions and concerns are important for dialogue.Key players in food safety including the private sector, the regulatory bodies and government institutions, the development partners supporting the effort to improve food safety and other relevant stakeholders come together to discuss the issue. Representatives of all stakeholder groups were encouraged to participate and to express their views on strengthening food safety. This reflected the principles of inclusiveness and recognised the importance of multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approaches.In a complex, multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder discussion, it is critically important to emphasize to the participants that there is no right or wrong answer or opinion and that everyone’s voices and opinions count. This will ensure healthy discussion and richness of opinions and ideas. Be sure to give participants ample opportunities for questions and answers and make good use of the chat functions to provide opportunities for all participants to express their views.

NoWelcoming remarks were provided to set the scene and to provide perspectives from the UN and Government. Two keynote presentations on the status of the food safety in Cambodia and the role of private sector were delivered to lay the ground for discussion. The presentations were followed by a panel discussion composing of panelists from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology and Innovation, two private companies, and one Development Partner. Participants were invited to ask questions or to share their perspectives and the representatives of the Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Health as well as other key stakeholders provided their interventions and perspectives.

234238242243245246248249The dialogue brought together 93 participants from private sector, government, development partners, civil society, academia and research center, small-scale farmers, indigenous people who are involved either directly or indirectly in implementing or supporting the improvement of food system. The focus of the dialogue was to discuss the status of food safety in Cambodia and the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders, especially the private sector in improving food safety practices and ensuring that their foods are safe for consumption. The discussion covered the effort by relevant technical ministries in terms of regulatory frameworks, the importance of standards, the need for support to ensure effective implementation of the guidelines and standards, and compliance by the private sector with food safety guidelines. The discussion also covered strengthening the roles and responsibilities and contribution of stakeholders relevant to food safety. Perspectives from the private sector addressed the challenges and benefits of implementing international and national food safety management systems such as HACCP, ISO 22000, organic standards etc. The importance of understanding the behavior of the food consumer was also discussed. The results of the discussion will be important inputs to the development of Cambodia food systems roadmap toward 2030, the Cambodia SDGs agenda and to prepare for the upcoming global food systems summit in September 2021235238241245246248249251Food safety is a very complex challenge which come from both the supply and demand sides. Dealing with unsafe foods requires a holistic approach that involves every stakeholder to address the issues in the supply side, demand side, and regulatory framework and official control. While food safety has steadily improved in Cambodia, more needs to be done. Food safety is vital for achieving many SDGs particularly SDG 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 and closely linked to the achievement of positive nutrition outcomes. Food safety has profound impact on the effort to end poverty. The following are the main finding from the dialogue: 1) Food safety requires more attention, greater investment, and support in term of infrastructure and human capital, better regulatory frameworks, and measures that promote behavior change 2) Further need to strengthen the enforcement of regulations, define clearly the jurisdiction and responsibility of relevant technical ministry in implementing the guidelines, rules and regulation and the participation of all relevant stakeholders 3) Private sector is a key actor in driving and promoting food safety and needs further support, both in term of technical assistance, including capacity building for staff and management, and finance are needed to support them to implement food safety management system. 4) There are sound business cases for implementing a food safety management system. The benefits outweigh the cost of the implementation of such a system and have been further highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic.236238245246248249TOPIC 1. Status of food safety in Cambodia and the role of private sector Thousands of people are affected by foodborne illnesses because of improper practices in food preparation such as the use of unsafe water or raw materials and cross-contamination. The burden of foodborne diseases to public health and welfare and to the economy is substantial. Consumer violations or misuses of chemicals and preservatives by food processors or retailers. The food safety issues have a negative impact on the nutritional outcome especially for vulnerable and marginalized population. The current food production systems in Cambodia are mainly relying on a multiplicity of micro- and small-scale producers, operators or businesses, make it challenging to assure the delivery of safe food. Uncontrolled use of pesticides and antibiotics, poor infrastructure such as cold chain and handling practices including hygiene and sanitation, inadequate value addition- packing, labelling etc. making the products non-competitive in markets. Poor food safety compliance is leading to poor market access. Poor handling, transportation and processing conditions lead to 15 to 25% of post-harvest losses. The current food safety policy and legislation are not fully risk-based and are fragmented - it is a multi-ministerial responsibility. Food safety is a partnership endeavor and a shared responsibility between all stakeholders including the private sector, public institution, academia and consumers. The private sector needs to embrace a market-driven approach and improve their operating practices to improve their productivity, lowering the production cost through better management. The regulatory system needs to be fully risk-based in its operation. Coordination and linkages between relevant agencies and their capacity need to be strengthened. Universities have greater role in supporting both private sector and the regulating agencies. University-government-private sector linkages and collaboration can lead to innovative models and food safety solutions. Consumers and civil society have a very important role in contributing to food safety culture. Journalists and media can create greater awareness of the importance of food safety. The private sector is a key player in ensuring food safety as it underlies the entire food system. The majority of foods are produced, handled, processed, distributed, and sold by private sector. The private sector has the responsibility to ensure their products are nutritious and safe for consumption. The implementation of food safety management systems brings lots of benefits to the private sector, including increased consumer and government confidence, ensuring safe food, reduced legal and insurance cost, reduction in production cost, improved product consistency, improved staff and management commitment to food safety, decreased business risk, and costs associated with due diligence defense in court.236238245246249TOPIC 2. Policy and legislation Food safety and quality from farm to table are managed by 6 ministries namely Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology and Innovation (MISTI), Ministry of Commerce (MoC), Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), Ministry of Health (MoH) and Ministry of Tourism (MoT). The roles and responsibilities of each Ministry are defined in the inter-ministerial Prakas 868. A draft Food Safety Law is under review and long-awaited. MAFF is responsible for all registration and/or permission to establish and operate food business at primary production and primary processing. MAFF has developed several voluntary standards such as CAM GAP, CAM Organic, Good Livestock Practices, Good Aquaculture Practices, and a Participatory Guarantee System. Any primary production or primary processing firms can apply for a certificate of compliance with the above standards by following these four steps: 1) registration; 2) audit/inspection by MAFF official; 3) Sample analysis; and 4) Issuance of certificate. MAFF also provides regulatory support, trade facilitation, facilitates contract farming, provides public services and goods and promotes agriculture modernization for primary production and primary processing. The Law on Sanitation and Phyto sanitation is also implemented by MAFF. MISTI is responsible for all registration and/or permission to establish and operate food business at secondary processing. The Institute of Standards of Cambodia (ISC) of MISTI has adopted and produced standards to support SMEs and industry so that they can produce safe, quality and environmentally friendly products that are good for humans and the environment. So far more than 300 standards related to food have been developed, both voluntary and mandatory. More than 900 standards in total were produced and adopted. Government policy is to promote quality and environmentally friendly products. Standards were developed with input from all stakeholders, including the private sector so they must be respected. Food must be safe to consume and improve quality of life and contribute to economic development. The Directorate-General of Consumer Protection Competition and Fraud Repression of the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) is the responsible agency and lead for coordination in promoting effective and efficient implementation of market surveillance of businesses trading in the market. The Law on Food Safety first drafted in 2016 is expected to be enacted by the end of 2021. The development of the Law on Food Safety is spearheaded by MoC. Other regulations include the Consumer Protection Law, committee on consumer protection. The Competition Law to be enacted this year. The MoT is responsible for all registration and/or permission to establish and operate food business at the tourist canteens and restaurants and inspection of compliance to the tourist standards and norms. The MoH is responsible for leading effective and efficient coordination in the implementation of the following tasks related to food safety in the consumer sector: 1) preparation of policy, legal framework on hygiene and sanitary standards; 2) providing input to standardization regarding consumer health perspective; 3) monitor and inspect hygiene and sanitation of food and food business dealing with consumers; 4) prepare and implement programs promoting compliance with hygiene and sanitation requirements; 5) implement verification programs and issue hygiene and sanitation assurance certificates for food business selling to consumers; 6) prepare and implement a general plan for crisis management and emergency response to address, minimize or to prevent risks predicted or arising at the final stage of consumption.236238246248251TOPIC 3. Challenges and benefits of implementation of food safety management system There are both challenges and benefits in implementation of food safety management system including the HACCP, ISO 22000, and organic standards. Practical challenges as shared by the private sector include: the lack of awareness, motivation and capacity by the management and staffs to implement the requirement of the standards; the cost of implementation which include the consultancies, trainings, modification of production process flows, building, new equipment, certification fee and additional staff cost; staff complaint (at the initial stage) of difficulties to implement; difficulties to maintain the standard throughout. The implementation of organic standards is challenging as it also needs to deal with farmers and small-scale producers. Lots of trainings and refresher trainings need to be conducted to raise awareness and build their capacities. The implementation of the food safety management system offers lots of benefits in return such as: increase quality of the products, improve quality consistency and product shelf-life; improve productivity as staffs and workers fully understand their role and responsibility and reduction of the product defect; improve commitment of management and staffs on food safety; increase consumer and government confidence and support; build brand and reputation; gain trust and is the door to super market and export; reduce wastages; and reduce the production cost. To successfully implement the food system management system, it is imperative that everyone at the company is sensitized to its benefits, understand what is required of them, and that everyone is on board with the system, including both existing and new staff and workers. Training should be provided to raise awareness and build capacity of the management, workers and staff and should be refreshed regularly. The successful implementation of the food safety management system is only possible with commitment, perseverance, patience and teamwork. Despite the obvious benefits of the food safety management system, lots still remains to be done to scale up. Support is needed for both technical and financial assistance including capacity building for staffs and management. There are also needs for greater awareness among the consumers and general pubic on food safety and generate the demand for safe foods.237238246249250The food safety policy and legislation are a multi-ministerial responsibility and the control of food safety and quality falls under the jurisdiction of 6 ministries. The roles and responsibilities are still overlapping with each other. Clear roles and responsibilities and an excellent coordination mechanism are required.

2021-07-12 10:48:54205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33635/95

10911037

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Municipal Governments (Tenei Village, Iwate Town, Shima City, Yosano Town, Kamikatsu Town, Aya Town) held on 11th May 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. Then, participants from the local governments introduced their efforts on transforming food systems of each municipality and achieving SDGs, followed by exchange of opinions.

234238239240241242244248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244248249The dialogue with Municipal Governments (Tenei Village, Iwate Town, Shima City, Yosano Town, Kamikatsu Town, Aya Town) was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-07-12 10:59:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20471/135

Yes

2021-07-12 11:15:01205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26968/95

1211112210

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Ishikawa, Shiga, Kumamoto and Okinawa Prefectural Governments held on 12th May 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. Then, participants from the local governments introduced their efforts on transforming food systems of each prefecture and achieving SDGs, followed by exchange of opinions.

234238239240241242244248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244248249The dialogue with Ishikawa, Shiga, Kumamoto and Okinawa Prefectural Governments was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-07-12 11:33:01205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26937/95

5413232

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with National Chamber of Agriculture (NCA) held on 21st May 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. Then, participants from NCA introduced their efforts on transforming food systems and achieving SDGs, followed by exchange of opinions. * National Chamber of Agriculture (NCA) is a national organization representing the positions of agriculture and farmers at large to achieve sound development of agriculture in Japan. NCA is also an organization playing a role in agricultural administration of Japan whose members include chambers of agriculture in each prefecture, Central Union of Agricultural Co-operatives(JA-ZENCHU), federations of agricultural cooperatives and experts on agriculture and whose business is closely related to agricultural committees in each municipality as the national network institution of agricultural committee. The main business includes - gathering farmers’ opinions and submitting them to relevant administrative organizations, - fostering and securing business farmer resources, and supporting their management improvement, - securing fine farmland and consolidating farmland to business farmers, providing information on national agricultural policy - basic investigation on farmland and agricultural management such as farmland price and farming wages which is indispensable for agricultural policy. NCA recognizes Food Systems Summit, which will be held in this September, as a very important opportunity to transform the awareness and action of agricultural committees and farmers for establishing sustainable food systems. Therefore, NCA was engaged in the dialogue with the government of Japan and, based on the resolution at the third national convention of chairmen of agricultural committees, proposed following opinions.

234238239240241242243244248249251In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242243244248249251The dialogue with NCA was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-07-12 12:00:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20672/123203

19011575

The following principles engagement were used: 1. Act of urgency: The economic and demographic transitions has been increasing the meat consumption resulting in increased use of land and other agricultural resources. Besides, high consumption of animal-based protein is associated with diet-related diseases like obesity, heart diseases, and cancer. All these call for a urgent actions to promote a responsible production and a healthy consumption pathway striking a balance between animal and plant protein. The dialogue was organized in respond to this urgent call. 2. Commit to the Summit: Asian Development Bank is committed to transform the current inefficient food system in developing countries and to support the UN initiatives in this regard. The participants of our dialogues acquired a better understanding of different aspects and complexities of the food system and hence are better prepared now to participate in the Food Systems Summit. 3. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The dialogue brought together different stakeholders from private sector, government, academia, development practitioners in the same table to exchange ideas and experiences. 4. Complement the work of others: The dialogue organized with partnership and participation with a number of organizations which provide the opportunity to collaborate and complement the works of one another.1. The dialogue used Mongolia as a lens country to discuss how to promote responsible production and healthy consumption pathways. It involved the country director of ADB Resident Mission and FAO country residential representative along with the Secretary of Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia facilitate the actionable recommendations of the dialogue. 2. The dialogue involved experts from Wegenerian University and University of Agriculture Faisalabad to discuss different aspects of the food system, and importance of balanced between animal and plant-based protein. These discussions were followed by practitioners and development financiers on how to build a resilient food system. 3. The dialogue was organized in partnership with the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and with the participation of the World Vegetable Center, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, private sector, and academia. 4. The dialogue discussed how ADB, IFAD, European Investment Bank, World Organization for Animal Health, World Vegetable Centers, and Mastercard can work together in the coming days by complementing one another’s work.No.

Yes

234240244245246249The dialogue explored Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production, instrumental to Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. The dialogue discussed how demographic and economic transitions have shifted toward increased meat consumption globally, but at a faster rate in Asia, led by the People's Republic of China. Meat production and consumption are associated with several diet-related and zoonotic diseases as well as greenhouse gas emissions and increased use of land and water. This has intensified the feed–food competition that has made the production of crops required to feed the growing world population more difficult. The discussions were divided into two sessions and highlighted the need for a new strategy involving responsible production with reduced environmental footprint and healthy consumption that balances between animal and plant-based food. The first session used Mongolia as a lens, a vegetable-importing and meat-exporting country, where the traditional seminomadic pastoral livestock sector accounts for about 90% of agricultural production and employs 1 in 4 Mongolians. Ongoing and planned activities of development organizations to promote the responsible production of livestock and vegetables were discussed. The keynote presentation by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) provided the country context and a summary of ongoing initiatives promoting green agriculture and resilient recovery from the impacts of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Succeeding discussions from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Wageningen University and Research, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and World Vegetable Center focused on the following aspects: (i) key government initiatives required to support the transition towards obtaining protein from more diverse and resource-efficient sources; (ii) keeping vegetables safe for consumption; (iii) strengthening regional collaboration in the Asia-Pacific region to promote animal health; (iv) priority investment areas to retain the freshness and nutritious value of vegetables in the transition from field to plate; and (v) the main lessons learned from pilot interventions in Mongolia to build green livestock and how to scale up the industry. The second session discussed how to transform agricultural value chains into sustainable and productive ones while delivering nutritious food. The keynote presentation laid the importance of food system transformation to build back better, barriers in scaling up food system transformation with sustainable financing as the biggest challenge, and efforts by ADB and partners to address the financing gap through the establishment of an Innovative Natural Capital Financing Facility (INCFF). Discussions by Mastercard, International Fund for Agricultural Development, ADB, and the European Investment Bank (EIB) followed the keynote presentation. The key areas of discussions include: (i) building farmer networks as an agricultural e-market place to digitize supply chains to convert smaller holders in Asia into agents for digital agriculture; (ii) promotion of an integrated, inclusive, and green recovery, deviating from the rural–urban dichotomous development paradigm; (iii) identification of initiatives of development organizations, like ADB, to increase private investments to build green livestock; (iv) sharing of experiences in promoting “nutrition-sensitive” agriculture in other areas in Asia; and (v) establishment of a natural capital financing facility for biodiversity conservation and nature-based solution to promote balanced diet.235240The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and magnified the vulnerabilities of food systems. At the same time, it catalyzed innovative interventions (e-commerce and digitization of the value chain) to supply food to consumers. Mobilizing investments in transforming food systems towards sustainable and nature positive production systems is key to ensuring the success of green and resilient recovery. Moreover, initiatives to recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic must take these innovative approaches into consideration to help deliver on the SDGs, particularly SDG2 (zero hunger), SDG 3 (good health and wellbeing), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 13 (climate change action), SDG 14 (life below water), and SDG15 (life on land). Mongolia needs to focus on the whole livestock sector value chain to penetrate the global meat market. Also emphasized was the need for improving rangeland and pastureland management and utilization as well as the adoption of the “One Health” approach that recognizes the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment. ADB, EIB, and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) have initiated a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach in Mongolia to promote green growth, including the livestock sector. Under this approach, a total of $750 million will be invested in the country to: (i) provide small investments for better rangeland and grazeland management; (ii) improve cooperative management through the infusion of additional working capital and provision of needed infrastructure; (iii) provide financial intermediaries with low interest loans for herders; and (iv) provide guarantees and grants to the private sector with the agreement that they will buy from herders who have committed to better rangeland management. It is worth highlighting that these recommendations have big potential for replication in member countries of the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program as their food systems are also dominated by livestock consumption. ADB and OIE agreed to partner on: (i) promoting animal health; (ii) supporting the safe trade of animals and animal products relating to standards and regulations; and (iii) instituting appropriate policies and regulations utilizing the One Health approach in developing Asian countries, including Mongolia. The upcoming country partnership strategy of ADB for Mongolia revolves around sustainable and inclusive recovery with three strategic priorities: (i) inclusive social development (social protection, health, and education); (ii) climate resilient infrastructure; and (iii) building strength and resilience of the rural economy. Specific focus will be given to the transformation of food systems by promoting an integrated approach for development, a notable departure from the rural–[urban dichotomous development paradigm. Also, export promotion (including livestock) and trade linkages will be given importance in the partnership strategy. In making plant-based proteins affordable, the proposed approach is to look at production and consumption together and address the issue of “feed–food competition” through increased livestock production while simultaneously looking for alternative potential crops for feed. Complementary to this, postharvest losses of vegetables have to be reduced and the nutritious value of food has to be retained from field to market by setting up an effective production and marketing system. Collection centers around production areas in the cold chain and other agri-logistics must be developed in the hinterlands. Some of these centers can work as terminal markets while others can specialize and serve the function of an assembly market depending on the need of the locality. These centers will also require organized transport to carry goods from farms. These centers should also provide spaces for sorting, cleaning, grading, packaging, and storage in consideration of the strong seasonal nature and diverse quality of production. The role of vegetable cultivation between two harvests of main cereal crops in a rice-based system was also identified as an effective way to increase the availability of plant-based protein. The importance of developing new vegetable varieties that are resistant to abiotic and biotic constraints, and rich in protein was emphasized. ADB has partnered with the World Vegetable Center to facilitate policy and institutional support in this regard with the view of strengthening collaboration in the coming days. ADB is working with partners in developing the INCFF to scale up much-needed investments in transforming food systems. The focus of this new facility will include: (i) leveraging private sector participation for enhanced ecosystem services; (ii) linking investments to agricultural insurance products to help farmers manage risks; and (iii) using the platform to help minimize food losses and food waste. ADB, EIB, and GCF have confirmed to work together to set up the INCFF to support green agri-business platform while the International Fund for Agricultural Development and FAO can potentially join this important endeavor later after further discussions. This dialogue brought together a number of development organizations and created an opportunity to kickstart an innovative financing platform to transform our food system for a green and resilient recovery, and future.237Nothing

2021-07-12 13:26:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29367/203

57013231052823311191111041319223245161211311

All seven Principles of Engagement were incorporated into the design and delivery of this Dialogue. The moderator, keynote speaker, panel members, and team reinforced the Principles both during and after the event, through the messages we delivered throughout, and by the interactions between the presenters and the audience. A broad variety of stakeholders were invited and attended. Even though the topic was, necessarily, scientifically focused, we designed the event to be accessible and to allow for maximum participation, through audience polls, live chat responses, and an extended Q&A session. The message transmitting the Report also highlights the Principles.Act with Urgency: One of the speakers highlighted the importance of rapidly bringing the seaweed industry “out of the Stone Age.” Commit to the Summit: The moderator highlighted the relationship of this event to the Summit and invited participants to consider which messages from this Dialogue should feed into the Summit. Be Respectful: All participants were treated with respect. Different perspectives were encouraged. Recognize Complexity: The topic of seaweed domestication and its ramifications within the food system represent the complexity of our food system more generally. Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity: The event was designed with interventions from speakers from Africa, East Asia, Europe, South America, and North America, drawn from various stakeholder groups. Participants attended from around the world. The invitation was sent to a broad range of stakeholders, with encouragement for onward sharing. During the Q&A, attention was paid to queries from people who were not previously known to the organizers. All questions posed in the chat that did not receive live responses in the event were included in a follow-up Q&A Annex to this report, with responses from the speakers. Complement the Work of Others: Seaweed domestication is a nascent topic. The speakers highlighted their own and others’ ongoing research and pointed to the significant research agenda in this area. Build Trust: Different perspectives were invited and welcomed.There are many ways to allow for inclusivity in these Dialogues, even if breakout rooms are not used. We used audience polling – some serious, some slightly humorous – to draw the participants in and help them feel more part of the event. We actively encouraged chat participation, with questions receiving close to real-time responses in the chat. Several questions received live responses during the Q&A session at the end of the event. Sourcing help from graduate students significantly enhanced the quality of this Dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249251The event focused on seaweed domestication, with attention to its potential to contribute to achieving the SDGs, especially its contributions to SDG2. Drawing on presentations by leading researchers and practitioners, the event demonstrated the significant potential of seaweed to contribute positively to the food system, as well as the multitude of open questions and the broad research agenda that remains.235238239240241242243244246248249251Safe and responsible seaweed domestication could lead the path in restoring ocean diversity and sustainably feeding the world. There are many avenues for seaweed to contribute to achieving SDG2 beyond direct human consumption. Seaweed is part of the global ecosystem. It can be used to feed land and ocean animals and participate in the planet’s biodiversity. Seaweed can boost nature-positive food production, advance equitable livelihoods and promote social, gender, and economic equality. Growing seaweed has high potential to help combat climate change. It is a nutritious food source, high in carbohydrates, necessary minerals, and vitamins. Over 20% of all aquaculture production is seaweed. The seaweed domestication process should be “eco-evolutionary,” using integrated knowledge of ecology and genetics to promote sustainable seaweed production. The future of seaweed domestication should be based on sustainable management practices. Management practices remove competitors and modify species' environments, which maintains the species' evolutionary potential without reducing genetic diversity. Long-term domesticate-domesticator interaction eventually leads to mutualistic coevolution. There is research and development on improving seaweed biomass yield by selective breeding and non-genetic morphology modification. Current research is focused on improving seaweed light harvesting by optimizing the morphogenesis and physiology of the plant. For communities impacted by overfishing, seaweed production could be an alternative. Current seaweed harvesting and cultivation methods are very labor-intensive, inefficient, and low-tech. There is a need for innovative solutions to pull the industry “out of the Stone Age”. Seaweed farming creates jobs for coastal communities, particularly women, advancing social, gender, and economic equality. A transparent seaweed production industry will protect the producer, consumer, and the environment. Climate change poses a growing challenge to native seaweed domestication. High water temperature promotes the growth of diseases and epiphytes. New strains were imported from the Philippines to maintain the seaweed industry in Tanzania. There is limited research on native seaweed strains in Tanzania and the environmental impact of imported strains. There is a lack of seaweed food products in Western markets. The seaweed food market is limited by low shelf-life, low consumer awareness, and acceptance. There is a need to streamline the supply and demand side of seaweed as a sustainable food source. Seaweed domestication needs clear guidelines to avoid genetic and environmental pollution while providing safe, socially, and economically responsible opportunities for the communities.236240242243244Evolution of Seaweed Domestication The future of seaweed domestication is an “eco-evolutionary process” via safe and responsible management practice. Domestication is a long and complex process during which domesticators select and modify organisms that can develop well in the domesticator's environment. Domestication can cause a reduction in species genetic diversity and biodiversity when done poorly without holistic ecology, biological and environmental consideration. In addition, when transplanting seaweed into a new region, we are also at risk of importing pests and diseases that could spread to native seaweed. Therefore it is important to consider genetic and environmental pollution during the domestication process. Local varieties should be the focus of the local seaweed domestication process, allowing producers to preserve genetic diversity and biodiversity. The “eco-evolutionary process” focuses on best management practices and breeding strategies that maintain the domesticates’ evolutionary potential. The seaweed domestication effort should be led by producers and supported by Government, the local community, and the academic community.236241242251Role of Gender in the seaweed industry The seaweed industry offers new economic opportunities for women especially in developing regions. There will be challenges in opening the pathway for women in the seaweed industry, in particular family and community restrictions. Culture and society norms expect women to stay at home, not in the field. To break down these barriers, as a community we need to encourage women’s participation, demonstrate and show that opening up opportunities for women will increase everyone’s livelihoods. There are opportunities for governing bodies and NGOs to kick start, promote, and empower women in the industry.236238239240241242244246Seaweed’s potential contributions to the achievement of SDG2 There are many avenues for seaweed to contribute to achieving SDG2 beyond direct human consumption. Among them, seaweed beds in marine ecosystems can provide many services including for other fisheries that depend on seaweed production. Seaweed can be used to feed land and ocean animals and participate in the planet’s biodiversity. Seaweed domestication contributes to food safety while combating climate change. It is already an important ingredient in coastal communities' cuisine. Seaweed aquaculture can substitute and supplement high emission and high-intensity land-based agriculture. By switching from meat and fish to seaweed, we can reduce the food security pressure faced by the existing food system. It is an untapped resource with high potential. In addition to being a sustainable food source, seaweed cultivation is part of regenerative aquaculture. A transparent and unified seaweed supply chain and the market will promote safe and sustainable domestication, production, and consumption. Government, NGOs, and industries need to actively support the entire seaweed industry supply and demand side.236240242243244250Importance of advancing research Climate change poses an imminent challenge to seaweed domestication. Native seaweed that grows naturally is at a higher risk of adverse environmental conditions, diseases, and epiphytes. Production of native seaweed is decreasing due to rapid and unpredictable environmental changes. Currently, there is a lack of research and knowledge of native species. Imported domesticated strains could become invasive and occupy the space of native species. A joint research effort between seaweed producers and academia is needed in improving seaweed biomass yield and climate change resilient seaweed strains. Currently, there is an ongoing effort to develop higher-yield seaweed strains while avoiding genetic and environmental pollution and maintaining local ecology. NGOs, government, and industry could support the research effort with additional funding, collaborations, and open science policy.236240241242244248251Developing new farming technologies Seaweed production Innovations are highly valuable and impactful. Pioneering of new technologies needs open conversation between developers, producers, local ecologists, and the surrounding communities, throughout the development process and beyond. All key stakeholders need to be flexible and adaptive to unexpected change. Due to climate change and the rise in ocean temperature, traditional shallow farming techniques are suffering. Instead, producers are forced to develop new deepwater farming technologies. Transition to deep water farming requires additional capital and labor. There is a need to develop new seaweed farming technologies to be resilient to environmental changes. The goal is to build a model community with better farming practices, by collaborating with local NGOs to analyze human behavior and attitude toward environment-friendly practice. In addition, new farming technologies should encourage, promote and protect women to participate fully in the production chain. Technology should advance equitable livelihoods and promote full and productive employment.236238239248Creating a market for value-added seaweed products Except for East Asian markets, there are very limited seaweed-based food products in the global market. The seaweed market is restricted by short shelf life, limited consumer awareness, and acceptance. We need to put the effort into marketing seaweed as a safe, nutritious, and delicious food source. We also need to seek out natural and organic preservatives methods to extend shelf life. Seaweed has a high potential for rapid adoption in diets if it is promoted in the right context. Such rapid adoption could significantly increase demand. To increase consumer acceptance, seaweed should be included in local food, starting with restaurants. The world is craving new, delicious, and sustainable food. Seaweed is a very good contender. A transparent supply chain and market can establish seaweed as a safe, delicious, nutritious, and sustainable food source.236238240244250The need for rapid evolution in seaweed domestication Food insecurity and climate change are growing challenges in the upcoming decades. Seaweed domestication offers a sustainable solution for both. Domestication is a way to increase seaweed production levels to meet both challenges. Every stakeholder along the supply and demand chain can promote the growth of seaweed domestication. Clear regulation is necessary for safe and responsible seaweed production. Rapid evolution is needed to tackle the challenges we are facing. However rapid evolution comes with higher risks, such as genetic or environmental pollution, biodiversity reduction, or negative unintended social and economic impact. Long-term domesticate-domesticator interaction eventually leads to favorable mutualistic coevolution. There is a tradeoff between rapid growth of seaweed production and transparency with all stakeholders to uphold a high standard during the entire process.237238239240243244246248250The Dialogue encouraged lively engagement, and participants enthusiastically shared ideas about the possible solutions seaweed could bring to achieving SDG2. However, there were some divergent opinions about possible solutions in the seaweed industry and its role in eradicating global hunger. The chat was particularly rich with participants and experts sharing their thoughts on seaweed as a food source. For example, participants proposed that seaweed consumption could reduce the methane footprint contributed by the cattle industry. However, experts cautioned against making overarching statements about seaweed’s potential contribution to methane reduction. A commercial cultivation process for algae that produce bromo-halogenated chemicals that can reduce methane emissions has not been established yet, and feed products from this algae would only affect cattle raised using artificial feed rather than those raised on pasturelands. There was a divergence of opinions about the time and methods needed for integrating seaweed into the Western diet. Participants were enthusiastic about gradually adding seaweed products into everyday diets, while experts suggested telling the right story about seaweed, learning to cook seaweed properly, and partnering with restaurants. Seaweed may not be able to replace cattle byproducts as a protein source because most cultivated seaweed is low in protein. In Asian seaweed-consuming countries, seaweeds are typically used as condiments or to add minerals to the diet, rather than as sources of protein. One expert warned that seaweed should not be viewed as a panacea to solving global hunger, as Western digestive systems are less equipped to break down polysaccharides of seaweed and therefore nutrients may not become available, at least initially. A team member noted that the East Asian (Japanese) gut microbiome contains a specific bacterium, not found in most Western gut microbiomes, that helps breaks down the polysaccharide in seaweed. Furthermore, other studies have shown that these bacteria do appear in animals when seaweed is incorporated into their diet. Finally, there was discussion around the need to produce more data about responsibly breeding seaweed that will produce the most biomass without sacrificing genetic biodiversity. Experts agreed that research and regulations are needed to maintain natural genetics and ensure local varieties of seaweed stay within the correct region. When local varieties are not sufficient for commercialization and other varieties must be imported, strict quarantine measures must be in place.

2021-07-12 15:50:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20772/203

3525103592222

Two sessions of the same-invitation only dialogue were convened by NCD Alliance, with support from Resolve to Save Lives and WHO to facilitate engagement of stakeholders from different time zones –the other held on June 10, 2021. Country and global perspectives were presented in plenary (Monday past and present policy makers from the UK and Chile) and participants then broke into discussion groups with facilitators and note takers. Invitees spanned sectors and regions, many active on health, nutrition, NCDs, law, trade. Dialogue participation was limited to 40 maximum to ensure a small, protected space for open and inclusive discussion and dialogue, particularly during the smaller breakout sessions. The event was held under Chatham House rules – that organizers and note takers did not attribute of comments or quotes by name. Group discussions included questions that intended to cover opinions on the main enablers and barriers/challenges to support a policy package (nutrition labelling, fiscal policies, food marketing restrictions) to prevent diet-related NCDs and promote health within and beyond the next five years. Another question intended to explore the immediate steps and shifts necessary to address the challenges. Principles of Engagement were incorporated at the core of the discussions in the sense that there was recognition of the urgency of promoting and supporting sustainable and effective action to reach the 2030 SDGs and protect the health of the population. The discussion was focused on solutions that would protect and improve the health and well-being of populations recognizing also the complexity of food systems. The common support obtained from the discussions was intended to promote trust and increase the motivation of relevant stakeholders (with no conflicts of interest) to participate by being evidence-based, transparent and accessible with the clear idea of the importance of holding accountable for commitments made with mechanisms in place to uphold this accountability.Principles for Engagement of the Food Systems Summit were reflected in: -Urgency: We recognize the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Progress on reducing diet related NCDs (a form of malnutrition) is off track to achieve targets due to decades of neglect and de-prioritization – this summit is an opportunity to elevate and accelerate action for this and other urgent issues. Respect: Within our respective capacities and circumstances, we will support the promotion of effective policy packages for the protection of the health and well-being of individuals by preventing diet-related NCDs. Complexity: We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. NCD prevention has long been recognized as a multisectoral issue which requires a systemic response, in particular to tackle upstream barriers and wider social, political and commercial determinants of health and nutrition, however busting siloed thinking and improving coherence requires processes like the Summit to help dismantle silos and improve coherence. Commit to the Summit: We commit to practice what we preach personally and professionally to contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. Complement the work of others: Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the FSS aligns with, amplifies, and accelerates these efforts where practicable. These topics represent the urgency needed for transition and are constructed to deliver actions to support healthier food environments. The possibility for participants to listen to either English, or Spanish was a way to acknowledge the diversity of participants and ensured respect to local cultures and their contexts.Generate instances with participants to not only know about the Principles of Engagement but also to allow for discussions, divergence and criticisms in order to improve the Summits governance. Ensure diverse voices are included, particularly civil society and people affected by food systems decisions – including people living with diet related NCDs. Provide opportunities for global actors to meet with local actors for peer learning and exchange. Facilitate meaningful involvement of all participants by allowing plenty of time for interaction, listening, inviting contributions, learning and reporting back what has been heard to reinforce messages. Request that principles of engagement are improved to require declaration of interests for all participants in advance of engaging with Dialogues or any other Summit related initiatives.

Yes

234238239243244246247249The overarching theme of this Independent Dialogue focused on creating healthier food environments by way of a package of effective and evidenced based policies (including front-of-package labelling, marketing restrictions and taxation of unhealthy foods) to help to address diet-related NCDs, leveraging the opportunity presented by the UN Food Systems Summit and beyond. Some of the key issues raised or emerging from this discussion were the need to identify common ground to improve diets, the importance of identifying the barriers and challenges that need to be addressed in order to pursue a food system transformation, also how policy packages can respond to specific local contexts. Further, the Dialogue emphasised the importance of strengthening appreciation that healthy or unhealthy diets are not a personal choice but rather a consequence of the food environment that needs to be shaped and nurtured with collective and coherent decisions around these policy areas, and how the pandemic has also shown the need to invest more in sustainable food systems and environments. The environment must enable and facilitate healthy choices and it must be coherent also in the sense that marking restrictions, clear information on packaging and taxes of unhealthy products should be jointly promoted, while policies in areas such as trade, urban design and development and education should be complementary and coherent and not undermine the development of sound public health policy. It is important to level the playing field of competition, and incentives the availing of better options, so that unhealthy food steps back and healthy food comes forward. While the agenda influences consumers, producers and retailers, and supporting the environment, but also about changing the economic dynamics and levelling the playing field. It is difficult to prove large impact if the environment is not coherent. The idea behind a coherent policy package is that by implementation of it we are creating a health promoting food environment, and supporting all people’s right to health and food including children and those most vulnerable.235238239243244245246247249The following key messages and themes emerged from the interactive dialogue and plenary with guided discussions among representatives from governments, civil society, : - Consensus on the need for complementary package of policies to address diet related NCDs and that such package includes restrictions to marketing and taxation of unhealthy foods, and front-of-package labeling systems on food products to provide clear and easy information to consumer and support healthier choices. Given the regulatory nature of these measures, and the evidence of industry interference in these types of nutrition policy-making processes, participants noted a need for tools, transparency and protective mechanisms to minimize risk of industry interference in public health policy and avoidance of conflicts of interest. - Participants recommended a common global definition of what is healthy or unhealthy food/diets, clarifying and including terms like ultra-processed food. - The UK experience highlighted that isolated voluntary initiatives have not been universal and industry partnerships have proven slower, less effective and thus less successful compared to mandated approaches established by government. where regulation exists, such as around school meals, where it is not reinforced by other complementary and coherent measures, these regulatory measures are not optimized. Further, taxation f of sugar sweetened beverages is working and is a good way to stimulate change – but not quickly, nor enough. The UK government has realized more must be done to reduce diet related NCDs and obesity, hence moving to implement further ‘policy package’ measures as part of a wider strategy to accelerate health improvements to support more sustained and deeper actions pushing down to rectify an environment where unhealthy industries to expand their products and drive people to make unhealthy choices. - The Chilean experience concluded about the importance of Chile’s promoting a law which includes front-of-package labeling, marketing restrictions and ban on the sale of products “high in” in schools; how essential it was to form an alliance of key members from the academia, the legislative sector and the executive sector and to have a well-defined set of evidence-based arguments (e.g. prevalence of overweight and obesity and associated costs). The Chilean example, recognized as pioneering and world leading in terms of front of pack labelling rules, demonstrated the importance of, not wait for all the evidence and taking a precautionary approach, as it was the case with tobacco control. In that sense, it was also pointed out how an global instrument with provisions such as those in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) could also benefit food policy making. - The majority of participants also showed interest in being part of a coalition in support of a policy package for healthy diets within the Summit context and beyond. Discussants also noted: - the need to address governance issues, policy coherence (or lack thereof), conflicts of interest and power imbalance within the Summit but also in the food system as a whole. - the need to use a child and human-rights protection framing should also be prioritized. - the need to reset default in framing the conversation about healthy/unhealthy diets, to shift the perception that individuals are to be blamed for making unhealthy food choices when diets are shaped, if not determined by environments, options and circumstances. Nutrition has a much wider definition than single micro-nutrients, and food poverty should not be defined by low calories, but food poverty should be better understood as poor diet quality, as the issues to be addressed. - Countries want to share learnings and experiences in implementing these kinds of policies. Promote learning between countries and sharing information and lessons. - The Food System Summit is an opportunity for change, but we need to make sure that what comes out of it is really game changing. Important to also recognize limitations of the Summit.236238239243244245246247249From this Independent Dialogue and according to the questions discussed the break-up groups, the main conclusions include de following: 1.Expectation of participants on what the UNFSS would achieve for diet-related NCDs: - It will important for the Summit to plant the seed for more coherent policies with less interference from food industries and have a movement towards strong international agreement with package of measures for countries to implemented (inspired by Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) including a systemic and integrated approach to healthier food environments considering all forms of malnutrition. - For Member States, it is crucial that they promote the policies WHO recommends. They can scale up on others who have already promoted these policies. Governments should prepare to regulate. - There is a need and an urgency to address diet-related NCDs through the recognition that we need to address ultra processed foods as the way to go- not to just address reformulation. -Interested in governance of the food systems summit - hopes it will mark a change from the moment of being seen as doing something to actually doing something. - The summit’s focus should be in food as a human right and shift more to also focus on the demand side measures required to transform the food system and resist the temptation to split everything into silos. - Ensure that we keep in mind that health and people are at the centre and that there is greater transparency in the way that food policies are made. -Important for food policies to be people centred and people driven. Discussions should focus on how the policies can be translated at community level.2362382392432442462472492. Challenges to support a policy package to sustainably prevent diet related NCDs - There is lack of public awareness and consumer confusion - A main challenge is continuing interference of food industry in policy processes and the lack of management of conflicts of interests of those participating in policy discussions. We need mechanisms to protect against this.- -Need to focus on food quality and nutrition rather than ingredients and single nutrient approaches. - Limited engagement of health departments in trade related policies - Globalization of food industry tactics and arguments with cross border influence -Lack of research (regional and local) on policy monitoring and evaluation -Lack of coordination within UN System (FAO, IMF, WHO, UNICEF, etc.) -Failure of the Summit to engage the people in its processes. -Dealing with the economics of food - framing of food as consumer good instead of a human right -Weak government action across different levels2362382392432442452462472493. What are the immediate steps and necessary shifts to address the challenges - Increase public awareness why are these policies needed. Stop promotion of UP foods worldwide - Consensus on non-interference of food industry in public health needed (Framework Convention or alike). Need to recognise that business as usual is not good enough. We need to deal with governance. Finalise and put into action guidance for global governance and conflicts of interest (WHO guidance). -Pushing ultra processed terminology - Building the investment case. Evidence shows that following dietary guidelines is a win for countries - Engage stakeholders from global to local and across sectors - National capacity building and strengthening - Peer learning among countries: share ideas, strategies, evidence, industry arguments - Promote a Rights’ framing and align with environmental sustainability - The burden of responsibility should be shifted away from consumers - Engage youth: youth led campaigns -Need to recognise the limitations of the summit: We need to recognize the limitation of the way that the summit has been set up. We need revised versions of the principles of engagement that will generate productive discussions and the summit process. We need to address conflicts of interest. People that are involved with the organisation of the summit want to see a positive outcome that the Summit is set up and address them. How we prioritise things. Two things that are not discussed in the summit are ultra processed foods and agroecology. It is necessary to talk about these issues. - Need to ensure focus on the Summit and not get distracted by other global events. The food systems Summit is the starting point not the end to the conversation. What are the changes that will be needed for future actions. - We need to change the environment not the product. Reformulation is an attempt to pretend that we can shift from really bad to really good products and have an impact. Reformulation is a barrier to coherence. As are voluntary initiatives.237238239243244245246247249Although participants did not show divergent opinions on the need to promote a package of actions to address diet related NCDs and on the importance of dealing with conflicts of interest and food industry interference, it is important to note that the need to include more Member States in these discussions and to allow for other actors to take part of discussing policy challenges. Important to include people in the “supply” side of the issue. Hopefully the Summit will enable some of these discussion and perhaps some conflict, which would be healthy.

2021-07-12 17:32:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16563/44

501222898212724437630615110742564323310

El Diálogo Independiente "Enfrentando el Covid 19 y la Obesidad en contextos de Inseguridad Alimentaria" fue organizado de forma colaborativa entre Red Pacto Global Chile y el Grupo de Empresas Líderes por el ODS N°2, liderado por Tresmontes Lucchetti, con el objetivo de dar a conocer la relevancia que hoy, más que nunca, tienen las dos pandemias que nos afectan a nivel mundial: la Obesidad y el Coronavirus. El Diálogo realizado, busca dar a conocer la urgencia que existe actualmente en torno a este tema y la necesidad de poder tomar acciones que permitan encontrar soluciones reales para combatirlas, a través del trabajo conjunto y articulado por parte del gobierno, la academia, organizaciones , empresas, asociaciones, entre otros actores claves que permitan identificar acciones y promover sinergias. Esto, como parte del desafío para avanzar en el logro del ODS2, en pos de sistemas alimentarios más saludables, sostenibles y equitativos,. Para esto, se convocó a un panel de expertos de distintos sectores, de manera de poder tener una visión transversal y profunda acerca del tema e involucrar a distintos grupos de interés. PARTICIPANTES DIÁLOGO INDEPENDIENTE #APERTURA Margarita Ducci Directora Ejecutiva Red Pacto Global Chile (ONU) Eve Crowley Representante de FAO en Chile #PANEL DE DIÁLOGO Dr. Sebastián Ugarte Jefe de UPC Clínica INDISA Dr. Fernando Vio Presidente Corporación 5 al Día, Académico de INTA y Miembro Honorario Academia Chilena de Medicina Tito Pizarro Académico de Salud Pública en Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad de Santiago Daniela Godoy Secretaria Ejecutiva Elige Vivir Sano Samuel Durán Director Magister Nutrición en Salud Pública Universidad San Sebastián Stefan Larenas Presidente de ODECU #MODERADORES Felipe Lira Coordinador Mesa ODS 2 Red Pacto Global Chile (ONU) Carola Bezamat PeriodistaPor medio del Diálogo Independiente "Enfrentando el Covid 19 y la Obesidad en contextos de Inseguridad Alimentaria", logramos abordar los principios de actuación de la siguiente manera: Actuar con urgencia: Poner en valor la importancia de tomar iniciativas e impulsar acciones en el corto, mediano y largo plazo, de forma sostenida y coherente, que permitan contribuir al ODS N°2, en el cual se enmarca la temática del diálogo. Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre: Incorporación de actores relevantes de distintos sectores para exponer y debatir sobre esta temática, intercambiar opiniones y comunicar hallazgos importantes de cara a la sociedad. Ser respetuosos: Exposición y debate de distintos hallazgos y evidencias, promoviendo el diálogo fluido y la coexistencia de opiniones entre los panelistas. Reconocer la complejidad: Espacio para reconocer, evidenciar y comunicar sobre la complejidad de la pandemia de la obesidad en Chile y la problemática asociada a la pandemia del Covid-19 en contextos de inseguridad alimentaria. Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés: Instancia que congrega distintos grupos de interés, incluyendo representantes del gobierno, empresas, organizaciones internacionales, mundo científico y academia, permitiendo captar diversas perspectivas. Complementar la labor de los demás: Instancia para compartir y poner en valor, generar conexión e intercambio entre distintos actores. Crear confianza: Encuentro que promueve un espacio de conversación e intercambio de visiones en un ambiente de confianza, y respeto mutuo

Yes

234242243Análisis y evidencia sobre la pandemia del Covid-19 y pandemia de la obesidad en contextos de inseguridad alimentaria235242243-Estamos viviendo una pandemia por Covid-19 la cual coexiste y se relaciona con la ya existente pandemia invisible de la obesidad en contextos de inseguridad alimentaria, afectando gravemente a la población e impactando de forma significativa al sistema de salud. -Las medidas de confinamiento, dada la pandemia por Covid-19, han tenido un efecto importante en la vida diaria de las personas, impactando los hábitos de alimentación y actividad física y repercutiendo en las rutinas y salud mental de los niños como efecto del encierro. -Necesidad de fortalecer las vías para promover el acceso a una alimentación saludable para personas de sectores más vulnerables, entre ellas, la incorporación de alimentos saludables que permitan una dieta equilibrada, entre ellos las frutas y verduras, considerando además que el 2021 se ha declarado como el Año Internacional de las Frutas y Verduras por la FAO, poniendo especial foco en la promoción de su consumo. - Positiva valoración actual y proyección post pandemia de iniciativa de banda horaria para realizar actividad física al aire libre (Franja Elige Vivir Sano), la cual surge en contextos de confinamiento. Iniciativa que se ha instaurado exitosamente y se espera perdure en el tiempo, considerando un escenario post pandemia. - Una alimentación balanceada resulta un factor protector en el caso de las pandemias de la obesidad y por Covid-19, sin embargo, frente a un contexto de menores ingresos, se torna aún más relevante promover una cultura de consumo responsable en los sectores más vulnerables, donde la educación debe comenzar desde la niñez.236242243-Estamos viviendo una pandemia por Covid-19 la cual coexiste y se relaciona con la ya existente pandemia invisible de la obesidad por malnutrición o exceso, afectando e impactando gravemente al sistema de salud: *Aumento de la obesidad como efecto de la pandemia, mala alimentación y sedentarismo a causa de las restricciones de movilidad y sedentarismo. * Correlación de índice de Masa Corporal (IMC) y requerimientos de atención en Unidades de Pacientes Críticos (UPC). *Tendencia al aumento de la gravedad y duración de tratamiento. *Aumento de la ocupación de camas, estadía en Unidades de Pacientes Críticos, estrés del sistema de salud. * Cambios epidemiológicos post pandemia asociados a coexistencia de enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles y virales/infecciosas. * Situación epidemiológica va a cambiar a nivel país, importancia de poner foco en la prevención en base a estilos de vida saludables. -Las medidas de confinamiento, dada la pandemia por Covid-19, han tenido un efecto importante en la vida diaria de las personas, impactando los hábitos de alimentación y actividad física y repercutiendo en los hábitos y salud mental de los niños como efecto del encierro:*Cambios en preferencias y hábitos de alimentación en la población que ha derivado en un aumento/ganancia de peso importante en la población a nivel mundial y de forma importante en Chile. *Tendencia de consumo por productos como pan, bollería, bebidas azucaradas, frituras entre otros. *Cocina en casa ha ido orientada a la indulgencia, aumento en tamaño de porciones. *Sedentarismo por restricciones de desplazamientos por la pandemia, falta de espacios para realización de actividad física. *Angustia y ansiedad en niños y niñas por encierro y restricciones, falta de espacios protegidos para poder jugar e interactuar con sus pares, imposibilidad de asistir al colegio, falta de entorno escolar. *Radiografía de la alimentación Elige Vivir Sano, demostró el aumento del consumo de alimentos no saludables dada la pandemia, producto de la ansiedad y el aburrimiento causado por la pandemia. -Vías para promover el acceso a una alimentación saludable para personas de sectores más vulnerables que incluya frutas y verduras, considerando que el 2021 se ha declarado como el Año Internacional de las Frutas y Verduras por la FAO: * En la actualidad se pierde o desperdicia el 54% de las frutas y verduras mientras hay sectores que sufren falta de acceso a estos. * Rol clave de las ferias libres en el acceso y distribución a frutas y verduras. * Oportunidad y necesidad para impulsar subvenciones a las frutas, y verduras. * Necesidad de crear hábitos y educar a la población en torno a alimentación saludable, incorporación de frutas y verduras en la dieta diaria. * Apoyo a ollas comunes con foco en la incorporación de frutas y verduras para minutas diarias. * Surgimiento de aplicaciones y tecnologías que permiten comercializar y acercar las frutas y verduras a la población, oportunidad para potenciarlas y facilitar su consumo. * “Kioskos verdes” que promuevan la venta de alimentos saludables en escuelas. - Valoración actual y proyección post pandemia de iniciativa de banda horaria para realizar actividad física al aire libre (Franja Elige Vivir Sano): * Importancia de la vida activa para promover el bienestar y la salud en las familias. * Espacio para que las familias puedan desarrollar actividad física al aire libre, disminuyendo la posibilidad de contagio y obteniendo beneficios asociados al movimiento. * Aumento de uso de bicicletas, ocupación de plazas para realizar actividad física. *Tendencia a estructurar ciudades que promuevan el deporte, la actividad física al aire libre * Adecuación de políticas públicas y generación, diseño e implementación de convenios para la promoción de actividad física. - Necesidad de promover una cultura de consumo responsable en los sectores más vulnerables: *Importancia de la educación nutricional de cara a los consumidores, educación en torno a compras responsables, planificación de compras, preferencia de alimentos. *Promoción de estilos de vida saludable y act. física en escuelas con respaldo de políticas públicas

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/INVITACION-DIALOGO.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Moderadores-y-panelistas-Dialogo-Independiente.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/POST-PANDEMIC-HEALTH-AND-NUTRITION-SITUATION-IN-CHILE_Dr.Fdo_Vio.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Cambios-Epidemiologicos-post-pandemia_Dr.Fdo_Vio.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SITUACION-EPIDEMIOLOGICA-POST-PANDEMIA_Dr.Fdo_Vio.pdfhttps://tv.emol.com/detail/20210608140906673/pacto-global-enfrentando-el-covid-19-y-la-obesidad-en-contextos-de-inseguridad-alimentariahttps://www.linkedin.com/posts/pactoglobalchile_ods2-activity-6804149247341068288-eBSqhttps://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6805246334296211456https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tresmontes-lucchetti-s-a_promociaejn-saludables-activity-6810270082883690497-lFwWhttps://www.linkedin.com/posts/diario-sustentable-36b102a5_ods2-activity-6806272409969147906-IOHK

2021-07-12 17:34:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15420/203

5517241042727145211242610321019112121256

During the registration process, all participants were asked to confirm that they had read and understood the principles of the UN Food Systems Summit (UN FSS). A comment and/ or question section was enabled, allowing registrants to ask clarifying questions or raise potential concerns. Further, the event was opened with an additional reference to the principles. All facilitators, note takers and supporters received a preparation package as well as reminders in line with the guidance provided through the Take Part Zone for conveners of the UN FSS platform.Commit to the Summit & Act with Urgency - Three high-level speakers familiar with and engaged in the UN Food Systems Summit process opened the dialogue. Addressing specific aspects and guiding policy frameworks, they emphasized the urgency to transform our current food systems globally to ensure long-term sustainability and achievements under the UN SDGs, the UN CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and relevant UN decades. Be Respectful & Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity - The dialogue was planned bearing gender & age balance in mind. Among participants, the dialogue achieved a 50/50 male, female ratio and out of seven participants that were asked to provide presentations and/ or opening remarks, four were women. Further, the event featured Spanish/ English interpretation services. This was particularly important as the dialogue aimed to specifically connect local producers, CSOs and government stakeholders with their international peers and other stakeholders. Complement the work of others - The dialogue’s focus and discussion topic were developed bearing in mind specific game changing solutions submitted to date under Action Track 3 of the UN FSS. A focus on smallholder producers' significance in transforming food systems was identified as a potential gap which then built the main focus of the dialogue. The dialogue featured tangible examples of local solutions and invited local producers and CSOs to present their existing work in the context of sustainable food systems. Recognize complexity - While the dialogue aimed to identify overarching recommendations for the achievement of sustainable food systems, there was recognition that solutions needed to be context specific. In this spirit, the dialogue focused on local solutions and provided local entrepreneurs with the opportunity to open respective breakout groups with short presentations. These solutions were then respectively discussed under the umbrella of one guiding discussion topic, therefore, bridging the recognition of complexity with the aim to formulate overarching recommendations.Build flexibility and contingencies into your event planning. To be inclusive means to accommodate participants’ technical needs and accept that involving them requires contingencies as well as the support of interpreters. We recommend requesting video statements and/ or presentations from key stakeholders and speakers joining from remote areas with intermittent internet connection to mitigate potential technical breakout downs and allow for local voices to be heard regardless of poor internet connections. We further recommend sharing guiding questions and reading materials with all participants prior to the dialogue. Language barriers can and should be addressed through interpreters (if available). However, sharing guiding questions in advance, further mitigates language barriers and enables stakeholders to enter a discussion well prepared.

Yes

234239240242244246248This Independent Food Systems Summit (FSS) Dialogue discussed nature-based and behavior-centered solutions in smallholder productive sectors as one of the key ingredients to achieving sustainable food systems. The dialogue focused on biodiversity as the foundation of sustainable food systems and agroecological approaches as a key pathway to achieve nature-positive production and to support small-scale farmers’ agency, livelihoods, entrepreneurship, and culture. Combined, these aspects build and scale climate- and biodiversity friendly food production systems globally. While intentionally designed to explore solutions and levers of change under action track 3 “boosting nature-positive production” the dialogue naturally touched upon action track 2 of the UN Food Systems Summit Dialogue on “shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” as well. Recognizing that neither of the two are mutually exclusive focus areas but, in fact, strongly overlap, the dialogue also examined the interlinkages between action tracks 2 and 3. Building on tangible examples presented by local farmers and grass root civil society organizations the event offered a multistakeholder forum for local leaders, practitioners, researchers, private sector, donors and policy makers. Together, they discussed what would be needed for small-scale producers to adopt and scale agroecological approaches for nature positive production and resilient food systems. The guiding topic and vision statement was hereby phrased as follows: By 2030, resilient and diversified agriculture and food systems are nourishing the world sustainably through inclusive and equitable agroecological production at scale, supported by a conducive policy, institutional and socio-economic environment that unlocks small-holder producers’ potential.235239240242243244245248249251Present policies and subsidies are among the key barriers to sustainable food systems. Current investments will need to be stopped and rerouted to support local producers and their capacity as well as agency to utilize agroecological approaches. Triggering positive changes on the farm level is a significant step forward but policy makers need to look across terrestrial landscapes (including water and seascapes) and think in integrated ways of ‘foodscapes’. Participants of this dialogue are committed to work with and advise policy makers while continuously building the capacity of local communities and producers. Creating sustainable food systems by 2030 requires behavior change among both producer and consumer groups. Current consumption levels, changing dietary patterns of an affluent population and the unequal increase in purchasing power associated with larger footprints lead to overexploitation and degradation of food systems. Therefore, consumer behavior change in favor of sustainable consumption and increasing demand for agroecological products is a critical component of a paradigm shift towards sustainable food systems. Paired with supporting policy frameworks and incentive schemes, such change would create enabling market conditions for smallholders and large scale farmers alike, to adopt sustainable production practices. Behavior change is a powerful tool to empower local smallholders producers and to provide them with the agency needed to adopt and replicate agroecological approaches. Traditional approaches often focus on monetary short term benefits and regulations to encourage sustainable production methods. While these remain an important part of the solution needed, transformative change requires tapping into approaches that go beyond awareness raising and consider attitudes, motivation, background and cultural heritage of smallholder producers. This is a key ingredient of transformative change and allows local actors to leave the role as a passive recipient of knowledge and tools but empowers them to become agents of change themselves. Both the large-scale, industrial food producers and smallholders need to be part of the paradigm shift needed to achieve sustainable food systems. However, smallholder producers and especially small-scale farmers require particular support as they are often underrepresented in decision making in terms of policies and investments. Further, their livelihoods are disproportionately vulnerable to the impact of climate change and biodiversity-loss. Given that they play a key role for local and regional food security and sovereignty, urgent action to build capacity and an enabling policy environment are needed. To do so, the apparent gap between high-level development policy and the reality of farmers and communities needs to be closed. On the one hand, this requires translating development policy into local action. On the other hand, smallholders need to be involved in the design of what local action looks like to develop feasible, yet effective measures that merge biodiversity conservation with agricultural production. Standardized and evidence-based metrics to measure the relative contribution of biodiversity to food systems are needed to make the business case for biodiversity in agriculture. There is a current lack of data and understanding of the contribution of biodiversity to livelihoods and ecosystem integrity. Often, the definition of sustainable agriculture is biased, focusing on production and yield levels, and, therefore, neglecting non-productive conservation measure’s contribution to food systems. At the same time, harmful agricultural subsidies continue to reinforce destructive agricultural practices, leaving little room for the adoption of agroecological approaches. So to transform our current food production systems, scientists, farmers, policy makers and civil society need to work together to better understand and measure the importance of biodiversity for food systems and to redirect harmful subsidies to approaches that make biodiversity an integral part of agricultural production. Finally, the dialogue concluded that we must not reinvent the wheel when it comes to transforming our food systems. Rather than building new systems from scratch, we must look at local brightspots as well as indigenous knowledge and marry them to the best available science, innovative finance schemes and enabling policies. To achieve this, it is crucial for all stakeholder including consumers and producers to align on a common vision to ensure a multi stakeholder dialogue and exchange. Participants acknowledge that, in order for this to take place, smallholders and vulnerable groups, women and youth would require additional support to ensure that their voice is heard and taken into consideration. All participants agreed to contribute to an ongoing exchange around sustainable food systems.236239240242243244245249251All four discussion groups discussed the same guiding topic and question. However, to appropriately lay out responses and respect nuances, the following sections will report-out on main outcomes of each respective breakout group. To achieve sustainable food systems, we must not reinvent the wheel, but apply a multistakeholder approach that builds agency and enables active participation of all stakeholders along the food supply chain. Farming systems are complex and at the foundation of all sustainable development goals. While governments and policy makers play a critical role in providing the incentive schemes and frameworks needed to achieve our ambitious development targets, local farmers, governments and other stakeholders are the ones ‘localizing these agendas’. For instance, as recent events in Chile’s social uprising showed, governments need to work closely with the stakeholders impacted by their decisions, including farmers, local communities and particularly women as protagonists who effectively manage entire landscapes. There was consensus among participants that governments tend to focus on industrial development and top-down policy making, neglecting farms and ecosystems. Instead, their policies should be developed through an active exchange between stakeholders with particular emphasis on the involvement of female farmers and indigenous people. This would also allow for the inclusion of indigenous, ancestral, and local knowledge which may yield promising returns if matched with appropriate science and fed into local-, subnational and national policy. We need to understand and reward the vast range of services that nature-positive production delivers beyond food production. This requires looking deeper into, so far, underrated ecosystems services and non-agricultural biodiversity such as forests. We need globally harmonized and well-defined metrics that look at the holistic value of farm sustainability, lands sharing and farming in harmony with nature schemes. These need to be integrated into existing policy frameworks such as the UN CBD and the Paris Agreement. To this extent, the SDG indicator framework offers a bridge between both policy processes. Determining the true value of nature will also be paramount for well-functioning incentive schemes that promote outcomes and use practices that are beneficial to biodiversity, climate change adaptation as well as mitigation. This could, for instance, manifest itself in trade deals and policy agreements and lay the foundation for a Paris Agreement of Food Systems. Building on the above, we must approach sustainable food systems from both the production, as well as the demand side of the equation. Current market forces do not support farming practices that align with, or promote, biodiversity. On the contrary, exploitative, and extractive practices are often more profitable for local producers in the short term. So, while government and private sectors play a critical role in designing the right incentive structures for biodiversity friendly food production, we need to work with consumers and all stakeholders along the food supply chain to make ‘sustainable foods’ the new norm. Facing the biodiversity and climate crises and transforming food systems requires behavior change across all levels. With climate change affecting weather patterns and seasons, farmers are most vulnerable to climate change and need to be empowered to change their practices while being equipped with the knowledge and tools required to adapt to climate change. At the same time, governments need to abandon the deeply entrenched habit of subsidizing harmful pesticides and fertilizers that favors short-term benefits over long-term sustainability.236239240243244245248249251Achieving sustainable food systems requires a change in norms and practices across all levels. Current policies, financial and non-financial incentives would promote unsustainable food consumption and production patterns alike which reinforced harmful habits across the board. Production practices such as nutrient loading, monoculture and unsustainable deforestation are all practices that emerged over the past decades due to the global demand for unified foods and rise in overconsumption as well as food waste. Participants pointed out that changing the current state of food systems required bold action and a holistic approach. A multi stakeholder approach centered around a shared vision would be needed to reverse policies and ‘un-learn’ currently locked-in harmful practices. Participants underlined that while Climate Change, the current Biodiversity crisis as well as the COVID made our dependency on natural resources and the need for transformative shifts of food systems abundantly clear, political willingness and current market forces as well as buy-in from larger companies would be lacking. This would be particularly visible in the current market incentive mechanisms, tax regimes and persistent harmful subsidies. A first step in the right direction would be a renewed focus on specialised production systems and inclusion of indigenous communities in the conversation around sustainable food systems. To do so, raising awareness for solutions coming from smallholders and indigenous people could be a gateway to address lingering issues around inclusion, equity, and tenure rights. At this point, participants noted that smallholder farmers were disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and the loss of biodiversity and, therefore, required particular attention. Others argued that such efforts should, however, also involve large farms in efforts to create synergies. There was consensus on the need to develop standardized measuring scales for biodiversity and to share (indigenous) knowledge, best practices, and inspirational examples/ case-studies of, but not limited, to successful approaches to the adoption of agroecology. The latter would be particularly important in the absence of unified measuring systems of biodiversity and could serve as a proxy that is close to reality, while more accurate scales are being developed. To this extent, participants emphasized the need for investments in databases, participatory as well as farmers research networks, and eco-based research networks. This would allow to balance the current trend to focus on yields only and to conserve traditional knowledge (e.g. concept of ecological calendars). In addition, achieving sustainable food systems requires working with consumers and other key stakeholders along the food supply chain. Participants emphasized that currently unsustainable food systems are merely driven by local producers’ preferences and practices but a result of a complex interplay of market forces, policy environments and consumer demand. To this extent, one would need to look at the whole value chain. Appropriate pricing, paired with social protection of consumer groups and public procurement programmes as well as value chain laws, similar to the ones deployed in Europe, could nudge food systems in the right direction. Further, consumer awareness in regard to pricing, origin and nutritional value would be critical to shape the market demand that drives food production. Other participants supported this by underlining the importance of awareness raising interventions targeted at consumers’ demand and perception of agroecological products. Another important measure raised was the enabling of true cost accounting (TCA). According to one participant, only a few countries are implementing TCA. However, due to climate change and COVID-19 the awareness of the dependency with nature could be a good start for the implementation of such measures.236239240243244245248251Participants agreed that to unlock smallholder producers’ potential to bring about climate resilient and biodiverse food systems, major investments in their capacity would have to be made. For those investments to be effective, stakeholders would have to learn to better understand the unique position, background, motivation and vulnerabilities of local communities and producers. Participants identified socio-economic vulnerabilities as a significant barrier to the adoption of sustainable and/ or agroecological approaches. A lack of access to markets, financial institutions and missing stable prices linked to environmental/ biodiversity performance metrics would increase the risk of poverty and reinforce exploitive practices subsequently locking in unsustainable methods. While building local capacity remains important, securing the buy-in of local producers needs to go beyond sharing of information. Real behavior change, which would be required to achieve sustainable food systems, meant to tap into the attitudes, motivation, background and cultural heritage of smallholder producers. As mentioned by one participant, pride in one's community, natural resources, or native foods can be a gateway to the adoption of agroecological approaches. While many participants agreed to this, others underlined that this would only be effective if socio-economic factors and sustainable livelihoods were supportive. Further, participants discussed the importance of consumer behavior change to create niche markets accessible to smallholder producers engaging in agroecological approaches. Drawing from own experience, one participant shared how he increased demand for biodiversity-friendly crops, by reintroducing and promoting indigenous recipes among local communities. In his opinion, recognizing local culture and heritage are a gateway to the reintroduction of native seeds and biodiverse crops. In this case, it was imperative to recognize the fact that many people didn’t know how to cook with products that, in essence, were part of the native flora. He underlined that participatory research, paired with behavior-centered design methodology helped identify opportunities to drive consumer demand and create a niche market for nature-positive products. While others generally agreed that norms around consumption of food would need to change to create market demand for sustainable foods, others underlined those related initiatives would need to consider that markets operate differently in the global North and South. Participants agreed that promising production pathways must focus on the interests and motivations of farmers and pastoralists while supporting restoration of biodiversity and recognizing the embracing ecosystem and its services. Key actions would be a review of policies and subsidies to support small-scale producers who work for both their livelihoods and the environment. Present policies and subsidies would be among the key barriers and current investments in harmful subsidies should be rerouted to support local producers and their capacity to utilize agroecological approaches. Participants underlined that harmful subsidy needed to be stopped and refunneled to local farmers and communities. We would need to critically look at intermediate parties and associations to reestablish mutual trust and ensure that investments reach farmers and communities locally. Confirming this, another participant told the group that trust levels in associations would be often low among local communities. Years ago, they had been the ones promoting agrochemicals and pesticides only for the communities and farmers to now face the consequences of this rapid adoption of supposedly helpful tools. Transparency, participatory certification and a clear stand against harmful subsidies would be key to reverse distrust and reestablish association and cooperatives as partners of smallholders.236239240241243244245246248249251To achieve sustainable food systems, participants highlighted the importance of a shift in focus of policy makers. Building on examples in 55 African countries that mainstream ecological and organic agriculture into the agricultural sector, it was highlighted that 67% of agriculture budgets were spent on farm input subsidy programs. According to one participant, this would prompt more unsustainable practices as limited, immediate benefits would be favored over long-term sustainability and were often tied to short-term government campaigns. Instead, participants urged policymakers to look at systemic changes and policies that incentivize transformative changes in production practices. In addition, participants criticized the apparent focus of policy makers on large scale, industrial farming. In Madagascar, for instance, smallholders’ interests would neither be valued, nor considered in political agendas. Smallholders, while most exposed to the consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss, would often be invisible to policy makers and investors due to the lack of representation and visibility. While many participants agreed, several others emphasized the need to consider both smallholders and large-scale agricultural producers to ensure that both would move in the same direction and receive appropriate financial support. To tackle this issue, participants agreed that smallholders would need to come together, share their experiences with each other and effectively demonstrate their collective impact on food systems and the environment. This would improve local smallholders' access to markets and ensure that the policy makers understand the needs of local producers in terms of capacity, infrastructure and agency, which are currently lacking. Participants listed examples from China, where the government encourages smallholders to collectively found co-operatives. In contrast to this, in other areas it was raised that there is an apparent shift of some smallholder farmers selling land to large landowners, who, in return, would employ these former smallholders as direct employees. This has significant implications on tenure rights and perceived agency of smallholders. Further, participants urged policymakers to not reinvent the wheel, but instead to focus on bridging local, indigenous knowledge with scientific evidence on agroecological approaches and innovations. As part of this, a few local CSO participants underlined the need of local producers for behavioral change-based tools to build local awareness and demand for agroecological approaches and products. They pledged to further build this capacity locally and further referred to the Africa unions Heads of State’s decision to support ecological organic agriculture. Participants also discussed the impact of consumers and market forces on local smallholder producers. While there was consensus on the importance of local food security for local communities, there was recognition that a range of organic foods, by default, were determined for export markets to be sold for a higher price. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the fragility of this system as supply chains broke down, export markets crumbled, and immediate economic impacts were felt by many local producers. At the same time, local food systems proved to be critical as country’s went into lockdown and communities relied on their domestic food production. Moving forward, participants, therefore, called for consumer awareness campaigns and nutrition education, socializing local foods, effectively balancing local consumption with export markets and increasing food systems resilience. Investors and micro-finance could be a key driver to understand risks and promote investments in local food markets.237240241242243244245248An area of divergence that emerged was the nature of markets surrounding smallholder producers. While there was consensus that smallholder farmers played a critical role for local food security and sovereignty, there were voices arguing for the necessity of connecting local farmers to export markets as well. Some participants argued that smallholders had a critical role to play in building and sustaining shorter production rows targeted at local and regional markets, ultimately, leading to more resilient and sovereign food systems. This critical function of small holders had become particularly clear during the COVID-19 crisis. Others argued that niche markets for certain foods were seldom consumed locally. Participants concluded that there would be more investigation needed, considering respective geographies, products and stakeholders involved. While participants generally embraced the UN Food Systems Summit process and underlined the importance of hosting multi-stakeholder dialogues, there were voices questioning the appropriateness of the format and effectiveness of the process. Citing the fact that multiple researchers openly boycotted the summit due to the perceived dominance of wealthy developed nations and industries, participants raised concerns about green washing and driving forces behind agendas. In their opinion it would be a good start to invite representatives of local voices to the table and ensure that they would truly be engaged. Yet, their mere participation should not be mistaken for representation. Others supported this, emphasizing that the scientific and political narrative would predominantly be driven by developed countries and larger industries, which stood in stark contrast to the summit’s intentions. As such, we would need to de-construct the current model of sustainability and further investigate what it truly means to empower local leaders to shape and drive development agendas. This would also turn around the general narrative on smallholder producers which was perceived as one-sided and focused on what they would need to do to support sustainable food systems, rather than what others could do to enable smallholders to shape and contribute to sustainable food systems. Similar to that accountability for current unsustainable production practices should be equally assigned across all stakeholders including consumers. At the same time, participants argued that policy makers and smallholder farmers alike would need to work with industries to bring about transformative change. Regardless of potential biases, participants underlined the importance of creating synergies between smallholder and large-scale producers to find a common vision that enables the creation of sustainable food systems. Solutions and knowledge originating in either sector could be replicated in the other, effectively building an environment in which both smallholders and large-scale producers thrive. Others argued that, for this to happen, policy makers would have to start to pay equal attention and divide support equally among smallholders and large-scale producers. Further, participants underlined the need for agroecology to become more financially viable and not solely dependent on altruism. Policy makers in collaboration with scientists and businesses across the spectrum would need to define clear metrics and reporting criteria to measure ecosystem services and conservation benefits that are not tied to production levels. This would enable value creation and measurement, ultimately creating a market for biodiversity performance. Others agreed that this would be a suitable bargaining opportunity with larger businesses to enforce concrete and strict biodiversity criteria. Others argued that for smallholders to be included in this process, policy makers would need to recognize and address the negative impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and already scarce natural resources disproportionately faced by smallholders. Therefore, to engage local communities and smallholders should receive support and proportioned financial assistance in deploying agroecological approaches.

2021-07-12 19:15:37205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29803/72

643332562813212524212221532125982132202323612213212

Cette concertation constitue la session inaugurale C'est une session de Haut niveau Présidée par Madame le Premier Ministre, Chef du Gouvernement, Mme Rose Christiane OSSOUKA RAPONDA, en présence de nombreux membres du Gouvernement à savoir : le Ministre d’Etat, Ministre de la Communication, le Ministres des Affaires Etrangères, le Ministre en charge des Eaux et Forêts et de l’Environnement, le Ministre en charge de l’Education Nationale, le Ministre en charge de la Santé, le Ministre en charge du Commerce, le Ministre en Charge de la Promotion des Investissements et du Ministre en charge de l’Agriculture hôte de la Session. Cette cérémonie a également enregistrée la Présence du Coordonnateur par intérim du Système des Nations Unies au Gabon, du Coordonnateur Régional de la FAO, des représentants des Partenaires Techniques et Financiers , des représentants du Parlement, des anciens Ministres de l’Agriculture, des Représentants des confessions religieuses, des représentants du système bancaire, des entreprises agro-industriels et de la distribution, des organisations paysannes, des représentants des Associations de Consommateurs, des chercheurs et des communicateurs. Après les allocutions de circonstance du Coordonnateur sous régional de la FAO, du Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage, de la Pêche et de l’Alimentation, M. Biendi MAGANGA MOUSSAVOU et le Discours d’ouverture de Madame le Premier Ministre, Chef du Gouvernement, la parole a été donnée anciens Ministres de l’Agriculture qui ont partagé à l’assistance leurs expériences et leurs avis sur les voies de consolidation du système alimentaire Gabon. Ainsi, L’ancien Premier Ministre Julien NKOGHE BEKALE, l’ancien Ministre d’Etat Mathieu MBOUMBA NZIENGUI et les anciens Ministres Jean Norbert DIRAMBA et Patricia TAYE ont fait des propositions.Les principales parties prenantes sur les systèmes alimentaires du Gabon étaient représentéesDans ce processus de concertation, il est nécessaire de recueillir les avis des anciens responsables du secteur, notamment les anciens Ministres de l'Agriculture.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248249251la session était consacrée à l'examen des voies et moyens pour consolider le système alimentaire du Gabon qui concilie déjà production agricole et préservation de l'Environnement. plusieurs personnalités sont intervenus: Le Coordonnateur du Bureau Sous Régional de la FAO pour l’Afrique Centrale a ainsi rappelé qu’il se tiendra en Septembre 2021 à New York, en marge des travaux de l’Assemblée Générale de l’ONU, un sommet mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires. Ce sommet aura pour objectif de dynamiser et accélérer un cheminement collectif vers l’élimination de la faim et la création des systèmes alimentaires plus inclusifs, plus sains et la protection de la santé de notre planète. Il a tenu à féliciter le Gouvernement pour ses efforts et les décisions prises pour porter haut la voix de la population dans le débat mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires Le Ministre en charge de l’Agriculture a mis en relief les actions mises en œuvre par le Gouvernement sous l’impulsion de Président de la République Chef de l’Etat, pour concilier préservation de l’environnement et développement de l’Agriculture. Il a notamment souligné les procédures mises en place pour l’attribution des terres agricoles dans le cadre du Plan National d’Affectation des Terres qui imposent au préalable la réalisation des études d’impact environnemental et social et des enquêtes participatives Il a aussi indiqué les initiatives mises en place pour préserver les des ressources halieutiques grâce à la mise en place des aires protégées aquatiques, la finalisation avec l’UE d’un APPD de nouvelle génération et le renforcement de la surveillance des activités de pêche par l’équipement des embarcations de la pêche artisanale avec des balises. il a souligné l’importance de transformer le conflit Homme/Faune en véritable cohabitation. En termes d’avancées, Le Ministre est revenu sur réformes engagées dans le secteur agricole avec l’Adoption plusieurs lois notamment la loi fixant les conditions d’exercice des professions vétérinaires, de la loi sur le médicament vétérinaire et la loi sur la politique semencière en République Gabonaise. Ces réforme sont complétées par de nombreux investissements notamment la construction de cinq (5) centres de Pêche et du Pôle scientifique d’Akanda constitué de six (6) laboratoires, les aménagements des Zones Agricoles à Forte Productivité et sans oublier le Programme GRAINE Madame le Premier Ministre Chef du Gouvernement a tenu à illustrer la place importante que l’agriculture occupe dans la stratégie de diversification de l’économie. Elle a ainsi rappelé que l’agriculture est un secteur d’avenir, dynamique. Le développement d’une agriculture durable mérite l’implication de tous. La pandémie de la Covid-19 a mis en lumière la fragilité de notre secteur agricole et a affecté notre système alimentaire fortement dépendant de l’extérieur ainsi que la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle des populations. Le Gouvernement a dû mettre en œuvre des projets visant à augmenter la production locale, à l'exemple programme Gabon Famille Verte.. les anciens Ministres de l’Agriculture ont donné leurs avis sur le système alimentaire du Gabon. Ils ont mis en avant la nécessité de : -Poursuivre la mise en œuvre de la politique de lutte contre les changements climatiques et de préservation de la biodiversité -accroitre les ressources allouées au secteur agricole -soutenir les petits agriculteurs des pays en voie de développement pour les rendre compétitifs face à ceux des pays occidentaux fortement subventionnés ; - solliciter la communauté internationale pour accompagner le Gabon dans ses efforts de préservation de la forêt et de la biodiversité ; -inciter les jeunes à s’investir dans l’agriculture -favoriser une agriculture de qualité et faire la promotion du « bio »235238239240241242244245248249251Sous l’impulsion de Son Président, le Gabon met en œuvre une politique qui concilie production agricole et préservation de l’Environnement et de la biodiversité à travers notamment la mise en œuvre d’un Plan National d’Affectation des Terres qui permet de préserver les forêts primaires à haute teneur en carbone et aussi grâce aux nombreux aires protégées terrestres et aquatiques qui ont été créer ces vingt dernières années. Le Gabon est aujourd’hui un modèle de Gestion et de préservation de l’environnement La Forêt du Gabon qui représente près de 12 % de la forêt du bassin du Congo absorbe près de 100 millions de Tonnes de CO2 par an. Elle joue donc un rôle important dans les équilibres climatiques notamment en matière de pluviométrie sur le continent africain Au regard des efforts déployées par le Gabon pour la conservation de ses écosystèmes forestiers pour le bien l’humanité, le pays devrait être soutenu et accompagné par la Communauté internationale. Sur le plan agricole, il a été noté le déséquilibre important qui subsiste entre les agriculteurs des pays Nord qui bénéficient des subventions divers et ceux du sud en général petits agriculteurs sans grande ressource, vulnérables et peu compétitifs. A cet effet, les Etats et la Communauté internationale devraient mettre en place des mécanismes pour soutenir ces petits agriculteurs qui subissent les conséquences du dérèglement climatique et les aléas des politiques de protection de la biodiversité comme c’est le cas au Gabon où la faune protégée fait de nombreux dégâts dans les plantations. Le Gabon et les autres pays devraient privilégier les circuits d’approvisionnement courts en développant la production locale pour renforcer la résilience face aux crises telle que celle de la COVID-19 qui a fortement perturbé les circuits d’approvisionnement longs. Le Gabon et la communauté internationale devront mettre l’accent sur la promotion de l’agriculture familiale à l’exemple de l’initiative Gabion famille verte qui a permis aux familles citadines de pratiquer l’agriculture durant la période de confinement. Dans ce contexte un accent particulier devra être mis sur la promotion des métiers agricoles afin d’intéresser plus de jeunes. Des mécanismes d’incitation d’accompagnement des jeunes devraient être mis en place. le Gabon et la communauté internationale devrait faire la promotion d’une agriculture de qualité ou « Bio » pour améliorer la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle des populations. Enfin il est apparait nécessaire de mettre en place des mécanismes de mobilisation des fonds des Etats et des partenaires Techniques et Financiers afin de développer les systèmes Alimentaires durables pour les pays en voie de développement.

2021-07-12 19:24:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2958/120

11412317130834243810246

La Secretaría de Fomento Económico y la Secretaría del Campo del Municipio de Tulancingo de Bravo, en coordinación con el Centro de Innovación Social y Seguridad Alimentaria iniciamos el diálogo con la idea de sumar a todos aquellos interesados con el impulso de los ODS, a través del análisis del sistema alimentario local de Tulancingo-México. Se invitaron a todos los actores posibles dentro del sistema alimentario de nuestra región, con la idea de tener una diversidad de opiniones que ayudaran a entender mejor los problemas que aquejan al sistema alimentario local. Invitamos a productores, pequeños comerciantes locales, organizaciones de productores, estudiantes, centros educativos, universidades, líderes de comerciantes, investigadores, medios de comunicación, autoridades del gobierno local y consumidoresLos temas que abordamos en el diálogo como la educación alimentaria, el agua, los campesinos, la oferta y demanda de productos locales, están alineados a los principios de la cumbre sobre sistemas alimentarios. Buscamos, con estos temas, adoptar un enfoque inclusivo y diverso.Es importante tomar en cuenta la diversidad de pensamientos y cultura de cada uno de los participantes, con el fin de buscar estrategias que permitan incentivar e incorporar las ideas de todos los actores estratégicos para promover la confianza, la inclusión y el respeto

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249251Nuestro diálogo lleva el nombre de “Hacia el Fortalecimiento del Sistema Alimentario del Valle de Tulancingo.” e intenta analizar cómo podemos impulsar cada una de las cuatro vías de acción planteadas. Para esto nuestro diálogo se propone discutir acerca del sistema alimentario local sobre ¿cuáles son los problemas? y ¿cómo se pueden solucionar?, con la finalidad de impulsar en Tulancingo de Bravo acciones, mecanismos y políticas públicas que mejoren el sistema alimentario. Para esto organizamos nuestro diálogo en cuatro mesas con temas, que creemos, son los más relevantes para que el sistema alimentario local en Tulancingo de Bravo sea incluyente, sustentable y sostenible. Los temas con los que esperamos abordar y discutir estos problemas son: 1) La educación alimentaria en el Municipio de Tulancingo. 2) Las y los campesinos y productores de alimentos como eslabón fundamental del sistema alimentario de Tulancingo de Bravo. 3) Productos Locales Vs Productos Foráneos. 4) El agua como un bien fundamental para la producción de alimentos.235238239240241242244246248249251En la mesa 1 sobre La educación alimentaria en el Municipio de Tulancingo se identificó como problema central el desconocimiento en la producción y consumo de alimentos saludables y nutritivos debido principalmente a problemas de acceso, distribución, e infraestructura, así como al abandono de prácticas de cultivo o prácticas regionales sustentables como la producción en traspatios y sistemas de producción familiar. En la mesa 2 sobre Las y los campesinos y productores de alimentos como eslabón fundamental del sistema alimentario de Tulancingo de Bravo, se identificó como un problema principal la desvalorización del rol de las y los campesinos del Municipio en las cadenas de valor, de producción y educación, así como una desorganización y desarticulación de productores, y el bajo acceso a recursos financieros y tecnológicos para incrementar su productividad. En la mesa 3 sobre Productos Locales Vs Productos Foráneos se identificó como problema principal la falta de espacios adecuados para vender productos locales. Así mismo, se hizo referencia a los efectos propios de la globalización en los ingresos de los productores, pues se introducen a los territorios productos sobresaturados y baratos lo que ocasiona que los productores tengan que malbaratan sus productos locales. En la mesa 4 sobre El agua como un bien fundamental para la producción de alimentos se comentó que el problema de la falta y escases de agua para el cultivo de alimentos es un problema que todos deben tener en mente. Se identificó que uno de los principales problemas es el uso ineficiente del agua, otro problema es la falta de cultura de captación de agua de lluvia. También se habló sobre cómo mejorar la utilización eficiente del agua a través de la innovación y la tecnología.236238239240241242244246248249251Conclusión de la mesa 1. La educación alimentaria en el Municipio de Tulancingo Que el Gobierno Municipal diseñe políticas públicas que promuevan la importancia de adoptar modelos de alimentación nutritiva, sana y sostenible principalmente en las escuelas de nivel básico, así como en los comedores comunitarios propios del municipio. Conclusión de la mesa 2. Las y los campesinos y productores de alimentos como eslabón fundamental del sistema alimentario de Tulancingo de Bravo. Que el gobierno municipal, diseñe políticas públicas que habilite espacios públicos como puntos de venta donde se promuevan los productos resultado de la agricultura familiar, fortaleciendo entre otras cosas el Tejido social y la cohesión comunitaria, así mismo, se solicitó el apoyo con financiamiento viable para los pequeños productores y la transferencia tecnológica dirigidas a la productividad. Conclusión de la mesa 3. Productos Locales Vs Productos Foráneos Que el gobierno municipal, diseñe políticas públicas dirigidas a vincular a los productores locales con los consumidores y cadenas comerciales, disminuyendo la brecha a través de la organización y formación de colectivos (cooperativas), ayudándoles en el proceso de incubación y aceleramiento empresarial de sus productos. Conclusión de la mesa 4. El agua como un bien fundamental para la producción de alimentos Que la sociedad civil y el gobierno municipal diseñen y difundan acciones para el cuidado del agua, que se apoye al sector agrícola con innovación y tecnología para el mejor aprovechamiento del agua.237238239240241242244246248249251Las mesas de trabajo se llevaron a cabo con un gran nivel de discusión y puntos de vista sobre los temas planteados, no encontramos grandes áreas de divergencia, por el contrario, hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones.

2021-07-13 02:23:11205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21213/49

02991616076111036342311325013117139

El Diálogo se organizó en apego al Manual de referencia aportado por el Secretariado de la Cumbre. El grupo de trabajo responsable de la organización, participó en el proceso de capacitación realizado por el Secretariado. El equipo de facilitadores y tomadores de notas participó en dos sesiones de capacitación por parte del grupo de trabajo.

Yes

234239244249251El Diálogo Nacional no. 1 se enfocó en el Action track 2, con el fin de llevar a nuestros sistemas alimentarios hacia patrones de producción y consumo más sostenibles al tiempo que se exploraba lo que se requiere para alcanzarlo. En este sentido, la discusión incluyó aspectos clave de la Agenda Nacional relacionada a sistemas alimentarios, como fue la inclusión de mujeres y jóvenes, las buenas prácticas, la trazabilidad, el comercio justo y los mercados locales. Se determinó distribuir además a los participantes en mesas de trabajo (cada una con 3 subgrupos simultáneos al menos) dedicadas a analizar la situación actual así como los retos y necesidades para lograr una producción y consumo más sostenible, desde la perspectiva de: a)Cadenas de suministro b)Entornos alimentarios c)Consumidor Lo anterior se definió amparados en la visión de la FAO, respecto a las dimensiones que integran un sistema alimentario, permitiendo así una discusión que contemplara a todos los actores, actividades, dinámica e interrelaciones de dicho sistema.235239244245246248251CADENAS DE SUMINISTRO Se ha detectado un aumento de sistemas de producción orgánica o alternativa, lo que resulta en que ciertos actores productivos estén valorando distintas formas de producción y menor uso de agroquímicos. Se ha empezado a adoptar por parte de algunos sectores, conceptos de economía circular y asociatividad. Al avanzar en la cadena de suministro, se identificó el esfuerzo e interés por mantener buenas prácticas en las fases de procesamiento y esfuerzos para potenciar alimentos más saludables, así como canales de comercialización que acercan a productores y consumidores. ENTORNOS ALIMENTARIOS Existencia de programas nacionales de compra-distribución de alimentos que involucran aspectos de nutrición y salud, así como los proyectos que promueven acciones para reducir emisiones de GEI y mejorar la eficiencia de los sistemas de producción. En su conjunto esto ha promovido acciones tendientes al acceso a alimentos a personas en cierto grado de vulnerabilidad, promover valor agregado y estándares de calidad, reducción del uso de agroquímicos, diversificación de sistemas productivos más resilientes al cambio climático y uso de tecnologías de menor impacto ambiental. Asociatividad, cooperativismo, uso de conceptos de soberanía alimentaria y la promoción de denominaciones de origen y marcas también han motivado la producción sostenible de alimentos. Igualmente, si bien se destaca la trayectoria constante de respeto a derechos humanos, se considera que la institucionalidad y educación siguen siendo insuficientes en materia de sistemas agroalimentarios más sostenibles e inclusivos. CONSUMIDORES Hay coincidencia de visiones respecto a la existencia de esfuerzos e incentivos para la producción más sostenible, pero es vital poder trasladar esto también al consumidor para que pueda comprender qué implica la producción sostenible. En todo caso, al mejorar aspectos de la producción, se pone a disposición también mejores productos para el consumidor. Sin embargo, aunque se sigue requiriendo de mucho trabajo, se detectaron acciones y programas tendientes a mejorar las decisiones, información y opciones para un consumo más sostenible y saludable. Entre ellas, se han venido implementando mejoras a las Guías Alimentarias Basadas en Alimentos Sostenibles desde una acción intersectorial y se han empezado proyectos y programas para generar información y estudios que realmente valoran la variable nutricional en la toma de decisiones. Una acción positiva en concreto fue la prohibición de alimentos poco nutritivos en centros educativos hace unos años, y la existencia de Políticas relacionadas a descarbonización, producción y consumo sostenible y puntualmente sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. La Canasta Básica además empieza a contemplar elementos nutricionales, y otras instancias promueven el rescate de tradiciones y cultura alimentaria costarricense. Finalmente, existieron importantes acciones para garantizar acceso, disponibilidad y consumo de alimentos a raíz de la crisis del Covid-19. Retos y áreas de interés común Se encontró que en las tres dimensiones hubo coincidencia respecto a la necesidad de abordar aspectos como educación desde edades tempranas y al consumidor sobre aspectos relacionados a la producción y consumo de alimentos en toda su integralidad: prácticas sostenibles, valor del alimentos, origen, decisiones en torno a alimentación más saludable, prevención y reducción del desperdicio de alimentos, entre otras; mejor comunicación a los actores del sistema de aspectos relacionados a prácticas productivas y la implicación en la sostenibilidad de estas, clara identificación de productos nacionales vs importados, y de programas públicos y su accesibilidad por parte del sector privado; fomento de la participación de jóvenes, mujeres y grupos asociados de productores en los distintos eslabones del sistema de producción de alimentos, acompañados de programas educativos, de financiamiento flexible, y de incentivo para sus acciones, incluida la simplificación en tramitología y la coordinación interinstitucional; incremento y adecuación de la investigación, la transferencia y la extensión para propiciar innovación relativa a las necesidades y condiciones locales; incremento de la articulación interinstitucional e intersectorial para diversos temas, tanto de trámites, como de definición de políticas públicas consistentes entre sí, por ejemplo: dinamización de la producción agroalimentaria, observación de condiciones relacionadas a comercio justo, etiquetado, inversión en el sector (tecnología-infraestructura), cumplimiento de normativa ya existente, mejora del proceso de registros sanitarios e inclusión de nuevos productos para control de plagas y enfermedades, propuestas de proyectos locales partiendo de estudios de pre-factibilidad, inclusión de diversos actores, entre otros; -se requiere fortalecer alianzas público-privada para mejorar la discusión y atención a temas propios de cada sector, gremio o localidad. Lo anterior supone la prevención del supuesto de enviar “recetas” generadas en la capital a otras zonas del país o desde gobierno a sector productivo, así como la promoción de una visión amplia de sistema agroalimentario que considere productores, procesadores, comercializadores, chefs, educadores, turismo, academia, especialistas en salud, ambiente, economía, sector de la comunicación, gobiernos locales, entre otros.236239245248249El país definió como temas prioritarios en su agenda para el Sector Agroalimentario la inclusión de mujeres y jóvenes, buenas prácticas agrícolas y pecuarias, trazabilidad, comercio justo, agroinnovación, y mercados locales. Por esto, se consultó el en diálogo si se consideró la inclusión de dichos temas en el quehacer real desde la perspectiva de las cadenas de suministro de alimentos, los entornos alimentarios y la perspectiva del consumidor. En respuesta, los participantes indicaron que si bien se pueden detectar opciones de programas o iniciativas en todos los temas mencionados, se considera que falta mucho trabajo aún para que sean realmente interiorizadas y adoptadas de manera integral en nuestro sistema alimentario, pues se siguen percibiendo como opciones aisladas. Se mencionan algunos ejemplos a continuación: Es evidente que existen planes de acceso a crédito para mujeres, pero realmente es limitado y complicado el acceso real que puedan tener (garantías, tramitología). También hay falta de accesibilidad a capacitación y tecnología, incluida la conectividad a internet en ciertas partes del país, así como una real integración generacional (incluso desincentivando el uso del término “relevo generacional”). Existe poco incentivo para que el productor, joven o no, se mantenga en el sector agroalimentario dada la alta incertidumbre y exceso de tramitologías de formalización actuales. Además, los procesos de agroinnnovación siguen siendo limitados por lo que las opciones de ferias y educación deberán potenciarse. Desde el punto de vista de rastreabilidad, hay importante normativa, aunque falta visibilizar y concretar las acciones de sostenibilidad que remuneren de forma justa el esfuerzo que esto implique al productor; además, la proliferación de sellos para estos fines puede tender a confundir al consumidor limitando su comprensión respecto a ciertas prácticas sostenibles y los existentes no siempre son verificados en los mercados nacionales. El comercio justo es un tema muchas veces plasmado en el papel a nivel de mercado local, prueba de ello es la falta de controles a nivel de intermediación y diferenciación de productos orgánicos vs convencionales. En términos de BPA y reducción de uso de agroquímicos, hay serias deficiencias en materia de uso de nuevas moléculas y su proceso de registro. El cooperativismo ha sido ejemplo en muchas zonas del país para promover muchos de estos temas, pero existen también ejemplo de deficiencias gerenciales para cumplir a cabalidad con su misión, lo cual no solo se limita a esta forma de asociatividad, sino también a otros grupos de productores y al productor en general respecto a manejo de temas administrativos, y de costo.237239243249-las principales divergencias se dan en términos de todos los esfuerzos, inversiones y programas que los actores públicos mencionan que se están haciendo en contraste con la opinión de los actores productivos que citan no conocer siempre de esas iniciativas o que no generan impacto equitativo en las distintas regiones del país. -el tema de sellos y etiquetado puede verse como una gran herramienta, pero también una barrera para el consumidor si no los comprende bien, si proliferan sin control y abruman al consumidor o generan costos excesivos para el productor sin un resultado tangible, si no comunican adecuadamente el elemento diferenciador y si no hay educación adecuada para su uso -la priorización de temas o definición de una hoja de ruta país con particularidades locales no está bien definida, por eso a veces parecen haber divergencias sectoriales o institucionales donde unos apuntan en una dirección, ejemplo ambiente vs productividad vs salud vs rentabilidad, cuando podrían ser consecuentes todos ellos. -tienden a haber discrepancias entre las exigencias de algunas normativas y la aplicación real de estas y el balance entre actores; así mismo, la definición de estándares puede ser confuso o contraproducente en ciertos casos (ejemplo calidad primera, alimentos buenos o malos, feos, etc y los efectos en salud y desperdicio alimentario).

2021-07-13 03:07:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24475/203

72636235681267471801557357

n/an/an/a

NoInteraction with participants was via questions during the planning stage of the event, and through questions and comments through a chatbox during the presentation/discussion time. Crowd surveys were conducted during the event to capture key words describing opportunities for change and priority action areas.

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The Asia-Pacific regional food systems dialogue was organized to (i) provide insights from the national dialogues that are currently being convened in the region on the five action tracks, and (ii) identify opportunities for regional and sub-regional collaboration. It considered cross-cutting issues that had emerged as priority areas for action during the recent Asia-Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development (https://www.unescap.org/apfsd/8). A diverse range of stakeholders participated in the event, consolidating regional views, perspectives and experiences regarding pathways and actions for equitable and sustainable food systems transformation and to support the implementation of the SDGs within the context of current realities.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251Global food systems rely on national and regional ones to function properly. Regional food systems occupy a central role in ensuring a smooth transition between the national and global food systems. This underscores the importance for regional actions towards harnessing synergies. The Asia-Pacific region is crucial for the global food system, considering its scale in terms of population, human capital, economy and productivity; and its interdependence with global aquatic and agroforestry food systems. Regional cooperation and national transformation are the cross-cutting actions that can make communities and collections of stakeholders work together with national governments and local authorities to transform food systems and achieve the SDGs. The region could increase food access and utilization by providing incentives to steer food consumption towards more diverse, healthy, and balanced diets by populations, especially women, children, and the urban poor, and improvement in food marketing and raise awareness. Climate action could be supported by expanding agro-ecological practices and promoting resilient food systems that produce healthy food. The region should tackle the vulnerabilities of women in agriculture by engaging women in policy-making process and understanding the challenges that women face such as lack of access and opportunities. A shift in consumption patterns and production processes could be achieved by improving waste management systems, and through a focus on digitalization of the farm and rural economy. Addressing supply chain practices at all stages and collaboration between primary food producers is key for making safe food available. Food standards should be harmonized at regional and sub regional level. Social protection system should be leveraged, by expanding investments in social protection systems that take food security and the nutritional needs of vulnerable populations into considerations. The region needs collaboration on technology transfer for more productive and climate resilient crops and practices, proper economic valuation of natural capital, and the improved access of farmers to land and social services. A business-conducive environment to attract private sector investments towards agricultural infrastructure is needed to grant farmers and consumers in the region access to wider markets and better products. This in turn calls for collaboration for regional standards and improved trade, as well as improved platforms linking food surplus and deficit countries to ensure food security. During the dialogue, stakeholders stressed the importance of, and commitment to, disseminating game-changing solutions centered around new technologies through regional platforms; promoting family farming a viable livelihood within the UN Decade of Family farming; pioneering actions to enhance consumers experience of food access and safety; reimagining global agriculture and increasing sustainability through value chains; coordinating to ensure and champion environmental sustainability at the food systems summit and beyond; improving rural development and food systems, with operational focus on climate change.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251MESSAGES FROM COUNTRY DIALOGUES AND NATIONAL CONVENORS This session emphasized that food systems are a wide and cross-cutting topic which are at the same time locally specific. Instead of focusing of individual components of food systems, such as food security, nutrition, vulnerability etc., the concept of food systems has sensitized the stakeholders about the need for a holistic approach, and discussions are expanding from commodity to systems, from activity to chains, from actors to stakeholders, from consumption to health, from present to future generations. Systems thinking is becoming more widespread. There is a paradigm shift from dealing with problems only inside 'silos', towards addressing problems in their entirety. Working across sectors and disciplines can be destabilizing but the dialogues are making stakeholders more comfortable with this approach and are understanding that food systems are key for the achievement of the SDGs. Increasing production is necessary but not sufficient as there is a need to simultaneously look at production, distribution and consumption in a systemic approach. Stakeholders and partners have been encouraged to join a systems approach to localize sustainable production and identify areas of action ranging from the shift to healthy diets for poor communities, to resilience for people most exposed to shocks, to the recognition that unless a positive effort is made to engage the youth the food systems transformation will not be sustainable. Inclusion is key and the convenors work has to be accessible to all. The dialogues provided an opportunity for government and people to take account of the learnings of the covid disruption and think about the strategic options for moving towards a national transformation of the food systems. Sustainability and resilience will be at the heart of this and rebuilding will focus on sustainable food systems, ensuring that women and youth are more central. This seems to be a common pattern especially in the Pacific. Inclusivity is making challenges and gaps turning into actions and the dialogue process is showing its value and will continue beyond the Summit. Within the food systems approach it is important to give a central role to the people, including through safety nets and nutrition and health concerns, encompassing ecosystems and private enterprises. National dialogues in the region emphasized the involvement and empowerment of all stakeholders, and especially youth and women. Regional cooperation and national transformation are the cross-cutting actions that can make this happen, and make communities and collections of stakeholders join national governments and local authorities to transform food systems and achieve the SDGs. Dialogues have been framed around the Summit action tracks or with a focus on country-relevant topics such as access to food, vulnerability to malnutrition, production of higher quality food, nature positive production systems for local farmers and fishers, resilience of food systems including interventions designed to ensure resilience at small farm level, making farmers’ livelihoods stronger and secure, educate the public on nutritious and healthy patterns, and environment friendly and nutritious production. Bringing together national and independent dialogues is key to the work of convenors who can start from existing strategies and use the dialogues to involve different stakeholders to develop pathways. Convenors make action tracks them locally specific within the countries, reflecting the diversity of food systems and people, with an overall strategic approach for a sustainable food systems transformation. Inclusion of additional action tracks is seen as a way to ensure national characteristics are brought into the Summit. Linking priorities from different countries and working together with partners in the region is instrumental to advance on the priority areas identified.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251OPPORTUNITIES FOR REGIONAL ACTION Participants representing different sectors and organizations discussed their role in making food systems more sustainable. Discussion was introduced by some recommendations outlined at the 8th APFSD: Achieving sustainable food systems requires an integrated approach; Leveraging social protection system to enhance food security and nutrition outcomes; Strengthening urban agriculture and local food production can improve nutrition and access to food among the urban poor; Restoring the health of agroecological systems will be needed to boost resilience; Effective recovery responses will need to pay particular attention to the gendered impacts of changes in the agricultural system; Digitalization can play an important role in strengthening sustainability and resilience through supply chain and improved traceability; Importance of data availability to inform policy and programming, including by providing regular data on household food security, affordability of diets, and consumer choices. Climate induced stresses and shocks are magnified by social and political fault lines. Some countries have misalignment between farming policies, adaptation of financial and technical resources and climate adaption responses. Simulated modelling for implementing research informed climate smart agricultural techniques, new technologies for data collection and increased crop production are instrumental to feed the growing population with the same amount of arable land. Public research agencies should adopt these new technologies but need political will and commitment. Regional cooperation is needed for technology transfers. For many people farming is not a choice. To advance equitable livelihoods for small farmers while promoting sustainable and efficient production methods there is a need to confer land rights to farmers and secure their access to lands and forests. At the same time, equal rights are needed by women farmers; notably ASEAN has a roadmap for gender sensitivities in farming. Other measures include promoting the agency of family farmers; increasing their social and political power, giving them access to economic and social services. We need to value the services provided by farmers, and appreciate biodiversity and fresh produce. This in turn calls for better infrastructure and access to local markets. Better infrastructure can connect local consumers to wider markets, improving consumer choices and access to foods. Regional trade can promote enhanced food availability and access to healthier nutritious food. Addressing supply chain practices at all stages and collaboration between primary food producers is key for making safe food available. Food standards should be harmonized at regional and sub regional level. Nutrient information on packaged foods should be easy to interpret to allow consumers to make informed choices. Rice is the staple crop for the region, but rice farming correlates with malnutrition, poverty, and depletion of natural resources. Water variance and availability is affected by drought and climate change, so we need better regional assurances and dialogue between surplus and deficit countries to ensure food security. Policy alignment is critical on safety standards as well as better data definitions to avoid food waste and loss and provide better predictability of crops and food availability. Nature positive production is already economically viable, but we fail to recognize it because we do not measure a range of negative and positive externalities across the value chain. We need perverse subsidies to be 'repurposed' to pro-nature alternatives, which would allow the price that consumers pay to better represent the 'true cost' of food. Proper economic valuation of natural capital is unquantified at present but may become a key indicator of GDP. An economic structural transformation is the precondition for agriculture competitiveness and improved food systems. Farmers need access to infrastructure, finance, digitalization, transport etc. Low public sector investment makes private sector key, but it needs a more business-conducive environment.237n/a

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Opportunities-for-Change.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Action-Areas.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGiJ8kGymu0

2021-07-13 07:37:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30036/203

231351453713114982123011841211111411142111191412122215852021

Pre-event: During the planning stages of the dialogue, we made to organize our panels to include a diversity of stakeholders from different regions and backgrounds across the food systems to discuss game-changing solutions within aquatic food systems, from production to consumption, across the 5 Action Tracks. During the event: At the start of the webinar, during the presentation of housekeeping rules, we described our adherence to the UN Food Systems Summit Dialogues Principles of Engagement. The link to the Principles of Engagement's information page was also shared with our participants in the Zoom chat box for them to engage with and learn more.This Dialogue reflected specific aspects of the Principles, such as: - Elaborated pathways to food systems transformation through innovative, game-changing solutions with aquatic foods to contribute to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. - Tabled a diversity of stakeholders from different regions and backgrounds – within government, the business community, civil society and research – to identify actions, potential synergies and trade-offs across the food system, from production to consumption. - Added value to existing practices, investments and policy processes by providing a safe platform to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for healthy people and planet. - Empowered stakeholders to be open-minded and inclusive, fostered new connections, listened to each other and embraced divergent points of view. - Involved multiple stakeholders from diverse regions and backgrounds across different food system sectors to identify actions, potential synergies and trade-offs.To be inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251In this UN Food Systems Summit Science Day side event hosted by WorldFish and FAO, multidisciplinary researchers from a diversity of regions will share how aquatic food systems’ innovations are leading the way to achieve the 2030 agenda. The discussions identified key actions needed to drive multi-stakeholder collaborations and commitments to ensure aquatic food systems transformations are a central part of UN Food Systems Summit outcomes.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Food systems transformation with aquatic foods to inform and shape research-to-policy outcomes in the UN Food Systems Summit  Fisheries and aquaculture already support the livelihoods of around 820 million people worldwide, 90 percent of whom work in the small-scale sector, and half of which are women. While global per fish capita consumption is increasing, inequity in food systems continues to lead to disparities in access. Local production of nutritious aquatic foods must be improved in order to meet growing demand in low-income nations. Through the sustainable intensification of aquaculture, improved management of capture fisheries, and fish value chains that reduce fish loss and waste, in combination with promotion of aquatic foods through nutrition interventions during crucial developmental periods and food-based dietary guidelines, food and nutrition security can be enhanced within planetary boundaries. To ensure equitable access to nutritious food and income benefits for all, a holistic approach to food systems is needed to ensure the availability of nutritious aquatic foods to all people and offer a sustainable source of income. 236238239240241242243244246248249251The  power of aquatic foods in making sustainable, healthy diets a reality throughout the world Aquatic foods are often the most accessible animal-sourced food for millions in low- and middle-income countries. By scaling new innovations and technologies for large-scale food system transformation, aquatic foods can alleviate malnutrition with a low environmental impact. Aquatic foods provide vital micronutrients during the first 1000 days of life and beyond, improve cognitive development in children and adolescents, reduce stunting, and are associated with positive behavior and mental health outcomes. Ninety percent of inland catch, which includes small-scale inland fisheries, is consumed locally, making aquatic foods and sustainable healthy diets accessible in low-resource settings. With a renewed focus on lower trophic level species, which are capable of reproducing their biomass and can be consumed whole, aquatic foods can transform global food systems within planetary boundaries while reducing food loss and waste.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Sustainable  aquaculture in contributing to more resilient and sustainable food systems Aquaculture encompasses diverse systems in marine and inland waters as well as homestead ponds that can be developed, alongside fisheries, to boost local production of nutrient-rich foods. Nutrition-sensitive approaches to aquaculture allow for the production of large quantities of diverse food in a sustainable and efficient manner that encourages household consumption of nutrient-rich foods. When managed sustainably with targeted investments, aquaculture promotes planetary health while improving best practice management guidelines can also build food systems resilience against socio-ecological shocks. Investments in technologies and policies can promote locally available fish feed sources, diversify markets, and capacity-building opportunities that improve entry into the sector, especially for women small-scale fish farmers, who are often marginalized.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Impactful aquatic foods research and innovations across the  UN Food System Summit’s 5 Action Tracks In Malawi, innovations in the sustainable supply chain, such as solar drying and milling of solar-dried fish into powders, are improving nutrient density, quality and safety of aquatic food as well as extending access through improved storage life; maintaining quality and reducing loss during transportation and retail; and increasing access to better markets and household income for women. In Bangladesh, nutrition-sensitive approaches to aquatic food systems, such as the introduction of nutrient-rich small indigenous species for pond polyculture, with strong support from government and research organizations, are a means to improve the country’s sustainable production and consumption of diverse aquatic foods. In India, the inclusion of fish-based products in state-funded school feeding and maternal nutrition programs is supporting the research for development efforts in combating the severe issue of malnutrition through the consumption of healthy, nutritious diets, especially among the marginalized communities. In the Caribbean, climate change services and innovations for fishers, such as growing temperature-resilient corals; developing multi-function mobile apps for aiding SSF with weather and emergency information, scaling fish aggregating devices (FADs); and the farming of seaweed as a low-trophic substitute for raw materials, are contributing to community resilience against climate shocks and natural disasters.

2021-07-13 07:50:48205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24192/92

332433171121121812232214

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250The major focal points of the “Local implications of global challenges” Dialogue in its third meeting were: 1. Israel strength and uniqueness 2. Applicable steps to achieve 2030’s goals 3. Human resources 4. Technology & knowledge gaps 5. Regulation Israel is located in one of the world's hotspots for climate change, the region is heavily populated and heavily dependent on locally grown and watered food. The strength and uniqueness involve first of all the human resources and the geo-political situation. Human resources include high-level motivated food producers which will step-up for a reliable long-term mission concurrently with high technology capabilities and experience. The unique geo-political situation turns Israel into a “agricultural laboratory” affected by its borders, ecological niches, water resources and local crops and invasive threats. Modern food sectors are interdependent. We must develop long-term planning programs and regulations to ensure sustainable food systems which encourage local food production and consumption, improved water usage and increasing landscape lands both for agriculture, nature and cultural needs.235238239240241242243244245246248249250The participants in our 7-tables Dialogue suggested several applicable ideas and steps to reach the goals of sustainable-food systems in the year 2030. Four main subjects rose up in all the tables – Regulation, Planning, Education and Budget. Some of the specific ideas are listed below: The “Climate changes” table: • Promoting regional collaborations to reduce conflicts regarding water and food and to optimize local production capabilities • Addressing the significance of regional food security in a changing climate • Implementing measures to adapt the food production system to a hotter and dryer climate • Promoting the Mediterranean Diet as a Climate Friendly food pattern • Promoting innovation to reduce dependency on water within food production • Carrying out risk assessments of the consequences of climate change on the various branches of agriculture • Multi-year analysis and monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions directly and indirectly related to food systems • Creating a plan to promote the food-tech industry • Education and information - to increase public awareness of consumption with low environmental impact and prevent food waste • Carbon-tax on imported food products • Planning of agricultural areas for rainwater collection / protection against floods in urban areas • Reduce food waste – dynamic pricing, education. • Conservation of social resources - continued development of knowledge of farmers and training bodies and applied research and encouraging farmers to remain in their agriculture branch, creating certainty for the agriculture industry. • Creating new agricultural roles to the urban and industrial areas. The “Biodiversity” table: • Statutory protection of agricultural land • Preservation of agricultural areas as an ecological corridors and / or even conversion of areas • Classification of agricultural land according to indicators that supports biodiversity for each sector - definitions that every farmer can easily measure and improve • Preservation of Israel's genetic sources under law and regulations, while defining a budget on its side. • Encouraging crops that support biodiversity. • Incentives for environmental conservation agriculture. • Incentives for young farmers / encourage next generation • Education - environmental and agricultural education at school. The “Water resources” table: • Creating environmental regulation and standards. • Separation between natural water management and artificial water-systems management, including desalination, sewage, effluent. • Synchronize master-plans and regulations for the water economy and agriculture in the short and the long-term. • Increasing water sources for the purpose of increasing agricultural production and optimal planning of crops in order to create food security. The “Open lands” table: • Statutory protection of agricultural land. • Developing a national outline plan for agriculture which also defines internal classification of the lands. • Creating multi-purposes lands uses– agritourism, agrisolar. • Developing unique agricultural niches / specialization. • Adopting high quality and safety food standards which include the entire food chain. • Keeping equality concerning demands for local and imported food products. The “Waste” table: • Establishment of a “Waste treatment authority” • Creating “basins of waste model” according to several parameters (distance, transport time, type of waste etc.). • Distinction between the cost of waste treatment and the responsibility for the treatment of agricultural waste - the farmer must be responsible for the treatment The “Invasive species” table: • Creating established protocols and contingency plans for major pests. • Support and expand risk-assessment teams. • Develop mobile and rapid techniques to identify new species invasion which can be easily used in the field. • Prioritization of lesions according to agricultural crops essential for food security The “Marine Resources” table: • Develop additional sources of food from a marine resource - reproductive farms, intensive terrestrial cultivation, consumption of invasive species. • Increasing demand for low trophic level species. • Maintaining sustainable fishing and prohibit environmentally destructive methods. • Monitoring the loot by combining data from surveys and fisherman reports. • Develop protocols for prevention and monitoring pollution from aquaculture.2371. Prioritizing water for nature above irrigation needs of agriculture produce intended for export 2. Limiting import of meat products 3. Developing strictures for meat products and consumption 4. The contribution of biodiversity to agriculture, some narrow its contribution only to pollination 5. Subsidized farmers for ecological actions

2021-07-13 08:04:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13374/192

3412676281215250141421111

Peas Please is a collaborative initiative that brings together multiple stakeholders across the food system to drive up veg consumption. It already works along the lines of the summit principles of engagement to act with urgency, to respect people and environment, recognise complexity, work with multiple stakeholders, complement the work of others and build trust between stakeholders and in doing the dialogue we committed to the summit. In this dialogue Peas Please convened a discussion between multiple stakeholders – citizens, food manufacturers, retail, government, researchers and civil society organisations – to explore current opportunities and barriers for food manufacturing to deliver increased veg consumption. The dialogue sat within existing work to improve the food system and got manufacturers and citizens and civil society groups exploring what thad been done so far and what more was possible. We designed the principles into the dialogue in that the participants were briefed where possible in advance and the principles of the engagement were explained. On the day of the dialogue the chair also made note of the principles and the facilitators of the break out rooms were trained in the principles. The findings were shared with all subsequently.The manufacturers involved in the Dialogue had committed, through working with Peas Please for a few years, to driving up the amount of veg either in their products or recommendations in their on pack recipes and social media. However Peas Please and the Dialogue recognised that a lot more needs to be done to get the UK nation eat 5-a-day and it was in this spirit of urgency that the discussion was held. Because the issues are complex this dialogue focussed on one specific area ie manufacturing in the hope that this focus would tease out some of the issues and help to make progress. Multiple stakeholders were involved, particularly citizens who had looked carefully at what the manufacturers had committed to do and then discussed what more could be done. Manufacturers and citizens were all briefed before hand so that the Dialogue would be as rigorous and inclusive as possible. There were four break out rooms with different manufacturers talking to civil society and citizens, this enabled a good discussion. Each breakout room was chaired by a member of Peas Please who aimed to keep the discussion positive and focused to build trust between stakeholders.

Yes

234238239This Independent Dialogue had a specific focus on one area of the food system – making manufactured foods more veg filled. It brought together citizens, representatives from food manufacturers, government, researchers, retail and civil society, to explore current opportunities and barriers for food manufacturing to increase veg consumption.235238239What’s going well? • Many commitments to up veg sales have been achieved – and manufacturers are already looking to do better. Achievements includes: o Eatwell guide and fruit and veg consumption targets being used to inform development of products o Millions more portions of veg sold o Promotion of veg on websites good and good visibility of veg online o Transformations across social media channels with the inclusion of veg and bright colours. A positive amount of veg and conversation on national veg week o More recipes on packs including veg o Recipe recommendations on pack and online being driven by 2 portions of veg o One manufacturer working with schools o Promotion of mealtimes by manufacturers o Increased % of veg in a number of ready meal ranges o One manufacturer sourcing 100% of one of their veg lines from the UK However there was agreement that: • We need to do more to increase consumption the of veg and there is a willingness to trial new ideas Opportunities discussed were: • Customers are looking for a solution – though they don’t necessarily know what it looks like. In a competitive market, the one who comes up with the solution at a competitive price gets the business • Schools are customers too – all school food standards should include 2 portions of veg and these standards should be monitored for compliance. This could be an opportunity, with suppliers, to drive up demand in schools. If suppliers could demonstrate how their offering meets the regulations, they could increase the likelihood of getting business at the same time as contributing healthy products. Manufacturers and catering suppliers can engage with children in schools to help drive up demand, e.g. activities, gardening, veg growing, taste testing of healthy products, competitions to design a new product which have to be healthy, sustainable and work commercially • More pre-prepared meals in catering due to reducing chefs in kitchens – this could be a challenge or an opportunity. There is an opportunity for more healthy manufactured products to be designed and made for food service • There are some great marketing campaigns to increase veg consumption which could be pushed more and also links made to Veg Power. Lot going on in this space but always room for improvement. Push the message about seasonality and UK produce. The discussion identified an enormous amount of work being done by Manufacturers, that wasn’t always visible. There could be an opportunity for suppliers and manufacturers to shout a bit louder what they are doing on veg • Heathy start vouchers have gone up in value for food that is fresh, frozen or tin vegetables for families in low income. This is a good opportunity for Manufacturers to work with supermarkets to promote their fresh or frozen veg • More recipes including veg as the star: e.g. a recipe attached to frozen mix veg package range • Look to the Netherlands – Healthy Generation Initiative. Looks at people born today with the ambition that when they are 18 years old they are eating enough vegetables • Veg snacking – opportunity to not just focus on mealtimes but expand veg ranges into snacking – think about all the in between moments • Make veg more inspiring, interesting, appealing – bring in seasoning, sauces and other products that complement different types of veg • More World cuisine Veg dishes - people are enjoying a greater diversity of food e.g. Japanese, Vietnamese etc. Create a range of ready meals, recipes, vegetable mixes that would help put veg at the heart of different cuisines • Sustainable farming of veg – some manufacturers showing gold standards for sustainable farming of their produce. Celebrate this good practice and inspire others236238239Specific citizen suggestions to manufacturers: 1. More veg and more meat free products – some manufacturers are moving into meat free product lines so visions for increasing veg sit beside increasing consumption of meat free. These two visions should go hand in hand – increasing veg consumption shouldn't lose out to the expansion of meat free plant-based products 2. Veg based ready meals not to include unsustainably produced products e.g. unsustainably sourced soya and palm oil 3. Veg content in some products good but reduce sugar content – need to look at the big picture and nutritional guidance in the round – not just increasing veg 4. Make more recipes to have veg as star of the meal – many recipe suggestions are still meat based and more could be done to suggest veg 5. Amount of veg in recipes should be less prescriptive – instead of specific grammes say whole or half a vegetable e.g. 1 carrot, 1 courgette rather than grammes. Agreement from manufacturers but an acknowledgement that tech issues mean grammes simpler to put in recipe than whole veg amounts 6. Website recipes could include tray bakes/batch cooking which uses veg. This might encourage caterers/development chefs from wholesalers; supply chain; public services. They could be taught how to use the products and how to add more veg 7. Versatile recipe suggestions – veg recipe suggestions and narratives should cater for range of diets - flexitarian, meat-eater, vegetarian and vegan. e.g. chicken is prevalent as an ingredient. This could be made more flexible with other suggestions such as veg/coconut milk/tofu 8. More clarity in recipe suggestions on how many people and how many portions of veg are included 9. Recipe suggestions on jar/online – jar limited by space and competing demands, often the recipes are replaced by competitions etc. Websites not necessarily a go to but good for more information. In store placement of veg near products suggested but this is retailer dependent not manufacturer 10. Serving size images should reflect portions of veg. Limited amount of on pack space for Information/ pictures of serving sizes so manufacturers aware this means websites needs to be very clear and correct as people are being directed there 11. Make visuals more consistent of what the plate/dish would look like help Images of meals sometimes not mirrored in the recipe. Could the image show a smaller portion of meat with 2 portions of veg? This could make the dish more accessible/more in line with sustainable diets. Manufacturers keen that the recipe images reflect the actual recipe and will check their images for distortion and check they are in line with their healthy diet principles 12. Add in a ‘veg hint/suggestion’ to recipes to help show how easy it could be to use and add veg 13. Add a prompt on provenance – include a hint to ask people to stretch to what their budget allows for more UK or sustainably produced meals 14. More positive veg comms – demo videos, Blog articles and thought leadership for the industries 15. More veg dishes/recipes from around the world – There’s an appetite for the development of new ready meals. Manufacturers could do more by looking at the new opportunities offered by new trends that happen to be healthier and include more veg e.g. Vietnamese food 16. More products with more veg for convenience stores – can only stock a small/limited range of products. In order to reach these customers it is important that more veg is in more products. Can manufacturers add more veg to main ranges rather than a limited few? 17. Convenience stores would benefit from more meal kit ranges with more veg and is there an opportunity for convenience stores to link with local caterers? 18. More veg competitions/ challenges – competitions for customers to showcase veg, linking in with talking about the recipes on the website 19.More celebrating of mealtimes – more of this recommended as people tend to eat more veg of they’re sitting around a table 20. Sharing good practice on manufacturer own canteen veg – some positive impacts on veg sales seen in some manufacturers canteens that could be built on237238239• Increasing availability and demand simultaneously – how do manufacturers take consumers with them and vice versa? One of the challenges with pre-prepared meals is a large element of needing to be demand-driven. Manufacturers are developing products with higher proportions of veg, but it can be a challenge presenting it to customers. If you don’t present a “quality” offering of what the customer wants, then you lose the business. ‘All veg ready meals’ don’t always sell, there’s a need to try to innovate on increasing veg content rather than all veg • Consumers may want new products but new product development process is expensive and risky for manufacturers – it requires time, development process, allergens, lab testing etc. Where successes have happened there have been economies of scale to enable companies to manufacture specific products. Taste profiles of main brands are hard to change, manufacturers rare reluctant to change the taste of these but there might be opportunities for new product lines to be more experimental with veg • More promotions and work between manufacturers and retailers needed to increase promotion in store and TV advertising. Manufacturers can’t control placement in store and amount of promotions – this is all led by retailers. Manufacturers need to work more closely with retailers • Collaboration – opportunity for governments to bring food system stakeholders together – to co-create policy and help inspire innovation

2021-07-13 08:08:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5389/203

15802586416778136543419252527142168111353374

- Act with Urgency: our Independent Sialogue was organized to consider 2030 as a time horizon to which Geographical Indications could contribute as a territorial approach to the SDGs. - Commit to the Summit: we ensured a very large recruitment of participants (158 registrations), from 51 countries of the world, invited and participating in a personal capacity and committed to a territorial approach of food systems for greater sustainability. - Be respectful + Build trust: in order to offer a confidential and friendly discussion space, our Dialogue organized, after a plenary session (30 min), 9 parallel discussion sessions, of 8 to 10 people each (1h30), followed by a feedback in plenary session (30 min). All discussions were held under the Chatham House rules. - Recognize the complexity: each thematic session was introduced by a moment of shared assessment whose objective was to recognize the complexity of the subject. This was followed by a prospective phase of building solutions, adapted to the issues / gaps identified in the first part of the dialogue. - Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusiveness: in our independent dialogue, we paid particular attention to promoting diverse participation. Participant statistics show that we met the challenge of a multi-stakeholder approach.In its conclusions, our Independent Dialogue on "Geographical Indications for a Territorial Approach to the SDGs" reflects a recognition of the complexity of the issues related to more sustainable food systems. These exchanges have also allowed us to identify feasible, sustainable and fundable solutions in the short and medium term. These solutions involve a wide range of actors. It seems to us that we have worked in the direction of the principles of this dialogue. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)The Principles of Engagement are very useful guidelines for organizing independent dialogues, from the general framing of your topics to the small logistical details.

Yes

234241244246248249250251This independent dialogue focused on “Geographical Indications for a territorial approach to the SDGs”. This is relevant in the context of Action Track 4, “Advancing Equitable Livelihoods” and more specifically for Action Area 4.3, “Localizing Food Systems: Strengthening Sustainable Territorial Development”. Over the last years, Geographical Indications (GIs) have emerged globally as a powerful Intellectual Property and rural development tool. A GI is a sign used to designate goods originating from a particular place that has a specific quality or reputation attributable to that geographical origin. These qualities are the result of local factors, natural and/or human, embedded in the GI specification describing the characteristics of the product, its method of production and the delimited geographical area. GIs represent a collective asset linked to local heritage and the product’s reputation. They can be effective tools for building territorial processes towards the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs). In the framework of the Independent Dialogue, the presentation of GI cases and the exchange among experts from all over the world generated valuable insights and meaningful recommendations towards advancing equitable livelihoods through fair and inclusive value chains as well as sustainable food systems. Discussion topics included: • GIs to support market access, and fair and equitable value chains: empowering local producers; • GIs for quality management, traceability and consumer protection; • GIs to preserve local natural heritage, environment and biodiversity; • GIs to promote cultural identity, and ensure food and dietary diversity.235238239240241244246247248249250The main finding of the independent dialogue was to confirm the crucial contribution of the GI scheme – with its territorial approach – to sustainable food systems and SDGs. The dialogue also acknowledged that GI schemes are key drivers to bring stakeholders together along an equitable value-chain, but do not automatically result in positive effects on sustainability. In this respect, the important role of regulations and public authorities was acknowledged, notably to ensure the control, traceability and enforcement of the rules of production defined by the community of producers for the benefits of producers and consumers. The cooperation between countries to fight misuses and to protect the reputation of GIs was also deemed crucial. Within this framework, GI products’ specifications appear to be an important instrument for increasing the sustainability of production systems. Territorial governance of localized agri-food value-chains is an important outcome that benefits public-private coordination. In particular, sound GI products’ specifications play a critical role in the preservation and promotion of natural resources, including biodiversity, cultural identity and food diversity. This needs to be better communicated to consumers, for example, for products whose consumption contributes to promote traditional and diversified diets, and preserve noteworthy landscapes. Participants supported the idea to scale-up the benefits of the GI territorial strategies by creating connections and cooperation between GI territories. In particular, cooperation between countries and initiatives, even at different stages of development, is appropriate to share experiences and best practices, create synergies and develop joint promotion on GI products. This network of initiatives would contribute to sustainable food systems at the global level, and could enhance linkages between urban centers and GI territories, so to better promote local and global consumption of GIs. In this context, the need for technical assistance has also been noted, while benefitting from synergies with projects and concepts on agro-ecology. Participants recognized it was time to promote the GI business model that integrates all the dimensions of sustainability, i.e, not only economic but also social and environmental dimensions, including cultural heritage. Indeed, these dimensions are intrinsic to the GI concept. These findings on GIs could actually bring lessons and experiences to other territorial approaches to contribute to sustainable food systems and SDGs .236241246247248249251Topic 1: GIs to support market access and fair and equitable value chains: empowering local producers. Participants in the related discussion groups all agree on the relevance of GI initiatives to strengthen value chains and make them more equitable. GI initiatives allow space for dialogue and recognize the roles of the most vulnerable actors (smallholders, women, youth) in defining and adding value to the specific characteristics of a given GI. They also facilitate dialogue and governance between different operators and increase trust (which is particularly necessary in long and export-driven value chains), which finally result in living and dynamic rural areas. To this end, empowerment of local producers is crucial. The role of neutral facilitators, especially grassroots organizations, was emphasized to accompany producers in the long term, provide technical support for the product differentiation, support the development of alliances and a territorial governance, enhance the scalability of the project and equilibrate forces between the various operators in a given value chain, to the advantage of small economic actors. Participants also highlighted the crucial role of public authorities and legal framework, as a starting point for the empowerment and joint efforts from different stakeholders. The control and traceability system was also acknowledged as an important instrument to strengthen value chains. Participants’ views on actions to be supported: • In value chains where the added value is not sufficiently redistributed to primary producers, the definition of minimum prices could be considered. • GI initiatives can feed trust among actors, but sometimes distrust can remain an important barrier to overcome; in this respect, innovative platforms, including social media, represent interesting tools to build trust between producers as well as with consumers.236238239241243246248249Topic 2: GIs for quality management, traceability and consumer protection Participants from different countries confirmed that control from farm to fork depends on national regulations. This results in a variety of systems and needs. On the other hand, common challenges also emerged, such as the importance of continued, effective and accessible controls and traceability. More specifically, strengthening collective management organization is the key factor for quality management and to govern the internal control system in particular, in combination with some form of external control. Having said that, external control bodies, public or private, often lack in developing countries. In terms of traceability, the participants suggested that solid systems for continued monitoring should be established and be accessible to small producers, without adding excessive costs. Traceability was underlined as a condition to access export markets. A system of farm/operator code, under the supervision of an internal or external control body, seems to be affordable for producers even in developing countries. But there are some difficulties for the recognition of the GI specifications and control/certification on the foreign markets, due to the diversity of national GI logos. For example, IT based traceability systems (e. g. QR code) are solutions that could also be more accessible to consumers to ensure high consumer protection and trust. Contrary to organic or fair-trade labels, that are based on general and easily understandable principles, GI product specifications throughout the world, and even within the same country, considerably vary as to the level of requirements, linkage to traditions, landscapes or cultural values as well as the environmental impacts of the production. Therefore, it makes it much more difficult to establish a high standard and even more to communicate on promises to consumers. The important role of the government was highlighted for increasing producers’ awareness and compliance with the GI product’s specification. Their role in increasing consumers’ awareness was also noted, including with campaigns for public awareness and with the objective of making local people proud of their own GI product. Participants also call for reducing, when it is the case, the governmental pressure on registration, which should occur after management and control system are fully established. In the meantime, temporary GI protection could be implemented to avoid misuses.236239240244246247248249250Topic 3: GIs to preserve local natural heritage, environment and biodiversity. Some local communities have been successful in recognizing and adding value to their products, through the GI scheme, based on the interactions involved in the “human-nature” relationship, often embedded in complex ecosystems. Participants agreed that GIs represent an opportunity for the preservation of biodiversity and the environment, while there is not an automatic correlation. GI products’ specifications potentially allow a broad variety of options aimed at increasing ecosystem conservation. Some of these options are the inclusion of specific plant varieties and local animal breeds, the introduction of hedges, limits on crop yields and density as well as animal production, and the implementation of agroforestry production methods. The preservation of natural heritage, biodiversity, and the ecosystem represent objectives which are envisaged at various degrees and forms. Based on the several cases discussed, no generalization is possible. Participants also raised the risks linked to the intensification of production, when the GI becomes a victim of its own success and producers do not organize themselves to limit the potential negative impact on the use of resources. Key factors have been highlighted to increase GI contribution to the preservation of the natural heritage: producer awareness on the importance of their natural resources, collective agreement on the modalities to implement and regular self-assessment of the GI impacts on the territory, in particular in the environmental dimension. In this view, raising awareness and building the capacities of producers is crucial.236238239240241246247248249251Topic 4: GIs to promote cultural identity, and ensure food and dietary diversity. Participants confirmed through their experience that many GIs contribute a lot to cultural identity and food culture, by keeping them alive, preserving their reputation and their link to the territory. GIs are recognized as an effective mechanism for the transmission of know-how and cultural identities to younger generations. Likewise, through the preservation of specific quality food, GIs can promote food and dietary diversity. This is particularly the case for GIs linked to gastronomy and traditional diets. Several examples of GIs contributing to healthy diets were also mentioned. For example, many fermented products are protected by GIs while they represent markers of the diversity of the food heritage and dietary diversity. Other traditional processing methods were also mentioned for their nutritional interest, such as drying, which makes fruits and vegetables available when not in season. The cases of products from local biodiversity were also highlighted. On the link between GI and nutrition and health, participants recommended more data collection and research to be carried out. Participants also underlined the important question of the origin of raw materials: when they are not locally produced, the link to the cultural identity and biodiversity is weak. To increase the contribution of GI to sustainable food systems, participants emphasized the importance of supporting a more comprehensive approach, including social and environmental pillars, with emphasis to their link to cultural heritage. This vision should also be better communicated to consumers, citizens and tourists, through education activities, while reflected in the GI products’ specifications. The role of primary producers should also be more emphasized in general and fruitful synergies could be enhanced, including with agro-ecology, Globally Important Agricultural Heritage sites (GIAHS), cooks and gastronomy networks.237238239240241244245246247248249250251From the nine discussion groups, some issues emerged in relation with constrains, specific practices to be recommended for increased sustainability, the need to explore more in detail certain areas, and priorities to be given to specific topics of interest, as described below. a) Strengths and constraints within food systems The contribution to sustainability depends on several factors, such as the kind of product, initiative drivers and legal framework. The economic interests and the profitability of the production are still among the main priorities of most producers. This could induce excess of specialization and standardization of the GI product and increase the risk of the degradation of the natural resources involved in the production process, compromising the overall capacity of the GI to ensure the preservation and protection of local natural and cultural heritage, biodiversity, and ecosystems and to convey to consumers the information on its territorialized positive impact. However, the preservation of natural and cultural assets is strictly linked to the survival of the GI in the long term and therefore to the economic benefits derived from its use. Raising producers’ awareness on this issue could be an effective strategy to encourage stakeholders’ commitment to additional (and/or stricter) rules and to enhance the implementation of best practices for resource management. Some contradictions between GI processes and regulations were also noted: • Sometimes the local “know-how” does not comply with international trade rules (for example sanitary and phytosanitary norms). This makes the process more complex, and legislation should consider some flexibility for traditional and GI products. • Strong and efficient value chain coordination might result in the control of, and agreement on, volumes, which have an impact on prices. This can be considered in certain countries a breach of competition laws. Studies could be developed to demonstrate the advantages of such practices over the risks. • Top-down approaches may lead to unused and non-effective GIs; studies on how to grant temporary protection and register the GI only once the whole management system is in place would be interesting. b) Areas that need further exploration More studies on the sustainability of GIs to cover various contexts and products would be interesting to disseminate, especially with regard to the environmental dimension. In particular, research on the impact of practices or the use of species on biodiversity must be intensified including in countries in which GIs are not notorious. Regarding the social component, participants mentioned the importance to collect more data and develop research on the link with food and diet diversity as a promising area. Likewise, the need for producers to have more elements on economic impacts was recognized as an important aspect to support their engagement. Participants also highlighted the importance of qualitative empirical studies of specific GIs to provide lessons learned and best practices at local level and on the efficiency of underlying management and regulatory systems. At global level, participants highlighted the need for more homogenization of the criteria of validity for the registration of GIs among the different countries. A specific topic for research was also identified in relation with the creation and testing of traceability solutions together with producers and consumers in different situations/regions. c) Practices that are needed for food system sustainability The importance of biodiversity and ecosystem preservation is still not sufficiently addressed in public policies concerning GIs. Inclusion of agro-ecological practices or sustainable production practices in GI products’ specifications should be systematically suggested. The crucial role of collective action from local actors of GI values chains was discussed as a way to ensure successful bottom-up approaches, including in countries where the State has a strong role. In this specific context, the role of NGOs could be key to stimulate the discussion and find compromises, especially in the product specification design. Moreover, consistent actions to promote consumers’ awareness are still lacking. d) Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized All groups converged in recognizing the central roles of producers in managing GIs, and the importance to empower the more vulnerable ones, including smallholders and women, and their associations. Producers should take the lead in developing the products’ specifications as well as managing the quality and controls, and develop knowledge and capacities on preserving sustainability in all its dimensions. In this context, for smallholders, it was suggested to improve credit systems (better access, favorable conditions) to contribute to reaching a more balanced power between companies and small producers/ cooperatives regarding investments and avoid tensions between the governance of the value chain and territorial governance. It is also important to build awareness among national authorities on the importance of accompanying producer communities in the sustainability pathway, by showing them the interest in preserving local resources, explaining the link between the GI impact on ecosystem preservation, the food and diet diversity and the interest in economic benefits. National authorities should also be supported for creating awareness on GIs among producers and consumers and enforcing GI regulations .

2021-07-13 09:51:40205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33920/113

794165489130100474320011759497315733

The survey process reflected most aspects of the Principles: Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity and Embrace Multi-stakeholder Commit to the Summit: The national study goes on to explain how pathways to food system transformation can help achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development's goals. Malaysia has joined AT5 and AT1, and its engagement sessions have been underway since October 2020, confirming its commitment to the Summit. Complement the work of others: This study looked into the factors that affect food security in Malaysia, as well as the consequences of these shocks.N/AN/A

Yes

234242243244246i) Issues to be addressed to secutitize foos systems and security ii) Resilience factors of food systems from social, environmet and economic aspects. iii) Recommendations to ensure food systems functional holistically and comprehensively. iv) The most affected value chain in the event of conflict.235238239242243244246248249Food Systems can be achieved through social, environmental, and economic resilience by: (I) Food safety & quality inspection (II) Sustainable Agriculture (III) Guaranteed and continuous food supply (IV) Addressing inequalities in the food systems (V) R&D&C&I237N/A

2021-07-13 14:18:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11679/33

05194115250319612211670011231221204412203009018101300

Todos os participantes receberam um material explicando a Cúpula, o papel dos Diálogos Independentes, o tema proposto para este Diálogo, a indicação das Actions Tracks, a conexão do tema com a Action Track #2 e os princípios de envolvimento.A seleção dos participantes foi baseada na diversidade territorial, de forma a abranger representantes de cidades de diversas regiões do Brasil. Também foram convidados outros atores envolvidos com o processo da alimentação escolar nas cidades, para além dos gestores públicos, representativos da academia, da agricultura familiar, das merendeiras, dos diretores de escola, dos conselhos de alimentação escolar (sociedade civil). Todos tiveram espaço equivalente de fala e escuta respeitosa, além das regras do Chatham House asseguradas. Os tópicos de discussão foram propostos com uma abordagem transversal dos desafios do tema, reconhecendo sua complexidade e urgência.Preparar material de apoio dirigido a todos os participantes e prever falas de abertura do Diálogo, que contenham explicações sobre a Cúpula e a conexão do tema que será discutido com as propostas que serão endereçadas para a Cúpula.

NoSobre a metodologia: Foi seguida a metodologia do Manual de Referências, com a participação de um grupo relativamente pequeno de convidados, a fim de garantir maior aproveitamento do tempo de debates nos grupos do Zoom, porém sem ter que estender demais o tempo do evento, considerando que a maioria das pessoas atualmente tem resistência a eventos com muito tempo de exposição de tela. Os participantes receberam previamente uma apresentação explicando a Cúpula, o papel dos Diálogos Independentes, o tema do Diálogo ao qual foram convidados, e sua conexão com a Action Track #2. Foram escolhidos facilitadores que fossem mais neutros aos debates, porém com conhecimento suficiente da temática para poder conduzir e apreender as diversas falas. Todos os/as facilitadores/as fizeram o treinamento com a 4SD indicado no Manual de Referência, e foram auxiliados por um tomador de nota por grupo, que manteve-se em silêncio. Considerando a necessidade de ouvir dos gestores públicos das cidades brasileiras sua visão sobre a alimentação escolar no plano municipal, foi definida uma lista de convidados para o diálogo que também agregasse outros representantes do ecossistema de atores chave na implementação de políticas e programas de alimentação escolar a nível local: Responsáveis Técnicos, Coordenadores de Alimentação Escolar na estrutura da gestão municipal, conselhos de alimentação escolar, representantes da academia dos Centros Colaboradores em Alimentação e Nutrição Escolar - CECANEs, merendeiras e produtores. Foi feita uma pré-seleção de municípios em todas as regiões brasileiras e cada município selecionado foi convidado a enviar um/a representante da coordenação de alimentação escolar. Os representantes da sociedade civil foram convidados diretamente, mediante uma pesquisa prévia de conselhos e CECANES existentes e em atividade e boas práticas de organizações da sociedade civil no tema. O Diálogo teve a duração de aproximadamente 3 horas. Iniciou com breves falas introdutórias dos organizadores do evento - o Representante Brasil da FAO e a diretora do Instituto Comida do Amanhã e membro da rede de Champions da Cúpula de Sistemas Alimentares. Seguiram-se as falas de dois governos locais com experiências relevantes na alimentação escolar durante a pandemia. Os participantes foram distribuídos em 6 grupos distintos. Foram definidos 3 temas importantes para a discussão (2 grupos debatendo cada um dos temas), e uma vez encaminhados aos grupos de forma previamente selecionada pela organização do evento (mas não previamente comunicada a cada participante), todos tiveram semelhantes tempos de fala. Assim, os grupos 1 e 2 debateram o mesmo tema, os grupos 3 e 4 também tiveram um tema comum, e nos grupos 5 e 6 o tema era o mesmo, apenas com uma derivação de aplicação no território - o desafio ao nível nacional ou municipal. As co-curadoras transitaram pelos grupos, sem interferir nos debates - o que foi previamente comunicado a todos os participantes. O resumo posteriormente apresentado em plenária pelo/a respectivo/a facilitador/a do grupo foi feito com o consentimento dos debatedores e em atendimento às regras de Chatam House. Após a sessão de feedback, as co-curadoras fizeram uma fala conclusiva dos encaminhamentos e uma reflexão desses encaminhamentos com as propostas em análise pela Action Track #2. O chat do Zoom esteve disponível e aberto a todas e todos no tempo integral do Diálogo. Foi enviado posteriormente um questionário de avaliação do evento, o qual até agora teve respostas positivas e nenhum comentário crítico.

234239241243245246247248249O foco do Diálogo foi explorar principalmente entre gestores públicos de cidades pequenas e médias brasileiras os desafios e possibilidades do programa nacional de alimentação escolar brasileiro, sob a ótica das cidades, levando em consideração a função sistêmica da alimentação escolar da rede de ensino pública na segurança alimentar e nutricional da população, na garantia do direito humano à alimentação, e na resiliência do abastecimento alimentar. E, ainda, considerando os fortes impactos provocados pela suspensão das aulas decorrentes da pandemia de covid-19. A alimentação escolar no Brasil, pautada na universalidade e na gratuidade de seu fornecimento, é uma política construída para garantir tanto a segurança nutricional da população estudantil quanto a aquisição direta da produção alimentar (food procurement) da agricultura familiar e de comunidades tradicionais. As temáticas dos grupos envolveram, portanto, aspectos ou desafios da execução do programa de alimentação escolar brasileiro, considerando seus objetivos e os cenários (i) atual (durante pandemia e com suspensão de aulas), (ii) futuro (pós pandemia e retorno às aulas) e (iii) sua sustentabilidade de longo prazo como política nacional e como política municipal. O foco principal do Diálogo, portanto, estava relacionado à Action Track #2, subtema 2.1, proposta #12 - e isso foi identificado e exposto aos participantes previamente ao encontro.235239241243245246247249Praticamente todos os grupos destacaram a importância histórica do programa nacional basileiro de alimentação escolar, e suas muitas possibilidades na execução municipal, considerando as variadas finalidades estratégicas do programa, como segurança alimentar, segurança nutricional, educação nutricional, fomento da agricultura familiar e produção alimentar de comunidades tradicionais, resiliência do abastecimento alimentar, dentre outras. A interrupção das aulas presenciais e a necessidade de adaptação local às novas formas de fornecimento de alimentação à população estudantil de ensino público brasileiro também foi um momento de ameaça à universalidade do programa e à política de quota mínima de compra direta da agricultura familiar/ povos tradicionais. Os principais resultados no levantamento dos desafios e possibilidades da alimentação escolar foram: * Reconhecimento de que a melhor alternativa à alimentação escolar presencial é a entrega de kits de alimentos a todas as famílias dos estudantes (garantindo assim o princípio da universalidade da alimentação escolar gratuita), que incluam também alimentos frescos /in natura e provenientes de compra direta da agricultura familiar ou das comunidades tradicionais, para valorização e garantia de continuidade da produção alimentar local. * Necessidade de aumento do orçamento federal para o programa de alimentação escolar e do aumento do orçamento municipal (a chamada “contrapartida”) para fazer frente às adaptações da alimentação escolar no período de suspensão das aulas, ante o maior custo de entrega de kits de alimentos comparadamente ao custo de fornecimento da refeição na escola, quando em aulas presenciais. * Necessidade de ampliação dos quadros dos profissionais dedicados ao programa, especialmente nutricionistas e responsáveis técnicos. * Necessidade de ações conjuntas e coordenadas entre vários atores e autoridades que integram o ecossistema de execução do programa de alimentação escolar, como secretarias de governo, agências federais de regulação do politica de alimentação escolar e de assistência técnica, academia e sociedade civil organizada, com o fim de viabilizar a continuidade da alimentação escolar nos moldes da política nacional que garante o reconhecimento de sua gratuidade, universalidade, qualidade nutricional, e fomento à produção local e familiar/tradicional. * Investimento em equipamentos de infraestrutura locais para logística e distribuição, e contenção de perda e desperdícios de alimentos, de forma que o fornecimento da produção local mesmo durante a suspensão das aulas e entrega de kits de alimentos às famílias possa ser garantida. * Ações de capacitação, formação e sensibilização dos diversos atores chave e profissionais que atuam na alimentação escolar, mas também junto à população em geral, em ações que apontem para entendimento integrado e holístico do programa de alimentação escolar. * Ampliação e desenvolvimento de programas e projetos de educação alimentar com inserção das culturas alimentares indígenas e tradicionais e valorização de dietas diversificadas, que atentem para a sociobiodiversidade brasileira. * Atenção e vigilância para controle e garantia da qualidade nutricional de kits de alimentos às famílias e/ou refeições servidas nas escolas. * Vacinação contra a Covid-19 de toda a comunidade escolar.236239241243245246247248249Entrega da alimentação escolar durante e pós-pandemia: Com as escolas fechadas impôs-se a necessidade de entrega de alimentos aos estudantes, ou alternativas encontradas pelos municípios. Quais os desafios e soluções que queremos destacar para garantir o direito humano à alimentação adequada? Ações realizadas / experiências de sucesso: Compromisso para que os alimentos chegassem com celeridade aos alunos e suas famílias principalmente com a entrega de kits de alimentos (“KITS”) para alunos dos municípios, com atenção à identificação dos grupos mais vulneráveis para chegada rápida dos alimentos. As experiências foram muito semelhantes, independentemente da dimensão do município, porém, os grandes municípios apontaram maiores dificuldades em adquirirem produtos in natura diretamente da agricultura familiar. Alguns municípios maiores fizeram entrega de KITS SECOS (sem produtos verdes e naturais) e ainda existiu a solução do CARTÃO MERENDA, com valores entre R$ 55 e R$ 103 para que a compra dos produtos fosse realizada pelas próprias famílias - modelo interrompido por iniciativa do Ministério Público; ao passo que os municípios de pequeno porte mantiveram a aquisição dos produtos da agricultura familiar desde o início do processo, valorizando a produção local e a parceria com entidades governamentais de assistência técnica, para organização da produção e diversificação dos produtos fornecidos. Para assegurar a segurança sanitária e melhorar a logística, alguns municípios optaram por não fracionar os alimentos. Para facilitar a logística, os KITS eram retirados nas escolas e, posteriormente, atrelados à entrega do material pedagógico. Quem implementa / responsáveis? Foi identificada a necessidade de uma ação conjunta, em modelo de parcerias, entre secretarias dentro do mesmo município, mas também com outros atores chave. Secretarias de Educação, Secretarias de Transportes, Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação- FNDE, Conselho de Alimentação Escolar -CAE, Centro Colaborador em Alimentação e Nutrição Escolar -CECANE, Empresa de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural - EMATER e Cooperativas de Produtores Rurais foram mencionadas como responsáveis nessa implementação. As parcerias foram fundamentais principalmente pela necessidade de intermediação junto aos produtores para melhor organização da produção, logística e mapeamento das famílias que iriam receber os KITS. Quais foram os resultados / como o progresso foi avaliado? Foi percebida empiricamente uma satisfação dos alunos e familiares, considerado um bom indicador de resultado. É analisado o processo, são implementadas melhorias constantes- quantitativas e qualitativas - nomeadamente: (i) adequação da quantidade de KITS na relação com o número de familiares interessados; (ii) inclusão dos produtos da agricultura familiar nos municípios de grande porte (KITS VERDES) em 2021; (iii) inclusão de novos alimentos (frutas de época) e de biscoitos e iogurtes naturais da agricultura familiar nos KITS; e (iv) entrega conjunta dos KITS da Alimentação Escolar e dos Materiais Pedagógicos. Desafios que foram/ são enfrentados Alguns desafios foram mapeados e organizados em 5 temas principais: ** Incerteza de quantidades: O retorno às aulas no modelo híbrido (presencial/virtual) dificulta a estimativa de compra dos KITS em razão da flutuação do número de alunos presenciais; ** Impacto no orçamento: A compra não fracionada de KITS de alimentos por aluno tem influência direta no custo da alimentação escolar, afetando o orçamento municipal; ** Logística de abastecimento: Outro aspecto agravado pela pandemia é a aquisição de produtos da agricultura familiar nos municípios maiores. A logística e distância dos centros de distribuição/cooperativas dificultam os processos; ** Ausência de dados: A falta de cadastros atualizados das famílias dos alunos e produtores é um entrave; ** Variedade nutricional: Há necessidade da inclusão de mais itens in natura e menos processados na alimentação escolar.236239241243245246247249Entrega da alimentação escolar durante e pós-pandemia: Com as escolas fechadas impôs-se a necessidade de entrega de alimentos aos estudantes, ou alternativas encontradas pelos municípios. Quais os desafios e soluções que queremos destacar para garantir o direito humano à alimentação adequada? Ações realizadas / experiências de sucesso Nutricionistas criaram estratégias de elaboração e distribuição de kits de alimentos para escolas, mas enfrentaram dificuldades decorrentes de influências políticas; Restaurantes entregaram sua estrutura para a distribuição das kits de alimentos; Orientações para a utilização de refeitórios escolares para preparo de refeições (não executadas); Estabelecimento de diálogos com supermercados na tentativa de sensibilizar sobre compra dos produtos da agricultura familiar (sem sucesso); Parceria com legislativo: articulação entre Ministério Público e Conselhos de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (CONSEA) municipal e estadual para entrega de KITS e resposta às dificuldades da entrega dos gêneros da agricultura familiar nas escolas; Elaboração conjunta de uma proposta de kit equilibrado em quantidade e qualidade para as famílias (Nutricionistas, CONSEAs e Agricultores). Não implementada mas apresentou parcerias promissoras; Uso de recursos municipais para entrega de cartão-merenda às famílias - solução rápida mas incompleta, retira a agricultura familiar do processo, impõe compra direta no varejo; O Ministério da Agricultura apoiou a realização de reuniões com nutricionistas para a distribuição de kits da agricultura familiar. Sugestões para o futuro: · Criação de Centros de recebimento de gêneros da agricultura familiar, a fim de centralizar e melhorar a logística; · Manutenção da entrega de KITS no modelo híbrido - pelas dificuldades de garantia da inocuidade da alimentação escolar nos equipamentos escolares; · Mais nutricionistas e responsáveis técnicos no Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar. Quem implementa? Diversos responsáveis integrados: prefeituras, Secretarias de Agricultura e de Educação, unidades básicas (nutricionistas, assistentes sociais e responsáveis técnicos), agricultores familiares, coordenadores de centros de distribuição, coordenadorias de escolas, agentes atuantes nas escolas, Conselhos, Ministério Público, órgãos de Vigilância Sanitária e voluntários. Resultados / como o progresso foi avaliado? Aumento na quantidade de alimentos/semana, de 60kg em 3 escolas (cidade grande) no começo da pandemia para 2 toneladas atualmente; A entrega de KITS é fundamental para conter a insegurança alimentar. Desafios enfrentados Inclusão dos gêneros da agricultura familiar nos kits da alimentação escolar para 2021 têm 2 dificuldades principais de cumprimento: O cronograma nacional é desarticulado com os prazos estipulados pelos estados para a chamada pública [*nota: processo de compra direta da agricultura familiar é diferente de uma licitação comum], prejudicando a resposta da agricultura familiar; Agricultores solicitam que os produtos sejam entregues em centrais de abastecimento para facilitar e centralizar a logística; Não realização ou chamadas públicas interrompidas; Complexidade da pauta / necessidade de integrar políticas complementares ao programa da alimentação escolar, principalmente estruturas de governança como o CONSEA ou o Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos; Órgãos públicos gestores não compreendem a importância do Programa de Alimentação Escolar; Regra que prioriza fornecedores locais sobre os demais para seleção do fornecimento ao programa prejudica produtores rurais nas escolas das capitais, onde têm menor representatividade; A escolha de famílias vulneráveis em detrimento do total de alunos matriculados quebrou o princípio de acesso universal à alimentação escolar; Dificuldade de garantir segurança sanitária na alimentação escolar nos equipamentos escolares (pouca ventilação e grande aglomeração) dificulta o retomo ao sistema presencial; Concluindo, a logística de distribuição, manejo e cálculo de alimentos foram os principais desafios enfrentados.236239241243245246248249Desafios do regresso (modelo: híbrido, não presencial, presencial com alternância de dias, totalmente presencial e outros) - Com a reabertura das escolas se fazem necessários vários ajustes e iniciativas. Quais são eles e como garantir qualidade e eficiência ao programa? Ações Urgentes Nos desafios do regresso existem algumas ações que se apresentam como denominador comum, independentemente do modelo aplicado. Criar mecanismos que possam garantir alimentos frescos e sazonais, principalmente provenientes de circuitos curtos que privilegiam produtos das comunidades tradicionais da região - como por exemplo, a experiência de uso da Farinha do Babaçu na alimentação escolar - permitindo que as comunidades permaneçam no território, gerando renda e garantindo a segurança alimentar. Possibilidade de associar as cantinas comunitárias ao programa de alimentação escolar, inclusive como entrepostos de distribuição, facilitando a logística e retirando a necessidade do agricultor ter capital de giro na venda - as cantinas adquirem os produtos que são depois vendidos às escolas. Existem já experiências nesse sentido: uma rede de 27 cantinas operando, sendo 5 em terras indígenas e Unidades de Conservação no norte do país, executando esse suporte; Necessidade de unir diferentes atores no sistema alimentar escolar, como merendeiras, nutricionistas, professores, pais, gestores, psicólogos, comunidade escolar e sociedade civil, para um trabalho conjunto de mobilização, para o planejamento do retorno às aulas - organizados em grupos de trabalho ou comitês que incluam a temática da alimentação escolar e segurança alimentar integrada a outros temas, sob a mensagem de que a segurança alimentar na escola é tão importante quanto o processo pedagógico; Ações de educação com toda a comunidade sobre a importância dos alimentos locais, histórias e diversidade e treinamento com merendeiras, novas receitas, especialmente em função das novas diretrizes do Programa de Alimentação Escolar (Resolução 06 do FNDE); Necessidade de melhorias na infraestrutura das cozinhas e equipamentos. Avaliação do novo perfil nutricional dos alunos no pós-pandemia, levantado através de questionário; Educação, sensibilização e fortalecimento da relação entre merendeiras e nutricionistas. Quem deverá tomar estas ações? a criação de comitês e grupos de trabalho para o retorno às aulas deverá ser coordenada pelas Secretarias de educação, que convidarão os diversos participantes; é sempre importante contar com o envolvimento de diversos atores chave que podem intervir e/ou coordenar ações e iniciativas, nomeadamente agências de assistência técnica, em parceria com agricultor e gestores municipais, e ainda a coordenação de ações envolvendo gestores públicos, nutricionistas e merendeiras, junto com as comunidades e o terceiro setor. De que formas o progresso pode ser avaliado? O uso de questionários é uma ferramenta importante e versátil para o acompanhamento e monitoramento do progresso realizado, permitindo acompanhar o perfil nutricional dos alunos, ao mesmo tempo que pode auxiliar em processos de autoavaliação das ações por parte dos atores envolvidos. Que desafios podem ser antecipados à medida que as ações são implementadas? Ainda que a legislação da alimentação escolar venha melhorando com o tempo, alguns desafios são já previstos: envolver e engajar os atores da comunidade como um todo na construção de grupos de trabalho, comitês e conselhos interinstitucionais; aumentar as equipes de nutricionistas nos órgãos e diretamente nas unidades escolares para que os profissionais possam se dedicar mais ao acompanhamento do programa; Garantir o retorno de forma segura, considerando todos os desafios; manter e ampliar as compras da agricultura familiar, para além do que foi assegurado com o Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos neste período; muitas vezes existem divergências entre as indicações das nutricionistas para o cardápio e a visão das merendeiras sobre o que agrada os alunos e com os alimentos que elas estão acostumadas a trabalhar na cozinha; Avaliar os impactos da pandemia no perfil nutricional dos alunos e na sua insegurança alimentar.236239241243245246247249Desafios do regresso (modelo: híbrido, não presencial, presencial com alternância de dias, totalmente presencial e outros) - Com a reabertura das escolas se fazem necessários vários ajustes e iniciativas. Quais são eles e como garantir qualidade e eficiência ao programa? Ações Urgentes Diretamente relacionadas a medidas de saúde pública e contenção da propagação do vírus, aplicadas continuamente: ampla e irrestrita vacinação contra a COVID-19 para equipes gestoras, professores, alunos e demais atuantes na comunidade escolar; preparação eficaz no sentido de viabilizar o respeito aos protocolos de segurança sanitária, humana e alimentar, envolvendo o acesso aos equipamentos de proteção individual em larga escala. É importante que os quadros técnicos de profissionais sejam incrementados, fortalecidos e capacitados para os trabalhos. E que uma nova organização dos aspectos educacionais alimentares e nutricionais – voltados para alunos e para profissionais - seja implementada de forma emergencial. No médio prazo se entende como fundamental o fortalecimento das políticas públicas relativas à alimentação escolar por meio de estratégias-chave, tais como a imediata revisão dos valores per capita repassados pelo Governo Federal por meio do Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação – FNDE e um maior estímulo das compras da agricultura familiar, beneficiando as comunidades e os hábitos alimentares locais. Foi identificado o conjunto de impactos positivos de um fortalecimento da agricultura familiar no programa, como um caminho prático, saudável e benéfico de várias maneiras no que tange às ações relacionadas ao retorno de atividades letivas presenciais e de alimentação escolar, em particular: na manutenção de fornecimento de kits verdes, como complementos de kits alimentares e como base dos cardápios para cocção e alimentação nas escolas. Quem deverá tomar estas ações? O Poder Público foi apontado como responsável pelas ações mais urgentes, especialmente no fortalecimento de políticas públicas tanto em saúde quanto na alimentação escolar: vacinação ampla e geral contra a COVID-19 e implementação do programa. Incremento dos quadros técnicos de nutricionistas e profissionais aptos a trabalhar com alimentação escolar, parte fundamental do programa e apoio a sua implementação; Organismos como órgãos de classe, conselhos fiscalizatórios, grupos políticos apartidários, organizações não-governamentais e agentes sociais, ainda que com uma responsabilidade reduzida, são importantes como mantenedores das ações e práticas cotidianas para alcance de resultados. Como avaliar o progresso? O fortalecimento e continuidade da implementação das políticas públicas alimentares e da formação dos agentes públicos, nutricionistas, professores, etc. são indicadores de progresso. Acompanhamento do uso dos recursos do Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar- PNAE; o acompanhamento in loco das ações efetivamente executadas incluindo uma análise junto aos alunos - o público principal - em ambos os eixos do Programa, ou seja, o serviço de alimentação escolar e a Educação Alimentar Nutricional. Quais desafios podem ser antecipados? Primeiramente assegurar a vacinação geral e irrestrita de professores, equipes gestoras, alunos, auxiliares, merendeiras e demais atuantes na alimentação escolar, protegendo suas vidas, saúde e bem -estar, junto com o respeito aos protocolos de segurança, como base fundadora e que deve ser realizada em paralelo com o desenho e efetivação das estratégias e ações - só assim é possível o desenrolar de ações complementares de alimentação escolar. O enfraquecimento de políticas públicas de Estado - e não apenas de governo - é um desafio que deve ser vencido para que seja possível a realização das ações cotidianas ao nível local com mais segurança e maior número de possibilidades. A revisão dos valores per capita repassados aos alunos por meio do Programa e o fortalecimento de quadros técnicos e de pessoal a executar as ações traçadas. Processos contínuos de monitoramento dos orçamentos executados e das ações implementadas poderá apoiar na definição de métodos mais efetivos de avaliação das ações e dos progressos alcançados.236239241243245246247249Sustentabilidade do Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar - PNAE (econômica, ambiental e político-social) Diante do cenário de aumento da pobreza, desigualdade e insegurança alimentar os programas de alimentação escolar se mostram absolutamente necessários e estratégicos para alcance dos ODS. Que ações devem ser tomadas para assegurar a sua eficiência e sustentabilidade como política NACIONAL? Ações propostas Aumento do valor per capita, considerado defasado por diversos atores vinculados ao Programa, mesmo com a complementaridade dos estados e municípios não atende às necessidades, principalmente para a montagem dos kits de alimentos durante a pandemia . Fiscalização e atuação do governo federal efetivas para assegurar a complementaridade orçamentária pelos estados e municípios: tornar a contrapartida uma obrigação ou fazer um seguimento rígido dos municípios que não complementam, e identificar as razões. Incentivo fiscal e redução de impostos ao fornecedor da alimentação escolar: como ocorre em outros setores. Maior incentivo ao agricultor familiar que vende para o Programa: aumentar o valor limite por licença/ano. Maior valorização para nutricionistas que trabalham no Programa, principalmente em municípios de médio e grande porte, para evitar que interesses políticos se sobreponham aos técnicos. Maior flexibilidade na regulação do Programa; o valor per capita e as recomendações nutricionais, por exemplo, não atendem às várias realidades do país. Maior fiscalização da sociedade civil: não somente os membros do Conselho de Alimentação Escolar , mas as famílias devem compreender a importância da alimentação escolar e contribuir para a sua fiscalização. Aumentar a estrutura do próprio município para a execução do programa durante a pandemia, com equipamento, carros para distribuição e equipe. Fortalecimento do papel dos Cecanes (Universidades) para fiscalização e monitoramento do programa: os quais contam com o apoio e o expertise dos programas de pesquisa e extensão das universidades Maior disseminação de informações sobre alimentação escolar para a população: conscientizar os cidadãos de sua importância para que defendam o Programa de “ataques” e retrocessos, como os que vêm ocorrendo. Melhor comunicação: principalmente agricultores familiares das zonas rurais, que não acessam o site da prefeitura. Realizar alterações regulatórias de maneira paulatina. Mudanças repentinas de regulação geram dificuldades e desperdícios. Quem deve tomar as ações Governos federal, estaduais e municipais. Cobrar contrapartidas dos gestores estaduais e municípais Sociedade civil: maior envolvimento e fiscalização do programa Como avaliar o progresso Maior fiscalização pelo governo federal para identificar razões para a não realização da contrapartida dos estados e municípios e da não, ou insuficiente, realização das compras da agricultura familiar (incentivada pelo FNDE, mas não obrigatória durante a pandemia). Monitoramento pelo FNDE, com apoio dos CECANEs, para conhecer a realidade local dos estados e municípios, inclusive avaliando a distribuição de kits quanto à frequência e composição. Desafios Defasagem dos valores per capita e do limite da licença de venda/ano, frente aos aumentos do custo de vida. Exclusão digital dificulta a disseminação de informações, o monitoramento a nível local, em alguns municípios, principalmente no período de pandemia, quando as visitas foram suspensas (e principalmente com relação aos agricultores familiares, nas zonas rurais) Falta de planejamento e organização durante a pandemia, afetando a distribuição dos kits de alimentos: em alguns municípios, não foi possível distribuir mensalmente, por conta do valor do kit; no RJ, por exemplo, parte dos kits foram descartados porque pais não foram buscar por conta do preço da passagem de ônibus. Insuficiente repasse federal: Municípios tiveram que contribuir muito para a distribuição dos kits Falta de uma rubrica específica do repasse dos estados e municípios para a alimentação escolar: cada um complementa se deseja e com o valor que deseja. Interesses políticos podem tirar verba do programa ou impedir mudanças necessárias no cardápio.236239241243245246247249Diante do cenário de aumento da pobreza, desigualdade e insegurança alimentar os programas de alimentação escolar se mostram absolutamente necessários e estratégicos para o alcance dos ODS. Que ações devem ser tomadas para assegurar a sua eficiência e sustentabilidade como política MUNICIPAL? O Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar é uma política transversal, uma eficaz e completa estratégia de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, bem instituída e institucionalizada, que há anos deixou de ser apenas uma entrega de alimentos para ser uma forma de garantir o direito humano à alimentação adequada. Mas é também um programa com um viés político, que se depara com diversos entraves em sua implementação. Ações para obter maior impacto: Orçamentária: aumento do valor per capita pelo governo federal: o valor de repasse é insuficiente. As esferas estaduais e municipais precisam assumir a necessidade de complementar os recursos para a alimentação escolar. Formação: Gestores Públicos – é urgente realizar a formação e sensibilização para execução do Programa, sua amplitude, intersetorialidade e diretrizes, para melhorar sua implementação. Muitos desconhecem a necessidade de complementação dos recursos federais e usam o repasse como a única fonte para a aquisição de alimentos. Nutricionistas – cursos de nutrição nem sempre abordam o programa de alimentação escolar, e é necessária uma formação contínua sobre a execução, legislação, compra institucional, intersetorialidade, geração de resíduos, desperdício, etc. Agricultores familiares – apoiar em diversas temáticas para facilitar o processo de venda para a alimentação escolar, como: acessar mercados, diversificar a produção e buscar apoio da assistência técnica. Merendeiras – manipulação, aproveitamento integral e combate ao desperdício de alimentos. Conselhos de Alimentação Escolar – Instrumentalização a partir do CECANES (Centros Colaboradores em Alimentação e Nutrição Escolar) como agente neutro na gestão, com a missão de controle social. Criar fóruns permanentes com compromisso dos gestores e participação dos pais. Gestão do Programa – Há que se resolver os conflitos de interesse, saber até onde o Programa está na pauta de prioridade dos governos; abrir diálogo com a sociedade civil; mediar interesses entre a oferta de produtos in natura e industrializados; compreender a missão do Programa; buscar a transparência dos processos e construir ponte para o debate entre governo e a sociedade civil. Dar visibilidade às ações. Compras da Agricultura Familiar – Abrir o debate sobre o risco de aprovação do Projeto de Lei que ameaça as comunidades tradicionais e quilombolas; avançar na meta para ampliar o percentual de compras diretas da agricultura familiar. Criar mecanismos para que os municípios que não atingirem a obrigatoriedade de 30% devolvam o recurso federal, e premiação aos que ampliarem a meta. Incorporar o tema nas formações dos gestores para que entendam que a compra direta da agricultura familiar alavanca a economia local e a sustentabilidade ambiental. Apoio das agências de assistência técnica e extensão rural para variar a carta de produtos oferecidos e otimizar a logística das entregas é fundamental para aquisição dos 30%. Quem toma as ações Governos federal, estadual e municipal. Como avaliar o progresso? Alinhamento do Programa com outras políticas públicas e ações governamentais, Incluir o Programa na legislação municipal e estadual; Estratégia de regresso dos estudantes para o pós pandemia; Ampliação do quadro técnico de profissionais nos municípios. Desafios Avançar nas contrapartidas financeiras dos municípios. Manter a prioridade de compra dos assentamentos, povos e comunidades tradicionais; aumentar a variedade de produtos; avançar na intersetorialidade do Programa e na compra institucional da agricultura familiar. Orientar gestores, nutricionistas e manipuladores de alimentos sobre questões fundamentais da alimentação escolar. Gerenciar recursos e diminuir o desperdício de alimentos, focado na educação alimentar. Dar visibilidade e fortalecer os Conselhos. Aumentar carga horária e quadro técnico do nutricionista responsável pela alimentação escolar.237239241246247249Não houve o apontamento de discordâncias e todos ficaram à vontade para colocar o seu ponto de vista. Embora os participantes pertencessem a diferentes realidades geográficas, havia uma ligação comum representada por suas participações na execução do programa de alimentação escolar na rede pública de ensino municipal. As opiniões foram colocadas de forma muitas vezes complementar , com posição independente e representação territorial de cada participante, o que trouxe uma visão diversificada sobre uma ação que tinha o mesmo objetivo. Embora tenha havido um acordo nos temas mais importantes, há que se destacar a diferença de ênfase colocada pelas pessoas de áreas de atuação diversa. Assim, por exemplo, nutricionistas falaram de ter mais liberdade de montagem dos cardápios, ao mesmo tempo em que representantes da sociedade civil falavam em orientar os cardápios à compra da agricultura familiar. Entretanto, tais aparentes divergências eram, em verdade, uma coincidência de finalidade, qual seja, a garantia da segurança nutricional dos estudantes. Alguns referiram a importância de aumentar a regulação, enquanto outros a necessidade de flexibilizar a regulação. Entretanto, aqui também, o que se estava divergindo era na forma como a regulação garante a abordagem territorial da execução da política pública e não uma demanda por menos regulação. O que permeou todos os debates foi o reconhecimento da importância e relevância do Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar brasileiro como um importante mecanismo para assegurar o direito humano à alimentação adequada e a segurança alimentar e nutricional de milhões de estudantes, devendo assim receber um olhar cada vez mais atencioso, tanto da sociedade quanto de gestores e técnicos, para a boa execução do programa nos diferentes níveis de governo.

2021-07-13 16:27:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3721/145

IISLA paid careful attention to inclusivity in organizing the Dialogue. First, the team anchored the Dialogue on the challenges of the typically unheard - smallholder farmers and micro-small-medium enterprises (MSMEs) in Philippine food systems. This is with the premise that if Action Track 4 of the Summit is to be achieved, then equitability of livelihood must be enjoyed, first and foremost, by small-scale actors who, according to the UN, comprise more than 80% of food producers in the world. We sent out open invitations to our network using various platforms, and engaged in focus group discussions (FGDs) or ‘mini dialogues’ with participants using local dialects and, often, at their convenient time. We then invited stakeholder groups from various sectors, gender, and regions in the ‘big’ Dialogue to discuss the challenges voiced out by farmers and MSMEs during the FGDs and to co-create proposed systemic interventions. This entailed going through several iterations of the participant list to ensure diversity and representation from government, the private sector, civil society, and the academe. Facilitators were also carefully selected and thoroughly briefed to ensure that they create a discussion space anchored on respect and trust. Furthermore, some of the facilitators also convened their own Dialogues, where IISLA participated as facilitator and/or panelist to complement efforts. Aside from tackling the results of the FGDs, the discussion topics also incorporated previous research work on food systems to generate thematic areas and perspectives that highlight the complexity and, even the contentiousness, of issues.IISLA’s Dialogue embraced stakeholder inclusivity by organizing separate FGDs with smallholder farmers and MSMEs, given their circumstances, especially the limitation in speaking during big events. Furthermore, the final Dialogue validating the FGD results was attended by stakeholders from various sectors, ensuring that different perspectives and contexts are taken into account in co-imagining systemic interventions for advancing equitable livelihoods. The diversity of insights generated then highlighted the complexity of issues, underpinned by the previous food systems studies of IISLA. While we would have wanted to reach out to more grassroots level actors and conduct discussions physically in their locations, the mobility restrictions brought about by the pandemic limited our reach and forced us to hold the Dialogue online. Through the help of our partners, we were able to invite several farmers and MSMEs including those who are in far-flung areas who lack internet connectivity. Moreover, some participants, especially from government agencies, also invited others to our Dialogue, showing their trust towards IISLA and our process. While having unexpected guests and confirmed participants not showing up resulted in last minute adjustments in the break-outs, facilitators were quick to adapt and were able to hear from everyone in an intentionally-curated atmosphere of respect and openness. From the feedback received, participants found the Dialogue enriching and appreciated interacting with other actors for the first time, paving the way for potential collaborations. In fact, IISLA and its partners were invited to facilitate and/or serve as speakers in separate Dialogues organized by some of our participants. The participants also expressed the need to accelerate the proposed systemic interventions and their commitment to act upon the Dialogue recommendations. This would be an important step in catalysing further actions in the Summit preparation and follow-up.Promoting inclusivity is not merely inviting a multi-stakeholder group to your Dialogue, but also recognizing their unique circumstances, especially in terms of connectivity, schedule, and capability to express themselves in specific situations. We have found it useful to conduct ‘mini’ dialogues, especially in giving grassroots-level actors a voice in the Summit. For online events, it is also helpful to have back-ups in case the assigned people would have connection problems. A Dialogue brief can also be sent to the participants ahead so they will understand the discussion topic. This will also give them ample time to gather their thoughts so they can actively participate in the discussion. Lastly, the core of the Dialogue is the break-out session; hence, facilitators need to be properly selected and briefed to ensure that the discussion does not go off-topic, and that all participants are given the chance to express themselves and are respected. Documenters for each break-out session, who are able to share their notes to the facilitators in real time, are also useful during the synthesis presentation in plenary.

NoBuilding on the market studies and forums that IISLA has been conducting since 2019, the Independent Dialogue was seen as an opportunity to discuss the challenges faced by small-scale producers in advancing equitable livelihood in Philippine food systems, particularly in four key thematic areas: (1) food production; (2) food processing and consumption; (3) food distribution; and, (4) rural financing. This is in line with Action Track 4 of the UN Food Systems Summit. To ensure inclusivity, IISLA centred the Dialogue on the perspectives of the typically unheard - smallholder farmers and food micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). We reached out to folks across the Philippines and conducted focus group discussions (FGDs), with a maximum of 10 participants each, to learn about the challenges they face on the ground. This is also intended to deepen understanding and build trust among actors at this end of the value chain to enable the conditions for innovation, experimentation, and transformation. IISLA invited a broad mix of food producers at the grassroots level for the FGDs, focusing on organic or "natural" agriculture pioneers. We intended to discuss the shift towards sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices in the Philippines, and to understand the barriers and opportunities in the said shift. Attendees included farmers and owners of small farms producing a wide array of vegetables, fruits, and livestocks. With MSMEs, the majority of participants were women. We recognised that those who were able to join our conversation were self-selecting (i.e., interested to participate), and were able to access the discussion via video conference call. Reaching out to people without these privileges would be something to work on once it is safe to travel. With the aim of creating an informal, open, transparent, inviting and fluid atmosphere conducive to trust-building for the FGDs, we ensured each attendee was given space to share their concerns and be heard by the group, alongside the flowing nature of the discussions. Our questions were focused on present and pre-COVID19 challenges, teasing out different perspectives of systemic issues. Aside from being very engaged and participatory, participants appeared to be genuinely grateful to be heard. We believe none of them had previously been consulted for international forums. Their primary motivation in participating seemed to stem from the genuine desire to be understood, and the need and want to participate and be included in food systems transformation. Moreover, none of the participants looked particularly bothered or interested in the UN or the Summit. We felt that this qualifies our discussions as problem-centric rather than prestige-centric, which could often happen with international dialogues like those at the UN. From the FGD documentations, we then synthesised, analysed, and prioritised the issues raised. The results formed the basis of the ‘main’ Dialogue hosted by IISLA on 25 May. The event became a follow through discussion with other stakeholders, particularly experts, policy makers, and advocates from relevant sectors including the academe. Prior to the event, participants were given a copy of the results of the FGDs, which was the primary topic of discussion. The event started with a plenary session, highlighting the aim of the UN Food Systems Summit and presenting IISLA’s situation analysis of Philippine food systems vis-à-vis the results of the FGDs, underscored by our previous market studies and forums. This was followed by a breakout session based on the four thematic areas, where participants validated the FGD results and co-created proposed systemic interventions to address the challenges identified. Each breakout room consisted of 8 to 10 participants facilitated by IISLA and/or co-conveners from partner organisations. Participants then reconvened in a closing plenary to report the highlights of their break-out discussion for comments from other groups.

234241For decades, the concept of food security in the Philippines has been premised on productivity and supply, leading to agricultural policies that favoured the industrial practices perpetuated by large agro-industrial companies, and eroding the freedom of farmers over what and how to produce. Reconfiguring this narrative requires shifting attention towards food sovereignty, emphasising not only the principles of sustainable production via agroecology, but also the return of the ‘true’ ownership of livelihoods to the producers themselves. This is crucial in securing the income of rural communities, especially smallholder farmers and MSMEs who comprise more than 80 percent of food producers worldwide. To what extent do small-scale food producers have control over their livelihoods in Philippine food systems? Whilst there has been a recent increase in investment for agriculture and food processing in the country, producers and consumers have been structurally disconnected by a lengthened value chain. Moreover, there is also the need to expand regenerative and resilient agriculture practices to avert environmental degradation and climate change, and to increase the capacity of smallholder farmers and MSMEs in accessing affordable funding. Unless systemic changes are implemented to ensure that producers can afford their capital requirements and earn a decent living from their livelihoods, it would be impossible to achieve stable and sustainable food systems towards securing healthy, nutritious, and affordable food for all. The Independent Dialogue curated by IISLA focused on Action Track 4, primarily the advancement of equitable livelihood in Philippine food systems. It covered four thematic areas: food production, food processing and consumption, food distribution, and rural financing. Whilst it is recognised that food sovereignty advocates in the country and globally have been lobbying for the protection of farmers’ livelihoods against big corporations, the expressed resentment towards the UNFSS could imply limited representation of small-scale producers in the actual Summit. IISLA attempted to bridge this gap by anchoring its Dialogue on the plight of smallholder farmers and MSMEs. For food production, the discussion centred around sustainable farming practices and the support needed to transition from conventional methods. Farmers tackled the challenges in adopting organic/ natural/ regenerative farming and the problems of high waste during harvesting. MSMEs discussed concerns in using sustainably-grown raw materials for processing. Discussions on food processing and consumption looked into the preparation of food before consumption, including preservation and packaging, and its implications for nutrition. Farmers tackled the challenges in promoting crop diversification to support the food variety needed for a healthy diet. MSMEs, on the other hand, discussed how to foster innovation in the way food is produced, processed, and packaged so it can be made healthier and more affordable for all. Issues on logistics, packaging, warehousing, handling, and trading platforms, and their implications for the accessibility and affordability of food in the local market were tackled in food distribution. The discussion highlighted the challenges faced by farmers in selling their produce, including the use of digital platforms, as well as the problems of MSMEs in marketing products and accessing new markets. Recognising that systemic interventions require resources, access to capital and the readiness to embrace fair investment among smallholder farmers and MSMEs were the main topics in rural financing. Farmers tackled how they currently fund their production whilst MSMEs outlined their biggest investment requirements. The participants also discussed challenges and experiences in accessing funding from formal institutions, especially the government. The rest of the stakeholders validated the challenges expressed by small-scale food producers based on their respective expertise and experiences. They then agreed on proposed systemic interventions and the roles of various food system actors in realising them, including the UN.235238239240241245246249The main issues raised for food production included: 1) slow adoption of natural/organic/regenerative farming practices; and 2) access to market and pricing issues. The limitation in adopting natural/organic/regenerative farming was due to expensive and low supply of organic inputs; low level of yields during transition from conventional methods; weather unpredictability; limited knowledge of farmers on sustainable agriculture; high labour cost; and lack of facilities. This resulted in lack of supply of natural/organic produce, limiting MSMEs from using them as inputs.Access to market and pricing issues were attributed to the indifference of budget-conscious consumers. Whilst organic food products are often expensive, pricing had been contingent on third-party certifications, which many farmers could not afford. Hence, food producers were unable to label their crops as “organic”, including MSMEs who cannot ascertain the nature of raw materials they use. Addressing these issues entails: 1) education/training of farmers on more cost-effective organic/natural/regenerative production methods; 2) support for farmers in transition like interim funding or alternative livelihood; and 3) increased availability of community-owned/shared facilities for harvesting, including pre and post processing. Concerns for food processing and consumption included: 1) the entrenched monocropping culture that contributed to low appreciation of diversification; and 2) lack of ecosystem innovation vis-a-vis coordination and self-organisation among smallholder farmers and MSMEs. Continued preference for monocropping had limited access for food processors and consumers to variety of crops needed to produce healthier food. This supply and demand mismatch is partially attributed to poor coordination among smallholder farmers and MSMEs. Unregulated competition in many areas had nurtured individualistic tendencies instead of complementation for collective prosperity. Furthermore, chemical fertiliser agents continued to instil ‘economies of scale’, discouraging farmers to grow smaller quantities of multiple crops. Viajeros (traders) also required them to produce large volumes of the same crop to guarantee purchase. Addressing these issues would require 1) enhanced business management and sustainability training among farmers; 2) improved access to local and online markets coupled with community-shared production; and 3) local governments to organize dedicated days to showcase their natural/organic produce in public markets. Issues raised in food distribution included: 1) stability and reliability of markets and prices; 2) inadequacy of logistics and communication infrastructure; and 3) lack of entrepreneurial skills among producers. Limited ability to set proper prices for their natural/organic products, coupled with the absence of stable and reliable market for such goods, made smallholder farmers and MSMEs dependent on prices dictated by big buyers/traders/aggregators. In addition, regional transport companies/hubs have unattainable volume requirements, preventing the distribution of small quantity produce. Others face inadequate warehousing and cold storage facilities, limiting their reach. Furthermore, limited access to ‘smart’ gadgets and the internet as well as ‘tech illiteracy’ of many farmers hindered them from utilising online markets. MSMEs viewed digital platforms as alternatives to (exclusive) trade fairs, although they acknowledged their limited knowledge of online marketing. This was aggravated by lack of government support in branding and marketing of local products. Smallholder farmers inherently lack business orientation, often prioritising farm-related activities. Improving food distribution therefore, would require: 1) heightened consumer awareness on the nutritional and environmental benefits of organic/natural products; 2) improved market demand estimates; 3) more community-shared post-harvest facilities; and 4) more organic trading posts and product consolidators to reduce delivery cost for aggregated products. Rural financing primarily tackled: 1) difficulty in accessing funds; 2) high interest rates; and 3) the poverty psychology among small-scale producers.Smallholder farmers and MSMEs were discouraged by the red tape in formal lending institutions and numerous documentary requirements. Far-flung farming communities also found it difficult to access fund providers based in urban centers. MSMEs also pointed out how loan products were often available to associations and cooperatives but not to individual entrepreneurs. Those who were able to access loans were plagued with high interest rates, partly due to multi-layered intermediation in loan processing. With the unresponsiveness of state-owned Land Bank of the Philippines to the needs of small-scale borrowers, they end up relying on informal channels like loan sharks and traders, subjecting them to unfair terms. The lack of entrepreneurial skills could translate to ineffective fund management, eg. loans used for household rather than business/farming needs. This is exacerbated by entrenched poverty psychology, where farmers and MSMEs hesitate to take loans in fear that their poverty would prevent them to meet repayments. Proposed systemic interventions included: 1) establishment of contract-growing arrangements to clearly set the capital requirements for production; and 2) cooperative set-ups serving as loan-conduits, including consolidators, whole facility managers, boards and other entities focused on warehousing, distribution, marketing, and sales.236240241245249Food production: Slow adoption of organic/natural farming. Participants of the ‘main’ Dialogue agreed with the FGD results highlighting the need to support small-scale producers in transitioning to organic/ natural practice. It was suggested that the process could begin by letting farmers experience the benefits of natural/ organic production firsthand rather than pushing for immediate full conversion. This would entail introducing the method for household consumption first. As health and financial benefits become evident, farmers would then be encouraged to expand the practice. In terms of education/ training for farmers, government representatives shared existing courses under the National Organic Agriculture Program. However, other participants raised concerns on how the courses are wrought by commercial agriculture techniques, although using organic inputs instead of chemicals. This contributed to training programs not entirely suitable to the country’s unique terrain and contextual needs. With regards to providing interim funding and/or alternative livelihood to farmers in transition, an agriculture expert suggested that targeted interventions on food provision be considered, given that 30-40% of farmer’s income is spent on food. This would involve providing ‘insurance crops’ or open pollinated seeds that require low input and are easy to grow to serve as a safety net for their own household food requirement. Once personal consumption needs are secured, farmers would have greater incentive to experiment with small-scale organic practices, putting them in a better position to transform their conventional farms. The labour-intensive requirement for organic/natural farming highlighted in the FGD results was linked by other stakeholders to the low availability of certified organic inputs. It was agreed that to accelerate adoption, inputs should be readily available to the farmers at non-prohibitive prices or via schemes like buy-now-pay-later. This would spare them from having to make their own inputs. However, this could be detrimental in respecting the “culture” in “agriculture”. Whilst the availability of inputs could assist in the early stages of organic agriculture adoption, farmers could become dependent on these external and expensive means of production manufactured and controlled by the few, rather than harnessing the traditional ‘peasant way’ of natural production. If not controlled, this could replicate the conventional system, but with organic replacing chemical inputs. Another suggestion was to organise farmers and adopt a form of ‘labour division’, where some can focus on cultivation whilst others can be trained to produce and sell inputs. To implement the proposed systemic interventions, participants saw the need for the UN to take the lead in the global advocacy on natural farming, and in providing guidance to member states in adopting agroecology and regenerative agriculture. The UN should also exert their influence over large agro-industrial companies to ensure that food security is achieved via the triple the bottom line approach (i.e. people, planet, prosperity for all). The Philippine government, on the other hand, would have to re-evaluate the capacity building programmes on organic agriculture to ensure appropriateness to the country’s context. More importantly, we urge the government to go beyond organic, and promote other natural and regenerative methods, especially those practiced by our indigenous communities for several generations.236240241246249Food production: Access to market and pricing issues. Participants of the ‘main’ Dialogue shared the concern of smallholder farmers and MSMEs on the high prices of organic produce vis-a-vis conventional ones. The need to reduce the cost of organic inputs resurfaced, exploring the feasibility of farmers producing rather than buying their inputs to reduce overall production cost. Other stakeholders validated the need to address the high cost of organic certification faced by farmers, although they also recognised the apparent change in consumer behaviour, particularly on how people are becoming more conscious of the environmental and health implications of what they eat. Whilst organic certification could become a source of competitive advantage among farmers, they would also have to face the challenges associated with consumer preference for ‘good-looking’ crops. Hence, consumer awareness on ‘nutrition vs. aesthetics’ (e.g. Ugly Food Movement) and farmers leveraging on the heightened demand for food traceability should be simultaneously adopted. The importance of mechanisation was initially premised on the reduction of production cost by cutting down labour inputs. This alarmed some stakeholders, who raised concerns over lost employment opportunities, especially among farm workers who are already paid very little in the Philippines. Moreover, hiring farm workers would remain a viable option for smallholder farmers who could not afford the intensive capital requirement of acquiring machinery. Whilst participants of the ‘main’ Dialogue agreed with the sentiments of farmers and MSMEs to mechanise some aspects of the food value chain (e.g. harvesting to reduce wastage), we believe that mechanisation should only be considered after securing the livelihoods of food producers, whether farm/ business owners or workers. Participants of the ‘main’ Dialogue disagreed with the recommendation of farmers and MSMEs to establish community-owned or cost-shared pre and post harvest facilities. Some suggested that simpler and low-cost harvest methods like evaporative cooling technology to extend crop shelf life should be maximised by farmers. If these cheaper alternatives are indeed available, then farmers should be educated about them. It was also suggested that the Department of Agriculture (DA) must regulate supply and prices, and should actively serve as the main trader of farm products. However, we remain skeptical of the government taking over the role of viajeros and wholesalers, especially with the current priority of the DA on high value crop production, underscoring the country’s export rather than food self-sufficiency orientation.236238239240241245248249Food processing and consumption: Entrenched culture for mono-cropping resulting in lack of appreciation for diversification. Participants of the ‘main’ Dialogue acknowledged that multi-cropping could increase production costs compared to monocropping, although the implications for long-term environmental health and agricultural sector longevity could not be undermined. To address the issue, attention was focused instead on the reasons for the high production cost such as coercive middlemen, food price volatility, pest management, and climate risks, among others. This was apart from the lack of enabling infrastructure to support diversification. It was pointed out that in Isabela, for example, irrigation systems are specifically built for rice, corn, and tobacco. Moreover, affordable warehousing facilities, especially for smaller volumes of diverse crops, would also need to be in place. Whilst the issues raised underpin the huge investment needed to improve agricultural infrastructure, a localised system may partly address the problem. MSMEs, for example, could offer pre-processing food storage facilities of local fresh produce to local food processors. It was also pointed out that climate-resilient plant species should be re-introduced, particularly heritage crops traditionally grown in the locality. Diversification could also be phased, where diversified cropping is allocated a small plot first rather than converting the entire farmland. This could also provide alternative income, which should encourage farmers to expand the practice. Food price volatility, on the other hand, could be linked to consumer demand. Despite the need to dig deeper into the factors affecting consumption preferences, the advocacy on eating nutritious and diversified food should begin with the farmers themselves, according to some stakeholders. When farmers get to appreciate the health benefits of a diversified diet, they would have a greater moral incentive to diversify their production. However, the high production cost associated with the onset of diversification should be considered. Hence, economic support for farmers in transition would need to be in place, coupled with capacity building on proper appropriation of their limited capital. We also recommend that a simplified and transparent trading platform be in place in the food system, where smallholder farmers can sell their produce directly to buyers without the need to go through the middlemen demanding large quantities of the same crop.236238239241243245248249Food processing and consumption: Lack of coordination and self-organising amongst farmers and MSMEs - ecosystem innovation. There had been a huge disconnect between producers (suppliers) and consumers (buyers), as evidenced by the mismatch of supply and demand in many parts of the country. Dialogue participants consistently pointed out how oversupply (and wastage) of a certain crop could co-exist with a shortage of another in the same area. This obvious lack of coordination among farmers and MSMEs (buyers) had been exploited by traders, who mediate the transaction between them. With the current small and insecure market for organic produce, it was pointed out that farmers tend to go their own ways (“kanya-kanya”), nurturing competition rather than complementation and collaboration to ensure prosperity for all. It was suggested that farmers would organise themselves to facilitate coordinated production and avoid indiscriminate crop duplication. Moreover, aggregators should also create a network of food processing MSMEs that could accept crops not sold in the fresh vegetable markets. It was also suggested that these aggregators could be invested in to develop their own processing facilities and transportation services to lower the cost of bringing food from farm to table. Other investment suggested by Dialogue participants included: 1) multifunction processing facilities with fair schemes, such as pay-per-use model; 2) entire logistics chain from transport to storage; 3) credit to farmers, where they are given a reprieve of two to three planting seasons, in cash; 4) marketing and investment in education to boost consumer interest; 5) market and processing transformation mechanisms; and 6) building an ecosystem that can be a conduit of trust for farmers. To implement the proposed systemic interventions, it was suggested that the Philippine government expands the utilisation of its electronic technology transfer monitoring maps to better connect MSMEs with local farmers. LGUs, on the other hand, should create policies to encourage production and consumption of locally-grown natural produce as well as to establish linkages between local MSMEs, including chefs, and local farmers. With the current food value chains being urban-bound and export-oriented, we concur that this localisation must be given priority. The tendency of rural farmers to sell their produce to large cities and abroad has only provided avenues for several middlemen to intervene between farm and table, thus increasing the cost of food. To shorten the value chain, we see the need to invest in enabling technologies that would localise food production and distribution.236238241243Food distribution: Stability and reliability of markets and pricing issues The challenge of finding reliable markets and stabilising prices for organic products, especially among farmers, were raised by Dialogue participants, although some argued that MSMEs targeting rich, and even middle class, households are not affected by the issue. Certified organic products are currently priced at a premium in the Philippines. Those ‘non-certified’ but organically/ naturally grown crops intended for the local/ mass market, however, do not follow any clear pricing guidelines. Prices are often driven by 'market-makers' such as the traders, without real consideration for production cost. It was suggested that direct linkages between supermarkets and farmers would be established to provide a stable market for producers and a steady supply for buyers. Some participants in the ‘main’ Dialogue also pushed for more trading posts (or bagsakan) in urban areas to address the concern of farmers on where to drop their produce. However, we caution that distribution should not be focused on urban markets alone, like the current practice of many organic farming communities. Ample supply of organic/ natural produce should also be made available in the local market to ensure that healthy food can be enjoyed by rural communities. Moreover, farmers would need to be further capacitated on key business skills like records keeping, cost accounting, and forecasting so they can dictate prices vis-a-vis production cost as well as better estimate market demand before planting. The proposed intervention on improving estimates for market demand, however, could be challenging because of the unpredictability of production. Farmers would sometimes decide on what to produce based on what their neighbours are selling. Hence, data collection and analyses vis-a-vis consumption patterns should be in place as bases for demand projection, guiding farmers on what to produce at certain times of the year. This could also help them engage in contract growing.236238241248Food distribution – Lack of adequate communication and logistics infrastructure Dialogue participants acknowledged the lack of suitable and inexpensive distribution channels serving smaller volumes of organic/ natural produce. This was an issue not only to farmers practicing crop diversification but also to MSMEs servicing the retail market. Communicating with farmers was another issue raised by other stakeholders, given that they are at their farms most of the time. Some even recounted how they would need to contact farmers at 3 or 4 AM before they go to their farms. In the FGDs, farmers and MSMES pushed for the establishment of large-scale warehousing and cold storage facilities, although participants in the ‘main’ Dialogue disagreed that this would be the most effective approach. Other stakeholders suggested focusing first on modernising harvest and post-harvest procedures. An agriculture expert, for example, pointed out that vegetables should ideally be pre-cooled at the farm before bringing them to the trading posts to reduce condensation and extend shelf life by 50%, which refrigerated delivery vans could not address. Moreover, instead of large-scale storage facilities near post-harvest sites, participants of the ‘main’ Dialogue suggested smaller, modular, and movable facilities near retail outlets and homes, powered by solar. In terms of packaging, demands for sustainability were often countered with practicality issues. One participant in the ‘main’ Dialogue, for example, argued that plastics should not be completely banned as they are sometimes the best packaging for certain products. This argument was rebutted by two organisations working on the manufacturing of bio-plastics made from cassava and sweet potato. Whilst concerns were raised on the solubility of bio-plastics, which make them unfit for wet goods, it was pointed out that research and development is already ongoing to make bio-plastics suitable for fresh produce, long transport, and warm weather. However, we remain cautious of the need to minimise waste. The use of bio-plastics, therefore, should be coupled with increased composting practices, implying the need to capacitate both producers and consumers on proper waste disposal. It should also be noted that invited representatives from the logistics and transport sector did not show up in the Dialogue. Recognising their crucial role in food systems, we would continue to reach out to them to understand their challenges and to co-create interventions that would make them effective partners in addressing the plight of food producers.236241Food distribution: Lack of entrepreneurial skills Many smallholder farmers in the Philippines are engaged in subsistence farming, growing cash crops like rice, corn, and sugar. The lack of entrepreneurial mindset among these farmers have been linked to the entrenched culture of monocropping, which has allowed them to sell their produce in a single transaction to traders rather than encouraging them to think of ways to sell various crops. According to one participant of the ‘main’ Dialogue, the shift towards crop diversification would therefore require educating farmers on basic marketing skills. Other participants also pointed out that improving the business skills of farmers should start with those interested so they could set an example to others. It was also suggested that ‘bigger’ farmers with existing business knowledge could be tapped to mentor other farmers. Whilst we have underscored the need to further capacitate farmers on organic/ natural production practices, education on the proper costing and pricing of produce should also be prioritised to ensure that they could establish better relationships with buyers rather than negotiating with them on a per transaction basis. Furthermore, sustainable production and business management training could only be effective when there is an interest to learn among trainees. Hence, we believe that changing mindsets through values formation programmes may be a necessary first step for some producers.236241245Rural financing: Difficulty in accessing funds Dialogue participants noted that the issue on accessing funds stems not only from bureaucratic processing but also from high interest rates, high bank risks, and lack of financial literacy among farmers. They confirmed that some farmers would still go for '5-6' schemes (i.e. informal lenders charging as high as 20% interest rate per month) because they are simple - no collateral required and cash is received instantaneously. Loan processing, therefore, should be made simpler to encourage farmers and MSMEs to access formal lending, but with modified (lower) interest rates. A microfinance provider commented that loans would need to be released instantaneously (i.e. one-day processing), coupled with financial literacy and credit discipline training as well as regular visits to guide producers in their transformation. Another participant argued that whilst documentation requirements in formal institutions may be tedious, the difficulty is often encountered only in accessing loan for the first time. Once the producer is already registered in the banking system, subsequent loan applications would become easier. Simplifying the requirements for credit access, therefore, should be coupled with financial management education, including budgeting and forecasting. This would ensure that farmers and MSMEs would be able to absorb capital effectively and use funds appropriately, without ending up trapped in a debt spiral. Moreover, delivering such education programmes could be more efficient if producers are organised into associations or cooperatives for easier coordination and establishment of learning support systems. In the FGDs, farmers expressed how contract growing could help them find clarity in terms of the right amount of capital that they have to borrow. Again, this underscored the need for proper market access. In order to supply bigger volumes without being forced to engage in monocropping, Dialogue participants proposed that farmers organise themselves to aggregate production. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) could assist in forming such organisations whilst aggregators/ traders could facilitate market linkage. An NGO participant also suggested building an ecosystem that would cater to and fund both the development and trade aspirations of farmers. Development funding would support capacity building whilst trade support would improve market linkages. A platform that could allow capital from private investments, government funding and/or international aid to support both components would have to be established. It was also suggested that the platform should move through a circular model that supports the entire supply chain. We agree that establishing platforms integrating livelihood support in the empowerment process of smallholder farmers would be necessary. Making credit access easier would be incomplete if farmers are not capacitated in managing their funds. Furthermore, MSMEs, which account for 99% of businesses in the country, should also have better access to capital. If existing channels do not work for them, alternative models of capital distribution must be given urgent attention.236241245Rural financing: High interest rates Under the Agri-Agra Law, banks are mandated to allocate a portion of their lending portfolio to agriculture; however, they are also required to maintain a prescribed capital adequacy ratio (CAR). This makes it difficult for them to take the high risk associated with lending to farmers and MSMEs, given the higher provision required. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), for example, is classified as a universal bank, implying that it is mandated to fulfil certain CAR and profitability requirements. This deters a financial institution that is supposed to cater to the farming and fisheries sector from fulfilling its obligations. A participant from a microfinance NGO affirmed that individual loans from LBP follow commercial rates. Despite various legislative inquiries, LBP constantly admitted that it lacked the infrastructure to offer collateral-free lending to farmers. It was suggested that NGOs could fill this gap by acting as loan conduits if banks would give them good (lower) interest rates. Having worked with farmers for so long, NGOs would be in a better position to facilitate and manage collateral-free lending. In reality though, banks do not lend to NGOs and would rather pay the penalties for not complying with the required allocation for agriculture. A previous study conducted by IISLA, which mapped out the flow of capital globally and domestically, suggests that there is an abundance of capital circulating in the market. The challenge, however, is bridging that capital so it can reach and be utilised by investment-ready agripreneurs at affordable rates. Efficient channels for capital to reach smallholder farmers and MSMEs whilst ensuring that these small-scale businesses effectively manage their finances must therefore be in place.236241245Rural financing - Poverty psychology; low interest in accessing funds Participants of the ‘main’ Dialogue shared their observations of farmers not seeing a future in farming for their children. Sending their children to school had been anchored on the desire for them to have salaried jobs in the future. In extreme circumstances, farmers were more concerned of putting food on the table rather than pursuing their dreams of owning their farmland, being debt free, and/or having more working capital. It was suggested that forming cooperatives could help empower farmers, given that government loans are usually channeled through these organisations and that they could become platforms for savings and alternative income. Moreover, a participant from a church-based organisation also emphasised the importance of educating farmers in differentiating personal/ household needs from farm (enterprise) requirements. This would ensure that expenses do not get mixed up. Another suggestion in improving farmer income would be to link them with bigger companies through their corporate social responsibility (CSR) to improve market and logistics access. NGOs and microfinance institutions (MFIs) providing loan products to farmers should also work with relevant government agencies like PhilGuarantee, which could provide assistance should farmers become delinquent with their loan payments. A participant of the ‘main’ Dialogue also proposed that farmers be turned into a “trans-farmer” - one who is business-minded and utilises technologies, especially those in relation to finance. This could be attractive to the young people who are being encouraged to pursue farming as a profession. Lastly, it was suggested that perhaps we should stop focusing on maximising profit, given that farmers still need to survive in a competitive environment. Instead, investment should be allocated to reform the entire value chain, integrating different aspects of agriculture into a system that promotes food sovereignty. We agree in focusing first on systemic interventions, knowing that capital would naturally flow in the food system when there is an enabling environment to properly manage it, not necessarily to generate high profits, but rather to effectively achieve food security and equitable prosperity whilst protecting people and the planet.237The approach chosen in conducting the Dialogue allowed the participants of the ‘main’ event to agree/ uphold or disagree/ dispute, but without invalidating, the perspectives and concerns raised by smallholder farmers and MSMEs in the FGDs. Conflicting perspectives and deviations in the interventions proposed were expected, especially that the event intentionally pooled various stakeholders with varying interests. The following key areas of divergence were noted: First, farmers and MSMEs expressed the need for large-scale post-harvest facilities. Other stakeholders, however, proposed that the interventions should be small-scale, modular, localised and, as much as possible, powered via sustainable energy sources. We are keen on supporting the latter, given the investment required could be lower as well as the ease in implementation and management of community-level interventions. Second, there was a debate on the benefits of mechanisation. It was raised that investments on machinery would help farmers save on production cost (due to lower labour cost), allowing them to price their organic/ natural produce at more competitive rates. The counter argument, on the other hand, was premised on the weak labour laws and very low wages of farm workers in the Philippines. Hence, it was suggested that employing people should be preferred, shifting the focus to improving agricultural labour conditions. After all, many smallholder farmers could not afford mechanisation and, even for larger farms, hiring labourers would be more affordable than investing in expensive, and often imported, machines that need costly maintenance. Whilst we recognise that mechanisation would be necessary in some parts of the food value chain, particularly in addressing wastage during harvesting, we resonate more with protecting the livelihoods of farm workers, given that equitability in food systems should encompass all actors. To reduce production cost, however, farm owners could explore low-cost, natural farming methods like JADAM. Moreover, we align ourselves with the preservation of culture in rural communities, underscored by the continuation of ‘traditional’ sustainable farming practices across families and generations. Hence, we remain critical of importing capital-intensive technology and machinery from big companies, which could not only sideline the ‘peasant way’ of production but also perpetuate the industrialised system that has caused many of the problems raised in the Dialogue. Third, there was a debate on the definition of “farmer”, especially that some participants did not clearly distinguish between the landed (farm owners) and the landless (farm workers). It was pointed out that each group has differing needs and, thus, would require unique interventions. Farm workers, for example, would require greater bargaining power for their produce, particularly in terms of getting daily wages and a fair share of earnings when productivity becomes higher than expected. Whilst this complex issue staddles the mandates of both the DA and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), it was proposed that farm owners should take the main initiative to address it. Resolving this issue, however, would require hearing directly from farm labourers, which were not adequately represented in the Dialogue due to the mobility restrictions brought about by the ongoing pandemic. This should be the subject of further consultations. Fourth, slight differences in opinion about the willingness of farmers to diversify crops due to the entrenched culture of monocropping surfaced. Some premised their position on practicality, expressing disinterest due to the higher cost associated with crop diversification in the current food system. Others, however, insisted on the willingness of producers to diversify if proper support is given. We believe that enabling conditions, both in policy and practice, would have to be in place to deter monocropping. And fifth, opposing views over the apparent inability to dream and the subscription to the familial psychology of poverty among small-scale producers also emerged. There was a debate as to whether the problem lies on the farmer’s mindset or on the structural conditions that hinder prosperity in agricultural livelihoods. Based on the previous studies conducted by IISLA, we found out that whilst the generally aging farmers have encouraged their children to pursue other careers, a wave of young people have been showing renewed interest in farming. We therefore place our hope in young agripreneurs, believing that, with the right support, they would continue producing for food security whilst achieving the livelihood prosperity thought to be unattainable by the generation before them.

2021-07-13 19:53:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3360/44

3872651720167212316195223511514

We organized the dialogue so that the Principles were incorporated, reinforced and enhanced through a series of steps. First, the co-convenors attended both the ‘official’ Convenor training as well as the Curator/Facilitator training. Then the co-conveners slightly modified the Powerpoint presentation “Paquete-de-diapositivas-estándar-sobre-los-Diálogos-de-la-Cumbre” and held a two-hour training session with our facilitators for this dialogue. After which, a few of the facilitators also attended an official Curator/Facilitator training. The curator presented a similar Powerpoint presentation to the Dialogue participants.Our dialogue reflected various aspects of the Principles. Firstly, the curator emphasized the importance of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the commitment to the Food Systems Summit in her opening presentation to the participants. In both the facilitator training we conducted as co-conveners as well as in the curator’s opening presentation to the participants, we stressed the upmost importance of respect and diversity; the latter with the aim of embracing the complexities of food systems. The plenary speaker also spoke about the importance of utilizing this dialogue space to better understand the complexities of food systems, but especially within the Chilean context. As co-conveners, we tried to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity as much as possible through inviting as diverse a group of food systems actors as possible; and avoiding over-contacting different sectors (e.g. our academic sectors; or large enterprises that wanted to invite all of their employees). Finally, we also emphasized in our Facilitator training to remain neutral, but complementary; and to try build trust, especially by reiterating the Chatham House rule. We also strongly reinforced the Chatham House rule during our dialogue.Conduct a training with your Facilitators prior to the Dialogue to educate them and emphasize the Principles of Engagement. Also prior to the dialogue, create a Whatapp group between the Facilitators and the Convenor(s) to encourage them to ask questions about the dialogue, which inevitably will cut across the themes of the principals of engagement. This Whatsapp group is also useful to use / monitor during the dialogue in case any issues arise; also probably related to the principles of engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249250251The focus of this Dialogue was on transforming food systems to promote greater resilience and sustainability within food systems in Chile. To implement this focus throughout the dialogue small group discussions we included the following four questions in our Facilitator template: 1. What transformations are necessary / urgent in the Chilean food system to make it more sustainable and inclusive? 2. What actions in the coming years would have the greatest impacts on these transformations? How can we carry out these actions without putting at risk income / household / family income in Chile? 3. What actors should be involved and in what way in actions for transformation in the Chilean food system? (Including the organizations they belong to) 4. How will it be possible to know if these actions are successful?235238239240241242244245246248249250251Environment and Climate to promote more seasonal and local food systems: To achieve a sustainable food system, it is necessary to promote the implementation of actions that promote seasonal and local consumption (and therefore local production). Chile’s agricultural policies have been dismantling the diversity of peasant production to monocultural production models. Governance/Trade-offs: If we think that in 20 more years more people will live in cities, farmers must develop strategies that allow them to produce for what those cities demand. Governance/Policy: The current pandemic context must be considered, where it has been shown that the consumption of fruits and vegetables reduces the risks of getting sick. We must start by implementing greater nutrition education from the first stages of life, accompanied by public policies that promote healthy eating and facilitate access to healthy food. We must demolish myths with powerful educational campaigns. School gardens must be accompanied by a budget to hire staff to be responsible on vacation. Territorial/contextual differences: We cannot speak of a single food system, since there are different realities in the same country: the products vary by price, quality, and access. Price: The cost of food is not reflected in farmers' income but goes to intermediaries or input-producing companies. The food export companies have partners that become millionaires while agricultural workers earn very little. There is incongruity between food access and pricing. Changes in power structures within Chilean food systems: Power relations are characterized by being vertical and power is concentrated in those who concentrate more hectares or water rights. Change is needed, including from vertical to horizontal relations. Governance/Policy re fishing and aquaculture: Fishing should be state supported to solve the population's food problems. Incentives must be developed for local markets to increase the supply of marine products. The per-capita consumption of fish in Chile is very low, so the promotion of fish consumption should also be strengthened. Governance/Policy/Finance re healthy food access: Access to healthy products should improve and become equitable. There needs to be incentives given to people to buy healthy food. The State must protect food prices to lower the costs of a healthy diet. Innovation: Chile has put a lot of resources and technology into the fruit exports. Technological solutions are needed for food produced and sold in Chile; such as technology transfer, training, research and development of technologies; including environmentally friendly technological advances. Universities must generate professionals who are linked with society and who focus on research in relation to society and the environment, in this way reflective spaces can be achieved that help to value peasant agricultural production, including agroecology. Governance/Policy: Advertising campaigns around food and nutrition must have a state budget to be successful because it is a public health issue; and should utilize digital media. Governance/Policy: Legal reforms must be made that establish a minimum purchase of local food, not just based on price, for school programs. Governance/Policy/Youth empowerment: Facilitate access to land for young people since land is becoming more and more expensive. The wisdom and local experience of rural territories must be recovered. The revaluation of peasant territories must be sustainable and appropriate for the effects of food systems. We must transform how the food system is perceived, from a technological, productive, economic sector to a sector that also implies culture. One way to do so is to make visible and clarify the importance of the peasant agriculture as a cultural heritage of Chile, as well as the forms of production and food of smallholder farming systems and indigenous peoples. Identify these experiences and make them visible. And ideally return to some of the older forms of agricultural production techniques. The food systems transformations that are made must consider the different scales of agricultural production that exist, with support for both small and medium scale agriculture. However, whatever the scale, access to water and land must be guaranteed, as well as the protection of our agri-food heritage (species, varieties, knowledge, etc.). Governance/Policy: Greater support of small-scale production, particularly in relation to desertion and migration from the countryside to the city; including incentives, that allow a living wage and livelihood so that producers can remain working and living in rural areas. Governance/Policy: implement more short food supply chains; such as cooperatives, associations and direct consumer contact with producers. Policies should install more State-run agricultural collection centers. Governance/Policy: Make changes in the entire food packaging chain, which still has a lot of plastic and other waste materials. Policy: Avoid the high use of pesticides within the food system. Stricter laws are needed on the use of agro-toxins, with campaigns that inform about the human and environmental risks of such toxins. Such as with the Ministries of Health and Education, with agro-toxins as a public health issue. Governance/Policy: Stop the criminalization of farmers who sell on the streets versus the support given to street vendors and supermarkets. Farmers should be allowed to continue selling on the streets, because that has always been done in Chile, before supermarkets.236238242246249Increase the number of farmers markets (ferias libres) in Chile since they are currently the best local (healthy) food supply for the population but they are not sufficient or permanent.236241242248Digital literacy training for farmers so that they can take advantage of the new digital platforms (e.g. social media, delivery, etc.) to really reach the consumer.236238246249Include the right to adequate food and food sovereignty in the Chilean constitution since it will serve to create the conditions for all policies to move towards this path.236238239240241242246249The public sector should become more involved in the local food supply, in terms of incentivizing greater local production and consumption236238239245249More educational and marketing campaigns are needed around healthy eating, but such campaigns also needed to be accompanied with support for both greater physical and economic access to such healthy foods236239241242248Innovation initiatives need to be inclusive of local as well as sustainable agriculture236238242243246249Register and make visible where the alternative short food supply chains are, especially that include smallholder farmers.236242Carry out more participatory instances: dialogues, territorial discussions.236242246249Organize intersectoral coordination, so that policies are more permanent.236238240242244246249Greater territorial planning and modification of the regulatory plan in cities, in order to favor agricultural soils. “Protect the resources that we still have” (example of community gardens that arise due to the need for space in very dense cities).237238239242246249Only a couple of the small groups identified areas of divergence. Thus, what follows are the only areas of divergence that emerged during our Dialogue. Regarding trade policy around food production in Chile, one part of the small group indicates that, if the export is higher, then the price of food rises in the domestic market due to movements in the trade balance. Therefore, the State must regulate foreign trade to control prices in domestic markets. For their part, other participants in the small group declare that the price of food is not regulated by the international market, because Chile only exports fruits, practically no vegetables. So, controlling foreign trade and the country's trade balance would not impact the prices of vegetables. In this way, they propose the generation of a public policy focused on the tax burden of food (for example, VAT could be lowered to healthy foods) so that consumers buy healthy products at a lower and better price. Reeducation of the general population, in the sense that it understands that agricultural products are temporary. Disagreement occurs when a person argues that it is possible to find most products in other locations and it is even possible to import them. Lack of political will to re-educate in new systems. People counter-argue that the will has existed for a long time, that the diagnosis is understood by all, but the lack of continuity of governments makes it difficult to maintain public policies. Promotion of differentiation of healthier foods, added value (eg front-of-package labels). Some people argued that there are enough healthy foods and that in general these foods are aimed at upper-middle-income people, but the main nutrition-related health problems as well as problems with healthy food access are in low-income people, who are the ones who most need a dietary change. Solve problems of access to healthy food. Some participants argue that access exists, as there are farmers markets (ferias libres) everywhere. Differences in access throughout Chile was also discussed (eg extreme areas).

2021-07-13 22:52:48205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16713/39

52632143418132111822513264

A wide range of government, non-government and private sector stakeholders were invited to ensure a mix of views and to generate a lively discussion. Trained facilitators ensured that small group discussions were respectful and different questions were designed for each group to complement the contributions of other groups.Discussion was lively and conducted in such a way as to lead to concrete recommendations fitting the purposes of the summit. The atmosphere of the discussion was respectful and each discussion group built on the contributions of others. The positive atmosphere encouraged a sense of trust.

Yes

234238239241243245246249WFP and the Department of Nutrition Improvement of Ministry of Planning, National Sub-Committee for Food Fortification (NSCFF) of the National Council for Nutrition (NCN) jointly conducted the in-depth explorations on food fortification. Given the broad range of line ministries (and technical departments) involved with food fortification in Cambodia, as well as SMEs, food producers, and development partners (many of which operate at different levels/scales), it was decided to conduct two separate, complementary events - one more focused on policy/regulatory environment, and the other on operational aspects. This dialogue was focused on the Operational Environment for Food Fortification. Food fortification is employed both for the purposes of social assistance, to promote better nutrition for vulnerable groups and for profit, through fortification of commercially viable products. The operational environment relevant to each of these applications of food fortification is a very important consideration for success. WFP and various development partners wish to give technical support and the IFC are keen to provide both technical and financial assistance to commercially viable applications for food fortification for commercially viable products. There have been disruptions to food production, processing and transport of food during COVID-19 and these disruptions have highlighted the importance of an effective operating environment to support successful fortification efforts. In order to prevent all forms of malnutrition in Cambodia, the private sector can play a crucial role at every step from farm to fork by increasing the production of nutritious, diverse, safe and affordable products that are widely available. Fortified products can have an important role in this, including iodised salt and Vitamin B fortified food products. The reasons why food fortification is needed are clear. However, the reasons why fortification is not successful, whether for purposes of social assistance or as commercially viable products are not so clear. Factor contributing to success in Cambodia have included the established legal framework and the national standards for some products; micro-nutrient dense foods have been produced; and there is huge potential for rice fortification to put back what is taken out in the milling process. The challenges faced relate to the low volumes of fortified products traded; high costs of production; no locally available pre-mix; the huge number of millers involved in rice processing; lack of a legal framework for rice fortification; lack of product standards and lack of fortified rice kernels in Cambodia.235238239241245246248249The dialogue identified key challenges and solutions related to food fortification operation. Private sector engagement, technical supports, premix availability, new technology, strong regulation & enforcement, and commercialization of food fortification came out strongly from the dialogue. The development of unified roadmap for food fortification is recommended as priority. The result of this dialogues is a good input for the development of the roadmap. A STATEGY FOR MOVING FORWARD We need a food fortification policy and we need this before trying to deal with all the many technical issues. The Ministry of Planning (MoP) should seek assistance from the Development Partners in developing this policy. We need to strengthen the existing mechanisms for the MoP to move forward. A small task force is required in order to support the MoP in moving on. The task force should engage with the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) and seek support from the DPM to request the MEF to support the food fortification efforts. We need to use an economic argument such as the claim presented by WFP that investment of $1 in food fortification can yield $27 return through increased productivity and reduced health care costs. The constraints faced relate to the high costs of production for a small country where imported products from neighbouring countries can do well. Understanding of markets and consumer trust is critical. Building that trust and the awareness of consumers is perhaps the main challenge we face. There are locally available raw materials and we need to work with the private sector to encourage good faith, safety and quality and to protect those qualities. Those who don’t follow the standards and merely seek quick money are no help. These actors will make no contribution to research or to gain the trust of consumers. The policy on food fortification should centre on the need to create trust amongst consumers and on the primacy of the market as a driving force for development of food fortification. The government can assist with laws and regulations, import standards, research support and via institutional procurement.236238239241246249TOPIC 1. Production The main constraints are associated with the costs of raw materials, access to technology, markets, the importation of pre-mix, and the creation of production chains. The fortification process is subject to interference from multiple authorities and any reports cause bad publicity and public reaction. Sometimes fortified products have altered taste or other qualities and this makes consumers hesitant. SMEs generally lack the technology and a lack of demand for fortified products when competing with unfortified products. The challenges also include incomplete or uneven law enforcement, and the lack of engagement of the relevant stakeholders. Imported fortified products are cheaper than local fortified products. Local production is not competitive without support from government and enforcement of standards for both local and imported products. It would help producers if the government provided the supply of pre-mix, especially if this could be arranged tax-free. Technical support is also required for SMEs who cannot afford to invest in research and expertise. Government could provide incentives for producers of safe and quality fortified products. They might be given tax incentives to encourage this effort.236238239241246247249TOPIC 2. Market We tend to talk too much about production challenges and need for producer support. There is too little work on how to stimulate consumer demand. Lack of knowledge of consumers, lack of trust, imported products often cheaper. Cambodian consumers often don’t care about or know about the importance of vitamins and minerals to support their health. Even with a very small price difference, consumers mostly just want the cheapest product, regardless of claimed nutritional values. If taste or small changes due to fortification this discourages the buyers. Coordination between authorities and the private sector needs to be improved. Imported fortified products should be regulated but restrictions on import of raw materials should be eased. Standards need to be well understood and tested and regulations need to be enforced. If some producers are required to fortify their product, they should not have to compete with unfortified product. There should be contributions from both the producers and the government. Government can help to ensure no cheap un-fortified products are allowed to compete.236238239241246249TOPIC 3. Rice Fortification The main challenge is to ensure fortified rice products are commercially viable. It helps if the government and DPs include fortified products in social assistance programmes, especially if quality standards are maintained. Commercialize rice and other food fortification through private sector. Integrating rice and food fortification into Social assistant programme where it can be reached to vulnerable people. Strengthen food fortification policy and regulation environment.236238239241243245246249TOPIC 4. Development Partners Recommendation There are three main areas for improvement of food fortification in Cambodia. Increased investment in research and innovation, especially with use of locally produced foods; the universities are interested by the environment is challenging in terms of lack of funding, facilities, human resources and curriculum. The private sector and especially SMEs lack knowledge about quality and safety issues, access to technology and seldom link to academia. This suggests potential for public private partnerships. Creating consumer demand is difficult because of lack of awareness of benefits, lack of trust and lack of investment in marketing. Many challenges to face, including lack of raw materials. The delay in getting imported products cleared and the ordering time, even with the support of the Ministry of Health. Also, the attitudes of consumers, who usually attach value to that which they can see. Fortification is invisible to them and benefits unknown and often products not trusted. As far as most Cambodians are concerned, beneficial products should be provided free. Research is lacking on consumer acceptance and we need to cultivate consumer trust. Fortified foods are classified as a medicine here in Cambodia. That can complicate manufacture and sale of fortified products. There is a lack of research and engagement of the universities in this area. Generally, the SMES who could produce these products are looking for subsidies. There is potential for scaling up if we can establish trust amongst consumers, starting with those who are more aware and health conscious and who are more willing to pay for healthy food. Public Private Partnerships might offer a viable route for scaling up. Nutrition labelling and consumer education can also lead to changed demand, especially if truth in Labeling law is upheld. There are examples of products which have been successful in other Asian and in African countries. For Cambodia, it is important to use local foods which are nutrient dense and these can be used as bio-fortificants when preparing dishes. Examples from Sri Lanka showed that the fortification successes come from following local tastes and the demand of different age groups, using local products and providing support for local farmers as an added product quality. Food fortification is a rich area for research and development and innovation. Other countries, some in Africa, have demonstrated the value of increasing investment in research and development to support fortification efforts and commercial success.237241246249250The tension between the wish to restrict imports (of fortified products) and to ease import requirements for importation of pre-mix and other raw materials reflects the wider challenges for a country like Cambodia. The borders are difficult to police, the number of authorities involved in importation, manufacture and sale and the challenges of meeting all requirements mean that it is difficult for the private sector to be competitive. There is also a divergence between commercially viable fortified products and the provision of fortified products as a form of social assistance, where it is expected that government or development partners should pay the costs of fortification and not the consumers themselves.

2021-07-14 04:45:17204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4789/87203180

110672914317930152812311382422718231441114

1. Act with Urgency: Recognizing the urgency to bring voice and visibility to the women workers from Asia and SE Asia region in the discussions and to ensure that they are not left out from the process of food systems transformation, SEWA, IFPRI and RECOFTC organized this Regional Dialogue on “Women Work and Food Systems”. 2. Commit to the Summit: Through this dialogue, we intend to bring in the voices of the women workers who are an integral part of the food systems but often left out in decisions making process. 3. Be Respectful: The women workers from the informal economy are a backbone of a countries food systems. And yet their voices are unheard. Therefore, this dialogue was organized to get these workers their due respect in the food systems by giving them a platform to voice their issues and concerns but also their best practices. 4. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Adhering to this principle , various stakeholders from different sectors including grassroots organizations, national level stakeholders, and policy makers were invited. This intentional composition of participants enabled our dialogue to bring diverse perspectives and voices from stakeholders and helped participants to listen and understand different perspective in food systems. 5. Complement the work of others: The dialogue provided stakeholders from various sectors of the food systems an equal opportunity to put forth their points. As the dialogue provided representatives from each sector to share, participants could complement and learn from experiences of each other without any prejudice.• The Dialogue was kept within the suggested time frame – 2.5 hours. • Keynote presentations on the purpose and objectives of the UNFSS and the Summit Dialogues were given to orient the participants, for them to take the opportunity to come together and identify priorities and actions they can take to bring more inclusive, equitable and healthier food systems, while also safeguarding the planet. • The Moderator provided the context of the Summit Action Tracks, the complexity of food systems, and how the Dialogue could help shape pathways for the future of equitable and sustainable food systems. Members from various action tracks of the Food Systems Summit, including Deputy Special Envoy were also invited and actively participated to ensure that the dialogue sticks to the purpose and objective of the UNFSS. • Representatives of various sectors in the food systems including the Govt., inter-governmental organizations, Multilateral organizations (Like UNDP, WB), CSOs, Private sector, Academia, Economists as well as most importantly the grassroot women workers themselves including vendors and hawkers, small and marginal farmers, FPOs, members of Milk Cooperatives, Agribusiness enterprises etc. actively participated in the dialogue. • To ensure effective participation by the grassroot workers, simultaneous translation in 2 local languages (Hindi and Gujarati) as well as in English was arranged. • Participants were encouraged to share their perspectives on how issues on food and food security could be approached collectively, not through one’s own disciplinary lens or own sectoral interest. At the beginning of the dialogue, we encouraged participants to be respectful and carefully listen to each other. The moderator guided the discussion and helped participants to be open to divergent points of view. Post the presentation by the Deputy Envoy and Key note speakers, the participants were divided in break-out rooms with the five themes. Each room had a chair and a rapporteur who guided the discussions and helped each group come-up with specific actionable outcomes.Based on our experience hosting an independent dialogue, we have learned that it is important to present clear objectives and topics at the beginning of the dialogue. It means that you need to explain about the Food Systems Summit and what it means to participants, so that participants would be aware of the purpose of the dialogue and we can also better organize the dialogue to apply the ‘commit to the summit’ principle. Also, to ensure equitable food systems, there is a need to have a balanced and integrated approach to various aspects of the food systems from Production, Processing, Distribution and consumption. And therefore, the dialogues and discussions on these aspects also need to include stakeholders engaged at all levels in these stages of the food systems. Well designed Registration form with specific questions sent out in advance (at least 10 days) helps ensure the most relevant people can participate in the discussions.

Yes

234238239240241242251Women are the back-bone of an informal worker’s household and most commonly shoulder the responsibility of fulfilling the family’s food and nutritional needs. At the same time, women play a major role in the Food system – in production, processing, trading of food and in making decisions about consumption and purchase of food at household level. Despite their importance in the food system, women are constrained by their lack of land ownership and access to other resources due to patriarchal farming systems and gender discrimination. Additionally, agricultural support systems in India are mostly composed of men, affecting women’s access to resources to increase their incomes. Therefore, tackling gender injustice and truly empowering women is not only a fundamental prerequisite for food systems transformation but also a goal. Building more inclusive food systems will be key to supporting vulnerable populations affected by the pandemic. Inclusive food systems have the potential for integrating the poor and marginalized into food supply chains, enabling them to escape poverty, improving nutrition, and thereby, reducing national and global inequalities. To discuss and deliberate on these issues and possible game changing solutions to address these issues, IFPRI, SEWA and RECOFT co-hosted a regional dialogue on Women, Work and Food Systems on 4th March. As the dialogue mainly focused on the Action Track 4: Advance Equitable Livelihoods, this dialogue served as one in a series of regional dialogues to discuss how we can achieve the triple goal of gender equality, sustainable and healthy food systems. The dialogue brought together over 100 participants including economists, academicians, scientists, farmers and farmer organizations, policy makers, consumers, private sector and others from over 10 different sectors. In order to engage different stakeholders actively in the dialogue, five breakout groups were created based on the five action tracks. The opening remarks about the dialogue theme, Women, Work, and Food Systems, were delivered before the breakout group discussion to provide the context of women in food systems to participants. Each group was encouraged to come up with three game changing solutions at the end of the discussion. Cross-cutting solutions across all breakout groups were identified.235238239240241242244245248249251At the end of the discussion, each group came up with 3 game changing solutions. Some of these game-changing solutions are as below. 1. Organizing is the key to empower rural women workers and small holder women farmers and make the food systems equitable and just. Promoting their own member-owned and managed supply chain will help building their collective strength, bargaining power and decision-making agencies. 2. Policies that treat farm as an enterprise, promote women-owned and managed social enterprises and bring in technology and skills to strengthen the decentralized supply chains. 3. Policies that Explicitly recognize and promote the rights of women who are structurally disadvantaged. 4. Focus on Affordability and accessibility to enable increased effective reach of nutritious food for all. 5. Promote traditional food through pro-poor and pro-women farmer policies as well as linking consumer directly to producers through producer-led-value chains. 6. Reviving, promoting and implementing indigenous practices through technological integration. 7. Promote local production and distribution to address the issue of food wastage as well as localization of agricultural value chain to generate better, just and equitable livelihood opportunities. 8. Educate and create awareness about hidden environmental costs of food production to the commons. 9. Promote eco-regenerative solutions, management of resources and commons by rural women workers. Additionally, organizing rural women workers and enabling access to financial services and market linkages came out as a cross-cutting solution across all groups.236238251The first group discussed the first action track, Ensure Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for all. Participants discussed how to promote a member-owned food supply chain, member-owned agriculture tool, and equipment library for small holder women. The group proposed three game-changing solutions as below. 1. Organizing poor smallholder farmers and women workers, promoting their own member-owned and managed supply chain and thus building their collective strength, bargaining power and decision-making agencies. 2. Focus on increasing affordability and accessibility to nutritious food for all through women producer food systems and supply chains. 3. Preserving, promoting and practicing indigenous practices through technological inclusion.236239244246249250251The second group discussed action track 2, Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Some concerns were raised in this group discussion. The key issue highlighted was “what is being produced is not eaten and instead, is exported. What is being eaten is what has been imported.” Some participants also noted that there is a disconnect between the producers and the consumers due to change in food preferences and consumption patterns. Other issues related to food wastage, hoarding of food grains by traders and middlemen leading to inflation, lack of markets for small surplus produce, government policies around PDS (the government subsidized Public Distribution System) which allowed distribution of low-quality grains, and distribution of non-local grains like wheat and rice were mentioned. Additionally, participants discussed issues related to policies. Current policies do not ensure ownership of land to women, or disassociate access to resources and land ownership, thus leading to women’s inability to access financial resources, extension services, benefits and entitlements from government as a small farmer. The group proposed three game changing solutions as below. 1. Address the issue of food wastage by training local producers to produce contemporary nutritious food using locally grown traditional food grains and produce. 2. Educate and create awareness about hidden environmental costs of food production to the general consumers. Address the role of media, celebrities and large corporates / brands in promoting harmful dietary habits and junk food. 3. Policies that Promote traditional food through a. Emphasizing on local procurement and distribution through PDS b. Enabling market access and support for small women farmers c. Promoting FPO’s that connect Producers directly to Consumers.236240244249251The third group discussed action track 3, Boost nature-positive production. Farmers from various parts of India shared examples where the development of pasture land, and commons, was taken up focusing on water conservation and plantation and that led to livelihood generation as well as value addition and forward linkages. One of the most discussed solutions was preserving, strengthening and promoting women’s traditional knowledge of the bio resources. Participants in the third group proposed three game changing solutions as below. 1. Preserve and promote eco-regenerative food production methods including climate, seeds, traditional methods and knowledge. 2. Policies to encourage and promote management of commons (including but not limited to water, barren and wastelands, grass and forest lands) by local women’s collectives 3. Policies to promote decentralized food production systems, thereby promoting affordable and traditional methods and techniques such as local inputs, local seeds, bio-fertilizers and clean energy solutions236241245248249251The fourth group discussed action track 4, Advance equitable livelihoods. The key issues discussed in the group in the context of women and the current food systems include: 1) Lack of visibility, identity and recognition of women workers despite them playing significant roles at all stages in the food supply chain 2) Women’s limited access to resources including land, finance, information - leading to a lack of access to government schemes and subsidies as well as financial services. 3) The majority of the women informal workers in the food system are into home based informal enterprises – making them invisible in the food systems. The group proposed four game-changing solutions, including a cross-cutting solution. 1. Organizing is the key to empower rural women workers and small holder women farmers and make the food systems equitable and just. 2. Policies that treat the farm as an enterprise, promote women-owned and managed social enterprises and bring in technology and skills to strengthen the decentralized supply chains. 3. Policies that promote asset ownership by women farmers, direct procurement from women farmers - thereby facilitate decent and enhance livelihood opportunity. 4. Improved access to finance and Market access has emerged as a cross-cutting solution across all five ACTION TRACKS.236242247249251The last group discussed action track 5, Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. In this group, participants discussed several issues that prohibit women’s involvement in food systems, including patriarchal environment, exploiting women’s labor, limited access to markets and loans for women. The group proposed four game-changing solutions. 1. Explicit recognition of the rights of women who are structurally disadvantaged: mobilizing them, enabling their access and rights to land and finance, and other assets. 2. Policies that 1) treat family as a unit for entitlements and capacity building; 2) bring visibility and recognition to family farming and promote it as an economic activity; 3) create awareness and redistribution of labor across family members 3. Organize access to freedom of association and collective bargaining for women workers and women smallholder farmers; safeguarding the social protection mechanisms, including fair pay, safe and dignified space for women, cash transfers, etc. 4. Promote, Scale and Replicate existing successful models of women owned and managed food value chains.237241245251Participants shared mostly similar views on the issues related to women and food systems. While organizing rural women workers and enabling access to financial services and market linkages was identified as a key game changing solution, other solutions such as promoting local decentralized value chains fully owned and managed by the women farmers / producers / workers themselves also came up across all five discussion groups.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Detailed-Report-of-Women-Work-and-Food-Systems.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Background-note-for-Women-Work-and-Food-Systems-Dialogue-on-4th-March.pdfhttps://www.sewa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Summary-report-of-Women-Work-and-Food-Systems.pdfhttps://youtu.be/n_eiNhQ6yS4

2021-07-14 04:47:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23772/87

16437633918401101439753811145722743641262115115346734230

1. Act with Urgency: Recognizing the urgency to bring voice and visibility to these poor women workers in the food systems discussions and to ensure that they are not left out from the process of food systems transformation, SEWA organized this National Dialogue on “Women Work and Food Systems: Voices from Grassroots”. 2. Commit to the Summit: Through this dialogue, SEWA intends to bring in the voices of the poor informal sector women workers who are an integral part of the food systems but often left out in decisions making process. 3. Be Respectful: The women workers from the informal economy are a backbone of a countries food systems. And yet their voices are unheard. Therefore, this dialogue was organized to get these workers their due respect in the food systems by giving them a platform to voice their issues and concerns but also their best practices. 4. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Adhering to the ‘embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity’, SEWA invited various stakeholders from different sectors including grassroots organizations, national level stakeholders, and policy makers. This intentional composition of participants enabled our dialogue to bring diverse perspectives and voices from stakeholders and helped participants to listen and understand different perspective in food systems. 5. Complement the work of others: The dialogue provided stakeholders from various sectors of the food systems an equal opportunity to put forth their points. As the dialogue provided representatives from each sector to share, participants could complement and learn from experiences of each other without any prejudice. At the beginning of the dialogue, we encouraged participants to be respectful and carefully listen to each other. The moderator guided the discussion and helped participants to be open to divergent points of view. As the grassroots sisters shared their life journeys, challenges faced as well as provided with solutions, participants presented respects and shared various perspectives comfortably. They represented on behalf of their communities.• The Dialogue was kept within the suggested time frame – 2.5 hours. • Keynote presentations on the purpose and objectives of the UNFSS and the Summit Dialogues were given to orient the participants, for them to take the opportunity to come together and identify priorities and actions they can take to bring more inclusive, equitable and healthier food systems, while also safeguarding the planet. • The Moderator provided the context of the Summit Action Tracks, the complexity of food systems, and how the Dialogue could help shape pathways for the future of equitable and sustainable food systems. Members from various action tracks of the Food Systems Summit were also invited and actively participated to ensure that the dialogue sticks to the purpose and objective of the UNFSS. • Representatives of various sectors in the food systems including the Govt., inter-governmental organizations, Multilateral organizations (Like UNDP, WB), CSOs, Private sector, Academia, Economists as well as most importantly the grassroot women workers themselves including vendors and hawkers, small and marginal farmers, FPOs, members of Milk Cooperatives, Agribusiness enterprises etc. actively participated in the dialogue. • To ensure effective participation by the grassroot workers, simultaneous translation in 2 local languages (Hindi and Gujarati) as well as in English was arranged. • Participants were encouraged to share their perspectives on how issues on food and food security could be approached collectively, not through one’s own disciplinary lens or own sectoral interest.Based on our experience hosting two independent dialogues, we have learned that it is important to present clear objectives and topics at the beginning of the dialogue. It means that you need to explain about the Food Systems Summit and what it means to participants, so that participants would be aware of the purpose of the dialogue and we can also better organize the dialogue to apply the ‘commit to the summit’ principle. Also, to ensure equitable food systems, there is a need to have a balanced and integrated approach to various aspects of the food systems from Production, Processing, Distribution and consumption. And therefore, the dialogues and discussions on these aspects also need to include stakeholders engaged at all levels in these stages of the food systems.

Yes

234241249251While the Food Systems Summit workstreams and regional and state dialogues focused on the issues of gender, food systems and gender transformative approaches with multi-stakeholders, the issues and challenges of the people who make the base of agriculture i.e., the marginal rural women farmers and landless laborers had not been represented in the game changing solutions. We believe that women play major role in shouldering the responsibility of fulfilling the family’s food and nutritional needs as well as in the food systems – in production, processing, trading of food and in making decisions about consumption and purchase of food at household level. And yet their voices are barely heard. Thus, the dialogue was intentionally created to promote their participation in the food systems and bring their voices. The dialogue was organized by SEWA to engage small and marginal women farmers and informal sector women workers in the food systems across India and provide a platform to bring forth their issues, challenges and solutions to enhance their visibility, identity and livelihood in the food system in the presence of appropriate policymakers, private sector organizations, scientists and individual consumers.235241242245249251The dialogue established that in order to enable real progress for the smallholder women farmers and landless laborers, there is a need for a comprehensive and inclusive approach that integrates women producers into mainstream agriculture and food system activities, provides them long-term, sustainable support and creates for them better access to financial services and markets. Further, to achieve truly transformative changes in the Food System, it is critical that all the issues, challenges and solutions identified should not be considered in silos, but viewed holistically, with the implementation of solutions and policies being done in complete synergy between the Private Sector, Public Sector, NGOs and the grassroot members. Replication of SEWA’s models of social enterprises and cooperatives across the country can bring about truly transformative changes in the lives of millions of informal workers in our country.2362382412422442492511. The Issues and Challenges in the Food Systems identified through the dialogue - A lack of integration of women workers in production and consumption of food - Most of the policies, schemes and subsidies are associated to land and hence smallholder farmers, share croppers & agricultural laborers not unable to access them. - Despite women taking care of major field activities, they are “unpaid workers” as they rarely have access to market and the income as well as benefits linked to farming is received by the male members of the family due to them being the title-holders of farm lands. According to a study done by World Economic Forum, 66% of the work done by women in India is unpaid work. - Women farmers do not have voice, visibility or validity in the decision-making process in mainstream agricultural practices and overall food system. - This lack of visibility results in disentitlement to benefits as well as lack of access to agricultural extension services - Increasingly frequent climate and market shocks make agriculture unprofitable, unsustainable and unviable. - Most of the training and capacity building programs on technology and farm activities being attended by male members of the family and women being deprived of the same opportunity. - Modernized, heavy farming machinery and equipment is not women-compatible and usable only by men, rendering the women unemployable. 2. Solutions suggested through the dialogue - An integration of the entire food system from “Seed to Food” i.e., the entire process from seed to cultivation, production, distribution & consumption of food to be integrated to achieve the goals of good nutrition for the people, income for small holder farmers and sustainability of the food system. - Capacity building and skill development of women farmers and laborers on farm planning, farm management, marketing and supply chain management. - Resilience building of the smallholder farmers to absorb climate and market shocks through an agriculture resilience and recovery fund. - Enabling women farmers to have the rights to the title of their land - Enabling women farmers to have a voice in decision-making & policy implementation in the Food System. - Addressing the issue of women’s unpaid labor and skewed balance of work. - Bringing about gender responsive agriculture & food system policies; bridging gender & technology gaps. - Understanding the role of “uncultivated greens” and encouraging its cultivation as it forms a major part of the diet of poor, rural families along with being a powerful source of nutrition. - Decentralizing and diversifying the food markets with a wide range of local products. - Linking the produce of smallholder women farmers to the Public Distribution System which would help in food grains produced by the farmers being available for their consumption, consumption for their family members and the local villagers. - Enabling the farmers to get assured markets and fair price of their produce to attain income security. - Promoting local agro-processing industry to increase employment opportunities for youth in villages & reducing migration to urban areas. - Organizing women to come together for collective marketing, bargaining & demand for better services. - Introducing progressive policies empowering women in food systems to reduce gender based violence.237No divergent viewpoints were raised or identified.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Report-SEWAs-National-Dialogue-on-Women-Work-and-Food-Systems.pdfhttps://www.sewa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Summary-report_SEWAs-National-Dialogue-on-Women-Work-and-Food-Systems.pdfhttps://youtu.be/SKs0WB4ze4Ehttps://youtu.be/-L0tmTxJvQAhttps://youtu.be/OQ_pC0dQ_-w

2021-07-14 05:08:08205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29527/196

71085211006299152290524420415300121431669718

The UNCT in Uzbekistan, led by UNDP and FAO, have joined forces with Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Agriculture to hold the first national dialogues to discuss ways and take collective action to transform the way Uzbekistan produces, consumes and thinks about food. Through this dialogue, the UN aims to draw attention to food systems sustainability and broadly address the global triple crisis of climate, nature and pollution through an agricultural lens. The inaugural meeting of Uzbekistan’s national food systems dialogues kicked off on May 26, 2021, Wednesday at 9 am. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the dialogue was conducted in a hybrid manner. The national dialogue started with opening remarks from high-level speakers (Deputy Minister of Agriculture, UN Resident Coordinator, UNDP Resident Representative, Assistant FAO Representative in Uzbekistan), and the brief introduction of the UN Food Systems Summit was provided by the Regional Technical Advisor of UNDP BPPS, Istanbul Regional Hub. Next, the Convenor of the National Dialogues, Mr. Alisher Shukurov, (Advisor to the Minister of Agriculture) presented on the national food security systems, focusing on the national agriculture development strategy 2020-2030 in Uzbekistan. In the thematic discussion session, three national priorities were identified and discussed; 1) Innovative technology for higher productivity, reduction of impact on nature in the context of climate change, 2) Financing of food production in the transition to more productive and greener agriculture: the role of subsidies, incentives, micro-credit, green bonds, and 3) Regulations: Government’s role in creating/amending policies to encourage greener agricultural practices. The first member state dialogue successfully connected diverse national food system stakeholders and contributed to examining the potential and vulnerabilities of national food systems while considering how best to engage with the upcoming series of summits.• Act with urgency: The first Member State Dialogue reinforced that transforming our food systems is among the most urgent and powerful ways of changing course and making progress towards all 17 SDGs. Rebuilding national food systems will also enable us to “build back better” from COVID-19. As we are all part of the food system, the dialogue brought all stakeholders together to bring about the most needed transformation. • Recognise complexity: The Dialogue also highlighted the consumption and production pressure we are putting on our planet, particularly on biodiversity, which in turn impacts on the regulation of climate, contributing to a triple crisis globally. Consequently, it is vital to ensure that as we address the challenges associated with food systems sustainability, we also look at the bigger picture of addressing biodiversity decline and the ways we use these resources. Therefore, the national dialogues on food systems sustainability also highlighted the global triple crisis to better inform and sharpen our engagement in transforming national food systems. • Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: In total, 71 participants from diverse sectors, including agriculture, crops, fish, livestock, and the food industry committed to this first dialogue. The moderator and speakers also represented different stakeholder groups. • Complement the work of others: The Dialogue offered opportunities to engage various stakeholders, such as the Government, the UN, NGOs and academic institutions, in considering their role in food systems, how their roles link with others, and how they can unite around transformative actions in support of the SDGs. Build trust: The Dialogue promoted trust and increased motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement and implementation. At the end of the dialogue, it was agreed that all the relevant stakeholders would keep working together to boost joint efforts aimed at providing food security and sustainable development through various forms of partnershiIn order to achieve sustainable solutions to the pressing and sometimes contradictory questions raised by about food security systems, it is critical to appreciate the Principles of Engagement: • Rising population growth, set against the global triple crisis of climate, nature and pollution present a powerful incentive to respond: urgent action is needed. • Building trust allows for open dialogue, and honest sharing of problems and solutions, as well as ensuring motivation and momentum to drive progress in the short and long term. • Due to the interconnectivity of aspects of food security across sectors, it is import to include participation from a range of stakeholders. This prevents unforeseen outcomes, ensures sustainability, and heightens the involvement (and therefore motivation) or those affected by the outcomes. It can also contribute to the recognition of the voices of traditionally underrepresented sectors/groups of the population, who may have important and previously underappreciated input. • Food security represents a ‘wicked problem’ in which interlinked or opposing elements must be considered: developing sustainable solutions depends on recognising complexity. • Complementing the work of others allows for efficiency, maximization of resources and accelerates progress towards achieving joint goals.

Yes

234240241242244245246248249The Dialogue began with a brief overview of the Agriculture Development Strategy of Uzbekistan for 2020-2030, sharing nine priority areas identified by the Government; 1) Food security for the population, 2) Natural resource use for environmental protection, 3) Development of agricultural sciences, education, information and counselling services, 4) Convenient agribusiness to improve value chains, 5) Modernise the Public administration systems, 6) Development of Rural Areas, 7) Reduce State intervention and increase investment, 8) Diversify government spending, and 9) Development of a transparent system of statistics. One of the highlights of this new strategy is to introduce indicators to monitor progress. In the thematic discussion session, the first session introduced innovative technology for higher productivity, reducing the impact on nature in the context of climate change. Mr. Murod Khusanov, (National Project Officer of the OSCE Project Coordinator in Uzbekistan, Head of the “Agromart” project) presented on the role of innovation and technology in sustainable agriculture, enabling us to achieve the ambitious 2030 agenda. At the beginning of the session, he emphasised the impact of the agricultural sector as a significant contributor to global warming. Agriculture accounts for 25-30 % of total human-induced greenhouse gas emissions annually and has caused the loss of more than half of the topsoil on the planet in the last 150 years and up to 75 % of crop genetic diversity. Moreover, it has threatened 22 % of animal species and more than half of fish stocks. Simultaneously, agriculture plays a crucial role in the Uzbekistan economy, representing 18% of the country’s GDP, around $ 5.6 billion. It employs nearly 50% of the population, and 65% of these are small scale farmers. Cognizant of this challenge, he introduced the “Agromart” project as a sustainable solution leveraging innovative technology. The second thematic session covered financing food production to transition to more productive and greener agriculture with subsidies, incentives, micro-credit, and green bonds. Mr. Isomiddin Akramov, Regional Project Manager, International NGO ACTED, presented the importance of financing sustainable food production. From a demand side perspective, Uzbekistan’s population will reach 37.4 million by 2030, and demands for food will increase accordingly. On the supply side, 46% of the land has undergone severe degradation and 90% of total water resources are spent on irrigation, shredding the supply chain. Furthermore, the average price of food products increased by 15.3% by 2020 with a further expected increase of 13.6% in 2021 compared to the previous year resulting in an 11.1% inflation in the consumer sector. Regarding assistance for business development in agriculture, according to the World Bank index of “Assistance in business development in agriculture,” Uzbekistan ranked 77th with 42.6 score in 2019 and needs to rise by ten more scores by 2030. In order to address these issues, he presented several of the green financing opportunities available in Uzbekistan, such as subsidies, green bond, and green-tech, and proposed the recommendations for strengthening sustainable financing option. The third thematic session took note of regulations, and the policies which the Government could create and amend to encourage greener agricultural practices. Ms. Adiba Akhmedjanova, Chairperson of Association of Women Agrarians, explained how the Government plays a role in normative and legal support to promote clean and ecological production in agriculture. She introduced the Agriculture Development Strategy for 2020-2030 adopted by the Government to address the agricultural challenge systematically. Furthermore, several governmental efforts were presented, including developing legal systems, radical system-modernising reform, and areas of technical and financial support. Finally, she highlighted that to strengthen the existing legal and regulatory framework in the field, harmonisation with international instruments and constant monitoring are essential to achieve conservation of natural resources, soil health and crop rotation.2352402412422442452462482491. National Food Security System The dialogue convener underlined three urgent major issues: • The urgent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural waste. While Uzbekistan emitted 32,423 gigagram greenhouse gas in 2017, a reduction of 5.53%, they revised the target to achieve a 10% reduction by 2021, which still poses a challenge. • Further improvement of the hunger level. In the 2020 Global Hunger Index, Uzbekistan ranked 30th out of 107 countries with sufficient data to calculate the 2020 GHI score. Since 2000, Uzbekistan has achieved low levels of hunger – 6.7% down from 24.4%. • The recent dramatic growth of food imports from foreign countries has caused various issues in Uzbekistan. In 2020, food imports amounted to $1,750.7 million and 4,794.4 thousand products, mainly from Russia, Kirgizstan, Belarus, China and Malaysia. Law and institutional systems must be streamlined to integrate international standards and strengthen import policy. 2. Innovative Technology • Several issues have been identified, including low awareness about sustainable agricultural practices, a shortage of scalable, sustainable agriculture practices and access to quality advisory services in Uzbekistan. • Therefore, digitalisation for efficient agriculture and outreach to farmers, especially in remote areas, is crucial to sustaining the economy of Uzbekistan. • The convenor introduced “Agromart.uz,” an innovative new digital service in farming, accessible through web-browsers and smartphones. This service was created with agro-experts and engineers in July 2017 and launched in 2018 with support from the OSCE PCUz. The team contains agricultural consultants, software engineers, content managers, and regional managers. • Fast and precise online extension services focus on promoting sustainable agriculture practices and serve as a digital marketplace for agricultural commodities and services. Constant guidelines and training for farmers on improving agricultural practices and sustainable agriculture are always available, and it continuously provides the latest situational updates, prices for agricultural commodities, news, and official statement. This platform is used by more than 13,000 + registered users and 21,000 + followers in telegram, 23,000 + Instagram and Facebook followers. 3. Financing of Food Production • Challenges were identified to accelerating green financing in Uzbekistan. Lack of awareness and capacity, financial literacy, and relevant work experience deter progress. Lack of incentives and business interest in investment also prevent green financing. Legal and normative business environments must streamline to create an enabling environment. • Notably, small and medium businesses face further barriers to green financing. The high cost of bank loans, delivery mechanisms, collateral requirements, and lack of alternative resources in financing are the most common obstacles for small and medium business. With regards to sources of funding for small and medium business, while 26% of funding are secured from bank loans and 8 % are borrowed from family and friends, more than 64 % of small and medium businesses consistently suffering to obtain funding. • There are several available subsidies in the agricultural sector. In 2019, up to 10% of the cost of credit or lease of purchased equipment have been targeted as subsidies, and the local rate is 15 % for equipment purchase. In 2020, a total of 11.2 billion sums were allocated for 681 units of equipment as subsidies. From July 1, 2021, VAT payers will receive subsidies for livestock, poultry and fisheries. Furthermore, the role of green bonds (Sukuk) in agriculture demands attention. Sukuk green bonds are a way to attract investment—a $ 1.35 trillion market since the 1990s which in 2020, grew to $ 6.1 billion, especially in Indonesia, Malaysia and the UAE. Uzbekistan will increase the value of 5-year Euro bonds by $ 500 million at 4.75% to 10-year Euro bonds at 5.375%. 4. Regulations for Greener Agricultural Practices • With regards to the implementation of the agricultural development strategy, the Government set the following action points (and indicators): improve water-saving irrigation systems in the territories; strengthen market mechanisms and promote settlements between water consumers and suppliers; ensure the sustainability of export growth by processing high quality and competitive production of fruits and vegetables; and apply sustainable agricultural practices, agri-business-friendly practices and other quality standards. • Furthermore, on October 20 2018, the Government approved a resolution to achieve sustainable development by 2030 and set goals, objectives and implementing measures. The following priorities were set: strengthening food safety and improving diet to promote the sustainable development of the economy; ensuring the availability and rational use of water resources and sanitation; implementing a one-year action strategy to transition to a rational model of consumption and production. Following agreed international principles, the disposal of chemical waste and ecologically rational use throughout the chemical life cycle are essential to minimising negative impacts on people and the environment, particularly through reducing soil erosion. Protection and restoration of territorial ecosystems, coordination of their rational use, forest and land management, and combatting desertification will stop and reverse the biodiversity loss.2362402412422442452462482491. National Food Security System Based on nine priority areas in the agriculture development strategy, the Government set the following indicators and action points to address food system challenges. 1) Food Security: Increase the productivity of the average crop of cereal grains by 17 %; Increase total crop areas containing fodder crops by 1.1 %; Improve the average milk yield. 2) Favourable Agribusiness Environment: Increase the share of export from agricultural enterprises by 14 %; Improve village farming and strengthen the “Made in Uzbekistan” brand; Improve Uzbekistan’s ranking (117) in 2018 in the World Bank’s Logistic Performance Index (LPI); Increase the share of processed products by 21.1%; Increase workers from the food industry by 3 %. 3) Reduction of State Intervention and Promotion of Investment: Improve on ranking of 77 out of 101 countries in the World Bank EVA index; Increase capital investment (2021 exceeded the target for the year). 4) Improve Natural resources usage: Increase farmland by 1.0 million hectares; Increase farmland water-saving technologies by 2.3%; Reduce percentage of saline soils; Increase forest areas to 3.4 million hectares; Increase angiosperm land area by 39%. 5) Modernise Public administration systems: Proceed with the ongoing agricultural reform and strengthen accountability as per new Presidential Decrees; Revise the structure of state enterprises; Privatise public enterprises and accelerate legal process. 6) Diversify government spending: Increase agriculture research costs by 0.0015%; Increase loans to $ 900 million; Strengthen medium-term budgeting. 7) Develop agricultural sciences, education, information and counselling services: raise number of graduates who engage in agribusiness by 24 %; Increase farmers’ access to advice and services by 5%; Increase the number of farmers who are satisfied with knowledge dissemination services and information counselling centres by 5%. 8) Development of Rural areas: Increase the number of manufactures (micro-firms) in rural areas by 57.8%; Increase the number of Women producers in rural areas by 8 %; Increase youth involvement in product development in rural areas by 8%. 9) Development of a transparent system of statistics: Improve the national statistics system, including agriculture food statistics. As outcomes of the national food security system overview, the Government of Uzbekistan will implement the following actions by the end of 2021. • Introduce a supply market mechanism for plant protection and mineral fertiliser by April 2021. • Initiate a food safety and national consumption programme by September 2021. • Create transparent mechanisms for the lease of land plots by September 2021. • Conduct climate change analysis and software development by December 2021. • Initiate a digital agriculture integration platform (e-agriculture uz) by December 2021. In order to achieve these ambitious targets, the Government emphasises the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement. Moreover, cognizant of existing strong food system cooperation, internal and external, Uzbekistan seeks to demonstrate strong initiative and leadership in the upcoming global dialogue session.2362402412422442452462482492. Innovative Technology One example of new technology is the recycling of agricultural and residual organic waste into organic compost, transforming 6,000 tons of waste annually. Composting significantly reduces methane emissions from solid cow manure and CO2 emissions from landfills. After the compost is applied to farmlands, it puts back CO2 into the land instead of emitting it into the atmosphere. In addition, the topsoil is restored with natural humus and microorganisms. Farmlands also get a sufficient amount of N/P/K that is organically produced rather than chemically synthesised. Regarding deployment plans for 2020-2023, satellite imagery for efficient agriculture and sustainable soil and crop management are planned, as well as Integrated Trading, which is a ‘from farm to fork’ platform for trade and monitoring of supplies. Furthermore, Farm to Farm Rentals: a mobile app enabling farmers to rent machinery from one another and a Consultant’s Marketplace: a platform for tailored services, is also available.2362402412422442452462482493. Financing of Food Production There are several green financing opportunities available in Uzbekistan. For instance, through Green Economy Financing Facility (GEFF), the EBRD provides credit lines to local financial institutions in Uzbekistan. These loans are dedicated to finance private sector sub-borrowers in Uzbekistan for investment in green technologies and services supporting Green Economy Transition. Ipak Yuli Bank is one of the participating financial institutes of GEFF and the National Bank of Uzbekistan (NBU), ASAKA BANK, SQB, and ASIA ALLIANCE BANK also have a World Bank-funded project to provide financial incentives to industrial enterprises which increase energy efficiency. Another alternative solution would be the RAYGO model. This is an end users’ payments model for renewable energy on a weekly or monthly basis so that customers can choose a favourable time to pay using financial technology. The value proposition would enable us to use renewable energy at an affordable price, as it is cheaper than the current energy price and does not require any initial setting fee. One example is “ADJACENT POWER”, a start-up company based on environmentally friendly technologies, using internationally recognised innovative technologies, and a unique business model aimed at mass use of renewable energy at an affordable price. In conclusion, the following recommendations were proposed to strengthen the financing system for sustainable food production. • Development of trade finance consulting services. • Develop business management skills. • Capacity building in the agro-industrial complex and banking. • Effective distribution of loans from international financial institutions. • The strategic importance of some agricultural products, subsidising interest rates on commercial loans allocated for cultivation.2362402412422442452462482494. Regulations for Greener Agricultural Practices According to the Agriculture Development Strategy for 2020-2030 adopted by the Government, the priorities of the strategy include; 1) ensuring food safety and improving the diet of the population as well as producing the required amounts of food; 2) environmental protection system improvement for the rational use of land, forest and water resources; 3) enhancing the mechanism of quality standards recognised in international markets (Global G.A.P, Organic, etc.); 4) developing guidelines for compliance with environmental practices for optimal agriculture for agricultural produce; 5) encouraging investment in food safety laboratories/sanitary and phytosanitary systems; and 6) promotion of safe practices for ecology and climate in agriculture; soil analysis and management. With the World Bank’s participation, Uzbekistan initiated a project to modernize the organization of the agrarian sector. Seed centres, plus 56 elite farms, introduced radical modernising reform based on the principle of PPP. Horticulture and greenhouse farms also started to grow quality seedlings and introduce a certification system. The Republican Agrokime station and its 13 regional branches also started modernising and developed 1 million hectares of agrochemical maps. Standardisation and radical reform of introducing the international certification system were conducted, and agricultural machinery and certification of technologies and test sites introduced new technology based on the experience in Turkey and Belarus. Finally, the crop variety testing centre introduced a chemical technological laboratory system. Furthermore, there are several areas supported by the Government already, which include; • irrigation technologies for grape plantations (8 million sums), water-saving in greenhouses (6 million sums), and irrigation to drill wells for crops (100,000sum), • covering electricity and energy costs for manufactures, the cost for running equipment for fruits and vegetables, marketing study costs (50%), and the interest expenses of purchasing agricultural equipment. In order to develop the value chain, the Government adopted a resolution on “Agricultural products processing and development of the food industry” on July 29, 2019. According to the decision, foreign credit has provided $ 3 million from 2019-2024, and eight large agro-logistics centres were established in the region, at a cost of $ 367 million. These agro-logistics centres will increase product turnover from 738,000 tons to 4 million tons and increase the volume of refrigeration capacity from 956,000 tons to 1.1 million tons. An additional 11,2000 jobs will be created, the loss of fruits and vegetables will be reduced by 10%, and export will increase from 1.6 million tons to 2.5 million tons. The Government is also developing medical plants, adopting several resolutions to protect and further develop their cultivation. Finally, the Government highlighted the following crucial issues for strengthening the ecologically clean agricultural products policy. In order to strengthen the existing legal and regulatory framework in the field, harmonisation with international instruments and constant monitoring are essential to achieve the conservation of natural resources, soil health, rational cultivation of crops and to improve the system of placement and crop rotation. • Expand the cultivation areas which have adopted the method of “Zero level processing” developed by FAO. • Expand the use of biological methods to protect plants from pests and strengthen the work of the bio laboratories by technical support. • Adopt a state programme for the production of non-traditional organic fertilisers, i.e., governmental support for producing ecologically clean and organic products (subsidies, taxes and other benefits). • Train farmers and other entities in sustainable agricultural production so as to systematically grant privileges. Ministry of Agriculture with the European Union is preparing to conduct an impact assessment of climate change in agriculture and invite participants to provide their inputs and cooperation.237239240241242244245246248249251• Sustainable Procurement of agricultural technical equipment In response to increases in agricultural technical equipment, how should the procurement of such equipment be enhanced; should it be procured from abroad or manufactured locally, ensuring the inclusivity of local farmers and producers? Due to customs tax reduction, the country’s import capacity for agricultural technical equipment has increased and local farmers and companies can import agro-machines as needed. Furthermore, the Government has also set up an agro machinery production centre in Uzbekistan to strengthen local production capacity. However, it is impossible to fully intervene and control market mechanisms, and continuous efforts will be required to create fair and appropriate market conditions for local farmers and producers to ensure equitable access to technical equipment. It is recommended that the UN provide further support to enhance the local production of technical equipment. • Attention to Sustainable Consumption While the first dialogue and governmental strategy mainly focused on sustainable food production, it is also crucial to focus on sustainable consumption. Many people tend to choose processed food, so education on sustainable food consumption is necessary, requiring further efforts and resources. • Private Sector Engagement Cooperation with the private sector should be further accelerated. The private sector plays a crucial role in disseminating information to the farmers, for instance, plant clinics in the Plants Quarantine State Inspection Centre currently offer free, private sector-provided services with regards to providing a quarantine plan and a mineral fertiliser list with retail prices. The private sector also supports the development of phytosanitary system infrastructure based on exporting country’s requirements. “Agromart.uz” expresses interest in integrating plant quarantine information into their digital portal due to the high demand for plant quarantine information. Partnerships to align and maximise this joint effort would be helpful. • Inaccuracy of Data and Indices Many inaccuracies and contradictions of data are identified within official registered data and global indices in Uzbekistan. Therefore, high-level country experts should be involved, and recognized protocols used. While it is essential to benchmark global standard indices, such as that of the World Bank, effort should be made to first improve the quality of data collection and harmonise/contextualise the domestic data collection system with the international one. • Issue of Sustainable Land Use Before strengthening financing mechanisms, sustainable land usage should be reconsidered and accentuated. It is suggested to develop an insurance system for the entire land rental period to tackle the land rental agreement issue. • Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Although the government-set indicators presented in today’s dialogue did not explicitly indicate the gender element, how does the government approach this issue? In a similar manner, how is gender sensitivity is included in the digital platform Agromart.uz? Are statistics disaggregated by sex and gender? Promoting gender equality in agriculture is not limited to the creation of indicators. The Government seriously gender equality seriously and is taking action to enhance the role of women in agriculture. For instance, the Government launched a pilot programme on country level gender assessment to support rural women. In addition, together with “Adiba opa”(NGO), the Government are also developing a gender strategy in agriculture and considering how to visibly mainstream gender issues. In addition to policymaking, the Government is tackling improvements in agricultural practice, focusing on gender. Currently, the Government is working on a specific mechanism to enable rural women to access financial resources and technical skills. “Adiba opa” emphasized the importance of strengthening cooperation between NGOs and the Government, highlighting more than 16 gender-sensitive MoUs with the Ministries as well as FAO. However, the availability of gender-disaggregated data needs to improve further. The Agromart.uz portal provides free access to advisory services, regardless of gender or social status, and conducts research using various gender indicators. However, the total ratio of registered women users is only around 11%, based on the latest data. Even though Agromart.uz conduct research surveys using their own social networks, it is not always easy to identify the role of women as the family tends to be represented by men, as well as enterprises. Therefore, Agromart.uz also requests ideas from participants about how to involve women directly. Regarding gender issues, the private sector's role needs to be highlighted again as they are the driving force behind the move towards a gender-responsive and sustainable food system. Therefore, it would be advisable for the Government to motivate the private sector to link its strategies with national SDGs and involve them in the policy dialogue. • World Agriculture Congress and Private Sector Engagement Every year, the Government conducts the “World Agriculture Congress” to provide a broader platform for networking between state organisations and the private sectors. Although the Government has limitations to its interactions with the private sector, the Ministry will try its best to engage them proactively at the policymaking level.

Number of participants in each sector. I have mistakenly indicated the number of participants from "Financial services" sector as "0" instead of "2". Number of participants from each stakeholder group. I have mistakenly indicated the number of participants from "United Nations" as "0" instead of "3".2021-07-14 07:40:25

2021-07-14 05:45:24205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29554/196

01531120047111532309392037222105812812144

The UNCT in Uzbekistan, led by UNDP and FAO, joined forces with Uzbekistan's Ministry of Agriculture in the second national dialogues to take transformative, collective action on the way Uzbekistan produces, consumes and thinks about food. Through this Dialogue, the UN draws attention to food system sustainability to address the global triple crisis of climate, nature and pollution through an agricultural lens. The Stage 2 Sub-National Dialogue of Uzbekistan's National Food Systems Summit was held on Wednesday, 9 June 2021, in Nukus, the capital of the Republic of Karakalpakstan. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Dialogue was partly online. It began with opening remarks from high-level speakers (Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Karakalpakstan on agriculture and water issues, Senior Development Coordination Officer from UNRCO, Head of Environment and Climate Action Cluster from UNDP, Assistant FAO Representative in Uzbekistan). A UNDP National Consultant briefly introduced the UN Food Systems Summit. Next, the Convenor of the National Dialogues, Mr Alisher Shukurov (Advisor to the Minister of Agriculture), presented on national food security systems, focusing on the national agriculture development strategy 2020-2030 in Uzbekistan. In the thematic discussion session, participants were divided into five groups five Action Track groups; 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns; 3) Boost nature-positive production; 4) Advance equitable livelihoods; 5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. They explored options for collective action that contributes via national pathways towards sustainable food systems. The second member state dialogue created an opportunity for engagement and interconnection among an even broader set of food system stakeholders, connecting the sub-national and national level. It enabled participants to consider how these approaches might be encouraged within the context of the evolving national food systems’ transformation pathway.• Act with urgency: The second Member State Dialogue reinforced that transforming our food systems is among the most urgent and powerful ways to change course and make progress towards all 17 SDGs. Rebuilding national food systems will also enable us to "build back better" from COVID-19. As we are all part of the food system, the Dialogue brought all stakeholders together to bring about much needed transformation. • Recognize complexity: The Dialogue also highlighted the consumption and production pressure put on our planet, particularly on biodiversity, which in turn impacts on the regulation of climate, contributing to a global triple crisis. Consequently, it is vital to ensure that as we address the challenges associated with food systems sustainability, we also look at the bigger picture of addressing biodiversity decline and the ways we use these resources. Therefore, the national dialogues on food systems sustainability also highlighted the global triple crisis, better informing and sharpening our engagement in transforming national food systems. • Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: In total, 58 participants from diverse sectors, including agriculture, crops, fish, livestock, and the food industry, committed to this second Dialogue. The moderator and speakers also represented different stakeholder groups. • Complement the work of others: The Dialogue offered opportunities to engage various stakeholders, such as the Government, the UN, NGOs and academic institutions, in considering their role in food systems, how their roles link with others, and how they can unite around transformative actions in support of the SDGs. • Build trust: The Dialogue promoted trust and increased motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement and implementation. At the end of the Dialogue, it was agreed that all the relevant stakeholders would keep working together to boost joint efforts aimed at providing food security and sustainable development through various forms of partnerships.In order to achieve sustainable solutions to the pressing and sometimes contradictory questions raised about food security systems, it is critical to appreciate the Principles of Engagement: • Rising population growth, set against the global triple crisis of climate, nature and pollution, presents a powerful incentive to respond: urgent action is needed. • Building trust allows for open Dialogue, and honest sharing of problems and solutions, as well as ensuring motivation and momentum to drive progress in the short and long term. • Due to the interconnectivity of aspects of food security across sectors, it is important to include participation from a range of stakeholders. This prevents unforeseen outcomes, ensures sustainability, and heightens the involvement (and therefore motivation) of those affected by the outcomes. It can also contribute to the recognition of the voices of traditionally underrepresented sectors/groups of the population, who may have important and previously underappreciated input. • Food security represents a 'wicked problem' in which interlinked or opposing elements must be considered: developing sustainable solutions depends on recognizing complexity. • Complementing the work of others allows for efficiency, maximization of resources and accelerates progress towards achieving joint goals.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue began with a brief overview of the Agriculture Development Strategy of Uzbekistan for 2020-2030, sharing nine priority areas identified by the Government; 1) Food security for the population, 2) Natural resource use for environmental protection, 3) Development of agricultural sciences, education, information and counselling services, 4) Convenient agribusiness to improve value chains, 5) Modernizing the Public administration systems, 6) Development of Rural Areas, 7) Reducing State intervention and increasing investment, 8) Diversifying government spending, and 9) Development of a transparent system of statistics. Introducing indicators to monitor progress is a highlight of the new strategy. In the thematic discussion session, participants were divided into five Action Track groups ; 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns; 3) Boost nature-positive production; 4) Advance equitable livelihoods; 5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. Groups explored options for collective action to contribute via national pathways towards sustainable food systems. The first action track (Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all) focused on challenges rooted in Uzbekistan's food culture and eating habits, including a preference for excessive consumption of meat, oil, and tea. Structural issues for farmers were also identified; lack of access to water resources and irrigation facilities, lack of refrigeration facilities for long-term storage of harvested products, and chemical fertilizer usage. The second action track (Shift to sustainable consumption patterns) focused attention on the unsustainable consumption model in Karakalpakstan. Due to limited food production capacity and high dependency on other regions, average food prices are higher, and profits mostly concentrate on intermediate agents. The group offered a wide variety of suggestions related to consumption patterns, covering food waste management, qualitative hygiene control, financial and social support for vulnerable groups, and equitable water resource distribution. The third action track (Boost nature-positive production) emphasized the importance of legislation and/or legal frameworks to protect biodiversity and eco-systems, such as compensation mechanisms. The group suggested developing a comprehensive sustainable food system strategy with clear criteria and indicators to identify risk factors and safety thresholds and to monitor progress. The importance of selecting plants that can withstand harsh natural environments was also discussed. The fourth action track (Advance equitable livelihoods) addressed structural issues—expensive resources and low productivity in the agricultural sector due to long dominance of state-owned enterprises. Ways to introduce modern technology and agricultural machinery were explored, ensuring inclusivity and environmental-friendliness within limited resources. The fifth action track (Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress) focused on the balanced-approach to imports and domestic food production capacity in order to build a sustainable national food system. Ensuring inclusivity and equity through digitalization and modern agricultural equipment was discussed.2352382392402412422432442452462472482492502511.Action track #1 Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all •A big challenge is rooted in Uzbekistan's food culture and eating habits. In most Central Asian Countries, people tend to eat more meat and fewer vegetables than the average daily requirement. •Excessive use of palm oil also causes problems. Although cheap and widely used in every day products, certain ingredients in palm oil can increase cancer risk, making banning it advisable. •Central Asia's heavy karachay (black tea with milk) drinking culture needs to be reconsidered, as it causes many health problems, such as anaemia. Improper diet leads to type 2 diabetes. In 2018, 62% of all diseases identified in Uzbekistan were cardiovascular (caused by high blood pressure and malnutrition). Black tea affects the metabolism, increases blood pressure and leads to poor absorption of nutrients. Thus, it is crucial to explain the side-effects of drinking black tea to vulnerable populations. •Advocacy campaigns should be strengthened so that eating habits rooted in the food culture give way to nutritious, balanced meals. •However, in Karakalpakstan, the average family supplements a shortage of expensive calories by eating more carbohydrates. It is essential to work with local people to ensure access to safe and nutritious food in Karakalpakstan. •From a farming perspective, three main challenges were identified. Firstly, lack of water, particularly irrigation water. Farmers suggested drilling wells as a solution. Secondly, a lack of refrigerators/refrigeration facilities in which to store bulky crops. Without high-quality refrigeration facilities, it is hard to maintain the freshness of newly harvested products. Lastly, chemical fertilizer is used excessively. Although organic fertilizers are safer/environmentally friendly, the use of chemical fertilizers is increasing. This leads to loss of land fertility. 2.Action track #2 Shift to sustainable consumption patterns •An unsustainable food consumption system in Karakalpakstan represents a major challenge. Due to the environmental crisis in the Aral Sea region, the Republic of Karakalpakstan has struggled to provide a stable food supply to the population and relies on other regions. Furthermore, a lack of up-to-date information on prices and market conditions has allowed layers of intermediaries to set unfair prices, and unjust price hikes. •The Government should develop an equitable mechanism to balance food prices and support and monitor the supply chain to prevent significant price rises and ensure sustainability. Social and financial support to low-income groups is also necessary. •In order to improve local production capacity and create a sustainable value chain, incentives for local farmers/producers should be provided, and resources, such as land, water, fertilizers, machinery should be provided at affordable prices. 3.Action track #3 Boost nature- positive Production •There is a negative impact on eco-systems and poor implementation of environmental protection laws. Environmental law should be re-enforced and streamlined, including introducing compensation mechanisms which impose fines on enterprises which cause negative environmental impact. •It is also important to develop an overall concept and strategy for sustainable food systems, indicating clear goals, criteria, and indicators. Identifying and setting a clear safety threshold for the eco-system is necessary. •In order to restore the damaged eco-system, the planting of species such as Thuja tree and Oak, which can survive in harsh environments and inhibit the spread of tuberculosis bacilli, should be urgently increased. Planting species with low-water demands, such as legumes, oilseeds, sesame and sunflower is also highly recommended. •Considering the constant water shortages in Karakalpakstan, instead of water-thirsty cotton, it is essential to diversify food crops to mitigate risk. 4.Action track #4 Advance equitable livelihoods •Alongside the unjustifiably high cost of resources (i.e., diesel fuel, fertilizers, seeds, chemicals, machinery) there is low productivity, water scarcity, and a lack of qualified agronomists. •Since many companies are state-owned, high resource prices and low productivity are the most pressing issues. One suggestion is to remove VAT tax from agriculture, preventing monopoly and increasing market competitiveness. Moreover, subsidies for fertilizers, lease of agricultural equipment and machinery and preferential loans are recommended, particularly for small/medium-sized farmers. •Introducing laser equalizer equipment (special machinery that equalizes the water line for irrigation) would be useful. •To attract more agronomists, it is necessary to offer incentives, such as a decent salary, capacity building training, and new technological equipment. 5.Action track #5 Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress •The pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of the food system, as certain essential foods have become difficult to obtain. However, some rural districts have been able to secure these. Teaching farming practices to the population could help households be self-sufficient in some agricultural products. •To shift to a more financially efficient production process and improve agricultural logistics, learning from international agricultural production experience and leveraging innovative technology is essential. •It is also important not to rely on external sources, but to use existing capacity to increase the efficiency of food production, including the improvement of ready foods.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. National Food Security System The dialogue convener underlined three major urgent issues: • The urgent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural waste. • Further improvement of the hunger level. • Law and institutional systems must be streamlined to integrate international standards and strengthen import policy. The Government set the following indicators and action points to address food system challenges. 1) Food Security: Increase the productivity of the average crop of cereal grains by 17 %; increase total crop areas containing fodder crops by 1.1 %; improve the average milk yield. 2) Favourable Agribusiness Environment: increase the share of exports from agricultural enterprises by 14 %; improve village farming and strengthen the "Made in Uzbekistan" brand; improve Uzbekistan's ranking (117) in 2018 in the World Bank's Logistic Performance Index (LPI); increase the share of processed products by 21.1%; increase workers in the food industry by 3 %. 3) Reduction of State Intervention and Promotion of Investment: improve the ranking of 77 out of 101 countries in the World Bank EVA index; increase capital investment (2021 exceeded the target for the year). 4) Improve natural resources usage: increase farmland by 1.0 million hectares; increase farmland water-saving technologies by 2.3%; reduce the percentage of saline soils; increase forest areas to 3.4 million hectares; increase angiosperm land area by 39%. 5) Modernize public administration systems: proceed with ongoing agricultural reforms and strengthen accountability as per new Presidential Decrees; revise the structure of state enterprises; privatize public enterprises and accelerate the legal process. 6) Diversify government spending: increase agriculture research costs by 0.0015%; increase loans to $ 900 million; strengthen medium-term budgeting. 7) Develop agricultural sciences, education, information and counselling services: raise the number of graduates who engage in agribusiness by 24 %; increase farmers' access to advice and services by 5%; increase the number of farmers who are satisfied with knowledge dissemination services and information counselling centres by 5%. 8) Development of Rural areas: increase the number of manufactures (micro-firms) in rural areas by 57.8%; increase the number of women producers in rural areas by 8 %; increase youth involvement in product development in rural areas by 8%. 9) Development of a transparent system of statistics: improve the national statistics system, including agriculture food statistics. The Government of Uzbekistan will implement the following actions by the end of 2021. • Introduce a supply market mechanism for plant protection and mineral fertilizer by April 2021. • Initiate a food safety and national consumption programme by September 2021. • Create transparent mechanisms for the lease of land plots by September 2021. • Conduct climate change analysis and software development by December 2021. • Initiate a digital agriculture integration platform (e-agriculture uz) by December 2021. Several issues and suggestions have been identified by online participants: • Lack of statistical data on all aspects of the country's food security systems. • The issue of harmonized language within the food security system. The need to strengthen and harmonize diverse food security terminologies to reach a wide range of people, particularly in Uzbek and Karakalpak languages. • Lack of knowledge sharing. International organizations and development agencies must learn from each other’s experiences, accelerate knowledge exchange, and create synergy to strengthen partnerships. • Policy recommendations are presented in the Report of Westminster University on "Urban Food Security and the Covid-19 Crisis; the case of Uzbekistan Cities" (P.9-24: Russian / English). This report identifies five policy options to ensure a robust and resilient urban food system: improved management of strategic food reserves; promotion of urban farming; sustainable urban social safety nets; open food trade; and continued liberalization of wheat production and market.2362382432442452462472482492502512. Action track #1 ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Major Issues: • Improper nutrition related to food culture, geographic location (more fat, meat, flour products, traditional systematic consumption of black tea, mixed simultaneous intake of incompatible products, such as hot meals, fruits and tea); the bulk of the population lives on carbohydrate, and palm oil, so diseases of the cardiovascular system are widespread. 62% of cardiovascular diseases are due to malnutrition. • Lack of refrigeration facilities for farmers. Proper storage of food (refrigerator). For example, harvesting takes several days, and during this time, it is necessary to store food in the right refrigeration conditions. • Poorly developed fruit transportation infrastructure. Transportation and storage costs are high. • There are problems with access to irrigated water, due to which it is impossible to grow food. • Due to chemicals in food, cancer is widespread among the population. • High prices for vegetable oil, even locally produced, which is obtained from cotton seeds. • Due to malnutrition, a high percentage of people with anaemia. • Thyroid disease is expected due to poor food and water quality. • Also, diseases such as gastritis and tuberculosis are widespread. • Failure to consume the required 2100 kilocalories per day. • Excessive consumption of karachay (black tea with milk) can lead to various diseases (anemia). Suggestions: • It is necessary to strengthen the promotion of healthy nutrition among the population. Use television, press, videos to promote the need for healthy eating. • It is necessary to revise diet, include more vegetables and fruits, move more, use fewer vehicles. In particular, the custom in Karakalpakstan of drinking milk with black tea was criticized as it leads to poor absorption of nutrients in the body. People neglect to each enough calories, eat irregularly and often snack instead of eating full meals, thereby depriving the body of nutrients which lowers immunity and contributes to disease. Banning palm oil. • Khokimiyats and local authorities, should allocate unused, reserve funds for farmers for refrigeration devices. • Allocation of benefits to farmers for the purchase of refrigeration devices. • Use of groundwater for irrigation of plants (as an alternative). • Diffusion of new and innovative methods (growing potatoes in paper bags instead of growing on salty soil). • There are a lot of empty buildings in the areas. The Government must provide sufficient refrigerated storage facilities. Food must be kept in refrigerators. • Assist in the procurement of pumps for pumping groundwater. For example, there are places with shallow freshwater (12 m), which will improve the water supply for food production. • It is necessary to expand the area using water-saving technologies. • Construction of greenhouses for growing potatoes using innovative technology. • The Government should carefully study and take measures to prevent unjustified price rises in food. Due to the high cost, the population is deprived of the opportunity to include safe oils and fruits in the diet. For example, participants raised the issue of the dangers of palm oil. Almost the entire confectionery industry uses this oil because it is cheap. The result is a significant increase in cardiovascular disease. • Widely used organic fertilizer in the fields. • Recycling.2362392432442452462472482492502513. Action track #2 shift to sustainable consumption patterns Suggestions: • Improve Agro logistics and product marketing. • Production of products without chemicals. • Dissemination of information about correct nutrition among the population, raising awareness of the dangers of unhealthy nutrition. • Waste recycling, product reuse, product reuse chain creation. • Expand chemical-free food production. • Increased production of food products that are beneficial to the human body. • The Government needs to develop a mechanism to balance unreasonably high food prices. • Compliance with the rules of hygiene. • Solve the issue of waste disposal (organize their location away from settlements). • Incentives for local producers. • Provide state support to low-income and vulnerable groups of the population to meet their needs for food. • Provide the necessary resources (diesel fuel, water, machinery, fertilizers) at affordable prices for producers. • Create conditions for households plots and small farmers for food production, given that this category of producers produces more than 70% of food in the country. • Provide the population with decent wages to buy the food they need. • Provide the population with affordable food all year round. • Allocation of concessional loans for farmers and small cooperatives for food production. • Providing farmers with preferential loans for equipment for laser land levelling. • Equitable distribution of water resources (there are cases when water is primarily given to those who pay bribes to water workers). • Put the sale of food products in order. There are a lot of intermediaries in the supply chain, which leads to unreasonable price increases. • Provide accurate statistics. Figures from official statistics do not correspond to reality, which hinders the adoption of appropriate decisions on the provision of food. Food price statistics should be based on market prices. • Diversify crops. Instead of cotton, which requires a lot of water (in short supply in Karakalpakstan), provide for the sowing of other food crops.2362402432442452462472482494. Action track #3 boost nature- positive Production Suggestions: • Protection of eco-systems (conservation). • Expansion of the area of protected natural areas. • Development of the marketing system. • Improving the work of agrochemical service stations. • Develop a concept and strategy for the development of food systems, indicating goals and indicators. • Use of safe vehicles. • Use of low-waste technologies in food production. • Improving production efficiency. • Opening of the Invintro laboratory in Karakalpakstan. • Establish a marketing system for environmentally friendly products. • Determine threats to environmental safety presented by production. • Restoration of damaged eco-systems (increase in the number of green trees, restoration of degraded lands. • Planting trees (thuja, which is very useful in the fight against tuberculosis bacilli). • Using a compensation mechanism to protect eco-systems. • Enforcement of laws passed to protect eco-systems. The widespread failure of state bodies and the population to comply with these laws is recognized.2362412432442452462472482492502515. Action track #4 advance equitable livelihoods Suggestions: • Providing farmers with preferential loans, subsidies for the purchase of modern technologies. • Encouraging young people to study to be agronomists (payment of contracts at a university, a decent salary, etc.). • Attracting foreign specialists. • Improving the efficiency of fertilizer plants. • Reducing the cost of fertilizer plants through subsidies or subsidized leases and other subsidy instruments. • Correct training of agronomy specialists. • Import (government procurement) of innovative, more efficient agricultural technical equipment. • Providing decent work. • De-monopolization of enterprises for the production of mineral fertilizers. • Remove VAT in agriculture. • Provide farmers with equipment for laser land leveling. • Renovation of farmers' equipment based on leasing.2362422432442452462472482492506. Action track #5 build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress Suggestions: • Teaching the population to practice farming, raising the culture of farming practice among the general population. • The motivation of the general population to engage in agriculture (farming) will allow households to be self-sufficient in some agricultural products. • Digitalization of food markets. • Diversification of types of crops. • Improvement of agricultural logistics. • The universal use of food products. • Use of international experience in the production of agricultural products (transition to more financially efficient production through the use of innovative technologies. • Creation of greenhouses with the help of state support. • Subsidies in agriculture. • Processing of products. • Decent salaries. The problem of the departure of specialists, for example, agronomists and farmers, to Kazakhstan, where wages are higher than in Uzbekistan. • Creation of a state programme for internship for specialists, people in business, farmers abroad. • Increase dietary diversity. Cooking, for example, bread made from other foods (corn flour). Production of prepared food (semi-finished products). • Development of resource-saving technologies. Solar energy.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Lack of blueprint Although many wish lists were put forward, there was no clear implementation plan on how to take a balanced approach to an incompatible but inter-linked agenda with limited resources. It is also unclear how to secure the financial resources to achieve sustainable food systems. • Creation of an Agromarketing department Currently, agro marketing is not developed in Uzbekistan, and a lack of up-to-date information on prices and market conditions forces producers to sell their products to intermediaries at a significantly lower price. Cognizant that Dehkan farms account for 70 % of total agricultural output, it is necessary to pursue an agro-marketing policy throughout the country and create a single database on the demand and supply of agricultural products in markets across the whole region, with current prices, providing timely information to farmers and dehkans. A proposal was made to create an Agromarketing department within the structure of the Ministry of Agriculture. • Lack of reliable databases and statistics It is necessary to provide statistical clarity. Figures from official statistics do not correspond to reality, which hinders the adoption of appropriate decisions on the provision of food. Food price statistics should be based on market prices. For example, although 70 % of the total volume of agricultural products and 90 % of livestock products in the country are produced by dehkan farms, they are only allocated 14 % of the total land. Agriculture production would increase if we applied a scientific approach. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a transparent statistical system that identifies the activities of private household plots. • Review and diversification of crops in Karakalpakstan Cotton production currently consists of 40% of the total production in Karakalpakstan. Although the total cost of growing 1 hectare of cotton is 12 million soums, the profit generated was only 9 million soums per hectare, as 1 ton of cotton cost 4.5 million soums last year. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the distribution of crop types in Karakalpakstan, considering local conditions. • Introduction of modern machinery and equitable distribution mechanism Many people emphasized that new machinery and equipment, such as cultivators, need to be imported urgently to improve agricultural productivity and accelerate the sustainable food system. However, before providing machinery to farmers, it is essential to consider an adequate distribution mechanism to respond to the diverse needs of farmers. For example, it is not always economically rational or viable for small farmers to install expensive machinery. In this case, small farmers need come together to share one machine, or one farmer takes the machine and leases it to others. It is crucial to consider the best implementation procedure beforehand. • Technology and environmental issue The introduction of laser equalizer equipment will contribute to optimizing water usage and improving efficiency. However, laser equalizers require a considerable amount of diesel fuel, to which farmers have no access. Before we push ahead with the introduction of advanced technologies to improve efficiency, we should carefully consider the environmental impact of such technologies. We need to think about how we can improve productivity and reduce environmental impact at the same time. • Feasibility of scaling up green resource use approach Nobody denies the importance of developing resource-saving technology and reliable data and statistics, particularly laboratory analysis and mapping of the soil and water quality at the district-farm level which might help farmers grow the right crop in the right place. However, it is doubtful whether we have a sufficient number of mandated organizations to render such services. Although farmers can use a few affordable tools and approaches, nothing takes place on a broader scale. A detailed scale-up plan should be put in place to stimulate and transform land users to apply 'green' approaches to resource use. • Issue of law enforcement and inclusivity We need to ensure the implementation and enforcement of the law, as the legal solutions already provided have not reached the lower levels of the population. All the issues pointed out are also already identified and well-regulated in the Government. Therefore, we must consider and put our effort into ensuring that the law is effective for everyone, leaving no one behind.

2021-07-14 07:15:51205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29575/196

0721700269711231051411027434115324

The UNCT in Uzbekistan, led by UNDP and FAO, joined forces with Uzbekistan's Ministry of Agriculture for the third national dialogues, to take collective action to transform the way Uzbekistan produces, consumes and thinks about food. Through this Dialogue, the UN draws attention to food systems sustainability and addresses the global triple crisis of climate, nature and pollution through an agricultural lens. The Stage 2, Second Sub-National Dialogue of Uzbekistan's National Food Systems Summit was held on Thursday 17 June, 2021, in Namangan, on the northern edge of the Fergana Valley. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Dialogue was partly online. The Sub-National Dialogue began with opening remarks from high-level speakers (Deputy Khokim of Namangan region on agricultural issues, Senior Development Coordination Officer from UNRCO, Head of Environment and Climate Action Cluster from UNDP, Assistant FAO Representative in Uzbekistan). The UNDP National Consultant briefly introduced the UN Food Systems Summit. Next, the Convenor of the National Dialogues, Mr Alisher Shukurov (Advisor to the Minister of Agriculture), presented on national food security systems, focusing on the national agriculture development strategy 2020-2030 in Uzbekistan. In the thematic discussion session, participants were divided into five Action Track groups; 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns; 3) Boost nature-positive production; 4) Advance equitable livelihoods; 5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. They discussed the evidence on key challenges highlighted in previous dialogues and explored options for collective action that contribute via national pathways towards sustainable food systems. The third member state dialogue successfully created opportunities for engagement and interconnection among an even broader set of food systems stakeholders, connecting the sub-national and national level, enabling participants to consider how these approaches might be encouraged within the context of the evolving natioAct with urgency: The third Member State Dialogue reinforced that transforming our food systems is among the most urgent and powerful ways of changing course and making progress towards all 17 SDGs. Rebuilding national food systems will also enable us to "build back better" from COVID-19. As we are all part of the food system, the Dialogue brought all stakeholders together to bring about much needed transformation. Recognize complexity: The Dialogue also highlighted the consumption and production pressure we are putting on our planet, particularly on biodiversity, which in turn impacts on the regulation of climate, contributing to a global triple crisis globally. Consequently, it is vital to ensure that as we address the challenges associated with food systems sustainability, we also look at the bigger picture of addressing biodiversity decline and the ways we use these resources. Therefore, the national dialogues on food systems sustainability also highlighted the global triple crisis to better inform and sharpen our engagement in transforming national food systems. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: In total, 42 participants from diverse sectors, including agriculture, crops, fish, livestock, and the food industry, committed to this third Dialogue. The moderator and speakers also represented different stakeholder groups. Complement the work of others: The Dialogue offered opportunities to engage various stakeholders, such as the Government, the UN, NGOs and academic institutions, in considering their role in food systems, how their roles link with others, and how they can unite around transformative actions in support of the SDGs. Build trust: The Dialogue promoted trust and increased motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement and implementation. At the end of the Dialogue, it was agreed that all the relevant stakeholders would keep working together to boost joint efforts aimed at providing food security and sustainable development through various forms of partnership.In order to achieve sustainable solutions to the pressing and sometimes contradictory questions raised about food security systems, it is critical to appreciate the Principles of Engagement: • Rising population growth, set against the global triple crisis of climate, nature and pollution, presents a powerful incentive to respond: urgent action is needed. • Building trust allows for open Dialogue, and honest sharing of problems and solutions, as well as ensuring motivation and momentum to drive progress in the short and long term. • Due to the interconnectivity of aspects of food security across sectors, it is important to include participation from a range of stakeholders. This prevents unforeseen outcomes, ensures sustainability, and heightens the involvement (and therefore motivation) of those affected by the outcomes. It can also contribute to the recognition of the voices of traditionally underrepresented sectors/groups of the population, who may have important and previously underappreciated input. • Food security represents a 'wicked problem' in which interlinked or opposing elements must be considered: developing sustainable solutions depends on recognizing complexity. • Complementing the work of others allows for efficiency, maximization of resources and accelerates progress towards achieving joint goals.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue began with a brief overview of the Agriculture Development Strategy of Uzbekistan for 2020-2030, sharing nine priority areas identified by the Government; 1) Food security for the population, 2) Natural resource use for environmental protection, 3) Development of agricultural sciences, education, information and counselling services, 4) Convenient agribusiness to improve value chains, 5) Modernizing the Public administration systems, 6) Development of Rural Areas, 7) Reducing State intervention and increasing investment, 8) Diversifying government spending, and 9) Development of a transparent system of statistics. One of the highlights of this new strategy is to introduce indicators to monitor progress. In the thematic discussion session, participants were divided into five groups based on the five Action Tracks; 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns; 3) Boost nature-positive production; 4) Advance equitable livelihoods; 5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. They explored options for collective action that can contribute via national pathways to sustainable food systems. The first action track (Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all) focused on the challenges on the local consumption model and diet, particularly on the excessive intake of palm oils and junk foods among the young population. Issues of food management regarding expired food oversight and shortage of cold storage facilities were also identified. As a way forward, the group proposed strengthening awareness-raising activities to change perceptions and create good habits around balanced healthy diets and proper nutrition among youth and children, as well as establishing a food inspection monitoring system. The second action track (Shift to sustainable consumption patterns) focused attention on the importance of needs assessment in vulnerable communities as well as food waste management. The group suggested developing a responsive, inclusive policy for vulnerable communities, such as providing subsidies and reducing food transportation costs by improving the productivity of the food value chain. The third action track (Boost nature-positive production) identified issues on unsustainable soil productivity, water resource management, disposal of food packaging, and outdated agricultural machinery that causes adverse environmental effects instead of efficiency. The group offered various proposals to preserve scarce resources, including the use of natural fertilizers, drip irrigation systems, proper disposal labelling, and eco-friendly certification. The fourth action track (Advance equitable livelihoods) addressed how to respond to various needs and ensure inclusiveness by providing uniform support. The group was concerned about farmers who do not have freedom of choice due to the monopoly of the market by several enterprises and the state procurement system. The current situation in which uniform aid does not reflect the needs of the people also causes problems. The group suggested providing capacity building training for farmers based on their preference and skills and provide various suppliers and product options that the farmers can purchase based on their needs. The fifth action track (Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress) took particular note of social and economic support for low-income families and aid effectiveness. The group emphasized the importance of conducting needs assessment and developing evidence-based policy for the effective supporting mechanisms. Furthermore, they suggested establishing an oversight system for the proper allocation and utilization of subsidies and benefits to maximize aid efficiency.2352382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. Action track #1 Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all The following issues were identified with regards to affordable and safe food products; • The intensive use of palm oil in food products leads to long-term health-related issues for the population. Due to its low price and ease of use, palm oil has become widely popular among local people without an understanding of its side effects. • Perceptions on balanced healthy diets, proper nutrition, especially among the youth and children, are poorly formed. Questions related to the importance of food safety and how to maintain a healthy diet often arise. Moreover, the media does not conduct enough healthy food marketing campaigns and awareness-raising activities. • Considering the statement above, excessive consumption of carbonated drinks, chips, crackers, and other unhealthy foods is prevalent in children. Advertisements for these types of foods contribute directly to this trend. The negative impact that television advertising plays on young people's preoccupation with junk food is significant. • Expired products are commonplace in the market, and the inspection control mechanism is not functioning well. As a result, there have been many cases of food poisoning. • The harvest from farms needs to be sold right away, as there is not enough efficient refrigeration equipment to store farm products for more extended periods without compromising their quality. 2. Action track #2 Shift to sustainable consumption patterns The following issues were identified with regards to strengthening the consumption value chain; • While there are currently several support measures in place for vulnerable communities, they are one-size-fits-all and do not reflect the diverse needs of these communities due to a lack of needs assessment among vulnerable communities. This type of assessment could help establish evidence-based policies that reflect their needs and support them effectively to gain access to nutritious foods. • The supply chain process of food production has resulted in a large amount of food waste, which in turn drives up the price of food. • Much food loss is also caused by the lack of proper food storage, especially freezing storage, during the harvest season, which prevents the food from maintaining its freshness. 3. Action track #3 Boost nature- positive Production The following issues were identified with regards to the nature-positive production process; • Since many farmers are using excessive chemical fertilizers and overly cultivating their lands, it is essential to encourage effective land use and conversion to organic fertilizers. • Unsustainable water management and use, particularly in the irrigation process. • Much of the agricultural technology and machinery in use today is already outdated, which negatively impacts on the environment, including an increase in emissions and waste products. • Proper package handling of food products needs to be improved to ensure safety in the food transportation process. On the other hand, inappropriate handling and mass disposal of food packages are also a constant, uncontrolled problem. • Limited amount of land, and no authorization for sowing. 4. Action track #4 Advance equitable livelihoods The following issues were identified with regards to equitable value distribution; • As education and capacity building opportunities provided for farmers are predominantly export market-based, they do not reflect local needs. • Farmers cannot promptly purchase some products for processing (such as fertilizers). There is also a limited variety of products a farmer can purchase, and sometimes they depend on one supplier only. • Although local farmers should have the freedom to decide for themselves to whom they will sell the food they produce, most of their crops are sold to clusters. In a market economy, they should not be forced to sell only to clusters and the state procurement system. • There is a difference in income among various population groups, and we should actively seek methods of reducing this income gap. 5. Action track #5 Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress The following issues were identified with regards to support for vulnerable groups; • Lack of educational opportunities for low-income families in the region leads them to not fully utilize the aid provided. For instance, a family receives a greenhouse to grow lemons as a part of the aid programme. However, the family does not have knowledge on growing lemons. Without careful planning consideration of aid programmes, the aid cannot benefit vulnerable communities. • Insufficient financing opportunities for low-income families. • The supply base for vulnerable communities is not developed. • There is no efficient system for supporting low-income families.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. National Food Security System The dialogue convener underlined three urgent major issues: • The urgent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural waste. While Uzbekistan emitted 32,423 gigagram greenhouse gas in 2017, a reduction of 5.53%, they revised the target to achieve a 10% reduction by 2021, which still poses a challenge. • Further improvement of the hunger level. In the 2020 Global Hunger Index, Uzbekistan ranked 30th out of 107 countries with sufficient data to calculate the 2020 GHI score. Since 2000, Uzbekistan has achieved low levels of hunger – 6.7%, down from 24.4%. • The recent dramatic growth of food imports from foreign countries has caused various issues in Uzbekistan. In 2020, food imports amounted to $1,750.7 million and 4,794.4 thousand products, mainly from Russia, Kirgizstan, Belarus, China and Malaysia. Law and institutional systems must be streamlined to integrate international standards and strengthen import policy. Based on nine priority areas in the agriculture development strategy, the Government set the following indicators and action points to address food system challenges. 1) Food Security: Increase the productivity of the average crop of cereal grains by 17 %; Increase total crop areas containing fodder crops by 1.1 %; Improve the average milk yield. 2) Favourable Agribusiness Environment: Increase the share of export from agricultural enterprises by 14 %; Improve village farming and strengthen the "Made in Uzbekistan" brand; Improve Uzbekistan's ranking (117) in 2018 in the World Bank's Logistic Performance Index (LPI); Increase the share of processed products by 21.1%; Increase workers from the food industry by 3 %. 3) Reduction of State Intervention and Promotion of Investment: Improve the ranking of 77 out of 101 countries in the World Bank EVA index; Increase capital investment (2021 exceeded the target for the year). 4) Improve Natural resources usage: Increase farmland by 1.0 million hectares; Increase farmland water-saving technologies by 2.3%; Reduce the percentage of saline soils; Increase Forest areas to 3.4 million hectares; Increase angiosperm land area by 39%. 5) Modernize Public administration systems: Proceed with the ongoing agricultural reform and strengthen accountability as per new Presidential Decrees; Revise the structure of state enterprises; Privatize public enterprises and accelerate the legal process. 6) Diversify government spending: Increase agriculture research costs by 0.0015%; Increase loans to $ 900 million; Strengthen medium-term budgeting. 7) Develop agricultural sciences, education, information and counselling services: raise the number of graduates who engage in agribusiness by 24 %; Increase farmers' access to advice and services by 5%; Increase the number of farmers who are satisfied with knowledge dissemination services and information counselling centres by 5%. 8) Development of Rural areas: Increase the number of manufactures (micro-firms) in rural areas by 57.8%; Increase the number of Women producers in rural areas by 8 %; Increase youth involvement in product development in rural areas by 8%. 9) Development of a transparent system of statistics: Improve the national statistics system, including agriculture food statistics. As outcomes of the national food security system overview, the Government of Uzbekistan will implement the following actions by the end of 2021. • Introduce a supply market mechanism for plant protection and mineral fertilizer by April 2021. • Initiate a food safety and national consumption programme by September 2021. • Create transparent mechanisms for the lease of land plots by September 2021. • Conduct climate change analysis and software development by December 2021. • Initiate a digital agriculture integration platform (e-agriculture uz) by December 2021. In order to achieve these ambitious targets, the Government emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement. Moreover, Uzbekistan seeks to demonstrate strong initiative and leadership in the upcoming global dialogue session, cognizant of existing strong food system cooperation, internal and external.2362382432442452462472482492502512. Action track #1 ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all The following suggestions were presented; • Introduce widespread media coverage on topics related to proper nutrition, promotion of healthy foods and balanced diets. Restrict excessive advertising of unhealthy foods, such as carbonated drinks, junk foods and allow more space for advertising natural farm producers and products. Awareness raising campaigns and education programmes in schools with a focus on local context is also essential, particularly for the younger generation. • Research the harm and benefits of palm oil. Disseminate information about this product to the public so that people can make a more informed decision on palm oil consumption. • Invest and develop the cold storage capacity and safe transportation system, such as fridge track, and proper packaging to maintain freshness. Capacity management during the high season is also critical to providing affordable food prices. • Establish a state inspection system for controlling the sale of expired products. • Revise import regulations.2362392432442452462472482492502513. Action track #2 shift to sustainable consumption patterns The following suggestions were presented; • Provide one-time subsidies and resources for food purchases to vulnerable communities based on assessing their needs. • Create a means of reducing the cost for food transportation to enable a more efficient food harvest-production-processing value chain, particularly cold storage facilities during the high season. • Examine food value chains and determine ways to reduce waste products and food waste. • Raise awareness on the benefits of recycling. • Develop policies for creating favourable conditions for vulnerable communities.2362402432442452462472482492502514. Action track #3 boost nature- positive Production The following suggestions were presented; • Use natural fertilizers for soil, including biomass and worms, to avoid the use of chemicals. • Cooperation with regional animal husbandry organizations could be helpful, as the biomass from animals can be retained and utilized for the soil. • To preserve water as a scarce resource, drip irrigation needs to be established. We must ensure water channels and riverbeds stay clean, and awareness should be raised in this regard. • Oblige producers to have labels about disposal sites. • Facilitate the adoption of eco-certification, provide easier access to eco-certification agencies, and educate farmers and producers about the introduction of this certification system. • Preservation of soil from salinization.2362412432442452462472482492502515. Action track #4 advance equitable livelihoods The following suggestions were presented; • Provide educational opportunities for farmers based on their preferences and skillsets, not just based on market conditions and export orientation. • Offer a variety of suppliers and products a farmer can purchase for use. Control the monopolization of this industry. • Farmers should be given the power to decide where to sell, to which cluster, etc. • Farmers should have the freedom to grow what they want.236242243244245246247248249250251The following suggestions were presented; • Conduct an assessment to determine the level of needs of low-income families. The assessment should distinguish between three levels of need and help build strategies to provide aid for families in these three levels. • Establish a supervision system to determine to whom subsidies and benefits will be allocated and how this aid is being utilized (to understand if it was effective/inefficient). • Support exemptions from taxes and other utility bills for low-income families to ensure these families can afford proper nutrition. • Create capacity building seminars for low-income families that will help them develop entrepreneurship and support themselves in the future. • Legal protection for low-income families should be established.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Debt to the next generation While many wish lists were put forward, it is necessary to secure adequate financial resources to implement these sustainable food systems ideas. Particularly, many participants suggested investing the money in sustainable agricultural techniques, such as organic cultivators and agroecological practices, and increasing subsidies to small-scale farmers. However, it is also important to recognize that we are saddling the next generation with a huge debt, even if it is to build sustainable food systems. In order to secure financial resources, it is inevitable to borrow money. Therefore, we need to have a clear strategy for debt repayment and a return on investment strategy. If we fail to create a system where debt for future generations will always have a positive effect, we will just add to the next generation's burden. • Lack of guidance on crop rotation Crop rotation is a sustainable farming practices in which the same land is used to grow different crops in successive seasons or years to prevent erosion and increase the fertility of the land. Since the effects have been scientifically proven, the Government recommends crop rotation, such as soybeans, grains and corns. However, while the logic itself is very rational, the production of soybeans requires specific machinery, which is also the case for grain and corn cultivation. To make matters worse, a single farmer may not know the best way to grow each individual crop well. Even a sustainable and reasonable policy requires detailed support tailored to the needs and circumstances of local people. • Technology and environmental issue Much of the agricultural technology and machinery in use today are already outdated, which negatively impacts on the environment, including the increase of carbon emissions and waste products. While it is essential to introduce new agricultural machinery in the future, it is impossible to replace it all at once. Thus, it is important to balance the impact on the environment and cost of the modern machinery. We need to think about how we can improve productivity and reduce environmental impact at the same time. • Quality issues for the vulnerable community’s support Although several aid programmes have already been provided to vulnerable communities, a lack of educational opportunities has prevented low-income families from fully utilizing aid benefits. For instance, a family receives a greenhouse to grow lemons as a part of the aid programme. However, the family does not have enough knowledge to grow lemons. Therefore, a careful needs assessment is essential to respond to the various needs and different income levels of vulnerable communities. Inter-sectoral coordination and cooperation need to accelerate further to prevent the redundancy of similar projects and to share knowledge and expertise.

2021-07-14 08:36:21205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29595/196

0102412103611741320419202122122121224127

The UNCT in Uzbekistan, led by UNDP and FAO, joined forces with Uzbekistan's Ministry of Agriculture for the fourth national dialogue, taking collective action to transform the way Uzbekistan produces, consumes and thinks about food. Through this Dialogue, the UN draws attention to food systems sustainability and addresses the global triple crisis of climate, nature and pollution through an agricultural lens. The first and concluding National Dialogue of Uzbekistan's Food Systems Summit, was held on Tuesday 29 June, 2021, in Tashkent. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Dialogue was conducted partly online. It began with opening remarks from high-level speakers (Deputy Minister of Agriculture, UN Resident Coordinator, UNDP Resident Representative, Assistant FAO Representative in Uzbekistan), and the Convenor of the National Dialogues, Mr Alisher Shukurov (Advisor to the Minister of Agriculture), presented outcomes of the two sub-national food systems dialogues, conducted in Nukus and Namangan. In the final Dialogue, international donor organizations in Uzbekistan, including the European Union, Japan International Cooperation Agency, the United States Agency for International Development, and the Islamic Development Bank, reconfirmed their commitment to support agriculture and food industries in Uzbekistan. In the discussion session, participants discussed the 5 Action Tracks; 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns; 3) Boost nature-positive production; 4) Advance equitable livelihoods; 5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. They reviewed the evidence on key challenges to strengthening food systems as highlighted in the previous dialogues and explored options for collective action that can contribute via national pathways towards sustainable food systems. The concluding Dialogue successfully created an opportunity for engagement and interconnection among an even broader set of food systems stakeholders, connecting the (sub)-national level, and consolidated country-level commitments.• Act with urgency: The final Member State Dialogue reinforced that transforming our food systems is among the most urgent and powerful ways of changing course and making progress towards all 17 SDGs. Rebuilding national food systems will also enable us to "build back better" from COVID-19. As we are all part of the food system, the Dialogue brought all stakeholders together to bring about the most needed transformation. • Recognize complexity: The Dialogue also highlighted the consumption and production pressure we are putting on our planet, particularly on biodiversity, which in turn impacts on the regulation of climate, contributing to a global triple crisis. Consequently, it is vital to ensure that as we address the challenges associated with food systems sustainability, we also look at the bigger picture of addressing biodiversity decline and resource use. The national dialogues on food systems sustainability highlighted the global triple crisis, better informing and sharpening our engagement with national food systems. • Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: In total, 47 participants from diverse sectors, including agriculture, crops, fish, livestock, and the food industry, committed to this fourth Dialogue. The moderator and speakers also represented different stakeholder groups. • Complement the work of others: The Dialogue offered opportunities to engage various stakeholders, such as the Government, the UN, NGOs and academic institutions, in considering their role in food systems, how their roles link with others, and how they can unite around transformative actions in support of the SDGs. • Build trust: The Dialogue promoted trust and increased motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement, and implementation. At the end of the Dialogue, it was agreed that all relevant stakeholders will keep working together to boost joint efforts aimed at providing food security and sustainable development through various forms of partnerships.In order to achieve sustainable solutions to the pressing and sometimes contradictory questions raised about food security systems, it is critical to appreciate the Principles of Engagement: • Rising population growth, set against the global triple crisis of climate, nature and pollution, presents a powerful incentive to respond: urgent action is needed. • Building trust allows for open Dialogue, and honest sharing of problems and solutions, as well as ensuring motivation and momentum to drive progress in the short and long term. • Due to the interconnectivity of aspects of food security across sectors, it is important to include participation from a range of stakeholders. This prevents unforeseen outcomes, ensures sustainability, and heightens the involvement (and therefore motivation) of those affected by the outcomes. It can also contribute to the recognition of the voices of traditionally underrepresented sectors/groups of the population, who may have important and previously underappreciated input. • Food security represents a 'wicked problem' in which interlinked or opposing elements must be considered: developing sustainable solutions depends on recognizing complexity. • Complementing the work of others allows for efficiency, maximization of resources and accelerates progress towards achieving joint goals.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue began with a brief overview of the two sub-national dialogues conducted in Nukus and Namangan. Based on the 5 Action Tracks –1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns; 3) Boost nature-positive production; 4) Advance equitable livelihoods; 5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress— the issues identified and suggestions proposed were presented to all participants to consolidate country-level commitments and actions and shape the pathway to a sustainable national food system for the coming decade. In the next session, the international donor organizations in Uzbekistan, including the European Union (EU), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), presented their diverse roles and activities within sustainable food systems and reconfirmed their commitment to supporting agriculture and food industries in Uzbekistan. The EU emphasised the importance of strengthening partnerships to take on ambitious goals and targets, focusing on the newly adopted Strategy of modernization of the food sector 2020-2030. The EU also highlighted the necessity for Uzbekistan to develop a quality supply chain to be more competitive in the export market. As agriculture is an essential part of Uzbekistan’s economy, the EU introduced a Generalized Scheme of Preference Plus (GSP+) in April 2021, a special incentive for sustainable development and good governance. JICA underlined four major projects in the agricultural sector, focusing on developing innovative climate resilient technologies for monitoring/controlling water use efficiency for crop productivity in the Aral Sea Region. To target more small-scale farmers, JICA also prepared new procedures by utilizing counterpart funds, such as IFAD's loan schemes for small households and the National Farmers' Councils Fund. USAID explained the forthcoming five-year agribusiness development project, which will run from June 2025. USAID will introduce innovative business management practices and co-finance investments in new technologies to support farmers and agribusinesses to produce and add value to safe, quality, and environmentally sound agricultural products. USAID also offered the opportunity of a first agribusiness development fund. It allocated 2 million USD to support Uzbek agribusiness by co-financing and investing in new technologies. IsDB delivered a radical transformation of their business model; "from the bank of development to bank of the developer," to achieve sustainable food systems and catalyze investment in the agriculture sector. IsDB also provided an overview of the Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Policy and explained that to mainstream the strategy into IsDB operation related to the agricultural system and agriculture sector it will seek strong connections with member countries in various sectors. In the thematic discussion session, the floor was open to all participants, and a diverse array of stakeholders, including those involved in food hygiene, academic research, and law contributed the Dialogue and explored options for collective action. Joint work on the formulation of proposals and recommendations was conducted, taking into account the results of all stages, for further submission to the organizing committee to the Summit. In the concluding remarks, the Government of Uzbekistan highlighted that the multi-stakeholder Dialogue process would continue in the country even after the culmination of the global Food Systems Summit in September. Cognizant of existing strong food system cooperation internally and externally, the Government also underlined Uzbekistan's continuous commitment to demonstrating leadership in the forthcoming global dialogue session. The outcomes of the dialogues will contribute to the national food systems transformation pathway in the coming months and years.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Role of International Development Organizations in Sustainability of the Food Systems in Uzbekistan European Union (EU) • The EU emphasised the importance of strengthening partnerships to take on ambitious goals and targets, focusing on the newly adopted Strategy of modernization of the food sector 2020-2030, the foundation of their cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture. • As of March 2020, Uzbekistan liberalised the cotton market; the EU strongly supported this decision as a significant step toward ending child and forced labour in the country's cotton harvest. • The EU also highlighted the necessity for Uzbekistan to develop a quality supply chain to be more competitive in the export market. As agriculture is an essential part of Uzbekistan’s economy, the EU started a Generalized Scheme of Preference Plus (GSP+) in April 2021. It slashes tariffs to 0% for vulnerable low and lower-middle-income countries that implement 27 international conventions related to human rights, labour rights, protection of the environment and good governance. • Last year, the EU developed two essential strategies on food security and nutrition and introducing an information and statistic systems into the agri-food sector. • In cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Education, the EU also focuses on skills development in the agricultural sector by introducing new technology and an agricultural knowledge information system. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) • JICA presented four major projects within the agricultural sector: 1) technical cooperation through the international joint research project: "Development of Innovative Climate resilient technologies for Monitoring Controlling of Water Use Efficiency and Impact of Salinization on Crop Productivity and Livelihood in Aral Sea Region" to establish a sustainable & internal-circular agriculture business model and improve resilience in small scale farmers. 2) grass-roots technical cooperation: "Improvement of Apple Cultivation Technology and Dissemination to the Farmers," which provided several workshops and training courses on Pilot orchards, apple trees, speed sprayers, refrigerators and other equipment. 3) grant aid: "the project for improvement of Locust Management (Phase 2)," which involves regional cooperation between the six Central Asian countries. 4) a loan programme: "Horticulture Value Chain Promotion Project" including credit Loans (a two-step loan to end-users, horticulture farmers and agriculture companies for processing, storage and logistics), and consulting services (capacity building for PFIs and technical assistance for end-users). • In order to target more small-scale farmers, JICA is preparing to introduce new procedures by utilising counterpart funds, such as IFAD's loan schemes for small households and the National Farmers' Councils Fund. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) • The new USAID five-year project; agribusiness development activity will run from June 2025. • It will introduce innovative business practices and co-finance investment for new technology to support farmers and agribusiness to produce and add value through safe, quality, and environmentally sound agricultural products, promoting access to new markets, and increasing sales and employment. • It also focuses on building skills among women and youth to launch their agribusiness and secure technical and management level jobs for them. USAID is partnering with the Uzbek agricultural University and institute to introduce a new practical curriculum and with the Ministry of Agriculture and private sector agricultural extension service providers to build skills and capacity that directly address farmers' needs. • Last week, USAID launched the first agribusiness development fund. It allocated 2 million USD to support Uzbek agribusiness by co-financing and investing in new technologies. Uzbek enterprise and/or non-governmental organization are eligible, and applicants must be covered by a minimum of 50% of the total cost of the project. Details are available here. Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) • Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Policy is a10-Year Strategy developed by IsDB. It is aguiding tool for IsDB investment in its Member Countries and it applies to all IsDB-financed projects. The policy provides a platform for synergies to promote sustainable, resilient, and equitable agriculture and rural development through the development of viable and profitable agriculture value chains and by promoting innovative Islamic finance. It has the following three objectives: 1) alleviate poverty and enhance food security; 2) enhance public–private partnerships towards the overall aim of sustainable, inclusive and equitable agriculture and rural development; and 3) create rural employment opportunities both in agriculture and the rural non-farming economy. • Under this policy, IsDB is undertaking a radical transformation of its business model to achieve sustainable food systems and catalyze investment in the agriculture sector. • IsDB is shifting to promote inclusive private sector participation, access to market and finance instruments and building human institutional capacity. • IsDB recognises that growth is essential for poverty reduction, and science, technology, and innovation are key to transforming Uzbekistan's agricultural food security system. • Uzbekistan can contribute to agricultural transformation and serve as a model for other countries, such as the horticulture value chain development project in the Aral Sea Region.236238243244245246247248249250251Action track #1 ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all • It is essential to provide healthy and nutritious food for all populations. Recognising the high malnutrition level in Uzbekistan, more effort is required to improve education on health and nutrition by providing capacity building. It is also necessary to diversify agricultural products from the past monoculture approach that relies on the mass production of cotton and to produce organic foods by improving harvesting, logistics, and the marketing of agriculture. In this context, the recent expansion of horticulture, and the development of greenhouses is noteworthy. In order to provide the population with nutritious foods and a robust value chain, we need support from international donors and IFIs and should pay close attention to different areas of development. • Developing behaviors that contribute to a healthy lifestyle is vital. The current culture of consumption and irrational food product usage should change, starting from primary education up to higher levels. We have to work with the population to strengthen awareness-raising. For instance, our festive customs usually involve inviting many guests for meals, but efforts will need to be made to provide healthier and more nutritious meals instead of the current oil- and meat-heavy diet. We also have to work with food producers to improve the quality of products which are served in cafeterias and restaurants. • Proper food waste management needs should be improved through logistics, including access to transportation agencies. Current efforts should be scaled up. Waste products from households should be properly collected as solid waste, and the introduction of proper waste sorting is an urgent task. Establishment and capacity building of a specialised agency to properly sort and dispose of waste is required. • We also need to rethink the way we advertise unhealthy products such as energy drinks and junk food. For instance, the U.S. Service for Agriculture Development provides health food certification from a specialised lab.236239243244245246247248249250251Action track #2 shift to sustainable consumption patterns • It is critical to transform farms to produce green and ecological products without using excessive pesticides to meet international standards and increase competitiveness in the market. Food processing enterprises, farmers and retails, including different food producers, restaurants, and cafeterias have to provide and maintain proper hygiene conditions to meet international standards. Furthermore, proper food management, including food disposal and expired food control, must be improved. • There was an intensive discussion about trans fats usage. On 10 November 2020, the Government adopted regulation No.4780 and the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Economy and Poverty Reduction, and the Ministry of Finance are working to implement it.. A new set of standards for used cooking oil usage has been introduced based on this newly drafted law. Starting from 2021, the use of trans fats in the food manufacturing processes as well as the import of food items should be limited. The law introduced a ban on the import of items manufactured using used cooking oils in food production in Uzbekistan. If the company starts importing them, it will be a violation of legislation and sanctions will be imposed. Not only Uzbekistan, but the whole of academia has identified the negative consequences of using trans fats. The trans fats in the food industry and their import will be banned by 2025, regardless whether this is in raw materials or finished materials.236240243244245246247248249250251Action track #3 boost nature- positive Production • As today's agricultural production processes are often undercover, it is necessary to involve the entire value chain to further promote organic farming efforts. We have to improve irrigation, taking into account the analysis of the soil level of precipitation and provide proper safety mechanisms. The greenhouse's water-saving technology and qualitative infrastructure are also essential to protecting plants from different diseases, insects, and pests. • In terms of legislation, food quality and safety are subject to different international standards, conventions, and agreements, and confusing them can cause problems. For example, the WHO has an agreement on hygiene measures, which includes food security, pesticides, microbiology, and animal diseases. Food security mainly relates to human health with regard to biological and chemical hazards, and there are also international standards for food security parameters. Although there are reporting requirements for member countries for each area of information, Uzbekistan's commitment is limited due to the limited data collection capacity of the industry, and we hope that this will change in the future. Fortunately, however, there is no need to start from scratch; standards already exist. We need a unified national policy and strategy for the agricultural sector, integrating everything and functional changes at the national legal level.236241243244245246247248249250251Action track #4 advance equitable livelihoods • It is essential to strengthen the standardisation of food supply, such as international standards like ISO, and educate farmers about this knowledge. With proper standardization, we can be more competitive in the international market. • Great care must be taken to identify the location of the problem and plan appropriately. For example, we need to systematise food processing production because water resources are going to be low this year. In Karakalpakstan, even though we have seen that wheat planting has not progressed at all due to fertility problems, the Government is still forcing farmers to plant wheat. This is a big mistake and a problem with the plan. We need to look at the problem and categorise the chain of command, taking an informed approach.236242243244245246247248249250251Action track #5 build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress • Ensuring that farmers have the freedom to choose what to grow, where to grow it, whom to sell it to, and at what price, is an urgent issue for Uzbekistan. The more economic freedom the manufacturing sector has, the more stable and sustainable the economy will be. In order to achieve economic freedom, knowledge is necessary. We would like to request the donor community to support this matter. • Food supply reservation storage must be improved immediately to provide enough food for the population. Due to improper storage and mismanagement of the reservation system, we have failed to provide enough food for the population. For instance, this year we had a problem with potato supply, and next year will be onions. I hope the respective agency takes necessary action to address these events.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Demand-based Diversification of the Horticulture While horticultural diversification has attracted international attention and support from many donors in Uzbekistan, careful discussion is needed on what varieties should be diversified. It needs to be looked at comprehensively, reflecting domestic demand and packages that include funding and even infrastructure support for entering the market for other species. Proper infrastructure for proper sales of products should be based on accountability to expand the network, with preservation of the more prominent players at the market. • Lack of the Quarantine and Inspection Control Aspect Before making conclusions about food safety, it would be advisable to strengthen and check reports regarding quarantine and inspection control. Although there are instructions for checking products in the laboratory, farmers and other agricultural food producers are not fully aware of these instructions. Due to the massive volume of food productions, it is challenging to regulate and control it using only specialists. Also, as the excessive and improper use of pesticides is a serious issue, we need to reinforce measures about pesticide usage. While there are some sanitation stations in bazaars, technical specialists noticed that we need to control the volume of pesticide usage per region and district. • Adverse Effects of the Palm Oil Usage Palm tree oil is categorised as a type of vegetable oil, and it is allowed to be used with equivalent standards. However, in many cases, some companies use vegetable oil instead of animal fats with purpose to reduce the cost of production. . Often companies hide what oil they use. The role of the state in preventing paving on the part of food producers is very important here. The Center for Hygiene Agency is currently working with the Ministries on this possible usage, including the pros and cons of used cooking oils in food manufacturing. We are engaging a number of local and international experts and developing technical regulations on these issues. • Limited Understanding of the Definition of Food Security While we are now working on adopting a new strategy on food security in Uzbekistan with international indicators, there are issues related to the limited understanding and knowledge about what food security is. Food security is normally understood as ensuring sufficient food for all populations. However, it must include wider aspects and broader definitions, such as inclusiveness, equitable access, and physical access to nutrition. As Uzbekistan is a landlocked country, we do not have easy access to seafood, and access should be ensured for rural populations, as well as rights to land ownership and access to water resources. All these aspects should be included in the food security definition. It is necessary to ensure access to lands for vulnerable groups who do not have enough capital. • Need for a Coordinated Approach We need to implement improvement measures based on scientific proof and careful consideration of local needs and markets. We have recently been working on bringing in unconventional plants from South America and adapting them to the local soil. Since this plant contains many nutrients and is very useful for the human body, we are conducting a test project in Karakalpakstan. Last year, we submitted this project to the President, but when we proposed it to the farmers, they refused to produce it, saying there was no market for this product yet. A programme that does not take into account the local context, even if it is scientifically proven to be effective, cannot be an effective solution.

2021-07-14 10:08:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24545/88

600342201025323122153104220642231155518512

In implementing the Food Systems Summit Principles in the dialogue, CIPS ensure that there is a diversity in the audience. Inviting the unvoiced stakeholders to share their perspectives on Indonesia's food systems. It also allowed the balance of the discussion in the group sessions. Another thing we do is to keep the neutrality of facilitators, which creating a safe space for all participants to share their perpsectives towards Indonesia's food systems.In CIPS' first independent dialogue, below are the aspects of the Principles that reflect outstandingly: 1. Commit to the Summit The dialogue enables all participants to discuss with one objective: developing Indonesia's food systems that can provide access to safe and nutritious food. With the diverse perspectives from the dialogue, CIPS able to gain new insights regarding Indonesia's food systems. 2. Be Respectful and Recognize Complexity CIPS acknowledges the complexity of food systems discussions as it might trigger conflicts during the discussions. However, the facilitators were able to provide a safe space platform for all participants and respect all opinions. 3. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity During the process of convening the dialogue, CIPS prioritize to ensure the diversity of the audience group. Inviting farmers communities, NGOs, and small-micro business owners to participate in the dialogue. The complexity of the food systems also include more than government and large private corporations.Ensuring that there is a balance of stakeholder groups in between group discussions is important. Convenors need to make sure that all discussion caters perspectives that represent the unvoiced stakeholders as well. Providing a plenary session in the dialogue gives a discussion context for all participants that can be used for the group sessions. Engagement of participants should also be prioritized for the dialogues. The duration of the dialogues should be compact to minimize losing engagement of the participants. Creating triggering questions for the participants can play a role in the activeness of the discussion.

Yes

234238243246249250The breakout room discussions covered (1) the impact of the long domestic supply chain on prices and food safety, (2) balanced international trade to fulfill domestic consumption, (3) the health and nutritional values of the food circulated in the market, (4) food loss and waste, (5) Equitable food production, (6) Youth and agriculture innovation, (7) Food prices disparity between producers and consumers prices, and (8) inability of policies to respond to challenges of food systems on the ground235238246247249a) Domestic food supply chain needs to be optimized and made more efficient for both the accessibility of food and the welfare of farmers. b) International collaboration is needed through opening up trade linkages as complementary sources of food supply and through best practices sharing. c) Education on nutrition is important as the biggest drive for malnutrition is consumption behavior. d) Ensuring welfare for farmers at the community level through regulation and strengthening community-based farming. e) Ensure that low-income families have access to food through better targeted social protection.236238247249250a)Optimizing food domestic supply chain and availability to guarantee safe and nutritious intake, b) Strengthen community-based farming c) Share responsibility for more stakeholders participating in the food systems, engage more with the private sectors and smallholder farmers d) Fortification to increase nutritious value of locally produced food, e) Increase social protection to make nutritious food more affordable f) Change production orientation from productivity to nutrition-sensitive agriculture g) Education for behavioral changes on nutritional consumption amongst low-income families. h) Use import as a complementary strategy to meet national food demand. i) Create a clearer career trajectory to entice young farmers to enter the agricultural workforce and start the regeneration process. j) Collaboration with other agriculturally advanced Southeast Asian countries to learn best practices in agriculture237238250The orientation for agriculture production, whether it is for businesses and profit or to fulfill the rights of the communities for food. The extent of the role of import as a source for domestic food supply. While some participants recognize the importance of import to fulfill domestic demands, some say that import should only be pursued as a complementary strategy.

2021-07-14 12:39:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20832/203

3523121223356212223

Two sessions of the same-invitation only dialogue were convened by NCD Alliance, with support from Resolve to Save Lives and WHO to facilitate engagement of stakeholders from different time zones – this was the second of the 2 sessions, (June 7 2021). Country and global perspectives were presented in plenary (policy makers from India and Finland) and participants then broke into discussion groups with facilitators and note takers. Invitees spanned sectors and regions, many active on health, nutrition, NCDs, law, trade. Dialogue participation was limited to 40 maximum to ensure a small, protected space for open and inclusive discussion and dialogue. The event was held under Chatham House rules – that organizers and note takers did not attribute of comments or quotes by name. Principles of Engagement were incorporated at the core of the discussions in the sense that there was recognition of the urgency of promoting and supporting sustainable and effective action to reach the 2030 SDGs and protect the health of the population, to contribute with this discussion to the goals by promoting and leading bold actions and solutions to support healthier, more sustainable and more equitable food systems, The discussion was focused on solutions that would protect and improve the health and well-being of populations recognizing also the complexity of food systems. The Dialogue also supported inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches to design policy options that deliver solutions and protect people. Also, the idea behind the discussions planned in this Dialogue took into account the need to avoid duplication and encourage new thinking to deliver a real transformation. Finally, the common support obtained from the discussions was intended to promote trust and increase the motivation of relevant stakeholders (with no conflicts of interest) to participate by being evidence-based, transparent and accessible with the clear idea of the importance of holding accountable for commitments made with mechanisms in place to uphold this accountability.Principles for Engagement of the Food Systems Summit were reflected in the following way: -Urgency: We recognize the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Progress on reducing diet related NCDs (a form of malnutrition) is off track to achieve targets due to decades of neglect and de-prioritization – this summit is an opportunity to elevate and accelerate action for this and other urgent issues. Respect: Within our respective capacities and circumstances, we will support the promotion of effective policy packages for the protection of the health and well-being of individuals by preventing diet-related NCDs. Complexity: We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. NCD prevention has long been recognized as a multisectoral issue which requires a systemic response, in particular to tackle upstream barriers and wider social, political and commercial determinants of health and nutrition, however busting siloed thinking and improving coherence requires processes like the Summit to help dismantle silos and improve coherence. Commit to the Summit: We commit to practice what we preach personally and professionally to contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. Participants were encouraged to engage and support the Summit and asked how they would do so. Complement the work of others: Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with, amplifies, and accelerates these efforts where practicable, avoiding unnecessary duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches, and encouraging coherence through integrated, multisectoral dialogue and development of policy measures.Generate instances with participants to not only know about the Principles of Engagement but also to allow for discussions, divergence and criticisms in order to improve the Summits governance. Ensure diverse voices are included, particularly civil society and people affected by food systems decisions – including people living with diet related NCDs. Provide opportunities for global actors to meet with local actors for peer learning and exchange. Facilitate meaningful involvement of all participants by allowing plenty of time for interaction, listening, inviting contributions, learning and reporting back what has been heard to reinforce messages. Request that principles of engagement are improved to require declaration of interests for all participants in advance of engaging with Dialogues or any other Summit related initiatives.

Yes

234238239243244246247249The overarching theme of this Independent Dialogue focused on creating healthier food environments by way of a package of effective and evidenced based policies (including front-of-package labelling, marketing restrictions and taxation of unhealthy foods) to help to address diet-related NCDs, leveraging the opportunity presented by the UN Food Systems Summit and beyond. Some of the key issues raised or emerging from this discussion were the need to identify common ground to improve diets, the importance of identifying the barriers and challenges that need to be addressed in order to pursue a food system transformation, also how policy packages can respond to specific local contexts. Further, the Dialogue emphasised the importance of strengthening appreciation that healthy or unhealthy diets are not a personal choice but rather a consequence of the food environment that needs to be shaped and nurtured with collective and coherent decisions around these policy areas, and how the pandemic has also shown the need to invest more in sustainable food systems and environments. The environment must enable and facilitate healthy choices and it must be coherent also in the sense that marketing restrictions, clear information on packaging and taxes of unhealthy products should be jointly promoted, while policies in areas such as trade, urban design and development and education should be complementary and coherent and not undermine the development of sound public health policy. It is important to level the playing field of competition, and incentives the availing of better options, so that unhealthy food steps back and healthy food comes forward. While the agenda influences consumers, producers and retailers, and supporting the environment, but also about changing the economic dynamics and levelling the playing field. It is difficult to prove large impact if the environment is not coherent. The idea behind a coherent policy package is that by implementation of it we are creating a health promoting food environment, and supporting all people’s right to health and food including children and those most vulnerable.235238239243244246247249The following key messages and themes emerged from the interactive dialogue and plenary with guided discussions among representatives from governments, civil society: - Consensus on the need for complementary package of policies to address diet related NCDs (restrictions to marketing and taxation of unhealthy foods, and front-of-package labeling systems on food products). Given the regulatory nature of these measures, and the evidence of industry interference in these types of nutrition policy-making processes, participants noted a need for tools, transparency and protective mechanisms to minimize risk of industry interference in public health policy and avoidance of conflicts of interest. It is not possible to have a one policy approach. A policy package approach is essential towards a vision of an environment that is coherent and all the messages that are coming from that environment come from a healthy direction. It is about saying to large food corporations what is acceptable and what is not and having a leverage playing field for healthier choices. - Participants recommended a common global definition of what is healthy or unhealthy food/diets, clarifying and including terms like ultra-processed food products. - Insights were gained on how India is responding to the double burden of malnutrition and building healthy food systems by recognizing that undernutrition and inappropriate nutrition (which contributes to diet related NCDs) are all interlinked. It was important also to recognize the need for good balanced nutrition policy during all the life course. India has an approach of eating healthy, eating safe and eating sustainably (including a health, environmental, sanitation, etc. connectivity). It was also highlighted the importance of bringing this connection to the SDG agenda and engage with multiple stakeholders across the country in a practical way at the district level (e.g. school meals). - The experience shared by Finland on notable wins and success factors in the country included the reduction of premature mortality through changes in the diet (e.g. reduction of salt and saturated fats); the adoption of a universal approach which targets the whole population and age groups: food belongs to everybody and every person need a good diet; the health-in-all-policies approach which is supported by legislation and intersectoral mechanisms; the economy of wellbeing approach emphasizing the interlinkages between social, economic and environmental sustainability; the political leadership for SDG’s in the Prime Minister Office nurtures coherent sectoral policies, supports government programmes, promotes healthy diets, coherent policies, and political leadership. As challenges, it was pointed out that the past 10 years it has become increasingly difficult to maintain success. School meals investment pays back (e.g. 1 dollar of investment pays 9 dollars back) but other approaches are needed (e.g., agricultural policies, fiscal measures, public procurement, warning labels, among others), Transforming food systems is a challenge but comes with opportunities and success stories. It is important that there is a joint effort towards better cooperation and coordination at the global level. - The majority of participants also showed interest in being part of a coalition in support of a policy package for healthy diets within the Summit context and beyond. Discussants also noted as main challenges to implementation of a package of policies: - Multiple stakeholders having a place at the table at the policy making level, including those with conflicts of interest. - The dominant prosperity/capita/development narrative being consistently focused on what will damage economies instead of also considering investment in health, environment and well-being aspects as keys to development and prosperity. - Silo policy making within governments and trade offs between government departments which are not fully transparent, understood and foster incoherence - The negative impact the food industry lobby has on political processes, funding and biasing research and driving the narrative and definition of what foods are unhealthy, coopting tenuous health and sustainability attributes as a marketing tool even when a product’s nutritional value is negligible or harmful. On immediate steps and shifts necessary to address the challenges participants agreed on the need to: - Engage and align with new allies from other sectors rather than only the health sectors. - Influence the influencers (the cooks, the bloggers, etc) to also influence policy making Build the bridge between academics and the policy makers to enable policy makers to be better informed. - Share tips and lessons learned between countries (peer to peer) and a global governance to encourage multiple country support - Increase transparency in policy discussions - highlight the iimportance of NCDs and dietary options, and making sure these are incorporated within the pandemic response. - Tackle and expose lobby power of food industry, build the evidence and take action - Build and grow civil society competency and national protection for underage consumers - Have more courageous Member States engaged in this agenda.236238239243244246247249From this Independent Dialogue and according to the questions discussed by the break-up groups, the main conclusions include de following: 1.Expectation of participants on what the UNFSS would achieve for diet-related NCDs: - That there is more policy cohesion between law, trade and nutrition - That the Summit considers health consequences of food systems - That nutrient-based approaches (deficiencies, fortification, reformulation) are balanced with a holistic approach including the consequences of food processing and food systems - That coalitions are formed to move the dial - That the Summit facilitates a shift to health and sustainability (human, animal and planetary health) as a primary objective for policymaking - That food systems narrative is changed, that silos are broken and the mindset around multi-stakeholder action (risks and benefits) is changed - That an agreement is established between food systems and links with climate change and economic growth. Nutrition should be seen as a tool that can support both agendas. - That policies that shape the food environment are identified and invested in, not expecting individuals to have full control over diet behaviour - That there is stronger ministerial will and strong leadership from governments, such that diet is moved to the top of the priority list at the summit. - That there is a common definition of nutrient profiling -especially for children. - That better fiscal policies to promote healthy diets are recommended. - That there is recognition of the negative role of ultra-processed food industry in policy promotion (Conflicts of interest) - That more Indigenous people’s voices are heard2362382392432452462472492502. Challenges to support a policy package to sustainably prevent diet related NCDs - Perception that health behaviour is a personal choice and government policy is made bearing that in mind - Infectious disease prevention, deficiency and treatment is a priority over health promotion and that is a bottleneck for policy promotion affecting also resources in place for the health promotion agenda - The economic narrative that these policies damage the economies - Silo policy-making within governments and the trade-offs between different government departments when implementing these policies - Not enough public pressure for the promotion of these policies - Globalization - The impact of the food industry lobby (especially large multinational corporations) in building the narrative, funding research and influencing policy making - For small countries it is difficult to implement healthy food policies (e.g. locally grown foods) as larger countries have a lot of influence on the marketing of unhealthy commodities. - Trade not prioritising, and thus undermining, public health -Need for more evidence (e.g. cost-effectiveness analyses) on policy action focusing on implementation of the package of policies rather than instrument by instrument -There is no single silver bullet, multiple actions on multiple fronts are required - No sufficient tools to manage conflicts of interest and industry interference in policy shaping and making (especially when having multisectoral participation) - Ministries of health do not have the lead on the promotion of these policies - Need for demonstrating and communicating the broad public support base for these policies and the demand for change up against corporate capture of consultation processes and lack of access and poor infrastructure for civil society to influence decision making - Misconception driving a siloed approach to food policies and regulations (not including a life-course approach). - Weak collaboration within governments regarding food and nutrition, eg. with education, agriculture sectors. -Absence of a clear definition of what is “healthy” and “unhealthy” - Reformulating existing foods is necessary but not sufficient -COVID has made NCDs fall down the list - Companies are not being targeted. There is a need for policies that address power imbalance. - Industry resources to dominate consultation processes (need for guidelines on consultation processes). -Persistent argument against regulatory measures and deference of responsibility to the individual -Industry actions on the pandemic: Social responsibility actions (e.g. Sponsoring vaccination) -No plan for obesity prevention and the need of civil society to speak out - Worsening of some behaviors due to the pandemic. Pandemic also increased barriers to healthy foods, influenced affordability and increased exposure to unhealthy food marketing. - Multisectoral collaboration/policy coherence is absent - coordination of government agencies is very difficult - e.g. trade/industry or agriculture will often adopt policies that make unhealthy food cheaper, or foreign affairs will take trade-motivated positions in diplomacy -Lack of transparency in policy processes2362382392432452462472492503. What are the immediate steps and necessary shifts to address the challenges - Talk about the true costs of ultra processed foods and the opportunity of healthy and sustainable industries to be genuinely part of the solution - Redefine economic growth as healthy and productive workforces is really important to consider Invite all sectors to think short and long term goals - Mobilize new allies (those who are not the regular groups involved in diet-related NCD prevention): This could include recruiting more economists into public health and partner with anti-corruption organizations to address conflicts of interest - Implement effective capacity-building actions for all actors involved - Manage conflicts of interest - Implement mechanisms for different countries to increase exchange and sharing of experiences in implementing these policies (including evidence, tips and lessons learned) - Increase transparency about what the trade-offs are when discussing these policies over the short and long term - Make sure that these policies are integrated into the pandemic response and take the opportunity COVID imposes to prioritize this agenda - Have a global coordination and accountability mechanism to tackle this issue (similar to tobacco) including a 5.3. article about industry interference for food policy (as it is the case of the FCTC) - Ban unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children - Involve more academia into policy making processes to make sure policies are evidenced-based -Include a regional approach (e.g. the success PAHO has had in implementing warning labels on food products) to move as a coherent global body - Increase economic evaluations and build the economic case of the benefits of implementing this package of policies (cost-benefits assessments) and the benefits on inequalities - Include civil society and marginalized groups such as Indigenous people within the Food Systems Summit - Building civil society competence around IP data and build legal frameworks and instruments to respond to that in order to protect consumer data and also protect targeting special audiences like children.237238239243244246247249Although participants did not show divergent opinions on the need to promote a package of actions to address diet related NCDs and on the importance of dealing with conflicts of interest and food industry interference, it is important to note that the need to include more Member States in these discussions and to allow for other actors to take part of discussing policy challenges. Important to include people in the “supply” side of the issue. Hopefully the Summit will enable some of these discussion and perhaps some conflict, which would be healthy.

2021-07-14 13:33:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9709/203

23001223223342617039200240001011022000003841213000102321

To ensure respect of the Principles of Engagement, the following measures were taken:  The Dialogue was designed to highlight actions and solutions by showcasing examples on "how to walk the talk", discuss how to connect research and policy and how to scale up solutions for sustainable production of aquatic foods as an integral part of the whole food system. The dialogue was convened so that it welcomed participants and enabled them to engage purposefully with open exchanges, listen to each other and be open to the co-existence of divergent points of view.  The Dialogue commits directly to the vision and goals of Food Systems Summit Action Track 3 (boost nature-positive production), and connects to other actions tracks, as well as the UN Nutrition Decade, and UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  Recognizing the complexity of the aquatic food systems (healthy waters, sustainable harvesting/ production, food security, nutrition and healthy people, equity etc), the Dialogue included multiple perspectives. A diverse group of speakers and panellists (from policymaking, research, private sectors and NGOs) were invited. The Dialogue was open for all to sign up to thus participants from multiple stakeholder groups around the world could join.  A holistic food chain approach was taken, highlighting interlinked areas important to the four pillars of sustainability and motivate innovative thinking and approaches to deliver system-level transformation.  The Dialogue was carefully designed to ensure the diversity of the panels and participants (gender ratio, global representation, participants from middle- and low-income countries, vulnerable groups, women and youth).  The Dialogue was free and open and provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good.  To ensure the Dialogue contents were transparent and accountable, we incorporated evidence-based solutions, provided contact information of all panellists, and the event recap was sent to all. By linking the dialogue to the Food Systems Summit Action Track 3, and also connect to the other action tracks, we increased the awareness of aquatic foods as part of sustainable food systems, and highlighted the importance evidence based sustainable production of aquatic foods as well as the importance of a holistic food system approach.  By showcasing cross-sectorial solutions to urgent topics in current food systems production we promote the importance of integrating aquatic foods in the Food Systems Summit agenda.  The selected topics were explored from social, economic and environmental perspectives with multiple stakeholder groups. Recognising the complexity in aquatic foods systems and encouraging collaboration among sectors and stakeholders to achieve the Food Systems Summit goal. We emphasised regional and applicable solutions to demonstrate that sustainable aquatic food production can coexist with local and traditional practices.  We advertised the Dialogue on different platforms to reach out to all possible stakeholder groups around the world.  The stakeholders were introduced to the Global Action Network: Sustainable Food from the Ocean and Inland Waters mission which are in line with the Food Systems Summit goals and objectives, and relevant SDGs.  The private sector, civil society, including academic institutions, and regional and intergovernmental organisations play important roles together with various nations in the world to realise the potential of aquatic foods contribution to food security and nutrition. Recognising the solutions by both the panellists and participants promoted a collaborative environment to stimulate bold and innovative new thinking and approaches that deliver systems-level transformation.  The Dialogue provided factual examples to give evidence-based solutions to current food production issues in aquatic food systems. The credentials and contact information provided improved trust among multiple stakeholders involved in the Dialogue, and accountability of the information given.The time limit of the 90-minute webinar was adequate and allowed enough time for answering most of the questions from the audience. However, more time could be allocated for questions and answers if fewer speakers invited to the two panels (3 instead of 4). Please note: The numbers above do not reflect the total numbers of webinar participants (which were 504 registered and 230 attended live). Numbers of participants in each sector was retrieved from a post webinar survey that was automatically launched for all attendees when signing off the event. The response rate was 26% explaining a total number of 60.

NoSustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets is one of the six cross-cutting, integrative action areas of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016-2025). The Global Action Network: Sustainable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food Security and Nutrition, is established under the umbrella of the Nutrition Decade. The Network aims to include aquatic foods as a key food source for achieving food security and improved nutrition in the Nutrition Decade and in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. In the lead up to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the Global Action Network arranged a series of three Independent Dialogues, arranged as webinars, with a holistic food chain approach - from healthy oceans to healthy people. The first webinar focused on Action Track 1 (ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all), the second webinar on Action Track 3 (boost nature-positive production), and the third webinar on Action Track 4 (advance equitable livelihoods). The Dialogues were put together by a task force, including representatives from WorldFish, IFAD, and the Netherlands, and were led by Norway. The Dialogues were co-hosted by the Norwegian leadership of the Global Action Network and WorldFish. This is the second Dialogue of the series, as titled “Transforming food systems with aquatic foods- scaling-up sustainable production solutions”. In this Dialogue, cross-sectorial representatives, including one expert panel and one high-level panel with speakers from ministries, national and international governmental organisations, universities, research institutions, innovations private sectors as well as NGOs, came together to showcase possible solutions and discuss important actions to scale-up sustainable aquatic food production as part of the summit’s Action Track 3, which aims to boost nature-positive production. The Dialogue included two sessions: the first showcasing possible solutions to scale-up good sustainable production of aquatic foods, and the second session on connecting research and policy. During the Dialogue, two polls were conducted to engage participants. Also, the audience was encouraged by the curator to partake actively in the live chat and post questions in the Q&A box, and they were also notified about relevant links being shared in the chat box for further information. Three open-ended questions were included in the post-webinar questionnaire to enable participants to share their views. The panels took a holistic approach by combining knowledge and solutions on different aspects of sustainable production of aquatic foods along the food chain. Topics included: sustainability standards/labels, circular food production methods, ecosystem-based approaches, and low-trophic aquatic product farming and harvesting. Also, how to accelerate sustainable aquaculture, cross-sectorial engagement, and collaboration with local and/or international partners were addressed. The panels shared opinions on how to bridge research with policy to better inform science-based policy making to scale-up solutions. Event Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement:  504 participants registered for the event and received an event recording and links to other learning materials.  230 people tuned in live to the event, predominantly from Europe (41%), followed by Asia and the Pacific (31%), Africa (16%), North America (10%) and Central and Latin America (2%).  With a 46% attendance rate, participants were predominantly from Academia and Research (38%), followed by NGO or Not for Profit (22%), Government (18%) Private Sector (10%) and Others (12%).  Participants sent in a total of 31 questions in the live Q&A, 23 were answered during the live event by our panel speakers.  In the post-event survey, the majority of the participants said they enjoyed the webinar, gave an average rating of 8/10 and are interested in future webinars on the topic of food system transformation with aquatic foods.

234238239240241242243244245246248249251Sustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets is one of the six cross-cutting, integrative action areas of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016-2025). The Global Action Network: Sustainable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food Security and Nutrition, is established under the umbrella of the Nutrition Decade. The Network aims to mobilise actions to include aquatic foods as a key food source for achieving food security and improved nutrition in the Decade of Action on Nutrition and in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. The Network takes a holistic food chain approach “from healthy waters to healthy people”, highlighting solutions for sustainable aquatic and food security (sufficient, safe and nutritious aquatic foods which meets dietary needs and food preferences, leaving no one behind). Aquatic foods will be important in transforming our global food systems. In the lead up to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the Network arranged a series of three Independent Dialogues. This Dialogue (together with the two others arranged by the Global Action Network Sustainable Food from the Ocean and Inland Waters) aimed to make aquatic foods better integrated in the current food systems debates and seen as contributing as a key food source for achieving global food security and improved nutrition. A dietary shift towards more aquatic foods will contribute to food security within the planetary boundaries. The Dialogue “Transforming food systems with aquatic foods: scaling-up sustainable production solutions” was an exploration of Action Track 3 (boost nature-positive production) but also interlinked to the other Action Tracks. The Dialogue brought together representatives from government, science and research, private sectors and NGOs that covered areas related to healthy oceans, sustainable fisheries and seafood production, food security and nutrition. Stakeholders working with science, policy and in action work were brought together as well as the UN Food Systems Summit Action Track leaders. During the event, we encouraged questions and discussion among and between panellists and participants, and ensured their voices were heard. All stakeholder groups engaged in the Dialogue. The panellists highlighted current issues and showcased successful solutions within aquatic food systems. The participants agreed with the urgent issues mentioned by the panellists and identified several other issues to be addressed in the future. The Dialogue acknowledged the need to increase the awareness of the contribution of aquatic foods in current food systems as well as addressing the interlinkages with terrestrial food production. There is a need to scale-up production of sustainable aquatic foods as a provider of nutrients (not just calories), at lower environmental cost and as a provider of equitable livelihoods. To achieve this, the Dialogue emphasised important aspects and identified actions for an increased sustainable aquatic food production in order to transform future food systems. This was delivered by multiple stakeholders from ministerial level, governments, private sector, NGOs, academia, UN-initiatives, and the Action Track 3 leadership. The Dialogue exemplified solutions and how to scale-up sustainable production of aquatic foods. It provided multiple stakeholders with options and innovative thinking on how to link aquatic food production with other aspects. The panellists disseminated approaches to bridge science, policy and actions and encouraged holistic approaches and cross-sectorial engagement to make aquatic foods more visible in current food systems.235238240241243244245246248249251Aquatic foods provide solutions to hunger, malnutrition and poverty. Sustainable production of aquatic foods ensures the productivity of aquatic foods while minimising the environmental footprints. We identified key science- and evidence-based solutions that were applicable and scalable. More importantly, we recognized that the food systems are complex, thus, to tackle existing issues requires holistic approaches, cross-sectorial efforts, both when it comes to policy making and actions. In the Dialogue, international food system experts working in policy, research and innovation career fields provided key solutions to scale-up sustainable aquatic food production for multiple stakeholders and sectors in low- to middle-income countries:  The current Voluntary Sustainability Standards provide a market-based tool for scaling-up sustainable production in aquatic foods, however such standards need to be tailored for small-scale producers to improve their access to trade and market, and this requires better governance.  Adopting circular economy approaches in aquaculture which recycle by-products from other industries/systems, including terrestrial, ones ensures that aquaculture can be scaled without putting pressure on the limited resources of the planet. It also lowers the production costs thus increasing the earning potential of poor farmers and decreasing the social volatility of a region in addition to providing nutritious foods to rural families.  Ecosystem-based approaches should be applied to reduce environmental impacts and protect adjacent natural habitats.  Social components are important for sustainable development of aquaculture, such as inclusion of female and the youth, providing small-scale female farmers and business leaders with access to finance (e.g. through hatching programs).  Scaling-up solutions requires cross-sectorial engagement, such as reaching out to terrestrial-focused colleagues, and bridging private, public and research institutes. The stakeholders in the dialogue called for technological innovations to scale-up solutions for sustainable aquatic food production, areas including:  Environmental-friendly feeds of good quality by utilising by-products of other systems (e.g. food waste, agriculture by-product) and/or locally produced low trophic ingredients (e.g., seaweeds);  Post-harvest loss reduction.  Circular economy approaches to improve both aquatic food production and other components (e.g., health, social inclusiveness, peace and justice).  Low trophic aquatic food production for feeds, human consumptions and other related industries.  Approaches to scale-up from small-scale production to large-scale production (e.g. black soldier flies for aquafeeds).  Traceability of aquatic foods to ensure food safety (e.g. block chain technology). The stakeholders also emphasised the need to establish better connections:  Among multiple sectors (government, farmers, consumers, and private sectors) to create scalable sustainable solutions across aquatic food systems.  Between researchers and the government to better inform environment-based policy making.  among different social components to improve inclusiveness and awareness, and improve the capacity of aquatic food production.  between the aquatic food producers and the government to improve efficiency of communication, enforcing of policies, and certification processing.  within local communities to scale-up community-based approaches in sustainable aquaculture (e.g. Fish Breeding Site project supported by TNC).  among countries to better share knowledge and technology that can be further tailored for national and/or regional needs.236238240241242243244246247248249251The Dialogue was a webinar with high level speakers and two panels, Q&A sessions, chat and a post-event questionnaire. Hence it was not designed with strict discussion topics. However, the Dialogue outcomes can be grouped under topics related to 3 questions: Discussion Topic 1: How to scale-up production of sustainable aquatic foods as a provider of the nutrients we need at lower environmental cost, and as a provider of livelihoods?  Increase low trophic aquatic food production.  Develop and apply of circular food systems.  Integrate blue and green coproducts as feed ingredients.  Promote pond polyculture to reduce the need for feed ingredients from the global fish catch.  Enforce environmental standards and regulations.  Remove challenging regulatory barriers.  Increase expertise and capacity to maintain successful aquaculture operations.  Conduct Marine Spatial Planning.  Selective breeding of aquaculture species.236238240241242243244246247248249251The Dialogue was a webinar with high level speakers and two panels, Q&A sessions, chat and a post-event questionnaire. Hence it was not designed with strict discussion topics. However, the Dialogue outcomes can be grouped under topics related to 3 questions: Discussion Topic 2: How can global aquaculture be upscaled; ensuring sustainable feed without challenging food security for others?  Generate knowledge and tools for sustainable feeds and feed systems.  Ensure that production of aquatic foods does not compete for arable land.  Further explore consumption of low trophic aquatic foods.  Adopt recirculating aquaculture systems in areas with scarce water resources.  Increase focus on the link between sustainable feed ingredients and the nutritional value of fish for consumers.  Utilise locally available feed ingredients.  Adopt circular approaches with better integration of agriculture and aquaculture.  Manage forage fisheries.  Utilise fisheries and aquaculture processing waste.  Replace fish feed ingredients with alternative sources (e.g. plant-based and other low trophic ingredients, terrestrial animal by-products, microbial ingredients, algae).  Increase non-fed aquaculture (e.g. seaweed and molluscs).  Optimise feeding management to reduce feed loss.236238240241242243244246247248249251The Dialogue was a webinar with high level speakers and two panels, Q&A sessions, chat and a post-event questionnaire. Hence it was not designed with strict discussion topics. However, the Dialogue outcomes can be grouped under topics related to 3 questions: Discussion Topic 3: What can smallholders teach us about sustainability and the importance of accelerating and scaling-up the good solutions?  Sustainable solutions need to be context-specific (e.g. complement local solutions with new knowledge and innovations).  Advance our understanding of the value of small-scale fisheries (e.g. Illuminating Hidden Harvests) and increase efforts to capture their contributions in national accounts.  Adopt seasonal farming to provide livelihoods and sustainable solutions (e.g. alternating between hilsa fishing and seaweed farming).  Apply multiple farming systems to increase resilience to changes in feeds, feeding practices, and environmental conditions.  Include multi-sectorial efforts (e.g. social, economic and environmental) to promote inclusiveness (e.g. the poor and marginalised, women and youth) and strengthen the circularity of agri-food systems.237240243244245246247248249250251In the Dialogue and the post-webinar surveys, there were a few areas of mild divergence. These include the prioritisation of issues and the applicability of mentioned solutions. In the Dialogue, the panellists highlighted challenges and solutions for sustainable aquatic food production, including overfishing, post-harvest loss and marginalisation of small-scale farmers. Participants suggested other issues to be addressed (e.g. social inequality, lack of funding, and high cost for sustainable production). The panellists and the participants had a thorough discussion on the solutions suggested in the Dialogue. And a few participants expressed their concerns about the applications of these:  Regarding the solution to convert food waste to fish feeds via black soldier flies, a few participants showed their concerns about the financial feasibility of this approach. In addition, the essential fatty acid levels in black soldier flies were insufficient to meet the nutritional needs of the consumers. Thus, the substrates should be improved for the black soldier fly larvae.  Seaweed farming has been applied in multiple regions/countries to enhance different aspects of the society. A few participants shared their concerns about heavy metals and other contaminants potentially found in marine algae. Further research is required prior to scale-up seaweed faming.  The Voluntary Sustainability Standards labelling has improved the sustainable production. However, obtaining certifications might be time-consuming and costly.

2021-07-14 13:38:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16451/76

1150603025008035029203241051071371015105305525335

We use word of mouth (informal way of communicating) to make all participants aware of the principles of the summit and why it is important for all to acknowledge the principles.Through the use of the breakout rooms; we were able to allow participants speak freely and this help in building trust.Having the principles of engagement in mind helps to ensure that the discussions are down to earth and capture the real issues on the ground concerning our food systems.

Yes

234240242244246248249The major focus of our independent dialogue was to examine the cocoa production of Ghana in an ever-changing world. The discussions were largely to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current cocoa production value chain, given new world trade participants, new use of land (galamsey) and emerging call for healthier food. Cocoa (Theobroma Cacao) is a plant from which we obtain raw beans which is use for chocolates, other confectionary and cosmetics. In Ghana it is produced in the forest zones by smallholder households. Its production is rain dependent and it is harvested twice a year (September to November and May to July). It is a major export crop, which trade is controlled by the Ghana Cocoa Board. The concern that triggered the dialogue was the announcement of China's entry into the cocoa world market and the internal issues bothering on shifting of cocoa land for gold mining, unfavorable policy around input distribution and output market price, limited innovation as well as limited adoption of research results by farmers.235240241242244246248249The Ghana Cocoa Board admitted that China's entry into the cocoa supply chain has aroused some concerns among Ghanaians although it is insignificant. The Board further admitted that industry mangers response strategies to quell threats were necessary. The Board stated categorically that several economic, social and environmental measures were underway to maintain Ghana's competitive advantage in the world cocoa trade. Ghana Cocoa Board and its subsidiaries are focused on mitigating climate change and other environmental sustainability threats through cocoa agroforestry practices, climate smart cocoa production and irrigation. To boost productivity and enhance economic advantage and sustainability , hybrid seedlings, efficacious pesticides, fertilizers, good agricultural practices (GAPs), domestic consumption as well as domestic processing of cocoa is being promoted. For social sustainability, cocoa farmer pension scheme and other livelihood improvement schemes for cocoa farmers are being implemented along the cocoa value chain in Ghana; child labor issues are also being addressed by the use of CMS-a very robust system for tracking the progress of children so as to expose early child labour signals, prevailing child labour, child-trafficking and child slavery. Persons/ farmers found culpable to the offence of child labour in cocoa production are referred to the Ministry of Employment and Labour relations and the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social protection for remediation. With respect to technological advancement in addressing key cocoa production bottlenecks, the Ghana Cocoa Board is using digital technologies and innovations such as GPS to collect and manage farmers bio data. However, the Ghana Cocoa Board express the need for bridging the gap between the cocoa industry and academia so as to increase the opportunities for research, innovation and development that are key to improving and strengthening Ghana's cocoa sector. For policy- there is the need to go beyond production to focus on value addition or commercialization For input marketing, improvement in the supply of new varieties of cocoa seed, mechanized equipment, security of cocoa land and availability of trained extension officers and availability of credit facilities were called for. For research and innovation-the cocoa research institute of Ghana and other universities and crop based research institutes were called upon to up their game in developing new seed varieties, protectants and cocoa products. For farmers- There is need for government and private sector to support the local economy within which the farmer carries out production and marketing activities. Why fear China? China is doing something different to obtain premium price, which is more than double what Ghana has ever attained. So Ghana should change its strategy as well.236238239240241242243244245246248249Policy- Urgent actions required: Go beyond productivity and look at value addition or commercialization Marketing strategies Increase marketing and awareness creation by COCOBOD Develop more markets beyond the local and traditional markets Go beyond bulk cocoa production to specialty cocoa production Accompanying policy implementation framework to ensure efficiency of the policy Ways to assess progress: Monitoring and evaluation Achieving the objectives of the policies (Cocoa sector development strategy 1(2000/01 to 2009/10); Post CSDS 1 Development (2010/11 to 2016/17) and CSDS 2 (2017/18-2026/27) What our organization will do: Advocacy Organizing conferences Dialogues etc.236238240242244246248249Research- Participants were of the view that Ghana COCOBOD needs to assemble and engage top-notch researchers and experts to tell them the impacts of policy based on scientific research findings. In that way, Ghana COCOBOD will be aware of the ground situation and work with business intelligence. Further and urgent actions required are concerned with re-bagging, digitalization and newer methods of irrigation , which is critical in improving Cocoa production due to recent climate change challenge. It is also important to include product differentiation as a way of remaining competitive instead of worrying about China's entry. Ways to assess progress: Research critically and try to find new ways of doing things. We should monitor and evaluate all policies established. We should think through thoroughly to know the problem and what possible solutions that will work. What our organization will do: We will continue to engage in programmes and dialogues so as to educate the public on these important food system (Cocoa) issues.236240241242244246248249Markets- Urgent actions required: Developing local markets while strengthening international markets Strengthening of internal market systems and linkages; farm and marketing inputs ( e.g jute sacks) should be made readily available. Trade in inputs should be lucrative to encourage investors into that market It is important to study China’s trade strategies and learn from them. How to assess progress: We should measure premiums on quality products (Cocoa). We should determine extent of value additions annually Change in the attitude of farmers towards operating cocoa farms as business and expanding investments What our organization will do: GAAE and University of Ghana will collaborate with COCOBOD to undertake more research in cocoa international trade. GAAE will map the LBCs and partner their association for occasional policy dialogues. GAAE will adopt more demand driven research approaches and work with farmers to share and exchange knowledge and advocate for farmer livelihood improvement.236238240241242244245246248249Farmer response- Urgent actions required: Farmers involvement in cocoa policy making should be more visible through effective engagement. Innovative value addition to cocoa beans or its waste products by farmers will create new streams of income generation so as to maximize their cocoa market diversification strategies. Cocoa farming should be made attractive to the youth to prevent them from from migrating into cities. Increase the use of mechanized farming and innovations to promote agricultural mechanization in cocoa farming especially equipment for breaking cocoa pods. Also, providing personal protective equipment in case of any occupational hazard such as snake bites. How to assess progress: More youth involvement in cocoa farming. Significant improvement in the welfare of cocoa farming household. High efficiency from cost management by farmers. Increase in the price of produce by farmers. Bringing new products from cocoa. Cocoa farming becoming a sustainable business. What our organization will do: Our organization would be a major link between farmers and policy makers. Building confidence and encouraging high involvement of farmers in improving cocoa production in Ghana.237238240241242246The major area of divergence remained whether China's entry into the world cocoa market was a threat. While the lead industry player, the Ghana Cocoa Board held the view that China's entry into the cocoa supply chain was insignificant, so not a global threat, majority of the participants maintained the view that COCOBOD should take China serious.

2021-07-14 14:15:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9739/203

06221650292001121230000200050000530000250007100102127

To ensure respect of the Principles of Engagement, the following measures were taken: - The webinar (hereafter Dialogue) was designed to highlight actions and solutions by showcasing examples on "how to walk the talk", discussing how to connect research and policy and how to scale up solutions for advancing equitable livelihoods with aquatic foods. The dialogue was convened so that it welcomed participants and enabled them to engage purposefully with open exchanges, listen to each other and be open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. - The Dialogue commits directly to the vision and goals of Food Systems Summit Action Track 4 (advance equitable livelihood), and connects to other actions tracks, as well as the UN Nutrition Decade, and UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). - Recognising the complexity of the aquatic food systems (healthy waters, sustainable harvesting/production, food security, nutrition and healthy people, equity etc), the Dialogue included multiple perspectives. A diverse group of speakers and panellists (UN Food System Action Track leaders, food system experts, government officials, and funding organisation heads) were invited. The Dialogue was open for all to sign up to thus participants from multiple stakeholder groups around the world could join. - A holistic food chain approach was taken, highlighting interlinked areas important to the four pillars of sustainability and motivate innovative thinking and approaches to deliver system-level transformation. - The Dialogue was carefully designed to ensure the diversity of the panels and participants (gender ratio, global representation, participants from middle- and low-income countries, vulnerable groups, women and youth). - This Dialogue was free and open and provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. - To ensure the Dialogue contents were transparent and accountable, we incorporated evidence-based solutions, and the event recap was made available to all.- By linking the Dialogue to the Food Systems Summit Action Track 4, and connecting to the other action tracks, we increased the awareness of aquatic foods as part of sustainable food systems, and highlighted the importance of system-based approaches to advance equitable livelihoods with aquatic foods. - We recognised the urgent topics being eliminating poverty, reducing risks for the world’s poorest, and addressing inequitable access to resources, to improve resilience through social protection and seek to ensure that food systems ‘leave no one behind’. - By showcasing cross-sectorial solutions to these topics in current food systems, we promoted the importance of integrating aquatic foods in the Food Systems Summit agenda. - The selected topics were explored from social, economic and environmental perspectives with multiple stakeholder groups. - We recognised the complexity in aquatic foods systems and encouraged collaboration among sectors and stakeholders to achieve the Food Systems Summit goal. - We emphasised regional and applicable solutions to demonstrate that sustainable aquatic food production can coexist with local and traditional practices. - We advertised the Dialogue on different platforms to reach out to all possible stakeholder groups around the world. - The stakeholders were introduced to the Global Action Network: Sustainable Food from the Ocean and Inland Waters mission which are in line with the Food Systems Summit goals and objectives, and relevant SDGs. - The private sector, civil society, including academic institutions, and regional and intergovernmental organisations play important roles together with various nations in the world to realise the potential of aquatic foods contribution to food security and nutrition. Recognising the solutions by both the panellists and participants promoted a collaborative environment to stimulate bold and innovative new thinking and approaches that deliver systems-level transformation. - The Dialogue provided factual examples to give evidence-based solutions to current social inequalities in aquatic foodThe time limit of the 90-minute webinar, and number of speakers were adequate and allowed enough time for answering most of the questions from the audience. From experience with the first two webinars the number of speakers was reduced (from four to three) in both sessions to allocate more time for questions and answers. Please note: The numbers above do not reflect the total numbers of webinar participants (which were 450 registered and 166 attended live). Numbers of participants in each sector was retrieved from a post webinar survey that was automatically launched for all attendees when signing off the event. The response rate was 32% explaining a total number of 49.

NoSustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets is one of the six cross-cutting, integrative action areas of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016-2025). The Global Action Network: Sustainable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food Security and Nutrition, is established under the umbrella of the Nutrition Decade. The Network aims to include aquatic foods as a key food source for achieving food security and improved nutrition in the Nutrition Decade and in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. In the lead up to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the Global Action Network arranged a series of three Independent Dialogues, arranged as webinars, with a holistic food chain approach - from healthy oceans to healthy people. The first webinar focused on Action Track 1 (ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all), the second webinar on Action Track 3 (boost nature-positive production), and the third webinar on Action Track 4 (advance equitable livelihoods). The Dialogues were put together by a task force, including representatives from WorldFish, IFAD, and the Netherlands, and were led by Norway. The Dialogues were co-hosted by the Norwegian leadership of the Global Action Network and WorldFish. This is the third Dialogue of the series, titled “Transforming food systems with aquatic foods: Advancing equitable livelihoods for healthy people and planet”. In this Dialogue, cross-sectorial representatives, including one expert panel and one high-level panel with speakers from ministries, international organisations, universities, research institutions, and NGOs, came together to showcase possible solutions and discuss important actions to highlight the role of aquatic foods as part of the summit’s Action Track 4, which aims to advance equitable livelihoods. The Dialogue included two sessions: the first showcasing possible solutions to advance equitable livelihoods of those dependent on aquatic food systems and discuss ways to build their capacity and facilitate the transfer of skills and knowledge, and the second session on connecting research and policy. During the Dialogue, two polls were conducted to engage participants. Also, the audience was encouraged by the curator to partake actively in the live chat and post questions in the Q&A box, and they were also notified about relevant links being shared in the chat box for further information. Two open-ended questions were included in the post-webinar questionnaire to enable participants to share their views. The panels took a holistic approach by combining knowledge and solutions on different aspects of transforming food systems with aquatic foods. Topics included: an aquatic food system approach focusing on rural urban connectivity, innovations in fish processing, and fisheries crime in the fish supply chain. Also, how to facilitate entrepreneurship, equal access to resources, engaging and supporting young people and women, and improving working conditions in aquatic foods systems were addressed. The panels shared opinions on how to bridge research with policy to better inform science-based policy making to scale-up solutions. Event Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement: - 450 participants registered for the event and received an event recording and links to other learning materials. - 166 people tuned in live to the event, predominantly from Europe (45%), followed by Asia and the Pacific (35%), Africa (13%), North America (6%) and Central and Latin America (1%). - With a 37% attendance rate, participants were predominantly from Academia and Research (46%), followed by NGO or Not for Profit (23%), Government (13%), Private Sector (6%) and Others (13%). - Participants sent in a total of 19 questions in the live Q&A, 16 were answered during the live event by our panel speakers. - In the post-event survey, the majority of the participants said they enjoyed the webinar, gave an average rating of 8.3/10 and are interested in future webinars on the topic of food system transformation with aquatic foods.

234238240241243244245246247248249251Sustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets is one of the six cross-cutting, integrative action areas of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016-2025). The Global Action Network: Sustainable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food Security and Nutrition, is established under the umbrella of the Nutrition Decade. The Network aims to include aquatic foods as a key food source for achieving food security and improved nutrition in the Decade of Action on Nutrition and in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. The Network takes a holistic food chain approach “from healthy waters to healthy people”, highlighting solutions for sustainable aquatic food and food security (sufficient, safe and nutritious aquatic foods which meets dietary needs and food preferences, leaving no one behind). Aquatic foods will be important in transforming our global food systems. In the lead up to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the Network arranged a series of three Independent Dialogues. This Dialogue (together with the two others arranged by the Global Action Network Sustainable Food from the Ocean and Inland Waters) aimed to make aquatic foods better integrated in the current food systems debates and seen as contributing as a key food source for achieving global food security and improved nutrition. A dietary shift towards more aquatic foods will contribute to food security within the planetary boundaries. The Dialogue “Transforming food systems with aquatic foods: Advancing equitable livelihoods for healthy people and planet” was an exploration of Action Track 4 (Advance equitable livelihoods) but also interlinked to the other Action Tracks. The Dialogue brought together representatives from government, science and research, private sectors and NGOs, as well as the UN Food Systems Summit Action Track leaders. All stakeholder groups engaged in the Dialogue. During the event, we encouraged questions and discussion among and between panellists and participants, and ensured their voices were heard. The panellists highlighted current issues and showcased successful solutions within aquatic food systems. The participants agreed with the urgent issues mentioned by the panellists and identified several other issues to be addressed in the future. The Dialogue acknowledged the need to increase the awareness of the contribution of aquatic foods in current food systems as well as addressing the interlinkages with terrestrial food production. There is a need to provide equitable livelihoods with aquatic foods. To achieve this, the Dialogue emphasised important aspects and identified actions for advancing equitable livelihoods in order to transform future food systems. This was delivered by multiple stakeholders from ministerial level, governments, private sector, NGOs, academia, UN-initiatives, and the Action Track 3 leadership. The Dialogue identified current issues and directions to advance equitable livelihoods, build capacity, and facilitate the transfer of skills and knowledge in aquatic food systems, and showcased possible solutions on how to drive equitable, inclusive livelihoods outcomes for all through aquatic food productions. The panellists disseminated approaches to bridge science, policy and actions and encouraged holistic approaches and cross-sectorial engagement to make aquatic foods more visible in current food systems.235238240241243244245246247248249251We identified the most vulnerable groups, including small-scale producers, women, youth, indigenous populations, and minority groups. The major issues threatening the equality livelihoods in aquatic food systems include poor and unfair access to resources, constraints for small-scale producers, and inadequate involvement of the vulnerable. Furthermore, we recognised that the food systems are complex, thus, to tackle existing issues requires holistic approaches, cross-sectorial efforts, both when it comes to policy making and actions. In the Dialogue, international food system experts working in policy, research and innovation, provided key solutions to reduce existing inequalities in aquatic food systems: - For scalability to happen, analysis is needed in order to match solutions with the most urgent needs. - Acknowledge local practices. - Provide adequate access to natural bodies of waters, productive resources, markets, technology, and innovation. - Increase investment in sustainable and inclusive aquatic value chains. - Conduct policy dialogues to promote public-private-producer partnership. - Apply food system governance that realigns research, policy, and incentives. - Adopt nutrition-sensitive approaches to increase access to nutritious foods and products, efficiency and safety along supply chains, and reduce loss and waste. - Improve work conditions to ensure employee welfare and productivity. - Increase visibility and employment of the vulnerable groups. - Apply a systems-based approach to support self-understanding of challenges, needs, and solutions. - Emphasise the role of small fish in human nutrition and livelihoods, particularly for women. - Advocate justice and take measures against fishery crimes through system-based approaches.236The Dialogue was a webinar with high level speakers and two panels, Q&A sessions, chat and questionnaire. Hence it was not designed with strict discussion topics. However, the Dialogue outcome can be grouped under topics related to 4 questions: Discussion Topic 1: What are the key actions to ensure that an aquatic food system approach provide both sustainable equitable livelihoods as well as food security and nutrition? Address the existing inequalities in aquatic food systems (e.g. unfair distribution of commercial fish catches and limited political power of small-scale fishers, particularly women and minority groups). - Enable equitable access to resources. - Develop inclusive, transparent and comprehensive sustainable ocean plans (e.g. Sustainable ocean management promoted by the Ocean Panel). - Increase financial investment in sustainable and inclusive aquatic value chains. - Promote policy dialogue to facilitate government decisions and policies that trigger public-private-producers’ partnerships. - Strengthen fishers’ organisations and access to productive resources, markets, technology and innovation. - Translate research into actual investments. - Shift the narrative from ‘feeding’ a growing population to ‘nourishing’ all people with diverse, culturally acceptable foods. - Implement effective cooperation between government and institutions to address food, nutrition, and livelihood security at the national and global levels. - Support nutrition-sensitive approaches to aquatic food systems (e.g. small fish food). - Harness the nutritional benefits of aquatic foods through the development and innovation of diverse aquatic food products, low-trophic aquatic species, novel and alternative aquatic foods (e.g. seaweed, lab-based aquatic food). - Establish women processing groups and improve processing technologies. - Produce dried fish which is accessible and affordable to poor and rural households. - Integrate powdered small fish in supplementary nutrition programmes. - Include the voices and knowledge of indigenous people to form sustainable solutions for aquatic resource management.236238240241243244245246247248249251The Dialogue was a webinar with high level speakers and two panels, Q&A sessions, chat and questionnaire. Hence it was not designed with strict discussion topics. However, the Dialogue outcome can be grouped under topics related to 4 questions: Discussion Topic 2: What governance structures and investments are required in order to facilitate entrepreneurship and equal access to resources? - A food system approach does not just happen. For scalability to happen analysis is needed in order to match solutions with the most urgent needs. Change makers need to be identified, supported and connected - Strengthen policies and strategies and build capacities of resource management institutions. - Ensure that finance programmes include women, youth and small-scale producers. - Ensure that finance programmes focus on resilience and climate adaptation and mitigations. - Adopt pro-poor financial innovations for small producer in the aquatic sector. - Strengthen market linkages, producer organisations, information systems, market-supportive infrastructure.236238240241243244245246247248249251The Dialogue was a webinar with high level speakers and two panels, Q&A sessions, chat and questionnaire. Hence it was not designed with strict discussion topics. However, the Dialogue outcome can be grouped under topics related to 4 questions: Discussion Topic 3: What governance structures and investments are required in order to engage and support young people and women to create a living in sustainable aquatic food systems? - Address socio-cultural issues which impede opportunities for women. - Target women-based value chains or segments of the value chains. - Ensure that women and other vulnerable groups are included in aquatic food decision making and policy. - Expand investment and support sustainable development and diversification of small-scale producers. - Protect, support and develop the role of small-scale fisheries and producers to optimise the potential of aquatic foods to help end malnutrition. - More data on the role of women in aquatic food systems (e.g. from the Illuminating Hidden Harvest study) to make it more visible. - Provide capacity-strengthening support to organisations, social movements, networks, and for women’s collective action, including legal and negotiation training skills. - Raise awareness and reduce gender-based violence in aquatic food systems.236238240241243244245246247248249251The Dialogue was a webinar with high level speakers and two panels, Q&A sessions, chat and questionnaire. Hence it was not designed with strict discussion topics. However, the Dialogue outcome can be grouped under topics related to 4 questions: Discussion Topic 4: What governance structures and investments are required in order to improve working conditions in the aquatic foods system (labour rights, eliminating forced and child labour and developing social protection systems)? - Introduce social protection interventions to improve labour rights and eliminate child labour. - Introduce labour-saving technologies. - Include aquatic food producers in decision-making to address working condition issues.237There was no area of divergence during the discussions in the Dialogue. There were occasions of misunderstanding or lack of information, which were clarified in the live chat.

2021-07-14 16:01:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33956/112

1400219118100547961053859201001011910

Act with Urgency The workshop process was designed to motivate stakeholders to act now. Stakeholders were asked to develop action points for transforming food systems in the short and long term. Commit to the Summit We committed to the vision, objectives and final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit were shared with stakeholders at community, district and national dialogues. Stakeholders committed to implement outcomes of the Summit. Be Respectful Participants were encouraged to contribute views and preferences on the foods and activities for making available their preferred foods. Views from women, youth and elderly were accommodated and used to influence the discussions. Recognize Complexity Different options for transforming the way food is produced and consumed were debated. The debates highlighted tradeoffs and synergies for options. All ideas and solutions were recognized. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity We engaged with multiple actors from producers, programmers, policy framers, researchers, academicians. Complement the work of others In Malawi, the Ministry of Agriculture in collaboration with development partners has facilitated dialogues at national and district level. Our dialogues started from the community to engage local structures representing agriculture, nutrition and environment. Build Trust The evidence, issues and options generated in dialogues were discussed in an open environment. The summaries and conclusions were shared and endorsed by participants.

NoThe dialogue process The dialogue sessions were designed as follow: • bring together community and district stakeholder groups (environment, agriculture, nutrition) to engage and discuss their agriculture & food systems, • bring together national multi-stakeholder group (with different perspectives and positions on agricultural & food systems) comprising stakeholders in agriculture, nutrition and environment onto dialogue table to share their different perspectives on agriculture and food systems in Malawi. • Facilitate stakeholders (community, district, national) to learn each other’s perspective, discuss their aspirations on what agriculture and food systems they would like to see and they would love to see, • To create an environment for stakeholders to reflect on changes (positions, investments, priorities, policy, plans) they should make in order to achieve sustainable, healthier and equitable agriculture and food systems Steps for the dialogue The steps in the dialogue deliberations were as follows: 1. Link to existing initiative: Agrifood systems Multi criteria Decision Making Tool. 2. Enable participants to understand/articulate existing ag-food systems – identify different visions for subgroups. Start with Malawi’s six food groups (related to people’s context, build on different perspectives of food, what’s available including local foods). 3. Map food systems – past, current, future vision (elements of the system e.g. fruit trees, local vegetables, connections, food in/out flows, seasonality. o used soft systems approach to draw a "rich picture" showing the elements of the system from the persepctive of those drawing the picture. Those drawing the picture explained the drawing to provide a lot more detail. 4. Vision healthy, equitable, sustainable ag-food systems – expect it to be, like it to be, love it to be (Outcome mapping pathways – linked to stakeholders) 5. Identify blockages/constraining factors in transforming food systems 6. What needs to change at different levels: Levels of the dialogue The dialogue is a multi-stage process involving different stakeholders and decision makers in agriculture, nutrition and the environment. Three levels have been suggested and these are: • Community – In the districts of Kasungu and Ntcheu we worked with three local structures (Farmer Research Network-FRN, Community Care Group-CCG and Village Natural Resources Management Committee-VNRMC). The FRN represented the agriculture sector; the CCG represented the nutrition sector; and the VNRMC represented the environment sector. We used the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) tool to engage with the participants. The MCA tool does not focus on the environmental element. We therefore added the environment sector in the dialogue session to capture interests and perspectives of environmental advocates in regards to sustainable food systems and agro-ecological elements. • District – we engaged with stakeholder forums on agriculture, nutrition and the environment. These forums comprise public sector, NGO and private sector. • National – we engaged dialogue sessions with stakeholders from Department of Nutrition, Department of Agricultural Extension, the Planning Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, development partners, academicians, researchers, NOGs, media. Stakeholders shared their perspectives and examined synergies and tradeoffs in agricultural, environmental and nutrition policies.

234238239240241242243244246248249250251The dialogues contributed to sustainable, healthier and equitable agriculture and food systems in Malawi by: • Informing: o programing for on-going and new programs and projects on agriculture, nutrition and environment; o policy processes and policy investments and priorities in agriculture (e.g. Agricultural Input Program, Extension), nutrition, environment; o institutions and institutional structures in nutrition, agriculture, environment. • Appraising stakeholders on trade-offs to minimize and synergies to maximize in achieving agriculture, food and environmental objectives. • Inculcating a culture of integrated decision making process and planning in stakeholders (environment, agriculture, nutrition/health) at all levels to make better informed and inclusive decisions that will: o strengthen food security, o improve income, o enhance health and nutrition security and o enhance environmental objectives.2352382392402412421. Actors vision for diversified food systems When asked to envision sustainable and resilient agricultural and food systems that should exist in Malawi, all groups indicated that there should be diverse food systems that not only focus on exotic foods but promote production and consumption of indigenous crop and animal products. Some of the indigenous foods mentioned by the different actors include green grams, chick peas, velvet beans, lima beans, bambara nuts. baobab, tamarind, indian plum, prickly cucumber and wild animals (e.g., insects, caterpillars and mice). The findings on the diverse foods and agricultural enterprises mentioned at the national level is consistent with the findings from the community and district level dialogues. Actors at the community and district level also mentioned different foods that are cultivated, whilst some foods are from the wild. Some foods are also accessed from the markets. Surprisingly, when asked about what foods should be promoted in their areas, the actors at community level mostly mentioned the foods that are usually promoted by the programmers and public and non-state agricultural extension organisations. 2. Diversified food systems require agricultural investments and policies that embrace biodiversity The national participants observed that the national agricultural policies did not promote diversity as they equate food to maize. People are declared food insecure simply because they do not have enough maize, even when they have access to other foods such as potatoes, millet and cassava, just to mention a few. The narrative: “food is equal to maize” has also influenced agricultural policy investments such as the input subsidies that focuses on maize productivity. The narrow diversity was also exposed at the community level, where the participants mostly mentioned exotic crops and animals as their food of choice, mainly those promoted by agricultural research and development policies and programmes. Rarely or no effort is there to promote production and consumption of indigenous foods. Furthermore, there is insufficient investments to support the diversity, for example, the country does not have technologies for production and processing of indigenous fruits. 3. Capacity of actors is crucial to achieving sustainable food systems The different participants were in agreement that food systems are complex and require multi and interdisciplinary efforts. Food systems should be understood as systems comprising different actors (e.g., the academia, research, private sector, government, media, development partners), activities (i.e., production, storage, processing, distribution and consumption) and fields (i.e., agriculture, nutrition, economics, environment, society). Therefore, achieving sustainable and healthy food systems demands that different sectors play their roles. Development partners are key in mobilising resources and financing the strategic activities for the food systems. The government should ensure that there are policies that can support research and development and also invest in building the capacity, physical infrastructure and human capacity of actors in the food systems, promulgating activities that nudge appropriate behaviour change. Research and academia are challenged to transform the education systems as well as the research agenda setting to recognise and promote production, storage, processing and consumption of the crops and livestock species which are not in the mainstream agriculture and nutrition programmes. The research and academia should produce technologies, innovations, education programmes, and evidence which in turn can be applied by the food systems actors, used to train students, and used to enrich evidence-based advocacy. While each actor in the food system has important roles to play for the food system to perform, a question arises related to the capacity of the concerned actors to carry out their roles effectively and efficiently. Do the actors have the required knowledge and skills? Do they have the right attitudes and motivation? Are opportunities available? Can the actors seize the opportunities? What kind of support is available to the actors? Addressing these questions is paramount to the food systems performance since a malfunction of a single component in a system leads to failure of the whole system. For example, it was learned during the national and district level discussions that even though some actors (e.g., nutrition) promote the consumption of some indigenous vegetables for improved nutrition (e.g., amaranth), the availability of the such vegetables was limited to seasons. Unfortunately, agricultural research and extension activities pay minimal attention to promoting indigenous vegetables. Similarly, the environment group added that there is a need to promote the consumption of insects. However, they also observed that this required different sectors to be working hand in hand to make sure that the insects are available in all seasons. In appreciation of the complexity of the food systems, especially with regards to the multiplicity of the actors in the system, the participants to national dialogue noted the challenges to reach consensus on the foods to prioritize for consumption and production or investments. The challenges are due to differences in the interests and objectives to pursue in the food system.2372382392412432442452462492501. A call to provide space to local communities and indigenous knowledge in food systems transformation processes. The participants indicated that food transformation process pays little attention to local/ indigenous knowledge about how food is traditionally produced, processed, distributed and consumed. The process to transform food systems in the country is top down. The development partners, programmers, practitioners and scholars- “experts” design, implement and evaluate the food systems projects, programmes and policies. The communities are often placed at the receiving end. As such, the food preferences as well as the enterprises and activities for making the foods available, accessible and utilized are imposed on the local people. In other words, there is no collaboration with the local communities on food systems. The national participants noted issues with respect to culture and food traditions. The different communities value different foods differently such that “what is food to one culture is not food to another culture”. For example, communities valued finger millet, mice, and wild insects as food, while the district participants had reservations on some of the foods. But these foods play significant roles in cultural activities such as weddings. A case in point is finger millet that is an ingredient for sweet beer and is consumed during traditional ceremonies. The differences in the values attached makes some of the foods not recognized and supported in the mainstream policies, programmes and projects that often focus on the so called main crops, maize in particular. Moreover, the multi-national profit or non-profit making organisations that support agricultural research and development projects and programmes rarely focus on locally available foods that are valued by communities. Consequently, seeds for some indigenous crops have become scarce. 2. Negotiating and integrating diverging perspectives a challenge to multidisciplinary approach The discussions at all levels revealed that the participants representing different sectors understand the food systems concept differently. For instance, when asked to define food systems, the definitions reflected different predispositions or professional backgrounds. Definitions by nutritionists, gender activists, and environmentalists for example, leaned more towards nutrition, inclusion, and environment, respectively. Whilst the definition of agriculturalists leans towards outcome of the food systems in terms of food security and income or livelihoods. The participants agreed that the differences in the definitions affect the efforts and investments in agriculture and food systems. The differences are also the reason why the outcomes of the agriculture and food systems are inefficient and insufficient because the existing synergies are not maximized. During discussions, the trade-offs came out clear in the multiple criteria that the participants at different levels and from different sectors applied to select foods and the farm enterprises for making the selected foods available. The criteria included: used to food type, nutrients availability, easy to produce/rear, availability / accessibility, multiple benefits, provision of farm inputs, seasonality, productivity, income/for sale. The criteria vary across sites and across stakeholders. Observations of the discussions within the sectors and between the sectors revealed that reaching a consensus on the criteria was an uphill task. Participants debated the differences and conceded that it was difficult to reach consensus on ranking the criterion even within the group. The ranking exercise revealed the objectives and priorities different stakeholders have when promoting crops to be grown. They acknowledged that in practice it is not easy to decide on what crop to focus on and even the investments to make in terms of research, policy effort and support. They further realized that if an agriculture and food system is to meet different objectives by different stakeholders a lot of trade-offs have to be minimized. It would also require stakeholders working together to make decision together. This is unlike the current situation where stakeholder works in silos and planning for agriculture and food systems does not pay attention to the objectives of other stakeholders.

2021-07-14 16:30:41205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29399/30

07322310303306180223141021264020000000050000802050358

1. Los principios se presentaron en la introducción al diálogo, explicando el propósito de cada uno de ellos. 2. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores convocó a un proceso de diálogo de saberes e intercientífico, plural, abierto, buscando una amplia participación que incluya a mujeres, jóvenes, pequeños productores, empresas, área urbana y rural, y pueblos indígenas originario campesinos. De este diálogo han participado organizaciones indígenas, productores ecológicos, academia, gobierno nacional, gobiernos departamentales y municipales, cooperación al desarrollo, asociaciones de productores privados, colectivos ciudadanos, adoptando un enfoque inclusivo de diferentes grupos de interés. 4. Se ha aplicado la metodología de trabajo propuesta en los manuales elaborados para la Cumbre que, fue implementada con apoyo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, en su calidad de convocante; los ministerios de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras, de Desarrollo Productivo y Economía Plural, y de Medio Ambiente y Agua. También se contó con el apoyo de la Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra; la Organización de Naciones Unidas en Bolivia (ONU Bolivia) y sus agencias; el Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe (FILAC) y, de un conjunto de expertas y expertos en sistemas alimentarios.5. La metodología ha hecho énfasis en el respeto entre los participantes, el reconocimiento de la complejidad, el enfoque inclusivo como tema transversal a todas las vías de acción y la búsqueda de complementariedades entre los diferentes actores. 6. Mediante un equipo de más de 40 personas, entre personal de entidades públicas, personal de la FILAC y personal y voluntarios del SNU, se organizó, facilitó, moderó y sistematizó el taller, buscando crear un clima de confianza que propicie el diálogo respetuoso y permita a todas y todos los participantes tomar la palabra y compartir sus ideas.El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia asumió los compromisos de la Cumbre, reconociendo la complejidad del tema e impulsando a todos los actores convocados al diálogo, a actuar con urgencia. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. Se buscó encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y confianza. El diálogo tuvo como objetivos: • Generar visiones compartidas y complementarias de la región. • Recoger insumos de los distintos sectores de la sociedad boliviana en el área académica y de investigación. • Iniciar un proceso de generación de alianzas público – privadas y comunitarias, que se consoliden y continúen trabajando más allá de la Cumbre, para alcanzar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles.Ninguno.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DIÁLOGOS NACIONALES RUMBO A LA CUMBRE SOBRE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS DIÁLOGO NACIONAL: ACADEMIA E INSTITUCIONES DE INVESTIGACIÓN Representantes de las diferentes facultades y carreras relacionadas a los sistemas alimentarios de las instituciones académicas superiores y de centros de investigación de los nueve departamentos del país, se reunieron para dialogar respecto a los sistemas alimentarios. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan a todo el entramado de actores y actividades interconectadas que conciernen a la alimentación de la población: es decir, producción, recolección, transformación, empaquetado, distribución, venta, almacenamiento, comercialización, consumo y eliminación. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan los recursos naturales, el medio ambiente, la economía, las preferencias de las personas, la cultura, los conocimientos científicos y tradicionales, incluidos los de los pueblos indígenas, las políticas, el comercio, la tecnología, el transporte y otros. Por lo tanto, mejorar los sistemas alimentarios permite avanzar hacia un mundo sin hambre, con mejor nutrición y salud, protección y resiliencia de los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad, y personas resilientes y empoderadas. El parágrafo II. del Artículo 6 de la Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia señala que: “El Estado tienen la obligación de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria, a través de una alimentación sana, adecuada y suficiente para toda la población”, en ese sentido, se han promulgado diversas leyes con relación a los sistemas alimentarios para lograr su sostenibilidad. Bolivia cuenta con 2.5 millones de personas ligadas a las Unidades Productivas Agrícolas (CNA, 2013). En el país existen sistemas productivos de agricultura familiar y comunitaria (indígena originario campesino, comunidades interculturales y pueblos afrobolivianos), convencional y agroindustrial. Territorialmente, la mayoría de las unidades productivas se encuentra en la región interandina del país (con diversas condiciones de altura, suelo y acceso al agua). Los sistemas productivos cuentan con gran tradición y riqueza socio-cultural. En Bolivia el 76% de las semillas utilizadas son criollas o nativas. Debido a la homogeneización de los hábitos alimentarios en Bolivia, la alimentación tiende a bajar su calidad. En este diálogo se buscó analizar los problemas expuestos aprovechando las potencialidades país, buscando soluciones desde diferentes perspectivas, con miras a construir sistemas alimentarios sostenibles al año 2030.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El proceso de diálogo se inició el mes de mayo y continuará hasta el mes de julio de 2021 con el objetivo de elaborar participativamente la posición del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia sobre Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en la perspectiva de complementar y enriquecer sus políticas internas y presentar su posición ante la Cumbre Mundial. La metodología se basó en la propuesta descrita en los manuales de la cumbre, aunque se adaptó a la realidad del país con base en dos diálogos iniciales: uno con entidades públicas relacionadas a la temática y con agencias del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y; otro con expertas y expertos que participan en los sistemas alimentarios del país. El propósito de estos talleres preliminares fue recoger y validar las prioridades inicialmente identificadas a través de publicaciones e investigaciones, políticas públicas (leyes y decretos), declaraciones y otros, considerando las 5 vías de acción propuestas por la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios en apoyo a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. En ese sentido el proceso de diálogos en el país contempla un Diálogo Intersectorial y Multidisciplinario; un Dialogo de Expertas y Expertos (FASE 1), tres Diálogos Regionales en Altiplano, Valles y Llanos; un Diálogo con la Academia; un Diálogo con naciones y pueblos indígenas, un Diálogo con el sector industrial (FASE 2) y un Gran Diálogo Nacional (FASE 3), cuyo desarrollo se basa esencialmente en el método propuesto en el Manual de Referencia para los Convocantes de los Estados Miembros. En esta oportunidad, el de Academia e Instituciones de Investigación contó con la participación de representantes de universidades indígenas productivas, universidades públicas, universidades privadas, centros e institutos de investigación relacionados a los sistemas alimentarios. Luego de una sesión inaugural e introductoria, los asistentes fueron divididos en 5 grupos diversos y multidisciplinarios para debatir sobre cada una de las 5 vías de acción con base en preguntas orientadoras. Cada grupo contó con un facilitador, un sistematizador y un relator. En una sesión plenaria los relatores presentaron las principales conclusiones a las que había llegado el grupo. Los principales hallazgos y conclusiones a las que se llegaron convergen en torno a los siguientes puntos: • Se hizo énfasis en lograr la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel sub-nacional,, incorporando el enfoque de género y las visiones de los pueblos indígenas originarios y campesinos. • Promover la creación de redes y observatorios para el monitoreo de los sistemas alimentarios, con base en los ya existentes, como el observatorio de seguridad alimentaria. • Llevar a cabo acciones inmediatas para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia causada por covid-19 en los sistemas alimentarios. • Se describieron los lineamientos para fortalecer el enfoque hacia los Sistemas Alimentarios del Vivir Bien y el Saber Alimentarse para Vivir Bien, en el marco de nuestras leyes y plan nacional de desarrollo. • Las conclusiones específicas de cada grupo de trabajo se encuentran descritas en la siguiente sección.236238243246248249250251Vía de Acción Nº1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 1) El acceso a los alimentos sanos y nutritivos está cambiando, los productos tienen conservantes para hacer su tiempo de vida más amplio, lo que da lugar a que sean menos saludables. También hay un cambio en los hábitos también. 2) Adicionalmente, debemos pensar en la soberanía alimentaria de forma integral; ren el rol de las empresas estratégicas para el rescate de los conocimientos ancestrales; recuperar el conocimiento ancestral y tradicional para afrontar cambios y basándose en la concepción de sistemas de vida 3) Se debe restituir el concepto de “bien alimentario” usando por ejemplo “mercados comunitarios”. Se requiere impulsar la revalorización de productos que en el pasado jugaron un papel muy importante en la dieta de los pueblos indígenas; fomentar mayor conciencia de los y las ciudadanas en la importancia de una alimentación sana y nutritiva, y reducir la importación de productos. 4) Fortalecer los sistemas productivos de escala familiar y trabajar de manera rigurosa el sistema de producción de tipo extensivo. 5) Se requiere prestar atención al valor nutritivo y a la caracterización de los alimentos, visibilizando sus cualidades nutritivas y la forma de producción. Procesos como la certificación y denominación de origen y la implementación de un sistema de trazabilidad, pueden ser importantes para Bolivia. 6) Debemos reducir enfoques patriarcales en materia de generación y gestión de conocimientos, mirando a las mujeres como portadoras de conocimientos, saberes y tradiciones.236239243245246248250Vía de Acción Nº2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible. 1) Generar reservas de alimentos, fomentar patrones de consumo sostenible de productos locales agroecológicos, implementar bancos de semillas y, prestar atención a todos los actores de la cadena, incluyendo los intermediarios. 2) Desarrollar un modelo de educación formal e informal que fomente los conocimientos, la concientización y la sensibilización de los y las consumidoras respecto al origen y propiedades de los alimentos y de las unidades productivas, que fomente la economía circular y el consumo consciente. A estas últimas acciones, se las debería respaldar, mediante la capacitación y dotación de tecnología para lograr una producción agroecológica, competitiva, rentable y eficiente. 3) Generar consciencia acerca las propiedades nutricionales de los productos naturales y de la alimentación sana como un derecho humano. 4) Se debería generar un Plan Nacional de Fomento a la Producción y onsumo de Productos Agroecológicos, ; generar consciencia acerca de las consecuencias que el cambio climático tiene en la producción y cómo se puede abordar este problema. 5) Generar espacios de organización y coordinación para realizar un diagnóstico que establezca los niveles de productividad y las capacidades existentes, y que identifique espacios de sinergia, diálogo e intercambio entre universidades, instituciones públicas y privadas, con las unidades productivas, utilizando los resultados de las investigaciones existentes.236240243245246247249250Vía de Acción Nº3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. 1) Un mecanismo importante para poner en marcha los sistemas alimentarios sustentables es el reconocimiento, fomento y revalorización, desde la política pública, de los sistemas alimentarios tradicionales y biodiversos, en el marco de la seguridad y la soberanía alimentarias. 2) Utilizar mecanismos complementarios como el apoyo financiero y la certificación; garantizar el acceso a mercados con precios justos; promover alianzas estratégicas entre el Estado, la academia, los productores primarios y el sector de transformación. 3) A partir del reconocimiento de la pluralidad de las economías existentes en el país, brindar apoyo a la economía familiar campesina, darle incentivos tecnológicos, productivos y económicos para reactivar el campo, y fortalecer la economía social comunitaria a través de la generación de circuitos cortos de producción y consumo , dando atención a la vulnerabilidad climática y otras amenazas, 4) Se deben fortalecer a las autonomías indígena originario campesinas, la seguridad sobre la tierra y el territorio, y apoyar a la agroecología y otros enfoques alternativos. 5) Una forma para promover trabajo digno en condiciones de igualdad es apoyar al sector campesino para revalorizar la agricultura campesina, garantizar el mercado a la agricultura biodiversa con precios justos, desarrollar estrategias de fomento a la producción agrícola, la conservación de los recursos naturales y oras áreas relacionadas, a fin de que los jóvenes retornen a sus comunidades.236241243245246248249250251Vía de Acción Nº4: Promover medios de vida equitativos. 1) La pandemia ha mejorado el acceso y funcionamiento de los mercados de proximidad (zonales, canastas agroalimenarias, micromercados) 2) Las redes alimentarias deben brindar más información nutricional y el sistema educativo debe valorizar y promocionar los alimentos desde sus propiedades alimenticias. 3) Se deben implementar sistemas de información y sistemas productivos que permitan valorar los productos ecológicos, permitan una mayor diversificación productiva y el cambio de los patrones de consumo a través de incentivos. 4) Se debe promover el acceso de la mujer a la tierra y otros recursos productivos. Es importante desarrollar políticas y mecanismos de fiscalización que velen por el acceso de las mujeres a la tierra, agua y otros recursos productivos. 5) Se debe trabajar desde el Estado para generar normas más fuertes que regulen el funcionamiento de las empresas trasnacionales y los costos sociales, ambientales y, climáticos que generan. mediante la creación de tasas que financien el apoyo a la agricultura sostenible . 6) La cooperación internacional debe alinearse a las políticas de desarrollo del Estado en materia de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, agricultura familiar, y ser parte de las redes de apoyo entre el Estado y las ONG.236242243246247248249250Vía de Acción Nº5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. 1) Interpelamos el concepto de sistemas alimentarios de la FAO, pues debemos generar un marco conceptual propio desde nuestra visión de país. 2) Debemos generar sinergias que nos permitan reproducirnos socialmente en armonía y justicia: entre instituciones que tienen el encargo social de generar conocimientos y el sector público, que debe difundir y poner en práctica estos conocimientos. 3) Debemos generar planes de seguridad y soberanía alimentaria ante las contingencias y crisis, que incluyan, por ejemplo: bancos de alimentos, stocks alimentarios y medidas estructurales de protección de nuestros productores y consumidores 4) Debemos luchar contra el contrabando, promoviendo el consumo de productos locales.237Los diálogos se desarrollaron en un ambiente de respeto y de diversidad de opiniones, los representantes asistentes asumieron visiones amplias y destacaron puntos en común para lograr consensos, por lo que no se presentaron áreas de divergencia y las conclusiones se adoptaron por consenso.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Posicion-Pais-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-V1.-Espanol.pdfhttps://cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4366http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/ru/c/1411494/https://www.cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4424http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/en/c/1414051/https://fb.watch/6uYnQJkwID/https://fb.watch/6uYpGa-yep/

2021-07-14 17:00:48205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29407/30

01231235033381020702581029181060000036000000080205758

1. Los principios se presentaron en la introducción al diálogo, explicando el propósito de cada uno de ellos. 2. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores convocó a un proceso de diálogo de saberes e intercientífico, plural, abierto, buscando una amplia participación que incluya a mujeres, jóvenes, pequeños productores, empresas, área urbana y rural, y pueblos indígenas originario campesinos. De este diálogo han participado organizaciones indígenas, productores ecológicos, academia, gobierno nacional, gobiernos departamentales y municipales, cooperación al desarrollo, asociaciones de productores privados, colectivos ciudadanos, adoptando un enfoque inclusivo de diferentes grupos de interés. 4. Se ha aplicado la metodología de trabajo propuesta en los manuales elaborados para la Cumbre que, fue implementada con apoyo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, en su calidad de convocante; los ministerios de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras, de Desarrollo Productivo y Economía Plural, y de Medio Ambiente y Agua. También se contó con el apoyo de la Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra; la Organización de Naciones Unidas en Bolivia (ONU Bolivia) y sus agencias; el Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe (FILAC) y, de un conjunto de expertas y expertos en sistemas alimentarios.5. La metodología ha hecho énfasis en el respeto entre los participantes, el reconocimiento de la complejidad, el enfoque inclusivo como tema transversal a todas las vías de acción y la búsqueda de complementariedades entre los diferentes actores. 6. Mediante un equipo de más de 40 personas, entre personal de entidades públicas, personal de la FILAC y personal y voluntarios del SNU, se organizó, facilitó, moderó y sistematizó el taller, buscando crear un clima de confianza que propicie el diálogo respetuoso y permita a todas y todos los participantes tomar la palabra y compartir sus ideas.El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia asumió los compromisos de la Cumbre, reconociendo la complejidad del tema e impulsando a todos los actores convocados al diálogo, a actuar con urgencia. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. Se buscó encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y confianza. El diálogo tuvo como objetivos: • Generar visiones compartidas y complementarias de la región. • Recoger insumos de las naciones y pueblos indígenas originarios campesinos. • Iniciar un proceso de generación de alianzas público – privadas y comunitarias, que se consoliden y continúen trabajando después de la Cumbre, para alcanzar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles.Ninguno.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DIÁLOGOS NACIONALES RUMBO A LA CUMBRE SOBRE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS DIÁLOGO DE LAS NACIONES Y PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS DE BOLIVIA Representantes de las 36 naciones y pueblos indígenas originarios campesinos que conforman el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia se reunieron para dialogar respecto a los sistemas alimentarios en el país y cómo estos se relacionan con sus costumbres, saberes y tradiciones. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan a todo el entramado de actores y actividades interconectadas que conciernen a la alimentación de la población: es decir, producción, recolección, transformación, empaquetado, distribución, venta, almacenamiento, comercialización, consumo y eliminación. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan los recursos naturales, el medio ambiente, la economía, las preferencias de las personas, la cultura, los conocimientos científicos y tradicionales, incluidos los de los pueblos indígenas, las políticas, el comercio, la tecnología, el transporte y otros. Por lo tanto, mejorar los sistemas alimentarios permite avanzar hacia un mundo sin hambre, con mejor nutrición y salud, protección y resiliencia de los ecosistemas, la biodiversidad y personas resilientes y empoderadas. El parágrafo II. del Artículo 6 de la Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia señala que: “El Estado tienen la obligación de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria, a través de una alimentación sana, adecuada y suficiente para toda la población”, en ese sentido, se han promulgado diversas leyes con relación a los sistemas alimentarios para lograr su sostenibilidad. Bolivia cuenta con 2.5 millones de personas ligadas a las Unidades Productivas Agrícolas (CNA, 2013). En el país existen sistemas productivos de agricultura familiar y comunitaria (indígena originario campesino, comunidades interculturales y pueblos afrobolivianos), convencional y agroindustrial. Territorialmente, la mayoría de las unidades productivas se encuentra en la región interandina del país (con diversas condiciones de altura, suelo y acceso al agua). Los sistemas productivos cuentan con gran tradición y riqueza socio-cultural. Además, El 76% de las semillas utilizadas activamente en Bolivia son criollas o nativas. Los sistemas productivos cuentan con gran tradición y riqueza socio-cultural. En Bolivia el 76% de las semillas utilizadas son criollas o nativas. Debido a la homogeneización de los hábitos alimentarios en Bolivia, la alimentación tiende a bajar su calidad. En este diálogo se buscó analizar los problemas expuestos aprovechando las potencialidades país, buscando soluciones desde diferentes perspectivas, con miras a construir sistemas alimentarios sostenibles al año 2030.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El proceso de diálogo se inició el mes de mayo y continuará hasta el mes de julio de 2021 con el objetivo de elaborar participativamente la posición del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia sobre Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en la perspectiva de complementar y enriquecer sus políticas internas y presentar su posición ante la Cumbre Mundial. La metodología se basó en la propuesta descrita de los manuales de la Cumbre, aunque se adaptó a la realidad del país con base en dos diálogos iniciales: uno con entidades públicas relacionadas a la temática y con agencias del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y; otro con expertas y expertos que participan en los sistemas alimentarios del país. El propósito de estos talleres preliminares fue recoger y validar las prioridades inicialmente identificadas a través de publicaciones e investigaciones, políticas públicas (leyes y decretos), declaraciones y otros, considerando las 5 vías de acción propuestas por la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios en apoyo a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. En ese sentido el proceso de diálogos en el país contempla un Diálogo Intersectorial y Multidisciplinario; un Dialogo de Expertas y Expertos (FASE 1), tres Diálogos Regionales en Altiplano, Valles y Llanos; un Diálogo con la Academia; un Diálogo con naciones y pueblos indígenas, un Diálogo con el sector industrial (FASE 2) y un Gran Diálogo Nacional (FASE 3), cuyo desarrollo se basa esencialmente en el método propuesto en el Manual de Referencia para los Convocantes de los Estados Miembros. En esta oportunidad, el Diálogo de las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas de Bolivia contó con la participación de representantes de las 36 naciones y pueblos indígenas originarios campesinos que conforman el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. Luego de una sesión inaugural e introductoria, los asistentes fueron divididos en 5 grupos diversos y multidisciplinarios para debatir sobre cada una de las 5 vías de acción con base en preguntas orientadoras. Cada grupo contó con un facilitador, un sistematizador y un relator. En una sesión plenaria los relatores presentaron las principales conclusiones a las que había llegado el grupo. Los principales hallazgos y conclusiones a las que se llegaron convergen en torno a los siguientes puntos: • Se hizo énfasis en lograr la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel sub-nacional incorporando el enfoque de género y las visiones de los pueblos indígenas originarios y campesinos. • Promover la valorización de la medicina tradicional y de los productos orgánicos y ecológicos • Llevar a cabo acciones inmediatas para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia causada por covid-19 en los sistemas alimentarios • Establecer mejores mecanismos de transporte y comunicación entre consumidores y productores. • Finalmente, sSe describieron lineamientos para fortalecer el enfoque hacia los Sistemas Alimentarios del Vivir Bien y el Saber Alimentarse para Vivir Bien que se encuentra en el marco normativo del país y en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo. Las conclusiones específicas de cada grupo de trabajo se encuentran descritas en la siguiente sección.236238243246248249250251Vía de Acción Nº1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 1) La educación es lo más importante, se debe fomentar en las escuelas la revalorización de los alimentos tradicionales. 2) Fomentar la economía y producción familiar como los huertos familiares, los trueques, las semillas naturales etc. 3) Los pueblos indígenas deben realizar una planificación territorial para cuidar la gestión de su tierra, preservar el aire y el agua pura la producción de alimentos naturales evitando que el desmonte, y la agricultura industrial avancen dentro de sus comunidades. 4) En los pueblos indígenas se debe promover micro y pequeñas empresas, y ferias, y espacios de venta de productos naturales. La cooperación internacional podría potenciar las microempresas de los pueblos indígenas.236239243245248249250Vía de Acción Nº2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible. 1) Debemos reconocer y revalorizar los procesos de producción y consumo de los Pueblos Indígena Originarios, cuyos alimentos son obtenidos de forma natural, orgánica y ecológica, sin ningún tipo de aditivo ni químico, lo cual ha fortalecido el sistema inmunológico del pueblo frente a la pandemia. 2) La pandemia ha afectado a los pueblos indígena originarios campesinos, aislándolos y dejándolos en una situación de extrema vulnerabilidad. Por otro lado, el cambio climático también está afectando y reduciendo el acceso a alimentos, como las frutas del monte, elemento básico en la dieta de su población. Además, las grandes empresas explotan los recursos naturales en su, perturbando sus formas de vida y a su subsistencia. 3) El Gobierno, tanto central, departamental y municipal, debe impulsar una norma para proteger a los pueblos indígenas y sus territorios de esta explotación; proporciona recursos y acceso a los servicios básicos; apoyar para que aumenten su capacidad de producción, y capacitarlos sobre cómo aprovechar sus recursos de forma sostenible y productiva. 4) La cooperación debe apoyar estos esfuerzos, con proyectos que le den un sentido a los planes de manejo forestal y sensibilizar e informar sobre los efectos positivos de una buena alimentación, de forma que la población de las ciudades conozca los beneficios de comprar los alimentos ancestrales de los pueblos indígenas.236240243245246247249Vía de Acción Nº3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. 1) Para poner en marcha sistemas alimentarios más sostenibles, es necesario que las familias campesinas y pueblos indígenas reciban apoyo, reconociendo que su producción es diversa, natural, y sana. Se necesita apoyo técnico proporcionado por el gobierno para que, en conjunto con la sabiduría indígena, se mejore la producción y distribución de alimentos. 2) Se requiere fomentar empresas comunitarias según las vocaciones productivas de los municipios para favorecer a la diversificación, generar autoabastecimiento y excedentes. 3) Para promover las oportunidades de trabajo digno, se necesita concientizar a la juventud. Desde los diferentes niveles de gobierno (nacional, departamental y municipal) se necesita que se definan metas claras, aumentar los presupuestos destinados a atender las necesidades de los jóvenes; promover los precios justos y mejorar los caminos. 4) La medicina tradicional nos ha ayudado mucho en el COVID. Por eso necesitamos recuperar la sabiduría de los abuelos. Las autoridades deben dar más apoyo a la investigación del uso de plantas medicinales.236241243245246248249250251Vía de Acción Nº4: Promover medios de vida equitativos. 1) La pandemia ha tenido varios efectos. Entre los principales está que: a) ha muerto mucha gente y b) ha habido escasez de alimentos. Pero también ha promovido el uso de la medicina tradicional, la producción y siembra de alimentos tradicionales, recuperado las prácticas tradicionales. Se propone que de ahora en adelante se desarrollen programas que promuevan la revalorización y difusión de estos saberes. 2) Por otro lado, se propone que se busquen mecanismos que promuevan la revalorización de alimentos tradicionales y que se conozca el valor nutricional de los productos. Se considera importante la transformación local de productos y el apoyo a pequeños los productores. Para ello, el rol de los diferentes niveles de gobierno y de la cooperación internacional, son muy importantes. 3) También se destaca el uso desequilibrado de la tierra. Los pueblos indígenas tienen restricciones para el desmonte de determinadas superficies de tierra, o para la pesca y la caza en determinadas épocas del año, con la excusa de proteger el medio ambiente; sin embargo, las empresas mineras explotan los ríos y los grandes terratenientes pueden chaquear y plantear en la superficie que quieran.236242243246247248249250Vía de Acción Nº5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. 1) Los pueblos indígenas originarios del oriente queremos ser: sujeto, no objeto, en la construcción de sistemas alimentarios con justicia social y económica. 2) Los pueblos indígenas, han sobrevivido y siguen sobreviviendo a partir de sus familias y comunidades: organizándose, construyendo estrategias (como el uso de plantas medicinales, el cierre de fronteras, el cuidado de la alimentación mediante una dieta diversa y tradicional con productos como la miel, la yuca, el matico, el limón de monte y otros productos del bosque). 3) La pandemia ha servido para reflexionar sobre lo fundamental de la alimentación y de la vida, que al igual que la cultura, sin lengua es nada; también la educación sin alimentación es nada. Nadie puede hablar de crisis sin haberla vivido, nadie puede hablar de hambre, sin haberla vivido, con esa autoridad decimos que la crisis también son negocio. 4) Los pueblos indígenas indican que todo lo que saben lo aprendido de los abuelos, padres y hermanos y que lo han practicado y adecuado para pasar las crisis, y lo seguirán haciendo. 5) Se precisan proyectos para mejorar la calidad de vida y para hacer ingresa los productos tradicionales al mercado, a precio justo.237Los diálogos se desarrollaron en un ambiente de respeto y de diversidad de opiniones, los representantes asistentes asumieron visiones amplias y destacaron puntos en común para lograr consensos, por lo que no se presentaron áreas de divergencia y las conclusiones se adoptaron por consenso.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Posicion-Pais-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-V1.-Espanol-1.pdfhttps://cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4366http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/ru/c/1411494/https://www.cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4429http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/en/c/1414361/https://fb.watch/v/OnpMEDgU/

2021-07-14 17:15:05205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26965/95

200200200

NoIn Japan National Food Systems Dialogue (co-hosted by JISNAS-FAO Monthly Joint Seminar) held on 28th May 2021, MAFF explained the current status of the preparation for FSS including the implementation of state dialogues and the direction of Japan’s commitment. Then, one of the Food Systems Summit’s scientific group members reported the recent discussion and actions of the group, followed by the panel session on the Japan’s role in transforming food systems and Q&A session.

234239240243244248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 2 and 3.235239240243244248249Japan National Food Systems Dialogue (co-hosted by JISNAS-FAO Monthly Joint Seminar) was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. The main remarks of the participants are as follows: - In Japan, food bank systems are gradually spreading and currently 140 food bank groups exist across the nation, however, they are still in the developing stages. In order for the people in poverty to access food, we should build distribution networks from the welfare point of view as well as the economic point of view. - It is important for Japan to rebuild rural areas through making agriculture a core industry in the area and to enhance the food supply capacity to establish an efficient and sustainable food systems. In addition, it is important that Japan will disseminate these experiences to the world and contribute to the transformation of global food systems. - In doing so, it is important to pay attention to independent activities in the field (systems suitable for small-scale family farming such as agricultural cooperatives, agricultural technologies, village farming, etc.). - Since tropical forests are major sources absorbing greenhouse gases, deforestation caused by production of agricultural commodities such as palm, cattle and soybean, should be more spotlighted. - Since food production is an activity that takes place within the ecosystem, it is important to balance the production with the conservation of the ecosystem. In the case of the fishery sector, not only conservation of the target fish species but also conservation of the entire organisms that make up the ecosystem are essential for sustainable production. Therefore, further research is necessary for the conservation of fishery resources. - The distribution / reproduction / migration of fish and shellfish is affected by climate change on various time scales, but in recent years the effects of global warming have become apparent. There is an urgent need to understand the actual situation of global warming and formulate adaptation measures. - When utilizing marine products as renewable resources, it is important to recover the amount of resources and maintain / manage them. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out the resource management based on scientific resource assessment and to conduct international monitoring of fishery activities. - The importance of family fishing as an activity rooted in the local climate is being re-evaluated. - When considering ‘local production for local consumption’, it is necessary to build a system that can respond quickly and flexibly to crisis such as the COVID19 pandemic, with not just geographical relationships but also with all stakeholders involved in the food systems. It is also important to have multiple channels and not to rely on one channel. - In transforming food systems, it is important to raise awareness not only of producers but also of consumers. Each consumer should work on solving problems. - Not as one individual or one company, young people should be involved in and work on transforming food systems as a whole industry. 　 - It is difficult to solve the issues of food systems simply by digging deep into each component of production / distribution / disposal as we have done before. Universities are expected to promote cross-sectorial / interdisciplinary research and education. - Science is good at breaking down certain events into elements and clarifying causal relationships, but it is not good at taking a bird's-eye view of the whole. Many cross-sectoral efforts have been made so far, but the mission of agricultural research is to grasp the entire food systems and how to connect it to social implementation. - It is necessary to consider food / environmental issues not only in our own country but also in other countries / regions.

2021-07-14 22:26:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13779/41203194

Yes

234238Food safety capacity building235238243Multiple sectors should work together - through a public private partnership - to improve food safety capacity building.

2021-07-14 23:13:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24022/79

122152201721236111420201561411

La Plataforma Biofort, como convocante del Diálogo Independiente, seleccionó cuidadosamente a los facilitadores de su comité de coordinador. Los principios fueron transmitidos a través de comunicaciones informativas escritas tras la aceptación del rol y posteriormente reforzados con reuniones bilaterales de los principios y las dinámicas correspondientes.El diálogo fue único gracias a su representación multisectorial en la audiencia principalmente guatemalteca, así como en la posibilidad de incorporar a sectores como la academia, y nutrición a la discusión sobre biofortificación. Aunque son temas teóricamente interconectados, en la práctica, es difícil unificarlos en una discusión a nivel de polítca. El desarrollo agrícola y la nutrición necesitan más comunicación, y este fue un espacio propicio para hacerlo. Además, los facilitadores animaron a los asistentes a expresar sus opiniones, pensamientos y dudas al respecto.

Yes

234238241246249El enfoque principal del diálogo fue el Eje Acción 1, específicamente enfocado en lograrlo a través de cultivos biofortificados en Guatemala para reducir el hambre oculta. Los temas que los grupos de discusión se enfocaron en cómo escalar esta solución (masticación de semillas): inclusión de cultivos biofortificados para poblaciones vulnerables; intervenciones adaptadas culturalmente; alianzas público-privadas con empresas semilleras; cultivos biofortificados en programas gubernamentales.2352382412452462491) la necesidad de crear redes de agricultores que produzcan cultivos biofortificados que abastezcan las compras del gobierno para programas sociales. 2) Incentivos económicos del sector público para activar a los agricultores que producen cultivos biofortificados. 3) La necesidad de campañas de comunicación que promuevan la adopción de cultivos biofortificados. 4) Incentivo económico a las empresas productoras de semillas para compensar el alto costo de la I&D. 5) Fortalecimiento del Instituto de Ciencia Tecnología Agrícolas - ICTA.236238242246249Un acceso inclusivo a los cultivos biofortificados: I. Considerar la oportunidad que se tiene con el Programa Nacional de Alimentación Escolar, hay un nicho cautivo, en donde los productores tienen la oportunidad de vender sus productos agrícolas, por lo que los biofortificados pueden posicionarse en este mercado el cual ya tiene un presupuesto disponible. II. Que se generen y existan las variedades y/o híbridos biofortificados para las distintas condiciones climáticas que tiene Guatemala en maíz, frijol, papa, yuca, camote, entre otros. III. Que exista la promoción de las bondades de los biofortificados a los productores agrícolas pequeños y medianos, pero también a los consumidores. IV. Que exista el material didáctico para la producción de biofortificados para poder entregarlo a los productores agrícolas. Que la difusión y promoción de estos cultivos pueda ser de productor a productor. - Cómo medir el avance de las acciones: Tableros de control Estrategia masiva de comunicación sobre las bondades de los biofortificados Días de promoción de los biofortificados Reservas de alimentos y semillas mejoradas - Retos o desafíos: Semillas disponibles pero con ciertas características que permitan a los productores adoptarlas, pensando en rendimiento, manejo poscosecha. Políticas que impulsen el uso de los biofortificados Reconocimiento del MAGA de los productores, de los consumidores sobre las ventajas del uso de los biofortificados.236238239241249Cultivos biofortificados compatibles con la cultura: I. Es importante que haya una vinculación entre sectores -- agrícola, educación, salud II. Para la diseminación de conocimiento e información sobre los biofortificados III. La compatibilidad cultural se puede hacer de agricultor agricultor IV. Públicos y privados crean mercados para el grano biofortificado -- hay que crear infraestructura por ejemplo silos para guardarlo V. Probablemente gastaron más creando las semillas que va a costar para fomentar la adopción VI. Desnutrición crónica no se erradica con alimentos pero con una política, INCAP ha estudió el ciclo vicioso -- relación entre ingresos, calidad de vida, y nutrición. VII. Los alimentos básicos puede ser punto partida de cambiar el sistema: es importante que haya una vinculación entre sectores -- agrícola, educación, salud VIII. Para la diseminación de conocimiento e información sobre los biofortificados IX. Es importante que todos tengan el mismo mensajes X. La unificación de mensajes, campañas de información, y de sectores XI. Si van a producir el maíz, hay que asegurar que hay mercado para el producto; los biofortificados son un factor importante pero no sera la solución, hay que darle un justo valor.236238241243245249Alianzas público-privadas con el sector semillerista: - Vías factibles para escalar el uso de semillas biofortificadas para reducir las brechas nutricionales: I. El uso de semilla biofortificada puede ser facilitado con precios preferibles con algún tipo de subsidio para intermediarios--vender semilla alternativa. Podría ser casi regalar semilla a agricultores de muy escasos recursos. No sería muy diferente que El Salvador. II. Es factible en escala limitada el fomento semilla biofortificada por programas institucionales que dan preferencia a compra de grano biofortificado. El mercado es más seguro y rentable. III. Se debe fomentar la demanda. Muchos consumidores y madres/padres de familia podrían preferir la semilla. IV. Todo de esas alternativas son para uso de corto plazo para hacer algo mientras hagamos el fitomejoramiento (4x de producir germoplasma).236238239243245249Los bioforificados dentro de los programas sociales públicos actuales – política púbica de éxito: I. ¿Qué tipo de alianzas son necesarias para la inversión y compra pública de alimentos biofortificados? Tiene que ser una alianza pública privada donde participan todos los sectores. Es importante tener el acompañamiento de varios actores (ej. educación), con metas muy claras que aseguren que el beneficiario final recibe el beneficio nutricional. Si ponemos al centro el Ministerio de Agricultura... la nutrición es multicausal, a quienes más tenemos que involucrar? Hay que poner al niño en el centro. Con el programa de acompañame a crecer, podemos usar la estructura para no sólo entregarles la semilla, sino también toda la información y acompañamiento necesario. Las instituciones académicas deberían de acompañar y verificar. El sector privado tiene que empoderar a la gente. El sector público está viendo la parte de rendimiento pero no tanto la parte de la biofortificación. Tiene que ver mucho el empoderamiento. El tema de educar para generar conciencia, lo cual puede despertar la demanda, romper los paradigmas sobre los transgénicos. A nivel comunitario, explicar estos conceptos. Hay desconocimiento sobre la biofortificación - hay que aclarar que no son transgénicos. Explicar estos conceptos para que las familias puedan tomar las mejores decisiones. Para que las familias vean los beneficios: hacer alianzas con los programas de nutrición es importante también. II. ¿Cómo generamos la demanda e integración de la cadena de abastecimientos que involucre a los biofortificados? A través de programas de pequeños empresarios para que ellos mismos sean los agentes de promoción, un mecanismo diferente para generar demanda. Desde la comunidad promover los biofortificados. La creación de una política pública. A través de los medios de comunicación y comisiones comunitarias, pueden promover los biofortificados. III. ¿Cómo hacemos llegar tecnología a pequeños agricultores de infrasubsistencia, subsistencia y excedentarios? Los retos con agricultores de infrasubsistencia son grandes. Mejor enfocar en los agricultores de subsistencia, este grupo intermedio tiene recursos limitados - así podemos usar menor recurso para lograr mayor impacto. A través de ONGs ya en las comunidades (ej. facilitadores en el campo de World Vision) podemos hacer llegar esta tecnología. No solo tenemos que depender de los mecanismos de extensionismo del gobierno, podemos emplear el personal de las ONGs ya en el campo.

2021-07-15 00:48:20205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10252/39

1711515123264233362

The dialogue comprised of two small group discussions in two communes in Kampong Thom province, convened by HE Sok Silo, National Food Systems Convenor, in collaboration with the GIZ Multi-Sectoral Food Security and Nutrition (MUSEFO) project. Both communes participate in the MUSEFO project and therefore, participant invitations were based on already existing trust relationships and the topic of shaping local food systems was complementing MUSEFO’s work. Because of the COVID-19 situation, all Stage 2 dialogues are conducted online. Therefore, it was in an act of urgency to include subnational voices into the Stage 2 dialogue process by carrying out physical small group discussions at commune level in a safe way to prevent COVID-19 infections (e.g. open space, social distancing, temperature check, mask wearing and use of hand sanitizer). The participants were purposefully invited, acknowledging the complexity of local food system challenges, and including perspectives from different local stakeholders, such as local authorities, mothers, health staff and workers, farmers, local vendors and teachers. Facilitators were trained to establish an atmosphere during the group discussions where all stakeholders were respectful to each other and hierarchical procedures respecting social norms were followed.Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The focus of the event was to include the voices of a variety of local stakeholders. The dialogue embraced the local knowledge and the viewpoints of local stakeholders who are an embedded part of local food systems. To include these local insights is central in supporting the national dialogue process towards the vision and roadmap for “Strengthening food systems for sustainable development in Cambodia.”Because of the COVID-19 crisis, many countries have shifted their national dialogues to be conducted online. While this ensures the continuation of this urgent dialogue process, the digital divide poses an additional barrier for inclusivity as many villagers or commune representatives lack the equipment, knowledge and connectivity to part-take in online discussions. Even though these local dialogues are carried out in much lower numbers and with less participants, they are essential in confirming the points raised during the high-level stakeholders’ discussions. These local dialogues empower local people’s voices to underpin the national policy environment or even identify gaps based on the locally experienced real-life challenges and solutions.

Yes

234238241242244246The dialogue aimed to engage different stakeholders from communes to share their views and experiences regarding local food systems. Options for sustainable local food systems were explored and solutions were identified to counteract experienced challenges within the local food systems. Different factors that shape local food systems were discussed such as environmental, infrastructure and technology, food governance, socio-economic and demographic factors.235238241242244245248Local food systems are fundamental to livelihoods, economic development, and availability of and access to healthy and safe food. In Cambodia, chronic undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies remain critical, revealing that local food systems may not deliver to their full potential. The in-depth dialogue highlighted that local food systems face multiple challenges. First, local production of nutritious and safe food is low. Second, producers have challenges to access lucrative markets and to link with distributers. Third, high rural indebtedness, low employment opportunities result in job migration and in a demographic shift towards an older population living in rural areas. Fourth, environmental and climate concerns affecting food production but also community health. Solutions produced during the discussions encompassed capacity development, access to ICT and digitization. Further, investment in food processing and organization of producer groups was proposed to counteract some of the local food systems’ challenges. Local people have an in-depth knowledge of the aspects that shape local food systems, not only in terms of identifying challenges but also to propose local solutions. It is of utmost important to include local experiences of daily lived realities in shaping the vision and roadmap for sustainable food systems in Cambodia.2362382412422442452482511. Food production and market access Local production of nutritious food, such as vegetables, fruits and meat, is low. Especially, small family farms are not able to produce enough nutritious foods to supply the local markets. Communes rely on food imports for nutritious food. The usage of pesticides and fertilizers is high and not controlled, making consumers concerned about food safety when buying at local markets or vendors. Local producers face difficult access to markets and price volatility (prices drop) during harvest season and have difficulties to adjust to the seasonal market dynamics. Proposed actions: - Promote household production of nutritious food for own consumption - The organization of farmers in producer groups or the development of large-scale farms for nutritious food production to increase nutritious food supply - Establishment of a commune market that can buy from local producers - Diversification of food production to mitigate seasonal price volatility - Encourage and build skills for the use of modern technology for agricultural production to increase yield and enable constant market supply - Capacity building of local plant and animal food producers for food safety - Use digital platforms and strengthen digital skills to broker business and communication between producers and distributors. Social media, such as YouTube and Facebook can serve as possible broker platforms but also for local producers/processors to create demand for their products. 2. Environmental and climate concerns Communes experience decreased yields caused by climate change, natural disaster and degraded soil. Water is a major concern for food producers. During the dry season, rainwater is not sufficient and costs of buying water too high to enable successful and profitable production of nutritious food. During rainy season, flooding is the biggest challenge for food producers. Communes experience an increased amount of plastic waste, affecting soil and water quality. Proposed solutions: - Investment in irrigation systems - Commune waste management: Installation of garbage bins, collect waste, recycling - Commune administration to encourage people to use less plastic and to use plant-based packaging such as banana or lotus leaves 3. Socio-economic concerns Many households in communes rely on remittances and indebtedness is high. Because of low income earning opportunities, people, especially young, are migrating to earn an income elsewhere, leaving mainly elderly people behind. The job migration but also the unattractiveness of the sector to young people, leaves only a limited labour force available for the agricultural sector. Possible solutions - Investments in food processing businesses to increase employment opportunities for rural population especially the young - Investments in modernized agriculture and large-scale production (horticulture and animal husbandry) to create jobs237239240244246During the discussions, no areas of divergence emerged between the participants. The discussions about shaping local sustainable food systems emphasized the importance of food production of nutritious and safe food and promoting food processing businesses for a stable food supply and job creation. It may be due to the time constraints of the discussions that environmentally friendly production in the context of already perceived climate change and environmental concerns were not addressed. In addition, consideration about local governance, traditional food systems, consumer demand and preferences for healthy diets were not part of the discussion but are deemed crucial for shaping local food systems.

2021-07-15 02:46:42205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18522/39

7735321562153224171232211312121111237416

The dialogue was organized by the Convenor, HE Sok Silo, Director General of the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) and supported by GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit) and Hellen Keller International (HKI). In 2020, four Provincial Working Groups for Coordinating Food Security and Nutrition (PWG-FSN) in Ratanakiri, Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Thom and Kampot were officially acknowledged by CARD. The establishment of these multi-sectoral PWGs-FSN was support by GIZ (in Kampong Thom and Kampot) and HKI (in Ratanakiri and Kampong Chhnang). In a strong commitment to the World Food Systems Summit 2021, CARD, HKI and GIZ found it of utmost importance and urged that the perspectives of the members of these four PWGs-FSN are included in the national dialogue process. The members of the PWGs-FSN were purposefully invited to participate in the online event. The curator and facilitators of the event were trained by the global dialogue support team and as such ensured that the dialogue embraced the principles of being respectful to each other, to recognize and appreciate complexity and to build a trustful relationship between participants for a fruitful discussion.Build trust and complement the work of others: Because of COVID -19, it was the first time that the chairs and members of the four PWGs-FSN were connected to CARD via an online meeting. As such, this dialogue did not only contribute to the Food Systems Dialogue in Cambodia, but also enabled for the first time that the members of all four PWGs-FSN met each other and were able to share their experiences with each other. All PWGs-FSN could share their successful progress but also their challenges and lessons learned – which often were similar among the provinces. Therefore, this dialogue built relationships of trust among the members of the PWGs-FSN, but also provided a knowledge exchange platform which should be repeated on a regular base.Shifting to digital platforms at subnational level poses many challenges, such as limited equipment, knowledge and connectivity. There are concerns that these challenges will impact the overall success of the dialogue. Our experience shows that these challenges can be overcome with extra efforts in preparing stakeholders and ensuring patience and a positive atmosphere during the dialogue process. The extra effort to include subnational perspectives were invaluable not only for the Cambodia Food Systems dialogue but especially for the future operationalization and knowledge exchange of the PWGs-FSN, particularly in the process of nationwide up-scaling.

Yes

234243245246249251The Provincial Working Groups for Coordinating Food Security and Nutrition (PWGs-FSN) are an essential instrument for the sub-national implementation of the 2nd National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition (NSFSN) 2019-2023. Since 2020, four PWGs-FSN have been officially acknowledged by CARD and currently, efforts are taken to up-scale the PWGs-FSN to all provinces of Cambodia. The PWGs-FSN are in their early phase of operationalization and their lessons learned are invaluable not only to the focus on sustainable food systems for improving food security and nutrition but also to the nationwide up-scaling. The in-depth dialogue engaged members of the PWGs-FSN of four provinces to share their views and experiences regarding the potential of provincial multi-sectoral coordination towards sustainable food systems. Participants were encouraged to discuss the role of the PWGs-FSN in achieving sustainable food systems for Cambodia. Challenges for the provincial coordination and possible solutions to overcome these challenges were identified. The discussion focused on different tools or levers of change that can accelerate role of PWGs-FSN towards realizing sustainable food systems, such as governance, finance, data, culture, innovation and empowerment of women and youth.235238239240241242243244246In a plenary session, the Deputy Provincial Governors of Ratanakiri, Kampong Thom, Kampot and Kampong Chhnang, as Chairs of the PWGs-FSN, elaborated on their success stories as well as lessons learned during their less than one-your operational period. All PWGs-FSN set up their own actions plans and held regular coordination meetings. They were further involved in trainings or events by CARD related to the 2nd NSFSN 2021 and supported the commune council training for integrating food security and nutrition into the commune development and investment plans. COVID-19 imposed many barriers to their operations. Many of Cambodia’s indigenous communities live in Ratanakiri, therefore, the PWG-FSN places special emphasis on the improvement of food security and nutrition for indigenous communities. The dialogue highlighted the key-role of the PWGs-FSN for coordinated action for food security and nutrition as well as nutrition advocacy at subnational level. Because of its multi-sectoral membership, the PWGs-FSN are set up to apply a food systems approach. Areas of action identified were: creating better market access to farmers, increasing nutrition-sensitivity and food safety along local value chains; healthy consumer demands; infrastructure and irrigation systems; protecting natural resources and combating climate change; emergency preparedness and shock responsiveness. Good governance mechanisms and frameworks for the PWGs-FSN, capacity development as well as knowledge and information systems (incl. monitoring and evaluation) were deemed central to the effectiveness of the PWGs-FSN. The role of the private sector towards sustainable food systems was strongly acknowledged, but guidelines on how to involve the private sector into provincial coordination need to be developed. Advocacy for food systems for healthy nutrition needs strengthening to enable better integration of nutrition in subnational planning and investment processes. The potential role of PWGs-FSN in shock-responsiveness needs further investigation. The acknowledgement and preservation of indigenous people’s food systems needs to be an integrated part in the work of the PWGs-FSN – in provinces with indigenous ethnic groups.236238239240241242243245246249251TOPIC 1. The role of the PWGs-FSN for sustainable food systems The PWGs-FSN see their most important role in the coordination of different stakeholders at provincial and local levels, including provincial administration and department, district level administration, and civil society. Urgency was expressed to strengthen the involvement of the private sector into the mechanism of multi-stakeholder coordination. The coordination role also applies in connecting and supporting all stakeholders who produce, distribute and consume food – highlighting the potential role of PWGs-FSN in creating better market access to farmers, increasing nutrition-sensitivity and food safety along local value chains and the creation of healthy consumer demands. The importance of the investment in infrastructure, modern agricultural technology and irrigation systems as foundation for sustainable food systems was further iterated. The PWGs-FSN further emphasized their role in protecting natural resources, enhance soil quality and combating climate change. Emergency preparedness and shock responsiveness was named as potential role for the PWGs-FSN, such as social protection mechanisms that can respond to food shortages or better irrigation and infrastructure systems that can mitigate natural disasters. PWGs-FSN also see their role as advocates for sustainable food systems – this being of particular importance in advocating for nutrition investment from national to commune level. Coordination of data and information flow to identify priority areas for action and/or investment is also seen a potential role of the PWGs-FSN.

Addition of Opening Remarks by HE Sok Silo CARD2021-07-30 05:29:47https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Speech_on_PWG-FSN-on-1-June_2021.pdf

2021-07-15 05:40:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1355/69

50

The event was organized based on all the principles of engagement. We made sure that all stakeholders, organizations, and individuals within the Food Systems Production chain were invited. To complement our diverse South Pacific Island countries – we incorporated a French translation for our French-speaking participants.The dialogue reflected the urgency, respect, diversity, trust, and other principles. This manifested in the feedback we received during and after the dialogue, which was very positive, and a wish to continue the dialogues and implement the solutions.We would advise following the principles of engagements and the FSD method. We have realized it helps create a very positive and productive process.

Yes

234242243244245246248249250251The Pacific Climate-Smart Agriculture Alliance (PaCSAA), hosted by the Pacific Community in collaboration with the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) hosted a dialogue under the Independent Dialogues Food Systems Summit banner to provide a unique opportunity for PaCSAA stakeholders to dialogue on how the region can strike the balance between preserving vital ecosystem services and maintaining the stability of food supplies whilst fighting poverty, combating hunger and malnutrition, and preserving resilient ecosystems. The dialogue was aligned to Action Track 5: Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks, and Stress. The resilience of food systems needs to be strengthened in such a way that the economic, social, and environmental foundations to produce sufficient nutritious food and maintain healthy ecosystems for current and future generations are not compromised. It demands a comprehensive approach that integrates responses to climate, biodiversity loss, conflict, pandemics, economic crises, food insecurity, malnutrition, and considering poverty, inequalities, and poor land use and distribution as structural root causes of increased hunger. These are critical for delivering the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Paris Agreement. The event was a 90-minute dialogue via zoom, which brought together food systems experts and leaders to explore, debate, and shape pathways to sustainable food systems that will inform contributions to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit and build towards COP26.235242243244245246248249250251The Pacific Climate Smart Agriculture Alliance witnessed the importance of creating a platform for the Pacific region to dialogue, share and create linkages with international funding agencies to enhance develop our own Pacific solutions. The impacts of Climate change, natural disasters, poverty, and the current COVID-19 pandemic in the Pacific has been felt far and wide but the resilience of our small island nations to rebuild and withstand such stresses was also highlighted. The Pacific food systems dialogue witnessed the importance of the following key criteria’s: Stakeholders within the Pacific Food Production systems require training, knowledge, and capacity building by local experts, academics, and government sectors to bring about sustainable food production systems for a resilient Pacific. Building partnerships between producers, state and non-state actors as well as consumers will ensure sustainable production systems which lead to the development of localized research to support and address key food production systems that will work well for the Pacific people. Invest in youth, women, and children empowerment to lead and take part in policy-making mechanisms as they constitute the majority of the population and can actively participate in driving and implementing changes within rural and urban communities. Capitalize on local resources and traditional knowledge to understand and build our own Pacific resilience in the face of Climate change, food security, and the current COVID-19 pandemic.236242243244245246248249250251- Agricultural innovations and practices driving positive change in the agri-food production systems (crop and livestock systems) that can be adapted or scaled in different contexts. - Enhancing investment and public-private partnerships (PPP) in holistic food systems approaches contributing to resilient communities Building resilience of local communities is achieved by building the capacity, knowledge, and experience of community people in agriculture; Field training and site demonstrations are impactful in delivering the skills and expertise directly to farmers to understand and adapt their farming systems; Building partnerships with various stakeholders, state and non-state actors within the Pacific food systems chain – for instance, a partnership between big farmers and smallholder farmers between the main island and outer islands in the transfer of planting materials, seeds to sustain long term supply of good quality and healthy plants. Other benefits of building partnerships include the provision of technical and expert support in developing value-added products and local food recipes that can easily be incorporated into the local people’s diets. Building resilience requires the support of donors to provide financial, expert, infrastructure, and capacity-building support; maintain good working relationships between private and public stakeholders to avoid communication breakdowns and delays in food production activities.236242243244245246248249250251- The role/research activities contributing to agri-food production systems outcomes Background: Climate change has exacerbated the social and economic issues in the Pacific – climate conditions in our forefathers' time vary greatly from the current times thus the importance of the role of research in developing and changing our Pacific food systems is crucial. Purpose of the research: - Helps to understand the relationship of our food system components with each other - To apply understanding and improve/optimize these relationships - To control relationships of components to make the system more efficient, effective, and high impact Examples of research in the Pacific: Conservation agriculture and sustainable intensification (Lincoln university, mordi tonga trust) - a combination of different conservation agriculture on how to optimize it in the local environment in order to address the needs of farmers and save the environment, PRISE - EU funded – which aims to improve the livelihood of farmers and fishers National food and nutrition - to co-create food production systems to suit our current climatic conditions, improve diets, ensure healthy soil and address pests and diseases in an environmentally friendly way. Application of crop models, social-economic – transforming the knowledge into making good decisions; food systems involve everyone. The way forward – rethink our research policies; ‘attitudes’ of people are not enabling change; promote the localization of research partnerships to include civil societies and NGOs; decolonize research – improve partnerships with international organizations with research focusing and prioritizing the needs of local farmers, fishers, private sector, and country governments. Increase investments – infrastructure to enable ‘trained’ and upskilled researchers to carry out proper research. Multiple risks approach – which encompasses all stakeholders within Pacific food production systems in order to understand the issues and solutions to suit our Pacific context; Need to relook at our farming systems – dynamics at the household level; - Increase productivity and profitability - Improve soil health - Reduce greenhouse emission There is a need to transform the knowledge from research into practice with the help of communication specialists to relay the information to all stakeholders within our Pacific Food Production systems.236242243244245246248249250251Strengthening capacities and resources of farmers, indigenous groups, women, youth, and micro-small, medium enterprises (MSMEs) to effectively engage along with the agri-food production systems Main points: 1. Youth, women, children, and other marginalized groups are key stakeholders for addressing food security 2. Strengthen National councils within countries to support and promote youth at work 3. Mainstream and include young people in all decision makings platforms right from the community level to the national and regional levels. Way forward Develop aging advisory services to educate and promote innovative methods in rural communities to adapt to Climate change; Create associations for young people to take up agribusiness to understand and be competitive with outside markets; Government to provide and strengthen youth mechanisms that will continue the ongoing participation of youth in addressing key Pacific issues; National councils – need to be strengthened to promote and support youth at work.236242243244245246248249250251Managing risk and security at all levels – individual, community, government, and systems Climate Adaptation and Mitigation in Atoll countries Challenges in atoll countries; - Poor soil conditions - Climate change - Cost of farm inputs - Water availability Integrated methods – - bucket drip irrigation in conjunction with targeted compost productions – areas where high tide is below 30-50cm depth - Wicking system – used in low lying areas where high tides rise to the soil surface - Training for youth and women groups - Development of the RMI sector plan – to address challenging issues of food security Examples: SUPA project – adapted and established 30 wicking systems targeting patients with - Promote gardening - Health and resilience against NCDs Way forward - Investing in efficient water use mechanisms will improve soil nutrient management and enhance food productivity in atoll islands - Islanders must identify local knowledge and methods that can be upskilled or enhanced to combat the impacts of climate change, food security, and the COVID-19 pandemic.237242Not many areas of divergence were brought up due to time constraints.

2021-07-15 06:33:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33968/23

1109218110603785

Prior to the virtual dialogue, a kobo-based structured questionnaire survey was conducted with 100 farmers representatives from 50 groups and 50 Upazilas. The survey was conducted by Upazilla Agriculture Officers under the guidance of Regional Additional Directors, Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE). The survey data consolidated in kobo platform was analyzed by SACP and formulated a keynote presentation for the dialogue. The dialogue was structured in three stages: 1. Keynote presentation (Survey finding) 2. Three topical discussions in groups (Breakout session) 3. Plenary (Open discussion and concluding session) Expected Outputs and Outcomes Expected Outputs  A documentation of the entire dialogue incorporating all the views and feedbacks received, which will feed into development of the consolidated country report  Understanding of the specific challenges faced by farmers over the next twenty years and  documentation of policy proposals that will help to overcome those Expected Outcomes  Participation and contribution of a wide range of stakeholders in developing visions, policies, and actions related to farmers in the food system for the future  Possible directions towards establishing sustainable food system addressing issues faced by farmersConsidering the methodology to conduct the session, the breakout room session were the one which consisted most of the dialogues based on the themes. Following to which, we divided the rooms in three groups: 1. Theme-1: Food safety, food security, nutrition-sensitive and nature-positive production 2. Theme-2: Markets, equitable livelihood opportunity, scale-up farming/entrepreneurship 3. Theme-3: Environment, disasters, climate change, shocks, compensation mechanism

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248Theme-1: Food safety, food security, nutrition-sensitive and nature-positive production: The group identified agriculture as the single largest sector of the economy in Bangladesh, and associated it to the employment generation, poverty alleviation, human resources development, and food security. It was discussed that in Bangladesh, high rates of population growth place increasingly more pressure on scarce land resources for food production. Cultivable land is declining due to urbanization and water erosion, but the total cropped area is increasing as a result of changing land utilization patterns (i.e., double and triple cropping). Despite many positive policy initiatives, Bangladesh’s agriculture sector still faces challenges, such as rapid shrinkage of agricultural land, inadequate supply of agricultural inputs like fertilizers and seeds, climate change and variations, inadequate value addition, and lagging technology adoption. To maintain food self-sufficiency and food security, the government of Bangladesh has employed strategies to increases productivity and reduce yield gaps, foster access to inputs and technological improvement. Theme-2: Markets, equitable livelihood opportunity, scale-up farming/entrepreneurship Market challenges, opportunity and way forward against the challenges, food processing for building entrepreneurship and problems for market access to public institution and private sector company for getting affordable price. Theme-3: Environment, disasters, climate change, shocks, compensation mechanism The group identified major types of natural disasters faced by farmers, its impacts and means to manage the disasters. Types of climate changes related natural disasters: • Dry wind • Flood (all over Bangladesh) • Early Flood/Flash flood (Haor belt) • Salinity intrusion (both soil and water in coastal areas) • Lack of safe drinking water (most south and southern part) • River Erosion (all over the country) • Land inundation due to sea level rise • Soil degradation (due to top soil selling to brick field) • Raising temperature • Over or no rainfall • Long time draught • Water logging (temporary and permanent in southern part) • Cyclone • High quantity of river siltation (Northern part and south western part most, overall whole country river system) • Storm • Thundering (more in Haor belt) • Ground water level depletion (all over the country, Northern part most) Human induced disaster: • Excessive use of herbicide • Excess pesticide use • Excess chemical fertilizer use • Poisoning in open water bodies • Catching fingerling and Dimowala fish • Selling top soil to brick field • Excess maize cultivation (Northern part) • Unplanned dam construction • Unplanned shrimp and white fish cultivation (southern part)235238239240241242243244245246248249250Theme-1: Food safety, food security, nutrition-sensitive and nature-positive production: Labour shortage, High rate of wages, Over use of pesticides , lack of awareness on healthy food among farmers and consumer level, Not available bio safety technology in remote area (Cox’s Bazar). Bio safety technology is business viable as cost is high, Due to the small size of the land, smallholders don’t get benefit from agricultural machinery. Safe and nutritious food for all is a challenge in Bangladesh considering context, production system, awareness, poverty and financial capability, Farmers’ representatives opined that they managed daily full 03 meals for their household members, but they have not enough aware about safe and nutritious food, a significant smallholder struggle to manage daily full 03 meals in between two harvest. Theme-2: Markets, equitable livelihood opportunity, scale-up farming/entrepreneurship • The price offered by the Local Supply Depot (LSD) of the Ministry of Food is less than open market which discourages farmers to sell to LSD. • Poor communication (road) network in southern part in Bangladesh impose difficulties in transporting agriculture produce for marketing. • Challenges in accessing large markets (Dhaka, Sylhet, Chattagram) by farmers. • Absence of monitoring agricultural prices results in exploitation of farmers by market intermediaries (charge 45-50kg weight per mond for different commodities) • Lack of cold storage facilities for different crops pose challenges to handle vegetable for marketing. • Difficult in accessing agriculture credit due to collaterals need. • Lack of training for quality produce for marketing and marketing knowledge in farmers level. • Absence or limited access to processing, packaging and labelling facilities for different commodities to extend their shelf life and access export market. • Need for marketing facilitation at Upazilla level was highly recommended • High price volatility Theme-3: Environment, disasters, climate change, shocks, compensation mechanism • Loss in production, • Soil fertility reducing due to soil degradation • Reducing crop land • Flood due to overflow of river for rapid siltation • Transportation problem due to damage of road during flood • Infrastructure damage due to flood • Soil acidity increasing (Northern part) • Canal and other water bodies silted up • Death increasing due thundering especially haor belt • Damage of crop due to early or flash food in haor belt • Lack of irrigation water • Increasing irrigation cost • Arsenic contamination increasing • Sanitation problem (Char areas) • Increasing fallow land during rabi season due salinity and lack of fresh water (Coastal belt specially) • Damage of infrastructures, crop field, houses and lives (human. Livestock) due to Cyclone, storm and high tidal bore • Water pollution • Soil degradation • Open water fish production decreasing • Decreasing soil fertility due maize cultivation236238239240243245246248249Theme-1: Food safety, food security, nutrition-sensitive and nature-positive production: Increasing farm mechanization and engage youth, Engaging women labour especially in harvesting and vegetable production, Adapting bio technology, Increasing awareness on safe, nourished and healthy food, Promoting bio safety technology with government subsidy, Expansion of appropriate agricultural mechanization for small and marginal farmers , Introduce collective farming , Social safety net program of the government, Investment in agriculture through distributing seeds and fertilizers among smallholders, Financial support to farmers from Upazila Parishad and different NGOs, Distribution of vegetable seeds with appropriate technology at farmer level, Ensuring marketing the extra produce at reasonable price, Initiating maximum utilization of land for farming following the directives of Hon'ble Prime Minister.236239241243245246248249250Theme-2: Markets, equitable livelihood opportunity, scale-up farming/entrepreneurship: • The public institution Local Supply depot (LSD) under Ministry of Food offer the rice price for farmers is less than open market in country so farmers are less interested to sell their rice to LSD. Government need to rethink for the rice price review. • Weak road communication in southern part in Bangladesh and lack of available transport so that farmers face the commodities transporting in distance market. The parliamentary member under government can improve the situation. • Farmers cannot access direct to big districts markets like Dhaka, Sylhet, Chattagram markets, so they sell their product in local intermediaries and get low price • Most of the areas in Bangladesh, market intermediaries take 45-50kg weight per mond (1 mond=40Kg) for different commodities instead of standard 40 Kg for selling their products so that farmers loss 5-10Kg product in the market. The government market monitor can stickle monitor to address the issue. • In Bangladesh, there is not cold storage except potato so that different perishable commodes like tomato, carrot and green chili sell very minimum price in peak harvesting time. In this case, government can arrange the cold storage in bigger district level so that farmers will get benefit. • Farmers cannot access to low interested loan (2-6% interest, special loan) which are offered by the different Bank due to Bank needs different mortgage if any farmer want to take loan. Farmers cannot manage the mortgage so that they cannot get the loan for quality produce production for marketing. The government can advise to Bank to flexible the issue. • Lack of training for quality produce for marketing and marketing knowledge in farmers level. • Farmers sometime cannot access to private processing or exporting company due to farmers have lack of knowledge so that they do not meet the buyer demand. Farmers shared the Mung bean as an example. DAM, DAE or any NGO can facilitate the issue shared in group recommendation through forming Farmers field School (FFS) or promote any other initiative. • Commodities drying is an issue specially for rainy season, farmers cannot arrange drying facility so that farmers sell their produce in low price with high moisture content. Rice, maize, mung bean, sunflower seed are an example. • Farmers face the postharvest loss issue, establish cold storage in local level, demand based production and training on postharvest loss can reduce the loss • Farmers especially women farmers engage food processing for tomato, green mango, olive, chalta (elephant apple), Ambra etc. but they cannot get market and cannot continue their business. Different company produce the similar type of food processing so that farmers cannot compete with of those companies due they have different promotional activities in the market. Farmers said, government or any other organization could provide the training on food processing, packaging, levelling and give them some equipment for quality food processing and marketing and ensure low interest loan. • One-market personnel can hire under the Upazila Agriculture Office for providing the marketing supporting for the farmers. In current, stuffing structure under Upazila Agriculture Office, they work mostly on production side. • Farmers do not get market information from big market like Dhaka, Sylhet, Chittagong, Barisal, Khulna so they cannot bargain with traders to set their product price consequently they do not get good price. • Price volatility high in the market and if supply is more in the market then quickly go down the market price. Storage system in market can reduce the problem.236240242243244245246248249250Theme-3: Environment, disasters, climate change, shocks, compensation mechanism: • Raise embankment level and construction planned-wise • Permanent embankment • Proper maintenance of sluice gates, inlet and outlet structures to keep those functional • Community participation for proper O&M • Close coordination of different govt. agencies at Upazila level like central or district level • River de-siltation • Excavation or Re-excavation of silted up canal, pond and other water bodies • Rain water harvesting • Dug well • Increasing facility of early warning system regarding cyclone storm and tidal bore • Watch tower in haor • Thundering tower • Cyclone shelter • Crop diversification • Short duration, draught tolerant and saline tolerant crop cultivation (Tree plantation (plum, Hijol) • Subsidy to agri. machinery (irrigation, ploughing, harvesting etc.) • Liming to reclaim soil acidity (Northern areas) • Community awareness build up and capacity strengthening to cope with disasters • Sorjon system cultivation • Increase organic fertilizer use • Need assistance in vermi-compost use • Increasing seed storage facility • Market management development • Control in fishing, awareness • Increase awareness to cultivate rabi vegetables • Scope for duckling • Increasing of mechanization/harvesting tools • Sustainable crop management • Gher-based crop cultivation promote (Southern belt) • Wide pond banked crop cultivation practice (Southern belt) • Infrastructure & transportation support (horse card, cow card in northern belt) • Introducing cold storage facility

2021-07-15 07:43:33205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26902/170

865310510454074581401351031351814206381824553231056266212135110

The South African government entered the process in the middle of May with the appointment of the Convenor, having already made the determination to work on Action Tracks 1,2 and 5. Given that the country was on the path of developing multistakeholder driven Agriculture and Agro-processing Masterplan with a focus on Inclusive, sustainable and competitive value chains, it was felt that it was prudent for South Africa to include this as a fourth topic. There was a lot of catching up to do in understanding the envisaged process, convening a multistakeholder steering committee, appointing the convenor and identifying facilitators. A lot of work had already been undertaken on Action Track 1 under the auspices of GAIN and we sought to benefit from this experience by reaching out to Professor Sheryl Hendriks to assist. We also reached out to the Agricultural Business Chamber (Agbiz), the Bureau For Food and Agricultural Policy(BFAP), the Agricultural Research Council, the women and youth representatives, the Departments of Health, Education and International Relations to form part of the steering committee. The steering committee paid careful attention to inclusivity by striving for invite individuals from diverse stakeholder groups, sectors, gender, and provinces. This entailed going through various iterations of the invitation list, each member of the steering committee and the facilitators drawing on their respective networks. Facilitators were selected and briefed with care, to ensure they create a space for dialogue that is conducive to respect and trust.In order to ensure that we get diverse opinions on the direction we should take to transform our food systems, we chose to follow the three stage approach. We used the national dialogue to initiate the process in the country and got a variety of stakeholders mobilized around talking about challenges in our food system and making propositions about actions needed to be taken. A list of potential participants drawn from inputs from both the national level and from the 9 provinces reflected the diversity of actors in the food system. The second stage was provincial dialogues in all 9 provinces, where dived deeper into context specific challenges and actions which will propel us towards achieving SDGs 2030. All participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency” and participated with enthusiasm, recognizing the importance of accelerating the pace of change in their recommendations and demonstrating commitment to act. All were committed to contribute to the Food Systems Summit preparations and follow-up, recognizing it is as an important milestone to catalyse further action on food systems. The Synthesis dialogue to follow will begin the articulation of pathways taking into consideration the diverse opinions and agreeing on tradeoffs to propel us towards a future that is free from hunger and malnutrition, to a food system that is inclusive, sustainable and competitive.In South Africa, we talk about unity in diversity. We do pursue win-win solutions, but do accept that this might not always be possible. In the end, we embrace the different opinions and look for trade-offs to help us move forward.

Yes

234238239242243244245246247248249250251South Africa's dialogues explored three action tracks 1,2 and 5. An additional topic which focused on inclusive, sustainable and competitive values was also dealt with. This 4th topic explored the South African Food System which can be classified as a combination of highly diverse value chains with a wide spectrum of producers linking to a range of formalised and sophisticated markets on the one extreme and completely unregulated and informal markets to the other extreme. Hence, the transformation of the South African Food System requires a multi-dimensional approach to address the reality that approximately half of the South African population cannot afford a basic healthy diet.2352382392422432442452462472482492502511. The centrality of local communities in transforming food systems Broadening South African food base by reintroducing indigenous foods by doing more research (heat and drought tolerance and nutrition content) and improving marketing and packaging. Find champions and innovative opportunities to encourage the development, marketing and consumption of healthy indigenous foods. Strengthening local (community-based) centres of excellence by utilizing former Agric-colleges to cater for rural communities at affordable cost). Continuous research work on indigenous foods, benefits of organic agriculture, evaluation of existing programmes, pro- Maintenance and development of infrastructure (water, electricity, roads, rail and ports) - Effective bio-security, including animal health, Product Standards Act, - Comprehensive farmer support services, including mentorship, extension services, agricultural colleges - Effective land reform and security of tenure together with rural safety Curriculum revision to include food systems, IKS, food security, food safety and nutrition in a range of programmes and to stimulate and conduct relevant research in these areas. Research and ensuring that smallholder and subsistence farmers play a role in the food value chain . 2. The need for coordination across government departments, with municipalities, non-government organizations, finance institutions and other formations of civil society A central coordination structure is required to coordinate and monitor all food systems elements to avoid duplication of programs aimed at fighting hunger. A need to revisit and evaluate food security programs with a view to up-scaled for them to be effective. Greater involvement of communities and academic institutions is necessary to enable a ground-up approach. The coordination needs to go beyond food security and nutrition to involve other players in the food system 3.Recognition of Informal markets and value chains as important components of the food system. Limited official information exists to provide a comprehensive insight of the real magnitude and growth of this sector in the economy, with estimates ranging around 30% of the country’s food and grocery sector. 4. Clear legislative and regulatory guidelines to ensure active participation of smallholders. Much fragmentation around enterprise supplier development programmes. Active mentorship and support from existing stakeholders required. Re-educate agricultural practitioners and agro-processing w.r.t. sustainable practices. Balance with food-safety legislation. 5. Create partnerships for hand-holding to creating an equal environment. Driving local participation/coordination to more Lower level/municipalities, extension services, electricity, water critical. Consider multipliers/socio-economic implications. Emphasise service delivery, partnerships etc. at lower level. • Support NGOs and community groups that promote value-adding at the household level such as processing (e.g. canning of fresh produce) 6. Policy considerations for digital agriculture through embracing of 4IR to expand smart farming practices using advanced technologies and big data. The early warning systems need more emphasis to manage these vulnerabilities before the South African food systems are weakened and rendered less effective in addressing food security and contribution to the economy. 4IR can assist municipalities by providing data about how much food is needed, prices and specific locations in rural areas as well as supply chain efficiencies . 4IR in the form of applications can also be used to distribute food among users, provide education about food waste and reduce food waste 7, Enhanced collaboration with neighbouring countries to ensure a harmonised approach, especially in the face of the recently ratified Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement.236238TOPIC 1: Ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All (enabling all people to be well nourished and healthy, progressive realization of the right to food). South Africa identified the following challenges to food security: Accessibility which can be linked to: Unemployment: There is high unemployment rate (32.6%) in South Africa (youth unemployment currently 47%). Lack of income due to unemployment contributes to food insecurity and leads to social exclusion problems Access to arable land, especially for women farmers who want to grow and become commercial farmers, is a challenge. Load shedding: whilst escalating electricity prices make consumers poorer, Load shedding contributes to lack of food access as some markets close when there is no electricity and to food waste as food rots Urbanisation: migration of population from rural to urban areas result in increased influx putting pressure on resources, also exacerbate unemployment in cities of women and youth and nutritional deficiencies among children. Therefore, cities fundamental to food systems Climate change: The WWF has identified South Africa as one of the 30 driest country in the world. The effects of drought, floods as a result of extreme weather conditions caused by global warming have a negative effect on food production. This affect the smallholder/subsistence farmers as they depend on rain-fed agriculture. Access to markets: There is a challenge of subsistence and smallholder farmers unable to penetrate the food value chain. Distribution centres are only found in certain Provinces (Gauteng, KwaZulu Natal and Western Cape) and this is a problem for local producers in other Provinces and in rural communities Food safety: Food safety is prioritised for food products that are imported and exported, while local food production by smallholder and subsistence farmers is neglected. Lack of integration in the government spheres: There is no integration between government spheres to fight hunger and malnutrition in the affected areas, each government sphere is working in silos Proposed solutions: Technology: use technology to address issues of climate change, preserving indigenous food through infused technology and tracking food insecure people at a community level. Establishment of the Department of food: that will play the supervisory and management across food system elements and stakeholders Integration and collaboration: Integration of policies (across sectors and including the NDP, IDPs etc), collaboration and alignment of National and Provincial Departments towards a sustainable food system. Indigenous food: Broadening South African food base by reintroducing indigenous foods by doing more research (heat and drought tolerance and nutrition content) and improving marketing and packaging Education: Food safety and nutrition should form part of Basic Education curriculum to educate children of the impact of food. Further empowering farmers with product Incorporating food security, food safety and food nutrition as part of curriculum in schools and at home will ensure that children grow up knowing the impact that food has on their overall health and future (school gardens and household backyard gardens)ion, Agro-processing and well as ensuring that extension officials have the relevant skills to offer support. Practice Organic Agriculture: The method regenerates the health of soils, ecosystem and people, unlike conventional agriculture that destroy soils which results in negative effects for the future resulting in food insecurities.236239243244245246249251TOPIC 2: Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns Food Wastage: over a third of food (worth over 1 trillion US dollars) produced annually is lost due to wastage. Persistence of food waste and spoilage at household level, supermarkets, all levels of production value chain, with each node needing to improve to reduce this problem. There seems to be no policy on food wastage which can guide how to curb this problem. Population Growth: Increase in population leading to increasing demand of sustainable and unsustainable food systems, Climate change: The phenomena of climate change seem to be exacerbating the problem, leading to increased frequencies of devastating weather shocks. This also seem to worsen incidences of pests and disease outbreak. Indigenous Knowledge and processing facilities: Disregard of indigenous knowledge systems or lack of small processing facilities and practices that could reduce food waste at household level. Continued lack of processing capacity and cold storage facilities near production areas. Infrastructure: Long distance to markets/town for households, prompting them to buy in bulk, leading to food waste. Consumer education: Asymmetric knowledge of food composition behaviours on traceability of the products and associated climate change effects e.g. buying local poultry vs imported poultry with less value because of brine content. Further usage of unsustainable production patterns that result in environmental degradation causing soil erosions and emissions of carbon dioxide. Proposed solutions Educating farmers about crop rotation and diversification: Support to smallholder farmers to engage in crop diversification and Crop rotation, thereby improve both production and soil fertility. Policy shift to encourage production of nutritionally sufficient quality wise food for the needs of the population. In terms of food wastage, educating producers how to prepare food thereby increase their nutritional value and also increase their shelf life. Further criminalize food waste by supermarkets and large-scale producers. Need for research institutions to provide scientific knowledge in the repurposing of spoilt food for other use such as animal feed. Government to provide leadership in healthy lifestyle: Government should be at the forefront of promoting healthier lifestyles through public awareness campaigns to educate consumers on quantity and quality of food to serve and their nutritional value. Impose strict regulations on imported food which tends to be less nutritious, together with monitoring and enforcement Academic institutions also have a role in promoting food security, such as conducting national dietary surveys to inform policy design/interventions, Establish agricultural hubs in or near rural areas. These localized markets will provide space to absorb smallholder farmers' produce as they struggle to be integrated into central markets. Further support NGOs and community groups that promote value-adding at the household level such as processing (e.g. canning of fresh produce). Encourage community-based organizations to establish food banks, Establish Department of Food: Establishment of a Food Department and adopting a holistic approach in addressing food and nutrition issues Re-Introduce traditional water management practices and food preservation methods to minimize food and water waste. Policy formulation to promote organic production and technologies that recognize ecological forms of production. Taking advantage of the 4IR: 4IR can assist municipalities by providing data about how much food is needed, prices and specific locations in rural areas as well as supply chain efficiencies. It can also be used to distribute food among users, provide education about food waste and reduce food waste236243246249250251Action track 4: Building inclusive, sustainable and competitive value chains. The South African Food System is highly diverse with wide spectrum of producers linked to a range of formalised and sophisticated markets on the one extreme and completely unregulated and informal markets to the other extreme. Therefore, the transformation of the South African Food System requires a multi-dimensional approach to address the reality that approximately half of the South African population cannot afford a basic healthy diet. Over the past two decades, the more formalised value chains have performed well despite a combination of adverse external factors like consecutive droughts and biosecurity breaches. In the case of informal markets and value chains, limited official information exists to provide a comprehensive insight of the real magnitude and growth of this sector in the economy, with estimates ranging around 30% of the country’s food and grocery sector. Proposed solutions: Farmer Register: the country need to collate and finalise the Farmer Register as matter of urgency. This will give proper commodity mapping for policy intervention purposes. Aggregator models: finalise Aggregator model through a PPP currently developed in the AAMP to unlock and scale these opportunities. Women Empowerment: Fast track growing number of women to participate in food system, access to land, and ensure implementation of commitments. Competition Act: Competition Act drives efficiency and competitiveness and therefore must fully be enforced to unlock billions worth of Exports and Jobs. Government also needs to step up on basic service delivery and ensure investment friendly environment. Otherwise competitiveness of the sector will remain under pressure and as a consequence increase the dualism of the industry even further since tighter margins will favour large-scale operations Value addition: Unpack opportunity of integrated value chain and value addition through import replacement and opening of export markets to expand demand for high-valued products. Review Act 36: the current act 36 is outdated and promoting a traditional food system that does not comply with latest requirements Capacity Building: Develop capacity to treat new producers as fully commercial to enter markets by partnering with private sector for targeted investments. Collaboration across stakeholders is needed. This would include sharing of data and databases to help identify bottlenecks within the value chain and assist in building a business case for their resolution. It will also promote Investment in research, learning and development. • Address the bottlenecks identified as a matter of urgency. • Using Agri-tourism markets as a leverage to transform food systems’ sustainability and market access. Agri-tourism presents opportunities for diverse and dynamic markets and also creates sustainable jobs. Investments into this sub-sector allows citizens to be in a better position to afford the cost of food. Good governance will ensure inclusivity and sustainability. Good governance will also reduce inefficiencies within the value system. Maintain diversity within the system. Some of the strengths of the current food systems was the multiple pathways of products from produce to consumption meaning that there are diverse mechanisms to get produce to the consumers. The diversity in the value chain should not be lost as it ensures inclusivity. Investment into supportive infrastructure is therefore necessary and critical. Areas of Convergence • Establishment of Department of Food • Policy regulation to curb or address the food wastage • Broaden food basket by also encouraging consumption of indigenous crops • Tap into indigenous knowledge for production, processing and preservation of food • Education in the context of food production, preparation and consumption • Need for an all-encompassing appreciation of the stakeholders involved in the agri-food sector.236240243244245246248249250251Action Track 3: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses There is a need to eliminate vulnerabilities and build resilience throughout the agriculture value chain. Eliminating vulnerabilities and building resilience require an understanding of challenges and the appropriate interventions that will build a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector. South Africa has made much progress in the policy space in addressing vulnerabilities and stresses in agricultural sector. These include the climate change sector plans and strategy. The challenge remains with implementation of developed policies and plans to realise the intended benefits from such. There is a call for mobilization and prioritization of financial resources to support implementation of these efforts and plans. Proposed solutions Post-harvest losses: Endeavours to achieve sustainable food systems should include addressing postharvest losses and give this area more attention. Market Harmonisation: Animal improvement schemes need to be improved and market price intelligence and interventions to be developed to support farmers and ensure harmonization of certification nationally and regionally. Agro-processing: To make interventions to be broader than production we also need to cover other aspects such as processing (value-addition), distribution and retail, thus addressing the entire value chain. Taking some agro-processing activities closer to production areas in rural areas – thereby encouraging public private partnerships – this will also assist on the challenge of food loss. Enhanced Coordination: There is a need for enhanced coordination of the three spheres of government, research institutions, non-government and community based organisations and educational institutions. Indigenous knowledge: Indigenous knowledge systems were acknowledged as integral part of our food systems. There is a need to increase efforts to build capacity of smallholder farmers across the agricultural value chain Biosecurity measures: Food security depends on the successes of biosecurity across the food systems. We need to recognize the pests and diseases which attacks our food systems and ensure continuous efforts for control. Therefore we need to ensure diagnostic and surveillance programmes are implemented. Biodiversity: South Africa is one of the most biological resources diverse country in the world. We need to relook the animal production schemes. Need more inclusivity also covering indigenous breeds and the “forgotten” and neglected crops to broaden the food basket and mitigate food security risks through diversification. Honey bees are also to be considered as an integral part of the biodiversity and needs more attention and inclusion. Build the social infrastructure, relationships, and networks: Take note of the work that is being done by civil society during the pandemic to channel resources to the vulnerable communities. Strengthening inter-relationship between the formal and the informal parts of the food system chains to create resilience Balancing production and export on the one hand with basic food security on the other whilst producing an affordable nutritious food basket would strengthen the food system towards resilience.237238239242245246249250251The following areas were raised in the dialogues and will require further work to enhance the discourse on food systems and prioritization of actions and solutions: Framing the discussions around food systems is not inclusive nor does it address the issues around production and provision of food. There is lack of understanding and no knowledge dissemination in the entire food system. • Lack of information regarding the informal sector was noted as a threat to building resilience within the food system. There's not enough information about the role of the informal sector in the whole food security process. • Mandate - no one owns the food production/consumption mandate in South Africa. The system is fragmented. Different departments and at different levels of the governance system sit with part of a mandate to deliver on agricultural needs. There unfortunately is no coordination and alignment of services and a lot of information slips through the gaps. The inexplicit mandate that local government has in regards to food systems makes the allocation of financial and human resources difficult within municipalities Using the land for biodiversity. The Agro-ecological approach has not been optimized. While land needs to be made available for farming, people also need to be taught about using the land correctly as wrong production would create more problems and would be costly in the long run. Food waste and losses is very prevalent in the production cycle and during consumer use. This needs to be improved especially during the COVID pandemic. Availability of water, energy and infrastructure as some of the important drivers of food systems

2021-07-15 08:38:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8565/203

102095632505049318725112118123322119239232712058

The Dialogue incorporated, reinforced, and enhanced the Principles by ensuring a diverse group of actors were invited and involved in the Dialogue. The breakout rooms also provided an opportunity to implement the Principles by encouraging actors to share and discuss their work in a respectful and supportive manner. Prior to the start of the Dialogue, the chair mentioned housekeeping rules such as keeping microphones off while someone else speaks.We recognize that we need to act with urgency to ensure the global campaign on agricultural innovation produces meaningful and timely action. The pledge and Dialogue commit to the summit as the outcomes contribute to the UN summit later this year. By including a range of stakeholders and offering the chance to explore their work, the Dialogue demonstrated the implementation of the following principles; respect, complexity, multistakeholder inclusivity, and complementing others work. The interaction between stakeholders within breakout rooms, as well as in the chat, portrayed the building of trust.To ensure all voices are heard, the facilitator should keep track of those who have/ haven’t contributed.

Yes

234240242244248This Independent Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD) aimed to enrich the canvas of perspectives on how food systems can be transformed for a climate-smart future. It opened up space for dialogue on a new Action Agenda for Change developed by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), and gave stakeholders the opportunity to pledge their support to a global campaign on agricultural innovation, co-chaired by CCAFS and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The dialogue explored opportunities for stakeholders to become an integral part of this campaign, which will see significant announcements and initiatives at both the UN Food Systems Summit and COP26. In addition, the dialogue pinpointed ways in which both summits can align in their objectives to support the kind of transformation we seek, and how we — as a global community — can act to support this alignment.235240241243244245248249This Dialogue sought to lay the ground for contributions and pledges and to put agricultural innovation in the spotlight in the lead up to COP26 later this year. Additionally, questions were raised regarding how we can get there and the support and facilitation that stakeholders need. Breakout rooms produced fruitful discussions on the critical gaps and priorities, and paved the way for future contributions and pledges. The following points were recurring themes in multiple breakout rooms and send a clear message to stakeholders – including civil society organizations, policy makers, and farmer organizations – regarding the opportunities, priorities, and areas to focus on: • Firstly, participants emphasized the need for farmer-driven and farmer-centric approaches. While recognizing the importance of top-down methods in policy-making, the different groups highlighted the key role of bottom-up approaches in ensuring research and innovation are tailored to the needs of farmers and offer practical and context-specific solutions. Participants agreed that farmers’ perspectives should serve as a foundation for innovation – particularly when it comes to financial assistance and access, as well as cross-government coordination. The dissemination of knowledge through simple processes and technologies is needed to place research directly into farmers’ hands. The focus must shift to creating action on the ground that adapts to every farmer, as well as to every consumer. Overall, participants agreed that it is key to address the concerns of all actors in the value-chain – including consumers, for whom accessibility and affordability are essential drivers of behavior change. • Secondly, in relation to the above point, there are challenges in the adoption of innovation among farmers. This is why providing farmers with clear information on risks and opportunities associated with innovation is important to allow farmers to make informed decisions. Beyond enabling greater access to information, it is also key to keep innovations within farmers’ reach and to ensure equal access to innovations, making them both physically and financially accessible. Focusing on local, context-specific innovation approaches tailored to the needs of farmers is indeed essential to achieving global goals, hence showing the need for more context-specific conversations. • Third, metrics were identified as a key success factor for innovation. Examples include soil sampling, adaptation measuring, as well as indicators for projects, programs and policies. Improving indicators allows for further clarity on the targets and what to achieve. In addition to clearly measuring outcomes, commitments themselves must also be clearly set out. Beyond identifying targets and improving indicators, successful innovation indeed requires engaging with a range of stakeholders to come up with a clear and tangible solution. However, for the market to move towards these targets, a strong enabling environment is needed. • Fourth, there is a strong call for new forms of finance, new partnerships, and new business models. Some of these have already been initiated: for example, new forms of finance have been developed to support food systems in rapidly emerging economies, and new partnerships are emerging between the public and private sectors. At the same time, the private sector is increasingly looking at how to best serve farmers. As a summary of this discussion, the closing speaker reminded the need to support civil society organizations and farmers – who are key stakeholders driving change – as well as the need to unlock capacity and finance to scale up new innovation business models. In conclusion, this Dialogue and the broader campaign on agricultural innovation provided further evidence of the need to scale up agricultural innovation to enable food system transformation, and helped build momentum around the innovation agenda in the lead up to the UN Food Systems Summit and COP26.236238241243244245248249Agroecological practices that deliver benefits for people, nature and climate are deployed at scale The participants in this breakout room pinpointed to several areas that need urgent action. First, there needs to be better engagement between farmers, research, and innovation development. In addition, demand-driven innovation, tailored to the needs of farmers and adapted to local challenges, must be supported. Second, we must steer public investment towards smallholder farmers and agriculture, and foster public-private partnerships to pull in private sector investment with a focus on evidence-based approaches. Third, there is a need for developing and harmonizing outcome indicators and metrics. Lastly, mechanisms must be provided to build bridges between knowledge and investment in adaptation and resilience. In order to facilitate action for the above areas, participants identified the following supporting/ enabling mechanisms: • A scientific toolbox that could help improve farmers’ choices by sharing evidence on what creates value for them – whether it is agroecology, climate-smart agriculture, or incorporating indigenous sources of knowledge into digital-based advisory services; • Farmers’ dialogues and a systematic inclusion of farmers in the development of research and innovation as important mechanisms; • Further investment in public goods relevant to agriculture and rural livelihoods, to create an enabling environment in which farmers are empowered to make the right choices. This includes improving infrastructure, sharing knowledge through climate advisory services or advice on markets, disease and pest threats, as well as building evidence on what works. This will also incentivize and pull in private sector investment. Closing the economic development gap through health, education and other infrastructure will position smallholder farmers on a level playing field and enable them to compete; • Tailored and locally-relevant impact assessments and cost-effectiveness analyses, involving farmers as economic actors and as co-designers. There is a need for more high-quality, long-term research at scale, which is demand-led, system-based and deepens the evidence-base on what works in different localities; • Improved and harmonized outcome indicators (climate, biodiversity, nutrition, livelihoods / social inclusion, etc.), to deliver on the multiple objectives demanded in agriculture. These can provide a common framework for assessing the value of different approaches in different contexts and for different ends, and can help overcome unhelpful dichotomies between different approaches. These outcome indicators can also help reduce investor uncertainty. Finally, as mitigation and nature objectives become increasingly important, we need to bring those outcomes together with the “human face” that comes through livelihoods / income and adaptation outcomes. We need to find mechanisms to bridge the divide between adaptation and mitigation for communities and investment streams. An adaptation and mitigation commission is one option to facilitate and coordinate this.236238240242244248Agricultural production has a positive impact on biodiversity under a changing climate The discussion focused on how to support a shift towards production systems that deliver more diversified diets (including through a change in consumer dietary habits / reduction in meat consumption) and on the adoption of organic / agroecological / environmental practices that support and protect biodiversity. Stakeholders noted the need for a shift in current dietary habits, together with the scaling up and sharing of knowledge and evidence on practices that support ecosystem services, as well as increased diversification strategies (within fields and across fields and landscapes) that support ecosystem functions and resilience. Group members flagged contributions and pledges related to building and further developing the current knowledge base by sharing lessons and examples of current practices. They also noted the need to consider and take into account the work of the private sector, as well as to support research that is inclusive, that builds on local and indigenous knowledge, and that promotes local innovation. The need to focus on current livestock practices was noted as a critical area for future knowledge development, including building on lessons in the policy arena that support a shift from livestock production, looking at how to effectively support transitions (for example through improving fertilizer efficiency), and supporting both marginal / transitional and transformational improvements. Stakeholders noted the importance of the campaign in raising issues related to institutional development and support, a repurposing of policies to support farmer-focused R&D, increased investment in capacity building, as well as in practices that support biodiversity. To get the right support and facilitation, the campaign can assist by highlighting the need to invest in and focus on this area, showing the link with agroecology approaches, and making other links across the food system – for example through a focus on influencing and changing consumer preferences, and on food loss and waste. Stakeholders also noted that it would be useful to develop a set of objectives and outcomes for practices that protect agrobiodiversity. This set of objectives would take into account and build on experience and evidence gained from existing practice, and would help inform the development of a platform / toolbox assisting farmers in the design and implementation of future programs – giving them a clear view of associated costs, benefits and risks. This platform could be developed as a public good to be further refined by practitioners, and would include a set of indicators. It would also make sure to use a broad definition of innovation – not solely focusing on technology development, but also taking consideration of practice and social engagement.236240241242244248251User driven innovation, underpinned by robust partnerships, delivers impacts for people, nature and climate This breakout group mainly focused on how to create a more integrated and responsive R&D system. This included a discussion on increasing public investment in R&D around proteins, as well as a reflection on the importance of farmer-focused, demand-driven innovation. First, to get the support and facilitation needed, there must be greater clarity on the cost of innovation to guide demand. Second, we must tackle subsidies and how they distort the market. Lastly, it is important to create stronger ties between local grassroots projects and national data collection, so that localized action is better informed by big data and scenario planning, taking advantage of ‘composite’ technology. Participants also emphasized the need to put data directly into the hands of those who create value.236240244248249Innovation ecosystems unlock the power of new and emerging technologies – from social media to fintech to data and digital services – to accelerate food systems transformation The biggest issue participants reflected on as part of the broader topic of "Innovation ecosystems" is the need to ensure a balance of power, and to avoid excluding any stakeholder group. This means paying particular attention to vulnerable populations, and, going beyond, actively supporting those who suffer the most from systemic shocks such as the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, it is important to question whom certain actions are successful for, and whose interests are being served, which aids in protecting vulnerable groups of stakeholders. Another area of interest explored by the group was the role of policy officials – including what they know, as well as what gaps need to be filled. For example, in the lead up to COP26, we must figure out which areas need to be ramped up and how academics can help in feeding into policy officials hands. The group asked for greater focus on the policy action side, with a view to foster dialogue and ensure academic information is widely shared with policy makers. Additionally, the use of concrete case studies could help identify risks and responsibilities (i.e. “who has done it, and how it worked out”). This would contribute to answering the question of whether all innovation is good, and would ensure better alignment with peoples’ needs and interests. Participants also talked about the role of the private sector , and emphasized the need for greater work on regulations (which requires overcoming a lot of external factors, but block chain mapping helps). Participants notably discussed the opposition between development NGOs / organizations who demand transparency, and the private sector, for whom the question of access to information and Intellectual Property is particularly important to navigate in a highly competitive landscape. Another really important issue the group highlighted is that indicators that define a development program can be constraining to innovation. Indeed, innovation by definition means ‘unexpected outcomes’, and traditional indicators built within a program usually don’t explore these unintended outcomes – which go unreported. As an example, one participant reflected on when they worked with Kofi Annan, who said how “lots of effective solutions don’t make it off the shelf”, specifically at a policy level.236238241243244248The investment gap in agricultural innovation is bridged, ushering in a new era of innovation and sustainability, delivering benefits for people, nature and climate Moving towards more integrated approaches for smallholder farmers, a partner identified the need to set a climate change adaptation target within its organization (i.e. 75% of approved projects focusing on sustainability) as a way of pledging support to the campaign, along with a commitment to evidence building (from proof of concept to scale). Throughout the discussion, participants agreed that public investment remains essential to support research and transition for farmers. In particular, identifying ways to repurpose and realign agricultural subsidies would provide the right incentives to engage investors and ensure investments align with the SDGs and climate change targets. For example, innovation in sustainable protein sources is particularly appealing for investors, as food systems transformation and ESG criteria have risen to the top of the agenda. Yet, private investment business cases are needed to move beyond public subsidies for food systems. On this matter, working with social entrepreneurs is key. This means expanding the pool of entrepreneurs interested in social returns, but also better connecting them with one another. A variety of partners can offer capacity building to social entrepreneurs. In addition to this, participants agreed that doing more co-investment and working with the private sector towards joint sustainability goals can be transformative whilst leveraging multilaterals as mediators. Collaborative engagements could include PPPs and blended finance mechanisms. Participants also asked for increasing investment in proof of concepts, as successful proof of concepts can then be taken to scale. Overall, more funding is needed, but also better funding. To ensure no geography is left out, there must be a combination of national and international investments. In relation to ensuring no one is left out, taking into account social equity and fostering a just rural transition are also key, as there is no one-size-fits-all solution given the diversity of contexts and needs at farmer level. Moreover, better identifying research gaps and ensuring easy access to the right data would benefit both the public and private sectors. Participants emphasized the need to bridge evidence gaps by testing hypotheses, pulling together evidence of what works, and developing metrics to measure the level of transformation in agricultural innovation systems. We should recognize that agricultural innovation is not only about ODA (Official Development Assistance) – and that it is part of a broader story around food transformation. To do this, metrics are essential: we need to be better at understanding what counts as innovation for agriculture and have the right metrics to ensure we are on track. There is a need to develop models for sustainability and to test hypotheses on recommendations that have been made elsewhere (especially on end-to-end innovations and payment-by-results), thus pulling together evidence of what works for investors in agricultural innovation. Continuing to ensure information-sharing and connecting stakeholders across the board is important. Lastly, and coming back to the core of the issue, participants noted that building a stronger understanding of market barriers and innovation needs – especially around what works for farmers – is essential to catalyzing change.236240241242244245248249Private sector investments in innovations supports the delivery of outcomes for people, nature and climate During the discussions in this breakout group, five key messages emerged. To start with, participants emphasized the need to put farmers first. Too many existing commitments focus solely on companies, while . farmers need to know that they are also part of the solution. Additionally, and because they run the highest risks, farmers need better access to investments. However, they also often risk their land as collateral and therefore need to be provided with alternatives and assistance. Going beyond, farmers need incentives to adopt innovations. Making the business case for farmers notably includes showing that innovative solutions can be affordable, and that they stand as investments rather than costs. The second key message that emerged from the discussion is that solutions from the innovation ecosystem can make it easier for farmers – for example through packaged solutions such as coupling insurance with climate information, or media innovation (including educational entertainment shows on national and regional TV programs). Participants also pointed to conditioned solutions as an option – such as financial innovation offered by banks in Brazil, who are conducting assessments to help identify gaps at farm level and offer tailor-made support. The third key message was the use of policies to help farmers transition. Policies can level the playing field by reshuffling regulatory tools and looking out for factors that may hinder the transition. Currently, the competition is not equal, and good practice requires using taxes, custom codes, and procurement guidelines. Furthermore, subsidies could be redirected to SME and farmer levels. Another key message identified was that consumers at the other end of the spectrum must also be involved and helped. Lastly, participants agreed that digital, finance and media should all be framed in the innovation and solution ecosystem.236240241242243244246248249Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture – technical gaps, needs, and opportunities drawing from the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture This group discussion focused on innovation gaps, with big capacity gaps being found amongst ministries, specifically regarding multiple approaches and initiatives, and getting action on the ground. Furthermore, there is high uncertainty around carbon sources and sinks, and capacity gaps to do MRV (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification) – especially for the livestock sector and pastoral systems, particularly in Africa. Participants noted the importance of metrics for adaptation and resilience for land-based systems. Indeed, there are big gaps between concrete actions and what is being measured – this is for example the case when it comes to the volatility of soil carbon. There are also digital gaps in decision-support systems, agricultural advisories, and digital services (also showing the importance of dealing with data ownership). Participants also noted the need to continue developing basic / practical technologies such as water management technologies, solar water pumps, varieties suitable to different agroecological features (soil management), and practical steps to deal with Bio Circular Green Economy (BCG) and resilient food systems approaches (amidst a pandemic). Lastly related to the Koronivia process, participants highlighted the need to extract actions from this process and implement them. Solutions to these problems were also discussed. These included fostering public-private partnerships in innovation, reducing food loss and waste, as well as building the production capacity of smallholder farmers – not by introducing high technological advancement, but rather by catering technologies to specific site problems (for example, by packaging technologies for specific agroecological natural systems). Finally, participants agreed on the importance of deciding where to embed actions – whether it be in national processes or in multilateral agencies. They also discussed the use of metrics and how they can help in getting finance flowing. The group concluded that agriculture is the most promising poverty reduction method in the Global South, and that we should not forget the multiple positive outcomes agriculture can have on food security, nature, and poverty.237238241243244248250Some of the biggest vulnerabilities within food systems include the lack of availability and access to information, making it difficult for farmers to understand which innovations are most suited to address food and agriculture challenges at their level. Participants all agreed that information and data should be better shared, and called for more accurate measurements overall – but there were varying views as to which area should be prioritized (e.g. policy-making, actions on the ground, etc.). The discussion also revolved around the need to rethink funding structures, with a focus on rewarding innovation. Areas that need further exploration include trade-offs with other systems. Participants indeed questioned the extent to which innovations will be accepted in the market – as most of them will require trade-offs. Building on this, it will be crucial to create innovation ecosystems that can be easily deployed and scaled up – which will require overcoming existing barriers in the system. The debate then lies in identifying what the systemic barriers are, and agreeing on how to overcome them. Practices that are needed for food system sustainability may differ, as stakeholders agreed that there is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach. Innovations will thus need to be context-dependent and tailored to the needs of farmers. Although innovation management can become quite complex, customizing innovation is key.

2021-07-15 08:42:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14085/203

35131751520221113151122422411142

We recruited stakeholders from varying backgrounds to discuss solutions based on their professional knowledge and/or personal experience. To accommodate for global perspectives, we organized the dialogue at a time we deemed most suitable to allow participants from different time-zones. In selecting participants, we considered cultural, geographical, and language challenges, and included these considerations in the shaping of discussion group diversity - creating groups where perspectives and agendas may be contrasting. Given the breadth of topical points relevant to the answering of our key question - ‘can aquaculture sustainably feed the world?’, we split the discussion into four areas - each key to its development. By defining group topic focus, we were able to inspire meaningful discussion between cross-sector actors in the industry that are often indirectly involved, but would not normally interact directly around a common topic. We asked every participant to commit to the “practical” outcomes of the dialogue, to only bring solutions that they would themselves be willing to follow through with in practice. We were transparent with participants about the outcome of the dialogues, and explained we would be taking notes according to Chatham House rules, promising to treat comments confidentially and anonymously. We told participants that we would have liked the conversation to be very spontaneous and positive, trying to build on top of each other’s ideas respectfully. We also emphasized we didn't want anyone to feel that they didn’t have enough expertise to contribute to the conversation – if they had been chosen to be there, it is because we wanted to hear what they had to say.Act with urgency: We made sure that the conversation focused on the next 3-5 years and revolved around specific realistic and practical solutions. Be respectful: Everyone in the dialogue was encouraged to be respectful of others’ perspectives. Every friction and divergence was dealt with under a constructive approach. We promoted food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, communities, and ecosystems – while at the same time respecting local cultures and contexts. Recognise complexity: Throughout the dialogue, we always recognised that food systems are complex, and closely connected to (and significantly impact) human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy, and geopolitics. We allowed and encouraged disagreement with proposed solutions and recognised that solutions likely won’t be easy to implement. We recognised that solutions were needed on multiple levels, and asked participants to vote on each group’s main suggested solutions. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We encouraged conversation between members of different stakeholder groups, and ensured that everyone was always involved in the conversation and invited everyone to express themselves on each topic of discussion. Complement the work of others: We developed our own unique and relaxed style of hosting and recruited expansively across multiple sectors in an effort to stimulate new discussions that would lead to new and actionable solutions. Build trust: We committed to creating a relaxed and friendly atmosphere to build trust and open airing of truthful views. We created a spreadsheet where each participant could drop their personal details in case they wanted to be contacted by other participants or by us. We let participants know that we would send the final feedback report to them, drafted according to Chatham House rules. Participants also know that they might be offered follow-up opportunities with FoodUnfolded to reach our audience about important issues.We found that adding an interactive element (such as polls) during the plenary session allowed us to stimulate engagement from the very beginning of the event, avoiding a passive atmosphere and inspiring a higher level of attention throughout the Dialogue. Using polls also made it possible to democratically vote on the solutions that the majority of participants thought should take priority.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250Despite a longstanding history of development and expansion within Asia, the value and potential of global aquaculture has only recently surged to the forefront of public attention. With the industry’s rapid growth in recent decades, current commercial aquaculture practices have drawn scepticism over the environmental, social and ethical impacts of the industry. The key aim of this dialogue was to address whether scientific findings, personal stories and industry insights support or mitigate these concerns. We did this by questioning the limitations of current practices and by identifying new solutions that could aid us in overcoming barriers that presently limit the industry’s ability to sustainably expand and offer an economically, socially and environmentally viable means to feed higher and lower socio economic regions. We aimed to foster a more open and dynamic form of dialogue between sectors and stakeholders that would infrequently interact so candidly, to see if a more relaxed conversational style of discussion could help to gain mutual trust, understanding and ultimately lead to more rounded solutions that could ensure developments in aquaculture meet all actors’ respective measures of sustainability. Given the breadth of the topic, we broke the discussion down into four key areas in order to delve deeper into major areas of topical importance within the industry’s development. We addressed key concerns and solutions through the following groups: 1. Products & Practice: This group focussed on whether or not we are currently focussing our attention on producing the right products and using the right methods to do so. Discussion topics were oriented around the proportional roles of researchers, innovators, the public, and policymakers in shaping what we should produce and how we should produce it. 2. The Role of Research, Innovation & Technology: This group focussed on what role research, innovation and technology will respectively play in shaping and facilitating a more sustainable aquaculture industry. 3. Ethical Considerations & Animal Welfare: This group focussed on how to overcome issues relating to value chain inequities, unevenly distributed allocation of knowledge or resources needed to foster sustainable growth of aquaculture, and solutions for improved animal welfare. 4. Aligning Policy For Social & Environmental Solutions: This group focussed on the critical role of policy as both an inhibitor and provider of positive social and environmental progression within the aquaculture industry. This group discussed solutions that could help to better align policy with other sectors in order to facilitate and encourage sustainable movements.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250Participants (particularly those within industry) identified the need for a reference class with which we can compare advancements in sustainability. By outlining a clear standardised and definable metric for social and environmental sustainability, industries could act with more direction and purpose towards better practice. Many participants felt scientific and regulatory uncertainty has made sustainable progress difficult for industry to achieve in practice - regardless of any intention to do so. Many members agreed that public opinion, awareness, and consumer demand will be key to establishing more sustainable aquaculture practices. To caveat this, it was also broadly agreed that shifting this awareness should be the responsibility of industry, researchers and governments - not solely on consumers to self-educate. By creating streams of reliable, science-based information both on social media and user endpoints (like supermarkets), consumers can be nudged towards the best options. A number of groups believe that the environment should be the primary and ultimate beneficiary of sustainability focussed developments in aquaculture. By prioritising the environmental aspects of sustainability first, many participants believed there would be longer term beneficial implications for society and economy to follow. Noted - this was contested by some. Regulatory bodies need to create flexible arrangements to accommodate and support industry during this transition to soften any financial burdens accrued by focussing on environment or animal welfare over profit and immediate production. While the focus of aquaculture research has shifted towards topics that offer solutions to industry, current funding to enable the translation of research into practice is not sufficient to inspire innovator investment. There was a clear desire to realign research with industry and small-scale producers to avoid valuable knowledge ‘gathering dust’ in archives. We need greater investment on bridging institutions that can connect research with industry to facilitate their conversion into practical solutions for producers. The fisheries and aquaculture industries are underpinned by a significant degree of mistrust between policymakers and producers - a culmination of decades of disconnected decision making that neglected to award many producers direct input or voice at the decision making table. Because of this, policy for positive innovation has often misaligned with industry needs and legislation (or lack thereof) has caused bottlenecks to innovative progress. Greater linkages and dialogue between these two sectors is needed - communicators and interdisciplinary actors will be integral to bridging this gap. On a smaller scale, participants acknowledged the need to build capacity for the implementation of technology locally, in a way that is considerate and adapted to the resources available. Technology has to be affordable, attend to local needs and the focus of development and implementation of innovation must remain on creating value for producers if we’re going to see innovation adopted in practice. On a broader scale, international bodies (such as the UN) can help by establishing global sustainability standards for production, providing support for developing regions, and by defining clear attainable goals for sustainable aquaculture in those regions. The capital intensive nature of commercialised aquaculture restricts buy-in from many seeking to farm in ‘unconventional’ manners - such as in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems, or focussed on lower trophic cultivation. More sustainable farming methods need increased support from innovators and researchers in ways that can reduce operational or upfront capital costs in order to create more viable markets and profit margins for producers in this space. This also goes hand in hand with a dire need for greater education amongst the general population about less common but more alternative seafoods (e.g. lower trophic species) to boost market sizes for these products. Some participants felt that current SDG indicators (e.g. SDG14) are not sufficient to drive change as they are not sufficiently developed yet (especially in aquaculture). Researchers have a responsibility to start working more closely with industry to make indicators that make industrial, ecological and social sense. This must be a transdisciplinary exercise. Conversely, the industry also has work to do in trying to interpret their business activities in SDGs. Current feed options are incredibly cheap and are outcompeting innovation. There is a need for legislation to enable the creation of markets for competition between innovators, instead of between innovators and current ‘conventional’ feed providers. Legislation could create this market by enforcing periodic annual or bi-annual incremental increases in sustainable production. For example: regulations stipulating that this year, 1% of fish production should be 100% ‘sustainable’, and this percentage should increase over time. We cannot ask industry to volunteer for more expensive alternatives as the likelihood for adoption is low.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Discussion group 1: Product & Practice The group talked about developments in sustainable aquaculture practices, the challenges that inhibit their regional or international success, and the policies needed to reduce or remove these inhibitions. Factors that heavily influence the development and efficiency of sustainable aquaculture practices were noted as: type of species, type of feed, and financial and legislative incentives (or lack thereof) to pursue more sustainable means of production. The participants also discussed the need for policymakers to align legislation more closely with both innovator and industry demands in order to free up markets for sustainable alternatives to compete with current practices. Aligning these legislations with practical solutions would require more dialogue between the private sector and government. Additionally, the group highlighted the importance of alternative feed sourcing as a key factor for reducing environmental impacts. Promoting increased production of lower trophic or passive feeding species (e.g. bivalves or seaweed) through increased consumer awareness programmes or legislative incentives could shift focus away from more resource reliant fed species (e.g. finfish) and open space for ‘no-input’ alternatives. Overall, the group identified six possible solutions to promote the development and adoption of more sustainable aquaculture products and practices: 1. Explore restorative and multi-trophic integrated aquaculture (IMTA) systems: More financial and legislative incentives for researchers and innovators to explore scalable solutions in circular and restorative aquaculture practices. 2. Prioritise feed innovations: Alternative feeds and tighter regulation on sourcing of current feed options could offer significant reductions for the industry’s footprint. 3. Legislation must protect aquaculture investors, guaranteeing their use of allotted land or water for long periods: In many regions, there is a significant lack of aquaculture legislation which results in excessive delays for investors or prospective farmers to enter the industry. International assistance from industry experts could be useful to guide regional legislators to reduce entry barriers, and promote sustainability measures in early legislative frameworks around aquaculture. 4. Third-party sustainability reporting for the entire food system: Mandatory third-party sustainability reporting could dictate a particular producer’s available government subsidisation level and offer investors a standardised sustainability indicator prior to investment. 5. Create a market for innovation with legislation. Legislation that enforces industry adoption of sustainable alternatives could create a market for innovators to compete against each other rather than against more financially attractive, often cheaper and less sustainable options. 6. Increase support for cluster organisations for small-scale and artisanal farmers. Clusters of small-scale farmers allows artisanal producers to group and gain better deals on feed, resources (boats, nets, warehouses etc.) or technology, and would ensure individual producers are accountable to the same sustainability standards as other members of the cluster. Additionally, this would grant smallholders a more cohesive and powerful position as shapers of future policy or regulation within the industry.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Discussion group 2: Role of Research, Innovation & Technology In this discussion group, the participants agreed that current innovation and technological advancements in aquaculture are largely driven by ‘luxury’ fish producing sectors within the industry (e.g. Salmon). The group also identified a clear challenge in translating these innovations to meet diversity of species, practices and scale in other corners of the aquaculture industry where markets are less consolidated around a few key species. The group also noted a need for improved links between research and innovation which could be met by increased emphasis on accelerator initiatives (e.g. HATCH or Aqua-Spark). The private sector was noted as a key actor responsible for aiding the facilitation of increased conversion of research into practice - potentially by creating and using pooled industry research funds. The group also discussed the responsibility of innovators to focus on solutions that offer value to producers, rather than costs. Focussing innovation efforts around improved animal welfare or reductions in environmental footprint will not be adopted within industry unless regulations enforce their implementation, or they offer producers value to enhance their competitive edge at market. To increase markets for more sustainable products or alternatives, the group also acknowledged the role of educators and communicators in providing the general public with a greater depth of understanding about products and practice, with the aim of creating space for new markets and increasing acceptance of ‘novel’ alternatives. Overall, the group identified three possible solutions to promote the development and adoption of more sustainable aquaculture products and practices: 1. Develop innovations that add value to producers: Adoption and implementation of sustainability oriented innovation could be improved by placing greater emphasis on producing solutions that add value to producers, not only environment or animal welfare. 2. Improve industry-research links: Innovators and entrepreneurs need greater access to ‘accelerator’ initiatives that can facilitate the conversion of research into practice. 3. Create new markets: Create new markets for sustainable alternatives or different aquaculture products via educational programmes and transparent production narratives.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Discussion group 3: Policy For Social & Environmental Solutions The group agreed that there is no current universal or standardised definition of sustainability, nor a globally specified set of guidelines that could guide legislators, producers or innovators. Added clarity around markers pertaining to the term by international actors (e.g. UN FAO) could aid both small and large scale producers by guiding their development (especially in early phase operations). The group identified that it is paramount to bridge the social (and physical) gap between policy makers and aquaculture producers, so policy can be guided by the real needs and interests of producers. The inclusion of producers at the beginning (rather than retroactively) of the policy making process can help to build trust and understanding between those parties, while shaping the direction of legislation to be more practically and operationally considered. Regulators must be conscious to avoid contradictions around sustainability in supply chains, such as allowing importing of more sustainable lower trophic species, like bivalves from cheap production origins, where social and environmental regulations are less stringent. By allowing this, some of the benefits of more sustainable species (e.g. mussels) are offset by added environmental or social costs associated with imports from unregulated regions. Governments have a responsibility to support local producers that attempt to pursue methods deemed to be more sustainable. This could be done via subsidies for local producers, regulations for importers and retailers, and by emphasizing educational programmes that can improve consumer awareness around sustainability of their food with relation to product origins. The group felt that too much power (economical, political, of communication and marketing) is in the hands of the “big players” (corporations, big producers, supermarkets), leading to a disproportionate representation of the broader industry interests. It is important that this industry influence is more equally distributed in order to promote the diversification of products and spreading of profits to sustainability leaders in production and innovation. Two ways to achieve this could be via the establishment of producers associations (clusters or cooperatives), or by legislative support for local council buy-in as a partial owner over businesses that are established in their region. The latter could evoke greater buy-in from local actors and potentially shift the types of businesses permitted to operate in certain areas in favour of more sustainable options. The group noted that aquaculture is incredibly diverse in both product and practice, and thus requires a locally tailored approach regarding research and innovation. Research and innovation has to be developed according to local needs and also more closely account for locally available resources (financial, personal, etc). Local producers must have the capacity to implement the innovation and also provide maintenance. The group identified four main solutions to promote more sustainable production: 1. Speed of change: More support for researchers and innovators is needed to avoid industry growth outpacing sustainable solutions to mitigate any negative impacts. 2. Reconnect policy makers, producers and industry: Policy makers have to be closer to the producers to increase mutual trust and build more functional policies that align with real industry needs. 3. More collaboration: Increased facilitation and formation of cooperatives and clusters is needed to redistribute the voice of the industry away from a handful of key players. 4. Better communication: We need to reshape the narrative of aquaculture through transparent communication of the value and benefits of the sustainable aquaculture activities and products.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Discussion group 4: Ethical Considerations & Animal Welfare The group agreed that there needs to be more reliable scientific information coming from academics and objective third parties on what the best sustainable practices are for aquaculture. These then need to be disseminated to the public in smart and effective ways (e.g. social media, documentaries, information in supermarkets to guide purchasing decisions) to change demand, sentiment, and behaviour. Many felt that large producers will eventually be judged in the court of public opinion, and that this opinion needs to be shaped well. Others stressed the clear need to educate producers, because creating healthy environments for aquatic animals and aquatic food sources is in the best ethical and economic interest of all producers. The group also noted that not all producers have access to the best knowledge, research and innovation, and thus will inevitably make poor decisions despite the desire to improve. The third site of intervention identified was regulation, governments, and overseeing bodies. There was general agreement that there needs to be greater standardisation of acceptable sustainable practices in aquaculture to increase transparency among producers and enforce a base level of ecological sustainability. Some offered words of caution that these can unfairly penalize small producers, and so a regulation or sustainability tax system that is proportional to the size of each producer’s production was proposed. Lastly, some members discussed that alternative aquatic food sources (seaweed, bivalues) can be much more sustainable but there is a lack of consumer demand. Members were optimistic that the public could be nudged towards consuming these through government support (subsidies, or levies on less sustainable options), but there was agreement that nonetheless greater sustainability for foods with large demand (salmon, fish) is paramount. Overall, the group identified four possible solutions to promote more sustainable and ethically considerate production: 1. Raising awareness among the general public: Increase awareness to nudge public demand towards more sustainable types of foods - seaweed, bivalves, etc. 2. International collaboration: Improve trans-boundary collaborations and sharing of knowledge and resources to clarify definitions of sustainability, standardising regulation, block unsustainable practices, and create strategies to incentivise sustainability 3. Connect science & industry: Industry needs to listen more to researchers and be more transparent with IP around their practices to promote research in the right areas. Economical viability and animal welfare go hand in hand. 4. Producers and farmers should give back to the environment: Fish farmers should be asked to give back to the environment via funding for industry research or donations to regional environmental research agencies. This would need to be undertaken with a size-to-contribution consideration that would see larger producers ‘paying’ more back than smaller producers.237238239240241242244245246248249250Most participants were in accordance with the topics discussed, diverging only on the importance and impact of some issues raised. For example, some believe the public resistance for aquaculture products is very high, whereas others believe that there is general resistance to all intensively farmed food, whether in land or water. While the majority of members agreed that the big corporations hold too much power in aquaculture, some believe consumers should be educated so they can make different choices, demanding more variety of products (e.g. salmon is disproportionately represented in European supermarkets) to skew power balances. On the other hand, some believe it is crucial to increase the power of small producers (following the model of cooperatives of European wine producers, for example) as a more effective means to spread profit and market share. Some members were in disagreement over which sectors hold the most responsibility to enact and drive change towards sustainability - some believe that consumers and the general public are responsible, while others (particularly those in the research and industry space) felt that government bodies and policymakers have the most power. This divergence is a clear reflection of uncertainty around sector roles within the industry and is common across many other food sectors. There was also a notable divergence of opinions around the role of eco-labels as a means to drive sustainable developments. While some members felt that third-party regulated eco-certifications could help to incentivise sustainable movements within the industry, a number of members felt that labels could unfairly exclude small-scale producers through financial barriers and that labels hold little merit to consumers if not thoroughly understood by buyers.

2021-07-15 09:39:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18043/203

23013610768181418544833881301514103123416256282411615244102121568328

The Dialogue drew participation from a diverse group of stakeholders from different countries across the African Continent. It was an open discussion moderated by a seasoned journalist that took into consideration all the ideas.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The dialogue examined existing systems, policies progress towards shaping food systems trajectories in Africa and their alignment with the 2030 global Agenda. The dialogue brought together distinguished experts to galvanise voices for Africa’s development establish their perspectives on current status and issues underlining Food Systems in Africa; recommendations towards needed actions to strengthen Africa’s development especially Food Systems and Suggestions on key messages to be communicated to the UN Food Systems Summit 2021.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251i. A high dose of agricultural sciences is needed in the production systems because without science, Africa remains the science-deficient continent in the world. ii. The science agenda for agriculture in Africa needs to be promoted and domesticated within the NARS as it provides the framework for deploying science to achieve desired goals. iii. The research-extension-farmer-nexus needs to be strengthened for high technology adoption; build and strengthen solidarity and collective actions through partnerships that mobilize research and innovation expertise; co-create technologies and innovations with farmers, to address farmer’s challenges while providing local solutions; and, enhancing the capacity of farmers and consumers to contribute to research and innovation, and to policy formulation and implementation iv. Experts need to be trained in a wide range of areas that facilitate knowledge transfer and learning to the famers to facilitate the development of sustainable food systems v. Need to conduct research to generate and adapt technologies that can optimize production vi. There is need to increase investment in agriculture from 3.3 % of annual GDP by African Countries whose commitment is 10%; promote policies that ensure economic incentives to invest in agricultural production and modern inputs; and, increase investment in agricultural research (human resource and infrastructure) from the current average of 1 % of agricultural GDP. vii. . viii. There is need to seize emerging opportunities including digital innovation, Africa continental free trade agreement, nature positive solutions in the context of the UNFSS, and, engaging in effective multi stakeholder dialogues in the preparatory phases towards the UNFSS across the whole spectrum engaging regional and sub-regional bodies ix. The need to address the infrastructural deficit that affects the food systems and address the issue of incentives as well as structural vulnerability. x. Coordinated efforts and solutions are needed to find solutions that are tailoreded to address African problems xi. Climate change and urbanization: Urbanization negatively impacts food systems. Need to improve access to quality water through exploiting climate-Smart technologies xii. Since Africa’s agriculture is predominantly subsistence farming, there is need to develop a better policy environment and promote agribusiness to drive economic growth and development, building capacity in the population and promoting value chain approaches and ensure development of agro industry as a lever for development of the African economy xiii. The need to debunk the idea that agriculture is not economically rewarding and unattractive to the youth but that it can be modernized, made more productive, and more economically rewarding xiv. Rural women need to be empowered and as well enforce policy programs that need to be expanded to empower women participation in the decision making. xv. Agriculture needs to be made attractive to the Youth to enable them accustomed to the sector at a very tender age. The stereotyping of agriculture being portrayed as a burden to the African woman needs to be changed. The governments need to start investing in the Youth whilst considering donor funding as a catalyst to the entire process. African governments need to stat funding their own institutions as this will enable Africans to set their own priorities including revisiting/valuing own indigenous knowledge and practices (sustainable practices). Despite the fact that the majority of smallholders engaging in agriculture are advanced in age, there is a new age agri-preneurs applying modern production practices xvi. Small scale famers need to be fully supported in every process that they undertake to avoid hidden hunger. xvii. There is need for collaboration, partnerships and reducing post-harvest losses. Digital technologies and renewable energy need to be harnessed with focus on the smallholder famers.236238239240241242243244245248249251i) How can Africa strengthen its food systems • There is need to reorient policy dialogue to underpin and inform and guide well planned transformation • There is need to mainstream strategies and frameworks aimed at transforming food systems from development actors and national systems • Serious private sector engagement is needed as well as advancing Public private sector relationships • Orientation and focusing more on the drivers and game changers including: value chain development, entrepreneurship development; and, digital transformation especially for Youth and Women both regional and in the African Context ii) Students that undertake agricultural degrees are those that performed fairly at high school and what can be done to reverse this trend to ensure that more young people participate in agriculture? The curricular needs to be reformed to make agriculture attractive to the Youth/students but also the governments never used to prioritize agriculture and it is of recent that agriculture is gaining prominence. Students are also not incentivized to engage in agricultural interventions due to limitation in capital, land for farming and other incentives iii) The possibility for food security initiatives to cut across the African Continent This is possible because the demand for food is across Africa. Food insecurity is attributed to the deficit of science to drive our own agriculture. iv) Seasonality of agriculture in Africa is a problem and irrigation needs to be increased. How can this be undertaken? There is need to build resilience to adapt to vulnerabilities including lack of water. Apart from irrigation, there is need for a comprehensive approach encompassing resistant varieties/breeds and resilience building237None

2021-07-15 09:42:37205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15567/98

100

The theme was selected to generate some conversation outcomes across the Action Tracks. Each participant was encouraged to engage in a multi-stakeholder process and contribute to the discussion topics selected recognizing the complexity of food systems to draw game changing solutions and commitments to the summit.After the opening remarks and plenary panel discussion, participants were divided into breakout rooms to discuss their topics and report back to the main room. There was a moderator and rapporteur in each breakout room to ensure everyone had an opportunity to be heard and voice opinions. The dialogue registration process allowed participants to select discussion topics of interest so that each participant could constructively contribute to the breakout sessions.Allow participants to select the breakout room of their choice so that they can comfortably and constructively contribute to the discussions. Ensure the agenda, discussion topics and questions are shared with participants prior to the event so that they adequately prepare for the discussions and are ready to be actively engaged during the discussions. Arrange for your rapporteur forms to follow the FSDs gateway feedback form format and train your moderators and rapporteurs to understand the dialogue process and principles of engagement.

Yes

234238241242243244245246248249250251On May 20, 100 participants from various stakeholder groups in the South Eastern Kenya Economic Blok (SEKEB) gathered in a virtual Dialogue as part of the Kenya United Nations Food Systems Dialogue series in preparation for the Food Systems Summit. Communities of interest were grouped around the following areas during the dialogue: • Building resilience in food systems • Enhancing partnerships • Strengthening inclusivity in food systems • Leveraging on enabling and coherent legal and policy framework Some challenges explored include: • Ensuring year-round availability, affordability, and consumption of diverse, safe, and nutritious foods and diets. • Strengthening the capacity of local producers to optimally and sustainably benefit from local production across the value chain. • Enhancing and incentivizing meaningful and beneficial participation of women, youth and people with disabilities in food systems. • Strengthening policy and legal frameworks to enable the region accrue optimal benefits from food systems. The key issues raised were: • Policies and regulatory frameworks: The transformation of agriculture and food sectors in the SEKEB region need to be anchored and rooted in the law and aligned with the counties’ budgets, plans and policies. A people-driven policy process is required to ensure policy developed is responsive to the specific needs of SEKEB. Policy coherence and harmonization between the county and national governments is crucial while the three counties need to also align their agricultural policies. • Partnerships and collaboration: No one actor can do it alone! Partnerships and collaborations are required in training and capacity building, financing, education and research to ensure a common vision is shared in realizing food and nutrition security in SEKEB. • Financing: For existing initiatives to be scaled up to the last mile, financing is crucial. Financing is not about pumping money into projects or giving handouts. Financing can range from organizing farmers into cooperatives and groupings to enable them pull their resources together, to the creation of the SEKEB bank to provide interest-free loans, to governments and private sector creating co-financing systems. • Climate change: SEKEB being an ASAL is vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and this is a key factor that needs to be considered when designing solutions to address the food systems challenges in the area. • Research and reliable data: Research and availability of reliable data is crucial to ensuring evidence-based planning, right from the national government level, to SEKEB, to the three counties and up to the smallholder level. Research and reliable data will ensure solutions meet the specific needs of SEKEB. • Innovation and technology: Harnessing agricultural innovations and technologies is critical to realizing efficiency of food systems in SEKEB and contribute to food and nutritional security in the region. Irrigation is a major agricultural technology that is guaranteed to make SEKEB a food and nutrition secure region. The use of digital tools can support the deployment of extension services, financial services, as well as enhance policy participatory processes.235238239243244245246247248249• Building resilience in food systems Climate change has greatly impacted the already fragile ASAL region greatly derailing the progress of labour output and consistent farming cycles. Livelihoods and farm investments have also been impacted and the food security of the region jeopardized. Building the resilience of food systems in the SEKEB region requires the strengthening of data-led research on weather patterns, planning using evidence approach rather than traditional practices, and maximizing the use of water catchment areas and resources. Investments in innovation and technologies are also needed to further build the resilience of food systems in the region. These technologies include irrigation, use of digital agriculture tools in extension services, supporting market access and managing post-harvest losses through processing of produce. The three counties need to pull their resources together and leverage on each other’s strength thereby making the food systems more effective and efficient. • Enhancing partnerships Partnerships presents an opportunity for exchange of knowledge, resources, and information sharing which is key to behaviour change. Partnerships are required across the value chain and can be instrumental in enabling smallholders and other value chain actors access financing, training (e.g. on challenges such as post-harvest losses and waste management) and boost innovation. Through networking, partnerships have the potential to strengthen communities and help solve local issues faster, enable locals engage in new practices like research and make it easier for demonstration of new products or practices to a wider audience. Creating local partnerships builds ground root networks that create self-sufficiency and reduce dependency. Faith Based Organizations, Women Groups, Youth Groups etc bring together ready constituents who have a common good. • Strengthening inclusivity in food systems The participation of youth, women, and people with disabilities is critical to realizing food systems that are inclusive. The SEKEB has already existing opportunities that need to be leveraged and scaled to enhance the participation of these groups in food systems to realize food and nutrition security. These opportunities include the Kenya Youth in Agriculture Strategy that includes a robust measures and solutions to meaningfully engage young people in agriculture across SEKEB; presence of strong research institutions in agriculture, as well as Technical and Vocational Training (TVETs) institutions. The leadership in SEKEB is viewed as forward thinking which is deemed as a very important facet in ensuring the region could achieve agricultural transformation. The ASAL nature of the region is deemed as strategic advantage providing and opportunity for youth, women and people with disabilities to venture into profitable value chains. The proximity to the urban centers, particularly the country’s capital Nairobi, for the counties is deemed as a welcome opportunity to provide women and youth with stable markets. The SEKEB counties are also well resourced with water from the Athi and Tana rivers which provide opportunity for their successful exploitation through irrigation technology. The creation of the SEKEB Bank will be a great boost to young people interested in agri-business as it will enable access to much needed capital. SEKEB has also initiated successful agro-processing and value-addition that is an opportunity to enhance the capacity and skills of young people as well as provide meaningful employment for them. To leverage these opportunities and realize the active participation of young people, women and people with disabilities in food systems, it is critical to ensure that these groups have ownership rights and access to productive resources including land, finance, digital agriculture and technology solutions, training and access to research data and information. The full implementation of the Kenya Youth in Agriculture Strategy is critical. The SEKEB counties should accelerate the process of integration as this would provide an opportunity for connection of youth across the block therefore making it possible to achieve aggregation of produce and peer to peer learning and sharing of experiences. There is also need for friendlier business environments within SEKEB by lessening the stringent licensing requirements for agribusinesses. • Leveraging on enabling and coherent legal and policy framework The transformation of agriculture and food sectors in the SEKEB region need to be anchored and rooted in the law and aligned with the counties’ budgets, plans and policies. Major discrepancies exist between the national and county functions with agriculture being a devolved function while policy making still rests with the national government thereby making it difficult to deliver on much needed agricultural reforms specific to the SEKEB region. It is critical to ensure there is policy coherence and harmonization of overlapping roles and division of policy making responsibility between the two levels of government. Within the counties, there is lack of alignment in agriculture policies. Intergovernmental cooperation, institutional coordination, public participation and stakeholder involvement is required to ensure that policies in the SEKEB region are people driven, optimal and facilitated agricultural transformation leading to food and nutritional security.236238239240241242243244245246248249• Building resilience in food systems The resilience of food systems in the three counties in the SEKEB region can be strengthened by the counties pulling their resources together. There is need to reduce competition among the counties and grow as a bloc/region. This includes maintaining collective processing plants where farmers from all the three counties can access, e.g., Makueni has developed a processing plant, how can farmers from the other counties access it? Farmers must have free access to facilities across the three counties. There is also need to create linkages and have open markets to allow free interaction and access among agribusinesses. Governments should enable the private sector and ensure ease of doing business. Strengthening household resilience requires creating awareness among communities on the importance of dietary diversity, encouraging kitchen gardening and vertical farming for smallholders. The role of livestock should be acknowledged, and households encouraged to invest in livestock. Research is crucial in providing farmers with more accurate information on weather patterns and when to plant. Information trickling down to smallholders can further be strengthened and scaled up by engaging young people in extension service which will ensure each county has field extension officers in every ward. Use of digital technology to disseminate extension services is also crucial. Strengthening private sector can further contribute to developing sustainable food systems in SEKEB. This can be achieved by: developing and approving policies that promote local production; creating enabling environments that promote local ownership across the value chain; promoting new technologies by offering incentives to SMEs; making energy affordable; and maximizing the use of already existing infrastructure such as the Standard Gauge Railway and road networks that have improved the connectivity of the counties. • Enhancing partnerships Enhancing partnerships requires support from the county governments and existing networks. County administration support is required to reduce bureaucracy and administrative bottle-necks to reduce burden on businesses and smallholders. It is important that opportunities available at the county level are communicated to value chain actors, whether financial or training. All SMEs can, for example, be put in one group to support each other. There is need to mobilize farmers into cooperatives and groupings to grow crops which can be used to improve health and nutrition outcomes (e.g. pawpaw that can be fortified for porridge to be used in school feeding programs). Research on local needs is required so that partnerships are planned and build around these needs. Some local partnership needs include opportunities for educating and training local producers on value addition to diversify production, access to technology and innovations, market access (including pricing), creating awareness on forgotten crops etc. • Strengthening inclusivity in food systems Prioritization of youth involvement and meaningful engagement in the agri-food sector in SEKEB is critical. This prioritization should be accompanied by the right policies and investments in youth projects that address the barriers and that incentivize young people to engage in agriculture as a career and business. There should be means and avenues to make agriculture attractive to young people with such incentives as making ag technology solutions ubiquitous for the youth, including some climate-smart technologies such as irrigation. Technology and mechanization further provide additional benefits especially in reducing the labour burden of women farmers. Access to interest friendly capital is also crucial to attracting more youth, women and persons living with disabilities to participate in food systems to grow and scale their farms and agribusinesses. Taking a cue from the success of agro-processing and value addition in the SEKEB counties, more efforts should be made in enhancing the capacity and skills of young people in the counties on the subject as value addition and agro-processing is leading to economic gain for agri-food producers.

2021-07-15 09:52:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29115/203

415259182310215322250102209

The Dialogue was organized as contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Speakers presentations highlighted the complexity of food systems. Diverse speakers were invited to to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-Offs; Speakers were of different gender and represented diverse cultural and professional perspectives. A space was created defined by respect for the other that allowed invited speakers and other participants to present their views, comment, and openly discuss with each other.Discussion made very visible the complexity of Food Systems and the urgent need to improve true multi-stakeholder dialogue that not only recognizes need for collaboration but manages to collectively and creatively find pathways for better bridging different knowledge systems.-

Yes

234242244248251The dialogue focussed on bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge for sustainable and inclusive food systems. The event addressed concepts for a joint understanding of integrating indigenous knowledge to science and vice versa, general problem statements on effects when indigenous food systems are marginalized, and different case study examples from Bolivia, India, Mali and Tanzania how indigenous knowledge was integrated in scientific approaches. Based on diverse inputs, strategies on better linking the different knowledge systems for more inclusive and resilient foos systems were discussed.235242244248251Science led modern agriculture and food systems do not integrate indigenous knowledge to great extent despite the debates on bridging the gap between science and indigenous knowledge and bridging the knowledge systems requires high level political and knowledge integration. Indigenous food systems are generally diverse, healthy, nutrient rich and produced in a sustainable way. In spite of global challenges including rapid urbanisation, loss of indigenous languages, land grabbing and forced displacement of indigenous people, indigenous food systems can provide important knowledge and technologies on and for sustainable, healthy and affordable food systems. To optimize the potentials of traditional knowledge systems however, a bottom-up approach is essential, based on a dense network of research institutions embedded within their local contexts. Traditional indigenous cultures were highly adapted to their environment and their knowledge evolved through centuries of human-nature interaction which was subsequently lost also to colonization. Building new paradigmatic frameworks of knowledge, dialogue and ecology, where scientific and traditional knowledge can take advantage of the richness of the biocultural food heritage is important to achieve the nexus of science and indigenous knowledge. Current forest management policies, for example, do not integrate the traditional indigenous knowledge and thus leads to the loss of traditional food system knowledge and human-nature harmony. Generally, policy reforms need to aim at building local knowledge and support collective resource management.236242244248251Main outcomes: - The importance of careful research designs actively integrating indigenous knowledge including active involvement of all relevant stakeholders. - Integration of local research institutions in food system research approaches. - Transfer of research outcomes including indigenous knowledge should be disseminated via advisory and extension services. However, the style of transferring knowledge (bottom-up vs top down) is rather challenging in keeping participatory principles. - value of nutrition education to enhance the value/recognition of indigenous food systems237242244248The spectrum of participants and speakers overrepresented academia, NGOs and governmental organizations. This imbalanced representation and negelct of indigenous people and knowledge was also key point of discussion. As one example, the UNFSS was discussed as also here indigenous people or farmers are under-represented to non-existent in main activities. Further exploration is also needed on how to involve extension services in more inclusive and multi-directional ways to prevent them being/becoming agents of scientifc knowledge. Another point of discussion that remained open for debate was on decolonialization processes and how they can possibly hinder or contribute to better bridging different knowledge systems.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/One_Pager_UNFSS_2021_Loehr-et-al_06_07_21.pdfhttps://www.zalf.de/en/Pages/ZALF.aspxhttps://www.up.ac.za/https://www.welthungerhilfe.org/

2021-07-15 09:59:12205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34017/152

515331970491212843588923127441810

The dialogue was well organised and information on the principles was distributed during the meetings.Broad discussion is very important to reach a right result.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248The dialogue highlighted Russian priorities, achievements and targets in the national food system. The dialogue focused on the important aspects including: Food Security Doctrine, School feeding, Food assistance, Support for agriculture in developing countries, Soil preservation. Participants recognized that many solutions are already in place on a local and regional levels. It highlighted that the government and all stakeholders support the outcomes of the dialogue in the Russian Federation.235Please see attachment236Please see attachment237Please see attachment

2021-07-15 10:12:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20038/203

6301241912141198600240060201100070000007181025010201638

We organized a keynote discussion with two high-level speakers to establish a sense of urgency with which we must come to solutions and actions for healthier urban environments. The curator elaborated on the goal and principles of the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) and further emphasized the need to collaborate respectfully to reach constructive ideas which could be incorporated in the Summit. A diverse group of participants representing different backgrounds, as well as different geographic regions, was invited and participated in the dialogue. The diverse group of participants were then encouraged to explore experiences which were both consistent or contradictory to fully acknowledge the level of complexity that food systems transformation entails, and to further acknowledge the various stakeholders required for a systems approach. Facilitators were especially prepared to encourage such discussions within the breakout groups while fostering mutual respect and trust in the conversations.Since our Independent Dialogue specifically set out to explore lessons to implement systems approaches for childhood obesity prevention, the participants and facilitators fostered a constructive conversation which acknowledged the multi-disciplinarity of food systems transformation. Hence, participants from different stakeholder backgrounds were able to adequately discuss an issue or topic from various perspectives and still reach constructive action points. Further, since the Dialogue also intended to facilitate cross-country learnings, participants from different geographical backgrounds were able to share their own experiences and moreover, contribute to an understanding of differences and similarities between various contexts.Apart from the details recorded by the registration form, information about participants’ geographical work background should also be recorded to ensure voices from all over the world can contribute to the Dialogue, where applicable for No Border events. Further, facilitators’ abilities to foster respectful and constructive discussion proved important, due to which adequate time should be given to ensure facilitators are comfortable doing so.

Yes

234238243246249This Independent Dialogue sought to explore Dutch lessons in employing urban systems approaches to combat childhood obesity. Starting with the lessons from a systematic analysis of Dutch municipal approaches to combating childhood obesity, we aimed to explore how the Dutch lessons can be used in other contexts. Further, we invited city networks and other local governments and communities worldwide to share their insights on such urban systems approaches. In doing so, this dialogue aimed to compile successful lessons in transforming urban food systems to create a healthier youth in cities worldwide. Hence, it aligns with UNFSS’s Action Track 1: ‘ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all’ with a specific focus on childhood obesity in youth. The Dialogue was commenced by a key-note discussion between two high-level speakers to establish the concept of a systems approach and the major international, national, and local implications of implementing such an approach. Following this, findings from the systems approaches in the Netherlands were shared from the ‘Urban Learnings project’ – the research project which carried out the analysis based on experiences from Dutch municipalities employing a systems approach for childhood obesity prevention. Researchers presented the five major themes which were identified for the successful implementation of such an approach, namely: i) municipal organization and political support, ii) collaboration with civil society, academia, and private parties, iii) activities on prevention and care, iv) communication, and v) monitoring and evaluation. Break-out rooms were created based on these five themes to explore the experiences from different contexts and reach constructive strategies for implementing such urban systems approaches worldwide. Each discussion group was initiated with an introductory contribution on the theme by a city network. The participants in break-out rooms were designed to have equal representation from different stakeholder backgrounds but also geographical backgrounds. This allowed for multi-stakeholder perspectives to be voiced and for experiences from different cities to be shared. In this way, the Dialogue firstly aimed to gain insights into translating findings of the research onto a broader context. Further, it aimed to foster knowledge exchange between cities so that urban areas can transform for lower childhood obesity prevalence, and in overall, healthier youth by 2030.235238243246249From the presentations and discussion groups in this Independent Dialogue, we were able to arrive at several constructive points for the successful implementation of urban systems approaches targeting childhood obesity. Derived from the discussion group outcomes below, the key lessons and considerations highlight the importance of the following: Strong leadership: An important enabler of a systems approach against childhood obesity is inculcating leadership and willingness at all levels, ranging from mayors to families and from local, national, and international level. Leadership is also needed to scale the program if successful or derive lessons from it if unsuccessful. It is not just one political leader that is important, but their ability in working collectively across policy domains. Working in multi-stakeholder partnerships: Cities are advised to establish a partnership network in which a wide range of stakeholders, such as academia, grassroot organizations and services are included. This facilitates thinking of childhood obesity or malnutrition from various perspectives and tackling the behavioral determinants from different angles. The findings from the research in the Dutch context suggested that a steering committee should be setup to guide and govern a multistakeholder partnership. In the dialogue, this was seen as a good suggestion. However, one needs to realize that not all sectors are equally strong as may be the case in the Netherlands. Implementing activities in schools: schools are important avenues globally to reach the target population for better nutrition, physical activity, as well as education for the same. Apart from schools, other routes need to be explored based on country contexts to reach children from multiple avenues. Community engagement: for the purposes of designing successful interventions, it is important to engage the community and stakeholders from the early stages of the program. This also requires that the target population such as children and families are reached out to. Doing so would allow for interventions to be developed more appropriately and better align with the needs of the population. Further, it would allow for context-appropriate interventions to be devised based on how the burden of childhood obesity falls and which groups are disproportionately affected. Lastly, communication between cities was also considered important so that different urban areas can share their experiences and create a wider pool of knowledge from each other. Simple monitoring and evaluation tools: while monitoring and evaluation is crucial for constantly adapting an integrated approach, organizations are often not well-equipped to develop a monitoring and evaluation system in terms of capacity and funding. Therefore, it would be useful to devise simple tools and guidelines for organizations to utilize. Assistance can be given from public health services, or academia partners and research institutes. Further, a systems approach means that we should also be able to look at the whole picture when monitoring progress. Hence, monitoring of quantitative indicators should be supplemented with qualitative research as well. In this way, the Dialogue allowed for representatives of both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries to come together and share experiences for childhood obesity prevention using systems approaches. While outcomes indicate initial thoughts on this, there is still a need to devote more time and resources to make further progress in this exchange of lessons. Moreover, the enthusiasm of participants from diverse backgrounds, city network representatives, and high-level presenters indicates the scope and willingness to further develop this commitment towards Action Track 1 for a healthier youth.236238243246249**PLEASE NOTE: outcomes in this and the following section represent outcomes from the plenary session of the Dialogue, namely: i) conversation between high-level speakers, and ii) main research findings from the Urban Learnings project on Dutch lessons for childhood obesity prevention using systems approaches. ** i) Plenary: Conversation between high-level speakers: High-level speakers discussed the scope of urban systems approaches against childhood obesity from a local, national, and international perspective to initiate discussion in the Dialogue. They mentioned that an important enabler of such a systems approach against childhood obesity is inculcating leadership and willingness at all levels, ranging from mayors to families. Leadership is also needed to scale the program if successful, or to derive lessons from it if unsuccessful. Further, speakers elaborated that a crucial aspect of implementing a systems approach is firstly ensuring nutrition is on the political agenda. For this, it is important to elect mayors or political leaders that have a clear agenda for a healthy and vibrant city, where everyone can make a decent living, and a city which is well-connected to the surrounding rural areas. A need to properly incorporate the rural and urban areas was emphasized so that there are better connections within the food chain and the people working in it. In this way, urban areas can take the lead in scaling such systems approaches, and moreover, in working towards the sustainable development goals and UNFSS Action Track 1. As part of a systems approach, establishing public-private partnerships was described as a challenging aspect of a systems approach. It is important to create healthier environments for children, such as by regulating marketing towards children, and the choices presented to children and families. A proposed strategy was the “naming and faming” of companies that are genuinely interested in investing in future generations, whereas “naming and shaming” of companies which are avoiding the same. Further, a systems approach is considered appropriate in acknowledging that food choices extend beyond individual decision-making. The environment is crucial because we as individuals cannot constantly refrain from eating unhealthy foods when they are available to us. Specifically, lower income families are constantly challenged by the food environment. Hence, the key element from the city perspective is to improve the food environment.236238243246249**PLEASE NOTE: outcomes in this section represent outcomes from the plenary session of the Dialogue** ii) Plenary: Main research findings from the Urban Learnings project (executive summary available as a link at the end of the Feedback Form, once published) Acknowledging that childhood obesity is a wicked problem with complex determinants and causes, several Dutch municipalities have implemented a systems approach called JOGG (Dutch acronym for Healthy Youth, Healthy Future). The aim of the Urban Learnings project was to compile and analyze the lessons learnt from these Dutch municipalities, so that these lessons can be shared with other contexts. For this, a mixed-method approach was used, which included a literature review and qualitative analysis. After the desk research, an interview framework was created based on five themes of JOGG: i) municipal organization and political support, ii) collaboration with civil society, academia, and private parties, iii) activities on prevention and care, iv) communication, and v) monitoring and evaluation. Findings followed these five themes to identify main learnings which can potentially be translated to other contexts. Firstly, municipal organization and political support entails the political commitment, organization structure, collaboration within municipalities, and budget-related matters. Secondly, collaborations entail building networks and engaging with all stakeholders involved. Collaboration with civil society, academia, and private parties was especially highlighted for a systems approach. Next, implementation of both prevention and care activities are required for childhood obesity prevention, as well as findings effective avenues for implementation to reach the target population. Further, communication is required to keep all parties involved. This includes both external communication towards the target population, as well as internal communication within the stakeholders organizing the approach. The last theme, monitoring and evaluation, covers the need for data to create urgency at the municipal level, and constantly adapt the approach based on lessons learnt. In the Dialogue, discussion groups followed the five themes that arose from the research to exchange lessons, and thus arrive at concrete recommendations towards Action Track 1 for a healthier youth.236238243246249Discussion group 1: Municipal organization & political support For a successful systems approach, there is a need to establish childhood obesity as a system-wide priority that links to municipal priorities. Participants elaborated that it is important to have a strong local political leader who works with other council members (or equivalent in other political contexts) across various policy domains. Further, it is also important for political leaders to be passionate about actively engaging with the community and have strong political will to be able to implement the intervention combatting childhood obesity. Successful political leadership was described as one that invested in creating a wide partnership network with a range of stakeholders, such as academia, grassroot organizations and services. Doing so facilitates thinking of childhood obesity or malnutrition from various perspectives and tackling the behavioral determinants from different angles. Hence, strong political leadership is considered important for several reasons in adopting a systems approach. While these lessons were important for some European cities, an important consideration for translation of learnings worldwide is that political settings may differ across different contexts. Based on this, participants elaborated that decision-making powers may lie at the national or city level in certain contexts, and this would affect how transferrable the above-mentioned learnings are with regards to urban systems approaches. This may be especially relevant for low- and middle-income country contexts, where health and nutrition policy may be determined at the national level. Regardless of the context, participants also stated the importance of different levels of governments working together to create a system of policies converging in the same direction. Even for contexts where systems approaches can be executed at the municipality level, national governments are important to provide an overarching national roadmap for implementation of an integrated approach. Hence, participants emphasized the need for municipalities to work together with national governments to create national policies for urban food system transformation. The role of local and regional governments in food systems was highlighted as creating democratic access to nutritious food to tackle hunger and obesity. Additionally, an urban systems approach was also envisioned as one adopting a territorial approach such that governments consider urban-rural linkages and emissions throughout the food system and implementation of the systems approach.236238243246249Discussion group 2: Collaboration with civil society, academia, and private partners Fostering the concept of ‘food citizenship’ requires creating networks across spheres of government, as well as civil society associations, indigenous communities, farmers, and relevant stakeholders. Participants mentioned that this is needed to develop transparent and inclusive food systems at city levels. Further, academia was considered important in setting better and clearer standards on what healthy food is so that it is clear what should be promoted in an integrated approach for healthier youth. Working with private parties may also be fruitful to create healthier food environments. Participants elaborated that the main challenges for collaborating with multiple parties are differing visions and differing timelines for expectations; for example, private parties may have shorter term expectations while academia may be used to longer-term visions. To overcome this challenge, there should be clear understandings of the vision and timelines from the start of the project. It was stated that meaningful public-private partnership especially requires a common goal to be established. A steering committee was discussed to be beneficial as it involves people at different levels in a multidisciplinary manner. Additionally, an important consideration mentioned was that local governments and institutions need to be strong to be able to drive a common agenda and create adequate public-private partnerships. Hence, this can be a potential barrier in some contexts and may change how appropriate this collaboration model is for implementing a systems approach.236238243246249Discussion group 3: Implementation of activities To design appropriate childhood obesity interventions within a systems approach, the need for community engagement was emphasized by participants. This entails engaging the target population, such as children and families, in the early stages of a program. Schools were mentioned as an important avenue to implement prevention and care activities through. This was a shared experience from several cities that participated in the Dialogue, from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, thus making schools an effective avenue to deliver interventions to children and youth. Integrating healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle into the school curriculum can support knowledge and awareness on a healthy diet among children and their parents. However, despite the general success of interventions at schools, participants also mentioned the need to find alternative avenues for when schools are closed, such as online initiatives. Finding other avenues for activity implementation may also be helpful for contexts where schools may not have low attendance, as also observed by participants during lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To adequately improve the environments of children and facilitate healthier lifestyles, attention should also be given to urban planning and creating green spaces. By creating better parks, cycling routes, and spaces for playing and physical activity, public spaces can be transformed to promote active mobility. This was considered especially important in and around schools as well as in community neighborhoods. Moreover, participants suggested school yards can be made publicly accessible outside of school hours to create extra places for children to be active. This would allow for children to be exposed to healthy amounts of physical activity, which is important in addition to healthier diets for the prevention of childhood obesity. Further, participants mentioned that engaging parents for the lifestyle change of their children is vital. Parents can be engaged by inviting them into the playground and involving them with messages around healthier food consumption, increasing physical activity, and lifestyle modification. Lastly, participants elaborated that different countries experience the issue of childhood obesity differently. For some countries, childhood obesity largely affects lower socioeconomic households, while in others, it is an issue affecting higher socioeconomic households. Moreover, there may be different minorities and ethnic groups that are disproportionately affected. Hence, it was considered important to take this into account when designing interventions and policy, and when learning experiences from other countries.236238243246249Group 4: Communication Within a systems approach, communication was considered important both internally and externally. Internal communication entails coordinating activities within the approach, collaborating with multiple stakeholders. On the other hand, external communication entails reaching out to the target population, such as children and families, to whom the approach is directed towards. For the purposes of internal communication, participants mentioned the need for a dedicated interdepartmental board to work with multiple stakeholders and ensure everyone is working towards the same direction and vision. This interdepartmental board was described as important because of its ability to implement ‘cross-cutting communication’, i.e., communication that goes beyond departmental boundaries and involves all stakeholders to successfully implement a systems approach. According to participants, communication activities should be aimed at the target groups and the corporate level to keep a healthy lifestyle and a healthy environment on the agenda of politicians, social partners, business, policy, and the media. Additionally, importance was placed on communication across multiple stakeholders and departments for the integration of health actions in a variety of programs and policies. With regards to external communication, participants suggested communicating with the target population from early stages of the program. This was considered important to be able to design effective interventions, but to also make intervention design a collaborative process by taking into account the needs of the people. Further, raising awareness on interventions to combat childhood obesity through marketing and branding was considered beneficial. Lastly, participants mentioned that communication between cities is very important. Through city-city cooperation, cities can share their experiences and create a wider pool of knowledge from each other. Such communication should focus not only on what has been effective in some contexts, but also on what has been ineffective so that newer approaches can be devised accordingly. Particularly, participants mentioned that exchange of experiences between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can be fruitful since the former has been working on childhood obesity prevention for longer and may have more experience. Such experiences can be adapted and utilized for LMICs after taking into account the double burden of malnutrition (coexisting undernutrition and overweight). A potential strategy highlighted here was ‘leap-frogging’, which entails that LMICs can avoid following the same trajectory of the nutrition transition that is evident in HICs. To do this, participants suggested returning to optimized traditional diets may be better for both human and planetary health, and can help LMICs to avoid moving towards higher prevalence of childhood obesity but instead, treating all forms of malnutrition.236238243246249Group 5: Monitoring and evaluation Since childhood obesity is a wicked problem with complex determinants and causes, its prevention may also entail complex methods and analyses. However, participants stressed the need to create simple tools and guidelines to measure the food environment and its determinants. This is especially important for organizations implementing a systems approach who may not have in-depth knowledge or resources on how to conduct monitoring and evaluation. Thus, according to participants, academia and public health officials should collaborate to create simple tools, trainings, and guidelines for non-research organizations to be able to conduct appropriate monitoring and evaluation. Further, to measure the prevalence of childhood obesity, participants discussed the need for indicators other than body mass index (BMI), which can offer a limited picture. However, it was expressed that since a systems approach is adopted, it may not be necessary to overcomplicate matters by trying to find perfect indicators and effects. A systems approach means that we should also be able to look at the whole picture when monitoring progress. Due to this, participants mentioned that qualitative data is important for adapting systems approaches, in addition to quantitative data. Qualitative data may help overcome the shortfalls in quantitative research, such as that of limited indicators and causal effects. Further, participants suggested it may be especially relevant to create an overall assessment of the program’s success by acknowledging the systems approach instead of isolating particular indicators. Lastly, qualitative data may also facilitate involvement of communities and target populations to lend their own voices. Participants stated that this engagement of communities acknowledges that evaluation is more than just collecting data but also gives community members the opportunity to be involved. Lastly, for the purposes of translation of learnings between cities worldwide, context-specific data was considered crucial to detect the differences between countries. This requires working closely with health officials that are working in monitoring and evaluation to see what works and what does not. Participants indicated that research is needed specifically to learn differences in determinants of malnutrition in various contexts so that experiences from cities can be translated and transferred worldwide.237238243246249There was only one significant area of divergence within the groups, since most of the nuance of conversation arose from differences in city and country contexts. This nuance was intended as part of the ‘translation of lessons and experiences’ dimension of the Dialogue and adhered to in a respectful and constructive conversation. The only significant area of divergence was within the communications group (breakout room 3). There was a discussion about how LMICs should return to traditional diets to avoid the trajectory of increasing childhood obesity that HICs underwent, since traditional diets may be healthier for both humans and the planet. This was, however, contested by one of the participants who elaborated that not all traditional diets are healthy, and that people in urban areas increasingly want foods that are convenient, apart from being affordable. Hence, they mentioned the need to work with the target population and ensure that interventions match the needs of the people. In response to returning to traditional diets, another participant from an LMIC mentioned that this may not be entirely possible since many traditional crops are not grown due to lacking commercial and research interest.

2021-07-15 11:17:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23560/1975203177

1493221218311112271

The dialogue was organized in an online format so that everyone could participate. In the beginning, the organizer highlighted the main questions that participants should keep in mind throughout the dialogue: “How should our food systems look in ten years from now?” and “How can we get there?” This contributes to the development of solutions and should encourage participants not just to mention solutions, but also to consider their implementation, feasibility, and potential side effects in different geographical and social contexts. The dialogue convenor invited different stakeholders from local farmers, students, researchers, and supermarket managers to NGOs, entrepreneurs, and chefs. The number of participants was a bit lower than expected in the end, and I saw much more participants from academia than from other sectors. The dialogue focused on food waste, still, participants took different other issues into account, e.g. current food trends in different countries, food loss and food waste definitions, social impacts of food waste, and the cultural meaning of food and food waste. The focus on food waste, nevertheless, helped to narrow down the complexity of the topic. Existing initiatives, e.g. the French law against food waste, as well as best practices from the business were actively mentioned and incorporated in the dialogue as well. The geographical focus of the dialogue on the DACH region was enhanced by “beyond”, so also international participants e.g. from Turkey and Singapore had their say. Participants discovered different eating customs throughout the dialogue, and they respectfully listened to other standpoints of views. Lastly, this report here aggregates findings of the participants, and single participants' names have not been mentioned. Throughout the dialogue, the atmosphere was very respectful and open, so everyone was invited to clearly state his/her opinion also if it was controversial.As the dialogue was centered in the DACH region, dialogue groups were offered in two languages: English and German. This was intended to enable everyone to contribute, even if they did not speak English respectively did not feel comfortable in the language. This as well as the organization of the dialogue in a zoom format guaranteed inclusivity. The event was not just advertised on the Food Systems Summit 2021 website, but also via social media, on LinkedIn and per private email invitations as well as informal invitations per phone or in person. This aimed to contribute more stakeholder inclusivity. The Convenor also invited participants in the beginning to ask questions any time they wished to do so, and hands were frequently raised throughout the interactions. Thus, participants did not need to interrupt each other.My advice is to organize dialogue groups in different languages for maximum inclusivity, and also to choose hybrid and/or online formats to enable participants from various areas all around the globe to participate in the summit. Moreover, I think a certain focus in the area of food systems, or in the geographical area is very valuable to enable a more structured discussion and more concrete outcomes. For inspiration, I recommend looking at the titles of other dialogues too. I also encourage dialogue convenors to make a list of potential attendees in the beginning, and to invite them not just via email but also via telephone. The Convenor of this dialogue sent a lot of invitations per mail but she did not call back if she did not receive a reply or sign up. During these days, mailboxes are frequently full and therefore, it is advisable that you also use other means of communication. In general, not just marketing but also lobbying is key to guarantee maximum stakeholder inclusivity: Build relations with farmer associations, consumer associations, and SMEs and invite them to share the message of the dialogue well in advance.

NoIn the beginning, the facilitator intended to create eight dialogue groups with different topics. Some of these groups would be in German and others in English. As the number of signups was a bit lower than expected, she decided to only create one German and one English group in the end, and both groups would discuss the same topics. This was deemed more suitable so participants also did not need to decide on which topics would be more interesting for them, but they could freely choose a group according to their language capabilities. At the event, it then turned out that the number of German participants was very low, and so the Curator spontaneously decided not to split the groups. All German participants also spoke English very well, and this made the decision easier.

234239240244246248249250The focus of this dialogue was on the issue of food waste. This topic is mainly related to Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns and Action track 3: Boost nature-positive production. The geographical focus area was the DACH region, but participants beyond the three countries could participate and contribute with their own experiences as well. As especially topic 4 showed, food waste is not just an issue for consumers, even though in developed countries like DACH the largest amount of food waste is created by them. Supply chain inefficiencies, overproduction, marketing, and logistics all contribute to more food waste and therefore, consumption and production are closely intertwined and stakeholders at all levels of the food supply chain can contribute to active food waste reduction. This is why in the beginning, the Convenor encouraged the participants to consider all the steps of the supply chains and to think about avenues for improvement in terms of holistic sustainability: From social, ecologic, and economic perspectives.2352392402432442462481. An adaptation of the legal framework is necessary to make food donations easier and riskless for businesses so they are not liable if they donate food and someone falls ill accidentally. On the other hand, people need the education to distinguish good, edible food from food that has gone bad without looking at a best before date, but by using their own senses. Usually, this starts in families already. Educational institutions, e.g. schools can contribute here. The adaptation of the legal framework should also include the legalization of dumpster diving. 2. It is not a single solution that can resolve the issue of food waste, but many different solutions and stakeholders. Businesses cannot only reduce food waste by taking it as their main business case and purpose, but also if they raise efficiency in general. (For example, if a restaurant decides to omit cherry tomatoes as a garnish as 60% of the consumers did not eat it.) Different business models reduce food waste at different levels of the supply chain. Successful businesses are existing on all these levels, and they do not just provide value for food waste reduction but also general value for their consumers – be it an upscale menu in a restaurant (from ugly vegetables, with innards) or bread sold at a discount. Zero Waste Austria already developed a manual with best practices for waste reduction in hotels, and this idea could also be further developed for food waste reduction. This helps every business to reduce food waste. 3. Plant-based diets have the potential to reduced food waste, directly and indirectly. If people stop eating animals, they also avoid wastage of one a perishable commodity, that needs to be transported chilled and thus uses a lot of energy. At least in Austria, meat accounts for ca. 11% of all food waste. Indirectly, if people decide to eat more plant-based they change their cooking habits. They become more aware of the ingredients they use and also may decide to use more local and seasonal ingredients. This is synergetic: Plantbased diets are healthier for people, reduce food waste and raise awareness for food. Therefore, we encourage the promotion of plant-based diets at every level and advocate for a phasing out of subsidies for meat, eggs, and dairy products as well as dairy campaigns. We also encourage farmer education that takes into account needs of future consumers, educating them about vegetable cultivation and cultivation of pulses, lentils, chickpeas etc. 4. The nose to tail trend contributes to food waste reduction. By changing the definition of what people regard as inedible food loss vs. food waste that they could have saved, we can feed more people with less food. In this area, cultural exchange is extremely valuable. A participant mentioned that in South East Asia for example, it is much more common to consume all parts of the animal, including the feet of chicken for example. Other participants mentioned that they started to use the green of carrots or the stem of broccoli for example. This is holistically sustainable, as it contributes to healthier nutrition with more fibers and vitamins, helps people to save money and also creates more business opportunities: If people in the DACH region get more accustomed to eating “more” parts of vegetables again, restaurants can design new, creative dishes and also startups find creative opportunities to market food that has been regarded as food loss in former times. Cooking classes, also in schools, can greatly support everyone in their journey to become a more reflective cook and not to regard a broccoli stem as “waste” because it has always been done that way in the past. 5. Smaller structures and shorter supply chains help to avoid food waste. Smaller stores have better possibilities to manage their food supply and create less food waste overall. Moreover, shorter supply chains lead to less waste creation. In that sense, it is not only important to watch out for regional but also for seasonal food. Food grown in the season is also tastier and provides people with additional health benefits. Zero Waste stores, farmers' markets and small organic stores, but also other alternative forms of purchasing food e.g. SOLAWI and growing own food in gardens are found to have beneficial effects for food waste reduction. Every consumer can do his/her part here: Informing themselves about local fruits and vegetables and establishing alternative purchasing habits. => A lot of the findings are synergetic and policies that reduce food waste are not just found to benefit the environment, but also people and companies. Food waste reduction strategies often need creativity, and there is no one actor that can fix our food systems so food waste is gone. We need each and every actor on every level of the supply chain to be involved. In this regard, it is not just important to organize dialogues like this, but also to get more people to participate. At the dialogue as well as at university events related to the food waste issue, the Convenor observed many engaged people, but frequently they remained in a bubble. Therefore, sound marketing is important not just to reach the target groups, but also consumers and producers that did not consciously think about the food waste issue before. For business leaders that want to reduce food waste, we recommend introducing changes in cooperation with all employees: Frequently, they know better where large amounts of food waste can be reduced only by changing small habits in the daily workflow.236239241244246248249Entrepreneurial experiences – food waste as a business case • exchange business model, it only works in bigger cities; connection between households and/or businesses. • Mostly just a marketing topic, but is not a real business practice • German initiative “foodsharing” where individuals can share their food surplus, also works via app • The Tafel cannot handle the German food waste alone in Germany, not even with 60.000 volunteers working daily for this german-wide daily. • Need policy to restrain food waste? • Group: consumers who need cheap food as they do not have enough financial resources to buy qualitative food • Cutting down food waste can be beneficial for every company from a financial point-of-view • Retailers can create campaigns together with the government in order to change the consumer behavior and way of thinking: just because the food does not look nice from the outside anymore, it does not mean that it does not taste good anymore. • NGOs alone cannot handle the surplus of food; we need more legislation: not only for big supermarkets, but also for smaller food markets! But it does not make sense to make food surplus as a mandatory donation if the NGOs do not have the capacity to handle all the donations. Hence, a law is not directly problem-solving. • Smaller businesses are not willing to donate their food, especially in Singapore. They rather need to find a core solution on how to reduce over-production. • Legalizing dumpster diving? 1. 2 different business models: 1)taking produce from other companies and selling it to consumers e.g. a startup that collects bread from bakeries and resells it at a discount the next day.; from a business perspective, this is “downgrading” i.e. selling the food items at a lower price 2) using “ugly” or discarded food (e.g. vegetables that do not fit the standards set by supermarkets) and preparing food with them, e.g. new dishes in a restaurant, or chutneys, jam etc.; from a business perspective, this is “upgrading” i.e. selling the food items at a higher price.; Both business models are valuable for reducing food waste at different stations of the supply chain. • Problem: How can we support smaller businesses that create food waste? The legal framework needs to be adapted accordingly236239240244248Current food trends and food waste • Different eating trends such as vegetarian, flexitarian, etc. influence the food consumption. People that live more plant-based contribute to reducing food waste directly and indirectly. Also by cooking for yourself, you become more conscious about how much you need, eat and throw away • Issue: The government and businesses try to push people to overconsumption of dairy and meat (campaigns such as “drink xx l milk daily for your health” => agricultural policies • In the EU there is a huge overproduction of meat. The overproduction is re-sold for dumping prices to Africa, making it for smaller businesses more difficult to compete on the market. At least, export subsidies have been phased out already. Still, the amount of subsidies for practices that neither benefit the environment nor the people is massive, and inhibits adjustments of the market. • Cultural differences can influence the reduction of food waste; need a better cultural exchange on that topic • Issue: People living in cities who do not experience agricultural life/work often are not aware of how much work a farmer put e.g. into grains of rice. They treat food differently and tend to leave more on their plate. However, it is also observed that in rural regions and suburbs, people frequently do not value qualitatively high produce and just go for a higher price. This is especially an issue in Germany.236238239241244250Social perspectives on food waste • Tradition: You should finish your dish; not everyone has this habit. It is common in the DACH region still, but especially young people that never experienced drastic events of food scarcity e.g. a war frequently leave more leftovers on their plates • Problem: How to communicate with friends and family members about food waste • Religion can help you treat food differently. e.g. Christian view: Throwing away bread is a sin. • Many consumers are not well informed about the issue of food waste; education about that topic needs to be reinforced! • Expiration date is a big matter: people throw food away, because the expiration date is over. They do not even double-check if the food is still good or not. • Dumpster diving = containering = saving food (it´s about how you define your action) If you communicate it differently and show people how good food "from the bins" tastes can change cultural perceptions. • Better food campaigns could change our way of behaving and thinking236239240244248249250Role of consumers vs. supermarkets - who has the responsibility for the largest amount of food waste? • How important is local and seasonal food for the consumers? It is important, local is advertised very much. Shorter supply chains lead to more efficiency, less food waste and less waste overall. • Not just food waste avoidance and environmental consciousness, but also healthy nutrition is an important aspect for the customers • Many consumers are socialized in that way that as soon as you perceive the food not being in good shape, you do not buy or eat it.; in some cultures we have too many choices. How can we handle this? Supermarkets have a vast range of products, also in the area of fruits and vegetables. A focus on local and seasonal produce adds quality and lowers quantity. • Reducing food exports? On the other hand, people are living the export. This is a difficult topic to discuss also from an economical point of view. • Farmer´s markets and refill stores enhance the reduction of food waste because you can buy the right amount of food. Usually, larger supermarkets do not offer this personalized packaging option. Hence, smaller business structures are needed to help fighting food waste; it also easier for a better management overall. A small organic supermarket was observed to offer less fresh fruits and vegetables, but also to have less food waste overall.2372392402432442462482492501. The role of the government: In general, the food waste reduction law introduced in France has been hailed as a major success by many food waste activists. However, participants in the dialogue also pointed out that this did not lead to systematic change. Only supermarkets/hypermarkets of a certain size are obliged to donate food that would otherwise go to waste. The offer remains the same, and voluntary workers from social organizations like “Die Tafel” then need to collect the food. But the workload has become higher and higher, and volunteers cannot even collect and distribute the food to needy people in a reasonable time! Thus, the law makes it a bit too easy for supermarkets. A suggestion for a solution: The law should maybe also oblige supermarkets to leave “food waste” that they cannot donate outside so people can come and get it. This would ease the pressure from benevolent NGOs and also encourage supermarkets to waste less – as otherwise, people would just take their food for free. 2. Some people argued that the impact of “using more”, e.g. a broccoli stem in the own kitchen, does not markedly contribute to food waste reduction. This is the debate of small changes at a consumer level vs. larger changes in the legal framework and on the producer level (bottom-up vs. top-down). In the end, changes in the mindset and actions of both levels are important, as all actors bear a certain responsibility for their food and their handling of food waste. 3. Some participants argued that people living in cities value food less as they are not densely connected to food production. People from rural regions would value food more. This however rather holds true for people working in the agricultural sector. In city regions, people are frequently more educated and aware about the food waste issue. Also, people in rural or poorer regions are frequently not ready to pay more in order to support shorter supply chains. Instead of saving on food quantity, they might just save on food quality in their own household, rather than consuming cheap food that went through a long supply chain, including convenience products. As they can be stored longer, this might even lead to less food waste. The influence of individual living habits and shopping preferences, as well as general life situations on food waste, might need more studies and reports. 4. Participants also advocated for more educational campaigns on the food waste issue. We arrive at the gap between knowing and doing here. There is already a lot of information out there, even on social media, food waste reduction tips are readily available. But how can we efficiently convince people that knowing is not enough? This is an issue that we may need to explore in more detail. 5. Do we need a lower choice of food in order to support food waste reduction? It was not an easy question. Some people argue that supermarkets just offer too much and that a reduction of the offer would be needed. But how should we realize that in a free society? A potential solution here could be that we internalize negative external effects, e.g. that mangos imported by airfreight need to pay more CO2 compensation, thus, fewer people will buy it and fewer mangos will be offered. However, this theory also presupposes that people only care about prices and are not able to see the giant environmental (and food waste) footprint of a perfect-looking, chilled airfreight mango. We could agree that we should all go out and communicate about food waste positively in our communities, and also show with our own actions how we reduce food waste (e.g. order a dish without French fries if we know that we do not eat them).

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Powerpoint-FW-Summit.pdfhttps://wastesend.com/https://www.zerowasteaustria.at/

2021-07-15 11:31:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17878/203

611114029815517387215912755930144231208179173371012879218343145671722854181411956

The dialogue was inclusive and drew participation from different countries across the African continent. It included participation from multi-national agencies and key decision makers at the national, regional and inter-continental level. This would be a demonstration of commitment at the different decision-making strata. The dialogue was chaired by the President of the Republic of Malawi. Dr. Lazarus Chakwera, who convened fellow Presidents and high level policy actors. As a Presidents meeting it received statements from the Ministers of Agricultre, education, science and technology as deliberation input.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249The dialogue sought to identify pathways for building a sustainable, inclusive and resilient agri-food system as envisioned by the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. RUFORUM reached out to stakeholders and agri-food sector players particularly; universities, research institutions and, policy makers to dialogue on the solutions and actions for the appropriate agri-food systems in Africa. These identified key gaps, questions and concerns affecting the agri-food systems and the presidents dialogue was an opportunity for an honest engagement to find actionable solutions that will be adopted to drive the sector and for reaching the SGD targets. The dialogue underscored the interconnectedness between science and policy and the influence of the university on the agri-food sector in Africa that is dominated by a youthful population. The Presidents dialogue was an opportunity to advance high-priority food systems commitments at the highest political regional, national and global levels.235238239240241242243244246248249250251Universities in Africa can trigger food systems transformation to ensure safe and nutritious food for all, shift to sustainable consumption, boost nature-positive production, promote full and productive employment, as well as build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. Africa is home to diverse agricultural value chains and countries have competitive advantage in the production of agricultural products. Vibrant Agri-food-systems and institutions engaged in the agricultural value chain, from food production to food consumption, are key to delivery of the continent’s development Agenda 2063, The Africa We Want, and to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). urbanisation, together with modernisation of the continent’s food systems, generate risks and opportunities and that they create the need to institute appropriate measures to collectively realise sustainable and resilient food systems that meet Africa’s food and nutrition needs. Africa has to build human, financial and infrastructure capacity to mitigate natural and man-made disasters, including pandemics, locusts, floods, drought, and other climate change and related risks that contribute to the fragility of agri-food systems. For Africa to realize its full agricultural potential to bolster its food systems, there is need for significant investments in key productivity enhancing innovations to harness science-based solutions for growth. There is need for an interdisciplinary focus on the factors that contribute to the fragility of the agri-food systems in Africa, including but not limited to epidemics, emerging and re-emerging diseases.236238239240241242243244246248249250251The COVID-19 pandemic was a wakeup call to the glaring fragility and inequalities of the global, regional and national agri-food systems making the resolve for sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems extremely urgent. A call for partnerships, and a deliberate effort for investment in home grown institutions to provide local solutions with more appropriate application to local contexts. Science solutions for growth: For Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, to realize its full agricultural potential to bolder its food systems there is need for significant investments in key productivity enhancing innovations. Science solutions must make sense to indigenous people and have the capacity to increase the ‘bottom line’ for small holder farmers. Harnessing competitive advantage, improving markets and eliminating trade and non-trade barriers have potential to support agri -food systems on the continent. Improving the labour productivity is critical for African agriculture to play a greater role in meeting local to global food demand, in a competitive and a cost-effective and competitive manner, as Sub-Saharan Africa harnesses science solutions for growth. A proportionately balanced workforce will enhance labour productivity, especially when coupled with agri-innovations creating opportunity to increase rural incomes and participation in cash economy. Making agriculture attractive to the youth: is key to ensure the sustainability of the agricultural sector and strengthening the capacities of the smallholder producers and SMEs is a key element to generate effective demand for science, technology, and innovation.

2021-07-15 14:33:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28575/203

1985473713104211211833245113114425

All stakeholders, i.e., government, academic, research institutes and companies have involved in this dialogue. We have panel discussion which allows invited stakeholders to participate.Panel discussion session was included to allow speakers reflect their ideas and respond to some questions from audiences.No further advice.

NoAs our topics involved several stakeholders who are from different backgrounds, it is important to have a brief slot for each speaker to share their knowledge and idea and allow audiences to be on the same page. Panel discussion is another important activity which allow all speakers interact and share more thought on the complex issue such as microbiomes.

234238240242244Food System is an interconnection of activities in food supply chains from upstream to downstream. It involves cultivation, harvest, processing, distribution, consumption and waste management. The food supply chain can be categorized into either the domestic chain or the globalized chain. The domestic chain or garden to table has fewer activities and actors, while the globalized chain consists of multiple steps and players. Traditional food system is a linear supply chain, consuming large volume of resources with very little to no material recirculation. It has become a global challenge to develop a circular food supply chain. Nowadays, we have only 10 years in which to deliver the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, but the impacts of our current food systems on nature and climate is limiting our ability to achieve them. Current food system is responsible for resource depletion, diversity loss and adverse environmental impact. To achieve a sustainable food system, food system transformationis necessary, additionally technology and innovation to protect, manage, and restore nature must be adopted to achieve nature-positive food production system. Regenerative agriculture is a system of agricultural practices and principles that support biodiversity, enrich soils, improve watersheds, and increase the capacity of the soil to capture carbon, contributing to the reversal of global warming. Regenerative agriculture itself is not a specific practice, but rather a variety of sustainable agriculture techniques used in combination. For example, the use of biocontrol / biofertilizer / the interaction of microbes and plants and microbiome.235Key factors that support regenerative agricultures is microbiome and microorganisms. It is important to promote the use of “good” microorganisms in sustainable agriculture. It will be beneficial to human health and environment. Collaboration among all stakeholders are necessary to support regenerative agriculture.236238240242244Food Systems Microbiomes – Improving Sustainability of Food Production Microbiomes and microorganisms are the diversity of microorganisms. They play many important roles in food chain and food system. Microbiomes is also important for food system sustainability and effect on food quality. Microorganisms are key factor for human health, nutrition, well-being and stress tolerance. In plants, microbiomes play important role in nutrient cycling and stress tolerance.236238240242244Industrial Perspectives on Regenerative Agriculture. Nowadays, farmers face with many challenges, include climate change and loss of biodiversity. The sustainable agriculture production consists of 3 interacting pillars: economy, ecology and social. Farming system consists of 3 factors: farm management, cropping system and integrated solutions. Collaboration is a key to reach a sustainable agriculture system to implement and further development systemic approach.236238240242244248Natural Plant Elicitor for Crop Protection. Chemical plant protection causes of the impact on toxic contamination in farmers, consumers, soil, water, and environment. According to those problem, Green Innovative Biotechnology, Co., Ltd. Invested the natural plant vaccine for crop protection. This elicitor product can decrease risk of damage plant protection and replace or reduce of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and antibiotics. It increases quality and quantity of cultivation plants.236238240242243244Comparative Metagenomics Reveals Microbial Signatures of Sugarcane Phyllosphere in Organic Management. Excessive use of fertilizer and pesticide effect on ecosystem degradation and climate change. How to restore ecosystem with microbial function? There are 2 major microbiome zones in plants which are Rhizosphere and Phyllosphere. The talk focused on the Phyllosphere microbiome in sugarcane plant field. comparing the microbial profile between conventional farming and organic farming., Organic farming had many beneficial microbes and much higher diversity of microbes then what was found in conventional farming.236238240242Microbes on ASEAN’s Agriculture and Food Production, Nutrition and Security. Food is not only considered as a nutrition, but it is something that touches emotions (“makes you feel happy”); for example, colour, flavour and substantial which touched emotions. The joy of eating is not for health, but includes happiness. Fermented foods are a part of human cuisine culture, and the fermented foods are essential for regenerative agriculture. Bacteria in fermented food provides essential components for the functional activities in human health.236238240242249Thailand’s pathway to Sustainable and Equitable Food System. To transform the conventional farming to sustainable agriculture, the national policies and activities need to be enhanced and implemented. However, we already have strategies, knowledge, excellent scientists, organizations and disciplines, but we are not achieving the food sustainable goal. Collaboration among different stakeholders is very important to bring solutions to shape the national pathway.237-

2021-07-15 14:40:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22529/198

7121283512353245244232

El dialogo se desarrolló incorporando el principio del respeto de la diversidad de culturas y cosmovisiones, valorando sus prácticas de producción y consumo de alimentos sanos y saludables, las potencialidades de sus medios de vida resilientes.El dialogo refleja aspectos específicos del principio de enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, que incluyo a las partes interesadas de gobiernos, academia, organizaciones, comunidades, mujeres y jóvenes indígenas vinculados al sistema alimentario nacional; incorpora la perspectiva de los conocimientos ancestrales, y el conocimiento científico.Incorporar como principal principio de actuación el respeto a las leyes de la madre naturaleza, a través de medidas legislativas y políticas públicas consientes de la amenaza que enfrentamos como especie humana, y que pone en riesgo las próximas generaciones. Que se reconozca, respete e incorpore los conocimientos y prácticas resilientes de los habitantes originarios y guardianes de la madre Tierra, los pueblos originarios como estrategia para la conservación y protección de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel global.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251Se realizo un análisis de las cinco Vías de Acción o mecanismos de cambio de la Cumbre, a través de la aplicación de preguntas relacionadas a cada una de ellas: Vía de Acción 1. Obstáculos que enfrentan las mujeres indígenas que limita su acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos. Las mujeres que habitan en zonas estratégicas con riquezas en biodiversidad, minerales estratégicos, en zonas fronterizas, enfrentan limitaciones para su libre tránsito y acceso para el aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales de sus territorios que garantizan su seguridad alimentaria. Las actividades de agricultura, silvicultura, caza, pesca y recolección son limitadas por la presencia excesiva de grupos armados foráneos que explotan los recursos naturales de forma ilegal. La incidencia de actividades mineras, forestales, latifundio, guerrilla, paramilitarismo, narcotráfico, delincuencia organizada, limita el acceso a territorios propicios para la preparación del conuco (técnica ancestral de huerto comunitarios ecológico). Esta situación ha impactado los patrones alimentarios tradicionales, ocasionando altos índices de morbilidad y mortalidad que no queda registrado oficialmente. Vía de Acción 2. ¿Qué actividades realizan las mujeres indígenas para garantizar los alimentos para esta y las próximas generaciones? En las diversas culturas indígenas, las mujeres son quienes conservan las semillas de los cultivos tradicionales para que no se agote y de esta forma asegurar los alimentos de las generaciones futuras. Las mujeres se dedican a la administración, mantenimiento, cuidado y cosecha del conuco, mientras los hombres se dedican a la caza y la pesca. Las mujeres utilizan la pedagogía propia para la transferencia intergeneracional de conocimientos ancestrales, a través de historias, relatos y prácticas inspiradoras para las jóvenes. Realizan rituales para agradecer y solicitar permiso a los dueños de la naturaleza para la buena cosecha. Para optimizar los alimentos, la preparación es de forma colectiva, lo prepara una mujer sabia con el apoyo de las jóvenes, para inculcar valores relativos a los sistemas alimentarios ancestrales y mantener para las futuras generaciones. Ante la pandemia las mujeres indígenas se han reencontrado con sus conocimientos ancestrales y fortalecido la práctica del trabajo comunitario del conuco, la caza, pesca y cría de animales, con la participación de jóvenes para educar en el valor del trabajo. El conuco es el espacio de aprendizaje y de juegos, como estrategia para mantener viva la cultura para las próximas generaciones. Vía de Acción 3. ¿Cuáles conocimientos ancestrales de las mujeres indígenas han contribuido a la conservación de los ecosistemas de sus territorios? En la práctica de la agricultura, el cultivo se realiza utilizando semillas nativas y el sistema de rotación de uso por un tiempo determinado para no agotar la fertilidad de la tierra. Se incentiva la reforestación, la utilización de abonos orgánicos, se consume solo lo necesario, se utiliza energía limpia y el control de plagas se hace de manera natural, cuidando el ecosistema. La caza, pesca y recolección es guiada por el calendario lunar y los ciclos naturales de reproducción de las especies. Vía de Acción 4. ¿En las comunidades en qué medida el acceso de los alimentos es equitativo entre mujeres y hombres? En las comunidades indígenas los alimentos se distribuyen de forma equitativa, la producción del conuco es para beneficio colectivo. No obstante, en las comunidades rurales y urbanas, los hombres indígenas tienen mayor acceso a los alimentos, por la imposición de políticas patriarcales que reconoce solo al hombre como jefe de familia, esto invisibiliza el rol productivo, reproductivo y político de las mujeres indígenas como garantes del sistema alimentario. Vía de Acción 5. ¿Desde su experiencia como mujer indígena, como ha hecho para resistir y enfrentar el contexto de pandemia, el cual ha incrementado los precios y carencias de alimentos? El conuco se ha revalorizado como fuente para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria. Se ha fortalecido la economía basada en el intercambio de productos, el trueque.235238239240241242244246247249251Las mujeres indígenas identifican como principal obstáculo no contar con garantía territorial, aunque existe una Ley sobre demarcación de tierras y hábitat (2001), sus comunidades se encuentran cercadas por los terratenientes, muchas comunidades han sido desalojadas de sus tierras ancestrales, y la expansión de las actividades minera, forestal, latifundio, guerrilla, paramilitarismo, narcotráfico, delincuencia organizada está acabando con sus recursos naturales. Las mujeres reconocen que sin tierra no hay vida, futuro, ni alimentación. Solicitan garantías territoriales a través de la política de demarcación y autodemarcación por los pueblos y comunidades indígenas, como estrategia de existencia y continuidad cultural, respeto de sus formas de vida como guardianes de la tierra, ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado y sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Demandan la sanación de la Madre Tierra y de las cuencas hidrográficas que garantizan el acceso al agua y la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios, frenar el desequilibrio generado por la actividad minera a gran escala. Para las mujeres, los cultivos producidos en menor extensión de terreno son más resilientes que aquellos producidos a gran escala. Se insiste en la variedad de cultivos, ya que asegura que el fracaso de un rubro tenga un impacto reducido en la seguridad alimentaria de las comunidades. Se aboga por el reconocimiento de los saberes ancestrales para asegurar la incorporación de conocimientos que a través del tiempo han sido exitosos en la producción de alimentos. Inclusive, las mujeres plantean que debe existir una reducción de los desechos y uso de químicos. Se recomienda la diseminación de los cultivos familiares (Conucos) por su eficiencia en la seguridad alimentaria. Solicitan al estado venezolano, transformar las políticas alimentarias asistencialistas, incorporando los modos de producción, distribución y consumo propio de los pueblos indígenas como política pública intercultural, e incorporar los rubros tradicionales en los Programas de Alimentación Escolar, Casas Alimentarias, y los Comités Locales de Abastecimiento y Producción (CLAP). Exigen acompañamiento técnico y financiero a las iniciativas de producción, distribución y comercialización de los rubros alimentarios propios. Las redes de mujeres indígenas proponen crear espacios de dialogo intergeneracional con jóvenes, niñas y niños, para la transmisión de conocimientos, técnicas y prácticas ancestrales relativos a los sistemas alimentarios propios, como estrategia de existencia y continuidad cultural. Diseminar los beneficios de los alimentos tradicionales sanos y nutritivos, sin ningún componente químico a través de campañas de sensibilización a las generaciones actuales. La migración a zonas urbanas ha impactado de forma negativa sobre la importancia de mantener una alimentación sana y nutritiva, la desinformación y/o transculturación de los jóvenes incide en la preferencia de los alimentos procesados y no nutritivo. La imposición de programas de alimentación foránea ha fomentado la sustitución de las prácticas de agricultura comunitaria propias. Para contrarrestar su efecto, proponen la elaboración de recetarios de platos tradicionales para la recuperación de técnicas de conservación de semillas autóctonas como el chigo, el kupe, el guapo, alimentos sanos y gastronomía tradicional, aprovechando la memoria colectiva existente en las comunidades. Aplicar los conocimientos ancestrales y la tecnología propia para generar mayor producción y beneficio de alimentos. Las mujeres abogan por la creación de políticas que respete la autonomía alimentaria de los pueblos indígenas, basada en la producción, consumo, distribución y trueque de los rubros que producen las comunidades indígenas, como estrategia de sostenibilidad alimentaria ante situaciones de emergencia, innovando el intercambio y comercialización. Se identifico como prioridad para la acción construir un proyecto nacional “Sistemas Alimentarios de los pueblos indígenas de Venezuela”, para mitigar el efecto de la disrupción global causada por la pandemia Covid, erradicar la desigualdad estructural causada por las políticas alimentarias asistencialistas, construir políticas alimentarias interculturales y sostenibles.236238239240241242244246247249251Las conclusiones estarán relacionadas a dos grandes temas: prioridades de las mujeres indígenas, conocimientos que pueden aportar a los sistemas alimentarios. Las mujeres indígenas presentes en los Diálogos estiman que el rol que ellas desempeñan en sus comunidades de transmitir los conocimientos deben ser fortalecidos ante los embates de la pandemia y la situación política y económica que vive Venezuela. Las mujeres se consideran y se autodenominan guardianas y garantes de los conocimientos sobre la conservación de semillas nativas y están consciente que el uso de estas semillas garantiza la vida y los sistemas alimentarios propios. Asimismo, nosotras las mujeres hemos insistido en que se fortalezca nuestros sistema económicos propios y estos están firmemente ligados al territorio y a la tierra. Los entes internacionales y nacionales deben adaptar sus asistencias técnicas dentro de las expectativas y necesidades de las mujeres en cada uno de los territorios, escuchando sus experiencias y haciendo posible un trabajo de participación inclusiva de la mujer en todas y cada una de sus fases. Se observó una preocupación colectiva sobre las limitaciones al acceso al agua para mantener los cultivos. El acceso al agua es una garantía constitucional como derecho humano, por lo que las lideresas participantes solicitan al estado y órganos competentes la garantía del derecho de acceso al agua, para sostener los sistemas alimentarios propios. Las mujeres indican que es necesario tomar medidas urgentes ante la actual situación de limitación al acceso a los alimentos por razones económicas o por falta de oferta de los mismos en los mercados locales. Estos problemas han sido producto de un proceso de neo colonización en la cual las mujeres fueron dejando sus laborares para pasar a otros modos de producción por parecer innovadores. En este sentido, las mujeres expresan que se debe mantener el equilibrio con la naturaleza tomando en cuenta la convivencia entre la mujer y la familia, revitalizando la educación propia colectiva. Las mujeres ven con preocupación que los modos de preparación de los alimentos sanos y nutritivos de sus ancestros ya no se preparan en la actualidad y muy pocas mujeres conocen estas técnicas de preparación de los pescados, carnes y vegetales. Se aboga por la recuperación de producción y conservación de alimentos dentro de los usos y costumbres de los pueblos. Las mujeres indígenas piden cuidar los sistemas alimentarios ancestrales, cuidar la tierra y no abandonarla. La tierra es un elemento de sustento de la vida, agua, luz, aire, energía. Por último, las mujeres indígenas expresan que se debe informar a las mujeres y hombres en cuanto a la importancia de consumir alimentos sanos y nutritivos antes de realizar el trabajo agrícola.237238239240241242249251La opinión de los académicos, animo la participación y reflexión colectiva. No hubo participación del estado, las opiniones descritas son parte del clamor de los pueblos indígenas; a las que el estado debe tomar en cuenta en la planificación y diseño de políticas alimentarias.

2021-07-15 18:17:33205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15270/44

441133

En el diálogo asumió los compromisos de la Cumbre para buscar soluciones y maneras de mejorar y transformar el sistema alimentario. Adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples partes interesadas, convocando a todos los actores y sectores del sistema alimentario: sociedad civil, academia, sector público y sector privado. Esto, para asegurar que todos los puntos de vista fueran escuchados e incluidos en los insumos que formarán la base de las discusiones de los tomadores de decisiones.Se reconoció la importancia de incorporar a todos los actores de la región y la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios y cómo esto afecta de manera particular a la región de Magallanes, ya que al ser una zona lejana hay barreras naturales y geográficas que pone desafíos en la implementación de políticas alimentarias, como por ejemplo las dificultades en materia de transporte y como esto afecta al estado y calidad de las frutas y verduras que llegan a la región.Para complementar la labor de los demás, y facilitar el desarrollo de una serie de diálogos en el país, se recomienda entregar pautas, por ejemplo preparando una guión para el administrador con datos claves que puede ser adaptada a otras instancias parecidas.

Yes

234239244En el Diálogo regional se abordó la temática de “Adopción de Modalidades de Consumo Sostenible”, donde destacados representantes del mundo académico, sociedad civil y de instituciones públicas regionales expusieron sobre este desafío de forma inclusiva y propicia para el debate.235239240244245246248Las problemáticas asociadas a los sistemas alimentarios en la región de Magallanes, se resumen en las siguientes: • Problema económico y la lejanía encarece los alimentos, l o que se traduce en un elevado costo en las alternativas más saludables y perecibles. • Escasa calidad de los productos que llegan a la región, ya que las frutas y verduras llegan en ocasiones congeladas o en malas condiciones. • Malos hábitos alimenticios y desconocimiento de los sellos de advertencia por parte de la comunidad en general. • Los alimentos son repetidos, no variados, los precios no son accesibles y se suma a grandes campañas publicitarias de alimentos procesados. • Las ferias locales son más escasas y menos frecuente que en otras regiones del país. • Falta involucramiento del sector privado para soportar la gran inversión en producción de alimentos saludables que se necesita en la región. Dentro de las soluciones se resumen las siguientes: • Potenciar la autoproducción en familias vulnerables (corto plazo). • Diversificar la producción de semillas. • Fortalecer nuevas tecnologías de cultivos. • Impulsar a agricultores locales para acceder a productos buenos y más económicos. • Analizar la posibilidad de establecer un subsidio al transporte de alimentos saludables. • Apoyo a las familias para producir y consumir desde el sector público como por ejemplo JUNAEB – INDAP. • Disminuir los días de traslado, o los días de permanencia de frutas y verduras en las góndolas de los supermercados. Es decir, disminuir el tiempo entre la producción y el consumo a nivel regional. • Trabajo Multisectorial, incorporar a la academia y sociedad civil. • Negociar con instituciones para que lleguen productos más económicos en especial con las empresas de distribución y venta. • Potenciar el rubro de pesca artesanal, debería existir alguna normativa para que estos productos sean más asequibles, dado que se producen y cosechan en la misma región. • Apoyar económicamente a las familias más vulnerables como por ejemplo con subsidios a la compra de alimentos saludables que apunten a disminuir los índices de obesidad. • Fomentar la diversificación de alimentos y formas de acopio y mantención de los alimentos para alargar su vida y mantener sus condiciones nutricionales. • En cuanto a educación, es importante además efectuar educación alimentaria para niños, niñas y sus padres, madres, cuidadores y cuidadoras, para que, en caso de mejorar el acceso alimentario, se puedan consumir alimentos más saludables e inocuos.236239244246248La conclusiones más relevantes fueron: • Fomentar programas de apoyo directo a las familias con eje de cultivo. • Las tecnologías requieren de un plan a mediano y largo plazo, involucra a un mapa de actores muy completo. • Difundir acerca de alimentación saludable en medios de comunicación. • Educar a la comunidad en preparación manipulación de alimentos para aprovechar nutrientes. • Trabajo intersectorial y con enfoque territorial.237Se identificaron grandes consensos y no se registraron mayores áreas de divergencia.

2021-07-15 18:43:39205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15909/44

70

El diálogo adaptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples partes interesadas, ya que fue convocado a través de la Mesa Elige Vivir Sano de la región y tuvo una convocatoria amplia que incluyó actores de las universidades de la región, pueblos originarios e instituciones públicos y privadas.El diálogo logró a complementar la labor de los demás porque sirvió para generar un diagnóstico regional y una visión de lo que se quiere para la región en el futuro. Estos insumos podrían servir para la elaboración de un plan de trabajo regional y en políticas públicas que apunten mejorar las tasas de enfermedades no transmisibles, a través de la alimentación saludable y la educación.Se estima muy importante tomar la opinión de grupos tales como juntos de vecinos, feriantes, y otros miembros de la sociedad civil para generar mejores políticas públicas y ayudas sociales.

Yes

234238Seguridad Alimentaria y Reducción de Enfermedades Crónicas no Transmisibles235238244245246Dentro de los hallazgos destacados, se identifican en la región como una de las grandes problemáticas para mantener una alimentación y vida saludable, las siguientes: • Abastecimiento local deficiente: ya que es menor al 50%, dependiendo de otras regiones del país para obtener productos frescos. • Acceso económico no inclusivo: Por la lejanía territorial, los precios son más altos para alimentos saludables. • Falta valorizar los productos locales: La producción local está más potenciada hacia la exportación, y no la soberanía alimentaria. • Déficit de mano de obra: la migración de población joven a las ciudades ha perjudicado el continuar con trabajos en el campo vinculados a producción de alimentos. • Pérdida de biodiversidad y escasez de recursos naturales: Déficit de agua para producir diferentes cultivos. La agricultura no está adaptada al territorio, degradando los ecosistemas. • Falta de educación vinculada al consumo de alimentos saludables y a la producción. • Altos requisitos técnicos para implementar inocuidad en los alimentos, lo que va en desmedro de los pequeños emprendimientos de alimentos que desconocen los reglamentos. • Falta de voluntad política y acuerdos entre actores de la Cadena de Valor, existiendo problemas de coordinación de quienes entregan fondos y no se vincula a las reales necesidades del territorio.236238239240241244245246248249251Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: 1. Implementación de políticas públicas vinculantes y enfocadas al territorio: Realizar mesas regionales multidisciplinarias con los diversos actores públicos y privados. Por ejemplo, levantar 10 ejes estratégicos en el ámbito agro-alimentario (agua, tierra, soberanía alimentaria, regulación de territorios, estudio y actualización de los datos de las cuencas hidrográficas, conservación de semillas, etc) con equipo multi-disciplinario que incluya a la academia, gobierno regional, privados, agricultores y comerciantes de la zona. Motivar alianzas con los pequeños productores y comunidades indígenas de la zona. Apoyo económico y fondos concursables. Disminuir intermediarios. Empoderar a las asociaciones de sindicatos como, de pescadores artesanales, buceros, recolectores de orilla. 2. Desarrollo de agricultura local y autoconsumo para mejorar el acceso económico y físico a los alimentos saludables: Empoderar a las comunidades y que se organicen, y así puedan crear estrategias para la práctica del cultivo en casa, en conjunto con juntas de vecinos y profesionales del rubro, potenciando la creación de huertos comunitarios. Las organizaciones de mujeres mediante su escuela de agroecología podrían capacitar a mujeres en agroecología y huertas, esto puede disminuir el costo del acceso a algunos alimentos. Priorizar fondos para producción local y consumo interno. Incentivar a la comercialización a granel y enfocada al tamaño del grupo familiar (comprar menos de 1 kilo). 3. Potenciar la soberanía alimentaria: Implementar un consejo para recuperar la soberanía alimentaria que sea independiente de los tomadores de decisiones y que abarque todas las aristas, no solo la producción de alimentos (aplicación de tecnología, agua, conservación y restauración de la biodiversidad, otros). 4. Educación alimentaria desde la primera infancia: los cambios de hábitos a consumo de alimentos saludables deben comunicarse desde temprana edad e involucrar a los padres y familias. Idealmente fomentar una ley que fomente aún más la alimentación saludable y nutritiva, aumente las horas de educación física e incluya el apoyo de nutricionistas en los colegios. También la forma de comunicación de estos comportamientos es importante, por lo que hay que optimizar los canales informativos, vale decir, generar espacios de difusión ya sea por medios de comunicación como radio, redes sociales, televisión, etc. A su vez, dentro del programa de gobierno, generar franja o canales enfocados en vida saludable y alimentación sana. 5. Mejorar la mano de obra agropecuaria para el desarrollo territorial: Fortalecer unidades educacionales en zonas rurales relacionados con carreras técnicas en áreas silvo-agropecuarios a modo de llevar mayor innovación y tecnología a estas áreas, y mejorar el interés de seguir habitando el territorio. También aumentar el número de profesionales del área agropecuaria para potenciar la producción y consumo local de alimentos saludables. 6. Asociatividad para agricultura familiar y de pueblos originarios: apoyo técnico para producción hortalicera con apoyo de INDAP. Mercados campesinos que impulsen la venta de alimentos locales y comercialización de cadena corta (de productor a consumidor). 7. Mejoras tecnológicas para uso eficiente del agua: educar y capacitar para el uso eficiente del agua con nuevas tecnologías o técnicas existentes que optimicen los recursos disponibles para potenciar la productividad y la seguridad alimentaria. Por ejemplo, utilizando atrapanieblas, técnica necesaria para riego en la región. 8. Mejorar la conectividad para el acceso a los alimentos: hay mayor dificultad en ciertas zonas más apartadas de las ciudades para acceder a mercados. Hay que mejorar los caminos y desarrollar el territorio rural.237244245246248Se comenta que actualmente existen varios programas públicos para potenciar la producción de alimentos, sin embargo, la mayoría de ellos tienen enfoque a las exportaciones, lo que ha ido dejando de lado la producción para consumo local. Es importante incluir a los pueblos originarios para potenciar un sistema alimentario más sostenible en el territorio, acompañándolos con capacitaciones técnicas y programas para que puedan resaltar sus formas productivas vinculadas al cuidado de la naturaleza y de alimentos ancestrales. Uno de los puntos que más se comentaron con respecto a los recursos naturales, fue la falta de agua propia de un sector con bastante desierto, sin embargo, hay países que logran producir exitosamente en un clima desértico y hay que tomar este tipo de experiencias. Se debería potenciar a la academia para que por medio de investigación productiva vinculada a las necesidades del territorio (suelo y agua) se pueda mejorar la producción local, implementando programas e inyectando recursos a estas necesidades. Se indicó que hay centros de investigación que están descuidados, perdiendo esa oportunidad de obtener información valiosa por medio de la investigación, faltan recursos humanos y recursos económicos. También, se desarrollan ideas, pero no se implementan, por lo cual es importante hacer un seguimiento para lograr los objetivos que se requieren en el sistema alimentario de los territorios. También hay una brecha importante en los programas de alimentación saludable y vida sana que se están implementando. A pesar de los intentos por mejorar la calidad de vida de las personas, sobre todo de niños, niñas y adolescentes con programas escolares, aún no se logran las metas deseadas. Se indica que deben mejorarse las estrategias para implementar estos programas, por ejemplo, en la forma de comunicación, que sea más efectiva, incluir a especialistas como nutricionistas e involucrar a las familias completas, ya que todos se deben involucrar para tener resultados exitosos.

2021-07-15 18:55:15205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15914/44

28

Actuando con urgencia frente a la realidad regional de forma sostenida y coherente, invitamos a distintos sectores y actores tratando de integrar el sector público con el privado.Asumiendo los compromisos de la cumbre , siendo respetuoso promoviendo prácticas de producción y consumo de alimentos, protegiendo y mejorando la salud y bienestar de los niños y niñas de nuestra región.Escuchar, reconocer al otro como válido y aprender de los diálogos, permitiendo facilitar los procesos.

Yes

234238251El tema del diálogo fue la alimentación escolar en la región de Aysén, buscando loas problemáticas que se enfrentas y cuáles serías unas posibles soluciones con herramientas y actores involucrados.235238245246249Dentro de los principales hallazgos en la temática de programas de alimentación escolar en la región, resaltan los siguientes problemas: • Falta de educación alimentaria que involucre a las familias: dentro de los colegios existen los programas de educación saludable, pero, no hay una efectividad desde el núcleo familiar a que los niños, niñas y adolescentes (NNA) sigan con hábitos alimentarios saludables. Reforzando su preferencia y consumo. Se sugirió incluir un ramo de “nutrición infantil”, para entender la diferencia entre salud física y nutrición, y así evitar estereotipos de que la delgadez o sobrepeso significa buena nutrición. • Falta de estrategia en la preparación de alimentos: existe un factor cultural muy importante, hay que fortalecer o robustecer las iniciativas alimentarias de fácil y económica preparación, manteniendo la línea nutricional. Por otra parte, la importancia de las tecnologías de información comunicación y sus alcances más allá del mensaje. Este debería ser manejado con mayor detalle llamando a los NNA a cuestionarse el valor nutricional. • Necesidad de mayor relación del territorio, tradiciones y la cultura con la alimentación saludable: existe poco acceso físico y económico a alimentos saludables, como frutas y hortalizas; se promociona bastante la comida chatarra y la calórica, sobre todo por el clima de la región, y se tiende al consumo de más carbohidratos. También existe muy fuertemente marcada la cultura de trasmitir agradecimiento a través de la comida como encuentro. • Alto precio de alimentos saludables en la región: se acuerda que por lo general es más costoso comprar frutas y hortalizas que productos no perecibles y los alimentos chatarra. • Vínculo de vida saludable con actividad física: dentro del programa escolar se debe mejorar la cantidad de horas dedicas a la actividad física de NNA para complementarlo con la alimentación saludable y vida saludable.236238245246249Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: 1. Educar a NNA en alimentación saludable y nutritiva y vida saludable: A corto plazo se sugiere incorporar en la malla curricular y extracurricular educación alimentaria desde la educación prescolar. Se debe realizar educación temprana incluyendo a los adultos o tutores responsables en alimentación, higiene de sueño, nutrición, entre otros temas asociados. Realizar recetarios prácticos de alimentos saludables y nutritivos, que se puede implementar en un corto plazo. Realización de cápsulas de preparación de alimentos y cursos en línea de cocina básica y saludable. Incluir a profesionales y nutricionistas en los establecimientos educacionales y reuniones con apoderados. Se recomienda aumentar horas de educación y actividad física en los establecimientos educacionales y agregar actividades más lúdicas como el baile. Otra alternativa sería dar provecho a las redes sociales que llegan de manera directa a los NNA, a través de campañas juveniles Por otro lado, se deben robustecer las campañas publicitarias y que estas tengan mayor difusión, por ejemplo se menciona que existen páginas bien atractivas y didácticas que no son muy conocidas. 2. Cambio en malla curricular para priorizar estos temas validar la asignatura de educación física como un ramo principal, e incorporar la alimentación saludable y el Sistema Elige Vivir Sano en las asignaturas o planes de convivencia escolar. Por la pandemia, incluir más programas de actividad física remota. 3. Política pública multifactorial de promoción de vida saludable a largo plazo: se sugiere promulgar una política pública de obesidad, que utilice ordenanzas municipales. Otros aspectos a considerar en esta política pública podría ser la subvención de alimentos saludables, como frutas y verduras.e impuesto la comida no saludable. Se debe relevar desde la agenda política la promoción de estilos de vida saludables, que incluya el acceso a la alimentación y la salud física y mental. 4. Promover la autoproducción y consumo de frutas y hortalizas: se debe incentivar los huertos caseros y también huertos comunitarios en los establecimientos educacionales o en sectores públicos, organizados, por ejemplo, por juntas de vecinos. 5. Aumento presupuestario y coordinación de los recursos: para ello se propone contar con una mesa de coordinación para que se distribuya equitativamente desde los niveles centrales en las regiones y en el territorio, potenciando las necesidades locales.237238246249Existen varios programas de alimentación saludable y nutritiva y vida saludable en los establecimientos educacionales. Se resaltó que existe prohibición dentro de los colegios venta de alimentos con las etiquetas “Alto en” y las raciones dadas por el Programa de Alimentación Escolar (PAE) ha sido adaptado para otorgar alimentos más saludables, pero no hay una interiorización por parte de los y las escolares de lo que es alimentarse sanamente. También, hay un problema de la comunicación con las familias, debido a que muchas veces no siguen patrones de alimentación saludable y las colaciones que envían no son las deseadas. Es por esto que se plantea que, hay que seguir trabajando en estos programas para reforzar y comunicar de manera efectiva sobre la alimentación saludable, y crear entornos alimentarios saludables dentro y cerca de la escuela, incluyendo en esto a los apoderados y las apoderadas.

2021-07-15 19:02:08205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31771/96

3301246220131623313143111711333

The Dialogue has been characterized by wide and effective participation of all stakeholders concerned with the issue related to food systems and at various stages of preparation, organization and participation. The participants represented all spectrum and working groups related to food security and food systems, including the public sector, the private sector, civil society organizations, donors, United Nations organizations, universities and others. In the meeting, all objectives and mechanisms of work, in particular, the workgroups, facilitators and other members were introduced. The work of the groups was also facilitated and accelerated through the guidance of the facilitators and the Curators. Each group answered specific questions by reaching a unanimous agreement among the members. Consequently, each group presented the work results to the members of the other groups for discussion. Finally, the Curators summarized the results of the dialogue and presented it to all participants, who in turn made their remarks and comments on them. The dialouge embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust.The issues concerning age, gender and geographical distribution have been also taken into consideration. At an early stage, communication and preparatory meetings were held with the stakeholders, and everyone was informed of the objectives, ways and means of holding the dialogue, the requirements for preparing and the success thereof. The dialogue program generally included a short opening session in which representatives of the relevant UN organizations participated (including, the Acting Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator to Jordan in Amman, the United Nations World Food Programme Representative and Country Director in Jordan and the Representative of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in Jordan), in addition to the sponsor of the dialogue, the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Agriculture, representing the Minister of Agriculture, the National Convenor of Food Systems Summit Dialogues in Jordan.The most important step in preparing for convening the national and subnational dialogues is ensuring that no one is left behind, by inviting all stakeholders who should participate and identifying the most influential topics on food systems in the country. It is important to encourage women and youth to express their opinions freely and inform them that their views are important. Ensuring that the dialogue will be built on the principles of the summit of participation, which include act with urgency, commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust.

Yes

234238241242243244245246247248249250251Dialogue Focus and Outcomes: The national dialogue complemented the regional dialogues and built upon them. The regional dialogues focused on issues related to the dialogue pathways while the national dialogue focused on issues that reflect the priorities and specificity of Jordan and are directly related to food systems and food security. In this context, "Transformation to more efficient and sustainable food systems amid crises" was identified as a title for the national dialogue, which is in consistent with the objectives of the Food Systems Summit, and its discussion forms the basis for setting up the roadmap for the transformation of food systems in line with national objectives and sustainable development goals. Five main topics/issues have been identified to be discussed by the groups, are as follow: 1. Refugees and food systems 2. Water scarcity and food systems 3. Coronavirus and food systems 4. Rural poor, smallholding farmers and food systems 5. Price fluctuations and food systems Each group was requested to answer the following questions: 1. What are the related problems and challenges? 2. Mechanisms and means for facing and overcoming problems and challenges? 3. The most important policies and recommendations proposed to create change/transformation.235Main Findings: The National dialogue has led to a set of results and conclusions that are directly related to the themes discussed which can be summarized as follows: 1- Food system transformation requires the participation of all stakeholders at all stages, mainly the private sector, women, youth, and the most vulnerable groups. Also, building effective partnerships is a necessity among stakeholders so that everyone is committed to providing and creating a supportive environment. 2- The presence of high rates of refugees in Jordan, severe water scarcity, the spread of the Covid-19, poverty, factors of climate change, and global price fluctuations are considered factors that put pressure on the Jordanian economy and pose additional challenges facing the food system transformation. 3- The restructuring of the institutional and legislative systems regulating work and functions should be reconsidered. Further, harmonization and consistency should be achieved between national and sectoral policies and strategies in line with international goals and frameworks. 4- The highest levels of efficiency in the use of available resources should be achieved, as well as strengthen the Water-Energy-Food Nexus. 5- The need to pay special attention and provide the necessary support to smallholding farmers, producers, and disadvantaged groups through safety networks, concessional financing, awareness-raising, training and encouraging collective and cooperative work among them. 6- The need to pay more attention to applied research, adopt new technologies and innovation, identifying imbalances in food systems, and ways to address them, developing school curricula and conducting awareness and education campaigns. 7- Improving livelihoods, creating job opportunities, and attracting investment as basic levers for the transformation process. 8- Building effective monitoring, follow-up and evaluation systems, adopting smart and suitable indicators to measure progress and efficiency in resource use. 9- The need to identify the Champions of Change and investing on them at all levels. 10- The necessity of creating a clear roadmap and objectives for transforming towards effective and sustainable food systems in Jordan.236238241242243244245246247248249250251Outcomes For Each Discussion Topics: Group 1 and 4 (Refugees+ Rural poor and smallholding farmers) 1. Give preference in the field of trade to countries hosting refugees. 2. Empower the host countries with the Global Best Practices in food systems and technology. 3. Direct investment to support economic systems and food processing. 4. Direct international aid to the host countries to keep pace with the challenges facing agriculture. 5. Simplify the procedure for employing refugees, organizing their work in the agricultural sector, benefiting from the advantages in investing them in work. 6. Support small holding farmers with project in field of achieving the food basket, as well as refugees to be engaged in these projects. 7. Encourage rural household agricultural projects to ensure family self-sufficiency and food basket. 8. Utilize lands extended on the outskirts of the governorates, and encourage small holding farmers and poor (rural poor) to exploit these lands. 9. Provide social protection systems for farmers. 10. Link smallholding farmers to markets. 11. Train, empower and educate rural poor and farmers. Group 2 : ( Water Scarcity) 1. Managing surface water and distributing it to agricultural units according to the real crop needs. 2. Increase water-use efficiency. 3. Water harvesting, seawater desalination and the use of saline groundwater. 4. Draft legislation to establish decentralized treatment plants ( grey water) at all levels. 5. Expand of connecting homes to the sewage system- current coverage rate is 65%. 6. Integrate water harvest measures in the building code in all governorates of the Kingdom. 7. Increase reliance on alternative energy sources for pumping water. 8. Use sustainable agricultural methods- rationalizing water use. 9. Implement and follow-up legislation governing drilling unlicensed wells. 10. Reduce the cultivation of high water requirement crops and replace them with low water requirement crops. 11. Set up the infrastructure to increase access to rainfall regions to facilitate agriculture. 12. Shift to hydroponics. 13. Optimal use of fertilizers and pesticides and control of agricultural chemicals use. 14. Raise awareness of farmers-growing crops with low water requirements, water-use efficiency, by implementing pilot projects to put ideas into practice. 15. Irrigation water management at the farm level. 16. Exploit border (shared) water. 17. Reduce groundwater use for agricultural purposes. Group 3 & 5: ( COVID + Price fluctuations) 1. Increase storage capacities, and strengthen the supply chain to reduce price fluctuations. 2. Implement and activate early warning system fully in all state institutions. 3. Establish a national sea carrier company to meet the expected transportation challenges. 4. Direct subsidy to private sector in order to support the basic commodities to face challenges and provide a financial reserve to face price fluctuations. 5. Raise the self-sufficiency rate of basic commodities produced locally and strengthen local economies and small rural holdings. 6. Update the food chain database for basic commodities and link it to the private sector. 7. Support the value chain of local commodities and establish large-scale competitive projects. 8. Review and standardize legislation relating to production costs and local product protection 9. Enhance international and regional cooperation to ensure the easy flow of food commodities. 10. Regulate agricultural production to ensure the promotion and support of deficit crops. 11. Support the provision of local production inputs for existing industries manufactured from local raw materials. 12. Raise farmers’ awareness of the need to change consumption patterns.237238241242244245246247248249250251Areas Of Divergence: During the dialogue discussions, many differences emerged in concepts, viewpoints, and methods and means of effective resolution. The following are the most important of them: 1. Confusion between food systems and food security and their linkages. 2. Some strength points may be weaknesses, as well as some challenges may constitute opportunities and vice versa. 3. The nature and powers of the institutional structure to supervise and monitor the progress. 4. The refugee crisis is a protracted crisis and dealing therewith as the international support declined. 5. Evolution of the Coronavirus and what’s next. 6. Agricultural water quality and transforming to non-fresh water for agriculture. 7. Import policies and protection of domestic production. 8. Subsidy, and fair distribution and efficiency thereof. 9. Transformation from where to where? 10. Food system borders, where does it begin? and where does it end? 11. The importance of regional cooperation.

2021-07-15 19:12:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30583/195

00213000242705151

El Diálogo se ha organizado de acuerdo a la descripción hecha al inicio del Título 3. Método

NoCOPROFAM y Cloc-Vía Campesina se hicieron cargo de organizar 3 reuniones nacionales (Perú, Nicaragua y Uruguay), y 3 subregionales (Mercosur Ampliado, Mesoamérica + Caribe y Centroamérica), aplicando una metodología común con las adaptaciones correspondientes en cada caso, de acuerdo a las particularidades de los participantes. En todos los casos se invitaron a representantes de Organizaciones de Agricultores Familiares, Campesinos, Indígenas, Pastores y Pescadores, para contemplar la diversidad de opiniones sobre los temas propuestos en la agenda para el debate. En todas las instancias fueron convocados entre 40 y 60 personas, incluyendo los representantes de las Organizaciones, técnicos vinculados a las misas y referentes externos a las Organizaciones de reconocida trayectoria gremial y/o profesional vinculada a los temas de la agenda. La metodología propuesta en todos los Diálogos Independientes realizados se basó en el análisis previo de los antecedentes documentales referidos a la Cumbre, por parte de los dirigentes de COPROFAM y Cloc-Vía Campesina que integran el Foro Campesino (FIDA), a la luz de su participación en varias instancias preparatorias de la misma, llevadas a cabo desde que se lanzó el proceso. El análisis previo sirvió para preselección de 3 de las Vías de Acción de la Cumbre, que las Organizaciones mencionadas entienden prioritarias para la Agricultura Familia Campesina e Indígena, Pastores y Pescadores de América Latina y El Caribe, que son: • Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos (posibilitar que todas las personas dispongan de alimentos sanos) • Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles (promover la demanda de alimentos saludables y reducir los desperdicios de la oferta) • Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza (actuar sobre el cambio climático rediciendo emisiones y aumentado la captura de carbono, protegiendo y regenerando ecosistemas críticos) Tomando en consideración dicha preselección de Vías de Acción a trabajar en los Diálogos Independientes (nacionales y subregionales), se programaron reuniones de 3,5 horas de duración, estructuradas en 3 momentos: 1. Apertura y Presentación en Plenaria (1 hora). En este primer momento la organización que convoca a través de un dirigente o un profesional de su confianza presenta en plenaria el trabajo de gabinete realizado previamente para llegar a la preselección de las 3 Vías de Acción sobre las que se va a trabajar en el segundo momento en grupos (10 participantes). Complementariamente un referente reconocido realiza una exposición sobre la situación del Sistema Alimentario y sus desafíos para contribuir a los ODS 2030. Finalmente se presenta un set de preguntas disparadoras para cada una de las Vías de Acción que se van a trabajar en Grupos en el segundo momento. 2. Debate en Grupos (1 hora). En este segundo momento los participantes se separan en 3 grupos, con la conducción de 1 Facilitador preparado para animar el debate y las respuestas a las preguntas disparadoras. Cada grupo trata 1 de las 3 Vías de Acción. Y el Facilitador prepara con la ayuda de un Relator las respuestas que se van a llevar a la plenaria, que es el tercer momento. 3. Socialización de las respuestas de cada uno de los 3 grupos, debate y síntesis (1,5 hora). En este tercer momento el Relator de cada grupo cuenta las respuestas a las preguntas disparadoras a la plenaria; los participantes dialogan-debaten sobre las mismas y el dirigente o el profesional que estuvieron a cargo de la apertura modera la planearía para llegar a un consenso sobre lo que quedará escrito como resultado de la reunión. Los Diálogos nacionales fueron previos a los subregionales y sus resultados fueron presentados en las plenarias iniciales, cómo material adicional, pero manteniendo el set de preguntas incambiado. Esto implicó adicionar 30 minutos a la programación de los Diálogos subregionales, que fueron programados para 4 horas. Las preguntas disparadoras para las 3 Vías de Acción se presentan en el A) Tema principal.

234238239240244245246248249251Preguntas (P) por Vía de Acción: -Garantizar acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivo. Requiere acciones a 3 niveles: i) Oferta. ii) Funcionamiento. iii) Demanda. P.1 - Priorice 2 de 3. P.2 – Identifique acciones por nivel: I) Oferta • Tecnologías para AF. • Subsidios a AF. • Créditos Especiales a AF. • Innovaciones tecnologías. • Incorporar jóvenes en negocio familiar. • Impulsar sistemas sustentables. • Responder a señales de mercado. • Mercados transparentes, que remuneren bien a la AF. • Comprometerse con desarrollo equilibrado de territorios. II) Funcionamiento • Mercados de cercanía, puntos de venta, y comercio electrónico AF. • Subsidiar AF por roles adicionales a la producción. • Créditos para procesar y comercializar. • Asociativismo: más aprendizajes, menos costos, y oferta de alimentos de calidad. • Integrar jóvenes y mujeres al negocio familiar. • Ajustar estructura del sistema, ofreciendo una dieta adecuada a consumidores. • Comercios e industrias deben procurar contratos transparentes con AF. • Comercios e industrias deben trabajar con AF y autoridades, para mejorar fallas del sistema. • Financieras, deben atender especificidades de AF y junto con autoridades encontrar fórmulas que faciliten su acceso a crédito. III) Demanda • Compras públicas conectando AF y poblaciones vulnerables. • Mejorar mercados que conecten AF y consumidores. • Campañas publicitarias sobre ventajas de productos de la AF, por ser de sistemas sustentables. • De parte de los consumidores, valorar los productos que provengan de la AF. • De parte de los comerciantes, incorporar productos los de AF con certificación de origen y/o producción sustentable. -Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles. P.1 - Sobre promoción de demanda de alimentos saludables, priorice 6 de 10: i. Etiquetar alimentos indicando excesos de grasas, sales y otros, que afectan la salud. ii. Campañas publicitarias sobre atributos de productos de AF. iii. Soporte técnico y financiero de certificación que acredite origen en AF y calidad de productos. iv. Beneficios tributarios que mejoren competitividad de AF. v. Comercio electrónico conectando AF agroecológicos y consumidores. vi. Incorporar en la educación la presentación de AF como sistema de producción beneficioso, por el manejo sustentable de RRNN y su contribución al desarrollo. vii. Conectar AF y gastronómicos, para promover atributos de sus productos, y aumentar su demanda. viii. Sostener puntos de venta directa de AF, mercados locales, etc. ix. Impulsar ferias, exposiciones, degustaciones, conectando AF con operadores y consumidores. x. Investigaciones que respalden atributos nutricionales de productos de AF, útiles a salud pública y compras públicas. P.2 - Sobre reducción de desperdicios, priorice 3 de 5: i. Inversiones que reduzcan perdidas en transporte y conservación. ii. Premios y castigos a minoristas por desperdicios debido a vencimiento o mal estado de conservación. iii. Aprovechar, con donaciones, alimentos conservados, con vigencia, que operadores deciden no vender, contabilizándolas como pago de tributos. iv. Recolectar residuos para la elaboración de abonos orgánicos. v. Usar desperdicios de alimentos urbanos y cosechas para abonos orgánicos, bajando riesgos de salud y de incendio. -Impulsar producción favorable a la naturaleza. Priorizar 5 políticas, que impulsan producciones favorables a RRNN. i. Invertir en coinnovación de OAF e institutos de investigación. ii. Formar extensionistas en agroecología. iii. Pagar servicios ambientales a AF agroecológicas, con menor emisión de gases, mayor captura de carbono, y/o biodiversidad. iv. Créditos para transición a producción agroecológica. v. Invertir en certificación agroecológica y medición de resultados. vi. Sistemas de trazabilidad de productos agroecológica. vii. Invertir en energías renovables para AF. viii. Beneficios fiscales para insumos biológicos: fertilizantes, sanidad. ix. Acceso a semillas nativas de colecta, selección y mejoramiento. x. Estimular consumo local de productos de AF. Sobre priorizadas, ¿cuáles serían resultados y mecanismos de monitoreo para hacer ajustes?235238239240244245246248249251- Garantizar acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. La disponibilidad de alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos requiere acciones a nivel de oferta, de funcionamiento-transporte/acondicionamiento/distribución, y de demanda-particulares y Estados que compra alimentos para poblaciones vulnerables). Se priorizaron acciones a nivel de oferta y demanda: Oferta • Desarrollar tecnologías para AF por co-innovación, más allá de lo productivo, involucrando consumidores y abordando aspectos organizacionales. • Subsidiar producción sana de AF (priorizando Jóvenes y Mujeres). • Desestimular producción no sana de alimentos por control de insumos, carga impositiva, u otras formas. • Financiar transición a sistemas agroecológicos. Demanda • Créditos especiales para producción de AF, contemplando Jóvenes y Mujeres como sujetos específicos. • Reglamentar compras públicas descentralizadas en favor de AF, para atender poblaciones vulnerables, optimizando uso de recursos públicos y mejorando el sistema. • Mejorar funcionamiento de mercados, conectando directamente AF-consumidores (circuitos cortos, compras electrónicas, puntos de venta directa). • Desarrollar campañas publicitarias y alcanzar la educación formal con contenidos sobre ventajas de consumo de productos de calidad (sanos) de AF, diferenciados por origen y/o procedencia de sistemas sustentables. • De parte de los consumidores, valorar productos de AF, optando por ellos en tanto cumplan sus requerimientos de calidad y oportunidad. - Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles. Se identificaron prioridades sobre promoción de demanda de alimentos saludables: • Etiquetar los alimentos indicando excesos de grasas, sales y otros elementos que afectan la salud. • Campañas publicitarias que destaquen atributos de calidad (saludable) de productos originarios de AF, debidamente certificados. • Beneficios tributarios para producción/transformación/venta de productos de AF, que mejoren su competitividad cuando cumplan las características de calidad/sustentabilidad (en favor de un futuro mejor para la humanidad). • Incorporar al sistema de educación primaria la presentación de la AF como sistema de producción y de desarrollo beneficioso para la humanidad, por su contribución al manejo sustentable de RRNN e integración de la población rural en la economía. • Sostener puntos de venta específicos para que consumidores accedan con facilidad a productos frescos y elaborados de AF, en mercados locales, mercados nacionales, tiendas especializadas, etc. • Desarrollar investigaciones que respalden atributos nutricionales de productos de AF, de utilidad para la salud y las compras públicas (en particular de la educación). Se identificaron prioridades sobre reducción de desperdicios: • Invertir en infraestructura que reduzcan perdidas en transporte y conservación de alimentos. • Desarrollar sistemas de recolección de residuos que puedan ser utilizados en elaboración de abonos orgánicos que vuelvan a la producción en forma rápida y eficiente. • Utilizar desperdicios de centros urbanos y de cosechas para elaborar abonos orgánicos, bajando riesgos de salud en ciudades y de incendio por quema de rastrojos. - Impulsar producción favorable a la naturaleza. Se priorizaron instrumentos para impulsar producción de alimentos de calidad de AF, consolidando sistemas que bajen emisiones de gases, aumenten captura de carbono, y/o sirvan para proteger ecosistemas valiosos: • Apoyos no retornables para co-innovaciones de AF e institutos de investigación, para expandir sistemas de producción sustentables bilógica, ambiental y económicamente. • Formar extensionistas en prácticas necesarias para pasar de sistemas de producción vigentes a propuestos, incidiendo favorablemente sobre factores que hacen al cambio climático. • Créditos de inversión y capital de trabajo bonificados para transición de sistemas convencionales a agroecológicos. • Asegurar a la AF acceso a semillas de calidad, a partir de la colecta, selección y mejoramiento genético de nativa. • Estimular consumo local de productos agroecológicas de AF (circuitos cortos, ventas por internet, compras públicas, sector gastronómico), evitando transportes innecesarios.236238239240244245246248249251Trabajo en Eje 1 - Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos (posibilitar que todas las personas dispongan de alimentos sanos). Complementando la priorización de planteos pertinentes a los gobiernos respecto de las líneas de política pública necesarias para impactar en una mejoría del Sistema Alimentario, señaladas en el punto B) Principales hallazgos, el grupo identificó otras cuestiones relevantes que no figuraban en la matriz presentada para el debate, que se anotan a continuación: • Facilitar el acceso a tierra, agua y semilla por parte de la AF (priorizando a Jóvenes y Mujeres). • Utilización de las normas de ordenamiento territorial y las reglamentaciones de calidad de los alimentos para modificar la estructura (concentración) de su distribución. • Innovar en los procesos que hacen al Sistema Alimentario desde la producción al consumo, basado en la co-innovación y la asistencia técnica. • Actuar sobre los ingresos de los consumidores (para sacarlos de la pobreza) de manera que no sea esta la principal barrera de acceso a alimentos sanos. • Incrementar la inversión pública en infraestructura para posibilitar cambios en la distribución. • Reconocer y premiar a los AF por su contribución al manejo de los RRNN.236238239240244245246248249251Eje 2 - Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles. Pregunta 1. Se entiende que: • Se debe incorporar la presentación de AF, como un sistema de producción y desarrollo beneficioso para la humanidad, en todos los niveles educativos formales y no sólo en primaria, y hay que trasmitir el mensaje a los responsables de brindar alimentos en centros educativos. • Gran parte de los productos base de la alimentación mundial (trigo maíz, papa), no proviene principalmente de la AF, sino de sistemas de producción empresarial, con un manejo no siempre sustentable, por lo que se debe también trabajar con ellos para que atiendan el medio ambiente. • Se generan producción suficiente para abastecer a la humanidad, sin embargo, eso no sucede; hay perdidas y daños al medio ambiente. Es importante entonces valorizar el rol de la AF que ofrece a los consumidores la posibilidad de compra alimentos saludables con menores desperdicios y cuidado de RRNN. • Para generar reducción de desperdicios, se necesitan inversiones públicas y financiamiento. • Es necesario que la AF obtenga recursos económicos, para potenciar sus procesos colectivos, y así alcanzar fases comerciales a diferente nivel, no sólo circuitos cortos, llegando de mejor manera a mercados centrales, para no quedar por fuera del sistema global producción-comercialización. • La Compra Pública existente en el país debe poner énfasis en apoyar procesos colectivos de mujeres, para que puedan comercializar por este canal. Pregunta 2. Las acciones priorizadas para proponer al gobierno son: 1) Inversiones públicas en infraestructura que reduzcan las perdidas en transporte y conservación de alimentos antes de llegar al consumidor. 2) Implementar sistemas que permitan aprovechar alimentos en estado de conservación adecuados y con fecha de vigencia que los operadores deciden no ofrecer a los consumidores (por razones comerciales), a través de donaciones de agentes privados (mayoristas y/o minoristas y/o industriales) antes de que deban ser tirados (no colocados en el mercado), y contabilizar los mismos como parte de pago de los tributos a un valor inferior al de reposición de la mercadería para estimularlo. La finalidad de esta medida es dirigir estas donaciones en favor de poblaciones vulnerables con dificultades de acceso a alimentos. 3) Utilizar los desperdicios de alimentos orgánicos de los centros urbanos y los desperdicios de cosecha para elaborar abonos orgánicos, bajando los riesgos de salud en las ciudades y los riesgos de incendio asociados a la quema de los rastrojos de las chacras en el campo. 4) Desarrollar sistemas de recolección de residuos que puedan ser utilizados en la elaboración de abonos orgánicos y vuelvan a la producción en forma rápida y eficiente. Se plantea en este punto, generar acciones para que la población recicle de forma diferencial lo orgánico de lo no orgánico y se generen sistemas de recolección y distribución. 5) Apoyo a las cooperativas/organizaciones para lograr una mejor comercialización en circuitos más cortos aprovechando la cercanía con el consumidor generando reducción de desperdicios. Se entiende qué si la AF logra organizarse para comercializar en circuitos cortos, se generaría una reducción de desperdicios. No obstante, se plantea que no para todos los AF los circuitos cortos son la única alternativa, ello depende del lugar que habiten y las posibilidades de colocar toda la producción en ese mercado más cercano. Por eso hay que apoyar a la AF a que llegue a los niveles de comercialización más globales. Las acciones priorizadas para proponer a los actores privados: 1) Necesidad que actores de la cadena generen integración, para dar un uso a los productos que hoy son excedentes de producción o sub productos industriales. 2) Integrar AF con consumidores, tomando el ejemplo de experiencias de agroecología. 3) Desarrollar la recolección de residuos para elaboración de abonos orgánicos que vuelvan a la producción en forma rápida y eficiente (organizaciones comunitarias, en pequeños barrios o localidades). 4) Organizaciones/cooperativas, financiando acciones para reducir desperdicios.236238239240244245246248249251Trabajo en Eje 3 - Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza (actuar sobre el cambio climático rediciendo emisiones y aumentado la captura de carbono, protegiendo y regenerando ecosistemas críticos). En relación con esta Vía de Acción, y más allá de la priorización señalada en plenaria, el trabajo en grupo permitió anotar los aportes que se detallan a continuación sobre cada una de ellas. • Apoyo financiero no retornable para el desarrollo de co-innovaciones por parte de las organizaciones de la AFCI y los institutos de investigación, que permitan expandir sistemas de producción agroecológicos sustentables bilógica, ambiental y económicamente. - Premiar la producción favorable a la naturaleza (como se hace con los megaemprendimientos) - El acceso a la tierra es muy importante en sistemas y predios que tienen esa limitante o que gran parte de sus productores se encuentran sobre tierras arrendadas con la inestabilidad que eso implica a la hora de pensar la innovación y desarrollo. - La renuncia fiscal como herramienta de promoción y estímulo. • Formación de técnicos de los sistemas de extensión rural sobre las prácticas necesarias para pasar de los sistemas vigentes de producción a los propuestos, y así incidir favorablemente sobre los factores que hacen al cambio climático. - Importancia de la co-innovación por su aporte desde el territorio, pero que necesariamente debe ser acompañado de políticas de desarrollo que ayuden a levantar las limitantes que se van encontrando en los sistemas para su rediseño y avance a sistemas más sustentables. - Pensar la innovación en otras dimensiones más allá de las prácticas productivas generando más proximidad e involucramiento de otros actores: Crear un departamento de extensión en agroecología por ejemplo en FAGRO o en otras carreras como nutrición, sicología CCSS, innovación en maquinaria, diseño industrial, comercio electrónico, etc. etc. • Créditos para inversión y capital de trabajo con bonificaciones por su destino para la transición de sistemas convencionales de producción a sistemas agroecológicos. - Prever el financiamiento especial en las fases de transición y lo que esto implica dado que son períodos en los que no se alcanza el máximo de productividad mientras se procesan esos cambios. - Existen antecedentes por ejemplo lo desarrollado por la ADR de la Intendencia de Canelones en la cuenca de la laguna del cisne para el financiamiento asociado a la transición. (Convenio con RAU) • Asegurar la disponibilidad y el acceso a semillas de calidad a partir de la colecta, selección y mejoramiento de la base genética nativa, por parte de la AFCI. - Tener una mirada también sobre la genética animal, ejemplo aves y cerdos (cerdo pampa, de genética criolla, por ejemplo como una base a trabajar) - Ver la globalidad de recursos, ejemplo la ración en caso de producción animal - El recurso de los pastizales como recurso natural para producciones como la lechera y ganadera. • Estimular por todas las vías posibles el consumo local de las producciones agroecológicas de la AFCI (circuitos cortos, ventas por internet, compras públicas, sector gastronómico, etc.), evitando al máximo los transportes innecesarios de productos. - La formación alimentaria (por ejemplo, las huertas comunitarias como espacio urbano de formación y los propios mercados de cercanía). - En el caso de la producción animal, existe la limitante planteada de formalización de la faena acorde a los predios de la AF, ejemplo plantas de faena móviles. - Plantas de procesamientos en las organizaciones que permitan formar productores y consumidores en prácticas que eviten la perdida de alimentos, el agregado de valor y por otro lado adecuar las normativas de habilitación de productos para la comercialización de alimentos inocuos.236238239240244245246248249251Comentarios generales que surgen del intercambio en grupo: • Necesidad de adecuar los marcos legales y de normativas existentes, acordes a los desafíos y realidades de la AFCI y las transiciones de los sistemas hacia sistemas más sustentables. • Además de la formación de técnicos, tener en cuenta la formación alimentaria. • La comercialización y los actores involucrados. • En general son temas planteados en el Plan Nacional de Agroecología i. Plazo propuesto 5 años ii. Alcance nacional. iii. Presupuesto ambicioso (en torno a 75 millones de dólares para 5 años) Vs. Presupuesto real

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FORMULARIO-DE-COMENTARIOS-DIALOGO-NACIONAL-URUGUAY.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Tv9rNu71s

2021-07-15 19:13:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30589/144

00341200291704646

El Diálogo se ha organizado de acuerdo a la descripción hecha al inicio del Título 3. Método

NoCOPROFAM y Cloc-Vía Campesina se hicieron cargo de organizar 3 reuniones nacionales (Perú, Nicaragua y Uruguay), y 3 subregionales (Mercosur Ampliado, Mesoamérica + Caribe y Centroamérica), aplicando una metodología común con las adaptaciones correspondientes en cada caso, de acuerdo a las particularidades de los participantes. En todos los casos se invitaron a representantes de Organizaciones de Agricultores Familiares, Campesinos, Indígenas, Pastores y Pescadores, para contemplar la diversidad de opiniones sobre los temas propuestos en la agenda para el debate. En todas las instancias fueron convocados entre 40 y 60 personas, incluyendo los representantes de las Organizaciones, técnicos vinculados a las misas y referentes externos a las Organizaciones de reconocida trayectoria gremial y/o profesional vinculada a los temas de la agenda. La metodología propuesta en todos los Diálogos Independientes realizados se basó en el análisis previo de los antecedentes documentales referidos a la Cumbre, por parte de los dirigentes de COPROFAM y Cloc-Vía Campesina que integran el Foro Campesino (FIDA), a la luz de su participación en varias instancias preparatorias de la misma, llevadas a cabo desde que se lanzó el proceso. El análisis previo sirvió para preselección de 3 de las Vías de Acción de la Cumbre, que las Organizaciones mencionadas entienden prioritarias para la Agricultura Familia Campesina e Indígena, Pastores y Pescadores de América Latina y El Caribe, que son: • Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos (posibilitar que todas las personas dispongan de alimentos sanos) • Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles (promover la demanda de alimentos saludables y reducir los desperdicios de la oferta) • Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza (actuar sobre el cambio climático rediciendo emisiones y aumentado la captura de carbono, protegiendo y regenerando ecosistemas críticos) Tomando en consideración dicha preselección de Vías de Acción a trabajar en los Diálogos Independientes (nacionales y subregionales), se programaron reuniones de 3,5 horas de duración, estructuradas en 3 momentos: 1. Apertura y Presentación en Plenaria (1 hora). En este primer momento la organización que convoca a través de un dirigente o un profesional de su confianza presenta en plenaria el trabajo de gabinete realizado previamente para llegar a la preselección de las 3 Vías de Acción sobre las que se va a trabajar en el segundo momento en grupos (10 participantes). Complementariamente un referente reconocido realiza una exposición sobre la situación del Sistema Alimentario y sus desafíos para contribuir a los ODS 2030. Finalmente se presenta un set de preguntas disparadoras para cada una de las Vías de Acción que se van a trabajar en Grupos en el segundo momento. 2. Debate en Grupos (1 hora). En este segundo momento los participantes se separan en 3 grupos, con la conducción de 1 Facilitador preparado para animar el debate y las respuestas a las preguntas disparadoras. Cada grupo trata 1 de las 3 Vías de Acción. Y el Facilitador prepara con la ayuda de un Relator las respuestas que se van a llevar a la plenaria, que es el tercer momento. 3. Socialización de las respuestas de cada uno de los 3 grupos, debate y síntesis (1,5 hora). En este tercer momento el Relator de cada grupo cuenta las respuestas a las preguntas disparadoras a la plenaria; los participantes dialogan-debaten sobre las mismas y el dirigente o el profesional que estuvieron a cargo de la apertura modera la planearía para llegar a un consenso sobre lo que quedará escrito como resultado de la reunión. Los Diálogos nacionales fueron previos a los subregionales y sus resultados fueron presentados en las plenarias iniciales, cómo material adicional, pero manteniendo el set de preguntas incambiado. Esto implicó adicionar 30 minutos a la programación de los Diálogos subregionales, que fueron programados para 4 horas. Las preguntas disparadoras para las 3 Vías de Acción se presentan en el A) Tema principal.

234238239240244245246248249251Preguntas (P) por Vía de Acción: -Garantizar acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivo. Requiere acciones a 3 niveles: i) Oferta. ii) Funcionamiento. iii) Demanda. P.1 - Priorice 2 de 3. P.2 – Identifique acciones por nivel: I) Oferta • Tecnologías para AF. • Subsidios a AF. • Créditos Especiales a AF. • Innovaciones tecnologías. • Incorporar jóvenes en negocio familiar. • Impulsar sistemas sustentables. • Responder a señales de mercado. • Mercados transparentes, que remuneren bien a la AF. • Comprometerse con desarrollo equilibrado de territorios. II) Funcionamiento • Mercados de cercanía, puntos de venta, y comercio electrónico AF. • Subsidiar AF por roles adicionales a la producción. • Créditos para procesar y comercializar. • Asociativismo: más aprendizajes, menos costos, y oferta de alimentos de calidad. • Integrar jóvenes y mujeres al negocio familiar. • Ajustar estructura del sistema, ofreciendo una dieta adecuada a consumidores. • Comercios e industrias deben procurar contratos transparentes con AF. • Comercios e industrias deben trabajar con AF y autoridades, para mejorar fallas del sistema. • Financieras, deben atender especificidades de AF y junto con autoridades encontrar fórmulas que faciliten su acceso a crédito. III) Demanda • Compras públicas conectando AF y poblaciones vulnerables. • Mejorar mercados que conecten AF y consumidores. • Campañas publicitarias sobre ventajas de productos de la AF, por ser de sistemas sustentables. • De parte de los consumidores, valorar los productos que provengan de la AF. • De parte de los comerciantes, incorporar productos los de AF con certificación de origen y/o producción sustentable. -Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles. P.1 - Sobre promoción de demanda de alimentos saludables, priorice 6 de 10: i. Etiquetar alimentos indicando excesos de grasas, sales y otros, que afectan la salud. ii. Campañas publicitarias sobre atributos de productos de AF. iii. Soporte técnico y financiero de certificación que acredite origen en AF y calidad de productos. iv. Beneficios tributarios que mejoren competitividad de AF. v. Comercio electrónico conectando AF agroecológicos y consumidores. vi. Incorporar en la educación la presentación de AF como sistema de producción beneficioso, por el manejo sustentable de RRNN y su contribución al desarrollo. vii. Conectar AF y gastronómicos, para promover atributos de sus productos, y aumentar su demanda. viii. Sostener puntos de venta directa de AF, mercados locales, etc. ix. Impulsar ferias, exposiciones, degustaciones, conectando AF con operadores y consumidores. x. Investigaciones que respalden atributos nutricionales de productos de AF, útiles a salud pública y compras públicas. P.2 - Sobre reducción de desperdicios, priorice 3 de 5: i. Inversiones que reduzcan perdidas en transporte y conservación. ii. Premios y castigos a minoristas por desperdicios debido a vencimiento o mal estado de conservación. iii. Aprovechar, con donaciones, alimentos conservados, con vigencia, que operadores deciden no vender, contabilizándolas como pago de tributos. iv. Recolectar residuos para la elaboración de abonos orgánicos. v. Usar desperdicios de alimentos urbanos y cosechas para abonos orgánicos, bajando riesgos de salud y de incendio. -Impulsar producción favorable a la naturaleza. Priorizar 5 políticas, que impulsan producciones favorables a RRNN. i. Invertir en coinnovación de OAF e institutos de investigación. ii. Formar extensionistas en agroecología. iii. Pagar servicios ambientales a AF agroecológicas, con menor emisión de gases, mayor captura de carbono, y/o biodiversidad. iv. Créditos para transición a producción agroecológica. v. Invertir en certificación agroecológica y medición de resultados. vi. Sistemas de trazabilidad de productos agroecológica. vii. Invertir en energías renovables para AF. viii. Beneficios fiscales para insumos biológicos: fertilizantes, sanidad. ix. Acceso a semillas nativas de colecta, selección y mejoramiento. x. Estimular consumo local de productos de AF. Sobre priorizadas, ¿cuáles serían resultados y mecanismos de monitoreo para hacer ajustes?235238239240244245246248249251- Garantizar acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. Disponer alimentos sanos y nutritivos requiere acciones a nivel de oferta (producción), funcionamiento (transporte/acondicionamiento/distribución), y demanda (compra de particulares y del Estados para atender vulnerables). Perú priorizó acciones a nivel de oferta y demanda: Oferta • Desarrollar tecnologías para AFCI en producción/transformación, rescatando conocimientos ancestrales agroecológicos-orgánicos. • Implementar 18 tecnologías de Sierra Productivas a través de yachachiq; probadas, presupuestadas y presentada al Gobierno. • Subsidios Directos a la producción de AFCI. • Entregar semillas apropiadas para la producción de AFCI de acuerdo a sus tradiciones. • Créditos especiales de banca pública a AFCI, para producción-procesamiento-conservación, posibilitando agregado de valor local, con destino principal para implementar módulos de Sierras Productivas. • Contribuir a formar mercados transparentes, con precios sean justos para cada actor. Demanda • Hacer funcionar compras públicas en favor de AFCI, y de las poblaciones vulnerables, en particular los niños- los hospitalizados - los asilos, optimizando la aplicación de recursos públicos para mejorar el sistema alimentario con productos agroecológicos-orgánicos. • Mejorar funcionamiento de mercados locales conectando directamente AFCI-consumidores (circuitos cortos, compras electrónicas, puntos de venta directos). • Desarrollar campañas publicitarias y eventos que ilustren a los consumidores sobre ventajas de consumir productos de calidad de AFCI, diferenciados por origen y/o procedencia de sistemas de producción sustentables, para tener una dieta más balanceada y sana. • Comerciantes deben incorporar productos de AFCI certificados por origen y/o sistemas de producción sustentables, evitando importar lo que puede ofrecer la AFCI. - Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles. Perú priorizó acciones para promover demanda de alimentos saludables: • Desarrollar plataformas de comercio electrónico conectando AFCI debidamente registrados y consumidores, con respaldo de autoridades sanitarias y ambientales. • Incorporar en la educación primaria la presentación de la AFCI como sistema de producción y desarrollo beneficioso a la humanidad, por su contribución al manejo sustentable de los RRNN y la integración de la población rural en la economía. • Conectar AFCI con gastronómicos, para formarlos en el conocimiento de atributos de sus productos, y así acrecentar la demanda de alimentos de calidad saludables. • Sostener puntos de venta específicos para que consumidores accedan con facilidad a productos frescos y elaborados de AFCI, en mercados nacionales, locales y tiendas especializadas. • Impulsar ferias, exposiciones, degustaciones, de productos de la AFCI en centros urbanos, para conectarlos con operadores y consumidores. Perú priorizó acciones para reducir desperdicios: • Establecer premios y castigos a puntos minoristas (en particular grandes superficies) por desperdicios de alimentos por su vencimiento o mal estado de conservación. • Organizar recolección de residuos para la elaboración de abonos orgánicos que vuelvan a la producción. • Utilizar desperdicios de alimentos urbanos y cosechas para elaborar abonos orgánicos, bajando riesgos de salud y de incendio. - Impulsar producción favorable a la naturaleza. Perú priorizó instrumentos para impulsar producción de alimentos de calidad de AF, y consolidar sistemas con bajas emisiones, mayor captura de carbono, y útiles para proteger ecosistemas valiosos: • Apoyo financiero no retornable a co-innovaciones de organizaciones de AFCI e institutos de investigación, para expandir producción agroecológica-orgánica. • Formar extensionistas en prácticas agroecológicas, para incidir sobre factores que hacen al cambio climático. • Asignar presupuesto para medir y certificar bondades de sistemas implementados por la AFCI. • Asegurar acceso de la AFCI a semillas de calidad de colecta, selección y mejoramiento de nativas. • Estimular consumo local de agroecológicos de AFCI (circuitos cortos, ventas por internet, compras públicas, sector gastronómico), evitando transportes innecesarios.236238239240244245246248249251Trabajo en Eje 1 - Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos (posibilitar que todas las personas dispongan de alimentos sanos). Complementando la priorización de planteos pertinentes a los gobiernos respecto de las líneas de política pública necesarias para impactar en una mejoría del Sistema Alimentario, señaladas en el punto B) Principales hallazgos, el grupo identificó otras cuestiones relevantes que no figuraban en la matriz presentada para el debate, que se anotan a continuación: • Limitar las importaciones de productos que son base de la oferta de la AFCI del país. • Contemplar la participación de las OAFCI en la gobernanza de las políticas para aportar al desarrollo territorial. Instalar incentivos a los gobiernos locales y a los comerciantes de parte del gobierno nacional, cuando promueven el abastecimiento local de alimentos. • Incorporar la agenda de la AFCI en la educación, desde la escuela hasta el nivel terciario.236238239240244245246248249251Eje 2 - Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles. PREGUNTA 1 • Incorporar en todo el sistema educativo la presentación de la AFCI como un sistema de producción y desarrollo beneficioso para la humanidad, por el manejo sustentable de RRNN y la integración rural en la economía. - Estratégico y de largo plazo, para generar nueva cultura alimentaria y medicina preventiva. - Valorar experiencia Sierra Productiva con Instituciones Educativas, con enfoque de “educación productiva, emprendedora e innovadora”, con los métodos de “aprender haciendo” y “menos aula, más campo”. - Pasantías para conocer experiencias innovadoras, y la importancia de alimentos agroecológicos-sanos. • Puntos de venta específicos para que consumidores accedan con facilidad a productos de AFCI. - Impulsar ferias, exposiciones, degustaciones, en centros urbanos intermedios y mayores, para conectar AF con operadores y consumidores. - Realizar concursos de calidad, que favorece el prestigio de los premiados, permite hacer mesas de negocios y compromisos con compradores de la localidad y de otras zonas. - Reorientar programas sociales que compran alimentos hiper industrializados, para que compren a la AF. - La pandemia he hecho necesario contar con puntos de venta distintos a los super y mercados de abastos, por las aglomeraciones. Es deseable apoyar redes de puntos de venta de orgánicos frescos y procesados con insumos naturales. Asimismo, los mercados itinerantes de AF, llevando su oferta a diferentes puntos. Los consumidores están buscar alimentos sanos y eso es una oportunidad. • Conectar AFCI con gastronómicos, para que logren conocer los atributos de sus productos, y acrecienten su demanda. - Sierra Productiva tiene la experiencia del programa “Al turista lo nuestro” del Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo, por el cuál 60 cheffs de hoteles y restaurantes realizaron una pasantía en predios de AF. Se impresionaron con el color, textura, sabor y aroma de los productos y vieron las plantas artesanas donde procesan. Eso generó contratos con 30 hoteles y restaurantes. Sería deseable extenderla a otras zonas del país. • Desarrollar comercio electrónico que conecte AFCI y consumidores, con autoridades sanitarias y ambientales que respalden producción en sistemas agroecológicos. - Sierra Productiva usa el comercio electrónico, a nivel básico. Los pedidos se realizan por celular y whatsapp, y los pagos mediante aplicaciones. Indispensable mejorar la calidad del servicio en zonas rurales que esto se expanda. PREGUNTA 2 • Desarrollar recolección de residuos para ser utilizados en la elaboración de abonos orgánicos que vuelvan a la producción en forma rápida y eficiente. - En el campo tenemos la experiencia de usar rastrojos como insumos de abonos orgánicos, compost, bocashi y biol. - En la selva la preocupación está con frutales que se desperdician. Sería deseable contar con despulpadoras para reducir pérdidas, y aprovechar las cáscaras para elaborar aceites esenciales. - Capacitación y concientización para erradicar la quema de rastrojos y pastos secos. • Utilizar desperdicios de alimentos y de cosecha para elaborar abonos orgánicos, bajando riesgos de salud y de incendio por la quema de los rastrojos. - En zonas urbanas aprovechar desperdicios para elaborar abonos. Hay 2 experiencias destacadas con municipalidades, en Santiago de Chuco y en Independencia en Huaraz, que instalaron centros de producción de compost con desperdicios de alimentos y rastrojos. Además, instalaron equipos para separar plásticos, metales y vidrios, que clasifican empacan y venden en Lima. - En zonas urbanas líderes AF deben capacitar familias para elaborar abonos usando desechos de alimentos, para agricultura urbana. • Establecer premios y castigos minoristas, por desperdicios de alimentos, por su vencimiento o mala conservación. - Premiar el uso de bolsas de tela, y su vez aumentar el costo de bolsas plásticas. - En super y mercados de abastos, organizar recolección de productos en riesgo de perderse, para distribuirlo a centros que atienden personas vulnerables. Los que no tienen otro destino que ser desechados, destinarlos a la producción de compost.236238239240244245246248249251Trabajo en Eje 3 - Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza (actuar sobre el cambio climático rediciendo emisiones y aumentado la captura de carbono, protegiendo y regenerando ecosistemas críticos). PREGUNTA 1 En relación con esta Vía de Acción, y más allá de la priorización señalada en plenaria, el trabajo en grupo permitió anotar los aportes que se detallan a continuación sobre cada una de ellas. • Apoyo financiero no retornable para el desarrollo de co-innovaciones por parte de las organizaciones de la AFCI y los institutos de investigación, que permitan expandir sistemas de producción agroecológicos sustentables bilógica, ambiental y económicamente. -Necesidad de presupuestos para el escalamiento de experiencias exitosas como lo que se viene acumulando con “Sierra Productiva”. -No es solo el tema de que esté el presupuesto o no, sino también, que tipo de proyectos se financia, se tiende a financiar proyectos que vienen de los gobiernos y no proyectos más a largo plazo que ya vienen generando y validando las propias organizaciones. • Formación de técnicos de los sistemas de extensión rural sobre las prácticas necesarias para pasar de los sistemas vigentes de producción a los propuestos, y así incidir favorablemente sobre los factores que hacen al cambio climático. -Mayor formación de los técnicos para sistemas agroecológicos y mejor manejo de la genética y procesos de certificación. • Financiamiento con cargo a presupuesto nacional de sistemas de medición y certificación de las bondades de los sistemas implementados para actuar sobre el cambio climático. • Asegurar la disponibilidad y el acceso a semillas de calidad a partir de la colecta, selección y mejoramiento de la base genética nativa, por parte de la AFCI. -Planteo de contar con un banco de semillas de acceso a las y los productores. -Se le podría poner más énfasis dentro de la propuesta programática de sierra productiva. -Es importante generar centros de investigación para la mejora genética de las semillas, asociado al trabajo de extensión y co innovación. • Estimular por todas las vías posibles el consumo local de las producciones agroecológicas de la AFCI (circuitos cortos, ventas por internet, compras públicas, sector gastronómico, etc.), evitando al máximo los transportes innecesarios de productos. -Existe experiencia y resultados validados en los mercados itinerantes “de la chacra a la olla”. -Los mercados campesinos. -Profundizar en la experiencia de las compras públicas, tomando el ejemplo de políticas desarrolladas en la región, ej. Brasil. -El precio de muchos alimentos no cubre los costos de producción (ej. leche y quesos), lo que requiere participación del gobierno. PREGUNTA 2 Para políticas identificadas en la pregunta anterior, se plantearon las siguientes interrogantes ¿cuáles serían los resultados-cuantitativos-, los mecanismos de monitoreo de los resultados para mensurar los progresos y hacer los ajustes necesarios?, y los resultados obtenidos fueron los que se detallan: -Desarrollo Rural con Soberanía Alimentaria. -Rescatando y valorando los conocimientos ancestrales con los que se cuenta. -Propuesta de “Sierra Productiva” como referencia para el abordaje. Propuesta programática (no proyecto) de alcance nacional y perspectiva de escalamiento internacional (ej. alrededor de 80.000 familias (propuesta inicial de emergencia en el marco de la pandemia de mil millones de soles para responder en principio de forma directa a unas 3.000 familias). El desafío es cómo consolidarlo como política pública. -El sector productivo es el más afectado por el CC -Las organizaciones nacionales tenemos que ser los actores principales en la generación y ejecución de estas políticas. -Las rondas campesinas como acercamiento del diálogo de las organizaciones con los gobiernos y la articulación con otros actores como las universidades. -Que se priorice la agricultura y la ganadería. -No solo el tema de los recursos, sino que los recursos lleguen y no se queden en los intermediarios de la aplicación de políticas. -Se llegan a acuerdos con los gobiernos, pero después no llegan a implementarse en ocasiones por parte los funcionarios.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FORMULARIO-DE-COMENTARIOS-DIALOGO-NACIONAL-PERU.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZdwoPk2kps

2021-07-15 19:14:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30593/163033444661143144195

00202010030205050

El Diálogo se ha organizado de acuerdo a la descripción hecha al inicio del Título 3. Método

NoCOPROFAM y Cloc-Vía Campesina se hicieron cargo de organizar 3 reuniones nacionales (Perú, Nicaragua y Uruguay), y 3 subregionales (Mercosur Ampliado, Mesoamérica + Caribe y Centroamérica), aplicando una metodología común con las adaptaciones correspondientes en cada caso, de acuerdo a las particularidades de los participantes. En todos los casos se invitaron a representantes de Organizaciones de Agricultores Familiares, Campesinos, Indígenas, Pastores y Pescadores, para contemplar la diversidad de opiniones sobre los temas propuestos en la agenda para el debate. En todas las instancias fueron convocados entre 40 y 60 personas, incluyendo los representantes de las Organizaciones, técnicos vinculados a las misas y referentes externos a las Organizaciones de reconocida trayectoria gremial y/o profesional vinculada a los temas de la agenda. La metodología propuesta en todos los Diálogos Independientes realizados se basó en el análisis previo de los antecedentes documentales referidos a la Cumbre, por parte de los dirigentes de COPROFAM y Cloc-Vía Campesina que integran el Foro Campesino (FIDA), a la luz de su participación en varias instancias preparatorias de la misma, llevadas a cabo desde que se lanzó el proceso. El análisis previo sirvió para preselección de 3 de las Vías de Acción de la Cumbre, que las Organizaciones mencionadas entienden prioritarias para la Agricultura Familia Campesina e Indígena, Pastores y Pescadores de América Latina y El Caribe, que son: • Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos (posibilitar que todas las personas dispongan de alimentos sanos) • Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles (promover la demanda de alimentos saludables y reducir los desperdicios de la oferta) • Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza (actuar sobre el cambio climático rediciendo emisiones y aumentado la captura de carbono, protegiendo y regenerando ecosistemas críticos) Tomando en consideración dicha preselección de Vías de Acción a trabajar en los Diálogos Independientes (nacionales y subregionales), se programaron reuniones de 3,5 horas de duración, estructuradas en 3 momentos: 1. Apertura y Presentación en Plenaria (1 hora). En este primer momento la organización que convoca a través de un dirigente o un profesional de su confianza presenta en plenaria el trabajo de gabinete realizado previamente para llegar a la preselección de las 3 Vías de Acción sobre las que se va a trabajar en el segundo momento en grupos (10 participantes). Complementariamente un referente reconocido realiza una exposición sobre la situación del Sistema Alimentario y sus desafíos para contribuir a los ODS 2030. Finalmente se presenta un set de preguntas disparadoras para cada una de las Vías de Acción que se van a trabajar en Grupos en el segundo momento. 2. Debate en Grupos (1 hora). En este segundo momento los participantes se separan en 3 grupos, con la conducción de 1 Facilitador preparado para animar el debate y las respuestas a las preguntas disparadoras. Cada grupo trata 1 de las 3 Vías de Acción. Y el Facilitador prepara con la ayuda de un Relator las respuestas que se van a llevar a la plenaria, que es el tercer momento. 3. Socialización de las respuestas de cada uno de los 3 grupos, debate y síntesis (1,5 hora). En este tercer momento el Relator de cada grupo cuenta las respuestas a las preguntas disparadoras a la plenaria; los participantes dialogan-debaten sobre las mismas y el dirigente o el profesional que estuvieron a cargo de la apertura modera la planearía para llegar a un consenso sobre lo que quedará escrito como resultado de la reunión. Los Diálogos nacionales fueron previos a los subregionales y sus resultados fueron presentados en las plenarias iniciales, cómo material adicional, pero manteniendo el set de preguntas incambiado. Esto implicó adicionar 30 minutos a la programación de los Diálogos subregionales, que fueron programados para 4 horas. Las preguntas disparadoras para las 3 Vías de Acción se presentan en el A) Tema principal.

234238239240244245246248249251Preguntas (P) por Vía de Acción: - Garantizar acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivo. Requiere acciones a 3 niveles: i) Oferta. ii) Funcionamiento. iii) Demanda. P.1 - Priorice 2 de 3. P.2 – Identifique acciones por nivel: I) Oferta • Tecnologías para AF. • Subsidios a AF. • Créditos Especiales a AF. • Innovaciones tecnologías. • Incorporar jóvenes en negocio familiar. • Impulsar sistemas sustentables. • Responder a señales de mercado. • Mercados transparentes, que remuneren bien a la AF. • Comprometerse con desarrollo equilibrado de territorios. II) Funcionamiento • Mercados de cercanía, puntos de venta, y comercio electrónico AF. • Subsidiar AF por roles adicionales a la producción. • Créditos para procesar y comercializar. • Asociativismo: más aprendizajes, menos costos, y oferta de alimentos de calidad. • Integrar jóvenes y mujeres al negocio familiar. • Ajustar estructura del sistema, ofreciendo una dieta adecuada a consumidores. • Comercios e industrias deben procurar contratos transparentes con AF. • Comercios e industrias deben trabajar con AF y autoridades, para mejorar fallas del sistema. • Financieras, deben atender especificidades de AF y junto con autoridades encontrar fórmulas que faciliten su acceso a crédito. III) Demanda • Compras públicas conectando AF y poblaciones vulnerables. • Mejorar mercados que conecten AF y consumidores. • Campañas publicitarias sobre ventajas de productos de la AF, por ser de sistemas sustentables. • De parte de los consumidores, valorar los productos que provengan de la AF. • De parte de los comerciantes, incorporar productos los de AF con certificación de origen y/o producción sustentable. - Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles. P.1 - Sobre promoción de demanda de alimentos saludables, priorice 6 de 10: i. Etiquetar alimentos indicando excesos de grasas, sales y otros, que afectan la salud. ii. Campañas publicitarias sobre atributos de productos de AF. iii. Soporte técnico y financiero de certificación que acredite origen en AF y calidad de productos. iv. Beneficios tributarios que mejoren competitividad de AF. v. Comercio electrónico conectando AF agroecológicos y consumidores. vi. Incorporar en la educación la presentación de AF como sistema de producción beneficioso, por el manejo sustentable de RRNN y su contribución al desarrollo. vii. Conectar AF y gastronómicos, para promover atributos de sus productos, y aumentar su demanda. viii. Sostener puntos de venta directa de AF, mercados locales, etc. ix. Impulsar ferias, exposiciones, degustaciones, conectando AF con operadores y consumidores. x. Investigaciones que respalden atributos nutricionales de productos de AF, útiles a salud pública y compras públicas. P.2 - Sobre reducción de desperdicios, priorice 3 de 5: i. Inversiones que reduzcan perdidas en transporte y conservación. ii. Premios y castigos a minoristas por desperdicios debido a vencimiento o mal estado de conservación. iii. Aprovechar, con donaciones, alimentos conservados, con vigencia, que operadores deciden no vender, contabilizándolas como pago de tributos. iv. Recolectar residuos para la elaboración de abonos orgánicos. v. Usar desperdicios de alimentos urbanos y cosechas para abonos orgánicos, bajando riesgos de salud y de incendio. - Impulsar producción favorable a la naturaleza. Priorizar 5 políticas, que impulsan producciones favorables a RRNN. i. Invertir en coinnovación de OAF e institutos de investigación. ii. Formar extensionistas en agroecología. iii. Pagar servicios ambientales a AF agroecológicas, con menor emisión de gases, mayor captura de carbono, y/o biodiversidad. iv. Créditos para transición a producción agroecológica. v. Invertir en certificación agroecológica y medición de resultados. vi. Sistemas de trazabilidad de productos agroecológica. vii. Invertir en energías renovables para AF. viii. Beneficios fiscales para insumos biológicos: fertilizantes, sanidad. ix. Acceso a semillas nativas de colecta, selección y mejoramiento. x. Estimular consumo local de productos de AF. Sobre priorizadas, ¿cuáles serían resultados y mecanismos de monitoreo para hacer ajustes?235238239240244245246248249251Vía 1 Oferta: • Tecnologías para AF con energías renovables. • Subsidios, créditos y tributación especial para AF. • Mercados transparentes, con precios justos. Demanda: • Compras públicas a asociaciones de AF, pago contado, priorizando atención de vulnerables. • Mejorar funcionamiento de mercados de AF (circuitos cortos, compras virtuales, venta directa). • Campañas públicas sobre productos sanos de AF, incorporando el mensaje en educación, bajando incidencia de enfermedades no trasmisibles y gasto en salud. • Comerciantes deben incorporar productos de AF certificados. • Apoyo de privados a AF con intermediación más eficiente que la actual de los gobiernos. Funcionamiento: • Mercados de cercanía, puntos de venta y comercio electrónico. • Subsidios a AF por roles adicionales a la producción. • Créditos especiales a AF para acondicionamiento y comercio. • Comercios e industrias deben implementar contratos de abastecimiento transparentes con AF. • Comercios e industrias deben conformar mesas de desarrollo con AF y autoridades, para mejorar el sistema. • Bancos deben contemplar especificidades de AF, buscando nuevas formas para su acceso al crédito. Vía 2 Promover demanda de alimentos saludables: iii. Respaldar sistemas de certificación de origen/calidad de productos de AF, que induzcan preferencia de consumidores. • Reconocer/Institucionalizar certificación participativa. iv. Beneficios tributarios que mejoren competitividad de productos de AF sustentables y de calidad • Estudios comparados “consumidores agroecológicos vs industrializados”, para respaldar beneficios tributarios por menores costos de salud. v. Desarrollar comercio electrónico conectando AF-consumidores, respaldado por autoridades sanitarias y ambientales. • Dotar a zonas rurales de banda ancha, con alta velocidad. viii. Sostener puntos de venta para que consumidores accedan con facilidad a productos de AF. • Aprovechar oportunidad de la pandemia que cuestiona las grandes superficies. • Propiciar puntos de venta de AF y redes AF-consumidores. x. Investigar atributos nutricionales de productos de AF, útiles a la salud y las compras públicas. Reducir desperdicios: vi. Invertir para reducir pérdidas en transporte-conservación. • Invertir y subsidiar transporte y mercadeo - ferias itinerantes. vii. Desarrollar sistemas de recolección de residuos para elaboración de abonos orgánicos. • Usar rastrojos de chacras y residuos urbanos para abonos orgánicos. Vía 3 i. Invertir en coinnovaciones de OAF e institutos de investigación. • Investigar “nativas” y su valor nutricional. • Aportar un 10% de lo que el sector aporta al PIB. ii. Formar extensionistas para sistemas de producción sustentables. • Fortalecer OAF con asistencia técnica integrando ciencia y saberes. • Formar RRHH en agroecología y peligros de químicos. iv. Créditos de inversión y capital de trabajo bonificados para transición agroecológica. viii. Beneficios fiscales a insumos biológicos para suelos, fertilización, sanidad vegetal/animal. • Invertir mínimo 1% del presupuesto en agricultura, y la mitad a AF. x. Estimular consumo local de AF agroecológica. • Financiar logística, transporte, promoción y mercadeo. • Pagar Servicios Ambientales.236238239240244245246248249251• Énfasis en apoyos y subsidios directos al sector desconectados de las tecnologías y/o producción del agronegocio y en favor de la biodiversidad y protección ambiental (pagos desconectados) • Ubicar la región como una de las mayores productoras del mundo, pero también una de las más desiguales. Déficit de ingresos impide seguridad alimentaria en función de los altos precios de los alimentos. Incremento pobreza y pobreza extrema. • Adoptar medidas contra el contrabando alimentos (incluir y analizar este y otros temas). • Fortalecer/visibilizar protagonismo de las mujeres en la producción y comercialización de alimentos con políticas específicas. • Fortalecer recambio generacional (sucesión rural) con la adopción de políticas específicas. • Priorizar el acceso a los recursos naturales y territorios por parte de la Agricultura Familiar, Campesina e Indígena, Pastores y Pescadores. • Inversión y políticas públicas diferenciadas que generen desarrollo y reducción de las desigualdades. • Estimular políticas específicas como políticas de desarrollo, no asistenciales, en función del enorme potencial de la Agricultura Familiar, Campesina e Indígena, Pastores y Pescadores. • Vinculación del sistemas productivos sostenibles y programas de enfrentamiento del cambio climático.237238239240246En los diversos diálogos tanto nacionales como en el sub regional se ha manifestado una crítica con el proceso seguido por NNUU para la organización de la Cumbre donde debería haber tenido un rol más protagónico tanto la FAO como órgano especializado de NNUU para la alimentación y la agricultura, así como también Consejo de Seguridad Alimentaria (CSA) donde también participan las OSC. En la misma línea contar con una convocatoria a los distintos actores del Sistema Alimentario, para una amplia discusión sobre su estado de situación y la elaboración de propuestas de mejora, que contribuyan al logro de los ODS 2030. Las Organizaciones representativas de la Agricultura Familiar, Campesina e Indígena y Pescadores, reunidas en oportunidad del Diálogo Independiente del Cono Sur, insisten en reiterar su disposición e interés por trabajar, sobre la agenda propuesta para la Cumbre, en los ámbitos que ya existen a nivel de las Agencias del sistema de NNUU (FAO y FIDA), corrigendo el rumbo del camino adoptado hasta el momento.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FORMULARIO-DE-COMENTARIOS-DIALOGO-REGIONAL-CONO-SUR.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHlLd5nqD2A

2021-07-15 19:15:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30595/133

2151013001327178441611632684

En la organización del dialogo se tomaron como referencia puntos planteados en el manual para convocantes, en función del buen andar del evento. Durante la planificación metodológica el equipo de trabajo propuso estrategias para garantizar libre y respetuosa opinión considerando la diversidad del grupo convocado, de forma que lograran puntos en común acuerdo. Se priorizó que el dialogo fuese inclusivo, contando con un total de 40 participantes de los que eran 27 mujeres y 13 hombres, indicando una mayor participación de mujeres considerando el tema de género como prioritario; de igual forma se integraron diversos grupos etarios, jóvenes y jóvenes adultos (17), adultos (10) y adultos mayores (13). Integrando grupos de intereses desde los pequeños y medianos agricultores (17), organizaciones no gubernamentales internacional (2), sector académico (8) y desde la producción ganadera mediana (4). Esto dio espacio a la convergencia de varias opiniones, tomando en consideración los intereses intergeneracionales y en términos de sectores productivos. Un aspecto esencial fue la propuesta de tema del dialogo que fuese coherente a los interese de todos los participantes, así como el planteamiento de preguntas directrices claras que condujeran a los grupos de trabajo a insertarse al análisis de la temática y provocar las vías de acción. La moderación resultó fundamental para obtener resultados de acuerdos comunes en función a las vías de acciones propuestas. Así mismo, se dio énfasis a los sectores populares quienes agrupan a la mayor cantidad poblacional.El dialogo nacional en Nicaragua “Volver al campo” desde su convocatoria retoma como principio la integración de diversos sectores de interés, participando dirigentes comunales y de organizaciones vinculada a la temática, mismos que proceden de distintas zonas territoriales y productivas del país. También, se consideró que hubiese perspectivas desde la pluralidad en todas las dimensiones, siempre en el ejercicio de la opinión basada en el respeto. Por todas las parte se consideró este como un espacio importante para el dialogo a fin generar estrategias de gestión, auto-gestión y acción, desde y para los territorios en busca de pensar y re-pensar los sistemas alimentarios y alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) sobre la marcha a 2030. De igual forma, se complementaron los procesos desarrollados desde el movimiento social campesino, específicamente los desafíos y acciones impulsadas por la CLOC-Vía Campesina, con el propósito de dirigirse a objetivos comunes y poner en discusión los métodos para alcanzarlos.Orientarse en el manual de referencia es vital para garantizar que el proceso de dialogo contenga la diversidad de perspectivas basado en el respeto con el fin de llegar a puntos de concordancia entre los sectores de interés de los sistemas alimentarios. La parte organizativa es fundamental para lograr los objetivos propuestos para los diálogos en función de en rutar las vías de acción a trabajar, garantizando resultados que puedan trascender de lo discursivo a lo práctico.

NoEn términos generales para el encuentro se utilizó el método propuesto en el manual de referencia; sin embargo, dentro de la metodología incorporamos una sección previa a la Sesión plenaria de apertura, lo que denominamos Mística, misma que debe ser coherente al tema principal del dialogo, la que tiene el propósito de introducir a partir de la reflexión a través de expresiones con sensibilidad artística y/o experiencias vivenciales compartidas, cada una de ellas relacionada al contenido que se abordar. En el caso de este dialogo, incluimos dos videos como propuestas: 1. Video-poema: “A destiempo" – Ada Farrach El poema “A destiempo” es la descripción de dos situaciones ocurriendo de manera paralela, concurran la vida. Una desde la armonía de los pueblos originarios que resguardan y protegen; el otro desde el sistema capital extractivita, explotador de la naturaleza y el ser humano. Expresa denuncia explicita de dos transnacionales que precarizan la vida de clase pobre, agotando el más valioso de los recursos naturales para la subsistencia de la vida: El Agua. 2. Video: Mujeres nicaragüenses: transformando vidas, defendiendo la tierra Este video cuenta la historia de la larga lucha de la cooperativa de mujeres de Gloria Quintanilla en la comunidad de Santa Julia (al sur de la capital, Managua). Establecido en 2008, la cooperativa, apoyada por la Asociación de Trabajadores Rurales (ATC), ha transformado las vidas de toda la comunidad a través de su compromiso con la soberanía alimentaria, la agroecología, la igualdad de género y los derechos de la tierra. Como defensores de los derechos de las mujeres y las niñas, la cooperativa está construyendo un entendimiento y legado para la comunidad que "los hombres y las mujeres nacen con igualdad de derechos e igualdad de oportunidades". Como agricultores y guardianes a pequeña escala del medio ambiente; la agroecología es fundamental: "Utilizamos la agroecología porque de esta manera cuidamos nuestras fincas, nuestra salud y (el bienestar) de las generaciones futuras"

234238240242244En el denominado “Volver al campo: Dialogo Nacional Sobre Sistemas Alimentarios, Nicaragua”, se abordó como tema principal los sistemas alimentarios en el marco de los 25 años de la Soberanía Alimentaria. En medio de una de las crisis más graves del mundo contemporáneo, la pandemia del Covid-19, puso de rodillas al planeta destruyendo la salud pública y debilitando la producción de alimentos sanos y saludables, desarrolló confinamientos, cuarentenas en el campo y la ciudad. De esta situación surgieron nuevas oportunidades y es urgente recuperar la cadena agroalimentaria, a través de la Soberanía Alimentaria, la Reforma Agraria Popular e Integral y la Agroecología. Se consideró prioritario en este marco compartir a las organizaciones y países la “Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Campesinos y Otras Personas que trabajan en las Zonas Rurales”. Así mismo, dar seguimiento a las organizaciones y países al Decenio de la Agricultura Familiar para disminuir la pobreza y desigualdad, luchar contra el cambio climático a través de la generación de políticas públicas que favorezcan a la Agricultura Campesina e indígena. De igual forma el compartir y valorar a partir del dialogo acerca de las Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS), agenda 2030. Promover la campaña Volver al Campo, mediante la reconversión del conocimiento indígena y campesino que es la base de una amplia gama de opciones y diseños de manejo que incrementan la biodiversidad funcional en los campos de cultivo, y refuerzan la resiliencia de los agro ecosistemas y eso mejora nuestra salud. La Soberanía Alimentaria es una realidad que contempla el buen vivir, lo que llevará a alcanzar la seguridad alimentaria que buscan las naciones. Esta permite la alimentación sana y rica para todas y todos, vida y trabajos dignos. Sus alcances le dieron elementos a la reforma agraria popular e integral y la agroecología. Es la única que puede alcanzar todas las etapas de las cadenas agroalimentarias desde la producción, la transformación, comercialización, distribución y el consumo. De una agricultura de alimentos sanos, saludables e inclusivos que logran la resiliencia de todo el agro ecosistema. La Soberanía Alimentaria es una realidad que contempla el buen vivir y vivir bien, lo que llevará a la seguridad que buscan las naciones. Para alcanzar la seguridad alimentaria debe haber soberanía alimentaria. La apuesta de la Vía Campesina es recuperar la agricultura tradicional, retomar la capacidad del pueblo sobre la alimentación, tiene que con una agricultura campesina, indígena y popular. Volver al campo para el desarrollo de un sistema alimentario que sea accesible, haciendo del campo un lugar más habitable, a través de la producción agroecológica, en función de la sostenibilidad ambiental, social y económica. Perseguimos una sociedad anticapitalista, antiimperialista y antipatriarcal que reconozca el traslape generacional donde este activa la participación de las mujeres en los procesos de producción campesina en preparación de la futura gobernanza del mundo.235238240242244Inicialmente, se puso en discusión como concebir los sistemas alimentarios, concordando que estos deberán ser: saludable, sostenible e inclusivo. Los sistemas alimentarios deben alejarse de los principios de explotación de recursos que conducen las grandes empresas agroindustriales, principales causantes de la contaminación de las aguas y suelos; mismas que se proponen discutir acerca de la alimentación del mundo, donde los derechos de los pueblos son omitidos. Por tanto, se consciente como prioritario el gran desafío de lucha en contra del gobierno de las trasnacionales. En el dialogo surgido por los sectores convocados, se considera el accionar conjunto como prioritario en búsqueda de resultados que contenga justicia social y se acompañe de formas de producción amigables con el medioambiente. Se detallaba la Soberanía Alimentaria como principio de lucha, mismo que conducirá a la Seguridad Alimentaria que aspiran las naciones del mundo; las estrategias que marcaran la ruta para esto, se apegan a una reforma agraria integral y popular, y la agroecología como garantía de la producción diversificada y saludable. Esta es la que puede tocar todas las etapas de las cadenas agroalimentarias. El fortalecimiento de las alianzas con instituciones conducidas desde los gobiernos, organismos internacional, organizaciones de sociedad civil y el sector privado; así como, el establecimiento de retos en común, en pro de sanear los sistemas alimentarios será fundamental para alcanzar las metas propuestas en el Decenio de la agricultura familiar, y los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS), enfatizando en los dos primeros objetivos: la erradicación de la pobreza y el hambre cero. Esta llamada La década de la agricultura familiar, 10 años donde la FAO monitorea la producción familiar campesina, es clave para que la revolución campesina logre alcanzar la reforma agraria o que la gran industria abarque más territorio relegándonos a los suburbios. Estos mismos 10 años de políticas de asistencia, es preciso ser conscientes que se pueden obtener resultados en doble vía, que puede convertir las familias en objetos de política ante la dependencia de asistencia, por esto es importante posicionar al campesinado en sus derechos, convirtiéndolo en un sujeto de la política. El uso eficiente y consciente de los recursos en las etapas de las cadenas agroalimentarias es indispensable para garantizar las condiciones necesarias para la producción de alimentos de las futuras generaciones; para esto se deberá hacer extensiva la formación de cuadras militantes de la agroecología, el volver al campo a producir. Asegurar el traslape generacional en el campo con una concepción de producción agroecológica es la manera de garantizar que los alimentos sean sanos, nutritivos y con precios justos, donde todos puedan acceder a estos. Sin embargo, se deben asegurar condiciones de vida en el campo dignas. Ante las múltiples amenazas que asechan al mundo es necesario pensar formas de producción resiliente; entre las estrategias planteadas se acordaba la diversificación de las parcelas, trascender de la producción a la transformación y el valor agregado de los productos. La reforestación de bosques, la producción de semillas propias, el establecimiento de reservorios de semillas, la creación de planes de emergencia, entre otros.236238240242La pandemia Covid-19 evidencio la ineficiencia del sistema capitalista y su modelo productivo controlado por las transnacionales, siendo la producción campesina la que garantizó los alimentos en el campo y la ciudad. Ante el contexto de confinamiento y restricciones fronterizas, se reflexionó que se debe apostar por sistemas alimentarios más resiliente, mismos que se lograrán a través de la diversificación de la producción, previniendo eventualidades, así como la producción de semillas propias, restando poder a los mercados de semillas transgénicas que demandan el uso de insumos agros tóxicos. Esto demanda debe ser establecida y discutida ante los gobiernos, para generar políticas públicas que apuesten por una Soberanía Alimentaria, que asegure la producción sana, sostenible, inclusiva; la buena alimentación es nuestra mejor medicina. […] La organización debe ser la tarea más importante, es necesario ser promotores organizativos en sindicatos y cooperativos, siendo que lo que perdura en el tiempo es la organización, esto da para tareas en distintos sectores económico, social y político. Es prioritario dialogar acerca de la declaración de los derechos campesinos como instrumento internacional para llevar políticas a los distintos países, replicar estos procesos en las comunidades. Se sugiere como un primer compromiso, organizar espacios para conocer, analizar y conversar acerca de esta declaración. En el caso de Nicaragua, ha habido significativos avances respecto a la legislación en el marco de Soberanía y Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. Existe la ley de promoción de la agroecología, lo que se considera como positivo a la ruta que seguimos y el reto de formación de militantes en las bases. En relación al tema de semilla, en el país es prohibido el uso de transgénicos, por tanto eso nos garantiza que nuestra producción sea sana. Sin embargo, este es un tema que debe estar latente desde los diversos sectores y no permitir el retroceso de la conquista. Nicaragua produce más de 6 millones de quintales de frijoles, pero solo consume internamente el 50%, el otro porcentaje es exportado a Centroamérica ante su requerimiento, esto consciente de la oferta de alimentos sanos. A pesar de modelo agroexportador, se debe tener consciencia que la producción primero para el consumo local y el excedente debe venderse a un precio justo-razonable y con calidad. Pero también, es importante iniciar a agregarle valor a los productos, en lugar consumir productos empacados y tratados por las grandes industrias. • La tarea es estructurar la asociatividad para tomar las cadenas de valor; empezar a buscar mercados para exportar los alimentos. • La formación de jóvenes y adultos para el desarrollo de nuevos conocimientos que permitan el mejoramiento de la producción con base técnica con lógica agroecológica. • El y la dirigente debe estar al pendiente de capacitación y ofertas de las escuelas de campo. Estamos apostando por un sistema agroalimentario cada vez más agroecológico con la visión de permanecer en el campo, hay que aprender el valor de la tierra, que está viva. Definámonos como ejercito alimentario sano. La sociedad organizada es la que debe tomar las políticas y ponerlas a trabajar.237238240242244En términos generales, no se encontraron áreas de divergencia; las partes coincidieron con la agenda de trabajo y que lo prioritario debe ser encaminado hacia la Soberanía Alimentaria, a través de la que se logrará llegar a la Seguridad Alimentaria. Volver al campo donde existan condiciones dignas y con un enfoque productivo agroecológico es esencial para garantizar la producción de alimentos sanos y la creación redes de comercialización cercanas que rompan el intermediario, permitirá que los pueblos accedan a alimentos con precios justos. Otra de las prioridades planteadas es la formación agroecológica que garantice la tecnificación de la producción, y a través de la misma retornar a las raíces de la agricultura ancestral; de esta forma, también sanear todas las etapas de los sistemas alimentarios.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Formulario-oficial-de-comentarios-Dialogo-Nacional-Nicaragua.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiFN10dlwpE

2021-07-15 19:16:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30599/49637984133141

082450020170762318252712542

Apegados a los principios propuestos, este dialogo virtual regional convocó diversos grupos de interés procedente de los 6 países de Centroamérica: Panamá, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador y Guatemala; organizaciones miembras de la CLOC-VC, principalmente de origen campesino e indígenas. También, se invitó como plenaritas a la oficina de la FAO-Regional, quien compartió su perspectiva en relación a los sistemas alimentarios, tal como lo hizo la CLO-VC. Esto permitió contemplar el trabajo que se vienen desarrollando desde los movimientos sociales campesinos e indígenas y de organismos internacionales que también trabaja el tema de alimentación. Desde la facilitación se promovió la libertad de opinión y argumentos basados en el respeto, a fin de crear un espacio donde pudiesen compartirse desde diversos puntos de vista los resultados de análisis, enriqueciéndose de esta manera. La temática central, tuvo pertinencia y aceptación ante el grupo. La preparación metodológica contempló la importancia de que las plenarias y preguntas directrices condujeran las vías de acción, en pro de aportar a la discusión de las mismas. La temática central, tuvo pertinencia y aceptación ante el grupo. La preparación metodológica contempló la importancia de que las plenarias y preguntas directrices condujeran las vías de acción, en pro de aportar a la discusión de las mismas.Se priorizó la pluralidad entre los sectores, lo que permitiría enriquecer la discusión al plantear perspectivas diversas en temas de intereses comunes. El análisis previo de la temática permitió que el espacio fuese de compartir. El principio de dialogo y compartir del trabajo realizado, experiencias y luchas fueron importantes para entender la postura de los sectores, aportando a garantizar el respeto en los argumentos planteados. Así mismo, se mostraron resultados concretos, producto a estudios en torno a las problemáticas que agobian a los territorios en base a los que se dialogaron. Este espacio fue recibido por los participantes como un espacio desde el que se puede percibir la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios, siendo clave para generar discusiones y abrir nuevos perspectivas para el debate.El consejo clave es considerar los puntos que se abordan desde el manual de referencias, siendo útil para garantizar que el proceso desde la planificación, convocatoria, ejecución y procesamiento de la información sea organizada y se obtengan resultados que puedan ser útiles a los objetivos propuesto. De manera que el dialogo tenga resultados positivos para sumar a la discusión de los sistemas alimentario, un tema que entra en calor a las puertas de la Cumbre Alimentaria. Es primordial considerar diversos sectores para obtener diversos puntos de análisis que correlacionar. En este caso de que el proceso se desarrolla en línea, establecer un equipo que trabaje en la asistencia del programa a utilizar para los participantes. Es preciso establecer una metodología coherente a la temática que se busca abordar. Esta será un punto clave para el éxito de cualquier dialogo, así como que quien lo desarrollé tenga las características apropiadas.

NoEn este particular se retoma la experiencia previa durante un dialogo nacional, de agregar al programa una sección previa a la sesión plenaria, denominada como “Mística”, esta resultó provocadora para la discusión como primer punto de agenda, dado a la naturaleza de ironía con sensibilidad artística que invita a la reflexión. En este caso se retoma el poema “A destiempo” de Ada Farrach. 1. Video-Poema: “A destiempo” – Ada Farrach El poema “A destiempo” es la descripción de dos situaciones ocurriendo de manera paralela, concurran la vida. Una desde la armonía de los pueblos originarios que resguardan y protegen; el otro desde el sistema capital extractivita, explotador de la naturaleza y el ser humano. Expresa denuncia explicita de dos transnacionales que precarizan la vida de clase pobre, agotando el más valioso de los recursos naturales para la subsistencia de la vida: El Agua.

234238240242244El tema principal gira en torno a la Soberanía Alimentaria y agroecología como ruta para construir sistemas alimentarios más resiliente. El planeta desde el año 2020, se enfrenta a varias alertas sanitarias, sociales y económicas agudizando las problemáticas existentes; los avances en cuanto a la reducción de pobreza y desnutrición se vieron interrumpidas, los números alarmantes suben y con la pandemia toda la energía con la que se iba trabajando provocó un retroceso de aproximadamente 20 años en ciertos indicadores, encontrando las gráficas de mal nutrición más críticas de la región. El análisis de estos resultados se asocian a la crisis alimentaria y sanitaria que depende de logísticas afectadas por la pandemia, entre sus efectos sobre los sistemas alimentarios estuvo la suspensión en los procesos de comercialización, estas restricciones de venta de alimentos representaron una disminución de compra de la producción de agricultura familiar. Ante esto es necesario re-pensar los procesos que integran los sistemas alimentarios y cómo hacer que estos sean más justos. La soberanía alimentaria como apuesta con la agroecología como medio para sistemas alimentarios más resiliente. El agronegocio ha demostrado que no resuelve el hambre del mundo, el 70% de la población mundial se alimenta por redes de las y los “pequeños agricultores”: campesinos, indígenas, pescadores artesanales, pastores, huertas urbanas, recolección y caza silvestre. Que en total tienen menos de 25% de la tierra y agua, y 10% de los combustibles que se usan en la agricultura. La soberanía alimentaria comprende los derechos a la tierra, donde está el agua, las semillas de los pueblos, ganado, los bienes naturales y estos no tienen precios hasta que la gran empresa se aprovecha de los bienes para la vida digna. El garantizar acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos al alcance de todos es una de las prioridades siempre previendo la producción sostenible en el tiempo. Resiliencia, es resistencia, generar estrategias que fortalezcan la producción ante los impactos climáticos, se debe idear formas de cultivar para obtener una producción sana y garantizar una buena nutrición, manteniendo fondos semillas, yendo a la raíz con estudios de suelos, considerando el tipo de producción que se da en el sector, es necesario un programa que contenga diversificación y esté preparado ante el desastre, el campesinado y las organizaciones sociales apunta por la agroecología, para tocar el tema de resistencia del sistema y cadena alimentaria.235238240242244Con el replanteamiento de la soberanía alimentaria se podría avanzar en el trabajo de resiliencia y mitigación ante la pandemia, garantizando el abastecimiento de alimentos sanos a la población en toda la cadena agroalimentaria. Lo que a su vez pasa por la creación de un plan integral que impulsa la resiliencia de los pequeños productores para la recuperación, prevención de futuras crisis y transformación de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y saludables, esto implica apoyo a los países para adoptar enfoque innovadores, inclusivos y sostenibles que contribuyan a acortar las brechas digitales de la población rural en igualdad de condiciones tanto para mujeres, poblaciones indígenas y afrodescendientes. Un sistema alimentario como su nombre lo indica “sistema” engloba distintos elementos, que van de la calidad de producción (orgánico, natural), lo ancestral, y la escala de la cadena agroalimentaria, y que esto genere que el sistema sea integral, que es lo que hasta la vez existe, la idea es que el campesino y campesina, logre la producción básica y exista un mercado cercano estableciendo la relación productor-consumidor, debe tener un completo, desde la calidad que tiene en la milpa y como llega al destinatario final para que el sistema sea completo. Pero hay otros puntos inmersos, el tema del crédito, el compartir, mejorar esos saberes ancestrales. El tema de la alimentación como derecho humano debe ser pensado más allá de la certeza de contar con alimentos suficiente cada día, tal como se propone desde el concepto de seguridad alimentaria; categoría que ha sido manipulada en función de intereses creados, propiciando un argumento que da continuidad a las causas de las desigualdades en el medio rural. Por tanto, es necesario hablar de soberanía alimentaria la que se define como el derecho de los pueblos no simplemente a alimentos, sino que da importancia a que lo que se consuma sea nutritivo y culturalmente adecuados, accesibles, producidos de forma sostenible y ecológica, y ejerzan su derecho a decidir su propio sistema alimentario y productivo. En esta lógica la juventud juega un papel protagónico para transformar la manera de pensar el campo y las prácticas que se desarrollan en el mismo en búsqueda de la reivindicación y garantía de estos derechos, que persiguen que éste se vuelva nuevamente en un espacio habitable, reduciendo desigualdades multidimensionales al generar espacio con condiciones dignas para vivir y producir. Estableciendo Sistemas alimentarios más sanos y justos.236238240242244Se ha trabajado intensamente considerando puntos elementados de análisis, no es posible medidas que no consideren la igualdad de género y los Objetivos del Desarrollo Sostenible como compromiso, que focalice medidas que enfrenten esta coyuntura, pensar esa situación crítica tomando los espacios, primeramente los componentes del sistema alimentario. Es la oportunidad de potenciar la agricultura familiar campesina e indigena a través de una estrategia de desarrollo endogeno que conlleve a la transformación social, cultural y económica, basado en la creación y fortalecimiento de politicas públicas y acciones propias de las organizaciones para reconstruir los sistemas alimentarios a partir del rescate de las tradiciones ancestrales, respeto al medio ambiente y las relaciones equitativas de producción desde la soberanía alimentaria, la agroecología y la reforma agraria. La agricultura familiar, campesina e indígena son garantía de alimentos sanos, precisamos de un grupo de países que colaboran y crean alianza para establecer modelos globales y sirvan para poner en discusión, dar transparencia a los equilibrios, y demostrar la perspectiva transformadora. Estamos con esa dificultad de romper la supremacía del empresariado internacional, de ahí podemos decir que fueron elementos claves a analizar, porque bien es cierto, se planteó, no había una idea clara de lo que promovíamos. El planteamiento de la soberanía alimentaria propuesta por la Vía Campesina cumple 25 años, donde se ha permitido romper barreras y crear relaciones libre de la opresión y desigualdad, para que la humanidad pueda vivir dignamente, esto ha estado en el centro de la discusión, lamentablemente los estados y organismos internacionales han cedido a las presiones del capital y el ir aceptando. Precisamos de un grupo de países que colaboran y crear alianza de crear modelo globales y sirvan para poner en discusión, dar transparencia a los equilibrios, y demostrar la perspectiva transformadora. De este espacio de dialogo surge el acuerdo de fortalecimiento entre la FAO con las organizaciones sociales campesinas que son quienes permanecen en las bases. Desde las organizaciones sociales se declara que se debe tener la capacidad de incidir en los gobiernos y no sean los gobiernos que incidan en la FAO. Estos espacios permiten evaluar la razón de las organizaciones como un derecho de los pueblos que traspasa para establecer el vínculo campo-ciudad.237238240242244En este diálogo no se encontraron puntos de divergencia, dado que se contienen intereses en común. Las partes encontradas encontraron por el contrario puntos de convergencia, que conducen a la Soberanía Alimentaria a través de la agroecología y reforma agraria y popular. El estudio y accionar en función de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenibles (ODS) se presentan clave para los procesos organizativos y de incidencia que se llevan desde los diversos espacios que compartieron durante el dialogo. Este espacio fomentó el afinamiento de la articulación conjunta en función de las vías de acción propuestas, que tienen como objetivo el alcanzar las vías de acción planteadas: la garantía del acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos, impulso de la producción favorable a la naturaleza y la resiliencia como resistencia ante las vulnerabilidades que exponen las amenazas producidas por el cambio climático y el gran capital.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Formulario-oficial-de-comentarios-Dialogo-Regional-Centroamerica.pdfhttps://youtu.be/UTSgJzcrM1ghttps://youtu.be/n6qnBTNL-Ao

2021-07-15 19:16:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30597/495260637984120133141

11612800122718104166102151410

En consideración con la propuesta y principios de la cumbre, se procuró el convocar al proceso de dialogo virtual regional a personajes de 12 países de la región Mesoamérica y El Caribe: Panamá, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, México, República Dominicana y Cuba. Entre ellos se encontraban grupos de diversos intereses que van desde campesinos, productores, indígenas, miembros de organizaciones de sociedad civil. Esto con el fin de garantizar comentarios y propuestas desde múltiples sectores ante las vías de acción propuestas. En términos metodológicos, durante la planificación se consideró tomar en cuenta para las plenarias la opinión desde perspectivas que pudieran abrir la discusión entre los participantes. En este caso se propuso a un plenarista procedente de un pueblo originario, y otro que presentará desde la perspectiva de los movimientos campesinos, en este caso la Vía Campesina. Así se permitió conocer y re-conocer el trabajo en función del tema alimentario desde espacios múltiples, quienes contribuyen en la búsqueda de garantizar una producción sana, rentable, justa y sostenible.Entre los principios retomados que se reflejan se encuentra como principal la integración de diversos sectores involucrados y pertinentes en el tema abordado. La diversidad de opinión basada en el respeto llevo a concordar acuerdos en común, dejando a un lado divergencia profunda, considerando la unión como clave para alcanzar resultados favorables al plantearse las vías de acción que se apuestan como primordiales para la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios. Se reconocen los sistemas alimentarios y las acciones como complejas, sin embargo, se asume como reto en la búsqueda de aprovechar en pro de los sectores populares el denominado Decenio de la Agricultura Familiar, y los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenibles (ODS).Guiarse por las propuestas en el manual de referencia para los diálogos. Esto es vital para el andar en cada una de sus etapas. Así mismo, se deja la invitación a probar integrar nuevos espacios con contenido creativo que inviten a la reflexión. Es válido y valioso flexibilizar a partir de la sensibilidad artísticas y las experiencias exitosas previas que inviten a la reflexión y motiven nuevos métodos para llegar a un fin.

NoEn continuidad con la experiencia de dos diálogos previos, integrar al programa la sección previa a la sesión plenaria, denominada como Mística, esta resultó provocadora para la discusión como primer punto de agenda, en este particular se presentó una experiencia agroecológica con enfoque de género de mujeres productoras de orígenes campesinos organizadas. 1. Video: Mujeres nicaragüenses: transformando vidas, defendiendo la tierra Este video cuenta la historia de la larga lucha de la cooperativa de mujeres de Gloria Quintanilla en la comunidad de Santa Julia (al sur de la capital, Managua). Establecido en 2008, la cooperativa, apoyada por la Asociación de Trabajadores Rurales (ATC), ha transformado las vidas de toda la comunidad a través de su compromiso con la soberanía alimentaria, la agroecología, la igualdad de género y los derechos de la tierra. Como defensores de los derechos de las mujeres y las niñas, la cooperativa está construyendo un entendimiento y legado para la comunidad que "los hombres y las mujeres nacen con igualdad de derechos e igualdad de oportunidades". Como agricultores y guardianes a pequeña escala del medio ambiente; la agroecología es fundamental: "Utilizamos la agroecología porque de esta manera cuidamos nuestras fincas, nuestra salud y (el bienestar) de las generaciones futuras

234238240242244La agricultura de América Latina y el Caribe es uno de los principales proveedores mundiales de alimentos. Por tanto, se debe abordar desafíos relacionados con el incremento sostenible de la productividad y la resiliencia, así como con la conservación y el uso sostenible de su riqueza en biodiversidad, agua, suelos, bosques y otros servicios eco sistémicos y con la reducción de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero de acuerdo a las prioridades de cada país. La resiliencia como tema se ha priorizado ante el contexto de pandemia que atraviesan los pueblos, causante de graves crisis en múltiples dimensiones en las regiones, siendo aquellos países donde gobiernan las políticas de corte neoliberal las más perjudicadas. El gobierno de las transnacionales en los sistemas productivos es principal causa de afectos contrarios al medioambiente que a corto, mediano y largo plazo generaran daños generando a su vez las crisis venideras. Por tanto, es preciso incidir en espacios tanto nacionales e internacionales abogando llevando a la mesa de discusión estas situaciones que perjudican principalmente a los sectores más vulnerables que resultan ser las mayorías. La promoción de la sostenibilidad de la agricultura y los sistemas alimentarios, específica a cada contexto nacional, puede ser una fuente de nuevas oportunidades de desarrollo económico y de nuevos empleos, en la medida en que puede impulsar importantes innovaciones tecnológicas, inversiones públicas y privadas, el desarrollo del capital humano y la investigación, y mejores políticas y regulaciones. Los acuerdos de los país en el ámbito sustentable que busca cumplir con la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático, el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, la Convención de la Lucha contra la Desertificación, las convenciones sobre los productos químicos persistentes (Rotterdam y Estocolmo), el Marco de Sendai para la Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres y, en particular, el Acuerdo de París, debemos buscar fuentes de financiamiento externo indispensable para avanzar en la agenda ambiental y climática de la agricultura y los sistemas alimentarios de la región. La agroecología es un tema prioritario para alcanzar un sistema agroalimentario más justo desde distintas dimensiones. En la actualidad el sistema convencional continúa siendo una mayoría en los territorios, pero su ineficiencia ha sido evidenciada, generando una oportunidad para su promoción. Los sistemas agroecológicos diversificados se destacan por su resiliencia teniendo una capacidad mayor para recuperarse de perturbaciones tanto meteorológicas como para resistir el ataque de plagas y enfermedades. De igual manera tiene la capacidad de mejorar la resiliencia socioeconómica; en vista de que desde la diversificación e integración se reduce la vulnerabilidad en caso de que falte uno de los cultivos, especie de ganado u otro producto; también reduce la dependencia de insumos externos. La mejora de la resiliencia ecológica va unida a la mejora de la resiliencia socioeconómica.235238240242244La crisis atravesada por la pandemia COVID19 ha puesto al descubierto la frágil atención hacia el sector campesino y la relevancia que tiene para resolver la crisis alimentaria, que pasa por el aumento de la tasa de desempleo, hambruna, escacez, violencia de género, criminalización y represión. Sumado la destrucción del medio ambiente y la carencia de politicas públicas en favor de los campesinos y el tema productivo y alimentario. Estamos en un contexto de pandemia que genera una crisis grave al sistema por lo que es el momento de hacer de la crisis una oportunidad para que el sector campesino y la producción agroecológica este en el centro de discusión. Se debe dejar claro que debe ser una alimentación saludable de resiliencia y producción saludable para sobreponerse a las circunstancias permeadas por la pandemia. Es preciso lograr una buena presencia en los espacios locales, nacionales e internacionales, la resiliencia solo es posible si hay soberanía alimentaria y agroecología. En cumbres alimentarias anterior influenciamos desde las organizaciones sociales, y logramos que se hablará acerca de nutrición, salud, es importante hacer uso de estos espacios que actualmente tienen una captura corporativa, que comparte sus propios interés, mientras nosotros seguimos buscando incidir para lograr una buena alimentación y un sistema inmune alto. Para el campo es una gran oportunidad en este mundo fracturado, es urgente recuperar la cadena agroalimentaria, a través de la Soberanía Alimentaria y la Reforma Agraria Popular e Integral, la industria farmacéutica aun no resuelve que la vacuna sea gratis y a toda la población, al final solo nos queda ajustarnos a las medidas de aislamiento, distanciamiento e higiene. La construcción colectiva de la Soberanía Alimentaria se desarrolló en las primeras conferencias de Vía Campesina hasta llegar al cambio de concepto por principios y expresados en que los principios; se sostienen, se defienden y no se negocian, en este proceso se llevó la propuesta estratégica a las Cumbres Alimentarias de Naciones Unidas en Roma y los Foros Sociales Mundiales, que hoy son dominados por el gran capital.236238240242244La Soberanía Alimentaria es toda una estrategia de lucha que retoma los temas trascendentales y necesaria para su desarrollo como es el acceso a la tierra, agua y territorio mediante una Reforma Agraria Popular e integral y la Agroecología, resiliencia necesaria para salir al frente a crisis originada por el capitalismo, la pandemia y post pandemia. Es necesario mantener una visión de reconstrucción, el panorama post pandemia, trabajar en la prevención de plagas y enfermedades de animales y plantas de importancia económica, tales como la roya del café, el fusarium del banano, la moniliasis del cacao, la langosta sudamericana, o las enfermedades zoonoticas, las enfermedades transfronterizas de los animales, como la peste porcina africana, y todas las demás enfermedades que puedan afectar a la producción agroalimentaria, así como para promover las regulaciones y las prácticas basadas en la ciencia y la evidencia que fomenten el uso prudente y responsable de antimicrobianos en la producción de alimentos, en el marco del enfoque Una Salud, que reconoce que la salud humana, animal y de los ecosistemas está interconectada, por ello es necesario crear ambientes saludables para mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático. Apoyar a las comunidades costeras para tomar medidas de resiliencia, adaptación y nuevas técnicas para enfrentar el aumento del nivel del mar y la intrusión salina e iniciar la elaboración de directrices técnicas voluntarias para facilitar la rápida adopción de las mejores prácticas que ayudarán a pescadores, acuicultores y comunidades costeras a adaptarse al calentamiento del océano. Seguir trabajando en la promoción de la conservación, el uso eficiente del agua y la gestión de la escasez del agua, además del acceso y el manejo sostenible del recurso, en el contexto del aumento de la frecuencia e intensidad de sequías, inundaciones, intrusión salina y otras amenazas que se exacerban por el cambio climático. La restauración de paisajes forestales, la conservación y aumento de la cobertura boscosa, incluidas la forestería urbana y los sistemas agroforestales y silvopastoriles, considerando los pueblos indígenas y Afrodescendietes.237238240242244Al contrario de divergencia, los sectores llegaron a acuerdos y puntos en común claros que declaran que es preciso continuar el proceso de discusión en relación a los sistemas alimentarios y la forma de hacerlos cada vez más sostenibles y resiliente. El camino acordado continua siendo la Soberanía Alimentaria, misma que debe ser puesta en la mesa de dialogo en espacios internacionales donde todos los sectores incluyendo el campesino e indígena – quienes producen la mayor parte de alimentos mundialmente- deben participar bajo sus propias apuestas. Un sistema alimentario que no considere la producción sana, que fomente justicia económica y social, no puede ser concebido por los sectores populares, quienes conforman una mayoría.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Formulario-oficial-de-comentarios-Dialogo-Regional-Mesoamerica-y-El-Caribe.pdfhttps://youtu.be/n6qnBTNL-Ao

2021-07-15 20:08:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28345/76203

272711163321116510129

As a convener of an independent dialogue the discussion was organized to incorporate the Principles of Engagement specifically within the questions of the moderated Q&A; section where a diverse group panelists from a range of private and public sectors had the opportunity to answer questions in regard to their organizations impact in bridging the digital divide and implementing technological solutions in rural communities. The diverse range of speakers recognized the complexity of food systems, and embraced the inclusivity of multi-stakeholder inclusivity. In planning the event as a question and answer forum, we aimed to not only ensure the participation of our audience, but also enable a platform where the complexity of the technology in Food Systems could be discussed.Our independent dialogue “Bridging the Digital Divide” reflected the different Principles of Engagements through the speakers present and through the set-up of the call. The moderated Q&A offered diversity in the voices heard and provided an inclusive environment for thought sharing. Through the Q&A session we aimed to target the Principle of Engagement “Recognize Complexity,” as the panelists discussed the challenges in transforming and strengthening food systems and the complexity of impactful change. Another Principle of Engagement incorporated was “Complement the Work of Others,” as the panelists engaged with each other in conversation of benefits of private sector businesses and civil society partnerships. Our virtual event was an opportunity for people working across different sectors and organization types to offer their perspective on how to bridge the digital divide.My advice for Dialogue Convenors would be to review the Principles of Engagement during the creation process of your independent dialogue. The Principles of Engagement can be incorporated into key discussion points and used to guide the questions. The moderated Q&A was followed by an audience Q&A which allowed for a trustful conversation between panelists and participants in an open and free space to converse. We also advise other dialogue conveners to explore different uses for online platforms to allow for a variety of diverse voices to be heard.

Yes

234238239241244248251“Bridging the Digital Divide” focused on the implementation of technological solutions and how they strengthen food systems. The discussion centered on THP-Ghana and partnerships with Microsoft AirBand Initiative and civil society organizations such as AGRA and Farmerline. The conversation explored a few of the action tracks essential to Science Days, such as Action Track 1, 2, and 4. Speakers addressed how implementing technological solutions into rural communities aids farmers in delivery services that are needed to grow their yields. Specifically, some of these solutions are sending voice messages about weather forecast alerts, market prices, new farming techniques, and agrochemical applications to more data-driven individualized for the farmers. We focused on how these services ensure production of safe and nutritional food accessible to the communities, as well as advance equitable livelihoods for farmers and members of the communities.235238239241244248251The panelists involved in the discussion shared their organizations progress and success stories.Many of the speakers expressed that in order to further advance the technological solutions in place in rural communities there needs to be an increase in partnerships between private sector businesses and civil society, as well as involvement of the youth. THP-Ghana, AGRA, Farmerline, and Microsoft AirBand Initiative all concluded that technology strengthens food systems and allows for farmers to grow safe, nutritious, and accessible food to the community through various services provided by technology.236238239241244248251Throughout the discussion, panelists shared their outcomes and successes. As a civil society organization, AGRA’s digital transformation works to improve food security for 30 million farming households across 11 countries by 2021. Microsoft Airband Initiative provides high-speed internet connectivity to rural communities to leverage the technological solutions. These partnerships serve as examples of the success public and private sectors have in strengthening food systems through collaboration. The Hunger Project, Farmerline, and AGRA currently work together, resulting in sustainable digital solutions to aid communities in Ghana and establish a village-based advisor delivery model. The panelists agreed that partnerships and connectivity in rural communities are two areas of action that can be continued to further progress and success.237238239241244248251Throughout the dialogue, panelists spoke on their partnerships and the success they have had implementing technological solutions in rural communities with the help of collaborative partnerships. The panelists each agreed that connectivity is essential to strengthening food systems sustainability. Furthering partnerships with private sector businesses and civil society will advance food systems and community-led development. The panelists' stories differed in the areas of implementation. Microsoft AirBand Initiative layed down the infrastructure needed for technological solutions to thrive. While Farmerline contributed to the services needed by smallholder farmers. An area where further exploration is needed is the involvement of the youth

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bridging-the-Digital-Divide-UN-Food-Systems-Side-Event-Image.png.jpghttps://www.google.com/url?q=https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28345/&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1626383122733000&usg=AOvVaw2GW-vhHVpTLzoUSPSxmzuG

2021-07-15 21:39:57205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20978/39

9213672168247268211714244762248314231911

The event saw participation from technical experts and from various sectors and backgrounds including government (national and subnational level), private sector, NGOs and community (small-scale farmers). WFP and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) co- organized this event with the discussion content developed in alignment with the FSS principles. The range of stakeholders invited represented the many dimensions of food systems that HGSF is linked to – with the hope that the dialogue would help to identify partnerships and complementarities among them. Small group discussion centred around the following lines of enquiry: 1. How can HGSF best fight child hunger and address triple burden of malnutrition in Cambodia? 2. How could HGSF procurement models in Cambodia better contribute to building stronger nutritious value chains? 3. What coordination mechanism would best lead to maximizing the impacts of HGSF across the food system in Cambodia? Who should be involved and how? 4. How can HGSF programme best promote women’s participation in the food value chain including nutritious food production and broader access to sustainable markets? Key challenges and opportunities arising from these topics were brought to plenary discussion at the end of the dialogue and all participants were encouraged to post questions and share inputs.The format of using break out rooms to support small group discussion on key topics provided a comfortable space for open discussion and engagement. The dialogue was designed to promote inclusion - with simultaneous translation available for both English and Khmer speakers to actively participate. This whole process provided an environment where participants from different backgrounds and perspectives had a space to engage and contribute.The online platform can be a challenge for sub-national government and community members to fully engage in discussion from a digital perspective. There should be more guidance and briefing at the beginning of the workshop to ensure that all participants are able to use the digital technology required for the session.

Yes

234238239240246249251The dialogue brought together about 90 participants from various backgrounds including government officials at national and subnational level, development partners, and private sector to discuss and explore the impacts of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSF) as it contributes to local food systems in Cambodia. Recognizing that HGSF can be considered a game changer for strengthening local food systems globally, through its multiple benefit pathways, this dialogue set out to further explore some of the dimensions of HGSF in Cambodia that impact food systems and identify key steps in taking these forward in partnership within the framework of the Food System Summit (FSS). The focus of the event was to identify opportunities for HGSF to be a game changer contributing across local food systems in Cambodia. HGSF, a national programme in Cambodia, is a school feeding model that is designed to provide children in schools with safe, diverse and nutritious meals, sourced locally from local markets, thereby supporting local agricultural production and processing and providing an ongoing market for local farmers. HGSF has multiple benefits across many food systems and supports a number of SDGs. It directly increases access to nutritious food for children, as well as providing economic support to actors across food value chains and also influences food preferences, knowledge and attitudes. The dialogue aimed at collecting inputs from key stakeholders to identify synergies, opportunities and challenges to unlocking the potential and maximizing the impact of HGSF as an important contributor to sustainable food systems.235238239240241243244245246249251It is undeniable that HGSF has huge potential as a game changer in building sustainable local food systems in Cambodia. The programme currently reaches over 1100 schools across the country targeting areas with the most vulnerable households and empowering local producers/suppliers to build local sustainable agriculture supply chains. Under the identified key topics, a number of recommendations were highlighted by groups as key points to be taken forward to strengthen the HGSF model and its implementation. Those include: 1. Support the development of school meals that can address triple burden of malnutrition in Cambodia. The design of school meal menus to ensure nutritionally adequate and cost-efficient meals to school children is critical for the effectiveness and sustainability of the HGSF programme. Stakeholders discussed the need to build on the current model – through engaging across sectors – to further enhance both the nutritional content and cost effectiveness of the model. Linked to this, activities such building school vegetable gardens, creating a safe school environment and investing more on research are essential to maximizing nutrition values for school meals. 2. Review and revise the HGSF procurement model to contribute to strengthening nutritious value chains. The current HGSF procurement model is based on a purely local model whereby commodities are sourced through the commune, from the commune. In a vision of expanding HGSF nationally, touched on the concern if it is still suitable model for bigger coverage. No concrete recommendation for procurement model was raised, however, it has been recognized as an ongoing topic to be discussed, learned and reviewed in order to develop a sustainable procurement model for the national HGSF Programme. 3. Reinforce multi-sectoral coordination mechanisms at national and sub-national level to effectively steer and implement the programme. NSPC and MoEYS are playing crucial roles to establish and facilitate the effective mechanism platform for national HGSF programme. The active and systematic involvement from technical ministries such as MAFF, MoI, MoH, MoC, MoWA, etc., at national and sub-national levels need to be enhanced. 4. Ensuring meaningful participation of women in HGSF. Women have played big roles as part of small-scale farming in Cambodia. HGSF Programme has great potential to contribute to gender transformation change in the community by including a strong approach to empowering women in programme design and implementation.236238239251TOPIC 1. Nutrition How can Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF) best fight child hunger and address the triple burden of malnutrition in Cambodia? Recommendations for HGSF to address the triple burden of malnutrition include: Revisiting food/menu options: the design of menus (composition and quantities) should be oriented towards standard food requirements for children as well as the kind of food and the quantities which local farmers can supply to schools. The food menu should include fortified, diversified, and nutritious food components. It needs to also adapt to local taste for school children. It is one of the most important aspects for the present and potential local food production through smallholder farmers as well as other aspects such as markets and aggregation systems. The Programme should consider providing more nutrition awareness raising and other relevant materials (e.g. cook- book) for both school children and people involved in food handling to improve their nutrition knowledge and practices. HGSF has been considered as a platform to address nutrition issues in schools and community by linking farmers/ farmers’ association to markets through the supply of diverse food commodities to schools. The discussion looked at how to ensure locally procured food supply to schools can be sustainable, timely, cost effective and how to avoid a mismatch between supply and demand sides. Proper planning between schools and producers was highlighted as very important, then putting all those plans in a concrete agreement, with technical support from relevant actors (MoI, MAFF, etc.). A wider scale coverage beyond the current 10 provinces was recommended. Promote vegetable growing in schools and community: School/community vegetable gardens hold special promise in areas where children do not have regular access to fresh fruits and vegetables especially in the remote or mountain areas. School gardens combat malnutrition by giving students/ communities not only the chance to learn about nutrition and healthy eating, but also access to land in which to grow healthy food and food systems. To fight all forms of hunger through improving nutrition, we need to start with food availability at community level, maybe from food production/ supply at school that could also be used by communities. It would also be good to equip children with agriculture life-skills that could be used at home as well as for their life. This would contribute to improve nutrition status in the whole community and make more nutritious food available in the markets. Establishing farmer’s associations in the community can also help encourage individual households to produce a variety of food (vegetable, chicken, livestock, etc.), and ensure more local food availability and sustainable response to the food demand within community. Safe school environment: with food safety promotion at schools, students can access safe and nutritious meals. Junk food is not allowed to be sold in schools as per strict guidance from MoEYS/ School Health Department. Nutrition sensitive HGSF: The Programme should consider nutrition sensitive activities such as community awareness on health, oral care, deworming, healthy/unhealthy food, nutrition, WASH, etc., improvement of WASH infrastructure, vegetable growing, safe kitchen/cooking utensil (no plastic material used with hot food). Research: Existing studies (e.g., Cost of Diet, Food and Nutrition Guidelines, ISPA - FSN, School Feeding feasibility study, HGSF as poverty alleviation etc.) have been valuable in informing decisions for the national HGSF programme establishment. There are still many gaps in what we need to know to take the programme forward, however. More analysis is planned on HGSF supply chains (e.g., farmer and market, etc.) and how can we support national HGSF Programme to support nutrition sensitive value chains, and how we could understand nutrition outcomes and environment outside the school through supply and values chains around school, e.g., snack food, etc.236238239246251TOPIC 2. HGSF procurement models How could HGSF procurement models in Cambodia better contribute to building stronger nutritious value chains? Smallholder farmers play a crucial role in producing local food to supply to school for HGSF. A lot needs to be done to support smallholder farmers to sustainably produce safe agriculture products. • Establish and strengthen farmer networks. • Promote engagement of local authorities, private sector, and technical ministries • Provide capacity building on both technical and soft skills such as agriculture techniques, business, coordination, leadership, and other relevant skills to farmer groups. • Provide support to farmer groups, especially those who don’t have enough resources such as agriculture inputs, capital and networking. • Support farmers, especially women, to access local and national markets. This can be done through creating community markets, promoting local foods and campaigns to increase demand for healthy food. While the existing procurement process is effective for the current HGSF Programme, concerns have been raised on its suitability model if the Programme is scaled up national-wide. Improvements in areas were identified in the dialogue discussion including promoting collaboration with subnational authorities from province to commune levels, private sectors and NGOs. Commune authorities have been identified as the key actor to lead and making sure procurement processes are transparent and inclusive. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) should be more involved in the local procurement process, especially in helping to ensure on food quality and safety, and supporting contracts.236238239240241244245246249251TOPIC 3. Sector collaboration What coordination mechanism would best lead to maximizing the impacts of HGSF across the food system in Cambodia? Who should be involved and how? Effective coordination mechanisms are essential to drive the implementation of the HGSF Programme at national and sub-national level. MoEYS has been actively leading the national Programme while NSPC has been supporting the coordination and links with other social assistance programmes. Dialogue stakeholders collectively agreed that there should be more involvement from technical ministries such as MAFF, Ministry of Health (MoH), the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSAVY), the Ministry of Commerce (MoC) and the Ministry of Interior (MoI) to ensure the sustainability and country-wide scalability of the Programme. To promote multi-sectoral engagement, NSPC plays big role in promoting national level coordination across sectors. At the sub-national level local authorities, cooks, parents, development partners, government and private sectors can be leaders in promoting health, hygiene, nutrition, food safety…etc. The roles and responsibilities as well as coordination mechanisms should be described clearly in relevant legal documents (policy, strategy, Anukret) and operational guidelines and clearly communicated to relevant institutions. Efforts are needed to strengthen the existing coordination mechanisms at provincial, district and commune levels. We should link HGSF committees to existing government platforms to strengthen these links with other agricultural initiatives. Involvement from private sector stakeholders and NGOs remains a gap in the current operational model of HGSF. Increase the engagement of these sectors will lead to programme improvements, especially in term of accountability, transparency and promote diversity of food production value chains.236238241246251TOPIC 4. Women’s participation How can HGSF Programme best promote women’s participation in the food value chain including nutritious food production and broader access to sustainable markets? Engaging women meaningfully in food value chains is still a challenge within the HGSF programme. While having many opportunities, there are also some gaps that need to be addressed to achieve gender equity, particularly for women farmers/suppliers. These include (1) limited business skills and knowledge, both technical and soft skills for women, (2) traditional gender roles leading to limited opportunities for women to participate in social and business activities, (3) inadequate supporting mechanisms and incentives for women to actively engage in markets, agriculture etc. There are various opportunities for HGSF to address these challenges in order to promote women’s participation in food value chains, including: - Conduct a comprehensive gender analysis to understand root causes related to gender norms and other challenges that limit women’s participation in HGSF. - Provide capacity strengthening support to better equip women with the necessary skills and knowledge to engage with the HGSF mechanism. Areas could include business, marketing, agriculture techniques, leadership, coordination and networking. - Provide funds, agricultural inputs and other support on capacity strengthening. - Clearly define the roles of women in HGSF: how best they can be involved and what the enablers are for their participation. - Engage men, especially commune councils, to get their support for women involvement in HGSF through providing basic training on gender and awareness raising campaigns on gender roles. - Promote women champions in the community to encourage other women to follow the model. - Strengthen food value chain analysis which can lead to identifying new market opportunities.237238241246249No particular areas of divergence. Although more time was perhaps needed to pin down the details of the following: - It was agreed that the governance of HGSF really needs to have participation from across sectors, although the mechanism for this still needs to be further elaborated/decided

2021-07-15 22:31:44205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26145/39

1121373251743845626127111142332132381442131014

The event was jointly organized by the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), the National Social Protection Council (NSPC) with support from World Food Programme (WFP). The event was conducted virtually via Zoom video conference. The purpose of the dialogue was to generate inputs for the development of national food systems roadmap towards 2030 and that will be presented at the upcoming global food systems summit. A wide range of stakeholders (including political and technical levels of government) were invited and contributed to the dialogue. Welcoming remarks were provided by the joint-organizers (CARD, NSPC and WFP) to set the scene and provide overall perspectives of food systems, social protection and its shock response mechanisms, and how it can support Action Track 5. In addition, two keynote presentations were delivered. First, WFP provided an overview on shock responsive social protection. Some concrete examples of Cambodia case were also highlighted to emphasize the actual context. The NSPC presented on the Cambodia national social protection system and its actual schemes in responding to shocks—together with the recent examples of how the Royal Government supported communities impacted by Covid-19. After the presentations, participants were divided into breakout rooms to address 3 thematic questions: (i) How can the design and implementation of social assistance programmes be made more shock responsive and enhance food systems?, (ii) How to enhance linkages between risk and vulnerability data and social assistance data?, (iii) How to enhance beneficiary registration mechanisms for increased timeliness and targeting efficiency?The dialogue reflected the contributions of social protection system to support food systems in case of shocks. It brought together various key actors from the sectors of social protection, development partners, civil society, and financial service provider, which are key in building resilience of the communities through social assistance.Mobilize relevant stakeholders and advocate for shifting from silos to systems approach is key to enhance and increase resilience and accelerate progress towards the achievement of SDGs. A collective approach helps building diverse and systematic responses.

Yes

234242243244245249The dialogue brought together about 112 participants from various Line Ministries, development partners, civil society organizations, and private sector working in the areas of social protection, humanitarian/disaster responses, financial services and food production/services in Cambodia. The dialogue aimed at exploring how shock responsive social protection, through delivering social assistance in particular, contributes to enhanced food systems and builds resilience. The dialogue focused on social assistance mechanisms and data systems which are the key elements for targeting beneficiaries and deliver assistance. The results of the discussion contributed to the development of Cambodia food systems roadmap toward 2030 SDGs agenda and to prepare for the upcoming global food systems summit in September 2021. The dialogue explored how social protection, with a focus on social assistance, can be more shock-responsive and contribute to sustaining food systems and build resilience. The dialogue also touched on how to improve data systems to efficiency of beneficiary identification and targeting.235242243244245246248249The design of social assistance delivery mechanism should link risk and vulnerability data with targeting beneficiaries. Consideration of food security and nutrition is key to make a more shock responsive social protection and to contribute for a better food security and nutrition and increase food systems resilience. The National Social Protection Council, with technical support from WFP, has been developing a national shock responsive social protection framework with extensive multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder consultation. Shock-responsive social protection systems, food assistance mechanisms and safety nets, along with emergency response mechanisms against natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics are key to minimize adverse impacts. It is important to note that the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic requires additional solutions to build greater resilience within the current food system from production to consumption. Cash transfer and humanitarian aid/responses are close practices and there is a synergy which should be combined to make assistance more shock responses and systematically. Data systems is important for shock response cash assistance—the integration of risk and vulnerable data together with social assistance data is a key means to identify target beneficiaries in a timely manner. Design of nutrition sensitive assistance would improve household diet during and after disaster strikes. Improving sub-national capacity and the flow of consistent information from national level would improve the planning process of food reserve and response systems at sub-national level.236242243244245246249TOPIC 1: How can the design and implementation of social assistance programmes be made more shock responsive and enhance food systems? Current situation and the needs:  Through the current development of Shock Responsive Social Protection Framework (SRSP Framework), captures triggers and thresholds of early warning, financing tools, and data integrations.  The design of Family package programme will also proposing triggers and modules in responding to shocks (ie. flood), which will also allow stronger linkage of basic/minimum responses.  To make social assistance more nutrition sensitive, the design of programmes should focus on how social assistance and cash transfer delivery mechanisms factor in nutrition elements.  It is necessary to assess vulnerabilities before improving people’s resilience.  Coordination between difference agencies is key to respond to the needs of the vulnerable.  Expanding the coverage of the programmes for both geographically and in terms of beneficiaries.  Shifting of IDPoor system from regular round to on-demand registration is a huge opportunity shock-responsive social protection mechanism. The recent, identification of lockdown beneficiaries is really a good step toward how the government identify shock vulnerable groups.  Overall framework of social protection systems is strengthened to improve the governance and implementation of the government’s programmes.  Agriculture is a key sub-system of the food systems—access to food and healthy diets is very important for people.  Need to improve capacity building of community social workers to help the poor identified households to register social assistance.  The repurposing of cash scholarship programme to take-home rations has been a success during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.  Various mechanisms of cash transfer programmes should be made available. Challenges:  There is a need for better coordination between entities related to shock responsive social protection, including NSPC, National Committee for Disaster Management (NCDM), Ministry of Social Affairs Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSAVY), National Committee for sub-National Democratic Development (NCDD).  Community awareness and information dissemination still need to improve and require wider participations from difference partners at local level.  Set up a clear logical framework is important to guide the implementation of actions/programmes.236242243245246249TOPIC 2. How to enhance linkages between risk and vulnerability data and social assistance data? Current situation and the needs:  Feasibility study on existing data system to identify, gaps and duplications, and explore how the different systems could be linked.  Improved information dissemination is needed for encouraging the beneficiaries’ registration process.  Strengthen existing government’s data system (Poor household identification system)  Risk data can be used for food distributions.  Targeting mechanism should include the near poor group, including those who live in disaster prone areas.  Food reserve information system and planning should be regularly updated—at least in every two years.  Further improve linkages between national and sub-national level.  Each line ministries should make available its risk management plan.  Strengthen existing mechanisms and linkages at both sub-national and national level.  Link food supply information to social assistance data. Challenges:  Different relevant data systems for SRSP, food systems, and other are still scatter and not linked.  Limited information at sub-national level on food demands so that the distribution is not so effective.  Limited IT capacity of relevant officials, in particular at sub-national level  Overall capacity at commune/sangkat need to be strengthened.  Need to routinely update data.  Sub-national contingency plan need to be strengthened.236242243244246249TOPIC 3. How to enhance beneficiary registration mechanisms for increased timeliness and targeting efficiency? Current situation and the needs:  Build capacity of communes/sangkats to identify the right people for interviewing and assessing their status.  The registration should also look at capturing the near poor group, in particularly for those who are vulnerable and affected by floods.  Build awareness to relevant stakeholders on registration process for better coordination and support. This include strengthening the collaboration at local level from partners, local community or civil society organizations in particular.  Emergency needs assessment task force should be established by all key relevant entities.  Strengthening the local capacity or consider outsourcing third-party service for registration.  Pre-identify potential target groups. This would help to speed up registration processes.  Commune database should also include near poor and additional key information such as migration with regular updated twice a year if possible.  Improve community awareness through strengthen local authorities’ capacity.  Strengthen actual data or information collection mechanisms.  Utilize Early Warning System (EWS) as a tool to enhance registration – currently available for only flooding observation and warning purpose.  Link beneficiaries’ registration mechanisms to community contingency plan.  Promote online registration.  Strengthen collaboration between national and sub-national level.  Create teams for field data collection.  Understand and ability to identify the right target community.  Understand the health risks and implement preventive measures when performing data collection tasks on the field during the Covid-19 pandemic.  Make available Safe Evacuation Center, water well, latrine and additional needs through the participatory rural need appraisal. Challenge:  Targeting methodology is not harmonized.  Only IDPoor system have been used for beneficiary selection, and there is a need to extend to capture also the near poor.

2021-07-16 00:42:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20051/203

634221135102342744

The dialogue was convened by AKADEMIYA2063 in partnership with the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) as part of a series of independent Africa regional UNFSS dialogues. The first dialogue covered East and Southern Africa and took place on May 31st. The second dialogue covering West, Central, and North Africa took place on June 30. Both dialogues were organized in a timely manner to ensure that feedback was submitted to the UNFSS ahead of the Summit in September. The Dialogues were conducted virtually in plenary sessions (80 minutes), four (4) breakout discussion sessions (50 minutes) and summary plenary sessions (30 minutes).In line with the UNFSS principles of engagement, the Dialogue Series embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by bringing together a wide range of stakeholders directly involved in moving food from farm to fork including representatives of universities and the research community, government, traders’ associations, non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, multi-lateral banks, and regional economic communities. Because the dialogues were held as a series, the June 31 dialogue was very complementary to the first dialogue building on what had worked well. The dialogue Moderator and small group discussion Facilitators ensured that exchanges were open and respectful and encouraged the participation of a wide group of stakeholders.

Yes

234242243244245248249251The dialogue was convened with the overall goal to enhance regional advocacy in support of the Food Systems Summit engagement process specifically focusing on Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress. More specifically the dialogue sought to convene a broad group of African stakeholders including to: 1. Deliberate on challenges and opportunities to transforming African food systems and ensuring that they are sustainable and resilient; 2. Showcase best practices, lessons learned, technological innovations, collaborations, and policies in transforming food systems; 3. Identify game-changing solutions1 (e.g. emerging best practices, research evidence, conceptual frameworks,) from across the continent that are actionable, sustainable, and can have impact at scale in terms of building the resilience of African food systems to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress; and 4. Discuss the role of high-level African champions that can advance the African perspective and “solutions” coming out of the regional food system dialogues. The expected outcomes of the dialogue was to: 1) Increased understanding of critical issues around challenges and opportunities to transforming African food systems; 2) Consensus on potential game changing solutions for ensuring resilient and sustainable food systems in Africa; 3) Identification of high level African Champions and agreement on their role in advocating for coherent support on the key issues emanating from the discussions; and 4) A summary statement consolidating African voices on best practices, game changing solutions, and recommendations from the dialogues.235242243244245248249251Participants highlighted the importance of first addressing the bottlenecks faced by African food systems in order to improve or effectively transform them. They noted several best practices and potential game changing solutions for transforming Africa’s food systems so that they are more resilient and sustainable. These included the need to: a) improve access to innovative technologies and digital solutions such as improved seed, mechanization, irrigation, and ICT to boost agricultural productivity, increase competitiveness, address the effects of climate change, and more generally help transform food systems; b) harness artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as machine learning, digital technologies, and big data including remotely sensed data to not only fill knowledge and data gaps but to also boost agricultural productivity and address the numerous threats facing food systems; c) ensure that technologies used in African are well-adapted to the African context and specificities; d) establish innovative and blended financing mechanisms for high impact projects to make financing more accessible to farmers and other value chain actors; e) invest in better data, policy implementation capacities, and technical and vocational training of Africa’s growing youth population; f) expand mutual accountability processes that are increasingly shown to lead to better outcomes. There is empirical evidence to show that inclusive, regular, and comprehensive mutual accountability platforms to review agriculture sector progress and guide sector priorities while holding actors accountable are associated with greater public agricultural expenditures, which in turn increase agricultural productivity (e.g. Ulimwengu et al, 2020). g)Develop and apply integrated pest and land management systems h) Train smallholder farmers to increase their market competitiveness, enable them to meet sanitary and phytosanitary standards i) In addition, African governments need to raise the level of investment in the agricultural sector to meet the 10 percent Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) budget share target. j)Establish knowledge platforms where policy, institutional, and technological innovations, best practices and lessons in successfully transforming food systems can be made available to different stakeholders so as to learn from the past and avoid past mistakes. For example, it is important to learn from what has worked well in other countries, like mechanization programs in Ghana and the need for governments to create enabling an environment for mechanization and private sector players. The Malabo Montpellier Panel Reports have great examples of African countries with successful policy and institutional innovations that can be scaled up in other countries. Such platforms can include e-learning platforms for farmers to share and exchange on innovations, data, and technologies. k) identify a broad group of African champions that can use their leadership or large networks to amplify and advocate for food systems transformation in Africa. Champions can include youth leaders, local celebrities (e.g. musicians, footballers), leading academics, political leaders including former presidents, and winners of the Africa Food Prize committed to the UNFSS agenda. Champions can also include local people affected by the challenges facing food systems, who are empowered and supported to advocate for themselves and communicate their stories as often they can be the best advocates. Finally, messages used by Champions will need to be presented in formats that easily accessible and understood by the general public to have impact.236242243244245248249251Best practices, lessons learned, technological innovations, collaborations, and policies in transforming food systems: a) Harnessing and providing access to innovative technologies and digital solutions such as improved seed, mechanization, and ICT, that can allow farmers, policymakers, and practitioners to convert precise data into actionable knowledge and lead to better farming and investment decisions and improve agricultural productivity, competitiveness, better address the effects of climate change, and transform food systems. In particular, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as machine learning, digital technologies, and big data including remotely sensed data are providing innovative ways to not only fill knowledge gaps but to also boost agricultural productivity and address the numerous threats facing food systems. b) Establishing knowledge platforms where policy, institutional, and technological innovations, best practices and lessons in successfully transforming food systems can be made available to different stakeholders so as to learn from the past and avoid past mistakes. For example, it is important to learn from what has worked well in other countries, like mechanization programs in Ghana and the need for governments to create enabling an environment for mechanization and private sector players. The Malabo Montpellier Panel Reports have great examples of African countries with successful policy and institutional innovations that can be scaled up in other countries. Such platforms can include e-learning platforms for farmers to share and exchange on innovations, data, and technologies. c) Establishing innovative financing mechanisms to provide farmers and other stakeholders with access to capital, including climate finance. d) Setting up programs or mechanisms to support private sector actors along the value chain and creating an enabling environment for private sector participation in food systems transformation.236242243244245248249251Game-changing solutions from across the continent that are actionable, sustainable, and can have impact at scale in terms of building the resilience of African food systems to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress: a) Harnessing and providing access to innovative technologies and digital solutions such as improved seed, mechanization, and ICT, that can allow farmers, policymakers, and practitioners to convert precise data into actionable knowledge and lead to better farming and investment decisions and improve agricultural productivity, competitiveness, better address the effects of climate change, and transform food systems. In particular, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as machine learning, digital technologies, and big data including remotely sensed data are providing innovative ways to not only fill knowledge gaps but to also boost agricultural productivity and address the numerous threats facing food systems. In addition, there is need to ensure that technologies from outside Africa are contextualized. b) Expanding mutual accountability platforms like joint sector reviews in more countries can help lead to better outcomes. There is empirical evidence to show that inclusive, regular, and comprehensive mutual accountability platforms to review agriculture sector progress and guide sector priorities while holding actors accountable are associated with greater public agricultural expenditures, which in turn increase agricultural productivity (Ulimwengu et al, 2020). c) Developing and applying integrated pest and land management systems d) Training of smallholder farmers to increase their market competitiveness, enabling them to meet sanitary and phytosanitary standards e) Establishing innovative and blended financing mechanisms and leveraging private sector funding to support high impact projects and making finance more accessible to farmers and other stakeholders f) In addition, African governments need to raise the level of investment in the agricultural sector to meet the 10 percent Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) budget share target. g) Conducting reviews of successful pilot projects and technologies to identify those that can be scaled up h) Need to strengthen capacities for policy implementation and monitoring and evaluation as well as to invest in technical and vocational training of Africa’s youth population236242243244245247248249251High level African Champions and their role in advocating for coherent support on the key issues emanating from the discussions: a) Local role models in society and local celebrities with huge followings who are willing to serve as Champions and use their platforms to raise awareness or rally behind the food systems transformation agenda. These can include footballers, musicians, actors, youth leaders (esp. given that Africa is a young continent), and others that amplify and advocate key food systems transformation messages. The messages will need to be presented to them in formats that easily accessible and understood by the champions and their followers. b) Well known, well-respected, of influential academics can help to raise awareness through their networks can help to amplify messages using their influence and gravitas. c) Winners of Africa's Food Prize can help to amplify and ensure action on the food systems transformation agenda. d) African Presidents or former Presidents or other political figures who are committed to the food systems transformation agenda can use their leadership and influential platforms to drive the foods systems agenda e) There is need to empower and strengthen the capacities local people affected by challenges facing food systems to advocate for themselves and communicate their stories to raise awareness on the challenges they face can be an effective way to raise awareness and drive change.236242243244245246248249251Challenges and opportunities to transforming African food systems and ensuring that they are sustainable and resilient: a) Lack of timely and high-quality data to inform decision-making b) High degree of post-harvest losses, food waste, and high level of food imports c) Poor adoption and access to modern technologies and infrastructure which are key for raising agricultural productivity, market information, and proving access to markets etc. d) Limited technologies that well adapted to African environments and specificities e) Limited capacities to bridge science and policymaking as well capacities for analysis and implementation f) Limited investments in agriculture and the lack of innovative financing mechanisms g) Growing effects of climate change and environmental and land degradation h) Africa’s growing youth unemployment and need better match skills and jobs available

2021-07-16 11:32:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32157/88

114157401515360135113161015134712214183381126127124

This is the second Dialogue that was held by Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS). This Dialogue is supported by Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF) Indonesia and Ministry of Law and Human Rights. The Dialogue was organized based on lessons taken during the first ones. To ensure that the Dialogue embodies the Principles of Engagement, CIPS targets higher participants number to cater various aspirations in discussing the food systems. A plenary session was held during the first 1 hour. Two panelists were invited to give presentation regarding the topic of discussion: 1. Dr. Andriko Noto Susanto, - Head of Center for Food Availability and Insecurity, Food Security Agency 2. Bapak Iskandar W. - Founder, Bumi Langit Institute The Dialogue is followed by a Q&A session and group discussions with facilitators through breakout room for the next hour.The Dialogue reflects Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity of the Food Systems Summit principle. CIPS able to cater various perspective towards Indonesia's food system resilience and sustainability; from the government perspective, from the farmer perspective, and from the spiritual perspective. The Dialogue also reflects Complement the work of others principle of the summit. All participants recognize other participants' works in creating a resilient and sustainable food systems. It recognizes various efforts by stakeholders in creating efficient food systems in Indonesia.Increasing the diversity of the speakers during the plenary session can attract more participants to your Dialogue. It reflects that the Dialogue is not only made for private sectors/government, but also recognize the participation of other stakeholders in the food systems.

Yes

234242243244249The breakout room discussions covered: 1. Empowerment of local knowledge to create community-based resilience, started at the village level 2. Different paradigm of development and food production. 3. The importance of an unified disaster mitigation strategy from both the government and the local community. 4. Education on food consumption patterns to adapt to a more diversified and nutritionally sensitive diet. 5. Guaranteeing supply and food distribution during emergency through community-based food barn (lumbung pangan). 6. Empowerment of small-scale farmers by providing access to quality inputs.235242244247249251Empowerment of local communities are needed to build resilience from the ground up and multi-stakeholder cooperation needed to ensure the resilience of a food system.236242244246247249251(i) Local knowledge, such as the food barn (lumbung pangan), should be optimized to build resilience. (ii) Distribution system needs to be optimized so that it would maintain optimum chain during disruption, and safeguard both food security and income. (iii) Ease farmer’s access to food production input to build up farmer’s resilience to crisis. (iv) Harmonize the relationship between production and nature, to increase sustainability and resilience of the food system.237240241242244245247249Food production based on ecological consideration and food production based on demand-fulfillment consideration. Relationship between capital owner and smallholder farmers in the food production system and how it affects resilience.

2021-07-16 13:35:28207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14796/203

65131647461244622211414161282022712213106

We aimed to invite stakeholders from a wide variety of sectors and geographies to reflect the interconnected and complex nature of aquatic food and food systems – not only with terrestrial food systems but in and between fisheries and aquaculture as well. Having three organisations (Government of Norway, UN Foundation and Friends of Ocean Action) with slightly different networks helped to cast the net across a broader range of expertise and geographies. Having the support of 4SD to connect to national conveners across the globe was also extremely helpful in getting representation from as many different countries as possible and to connect to dialogues going on at the member state level, whether on aquatic food specifically or food systems more generally. We also included partners which have convened, or will convene, an independent Food System Summit dialogue on aquatic food, so that outcomes from those events could be amplified and built upon through this dialogue. We ensured that the framing statements for each of the breakout groups had an ambitious timeline for improvement to reflect the urgent need for immediate action on many of the topics discussed. We also tried to ensure that the break out group topics covered the main challenges facing sustainable aquatic food production, as outlined in a number of existing frameworks, including: the Committee on World Food Security’s Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition Policy Recommendations; the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy’s Transformations for a Sustainable Ocean Economy: A Vision of Protection, Production and Prosperity; the Global Action Network on Sustainable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food Security and Nutrition and; the Blue Food Assessment. In creating the breakout groups, we tried to ensure a good balance between gender, expertise, sector and geography – although on the day due to some variations in terms of who had registered and who actually attended, the balances may not have quiet been as originally planned.Feedback from the groups suggested that all who participated were respectful even when opinions diverged in some discussions. We believe facilitators benefitted from the training (or materials where they weren’t able to attend the trainings) in terms of being able to encourage all those in their group to contribute to the conversation in some way to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and also to navigate tricky conversations. Voices were varied, but some of that variety was lost between those who registered and those who were able to attend on the day. It is clear from the outcomes of the breakout groups that each group grasped and explored the complexities of both the challenges of aquatic food production specifically, and more broadly the complex relationship of aquatic food systems within broader global food systems. It appeared that even where attendees had more of a terrestrial background, there was increased acknowledgment of the importance of including aquatic food systems in broader food system conversations (and particularly in the Food Systems Summit). The conversations around this seemed to build trust and motivation to ensure that ‘transforming food systems’ includes all types of food production, whether terrestrial or aquatic.We would highly recommend having a range of co-conveners (but not too many!) with different networks to build out an invitation list that is as inclusive and diverse as possible in terms of geography, gender, position in value chain and expertise etc. We would also advise working more informally with other partners, particularly if they have also convened a Food System Summit dialogue, to access wider networks and invite important voices that might otherwise be difficult to include (for example small scale actors). This also allows for conversations that have already happened on similar topics to be built upon, rather than duplicated. Inviting significantly more participants than is required is advisable for virtual events, to allow for those who can’t attend, and those who registered but do not join the session on the day. We also found it helpful to have two facilitators on standby who had been involved in organising the event in some way and who had had the training – this allowed for an on the day drop out to be solved quickly and easily. It also meant we were prepared in case more people than anticipated joined on the day.

NoFor the most part, the dialogue was curated using the method suggesting. However, we had an additional element in the form of an extra high level panel discussion a few days before the Global Dialogue itself. This was because one of the co-conveners (Friends of Ocean Action), were hosting a series of Virtual Ocean Dialogues, including one to discuss the role of aquatic food in food systems. Connecting the Global Dialogue and one of the Virtual Ocean Dialogues provided the opportunity to highlight the interlinkages between the Food System Summit and other major policy events taking place this year (UN FCCC COP26, CBD COP16, launch of UN Decade of Ocean Science) – and to illustrate how the ocean is central to all these agendas. It also helped to consolidate messages and present a united front on how crucial aquatic food systems are without running the same event twice. Having a panel discussion separate but connected to the Global Dialogue enabled us to have a little more time for the panellists to make their points without making the Global Dialogue itself too long. The extra time during the first event allowed for a slightly larger number of panellists, enabling us to include more perspectives. The panel discussion was then referenced at the Global Dialogue three days later, with two of the panellists (who were co-conveners – Dr. Agnes Kalibata and H.E. Peter Thomson) opening the dialogue and setting the scene for following breakout group discussions. Representatives of the other co-conveners also gave opening remarks – allowing all involved in the convening of the event the opportunity to highlight differing but interlinked perspectives on the topic of aquatic food production and its importance in broader food systems. We felt this gave a good foundation for our participants to then discuss key topics themselves.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Foods from the ocean, rivers and lakes play a vital role in food systems but are often missing from global discussions on food security and nutrition. This Dialogue aimed to address that. A healthy ocean means healthy people – the ocean and other aquatic ecosystems are critical to the global food system and often indispensable in local food chains, but they are at risk if not transformed to be more sustainable, nature-positive and accessible. It is vital that food systems are composed of sufficient, safe and nutritious foods - including food from the ocean and other aquatic sources - that meet the dietary needs and food preferences of a growing population. Public and private support for food systems – including policies, regulations, aid, investments, and markets – must better recognize the critical role of food from the ocean, rivers and lakes and the people who produce them. This requires not only direct support for sustainable, climate-smart fisheries and aquaculture, but also recognition of the interconnection between land and ocean food production. This means explicit efforts to ensure land-based food production does not negatively impact the production of aquatic foods or the people who depend on them (e.g. through run-off, erosion, or unsustainable use of fish meal). The Dialogue highlighted to participants that the upcoming UN Food Systems Summit provides an opportunity to address these gaps and develop solutions to feed the world through systems that are good for the land, good for the climate, and good for the ocean. We provided participants a ‘vision for the future of aquatic food production’, in the form of a framing statement: By 2030, aquatic food is fundamental to global food security, with policies and investments in place to ensure sustainable management of the resources and with minimal impacts from climate change and land-based activities. The objectives of our Dialogue were to: • Raise awareness of the importance of aquatic foods to the global food system, and of the importance of protecting the fragile ecosystems they are a part of, in particular the ocean. • Build consensus around the need for making public and private investments in land- and aquatic-based food systems that are ocean- and climate-smart, allowing us to make progress against multiple SDGs. • Ensure just and equitable access to and benefits from ocean and other aquatic-based food systems. • Contribute to the elaboration of a framing ‘vision’ for the future of blue/aquatic foods.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main findings were: 1. Getting the right narrative and amplifying it – Aquatic food is key for the future: it’s highly nutritious and vital to diets and livelihoods in some parts of the world, it can be sustainable (with the right practices, in the right place, at the right time) and it can help to take pressure off the land to produce more food for a growing population. It must be recognised in global conversations about the food system and be central to food system decision-making. 2. Integration - We should promote aquatic food systems that are integrated, circular and sustainable. When they are not, something is going badly wrong. The integrated approach has to link together land and water and must connect multiple actors. That means that integration needs to be part of the communication for the future. 3. Inclusion is vital - Include everyone, from all parts of the value chain and whether a small scale actor or large industry. Small scale fishing is absolutely critical and to protect those small scale actors and the environment, the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries must be properly implemented. Inclusion must be a key stone of any approach and not just not a token - that means giving the possibility for all voices to be included in food system decision-making. Efforts on including and recognising women in aquatic food production must be scaled. 4. It is all about jurisdiction - The jurisdictional approach is key. Space must be created for the less powerful to have the option to engage in decision-making when it comes to what happens in and around aquatic ecosystems, ensuring that structures/frameworks allow that room for participation. Entitlements for participation should be based on people’s roles and responsibilities. Good regulations are needed, with particular attention needed on local contexts given the regional differences when it comes to aquatic food. A good quality jurisdictional approach is where trade-offs are worked through on a local level. It must also be designed to handle and work through tensions. 5. Values – There is beginning to be a shift from investment for profit to investment for value, where value is defined by the local community. This must continue and be scaled up. The jurisdictional approach is linked to this. 6. Indicators of success matter for accountability - We cannot measure success without indicators, such as the health of fish stocks and broader aquatic ecosystems, the level of socioeconomic benefits are retained locally etc. 7. Management - It is all about management, we have to manage for conservation, manage for preservation, manage for equity and for sustainability. There are a number of basic principles that all stakeholders must have access to: data, science, modelling and capacity building to help implement accessible, inclusive and sustainable food systems. Stakeholders need to be connected to each other and able to access levers and encourage value-based innovation. Accountable partnering will be important in achieving this across geographies.236238239240242244245246248Group 1: Food security, nutrition and sustainable consumption of aquatic foods Discussion framing statement: By 2030, aquatic foods are recognised by policy-makers as a safe source of nutrients that can help end malnutrition. We need an intentional, directed transformation so that blue food can serve critical social objectives. Fisheries are going through a huge transformation at the moment without any direction, so we need a “blue transformation” – a directed way to transform the sector so that is it geared towards the key objectives (nutrition, social, environmental) we want to achieve. This “directed transformation” must include moving away from a model of production that only harvests a few species and instead should shift to the production of smaller, local fishes. It must also focus on changing consumer demand through education, awareness raising, innovation, and social safety programs. Dietary guidelines also have an important role to play. Currently, only a small percentage of dietary guidelines include blue food and these guidelines often fail to include the full diversity of possible aquatic food sources. We need to promote the full diversity of foods especially in the lower trophics where blue food also has a lower environmental impact. This transition will also require attention to the blue food value and supply chains and the improvement of traceability. In addition, the private sector has an important role to play in innovation and in investing in cold chain so that blue food can be safe and accessible everywhere. We must also take care of the ecosystems and environmental resources where aquatic food comes from and ensure that aquaculture is done in a safe and environmentally friendly way. In the same vein, we must broaden the frame of our overarching objectives: it is not just about ensuring access to safe food but also to food that is healthy, efficient, and sustainable. Undoubtably, there are a number of obstacles we need to overcome to achieve these goals. One of the challenges is that it is difficult to change people’s perceptions and dietary habits with public campaigns. Though it may be challenging to overcome this barrier, people are now more aware of sustainability and climate change considerations, which can make blue food more attractive. Another key issue in many countries is the lack of access to electricity, which has implications for food safety and transportation. Finally, food safety is critical and it is connected to issues like marine pollution and contamination. These intersecting challenges must all be addressed in a coordinated manner. All actors –governments and the private sector alike—have a role to play in overcoming these issues. We must also ensure that the voices of fishermen are incorporated in these conversations and that they can effectively inform policy making. To achieve food security, nutrition, and sustainable consumption goals, we must create a new and positive narrative for fisheries - one that focuses on their contribution to social and environmental objectives. Specifically, we need to ensure that people know that blue food can be good for their health and the environment. It is also important to elevate the role of freshwater aquaculture and ensure that its contributions to nutrition are not overlooked.236238239240245246249Group 2: Food security, nutrition and sustainable consumption of aquatic foods Discussion framing statement: By 2030, a greater diversity of sustainable, nutritious aquatic foods are available for consumption. It was a very energetic and engaged group with thoughts voiced by almost everyone present. The participants rallied around a number of key points. One point is that we need to establish the benefits of blue food, with special focus on small fish and other low input species such as bivalves and seaweed, in policies and dietary guidelines, which will require engagement with both government and business. Importantly, we also need to engage consumers in shifting their diets to consume more sustainable blue food through advocacy, awareness raising, and the leveraging of influencers through various media and marketing channels. Effectively, we need a consumer revolution around blue food by emphasizing nutritional value, removing traditional stigmas (e.g. small fish as a “poor man’s meal”), diversifying offerings and ways of consuming and incorporating them into our diets, and enabling the scaling of production in order to meet and generate more demand. In terms of diversification, the emphasis was not so much on diversifying the types of species we consume, but how we use and consume the species that are already available in the market through products such as fish powder and fish sausage. Furthermore, the group delved into how to minimize blue food loss and waste through various traditional and modern techniques, with the conclusion that by using the whole fish, we would derive more nutritional value overall from our meal. While the group agreed on points discussed the majority of the time, there was a divergence in terms of whether small scale producers should join forces with bigger companies to scale their production and get their products to market or to organize amongst themselves in cooperatives with institutional support. Ultimately, these two strategies are not mutually exclusive and can be complementary. Overall, it was a robust conversation with plenty of food for thought!236238241242244246249250Group 3: Supporting and protecting small-scale and subsistence producers of food from the ocean, rivers and lakes Discussion framing statement: By 2030, small-scale and subsistence actors (from fisheries and aquaculture sectors and including women and other vulnerable groups) are included in blue food decision-making and policy, and trade and economic policy takes account of their roles in providing equitable economic opportunity and nutrition. The discussion was rich, but structured. There were few points of divergence and most participants agreed on the following points. Vision The participants would like to see that by 2030, the FAO’s small-scale fisheries guidelines are implemented at the district (local), national and regional level. In addition, support to all sectors was deemed necessary to reach the SGDs. Therefore, the following points should be prioritised: • Local communities need to be included from the start. • Enable SSF-actors to participate in discussion. To do this it is important to have the right language and the right format. The International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture is one such opportunity. Their knowledge and experience must be incorporated in policy development. • Must ensure that any support provided benefits local food security and that economic benefits are retained locally. • Need to change the narrative. There is a positive story to be told that we can greatly benefit if we take care of our ocean. • Address post-harvest losses in the small-scale fisheries value-chain. • Better coordination of support, in order to reach the stakeholders whom most need support. • Enforcing fishing and proper management plan for small-scale fisheries is critical. Important to share best practices in order to do this. Difficult politically for governments to take action to enforce and manage fisheries, because they can become unpopular, but this can be resolved with more data, which would show the cost of inaction. Some governments already working on this through initiatives like the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, under which Panel member countries’ plan to sustainably manage 100% of the ocean under their jurisdiction. • The small-scale fisheries sector is vulnerable to climate change and need tools for adaption, disaster management and preparedness. To ensure that there is progress and success, the following indicators could be envisaged: • Changes to policy and assessments to ensure compliance. • Health of fishing stocks. • Assessment to ensure local socioeconomic benefits are retained locally from local fisheries value chains.236238240241244249250Group 4: Supporting and protecting small-scale and subsistence producers of food from the ocean, rivers and lakes Discussion framing statement same as Group 3. To ensure smallholders within the value chain are positioned more centrally in decision-making processes there is a need to understand how to enable these small-scale representatives and producers voices while also shifting the decision-making process to a system that will work within the existing local context. Often times, decisions in the value-chain are centered on the asks of those who hold power. To ensure this shift happens, there needs to be engagement in a diverse set of voices throughout the process. This will require capacity development and training as well as a breakdown of existing barriers such as power differentials. Decision-makers should recognize the value that small-scale fishers and aquaculture provide for a local community and beyond. An option which has been seen within the irrigation sector has been governments devolving power down to small-scale holders so then the decision-making is out of their hands. Although there are problems with this approach, it can be a start to empower local groups, recognising that this approach would also need capacity building as well as infrastructure to support. NGO’s have been successful at this level of organisation and can be important levers to make strategic shifts. Within small-scale fisheries and aquaculture there may be a lack of unity as many groups remain informal. These can become difficult when existing systems at the local, national and regional level require formal registration and recognition for inclusion in discussions. After forming groups and possibly formalizing, in order to be recognized, it is important that groups identify champions within their members who can present their collective voice to government. Informal or formally recognizing groups can also work within their own communities to find solutions to local problems, which in turn can create empowerment and awareness with greater visibility when they approach governing bodies. This could then create a meeting in the middle of top-down and bottom-up approach- marginalizing the power imbalance We need to ensure the participation of these stakeholders in each step of the planning and management process to ensure it is a is collaborative process as well as to ensure buy-in as well as local ownership. There is the broader issue of this need for legal status as a group to participate in government dialogues which results in lack of inclusion for some of these unrepresented voices. Additionally, there is a need for context mapping as issues will vary depending on location and the stakeholders involved. There needs to be greater transparency in the implications that decision making will have on stakeholders at the community level as advocacy and policy influence can have a profound impact (i.e. China’s monetary influence of ports/fish processing in Africa on local communities water and fishing resources) Implementation of voluntary guidelines, created by agencies or intergovernmental organisations like FAO can unite users under one system or network and allows the sharing of experiences due to commonality. The national implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) and the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries would be critical to ensure a step towards prioritising value-chain holders rights. 5 Summary Points: 1. Recognize the value and vital contribution that small scale actors along the value chain play in shepherding blue foods through the food systems 2. Make inclusive governance participation the norm and not just the nice to have but the must have 3. Devolve existing power structure to make decision making power more equitable 4. Ensure there is commitment and capacity to implement existing voluntary guidelines such as the FAO Tenure and Small Scale Fishing guidelines 5. Build capacity and facilitate coordination amongst small-holders to demand, and take opportunities for, representing their views, strategies, solutions, and the values they bring236238240241242243244245248249250Group 5: Promoting investment in aquatic and “ocean-smart” land-based food systems Discussion framing statement: By 2030, public and private investments in land- and water-based food systems will be climate and ocean “smart”, ensuring the rights of small-scale producers and minimizing impacts on land and water ecosystems. In summary, the group discussion provided three bottom line messages: 1. Increasing blue food consumption is vital. Our attention must be channeled towards the water systems. This will reduce the pressure on terrestrial production systems. 2. Aquatic and “ocean-smart” land-based food production systems have a great regenerative opportunity integrated with natural ecosystems. 3. Policy and capital flow to big scale production does not always produce the value we want. We need to focus more and channel capital to small-scale producers. Blended finance is key. There is an issue of capital not reaching the small-scale-producers. There is private capital available, but it is difficult for investors to find investment ready projects they can support. Many investors are looking for high returns. There are opportunities around blended finance. It is important to work on both sides. Restructure investors to reach the projects, but also work on the small-scale-fishers side. The small projects often need to be aggregated. We also need more data and evidence of the importance of small-scale-fishers in the system. The role of the government is important to enable investments in small-scale producers. The EU-taxonomy will also cover fisheries and fish farms. This is where governments set clear policies on how to invest. If we want the money to go to the right places, government, not only private sector needs to be involved. For financing to be attractive, policies that provide trust and risk reduction is needed. These policies need to be informed through research and data. Further, they need to take several aspects into account (environmental, but also social and economic). Local stakeholders, especially small-scale producers must be heard when policies are developed. How can we feed this into the Food Systems Summit? • We must pay attention to small-scale producers and how to invest in them. Politics are volatile in many countries, which makes this difficult. The Philippines serves as a good example on management of aquatic resources and protection of small-scale producers. • There is a lack of recognition of the contribution of fisheries. Particularly the contribution of small-scale producers to the economies. This must change and investments must be promoted. The contribution is financial as well as positive for climate resilience. • There must be an integration between the wet and the dry. Oceans are driving weather systems, affecting the dry systems and therefore ecosystem goods and services. • Land is often the topic during discussions. But we need more focus on aquatic systems and to ensure that access to finance is equitable. Recognize the need of developing countries and SIDS. Public sector finance will help unlock private sector finance. There should not be a fight between agriculture and the ocean – it is connected. • Too much of the finance goes to big players. We need to shift the policy and investment focus to look at small-scale producers. The solution is not either/or, but blended. • We must create an enabling environment. • Blue food is essential for domestic food security, as well as an important trade commodity. • Small-scale production must complement the large. We cannot take for granted that the potential of the small-scale production will be realized. • Let’s learn from where the agriculture went wrong. • Many fishers are driven from their land due to large-scale production. Can’t drive people further. • We need clear policy attention on both aquatic and terrestrial or we will fail to meet SDG2. • Regenerative production systems are a big area of growth. Seaweed is the fastest growing plant on the planet. • It is important to not only focus on the ocean, but also on rivers and lakes. • Blue food broadly speaking - it affects a majority of the SDGs (10 out of the 17)236238239240243244245246249251Group 6: Promoting investment in aquatic and “ocean-smart” land-based food systems Discussion framing statement: By 2030, public and private investments in land- and water-based food systems will be climate and ocean “smart”, ensuring the rights of small-scale producers and minimizing impacts on land and water ecosystems. The themes discussed included the fact that foods from the ocean are not getting the same government attention within ministries and regulations as terrestrial food and this can be contributing to lack of investment and governance. Changing consumption was also discussed, looking at historical change in places like Japan and what we need to envision moving forward in the future. How we directly start to invest in those diets in the future is important. Investing in infrastructure is also needed to minimize waste. If we are looking to the ocean to produce protein, how do we minimize negative impacts and what type of planning, policy and reform should be pushed for? Science needs to be rooted in the planning. The push for women within the sector is also important. The importance of storytelling in influencing food pattern consumptions and driving investment was also discussed. We need to get the story right: blue food is nutritious and it employs women. The story is not getting the attention it deserves. We need policy and governance that supports this. We need to focus on science-based research to develop planning and ultimately lead to sustainable policy. We need to invest in technology.236238240241242246250251Group 7: Connecting land and ocean-based food systems for food security, environment and climate gains Discussion framing statement: By 2030, land-based agricultural systems will be designed and managed to maximize production while minimizing impact on the land, climate, and waters (e.g. minimizing nutrient and pollution run-off and erosion and use of unsustainable fish meal as feed). There was much diversity between the different nations and regions represented by the participants in this discussion. Some countries were more agriculture focused, some more fish focused. There was consensus that there are many issues related both to land-based and water-based agriculture that impact oceans and other bodies of water. For example, using sea products to feed animals on land is affecting both ocean ecosystems and local food security. We discussed a wide array of people who need to be involved in changing both land and water-based food systems including governments, private sector and local communities. In order to transform these systems we need to focus on capacity building, notably for government staff to create conditions to get everyone to the table to make local decisions. We discussed the need for integrated approaches across watersheds and the need to break down silos. The way we structure ourselves works against integration. We also focused a lot on the need to empower women, youth, and other local stakeholders.236238239240241242244248249250251Group 8: Connecting land and ocean-based food systems for food security, environment and climate gains Discussion framing statement: By 2030, land-based agricultural systems will be designed and managed to maximize production while minimizing impact on the land, climate, and waters (e.g. minimizing nutrient and pollution run-off and erosion and use of unsustainable fish meal as feed). Key Messages: • Innovation is required: looking for new ways to do aquaculture to increase production with minimal degradation and waste. For example, is there any way to innovate on fish feed? Can feed be produced from waste? • Encouraging greater biodiversity and ecosystem restoration/rehabilitation are vital o Using mangroves to capture carbon; selling the carbon to the external market instead of selling the tree o Using seagrass to conserve and rehabilitate • Must be mindful of downstream effects and the linkages between all parts of food systems o We need to become much better at talking very explicitly about the links between oceans and climate—for example, the effects of agriculture run off impacting aquatic ecosystems and food o It is important to reduce pollution from mining; with shared bodies of water, mining pollution flows across borders and into shared water supplies. • We need to expand consumer’s palates and cultural preferences to include a broader diversity of aquatic foods o Do we have food safety regulations put in place for new types of aquatic foods that aren’t conventionally eaten? o How to get more young people to eat aquatic foods? • Important to have policies to support small-scale fisheries, women, and youth • Implementation of new practices is often the biggest challenge. o In Africa, the implementation of changes has been a challenge o What existing instruments could the FSS help implement? o Important to not create another new system, but work within what already exists o There is often a lack of education and awareness. • There are ‘more than triple wins” that we can commit to; we need to look at multi-stakeholder engagement; conservation, rehabilitation, consumption, nutrition236239240241242244245246248249250Group 9: Managing fisheries for climate change – reducing emissions and enabling adaptation (climate-resilient fisheries) Discussion framing statement: By 2030, aquaculture and wild caught fisheries are managed to minimize GHG emissions and maximize resilience in the face of impacts of climate change. The panellists agreed that the 10-year timeline delineated in the framing statement was unlikely if not impossible to follow. However, they discussed some opportunities for adaptation and mitigations that could be implemented even if the 2030 deadline is not met: • Moving to an electrified fleet • Providing and/or changing infrastructure • Expand the number of small-scale fisheries • Implementing safety and security standards at sea using coastguards • Hosting more workshops/ expanding understanding of adapted fisheries management in response to climate change • Climate proofing new innovations into mitigation or resilience so that you are not working with soft science • Technical innovations, in terms of engines and improving the gears to make them more fuel efficient Improving management of fisheries was described as “the cornerstone of improving the GHG emissions in wild caught fisheries.” In many regions where countries shared waters, their management plans are completely different, which has led to lack of coordination at a regional level. More cooperation forums between different nations are needed, as is a shift to the regional management of fisheries, so that stocks are jointly managed and rather than governments trying to make the best use of the catch individually. Fisheries management was also discussed in terms of ensuring equity and climate change adaptation. From a broader socioeconomic perspective, this means thinking about individual harvesters who operate their own vessels, and whose livelihoods depend on the vessel. Instead of rationalizing the vessels, we must think about how to green the vessels. In terms of climate change adaptation, this means understanding trends that are occurring in ocean conditions and how they affect fish stocks, but also understanding how the ocean’s carbon storing function can be maintained to benefit the ocean and its marine ecosystems’ health. This is where the mitigation efforts such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) play an increasingly important role. Another topic of discussion was food loss since 8% of GHG emissions come from seafood loss. This led to a debate on consumer power, although there was disagreement on the extent to which consumers had real power to transform the sustainability of the fishing industry. They did point to increasing consumer awareness on specific issues in the fishing sector and consumers understanding of their role in changing or influencing the larger food system. Opinions differed as to whether changing consumer behaviour would create the necessary change in the system, particularly since sustainably sourced products tend to have a higher price point, often people putting off. But others believed that more money and politicians getting involved in changing consumer behaviour would help. A combination of promoting a product that is sustainably sourced with low climate impact while at the same time implementing regulations and a global standard for what a country can import was suggested. This also means tackling fishing subsidies for large vessels and focusing instead on subsidizing just green or sustainable fisheries. The importance of equity and socioeconomic solutions to the problems in the fishing sector was frequently raised - in terms of the relationship between how seafood is viewed in a country, as a luxury or a necessity, and the management of the fisheries sector. The importance of looking at the equity of a solution when thinking about any adaptation or mitigation efforts to climate change was highlighted as key. The effects of climate change will not be felt equally around the world - the small island states (or large ocean states) who rely on the fishing sector for work and livelihoods will unfortunately bear a lot of the burden. A solution without taking into consideration larger equity problems cannot be a solution we pick236238240241242243244245246249250251Group 10: Managing fisheries for climate change – reducing emissions and enabling adaptation (climate-resilient fisheries) Discussion framing statement: By 2030, aquaculture and wild caught fisheries are managed to minimize GHG emissions and maximize resilience in the face of impacts of climate change. Natural resources from rivers, lakes and the sea must be protected by considering the entire habitats and including human activities. For the goals to be achieved a management system needs to be in place. For the management system to work it needs to be science based (including traditional knowledge), collect data that can be processed and modelled for foresight to be used in decision making. Both the most important stocks and the habitat need to be conserved using an ecosystem approach integrated into the management system. Policy and decision making needs to be inclusive and democratic. It needs to take account of equity and rights, including the right to food and nutrition as well as gender issues and the interests of youth and marginal groups. New technologies and management is important but new management methods and technologies need to be introduced on a time horizon commensurate with the speed of environmental change. There will be tensions and trade-offs such as between local food production and production for foreign currency earning and ways of production. However, loss and waste need to be reduced, utilization of unused and invasive species needs to be considered in an innovative way and aquaculture, particularly homestead, may be considered as solutions. These trade-offs and solutions need to be managed in the interest of the community as a whole. Taking into account the right to food and the right of the coastal communities. External actors can and are needed for support with resources for investment but particularly for data generation and policy advice but also with convening power. Support should be long term, secure and inclusive. The outcome should be that more blue aquatic food should be accessible for the most vulnerable and livelihoods of vulnerable communities are strengthened.237238239240241244245250There were some divergences during the break-out groups. These included: • The extent to which changing consumer behaviour would help in forcing the necessary changes in aquatic food systems, and food systems more broadly when it comes to food loss and waste. Some felt consumer behaviour would prove powerful, others felt that regulations and incentives would prove more successful. The conclusion reached was that all three approaches would be needed to reduce food loss and waste. • Whether small scale actors should join forces with bigger companies to scale their production and get their products to market or whether small scale producers would receive better food security and livelihood outcomes from organizing amongst themselves in cooperatives with institutional support. • The extent to which aquaculture can help improve nutrition globally was questioned, with some feeling that developing sustainable aquaculture practices will help remove pressure from both aquatic and terrestrial food systems, while others are skeptical about its role in helping nutrition in low income countries, particularly given lack of finance for technology etc that helps improve sustainability.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Additional-contributions-to-the-Dialogue.docxhttps://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/foodfromtheocean/https://www.oceanpanel.org/ocean-action/files/transformations-sustainable-ocean-economy-eng.pdfhttps://www.bluefood.earth/http://www.fao.org/3/av032e/av032e.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/voluntary-guidelines-small-scale-fisheries/guidelines/en/

2021-07-16 14:45:28205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21773/21

5642423512449210664474138143181102

The Principles of Engagement were first introduced during the opening remarks of the Convenor as part of welcoming the participants. It was mentioned during the speech by highlighting the Principles phrases. Following this, the Curator explained the importance of the Principles and provided each description as it relates to the Dialogues. These Principles were further emphasized during the curator’s welcoming remarks as she placed their importance in the context of transforming the food systems in relation to food safety.Participants were respectful in their discussions as they listened to each other and commented on specific points made by others that changed their viewpoint on possible solutions. They also in turn provided solutions based on their own personal experiences and knowledge of initiatives that are happening in other ministries and organizations that may be adapted and provide a solution for food safety issues. They recognized that resolutions will require the effort of the private sector to become more involved in ensuring the regulations are adhered too. In concluding the Dialogue, a shared dedication to the Principles of Engagement amongst participants was acknowledged and trust that future engagements and commitments will be upheld.The advice to other Convenors is to ensure that the core team hosting the Dialogue (curator and facilitators) are in agreement with the Principles and are able to guide the Dialogue to ensure that the Principles are recognized. In addition, it is important that these Principles are stated at the beginning of the Dialogue to set the expectations of the discussions. Once this is acknowledged and accepted by participants, they will understand that their voices are equally important to creating change.

NoThe method used for this Dialogue slightly differed from that in the Reference Manual. Due to the core team members’ unavailability to attend the event, a curator was unable to be assigned. However, a facilitator (a representative from the co-host organization, BAHFSA) was able to share in the responsibilities of curating the event and facilitating a discussion group. Notable to mention, this team member curated another Dialogue and was familiar with the duties. This was the only difference between the method used and the method in the manual.

234238244246249Topic: Food Safety for improved health and consumption. Description: Food Safety plays a critical role in the food systems; the ramifications of the cost of unsafe food extends beyond human health issues. Contaminated food hampers socioeconomic development, overloads healthcare systems, and compromises economic growth and trade. From food production to food consumption - food safety is a shared responsibility. This Dialogue will examine the importance of food safety in the food systems for improved health. The objective of discussions was to identify transformative ways to ensure that safe and healthy foods are produced, imported, and consumed in our communities. Participants was divided into 3 breakout discussion groups to discuss the following topics: 1.Food storage and transportation’s impact on health 2.Importance of Food Testing and Laboratory services 3.Food Safety, Hygiene and Sanitation235238243246249Unregulated food storage and transport throughout the country Proper food transport and storage enhances food safety, helps maintain nutritive value of foods and reduce waste. The country’s regulatory system of enforcing and monitoring safe food storage and transport is inadequate. There are few laws and regulations that address this issue but they are governed by various governmental agencies. There is no one specific authority body that has full responsibility over food storage and transport therefore information on how this regulatory system is being monitored and evaluated is disjointed and undefined. A systematic approach involving all key stakeholders is required for an efficient regulatory management system. Need for additional food safety testing laboratories There is only one food testing laboratory in the country. This lab consists of a microbiology lab and a chemistry lab that receives samples from the general public. The current role is food testing for salmonella, coliforms, E.coli, staph aureus, listeria, etc. and providing reliable results. Challenges relate to accessing supplies needed for testing; maintenance of equipment; limited equipment and testing capabilities. Considering that there is only one facility in the country, there is a delay in providing results. Additionally, often agri-foods that may require testing enter the markets without being tested.There is also the need for more testing of locally produced agri-foods as opposed to only testing imported foods and food for export ( mostly fisheries products). Implementation of food safety regulations There is a need to enforce grades and standards, which implies training and technology transfer, and improvement of short- term storage facilities to ensure that the quality and safety of the agri-food product is maintained. This will require additional food inspectors and enforcement throughout the food supply chain. Public awareness of the importance of safe foods on personal health must be generated. As persons become more aware of the linkage between one’s health and safe food storage and transport, they will be more inclined to hold authorities accountable to enforcing an efficient regulatory system. A national food safety system requires the involvement of both public and private stakeholders.236238243246248249Food storage and transportation’s impact on health Challenge (i): Undetermined governmental regulatory system to enforce and monitor food transport and storage Solution: -At ministerial level, laws should be synchronized amongst various agencies to ensure the joint engagement for enforcement -Best practices from regional and international countries are adapted to formulate an effective regulatory management system, specific to the needs of The Bahamas -Food retailers/wholesalers and transport agencies are made aware of the regulatory system and trained on the proper standard operating procedures for adhering to the policies Challenge (ii): Unregulated food storage and transport, especially from and to rural (Family) islands Solution: -Increase inspections of vessels responsible for food transport to ensure that their facilities and standard operating procedures (ie. maintained proper cooling systems) are implemented for safe storage and delivery of food; impose a fine or penalty for not adhering to regulations -Increase inspections of food retailers/wholesalers facilities for safe food storage; impose a fine or penalty for not adhering to regulations -Food stores and food transport agents need to ensure that proper facilities are made available for storage to reduce food waste Challenge (iii): Lack of public awareness- persons are not aware of the resources available on proper food safety handling Solution: -Education is key, but it needs national support - not from a political party -There should be food safety guidelines set for food wholesalers/retailers to follow when importing foods to ensure that imported foods are safe for public consumption -More stringent requirements should be placed on the exporter to ensure that the product being exported is safe. As the importing country, we have to hold exporters accountable to distributing safe foods and prevent labeling fraud. -Consumers need to be made aware of the linkages between unsafe foods and personal health to understand the importance of safe food storage and transport; link food safety in transport and storage to health and disease prevention. More food safety information sessions are needed throughout the islands; this can be done through social media, digital text notifications, pamphlets, posters and televised public service announcements. Challenge (iv): Data collection required to capture information on food transported inter-islands and how they are being stored Solution: -Data is collected for food imported into the country but not transported throughout the islands. Food inspectors can be assigned to each island to document food transport and storage. -Food transport vessels should be held accountable to record and report food transport to various islands; they should be able to also produce this information to food inspectors. -Data on food waste due to inadequate food transport, storage or expiring should also be recorded by food inspectors236238240243245246249Importance of Food Testing and Laboratory services Challenge (i): Lack of diagnostic capacity to test foods - insufficient facilities, supplies for testing, limited equipment and testing capabilities. Solution: -Increase investment in the development of additional food laboratories in the most populated islands -Increase investment in equipment and facilities of testing labs -Increase the cost of testing to supplement the maintenance of equipment and procurement of testing supplies -Encourage the private sector to partner with the government to provide food testing in private laboratories Challenge (ii): Lack of enforcement of policies such as food labelling; some labels of imported foods are not in English and there is the concern on the safety of foods labelled “export only” Solution: -Increase food inspections to prevent labelling fraud -Generate public awareness on ‘how to understand food labels’ and recognize any labeling fraud -Local consumer responsibility can be encouraged where consumers take photos and report on incorrect food labels -Outline specific food labeling policies required by exporters to permit imported foods to further verify the safe consumption of foods. Challenge (iii): Food testing of local fresh and value-add agri-foods production Solution: -Require that all agri-foods must be tested and certified by a food testing laboratory before entering the domestic market -Encourage food associations and/or cooperatives to acquire food testing equipment/facilities to ensure quality local agri-foods are being provided to the markets236238245246249Food Safety, Hygiene and Sanitation Challenge (i): There is a lack of human resources such as food inspectors – trained persons who can conduct safety checks throughout the supply chain Solution: -The Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Health, and Ministry of Health and other key agencies conduct food safety training to ensure that all persons in the food system receive the same level of training. -Digitalize the regulatory system for ease of use, efficiency and accessibility by all stakeholders (ie authorities, food inspectors, food retailers/wholesalers and transport agencies) to ensure knowledge is widely disseminated for compliance Challenge (ii): Animal slaughter is unregulated in the rural (Family) Islands, it is unclear what sanitation and slaughter process are being carried out, and how the animals are being transported. Solution: -Food safety training which can be linked to the farm registration to ensure farmers are trained. -Certified facilities for meat products can be established by farmers cooperatives/associations, with support of governing authorities, to ensure good food safety practices are being implemented Challenge (iii): Unmonitored use of unsafe pesticides and chemicals in local fresh and value-added agri-food production Solution: -Develop an extensions services unit that is dedicated to policing the use of unsafe pesticides and chemicals; ensure regular visits to farm, farm stores and agro-processing facilities -Make available continuous training on good agricultural practices for the safe use of agro-chemicals and pesticides237238246There were no areas of divergence regarding the food safety of the country. Participants are all in agreement that there is a lot of work to be done to ensure safe and nutritious foods to all. The most urgent need is defining a regulatory management system that can diligently work towards the enforcement of food safety policies.

2021-07-17 00:43:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30955/16273044464952606163647984120133141143144195198

Yes

2021-07-17 05:47:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22642/18

4708241320839027100290080005000040000004010013000002902

All participants reviewed and agreed to the Principles of Engagement upon registration. Act with Urgency • The opening of the dialogue highlighted the goal of food system transformation by 2030. Commit to the Summit • Discussion groups were intentionally diverse and introduced participants who had not previously met to foster new connections. Be Respectful • Participants were encouraged to engage in the dialogue in a respectful manner. Recognize Complexity • Dialogue participants were invited to discuss how nutrition science can interact with other sciences and policy to ensure that the transformation of the food system happens in an integrated manner. • Discussion topics: o Food is more than the sum of nutrients and diets are more than the sum of the foods it contains. How can we capture a more holistic interpretation of nutrition science in the summit? o What are the challenges or barriers to informing food system change using nutrition science? o How can we avoid falling into the trap of aiming for more ‘achievable’ solutions within the dominant political paradigm, rather than aiming for transformative solutions that can bring about necessary changes for securing healthy and sustainable food systems? Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity • Participants were scientists (nutrition, environmental, agricultural), policy makers, & representatives from NGOs. • Discussion topics: o How does/ can nutrition science integrate with other disciplines to inform food system transformation? o What are the opportunities for increasing nutrition science engagement to reach the goal of a healthy and sustainable food system by 2030? o Who will need to be involved to achieve this vision? How can we work better with these stakeholders? Complement the work of others • Presenters discussed existing evidence and policies. • Discussions provided an opportunity to constructively critique existing pathways & suggest alternative solutions. Build Trust • Participants were encouraged to speak freely & the Chatham House Rules were explained.Act with Urgency • Our first invited speaker highlighted the urgency of food system transformation for health and environment benefit. Commit to the Summit • A presenter highlighted the importance of the summit to provide an opportunity to make changes to the food system, through engaging stakeholders from a range of disciplines. Be Respectful • Participants were encouraged to engage in the dialogue in a respectful manner. Recognize Complexity • Opening presentations highlighted the complexity of the food system and the links between disciplines such as nutrition, environmental science, Indigenous rights, and food policy. • A speaker emphasised the importance of transformation, rather than minor tweaks in the food system, as transformation will be able to have impacts on more than just nutrition (i.e. social, commercial, political, environmental, and health impacts related to the food system). Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity • The speakers highlighted the importance of leaving no-one behind. Complement the work of others • A speaker discussed work in this field to date and noted that the concept of sustainable diets is not new. She explored the development of this area of science, and drew upon what has been learned to date, to enable the discussion of new ideas within the dialogue. Build Trust • The opening plenary speaker discussed the importance of building trust between actors, including conversations about values, having open minds, being transparent.Ensure that participants are aware of the Principles upon registration.

Yes

234238239243244246247248249250The focus of the dialogue was to explore the role of nutrition science in transforming food systems for health, equity and environmental sustainability. The rationale to this focus was that there are many technical and conceptual challenges in understanding how dietary patterns and foods are associated with health, equity and environmental sustainability. These challenges are exacerbated by the existence of competing worldviews about using evidence to inform food and nutrition policy activities. We sought to examine the role of nutrition science to contribute to global food system transformation in the context of the challenges and competing worldviews. This dialogue engaged Australian experts and leaders in nutrition science and policy as well as collaborators with expertise beyond nutrition science. This dialogue is of importance because the ‘game changing solutions’ proposed as part of the UN Food Systems Summit need to be transformative to create a food system that is healthy, sustainable and equitable. Adjustments proposed to date, such as reformulation or food labelling schemes, will be insufficient to make the necessary changes to transform the food system, and have limited opportunity to address food system outcomes beyond nutrition. Actions proposed as part of the summit process also need to be evidence-based. Thus, this dialogue was focused on how nutrition science can be leveraged to address systemic issues and transform the food system.235238239243244246247249250This dialogue focused on the role of nutrition science in food system transformation. Participants felt that the food system presented challenges but also presented opportunities for meaningful change. However, sectors need to be aligned in their vision and understanding of the required changes. Leaders in food system change need to consider whether actions are adjustments, reformative or transformative. Five key recommendations came from the discussion groups. They are outlined below. 1. Develop a consistent understanding of terms and goals (e.g. food system; nutrition science; nutrition principles, goals of food system transformation) and clearly articulate them. • Human rights should be the centre of all discussions and an equitable food system is the goal. • The shared vision of a food system needs to encompass health, equity and environmental sustainability. This vision should also acknowledge that radical transformation may not be comfortable, and not all will win. • All sectors of the food system need to understand the definitions and goals of food systems, and they need to be owned by everyone. Outcomes will suffer if there is not a shared vision. • A better vision is needed for Australian agriculture as we are currently not ‘nutrition secure’ (see topic 4, below). • Nutrition science should include foods, dietary patterns and be aligned with broader frameworks such as ecological nutrition, rather than just focusing on nutrient composition. 2. Consider the types of evidence used to inform policies and food system transformation • Policy actions that focus on nutrients, foods, and diets need to be aligned and considered within a much broader food system framework that includes ecology and sustainability. • The ‘hierarchy of evidence’ used in policy decisions to rank the types of evidence needs to be reconsidered. For example, remove parts of the hierarchy of evidence that are only relevant to clinical studies so that it is more relevant to food systems. We also need to think about who the current hierarchy benefits e.g. food industry may benefit from emphasis on clinical trials, which may not have benefits for public health. • Consider how we frame and assess evidence, and subsequently incorporate this into nutrition policies and guidelines needs to be further analysed. Approaches used need to be fit-for-purpose and enable the inclusion of sustainability messages and equity. • Nutrition policies need to be more closely aligned and embedded in other sectoral policies, e.g. agricultural policies. 3. Foster inclusion in food system debates and policies • Consider how the debates can shift to focus less on the global north. • Marginalized groups, farmers and primary producers deserve greater recognition at the policy table and global dialogues. • Practitioners and researchers need to communicate and work together more. • Evidence and stories from different sectors need to be combined to create change. • The nutrition discipline needs to encompass and be more informed by other sectors in the food system, e.g. agriculture. • Transformation in the food system is also political and social. Thus, food system transformation requires strong engagement from all sectors, including civil society and respectful inclusion of Indigenous knowledges. Similarly, nutrition science is multidisciplinary and in order to make change, nutrition scientists need to incorporate all of these elements. 4. Address power dynamics in the food system • Power and political determinants must become more prominent in discussions of addressing the food system. Very few events and reports are up-front about how the food system has evolved in the context of corporate power, and thus we fail to hold corporations accountable and truly address the harms associated with industrial food production. 5. Solutions must be systems-conscious • The food industry works in an integrated way, and so must be regulated in a globally coordinated fashion to protect health and the environment. • NOVA can be a helpful tool for us to regulate food industry because it encapsulates not just technical or reductionist components but is inherently conscious of social drivers and holistic dietary patterns. • Utilising multinational organisations to work with industry and utilising some of their power may be a way forward – so that governments and advocates for sustainability and health are better united. Including the voice of the consumer at the forefront may help. • Technical solutions could disincentivise the creation and implementation of more holistic/ transformative solutions. But pushing for transformative change may lead to silver bullet solutions, and transformative change is not necessarily how change happens in reality.236239243244246247249250Topic 1: Public health nutrition science and principles are essential to underpin evidence-informed decision-making for transforming food systems to be healthy, equitable and sustainable by 2030. Integrating nutrition science & food systems Nutrition issues are relevant to dietary, socioeconomic, and ecological elements of the food system. Understanding the political and social context that created our present food system will help us make progress. A framework for transition, including a clear vision for food system transformation is vital. Nutrition scientists need to be aware of the impact of their work on the broader system. It is important that healthy and sustainable diets are not assumed to have ‘one size fits all’ solutions. Nutrition science is not being used to optimum effect to guide food system transformation because certain interests (e.g. big agriculture) trump nutrition & health narratives, particularly in countries like Australia which prioritise production of certain foods & exports. To overcome the barriers such as the “business as usual approach”, “policy inertia” and “resistance in government”, decision makers need to better manage those challenging changes (which mainly are coming from the ‘big food’ industry) and trade-offs. Some participants felt unable to make meaningful change at the policy level, because policies are heavily influenced by industry. Food policies which stem from a governing body, such as the UN, are able to unite governments to appropriately regulate industry and subsequently are essential for transformation. Integrating policy & practice There is a disconnect between conversations in practice and academia. E.g. in practice the focus is on promoting the consumption of healthy foods, but in academia there is a focus on reducing unhealthy foods. We need more conversations between people working in different sectors, and academics need to consider how to support practitioners. E.g. researchers should ask practitioners about problems & research questions. We need to bring together evidence and stories to promote change. Researchers need more funding to promote healthy foods, rather than focusing so much on reducing unhealthy foods. Definitions and evidence for policy The UN FSS needs to find a consensus on nutrition science definitions and what types of evidence are suitable to inform policy. There are strong concerns that if not done, important evidence may be continued to be pushed aside in policy making. An example of ensuring that definitions capture the right scope in policies was that nations should create National ‘Food System’ Policies rather than a National ‘Nutrition’ Policies. Another suggestion was to use the term ‘Ecological Nutrition’ rather than ‘Nutrition Science’. These types of definitions can lead to constructive dialogues and multi-sectorial collaboration. Evidence which informs food system transformation needs to be considered. Participants felt that the UN FSS appears to be approaching science from a western approach, which favours high-income countries. Science is only one form of knowledge, we also need to think about the broader principles e.g. ecology, human rights, inclusion. Additionally, the evidence hierarchy used in Australia prioritises research from clinical trials over other evidence, including traditional Indigenous knowledge. We need to consider who benefits from this e.g. dietary supplement manufacturers may benefit from clinical trials. Food systems research may benefit from removing the parts of the evidence hierarchy which are only relevant to clinical studies. This may foster the inclusion of environmental sustainability in dietary guideline development. We need to consider the level of granularity of research used as evidence for policy. E.g. foods and dietary patterns are more aligned with food system change, but we don’t want to reject evidence about specific nutrients. Nutrient approaches are also important e.g. when analysing nutrient content of traditional foods to promote biodiversity. We need alignment between policies focusing on nutrients, foods, and diets. We need integration of approaches, and to keep focusing on the big picture.236239243244246249Topic 2: Food is more than the sum of nutrients and diets are more than the sum of the foods it contains. How can we capture a more holistic interpretation of nutrition science in the summit? Participants felt that the definition of nutrition science and having clear goals for food system transformation was important. Policy action is based on the goals and definitions of nutrition science. In order to make holistic and systemic changes we need to agree on a more holistic vision for nutrition science and food system transformation. We need to identify the people who have agency to come in and endorse definitions. There is a disconnect between food technology, agriculture and nutrition at universities and it is preventing us having a holistic vision for the future. Definitions and goals need to be owned by everyone, including the people themselves. Young people need buy-in because they are very motivated to improve the food system. When we use narrow definitions, it is easy to split people. In terms of nutrition science and nutrition-related food system goals, the idea of nourishment instead of nutrients may be more palatable. The first step here is to get people on the same page with concepts. Participants discussed that nutrition science originally looked at what is on a person’s plate, but we need to expand the scope of this science to encompass where food comes from including production and source. A person from a non-nutrition science background noted that the supply chain was crucial to finding a more holistic interpretation and bringing people together. They felt that from an agriculture perspective, people focus on the raw food product, but what happens in the supply chain after that is connected to bigger things. The more holistic interpretation of nutrition needs to acknowledge how the food supply chain impacts the processing of food. Some participants expressed concern about promoting plant-based diets, without consideration of land clearing, water consumption, soil depletion relating to agricultural production. A more holistic definition of nutrition science may be able to account for these environmental concerns. The influence of food culture on food systems also needs to be considered and incorporated in the definition of nutrition science.236239243244246249Topic 3: How does/ can nutrition science integrate with other disciplines to inform food system transformation? (1,877/ 4200 characters) Participants discussed the reductive nature of much of nutrition science. For example, considering nutrients without the context of foods, and considering foods without the context of diets was considered to be reductive. Analysis of nutrients is much easier and can be used in clinical trials, but scientists need to consider the complex interactions with other food and dietary components. Life cycle assessments (an environmental measurement technique) are also very reductive – they often narrowly define the scope of study in environmental science. So, it is difficult to use these reductive nutrition and environmental techniques together because they have limited the scope for studies. The NOVA classification system (used for classifying foods into the level of processing) can be a bridge here – because if you look at it as a technical classification system, then it is reductive. But if you look at the categories, they’re already socialised (able to consider the social and political determinants of the system). The definition of these categories is looking at the PURPOSE of processing. The ultra-processed category, for example, is a type of food produced by the food industry – so it’s already socialised. It connects food and its broader components to other issues. Participants felt that science should no longer separate biological sciences from the social sciences, and that the NOVA classification would help. One group discussed concerns about science being misused. They discussed that processed foods are sometimes greenwashed, but it is better (healthier, more sustainable) to use foods in their raw form. For example, ‘Beyond Meat’ burgers have a higher environmental impact than legumes, and their impacts lie between red meat and pork. The participants felt that these temporary solutions may prevent the development of more holistic/ transformative systemic solutions.236239243244246249Topic 4: Is nutrition science currently being used to optimum effect to guide food system transformation? Why/ why not? (3,621/ 4200 characters) Participants noted that public health nutrition is not resulting in the changes that we need to see. Perhaps nutrition science could be used in a better way, that doesn’t focus on reductionism. E.g. the health star rating is being championed in Australia as a way to transform the food system, but this system is suboptimal. While reformulation can have public health benefits, it can also allow other foods to be determined as healthy and may distract policy makers from solutions which have bigger impacts. Participants discussed the process of guideline creation in Australia. Some participants felt these guidelines were based on evidence and were transparent, while others had concerns about power dynamics and undue influence. More specifically, Australian recommendations require evidence and an overview of the process is always provided and feedback is transparent. However, others felt that power in the food system was more problematic and less manageable and measurable. A participant noted that the food industry is regularly meeting with elected officials, and the industry has a lot of power and influence over policy. One group discussed the global nature of the food system and how large corporations are unable to be regulated by one country alone. This group noted that there is a mismatch between the food production system (global) and food regulation (national). While developing global regulation and international law is politically challenging, global proposals about how the corporations should be regulated and integrated policies across countries could help balance the playing field between corporations and health. This would require a lot of effort, but bodies like the UN have the opportunity to lead policies which are integrated across countries. This could also enable more protection of public health and the environment. We also need to rally consumers and other stakeholders and choose our fights wisely. The NOVA classification may also help here, as we can argue that ultra-processed foods are unnecessary for all. A different discussion group felt that nutrition science is being used as a tool to market and make products that are not the best ones for the planet or people’s health. Nutrition science used for marketing and the industry directs the research to some extent, particularly in relation to processed foods. Thus, nutrition science is being used in a way that many scientists do not want. On the other hand, some noted that progress is good – in the last decade agriculture has been better at nutrition-sensitive agriculture. But the nutrition discipline needs to be more informed by the other sectors, i.e. we need a multi-sectoral focus. Participants also discussed the difference between transformation and incremental change, noting that the world usually works in an evolutionary/ incremental manner. Participants noted that the pandemic has opened a moment in time where consumer citizens, governments, retailers are aware of the fragility of the food supply chain so there is currently an opportunity to act with this awareness. They discussed that the Australian government is dependent on an export food supply chain, particularly for specific commodities such as fruit and vegetables (we import 10-20%). Thus, despite being presented as food secure, Australia is not ‘nutrition secure’ because we are dependent on imports to meet nutritional requirements. When considering types of imported foods, we should consider if the foods can be substituted for Australian-grown products and if dietary adequacy be fine without imports. We also need to consider repercussions if these foods were removed.236239243244246247249Topic 5: What are the opportunities for increasing engagement with nutrition science to reach the goal of a healthy and sustainable food system by 2030, and who will need to be involved to achieve this vision? (Up to 4200 characters) Participants felt that the first step was to ensure that the vision of the food system is well-established. It is difficult to align stakeholders if they are working without knowing what the goal is. Participants felt that equity and human rights should be the priority in all decisions and policy approaches before solutions to food system problems are decided. Bringing marginalized groups and people that experience disadvantage into the discussion is imperative. The UN FSS and other global dialogues must make efforts to actively engage all people in decision making in a transparent manner. Some participants felt that the nutrition science community should be enabling transformative change, and discussed relationships needed for this. They felt that the farming community needs a more prominent role as they can inform what works economically and in a production sense. The primary producing industry in general should be engaged as part of the conversation, as quite often they will have a lot to say and they need to be on board for transformative change to occur. Building a sustainable bridge between nutrition science and agriculture sector to achieve sustainable production systems (agroecology, regenerative agriculture) is vital to transform food systems. There are active and transformative things happening in agriculture right now, however they are only on a small scale and they need to be scaled up. There is a movement there to be built upon for change. Those who understand how to regenerate and rehydrate degraded land (through regenerative agriculture, agroecology etc) should have a greater position in the transformation debate. They tend not to be part of discussion, but they can tell us succinctly about what is economically possible and what is not possible, although there are many sectors that influence the economics in food systems. Also, a greater emphasis should be placed on growing crops/livestock that are suitable for specific environments and specific contexts. One group discussed that the revision of the Australian Dietary Guidelines is a good opportunity for change in Australia. This will showcase how we integrate with the other disciplines. In Australia, the issue of how industry is involved in dietary guidelines is an issue. We also need to consider how we ensure sustainability is embedded, which may or may not be helped/ hindered by industry (participants felt differently about this). Getting consumers interested and engaged with embedding sustainability in the dietary guidelines could help, particularly engaging with young people. Participants discussing the Australian Dietary Guidelines felt that they are the biggest and most immediate opportunity. Since the last guidelines, there is much more evidence for sustainability. Additionally, there is a lot of opportunity to advocate for all sectors to contribute to the guidelines. While concepts and principles direct guidelines development, much of the work remains political. If we can work together, advocate strongly and support the dietary guideline committee in decision making, this could be a big opportunity for change. The next steps are not about starting conversations about food systems and environmental sustainability, but rather building on existing conversations. Effective communication is needed to build inclusivity across the food system.236239243244246248249250Topic 6: What paradigm shifts are required to achieve a healthy, equitable and environmentally sustainable food system? (2568/ 4200 characters) Participants noted that the current decisions in the food system are driven by the ‘global north’ and powerful actors throughout the food system. If a global centric approach is not adopted, the dynamics needed to create transformative change won’t work at scale. Dialogues need to be a truly participatory process and foster inclusive conversations. It can be challenging to move forward together with multiple stakeholders when stakeholders have different objectives. With regards to the Australian Dietary Guidelines, there needs to be some vision from the outset about what the key outcomes are, and everyone’s ideas should be on the table. The current global opportunities are important for us to start talking about bigger change and larger opportunities, without settling for the status quo. Equity in the system is essential. There is a great concern that industry involvement is distorting the agenda and several comments and concerns were raised that the dialogues in the UN FSS were favouring some countries and regions over others. Sometimes the issue isn’t about the content or the details, it’s about the connections. In the absence of having some sort of joined up national policy for these discussions, the talk will continue to be about discrete projects. We need to think more about the dynamics to make connected changes happen. Some participants felt that there needs to be a greater emphasis on decision making processes result in transformative changes to current food system activities. However, participants in another group noted that transformative change may push us towards silver bullet solutions. Some simple solutions like eating more legumes are very powerful. Areas around the world are different and a one size fits all in sustainable production doesn’t work so nutrition science needs to play a bigger role in mapping out how production systems are managed so evidence is informing decisions. We need a global framework for managing trade-offs between economic, social, political factors in food system transformations. Connections are paramount, between and within sectors. Conversations need to build the bridge between nutrition science and regenerative agriculture. We must consider that many parts of the planet cannot ecologically produce foods suggested for sustainable healthy diets and plans need to be global for production to be equitable. Shifting the current mantra about lowering food prices to instead focus on labour contributions for food and home production could be an opportunity.237239243246248249250There was broad agreement about the challenges and opportunities that exist, despite the diversity of participants. In one discussion group, there was some disagreement about what exactly ‘nutrition science’ means, and what having ‘nutrition principles’ underpinning the food systems transformation even means. For some, they felt that nutrition principles already encompassed wider social/environmental concerns, in addition to health. Others felt that most people did not have a good understanding of the functions of the food system and the role of power, and that current principles underpinning the UN FSS did not sufficiently encompass these elements. Some participants felt that food systems should focus on transformative actions, whereas others felt that technical or incremental change would be more effective. One discussion group also experienced a disagreement about how evidence can be used to inform policy. Some felt that guidelines were transparent but could benefit from better communication and making sure that people were consistent with their use of evidence. Others felt that that was a mischaracterisation of how policy is really made, and that science and evidence is not made in a vacuum. These participants felt that human behaviour and relationships can not necessarily be measured, and these are huge factors in influencing policy. A different group was also conflicted on the extent to which food-based dietary guidelines are influenced by industry, and how challenging it is likely to be to include sustainability messages in the next iteration of guidelines.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/IPAN-UNFSS-Flyer.pdfhttps://www.deakin.edu.au/ipan

2021-07-17 18:30:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26939/173

234728153328636222021

This dialogue centered on Action Track 3 on Nature Positive Production and on Finance as Lever of Change in support such a nature positive food system. The dialogue was intended to bring together diverse stakeholders from agriculture and finance sector from Sri Lanka and beyond. To obtain this wide representation, the event was put together as a jointly organized effort between Sri Lanka Banks' Association's Sustainable Banking Initiative - SLBA SBI - (through which the communications were sent out to all Sri Lankan banks), Sri Lanka Agripreneurs' Forum (through which communications were circulated to diverse stakeholders in the agriculture industry) and the SDB bank (a leading development bank proactively financing agriculture in Sri Lanka). This dialogue was also to complement the other dialogues that have been held in the country, in that it brought the additional dimension of finance as a lever of change, which had not been a specific focus of other dialogues organized in Sri Lanka, though this had been touched upon in other food systems summit as a key enabler. The dialogue was publicized through social media (facebook, LinkedIn, and Whatsapp networks) and via email and through word of mouth. Although 72 participants registered, only 43 persons attended. Due to popular request the recording of the webinar will be made available via social media pages of Sri Lanka Banks' Association's Sustainable Banking InitiativeThe dialogue captured the complexity of the current context in Sri Lanka (where currently there is an intense debate/discourse on organic and inorganic systems of production and the trade offs between food safety and food security, with the Government of Sri Lanka's decision to ban importation of chemical fertilizer and pesticides). Dialogue was forward looking in that it looked to be solution oriented exploring insights from other country experiences (such as India and Indonesia) and discuss the applicability for way forward in Sri Lanka. The dialogue connected those in agriculture sector and those in finance sector and it allowed for innovative solutions such as blended finance facilities towards sustainable agriculture to be discussed in detail.The multi-stakeholder engagement, respect for divergent views and building on the work of others helped to make the dialogue more relevant and where it allowed to create new connections and collaborations to act urgently towards sustainable food systems.

Yes

234240243244245248249250(iii) examination of links between one or more of the Action Tracks and levers of change: The Independent Dialogue focused on Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production and Finance as a Lever of Change that could postively contribute towards such transformation.2352402432442452482492501). Innovative mechanisms of financing such as blended finance vehicles being implemented in Indonesia (Tropical Landscape Finance Facility) and in India (Sustainable India Finance Facility) provide inspiration for Sri Lanka to also explore such options in the country through collaborations between the different stakeholders. The Global Alliance for a Sustainable Planet (GASP) offered support to Sri Lanka and invited local stakeholders to collaborate with them. SLBA SBI has been also exploringsuch blended finance facility in Sri Lanka for sometime. 2). Zero-Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) was discussed as an option for Sri Lanka in its aspirations to be the first country to produce food without the use of chemicals. The varying context was also discussed, with regards to availability of raw materials and labour, where the situation in Sri Lanka differs from that of India, although one of the speakers provided details of local alternatives for natural inputs/innoculants that could be used in Sri Lanka, where success has been observed. Mr. Satya Tripathi from GASP offered to connect Sri Lankan stakeholders with officials in Andra Pradesh such as Mr. Vijay Kumar, who has been advising Andra Pradesh state government on its ZBNF program. 3). The importance of the social context, where farmer to farmer knowledge sharing in India played a critical role in dissemination of knowhow on sustainable agriculture was discussed, and at a time when Sri Lanka's agri extension service was not nimble and adept as it used to be in the past, the need to strengthen all available means of disseminating agri knowhow and tech was underscored. 4). With the volume of food needing to be produced for food security and with the data on the increased yields due to chemical inputs, one of the speakers noted that while the amount of chemical inputss have to be reduced, it cannot be completely done away with without having ramifications to yield. He juxtaposed the statistics from 1940 (before Sri Lanka used agro chemicals) and the yields in 2020 to show the difference (4.8 tonnes of rice per hectare in 2020 as opposed to only 0.65 tonnes per hectare in 1940). He advocated for integrated plant nutrient systems and integrated pest management systems. 5). Some of the other speakers spoke about the environmental and health implications as well as foreign exchange implications for the country and Mr. Satya Tripathi revealed the drastic reductions of health issues reported in Andra Pradesh in India, where natural farming had been adopted, based on hospital records. 6). Adaptation strategies in crop production such as aerobic rice, flood tolerant rice, short duration rice, salt tolerant rice, pre-monsoon dry sowing, inter-cropping and crop rotation and third season crops were seen as some of solutions that need to supported to counter the impacts from climate change.236240244245Sustainable Finance Towards Sustainable Agriculture: The need for Sri Lanka to mobilize different funding avenues including blended finance, impact bonds, etc, were discussed. The need to access Green Climate Fund and other vertical funds through collaborative engagements with Government, banking sector and other actors coming together was reiterated.236240246248249250Regenerative Agriculture and Other Sustainable Agriculture Methods: Experiences over the past decades from Sri Lanka and beyond were discussed. The need to integrate technology and markets was highlighted. The onus on agriculture sector, finance sector and government to collaborate in exploring partnerships towards promoting such agricultural methods was underscored.237238239240241242245246248250Divergent views were observed where those advocating for some level of chemical inputs for agriculture noted that given the food demand of the future, the approach would need to be a balanced one, where integrated approaches need to be taken forward (such as integrated plant nutrient systems and integrated pest management) with chemical inputs (more advanced slow release versions - 2nd and 3rd generation fertlizer) being supplemented with soil organic matter. The need to promote Sri Lanka Good Agricultural Practices (SLGAP) was seen as a more pragmatic solution than attempting to go completely chemical free. The other school of thought was that it is possible to transform agriculture system to be completely chemical free and given the perilous state we are in with the planetary boundaries being crossed (especially due to the chemical based monoculture farming practices), priority should be towards food safety and restoring of ecosystems, since it is clear that the chemical systems are increasingly becoming unsustainable. The need to be bold and innovative in tackling this issue was highlighted. Some expressed the opinion that much of the small holder farmers in Sri Lanka were part time farmers, where they were also engaged in other livelihoods to supplement their income. They argued that techniques like zero budget natural farming that require more labour intensive practices, will carry externalities that need to be factored in. Everyone agreed that the use of technology could to a large degree avoid the need for chemical inputs. However, mainstreaming such technologies, where there is large digital divide and access to finance was seen to be a challenge that needed to be overcome. The need for more research on the balance between organic and inorganic food systems was highlighted.

2021-07-18 04:24:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23575/444663120144

4409213121133124

El diálogo se organizó siguiendo los principios de actuación. Para esto hemos hecho una invitación amplia de actores, desde aquellos ligados a gobierno nacionales y locales, ligados a la investigación y academia, distintas comunidades y actividades productivas, así como organizaciones y fundaciones, que permitan poner en conjunto a personas que actúan desde sus espacios laborales y desde sus espacios personales en relación a la juventud rural y los sistemas agroalimentarios. El diálogo consideró a personas de distintos territorios y países de Latinoamérica, poniendo en valor las diferencias culturales y contextuales que enfrentan los territorios, pero buscando poder conectar en los puntos y desafíos en común. Para esto los grupos de discusión fuero temáticos y no territoriales.

Yes

234239240241242246249251El diálogo trató sobre la participación de las personas jóvenes en los sistemas agroalimentarios. Esto porque Involucrando a las y los jóvenes rurales apostamos al mismo tiempo a aprovechar su potencial como agentes de cambio para contribuir a revitalizar sus territorios y a promover estrategias territoriales que los incluyan y mejoren sus oportunidades de bienestar. Los jóvenes abandonan crecientemente la actividad agrícola, enfrentándose a dificultades para encontrar empleo en otros sectores, y muchos toman la alternativa de migrar, como una forma de resolver la violencia local o la falta de empleos o de acceso a los recursos de producción. Entretanto, son cada vez más las mujeres que quedan a cargo de la agricultura de subsistencia y, por ende, caen en la pobreza rural (FAO, 2011; WB, 2016). No obstante, las oportunidades que surgen del proceso de transformación rural son especialmente evidentes para las y los jóvenes. Los jóvenes son la clave de la supervivencia de una agricultura que requiere cada vez más de innovaciones para lograr simultáneamente productividad, globalidad y sostenibilidad del medioambiente. Los jóvenes tienen más flexibilidad, son más conscientes del medioambiente, más inmersos en las nuevas tecnologías y las comunicaciones; se trasladan con más facilidad de la ciudad al mundo rural. En resumen, la nueva generación dispone de un gran potencial de aporte a una agricultura sólida, sostenible y productiva. Además, una mayor participación de las jóvenes mujeres del mundo rural, con sus habilidades en producción alimenticia y manejo de recursos naturales puede contribuir a mejorar la calidad de vida de la familia rural. El diálogo se basó en revisar cada vía de acción desde la participación de los y las jóvenes en ellas.235239240241242249251Los jóvenes pueden ser una bisagra entre eslabones de las cadenas agroalimentarias, entre generaciones y entre territorios rurales y urbanos. De esta forma, a la vez que integran "lo nuevo" (innovación, tecnología en producción y comercialización, uso de TICs, valor agregado) con el conocimiento tradicional de producción; y conectan los territorios de mejor manera debido a sus trayectorias personales y conectividad. En este sentido, tienen un rol fundamental en generar cambios culturales sobre el consumo, la conciencia sobre el impacto en la naturaleza y cambio climático, así como en la implementación de prácticas sustentables, agroecológicas y rentables. La pandemia junto a todos sus efectos adeversos trae algunas oportunidades: su efecto de migración de retorno en cuanto mayor cantidad de jóvenes con capacidades e ideas de innovación regresan a los territorios; y se ha puesto en boga la relevancia de la alimentación y soberanía alimentaria, así como su efecto adverso en el la naturaleza. Por otro lado, los efectos negativos y aumento de pobreza concentrado en las urbes hace más difícil que las necesidades de la juventud rural sean prioridad. Se hace necesario incidir en que los gobiernos, locales y nacionales, presenten atención a las expectativas (trabajo no agrícola, innovación y valor agregado) y necesidades (formación y capacitación pertinente, planes de inversión y apoyo al emprendimiento) de las personas jóvenes en los sistemas alimentarios.236239241251En cuanto a patrones de consumo sustentable y medios de vida equitativos, es necesario: - Se deben seguir promoviendo proyectos que permitan generar espacios para que los productos puedan ser vendidos directamente al consumidor. Estos también deben facilitar la movilidad de productos e insumos, y la accesibilidad de las personas desde el campo a la ciudad. Así como fomentar los métodos emprendedores de procesamiento y recolección de alimentos que se dan en los escenarios de sobreproducción. Esto permitirá aprovechar los alimentos a través de bancos de alimentos, y eventualmente fortalecer el proceso de planeación sobre la producción de acuerdo a las necesidades de la población. - Fortalecer y potenciar la producción de alimentos básicos en las urbes a través de huertas verticales para fortalecer la soberanía alimentaria. Así como fomentar la soberanía en los alimentos, eso nos permite mayor cuidado, hacer cercos epidemiológicos de manera más fácil. El mayor desafío es la falta de planificación en los sistemas productivos, alimentos desperdiciados o escasez. Además el contexto de pandemia se ha evidenciado el restringido acceso a tecnología y las dificultades de la implementación de medidas de bioseguridad respecto a las prácticas tradicionales de las comunidades campesinas. - Las y los jóvenes deben ser promotores comunitarios de nuevas formas de producción y consumo. Es necesario fomentar que se enfoquen en carreras profesionales o técnicas relacionadas con lo rural. Se reconoce las dificultades para generar transferencias tecnológicas y las capacitaciones deben responder a las necesidades de la juventud rural. Asimismo, debe responder a dificultades asociadas con transporte y accesibilidad con el objetivo de generar cadenas cortas de producción. Esto dificulta el futuro de la población rural en cuanto a la migración hacia las ciudades. - Generar condiciones de trabajo digno en las labores de producción de alimentos. Los y las jóvenes tienen el rol de desnaturalizando las dinámicas que fomentan la explotación laboral en el rubro. Esto se asocia a mejor formación para cuestionar las prácticas y generar mejores escenarios laborales y mayor participación en el sector. - Incidir y fomentar la articulación de entidades de todos los sectores y niveles: Promover procesos comunitarios que fomenten la articulación y por lo tanto la incidencia. Los espacios de formación deben abrirse para acompañar a más jóvenes para que tengan mayor incidencia y las mujeres deben estar presentes en todos los ejes frente ala producción. Fortalecer el proceso de articulación de iniciativas entre el Estado, ONGs, gremios, y otras organizaciones. Existen múltiples esfuerzos que no se retroalimentan entre sí, por lo que el proceso de fortalecimiento y articulación va a permitir mejorar la incidencia y hacerle frente a posibles emergencias sanitarias-alimentarias.236240249251Los impactos de la producción de alimentos no tienen que ser negativos necesariamente, y además puede aumentar o disminuir, como nos lo ha hecho ver la pandemia. Esto otorga un contexto en que la pérdida de ingresos ha sido mayor en los sectores urbanos, y al demanda desde lo urbano es contra los intereses de quienes producen en las áreas rurales. Aunque los movimientos de agroecología y desarrollo aumentan, así como la conciencia sobre el impacto que tienen la producción de alimentos en la naturaleza y cambio climático, esto no es prioridad para los Estados, quienes priorizan la agricultura de exportación, la minería y explotación de recursos. Hay una justificación a ñas formas de producción, contaminación, agroquímicas y condiciones laborales. Las personas jóvenes tienen un rol importante en la producción sustentable al ser bisagra entre las prácticas ancestrales de recuperación de recursos y añadir valor agregado o desempeño de profesionalización de las practicas agropecuarias o ganaderas. Sus expectativas y rol es más de asesoría que como agricultores: entre lo nuevo y la recuperación ancestral donde esta el rol de los jóvenes. Hay que considerar las expectativas de estudios y laborales de jóvenes. El rol de las juventudes debe estar en mantener las técnicas de conservación, trasladarlas y vincularlas a la innovación en la producción de alimentos. Entender como los jóvenes a partir de la búsqueda de sostenibilidad puedan recuperar el suelo y fortalecer los recursos naturales y recuperar los ecosistemas. Jóvenes como gestor de innovación por su nivel de educación, en lo rural más alfabetismo. Esto requiere inversión público y/o privada e incidencia en ella: hay una barrera-resistencia política a considerar la participación de jóvenes en general y jóvenes rurales en particular. Se hace necesaria la formación y fortalecimiento de liderazgo en los procesos de organización y asociación de productores. Para eso es necesario apropiase de las experiencias y de lo que queremos lograr. Hay que empoderar y vincular con las y los jóvenes. Las principales tensiones para su rol son: - La propiedad de tierra y de activos que le faciliten el acceso a financiamiento para desarrollar una actividad. En entornos rurales es más atomizado, por eso es más conveniente vender o comprar, las mujeres son las que menos acceso a tierras tienen, y por ende, tienen que emigrar más a buscar trabajo en las urbes. Cabe preguntarse ¿cómo los jóvenes llegan a tener acceso a activos, como capital semilla o cierta infraestructura? Para mejores condiciones en el futuro. - Se genera tensión en cuanto al Sistema de decisiones sobre un modelo de producción que los jóvenes anhelan seguir, cambiar los sistemas agrícolas pero que no generan rentabilidad, esto genera confrontación dentro de las familias y que no tienen autonomía para decidir. El choque de los jóvenes ante paradigmas o connotaciones culturales. - Existe la visión de que los activos o el acceso a la propiedad no nos pertenece y con ello se dificulta la toma de decisiones. El sistema de decisiones en modelos de producción en fincas familiares y comunidades, ante las nuevas formas de hacer las cosas, falta autonomía para decir como trabajar y como incorporarse a una producción más sostenible. Si no se proyectan para vivir, será difícil que se involucren en esos cambios.236242251Los jóvenes pueden ser una bisagra entre eslabones de las cadenas agroalimentarias, entre generaciones y entre territorios rurales y urbanos. Los jóvenes pueden desarrollar actividades complementarias a la producción agrícola de base, en particular, integrando cadenas de valor que beneficien a la AFC. Las personas jóvenes enfrentan tanto oportunidades como tensiones, las que se relacionan con el rol que se les atribuye en generar resiliencia de los sistemas agroaliemtnarios: Por un lado, gracias a ser una generación más conectada, el desarrollo del comercio online (cadenas cortas), la comunicación y educación telemática para el sistema agroalimentario sostenible. También es importante que jóvenes aprendan de economía circular, mirando cada cosa con doble funcionalidad. Las y los jóvenes que vuelven de la ciudad al campo en contexto de pandemia por COVID-19 pueden ser un efecto multiplicador con los demás jóvenes y personas de su comunidad, enseñando lo que han aprendido en sus vidas fuera del territorio en relación a tecnologías, redes y formas de comercializar y vincularse con las ciudades intermedias y metrópolis. Retomar los aprendizajes de la ciudad al campo y el campo a la ciudad y ponerlos al servicio del sistema agroalimentario. Las necesidades ante eso, son: - Mecanismos para asegurar acceso o tenencia a la tierra y el agua a nuevas generaciones de jóvenes productores. También a mujeres, que al igual que los jóvenes difícilmente acceden a un pedazo de tierra. - Es importante dar visibilidad a lo rural, reconocer y entender a la juventud rural en su identidad diversa del siglo 21. Como habrá más vulnerabilidad y pobreza urbana, aún más difícil que política pública tenga presente al sujeto juventud rural. - Es necesario que las autoridades escuchen a las y los jóvenes rurales para establecer medidas pertinentes, fortalecer sus capacidades, considerarlos en sus motivaciones y necesidades. - Gobiernos deben incidir tal que la motivación existente en los y las jóvenes pueda encontrarse con oportunidades de desarrollo tal que sean el aporte que quieren ser. Cambiar el enfoque con que se trabaja, que tiene sesgo desfavorable a realidades rurales donde se cultivan los alimentos.

2021-07-18 18:16:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26600/199

5592124541303105413139416363532

The Independent Dialogue on Understanding Food Systems in the Context of Vietnam was successfully organized by CGIAR on July 1, 2021. To follow current COVID-19 regulations, a hybrid event was adopted, combining both in-person and virtual participation. To allow efficient engagement, the committee carefully followed key steps in organizing the dialogue. Part of the preparations involved designing the main sections of the dialogue, i.e., plenary session with official introduction, dialogue session, and summary sessions. Next, the list of participants was made, ensuring inclusivity and diversity. In the event proper, messages from representatives of the government of Vietnam and CGIAR and partners were shared to open the event. Following the pattern of other food system dialogues in Vietnam, a technical presentation was made to provide participants the summary results from the Stage 1 National Dialogue about food systems framework, the Vietnamese food systems, and its main challenges. Parallel group discussions took place for an hour after the plenary session. The consolidated findings from the breakout groups were summarized by each group facilitator and shared to the plenary, and the panel discussion was able to provide reactions to key questions related to the work of CGIAR in Vietnam. Finally, through this format, the CGIAR Independent Dialogue organizing committee closely adhered to the summit principles.The CGIAR Independent Dialogue in Vietnam was attended by 90 participants from various sectors and actors across food systems. The principles of engagement were reflected in the dialogue follows: 1. Act with urgency: Various stakeholders acknowledged that the current food systems in Vietnam is unsustainable and at-risk to shock, stress, and vulnerabilities. Therefore, it was agreed that we must urgently act together to transform the food systems toward more sustainability, responsibility, and transparency. 2. Commit to the summit: CGIAR researchers and participants who attended the Dialogue contributed their knowledge and experience to characterize the state of Vietnam food system and provided creative and practical solutions to address the current problems. 3. Be respectful: During the breakout discussion, participants had the chance to openly share their thoughts and expertise while respecting each other’s opinion. The initiatives and solutions proposed build on the existing strategies and are applied to the local context. 4. Recognize complexity: Vietnam food systems are complex and involve in many sectors. In order to achieve systematic transformation, the organizers invited multiple stakeholders and designed the dialogue to accommodate five simultaneous breakout discussions where participants can identify solutions and the type of support needed from CGIAR centers to address food system problems. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The Dialogue brought diverse participants from six food systems-related sectors including governments, donor organizations, agriculture, agri-business community, associations, academia, and multilateral organization, among others. They work across the food system from production to consumption and provided rich inputs during dialogue, largely contributing to the system transformation.From our experience in organizing this dialogue, we found some lessons learned and best practices that can be applied to future dialogues: • Prepare and train the curator and facilitators before the dialogue • Send out the pre-reading materials to the participants to provide information about the event and the Action Tracks. • Strictly follow the agenda, especially during the breakout sessions to ensure that every participant can share his/her opinions. • Welcome both convergence and divergence of opinions from all participants. • Create a trustworthy, friendly, and open atmosphere for discussion.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The CGIAR Independent Dialogue focused on the five main Action Tracks of the UNFSS exploring the current challenges, opportunities, trade-offs, and synergies in Vietnam food systems. The Dialogue was a half day event with about 90 participants. The dialogue’s theme was Understanding Food Systems in the Context of Vietnam. Action Track 1: Access to safe and nutritious food for all Action Track 2: Sustainable consumption patterns Action Track 3: Sustainable food production Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods Action Track 5: Resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress The event opened with messages from CGIAR representatives, then a short introduction on CGIAR in Vietnam, followed by the summary of the Stage 1 National Dialogue. The participants were divided into five breakout groups according to their preferred Action Track. Each group was assigned an Action Track and was supported by a facilitator and a notetaker. First, the facilitator gave a brief presentation to provide group members a background of the topic and process for the discussion, afterwards participants were invited to share their opinions, guided by four questions: • What are the current issues of the interested Action Track? • Which solutions are needed to address those issues? • What type of support is needed from CGIAR? • Which stakeholders should CGIAR approach to foster the level of changes?235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The CGIAR Independent Dialogue was successfully organized with the participation of diverse stakeholders coming from six food related sectors. The Dialogue created a friendly and trustworthy platform for participants to share their ideas, experiences, and knowledge on specific problems and challenges of Vietnam food systems and to contribute bold ideas and creative solutions and identify types of support needed from CGIAR to address these problems and to catalyze system changes. The main findings from the dialogue section and panel discussion are described in two parts: The first part characterized problems, challenges, and gaps that need to be addressed in Vietnam food systems, such as inconsistent policies between national and provincial policies, inefficient and ineffective policy implementation, mislabeling of foods, difficulty to assess healthy and safe foods, unbalanced nutrition, unsustainable supply chain operation, low awareness of people on food safety (including misperception of food safety risks) and nutrition, climate change and environmental pollution due to abuse of chemicals and over-exploitation, and the invisible role of minorities and women in the society, among others. On the flip side, the participants identified opportunities, solutions, and types of support needed from CGIAR in order to transform Vietnam food systems to be more responsible, sustainable, and transparent. The solutions could be grouped into: (i) using innovations and technologies applied across the entire food system including labelling, traceability, food safety, use of risk based approaches, product quality, and e-commerce, (ii) providing insights in legal framework and policy implementation to support or control sustainable/un-safe production, (iii) funding distribution chains to be effective, and (iv) addressing environmental protection, and gender equality and social inclusion, particularly most vulnerable groups affected by shocks and stress.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all • Several food policies cannot catch up to food system development. • Lack in effective implementation of food policies and laws • Limited access and relatively low consumer trust to safe and nutritious foods • Food safety is a major issue due to hygiene deficits along the value chains resulting to considerable health risk for consumers (e.g., consumption of pork contaminated with microbial pathogens, abuse of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, veterinary products, food additives, and traditional farming habits). • High rate of children malnutrition and nutrition deficiency in the mountainous and remote areas Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns • Junk food transition happens due to inadequate post-harvest handling practices and infrastructure, availability, and prices. • Food labeling is not transparent. • There is no clear evidence to distinguish between healthy, safe foods, and junk foods. • There is lack of research and policies on food waste and food loss. Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production • Limited capacity of cooperatives to manage trade and develop agricultural products • Transition to landscape approach regarding land procession, land use planning, application of new varieties/technologies • Conflicts between the optimal temporal and spatial scales of synergies from products and diversification when applying the landscape approach due to dominance of small-scale and fragmented production (ecological and adaptation benefits are longer term) • Donors often give the funding for short-term projects (3 - 4 years) which is not feasible for perennial plantations nor to result to many of the ecosystem benefits (e.g., soil improvement, natural pollination, and even effects on natural disaster prevention). • Farmers, extension, and local seed/seedling suppliers are unfamiliar with choosing input products and matching production systems for diversification/ecosystem approaches. • Large-scale production planning is needed. • Some agricultural policy favor monoculture; resulting to gaps and less opportunities for diversification. • The provincial policy is not harmonized with the national policies, e.g., there are no offers/support/incentives to implement diversification policy at the local level. Action Track 4: Advanced equitable livelihoods • Many food value chains are not sustainable; the linkages between actors are loose, and the flow of information is not transparent. • The poor and ethnic minorities are dependent on agriculture and natural resources and vulnerable to climate change. They have limited access to resources (input, capital, land, market). • Ethnic minorities are still lagging behind on income, accessibility to education, services and nutrition. • Unfair competition among enterprises due to lack of information transparency. Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress • A common problem for agricultural products in Vietnam: high yields (good harvest season) cause price drops due to limited postharvest and processing technologies. • Harsh weather conditions, climate change, African swine fever outbreak, and COVID-19 pandemic make farmers unsecure and result in major market shocks. • Climate change causing more frequent and harsher storms, landslide, soil erosion, drought, saline water intrusion negatively impacts crops, and livestock and producers’ livelihood • Failure of cultivation on monocrops • Limited ability to adapt to climate change • Limited involvement of the private sectors236238239240241242243244245246248249250251A summary of the solutions which need support from CGIAR are identified for each Action Track are as follows: Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all • Issue a new policy on the right to access safe and nutritious foods to protect producers and consumers • Issue a legal document on food safety and human health based on four aspects: safety, nutrition, accessibility, and enough quantity • Research on profit and competitiveness comparison among producers exporting/importing agricultural products • Introduce specific programs on food waste and food systems for children and the elderly • Increase consumers' trust on food products Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns • Promote access to healthy diets, especially to marginalized rural consumers who have low-income—it could be done via policies and communication campaigns in schools and for children and making healthy food more appealing and attractive • Develop clear targets to understand the nature of consumers, thereby changing/raising their awareness by applying behavior change approaches • Promote production of fortified good quality foods • Conduct an in-depth study on drivers and perceptions on junk food consumption, to suggest policies on the issue Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production • Combine agriculture and tourism so that the producers can ask for better prices for their products and give them motivation to produce safe foods with high quality • Apply ecosystem approach on small scale productions • Promote the formation of cooperatives • Create policies to attract young people and to strengthen farmers' capacity in the cooperatives • Promote communication, marketing, food processing, and storage/preservation technology • Promote digital agriculture and economy, organic production, climate-smart production, and agroforestry models • Promote market-oriented planning and integrating biodiversity conservation for large production areas • Implement regulation and stabilization of input supplies for production • Describe different scenarios at landscape levels to integrate products and stakeholders in the value chains • Involve policy makers and authorities in production planning • Engage the private sector to maintain farmers’ production • Strengthen public-private partnership Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods • Move from a crop-based approach to system approach • Research on different types of systems (wetland, upland) and management to regulate access, ensuring that vulnerable and marginalized people get access to resources • Work with collective actions for smallholder farmers. • Research on the characterization of seed systems to understand the access of the poor and the ethnic minorities to farming inputs • Tailor low-cost interventions to the retail or value chain type, and use of risk-based approaches and risk communication Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress • Establish agroforestry landscapes with fruit trees and integrated with forest rehabilitation in Northwest Vietnam to reduce soil erosion, landslides, and extreme weather condition • Diversify the cropping system and other agro-ecological system research • Develop and apply advanced technologies and innovations to cope up with climate change and improve soil health • There should be better vertical policy integration for diversification to avoid gaps and contradictory national and subnational policies. Policies are opportunities to show long-term intentions towards more integrated landscape approaches and diverse land uses.237238240242243244245248249250Divergent views from participants are as follows: • Policy conflicts, demarcation of institutional responsibility and program are disconnected or overlapped • The legal framework is internationally recognized but the food policies issued need to be updated and efficiently and effectively • Vietnam’ legal frameworks are internationally updated, however, food policies should be updated and be implemented more effectively and efficiently. • The consumer perception on health risks on microbial versus chemical food safety risk are different and may not reflect actual risks • Practice of monoculture and specialized production over diversification • Practice of nature and biodiversity preservation versus natural resources utilization for agricultural production • Safe and nature-positive production compromises production yield and quantity • Balancing short-term production and economic goals of smallholder farmers and SMEs, and the long-term food system sustainability and food security

2021-07-19 07:15:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17111/203

770114124104334036200600421108442290620113731182105707113

The Independent Dialogue was built in order to guide the discussion on a respectful, holistic and pro-active approach. While put in place, the event was constantly reviewed in order to provide Facilitators, Curators and Participants with the maximum of comfort, assistance and voice.The Convenors made sure to select a wide range of assets and skills around the tables, balancing the age and gender repartition. All Participants, Facilitators and Convenors included, had a direct field expertise in the main topic, to secure the legitimacy of the debate and the quality of the recommended outcomes. All details of the events were shared beforehand in a transparent worry, including the specificities of the debate and the related questions of the sub-groups. The Curator remained available to questions the whole length of the event preparation, during the event and afterwards. Convenors provided training sessions (pre-event rehearsals) with the Facilitators and Curator in order to enhance coordination and fluidity of information flow. During the Independent Dialogue subgroup exchange, Facilitators made sure to present themselves, and asked everyone in their respective sub-groups to present themselves. Cameras on Zoom were up all the time, allowing a friendly and open discussion. During the debates, the Facilitators made sure every voice was heard from, asking for precisions and wrapping up main arguments to ease the continuity of the argumentation. Going further, Facilitators made sure to moderate the debates to ensure expertise was shared in a polite, honest and constructive way. In addition, Convenors took the liberty to have one Rapporteur per breakout for summarising the discussions. Finally, all sessions were recorded and made publically available.Trainings and test-runs in advance with Facilitators were greatly appreciated in order to guide them through their role. Transparency of the event building enabled all participants to seize the topic beforehand with enough perspective to be proactive on the event day. The diversity of views around the table ensured a balanced discussion while creating bonds and dialogues across the food supply chain. After the Independent Dialogue, a survey was shared to all in order to gather feedbacks and build on the key learnings for the organization team. Finally, the option of virtual shared white boards increase participation in the breakouts; and using the chat function to share in written form thoughts, helped increase the level of exchange.

Yes

234240243244245246248249250251This independent Dialogue was set to contribute to the discussions of the UNFSS Action track 3: Boost nature-positive production at scale. It was entitled: “Mainstreaming Regenerative Agriculture”, and covered all geographical regions of the world. Regenerative agriculture is an increasingly prominent topic of discussion as it provides opportunities and solutions for many of the economic, social, environmental and climatic challenges facing agriculture and our food system today. This Food Systems Summit Dialogue aimed at exploring the key questions on how to broaden the appeal of regenerative agriculture and accelerate the transition both in Europe and globally. Each of the six discussion groups focused on one particular aspect related to defining, scaling, and facilitating the implementation of regenerative agriculture. From the definition and alignment of key principles, to farmers engagement, policy and governance implication, and the need to monitor the benefits and centralise results in order to drive continous improvement. The 6 breakout discussion groups were: 1- How do we define and build alignment on the key principles and practices of regenerative agriculture? 2-How do we inspire and ignite the interest of all farmers and overcome barriers to participation? 3-How can the food value chain support the adoption and scaling of regenerative agriculture? 4-How can policy & governance accelerate change? 5-How can we define and monitor the benefits and centralise results to drive continuous improvement? 6-How can we build social awareness and understanding of regenerative agriculture and catalyze support?235Currrently, there is no precise definition for regenerative agriculture that is recognized and approved by the entire food chain, academic and public authorities. As a concept, regenerative agriculture focuses on how to ‘restore and enhance capacity of soil health and biodiversity’. Regenerative agricultural practices look at the positive impact on the natural assets, as well as the social and economic dimensions of agriculture. Understanding the baseline from which the farmer can start applying regenerative practices is crucial to measuring progress. Regenerative agriculture is a holistic approach to farming which takes into account the biophysical environment of the soil, but also the broader efficiency of land use. It is looking at a multiple range of public goods production, and involves practices looking at soil protecting and regenerating systems, biodiversity-friendly operations, integration of better water management systems, restoring soil life and more As knowledge about regenerative agriculture continues to grow, farmers and the value chain are learning that practices must be flexible to take into consideration the region-specific, and climate-specific context of the land. Only with a strong legislative framework, orchestrated efforts upstream and downstream of the food value chain will farmers be able to adapt and change practices. But if the legislators, buyers, and processors don’t recognize the need for change, it will fail just like past attempts to implement widely nature-friendly agricultural systems. There was a large consensus on the need for a common language among all stakeholders of the food system to agree on terminology, to avoid greenwashing. Further, farmers need to be put at the center of the food systems, by listening to their needs, supporting them with proper advisory systems that would come from independent bodies. The latter seems to be a key trigger to the transitioning towards sustainable practices at scale. Possible solutions could include organizing independent payable grassroots advice and developing new tools to help farmers to understand the impact of their practices on climate, environment, and health. By ensuring long-term relationships among the food chain actors, this builds trust and gives the farming community the long-term security they need to be able to be economically viable. Most importantly, regenerative agriculture needs to be easy to understand for farmers and lower levels of administrative burden by building the reporting and data collection systems into the existing ones rather than creating new reporting grids. This would help them to communicate their work and raise public awareness while transferring their knowledge; it would accelerate the consumers’ education, motivate them to make better choices provided the food distributors reflect the farmers’ efforts and processors equalize prices. The major current challenge is socio-economic: how to integrate those practices, while continuing the business and be profitable. Current processed food sourced from Regenerative farms are mostly premium products; the challenge for many processing companies is to make those products mainstream. To do so, costs of production need to be reflected and somehow shared among the value chain in order to secure farmers in this transition. Hence, local systems need to change holistically, if it is to be mainstreamed. Trying to set strict, rigid standards for larger scales can only fail, due to systems’ complexity and variety. Recommendations: Data collection and centralization: establishing National and Regional food Councils that can be a centralized body for advising all and creating protocols to guide food systems transitions including data measurement and certification. Also, building coalitions around specific outcome objectives such as resolving the many certification schemes in harmonizing requirements would support knowledge exchange and education of all stakeholders, and would allow stronger communication campaigns being picked up by the various bodies engaged in the process. -Step up the dissemination of expertise, both information, advice and best practices through the creation of Communities of Practice. Lots of knowledge has been built up and introduced to farmers, but processors, retailers and consumers have to be educated as well. Public authorities could create an investment fund for communication and awareness-raising. -Reinforce public and private collaboration: organize farmers in communities of practices, promoting the ambassador role of first movers. A other actors of the food value chain would also benefit from closer collaboration in public-private partnerships. It would help to close the gaps and misinterpretation of today’s farming systems. Subsidy schemes, farmers’ incentives (price premiums), sustainability outcome (carbon) markets and differential taxation systems could mitigate true transition costs and pricing; products produced by nature should be less taxed than processed ones. Further, regenerative agricultural practices could be used as the backbone of carbon farming standards delivering carbon certificates to buyers and processors, as an indicator to show applied practices’ impact. The evolution of farmers’ profession over the past forty years calls for a crucial adaptation of their training; redefining the focus of already-existing public-private training systems would enable farmers to progress on sustainable practices. Agronomic schools & universities should integrate regenerative practices in their educational programs.236240244250Breakout group 1 focused on the definition of Regenerative agriculture and its key principles. On the key principles and definitions there were two main directions of comments from the participants, a certain degree of confusion over the definition may be useful to avoid dogmatisms and exclusion. In this regard it was mentioned that a word cloud highlighting the various terms involved in regenerative agriculture can be more meaningful than a long definition. One is the need to set goals not only for soils (and especially not only for carbon sequestration which was seen as a too narrow focus in the current debates) but also for water, air and biodiversity. It was mentioned that the principles of regenerative agriculture could actually be defined to address these four elements; what has most been repeated is the importance on aligning the language. A key outcome to align stakeholders was finding an alignment on the goals for regenerative agriculture while taking into account the complexity of the different situations globally. It was also stressed that the focus should be placed on ‘what’ and ‘how’ is measured to achieve a set of goals rather than on agreeing on a narrow definition of principles based on a fixed set of practices. Thresholds could be set to determine whether a farm can be called regenerative or not, although constant improvement in the key principles should be demonstrated. Collaboration among all stakeholders, securing benefits for farmers and the social impacts should also not be forgotten. Another important aspect is that soil is not static but dynamic, and accounting for a continuous improvement of soil is important when setting targets. In addition to this, there was consensus on the importance of the context in which the farmer operates and that global differences need to be taken into account, which has not been the case in the past. Participants also stressed the importance of how public money is spent to ensure that food remains affordable. Public spending should not only support the farmer but contribute to the necessary transition. It cannot be left to the markets alone. There were two final issues to consider. One is that education and social dimensions should not be forgotten. Bringing science to the farm. And there should be a shared responsibility along the food chain. The second is that there may be areas that are not suitable for agriculture and which would need to be returned to nature, while others may have to be intensified.236240243244245251Breakout group 2 focused on how to inspire and ignite the interest of all farmers to overcome the barriers to participation. On how to inspire them, transform their interest into active participation, and overcome any barriers in this process, one major outcome was the need to focus on long-term vision, as well as a shift in mindset and behaviour from the entire food value chain to enable the transition towards regenerative agriculture. Due to the lack of awareness and lack of understanding on how regenerative farming practices are beneficial for the entire value chain, but also how the efforts made by farmers are integrated in the market, the number of barriers hindering the mainstreaming of regenerative agriculture are too numerous. Discussants have identified the following potential solutions to overcome barriers: Advisory and training programs for farmers, Peer networks, Subsidies (with a shift from action to a measurable outcome), Flexibility of farmers, Access to funding and incentives, Research and scientific clarity on definitions and measurement methods. In terms of overcoming barriers and, more broadly, steps to get farmers more involved, the team identified several valuable tools to help farmers become more aware and correctly assess risks and opportunities - Advisory and training programs for farmers - Peer networks - Subsidies (with a shift from action to a measurable outcome) - Flexibility of farmers - Access to funding and incentives - Research and scientific clarity on definitions and measurement methods.236240244246249250Breakout group 3 focused on how the food value chain can support the adoption and scaling of regenerative agriculture. One main outcome was the analysis that there was no structure of collaboration between farmers and the rest of the food value chain actors, and a major need to educate the stakeholders of the food chain on what Regenerative agriculture means, and why it needs to be valued and supported by them, and the larger public. Further, discussants came to the conclusion that it would be better to set a number of minimum standards what is not sustainable and exclude those products from the market. Supply chain traceability and transparency is needed to allow for independently-verified and enforced standards for the production and supply of sustainable food. Food suppliers and retailers should commit to providing and incentivising sustainable food options – it needs to be the easy choice for consumers, not a burden. A label should incorporate all the relevant aspects from a consumer points of view, health, climate, environment, social, agricultural. Food companies can offer longer term contracts and/or higher prices to farmers that agree to produce more sustainably (measured against their own operation/benchmark and verified by an external party), to derisk and financially incentive the transition to more sustainable practices. Finally, the stakeholders recognized the need to create a harmonized label system, in order to avoid confusing consumers. Harmonized approach in labels and certifications would support the transition. We discussed how and who should provide support to farmers with education and financially. We also discussed how consumers can increase demand by making choices. We should also consider if new marketing channels are needed for sustainable products to get visibility and shorter route from farmers to consumers. Creating market demand and translating the sustainability work to consumers. All stakeholders should crate consistency in measures and communication. We discussed the complexity in food systems and supply chains and the financial aspects and how to address them. Investments are needed and not having enough demand yet to develop further. Interesting aspect was also to discuss if regenerative agriculture is a good business case or just more cost for farmers.236240245246249Breakout 4 focused on how policy and governance can accelerate change. The main outcomes came out as the need to capitalize on and accelerate what already exists, and that eco-schemes are a first move towards change. Now the question is how to speed up the uptake. Therefore, we need also private initiative. They are impatiently waiting for clarification on the promised regulatory framework. Regarding reward for farmers, it is crucial to recognise the farmers’ efforts (farmers are not rewarded for the eco-services they deliver). Regarding incentives, they could be either public or private through a right market price for the product & services produced. We also need to take into consideration the disincentives (prohibit certain practices) cf. GAEC. Should we not set limits on e.g. emissions, water use, … in line with the planetary boundaries? Farmers shall receive independent advice to accompany their journey, asking here the question of: Who will be eligible and according to what criteria? Another strong statement in the acceleration of change is the involvement of consumers. It appears essential to rethink the policy toward an integrated food policy, that not only focusses on targets, but also offers methods and incentives, based on true cost accounting and where consumers must change their dietary attitudes. Finally, an issue reflects as addressing the funding gaps focusing on smallholder farmers in less developed countries especially female smallholder farmers (closing the gender gap) including land access guarantees. As key next steps, the following has been identified: 1. Empower farmers to be co-innovators 2. Create a public/private partnership developing financial incentives complementary to the CAP support 3. Organise independent payable grass roots advise and develop new tools to help farmers to understand the impact of their practices on climate, environment, health, … Enhancing effectiveness of nature positive agriculture by adapting or by replacing conventional agriculture? 4. Recognise and scale up the dozens of local initiatives 5. Stimulate innovation (products, processes, systems) 6. More participation of all stakeholders in the policy making process 7. Step up dissemination of expertise (knowledge & experience) A lot of knowledge has been built up and introduced to farmers, but also processors, retailers and consumers have to be educated A label can play a role, but consumers are not waiting for the next new label. A label should incorporate all the relevant aspects from a consumer points of view, health, climate, environment, social, agricultural, … Organise farmers in Community of Practice; promote the ambassador role of first movers. 8. Differential taxation can help (e.g.) Products produced by nature included agriculture should be less taxed than others236240243250Breakout group 5 focused on how we can define and monitor the benefits of Regenerative agriculture and centralise results to drive continuous improvement. It is critical to first establish a robust baseline so that farmers can get started on the journey. Without this anchoring point is can be difficult for farmers to know where to get started. The importance of taking a holistic system view is at the heart of the debate, which encompasses environmental, social and economic indicators, and potentially not disparate indicator, we need to think of it more broadly across the food system as well. A full range of indicators was discussed, regarding soil organic matter, above ground biomass, land and resource efficiency measures, nutrient density, nutrient management, nutrient surplus, measures related to circularity, measure dedicated to farmer livelihoods, collective agreements in the sector, water retention, soil fertility and consumption related metrics. This only shows the complexity of this area and shows that isn't yet a framework that aligns all parties. So, in the need for accelerating transition is it obviously area to find alignments on. The general consensus was that data and sharing data is absolutely critical to transition. We are able to share data, not only because it provides transparency trust to prevent the authenticity of the journey of the transition progress, but also because the sharing of the story and building positive momentum around regenerative agriculture would inspire further ones. How can we capture and profile more of these stories to build interest of farmers? Then, sharing data is crucial because it can furnish really good agronomic advice back to farmers, which is a critical point here. Indeed, data should be shared in two directions, this isn't just from farmers to some measurement reporting body, but farmers need to see that they are getting something back which is useful for them as well in terms of knowledge and advice. Further, data is going to be critical in unlocking new income streams for farmers around ecosystems outcomes that they can generate. More broadly, really understanding catchment area impact which can only do if you aggregate data from multiple sources. It is critical that we create clarity and alignment about what the metrics and outcomes should be. There are currently no alignment and farmers may be asked for different measures from different sources – urgently need to harmonise. We need to find a way and a robust system so that we ask for that data once, not multiple times from different parties with different quotes, we need to think clerkly about the efficiency of data collection and the systems that we will aggregate and then think about the multiple uses of that data from centralized system. Really critical to establish global standards for data collection – not just an EU standard Without data one cannot have strong themes and reporting and verification. Clear next steps indicated were: 1. Move to practice by proving and demonstrating at value chain levels for specific crops and regions with multiple actors involved, how regenerative systems can work. This leads to data sharing, as different actors need to open their box. 2. Pragmatic tools for farmers to be efficient, use the ones already exciting at a large scale. How can we make this area accessible and appealing to farmers? 3. Establishing European, National and Regional Food Councils that can be a centralized body for advising all and creating protocols to guide food systems transitions including data measurement and certification addressed to specific targeted challenges. 4. Build coalition around specific outcomes objectives such as resolving certification, outcomes or moving toward healthier diets. 5. Focus on farmers and the value proposition for them, how to make their lives easier and not more difficult. 6. Need to align on what the data can and should be used for236240248249251Breakout group 6 focused on how we build social awareness and understanding of regenerative agriculture and catalyze support. Paritcipants looked at which stakeholders have the potential to have the largest impact on raising awareness and public support. The main groups identified were: ● Farmers and Food producers - they have the chance to become independent and have autonomy for the value they put into food ● Next generations - young people are making these approaches mainstream, demanding more than sustainability (which, to them, is “table stakes”) - it’s all about regenerative and circular economy ● Companies - can use their marketing power and experience to share stories and inspire consumers (who may have a hard time getting their heads around the complexity that is inherent to this topic (“they still don’t understand organic and now here comes something new and different) ● Policymakers & Authorities - can help to validate and and add credibility - e.g. through labeling schemes. The important thing here is to allow for experimentation and change, and not to overregulate. How do we find this balance? There are no easy answers because regenerative agriculture is so diverse and specific to farms and crops and locations. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain complexity to the consumer. Marketing messages need to be clear and simple to understand. That said, people tend to understand complexity in their own local contexts and communities. They get it when they can see it (e.g. showing them and not telling them). With this in mind: how can we drive more localized “showing” approaches to build awareness and understanding? For farmers, the message is all about getting them more independence and more value for the hard work they do. Helping them see that they can be supported economically by taking the right approach. The perception that regenerative approaches are harder or more expensive is actually wrong - farmers want to do this, and will make money doing this - even under existing systems. But, they need to have confidence in this during the transition so that they don’t feel like they are taking on extra costs and risks. The fundamental issue here is that we are trying to build a new system from our current way of thinking. So first we need to change our thinking. A first step is to recognise that we need to think in terms of living systems principles. Principles rather than prescriptive processes. How are we creating the conditions conducive to life? There is then the idea of knitting together the social and technological aspects of regenerative agriculture; in western economies it is first a foremost thought of in terms of technologies and process applications. Whereas in the global south it is thought more about as delivering social justice too. On the point of “Global vs Local” - a question of what/how do we change the food system to more resiliently produce locally where possible, and what has to continue to be produced within a local system.237Given the diversity of the participants, the emergence of a number of areas of divergence was to be expected during this dialogue on regenerative agriculture. These mainly focused issues related to the benefits of regenerative agriculture, how to measure these, who captures or shares in the value, and how to ensure that the grower is both at centre of the movement and is fully supported during the transition process. All of these elements reveal how complex it is to make regenerative agriculture mainstream and scalable. Benefits One of the key areas of divergence lay in the definition and evaluation of the benefits. Some participants felt that the primary benefit of making regenerative agriculture mainstream and scalable lies in the acceleration of low environmental impact farming with a specific focus on the greater adoption of biological inputs and processes like precision farming. Others saw the primary benefit in regenerative agriculture as supporting a systemic transformation based on the principles of circular economy but also encompassing carbon farming or the recycling of raw materials. In addition, there was a view that the benefit actually lays in the creation of increased value for regenerative agriculture production techniques which could be shared across the food chain although, not surprisingly, there was a question about how much would filter back to the primary producer – the farmer. Finally, there was a question about whether regenerative agricultural practices should solely focus on improvements in soil health when monitoring progress, or whether it should be broadened to embrace biodiversity, livestock and sustainable water use. Measurement The divergence on benefit was subsequently reflected in the discussion about what and how to measure outcomes both to understand impact and drive continuous improvement. Most of the criteria mentioned in order to measure progress were oriented towards environmental measurement and even social impacts but it was impossible to ignore the economic dimension given the important role it plays in incentivising and sustaining behaviour change. It is clear that building a consensus on the key benefits to include in the scope of regenerative agriculture and an effective and holistic criteria for measuring progress will be essential if the goals of mainstreaming and scaling are to be achieved. Finally, there was limited or no agreement on whether measurement should be exclusively outcome based or also include action-based approaches. Transition and the role of the farmer The question of benefit and what and how to measure progress was clearly linked to the role of the farmer. There were, at times, passionate exchanges between participants who felt that growers were being asked to respond to the latest protocol from public and private sector actors who may not fully understand what works at the farm level. And, inevitably, this catalyzed a further discussion about the extent to which the farmer (bearing all of the transition risk over an extended period of time) would be rewarded for making and sustaining changes by public or private actors (who may only be interested in one or two aspects of the benefit matrix). This clearly showed up in relation to soil protection where some participants argued that an exclusive focus in one area could lead to a negative impact in others (e.g. yield). There was a very strong view, articulated by some participants, that mainstreaming and scaling regenerative agriculture needs to start with the farmer at the centre of this. Several participants argued that only lip-service is being paid to this and that the change or innovation model still serves the interests of the established agri-businesses. Although none of these areas of divergence are insurmountable, they do seem to touch on the fundamentals of how to mainstream and scale regenerative agriculture. There is a need to speed up radical rethinking of our food policy framework, towards an integrated food system policy that is able to rebalance forces. Redefining consumption from owning to using; redefining production from mass sales to providing efficient functionalities; redefining core economic incentives such as taxation and subsidies. It would also mean integrating well-being across all policies; measuring sustainability with a lifecycle perspective and looking at innovation in categories of economic ecosystems that provide societal functions, rather than in categories of production sectors.

2021-07-19 08:34:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35212/101123203152179

21417137193414318891672493565241

A coordination group was assembled by the CSIPN to solve technical, logistical and coordination issues. Participants were invited through an open invitation distributed through country and interregional mailing lists of indigenous peoples and local communities, posting information on social networks, direct letters to organizations of indigenous peoples, women and youth in the region, including NGOs working with indigenous communities or organizations. The invitation included a link for registration, along with information about the Consultation and the future UN Summit. The dialogue was documented and recorded, the recording is posted on the website https://indigenous-russia.com/The dialogue started at 12:00 a.m Moscow time in consideration of the time differences within the region vis the convinience of the participants and speakers. In accordance with big territorial and languages diversity of IPs , Russian was the medium of dialogue. Speakers were invited based on their expertise and work experiences in different aspects related to indigenous food systems and also teritorial diversity. In the group discussion, the following topics were considered: access to food, transition to sustainable food systems, increase of positive impact on environment, contribution to fair and equitable sources of livelihood and building resilience to climate shocks and stresses of current and future exposures. Other topics including current risks (climate change, pandemic, etc.), opportunities and solutions for indigenous food network were also included in the dialogue. Participants discussed new technologies in the context of indigenous knowledge and food security and exchanged experience and existing practices. Representatives of each region expressed their own diverse yet common challenges: threat and protection of food systems and access to indigenous land and resources. After the introduction of regional consultation’s objectives and presentations of key speakers, the dialogue was divided into two thematic sessions: major threats to indigenous food systems and access to indigenous lands, territories and natural resources. The discussions were documented, synthesized and presented in the plenary meeting with some time given for further discussions. Findings and proposals elaborated during the consultation sessions will form part of global recommendations and lay pathways to a collective strategic action for food governance, finance, information, culture, innovation, empowerment of women and youth

Yes

234241242243244245246247248249250251Major focus of the Discussion was a comprehensive exploration of food systems and possible levers of change. Indigenous food systems in many countries have been severely disrupted through dispossession of Indigenous Peoples from their homelands, introduction of industrial food production, processing and distribution, rapid unification of food environments and changing dietary patterns. In addition, today, indigenous peoples balanced relationship with their land-based food systems is obstructed by the ongoing exploitation of indigenous lands and infringement of their rights through industrial projects and states' mismanagement of land and resources. Some of the most large-scale resource development in the North, Siberia and Far East is taking place in Russia, prompting international concern for the fragile environment and the future of Russia’s indigenous peoples. At the same time sustainability, as a concept, politics or area of research receives little attention inside the country. The role of indigenous peoples in any initiatives related to sustainable development has not yet been sufficiently reflected on. Existing measures taken to achieve sustainable development are vague and do not include enforcing follow-up mechanisms. There is a lack of financial and economic resources to pursue sustainability related projects coupled with the reluctance of many political and business parties, which in turn plays into the hands of a powerful lobby of extractive industry in the country. Unrestricted access to indigenous lands, continuous downgrading of their protection regime and absence of legal instruments to defend indigenous territories from resource extraction become the new normal for country’s indigenous peoples. Agricultural communities in Central Asia and Mongolia are facing a reduced availability of water resources and their unequal distribution due to the impacts of climate change and an increase of natural disasters. Unfortunately, existing programs and measures at the national level do not cover climate change adaptation and mitigation spheres; assistance to small-scale producers and farmers is practically absent. Reforms introduced in agriculture negatively affect the volume of goods produced, their cost and sale. According to the representatives from Kyrgyzstan, whereas the large-scale production of meat all but disappeared, the cost of purchases from small-scale farms fell sharply due to the high transport and other expenses, which are calculated in the final value of the product. Therefore, at the moment, all Central Asian countries chose to import meat. The dairy industry face the same fate as those in the meat industry. Products are sold locally while large cities prefer to import dairy foods. This negatively affects the economic development and stability of local small-scale production; poverty is only increasing in remote settlements.235241242243244245246247248249250251Main findings of the Regional Indigenous Dialogue The subject of indigenous food systems isn't solely and exclusively limited to the matters of a native traditional diet, food system and food sovereignty which closely related to the cultural, social, environmental, political and legal aspects of indigenous discourse. Access to food is a human right; all barriers to that right must therefore be eliminated. Indigenous right to food examines critical questions of access to healthy, culturally appropriate food, as well as issues of ownership and control of land, traditional knowledge, governance, etc. Debate on food security and food sustainability led by indigenous peoples advocates not only for access to healthy food, but for an end to the structural injustices. Exploitation of indigenous lands and industrial projects ctivities are needlesly distructive and have an enormous impact on traditional fishing, hunting and harvesting areas relied on by indigenous communities. Russian government needs to significantly step up its sustainability efforts and begin to implement mechanisms to address existing inequities. Today's decisive action in economic, social and environmental dimensions of food policy will be critical in ensuring that the decade ahead delivers a sustainable food future. There is there is little time to lose, today we are witness to the pandemic of mistreated biodiversity. We must urgently reconcile humans with surrounding environments and restore our relationship with the nature. Russia’s move away from environmental agenda, continued policy of weakening indigenous legislation and needlessly destructive resource development are the most severe threat so far to country’s indigenous communities. Since the warming temperatures mean more natural resources to exploit, no other country stands to benefit from climate change more than Russia. And under the pretext of the economic feasibility of extractive projects, it substantially ignores already modest standards and requirements for environmental protection. Representatives of the Central Asia and Mongolia highlighted the need to address the risks of natural disasters and impact on agriculture and grazing, including the development of information infrastructure and a sound weather forecast system. It is also necessary to create and increase capacity of existing water storage for irrigation and food reserve of remote farms and develop effective programs to combat desertification and erosion of soils. They also recommended to introduce training programs for villages, interest-free credit systems, and state support initiatives for the local agricultural sector. It is also necessary to develop marketing infrastructure, organize wholesale local markets, compact slaughterhouses with a quality control system adapted specifically for local small-scale production. Recommendations Some of the core recommendations and next steps to a better food system proposed by representatives of breeders, reindeer herders, seed growers, fishermen, hunters, gatherers, farmers, indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation, local communities of Central Asia, men, women and youth include: To UN structures and states Any policies developed in the sphere of food security, biodiversity, climate change and other related areas should include legal measures and standards protecting the knowledge, cultures and traditions of indigenous peoples. These measures should be based on human rights and international law and elaborated collectively with the full and active participation of indigenous peoples at every stage of development process; should include productive institutions in the dialogue and ensure indigenous women's participation. Any initiative to create online databases on food systems, cultures, traditions and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities, or to use or apply indigenous knowledge to transform food policies, should be based on the principle of free, prior and informed consent and indigenous intellectual property rights. There is an urgent need to create a global fund managed by indigenous peoples themselves with adequate funding for the successful and effective protection and support of the food systems of indigenous peoples and local communities. This will enable indigenous peoples to make their own decisions, preserve and promote traditional knowledge and practices, implement appropriate activities and policies, related to the preservation and transfer of knowledge on food systems and reinforce food security and sovereignty. It is necessary to improve, enhance and reinforce institutional environment and capacities of state officials at the national level and representatives of bodies within the UN system to collaborate with indigenous traditional knowledge holders. In order to achieve a better understanding and increased awareness of indigenous traditions, including food-based knowledge systems, a diverse list of activities and events on traditional knowledge involving people who have dedicated themselves to working on indigenous issues, and those who are in any way related to indigenous food-based systems must be prepared. When and only when policymakers truly embrace and understand the concepts of traditional cultures and interaction is built on mutual respect and human rights, collectively developed and implemented policies truly recognize, protect, preserve indigenous knowledge, traditional cultures and practices.236242243244245246247248249250251During the Dialogue mext reccomendation was developed to the national goberment on Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress:  To prioritize sustainable food production, food safety, food value chains, and revitalization of neglected food system initiatives and implement policies to reduce food waste  To modify regional/local structures governing food systems in accordance with the indigenous peoples' vision and development priorities  To revitalize and encourage indigenous resilient food systems grounded in traditional knowledge of lands, waterways, seasonal food sources, ecologically sustainable diets, sophisticated agricultural practices and food preparation methods  To protect and boost indigenous local markets  To reform subsidy and regulatory regimes controlling food network and address the shortfall in sustainable food system funding by redeploying financial support for the revival of indigenous traditional food culture and conservation or other sustainability projects  To address the problem of isolation and remoteness of indigenous territories and lack of basic infrastructure  To ensure full access to free traditional food and economic activities for people residing in the marginalized and geographically remote areas, and families which are economically and socially excluded and vulnerable to food and nutrition security (older persons, children, persons with disabilities, etc.)  To support and promote distribution of traditional food of indigenous national cuisine in school and other educational facilities’ menus  To introduce indigenous knowledge on food and food literacy into school programs  To increase mass awareness and knowledge building on indigenous food systems including realization of training programs in the private sector  To introduce restrictions/moratoriums on commercial fishing and hunting in areas of indigenous residence  To protect local food systems from chemization and GMO  To ensure an access to innovations in food technologies and incorporate new technologies in sustainable development projects of local communities  To document and preserve data on traditional medicine and provide free access to the extraction of medicinal plants  To invest in the development of various types of protected areas, intact forests, projects on climate change adaptation and ecosystem recovery  To reconstruct reindeer herding institutions as facilities essential for health and traditional nutrition of indigenous peoples and aboriginal cattle breeding  To invest in the development of various types of protected areas, intact forests, projects on climate change adaptation and ecosystem recovery236241243244245246247248249250251During the Dialogue mext reccomendation was developed to national and regional governments on Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods:  To guarantee indigenous rights to lands, territories and natural resources  To guarantee the legal status of indigenous territories of residence and indigenous peoples' economic activities including fishing, hunting and harvesting rights  To guarantee the recognition and importance of indigenous rights to preserve traditional food culture and realize indigenous peoples right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and their right to define their own food systems  To recognize and support indigenous life systems, community governance, traditional knowledge systems, sacred sites, worldviews, spirituality, etc.  To confirm commitment to equitable health and food policies and increase political commitment and finance to address challenges in food-relates areas, exacerbated by the pandemic  To promote and strengthen the role and prestige of native traditional economies (reindeer herding, seed farming, fishing, gathering, hunting, etc.), employment systems and practices  To promote the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making, related to the food, welfare and future development of indigenous peoples and their territories and actively involve and incorporate indigenous perspectives in regional development strategies, planning, policy decisions and actions which affect them, including the development of health policies  To empower indigenous communities by strengthening their economic governance capacities and enhancing income opportunities  To create incentives (financial and nonfinancial) and encourage the develoment of indigenous community-based food practices  To ensure state and other (international) assistance (legal, financial, technical, etc.) in the development and promotion of traditional food systems of indigenous peoples and local communities  To improve availability, access and affordability of indigenous foods at local, regional, national markets and ensure sustainable, regular, continuous and unrestricted access to quantitative, qualitative and adequate nutrition in accordance with the cultural traditions of indigenous peoples and local communities  To ensure full access to free traditional food and economic activities for people residing in the marginalized and geographically remote areas, and families which are economically and socially excluded and vulnerable to food and nutrition security (older persons, children, persons with disabilities, etc.)  To build the resilience of women, small indigenous business, and vulnerable populations by supporting the growth of local community-based food system initiatives and food policies  To initiate conditions for a youth entrepreneurship and build opportunities for young people to engage in a greater data collection, sharing and exchange at various levels, innovations and practices of local food systems and traditional agriculture of indigenous peoples and local communities  To promote and legislate fair trade and encourage partnering with indigenous communities in the food system chain and prioritizing federal/regional/local programmes engaging indigenous business and family-based enterprises in agribusiness and food-based systems  To provide transparent and open quantitative data on the allocation of quotas between indigenous communities, individuals, industrial companies and small businesses located on the indigenous territories (indigenous territories under the federal law)  To protect indigenous territories from industrial pollution, genetically modified or synthetic biological organisms or elements  To increase policy actions in the area of traditional food marketing including certification of indigenous products  To enhance investment and prioritise research of indigenous traditional food systems research and development  To invest in restoration of degraded lands including boreal forests and other endangered ecosystems and lands, which are the basis of indigenous traditional knowledge, practices, medicine and nutrition systems

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Dialogue-Program-10-June-2021-.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Russia-Europe-Central-Asia-Dialogue-on-FSS-Report-24-06-21-ENG.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Invitation.pdfhttps://indigenous-russia.com/

2021-07-19 13:19:56205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22299/11

10201052391060420454191012580003100112323001711140230120018422

Principles of engagement under UN Food systems sub-national dialogues have been respected. The lowland & coastal region of the dialogue and the key economic sectors have been highlighted in the invitation letter/email. This dialogue consisted of the presentation of local food systems issues along with the 5 Action Tracks, by addressing the challenges in that region, by discussing interlinkages between the 5 Action Tracks, on policies and actions. It was also stressed that through the dialogue discussions people have an opportunity to get their voice heard at the national policy level and also in the international forums. All involved stakeholders were invited and encouraged to take an active role in the discussions. Participants were given the opportunity to listen to each other. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development led the sub-national dialogue supported by UNRCO and FAO Albania. The objective of the Dialogue was: -to understand local food systems; to exchange perspectives on local food systems – know challenges in food production and consumption in Albania, what is working well and what are the challenges toward sustainable food systems. A large number (102) of national and international participants representing governments, businesses, farmers, organizations, academia, civil society as well as university students representing the next generation of sustainability leaders, have been together to define the current status of our local food systems from the perspective of the healthy and sustainable consumption and discuss the challenges and areas where the next steps on the short and long term are needed. In addition, interested people participated in the live broadcast on YouTube; 44 people viewed the recorded video and live stream.Dialogue emphasized listening, honesty and open-mindedness. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank and open discussion with the inclusion of respective stakeholders (with a gender-sensitive and participatory approach). Due to the broad range of participants, all main aspects were reflected. Every participant was given an opportunity to express their opinion either directly or through discussion in the zoom chat/inbox. Every comment, opinion is reflected. The sub-national Dialogue consisted of 2 sessions. The first one was the introduction of the 2021 UN food systems Summit and objectives of the Sub-National Dialogue; the second one was focused on local (lowland and coastal area) food systems. The 4 thematic Discussion Topics (•1: food, nutrition, and health and • 2: sustainable consumption and production - SDG12 • 3: equitable livelihoods and value distribution •4: resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses) were formulated in the form of short, ambitious statements, to be realized up to 2030. During the second session, four facilitators presented these topics and led the discussions addressed through questions.All stakeholders and actors should participate in the sub-national dialogue; moderation and presentation of all action tracks should be presented in a clear language by presenting them from a local/regional perspective. In a complex, multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder discussion, it is critically important to emphasize to the participants that there is no right or wrong answer or opinion and that everyone’s voices and opinions count. This will ensure healthy discussion and richness of opinions and ideas. Be sure to give participants ample opportunities for questions and answers and make good use of the chat/inbox functions to provide opportunities for all participants to express their views-comments- questions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The title of the sub-national dialogue was “Sustainable Food & Tourism Value Chain and Local Natural Resources”. The Dialogue two /Sub-national Dialogue has been organized for low-land & coastal areas in Albania (Shkoder, Lezhe, Durres, Tirane, Elbasan, Lusnje, Fier, Berat, Vlore) based on key sectors such as Blue Economy (fish & aquaculture), Vegetables (Field & Greenhouse), Dairy & Meat, Olive & Olive Oil. The Dialogue was organized under the concept “an extensive exploration everywhere”. 102 guests participated in the dialogue. Five Action Tracks has been conducted by 4 facilitators. The presentations aimed at creating an open and trusted atmosphere among participants so that everyone has a voice. Action Track 1: Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. •Food security and nutrition challenges and the population groups most affected •The availability and accessibility of healthy and nutritious diets to all population groups. •Main dietary patterns in the country. Any specific concerns with dietary patterns and diet-related non-communicable diseases; •Policies and initiatives to ensure food systems lend themselves to providing nutritious diets for children and adolescents; •Policies or initiatives in place to promote healthy diets and better nutrition, such as integrated school meals, nutrition education, regulation of advertising and marketing of certain foods not conducive to healthy diets to improve the nutritional value of food, and food labelling; •Food safety policies and control systems in place to assess the main sources of foodborne diseases and food safety •Main challenges regarding animal diseases, plant pests and diseases, and preventive management and surveillance systems. Action Tracks 2 and 3. Sustainable consumption and production •Policies, initiatives and the raising of awareness among the public and private-sector stakeholders to prevent and reduce food loss and waste along the value chain. •Short value chains that respond to consumer demands, providing diverse foods at an affordable price; •Policies to prevent land degradation; management of crop yields and the use of pastureland; •Sustainable and efficient use of water in irrigation and food processing; water quality assurance; •Analysis to understand the overall environmental impacts of the main agrifood value chains; •Investment in sustainable agricultural techniques •Functioning food supply chains with adequate infrastructure for value addition, storage, processing and distribution; •Adoption of measures to strengthen the sustainability of food supply chains; •Reviewing support to agriculture, including subsidies, with a view to facilitating the green transition. Action track 4.Advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution •Access to finance and credit for operators in the food and agricultural sector. •Social protection measures such as input subsidies, innovative insurance solutions to manage extreme weather and climate variability risks on crop and livestock production. Action track 5. Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses •Measures in place to ensure that the country food systems are prepared to avoid, mitigate and/or adapt to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses •Emergency plans ready to be operationalized to address food safety, animal health and plant health threats and outbreaks; •Food assistance programmes in place, when needed, to contribute to food security and nutrition.235238239240241242243244245246247248251• It is necessary to build stability, trust and tradition of cooperation between local government, local partners, businesses, farmers, academia, education etc. for the good functioning of the food system, and vice versa; • Comprehensive approaches are necessary: “One Health” as a multisector, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment; • “Nexus thinking” by considering and understanding water, food, forestry and energy and their interrelationships; all aspects of sustainability (Economic, environmental, social and cultural); local-national-regional-global. • School, preschool and early childhood meal service and nutritional education are the key for healthier eating habits. • More fruits & vegetables and less meat for sustainable diets; • Need on the mechanization, innovation and digitalization of the food safety chain; • Climate change effects are risking the food system and the agriculture producers; • Not only farmers are a group risking their income, even consumers are in risk, banks and investors are risking their money and the society as a whole is losing from all that; • Tackling the problem of deforestation starts by educating kinds during their school years; • More data are need with regard to agricultural production and its related areas, to assess implemented policies and develop better ones. Without data the policy making process is like a “ship with no compass”. For example, the INSTAT agricultural surveys could add modules relating to SDG 2.4.1 which is about sustainable production; • A key point in addressing food safety would be to have better control on the way pesticides are used in the production process; • To improve food system sustainability, it is imperative to develop short value chains (SVC). In Albania, SVC are considerably underdeveloped throughout the country. Nevertheless, there is evidence suggesting that small producers in rural and semi-rural areas try to produce processed food such as fruit jams and juices, cheese and canned vegetables. In order to build SVC some issues need to be considered: a. Products in a short value chains should reach minimum standards as those going through a collector. b. For some products that undergo a processing process, and need the application of food safety standards. c. In order to guarantee the quality of agro-processing etc. small-scale equipment of good quality/standards should be installed.236238244245246248249251Action track 1. 1. Agro tourism and short value chain as a tool for SFS 2. Establishment of measures for good management of potable water, protection of water resources. 3. Special attention to the issue of mechanization, innovation, and digitalization in the food sector, especially in food safety because this is the biggest problem today that we can achieve fast results and on a large scale. 4. The group of farmers producers (about 83%) who produce for their own consumption and for their livestock should be given more attention. They do not have proper access and support 5. Improve the legal framework and information on labelling, drafting a national plan for food and nutrition as well as a national guide for healthy food consumption. 6. The need for better coordination between the main food chain. 7. Pay attention to traditional food products which keep the tradition alive and add value to agro-tourism in Albania. 8. Consumer awareness campaign on food products. 9. Investment for the supply of potable water as drinking water for animals. 10. Awareness and education of the young parents regarding the healthy diet.236239240243244245248249251Action Tack 2 and 3 1. Improving young parents’ awareness of healthy diet 2. Develop better-coordinated value chains 3. Build capacities of extension service agents 4. More data collection and analysis related to the agricultural sector 5. Create insurance markets for agricultural activities 6. Support the development of short value chains initiatives 7. Build farmers capacities on nature-friendly production practices 8. Importance of Food Loss and Waste and need to analyze where we have losses, at what levels and why we have losses 9. Need to analyze the pesticides and chemicals in the agriculture production 10. The need for an analysis of the environmental, economic and social impact of a sustainable food system236241244245248249251Action Track 4 1. Accelerating economic growth by enhancing financial education among farmers that can access loans to protect and develop their agriculture businesses 2. Reducing rural/urban inequalities through modernization of agro-food processing sectors in Albania through a deeper integration into regional agro-food value chains, especially in those sectors (fruit, olive, medicinal and aromatic plant viticulture) in which Albania has prospects for faster export growth. 3. Promote the value chain that includes food production directly related to tourism among others for the economic empowerment of rural women and youth. 4. Ensure the food monitoring system cover the short chains. 5. Promoting local product development – e.g. branding and identification with geographical regions 6. Improving management skills on small / family farms 7. Develop farmers registry and certification 8. Ensure farmers will fill the Global Gap 9. Insurance companies need to have a guarantee fund offered by the government in order to create opportunities for agriculture and livestock businesses to insure their small businesses 10. Strengthening the role of women for better adoption of climate change (Gender Clime Resilience)236242244245246249Action Track 5 1. The disaster response capacity at municipality levels is weak and therefore support from the central government level is required to enhance disaster response as well as Disaster Risk Reduction related capacities. 2. Developing support programmes for the affected areas via subsidy systems and/or undertake investments in rehabilitating the damaged public infrastructures, such as channels and dams. 3. It’s important the erosion control as well as the need to decrease desertification and more efficient utilization of water resources by using new technologies like drip irrigation etc. 4. Regarding animal diseases is the request for vaccinations for diseases by insurance companies but also by subsidy agencies such as ARDA. So the introduction of herd health management concepts in a universal way to benefit from both insurance and subsidies. 5. In the pandemic situation the importance of local products and production remains very high and should be considered in the ongoing national and global policies. 6. Local government has emergency plans that address food security 7. Protection of animals from infectious diseases, through the implementation of biosafety practices on farms, good animal feed treatment, implementation of food chain control for animals, implementation of requirements in milking, equipment, safe transport staff and certification of the veterinary product. 8. The sustainable management of forest and pasture resources with one objective restoration and rehabilitation of degraded forest and pasture ecosystems. 9. In a pandemic situation the food systems must be adapted and implemented in accordance with the new conditions dictated by the emergency situation where the priority is to review the rules of conduct of staff in relation to the requirements of personal and local hygiene, regarding the specifics of disease manifested pathogenicity, routes of transmission as well as their zoonotic character. 10. The importance of ecological and biological agriculture related to the use of pesticides, and the use of the good practice. Linkages with organic agriculture, tourism and consumer health.237238239242245249• Insurance for agriculture businesses Is the government obliged to offer any guarantee funds or covering the loos for every climate disaster is sufficient? • Insurance for ruminants Ruminant herds are normally owned by small farmers which are not ready to pay the insurance premium set by insurance companies which, from their end, increase this premium due to the high risk of the sector. The government (veterinary system) can not fully ensure the health and tracking of all herds in Albania. • Ethical issue for ensuring food for poor people In order to secure food for all, technologies can be subsidized by the government in order to help the food processing industry to produce not only animal food but affordable food for the poor as well. This will categorize people in social strata by not offering equal opportunity for future generations for physical or intellectual development.

2021-07-19 13:27:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14709/203

908813513436322291871382926101562229

The UNFSS Dialogue’s principles and guidelines were adhered to in planning and organizing the Independent Dialogue. The Dialogue was convened by Rural Outreach Africa, Welthungerhilfe, Route to Food Initiative, and the African Population and Health Research Center. A working group was formed with representatives from various organizations with rich expertise in various topics related to food systems. Each participating organization played an active role in designing, decision-making, planning, engagement, implementation, and executing the Dialogue. The participants were also selected carefully to represent all the stakeholders involved in the food system, especially smallholder producers.The dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by holding two sub-national dialogues to get the perspectives of the rural and urban poor, who were not in a position to participate in the national online dialogue. The results of these sub-national dialogues were presented at the national dialogue and are included in this report. In facilitated discussion groups, respect was observed as each person got the chance to give their views without interruption.All the principles recommended by Food System Summit 2021 are very essential for a human rights-based approach. All the conveners should follow this to get various perspectives from different sections of society. The Conveners should particularly focus on the representation of the rural community, and other vulnerable groups who are rarely included in discussions that affect their right to food.

Yes

234238239241244247249250Welthungerhilfe (WHH), Rural Outreach Africa (ROA), African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC), and Route to Food Initiative (RTFI) are organizations working towards realizing the human right to food in Kenya. WHH is working in Kenya with programs to support smallholder farmers drive the food and nutrition security agenda within their communities. APHRC, as a think tank, specializes in the generation of policy evidence for improving people's health and well-being. ROA serves rural communities in Kenya and intervenes in addressing aspects of food security, nutrition, and socio-economic development. Finally, RTFI works towards realizing the right to food in Kenya and supports public discourse on practical solutions to food systems bottlenecks. The Independent dialogue focused on securing accountability for the right to adequate food in Kenya and exploring pathways to sustainable, inclusive, resilient, and equitable food systems. The topic focused on Action Track 1 and Action Track 3. The dialogue provided an opportunity to reflect on how the Constitutional right to adequate food can be put into practice. It also evaluated whether our current approach to food and farming systems, policies, legal frameworks, and investments, both from public and private sectors, promote the right to adequate food. In the subsequent remarks made at the dialogue, speakers reiterated key issues and statistics on food systems, security, nutrition, and possible opportunities. In addition, this report presents thematic highlights as referenced by group discussions. Participants in this dialogue were drawn from smallscale producers, civil society, CBO, national and local government, research, academia, media, local and international NGOs, consumer groups, private companies, and human rights advocates. The plenary and group discussions were informative and lively. In this report, the discussion outcomes are based on five key discussion themes: 1) We need a way that ensures accountability for the Right to Adequate Food in Kenya. This is a role for multiple actors but are there existing policies addressing issues in food systems? Are they inclusive in their representation? 2) Smallholder and urban farmers are critical stakeholders in addressing food and nutrition security but their role might be overlooked. 3) There is a lot of power-play in food and farming systems - can these be identified and managed to drive more inclusivity? 4) We desire to have sustainable, inclusive, resilient, and equitable food systems; and 5) Food safety and adequacy are increasingly becoming important.235238239240241243244247249250251The role of different stakeholders in food and nutrition security should be complementary. Currently we have more consumers than producers of food. This situation increases pressure on the few producers to meet food needs. We need to build the food systems thinking that is holistic and grounded on science and practical experience. What has been done before and worked? Can farmers identify their roles in food systems and not entirely rely on the Government? The evidence of large commercial agriculture establishments narrowing the dietary diversity, access to agricultural inputs, technologies and services, and priority for markets need to be keenly looked at as they pressure humanity to move towards industrial farms. Farmers can produce using ecologically sound principles to mitigate against climate variability, but can they get support from all quarters? These farmers need to access relevant training on the realities of farming and embrace strategies with corrective potential. It is critical to know and understand who feeds us. A monitoring and accountability system that measures the uptake and impact of support by smallholder farmers needs to be established. The presence of collective action in food systems cannot be overemphasized. The training and bargaining which groups can leverage for community resilience is phenomenal and can be encouraged at the policy level, especially at formulation. Smallholders need a consistent update on new scientific and ecologically sound approaches to farming, into which they integrate indigenous knowledge. As a way of addressing the concerns of sustainability, equity, resilience, and inclusivity in food systems, several actions can be taken up; 1. Civil society organizations, Government, consumers, and farmers can resolve. 2. The farmer can receive moderated funding which allows them to grow and encourage equity. The farmers will have to push for policies through active and strategic advocacy that ensure their agenda reaches the highest office of the land. Food policies should be farmer-friendly to ensure the farmers are protected and empowered. 3. There is a need to build knowledge systems that teach sustainable farming approaches like agroecology for healthy food systems enhancing livelihoods of smallholders, food and nutrition security for all, and the health of the planet. 4. There is a need for strong producer movements, by farmers, for farmers! The need to hold open multi-stakeholder dialogues will be increasingly helpful. 5. Hold the Government accountable and make sure that they are accountable for the promises made to farmers. On the right to adequate food, participants agreed to continue in civic education on rights, collect evidence of violations, make them more visible to the public, bring these to court, and get orders that hold duty bearers responsible. Food should be universally accessible because it is a human right. Universal food access must be recognized as a policy like universal health coverage, universal access to education. The role and power of consumers to create change was also emphasized as consumers can practically vote with their forks, buying from, and supporting food and farming systems they want to see. Their resolve is also to continue engagement in ongoing civic education on food rights. Finally, they will generate and utilize gender-disaggregated data to promote a complete shift away from gender-neutral approaches. A couple of indicators will define the success of these actions. Four key ones are when we see: • Improvement in health and well-being status of citizens, including reduced child malnutrition, improved food, and nutrition security statistics. • Increased budget allocations to agriculture, with a focus on smallholder farming and projects that support food sovereignty and food access (not cash crops for export) • A fiscal policy in Kenya that does not punish the poor (through taxation on essential foods); and that will incentivize agroecological transition in agriculture • Food system policies and implementation frameworks that are responsive to the needs of farmers, and marginalized groups The success of the above actions will be visible in several ways. First, we will be able to see more affordable, safe, and adequate food for everyone. The production of safe, diverse foods will significantly rely on farmers embracing agroecology principles, taking up more bio instead of synthetic pest and disease management approaches, and improved food safety standards for Kenyans. With proper implementation of the policies related to agriculture, food, and nutrition security, there will be a positive shift in the country's food and nutrition security situation. County governments will also be taking up policies that ensure food is produced safely, diversified, and redistributed where practical. As a result, improved citizens' health and well-being, including reduced child malnutrition and improved food and nutrition security levels, and reduced food-borne illnesses will be seen. In summary, areas where participants will need to undertake these actions: a) Create consumer awareness on the impacts of excessive use and growing misuse of chemical inputs in production and work closely with regulators, alternatives and sustainable practices, the value of having a food rescue system to ensure that food does not go to waste when it can be redistributed or stored safely b) Pilot interventions promoting urban farming in informal settlements in Nairobi c) Promote a culture of small-scale urban farming across socio-economic divides.236238239240241244246247249251Discussion topic 1/5: Stakeholder roles in ensuring food, and nutrition security The dialogue discussed and highlighted the roles of different stakeholders (Government, private sector, civil society organizations (CSOs), and communities), in ensuring food and nutrition security and ensuring the right to adequate food for all. It observed that current policies will become increasingly important in addressing food systems issues if adequately implemented. This change will require smooth coordination of food systems issues at and across the county and national levels. Another key outcome of the discussion was funding levels and the engagement of smallholders in policy formulation. Several speakers noted that the context in which discussions on policy occur has been changing, albeit slowly. The involvement of the smallholder in policy formulation seems to be very lean and not allowing a robust engagement. However, the Constitution of Kenya remains very decisive on the need to have stakeholder engagements at the heart of any policy formulation at national and county levels. Discussants agreed that producers must be at the center of policymaking, sustainable environmental management, and the whole food chain, i.e., farm-to-fork. The participants did note that while in the community, there could be farmers that are less informed on good agronomic practices, the lack of knowledge amongst producers comes at a high cost not only to their livelihoods and success in their craft but also to consumers and the environment due to exposure to unsafe, unsustainable practices. As a regulator and enabler, the Government needs to take up its role more decisively and discharge its mandate. Some of the contextual aspects that came up include the need for farmer linkages in counties to reap the benefits of training and cross-learning. Farmer-to-farmer extension, including the regular extension from Government, CSOs, and NGOs, can help address knowledge gaps. Stakeholders need to go on the ground and facilitate shifts in behavior and thinking. Cooperatives will allow a unity of purpose in farming communities, leveraging on their multi-skill base and delivering benefits of group training. The farmers need to know how critical their role is in the food system. In seeking sustainable food systems, we need to change the current narrative. A bottom-up implementation is an excellent possibility if a blueprint in agriculture is co-developed and a holistic food systems approach is applied. Focusing on youth exposure to agriculture from the onset to school will fortify their interest in food systems. The process of ensuring accountability for the Right to Adequate Food in Kenya should be centered and driven by rights holders, including smallholder farmers who are increasingly becoming more susceptible to food insecurity. Some of the main action points from the discussion include: • All stakeholders need to incorporate the welfare of producers in food systems activities and interventions. • Work with farmers to establish the best evidence-based farming methods. • Support group collective action for strengthening farmer knowledge, and practices through farmer-farmer sharing on practical concepts such as growing organic food, crop rotation, and composting. • Support knowledge access for smallholders as the ultimate equaliser -- it increases equity, fairness, and transparency in the food production system.236238239241244246247249250251Discussion topic 2/5: Who feeds us? The role of smallholders and urban farmers in food and nutrition security It was noted that there was still an ongoing need to support smallholder farmers. This support is not because they do not have the potential in production but rather because they hold significantly higher potential. Now, they produce to feed up to 70% of the population, with only 25% of resources. However, these farmers still face several challenges, including: • Lack of extension and education services • Limited access to markets and marketing information (value chains) • Too many intermediaries involved in brokerage • Land sub-division, leaving too few pieces for farming • Variable weather patterns • The influx of imported goods • An aging population of farmers • A culture that negatively impacts women from producing food. What we need to see is: • Have more people able to meaningfully participate in public dialogue, especially women and persons living with disabilities. • A reduced influence of agrochemical companies on government policymaking. • A strengthened extension service that educates farmers on safe food production will be imperative. • The sub-national dialogues brought to bear the vulnerable state smallholders are in. In their assessment, discussants do agree that there's a need for a paradigm shift. The thinking that food insecurity is a net result of climate change is a "tired assertion." The systemic issues impeding progress towards inclusive food and nutrition security require scrutiny. A couple of suggestions were made about how individuals, corporates, and government entities can apply supportive actions: • Individuals can (need to) buy from small-scale farmers and can demand provision for retailers to stock from these farmers. • Corporates need to source from the local and small-scale farmers. They can also provide the needed resources in supporting the scaling of farmer activities. • The Government is a significant player in food systems and thus needed to promote the local level procurements. They can also avail the much-needed subsidies and incentives to farmers using sustainable and ethical production methods. If they consider creating spaces where farmers can learn about these practices, a significant shift in behavior will start developing. • The youth need an enabling environment for working in the entire value chain – the Government can prioritize this. Agriculture has to maintain a capacity to conserve, regenerate and reward. Improved market surveillance to reduce food waste will be needed. This process should be embedded in enhanced value addition and support to farmers through market cooperatives that increase access to global markets. We see large-scale farmers embracing organic farming and organic ways of producing large-scale agricultural products for human consumption. Finally, a short and localized food value chain is needed - from production to processing/value addition and marketing. Smallholders need to access information on market dynamics, pricing of products, and general empowerment by value-chain. These will help guide a consistent transformation that seeks household food and nutrition security, imparts farmer decision-making abilities, and leads them to food sovereignty. Urban farming continues to inspire hope. It is key to the production of and access to safe, nutritious, and healthy food. It has been on the increase in cities through the pot, backyard, and multi-story gardens. It also offers additional income to the smallholders who sell their surplus production. In the closing of this discussion, proposed action points included: • There is a need for all interventions to embrace shorter, localized food value chains - from production to processing/value addition and marketing. • Access to information on market dynamics, pricing of products, and the general empowerment of smallholders to effectively engage at the market level should be prioritised.236238239241247251Discussion topic 3/5: Power dynamics in food and farming systems This session highlights the perceived and actual roles of different aspects, i.e., gender, politics, finance, and multinational corporations in food and farming systems. The participation of women and youth in food systems following (dis)empowerment is queried. This participation is also examined based on "how we can incentivize women, youth, people differently-abled , and other vulnerable groups to aid their participation in food systems more meaningfully." Finally, it explores what the power dynamics are and paints a picture of what the status is. Several actions will influence power dynamics in food systems in the next three years: 1. We will see increased democratic space in the food system. This shift will create equal freedom for all people to participate. As it is, citizens have been reduced to listeners, without space and/or adequate attention given to the people's views. If the farmers are consistently positioned at the center, we will witness changes in these power dynamics. Strategies and interventions need to be grown from and informed by a ground-up approach, where farmers are the first point of information and guidance on what change is necessary and what is required to support them. 2. With a strengthened regulatory framework, much traction will be gained. Laws, policies, and regulations need to be genuinely farmer-centered and pro-poor. The regulatory framework in place needs to exhibit an expanded understanding of the food system – it is not just about production, productivity, and export. In parallel, there is a need for awareness among farmers on existing laws that support them and available redress channels. Fundamental changes in how we view social capital strategies will define the next three years. The social capital available at the local level, such as farmers' cooperatives, can serve as avenues for educating smallholder farmers on best practices for safe and sustainable food production. This voice and communication will rely on social capital, unified voices, and increased communication in society. We need to express what we want and need for a food systems change! 3. Embracing human-centered approaches will always be critical to determining power dynamics in food and farming systems. The food system and processes in food production should prioritize people's health, welfare, and well-being instead of merely focusing on profit-making. We will need a sustained civic education drive. This result will be achieved by ensuring continuity of civic education on the food system that targets people at the grassroots and leverages the devolved governance structure in Kenya. Participants did agree that people empowerment and effective communication should be at the center of civic education efforts. Community organizations and initiatives could be used to do this. Local farmers and consumers can also be urged to join these initiatives and learn 4. The need to have enhanced public participation in all sub-sectors of food systems will be inalienable. Therefore, we will have to derive common understandings on the definition of public participation, alongside formulation of verifiable criteria for public participation that ensures inclusion of people at the grass-root level (small scale farmers and consumers) and accountability. For successful engagement and favourable political economy framework, we need: • A change from the current top-down approach to a bottom-up approach is needed. • Sustained civic education on food policies, regulatory framework, and food systems interventions in general for more meaningful participation and involvement of everyone • Strengthening of the regulatory framework guiding various aspects of food systems236238239240241243244246247249251Discussion topic 4/5: Sustainable, resilient, inclusive, and equitable food systems Agroecology as a principle means working with nature to farm effectively. It allows the food system to achieve these four indicators. Education and awareness are needed on the components that drive resilience in farming systems. Household food consumption patterns have been changing, and so have been food markets. Embracing kitchen gardens to add to the household's daily food basket is a great strategy to improve food and nutrition security. The power of these gardens lies in undertaking them in minimal spaces, water needs, and attention. Thus, smallholder farmers can be taught that even if marginalized, they still contribute a considerable proportion of the food needs. This appreciation will help encourage both production and consumption of home-grown food. The participants noted that the danger of food commodification still lurks. This situation will continue to become more pressing, especially as discussions on food systems remain "much talk and little action." Better information flows will reinforce the momentum for better monitoring and evaluating these efforts at developing ideal food systems. There was agreement that when food becomes a market commodity, it is not produced in dignity and we think about the money aspect only. There is often the tendency to forget that we will also buy food grown that same way. The consequences of producing for money take away inclusivity and thinking about others and the environment. On sustainability, the focus is three-fold, i.e., environmental, economic, and social. For environmental causes, land, water and seed will need to be protected and conserved. Where farmers can depend on farming for their lives, economic questions will arise. They are spending much money and get close to zero harvests. Social sustainability will raise additional questions in food systems. These include whether farmers are getting new and up-to-date knowledge on appropriate farming practices and extension that empowers them. Finally, culture also has a place in the food systems. The improved breeds and varieties have sometimes gone against cultural norms, e.g., broiler or intensively farmed chicken has not been well received in farming and increasingly urban communities. It was noted that there remains no justice in the food system if chemicals and additives in farming are making the wrong people richer while disenfranchising the smallholder farmer. Consequently, there is hope in making our food systems equitable. We do not have to harm other organisms to feed consumers, to make money out of farming. Prudent management of natural resources provided to us by mother nature will benefit every player in the food system ensuring equity - if normalize safe food! Now, more than ever, the smallholder farmer needs to embrace value addition, access their pool of seed adapted to their agroecology, and be in cooperatives or associations that advocate for their needs. A great deterrent to equity in farming systems is capitalism. The subsidy regime fronted by the Government and other stakeholders are heavily inclined toward commercial farmers. Middlemen and other players like chemical sellers are the ones who benefit from the farming system. There need to be policies that ensure the farmers are protected and empowered. The farmer groups have been deliberately disenfranchised to take advantage of them. This observation is around the world. Consumers are very important stakeholders in the food system, and there is a need to empower them. They need to know their rights and how food produced conventionally impacts their health to demand better food production and policies that protect their health and their children's future. The main action points derived from this session include the need to: • Empower consumers to take up their role in determining the way local food systems are structured and managed • Onboard environmental conservation thinking in the design and management of our food systems236238239240241243244246247249250Discussion topic 5/5: Food safety and adequacy Participants expressed their views on what food is all about. i) food is self-care, ii) food is dignity, iii) food is about choice and having an excellent variety to choose from, iv) food should be safe, v) food is political, and vi) food is community. Participants also did define a set of actions they felt would have the most significant impact on food adequacy and safety in the next three years. There will be an increase in the uptake of biopesticides to grow food. This uptake will offer farmers an alternative to synthetic pesticides harmful to the environment and human health. Providing farmers with the correct information will be crucial in the next couple of years. Currently, the Government is seen pushing smallholder farmers to embrace inorganic fertilizers and other farm inputs. These have been shown to have direct impacts on their farms through degrading effects on their soils and yield declines. There will be a drive to have more shifts to work with nature in regenerating the soil, increasing food and nutrition security, and improving biodiversity and ecosystem services. The withdrawal of toxic pesticides will be a significant issue. At least 33% of active pesticide ingredients currently registered and sold as products in Kenya have been withdrawn from the European market. This withdrawal is due to its potentially severe impact on human and environmental health. Consumers continue to demand safe food. This act will be increasing as more information and awareness becomes available to the masses. Kenya exports organic food to markets in Europe. While this is viewed as a good income stream for both specialized and selected producers, it is time that consumers demanded the same quality of food that is exported. Consumers can also contribute to producing some of the food they consume at home through embracing urban farming/ kitchen gardening. We will see a heightened series of efforts that push on the Government to act. More accountability will be demanded from the Government by the people. Several practitioners will push the Government to ensure that there is enforcement for all the guidelines. These guidelines will directly influence access to production inputs, actual production activity, sales and marketing, and certification. For example, before the food gets to the supermarket shelves, it will need to be certified as safe. This certification will rely on systems in place to guarantee the application of safety principles. If we have Kenyan food policies that can guarantee food safety, many gains will be realized. Presently, there is little political goodwill when it comes to food safety; most policies and laws end up supporting multinational corporations. There was thus a call to observe that “security starts with us, and we need to know how food is grown. If we demand safe food, farmers will work towards that as they will respond to the needs/demands of the market”. With proper distribution and storage of food, we will see more food availability. There are seasons when food surpluses are recorded in the country for some regions, as others record dry spells and failed harvests. What if the Government ensures that during this high production season, storage is appropriately stored? What if the food can be (equally) redistributed through a food rescue system? We need to support local food systems. Let us have the media highlighting the fundamental issues related to the Right to Adequate food for all. They need to do more feature stories related to food safety to create awareness. Finally, it was agreed that with increased budget allocations to agriculture, and with a focus on smallholder farming, projects should support food sovereignty and food sustenance (not cash crops for export). The discussion agrees on a set of crucial and pivotal actions to be undertaken: • Deliberately work on better food storage and distribution systems at all levels • Shift towards more environmentally sound methods of farming that protect the soil and biodiversity • Consumers have to demand better food and be actively involved in championing good practices and sustainable food systems.237238239240244Overall, the participants share a view on need for adequate food for all. However, the areas of divergence in food safety and adequacy were given to express two themes. First, the pesticides industry is a multi-billion sector and will not sit back and watch as they lose market and business for their products. Therefore, we might need to look for ways of incorporating them to see if they can produce safe alternatives (biopesticides) to the harmful chemicals. Second, double standards where the Government sets higher standards on food safety for the export market than they do for local markets. There is a need to push consumers to demand the same measures. In power dynamics in the food system, some divergence was also noted. The "Business as usual" situation will continue to threaten sovereign food systems in Kenya and the country's industrial agriculture agenda. For example, national budget allocations for the past five years remain at less than 4% of the national budget. In addition, Africa is an untapped export market for pesticides, so there is an increase in pesticide exports to the continent. Then, Nation-wide public opinion on politically sensitive issues such as Genetically Modified Organisms and chemical pesticides and fertilizers to inform government budget allocations and political priorities (not the other way around). Some participants have heard of their friends or relatives who do not quite mind having food whether GMO or not as long as they can get to sell, and eat. These sessions did discuss why civil society actors still need to be part of the food systems dialogues. Issues related to food systems and their discussions are within democratic processes, public participation, and overall inclusivity. The collaborating organizations and dialogue participants hold to a firm belief of an all-encompassing process that brings farmer and consumer interests and perspectives on board -- especially in the wake of concerns on stakeholder values, corporate capture, accountability, and human rights.

2021-07-19 14:05:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28726/144

55553025505

Reconocemos que los sistemas alimentarios son complejos, están estrechamente conectados y tienen un impacto significativo en la salud humana y animal, la tierra, el agua, el clima, la biodiversidad, la economía y otros sistemas, y su transformación requiere un enfoque sistémico. Los diálogos son una oportunidad para aceptar la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios. Promueven un enfoque sistémico al involucrar a múltiples partes interesadas para identificar acciones en todo el sistema junto con posibles sinergias y compensaciones.

Yes

234238244246247251El presente taller regional se organizó con el objetivo de fortalecer la incidencia de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina frente a la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios del FIDA, y presentar las conclusiones y recomendaciones de esta región de Abya Yala, para asegurar el derecho a la alimentación y sistemas alimentarios indígena con mujeres, jóvenes, comunidades, organizaciones de productores individuales y asociaciones, Cooperativas y asociaciones de Pescadores. El taller se inició con una ceremonia tradicional de invocación por parte de la hermana quechua Sonia Astuhuamán (Pacarina Huanca) del Perú y el saludo protocolario y la presentación del evento por parte del Consejero Mayor del FIAY, Jesús Amadeo Martínez, y luego se pasó inmediatamente a escuchar las presentaciones de los temas previstos con los respectivos panelistas ya indicados. Una vez presentado las tres ponencias que se adjuntan con la presente memoria, quedaron como mensajes claves de cada uno de ellos los siguientes: -El mar es un sitio sagrado que albergan grandes cantidades de biodiversidad y gracias a nuestros conocimientos ancestrales hemos podido conservarlos. El cuidado de estos recursos representan un aporte al mundo para asegurar recursos básicos para la vida incluyendo la alimentación. – Arcadio Castillo Díaz -El mundo rural es brutalmente golpeado por el cambio climático, por los cambios que afectan a nuestros territorios. Necesitamos fomentar políticas de Estado que nos permitan combatir estos cambios y generar modelos sostenibles de alimentación que a la vez sean una fuente de ingresos para las comunidades. – Godoy Muñoz Ortega -Nuestra idea es no explotar a la tierra sino aprovechar los recursos cuidando nuestra relación ancestral con la tierra y fomentando el vínculo con nuestros sentires y valores. – Condor Kanqui Catari -Es necesario que los gobiernos aperturen el diálogo con las organizaciones que son portadores de saberes y conocimientos ancestrales para construir soluciones sostenibles para poner fin al hambre y a la mal nutrición. – Amadeo Martínez Las mesas de trabajo virtual se instalaron inmediatamente para adoptar las conclusiones y recomendaciones, con las siguientes preguntas motivadoras acordadas como metodología interna del taller, pero dejando abierto su tratamiento a cada uno de ellos en base a las experiencias que tienen en sus comunidades: Tema 1 - Casa de Acciones Interculturales Randy Randy Comunidad Punkuwayku, Provincia de Imbabura, República del Ecuador (Relator: Kanki Carlosama) Preguntas: ¿Cómo la comunidad San Clemente ejerce control y gobernanza territorial a través de sus propias autoridades? ¿Cómo el rescate de las semillas nativas a través del conocimiento tradicional ayuda en la soberanía alimentaria de la comunidad y de la sociedad en general, y ha sido una estrategia para palear los estragos del Covid-19? Tema 2 - Productor Alpaquero de la Sierra Central del Perú, Región Pasco (Relator: Godoy Muñoz Ortega) Preguntas: ¿Cómo las alpacas andinas con el aporte de los conocimientos tradicionales de la gente local, ayuda en la conservación de los páramos y la mitigación al cambio climático? ¿De qué manera se ha generado valor agregado a la conservación de la alpaca y cómo han incursionado en el mercado local para solventar las necesidades económicas de los alpaqueros y sus familias? Tema 3 - Coordinador de la Alianza de Pescadores Indígenas de Centroamérica (Relator: Arcadio Castillo) Preguntas: ¿Cómo la pesca artesanal con el conocimiento tradicional ayuda en la conservación de otras especies acuáticas en los territorios indígenas? ¿De qué manera esta alianza de pescadores apoya en la organización de las comunidades locales en el control territorial y el ejercicio del gobierno propio y cómo contribuye a la dieta alimenticia de las comunidades?235238244246Los tres grupos de trabajo virtual presentaron sus respectivas relatorías siguiendo las preguntas motivadoras propuestas, luego del cual se obtienen los siguientes resultados: • Compromiso de los pueblos indígenas para fortalecer su gobernanza territorial, seguridad legal de sus tierras y territorios, autoridad comunitaria para el autogobierno y la autonomía, así como para el control para la conservación y uso sostenible de los recursos naturales. • Definir una estrategia de seguridad de las semillas nativas y manejo del agua en los pueblos indígenas. El territorio y el agua son fundamentales para garantizar la soberanía alimentaria de las comunidades. • Crear escuelas de formación y capacitación de líderes comunitarios para fortalecer el liderazgo indígena y las organizaciones comunitarias para la defensa de los territorios indígenas y la soberanía alimentaria. • Las semillas nativas no deben ser vistas desde el interés del capital y lo económico, sino desde lo colectivo donde prime la familia y la comunidad, dando preferencia a la calidad de nuestros productos por su alto valor nutritivo. No al consumismo y evitar el uso de pesticidas químicos. • Definir una estrategia de rescate de las plantas medicinales y los saberes y conocimientos ancestrales, que hoy han sido y siguen siendo determinantes para palear los impactos del Covid-19. • Fortalecer los conocimientos y saberes ancestrales en el manejo de los ecosistemas para la mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático, que en el caso de la región de los Andes es crítico por el deshielo de los glaciales y la destrucción de las tunas, bofedales y páramos, fuente natural del líquido vital. • Desarrollar una campaña de consumo regulado de carne de animales nativos para combatir la pandemia, como la carne de alpaca en las comunidades por su alto valor nutritivo que es muy superior, por ejemplo, frente a la carne de pollo. • Generar una campaña de cultura y disciplina alimentaria balanceada en la familia, la comunidad, la escuela y la sociedad, no solo es comer fréjoles, papá o quinua, sino una alimentación balanceada. • Fomentar la inocuidad y disciplina alimentaria respetando los usos horarios para la alimentación, que en caso contrario altera el ritmo biológico del ser humano. • Mediante la concienciación pública fomentar el respeto a los derechos de la Madre de la Naturaleza para su relación armónica y el equilibro de los ciclos biológicos del suelo, subsuelo y del espacio territorial.236238239244245246249Pista de acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos ¿Qué recomendaciones específicas, orientadas a la acción, quisieran enviar al Secretariado de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios que puedan provocar cambios de políticas y de prácticas en esta cadena para garantizar el acceso a alimentos en cantidades suficientes, sanos y nutritivos para todos y todas? Pista de acción 2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles ¿Qué recomendaciones sugiere para asegurar el consumo de alimentos sanos, inocuos, nutritivos y libres de contaminación, además de recomendar acciones sostenibles para apoyar a la planificación integral de la producción comunitaria de alimentos Indígenas? ➢ Diseño de estrategias para el rescate de semillas y productos nativos a través del saber y conocimiento tradicional, con video clics que apoyen a las comunidades para la producción agroecológica tendiente a la provisión de alimentos sanos y saludables para la soberanía alimentaria y su inclusión en la cadena de mercado. Esta recomendación debe ser una de las líneas de acción clave del FIDA, para garantizar la soberanía alimentaria de los pueblos indígenas. ➢ Fomentar campañas de inocuidad y soberanía alimentaria con productos nutritivos y libres de contaminación, además de recomendar acciones estratégicas coordinadas y articuladas con las instancias oficiales de los Estados nacionales, con planes y programas de investigación y rescate de las semillas nativas. ➢ Que el FIDA establezca un mecanismo financiero que apoye a la generación de valor agregado a los productos agrícolas de las comunidades con el rescate y aporte de los saberes y conocimientos ancestrales, a través del apoyo técnico y financiero con Universidades y Centros de Investigación. ➢ Que el FIDA, recomiende a los Estados establecer un tratamiento especial arancelario para productos verdes certificados de las comunidades, para su importación y exportación al mercado nacional e internacional.236240241244248249Pista de acción 3: Impulsar la producción favorable con la naturaleza En el marco de los sistemas de producción agroalimentarios ¿Qué recomendaría para reducir la pérdida de biodiversidad, el uso del agua, la degradación del suelo y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, cuando se hace agricultura o ganadería? ¿Es importante la elaboración de políticas para la producción favorable con la naturaleza? Pista de acción 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos ¿Cuál es la mejor manera para que las prácticas, conocimientos y saberes de los Pueblos Indígenas, sean reconocidos y respetados a niveles locales, nacionales e internacionales en cuanto a los sistemas alimentarios propios? ➢ Se recomienda diseñar una estrategia coordinada entre productores de animales y productores agrícolas, para el mejoramiento genético con el apoyo de las universidades. El mejoramiento genético debe ser con técnicas ancestrales y apoyados por políticas públicas de los Estados nacionales. ➢ Apoyo del FIDA, para el poblamiento de los ecosistemas de alta montaña con camélidos andinos, como las alpacas, llamas y vicuñas, que son especies nativas adaptadas para la conservación del bosque nativo y la biodiversidad de las tunas, bofedales y páramos. El conocimiento ancestral de las comunidades indígenas está asociado con el manejo de estos animales nativos que no degradan la biodiversidad ni los ojos de agua, y más bien ayudan a su restauración ecológica y sedimentación del carbono forestal. ➢ Protección de bancos genéticos de animales y el germoplasma de semillas nativas, con procesos de selección y mejoramiento de sistemas de manejo de hatos. Apoyo del Estado y del FIDA con políticas con niveles de sanidad y manejo de animales. ➢ Los conocimientos y saberes ancestrales de los pueblos indígenas deben ser rescatados, conservados, fortalecidos y protegidos por su aporte estratégico a la agroecología y manejo de ecosistemas. Los Estados nacionales deben establecer políticas públicas de protección y fomento de estos conocimientos y desarrollar Protocolos Comunitarios para su gestión y su aplicación con el auspicio del FIDA.236242244246Pista de acción 5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones En el marco de la Pandemia u otros efectos negativos de desastres naturales y del Cambio Climático ¿Cómo visibilizar, recuperar, revitalizar y fortalecer los sistemas productivos Indígenas, conocimientos, tecnologías locales y ancestrales, con el fin de generar circuitos económicos solidarios? ¿Qué hay que hacer para que los productores Indígenas tengan un “seguro social” y “seguro agrícola”, que proteja las pérdidas de cultivos por lluvias, granizo, sequía y otros fenómenos naturales? ➢ Apoyo con planes y programas de rescate y fomento de los saberes y conocimientos ancestrales para la mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático, conservación de los bosques y apoyo con planes y programas para la reforestación con árboles nativos de ecosistemas degradados. ➢ Establecimiento de planes y programas para el intercambio y trueque de productos nativos con las comunidades, cuyas prácticas ancestrales han sido determinantes para la soberanía alimentaria frente a los impactos del Covid-19. ➢ Instalación de centros de información regionales para el intercambio y diálogo de saberes hacia la acción entre el conocimiento científico y los saberes ancestrales con el objetivo de conservar y fomentar la agrobiodiversidad, así como en el manejo de animales nativos y recursos ictiológicos. ➢ Que el FIDA inste a los Gobiernos nacionales el establecimiento del seguro social agropecuario para los pueblos indígenas coordinado por sus organizaciones para los productores, sea de nivel familiar o asociativos, que sufren consecuencias por el cambio climático.236238239240241242244246249Recomendaciones generales: ❖ Desde el FIDA, generar estrategias globales y regionales para el respeto de los derechos de la Madre Naturaleza e instar que los Gobiernos adopten medidas de política de relación armónica teniendo presente los saberes y conocimientos ancestrales de los pueblos indígenas. ❖ Se recomienda apoyar a los pueblos indígenas en su posición de No a la minería a cielo abierto en los páramos, bofedales, tunas y ojos de agua.

2021-07-19 14:55:40205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35455/95

500

NoWith attendance of Mr.NOGAMI Kotaro (Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), Mr.IKEDA Michitaka, Mr. KUMANO Seishi (Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) and Mr. WASHIO Eiichiro (State Minister for Foreign Affairs) and Ms.Agnes KALIBATA (UN Special Envoy), Japan National Food Systems Dialogue (Plenary Dialogue) took place on 18th June 2021 with participation of 500 various stakeholders related to food systems, including farmers, private companies, private organizations, consumers, researchers and high school students, etc.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251In this plenary dialogue, with participation of various stakeholders, efforts, opinions, ideas and commitments of them for sustainable food systems were shared. MAFF(Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) introduced the draft of the “Japan’s Vision for Sustainable Food Systems,” which had been developed, based on the results of more than 50 National Dialogues which were held between November 2020 and June 2021.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251As of 18th June, through a lot of National Dialogues, more than 60 stakeholders (organizations and companies) have expressed their supports for FSS and submitted their commitments for the transition to sustainable food systems. (See attached) In this plenary dialogue, 13 companies and organizations announced their commitments which include the components of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advancing sustainable procurements, reducing food loss and promoting food education etc. The students of 9 agricultural and fisheries high schools, who had studied FSS and related issues, gave presentations of their efforts and messages to promote sustainable food systems. 【Video messages from high school students】 https://www.maff.go.jp/j/kokusai/kokusei/kanren_sesaku/FAO/FSS_video.html Various efforts of local governments promoting initiatives for SDGs and sustainable food systems were also introduced. MAFF introduced the draft of the “Japan’s Vision for Sustainable Food Systems” which had been developed based on the results of more than 50 National Dialogues and the medium-long term strategy to achieve SDGs and sustainable food systems “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation(MeaDRI)”. MAFF would advocate Japan’s efforts, ideas and the pathway for sustainable food systems in Pre-summit and FSS according to the “Japan’s Vision for Sustainable Food Systems”. (See attached)236Panel discussion on the theme “what should we do for realizing sustainable food systems?” was conducted with the participation of experts. The participants discussed issues to be dealt with for enhancing sustainable food systems and stakeholders’ roles at each stage. The detail of the discussion is attached.

2021-07-19 15:06:08205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16113/44

41291013283123292213

Siempre se pensó en la inclusión de todas las instituciones, porque se sentía que era positivo convocar e incluir la participación tanto el mundo privado, académico y publico y organizaciones de sociedad civil, para que todas sus visiones pudiesen ser incluidas en el diálogo.El diálogo tuvo mucho de inclusivo y el poder ver como distintos actores podían relacionarse en torno de un tema especifico. Se trató de de no dejar a nadie afuera y la convocatoria fue bastante amplia porque se quería abarcar a más factores. Además, se actuó con un sentido de urgencia, considerando que en la región es posible apreciar algunas problemáticas asociadas al uso de las aguas que fue reflejado en las discusiones de los participantes.Se sugiere incluir los principios para primero elegir el tema, segundo ver la convocatoria, y tercero concretar la dinámica del trabajo, la cual debe permitir poder abarcar a los principios.

Yes

234239244246249El diálogo fue sobre la temática de “Adopción de Modalidades de Consumo Sostenible”, con la participación de los diversos actores regionales pertenecientes al mundo académico, sociedad civil, sector público y privado, con el objetivo de poder establecer un diagnóstico base en esta materia como también definir algunas acciones a realizar con una mirada regional para así abordar las brechas existentes.235239240244246249Los principales problemas que enfrenta la región de Tarapacá son los siguientes: • Falta de producción local de alimentos saludables: Los factores climáticos han sido gatillantes para la baja del cultivo y la crianza. La pandemia también ha afectado el consumo en algunas comunas como por ejemplo la comuna de Colchane, y se están generando estrategias de crianza de gallinas para la producción de huevos. Otro factor es la migración de la población más joven desde sectores agrícolas a sectores urbanos, lo que podría tener efectos en la agricultura de la zona. No hay muchos espacios para realizar huertos urbanos o comunitarios, y se tiende a priorizar la extracción minera más que la agropecuaria, generándose escasa producción local. • Problemas de acceso físico y económico a alimentos saludables: Tarapacá es una región extrema geográficamente y hay una alta movilidad regional para transporte de los productos agrícolas, lo cual encarece producción y venta, y el precio de frutas y verduras. Esto puede generar dificultades para que las familias puedan acceder a una alimentación sana y balanceada. Por otro lado, en el caso de los productores existe una dificultad de acceso al mercado de proveedores locales, sin intermediarios, por lo que disminuye la oferta de este tipo de alimentos. La falta de agua y salinidad del terreno en la región, por ejemplo de Colchane, ha afectado el cultivo de alimentos como la quinoa y la crianza de animales. • Falta de educación sobre hábitos alimentarios y consumo de productos saludables, por lo mismo existe un sobreconsumo de alimentos de baja calidad nutricional y se refleja en los altos índices de obesidad que presentan niños, niñas y adolescentes. Con respecto a las canastas de los programas de alimentación escolar en pandemia se destacó que al parecer no son de exclusivo consumo de los niños, niñas y adolescentes, sino que también de sus familias, por lo que no se asegura una adecuada alimentación a los menores. • Faltan políticas públicas en área de acuicultura y pesca: Respecto de la pesca artesanal el principal problema es la falta de algas que disminuye la cantidad de peces, esto sumado al cambio climático, y la falta de políticas públicas. Lo que hace que los pescadores artesanales traten de proyectar la pesca sustentable, pero se dificulta debido a la deficiencia de las políticas públicas. • No hay gestión adecuada de residuos orgánicos e inorgánicos: Los puntos verdes son escasos en la región, pues no se tiene infraestructura de tratamiento de reciclaje o tratamiento de desechos, como en Santiago.236243244246249Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: • Potenciar la producción y consumo local: se plantea que esto permitiría aumentar las ventas de productores locales y las oportunidades de comercialización de pequeñas empresas y agricultura familiar. Además se sugiere potenciar las ferias libres en las comunas, donde también puedan participar productores de comunas cercanas, y cultivar el desierto, a través de la organización de diversos actores. Se sugiere potenciar políticas públicas que permitan regular precios de alimentos saludables producidos en la región y programas para la agricultura. Seguir ejemplos como el Programa Europeo “Sistema colmena dice que si”, que conecta al productor con el consumidor, reduciendo intermediarios, disminuyendo los precios y fomentando mayor inversión. Se plantea la necesidad de que intervengan distintos ministerios y servicios del sector público sumando esfuerzos y recursos. • Educación en alimentación saludable y sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios: Se planteó la necesidad de hacer un levantamiento de información o diagnóstico de la región para poder implementar programas educativos con relación a la alimentación saludable y seguridad alimentaria. También educar a los niños, niñas y adolescentes en relación al medio ambiente, realizando refuerzo desde los adultos, quienes son los proveedores de los alimentos en los hogares. Actualmente se destaca en los jardines infantiles, programas de huertos donde incluso los niños y niñas consumen lo que cultivan, y realizan reciclaje y reutilización de alimentos. Se reafirma que educar desde la niñez nos permitirá generar hábitos a largo plazo y tener practicas sustentables de alimentación para las futuras generaciones. Realizar talleres en los colegios de alimentación saludable, de reciclaje, que sean talleres dinámicos con la toda la familia, y que perduren el tiempo, como una materia transversal y obligatoria. Para la población en general, hay que fortalecer la educación en el conocimiento de lo que uno consume y su descripción para lo que sirve cada producto, lo que se ha implementado a través de folletos en el terminal pesquero. • Crear políticas públicas ajustadas al territorio y con enfoque de sistema alimentario: Crear políticas diferenciando el centro urbano regional a la provincia del Tamarugal, diferenciando también a los productores, de compradores intermediarios y del consumidor final, y de sus capacidades. Apoyar a los agricultores a trasladar sus productos a zonas con mayor dispersión geográfica, ayudando así a los consumidores que no cuentan con electricidad y capacidad para mantener por largo tiempo los productos en sus casas.237239244246249Se indica en la región que debe haber una participación transversal involucrando a distintos actores del sistema alimentario, como son la propia comunidad, la academia, las autoridades, mundo público y privado, con el fin de generar estrategias en común para el consumo sostenibles. También, se cree que hay que reforzar las políticas públicas en torno al territorio y a la producción local, para potenciar el consumo interno y fortalecer la soberanía alimentaria de la región y la sostenibilidad.

2021-07-19 15:12:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2449/203

340112030014206234118174212728

We organized the group discussions based on existing good practice examples - one practice example for each group discussion. Before the Dialogue, we identified good examples and invite the organizations that are associated with it, asked them challenges they are facing and which other stakeholders they believe would be helpful for them to improve their practice, so that we ensure that these stakeholders are also invited to the conversation. In this way, the discussions are action oriented, real challenges are addressed and collaborations are built. We made a manual and sent it to all the participants before the Dialogue so that they are all informed with: 1) the background of UNFSS and the role of Dialogues; 2) the principles of engagement; 3) the topic of the Dialogue and the practice examples to be discussed - their goals, experience, lessons learnt and challenges; 4) how they can convene a Dialogue.Act with Urgency: We first identify existing good practice examples and then invite relevant stakeholders to the group discussions to ensure that the outcome are actionable and replicable. Commit to the Summit: Group chat (on WeChat) of all the participants is created so that we regularly follow up the Summit process with them. Recognize Complexity: We identified three school meals practice examples, with very different settings and challenges which reflect complexity. One in rural China addressing malnutrition, one in a public university addressing healthy eating and one Meatless Monday campaign in a private secondary school. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: In every group discussion, there is a diversity of stakeholders. Build Trust: While the plenary session and one of the group discussions of this Dialogue were livestreamed (with consent from the participants) which helped the Dialogue reach over 240 thousand audience, the other two group discussions were not livestreamed because the participants wished to have a safe space to speak more freely.Please see above.

Yes

234238239241244245248249250How to improve school meals to achieve one health (human-animal-planet)? 1) In rural areas: address malnutrition (and hidden hunger), improve food diversity, reduce over-dependence on pork and promote plant proteins, support local and smallholder producers 2) In cities: promote plant-forward healthy eating, promote animal welfare (eat less but better meat) Please see the attachment for more background information on the three practice examples and the specific challenges they face.2352382392432482491. Make joint efforts to nourish a campus culture for promoting food literacy In many schools and universities, we see students rush into the crowded canteens during the short lunch break to grab something to eat, many of them choose unhealthy foods high in calories that can quickly bring satisfaction. To address the challenge, leadership, educators, chefs, nutritionists, all staff and students, and even parents should strive to nourish a culture in which the interwoven pleasures of cooking and sharing healthy food become an integral and memorable part of the campus culture. Keystone Academy not only makes reference to environmental awareness twice in its Mission, but also actively explores what that means with a number of initiatives to engage students and enable behavior change. In 2019, it seems to be a sudden decision for the school to go completely vegetarian every Monday, but most of the teachers and students embraced the journey, as environmental consciousness has long been a part of the campus culture. 2. Shift the mindset of meal-offering from pursuing variety and quantity to improving the nutritional quality The standardized dish library of Zhejiang University's smart cafeteria has recorded information on 3,000 dishes, and the variety of dishes is amazing. Many schools are also pushing the envelope to meet the diverse tastes of their students. Discussion participants mentioned the idea of introducing standardized, measured nutritional combo meals that revolve around local, seasonal, plant-based ingredients, with each cafeteria's culinary team and nutritionist taking full advantage of their talents and creativity to lead the menu changes. The number of nutritional combo meals in each cafeteria should not be large but can present different dining styles so that the menu is not repetitive, this might be a path worth exploring. The popularity of healthy dishes should be used as a criterion for healthy competition among different cafeterias, with corresponding incentive mechanisms. 3. Promote Chefs’ Leadership It is always agreed that there are only two kinds of food in the world: delicious ones and the contrary. Participants all believed that chefs should play a critical role in promoting healthy and sustainable food. It requires scientific and systematic training for chefs. Moreover, participants also emphasized the importance of opening up career development channels, the opportunity of title evaluation, and a favorable policy for household registration for future chef leaders. 4. Raise Students’ awareness of the true cost of food Based on the existing nutrition and health perspective, expanding monitoring dimensions of the intelligent system to fully utilize its scientific, accurate and transparent information, can raise students’ awareness of the true cost of food and the benefits of healthy eating from all aspects. Thus, they can be nudged to better eating habits. 5. Utilizing behavioral interventions to effectively guide dietary habit change Behavioral science can also provide many ideas to guide healthy eating through food education and advocacy. For example, the widespread application of the "Nudge" principle can have a multiplier effect. In recent years, some experience has been gained from experiments and studies, for example, discussion participants mentioned • Direct substitution with products that mimic meat, such as plant-based meats. • Placing healthy dishes in easier-to-reach places when laying out dishes. For example, in a buffet, place plant-based dishes at the front of the pick-up line. • List plant-based dishes at the front of the menu. • When naming dishes, be sure to make healthy dishes appetizing. A common misconception is that nutritious meals are often named with an emphasis on benefits such as "healthy" and "low-cal" while undermining the appeal of the dish itself in terms of taste. • By the same token, avoid using labels like "vegetarian". Studies have shown that feel-good, planet-friendly, direct protein and sun-powered are all good choices to convey the same meaning. The role of role models should not be overlooked either. When the Good Food Fund visited Google's corporate headquarters during the 2019 Food Leadership Forum, they found that four of the five main courses in their employee cafeteria lunch buffet were made entirely from plant-based ingredients. According to Yale's annual report, 85 percent of the options in their student cafeteria are vegan. Inviting lectures from leading experts in the field also helps to convince students of the concept of healthy eating.236238241243246248The Sunshine School Meal Data Platform (hereinafter referred to as the “Data Platform”) was established by the China Development Research Foundation in May 2015. It has covered 13 provinces, 100 counties, more than 9,200 schools, and over 3.5 million students around the country. The data platform monitors and analyzes recipes, purchase prices of ingredients, the quantity of purchase, the quantity of consumption, and the number of people to eat, which increased the transparency of the use of dietary subsidy funds and the quality of local policy implementation, transformed the local government’s concept of governance, and improved the nutritional conditions of rural students obviously. According to the standards from China’s Dietary and Nutrition Guidebook for Rural Students, nutritional meals in most monitored counties have met students’ basic needs in general, meat intake has reached a sufficient amount but heavily relies on pork. Other nutrition problems include critically low intake of legumes and beans, too much salt and fat, calcium and vitamin-A deficiency, and so on. More diversified food sources are necessary to safeguard students’ nutrition when they still face the risk of hidden hunger when the quality of food they eat does not meet their nutrient requirements. Participants in the discussion suggested that the Data Platform should add local small-scale supplier databases for nearby township schools to choose from. Through accurate digital governance, it can open the access for small farmers and achieve the organic combination of standardization and flexibility of procurement mode. Of course, this depends on the preconditions such as information and communication technology as well as the concept of local governance.236238240242Participants in the discussion repeatedly stressed the importance of building a local food system that not only helps local economic development but also enhances resilience to the uncertainty of environmental change. In the local food system, the value of local ingredients can be maximized. For example, it was mentioned in the discussion that in the arid northern part of Shanxi province, every family has soybeans in their yard. Soybeans grow very easily and can be made into a variety of soy products, enriching recipes. It can also be made into soy milk as a substitute for milk. Even soybean yogurt can be fermented to become a sweet product for children. In addition, planting soybeans has the effect of fixing nitrogen and improving soil fertility. By making full use of local ingredients for innovation, we can better maintain the quality of nutrition and avoid problems such as excessive processing and packaging contamination of foreign foods.236238246To produce diverse and high-quality ingredients locally and to establish a more balanced supply and demand system requires a lot of effort and more costs. Without the participation of multiple parties in society, it is difficult to truly realize this vision. Under the coordination of local governments, it is crucial to establish a joint construction mechanism involving schools, parents, farmers, cooperatives, companies, and social organizations. From the perspective of ensuring the quality of school meals for their children, parents should be important supervisors and beneficiaries at the same time. The localized food system also helps to create employment locally, so that children are no longer left behind. The participants mentioned many practical models, such as the combination of school farming, localization teaching, and work-study, courtyard economy, family farms, To develop a model of ecological agriculture and mutual support among communities.236238248With the implementation of the Sunshine School Meal Program, the malnutrition rate of students has dropped significantly. However, the "double burden" has begun to appear meanwhile. the overweight and obesity rate of students has gradually increased. In terms of this increasingly difficult challenge, on the basis of the above discussion on building a localized food system, the participants in the discussion mainly contributed their experience from the perspective of how to systematically improve the nutritional level of chefs and carry out food education for students. For example, the development of online courses, while linking with local chef associations and cooking schools, combining online and offline to empower chef groups in a manner of from point to the area. "Food Rainbow Spell" uses gamification to establish the most direct connection between children's minds, food, and nature, and at the same time provides an intuitive and easy reference for chefs to purchase diverse ingredients which are rich in multiple nutrients.236238241242243248249The participants also had an outlook on how to mobilize the whole society to participate in it widely. For example, through the crowdsourcing model, professional organizations set up a framework and invite practitioners from all over the country to fill in the information to form an open-source toolkit of "School Meal Operation Guide", which will identify the problems that may be encountered in each link and the corresponding The solutions are collected so that locals and even students can understand.236238239248The participants generated more new ideas across groups after the panel discussions. The “Buy One Donate One” model of some social enterprises mentioned by the participants in the discussion of Sunshine School Meal reminded the host of another case, which connected the Sunshine School Meal and Monday's “Ecological Diet Day” on group discussion. In this case, if a consumer shares a vegetarian meal on a review website, the website will donate one dollar to poverty alleviation. If this method is applied in the two cases group discussion, it will establish a connection between the public's awareness of the problems of excessive consumption and food shortages in the food system, create encouragement for the public to transform into sustainable diets, and at the same time，it helps poverty alleviation nutritional improvement business to dig out commercial resources.237238240241242244246249250There was a conversation about what should be the focal point of the dialogue, one of the speakers wants to make sure we put more emphasis on Poverty Alleviation and Child Development, however, many other participants believe that supporting small-scale farmers and the local community should also be included in the discussion, and we need to look at the solutions from the perspective of food systems. For example, the procurement standards of the produce and food products in the Sunshine Meal program are quite high, which excludes almost all local small-scale farmers. The speaker said that Child Development is the priority in the program, so a higher standard is perfectly justified, and we wouldn't be able to fix all problems at once. In the meantime, most participants insisted that a systematic approach is crucial in any food system-related challenges and isolated solutions are definitely not the best. The other one is when a particular participant brought up Animal Welfare related topics in the school meal procurement process, most of the speakers at the dialogue weren't familiar with the ideas of the Animal Welfare Project, and there were no considerations being made on AWP in the current school meal programs. Many program coordinators at the dialogue agreed that this should be an area to further examine and discuss in the future.

2021-07-19 15:35:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15756/203

2770141381121301541230239321063942760034303445319101016383557996515

The five convenors paid careful attention to ensuring that the Summit principles of engagement were fully incorporated in the organization of this dialogue. The urgency to act for accelerating progress on the achievement of the SDGs in the Mediterranean by 2030 was strongly highlighted, as well as the need to recognise the complexity of food systems. Multi-stakeholder inclusivity was also embraced, with a gender-balanced participation of representatives from very diverse stakeholder groups from over 30 countries on all shores of the Mediterranean and beyond. The dialogue focused on the crosscutting levers emerged from the discussions held during the first dialogue (multi-stakeholder partnerships, finance and investments, awareness and capacity building), which pivoted on entry points that captured the multiple aspects and perspectives of the complexity of food systems. The facilitators the discussion panels were carefully briefed to ensure respect and trust among all participants, including members of the audience, who could provide their contributions through the chat function. This Dialogue acted as a catalyst of people, organizations, governments and existing networks that have the potential to join forces and bring concrete impact on the ground, leading food systems in the Mediterranean towards sustainability, ultimately advancing regional progress on the 2030 Agenda. All participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency”, recognizing the importance of accelerating the pace of change in their recommendations, and committing to act. They were all committed to contribute to the Food Systems Summit’s preparation and follow-up, recognizing it as an important milestone to catalyse further action on the transformation of food systems in the Mediterranean.The design of the Dialogue reflected the principles of complexity, respect, trust and inclusivity. The roundtable and panel discussions provided very rich inputs, with experiences being shared on concrete solutions for more sustainable food systems. The speakers and panellists were all given the opportunity to voice their opinions equally and inclusively. Participants came from 35 different countries across the Mediterranean and beyond, and belonged to more than 15 different stakeholders groups. The dialogue served its purpose of highlighting new and linking up already existing game-changing ideas and science- and knowledge-based solutions for the coming years, highly relevant in the context of the Summit’s vision and areas of action. Reflections highlighted the complexity of food systems and the urgent necessity of a common understanding that could lead to the development of a SFS conceptual framework specific to the Mediterranean context, also taking into consideration local specificities and cultural aspects. The Dialogue was also an opportunity for some stakeholders to link up and continue the discussions further in other contexts, such as the “SFS-MED Platform”, a multi-stakeholder initiative currently under co-development by CIHEAM, FAO and UfMS, as an affiliated project of the One Planet network’s Sustainable Food Systems Programme (OPN-SFSP).Bringing together stakeholders groups that are very different can be challenging, but is a crucial opportunity to capitalize on ideas emerging from possible areas of divergence, and to create synergies and partnerships with potentially high impact on areas of consensus.

NoThis second dialogue was conceived as a prosecution of the first one. While the discussions held on 27 April mostly focused on concrete actions and solutions for more sustainable food systems (i.e. “what” is needed), the second pivoted on four main crosscutting themes or “enablers” identified (i.e. “how” to implement the actions). These themes are: multi-stakeholder partnerships and inclusive governance; finance and investments; awareness and capacity building; innovation (which was addressed during the first dialogue). Given the high-level nature of these discussion topics and their strategic importance within a regional cooperation context, the five convenors decided to involve Member State Dialogues convenors from Mediterranean countries who had identified one by the end of May 2021. For this reason, this dialogue was structured differently than the first one. The opening remarks by FAO, CIHEAM and UfM were followed by a high-level address of the Minister of Agriculture of Jordan in his role as National Convenor. Then, OPN-SFSP and PRIMA representatives recapped on the outcomes of the first dialogue to better frame the following sessions. This served as a preamble to the high-level roundtable moderated by the Dialogue’s Curator, during which National Convenors from nine countries (Albania, Egypt, France, Israel, Italy, Malta, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey) had the opportunity to share their perspectives on the Summit process at country level, highlighting priorities and constraints, as well as potential opportunities for collaborative action at regional level. The roundtable was followed by three panel discussions respectively focusing on multi-stakeholder partnerships, finance, and capacity and awareness building. Each panel had a moderator and five speakers, pre-identified by the convenors as very relevant to the discussion topic, ensuring an adequate balance in gender, geographical and stakeholder type representation. Despite not being involved directly in the discussions, participants were granted the opportunity to interact and provide their perspectives through the Zoom chat box. Moreover, the event had live interpretation in English, French and Arabic to ensure all participants could follow. The conception of the two SFS-MED Dialogues is fully in line with the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit, providing stakeholders with the opportunity to take stock and capitalise on the main findings of the dialogues at national level and to identify priority actions for concrete collaborative solutions to common challenges hindering food systems in the Mediterranean.

234238239240241242243244245246247248251The 2nd SFS-MED Independent Food Systems Summit Dialogue had the aim to continue advancing a common understanding of the complex environment of Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) for coping with the growing and interdependent challenges facing the Mediterranean, through a context-specific SFS approach for the region. In the Mediterranean region, population growth, demographic changes, urbanization and globalization are changing consumption and production patterns, in a context of climate change and decline of ecosystems. Today, more than ever, the region is facing unprecedented and interconnected environmental, economic and social challenges that affect food security, health, nutrition, sustainability, and, thus, the livelihoods of all people across the Mediterranean. Building on the findings of the 1st SFS-MED Dialogue held on 27 April, the focus of this Dialogue was to identify what is needed to enable the actions and the entry points identified in the first one, to foster common pathways supporting the transformation towards sustainability of food systems in the Mediterranean, and ultimately advancing progress on the 2030 Agenda in the region. The objectives of the 2nd SFS-MED Dialogue were: • Catalysing joint action to improve the sustainability, understanding and resilience of Mediterranean food systems by bridging Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP), using the Mediterranean diet as a lever of change, among others. • Engaging a wide network of SFS stakeholders within the broader framework of green, blue and circular economy, with the SFS-MED Platform playing a key role in strengthening regional cooperation at the service of Mediterranean youth and women, to accelerate the regional implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Food system transformation in the Mediterranean region is a very complex and dynamic process, that requires to consider sustainable food systems as a whole, rather than in separate pieces, going beyond disciplinary approaches and silos. Moreover, policy-makers are constrained to take into consideration a web of interconnected and interdependent components, within a decision-making environment concerning food systems is very fragmented, with a wide range of voices from different interest groups and agendas, with diverse institutional and agro-ecological constraints in countries and territories on all shores of the Mediterranean. One of the key objectives of this dialogue was to explore how the Food Systems Summit Dialogues process has been initiated in Mediterranean countries. To this effect, the Member State Dialogues Convenors of Albania, Egypt, France, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Malta, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey engaged in a roundtable entitled “Moving towards more sustainable food systems in the Mediterranean region” to identify the constraints faced in their countries in pushing this process forward, and to highlight new opportunities for greater regional cooperation across the Mediterranean, emerging from the discussions at national level. Before the roundtable, the Minister of Agriculture of Jordan, National Convenor for his country, delivered a keynote speech highlighting the main challenges Jordan is facing in relation to food systems transformation. The dialogue was then articulated in three discussions panels, each addressing a potential lever of change: • Partnerships for sustainable food systems: the role of multi-stakeholder collaboration and inclusive governance. • Financing for sustainable food systems: leveraging public and private investments. • Building awareness and capacities for food systems transformation. The Dialogue’s focus on strengthening trans-disciplinary regional cooperation also helped setting the stage for the inception of the “SFS-MED Platform”, a multi-stakeholder initiative currently under co-development by CIHEAM, FAO and UfMS, as an affiliated project of the OPN-SFSP, conceived as a game-changing solution for tackling the interdependent environmental, economic, socio-cultural, educational and health/nutrition-related challenges Mediterranean countries are facing, ultimately accelerating progress on the 2030 Agenda in the region.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The need of a change of route in Mediterranean food systems was recognized by all participating stakeholders, including representatives of national governments. Such crucial change requires a consolidated multi-stakeholder cooperation at 360° at regional level to be implemented efficiently and effectively. The centrality of food systems transformation (FST) to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda and all 17 SDGs was reaffirmed. The Mediterranean region and its food systems are not exempted from the several challenges facing global food systems. Effects of climate change are negatively impacting all countries in the region at several levels. Desertification, land degradation, water scarcity trigger rural-urban migration and population growth, leading to an increase in food demand, affecting consumption and production patterns that, in turn, contribute to the over-exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity loss. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the already precarious situation. The FSS process was seen as a timely opportunity to consolidate such efforts. Most countries are already reflecting on their own food systems and potential pathways for transformation through national FSS Dialogues, while looking at regional cooperation as a source of new ideas and a catalyst of transformative actions. All stakeholders concurred that a regional approach, such as the one taken with these SFS-MED Dialogues, was of essence and highly useful to support pathways for SFS in the region. The discussions confirmed the outcomes of the first SFS-MED Dialogue, i.e. that actions conducive to FST in the Mediterranean pivot around the following entry points: blue, green and circular economy; sustainable management of land and water resources; the Mediterranean diet as a potential model of sustainability; the centrality of cities and rural-urban food systems; equitable livelihoods. In the second Dialogue, 4 key levers of change emerged as potential enablers for FST in the region: multi-stakeholder partnerships; sustainable finance and investments; science, data and innovation; education, capacity building and awareness raising. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are key to provide an arena for dialogue, based on equal footing among stakeholders, co-ownership, co-management and co-funding, to avoid power imbalances and top-down dynamics. Such processes, backed by the existing mechanisms (UNFSS, EU-F2F, etc) and building on science-based recommendations (CFS, HLPE, etc) and local knowledge, could help identify common priorities, set strategic integrated goals, pushing FST forward at national and regional level. Equitable and inclusive partnerships have the potential of fostering inclusive governance and effective policy-making, which is key to generate transformative change, coupled with sustainable finance and capacity building. Underfunding emerged as a common key issue during the discussions. An inclusive multi-stakeholder approach to strengthen the linkages between private and public finance is needed, supporting small-holders by making investments in SFS more attractive (de-risking), including through innovation and digitalization, following the patterns of a green, blue and circular economy. Development banks play an important role in this interface. Economic, social and environmental standards and labelling/certification schemes could be functional to putting consumers’ demand at the centre. Stakeholders recalled that only political will can foster sustainable finance and investments, key to FST. FST starts locally, involving all stakeholders, who must be enabled to take part in this process. Effective capacity building is needed, linking researchers and innovators to the beneficiaries (farmers/fishers/foresters, investors, etc), fostering the development of skills and inclusive entrepreneurship, especially for women and youth. This needs a strong policy pull from governments and an enabling environment where all parties cooperate equally under a shared vision embracing everyone’s requirements (e.g. policy labs). Capacity building is key to overcome the risk of smallholders seeing sustainability only as a bureaucratic burden. All stakeholders agreed in recognising the importance and the necessity of a strong regional cooperation, through a shared approach to SFS. To this effect, the SFS-MED Platform was welcomed as an ideal tool to bring together stakeholders from all shores of the Mediterranean, fostering dialogue at several levels to leverage the potential of local knowledge and data sharing, exchanges of best practices, to catalyse knowledge and collective action for more SFS. The Platform shall build on the existing frameworks present in the Mediterranean region, complementing and integrating them through a shared, context-specific SFS approach in which stakeholders can rely on mutual support. The two Dialogues provided a clear way forward to continue supporting the efforts that countries and stakeholders are engaging across the whole region to move towards more sustainable food systems. The follow-up process on the FSS outcomes beyond Sep 2021 and their concrete application at local, national and regional level will allow continuing on that “change of route”, as it emerged from the discussions in the two regional Dialogues. The SFS-MED Platform was called to play its role supporting such FST pathways, by catalysing different initiatives/mechanisms and identifying concrete collaborative solutions to common challenges hindering food systems in the region.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251In the roundtable session, Member State Dialogue Convenors from 9 Mediterranean countries had the unique opportunity to share their perspectives and approaches to food systems transformation, explaining how the National Dialogues have facilitated setting their priority goals and actions to build sustainable food systems based on an inclusive understanding of current challenges and potential solutions. The dialogues proved to be a valuable opportunity to strengthen understanding and collaboration among national and Mediterranean actors on data, science, innovation, sharing of best practices and experiences. Opening the dialogues to different stakeholders (institutional & private actors, NGOs, academia & research institutions, local authorities, financial operators, etc) at national & subnational levels was highlighted as a success factor in moving forward. The National Convenors explained how the Dialogues process helped identify many of the common challenges their countries face on many levels (environmental, social, economic, health-related), such as water and resources scarcity, climate change effects (e.g. desertification), increasing urbanization, high dependency on food imports, insufficient funding, prevalence of unhealthy and unsustainable dietary patterns, lack of capacity and limited training, weak legal frameworks and poor institutional coordination, etc. Some of the actions these countries are taking (or planning) to address these challenges were also shared. Proposed actions included the sustainable management of land & water; sustainable use of natural resources and of farm inputs (e.g. agroecology); promoting healthy dietary choices and sustainable consumption; strengthening urban-rural linkages; promoting sustainable rural entrepreneurship through the development of capacities and skills, with a focus on women and youth; reducing food losses and waste; improve and harmonise SFS governance at national and regional level, fostering reforms and strategies that cut across sectors (e.g. OneHealth), considering trade-offs, complementarities, also using some of the existing frameworks (e.g. F2F, FSS); etc. Several speakers also stressed the importance of the cultural and “human” dimension of food in the region, with the Mediterranean diet as an opportunity to build healthier and more sustainable food systems. In this context, there was a call to switch to sustainable consumption and production models, noting that often consumption and production are still treated separately by policies and stakeholders, and recognizing that only a systemic approach would allow moving towards sustainable food systems. The speakers also highlighted some of the elements needed to enable food systems transformation. These include the need to: foster multi-stakeholder partnerships at national and regional level to build trust and commitments based on shared understanding and inclusion; mobilize resources to implement actions at scale, through sustainable investments (public, private, blended) and other instruments such as public incentives (subsidies, taxes); harness the potential of innovation and technology, making them accessible to farmers/fishers/foresters; identify trade-offs between actions/sectors and strategies to minimize them; foster behavioural change across food systems actors through education and awareness building. An important finding that emerged from the roundtable was the general agreement on the need for strengthened regional cooperation to foster sustainable food systems at different levels (harmonization of legal frameworks, setting of standards, trade, sharing of data, knowledge and best practices, promotion of regional models, etc). Some of the National Convenors welcomed the proposed SFS-MED Platform as a good basis to bring together Mediterranean stakeholders to share and collaborate, through a common approach to food systems, as a systemic response to the challenges hindering the region. The Platform was seen as a potential tool to integrate and address both thematic and crosscutting issues leading to food systems transformation and to the long-term, sustainable and inclusive development for the whole region.236239240241244246247248249251Panel 1 introduced the topic of partnerships as a dialogue across all shores of the Mediterranean towards strengthened regional cooperation on SFS, overcoming fragmented sectorial approaches and jointly coping with the multiple interconnected challenges facing the region. The need of a shift towards blue, green and circular economy was raised as a priority to tackle these challenges through an integrated ecosystems approach and coordinated collaborative regional solutions, taking into account country specificities. The need for more participation from Southern/Eastern countries in the coordination and co-ownership of funded research projects was also pointed out. The necessity of setting an equal balance among diverse stakeholders in the co-development and governance of multi-stakeholder partnerships such as the SFS-MED Platform emerged as a key challenge. It was considered critical to have all stakeholders on the same playfield since the inception of the partnership, in order to avoid top-down decisions. The object of a collaboration needs to be clear for a partnership to work: collaborations are not sufficient per se, particularly in a multi-stakeholder context, but require a clear shared understanding on what the collaboration is about and how that can be done, taking in consideration the environmental, economic and social sustainability dimensions of a SFS transformation in the region. The urgent need of a change of paradigm for rethinking food systems in the Mediterranean was underlined, considering that the current one is mainly based on maximising productivity at the expenses of environment/health/social dimensions. A concern was raised about the fact that the need of an urgent and profound rethinking of our cultures on food systems was still not sufficiently recognized within the Summit debate. The desire to know how the SFS-MED Platform could contribute to such a change of paradigm was expressed to better understand how interested stakeholders could support the process, and according to which rules of engagement. The CFS multi-stakeholder framework and its policy recommendations on agroecological innovation linked to the 13 principles of agroecological transformation was suggested as a possible model for the SFS-MED Platform to follow to develop an effective partnership. Within the framework of the 2021 CoR report “Agriculture and food security in the context of climate change in the Mediterranean”, some tangible solutions were proposed for ensuring resilient food security and food sovereignty in the Mediterranean. By taking into account the interconnected social, environmental, economic and nutritional and health-related challenges present in the Mediterranean, it was stressed that it is crucial to adopt an integrated approach, people-centered and specific to the Mediterranean context, to provide a better understanding of the multidimensionality of the sustainability of food systems, by linking the sustainable management of natural resources with the sustainable food consumption and production (SCP). In this context, the Mediterranean Diet could act as a sustainable lever to bridge the gap between consumption and food production in the region. The format of the SFS-MED Platform, initiated by CIHEAM, FAO and UfMS at the 2nd World MD Conference organized in 2019 by CIHEAM-Bari, was considered a possible operational framework for dialogue and action on the ground, and for setting up a Community of Practice for strengthening knowledge sharing, innovation and capacity building related to sustainable food consumption and production across the Mediterranean, with particular attention to the employability of youth and women, and the Mediterranean diet acting as a driver. The development of SFS-MED Platform flagship projects was foreseen as an enabling action for Mediterranean smallholders, rural and coastal communities, youth and women, to have more access to local and global markets. The 3rd World Conference on “Mediterranean diet and Sustainable Food Systems” foreseen in 2022 was presented by CIHEAM-Bari as an opportunity to further consolidate the programme of action of the SFS-MED Platform with all interested actors.236239240241245246248249Panel 2 discussed how sustainable finance and investments in line with green, blue and circular economy principles are pivotal to enabling FST in the Mediterranean, crucial for sustainability. Underfunding is a major issue, as it is still not seen as a priority in political agendas. These should take into consideration factors such as climate change, nutrition, agriculture, health and adopt a multi-stakeholder approach, in order to provide an enabling environment for investments in SFS, making them more attractive to the several players of the financial ecosystem (public and private entities, philanthropists, banks and international financial institutions (IFIs), cooperatives, insurances, etc). The UN and IFIs can play a catalyst role in this regard, supporting the mobilization of efforts and promoting policy reform to improve the investment climate to increase public and private finance and investments functional to making the private sector more agile, and to rebalance its role in relation to the public sector. The role of public development banks could also be enhanced through digitalization, paying attention also to social inclusion and gender equality, following the guidance of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris agreement. Tools such as blending can be used to leverage the areas of expertise of different stakeholders, capturing food systems as a whole, to scale up sustainable blue and green finance to develop more bankable projects and address negative externalities determined by phenomena such as COVID-19. In this respect, the Sustainable Blue Finance Principles and the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities were mentioned. There is also a need to link innovation and finance through holistic and community-wide programmes with certification schemes that guarantee that the retail power of sustainability is utilised at its fullest, putting consumers’ demand for healthy and sustainable products at the centre (the Mediterranean diet is a major asset in this regard). Investments shall be made along the whole food value chain, strengthening linkages and increasing standards. For example, investments shall support transition towards more efficient landscape planning, diversification of crops, switch to organic farming, integration of precision farming, valorisation of biomass, sustainable aquaculture; resource efficiency should be the core of investments in agroindustry, consolidating processes, taking advantage of economies of scale to facilitate modernization through innovation. Among others, investments shall target foods that have competitive edge for export, where they can be leveraged by promoting capacity building and skills development, fostering a more agile system and shifting the subsidies regime. Public and private support to farmers/fishers and SMEs to learn the grammar of sustainability in developing comprehensive business plans could help de-risking investments and putting consumers at the centre. IFIs should support more foreign direct investments in private sector and primary agriculture, triggering the creation of linkages to foster inclusion and economic activities especially for youth, and contributing to the development of infrastructures. Standards for environment, social inclusion, governance, procurement (transparency, pricing, etc) are also important to attract more investment in the region. Finance and investments are necessary to build stakeholders’ capacities to advance sustainability in their practices, fully understanding its potential and not considering it only as an administrative burden. An ideal setting for this to happen is the SFS-MED Platform: dialogue and mutual support can enhance policy coherence within and across countries and partners, focusing on green, inclusive, digital innovation to support the scaling up of investments contributing to sustainable growth. Such a platform is also a useful tool to consolidate lessons learned, push for high-standards, and support capacity and institutional building for countries and companies (in particular MSMEs), creating the perfect enabling environment for cooperation, understanding, mutual support to achieve the common goals of sustainability.236239241247248249251Panel 3 discussed how capacity development and awareness raising are key to the transformation of food systems, which requires deep behavioural change of both producers and consumers, respecting diversity, plurality of cultures and opinions, but at the same time trying to stick to common guiding principles. The discussion pivoted around these main pillars: circularity of green/blue economies, biodiversity, landscape management, Mediterranean diet & urban food framework. A multi-stakeholder approach is crucial to mobilizing all actors, directly involving them in research and innovation projects at local level, co-designing food systems’ transition to sustainability through policy labs and flagship projects to test solutions in real life. The European Commission has allocated about 500 million euros (Horizon) to support R&I projects on food systems transformation that include components linked to capacity building and awareness raising. Bridges need to be built between business leaders, research and decision-makers under a shared vision, where the science-policy interface and multi-stakeholder dialogue are crucial to achieve coordinated policies. In this environment, stakeholders are able to complement their efforts, recognising and respecting each other’s requirements. Food systems transformation must be an inclusive process. Women’s participation is paramount, and needs to be enhanced. Women shall be empowered to transfer skills and to improve their awareness on climate change, technology, human rights, health issues, agriculture, food security, production, consumption. In addition, a social and cultural change in the mindset of people is required to foster women and youth entrepreneurship (through more opportunities and more motivation), especially in the agricultural sector (cooperatives) and in rural contexts. Moreover, policy-making needs to adopt a strategic and inclusive vision to create an enabling environment for effective cooperation among all actors/stakeholders: governments, academia, private sector and civil society (quadruple helix) shall find synergies and cooperate for the collective interest of people. Engagement of youth is paramount to increase awareness and deliver messages on food systems transformation, including through events, campaigns and media outlets (social media, cinema, etc.) at national and regional level. Knowledge and capacities on food systems sustainability need to be enhanced, especially in rural contexts, including through training and education . Multi-stakeholder partnerships such as the SFS-MED Platform are crucial to support entrepreneurs in the transition to more sustainable practices at local and national level, developing sustainable business plans, accessing funding, establishing solid networks, etc. Such partnerships have the potential to be effective also at regional level, provided that countries agree on minimum common measures (i.e. framework) for the sustainability of food systems.237No major divergences have emerged from the discussions, but there was common consensus on the need of a change of route in food systems, pushing for their transformation towards sustainability by 2030.

2021-07-19 16:08:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8081/203

481128811434342331221274113122122136

The dialogue was organised into three sections, following the guidelines for the dialogues. It began with an opening session to set the stage for the topic and context of the dialogue, and to build a problem description. The second section was the main dialogue session, where three facilitators organised three different debates on the topic of food system transformation and the role of youth. The closing plenary began with a round of reports from each of the facilitators about the group discussions. There was a comprehensive focus on the way forward from the independent dialogue, towards a food system transition and towards the UNFSS. The potential to build a coalition on Rural Youth Employment for the UNFSS was brought to the table during the dialogue.The dialogue was convened by the Thematic Working Group (TWG) on 'Rural Youth Employment' of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (GDPRD). The organisers of the event mobilized their large networks of diverse stakeholders that were invited. We worked to include youth voices both in the opening remarks and in the dialogue discussions. Also, by reaching out to specific groups and networks that we wanted to ensure were included and represented among the participants, we were able to create a dialogue with a wide array of stakeholders. Existing networks and initiatives working on rural youth employment created the foundation for the dialogue. Principals of inclusiveness both towards participants and regarding the topic of discussion were important pillars for the dialogue. The topic of the dialogue was focused on the ability to protect and improve the livelihoods of young people in food systems and empower and engage young men and women as agents of change to transform food systems. Knowledge exchange, best practice examples from country specific cases and concrete recommendations as input for the presented Game Changers were encouraged in the discussions. The complexity of food systems was incorporated by emphasising how one-size-fits-all solutions never will be sufficient in this context. The need to be context-specific and inclusive to the plurality of youth as a non-cohesive group was uplifted. Being respectful and building trust among the participants is a vital principal for encouraging a fruitful dialogue space. The Independent Dialogue opened with an encouragement to follow a set of principals which were put in place to ensure a safe and trustworthy dialogue setting. It was made clear that the discussion session would not be recorded and participation from all participants was incentivised.The appreciation for the principles of engagement was important for the dialogue to ensure that the voices that should be heard were included. Building trust among participants is essential to create a dialogue which can contribute with a variety of viewpoints. This can however be challenging in a virtual setting, so the advice is to prioritise principals of being respectful and inclusive to provide a safe environment for discussion.

Yes

234238241243248249251The Independent Dialogue was centred around the urgent need of a food system transformation. The challenges of youth in the food system are on-going and the need for action is based on the contemporary situation for youth in developing areas. The dialogue was committed to the summit with a clear motivation to feed back to the FSS structure by using game changers proposed to the summit as a backdrop and framework for the dialogue. The objective was also to find potential partners for further collaborations and potential coalitions going forward with the summit structure. The Dialogue highlighted issues affecting rural youth and gathered inputs for Game Changer solutions for decent jobs creation for rural youth in food systems. First, a round of opening statements by the TWG co-chairs, a youth representative from Malawi as well as representatives from AUC and the UNFSS, set the scene. The event was centred around two game-changing solutions that were selected under AT1 and AT4. They were chosen based on their focus on youth and presented by representatives of the organisations that submitted the game changer prepositions: 1. Launch of a coalition for youth in African Agriculture (Nourishing Africa, AT1) 2. Empowering youth as innovators and change makers for sustainable food systems (FAO, AT4) In the following breakout groups session participants exchanged experiences, gathered best practice examples and concrete recommendations as input to the presented Game Changers focusing on the following aspects: How to boost youth agency to actively participate and coordinate action in food systems and their governance mechanisms through partnerships & networks? How to strengthen youth capacities and skills for inclusion in food systems development and productive activities (wage or self-employment, in and off farm)? How to unpack the opportunities and constraints for youth in local food system models to take off and respond to local and regional food demands? How to connect youth with opportunities in sustainable food systems by promoting more and better jobs?235238241243248249251The main part of the dialogue was the exchange in the discussion groups. The main findings, experiences and recommendations from the group discussions are captured below. However, as a main conclusion all participants agreed that the participatory and inclusive coalition building process under the UNFSS is a promising step to generate the momentum for identifying and supporting initiatives to bring about the food systems transformation needed to create employment opportunities for rural youth, particularly in agri-food systems and emerging green sectors and to support the empowerment of youth to productively contribute to and benefit from sustainable rural livelihoods. It is important to hear the voices of youth themselves in terms of what they want to happen if they are to be involved in the agri-food sector. It is important to ensure to transform Africa’s rural economies to provide more and better jobs for rural youth and particularly young women. Investing in young people is key for rejuvenating and improving the performance of the agri-food sector. Therefore, it is important, also in the further process of the UNFSS, to further consolidate the game changers and solution clusters and strike out the focus on youth – not only as a crosscutting issue but as a key line of intervention.236238241243248249251Discussion topic: How to strengthen youth capacities and skills for inclusion in food systems development and productive activities (wage or self-employment, in and off farm)? The open floor discussion was based on guiding questions with the following inputs gathered: 1. What works in rural skills development for sustainable food system transformation? • Real political participation from the local to the national level, even in international processes (UNFSS, climate negotiations, international trade) instead of having side events with youth at the child table. • Major challenge is sustainability of agriculture as a business: how to keep youth in the business and make good gains out of it, despite the ups and downs. Financial management skills are key: record and bookkeeping, profit investment, not just how to make money but also how to use it without wasting it. • Entrepreneurial skills are also important to build strong partnerships in the system (e.g. potential clients to sell your harvest). • Skills to access and find relevant information related to their work in the agricultural sector are also needed • Youth want quick returns, so to encourage them to engage in agriculture we need: 1) short term varieties of crops (like vegetables that grow quickly and have higher value); 2) value addition. 2. How to expand access to quality education and vocational training and make it more effective for rural youth? • Increase collaboration of the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Agriculture to develop to develop national curriculum. • Including agriculture in secondary school curriculum would be effective so by the time of entering university young people have agricultural knowledge. • Community service (internship-like) to go and work in agricultural institutions for some 3 months and would give the youth practical skills. 3. How to ensure young women have access to education and training and the opportunity to use their knowledge and skills productively in the food system? • Prepare teachers to give good school and career advice to girls and have strong role models. Project-based learning with established women entrepreneurs as mentors. This influences motivation but also equips young women with better networks and services if they choose to venture in agriculture. • Ensure participation quotas for women in learning opportunities (despite the larger numbers of male applicants) and empower young women champions as mentors and service providers to other youth. 4. Which capacities and skills do rural youth need to actively shape the food system transformation? (poll result) a. Business/entrepreneurial skills (e.g. business planning, marketing, financial literacy) b. Soft skills (e.g. teamwork, problem-solving) c. Technical skills (e.g. mechanical skills, cultivating) d. Green skills (e.g. recycle, energy efficient process, waste management, climate smart agriculture) e. Leadership skills (e.g. decision-making, communication/advocacy skills, knowledge of political processes) f. Digital skills (e.g. digital security, data management, online learning) g. Other (risk management)236238241243248249251Discussion topic: How to unpack the opportunities and constraints for youth in local food system models to take off and respond to local and regional food demands? The open floor discussion was based on guiding questions with the following inputs gathered: 1. The development of downstream activities (food processing and marketing) of the agrifood value chain is stalling in many sub-Saharan African countries. What would be the one knot that needs to be untangled to make the agro-food industry bring more value added to the economy and create decent jobs? Although participants generally agreed that there are many relevant and context specific constraints, three constraints emerged as priorities: 1. Infrastructure and market linkages, 2. Lack of or inadequate quality standards 3. Access to financing. The first and second constraints were jointly emphasized as challenges to possibilities for youth to link up with downstream segments and move into higher value-added production. 2. What local food market models are working well that reconcile economic, social and environmental objectives? Participants shared various business models that were successful in their experience. These ranged from public sector support and coordination to private sector involvement, as well as multiple stakeholder approaches, namely those stressing the linkages between youth farmers and agribusinesses and the conditions necessary to enable this. Some examples: The Sholi coffee cooperative in Rwanda: A women-led cooperative that produces coffee for export and sells own-branded products in large retailers. This example of more direct forms of trade allows farmers to capture more value addition and higher price returns. FAO’s project on beans in Mozambique (jointly with UNIDO and IFAD): In spite of local production and demand for local products, supermarkets were supplying imported beans. The project aimed to improve quality standards for bean producers by putting in place processing equipment in areas where youth cooperatives and organizations were active, and by facilitating the implementation of rural infrastructure. GIZ Nigeria’s Green Innovation Centers Project- Cassava chip production The project aimed to improve productivity and employment of farmers through trainings on business and agro-entrepreneurship skills. It focused on organizing and supporting farmer groups and cooperatives and linking them to private sector actors and institutions. SNV Push-Match-Pull Model This model emphasizes the role of the private sector as it is crucial in providing market access and facilitating access to financial resources. It also looks at the role of the public sector as providing an enabling environment for entrepreneurship and economic development. 3. What are the key success factors? How do market models consider economic, social and environmental impact (e.g. livelihoods of producers, environmental footprint, job creation for rural youth)? The main success factors for these models to take off include establishing rural infrastructure, enhancing storage capacities and improving technologies and processing equipment to meet quality standards of large retailers and exporters and move into higher value production. Key to the success of these upgrading efforts was a multistakeholder approach channelling the capacities of the private sector. This consisted of: 1) joining up youth groups and cooperatives with agro-businesses to facilitate access to processing equipment, market linkage facilities, and loans, 2) linking youth to relevant business opportunities and 3) and develop the appropriate skillset, through private or public training, for rural youth employment. Public sector involvement was also raised as a critical success factor, e.g. by providing an enabling regulatory environment for entrepreneurship and facilitating private sector-farmer partnerships as well as the need to organize and strengthen farmer cooperatives. Finally, it is important to identify models that are relatively low risk, require low investment and provide quick returns, especially for those youth groups that don’t have the access to financing.236238241243248249251Discussion topic: How to accelerate action for more & better jobs for rural youth? The open floor discussion was based on guiding questions with the following inputs gathered: 1. What would be the priority actions that should be taken to promote more and better jobs? a) In terms of knowledge generation? The ‘Job-Agri’ (https://www.ilo.org/emppolicy/pubs/WCMS_762511/lang--en/index.htm) project aims for knowledge generation on the quality and quantity of labour in agriculture and agri-food value chains in sub-Saharan Africa. The ILO, FAO and IFAD have together conceptualized this initiative for bridging the knowledge gap on the precise type and quality of jobs which could be generated by various agro-food models in different type of settings. b) In terms of policy & programming support? • Building ownership with the governments and RECs can escalate initiatives beyond knowledge sharing and technical collaboration, to bring about programmatic change. “Decent Jobs for Youth” (https://www.decentjobsforyouth.org/) is an example of such an initiative. • Putting more programmatic attention to improving conditions of waged youth workers in agri-food systems. • More attention and investment in social dialogue to ease the challenges faced by waged workers in agri-food value chains. • Attention to decent wage employment is important, focus on entrepreneurship is crucial to generate sufficient jobs to accommodate the scale of young people entering the market. • Collaboration among stakeholders needs to be strengthened. The coalition building process under the UNFSS is a promising step to generate the momentum for supporting such initiatives, including Decent Jobs for Youth, to bring about the change needed. c) In terms of capacity development? • The Agripreneurship Alliance (https://www.theagripreneur.org/) has developed a training programme on entrepreneurship in agri-business, covering all the steps needed to run an agri-business. • Youth Business International (https://www.youthbusiness.org/) has developed a curriculum specifically for young people starting business. Making a business case for inclusivity in supply chains can ensure the buy-in of the private sector. 2. What are the major challenges that could be encountered in advancing towards the implementation of these priorities? • Connectivity and power cuts are two of the most severe challenges for conducting trainings in rural areas. • Connecting the challenge of digital access with inclusivity, organizations are struggling with inclusivity of digital technology, not only in terms of how to reach people in terms of internet access, but how to make the technology itself inclusive too • ‘Human centred digitalization’ in agri-food systems can help ensuring existing divides are not deepened and new divides are not created. • Initiatives by young people are at risk of operating in silos and serving as ‘small islands of brilliance’. • Lack of ‘inclusivity’ is a major cross-cutting challenge and while focusing on agency and potential of young entrepreneurs, young people in waged employment need to be kept under consideration too. • Formal education systems are unable to meet the rapidly changing, dynamic needs of the market. • Young people are coping through pluralistic models such as extension and advisory services, that in many respects, bridge the education gap, with young people becoming both the providers and recipients of services. 3. Which stakeholders are key? What would be their role? • Youth organizations and networks are critical but rarely engage in governance making processes, usually due to limited capacity and representation. Young people working in the sector can become lighthouses to inspire others. When a market-systems or value chain approaches is adopted, it is important to observe case studies from territories, to understand the role of the youth. • There is an increasing interest in agriculture from young people from engineering, technology and scientific backgrounds. It would be interesting to include universities providing such programmes in the ongoing discussions as that’s where innovation often emanates from.

2021-07-19 16:49:52205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32281/72

72034026352200171020146013292100141110042302003201000808

La session a été organisée en présentiel et en ligne sur Zoom C'était une session ouverte, chacun pouvait s'inscrire et y prendre part En l'entame des travaux, Le facilitateur Aubierge MOUSSAVOU a présenté les thématiques du jour en indiquant que pour atteindre l’objectif 1 du sommet sur les systèmes alimentaires « garantir l’accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs ». Elle a défini la notion de système alimentaire : tous les acteurs impliqués dans la chaine alimentaire et qui contribuent à nourrir la population. Elle a rappelé : les objectifs de la concertation nationale dont le principal objectif est d’identifier des actions concrètes et durables afin d’aboutir à des travaux palpables ; l’organisation des travaux en groupe suivie d’une plénière pour les résultats de ces travaux et enfin des échanges. Plus précisément sur l’objectif 1 du sommet, il s’agit de nourrir qualitativement et quantitativement la population mais pour le faire, il faut produire. Comment les parties prenantes doivent-elles collaborer ? Le dispositif en place est-il suffisant ? Ensuite s'en est suivi des exposés de quelques spécialistes avant de poursuivre les travaux en commission chaque participant pouvait intégrer une commission pour y apporter sa contribution.c'était une concertation ouverte, elle a enregistré la participation de nombreux secteurs et chaque participant pouvait librement prendre la parole et contribuer

Yes

234238239240242244245246248249251Les discussions ont tournées autour des différentes actions à entreprendre pour rendre accessible à tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs. Ainsi, trois thématiques ont été développées : 1. Accroissement durable des productions agricole, animale, halieutique, cynégétique et des produits forestiers non ligneux : accès au foncier, aux intrants et la petite mécanisation 2. Renforcement du cadre juridique et normatif en faveur de la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle 3. Promotion de l’information et de l’éducation nutritionnelle à travers la mise en place des guides, des curricula sur la nutrition235238239240242244245248249251Conclusions de la thématique 1 : 1. Développer un système National semencier en créant notamment des Centres de production de semences certifiées 2. Promouvoir l’accès aux financements des producteurs 3. Accroître le financement de la recherche scientifique et impliquer les agro-industries ; 4. Développer les infrastructures d’abattage aux normes sanitaires 5. Organiser les circuits de commercialisation en privilégiant les circuits courts d’approvisionnement local 6. renforcer la structuration des filières agricoles en promouvant la mise en place des interprofessions ; 7. Protéger et Sécuriser la forêt face aux pratiques illégales ; 8. Encourager la mécanisation 9. Accroitre le budget du département de l’Agriculture en vue de respecter les accords de MAPUTO et MALABO 10. Promouvoir le développement de la production des PFNL alimentaires à haute valeurs nutritionnelles Conclusions de la thématique 2 : 1. Faire inscrire l’objectif de de la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnel dans la Constitution ; 2. Mettre en œuvre des politiques en matière de nutrition 5. Renforcer le cadre législatif et règlementaire en finalisant les textes d’application des lois promulgués ; 6. Adopter un texte réglementaire portant libéralisation des produits alimentaires en application de la loi n°023/2008 du 10 décembre 2008 portant politique de développement agricole durable ; 7. Adopter un texte portant réglementation des activités de maraîchage; 8. Elaborer des normes d’affichage pour informer et sécuriser le consommateur 9. Réformer le cadre législatif et réglementaire en vue de favoriser l’accès au foncier des petits exploitants Conclusions de la thématique 3 : 2. Promouvoir une gestion durable des forêts afin valoriser les Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux 3. Promouvoir la consommation des produits locaux alimentaires riches en apport nutritionnel 4. Caractériser les régimes alimentaires sur le plan national et leurs apports nutritionnels 5. Vulgariser les guides alimentaires 7. Renforcer les capacités de la recherche 8. Intégrer l’éducation nutritionnelle dans les curricula de formation dès le pré-primaire ; 9. Renforcer la sensibilisation des populations sur la nutrition à travers les différents supports de communication 10. Utiliser les NTIC pour vulgariser les informations en matière de nutrition 11. Promouvoir l’activité physique et sportive pour lutter contre l’obésité 12. Promouvoir l’approche genre (hommes) dans l’éducation alimentaire des enfants 13. Renforcer la collaboration entre le département de la santé et les autres secteurs qui traitent des questions de l’éducation alimentaire et nutritionnelle

2021-07-19 16:52:01205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33216/72

0348215052252630451132204081301042903003200010702

Session ouverte à toutes les composantes de la société les participants pouvaient participer en ligne sur Zoom et en présentiel sur le lieu

Yes

234La thématique abordée ce jour a porté sur « stimuler une production respectueuse de la nature ». Elle a été examinée sous deux (2) axes majeurs : 1. Promotion de bonnes pratiques d’une agriculture climato-compatible : C’est un modèle d’agriculture qui s’adapte aux changements climatiques pour maintenir la productivité tout en s’efforçant de réduire les émissions des gaz à effets de serre. Il était question pour les panélistes de proposer des pratiques agricoles pour stimuler une production respectueuse de la nature. A cet effet, les échanges ont essentiellement tourné autour des systèmes de production agricole. Les débats se sont orientés vers la recherche et développement pour actualiser les calendriers culturaux afin de s’adapter aux changements climatiques. Promotion de l’utilisation des intrants performants et utilisation rationnelle des pesticides : Un accent particulier a été mis sur le rôle joué par le Bureau sous régional de la FAO pour l’Afrique centrale qui a formé différents agents des services techniques des Ministères en charge de l’Agriculture et de la Recherche à la fabrication des bio pesticides, en vue de limiter l’utilisation des pesticides de synthèse. La formation des agriculteurs a également été mis en avant sur la fabrication des composts. De façon générale, il était question de définir les mécanismes pouvant limiter le recours à l’agriculture sur brulis. 2. Valorisation des déchets agricoles : c’est la réutilisation de la biomasse d’origine végétale et animale. Ces déchets proviennent soit des opérations de récolte, de post-récolte, des effluents d’animaux et des déchets provenant des agro-industries. Les différents intervenants ont unanimement milité pour la mise en œuvre d’une politique nationale axée sur le tri, le traitement et la valorisation des déchets ménagers et agricoles, utilisables pour la fertilisation des sols et l’alimentation animale (compostage, bois raméale fragmenté, biochards) ainsi que pour la production d’énergie et de biogaz.235240241242244245248249251Les Ministres chargés de l’Agriculture, M. Biendi MAGANGA MOUSSAVOU, et des Eaux et Forêts, M. Lee White, ont participé aux échanges. Le Ministre chargé de l’Agriculture, M. Biendi MAGANGA MOUSSAVOU, a indiqué que le Gabon met en œuvre un Plan National d’Affectation des Terres (PNAT) qui permet d’opérer une répartition durable des terres, via la Commission Nationale d’Affection des Terres (CNAT). Actuellement, le Gabon est en train d’entrer dans un système d’agriculture intense et dans cette optique, il est primordial d’éviter les excès et de prendre en compte la préservation de l’environnement. Cette démarche touche aussi le secteur de la pêche qui fait l’objet d’une exploitation durable par la conservation des ressources halieutiques, notamment face aux pêcheries thonières de l’Union Européenne. L’enjeu de cette concertation est de proposer des mécanismes qui permettent de stimuler les secteurs agricoles et halieutique tout en respectant l’environnement ainsi que de résoudre les problématiques Homme-Faune qui touchent le monde rural. Il s’agit de défendre les modèles du « Gabon vert » et du « Gabon Bleu », qui sont bénéfiques pour l’ensemble de la planète. Le Ministre des Eaux et Forêts, M. Lee WHITE, a expliqué que dans certains pays de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, les forets ont été décimées, ce qui a poussé les populations villageoises à se déplacer sur plusieurs kilomètres afin de trouver de l’eau. Contrairement à ces États, en Afrique centrale, le bassin du Congo qui s'étend sur six pays, résiste bien aux changements climatiques. Les questions Climat-Environnement-Agriculture deviennent critiquent pour le maintien de la paix et de la sécurité en Afrique. Les secteurs de l’Environnement et de l’Agriculture ne sont pas en concurrence, ils œuvrent ensemble, à optimiser les terres au Gabon, par exemple, la mise en place des zones agricoles à forte productivité (ZAP) s’est faite en respectant le PNAT et le projet prévoit des couloirs de forêts pour garantir la pluviométrie dans ces zones. Grâce à la conservation de sa forêt, le Gabon absorbe la majorité des émissions des gaz à effet de serre (un tiers des émissions de la France). Ce rôle primordial du Gabon commence à être reconnu par les instances internationales. Le Ministre des Eaux et Forêts a tenu à rappeler que le Gouvernement ne s’inscrit pas dans la sauvegarde totale de la forêt mais dans une exploitation de façon durable qui permettra sa préservation et aboutira à des créations d’emplois dans l’avenir. La transition agricole et le développement l’industrie agricole doivent être réalisés en utilisant les nouvelles méthodes agricoles.236240241242244245248249251Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 1 : « Promotion de bonnes pratiques d’une agriculture climato-compatible/ Promotion de l’utilisation des intrants performants et utilisation rationnelle des pesticides » : 1. Promouvoir une agriculture innovante et intégrée en vue d’atténuer les effets du changement climatique ; 2. Renforcer les capacités des petits producteurs dans les pratiques de choix de semences saines ; 3. Collaborer avec les experts de la météorologie nationale pour actualiser les calendriers culturaux en vue de palier aux problèmes liés au climat ; 4. Former les agriculteurs dans la mise en place des composts ; 5. Promouvoir l’utilisation des biofertilisants ; 6. Promouvoir la recherche-développement sur les méthodes empiriques des petits producteurs ; 7. Vulgariser les formulations des bio-pesticides en vue de limiter l’utilisation des pesticides de synthèse ; 8. Promouvoir les pratiques qui contribuent à la fertilisation des sols ; 9. Impliquer la recherche dans l’actualisation des calendriers culturaux ; 10. Mettre en place des centres de multiplication des semences adaptées aux changements climatiques ; 11. Caractériser les Bonnes Pratiques utilisées et les vulgariser ; 12. Renforcer l’appui conseil auprès des agriculteurs ;

2021-07-19 16:53:59205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33220/72

084221549272200251435122250020210100424120134112000013

Session ouverte à toutes les composantes de la société les participants pouvaient s'inscrire en ligner et participer en ligne sur zoom ou en présentiel sur les lieuxles différents segments de la société ont pris part à cette concertation

Yes

234La thématique abordée ce jour a porté sur « Promouvoir des moyens de subsistances équitables ». Elle a été examinée sous trois (3) axes majeurs : 1. Mise en place d’un salaire minimum agricole garanti (SMAG) attrayant : il était question de savoir si les travailleurs du secteur agricole sont pris en compte dans la réglementation en vigueur relative au Salaire Minimum Interprofessionnel Garanti (SMIG), et de déterminer les mécanismes que l’Etat pourrait mettre en place pour accompagner les producteurs familiaux établis en zone rurale, particulièrement les jeunes et les femmes. 2. Accès aux financements : il s’agissait d’identifier les sources et de proposer les mécanismes de financement des activités agricoles. 3. Adoption des mesures incitatives pour encourager les jeunes, les femmes et les personnes vivant avec un handicap dans l’entreprenariat agricole : il s’agissait d’une part de déterminer les rôles joués par l’Etat et les organisations internationales telle que la FAO dans la sensibilisation, la formation, la promotion et la vulgarisation des métiers agricoles auprès des jeunes, des femmes et des personnes vivant avec un handicap et d’autre part, d’identifier les zones agro pédoclimatiques et les filières agricoles d’avenir destinés aux jeunes, aux femmes et aux personnes vivant avec un handicap.235238239240241242244245248249251Des principales conclusions qui ont émergé des assises, il ressort ce qui suit : - L’analyse de corpus législatif et réglementaire en matière de salaire fait apparaitre la non-prise en compte des aspects spécifiques du secteur agricole. Tous les textes juridiques existants prévoient un modèle de 40h de travail par semaine. Or, il a été constaté que l’ouvrier agricole n’a pas le même volume horaire que les travailleurs des autres secteurs (48h de travail par semaine) et que l’activité agricole se déroule en milieu rural loin des commodités et conforts des zones urbaines. De plus, la convention collective appliquée dans le secteur agricole est celle utilisée dans le secteur des eaux et forêts. Il faudrait donc prévoir un régime juridique permettant un traitement spécifique de l’exploitant et l’employé agricole. - Il est primordial de mettre en place un fonds d’investissement pour soutenir les activités agricoles. Les professionnels du secteur agricole sont disposés à contribuer à sa mise en place par des apports financiers volontaires qui seront complétés par l’Etat ; - Les institutions bancaires doivent disposer de spécialistes des questions agricoles pour mieux apprécier les demandes de financements y relatifs. Plusieurs demandes de crédits sont soit rejetées ou soit traitées de façon approximative et avec beaucoup de lenteur. - L’Etat devrait mettre un accent particulier sur la sensibilisation et la formation des jeunes dès le bas âge via les NTIC pour promouvoir et vulgariser les activités du secteur agricole génératrices de revenus. - Pour sédentariser les jeunes en zone rurale, il est primordial pour l’Etat d’améliorer leur cadre de vie en mettant un accent particulier sur les services sociaux de base tels que l’hôpital, l’école, les centres de loisir, internet, les banques, etc.236238239240241242244245248249251Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 1 : « Mise en place d’un salaire minimum agricole garanti (SMAG) attrayant » : - Procéder à une relecture et à un enrichissement du projet de texte actuellement en cours portant création du SMAG en tenant compte des préoccupations des travailleurs agricoles aussi bien en zone urbaine que rurale notamment par la création d’une allocation sociale de solidarité au profit des producteurs non-salariés ; - Accélérer l’aboutissement du SMAG par l’adoption du texte l’instituant ; - Sensibiliser et encourager les petits producteurs et petits commerçants du secteur agricole à l’épargne retraite, et en assurer la promotion ; - Elaborer une convention collective du secteur agricole. Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 2 : « Accès aux financements » - Contraindre les entreprises locales installées à reverser une quote-part auprès d’une banque qui financera les activités agricoles des personnes morales sur présentation d’un business plan solide et respect d’un cahier de charges ; - Alléger les modalités d’accès au financement ; - Négocier les taux d’intérêt abordables auprès des organismes et institutions bancaires locaux pour les projets de développement (moins de 3% ;) - Renforcer des capacités institutionnelles pour proposer des biens et services adaptés au secteur agricole (petits producteurs, agriculture familiale, OPA) en assurant une meilleure contribution de la recherche dans l’évaluation des risques des projets, en proposant des outils d’aide à la décision, en mettant en place une synergie entre les établissements financiers et les producteurs, en proposant le leasing sur les acquisitions du matériel agricole (la banque reste propriétaire jusqu’à épuisement du crédit), en prévoyant des crédits saisonniers et des souscriptions d’assurance ; - Mettre en place des procédures d’allègement bancaire : renforcer les organisations paysannes à faire valoir leurs droits auprès des banques ; - Créer un fonds d’investissement agricole pour garantir l’accès au crédit de petits producteurs ; - Créer un fonds d’aide au financement agricole - Mettre un accent particulier sur le financement des projets portés par les femmes et les jeunes, qui sont les acteurs les plus impliqués et vulnérables dans le secteur : prévoir un pourcentage au départ pour ces acteurs ; - Favoriser la contractualisation des acteurs de la chaine de valeurs pour mieux mobiliser les fonds ; - Promouvoir les nouveaux outils de paiement et d’épargne numérique. Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 3 : « Adoption des mesures incitatives pour encourager les jeunes, les femmes et les personnes vivant avec un handicap dans l’entreprenariat agricole » - Dégager les gains de production agricole ; - Valoriser les métiers agricoles ; - Mettre à disposition un foncier sécurisé, un accès au crédit et aux intrants agricoles et organiser les filières ; - Renforcer l’esprit association pour promouvoir des actions coordonner en vue de l’obtention de financements auprès des différents bailleurs de fonds et appuyer, accompagner techniquement les acteurs du secteur agricole ; - Mettre en place un système d’alphabétisation fonctionnelle pour apporter plus de confiance aux personnes délaissées. - Installer un climat de confiance entre les associations de producteurs et les partenaires des microfinances ; - Initier les jeunes aux métiers agricoles par la création de programme scolaire d’encadrement dès le bas âge ; - Mettre en place un partenariat entre les Ministères en charge de l’agriculture et l’éducation nationale pour inscrire dans les agendas scolaires des formations et des vacances agricoles. - Améliorer les plateaux techniques des écoles agricoles afin d’améliorer la qualité technique des curricula ; - Créer des villages agricoles ; - Créer un cadre de vie attractif en zone rural pour fixer les jeunes : hôpitaux, banques, écoles, garderie d’enfant, internet - Faire tomber les barrières qui empêchent l’entreprenariat agricole surtout des jeunes diplômés dans le secteur agricole ; - Vulgariser et valoriser tous les métiers de l’Agriculture ; - Apprendre aux gens à cotiser, à faire des rapports et à tenir une comptabilité ag237Les points de divergence ont porté essentiellement sur la mise en place d’un Salaire Minimum Agricole Garanti (SMAG) et sur la notion d’handicap. • S’agissant du SMAG, les avis divergent sur la nécessité de l’instaurer comme mesure incitative dans le secteur agricole. L’agriculture est d’abord et avant tout une affaire de passion. Il est important de prôner, de valoriser et de promouvoir les différents métiers de l’agriculture par la démonstration de son apport. Les expériences des pays qui ont mis en avant la rémunération dans le secteur agricole poussent à revoir ce concept. • Quant au terme handicap, les avis sont mitigés sur cette question car, très souvent des amalgames surgissent entre les personnes porteuses ou souffrant d’une maladie celles ayant une incapacité physique à participer à certaines activités agricoles. Les personnes vulnérables également sont concernées.

2021-07-19 16:56:34205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33227/72

0727194037208200400312026410006700031504002900100103

Session ouverte à toutes les composantes de la société. deux modes de participation: en ligne sur zoom ou en présentiel

Yes

234240241242244245249251La thématique abordée ce jour a porté sur « Renforcer la résilience face aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress ». Elle a été examinée sous trois (3) axes majeurs : 1. Conflit Homme-Faune : Le Gabon a signé des conventions internationales pour préserver sa faune. Dans ce conflit, le problème des éléphants est un problème persistant qui cristallise les préoccupations des populations en zone rurale : ils sont à l’origine des destructions de cultures et de plusieurs décès. Aussi était-il question, après avoir identifié les origines du conflit, de proposer des méthodes et des mesures visant à l’atténuer ; 2. Renforcement de la collaboration multisectorielle et soutien des actions locales et innovantes/Promotion des NTIC : il s’agissait de proposer des axes de partenariat entre différents départements ministériels pour booster le secteur agricole par des innovations technologiques ; 3. Renforcement de la recherche scientifique et vulgarisation des résultats de recherche : les travaux ont consisté à réfléchir aux moyens d’améliorer le secteur agricole en termes de qualité de la matière végétale et animale ainsi que des pratiques culturales.235240241242244245248249251Des principales conclusions qui ont émergé des assises, il ressort ce qui suit : - Le conflit Homme-Faune a toujours existé. Mais la politique de protection des Éléphants menées par le Gouvernement a favorisé l'augmentation du cheptel; le Gabon compte actuellement une population de 90 000 éléphants.. De plus le changement climatique ont bouleversé les habitats des éléphants. En effet, selon les résultats d’une étude réalisée en 2020, la hausse des températures et la diminution des pluviométriques ont entrainé une raréfaction de la nourriture des pachydermes. - La persistance du conflit Homme-Faune menace la sécurité alimentaire ainsi que celle des exploitants agricoles vivants dans les villages : 8 décès enregistrés en 2020, 15 accidents et 8 300 plaintes à l’administration compétente. Sans solution efficace, il sera difficile de convaincre les jeunes de répartir s’installer en zone rurale et d’y mener des activités agricoles. Les instances internationales devraient donc accompagner le Gabon dans la mise en œuvre d’une agriculture écoresponsable qui lui permettrait de lutter contre la pauvreté, la faim et favoriserait l’autonomisation des femmes, des jeunes et des personnes vivant avec un handicap. - La recherche, pour améliorer les conditions de production, devrait être subventionnée par l’Etat pour faciliter l’acquisition de leurs résultats par les exploitants agricoles. Ainsi, en zone rurale, les entreprises forestières en collaboration avec le département en charge des infrastructures devraient mettre en œuvre les politiques d’actions pour entretenir le réseau routier indispensable à l’écoulement des productions agricoles, pour maintenir un climat de sérénité avec les populations locales. - En matière de recherche scientifique, il y a une absence de communication et de synergie entre chercheurs, entre ces derniers et le Ministère de l’Agriculture ainsi que les acteurs agricoles. Très souvent, la recherche dans le secteur agricole ne reflète pas les besoins des acteurs. La recherche est aussi minée par une insuffisance de moyens financiers : certains chercheurs financent eux-mêmes leurs travaux et la vulgarisation devient alors difficile auprès des paysans. Il est donc indispensable que le secteur de la recherche puisse bénéficier de financements importants et que les Ministères en charge de la Recherche et de l’Agriculture puissent développer des passerelles de collaboration et des partenariats.236240241242244245248249251Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 1 : « Conflit Homme-Faune » : - Faire appliquer les dispositions du décret portant battue administrative et légitime défense au niveau des villages car la majorité des villageois en ignorent l’existence ; - Intensifier et diversifier les méthodes de lutte préventive : • Augmenter le nombre de clôtures électriques, préconisées par le Ministère en charge des Eaux et Forêts ; • Envisager un autre type de barrières connectées à une centrale électrique qui envoient des décharges électriques adaptées à la taille de l’animal, système déjà expérimenté au niveau du Japon ; • Ajouter aussi des barrières écologiques de Jatrofa qui est une plante répulsive utilisée contre les caprins, les hérissons, les éléphants, les serpents, etc. ; • Renforcer l’éclairage autour des plantations la nuit ; - Renforcer la règlementation sur l’exploitation forestière des essences servant de nourriture aux éléphants, par exemple l’Odika et poursuivre la recherche scientifique pour identifier les autres essences consommées par les animaux ; - Créer des couloirs de cantonnement des éléphants en plantant des essences de consommation dans des lieux précis pour les sédentariser à un endroit bien déterminé ; - Développer l’apiculture qui peut constituer un dispositif d’alerte pour perturber les éléphants ; - Créer des plantations d’arbres fruitiers qui serviront de réserve de nourriture pour les éléphants ; - Former les agriculteurs afin de les sédentariser sur les mêmes terres ; - Créer un fonds d’indemnisation des victimes ; - Prévoir des lignes budgétaires supplémentaires pour le Ministère des Eaux et Forêts afin de financer l’acquisition des barrières électriques ; Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 2 : « Renforcement de la collaboration multisectorielle et soutien des actions locales et innovantes/Promotion des NTIC » : - Améliorer les techniques de production, les semences et les techniques culturales ; - Ouvrir et entretenir les voies d’accès dans les champs ; - Faire intervenir la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises (exemple : collaborer avec les entreprises forestières pour la création et l’entretien des routes) ; - Développer des mécanismes de vente des produits agricoles sous forme de partenariats avec les potentiels acheteurs (cantines, hôpitaux, hôtels, restaurants, prisons et autres revendeurs) ; - Vulgariser l’utilisation des moto-bennes entre les points de production et les points de vente des produits agricoles ; - Promouvoir l’éducation environnementale et nutritionnelle dans les centres urbains et ruraux par les mass-médias ; - Inciter les acteurs de la chaine des valeurs à cotiser pour une pension retraite qui leur permettrait de sortir de la pauvreté même après leur retraite ; - Multiplier les réseaux d’échanges entre agri-preneurs et vulgariser les services et avantages qui leur sont offerts ; - Réglementer la rémunération des tâches agricoles ; Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 3: «Renforcement de la recherche scientifique et vulgarisation des résultats de recherche» - Mettre un financement conséquent dans la recherche notamment en réhabilitant les infrastructures existantes tel que le centre d’introduction et de multiplication du matériel végétal et animal de Ntoum, en renforçant les capacités des acteurs de la recherche, en relançant le réseau d’unités d’expérimentation au niveau national, en attribuant des budgets pour la vulgarisation ou la relance des centres d’appui technique agricole (CATA et CATE). Le budget pourrait provenir de la création d’une taxe sur les importations alimentaires ainsi qu’en engageant la Responsabilité Sociale des Entreprises (RSE) ; - Renforcer le partenariat entre le Ministère de la Recherche et celui de l’Agriculture ; - Créer un Conseil National de la Recherche pour orienter et conduire les politiques de recherche : collaboration tripartite Ministère de l’Agriculture-Producteurs-Ministère de la Recherche ; - Mettre en place une recherche participative entre les chercheurs et les paysans pour les activités d’expérimentation ; - Mettre en place des programmes de sélections variétales végétales (cultures vivrières) et animales y

2021-07-19 17:03:35205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35520/72

931110

Cette session était réservée aux Partenaires Techniques et Financiers du GabonIl est nécessaire de consulter les Partenaires Techniques et Financiers

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249251Les échanges de ce jour ont permis de faire ressortir les axes suivants: • Le besoin de poursuivre les concertations sous un format de proximité • La nécessité de tenir compte des concepts pilier vert et pilier bleu dans la production alimentaire • Maximiser les efforts d’accompagnement des jeunes par les formations • encourager les initiatives privées par l’entremise de la SFI (Société Financière Internationale), organe qui octroie des prêts auprès de la Banque Mondiale • Développer le concept far du PNUD « Sensibilisation-leadership-action » • Développer le système de communication • Développer et accroître la production locale pour assurer la sécurité alimentaire • Développer les circuits de collecte des produits agricoles • développer la Recherche appliquée • L’importance de l’eau • Dynamiser le concept une seule santé (one health) • Formaliser la plateforme multi-acteurs235238239240241242244245248249250251Au cours des échanges, quelques pistes de solution ont été apportées : -changer de paradigme en matière de commercialisation des produits alimentaires -respecter les bonnes pratiques en matière de production afin de préserver l’intégrité de l’écosystème -Produire les semences de qualité pour protéger les systèmes de production -Insérer les aspects environnementaux dans la Déclaration de MAPUTO -mettre l’accent sur les aspects environnementaux (enjeu primordial du Gabon au sommet mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires) dans l’élaboration de la feuille de route. - faire le distinguo entre les OGM vivants qui sont des semences (susceptibles de déséquilibrer l’écosystème et la santé du consommateur) et les produits à base d’OGM (qui n’ont pas d’impacts majeurs sur l’environnement et le consommateur) tels que les aliments pour animaux -Prendre en compte dans les projets agricoles, en tant que couches vulnérables, les personnes vivant avec le VIH -Octroyer des terres agricoles à ce groupe de personnes -le gouvernement doit s’impliquer fortement dans la mise en œuvre des différents projets. -offrir des programmes structurés pour prévenir les carences par: *la supplémentation en vitamine A des enfants *la consommation des aliments riches en fer *la sensibilisation des jeunes sur l’obésité *la sensibilisation des parents sur l’alimentation des enfants *formalisation des partenariats avec les écoles et l’UNICEF -réformer le Centre National de Nutrition -octroyer aux réfugiés des terres pour les activités agricoles, commerciales etc -tenir compte à la fois de la santé de l’homme, des animaux et de l’environnement : approche une seule santé (one health) développer une économie circulaire -garantir la santé et le bien-être de l’homme : pratique de l’agro-écologie -promouvoir l’agriculture à forte productivité par la mobilisation des jeunes à travers : la digitalisation et la mécanisation de l’agriculture -Promouvoir l’agriculture en la rendant attrayante -créer un environnement des affaires favorable -mener des concertations au niveau régional (coordination régional) -concrétiser les pistes de solution (passer à l’action) -développer les pistes agricoles -l’engagement ferme des partenaires techniques et financiers est fortement souhaité.236238239240241242244245248249251Il faut noter que l’objectif de cette session est de recueillir les avis et observations des partenaires techniques et financiers dans l’optique d’enrichir la position nationale pour l’élaboration de la feuille de route. Les discussions de cette session ont permis d’aboutir aux résultats suivants : 1. Le rôle crucial de la société civile, ainsi que celui des Partenaires Techniques et Financiers dans le développement des systèmes alimentaires. 2. L’alimentation: élément transversal clé du développement durable 3. L’enjeu environnemental lié dérèglement climatique (préservation de l’écosystème) 4. L’enjeu relatif à l’intégrité des écosystèmes 5. L’enjeu concernant les productions ( l’utilisation des OGMs) 6. L’apport nutritionnel du jeune enfant de 0 à 5 ans, des femmes enceintes et allaitantes 7. L’importance de l’allaitement maternel exclusif de 0 à 6 mois 8. Les conséquences de la malnutrition : niveau d’obésité de l’enfant gabonais, 2 fois plus élevé que celui des pays de l’Afrique subsaharienne (EDS 2012) ; Anémie de la femme enceinte (EDS 2012) 9. La santé des personnes vulnérables (les sujets vivants avec le VIH, les femmes enceintes, les enfants de 0 à 5 ans 10. L’intégration des réfugiés 11. Le conflit homme-faune

2021-07-19 17:05:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33212/72

53823347222741423243111031002150103031310250600606

Session ouverte à toutes les composantes de la société les participants avaient la possibilité de s'inscrire en ligne et participer en ligne sur ZOOM ou alors de venir sur le site et participer en présentielTous les groupes représentés ont pu participer et contribuer aux réflexions

Yes

234La thématique abordée ce jour a porté sur « Passer à des modèles de consommation durables ». Elle a été examinée sous trois (3) axes majeurs : 1. Promotion de l’inter connectivité des parties prenantes / Développement des chaines de valeur : il s’agissait de déterminer les moyens à mettre en œuvre pour aboutir à une inter connectivité des acteurs du secteur agricole, pour développer les chaines de valeur des produits locaux de façon durable et soutenir la distribution des produits alimentaires sur l’ensemble du territoire national. 2. Promotion des circuits courts d’approvisionnement : il a été question d’identifier les difficultés d’approvisionnement et de distribution des semences, du matériel végétal, des engrais, du matériel agricole et des pesticides. La quasi-totalité des intrants agricoles sont importés. Il n’existe plus de centres de production et de multiplication de matériel végétal et des semences. Les principaux agriculteurs n’ont pas accès à de semences de qualité à haut rendement. Cette situation crée des dépendances vis-à-vis de l’étranger pour leur approvisionnement. En matière d’élevage, l’accès à l’aliment pour bétail constitue le principal point bloquant qui affecte négativement le circuit d’approvisionnement et donc la production. L’indisponibilité des matières premières utilisables pour fabriquer l’aliment pour bétail est persistante du fait des difficultés rencontrées auprès des différents départements ministériels intervenant dans le processus d’importation. 3. Renforcement de l’agriculture familiale : la problématique a tourné autour des modalités d’accompagnement des familles installées autour des Zones Agricoles à forte Productivité (ZAP) et qui cultivent sur des terres ancestrales. Quels sont les mécanismes prévus par l’Etat pour les former à une agriculture sédentaire et commerciale ?235238239240242244245248249251Des principales conclusions qui ont émergé des discussions, il ressort ce qui suit : - L’Etat doit reconnaitre formellement l’agriculture familiale, comme acteur important du développement du secteur agricole. ll doit investir dans ce secteur et mettre en place tous les moyens techniques et financiers ainsi qu’un renforcement de capacités pour rendre cette agriculture résiliente. - Il est indispensable pour les autorités de faire œuvre de pédagogie auprès des acteurs du secteur agricole, en diffusant toute la réglementation en vigueur, surtout auprès des organisations paysannes agricoles, des populations autochtones, des communautés locales et des multinationales qui très souvent ignorent la teneur de ces textes juridiques. - Pour disposer de données météorologiques permettant aux exploitants agricoles d’adapter leurs systèmes culturaux, le Ministère de l’Agriculture et celui des Transports (la Direction Générale de la Météo nationale) doivent développer un partenariat, avec le recours de l’expertise de l’ASECNA, afin de permettre l’installation de stations agro-climatiques dans les plantations ; - les zones rurales sont désertées par les jeunes. L’agriculture dans ces zones est pratiquée essentiellement par les femmes et les jeunes, il est primordial que l’Etat mette en place des mécanismes pour rendre attractive l’agriculture dans ces zones et promouvoir le retour à la terre ; - Le conflit homme-faune persiste dans les communautés rurales et constitue un frein pour la pratique de l’agriculture. L’Etat doit donc y apporter une solution durable, notamment en prévoyant le dédommagement des familles lorsque les plantations sont dévastées par les animaux ; - Les moyens de production des exploitants doivent être renforcés notamment en augmentant l’accès aux superficies suffisantes de terres, aux semences surtout les variétés locales, aux équipements et machines agricoles.236238239240242244245249251Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 1 : « Promotion de l’inter connectivité des parties prenantes / Développement des chaines de valeur » : - Etablir une cartographie des marchés et renforcer les infrastructures routières ; - Créer une chambre nationale d’agriculture pour organiser les filières et les interprofessions ; - Renforcer les capacités opérationnelles et managériales des producteurs ; - Créer des unités de transformation artisanale couvrant la chaine de valeur agricole ; - Procéder au contrôle de la qualité des produits et de la répression des fraudes. Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion 2 : « Promotion des circuits courts d’approvisionnement » - Se regrouper en coopératives ; - Créer et Installer des centres de production et de multiplication et d’achat des plants des semences végétales animales halieutique et cynégétiques ; - Mettre l’accent sur la recherche/développement pour une agriculture biologique respectueuse de l’environnement ; - Mettre en place un centre de tri et de traitement des déchets ménagers et alimentaires en vue de valoriser la matière organique ; - Produire les matières premières utilisées dans la production de l’aliment pour bétail ; - Favoriser la multiplication des ZAP ; - Mettre en place une plateforme d’échanges entre les industriels et les agriculteurs pour utiliser les résidus de leur production (drèche, mélasse…) ; - Créer des marchés agricoles locaux. Résultats spécifiques du sujet de discussion3 : « Renforcement de l’agriculture familiale » - Renforcer l’agriculture familiale autour des forêts communautaires en prenant des textes d’application en vue de sécuriser les acquis des populations rurales et les peuples autochtones dans les zones d’activités agricoles et les zones de finage identifiées dans la règlementation forestière ; - Promouvoir à travers la formation et la recherche en agroforesterie la sédentarisation des acteurs de l’agriculture familiale ; - Organiser et valoriser les filières ; - Renforcer les capacités des services déconcentrés ; - Vulgariser les productions des végétaux qui vont favoriser le développement de la filière élevage ; - Caractériser, promouvoir et protéger les espèces locales ; - Prendre en compte les droits des populations Autochtones, des femmes et des personnes vivant avec un handicap dans les questions d’accès à la terre ; - Appuyer l’agriculture familiale dans la disponibilité des intrants, la vulgarisation de la petite mécanisation et améliorer les pistes agricoles pour mieux écouler les productions ; - Prendre en compte les jeunes, les personnes vivant avec un handicap et l’autonomisation des femmes ; - Encadrer et former les agriculteurs en vue d’améliorer l’agriculture familiale ; - Améliorer le cadre de vie des acteurs de l’agriculture familiale ; - Appuyer l’Agriculture Familiale à travers des financements issus des grandes entreprises exerçant dans les zones agricoles concernées

2021-07-19 18:56:09205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16385/44

3411232121252

Se convocó a participantes de todos los sectores posibles y que se encuentran presentes en la región de los Ríos. Sin embargo tuvimos una baja presencia del sector privado, siendo mayormente funcionarios públicos quienes acogieron la invitación y aportaron importantes reflexiones frente a las temáticas expuestas.De acuerdo a los aportes realizados por los participantes, quedan de manifiesto el reconocimiento a todos los principios de actuación destacados en este documento, ya que, en cada temática se repite la necesidad de actuar con urgencia, asumir un compromiso desde lo particular a lo general para poner en práctica cambios reales, ser respetuosos con el medio ambiente, culturas y contextos locales, existe un reconocimiento en la interconexión y/o relación entre los sistemas, etc.Nada que señalar.

Yes

234238239240241244246247249El tema principal abordado en el diálogo fue: Las modalidades de consumo y producción sostenible priorizan el cuidado y aprovechamiento máximo de los recursos naturales, proporcionando una mejor calidad de vida. Se trabajó en grupos enfocados en los siguientes subtemas: • Sistemas alimentarios y derecho a la alimentación • Sistemas alimentarios tradicionales, pueblos originarios, y productos ancestrales y saludables en el comercio regional y nacional. • Sistemas alimentarios, programas alimentarios, y educación • Acceso económico a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y todas235238239240241249251• INFORMALIDAD DE LA COMERCIALIZACIÓN DE LOS PRODUCTOS: debido a que se tiene una gran cantidad de agricultores, pero no cumplen con las formalidades legales no pudiendo comercializar a través de canales formales. Lo otro es que no es posible la caracterización de los productos a nivel nutricional (etiquetas nutricionales), porque no hay existencia de envase algunas veces, mostrando la informalidad en la comercialización. Mal acceso a mercados por parte de productores, circulo vicioso entre poca oferta y poca demanda de estos productos en función de multinacionales/ultraprocesados. Problemas de transporte para movilizar la producción local. • FALTA DE CONSERVACIÓN DE SEMILLAS ANCESTRALES: con información de lo que contienen. No se sabe cuál es el beneficio de las plantas o de esos productos. Desconocimiento que existan guardadores de semillas en la región. Se podrían aprovechar mejor los sistemas si se pudiese trabajar con ellos. Falta de un programa nacional de conservación de recursos nativos de origen vegetal, por ejemplo, la Universidad Austral de Chile, tiene un banco de semillas de papas nativas. La pequeña agricultura es multirubrista. • FALTA DE PARTICIPACIÓN DEL PUEBLO MAPUCHE, DONDE SE POTENCIAN MEJORAS TECNOLÓGICAS, SIN SUFICIENTE CONVOCATORIA O CONSIDERACION DE LAS PRÁCTICAS ANCESTRALES: Se cuestiona el proceso del Estado por el nuevo ingreso de semillas, que no son las utilizadas ancestralmente. Por ejemplo existe temor a que sean semillas genéticamente modificadas, o semillas mejoradas, faltando un mejor apoyo para semillas ancestrales. Hay una sobre intervención, pero no con lo que los pueblos indígenas requieren, sino que se les cambian sus procesos. Por ejemplo la aplicación de pesticidas o el uso de plaguicidas, siendo que la agricultura indígena trata sobre un mejor balance con la naturaleza, lo que se percibe como un problema en la región ya que se cambian las prácticas ancestrales. Contaminación de las aguas, deforestación que perjudica los suelos y la biodiversidad. • CAMBIO DE LA DIETA DE LOS PUEBLOS ORIGINARIOS: Dentro de la historia, los pueblos originarios se notaban un pueblo saludable físicamente. Hoy en día esto se ha ido cambiado, principalmente su alimentación. También la migración de los jóvenes produce pérdida del territorio y conocimiento de los cultivos ancestrales. • FALTA INFORMACIÓN PARA CULTIVOS DE AUTOABASTECIMIENTO. Con esto se podría tener alimentos saludables para las familias, y no necesariamente para vender. Alargar las estacionalidades, tener más producciones en invierno, así se podría mejorar la soberanía alimentaria, es decir la producción y consumo local. • ALTOS PRECIOS DE ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES. Los precios son muchas veces más costosos para aquellos productos que son más saludables. El precio se liga al etiquetado y al envasado, no teniendo acceso a buenos precios los agricultores. También las cadenas son muy largas, los productos agrícolas vienen de lejos de la región, lo que incrementa precios, impacta al ambiente y disminuyen la calidad nutricional y comercio justo (intermediarios con mucho poder). Dificultad de acceso para productos más nutritivos por parte los consumidores. • INEQUIDAD DE GÉNERO transversal, desde lo macro a micro (hogar). • FALTA DE ORDENAMIENTO Y GOBERNANZA TERRITORIAL EN CUANTO A LA PEQUEÑA AGRICULTURA, para diversificar productos y mejorar precios. También falta apoyo en innovación y tecnologías para la producción local y más puntos de comercialización para productos locales. • FALTA DE EDUCACIÓN ALIMENTARIA, que sea comunitaria en la atención primaria de salud y en los establecimientos educacionales, incluyendo nutricionistas. El programa alimentario de los colegios se ve alterado en los hogares. Hay pautas o programas alimentarios que no tienen pertinencia territorial, y que promueven el consumo de ciertos productos de los que podría no haber acceso.236238239240241244246249251Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: • RECUPERACIÓN DE HUERTOS URBANOS Y AUTOCONSUMO: Esto permitiría tener alimentos para autoabastecerse y mejorar las dietas con productos saludables, frutas, hortalizas y alimentos sin pesticidas. Rescatar los huertos de “invierno” o huertas en la casa. De esa manera se tiene más acceso a los alimentos, ya sean pequeños o en terrenos más grandes. Debería haber un incentivo a las personas para que mantengan sus huertos, a pequeña escala, rescatando el autoconsumo. • FOMENTAR LA PRODUCCION Y CONSUMO LOCAL: Rescatar recetas y modificar recetas con alimentación ancestral. Por ejemplo el Maqui. Que sean una alimentación gourmet o de día a día. Articulación de los sistemas del Estado, como CONADI e INDAP, para llegar a más personas. Una sinergia positiva por parte de las entidades del estado para que se abarque más. Ayudarlos a mejorar la forma de producción, entregando herramientas productivas y legales, por ejemplo, indicando como pueden llegar a una resolución sanitaria, para que sus productos puedan llegar a más mercados. Promover las ferias campesinas, de esta manera las personas tengan un espacio para visibilizar sus productos • EDUCACIÓN ALIMENTARIA. Tanto de los especialistas para entender la alimentación de los pueblos originarios, cultura y tradiciones; conocimiento de la cadena productiva; como también para los mismos pueblos originarios, para que puedan volver a autoabastecerse con alimentos saludables. Cambiar el sistema educativo, generar consciencia, enseñar producción agrícola con pertinencia territorial, adaptado a lo local. Programas diferenciados para el mundo rural y el urbano, que considere las particularidades de los territorios. También en empresas, colegios, a padres y apoderados acerca de mejores dietas, considerando aspectos nutricionales y de sustentabilidad, para mejorar los hábitos alimenticios de las personas. Incorporar nuevas herramientas tecnológicas para educación, difusión y para compartir experiencias, que permita llegar a sectores más aislados. • ACORTAR LA CADENA: Promover pequeñas ferias de productores, aumentar los sitios donde las personas pueden ir a vender aquello que producen localmente, así visibilizarían sus productos y también, se saca un permiso, por lo tanto, ya es más formal. Que las ferias de pequeños productores locales puedan funcionar el año completo. Mejorar la coordinación entre los actores de la cadena e incorporar a esto una buena difusión comunicacional comunal y regional de los puntos de comercialización de productos alimentarios locales, ya existente en las comunas de nuestra región (corto plazo). • CREAR SINERGIAS INTERMINISTERIALES: Generar un sistema centralizado de beneficiarios a programas y actividades para facilitar coordinación y optimización de recursos. • DISEÑO DE PROGRAMAS CON PERSPECTIVA DE GÉNERO. • ANALIZAR EL ESTABLECIMIENTO DE IMPUESTOS A ALIMENTOS ULTRAPROCESADOS: Política pública que establezca impuestos a los alimentos envasados, industrializados, de baja calidad nutricional (largo plazo).237238239240244246249Una de las vulnerabilidades de la región con respecto a la alimentación saludable, de frutas y hortalizas, es que vienen del norte, siendo que se puede cultivar en la región, por lo cual es fundamental poder potenciar la agricultura familiar campesina, de esta manera se puede acortar la cadena de comercialización y disminuir las problemáticas que esta conlleva: mayores precios y bajo consumo. Existen programas de promoción a la agricultura de pequeña escala por parte del Estado, sin embargo, no está bien focalizada, debido a que, muchas veces, queda afuera la agricultura ancestral de los pueblos originarios con otras semillas y forma de producción. Este es un tema que hay que analizar para mejorar la sostenibilidad del sistema alimentario con un enfoque territorial y respeto al medio ambiente. También se identifica que tiene que haber más participación de los pueblos originarios en los programas de alimentación saludable, para incorporar productos locales y tradicionales de ellos, lo que se han perdido en el tiempo.

2021-07-19 19:59:43205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25583/23

735518

The Dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food Systems Summit through gaining an understanding about the district itself, challenges its inhabitants regularly face as one of the districts in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), and how its several aspects and existing challenges are affecting the pathways to food system transformation, along with challenges that are contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Dialogue brought a diversity of stakeholders from the Government Departments, Semi-autonomous and autonomous organizations, Private Sector Organisations, Business networks, Civil Society Organisations, and Grass Root level Representatives– working across the food system from production to consumption.The dialogue reflected most aspects of the Principles including Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity and innovation to solution, Embrace Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity. The Dialogue demonstrates the urgency and the commitment of the state. In terms of Being Respectful, the four working groups (titling: Availability of diversified, safe, and nutritious food, Transformation, delivery, access, and role of the private sector, Consumer behavior, nutrition, and food safety and Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance) facilitated during the 4th Sub-National Dialogue focused on nutritious and safe food, with a broad lens ranging from production to consumption (seed to the stomach) as well as vulnerabilities and inclusion. As a result, the linkages with other tracks were also discussed and covered during the working group facilitation. The respected guests of the Sub-national Dialogue addressed mass awareness and accountability of all levels to be key areas for improvement in terms of ensuring safe and nutritious food. In Recognising the hill tracts based on ethnicity and multi-stakeholder Inclusivity, Government Departments, Semi-autonomous and Autonomous Organisations, Private Sector Organisations, Business networks, Civil Society Organisations, and Grass Root level Representatives highlighted the significance of working coordination as well as make people aware of what they consume and how the food can be safe. In addition, imperfect Supply chain, gradually decreasing agricultural land and at mass level, the habit of fast-food intake, climate change effects were some other areas highlighted as a few of the challenges in the way of ensuring safe food consumption. Participants emphasized the importance of mass level awareness range from duty bearers to consumers as the prime measure to reduce food unsafety. Alongside, being accountable and responsible from own side as a citizen would be highly appreciated and should be in practice, promoting climate-resilient agriculture, developing more inter-departmental coordination.The importance of the participatory approach in capturing the voice of a large majority. It is also important to ensure that regional nuances and challenges facing vulnerable groups are captured. With planning, the district administration managed the event on the virtual platform very nicely, which itself is sometimes challenging, considering the remote geographical location and related network connectivity issues. But, it would be better if the challenges and recommendations were more focused. Bandarban dialogue had a series of challenges identified and a way forward to solve them, but most are generic in nature.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247251Bandarban is a district in South-Eastern Bangladesh and a part of the Chittagong Division. One of the three hill districts of Bangladesh and a part of the Chittagong or Chattogram Hill Tracts (CHT), Spanning 4,479 km², it is not only the remotest district of the country but also the least populated with a population of 4,04,093 comprising 1,79,400 from ethnic communities (48%) and 2,24,693 Bengali people. The district headquarters, Bandarban town is the only unit that approaches anything near a city. The rest of the area is divided into 7 Upazilas, which are in turn divided into varying numbers of unions. Each union is a cluster of paras and villages. There are more than fifteen ethnic minorities living in the district besides the Bengalis, including the Bomong, Marma, Tanchangya, Tripura, Lushei, Khumi, Chak, Chakma, Rakhine or Arakanese, Riyang, and Pankho. Most of the people of this district especially ethnic people are self-dependent, producing and making their own food. Districts of CHT chiefly produce rice, cotton, tobacco, maize, potato, sugarcane, turmeric, and ginger and are famous for vegetable and fruit production (mango, pineapple, banana, papaya, jackfruit, orange, lychee, guava, and lemon). Rice and other agricultural products are also sufficient enough to fulfill their own requirements and transport them to other districts. Communities in the region are increasingly experiencing the impacts of environmental and climate change-related problems on their lives and livelihoods, with deforestation, landslide, seasonal water scarcity (dry season), soil erosion, degrading soil fertility due to soil erosion, and flash floods becoming common phenomena causing devastation. Traditionally indigenous communities practice jhum cultivation, a local form of ‘shifting’ or ‘rotational’ slash and burn cultivation. However, harmful and unsustainable agricultural practices such as rotation of shifting cultivation in very short intervals, tuber crops cultivation without mulching, tobacco cultivation, use of firewood in tobacco processing kilns, and depletion of natural forests due to frequent clearing of natural vegetation for jhum cultivation are leading to gradual degradation of soil and forests. Although the size of the population is less than 300,000 in this district, it seriously lacks basic health facilities and results in underweight, scarcity of safe drinking water, and malnutrition. Boro-fallow-T. Aman, fallow-fallow-T. Aman, fallow-Aus+non-rice (jhum), and vegetable-fallow-fallow are the major cropping patterns in CHT, which cover more than 40% of the net cropped area. About 30% area is covered by annual crops, chiefly fruits like banana, pineapple, and papaya and, spices like ginger and turmeric. Percentages of single-cropped area and double-cropped have been found to be 33.29 and 32.10 of the net cropped area in the region. The cropping intensity of the CHT is much lower than the national average. Initiatives are required to be taken to increase the productivity of exclusively rice-based cropping patterns. Cultivation of short duration high yield potential Aus rice varieties, suitable for jhum, along with other species of crops for mixed and relay cropping with improved production practices are needed to be adopted to increase productivity. Multi-strata fruit orchards (MSFO) and complex fruit and timber-based mixed agroforest (SALT-2) can be promoted to maintain agricultural production and environmental gradient. Agro-forestry, watershed-based production unit, multi-layered home garden, contour planting, papaya/flower cultivation in jhum, community forest management, seepage water harvesting can be the potential technologies to be adopted and expanded by the hill dwellers for sustainable livelihood. The Upazilas having a higher cropping pattern index can be studied in-depth to extrapolate potential cropping patterns to other Upazilas with similar environments. Further studies are required to better utilize the single and double-cropped areas and to diversify cropping patterns through the inclusion of new crops or crop varieties.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Bandarban is having health and sanitation-related facilities and services by the government but more attention is required both for infrastructure and staffing for wider coverage of the hilly district. The more remote areas are often lacking in services, forcing people to travel long distances for basic medical care. Also, the water crisis is another significant one people face here. When the water level downs in the dry season, people in remote areas of the district face extreme water crises. Access to clean water and latrines remains a serious problem; intestinal infections are an ongoing concern. Although govt. has undertaken various measures focusing on those issues it needs to be strengthened. WASH and sanitation program needs to be expedited considering the local contexts. Market access is limited because of poor road and transportation systems. There are severe food shortages during the lean season. Additionally, although CHT (Rangamati, Khagrachari, Bandarban) holds only one percent of the country’s population only, alarmingly more than two-thirds of Bangladesh’s malaria cases occur in this region. Bandarban has a good number of unused lands which can be utilized for cultivation. Bringing those uncultivated land under agricultural activities or interventions will have a positive impact on food production and food security of the area. Along with that, preventing deforestation, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, and taking conservation measures to prevent hill razing, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss will be helpful to ensure a sustainable food system. Burning down natural vegetation for jhum cultivation should be stopped. Sustainable jhum cultivation or alternates should be promoted to allow natural vegetation to replenish, for example, tree-based land use through agroforestry and fruit farming. Tobacco cultivation should also be made limited as it consumes extra nutrients from the soil, reduces soil nutrients more rapidly than many other food crops, and wears away soil fertility. Besides, tobacco requires a huge amount of fertilizer and chemical inputs that affect soil adversely. As a result, cultivating other crops on the same land does not bring expected yield. Govt. has undertaken measures to reduce tobacco cultivation across the country which needs to be expedited in the hilly districts. Setting up storage facilities and engaging the private sector will help to reduce food loss in the post-harvest period. Bandarban has several remote areas where income generating activities are limited which induce the poverty level high. Apart from promoting the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices, those who are extremely poor, vulnerable indigenous groups, and farmers should be supported by government subsidies and different social safety nets applicable for those specific areas. Officials responsible for the quality of agricultural products, manufactured products, and market surveillance must be made accountable for their role in promoting safe and nutritious food consumption among the general population. Everyone should be aware of and get pertinent information, which they can put to use. While the country has been declared to be food secure, it is necessary to focus on the nutritional value of food ingested by people on a daily basis, especially by people living in remote and vulnerable pockets like hill tracts, coastal, char and haor lands. These areas should be brought under close monitoring to ensure: affordability and accessibility to safe and nutritious food in local markets; food relief to people in hard-to-reach areas during any natural disaster; income-generating opportunities during the lean period etc. A number of awareness-increasing initiatives should be undertaken, such as seminars, symposiums, campaigns, and media involvement, that focus on different challenges as well as nutrition, sanitation and hygiene practices. People from government, NGOs, academia, private sector, grassroots, civil society have to come together. Capacity building and awareness training may be delivered to private business engaged in food sector, as well as hotel business cooperatives. Motivational as well as capacity building training should be arranged for youth in particular, to involve them in agriculture.236238239240241242244246247248249250251• Availability of diversified, safe, and nutritious food: Challenges: Inadequate irrigation facilities due to unavailability of water; Degradation of soil quality due to jhum/shifting cultivation; Lack of capital for farm operation; Insufficient quality seed supply; - Transportation issues due to rough terrain-topographic limitation; Inadequate facilities for horticulture food production; Lack of preservation facilities for perishable food items; tobacco cultivation reduces agri-lands. Way Forward: Tobacco cultivation should be stopped; Social safety nets program for the farmers need to be strengthened; Promoting sustainable agricultural activities; Burning of natural vegetation and deforestation has to be restricted to combat the challenge of climate change; Marketing facilities should be established in different points so that farmers should get accurate/fair price for their crop; Promotion of awareness on nutritious food consumption through an app. • Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector: Challenges: Reducing post-harvest loss of agricultural production; Importance of value chain development and market linkages; Lack of adequate commodity selling points for farmers; Lack of awareness among communities regarding the nutritional value of different crops/food Way Forward: - It is essential to establish an adequate number of cold storage/warehouses for proper storage of perishable food items; By ensuring diversified use of agricultural commodities which can be enabled by establishing location-specific agro-processing industries. e.g., tea, pineapple processing plants; Establish value-added food processing firms; Value added food processing units should be established to improve the quality of processed foods; Commodity selling points should be launched to reduce transportation costs for farmers living in remote corners of the district; Establishing a viable transportation system to collect and transport agricultural products from farmers, • Consumer behavior, nutrition, and food safety Challenges: Lack of information on the importance of consuming nutritional foods; Inability to afford healthy foods as a result of poverty; Facing challenges in maintaining food safety throughout production, marketing and storage, maintaining temperature while transporting the foods etc.; Lack of knowledge about safe food or parameters of food safety; Health concerns because of lack of balanced nutrition; Lack of nutritious food and iron-folic acid intake among pregnant women due to social taboo and poverty; Lack of WASH program; Prevalence of water-borne diseases; Lack of hygiene knowledge among tribal communities Way Forward: - Nutrition education should be provided to all communities especially women and children; Awareness should be increased regarding food safety issues and the Safe Food Act enforced; Create nutrition awareness and promote dietary diversity; Identify a leader from each community to be trained on food safety aspects and nutritious food consumption; Awareness program regarding WASH practices; Improve access to safe drinking water. • Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance Challenges: - Unpredictable Climate Change damages the environment, soil and other geographical aspects and abrupt burning of Jhum fields have a direct connection with this damage. Forest conservation is very poor and unplanned deforestation has increased challenges. Lack of processing industries, inadequate transportation system ; Sudden landslides during monsoon period result in avery high number of casualties; Remote Upazilas do not have an adequate water supply. Drinking contaminated water makes them vulnerable to different water-borne diseases. Way forward: - Build agricultural production zone in high altitude lands; Promote sustainable jhum cultivation practices following GAP; Emphasize on producing crops and fruits which are in high demand; Increase participation of women in awareness generation on nutritious food consumption, and eco-friendly crop cultivation; Illegal hill cutting should be stopped to prevent landslide; Deep tube-wells have to be installed to ensure safe drinking water.237238239240242244245246248249251There were no areas of divergence among participants. There were in fact areas of convergence with similar issues being flagged in different groups, highlighting consensus on the core challenges and the need to address them.

2021-07-19 20:27:15205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16329/44

309211112512

Se convocaron alrededor de 70 participantes de distintos sectores de la sociedad, pero finalmente sólo asistieron 30 personas en su mayoría del sector publico. De todas formas, fueron participantes de diferentes disciplinas sobre todo del área de la salud lo que permitió obtener diferentes enfoques. Antes de enviar la invitación se realizaron reuniones previas para explicar cual es el objetivo y los principios del diálogo.En cada temática expuesta se repite la necesidad de actuar con urgencia, asumir un compromiso desde lo particular a lo general para poner en práctica cambios reales en su mayoría con respecto a la accesibilidad de alimentos sanos y nutritivos y nuevas políticas públicas de gran impacto, ser respetuosos con el medio ambiente, contextos locales. También se destacó que existe un reconocimiento en la interconexión y/o relación entre los sistemas, y se notó el compromiso y la confianza en el desarrollo del dialogo.Se aconseja a los convocantes difundir el reconocimiento y la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios pues se requiere soluciones a largo plazo y un importante enfoque sistémico.

Yes

234238El tema principal del diálogo fue garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos a todos y todas.235238242246249● FALTA ACCESO ECONÓMICO Y FÍSCO A ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES: Hay dificultades del acceso de los alimentos saludables, como frutas y verduras, en todos los sectores de la región, siendo más accesible para personas con mayores recursos y que pueden pedirlas por delivery. Por ejemplo, en los cerros no existe el despacho al hogar, además, hay más lugares donde venden comida chatarra y es más económica. También, las frutas y verduras son aún más caras en los territorios periféricos, por el costo de la logística de distribución. Las personas deben priorizar el pago de sus cuentas básicas en desmedro de productos más saludables a mayor precio. Falta mayor cantidad de ferias libres, mejores condiciones de acceso a ellas, acercándola a los barrios. Al existir menos lugares de acceso aumentan el precio de frutas y verduras. Hay mayor presencia de supermercados por sobre comerciantes locales, ferias libres, lo que disminuye la calidad de alimentos para los consumidores. ● LA RED DE ACTORES RELACIONADOS CON LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS NO ESTÁ COORDINADA: Se sugiere que se realice mayor coordinación desde los niveles centrales la coordinación entre direcciones regionales de organismos, municipios y actores locales, ya que existe falta de de coordinación entre organismos públicos. Carencia de metas e incentivos en los programas de alimentación escolar y complementario para cumplir metas conjuntas relacionadas a alimentación saludable. Se recomienda supervisión y acompañamiento en ferias libres, comedores solidarios, y aplicación de etiquetado nutricional en los distintos entornos. Faltan ferias y mercados campesinos en sectores populares, presencia de ollas comunes, hay escasez de recursos financieros, una baja de ingresos acrecentada en pandemia. Acciones quedan en papeles y palabras. Se sugiere usar tecnologías y generar alianzas público-privadas para fomentar la alimentación saludable. ● EDUCACIÓN DE ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES, NUTRICIÓN Y SISTEMAS AGROPECUARIOS: se sugiere hacer educación alimentaria desde establecimientos educacionales, ya que los resultados de malnutrición en escolares no son muy alentadores. Incluir a las familias y a la comunidad sobre la higiene y cuidado de los alimentos, ya que los adultos también presentan altos noveles de malnutrición y enfermedades no transmisibles. Hay un factor transversal; determinantes sociales en salud que definen que las personas se enfermen o no, marcando diferencias grandes respecto presencia enfermedades, conocimientos técnicos y empíricos. Falta comunicación de riesgos de la malnutrición y enfermedades asociadas. Además se plantea que las personas no tienen conocimientos suficientes para cultivar sus propios alimentos y hacer una correcta elección de alimentos (desde punto de vista nutricional, inocuidad alimentaria, potenciar aportes nutricionales), sobre todo en sectores más populares. Por eso se propone que educar masivamente, por ejemplo, a través de la televisión, y restringir y crear incentivos para disminuir la propaganda de comida chatarra como se hizo con el consumo de tabaco. ● SE REQUIEREN PROGRAMAS DE ALIMENTACIÓN PARA SITUACIONES DE EMERGENCIAS: Contar con una red de apoyo efectiva para la población, en casos de emergencias sanitarias y poder entregar a la población la seguridad de que pondrán contar con acceso de alimentos. Esto debe venir articulado de Gobierno a nivel nacional y en gobiernos locales. Ello para enfrentar la seguridad o certeza para las personas en la continuidad del acceso físico y económico a la alimentación. Los comedores solidarios se preocupan de brindar alimentos saludables, como legumbres, verduras, pescados, lo anterior en base a donaciones. ● CONSIDERAR LA ESCASEZ DE TIEMPO PARA PREPARA ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES: Tiempo para preparaciones y comidas saludables implican mayor tiempo de preparación. ● DESCONOCIMIENTO DE ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES: Por ejemplo, existe poca promoción del consumo de alimentos marinos en la canasta alimentaria familiar.236238239243244246247249Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: ● MEJORAR ACCESO ECONÓMICO Y FÍSICO DE ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES: mayor disponibilidad, asegurar continuidad y mejorar accesibilidad física/ espacial a alimentos saludables. A través de fortalecimiento de ferias libres, mercados locales y caletas de pescadores. Incorporar legislación o medidas económicas como subsidios o franjas de precios a alimentos saludables e impuestos alimentos no saludables, implementar medidas para potenciar menor costo de frutas y verduras, pescados, legumbres, carnes magras y mayor costo alimentos no saludable y comida chatarra. Estos instrumentos económicos son una inversión a largo plazo, pero con alto retorno en el bienestar y estado de salud de las personas.Generar acciones desde el Estado para promover la venta de productos marinos y apoyar a productores primarios, tales como subsidiar carros con congeladores, acortando la cadena productiva, que encarece el producto final. ● EDUCACIÓN TRASVERSAL: Integración de profesionales en educación y salud desde los nutricionistas como parte de la planta básica de contratación. Educación alimentaria a través de medios de comunicación masiva. Otra sugerencia es tarificar con precios más altos a la publicidad de alimentos no saludables por sobre los saludables, fomentando la publicidad de alimentos saludables, respecto de los no saludables. ● FORTALECER RED DE ACTORES PÚBLICO-PRIVADO: para fomentar y fortalecer todos los actores e iniciativas regionales del sistema alimentario, se propuso generar un mapa regional de actores interesados y relacionados en alimentación saludable, incluyendo actores públicos, municipios, actores privados y sociedad civil. Los municipios son vitales para identificar ferias, mercados y organizaciones de consumidores. Esto permitirá apoyar y fortalecer mercados, ferias libres con alianzas público/privadas, descongestionar y descomprimir instituciones y la población tendría mayor acceso a esta información. También se recomienda que la academia pueda prestar servicios a los comedores y ollas comunas, respecto al manejo de la norma sanitaria y la manipulación de alimentos, y crear programas de asesoría de micro-emprendimientos y proceso productivo, promoviendo la alimentación saludable. El rol de la sociedad civil es vital, mediante el empoderamiento para generar abogacía y así impulsar cambios de políticas públicas. ● MÁS ESPECIALISTAS EN LOS PROGRAMAS: se recomienda asegurar la continuidad de los programas de alimentación e incrementar recursos humanos para prevención de enfermedades no transmisibles, en entornos con mayor cercanía con comunidad, como centros de atención primaria, escuelas, sedes vecinales, entre otros. ● PROMOVER MAYOR TIEMPO PARA PREPARACIONES EN CASA: para poder tener tiempo suficiente para preparar alimentos saludables en el hogar, y también políticas públicas que permitan la educación alimentaria. Los empleadores podrían asegurar los tiempos para la alimentación saludable y actividad física de sus trabajadores. ● INCLUIR LA ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE EN LA CONSTITUCIÓN: Se sugiere que el país tenga la conversación para garantizar la alimentación saludable desde la nueva constitución, y complementar por medio del subsidio legal de la compra. Partir de base de garantizar a la población el derecho a la alimentación, de forma concreta y explicita. Esto permitirá generar estrategias para hacer llegar a población alimentos que requieren. ● GENERAR POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS VINCULADAS AL TERRITORIO: Se sugiere implementar políticas públicas según el territorio y su disponibilidad para acceder a los alimentos según las necesidades, con pertinencia cultural. Políticas medio ambientales de regulación del suelo y el agua para que estuvieran concordancia con la alimentación. ● APOYAR A LAS PEQUEÑAS EMPRESAS Y HACER CIRCUITOS CORTOS: Reducción de impuestos y apoyos a pequeñas empresas para la producción alimentación saludable a nivel nacional y no sólo internacional. Hay que acercar los productores al consumidor.237238239246249Dentro de las áreas de divergencia de la región está el tema de articulación de actores y seguimiento de políticas públicas relacionadas con la alimentación saludable y sostenibilidad del sistema alimentario. Se indicó que existían programas por cada ministerio, pero había una desarticulación entre los sectores, por ejemplo, en los programas del área de salud y educación, o de agricultura y desarrollo social. Es por eso que se planteó la necesidad de fortalecer el trabajo en conjunto para que puedan cumplir mejor los objetivos propuestos. Así mismo se indica la importancia de contar con un mapeo de estos actores para fortalecer alianzas público/privadas en la comercialización y educación de alimentos saludables, descongestionando otras instituciones donde la población siempre está acudiendo a ellas para orientación con estas temáticas.

2021-07-19 21:27:10205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25580/23

705416

The Dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food Systems Summit by gaining an understanding about the district, challenges its inhabitants regularly face as one of the hilly districts of the country, and how these are affecting the pathways to food system transformation and attaining the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Dialogue brought together a diversity of stakeholders from Government Departments, Semi-autonomous and Autonomous Organisations, Private Sector Organisations, Business networks, Civil Society Organisations, and grassroots level representatives – working across the food system from production to consumption.The dialogue reflected most aspects of the Principles which particularly includes Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity and innovation to solution, Embrace Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity. In terms of Being Respectful, the four working groups ( Availability of diversified, safe, and nutritious food; Transformation, delivery, access, and role of the private sector; Consumer behaviour, nutrition, and food safety; and Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance) facilitated during this Sub-National Dialogue focused on nutritious and safe food, with a broad lens ranging from production to consumption as well as examined vulnerabilities and challenges of inclusion. As a result, the linkages with other tracks were also discussed and covered during the working group facilitation. In Recognising Complexity and Embracing Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity, Government Departments, Semi-autonomous and Autonomous Organisations, Private Sector Organisations, Business networks, Civil Society Organisations, and Grass Root level Representatives highlighted the significance of working coordination as well as make people aware of what they consume and how the food can be safe. In addition, imperfect Supply chain, gradually decreasing agricultural land and at mass level, habit of fast-food intake, climate change effects were some other areas highlighted as some of the challenges in the way of ensuring safe food consumption. Participants emphasized the importance of mass level awareness range from duty bearers to consumers as the prime measure to reduce food unsafety. The dialogue address strengthening coordination and collaboration among different stakeholders to work collectively. It reflects issues specific to the region that may feed into the UNFSS, in a participatory manner. The virtual dialogue event was divided into 03 parts- inaugural (panel), group discussion and concluding session. The dialogue came up with some real-life challenges.The National Dialogue Committee of Bangladesh, recognizes the critical nature of organizing discussions involving multiple sectors and stakeholders, given the complexity of the food system. Additionally, it is necessary to establish a small working group comprised of diverse stakeholders, including the private sector and youth, in order to demonstrate the connections between the various action tracks. It will enable the facilitation of talks on a variety of food system-related challenges, rather than focusing exclusively on one action track. At the same time, it emphasizes the ideas of involvement for learning as well as the importance of a participatory approach in capturing the voice of a large majority. It is also important to ensure that regional nuances and challenges facing vulnerable groups are captured.

Yes

234238239240242243244245246247251Sunamganj is a representation of the wetland ecosystem in the north eastern part of Bangladesh, collectively called haor and spread across 80000 square kilometres. Haor, physically is a bowl or saucer shaped shallow depression, also known as a back-swamp. During monsoon haors receive surface runoff water from rivers and canals to become vast stretches of turbulent water. There are as many as 423 small or large Haors in Bangladesh. The core Haor area, alternatively referred to as the Haor basin or the Sylhet basin, is estimated to spread over an area of 25,000 square kilometers. The Haor basin is a mosaic of wetland habitats including rivers, streams, irrigation canals, large areas of seasonally flooded cultivated plains, and hundreds of Haors and beels. This wetland area is crisscrossed by numerous rivers coming down from hills in India with a huge amount of runoff water that frequently cause flash flood and cause extensive flooding routinely during the monsoons. The topography of Haor regions is uneven. In terms of geographical elevation, they are lower than the normal plane lands. Virtually, all of this land is below 8 meters and is flooded for 7- 8 months to depths of 5 meters or more during the monsoon. The total area of Sunamganj district is 3747.2 sq. km. of which 16.28 sq. km. are under forest. The district nestled in the haor region has young piedmonts plain, a gentle sloping landscape mainly consisting of loamy sediments subject to shallow flooding. In the central part, the soil contains blush silty clay of the Surma, Kushiyara old flood plain basin. The main rivers and rivulets flowing through the district are Surma, Kushiyara, Jadukata, Kamarkhali, Kalni, Nokunda, Bowai, Nitai, Sonai, Gunai, Somesswari and Nawa. Most of them are tributaries of the two main rivers, Surma and Kushiyara, which are non-tidal and navigable throughout the year by country boats. The flowing length of the rivers is about 195 kms (120 miles). The economy of Sunamganj is predominantly agricultural. Out of total 387,205 land holdings in the district, 53.39 % of holdings are farms that produce a variety of crops: local and HYV rice, wheat, vegetables, jute, spices, cash crops, pulses, oilseeds and others. Various fruits like, pineapple, banana, mango, guava, jackfruit, black berries, coconut, orange, and dates are grown. Pineapples and oranges especially, grow in abundance. Besides crops, livestock and fishery are other main sources of household income. Fish of different varieties are caught from rivers, tributary channels, creeks, and haors and even from paddy fields during the rainy season. Sunamganj is a major source of freshwater fish; Tanguar Haor is the largest inland billabong for aquaculture. The total cultivated area in seven north-eastern Haor districts is about 1.26 million hectares of which 0.68 million hectares is under wetlands. Boro (rice)-Fallow-Fallow is the dominant cropping pattern in the entire Haor basin. Water remains either stagnant or in form of flash floods during the months of June to November and mainly Boro rice (winter rice cultivated from November to May under irrigation) is grown in the Rabi season (mid-November to April). Flood, especially flash floods causes severe damage to Boro rice just before harvesting almost every year. In recent years, the situation has been improved due to interventions undertaken by govt. Due to the pragmatic actions taken by govt., most of the boro harvesting has been done faster using mechanical harvesting/agriculture mechanization. Govt. is providing 70% subsidies for haor area’s agriculture mechanization. Considering this context, govt. is paying more attention to climate-vulnerable areas including haor and coastal districts. The haors also contribute approximately 10% of the total capture fisheries production of Bangladesh. However, this amount has reduced over time due to unmanaged destruction of swamp forest as a result of limited conservation practices by the competent authority, uncontrolled collection of wood for fuel and house construction, agricultural intensification, urbanization, environmental degradation and pollution, and climate change.235238239241242243244245246247248251Private Sector Involvement: There is scope to involve the private sector in this region and they can work together with the government to increase the diversification of agricultural production (such as flood resilient/ deepwater rice variety). To do this, utilizing the government’s khas land will be helpful for increasing production. Improvement in the mode of Communications: To reach people of this region as well as exporting surplus production, adequate protection facilities is required for roadways from flash floods/heavy rainfall and an efficient storage system are needed. Modernization of fish Acts: Proper enforcement and modernization of Protection and Conservation of Fish Act (1950), amended by the Protection and Conservation (Amendment) Ordinance (1982) is required, incorporating fishing ban for spawning/ breeding period in haors, stopping catches of female spawning/ brood fishes, limiting catches of small fishes, compensation mechanism for fishers during ban periods, and limiting use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Ensuring proper utilization of local resources and potentials: Unutilized lands (lands left unused owned by migrants, kandas) should be brought under agricultural activities through irrigation and land use ownership initiatives. Small scale fish culture, integrated fish and poultry farming, cattle rearing, duck farming, homestead vegetable gardening, and floating cultivation should be promoted which have good prospects considering the local resources. Ensuring proper access to extension services, financial facilities, and skill development training are some prerequisites for that. Expanding income-generating options: Due to geographic conditions, people usually remain employed in the boro season. They have a minimum option for work in other seasons which is also true for other parts of Bangladesh. Alternative income generating activities, especially work and small businesses that can be operated from homes should be promoted using local opportunities and resources. Small and cottage industries should be encouraged. These should be targeted more at women as almost 50% of the total district population are female. Govt. is also paying attention in this regard. But the interventions should be strengthened. Awareness Raising: People need to be more aware of nutrition and food safety. Those who are involved with the production and the supply chain need relevant and adequate capacity and skill development, especially on addressing post-harvest loss and growing climate-resilient crops. Tourism and effect on Environment: Sunamganj is regarded as a tourist spot and has a good number of people visiting almost through the year. Local administration can formulate rules for tourists to protect and keep the environment clean and safeguard the ecosystem. By doing this, it will be possible to both have tourism as one of the options of livelihood and economic activity and protect the environment.236238239240241242243244246247250251• Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious food Challenges: As the area is inundated by water, cultivation of vegetables is limited in the area. Those who grow more vegetables they cannot sell those vegetables to other markets for better profits due to limited transportation facility available during floods/ rainy season. Mechanization of agriculture in haor areas has been low. There are many areas in the haor basin which do not have irrigation facility and thus, those lands cannot be brought under cultivation during the dry season. Most of the fishers are very poor and earn little, fishers are having problems with high transport cost. The cattle are of comparatively lower weights and productivity, and returns are low. Also, poor families often have to sell off their cattle at a very low price during flood/ rainy season due to crisis of food availability. During the eight months of inundation, women. Although haor areas produce ample fish, most of them are sold to Dhaka or other big cities, and local people do not get to eat enough fish. Way Forward: Floating cultivation of vegetables can be a solution to produce vegetables in the rainy season, as is done widely in the Barishal region. During the period immediately after the rainy season and the beginning of the dry season, some short-duration (quick yielding) vegetables can be cultivated. Unutilized lands should be brought under cultivation for agricultural expansion. More fish culture should be encouraged. Catching female spawning fishes/ brood fishes should be stopped. Cattle rearing and duck farming should be modernized with scientific interventions. Integrated fish and poultry farming should be promoted. • Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector Challenges: The main rivers of Sunamganj have issues of navigability, and this is directly or indirectly reducing fish assemblage, and amplifying the effects of habitat destruction. Small roads that connect different unions with sub-districts are not sufficient here. The number and capacity of storage structures are not up to the required level. There is limited crop diversification. Way Forward: It is necessary to construct small roads in Haor areas so that farmers can easily transport their agricultural produce to the mainland. It is essential to establish adequate number of cold storage/warehouses for proper storage of perishable food items.Training should be provided to the farmers to reduce pre-harvest, during harvest and post-harvest loss; o sow high yielding deepwater rice. •Consumer behaviour, nutrition, and food safety Challenges: Due to its geographical context, only one harvest is observed in the haor region. There is also lack of agricultural diversification. Poverty, low level of education, and lack of awareness remain barriers for healthy food consumption. There is a lack of diversity in food consumption. Rice is consumed as the main source of energy, dry fish and red meat are also consumed but there is low consumption of fruits and vegetables. Local fish is exported to other regions affecting the supply of local fish in the market and leading to high price. Fruits and vegetable production is low and is imported from other regions. Way Forward: Enhanced nutrition knowledge and awareness are required, especially among school children. Strengthen vitamin A supplementation and capacity of EPI (Expanded Programme on Immunization) Centres are required. Enhance consumer awareness on food adulteration, use of pesticides etc. Ensure food safety of the processed foods. Enhance production of vegetables and fruits. • Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance years local biodiversity is being affected due to imprudent exploitation of aquaculture resources and water pollution from water-boat engine oil. Access to some of the Upazila is difficult due to problems of river navigation. Seasonal unemployment is comparatively higher in this region. Way Forward: Farmers are being encouraged to harvest early Harvesting flood-resistant paddy will help minimize the crisis. The construction of dams can be an effective solution to save the boro crops from flash floods.237238239240241242244245246248249There were no major areas of divergence among participants. In fact, some similar issues were raised and common recommendations were made across the groups.

2021-07-19 22:18:24205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25793/23

837211

The Dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food Systems Summit through an understanding of the issues facing Kurigram district and the overall region of riverine islands or char, in terms of the pathway to sustainable food systems. Organized by the National Dialogue Committee led by the Ministry of Food, the Dialogue brought a diversity of stakeholders from government Departments, Semi-autonomous and Autonomous Organisations, Private Sector Organisations, Business networks, Civil Society Organisations, and grassroots level representatives working across the food chain from production to consumption.The Dialogue began with familiarising the participants with the context of the Food Systems Summit, the issues being discussed at the global level including the five action tracks and issues to be addressed in Bangladesh to ensure safe and nutritious food for all. Mr. Abdul Hannan,Additional Secretary, Ministry of Food, in his introductory remarks states that there are many ongoing initiatives in the country to increase production and productivity and attain the SDG2 goal of Zero Hunger. Food Systems is a complex issue. He refers the achievement of food self-sufficiency in Bangladesh but also underlined the challenges of malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies and unsafe food the country still facing. There are issues of availability and access and 20-25% post-harvest loss (particularly fruits and vegetables); there are problems of adulteration, contamination that make food unsafe; work has to be done on all links of the value chain. He pointed to the importance of highlighting issues facing Kurigram and the char region. Participants were then requested to participate in group discussion in four breakout groups and share their thoughts and ideas. The themes of discussion in the four groups were: • Availability of diversified, safe, and nutritious food • Transformation, delivery, access, and role of private sector • Consumer behaviour, nutrition, and food safety • Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance Each group had a facilitator and a note-taker, both members of the national dialogue committee. The facilitator highlighted the focus of the discussion in the group and requested participants to share their views. The key points made in each breakout group were presented by the respective facilitators at the closing plenary, giving an opportunity for participants who had not been in a particular group to further share their opinions/suggestions. It was thus endeavoured to capture the voice of the people and reflect issues specific to the region that may feed into the UNFSS, in a participatory manner.The importance of the participatory approach in capturing the voice of a large majority. It is also important to ensure that regional nuances and challenges faced by vulnerable groups are captured.

Yes

234238240241242244245246247248249251Kurigram is a predominantly rural district in northern Bangladesh, bordering India, with 9 sub-districts and 73 unions. The majority of the population of 2.45 million are primarily dependent on agriculture and allied activities. Three major rivers (Brahmaputra, Dharla, and Teesta) flow through the district creating several chars or riverine islands. The district has 400 chars and flooding is a recurrent problem in the region. Paddy is the main crop. Jute, tobacco and vegetables are also cultivated. Fishery is also a major activity. The district has a very high percentage of population living below the national poverty line at 71 per cent, compared to the national average of 24 per cent, indicating its backward status. A study in late 2014 revealed that the region was nutritionally insecure with 35.6 per cent children stunted, incidence of child morbidity among three fourth of children and poor levels of sanitation. Now the situation is getting better but there is enormous scope for improvement. Some of the major challenges faced by the dwellers are river erosion, floods, and recurring floods visiting every year. According to the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB), Kurigram is one of the most erosion-prone districts of the country. People usually lose cultivable lands, crops, homes, and other private property every year. A Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) report shows that all the Upazilas (sub-districts) of the district faced river erosion throughout the years from 2008 to 2011. More recent reports suggest that riverbank erosion has taken a serious turn as Teesta, Dharla, Dudhkumar, and Brahmaputra rivers in Kurigram swell due to incessant rainfall and onrush of water from India. In 2020, around 500 acres of farmland and 430 houses of Kurigram vanished into the Teesta in just two months. As people become landless, the rate of migration (forced migration) is very high, especially among the char-dwellers, which makes it more difficult to bring them under any social safety net coverage or public services. Institutional response and policy interventions are required for sustainable rehabilitation of the people displaced by riverbank erosions. Integrated infrastructural development is required to prevent riverbank erosion and loss of private and public properties in the Sirajganj-Kirugram-Gaibandha basin. Besides, efficient management of water flows of the transboundary rivers (Jamuna, Brahmaputra, Teesta) is required as a long-term solution to the recurring floods. Kurigram district is now self-sufficient in food-grain production particularly rice. There is also diversified production of vegetables. There are nutrition councils at the district and sub-district levels, national nutrition week is observed and nutrition advocacy is undertaken with the help of NGOs. There are ongoing pilot programs like the distribution of zinc fortified rice to vulnerable populations through the public food distribution programs, and nutrient-fortified biscuits to school students. The COVID-19 pandemic and closure of schools have affected the dissemination of nutrition messages to some extent. Convergence between different departments and bringing together people’s representatives, civil society organizations and youth on one platform will help. Data gaps have to be addressed, to enhance effective delivery.235238239240241242243244245246247249251Flood management and flood-resilient infrastructure development: As floods and subsequent river erosion are major hindrances in food production and securing sustainable livelihood, long-term and well-planned flood management initiatives are required. Establishment of long-lasting flood control embankments and dams, constructing flood-resilient transportation and communication systems, and integrated water management initiatives to efficiently manage water flows of the major rivers can be some of the measures that will keep food production, transportation, and access to markets uninterrupted during floods and other natural disasters. Flood-resilient agricultural practices and crop diversification: Promoting cultivation of flood-resilient crop varieties, reserving flood water or rainwater during monsoon in surface water bodies to be used for irrigation during the dry season, and extending floating/hydroponic cultivation can help to prevent crop loss due to heavy rain and flood. Also, extending cultivation to more profitable crops or cash crops beyond the main crops (paddy, maize, wheat, potato) can increase profitability for farmers. Efficient use of lands/ soils and other natural resources: More efficient use of soils can be ensured by promoting the cultivation of crops according to the soil quality (soil type, micro-nutrients present in the soil), decided through soil testing. Also, the phasing of cropping should be matched with weather conditions and other natural traits. This will enhance productivity and reduce misuse of inputs like fertilizers. Infrastructure development for preservation of crops and food processing facilities: Small farmers sell out their produce (especially rice) right after harvesting, as monsoon and flood come immediately after, and farmers do not have storage facilities to save their crops from the wet weather, even for their own consumption. So they do not get fair price of their product. Unfortunately, farmers and poor families have to buy back those staple crops at the higher price for consumption. Considering this tough condition, the governmental godwan crop loan program needs to be expanded. Additionally, providing small farmers with access to shared storage facilities can end this vicious cycle which makes them poorer. Notably, Government has initiated establish 200 paddy silo across the country aiming to purchase paddy directly from the farmers to ensure their fair price. Moreover, the government has declared 100 economic zones throughout the country where establish of small and medium scale food processing industries are highly encouraged. However, private investment in this sector is crucial and the government shall encourage the private sector by providing low-interest credit facilities.. Preventing loss of nutrients and food values during processing: The staple crops such as, rice and maize lose their micronutrients contained in the brans (the hard outer layers of cereal grains) when those are processed in mills to produce refined grains. The government has started promoting GAP, GMP, GHP etc that is well-coordinated to the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority. Capacity development and awareness building training are being provided so that the quality and safety of food can be kept well. However, technologies are required to process the grains in a way so that the loss of brans can be prevented while milling and whole grain cereals can be produced mechanically for all locally grown crops. This will help to overcome the nutrition deficiency and fortification of staple crops will not be required anymore. Nurturing the dairy and fisheries sector: Kurigram has good prospects to grow as a major player in the dairy industry, as it is rich in milk production. However, it lacks milk chilling, storage, and processing facilities, which is hindering the small farms to grow into large commercial farms. Encouraging public and private investments in the sector and ensuring access to extension services for farmers can ease up the barrier. Also, Kurigram can focus more on fresh water fish culture as it has abundant sources of fresh water, however, support such as, access to inputs (feeds, seeds/fingerlings) and extension services are required for that.236238239240241242243244245246248249251• Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious food Challenges: Farmers face a number of obstacles to take their produce in markets in urban areas. Particularly remote access and the char landscape are not so suitable for easy move as they are to cross the river to reach the market. Therefore, farmers are compelled to sell their products to middlemen at low price and get deprived of having fair price. Way Forward: Local animal breeds should be promoted. There is scope for both developing dairy, goatery and poultry as viable activities for both income and nutrition. Fodder production also needs to be promoted. Indigenous fish breeds should be promoted. Governmental support for the fishers during fish ban period need to be extended by expanding coverage, quantity, and time. Flood and drought-tolerant crop varieties should be promoted. There is a need for the promotion of technology for and training in safe food production. • Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector Challenges: There are many issues that affect the food chain. Lack of proper transport and handling infrastructure for meat is another challenge. In the case of poultry, the trade is controlled by a poultry syndicate of 3-4 middlemen who exploit the small poultry farmers by buying at low price from them, and then selling to consumers at high price. Packaging is also not done properly with required information like date of manufacture and date of expiry. Cold storage is available for potatoes but not for other vegetables/fruits. Due to lack of storage facility, the rice produced in the district goes out and is brought back at a high cost. Traditional rice mills have been replaced by automated rice mills that polish rice and remove all nutrients. Necessary measures have to be taken to stop this. Way Forward: Problems of excess production, glut and steep fall in price can thereby be avoided. Farmers should be advised based on soil testing as to what crop will grow best in the soil and awareness created on the harmful effects of overuse of chemical fertilizers. Focus crops should be identified at district and sub-division levels for postharvest processing and value addition. Market and storage infrastructure is required and transport infrastructure has to be improved. An adequate number of rice godowns needs to be established so that farmers can get benefits like cold storage for potatoes.. There should be a storage facility in the district to storing an adequate amount of rice for mitigating its own requirement and then supply to other places if there is any surplus. • Consumer behaviour, nutrition, and food safety Challenges: The government is giving more importance to intensify food-based social safety net program in this area. The food environment in local restaurants/bakeries needs improvement. The implementation of food safety regulations and guidelines on hygiene practices needs to be strengthened. There is enough supply of micronutrients, and iron and folic acid tablets are distributed among pregnant and lactating women. However, coverage of nutrition programme is less in urban compared to rural areas. Poverty and lack of education remain the main challenges for the consumption of nutritious foods. Way Forward: Increased awareness regarding balanced diet among both producers and consumers and effective implementation of programmes targeting children, pregnant and lactating women are required. Coverage of nutrition programmes has to be enhanced in urban areas. Need to enhance the awareness programme on healthy diet, food safety, hygiene practices. Mass awareness programme on diversified food consumption is required. • Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance Challenges: Natural calamities such as flood and river erosion, and migration are the main challenges of this region. Flood and river erosion is a common phenomenon that displaces many peoples every year. This causes people’s migration, Way forward: - Proper measures for river control may reduce riverbank erosion - Local resource-based industry need to be established - Support for SMEs and new entrepreneurs - awareness raising237238239242243244245246247249251There were no major areas of divergence among participants.

2021-07-20 03:07:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21231/41203

The Dialogue was organized to incorporate, reinforce, and enhance the seven Principles through having five main topics of discussion and allowing participants the mobility to move between breakout rooms at any point to discuss other topics that they were interested in. Each breakout room had three questions that would steer the discussion to focus on tangible actions, future opportunities, gaps, and tensions. After the breakout room discussion, all participants gathered back together in the main room to conclude the Dialogue and to end off with summarizing the breakout rooms and with a final conclusion.Our Dialogue reflected Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, and Build Trust through our introduction and conclusion. With our guest speaker being a Member of Parliament we were able to reassure participants that the topics we were discussing at the Dialogue were important, relevant, and urgent issues that government agencies are interested in and are discussing. Additionally, having our guest speaker participate in the Dialogue itself portrayed the fact that government officials are willing to listen and learn more about food systems and discuss opportunities to incorporate new and innovative solutions at a government level. With our guest speaker’s introductory remarks, we were able to start our Dialogue on a positive note that enabled participants to feel hopeful about the discussion ahead. Our conclusion and follow up to all participants allowed for participants to share other events or activities that they were participating in and to share contact information to others as well. Embrace Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity, Be Respectful, Complement the Work of Others, and Recognize Complexity were reflected in our breakout room topics and discussions. With a diverse range of topics we were able to show the complexity of food systems and how health, ethics, the environment, the pandemic, and food security are all connected. With the mobility of moving between breakout room discussions we allowed for participants to go into breakout rooms they felt most passionate about and with a diverse range of participants we were able to be as inclusive as possible. Each breakout room had a facilitator to ensure that the discussion and conversation taking place would stay respectful and would follow the prompting questions.The advice that we have for other Dialogue Convenors about appreciating the Principles of Engagement would be that if they choose to have a guest speaker, it is important to choose a speaker that can show the importance of the Dialogue and how it can directly impact policy and decision-making. With a strong guest speaker who is directly involved in policy or decision-making, participants can feel a sense of unity and that the outcomes from the Dialogue have great potential to be put into action and create a tangible difference.

Yes

234238239242244246248249The focus of our Dialogue was to explore plant-based strategies for human and planetary health. Our five topics of discussion/breakout rooms included: health, ethical rationale, environmental evidence, pandemics and food, and food security. With our Dialogue being hosted by Canadian individuals, our focus was on the Canadian scale. Our discussions were not simply focused on the benefit of a plant-based diet, but on how to educate, promote, and emphasize the benefits to the general public.235238239242243244246249Our overarching remarks from all discussion groups include: The need to promote Canada’s Food Guide; it is strong but has not been leveraged; other countries are looking to Canada’s guide (eg. Australia is remodelling their National Food Guide and looking at Canada’s) Food guide is weak in terms of implementation and translating the food guide into meals on a plate Create new opportunities with the Food Guide, for example: to create a national school meals program to normalize plant-based diets and to promote sustainable diets at a young age Accelerate adoption of Canada’s Food Guide at all public institutions Directing government to provide subsidies and funding Reallocate and redirect subsidies away from animal products (dairy and meat) and shift towards plant-based food growing. E.g. subsidise cultivation of plant foods, pulses, algae, insects, etc. Structurally rethink how we invest in food infrastructures, food systems Provide subsidies to industrial animal production to reinvest in plant based food production, re-training Help with transitions away from animal agriculture on par with powering past and divesting from coal and similar to reorienting agriculture away from tobacco to other cash crops and value addition Transitioning to a more plant-based food system is where the world is moving towards to combat pandemic risks, food security, public health issues, environment, and other important issues, however, Canada is not fully realizing our opportunities Public education and awareness of plant-based nutrition and wellness Public health campaigns to educate and empower individuals (i.e., new parents about nutritional foods, health care providers with education and how to use the guide) Educate the public with science based, evidence-based information on plant-based food system literacy; understanding the benefits of plant-based; and a good understanding of plant-based nutrition and health awareness We need to increase the field of plant-based food system literacy Draw attention to the interconnectedness between public health, environmental health, and animal health and welfare Support course development that can be offered in universities and schools, i.e. plant-based food system literacy, plant-based nutrition elective236238239240243244246248249Health - Breakout Session Room 1 Must consider planet as the sickest person in the room; if we do not take care of environment; we cannot detach ourselves from the health of other beings Diversity of culture is useful in promoting plant-based diets; some world religions also can put us in the direction of plant based diets The role of public health - educate public health professionals to recommend plant based diet; engage with physician groups, health authorities, nursing unions, nutritionist -- similar to the lobbying efforts against cigarette companies Harness the power of social media and do a tweet storm, tik tok videos Undertake true accounting of negative impacts of industrial meat system (eg. use of antibiotics in agri food business; pandemic threat, zoonoses). Utilize health economics to compare health care and well-being for a society that is generally healthy compared to generally ill (overweight, comorbidities, NCD)236238239240243244246248249Ethical Rationale - Breakout Session Room 2 When plant-based strategies are established, what might be the social and equity opportunities? Animal ethics should be considered part of equity, ethics (i.e. intersectionality) Opportunities: Meat prices have been increasing over time and some surveys indicate a diet shift due to this (reducing or eliminating meat) Plant-based foods are more ‘viable’ for producers by growing demand (this could help create an equitable playing field) Transition to plant-based effectively, gradually and pay special attention to the way we nudge different groups of people (consider what’s realistic and meeting people where they are in terms of accessibility and knowledge) Citizens are calling for healthier options and low carbon foods more and more What are the tensions we have identified and how can we manage them? Indigenous communities and plant-based diet advocates Although it is a valid concern, it can sometimes be overblown - Indigeneity and Aboriginal rights can be respected AND can improve animal protection. The tensions can be overblown and used as an excuse to shut down discussion about the harms of factory farming, trapping, commercial fur farming (with seal hunting perhaps one exception) Vegan indigenous movements are happening currently in Canada Focus on supply more than demand - the drivers of inequitable access to food, e.g. curtailing influence of corporate food producers - should these people have a seat at the policy table? What actions, if implemented in the next 3 years, will have the greatest impact on well-being and SDGs? Health and sustainability are connected. Dietary guidelines are part of the puzzle, but need to address the implementation gap in order to meet SDG outcomes. Noted the work of Springmann et al (BMJ 2020 study in particular)236239240243244246248249Environmental evidence - Breakout Session Room 3 Oxford study: more accounting is needed of how plant based is saving of land used for forage and pasture; greater flexibility in how we manage land; freeing up land base; carbon sequestration; increase in biodiversity; fresh water use and watershed planning to reduce demand on freshwater, reduction in water pollution, lessening of ocean dead zones, reduction in pollution plastic in oceans Meet our GHG targets: Production and consumption -all along the value chain needs to be considered in their impact on GHG targets Inclusion of end to end calculation of the impact of meat on GHG Need for transparency, measurements, accountability for high standards to exceed Paris agreement Protect farm land and spaces for food production, secure political commitments and financial investment to ensure access to land (and favourable business environments for plant-based entrepreneurs) Ensuring access creates pathways for re-wilding, and enabling land to be connected to treaty and reconciliation Land protection: what is needed into the future to ensure decision-makers, politicians continue to protect the land (i.e. protect the law - ecocide law protecting land tracts from destruction)236240242243249Pandemics and Food - Breakout Session Room 4 Confined Animal Feeding Operations: continue unchallenged. Ban further factory farming. land degradation increases our risks for future pandemics Reduce pandemics by reducing animal products and increasing access to plant based options Build awareness of connection of food systems, including animal confinement and needing to be fed and how this significantly drives to climate change Promote balanced plant based recipes that show how they meet nutritional daily intake236239241242243246247248Food Security - Breakout Session Room 5 Partnerships with respect to NFPs and levels of government working together to resolve food insecurity issues that are in Toronto: Vulnerable groups and people who are really in need of support (data to drive decision making; understanding where vulnerabilities lie and where the gaps are) Looking in the future, food banks are not viable future - we need better tracking of food insecurity and replace this with income security - Canada needs a basic guaranteed income Food is a basic right - access, grow, and share their food; public gardens and use public spaces (community gardens and space, indoor production; opportunity to get municipal government involved) Many first nations are without accessible and appropriate food Many food systems create waste and infrastructure are needed to prevent waste People know how to grow food and add to the F&V options: The opportunity to train more people into agriculture Looking at accessibility and affordability where there is greater yield without GMOs Opportunity for the agriculture sector: The use of the land and with the reduction of animal agriculture the feed could be channeled to feed people237238239240243246People varied on the pace of change they were calling for and the methods of shifting food systems. Some advocated for all public institutions switching to plant-based as the default. Others wanted to see this happen in private sector as well. And still others felt more education was needed to aid individuals in voluntarily making the shift themselves. Some wanted a more active role of government to provide taxation and incentives, while others felt the demand side and market place might play a more substantial role in helping society to shift to more low carbon, higher nutrient foods.

2021-07-20 03:51:09205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18335/126

5134151164684302511115821052815857

The launching meeting for the National Dialogues on food systems in Mozambique, was held on 19th of May, 2021, under the leadership of His Excellence Olegário Banze, Vice Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. The meeting counted with the attendance of 85 people, both virtually and physically. The audience diversity was rich, counting with participations from the High-level government figures, such as the Vice-Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, the FAO Representative and representatives of other international organizations, private sector, government officials, Academia, local organizations including , women’s forum, amongst others key stakeholders. The participants interests covered not only on agricultural aspects but also in transversal areas related to food systems such as public health, banking, youth empowerment amongst others.The high level leadership in the preparation and launching of the Launching meeting ensured urgency and the needed high level commitment to the summit. The participation of representatives from the Government, International organizations, private sector, Academia, local organizations including , women’s forum, amongst ensured multi-stakeholder inclusion . The wide range of participants interests covering not only on agricultural aspects as well as in transversal areas related to food systems such as public health, banking, youth empowerment amongst others ensured the needed environment to build trust under a recognized complexity in the processRecognize that participants left other important activities to invest in the Dialog with their time and ideas. Welcome new ideas and be mindful on the ongoing activities.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251As a launching meeting, the main aim was at officially announcing the event to the general public, inform the main stakeholders and interested parties about the dialogue process and to jointly plan the next coming stages of more discussions and engagement. The event was also an opportunity to reinforce the understanding of food systems to the general public and to guide them on the major challenges and constraints of the overall food systems in Mozambique. This event was equally an opportunity to introduce a systemic solutions and game changers thinking approach to the participants, as a way of increasing their awareness to the need of a more holistic approach to identify solutions needed to transform the food systems in the country. Three presentations were given at the event: (1) Food Systems Summit, Dialogues Objectives and Methodologies, (2) Background paper on Food Systems and (3) The status of food systems in Mozambique. Special reference was made to the global guidance on 5 Action tracks 1. Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all 2. Shift to sustainable consumption patterns 3. Boost positive production for nature 4. Promote equitable livelihoods 5. Create resilience to vulnerabilities, Mozambique is focusing on 3 priority areas, namely, (1) food system value chains, (2) Sustainable food and nutrition security systems, and (3) Resilience in the face of vulnerability to extreme weather events235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The feedback from this first meeting was overall exciting and promising, with participants engaging and sharing they perception about important aspects to be taken into account in order to successfully transform the local food systems. Some of the key points raised were: • The need to look at the five action tracks as a package, with particular emphasis to the action track 5 that is perceived to be detrimental to the success of any actions associated with the remaining action tracks • The call for effective inclusion in the discussions a wider spectrum of actors both at central and local level • The need to make sure the key actors in food value chain including policies are part of the suggested focus • Make sure Provincial Directorates of Agriculture and Fisheries play a role in the process. Overall, it was suggested to look at resilience of food systems not only on the climate change perspective, but also on the occurrence of other shocks such as the covid-19 pandemic, political instability and so on. Few other participants raised the importance as well of including the least favored groups (e.g., women, youths, individuals from remote areas) in the dialogues, whilst another minority highlighted the importance of policy changes to the success of any food systems’ transformation aimed. All these points have been taken into account to the next stages of the upcoming sessions. The session concluded with a call for collective action in the next steps to ensure Mozambique captures a comprehensive stand on food system issues237238239240241242243244248Areas that need further exploration: 1. Priority areas for Mozambique: (i) food system value chains, (ii) Sustainable food and nutrition security systems, and (iii) Resilience in the face of vulnerability to extreme weather events; 2. The role of eating habits in food and nutritional security

2021-07-20 05:13:59205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14377/180

The Convenor reached out to National Health Commission Office (NHCO) for co-hosting this National Dialogue. National Health Assembly (NHA) is a process and platform of developing participatory public policy based on wisdom. It seek to bring together three sectors – the government sector the academia sector and the people sector – from health and non health background – to dialogue for healthy public policies and solutions. The uniqueness of Thailand National Health Assembly lies into inclusive participation from the government, academia, profession and people sector throughout the process. The first NHA was officially convened in 2008, since then the public health policies has been formulated through their organization. The participatory process is in line with the UNFSS dialogue Principles.The inclusive and respects for one's responsibilities and actions in the field of natinal food security. We recognized how complex between food and health aspect especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Through the preparation and organized the dialogue, the trust from different agencies is reassured. After the dialogue, more engagement both official and non-official is continued.The principles of Engagement is very useful to set the scene for the dialogues. It breaks the usual way for our discussion which requires consensus or conclusion. The principles helps participant to share ideas without prejudges the output of the dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246249250The focus of this dialogue was to inform the global development for acheiving SDGs through transformation of food system. With the 5 Action Tracks, we explore how it relates to actions and plans from 2 Acts related to food and health security. The National Dialogue Convener informed the upcoming UNFSS through the mechanism of Thailand’s National Health Assembly. The national body played a key role in driving the endorsement of the Food Act B.E.2551 and key certification standard for example taxation and financial measure. The consensus of the 13th National Health Assembly agreed to support knowledge and capacity building and food system development and implementation both at domestic and international levels. So, Thailand will be equipped resilience and capacity to deal with crisis for example food production, food storage, food marketing and trading, and development of food distribution system that can be accessible among vulnerable population.235238239240241242243244246247250Thailand has strategies, structure and resources towards food security. There are National Committees which comprised of relevant government agencies; agriculture , food and health. The main findings are; - the clear and well understood definitions is needed. there're many agencies, regulations and approaches in various both international and national arrangement. SDGs, food systems and food security is implemented within boundaries of agencies' responsibilities. - mainstraming the "good" actions. - the action tracks is similar to our strategies. How to make integrated actions among different agencies involved should be considered.236238239240242244246247249There were 3 breakout rooms which approximately 40 participants would go through all 5 action tracks. Each room shared their views on 5 ATs through 4 questions. Food equality is the other topic that has been discussed in details. The success of food bank project during the first phase of COVID-19 outbreak was shared as a case study. Community enterprises and community forest are considered as long-term solution for food equality. The response to the 4 questions from breakout sessions as follow; 1. Idea, definiton and framework : • AT1 : (1) Need clear direction towards sufficient and adequate access to safe food and good consumption. (2) The right to food that humans all need adequate food. Land areas must be available for producers to produce good quality and safe food so that consumers will have good health. (3) • AT3: (1) Realise about the issue of land ownership for agricultural purposes. Majority of farmers in northern Thailand, for example, face this limitation. Without rights to land, farmers will not be able to ask for organic certification. They have to seek Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) certification instead. Government should provide support to the PGS standard so they could expand their market competitiveness. (2)Change from multicropping to monocropping cause problems to farmers as they could not depend on themselves. 2. Linking to work experienced and expertise with areas • Thailand should be equipped with food security , and goal for adequate food supplies and food safety. Safe food producer standard should be promoted. Loei is a sample of case study where food safety standard has bs been promoted and implemented since 2018. The provincial food safety panel includes representative from consumer network and other multi-stakeholder. A total of 39 food operators have been certified for food safety standard. No chemical use. Farmers market are open every Wednesday and Saturday and receive positive response from consumers in the province. • A case study from National Health Assembly in Phetchaburi province was discussed. Food safety strategy has been implemented in the province since 2015. Cropping and GPS certification are promoted. Provincial governor is the person who takes care of certification standard. The goal is to link the elderly as the targeted consumer with community enterprise. The province is also selected as a pilot area for green growth policy by the National Economic and Social Development Board. 3. involving factors for implementation, current situation, challenges and supporting factors for policymaking. AT5 (1). Growing local plant should be promoted. (2) Different implementation from different agencies regarding land use and protected areas prevents to farmers’ access to food production source. The Community Forest Bill has made the situation even worse. Farmers and locals cannot access to food resources available in the forest areas nearby their communities, unlike their ways of living in the past. Such issues limit the local’s access of food and health security. - there is no linkage between institution and local actions. 4. Suggestins and proposals for driving implementation of each action track. - there should be rules and regulations to support food safety producers on technology. Government should recognize biodiversity of local plants, agricultural identity by speeding up registration process of these plants as protected species and synchronize all government sectors by using one map. • Use the food system mechanism to direct implementation and added value to the agriculture for boosting GDP and link all involving sectors - the policy and plan for the new BCG model should be suitable for different context at the local community.237240241242246249250- areas that need further exploration. (1) the right to food. (2) even there's many action on food safety, but the public is not confident. (3. the trade-off between producer and consumer when comes the sustaionable production.

2021-07-20 06:35:33205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23233/126

715427118263763162511331112322646118292643

At the preparatory stage a multi-stakeholder technical group organized planning sessions and outlined the Dialog focus, key participants and working groups, Meeting Agenda, presentations profiles and themes. Provided this Dialog was to take place in Tete Province as part of the Mozambique Central Region the focus was on Resilience to Vulnerabilities imposed by extreme climate events and conflicts. This is a region often affected by cyclones floods and drought as well as armed conflict. The format of the dialogues consisted of: • Official opening, made by government entities at the local level; • Contextualization of the objectives of the summit and the respective dialogue session with the participants, by the dialogue curator; • Two presentations related to the theme of each session and delivered by representatives of partner institutions and stakeholders in the subject of food systems (eg government institutions, development partners, local development agencies and the private sector); • Preliminary session for questions by participants; • Group activities with participants, aimed at discussing problems and solutions contextualized to the theme of each session; • Presentation and discussion of the results of group activities; • Session summary and event closing.This Dialogue was under leadership f local authorities and the key presentations were made by local actors including the Academic Institutions, the regional development agency and NGO. We did manage to bring on board a wide range of stakeholders from central level actors and local level participating physically and virtually in the Dialog. Group discussions provided the needed situation analysis focusing on the current status, ongoing experiences as well as on the proposed solutionsYes: be respectful of the diversity of thoughts

Yes

234238239240242243244246247248249250251Innovative Solutions to climate and extreme events shocks : This national dialogue session took place on June 3, in the city and province of Tete, with a total of 71 participants, including physical and virtual presences. Focusing on action track 5 (creating resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress), the session was “contributing to resilience to extreme weather events” and featured speakers from the Vale do Zambezi Agency and WFP.235238239240242243244245246247248249250251Six main problems were identified associated with the topic of debate: • Covid-19 pandemic and associated unemployment, which has resulted in low purchasing power, reduced demand for food, translating into surpluses at the producer level with consequences even for the high levels of post-harvest losses and food insecurity and nutritional; • HIV and other diseases that reduce the availability and efficiency of labor in the agricultural sector; • Low production and productivity, as a result of irregular patterns of precipitation and temperature, increasing occurrence of pests and diseases and the reduction of productive areas due to their destruction by the occurrence of extreme weather events; • Weak development of value chains as a result of low production and seasonality of supply, which limits the sustainable development of the agro-processing industry; • Destruction of infrastructure (for example, irrigation systems, access roads, warehouses, among others) with emphasis on those supporting production, connecting markets, storage and processing; • Abandonment of productive areas due to armed conflicts in the central region and terrorist attacks in the northern region of the country. Solutions to climate changes and climate-related or other shock events are not unique or universal, therefore, actions should be designed aiming at solving a priority event that is likely to continue over the current decade. From the group discussions, some of the recommended solutions include: • Increasing the response capacity of health services to different diseases (especially those of rapid transmission), through the expansion of the health network (ie, a greater number of health centers) taking into account its proximity to rural communities; • Implementation of the land use plan as a tool for more appropriate land planning, thus reducing the negative effects associated with the negative exploitation of environmental resources; • Identification (mapping) of alternative production areas for people affected by any of the described shocks; • Community-level education on contingency planning and risk management aspects; • Promotion of information and communication technologies adaptable to the local reality, as a warning mechanism for adverse and extreme weather events; • Provision of incentives that promote commercial as well as family agro-processing activities. Processing is considered to be able to reduce the risk of loss of production (in quantity and quality) through reduced exposure of products to inappropriate environmental conditions. In the same vein, processing is also seen as an important activity for the integration and sustainability of other productive sectors (animal production and aquaculture) through, for example, the supply of necessary inputs (such as hay as a food supplement for livestock) ; • Construction of infrastructure (for example, dams, community warehouses and access roads) that facilitate the good performance and integration of different segments of the food systems in the face of the impacts of climate shocks; • Use of technologies that ensure greater durability and resilience of infrastructures, such as the use of the product called "Claycrete", made from clay and used in the construction of earthen roads and which guarantees greater quality and durability of the same, with less need of routine maintenance interventions and, above all, at relatively cheaper costs compared to the construction of paved roads; • Humanitarian assistance to displaced people, solidarity campaigns, resettlement and agricultural development, and income generation projects for displaced and host families.236238240242244245249250251Main problems were identified: • Low production and productivity, as a result of irregular patterns of precipitation and temperature, increasing occurrence of pests and diseases and the reduction of productive areas due to their destruction by the occurrence of extreme weather events; • Destruction of infrastructure (for example, irrigation systems, access roads, warehouses, among others) with emphasis on those supporting production, connecting markets, storage and processing; • Abandonment of productive areas due to armed conflicts in the central region and terrorist attacks in the northern region of the country. Recommended solutions are: • Implementation of the land use plan as a tool for more appropriate land planning, thus reducing the negative effects associated with the negative exploitation of environmental resources; • Identification (mapping) of alternative production areas for people affected by any of the described shocks; • Community-level education on contingency planning and risk management aspects; • Promotion of information and communication technologies adaptable to the local reality, as a warning mechanism for adverse and extreme weather events; • Use of technologies that ensure greater durability and resilience of infrastructures, such as the use of the product called "Claycrete", made from clay and used in the construction of earthen roads and which guarantees greater quality and durability of the same, with less need of routine maintenance interventions and, above all, at relatively cheaper costs compared to the construction of paved roads;236238240242244247248251The main problems were: • Covid-19 pandemic and associated unemployment, which has resulted in low purchasing power, reduced demand for food, translating into surpluses at the producer level with consequences even for the high levels of post-harvest losses and food insecurity and nutritional; • HIV and other diseases that reduce the availability and efficiency of labor in the agricultural sector; • Low production and productivity, as a result of irregular patterns of precipitation and temperature, increasing occurrence of pests and diseases and the reduction of productive areas due to their destruction by the occurrence of extreme weather events; From the group discussions, some of the recommended solutions include: • Increasing the response capacity of health services to different diseases (especially those of rapid transmission), through the expansion of the health network (ie, a greater number of health centers) taking into account its proximity to rural communities; • Identification (mapping) of alternative production areas for people affected by any of the described shocks; • Community-level education on contingency planning and risk management aspects;236240241242244246248249250251The main problems were: • Weak development of value chains as a result of low production and seasonality of supply, which limits the sustainable development of the agro-processing industry; • Destruction of infrastructure (for example, irrigation systems, access roads, warehouses, among others) with emphasis on those supporting production, connecting markets, storage and processing; From the group discussions, some of the recommended solutions include: • Identification (mapping) of alternative production areas for people affected by any of the described shocks; • Community-level education on contingency planning and risk management aspects; • Promotion of information and communication technologies adaptable to the local reality, as a warning mechanism for adverse and extreme weather events; • Construction of infrastructure (for example, dams, community warehouses and access roads) that facilitate the good performance and integration of different segments of the food systems in the face of the impacts of climate shocks; • Use of technologies that ensure greater durability and resilience of infrastructures, such as the use of the product called "Claycrete", made from clay and used in the construction of earthen roads and which guarantees greater quality and durability of the same, with less need of routine maintenance interventions and, above all, at relatively cheaper costs compared to the construction of paved roads;237238240242243244248The main divergences are related to the specificity of the suggested actions for the three main production sectors (agriculture, livestock and fisheries) and types of shocks across the country, as well as crosscutting issues such as gender and environment. The main approach to manage those divergences would be through the implementation of different actions across the country, that are adaptive to the major activities and risks of shocking events that are typical at least at a provincial or country’s region level.

2021-07-20 09:02:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30148/93

132165649117260653149216411221301364223103361430

The International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) of Bari as convenor paid attention to ensure that all the principles of engagement were fully incorporated in the organization and implementation of this dialogue. The urgency to act for accelerating progress on the achievement of the SDGs in Italy and in the Mediterranean by 2030 was strongly highlighted, as well as the need to recognise the complexity of food systems. Multi-stakeholder inclusivity was also embraced, with a gender-balanced participation of representatives from different Italian stakeholder groups. This dialogue acted in direction of the Summit as a catalyst by joint different Italian organizations and existing networks to develop collective and multi-stakeholder actions towards a sustainable transformation of food systems in Italy for advancing progress on the 2030 Agenda. The participants were identified and invited from diverse stakeholder sectors and groups and by taking into account the gender balance. The discussion topics were designed in such a way to capture the principles of engagement as well as the multiple aspects and challenges of the sustainability of food systems and the Mediterranean Diet. The speakers and note-takers were carefully briefed to ensure that they created a space for dialogue that was conducive to respect and trust. Participants in the dialogue were able to voice their opinions and views on each discussion topic by using the chat box within Zoom. In this way, they were able to embrace the principles of engagement and to highlight the urgent need of concrete actions and strategies to achieve the transformation of food systems in Italy and in the Mediterranean.The design and implementation of the dialogue reflected the principles of complexity, respect, trust, multi-stakeholder inclusivity, to act with urgency, commitment to the Summit and complementing the work of others. The exchanges in the discussion topics were open, dynamic and enriching for speakers and participants. The 132 participants came from more than 13 sectors and stakeholder groups across Italy and following Mediterranean countries: Bosnia, Croatia, Egypt, France, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey. Participants appreciated interacting together and the audience. All participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency”, recognizing the important of accelerating the pace of change in their recommendations and demonstrating commitment to act. All were committed to contribute to the Food Systems Summit preparation and follow-up, as an important milestone to catalyse further action on the transformation of food systems in Italy and in the Mediterranean region.It is important to pay utmost attention to the composition – namely diversity of the invitation list – and to plan for the fact that not all invited will attend. Furthermore, in the case of online events, it is very important to secure a high technical assistance to guarantee the access to and the reliability and quality of internet connections to all participants. It is also very important for the convenors to select carefully the curator of the dialogue and the facilitators of the discussion sessions to ensure they are not pushing their own agenda but creating a space for all to express themselves and listen to each other. Moreover, it is important to make sure that all speakers are briefed by the facilitators to create a conducive space for dialogue for respect and trust, by informing well them in advance about the objectives, the agenda and the structure of the format of the dialogue, in order to be able to participate actively.

NoThe dialogue, without breakout rooms, was conceived as a moment of interactive discussion and open exchange among three previous independent Italian Summit dialogues: 1) “Reducing Food Loss, Preventing Food Waste and Promoting Mediterranean Diet: Vision and Engagement of the Italian Agri-Food System”, 9 June; 2) “Local Action, Global Connections!”, 17-18 June; 3) “Good! – Italian Stories of Agriculture, Sustainable Food Territories”, 24-25 June]; and with the CIHEAM-Bari "Integrated Action Program on sustainable food systems and the revitalization of the Mediterranean Diet, presented at the 2nd SFS-MED independent Summit dialogue, 21 June. The dialogue was articulated through the following two discussion topics: i) Towards a sustainable food system; ii) Convergences and synergies between Italian visions and commitments towards the United Nations Food Systems Summit. A conclusive session summarized the main findings of the dialogue and highlight common actions and commitments. The participants appreciated the dynamic exchange of views and suggestions among the speakers for reaching the objective of the dialogue by identifying synergies and convergences as a collaborative effort in preparation to the Summit towards a transformation of Italian food system towards sustainability. Furthermore, points of convergence emerged in each discussion topic among the speakers thanks to the facilitation by the dialogue curator. Despite not being involved directly in the discussions, participants were granted the opportunity to interact and provide their perspectives through the Zoom chat box. Key documents about the previous three Independent Italian Dialogues, the CIHEAM-Bari “Integrated Action Program” on sustainable food systems and the revitalization of the Mediterranean Diet, and the Common Ground paper on the “SFS-MED Platform” were also posted on the Zoom chat box to provide more support to the discussions. The dialogue was fully in line with the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit, providing stakeholders with the opportunity to take stock and capitalise on the main findings of the dialogue and to identify priority actions for concrete collaborative solutions to common challenges hindering food systems in Italy.

234238239240241242244245246247248249251The major focus of this independent dialogue, under the auspices of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, and Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies, was to provide a comprehensive view of the of three previous Independent Italian Summit dialogues, convened in June 2021, and the integrated action program by CIHEAM-Bari on sustainable food systems and the revitalization of the Mediterranean Diet for identifying convergences and synergies among them. Its aim was to contribute, as a collaborative effort, in the development of a common Italian action towards the UNFSS Summit and post-Summit process. for a sustainable transformation of food systems in Italy, inclusive of the participation of all actors interested in giving life to a multi-stakeholder joint effort. To organize this dialogue, as a fourth Italian independent dialogue, was a challenging opportunity to discuss and reflect together with the three curators of these Dialogues about interlinkages among them and the CIHEAM’s action programme, to better understand how to jointly move together towards the Summit and its Post-Summit process. Reflections emerged from the discussion sessions highlighted the food systems complexity and the need to take into consideration local specificities and cultural aspects of the Italian food context, within its broader Mediterranean environment. The Dialogue was also an opportunity to explore further interlinkages with the “SFS-MED Platform”, a multi-stakeholder initiative currently under co-development by CIHEAM, FAO and UfMS, with its coordination desk hosted at the CIHEAM-Bari.235238239240241242244246247248249251The need to act together and to give a direction for the food systems transformation proposed by the UN Summit towards sustainability emerged from the debate. It was highlighted the complexity of the food systems environment, and how interconnected and interdependent challenges facing the transformation of food systems towards require to be addressed through a systemic integrated sustainable approach. It was pointed out that food systems transformation and ecological transition should be jointly achieved by taking into account environmental, economic and social issues in an integrated way. It was highlighted that today all countries are becoming aware that the ways of food production and the foods we eat affect the health of people and the planet. The Mediterranean Diet (DM) was pointed out as an important strategic asset for Italy by linking together “food, culture and diets” within the context of the sustainable transformation of food systems by enhancing biodiversity and taking care of the ecosystems. It was pointed out that the Italian food system is influenced by globalization (abandonment of inland rural areas, obesity, etc.) and the increase in malnutrition among the Italian population has highlighted an imbalance in the supply of food, especially for the weaker sections of the population. Therefore, it was pointed out necessary the involvement of all stakeholders, particularly local ones, for a food system sustainable transformation around the DM model and territorial specificities. By considering the erosion of the MD as an intangible UNESCO Cultural Heritage and by considering that the data show that the adherence of the Italian population to the MD is very low, it was also highlighted the need of more institutional communication to promote the DM, not only as a healthy diet, but also as a sustainable diet, with multiple socio-cultural, environmental, economic, and health/nutrition benefits, including food waste reduction. The reduction of agri-food losses, the recovery of surpluses for a better availability of food, the prevention of waste at home and outside the home, the adoption of a healthy diet, sustainable and accessible to all, such as the MD represent a challenge for Italy and for the whole world, made particularly urgent by the pandemic crisis. It was highlighted the need to promote the best practices of the excellence of Italian agri-food production and fisheries by valorizing their high values in combining food cultures, technological and social innovation, efficiency, productivity and sustainability of the food chains, closed linked to territories, local producers, farmers and fishermen. Innovation, both technological and social, was pointed as a crucial key for the development of an effective green, blue and circular economy at the centre of a sustainable transformation of food systems. The important contribution of the marine resources and aquaculture was highlighted for building more sustainable food systems and revitalizing the MD. The enhancement of local rural and coastal communities was considered relevant with particular attention to the inclusion of youth and women. It was highlighted the need of promoting a consumer ethic that links individual choices to the well-being of the community and the food diversification leverage the synergies between biological, economic, social and cultural diversity. The need of a paradigm shift was highlighted in which food needs to be considered a right and not just a "commodity", and as it was pointed out a green transition cannot exist without a social equity. It was highlighted the activities and cooperation that CIHEAM Bari has developed in the last ten years on the sustainability of food systems and diets, using the MD as a case study to connect production and consumption in a sustainable way, going beyond the limit of the usual agricultural production approach. The “SFS-MED Platform”, a multistakeholder collaborative initiative on sustainable food systems in the Mediterranean, under co-development by CIHEAM, FAO and UfMS, inclusive of all interested actors, was pointed out as a strategic initiative for collaboration through its “SFS-MED flagship” and “SFS-MED Community of Practice”. It was highlighted the integrated approach of the CIHEAM-Bari’s action plan for coping with the multiple challenges for improving the sustainability of food systems, from production to consumption and viceversa, and revitalizing the MD as a sustainable resource as well as an integral part of the Italian Mediterranean cultural heritage. It was introduced the preparatory process for the organization of the 3rd World Mediterranean Diet Conference that CIHEAM-Bari is planning in early 2022, as a follow up to the 2nd World Conference held in 2019 in Palermo. It was pointed out in the conclusions that the main findings emerged from this dialogue were fully in line with the priorities of the Matera G20 Declaration of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Economic Development, held in Matera in June 2021, such as: food and nutrition security, respect human rights and gender equality, the promotion of sustainable food systems and the involvement of smallholders. At the end of this dialogue, it was considered by the participants to jointly organize a collaborative side event at the G20 meeting of the Ministers of Agriculture in Florence, in September 2021.236238239240241242243244246248249Session 1: Towards a sustainable food system Social, economic and environmental changes of recent years, together with the current COVID-19 pandemic, have highlighted a global vulnerability of food systems. This vulnerability needs to be faced through an integrated approach for a food systems transformation towards sustainability, in which Italy can make an important contribution within the Summit in tracing the direction of this transformation. The Italian approach to food is based on the primacy of quality over quantity and the link between agrifood production and the territory. The Italian food system was highlighted in valorizing in the best way foods at the base of MD, as well as, respects the marine and mountain ecosystems, and favors the economic, environmental, social, cultural diversity and the diversification of marketing channels. It was pointed out that the transformation of food systems needs to take place by acting on both supply and demand with an integrated approach on the food environment to influence consumer choices through a process known as "soft power", i.e. education and positive examples of best practices and lessons learned. The Italian food culture, directly linked to MD, was highlighted as a fundamental resource of “soft power” to lead the transformation of the food system. However, the Italian food system is influenced by globalization and, therefore, it is necessary to redesign the transformation around territorial specificities through a convergence between social networks and the involvement of all stakeholders, in particular local ones. The transformation of the Italian food system also implies the promotion of healthier and more sustainable eating habits. The increased malnutrition among the Italian population has shown an imbalance in the supply of food, especially for the weaker segments of the population. Many scientific studies have highlighted the value of the MD in ensuring nutritious foods, and It is necessary to enhance the nutritional-health profile of these foods at the base of MD to prevent and combat chronic non-communicable diseases (eg obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc.). Furthermore, it was highlighted the need to increase the consumer awareness on the multiple sustainable benefits of MD, through more understandable food labels to facilitate informed food choices. It was pointed out also the need to promote foods rich in vegetable proteins (eg legumes), to support the sustainability of food production chains, in particular short supply chains, to guarantee food at fair prices, to encourage food transformation processes that through "mild technologies" preserve the nutritional value of food and extend its the shelf-life, to allow the enhancement of waste by reduce the use of plastics for packaging and promoting sustainable packaging. The food systems transformation and the ecological transition should be achieved jointly by addressing with an integrated approach their interconnected environmental, economic and social criticalities. The food policies supported by the Italian Ministry for Agriculture were highlighted to be linked to each other and to global policies (eg Agenda 2030, Farm to Fork Strategy). As part of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, it was pointed out that next investments should be aimed at enhancing the supply chains of MD products. The resources of marine systems and aquaculture can make an important contribution to the promotion of MD and be a pillar for building more sustainable food systems. In this context, the SFS-MED Platform, initiated by CIHEAM, FAO and UfMS and with its coordination desk at the CIHEAM-Bari, was identified as key to facilitate the development of guidelines for the sustainability of food products and MD patterns, and for the exchange of knowledge of best practices and lessons learned, becoming also for Italy an intelligent engine for investments, benchmarks and partnerships. Furthermore, MD as a "format" rich in culture and healthy and sustainable food products, was pointed could be promoted abroad as a virtuous model thus also enhancing the Made in Italy.236238239240241242243244246247248249251Session 2: Convergences and synergies between Italian visions and commitments towards the United Nations Food Systems Summit In the synthesis of the Dialogue “Losses, Agri-food Surpluses, Domestic Waste and Mediterranean diet: Vision and Commitment of the Italian Agri-food System” it was highlighted that waste is linked to the sustainability of food systems. It was briefly presented the document on visions and commitments for the UN Food Systems Summit, structured in four areas / objectives, co-developed and shared by the main stakeholders of the Italian agri-food system: 1) to reduce agri-food losses in the steps from agricultural production up to distribution; 2) increase the recovery of agro-food surpluses in order to improve the distribution and access to food by all; 3) promote the prevention of food waste at home and outside the home; 4) promoting the adoption of a healthy and sustainable diet, such as MD, accessible to all, especially the poorest sections of the population. In the synthesis of the dialogue “Local Action, Global Connection”, the food transition was highlighted as an expression of a diversified, territorialized and responsible production and consumption system. It was pointed out the need that this transition takes place through: promotion of demand through a local vision of food sovereignty; landscape protection with agro-ecological production models; affirmation of the centrality of family farming; strengthening short supply chains and local markets; promotion of technological and social innovation to enhance local traditions; development of food education programs; enhancement of the role of networks, cities and public policies. In the summary on the dialogue “GOOD! The Good of the Mediterranean diet and Italian agrifood towards the Food System Summit ", the centrality of Italian agri-food enterprises in the transformation of food systems was highlighted. It was presented briefly the sharing path with them that gave life to the jointly document" United in Food " in which are identified 10 commitments of the Italian agri-food sector: i) sustainable production processes; ii) diets and healthy lifestyles, based on the principles of MD; iii) good corporate citizenship; iv) sustainable supply chains; v) corporate strategies and policies and profitability; vi) technological, organizational and social innovation; vii) evaluation mechanisms; viii) training and updating; ix) networks and alliances; x) alignment with international objectives. In the synthesis of the “Integrated Program of Action on Sustainable Food Systems and the Revitalization of the Mediterranean diet” by the CIHEAM-Bari, it was highlighted how its integrated approach was aimed at addressing the multiple interdependent challenges of today associated with the unsustainability of food systems through the revitalization of MD, as a lever to link consumption and production in sustainable way. The activities carried out over the past ten years on the sustainability of food systems and diets, using the DM as a case study, were briefly described. Taking into account the evolution of the concept of MD, from an example of a healthy diet to a sustainable diet model, it was highlighted the need to finalize the process of development of "Voluntary Guidelines for the Sustainability of MD", initiated in 2017 with FAO and the need of identification and development of indicators for assessing the different dimensions of the nutritional, environmental, economic, socio-cultural sustainability of the MD. As part of the development of the Flagships and the Community of Practice of the SFS-MED Platform, some initial priority actions were also pointed: collect and share data, lessons learned and best practices on SFS and MD; develop and implement methodologies for analyzing the sustainability of fisheries, agri-food products and Mediterranean diet patterns; develop and implement self-assessment models of corporate sustainability; enhance research, innovation, training and education on SFS and MD; enhance green economy, blue growth, circular economy and One-Health approaches.237There were no significant areas of divergence during the dialogue.

2021-07-20 14:42:52205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31565/30

08261220272140000006100010202410025000005151802010180

1. Los principios se presentaron en la introducción al diálogo, explicando el propósito de cada uno de ellos. 2. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores convocó a un proceso de diálogo de saberes e intercientífico, plural, abierto, buscando una amplia participación que incluya a mujeres, jóvenes, pequeños productores, empresas, área urbana y rural, y pueblos indígenas originario campesinos. De este diálogo han participado organizaciones indígenas, productores ecológicos, academia, gobierno nacional, gobiernos departamentales y municipales, cooperación al desarrollo, asociaciones de productores privados, colectivos ciudadanos, adoptando un enfoque inclusivo de diferentes grupos de interés. 4. Se ha aplicado la metodología de trabajo propuesta en los manuales elaborados para la Cumbre que, fue implementada con apoyo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, en su calidad de convocante; los ministerios de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras, de Desarrollo Productivo y Economía Plural, y de Medio Ambiente y Agua. También se contó con el apoyo de la Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra; la Organización de Naciones Unidas en Bolivia (ONU Bolivia) y sus agencias; el Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe (FILAC) y, de un conjunto de expertas y expertos en sistemas alimentarios.5. La metodología ha hecho énfasis en el respeto entre los participantes, el reconocimiento de la complejidad, el enfoque inclusivo como tema transversal a todas las vías de acción y la búsqueda de complementariedades entre los diferentes actores. 6. Mediante un equipo de más de 40 personas, entre personal de entidades públicas, personal de la FILAC y personal y voluntarios del SNU, se organizó, facilitó, moderó y sistematizó el taller, buscando crear un clima de confianza que propicie el diálogo respetuoso y permita a todas y todos los participantes tomar la palabra y compartir sus ideas.El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia asumió los compromisos de la Cumbre, reconociendo la complejidad del tema e impulsando a todos los actores convocados al diálogo, a actuar con urgencia. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. Se buscó encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y confianza. El diálogo tuvo como objetivos: Generar visiones compartidas y complementarias de la región. Recoger insumos de los distintos sectores industriales y productivos a gran escala del país. Iniciar un proceso de generación de alianzas público – privadas y comunitarias, que se consoliden y continúen trabajando más allá de la Cumbre, para alcanzar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles.Ninguno.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DIÁLOGOS NACIONALES RUMBO A LA CUMBRE SOBRE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS DIÁLOGO NACIONAL DE LA INDUSTRIA EN LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS Representantes de diversas entidades públicas de fomento a la producción, así como de empresas públicas estratégicas y empresas privadas del sector industrial en los sistemas alimentarios de los nueve departamentos del país, se reunieron para dialogar respecto a los sistemas alimentarios. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan a todo el entramado de actores y actividades interconectadas que conciernen a la alimentación de la población en las esferas de la producción, recolección, transformación, empaquetado, distribución, venta, almacenamiento, comercialización, consumo y eliminación. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan los recursos naturales, el medio ambiente, la economía, las preferencias de las personas, la cultura, los conocimientos científicos y tradicionales, incluidos los de los pueblos indígenas, las políticas, el comercio, la tecnología, el transporte y otros. Por lo tanto, mejorar los sistemas alimentarios permite avanzar hacia un mundo sin hambre, con mejor nutrición y salud, protección y resiliencia de los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad, y personas resilientes y empoderadas. El parágrafo II. del Artículo 6 de la Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia señala que: “El Estado tienen la obligación de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria, a través de una alimentación sana, adecuada y suficiente para toda la población”, en ese sentido, se han promulgado diversas leyes con relación a los sistemas alimentarios para lograr su sostenibilidad. Bolivia cuenta con 2.5 millones de personas ligadas a las Unidades Productivas Agrícolas (CNA, 2013). En el país existen sistemas productivos de agricultura familiar y comunitaria (indígena originario campesino, comunidades interculturales y pueblos afrobolivianos), convencional y agroindustrial. Territorialmente, la mayoría de las unidades productivas se encuentra en la región interandina del país (con diversas condiciones de altura, suelo y acceso al agua). Los sistemas productivos cuentan con gran tradición y riqueza socio-cultural. En Bolivia el 76% de las semillas utilizadas son criollas o nativas. Debido a la homogeneización de los hábitos alimentarios en Bolivia, la alimentación tiende a bajar su calidad. En este diálogo se buscó analizar los problemas expuestos aprovechando las potencialidades país, buscando soluciones desde diferentes perspectivas, con miras a construir sistemas alimentarios sostenibles al año 2030.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El proceso de diálogo se inició el mes de mayo y continuará hasta el mes de julio de 2021 con el objetivo de elaborar participativamente la posición del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia sobre Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en la perspectiva de complementar y enriquecer sus políticas internas y presentar su posición ante la Cumbre Mundial. La metodología se basó en la propuesta descrita en los manuales de la cumbre, aunque se adaptó a la realidad del país con base en dos diálogos iniciales: uno con entidades públicas relacionadas a la temática y con agencias del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y; otro con expertas y expertos que participan en los sistemas alimentarios del país. El propósito de estos talleres preliminares fue recoger y validar las prioridades inicialmente identificadas a través de publicaciones e investigaciones, políticas públicas (leyes y decretos), declaraciones y otros, considerando las 5 vías de acción propuestas por la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios en apoyo a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. En ese sentido el proceso de diálogos en el país contempla un Diálogo Intersectorial y Multidisciplinario; un Dialogo de Expertas y Expertos (FASE 1), tres Diálogos Regionales en Altiplano, Valles y Llanos; un Diálogo con la Academia; un Diálogo con naciones y pueblos indígenas, un Diálogo con el sector industrial (FASE 2) y un Gran Diálogo Nacional (FASE 3), cuyo desarrollo se basa esencialmente en el método propuesto en el Manual de Referencia para los Convocantes de los Estados Miembros. En esta oportunidad, el Diálogo de la Industria en los sistemas alimentarios contó con la participación de representantes de empresas públicas y privadas productivas e industriales relacionados con los sistemas alimentarios. Luego de una sesión inaugural e introductoria, los asistentes fueron divididos en 5 grupos diversos y multidisciplinarios para debatir sobre cada una de las 5 vías de acción con base en preguntas orientadoras. Cada grupo contó con un facilitador, un sistematizador y un relator. En una sesión plenaria los relatores presentaron las principales conclusiones a las que había llegado el grupo. Los principales hallazgos y conclusiones a las que se llegaron convergen en torno a los siguientes puntos: • Se hizo énfasis en lograr la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel territorial, incorporando el enfoque de género y las visiones de los pueblos indígenas originarios y campesinos. • Promover la creación de redes y observatorios para el monitoreo de los sistemas alimentarios, con base en los ya existentes, como el Observatorio de Seguridad Alimentaria. • Llevar a cabo acciones inmediatas para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia causada por covid-19 en los sistemas alimentarios. • Se describieron los lineamientos para fortalecer el enfoque hacia los Sistemas Alimentarios del Vivir Bien y el Saber Alimentarse para Vivir Bien, en el marco de nuestras leyes y plan nacional de desarrollo. Las conclusiones específicas de cada grupo de trabajo se encuentran descritas en la siguiente sección.236238243245246248249250251Vía de Acción Nº1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. • Los pequeños productores de alimentos venden sus productos a precios muy bajos. Existen productos con precios no cubren el esfuerzo que su producción requiere. A esto se suma el bajo conocimiento financiero de los agricultores. • Es necesaria la realización de un Censo, hacen falta datos actuales y precisos sobre las características de la población en las áreas rural y urbana. Y un Censo agropecuario. • Un elemento importante a resaltar es el incremento del servicio de “delivery” a causa de la pandemia, ahora se distribuyen bajo este servicio una variedad de frutas, verduras e incluso huevos. • Se necesita producir más alimentos sanos e inocuos. Debido a la fumigación con compuestos químicos, se está provocando problemas en la salud de las personas. Se, debe hacer mayor difusión respecto de las bondades de los alimentos. Muchas veces, por falta de conocimiento, la población consume a alimentos que no son saludables. • Se requiere fortalecer a las instancias públicas que están a cargo del control de los productos. Si bien existe el Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria e Inocuidad Alimentaria (SENASAG) que hace el control de los alimentos que se expenden en el mercado nacional, no controla directamente los aditivos que estos contienen. Las empresas deberían incluir la composición nutricional, aditivos y conservantes en el etiquetado de los productos. • En cuanto a los productos agrícolas, no se hace control de los pesticidas que se utilizan en su producción. No existe una verificación previa del contenido de agro químicos en los productos, y no se enseña a la población el tipo de tratamiento que deben tener los alimentos crudos, en caso de haber sido expuesto a agroquímicos. • Se debe fortalecer al Instituto Boliviano de Normalización y Calidad (IBNORCA) y al Comité de Frutas y Verduras, para que generen índices para el control de calidad y de los valores nutricionales de los alimentos. También es necesario socializar la normativa existente para promover un mejor control de la calidad de los alimentos • El Estado debe establecer políticas para crear condiciones que faciliten el cumplimiento de las normas exigidas por las entidades que realizan el control de los alimentos, asimismo debe crear condiciones para facilitar su traslado a industrias procesadoras de manera que también los productos elaborados puedan cumplir las normas CODEX. • Es importante resaltar la importancia de los medios de comunicación en la sensibilización a la población, de modo que los productos sanos sean consumidos y valorados. Los medios de comunicación son fundamentales para informar e incentivar el consumo local y la producción de alimentos nutritivos en nuestro país.236239243244245248250251Vía de Acción Nº2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible. • Durante la pandemia, se han visto distintas afectaciones, dependiendo de la zona geográfica (rural o urbana) del sector productivo, siendo los más afectados los pequeños productores . También las empresas públicas se han visto afectadas puesto que los subsidios y desayunos escolares se paralizaron. • Las industrias alimenticias podrían buscar soluciones alternativas y resilientes como la diversificación de la producción. Asimismo, se deberían generar políticas orientadas a: reducir la presencia de las transnacionales y apoyar a las empresas nacionales y locales; a elaborar un plan de manejo de la producción, en función a la demanda de alimentos y de la explotación del suelo; combatir el contrabando y proteger el mercado nacional; regular el uso de agroquímicos y pesticidas con base en estudios sobre las afectaciones en los alimentos, las personas y la naturaleza; realizar un estudio y un plan de contingencia respecto al cambio climático.. Todo esto debe ser acompañado por la cooperación, concretamente, a través de la capacitación técnica y tecnológica a los productores. • Se destaca la necesidad de llevar a cabo un análisis de la baja competitividad de la producción en Bolivia, con el objetivo de lograr mayor productividad, sostenibilidad y resiliencia. • Es evidente la falta de inclusión de mujeres y jóvenes, siendo necesario generar consciencia respecto a este tema posicionando a las mujeres y jóvenes en puestos de toma de decisiones, incluyéndolos en los procesos de consulta, en la producción e industria alimentaria, vigilando la correcta implementación de las políticas de equidad y fortaleciendo los conocimientos de las mismas empresas e instituciones en este sentido.236240243246248249250251Vía de Acción Nº3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza. • Entre los mecanismos para poner en marcha sistemas alimentarios más sostenibles se mencionaron: la importancia de la calidad, el valor nutricional de los alimentos, haciendo énfasis en los sistemas alimentarios tradicionales, la producción agroecológica y agro diversa, y la producción orgánica. • Reconocer desafíos en los mercados como los precios bajos que se ofrece a los agricultores, pero también a la preferencia de los consumidores a productos baratos, sin tomar en cuenta la calidad. • Generar políticas más integrales que influyan en los temas de salud humana y el cuidado de los ecosistemas. • Apoyo técnico y la provisión de herramientas adecuadas para mejorar en el trabajo del agricultor. Capacitación en la producción primaria. • La generación de trabajo digno y en condiciones de igualdad puede incrementar a través de: la adquisición directa del desayuno escolar a los productores, mercados justos, capacitación, especialmente, de las mujeres, asesoramiento técnico, y concientización de la calidad del producto alimenticio. • El sistema tradicional es el que aporta más a la soberanía alimentaria porque toda la producción va a alimentación de las familias. Se requiere la generación de políticas que prioricen la agricultura familiar, sistemas de comercio justo y protección social ante las crisis. • Fortalecer y ampliar el sistema de certificación orgánica como mecanismo de información de la calidad saludable de los productos. • La pandemia ha afectado en el abastecimiento de la materia prima por el alza de los precios, también en la perdida de la producción por las dificultades de venta y entrega de productos al mercado, ha paralizado la provisión de materias primas e insumos. • La cooperación internacional podría poyar con: la identificación de estrategias sobre como los agricultores de pequeña escala pueden contrarrestar el cambio climático. También puede apoyar con programas y proyectos que prioricen a los sectores más vulnerables (micro y pequeña empresa), mediante la dotación de equipos, acceso a la tecnología, y capacitación.236241245246249250Vía de Acción Nº4: Promover medios de vida equitativos. • El COVID afectó a las empresas porque implicó costos (personal que no trabaja, bajas, pérdida de RRHH por decesos), las ventas disminuyeron bastante (granos y cereales). • Las empresas pueden producir alimentos saludables; pero los consumidores no están preparados para aceptaros, por lo que hay que trabajar en esto. • Formar una nueva generación que valore el producto ecológico y la biodiversidad; de esta manera también se influiría en los padres, pero a través del ejemplo. Sin embargo, no hay que olvidar que es un trabajo integral (medios de difusión, educación). Lograr un trabajo de todos, donde todos participen. • En ese sentido, hay que trabajar en: promoción, información, educación (formal e informal) y formación (sociedad en general): Es decir, en l alimentación saludable para el bien común. • Rol de las transnacionales: En general existe una percepción negativa. Estas empresas fijan el precio para eliminar la competencia. El Estado debe regular los precios y evitar los monopolios u oligopolios, pero no ir por la coerción. • Rol de cooperación: Apoyo en capacitación (inclusión social, procesos, calidad, industrialización) para tener productos competitivos. Pero primero el emprendedor tiene que poner interés para mejorar y luego dar acceso a otros apoyos. • Mostrar otras experiencias en materia tributaria y en materia de reactivación. Intercambio de experiencias, pero promoviendo la adecuación a la realidad del país.236242243250Vía de Acción Nº5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. • Los productores han usado y siguen utilizando estrategias diferentes para adaptarse a la crisis climática. • Estamos en un contexto de crisis debido al cambio de la demanda y ante un mercado volátil e inestable, la pregunta es cómo debemos ser resilientes desde lo personal y nuestro papel individual en los sistemas alimentarios y sobre todo en nuestro papel como sociedad. • Debemos promover el consumo local. • Estamos ante el desafío de formular propuestas desde nuestras vivencias en los planos local, regional y global.237Los diálogos se desarrollaron en un ambiente de respeto y de diversidad de opiniones, los representantes asistentes asumieron visiones amplias y destacaron puntos en común para lograr consensos, por lo que no se presentaron áreas de divergencia y las conclusiones se adoptaron por consenso.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Posicion-Pais-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-FULL-V.-Espanol.pdfhttps://cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4366http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/ru/c/1411494/http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/es/c/1415023/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/981024886033808/https://www.facebook.com/CancilleriaBolivia/videos/334027861621802/

2021-07-20 15:00:22205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16393/44

35

Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples partes interesadas, invitando a los distintos actores y sectores del sistema alimentario, y considerando a una gran variedad de participantes incluyendo comunidades indígenas, nutricionistas, académicos, y a distintos servicios públicos y ministerios.Se promovió la confianza a través de asegurar la transparencia de los resultados que fueron discutidos y prontamente enviados al Convocante. Se incluyó una perspectiva de acción y urgencia ya que se logró a llevar a cabo este evento en medio de una contingencia mundial.Se aconseja dedicar mucho más tiempo para la discusión, para así valorar y respetar a las personas que desean compartir sus experiencias y conocimientos. Algunos representantes de grupos, tales como los pueblos originarios, no alcanzaron a plantear la totalidad de sus ideas.

Yes

234238239240244246249El tema principal del diálogo fue: Una mirada local respecto a los sistemas alimentarios y su relevancia en La Araucanía. Se trabajó en mesas, donde los participantes analizaron, discutieron y propusieron soluciones para alcanzar los objetivos de la temática planteada los que fueron presentados posteriormente en el plenario. Las subtemáticas abordadas fueron: • Sistemas alimentarios tradicionales y pueblos originarios. • Productos ancestrales y saludables en el comercio regional y nacional. • Producción sostenible y con respeto a la naturaleza. • Acceso económico a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y todas.235238239240241243244246248249• PÉRDIDA PROGRESIVA DE LA CULTURA AGROALIEMENTARIA DEL PUEBLO MAPUCHE: Se han visto desplazados los alimentos de pueblos originarios por alimentos ultraprocesados y por falta de valoración cultural y reconocimiento de la identidad de las variedades ancestrales. La mayoría de los productos ancestrales, que son principalmente para autoconsumo, y son de recolección y suelen compartirse entre recolectores. Lo que se consume más masivamente es el chupón, el maqui y la murta, pero muchas veces se pierden pues no se conocen más allá de la comuna/región. Se concluye falta de políticas públicas con pertinencia cultural y protección que permita resguardar el patrimonio como semillas y cultura agroalimentaria. • FALTA EDUCACIÓN E INFORMACIÓN: hay desconocimiento de lo que es la agroecología y alimentación sana. Falta de valoración, acceso al mercado y popularidad de algunos productos como los hongos. No se valora el proceso/trabajo de cultivo, o que el producto esté fresco y sea de la zona. Los profesionales deben fortalecer sus conocimientos en temas agroecológicos. Falta educación de forma constructiva y para que las familias entiendan cuales son los alimentos saludables. Se entiende solo una línea de alimentación saludable, más en el sentido de las privaciones de ciertos tipos de alimentos, lo que causa temor en las familias, ej. me quitarán el pan, chicharrones, sopaipillas, etc. • FALTA DE COORDINACIÓN DE PROGRAMAS. Falta que llegue a más gente, mejorar las redes colaborativas entre programas intersectoriales. La vinculación de los productores con los programas debe ser a largo plazo y respondiendo a la demanda e intereses de los beneficiarios (que no queden fuera por no cumplir requisitos). Poco conocimiento de los proyectos que otorgan los organismos de gobierno, como los de sustentabilidad familiar, cultivos en grupos. Falta difusión de los proyectos. • POCO ACCESO Y COSTOS ALTOS: Es muy difícil el acceso físico por la dispersión geográfica. Tener que transportarse para encontrar alimentos sanos, ya que se va una vez al pueblo recibir el sueldo, y aprovechar de comprar, lo cual se dificulta para alimentos frescos. Además, es caro comprar en la ciudad (Temuco) pero existe cultura de hacerlo. La región es una de las más vulnerables. La disponibilidad de alimentos sanos y nutritivos, libres de pesticidas, no tienen acceso en todos los mercados, por ejemplo hay en supermercados, pero son más caros. Faltan huertos propios para acceder a alimentos sanos, inocuos, nutritivos. La forma de producción orgánica es un pequeño nicho comparado a la competencia a gran escala. Los productores venden a un valor, pero los consumidores pagan un precio mayor. Falta equilibrio entre lo que realmente cuesta un alimento a lo que se paga. • ALTOS COSTOS DE LA PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE ES UNA BARRERA. Es complejo para los pequeños agricultores llevarla a cabo y las grandes empresas no tienen mayores incentivos.La producción a gran escala está asociada a los agroquímicos, y los productores menores no pueden costear esos productos (volver a prácticas ancestrales, básicos de la agricultura familiar campesina). Se está perdiendo la estabilidad del ecosistema, se debe implementar planes eficientes, y hay que aprovechar los residuos orgánicos. • PROBLEMA DE SEQUÍA, ACCESO AL AGUA Y CONTAMINACIÓN: la falta de agua de riego en algunas zonas afecta a la producción de los pequeños productores locales. Hay que tener acceso a camiones para poder suplir un consumo humano diario de agua. Escasez hídrica, de incentivos y de mano de obra rural, y el uso excesivo de agroquímicos impide tener alimentos que realmente son saludables o sanos, como los cultivados por las personas locales. • FALTA DE ASOCIATIVIDAD EN AGRICULTORES: Falta poner en la mesa el tema de los productores locales. Se requiere mayor asociatividad, cooperativismo,incentivo para que los productores trabajen en conjunto. • FALTA DE TECNOLOGÍAS, para poder conservar los alimentos, como refrigeración. Se compran alimentos no perecibles y no hay donde conservarlos. • UN TEMA CULTURAL Y DE TRADICIONES: saciar las ansiedades con las comidas, por ejemplo, en el sur: “Comer para pasar el frío”, y la importancia de la reunión de las familias en torno a la mesa. Enseñar a mejorar las recetas, rescatando la pertinencia cultural. Incorporar desde la cultura una buena alimentación. Aportes nutricionales, por ejemplo, del “muday”, a diferencia de una bebida cola. Otro punto es la falta de tiempo para poder preparar alimentos saludables. La forma de vida actual, estudios y trabajo, impide que se pueda acceder a una alimentación de calidad desde el hogar.236238239240244246249Las sugerencias de los participantes más relevantes fueron: • RECONOCIMIENTO JURÍDICO DE PUEBLOS INDIGENAS Y SU CULTURA AGROALIMENTARIA, considerando por ejemplo las semillas. • FOMENTAR UN MEJOR ACCESO AL MERCADO DE PRODUCTOS ORIGINARIOS. Es necesario generar mayor conocimiento de los alimentos ancestrales y saludables. Es esencial difundir de forma masiva entre las comunidades y el público en general estos productos, como por ejemplo, la información nutricional. También, realizar publicidad y educación de los productos ancestrales, incluyendo lugar donde se encuentran, cómo se cultivan, cómo consumen y cuáles con sus propiedades, además de recetas novedosas. Las redes sociales son clave para llegar a las nuevas generaciones y a las familias. • VOLVER A LAS RAICES, A LA TIERRA: Difundir el modo de producción orgánica de los productos locales y ancestrales. Para el respeto por la naturaleza y la producción sostenible. Mejorar los conocimientos, la forma en que nos alimentamos, y retomar prácticas ancestrales, compartiendo los conocimientos entre los diferentes pueblos originarios y comunidades en general. Las herramientas están en la agricultura campesina. Existen muchas técnicas que deben volver y masificarse, y combinarse, con las nuevas tecnologías o investigaciones para que los alimentos sigan siendo saludables y conserven sus propiedades. Por ejemplo, deshidratación, encurtidos, conservas de manera saludable. Potenciar los huertos urbanos para el autoabastecimiento, y aprovechar los terrenos que se tienen como patios o jardines de las casas. Alineación de los programas estatales para mayor pertinencia. • REFORZAR PROYECTOS Y PROGRAMAS REGIONALES Y USO DE TECNOLOGÍAS SUSTENTABLES: Potenciar políticas públicas y programas municipales para reforzar a los equipos de salud para la alimentación de las personas, facilitando el acceso de los alimentos sanos y nutritivos a la población, incluidos los alimentos orgánicos, locales y tradicionales de la comunidad. Inyección de más recursos a estos programas, mayor inversión en investigación, desarrollo, innovación, y tecnologías. Por ejemplo para escasez hídrica, manufactura, procesamiento, y valor agregado. Es necesario un trabajo colaborativo y en conjunto, participativo entre las comunidades, entidades públicas (JUNAEB, FOSIS, INDAP, Municipios, escuelas), universidades y el sector privado. De este modo se puede asegurar un cultivo sostenible, usos creativos de los alimentos y potenciar su difusión. • EDUCAR A LA LOCALIDAD, ESTUDIANTES Y PROFESIONALES Educación en el currículo escolar. Mineduc podría incorporar educación alimentaria con nutricionistas. Educar sobre productos ancestrales, teniendo en cuenta las comunidades indígenas. Los estudiantes aprenden en terreno con las huertas de alimentos ancestrales. Realización de charlas educativas sobre alimentación ancestral y saludable en las escuelas (frutas, verduras, alimentos del mar). En la localidad: incluir los programas de autoconsumo. Mejorar las preparaciones de los alimentos tradicionales que sigan siendo sus alimentos, pero mezclando o cambiando ciertos ingredientes que sean más sanos y nutritivos. Instalar o fortalecer habilidades y destrezas que les permitan a las familias implementar iniciativas productivas de autoconsumo. A los profesionales: enfocar los estudios a entender las tradiciones y culturas de las localidades donde se tiene que trabajar, p.ej. Para los nutricionistas, poder entender que las dietas tienen que estar vinculadas con las diversas culturas, adaptarlas a esas necesidades, en el estudio de los alimentos ancestrales y saludables. • APOYO Y ORIENTACION A EMPRESAS PEQUEÑAS Y LOCALES: Potenciar productores locales, incentivar al cooperativismo, para tener más posibilidades de comercializar sus productos. Capacitarlos con las técnicas productivas vinculadas a su territorio. Venta más directa/comercio justo. Los alimentos locales permiten mayor oferta de productos nutritivos, saludables, y, además, a menor costo. Difusión de estos alimentos y maneras creativas de utilizarlos. Redes sociales, Ferias comunitarias son una buena vitrina, sobre todo en verano, en que hay buen clima y turistas.237238239240243244246249Por lo general los acuerdos eran transversales Se expresaron distintas ideas sobre como compartir la responsabilidad de compartir las soluciones para la transformación del sistema alimentario de la región y la importancia de incorporar a distintos actores y sectores en esta tarea y desafío.

2021-07-20 15:34:50205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28793/44

26179

Se convocó a un universo de participantes muy diversos, desde los distintos niveles que comprometen la seguridad alimentaria. Conociendo distintas veredas del tema, se podían encontrar distintas opiniones para lograr así resultados consensuados.Reconociendo la complejidad que tiene realizar procesos de cambio a gran escala, haciéndolos a su vez compatibles con la urgencia que amerita la situación. Se hizo imperativo el complementar todas las ideas planteadas a modo que estas propuestas no afectaran a sus participantes en un futuro.Es importante incentivar desde el inicio del diálogo los principales objetivos de la cumbre, pues desde ese punto es fácil entender que ideas pueden ser objetivamente viables para lograr los resultados que requiere la cumbre.

Yes

234238239240244Se trabajó bajo tres subtemas para analizar el sistema alimentario de Coquimbo, estos fueron: • Seguridad alimentaria en escenario de cambio climático. • Acceso sostenible a la alimentación. • Desafíos de los sistemas alimentarios y la producción sostenible en un escenario de cambio climático.235238239240241244246248249251Dentro de los hallazgos en la región, que generan inestabilidad en los sistemas alimentarios se encuentran los siguientes puntos: 1. EXISTE GRAN CANTIDAD DE PÉRDIDA Y DESPERDICIO DE ALIMENTOS: Hay gran cantidad de recursos biológicos en la región, por lo que se cuenta con la materia prima para asegurar la alimentación en la población, sin embargo, el problema es que no hay buen manejo, existen mermas, pérdidas de alimentos. Dentro de los motivos están los tiempos y distancias de traslado (por la geografía de la región), y problemas con el transporte de los alimentos (manipulación y golpes), lo que dificulta el proceso sostenible. También, falta dar un valor agregado para minimizar las pérdidas de los alimentos, por ejemplo, diferenciar lo inocuo de la calidad física, qué se puede entender por calidad de alimentos. Hay que hacer un uso eficiente para no desperdiciar. Se requiere una mayor difusión respecto de la relevancia de evitar las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos. 2. FALTA ACCESO ECONÓMICO A ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES:. En la región existe alta variedad de oferta de productos alimenticios, pero la diferenciación de precios entre ferias libres y supermercados genera problemas en acceso para la alimentación a todas las personas. Falta una estrategia para dar mayor acceso a los alimentos saludables, y que se pueda entender la diferencia de los productos intervenidos químicamente versus naturales y orgánicos. En el área rural es más fácil acceder a alimentos saludables porque tienen menor costo y puedenintercambiar los alimentos (trueques) a diferencia del sector urbano, donde se debe acceder a los alimentos en el proceso de comercialización (oferta/demanda), ya que es precio venta y no precio costo (venta directa del productor). Se plateó que el factor económico influye en la alimentación saludable y decisiones de compra de las familias. En cuanto al factor cultural, la obesidad se ve mayormente en la ciudad (ritmo de vida, acceso a compra de alimentos rápidos, traslado en vehículo) que en lo rural (mayor esfuerzo físico, traslado, tienen acceso más rápido a diversidad de alimentos, traslado en bicicleta y caminatas). 3. GRAN PÉRDIDA DE BIODIVERSIDAD Y RECURSO NATURALES: la región reúne características positivas y favorables para el sistema agropecuario, pero se está en proceso de transición por los cambios en el suelo y falta de agua,. Se sugirió mejorar la utilización adecuada del suelo y agua para la generación de alimentos, con un enfoque de largo plazo. 4. FALTA EDUCACIÓN ALIMENTARIA-NUTRICIONAL: Se cuenta con productos del mar, ganadería, entre otros productos saludables. El problema es el alcance de estos alimentos por la educación nutricional que tienen las personas, ya que existe una preferencia en comida chatarra versus comida saludable, y no es un problema la cantidad de fruta y hortalizas que dispone la región. 5. FALTA APOYO A LOS PEQUEÑOS AGRICULTORES Y LAS PEQUEÑAS AGRICULTORAS: un mejor uso de la tecnología y más apoyo y seguimiento a los programas es un aporte a la producción. Es necesario un sistema de largo plazo, con grandes inversiones y sistemas estratégicos efectivos. La estrategia en función al cambio climático y sistemas a largo plazo puede generar un desarrollo sostenible. Hay que apoyar a los jóvenes a hacer agricultura moderna, con rentabilidad y un camino claro, sino seguirá envejeciendo la agricultura y los jóvenes seguirán prefiriendo trabajar en otros sectores.236238239240243244246248249251Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: 1. MEJORAR LAS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS EN TORNO A LA ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE Y PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE: Se cree principalmente que debe haber un cambio sustancial en las políticas y la comunicación de las mismas, aprovechando las tecnologías. Por otro lado, también se piensa que el reaprovechamiento de los productos es una buena forma de asegurar a futuro una producción que asegure alimentación a la población de la región, ya que con la escasez hídrica todo debe ser tomado en cuenta. Se destaca que todos los actores deben participar para generar mejoras y cambios: el Estado, la sociedad civil, productores y productoras, agricultores y agricultoras, empresas y la academia. También se recomienda fomentar el autoconsumo, capacitación de normativas y la fiscalización de la calidad y buena manipulación de los productos. Todo lo anterior con programas a mediano y largo plazo Se necesita generar este círculo para que se haga efectivo y que no solo quede en investigación. Con estos tres actores se lograría un sistema alimentario sostenible. 2. INNOVACIÓN Y TECNOLOGÍAS PARA PREVENIR EL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO Y SU IMPACTO EN EL SISTEMA ALIMENTARIO: Se manifiesta una valoración en el uso del agua y energía, y de la rentabilidad en el consumo de estos, así como la reutilización de alimentos (frutas y hortalizas) como aporte a la cadena alimenticia. En términos de seguridad alimentaria, se recomienda entregar información para prevenir. Compartir experiencias entre regiones sobre el impacto climático que se genera en la producción de alimentos y buscar técnicas para enfrentar los cambios climáticos. Existen normativas que han sido de gran aporte, como técnicas de utilización eficiente de los suelos, unidades demostrativas que permiten mostrar el buen funcionamiento en cultivo hidropónico, en una zona en la que el agua es escasa. Se podrían adaptar estas tecnologías en todo el país y traspasar experiencias de personas que manejan técnicas en el área agrícola, por ejemplo, medio de una guía práctica. También se sugiere la creación de unidades demostrativas en cada región, en diferentes puntos y así perder el miedo al desarrollo de la agricultura y las diferentes técnicas y tecnologías. Mitigar de alguna forma los daños que puedan producir los cambios. Trabajar con las comunidades indígenas para construir unidades comerciales, que han servido como demostración, donde pueden seguir trabajando con las hortalizas comunes, pero mejorando el uso del agua, energía, la rentabilidad de la nave de producción, accediendo a mejores rentabilidades con menos gastos de recursos. El uso de las tecnologías permite adaptarse al cambio climático. 3. EDUCACIÓN COMO CLAVE PARA MEJORAR LA ALIMENTACIÓN: Se destacó que preferir y consumir alimentos más nutritivos es la clave para tener una dieta equilibrada. Se destacó la relevancia de promover mayor educación en los colegios, pero incluyendo a los apoderados y apoderadas, ya que son ellos toman la decisión de compra. Falta formación e información para entender que el tipo de forma o tamaño de los alimentos, lo que no tiene que ver con la calidad o inocuidad de los alimentos, y acerca de pérdidas y desperdicios. 4. INCENTIVAR EL AUTOCULTIVO EN LOS HOGARES: Se resaltó la relevancia de incentivar en las familias y también de forma comunitaria, el conocimiento y formación de huertos y cultivos. 5. GENERAR ALIANZAS ENTRE LOS ACTORES DEL SISTEMA ALIMENTARIO: Se sugiere lograr alianzas y generar una mirada global y transversal de producción y consumo de alimentos.Incorporando a la academia, instituciones de fomento, gobierno y productores, fomentando mayores incentivos y apoyo a lo largo de la cadena.237238239240241244246249250251Dentro de los puntos fuertes que se encuentran en el sistema alimentario de la región, es la variedad de alimentos saludables disponibles, como frutas, hortalizas, carnes y leche, sin embargo, en su vulnerabilidad se presenta la dificultad de distribución de alimentos en todo lugar y el gran problema de sequía y de manejo de los recursos naturales, que perjudica la sostenibilidad de la producción de alimentos. Se menciona que se deben enfocar incentivos en la región a los pequeños agricultores y las pequeñas agricultoras, ya que hay poco interés en seguir trabajando en la agricultura versus otros sectores como la minería, por estabilidad y rentabilidad. Se solicita especial atención en este punto al gobierno local.

2021-07-20 16:06:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35765/40

Yes

2021-07-20 21:46:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17571/194

60

Please see summary report.Please see summary report.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245248Please see summary report.235238239240241242243244245248Please see summary report.236Please see summary report.237Please see summary report.

2021-07-20 21:58:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5883/33

5001371110292110143628212252931371023814716279114

The Dialogue was organized by two organizations – WWF-Brasil and Comida do Amanhã – with complementary visions and missions, but with different incidences in the promotion of more sustainable food systems, and, additionally, it was curated by Paulo Durval Branco, a professional and representative of an organization (IIS) with experience in the most diverse links in the food value chain. The facilitators of each group have been properly trained in the methodology of the Food Systems Dialogues and are people with experience in the respective discussion topics. This congruence of actors has already been translated into scope delimitation and discussion groups - in coherence with the proposed methodology - that reflect the multiplicity of visions, actors and possible lines of action necessary to build solutions with the necessary urgency for action towards to more sustainable, resilient and inclusive food systems. In addition, special care was taken to invite participants to reflect the diversity present in current food systems, both from a broader point of view – sectoral, territorial and gender, for example, in addition to seeking the representation of grassroots social movements and agroecological solutions as holders of solutions in this context. Finally, seeking to promote a horizontal and safe space for all participants, the event adhered to the Chatham House Rules, preserving the identities of the participants and their organizations.The main theme of the Dialogue – “The present challenges, and the mechanisms needed to ensure justice and sustainability in food production systems and their access to distribution chains”, as well as the topics for discussion in the groups – Access to Land and Legal Security; Technical Assistance and Rural Extension; Financing; Access to Markets; Fair trade; Communication, Information and Education for Consumers and Conceptualization of Good Practices were developed to reflect in particular the principles of 'Act with Urgency', 'Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity' and 'Complement the Work of Others' and 'Build Trust', and the organization of the Dialogue and it's realization, reflects all principles directly. The proposed discussions, as well as the guiding questions, also served as leverage for a discussion that reflected the Summit's core principles. The group of participants was diverse and selected aiming at the presence of representatives of sectors, organizations and ideologies considered a priority by the organization of the event for the construction of solutions, which proved successful both considering the effective participation of the guests, as well as the content of group and plenary discussions, which will be better described below.For the organization / curatorship of a Dialogue, it is important to form a group which contains a multiplicity of views, so that from the beginning, the process of conceptualizing the event is comprehensive enough to accommodate the different positions that will invariably emerge in a space for a healthy exchange. In addition, all facilitators should ideally be people who know the topics of their groups well enough, but who also have an affinity for group moderation and a good synthesis abilities – which was the case at this event – ​​to make it possible that there is a good use of time in the discussion groups as well as that all participants have access to representative reports in the plenary. In addition, it is essential – for closed dialogues – to design a guest list diverse enough to accommodate the complexity of food systems and keep up with RSVPs, reminders and constant in advance guidance, to make the best use of the precious time that all guests have dedicated to the event.

Yes

234240241243244245246247248249Considering the alarming, advancing numbers of malnutrition and hunger in Brazil - which will still worsen due to a number of factors, including the especially critical situation of the covid-19 pandemic in the country - superimposed on the increase in environmental degradation due to production of agricultural products and food (including those that are not intended for national consumption or direct human consumption, as raw material for animal feed) it is possible to affirm that there is a latent inconsistency in Brazilian food systems: agricultural production does not meet nutritional needs of the population, as well as contributes to the non-achievement of national and global goals related to climate change and loss of biodiversity, for example. Those who produce healthy and socio-environmentally responsible food – especially agro-ecological or agro-forestry production systems, for example – directly aimed at maintaining the Food and Nutritional Security of the Brazilian population face a wide range of challenges – from the most primordial access to land, almost non-existent technical assistance and rural extension, dependence on excessive use of pesticides, unequal relationships with buyers and/or difficulties in accessing markets, among others. There is a scenario of heterogeneity, insecurity and uncertainty in the field as well, which urgently needs to be reversed. The general objective of this dialogue was reflected in the division of groups and discussion topics proposed below: 1) Access to land / legal security Producers have guaranteed their access to land, with mechanisms and legal tools that give them security, avoiding disputes and violence in the field. 2) ATER and rural extension / inclusive technology Producers have adequate and frequent technical assistance, and have access to technologies that boost productivity and reduce the environmental impacts of production, making them increasingly resilient both to climate change and market fluctuations. 3) Financial mechanisms Production of healthy food in a sustainable way is guaranteed thanks to the existence of private and public investments, carried out through clear criteria and with governance models that leverage fair market relations. 4) Fair market relations All the conditions exist for relations between producers, consumers and other links in the food chain to be always fair and established horizontally, regardless of a direct purchase channel. 5) Expansion of scale and access to institutional and private markets Small and medium organic and agro-ecological producers have access to markets and are able to guarantee the flow of their production through scalable models, making sustainable and local production models have the necessary financial resilience. 6) Communication, education and transparency for consumers Communication and education content on food systems and food production methods are prepared with transparency, truthful and relevant information, without conflict of interest, ensuring that consumers understand the impacts of production systems and their alternatives. 7) Production without deforestation and conversion (“After all, what is sustainable food production?”) The population knows that it is possible and necessary to produce food without deforesting or converting natural ecosystems, with low, zero or even negative GHG emissions and without loss of biodiversity. It is understood that agriculture depends on the forest - and there is consensus, monitoring mechanisms, data and indicators, tools and structures for the design and implementation of production models that work in this new paradigm. The Dialogue, therefore, is directly related to two specific courses of action: AT3 – Boost Nature Positive Production and AT4 – Advance Equitable Livelihoods, while recognizing the inherent interconnection of all Action Tracks, seeking to give visibility to solutions that already exist and that represent these guidelines, such as agroecological production and Community Supported Agriculture, for example, but also the obstacles to their gain of scale, and possible collective solutions to overcome them.235240241243244245246247248249There was consensus, both in group discussions and among them, on the concept of more sustainable agriculture. Agroecological, agroforestry, organic and regenerative practices, respecting the sovereignty and knowledge of traditional peoples and communities or generations of family farmers who traditionally produce healthy and sustainable food for the Brazilian population were identified as the main ones to study in greater depth, and enhance - with adequate technical assistance, financial incentives and facilitating their access to fairer markets – and that efforts in terms of information and education need to be made to make society aware of their benefits. Only in this way will it be possible to actually promote fairer and more sustainable food systems. The mapping of the difficulties faced by these producers followed the same line among all groups, based on the lack of recognition and appreciation by the various segments of society. A key issue that permeated all discussions was the imminent threat of dismantling public policies and conquered rights, and how the current scenario is more based on resistance than on a more propositional posture, and that, thus, self-governance initiatives, which strengthen initiatives and movements and supports their articulation and resistance are essential in the sort term. Land conflicts, which involve the sovereignty of traditional peoples and populations over their territories and the security of small farmers over the places from which they earn their livelihood and where their families have lived for generations, cause insecurity. From the point of view of technical assistance, the absence of more frequent mechanisms suited to the different regional, cultural and territorial realities stands out, even though these are essential both for the maintenance and expansion of existing initiatives, as well as for the transition of producers who want to become more sustainable in their practices. In terms of financial mechanisms, the challenges lie in the access to public credits, which are dispersed and difficult to access for small producers, and in the inadequate rates and conditions of the private sector. When talking about access to markets and the establishment of fairer relations between producers and buyers, the low implementation of public procurement policies and programs aimed at family farming, as well as unequal relations and difficulty in accessing private markets make it impossible that producers receive fair pay and have adequate income, and therefore, threaten their permanence in the countryside. And from the point of view of consumers, asymmetries in terms of income and access to healthy and sustainable products, and also in the experiences and educational tools available, which would support a better interpretation of the biased information received, combined with a broad narrative of industrial agribusiness being the norm, hinder the their encouragement of healthy and sustainable products and farmers, as well as their ability to make better choices for themselves. However, just as there is consensus on the challenges, there are also clear lines of convergence on the solutions that already exist and need to be strengthened, as well as those that need to be created. The proposed solutions are interdisciplinary and complementary, and urgent and directed action along these lines, achieved through clear roles and responsibilities and partnerships, could change the trajectory of our food system. The performance of public institutions must be carried out in the sense of guaranteeing the rights already conquered, in supporting and monitoring the implementation of public policies and programs aimed at family, traditional, organic and agro-ecological agriculture, and in fiscalization for breaches of the laws. However, and considering the aforementioned context, the strengthening of spaces for social participation, such as councils and committees, is essential for the discussion of fundamental agendas. Civil society organizations and grassroots movements need to intensify their actions, and with the support of other actors, such as NGOs, academia and the private sector, build narratives that bring consumers closer to these causes. Initiatives such as Communities that Sustain Agriculture (CSAs), Catrapovos, consumer groups, organic and agroecological fairs, as well as urban agriculture in public spaces are already existing models that can subvert the current logic of production and consumption and bring both fairer remuneration to producers when bringing consumers (or in the case of CSAs, co-farmers) closer to natural cycles and supporting the valorization of the products and farmers who produce them. For this, it is also necessary to understand that there are different realities within the scope of consumers, and that each of these solutions can be more applicable or more urgent for certain contexts. Still, for the maintenance and expansion of these initiatives, the presence of adequate and frequent technical assistance is needed - joint responsibility of the government , academia and civil society organizations - as well as articulations that allow the transfer of knowledge between producers and associations and its permanence after the end of any specific project. It's essential to reinforce that from the point of view of narratives, including consumer education and information, the main focus should be on highlighting and valuing recognized solutions, and on the search for the development of projects and tools that can systematize them.236240241243244245246247248249Access to land / legal security There is a perceived lack of recognition, both by institutions and by civil society, of the right to land by producers, especially by traditional populations – a right that is guaranteed, at least formally, by the Brazilian constitution. This lack of recognition, together with real estate speculation in the countryside and in the cities, generates insecurity and violence. The importance of guaranteeing this right related to the promotion of more sustainable production practices is also not perceived, although the importance of this collective recognition and the effective defense of human rights should go beyond issues related to production - traditional peoples and communities do not necessarily identify themselves only as producers, and their relationship with the land goes beyond that, although the historical knowledge of a harmonious relationship with nature – which also materializes in the sustainable production of food – can and should be valued. There are three important points in this debate. First, the need to strengthen and enforce public policies that guarantee the right to land, it's use, and permanence in the territory, and thus ensure that people from traditional communities and small farmers have the right to live as they see fit, guaranteeing them sovereignty over the territories where they live. And for this, it is necessary that the competent institutions – such as the Public Ministry and the Federal Supreme Court, for example – are able to act effectively in the implementation of public policies such as land demarcation, in the articulation and in mechanisms for reporting, monitoring and if necessary, punishing for violations of the law. The second point highlighted is the current political scenario, which not only makes the implementation of existing tools difficult, but also constantly creates threats of setbacks to the conquered rights. The dismantling of important institutions such as the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) and the National Indigenous Peoples' Foundation (FUNAI) is observed, as well as public policies such as the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF). In responde to this, the valorization of local initiatives, individually, but also the promotion of exchanges and bonding opportunities between small groups, is presented as a solution, so that collective actions are constituted and strong enough to resist. In addition, it is essential to garner support from civil society, seeking genuine and emotional engagement, without promoting polarization and supported by strong narratives, so that citizens can favorably influence the legal system, speaking out against imminent setbacks, but also making different choices in the elections of future representatives. And finally, although the current moment is mainly one of resistance, solutions such as the development of tools for the mapping, connection and visibility of existing initiatives - such as existing projects for mapping social technologies - are suggested as priorities, in order to identify those that already are established, their food production, what they lose when there are invasions, as well as those who are no longer able to access public policy, and to help to identifying the strengths and challenges in both scenarios. In addition, a mapping of territorial initiatives involving economic, environmental and social indicators, such as how much income these actions generate, how many jobs they create locally, what is their impact on literacy rates, which territories these organizations help to conserve, among others, they can support the planning of future actions and investments, as well as strengthen the fight for the claim of rights and the necessary narrative for the engagement of society.236239240243244245246247248249Technical Assistance and Rural Extension / Inclusive Technology Technical assistance and rural extension are essential for the development of more sustainable production solutions, both from the point of view of gaining the scale of existing models and technologies, as well as to support the transition to new healthier and more environmentally sustainable models. However, there is both the lack of assistance, especially those that allow organic and agroecological practices, and the infrequency in their offer in general, as well as the presence of biases in the most frequently available current models, which often reinforce practices based on monocultures and dependent on pesticides, for example. It is necessary to increase the capillarity and access to technical assistance, as well as its frequency and constancy. But at the same time, it is identified that the quality of technical assistance offered to producers needs to be improved, with due attention to the knowledge of the particularities of each region, its soils, climate and availability of native species. In particular, there is a need to strengthen specializations in a technical area such as agroecology and to develop specific training for the particularities of family farming. In its constitution, assistance activities need to focus simultaneously on environmental quality and sustainability of production in its various aspects: economic, social and environmental. Another key point of debate is the need to promote technical assistance actions that are emancipatory, so that producers can continue the work after the end of a specific project. From this perspective, the creation of mechanisms that allow the transfer of technology to the producer emerges as a solution, in a logic of co-creation, in which the producers who generate the demand and the technicians work to solve the identified problem. However, without ceasing to use existing practices, so that both approaches are complementary. Still from the perspective of emancipation, it is important to work on the more comprehensive training of farmers instead of focusing solely on productive practices. Producers, especially smallholders, need better access to trainings and technologies that promote their digital inclusion, and that provide them with better inventory and cash flow management, for example. Leadership trainings in governance, acountability and other factors are also essencial to their market acess and livelihoods. In addition, it is urgent to strengthen networks that allow the exchange of knowledge between producers and the dissemination of agroecological practices and lessons learned, as well as the creation of mutual support groups that distribute some costs associated with production among different producers or families, such as the acquisition of inputs, for example. As challenges, it was pointed out the difficulty in establishing bridges between producers, to share information, experiences and good practices, which can be stimulated by NGOs, academia and the farmers themselves. The difficulty in obtaining specific public and private resources to implement actions to improve family agriculture, agroecological, etc. was also discussed. These resources can come from public rural credit programs or from the private initiative itself, through grants or partnerships, and finally, the difficulty in systematizing and disseminating knowledge related to agroecology, which can also be conducted in partnerships between producers, NGOs, the technicians themselves and academia.236239240243245246248249Financial mechanisms There was a time when it was possible to observe a prioritization on building and rolling out public policies focused on food production, agrarian development and minimizing hunger in Brazil. Even with due criticism of this past model, in the last five years the scenario was inverted, becoming a time for dismantling of these policies. It is therefore necessary to consolidate a narrative of reconstruction through two main paths: facilitating access to credit in the private sector - which still has very high transaction costs - and combining and potentializing it with the capilarity of the public sector - which does not yet have its resources completely free for organizations. In this way, it becomes possible, for example, “to use the private sector tractor in a way oriented towards healthier production systems”. The financial system itself, as a whole, is changing: an example of this are ESG investments, focused on the environment, sustainability and governance. This may be a significant opportunity, over the next few years, to open gaps for financial access focused on family farming and agroecology. It should be remembered, however, that large banks are involved in this discussion, which can make it difficult to advance these agendas. It is essential to look more fairly at public policies related to food production, such as access to land, land tenure regularization and rural technical assistance. Once the producer has technical monitoring, it is necessary to create easier mechanisms for granting credit, and the government is fundamental in this context. However, each of the opportunities offered by the state has a specific process to be accessed, so reducing bureaucracy in accessing these opportunities is urgent. Family farmers still have some difficulty in accessing markets - public and private, and therefore cooperatives or assotiations take on the role of facilitating it however possible, and this can also be the case for private and public credit or financing. In the case of retail chains, the model is quite asymmetric, as they only pay after 30 to 90 days. In this sense, it is extremely necessary to review business practices. Finally, financing does not need to happen only at the food production stage. It can also occur in its commercialization and processing. New models, such as financing for warehouses and agro-industries can be carried out from this perspective. Large banks offer loans at unfeasible rates, which are close to 40% a year, which reinforces the need for action by the government. In this sense, the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF) has public information on the amount of credit approved. However, there is also an asymmetry regarding the types of crops or products served by the Program: while some receive a lot of investment, others receive an incredibly smaller contribution, and development banks, such as the BNDES, end up not having much appeal to operate in the public initiative. Thus, public-private partnerships can be very welcome to resolve this issue. The debate about the essentiality of small producers already exists in the academic environment: they are capable of bringing positive environmental and social consequences to food systems. However, measuring these consequences is still very complex, and the public sector could offer subsidies to advance this issue. Ultimately, it is necessary to think about the extrapolation of production and productivity indicators and start thinking about social development, regeneration and restoration of landscapes through food production, in addition to the more traditional indicators.236239240244246247248249Fair market relations The group's discussion was focused on short production and consumption cycles, assuming that this is an essential dynamic for more horizontal relationships between the parties, and that they encourage the real appreciation of agriculture, both from a monetary and symbolic point of view (which directly affects in the price). However, it is also recognized the importance and urgency of improving relations between producers and retailers, seeking better rates of remuneration. The establishment of fairer relationships - when applicable to market logic, from an economic point of view - has great potential to be a lever for sustainable food prodution, a statement proven by the existence of models such as Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), in which consumers become co-farmers and support and participate in the production of their food regardless of the products received. This guarantee is essential for promoting safety in the field, and the opposite also applies; the more fluctuations in product prices, the greater the difficulty for producers to maintain this activity over generations and to invest – time and financial and human resources – in improvements in production. Certifications and seals are tools that would potentially support a better valuation of products from more socially and environmentally responsible models, however, the bureaucracy to obtain these certifications is so great that it makes them inaccessible for most producers. As a proposal, the creation of an agroecological seal that is simpler to be obtained was discussed, or the creation (or adaptations to existing models) of some mechanism that guarantees the traceability and identification of riverine, quilombola and indigenous communities in the products, as a certificate of origin. However, the fact that existing certifications are accredited in public procurement programs, which are good sales opportunities for family farmers, organic and agro-ecological producers, would continue to be an obstacle. Anyway, other labels would support the increase of recognition and appreciation by consumers, another important aspect of this equation. To support consumers in better valuing food and differentiate production models, open cost spreadsheets at points of sale are an example of a tool that can both raise consumer awareness and encourage fairer remuneration for farmers. Greater adhesion of consumers to networks such as CSAs or consumer groups, more consistent with the solidarity economy than with the logic of purchases and sales by middlemen in a traditional trade, would guarantee fair prices and the flow of production, also reducing waste in logistics. Based on the experiences of direct sales and home deliveries, which flourished during the pandemic, it is shown that it is necessary and possible to bring the relationship between producer and consumer closer together beyond the purchase. Even considering the most vulnerable people, who do not necessarily fully exercise their right to choose food, the presence of more direct consumption channels or tools that allow for a closer relationship with agriculture would be extremely beneficial and would increase access to healthy and sustainable food. In urban centers, for example, where most food deserts are located, the presence of urban agriculture could be in public spaces such as schools, Basic Health Units - UBS, in public squares. This contact with nature, of consuming something that was produced locally, has educational potential and guarantees food security. Another significant obstacles identified by the group were logistical flows. It is necessary to consolidate online tools that facilitate the flow of family farming products, as well as solidarity funds for purchases that encourage agro-ecological purchases to reach those in need, and mechanisms that encourage exchanges. For the implementation of the proposed solutions, each entity in society has its role, and they must be articulated. The articulations of the food security councils are fundamental to make this connection between public sectors, so that citizens can claim rights and press for public polcies and subsidies.236239240243244245246248249Expansion of scale and access to institutional and private markets There are challenges prior to the topic raised for this dialogue, as many farmers still plant only for subsistence, not having access to any market. Talking about financial resilience with the economic model we currently live in, as well as the food insecurity situation we live in is very difficult. We need to change paradigms and give due recognition to rural producers, who are currently extremely undervalued. Without this, how will it be possible to engage more people in urban agriculture, especially on the outskirts of large metropolises? How to make cities less dense? Another big challenge discussed was about the scale of food and that we should not have organic monocultures. Food cannot be a commodity. And some possible arrangements that promote market access by small producers were discussed, but the question remains – is it possible for these models to exist in way that small producers access large markets without the product being aimed at an elite? There was a consensus that unconditional support for agricultural work is necessary. One initiative brought was that of Catrapovos in the Amazon, with short production cycles, where the community delivers directly to schools. It was also commented that the solidarity and associative economy is extremely important and should be encouraged. It was widely discussed that the public market must be conquered and encouraged. We need to treat current public policies as an achievement and not a gift if we want them to last. We need to increase access to public procurement, secure their budgets and understand how to complement them. For this, it is necessary to invest in training on the topic of public procurement for farmers and public managers. It was also mentioned that to increase family farmers' access to public purchases and government programs such as Food Aquisition Program (PAA), National Program of School Food (PNAE) and he National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF), it is important that farmers are organized in cooperatives or associations, or at least are in constant contact. Another point raised in this regard was the need to change the methodology of public calls or tendering, which are currently carried out specifying a product, such as lettuce plants, and not a group of foods, such as vegetables. The qualification of access to data and monitoring of public purchases must also be worked on, so that measurements and monitoring of programs can be carried out. We need to review our concepts and take more ownership of regulations and public policies. It is necessary to better identify public buyers and qualify them, but currently there is no data for this. There are no mechanisms for evaluating the satisfaction of those who bought it, who received it. For this, and as proposed measures for monitoring the solutions, it is necessary to focus on tools that qualify the food offered and assess the level of satisfaction of those who consume and purchase products from family farming. It is also necessary to monitor public purchases, in order to enforce, for example, the obligation to purchase at least 30% of family farming in the PNAE. Often, the agency makes a call, but does not execute even half of the resource that was requested or announced, leaving the farmer in a risky situation, as he has already commited and invested resources to fulfill the request. The return of public resources allocated but not spent on family farming must be closely monitored. As implementers of the solutions, schools, universities and educational institutions play a role in disseminating and producing applied technical knowledge, and also in creating indicators that can support engagement narratives, as well as monitoring the effectiveness of actions. The government (federal, state and municipal) has a fundamental role, both in maintaining the budgets of programs and projects related to agriculture and in encouraging, training and retraining its extension workers in agroecology. It was also agreed that the general population needs to understand the entire process and become aware of their choices.236239240243244248249Communication, education and transparency for consumers The starting point for this discussion was the conceptualization of the term “consumers”, which cannot be generalist. In a country as large and unequal as Brazil, sociocultural as well as economic aspects make the relationship with food, information, physical and monetary access and habits extremely different, and therefore, it is important to recognize that even in a very simplified way, there is a group of consumers who have much more immediate conditions to make choices for healthier and more sustainable foods, while others need to have their right to adequate food guaranteed. The line between communication and advertising can often be blurred, and this dynamic can be observed at the product or brand level, with the sector's self-regulation in statements about them - often misleading consumers - as well as in the present narrative that large agribusiness is the basis of the economy and national culture, which was agreed by the entire group that does not reflect reality. For purposes of regulation of communication under products, the need for greater monitoring of food value chains, in cases of processed products, and the importance of good practices and self-responsibility on the part of those who provide this information were pointed out - although this was a point of doubt before the group. Is self-regulation possible in these cases? In addition to this point, the importance of strengthening tools and public organizations responsible for this regulation was highlighted. Institutions such as the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) and tools such as nutrition labeling need to be strengthened and grounded in science, so that they can fulfill their social function. In terms of broader narratives, and to deconstruct the belief that monoculture based on deforestation and conversion, and extensive agriculture are the ideal models of development and towards greater knowledge of the origin of products, the importance, of making more sustainable choices for individual and collective health and that reflect the diversity of native foods in the country, efforts from of all actors in this chain need to be made. However, a specific focus needs to be given to education, which acts in a different way, more structuring than information. And that is why it is essential to strengthen public procurement programs for the presence of agroecological and family-based products in school agriculture so that there is the construction of habits and knowledge through immersion from an early age, as well as include considerations on different types of production and their positive and negative impacts in universitiy and technical courses. It was also pointed out that by stating that "most consumers do not know local foods, they are far removed from the production cycles, etc." - we are ignoring the fact that there are regions, in the countryside and in the city, in which individuals do have knowledge of native foods, from socio-biodiversity and local production, and it is exactly this knowledge, and the ways in which it is transmitted, whether through the schools, families, fairs, etc., which need to be valued and leveraged as important tools for the education of the rest of the population that has in fact distanced itself from the natural cycles.236239240243244246247248249Production without deforestation and conversion (“After all, what is sustainable food production?”) There are two key points to be considered in this discussion – the lack of incentives and conditions to gain scale in productive models considered sustainable and the difficulty in recognizing some of them, due to a series of factors that will be discussed in more depth below. With regard to sustainable practices, such as agroecology, organic and regenerative agriculture, for their intensification, the needs to value the communities on their lands and value their knowledge were identified, as they are the ones who understand exactly how to manage their land, climate conditions and native species. Systematizing and disseminating this knowledge is imperative to strengthen this production and gain scale. When there is technical assistance offered in these places, in general they tend to be based on more technocratic and “conventional” models, which is an obstacle and a risk for the maintenance of these practices. Another important point to recognize is that each territory has its peculiarities, especially in a country as large as Brazil. Sociocultural and environmental factors change a lot from region to region, and good agricultural practices will be different for different peoples, cultures and territories. In any case, strengthening research actions that are more localized and more respectful of traditional knowledge can support the construction of indicators that demonstrate their sustainability and potential for replicability. As an example of the difficulty in conceptualizing some systems, the sector of native seeds and seedlings was pointed out: while the exotic eucalyptus has abundant public resources for its planting, research on native species is close to zero. It is known that there is a huge variety of native autochthonous species, only in the region of Rio de Janeiro (Atlantic Forest) that have no records and are not easily found in nature and that for an estimated ¾ of them, the risk of extinction is not being monitored by the usual indicators. Even less is known about its qualities. In order to encourage and gain the scale of the more well-established practices, it is important to develop and strengthen incentives, financial and technical policies for these initiatives, and increase knowledge on the part of both producers and society in general of these programs, to that can respectively access them and demand, civically, their maintenance and full execution. In the sense of social participation in public agendas, the urgency of strengthening the performance of public councils and committees was highlighted, so that they occupy the democratic spaces of public participation properly and press for the implementation and compliance with already established laws and monitor possible setbacks. For this, it was also identified the importance of the involvement of academia, as part of society, for the maintenance of more informed and science-based debates in these spaces. Still discussing the role of consumers and civil society, it is essential that, through educational programs and qualified information, the differences between the different production models and their implications are made known, as well as local products from socio-biodiversity. This appreciation and recognition by society also affects the private sector, which can be a vector of dissemination and support for these practices. Another important point is that the conceptualization of good practices, as well as the evaluation of progress, needs to be a more participatory process, involving academic or more technical institutions, but also civil society, producer associations and cooperatives, in order to build consensus. The narrative of “conventional” agribusiness is very well structured, and it is important that there is a good enough understanding for joint actions among the group of producers who apply sustainable practices.237239240243244246249Looking comprehensively at the group and plenary discussions, even though there are mostly converging points, interconnected, there is a series of divergences or points to be better explored in future opportunities. A central issue concerns the risk of “commodification” of organic or agroecological agriculture. We cannot aim for organic monocultures. In parallel to the gain of scale and increase in the number of initiatives and networks in agroecology, organic production, etc. it is necessary to think about more systemic changes in consumption patterns and market relations. Another important point to be discussed in more depth is the role of the private sector in each of the areas of this Dialogue. Although there were statements in all groups addressing the responsibilities and opportunities associated with the participation of the private sector, there are reservations about possible conflicts of interest inherent to this performance. An example is the question of whether or not there is self-regulation by the sector regarding the communication of product attributes. Can you expect this communication to always be done with the consumer's well-being in mind? And if not, how do you work around this conflict in a feasible way? Although there are initiatives that bet on this self-regulation, social control and public regulation in these segments are essential. In fact, although in most groups and topics of discussion this is a point of consensus, the framing of “government” or "public agencies" also needs to be better defined in order to better address engagement actions in this sector. There are conflicts of interest, overlapping responsibilities and blind spots in this huge structure, and identifying the best entry points and actors to engage across different levels of government is essential to achieving good results. Collaboration to conceptualize solutions and good practices, as mentioned above, is also a point to be deepened, in the sense of consolidating possible indicators to consider in the construction of tools for mapping initiatives and construction of narratives that can reach end consumers in a more understandable way. Several groups raised the need to better define and standardize (as far as possible) environmental indicators for these good practices, as well as the need to give more visibility to social and territorial indicators.

2021-07-21 06:36:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30743/104

The Dialogue was designed to incorporate, strengthen, and optimize summit engagement principles such as acting with urgency, committing to the summit, being respectful, recognizing complexity, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complementing the work of others, and building trust. Initially, a brief presentation was prepared to introduce participants to the UN Food System Summit 2021's goals and objectives, the various types of dialogue, key players, and the five action tracks, as well as Lebanon's current water status and major challenges. This was followed by an open discussion in which all participants were encouraged to participate. Furthermore, the Dialogue provided background information on the use of technology to improve water use in food systems, as well as methods to enhance/improve water quality to ensure food safety. It also heightened a strong desire to hold more dialogues in Lebanon. Key stakeholders representing youth from national organizations, universities, businesses, and others, as well as UN agencies, were invited to the dialogue to share their knowledge, ideas, and viewpoints, as well as to suggest game-changing solutions. All participants reinforced the need for urgent action.Having a virtual dialogue necessitated the development of various approaches to eliciting active participation. The conveners of the dialogue encouraged everyone to participate. The use of the “Mural” application allowed for direct input from participants onto the board as well as voting on priority issues. The floor was open to any input to ensure that all points of view were considered. Questions were posed in order to elicit comprehensive responses from everyone.It's recommended that the Summit objectives, vision, the various types of dialogues, key players, and action tracks be presented at the start of the session, along with some facts and evidence-based information related to the issue discussed. This may encourage further involvement from participants. Using a visual application that allows direct input from participants proved effective in gathering additional perspectives and discussing issues that may occur, like identifying responsibilities for each game changer suggested and prioritizing problems' relevancy.

NoDue to COVID-19 constraints, the dialogue was held as a 120-minute online meeting on Zoom. The dialogue mode encouraged active participation of stakeholders through the use of a variety of tools, such as an engaging online platform called "MURAL" where participants were encouraged to write their proposals live while broadcasting, as well as open discussions, to help participants identify game-changing solutions. Representatives from national organizations, universities, private sector and others as well as LYPW and ESCWA resource persons, were brought together to provide background information on how technology can improve water use in food systems and ways to enhance/improve water quality to ensure food safety. They also advocated for the start of other dialogues in Lebanon. Based on their experiences and the needs of the stakeholders, participants were asked to identify game-changing actions. The Lebanese Youth Dialogue on Food Systems: Water for Food Systems was divided into two parts: Part I of the dialogue provided background information on the use of technology to improve water use in food systems. Various technologies (e.g., AI, drones, IOT Sensors/robots, and so on) that improve water use and reduce water loss were highlighted, as was the critical need to provide farmers with the know-how (i.e. irrigation scheduling and efficient water use). The importance of smart water-saving technology, innovation, investment, crop diversification, and raising awareness was also addressed. Finally, there was a quick tutorial on how to access and navigate through the Mural application link, and participants then began navigating through the application and proposing game-changing actions based on their experiences and perceptions of the region's priorities. There have been suggestions for game-changers in how technology can improve water use in food systems. Part II introduced ways to enhance/improve water quality to ensure food safety. A presentation on water pollution was also provided, and it was linked to food safety concerns. Polluted irrigation (e.g., bacterial pollution, nitrate pollution, or toxins) results in contaminated crop produce, so it is critical to control pollution and safely reuse treated wastewater. Finally, using “MURAL,” participants directly wrote their game-changing actions and thoroughly discussed them. There have been game-changing suggestions for improving water quality to ensure food safety. In both parts, participants were able to maneuver the "MURAL" application and suggest game-changing actions based on their experiences and perceptions of the region's priorities. Time was allotted for each of the two topics, and participants were aware of the Lebanon's major challenges and emphasized the importance of immediate action and implementation. Time was also set aside for oral discussions about the actions.

234243244245246248249251Participants in the open discussions addressed issues concerning the water-energy-food nexus and how to incorporate this nexus into agriculture. Furthermore, concerns such as proper solution adoption, resource availability, the collaboration among ministries and institutions, export of highly consuming crops, product markets, and reluctance to use treated wastewater for irrigation were highlighted. Other commentaries reiterated the input on Mural in regards to optimal irrigation scheduling, the use of low-cost sensors to monitor water quality, and the collection of data, particularly for groundwater. Finally, participants discussed issues such as small-scale wastewater treatment plants, identifying sources of wastewater pollution, and the use of treated urine, cyanobacteria toxicity, and quality monitoring program.236243244245246248249251The game-changing actions identified in each of the two topics discussed are: (a) How can technology improve water use in food systems? • Invest in technology • Increase efficient use of available water sources in irrigation and optimize irrigation scheduling • Adopt low-cost sensors to monitor water quality which is suitable for Lebanon's case. • Raise awareness on the use of affordable technology and educate farmers on use of ICT to improve crop production • Make available micro credits for farmers to use new equipment that improve agriculture • Reuse of water and treated wastewater • Decrease water consumption • Research virtual water trade • Ensure that water policies are implemented through tracking efficient irrigation in agricultural fields • Collect data regarding water demand and supply and analyze the data to promote better use • Promote the use of Renewable Energy in agriculture specially to reduce cost • Promote collaboration between universities • Mitigate climate change considering smart innovation systems and create future climatic scenarios to set agricultural calendars e.g. identify crops (b) How to enhance/ improve water quality to ensure food safety? • Map and identify main sources of water pollution and implement a comprehensive water quality monitoring program in the country in order to identify sources of pollution • Encourage small scale wastewater treatment • Implement proper treatment methods through WWTP to be used in agriculture. It is important to treat wastewater at source before discharging into water bodies that will be then used for irrigation • Rehabilitate irrigation networks and ensure continuous maintenance of sewage networks • Enhance governance, improve regulation and standards and apply new/strict policies/procedures to prevent/mitigate pollution at the source levels rather than looking for innovative or classical ways to treat pollution on a bigger scale • Update related guidelines on water quality, • Improve efficiency of use of fertilizers and pesticides • Raise awareness on the importance of using treated wastewater, and educate farmers on safe use of treated wastewater and regulations to indicate type of crop and areas (farmers use polluted water but the notion of using treated water is still considered an outlaw) • Increase investment in data collection • Enhance the use of appropriate technologies to ensure water quality and safe food • Test the water quality used for irrigation regularly • Use of remote sensing tools • Revitalize the role of local governments that can support exploring alternative solutions for using quality nonconventional water, at the same time take appropriate measures to prohibit misuse of fertilizers and pesticides237All participants agreed on the importance of all stakeholders in implementing game-changers. The participants were aware of Leabnon's challenges and emphasized the importance of immediate action and implementation.

2021-07-21 06:49:28205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16265/176

125114644075765414433464102100291021331019312333215

The principles were communicated in the invitation and at the dialogue by the moderator and facilitators. Different stakeholders were represented in the discussion groups to ensure a diversity of opinions and the discussions were conducted in a respectful way using Chatham House rules. Participants were offered the opportunity to provide feedback through a form and an open e-mail adress.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This dialogue focused on FSS Action Track 3 and the vision statement for the workshop discussions was: "A nature-positive food production that contributes to increased food security while at the same time protects natural ecosystems, biodiversity and rehabilitates degraded landscapes/seascapes". To further facilitate the discussions, key questions raised were: What are the trade-offs or main barriers to reach the vision statement? How does this relate to Sweden – what is our role in this? How can we realize the human right to food within the boundaries of the planet. The opening of the dialogue included two sessions with panel discussions. The first session focused on the key challenges of the current global food system and the changes required to address food insecurity, health, environment and power inequalities. A representative from a global farmers’ association was the first speaker: Estrella Penunia, Secretary General of the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development. She raised key challenges and needs of the 13 million farmers her association represents, so that they can produce enough food for their households and the market in a sustainable manner. The second speaker was Emile Frison, Member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, IPES-Food and the Africa Europe Foundation Agriculture Strategy Group, who raised the necessary transformations and lock-ins with the current global food system. Then, Martin Persson, Associate Professor at Chalmers University of Technology, connected these challenges with Sweden by giving a picture of how consumption in Sweden affects the global environment. The next session focused on good examples of sustainable methods and perspectives from different parts of the world. In this session, cases were presented by Million Belay, General Coordinator, Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA); Amy Ickowitz, Senior Scientist and Team Leader, Sustainable Landscapes & Livelihoods at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Bogor, Indonesia; and Richard Bemaronda, Project Manager Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries Program at Community Action for Nature Conservation (CANCO), Kenya. In different ways, all panelists highlighted local food systems that provide nutritious food, while not degrading ecosystems. The importance of addressing drivers of ecosystem degradation and the need to restore land- and seascapes for enhanced food-security and resilience were additional perspectives raised, as well as the need to learn from existing “nature positive” food systems that have been used for a long time by local communities and indigenous populations as agroecological practices and forest foods.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see attachment.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see attachment237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see attachment

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Summary-report-on-the-dialogue-Boost-nature-positive-production-for-people-and-planet.pdfhttps://www.siani.se/video/swedens-global-food-systems-dialogue-boost-nature-positive-food-production-for-people-and-the-planet/

2021-07-21 07:08:57205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8774/176

1173354332289136105110211211261235493163231227412

The principles were communicated both in the invitation and at the dialogue by the moderator and facilitators. Each discussion group had a wide representation of stakeholders to ensure a diversity of opinions. The discussion was conducted in a friendly and respectful manner, using Chatham House rules. Participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback both through a form and and open e-mail link.

Yes

234The discussion centered around the following vision statements: 1. Inclusive and diverse food systems contribute to the elimination of poverty, food and nutrition insecurity 2. Fair, and sustainable supply chains ensure not only a responsible use of natural resources and a reduction of food loss and waste, but also provide purchase guidance for accountable/responsible consumers 3. Diverse food systems provide space for youth and indigenous peoples to build agency, through the exercising of their power and rights, to overcome structural barriers 4. Structural barriers within institutions and food policy are confronted and questioned to enhance the progress toward equitable and sustainable livelihoods 5. Voices from actors such as youth and indigenous peoples are heard through changed social relations within formal communities (e.g. market negotiation, group memberships, cooperatives) and informal networks (e.g. intersecting group identity, social network) The dialogue started with an opening seminar moderated by Jonathan Eng, Network Coordinator at SIANI / Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). The seminar began with opening remarks from Carin Jämtin, Director General, Sida. During the seminar, Rahul Antao, Technical Specialist, Rural Youth and Social Inclusion, IFAD, and Amita Baviskar, Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology & Anthropology, Ashoka University, Ph.D. Cornell University shared insights from each organisation's work and research within the subject area of the dialogue. The speeches were followed by a panel discussion led by Hanna Sinare, Researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, that focused on young people's role and inclusion in a transformation of food systems. Levi Juma, Programme Manager, Youth Alive Kenya, and Carin Jämtin, Director General, Sida, participated in the panel discussion. Mai Thin Yu Mon, Vice-chair of action track four in the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, was also confirmed as a speaker in the dialogue but was forced to cancel her participation due to the civil unrest in Myanmar. The dialogue ended with concluding remarks from Per Callenberg, State-secretary to the Minister for Rural Affairs Jennie Nilsson. The opening seminar can be seen in full on SIANI's website .235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see attachment236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see attachment237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see attachment

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Summary-of-Swedens-first-global-food-systems-dialogue-about-the-pathways-towards-equitable-food-systems-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Survey-results_-Swedens-global-Food-Systems-Dialogue_Towards-Equitable-Food-Systems.pdfhttps://www.siani.se/video/swedens-global-food-systems-dialogue-towards-equitable-food-systems/

2021-07-21 07:19:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33178/203

Yes

Dear All, I made the changes on the feedback pdf form related to my dialogue on the SOLAW21 side event, but the changes are not visible on the website. and the pdf file does not have enough space, so I uploaded another file. Would you please replace it with the attached copy? Thank you Kamar2021-07-21 10:07:15https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/feedbackk.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Information-Principles-of-engagement-UNFSS-Feedback-form_FINAL.pdf

2021-07-21 07:19:41205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14499/176

16028914296799412743622210120034412158102163344753128912

The principles were communicated in the invitation and at the dialogue by the moderator and the facillitators. All stakeholdergroups were represented and the break out sessions were conducted in a respectful, participatory manner. Participants were also given the opportunity to give feedback afterwards both through a feedback form and an open e-mail address. Results from the feedback were very positive.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The focus of the dialogue was food security, conflict and resilience. The following visions statements guided the discussion: 1. Efforts to strengthen food systems in conflict-affected communities foster peace, stability, and inclusion. 2. The relationship between food insecurity and violent conflicts is recognised, and a range of institutionalised risk management and responses exist. 3. Our food systems are sustainable and equitable, they build resilience against food insecurity and improve the prospects for peace. 4. Efforts to strengthen resilience against food insecurity and conflict, address different parts of the food supply chain and across livelihood systems. Furthermore, they consider the local contexts and boost local capacities allowing for external actors to act only as facilitators. 5. People are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from shocks, as well as to participate in food systems that deliver nutritious food and contribute to equitable livelihoods, while ensuring healthy ecosystems. The dialogue started with an opening seminar moderated by Katy Harris, Senior Policy Fellow at Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). The seminar began with opening remarks from Janine Alm Ericson, State Secretary to the Minister for International Development Cooperation at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. During the seminar, Amir Abdulla, Deputy Executive Director, UN World Food Programme (WFP), and Dan Smith, Director, SIPRI gave keynotes. They shared insights from each organisation's work and research within the subject area of the dialogue. The speeches were followed by a panel discussion led by Line Gordon, Director, Stockholm Resilience Centre, that focused on resilience in food systems. Georges Bazongo, Director of operations, Tree Aid, Burkina Faso, and Kristin Hall, Head of Major Donors & Nutrition for Growth, The Power of Nutrition participated in the panel discussion. The dialogue ended with concluding remarks from Jakob Wernerman, Director Humanitarian Aid, Sida. The opening seminar can be seen in full on SIANI's website.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see attachment.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see attachment237Please see attachment.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Summary-of-Swedens-second-global-food-systems-dialogue-about-food-security-conflict-and-resilience-2021-1.pdfhttps://www.siani.se/video/swedens-global-food-systems-dialogue-food-security-conflict-and-resilience/

2021-07-21 07:45:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6069/132

16232428557114122011241

We continued with a sense of urgency and respect for each other and everyone witnessed the video where Dr David Nabarro introduces himself and the principles of engagement. We would like to record our sessions from now on and is this possible? Furthermore for reporting purposes up until now we have been Chatham House Rules however on the ground we cannot afford to do this anymore as people need to do work and be identified as such in order to give respect to their fellow table participants so we can record progress person-by-person and table-by-table going forward.There seems to be increasing energy levels, speed, acceptance of ideas and go forward with each of our ‘Tables’ and we are all committed to the SUMMIT and beyond, committing to holding our FSD's up until 2035 as this is a very significant year for Aotearoa (NZ). (see full report filed). There will be one on the last Friday of March and June and the 1st Friday of October each year.Yes. May I suggest playing the "Dr David Nabarro video" at the first dialogue in the Opening Plenary and then email it out in a follow up email to reiterate the 'Principles of Engagement' to participants. Given we have committed to 14.5 yrs of work, as Convener I shall ensure this video is seen by new-comers to our now 5 Breakout Tables as these principles shall move beyond September 2021 as the FS SUMMIT D work outcomes are 'put to work'.

Yes

234240243244246247248249251Interestingly, seeing as we now have a series in action (June 2020, March 2021, June 2021), we have had a shift in our trajectory between March 2021 and June 2021 whereby, to remind the reader, our March 2021 efforts focused on: 1. SDG 12 – responsible production and consumption and 2. Action Track 2 – shift to sustainable consumption patterns; significantly, our June 2021 efforts have meant shifts and now we are focusing on: SDG 12 responsible consumption and production and SDG 14 – Life below water and SGD 10 Reduced Inequalities and Action Track 3 – nature positive production. The main reasons for these shifts can be read in detail within each Facilitator Feedback Form, (within report file submitted), and through the Convener’s lens here: Given the issues and priorities that have emerged in this 3rd FSD session: 1. Table 1 – Food Waste Reduction Table 1 focused on actions government, business and community can take to reduce food waste. For example, government needs to issue a definition of ‘food waste’ and support measurement projects. Business and government need to enable food waste innovation, such as upcycling. For community, food waste education needs be incorporated into schools and urban farming/ composting infrastructure supported. Due to engagement and workload, facilitators are holding wheel spoke dialogues between the three main FSSD. Table 1 had it’s first wheel spoke dialogue on food waste innovation on the 16 July 2021. 2. Table 2 – Better Nutrition for Better Health Keeping a strong commitment to SDG 12 this table is ensuring that we as a population are very aware of current eating patterns and what we need to be buying to eat for our health resilience via more nutrient dense food being produced. (Ultimately food has to be easily accessible at affordable prices for all and this is the subject at Table 3). Table 2’s focus intersects directly with Action Track 3—nature positive production where the focus is on how we can source and buy our food locally via nature positive production which in turn shall help restore our freshwater health too— again relating to SDG 14, Life Below Water. Table 2 at the time of writing is determining their first wheel spoke FSD date and again we shall report on results. 3. Table 3 – Food Sovereignty This table was led by a new Facilitator who took the view to understand participant backgrounds and skill-sets first. We had a scribe unable to attend at the last minute, so our Convener was Scribe. The main subject focused on was ensuring the most nutrient dense food is produced locally and purchased locally and that is it is easily accessible at affordable prices for all. Important feedback linking SDG 12 to Action Track 3 is “shifting from a volunteer space to an economic space is essential for longevity and viability financially”. This eventuality led to a shift in focus to the economic and business frameworks which shall help communities function this way. Also an additional Table developed being Compost Creation and Education which linked this Table’s efforts with Table 1's. Please see our full Independent Aotearoa Food Systems SUMMIT Dialogue - June 18th 2021 Report submitted July 2021.235240241243244246247248249251The first main finding has been to nurture the need for Compost Creation and Education to give major heed to Food Waste as a significant positive national resource, never acknowledged to this degree in importance before in the history of Aotearoa to assist with the Climate Change threat and fresh-water health restoration. Soil carbonaceous material, part of the make-up of compost acts as a water quality filter—enter SDG 14, Life Below Water. (Compost is the common denominator between all Tables) The second finding is that, due to demand of interest and workload being understood, we have progressed from 3 to 5 tables with separate and yet connected focuses/ kaupapa. Each table will have its subsequent wheel spoke FSD’s for tables 3, 4 and 5, which will take place in July/August and outcomes shall be reported. Table 3: Food Sovereignty Self-Determined food growing is to encompass selling and buying techniques. Table 4: Compost (Creation and Education) Both 'boosting' compost creation and education will be the focus of this table. Table 5: Monitoring (Metrics and Evaluation) In the work done by Table 3, a strong emphasis was put on the ‘increasing need’ for metrics. This syncs perfectly with the Food System SUMMIT Synthesis Report, April 2021 (page 6) where a major focus established is the need for monitoring and evaluation functionality. Hence we have opened up Table 5. Both metrics and evaluation techniques will be the focus of this table. (Please see our Independent Aotearoa Food Systems SUMMIT Dialogue - June 18th 2021 Report submitted July 2021, page 8). The third main find has been Reduced Inequalities SDG 10 has been picked up on and included as a direct result of having indigenous peoples input in our dialogue who are brave enough to say it how it is. To support this strength, let us remember what Dr Agnes Kalibata, Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General for the 2021 FSSD advocates, “we must have courageous conversations”. Only by taking courage and identifying actual barriers to needed shifts, or gaps that need filling, will game changing ideas and initiatives too be identified and actioned. The fourth main find has been commitment expressed from the facilitators, scribes, our digital expert and crucially our participants to an enduring FSD dialogue platform 2021-2035. The fifth main finding has been to depend on the FSD method/structure/advice for progress to take place.236239240241243244246248249Table 1: Food Waste Reduction Mitigation: How do we get key players in the food supply chain to adopt the internationally recognised Target, Measure and Act approach to reduce food waste in Aotearoa between 2022-2025? Key points from Facilitator’s Official Feedback Form New priority actions since the March 2021 FSSD 1. Government: Making available food waste focused funding streams (once it is clearly defined—see Immediate Actions, No. 1 below). 2. Business: Promote maintenance of profitability and innovation. 3. Community: Restoring the mana of food (mana means prowess/respected by all). 4. Community: Food redistribution to people supported e.g. food rescue. 5. Government & Community: Education in schools on food waste reduction. Immediate Actions for Table 1 1. NZ Food Waste Champions 12.3 is writing to government to progress a national baseline measurement and to issue a “food waste” definition. 2. A follow-up call was held on 16 July 2021 to brainstorm how to support food waste innovation initiatives. The group are considering a hackathon in 2022 as part of the NZ Food Waste Summit, with a specific focus on “upcycling”. 3. The facilitator has connected those on Table 1 with opportunities to support the Love Food Hate Waste campaign. Note from Convener: Could the narrative possibly be changed from ‘hate’ to ‘heed. Right now we are realising that good clean water is more precious than gold where this old adage rings true like never before: ‘one person’s waste is another person’s gold’. Food waste ➺ compost has a major role to play in restored soil and waterway health too, enter SDG14 – Life below water. The Facilitator was also involved in Government Dialogues where food waste was discussed. She wrote a summary blog on the ‘top 10 takeaways’ from all the dialogues she was involved in. Read more here by referring to pg 8 of our submitted entitled Independent Aotearoa Food Systems SUMMIT Dialogue - June 18th 2021 Report submitted July 2021 Collective Aim The first ‘Wheel Spoke FSSD’ for Table 1 happened on Friday July 16th 2021 feedback shall be provided.236238239240243244246247249Table 2: Better Health For Better Nutrition Mitigation: Between the years of 2022-2025 how do we get the most accurate data on what the people of Aotearoa are eating, where they’re eating and what the challenges are to ensure that all solutions focused to improve the food security and nutrition are data-driven and measurable? Key points from Facilitator’s Official Feedback Form The table “agreed to refer to the FAO definition of sustainability to ensure that we take into consideration environmental, social and economic factors, rather than just being driven by the price on the product for the end user”. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines sustainable development as “the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development (in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technologically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable”. The feedback form writes: “A briefing document will be collated for the table, which will enable the table member to take this to their organisations”, ultimately for commitment across the growing network of stakeholders to get the 2022- 2025 task achieved. This document will be: ➺ A one pager on what data we need and what it would be used for. ➺ Information on data use and who is going to be analysing it. ➺ Information on confidentiality, ethics and commercial sensitivity. ➺ Timeline and milestones about when we want the information by. It was excellent to read this addition to the Feedback Form meaning participants are taking accountability for delivering results to their Table at the next wheel spoke FSD. The series is well in action now and this is exciting for all involved as the 2022-2025 aims are clearly defined and are in motion to being achieved. Individual Actions: ➺ Determine process of adding questions into the census. ➺ Determine whether any of this work can be supported by Institutes ➺ See how universities can be engaged with the projects to get the manpower to deliver on this work. ➺ See what can be added into the market insights that industry run every 6 months. Table 2 have established that questions for 2023 have already closed and so someone has been charged with ensuring the 2028 Census is utilised well for this need, as this will roll over into the new 2026-2029’s workload. Table 2’s first ‘Wheel Spoke FSSD’ date is yet to be decided by the Facilitator and we shall provide feedback as to results.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251Table 3: Food Sovereignty Mitigation: Between the years of 2022-2025, how do we activate, enable, connect and charge-up communities to create some resilience in the face of the significant change we face. Key points from Facilitator’s Official Feedback Form Maramatanga / Learning ➺ Food production is a climate change mitigation strategy and has to be recognised for its contribution. ➺ Eco system recovery is a direct result of methods used that restore Papatūānuku (Earth Mother). ➺ To feed the population, our population has to eat local as much as possible to financially support local food growers – as a Province what do we eat, what do we grow, what do we actually need to bring in? ➺ Holistic approach to growing food – what does this mean for people? ➺ Success is good compost for growing, local compost for local food (Intersection: Table 1). ➺ Is your growing approach enhancing Papatūānuku or diminishing her? ➺ Empower individuals / increase mentorship / encourage participation. ➺ Value food and compost production as academic subjects. ➺ Links people back to the whenua and ecosystem health. ➺ Important to shift the language, ( restore, together, climate mitigation). Meeting Climate Change Measures ➺ Where are the metrics / How do we share these? ➺ How are we measuring this? ➺ Testing and proving the mitigation measures. Business Shifting from a volunteer space to an economic space is essential for longevity and viability financially. Gaps Government are finally catching up with NGO’s—how can we make this easier and be visible so funding is allocated to local grower and buyer frameworks that are relevant and appropriate and let communities decide. Indigenous Responses Food insecurity among communities is a direct result of poor or inadequate social policies, systemic inequalities across generations and a clear indication of exclusion, marginalisation and failed interventions. ➺ Challenging inequity through institutional racism and cultural biased paradigms, are we addressing questions of equity? (SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities). ➺ 80% of biodiversity is protected by Indigenous peoples worldwide yet only 10% of that is in land title. ➺ Holistic approaches for Māori include Hua parakore that are not restricted to the land, e.g., food from the moana, awa, ngahere (sea, rivers, forests). ➺ Land grabbing is still a threat today even in Aotearoa—globally our indigenous brothers and sisters are being murdered for defending their land. ➺ He kai he rongoā he rongoā he kai—“food is our medicine and medicine is our food”. Convenors Note: Hua Parakore (from March 16th 2021, Hua Parakore is a food verification system and the only indigenous one in the world, which provides 6 principles that connect us to the land and the land to us). All of these kaupapa (principles) are interconnected and drawn from the māramatanga (Māori knowledge) continuum. ➺ Biggest threat to food sovereignty is synthetic biology. ➺ Moving away from the right to food as a charity response to a basic human right. ➺ As Tiriti partners Government are reminded of their duty to protect Ngā hua Māori which includes taonga (Māori products including national treasures).237At this stage ('Series x 3'), we have been able to identify gaps in our Food System that need attention, so are taking care of 3 and now 5 divergences here and only by continued work and enduring work can we truly hope to achieve progress in the gaps that we all identify.

2021-07-21 10:26:45205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35946/102

016145633013878141510101225103559311154243620410004281234139062114546

The organization of the National Dialogues in Lao PDR in preparation of the Food Systems Summit allowed a wide range of stakeholders – from private sector, NGOs, civil society organizations, development partners, the Lao Government and international organizations to actively participate and contribute to the discussions. In addition, the event provided simultaneous interpretation to allow non-English speakers to fully participate and contribute to the dialogues. This set-up reinforced the principle of ‘embracing inclusivity’ to ensure the inclusiveness of the process. Moreover, the multi-stakeholder approach enhanced the principle of ‘recognizing complexity’ as each actor brought in diverse perspectives on the complex elements of the food systems and identify the synergy and potential trade-off among them, thus enabling the stakeholders to ‘respect’, ‘mutually complement the work of others’ and to ‘build trust’. The profound discussions at the National Dialogues also helped to emphasize the need to ‘act with urgency’ as sustainable food systems are fundamental to tackle major challenges such as hunger, diet-related disease, insufficient working conditions or environmental degradation.Based on the principle of ‘embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity’, the lead Ministry and UN Agencies held various discussions to agree on the four action tracks representing the core elements of the Lao PDR’s Food Systems and a workplan to ensure the broad multi-stakeholder engagement and contribution to the process. The preparatory work for the National Dialogues along the four identified action tracks were based on the principle of ‘complement the work of others’. Each of the four stakeholder groups produced a comprehensive background paper, which incorporated academic literature, inputs from various actors working in food systems and governmental expertise. This inclusive approach reflected the principle of ‘building trust’ and ‘being respectful’. To ensure that the National Dialogues have a long-lasting impact, various stakeholders made commitments, which promote a pathway to sustainable food systems in Lao PDR.Firstly, ensuring the Government’s strong engagement and ownership throughout the process is one of the key factors to ensure the success of the Dialogues. To achieve this, the lead UN Agencies would need to fully extend their support to the Government in a well-coordinated manner through various meetings, exchanges, and technical discussions with relevant line ministries. Secondly, the role of the moderator during the discussions is a crucial factor for the success of the event. We selected the moderators for the event based on their solid technical knowledge in food systems and further essential facilitation skills to ensure a meaningful conversation with clear-cut outcomes among the various stakeholders. Thirdly, due to the Covid-19 lockdown, the discussions were shifted to an online conferencing platform, which required diligent preparations and an advanced technical set-up to ensure the most conducive environment for the virtual dialogues. These elements ensured an open and free discussion among key stakeholders, which was crucial for the success of the National Dialogues in Lao PDR.

Yes

234238240241242243244249250251Aiming on actions towards the achievement of healthier, more sustainable and equitable food systems, the National Dialogues in Lao PDR were organized along four of the five action tracks suggested by the Food Systems Summit secretariat. The first action track focuses on ‘Ensuring safe and nutritious food for all’ particularly to the benefit of women, children, and the most vulnerable groups. The second topic promotes ‘Boosting nature positive production at sufficient scales’ which aimed at strengthening a more sustainable agricultural production system that ensures Lao PDR is economically competitive in the region whilst not harming the ecology. A key focus of this action track was to tackle the high level of demand for safe, nutritious and environmentally sustainable food by taking advantage of Lao PDR’s rich biodiversity. The third topic enforces ‘Advance equitable livelihoods and value distribution’. This is particularly relevant in Lao PDR’s context where agriculture accounts for 70% of employment and 16.6% of the national GDP. This area focuses on ensuring that all people, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized benefit from the changes envisioned in the National Dialogues. The fourth topic aims at building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress which is crucial to mitigate the impacts of floods, droughts, storms, which often trigger secondary hazards such as landslides, forest and community fires. All these threats have negative effects on the food system, and particularly affect the most vulnerable and food insecure people in the country – such as, rural workers, women and children. Since food systems are multifaceted and dynamic, the National Dialogues in Lao PDR set an overall focus on the understanding of food systems in all its complexities – particularly the interlinkages between topic areas. The emphasis on trade-offs and synergies between topic areas was key and enabled a wide range of stakeholders to determine the national pathway towards sustainable food systems by promoting an integrated and inclusive approach.235238240241242243244249250251Through the National Dialogues on Food Systems, the participating stakeholders had an open platform to exchange their diverse views and perspectives on Lao PDR’s food systems. In particular, the National Dialogues provided them an opportunity to discuss food systems from different perspectives and to identify opportunities and challenges; to acknowledge and identify synergies and possible trade-off among the four topics; to acknowledge the importance to have all stakeholders on board to collectively tackle the challenges and seize the opportunities while making sure no one is left behind; to learn from good practices and policies as well as to benefit from each other’s lessons learned; to collect and to strengthen the commitments from stakeholders for collaborative actions on the pathway towards sustainable food systems. Main findings on ‘Ensuring safe and nutritious food for all’ include that growing reliance on store bought food is leading to an increased consumption of unhealthy, processed foods. This is exacerbated by poverty, though even people with sufficient money might not buy healthy foods. Moreover, deforestation and infrastructural mega-projects are cutting off supply of food to people who still engage in ‘traditional food systems’, such as foraging and subsistence farming. Many people lack the necessary knowledge of healthy foods. With regard to ‘Boosting Nature Positive Production at Sufficient Scales’ key findings entail that green agricultural practices are more expensive and require research, development investment, funding, education and training, including the upskilling current agricultural workers Laos PDR has a rich biodiversity is well placed to take advantage of the demand for safer foods while high levels of pesticide use are threatening public health and the environment. The main findings on On ‘Advancing Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution’, the National Dialogues emphasized the existence of significant food-system related barriers for women and girls’ livelihoods, especially in terms of decision making and access to leadership positions. Lastly, ‘Building Resilience to Shocks Vulnerabilities and Stress and Ensuring Sustainable Food Systems’ showed that Laos PDR is particularly vulnerable to climate change, with over 90% of farms having the potential to be adversely affected by environmental issues – this affects vulnerable groups the most. Moreover, large areas of land are still contaminated with unexploded ordnances (UXOs).236238243244245246247248249250251The National Dialogues revealed diverse insights on food systems in Lao PDR. Regarding topic one ‘Ensuring Safe and Nutritious Food for all’, the organizers and panelists identified the need to gain a better understanding of nutritional issues, food behaviors including the perspective of the consumers as well as the interaction with the food and social environment to influence behaviors and taste preferences (cost/marketing, availability etc.). Education is key to incentivizing consumption patterns and behavior that has a positive impact on healthy nutrition choices. Moreover, greater nutrition focus in financing and public policies, particularly in agriculture are key. Large agri-businesses bring the risk of taking up large swathes of land and can contribute to environmental degradation. Small- and medium-sized enterprises need access to financing and capacity-building resources to support improved production of safe and nutritious foods. This will also help generate higher incomes for the population, improving access to safe and nutritious food. In order to continue the work of the National Dialogue creation of an inclusive, multisectoral mechanism, which will plan and coordinate action in developing a balanced and inclusive food system in Lao PDR.236240244247248249250Topic two ‘Boosting Nature-Positive Food Production at Scale’ highlighted the need for increased funding in research and development and extension to underpin agricultural innovation as well as upskilling initiatives for farmers and producers accompanied by the implementation of regulations, standards, mechanization, modern irrigation techniques and technologies including a focus on post-harvest processing. For instance, and consistent with international trends, Lao PDR is pursuing the implementation of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) as a minimum standard across all production systems to be adhered to by small producers and private enterprises.236241244245246247248249251Topic three ‘Advancing Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution’ highlighted the need for generating and improving opportunities for decent work, incomes, and social safety support with a focus on ensuring universality of access to quality incomes, social support and wellbeing, and finally, with a forward-looking intention of mitigating risks to increase resilience for all livelihoods. For example, IFAD, FAO, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry commit to reducing the gender gap and mainstreaming gender related issue, by ensuring equity and/or empowering women in their interventions.236242243244246248249Topic four ‘Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stress’ underpinned the necessity of undertaking a comprehensive Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (VRA) of agriculture - encompassing crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry - and dependent livelihoods to guide planning of resilience building in food systems. Moreover, the stakeholder encouraged the mainstreaming of climate-smart, green and sustainable practices into project planning, research, extension, investment decision-making and community engagement.237238240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see section 3 for an overview of the areas of divergence, which emerges during the Member States Dialogue in Lao PDR.

2021-07-21 11:36:08205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24813/126

82493316832466612351342211627432162821262

From the five thematic areas pre-identified by the Nations, Mozambique has identified three major priority areas (which form the pillars for the transformation of national food systems) to guide national dialogues: 1. Sustainable food and nutrition security 2. Food systems value chains: for Gaza and 3. Conflicts; Resilience and Climate Change The choice of thematic areas and provinces was based on the relevance of the issues for the country in general, and for the provinces covered in particular, respecting the principle of inclusion of the various actors and stakeholders in the food systems spread across the country. The national dialogue session followed the same format, with physical and virtual presence of participants. The Nampula Dialogue was held on June 10 in the city and province of Nampula, with 82 participants (in person and virtual).Commitment to the summit was assured by the Dialog Leadership exhibited by top provincial authorities and knowledge actors and multi-stakeholder setting for the plenary and group discussions ensured quality discussions, both in the plenary and group discussionsThe problem of food security and nutrition is perceived as having its roots at the early stages (i.e., at the production level) in food systems. Climate change, climate-related shocks, or other external shocks are also perceived as impacting significantly to this problem. Issues related to low production and productivity levels, aligned to poor storage conditions and limited processing both at an artisanal and industrial levels have been identified as some of the major factors that limit food availability to people. That is further worsened by the inadequate access roads and alternative means of (affordable) transportation to facilitate and improve products’ flow from surplus regions to deficit regions. There are good lessons learned from past and ongoing initiatives.

Yes

234238239243248249The session focused on action tracks 1 and 2 (ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all and changing sustainable consumption patterns). The theme chosen for the session was “contributing to the improvement of the situation of food and nutrition security in the country”. The lectures in this session were given by representatives of the academy (Universidade Lúrio) and MISAU (nutrition sector of the provincial health department of Nampula).235238239242243244246247248249251The problem of food security and nutrition is perceived as having its roots at the early stages (i.e., at the production level) in food systems. Climate change, climate-related shocks, or other external shocks are also perceived as impacting significantly to this problem. Issues related to low production and productivity levels, aligned to poor storage conditions and limited processing both at an artisanal and industrial levels have been identified as some of the major factors that limit food availability to people. That is further worsened by the inadequate access roads and alternative means of (affordable) transportation to facilitate and improve products’ flow from surplus regions to deficit regions. People’s customs have also been identified as another important factor that worsen the levels of food security and nutrition in the country. Some of the most prominent solutions proposed to overcome these problems include: 1. The establishment of more wholesale markets across the country; 2. Promotion of processing focusing as well as on other production sectors (e.g., fisheries); 3. Food and nutrition training programs with the involvement of community leaders; 4. The establishment of food banks across the regions.236238239240242243244245246249251The main problems identified are: . Low levels of production and productivity, as a consequence of the low use of improved inputs (in addition to the impact of various shocks); • Habits and customs of the population, such as raising cattle as a financial reserve, in contrast to the low consumption of meat (and meat products), which contributes to low levels of food and nutritional security in the country. Some of the most prominent proposed solutions include: • Greater promotion of the use of improved inputs and mechanization in the production process; • Development and promotion of communication and information technologies for marketing, adaptable to local conditions (for example, dissemination of agricultural product prices through community radios and digital platforms); • Food and nutrition education (in person or using information and communication technologies) for social change in behavior at the community level (with the involvement of community leaders) and in schools, with a view to generating demand for nutritious food; • Food and nutrition programs targeted at risk groups, such as pregnant women and children. For example, the implementation of the 1,000 days program which consists in the provision of fortified flours for pregnant women and children up to 2 years old. This would be an integrated program, linking the Ministry of Health (MISAU, responsible for providing fortified flour to the target group and monitoring malnutrition rates), the private sector (responsible for processing and supplying the flour) and family producers (responsible for providing raw material for flour processing);236238239241243245246249250251The main problems identified, are summarized below. main problems • Poor storage conditions as a result of poor post-harvest handling (slaughter or capture) by producers and incapacity for adequate storage; • Limited processing due to poor knowledge of processing techniques at the household level and lack of sufficient incentives to establish commercial processing units and their sustainability in the face of competition from imported products; • Inadequate access routes and limited accessibility to alternative means of transport that facilitate or improve the flow of products from surplus regions to food-deficient regions; The most prominent proposed solutions to the identified problems include: • Construction of more infrastructure to support marketing (eg markets) and privatization of those currently existing in the country (eg silos), as a mechanism to make them more viable and sustainable; • Promotion of the processing of agricultural, livestock and fisheries products, through legislative and financial incentives for small and medium-sized companies; • Improvement and expansion of important access routes for commercialization using technologies that ensure greater durability of infrastructure (for example, Claycrete); • Development and promotion of communication and information technologies for marketing, adaptable to local conditions (for example, dissemination of agricultural product prices through community radios and digital platforms); • Establishment of food reserves by the Government in all regions of the country, through the purchase of agricultural products, storage and their distribution to the most vulnerable group of individuals in periods of food shortage.236238239241242243244246247248249251The main problems are summarized below. • Consumption Habits and practices of the population, such as raising cattle as a financial reserve, in contrast to the low consumption of meat (and meat products), which contributes to low levels of food and nutritional security in the country. Some of the most proposed solutions to the identified problems include: • Development and promotion of communication and information technologies for marketing, adaptable to local conditions (for example, dissemination of agricultural product prices through community radios and digital platforms); • Food and nutrition education (in person or using information and communication technologies) for social change in behavior at the community level (with the involvement of community leaders) and in schools, with a view to generating demand for nutritious food; • Food and nutrition programs targeted at risk groups, such as pregnant women and children. For example, the implementation of the 1,000 days program which consists in the provision of fortified flours for pregnant women and children up to 2 years old. This would be an integrated program, linking MISAU (responsible for providing fortified flour to the target group and monitoring malnutrition rates), the private sector (responsible for processing and supplying the flour) and family producers (responsible for providing raw material for flour processing); • Establishment of food reserves by the Government in all regions of the country, through the purchase of agricultural products, storage and their distribution to the most vulnerable group of individuals in periods of food shortage.237238241242245246248249250251The establishment of food reserves by the Government in all regions of the country, through the purchase of agricultural products, storage and their distribution to the most vulnerable group of individuals in periods of food shortage has potential to be costly taking into account the availability of storage facilities and maintenance requirements

2021-07-21 13:11:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21908/33

85076015335501080024551243278056200101185210137221041602

The Dialogue was jointly organized by a large public company, EMBRAPA (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation), which has a network of 43 agricultural research centers in Brazil, and a non-profit civil association, CEBDS (Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development) that aggregates 75 enterprises operating across economic sectors. This public-private partnership embraces an inclusive multi-stakeholder approach. To add even more value and plurality to the discussions, NGOs and social entrepreneurs were invited and participated. In terms of recognizing the complexity of the themes, participants received beforehand information about systemic analysis approaches, and they were invited to think about solutions taking into account a systemic view ‘from field to table’. In order to strengthen trust and be respectful, moderators had a preparatory meeting with convenors to clarify doubts and it was reinforced that everyone should have a voice. Multidisciplinarity was also encouraged through the identification of potential participants from different academic backgrounds. Furthermore, debaters were encouraged to ground their arguments on a holistic view, by analyzing the relations between the actors and parts of the system in contrast to the “silos thinking” that has historically reigned in the agri-food sector.Multi-stakeholder inclusivity was highly achieved since the Dialogue included participants from governmental institutions, startups, farmers, retailers, industries, NGOs, and academia. Trust and respect were principles highlighted in every previous communication and were also discussed during preparatory meetings with moderators. The group of questions posed to the participants in each room was designed to meet the principles of recognizing complexity and complementing the work of other actors. Existing initiatives considered as game-changer solutions were presented to spark insights from the various participating actors.As advice to others Dialogue Convenors, it is encouraged that participation of the private sector should cover the entire food chain and, to increase the value of the debate, NGOs and government representatives should also interact with the private companies. The involvement of NGOs is important as a form to give voice to the civil society. Moderators should be neutral. As such, our moderators were not linked to any private company and they were all advised not to influence the discussion with personal opinions. Additionally, the debate rapporteur should also be neutral and act as a listener only. Moderators and rapporteurs can work together after the dialogue to write a confident report with special attention to identifying macro themes, challenges associated with them, and areas of divergence. In relation to fostering systems thinking, moderators can also play a role by incentivizing participants to reflect upon the interactions between distinct links in the food production chain, and to analyze if there are potential trade-offs associated with the strategies adopted to promote the scalability of transformative solutions. Clear communication with the invited participants prior to the event on the objectives of the Dialogue and its guiding questions were key elements to have significant and relevant participation during the Dialogue.

Yes

234238239240244246248249250The focus of the Dialogue was to discuss how to give scale to game-changer solutions in brazilian Food Systems, related to 3 main themes connected to the first 3 Action Tracks of the Summit : low carbon, regenerative and high-productivity agriculture; access to healthy and sustainable food; and education to strengthen sustainable consumption. The discussions around each theme were illustrated by the presentation of some of the most promising Game Changer Solution in Brazil, that have great potential of gaining more scale. Although each theme has a main focus on different parts of the food system (production, distribution and consumption, respectively), the guiding questions in each topic consider and try to provoke insights regarding a systemic view necessary to scale up game-changer solutions. In breakout room 1, the discussion was about scaling up low carbon, regenerative and high-productivity agriculture initiatives (related to Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale). The Illustrative Game-Changer solutions included Regeneration in the Milk Value Chain of Nestlé’s suppliers, as well as EMBRAPA’s Rede ILPF (Integrated Crop-Livestock-Forest Systems Network). Discussions were guided by the following questions: 1. What are the main challenges to strengthen and scale up sustainable food production models? 2. How to increase integrated systems with a forestry component? 3. How to scale up and add value to Brazilian socio-biodiversity products obtained in sustainable production models? Additional questions: 4. How can unified certification systems for low-carbon and/or regenerative agriculture be strengthened? 5. Who should finance rural producers to strengthen their role as agents of environmental conservation? 6. How to strengthen traceability processes that add value to low-carbon agricultural products? In breakout room 2, the discussion topic was about how to expand access to healthy and sustainable food to ensure food security (related to Action Track 1 of the UNFSS: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food). The Illustrative Game-Changer solution presented was the biggest network of Food Banks in Brazil, Mesa Brasil, a program run by SESC (Social Service for Commerce). Discussions were guided by the following questions: 1. How can public-private partnerships facilitate the democratization of access to food in Brazil? 2. How to make access to healthy, sustainably produced food more democratic? 3. How to combat food waste in line with the need to strengthen food security? Additional questions: 4. How to grow funding for education and technology transfer programs to reduce food loss and waste across the value chain? 5. How to scale up short circuits of food production and consumption? 6. How can we respect regional food cultures in the process of democratizing healthy, sustainable food? In breakout room 3, the discussion focused on how to scale up consumer education to strengthen sustainable consumption (related to Action Track 2 of the UNFSS: Shift to sustainable and healthy consumption patterns). The Illustrative Game-Changer solution presented is called Act for Food, run by Carrefour. Discussions were guided by the following questions: 1. How can healthy and sustainable diets be defined in a unified way and then strengthen the practice around this concept? 2. How to strengthen the adoption of sustainable consumption patterns? 3. How to amplify communication actions for behavioral change? 4. How can we encourage public-private partnerships aimed at behavioral change for sustainable consumption? Additional questions: 5. Who should be responsible for funding national environmental education campaigns for the adoption of sustainable consumption patterns? 6. What is the role of each link in the food production chain in consumer/citizen education? 7. How can we strengthen the network performance of Brazilian cities in line with the global guidelines of SDG 12?235238239240241242243244245246247248249250Scaling up transformative solutions related to sustainable food production, distribution and consumption, will demand coordinated action from the public and private sectors throughout the food systems. According to the dialogue´s participants, to create and maintain enabling environments for transformations, attention should be directed to 9 core areas in order to increase the scalability of transformative solutions for food systems in Brazil: 1 - Investment, strengthening the linkages between potential investors, food producers, RD&I intensive organizations and startups should be prioritized. Agri-food entrepreneurs are seen as an important stakeholder since they have the ability to prospect investments, and they could work more closely with farmers and researchers. Payment mechanisms for environmental services and amplifying the access to credit for smallholders were also highlighted, as well as long-term financing models. In relation to the Brazilian rural credit policy, it was mentioned that it demands a revision of priorities in order to be more inclusive. Currently, most of the credit is given to the production of commodities, and the scalability of transformative solutions demand strategies to diversify food production with special attention to the use of local biodiversity for food. 2 - Capacity building for small producers is strongly associated with increased access to markets for products from the Brazilian biomes and territories, an expanded associative capacity, and the involvement of more smallholders in national initiatives such as the efforts to increase the use of integrated systems in agriculture. Continuous scientific, technological advancements and the expansion of technical assistance are essential for the adoption of good production and processing, democratizing the access to healthy and sustainable food. Smallholders should be prioritized as a key stakeholder in the process of increasing the sustainability of food systems. The need to improve the diversification of agricultural production was also mentioned, with special attention to production systems based on native species. 3 - Governance of food systems demands attention in order to avoid ‘silo thinking’ and to accelerate the transformations needed. The role of cities in providing solutions to improve the access to healthy foods, and the importance to involve different government levels in the implementation of an integrated national agenda were highlighted. Business leadership toward the food systems’ transformation was mentioned as a means to strengthen public-private partnerships linked to the adoption of technologies by producers and industries, the role of retailers in consumer education, and the potential of joint initiatives involving distinct stakeholders aimed at mitigating food loss and food waste, and increasing access to healthy foods. 4 - Public policies for food sovereignty, it is a core area in the face of increasing food insecurity in Brazil and guarantees that society will be able to work on the tasks capable of transforming food systems. Therefore, the role of national policies such as the National School Feeding Program (PNAE), an important tool for education about sustainable consumption practices, and the Food Acquisition Program (PAA) should be understood and promoted. 5 - Improving the use of biodiversity for nutrition is seen as an opportunity for Brazil to differentiate its food production, which is heavily based on the exports of commodities; to improve income generation for extractivist communities; and to increase the offer of healthy foods for the internal market. It is linked to the need to further diversify crops utilized in crop-livestock-forestry integrated systems and the opportunity of improving the nutritional value of diets based on native species. 6 - Uniting public and private sectors to delineate solutions to improve food access. The trade-off between developing value-added food products and improving the access of foods to low and lower-middle income consumers demands attention, and the focus should be on increasing the access to healthy foods since the per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables in Brazil is less than half of the amounts suggested by the World Health Organization. The legislative dimension was highlighted, and private and public sectors should discuss food donations bills and new legislation opportunities to strengthen, for instance, the role of food banks in food redistribution and/or the opportunities to foster new business models. 7 - Scaling opportunities aligned with the circular economy for food systems. Therefore, it is essential to implement circularity principles from the farm to the consumer level to foster the development of upcycled products, use of byproducts, valorization of biodegradable packaging, and reduction of waste sent to landfills. 8 - A dynamic exploration of the important nexus in food systems, such as agriculture-climate-food or food-nutrition-health, considering synergies, trade-offs, costs and benefits, should enhance transformation potentials. For this kind of exploration, monitoring capabilities and appropriate metrics have to be in place. 9 - Finally, proper communication to internal and external consumers of products obtained from the Brazilian socio-biodiversity as the result of sustainable practices is an important challenge. There are already numerous examples of transformative solutions in all these core areas that can be monitored, and are referenced in the end of this document.236240243244245246248249250Breakout Room 1: scaling up low carbon, regenerative and high-productivity agriculture initiatives Integrated crop-livestock-forest systems and other examples of regenerative agriculture were discussed. Issues related to illegal deforestation were suggested as damaging to the country's image and the resolution of these issues was considered an essential condition for Brazil to be recognized in relation to the sustainable practices. The main challenges discussed to strengthen these models were: 1. The expansion of access to technical assistance for small/medium producers, using innovative mechanisms; 2. The expansion of access to credit for sustainable systems; 3. The expansion of the associative capacity of small and medium producers; 4. Putting into practice the payment market for environmental services, related to sustainable practices, biodiversity conservation, in situ conservation of genetic resources, carbon stock; 5. The increase in the diversity of integrated systems, and the design of inclusive integrated systems for other regions that do not have grains, with more attention to social metrics; 6. The exploration of the nexus between water-energy-food-climate or between food-nutrition-health to understand the complexity of food systems and the need to communicate what the crop-livestock-forest nexus is; 7. Developing metrics for the sustainability of systems and agricultural properties, which is essential for the certification scheme of integrated systems, when Life Cycle analysis and ESG criteria are growing in importance and can strengthen sustainable practices; 8. Measuring the impacts of the transition to regenerative practices, and practicing with new forms of financing, such as blended finance; 9. The need for mechanization adapted for diversification and regeneration; 10. Making it clear to consumers, investors and other stakeholders, the transparency and traceability of products throughout the chain. It was discussed that the systems involving the forestry component will be in more demand and will contribute to sustainability indicators. The challenges listed were: 11. The need for the integrated systems’ forest component to include greater diversification of species, experimenting with non-timber and fruit-bearing components; 12. The need to value the role of the arboreal component for animal thermal comfort and as a shelter for biodiversity, impacting the soil microbiome component and the production of biomass and oil, also to create business models in which the tree is an important source of income for the producer; 13. The assessment of the rural property’s landscape considers several interconnected production chains, where there is a need to include the perspective of producers in the design processes of integrated production systems with a forest component; 14. The need to professionalize the management of forest assets in integrated systems and invest in research on the management of native species, creating leasing business models for managing the forest component, so the farmer does not need to specialize in this activity. Regarding the valuation of Brazilian socio-biodiversity products obtained in sustainable production models, it was highlighted that: 15. Purchase guarantee options, such as offtake agreements and long-term contracts, are necessary as an economic basis for the transition to regenerative agriculture, in addition to connection with markets that give value to products generated from sustainable practices; 16. The diversification of species in the systems must guarantee food security and generate alternative income through environmental services; 17. Certification, good management practices, local agro-industrialization, and payment mechanisms for environmental services are possible alternatives of income from the standing forest; 19. The rational use of socio-biodiversity must be based on knowledge, exploring the food-culture nexus to model strategies and businesses in the bioeconomy; 20. Quality labels are important to communicate with the consumer about the food product, making connections between food, territory and culture.236238243244245246247248249250Breakout Room 2: expand access to healthy and sustainable food to ensure food security To combat hunger, we must integrate solutions such as public policies, technology, finance, logistics, training, regulation and monitorization. It is important that the issue of access to good food is everyone's concern. Food waste was seen as a great aggravator of food insecurity. There is a lack of accountability and collaboration across the value chain to deal with this issue, especially considering the lack of trust among actors to establish multi-sectoral processes. The primary action related to waste was the reduction of food loss and waste levels, not the donation of food. Within the scope of SDGs, it was discussed that Brazil should focus on goal 12.3, on the treatment of post-harvest products and integrated approaches. To raise awareness, the need for greater access to up-to-date mapping and data where people facing food insecurity are was highlighted as a key role of government, as well as the need for indicators on waste specific to Brazil, in addition to campaigns on conscious consumption and integral use of food items. The Intersectoral Strategy for the Reduction of Food Losses and Waste (2017) was mentioned as potentially useful to ground these actions, but it needs to be revised. The democratization of healthy diets was suggested to be dependent on the access that producers have to markets. Therefore, it is necessary to work on the integration of the chain, distribution, shortening the chain through digital technologies such as apps for direct sales, and with the vision of a circular economy that reduces waste. The need for trade agreements with producers to be fairer and formal, rewarding real production values and universalizing contractualization was highlighted, where reinforcing Brazil´s legislation (law 13288) on vertical integration contracts could support this effort. A greater spirit of collaboration between producers should be fostered, in order to strengthen cooperative models. Public policies and associated programs were seen as essential to guarantee food security. Moreover, the role of the Inter-ministerial Chamber for Food and Nutritional Security (CAISAN) was highlighted, and it should promote comprehensive technical committees, which are limited due to the decree 10173 of June 7th 2021. Furthermore, the Law 14016 of June 23, 2020, which regulates the donation of surpluses for human consumption, was discussed in the sense that it needs to have its technical and ethical aspects revised. Food safety in donations should be a shared responsibility among donors and food banks, and the law should stretch beyond donations. It was emphasized that public policies should permeate the entire system, from production to the consumption and disposal of packaging, assisted by technology. Participants discussed that access to healthy and sustainable diets is dependent on the accessibility of sustainable production technologies, especially for small and medium producers that still lack the basics such as access to credit. Technical assistance must be expanded and improved, as well as rural connectivity, involving the government, companies and academia. The distinction involving access to food, food security and nutritional security was emphasized, where food security was characterized as an income issue. However, the need to get rid of paradigms was also suggested. Eating healthier is not necessarily more expensive and, as such, there is the need to think beyond the monetary factor, encompassing practicality. People lack not only money, but also time to choose, prepare and organize food. ‘Gourmetization’ was mentioned as a factor that increases prices, and it is also the role of retailers to control price discrepancy between producer purchases and final sales. Co-responsibility and equity as the basis for education about the sustainability of the food chain was mentioned. More transparency is needed, making traceability technologies more accessible and widely implemented, also widening and integrating multi-stakeholder communication and education, throughout society, in schools and across consumer classes.236239243244245246247248249250251Breakout room 3: scale up consumer education to strengthen sustainable consumption Brazilian consumers still do not associate diets with the environment and, in general, know little about how their food was produced. It was discussed that the theme of food environments needs more attention; culture, habits, local knowledge, availability, quality and price need to be analyzed together, valuing regional diets and seasonal foods, in addition to respecting cultural preferences. To make diets more diversified, the key point is to expand access to food, as the country still has high levels of food insecurity. The impacts of the pandemic on food security and food quality require special attention. It was suggested that industrial and retail surpluses can be redistributed. Public policies to increase access to food are fundamental, and the Food and Nutritional Security policies, such as the National School Feeding Program (PNAE) and the Food Acquisition Program (PAA) should be revised and strengthened. A low percentage of consumers read food product labels. Health and sustainability must be analyzed together, as such this information should also be in labels. The private sector should have a role in encouraging consumers to read and understand labels, in addition to disseminating information on how to choose and prepare different foods, highlight aesthetic issues, redesign leftovers from meals, fully enjoy the food and consider the recommended portion per person. It is important to encourage the consumption of unconventional food plants (PANCs) and engage the industry in the development of these new products. The systemic view on health must also take into account the nutrition and microbiota of soils, given the direct relationship between soil health and plant nutrition. It was mentioned that school meals, for example, should prioritize regional foods, also with the support of the PNAE. A big challenge is to make industry and popular restaurants do the same. Not every healthy diet is sustainable, healthy diets may also generate waste. It is important to encourage innovation in the reuse of co-products in production chains, such as the use of cashew fiber to make hamburgers. The connections between research institutions and agribusinesses should be strengthened with a focus on Circular Economy opportunities, such as reducing the use of plastic in packaging. Alternatives need to be evaluated to lower the prices of fresh food. It was mentioned that the resumption of the Interministerial Chamber for Food and Nutritional Security (CAISAN) should involve the productive sectors in initiatives to promote food security. The persistent difficulty in patronizing communication and efforts to educate on healthy and sustainable diets was highlighted, as there are still controversies on the definition of these diets. Public institutions still lack efficiency and resource allocation to effectively educate society on this matter, even when in public private partnerships. A further controversial aspect found is whether we should produce more, or just improve efficiency and distribution of food. Education in schools should be a priority, with communication strategies that value positive messages, as research shows that negative messages have little effectiveness in changing habits. Edu Communicative practices were recommended, as they are based on dialogue, respect for human rights, a critical reading of the media and must be co-constructed between different actors. The challenge of addressing the issue in a more integrated manner, without ideological biases to leverage collaboration, was highlighted. Solutions that involve both producers and consumers, promoted by some retail chains such as Carrefour in its’ Act for Food Initiative, should gain scale. It is essential to work in networks and train communicators and public managers on food system issues, in addition to establishing validated indicators to measure the impacts of promoting healthy and sustainable diets. Finally, to scale innovative solutions, capturing investments from venture capital and angel investors was suggested, by involving more startups.237238239240243244245246249250Breakout Room 1: scaling up low carbon, regenerative and high-productivity agriculture initiatives ILPF and regenerative agriculture are interesting concepts, but still difficult to apply in soy producing areas, as the protocols are still being developed. It is necessary to better define the concepts in order to work with soy supply chains, such as the carbon neutral soy concept. The challenge of communication regarding deforestation was identified, indicating the necessity to know how to communicate what is already being done well. Soil carbon retention is a challenge for tropical agriculture, but it is one of the greatest opportunities for Brazil. Surveys conducted in the states of Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia and Acre show that producers resist the insertion of trees in areas with good aptitude for agriculture. They prefer to insert the forest component along internal fences and roads, in marginal areas adjacent to protection areas and in the recovery of legal reserve areas. Therefore, a need to include the perspective of producers in the design process of integrated production systems with a forestry component was highlighted. In the reality of human occupation of the Amazon, there are several small producers and traditional communities that still need to deforest for their survival. According to the last census, there are 750,000 families of small producers in the Amazon. Traditional societies have been farming for 12,000 years in this region and the legislation allows deforestation of 20%, that is, for those who own the land the forest will only stand if there is economic incentive. Example: in the Amazon, the cassava chain is one of the only crops produced by small farmers and processed locally. It was mentioned that the adoption of good production and processing practices adds value to this production, and a cassava flour with a certificate of origin can have double the financial value for the producer. These good practices can make these populations reduce their dependence on the slash and burn system. Bioproducts that do not generate employment and income in the Amazon will not solve the problem, it is of no use extracting a bioactive from the Amazon that does not directly benefit the local population. So the issue of making the standing forest viable as an income alternative for these populations is very important. Attention is needed when thinking about scale gains, increased production should be planned considering the possible waste. It was concluded that in the near future there will no longer be cattle raisers and soy producers, as these productions will become viable only in integrated systems. The soy chain will accelerate the modernization of management in the livestock sector, which is positive. A concern was raised about the countless producers who will not be able to adapt to all these new demands for sustainable practices, animal welfare, sanitary requirements, and being expelled from the business. Breakout Room 2: expand access to healthy and sustainable food to ensure food security There were different perspectives on the level of importance that local foods and markets should have in relation to international trade, which is a big chunk of Brazil's Gross Internal Market. There was still no consensus on whether healthy diets are more expensive than unhealthy ones, because the concept of these diets is not yet defined and Brazil has different access realities. Breakout room 3: scale up consumer education to strengthen sustainable consumption There was no consensus on the concept of healthy diets. For representatives of civil society and NGOs, the consumption of ultra-processed foods, especially those rich in salt, sugar and fat, aggravated the problem of obesity and affects consumers with lower purchasing power, who choose to buy processed foods because they are cheaper. Another point of attention regarding the consumption of processed foods was the pollution generated by the disposal of packaging. It was emphasized that the healthiness of foods must be evaluated in a systemic way, taking into account the health of the soil and the cultivation practices adopted. The need to involve industry in the discussion and encourage the development of foods with lower sugar and fat content was recalled. Nevertheless, it was highlighted that the consumption of processed foods accounts for the smallest part of the consumption of salt and sugar in Brazilian households. One of the considerations made was the importance of recommendations on healthy diets based on scientific knowledge, and it was mentioned that Brazil has a Food Guide, launched by the Ministry of Health based on evidence from studies in the area of ​​public health. Another point of disagreement was the short production and consumption circuits. While the importance of promoting short circuits from an environmental point of view was defended and seen as a way to strengthen family farming around cities, it was highlighted that there is no strong evidence that food transport accounts for most of the footprint of carbon from the food system. Regarding the full use of food, it was suggested that cooking at home, from scratch, is not more sustainable, as exemplified by potato processing, which according to the industry, generated an average of 15% of waste at home, whereas it generated less waste when industrialized.

Publication and link addittions2021-07-21 14:05:06https://www.redeilpf.org.br/https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/59751783/parceria-entre-embrapa-e-nestle-vai-desenvolver-protocolo-para--leite-de-baixo-carbonohttp://www.sectordialogues.org/documentos/proyectos/adjuntos/14e822_Relatorio_SemDesperdicio_Digital_Baixa.pdfhttp://www.sectordialogues.org/documentos/proyectos/adjuntos/8623f8_Relatorio_SemDesperd%C3%ADcio_Maio_2020_VF.pdfMore relevant links2021-07-21 14:46:21https://www.sesc.com.br/portal/site/mesabrasilsesc/home/https://actforfood.carrefour.com.br/https://www.embrapa.br/hortalica-nao-e-so-saladahttps://www.semdesperdicio.org/https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-abc/plano-abc-agricultura-de-baixa-emissao-de-carbonohttps://www.embrapa.br/alimentos-e-territorioshttps://jbs.com.br/imprensa/fundo-jbs-pela-amazonia-aprova-os-6-primeiros-projetos-que-receberao-investimento-de-r-50-milhoes/https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/senar/atuacao/assistencia-tecnica-e-gerencial/projeto-rural-sustent%C3%A1velhttps://www.cnabrasil.org.br/senar/atuacao/assistencia-tecnica-e-gerencial/do-rural-%C3%A0-mesahttps://www.redeilpf.org.br/index.php/certificacao

2021-07-21 13:48:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35965/33

5950944152018413921132158112

Rabobank recognizes how complex a food system transformation can be. By being a leader on Agri finance in Brazil, and engaged with the Food System Summit, Rabobank decided to invite a diverse group of clients representing the different sectors and value chain, to bring up solutions in a trustful and respectful environment, also demonstrating the importance of each player from the system. The dialogue counted with an opening session in which the speakers mentioned the Act with urgency, the commit to the Summit, Recognize Complexity and build trust. The audience invited were clients from all sectors, regions and sizes, from Rabobank’s portfolio. It also counted with the participation of experts representing civil society - WWF, ID; Science – CGAIR, FGV and Multi stakeholder – GTPSIt was an opening dialogue giving opportunity to all to speak and bring into discussion topics that were really relevant considering its complexity and also the value chain inter relationRabobank NL

NoThe event took place on June 24nd in which Rabobank’s clients from Brazilian portfolio were invited. Both from rural sector and WCI. The event was all in Portuguese in order to be more inclusive and give more confidence for the participants. During the preparation we counted with an internal working group with representatives from commercial team, risk, credit, CSR, communications and networks. This group decided the format of the event, based on the FSD reference manual. The event officially started at 9:15am (Brazilian Local Time) and counted with an opening session in which the head of Rural Head of WCI welcomed the audience, explained the importance of the FSSD for the FSS. (5 minutes). Then a Board Member, Brazilian, Portuguese speaker, took the floor to give light to the Action Tracks, also the importance of the Food System Transformation and some initiatives that Rabobank is part/ or leading such as Carbon Bank, carbon in soil. (20 minutes). Then the audience took a 10 minutes break and then has been divided in 6 breakout sessions: Sustainable Agriculture, Carbon, Climate Change Mitigation, Regenerative Agriculture, Sustainable Livestock and Payment for environmental service. Where we counted with one expert per group to inspire the group discussion, bringing science based data. Each group counted as well with a facilitator. All participants were encouraged to participate bringing their experience into the discussion. After 70 minutes, the breakout rooms closed and all the attendees were directed to the big plenary, were the moderator of each breakout session dialogue brought the main outcomes discussed in 25 minutes, and a final world from the curators in 5 minutes. Finishing at 11:30am

234240243244245248The major focus of the event was on the solutions for an effective food systems transformation, especially on the interdependence of each player of the entire value chain. Each break out session focused on a different subject, in order to bring into discussion different topics, points of view but to see the relation between them as well. Carbon - Emissions related to food systems correspond to 1/3 (one third) of global emissions, being agriculture responsible for 12% of those emissions, thus the importance of the discussion and how a large scale implementation of low emissions and carbon sequestration practices can potentially drive food systems to net zero emissions by 2050. Climate change - Investments and the impact of the climate change in Brazil Payment for environmental services - What are considered environmental services, the importance of this theme for the agriculture sector and food production, historical perspectives, legal milestones (e.g. CNAE code for native forest conservation, the National Policy for PES from January 2021, etc.) and the agronomic practices that can impact the ecosystems services. Concrete examples of projects involving payments for environmental services (e.g. carbon with REDD+, Floresta+, hydro preservation projects as Extrema and Jundiaí, Natura/private company which business depend on the local communities and exploitation of certain species in the Amazon and others). Regenerative agriculture - Education, Communication and Sustainable Development Framework Sustainable Agriculture - discussed 3 pillars for producing food while having a positive impact in the environment: (i) protect the existing natural ecosystems, (ii) manage/handle food production in a sustainable way, and (iii) restore and rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and soil functionality for food production. In addition, key topics were discussed such as: (i) combating deforestation and conversion of native vegetation, (ii) taking into consideration productive systems: use of inputs, diversity and soil management; and (iii) ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation of degraded soils. Sustainable Livestock – focused on sustainable meat production, carbon emissions, the benefits of investing in sustainability and the issue of water use in the sector.235240243244245248The main findings (or conclusions) of the dialogue were: • It is important to align incentives and make the link between clients and suppliers to match the parties that need to reduce carbon emissions to the ones that have conditions/projects and also are lacking financing. The group suggested that financial sector players could do this link as they tend to have contact with both sides. • Make carbon methodologies more user-friendly, affordable and applicable to the agriculture and forestry sectors. Hence, these methodologies should fit-for-purpose (e.g., inventory, donor report and carbon markets). • Farmers awareness and perceptions on climate (“carbon”) issues should be increased. • Farmers should be more involved in low emissions development discussions and brought to the table for co-creating solutions. • Improvement of methodology for measuring carbon emissions is critical, as well as orientation to companies and producers on how to measure correctly. • Partnership with the supply chain for target carbon achievement also very important. • Lack of market mechanisms linking clients and suppliers: companies and banks can play an important role in building such connections, also important to make incentives reach the right end where the difference can be made (production) • Companies are already adopting good practices in sustainability and are fully aware of its impacts, however Brazil does not communicate this in an efficient manner. The country has strict legislation and significant areas under preservation but fails to communicate its accolades. • At government level, a more active monitoring is needed in order to enforce the law against wrong-doers and to inhibit traditional harmful practices such as burnings in specific areas of Brazil. • The adoption of best practices in sustainability requires investment and the cost of such investments are not transferred to final pricing, decreasing companies’ margins. • Companies expect a stronger support from the banking industry in financing the adoption of sustainability practices and as a mean to segregate those who are contributing for the change to those who are not. • The adoption of bio-fertilizers and biochemical is growing. • Renewable energy and circular economy practices are part of an increasing reality and should continue growing. • Improve level of consciousness in farmers but also at civil society; • Payment for environmental services could come from premium at commodity prices and/or carbon monetization • Both small/medium and large farmers should be part of this (Payment for environmental services) solution (broader landscape approach); • Idea: farmer Amazon fund • Education: Environmental and social responsibility should be taught to children at basic education programs and knowledge about existing sustainable techniques and practices should be disseminated to farmers. • Communication: consumers have to be aware of the sustainable initiatives being developed by the Companies and their impact. There is a transition price to be absorbed by the whole society, consumers will only agree to pay more for a sustainable product if the hidden benefits are communicated. • Sustainable development framework: the transition to a more sustainable model demands relevant long-term investments, which require well-defined policies, laws and economic incentives. • Make sure economic aspects from all parties (producers, governments and consumers) do converge. • The right incentives need to be properly allocated throughout the value chain, especially for the producers/farmers, who often incur most of the costs to become sustainable. • End consumers, banks and governments should also play a role in creating such incentives/compensation for the additional cost related to implementing sustainable practices across the value chain. • Carbon capturing and consequent monetization is another avenue to incentivize farmers while promoting sustainable production patterns. Collaboration across the value chain is already taking place (Scope 3). • These incentives should also improve the livelihood of the smaller farmers and promote sustainable economic growth. • Broader access to technology in the field is necessary to also reach more remote areas/small-holders. • Use of technology as a means to improve productivity (e.g. high precision agriculture, biological defensives/fertilizers, machinery, and others). • Traceability is a key element in properly identify illegal practices while identifying and rewarding sustainable practices and players. Collaboration among players is also necessary to map the entire value chain. • Get the right message across to the society and fight fake news are very important elements. • Clear/Objective metrics in order to benefits from the investments and current existent sustainable footprint. That would benefit the entire agri chain; • Clear carbon metrics, both visually noticed (forest) and non-visually noticed (soil enhancement). • Enhance the Brazilian agriculture image worldwide with initiative from the sector/government and media. Brazil has one of the most sustainable process but does not benefit from that.236240243244245248Topic 1- Carbon • Emissions related to food systems correspond to 1/3 (one third) of global emissions, being agriculture responsible for 12% of those emissions, thus the importance of the discussion. It was also pointed out that large scale implementation of low emissions and carbon sequestration practices can potentially drive food systems to net zero emissions by 2050. • Biggest challenge is how to measure, report and verify (MRV) carbon emissions and what is the impact of the actions undertake in the attempt to reduce emissions. • Significant number of farmers in Brazil have never heard about “carbon” and, therefore, increasing awareness on climate issues, negotiations and commitments is needed for larger farmers engagement. Hence, farmers need to be involved in food systems/carbon discussions and help co-creating solutions. • Current methodologies (Science Based Targets) are not adapted to agriculture/forest sectors and they are involved in discussions to help foster this improvement. It is crucial for methodologies to reflect the specificities of forest sector given that this sector starts from a low carbon emission base and already has a great amount of carbon capture. Importance of doing partnership with the supply chain to achieve reduction targets. • The sugarcane sector itself does not represent a big part of carbon emissions within the agricultural sector, but this increases a lot when the supply chain is taken into account. The biggest challenge is for long supply chains where the intermediary industries have a relevant role in emissions. For instance, 1/3 of carbon emissions in the ethanol industry is along the supply chain. Main challenge is that incentives do not necessarily reach the ones that have the ability to make a bigger difference by changing practices. • There are funding alternatives in place, but it’s hard to find sound projects. • Lack of orientation, information on how the producer could measure carbon emissions and what are the incentives. What are the actions that they could implement that could have the biggest impact on carbon reductions in the short term. • Biggest challenges is that currently there is not a certification for commodities (the product itself) and just for the production process. • Traditional voluntary carbon market methodologies (e.g., Verra-VCS) are not affordable and that this process do not result in significant revenues to farmers.236240243244245248Topic 2 - Climate Change Carbon Sequestration: • Sugarcane in itself contributes for carbon capture and ethanol, which is an important product generated by the crushing of sugarcane and a gasoline substitute, emits 90% less carbon dioxide than the petroleum derivative. • Biodiversity is related to everything above and underneath the soil, and the latter is not measured and valued properly nowadays. Other good practices related to climate change and implemented by the companies present in the discussion: • Usage of traceability tools to track the grains used for animal feed products, choosing good suppliers in order to produce more with less grains and less environmental impact, and to improve quality of the products to optimize the energy conversion and reduce the cattle methane emission. • Leading role towards climate change must be played by agribusiness companies - soil preservation, crop-livestock integration, use of biological fertilizers and defensives, and water reservation and use optimization. Sustainable energy generation: • Cogeneration energy from sugarcane bagasse used for own consumption and also for supplying the market and, more recently, the beginning of biogas projects that will use vinasse and other sugarcane by-products as the raw material for biogas/biomethane production. The biogas will be then used for clean energy generation while the biomethane as a substitute of diesel in the company’s logistics. • Solar energy - the investment is high, but the environmental and economic benefits are worth the expenditure. Climate change in Brazil: • Sustainable agenda and climate change discussions are here to stay. Brazil has one of the most rigid environmental rules in the world and that besides the necessity to keep legal reserves as a percentage of each productive property. 66% of the country’s territory is dedicated to the protection, preservation and conservation of native vegetation and biodiversity. • Brazilian image perceived is very negative because of the actions of a few people that do not represent the correct producers. • Farmers are commanding the market and will increasingly require more actions in the environmental field. No soy has been purchased from deforested areas and the grain producer must change its mind. The ones that do not adapt to the new reality will be out of the market soon. • Government should be more active to avoid illegal burning and punish the ones involved in those illegal activities236240243244245248Topic 3 - Payment for environmental services • Importance of protecting legal reserves areas and mainly APPs given its influence in assuring better river/water quality as a “natural filter”, also costs tied to it. • Include larger scale farms at the discussion given their relative higher landscape impact and contribution to the maintenance of ecosystem services. Commonly we see these type of programs only destined to smallholder farms. • Important role from agriculture sector in providing environmental services, the need to create recognition mechanisms in the external market for all the efforts from the Brazilian Agriculture sector. • Environmental measure has to be economically viable, even in the long term. Remuneration for ES will generate the demand for improved systems. • Benefits of environmental measures should be calculated as to improve the chances of farmers adhering to best practices, especially in a shorter term horizon. Farmers tend to think more short term and stakeholders should address this as well. • Market must make it more tangible for producers - opportunity cost showing that preservation brings economic advantages for the producer in the medium-to-long run and the need to bring the economic component to the discussions at the landscape-level. • Renewable energy/biofuels and their positive impact. Carbon credits and locally CBios as a way to monetize/back environmentally friendly investments. Farmers should realize that producing a lot volume thru expanding lands is not interesting for them price wise, meaning that if farmers are able to realize that in record volume moments price trends should be bearish perhaps they would better control their expansion moves. • Amazon has always been in evidence by media even globally was suggested to create a fund having Brazilian farmers as investors with the exclusive purpose of protecting the forest as well as enabling economic use of it by its local people. This would be a way for the Brazilian agriculture to take closer responsibility towards all the criticism related to the Amazon deforestation, overall improving our image. • It was not a consensus that farmers have short term mindset, but long term, in their future generations. Farmers responsibility of any economic activity not to have negative externalities thus taking care of the environment e.g. forests, water springs and mainly the soil, is mandatory for a farmer besides being also an obligation by the Forest Code. Farmers that do not take care of their soil, for instance, gradually will be out of the business as yields (an consequently margins) will be lower. • Regarding payments for environmental services was argued that receiving money for x or y would increase the level of external requirements/interference in the business thus it would be better not to monetize over those services. • If the farmer wants a profitable business in the long-term, he will do this in the same way, however under a voluntary approach, not bringing more constraints to the business. However, if this same farmer accept to receive for the ES, he is accepting a new market regulation on their activity that is not worth. The certification schemes are already doing part of this role. PES should come through market recognition to the products with more sustainable footprint and not as a direct remuneration. • Direct remuneration for environmental services will eliminate any possible benefit and increase the liabilities for the farmers. Indirect remuneration is more effective than creating a direct flow, indicating that the farmer needs a better payment for his activity and not to receive a separate payment for the environmental services. • Amazon generates a negative image for Brazilian producers, and that the sector should use this global interest to establish a positive dialogue with the market.236240243244245246248Topic 4 – Regenerative Agriculture • Regenerative agriculture goes beyond applying sustainable practices on the agribusiness, but targets the positive balance of deforestation and carbon footprint (net zero is not enough - needs to be carbon positive). • Companies must commit with Regenerative practices and Governments must provide access to transition finance and support the scalability of projects. Blended-finance instruments can facilitate the transition and scale up. • For a successful business case for regenerative agriculture, it is essential to bring together knowledge about farming, ecology, communications, technology and finance. • Farmers learn better from other farmers and they play a key role on this transformation, as it is deeply integrated at the local level. • Remunerate the sustainable and regenerative practices is essential. • The whole society must be willing to make it happen, as there is a transition price to be paid by everyone: consumers, the industry and farmers. • The economic premium paid by the society for the sustainable products has to reach the farmer and this will be the main driver for the transition to a more sustainable model. • Sustainability must be on the Government Basic Education Program to ensure the next generation’s awareness about environmental responsibility. • Dissemination of existing sustainable agricultural models among farmers is an important way to speed up transition. • There is a lot to be improved in the current practices only by adopting existing techniques, as the reduction on the usage of fossil fuels, improvement on equipment efficiency, investments on infrastructure that allows larger vehicles to reduce the number of trips per ton of production, among others. • Communicate to final consumers what has been done in order to promote a more sustainable agriculture and empowerment to choose the right type of product to buy according to their environmental practices. • Additionally, consumers will only be willing to pay for something they understand. • Education is key. Environmental responsibility must be part of the Public Education Program. • The new generation must be aware of the benefits of sustainable practices to the current and future generations, as they will be responsible for production and consumption in the coming future. • Agriculture is very often mentioned as harmful for the environment on school books. The government and companies should advertise on the good practices of the vast majority of the players, so that the new generation realizes that agriculture is actually an important part of the solution for a sustainable living. • The existing regenerative techniques must be spread out among farmers. • Governments must act, creating mechanisms and policies that will provide growers with the tools to start the transition. • There are many alternatives to produce in a more sustainable way. • It is important to show farmers that there are economic viable models for a sustainable agriculture, as they will not invest in “Green” if they believe bank account is going to turn “Red”. • Agroforestry demands a long term planning. As there is no safe environment for farmers to make the transition, i.e. no adequate funding, neither a defined legal framework, nor a formalized market to purchase the production, the initiative is taken only by a few and capitalized farmers. • A very complex environmental legislation moves farmers away from the discussion. • Standardization of demands among the states of the nation and making the rules clear to be followed are the first steps to engage all stakeholders around this common target.236240243244245248Topic 5 – Sustainable Agriculture Land/Deforestation: • Territorial intelligence system tool, to assist with improvements in the socio-environmental risk analysis – for instance: manage grain sourcing and assist in identifying areas for investments that will not cause disruption in the environment. • Separate what is legal versus illegal deforestation. • Must have more ambitious on the carbon goals. There is already a natural selection made by the market on the legal vs illegal deforestation. There should be incentives to avoid deforestation – potential covenant from banks; rewards those who are taking the right actions. • The Soy Moratorium already works well in his view and an important initiative. Focus on areas that are already “at our disposal” (e.g. degraded pasture land). • Brazil already has a very strict legislation – strong surveillance should be the focus. We should make use of the land already available when economic viable. Incentive for a sustainable value chain and sustainable production: • Identify ways to include those players who are not so keen in actively participating in a more sustainable value chain. Also identify incentives to increase such participation. Also touched upon the legal deforestation – how to incentivize the producers to avoid using this land – how can they be compensated? • Seek best practices with incentives, avoiding dichotomies “certifications that includes and other that excludes”, for instance, carbon bank is beneficial to both the grower and to the society. Example given: Sugar & Ethanol sector in which the basis of payment changed from weight to sucrose content (focus on quality) resulting in improved productivity and Cbios concept. Communication: • In terms of communication, all the stakeholders should also promote what Brazil has done right – for instance, 56% of the territory is native forest, best practices/productivity improvements over the years. • Communication is key in fighting fake news. We need to find ways to get good and correct information to the society. It is also an education process. Data and technology investments: • Investments in technology has been key in such development. • In the context of a growing population, which requires better quality food and want to know where it comes from, the digital transformation becomes key. • Usage of 4G to monitor the fields by applying high precision agriculture. With technology, farmers get able to better manage the fields by feeding the soils with what is needed and also by allowing for the biological control of pests.236240243244245248Topic 6 – Sustainable livestock Water Use: • Image of Brazil internationally is scratched and the reality must be better presented by entire Brazilian agricultural industry. Was mentioned that in Brazil are several pioneering initiatives in place for a while and are not well shared to the importers, some of them sometimes are done in a better way than our other countries competitors. Such as, livestock water based on re-used clean water, irrigation done by the farm own reservatory, energy generation based on the animal waste feedlot, natural biome preserved and guaranteed by law including the private lands, etc.. Nutrients for human consumption: • Benefits of using the beef as the main animal protein diet. Was exemplified that profiling those benefits translating the information in the beef nutrient for a human diet, such as: the fatty acids and minerals (selenium, Mg., Zn., etc). • The best way to measure the benefits of a beef production must be not only productivity (@/ha) but also the nutrients that a beef meal counts on a human diet nutrients. Therefore, the best approach should be a nutrient index. • All depend on the nutrients the livestock is feed. There is no other country in the world that feed its livestock with as much Selenium and Zinc as Brazil does. Therefore, it should be taken into account when we consider the final price of the Brazilian beef. Carbon emissions and footprint: • Have tool to properly measure the sustainable impact/footprint is the key. Some potential good measurements that might be interest to be adopted: (i) Meat production/carbon emission; (ii) Meat production/native biome preserved. • Reputational footprint might be a potential solution to enhancement the livestock chain. • Communication access as well as the standardization of the retailers are key to benefit from a sustainable footprint in the retail industry. • The difference between the carbon sequestration visually (forest) and non-visually (soil). Participants agreed that there is an important topic to be discussed - quality of the soil. Soil can sequester as much carbon as a forest and that must be also broadcasted internationally. Other Sustainability Topics: • Creation of Integral Concept which combines sustainable projects, reduced carbon emission/more sequestration, enhancement of beef quality and animal welfare. The result for a well-structured Integral Concept is a green/sustainable stamp which will add value to the product. • There is in place some metric adopted by international organizations (feed ingredients, livestock carbon emission, etc) and that they can be certified/audited and that could cut some corners. The slaughter house should start a program to benefit the best farmers paying them a premium for a more sustainable product, such as what has been done by the dairy industry. • Enhance the image of Brazilian agriculture worldwide.237240243244245248The participants in the dialogue were well aligned and did not present significant differences during the discussions.

2021-07-21 14:20:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22263/45203

17283112414191623113212171010142913

When organizing the dialogue, Rare had a clear ambition to bringing together different stakeholders from all sectors linked to Food Waste, to make sure everyone is represented, exchange learnings and challenges, and allow for discussion and consensus-building. We hand-selected the participants, drawing on individuals from China and across the globe, in order to ensure inclusivity of as many different sectors, regions, and cultures as possible. The dialogue involved specialists (for example, focused on either food waste or behavior change), allowing them to exchange insights and learnings. In the breakout sessions, groups were given the same discussion topic, but drawing on the challenges faced in their geographic region or area of sectoral expertise.When developing the dialogue, we wanted to ensure that the principles were reflected throughout: • ‘Act with Urgency’ – breakout groups focused on a future vision of 2030, whilst individuals were asked to draw and reflect on current challenges they are facing. • ‘Commit to the Summit’ – the convenors of the dialogue helped to link the outcomes of the dialogue to both the Food Systems Summit work ongoing within China, and form new partnerships between actors within the Food Waste remit within China and across the globe • ‘Be Respectful’ – the dialogue and breakout groups were designed in a way to allow individuals to explore their local challenges, with facilitators ensuring participants listened to each other and were open to divergent points of view • ‘Recognize Complexity’ - Reducing food waste will involve many actors, from systems of production to consumption. In our talks, we recognized the need for transformation at differing stages, from the systems that produce food and get it to the consumer, to the individual behaviors related to food waste. Solutions must be adapted to the differing stakeholders involved. • ‘Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity’ - By inviting stakeholders from different sectors and mixing them into different breakout sessions, we were able to ensure both diversity and inclusion of our stakeholders groups. The breakout groups allow the opportunity for different actors along the chain to exchange regarding specific challenges they face. • ‘Complement the work of others’ - Through allowing individuals to use behavioral insights to explore their own challenges related to Food Waste, we were able to learn about specific challenges within their sector or region, which allowed us to explore various perspectives that were able to complement our discussions. • ‘Build Trust’ – the dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The dialogue use Chatham houses rule to ensure comments are not attributed to single individuals.A translator was used to host the dialogue, ensuring that content was available in Chinese and English. Since the dialogue wanted to surface and exchange insights between China and a wider audience, the use of translators ensured the content could be accessed by all in attendance. We also choose to share the statement in advance of the dialogue, in addition to asking individuals to reflect on either an individual or personal challenge they have found in their fight against food waste. By allowing individuals to reflect in advance of the dialogue, we were able to ensure all felt confident in sharing challenges with other participants, ensuring the time could best surface commonalities in terms of challenges and potential solutions. The Principles of Engagement are very important to create a safe space where individuals feel able to engage in a direct yet respectful exchange. It’s important to make sure each participant understands they will be contributing to the breakout group discussion and not only be a passive listener. Finally, by upholding Chatham House Rules we can ensure that honest conversations about obstacles and work can be explored.

Yes

234238239240243244248249In this dialogue, our approach was to explore how behavioral insights can be used to address the challenges of food waste. Food waste reduction offers multi-faceted wins for people and planet, improving food security, addressing climate change, saving money and reducing pressures on land, water, biodiversity and waste management systems. UNEP’s food waste index report estimates that around 931 million tons of food waste was generated in 2019, 61 per cent of which came from households, 26 per cent from food service and 13 per cent from retail. In China, the topic of food waste in the country has gained increasing political and public attention. China launched a Clean Plate Campaign in August 2020 that encouraged citizens to order less food at restaurants and to eat everything on their plates in order to reduce food waste. Building on the momentum, in April 2021 China’s National People's Congress passed the new ‘Anti-Food Waste Law’, which marks another important milestone in China’s continued focus on reducing food waste. In light of this, how can behavior insights accelerate the adoption of solutions and implementation of the law? As actors across the food industry and beyond increasingly recognize the importance of behavior change in the battle to reduce global food waste, behavior scientists and practitioners have identified bright spots that can enable individuals as well as foodservice teams to make the immediate operational changes to reduce waste, while also changing behavior and mindsets to prevent the recurrence of food waste over the long term. However, this dialogue aimed to explore where this work is happening, and where it can be further strengthened. The purpose of the dialogue was to develop a collaborative call to action among stakeholders from across the food chain, identifying current opportunities and challenges in reducing food loss and waste in China and across the world. The guiding topic and vision statement for the breakout groups was: “As part of Sustainable Development Goal 12 there is a need to halve per capita global food waste by 2030 at the retail and consumer level. While the actors and steps required to make this goal achievable are many, through using behavioral insights we can ensure that solutions developed are informed with an understanding of the drivers behind individual behaviors.” Each breakout group explored this same vision statement, although consisted of individuals from different sectors and regions. As such, the challenges explored and solutions raised varied considerably. Using this framing statement, at the start of the dialogue individuals explored the specific problems related to food waste they are trying to address through their work, initially by sharing both problem and target behaviors related to food waste. This was then followed by an opportunity for participants to discuss commonalities, allowing room for participants to surface not only areas that needed greater focus, but also areas for collaboration to overcome common challenges.235238239240243244245249The dialogue took place two months after announcement of a new national law in China focused on reducing food waste at all levels. Whilst the legislation marks a shift of greater political and public attention to the topic of food waste, this dialogue acknowledged that legislation alone cannot be used a singular tool used to change behaviors leading to food waste. This legislation has come at a time of other developments which are being harnessed in different regions to reduce food waste (for example, through AI technology, shared economy applications, refined waste management principles and public awareness campaigns). However, dialogue attendees felt that for this myriad of interventions and tools to be truly effective, there is a greater need to look at how these can be connected across the whole food system, and an increased need for connectivity across different actors, solutions and legislation focused on reducing food waste. Through the different breakout groups, there was a recognized need to better inform and educate individuals around not just how to reduce food waste, but also the multi-faceted benefits of reducing food waste. Most individuals agreed that within their regions, often public messaging and education failed to clearly emphasis and communicate the scale of global food loss and waste, and the following issues that result from the scale of this waste. Whilst the point and reasons at which food may become ‘waste’ varies across different geographical regions and contexts, it was argued that better education around the challenge can be key to solving the challenge. This form of education can take many forms, from incorporation into formal curriculums, information campaigns, to using networks of advocates at a community level to deploy messaging and best practice. A reoccurring challenge faced by attendees was the need for better standardized measurement of food waste to further quantify and deepen understanding of where food waste occurs. Whilst in some countries there has been more research and data made available, it was acknowledged that more data on food waste can help actors realize where interventions can best be made. For example, attendees argue that it's difficult to track data on individual behaviors on food waste within the home, because natural household behaviors are not easily observable, and service providers are usually hesitant to share or make public detailed data related to waste management. To effectively address the food waste challenge, publicly available data related to the measurement of food waste is critical, with countries building on each other’s learnings to develop a strong global framework for measurement and sharing of food waste information. Breakout groups argued that there needs to be a better understanding of the individual behaviors that contribute towards food waste, particularly in the context of post-farm and post-processing waste. Throughout the dialogue breakout sessions, attendees shared the behaviors they seek to change through their work to reduce food waste, with many acknowledging that there is a need for more information and understanding on the exact reasons for this behavior. Therefore, alongside a need for better quantitative data on food waste, it was felt that there needs to be a deeper understanding of behaviors to ensure targeted solutions are developed. The dialogue highlighted that the issues leading to food waste are vast, both within China and across the world. A message that resulted from all breakout groups was that in order to create a more sustainable food system by 2030 there is a need for behavior change among producers, retailers, the food service sector and the end consumer. Current consumption levels, changing dietary patterns and the unequal increase in purchasing power is leading to overexploitation and degradation of food systems. Therefore, it’s critical that there is a shift in consumer behavior which leads to a real reduction in food waste. Conversations across the dialogue highlighted that behavioral insights can be a powerful tool to empower individuals across the food system. Traditional behavioral levers might focus on monetary short term benefits or regulation to encourage a reduction in food waste, and while these remain an important part of the solution, transformative change needs to go beyond this and truly consider and understand the attitudes, motivation, background and cultural context of individuals when looking to enable change. Through understanding this, we can better look at other levers which effectively enable behavior change. This can include using emotional appeals to drive a shift in behavior, or building a system of choice architecture to change the context in which choices are made, prompting behaviors which can reduce food waste. Likewise, ensuring individuals have information on what the desired behavior is and why it matters can help lead to lasting change, in addition to using social influences the utilize the behavior and beliefs of others to fight against food waste.236238239240243249The dialogue group involved stakeholders from national government, academia, international NGO’s and food retail associations, and was conducted in English. Throughout the dialogue participants shared and explored the different challenges and behaviors they are seeking to adapt to reduce food waste, with a focus on exploring the different audiences they are trying to reach, and the target behaviors they are trying to change. Whilst these audiences and behaviors varied, the group shared some common outcomes. The group felt that technology should be further embraced to help reduce food waste. Whilst each participant acknowledge technology could help them reduce waste in different ways depending on their sector, a common outcome was the fact that recent development should be embraced wherever possible to aid a reduction in food waste. This comes with questions regarding funding, as whilst it may be more profitable in the long run, investment in technical solutions to reduce food waste can come with upfront costs which can be unattractive, particular when upfront financial support or incentives are not provided. Participants believed that there is a need to rethink the overall food distribution model adapted, with some claiming that they feel a centralized system isn’t working. Whilst supply chains have been streamlined and waste reduced in many regions, some participants argued that there needs to be a look to local solutions to ensure that food that would become waste at a retail or post-retail level is redistributed through local networks to avoid it becoming waste. Within the group, there was also an argument that there needs to be greater alignment across between supply and demand to reduce food waste. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the fragility of our supply chains in places, with food typically destined for consumption in food-service outlets initially being wasted in many regions, and shortages in other products being seen in the retail space. The group felt that there needed to be a cultural shift in peoples attitudes to help drive a reduction in food waste. Current attitudes prominent in some regions (for example, norms of surplus in retail outlets and rigid expectations help by consumers of how food should look) need to be changed to ensure that there is less waste post-farm, at the point of retail and in the home, whilst there needs to be a greater shift in changing a conceived norm that a certain amount of food waste is acceptable. The group argued that behavioral insights can be of benefit in helping reduce food waste through their work. The group believe that there needs to be interventions across the whole food system to effectively reduce food waste, with efforts made to identify effective leverage points at which these interventions can be made and solutions can be utilized.236238239240243245249The dialogue group was conducted in English, and involved participants representing food retail outlets, the food service sector, technological solutions aimed at reducing food waste, food redistribution platforms and NGO’s. The dialogue again allowed a space for these individuals to explore the different challenges they are facing within their sector to reduce food waste, sharing the behaviors they are seeking to change and the behaviors they wish to achieve. Some participants within the group felt that cultural institutions can be utilized within different contexts to empower and enable change in social attitudes, which can lead to a reduction in food waste. Whilst this would vary across different contexts, some participants felt these institutions could be a powerful tool to challenge and change individual behaviors leading to food waste. The group felt that education of citizens can be a powerful tool to empower change in individuals. The group discussed a need to engage a group of advocates to champion the need to reduce food waste, with a need to then use these advocates to mainstream arguments against food waste and ensure the topic is connected in peoples ‘hearts and minds’ to wider issues, such as climate change and biodiversity loss. The group argued that more information on the total scale of food loss at different stages is needed to ensure interventions can be targeted in the best places. Through capturing more and better data in relation to food waste, actors can then decide where they should best target their interventions to lead to impactful change. This sentiment was echoed by all stakeholders looking to reduce waste across their respective target areas. Across the breakout group the different actors acknowledged that the behaviors that cause food waste amongst the target actors they work alongside can vary significantly. However, the group believed that through more data on where waste is generated, and a deeper understanding of these actors and the individual behaviors that can generate food waste we can better target interventions and develop long term behavior change solutions.236238239240243244249The dialogue group involved stakeholders from academia, restaurant business, food retailers, international organizations and waste reduction business, and was conducted in Chinese. Food security is a national priority in China, and whilst the government policy has been focused on increasing yield, less attention has been paid to reducing food waste until recently. Recent anti food waste law indicates the commitment from government to tackle food waste. The cost of law enforcement is high and lack of objective measurement makes it even harder. Therefore, behavioral insights should be integrated during the legislation process and enforcement process. It must be recognized that the government can play an important role in monitoring and the measurement of food waste. Different behavior levels are needed to be considered into the solution development, such as emotional appeals, social influence, and choice architecture. The group also developed slogans to call for actions to be used in the future food waste reduction works, that they felt best mirrored the direction and areas of focus for the future food system. These included “tasty food, balanced diet: reduce waste, act today ”; “technology enables green low carbon lifestyle”; ”Reducing food waste to respect life and nature”; “small step everyday, reduce waste with big impact”; “fight food waste with everyone in the food industry”; “innovative technology and business models can help achieve sustainable food life cycles. ”236238239240243244249The dialogue group involved stakeholders from academia, international NGOs, Chinese NGOs and food delivery platform and waste reduction business, and was conducted in Chinese. During the COVID-19 pandemic, restaurants business have been heavily affected, as well as wet markets. On the other hand, the business of food delivery services increased significantly. This has seen Chinese consumers behavior patterns shift, with less waste occurring from group dinning activities and more waste occurs at household level and overproduction from business. Studies on the shifting behavior patterns and effective channel to reach audience are needed. Technologies have played a critical role in reducing food waste in China. For example, AI technology is used to track plate waste, internet delivery companies encourage restaurants to customize their menu to reduce waste, and apps have been used to share leftover food among communities. To further increase the effectiveness of technology, deeper understanding on human behaviors lays at the foundation. The group identified one of the challenges is a lack of access to food waste data. Food businesses are not willing to share data because it may reveal financial status, so it’s difficult to track the progress of food waste reduction. For the redistribution of leftover food from retailers, concerns on food safety were raised, such as who would be responsible for the potential risks during redistribution? The group also proposed that the national goals on food waste reduction could be more ambitious than UN targets of 50% reduction. They felt that more tax incentives or policy should be available for the business that practice waste reduction solutions throughout their operations.237Despite the multiple actors in the dialogue, limited areas of divergence presented themselves across the breakout groups. It became apparent that some attendees believe there needs to be a move towards a less centralized and more localized food system, which focusses on a shift towards more local produce and short distribution chains or channels. However, other attendees believed the opposite, and felt that there needed to be more connectivity across all aspects of the farm to fork chain to ensure waste is minimized and there is a better oversight of overall food distribution. Whilst this issue was raised in the dialogue, it did not form part of the major scope for discussion, and as such was not explored further.

2021-07-21 14:32:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20720/414557708695123203137152176194

330112132011143163252211611313

i) Engaging all actors in the food systems; including those not normally included: Majority of the actors represented non-academic stakeholder groups. Despite majority of the actors are based/linked to Canada, other regions have been represented (Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Mongolia, South Korea, USA). ii) Enabling and encouraging stakeholders to explore ideas together through connections: Was given at the topic-specific breakout session moderated by the facilitators and reviewing/revising drafted minutes (see attached PDF file). Depending on the actors interest further activities and actions have been discussed and may hopefully materialize.We followed the Principles of Engagement during preparation, at the virtual dialogue and thereafter. The topic requires to our understanding urgent attention, it is complex and matches to the SUMMIT`s scope (i.e. commitment), experts from multiple disciplines and stakeholder groups participated allowing a systematic assessment required to develop evidence-based pathways for decision making.No.

Yes

234240241244246249The dialogue was organized in form of discussion groups addressing specific topics: i) Land use and land use change, ii) Farming systems, iii) Environment and biodiversity, iv) Rural development and human health, v) Agri-food business models and strategies, and vi) Agricultural policies.235240241244246249Overall concerns/knowledge gaps revealed at the UN SUMMIT Dialogue on “Local and global food security shaped by Northern agriculture” confirming the need (& urgency) of well through planning for northern land use change based agriculture: - Lack if and inconsistencies in policies, - Lack of effective support for environmental impact research (i.e., policies focus on opportunities and fail to address/regulate externalities), - Insufficient support for the development of agricultural systems appropriate to northern regions and the overwhelming use of technologies developed elsewhere (i.e., marginal support for locally relevant innovation = worries that we not have learned from past land use change evidence), - Variable support/hesitancy on the part of large companies; much land use change based agricultural expansion happens at small and medium scale, - Intensification of production and protection of existing agricultural lands preferred over land use change in northern regions.236239240244246249Please see attached PDF file.237239240244246249Please see attached PDF file.

The term northern agriculture refers to a zone characterized by specific climatic conditions that will change as presented by King et al. 2018 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26321-8), assessed and discussed in more detail by Altdorff et al. 2021 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-021-00676-1) and Unc et al. 2021 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.663448/full).2021-07-22 11:50:10https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/King-et-al-2018.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Unc-et-al-2021.pdfhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-021-00676-1.pdfThis UN SUMMIT Dialogue on "Local and global food security shaped by Northern agriculture" was supported by the European Joint Program co-fund on climate-smart sustainable management of agricultural soils (Grant Agreement: 862695).2021-07-22 12:17:52https://ejpsoil.eu

2021-07-21 17:42:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14461/3237586568737698106111112119128135153169170171174189193201202

8550

We encouraged participants to share their stories in order to build trust before splitting into smaller groups. We had the opening speaker emphasize the importance of SME engagement in the summit and the urgency in involving them as key drivers of food system transformation in the decade of action. We asked SMEs to say what they could do and what they needed from others, in order to begin building support for specific commitments.It included multiple stakeholders, from government and public agencies, to small businesses and support organizations.Ensure that all involved in the planning and organizing, curators, facilitators, speakers, are aware of these.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248251The focus was: How to boost the role of SMEs in providing Good Food for All? Discussion groups shared positive experiences of contributions to the food systems and detailed challenges. A second group breakout considered actions within defined pathways in line with the Action Tracks.235238239240241242244245248251African SMEs are contributing already to all the action track objectives. They face challenges in having more positive impact: finance (tailored to size, cost and access, especially for women); policy disconnect with market demands; infrastructure failure and cost of transport (from road to ports); Capacity and tailored support that is fit for purpose. 1. Reluctancy of farmers and participants in food system to adopt new systems of doing things and new technologies. 2. Cost considerations and immediate profit considerations of changing archaic systems. 3. Lack of access to credit due to lack of collateral. Lack of capital. 4. Access to market, lack of formalized and consistent contract of market. 5. Lack of consistency in government policies. Lack of an enabling environment from a policy point of view. 6. Simplifications and reductions of tax regimes is a consistent barrier for most SMEs2362382392402412422442452482492511. More funding for SMEs who are lacking capital and barriers to growing are too difficult. 2. Formalize linkages with formal networks so that there is diversification of suppliers who are SMEs., 3. De-risk Agriculture to make it attractive to financiers 4. Lower barriers to entry and lower costs of finance and cost of capita 5. Financing should be a package where we combine financing, capacity building in both financial literacy and Good Agricultural practice. We should also have credit products that are tailor made to suit different farmers requests such as the women and youth. Their needs are different. 6. Recommending digitization of last mile delivery as well as consumer to farmer traceability 7. Food safety, quality and labelling authenticity needed237238239240241242244245248251The role of large business - are they competition or potential partners and allies?

2021-07-21 17:47:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27259/12142832373840424347485056586264656768727376808198105106107111112115118119125126128134135153159161163164169170171174182185189193201202

15010153103405

The dialogue under the Malabo Montpellier Forum was organized by considering the principles of engagement. It served as a platform for learning from and sharing of good practices in policy and program design and implementation. In addition, it provided opportunities to representatives of different African countries to exchange and share their experiences. The dialogue served as a space for busy executives to exchange directly on issues of strategic importance in a context that is free from domestic pressures.The dialogue discussed what works on the ground, how and why, to inform and guide the discussion and exchange among the participants, a large share of whom were policymakers and decision-makers and the highest level of government. The sessions gathered African countries that have made the most progress in building a sustainable food system namely Ghana, Malawi, Morocco, and Rwanda to share their experience with other countries for the purpose of mutual learning and spreading of best practices. This reflects the commitment to the summit by empowering stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. The dialogue also embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity as it gathered African governments representatives, Non-govermental Organisations, farmer organizations, and other actors and partners including the private sector and development partners. The dialogue also complemented the work of others by contributing to informed decision-making based on scientific evidence and practical experience from on the ground.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The dialogue under the Malabo Montpellier Forum shared and discussed the findings of a report titled "Connecting the Dots: Policy Innovations for Food Systems Transformation in Africa". The dialogue focused on the challenges and threats faced by the entire food system. These challenges and threats include a growing (and rural) population, rapid urbanization, changing dietary patterns, a persistent gender gap, climate change, environmental degradation, and conflicts. Drivers and opportunities to build a sustainable food system were also discussed. There is a multitude of opportunities available to raise productivity, provide affordable and healthy diets, create decent and profitable employment, and strengthen the resilience of farmers and other food system actors. The report and the discussions at the dialogue then focused on the experience of some African countries in building a sustainable food system in terms of institutional, policy and programmatic interventions. The case study countries were Rwanda, Ghana, Morocco, Malawi. The representative of the different African countries other than the case study countries had opportunities to share their countries' successful experiences and current challenges including ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all and building resilience to vulnerabilities shocks and stress.235238239240241242243246249The key finding from the dialogue is consensus around the following actions agenda that countries need to domesticate: -Ensure multistakeholder and multisectoral coordination across government departments in order to reflect the interconnectedness of food systems transformation: African countries that have shown a measure of success in transforming aspects of their food systems show that well-coordinated national-level policies can facilitate success. Working with stakeholders from research institutions, civil society, the private sector, and development partners further ensures that there is a common vision and that polices have “buy in” across interventions, therefore making them more impactful. -Facilitate evidence-based and guided experimentation and innovation of policies and accelerated science capacity for technical solutions supporting broad food systems change: There is neither one single policy nor a unique mix of strategies that can deliver change across all objectives of a food system. Rather, policymakers will be required to forge new pathways to build sustainable, resilient, and prosperous food systems that deliver healthy and nutritious diets, improve livelihoods, and protect the environment. -Institutionalize monitoring, evaluation and learning for impactful planning and implementation: Even with disruptive innovations, systemic change must be an iterative process. While agile institutions have responded quickly to emerging threats and opportunities it is also essential that institutions integrate a framework for learning, in order to enhance long-term planning and implementation. Learning goes beyond accountability; it also includes a reflective environment and one that is open to failures, if only to learn from them. As policymakers transition into the use of a food systems approach, they will be required to be both introspective and outward looking. In this respect, a central role is played by reliable monitoring, evaluation, and data systems. -Integrate food systems transformation into long-term national vision, growth and development agendas: Food systems, their challenges, and their opportunities are not homogenous across countries. Each country must prioritize its specific needs and objectives within a framework that affords it the creativity to innovate as new knowledge, ideas, processes, and systems are developed and become available. At the same time, a food systems transformation is unlikely to be rapid. Policymakers must therefore seek to elevate the transformation process beyond the impulses of political administrations. Integrating food systems transformation (including specific targets) into the long-term national vision can help transcend politics and make the transformation a national priority. This in turn builds certainty for investors and for other stakeholders who are engaged in the process; it also enables the continuity of the work required to transform food systems at the national level. -Enhance CAADP indicators to reflect the complexity of food systems: This report identifies selected indicators from the CAADP Biennial Review by which to assess a country’s vision and its progress toward food systems transformation. Policymakers, however, now have an opportunity to lead a continent-wide strengthening of the CAADP process. While the CAADP has undoubtedly focused national efforts in transforming agricultural sectors, it is now timely to adopt a more systemic view of food systems transformation and to go beyond the CAADP’s current ambition of agricultural growth and transformation. Additional indicators are needed which better measure and reflect food systems’ interconnectedness with the environment, social inclusion, nutrition and public health, youth employment, and income generation. There is an opportunity to align these additional indicators with national commitments under the various related international agreements including (but not limited to) the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).236238239241242243246248249There were two round table discussions of 45mins each. During the discussions, the representatives from different African countries highlighted the importance of urgently ensuring multistakeholder and multisectoral coordination across government departments in order to reflect the interconnectedness of food systems transformation. In addition, a lack of information on how to coordinate actions was highlighted, which shows the importance on knowledge generation for evidence based policy. Another finding was for goverments to ensure coherence in terms of policy design, by integrating food systems transformation into long-term national visions, growth and development agendas. Furthermore, there is an urgent need to update Africa’s agricultural science, research and innovation systems to make them fit for purpose. This includes the funding allocated and available for science and innovation. Finally, governments must consider a more consistent approach to evaluating the quality of education and training across countries and disciplines. Facilitate linkages between universities, agricultural research institutes, national extension services, the private sector, and users such as farmers, processors, and consumers. In fact, a robust science, research, and technology system that encourages interdisciplinary approaches will be at the heart of addressing the multifaceted challenges facing Africa’s food systems such as improving crop and animal productivity and nutrition, tackling pests and diseases, improving storage technologies and methods, raising food safety standards, adapting to and mitigating climate impacts, or developing innovative solutions to deliver humanitarian aid to communities in conflict.

2021-07-21 17:50:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14516/14333881126159

4320

We encouraged participants to share their stories in order to build trust before splitting into smaller groups. We had the opening speaker emphasize the importance of SME engagement in the summit and the urgency in involving them as key drivers of food system transformation in the decade of action. We asked SMEs to say what they could do and what they needed from others, in order to begin building support for speci�c commitments.It included multiple stakeholders, from government and public agencies, to small businesses and support organizations. It complemented work and interaction between Brazil and the African Portuguese-speaking countries.Ensure that all involved in the planning and organizing, curators, facilitators, speakers, are aware of these.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248249251The focus was: How to boost the role of SMEs in providing Good Food for All? Discussion groups shared positive experiences of contributions to the food systems and detailed challenges. A second group breakout considered actions within de�ned pathways in line with the Action Tracks.235238239240241242244245248249251Challenges around unfavourable regulatory/business environment for SMEs – access to finance, technology, weak markets, infrastructure deficits (especially in rural areas), etc. Also, lack of mentoring opportunities for SMEs. Technology emerged as a major issue of constraint for SMEs, especially those trying to add value beyond production.2362382392402412422442452482492511. Reduce the Cost of Doing Business by: - addressing infrastructure deficits especially in rural areas - reforming the financial system and providing credit guarantees for SMEs 2. Tailor Support for Food SMEs by - Providing technical assistance to SMEs to professionalize their operations and grow - Facilitating stronger vertical linkages in the value chain for SMEs, i.e. between SMEs and their suppliers and customers237238239240241242244245248249251Nothing significant was identified that created divergence by the participants.

2021-07-21 18:02:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14521/232987114130173

46

We encouraged participants to share their stories in order to build trust before splitting into smaller groups. We had the opening speaker emphasize the importance of SME engagement in the summit and the urgency in involving them as key drivers of food system transformation in the decade of action. We asked SMEs to say what they could do and what they needed from others, in order to begin building support for speci�c commitments.It included multiple stakeholders, from government and public agencies, to small businesses and support organizations.Ensure that all involved in the planning and organizing, curators, facilitators, speakers, are aware of these.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248249251The focus was: How to boost the role of SMEs in providing Good Food for All? Discussion groups shared positive experiences of contributions to the food systems and detailed challenges. A second group breakout considered actions within de�ned pathways in line with the Action Tracks.2352382392402412422442452482492511. All participants were requested to share which pathway, was most important to them, and responses varied widely. 6 responses covered the following pathways: 2, 4, 4, 5 and 6 2. Focused discussions on what solutions to focus on going forward highlighted the following areas to address: a. Improving the enabling environment, particularly from the policy perspective b. Providing further support to SMEs, specifically though tailored subsidies to address significant costs that prevent SMEs from moving to the next level (e.g. capex for technology, equipment or infrastructure) c. Developing opportunities for collaborative efforts, either between SMEs (e.g. co-manufacturing), between SMEs and larger corporations (e.g. sharing lessons learned and technology), or between SMEs, financial service providers, insurance providers and the government (i.e. public-private partnerships)236238239240241242244245248250251• Pathway: Make good food matter o cancer is spreading across India - need good food without use of fertilizers, pesticides - train people to use alternatives, people need to be more aware and invest - and make it affordable o low immunity due to covid - we need more nutritional food such as millets, and increase awareness of other traditional food o educational program to farmers: increase food production according to seasons, now covid we need foods with high zinc, vitamin index. First we can do this, and then you can handle business aspects such as packaging and selling. Govt, people and NGO need to support - as food is medicine o protein from plants - jackfruit is going waste - because SMEs are not utilising well. use forums to make people aware of such technology to turn them into leather products, etc • Pathway: Reduce cost of doing business o NGOs and investors thinking only of tech not agriculture - we need their support as well o farmers don't have cash - need upfront money to purchase the starter materials, else it puts huge stress due to loans and interests o consumers should invest in farmers o soil testing is required, should be made a must - using fertilizer without knowing how much they require - unknowingly use more and thus spend more o collaborate with organizations like croppin to reduce production costs237238239240241244245248249251Lively discussion about alternative proteins, while some businesses focused on traditional animal products (eg. eggs and milk). However, all were able to come to the same conclusion that regardless of whether it is meat or an alternative, systems must be equitable and sustainable.

2021-07-21 18:16:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14534/19265357707175779193110116131172176177192

98

The dialogue was organised with full respect and commitment to the Principles of Engagement: Act with Urgency In light of this urgency, the Dialogue was organized as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Commit to the Summit The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. All stakeholders were consulted about ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The dialogue was organised around 2 main discussions which happened in small sub-groups to allow the most participative and safe open- discussions. Be Respectful Respect for one another is a foundation for genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Each sub-group was facilitated by experienced facilitators who ensured everyone had an opportunity to express his/her opinions. Recognize Complexity Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi- stakeholder inclusivity The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within SMEs, Ecosystem Support Organisations (ESOs), the broader business community, small-holder farmers and civil society – working across the food system from production to consumption. Complement the work of others The Dialogue built-on and added-value to existing policy processes and initiatives. It provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. Build Trust The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogue are not attributed to single individuals.It included multiple stakeholders, from government and public agencies, to small businesses and support organizations.Ensure that all involved in the planning and organizing, curators, facilitators, speakers, are aware of these.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248249251How to boost the role of SMEs in providing good food for all? Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are vital to our food economies. Each country is different, but SMEs are often over 90% of businesses in the agri-food sector, creating half the economic value, providing more than half the sector’s jobs, and handling more than half the food consumed. Their tenacity and agility sustain food supplies and access through the COVID pandemic. What pathways will enhance the contribution of SMEs to the food system? Wasa�ri here offers six promising pathways to boost the impact of food SMEs. Which are most important in your context? What is missing? What actions will advance them? How are they interdependent? 1. Elevate the Voice of SMEs Food entrepreneurs are incredibly diverse. Hence, collectively they neither easily in�uence nor hear the policy decisions that determine their future. Policymakers are often simply unaware of this quiet majority and are instead swayed by more powerful voices that are easier to engage. Positive examples exist of institutions and processes that elevate the voice of SMEs. The best of these also manage to amplify more marginalised entrepreneurs such as women, youth and indigenous people. Replicating these efforts around the world will ensure our food systems are designed and managed in ways that realise the positive contribution of SMEs. 2. Reduce the Cost of Doing Business In emerging economies, many basic challenges undermine the commercial viability of food SMEs, for example poor roads, intermittent power, red tape, corruption, unpredictable trade policy, and internet access. Wherever these improve, SMEs grow and proliferate. Access to �nance also improves as lenders and investors have more con�dence. Cross-sector collaboration can strengthen this basic enabling environment, reducing the risks and costs of doing business in the agri-food sector, and accelerating the “quiet revolution” through which SMEs are already transforming food systems. 3. Reward Positive Outcomes Our food systems are currently designed to reward the mass production of cheap calories. Different incentives are needed for markets to produce food that is more sustainable, nourishing and equitable. From impact investing to carbon credits, from product certi�cation to sugar taxes, there are diverse mechanisms to reward positive outcomes and disincentivise negative ones. These must be designed and scaled in ways that work for SMEs, rather than adding complexity and cost. 4. Target Support at Food SMEs Well-resourced business development support for SMEs is a proven driver of inclusive economic growth. Targeting such support at food SMEs offers additional bene�ts, due to the importance of the sector to public goods such as health, the environment, and livelihoods. Youth, women and other groups face additional barriers to starting and growing a business. Support to them unlocks fresh entrepreneurial energy into the sector and addresses equity gaps. 5. Democratise the Digital Food Revolution COVID has accelerated a long-term trend towards digitisation of the food system. Whether it is digital farming, block chain for supply chain management, or virtual marketplaces, the food system is undergoing a tech revolution. The vast �ows of data could serve the common good or entrench control within a few powerful actors. By design and policy, the data services and digital markets must be accessible to SMEs. This could unlock myriad innovations from payment for ecosystem services, to direct farm-to-consumer sales. 6. Make Good Food Matter For decades, the food system has been valued for its e�ciency in feeding billions of additional mouths. This era witnessed the rise of industrial agriculture. The Summit marks an in�ection point. Food systems must now also be valued for nourishing people, regenerating nature, improving equity and resilience to shocks. In this new paradigm, SMEs are in a stronger position with their closer, more nuanced relationships with communities and landscapes.235238239240241242244245248249Discussion groups found innovators (who are normally SMEs) need to be at the decision-making table to drive policy towards ambitious climate targets. Currently SME voices are drowned out by large corporations who maintain the status-quo. One method of success has been SMEs using their large corporate partners, as well as joing together with other SMEs, to raise their profile and gain influence. Groups like EIT food and drink can help facilitate these relationships. • SMEs have also found that consortiums made of different sized similar businesses have been useful. It enabled one SME to set up a pilot program for their packaging, and they were able to work productivly with multiple larger businesses who were competitors.236238239240241242244245248249251The way to boost the role of SMEs in food system transformation is by: Rewarding positive outcomes. • SMEs felt that there needs to be way to reward consumers as well as businesses for positive behaviors. This could be reducing the price of food products that are close to their sell by date in order to reduce food waste or choosing products with smart/eco packaging. Carbon taxing will be important going forward. • For any of these schemes to be possible, a more advanced measurement system needs to be developed that looks at net impacts. For example, it must be able to identify the difference of the environmental impact between a kg of ‘real’ beef compared to 1 kg of ‘cultured’ meat. Tailoring Support for Food SMEs • A common problem was that grants available to SMEs are incredibly laborious and extensive to apply for. The bar for acceptance is also rising, and reporting/auditing once a grant has been secured is also extremely extensive. Therefore, some SMEs will not try to apply for certain funding they really need as they do not have the resources. The ‘middle level’ (£20-100k) of funding must be made more accessible to SMEs. • One SME felt that although the barriers to access funding should be reduced to stimulate innovation, it may be beneficial to structure them as loans rather than grants. The commitment to pay all, or at least some money back will encourage businesses to think sustainability and will ensure that business models are profitable. They believe that profitable, sustainable SMEs will be able to scale and bring their innovative solutions to mainstream consumers. • SMEs could be brought together to educate them about the Sustainable Development Goals. Once SMEs understand them, there may be opportunities that SMEs spot where they can innovate to meet goals. SMEs will be able to innovate in ways that large corporations cannot. Making Good Food Matter. • An SME from Bulgaria has set up a successful nationwide campaign that focusses on public attitudes to food, and food literacy. It is a good example of how public attitudes towards food can be changed. The campaign involves kindergartens, schools and professionals, and also includes awards for those who make positive contributions to the food systems. This campaign brings together government, NGOs, universities and farmers, and so ensures link-up across all areas of the food system. This system could be replicated.237238239240241242244245248249251Discussion among SMEs diverged when the topic of profit vs non-profit emerged. Some believed that companies should do good without seeking profit, while others insisted that in order to make business sustainable financially there must be a profit.

2021-07-21 21:19:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22034/41194

276142

The High Level Expert Seminar on North American Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems was organized to: - Impress and act with urgency on the priorities identified by Indigenous Peoples of North America for their food systems, and globally towards the UN Food Systems Summit. This was emphasized by the series of speakers for the seminar on the 5 Action Tracks of the Summit, including nutritional, environmental, social, cultural, and political urgency. - The Seminar created a platform to learn more and commit to the process of engagement with the Summit. - The Seminar was coordinated with respectful leadership of the Indigenous Technical Committee, and a respectful platform was held for all speakers and facilitated working groups. The platform held was respectful of all Indigenous Peoples gathering from across North America as well as non-indigenous colleagues and observers joining the dialogue. - There was extensive recognition complexity in all topics of discussion on the Action Tracks, and the interface between many perspectives on food system dynamics and challenges. - This dialogue was organized to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity inviting Indigenous and non-indigenous actors across the United States, Canada, and internationally. The outreach included state actors, non-state actors, Tribal governments, representatives bodies, Indigenous Peoples' organizations, hunters, fishers, gatherers ,producers, teachers, professors, researchers, NGOs, UN agencies, and federal government agencies. - This Seminar worked to compliment the work of others by coordinating speakers from many sectors to provide their perspectives and expertise from different angles of the action tracks, followed by facilitated discussion amongst the attendees. - Through the process of coordination, outreach, and dialogue - this seminar worked to build recognition, awareness, and trust moving towards the Summit and in fellow collaborators.The Seminar brought together diverse speakers and participants both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, from Indigenous Peoples' organizations, representative bodies, research centers, government agencies, UN agencies, and leadership of the UN Food Systems Summit. The Seminar accomplished it's goal of generating informative dialogue that inspired constructive conversation and knowledge exchange to raise awareness about the UN Food Systems Summit as well as integrated perspectives, contributions, and leadership from North American Indigenous Peoples with global leaders of the UNFSS.Create inclusive and respectful opportunities and platforms to exchange knowledge; including inclusive language and frameworks that are culturally relevant and receivable.

NoThe High-Level Expert Seminar was co-organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Liaison Office for North America and Indigenous Peoples Unit and, the Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). With the support of the Global-Hub on Indigenous Food Systems, the Group of Friends of Indigenous Peoples in Rome, and the UNFSS leadership. The 10 member Indigenous Technical Committee comprised of Indigenous leaders from Canada, the United States of America, including Alaska and Hawai'i oversaw the coordination of the seminar and worked to write a final statement from the seminar reflective of the speakers and dialogues of the seminar. (See agenda attachment for full program) The Seminar was opened with a series of high-level remarks from Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Congresswoman Deb Haaland, H.E. Canadian Ambassador Bugailiski, UNFSS Special Envoy Dr. Agnes Kalibata, Chair of the Scientific Group of the UNFSS Professor Joachim von Braun, UNFSS Advisory Committee & Food Summit Dialogue Curator, David Nabarrow, Director of the USDA Office of Tribal Relations, Diane Cullo, and FAO Chief Economist Máximo Torero Cullen. Seven Indigenous researchers and experts set the stage for the importance of Indigenous Peoples' technical expertise and systems of knowledge relating to Indigenous Peoples' food systems and global food system transformation work. Speakers on the panel included: Ken Paul, Lead Negotiator and Research Director of Fisheries, Wolastoqey First Nation; Dalee Sambo Dorough, International Chair of Inuit Circumpolar Council ; Marlene Wakefield, Research & Resources Director, Tribal Food Sovereignty Advancement Initiative at National Congress of American Indians; Kamana Beamer, Hui `Āina Momona Program, University of Hawai’i Mānoa; Sandra Bandura, Assoc. Director, All My Relations Research Centre, Thompson Rivers University (TRU); Sereana Naepi, School of Social Sciences, University of Auckland; and Edmond Dounias, Research Director, IRD & Global-Hub on Indigenous Food Systems. A series of speakers presented technical presentations on the 5 UNFSS Action Tracks. Each track included a speaker from the Action Track technical committee, an Indigenous expert on the topic, and a speaker from the UN Anchor agency for the track. See the agenda for the complete speaker line-up. The panels and technical presentations were followed by five working groups to further expand and discuss on the presented information to generate feedback and recommendations moving towards the Summit. The breakout sessions were facilitated by members of the Indigenous Technical Committee with notetakers to assist. The facilitator held four rounds of open discussion asking: Round 1- Strengths: What are the strengths, challenges, solutions from the Indigenous Peoples of the lands and waters of North America, in relation to each Action Track. Round 2 - Big Ideas: What are some fo the core concepts, principles, theories, and processes that should serve as the focal point of a major undertaking in the areas of food systems? What are culturally relevant concepts and messages that push boundaries and resonate with North American Indigenous Peoples as stakeholders and partners in development to pursue a more world free of hunger and malnutrition? Round 3- Big Actions: What is our action item related to telling our story? Round 4 - "Good Words" for the Way Forward - what are the key messages/phrases essential to include the way forward? The seminar was concluded with a closing session with Deputy to the UNFSS Special Envoy Martin Frick, vice-chair of the UNPFII delivering the draft statement, and FAO Director of Partnerships & Collaboration, Marcela Villarreal. The seminar was opened and closed with spiritual ceremonies led by Indigenous knowledge holders from North America; Passamaquoddy Elder Maggie Paul from Maliseet St. Mary's First Nation, and Kanesatake Elder Kanatiio in the opening and Elder Pua Case, Lead Coordinator of Mauna Kea Education and Awareness from Hawai'i in closing.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the "High-Level Expert Seminar on North American Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems, towards the UN Food Systems Summit" was to convene a high-level platform of North American experts to present and discuss the critical importance and contributions of North American Indigenous Peoples’ food systems in relation to the primary objectives of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit and 5 Action Tracks. Further emphasizing and highlighting the input, leadership and expertise of North American Indigenous Peoples are essential in fulfilling the vision of the Summit. Technical presentations from experts served to inform the breakout sessions who formulated a statement based upon the Indigenous expertise and input about the five Action Tracks of the Summit. The final statement resulting from the High-Level Expert Seminar was made public and delivered to the Special Envoy for the UN Food Systems Summit. This Seminar was part of the preparatory global processes leading up to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. The Seminar convened 185 participants and speakers from 11 of the 13 Canadian provinces, 30 out of the 50 United States, and was joined by additional people calling in from 25 countries. Participants included North American Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and representative bodies, academic and research institutes, government agencies of Canada and the United States, along with UN agencies, and Indigenous experts from around the world.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Key messages from the expert seminar include: 1. Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge systems are key for all five action tracks of the UNFSS. 2. Indigenous Peoples’ representatives should have a formal role in the UNFSS, and governments should ensure their participation in national dialogues / Indigenous peoples, including women and youth, should have equal opportunities to participate in local, national, and international processes and policy discussions, such as Food System Dialogues, the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 and other decision processes affecting food systems, climate change, and biodiversity. 3. Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination need to be respected and actualized worldwide. 4. Indigenous Peoples, Summit stakeholders, and UN Food Systems Summit leadership have tremendous opportunities to continue intense collaborations through bridging systems of knowledge in preparatory dialogues, evidence-based strategic papers, and formal roles for Indigenous peoples at the 2021 Summit. The Seminar convened 185 participants and speakers from 11 of the 13 Canadian provinces, 30 out of the 50 United States, and was joined by additional people calling in from 25 countries; 140 of the participants and speakers were Indigenous. Participants included North American Indigenous peoples’ organizations and representative bodies, academic and research institutes, government agencies of Canada and the United States, along with UN agencies, and Indigenous experts from around the world. The platform allowed for exchange of knowledge and ideas of how systems of knowledge can be complimentary as the world mobilizes towards food system transformation. Indigenous leaders emphasized the importance of relational connections to food, culture, landscape, ways of life, ecological stewardship, health, and the widespread local Indigenous-led initiatives to revitalize and reconnect to their Indigenous Food Systems. Furthermore they emphasized that Indigenous Peoples' food systems can teach the world of systems approach to effect change socially, economically, ecologically, and politically through the models and adaptive models. Indigenous speakers and participants emphasized the points that protection and actualization of Indigenous Peoples' rights must be the basis for all conversation about food systems, as they are inseparable for Indigenous Peoples. Speakers from the technical committees of the UNFSS Action Tracks, UNFSS leadership, and anchor UN Agencies emphasized their commitment to partner with and learn from Indigenous Peoples in the global work towards the goals and visions of the UN Food Systems Summit. “The Food Systems Summit is going to do everything we can to ensure the voices of Indigenous peoples are heard, that we are learning from you and that we are putting the Indigenous peoples’ food systems front and center in the work that we are doing,” said Dr. Agnes Kalibata, Special Envoy for the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, in her opening remarks. Dr. Kalibata’s remarks emphasized the Summit’s strong commitment to learning from, listening to and connecting with Indigenous Peoples leading up to and during the Summit. Technical presentations from the action track committee members and UN agency anchors made connections to the importance of working with Indigenous Peoples' leadership, expertise and systems of knowledge to combat the food insecurities and vulnerabilities that many Indigenous Peoples are facing, in addition to the global questions affecting all populations. From Action Track 1 - there was emphasis place on needing to learn from and emulate Indigenous Peoples' inherent approach to "ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all" as a core tenant to their food systems on the global scale. From Action Track 2 - there was acknowledgement that disruption of Indigenous Peoples' food systems has caused for a nutritional crisis and epidemic of malnourishment related diseases for high percentages of Indigenous Peoples, and that returning to traditional foods and diets is a multi-factored and critical solution to reestablish/safeguard sustainable consumption patterns for Indigenous Peoples; further noting the world has much to learn from Indigenous Peoples about "no waste" and using only what we need as central values in Indigenous Peoples' food systems. From Action 3 - it was acknowledged that Indigenous Peoples in their food systems have been the generational masters and experts on "nature-positive" production and food generation, as stewards to 80% of the world's remaining biodiversity on just 25% of the Earth's surface. Indigenous Peoples' natural resource management practices and food system designs have a great deal to show the world on how to create "nature-positive" food generation models and the critical importance of enhancing biodiversity through food generation, and the interconnected, systems approach to natural resource management. From Action 4 - to advance equitable livelihoods, it was agreed that Indigenous Peoples must be leading their own conversations of "advancement" with implementation and practice of international standards like UNDRIP, FPIC, etc. It was agreed that Indigenous Peoples' need to design their "access to market" and education that sustains their ways of life. From Action 5 - As more Indigenous Peoples' food systems are being disrupted by climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasing external pressures for extraction - it was agreed that Indigenous Peoples need to be at the decision making table in all aspects and crisis management.236238239240241242246247249251Indigenous Peoples' Leadership Critical for the Future of Food The event was opened with high-level remarks from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, UN Food Systems Summit Leadership and national Government dignitaries from Canada and the United States, who collectively expressed their strong support and appreciation for the Seminar. Government dignitaries, Ambassador Alexandra Bugailiskis, Representative Deb Haaland, and USDA Office of Tribal Relations, Director Diane Cullo also underlined the importance of the deliberation. Canadian Ambassador to the UN Rome-based Agencies and Chair of the Group of Friends of Indigenous Peoples in Rome, Alexandra Bugailiskis, set the tone for the seminar to be an open, sincere, and enriching day centering North American Indigenous peoples’ food systems. She emphasized that as a co-convener of the Group of Friends of the UN Food Systems Summit, they have stressed the importance of ensuring that indigenous peoples' traditions, knowledge, and views from the seven-socio cultural regions are taken into account and well placed in all mechanisms of the UN Food Systems summit. Ambassador Bugailiskis shared examples of Indigenous-government collaborations, such as the new Food Policy in Canada, which acknowledges how historic government policies disrupted the food systems of Indigenous peoples. It ensures, she explained, "that the unique rights, interest and circumstances of the First Nations, the Métis Nations and Inuit are acknowledged, affirmed and implemented. It supports Indigenous food self-determination, meaning the ability of Indigenous peoples to define their own food systems and it takes a holistic approach that acknowledges that food is more than a product for Indigenous peoples." Congresswoman Deb Haaland [NM-1], who a few days later was nominated by President-elect Joe Biden as the first Native American Secretary of the Interior in the United States’ history and one of two Indigenous women ever elected the U.S. Congress, spoke from her experience as a member of the Pueblo of Laguna and as a lead policy-maker in the country. "The wealth of contributions of Indigenous People to global food security, their land and resource management strategies, their safeguarding of the vast majority of the world's food crops, must be recognized in our approach to policy-making," said Representative Deb Haaland. Further emphasizing that food systems are an integral piece of who they are, a fundamental part of their Indigenous identity and central to their relational existence with regenerative practices. Professor Joachim von Braun, Chair of the UNFSS Scientific Group, noted that “We in the Scientific Group, acknowledge the deep knowledge of Indigenous Peoples about their food systems. Scientific and local knowledge communities can learn from each other." Dr. von Braun underscored his strong interest in collaborating "Our endeavor is to host a platform for Indigenous peoples of North America, UN agency experts and leaders in the field to exchange ideas and expertise, to strengthen Indigenous peoples' voice and leadership as we approach the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit," said Vimlendra Sharan, Director of FAO North America, as he welcomed the “galaxy of distinguished” guests and speakers. Geoffrey Roth, the North American expert of the UNPFII and member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, emphasized in his welcoming remarks the timeliness of the Seminar. “To have these conversations and be able to provide these recommendations is very important, especially about food. It is the building block of life. When we are not able to take care of ourselves it is what causes the health disparities and the devastation we are seeing in our communities [during the COVID-19 health crisis].” Roth challenged all participants to go beyond the inclusion of Indigenous peoples at the UNFSS and further “conceptualize provocative recommendations to our UN partners.”236238239240241242243244246247248249251Indigenous knowledge systems not about the past, but the future Following the high-level remarks, a panel of seven Indigenous experts set the stage moving into the technical presentations of the Seminar exemplifying how systems of knowledge come together and complement each other., “Indigenous knowledge is not about the past. Indigenous knowledge is about the future. Our knowledge systems must inform the future of food in the world, knowing it is still operable,” stated Dr. Kamanamaikailani Beamer, Professor at the Center for Hawaiian Studies in the Hui ‘Āina Momona Program at the University of Hawai‘i. “The true way to food freedom is through empowerment. Solutions without Indigenous voices are no solutions at all,” stated Marlene Wakefield, member of the Seneca Nation and Research and Resources Director for the Tribal Food Sovereignty Advancement Initiative at the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Panelists spoke to the central importance of Indigenous peoples’ rights and essential practices for building the capacity of Indigenous-led research across fields and bridging systems of knowledge in complementary ways. Further recognizing the accelerating impacts of climate change and environmental degradation of homeland ecosystems pose existential threats for all inhabitants and thus require a cooperative commitment to bold action steps. As emphasized by Dr. Dalee Sambo Dorough, International Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, “Our health is intimately tied to the health of the animals and the overall Arctic environment. However, we are seeing rapid and dramatic changes that threaten our food security.” This panel was co-facilitated by Jane Lokomaika’ikeakua Au, Program Director of ‘Āina Momona and Pacific Representative and vice Co-Chair of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples’ Platform (LCIPP) Facilitative Working Group, and Yon Fernández de Larrinoa, Chief of the FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit. From the First Nations fisheries of the Atlantic coastal waters to the confluence of rivers in British Columbia, to the Inuit homelands of the circumpolar region to the Islands of Hawai’i and reaching to international Indigenous researchers in New Zealand and Jakarta, speakers gave a strong voice to the vast knowledge systems and Indigenous leaders who are essential in the transformational work for the future of sustainable, equitable, nutritious, diverse and resilient food systems. As emphasized by Chief of the FAO’s Indigenous Peoples Unit, Yon Fernández de Larrinoa, “In the context of the UN Food Systems Summit and in the spirit of leaving no one behind, it is critical we engage with, listen to, respect the expertise and collaborate with the Indigenous peoples of North America. Their regional leadership is fundamental in achieving the objectives of the Summit and Sustainable Development Goals.”236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Indigenizing Actions Tracks of the UN Food Systems Summit Marlene Wakefield and Ken Paul, Lead Negotiator and Research Director of Fisheries for the Wolastoqey Nation, led guests and speakers through a series of technical presentations on each of the five action tracks of the UN Food Systems Summit with an Indigenous lens towards each track. The action track segments included a speaker from the leadership of the UNFSS Action Track technical committees, an Indigenous expert on the subject, followed by an expert from the UN anchoring agency for that action track. Leadership from the Action Track technical committees spoke from Concern Worldwide, EAT Forum, World Wildlife Fund International, and CARE USA. Indigenous experts from McGill University, University of Hawai’i Mānoa, Mi’kmaq Fisheries, the Intertribal Agriculture Council and the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. presented their expertise and perspectives on one of each of the five action tracks. UN agency experts from FAO, the World Health Organization, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the World Food Programme, spoke to the action track their agency is anchoring. The five UNFSS action tracks with Indigenous lens included: 1. Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all: Traditional Economies of Indigenous Peoples – The Interrelated Dimensions of Healthy Food. Participants 2. Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns: Indigenous Management of Resources to Sustain Indigenous Food Security. 3. Boosting nature-positive production at scale: Sacred Relationship to Environment and the Critical Role of Lands, Territories, and Resources of Indigenous Peoples. 4. Advancing equitable livelihoods: Recognition of Indigenous Human Rights to Maintain Equitable and Culturally Relevant Food Systems. 5. Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses: Empowerment of Indigenous Peoples, Nations, and Communities to Ensure Adaptation and Resilience. The highly informative technical presentations generated an abundance of content and questions to delve deeper into during the five breakout groups facilitated by members of the Seminar’s Indigenous technical committee. Professor Airini, Dean, Faculty of Education and Social Work, Thompson Rivers University, BC, and Brian Keane, Board Chair, Land is Life, opened the afternoon session by explaining the process and importance of the break-out groups. They then received extensive feedback and inputs shared by facilitators, notetakers, and participants in the subsequent plenary discussion.236246247248249251Towards the UN Food Systems Summit Martin Frick, Deputy to the Special Envoy for the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, provided in the closing session an explanation of the real significance of the Summit beyond the event itself and he issued a strong invitation for Indigenous peoples to engage in all the processes and events. He stated that “The 2021 UN Food Systems Summit is not just a point in time, it is a year-long engagement process. We have indigenous champions and focal points, and Indigenous peoples can also organize independent dialogues to make sure their voices are heard.” Marcela Villarreal, Director, Partnerships & UN Collaboration, FAO reiterated in her closing remarks, “The important part is that we work together to ensure that the voices of indigenous peoples are effectively heard, which means taken into account. Not only heard, not only participation in dialogues but really taken into account in what we expect is a discussion on the future of food systems for the world.” Geoffrey Roth in reading out a draft version of the final statement stated that “As we prepare for the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, we share our distinct perspectives, knowledge, research recommendations in relation to the action tracks and objectives of the Summit. We do so with humility and, also, with an expectation to be heard.”237238239240241242244246247248The structure of the action tracks, language used to describe and explain "food systems" all brought up points of difference between UNFSS frameworks and Indigenous Peoples' world views, understandings, systems of knowledge and cultural relations to their food systems. While there were points of difference the technical discussions and break out sessions dialogues allowed for these questions and areas of difference to be expanded on and explored in more depth.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FINAL-DEC-15-Expert-Seminar-NA-Indigenous-Peoples-Food-Systems.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FINAL-Speaker-Bios-Dec-15.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Final-Statement-on-North-American-Indigenous-Peoples-Food-Sytems_24-Dec-2020_High-Level-Expert-Seminar-DEC-15-1.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/north-america/news/detail/en/c/1366178/https://twitter.com/i/events/1341131866745819148?s=20

2021-07-21 23:42:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33490/18

301

- Our Dialogue was organised as an open invitation webinar, promoted to a diverse audience of stakeholders in Australia and internationally in order to amplify the significance of the UNFSS and to build momentum around the urgent need for food and land use system transformation. - Our Dialogue was facilitated by an expert moderator (Professor John Thwaites AM, co-chair of the Leadership Council - UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and former Deputy Premier of Victoria) to ensure respect, trust-building and recognition of complexity in the discussion. - Our panel featured diverse voices across farmer and climate advocacy, climate analysis and research, and sustainable financial investment (ClimateWorks Australia, Farmers for Climate Action and Pollination Group); and we facilitated participant Q and A and commentary to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity.- Commit to the Summit: Our Dialogue promoted the purpose and significance of the UNFSS, and encouraged participants to contribute via Q and A and commentary to have their voices reflected in the UNFSS Dialogue Process. - Be respectful: We convened a cross-sectoral panel with an expert moderator and participant Q and A to support respectful debate. Our moderator facilitated discussion to draw out divergent points of view, as well as to promote understanding of shared challenges and motivations. - Recognize complexity: We promoted a systemic approach in our Dialogue by convening discussion around macro-level systemic change, including key challenges, opportunities and headwinds emerging at the global-level, and discussing their significance and impact in the Australian context, as well as Australia’s contribution to global efforts. - Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity in our Dialogue by involving diverse panellists and opening participation to our broad audience of stakeholders from government, business, finance, agriculture industry groups, environment groups, public health and nutrition, advocacy organisations and the scientific community. - Complement the work of others: We highlighted 2021 as a super year for food and land use systems transformation, alongside COP26 and the CBD COP15. Our Dialogue reflected synergies with the Land Use Futures program, a partnership between ClimateWorks Australia, Deakin University and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and part of the global Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU). It also brought together the work of advocacy organisations such as Farmers for Climate Action in bringing farmers’ voices to the decision-making table, and the role of large-scale financial investment in realising nature-positive solutions, from the perspective of Pollination Group. - Build trust: We created a safe space through expert moderation, with sufficient time for addressing the most challenging and thought-provoking questions via our participant Q and A.- It is critical to ensure difficult conversations are not shied away from. By facilitating discussion around divergent points of view and avoiding simplified answers or solutions, these Dialogues provide an important opportunity to unpack challenges and to find and build alignment between diverse stakeholder groups towards the sustainable transitions that are urgently required.

No- We did not exactly follow the method in the Reference Manual, although we had some similarities in our approach. We had a Convenor - ClimateWorks Australia, responsible for conceptualising, planning and organising the dialogue, and a Curator - our moderator, who hosted the event and facilitated panel discussion. We did not have smaller break out groups as this was an open-invitation event. ClimateWorks Australia’s Land Use Futures program regularly convenes cross-sectoral stakeholders in co-design and collaborative work focused on food and land use system transformative pathways, and we treated this Dialogue as an opportunity to open up this work and discussion to a much broader, public audience. - The results of our approach were a very high turnout of over 300 participants who actively engaged through multiple avenues. This included asking questions of the panellists and reacting to discussion, and providing commentary and responses to one another in the chat function. At the start of the Dialogue participants had the opportunity to introduce themselves through the chat function and acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traditional Owners of the lands from which they were joining, or if they were joining internationally.

234239240244The focus of our Dialogue was the nexus between climate outcomes and sustainable food and land use system transformation, with discussion on Australia’s role in global efforts and the unique regional challenges we face. Our Dialogue focused on Action Tracks 2 and 3, convening discussion on nature-positive transitions and sustainable consumption through focusing on synergies and shared challenges from the perspectives of: - The Land Use Futures systems change program, a partnership between ClimateWorks Australia, Deakin University and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and part of the global Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU); - The work of advocacy organisations such as Farmers for Climate Action in bringing farmers’ voices to the decision-making table and discussing both the shared and divergent challenges and approaches farmers are taking; and - The role of large-scale financial investment in realising nature-positive solutions, and current trends and headwinds in financial risk and opportunities, represented by Pollination Group.235239240244- Australia faces unique challenges and opportunities in supporting food systems transformation, given our export-oriented agricultural industry (70% by value of product), our highly-variable climate and geography (the most arid continent, and vulnerable to climate impacts) and our agricultural industry profile, with nearly 50% of Australia’s land mass managed by farmers, encompassing 85,000 farm businesses supporting 250,000 jobs. - We heard in a message from Paul Polman, co-chair of the Food and Land Use Coalition, that what happens in Australia matters to the world: as an agriculture powerhouse, we must address our emissions profile as well as harnessing our farmers’ pioneering approaches to more sustainable agricultural practices. - To raise ambition and accelerate positive trends towards a sustainable food and land use future, a combination of coordinated public policy, market solutions, strong institutions and measurement and valuation of nature is needed. - The food and land use system offers a critical opportunity to achieve multiple goals, or potential for a win-win-win scenario: alongside climate and emissions reduction outcomes, nature-based solutions offer the ability to achieve broader environmental goals (including healthy soils, sustainable water use, protection and restoration of biodiversity) as well as supporting regional livelihoods and healthy diets. - Increased international scrutiny of ‘clean and green’ credentials in commodity markets must be a priority focus for Australia, alongside the financial sector’s moves to increasingly assess nature-related risks as well as climate-related risks. - Climate volatility and high on-farm costs mean Australian farmers need to have either high levels of equity or off-farm income in order to survive, or to support their transition to more sustainable practices. This need for diversification and financial backing should be supported by both the public and private sectors. For instance, natural capital is becoming a highly valuable and sought-after asset class in its own right, and new opportunities for farmers to create revenue streams through both nature protection and restoration is critical in supporting a future sustainable system. - Investment change is happening at pace and at scale, with almost daily announcements of global investors developing products and funds for natural capital investment. The focus on climate and climate risk has grown significantly in the last 12 to 18 months, and there is a rapid shift amongst leaders to focus on nature and nature-risk, meaning attention is turning to how nature is measured, valued, accounted for and disclosed. - Australia has a big opportunity to be a ‘solution provider’ in nature-based investment given our highly unique biodiversity, but we are also exposed in terms of high extinction rates. We must act urgently to enable a convergence between climate action and nature-positive contributions. - Regardless of the motivating factors for individual farmers (whether profit-driven, environmentally concerned or supporting the intergenerational nature of the industry), the end-goals are often aligned, for instance, more carbon in the soil means higher soil moisture, supporting outcomes for the climate and for productivity. - While there was broad consensus on the need to align with more sustainable land and food systems, there are divergences around how to achieve this transformation including what role markets, regulation and particular on-farm solutions should play.236240244The need for a global nature-positive target by 2030: although there is no silver-bullet, the climate movement’s playbook is being applied to nature-related challenges, including calls for a global COP, and standardised and rigorous investment frameworks.236238239240241242244246249The need for coordinated action across stakeholders and at different scales to achieve multiple goals, and to realise win-win-win scenarios, where outcomes across climate and emissions reduction are achieved alongside nature and broader environmental goals, as well as supporting regional livelihoods and healthy diets.236239240243244245249The need for new knowledge and understanding as critical enabler of change: beyond identifying the problems and challenges, we need both sophisticated research and analysis to understand future scenarios and pathways (such as the Land Use Futures program LUTO modelling, part of the global FABLE initiative), as well as frameworks for the measurement and valuation of natural capital, including via the Taskforce for Nature Related Financial Disclosures.236239240244245249The need for the public and private sectors, including financial institutions, to support diversification of farm businesses and to enable new revenue streams, including via natural capital valuation, in order to support both financial and environmental sustainability and to recognise the positive role of farmers in the solutions to climate change.236240241244245249Climate volatility and high on-farm costs mean Australian farmers need to have either high levels of equity or off-farm income in order to survive, or to support their transition to more sustainable practices. This need for diversification and financial backing should be supported by both the public and private sectors. For instance, natural capital is becoming a highly valuable and sought-after asset class in its own right, and new opportunities for farmers to create revenue streams through both nature protection and restoration is critical in supporting a future sustainable system.236239240241244246249The need for farmers to have a voice at the policy table, particularly in fine-tuning the decisions and actions taken within sustainable pathways, and ensuring farmers are supported to produce sustainable products, through consumer demand, and through public and private institutional initiatives, as well as supported in the implementation of policies.237238239240241244245246249250- Consumers play a powerful role in farmers’ choices, and the pressure on farmers to produce sustainable products is increasingly difficult. In our Dialogue, divergence emerged around consumer willingness to pay, with the view that consumers are demanding ever-lower prices (for instance, in the 1960s, expenditure on food was 16% of income, now down to 6%) contrasted with the view that consumers are increasingly concerned with product provenance, and prepared to pay a premium for quality, sustainable and locally produced food. In the Australian context, this also relates to a particular cultural value around supporting local farmers. Further, participants noted similarities around this topic in the New Zealand context, where some farmers are resisting the consequences of government climate policy on the cost of production (acknowledging that Australia and New Zealand have some of the lowest levels of agricultural subsidies), and in the European context, where there is a challenge to square the demand for ever-cheaper food with a demand for a sustainable agriculture sector. - Divergence emerged around the role of regulation, with discussion around the fact that resistance to over-regulation is not limited to large scale farming enterprises, but exists in small-to-medium businesses as well. Divergent views around the appropriate level of regulation, access to natural resources and instruments for supporting and enabling positive change were discussed, and supported by participant commentary including the fact that farmers often feel dictated to and misunderstood in regulatory discussions, versus the view that self-regulation has not been effective in shifting behaviour. - The role of climate change policy and how it translates to sustainable food and agriculture policies, including impacts on farming businesses, provoked divergent views with participants commenting that farmers are rarely seen as part of the solution, and views that most policy treats farmers as unaware of broader environmental issues and/or opposed to supporting solutions. - The role of financial markets and government subsidies sparked debate, including how to approach these instruments in combination and at what scale, for example, combining private natural capital markets with ecosystem service subsidies, at a state-level prior to a federal approach, and at different paces for large scale enterprises versus small-to-medium farm businesses. - The debate on chemical use versus regenerative practices was raised in the Dialogue, with diverse views around the ongoing role of chemicals (e.g. to support minimum or no-tillage) as well as the application of suitable regenerative practices at large scales, including increasing soil carbon, maintaining ground cover and restoring biodiversity. This highlighted a theme of divergence around the role of various solutions (both on-ground practices and regulatory and policy responses) to achieve sustainable food and land use systems. - The issue of ‘just transitions’ was raised, given the complexity of farming systems, with panellists and participants acknowledging the diversity of challenges faced by sub-sectors (e.g. horticulture vs. livestock). There was discussion on the need to develop ‘basic principles’ to ensure a just transition, with farmers and representative bodies closely involved in decision-making, as well as the need for ‘skin in the game’ to build alignment and support where increased regulation is required.

2021-07-21 23:43:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34993/198

18113499241220312130350232

Se convocó un numero reducido de personas que participan directamente o indirectamente en las actividades del proyecto “Producción Agroecológica a escala Familiar como alternativa a la tala y quema en la zona rural del Municipio El Hatillo, Edo. Miranda”, cuyo objetivo es fortalecer las capacidades locales para la producción sustentable. Los participantes son vecinos, o participan del proyecto, lo cual creó un espacio de confianza para hablar y proponer libremente. Para hacer aun más diverso el grupo, se involucraron a productores agrícolas, vinicultores locales, educadores, representantes o voceros de organizaciones comunitarias, al coordinador de la escuela deportiva infantil, y comerciantes de productos agrícolas. Existe un compromiso tácito entre los participantes de poner en marcha lo acordado, pues coincide con la visión del futuro sustentable que tenemos para la zona rural del Municipio, y con las acciones que realizamos en prode la sustentabilidad del espacio en que habitamos y sembramos.De igual forma, hay conciencia sobre la necesidad de actuar con la máxima urgencia y de forma sostenida y coherente, para alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible de la zona rural, como parte de nuestra contribución a la agenda 2030.Para introducir a los participantes al debate, se dio una charla que muestra como se ha generado la cirsis global de sostenibilidad, y como los impactos ambientales que hemos naturalizado, han llevado al planeta al borde de una crisis. Se usaron ejemplos locales para mostrar que esas transformaciones historicas tienen consecuencias complejas que han afectado nuetra forma de comer, la salud humana y animal, la tierra, los bosques, el agua, el clima, la biodiversidad, nuestra economía y calidad de vida. Luego se explicaron las 5 vías de acción usando ejemplos locales: hablamos sobre los efectos de la sequia 2013-2016 , de la crisis eléctrica de 2018, o de la cuarentena del COVID19 y del papel que juega un sistema agroalimentario sostenible, nos permitiría sobreponernos a escenarios como los ya vividos minimizando el impacto en nuestro bienestar . Se invitó a los participantes a hacer propuestas desde su ámbito de acción, para responder: ¿Qué podemos hacer los habitantes de la zona rural del municipio para alcanzar los objetivos planteados en cada Vía de Acción? Además de lo debatido durante el diálogo, se incorporaron insumos del Plan de Desarrollo Comunal, un instrumento de planificación a escala comunitaria, con lineamientos para el desarrollo sustentable del territorio abarcado por la Comuna Agroecológica Pioneros de El Hatillo.Conseguir el balance adecuado para realizar reuniones presenciales que no sean muy numerosas para garantizar la salud de los participantes, pero al mismo tiempo sean diversas y representativas. Enviar previamente información sobre los temas y los principios para que los participantes los conozcan antes del día del encuentro.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249251Transformando los sistemas agroalimentarios de la zona rural de El Hatillo como medio para el desarrollo sostenible en el municipio. El sistema agroalimentario en la zona rural del municipio El Hatillo (Miranda, Venezuela) ha cambiado desde el siglo XIX hasta el presente, pasando por una etapa de plantaciones principalmente de naranjas y café que luego, a partir de los años 70 del siglo XX, devino en bosques con poca intervención salvo por la agricultura de subsistencia, debido al abandono de la tierra que trajo consigo el boom petrolero y la declaratoria de estos territorios como patrte de la Zona Protectora de Caracas. Más recientemente, con la crisis económica, se ha incrementado el numero de familias que practican la agricultura de subsistencia en pequeñas unidades a escala familiar, principalmente en conucos. Lamentablemente, la perdida de la tradición agrícola y de los conocimientos tradicionales relativos a la siembra y preparación de suelos, aunado a la paulatina degradación de los ecosistemas, hacen inviables las practicas agrícolas basadas en tala y quema, pues representan una amenaza para la conservación de los bosques, suelos, y aguas de la zona rural. En el marco del debate global sobre los sistemas alimentarios nos preguntamos, cómo podemos actuar los ciudadanos habitantes de la zona rural del municipio El Hatillo, para: 1) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos 2)Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles 3) Impulsar la producción agrícola amigable con la naturaleza en el municipio 4) Hacer de la agricultura un medio de vida sostenible para los hatillanos 5) Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones Nos planteamos un debate sobre el futuro sostenible de la zona rural, desde una mirada comunitaria y vecinal al margen de la polarización política del país, estableciendo los objetivos planteados por las Vías de Acción, como metas a alcanzar en un escenario de 10 años a partir de hoy2352382392402412422442462482492511.Crear más mecanismos de intercambio (productos y capacidades) entre los miembro de la comunidad 2.Resignificar y revalorar la producción agrícola local 3.Cambiar la forma de alimentarnos para cambiar nuestro bienestar 4.Incentivar la protección y el aprovechamiento sustentable de las aguas 5.Fomentar tecnologías para la sustentabilidad 6.Fomentar el turismo centrado en la producción agrícola 7.Incentivar la organización y la formación en torno a la agricultura 8.Concienciación sobre las amenazas ambientales y su impacto en nuestro bienestar2362382392402412422442462482492511.Crear más mecanismos de intercambio entre los miembro de la comunidad a)Intercambio de productos: Revivir los mercados locales, Crear sistema de ventas por catalogo via whatsapp, Servicio de entrega a domicilio de productos agrícolas b)Sistema de información para el intercambio de capacidades y servicios: Hacer un inventario de capacidades y fortalezas de los vecinos; que hacemos y que producimos; Un inventario para encadenar Productores con Transformadores; c)Moneda local y Banco del Tiempo: Fomentar el uso de un token digital o una moneda local como medio para facilitar el intercambio de bienes y servicios entre vecinos y poder sortear las dificultades del dinero en efectivo. d) Apelar a un mecanismo de compras públicas para vender la comida producida al Programa de Alimentación Escolar o a los centros de asistencia médica del municipio. 2.Resignificar y revalorar la producción agrícola local a) Campaña: Identificar y documentar a nuestros “heroes de la alimentación”, b) Escoger un nombre para el equipo de beisbol infantil que reivindique la agricultura local. c) Coordinar con las escuelas locales para que se realicen proyectos anuales de siembra y producción agrícola como parte del programa de estudios. d) Incorporar a los niños a las actividades de la Escuela Agroecológica del Hatillo y a los talleres de patios productivos 3.Cambiar la forma de alimentarnos para cambiar nuestro bienestar a) Elaboración de un recetario popular para rescatar recetas tradicionales y basadas en la cosecha y producción local b) Fomentar concursos, premios y reconocimientos en torno a la gastronomía local c) Establecer acuerdos con los comerciantes de alimentos en el pueblo y en la zona rural, para colocar la producción local en sus tiendas. 4.Incentivar la protección y el aprovechamiento sustentable de las aguas a) Aprovechamiento sustentable de las aguas subterráneas: aumentar el número de pozos profundos y tanques de almacenamiento en la zona rural; b) replicar la experiencia exitosa del manejo colectivo del Pozo del sector Papelón. c) Regular la construcción de nuevos sépticos y las descargas contaminantes. d) Incentivar la cosecha de aguas pluviales a escala familiar y comunitaria y aumentar la capacidad de almacenamiento con tanques. 5.Fomentar el uso de tecnologías para la producción sustentable: a) Cosecha de agua de lluvia b) Riego por goteo y acuicultura c) Diversificar los productos elaborados localmente a partir de las cosechas (harinas, almidones, conservas, envasados, deshidratados, etc) d) Aumentar la capacidad local para el procesamiento, almacenamiento, la conservación de alimentos de alimentos y la agregación de valor a las cosechas. e)Fortalecer las capacidades para la producción de bioinsumos f) Fomentar el uso de biodigestores y otros métodos de cría ecológica de cerdos. 6.Fomentar el turismo centrado en la producción agrícola a) Diseño del Producto Turistico y de sus rutas que comprendan la tematica cultural, gastronómica y agropproductiva. b) Modelo de turismo interno, Day-tour de agrogastronómico desde El Hatillo para la zona rural. c)Feria anual de la Cachapa, espacio de encuentro y de exhibición. 7.Incentivar la organización y la formación en torno a la agricultura a) Constucción del vivero y adecuación del espacio para la formación b) Fortalecer y equipar la Escurela Agroecológica del Hatillo. c) Construcción del tanque de agua para el acueducto comunitario de Papelón y el vivero d) Continuar con los talleres de producción sustentable, bioinsumos, extensión agrícola, etc. e) Incorporar a la escuela de beisbol en las actividades de la Escuela Agroecológica e identificar mecanismos para incentivar a los más jovenes 8.Concienciación sobre las amenazas ambientales y su impacto en nuestro bienestar a) Regular la construcción de nuevos sépticos. b) Fomentar campañas educativas e informativas sobre la contaminación de suelos y aguas. c) Incentivar el manejo y aprovechamiento de desechos y residuos sólidos. d) Organizar jornadas vecinales de cortafuegos y prevención de incendios forestales.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Dialogos-Sistemas-Alimentarios-y-Vision-de-Futuro.jpghttps://www.instagram.com/p/CRd6uk8j96l/?utm_medium=copy_link

El sistema agroalimentario de la zona rural del municipio El Hatillo (Miranda, Venezuela) ha cambiado desde el siglo XIX hasta el presente, pasando por una etapa de plantaciones principalmente de naranjas y café, que luego, debido al abandono de la agricultura que trajo consigo el boom petrolero y la declaratoria de estos territorios como parte de la Zona Protectora de Caracas en los años 70 del siglo XX, devino en cafetales abandonados y relictos boscosos con escasa actividad agrícola salvo por la de subsistencia. Hoy en día se siembra poco y los habitantes procuran la mayor parte de sus alimentos en la ciudad. Más recientemente, con la crisis económica, se ha incrementado el numero de familias que practican la agricultura de subsistencia en pequeñas unidades a escala familiar, principalmente en conucos. El uso recurrente de prácticas agrícolas no sustentables como la tala y la quema, representa una amenaza para los ecosistemas de la Zona Protectora del Área Metropolitana de Caracas (ZPAMC), especialmente en la zona rural del municipio El Hatillo, donde la población depende enteramente de los acuíferos para el consumo de agua. La población de la zona rural del Hatillo tiene una notoria historia agroproductiva y capacidades para hacer de la agricultura familiar, un modo de vida sostenible en el tiempo. El objeto de este diálogo es debatir y plantear propuestas sobre cómo la agricultura sustentable a escala familiar puede contribuir al desarrollo sustentable de la zona rural del Municipio El Hatillo, Miranda, Venezuela. Debatir sobre el futuro que queremos construir en la zona donde vivimos, desde una visión comunitaria y que contribuya al alcance de los ODS. Este debate se enmarca en el proyecto “Producción Agroecológica a escala Familiar como alternativa a la tala y quema en la zona rural del Municipio El Hatillo, Edo. Miranda” que llevan a cabo la Asociación Civil Casa de Cronopios y la Escuela Agroecológica del Hatillo con el apoyo del Programa de Pequeñas Donaciones del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (https://www.facebook.com/ppdvenezuela). 2021-07-22 00:08:12

2021-07-22 01:03:10205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36019/126

6738291252323621212121123741163521623844

The Dialogue was organized to ensure leadership by the high level the local authorities (Provincial state Secretary)) and a multi-stakeholder participation. The third session conducted was held on June 15 in the city of Xai-xai, Gaza province, focusing on boosting positive production for nature and promoting equitable livelihoods), the session had as its theme “Contributing to the consolidation of food systems value chains” and had 67 participants between physical and virtual presences. This session had as speakers representatives from academia (Instituto Superior Politécnico de Gaza) and the private sector (CTA).The Dialogue reflected the commitment of a wide range of stakeholders to the summit though including Government representatives at central and local level, international and local NGOs, producers, science and academy. Group discussions contributed to build trust and complement each others view on the major challenges and proposed solutions. This is how, for example, low production levels and processing were identified as the main struggling points in food systems’ value chains. Some of the major root causes pointed out include the excessive production costs, a lack of sufficient supporting infrastructures and poor linkage between sellers and buyersStakeholder participation is key to success in implementation of the identified priorities such as, the provision of incentives for locally produced inputs (e.g., fish feed) and at a lower price compared to the current import CIF prices, the promotion of processing focusing on both an artisanal and industrial scales; the expansion of support infrastructures coverage and improvements/rehabilitation for the existing ones , the promotion of local market fairs linking sellers and buyers, mainly wholesalers and others. In addition, the success of interventions aiming at improving food security and nutrition are strictly connected with the improvements in food security and nutrition health indicators. Indirectly, the success of such interventions can also be cross-checked with annual information related to the number of families in vulnerable situations to food insecurity.

Yes

234240241243247248250251This Dialogue was held on June 15 in the city of Xai-xai, Gaza province, focusing on action tracks 3 and 4 (boosting positive production for nature and promoting equitable livelihoods), the session had as its theme “Contributing to the consolidation of food systems value chains” .235238240241243244245248250251Low production levels and processing have been identified as the main struggling points in food systems’ value chains. Some of the major root causes pointed out include the excessive production costs, a lack of sufficient supporting infrastructures and poor linkage between sellers and buyers. For example, in terms of production costs, it has been identified the very high costs associated with feed for fish in aquaculture systems. The feed is supplied exclusively from imports, due to its unavailability in the domestic market. Support infrastructures such as for irrigation are also limited to very small areas comparatively to the existing irrigation potential. Processing is also an important issue that limits the capitalization of value-addition as well as complementarity from the production systems. For instance, most of the livestock kept are sold as live animals while the animal derivative products (e.g., milk, yogurt, cheese and others) are mainly imported. The major solutions proposed to improve food systems’ value chains are related to the: 1. Provision of incentives for locally produced inputs (e.g., fish feed) and at a lower price compared to the current import CIF prices; 2. Promotion of processing focusing on both an artisanal and industrial scales; 3. Expansion of support infrastructures coverage and improvements/rehabilitation for the existing ones (e.g., irrigation channels, access roads, and others); 4. Specific financing schemes, with bonified tax rates, for agriculture, livestock and fisheries; 5. Promotion of local market fairs linking sellers and buyers, mainly wholesalers.236238240241243244246248249250251The main problems identified are summarized below. • Low levels of production and productivity; • Limited processing capacity for primary and by-products, which does not allow for the capture of additional value and complementarity of production systems. For example, in the livestock sector, the sale of live animals and dependence on imports of meat and, above all, meat products (eg milk, yogurt, cheese and others) has been common; • Lack of sufficient support infrastructure, often limited to very small areas compared to the potential (such as the case of infrastructure for irrigation); • Weak commercial link between sellers (producers) and buyers, which often results in weak bargaining power on the part of producers; The main solutions proposed to improve the value chains of food systems are related to: • Greater promotion of the use of improved inputs and mechanization; • Promotion of processing with a focus on the family and commercial scale; • Establishing legislative incentives and financing for local production of inputs (eg fish feed) and at lower prices compared to current import prices (CIF); • Expansion of support infrastructure coverage and improvements/rehabilitation of existing ones (for example, irrigation channels, access roads, among others); • Promotion of fairs in the local market with the purpose of massifying the connection between sellers and buyers, especially wholesalers.236238240241242243244245246248249250251The main problems identified are summarized below. • Excessive production costs due to dependence on input imports. In certain sectors, such as the fish farming sector, the dependence on feed has been exclusively on imports and with high costs for producers; • Lack of sufficient support infrastructure, often limited to very small areas compared to the potential (such as the case of infrastructure for irrigation); The main solutions proposed to improve the value chains of food systems are related to: • Promotion of processing with a focus on the family and commercial scale; • Establishing legislative incentives and financing for local production of inputs (eg fish feed) and at lower prices compared to current import prices (CIF); • Specific lines of financing, with subsidized rates for agriculture, livestock and fishing; • Expansion of support infrastructure coverage and improvements/rehabilitation of existing ones (for example, irrigation channels, access roads, among others);236238240241243245246249250251The main problems identified are:. • Low levels of production and productivity; • Limited processing capacity for primary and by-products, which does not allow for the capture of additional value and complementarity of production systems. For example, in the livestock sector, the sale of live animals and dependence on imports of meat and, above all, meat products (eg milk, yogurt, cheese and others) has been common; • Excessive production costs due to dependence on input imports. In certain sectors, such as the fish farming sector, the dependence on feed has been exclusively on imports and with high costs for producers; The main solutions proposed to improve the value chains of food systems are related to: • Greater promotion of the use of improved inputs and mechanization; • Promotion of processing with a focus on the family and commercial scale; • Establishing legislative incentives and financing for local production of inputs (eg fish feed) and at lower prices compared to current import prices (CIF); • Specific lines of financing, with subsidized rates for agriculture, livestock and fishing;237240241242244246247248249251Environmental sustainability has been identified as the major divergence point. In one hand, increased production and productivity is required to develop the domestic industry, in the other hand an increased use of agrochemicals is damaging to the environment. To overcome that, it is important that research is taken to access the levels to which the damages created by the use of agrochemicals are not more costly than the benefits returned from that increased use of agrochemicals. Taxes from agrochemicals could also be used to interventions aiming at rebuilding ecosystems.

2021-07-22 02:12:11205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34162/99

1040152060145444402453353540531

A virtual meeting was organized inviting stakeholders for the Food and Nutrition Security Policy to form part of a Technical Working Group (TWG) for the preparatory work for the Kiribati Food Systems Dialogue. This TWG comprised all Government Ministries, private sector, civil societies, and faith-based organizations having a direct and indirect role in the Food System. The agenda of this first preparatory meeting was on how to conduct the dialogue within a limited timeframe and budget. Only a few stakeholders attended the meeting. So with consensus of the Secretariat comprised of most senior staff of the Agriculture and Livestock Division, a new format agreed is as follows: The dialogue will be a 5 day duration starting on Day 1 with the TWG to finalize the programs for the week. Day 2, a dialogue on Action Tracks 1 and 2 (Nutrition and Diet) being grouped together. Day 3 on a dialogue for Action Tracks 3 and 5 on Environment and Resilience while Action Track 4 on Equitable Livelihood stands alone on Day 4. Day 5 will be the Plenary where game changing solutions identified be prioritized and presented to the Plenary for adoption. The dialogues for the 3 groupings took place on June 29 on AT 1 and 2, June 30 for AT 3 and 5, and July 1 for AT 4. Each dialogue group presented the situations. Results from studies/programs undertaken on ATs were presented as they revealed the very real situation. ATs 1 and 2 showed a grave unhealthy I-Kiribati population. ATs 3 and 5 posed a vulnerable deteriorating environment with limited mitigating strategies in place, there is hope that with the nation’s will, sustaining the environment and ecosystem is possible. As for AT 4; good to note that Government is providing safety net programs but the issue of misusing such safety nets programs is something that government should focus on. The breakout sessions in each AT(s) provided opportunity to get game-changing solutions for each issue discussed and priority setting them based on practicality. These are presented on July 2 together with booth displays.The dialogue for ATs 1 and 2 reflected a high mortality rate among children aged between 0-5, high rate of NCDs cases and also a high rate of anemia among women. The diet of the people also reflected a high caloric intake but with hardly any vegetable and fruits. The local supply of locally produced foods especially the green foods is very low. The blue food though is readily available is becoming very expensive like the green local foods that the people opt for more convenient and cheaper imported foods that are less nutritive in value. The local supply value chain requires immediate actions and the need for fortified grains is a must for food imports. ATs 3 and 5 reflected a degrading environment and an increasing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change if nothing is done. Good management of resources and building resilience of the people is the key reflected to be of value. AT 4 reflected that there is safety net provision for vulnerable groups of people by government however the misuse of such benefits is highly prevalent, therefore Government needs to come up with strategies ensuring such funds are well used accordingly to support people’s health needs.Caring for the Food System is really caring for the people. The mortality and growth rate of any nation reflects well the quality of food system in that nation. The Kiribati Vision 20 is focusing on the I-Kiribati person in his/her atoll setting - specifically on his/her health and education. Health and education are therefore, in this context, tightly connected and once fully supported and embraced in the Food System then Kiribati or any nation, in similar context with Kiribati, will grow healthy and will be able to strive forward in generations to come. Let all actors in the Food System be united and work together to move Kiribati forward as a healthy and wealthy nation!

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Kiribati saw it best and cost effective to pair up the 4 Action Tracks: Nutrition and Diet, Nature and Resilience, while letting the Livelihood Track stand alone on its own. The 5 key actors (Agriculture, Fisheries, Nutrition, Commerce, and National Disaster Office) also named here as a Technical Group saw the linkages and some overlaps between the 2 pairs and so they agreed to focus on them. It was also perceived that the standalone Track - Livelihood - would serve as the optimum goal if all gaps in the paired Action Tracks are identified and practically solved. The Technical Group therefore divided itself into 3 major working groups of Action Tracks - Nutrition and Diet (Agriculture, Nutrition, Commerce and Fisheries), Nature and Resilience (Environment, National Disaster, and Agriculture), and Livelihood (Agriculture, Fisheries, Nutrition, Environment, and Commerce). These 3 working groups put together their resources - information and data in order to present the current situation in each Action Track and at the same time to see the issues and challenges faced and then to recommend best ways forward that would be compatible with other pathways from other 2 groups. The ultimate focus therefore is to enable all actors in the Food System to recognize themselves and to see the value of their roles. At the same time, the focus is to unite these actors and direct them to pathways that would transform the Food System - pathways that would meet the ambitious UNSDG Targets and pathways that would foster the health of the I-Kiribati person and enrich his/her livelihood in his/her fragile atoll setting.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main findings of the National Dialogue are listed below with their concise details: (1) Nutrition and Diet: The high cases of NCDs and mortality rate of children under 5 are the major national concerns and was agreed that the Ministry of Health is not the only Ministry to deal with issues related to poor nutrition, NCDs, and premature deaths of children under 5 years. This is the shared role of all key actors in the Food System - all Ministries are therefore encouraged to be more proactive in factoring Nutrition in their their programmes and Ministerial Plans. Changing the mindset of the people is the major challenge especially in changing the eating habit and diet of the people - requiring all actors to come up with a way forward to change this in their respective programmes. It was also agreed in the National Dialogue that Nutrition is well factored and included in the school curriculum for the Primary school level through to senior level. Teaching healthy foods to the young children as source of good health and productive life is lacking and this needs to be strengthened immediately. Internalizing the value of eating health green and blue foods amongst the young is the key for healthy future of the country. Also the Dialogue saw the Church as the one closest to the people. It can move its communities and people so more consultations with the church-based groups is seen urgent so church leaders can also include healthy food values in their church and social teachings and programmes - and to move their members into healthy activities and taking healthy foods. Fisheries and Farming activities in the outer islands need to be adequately supported by Government. The provision of farming materials, equipment or tools, fishing gear and capacity building need to be more regular and more proactive, the access to freight levy assistance need to be reviewed so more green and blue produce be covered and more farmers and fishermen can easily access the fund. Also the transport of produce from outer islands need to be synchronized where possible so both the farmers and fishermen can be adequately served rather than each having their own transport arrangements. Other online marketing strategies need to be quickly developed so produce or fish delivery can be done online. Also the food import needs to be properly managed and controlled with incentives given to local producers to trade off those imported foods. In this way the imports will be regularly reviewed and reduced as local production increases. For fisheries, more capacity building is needed in the area of cooking edible varieties of seaweed so abundant in Kiribati, value adding of fish products including transshipped fish in order to reduce the high imports of canned fish. Food processing of pandanus and other vegetables like breadfruits need to be pursued immediately. More support needs to be stepped up towards coconut virgin oil and toddy sugar productions, egg, chicken and piggery operations. (2) On the Nature and Resilience Tracks, the National Dialogue also agreed to employ new climate smart farming technologies with the active leadership of the Agriculture and the technical and financial support of the Global Green Growth Institute and with the active involvement of NGOs. The harsh atoll conditions of the islands in Kiribati - compounded with the impacts of climate change would benefit much from this climate smart techniques after a number of successful trials. This technique therefore need to be quickly disseminated to the farmers and also to be trialed to mangrove planting in coastal eroded areas. To be included in the capacity building is the making of compost so home organic waste can be meaningfully utilized to clean home areas and to grow more healthy foods. The training on preparation of foods from traditional food crops needs to be advocated and included in the school curriculum as well. (3) To strengthen the livelihood of the people of Kiribati; all players of the abovementioned activities need to work closely than ever.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251From the main findings presented above, these are the outcomes and directions to be undertaken: (1) Ministry of Education to work on the Nutrition curriculum suitable for Kiribati students in the primary and secondary levels. The Global Green Growth Institute to also assist in this exercise; (2) Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries to work closer than ever to serve their farmers and fishermen associations - providing them with the needed materials, equipment, gear, training, and transport logistics so they can produce and catch more and their produce can reach the Tarawa market in a timely and organized manner The same Ministries to make better marketing plans for the fishermen and farmers so their catch and produce are better preserved and sold at a reasonable price; (3) The Ministry of Finance (Statistics Office) and Ministry of Commerce in close consultations with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to review the Special Levy Act with purpose of incorporating more healthy green and blue food and improving trade from outer islands - making access to the fund easier to farmers, fishermen and retailers; (4) The Ministry of Commerce and National Statistics office to work closer with the Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries to check on local production capacity and to make necessary adjustments to the import level of imported foods. The right incentives to be devised to encourage local productions and to reduce import level on certain foods. This is a big exercise that needs to be worked out in close consultation with the Chamber of Commerce (Private Sector) especially in the identification of food items to be controlled in this import review exercise and in obtaining their cooperation, support and understanding; (5) Ministry of Health to set a standard and strict nutrition and basic hygiene regulation to food vendors in the public and in schools and in restaurants; (6) Tuna pouching to go ahead as early as possible to make best use of the transshipped reject tuna from DWFNs vessels and to end the ongoing unfair competition with the artisanal fishermen. This will also help cut imports on tinned fish; (7) Fisheries to go ahead in value-adding of fisheries products like seaweed, fish snacks and jerkies; (8) Fruit processing to be revived with special focus on vitamin-A rich pandanus fruit. Other fruits will be included; (9) A Food System Task Force to be established after the Global Food Summit in September this year and to be comprised all actors in the Food System including church-group leaders and the Ministry of Education and to be supported financially by the Government. Cabinet Paper on this to be prepared by MELAD and submitted to Cabinet after the Summit.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Potential areas of divergence are listed below: (1)Trade-offs on certain imported foods. The private sector have large role in understanding this. For example the importation of canned and plastic-packaged foods from Asia needs to be in English not just on the outside package but in the inner smaller packages as well as in ingredients for noodle salts and oils. Those food staff not meeting this requirement will be banned from the country; (2)On limiting the imports of certain food items where they can be locally produced, again the private sector needs to understand and support this. Certain food items like tinned fish, vegetables, eggs, cooking and fragrance oils, drink-sweetners like ‘pop-ups’, ‘cool-c’ with variety of flavours, animal feeds, needs to be evaluated against the local production capacity. There are local producers in the areas of vegetable farming, poultry and piggery, coconut virgin oil and body oils, toddy sugars with various flavours. The idea is to provide the right level of incentive to those local suppliers who can meet the set targets aimed at reducing the imports. The exercise is a painstaking one and needs a lot of care to ensure food security in the country is not affected in any way.; (3)The Ministry of Fisheries needs to slowly handover its local fish marketing activities in order to pour more support and technical capacity to the private sector and fishermen associations; (4)Chemical fertilizers will continue to be banned to protect Kiribati fragile atoll environment and to ensure that all local production are organic; (5) Local produce market structure needs to be properly regulated to ensure the competitiveness of the local production against the imported vegetables. Farmers and vegetable vendors who now sell produce at very high and unreasonable prices need to understand this while financial and technical support from Government keeps flowing to areas that it will maximize production and mobilization of produce; (6) Changing the mindset of the people is the main challenge and Government needs to intervene in certain areas like restricting the sales of unhealthy foods to school children and serving imbalanced foods in restaurants and banning the importation of super fatty foods. The Church based groups need to also 'preach' these in their outreach to their members and schools need to teach these values to students.

2021-07-22 02:46:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27551/203

65

We co-hosted this Dialogue with several multi-stakeholder partner organizations who are acting with urgency in response to the critical challenges facing our food systems. The Alliance for Climate and Food Systems Transformation, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the University of Pretoria represent stakeholders from all over the world, and we showcased the urgency of action and a commitment to the Summit with our partners and panelists. We also conducted the Dialogue with a strong eye towards respect and trust-building among attendees: the framing was that we are here to bring our disparate skills together to discuss and solve thorny problems.This independent dialogue focused on the complexity of food systems by reinforcing their interdependent, systems-level nature. The focus of the dialogue was on how to build better systems-level data infrastructure to support food systems transformation, which by nature enforces the complexity of the system. The dialogue also incorporated multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting participants from all sectors of the food system and many types of stakeholders: researchers, practitioners, private sector representatives, producers, and beyond.

Yes

234238239240241242243The focus of this dialogue was broad: using data for food systems transformation. Key areas of focus included: • Existing opportunities and challenges associated with large-scale datasets • Prioritizing the primary data users and primary data collectors so datasets work for them (i.e., how can we center farmers’ needs, as primary data collectors?) • Developing systems-level data sharing and data sets for systems-level change235238239240241242243• Data collection needs to work for farmers. That might mean thinking of data as “data interaction” rather than collection – it’s a two-way process, and producers are at the front lines. Data collection and interaction methods need to develop basic levels of trust, especially because farmers are the decision-makers at the field level. • Data architecture and infrastructure is a recurring and critical problem in the food systems space. We need improved coordination across scales and methodology. One specific threat is proprietary data at the company or producer level, despite the critical need to share data in a way that helps others. How can we develop models of social organization that make data-sharing more feasible? In addition, cross-use datasets, data storage, and data sharing across organizations, government agencies, and other users continues to be a critical challenge. Even in emergency situations like drought or famine, agencies struggle to effectively cooperate and data-share to effectively deploy response and aid. • We need to develop better adaptive management for data and evidence systems. Right now, most data systems are reactive rather than proactive in that they follow a pre-set model for collection and analysis. We need adaptive management of our data and evidence systems to ensure that they are responsive to the changing needs of the food system and ongoing food systems transformation. • To build effective data systems, we need to understand the end user. Who is data trying to influence? For example, there is limited appetite for consumers to drive change, but companies could drive change in the supply chain to have a larger impact on consumer choice. To translate data into effective decision-making, we need to understand who the decision-makers are, and what types of outputs they will listen to. • We need more refined metrics and data for measuring food transitions. There are extensive metrics and datasets focused on production, but there are less clear for the consumption side of the system. We need to discuss and refine the role of corporations in driving corporate transitions, food labelling systems, and purchasing patterns to better understand what drives consumer choice. There are a lot of data gaps in this field still. We also need further work on aligning data across scales and being able to integrate datasets and develop datasets that allow us to see a systems perspective.

2021-07-22 02:49:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27583/203

93

We co-hosted this Dialogue with several multi-stakeholder partner organizations who are acting with urgency in response to the critical challenges facing our food systems. The Alliance for Climate and Food Systems Transformation, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the University of Pretoria represent stakeholders from all over the world, and we showcased the urgency of action and a commitment to the Summit with our partners and panelists. We also conducted the Dialogue with a strong eye towards respect and trust-building among attendees: the framing was that we are here to bring our disparate skills together to discuss and solve thorny problems.This independent dialogue focused on the complexity of food systems by reinforcing their interdependent, systems-level nature. The focus of the dialogue was on how to build better systems-level data infrastructure to support food systems transformation, which by nature enforces the complexity of the system. The dialogue also incorporated multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting participants from all sectors of the food system and many types of stakeholders: researchers, practitioners, private sector representatives, producers, and beyond.

Yes

234238239240241242243The focus of this dialogue developing more effective monitoring and evaluation for food systems transformation. Areas of focus included: • Identify critical gaps and challenges where stakeholders need new evidence or science to more effectively track progress against food system transformation goals. • Identify synergies among data used for monitoring and evaluation in different components of the food system.235238239240241242243The focus of this dialogue developing more effective monitoring and evaluation for food systems transformation. Areas of focus included: • Identify critical gaps and challenges where stakeholders need new evidence or science to more effectively track progress against food system transformation goals. • Identify synergies among data used for monitoring and evaluation in different components of the food system.

2021-07-22 08:10:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13977/203

01828210242416207001100120590014433002695010100101121

The UNFSS has already organised a number of dialogues on similar topics, so we aimed to complement this work by focusing on recruiting young people, as well as practitioners (e.g. farmers, fishers) to our dialogue, in the hope of bringing in additional and lesser-heard perspectives to the wider conversation. We worked hard during recruitment to find and make space for people from varying sectors, considering cultural, geographical, time-zone, and language differences. We brought people together from different backgrounds, even where perspectives and agendas may be wildly different, e.g. multinational corporations and small farmers. While recruiting, we also made sure we included a certain number of people who are familiar with the main theme of discussion and already understand the problem so they could contribute and discuss solutions from a solid basis of knowledge. We asked every participant to commit to the “practical” outcome of the dialogue and to only bring to the table solutions that they would be themselves willing to follow through with in practice. We recognise that the issue of making food chains more sustainable whilst supporting producers depends on many different factors and requires action on multiple levels to manage. For this reason, we decided to include as wide a cross-section of representatives from each part of the food chain as we could and encouraged discussion between people from different sectors of the same food chains in order to build mutual understanding, respect and trust. We were transparent with participants about the outcome of the dialogues, and explained we would be taking notes according to Chatham House rules. We promised to treat comments confidentially and anonymously. We told participants that we would have liked the conversation to be very spontaneous and positive, trying to build on top of each other’s ideas respectfully. We also said we didn't want anyone to feel that they didn’t have enough expertise to contribute to the conversation – if they had been chosen to be there, we wanted to hear what they had to say.Act with urgency. We made sure that the conversation focused on the next 3-5 years and revolved around specific, realistic and practical solutions. Be respectful. Everyone in the dialogue was encouraged to be respectful of others’ perspectives. Every friction and divergence was dealt with a constructive approach. We promoted food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, communities, and ecosystems – while at the same time respecting local cultures and contexts. Recognise complexity. Throughout the dialogue, we always recognised that food systems are complex, and closely connected to (and significantly impact) human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy, and geopolitics. We allowed and encouraged disagreement with proposed solutions and recognised that solutions likely will not be easy to implement. We recognised that solutions were needed on multiple levels, and asked participants to vote on each group’s main suggested solutions. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - We encouraged conversation between members of different stakeholder groups, and ensured that everyone was always involved in the conversation and invited everyone to express themselves on each topic of discussion. Complement the work of others - We developed our own unique and relaxed style of hosting and wide recruitment from throughout the sector in an effort to stimulate new discussions that would lead to new solutions. Build trust - We committed to creating a relaxed and friendly atmosphere to build trust and an open airing of truthful views. We created a spreadsheet where each participant could drop their personal details in case they wanted to be contacted by other participants or by us. We let participants know that we would send the final feedback report to them, drafted according to Chatham House rules. Participants also know that they might be offered follow-up opportunities with FoodUnfolded to reach our audience about important issues.We have found that creating interactive polls during the plenary session allows us to stimulate engagement from the very beginning of the event and to keep a higher level of attention throughout the event. Music whilst waiting also worked well for this purpose.

Yes

234238239240241244245247248249250Producing our food has far-reaching impacts on our atmosphere, the lives of humans, the welfare of billions of animals and the health of our land and seas, not to mention the incomes of billions of people and the economies of every nation across the globe. Global agriculture is a hugely complex web of externalities that must be dealt with, but it is also the single largest employment sector globally, with over a billion people (around ⅓ of the global workforce) reliant on it for their livelihood. This dialogue on “Leaving no one behind” revolved around how we can reduce the environmental impacts of our agriculture systems and wild-catch fisheries through transitioning towards more sustainable production methods - but crucially, with a focus on the people who currently work in those industries and how that transition can be made in a way that supports, rather than undermines, the people that depend on those industries for their livelihoods. A sustainable food system may also involve eating more of some things, but less of others. This dialogue also explored what would happen to current producers of what some would consider “unsustainable” foods if demand for them falls in future, and how we could work with people who rely on these industries to ensure they are able to adapt and survive nonetheless. We focused here on 4 major food sectors/chains: meat, dairy, fish and palm oil. In each discussion group, we explored what the barriers are to that particular food chain moving towards more sustainable production methods, and how we could realise more sustainable production in each area without leaving behind the farmers, fishers and other workers that depend on those industries for their livelihoods. The main solutions identified overall were: 1. Make food more valuable: higher incomes for farmers would mean greater capacity for them to invest in sustainable change. Margins could be widened through changes in business models, shortening supply chains, consumers/retailers/manufacturers valuing sustainable food more highly, finding uses for waste products or alternative farm ownership models. 2. Involve and support farmers and fishers: Innovations, solutions and policies need to be flexible to local needs and developed in partnership with practitioners to ensure they are useful and beneficial in the field. Financial support and access to information and education would help farmers/fishers transition to more sustainable practices. 3. Help consumers change their diets: Consumers need clear, trustworthy sustainability data on food labels in order to inform purchasing decisions and boost markets for sustainable foods. Existing certifications need to be more transparent and robust. 4. Enforce change and rebuild trust: Governments need to incentivise sustainable production and perhaps penalise producers who do not transition their production methods (certain practices could even be made requirements). All stakeholders (including consumers) need to move forward with a positive outlook and work together to realise change, rather than competing/boycotting/catastrophizing.235238239240241243244245246247248249250251Participants immediately highlighted the issues of unsustainably low incomes for farmers and uncertainty over the future. In line with this, economic sustainability for farmers was identified as a key barrier to change across all four food chains discussed (meat, fish, dairy, palm oil). Although many beneficial technologies and best practices exist/are being developed, farmers (especially small/medium sized) have thin margins and so often don’t have the mental or financial capacity to properly consider and invest in the transition towards more sustainable practices or implement new technologies. Increasing incomes for farmers is therefore key. Potential solutions include: a fairer distribution of profits throughout the supply chain (e.g. Through supply chain-wide profit sharing agreements, shorter supply chains or direct trade), higher food prices for consumers (e.g. selling higher quality produce at lower volume or minimum pricing), alternative farm ownership models (e.g. shared community ownership) and putting “waste” to better use (e.g. creating new markets for bycatch fish). Sustainable innovations/practices need to also be developed and presented to farmers in a way that adds value, rather than just adding costs. Business models can help communicate the long-term value of making changes to farmers, while governments and civil organisations can support transitions by offering grants/support to offset short-term costs. Financial penalties/withdrawal of existing support for farmers that produce unsustainably and/or are not transitioning could supplement this approach. Governments could also make specific sustainability practices required and enforceable rather than voluntary - though we must consider the global ramifications of this to avoid unforeseen consequences elsewhere. Both innovations and policy should be developed with input from local producers to ensure they’re useful and relevant in practice to those that will be using/affected by them. Policy must be flexible between nations and even within nations to reflect the needs and challenges faced by local producers in varying situations and cultures. Young farmers and fishers are the best placed for involvement as they are the most engaged with the sustainability movement and the most willing to adjust existing practices - but still place a strong emphasis on being able to make a living. Changes in consumer diets are key to allowing higher-value, lower-volume production that would relieve demand pressure on these industries and enable more sustainable production practices. Consumers can drive change through their purchases, but are currently unable to access clear and reliable information on food sustainability to guide their decisions. Existing sustainability certifications have value, but are often inaccessible to smaller producers and not well trusted by consumers. Certification organisations must be more transparent about the evidence supporting “certified sustainable” producers, and offer application support to smaller producers. We can further empower consumers to make informed choices by developing new sustainability food labels. But such labels must be built on robust sustainability frameworks and metrics (currently lacking, decisions here could be controversial); data collection methods that are accessible, affordable and realistic for even small farmers to use; and policies that ensure producers and processors track these sustainability metrics and communicate them via product labels (will require education and engagement initiatives). In the meantime, responsibility to drive change can not be on consumers - asking consumers to use their power in the absence of appropriate education and information is an industry cop-out. Instead, policymakers need to help farmers transition and use legislation and/or market-based financial incentives to make low-impact products more attractive to price-conscious consumers than high impact ones (especially in high consumption highly price-sensitive markets e.g. India and China); companies need to place more value on and be willing to pay more for sustainable ingredients; and retailers need to value food products on an individual basis, rather than taking a loss on some (e.g. cheap milk) to drive purchases of others. New alternatives to meat/fish/dairy/palm oil (e.g. cultured meat, alternative milks) were seen as having a valuable role to play in reducing demand pressure on these industries to produce more, but were not seen as a wholesale replacement for these foods (due to incomplete nutritional profiles, limited popularity relative to traditional foods and potential environmental footprints when scaled up.) Traditional and alternative industries should exist in healthy competition with one another, rather than fighting to keep each other down. All four industries need to turn the prevailing conversation into one of positivity and change. Producers are currently focusing on doomsday scenarios while consumers/activists talk of “boycotting” foods perceived as high impact. True change will instead come from all stakeholders supporting these industries in their transition to more sustainable production - even those who personally choose alternatives. This will also help portray farmers and fishers more accurately as actors who care deeply about the welfare of people, animals and the environment, helping rebuild the damaged trust between consumers and producers.236238239240241244245246248249250251How we can shift meat production towards more sustainable production methods whilst supporting those who depend on the meat sector? Economic viability for farmers was identified as a major issue. More sustainable methods are currently perceived as more expensive by many farmers. If we want farmers to adopt more sustainable methods, we need to make them cheaper/ensure they add value rather than just increasing costs, as there is not enough margin in meat farming currently for farmers to absorb short-term costs in the pursuit of long-term improvements in sustainability. Many meat farmers also could not switch to growing alternative produce, as the land is only suitable for growing grass for grazing and could not sustain crops. Part of the solution to this is bringing farmers’ voices into the conversation so solutions and practices can be found that have considered the practicalities and economics of meat farming from the start. The involvement of local farmers and the tailoring of sustainability-focused solutions/methods to the specific economic, environmental, social and cultural conditions of different nations and even different areas within nations is essential, as what works in one place and for one set of farmers may not work for another. Young farmers would be the best to engage in this conversation, as they have a longer-term view regarding our environment and are more open to new technologies and new approaches that could reduce the impact of meat farming. Forcing the implementation of one-size-doesn’t-fit-all solutions is likely to do more harm than good and damage farmers’ trust in policymakers and the sustainability movement as a whole (for example, solutions that reduce meat production in the UK and Ireland but don’t reduce domestic demand would likely lead to increased importing of meat from South America, which has a much higher environmental footprint). Many meat farmers would also benefit from better training/education/access to information about sustainability, to combat the perception that all sustainable farming methods come with higher costs/lower profits, even where the evidence does not support this conclusion. Information/education/research needs to be presented in a way that is practical and useful in the real world, and that farmers can engage with and understand. Education and communication also have a key role to play in helping consumers reconnect with their food and how it is grown to increase the value that society places on meat - especially when grown sustainably - and to better understand the variation in the impact of how meat is produced on different farms in different parts of the world using different production methods. Platforms like FoodUnfolded are important for doing this work. On that note, everyone agreed that consumer behaviour has to change with a move towards eating less meat (though that meat could be of higher quality/cost/produced more sustainably). The group felt that this change would need to be government-led, perhaps through policy-driven laws/restrictions or financial/market-based incentives/penalties/taxes. Higher costs for sustainably produced meat, new distribution methods (e.g. direct trade between farmer and consumer) or alternative farm ownership structures (e.g. community ownership) could all provide higher-value markets for farmers to produce and sell less meat but still make a living. Meat alternatives such as cultured meat were not seen as a sustainable long-term alternative to reducing our meat consumption. Many felt smaller farms were easier to run sustainably and could build connections and trust with local communities more effectively than larger, more commercial farms. Relying on smaller farms for meat production could be more feasible if meat consumption/demand were to fall, thus providing another route towards more sustainable meat production (at lower volume). One barrier to this that was identified is high land values, as farmland is being sold/broken up for development or amalgamation into larger farms, making access to land harder for small farmers.236238239240241243244245246248249250How can we shift dairy production towards more sustainable production methods whilst supporting those who depend on the dairy sector? Economic viability for farmers was identified as a major issue. It currently pays to produce as much milk as possible due to low prices and a lack of financial incentives. Moreover, actions to improve the sustainability of dairy will carry additional costs to farmers - so systemic change is needed to increase the value of milk. First, retailers’ view of milk must change. Milk (viewed by many as an essential) is usually placed at the back of the shop (and priced as low as possible) so that consumers enter the shop and walk past other food, encouraging further purchases. Cheap milk is therefore almost a means of advertising, with some supermarkets deliberately making a loss on milk. We (consumers and retailers alike) need to see milk as a product in its own right - minimum pricing of milk in supermarkets was discussed as a potential solution to this issue. Demand for dairy will not evaporate overnight, so the messaging surrounding the dairy industry used by all parties - governments, retailers, farmers and consumers - needs to change to become one of positivity rather than negativity. There are too many doomsday messages concerning “the end of the industry” among farmers - and a huge focus on the footprint of dairy and “eliminating dairy” among consumers and activists - when in reality engaging with opportunities to improve production together with changes in consumer perceptions and demand could lead to the development of a sustainable dairy industry which operates happily alongside the dairy alternatives industry. Governments can support this transition in messaging by linking all future government support to sustainable practices that encourage regenerative/lower impact dairy farming practices, rather than simply subsidising milk production based on quantity. Dairy producers must change their mindset from viewing dairy alternatives as an existential threat and instead see them as healthy competition, using this as an incentive and inspiration to strive for more sustainable dairy production - rather than trying to hinder the development of the dairy alternatives industry. Governments can support this by resisting lobbying against dairy alternatives whilst simultaneously offering support to dairy farmers attempting to transition to more sustainable practices and offering incentives for producing sustainably. Consumers can also support this transition not only by engaging with dairy alternatives but also by putting greater value on sustainably produced milk. This will help create a more valuable market, thus providing greater incentives for dairy farmers to transition to more sustainable production methods. However, in order for this “social licensing” approach to be successful, we need to develop reliable, evidence-based sustainability metrics and clear sustainability labelling linked to production processes and environmental benchmarks, and education for farmers and the public alike in how to use them. The impact of this would be twofold: first, it provides farmers with the clear data and frameworks they need to assess the impact of their own production systems and evaluate what changes they should make to reduce that impact; second, it provides consumers with the information they need to make informed decisions and highlights the importance of doing so, thus empowering them to support sustainable dairy products over unsustainable ones and create market incentives for dairy farmers to invest in transitioning to more sustainable production methods. Finally, market failures in the industry have led to a breakdown in trust between consumers and dairy farmers. In reality, most want to produce sustainably and are happy to produce less provided incomes remain acceptable. Building personal connections between dairy farmers and consumers (e.g. through on-farm visits, farmers markets or initiatives like FarmerTime) would help rebuild damaged trust and encourage consumers to place greater value on sustainable dairy and the farmers that produce it, augmenting the effectiveness of other solu236238239240241243244245246248249250How can we shift wild-catch fisheries towards more sustainable production methods whilst supporting those who depend on the fishing sector? Economic viability for fishers was identified as a major issue. Fishing boats are high-pressure environments in which to make a living, and difficult places to implement new processes or technologies - like farmers, fishers want to strive to operate sustainably but can only do so once their basic needs/incomes are met. Using bycatch more effectively was identified as a way of adding value to the fishing industry whilst reducing environmental impacts. Governments, retailers and the food industry must all work together to invest in and promote the eating of less-popular fish species that are plentiful, sustainable and often currently discarded as bycatch by fishers due to lack of demand. Food manufacturers could also support this by processing more sustainable species (e.g. sardines) into more attractive (e.g. more appealing/convenient/affordable/familiar) food products such as fishcakes. Meanwhile, restaurants can inform and inspire customers by choosing to use bycatch in their dishes. This would create a market for local, sustainable fish while reducing waste and unnecessary death of bycatch on fishing vessels, creating value for all actors in the food chain and reducing environmental footprints as well as relieving demand pressure on the most fished and imported species (e.g. tuna, cod, salmon). Sustainability certifications are an important part of making fishing more sustainable, but NGOs providing them must set higher, more comprehensive standards for fishers to meet and be more transparent and provide consumers with more evidence as to their value and meaning in order for consumers to trust and value those certifications. NGOs and governments should also offer fishers, especially small-scale ones, more support in applying for and securing sustainability certifications, as application costs and requirements can be prohibitive for small-scale operators. Fishers should also be incentivised, for example via funding opportunities or financial incentives, to implement alternative practices and new technologies that reduce their footprint on the seas so as to offset the costs of doing so. Engaging fishers earlier in the sustainability conversation as active participants is also critical. Innovators must not just create new approaches and technological solutions for fishers, but should include their views during design and development to ensure that solutions are practical and useful and fit for purpose in the real world. Local fishers should be included in policymaking around sustainable fishing (e.g. when deciding which bycatch fish should be promoted to consumers and industry) in order to ensure that solutions and initiatives are appropriate to the state of fishing in the local area. Policies must be flexible to reflect the realities of local fishers since the situation may vary between and even within nations. Most importantly, we need to improve communication not just between fishers and policymakers, but between all stakeholders. Policies should be based on evidence and data, but researchers, scientists and corporations must ensure they collect high-quality data on the right subjects and in the right areas, develop clear definitions of what is and isn’t considered sustainable in the fishing industry, and communicate these definitions to policymakers and consumers in a way that is understandable. Consumers have huge power to change practices through their market choices, but we must first make the relevant information available and accessible to them through clear and engaging communication so they can make informed choices. Since there is rarely a consensus in fisheries science, researchers must also find a way to explain the natural uncertainties and disagreements present in the data, to avoid conflicts and prevent the undermining of public trust when conclusions change.236238239240241244245246248249250How can we shift palm oil production towards more sustainable production methods whilst supporting those who depend on the palm oil sector? Economic viability for smallholder palm oil farmers was identified as a major issue. Solutions, approaches and technologies for producing palm oil more sustainably must be made accessible and available to smallholder farmers through education and training, but more importantly through clear business cases that show smallholders ways to implement changes that simultaneously reduce their environmental footprints and bring economic returns in the short and long term - otherwise it is unlikely they will agree to invest in more sustainable approaches. This could be supported by microfinance opportunities, grants or other financial tools provided by governments, industry coalitions and civil society that directly incentivise and support smallholder farmers to move towards more sustainable production. A key area of focus for researchers and innovators should be increasing yield per hectare, as this would boost farmer incomes and production outputs without increasing land use. Change among smallholder farmers could be supported by ensuring that profits from the palm oil industry are more equitably divided along the supply chain and farmers (and especially smallholders) receive their fair share, as higher incomes would facilitate investment by farmers in more sustainable production approaches. A fairer distribution of profits specifically in certified sustainable palm oil chains, and therefore higher farmer incomes, could also become an incentive for farmers to switch to more sustainable production methods. Wealthier palm oil-consuming countries can invest in sustainable production by the food industry (and consumers) valuing and being willing to pay slightly more for certified sustainable palm oil - but the focus of the responsibility for this should shift from consumers to companies. Smallholders would also benefit from existing knowledge being better distributed throughout the whole supply chain. By optimising tools like private standards, sustainable market models and sustainability schemes to make it easier for smallholders to access them, we can facilitate the sharing of skills and knowledge around best practices between smallholders and from larger farms to smallholders. Larger farms, corporations and policymakers would also gain a better understanding of the issues facing smallholders from their perspective, allowing closer cooperation and the building of trust between all actors in the supply chain. For larger farms, current sustainable practices and schemes are voluntary in nature. Policymakers in palm oil-producing countries must replace these with binding instruments that ensure better accountability among farmers - but this must also be supported by similar policies in palm oil-consuming countries to ensure that accountability is maintained throughout the supply chain across international borders. Producing countries cannot solve the problem alone. It is also critical to tackle the lack of demand for sustainable palm oil in developing countries. Consumer demand drove change in developed markets in favour of sustainable palm oil production, but consumer demand for sustainable palm oil in price-sensitive emerging markets such as India and China remains weak and insufficient to drive change. Policymakers both in these countries and internationally must act to promote or legislate in favour of sustainable palm oil in order to bolster the global market for sustainable palm oil and drive more producers to switch to more sustainable methods. Widening the definition of “sustainable palm oil” to include human and social impacts rather than just environmental footprint may help here. Palm oil alternatives could help to relieve some of the production pressure on tropical palm oil-producing regions, though we must be vigilant of the environmental footprints of these alternatives given the high crop yield efficiency of oil palm.237238239240241243244245246247249Some participants felt that smaller farms were inherently more sustainable than larger farms, but others argued that this is simply an issue of scale - practices that work on a small farm are not suitable or practical for large-scale farming, and would have major environmental, social or economic impacts if scaled up. Therefore smaller farms may not actually be any more sustainable than larger farms when taking into account how much food we need to produce to feed the global population. While some participants felt meat, dairy, fish and palm oil alternatives were the way forward in place of the original products, most felt that these are not likely to completely replace existing foodstuffs but could work alongside existing food industries to temper consumer demand and take some of the demand and therefore production pressure off these 4 food chains, helping them to reduce their environmental footprints in the process. Some also argued that these alternatives could have their own dramatic environmental footprints when production is scaled up and advised caution and vigilance. Some participants felt raising food prices and asking consumers to pay more was a valid approach, while others were concerned that this could price out lower-income individuals and countries from purchasing the food they need, pushing people further into poverty. Most agreed that raising prices would be more appropriate in wealthier countries than in lower-income ones. While those working in certification were confident in the value and role played by sustainability certification schemes, other participants were less convinced and wanted operating organisations to set higher standards and provide more evidence/transparency as to the true value of these certifications. While all participants recognised the power of the consumer to drive change and the value of consumers being well informed, most also felt that the responsibility for driving change should not fall on consumers but be pushed forwards by governments, companies, farmers and large-scale organisations.

In the summary of the discussion group focused around palm oil, we included "For larger farms, current sustainable practices and schemes are voluntary in nature. Policymakers in palm oil-producing countries must replace these with binding instruments that ensure better accountability among farmers..." Participants would like to clarify any misunderstandings that might arise from the use of the word "replace" in this context. To clarify: participants felt that existing voluntary certifications should be enhanced, enforced or empowered or put into legislative frameworks in both producing and consuming countries, in order to improve the adoption of these standards by producers. This action is not intended to suggest that existing voluntary certifications themselves should be "replaced", only that additional mechanisms could be used to take them beyond being purely voluntary scemes in an effort to increase the number of producers adhering to them.2021-07-23 15:01:25

2021-07-22 08:28:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14615/45

10102159172254472072002575972718222410105585112

The UNFSS-AT2 China Action Hub used the same method as recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual, with minor adjustments according to the local circumstances.Commit to the Summit: SMEs became familiar with the five action tracks of the Summit and looked forward to join any future UNFSS related events. Act with urgency/ Be respectful/ Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity/ Complement the work of others: SMEs who attended the dialogue would like to establish a food system network to promote communication and cross-functional understandings. Recognize complexity: Through conversations both on the main stage and in the breakout rooms, SMEs agreed that the change can’t be made by one’s power or by few people’s power. The food system is complicated, which needs collaborations from the initial step to harvest to production and to transportation, and even the not necessarily related the areas such as the AI and computer sciences are also needed in order to transfer into a sustainable mode. Build trust: Proposed to have cross sector conversations more often.Follow the recommendations by the main organizer with adjustments to the local environment would work the best for the regional/ national dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242244246249The main focus of this dialogue is to pinpoint the challenges SMEs in China are facing, and how to tackle the challenges and boost their roles in providing good food for all. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are vital to our food economies, from bakeries to farm suppliers, coffee co-ops to digital start-ups. Each country is different, but SMEs often make up over 90% of businesses in the agri-food sector, creating half the economic value, providing more than half the sector’s jobs, and handling more than half the food consumed. Through the COVID pandemic, their tenacity and agility have sustained food supplies and access. Frequently overlooked, these everyday businesses make billions of decisions that shape our food systems. Only hand-in-hand with SMEs, can the world deliver good food for all. What pathways will enhance the contribution of SMEs to the food system? We asked this question of SMEs, their supporters and food system leaders. To prompt discussion, Wasafiri, curator of the Dialogues, offers six promising pathways to boost the impact of food SMEs. Which are most important in your context? What is missing? What actions will advance them? How are they interdependent? These pathways are: 1. Elevate the voice of SMEs 2. Reduce the cost of doing business 3. Reward positive outcomes 4. Target support at food SMEs 5. Democratise the digital food revolution 6. Make good food matter235238239240241242246248249The findings are two-part. The first part revolves around current challenges SMEs are facing： 1.Lack of government support targeting directly to SMEs. 2.Lack of regulation regarding new food products and their exporting rules. 3.Lack of public understanding of the potential positive impact of a plant-based diet and lack of appreciation of better-quality food. 4.Discrepancy between the sporadic, inconsistent and often low supply from small-scale farmers and large demand. 5.Low education and lack of decent business practice from the small-scale farmers. 6.Policymakers are hesitant about new trends and practices that are nature-positive or help provide good food for all. 7.Inability to acquire sufficient funding or complete financial services. The second part is about how to better build these pathways and boost their role in providing good food for all. The pathways that were brought up the most are: 1.Target support at food SMEs 2.Elevate the voice of SMEs 3.Make good food matter236238239240241242244248249251All SMEs participants are assigned to 4 different groups, the background of these SMEs were categorized as Agriculture, Food education, Plant-based protein, Animal Welfare, Hospitality, Food Processing, and Production. Each group has a host of SMEs in different streams within the food systems. And the discussion is carried out by answering the questions: Which pathways are most important in the participants’ context? What is missing? What actions will advance them? How are they interdependent? Key points from SMEs in Agriculture and Food Education: 1.Increase the visibility of SMEs a.Leverage national policies and relevant government departments to support eco-healthy food, food education, and SMEs 2.Reduce the cost of SMEs a.The price of food products is unstable because small-scale farmers have low productivity. The farmers could establish agriculture cooperates and supply their products in big amounts to SMEs. b.SMEs need more financial services and support c.Since farms are in remote areas, infrastructure needs to be improved to reduce operation costs. 3.Increase public awareness in terms of the sustainable food system a.single SMEs are not able to change consumer awareness on their own b.Promote food education 4.Promote cooperation and communication among SMEs in the food system.236238239240241242246249251Key points from SMEs in Agriculture and Hospitality: 1.Support from a wide range of institutions and sectors is important a.from the top down: policy support and the development of regulations in the relevant markets are important b.from the bottom up: the promotion of food-related education and advocacy at a societal level is also important c.In addition, financial support is also needed in some cases * Although the focus of each SME is different within the framework of the food system; it is possible that through various forms of collaboration and the flow/exchange/sharing of resources across regions and sectors, SMEs may have a greater impact and also have the opportunity to have their voices heard by a wide range of authoritative and influential groups, government agencies, etc.236238239240241242244246248249Key points from SMEs in Alternative Protein and Animal Welfare: 1.Target support at food SMEs a.Most SMEs participants in our breakout room believe that with more direct and practical support from the government agencies and international NGOs, they can purchase equipment and expand their production, and maybe offset some of the inherent problems with agriculture such as high initial capital input, long payback period and unpredictable risk factors. b.These supports can come in various forms such as infrastructure improvement, funding, business consulting, and technology know-how, but they must be direct, feasible, and easily accessible. c.Although China has made a tremendous effort in the past decades to focus on sustainable development. As a developing country, we still have a long way to go in terms of building a better food system, not only for the 1.4 billion people but the whole globe as well. SMEs in China are thriving, and they need more target support more than ever. 2.Make good food matter a.There are many SMEs in China making effort to build a better food system, whether it’s regenerative agriculture, eco-agriculture, animal welfare, or plant-based protein, we can see a significant increase in the number of SMEs in these fields, however, consumers are still speculating and not willing to change their behaviors right away, and contrary to popular belief, the Chinese market can be quite complicated and challenging. b.Consumers in China are often hesitant towards products from SMEs, and when it comes to food and agri-products, we are extremely price-sensitive. Good Food can be expensive, and we need to better guide them to make that justification. We need to keep educating the public, make sure the government is on borad as well from kids to senior people. c.We need more endorsement from the official authorities and researchers to further help the public change their eating habits and make better choice. 3.Reduce the cost of doing business a.Education is a luxury for a great number of farmers in China, therefore, they lack basic business knowledge, and doesn’t really understand or go along with a contract, this makes working with them almost like a gamble, which would result in a highly inconsistent and volatile supply chain for a lot of the SMEs who simply don’t have the scale and capital needed for a better solution.236238239240241242243245246249251Key points from SMEs in Agriculture and Processed Food Innovation and Production: 1.Increase more social education for biodiversity and biotech. 2.Call for more responsible capital to invest in long-term impact projects. 3.Bridge to corporations and build up trust in order to form alliances. 4.Co-develop the human welfare agriculture system in diverse groups. More technology should be involved in product design. 5.Data and industrial insights should be transparent at some level. More independent research needs to be conducted. 6.Help SMEs get financial support from the government. Compared with large businesses and government-owned enterprises, SMEs have limited access to finance because many banks prefer to allocate their resources to large enterprises rather than to SMEs. 7.Create opportunities to communicate with other SMEs in the fields. This will help tackle difficulties on lack of information. With close collaboration, SMEs can have open innovation to ensure long term growth. 8.Increase market competition by working with NGOs or International organizations that promote public good. It will be a great strategy to highlight works done by SMEs while attracting potential customers.237238239240241242244246248249250251When talking about ways to make good food matter, participants raised questions and concerns about the definition of good food, as there were some clashes between plant-based manufacturers and agribusinesses who produce food the traditional way (in the sense of following ancient Chinese nature-positive methods). They believe that the concept of Good Food is rather arbitrary without a given context, and we need different voices in the market as well as more sound research and education regarding different products and their corresponding practices in the full value chain. There are also some different views about the role of government when it comes to aiding SMEs. While most participants agree that they need more practical and implementable policies targeting directly and exclusively to SMEs, some participants urge that as companies, they shouldn’t be relying on assistance from the government. SMEs should focus mainly on strengthening their business acumen and participate in fair market competition, the mentality of waiting for positive external factors can be detrimental to the long-term growth of SMEs and the market as a whole. That being said, they do believe that the policymakers can and should do a better job at creating an equitable environment and leveling the playing field for SMEs and large corporations.

2021-07-22 09:12:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14618/18398895102113127132145165180199

85

The dialogue was organised with full respect and commitment to the Principles of Engagement: Act with Urgency In light of this urgency, the Dialogue was organized as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Commit to the Summit The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. All stakeholders were consulted about ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The dialogue was organised around 2 main discussions which happened in small sub-groups to allow the most participative and safe open- discussions. Be Respectful Respect for one another is a foundation for genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Each sub-group was facilitated by experienced facilitators who ensured everyone had an opportunity to express his/her opinions. Recognize Complexity Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi- stakeholder inclusivity The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within SMEs, Ecosystem Support Organisations (ESOs), the broader business community, small-holder farmers and civil society – working across the food system from production to consumption. Complement the work of others The Dialogue built-on and added-value to existing policy processes and initiatives. It provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. Build Trust The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogue are not attributed to single individuals.It included multiple stakeholders, from government and public agencies, to small businesses and support organizations.Ensure that all involved in the planning and organizing, curators, facilitators, speakers, are aware of these.

Yes

235238239240241242244245248249251There was a heavy emphasis on (a) making providing “Good Food for All” rewarding for SMEs today, and in the future (pathway 1); (b) creating a conducive framework for them to do so durably (pathway 5); and (c) getting the wider public to understand the value that they are creating (pathway 6). Underpinning all of this is that is the need for governments to create a supportive framework for SMEs in a sector where producers (i.e., smallholder farmers) tended to be in the informal economy and therefore invisible and unaccounted for. Governments have to also create legal frameworks that make it easier for them to operate, transact, and access credit. There are peculiar legacy issues that could make it hard for SMEs to operate, like inability to collateralize leases on land. Governments should also make it easy for them to get themselves heard. All of this is fundamental to retain people in rural areas and reverse urban-rural migration that is depleting the sector. Going beyond, it is important to help bridge the digital divide and look at it in terms of arresting the lack of digital literacy in general and making stakeholders aware of the resources available. The next step would be to localize and maintain the data, and then rationalize and link multidisciplinary data together to make them understood. SMEs do not have the resources to do these alone, so they would need external help on this coordination. These will help SMEs operate better. Finally, it is important for consumers to appreciate what SMEs are doing, particularly as they make quality improvements. They should be educated to accept higher prices for better quality products.236238239240241242244245248249251The dialogue came up with the following solutions: a. Invest heavily in education about how food is produced, the quality of the food available in our market, and what consuming different types of food does to us as consumers but also to others in the system b. Work to make good food no longer necessarily sinonimous with unaffordable food, by redirecting financial resources and government support from large-scale, calorie-focused production models to more sustainable, ethical, and healthier types and combinations of foods c. Build up the value chain infrastructure that “good food” requires, rather than assuming that the existing infrastructure can be used to channel both unsustainable/unhealthy and “good” food at the same time without affecting or penalizing the latter d. Bridge the digital divide across rural/urban, income levels, and gender, both in terms of infrastructure coverage and in terms of literacy e. Localize e-commerce platforms, building integrated (input, service, and product) market solutions designed for the local level rather than for export, building on trends emerging around the recent pandemic in a number of countries f. Digitize the innovation finance ecosystem to make access to opportunities to obtain seed or innovation testing funding easier for farmers and small entrepreneurs who would otherwise either not know about these opportunities or find the processes associated with them too costly/long g. Make innovation labs available to small entrepreneurs to test their products or technologies, considering that for most of them it is impossible to develop internally or at their own expense this type of infrastructure237238239240241242244245248249251There was one area of debate, if not such divergence, which related to the role of governments in providing support to SMEs. Participants felt that there is a need to foster financial support not just from the government but also banks and other financial institutions in the process of capacity building of SMEs, especially during start up phase.

2021-07-22 09:27:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14633/1630444649526061637984120133141143144195198

258

The dialogue was organised with full respect and commitment to the Principles of Engagement: Act with Urgency In light of this urgency, the Dialogue was organized as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Commit to the Summit The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. All stakeholders were consulted about ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The dialogue was organised around 2 main discussions which happened in small sub-groups to allow the most participative and safe open- discussions. Be Respectful Respect for one another is a foundation for genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Each sub-group was facilitated by experienced facilitators who ensured everyone had an opportunity to express his/her opinions. Recognize Complexity Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi- stakeholder inclusivity The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within SMEs, Ecosystem Support Organisations (ESOs), the broader business community, small-holder farmers and civil society – working across the food system from production to consumption. Complement the work of others The Dialogue built-on and added-value to existing policy processes and initiatives. It provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. Build Trust The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogue are not attributed to single individuals.It included multiple stakeholders, from government and public agencies, to small businesses and support organizations.Ensure that all involved in the planning and organizing, curators, facilitators, speakers, are aware of these.

Yes

234238239240241242244245248249251How to boost the role of SMEs in providing good food for all? Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are vital to our food economies. Each country is different, but SMEs are often over 90% of businesses in the agri-food sector, creating half the economic value, providing more than half the sector’s jobs, and handling more than half the food consumed. Their tenacity and agility sustain food supplies and access through the COVID pandemic. What pathways will enhance the contribution of SMEs to the food system? Wasafiri here offers six promising pathways to boost the impact of food SMEs. Which are most important in your context? What is missing? What actions will advance them? How are they interdependent? 1. Elevate the Voice of SMEs Food entrepreneurs are incredibly diverse. Hence, collectively they neither easily infuence nor hear the policy decisions that determine their future. Policymakers are often simply unaware of this quiet majority and are instead swayed by more powerful voices that are easier to engage. Positive examples exist of institutions and processes that elevate the voice of SMEs. The best of these also manage to amplify more marginalised entrepreneurs such as women, youth and indigenous people. Replicating these efforts around the world will ensure our food systems are designed and managed in ways that realise the positive contribution of SMEs. 2. Reduce the Cost of Doing Business In emerging economies, many basic challenges undermine the commercial viability of food SMEs, for example poor roads, intermittent power, red tape, corruption, unpredictable trade policy, and internet access. Wherever these improve, SMEs grow and proliferate. Access to finance also improves as lenders and investors have more confidence. Cross-sector collaboration can strengthen this basic enabling environment, reducing the risks and costs of doing business in the agri-food sector, and accelerating the “quiet revolution” through which SMEs are already transforming food systems. 3. Reward Positive Outcomes Our food systems are currently designed to reward the mass production of cheap calories. Different incentives are needed for markets to produce food that is more sustainable, nourishing and equitable. From impact investing to carbon credits, from product certification to sugar taxes, there are diverse mechanisms to reward positive outcomes and disincentivise negative ones. These must be designed and scaled in ways that work for SMEs, rather than adding complexity and cost. 4. Target Support at Food SMEs Well-resourced business development support for SMEs is a proven driver of inclusive economic growth. Targeting such support at food SMEs offers additional benefits, due to the importance of the sector to public goods such as health, the environment, and livelihoods. Youth, women and other groups face additional barriers to starting and growing a business. Support to them unlocks fresh entrepreneurial energy into the sector and addresses equity gaps. 5. Democratise the Digital Food Revolution COVID has accelerated a long-term trend towards digitisation of the food system. Whether it is digital farming, block chain for supply chain management, or virtual marketplaces, the food system is undergoing a tech revolution. The vast flows of data could serve the common good or entrench control within a few powerful actors. By design and policy, the data services and digital markets must be accessible to SMEs. This could unlock myriad innovations from payment for ecosystem services, to direct farm-to-consumer sales. 6. Make Good Food Matter For decades, the food system has been valued for its efficiency in feeding billions of additional mouths. This era witnessed the rise of industrial agriculture. The Summit marks an inflection point. Food systems must now also be valued for nourishing people, regenerating nature, improving equity and resilience to shocks. In this new paradigm, SMEs are in a stronger position with their closer, more nuanced relationships with communities and landscapes.235238239240241242244245248249251Classification of SMEs, it is not the reality as such, to consolidate effective information to achieve impact interventions through the development of programs that can promote the capacities of SMEs to overcome the subsistence economy. Some points that emerged: • The importance of revaluing native diets, forgotten species, and underutilized crops (such as amaranth and quinoa) is recognized to promote the consumption of healthy foods and good eating habits. For the above, education and communication play a very important role in re-teaching people to consume and produce in a healthy way, change the cultural perception of overvaluing foreign products, fried foods, highly processed products and rather promoting crops. healthy by publicizing their history, nutrition and presenting them with attractive packaging. • It is important to consider that the value that the consumer places on food is based on perceptions. In this sense, it is important to support the producer of healthy products so that he can have brand registrations, good marketing campaigns and intellectual property for small producers. • Another relevant aspect is the role of the State to promote the design and implementation of public policies that promote the consumption of healthy and fresh food. Likewise, the government must support SMEs in matters of human rights, environmental sustainability and provide tax incentives. • It is important to manage knowledge and strengthen skills from cultural aspects, that is, to promote knowledge and information on indigenous products. It is important that consumers know what they are consuming. • Return the focus to the entire supply chain, not just the primary production stages, and provide training. Alejandra Montal placeholder image • Consider young people and their initiatives to generate companies with a different perspective. • Promote digitization, digital inclusion.236238239240241242243244245248249251Unique platforms of associations, chambers of commerce do not achieve local impact as they are oriented to large private or government interests, they are not collecting local interests. A concrete action could be to insert small and medium-sized companies and their interests in these groups of influence. Other actions: Create local contact networks that can strengthen food chains, specialized people united, coordinating role of external or international organizations to create contact networks of entrepreneurs and suppliers. It is difficult for small and medium entrepreneurs to access information, exchange of experiences, markets. Networks could focus on strengthening and promoting an entrepreneurial fabric and culture that would help create production with value. Self-consumption and education, shorter value chains. Difficult to compete with elements strongly established in large agroindustrial industries: 1. Lobby internalized in large chains, strengthen the technical capacity of small and medium-sized companies to lobby. 2. Advertising and markets, strengthen the capacities to show what is being done in the SME sector, more local and national advertising, access to television or electronic strips to make visible what is being done and access new markets. Differentiate itself as an SME sector through components such as decent employment, sustainability, added value, cooperation. Make visible the positive and sustainable impacts of SMEs on food systems. SMEs must reach the final consumer, shortening supply chains and circuits. Connecting producers with who will ultimately be consumers, through technology they can connect, but considering access gaps is an important step. Promotion of projects to raise awareness of products that have a healthy and healthy diet. Information and educate consumers. 2. Reduce the cost of doing business Automating activities that do not add value, not having productivity indicators, makes it more distant to increase productivity, to strengthen these capacities, either through technologies or technical assistance. Modernize the transformation of surpluses, avoid food loss and waste, generate new markets through surpluses, exchange with other SMEs. Networks of contact and help again needed, an articulator of these instances is needed. Little differentiation for regulations, regulations generate restrictions by not being differentiated between small, medium and giant, increasing costs. Invite the government to differentiate regulations. Changes in consumption and habits driven from the local, local consumer education. Form work networks so that they can have representation in politics, specific networks to promote from the local. Indigenous, marginalized community, train and educate peasants and how to convince them to network with them. Deliver a business vision. Reduce implementation costs. change the culture to do business. Support for small and medium non-formalized producers, focus on the informal economy. Many times you cannot do business with them due to billing and administrative issues, segregating acroecological and local products, making it impossible to open businesses for this group. 3. Rewarding positive results Government incentives to help the small ones formalize, impulse and local and national impact. Make visible what is done and what SMEs achieve, because if they represent more than 99% of the companies they do not appear in any media (?), Breaking the broadcast oligopoly could generate impacts on SMEs to join the chains of value.237238239240241242243244245248249251There was a slight divergence of opinions regarding how much to engage with governments to demand change. Some participants felt that governments are critical in the actions that are needed to transform the food system, while others thought SMEs should just forge forward their own change, and not wait for governments to mandate or facilitate.

2021-07-22 10:00:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14639/41194

69

The dialogue was organised with full respect and commitment to the Principles of Engagement: Act with Urgency In light of this urgency, the Dialogue was organized as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Commit to the Summit The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. All stakeholders were consulted about ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The dialogue was organised around 2 main discussions which happened in small sub-groups to allow the most participative and safe open- discussions. Be Respectful Respect for one another is a foundation for genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Each sub-group was facilitated by experienced facilitators who ensured everyone had an opportunity to express his/her opinions. Recognize Complexity Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi- stakeholder inclusivity The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within SMEs, Ecosystem Support Organisations (ESOs), the broader business community, small-holder farmers and civil society – working across the food system from production to consumption. Complement the work of others The Dialogue built-on and added-value to existing policy processes and initiatives. It provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. Build Trust The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogue are not attributed to single individuals.The dialogue included multiple stakeholders, from government and public agencies, to small businesses and support organizations.Ensure that all involved in the planning and organizing, curators, facilitators, speakers, are aware of these.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245248249251How to boost the role of SMEs in providing good food for all? Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are vital to our food economies. Each country is different, but SMEs are often over 90% of businesses in the agri-food sector, creating half the economic value, providing more than half the sector’s jobs, and handling more than half the food consumed. Their tenacity and agility sustain food supplies and access through the COVID pandemic. What pathways will enhance the contribution of SMEs to the food system? Wasafiri here offers six promising pathways to boost the impact of food SMEs. Which are most important in your context? What is missing? What actions will advance them? How are they interdependent? 1. Elevate the Voice of SMEs Food entrepreneurs are incredibly diverse. Hence, collectively they neither easily infuence nor hear the policy decisions that determine their future. Policymakers are often simply unaware of this quiet majority and are instead swayed by more powerful voices that are easier to engage. Positive examples exist of institutions and processes that elevate the voice of SMEs. The best of these also manage to amplify more marginalised entrepreneurs such as women, youth and indigenous people. Replicating these efforts around the world will ensure our food systems are designed and managed in ways that realise the positive contribution of SMEs. 2. Reduce the Cost of Doing Business In emerging economies, many basic challenges undermine the commercial viability of food SMEs, for example poor roads, intermittent power, red tape, corruption, unpredictable trade policy, and internet access. Wherever these improve, SMEs grow and proliferate. Access to finance also improves as lenders and investors have more confidence. Cross-sector collaboration can strengthen this basic enabling environment, reducing the risks and costs of doing business in the agri-food sector, and accelerating the “quiet revolution” through which SMEs are already transforming food systems. 3. Reward Positive Outcomes Our food systems are currently designed to reward the mass production of cheap calories. Different incentives are needed for markets to produce food that is more sustainable, nourishing and equitable. From impact investing to carbon credits, from product certification to sugar taxes, there are diverse mechanisms to reward positive outcomes and disincentivise negative ones. These must be designed and scaled in ways that work for SMEs, rather than adding complexity and cost. 4. Target Support at Food SMEs Well-resourced business development support for SMEs is a proven driver of inclusive economic growth. Targeting such support at food SMEs offers additional benefits, due to the importance of the sector to public goods such as health, the environment, and livelihoods. Youth, women and other groups face additional barriers to starting and growing a business. Support to them unlocks fresh entrepreneurial energy into the sector and addresses equity gaps. 5. Democratise the Digital Food Revolution COVID has accelerated a long-term trend towards digitisation of the food system. Whether it is digital farming, block chain for supply chain management, or virtual marketplaces, the food system is undergoing a tech revolution. The vast flows of data could serve the common good or entrench control within a few powerful actors. By design and policy, the data services and digital markets must be accessible to SMEs. This could unlock myriad innovations from payment for ecosystem services, to direct farm-to-consumer sales. 6. Make Good Food Matter For decades, the food system has been valued for its efficiency in feeding billions of additional mouths. This era witnessed the rise of industrial agriculture. The Summit marks an inflection point. Food systems must now also be valued for nourishing people, regenerating nature, improving equity and resilience to shocks. In this new paradigm, SMEs are in a stronger position with their closer, more nuanced relationships with communities and landscapes.235238239240241242243244245248249Need to redefine food. "Good food" is more than quality or nutrition alone or affordable access. It entails so much more - ESGs , relationship to the local culture and context, ethical production, traceability.. Increased consumer awareness regarding their food choices. Storytelling. Dedicated policy/private support to increase awareness and to connect consumers to food; strong food and nutrition policies. How to change consumer habits? Agriculture in the classroom Mobile education displays Open farm days Incentives for local production/regional food systems. Supply chains and technology aren't always geared to supply or support local production. Local Food Hubs. Closes the gap between farmer access and urban demand. Promotes local ecosystem; addresses barriers farmers face in finding markets. Aggregate supply - institutional buyers, school lunch programs, urban food security. Local food movement - promoting awareness, more targeted to local context. Needs to be institutionalized. Rewards for farmers. Structures that allow famer trust and participation in the market - cooperatives, marketing mechanisms, ownership shares, payment schemes. Ultimately pressures are passed back. More collaboration, more opportunity for involvement. Connections across borders. "How do we fit into the puzzle?" Recognize value of SMEs, but also resource.236238239240241242243244245248249251The outcomes of actions focused around rewarding ecosystem services. 1. Cannot deliver kinds of outcomes on environment, linking to consumers, without rural bandwidth and connectivity. 2. Need access to technology that incentivizes beneficial practices. Producing green energy on dairy farm, could reduce the cost of doing business. In PA, been working very diligently to change the regulations that would require a fair pay rate for electricity that is generated. However many states won’t pay a premium for this, makes it not profitable and disincentivizes. If we could reward that type of technology, it can become accessible to smaller farms. Would be awesome to see 50% of them providing electricity to neighboring homes and business - rewarding good practices. b. Another way of rewarding good practices – make grants / funding accessible as a reward for “doing the right thing.” 3. Access to capital or proactively accessing grants if you’re doing beneficial things, help value chains have access to consumer data. Upcycling groups and consumer oriented groups said there has to be a level playing field to get data and educate consumers. a. Hu Kitchen example of difficulty getting away from slavery in cocoa supply chain. Needs UN to come in to articulate and provide broader awareness to put theeth behind local/domestic/international work b. What to prioritize highest in terms of what to spend money on? What technology is most needed/relevant? This is a challenge to identify. c. The smaller your business, the more difficult it is to access that capital. 4. Need cohesive certifications and terms. Certifications play a large role in consumer education. Many companies are creating and selling a product while also educating and setting a new standard/certification for that product category. Need to alleviate this burden to educate consumers. a. In the dairy industry, we have taken it upon ourselves to create our own certification for animal welfare. We are now looking at creating certification for environmental stewardship 5. Agriculture should be without borders – “When it comes to small farmers doing a better job for the planet, my opinion is that agriculture should be without borders.” Farmers across Canada, US, etc shouldn’t be treated different. This influences what farmers choose to do on their farms. a. Need ecozone specific regulations, push for greater international cooperation. Farmer south of border of Saskatchewan are getting propped up by subsidies not everyone in the US agrees with – subsidies must be transparent.

2021-07-22 11:53:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30382/45203

361511613331219715771262320361131003312123125581263402081772152102240473947

The dialogue was co-convened by FAO, WFP, IFAD and ECASP-CSAM in accordance with the Principles of Engagement through the framing of the dialogue format, the choice of sub-themes and selection of discussing participants, and through the moderation of each session by the respective Heads of Agencies.The dialogue was designed as to building upon the independent and national dialogue events which have already taken place around the theme Food Waste and Loss, with the goal of identifying solutions which are complementing upon existing discourses and adding new perspectives. The hosting agencies payed particular attention to “acting with urgency” in relation to the growing levels of global hunger since before the start of the pandemic, the climate crisis, and the need to find sustainable solutions for Food Waste and Loss. The choice of sub-themes for the dialogue was chosen to highlight the complexity of the issue. The participants in the deliberations in the three sessions where chosen to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting the perspective from representatives of multiple sectors such as government, academia, private sector, finance and farmer’s cooperatives.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250The major focus of the dialogue is on Food Loss and Waste (FLW) in lines with the national focus of China in regards to the Food System Summit and the International Conference on Food Waste and loss, to be organised later in 2021. Food systems touch every aspect of human existence and Food Loss and Waste (FLW) is identified as the focus of this joint webinar by the RBAs (FAO, WFP, and IFAD) and ESCAP-CSAM in China, for two-fold considerations: Firstly, out of the five Action Tracks (AT), FAO is the UN Anchor Agency of AT 1: Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all; IFAD is for AT 4: Advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution; WFP is for AT 5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. Reducing FLW through the whole value chain contributes to all these three ATs, as well as AT 2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns, and AT 3: Boosting nature-positive production at sufficient scale. Moreover, sustainable agricultural mechanization and related technologies, which are the focus of CSAM’s work, can offer key solutions to address FLW in support of all five ATs. Secondly: globally, around 14 percent of food produced is lost between harvest and retail. Significant quantities are also wasted in retail and at the consumption level. That is why, in 2019, the 74th United Nations General Assembly designated 29 September as the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste. In the context of China, this April, Chinese government adopted a law against food waste. Prior to this law, a "Clear Your Plate" campaign gained steam across the country. Therefore, reducing food loss and waste contributes to building pathways towards resilient, robust and sustainable food systems. The objective of the dialogue was to showcase experiences and exchange lessons learned from China’s domestic accomplishments as well as some international practices, with a specific focus on reducing FLW, which could be further upscaled in the context of the food waste law in China and in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The dialogue included deliberations to outline inputs and recommendations to inform the UN Food Systems Summit as well as the International Conference on Food Loss and Waste.235238239240241242243244245246248249250Globally, around 14 percent of food produced is lost between harvest and retail. Reducing food loss and waste contributes to building pathways towards resilient, robust and sustainable food systems, aligned with target 12.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals, halving per capita global food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030, as well as reducing food losses and waste along the production and supply chains. Drawing upon practices and lessons learned from China’s domestic accomplishments as well as some international practices, this independent dialogue provided many illustrative examples of what it takes, in practical and innovative ways, to transform food systems at local and country levels to become more resilient. The effective and efficient implementation requires an enabling environment of governance mechanisms and technical innovations that facilitate consultation across sectors and all key stakeholders, such as Chinese governments, development financial institutions, private sectors, academia, grass-roots level farmers’ cooperatives, United Nations agencies, as well as scientific research institutions. Reducing food loss and waste in food systems requires systematic thinking and approaches, with additional policy attention to developing effective market systems, especially for perishables. The market access could be improved by supporting the formation through farmer groups, cooperatives, associations and link them to markets, encourage contractual farming and long-term contractual agreements between growers and processors. Improve infrastructure for roads, energy and markets especially in rural areas where most of the production occurs, is critical in facilitating the transformation of local food systems. China has established a legal and policy system to promote food saving from the government level. Major measures include cultivating consciousness for saving food, developing laws and regulations, as well as monitoring and evaluating the implementations. Innovative technologies, such as green grain storage technology, cleaning drying technology and equipment, as well as grain logistics technology, play a key role in post-harvest loss practices. The standardization and efficiency of field management could facilitate addressing the food loss in harvesting, which can be achieved by implementing quality standards for harvesting machinery, as well as operational norms for harvesting operations, planting and agronomic norms, with attention to promote land merging and appropriate grain varieties. Technological improvements in drying equipment could maintain moisture and nutrients of thermal-sensitive grains to minimizing deterioration and preserving higher economic value. Scaling up the availability of technologies, information and innovative solutions is significant to accelerating the transformation of food systems, while ensuring that possible trade-offs are minimized as a consequence of the transformative process. E-commerce could build a bridge between small farmers and consumers to reduce food loss in the process, transferring the demand from the consumer side to the production side to short the supply chain of agricultural products. Establishing the supply chain system suitable for fresh agricultural products could further improve the efficiency of agricultural products circulation and reduce food loss and waste. Based on digitalization, investment in the construction of cold storage, fresh cold chain logistics system and other related infrastructure nationwide will promote the development of transformative food system. Financial innovation and incentive mechanisms is one of the key actions in the food system to reduce food loss and facilitate the transformation of food system. With a loan system designed by policy banks to cover all segments of the food supply chain, a series of credit products could be harnessed to benefit small farmers and serve the whole industry of grains and oil in the processes of production, storage, purchase and sales, circulation, processing, supply etc. Within food systems, interaction is needed among smallholders and agribusinesses. Through collaboration with farmer cooperatives in the operations, local “grain banks” could prevent food losses and increase farmers’ income by providing storage, credit and exchange solutions of agricultural products. Machinery Professional Cooperative Association could empower member farmers to gain access to heavy agricultural machinery with multiple ways of reducing food loss at various stages of the production cycle and storage, as a lever in transformative change of food system. During the dialogue, all stakeholders stressed the importance of, and are commitment to, disseminating game-changing solutions centered around reducing food loss and waste; pioneering actions to facilitate the transformation of food system and enhance food security; increasing sustainability through the food value chains; and promoting the efficiency, inclusiveness and resilience of food systems within the context of SDGs.2362382392402412422432442462482492501: Reducing food loss in production, and processing Assistant Prof. Huang Jiaqi, Agricultural Information Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS): • Reducing FLW in food systems with systematic approaches from pre-harvest farm-level losses to post-harvest losses, where additional policy concerns are given to vegetables, fruits and the perishables wastes which accounting for 20-30% of total FLW, not merely the grain losses. 2. Mr. Zhang Chengzhi, National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration (NAFRA) • Whole value chain approach for FLW reduction and increase of grain production while aiming at carbon neutrality approach. • Develop anti-food loss regulations and rules to cultivate consciousness of saving food and supervise the implementation of laws from the government level. 3. Mr. Cao Guangqiao, Deputy Director General, Nanjing Institute of Agricultural Mechanization, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs China • Implement harvesting machinery quality standards reducing waste, as well as operational norms for harvesting operations, planting and agronomic norms with attention to promote land merging and appropriate grain varieties for field management standardization and efficiency. • Strengthen professional qualification management for agricultural machinery operators, develop specialized and socialized service organizations and carry out regular technical exchanges and trainings, as well as provide weather warning notices, operation market conditions and other early warning information to farmers. 4. Mr. Liu Dan, Executive General Manager, Debont (Wuhu) Agricultural Machinery Co., Limited. • Promote energy-efficient drying equipment to maintain moisture and nutrients of thermal-sensitive grains to minimizing deterioration and preserving higher economic value.2362382392402412422432442462482492502: Reducing food loss and waste in supply chain Prof. Cao Baoming, Dean, Institute of Food Economics, Nanjing University of Finance & Economics Intangible Croplands from Sustainable Food Supply Chain • Cropland protection could well facilitate farmland development and food loss reduction virtually protects cropland resource. As one of key objectives of FSS, building Sustainable Food Supply Chain could contribute to the food loss reduction in supply chain as well as carbon emission reduction, which aims to achieve a sustainable food chain with resource efficient use upon less investment for ecological environment while producing quality and nutritious food. • The cooperation and engagement among international community, national governments, private sectors, and social organizations are critical for reducing food loss and waste. More efforts could be focused on 1. Enhancing food supply chain with efficient inputs 2. Building systemic technologies achieving food loss and waste reduction through food chain covering post-harvest, storage and warehousing, processing, transportation and distribution, and consuming section. 3. Strengthening advocacy for food loss and waste reduction (e.g. global initiative) with more active engagement of UN agencies, NGOs, and private sectors Mr. Shao Hui, General Manager, Food and Agriculture Department, Inspur Group ICT for sustainable supply chain: • Based on Cloud Computing, Cloud Services, Big Data, IoT and other digitalized tools with integration of information and communication technologies, packaged service aiming food loss and waste could benefit the whole food value chain. • The ICT-based toolkit remarkably improves the efficiency of grain purchasing and marketing to reduce the post-harvest loss, which provides space to attain digitalization, visualization, standardization of grain supply chain, traceability and reduce the risk of grain reserves management. • The smart grain warehouse management system enables surveillance, temperature control, nitrogen conditioning, risk monitoring and alarming to prolong grain shelf life, lower the management cost, and maintain grain quality in grain warehouse, so as to reduce the food loss and waste. Ms. Hou Kaidi, Vice President, Pinduoduo E-commerce to reduce the loss of agricultural products • E-commerce platform focusing on agricultural production with cold-chain logistics network could improve procurement efficiency from smallholder farmers to consumers, well connecting transportation and retailing, contributing to food loss and waste reduction. Mr. Alexey Kravchenko, Economic Affairs Officer, Trade, Investment and Innovation Division, ESCAP Reducing food loss in international trade: • One measurable aspect of food loss is through border rejections due to non-compliance with regulations, including unnecessary delays and inconsistent decision making by border officials. Addressing unnecessary delays can also reduce food waste at retail and consumption level by prolonging shelf lives of food products. Streamlining boarder procedures both outward and inwards is crucial, however careful balance must be ensured because poor sanitary and phytosanitary measure implementation can spread diseases and pests. • Four ongoing studies have been started in the region trying to estimate the extent, causes and propose solutions for food loss due to international trade, and pilot countries includes India, Sri-Lanka, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.2362382392402412422432442452462482492503. Inclusive access to finance and use of digitization in market estimates to enable food loss reduction Ms. Yan Ruoru, Deputy General Manager, Grain, Cotton, and Edible Oil Department, Agricultural Development Bank of China For many farmers, particularly smallholders, lacking financial means to implement food loss-reducing investments such as better storage solutions is a major impediment. One of the key actions needed in the food system to reduce food loss is therefore to financial innovation and incentive mechanisms. Since 1994, the Agriculture Development Bank of China (ADBC) was set up as one of China’s Policy Banks with a set mandate to contribute to agricultural development and poverty alleviation. ADBC has introduced a loan system that covers every segment of the food supply chain, which includes a series of credit products to serve the whole industry of grains and oil in the processes of production, storage, purchase and sales, circulation, processing, supply etc. All these advancements have the potential to reduce food waste through making processes more efficient and streamlined. Furthermore, ADBC implement preferential credit policies to support and further incentivize reduction of grain waste and losses. Mr. Bai Chengyu, Director of UN Project Division III, the China International Center for Economic and Technical Exchanges (CICETE), Ministry of Commerce, China: To transform the food system, a better understanding of the food market will be needed to identify the causes of food loss and possible solutions. This will include how inefficient relations between supply and demand contributes to food loss. From the demand side, awareness raising is needed and the making of accurate consumption plans in advance can reduce food loss. From the supply side, in case food prices are undervalued, price adjustments are required; mismatch of demand and supply leads to loss and waste, which can be addressed by promoting more closely demand-drive production, including by using digital platforms to make agricultural product sales efficient and to mitigate asymmetric supply and demand information. Recent innovations in this area provide information to be used in big data calculations and AI-based food demand analysis to better predict demand and adjust production accordingly. Financial policy should be designed to support an efficient management mechanism between demand and supply side and establish direct links between the two sides. Furthermore, the supply chain system should be built on proximity to support locally produced commodities and avoid unnecessarily long transport, thus minimizing gaps in timing and distance.2362382402412422432442452462482492504. The “Grain Bank” solution to prevent food loss Mr. Zhang Chengzhu, General Manager, Gansu Huanxian County Xinliyuan Supply and Marketing Co. Ltd., Chairperson of Gansu Zefengxingcheng Agro-Products Farmer Cooperative: The Gansu Huanxian Xinliyuan Grain Bank operates a business model that has been proven to prevents loss of food and farmer’s income in several ways; by providing storage, credit and exchange solutions of agricultural products. Gansu Huanxian Xinliyuan Grain Bank" is a subsidiary of Gansu Huanxian Xinliyuan Supply and Marketing Co., Ltd. which does grain trade and processing business. The Company collaborates with Zefengxingcheng Farmer Cooperatives in this grain banking business. The business model was developed based on the basic function of regular banking and related management concepts but transformed into an agricultural operating method, which incorporates aspects of digital agriculture, finance, quality control, logistics, and safe, efficient storage. The basic idea is to provide cooperative member farmers with “banking” of physical products which allows deposit and exchange of grain such as flax, wheat, corn and also for fertilizers etc. Farmers can at any time go to any of the branches of the Bank to do an account withdrawal of the same product, or exchange them for other products and goods. The framework structure of the Grain Bank includes one head office and multiple branches; the head office is responsible for the county's general database, and is responsible for the settlement of many branches and depositors throughout the county. The branch is responsible for the collection and storage of wheat, flax, corn and other crops. It is also responsible for food banking services such as printing passbooks and exchanging goods. Since the establishment of this model in 2018, the number of depositors has grown with a net increase of more than 100 each year, and the present number of depositors in the Grain Bank has reached 832. The members store an average of 15 tons of grain per household per year and an annual storage volume of 12,000 tons; the cumulative grain storage is around 40,000 Tons, of which 30,000 tons are exchanged. The specific operation process of the bank looks as follows: Process 1: Determine the prices of product according to market prices. Process 2: Deposite the grain and issue passbook, Process 3: Exchange business. According to their needs, the farmers can go to any branch of the Grain Bank to extract rice noodle oil, fertilizers, seeds, etc. with their passbook, according to the balance of their account. The operation characteristics of food banks are 1. free deposits and withdrawals. Farmers can choose the type of grain storage according to their personal preferences. 2. Preserve and increase the value during downturns in market prices, and save the grain with interest. 3. The exchange is convenient, and the head office is connected to the convenience chain stores. Farmers can exchange different varieties of grain and oil or other daily necessities at the “grain and oil supermarket” opened by the grain bank system with their “passbook”. 3. Three advantages of the “Grain Bank” solution: (1) Advantages for farmers: 1.Increase farmers' income: Grain stored bears interest at a higher rate than commercial bank desopit rate. 2. Reduce grain loss: Grain Bank has advanced storage facilities thus prevented losses from storage by farmers themselves. 3.Guarantee of supply of commodities: The bank offers exchanges for daily necessities at the grain bank business point to meet the basic needs of farmers' daily life. (2) Advantages for food processing actors: low-cost access to raw materials for grain processing enterprises, reducing the financial pressure of purchasing raw materials; reducing raw material inventory and transportation costs. (3) For the government's advantages: the model can stabilize grain supply and demand, reduce risk, improve farmers' enthusiasm for growing grain, and maintain rural economic and social stability and national food security.2362382392402412422432442452462482492505: Enabling access to harvest loss-reducing machinery through Machinery Cooperatives Mr. Wang Haibin, President, Haibin Agricultural Machinery Specialized Cooperative, Liyang City, Jiangsu Province: Li Yang County Haibin Farm Machinery Professional Cooperative Association was one of the first cooperatives of its kind in China. The model allows member farmers to gain access to heavy agricultural machinery with multiple ways of reducing food loss at various stages of the production cycle and storage. By the end of 2020, the cooperative owned 85 pieces of agricultural machinery, including large and medium size tractors, rice transplanter, high-performance sprayers, rice harvester etc. The area covered by the cooperative includes 10 administrative villages in two towns. The annual production of processed rice is about 15,000 tons, with sales revenue of more than 90 million yuan and the agricultural machinery service income of 10 million yuan. To reach this point of their operations, the cooperative has benefited from a multi-channel approach of financing, including maximizing the use of subsidy policy for agricultural machinery and by making use of the loan policy issued by "Jiangsu Agricultural Financial Support Center" of the provincial Agricultural and Rural Affairs Department and loans from local financial institutions (commercial banks). The financing allowed adequate equipment of various types of machineries and improved ways of operation by the machinery cooperative, thus contributing to reducing food loss: In planting: 1. The cooperative gives members guidance on selection of suitable varieties of products. The grain varieties suits to local conditions, with high yield, consistency of maturity, lodging resistance to ensure good harvest and minimum loss before and after harvesting. 2. Support on scientifically proven efficient planting and mechanized transplanting etc., which are suitable to the specific crop varieties and soil conditions. Field Management 1. Selection of the right type of machinery, based on crops yield, height, maturity etc., and conduct a comprehensive inspection and maintenance of the machines. 2. Reasonable on-site adaptation of machinery. The machines and tools should be adjusted to make each part of the machine works to its best when cutting; 3. The cooperative supports sustainable use of fertilizer and water. In order to ensure the better growing of roots, and realize better harvesting conditions after operation in the later stage. 4. Choice of a suitable harvest time, based on weather, crop maturity and soil moisture content etc. Harvesting 1. Choose the right procedure and patch for harvesting. Adjust the cutting path to the situation of field and ridge; Adjust the operation route to the field shape and size of the field. 2. Standardize operation of machinery. Select suitable operation speed based on the conditions of crop and soil. Transportation and drying 1. Select the appropriate transport machinery, reduce transport frequency, standardize the transport operation, and prevent leakage. 2. Standardize management of drying room. Standardize drying operation, enhance moisture control, avoid food loss caused by management disorder or improper operation (such as fire). 3. Reduce the times of grain transportation after drying. Processing and storage 1. It is necessary to carry out comprehensive inspection and maintenance of the processing and packaging machinery on a regular basis to avoid the loss from broken or leaked rice. 2. Standardize the process of milling rice and grain storage. Eliminate the loss from comminution, damp and mildew of grain caused by mismanagement.237n/a

2021-07-22 12:12:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10137/145

0121710015151110411310312040100

Early on in the event we opened with simple games and established ground rules in simple terms so that people remained open-minded, engaged, contributed, and respected one anotherThere were no fights, no arguments, and we recognized the work and situation each individual who spoke worked around.Please adapt the principles to your local context. If the principles are enforced cut and paste, it may fall upon dear ears. The language is quite complicated and the regular person may not be able to understand it fully. That would be counterproductive because it is exclusive and not inclusive

NoWe invited city government leaders and concerned urban citizens to the dialogue. We had 5 city planning officials present and did not break out the plenary into smaller groups as there were only about 30 participants in total. Due to connectivity problems only 2 out of 5 cities were able to respond to some of our questions and participated in the discussions with the invited resource speakers.

234238239241242244246248249250251The focus of the dialogue was to find solution pathways in addressing urban hunger with a focus on collaborating with government leaders to consider implementing urban landscapes in city planning. We invited notable projects led by private and civil society as well as an urban planner who spoke about the urbanization of food to provide government leaders new ideas to consider as they plan their cities.235238239240241242244246248249250251There is a critical need for greater collaboration between all stakeholders--government, private sector, non-profit organizations, and civil society to integrate food and nutrition security into urban city planning and execution. It is unfortunate that we were not able express or commit to a plan of action to implement what was discussed but we continue to be in contact with these city governments to see if they may be interested to explore food systems in more depth.237238242246Some of the government representatives present held a view that they were implementing programs that were sufficient enough to address hunger in their cities. They shared some initiatives they were leading which aligned with what was shared by the speakers. However, this is contrary to the statistics that we shared at the beginning of the dialogue where 1/5 Filipinos in Metro manila are hungry.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/WhatsApp-Image-2021-07-13-at-1.52.02-PM.jpeghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/11Ctb1JIJJllKx7zh7--wai-BHy0W1Y8u/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/15vKmmJSgc4yW5msn__UEC8ITbcoWZrvA/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1rRCxzkmgp_I7g3q5aIYMxupjbQNTV-Pc/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1pF7Ad9EmZGEPWOwzwrbM81ac1NJF2pW0/view?usp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1MmIZLxF4D4NuQyfLsYB7ZAti2LLqpsBc/view?usp=sharing

2021-07-22 14:03:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20762/173

132712413721131517163111

The Independent Dialogue was organised adhering to many of the principles of the Summit including but not limited to supporting multi-stakeholder inclusivity, recognising the complexity of food systems around the globe that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which are set to become more frequent and intense over the coming decades. The Dialogue facilitated a discussion on solutions to be introduced under Action Track 5, in particular to the workstreams on environmental, social, and economic resilience and cross-cutting solutions. Moreover, the structure in which the Dialogue took place enabled discussants to build on the experiences and expertise of stakeholders working on the topic to gain further input on the roles of different stakeholders and multi-actor partnerships including government, the private sector, civil society, and local communities and to build on the technical capacity of key stakeholders working on the topic of climate. Complementing the work of other sectors, the Dialogue provided an opportunity to identify and explore entry points for integrating context-specific and holistic risk management approaches into national and international policies, plans, and processes and existing infrastructure as well as to integrate resilience-building among youth and women and the inclusion of gender and youth empowerment in planning and policy processes.The Dialogue opened a conversation among many stakeholders, some who directly work with the Summit and others who work with those whose livelihoods are threatened as a result of inconsistent food systems. Furthermore, keeping in line with the Principles of commitment, understanding complexity and respect, the Dialogue was also an opportunity to discuss the implications of climate-related human mobility for food systems, and connect to just recovery from COVID-19, and resilience-building in food systems through just transition as well as to share knowledge, experience, best practices, and lessons learned. The discussion further continued during the breakout groups that were designed to answer four key questions: What are solutions and challenges in addressing climate and disaster risks along the agricultural supply and value chain to build resilient food systems? What are solutions and challenges in addressing climate and disaster risks to ensure universal food access? What are solutions and challenges to harness existing or innovative finance mechanisms to enhance food system resilience? What are solutions and challenges for vulnerable agricultural communities and groups to access finance?i) Have a sound understanding of the Principles of Engagement and see how best it can be incorporated into the Dialogue ii) Invite a wide variety of stakeholders to participate in the discussion to ensure it is a rich and productive Dialogue iii) Effective and efficient use of time management which will ensure there is sufficient time for all stakeholders to engage and provide inputs - be it orally/ via other tools and mechanisms used. iv) Understand the context and sensitivities in which the Dialogue is taking place as well as the context and sensitivities that the area of discussion has upon the stakeholders. This would enable a more holistic approach to the discussion that would better incorporate the challenges and opportunities as well.

Yes

234240241242243244245246249251The Independent Dialogue organised on ‘Participatory and inclusive climate risk management for resilient and climate-friendly food systems’ under Action Track 5 aimed to achieve several objectives including: Gain further input on the roles of different stakeholders and multi-actor partnerships including government, the private sector, civil society, and local communities on addressing climate risks and vulnerabilities along the food production cycle and food supply and value chain. Identify through an inclusive and participatory process solutions to be introduced under Action Track 5, in particular to the workstreams on environmental, social, and economic resilience and cross-cutting solutions to build resilience of the food systems and ensure universal access to food. Build on the technical capacity of key stakeholders working on the topic of climate risk management, climate risk transfer and climate insurance, to build resilience of the food systems. Identify entry points for integrating context-specific and holistic risk management approaches into national and international policies, plans, and processes and existing infrastructure to strengthen food systems. Highlight and further explore the role of Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation Plans, other relevant processes and mechanisms under the UNFCCC, and the SDGs in ensuring universal access to food. Integration of resilience-building among youth and women and the inclusion of gender and youth empowerment in planning and policy processes. Discuss implications of climate-related human mobility for food systems. Connect to just recovery from COVID-19, and resilience-building in food systems through just transition. Share knowledge, experiences, best practices, and lessons learned.235240241242243244245246249251The Dialogue comprised keynote speakers and panellists including: Prof Saleemul Huq - Director, ICCCAD and AT5 leadership team Chair; Mr Lesley Ndlovu - CEO at ARC Ltd.; Mr Duncan Williamson - Founder, Nourish Food Systems; Daniel Stadtmüller - Team Lead and Senior Advisor, InsuResilience Global Partnership; Ruwani de Silva - Coordinator, Global Youth Forum on Climate Change and Mr Dennis Mombauer - Director Research and Knowledge Management, SLYCAN Trust. During the Dialogue as well as the breakout sessions the following findings emerged: Blended financing mechanisms could enhance small projects/initiatives locally owned by women and youth Systematic approaches need to be utilised for effective risk analysis Innovations could help to ensure food security including community gardens utilising vertical farming tools Enacting food as a public good could help to ensure universal food access Implementing climate risk profiling, using AI to tailor local weather patterns with soil/agricultural practices Empowering women’s agency and leadership can greatly enhance the development of resilience solutions Integrated approaches for sustainable soil management can facilitate regenerative agriculture and reap both economic and environmental benefits Community-based decision-making mechanisms and information systems are crucial for comprehensive risk management in food systems In addition to the above, the discussion also brought to light certain challenges in relation to climate risk management and food systems, which have been divided into four key areas as follows. Challenges in addressing climate and disaster risks along the agricultural supply and value chain to build resilient food systems Lack of information in the locality of the farmers leading to them selling their products at a lower price Distribution and less access to the actions for farmers Limited stakeholder participation and the lack of coordination between institution and its stakeholders The cost of the risk transfer solutions and its availability. Lack of Infrastructure and access to digital spaces. The lack of access to resilient seeds and the increase in the prices of agricultural produce Challenges in addressing climate and disaster risks to ensure universal food access Price monopolies in the market affecting small scale farmers and presenting barriers to compete both locally and internationally Lack of access to resources such as finance and technology. Lack of access to markets and market information Technological and technical knowledge gap in access between large and small farmers Agriculture sector taking a back seat during national decision-making Challenges to harness existing or innovative finance mechanisms to enhance food system resilience Lack of awareness or trust in available financial tools amongst farmers Lack of financial literacy amongst farmers and the capacity to use the tools Lack of access to digitised data and available data not being accessible due to language Lack of centralised data collection and dissemination Lack of trust in new/novel financial models, often as a result of previous mechanisms that have failed Lack of gender-disaggregated data to introduce products that would help address gender-specific vulnerabilities Challenges for vulnerable agricultural communities and groups to access finance? Co-financing barriers in the current available financial tools Poor financial systems and management Lack of trust in financial institutions due to past experiences and lack of data and information, which needs to be addressed by bringing all stakeholders together at all levels of discussion Conflict and climate impacts, in particular on pastoralists and migrants Poor household cash flow Informal and unregistered food producers not being part of formal support systems Disputes over land and unclear/contested land ownership Lack of loan repayment capacity236240241242243244245246249251Our key outcomes, actions to be taken and challenges are highlighted under four different questions that were answered during the session and are as follows. Challenges in addressing climate and disaster risks along the agricultural supply and value chain to build resilient food systems Implement policy changes towards more inclusive and participatory actions Build capacity of vulnerable communities by increasing the awareness of climate and disaster risks on food systems Ensure better coordination between the government and the ground level individuals and all stakeholders in general Build capacity on financial literacy of farmers and agricultural communities Establish proper early warning systems and entrust its sustainability and ownership to the community Conduct comprehensive research and develop tools to broaden research prospects Share knowledge and technology on innovations and global best practices including regenerative farming, mangrove restoration and agro-forestry that indirectly benefit agriculture; on alternative methodologies including hydroponics, micro irrigation etc that are not as water intensive and indigenous seed varieties Conduct evidence-based research and share with all stakeholders Encourage micro insurance and crop insurance among farming communities Challenges in addressing climate and disaster risks to ensure universal food access Providing a stable price to the farmer without a mediator to localise the food supply chain/ shorten the food supply chain Encouraging Farmers to do agriculture as per market demand and not on the anticipation of demand and also link food production with nutritional needs Conduct training for farmers to innovate and formulate new ideas Ensure fair trade approaches as well as capacity building on the importance of fair trade Implementation of a community level certification system Establishing strategic food reserves Adopt integrated agricultural systems Reduction of food waste/ excess sale harvest at a lower price Developing databases for food production Solutions to harness existing or innovative finance mechanisms to enhance food system resilience Capacity building on finance mechanisms and tools Introducing innovative ways of accessing finance Promoting and applying quick finance approaches Identification of farmer success stories and supporting them through positive reinforcement Providing special loans for farmers Providing blended finance mechanism options Capacity building of farmers and providing farmers with training and access to experts and advisors Encouraging production of high-yield agricultural crops Compiling a centralised and analysed database to put to ensure the more effective use of existing and new data that will drive innovative solutions Encouraging younger farmers and newer generations on the importance of pursuing agriculture Encouraging more private sector participation Solutions for vulnerable agricultural communities and groups to access finance Implementing government-lead processes for vulnerable communities to access funding. To also implement loan schemes that would enable the government to act or a guarantor when needed. Financial guidelines to ensure ease of access for communities that are not controlled by different actors Setting up other funding mechanisms to directly reach vulnerable communities Encouraging youth and young farmers to adopt agriculture and farming by collaborating with existing youth and women groups Making farmers active participants in workshops and capacity building programmes Encouraging public private partnerships Developing insurance products that represent issues and challenges of vulnerable agricultural communities Building capacity across the farming community to increase trust among insurance products Strengthening links between supply and value chain actors

2021-07-22 14:32:51204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22272/203

1506981

This Dialogue contributes to the work on strengthening multilateral cooperation on Sustainable Consumption and Production. The science is clear: human activities are putting extreme pressure on the planet. Our societies and economies are driving the three planetary crises the world is now facing: climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The common thread that runs through these global crises, which are jeopardizing every country’s prospects for sustainable development, is unsustainable production and consumption patterns. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to re-shape policies, business practices and consumer choices that are driving production and consumption patterns globally. Science-based solutions and policy instruments are required at all levels to build an inclusive and effective path for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. At the request of Member States, the One Planet network and the International Resource Panel developed the ‘Value-Chain Approach’, a methodology to identify key points of intervention within economic systems to reduce natural-resource use and environmental impacts through development of prioritised objectives. As part of this process, multi-stakeholder consultations take place this year and food systems were prioritized as one of the high-impact sectors. The analysis and dialogue help to identify where the opportunities for a shift to SCP exist, shape corresponding actions by building on current knowledge and available data and engage the relevant actors. This is aligned with the Summit’s Action Tracks 2 and 3 to which the methodology was also submitted. The purpose of these events was also to engage new stakeholders and encourage them to join the Summit, which was highlighted through a keynote address from Dr Martin Frick, the deputy to the special envoy to the Summit. Dr Frick introduced the Summit, its goals, link between the activities around the Summit and building inclusive policy environment to support food systems transformation, and the importance of SCP in building this inclusive policy environment.This Dialogue built on the work on catalysing science-based policy action on sustainable consumption and production and the food value chain analysis done to examine existing initiatives and policy solutions on sustainable food systems around the world. These workshops further provided an opportunity to share existing solutions addressing resource use and environmental impacts in the food sector and created interlinkages between initiatives and stakeholders to broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. Food, being one of the high impact sectors, was prioritised for our work to act with urgency to help shift food systems towards sustainable consumption and production patterns. The workshops also served as a platform to learn more about and commit to the process of engagement with the Summit, through an intervention of Dr Martin Frick, the deputy to the special envoy to the Summit. This Dialogue was organized to embrace multi-stakeholder cooperation as it comprised of representatives from private companies, civil society, governments, scientific and technical organisations, United Nations and intergovernmental organisations. The consultations worked to compliment the work of others by coordinating speakers with various expertise to provide views from different angles of the action tracks 2 and 3, followed by facilitated discussion amongst the attendees. Through the process of coordination, outreach, and dialogue – these consultative workshops aimed to build recognition and awareness amongst the participating experts. The Dialogue was facilitated in a way where attendees can share ideas and discuss challenges respectfully and in an open and trusting environment. The workshop reports from each of the consultative workshops focusing on different stages of the food value chains were shared with the participants for their feedback.The principles are a great comprehensive guidance to creating a successful workshop contributing to the UN Food Systems Summit.

Yes

234239240243244246248249250Strengthening the science-policy interface by adopting the value-chain approach is one of the key pillars in strengthening multilateral cooperation on Sustainable Consumption and Production. Building on the findings of the joint task group of the International Resource Panel and the One Planet network presented in the report “Catalysing science-based policy action on sustainable consumption and production: the value-chain approach and its application to food, construction and textiles”, the One Planet network held consultations throughout 2021 to collectively define priorities objectives for Sustainable Consumption and Production. The aim was to continue with the application of the value-chain approach in the high-impact sectors of food, construction and plastics and thereby ensuring its scientific foundation. These three sectors are prioritised based on the Fourth UN Environment Assembly Resolution, and the One Planet recommendations to the High-Level Political Forum. The value-chain approach is a methodology for science-based policy action on sustainable consumption and production. Its purpose is to identify key points of intervention within economic systems to reduce natural-resource use and environmental impacts caused by production and consumption, and to define prioritised objectives to transform the system. Critically, the value-chain approach goes beyond an understanding of where resource use and environmental impacts occur, to understand why this is happening and what the key points of intervention are for science-based policy action. Shaping clear priorities for the food sector Through consultation and collaboration, the Value-Chain Approach identifies where solutions already exist at key intervention points, and where there are gaps and opportunities, and defines a clear priorities that can transform the system. This participatory approach taps into the bodies of lay and practical knowledge that are collectively held among SCP practitioners, as well as ensuring their crucial buy-in for the implementation of prioritised objectives. Food sector was the focus of the first set of consultations series concentrating on innovative business and policy solutions, which was undertaken in April and May 2021 in the form of 5 expert workshops, each focusing on the prioritised stages of the food value-chain: - Food services and tourism, 8th April - Agricultural inputs, food traders and primary production, 15th April - Food processing/manufacturing and retail, 22nd April - Individual consumption, 29th April - Food-related policies and policy instruments, 6th May The objectives of these workshops were to socialise the findings of the report, present key messages, opportunities and challenges identified during the consultative workshops and engage with experts to contribute to the development of clear priorities for the food sector.235239240243244245246247248249250251The food value chain analysis showed that the middle stages of the food value chain -- controlled by food companies across trading, processing and packaging, retail and food services -- are structurally powerful and have a disproportionate influence across both primary production and final consumption. Actors at these stages have a huge impact on the activities at either end in determining both what food farmers produce and what food consumers buy. The analysis of the food value chain identified three core challenges: 1) How we produce food: The majority of natural-resource use and environmental impacts takes place during production. Changing production practices is critical to using resources more efficiently and sustainably, while causing less damage to the environment. 2) How much food we produce and consume: One-third of all food produced is either lost at the production, transportation or processing stages, or wasted downstream in the food at the retail, food service and consumption stages. 3) What types of food we produce and consume: Different types of food can embody large differences in the natural resources used and environmental impacts caused along the stages of the value chain including production processing, transportation, and disposal. The value chain analysis has shown that whereas the majority of natural resource use happens at the primary production stages, it is the structurally powerful actors in the middle stages of the value chain who are well-positioned to shift production practices. In the examples presented during the food value-chain consultations, most ideas around shifting production techniques involved capacity building of primary producers or facilitating access to finance. Missing, however, is a more holistic view of how the decisions made further downstream in the value chain (by traders, food processors and manufacturers, retails and food service providers) could systemically change the production patterns. The projects tend to focus on raising awareness around sustainability or increasing the capacity of farmers to produce sustainably without addressing the underlying constraints and bottlenecks inherent in the current economic system (e.g. short-term contracts, short-term profit concerns) instituted by the actors in the middle of the value chain. The importance of having the right policy environment in place was highlighted in all workshops. From the issue of financing for smallholder producers, to enabling policy environments which incite retailers to select local materials, to the procurement practices of governments and private entities. Procurement in particular was highlighted as a major opportunity to reduce environmental impacts through local sourcing, and increase consciousness around healthy eating. It was noted, however, that procurement rules are often voluntary and done piecemeal on a local basis. The importance of data and information flow within value chains is crucial to ensure accountability, traceability and an accurate picture of the impact of production practices. This necessitates a clear, science-based picture on the one hand, based on rigorous research and measurement. In terms of solutions, various technologies were proposed often as a way to shorten the distance between producer and consumer, and also to make sustainable (or unsustainable practices) more visible. Such technologies include online platforms, blockchain, etc. Multistakeholder initiatives were also proposed as a way to increase transparency and accountability across a broad range of actors. The incentives, however, need to be aligned so that the main actors in the middle of the value chains take these solutions on board. The incentive structure of the global food value-chain, derived from the current global economic system, does not promote sustainable consumption and production practices. Contracts between suppliers and buyers tend to be short term, and producers do not have a long enough time horizon to commit to more sustainable production practices. The incentives are geared towards the short term, in terms of the contractual arrangements and profits. If the cost of producing more sustainably falls on the producer, and their visibility of the value chain stops at their immediate buyer, there is not incentive to produce more sustainably. Guaranteeing longer contracts, or certain volume purchases, is necessary. There are examples of major players in the middle of the value chain putting in place initiatives to improve the situation, such as responsible sourcing quotas. Consumers are largely shaped by their food environment, and there is a need to address the paradox between actors at middle stages of the food value chain not providing healthy and sustainable food due to the lack of consumer demand, and consumers not being able to demonstrate this demand due to a lack of sustainable food choices. However it is important to note that plurality of reasons affect the supply of and demand for sustainable products. These could be but are not limited to market-driven demand; profitability and accessibility; social and cultural environment.236239240243244246248249250Consultative workshop on sustainable food value chain with focus on food services and tourism sector - 8th April The discussions of the workshop focused on existing initiatives of the tourism sector and have identified a number of enablers, challenges and gaps that exist at the food service stage of the food value chain, as well as its interlinkages with other stages, mainly that of primary production, individual consumption, as well as with policy environment. Opportunities and enablers - Establishing linkages between local producers and actors of the tourism sector provides multiple benefits. It gives market access for local farmers and the opportunity to diversify their production; and, on the other hand, allows the actors of the tourism sector to offer fresh, nutritious meals to their customers made from local products. - Sustainable procurement practices play an important role in establishing this link and maximizing local sourcing practices. These practices should not be applied in a way that disadvantages some famers over others. - Training of procurers as well as kitchen staff is essential in this process as it allows to minimize waste and maximize the value of the food served. - A greater opportunity exists when tourism sector actors not only purchase their products from local farmers, but establish long-term relationship with them, contributing to their training, logistics, access to innovation and technology related to such practices as agro-ecology, agrobiodiversity, avoidance of heavy pesticides and fertilizers and overall positively influencing the resource use and environmental impacts of the primary production and help diversify the offer. - Developing sustainable menus adapted to local requirements and training of kitchen staff on topics related to food waste, resource efficiency, sustainable diets, etc. undertaken in parallel with consumer awareness activities contributes to building the demand for such meals and improve the sustainability of food preparation. - Farm tourism is another opportunity to assure additional revenue for producers, as well as being an educational and awareness raising approach. - Repurposing surplus food has multiple simultaneous benefits: it helps to avoid food waste and supports local communities by redistributing good and nutritious food to those in need (link to circularity in the food sector) - Linking the issue of addressing food loss and waste as a way to reduce carbon footprint and improve cost efficiency is an important enabler for this topic to be addressed by the tourism sector more broadly. - Digitalization of data on food loss and waste, its monitoring and accessibility to actors of the tourism sector, including chefs and policy makers. - Making the economic case to tackle food loss and waste which results in positive return on investment is another opportunity to address it. Challenges and gaps - The burden of bearing the costs associated with sustainable production often fall on farmers, putting them in disadvantaged position. Adopting sustainable farming practices and being able to farm diverse local varieties of food should be economically viable for farmers for this to become common practice. - Prevention and reduction of food loss and waste remains a challenge for the tourism sector. - One Planet Sustainable Tourism Programme, through its Advisory Group on Food Loss and Waste in Tourism sector, has identified the following gaps: Absence of sectoral baseline on food waste and loss; Absence/lack of strategic vision on company level with milestones that could be transposed into actions plans locally; Lack of continuity in measurement of waste and lack of consistent annual reporting on progress; Punctual and non-recurring character of activities aiming at reducing food waste and absence of consistent follow up; and levers to address food waste and loss are not identified in comprehensive and systemic manner (lack of value chain and circular approaches, solutions such as sustainable procurement not always clearly identified and prioritized). Based on the gaps identified the Programme aims to develop the Roadmap on food loss and waste in tourism.236239240243244245246247248249250251Consultative workshop on sustainable food value chain focusing on agricultural inputs, primary production & traders - 15th Apr Through the discussion a number of enablers, challenges & gaps that exist at these stages were identified: - There is a high degree of consolidation in the agricultural input industry, with a small number of companies controlling inputs on which farmers depend. - Farmers and fishers are fragmented and find themselves in a weak position where they are compelled to accept the prices, standards and contract terms offered to them by food companies, with limited capacity to negotiate. Many farmers in traditional food systems suffer from a lack of physical and institutional infrastructure to improve productivity and profitability. - Traders, an important player in the food value chain, are the closest link to farmers. Depending on the commodity agricultural traders can be either highly consolidated (e.g. grain) or fragmented (e.g. palm oil). Big import/export companies are increasingly involved in other stages of the food value chain including production, processing & distribution. - Effective mechanisms for participatory and inclusive processes for policy development need to be rethought and established. They should be based on the real needs and realities of the stakeholders, especially farmers, to manage tradeoffs. These can be elaborated at local and regional levels to define the vision supported by concrete outcomes. - Public procurement, as a strong enabler of sustainable farming practices, should be leveraged. Potential is identified within school feeding programmes that procure food from agroecological farm, improving nutrition, educating and raising awareness, and contributing to the reduction of resource use and environmental impact of the primary production. - Certifications, connecting production and consumption stages, present an opportunity for systems change. Certifications should be streamlined and measures to reduce their costs adopted. - Addressing food loss and waste presents an opportunity in reducing resource use and environmental impact at primary production. - Farmer organizations/cooperatives play an important role in strengthening the voice of farmers and their negotiating power. - Place-based agroecology initiatives present an interesting opportunity as it gives the farmers access to the market and directly connects them with local restaurants and retail. - School gardens is also a way to educate consumers from early age and create the understanding and demand for sustainably produced food. Engaging young generations in farming is conducive to better adoption of new technologies and practices. - Access to finance is a key enabler. Microfinance programmes can facilitate financial inclusion of farmers and help them to transform and incorporate best practices. This also links to the need to educate the financial sector and bring the understanding of the farmers needs to be addressed through adequate financial offer. - Peer-to-peer learning among farmers and farm to farm collaboration has shown to be effective when accessing finance and adopting sustainable practices. - Adopting innovative farming techniques (such as micro-biome applications) may not be very profitable, but beneficial in terms of planetary health. Diverse tools and incentives need to be developed by the governments to support the farmers in adopting these innovative practices. - Transportation within the food value chain presents a significant bottleneck as it comprises a broad variety of means to be considered, is quite consolidated in some countries, and is crucial in determining the distances the food can travel. More focus should be put on the sector. - It is important to consider the balance of power between exporting and importing countries, where government usually tends to play a major role as an exporter of food commodities and private companies are the importer. Policy interventions should therefore vary depending on the context. The full list of opportunities and challenges identified during this workshop can be found in the workshop report attached as a Relevant Link.236239240243244246248249250Consultative workshop on sustainable food value chain focusing on food processing, manufacturing and retail - 22nd April 2021 Through the discussion a number of enablers, challenges and gaps that exist at these stages were identified. Opportunities and enablers - Support to regenerative farming techniques from the actors at processing and manufacturing stage of the food value chain presents an important opportunity to reduce the impact of resource use at the primary production. - Addressing food design through the decisions on what primary raw ingredients to use, how they are grown (e.g. regenerative agriculture) and how to turn them into a nutritious food product with reduced environmental impact is an opportunity to explore for processing and manufacturing companies. - Diversified approach to addressing food loss and waste at the retail stage is an important opportunity. Improved ordering strategy, stock management, product range, optimization of product lines are important entry points for retail in avoiding and reducing food loss and waste. - Repurposing and donating surplus food is another way for the retail industry to reduce emissions of the food value chain (i.e. circular economy). - Retail is in a strategic position to educate consumers and raise awareness on such issues as food loos and waste; sustainable sourcing and deforestation. This opportunity is strengthened through collaboration and definition of the same goals with other companies in the industry, the suppliers and other actors along the food value chain. - Retail is a very important player in the value chain for its power and interactions with other value chain players. Some of the solutions to reduce food loss and waste have been through setting clear targets and making the economic case; contractual arrangements with suppliers and allowing for greater flexibility of contracts between suppliers and buyers; better collaboration between the different players; finding collaborative ways to prevent food loss and waste; repurposing crops that don’t meet cosmetic standards; connecting food banks with upstream and downstream players; and supporting the adaptation of new technologies. Challenges and gaps - Even though, the analysis has shown that the actors at the middle stages of the food value chain are consolidated and vertically integrated, 70% of the food trading, processing, manufacturing and retailing is comprised of Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Most of these SMEs are not supported by the policy environment, especially in developing countries. - Credible certification is a challenge for the actors along the food value chain. This problem can be addressed through pre-competitive collaboration based on internationally acknowledged documents. - Affordability of sustainable food remains a challenge as it includes costs such as for certification that mainly falls burden on the primary producers. These costs have to be reflected by other actors in the supply chain but also other stakeholders like NGOs or financial institutions. All of them have to commit to similar actions so the burden is not just on the growers but all relevant stakeholder in the agricultural sector. - Policy environment that enables the retail and processing and manufacturing industry to source sustainable products that are not linked to deforestation is needed. - Fragmentation of initiatives and solutions makes it difficult to understand what works and where, which reflects on funding opportunities. Leveraging multi-stakeholder collaborations and platforms to identify solutions is one of the ways to address this issue.236239243244246248249250Consultative workshop on sustainable food value chain focusing on Individual Consumption of Food – 29/04/2021 Through the discussion a number of enablers, challenges and gaps that exist at these stages were identified: - While crucial, information dissemination and consumer awareness raising alone are not sufficient to lead the changes in practices and behaviors that are needed for sustainable consumption and production (SCP). They need to be accompanied by more structural changes at different levels including more equitable and inclusive long-term policies and regulations, to trigger this change and shift in the underlying consumption preferences. - Furthermore, this needs to be complemented with science-based behavior change techniques. Particular opportunity for long-term behaviour change in consumption patterns lies in school feeding programmes (public procurement as an enabler) and education, ensured through government-led efforts. These provide a captive setting where changes in consumption practices can be triggered through the nurturing of core values related to sustainability of food from the young age. - Consumer voice, including that of the most vulnerable, needs to be properly included in research, policy discussions, solutions development and decision-making processes. Consumers can be empowered to manifest their demands in different ways – such as by advocating for consumer rights, and by helping shape regulation. - Key success factors of the most important food movements and trends today include a strong engraining into people’s core values (which are powerful triggers for action), strong leadership, cooperation with local government structures and, in many instances, robust engagement and buying from producers. On the other hand, there are important barriers for the impact size and duration of such movements, including having considerably less power than entities with political or economic interest to maintain the status quo, competing values and constraints within consumers, the wide range of possible issues to be addressed, availability of resources, and regular access to communication channels. - Opportunity for long-term behaviour change in consumption patterns lies in school feeding programmes (public procurement as an enabler) and education. These provide a captive setting where changes in consumption practices can be triggered through the nurturing of core values related to sustainability of food from the young age. - Implementation of science-based climate targets for food service providers as well as a consumer facing labels for meals that are more climate friendly is an interesting opportunity. - Practical co-operation through direct producer-consumer linkages, including the adoption of innovative technologies to connect producers/retailers and consumers is another way to trigger the shift to sustainable production and consumption (SCP). - Localised solutions, such as shorter food value-chains, the promotion of local food and introduction of participatory local-based labels, involving consumers, farmers, local authorities and sellers, show promising results and present an opportunity for the shift to SCP. - Working with the actors of the food value chain that are setting the norms and values, can be an enabler for the shift in consumer behaviour and shifts the supply and demand towards sustainably produced food products. A commitment approach from these actors, especially those in the middle stages, to supply sustainable products is an enabler to assure the raise in the demand for these products. The challenge remains that commitments are voluntary, and thus no institution has a mandate to deliver accountability. - Engaging with chefs in order to increase the availability of sustainable meals and raise awareness among the food service industry as well as consumers, has shown promising results. The full list of opportunities and challenges identified during this workshop can be found in the workshop report attached as a Relevant Link.236239240243244246248249250Consultative workshop on sustainable food value chain focusing on Food-related Policies and Policy Instruments – 6/5/2021 The analysis of the policies and policy instruments reported under 12.1.1 have allowed to conclude that there is a concentration of policy measures at the two ends of the food value chain. Nearly 60% of the measures proposed at either input/production phase or consumption phase. This highlights a gap in measures at the middle stages of the value chain, the stages that shape how we produce and how and what we consume. Through the discussion a number of enablers, challenges and gaps that exist at these stages were identified: - Inclusive and participatory approach in policy making that is adapted to local circumstances is essential. Policies should take into account the needs and realities of all the actors to understand interdependencies and avoid tradeoffs in order to define adequate measures. Holistic lens can help deploy more integrated food policies - addressing interrelated issues across economic, social & environmental dimensions. Participatory governance mechanisms that bring together different food system actors and connect actors from different food agendas are key. - Most policies are sectoral, and there is an urgent need to move away from working in silos towards more integrated policies that deliver simultaneously on economic, environmental, health, climate mitigation adaptation, social and cultural objectives. - There is a need to work together towards transformational change of food systems. The current model is built on an industrial model of production based high-input use and economies of scale, which has led us to land degradation and pollution. The transformational change requires a food systems approach encompassing changes in production systems; changes in knowledge generation and transmission, with the emphasis on the co-creation of knowledge; shift in social and economic relations; changes in institutional frameworks and regulatory and financial instruments. - An agro-ecological approach has potential to transform food systems to be more sustainable as it enables us to rethink the food systems and go beyond trying to marginally increase the efficiency of the current food production model. - Value-chain approach is a science-based methodology that can be used to prioritise action within a broader systems approach. - There is an opportunity in merging climate and biodiversity policies and not to design them separately to optimize impact as well as ensure coherency across all actors in the food value chain. This would reinforce solutions targeting pressure points and accelerate the transition to sustainable food systems - Minimum price guarantee policies for socio-biodiversity products are important for countries with several biomes, since biodiversity products in these biomes are concentrated among smallholders with limited access to markets. - Sustainable food public procurement policies are key instruments for the shift to SCP patterns, both in developed and developing countries. It is important to highlight their capacity to achieve multiple benefits to tackle 3 pillars of sustainability: social, economic, environmental and ability to put forward issues of nutrition, health, and biodiversity preservation. - Food procurement programmes guaranteeing a certain percentage of purchases for smallholders in organic agriculture is another opportunity that has proved important to foster small-holder agriculture. This could also be aligned with various national programmes, such as school feeding programmes. - In terms of governance, it is important to foster dialogue between food value chain stakeholders, through, for example, technical committees implemented at state or city-level governments. It also important to delineate which actor should be responsible for the leadership of national and multi-stakeholders initiatives, and how to disseminate the practices across municipalities. The full list of opportunities and challenges identified during this workshop can be found in the workshop report attached as a Relevant Link.237239240243244249250Around the issue of food waste, there were several initiatives presented around the redistribution of unused or unwanted food. These typically involve re-purposing or redistributing charitably. On the one hand many see these initiatives as a win-win situation whereby food is not lost and it even creates economic and/or social benefits. Others, however, point out the need to look deeper at the question of why there is so much unwanted and unused food in the first place. Where along the value chain might these issues be addressed? For example in the processing and packaging, or marketing of food. It was pointed out that in order to diagnose and fix the systemic problems of the global food value chain, it is imperative to have all relevant stakeholders at the table. These food value chain consultations, while participatory and inclusive, were lacking some voices such as smallholder producers and farmers associations. It is important to talk to and hear from them as well as those who are making the actual policy or business decisions.

2021-07-22 14:41:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22759/1113192526313541515457667071757785869193103108109110116122124131136137146147150151152158162166167172176177190192194

33112215121129110693191112

Act with urgency: we integrated urgency into the framing of the process, brought together initial insights to use during the workshop, and focused on moving to action throughout. Commit to the summit: we encouraged people to really share honestly, and worked hard to create a safe space for a wide range of opinions to come together; we encouraged new connections between participants. Be respectful: we agreed on ground rules including listening, and letting everyone have the chance to speak when comfortable to do so. Recognise complexity: we were operating at the intersection of a number of issues - equal access alongside nutrition and sustainability; we encouraged people to explore different angles and perspectives around the same issue - with varying scenarios across availability and affordability. Engage multi-stakeholder inclusivity: we included participants from the business community, funding and civil society. Complement the work of others: we gathered and built on interview insights from a range of stakeholders; we encouraged people to highlight what was already being done. Build trust: we encouraged people to share their motivations for joining the session and any tensions they were feeling; our icebreaker activity gave people a chance to meet each other on a human level.We actively sought to engage different perspectives across sectors, size of organisation, type of activity, and geographical focus. Honorariums were offered to support different kinds of people to participate. We asked if anyone had any access needs beforehand.Draw out different perspectives - this includes making time to talk individual people through the proposed process beforehand to increase their willingness to engage. Ask your participants if they need any support to be able to contribute. Provide a variety of opportunities for people to contribute their perspectives and insights to cater to different styles of communication. Consider providing honorariums for participants that can’t otherwise engage. Explore a longer process using a number of different tools and approaches to support a deeper exploration of the topic and key actions going forward.

NoWe designed and ran an “Action Sprint” process: time-bound, dynamic, interactive and creative, and bringing together a deliberately diverse group of people from different organisations, communities and geographies, in order to: (1) gain a deeper understanding of each other’s perspectives on the challenge, raise levels of ambition and explore a shared vision; and (2) unlock transformative action, by exploring inspiring examples and enablers of positive change, and identifying potential routes to transformative action for participants and more broadly. We researched and invited a wide range of participants, balancing participation across business and civil society, including food brands, manufacturers, retailers and startups, food innovation funders and supporters, behaviour change non-profits, small-scale community organisations, food justice entrepreneurs, chefs, culinary arts researchers and more. The online nature of the process meant we could bring together people from different geographies (including the US, the UK and mainland Europe, and India). It also meant that each participant had an equal voice in the discussions, regardless of the very different sizes and scales of the various organisations they represented. The process itself was designed to be both sufficiently structured to respect participants’ time investment and reach the stated objectives; and open and flexible enough to adapt to the direction of the discussions and insights generated. The facilitation was also designed to build trust and create a safe space for different perspectives, offering multiple ways to contribute ideas, insights, questions and observations throughout; for example, the virtual workshops included a combination of plenary sessions, discussions in pairs and small groups, individual reflection and options to comment through the online chat facility. Throughout the process we used system change tools, such as the Three Horizons model, to help people build a shared language and framing for exploring the problem and help make the complexity of the conversation manageable, while allowing a depth of analysis. The Action Sprint generated, gathered and shared insights in various ways throughout the process, including: preliminary interviews and survey; two interactive online workshops two weeks apart; a small amount of research and small group discussions by participants in between workshops; mid-process interviews to build on findings from the first workshop; a final feedback survey and interviews; and a series of blogs to recap and share the insights being generated throughout the process for the benefit of participants and the wider public - all of which was published on a dedicated Futures Centre Live Research page where participants and other interested stakeholders could contribute their comments.

234238239244248Increasing the proportion of plant-based food people eat is one of the crucial steps towards more sustainable, healthy diets and there is huge excitement, investment and momentum around plant-based innovation in Europe and the US. However, that innovation is not necessarily well-aligned with ensuring that nutritious, sustainable food is widely affordable, accessible and desirable to a wide range of people and communities. As it stands, plant-based innovation is not delivering sustainable nutrition for all. What if we could harness the energy around plant-based innovation to help catalyse the transformations in the food system that are urgently needed? What kinds of innovation, in the widest sense, do we need to deliver a healthier, more sustainable and, crucially, more equitable food system, from new approaches to innovation and new business models, to cultural and mindset shifts? How might plant-based innovation help drive that ‘just transition’ of diets in Europe and the US?235238239241244248This Dialogue identified: 1. Six key solution areas for plant-based innovation to contribute to a just transition to healthy, sustainable diets in the US/Europe - innovations that: a. enable us to mainstream the use of a greater diversity of healthy, sustainable, plant-based foods and ingredients as well as preparation methods and processes b. embed, democratise and improve how much we value skills, knowledge and awareness about healthy, sustainable plant-based foods c. improve the short AND longer-term affordability of healthy and sustainable plant-based foods d. bring people at all income levels closer to healthy and sustainable plant-based foods and without stigma e. increase the diversity of people, in the broadest sense, in the plant-based movement f. generate business models that create and distribute value more evenly 2. An interconnected set of considerations for approaches to plant-based innovation, to address as a whole, in order to help catalyse a just transition to better diets: a. Address the challenges holistically, avoiding trading off one aspect against another b. Design/test for - and commit to - scaling up, at speed c. Cater to more different individuals and communities and unmet needs d. Look beyond the product level, towards: Creating genuinely equitable business models; Changing eating behaviours for the better; Driving and supporting mindset and cultural shifts e. Decentralise access to good food f. Empower people through food skills and knowledge 3. Enablers for more transformative kinds of innovation: a. Breaking out of our “innovation bubbles” to develop better ideas more in line with what the world needs b. Rethinking partnerships to build in more ambition and make the best use of respective capabilities c. “Matchmaking” to drive impact, including innovating where it’s needed the most and supporting those who already offer a solution d. More collective voice and coordination across existing smaller-scale innovators e. Combining the best of the past (eg recipes) and the present (eg science) to go faster f. Supporting some innovations as bridges to a better place if not our ultimate, ideal solution g. Advocating for policies, subsidies, regulation etc that recognise the connections between health, nutrition, food and the environment 4. Some areas for further exploration and discussion: a. Tipping current innovations beyond incremental and towards their transformative potential b. Embedding innovation into strategies for greater food equity c. Ensuring a collaborative “ecosystem” of innovators236238239241244248Key solution areas for plant-based innovation to contribute to a just transition to healthy, sustainable diets in the US/Europe: 1. Innovations that enable us to mainstream the use of a greater diversity of healthy, sustainable, plant-based foods and ingredients as well as preparation methods and processes (eg fermentation) - providing the right enabling conditions and incentives on farms, in homes, on menus and on store shelves. (eg UK brand Hodmedods work with British farmers to build commercially viable supply chains for forgotten local pulses and grains) 2. Innovations that embed, democratise and improve how much we value skills, knowledge and awareness about healthy, sustainable plant-based foods - from home cooks to school curriculums, mainstream professional training and qualifications (in culinary arts, agriculture, food science and healthcare…), local and national government, and food businesses. (eg The University of West London’s Undergraduate degree in Food and Culinary Management integrates sustainability and nutrition throughout; Charlie Cart is a self-contained mobile mini-kitchen that enables cooking classes to take place anywhere, from schools to libraries) 3. Innovations that improve the short AND longer-term affordability of healthy and sustainable plant-based foods (and that reflect the true cost of unhealthy, unsustainable foods) in mainstream retail and food service, removing price barriers to longer-term behaviour change regardless of household income. (eg UK retailer The Co-op has reduced the price of its own-brand plant-based products to match animal-based alternatives; prescription programmes - such as Wholesome Wave and Rose Vouchers - enable low-income families to buy more fresh produce) 4. Innovations that bring people at all income levels closer to healthy and sustainable plant-based foods and without stigma, whether it’s growing, cooking or eating; and whether it’s about physical proximity/access or improved general visibility and transparency of the foods (this could be business models, community initiatives, communications or digital approaches). (eg Heru Urban Farming in St Louis in the US grows healthy, fresh produce for the local community, especially the most food insecure, while also providing education and training on growing, cooking and healthy living). 5. Innovations that increase the diversity of people, in the broadest sense, in the plant-based movement: products, meals, brands etc. that appeal to a broader range of people and communities 6. Business models that create and distribute value more evenly. Plant-based innovation alone can only achieve so much, however well-designed and well-intentioned. To push beyond the limits and failings of our current economic system (that drives so many of the inequalities related to food and diets), plant-based innovation needs to be part of broader strategies for reducing inequality and business models for sharing value more evenly.236238239241244248Interconnected considerations for approaches to plant-based innovation to help catalyse a just transition to better diets. To be more transformative, that innovation needs to: Address the challenges holistically, avoiding trading off one aspect against another (eg human health vs the environment) or ignoring some issues altogether (eg living wages for food workers). Design/test for - and commit to - scaling up, at speed, because the challenges are urgent, and we need rapid positive change at scale. Scale can happen in different ways: it might mean many similar innovations or activities joining up more effectively, not just one innovation becoming “bigger”. Cater to more different individuals and communities and unmet needs. Successful innovations often leave people behind, who are considered too hard to reach, or are just less important or visible to those doing the innovating. For a just transition and equal access to good diets, innovation must cater to more parts of society and do more to address everyone’s unmet needs around healthy, sustainable eating. Look beyond the product level, considering how innovations sit within and affect the bigger picture of what’s needed. This includes: - Creating genuinely equitable business models, whether from the ground up or by transforming what we already have (eg looking beyond the usual funders/investors to new partners with an interest in similar outcomes); and, especially important, ensuring food workers earn enough to afford good food. - Changing eating behaviours for the better, and at scale, based on a solid understanding of where people are starting from. - Driving and supporting mindset and cultural shifts, including within specific target groups - recognising and working with the fact that this could take time. Decentralise access to good food making it more available out of hours, out of town, or for isolated/less mobile consumers, and easier to grow some fresh produce at home or nearby. Empower people through food skills and knowledge, enabling them to grow food and cook more from scratch, understand more about what they’re eating, and help others to do the same (eg skills sharing between chefs). This is not meant as a definitive, exhaustive list (or a completely novel one). The value lies in treating these considerations as an interconnected set to help ensure innovation is truly transformative, and/or in understanding which area we can be best at, while supporting others to act on the remaining areas (and certainly without undermining them). They can generate useful prompt questions/challenges: Does my approach to innovation truly live up to all of these considerations? Am I failing on any of them? Where might I be able to do more?236238239241244248Enablers of more transformative kinds of innovation: - Breaking out of our “innovation bubbles” to develop better ideas more in line with what the world needs: more open innovation processes (eg bringing together young entrepreneurs, academia and civil society as well as business); more inclusive innovation to drive equality in who participates (eg less-heard voices and less catered-to communities). - Rethinking partnerships: to build in more ambition and make the best use of respective capabilities - working with those who can take our innovations to scale in different ways, help us share knowledge and information more effectively, distribute our products/services, or help make them more affordable… - “Matchmaking” to drive impact, including innovating where it’s needed the most, or supporting those who already offer a solution to my problem (rather than competing or reinventing). - More collective voice and coordination across existing smaller-scale innovators, such as community-based initiatives and entrepreneurs (often overstretched and underfunded) to share skills and resources, and demonstrate collective impact and value. Perhaps starting with a national union of community initiatives? - Combining the best of the past and the present to go faster: drawing on existing/traditional foods, recipes, cooking techniques and knowledge together with today’s science, technologies and insights, to reach positive impact faster and without reinventing the wheel. - Supporting some innovations as bridges to a better place if not our ultimate, ideal solution (eg recipe kits as a stepping stone towards more scratch cooking). - Advocating for policies, subsidies, regulation etc that recognise the connections between health, nutrition, food and the environment.236238239241244248Reflections, personal actions, and questions to explore further: - Tipping current innovations towards their transformative potential: for example, meat alternatives have the potential to keep people eating badly, or to help drive a mainstream shift to more plant-based, healthier diets. How can we influence this? Whose responsibility is it? - Embedding innovation into strategies for greater food equity: The food industry has a big opportunity to improve many people’s ability to afford good food, by ensuring all its own workers earn living incomes. It’s difficult for any affordable innovation strategy to be credible if the organisation doesn’t pay living wages. Who’s doing this well and supporting this message, and what can be learnt or replicated from that? - Ensuring a collaborative “ecosystem” of innovators: Whose responsibility is it to lead the transformation we need? How do we best combine top-down and bottom-up approaches? How can innovators, with different audiences, areas of expertise, scales, perspectives and visions, work alongside one another, and support one another to all move towards more transformative action? Who or what can facilitate this?237238239241244248This Dialogue generated some areas of divergence as well as important questions that were either not resolved or not addressed in depth (eg due to time constraints) and therefore merit further exploration and discussion. These include: - Food system change vs broader economic system (and affordability vs incomes): To what extent can we tackle the issues within the food system, when so many of the issues stem from our wider economic system? How far can innovation go to be transformative when operating within the constraints of the dominant economic model? For example, many food workers’ incomes are too low to afford healthy, sustainable diets. The corresponding solutions could be more about the wages that food businesses pay, than about the affordability of their products. - Increasing the emphasis on the need for a just transition: The question of just transition wasn’t explored in great depth, and was quite a new aspect of the conversation for many of our participants. How do we raise awareness of the need for just transitions in the food system across audiences and stakeholders, improve people’s understanding of what just transition means and could look like, and enable it to become part of more people’s remit to actively consider and support it, regardless of their role, organisation and sector? - But also… who has the right to talk about (food) justice, or benefit from driving it? To what extent should businesses play a role in delivering food equity and justice or in supporting vulnerable people for example? How much should businesses benefit from others’ ideas for improving access to healthy, sustainable diets (if at all), particularly when it is felt by some stakeholders that those businesses could be responsible in part for some of the challenges? This Dialogue surfaced divergence around different potential roles as well as the right to shape more equitable access to better diets. - Consumer choice vs other influences on diets: Is the question really about changing the healthy, sustainable options available to people, or about addressing the incentives for eating unhealthy, unsustainable options? - Aligning or combining different efforts in service of shared goals. To what extent can the shared goal of equal access to healthy sustainable diets enable different perspectives to be reconciled, build trust between different stakeholders and support co-operation? How to enable many different players to work together or support one another to all move towards transformative action? What would it look like if innovators with different perspectives and expertise were able to make their best contribution to the challenges in mutually complementary ways? What could enable this to happen?

2021-07-22 14:53:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17654/192651535457667071757785869193103108109110116131137146147151166167172177192

37152213111833711132813134

Act with urgency: brought together initial insights to work from during the workshop. Commit to the summit: we encouraged people to really share honestly, create a safe space for a wide range of opinions to come together; encouraged new connections. Be respectful: ground rules – listening and encouraging participation and sharing; recognise complexity, operating at the intersection of a number of issues across nutrition and sustainability, encouraged people to explore different angles and perspectives around the same issue. Engage multi-stakeholder inclusivity: business community, civil society, research, farmers. Complement the work of others: built on interview insights; encouraged people to highlight what was already being done, build trust, encouraged people to share their motivations for joining the session and identify areas of shared action and alignment.We actively sought to engage different and diverging perspectives, we asked if anyone had any access needs beforehand and we made multi-language content available.Prepare well. Have a clear facilitator agenda. Do background research ahead of time. Select diverse participants with differing perspectives, but who can listen to others. Ensure a wide range of voices are heard. Listen to what is being said underneath what is stated and paraphrase where necessary to check you have heard right.

Yes

234238240242243244245248249‘Bioprotection’ includes biocontrol technologies in agriculture and has uses in agriculture, forestry and public health. It protects against unwanted organisms e.g. pests and pathogens and is found in nature/are nature identical if synthesised. Biocontrol could reshape agricultural practices to be nature positive, reduce pesticide use, supporting biodiversity and regenerative farming practices supporting soil health and carbon sequestration. Bioprotection aids integrated pest management and has benefits in nature based solutions for agriculture to reduce pesticide use, supporting ambitions of legislation e.g. the EU Green Deal. What is biocontrol? Globally, terminology is unclear with lots of terms used. IBMA Product categories within the scope of “Bioprotection” include 4 categories which are the same as the French legally defined list for “biocontrôle”: • Semiochemicals are emitted by plants, animals and other organisms for intra-species and/or inter-species communication targeting specific and non-toxic mode of action, such as pheromones affecting behaviours of pests. • Microbials are based on microorganisms e.g. bacteria, fungi, protozoans, viruses, viroids, mycoplasmas and may include entire microorganisms, living and dead cells, associated microbial metabolites, fermentation materials and cell fragments. They outcompete pests within a crop. • Natural substances consist of >1 component from nature, e.g. plants, (micro) algae, animals, minerals, bacteria, fungi, protozoans, viruses, viroids and mycoplasmas. They’re found in nature/are nature identical if synthetised. This excludes semiochemicals and microbials. • Invertebrate Biocontrol Agents (IBCAs) (‘macrobials’) are natural enemies e.g. insect, mite and nematode species controlling pests through predation or parasitism. Currently IBMA doesn’t include, within the scope of “Bioprotection”, technology where there is no regulatory pathway or policy decision. Once policy decisions are published, technologies are considered for inclusion. Bioprotection may be a preferred pest management solution as it’s non-pathogenic to humans and doesn’t contribute to antimicrobial resistance development for human or veterinary pathogens. Bioprotectants are natural and minimally impact the environment. Natural substances and semiochemicals have degradation pathways or are inert; microbials have existing ecosystem mechanisms to balance populations; they’re usually specific to target organisms. They may cause minimal negative effects to non-target organisms, ecosystems and the environment because any negligible negative impact would be transient, resulting in no lasting reduction in biodiversity; indeed, bioprotectants often contribute to ecosystem services. Contextually, this work is timely as agriculture is shifting fast with the climate emergency, rising focus on soil health and biodiversity, and new EU and UK legislation where policy agenda is moving focus to ecosystem services and natural capital values. This means both food businesses and suppliers are actively building nature-friendly farming into strategies. Biocontrol could support food companies and growers to reach outcomes. However, it can be poorly understood outside of horticulture. It may face barriers to adoption from lack of knowledge, limited practical experience, European Common Agricultural Policy funding structure and inertia, with current profitable practices fitting with existing farming operations. The workshop addresses current biocontrol uses; opportunities/issues in emerging uses and identifies how to drive uptake of practices supporting biodiversity and soil health while being safe and productive. The audience included farmers, food businesses, policymakers, agricultural service providers. The geographical scope is Europe with a focus on arable farming. With ~ 80% of European farming under arable cropping and 20% in horticulture, upscaling nature positive solutions in arable farming is vital. Biocontrol is an existing solution and well-used in horticulture and speciality crops. Upscaling in arable requires adaption by in field learning and development.235238240242243244245248249Why is biocontrol relevant for the future food system? Why are we having this conversation now? The world is shifting its focus toward forms of agricultural production that are healthier for both people and planet, and support the restoration of our environment. The 2020s have brought increasing shifts across policy, legislation and corporate strategies toward nature positive farming, with a focus on biodiversity restoration and regenerative and agroecological farming practices. Signposts include the EU Green Deal, its Farm to Fork Strategy and the UK 25 Year Environment Plan and Agriculture Bill. Government support payments for farmers will increasingly favour nature positive practices. Clear signals from business, for example from food service giant Compass, to the world’s largest retailer, Walmart, to major commodity producers such as Cargill, target regenerative agriculture as a key means to deliver their climate, net zero and sustainability strategies. Reductions in pesticide use are flagged in the legislative and policy frameworks above. Soil health is a key target for maintaining resilient productivity in the face of climate change impacts such as more extreme weather, so methods of pest management that protect the soil biome will play a significant part in future agricultural solutions. In short, agriculture will need to incorporate different practices to shift away from the needs of the 20th Century and meet the deepening challenges of the 21st Century. Biocontrol can contribute to agroecological practices and support resilient nature positive farming. It keeps biodiversity in the soil which contributes to plant health, and allows for reduced chemical inputs as part of integrated pest management programmes. Examples presented included the production of apple orchards, vineyards and arable crops such as wheat, barley, rapeseed and other crops such as corn and potatoes and beets. Opportunities identified in case studies presented included the improvement of biodiversity and reduction in chemical pest management. Adoption of decision-making tools allowed for optimisation of the use and timing of chemical products application, and the introduction of biocontrol, thus reducing the amount of chemical plant health management required for arable crops such as rapeseed and wheat. This has enabled the farmers to market their crops under High Environmental Value (HVE) labels which align with the strategies and preferred buying practices of many food companies. The farmers note that this shift in practices has also increased their reputation within the agriculture and food sector and many stakeholders want to see the on farm example of change. Financial benefits do not flow from a reduction in costs, as the biocontrol products costs more, but from the ability to access labels and standards such as GlobalGap and HVE premiums. This also aligns with the preferred buying standards of food companies and supports their strategic commitments to reduce pesticide use, and their ability to communicate their achievements to consumers. Other farmers identified the potential for biocontrol as an element of shifts in agricultural practices in response to new climate change challenges. Farmers shifting their practices noted that the shift comes at a cost, so to remain profitable produce needs to be marketed at a higher price, if not through an accreditation such as HVE in France, through higher purchase prices from food companies or traders or government support.236238240242243244245248249What can biocontrol deliver? In creating a sustainable and healthy food system, reducing the pressure on the environment is key. As a non-chemical and targeted input, biocontrol can offer a systemic and balanced solution for sustainable agriculture. The effect of plant protection methods on biodiversity and health are now at the centre of political and technical discussions. In face of the upcoming revision of the Sustainable Use Directive, a milestone within the implementation of the Green Deal objectives, it’s essential to explore sustainable alternatives. As a non-chemical and targeted input, biocontrol offers a systemic and balanced solution for sustainable agriculture. Biocontrol acts within the farm ecosystem of life cycles, insects’ behaviour and the influence of agronomic practices on plant health. It thereby becomes a key enabler of the European Green Deal, particularly for the Farm-to-Fork objectives. Evidence of the role that biocontrol can play in sustainable agriculture, particularly in terms of benefits for biodiversity, was presented to the dialogue, based on a report from the Institute for European Environmental Policy (link to report below). Their literature review examines definitions around biocontrol, the literature on benefits with regard to biodiversity, soil and human health, current efficacy levels and market position, and potential wider impacts on farm economics and climate considerations. The report states that “…biocontrol has an advantage in its overall long lasting effects, which in itself has a positive knock-on effect on biodiversity and crop resilience. Biocontrol opens a virtuous circle generating more biodiversity and more resilient agroecological systems.” The report notes key evidence in the following areas: • Biocontrol has recognised potential to support the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, particularly in the framework of Integrated Pest Management and in combination with organic production. Reducing the overall use of chemical pesticides has widely acknowledged benefits for biodiversity. • Biocontrol has evolved into being a targeted measure, with little adverse effects on non-targeted fauna and flora. • The positive interplay between biodiversity and soil health is an area where biocontrol can play a key role. The living organisms in the soil create a vital living ecosystem, which can, among other functions, filter potential pollutants and sustain healthy plant growth. The reviewed studies indicated benefits of biocontrol both in decreasing chemicals reaching the soil and creating favourable states for soil microbes. • The use of biocontrol can lower negative impacts on human health. From farmers and field workers to residues in food products, chemical pesticides pose a multitude of health issues. Biological approaches can deliver on the safety of both consumers and workers. Several key shifts in the food and agriculture system are needed to realise the potential of biocontrol in nature friendly farming. These are outlined in the ‘action’ section at the end of this dialogue report, but include an appropriate legislative framework, policy alignment opportunities, with the new EU Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy, research in to wider environmental implications of biocontrol, such as its role in agricultural systems for climate change mitigation; and field application studies.236238240242243244245248249What is the relationship of biocontrol to strategy? The following key themes arose from the dialogue: There is increasing focus on regenerative agriculture from food companies – and major new commitments from companies. Therefore companies are looking into the technical solutions that will underpin the shift. Links can be drawn between healthy diets and the quality of food. Biocontrol needs to sit within the context of a food company’s sustainable nutrition strategy and healthy diets. Biocontrol is a long way from the consumer – so finding ways of linking biocontrol to consumer aspirations is essential to get consumer pull through. Companies are also looking at landscape level solutions and whether, in changing their farming practices, they can work over the long term across rotations and other surrounding land owners, to optimise outcomes across the crop cycle. Biocontrol is an area with potential for innovation strategy of food companies, for example looking at introducing integrated pest management, peer to peer learning and utilising the capabilities of food companies to drive innovation at farm level. Least cost is a key consideration for business strategy – the UK and EU are already working to higher standards. So there is a risk that use of newer and more expensive products could price growers out of the market. Businesses are committing increasingly to net zero carbon strategies and will need to respond to the policy environment which is shifting toward nature positive farming and environmental restoration. Pioneering farmers are adopting strategies that do prioritise more sustainable farming methods; however this is not yet recognised in the marketplace. Farmers’ business models need to be financially viable and thus biocontrol needs to sit within an economic model that is sustainable and values their environmental performance. Biocontrol can form a bridge between organic practices and the shift in conventional farming.236238240242243244245248249Barriers and opportunities While the opportunities are extensive, the shift to biocontrol will require a change in mindset, backed by clear evidence and data to prove the efficacy of biocontrol products. The notable barriers and opportunities raised through the dialogue are outlined here: Barriers: • The regulatory environment moves too slowly to bring in new products to replace those chemicals that are being phased out, potentially leaving major gaps in the portfolio of pest management options for farmers. Increased speed and adaptation of regulatory processes for biocontrol are urgently needed. • A lack of knowledge of the potential role of biocontrol within food system actors further up the supply chain • Cost: Biocontrol products do not yet have the benefit of scale and thus may cost more • Specificity: Biocontrol products may be specific to a particular crop or species of pest, and to optimise their use may require use at a different time in the cropping cycle to chemical pesticides so having a greater operational cost implication for the farmer • Inertia: farmers are experienced in the use of pesticides and their effectiveness, and may not see the need to change and biocontrol is not usually a straight replacement of chemistry as to optimise its use other agronomic and environmental factors need to be considered and often adapted. • Cost of investment and length of time in bringing a product to market (for the biocontrol manufacturing industry) • Regulatory frameworks: these vary globally and are not designed for assessing biocontrol products • A lack of solutions in the market for particular crops • Perceived risk of lack of efficacy of biocontrol measures in outdoor farming setting such as arable, as opposed to horticulture • In horticulture, use of biocontrol is much more mainstream but this is less well developed in broad acre crops Opportunities: • Access to higher value premiums through environmental claims and assurance standards • Strong environmental credentials to production practices can be communicated • Alignment with new regulatory environments and financial support mechanisms that reward either shifts in practice away from pesticide use, or outcomes such as improved biodiversity • Shifts in business strategy (not just for food and fibre companies) toward nature positive farming and regenerative agricultural practices • Farmers can act as enablers of food companies’ environmental strategy • Potential for food companies to communicate the benefits and alignment of biocontrol to public and reflect societal demands on pesticide use and nature positive farming236238240242243244245248249What needs to change? The dialogue identified the following actions to accelerate the shift to nature positive farming and adoption of biocontrol: Knowledge: • Build linkages between food companies, suppliers and growers, to understand the appetite for shifts in agricultural practices across the value chain • Increased farmer knowledge of the efficacy of biocontrol products, and how they can transition • Utilise decision support tools to enable farmers to understand how biocontrol efficacy could be optimised in their specific context • Increase awareness of what biocontrol products are available, and how to use them: from advisors and suppliers to agricultural media • Research and development to prioritise biocontrol, demonstrate its efficacy and the business case for its use • Knowledge transfer and training in the use of biocontrol methods in the farm context • An understanding of farming operation implications such as work and labour Cost and risk: • Pricing structures (product cost and incentives for utilisation) that allow farmers to invest in the transition to, and adoption of, biocontrol • Contracts and partnerships with off-takers and food companies to share risk in the transition, rather than borne solely by the farmer • The shift to ecologically focused farming needs to be appropriately compensated, particularly for the additional benefits such as carbon storage and biodiversity and ecosystem services such as water quality The wider role of food companies: • Build stronger connections between farmers using biocontrol and actors further up the supply chain such as food retailers and manufacturers, to share knowledge, demonstrate practice and engage in partnership • Food companies need to understand the process of agricultural transition, and support farmers as they gradually transform practice, for example through longer term relationships, contracts, access to metrics to demonstrate outcomes, and sharing risk • Food companies can communicate to the public the use of biocontrol strategies and the wider benefits arising from its use • Collaboration across the sector and through the supply chain on advocacy for a better enabling environment for a shift to nature positive farming (such as the speed of decision-making and regulatory frameworks underpinning biocontrol) Policy To enable biocontrol to play its part in the shift to nature positive farming, a significant shift in policy is required. Agricultural policies need to align with the future ambitions of the EU Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy, looking forward rather than reflecting the agricultural practices of the past. The following represent the top five policy recommendations from the IEEP report. • Definition: Using a common EU definition on biocontrol would bring clarity of its technical aspects to the political discussion on pest control for sustainable agriculture. • Legal framework: Adapting the current EU legal framework to recognise the non-toxic implications of biocontrol, in comparison to chemical products, should be considered. • Alignment opportunities: By increasing the uptake of biocontrol use, as part of Integrated Pest Management, the Common Agricultural Policy can be better aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Farm-to-Fork strategy in creating a pathway for achieving the 2030 targets on organic farming and chemical pesticide reduction. • Research needs: Extending research topics and investment beyond technical issues to biocontrol’s relation to climate change mitigation and farm economics will create a more holistic image of the impact of the use of biocontrol. • Field application: Pushing for larger scale and accelerated application, supported by available policy instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy, will show the potential that biocontrol demonstrates for controlling plant pests and diseases, in support of EU Green Deal targets.237238240242243244245248249• There are very different visions of the future of agriculture, from organic to conventional integrated pest management. • The current context of farming is a long way from the future trajectory outlined in EU and UK policy.

2021-07-22 15:29:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11395/203

27205217105345282232

The Principles were communicated to the Dialogue participants through both the work of the Dialogue Facilitators to manage the discussion flow as well as the keynote speakers who shared insights clearly outlining the relevance of the Principles in their talks before and after the Dialogue. As well, participants invited into the Dialogue were familiar with each other, establishing a baseline of trust and respect among all Dialogue participants. The plenary format also allowed Dialogue participants to have their video on throughout the Dialogue, which acted to bring the group together and mimic as close as possible in-person conversations. This factor influenced conversation flow - participants were increasingly more engaged in conversation as they became more comfortable with the Dialogue format and its goals.Through keynote speeches and pre-discussion conversation, Dialogue participants recognized the relevance of the Food Systems Summit and sought ways to improve the experience for all stakeholders involved. Respect was shown through “raised hands” reactions on Zoom, which was greatly adhered to during the plenary conversation.Each participant involved in the Dialogue had in-depth experience in the food industry and with food systems, so fully understood the complexity and systemic approach. Facilitators helped craft each conversational point to include an inclusive approach to other food systems stakeholders, making key takeaways collaborative among all food systems actors versus antagonistic against specific stakeholder groups. Finally, everyone at all levels of the Dialogue recognized the importance to act sooner rather than later, vocalizing this throughout the Dialogue.Ensuring the Dialogue environment feels comfortable for participants, enough to turn on video, express views openly, and leave the Dialogue feeling that it was a positive experience is a challenge. That said, this can be achieved through creating a positive environment and framing the Dialogue with engaging keynote presentations that outline the Dialogue principles as well as the importance of such conversations to transform food systems.

NoThe format of this Dialogue was planned as one larger plenary session including all participants, with two facilitators introducing the discussion questions, exploring key insights further, and monitoring conversation flow. This format was chosen to fit better with the number of participants and act as an open conversation format for everyone to hear and contribute insights. Participants seemed to react well to this format, as they were very engaged in discussion, either through voice or through the Zoom chat. Points of divergence and convergence were easily elucidated, and through the “raised hands” Zoom feature, anyone who wanted to speak had the chance to contribute. This format also worked as most participants were familiar with each other. Rather than unexpected challenges that a conversation among strangers may create, there was some level of confidence that individual views would be respected.

234238239240241242243245246247248249250251This Dialogue explored innovating for positive impact in a polarized world, through the private sector perspective. In today’s VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) world, new ways of thinking, (re-)acting, and communicating are urgently needed to deliver on the potential benefits of innovation. Behaviors such as openness, collaboration, entrepreneurial mindset, and community engagement are more necessary than ever before, but how do we get there? This Dialogue brought together global private sector stakeholders to discuss the role of innovation in revolutionizing our world’s food systems, navigating ambiguity, building trust, and responding to the unprecedented challenges present in today’s world. Four discussion questions were proposed to structure the conversation: 1. What are the main topics that cause polarization when it comes to food systems? 2. How can we deliver science-based solutions in a polarized world? How should our approach to innovation adapt to this environment? 3. What is the role of communication in securing a social license to operate? With whom and where do we need to engage? 4. Who needs to be at the table and what are the ways to help (re)build trust and combat misinformation?235238239240241242243245246247248249250251Findings from this Dialogue included: ● Reputation is what is limiting full private sector involvement in food systems conversations. There is great interest in the private sector to be more closely involved with the Food Systems Summit and food systems sustainability. Participants agreed that the industry needed to be more collaborative and integrate more stakeholder perspectives in its food systems work. Participants also recognized that the private sector is seen as too involved in public sector conversations by some food system stakeholders but the private sector itself does not feel involved - many are just now getting to the table and having holistic food systems conversations. Predictions were made that 2050 sustainability goals will focus heavily on actions needed to be taken by the private sector, so involvement and qualitative engagement now are important. ● Communicating information has never been more difficult. There was frustration around false or incomplete facts or facts that are not scientifically proven creating an increasingly polarized world. There is a diversity of perspectives that become increasingly more dangerous through factors such as filter bubbles and echo chambers, where individuals encounter only information and opinions that conform to and reinforce their own beliefs, as well as oversimplification driven by social media, hysteria, hyper-connectivity, and large distances (in both geographic distance and use of digital technology) between food producers and consumers. Oversimplification is especially harmful as it is easily shareable on social media, makes logical sense, and breaks down complex points into one that is very simple to understand, removing any nuance. In this way, information consumers are not receiving complete information and will in turn not make optimal decisions, which harms food systems even further. ● Multi-stakeholder partnerships support sustainability and food systems transformation. Many global organizations face difficulties that multinational private sector actors can help solve, including sharing best-in-class models, facilitating better governance, reducing waste at multiple areas of the food supply chain, ensuring adherence to hygiene and other health-related factors, and helping prevent negative externalities. There are asymmetric challenges that exist and many stakeholders feel like they are pulled in different ways. Especially with more controversial food systems actors, having a seat at the table (through investing or other financial commitments) is important to ensure that the conversation is open instead of behind closed doors. Exclusionary investing will have broad negative unintended consequences, eliminating key parts of our food systems without leaving sustainable products to fill their place. The private sector, therefore, needs to be intentional about multi-stakeholder engagement - it needs to listen to stakeholders, including critical civil society organizations. As well, the sector needs to view these engagements as serious, bringing stakeholders to the table in intentional and recurring ways with planned long-term commitment. In this way, there is a chance to find a shared food systems purpose. Everyone wants to make the food system work - it does not help anyone if our food systems struggle. ● Diets are perceived to be changing dramatically towards the consumption of plant-based foods. This also means, however, that increasingly food is being produced in factories versus the land-based supply chains of animal proteins. We need a variety of proteins to feed the world, and consuming only plant-based solutions will not be sustainable in the near future, as more work needs to be put into research for other opportunities. Animal agriculture has a myriad of benefits and industry players are open to evolving their business models and engaging in dialogue with plant-based sectors. ● The role of youth and the next generation in food systems conversations is not to be underestimated. Youth can influence and change perspectives in innovative ways unheard of by many other stakeholders. As digital natives, their understanding of the internet provides them with the tools to examine all information with a critical lens. In this VUCA world, youth are thinking & acting differently than different generations. They are purpose-driven, idealistic, not loyal to brands, want to see change, and put value systems at the forefront, global citizens, open-minded, and changemakers. Youth see challenges as opportunities and can be trained to seek nuance in today’s information overload through equipping themselves with the skills to be mindful of media & information consumption. As more youth are taking leadership roles in food systems, it is important to build bridges, listen, ask them questions, and help them establish a shared purpose behind their work, to substantively shift food systems to be more positive for future generations. There is a strong need to connect with youth and listen to their perspectives through humble and open attitudes. Everyone has a role to play in food systems conversations.2362382392402412422432442462472482492502511. Communicating information to the general public A point was raised that the general public does not understand where their food comes from, catalyzed by increased distances between consumers and food producers. When the general public engages with misinformation, especially in the ways that their food is produced, they have no avenues to verify information validity. And changing their ingrained perceptions with truthful information is very difficult. Food has become a way for anyone, anywhere, to express their values. This has many benefits when it comes to learning about diverse cultures but can also lead to food becoming a new form of identity politics, promoting exclusionary, versus inclusionary, perspectives. This has the potential to be very dangerous as it could lead people to disengage from anything from diverse foods to alternate points of view. The lens of food understanding has also shifted towards a more individually-focused lens - “what is best for my family” - that is based on deeply held beliefs, versus a more scientific, unbiased lens. A great example is the global fear of pesticides and their effects on children and overall health, as well as the complex (and sometimes inconsistent) mechanism of public and private food labeling and certification schemes like “organic” without any global unified definition. At the same time, it was discussed that influential stakeholders are not explaining to consumers what is happening in agriculture, from the issues such as monocultures to the opportunities offered by agtech and genetic engineering. More needs to be done to explain the potential benefits of agricultural innovation to consumers and not engaging with new and innovative food systems ideas is a missed opportunity. There is a need to start explaining general food systems trends, the “big picture”, to consumers and engage with them more on the topic of sustainability to reduce information asymmetry and polarization. There is also a will to motivate this communication. Retailers, food distributors, and the hospitality industry have a voice and want to get their messaging right as they have a financial stake in consumer trust - loyal consumers make sure these industries are resilient to current and future food systems shocks such as COVID-19. A final point was made that it is important to address conflict and combat misinformation. Acknowledging concerns and the people who are concerned about food systems topics is vital and creates dialogue, even if the concern is not shared. This empathetic approach can also move beyond bilateral dialogue to collaboration and inviting more people and views into food systems conversations. Collaborating with those outside the private sector and agriculture industry can provide fresh thinking and not burden food systems with visions of what has been done in the past. Digital tools were predicted to be key in this process, allowing unprecedented access to increasing diversity and inclusivity, as well as more accurate measurement and evaluation systems. A proposal was made to develop global assessment guidelines to enhance greenhouse gas emission inventories and to improve carbon footprint assessments and strategies for low-carbon livestock and food security. Such suggestions could minimize misinformation with easily understandable data (CO2 emission numbers) of interest to consumers and further the global push for greater environmental sustainability.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502512. Communicating complexity Food systems are complex and this complexity is confusing. This confusion is further exacerbated by a lack of effective communication in the private sector - science communication is difficult and less attractive than sensational headlines and can be perceived as inauthentic. Identifying and debunking false information does not work as the motivation behind these fact-checking efforts is deemed to be suspicious by the general public. The most accurate voice is often not the loudest, especially in the context of sensationalized Netflix documentaries on food systems or celebrity culture. A significant question was raised on how science and scientific theory can be delivered in a palatable way, communicating directly with consumers on the key issues that matter to them versus just displaying science in difficult-to-access and cost-prohibitive avenues such as scientific journals. A point was raised that science can be sold, but needs to be sold in what is important to the consumer, not what is important to the scientist. There is a tension around making science fully accessible, as there is power in nuance and very clear drawbacks on oversimplification. A memorable quote was mentioned by Jack Bobo, the CEO of Futurity, a food foresight company, “If you lead with the science, you lose with the science.” There was a collective agreement that science needs to be championed in education, especially children learning about key food systems topics in school. Experiences like science labs and experimentation need to be leveraged and science education needs to start as early as possible. Misinformation at this early developmental stage can be detrimental - if children are exposed to messaging that leads them to reject certain ideas, the industry loses them as consumers forever as well as lose the potential for innovation and change these future consumers could bring.2362382392402412422432442462472482492502513. Food Systems Messaging It is important to find the right people to deliver private sector food systems messages. Identifying the voices people want to hear - farmers from local communities, markets, etc. - and amplifying their messages will ensure that the messages are being heard by the general public, as trust in these food systems actors is high. There was also a call for producers to get more involved in consumer-facing communication to combat misinformation and promote transparency along the food supply chain. Additionally, the content of food systems messages to the general public needs to interest consumers. For example, rather than championing agtech as a private sector innovation, the messaging needs to pivot to show how agtech has benefitted farmer livelihoods. Or instead of focusing on sensational headlines on the dangers of animal protein, the focus could shift to the ingenuity and scientific progress made in the sector increasing its sustainability. As well, messaging needs to be tailored to each geography to accommodate national and regional markets and key areas of interest, as these may vary greatly. There is potential to use the digitally savvy next generation to elevate better food systems messaging, utilizing digital tools to meet future consumers “where they are” on digital platforms. A counterpoint was raised that complexity, which is often required in food systems messaging, does not fit into a world run by Twitter and TikTok conversations. This does open the opportunity though for scientific content creators to try and fit components of complex messaging into these platforms.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Areas of divergence mainly existed to promote further discussion on topical areas, with most discussions coming to some form of consensus by the end of the dialogue. Some key areas of divergence included how to leverage digital tools to communicate complex food systems topics - should popular digital tools such as social media be used or would this further encourage oversimplification and misinformation. Dialogue participants agreed on the need to communicate to the next generation of food systems leaders and in general, consumers, but the avenue of communication could not be elucidated from the conversation. Diverse views were also present in examining the role of the plant-based industry and how the animal protein industry can engage with it. Points were raised that many plant-based private sector companies spend increasingly more financial resources on exclusionary marketing instead of research to improve their products or deliver product innovation, which hurts the food system, as there exists inefficiency and wasted potential for innovation.

2021-07-22 15:31:51205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36458/44

2051512410111110422

Identificando los aspectos clave de los principios, para que el equipo y los participantes pueden entenderlos de una forma simple y trabajar desde conceptos comunes a modo de que el entendimiento de las soluciones sean abordadas desde un entendimiento común.En el trabajo efectuado por los participantes de la instancia, se consideró el desarrollo de las preguntas y aspectos específicos de algunos de los principios, considerando la complejidad, en distintas escalas, incorporando un enfoque inclusivo y considerando la participación de actores relevantes del sistema alimentario de la región.Leer detenidamente los principios, para simplificarlos y hacer un espacio cómodo y entendible para todos los niveles educativos, además priorizar de acuerdo a las características del territorio y necesidades sentidas de la comunidad.

Yes

234238246247249El tema principal fue garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y todas.235238244246249Durante esta actividad se evidenció que los grupos de trabajo coinciden que una de las grandes problemáticas frente al acceso a la alimentación saludable es la falta de educación alimentaria, ya que a pesar de que la región es productora de frutas y verduras durante todo el año, el acceso a alimentos ultraprocesados y la falta de educación alimentaria ha ido en contra de una mejor alimentación. Además, el factor económico y la salud mental en tiempos de pandemia han perjudicado el acceso, siendo los delivery mayormente locales de comida rápida. También, se señala que al parecer los precios han ido en aumento, perjudicando el bolsillo de las personas que ya está golpeado por la crisis sanitaria, y que se hace muy complejo para el Estado hacer compras públicas de productos locales. Es necesario mencionar, que en esta región se presenta como problemática la conectividad, ya que las comunas están desconectadas de la ciudad de Arica. Existen problemas de comunicación y caminos complicados, que para las personas que viven en esos sectores se convierten en un problema al momento de acceder no solo a la información y educación alimentaria y a la alimentación saludable.236238239246249Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: El Estado cumple un rol fundamental, siendo el ente que debe crear las políticas públicas para regular la venta de alimentos no saludables y facilitar el acceso a los alimentos saludables, fomentando la educación alimentaria desde la primera infancia, y facilitando el auto-cultivo de estos alimentos en los domicilios, como huertos urbanos. También se debe fortalecer y promover la adquisición de la producción local, priorizando a los pequeños agricultores de la región, junto con facilitar el acceso a la alimentación saludable local a través de compras públicas, permitiendo abaratar costos. Las principales propuestas surgidas en este trabajo han coincidido en que la educación alimentaria desde la edad temprana es una herramienta fundamental, para generar en los niños, niñas y adolescentes conciencia de los hábitos saludables, acompañándola con educación para la familia. También incorporar a nutricionistas a la labor educativa. El Estado debe apoyar a las empresas más pequeñas para que puedan crecer, producir y comercializar sus productos a nivel regional y con pertinencia intercultural, además de mejorar el acceso, canales de transporte y comunicación con las comunas rurales de esta región. Fomentar los hábitos y alimentación saludable a través de campañas más llamativas y amigables para todos/as, siendo el estado el que entregue mayores recursos a la prevención. Reconocer que la alimentación es parte de nuestra cultura.237238245246249Dentro de las áreas divergentes se encontró que los programas de salud que mayor cantidad de recursos tienen están enfocados en la enfermedad y no en la prevención. Promoción de la Salud, como su nombre lo indica tiene la función de prevenir enfermedades y son estas iniciativas las que menos recursos tienen. Es por esto que se propuso fortalecer las políticas públicas de prevención y no solo aquellas focalizadas en tratamiento de enfermedad. Mayores recursos permitirían fortalecer los programas asociados a la forma de alimentarse de las personas, calidad de vida y evitar enfermedades como la obesidad y malnutrición, lo que a la vez evitaría el desarrollo de otras enfermedades no transmisibles, como la diabetes y enfermedades cardiovasculares.

2021-07-22 15:52:17204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30090/203

850192821703348410100123101000010101334600303716300944121202110

The Territorial Governance for Sustainable Food Systems Independent Dialogue engaged with stakeholders across sectors to build on ongoing efforts to address complex and urgent issues within our food systems through innovative territorial governance. The goal of the dialogue was to bring existing and new collaborators together to engage in inclusive discussions to concretely identify how a territorial approach addresses governance issues across pathways for food system transformation. In order to incorporate and advance the Principles of Engagement—particularly acting with urgency, committing to the summit, recognizing complexity, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complementing the work of others, and building trust—the Dialogue Convenor and other event organizers consulted with the international Ad Hoc Working Group on Territorial Food System Governance to design an appropriate format for the Dialogue, identify key areas of interest for the breakout groups, and find expert moderators to ensure that discussions were inclusive, respectful, and productive. This approach ensured that the Dialogue was of interest to a diverse range of participants, created the opportunity to showcase as many voices as possible, and effectively captured the multiplicity of voices in the Dialogue feedback. In order to foster new connections and enable the emergence of new ways forward, the Dialogue format included three parts: 1) short plenary presentations offering high-level insights on territorial governance for sustainable food systems; 2) thematic breakout groups where participants engaged in extended dialogue about key themes; and 3) a report back session where breakout groups shared insights, looked for synergies, and engaged in further discussion. Throughout the program, participants were invited to share their perspectives, ask questions, and build new connections. Following the Dialogue, plenary recordings, transcripts, and the Dialogue Report were shared with all registrants to ensure that others can build on this work.In addition to incorporating a participatory format that created the opportunity for multi-stakeholder inclusivity and meaningful dialogue, this Dialogue was designed to reflect all of the Food System Summit Principles of Engagement. Plenary speakers were selected based on their ability to speak to the complex nature of territorial governance for sustainable food systems from a diverse range of perspectives, including from within government, civil society, and the research community. All plenary speakers recognized the urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the 2030 SDGs and spoke directly to the need to complement and build on the work of others already advocating for new, more sustainable territorial approaches to food system governance. Rosado-May, Professor, Universidad Intercultural Maya de Quintana Roo, México, provided an indigenous perspective and spoke to the ways territorial governance for sustainable food systems complements indigenous ways of knowing and caring for the land. Each breakout group was moderated by experts in the field with the facilitation skills required to build trust and respectfully manage discussions. The breakout groups were allotted the most time in the Dialogue program to create the time and space for multi-stakeholder inclusivity and put as many voices as possible in conversation with one another. What emerged was a rich diversity of insights and forward-looking policy suggestions that centre territorial governance as a key lever for sustainable food system change. Skilled notetakers carefully documented the discussions to ensure the Dialogue report reflects their complexity and includes collectively identified pathways for food system transformation through territorial governance contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. At the end of the Dialogue, all participants were invited to join the Ad Hoc Working Group on Territorial Food System Governance to continue to engage in meaningful discussions and action on territorial approaches to governance for food system transformation.Appreciating the Principles of Engagement was key to the success of this Dialogue. In particular, a focus on multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complimenting the work of others, and building trust informed all aspects of the Dialogue planning, beginning with consultation with the Ad Hoc Working Group on Territorial Food System Governance. This consultation ensured that the Dialogue program reflected the urgency and complexity of territorial governance for sustainable food systems while prioritizing participant engagement. This consultation also enabled effective promotion of the Dialogue through the extended networks of the Ad Hoc Working Group and the event organizers, the UNESCO Chair on Food, Biodiversity and Sustainability Studies and CIRAD.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Territorial governance (TG) can enable functional, sustainable food system transformation and is rights-based, ensures access to nourishing food for all, and protects biodiversity, equity and livelihoods. This Independent Food Systems Summit Dialogue on Territorial Governance for Sustainable Food Systems rests on years of coalition building including the Territorial Perspectives for Development initiative and reflects understandings of actors from EC, BMZ, AFD, CIRAD, GIZ, OECD, FAO, UNCDF and NEPAD. It adds to the Independent Global Dialogue Empowering Cities and Local Governments to improve food systems globally; HLPF side event Territorial Approaches for Inclusive and Resilient Food Systems and UN Food Systems pre-Summit Territorial governance for sustainable food systems. Plenary speakers with notes: M. Lapão, Director Cooperation, Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries spoke to multiscale governance founded on food/nutrition security and the right to adequate food. A territorial approach promotes social participation, so policymakers make better decisions and systemic inter/multi sector food policies, programs and investments. Seven national food security and nutrition policy councils exist with reps from civil society, academia, private sector and parliaments that foster more coherent food governance through several regional cooperation programs and national policies. Gabriel Ferrero de Loma-Osorio, Ambassador at Large for Global Food Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, EU and Cooperation, Spain spoke about territories as unique and integrative connectors. In Spain’s experience, TG works when national enabling environments are coupled with participatory and inclusive TG platforms to merge local actors with national level agencies and programs. Alliances with adequate financial support and instruments to foster national level change could trigger territorial approaches broadly and scale up to the global level. The Food System Summit can merge and catalyze this collective movement for food system transformation and as a core element to realize the 2030 agenda. R. Messias, Policy and Advocacy Officer, UCLG. As food systems are fundamental to reshaping our relationship with the planet, we need to work for people’s well-being and preserve the global commons. This requires concerted multilevel connections, action and collaboration among cities and territories that give voice to citizens through bottom-up/top-down approaches. National frameworks are required as guidelines and institutional and financial frameworks are needed for cohesive territorial action, e.g. UCLG/UN Habitat work to develop voluntary local and national reviews. Food systems are key to enable ecological transformation from farm to waste, e.g. urban/rural GHG emissions and impacts on the global commons. Intermediary cities are key to TG because of their size, strategic position in the territory, and direct connections to hinterlands. S. Marta, Coordinator, A Territorial Approach to the SDGs, OECD As more than 100 of the 169 SDG targets can’t be achieved without local and regional governments engagement, SDGs can enable national, local and regional governments to: 1) implement a multisector territorial approach; 2) use SDGs as a policymaking tool; and 3) Manage trade-offs and promote synergies among sector policies. Requires shifts: to territories and multisector approach; from one-size fits all to place-based approaches; and to engage multilevel governance to create functional territories beyond local boundaries. E. Valette, Professor, CIRAD. University researchers can: 1) produce new methods and scientific knowledge (e.g. assessment and diagnostic tools) to better understand TG contexts and support collective decision-making; 2) support collaboration between multiple knowledge systems for a richer, more effective knowledge base to inform context-specific decisions and help stakeholders govern along continuously enriched pathways; and 3) foster dialogue and provide a framework for discussion. Together these can increase actors’ control over transformation and support new partnership design and interventions adapted to each situation.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Small scale farmers can no longer eat what they produce and cannot access or afford the food they need. Local food markets have been progressively eroded by an increasingly globalized food system that disconnects producers and consumers. The distortions of present food systems reflect the commodity approach and trade focus on export-driven agriculture policies that prioritize imports into growing cities. We have ignored local culture and indigenous knowledge, opting instead for push uniform approaches. This aggravates the power asymmetry between increasingly concentrated big corporations and fragmented small-scale producers, culture and nature, that results in a major urban-rural disconnect. Policies are ineffective and patch-work. Farmers have been led to monoculture through decades of government incentives and inappropriate financial support. Transformative innovation which builds on local and indigenous knowledge for sustainable local ecosystems needs to replace conservative innovation geared to support the present economic model. To realize the transition to sustainable food systems through territorial governance, support is needed to integrate across multiple scales and sectors. This requires: o Advocacy: Level of engagement with policymakers and integration of policy makers into dialogues; accountability mechanisms established, etc. o Policy reform: Policies changed/influenced, engagement in processes o Connecting production with consumption: Food and farm movements that act at the neighborhood/village scale can address different policy spaces and speak to local city governments to reach up to national level governments o Focus on coalitions: Coalitions across urban and rural communities at the ground level are what move policy spaces at the local level, in turn influence larger cities and gain traction at the national level o Address conflict between agriculture and trade values and priorities: Farmers must have viable livelihoods and consumers must be able to access a healthy/affordable food supply from local and distant sources. A recent OECD report states while US$720 billion/year was provided from 2018–20 for agricultural subsidies, only one in six dollars promoted sustainable productivity growth and agricultural resilience. Shifting subsidies to support agroecology and small-scale community-driven food businesses would be transformative. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/2d810e01-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/2d810e01-en o Co-create and re-design agricultural extension services: Extension services must integrate local and indigenous knowledge. Institutionalizing these services with cross-ministerial collaboration can ensure incentive and expenditure efficiencies. Seed-saving in Cuba could be a model for territorial governance practices. Begun in the early 2000s, it now serves 75 municipalities in 12 provinces with an emphasis on opportunities for women and youth (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.554414/full). o Establish multi-stakeholder partnerships: The critical point of institutionalization is to make councils/groups/partnerships, such as National Food Councils, official with links to financing and institutional support as a structure for planning and budgeting in a multisectoral multilevel and multi-actor way o Foster inclusion: To address to achieve transformative territorial governance, power imbalances must be addressed and accountability made transparent. For example, in Africa, the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries linked sustainable territorial food systems and healthy diets in two projects through a bottom-up process that engaged actors at the regional and national scales. The participatory, multi-scaled diagnostic approach identified local, national and regional policy recommendation. Challenges include the need for more reliable financial support as well as on-going political commitment. • To do this work, communities need: o Participatory monitoring efforts which engage/validate/build trust and measure contextually established indicators for success o Access to services to enable engagement to establish shared vision(s), action plans, participation from women/youth, conflict resolutions, technology integration, etc. It is crucial for farmers to engage in local markets, connect with cities and consumers requiring the right set of services and produce quality food, reduce losses, and engage with other actors. o Community participation in decision-making bodies, policy-setting and program development, along with citizen-led monitoring approaches that can drive better standards and accountability o Financial resource mobilization, including disbursements to communities to support needs, guarantees provided for financial flows, and increased engagement of financial actors. Design public and private finance so it can be contextualized at a local level to support farmer and community transition to agroecology, processing and infrastructure with a wide variety of instruments and mechanisms: nature-positive subsidies, carbon credits/payments for ecosystem services, agricultural/forestry insurance products, grants for development processes, technical assistance, longer-term tenure loans, etc. o Concise land policy and an integrated and inclusive land planning approach, that reflects the many, varied interests in a territory (rural/urban areas, indigenous groups, commercial farmers.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Coherent, functional territorial governance can foster equitable management of food systems, integrate rural and urban food governance, promote inclusive investment for territorial governance, direct support to local food actors, increase data availability and accessibility, private sector business support, and advise on issues of food security and territorial governance at ministerial levels. • Scaled policies and good practices can crystalize solutions to ensure needed impacts at territorial levels and bring everyone in the system together. These can be designed into context-specific projects and programs but also provide cross-cutting solutions relevant in several contexts. While locals build good practices, continued effort is needed for flexible, replicable models and knowledge-sharing networks (e.g., “FAO Inclusive and Sustainable Territories and Landscapes Platform” http://www.fao.org/in-action/territorios-inteligentes/socios/fr/). The key is to gather varied and diverse experiences related to territorial development as a model adaptation/building tool, as well as connection/collaboration effort + creation of communities of practices, e.g. Farm Field and Business Schools enable farmers on the ground and offer a programmatic solution that can be scaled. Mobilization builds cross-sectoral and cross-service dialogue and coordination to reduce fragmentation between public, private, NGO, and producer organizations so small-scale producers do not fall through the cracks, where collective action is led by farmers to improve service provision from all angles and provide programmatic examples that can be scaled to a broader framework/approach. • To build functional territories, urban-rural linkages are key. UN Habitat helps to map complex linkages—particularly documented cases that illustrate effective vertical and horizontal multilevel linkages to provide guidance to actors at all levels. For thematic and learning guides, tools and compendia of inspiring practices, see: https://urbanpolicyplatform.org/. • The Territorial Perspective for Development (TP4D) observed that challenges are often clustered in the same way the Summit identifies solution clusters. For example, food system challenges are associated with economic, adversity, migration and other priorities already high on the list for local and sub-national authorities—identifying the intersections can place food security similarly high on the priority list of multi-scaled actors. As we learned with COVID-19, municipalities have to coordinate across many agencies and sectors that don’t interact—it is difficult to engage local decision makers whose operational demands are often crisis driven. • To better monitor this work we need: measurement (of what, in which way, is it effective, is it enough?), citizen-led accountability for reporting and monitoring and government involvement in developing models. Accountability is a priority where the goal is to remove overt pressure and antagonistic elements. It is possible to identify problems and barriers in collaborative ways to improve service delivery and standards, e.g. community score cards is a solution through citizen-led accountability. • The need to bring family farmers and territorial governance together requires UN agencies, with their different sectoral mandates, to collaborate and ask how to expand public services in a rights-based context to advance food systems. Guiding practices developed by lead agencies for their own purposes with their own institutional mandates are now converging—these frameworks need to be adapted as a foundation for co-governance by urban and rural actors supported by the appropriate levels of government. Sectors and communities of practice need to consider developing and implementing joint and cohesive policy that will support these phases of discovery by: 1) policy adjustment; 2) setting priorities, 3) engagement and support from public and private financing; and, 4) collaboration between academics and governments. We need a call for the representation of sub-national and local authorities that have a space in food security discussions at larger scales.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251We need a new paradigm and vision for local food strategies and policies which are integrated in a functional multi-level territorial governance system. Food regulation is a political issue and should not be delegated to the market—food must be recognized as a right not a commodity. Local governments are best placed to integrate economic, environmental and social dimensions, bring together public actors, private sector and civil society and mediate trade-offs. They can help integrate sectors (e.g. restaurants and producers, promote local food hubs, facilitate access to digital technologies for aggregation) and ensure balance between food trade and local food systems. It is important to identify and support local actors, recognize the wisdom of the people that are there (first and foremost Indigenous Peoples) and prioritize transformative innovation (e.g., agroecology), building on local knowledge with science to create jobs and build resilient food systems. Local private sector actors are key players in working together to build a better system. Academic institutions should join local actors in documenting and reviewing relevant experience, providing technical assistance and linking with national or global research institutions. Participatory and inclusive democracy is essential for good territorial governance to address power imbalances, leave no one behind (women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, migrants, displaced people) and avoid capture by local elites. Short-, medium- and long-term joint planning is needed to proactively address issues such as human rights, climate change or disaster-risk management (e.g. management of flood zones). Multi-stakeholder coalitions will be needed to design, implement and monitor systems approaches on relevant topics. The following dimensions can be included in the agenda of territorial governance: • Support strong local food/farmers’ markets and connect producers and consumers (to harness their economic and political power). Consumer information, education and communication is essential. Scale up, not through corporatization or industrialization, but grow through aggregation with the support of appropriate local platforms controlled by local actors (e.g., food hubs) and local alliances. • Land use planning with attention to urban-rural linkages to address urbanization, promote nature-based urbanization and reframe urban-rural linkages with nature-based interfaces. • Diversification of food production, but also ensure sustainable management of natural resources (e.g., wild food harvesting). Revisit extension services, based on co-problem solving, and connect local actors (networks, local platforms, including community-driven platforms). • Regeneration of degraded eco-systems and provision of environmental services • Rebuild local knowledge systems to have a systems approach. We need knowledge-based systems rather than science-based solutions with academia as an active partner to co-create and share knowledge within sectors and across similar territories. Municipalities and local governments have a series of tools to support the re-territorialization of food systems, such as public procurement (e.g. for school meals), zoning (eg. for public markets and community gardens/kitchens) or strategies to restore nature and culture. But the challenge is to integrate top-down and bottom-up approaches. The public sector can regain a role through the participatory construction and implementation of local food policies shifting from sectoral approaches to integrate all dimensions of territorial systems. It is urgent to stop short term economic thinking and explore alternative financial incentives (slow money, municipal bonds geared to green infrastructure investments, ecosystem services payments etc.), seek inclusion and territoriality. Policies should support bonding and bridging through social networks. Food is not a commodity, it is about commons, rights and eco-system services—territorial governance can connect food systems with the land and the people that live in it. Territorialization is about empowering local actors to decide the future they want in the context they are in.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Territorial approaches can enable Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) with food systems as a unifying context for action: 1. Strengthen rule of law: Mainstream law-based approaches, participation, accountability, and transparency is needed at all food systems scales so communities have the right and are empowered to engage in INRM. 2. Integrate multi/cross-sector action: Silos challenge action including cross-sector communications. Limited knowledge and capacity raise questions about agricultural impact on water sources, biodiversity, conflicts behind land use or land tenure, and feedback with/to rural communities. Support is needed to facilitate/train for/develop capacity. Need to move landscapes/territorial planning from technocratic to rights-based (http://www.fao.org/3/i2801e/i2801e.pdf) 3. Learning exchanges to deepen mutual understanding of Agriculture, Food and Environment stakeholders: Need more systematic efforts to deepen mutual understanding among landscape stakeholders including challenge of values, e.g., knowing where, who, and how food is produced so consumers can make informed choices. Connect people to food system processes through dialogue, collaborative mapping for shared understanding and shift narratives. Consumer choice can push private sector (e.g. require supermarket chains to be transparent about food sources and add labels for CO2 emissions). 4. Mobilizing funding for landscape organization and investment: Funds for informal platforms or loose multi-stakeholder planning can be linked to more formal planning/decision-making structures. Landscapes and long-term resilience need links between local private sector and local SMEs that work beyond industrialized food system. Outside funding (e.g., GEF) can be useful but building bridges with other resources should be a priority. 5. Strengthening participation of marginalized stakeholders in governance: Pressing need to document territorial ethnic community food systems and ensure support to these foundational systems through financing, technical and policy resources. 6. Territorial alliances to advocate action for structural challenges: Structural issues around effective landscape/ecosystem action including poverty and food insecurity are significant challenges for cities/regional governments and impose pressing demands on budgets. Recovery packages could strengthen local food provision and build from innovative modalities (e.g., participatory budgeting). Structural issues need long term solutions, including shifting the narrative around food systems so needs are at the center. Subsidies can also be shifted. OECD agricultural subsidies totaled US$720 billion/year from 2018-20, yet only one in six dollars promoted sustainable productivity growth and agricultural resilience. Shifting more money to agroecology would be game changing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/2d810e01-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/2d810e01-en 7. Institutionalizing capacity development for landscape/ecosystem management and governance is varied and insufficient: From producer to consumer, knowledge/awareness of landscape processes is a critical gap. Local/regional governments can create/incentivize markets for ecological products and give voice to producers using traditional or indigenous practices. Tools can address growing pressure for land use transformation (e.g., integrated platforms; knowledge sharing networks; “grading” landscapes on performance; and labelling). See, for example, the 1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People initiative www.landscapes.global; https://www.climavore.org/ 8. Working more effectively with the private sector: As most funding is in the private sector including them in multistakeholder platforms could be critical. The main challenges are to: ensure decent livelihoods and investments in food systems at all levels; include small-scale producers and SMEs; address power inequities with bigger companies/investors; distribute funding so smallholders/SMEs have access to finance (e.g., public-private mixed company that supports local community food production while conserving the environment in Ecuador https://www.agroazuay.ec/).236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Territorial governance can have greater impact in the short term through Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) to enable: • The availability and institutionalization of support services needed by territorial communities and landscape partnerships. Tools and scale-appropriate technology are needed to support community engagement and information flow for agroecology, resource management, advocacy efforts for multi-level policy reform and access to markets. • Strengthening local governments along with strong transparency and accountability mechanisms for decision-making on public expenditure and strategy design for communities to have adequate oversight and influence to support their needs. • Bridging the gap between communities in territories and policymakers at different levels through organization, coordination, and advocacy efforts that include women and youth by providing tools, facilitation, and support services. • Land-tenure rights and land concession policy reform can provide common good benefits for natural resources and help ensure common good is established as the goal not a simplistic productivity focus by private landholders and private sector. For the longer term, need to develop cross-generational territorial visions that integrate community needs developed through a bottom-up process including women and youth to manage pressures on natural resources while balancing livelihood needs. This requires resources to support the planning, design and implementation of landscape-wide visions and action. Private sector intervention and participation within INRM needs to respect each community and be managed through facilitation services so community stakeholders direct natural resource management. Support for conflict resolution and management across a territory and/or landscape can foster this process. There are more project-based approaches versus a process-based approach for longer-term action plans that span over the time needed to support natural capital (e.g. 20+years). Projects can be integrated so they take place over a longer-term timeframe agreed upon by communities, preferably initiated at the design and implementation stages. This requires: • Continued support for community cohesion, engagement and policy advocacy to enable INRM through forest networks at micro and macro levels across agriculture, fish-farming, production, and resource management. In particular support for the implementation of landscape-scale action plans to support land tenure through community advocacy and reform at different levels of policy. • Support for local government strengthening, through technical assistance, development of policy frameworks, policy advocacy for the mainstreaming of INRM approaches so bottom-up input stimulates national level changes. • Support for agroecological transitions through small-family agriculture projects and linking these to broader landscape-scale initiatives and international support organizations. • Co-create and re-design agricultural extension services which integrate local and indigenous knowledge to ensure contextual understanding and needs. Institutionalizing these services with cross-ministerial collaboration to ensure incentive and expenditure efficiencies. • Design public and private finance contextualized at a local level to support farmer and community transition to agroecology, processing and infrastructure with a wide variety of instruments and mechanisms: nature-positive subsidies, carbon credits/payments for ecosystem services, agricultural/forestry insurance products, grants for development processes, technical assistance, equipment, longer-term tenure loans, etc. • Support for inclusion of women and youth within territories, particularly through targeted interventions for capacity building in business development, self-awareness, self-confidence, and agricultural work. • Participatory monitoring efforts with communities serve the double function of engagement, validation, and trust building; as well as measuring contextually established indicators for success (i.e. watershed restoration, has of riparian area restored, ha under agroecology, food production, etc.).236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Actions that address the role of finance and related tools in territorial governance and food system sustainability need to: • Link actions to the SDGs through coordination across scales with public procurement as a tool to bring goals together. A food lens is needed for all the work being done with the SDGs. We are missing the interconnections between different challenges—for example, biodiversity, climate change, food and nutrition security and access to water. Territorial perspectives that work through a community-based approach can address many of these challenges at the same time while stressing the right to food. • Bring local food into care facilities. Move away from reliance on major oligopoly of food service providers. Why is food an auxiliary service rather than core service? Look to other places –e.g., Europe – for examples and models about how to make healthy food central to care. • Connect food procurement to climate change and the opportunity to move toward territorial approaches for sustainable food procurement. Address the contradiction between cutting budgets and fulfilling commitments to SDGs. Sustainable procurement can result in healthier people and ecosystems and so can be a cost saving in the long run. • Require longer transition periods for suppliers to adjust and working together to set expectations. Keeping out some of the goods that can be procured locally to look for closer sources. Establishing relationships with local suppliers—need tenders to have more competition. • Link procurement to education to show how food is grown/harvested/ transported to help inspire future farmers and support learning about food systems. For example, in cooking class curriculum, add growing own plants to see full cycle. • Create networks of actors, for example procurement officers, to help understand the landscape of people involved and possible actions. School food programs could help build public procurement dialogues and infrastructure. • Breakdown government silos. Post-COVID periods will be important so school food programs ensure every child is getting a decent, nutritious meal. Lowest price tenders as a priority versus other social attributes including sustainable diets. There are gaps where people can work and push back against misconceptions, such as the notion that trade agreements are a solid barrier. Rather, we can make a lot of change within the current system and also chip away at the other parts. • Procurement networks, infrastructure, and knowledge-sharing to foster knowledge co-creation and knowledge mobilization. • Bring Indigenous communities and those using traditional practices to the table as decision makers to include knowledge that has supported sustainable food systems for millennia. Document and support different knowledges and different diets that are adapted to territorial circumstances. • Write school food programs into law. Brazil provides an example of success in food school program. • To monitor change, there is a need to steer away from outcomes that can create problems and false, over-simplified understandings about the dynamics and complexity that is the food system. Instead, there is a need to focus on process and deliverables. Dynamic monitoring systems that use targets and metrics, for example, process indicators, can be really helpful at shifting the narratives. The divergence between narratives and actions within countries—some may be funding programs through development initiatives but don’t have programs in their own countries. New Zealand provides an example of how to start from a needs-based approach and scale to a universal program. • More people need training and there needs to be succession planning for leaders within procurement to pass on process for success and share tacit knowledge. • Organizations can contribute by joining networks and linking up across networks. This can include support for Food Policy Councils, educating people in legal terminology, and/or food policy for local procurement.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Governance refers to processes of negotiating needs, interests and perspectives of various stake-holders. To promote more inclusive food systems transformation, a central goal of territorial governance should be to increase the voice of marginalized groups and increase the accountability of the state. A pre-condition to this type of governance is a multi-sectorial government that is rights-based in its approach; this must be embedded into law for adequate follow through and not just theoretical value-signaling without action. Only through multi-actor governance can vulnerable people be heard. In line with a Leave No One Behind (LNOB) framework, stakeholders should aim to create inclusive food systems that center socially and economically disadvantaged people and involve them in policy creation. The role of the state, then, is to fulfill and support strategies that center a right-to-food framework. Territorial governance approaches must have a systemic scaffolding that encourages social participation for all agents, for participation is crucial to how knowledge is produced. Lack of participation and lack of access to participation can lead to unjust and skewed governance that is not representative of the local needs. Frames and strategies for institutional, policy and democratic innovation towards new multilevel model of food governance must be implemented. In the inclusion of indigenous voices and processes as well as other marginalized groups, there is a co-creation of knowledge that helps design more resilient and equitable methodologies of both food systems and land management; we reorient towards interculturality, a result of multiple ways of knowledge co-existing, in order to re-territorialize food systems and rebuild local knowledge. Territorial governance policies must also consider economic inclusion; that is, develop programming that enhances the generative and economic capacity of poor communities. To promote LNOB-oriented policies, we must position human rights as central and pursue empowerment and involvement for all. It is essential to pursue programing that invests in rural, health and educational infrastructures and is invested in protecting indigenous food systems. Currently, there is an obstacle of lack of participation from marginalized groups due to exclusion according to age, race, gender, and ethnic belonging. Territorial governance can help reduce tradeoffs of national policies that lack inclusion. Territorial governance, then, becomes a space for interaction between different cultures, which is essential to move towards reducing pervasive discrimination. The LNOB framework understands conflict is the main driver of hunger hence it aims to create comprehensive and inclusive food systems that are conflict-resilient and enhance future prospects of peace. Territorial governance approaches that collaborate with labor governance may be particularly adept to reduce conflict (i.e., gender-based labor discrimination) and contribute to social cohesion. Organizational contributions include LNOB framework contributes to locating and developing governance structures that mobilize people to achieve equitable social inclusion. These systems recognize food and participation as a fundamental right. It is essential to also recognize ecological processes are not bound to any one territory; thus, territorial governance policies must also consider the role of culture and biocultural dynamics. This may involve the participation and cooperation of stakeholders across various territories. LNOB approaches take into account the structures and systems already in place and pursue flexible approaches that take into account multiple dimensions simultaneously. We must aim to build stronger multi-level collaborations that communicate vertically as well as horizontally. Communication and decision-making should engage with stakeholders across levels and be informed through bottom up processes, not only top down.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Adapted from Rosado-May’s remarks: Global warming, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, hunger, pollution, among other crises challenge all cultures and peoples. Science has confirmed in recent years that Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems have been resilient and sustainable for centuries. They have been designed, managed and functioning within a cultural context that involves a complex of social, technological, ecological, economic (trade & marketing), governance, land tenure, horizontal decision making, and reflecting ways of processing information as well as constructing and passing on knowledge to new generations. This biocultural complexity explains the role of indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems to preserve and enhance biodiversity, mitigate climate change, control soil erosion, and sustain global ecological processes that benefit the planet. About 500 million Indigenous Peoples’ around the world have, in their hands, minds and hearts, conserved around 80% of the natural resources, including seeds of crops adapted to almost any ecological setting on our planet. Scientific literature reports that farmers cultivating up to two ha produce 70-80% of the world’s food; this figure has been challenged reducing the value to around 32%. The data does not specify how many of the smallholders’ farmers are indigenous but we can assume that the vast majority of them are, and still apply their traditional knowledge. Lets’ consider that 100% of the 500 million Indigenous Peoples’ are responsible for the 32% world food production; as compared to the 7.9 billion people in the world, small farmers/Indigenous Peoples’ represent only 6% of the world population. Impressive considering the many challenges those farmers are facing today. Nevertheless, the resilience and the knowledge that supports Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems are being lost rapidly. Immediate policy interventions are needed to prevent their total loss. How can we explain the above figures if it is not because of the resistance and resilience capacity of Indigenous Peoples forged over centuries? Indigenous Peoples understand that we live in a multicultural world, we also understand the value of different worldviews. As we all live in one house, we should learn how to maintain our multicultural settings and also build bridges for intercultural processes. Plenary remarks: Enacting systemic change requires institutionalizing support and making it part of the formal/subnational structure. There are a plethora of informal platforms that exchange knowledge/share information and alliances, but there is a missing link to the formal planning/decision making structures. Linking platforms to formal planning/budgeting processes is key. There remain risks in this in terms of capture of power, preexisting power imbalances, inequality and discrimination so empowerment and capacity building will be critical. Currently, there is a lack of participation in food systems from marginalized groups due to exclusion according to age, race, gender, and ethnic belonging. Territorial governance can help reduce tradeoffs of national policies that lack inclusion and can become a space for interaction between different cultures, an essential step to move to reducing pervasive discrimination. Many organizations are implementing solutions that refer to territory and to land governance. In Ethiopia, the national project on sustainable land management supports the legalization of watershed user cessations so locals can plan and manage their own watersheds at a scale of a couple of hundred hectares. Angola has gone through the process of an institutionalized farmer-field school approach integrating national rural extension services and linking local communities with local government and municipalities. The missing link is how to use these many context-specific solutions and make them part of the macro solution for food systems and territorial governance of food systems. To bridge this gap, we can bring together and integrate projects through longer-term action plans agreed on by communities that span the time needed to support natural capital (e.g., 20+years) and respect human rights. This requires: • Continued support for community cohesion, engagement and policy advocacy to enable networks at micro and macro levels. • Support for local government strengthening, through technical assistance, development of policy frameworks, policy advocacy to mainstream integrated approaches so bottom-up input stimulates national level changes. • Support for agroecological transitions and integrated landscape management by linking community and small-scale initiatives to broader landscape-scale projects and international support organizations. • Co-creation and re-design of agricultural extension services which integrate local and indigenous knowledge to ensure contextual understanding, and institutionalizing these services with cross-ministerial collaboration to ensure incentive and expenditure efficiencies. • Design public and private finance for the local context to support farmer and community transition to agroecology, processing and infrastructure with a wide variety of instruments and mechanisms. • Support for inclusion of women, youth, elders and traditional knowledge keepers within territories. • Participatory monitoring efforts with communities to serve the double function of engagement, validation, and trust building; as well as measuring contextually established indicators for success (i.e., watershed restoration, hectares under: riparian area management, agroecology).

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-07-08-Territorial-Governance-UNFSS-Independent-Dialogue-Transcript-and-Concluding-Remarks-3.pdfhttps://bit.ly/3B2NaYF

2021-07-22 17:40:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34114/49

10714602754067

En el Diálogo se integraron todos los principios de la cumbre, al abordar la temática del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación, la cual es de interés nacional y en la que se ha trabajado con una visión interdisciplinaria y multisectorial. (Reconocer la complejidad, Actuar con urgencia) Se extendió la invitación al diálogo al sector público, privado, academia y sociedad civil, fomentando un ambiente de respeto y confianza para que los participantes pudieran expresar sus opiniones e intercambiar visiones. (Ser respetuosos, Complementar la labor de los demás, Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, Crear confianza) Asimismo, el diálogo abordó temáticas que contribuyen al avance en la vía de acción 1: Garantizar alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todas (Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre)El Diálogo buscó la integración de las opiniones de los diferentes sectores. Se inició brindando un contexto general del estado del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación desde la perspectiva de distintos expertos que permitió a los participantes profundizar sobre la complejidad de este derecho, a la vez que brindó herramientas para la discusión en un espacio de confianza y respeto, moderado en tres mesas de trabajo.Fomentar el involucramiento en los diálogos de la mayor variedad de actores que permita integrar las visiones de la problemática con el fin de plantear soluciones pragmáticas y que pueden ser implementadas por los diferentes sectores.

Yes

234238246247249Este diálogo enfocado en la vía de acción 2: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos convocó a representantes del Parlamento de Costa Rica, asesores legislativos, actores sociales clave de la institucionalidad pública y del sector académico que trabajan en los diferentes ámbitos de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación con el objetivo de fortalecer la agenda de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional a través de un del diálogo nacional y comunicación llevados a cabo entre parlamentarios, organizaciones e instituciones públicas, academia, con el fin de dar a conocer la realidad del tema alimenticio y nutricional en el país. Específicamente los temas que se abordaron fueron: • Derecho Humano a una alimentación adecuada • Mecanismos efectivos para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación. • Mecanismos de gobernanza en términos de participación, inclusión y mejora de la calidad y relevancia de la información para tomar decisiones.235238246247249• La alimentación requiere de un tratamiento multidimensional, se necesita promover el consumo de alimentos que cumplan con las características socioambientales, culturales y nutricionales. Se requieren asociaciones intersectoriales e interministeriales para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional. • Es necesario la planificación urbana y de los territorios, especialmente en la conservación de las áreas destinadas a la producción agrícola y generación de nuevas áreas designadas para la producción que sean al mismo tiempo, espacios de educación participativa. • Dentro de los gobiernos locales se requiere un plan sobre promoción de acceso a alimentos, a través de acciones integrales. • Muchas instituciones públicas han levantado información, no obstante, aún no existe un repositorio común, e iniciativas que promuevan que los programas y proyectos sean interministeriales. • La visión asistencialista sólo resuelve un problema agudo pero no crónico, el repositorio interinstitucional permitirá tomar decisiones informadas y conjuntas para abordar de manera más permanente el acceso a alimentos saludables. Se debe transformar del enfoque asistencialista hacia el enfoque de construcción de capacidades. • Se requieren espacios como huertas escolares y comunitarias para empoderar a la sociedad civil sobre la alimentación saludable. • Se requiero un censo nacional que identifique las problemáticas con un enfoque regional, para que las soluciones sean hechas a la medida pensando en su situación socioeconómica y cultural de cada territorio. • Se requieren mecanismos y fortalecimiento de capacidades, especialmente en zonas costeras y fronterizas para garantizar medios de vida que a su vez les permitan acceder a una alimentación saludable. • Existen problemas estructurales respecto al acceso a la alimentación, en especial, la situación de pobreza actual del país, aproximadamente 20% de la población se encuentra en condición de pobreza, lo cual impide acceder a una alimentación digna, para ellos se deben generar empleos y fomentar el crecimiento económico del país. • Es fundamental el involucramiento de las juventudes en el rescate de la cultura tradicional para evitar consumir alimentos procesados y rescatar las comidas tradicionales.236238247Derecho Humano a la Alimentación ¿Cuáles son los obstáculos para garantizar el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación en el país y cuáles son algunas posibles soluciones? ● Están los intereses particulares a lo largo de la cadena, en donde los que más tienen se imponen y se juegan con las reglas de ellos, son quienes tienen acceso a los líderes del país y mueven o cambian las políticas, leyes y demás instrumentos de política para sus intereses. ● Prevalece los intereses económicos antes que el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación DHA. ● Acceso Económico: no se tiene el dinero para el consumo de alimentos. ● Carencia de información, conocimiento sobre salud, enfermedades, para compra de productos (alimentos de temporada), preparación y planificación de alimentos. ● Falta de información nutricional que genere consciencia nutricional. ● No existe un etiquetado nutricional clara y no se sabe usar para seleccionar alimentos. ● El estado de vulnerabilidad de las mujeres, para el acceso a la tierra, semillas, falta de conocimiento para cocinar. ● Debe darse prioridad a las mujeres más vulnerables a través de mecanismos de acceso a la tierra y semillas para la producción y mejorar sus medios de vida. ● Promover que en los territorios rurales puedan sembrar productos básicos ● Modificación de leyes para mejorar el acceso a créditos rurales, porque esa zona tiene mucha dificultad. Los pequeños productores requieren más acceso a estas herramientas de financiamiento ● Programas a nivel institucional donde se trabaja desde el asistencialismo, no se fortalecen las capacidades de las personas para poder implementar por si mismos. Cambios institucionales ● Se requiere la voluntad política se necesitan cambios en los reglamentos , un ejemplo es la Canasta Básica Tributaria, donde hay evidencia científica donde se sabe que es importante la alimentación saludable, prevalecen los intereses económicos ● La cultura de asistencialismo, se requieren programas que promuevan la ejecución de las acciones para ellos mismos (la población). ● Falta voluntad política: desde el poder ejecutivo existe las intenciones de promover políticas pero no hay voluntad política para llevarlas a cabo. ● Se requiere cambios en el desarrollo de reglamentos para que prevalezca el derecho a la alimentación y salud. No se llega a un consenso y siempre prevalecen los intereses económicos. ● Limitada disponibilidad y acceso físico a alimentos locales. ● Poco acceso a recursos institucionales, a procesos de capacitación, actualización, sobre salud, nutrición, tecnologías. ● Hace falta un repositorio nacional interinstitucional, de acceso libre de estadísticas, censos sobre el estado de la SAN. Además, programas, proyecto para coordinar todas las acciones. ● No hay regulación de los alimentos. ● Existe un problema estructural de la condición social y económica del país. El empleo y crecimiento económico, impacta el acceso a los alimentos. ● La estructura productiva y comercial del país, provoca un aumento del precio de los alimentos y un incremento del acceso de alimentos que carecen de calidad nutricional. ● Se resaltó la necesidad de rescatar la comida tradicional, las recetas tradicionales y promover acciones y estrategias con un enfoque de derechos humanos en toda la cadena agroalimentaria. ● Se sugirió promover más allá al DHA y la participación de las mujeres, poblaciones indígenas y jóvenes. Enfocarse en el qué y cómo. Además, de las herramientas para lograr el DHA. ● Se recomendó fomentar huertas en los hogares (jefas de hogar) ● Se resaltó la necesidad de fortalecer los programas sociales. Pregunta 2. ¿Cómo podemos garantizar que el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación sea integrado en el marco normativo del país (políticas, mecanismos e instrumentos)? • Empoderando a la población, para que puedan vigilar el cumplimiento de la normativa ya existente y balanceando las fuerzas políticas para que las acciones que se realicen sean para el bienestar de la mayoría y no de unos pocos. Además debe capacitarse a más técnicos en el tema, para que con sus acciones busquen ese cumplimiento.236238249Mecanismos e Instrumentos para garantizar la SAN Desde el punto de vista de la planificación del Estado, ¿Cuáles son algunos mecanismos e instrumentos que permitan garantizar la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional? ● Establecer un sistema de vigilancia alimentaria y nutricional, esto con la finalidad de fortalecer la formulación de políticas y programas. Además, incorporar un sistema como este al proyecto de ley en discusión, permitirá realizar mediciones a los resultados de dichas propuestas. ● A fin de impulsar la seguridad alimentaria, es importante lograr una mejor articulación (gobernanza) entre las instituciones responsables del caso ● Establecer un proceso de diagnóstico previo al desarrollo del proyecto de ley. Donde bajo un enfoque integral, se pueda pensar también en la alimentación de los agricultores quienes a veces enfrentan situaciones de pobreza. ● Mejoramiento de la productividad desde un punto de vista sostenible, permitiendo así un mejor acceso a los alimentos mediante una articulación institucional. ● Dar un fortalecimiento de los mecanismos existentes, de las secretarías pertenecientes a las entidades o instituciones encargadas, lo cual permitiría una mejor articulación. ● Crear mecanismos como agendas conjuntas, utilizándolo como base para monitorear los procesos llevados a cabo. ¿Cuáles son las condiciones que permiten generar entornos favorables para la efectiva implementación del marco normativo del Derecho Humano a Alimentación y la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional? (educación, salud, protección social, agropecuario, ambiente, tecnología/innovación) • Es necesario propuestas realistas, viables que permitan analizar de mejor manera los impactos en los sectores productivos (productividad, desarrollo tecnológico, la incorporación de las ingenierías alimentarias) • La tecnología y la innovación son fundamentales para impulsar el desarrollo agropecuario. Se deben promover insumos(moléculas) de mejor calidad que logren dinamizar la producción, y que cuiden de nuestro medio ambiente. • Se debe generar acceso al crédito blando, muy blando, para que el acceso a la tecnología no se vuelva un obstáculo insuperable. • La capacitación es importante de igual manera, para generar así un mejor conocimiento de la actividad misma, e inclusive para el uso de herramientas. • Agilización normativa • Participación Intersectorial.236238246Gobernanza de la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional ¿Quiénes deben estar involucrados en la gobernanza de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y cuál debe ser el rol de las diferentes instituciones implementadoras (normativas, investigación, información, ejecución entre otras), sector público, privado, sociedad civil y academia? • Estado: Ministerios, Instituciones Autónomas, Municipalidades Rol: Rectoría, marco legal y educación • Sociedad Civil- Asociaciones de desarrollo, pueblos indígenas Rol: como eje transversal • Sector privado: Cámaras empresariales Rol: Posibilidad de importación y exportación, financiamiento y dotación de recursos) • Academia: Universidades Rol: Investigación nutricional y en producción ¿Cómo debe ser la rectoría de la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional? • Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería y Ministerio de Salud con la participación del Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y el Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio Roles: • Toma de decisiones por medio de mecanismos de vinculación • Articulación con el sector público, privado y la academia • Órgano multidisciplinario compuesto por diversas instituciones incluida la Secretaría de la Política Nacional de Alimentación y Nutrición • Coordinación Técnica con el sector académico y educativo para mejorar la ejecución y evaluación.

2021-07-22 19:06:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14810/180

9023402523555214325565216233211114612292632148

The Global Compact Network Thailand (GCNT) is part of the UN Global Compact community. We responded to requests from a number of our member organizations to host this Dialogue, as they believe as private companies, if they were to organize such an event themselves, it would not be as inclusive as possible. The GCNT provided a neutral platform where participants can freely discuss without worrying that they event would be seen only as a PR event, and we were able to bring multiple categories of stakeholders within the food systems into the conversation.Acting with Urgency: we presented the challenges the world, and Thailand in particular, is facing in achieving the SDGs by 2030, and how changing our food systems for the better is the key to accelerating towards the Goals. Committing to the Summit: we invited the official National Convener and his team from the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives to both provide input to the dialogue, as well as to gather comments, concerns, proposals, to form part of Thailand's official position at the Pre-Summit and Summit. We also emphasized the importance of thinking of the food value chain as a "system" and the need to look beyond business-as-usual approaches. Be respectful: we encouraged all participants to ask questions and comments and the presentations by the key topic speakers, either by the video-conferencing platform's chat function or by turning on their microphone. The tone of the event was collaborative, and several senior-ranking government officials and executive of large corporations expressing their appreciation for inputs from all participants. Recognize complexity: we highlighted the fact that food systems involve diverse stakeholders and processes, and while we should endeavor to ensure that all aspects of sustainability are covered, and that significant transformative changes are needed, useful to recognize 'small' wins, low-hanging fruits, and simple and easily applied solutions. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: while the key target group for this event are GCNT's member companies in the food sector, it was widely publicized and we saw participants from various groups. We actively engaged with NGOs and SMEs. Complement the works of others: One objective of this dialogue event is to encourage sharing of experience, to have the participants learn about example cases presented during the discussion and start thinking about how they can apply similar solutions to their context. Build trust: government officials who will represent Thailand at the Pre-Summit and Summit emphasized on the inclusive and transparent nature of the summit process.Our event was designed to bring government agencies together with the business sector to learn from each other, and it proved useful for both parties to learn the different perspectives. We found that it is was beneficial to assign clear role and informed participants of intended outcome right at the beginning, while allowing for flexibility during the course of the dialogue.

NoThe level of understanding amongst the target group for this event - the Thai private sector, companies of various sizes, was very diverse. This event was aimed at primarily cultivating the basic understanding of global trends in sustainable food systems, and identifying potential approaches for strengthening food systems along the 5 Action Tracks. The event started off with the Director General of the GCNT highlighting the urgency to act to improve and strengthen the food systems to help move the global community as a whole towards the SDGs. The National Convener (deputy permanent secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives) informed participants of key development in Thailand's preparation for the Pre-Summit and the Summit, followed by in-depth explanation of the UNFSS dialogue process, the 5 action tracks, and potential solutions and key points for discussion by an expert from the Ministry. The discussion portion of the event was organized as follows: the curator introduced each action track and invite representatives from 1-2 companies per track to talk about how their organization is implementing business models or programs that align with the action track in question for 5 minutes per person, then the participants were invited to ask questions and provide comments for 5-10 minutes - either via the chat function or by turning on his or her microphone. The core team organizing the event was one of our member company, Charoen Pokphand Group Co., Ltd., or C.P. Group, a Thailand-based holding company with food-related operations that span 21 countries and cover many parts of the food value chain, e.g. seeds, feed, farm, food processing, retail and wholesale, and foodservices). Several weeks prior to this dialogue, C.P. Group held an internal dialogue to familiarize employees from food companies within the group.

234238239240241242244246248249The event brought together the government agencies that regulate the food and agriculture sectors, farmers, food producers and processors, NGOs, academia, and IT and technology companies, to allow all parties to share their perspectives about what topics are important to them within the food systems discussion. The dialogue covers all 5 action tracks, with particular attention to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and what solutions are needed to alleviate and respond to such crisis.235238239240241242244248Participants from the government sector expressed their appreciation of the contribution by the business sector in driving the sustainable food systems agenda, and highlight the areas in which private sector can utilize its expertise in strategic implementation, communications with consumers, and market insights, to work together with the regulatory and public policy bodies. Thailand's 13th National Economics and Social Development Plant is currently being developed, and will incorporate the food systems approach towards SDGs alignment.236239244246248249A number of participants raise the issue of food loss and food waste - which is a complex topic and is currently being managed by various government agencies. For example, 'food loss' is being regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, while 'food waste' is under the Ministry of Industry, Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Environment. The first step to increasing the effectiveness in management of food loss and food waste is to align data and policy among these different agencies, and then working more closely with a number of NGOs and businesses currently active in this field.236239240244The role of seafood companies, and other food-related companies in mitigating plastic and other waste in the marine environment. Food companies, including retailers, must design and manage their packaging to reduce the risk that their packaging materials would leak out of the waste management system into the natural environment, usually ending up in the ocean. Additionally, seafood companies should influence their suppliers to improve their management of fishing gears (or implement recovery program of ghost gear) and waste management aboard fishing vessels.236239240244248Plant-based food and alternative protein - while the market for these products is still relatively small in Thailand, in many export destination countries, the markets are more mature. Leveraging this international market potential can help promote domestic market as well. Plant-based proteins should be more actively promoted, and support on both the supply side (e.g. R&D funding, training) and demand side (communications campaign) are necessary.237240243244The definition of "sustainable agriculture" is still under debate. Stakeholders from various groups hold diverse views as to what qualify as "sustainable agriculture". Some consumer group only consider organic or chemical-free agriculture as 'sustainable', whereas others believe responsible and effective use of chemical input is acceptable as sustainable. More science-based public discussion on such topics will be helpful.

2021-07-22 20:20:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2062/203

6508272550105501710210620210070010167111221621932

Act with Urgency – In our background note and invite letter to the dialogue, we incorporated the sense of urgency with which the UN Food Systems Summit has been convened, as part of the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. We outlined the critical role of gender equity and women’s agency in transitioning to sustainable, equitable food systems. Commit to the Summit – The Dialogue materials we prepared emphasized the importance of the Dialogues in the Food Systems Summit process and explained that the conclusions from this dialogue would inform the work of the Gender levers of each Action Track and the outcomes of the UNFSS. Be Respectful – The Dialogue method, the introductory remarks of our Convenors and Guests as well as the skilful facilitation of our Facilitators set the tone as an open, respectful conversation rather than a debate. All discussions were respectful and collaborative, despite each discussion group having members with diverse perspectives. Recognize Complexity and Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity – We invited participants with varying positionalities in the food system, from researchers and policymakers to development practitioners and farmers. This facilitated discussion that recognised the complexities of food systems in the Global South from the perspectives of different stakeholders. We also attempted to ensure balanced participation from both genders. Complement the work of others – A major focus of the Dialogue was to discuss the learnings from programmes that are already being implemented. Many participants shared resources about initiatives being undertaken on the ground. Build Trust – We followed the Chatham House rule, ensuring that social media posts about the Dialogue did not reference individual statements. Our Facilitators created a safe, open environment by encouraging participants to share their views and appreciating them for the same.As mentioned above.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247249251This dialogue sought to explore how the concept of women’s agency (including empowerment) can be operationalised in food systems. Women’s agency relates to the Gender lever of change that cuts across all Action Tracks. Investing in women’s agency is now urgent, as despite considerable global awareness and progress on gender equality, several challenges remain to the exercise of women’s agency in food systems. Through this dialogue, we sought to clarify the theory of change, while also identifying strategies to strengthen and support women’s agency in research, policy and practice. The discussion was organised around five major themes: Understanding Women’s Agency in the Food System Discourse- The HLPE Global Narrative report 2030 emphasized that “agency” and “sustainability” are vital dimensions of food security that need to be elevated within policy frameworks. Despite women’s crucial role in food production, processing, and consumption, they face several structural barriers that limit their agency within food systems. They have few rights to resources, including land, money and labour, are underrepresented in decision-making bodies and their priorities are hardly addressed. The critical role of women within food systems, including those in marginalised communities, needs to be recognised. Building and investing in women’s collective agency- Agency for poor rural women involves challenging multiple power hierarchies in the household, community, state policies and labour and product markets. Changing power relations and social norms requires collective action. Alongside traditional forms of sharing labour and resources, new models for exercising collective agency are emerging –such as self-help groups, cooperatives, and producer organisations. However, given the diversity of women’s contexts, this process needs to be intentional and requires investment. Legal and policy frameworks that enable collective agency need to be operationalised through social mobilisation, dialogue and training. Strengthening the interface between women’s knowledges and science- Traditional crops, often nutritious, but considered low value, generally lie in women’s domain. Women possess knowledge of their growing conditions, seed selection, preservation and processing. Scientific research has engaged with many of these ‘neglected’ crops, whether millets or tubers and roots, developing traits to make them more resilient and profitable. Yet adoption has been slow, mainly due to the lack of engagement with women’s priorities and resource constraints. Where a mutually respectful interface between women farmers and science has been facilitated, such as in ICRISAT’s Smart food campaign, or CARE’s Farmer Field and Business Schools, women’s equitable participation has strengthened agricultural knowledge and enhanced productivity. Alternate pathways to improving nutritional outcomes- A key challenge to improving nutritional outcomes is the lack of access to and affordability of healthy diets to a large majority of people (SOFI, 2020). Women’s empowerment and control over the food system is central to addressing this problem. Entry-points can include breastfeeding, growing homestead gardens, diversification of cropping systems on small plots, or the cultivation of naturally biofortified plants. All these require an understanding of culture and context specific nutritional knowledge, alongside strategies that make consumption practices more nutritious. Rights, Entitlements and Representation- Globally, women lack rights to land, water, credit, labour, extension services, membership in cooperatives and decision-making bodies. Laws and policies need to guarantee women’s human rights, ensure equal entitlements to resources as male farmers, and recognize women’s paid and unpaid labour. Enforcement of these laws requires not just recognition of women’s contributions to food systems, but also representation in decision-making bodies concerning policy-making, service provision, agricultural research or producer organisations.235238239240241242243245246247249251The major recommendations from the Dialogue are detailed below: 1. Collective Agency - Collectivisation and mobilisation of women around their roles within food systems (as farmers, consumers, food systems workers) can help them exercise their agency even in the face of structural barriers and constraints. Cooperatives and Self-Help Groups (SHGs) have been successful models of collectivisation in the Global South and can be leveraged and scaled up further. In urban contexts, mobilisation of women around specific identities (migrant workers, informal workers, sex workers) should take place together with building alliances across larger interest groups (such as labour unions). 2. Social Entrepreneurship - Encouraging and facilitating mission-driven social enterprises that employ gender transformative approaches can enable women’s economic empowerment and financial independence. A key factor in building successful and sustainable social enterprises is social capital, which includes networks, skills, advisory support, finance and market linkages. 3. Access to Resources and Entitlements - To exercise agency, women need to have unmediated access as individual citizens to resources such as land, water, commons, housing, finance, knowledge, extension and technology. Policies need to ensure that women’s rights to these entitlements are substantive and not merely nominal. 4. Capacity and skill building - Women in rural communities in the Global South often lack access to the resources required to build on their skills and capabilities. Capacity building of women in digital and financial literacy, marketing, non-traditional skills and leadership needs to be supported by governments, civil society and researchers. Women should also be enabled to participate in such activities, by being provided childcare services, transport, and doorstep extension, that can mitigate some of their constraints (such as time poverty, domestic responsibilities, etc.) 5. Challenging Social Norms - Women’s agency in food systems is constrained by harmful social and cultural norms. These can impact on their health, physical safety, nutrition, employment and reproductive autonomy. To effectively challenge these norms and social structures, we need to harness the power of women’s collectives as well as sensitise men. The Gulabi Gang (Pink Saree Brigade) is an example of a women’s collective that fights violence against women in rural Uttar Pradesh, India. 6. Involve, Engage and Sensitise Men - There is an urgent need to engage men in women’s empowerment at all levels, from the household to the community to the institutional level. This can be done through gender sensitisation and training. Involving men in gender transformative partnerships and social enterprises can even improve gender relations and reduce the domestic burden on women, as seen in the work of the Altertrade Philippines Foundation. Additionally, there is a need to facilitate male allies in research and policy who can champion and mainstream gender issues. 7. Representation of Women - Increasing the representation of women in institutional structures, policymaking, finance, scientific research, and grassroots leadership is essential to develop their agency. Women need to be represented at all levels of leadership and policymaking, as men lack the lived experience of being a woman and can lack empathy for their challenges. It is important to go beyond tokenistic representation and incorporate intersectional concerns in women’s representation. Research has shown that women leaders often support and enable other women to build and exercise their agency. 8. Gender-sensitive Research and Policy - A gender lens needs to be incorporated in research, data and policy. Research agendas and methodologies need to be more gender-specific, participatory and value women’s knowledge. Gender-disaggregated data is essential for understanding women’s challenges and can contribute to gender-sensitive policymaking that mainstreams women’s concerns.236238241242245246248249251Discussion Group 1 - Understanding Women’s Agency in the Food Systems Discourse The questions that were addressed in the discussion include: 1. How might we further elaborate and complement the theory of change between women’s agency and the transition to a more sustainable and equitable food system, contributing to SDG2? • Emphasis on social enterprises that promote gender transformative approaches. • Collectively organised women as stakeholders is very powerful - gives women agency and a forum to have their voices heard. • In SE Asian countries, there are enterprises that have set a benchmark for women’s agency in agricultural value chains. • Voices of men matter as much as women’s. Women negotiate with those important to their daily lives. Emphasise the communication between men and women and how it can be made gender sensitive. • Most women work alongside their husbands. Having mixed gender social enterprises can be a complementary approach to developing women’s agency and gender sensitivity. Involving all groups is key to women’s empowerment. (Philippines) • Negotiation is not just limited to the household - roles have evolved and women are asserting themselves outside the home, such as Indian banks being headed by women • Where does the understanding of normative change come in? Research is important in answering such questions. Examples from India of challenging social norms and exercising agency: Gulabi Gang (Pink Sari Brigade) and SEWA empowering women to drive tractors and other male-dominated work. • Orissa Millets Mission: Awareness and a market was created for millets. Trainings and exhibitions enabled the participation of women in financial management, reviving recipes, interacting with the Government, and being aware of latest policies • Important to eliminate local taboos for nutritious foods that cannot be eaten by women at certain times, such as pregnancy/lactation (Orissa) • Ensuring entitlements to property/land rights, involvement in major domestic decisions and awareness of human rights among women. • Recognition of women’s domestic and care work - women are seen as primary caregivers; this perception has to evolve. • Need to focus on nutrition and sustainability while resolving short and long-term production oriented goals. • With more male outmigration, women have to lead agriculture. Giving these women access to key resources and technology is important. 2. What are some of the major roadblocks to developing women’s agency in Africa and Asia (such as poverty, lack of resources, community structures, or the lack of recognition of women’s unpaid domestic and care work)? • Violence against women limits them from making their own decisions freely; they are restricted by social norms. • Women are not perceived to be entrepreneurs and therefore denied financing. If there were more women financing women, this would provide encouragement in pitching ideas for enterprises and finance. 3. What kinds of policies can create an enabling environment for women’s agency, especially in farming and allied systems, without reinforcing existing gender divisions of labour and rights? • Women need to be represented at various political levels. Men may not always be able to empathise with women’s realities, which could impact the way certain policies are drafted and implemented. • Fund of funds, a policy initiative by the Indian government, provides funds to venture capital and private equity that fund women. Recommendations: • Encourage effective communication between men and women, as involving all groups is key to women empowerment. • Lack of finance is a major roadblock in developing countries. More women in leadership positions in finance, as well as policymaking and social enterprises, can help fund and empower other women. • Policies focusing on entitlements to land and technology for women should be redrafted to enable women’s control over these resources. • Nurture social capital of women’s enterprises and collectives, through capacity building, financial and advisory support.236238239240241242243245246247249251Discussion Group 2 - Building and Investing in Women’s Collective Agency The discussion was guided by the following questions: 1. Many interventions that seek to operationalise women’s agency face backlash from traditional power structures including the extended family, the village council, and even the state. How can this be addressed effectively, by both grassroots organizations and local government institutions? 2. Most models for building collective agency have been implemented in rural areas. Can these models be used in urban contexts for vulnerable groups of migrant workers, sex workers, transwomen and domestic help? What might be different in urban settings? 3. What are the key resources required for sustaining women’s collective agency? 4. Despite the centrality of women’s agency to building sustainable food systems, this has not always translated into public/private investments. How can we make developing women’s agency a policy priority and direct more funds and resources towards it? The following insights and outcomes emerged: • Heterogeneity of Women- Women are not homogenous in their identity, access to information and vulnerability. Models of inclusion are usually selective and do not address the diversity among women. Change can only happen when there is more representation and participation of women in institutional structures. • From Recognition to Action - We need a strategic framework for building the capacities of women’s institutions. The lessons we have learned across BRICS countries is that women have hidden capacities that need to be unearthed. Women are the gatekeepers of family health and bear the brunt of disease and climate injustice. Policy makers should note that we need women-centered policy-making. • Building Women’s Collective Agency - Successful women’s groups have been able to build alliances across the board. Power mapping can help women recognize the opposition on ground and simultaneously realize the benefits of collectives. Digital literacy, leadership development, and training in marketing will help women to organize, participate, transform institutional spaces and build solidarity. For example, SEWA’s successful model. • Challenging prejudices - Educational institutions can help break the androcentric perspective in agriculture. State institutions and corporate agencies should rethink their definition of a farmer. We need to deconstruct and decolonize our view on women’s collective agency in order to change social norms. • Urban Collective Agency - Lack of data is a key issue in identifying the challenges faced by certain groups and mobilizing them. It is important to build alliances with larger groups such as labour unions in cities. Unpaid care work and women in the informal sector need to be recognized. Inclusion of social movements, mobilizing groups, protesting and pressuring state governments could be solutions. The HIV programme is an example. An understanding of women’s food preferences across caste, region, and religion needs to be incorporated into food security programmes. The role of women in food security needs to be acknowledged in state-led programmes as well as by labour movements in urban areas. • Key Policy Priorities - Women need access to forests, land, water, commons and food resources. Access to finance, markets, non-GMO seeds etc. is needed even for household, communal and small-holder farmers. Livelihoods play a critical role not only in poverty alleviation but also in strengthening institutions such as SHGs. Women need to be supported in building agricultural knowledge, especially indigenous and agro-ecological farming methods. Data systems need to reflect women's contribution. Strategies should be devised considering different categories such as farming or non-farming households, landed or landless, etc. We need to invest in capacity building of women. Effective monitoring and evaluation of women’s collective action programmes should be instituted. Evidence-based qualitative and quantitative research, documentation of cases and success stories, mainstreaming and creating ecosystems for women’s agency is the need of the hour.236239240241242243244246247249251Discussion Group 3 - Strengthening the Interface between Women’s Knowledges and Science Women’s indigenous knowledge about food systems is considered incompatible with the scientific method. However, scientific research has often independently validated traditional systems of production and consumption, especially those practiced by women (agroecology, multi-cropping, nutritional benefits of millets and other neglected crops). There is a need for a stronger interface between women’s knowledges and science, which can galvanise the transition to sustainable and equitable food systems. The discussion was based on this premise and guided by the following questions: 1. Women’s knowledges span several food systems domains, such as production (indigenous crops), collection (wild and forest produce), livestock rearing, consumption (traditional culinary knowledge) and processing (salting, pickling). How can civil society, research and policy actors not only recognize and preserve, but also elevate the importance of these knowledges in the food systems discourse? 2. How can scientists position the value of local women's knowledge as equally relevant to agriculture and food science? 3. How can policy makers and implementing agencies, through their extension and outreach activities, involve women as active agents in the production and dissemination of knowledge about regenerative agricultural practices and localised food systems? 4. What are some successful examples of mutually collaborative practices between women’s knowledge and science and technology, in agriculture, livestock rearing, food processing and consumption? How can we build on these? The participants discussed the lack of recognition of women’s knowledge in society, science and policy and the challenges in incorporating women’s knowledge in scientific curriculums and research. The discussion also highlighted the roadblocks in operationalising women’s knowledge in policy and extension support, including: • Cultural attitudes and knowledge gaps among scientists, policymakers and extension agents. • The hierarchical structure of the interface between science and women’s knowledge. The research methodology of most sciences tends to be gender-blind, from data collection and analysis to outcomes. • Rigidity of scientific institutions and systems. • Policy and extension support are still male-dominated, although more women are pursuing education in agricultural sciences. This reduces access of women producers to knowledge and advisory services. Recommendations – 1. Integrate women’s knowledge into the scientific curriculum, especially in agricultural sciences. Facilitate the study of women’s resilience strategies and exercise of agency in conditions of adversity. 2. While it is important to have women-only spaces to discuss gender issues, also involve and engage with men in their capacities as policymakers, extension agents and scientists. Encourage male champions who can challenge the notion that gender research is for women only. This will help change patriarchal attitudes and amplify the importance of gender in policy and practice. 3. Research methodology in the sciences, including data collection, analysis and outcomes, need to inculcate a gender lens. This could involve gender-disaggregated data, participatory methods and providing platforms for dissemination that encourage gender-sensitive research. The science-policy interface for such research also needs to be strengthened to facilitate evidence-based policies. 4. Utilising the opportunities provided by the pandemic to facilitate gender mainstreaming across interconnected issues such as health, nutrition and sustainability. 5. Study both the failures and the successes among initiatives that integrate women’s knowledge and science. This will help us understand not only what strategies work, but also the reasons for the resistance and backlash that several interventions face. 6. Facilitate the appointment of more women as extension agents and resource persons to enable rural women producers to avail extension support. Sensitise and build the capacities of male agents to include women producers in their service delivery.236238239240242243244246248249251Discussion Group 4 - Alternate Pathways to Improving Nutritional Outcomes This session was guided by four key questions 1. Across the world, women are responsible for household consumption and therefore nutrition. How can we improve their access to the knowledge, resources and support they need to improve their family’s food and nutrition security? The recommendations from the session are: • Data on women’s knowledges, attitudes and practices towards food is essential to develop contextual understanding. • Embed the idea of food groups, micronutrients and their sources in women’s household consumption practices. • Local governance bodies can be platforms for improving access and participation of women. An example is the Kerala model, where Gram Sabhas encourage discussions on food and nutrition among women. 2. Food-based dietary guidelines, while a useful standard, are often generalised and not accommodating of local cultures. Can making women equal participants in the production and dissemination of context-specific nutrition information contribute to better adoption of dietary guidelines? Participation of women is important for accommodating cultural food preferences in dietary guidelines. Women should be enabled to not only cook nutritious meals, but also participate in all stages of the food value chain. Promoting women’s participation in kitchen gardens and local markets can encourage production and consumption of locally grown food, mitigating food insecurity. Women can be community educators and disseminators of best practices, enabling households to understand the importance of their food choices for nutrition. Women’s collectives such as SHGs and FPOs could sell home-cooked nutritious meals in villages and local markets. 3. How can men be engaged in the discourse around nutrition and household consumption, as they not just exercise control over family finances, but also help reproduce social norms contributing to the intergenerational cycles of malnutrition in women? A crucial step is to engage men at multiple levels: a) Household - Ensure equitable distribution of food and recognise how this can improve nutrition of women and the household. b) Community - Change the knowledge, attitudes and practices of the community. c) Institutions - Ensure men’s participation in diversification of cropping systems, agriculture extension services and local markets. The historical gender inequality that has led to intergenerational cycles of malnutrition cannot be sustainably addressed without the participation of men. 4. Encouraging local production and consumption (through kitchen gardens and community wet markets) can help increase women’s autonomy over household consumption and reduce dependency on markets. How can this be made a policy imperative, especially in LMICs? The following suggestions emerged from this discussion: a) Policy shift to millets and other local grains is crucial, along with promoting women-run micro-enterprises and encouraging women-focussed technological innovations. b) Develop short supply chains to cater to local consumers and producers. c) Develop a dataset on land availability for kitchen gardens. Alternative methods can be employed for landless people. d) In Andhra Pradesh, convergence of the Department of Rural Development with the Department of Agriculture helped farmers shift to organic farming and enabled households to understand the importance of their food choices. Women play a crucial role in such initiatives. Recommendations - 1. Ascertaining knowledge, attitudes and practices of women to develop effective measures to improve nutritional outcomes. 2. Support women to become educators, generating awareness on nutritious consumption patterns. 3. Support women with knowledge and skills to ensure their equitable participation in all stages of the food value chain. 4. Engage and sensitize men at multiple levels: household, community and institutional, to ensure their participation in enhancing nutritional outcomes. 5. Leverage government programmes for dissemination of relevant knowledge on FNS. 6. Development of grassroots leadership programmes for sustainable food systems.236238240241242243244245246247249251Discussion Group 5 - Rights, Entitlements and Representation The discussion focused on the following questions: 1. In Asia and Africa, women lack land rights, and therefore legal recognition as farmers. This exposes them to exploitation of their labour and threat of eviction. How can legal safeguards be granted, and their implementation monitored, particularly for women in rural communities? 2. What are the gaps in current legislation on women’s rights and entitlements, especially in Asia and Africa, regarding agriculture, nutrition and food systems? How can policies related to the food system be more gender sensitive? In Asia and Africa, women have land rights, but face implementation challenges and patriarchal social norms. Marriage often weaken women’s claim and ability to control land. Better monitoring, capacity building and implementation from the lowest bureaucratic levels are needed. Land rights may also be used to tie women down to land-based livelihoods and degraded lands. The key is to recognize that in food systems, women sustain themselves through several resources and livelihood activities. Land ownership rights are as important as usufruct rights over other productive resources. SDG 5.4 notes women’s unpaid care work. Women also do unpaid non-care work, especially in South Asia, where inherited socio-economic hierarchies make some castes and ethnic groups landless. Recognizing women’s work for labour rights is necessary, especially in contexts such as tea plantations (e.g. Sri Lanka), where plantation and agricultural economies intertwine to create difficult working/ living conditions for women. The example of Pakistan’s Sindh was given, where a law has been passed recognizing the minimum wage rights of women agricultural workers. There is also a need for policy to ensure access to credit, technology and other resources required by women producers. Land improvement should not be limited to mainstream productivity but involve nutrition-centric agriculture. Gender-disaggregated data is crucial for policy and understanding disparities across intersectional categories of caste, class, race, age, ethnicity and religion. 3. There have been efforts to increase representation of women in local decision-making bodies, including local governments, producer organisations, agriculture, nutrition and health extension, yet gendered power structures often work against women’s voice and agency. How can representation be made substantive, and not merely nominal, for women? Substantive women’s representation is crucial to achieving sustainable progress. The challenges to this include women being represented by men of the family and women being stuck at lower levels of decision-making. Representation can also be hegemonized by elite women. Women leaders are often considered leaders of only women rather than the whole community. A crucial step would be to build women’s capacity through budget allocations and collectives for improved access to resources. In the Odisha Millet Mission, women’s SHGs play active roles - building nutritional awareness and negotiating better market access and wages. The Kenya National Farmers’ Federation (KENAFF) also works to improve women’s representation from grassroots to the national level. Women’s representation must often fit into mainstream development models. However, mainstream models devalue women’s situated knowledge, such as intensive agriculture systems that have led to agrarian distress. Meaningful women’s representation has to involve the re-imagination of the development paradigm. Recommendations: 1. Strong implementation of legal, tenure, and usufruct rights and recognition of women farmers for workers' rights. 2. Farming systems investments to increase food and nutrition centric agriculture productivity and reduce women's drudgery on small and marginal farmland. 3. Gender-segregated data to map land access and other common and productive resources. 4. Inclusive definition of farmers, recognising the intersectionality of women. 5. Creating alternative development paradigms and valuing women's knowledge. 6. Intersectionality in women's informed representation.

2021-09-21 07:14:04https://nisd.ac.uk/new-report-enable-womens-agency-to-improve-food-systems/

2021-07-22 20:22:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29694/203

483412224240147013011123

Sustainable food systems must include sustainable ways of delivering food to residents. As such, we organized our dialogue with a focus on those stakeholders and actors that have a role to play in designing, creating, and operating local public markets in urban settings. These actors included market operators, government officials, researchers/academics, civil society, and the private sector from around the world. Our dialogue introduced the 7 principles of a market city and highlighted the work being done by five cities (Hanoi, Arusha, Barcelona, Toronto, and Accra). We then broke out into 4 breakout group discussions where we discussed the topics that are needed by participants to advance local markets in their cities and the ways they wish to remain connected into the future.Our dialogue was focused on bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders from around the world (embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity) to discuss the important role that local public markets play in a sustainable food system. This allowed us to empower the stakeholders participating in our session to contribute to the Food Systems Summit. Through the breakout sessions we were able to foster new connections, and the focus of the breakout sessions was on the ways to move forward collectively (commit to the summit). All participants were given an opportunity to share their thoughts and needs (being respectful; building trust). Our dialogue also highlighted the importance of developing local public markets systems, which involved all the stakeholder groups meeting as part of the dialogue (recognize complexity; complement the work of others).No feedback.

Yes

234238239241242246248249One of the most undervalued assets of cities and regions are traditional public markets. As became even more evident during the Covid 19 pandemic, successful markets play a critical role in supporting local food systems, helping to grow and connect urban and rural economies. They offer low-risk business opportunities for vendors and farmers and feed money back into the rural economy where products are grown, raised and produced. And importantly, they increase access to fresh, affordable and healthy food. Despite their many benefits, public markets across the globe are endangered by a combination of many forces, ranging from a lack of management capacity and investment in infrastructure to exclusionary economic development practices. Through this dialogue we explored the need and opportunity of the Market Cities Initiative and why such an approach is a key component to a healthy food system. The dialogue convened market operators, governments, researchers, civil society, and the private sector to discuss how these groups would connect and collaborate to advance local Market Cities’ strategies.235238239241242246248249The Market Cities Initiative was established to advance a new vision for public market systems at the scale of cities, regions, and beyond. The best way to overcome the challenges that face markets is for markets to work together in partnership with other groups with common interests in order to maximize the impact of public market systems on their communities. Creating and strengthening a local public market system improves health, reduces inequalities, improves livelihoods, and supports a more sustainable distribution of food throughout cities and regions. The Market Cities Initiative is being carried out through four key strategies: Resources, Training, Advocacy, and Network Development. Each strategy has associated activities, ranging from issue area webinars, trainings, and conferences, to a resource library, evaluation tools, and case studies developed through on-the-ground projects. Participants in the breakout were specifically asked to focus on the network development components of the initiative in order to better understand the interest in meeting more regularly. Participants identified areas of interest including measuring markets, creating stakeholder groups locally, support vendors and market managers, and creating markets as community spaces. Participants in each group agreed that they wanted to connect regularly and preferred to meet regionally (North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America) as participants felt like people within their own regions would share similar issues. It was felt that meeting regionally, but with a diverse group of stakeholders within each region, would garner the most benefits. However, all agreed that meeting once a year with the other regions would also be helpful. Participants also identified the desire to participate in more skill building events. Moving forward, the Market Cities Initiative will be developing ways for stakeholders to connect through online platforms, events, and conferences. Opportunities to connect to an even larger group of stakeholders will also be explored.236242243246248Participants in all the breakouts agreed that they wanted to meet regularly through regional networks. The Market Cities Initiative will begin this work. Due to COVID and the ongoing restriction on travel, we will explore online means to bring people together and develop governance models for each regional network. Membership in the networks and participation in meetings will be the main way to determine progress towards this outcome. Challenges include time to participate and access to reliable technology in some parts of the world to be able to meaningful participate.236238239240241242243Another outcome, is the importance of ensuring that local public markets are considered an essential part of a sustainable food system. Markets should not be viewed as independent entities but rather should be considered as part of an overall system. Given markets' critical role in distributing healthy, fresh, local, and safe food, their lack of profile and discussion is a problem for overall sustainability. By investing in a Market Cities strategy, public market systems can help address multiple high-level societal issues as outlined in the UN’s Sustainable Development goals and the five Action Tracks. These include: Tackling economic, social, gender, and racial inequality; Increasing access to safe, nutritious, and affordable food year-round; Creating safe and socially resilient environments where diverse people interact; Decreasing violence and discrimination against women and increasing the number of women leaders; Expanding decent work and business opportunities for all, but especially for the most marginalized. The Market Cities Initiative partners will prepare a paper that will outline the ways that markets can help achieve all 5 Action Tracks and will be seeking addition ways to ensure markets are considered an essential part of the food system.237242246There was no real divergence among the groups in terms of supporting the need to continue to meet regularly. However, the researcher/academic group would like to continue to meet as a sector. The other groups felt that regional groups made more sense. Both are possible and there's no need to prioritize. There were, however, groups not well represented in the dialogue. Farmers were not present and therefore their views are not included in the dialogue. Government officials were also not well represented (although they were represented). Further connecting with government and learning more about how they want to connect is important.

2021-07-22 22:24:12204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34287/193

5241313310641151423123221212722265342242

The Independent Dialogue was organized as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It ultimately meant to come up with ideas to protect and/or improve the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. The Dialogue built on the existing policy processes and initiatives while trying to provide an avenue to connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships to transform food systems. Members of the dialogue are forward-looking to the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of ideas to contribute to the vision, objectives, and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. Despite the fact that the team was composed of varied stakeholders from different sectors, yet participants were coordinated such that each had to listen to each other and be open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Members jointly worked while focusing on promoting good stewardship of natural resources and thinking of ways to respect local cultures and contexts. We favorably looked at the existence of policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities.Being complex and closely connected to, and significantly impact upon; human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy, and other systems, thus, food systems transformation requires a joint approach. As such, the dialogue embraced the complexity of the food systems by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. The Dialogue brought 44 participants to the table diverse stakeholders from within the Government ministries, Non-stake actors/NGOs, and farmer organizations including Farmer Research Networks, academic and research institutions, and media representing many more other stakeholders working across the food systems from production to consumption. Stakeholders were inclusive and strived to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional, and gender-specific perspectives. Their voices are clearly captured in the Dialogue feedback. Evidently, we supported inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities that bring in diverse perspectives to enable stakeholders to find alignment through understanding and designing of policy options that deliver against multiple public goods and across these various systems. The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way that promoted trust and encourages mutual respect. Thus, conclusions shared here are not attributed to single individuals rather emanate from thorough discussions from groups of people with varied knowledge and experience.Yes, they should observe the principles of engagement during the Dialogue, since, for example, adhering to these principles; they will reap the fruits of diversity which enriches and strengthens common understanding of the phenomenon in question. Diversity in discussion is very important, since each participant will bring different knowledge and experiences, and probably different cultures, beliefs, and values to enrich the discussion. Diversity can also create opportunities for growth and better connection in person, and or social achievements. Other principles emphasize on strength-based approaches are a key principle of inclusive discussions. They distinguish each participant as having inherent strengths and talents which could be a catalyst for positive thinking in a particular discussion. So, we may celebrate diversity and differences among participants in facilitating opportunities for personalized knowledge. Seeking the perspectives of participants ensures they make a meaningful contribution to their knowledge and experience. The ability to have a voice influences both their knowledge as participants and their agency too. It should be noted that; the process of facilitation should be consultative and participants should be active rather than passive on matters that directly affect them. Knowing this it triggers us to There is also a need to consider the principle of listening, which emphasizes the belief in participants’ capabilities, and the need to develop relationships of trust and respect. Moreover, when participants are given a platform to share their voices, there is a better understanding of their experience and as a result, we get a clear message that participant engagement is important. However, all in all, facilitators must be fully committed to including all participants. Inclusive facilitation needs commitment, knowledge, and practical skills. An inclusive discussion is one where participants of all capabilities have the opportunity to contribute their views.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249250251The Dialogue touched almost all the five objectives/action tracks listed below; 1) Ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All (enabling all people to be well-nourished and healthy) 2) Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns (promoting and creating demand for healthy and sustainable diets, reducing waste) 3) Boosting Nature-Positive Production at Sufficient Scales (acting on climate change, reducing emissions and increasing carbon capture, regenerating and protecting critical ecosystems, and reducing food loss and energy usage, without undermining health or nutritious diets) 4) Advancing Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution (raising incomes, distributing risk, expanding inclusion, creating jobs) 5) Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks, and Stresses (ensuring the continued functionality of healthy and sustainable food systems) 2. Aim and Objectives In light of the above, the Dialogue aimed at creating the opportunity for stakeholders in agroecology to interact and deliberate on the role agroecology should play in realizing sustainable food systems in Tanzania by focusing on the following themes: research, policy, capacity building, and dissemination. 1. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, POLICY, TRAINING, AND EXTENSION CLUSTER i. Indicate the needs, or otherwise for changes in current agriculture (2013) and livestock (2006) policies that can help advocate for AEI in the next 3 – 5 years period, ii. Determine the nature of support that AEI would be availed to agroecology practitioners along the value chain, iii. Going forward, indicate how training and extension services would need to be re-engineered to accommodate stakeholders’ needs for Agroecology Intensification-(AEI), and iv. Identify which other issues need special consideration to support AEI, where appropriate, in Tanzania. 2. TANZANIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE-TARI/TANZANIA LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE-TALIRI/SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE-SUA cluster Determine strategic interventions that would ensure an inclusive research agenda that incorporates the needs of both resource-limited and large scale entities in line with AEI, (i) Which approach would help fast-track research and technology generation relevant to AEI? (ii) Do we have information on stakeholder needs for AEI? a) If the answer is yes, elaborate on the cause(s) for failure to generate and/or disseminate relevant technologies for AEI on a wider scale, and b) If the answer is no, propose an approach(es) and procedure(s) for the identification of research priority areas for AEI that are likely to give an impact in the immediate and long terms in different agroecological zones. (iii) Given the impact of climate change in some areas, what do you see as the role of research to address emerging issues along the value chain to help streamline research priority areas for AEI, and (iv) Can one say that there is a need to re-define ‘agroecological zonation’ in order to realistically target research efforts in potential high impact areas for Agroecology Intensification?, and (v) Determine what other issues need special consideration to support technology generation for AEI in Tanzania. (3) NGOs/FRNs CLUSTER i. Identify AEI practices (technologies) adopted widely by farmers (for production, processing, or marketing/trade) in your area (NGO/FRN) that provide evidence for increased agricultural (crop and/or livestock) productivity ii. Determine how advocacy activities on AEI resonate with the current agriculture and livestock development policies, iii. Who and/or which organizations and/or institutions should actively participate in advocacy and out-scaling of AEI technologies and which specific roles should be played by each, iv. Determine the current gaps in extension on AEI and the training needs for extension/outreach activities geared towards AEI at the grass-root level, v. Identify policy and strategic bottlenecks hindering widespread adoption of AEI practices in Tanzania, and vi. Determine which other issues need special consideration to support technology generation and dissemination for AEI in Tanzania.235238240241242244245246248249251Issues that featured strongly during group discussion and plenary session are as follows; 1. Lack of defined markets of AE products 2. The existing policies are inclined towards conventional agriculture 3. Lack of political will to support smallholder farmers to adopt agroecology 4. Uncoordinated efforts among agroecology stakeholders at inter and intra levels 5. Lack of strategies for promoting the use of bio-inputs (e.g. bio-pesticides) and native seeds 6. Ineffective extension services236238239240241242244245246248249250251THEME 1: Policy on Research and Development, Training and Extension The National Agriculture Policy, 2013 recognizes organic agriculture but not agroecology although some of its practices are addressed. Also, in relation to agroecological intensification, the National Livestock Policy of 2006 does not specifically address absolute issues in agroecology. However, it points out some issues of concern for agroecology. Furthermore, the Plant Health Act (2020) has provisions for licensing bio-input suppliers. It is, however, noted that this legislation is yet to become operational pending the completion and sanctioning of Regulations that would spell out details on procedures and processes for operationalization of the law. What to do? - Training & extension should focus on the coexistence of conventional and agroecology knowledge - TARI and other research institutions should recognize and participate in AE related research - Effectively coordinate AE stakeholders by agroecology Hub in Tanzania. - Promote dissemination of AE technologies and knowledge to the community level through ICTs - Promote production by farmers of market-led AE products - Publicize AE products through various methods including media - Advocate strongly for AE through various methods including media Theme 2: TARI/TALIRI/SUA cluster Strategies for promoting AE Research -AE research should form part of the mandate of TARI and other research institutions -Technology transfer units should develop mechanisms for the dissemination of technologies on Agroecological Intensification (AEI) -Adopt participatory programs in identifying AE technologies in collaboration with farmers and other stakeholders -Agroecology Hub in Tanzania and the Ministry of Agriculture (Lead Ministry) should prepare a document containing a variety of agroecology technologies relevant to specific geographical areas/regions in the country. -Revise the National agricultural research agenda (NARA) to incorporate agroecology issues. -Mapping of research needs for generating appropriate AE technologies. THEME 3: NGOs/FRNs cluster (. Key issues identified • NGOs are weak in advocating for evidence-based AE sensitive agriculture and livestock policies • Poor documentation of challenges to the existing policies • Lack of training of extension staff on AE • Lack of extension approach towards AEI at various levels including at grass root level • Extension staff are implementing their duties based on existing government policies and programs which are inclined towards conventional agriculture • Existing policies do not adequately capture AE issues • Low ratio of extension staff to farmers • Extension officers undertake activities other than extension work What to do? - Revise curricula in technical training institutions to include agroecology - Conduct refreshers training on AE for in-service extension staff - Promote a positive attitude towards AE - Establish platforms for coordination of AE stakeholders (Agroecology Hub in Tanzania-AEHT) - Promote use of participatory approach involving various stakeholders (e.g. researchers, policymakers, agro-dealers, and producers) in advocacy and out-scaling of AEI technologies - Identify policy and strategic bottlenecks hindering widespread adoption of AEI practices in Tanzania237238240242244246249Generally, there is no striking divergence in terms of observation regarding issues discussed during the plenary. In fact, groups of participants had similar views on various issues discussed. To some degree, participants had disputes about whether or not there should be an emphasis on the use of industrial/chemical inputs to farmers.

2021-07-22 23:16:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23623/147

201289112133112133123131123

The Independent Dialogue incorporated the Principles of Engagement by following the method recommended by the Reference Manual for Convenors of FSS Dialogues, namely by ensuring a diverse group of actors' participation. The selection and distribution of participants through the different thematic discussion groups were made according to their areas of work/interest so that they could more easily recognize the importance, complexity, and urgency of debating the respective themes. We also wanted to encourage the confrontation of different perspectives on the same challenge in a balanced way. To ensure fairness in their interventions, we gave each participant a similar intervention time. The choice of less explored themes for the focus of the Dialog contributed to complement the work of others.The discussion topics and questions used in the thematic breakout groups challenged participants to think about urgent short-term actions (“Act with urgency”) to improve the state of food systems by 2030. We tried to incorporate, right from the definition of the discussion topics, concerns such as improving livelihood conditions of the most marginalized actors, namely through fairer pay, respect for human rights, health, sustainable management of natural resources, and local contexts (“Be respectful”). Approaching three distinct food systems components in the discussion groups and their integrated framing in the plenary sessions contributed to recognizing the complexity of food systems (“Recognize complexity”). As answered in the previous question, we also ensured the inclusion of diverse stakeholders and the complementarity of the work of others (“Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity” and “Complement the work of others”). Personalized responses to various questions posed by participants during the Dialogue planning phase and regular contact helped “build trust”, as their concerns were taken into account.We suggest that other dialogues seek to explore less visible but often fundamental aspects of food systems, thereby acknowledging their complexity. We believe that regular information to participants also helped to build trust in the process, for example, by informing in advance who the different stakeholders represented in the dialogue were before it took place, explaining how the session would unfold, etc. Do not overlook the importance of choosing a suited convenor for the dialogue. Selecting a person who is consensual and recognized as knowledgeable about food systems in general and the various topics under discussion, in particular, contributes greatly to the credibility of the whole process. Her opening statement is also key to setting the tone for the discussion.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251The main focus of this Independent Dialogue was sustainable diets in Portugal and their relationship with the more specific themes of national biodiversity, imported deforestation, and responsible seafood. When choosing which food systems issues to address we considered the following criteria: having strategic importance for nature conservation work in Portugal; having substantial implications for other countries in terms of impacts and potentials; having been less (or not at all) addressed in other Independent Dialogues. Since 2015, we have known that the food footprint of Portugal’s population is well above the average for Mediterranean countries, distancing itself far from the consumption patterns established by the Mediterranean diet. Associated with this unsustainability, we also know that poor nutrition is the leading cause of premature mortality and multiple chronic diseases among Portugal’s population. The diets of Portugal’s population represent an average of 30% of the country's ecological footprint. And this highlights a high dependence on the biocapacity of other countries for some types of food, which predictably leads to problems in terms of food security. Portugal’s citizens consume, import, and waste food in excess. Among the different problems associated with this footprint, we find a sharp decline in biodiversity. One of the most pressing concerns on this topic is to understand how national biodiversity is affected by food production, knowing that agriculture is the leading cause of biodiversity loss in the EU but it can also have positive impacts on biodiversity. On the subject of deforestation, we know that much of the food placed on the European market may cause deforestation in third countries. The EU is the 2nd largest importer of products resulting from deforestation, and Portugal ranks 9th in deforestation caused by international trade, thus having a very important role in minimizing this problem. On the subject of seafood, we know that Portugal ranks 3rd in the world in terms of seafood consumption per capita, with little diversified consumption given the enormous variety of seafood existing in national waters (+200 commercial species). Despite this, we are insufficiently aware and concerned about the impacts of our seafood consumption and about the coastal communities that depend on it. The actions of multiple actors in the food system influence its results. In Portugal, public policies that can promote, in an integrated manner, food systems with less impact on biodiversity, deforestation and responsible seafood consumption are still immature, at the national but mostly at the local level. The capacity of the various actors, the consolidation of information and knowledge systems and the creation and strengthening of national and international networks are therefore fundamental.235238239240241242243244246247248249251In general, one sensed the following from the group discussions: - Widespread criticism of the absence of a stronger policy that structures cross-cutting issues such as changing consumer behavior, legislation, and the training and mobilization of various actors (producer, processors, distributors, retailers, etc.). - That there is room and willingness for civil society organizations, as well as the public sector, to constitute themselves as a more cross-cutting force, as a network, and to build constructive joint paths. - The opportunities for transforming food systems only arise with collaboration, integration, and convergence of the various actors in the food chain. The main conclusions on the three topics, in a cross-cutting way, were: - Knowledge: the need to study and better understand the food consumption habits and consumption behaviours of citizens in Portugal, by involving all stakeholders to, in particular, better understand the drivers and reasons for steering away from the Mediterranic diet, particularly among youth. - Long term vision and short-term actions: without compromising the need to have ambitious long term goals, it is key to focus on achievable short-term goals (3 years), that match societal expectations (e.g., having seafood and meat consumption reduction targets, which impact greatly on biodiversity and deforestation, but not unrealistic targets of excluding meat from diets). - Awareness: educate consumers to choose certified products (that meet principles, criteria, and indicators); informed and science-based education, instead of biased information and/or cherry-picked messages, especially for youth; integrate in school syllabus issues on diets and sustainability, adapted to local contexts. - Public Procurement: incentivize public procurement of sustainable food, including zero-deforestation criteria (e.g., for school cafeterias). - Public participation: Implement country-wide participatory guarantee systems to enable the recognition of sustainable production and consumption for those who cannot afford certification. - Labelling and Certification: adoption of legislation that makes traceability of goods mandatory. Make sustainability certification processes more flexible to adjust to local production contexts. Simplify information on certification systems to make it more accessible to the general public. Support businesses in rethinking and simplifying messages in food labels. Couple quality certification with sustainability certification (nutritional profile, benefits, and hazards). - Policy action by governments: this needs to be translated into guaranteeing more sustainable consumption for consumers and better conditions for market competition for businesses. - European policy mechanisms: to ensure meeting the targets of the European Green Deal and ensure that the Common Agriculture Policy is aligned with several environmental directives and strategies of the EU. Some of the challenges set for the future were: - Transform the forum started with the Independent Dialogue into something structured and consistent for the future, as a platform for civil society convergence to actively monitor food systems. - Explore how the different actors collectively manage to support each other, share information and knowledge, and transfer capacity building to others. - An opportunity to explore at the national level would be to create a convergence platform of different actors to act within the scope of the National Council for Food and Nutritional Security (with little expression and no consultative body), and to articulate its mission with that of Intermunicipal or Local Councils for Food and Nutritional Security .236238239240241242243244246247248249251Regarding the discussion topic on sustainable diets and national biodiversity, the following actions were concluded as being necessary: - Raise consumer awareness about buying in local markets and/or participating in producer-consumer or consumer-only cooperatives, to be able to gain access to sustainable food more cheaply (favoring value chains without intermediaries). - Make the population aware of the different levels of self-sufficiency according to the type of food. - Facilitate the process of selling native seeds by ending sales limitations, simplifying procurement requirements, and multiplying germplasm banks throughout the country. - Monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) by different actors, demanding that financial incentives be better adapted to the national context, favoring marginal areas (growing evidence of greater environmental relevance), effectively based on results, and with greater supervision to encourage farmers to adopt more positive practices for biodiversity, rewarding them accordingly. - CAP incentives should take negative externalities more into account (currently only very timidly considered in cross-compliance rules) in order to allow a reduction in subsidies for non sustainably produced food, bringing prices more into balance with those that are sustainable, and therefore making them more affordable. - Extend traceability to all foods to know their origin and differentiate them according to production method. - Raise awareness of the food chain (from producer to consumer) about how it works to empower action on how income is distributed along the chain, especially at the distribution level. - Decentralize distribution - replicate the practice of imposing a limit on the number of food retail stores in a municipality, imposing minimum sustainable food purchase quotas for each retailer. - Deconstruct the price/nutrient ratio of food - more sustainably produced food is generally more nutritious. The higher price of these foods is offset by their higher nutritional content. - Reformulation of benchmarks for sustainable production methods (e.g. organic farming is no guarantee of greater biodiversity), involving all relevant stakeholders in this reformulation (prevents us from continually developing proxy approaches that do not safeguard biodiversity). - Development of new regulations that promote good environmental practices or penalize bad ones(e.g., ban on incorrect burning). - Empower rural areas more in logistical support for food processing - insufficient, compared to urban areas.236238239240241242243244246247248249251Regarding the discussion topic on sustainable diets and imported deforestation, the following actions were concluded as being necessary: - Negotiate EU agreements with third countries for deforestation-free commitments (apply same rules as for EU). - The new EU forest strategy should reflect companies' responsibilities to ensure due diligence processes. - Complement measures for zero deforestation criteria with the implementation of sustainability standards on the ground. - Implementation of policies to value local products and control products imported from distant regions (analysis by region to meet essential needs). - CAP should favor extensive production methods and local markets. - Include zero-deforestation criteria in public procurement. - Integrate more robust legislation (with due diligence) and sustainability standards. - Use common metrics regarding environmental impacts and nutritional aspects in food classification for labeling purposes. - Media awareness campaigns on the theme of deforestation (replicating methods used in other successful environmental campaigns on other themes). - Educate producers about impacts. - Increase the price of meat to discourage consumption. - Reduce food waste by attending to size and calibration and using common metrics across the EU to calculate food waste (curb interests in using different metrics). - Make large-scale local production of alternative foods (seaweed, insect meal, protein crops), especially protein alternatives, produced locally - allows for shortening chains. - Invest in innovation for precision animal feed and improved animal digestibility (science-based). - Invest in responsible soy production: improve trade agreements with producing countries to safeguard environmental impacts and human rights. - Invest in agricultural production that integrates restoration actions (positive conversion) of ecosystems. - Integrate local communities and animals in the management of national forests. - Promote sustainable plant production, including for animal feed. - Adoption of voluntary certification systems with strict requirements regarding deforestation.236238239240241242243244246247248249251Regarding the discussion topic on sustainable diets and responsible seafood, the following actions were concluded as being necessary: - Promotion of alternative foods (e.g. seaweed). - Conversion to exclusive consumption of larger seafood. - Promotion of seafood consumption diversification - dissemination of less consumed species accompanied by cooking demonstrations. - Messages to raise consumer awareness should result from the collaboration of the different actors in the value chain. - Invest in awareness and dissemination of information on aquaculture production (on the production method, production density, and origin). - Apply more detailed traceability and make this information (e.g., origin) available to the consumer at all points of sale or consumption (including restaurants). - Replication of the Proof of Purchase model at first sale point(this allows us to know the origin of the seafood, is easy to read, and incentivises purchases from first sale points and compliance with the rules). - https://www.lotaemcasa.pt/ - Promotion of the use of online platforms that identify seafood sold at first sale points. - Supporting the various actors in the food chain to promote better choices (e.g., better protein sources, alternative proteins, more cost-effective forms of protein, food diversification, and waste reduction) through consulting, technological solutions, etc. - Technology solutions that allow consumers to collect waste from outlets. - Take advantage of seafood discards (recover the old practice of using discarded seafood for flour, e.g.; diversify baskets by including less consumed seafood species). - Demand from distribution: reduce portion sizes, channel consumption to sustainable species, and reduce waste. - Take advantage of existing tools in the value chain (e.g., guides to a better choice, companies with more sustainable offerings). - Industries should make strong commitments (e.g., renewable energy, recycling, decarbonization). - Make fishermen responsible for garbage collection. - Reduce bureaucracy in licensing of sustainable projects (e.g., aquaculture), by defining sustainability benchmarks and replicating the best examples from Europe (rather than investing in innovation only). - Decrease the number of vessels and hours at sea and polluting emissions. - Focus demand on the most productive systems and promote resilience to external factors.237238239240241242243244246247248249251Sustainable diets and national biodiversity: Organic agriculture was understood by some as a benchmark of sustainability and a way to ensure more nutritious food, being contested by others for understanding that it is only a benchmark for certification that may eventually allow destructive practices for nature, namely, for biodiversity (does not protect the soil, uses agrochemicals, etc.) and that there is no clear scientific evidence that biological products have a higher nutritional content. Sustainable diets and imported deforestation: Some participants pointed to reducing meat consumption as one of the most effective measures to tackling imported deforestation, given that a large part of this deforestation is associated with the conversion of areas for pastures or fodder crops. However, others disagreed with a demonizing view of the consumption of animal-based foods, arguing that the consumption of this type of food is essential if we want to have a balanced diet and that a set of other solutions could be adopted to reduce the environmental impacts of animal husbandry such as promoting responsible soy production and improving third-country import criteria. Some also criticized the frequent use of the term "conversion" in a pejorative way, pointing out that the conversion of ecosystems can be positive if, for example, it allows the restoration of degraded ecosystems. In response to several participants indicating that it is important to have more information available to consumers through food labels, some pointed out the difficulty of gathering all the necessary information on a single label. Also, in response to several participants who mentioned consumer education and awareness as essential steps for a transformation, as well as the implementation of voluntary agreements, some said that such measures were not effective and that it was imperative to create legislation that forces a change in consumer behavior by limiting non-sustainable choices. Sustainable diets and responsible seafood: The pressing need, highlighted by several participants, to diversify seafood consumption by the Portuguese was not unanimous. Someone felt that at least compared to other countries, namely the Nordic Europeans, the Portuguese consume a fairly diversified set of seafood, despite having recognized that there is always room for improvement.

2021-07-23 01:33:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33875/49

421721121014280151415164011319124780451

La planificación incluyó desde el inicio la visión de varios sectores como fue la Red Costarricense para Disminución de Pérdida y Desperdicio de Alimentos (Red PDA CR), el Banco de Alimentos, la representación de FAO en Costa Rica y el Tecnológico de Costa Rica como institución académica. Adicionalmente, se contó con apoyo de la Clínica de Leyes y Políticas Alimentarias (FLPC) de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Harvard como asesor externo y facilitador de insumos en la temática de interés para aportar objetividad al proceso, al tiempo que tras conocer sus estudios en políticas de donación de alimentos incentivaron a la Red PRA CR para avanzar en el tema (reunión 1er trimestre 2021 conoció resultados y se acordó realizar actividades de fomento de donación y sus políticas). Se celebraron cerca de 4 reuniones de planeamiento y manejando materiales digitales compartidos para preparar el Diálogo.Por sí sola, la conformación de la Red PDA CR supone un espacio multisectorial, lo cual sensibilizó al grupo organizador respecto a la complejidad del tema, la necesidad de abordar cuidadosa y respetuosamente los diversos puntos de vista, la complementariedad entre las disciplinas y sectores presentes, y la necesidad de actuar con celeridad y comprometidamente con este tema en el país, la reduccion del desperdicio alimetnario y los principios y fines de la Cumbre. A lo interno del grupo organizador se contó con diversidad de edades, formaciones académicas, sectores y experiencias también,Los organizadores de este Diálogo, tanto convocantes, co-convocantes como organizaciones de apoyo, creemos que estos principios orientan acertadamente la planeación, ejecución y síntesis de los Diálogos por lo que se insta a adoptarlos.

Yes

234238239242249A más de un año de la aparición y la propagación de la pandemia del nuevo coronavirus (COVID-19), los sistemas alimentarios en su integralidad se vieron afectados y se estima que demanda de asistencia alimentaria se mantienen en su punto más alto, con aproximadamente 115 millones de personas más que han caído en la pobreza extrema con claros riesgos de inseguridad alimentaria y hambre. En contraste, la problemática de la pérdida y el desperdicio de alimentos no necesariamente se cree que haya disminuido, con los consecuentes efectos ambientales, económicos y sociales que conlleva. Paralelamente, los bancos de alimentos y las organizaciones de recuperación de alimentos que facilitan la donación han ayudado a abordar tanto los retos de seguridad alimentaria, hambre y pobreza, como los de reducción de desperdicio de alimentos, al recuperar y reorientar estos bienes que de otro modo se desperdiciarían. Sin embargo, a pesar del potencial de la donación de alimentos para estos aspectos, la discusión debe ser ampliada a nivel global y en aquellas naciones que parecen seguir teniendo retos en su andamiaje político y prácticas existentes. Costa Rica no escapa del fenómeno, y por eso la Red Costarricense para Disminución de Pérdida y Desperdicio de Alimentos junto al Banco de Alimentos de Costa Rica convocó a este Diálogo con apoyo de la FLPC de la Universidad de Harvard, FAO en Costa rica y el TEC (academia), teniendo por foco principal el “Facilitar el diálogo entre los sectores público, privado, academia, y organizaciones no gubernamentales sobre las formas de optimizar los procesos de donación de alimentos en el país y reducir el desperdicio”. La actividad sumó a formuladores de políticas, donantes, académicos, expertos y organizaciones de recuperación de alimentos sobre las prioridades de las acciones, y el avance factible y alcanzable de los esfuerzos de donación de alimentos, en torno a siete áreas temáticas con una serie de preguntas guía que orientaron la discusión desde los umbrales y objetivos por considerar, hasta el diseño de políticas y prácticas de donación, su implementación y los actores por involucrar. Respecto a la temática, las áreas de 1) Inocuidad alimentaria para la donación, 2) Esquemas de etiquetado de fechas, 3) Protección del donante, 4) Políticas fiscales, 5) Requisitos de donación y regulaciones por desperdicio de alimentos, 6) Subvenciones e incentivos gubernamentales y 7) Consideraciones sobre poblaciones vulnerables y nutrición, fueron parte constante de la discusión. Finalmente, dada la complejidad del tema al igual que sus múltiples beneficios al ser abordado, las Vías de acción 1, 2 y 5 se vieron reflejada a lo largo de la actividad. Como parte de la agenda y con el fin de cumplir con el objetivo propuesto, se tuvo una fase introductoria que expuso el tema y hallazgos de estudios internacionales sobre políticas de donación de alimentos, y luego se hicieron subgrupos de discusión, para luego retornar a una plenaria de síntesis.235238241242249Dentro de los principales hallazgos de la actividad, se determinó que existe interés y voluntad de múltiples partes interesada por abordar la donación de alimentos como una solución de múltiples efectos, sean estos en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, o en la responsabilidad empresarial y la gestión integral de residuos y recursos productivos. En mayor detalle, la discusión arrojó tanto aspectos habilitantes y propuestas, como preocupaciones, y barreras para el proceso, lo cual se discute a continuación. Barreras para la donación: los participantes indicaron que los donantes pueden tener temor de recibir de recibir una demanda por donar productos con fecha pronta al vencimiento (no es permitido en el país) o que ya no sea inocuo. Así mismo, manifestaron que los trámites y tiempo de espera para acceder a organizaciones ya existentes y canalizar sus donaciones ágilmente, la comunicación fácil y la información sistematizada (cómo donar, dónde donar) son limitantes del proceso. Existen barreras en la correcta manipulación de los alimentos y los planes nutricionales en los comedores de las organizaciones receptoras de alimentos donados, sea por capacidades técnicas, tecnológicas o de conocimiento. Por ejemplo, pueden existir tanto donantes como receptores que no tengan claridad en lo que se considera desperdicio y lo que sí es aprovechable, puede haber problemas de logística referente a la movilización de los productos donados, se desconocen protocolos y leyes relacionadas y falta una visión de circularidad y ampliación el proceso incluso a una gestión eficiente de los residuos que lamentablemente siempre se generarán. La planificación y el recurso humano (voluntariado) es un reto tanto para actores productivos como para receptores, pues por un lado las sobreestimaciones de demanda hacen que se generen excedentes que a veces son difíciles de gestionar, pero las fluctuaciones también generan retos para los receptores quienes a veces tienen exceso de productos y en otros momentos escasez. Finalmente, se recalcó en varios grupos la necesidad de comunicar, sensibilizar y educar al consumidor, los productores, los empresarios y los actores institucionales sobre el tema y la necesidad de considerarlo en la gestión de los alimentos, pues hubo actores que indicaron no estar totalmente familiarizados con esta temática. Aspectos habilitantes: se mencionaron ejemplos de proyectos e iniciativas que ya están en ejecución, como son el Banco de Alimentos, Alimentalistas, Fundación Lloverá y muchas otras que mantienen alianzas o relación entre sí y con otros organismos para conectar a donantes con organismos sin fines de lucro que llevarán el alimento a beneficiarios finales; igualmente existen proyectos institucionales como en la central mayorista del PIMA-CENADA donde 16 organizaciones registradas colaboran con voluntariado para acopiar y redistribuir de manera ordenada productos que los concesionarios donan o desean redistribuir. Adicionalmente, se manifestó que ya existen alianzas y plataformas multisectoriales como la Red Costarricense para Disminución de Pérdida y Desperdicio de Alimentos que promueven el tema y lo analizan en espacios como el de hoy, manteniendo presente otras posibilidades de alianzas directas con la academia para capacitación e investigación, con la Cruz Roja y sus campañas, entre otras. Los procesos de rendición de cuentas transparentes pueden habilitar y motivar a más donaciones y se puede hacer uso de galardones como el Programa Bandera Azul Ecológica en su categoría “desperdicio de alimentos” para evidenciar y replicar buenas prácticas como la donación. Paralelamente, evitar el residuo por desperdicio de alimentos supone el avance en otros marcos ya existentes como el sello “Carbono Neutro” o bien el monitoreo del avance a nivel país, empresarial o institucional respecto a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Vías para generar cambios deseables en la donación de alimentos: existió coincidencia entre los actores sobre el rol que los incentivos podría jugar en potenciar la donación de alimentos, al igual que aspectos relacionados a sensibilización y fomento de capacidades. Por un lado, la sensibilización podrá despertar el interés de muchos actores del sistema alimentario (un empresario contó que su empresa empezó a donar alimentos cuando se enteró en el 2020 del concurso #SinDesperdicioCentroamérica y reconoció la seriedad del problema del desperdicio alimentario). Por otro lado, el fomento de capacidades podrá permear en aspectos técnicos de manipulación e inocuidad del producto (tanto en receptores como en usuarios finales, pues a veces se rescata el producto en el punto de producción pero se desperdicia en estas últimas fases de esta cadena alternativa de suministro); mejor planeamiento, conservación y distribución de alimentos, así como en el conocimiento de consumidores y actores productivos sobre entidades que pueden realizar la distribución, los requisitos, cuidados y mecanismos de la donación. La inserción de la temática de gestión ambiental y de residuos también podrá ayudar a potenciar el proceso o bien aprovechar aun elementos presentes en los residuos que finalmente se generen, y la facilitación de infraestructura local o comunitaria podrá hacer más eficiente el proceso de acopio y distribución.236238241242249Se resume a continuación lo discutido por los participantes en torno a los tópicos de discusión propuestos que fueron abordados, a saber: 1) Inocuidad alimentaria para la donación, 2) Esquemas de etiquetado de fechas, 3) Protección del donante, 4) Políticas fiscales, 5) Requisitos de donación y regulaciones por desperdicio de alimentos, 6) Subvenciones e incentivos gubernamentales y 7) Consideraciones sobre poblaciones vulnerables y nutrición. Es posible que algunos de ellos no se enfatizaran y no por esto resulten menos relevantes, pero suponen no estar entre los prioritarios para el grupo de asistentes al Diálogo y requerirán más estudio. 1) Inocuidad alimentaria para la donación: este aspecto fue constante a lo largo de todas las discusiones de los grupos e incluso de varios ejes temáticos, donde bajo ninguna circunstancia deberá obviarse la necesidad de garantizar la inocuidad del alimento durante el proceso de donación. 2) Esquemas de etiquetado de fechas: al faltar una política puntual, muchas veces falta claridad o se aplican limitaciones al momento de donación para los productos envasados, habiendo confusión entre los vocablos de “preferiblemente antes de” o “fecha de vencimiento”. 3) Protección del donante: existe temor por parte de donantes, así que aquellos procesos de protección legal pero con igual rigurosidad del aseguramiento de la inocuidad son necesarios, incluso haciendo la diferenciación entre los términos de “donación” y “redistribución”. 4) Políticas fiscales: las políticas como exoneración de impuestos ya existen en el país pero podrán ser fortalecidas pues no existe como tal una política de dominio nacional y y clara para la donación 5) Requisitos de donación y regulaciones por desperdicio de alimentos: más que regulaciones sancionatorias, se enfocó en los procesos que realmente sean habilitantes. 6) Subvenciones e incentivos gubernamentales: este aspecto se consideró vital como parte de Elementos normativos y de política para donación de alimentos, sea que se tratara de incentivos económicos directos, o bien de facilidad en otros procesos, distinciones, facilidad de trámites 7) Consideraciones sobre poblaciones vulnerables y nutrición: la consideración de mantener todas las visiones (económica, ambiental y social) debe estar presente para los actores del proceso de donación, pero es vital también considerar la sensibilidad sobre aspectos nutricionales en el proceso. Por ejemplo, una de las organizaciones ha manifestado que reciben bajo cierto protocolo casi todo tipo de producto alimenticio y cuidan que el beneficiario al que le distribuyan el producto no esté conformado principalmente por población vulnerable a cierto factor nutricional previsto en el producto donado.236238242243249Como comentarios que apunten a una mayor y mejor implementación de acciones y política de donación de alimentos, se comento sobre el Monitoreo y cumplimiento: Si bien se consideró que el monitoreo y cumplimiento siempre son grandes retos en política pública, se sugirió el levantamiento de estadísticas (originadas por parte del donante y por parte del receptor) así como la trazabilidad hacia adelante para dar a conocer a los donantes qué se hace con su producto donado. Se cree que la tecnología como apps de alimentación en tiempo real de datos puede ser un gran aliado. Se indicó la importancia de inventariar las acciones existentes dentro y fuera de Costa Rica, ver casos exitosos y sus mecanismos de monitoreo para considerar la generación del caso nacional, y generar protocolos, normas y guías de buenas prácticas que permitirán listas de chequeo de cumplimiento. La transparencia en el beneficiario final (con cuidado de su anonimato a nivel público) es necesaria también pues al “llegar a manos equivocadas” las ayudas se desincentiva al donante. Se pueden tener ejemplos los procesos de donación durante la pandemia y la labor de los Banco de Alimentos como caso de éxito, así como lineamiento que se avanzaron para donación aunque no llegó a concretarse su aprobación final.236238239242246249Un tercer y último aspecto se centró en Actores por considerar: además de actores protagónicos en la donación (empresas y comercios que den servicio de alimentación, productores primarios y de procesamiento de distinta escala, mercados, organizaciones receptoras), se consideró importante involucrar al consumidor (como potencial donante también y voluntario), a las municipalidades como entes gestores (podrán hacer campañas, facilitar estructuralmente los procesos, dar información.), a las Universidades (para capacitación y extensión en diversos temas como manejo poscosecha, manipulación, procesamiento, gestión del residuo), las Juntas de Educación y otros entes públicos que de alguna manera se relacionan en programas de distribución de alimentos (para que igualmente sean observadores de buenas prácticas y/o se sumen a la donación), Ministerios de diverso tipo (economía, hacienda, comercio, producción primaria e industrial, ambiente, asistencia social, salud), Organismos internacionales y Redes intersectoriales existentes237238239242249250Existió divergencia entre actores que promovieron incentivos de tipo económico, y quienes los ven muy difíciles de conseguir en este momento en el país, o al menos sería algo de más largo plazo. También hubo un caso que genera un reto o disyuntiva. Se conoce de programas de alimentación para población escolar, pero por temas de transparencia, protocolos, y presupuestos, cuando hay excedente de producto ese se trata de distribuir rápidamente si es perecedero, se almacena para la entrega del próximo mes si es no perecedero y se destruye si no se logra colocar; al ser un bien proveniente de presupuesto público no es tan fácil proceder a una donación. En síntesis, estos aspectos podrán ser subsanados y gestionados justamente al propiciar mayor avance en el análisis de estudios previos sobre la política y acciones de donación en el país, así como la puesta en marcha de propuestas, pilotos, retroalimentación de lo existente y la incorporación del tema en la agenda nacional para tomar decisiones articuladas.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Compilacion-de-plantillas-de-debate-Dialogo-Donacion-Costa-Rica.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Costa-Rica-Executive-summary-Spn.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Costa-Rica-Legal-Guide-Spn.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Costa-Rica-Recommendations_Spn.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Nota-Conceptual-Dialogo-Donacion-de-Alimentos-Costa-Rica.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Invitacion-Dialogo-Donacion-de-Alimentos.jpghttps://www.tec.ac.cr/red-costarricense-disminucion-perdidas-desperdicios-alimentoshttps://bancodealimentos.or.cr/

2021-07-23 01:48:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18851/203

3408178101024414311110311322111415

A food system stakeholder analysis was carried out to construct a stakeholder selection and planning matrix. This matrix was used as a planning tool to ensure that an inclusive mix of stakeholders were invited. The convenors invited individuals from diverse stakeholder groups, sectors, gender, and countries in the Southeast Asia region. The convenors also went through various iterations of the invitation list, drawing on their respective networks. An inclusive mix of facilitators from different backgrounds were selected and briefed with care to ensure they create a space for dialogue that is conducive to respect and trust. Facilitators must ensure safe space so that all participants feel that they can contribute, therefore allowing unique perspectives to be added to the Dialogue. The discussion topics were designed to capture multiple aspects and perspectives of the food systems in Southeast Asia so as to embrace their complexity.The convenor briefed on the UN Food Systems Summit at the opening of the meeting that provided a context for the Dialogue in relation to regional challenges and action and commitment to the summit. The convenor also briefed on the lacklustre progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals among Southeast Asia countries and urged the participants to embrace the urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective Goals. The Dialogue was framed around a forward-looking vision statement that encourages engagement of a wide range of stakeholders. The facilitators encouraged new connections, and enable the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. Participants in the Dialogue were encouraged to respect differences and embrace diversity, and to listen to each other and be open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. The Dialogue recognised that Southeast Asian food systems are complex, and are transitioning rapidly from traditional to modern, harmony to harm, low-impact to high-impact. The food systems consists of highly interconnected social, technical, financial, economic, and environmental subsystems, hence their betterment requires a systemic approach. The Dialogue brings to the table a diversity of stakeholders working across the food system from production to consumption. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse sociocultural, professional and regional perspectives. Chatham House Rule was strictly observed during the Dialogue. The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogue that are shared in the feedback are not attributed to single individuals.The attrition rate, especially in the case of online event held during the extended periods of COVID-19 'lockdown', is likely to be higher due to problems such as access to and the reliability of internet while working from home. It can therefore be useful to invite more individuals from each of the stakeholder groups to ensure they are well represented during the Dialogue. It is important to provide careful and proper briefing for facilitators to ensure they prompt sufficiently and effectively to avoid rather superficial responses from the participants. Participation in the global orientation and training for convenors and facilitators was very useful in appreciating the principles of engagement.The UNFSS dialogue reference manual was very helpful in the planning and execution of the Dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241246249Food and agriculture are at the heart of the 2030 Agenda, hence, making food systems sustainable is key to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The dialogue is designed to identify priorities and action plans to transform the food systems in Southeast Asia. The four major focus of the Dialogue is: • nutrition-sensitive and sustainable food production, including strengthening local area food production, development of traditional and alternative foods. • resilient and sustainable food supply chain, while ensuring sustainable livelihoods. • accessibility and affordability of nutritious food. • nutrition-sensitive capacity development for better nutritional outcomes, including exploring culturally appropriate approaches.235238239240241243244249Creating nutrition-sensitive food systems in Southeast Asia is an all-of society movement, involving dialogues, actions and cooperation between different stakeholders, from government to civil society. More research and data analysis will be important to define policies and ways forward. From the four breakout discussion rooms, several important themes emerge: 1. Food production is about transforming the society, beyond feeding the society: Throughout the discussion, food production cannot be just about producing enough food for the population. Instead, food production is intricately interlinked with incomes, livelihoods and nutrition provided to the society. Food producers come from many different communities, some coming from vulnerable and poor groups such as indigenous communities in rural area. Thus, ways to improve incomes for these food producers much be in consideration, including the provision of high quality seeds and training farmers. On the consumer end, especially with the COVID-19 impact, many households have reduced incomes, and thus may not be able to afford food. This is especially so for urban poor and refugee communities who do not have access to land to produce their own food. Urban farming can be a way forward to secure their food availability. Another important discussion is over the question of importation and production - some participants are of the view that countries should encourage greater production within the country, however there are also concerns over whether the higher cost of production for country might have other negative effects. While policymakers, private sector and civil societies are progressing to evolve into a more socially-sustainable food production, the lack of political will and leadership may pose a threat to the ongoing efforts to strengthen the social aspect of food production. 2. Changing consumption habits for better nutrition The discussion over changing consumption habits revolved around changing the habits of children's eating habits - it would be difficult for adults to change their eating habits accumulated after decades. While schools can play a role in educating the next generation, parents need to be educated in how to provide healthy and nutritious food. Hosting school farms can bring children closer to food production, sensitising them to food production. Thus, changing nutrition habits will require a look at the entire food supply chain. Another change some participants proposed is the changing choices for more higher-end but not necessarily healthy food, where food away from home which are highly processed have taken precedence. 3. Technology as an important factor for the future of food production Another important discussion revolves around the use of technology in food production and the food supply chain. New technologies are acknowledged as important drivers of the future of agriculture. Some have raised important questions on how technologies may not yield the promised greater productivity - where methods such as agroecology argue that these more natural methods are better. Others raised the issue that while new technologies are better, the cost of using new technologies can be prohibitive and raises the cost. For older farmers, learning to use new technologies may be a significant barrier to adoption. Before these technologies can be introduced, basic digital infrastructures, such as internet and mobile connection needs to be established. This is on top of transportation infrastructures such as road network and irrigation network. Therefore, even if new technologies can benefit the farmer, basic infrastructures must be in place beforehand. 4. Environment sustainability of food systems Environment sustainability is an important part of the discussion on food systems. One important feature is to avoid monoculture in agriculture, which endanger the sustainability of production. There were debates over whether plant-based production might encourage greater monoculture, however there are ways to mitigate that.236240241244Food production is about transforming the society, beyond feeding the society Some of the ideas in transforming the society beyond feeding the society is as follows: 1. Developing community-based agriculture that leverage on local biodiversity. 2. Developing opportunities for indigenous communities, including on being part of the organic food production. 3. Building an ecosystem with incentives to foster multi-stakeholder effort. 4. Urban farming as a solution for the urban poor to obtain some nutritious food items, requiring policy action and civil society movement. 5. Movements such as agroecology, which takes into account the whole ecosystem of diversity, human and social values.236239249Changing consumption habits for better nutrition Some ideas on changing consumption include: 1. Bringing agriculture closer to schools through small farming plots in schools. 2. Basic knowledge of food culture to be taught at home by parents. 3. Local government and housing ministry to create awareness on food through encouraging urban farming. 4. Bringing food preparation lessons for children in schools. 5. Increasing the consumption and knowledge of underutilised crops in Southeast Asia236240248Technology as an important factor for the future of food production Some ideas on using technologies to truly benefit farmers and increase productivity as follow: 1.Training younger generation at school and university levels on design, software, marketing etc that build capacity for the agriculture sector. 2. Technology start-up competition focused on the food system. 3.Increase transparency on the food system, including on genetically modified feeds etc. 4. Modernising aquaculture and agriculture.236240244Environment sustainability of food systems Below are some of the approaches which can be taken to build environment sustainability in food systems. 1. Altering the usual approach to grow monoculture crops. 2. Address large-scale deforestation which are a consequence of large-scale planting of commercial crops.237238239240241244249Few areas of divergence were addressed in the session: 1. Technology vs traditional farming There were debates over whether the use of technology will truly change productivity. Traditional farming, or its more recent agroecology methods have argued that this is a way forward - reducing the reliance on pesticides etc to build a production system that includes diversity, human and social values. However, others have argued that traditional farming methods will not be able to increase productivity. 2. Stakeholders to spearhead the effort of transformation While everyone agreed that evolving the food system will require a multi-stakeholder approach, there are differing views of who should take the lead. Some believe that government and politicians should stay out from taking the lead as they do not have the incentive to ensure sustainable food systems, others believe that government play a crucial role in defining policies. Experts in nutrition should have a bigger role in advising NGOs etc on how to be more nutrition-sensitive in their action.

2021-07-23 02:47:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21900/23

100

The dialogue was held virtually through Zoom and live streamed via Facebook allowing opportunity for different actors to join and engage in the discussion. More than 100 people participated in the dialogue live through Zoom and Facebook representing different Government Ministries, UN agencies, NGOs, civil society, academia, and the private sector. In addition, the recorded Facebook session reached 689 unique users.The dialogue was structured around a panel discussion building on three major themes related to building resilience to ensure food security and access to nutritious food in the Bangladeshi context and supported by guiding questions to reflect the complexity, complementarity of work and allow for the perspectives of multiple stakeholders from across sectors to be reflected. Likewise, the panelists were purposefully selected to represent different sectors.

Yes

234242243244245246247248249250251National Dialogues on Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress have taken place in more than 130 countries. In Bangladesh, the virtual Independent National Dialogue on the Action Track 5 was held on 2nd of June 2021. The dialogue was conducted under the leadership of the National UNFSS Dialogue Convener, Additional Secretary at Ministry of Food, Mr. Khaja Abdul Hannan with support from the World Food Programme (WFP), UN Anchor for Action Track 5, and International Center for Climate Change and Development (ICCAD), technical lead for Action Track 5. The keynote speech was given by the Director of ICCAD, Professor Saleemul Huq, and the synthesis of the panel discussion was done by Professor Shamsul Alem, Senior Secretary at the Economic Division, Planning Commission, and Dr Hossain Zillur Rahman, Executive Chairman at Power Participation Research Centre. The dialogue was structured around a panel discussion building on three major themes related to building resilience to ensure food security and access to nutritious food in the Bangladeshi context. The themes of the panel discussion and panel members are outlined below: Panel Discussion 1: Food Systems and Resilience This panel was chaired by Dr Mosammat Nazmanara Khanum, Honourable Secretary, Ministry of Food. The discussants included Mr. Robert Simpson, Country Representative FAO Bangladesh and Ms. Farah Kabir, Country Director, Action Aid Bangladesh participated. The panel discussion was guided by the three following questions: i. What are the priority investment areas for Bangladesh to address the multiple risks of climate change and natural disasters? ii. How can local production and consumption be incentivized to protect nutrition and environment? iii. What can be learned from the current pandemic which clearly has been a major shock for Bangladesh, in identifying the vulnerabilities in the food systems to shock, and how food systems can be made more resilient? Panel Discussion 2: Universal Access to Food to build Resilience The Universal Access to Food to Build Resilience panel was chaired by Mr, Md Sayedul Islam, Honourable Secretary, Ministry of Women and Children. The discussants included Mr. Rezaul Karim, Head of Programme, World Food Program and Mr. Md Rafiqul Islam, Deputy Secretary General, Bangladesh Red Crescent Society. The panel discussion was guided by the three following questions: i. How can food systems be made more nutrition sensitive, thus ensuring that meals not only address hunger but also meet all requirements for healthy growth and living? ii. What are the key lessons from the response to the pandemic that can be used to ensure sustained access to nutritious diets even in times of shocks? iii. How can Government work with the private sector to protect the right to food? Panel Discussion 3: Climate Resilient Development Pathways The panel discussion was chaired by Mr. Md Mohsin, Honourable Secretary, Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief. The discussants included Dr Mahbuba Nasreen, Director and Professor, Institute of Disaster Management and Vulnerability Studies, Dhaka University and Mr. Khurshid Alam, Assistant Resident Representative, UNDP. The panel discussion was guided by the three following questions: i. What are the key steps for enhancing resilience of those affected by climate change? ii. What are the three main impediments to integrated approaches for climate change adaptation and how can these be addressed? iii. What would be the three strategic directions for the private sector to transform food systems for climate resilient development?235242243244245246247248249250251Key themes emerging from the dialogue indicates that from a building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress (Action Track 5) perspective, in Bangladesh the focus needs to be on two main drivers of stress, shocks and vulnerabilities: (1) nature driven shocks, stress and vulnerabilities, primarily originating from climate change, but possibly also linked to earthquakes or similar events, (2) economic and human driven shocks, which may originate from pandemics (e.g. COVID-19), other economy shocks (e.g. the 2008 global financial crisis) or manmade conflicts (e.g. the Rohingya crisis). Of these two types of shocks, the first one can disrupt the entire food system by affecting the agricultural production and increasing salinity of land. On the other hand, the economic and human driven shocks may interrupt gains achieved by the country in domains of food security and nutrition, increase poverty and inequality, and jeopardize people’s access to food. These two drivers jointly pose the greatest threat to Bangladesh’s effort in building a resilient food system. While taking part in the dialogue, the participants also have pointed out that the mechanisms to address these vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses can be organized along three key sectors that are likely to address both the nature driven and economic and human driven shocks. These three response areas are: • The social protection system which is covering close to 40% of the population in Bangladesh, • The agriculture sector that is employing close to 50% of the population mainly in rural areas, • The Industrial sector employing 20-30% of the population including part of the informal sector mainly in urbanized areas. Across all sectors adaptation, response and preparedness mechanisms needs to be nutrition sensitive and gender responsive. The GoB should play the leadership role while designing and implementing actions in line with national programming and planning while ensuring complementarity to government budgeting. Moreover, greater involvement of and investment by the private sector actors need to be ensured with a focus on increasing diversity, including biodiversity, of production and consumption.236242243244245246247248249250251Social safety nets: i. Continue making government social safety nets more nutrition and gender sensitive. In this regard, it is important to emphasize on fully implementing the National Social Security Strategy (NSSS) which has adopted a life-cycle approach to address the need of people at every stage of their lives. The emphasis on making the safety nets more nutrition and gender sensitive will allow the country to ensure access to nutritious food at an affordable rate for the poor whose livelihood strategies have been disrupted either by climate related shocks or due to COVID-19 crisis. ii. Introduce ways to be more responsive to an increasingly mobile population, anticipating increasing mobility of vulnerable groups driven by economic as well as environmental events. For this, the GoB can try to transfer cash to the potential beneficiaries by utilizing mobile financial technology. Important to note that at the union level, the government has the necessary infrastructure (e.g. Union Digital Centres or UDCs) to facilitate this transformation. iii. Strengthen data management to track vulnerable populations and individuals to allow rapid response in times of stress and sudden-onset shocks and allow the provision of complementary packages across sectors including health, G2P and food assistance. iv. Explore ways to integrate private sector, including local shops and producers, in social safety nets, linking them to smallholder farmers and food producers, transformers and aggregators, to ensure diversity of diets.236242243244245246247248249250251In the Agriculture sector and rural communities: i. Modernization of agriculture production including post-harvest management of crops through use of adapted technologies. ii. Institutionalize national capacities to respond to and recover from shocks through building on existing systems (e.g., early warning) and introduction of new and innovative approaches (e.g. anticipatory actions, insurance schemes). iii. Rework and strengthen existing emergency food stock system including involvement of private sector and using food procurement systems as buffer mechanisms to ensure markets for vulnerable smallholder farmers iv. Adaptation of crops and cropping systems to salination along costal belt in southern Bangladesh; strengthen and utilize existing natural biodiversity to identify most suited crops v. Special focus on identified climate hotspots and plans to manage, mitigate, and adapt to climate stress and shocks in accordance with government plans. For that, detailed vulnerability mapping, heavy investment in disaster risk reduction and innovation of insurance mechanisms and targeted subsidies are required.236242243244245246247248249250251In the Industrial sector and urban communities: i. Expand coverage of safety nets to target vulnerable urban populations, introducing mechanisms which allow mobility and migration between urban and rural areas ii. Increase involvement of industrial sectors in the safety net coverage for the families of their current and former employees, e.g., through special food and credit related schemes to support affordability of nutritious diets. iii. Establishing of Public-Private Partnerships to use market mechanisms to respond to shocks and emergencies while through pre-arrangements reducing the volatility of food markets post-disaster, also combining the strengths of government and private sector logistics and infrastructure capacity for the public interest. iv. Food industry to focus on production of nutritious and safe food, reducing food waste during production and post-harvest losses and establishing effective, efficient, and fair public and commercial distribution mechanisms.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/National-Independent-UNFSS-Dialogue-AT5-report-Bangladesh-2-June-2021.docxhttps://www.facebook.com/icccad

2021-07-23 06:19:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16641/1869

The George Institute sought to co-convene an Independent Dialogue where Principles were incorporated, reinforced and enhanced by bringing together diverse voices to discuss the health, environmental and equity impacts of food and water systems as they pertain to unheard voices – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Pacific Islander peoples. We developed recommendations reflective of community priorities in food and water systems, exemplifying the ‘Recognise complexity’ Principle. In pursuing this, we sought to focus our event on Action Track Two, ‘Shift to sustainable consumption patterns’, as it was most closely linked to our ‘Triple P’ agenda - prevent non-communicable diseases, protect the planet and promote equity. It became apparent this topic is also inextricably linked to Action Track 1 (‘Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all’) and Action Track 5 (‘Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress’). Unfortunately, the siloing of these topics reflects a lack of recognition of a holistic approach to food and water systems and privileging of a Westernised and colonising approach that excludes Traditional Knowledges. It also fails to consider how stakeholder perspectives can be more broadly included to recognise diversity within communities and across nations. Despite these limitations, there was enthusiasm from communities to contribute to the Summit in a meaningful way. To ensure the inclusion of as many voices as possible and a community-led rather than a top-down approach, a series of meetings with community stakeholders and experts were held over five months between March and July 2021. This engagement exemplifies the ‘embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity’ and ‘build trust’ Principles.As above.n/a

NoAs experts in food policy and Indigenous health, The George Institute for Global Health sought to co-convene an Independent Dialogue (the Dialogue) that could bring together diverse voices to discuss the health, environmental and equity impacts of food and water systems as they pertain to unheard voices – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Pacific Islander peoples. The aim of the Dialogue was to develop recommendations that can be submitted to the Summit that are reflective of community priorities in food and water systems. In pursuing this, we sought to focus our event on Action Track Two, ‘Shift to sustainable consumption patterns’. However, it quickly became apparent that there were numerous barriers to community participation within the predetermined paradigm of the Summit. The George Institute recognises the inclusion and representation of unheard voices – in this context, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Pacific Island peoples – to be crucial to the success of any dialogue. Only through understanding and respecting what the paradigm of health and food and water systems means for different cultures can impactful actions be conceived and developed. Unfortunately, the lack of recognition or understanding of Traditional Knowledges outside of a Western paradigm in the Action Tracks meant limitations were placed on topics for discussion from the outset. This is evident by the exclusion of discussion on water systems in the Summit. While The George Institute has focused on Action Track Two, this topic is also inextricably linked to Action Track 1 (‘Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all’) and Action Track 5 (‘Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress’). Unfortunately, the siloing of these topics reflects a lack of recognition of a holistic approach to food and water systems and privileging of a Westernised and colonising approach that excludes Traditional Knowledges. It also fails to consider how stakeholder perspectives can be more broadly included to recognise diversity within communities and across nations. Despite these limitations, there was enthusiasm from communities to contribute to the Summit in a meaningful way. As such, The George Institute aimed to facilitate a process through which community priorities, strengths and solutions are shared and heard, bringing global attention to important local issues. This meant the method proposed by the Summit was abandoned, and a process of community engagement and shared learning was adopted. To ensure the inclusion of as many voices as possible and a community-led rather than a top-down approach a series of meetings with community stakeholders and experts were held over five months between March and July 2021. Our report, and the associated community case studies, were developed for submission to the feedback process for the Summit. This report reflects the perspectives of specific communities on barriers to reform and community-led solutions for food and water systems. It is important to remember that while there are similar experiences around food and water systems, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Pacific Islander peoples are diverse in cultures and practices and, therefore, should not be homogenised in approaches to solutions. It should not be taken to represent all perspectives from all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Pacific Islander peoples and communities. Rather, this report is based on our experiences and community feedback of what it takes to build successful collaborations. We hope this learning will be useful for Summit organisers and others, and can help to inform the design of future Summits.

234238239242244246247249Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Pacific Islander people’s voices and Traditional Knowledges are often missing from, or go unnoticed in, decision making processes that profoundly impact their own communities. This top-down approach can result in solutions that are not fit for purpose and not appropriate for specific communities and cultural contexts. Therefore, this Dialogue had three major focal points: (i) to understand and explore community experiences of food and water systems; (ii) to highlight community identified priorities, strengths and solutions in shifting to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns (Action Track 2); and (iii) to examine links between community priorities, strengths and solutions, and government responsibility, engagement and action.235238239242244246247Based on consultations with key stakeholders, information from case studies included within this report and our research and advocacy expertise, we believe: • Organisers of multilateral summits should ensure First Nations voices are represented at all levels and in all aspects of governance structures from the earliest stages of summit conception. • Organisers of multilateral summits should recognise the diversity of global Traditional Knowledges and unheard voices and embed flexibility in engagement mechanisms to ensure these are captured. • Organisers of multilateral summits should ensure discussions of food systems include consideration of water systems as a default. • Health systems should recognise climate change and its impacts on human health in policy and practice and take responsibility for reducing their own climate footprint. • Governments should design food policy through a process of communityled policy development that recognises Traditional Knowledges and includes engagement with community leaders and Elders, and shared planning and decision making. • Governments should adopt a systems approach to developing policy, recognising the relationships and reciprocal links between food and water systems, the burden of non-communicable disease, climate change and equity. • Governments should support consumer demand for sustainable, fresh and healthy foods, and implement policies to ensure these foods are easily accessible, available and affordable. • Researchers should monitor the effectiveness of policies that aim to improve food and water systems and develop the evidence base on the impacts of implementation on equity, climate change and the disease burden.236238239242244246247249Discussions with community stakeholders and experts have led to the development of case studies and Summit feedback. From those, three key food and water security challenges were identified. TOPIC 1: A shift from traditional diets has compromised food security. For millennia, the diets of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were rich in local flora and fauna, particularly native fruit, vegetables and lean animal proteins. The colonisation of Australia and the dispossession of and forced removal from Country caused a ‘nutrition transition’ away from traditional diets and disruption to food and water systems, resulting in ongoing food insecurity. Forced rations replaced traditional diets and included large quantities of refined grains and processed foods containing high levels of salt, saturated fat and added sugars, which has had ongoing detrimental impacts on health. Communities were prevented from accessing traditional food and water sources on Country, exacerbating hunger and food insecurity. Pacific Island nations include a wide range of cultures and practices. However, they share similarities in that they all have relatively small populations, are in remote locations, have high costs associated with transport and communications, and have varying levels of infrastructure. They also share a reliance on subsistence agriculture, and tourism, agriculture and fishing are key sources of income and support for their economies. Traditional diets of Pacific Islander communities have been also disrupted by colonisation and dispossession, resulting in food insecurity. Extreme weather events have further exacerbated this issue in the Pacific, where the subsequent provision of unhealthy food aid after extreme weather events, including white rice and tinned meats, is relied on to prevent hunger. In these settings, urban migration increases, as local food production and productivity decreases the viability of subsistence farming. This again prevents communities from accessing traditional food sources and limits the ability to grow food. With more people migrating to urban centres and changes in traditional jobs, gender-related roles and responsibilities are changing,8 which has subsequent impacts on diet and health. In Fiji, for example, more women are now in the formal workforce, yet they maintain responsibility for the bulk of the care work for their families. The need to balance paid and unpaid work is increasing the reliance on convenience foods, which are often cheap but ultra-processed and lacking nutrition. Across the Pacific, women continue to play key roles in agriculture and fisheries sectors; however, they tend to be undervalued and underrepresented actors in agriculture and fisheries development and decision-making. This underrepresentation means that typically unheard voices in crucial industries go ignored, exacerbating inequalities.236238239242244246247249Discussions with community stakeholders and experts have led to the development of case studies and Summit feedback. From those, three key food and water security challenges were identified. TOPIC 2: High salinity groundwater has compromised the quality of drinking water and food security. The degradation of inland rivers over time, due to drought and government mismanagement, has had increasingly devastating effects on food and water security and the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Communities such as Walgett in New South Wales, Australia, have had to rely on groundwater for drinking and food production. The salinity of this water is almost double that recommended in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines – which are based on palatability not health – and 15 times more than the amount recommended for people with high blood pressure. These unacceptably high levels of sodium can lead to dehydration and increased purchasing of soft drinks, further impacting community health. The salinity of the water in Walgett has resulted in reduced agricultural yield and destruction of soil structure within the local community garden, increasing the community’s reliance on purchasing packaged, processed foods or takeaway foods that are more expensive and less healthy. Extreme weather events linked to climate change, such as tropical cyclones and rising sea levels, are contributing to increased soil salinity and contaminated drinking water in Pacific Island coastal communities. This is further exacerbated by long droughts, which make the soil less able to absorb rain, resulting in declining agricultural yields. Extreme weather events also destroy produce and farming resources, making subsistence farming untenable for local communities. Climate change is also limiting the productivity of local fishers and, therefore, increasing reliance on imported foods and food aid. It is estimated that 75% of coastal fisheries will not meet their food security needs by 2030 due to a forecasted 50% growth in population and limited productivity of coastal fisheries as a result of climate change.236238239242244246247249Discussions with community stakeholders and experts have led to the development of case studies and Summit feedback. From those, three key food and water security challenges were identified. TOPIC 3: Community-led solutions. Creating resilient food and water systems will have the co-benefit of contributing to a reduced NCD burden. Approaches to achieving this rely on community-identified strengths and solutions and building and strengthening community capacity and skills. Community-led programs can be effective at improving food and water security, nutrition and health; they can help reverse the trend of worsening diets and increasing chronic diseases. The most effective programs adopt a multi-strategy, multi-sector approach that includes both securing and sustaining the supply of local healthy foods and access to safe drinking water. They also include Traditional Knowledges and cultural practices passed down through millennia. Governments need to work with communities rather than perpetuating a top-down approach, ensuring involvement of community leaders, shared planning and decision-making, and appropriate evaluation procedures to guarantee that community-identified food and water system challenges are responded to and community needs are met. Government responses must also respect Traditional Knowledges and ensure they are included in food and water policy.237238239242244246247249This report reflects the perspectives of specific communities on barriers to reform and community-led solutions for food and water systems. It is important to remember that while there are similar experiences around food and water systems, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Pacific Islander peoples are diverse in cultures and practices and, therefore, should not be homogenised in approaches to solutions. It should not be taken to represent all perspectives from all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Pacific Islander peoples and communities. Rather, this report is based on our experiences and community feedback of what it takes to build successful collaborations. We hope this learning will be useful for Summit organisers and others, and can help to inform the design of future Summits.

2021-07-23 06:48:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24864/18

525301161438111421632414103616127

The Dialogue was organised to incorporate, reinforce, and enhance the seven principles, commencing with our curator, convenor and facilitators all attending the United Nations orientation session to gain a deep understanding of the principles. Prior to our event the Dialogue team came together to consider how we could ensure each participant was heard, develop prompts and agree on appropriate resource materials to inspire our participants. The opening keynote speakers of the dialogue highlighted the urgency of food system transformation and the importance of an inclusive system providing access to affordable and healthy diets for all. They also recognised the complexity and the need to include perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Discussion groups were intentionally diverse and introduced participants who had not previously met, fostering new connections. We welcomed a broad range of stakeholders across the food system, including science, government, agriculture, non-government organisations and the food industry, all experts in their respective fields. A webpage housing participants' biographies was shared prior to the dialogue, allowing attendees to become familiar with the work of others in their discussion group.All of our keynote speakers highlighted the need to act with urgency during the opening plenary. With under nine years left to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, ambitious action is required, particularly in Australia. In the latest report produced by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Australia received the lowest score awarded to any of the 193 members of the United Nations for its level of climate action. It was also discussed during the dialogue that Australia has the highest per capita GHG emissions of G20 countries. Respect and gratitude was shown for the traditional custodians of our land. The deep connection our First Nations people have with the land and food was highlighted as an important consideration for improving our food system. A framework for enhancing food systems, that draws from Indigenous learnings, was shared as inspiration for the groups. We set out to complement the thorough work already done by a broad group of experts to establish the existing Australian Dietary Guidelines. Our intention was to build on the strong platform we already have by considering how sustainability can be elevated and implementation can be improved, to ensure the dietary guidelines are a powerful lever in transforming our food system. Beside simply inviting a broad range of stakeholders to ensure inclusivity, we have cultivated these connections by linking stakeholders, broadening partnerships and continuing conversations with all participants after the dialogue. We look forward to continuing to build trust with all participants by inviting them to join us to share their wisdom and insights with our audience, requesting their assistance to inform our progress, and keeping them abreast of our actions.• Seek engaging and reputable keynote speakers, confirmed prior to inviting participants: this enhanced participants’ desire to join the conversation. • Adhere to the timeline suggested in the reference manual: ensured sufficient lead-time to balance out attendees in each discussion group, allowing for diverse backgrounds and different viewpoints. • Engage facilitators who themselves are subject experts: permitted a deeper understanding of the nuances in the conversation and the ability to use more valuable prompts. • Provide a range of stimulus materials to participants prior: acted as a useful way to drive conversation, and served as familiar ground all could express their views on. • Allocate the maximum amount of time reasonable to discussion groups: the dialogue is a unique opportunity to connect a wide array of experts, so sufficient time enabled exploration of their areas of aligned interests and divergence. • Seek permission to connect participants after the event: fostered new relationships by seeking approval prior to share contact details. • Consider how best to leverage the chat functionality for an online event: with facilitators focused on the participants speaking, also monitoring the chat proved challenging, although it did allow for more commentary from participants. A support team member on-hand to monitor and highlight key comments may be beneficial.

Yes

234238239240241242OVERVIEW: Doctors For Nutrition convened a Dialogue focusing on dietary guidelines as a lever for attaining a healthier, more sustainable and equitable food system. We (doctorsfornutrition.org) are an independent Australian health-promotion charity working to bring a 'nutrition-first' approach to mainstream medicine highlighting the benefits of whole food plant-based dietary patterns. With dietary guidelines being one of the solution areas identified under the Action Track on sustainable consumption, and the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADGs) review process underway, our Dialogue brought together a range of local and international stakeholders to consider key issues. As well as supporting the shift to sustainable consumption patterns (Action Track 2), fit-for-purpose ADGs have a key role in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all (Action Track 1). They should also support nature-positive production, equitable livelihoods and building resilience to food system vulnerabilities (Action Tracks 3, 4 and 5). By considering Australia as an example of a high-income country with the health and sustainability problems typical of a Western dietary pattern, this dialogue has broader implications in countries with similar consumption patterns. CONTEXT: Dietary patterns in Australia are typical of high-income countries: high in animal-derived and processed foods and low in whole plant foods. These patterns are increasingly being taken up in low and middle-income countries (referred to as the ‘nutrition transition’) and are contributing to multiple crises globally: high rates of noncommunicable disease, climate change and environmental degradation, pandemic risk and antimicrobial resistance and impacts falling disproportionately on the most vulnerable populations. In Australia we are facing a number of pressing issues. • We have the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions among the G20 countries, and have recently scored equal-last out of 66 countries in efforts to include human health concerns in our climate commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement. At the same time, our food system is highly vulnerable to climate change and land degradation, and the impacts of unsustainable consumption constitute an escalating health crisis in their own right. • Severe dietary inequities exist, indicative of a wider suite of health inequities, whereby Indigenous and remote communities and those in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to have poor diet quality and related health issues such as overweight and obesity. These same communities are also the most vulnerable to the ecological determinants of health. • Per capita meat consumption is around triple the global average, more than 90% of adults have an inadequate daily intake of fruit and vegetables and well over half the household food budget is spent on discretionary items. ROLE OF DIETARY GUIDELINES • ADGs serve as a basis for the development of nutrition policies and programs and are activated in different sectors (e.g. health, education and agriculture) and settings such as schools, workplaces, hospitals and institutions. Their recommendations must incorporate socioeconomic, cultural and environmental dimensions of sustainability as key components of a healthy diet. • As highlighted by the EAT Lancet Commission, there is an urgent imperative to move populations towards consuming largely plant-based diets. This is particularly salient in high-income countries, with Australia a leading example where current imbalanced diets are contributing to multiple urgent crises as highlighted above. • ADGs are an opportunity to set out evidence-based recommendations to guide the population to healthy and sustainable eating patterns which would, if successfully implemented, play a significant role in reversing the growing prevalence of diet-related disease within our community, advancing towards the SDGs and meet our ethic responsibility to redress our historic and continuing contribution to the overshoot of planetary boundaries. • Dietary guidelines are an informational tool; therefore awareness and a supportive suite of policies is essential to advance towards better adherence.235238239Well-designed dietary guidelines based on the best available evidence, free from industry influence, have significant potential to influence improved diets. They are an example of a ‘triple-duty action’ that could address multiple aspects of the Global Syndemic which the Lancet (led by Dialogue keynote speaker Prof Boyd Swinburn) has defined as the interrelated global health challenges of obesity, undernutrition and climate change. The onus is on high-income countries such as Australia to make radical shifts in diet. This requires improvements not only to the content of our current dietary guidelines but also to their implementation, which in turn necessitates urgent changes to the broader policy context. Dietary guidelines are an aspect of governance that can contribute to equitable access to good nutrition. Both within Australia and globally, the most disadvantaged populations have the poorest diet quality and are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and other facets of environmental degradation. In high-income countries, where protein and calorie excess is the norm, shifts to plant foods correlate consistently and robustly with higher overall diet quality. These same shifts are not only desirable in terms of planetary health – which underpins all human health – but have been highlighted as a non-negotiable prerequisite to remaining below the 1.5°c warming threshold set by the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, and securing a safe operating space for humanity. Without these shifts, especially in the highest-consuming nations, the Sustainable Development Goals will inevitably be undermined. Main findings / proposals: • The scope of evidence informing dietary guidelines must include sustainability and equity issues so that the resulting recommendations align with these goals. The development of guidelines must incorporate these concerns from the outset, and integrate them into their advice, so they are not simply a subsequent ‘overlay’. • Ensure the headline messaging is widely disseminated to reflect the scientific consensus that Australian diets need to significantly increase the ratio of plant-based and minimally processed foods to animal-sourced and highly processed foods. • Guidelines development must be culturally responsive, reflecting diverse dietary patterns and cultural wisdom about the relationships between food, health and planet. In particular, there is scope to learn from Indigenous ways of knowing, including the multiple dimensions of health, including their cultural determinants. • Industry interests must not have a seat at the table in the development of dietary guidelines or any other aspects of nutrition and public health policy. Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which oversees the ADGs review, distinguishes between financial and other interests, such that industry-funded published literature is not excluded. Caution and transparency must be exercised in this regard, recognising that profit motives of harmful interests require vigilance and strong governance. • However well-evidenced and designed, dietary guidelines are ultimately an informational instrument. This means they need to be backed up by a supportive policy environment. As such: – The ADGs should be used to underpin nutrition education, healthy food policies and sustainable agriculture. A national food policy, currently lacking in Australia, is recommended as an adjunct to the guidelines. – Policy coherence is essential so that ​​the dietary guidelines are not undermined by policies, regulations and programs in other sectors such as primary production or food service, retail and marketing that increase the prevalence of unhealthy and unsustainable foods. – Coordination across government, at all levels, has a key role in supporting an enabling environment for dietary shift. Sector leaders have a key role but industry efforts must not be left to chance: many voluntary efforts need to be further incentivised and codified. – The dietary guidelines need to be supported by an effective implementation plan including education for health professionals, school students and the public: social marketing has a key role. – Monitoring and evaluation is essential to measure progress towards implementation and drive targeted action to identify and fill the identified gaps, leaving nobody behind.236238239SUSTAINABILITY Building on the context and definitions outlined in the introductory talks, this breakout group discussed the question: “What do truly sustainable Australian Dietary Guidelines look like?”. The key findings were: • Sustainability considerations must be incorporated into dietary guidelines in a meaningful way. This means drawing on the best available evidence to inform the recommendations that they make. • In the last revision to Australia’s guidelines, a discussion on sustainability was relegated to an appendix after industry pushback. Therefore it is crucial that the NHMRC upholds its commitment to independence, transparency and management of conflicts of interest by resisting industry influence; in parallel, the public health and consumer communities have a key role in calling for the inclusion of sustainability considerations within the revised recommendations. • Dietary guidelines should draw on best practice from around the world, using case studies such as Canada (whose plate no longer includes dairy and encourages plant-sources of protein in preference to animal sources), Finland (who have sought to align their guidelines with the Lancet’s Planetary Health Diet) and several others such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Qatar, China and Brazil. Common characteristics among these guidelines are their emphasis on eating more plant foods, reducing animal foods, not exceeding energy requirements and avoiding energy-dense, nutrient-poor, ultra-processed products. • Equity is a key aspect of sustainability. As such, dietary guidelines and associated policies must be developed with a view to redressing food inequities, by focusing on access to nutritious, culturally-acceptable food and implementing a program of effective measuring and monitoring of how dietary patterns compare to recommended patterns among socio-economic and cultural groups. • A package and plan for dissemination of dietary guidelines is required. This includes funding and materials for health professionals (e.g. webinars, videos, other education) and social marketing to ensure the key messages reach the public. Those messages must include practical food literacy and cooking skills. • Efforts at public persuasion must be informed by understanding of the factors that drive food choices, which include pre-existing beliefs, social circles, local environmental and cultural factors, affordability, convenience and taste preferences that can stem from exposures from an early age (starting in the womb). • Healthy and sustainable nutrition must be widely taught across the health professions so that awareness is far greater and patients are provided with a ‘nutrition first’ approach to disease prevention and treatment. A thorough understanding of the ADGs should be a fundamental requirement. • Proposed introducing a Lancet Countdown Indicator that monitors and measures progress towards implementation of national Dietary Guidelines. Food+Planet (foodandplanet.org) for example are developing indicators to measure the key dimensions of sustainable diets globally. This kind of initiative has great potential as a tool for both informing and monitoring guidelines.236238239IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS The science is clear on what constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet, but even the best guidelines cannot achieve their goals without effective implementation. This breakout group discussed the question: “What are the existing barriers to implementation and how can we overcome them?” The key findings were: • Complex factors beyond personal decision-making have a strong influence on dietary patterns. Participants identified influences in the following key domains: – vested interests (industry profit) – the food environment – tradition, expectation, social and family norms and pressures – communication and public understanding (including the influence of media, social media, marketing and messaging by public bodies) • Dietary guidelines have an important role as part of a wider process of food system transformation that is urgently needed. The guidelines can be a catalyst for change, as many sectors access them. If the guidelines consider the impacts of diet on the Sustainable Development Goals, it is more likely that other government portfolios start engaging with them as a lever. • Several specific proposals related to informing, up-skilling and enabling the public to become aware of and adopt the recommendations in our revised guidelines: – Barrier: It is not clear who the audience is for the current Australian Dietary Guidelines, and many people do not know about them. The overall messaging needs to be much clearer. Proposed solution: Clear recommendations could be as simple as: eat more foods from plants and less processed foods. – Barrier: Practical skills are currently lacking. There are certain foods that some people don’t eat because they don’t know how to prepare them, e.g. legumes. Proposed solution: Guidance on how to cook healthy food at home is needed. Brazil’s guidelines are a good example, which include food skills and literacy in their remit. – Barrier: unhealthy diets are socially acceptable and generally unquestioned. Proposed solution: Part of the communication around the guidelines needs to de-normalise that way the majority of the population are eating. A key policy lever is limiting TV and digital marketing of unhealthy food to children (as Chile has done). • The dominant framing of dietary guidelines is on personal responsibility, leaving food choices in the hands of individuals. However, dietary habits are influenced by multiple factors from age and gender to education, income and health status, food environments, culture and nutritional and cooking knowledge. There must be a reframing to recognise that policy and business bear key responsibility for system transformation rather than the individual ‘consumer’. This means: – Dietary guidelines must be reflected throughout food and nutrition policy at all levels of government. – Healthy and nutritious meals should be showcased in settings such as educational and other public institutions, and promoted across the private sector, e.g. in workplaces and across food service outlets (noted that, in Brazil, many restaurants offer plant-predominant home-style buffet meals sold by weight that are healthy, convenient and affordable). – Official public messaging must be consistent, so that dietary guidelines are the key reference document and not contradicted by other instruments (policy coherence). – Educational curricula must incorporate the evidence and recommendations set by dietary guidelines. This requires delivery by appropriately qualified staff. – Media and social media have a key role and responsibility to promote healthy and sustainable diets. Popular TV series such as Masterchef could be encouraged to showcase healthy plant-based and/or plant-rich dishes.236238239FRESH IDEAS This breakout group discussed the question: “What fresh ideas can we consider to drive multi-sectoral implementation?” The intent of this group was to explore best practice and innovative ideas to achieve significantly increased adherence to dietary guidelines. The key findings were: • Financial policy instruments and pricing mechanisms have a key role in incentivising dietary shift: – E.g. subsidies for healthy plant foods, taxation and removal of subsidies for harmful products (the concept of ‘true cost accounting’). Such measures seek to internalise negative externalities rather than outsourcing them such that the community, the environment, the healthcare system and future generations pay the price. – A focus on affordability and accessibility: for example via redirected subsidies that bring down the price of fresh produce. Such policies should take into account the long term healthcare savings for government and institutions. – Proactive financial and practical assistance to help farmers transition to more sustainable crops/products. • Alignment with and implementation of dietary guidelines across multiple sectors is essential: Participants highlighted a wide range of opportunities across sectors such as schools and child care; the health sector; food marketing; the local built environment; food assistance programs; agricultural and trade policy. Within this, several points were highlighted: – Multi-sectoral progress requires government action to set policy and regulations, provide guidance and lead by example, e.g. through public sector procurement and catering policies. – At minimum, all relevant sector policy should ensure alignment with dietary guidelines in preference to industry-led / voluntary schemes. Sector leaders can also take steps independently to innovate and implement best practice, for example R&D into meat and dairy alternatives with demonstrated health and sustainability advantages. – Ensuring clear and easy to understand front-of-pack labelling to help guide both healthy and sustainable food purchasing: there is an opportunity to extend, strengthen and potentially mandate existing schemes. – Prompt steps should be taken to align catering, curricula, procurement and other programs with dietary guidelines within hospitals, schools, universities, workplaces and other institutions. • Communication and messaging has a crucial role in supporting dietary guidelines implementation. Among key ideas, participants emphasised: – Messaging and supporting programmes should reflect what we know about behaviour change; for example encouraging people to make small but meaningful changes such as one plant-based meal a day ensures that the shift is perceived as achievable and worth trying. Efforts tailored to specific audiences’ needs are also key. – There are some prevalent misconceptions around meat consumption being fundamental to masculinity and the Australian way: it is essential to challenge this. – Social marketing is a key opportunity and increasingly important to help popularise evidence-based messaging in the face of media noise and efforts by vested interests to sow confusion and unscientific messaging. Micro-influencers, celebrities, chefs and athletes can help change social norms and ‘speak to’ diverse audiences.237238239• There was some divergence among participants about how ambitious the guidelines should be. Some felt that they should aim for consensus-building that doesn't imply radical changes. Others emphasised the urgency of dietary transitions and the need for stronger messaging given the short timeframes remaining to bring diets in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, climate commitments and agenda on noncommunicable disease. Overall, however, there was consensus that prioritising plants and reducing intake of animal-sourced and highly-processed products are essential messages, supported by abundant and conclusive evidence, that everyone can agree on. • One of our ‘implementation’ groups highlighted the potential of plant-based meat alternatives (analogues) to reduce reliance on animal-sourced foods, with continual innovation and research pointing to significant health and environmental sustainability benefits. However, a participant from another group raised concerns that some of these products may still have a significant carbon footprint and lack a good nutrition profile. Work will be required to ensure transparency in this space to allow consumers to make informed choices. Despite some variance of views on this rapidly-evolving sector, there was unanimity that the scientific consensus supports dietary patterns that emphasise whole and minimally-processed plant foods. • There was a degree of variance expressed regarding the evidence that should inform dietary guidelines. There was overall confidence in the existing evidence review process in Australia (a thorough and wide-ranging review that seeks to avoid industry influence), but a couple of participants raised the need for reform. In particular: – Current methods for assessing strength of evidence prioritise the contribution of randomised controlled trials, but it is impossible to conduct long-term trials with diet; nor are these suitable for assessing sustainability impacts. The strength of evidence rating methodology proposed by the True Health Initiative known as HEALM (Hierarchies of Evidence Applied to Lifestyle Medicine) was proposed as an important step in the right direction. – There was also the suggestion that current approaches to evidence reflect a limited philosophy, and that the interrelationships between dietary patterns, human nutrition and planetary health need to be reconceptualised, with evolutionary theory and ecology playing a much more central role. This echoed the introductory talks that highlighted the importance of new mental models that learn from Indigenous wisdom. Our second keynote speaker, Prof Boyd Swinburn, outlined the nascent Mana Kai policy in Aotearoa New Zealand that draws on Māori concepts around the social and environmental aspects of food, and how these are interrelated. The third keynote speaker, Dr Sandro Demaio, also pointed to Aboriginal Australians as being the original founders of the concept of planetary health.

2021-07-23 06:55:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33131/202

3801416710221602221031010311000021200200400002010010008

The Zimbabwe Civil Society Organisations Scaling Up Nutrition Alliance (ZCSOSUNA) embraced all principles of engagement in a UN food Systems dialogue that it hosted on Thursday, 15 July 2021. ZCSOSUNA is the advocacy arm of the Scaling Up Nutrition movement in Zimbabwe and seeks to support food and nutrition related summits such as the Food Systems summit. This dialogue brought together a diversified group of stakeholders from Mutoko district to discuss pathways of creating sustainable food systems and building resilience to shocks and hazards among scale farmers in the district. The discussion targeted members of an already existing multi-stakeholder government platform known as the Food and Nutrition Security Committee. This committee comprises of officials from government ministries and departments including Agriculture, Health and Disaster risk reduction and non-governmental organisations working in the district to support government efforts in combating malnutrition and improving food security. Participants set out a number of ground rules which were adhered to during the meeting, one of the ground rules was the need to respect each other’s views. This rule activated lively participation from all participants during the engagement. Participants were also encouraged to be open in their views as the discussion was confidential though findings from the discussion would be made public. After the compilation of the main points of discussion and completion of the facilitator feedback form minutes of the meeting were shared with the district team for its validation.ZCSOSUNA convened the dialogue with a multi stakeholder government platform that has been working in the food and nutrition security field for quite some time. It was hoped that in engaging this platform the network will fully understand the situation on how small scale farmers can contribute towards sustainable food systems as well as how development partners together with the government can contribute towards building their resilience in the era of climate change and disasters. Engaging with a multi stakeholder government platform also contributed towards complementing the work being done by the different sectors as the team openly shared opportunities on how they can improve sustainability in agriculture production.It is crucial to bring together a wide range of participants from across various sectors, if the convener wants to have an in-depth understanding of solutions to the topic that will be under discussion. There is also need to ensure adequate time is allocated to the participants if a larger group is to be engaged in the dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243245246248249The dialogue title for this particular meeting was Pathways of creating sustainable food systems and building resilience to shocks and hazards among small scale farmers in Mutoko district. It enabled the network to identify challenges being experienced by small scale farmers in their contribution to the country’s food systems and in addition it also provided opportunities for solutions to the identified as a means of addressing the challenges. Although the dialogue focused on a specific geographical area, it explored challenges that are likely to affect many small scale farmers across the country and in the region. The major focus for the dialogue was aimed at discussing all the action tracks with a bias towards action tracks 1, 4 and 5. Sector representatives were given opportunities to share challenges and possible solutions to the current food systems from their individual perspectives in a plenary session. Case studies of actions being implemented in different wards were shared as presenters pooled their experiences. After the presentations other participants would then ask questions and share their constructive comments and recommendations. In summary the group prioritized three main areas that governments and stakeholders need to address in solving challenges that were identified. I. Increased government and donor investments in enhanced research and development programs to support disaster risk reduction and resilience mechanisms. II. Continuous learning and experimentation on disasters, crop varieties, resistant livestock and social-ecological systems. III. Policy consistency in all sectors involved in food production, processing, marketing and consumption.235238239240241242243246248249There is an urgent need to increase the number and effectiveness of agriculture innovation hubs and research centers across the nation. Upscale irrigation facilities by utilizing available water bodies or constructing of new ones, new technologies need to be used in drawing and conserving water for agriculture purposes. Governments need to make informed decisions in the promotion and adoption of research which improves seed and animal varieties. Ensure that stress tolerant and high yielding crop varieties and stress tolerant animal breeds are developed if agriculture is to be sustainable. Adopt modern housing and road infrastructure adapted for climate change as a way of reducing shocks and hazards which may affect farmers in a disaster. Governments need to use a spectrum of policies from voluntary to mandatory which include laws, acts or statutes in ensuring that people have physical and economic access to nutritious foods. Enforcement of such policies is crucial in achieving a healthy and sustainable food system that benefits all. Incentives/disincentives such as taxes and subsidies need to be put in place as a way of promoting the consumption of nutritious diets. Consistency in policies around the whole food systems is also key in promoting, protecting and supporting the consumption of nutritious foods by the general populace.237238239240241242243244246248249Local investments in strengthening social protection delivery systems including shock responsiveness and livelihood opportunities for the poor and vulnerable groups’ remains very low. Disaster Risk Reduction Committees remain underfunded and even in natural disasters they fail to effectively respond and assist victims because they do not have adequate resources. It was argued that DRR committees in many parts of the country do not need much resources because disasters are not a common phenomenon in the country instead the country needs to invest in early warning systems so that victims are evacuated early and response teams are equipped ahead of time. Focus of sustainable food systems in the country is mainly focusing on foods that are perceived by many people as modern. There is need to shift the focus to traditional and even genetically modified foods so that the agriculture sector will be able to meet demand. However, socio-cultural and economic factors also play a role on how foods are perceived there is need to continuously educate the populace on the need to consume nutritious diets.

2021-07-23 07:01:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27571/44

780144813303741121911112582211495615231813214

El diálogo tenía dos objetivos complementarios. De manera más inmediata, el diálogo tenía como fin explorar oportunidades y obstáculos del cooperativismo y la asociatividad para contribuir a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes, pero, sobre todo, identificar estrategias de acción que permitan impulsar esas oportunidades y mitigar eso obstáculos, a fin de nutrir el proceso más general de diálogo de la Cumbre. Al mismo tiempo, el diálogo buscaba ser una instancia para la construcción de confianza e intercambio entre los actores vinculados e interesados en el cooperativismo y la asocitividad en Chile que incitase a la acción conjunta más allá del diálogo mismo. Para facilitar la conexión con el proceso de la Cumbre y responder a la urgencia de la contribución, se organizaron grupos de trabajo con foco en cada una de las vías de acción establecidas por la Cumbre. No obstante, se reconoció la complejidad y la interrelación entre las distintas dimensiones que se abordaron, invitando a los participantes a que considerasen también las áreas temáticas de las otras vías de acción. A pesar de tener un foco temático fuerte (i.e.: cooperativismo y asociatividad), se buscó integrar a actores de diversos sectores tanto públicos, privados, sociales y académicos más allá de las propias cooperativas y asociaciones.Para fomentar el intercambio amplio y la creación de confianza, los grupos de trabajo se organizaron de tal manera que garantizaran la diversidad de actores a su interior a partir del formulario de inscripción al diálogo. Asimismo, se decidió no grabar el trabajo en grupos para generar un espacio de mayor libertad a la hora de intercambiar experiencias y opiniones. Durante el diálogo, se buscó realizar una facilitación que fomentase la participación de todos los actores, con especial énfasis en la participación igualitaria entre hombres y mujeres. Para fomentar la construcción de nuevas ideas y de dar sentido de urgencia al diálogo, se establecieron visiones amplias que alcanzar a fecha de 2030. Así, resulta más fácil orientar el diálogo hacia la búsqueda de soluciones y hacia la colaboración. Al terminar el diálogo se dejó la puerta abierta para que se establecieran nuevas alianzas e intercambios.En la búsqueda de la mayor diversidad posible entre los participantes, resulta muy útil contar con un formulario de inscripción con el que ir dando seguimiento en qué sectores o grupos es importante focalizar las invitaciones. Asimismo, esto posibilita establecer grupos de trabajo también más diversos.

Yes

234238239240241242244246249251El diálogo tuvo como objetivo principal abordar el potencial del modelo cooperativo y de la asociatividad en Chile, en toda su diversidad, e identificar estrategias para su impulso y su contribución a sistemas alimentarios justos, sostenibles y resilientes. Así, el foco del diálogo se posicionó sobre: - La identificación del potencial del modelo cooperativo y de otras formas asociativas para contribuir a sistemas alimentarios justos, sostenibles y resilientes, así como de las barreras concretas que lo frenan; - La valoración sobre aquellos contextos o circunstancias en los que el asociativismo puede ser una estrategia efectiva para promover el desarrollo individual y local, y - La exploración de acciones específicas para levantar las barreras y fomentar el asociativismo, así como la identificación de actores que pueden contribuir a ello. A partir de este claro foco el cooperativismo y la asociatividad, la discusión en cada uno de los grupos de diálogo se enmarco en una o más de las vías de acción de la Cumbre. Así, se generaron intercambios en torno al potencial, las barreras y las estrategias para la contribución de las cooperativas y asociaciones (de productores, trabajadores y/o consumidores, entre otro) a 1) una alimentación y un consumo sostenibles y orientados a la nutrición, 2) la conservación de la biodiversidad y la protección del medioambiente, 3) la transformación de las cadenas productivas hacia la sostenibilidad y la inclusión y 4) la diversificación, la mitigación de riesgos y la distribución de impactos o shocks.235238239240241242245246249Existe un amplio reconocimiento del potencial de la asociatividad para contribuir a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes, aunque la magnitud de este potencial depende de la visión que se adopte de la misma y de su capacidad de integrar y convocar otros actores. En su definición más limitada, las cooperativas y asociaciones de productores tienen el potencial de mejorar la participación de los pequeños productores en el sistema alimentario, mediante la generación de mejores oportunidades de comercialización. La disminución de costos individuales asociados a las economías de escala, la estabilidad de la producción a nivel colectivo y la mayor capacidad de negociación derivada de un mayor volumen de negocio son algunos de los elementos en el haber de las cooperativas y que posibilitan la inserción en mercados más dinámicos y el establecimiento de mejores canales de comercialización que genere una más justa remuneración para los productores. Más allá de la comercialización, se percibe que las cooperativas pueden mejorar el acceso a nuevas tecnologías y generar resiliencia ante situaciones de conmociones como el impacto de pandemia. En el caso de las asociaciones de consumidores, estas aparecen como herramientas que contribuyen a la reducción de intermediario y generar un mejor acceso de los socios a los alimentos a precios asequibles. Más allá de las funciones más comerciales y económico-productivas de las cooperativas, existe una percepción amplia de que el verdadero potencial de contribución de las cooperativas a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes se produce cuando transciende los intereses puramente económicos y se fortalecen los valores de ayuda mutua y búsqueda del bien común desde las bases de los territorios. En estos casos, las cooperativas y asociaciones pueden constituir estrategias de empoderamiento rural, generar capacidad de agencia y autonomía para administrar los propios recursos naturales y revitalizar las prácticas culturales y los saberes tradicionales, así como capacitar y desarrollar otro tipo de acciones a favor de los socios y los territorios. No obstante, la asociatividad se concibe como un elemento del sistema alimentario cuyo potencial, si bien importante, depende de la interrelación con otros actores del sistema. Resulta por tanto esencial considerar a los demás actores y no reducir la acción colectiva a organizaciones de productores y/o consumidores, sino fomentar la asociatividad y la cooperación a nivel de sistema alimentario. En este sentido, tres tipos de articulaciones aparecen como de especial interés para generar dinámicas positivas que contribuyan a avanzar hacia sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes: I. Cooperación entre cooperativas, tanto entre cooperativas en los mismos sectores para fortalecer el alcance y las capacidades como entre cooperativas en diferentes sectores a fin de establecer redes y cadenas cooperativas. II. Conexión entre la producción y el consumo y vinculación urbano-rural. Una buena acogida y apoyo desde la demanda, ya sea para fomentar la sostenibilidad o la inclusión social en la producción, resulta clave para que se puedan generar cambios desde los productores. En esta misma línea, el mayor acercamiento entre lo rural y lo urbano y los procesos de gentrificación rural se conciben como oportunidades para el establecimiento de cadenas cortas y lograr una mayor conexión entre productores y consumidores. III. Articulación entre la asociatividad, el sector público y la academia orientada a la generación de apoyos y capacidades pertinentes y adaptados. A pesar de la percepción de un alto potencial de contribución de la asociatividad a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes, se perciben asimismo varios obstáculos que limitan este potencial, entre los que se destacan un conjunto de trabas administrativas, burocráticas y legislativas que constriñen y limitan a las cooperativas y la falta de cultura y conocimiento sobre las cooperativas y asociaciones en un entorno en el que se ha promovido el individualismo y la competencia. Así, promover el potencial de las cooperativas y asociaciones para contribuir a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes pasa por fomentar la visibilidad y el conocimiento sobre las mismas y generar espacios para modelos alternativos de organización y trabajo, adecuando los marcos reguladores, promoviendo la cultura asociativa, impulsando la articulación y cooperación entre diversos actores y la participación en la toma de decisiones, especialmente a nivel local y territorial.236238239240241242245246249Tema: Obstáculos que frenan el potencial de las cooperativas A pesar de la percepción de un alto potencial de contribución de la asociatividad a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes, se perciben varios obstáculos que lo limitan. Se destacan: A) Normativas, legislación y apoyos inadecuados El Estado aparece como un actor clave con un rol tanto facilitador como obstaculizador del potencial de la asociatividad. Aunque se reconoce la importancia de programas de apoyo e impulso de la asociatividad y el cooperativismo desde el Estado, se percibe una brecha entre el objetivo de los programas y las realidades de las asociaciones y cooperativas. Por un lado, el modelo promovido desde las instituciones públicas se corresponde con un modelo muy comercial poco pertinente para la conciliación de otros objetivos y visiones más amplias del asociativismo. Así, se observan dificultades para integrar los diferentes valores culturales o modelos de producción alternativos con las dinámicas del sistema económico tradicional en las que se basan esos programas. Por otro lado, el apoyo del Estado aparece como discontinuo e insuficiente, concentrando los recursos en el impulso de formación de cooperativas, pero no logrando proveer el acompañamiento y apoyo necesarios para facilitar el correcto funcionamiento de la cooperativa tras su formalización, especialmente en ámbitos de gestión. No obstante, el verdadero obstáculo lo constituye el conjunto de trabas administrativas, burocráticas y legislativas que constriñen y limitan las cooperativas. La falta de presencia de y conciencia sobre las cooperativas en la política pública lleva a la no consideración explícita de este modelo de organización y resulta, por tanto, en una discriminación implícita de cooperativas y asociaciones en los marcos normativos, que no se adaptan a sus realidades. También se percibe como obstáculo el alto grado de sectorialidad y centralización del Estado para fomentar el potencial de la asociatividad que, por su naturaleza, puede contribuir a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes desde diferentes ámbitos integral y simultáneamente y desde la pertinencia territorial y local. B. Falta de información, cultura cooperativa y confianza La falta de cultura cooperativa, especialmente en un entorno en el que se promueve la competencia y el individualismo, deriva en un desconocimiento sobre el funcionamiento y el potencial de la asociatividad en todos los sectores y entre todos los actores. Esto se refleja en: 1. Desconfianza general e histórica por parte de la ciudadanía con respecto a la asociatividad por la promoción del individualismo desde la educación, la desarticulación de iniciativas tradicionales de acción colectiva y las experiencias negativas alrededor del establecimiento y posterior disolución de cooperativas que no han logrado materializar los beneficios inicialmente esperados ante los obstáculos. 2. Trabas en la vinculación de las cooperativas con numerosas instituciones y actores, especialmente con las instituciones financieras. Al no existir marcos regulatorios específicos, muchas cooperativas y asociaciones se mantienen en un vacío entre la empresa y el individuo, manteniéndose en una situación de difícil acceso a servicios financieros y al financiamiento. 3. Dificultades para encontrar a profesionales especializados en el mundo cooperativo y con capacidad para administrar cooperativas. Además de estos, aparecen otra serie de obstáculos menos específicos y relativos al sistema alimentario: I. Reducción del acceso a recursos naturales de los que dependen los productores y, por ende, la asociatividad. Las dinámicas desiguales de acceso a recursos naturales entre diferentes actores, por un lado, y el cambio climático, por otro lado, están generando un deterior del acceso de los pequeños productores a, específicamente, tierra y agua. II. Desigualdad territorial con falta de acceso a oportunidades en los territorios rurales, destacando la importancia de la brecha digital. III. Fuerte presencia de intermediarios en los canales de comercialización y las limitaciones de los canales cortos muy locales.236238239240241242243245246249Tema: Líneas de acción para impulsar sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes a través de la asociatividad La claridad sobre el potencial del cooperativismo y la asociatividad para contribuir a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes junto con la identificación de los principales obstáculos que constriñen ese mismo potencial hace posible establecer una serie no exhaustiva de 10 medidas para impulsar ese potencial y mitigar algunos de los obstáculos. 1. Impulsar la articulación entre cooperativas en varios niveles y ámbitos. Primeramente, mediante la promoción y el establecimiento de cooperativas de segundo grado (cooperativas de cooperativas) para fortalecer capacidades y facilitar la comercialización y la capacidad de incidencia. En segundo lugar, a través del fomento de las cooperativas en todos los eslabones de la cadena productiva y su articulación para la agregación de valor y establecimiento de cadenas cooperativas. En tercer lugar, poniendo énfasis en la vinculación de organizaciones de productores y consumidores que integren los territorios urbanos y rurales. 2. Apoyar de manera integral a las cooperativas, más allá de la provisión de apoyo técnico productivo. Si bien el apoyo técnico a la producción y al establecimiento y formalización de cooperativas es importante, para garantizar su éxito y consolidación necesario proveerlas de acompañamiento en una amplia gama de ámbitos relacionados con la gestión y administración de la organización: financiación y finanzas, capacidades de negociación y comercialización, resolución de conflictos internos y fortalecimiento de la cohesión colectiva, entre otros. La gran diversidad de objetivos e identidades entre las asociaciones impone que los apoyos se diseñen y produzcan desde criterios de pertinencia y sensibilidad territoriales y culturales. 3. Fomentar la articulación con la academia, las universidades y los centros de conocimiento locales, fomentando la vinculación con el medio y la contribución a lo local e impulsando la formación de profesionales y la generación de conocimiento que aporten al mundo cooperativo y asociativo, así como a su visibilidad. 4. Impulsar los canales cortos de comercialización. Especialmente mediante 1) el establecimiento y fortalecimiento de canales de compras públicas a cooperativas y asociaciones locales, reduciendo intermediarios y 2) el establecimiento y escalamiento de mercados agroecológicos y campesinos en colaboración con los municipios. 5. Eliminar las barreras y obstáculos normativos que existen, adaptando la legislación a las realidades y necesidad de cooperativas y asociaciones, desde la intersectorialidad y atendiendo a su diversidad. Esto supone, entre otros, mejorar el acceso a créditos o fondos de desarrollo, la generación de incentivos a la producción local y la simplificación y facilitación de la contabilidad de las cooperativas. 6. Descentralizar el apoyo a las cooperativas y asociaciones y generar espacios para su participación en la toma de decisiones y, específicamente, en los planes de desarrollo regionales y comunales. 7. Involucrar al sector educativo para la promoción del valor cooperativo, de la confianza y de la acción colectiva en búsqueda del bien común desde la educación. 8. Diseminar y visibilizar ejemplos de negocios asociativos que hayan logrado consolidarse y promover el desarrollo con foco en los factos de éxito para fomentar el aprendizaje y la confianza en el potencial de las cooperativas y asociaciones. 9. Integrar el conocimiento indígena y/o campesino y generar un paradigma nuevo que responda a los atributos cooperativos de los pueblos originarios de economía circular y bien común. 10. Reducir la brecha digital, mejorando la conectividad en los territorios rurales.237246249En el diálogo coexisten dos visiones que, si bien tienen puntos en común, reflejan diferentes percepciones sobre el cooperativismo y el modelo de desarrollo. Por un lado, se observa una visión de las cooperativas como entidad comercial con intereses principalmente económicos. Por otro lado, existen percepciones que le atribuyen a las cooperativas intereses, roles y funciones que trascienden lo meramente económico. Lo que en la primera visión pueden ser concebidas en algunos casos como externalidades positivas a la actividad económica cooperativa, presentan un rol fundamental y mucho más central en la segunda visión, de carácter más social y amplio. La integración de objetivos no económicos, como la preservación de culturas y saberes tradicionales, la inclusión o la contribución al desarrollo general de los territorios, confiere a las cooperativas unas necesidades particulares y señalan la importancia de poder absorber la diversidad de objetivos e identidades de las cooperativas en los programas de apoyo al cooperativismo y la asociatividad. Aunque no haya aparecido explícitamente en el diálogo, avanzar hacia una concepción más amplia y diversa del cooperativismo y la asociatividad y el establecimiento de mecanismos de acompañamiento flexibles que se adecuen a sus necesidades, realidades y etapas de crecimiento y desarrollo puede constituir una estrategia interesante con el fin de impulsar el potencial de la asociatividad para contribuir a sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, inclusivos y resilientes.

2021-07-23 07:02:14205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22297/11

930838461057364141031163800014001100200001121402160100105327

Principles of engagement under UN Food systems sub-national dialogues have been respected. The mountain region of the dialogue and the key economic sectors has been highlighted in the invitation letter/email. This dialogue consisted of the presentation of local food systems issues along with the 5 Action Tracks, by addressing the challenges in that region, by discussing interlinkages between the 5 Action Tracks, on policies and actions. It was also stressed that through the dialogue discussions people have an opportunity to get their voice heard at the national policy level and also in the international forums. All involved stakeholders were invited and encouraged to take an active role in the discussions. Participants were given the opportunity to listen to each other. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development led the sub-national dialogue supported by the UNRCO and FAO Albania. The objective of the Dialogue was to understand local sustainable food systems and to exchange perspectives on local food systems – know challenges in food production and consumption in Albania, what is working well and what are the challenges. A large number (93) of national and international participants representing governments, businesses, farmers, organizations, academia, civil society as well as university students representing the next generation of sustainability leaders, have been together to define the current status of our local food systems from the perspective of the healthy and sustainable consumption and discuss the challenges and areas where the next steps on the short and long term are needed. In addition, interested people participated in the live broadcast on the official YouTube (https://youtu.be/NbqTSGMXOgc) 74 people viewed the recorded video and live stream.Dialogue emphasized listening, honesty and open-mindedness. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank and open discussion with the inclusion of respective stakeholders (with a gender-sensitive and participatory approach). Due to the broad range of participants, all main aspects were reflected. Every participant was allowed to express their opinion either directly or through discussion in the zoom chat/inbox. Every comment, opinion is reflected. The sub-national Dialogue consisted of 2 sessions. The first one was the introduction of the 2021 UN food systems Summit and objectives of the Sub-National Dialogue; the second one was focused on national food systems. The 4 thematic Discussion Topics (•1: food, nutrition, and health and • 2: sustainable consumption and production - SDG12 • 3: equitable livelihoods and value distribution •4: resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses) were formulated in the form of short, ambitious statements, to be realized up to 2030. During the second session, four facilitators presented these topics and led the discussions addressed through questions.All stakeholders and actors should participate in the sub-national dialogue; moderation and presentation of all action tracks should be presented in a clear language by presenting them from a local/regional perspective. In a complex, multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder discussion, it is critically important to emphasize to the participants that there is no right or wrong answer or opinion and that everyone’s voices and opinions count. This will ensure healthy discussion and richness of opinions and ideas. Be sure to give participants ample opportunities for questions and answers and make good use of the chat/inbox functions to provide opportunities for all participants to express their views-comments- questions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue three /Sub-national Dialogue has been organized for mountain area in Albania (Kukes, Puke, Malesi e Madhe, Lezhe, Korce, Permet, Gjirokaster, Diber, Berat, Vlore, Librazhd) based on key sectors such as Agro Tourism, Fruit trees (including nuts), Viniculture, Beekeepers, Aromatic &medicinal plants, Livestock/small ruminants, Traditional food). The Dialogue was organized under the concept “an extensive exploration everywhere”. The dialogue brought together 93 participants from the private sector, government, development partners, civil society, academia and research center, small and big-scale farmers, etc. who were involved either directly or indirectly in implementing or supporting the food and tourism value chain; local natural resources. It consisted of the presentation of local food systems issues along with the 5 Action Tracks, by addressing the challenges in that region, by discussing interlinkages between the 5 Action Tracks, on policies and actions. Five Action Tracks has been conducted by 4 facilitators. The presentations introduced the concept, listed some of the entry points and guided the contextual solutions. The presentations aimed at creating an open and trusted atmosphere among participants so that everyone has a voice. We followed the conversation by noticing who is taking the floor being a radical listener. Action Track 1: Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. •Food security and nutrition challenges and the population groups most affected; •The availability and accessibility of healthy and nutritious diets to all population groups; •Main dietary patterns in the country. Any specific concerns with dietary patterns and diet-related non-communicable diseases; •Policies and initiatives to ensure food systems lend themselves to providing nutritious diets for children and adolescents; •Policies or initiatives in place to promote healthy diets and better nutrition, such as integrated school meals, nutrition, education, regulation of advertising and marketing of certain foods not conducive to healthy diets to improve the nutritional value of food, and food labelling; •Food safety policies and control systems in place to assess the main sources of foodborne diseases and food safety; •Main challenges regarding animal diseases, plant pests and diseases, and preventive management and surveillance systems. Action Tracks 2 and 3. Sustainable consumption and production •Policies, initiatives and the raising of awareness among the public and private-sector stakeholders to prevent and reduce food loss and waste along the value chain; •Short value chains that respond to consumer demands, providing diverse foods at an affordable price; •Policies to prevent land degradation; management of crop yields and the use of pastureland; •Sustainable and efficient use of water in irrigation and food processing; water quality assurance; •Analysis to understand the overall environmental impacts of the main agrifood value chains; •Investment in sustainable agricultural techniques; •Functioning food supply chains with adequate infrastructure for value addition, storage, processing and distribution; •Adoption of measures to strengthen the sustainability of food supply chains; •Reviewing support to agriculture, including subsidies, with a view to facilitating the green transition. Action track 4.Advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution •Access to finance and credit for operators in the food and agricultural sector. •Social protection measures such as input subsidies, innovative insurance solutions to manage extreme weather and climate variability risks on crop and livestock production. Action track 5. Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses •Measures in place to ensure that the country food systems are prepared to avoid, mitigate and/or adapt to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses; •Emergency plans ready to be operationalized to address food safety, animal health and plant health threats and outbreaks; •Food assistance programmes in place, when needed, to contribute to food security and nutrition.235238239240241242243244245247248249251• Agriculture sectors need more financial support to create a credible database thus helping farmers (potential beneficiaries) and insurance companies to build trust and engage in the insurance business in agriculture as well. • Ruminants or livestock, in general, is a risky business and will remain such as long as the veterinary system will not function well. • Missing of an initiative to reduce food loss at the farmer. level • There are many stakeholders in the food system that has remained out of monitoring their safety. Such actors are slaughterhouses, dairies, livestock markets. The number of stakeholders engaged in such activities is high, their business, in general, is small and therefore their income is small making it difficult to imply food safety norms during their activity. • Food safety is a very complex challenge that comes from both the supply and demand sides. • Climate change effects are risking the food system and the agriculture producers are exposed to a series of risks. • In EU countries insurance companies demonstrate an interest in the agriculture sector as it is protected in a way from subsidies. In the Albanian context, the government cannot provide the same number of subsidies but can in a way offer financial education for farmers among others. • Agrotourism is an important tool to integrate social, environmental and economic aspects of food systems, and promote local and organic products. • Small farmers produce for local restaurants or hospitability structures in their localities. Their products are hardly monitored under the food safety system. • Involvement of the civil society sector in policy performance along with the public agencies is of utmost importance. It is vital to actively communicate with the direct stakeholders of the food systems such as producers, unions, associations, NGOs, scientific circles, donors, international organizations, higher educational and vocational institutions, local municipality representatives, etc. • The farmer should be considered a profession. It needs to be certified in order to have a full and accurate list of them so they can be trained and informed for any kind of activity they perform in the fields or else. • Promoting value chain development involving food production linked to tourism, beekeeping and medical aromatic herbs – inter alia for rural women’s economic empowerment • Finding ways of using the innovative approach “0 Km” for agro tourism, schools etc. (sharing economy, school food and nutrition etc.) • School food programs like the one implement by FAO in Albania have to be replicated in different areas, to improve childhood nutrition. • The main food losses in Albania are at the stage between the farmer and first buyer. However, food waste is increasing rapidly also at the retail level. • Small farmers have limited opportunities to create profit margins with common value chain products. • Farmers in general and small ones in particular, cannot afford the losses from natural disasters which bring them below the affordable level of business recovery.236238243244245246248249251Action track 1. 1. The Albanian legislation framework should be adopted /amended based on EU legislation 2. Consumer awareness & education to choose a safe food, including reading and understanding label specifications. 3. Increasing knowledge on farms for family, small and medium production (agricultural and livestock) 4. Increase and improve the Food Safety System from farm to fork, including pastures, use of chemical fertilizers & pesticides, uses of allergic substances, Global G.A.P. Certification, etc. 5. Improve food safety policies and control systems to evaluate the main sources of diseases & hazards, and communicating effectively with key stakeholders. 6. Improved legislation on animal diseases (including zoonosis), pests and plant diseases, and preventive management and surveillance systems 7. Natural resources should be carefully managed such as energy-saving by introducing solar energy as an alternative source, saving water during food operations, technological water recycling, etc. 8. It must stand up and become operational in the management system of food waste so that products that abound in the markets as well as close to the date of expiry to be provided for people in need. 9. Financial education of all actors is a must. 10. Establishment and operation of national and EU support schemes for agriculture sectors (including livestock) in hilly and mountainous areas.236239240243244245246248249251Action Tack 2 and 3 1. Develop better-coordinated value chains 2. Support the development of short food chain initiatives 3. Build the capacity of farmers in nature-friendly production practices 4. Capacity development of extensive service agents 5. More collection and analysis of data related to the agricultural sector 6. Establishment of insurance markets for agricultural activity 7. Analyze the costs of a healthy diet, in such a way as to prepare policy and financial support packages. 8. Analyze the impact on the environment including deforestation. The link between the sustainable food system and the environment. Impact on Green House Gas (GHG) emission 9. Need to analyze the pesticides and chemicals in the agriculture production 10. The fostering of regional, short food chains, of mainly none or low-processed food is seen as another key factor that will contribute to the reduction of food loss and waste. With short supply chains, the produce is usually fresher when reaching households. The fewer the processing steps in the chain, the lower food losses tend to be.236241243244245248249251Action Tack 4 1. For those who may need to leave farming, as they cannot move their small farms to commercial family farms, provide alternative support through off-farm diversification and other social protection measures. 2. There must be equitable opportunities for all through equal chances in production, ownership of resources and improved agricultural technology for women and the young generation. 3. Policymakers to provide a roadmap for equitable distribution of production resources, which will ensure equitable access to resources. 4. Farmers and farmer groups to work together to strengthen the value chain of all commodities to improve the food system thereby ensuring sustainability. 5. Coordination of stakeholders to make sure that a quality and unadulterated input meets standard requirements are used in producing healthy and safe food for all. 6. Increased productivity through access to quality inputs and value addition, which translates to better income for women and youths. 7. Women and young people receive tailored training and capacity building to respond, recover and build resilience. 8. Access to climate-smart technologies, structured markets and finance. 9. Innovation and use of ITC as an effective tool 10. Promote value chain linked to tourism236242244245246247249251Action Track 5 1. Conduct massive public awareness on the reality of climate change, its causes and effects on agriculture 2. Avoid deforestation and forest degradation 3. Promote agroecology techniques and practices 4. A multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder DRR National Platform should be established to advance national commitment to reduce disaster risk and increase institutional coordination, cooperation, and communication on DRR actions. 5. The veterinary service as an important part of the food chain has to monitor with high discipline the fulfilment of hygienic-sanitary-veterinary standards in production farms with a profile of meat, milk, eggs, honey, etc. 6. Protection of animals from infectious diseases, through the implementation of biosafety practices on farms, good animal feed treatment, implementation of food chain control for animals, implementation of requirements in milking, equipment, safe transport staff and certification of the veterinary product. 7. In a pandemic situation, the food systems must be adapted and implemented in accordance with the new conditions dictated by the emergency situation where the priority is to review the rules of conduct of staff with the requirements of personal and local hygiene, regarding the specifics of disease manifested pathogenicity, routes of transmission as well as their zoonotic character. 8. Farms with high productivity and risk in the market to be certified with ISO or HACCP, as these systems put them in monitoring and implementation of the traceability system. 9. Aviary influence affects food security and production. Affects food security because there are animal products that enter the industry food chain. 10. It’s important the erosion control as well as the need to decrease desertification and more efficient utilization of water resources by using new technologies like drip irrigation etc.237N/A

2021-07-23 09:18:08204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21189/203

4512714322233823411422152051211915

The Independent Dialogue was organized in adherence with the principles of the UN Food Systems Summit, particularly those on embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, recognizing complexity, complementing the work of others, and building trust. By bringing together members of different stakeholder groups and applying principles of a just transition to national and global food systems, the dialogue facilitated an open, interactive, and participatory discussion that led to concrete results and key inputs. Moreover, the structure in which the dialogue took place enabled discussants to build on the experiences and expertise of each other and gain further input on the roles of different stakeholders and multi-actor partnerships including government, the private sector, civil society, and local communities. The event included the following speakers: Ms. Vositha Wijenayake (Executive Director, SLYCAN Trust), Mr. Lasse Bruun, (CEO, 50by40), Mr. Duncan Williamson (Founder, Nourishing Food Systems), Ms. Fleur Newman (Unit Lead – Gender | Youth | ACE, UNFCCC), Ms. Katherine S. Miles (Gender Consultant, InsuResilience Global Partnership), Mr. Kairos Dela Cruz (Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities), and Ms. Chalani Marasinghe (Research & Programme Officer, Global Youth Forum on Climate Change). In addition, the participants were divided into breakout groups to discuss the following key questions: Question 1: What are solutions and challenges for a just transition in livelihoods to build resilient, climate-friendly, and equitable food systems? Question 2: What are solutions and challenges to localize value chains and rebalance agency for more resilient and equitable livelihoods? Question 3: What are solutions and challenges for a just transition in livelihoods to build resilient, climate friendly, and equitable food systems? Question 4: Any additional input, solutions or challengers related to just transition, livelihood and food systems?The Dialogue opened a conversation among many stakeholders, some who directly work with the Summit and others who work with those whose livelihoods are threatened as a result of inconsistent food systems. Furthermore, keeping in line with the Principles of commitment, understanding complexity and respect, the Dialogue was also an opportunity to discuss the implications of different just transition elements (such as policies and social protection) for food systems and connect them to a just COVID-19 recovery as well as to share knowledge, experience, best practices, and lessons learned. Complementing the work of other sectors, the Dialogue provided a platform to identify and explore opportunities to mainstream just transition and integrate it with sustainable development, climate action, and just recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.i) Have a sound understanding of the Principles of Engagement and see how best it can be incorporated into the Dialogue ii) Invite a wide variety of stakeholders to participate in the discussion to ensure it is a rich and productive Dialogue iii) Effective and efficient use of time management which will ensure there is sufficient time for all stakeholders to engage and provide inputs - be it orally/ via other tools and mechanisms used. iv) Understand the context and sensitivities in which the Dialogue is taking place as well as the context and sensitivities that the area of discussion has upon the stakeholders. This would enable a more holistic approach to the discussion that would better incorporate the challenges and opportunities as well.

Yes

234239241242243244246249251Building on findings from previous events such as SLYCAN Trust’s 2020 Food Systems Summit and Virtual Summit on Just Transition, the dialogue explored several key questions: How can food systems be part of climate action and become more resilient while protecting livelihoods and social cohesion? What are the existing initiatives, mechanisms, policy processes, and opportunities for synergies regarding just transition? How can a just recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic be integrated with a just transition to more climate-friendly and equitable food systems? What examples and lessons can be replicated to address just transition in food systems at national and global level? The following main thematic areas were addressed throughout the session: ▪ Identify through an inclusive and participatory process solutions to be introduced under Action Track 4 and its three action areas, in particular related to just transition and building equitable and inclusive resilience in food systems. ▪ Gain further input on the roles of different stakeholders and multi-actor partnerships including government, private sector, civil society, and local communities. ▪ Build on the technical capacity of key stakeholders working on the topic of adaptation and mitigation, just transition, and food system resilience. ▪ Identify entry points for integrating context-specific and holistic just transition approaches into national and international policies, plans, and processes and existing infrastructure. ▪ Highlight and further explore the role of Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation Plans, other relevant processes and mechanisms under the UNFCCC, and the SDGs. ▪ Integration of resilience-building and social protection among youth and women and the inclusion of gender and youth empowerment in planning and policy processes. ▪ Discuss implications of human mobility and informal employment for just transition in food systems. ▪ Connect just transition to just recovery from COVID-19, and resilience-building in food system livelihoods. ▪ Share knowledge, experiences, best practices, and lessons learned.235239241242243244246249251Throughout the dialogue as well as during the breakout sessions, the following main findings emerged: ▪ Enhancing awareness and attitudes toward food system transformation and sustainable, climate-friendly, localized food production ▪ Changing consumption patterns and highlighting the role of plant-based diets, ▪ Engaging women, youth, and vulnerable or marginalized communities and enhancing their access to finance, risk management, entrepreneurship, and other opportunities ▪ Integrating just transition with just recovery and overcoming challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic ▪ Identifying gaps in knowledge and address them through focused, context-specific research and interventions ▪ Investing in rural development, skills development, capacity-building, and entrepreneurship training for youth and farming communities ▪ Strengthening infrastructure, including transport and digital infrastructure, in rural areas ▪ Enhancing the social recognition and standing of food producers; improving the “branding” of food systems and agriculture ▪ Involving all stakeholders, including the public, in decision- and policy-making processes and incorporating their feedback and inputs in an iterative process; setting up open forums for feedback and input into these processes ▪ Acknowledging the reality of culture, traditions, customary laws, and religion for food production, land ownership, gender, etc., addressing existing inequalities and vulnerabilities ▪ Exploring the role of blue foods and strengthening sustainable fisheries, mariculture, and aquaculture ▪ Providing financial support and climate risk finance and transfer mechanisms to protect farmers and allow them to take risks and move toward more sustainable and resilient practices236239241242243244246249251A.What are the solutions and challenges for a just transition in livelihoods to build resilient, climate friendly and equitable food systems? ▪Raising community awareness, attitudes, and understanding of concepts such as food miles, sustainable food systems, plant-based diets ▪Enhancing gender-responsive climate and disaster risk finance and transfer; closing the gender gap in financial inclusion and facilitating women to own and scale up businesses ▪Strengthening e-commerce and digital infrastructure ▪Overcoming challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic and facilitating a just recovery ▪Enhancing governance (public/private sector) ▪Improving food access for suburban areas ▪Facilitating youth involvement to find solutions for a sustainable future ▪Forming public-private partnerships ▪Promoting local knowledge for food production ▪Addressing unequal access to information and technologies ▪Increase the supply, availability, and affordability of plant-based food items ▪Promoting plant-based food systems ▪Identifying entry points ▪Enhancing trust in technology ▪Identifying gaps and addressing them ▪Reducing the influence of multinational corporations in food systems to help local and agroecological food systems to survive ▪Economic development of rural people ▪Building skills and technical capacity ▪Reducing wastage ▪Integrating an adjustable food system B.What are solutions and challenges to localize value chains and rebalance agency for more resilient and equitable livelihoods? ▪Building awareness and overcoming limitations in capacity and technology ▪Promoting value addition to food ▪Conducting gender analysis of value chains to understand diverse roles with value chains of women and men ▪Enhancing marketing opportunities for youth and empowering youth to find innovative solutions ▪Promoting entrepreneurship and enhancing entrepreneurship skills among youth and farming communities ▪Investing in sustainable food startups ▪Acknowledging and addressing context ▪Valuing labor and strengthening labor justice ▪Respecting and supporting land rights ▪Supporting smallholder farmers against large corporations ▪Implementing climate insurance mechanisms ▪Identifying key market points where the supplies could be provided, and then connecting farmers to the buyers based on the demand, for them to have a sustainable supply chain. ▪Finding innovative ways to address agriculture problems, branding the food production ▪Enhancing access to markets and financial literacy ▪Breaking up market monopolies that are harmful for food producers, especially small-scale ones ▪Investing in economic development of rural areas C.What are the solutions and challenges to strengthen food systems governance and develop participatory and inclusive policies and plans ▪Creating incentives for women’s participation in governance mechanisms ▪Strengthening women’s participation in government sector and the private sector, including both companies and business associations ▪Boosting engagement with women's associations and ministries of gender/women where they exist ▪Conducting awareness creation programs ▪Strengthening market linkages ▪Engaging youth in the identification of key policy issues related to food systems ▪Promoting more transparent decision-making processes ▪Including more stakeholders in policy-making decisions through knowledge sharing and project partnerships with NGOs/CSOs/research institutions ▪Creating incentives for women's participation in governance mechanisms D.Additional solutions related to just transition, livelihoods and food systems ▪Supporting the formalization of agricultural enterprises ▪Addressing gender discriminatory laws on land ownership and registration as well as discriminatory customary practices related to land ownership ▪Enhancing policy coherence between difference policy areas related to food systems, the financial sector, climate change, and inclusion ▪Providing financial resources allocated to ensure engagement of impacted communities ▪Highlighting the role of blue food in the discussion ▪Changing consumption habits ▪Improving infrastructure and transportation facilities for food ▪Involving stakeholders in policy dev-237None

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UNFSS-Independent-Dialogue-2-Just-Transition.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS3umdg7WIY&t=38s

2021-07-23 09:24:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29860/203

2520515106190

The Dialogue was organized in such way that we gave space for each participant to freely express him/herself and we respected all ideasFarmer organizations committed to follow up on the recommendations they suggested to ensure they are considered and acted up to the benefit of smallholder farmers in Eastern Africaencourage convenors to be free in consulting their members for any other input to the discussions and to share them with EAFF for inclusion since not everything can be discussed during the online session.

Yes

234238239240241242244245249251The dialogue focused the discussions on the following subjects: Subject 1:Are agricultural policies favorable to the development of sustainable and innovative food systems? Subject 2: What are the challenges in terms of access to quality inputs and means of production to ensure a sustainable and innovative food system Subject 3: What are the main levers able to promote productivity in the face of the challenges of climate change and various shocks and stresses? What are the measures to be taken for a post-Covid 19 recovery? Subject 4: How to ensure better access and security to / of agricultural land? Subject 5: What are the challenges of agricultural financing and what measures should be put in place to improve the situation? Subject 6: How to ensure better inclusion of women and young people in agriculture?235see section below on outcomes per topic of discussion236238249Agricultural policy: In relation to policies affecting agriculture, the members noted that some of the constraints facing farmers include limited understanding of the existing agricultural policies by the farmers, there are different value chains policies that are at times contradictory, some development partners’ support does not respond to the farming sector needs since their priorities appear to be in other sectors such as health or education among others. In terms of proposed solutions, they suggested the need to sensitize local farmers on policies, the need to gather feedback from farmers on effectiveness of the said policies and further the need to harmonize policies to ward off confusion in their implementation.236238240243244248250Access to inputs and means of production: On this particular subject, the participants identified unaffordability of inputs by small holder farmers as a constraint. They also noted that a variety of inputs are not favourable to farmers according to the agro-ecological issues, the late supply of inputs, poor quality of certain inputs, misuse of agrochemicals by farmers and a poor mindset of some farmers towards the use of some inputs such as fertilizers as other constraints. On this issue, the members suggested the need for research on agro-ecological zones to ensure suitability of inputs, the need for agro-ecological zoning to ensure that inputs are customized according to soil maps and the importance of creating awareness amongst farmers on the proper use of chemicals.236242244250Resilience: The participants noted that in terms of constraints, there was common poor post-harvest systems among smallholder farmers, there was lack or poor storage facilities, farmers were unprepared for emerging calamities and most climate resilient varieties are not affordable by smallholder farmers. In terms of solutions, it was proposed that there is need to work on storage facilities especially for the perishables, need to invest in proper post-harvest handling systems etc.236240246250Agricultural land: Participants mentioned that in most countries land policies are not favourable to farmers, in others, there are cultural barriers that hinder women and youth from owning land, there are some prohibitive taxes that hinder farmers from accessing land, ineffective land policy and land fragmentation among others are key constraints on the subject of agricultural land. It was also noted that urbanisation and user change of land has grossly affected agricultural land. The members proposed that there is need to break cultural barriers regarding land ownership, there is need to change land policy from land ownership to land use policy and further the need to promote vertical farming. In addition, farmers should be encouraged to use organic fertilisers and governments to regularly review land policies were proffered as some of the solutions to constraints on agricultural land.236238245Agricultural finance: Several issues were considered as constraints to farming in the region in connection to agricultural finance. These include unfavourable loan repayment schedules, lack of collateral insurance and lack of proper financial policy. Also, there is lack of information and data on the borrowers and poor management of loan utilization leading to misuse of funds and non-serving of the said loans. However, the participants were of the opinion that these agricultural finance challenges can be resolved by providing low interest rate products for farmers, sensitising borrowers to be faithful to the banks, FOs promoting saving and Sacco schemes for their members, formation of agricultural banks, putting in place agricultural insurance schemes and enacting favourable policies for financial accessibility by farmers among others. Also, there is need to make risk assessment tools and methodologies for farmers to adopt to help them better manage their finances.236241251Inclusion: A key constraint noted regarding inclusion was the fact that in most cultures women and youth do not own land. It was also clear that farming has not presented itself in a favourable manner especially to the youth.It was suggested that, in order to overcome this hurdle, governments in the region need to review policies and make provisions for women and youth to have access to land for agricultural activities. Further, women need to be trained and empowered and there is need to incorporate innovations and creativity when it comes to farming so as to harness the skills of youth and thereby make farming endearing to the young generations.

2021-07-23 09:30:08205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33962/45

107012513950624501096212225623747336921725419311517060201110

Ever since the UN called on its members to convene extensive Food Systems Dialogues in the lead-up to the Food Systems Summit, China has given priority to organizing the Dialogue, acted with urgency, and made preparations according to the following principles: 1. The theme and topics of the Dialogue are based on Chinese realities and are consistent with the aims and five action tracks of the Summit. Themed “Promoting Sustainable Development and Safeguarding National Food Security”, the Dialogue reviewed development achievements of China’s food systems, faced up to challenges and problems, looked into the future, and mapped out sustainable development pathways for Chinese food systems in the next decade. 2. As with size, the Dialogue seeks to be as inclusive as possible to respond to the appeal of the Dialogue’s convener, so that viewpoints and needs of different food system stakeholders can be covered while designing pathways for China’s food system transformation.On 26 April 2021, China held its National Dialogue, with Vice Minister Zhang Taolin as the convenor. Over 100 representatives from related UN agencies, international organizations, ministries and departments of the central government, subnational governments, research institutions, universities, businesses, financial institutions, farmers and media attended the Dialogue. During 5 sessions on Chinese food system transformation and policy support, food production and sustainable development, food loss and shock response, food security and equitable livelihoods for urban and rural residents, and sustainable food consumption, experts from these fields delivered 10 keynote presentations and had 5 open discussions. They reviewed the development and progress of China’s food systems, examined the current status of those systems, and analysed potential challenges, and discussed solutions in open discussions, which are important inputs to draw upon in designing sustainable development pathways for China’s food systems.A national dialogue shall take into consideration the thoughts and needs of various stakeholders, encourage the engagement of different groups related to food systems, and call upon the whole society to participate as a part of its efforts towards inclusiveness and contribution to the sustainable development of food systems around the globe.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Under the theme of “Promoting Sustainable Development and Safeguarding National Food Security”, this event brought together various stakeholders to assess food systems from different perspectives. Through dialogues, they discussed the directions, goals, approaches and pathways of China’s food system transformation, on the basis of which a national roadmap to sustainable food systems in China by 2030 can be developed. The Dialogue addressed five topics, namely China’s food system transformation and policy support, food production and sustainable development, food loss and shock response, food security and equitable livelihoods for urban and rural residents, and sustainable food consumption. The Dialogue reviewed China’s achievements and international contribution in safeguarding food security, eradicating absolute poverty, and implementing the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. The Dialogue also discussed the problems and challenges facing China’s food systems now and into the future and China’s coping strategies. Topics covered are as follows: 1) direction and challenges of China’s food system transformation; 2) stakeholder engagement and the government’s role in the transformation; 3) ways to ensure universal access to energy-sufficient and nutritionally diverse foods; 4) ways to reduce food loss and waste; 5) ways to improve farmer resilience to natural risks; 6) ways to leverage science and technology in catalyzing food system transformation and sustainable development.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251After seven decades of development, China has embarked on a path of food security with Chinese characteristics. It has scored remarkable progress in food production capacity, sustainable development and people’s health and nutritional status as well as a complete victory in the fight against extreme poverty, offering an example of good practices to the international community. Nevertheless, as China's economy shifts to a stage of high-quality development, its food systems face several challenges in transformation. First, resource constraints. As a populous country, China is already in lack of sufficient arable land and water resources. Worse still, rapid urbanization and industrialization are to further reduce the land and water available to agriculture. Second, vulnerable smallholders in the market. Chinese farmers, typically smallholders, suffer from adverse selection due to information asymmetry, and are hence disadvantaged in modern market competition. Third, climate change. Heat waves, droughts, floods, hail, pests and diseases, which are becoming more frequent and prevalent under the impact of climate change, are gravely threatening food security and farmers' livelihoods. Fourth, stress on food supply. Population growth and rising urbanization leads to higher demands for food. Besides, with higher incomes, consumers who used to be satisfied with mere food sufficiency increasingly desire nutrition, health benefits and safety from foods. What’s more, Chinese people face the double burden of undernutrition and overnutrition. To take on these challenges, China will uphold a new development philosophy featuring innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared growth and boost sustainable agriculture. First, China will increase grain production through farmland conservation and technological progress. Second, China will help farmers reap higher profits while holding local governments and party committees accountable for food security. Third, China will continue to develop its market system and value chains. Fourth, China will improve its macro-economic control and set in place full-fledged laws and rules. Fifth, China will stay committed to opening up and international cooperation. To achieve the sustainable development of food systems, China proposes to: first, take into consideration both grains and other foods when addressing food security; second, enhance food production capacity; third, foster innovation in agricultural science and technology; fourth, uphold sustainable development; fifth, facilitate access to development benefits by the whole society; sixth, open up wider to the world and undertake further international cooperation.236238239240241242244246248249250The discussions were conducted mainly on two aspects: (1) emerging trends in China's food security and new policy orientation, (2) reforms and policies on promoting the transformation of China's food systems. The participants identified three emerging trends in China’s food security: (1) shift in consumer demands. Since the basic living needs of the Chinese people have been met, their demands for food products have evolved, resulting in the shift of the country’s focus in food supply to satisfying food consumption preferences. (2)  new challenges in production. Since the growth of agricultural production in China is constrained by high labor cost and small production scale, it is thus essential for China to lower costs and expand production scale.  (3) future policies should aim to boost agricultural productivity. China should take stronger actions to improve soil fertility, develop high-quality farmland and improve irrigation facilities, and grant critical policy support to technology innovation and extension in such fields as varieties, infrastructure, mechanization, digitization, food preservation, storage and processing. With its commitment to safeguarding grain security unchanged, China is transforming its food systems to increase value addition, achieve sustainable agricultural development, and promote the transfer of excessive rural labor force to non-agricultural sectors. The fundamental drivers for such transformation include institutional innovation, technological advances, market reform and agricultural investment. The participants agree that future policies should focus on the following aspects.  (1) institutional innovation. A new leading group should be set up to better coordinate policies and investments of various departments, advance reforms in rural land system and other relevant fields, and support the development of competitive farmers' cooperatives. (2) innovation in polices. China should adopt strong and innovative measures to ensure food security through technological advances and deepen market and supply-side structural reform. It should also further develop agricultural insurance and its social security system, and support the efforts to improve food systems with digital technologies. (3) innovation in investment. China should apply new approaches for farmland protection and stewardship to increase grain production and invest more in technology and human capital. Food systems across the globe are rather fragile due to unbalanced development, natural disasters and shocks of COVID-19. Therefore, countries should step up international cooperation, particularly multilateral cooperation and south-south cooperation, to jointly tackle changes in global food systems and make them sustainable, healthy and resilient.236238239240242243244246248249250251The session on Topic 2 focused on food production and sustainable development as well as recommendations for promoting green and sustainable agricultural development. Participants agreed that China has implemented a wide range of measures and achieved tangible outcomes in green agricultural and rural development, including integrated approaches for agricultural resource utilization and conservation, improved environmental protection in agricultural production, continuous restoration of agricultural ecosystems, and development of green production systems. The Chinese government has made agricultural and rural development a top priority in its work and launched full-ledged efforts to advance rural revitalization, thus offering historic opportunity for green development in agriculture. Besides, scientific and technological innovation has also been fueling green development in agriculture. The participants identified that waste recycling is the key to green and low-carbon development in agriculture, and recognized that further progress in the recycling of agricultural waste is necessary for China to achieve its goals on emission peak and carbon neutrality. The participants presented a series of recommendations, namely enhancing resource conservation and utilization, strengthening environmental and ecological protection in agriculture, implementing the program of variety development, quality enhancement, brandname building, and production standardization, as well as encouraging innovation in green agricultural technology. The participants also recognized three crises facing the world: the climate crisis, degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity, and pollution and waste. These three crises are interconnected with each other, and all closely related to food security and sustainable development. To effectively respond to these three crises not only requires scientific and technological progress, but also strengthened regulation of technology.236238239240241242243244246248249Topic 3 focused on food loss and shock response. Participants discussed critical approaches to effective prevention of and response to food crisis. Participants believed that China's endeavor to reduce post-harvest loss has been underpinned by a wide range of support policies and programs. On the one hand, the government has pooled substantial research resources to investigate and assess post-harvest loss, making almost parallel research progress with FAO and western developed countries. On the other hand, various food research institutes and businesses in China have mounted collaborative innovation efforts on the R&D, extension and application of post-harvest technologies and equipment. China's National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration has spared no effort to implement the strategy of developing the food sector through technology innovation and human capital development. It has also established post-harvest service centers under the national quality grain project, i.e. Action Plan on High-quality Chinese Grains and Edible Oil. With investments from both state-owned and local enterprises, the centers have produced positive outcomes. Over 4000 such service centers have been set up nationwide, leading to a drop of 4 percentage points in food loss at storage and drying stages alone. In addition, President Xi Jinping has launched an important initiative for China to host the International Conference on Food Loss Reduction in due course, with a view to facilitating experience sharing and enhancing global food security. Participants also analyzed the technological, economic and policy factors that cause post-harvest loss in China, and concluded that four questions need to be answered before food loss can be effectively lowered. 1. Why is it important to drive down food loss? 2. Who seeks to reduce food loss? 3. Who has the capacity to cut food loss? 4. Who shall take up the work on the ground? At present, the meteorological disasters that affect China’s major food crops and the temporal-spatial pattern featured have evolved over time, making climate change adaptation tailored to the local situation an essential approach to sustain agricultural output. Many measures against meteorological disasters in agriculture have been adopted, but systemic theoretical research and application demonstration is still lacking. More efforts are needed in disaster early-warning, selection breeding and cultivation technology. In addition, participants noted that food is lost throughout the food supply chain in both the form of food waste and inevitable loss. To cut food loss, the government must quicken the pace of legislation, upgrade technology, equipment and facilities, and enhance public education. As an effective conduit for cutting loss, e-commerce businesses should be promoted to standardize farm production and marketing activities, driving down food loss while creating value addition and higher rural income. Participants also proposed the following measures to strengthen shock response ability of the food supply chain. First, supply chain technology needs to be improved to prevent food loss. Second, concrete actions should be taken to step up legislation, improve law enforcement and strengthen guidance on public opinion. Third, food reserves and logistics needs to be improved. How long food reserves should be stored is a question of considerable importance in the international community. In a word, efforts should be launched on the supply chain to reduce loss and waste, so as to increase supply, better ensure food security and consumer health, and improve resource sustainability.236238241242245246247248249251Topic 4, food security and equitable livelihoods of urban and rural residents, highlighted the livelihood and development issues facing people in the food systems. China has accomplished its poverty reduction goal under the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 10 years ahead of schedule, providing Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to reducing poverty on a global scale. Since the reform and opening up, the incidence of poverty in China has dropped from 97.5 percent to zero and extreme poverty has been eradicated. In poor rural areas, people have seen their income grow rapidly, with ever-improving living conditions, infrastructure and public services, and fundamental changes in rural governance. China’s success in eliminating extreme poverty can be attributed to strong political leadership, consistent anti-poverty actions and the policy of reform and opening-up.  China’s experience include: 1) Poverty alleviation programs are led by governments and participated by various stakeholders; 2) China has remained committed to a targeted poverty alleviation strategy; 3) China has inspired poor people with the motivation to fight poverty; and 4) China has mobilized private actors to build a strong synergy in the fight against poverty. Two principles need to be followed to ensure equitable livelihoods during food systems transformation. First, the voices of workers and professionals whose jobs are relevant to food systems must be heard so as to help the food systems grow in a sustainable manner. Second, to build resilient food systems, people involved in food systems development must be empowered based on the principle of putting people first. Special attention must be paid to the ways of benefiting smallholder farmers worldwide through food systems transformation and reform. It is important that these 500 million smallholder farmers gain from this process as they contribute to 75 percent of global food production. Measures include strengthening the farmers' organizations, so that farmers will be better able to utilize digital technologies and e-commerce platforms, which give them easier access to the market and at the same time create more job opportunities for women and young people in rural areas. In addition, it is necessary to ensure fair investment in order to promote green technology and help farmers in remote areas access the market.236238239240242243244246248249Topic 5 focused on sustainable food consumption in the transformation of China’s food systems. What China needs is to foster nutrition-oriented consumption patterns. It faces three major challenges. First, China’s food production and supply fail to serve its upgraded domestic consumption. Second, food production and processing technologies fail to meet the new demands of consumers. Third, public perception of healthy diets fails to keep pace with new consumption patterns. Sustainable food consumption requires a shift in dietary structure and improvement of dietary patterns. Measures include: First, it is important to realize that sustainable food consumption is more than sustainable production. It is also about nutritious and healthy food. Second, nutrition and health need to be factored into China’s top-level planning and built into policies. The goal of carbon neutrality should be taken into account while formulating nutrition guidelines and recommendations. The Chinese government needs to promote institutional reform to enhance its governing capacity for making the complex food systems more effective, eco-friendly, inclusive and sustainable. Third, China should prioritize technology innovation, especially R&D on agricultural technology. China should pursue innovation in nutrition-oriented production technology, and improve nutritional standards for agricultural products. It should also advocate moderate and targeted processing, so as to reduce loss and improve efficiency during the processing process. Fourth, China should promote education on and share knowledge about food nutrition and health, and provide guidance on food consumption. It should raise awareness of recycling so that all the byproducts of consumer goods can be recycled.237None.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2_Natinal-Dialogue-Feedback-English.pdfhttp://event.31huiyi.com/2020811664

2021-07-23 09:44:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29864/203

282082171117

The Dialogue was organized in such way that we gave space for each participant to freely express him/herself and we respected all ideasFarmer organizations committed to follow up on the recommendations they suggested to ensure they are considered and acted up to the benefit of smallholder farmers in Eastern AfricaEncourage convenors to be free in consulting their members for any other input to the discussions and to share them with EAFF for inclusion since not everything can be discussed during the online session.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246249250251The dialogue focused the discussions on the following subjects: Subject 1:Are agricultural policies favorable to the development of sustainable and innovative food systems? Subject 2: What are the main levers able to promote productivity in the face of the challenges of climate change and various shocks and stresses? What are the measures to be taken for a post-Covid 19 recovery? Subject 3: How to ensure better access and security to / of agricultural land? Subject 4: What are the challenges of agricultural financing and what measures should be put in place to improve the situation? Subject 5: How to ensure better inclusion of women and young people in agriculture?235see section below on outcomes per topic of discussion236238243249Agricultural Policy: In terms of constraints affecting the subject of agricultural policy, the members noted that some countries lack agricultural policies or lack political good will in implementing the policies. Also, there is ineffective implementation, poor communication to farmers regarding the policies, and prohibitive conditions for access to financing among others. It was noted that there is need for favourable agricultural policies for smallholder farmers, there is need for affordable agricultural inputs and governments in the region need to support farmer organisations to produce safe and affordable farm inputs such as fertilisers. These were perceived as some possible solutions for the aforementioned constraints236240242244250Resilience: The participants took note that there are certain constraints hindering farmers in the region from exercising resilience in the face of emerging issues. For example, they mentioned that there is lack of access to quality farm inputs by smallholder farmers, lack of adaptation, and lack of government support for smallholder farmers among others. In terms of solutions, the members suggested the need for availability of quality farm inputs, facilitation of custom clearance for farm inputs, the need to ease cross-border barriers, the need for governments in the region to assist farmers and sensitization of farmers on the importance of carrying out short cycle agricultural activities.236240241244246247251Agricultural Land: The members mentioned that land grabbing was prevalent in the region, that there was the threat to farm land by high density populations, failure to allow women access to land ownership, land erosion and lack of proper land tenure policies as some of the constraints affecting agricultural land.21 | P a g e As part of the solution, the members reckoned that proper land tenure policies need to be instituted, there is need to protect land from soil erosion and governments must ensure proper management of land laws among others236238241245246249Agricultural Financing: It was mentioned that there is lack of access to Agricultural financing, there are high interest rate products on agricultural financing, unfavourable collaterals, lack of insurance, and weak infrastructure for agricultural value chains among others as constraints. Some of the solutions suggested by the members include the need to secure farming areas, establishing proper systems for insuring farm products, sensitising farmers on existing financial services, providing affordable collaterals and governments supporting agricultural value chains for sustainability236241251Inclusion: On the subject of inclusion, the members highlighted the lack of access for women and youth to land, preponderant land grabbing and retrogressive cultural practices as some of the constraints. However, the members suggested that this can be remedied by proper policies that make access to land, credit facilities and training opportunities possible for women and youth, making it possible for smallholder farmers to have access to agricultural land through favourable concessions, and reducing or eliminating prohibitive cultural practices that discriminate against women and youth regarding land matters.

2021-07-23 09:58:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29868/203

555050371829026331913

The Dialogue was organized in such way that we gave space for each participant to freely express him/herself and we respected all ideasFarmer organizations committed to follow up on the recommendations they suggested to ensure they are considered and acted up to the benefit of smallholder farmers in Eastern Africaencourage convenors to be free in consulting their members for any other input to the discussions and to share them with EAFF for inclusion since not everything can be discussed during the online session.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue focused the discussions on the following subjects: Subject 1: Are agricultural policies favorable to the development of sustainable and innovative food systems? Subject 2: What are the challenges in terms of access to quality inputs and means of production to ensure a sustainable and innovative food system Subject 3: What are the main levers able to promote productivity in the face of the challenges of climate change and various shocks and stresses? What are the measures to be taken for a post-Covid 19 recovery? Subject 4: How to ensure better access and security to / of agricultural land? Subject 5: What are the challenges of agricultural financing and what measures should be put in place to improve the situation? Subject 6: How to ensure better inclusion of women and young people in agriculture?235See section below on outcomes per topic of discussion236238241249251Agricultural policy: In relation to policies affecting agriculture, the youth mentioned that there is poor dissemination of information to users, that is, the government makes very good policies but unfortunately they are not shared with the beneficiaries or end users thus farmers are always caught off guard, that there is lack of a forum to report to government about youth influence or impact by the policies made, there is lack of access to information to understand or be able to respond to the opportunities available thereby hindering youth access among others. In terms of proposed solutions, the youth suggested the need for governments to openly share information with the young farmers, to sensitize young farmers on available policies, the need to gather feedback from youth on effectiveness of provided policies and for the governments to prioritise youth inclusion in policy making and implementation. Also, agriculture should be budgeted for appropriately, there is need to streamline the mandate of government bodies on implementation of the budget and last but not least to create awareness and education for the political class regarding agricultural policies.236238251Access to inputs and means of production: On this particular subject, the young farmers identified corruption, lack of awareness regarding agricultural inputs, limited implementation of quality control, and limited access of technical people as constraints 31 | P a g e to means of production. Others include COVID-19 restrictions leading to inaccessibility such as limitation in movement due to lockdowns, knowledge barrier for young farmers in terms of quality inputs, and the high cost of inputs in general. On this issue, the youth suggested the need for government to do restructuring of service providers, the need to decentralise agricultural institutions, to do capacity building of agricultural personnel, to be more vigilant on counterfeit goods and to have increased awareness and education on agricultural products and services as part of the solutions or suggestions for way forward.236242244250251Resilience: The participants noted that in terms of constraints, there was a challenge of unpredictable weather patterns, issues of deforestation, lack of proper research on seed varieties and a disconnect between research findings and the actual data on the ground. Further, the adoption of GMOs has led to altered production rates and in other cases there is growing cases of pollution that has led to making land unproductive. In terms of solutions, it was proposed that there is need to invest in regenerative agriculture concerning organic farming to cushion farmers in relation to unhealthy food production, there is need for proper dissemination of research data and statistics, it is important to involve young farmers in feasibility studies and the need for reliable and accurate information regarding weather patterns among others. Further, there is need for more capacity building for young farmers, need to begin conserving the indigenous seeds for better productivity, we should adopt proper disposal/ reuse/ recycling of plastic waste and push for reforestation and tree planting for improved ecosystems.236238240242244246251Agricultural land: The youth noted that land is inaccessible to them, there is poor land documentation especially regarding issues of succession in the case of death of old parents, conflicts have become common for example in Uganda due to increased population density, there is shortage of agricultural land in most countries coupled with issues of fragmentation among others. The members proposed that there is need to break cultural barriers regarding land ownership, there is need to have proper documentation and laws regarding land ownership and succession, idle land should be made accessible to youth for farming purposes, and there is need to look into ways of managing human conflicts occasioned by population explosions. In addition, farmers should be encouraged to adopt new technologies such as hydroponic farming and the governments to improve on data management especially concerning households to improve on planning.236238245Agricultural finance: Several issues were considered as constraints to farming in the region in connection to agricultural finance. These include lack of sensitisation on interest 32 | P a g e rates for lending to youth, lack of awareness on the issues on the loans or allowing for negotiations for youth to be able to access funds, failure for concessions or grace period for agricultural borrowers, and not allowing youth and farmers access to loans at the rates the National bank allows for them thus hindering them from progressing in agricultural pursuits. Also, the agricultural products most banks are offering have a very high insurance rates and when farmers face challenges they are not compensated, this is coupled with interest rates for agricultural products being very high. In terms of recommendations, the young farmers suggested the need for microfinance organisations to improve on their products and tailor make them for youth, the need to revise interest rates and insurances and also to consider concessions or grace period for loan repayment.236238241251nclusion: It was observed that most people in rural settings do not have access to digital technology, the cost of technology is prohibitive and the youth are not involved in processes of policy making. Further, the youth and women are often left out of discussions affecting land distribution or matters touching on agriculture yet they are critical players. It was suggested that, in order to overcome such challenges, there is need to include youth in policy making, it is imperative to look at the cost of emerging technology and subsidise the same for the youth and also improve on distribution of digital infrastructure throughout the region not just in urban settings. There is also need to mainstream gender issues into agricultural discussions so that women’s role in agricultural processes can be recognised and rewarded.

2021-07-23 10:31:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7743/75

130675821121211242511

The dialogue started with a commitment to the summit and incorporated the idea of acting with urgency, by highlighting the need for a systems approach to the issue of Food Sustainability. Having an objective of increasing empathy between various actors embodied the need for respect. However, the principles at the centre of our Dialogue were : - Recognize Complexity - Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - Complement the work of others - Build Trust Because the dialogue involved active brainstorming and collaboration sessions using Miro (A digital whiteboard and collaboration tool), during which we engaged in Causal Loop Mapping exercises that cover all of the above. This is detailed in the section below1. Recognize Complexity The Dialogue introduced participants to the concept of Causal Loop Mapping through an initial input followed by individual exercises where participants were invited to create their own Causal Loop Map with the question: What factors influence your decision-making around sustainable consumption (as a consumer of food)? This was followed by Causal Loop Mapping exercises where participants were put in Breakout Rooms, and invited to engage in a similar mapping exercise but from other stakeholders' points of view, uncovering the complexity of the food system for particular questions - Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity While our dialogue was small and did not cover all stakeholders, it raised awareness about multistakeholder inclusivity from its invite (acknowledging the limitation that a digital workshop creates for certain stakeholders). It however invited participants to up themselves in other stakeholder's shoes when mapping for the following question: > What factors influence the farmer's decision-making around sustainable production? > What factors influence the retailer‘s decision-making around providing & marketing for sustainable products? > What factors influence the regulator's decision-making around regulation encouraging sustainable production and consumption? - Complement the work of others Participants collaborated on the maps they were working on in B/O rooms, and while sharing those maps with others, exploring ways how each groups' map connects with or can build on other existing maps. - Build TrustCausal Loop Mapping exercises for the group can be a great approach to cover many of the principles and gain a better understanding in a practical way

NoThe event was open to the public, however, it included invitations to specific connections from the network with interest in or work related to food systems, while trying to get as many stakeholder groups represented. 50 people had initially showed interest in participating but attendance was very low, and some attendees reacted to that with disappointment but those who stayed, appreciated the undivided attention and more detailed deep dive we could make with a smaller group. Facilitation was the key to the dialogue's success: The co-organizers were also co-conveners and co-facilitators. The collaboration tool made this possible, and divergence and convergence points surfaced during the mapping and were automatically documented by virtue of this being a digital brainstorming session. The concept of "together-alone", meaning giving participants to put their thoughts on digital post-its first and then engage in discussions gave room to many people to express what they had in mind. "Thinking out loud" was also adopted The combination of these exercises, the fact that we were working simultaneously on the screen and were writing our thoughts and then presenting them gave everyone a voice.

234238239245246250The focus of the dialogue was about exploring the impact of different role identities on empathy in the food system and attitudes towards food systems transformation. We designed the dialogue to create climate conducive of collective action so that participants can, identify shared intentions and understand constraints for different stakeholders, appreciate the potential of Causal Loop Mapping to recognise complexity and use that to create roadmaps for future action.235239249250- There is a need to scale such exercises to help more SHs from the food system to develop this understanding and gain clarity on the gaps that exist - Strategy-making that is preceded by an empathy exercise becomes more straightforward and relevant. - We need more empathy facilitating institutions - Gaps have been identified as related to a lack of knowledge of 'Other' stakeholders' context for short and long term decision making, as well as representation, and we need to think of additional formats and approaches to bridge them (Causal Loop Mapping and collaborative Miro events are the not the only way and not always easily inclusive) -236239The main outcome was the need for more scaled awareness on the contexts of respective stakeholders and what drives their decision-making. Causal Loop mapping has been tested and through this exercise identified as a useful tool. Results ar visible here in the bottom section of the board: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_lTysA9Q=/ Our main question post event: How might we scale the awareness raising effect of cross stakeholder causal loop mapping and be more inclusive?237239250Areas of divergence documented within breakout rooms as to what are the main variables and factors influencing some stakeholder's decisions have been approached as assumptions and hypothesis and we thing we should interview stakeholder before such an event, include them in the mapping, and review with them after the event.

2021-07-23 10:49:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35032/202

190511311811122111910030123100101010104

ZCSOSUNA ensured that all the principles of engagement were observed in the independent food systems dialogue that it hosted. While acknowledging and recognizing the complexity of food systems it was hoped that common paths could be fostered based on common goals. The dialogue was conducted under a set of ground rules in order to build trust and ensure all participants freely gave their points of view to enrich the discussion. Additionally, to enrich the discussion multi-stakeholder inclusivity was fully embraced so as to get the different experiences of members who operate in different settings. In convening the dialogue there was a facilitator who moderated the discussion to ensure that every participant got a fair chance to speak and be listened to. Participants for the discussion were invited from various sectors among them consumer groups, industry, farmers and civil society. The main reason of bringing together a diversified group was to facilitate the engagement to identify the most powerful ways of unleashing innovation towards sustainable consumption patterns and reduction of post-harvest food waste. To ensure that the discussion was not dominated by individuals all participants were allocated time slots to share their own standpoints in relation to consumption patterns and food waste. The moderator requested that all participants would respect their counterparts’ views and treat them with respect.In promoting safe space and trust the facilitator guaranteed participants that their names will not be captured for the purpose of attaching names to opinions that will be shared in the discussion. This guarantee encouraged participants to open up and share their views. Participants were also encouraged to respect each others views and to find polite ways of bringing out different opinions in cases of one having divergent views.Respecting one another built confidence in participants to share their thoughts openly and without fear. The network also ensured that the participants came from different backgrounds and are of different age groups with the intention of ensuring that the discussions would be in depth and insights on solutions to the food systems challenges would be drawn from various angles.We found it important to set adequate time for the discussion so that all the participants had adequate time to air out their views without time constraints. It is important to emphasize the importance of all members respecting each other and appreciating the different points of view that different people have. These differences are what enrich the dialogues and will ensure that solutions to food systems come from all angles.

Yes

234238239240243244245248249The theme of this dialogue was “Unleashing Innovation towards sustainable consumption patterns and reduction of post-harvest food waste. Major focus of the discussion was on mainstreaming nutrition in agriculture to ensure that farmers and markets reduce the quantities of food that are lost after harvesting. Also, the discussion was focused on determining the factors that influence consumption patterns and how those factors could be used to influence healthier consumption patterns. Though the main focus on actions targeted action track 1 to 3, some opinions that emerged also addressed action tracks 4 and 5.2352382392402432442452482492501) Promote the export of value-added food products in order to reduce post-harvest losses and raise export earnings 2) Implement measures that minimize post harvest and storage losses 3) Ensure that there is efficient infrastructure (road network) and temperature controlled vehicles to transport perishable/ nonperishable food after harvest 4) Prioritize exportation or importation of nutritious food, reduce/increase taxes as a way of incentives/disincentives 5) Mitigate against huge post-harvest losses by adopting modern methods of food preservation 6) Farmers are the foundation of our food systems and have demonstrated time and again that they can rise to the challenge if they are equipped and supported to do so. 7) Processes such as bio fortification are key in contributing to nutrition and farmers are key in implementing this 8) Devise innovative ways of ensuring that left over food is not thrown away 9) Several factors influences consumption patterns and these include culture, economy, social construction, availability, affordability and desirability of certain foods. There is need to develop nutrition interventions that address behavior change targeting the above factors. 10) Advertising has a significant effect on food choices and so it is important for healthy foods to be advertised. There is also great need to make nutritious food desirable. 11) Recycle food packages in order to reduce or prevent land degradation and emission of toxic gasses to the atmosphere236238239240245248249250Most of the participants felt that there was urgent need for the adoption of new technologies in agriculture, the new technologies will help in improving crop management, pest control and disease management and may include farm automation, livestock technology, artificial intelligence, precision agriculture, block chain, vertical farms and modern green houses. This will contribute greatly to the consumption of diversified diets by the general populace. Some participants felt that the nation has the capacity to produce sufficient and diverse nutritious food to meet national consumption and individual food preferences but new models to support farmers need to be employed. In addition the size of livestock herd should increase and meet export needs as was before if the nation is to return its status as the bread basket for southern Africa. Other participants underscored the need to inform citizens on the need to consume nutritious diets and make nutritious food desirable. Citizen’s food choices need to be informed and individuals should make food choices basing on general knowledge on nutritional value. Food manufactures need also to improve quality of food products such that they provide consumers with diverse nutrients they require for growth and development. Participants views on areas that need urgent action. 1) In this era of climate change innovation in technology systems in the fields of agronomic and animal husbandry is key in ensuring that the nation produces adequate, safe and nutritious food. Innovation in information management through modern equipment such as ICT also plays a critical role in predicting future weather patterns and climatic conditions later on in future. Investing in early warning systems reduces the risk of crop and animal losses as a result of disasters. Lastly the nation needs to ensure that there is value addition to food produced as a way of reducing post-harvest food losses and there is an urgent need to build infrastructure for easy transportation of food products. Lastly the government was urged to ensure that modern methods of food storage are adopted compared to traditional ones which are commonly used in the country. 2) The nation needs to widely adopt modern methods of agriculture such as climate smart agriculture as a means of increasing productivity, enhancing yields and reducing carbon emissions. 3) There is need to enhance nutrition information sharing between professionals and the general public. Devise information sharing tactics that will influence people to make healthy food choices, preserve and prepare foods in ways that will preserve their nutritional value and yet meet food preferences of many people.237Some participants felt that the agriculture sector is mainstreaming nutrition at a slow pace and that there was need to improve synergies so that the sector plans with a nutrition lens. Other participants highlighted that farmers choices to plant food crops is normally guided by demand and market prices. They felt that prices for nutritious foods are usually associated with low demand and very high prices which many of the citizens cannot afford resulting in farmers not preferring to plant them. Some stressed out that food preparation methods influence food prices, methods used in preparing junk foods lead to them fetching low prices and the unregulated marketing of junk food is greatly influencing their food preferences On domestic investments in agriculture most of the participants felt that government investment in the agriculture sector is more than enough for the country to produce sufficient food for the nation. Previous experience has shown that the ministry of finance invested a significant amount of the national budget in agriculture but the sector failed to produce sufficient nutritious food. Other participants hinted that the investment is being placed in old agriculture models and that there was need to conduct more research and ensure agriculture models have more benefits compared to investment being made by the government Some participants felt that women with ownership and control over agriculture assets including land are not as productive as their male counterparts. Others felt that lines of credit mainly favor males hence it may seem as if they are productive when in fact it is because of the support they receive from government and other lines of credit. It was agreed that there is need for the government to continue mainstreaming gender in the agriculture sector.

2021-07-23 11:13:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32909/98

830144323305033045510513341390801101530130345240020114050

With the commitment to promote agroecology , Kenya Agroecology Anchor Hub members in collaboration with PELUM Kenya and Manor House organised an independent food system dialogues under the theme: Agroecology for Sustainable Food System, to contribute to the outcome of the UN food system summit . To ensure multi stakeholder inclusivity , the independent dialogues participant were drawn from : small holder farmers, civil society organisations, ministry of agriculture fisheries and livestock, research institituion (KALRO), Academia , international NGOs, traders among others. The dialogues was divided into thematic sections: climate change and agriculture, seeds and genetic resources, participatory research and dissemination, global food trade, COVID 19 effect on food systems, water governance, ownership and food transformation , investment in sustainable agriculture. Each theme had presenters from diverse sector and panel discussions were held followed with question and answers. The dialogue also had break out session for small groups discussion based on the themes. Each session had a facilitator/moderator . After the breakout session. each theme brief the meeting on their key outcome.The Kenya Agroecology Anchor Hub, recognised the urgency to have a sustainable and more resilient food systems at all level in order to achieve SDG by 2030. The dialogue was conducted in a proffessional manners which wasa guided by facilitators , with presentations that were backed with research findings and facts. The Kenya Agroecology Anchor hub partners and stakeholders represented promotes agroecology for production of safe foods, improve the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures. Food system very complex and therefore, the Kenya agroecology anchor hub, formulated different thematic areas to guide the discussion. The dialogue participants were drawn from : small holder farmers, traders, processors, academia, local and international civil society, government representatives and government research institutions and media. The final recommendations to UNFSS was read to the participant and they endorsed and their organizations listed as per the attached.The principles of the engagement supported to ensure inclusivity i.e no one left out and build trust and commitment towards a transformative food system. Early planning and engagement with facilitators and presenter supported in saving time and ensured flow of information.

Yes

2342382392402412422442462472492501. The urgency to increase in budgeting and focus on agroecology at all levels of governance including donor funding and government funding 2. Sustainable agriculture practices for climate change adaptation and mitigation 3. Seeds and genetic resources ;the critical role that indigenous seeds play in promoting and conserving our genetic resources 4. Participatort research and dissemination and embrace the idea and practice of Farmer Research Networks (FRNs), where adaptive learning, diverse evidence such as farmer’s traditional and Indigenous knowledge, and the recognition that holistic understanding of food systems impacts are all essential 5. Water governance : concerted efforts towards conserving and maintaining our water resources through a participatory ecosystem-based approach 6. Participation and Local ownership of farmers need as the centre of Food Systems Transformation In the spirit of “leave no one behind”, and localization, it is key to have local ownership of food system transformation 7.Promotion of nutrient-dense, whole-food diets underpinned by diversified food production adapted to different microclimates and sociocultural contexts 8. integration, participatory and rights-based approaches to governance and policymaking at all levels to address the structural inequities and power imbalances in food systems. 9. Global food trade and its implications to the principles of food sovereignty and local sustainability 10. COVID 19 pandemic implications to Regional and National Food Security and Food supply chains are235238239240241242244245246247249250Aware that the world is not on track to achieve SDG 2 “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture" because more than 690 million people are still facing hunger, and 2 billion people do not have access to adequate, safe and nutritious food. Recognizing that agriculture plays a fundamental role in ensuring the right to food to all, mitigating climate change, and promoting employment and social stability. However, industrial agriculture with its narrative centred on increasing productivity to feed the growing population and solving the problem of hunger in the poorest countries is responsible for biodiversity loss, environmental pollution, and grabbing of natural resources, including more and more land for non-food production (biofuel, feed for intensive livestock, carbon sequestration). Concerned that the corporate sector is using its economic power to influence the public policy sphere to see its vision endorsed and supported by public policies. They promote business-led solutions to hunger (patents, hybrid seeds, GMOs, pesticides and fertilizers, the inclusion of farmers into the global value chain, climate-smart agriculture and sustainable intensification, food fortification, precision agriculture). While they are part of the problem, they offer false solutions they mask with a new face maybe mention one or two strategies pushed forward in this masked mode Conscious that the food systems transformation agenda is long overdue, and many social movements have been fighting for systemic and structural transformation of food systems, stressing the urgent need for a radical shift from fossil fuel-based industrial agriculture and corporate monopolies of food and agriculture to food sovereignty and agroecology. UNFSS should acknowledge that the potential of agroecology as the basis for sustainability is now widely recognized alongside the role that small scale farmers play in food security and indigenous knowledge systems2362382392402412422432442452462472482492501. INVESTING IN AGROECOLOGY We urge the UNFSS to call for an urgent increase in budgeting and focus on agroecology at all levels of governance including donor funding and government funding. The time is now for deliberate and increased financing, investments in agroecology for the health of the planet and people. 2. AGROECOLOGY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION Agriculture contributes to 24% of the total greenhouse gases emission while at the same time agriculture is the backbone of most African Countries. Realizing the global trends of climate change, we call upon the UNFSS to prioritize agroecology as a major strategy for addressing climate change in sustainable Agricultural systems. Adopting agroecology practices will mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing dependency on fossil fuels and enhancing carbon sequestration. Agroecological practices enhance farms and communities’ resilience to climate-related disasters and risks. 3. SEED AND GENETIC RESOURCES While SDG 2, Target 2.5 calls for maintaining the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants, and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, we call for urgent attention to the critical role that indigenous seeds play in promoting and conserving our genetic resources. We, therefore, call for enhanced recognition and protection of farmer-managed seed systems including enabling legislative environments. We also call for stricter adherence to the safeguards enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity and its expansion to regulate new bioengineered technologies because of unforeseeable off-target effects, patent, and ethical issues associated with this evolving science. 4. PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH & DISSEMINATION We call upon the UNFSS to embrace the idea and practice of Farmer Research Networks (FRNs), where adaptive learning, diverse evidence such as farmer’s traditional and Indigenous knowledge, and the recognition that holistic understanding of food systems impacts are all essential. This should also include well-planned participatory methodologies of disseminating research findings coming from undertaking research based on community needs 5. WATER GOVERNANCE We realize that sustainable Agriculture is dependent on water resources. We urge deliberate and concerted efforts towards conserving and maintaining our water resources through a participatory ecosystem-based approach. 6. PARTICIPATION AND OWNERSHIP OF FOOD TRANSFORMATION PROCESS Participation and Local ownership of farmers need to be at the centre of Food Systems Transformation In the spirit of “leave no one behind”, and localization, it is key to have local ownership of food system transformation 7. PROMOTE NUTRIENT-DENSE, SOCIOCULTURAL DIETS Promote nutrient-dense, whole-food diets underpinned by diversified food production adapted to different microclimates and sociocultural contexts. Create positive food environments that provide equitable access, healthy dietary guidance, controls on food advertising and marketing especially to children, a precautionary approach to new products, and special consideration for vulnerable groups and women’s role as agents of change. 8. PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE Ensure integrated, participatory, rights-based approaches to governance and policymaking at all levels to address the structural inequities and power imbalances in food systems. Build processes and policy platforms on democratic principles, transparent deliberations, shared power, and inclusive participation to ensure that policies are driven not only by evidence but also by ethics and the broader public interest. 9. : GLOBAL FOOD TRADE World Trade Organisation (WTO) Global food trade is against the principles of food sovereignty and local sustainability. There is a need to build sustainable local food production systems first. We, therefore, call upon the UNFSS to recognize local food sufficiency as the basis of national food security237NONE

2021-07-23 11:43:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18944/23

19572526538187323312210213941622533122213218

Yes

234238239241242244246247249251A major concern in the food system of Dhaka is the high level of food adulteration and unsafe food handling practices. Dhaka City Corporation in 2004 indicated that more than 76% of food items on the market were found to be adulterated and the level of food adulteration varied from 70% to 90% . Most of the urban fresh market workers in the city also work under very poor conditions. Studies found, 30% of meat shop workers do not have knowledge of zoonotic diseases, 85% and 90% of them do not wear protective coat/apron and gumboots, and 45% do not know proper duration of washing hands. 27% fish retailers suffer from lesions on hands, fingers, toes, and 10% had diarrhoea due to unhygienic and unsafe handling of fishes. A recent FAO study on Consumer Behaviour in Dhaka City indicates that 23-52% of urban poor suffer from moderate to severe food insecurity, which reciprocates in reduced meal sizes and poor nutrition intake. It also found that 34% and 27% of low-middle poor and low-poor are suffering from hypertension and respectively, 18% and 14% of them got diabetes, poor diet and low intake of fruits and vegetables play a vital role behind most of the diseases. Poor urban households and disadvantaged groups in the informal low-income settlements particularly suffer from the chronic consequences of hunger and malnutrition . 31.8% of urban slum children under 5 years of age are underweight, whereas 2% are overweight. Urban poor families have also struggled to cope with the food crisis more than health crisis caused by COVID-19 outbreak. The loss of income coupled with increasing price of basic food items due to the lockdown, forced urban poor households to change their diets and eat less . During COVID-19, 42% of urban households suffered severe food insecurity while only 15% of households in the rural area. Around 90% urban households consumed poor quality foods and 60% of them reduced significant quantity of food intake . Keeping the above issues at the forefront, the dialogue focused on examining the cross-linkages between the issues and their alignment to each of the Action Tracks.235238239241242244246247249251Overall, it was agreed that there is a need for greater coordination among stakeholders (such as Department of Agricultural Marketing, Local Government Engineering Department, Ministry of Food, Ministry of Disaster Management) to work alongside the city corporation, to ensure food safety, nutrition, and equitable access to nutritious food, especially for the urban poor and marginalised communities. Within the existing monitoring and regulation laws on food safety it was suggested that checks for quality of food items and traces of adulteration should be undertake at all stages of the food value chain. Further, instead of penal punishment being imposed on defaulters, greater emphasis should be given to training and capacity building of street vendors on food handling and safety. There are currently no programs on nutrition or social safety net for the urban poor, as there are for the rural communities. Hence there is need to re-design the programs to include sections of the urban communities into these programs. Additionally, urban agriculture significantly grew in Dhaka city amidst the lockdown and has become a lifeline for many urban poor communities. It was agreed that the city should promote urban farming and aquaculture on vacant lands or communal water bodies. This can help urban agriculture to serve as a more durable and long-lasting solution to future food security threats for the urban poor. Actions and commitments (10 year/2030 vision) The city aims to focus on reducing food adulteration and to ensure greater food safety by providing technical training and building the capacity of food vendors. Actionable messages to UNFSS 1. Institutionalising capacity building and technical knowledge for safe food to coordinate the activities between the different stages of the food value chain and the food regulatory system. 2. Recognition/ formal identification/ institutionalization, empowerment of informal vendors; Undertake trainings for street vendors for better handling of food and food safety. 3. Regulatory food safety guidelines for assessing the quality of food items all along the value chain of food production, processing, sale, consumption or disposal. 4. Redesign social security programs to be more inclusive to ensure food security for urban poor, along with rural communities, establish social protection mechanism poor communities; A mechanism should be developed to ensure that leftover food is safely and hygienically distributed to street children and the urban poor. 5. Awareness generation among schools children and mothers for improved food habits and better diet. 6. Promote urban agriculture in communal lands as a means of livelihood and food security for urban poor; establishment of a farmer markets in the city with adequate support infrastructure, where local farmers can sell their produce 7. Develop a comprehensive ‘urban food policy’ involving multiple stakeholders (such as Department of Agricultural Marketing, Local Government Engineering Department, Ministry of Food, Ministry of Disaster Management and the local urban bodies), to coordinate and improve the urban food supply chain and ensure access to safe and affordable food especially for the urban poor and the marginalised communities.236238244246247249251Group Discussion 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all The main issue discussed in the group was that food adulteration was taking place at a large scale, especially in the case of food processing conducted by small and medium enterprises both in rural and urban areas. Participants mentioned that while large-scale food production systems had some regulations with respect to nutrition guidelines and hygiene, these did not apply to small and medium-sized enterprises. Another concern that was raised was the lack of adequate knowledge among the farmers on the appropriate use of chemical fertilizers and other contaminations. Actions to be taken included: • A Standard Operating Procedure for food regulations especially for SMEs need to be developed along with clear guidelines on monitoring of food quality. It is still to be decided whether this should be brought under the purview of the Bangladesh Standards Testing Institute or the local municipality. • However, this would require also greater support through capacity building and technical knowledge. It was suggested that a safe food foundation, titled ‘Nirapod Khaddo Foundation’ should be formed to coordinate the activities between the different stages of the food value chain and the food regulatory system. • The nutrition gap also needs to be addressed. The group recommended that an assessment should be conducted to identify nutrient dense local food items and encourage this production to address the current nutrition gap in the national agricultural policy. • A key concern that was highlighted was the unsanitary conditions of the local markets and adulterated food items that are sold at street food stalls. The current regulatory mechanism in place is that of a ‘Mobile Court’ that conducts trials based on complaints made to the Mobile Court under the Food Safety Act 2013, and takes legal action against the food safety offenders on the spot. While this regulation is commendable, its implementation and the desired results of such a stringent regulation was questioned by the group. They suggested that the approach to food adulteration and safety should take a more systemic approach, whereby advisory and guidelines are given to the vendors on food safety in the first instance, rather than immediate legal actions. It was suggested that the street food vendors should be registered and provided a license by the city municipality. Further it is the role of the city corporation to identify the relevant stakeholders such as the Bangladesh Society for Safe Food, Department of Fisheries, Department of Agricultural Extension, who could provide the necessary training to street food vendors on safe food. The authorities should not only check for food safety (i.e. checking expiry dates) but also the nutritional value of food items. • The International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh and the Institute of Public Health, Bangladesh should generate more consumer awareness on food adulteration and safe food via electronic media. • Overall, it was agreed that there was a need to regulate the quality of food items all along the value chain of food production, processing, sale, consumption or disposal.236239244246247249251Group 2: Ensuring sustainable consumption patterns The major concern raised by the group was the increasing consumption of fast-food and processed food, especially by the younger generation. The consumption of wheat flour had increased drastically, as is reflected in the increase in import to 4-5 times in the last 10-15 years. The level of trans fatty acids in food also is a concern. The Bangladesh Food Safety Authority (BFSA) has developed a draft policy limiting the level of trans fat in foods to 2%. The draft regulations state that, ‘any fat emulsions, oils and fats that are used individually or intended for processed foods or any food or to be used as raw material for food production for retail business, catering business, restaurants, institutions, bakeries or any food establishment, and processed food, packaged food, ready-to-eat food or any type of foodstuffs cannot be sold, distributed, stored, produced, processed, marketed or imported if those contain more than 2% Trans Fatty Acids or 2gm Trans Fatty Acids per 100gm fat.’- Limited Trans Fatty Acid in Food Products Regulations 2021. However, its effective implementation and regulation especially with respect to SMEs will continue to be a challenge. Additionally, a social trend that has been observed, especially among the urban poor and the lower-middle class is to consume more packaged/processed food and food from restaurants, as it is seen as an indication of a better social status. Food habits are also dependent on the availability of food, such as street food or restaurants near their workplace. On the other hand, the urban marginal poor are not fortunate enough to assess the quality of food, but rather purchase food that is cheap and provides them a basic meal. In respect to food wastage, the issue of food wastage at social gatherings and ceremonies was highlighted. This was considered a major cause for concern, as it is an easily avoidable issue and did not seem to require major government interventions. The cause for food loss was directed towards the monoculture approach adopted by farmers, which leads to massive production of a certain crop/cereal that often exceeds the market demand. A further challenge is inadequate storage facilities along the food value chain that results in large food losses. Actions to be taken: • To address some of these issues and target more sustainable consumption patterns, the group agreed that the BSFA should authorise a higher price on unhealthy food through the application of Fat and Sugar taxes as against more healthier food options. • The Ministry of Health, Institute of Public Health, the Bangladesh National Nutrition Council should increase and diversify their campaigns to increase more consumer awareness on healthy dietary habits, especially among those sections of society that can have a multiplier effect- such as school children and mothers. A good example is the Healthy Food Plate - a nutrition counselling tool for pregnant women to promote dietary diversity through a healthy and balanced diet. • Perishable food items should be sold at lower prices after a couple of days to avoid food wastage and provide access to poorer sections to buy nutritious food. • Overall food producers and manufacturers are advised to focus more on ensuring national health, and not only on making profits.236241244246247249251Group 3: Advance Equitable Livelihoods This group particularly focused on promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all actors along the food value chain which shall eventually contribute to the elimination of poverty. Key issues that were highlighted was the degree of challenges and vulnerability faced by the people occupied in and around the food sector in urban areas including those in food production, processing, handling, transporting, vending or trading, and food waste management. The street food vendors often do not have a legal status and thus are at the risk of being evicted as well as victims of theft. These vendors are often left at the mercy of local police or political syndicates that take bribes from the vendors, in order to secure vending spots. As their stalls are usually make-shift structures, they are subjected to extreme weather conditions, air and noise pollution, affecting not only their health but also the freshness of the food they serve. Due to their temporary status, access to potable water, sanitation and waste disposal is also a challenge. This also leads to poor personal hygiene condition for food vendors. Most fresh market workers and food vendors work for long hours without breaks or weekly off-days. They often get very low or below subsistence wage or income. There is also significant discrimination in the working conditions of male and female workers. Further, there are no nutrition or social safety net programs for the urban poor such as those of the Bangladesh Integrated Nutrition Programme (BINP) that are available for rural communities. Informal actors in the urban food value chain play a vital role in feeding the large urban population. However, they do not have access or opportunities to join agencies such as business owners’ associations. Most of the food sector workers live in slum areas. The urban food system is also playing a vital role in creating and widening livelihood opportunities in the rural areas. The businesses and livelihoods of rural food system actors are thus heavily dependent on their urban counterparts. Online food purchase and delivery services have opened up new market opportunities for rural producers to sell their products directly to the urban distributors of consumers, including employment opportunities in delivery and distribution services. Actions to be taken: • Enabling and supportive environment is required for women. • Infrastructural improvements are required to enhance food vendors’ access to water and sanitation facilities and to improve their personal hygiene condition • City Corporations and Directorate of National Consumers Right Protection should work together to protect both the rights of food sector workers and consumers. Regulations should be developed to set and enforce a minimum wage rate for the food sector workers. • Proper policies and implementation system should be in place to allocate specific areas for street food vending. Thus, city governments will not need to evict them and acknowledge the informal vendors. Quality control measures should be set. Furthermore, a mechanism should be developed so that the wastes generated from the food vending stalls reach out up to the solid waste transfer stations of the city. • People working along the food value chain in urban areas can be made involved in urban farming which can serve as an alternative source of food security and income generation for them. • City governments should develop initiatives to protect rights of people employed in different e-commerce based food businesses and related services, as this is an emerging and rapidly growing sector. • Micro and small traders should be empowered through their inclusion in the private sector based procurement channels. • Elimination of influence of local politics and syndicates, and give rights to agency/ union/ cooperatives.236242244246247249251Group 4: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress The key concern that was highlighted by the group was the food crisis that was faced during the national lockdown in 2020 to contain the COVID-19 in the country. There were instances of hoarding that had led to increase in food prices, as the transport system was hampered during the lockdown. This was also a time when the vulnerability of the urban poor/migrant labourers was exposed, as without a government-sponsored social safety net program, they are subjected to both food and livelihood insecurity. However, the Ministry of Food under its various programs has been working towards providing the food at subsidised rates, especially during the pandemic, such as the Trading Corporation of Bangladesh (TCB) truck sales, in which sugar, lentils, rice, wheat, soybean oil and other essential items were sold at lower rates. However, these interventions are established at the national or the sub-regional level and the local governments do not have the power to provide these subsidies or the mandate to provide affordable and nutritious food to its citizens. In certain instances, the city mayor has provided support through their own personal funds. Actions to be taken: • It was suggested that greater agricultural land should be integrated into the city plans (this could include conversion of vacant land, rooftop gardening, allotment of specific agricultural land in the City Master Plans etc.) which would help in shortening the food supply chain and also provide for a source of subsistence to the urban poor. • The City Corporation would need to work with the Agricultural Extension department and the local community to pilot interventions such as rooftop farming and promote farming techniques such as hydroponics and aquaponics. The group suggested that the pilots for rooftop farming should begin on Government residential buildings. • The city corporation should ensure the establishment of more farmer markets in the city with adequate support infrastructure, where local farmers can sell their produce. • Overall, there is a need for a comprehensive ‘urban food policy’ involving multiple stakeholders (such as Department of Agricultural Marketing, Local Government Engineering Department, Ministry of Food, Ministry of Disaster Management and the local urban bodies), wherein they coordinate and improve the urban food supply chain and ensure access to safe and affordable food especially for the urban poor and the marginalised communities.236238244246247249251Group 5: Urban Poverty and Food Security Ensuring food security for the urban poor requires to adopt a more holistic approach that looks at community and regional level empowerment. The group reiterated that the urban poor were significantly more vulnerable to the food management issues such as food adulteration, access to nutritious food and occupational hazards related to food handling. The urban poor lack awareness about nutrition and food value. Besides, living expenses are generally higher in urban areas, including prices of foods. Food adulteration is harming the health of city-dwellers irrespective of their income level. However, the poor suffer more, as they can barely afford the expenses of treatments required to recover from diseases caused by intake of adulterated foods. Food adulteration is also causing many chronic diseases, treatment costs of which are making an entire family destitute. Actions to be taken: • Balanced development among rural and urban areas and decentralization of services and opportunities are required to be enhanced. Necessary extensions services and facilities of a good standard should be ensured at all levels for decentralization. • Further research and studies are required to be conducted to know the food system, consumption pattern, and consumer behaviour of urban areas including the poor in greater depth, which will help inform policy and program interventions. • Information centres (also remotely accessible) can be established to satisfy the inquiries of urban consumers about food safety, hygiene, standards, sources, and authenticity. • The infrastructural development has built a convenient and quick connection among rural, peri-urban, and urban areas during the last decade. Thus, the rural and urban food systems are not isolated anymore, rather they are closely connected • Urban people, including the urban poor, can be engaged better in food production through rooftop gardening. City governments can support them with necessary inputs and know-hows initially. Organizations like FAO, Practical Action, and Department of Agricultural Extension of the government are working to promote urban farming and can join forces to enhance it further. • The Department of Fisheries can work together with FAO and other development partners to develop policies for safe food handling in the markets. • Development partners, NGOs, and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) wings of private sector can partner with volunteer organizations (such as Biddyanando Foundation) to reach food aids to urban poor communities in an efficient manner during crisis. • A mechanism should be developed to ensure that leftover foods from restaurants, community halls, and social ceremonies are safely and hygienically distributed to street children and the urban poor. Some volunteers are conducting these drives; however it is in an ad hoc manner. Private sector can come forward to develop such mechanism. Middle and higher income groups should be made aware of not wasting food. • Women-specific program interventions should be taken up widely, as they are one of the most vulnerable and food insecure groups. Food security should be assessed through a gender lens and women’s participation should be ensured at all levels of decision-making and implementation. • The nutrition value and the quality of food should not be compromised based on the cost of food items. Hence it is responsibility of the Ministry of Food and the Trading Corporation of Bangladesh to ensure that safe and nutritious food is affordable by all. • Mass Awareness campaigns on sustainable food consumption should be conducted among all economic classes. • Overall, job opportunities need to be created and investment needs to be made in the agricultural and food sector to promote safe and affordable food to all along the food value chain. Creating alternative income generation opportunities in the rural areas will help to subside the rates of migration from rural to urban areas.

2021-07-23 12:00:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32822/203

181035117661221011212821

In order to support the UN Food Systems Summits efforts towards eliminating hunger, and to underscore the interlinkages between SDG 2 and the rest of the 17 SDGs, the Sikh Human Rights Group (SHRG) hosted an independent dialogue. Specifically, targeted at unearthing the proactive steps that can be taken to deal with agribusinesses at not only a legal and policy level but also the practical steps that can be taken by small farmers around the globe to compete with agribusinesses who are currently operating within their local markets. In order to ensure that the principles were appropriately incorporated, reinforced and enhanced we invited internationally renowned experts and professionals on food systems, rural development and biodiversity to discuss this urgent and multidimensional issue as well as small farmers and members of civil society. Therefore, in order to achieve our desired outcomes we focused on six interlinked principles for sustainable development: safeguarding natural recourses; sharing knowledge; building local access and capacity; protecting harvests; enabling access to markets; and prioritising research. The SHRG firmly believes that returning small farmers to the centre of policy decisions is fundamental to the sustainable food systems of the future. Consequently, State Governments, large and small businesses, scientists and civil society groups must refocus their attentions on the source of our food security and nutrition. All these groups must work together to enable the many millions of farming families, especially smallholders, to grow more productively and sustainably through effective markets, more collaborative research and committed knowledge sharing. In other words, the SHRG convened this dialogue in order to bring together a wide variety of stakeholders but also to agree upon a list of proactive steps that can be taken by every member of our global society to ensure that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, water, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those who produce food and not the corporate sector.Our dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by including representatives of the UN system, academia, the private sector, civil society, small farmers and farmers union leaders. The participants included experts from many continents, a large proportion of women and farmers representatives from developing countries. Furthermore and amongst various other matters, the Sikh Human Rights Group exists to identify and promote a pluralistic approach to advancing sustainable agricultural development worldwide. In other words, to highlight the importance of improving farmers livelihoods as well as the important contribution that agriculture can make to the global food system, including in areas such as food security, nutrition, climate change and biodiversity. All of the participants treated one another and one another’s viewpoints with the highest degree of respect and understanding. In addition to the above, the session was held under the Chatham House Rule in order to help the participants to build openness and trust. The event was held on Zoom and the participants were not only asked to make oral submissions but were also asked to make contributions via the chat box. Once again in order to ensure the widest possible engagement with the identified challenges and issues.Bringing together stakeholder groups that are very different can be challenging but it is a crucial opportunity to capitalize on ideas emerging from possible areas of divergence, and to create synergies and partnerships with potentially high impact on areas of consensus. In order to build openness and trust it is of the utmost importance that you press home the need for confidentiality within the discussions. Whilst making it obvious that if a certain party does wish to form a partnership with you or your organisation then further discussions can be had outside of the dialogue. We found that an easy way to achieve this was by providing a robust definition of the Chatham House Rule at the beginning of the discussion and then providing our participants with our email address, at the end of the dialogue, inviting them to contact us regarding any follow up questions or queries that they may have. However, the circumstances and the substance of your dialogue discussions will of course dictate what is feasible. Last but not least we believe that aggressive marketing is crucial to the overall success of your dialogue. However, at all material times you must bear in mind that it is quality over quantity as a small dialogue with the right cross section of stakeholders can be just as effective as a dialogue with over 100+ participants. Therefore, the key thing to remember is the quality of the discussions is what counts rather than the number of participants you have.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251With the introduction of corporations into agriculture, small farmers have faced many barriers to make ends meet. Monsanto’s reported objective is ‘No Food Shall Be Grown That We Don’t Own’. Right from the seeds to the crop, agribusiness have a monopoly. They own the seed, so they own the produce. Where does the farmer fit in? How are their expenses covered and their livelihoods maintained? Economic instability in the agricultural business has forced our youth out of farming as a way of life. What once used to be family owned farms have now become corporate enterprises often operated via machines. Pesticide and fertiliser use has contaminated the environment and unfair prices have created unending cycles of debt. Additionally the supply and demand chains are unregulated, preventing crop diversification and creating soil anaemia. Food is a basic human right. As is access to food. Each nation has the right to produce its own food while maintaining its cultural and productive diversity. A direct democratic intervention is needed, but it must understand the issues at hand; especially those of the small farmers. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we put those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than agribusinesses. It is an oversimplification to wish agribusiness to simply ‘play nice’. More needs to be thought about. Therefore, the main focus of our dialogue was on seeking to unearth the proactive steps that can be taken to deal with agribusinesses at not only a legal and policy level but also the practical steps that can immediately be taken by small farmers around the globe to compete with agribusinesses who are currently operating within their local markets. Therefore and in order to achieve the above, the Curator began the dialogue by giving a 15 minute oral introduction to the many challenges and common themes that have arisen out of the globalisation of our shared food systems (please see attached). After which the participants where then asked to discuss: • The extent to which they agreed or disagreed with what he had said; • The greatest challenges and threats posed by agribusinesses operating within our global food systems and how these identified challenges and threats can be overcome; and • What legislative and other policy measures State Governments should adopt to ensure that TNCs and other business enterprises operating within their domestic agricultural markets are appropriately regulated and dissuaded from committing human rights violations. However, the participants were free to discuss any other matters that they felt to be relevant and pertinent to our overarching discussions theme – food sovereignty. The participants were then informed that by agreeing upon a list of proactive steps that can be taken to ensure that the rights to use and manage lands, territories, water, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those who produce food and not the corporate sector would represent a vast paradigm shift in the current rhetoric but would also help to awaken the world to the fact that we must all work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food. However and going beyond the above, the participants were also informed that by attempting to find sustainable solutions to the identified challenges and issues their discussions would also help the UN Food Systems Summit to: • Generate Significant action and measurable progress towards the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; • Raise awareness and elevate public discussion about how reforming our food systems can help us all to achieve the 17 SDGs by implementing reforms that are good for people and for the planet; • Develop principles to guide Governments and other stakeholders looking to leverage their food systems to support the SDGs. It is anticipated that these principles will set an optimistic and encouraging vision in which food systems play a central role in building a fairer and more sustainable world; and • Create a system of follow-up and review to ensure that the Summit’s outcomes continue to drive new action and progress.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251What are the greatest challenges and threats posed by agribusinesses operating within our global food systems and how can they be overcome? Agribusinesses concentrate on profits and economies of scale in which the environment, diversification and small scale faming is often sacrificed to achieve target profits for shareholders. Therefore, small farmers cannot take on TNCs if the later infringes upon their lands, deprives them of markets or curtails their independence. Small farmers often lack the necessary resources to attend court and/or to advocate for themselves. Therefore, this lack of access to judicial recourse only favours large agribusinesses interests who have large funds at their disposal. By encouraging local entrepreneurs to develop and expand their farming businesses, those farming businesses eventually develop into large agribusinesses, so we need to further define exactly what kind of businesses we are discussing. For instance, it is not uncommon in one participants opinion for farming cooperatives to take unethical actions, in the same manner as an aggressive TNC, against small farmers who attempt to compete with them. Consequently, a concrete universally agreed definition of agribusinesses is urgently required. We must also urgently look at the effect that agribusinesses have on the earth, the climate and the future of our planet. It is imperative that we maintain a planet that sustains human life for the next generations. Therefore, it is crucial to ask and expect multinationals and their businesses models to be conducive to that future because at the time of writing the nature of multinationals is fundamentally misaligned with the maintenance of the planets health. What legislative and other policy measures do you think State Governments should adopt to ensure that TNCs and other businesses enterprises, operating within domestic agricultural markets, are appropriately regulated and dissuaded from committing human rights violations? With the help of unions, small farmers can achieve a crucial amendment to food chain law which bans the procurement of food below the cost of production. Agroecology is weakened if small farmers do not own the land they work. Therefore, Governments must do more to ensure that the land rights are in the hands of those who work and live on the land rather than the corporate sector. However, this contention is complicated by the fact that in countries that do not have property records, the Governments (mainly postcolonial Governments) are persuaded by TNCs to digitise land records. In the process they are denying indigenous practices where there isn’t one individual that owns a certain plot of land but rather a communal style of ownership. Therefore, capitalism is running against indigenous traditions to dispossess people of the land that they have lived and worked on for many centuries. Agribusinesses are driven by profit maximisation. Therefore, Governments must do more to dissuade their populations and businesses from categorising everything within an economic context as this only serves to further disadvantage small farmers. Governments must do more to incentivise the growth of crops that are currently imported and/or to increase the diversity of crops being grown within their borders. Only then will small farmers and corporations pay more attention to a nations overall food security. What practical steps do you think small farmers around the globe could take or should take to compete with agribusinesses who are currently operating within their domestic markets? Small farmers should begin by looking at what is feasible under the current system. By asking themselves ‘what can I do within the current system to grow more sustainably?’. For instance, if the farmer is reliant upon growing rice and has no other option within the current system but to grow rice, regardless of the negative consequences, then they should undertake the necessary enquiries to unearth the modern techniques or methods that would allow them to grow rice but with less water consumption and less pesticides. Small farmers should shift towards more sustainable agriculture by looking into the alternative crops that can be grown. Specifically, those that are traditional or native to their lands. For instance, those that can be grown all year round or that thrive within their country specific environmental conditions. However, one of the limitations to this is that there may not be an easily accessible market to the small farmer for them to sell their produce. What do you want to see coming out of the UN Food Systems Summit? Small farming should become a protected category within international instruments and international policy. There is a crisis of imagination - people cannot imagine another world where these identified issues and challenges have been overcome – therefore the majority of participants would like to see clear and substantive reforms that that are good for small farmers and for the planet. This will only come about by the relevant stakeholders reimagining the current system but crucially sharing that new vision with their populations. Every member of our global society must be encouraged to rise up and demand change. Internationally agreed upon steps to guide agribusinesses towards a more sustainable future. The onus should be on the agribusiness to take all appropriate steps to ensure that their employees understand the negative effects that large scale farming can have on the rights of small farmers, the soil and the environment that we all share.236238244245246247248249251Action Track 1 - Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all: The participants noted that small farmers need financial and technical support to grow and sell more nutritious varieties of crops. Primarily, as it is a big risk for many farmers to change what they are currently growing without any financial support or incentive. In other words, it might not always be profitable or comparably profitable for them to grow more sustainable and environmentally friendly crops. Furthermore, different regions experience difference realities, both in terms of the agroecological and the socioeconomic conditions in which they operate. Therefore, State funded technology and innovation are essential particularly when it comes to helping small farmers grow more sustainable produce and/or reducing their food loss and waste. The participants also noted the dire need for State Governments to refocus their attentions on educating consumers from a young age about our global food systems and the many barriers to small farmers’ effective participation. Therefore, more needs to be done by State Governments and educational institutions to inform their populations about the source of the food that we see on our shelves.236239244245246247248249251Action Track 2 - Shift to sustainable consumption patterns: The participants noted that farmers and consumers need to be better connected. Not only in terms of market access and availability but also in terms of practical understanding. In other words, only when the consumer innately understands the processes behind the food that they see on their shelves will they appreciate the urgent need for small farmers to be supported not only financially but also when it comes to the small farmers’ environmental conservation endeavours. This will also help to inform consumers behaviours and expectations. The participants also noted that State Governments, large and small agricultural organisations, businesses and civil society organisations need to do more to mitigate and adapt to the negative impacts of climate change which have been brought about, in part, by the increase in large scale farming. Particularly, when it comes to the automation of what once used to be human inputs and an ever increasing reliance upon the mass use of fertilisers and pesticides. However, it was also noted that this shift can only be affected by policy makers recognising the urgent need for swift and irreversible action towards more environmentally friendly policies and legislation that are targeted to incentive small farmers towards more sustainable methods and practices. Finally, it was noted by our participants that young people are increasingly unwilling to take over what once termed the family business but are instead opting to migrate to larger cities in search of more prosperous job opportunities. That has largely been brought about by their parents being trapped in revolving cycles of debt by predatory loan management companies and the closure of local agricultural businesses. That in turn only makes it harder for young farmers to earn a reasonable standard of living. Therefore, more needs to be done by State Governments to level the playing field between small famers and large agribusinesses. Especially, when it comes to small farmers access to resources such as local markets, trading houses, abattoirs and so on…236240244245246247248249Action Track 3 - Boosting nature-positive production: The participants noted that it is extremely challenging to identify clear recommendations that are scalable globally yet adaptable to local conditions. For instance, different financial incentives are needed in different economies and/or different technology is needed in different geographical regions. Green technology is still more expensive than fossil fuels, so in the context of economics small farmers are already at a disadvantage. We need to protect small farmers – whether they are profitable or not. However, this is clearly at loggerheads with a State Government’s responsibility to feed its population. Nevertheless, this still begs the questions is producing nutrient dense food more important than simply feeding a population processed food? What will be the medical and/or health implications of this in the future? Are we simple delaying an even bigger health crisis? These are all questions that need to be redressed at an international and a State level. State Governments need to implement financial incentives to encourage small farmers to grow more sustainable and environmentally friendly produce. However, this is not enough. Large companies purchasing and using the small farmers produce to make their products also need to be held accountable. For instance, it is common knowledge that such companies will say anything to promote their brand and/or to sell their products. However, what are they actually doing to encourage small farmers to be organic, to be environmentally conscious, to use less water and so on… These are once again issues that must be redressed by policy makers as a matter of extreme urgency. However, one solution to this issue maybe to persuade State Governments to do more to dissuade their populations and businesses from putting everything into an economic context and focusing much more on the human and environmental impacts that this current model is having. It was suggested by participants that we need to shift from GDP focussed development to quality of life and sustainable development.236241244245246247248249251Action Track 4 - Advance equitable livelihoods: The participants noted that small farmers’ lives, lands and livelihoods must be considered in balance with the demands of purchasers and consumers. In other words, a sustainable equilibrium must be the objective rather than an aggressive campaign to eradicate large businesses entirely from the agricultural sector. Only then will we see a positive shift towards a more sustainable future for our global food systems and for our planet. It is an indisputable fact that farmers need increased access to markets, innovation, trading and finance in order to survive the next 20 years. However, this can only be achieved by every member of our global society taking ownership of our shared food systems and/or moving away from what is currently found under the prevailing ‘get big or get out’ mentality that seems to be dominating our global food systems and the manner in which we theorise them. However, small farmers can take practical step themselves to advance their livelihoods. For instance, by collaborating with one another, via cooperatives, to have a larger more enhanced voice in policy discussions and to be able to access bigger markets and partnerships.236242243244245246247248249Action Track 5 - Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress: The participants noted that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact upon our global food systems and/or that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extreme vulnerabilities within our global food supply chains. Therefore, more needs to be done by all relevant stakeholders to ensure that small farmers can access markets and production products during these extremely difficult times. Nevertheless, one practical solution to this issue it was noted, may be to ensure that small farmers have access to information across the supply chain. That would not only enable them to anticipate and plan for bottlenecks but also lulls in the market for certain produce. However, the more universal solution to this would be the implementation of more consistently applied international standards for agricultural production, supply and distribution. That can only be achieved by an international organisation, such as the United Nations, taking ownership of the many challenges and issues currently presented by the global agricultural sector and working with all of the relevant stakeholders to achieve a more sustainable future both for us and for our planet. For example, it was noted that on a global scale there is a clear lack of safety nets for small farmers, especially in developing nations, that would ensure that they are enabled to bounce back after periods of protracted uncertainty and disarray such as has been seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.237246247248249250There was broad consensus across the dialogue participants on many of the identified issues and challenges. Nevertheless, the areas of divergence often centred around differences in regional contexts and needs rather than significant ideological differences. However, one area of divergence was on the need to further define the term agribusiness for as one participant stated it is not uncommon for farming cooperatives to take unethical actions against small farmers who attempt to compete with them in the same manner as one would expect from an aggressive transnational corporation. However, another participant was of the opinion that the term agribusiness should be limited to transnational corporations and other agricultural businesses enterprises that operate across national borders. In other words, the definition should be limited to what might be termed the traditional understanding of the word. Nevertheless, this divergence was quickly overcome, and it did allow all of the participants to think in much broader terms around the identified issues and challenges.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SHRG-Opening-Speech-Re-SHRGs-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-Dialogue.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Zambia-Case-Study.pdfhttps://shrg.net/

2021-07-23 12:40:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28316/3676189193

999999999999963999999

Through the On Air Dialogues, we asked farmers how the food system should be changed to meet their needs and the needs of their communities. In 18 episodes of radio programming, each accompanied by mobile phone-based polling of listeners, we asked: Which issues impact farmers most? How do barriers and opportunities play out differently for female and male farmers? What is the future of food systems? And what needs to change to make life better for farming families? Our goal was to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity by bringing the voices of farmers, processors, marketers, and more to the global conversation about food systems. Many of these voices come from rural, remote, and vulnerable populations—people who might not otherwise be reached by the Summit, and whose voices would therefore go unheard. Small-scale farmers are the backbone of the global food system. From farm to table, these individuals feed their families, countries, and communities, contribute to local and international economies, and preserve the local environment. From fishers and pastoralists to marketers and processors, small-scale farmers and other rural people are central to the food system and dependent upon it. Each has the knowledge and experience to help transform the food system in positive ways—if they have a seat at the table! The On Air Dialogues recognized complexity in that small-scale farmers' experiences are diverse and varied. In order to transform the food system to meet the needs of all actors in the food systems, we must listen to all kinds of voices—especially those who are underrepresented in agricultural decision-making, such as women. Small-scale farmers need to speak for themselves. In doing so, we build trust between development practitioners and the people they serve, and develop a better understanding of what people really need and want in order to improve their quality of life. Learning from the vast knowledge of farmers brings us one step closer to creating food systems that ensure healthy diets that are equitable, sustainable, and productive for all.The United Nations Food System Summit (UNFSS) 2021 aspires to be a people’s summit that engages and draws input from many millions of people across the world. It has created a mechanism for encouraging dialogues at the national, regional and global levels. In particular, it encourages organizations and individuals to plan and run a variety of dialogues to bring together a diversity of stakeholders and voices. As important as these dialogues will be, a key challenge is the goal of engaging millions, particularly small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, some of the most important actors in the food system. Digital webinars require internet access, and are almost always conducted in globally dominant languages such as English, French, Spanish, etc. Conversely, radio is the most accessible channel of communication in sub-Saharan Africa. Radio can reach the most remote and rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa—places where literacy is low and the internet is too expensive or unreliable to access. Broadcast in local languages, radio is an inexpensive and convenient way to reach communities that might not otherwise be reached. Combined with mobile phones, radio becomes a powerful two-way street for dialogue and engagement. Using this highly accessible and interactive medium, we were able to exemplify the spirit of the UNFSS as a people’s summit by speaking with and listening to people at the heart of the global food system—small-scale farmers and other rural people. In all, we reached a potential listening audience of approximately 12.5 million people in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Tanzania, and Uganda. In doing so, we complement not only the work of our partners at IFAD, World Vision Canada, and the Canadian Food Security Policy Group, but all organizations and nations who look to achieve meaningful food system transformation and meet the needs of rural people.Farm Radio International and implementing partners IFAD, World Vision Canada, and the Canadian Food Security Policy Group hope that this project exemplifies that it is not only possible but vitally important to speak with and listen to those at the heart of the global food system. We encourage our fellow NGOs and CSOs to embrace multi stakeholder inclusivity and engage in dialogue with small-scale farmers and other rural people directly—especially those who are underrepresented in agricultural decision-making, such as women—and to reach these groups through the channels they use most. We ask that these channels be used to speak with, listen to, and build trust with the people they serve, as well as to inform and complement their work. We remind the international development community to recognize complexity in the diversity of rural knowledge and experience in order to prioritize local solutions and tackle long-standing unequal, global power relations. Finally, we urge governments and decision-makers to commit to the spirit of the 2021 UNFSS as a people’s summit. Locally, nationally, and globally, decision-makers must not only hear but listen to, respect, and act on farmers’ opinions and concerns, and take full advantage of their knowledge and experience. Small-scale farmers and other rural people are the backbone of the global food system and must hold a central place in the conversation. The On Air Dialogues demonstrate one of many simple ways to engage small-scale farmers and other rural people in discussions about the systems that directly affect them. When given the chance, farmers are keen to contribute. Inclusive and accessible channels can and must be used to enable farmers to join the conversation—and be heard—no matter what work they do, where they live, or what language they speak. With rural people’s voices leading the way, we can achieve meaningful food system transformation for those who need it most.

NoThe On Air Dialogues took a unique approach to the Food System Summit dialogue format. Farm Radio International partnered with six stations to produce and broadcast three episodes of On Air Dialogues. Episodes were 45-60 minutes each, and broadcast weekly. Many stations used time slots already allocated to agricultural programs to maximize the number of listeners engaged in agriculture. The episodes were broadcast in six languages: Dioula and Nuni in Burkina Faso, Ewe and Twi in Ghana, Swahili in Tanzania, and Luganda in Uganda. Using local languages ensured that the programs were accessible to the intended audiences and enabled wide listenership and participation. The programs were broadcast from June 10 to June 27, 2021. The content of the episodes was informed by three of the five UNFSS Action Tracks, each of which was broken down into three sub-themes. For each sub-theme, broadcasters invited local experts, farmers, and other guests to discuss, exchange, and debate. Listeners were then invited to join in the discussion through a phone-in segment. After each episode, we used our mobile polling platform, called Uliza, to present callers with two multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question. The Uliza phone number was announced at the end of each episode, and broadcasters encouraged listeners to call. We also sent messages to encourage others to listen to the radio program and respond to the poll questions. The polls were launched immediately after an episode finished and were open to receive responses until the following episode aired one week later. Asking both open and closed questions provided a rich quantitative and qualitative glimpse into the unfiltered views and perspectives of rural people. Analysis on both these levels showed both divergence and convergence in responses, often based on the age, gender, and/or country of the respondent. Self-initiated surveys such as this are a powerful way to collect input and feedback from a large number of people over a short period of time. Combined with interactive radio programs, the On Air Dialogues were able to stimulate compelling discussions about food systems on- and off-air, as small-scale farmers and other rural people were encouraged to join in with their own thoughts. Ultimately, we used this non-traditional approach to the dialogues in order to reach and engage those at the heart of the global food system: small-scale farmers and their families. This approach ensured that farmers could join the conversation about global food systems—and be heard.

234238241242243244245248251The On Air Dialogues focused on three of five UNFSS Action Tracks, as follows: Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress Each of the three episodes from the series was dedicated to one of these action tracks. Within each action track, the On Air Dialogues also focused on a wide subset of topics (3 per episode), as follows: Safe food, nutritious food, diverse diets, land and land tenure, gender inequality in food systems, a role for youth in food systems, instability and conflict, infrastructure and finance, and climate change. The questions we asked were as follows. Week 1: If you think about the safety and quality of the food your family eats, are you most worried that: 1) It might cause illness due to poor food hygiene practices 2) The range of available foods doesn’t have all the nutrients needed for good health 3) It might contain harmful chemicals 4) I don’t worry - the food my family eats is already safe and nutritious. When food is scarce, what is the first thing your family does to cope? 1) Those most in need eat first and others sacrifice 2) Ask everyone to cut back equally 3) Sell assets like animals 4) Find other ways to earn money In the place where you live, what would need to change so that everyone has equal access to safe, healthy, nutritious food all year round? Week 2: Which of the following five options would give you the most success as a farmer? 1) Loans or credit 2) Secure access to and control over land 3) High quality inputs 4) Better information 5) Better market access What will farming look like in the future for today’s children? 1) They will be successful 2) They will struggle to succeed unless things change 3) Young people should avoid farming and pick another occupation 4) Young people will farm, but they will need to earn money from other sources too If you had more power to change things, what would you do to make life better for farming families? Week 3: Where would you turn to for information to help you cope with future threats to your family and livelihood? 1) Family, friends, and neighbours 2) Farmers’ co-operative/group 3) Radio 4) Agricultural experts 5) Input suppliers Climate change can have a big effect on farming. Which of the following would help you as a farmer to best deal with changes in the weather? 1) Improved inputs 2) Good information on how to adapt 3) Better use of water 4) Protecting the natural environment 5) Moving to another place What is the biggest threat to your family eating enough safe and nutritious food?235238241242243244245248251First, participants anticipate that their children will be involved in farming. Only 1 in 9 felt that today’s youth should choose another occupation. However, over one-third felt that changes would be necessary to enable the next generation of farmers to succeed. Further, 1 in 4 people believed that young people will farm but will need to earn money from other sources as well. Second, while climate change is increasingly affecting small-scale farmers, few rural people think that migration is necessary to help them deal with climate-related threats. Over 90% of participants felt there was something they could do in their community to cope with climate change. To increase the resilience of their farming activities and livelihoods, these farmers need support in protecting the natural environment, and receiving improved inputs and better information. Third, while many participants said that quality inputs would improve their yields, they said the single most important factor for success in agriculture was access to loans and credit. Fourth, many people were concerned about the safety of the food they eat and whether it meets their family’s nutritional needs. The On Air Dialogues show that small-scale farmers and other rural people are concerned about the food they eat and the future of farming. They see the impacts of climate change on their lives, and in their communities. They want more—and better—resources and information to improve their livelihoods. The initiative also demonstrated that small-scale farmers are ready and able to offer solutions. The On Air Dialogues are one of many simple ways to engage small-scale farmers and other rural people in discussions about the systems that directly affect them. When given the chance, farmers are keen to contribute. As nations, organizations, and individuals, we must commit to creating inclusive, accessible channels for farmers to join the conversation—and be heard—no matter what work they do, where they live, or what language they speak. Locally, nationally, and globally, decision-makers must not only hear but listen to, respect, and act on farmers’ opinions and concerns, and take full advantage of their knowledge and experience. Small-scale farmers and other rural people are the backbone of the global food system and must hold a central place in the conversation. Farmers and rural people have a lot to say. As nations, organizations, and individuals, we all must commit to listening and taking action together. Please refer to the attached report for more thorough analysis.236238241242243244245248251When asked about coping mechanisms when food is scarce, the largest percentage of participants said that their family would cope by asking everyone to cut back equally. A somewhat higher percentage of women than men said that those in need should eat first, and that the family should sell assets such as animals. We also asked participants what would need to change for everyone in their community to have equal access to safe, healthy, nutritious food all year round. Many participants identified moving away from chemical pesticides and fertilizers as a key priority. Many also placed a significant emphasis on the importance of food hygiene and safety. Next, we asked what participants worry about most when they think about the safety and quality of their family’s food. Almost 75% of participants reported feeling troubled about the safety and quality of the food their families eat. We also asked participants what would give them the most success as a farmer. The need for finance emerged strongly. The largest percentage of participants said that loans and credit would give them the most success. When asked about the future of farming for today’s children, only 1 in 9 thought that young people should avoid farming altogether. Almost one-third said that young people would be successful in farming, while another third felt that they would struggle to succeed unless things change—pointing to the need to transform food systems to make successful livelihoods possible. A quarter of participants felt that young people would farm but would need other sources of income. Many participants said that the lives of farming families would be better if they had access to farming inputs. Others favoured more loans, credit, and general financial support. A number of participants said that farming families’ lives would improve if markets worked better for them. Finally, many mentioned various types of training and education. These responses underline the need to improve access to the resources, services, and markets that rural people need to improve their lives and livelihoods. Over 90% of participants felt there was something they could do in their community to cope with climate change. Less than 1 in 12 said that the only way to cope would be to move to another place. The highest proportion chose “protecting the natural environment.” Men were more likely than women to think that protecting the natural environment was the best strategy, while women were more likely than men to choose migration. Participants were also asked where they would turn for information to help them cope with threats to their family and livelihood. This question allowed participants to identify the threats that were most significant to them, as well as where they would go for information to help them cope with those threats. The largest percentage of participants said they would turn to family, friends, and neighbours. A little more than 1 in 4 chose radio. Participants were asked to name the biggest threat to their family eating enough safe and nutritious food. The four most common responses were: poor hygiene and sanitation, weather-related threats, agrochemical use, and lack of inputs or poor-quality inputs. Please refer to the attached report for more thorough analysis. The thousands of people who participated in the On Air Dialogues demonstrated that rural people can articulate what they need to transform their lives, from strategies for coping with climate change to accessing resources and markets. Most see a future in rural areas for the next generation—but say that action to transform food systems and combat rural poverty and marginalization is needed for them to have success as full-time farmers. Their voices are a vital contribution to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit.237238241242243244245248251There was a great diversity of opinion among participants who responded to the polling questions we posed during the On Air Dialogues. While there was significant agreement between women and men regarding food systems, there were important differences that should inform actions to create more gender-responsive food systems. Notably, women were more concerned about household nutritional intake, were more likely to consider loans and credit as key to farming success, and relied more strongly on informal networks such as friends and neighbours for information. They were also more likely than men to prioritize those most in need when food is scarce. There were also some striking differences related to age and to country. For example: ● In Burkina Faso, more than half of participants said loans and credit are the key to success, a much higher figure than in other countries. Just 1 in 5 chose that option in Uganda, while 1 in 4 thought that secure access to and control over land was the key to farming success. ● Men under 30 were most pessimistic about the future of youth in farming for youth, while women over 30 were most optimistic, with more than 1 in 3 confident that today's children will succeed in farming. ● Women under 30 were more likely than women 30+ to turn to radio for information on how to cope with threats to their families and livelihood, while men under 30 were more likely than men 30+ to turn to agricultural experts. Please refer to the attached report for more thorough analysis.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/On-Air-Dialogues-UNFSS-2021-Final-report-submission.docxhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/On-Air-Dialogues-UNFSS-2021-Final-report-submission.docx.pdfhttps://dialogues.farmradio.org/

2021-07-23 12:58:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19751/185

501233293731452111411142283115

La concertation indépendante à Kairouan a été organisée le 1er et 2 juin 2021 sous forme d’ateliers de travail, communément appelés focus-groupes auxquels les participants ont débattu et échangé autour de 3 thématiques préalablement identifiées. Ces thématiques étaient définies en étroite harmonie avec les principes d’engagement de la concertation. En partant des caractéristiques du Système Alimentaire à Kairouan en termes de composantes (les fonctions aboutissant à l’alimentation des Kairouanais, les facteurs influençant les systèmes de production, les relations entre les acteurs du système alimentaire, les politiques et pratiques de consommation, les structures d’appui et de gouvernance locales et nationales,…etc.), et en visant à protéger et à améliorer la santé et le bien-être des personnes, à améliorer la résilience des moyens de subsistance et des communautés, et à promouvoir la bonne gestion des ressources naturelles, dans le respect des cultures et contextes locaux, enfin en veillant à s’assurer de l’inclusion de toutes les parties impliquées dans la fonction alimentation. Ainsi, les trois thématiques ont été conçu comme suit : - la table n°1 a abordé le volet de l’accès à une alimentation saine et équilibrée pour tous ; - la table n°2 a priorisé l’aspect de la durabilité des systèmes de production et le renforcement de leur résilience ; - la table n°3 a traité l’aspect de l’inclusivité et de l’équitabilité des filières agricoles et agro-alimentaires. Au niveau de chaque focus groupe, des débats ouverts ont eu lieu ce qui a permis à chaque participant(e) de mieux comprendre le sujet, d’éclairer ses opinions mais aussi de partager ses idées en plénière et de permettre à toutes et à tous de s’impliquer davantage dans les concertations. Tenant compte de la situation sanitaire critique de Kairouan et de toute la Tunisie, une interaction avec une salle virtuelle a été assurée par les animateurs dans le cadre de chaque focus groupe en vue de faire participer un large public dans les réflexions de chaque thématiqueLa concertation à Kairouan a été construite en trois phases au niveau de chaque table de discussion : - Table 1 : une première session a été consacrée à déterminer les perceptions des participants sur la notion d’alimentation saine et équilibrée. Une deuxième a été dédiée l’identification des contraintes/obstacles qui empêchent que l’alimentation soit saine et équilibrée à Kairouan.. U Une dernière session a permis de proposer des actions concrètes permettant d’accéder à une alimentation saine et équilibrée pour tous à Kairouan, en adoptant l’approche « Qui fait quoi et comment ? ». - Table 2 :, la première session a été dédiée à identifier les différents systèmes de production existant à Kairouan en mentionnant les points forts et faibles de chaque système cité. Une discussion collective a été organisée pour partager les différentes perceptions des participants. La deuxième session a eu comme objectif d’identifier les problèmes qui empêchent le système de production à Kairouan d’être durable et résilient afin d’élaborer un plan d’action basé sur des propositions concrètes indiquant de manière claire l’action à exécuter, identifiant les outils de mise en place de l’action proposée (comment y arriver ?) et enfin la spécifiant les responsabilités (qui va mettre en place cette action ?). - Pour la table 3 : Filières inclusives, durables et équitables, la première session de ce focus groupe a démarré avec une discussion orale où les participants devaient répondre à une question sur leur degré de compréhension de la notion de filière agricole/agro-alimentaire équitable et inclusive. La session 2 de cet atelier a été le cadre d’un brainstorming sur les principales filières (végétales, animales, agro-industrielles) qui existent à Kairouan, leurs caractéristiques et leurs acteurs ? La session 3 s’est intéressée à l’identification des conditions nécessaires pour avoir des filières inclusives et équitables en 2030 : comment faire pour qu’en 2030 l’ensemble des acteurs des filières agricoles profitent équitablement de la valeur ajoutée de ces filières identifiées.

NoLe concept de la concertation à Kairouan est communément appelé “focus group”. Il s’agit d’un processus créatif qui vise à faciliter le dialogue constructif et le partage de connaissances et d’idées selon des thèmes préalablement identifiés (des tables), en vue de formuler des recommandations. Il s’agit d’un débat entre les participants sur une question ou une piste d’action en petits groupes autour de tables de discussion. Cette technique de discussion repose sur la dynamique du groupe présent. Elle permet d’explorer les différentes perceptions des acteurs présents. Le concept permet d’obtenir les recommandations et commentaires de chaque participant. Pendant la concertation, les discussions au sein des groupes ont suivi une méthodologie allant du général au particulier : de l’initiation conceptuelle aux concepts clés passant par les problèmes actuels de Kairouan dans chaque thématique proposée aux perspectives et actions futures (2030). Les trois thèmes de travail sont : Table 1 : Une alimentation saine et équilibrée pour tous Table 2 : Systèmes de production durables et résilients Table 3 : Filières inclusives, durables et équitables Au terme de chaque exercice, des débats ouverts ont eu lieu ce qui a permis à chaque participant(e) de comprendre mieux le sujet, d’éclairer ses opinions mais aussi de partager ses idées en plénière et de permettre à toutes et à tous de s’impliquer davantage dans les concertations. Une facilitatrice appuyait le binôme d’animateur dans les échanges avec les groupes en stimulant le débat et les réflexions avec les participants (es) et assurant le compte rendu des travaux selon un canevas préparé ainsi que la prise des notes au sein des focus groupes en coordination avec les facilitateurs (trices) de l’équipe. Tenant compte de la situation sanitaire critique de Kairouan et de toute la Tunisie, une interaction avec une salle virtuelle a été assurée par les animateurs dans le cadre de chaque focus groupe en vue de faire participer un large public dans les réflexions de chaque thématique. Dans chaque table, une première session a été consacrée à déterminer les perceptions des participants à propos de la thématique abordée. Une deuxième session a été dédiée à l’identification des contraintes/obstacles qui empêchent la réalisation des principes de cette thématique. La dernière session a eu comme objectif de proposer des actions concrètes permettant d’arriver à atteindre les principes d’un système alimentaire durable, inclusif, nutritif et équitable adoptant l’approche « Qui fait quoi et comment ? ». Par faite de temps, il n’a pas été possible d’aller jusqu’au Qui et Comment. Cette approche nécessiterait de nouveaux échanges qui pourront avoir lieu dans le futur. Après avoir collecté les recommandations et propositions des participants (en rapport avec les actions à mettre en place pour atteindre d’ici 2030 un système alimentaire durable pour tous à Kairouan) au niveau de chaque table de discussion, une note de synthèse de ces orientations été élaborée et envoyée à tous les participants à la concertation. Une demi-journée en visio-conférence a eu lieu le 18 juin 2021 pour restituer les résultats de la concertation àtous les participants afin de leur permettre de compléter et, le cas échéant, et de rectifier les propositions préalablement formulées

234238241242243244246249251Afin d’atteindre un système alimentaire inclusif, nutritif, résilient et durable dans le gouvernorat de Kairouan, la concertation a associé deux volets : Un premier volet ‘’descriptif’’ et de mise en contexte au bout duquel les problématiques et enjeux du système alimentaire ont été mises en lumière. Il s’agit d’une étude de l’état actuel du système alimentaire à Kairouan en termes de composantes : caractéristiques des fonctions/acteurs intervenant dans le système alimentaire, de l’amont à l’aval en partant des systèmes de productions agricoles et leurs spécificités jusqu’aux modèles de consommation alimentaire et profil nutritionnel de la population à Kairouan et ses attributs. Ceci en passant par les différentes fonctions associées au système alimentaires telles que la transformation agro-industrielle et la distribution/commecialisation des produits agricoles et agro-alimentaires. Nous avons également mis l’accent sur les problématiques auxquelles fait face le système alimentaire à Kairouan, dont celles associées aux changements climatiques, à la gestion des ressources naturelles, à l’accès à l’agrofourniture,… Un deuxième volet d’ordre opérationnel a pris place au niveau de la concertation indépendante à Kairouan et permis de faire ressortir des orientations et des plans d’actions opérationnelles qui permetrraient au système alimentaire à Kairouan d’atteindre les objectifs de durabilité d’ici 2030. Ces orientations ont été le résultat des débats et échanges entre des participants à profils diversifiés qui ont débattu pendant deux jours (1er et 2 juin) autour de 3 axes spécifiques : - L’accès à une alimentation saine et équilibrée pour tous - La durabilité et la résilience des systèmes de production - L’inclusivité et l’équitabilité des filières.235238241242243244246249251Pour ce qui est de l’aspect accès à une alimentation saine et équilibrée, les liens entre nutrition et santé sont de mieux en mieux connus, et le risque de développer de nombreuses maladies ,cancer, maladies cardiovasculaires, obésité ou encore diabète, ont été énumérés. Au regard de l’importance des enjeux considérés, les politiques publiques ont un rôle fondamental à jouer pour mettre en œuvre dans la durée les impulsions et les cadrages nécessaires (autorisation d’utilisation des pesticides et engrais chimiques, gouvernance et gestion des ressources naturelles, pénalités face aux infractions). Il faut lui en donner les moyens dans un contexte de diminution de ses ressources humaines et financières. Les consommateurs, acteurs essentiels, doivent pouvoir faire et imposer des choix éclairés. Pour cela, des efforts doivent être réalisés en matière d’information et d’éducation nutritionnelle, surtout auprès des plus jeunes et des publics sensibles. Parallèlement, des informations et des sensibilisations particulières doivent concerner les nouveaux modes d’alimentation « hors domicile », qui connaissent un fort développement du fait de l’évolution des modes de vie, parmi lesquels la restauration collective occupe une place importante (sensibilisation au niveau des cantines scolaires, de la restauration universitaire). L'intérêt de promouvoir des produits de qualité, valorisant les savoir-faire traditionnels, ne doit pas être oublié ; cette approche revêt de plus un intérêt environnemental au regard du respect des ressources naturelles locales, et économique au niveau territorial par le développement d’approches adaptées (certifications biologiques, appellations d’origine contrôlées). Il est crucial de ne pas oublier la mise en place d’un système d’information et de collecte de données basé sur les différents types de consommation alimentaire de la population à Kairouan (hommes, femmes et par tranche d’âge). Ces indicateurs permettront d’agir de manière plus rapide et efficace et de prendre à temps les décisions adéquates de renforcement de l’accès à une alimentation saine et équilibrée. Pour ce qui est de la durabilité des systèmes de production, les principes de l’agriculture durable ont été présentés comme relevant de trois niveaux d’exigence : la viabilité économique, l’innocuité environnementale et l’équité socio-économique. Pour y parvenir, il faut d’une part sensibiliser les acteurs locaux sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles (sensibilisation large grâce aux moyens de communications modernes, adoption d’une communication choquante si nécessaire) et d’autre part mettre en place les moyens nécessaires pour promouvoir ces modes de production durables et résilients tout en préservant la sécurité alimentaire des ménages. Pour ce faire, le groupe a insisté sur la nécessité, et l’urgence, d’ adopter des mesures d'incitation économiques et de promouvoir des technologies nouvelles appropriées de manière à garantir une offre stable de denrées alimentaires d'une valeur nutritive adéquate, auxquelles les groupes vulnérables auront accès. La création d’emplois et de revenus pour réduire la pauvreté à travers la diversification de l’emploi agricole et non agricole et le développement des ’infrastructures sont primordiaux : A ce niveau, il est nécessaire de soutenir et de renforcer la vision entrepreneuriale des jeunes ainsi que l’appui aux familles les plus pauvres en zones rurales comme en zones urbaines et -urbaines par la création de micro-jardins, micro-vergers, micro-élevages afin d’améliorer la sécurité nutritionnelle des ménages. Enfin, le groupe a considéré que l’agriculture familiale était le meilleur point d’entrée pour la gestion optimale des ressources naturelles et la protection de l’environnement en promouvant l’adoption de bonnes pratiques agricoles, des cultures peu exigeantes (en eau et intrants) et adaptées aux changements climatiques ; parmi les modèles à promouvoir ont été citées l’agriculture biologique moins demandeuse en produits chimiques et donc moins dangereuse pour l’écosystème, l’agriculture raisonnée, la permaculture. Le volet se rapportant à l’inclusivité et l’équitabilité des filières a, quant à lui, mis la lumière sur la structure des filières et ses caractéristiques. Il s’agit de l’ensemble des activités, organisations, acteurs, technologies, informations, ressources et services intervenant dans la fabrication de produits agro-alimentaires à destination des consommateurs. Elles couvrent les secteurs amont de la production agricole, depuis la fourniture d’intrants agricoles (semences, engrais, alimentation animale, médicaments ou équipement), la production et son aval (traitements post-récolte, transformation, commercialisation, distribution et vente). Elles englobent également les services d’appui tels les services de vulgarisation, la recherche-développement et l’accès aux données de marché. Ainsi, elles se composent d’un vaste éventail d’acteurs. Certains de ces acteurs peuvent dominer le reste des maillons de la filière et induire par conséquent à une filière non équitable et non inclusive (essentiellement en termes de partage de gain et de marge). Selon les caractéristiques de la relation entre les acteurs, la filière peut être non équilibrée et par conséquent non équitable chose qui peut créer un conflit d’intérêt. Elle peut en contrepartie être qualifiée d’équitable dans la mesure où la relation entre les maillons est basée sur la complémentarité au niveau des fonctions et sur un partage équitable de la valeur ajoutée globale de la filière.236238243244246249251En se basant sur les actions proposées par les participants, il en ressort les recommandations ci-après :  Développement équilibré du territoire au niveau national (entre gouvernorats) mais également au niveau du gouvernorat (entre délégations) pour réduire les fractures entre les régions et les sous-régions, et faciliter l’accès aux services de base à tous les ménages, en particulier l’eau potable ; mais aussi aux structures de santé et d’éducation qui sont souvent défaillantes dans les zones les plus reculées et pauvres ;  Promotion de systèmes alimentaires basés sur des produits locaux : même en zones rurales, la tendance est forte de consommer des produits transformés importés, dont la qualité nutritionnelle est souvent sujette à caution ; dans ce contexte il est clé de recenser les produits et les savoir-faire locaux et de valoriser les bonnes traditions (toutes ne sont pas bonnes !), au travers de fêtes locales et par un système de certifications biologiques, appellations d’origine contrôlée, … ;  Information et Education nutritionnelle : en particulier au niveau des écoliers (promotion des cantines scolaires) et des femmes qui ont un rôle-clé dans la nutrition des jeunes enfants, mais pas seulement (l’ensemble des membres du ménage doit être sensibilisé à cette question) ; focus particulier sur les consommateurs et leurs associations, acteurs essentiels, qui par leurs choix alimentaires influent sur l’ensemble du système ;  Promotion de systèmes de production agricole et d’élevage peu ou moins utilisateurs de produits chimiques qui présentent ensuite un risque alimentaire : différents modèles ont été évoqués à ce niveau comme l’agriculture biologique, l’agriculture raisonnée, voire la permaculture…  Renforcement des systèmes de contrôle : les services publics ont à l’évidence un rôle fondamental à jouer pour mettre en œuvre dans la durée les impulsions et les cadrages nécessaires (autorisation/interdiction d’utilisation des pesticides, engrais chimiques, médicaments, antibiotiques… ; gouvernance et gestion des ressources naturelles, …). Or, la situation économique actuelle en Tunisie entraîne un affaiblissement des services publics qui ont de plus en plus de difficultés à assumer leurs fonctions régaliennes. Dans le contexte où ces systèmes de contrôle sont considérés comme prioritaires pour atteindre une alimentation saine, des choix politiques et budgétaires adéquats doivent être faits au niveau national et au niveau décentralisé ;  Autonomisation des associations de producteurs et de consommateurs : en complément au cadrage politique, et à sa mise en œuvre, il est important que les principaux types d’acteurs concernés soient organisés pour s’assurer que les normes soient respectées et pouvoir exercer une pression au cas où elles ne le sont pas. Les groupes de producteurs, les associations de consommateurs existent mais ne sont pas encore dans la pleine capacité d’exercer ce contre-pouvoir et de défendre leurs intérêts ;  Système de collecte de données et d’information basé sur le type de consommation alimentaire/ de la population à Kairouan (hommes, femmes et par tranche d’âge) et traitement des données. Ces indicateurs permettront d’agir de manière plus rapide et efficace et de prendre à temps les décisions adéquates de renforcement de l’accès à une alimentation saine et équilibrée. Les ressources humaines nécessaires à cette collecte et ce traitement des données devront être identifiées car elles ne sont pas disponibles actuellement et sont coûteuses.236242244246249En se basant sur les actions proposées par les participants, il en ressort les recommandations ci-après ::  Prendre des mesures drastiques pour sauver les ressources naturelles et en particulier les ressources en eau : le temps n’est plus au diagnostic, et les participants ont insisté sur l’urgence de promouvoir ce type de mesures et des technologies respectueuses de l’environnement, et adaptatives au changement climatique, qui sont de fait déjà connues et utilisés dans certaines régions de Tunisie, mais qui ne sont pas suffisamment promues ;  Promotion de l’agriculture familiale dans ce contexte, l’agriculture familiale (plutôt que d’autres formes d’agriculture de type industriel) est considérée comme plus perméable à la pratique de culture moins exigeantes (en eau et intrants), et à l’élevage d’animaux adaptés aux conditions climatiques locales ; ainsi qu’à l’application de l’agriculture biologique moins demandeuse en intrants chimiques et de ce fait moins dangereuse pour l’écosystème, et moins coûteuse pour l’agriculteur, ou de l’économie circulaire qui permet une gestion des ressources plus économe ;  Elaboration d’une nouvelle politique agricole de rupture et de façon participative : une politique définissant les contours de changement d’approche est nécessaire de façon urgente et doit résulter d’une approche impliquant les différents acteurs des filières ; les agriculteurs mais aussi les acteurs du secteur privé doivent être partie prenante de cette réflexion et des choix stratégiques à opérer car ils seront ensuite ceux qui les mettront en œuvre ;un changement de paradigme est nécessaire au niveau du ministère en charge de l’agriculture : il doit devenir un ministère de la production agricole durable.  Adoption de mesures d'incitation économiques : ce changement de paradigme nécessitera un accompagnement technique et financier qui n’est pas présent actuellement. Il s’agit d’une évolution qui ne pourra se faire que sur la durée et avec un accompagnement rapproché. Les moyens financiers doivent programmés en conséquence, ce qui nécessite une révision des subventions accordées actuellement pour les recalibrer aux nouvelles approches à promouvoir ;  Sensibilisation et formation des acteurs locaux sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles respectueuses de l’environnement : dans ce cadre, la formation agricole et la sensibilisation sur l’importance de pratiquer une agriculture durable sera cruciale. La question du conseil agricole sera également à repenser en profondeur, avec par exemple l’utilisation d’approches digitales.236241246249Il en ressort les recommandations ci-après des discussions ::  Contractualisation entre acteurs : la mise en relation des acteurs et la facilitation de contrats entre eux est une approche qui peut faciliter la mise en marché des produits des agriculteurs et des éleveurs, et en particulier des plus pauvres : l’agriculture contractuelle est un exemple possible de contractualisation entre des producteurs et un acheteur. Il est toutefois important dans ce cadre d’accompagner les petits producteurs dans la compréhension et la mise en œuvre du contrat afin qu’ils en tirent le meilleur profit possible ;  Promotion des filières locales à fort potentiel de valorisation (produits et sous-produits) et encouragement aux investissements moyennant des financement spécifiques (micro-crédits, subventions, …) pour le développement de ces filières locales souvent développés par des petits producteurs et productrices ;  Promouvoir l’identité territoriale à travers l’encouragement à la labellisation des produits locaux transformés artisanalement et à la certification bio chose qui permettra aux producteurs et aux transformateurs de gagner en notoriété et en qualité des produits à mettre sur le marché ; dans ce contexte promouvoir le secteur privé local en l’incitant à investir dans leur territoire d’origine ; ceci nécessite la révision du d’investissement afin de le rendre plus favorable aux petits investisseurs ;  Amélioration de la gouvernance des filières à travers la mise en place de structures regroupant l’ensemble des acteurs et permettant de définir conjointement le développement de leur filière : différents exemples de plateformes, d’inter professions, de clusters par filières existent en Tunisie, une stratégie d’appui à ce type de structure est nécessaire ; à ce niveau, les membres u groupe ont émis des divergences sur le mode de coordination des plateformes, certains estimant qu’elle doit relever de l’Administration, d’autres des acteurs privés, l’Etat n’ayant qu’un rôle d’observateur et d’accompagnateur ;  Promotion des circuits de distribution court (du producteur au consommateur) et la logistique correspondante afin de garantir aux petits producteurs une part accrue de la valeur ajoutée en concertation avec les autres acteurs impliqués dans la filière (points de vente, foires, information sur les produits…).237238241242244246249 La valorisation des produits locaux a été abordée sous deux angles différents. Pour certains participants, les produits locaux permettent de satisfaire en priorité les besoins des ménages (sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle) ; pour d’autres les produits locaux peuvent être valorisés à travers leur transformation et leur commercialisation en dehors de la localité de production (recherche de marchés pour ces produits) afin de générer des revenus supplémentaires (essentiellement pour les femmes qui transforment ces produits locaux de manière artisanale et qui peuvent être soutenues pour les commercialiser collectivement : exemple dans le Gouvernorat de Siliana d’un groupement de femmes productrices de piment qui le transforment et le commercialisent jusqu’en Europe).  La question de la coordination a fait l’objet de discussions : Certains participants ont proposé une refonte ministérielle avec la création d’un Département coordonnant tous les services dédiés à la petite agriculture locale et à une réorientation des subventions au secteur agricole prioritairement vers elle n. Si une meilleure coordination des acteurs des systèmes alimentaires est jugée indispensable par le groupe, certains participants ont exprimé leur doute sur la création de nouvelles structures de coordination ; en effet, de nombreuses structures de ce type ont déjà été mises en place en Tunisie dans différents domaines et ont toujours eu des difficultés à fonctionner efficacement.  L’amélioration de la gouvernance des filières à travers la mise en place de structures regroupant l’ensemble des acteurs et permettant de définir conjointement le développement de leur filière : différents exemples de plateformes, inter professionnelles, de clusters par filières existent en Tunisie, une stratégie d’appui à ce type de structure est nécessaire ; à ce niveau, les membres du groupe ont émis des divergences sur le mode de coordination des plateformes, certains estimant qu’elle doit relever de l’Administration qui assure ainsi son rôle régalien d’organisation et de contrôle du secteur, d’autres participants privilégient la resposabilisationes acteurs privés, au premier rand desquels les producteurs et leurs organes représentatifs, l’Etat ayant un rôle d’observateur et d’accompagnateur.

2021-07-23 13:48:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31394/263

506359282244114121122172191544511

Our dialogue fully incorporated the principles of engagement under UN Food systems dialogues. As food systems are complex and covering all three main dimensions (economic, social, and environmental) we adopted a systemic, cross-sector approach to collect the views and perspectives of all participants on Kosovo’s food system through breakout groups/sessions. The event brought together people from multiple sectors to fully address the complexity of food systems and how we need to look at this issue in Kosovo from a lens beyond just one angle. The participants were invited considering the sectors, interests, their role and engagement with Kosovo’s food system. The dialogue was held on July 13, organized by INDEP, in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development and UN Kosovo team. The objective of the dialogue was to: • Promote and share practical experiences and insights to identify common challenges, priorities, and policy recommendations on sustainable food system • Help coordinate, foster knowledge and align support across different sectors for locally driven and actionable initiatives to advance food systems transformation in Kosovo • Encourage concrete measures and active engagement by all actors of society to contribute towards more sustainable, inclusive and resilient food systems Organisers took advantage of recently relaxed guidelines on public gatherings to organize a much-welcomed in-person discussion, albeit within COVID guidelines and hence a selected audience. Participants were given the opportunity to listen to each other. They were divided in three breakout groups, covering respectively the issues of (1) sustainable food production, (2) sustainable food consumption and (3) circular use of food resources. The discussions allowed them to look at challenges and areas where next steps in the short and long term are needed. In addition, a livestream on the INDEP Facebook page opened the dialogue to a wider audience.Our dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by targeting participants from a wide range of backgrounds, profiles, and regions around Kosovo. Over 50 participants representing governments, business, organizations, academia, civil society, farmers, restaurant owners as well as university students representing the next generation of sustainability leaders, were brought together to discuss the current status of Kosovo’s food system from the perspective of enabling safe, accessible and healthy nutrition, supporting circular economy and more efficient use of resources; and boosting sustainable production and consumption in Kosovo. Concerted efforts were made to ensure participation of equal numbers of women and a representative number of non-majority groups. Overall, the dialogue consisted of 3 breakout groups, preceded by keynote remarks by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the UN Development Coordinator, which included an introduction of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit and objectives of the dialogues as well as a brief overview on the status of Kosovo’s food system. This was accompanied by a short intervention by a food system specialist from the FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia, who presented the key concepts and principles of a food system and the linkages between food systems and our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing. The three thematic Discussion Topics (•1: sustainable food production • 2: sustainable food consumption • 3: circular use of food resources) were formulated together with a list of short questions and supporting/preparatory materials, to guide the discussions and the moderators in the definition of a call for action/statements to be realized up to 2030. Finally, our dialogue was complemented by the expertise of the UN Kosovo Team and the Ministry of Agriculture of Kosovo, to ensure that the main themes and outcomes of the discussions would help address the needs and priorities of the people of Kosovo, with a view to contributing to long-term development and shared prosperity in Kosovo.We recommend that the format and structure of the Dialogue allow all stakeholders to actively participate in the dialogue and have their voices heard and amplified through the discussions. The informal setting of our breakout groups encouraged participants to engage in frank and open discussions with their peers, inspired by the core principles of honesty, respect and open-mindedness. Secondly, moderation and presentation of all action tracks should be done in a clear, concise language that can be easily understood and adopted by all, and is localized/adapted to the situation of the food system in the country and the main challenges that the country is facing. Finally, the selection of participants should enable to draw a comprehensive picture of the main challenges, recommendations and lessons relating to the food system in the country. Considering that the food systems are complex, the Dialogue should use a multisector and inter-disciplinary approach to bring together people and stakeholders at all levels (Ex. individual, organizational, institutional; national, regional local, etc) to look at this topic from a lens beyond just one angle (ex. economic, social, environmental).

Yes

234238239240241242244245249251We all must work together to transform the way Kosovo produces, consumes and thinks about food. Kosovo’s Food System plays a central role in ensuring sustainable development and the achievement of Agenda 2030 in Kosovo. Issues of food production, consumption, food trade, agriculture and animal husbandry as a means of livelihoods, advancing equality and equity for marginalised populations, environmental challenges and building resilience, are all topics that resonate soundly in Kosovo. The production and consumption of sufficient, affordable and nutritious food for all is vital, while also conserving the natural resources and ecosystems on which the food system depends. Kosovo’s food system is under increasing pressure to respond to numerous and complex challenges. These include: • Food price impact on food security and wellbeing • High reliance on food imports • High share of agricultural economy and reliance on subsistence farming • Women account for almost 50% of Kosovo’s population but only 5% of them are agriculture landowners • A legal and institutional framework with opportunities to strengthen implementation • An unfinished agenda to support agriculture financing for small businesses • Lack of a unified, comprehensive system to deal with urban waste management • Lack of statistics and available evidence • Limited attention on nutrition issues • High Land fragmentation • Recognised need for stronger attention on sustainable agriculture and food production • Potential to expand local agriculture and businesses • Opportunities to involve the private sector in waste management The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for strong and functional food systems to respond effectively to vulnerabilities and shocks. Kosovo government subsidies for the agricultural sector were about 1% of GDP in 2020, including planned recovery measures. At Western Balkans level, agriculture was the third most affected sector in the economy (after services and industry). At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to build recovery plans that reverse current trends and change consumption and production patterns towards a more sustainable future. Moving towards more sustainable food systems is critical. Sustainable consumption and production is about doing more and better with less. But it is also about decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation, increasing resource efficiency and promoting sustainable lifestyles. Sustainable food system in Kosovo can thus play a critical role to resolving issues of food security, poverty alleviation and adequate nutrition, and can contribute to building resilience in communities. Urgent attention is required to address existing challenges, as well as new and evolving demands on our food systems. Within this framework, our Dialogue explored ways and solutions to raise awareness as well as catalyse locally-driven action around the themes of (1) Sustainable food production (2) Sustainable food consumption (3) Circular use of food resources235238239240241242243244245246249251Overall, participants stressed the importance of access to healthy, nutritious, safe AND affordable food as a “must” for all people in Kosovo and future generations but also as an inextricable part of Kosovo’s efforts to achieve progress on long-term development and shared prosperity. Both food producers and consumers carry the responsibility to create a more equitable food system in Kosovo and there is a need to better align the interests and drivers behind their decisions on food consumption and production, with the three components of the “livelihood-nutrition-environment”. Furthermore, participants highlighted how the combination of economic, social and environmental principles are key to addressing both inclusivity and affordability issues around the topic of access to healthy, nutritious and safe food in Kosovo. In order for Kosovo’s food system to be more inclusive, sustainable and healthy, further efforts are needed to 1) create the right mix of incentives for businesses and producers to shift their behaviours and patterns, 2) review the institutional, legislative and regulatory framework to better integrate environmental protection and climate concepts 3) reduce risks (access, affordability, income) for those most marginalized within the system, and 4) support income-earning opportunities across food value chains. Additionally, there must be special attention paid to enhancing gender equality in Kosovo’s food system, including the need to provide more opportunities for women in agricultural value chains, such as access to land, jobs, finance and decision-making. With regard to the upcoming Food Systems Summit, participants look forward to continuing the conversation around building a sustainable food system in Kosovo and work together to transform a wealth of ideas, evidence and recommendations into concrete and practical solutions to advance equitable livelihoods in Kosovo’s food system. Efforts will be made to better integrate these into ongoing initiatives already taking place all over Kosovo. To name a few, these include: initiatives to reduce food waste (ex. UNDP Food Waste Challenge), municipalities’ plans to improve local livelihoods, CSO efforts to promote a culture of recycling and more responsible use of resources.2362402412452462482492511/3 Discussion Topic #1: Sustainable food production 1. Strengthening the role of women not just in processing food but in managing food processing companies 2. Role and partnerships between the private sector AND government, local partners, farmers, academia, education etc. to understand the interests and needs of all stakeholders along with the food system. 3. Supporting deeper integration into regional agro-food value chains, particularly in those sectors (e.g. fruits, olives, etc) where Kosovo enjoys somewhat a competitive advantage. 4. Invest in skills to increase financial literacy in small/family farms (particularly among women) 5. Improve farmers’ resilience by investing in adaptive and mitigation needs to climate change 6. Promote local product development – agricultural extension and other rural entrepreneurship/advisory e.g. branding, name recognition and identification with geographic region 7. The importance of ecological and biological agriculture related to the use of pesticides, and accompanying regulation to ensure safe and adequate use of these. Linkages with organic agriculture, tourism and consumer health. 8. Use of natural resources, especially those related to soil degradation, erosion, forests, and pastures, as one of the important natural resources, which contribute to the development of tourism, protection from erosion, but also contribute to the economic aspect and green economy. 9. Reduce barriers for small farmers and other particular groups in agriculture through the provision of microcredit and more accessible and affordable financing mechanisms . 10. Give attention to emerging food insecurity – households prone to food insecurity – flexible safety nets at the municipal level 11. Promote value chain development involving food production linked to tourism, beekeeping, local products (ex. peppers and aromatic herbs) – inter alia for rural women’s economic empowerment 12. There should be proper implementation of legislation in place and better monitoring mechanisms for the whole food system legislative framework 13. Farmers and producers should be more aware on the importance of professional consulting services and provided training programmes in order to increase their capacities on sustainable production practices. 14. The inspectorate capacities within the central and local level institutions should be increased in order to have more quality check and control of food items. Moreover, there should be a better coordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development and municipal agricultural directorates. 15. There should be more investments in irrigation systems and purification of water sources. 16. Central level institutions should intertwine policies in order to promote agriculture among youth and discourage migration.2362382392432442452462482492512/3 Discussion Topic #2: Sustainable food consumption The second discussion focused on sustainable agricultural development and food consumption as a pathway to ensuring better food system livelihoods, by citing practical examples and solutions from participants’ experiences and knowledge. Participants agreed that inclusivity and equity, based on a people-centered approach, is key to ensuring better food livelihoods in rural as well as urban areas for vulnerable groups including women, youth, non-majority communities and other communities with distinct livelihood systems. Several participants noted that skills development, including digital skills related to the use of ICT and modern online tools, are important enablers for transforming farmers into competitive entrepreneurs. This would ensure better economic empowerment of women and attract more younger workers. With regard to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food system livelihoods in Kosovo, participants noted that the immediate impact of the pandemic was felt through the weakening of Kosovo food demand and the closure of many businesses such as caterers and hotels. There is therefore a need to strengthen resilience in Kosovo’s food system, to enable “direct selling” by small agricultural producers to local consumers, which could allow many farmers and small players to continue their businesses and promote especially women and youth participation as digital mediators of food value chains. On the other hand, this could help reduce problems of food waste, by donating excess food from producers to those most in need. In this regard, digital platforms have a bigger role to play, for instance to optimize production and minimize food waste. On recent changes to the demand base of agricultural food, some participants also noted the growing trend in people’s diets towards more animal-based food (ex. Meat) and processed food, which requires adjustments in agricultural production patterns, with the latter lacking the same quantity of nutrients. Additional points were raised on the importance for Kosovo institutions to target government subsidies to the most vulnerable to maximize inclusion and ensure equitable livelihoods. The importance of partnerships with businesses was also underscored, which would enable multidisciplinary collaboration among farmers, NGOs, governments and restaurant owners to design projects that can connect small farmers (especially those from rural areas) to large commercial areas and urban centers. Additional recommendations include: • Regular analysis, data collection and reporting should be conducted on consumer food basket in order to collect insights on basic nutritious values and provide evidence based policies that support sustainable food system. • Complete the digitalization of land lots and enhance the categorization of land to address current challenges due to the fragmentation and small size of land lots. • Establish supporting schemes for slow food systems, with a view to encouraging local producers to introduce sustainable systems of production, economize the local area, and encourage citizens to consume locally-produced food items. • Support innovation in urban agriculture through dedicated funds and programmes, which would contribute to higher social cohesion among community members, promotion of green, low-carbon intensity products and better inclusivity of all members of society to leave no one behind.2362402422442462472482492513/3 Discussion Topic #3: Circular use of food resources 1. Integrating environmental, economic and social impacts as part of the overall assessments (cost-benefits assessments, impact evaluation etc) relating to food and agriculture policies, decisions and investments by governments and private sector 2. Integrating issues on Food Loss and Waste as a core element of Kosovo’s education system and curricula for all (e.g. local municipalities, public servants, businesses etc), including main concepts and principles to analyze where we have losses, at what levels and why but also how to reduce them 3. Strengthening vocational and educational trainings /curricula through targeted programs to educate younger generations on the need to understand the status and challenges of the system 4. Educating consumers about making healthy choices on the type and quantity of food they consume 5. Need to better detect, analyze and report on the use of pesticides and chemicals in agriculture production, through a better food control system that is capable to monitor standard operating procedures on food and feed control at all stages 6. Need for certification and traceability in production systems, especially related to organic and local products, to understand the origin and processing of agricultural products along the value chain and communicate it to consumers through appropriate labelling, thereby increasing consumer confidence 7. Leverage the potential of agro-tourism in Kosovo, as a leading example of sectors (other include eco-tourism) that have been undergoing transformation to promote a shift towards more sustainable ways of doing business, which put sustainability and environment at the core of their model 8. Agro-ecology as a concept should be integrated within the policy framework and educational curricula. 9. Need to analyze the costs as well as the benefits of a healthy diet, in such a way as to prepare policy and financial support packages guided by sound and up-to-date evidence and a robust assessment of the alternatives. 10. Strengthen available evidence and assessments to assess the linkages and impact of food production and agriculture on environment (ex. deforestation) and contribution to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions 11. ‘Polluter Pays’ principle should be deeply integrated in the policy framework covering inter-institutional policies. Any financial revenue deriving from the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle policies should be treated as a dedicated to fund programmes specifically promoting environmental protection and sustainable food system. 12. Leverage the power of innovation and digital technologies to switch agricultural production from input-intensive to knowledge-intensive systems and expanding employment opportunities effectively.237238239240241242245246249In all groups, there was a diversity of thoughts and views. However, all discussions took place in a spirit of mutual respect and by appreciating different opinions. In the field of sustainable production, there were different opinions whether the promotion of healthy food, and organic food should be done through state mechanisms such as fiscal incentives, taxes, etc., or through market economy instruments, i.e. through the promotion of demand by raising awareness and increasing purchasing power in general. The same divergences were seen in the part of sustainable consumption and the circular economy. The question of what should be the role of the Government in promoting sustainable production was answered in various forms by representatives of different sectors. While farmers saw subsidies as the best way, the food processing industry and policymakers considered other fiscal and indirect mechanisms to be equally important. There were different, but also complementary opinions regarding the role of citizens’ awareness. There were opinions that the doctors 'association should be involved to encourage sustainable consumption while also taking into account the fact that food safety should not be confused with food quality and that the state can work on raising citizens' awareness of food quality but that the demand for sustainably produced-food must come from the bottom-up.

2021-07-23 13:58:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30489/203

10201258293376143152524218139262521911525

The Dialogue aimed to convene between 80- 100 participants from different networks and stakeholder groups with a broad interest in evaluation and in M&E and spanning across different professional affiliations and sectors. The main network that the Dialogue drew from is the EvalForward Community of Practice, which counts over 1,000 members and focuses on evaluation for agriculture, food security and rural development. We circulated the invitation also on social media and within other professional and advocacy networks as well as in the evaluation offices of the Rome-based agencies. We sent all registered participants the principles of engagement in advance of the Dialogue and invited them to read them along with the topics and questions for the discussion groups, in order for them to prepare to actively participate in the discussion and make recommendations to the Food Systems Summit.Following the welcome and opening remarks by Andrea Cook, director of evaluation in WFP and curator of the Dialogue, the complexity of food systems and the need to act with urgency were laid out from different perspectives by the panelists. The speakers prepared the ground for the following group discussions: i) Philippe Ellul from the UN Food Systems Summit secretariat provided an overview on the food systems summit rationale and expected outcomes; ii) Michael Quinn Patton, Founder and Director of Utilization-Focused Evaluation presented the challenges and opportunities for evaluation to address the complexities of the food systems transformation and the need to act with urgency to respond to global emergencies such as climate change and the degradation of the world’s natural resources; iii) Marie Gaarder, executive director of 3ie, presented the wealth of evidence available on topics related to food systems and the knowledge gaps in certain areas. She called for accelerating efforts to put together and complement evidence, avoiding duplication, and encouraged innovative approaches to understand the impacts of systems-level transformation such as evidence gap mapping. After the panel, participants were divided into four parallel breakout rooms to discuss selected topics, with a facilitator and a note taker in each breakout room to ensure everyone had an opportunity to be heard and voiced opinions were captured. Points of divergence were heard and noted in an open and productive manner. Each discussion group explored a specific topic related to the role of evaluation in supporting sustainable food systems and food systems transformation, with related statements and questions to guide participants’ inputs. The aim for each group was to come up with 3 to 5 key messages to report in plenary and feed into the Evaluation for Food Systems Statement (see main findings section below).No

Yes

234238239240241242243Evaluation is cross-cutting to the Summit and to the Action Tracks, and this FSS Independent Dialogue had a twofold aim and focus: 1. Bring to the fore of the Summit the contribution of evaluation to learning and accountability for sustainable food systems and for the FSS commitments & follow up. 2. Engage evaluation stakeholders in reflecting on how evaluation needs to change and evolve. Participants exchanged on the below four topics, each one presented with an accompanying statement and related questions to guide inputs: 1. The role of evaluation for Sustainable Food Systems • Examples of evaluations making a difference, resulting in strengthened sustainable food systems? • Lessons from the impact of COVID-19 crises on food systems? 2. Evaluation methods and approaches for food systems transformation Evaluation needs to change in order to understand and help address food systems and their transformation from the local to the global scale. It needs to move away from project / programme approaches and apply systems thinking. • What are the most useful approaches and tools to include a food systems perspective in evaluations to address this change? • What approaches and methods are best suited for evaluating agriculture research or innovation, to enhance ensuring uptake of research that improves Food Systems? 3. Evaluation practice: what do we need to change or improve? Evaluators are traditionally called to evaluate at the end of projects/programmes. However, in order to evaluate and inform change of complex and interconnected processes, evaluators should be part of all stages of interventions and engage in an iterative dialogue and co-creative process of change. • How do you see this happening? • How would evaluators adopt an adaptive, developmental approach? 4. Evidence towards the UN Food Systems Summit objectives • Should we evaluate the Summit itself, and the degree to which it achieved its objectives? If yes, how? • What long-term monitoring and/or evaluation framework would be required for food systems reform? What can we learn or build upon from the SDGs/Agenda2030 process?235238239240241242243The aim for each group was to come up with 3 to 5 key messages to report in plenary. We have put together these messages to develop the below Evaluation for Food Systems Statement of main messages, which reflects and summarizes Dialogue participants inputs and vision on the role of evaluation for food systems. EVALUATION FOR FOOD SYSTEMS STATEMENT OF MAIN MESSAGES - Participants in this independent dialogue agreed that evaluation and evidence should be at the hearth of the Food Systems Summit, and support the role of evaluation in providing evidence and lessons to inform food systems transformation and in reviewing the summit outcomes and commitments. - New approaches and innovations are required to transform food systems, for a more equitable and sustainable world. Evaluation has a key role to play in supporting this, by shedding light on the complexities and interdependencies of food systems and identifying actionable and timely solutions, and ultimately contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. - Participants in the FSS Independent Dialogue highlighted that evaluation and the evaluation community can: o Deliver evidence to inform decision making towards sustainable and resilient food systems, o Offer results on what works and what doesn’t, responding to the need to act with urgency to reach the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, o Draw on and put into context lessons learned, including those on the impacts of Covid-19 on food systems and the failures uncovered by this crises, o Engage in assessing the outcomes of the Summit and how the Summit narrative informs actions, especially at the national and regional levels. - Participants also discussed how, in order to unleash the full potential of evaluation, evaluators need to evolve as a community and to take on board new professional and methodological challenges. These relate to ways of working, methods and approaches and to the practice of evaluation within the broader development ecosystem. The following points were raised and considered necessary for evaluation and the evaluation community to support transformation of food systems: o Promote an evaluation culture, in order to enhance the learning value of evaluation, in balance with accountability objectives, and for evaluation to become everyone’s business, including donors, commissioners, decision-makers, civil society and others involved in food systems. o Embrace the complexity of food systems transformation and other global challenges – such as climate change and its impact, which require integrating systems thinking and dealing with uncertainties. o Promote the role of evaluators as engaged participants: evaluators should position themselves in a more dialogic and partnership role in order to facilitate support decision-making, and engage in open communication to help form solutions and stimulate transformative change. o Innovate methods and approaches making a case for non-traditional and creative ones. These may include developmental, participatory and other approaches, which are more suited to help understand the complexity around food systems, while ensuring that the focus on quality is preserved. o Continue to develop capacities of evaluators so that they are equipped with the necessary skills and confidence in making the right choices on methods and approaches. o Ensure more inclusive and equitable evaluations: cross fertilize research and evaluation with local and indigenous food systems and practices and involve different stakeholders in the process- leave no one behind236238239240241242243Discussion group 1: The role of evaluation for Sustainable Food Systems In this group participants discussed the role that evaluation can play in strengthening food systems and the lessons that should be taken on board from the impacts of the Covid on food systems, in order to support progress towards more sustainable and resilient food systems. Participants agreed that evaluation is able to deliver the knowledge and evidence needed to inform decision-making leading to transformation of food systems. For this to happen and for the evaluation community to fully release it’s potential, the field of evaluation needs to keep up to and evolve as much as are the development challenges we are confronted to, which are becoming increasingly complex and urgent. Evaluation tools and frameworks have to be adapted to address and to analyze the complexity of the food systems and make a difference. This is already happening and participants shared two examples moving in this direction: i) The CGIAR is developing its new research programme cycle, in which they revised methods used, approaches, areas to analyze, among others. This revision led to enhancing the way in which evaluations should be carried out, and what they should prioritize. ii) The Nourish for flourish diagnostic evaluation/needs assessment, provides an example of a diagnostic evaluation to determine food security needs, carried out at the provincial level in Cape Town in partnership with Academia and other stakeholders, leading to a multilevel stakeholder discussion, which enhanced the engagement among stakeholders towards food systems key areas of improvement. Outcomes were taken by the provincial government to develop a strategy for improving food systems. This exercise, which can be seen as a process use evaluation, helped create community and government led groups to discuss and address food security issues. The Covid crisis has shown that gaps in income and food insecurity are increasing. The coping mechanisms that people are putting in place can be leveraged as opportunities to innovate food systems interventions. The group also noted that resilience is a key aspect to support as it translates into improved preparedness during crisis.236238239240241242243Discussion group 2: Evaluation methods and approaches for food systems transformation This was quite a rich discussion with a variety of suggestions and inputs made both on the methods and approached that evaluation should adopt to address food systems transformation. Participants emphasized that to address complexity it is important to use participatory approaches and the engagement of stakeholders, particularly small-scale farmers. For instance, the qualitative impact protocol (QUIP) puts the farmers at the center of the system, helps to understand the contribution of other actors and linkages. Inclusive and equitable evaluations were also suggested to address root-causes of inequalities: indigenous evaluations and feminist approaches in particular. Realist evaluation type approaches are important to contextualize findings. These do not exclude other approaches such as theory of change evaluation and impact evaluation. The best team would consist of a team that understands the principles behind each of these and use them for usual reinforcement. Other evaluation approaches suggested were Contribution analysis, Outcome Harvesting. “Outcome mapping and outcome harvesting help us to better understand unintended consequences and are quite useful in supplementing some of our traditional approaches” added a participant Regarding specific tools and methods that evaluators can use to address the complexities of food systems and their transformation, Theories of Change were mentioned, and in particular new nested approaches to Theories of Change design, which are important for bringing stakeholders together. In the toolbox of evaluators, there should also be a place for Stakeholder mapping, and in order to deepen and expand on specific stakeholders input and influence, influence mapping in decision-making. For policy evaluations, and considering that food systems cuts across different ministries/ authorities, observations and immersion, that consists of immerse evaluators in the policy making process to understand the people embedded in the systems. Last but not least, smart technologies and data tools are useful assets in evaluations of food systems, which can be constrained by capacities of evaluators themselves.236238239240241242243Discussion group 3: Evaluation practice: what do we need to change or improve? This group focused on the evaluation practice and what we need to change, improve, adapt acknowledging complexity and uncertainty and what are the challenges and what does it mean to adopt an adaptive and developmental evaluation approach First participants acknowledged that organizations have different organizational cultures and degrees to which they appreciate and support evaluation as a function or as a culture and therefore how much they focus on accountability or understand it as a learning opportunity to use broadly across the organization. It is important to advocate for strengthening the evaluation culture and to balance accountability and learning, aiming for evaluation to become everyone’s business. Evaluators come from different educational and professional backgrounds, and addressing systems, complexity, and uncertainty may require a mindset shift, as we are not evaluating a linear process. Linked to this is the choice of appropriate methods, making a case for non-traditional and creative approaches to be encouraged: this may be difficult sometimes for evaluators to select and promote, though we need to move away from the notion of a gold standard to appreciating participatory, developmental, adaptive approaches. “in complex systems, it’s really difficult to be an independent evaluator with a fixed set of questions and say this is right and this is wrong – participatory approaches need to be embedded in the evaluation” – said a participant The context for applying “new” methods does not always exists and we need to have key elements on leadership, resources, donors’ flexibility and organizational culture as mentioned earlier. In addition, while applying new tools and methods more suitable to addressing systems transformation and complexities, it will be important not to lose track of quality. All of this calls for having capacity development for all actors to understand and for evaluators to be confident in proposing methods and approaches236238239240241242243Discussion group 4: Evidence towards the UN Food Systems Summit objectives This group agreed on the need to evaluate the outcomes of the Food Systems Summit and discussed how the summit and its outcomes could be evaluated. Evaluating a summit may have potentially many unintended and complex effects. To evaluate the usefulness of the Summit we need to assess: i) the diversity in type of producers and consumers represented: e.g. small holders need to have voice and influence in this summit: degree to which the summit was open to different voices including smallholders; ii) how much did the Summit influence the narrative, the conceptual focus, but also the actions : did the summit have a ripple effect in media, public opinion etc.. It was also added that the language deployed in the FSS would be one indicator of change taking place thanks to the summit; iii) include the regional level in GLOCAL language and action: The regional level is ideal for knowledge aggregation and dissemination adaptation of global ideas to the local level and to learn from local level. System-wide reviews of progress towards the 2030 Agenda could be done regionally. “The FSS should have institutional arrangements to monitor and evaluate what it achieves,” added a participant.

2021-07-23 14:08:27260https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21375/203

257050100100701301271310162421110391917121791181425

As the UN Food Systems Summit is a “Peoples Summit” the OACPS Food Systems Dialogue (OFSD) sought to ensure that key multi-stakeholders were invited and included and were provided the opportunity to share views. Sequencing the interventions through an initial “high-level” opening segment, followed by 3 interactive, moderated discussions related to OACPS challenges, opportunities, and solutions for building resilient, inclusive and secure food systems at the community, national, regional, and global levels. The OFSD made every effort to engage all participants, while also having framing speakers on (i) sustainable production of green and blue food; (ii) food for health and wellbeing; and (iii) building a resilient future), and respondents from the OACPS and partners. The conveners would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and appreciate the following for delivering remarks in the opening segment of the OFSD - Minister for Agriculture Republic of the Congo (for the keynote address), OACPS Secretary- General, UN Food Systems Summit Special Envoy, Deputy Director-General of the Directorate-General EU DG INTPA, and the Slovenian Presidency of the European Council. The conveners would also like to thank the following for framing the 3 interactive segments, FAO, WHO, SPC, UNDRR, and the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). Special thanks are also extended to the following for their informative contributions during the interactive sessions, Ambassadors accredited to Belgium and the EU from Suriname, Côte D’Ivoire, Ghana, Barbados, Zambia and Ethiopia; as well as solution-focused contributions from the Chair of the UNFSS Action Track 2, Global Coordinator of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, Head of Unit Agri-Food Systems and Fisheries, DG INTPA are very much appreciated. The participation and contributions from the following research institutions CARDI, and RUFORUM as well as the following private sector and civil society institutions COLEACP, LMMA Network International, PIANGO, and youth representative from the Caribbean is acknowledgedInclusivity was central to preparation and execution of the OFSD, with a theme mindful of taking account of the UNFSS Action Tracks, embracing a systems approach to OACPS food systems transformation, and endorsing and acknowledging cross-cutting priority themes. The participation of diverse stakeholders, from members of the OACPS, UNFSS Secretariat, the EU and EC, regional and international organizations, civil society, private sector and youth was deemed critical to the success of the OFSD and to successive initiative(s) for food systems transformation of members and regions of the OACPS.It is important to ensure that a multi-stakeholders, multi-level approach (public sector and non-state actors), if this is to be the case, is well observed and that the dialogue is open and embracing of the perspectives and proposals provided; and time is provided to all participants to feel included and heard. The OFSD did not have breakout sessions. We acknowledge that such a modality may have provided higher levels of participation and richer outcomes. We will explore such a format for future dialogues that we will hold. We are of the view that the key to dialogue is openness and inclusiveness but that one must remain focused on the ambition/objective of the dialogue itself

NoAs already mentioned, the OFSD did not have breakout sessions into smaller groups of the dialogue participants. Rather we retained a sequence of three interactive panel sessions/segments that sought to include all participants, with all the interventions available in and for the public domain

234238239242244246249250The dialogue focused on examining the links between three of the five UNFSS Action Tracks, with resilience and building resilient food systems as the strong connector and imperative for the Dialogue. The OFSD sought to explore ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all and shifting to sustainable consumption patterns, while building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress, with a particular focus on the assessment of challenges and solutions for food systems transformation for the 79 members and six regions of the OACPS235238239242244245246249250Absolute, unequivocal confirmation that the promotion and realisation of sustainable food systems is strongly linked to the achievement of many of the Sustainable Development Goals. Solid, concrete multi-stakeholder investments and commitments by members, regions, and key partners of the OACPS to achieve food systems transformations is needed and critical to delivering the manifold results, outcomes and impacts236238243244246248251The OFSD “Sustainable production and value chains of blue and green food" discussion realised we need to: - Achieve blue food systems transformation as much as green foods systems transformation if we are to feed the growing OACPS population with nutritious food, for livelihoods, health, and wellbeing. - Deal with increased pressure on our fisheries (in our ocean, lakes and rivers) and particularly as the OACPS-Africa population grows fast, and mindful that fish is important for protein and micronutrients for many OACPS peoples. - Invest in science and innovation, for governance and sustainable management of ocean resources as we face climate change and other exogenous shocks such as the ongoing COVID19 pandemic is needed. - Embrace opportunities that include agriculture, coastal fisheries and aquaculture in nature and ecosystem-based approaches to support local economies is acknowledged and is important. - Include local communities in sea and land innovations and production with all implementation occurring as co-development with communities and users where appropriate and necessary. - Ensure all OACPS workers have access to capacity-building support opportunities that positively respond to real-time data, innovation and technology, and human capital needs and skills required. - Scale-up efforts to conserve biodiversity to address food security needs. - Recognise laudable efforts such as that of the Pacific Community’s (SPC) to maintain genetic diversity of disbursing plant seeds and tissues across the region during the COVID19 pandemic as well as part of response and recovery efforts to disaster risk events – and seek to replicate these as and where appropriate. - Consider sustainable management practices, such as agroecology, regenerative farming and community-based fisheries management as critical to both catalysing and augmenting food systems transformation. And note there are opportunities to further integrate agriculture, coastal fisheries, aquaculture, and water resources management through circular, nature and ecosystem-based approaches to support blue-green economies, at all levels. - Promote coordinated national-level planning to ensure food systems transformation is a critical part of the national sustainable development agenda will involve and require whole of government, whole of country (all stakeholders) and whole of community approaches. - Provide a strong enabling environment for food systems transformation (institutions and instruments) will be key for effective implementation. - Phase-out and/or reorient harmful subsidies that impact the sustainability of the food systems will need to be implemented as soon as practicable. - Explore the utility of digital technologies and artificial intelligence in the transition to more inclusive and sustainable food systems will need to be explored, realised, and made accessible to all.236238239244246248The OFSD “Food Systems for Health and Wellbeing" acknowledged that: - While non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are of global concern, it is at crisis point for many OACPS Small Island Developing States (SIDS). o Seven of Fifteen countries of the Pacific-OACPS have high rates of diabetes and rank in the top ten in the world. Unfortunately, COVID19 has further compounded these metrics. o The single common factor is unhealthy diets, where there is co-existence of under-nutrition and over-nutrition in the same individuals, in the same family and in the same communities – and where too much of the wrong foods is being eaten. o Notwithstanding the Pacific region is renowned for using traditional knowledge and traditional science processes; increased investment in building resilience through strengthened, tailored science and traditional knowledge approaches should be encouraged. - A lack of coordination at global and regional levels, and a lack of ownership and commitment at national levels hinder efforts to address the high levels of malnutrition in the members and regions of the OACPS. The following bold actions are identified for food systems transformation, for better health and wellbeing of peoples in the OACPS:  Promoting traditional local diets and preventing the nutritional transition to western unhealthy, unbalanced and unsuitable diets;  Raising awareness about the impacts of trade on diets, health and wellbeing of citizens of OACPS SIDS.  Targeting fiscal policies for healthy and sustainable diets, which are needed to transform food systems and halt the consumption of unhealthy foods and drinks. This could include (i) Placing taxes on foods and beverages that are high in fats, salt and/or sugars. (ii) Providing incentives to encourage healthy options and alternatives by making them more affordable to consumers. (iii) Nutrition labeling providing easy to interpret and understand nutrition information on packaged foods is critical to influencing consumer behaviour and market choice of unhealthy diets.  Food fortification and food product reformulation: Increasing the nutrient value of foods by fortifying them with vitamins and minerals, and reduction of unhealthy sugars, fats, and salts.  Regulation of marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages focusing on advertising and,or targeted campaigns that negatively influence or limit choices among children and,or mothers.  Stockpiling of adequate strategic foods to mitigate against the many crises facing the members and regions of the OACPS (such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and disasters from extreme weather and climate events, as well as geohazards such as volcanic eruptions) that impact food production systems.  Investment in food safety infrastructure and legislation to facilitate access of locally produced foods to markets. A combination of improved food governance, education programmes and incentives can help transition to sustainable and healthy diets. It is important that global players do not only push science-based solutions but also recognise and use local and traditional science and knowledge as part of the decision-making systems for production, consumption and resilience building in and across the member countries and regions of the OACPS.236242244246249The third interactive session of the OFSD which addressed "Resilience for the Future" heard that: - The impact of disasters disproportionately affects the most vulnerable and the poorest countries, including SIDS who suffer greatly from the impacts of extreme climate, weather and natural hazard risk events due to their unique geographical location. - SIDS challenges of smallness and geographic isolation and dispersion can make food production prohibitive. To mitigate these factors regional approaches are necessary and should be encouraged. - OACPS SIDS are highly dependent on specific economic sectors (such as tourism and fisheries) and are therefore more vulnerable to economic and exogenous shocks. - The COVID-19 pandemic shone a spotlight on the importance of interconnectivity and integration and the links between natural, biological and human hazards. - Risks are systemic and complex, and therefore require holistic integrated solutions, with better links to all key sectors, regulation, planning, enforcement and good practice. - National and local disaster risk reduction strategies should be well articulated with mutually reinforcing sustainable development plans and climate change adaptation plans. - Industrious coalitions need to be built between member states and groups with geographical similarities - further they would need to identify and prioritise their shared challenges and develop a resilience roadmap that they could collectively pursue. The following bold actions are identified pathways for building resilient food systems in and across the OACPS, for the future:  Increasing the adoption of holistic and climate-friendly production and consumption practices that also limit biodiversity loss, whether in aquatic systems, land, and forests.  Mainstreaming sustainable use and adaptive management of natural resources by ensuring access rights to fisheries and land, and recognizing the value of traditional practices and knowledge systems.  Adopting interdisciplinary approaches to respond to the factors that contribute to the fragility of agri-food systems in OACPS, including but not limited to climate change and variability, epidemics, emerging and re-emerging diseases.  Increasing investments in productivity-enhancing innovations to harness science solutions for the sustainable, inclusive, and resilient growth of food systems.  Fostering global partnerships to develop more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems that consider the needs of smallholder farmers and encourage youth to embrace opportunities in being active partners in food systems transformation.  Strengthening agricultural/fisheries/aquaculture value chains and de-risking of the food systems investments in the OACPS from climate risks, and other related hazards.  Reimagining the market-led solutions to green and blue food systems and the corporate takeover of the food systems as potential, systemic risks to the resilience of OACPS’ food systems. Policy decision-making and the food systems governance space should recognise and include the voices of the civil society, women and youth. Empowering local communities to produce traditional and local foods that are climate-friendly and developing technologies for value addition should be a key priority for members and regions of the OACPS237There were no particular areas of divergence among stakeholders.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/EXT_2021-07-02-oncept-Note-and-draft-Agenda-OACPS-INTERGOVERNMENTAL-UN-FOOD-SYSTEMS-.._.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/brussels/news/detail/en/c/1416965/

2021-07-23 14:12:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24209/203

14316283312625218214242530

Embrace Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity: This event was designed to bring together a diverse range of stakeholders with perspectives from Government, research, development practitioners and local experiences. Commit to the summit: The dialogue was designed to directly feed into the summit process and to support the vision for sustainable food systems. Be respectful: To ensure that all voices within the dialogue could be heard, we fully briefed facilitators for the breakout groups to ensure space to contribute was given to all. We also committed to understanding and discussing both converging and diverging views and to capture these in the write up.Reflect complexity: The dialogue was very rich with a diverse range of perspectives and ideas on priority actions. We created space for participants to contribute at length, capturing the complexity and depth. Act with Urgency: This event drew upon the current research being conducted across the globe on the effects of COVID-19 on marginalised groups and drew out the learnings for food systems from this rapidly emerging evidence. Complement the work of others: The basis of this dialogue was through bringing together 3 co-convening parties all of whom are working in the area of food systems and livelihoods (IDRC, IDS, ACIAR). Through this partnership, the complementarities between the work have been highlighted. In addition the creation of small er discussion groups enabled participants to seek out new connections and build new relationships around their work. Build Trust: As with being respectful facilitators were briefed to create a ‘safe space’ for all participants to voice their perspectives. The event was recorded for note taking, but no views or perspectives will be attributed to any individual.The convenor guidance from the summit pages was incredibly helpful in drawing out the practicalities around the principles of engagement when organising and hosting the dialogue. Well organised facilitator guidance to ensure that in the small group discussions facilitators support inclusive dialogue, mutual respect and fostering connections.

Yes

234238241242243249251Event title: Building resilient and sustainable food systems: How can emerging lessons from communities affected by Covid-19 shape the way forward? COVID-19 is having a major impact on households’ production and access to good quality, nutritious food, due to losses of income, combined with increasing food prices, and restrictions to movements of people, inputs and products. The hardest hit in both rural and urban areas are frequently women and those who work in informal economies. This dialogue focused on drawing out the lessons and priority actions that need to be taken to respond to food security challenges in a way that addresses informality and gender dynamics, for food systems to become resilient, equitable and sustainable into the next decade. In particular the discussion generated lessons and ideas around advancing equitable livelihoods, building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress and to ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. The design of the dialogue was informed, in part, by ongoing research supported by IDRC, IDS and by ACIAR to understand the impacts of COVID-19 on food systems and livelihoods in different regions and contexts, helping the convenors to frame the entry points for discussion and identify actors to be part of the process. Please see relevant links section below. The dialogue brought together a range of stakeholders and perspectives on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food systems and livelihoods, focusing on the evidence and experience generated from the most affected communities in low- income countries to generate ideas for action. The participants brought together knowledge and experience from across Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia and the Pacific and represented a wide range of thematic areas and sectors. Special attention was given to bring a southern voice and perspective into the discussion. The key discussion topics were: What does the evidence on impacts of COVID on food security and livelihoods suggest governments and communities need to do to reduce the vulnerability of women and other marginalized people? What are the mechanisms through which civil society and governments can work together to identify what works to support more resilient, inclusive and healthy food systems, and to scale them to different agroecological and sociocultural contexts? The event curator, opened the event and welcomed participants. To set the scene we invited 3 keynote speakers from a range of geographic locations and perspectives to share insights from their work and reflect on the ways forward to support sustainable food systems for all, with particular focus on the most vulnerable groups. These speakers were: ● Julio Berdegue (FAO) - FAO Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Latin America and the Caribbean. ● Dicta Ogisi (CPED) – Professor of Agricultural Economics, Delta State University, and Senior Researcher at the Centre for Population and Environmental Development (CPED), Benin City, Nigeria. an independent Think Tank based in Benin City dedicated to promoting sustainable development and reducing poverty and inequality through policy oriented research and active engagement on development issues. ● Mariame Maiga (CORAF) - Regional Gender and Social Development Adviser for the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF) based in Dakar, Senegal.235238241242243249251Responses from the political sector and civil society emphasized the immediate response to the immediate effects of the pandemic such as providing access to food to alleviate the impact on populations (social protection). In most instances these social protection responses need to be expanded to reach the most vulnerable – including women, youth, people with disabilities, displaced persons, and informal sector actors – but there is evidence across contexts that rapid large scale universally targeted social protection policies can reduce the impacts of shocks. There is also a need to ensure that the immediate responses include supporting the food systems to ensure they remain functional, for example through supporting access to markets. Although essential, we also need to develop longer-term strategies (based on access to gender-specific technologies, access to credit and guarantee funds, particularly for women and young people) if we are to develop food production systems that are more resilient (less vulnerable to pandemics) and equitable. Food Systems are complex; we need more complex approaches that recognize intersectoral linkages for the development of risk assessment systems for more effective response. Comprehensive policy responses must consider environmental, social protection, health and food security factors in a contextual, evidence-informed way. The precarity of the informal sector has deepened and addressing this will be key to fostering more resilient food systems. Key to design and delivery of comprehensive policy responses should be the inclusion of local voices in decision making and strategy design as well as indigenous knowledge and food production practices. Civil society can be a link to understanding the needs of the most impacted (we define this to include women, youth, people with disabilities, displaced persons and those working in the informal sector), and there is a need to strengthen coordination between formal government responses and community level responses (through networks, community organizations, civil society). It was suggested that greater collaboration with civil society may help foster trust in government responses in contexts where trust is weak. The dialogue also highlighted importance of strengthening the resilience of local food production systems (essential for reducing vulnerability) while strengthening global systems to enable a global response to local crises. The coexistence of local systems/strengthening of local production systems while strengthening global production is an important challenge that we face in reforming and transforming food systems. In the past, changes were made to the benefit of some, and to the detriment of others. Dealing with these issues will take political power and financial resources. For example, very few farmers have access to finance, much less so in developing countries. But adaptation to climate change and other shocks requires financial input from farmers. There is a gap in the ambition of the narrative (transform food systems, adapt to climate change, build resilience and confront COVID) versus the reality (inadequate provision of finance for farmers). Where are the resources that would make this agenda feasible? How can access to funding for adaptation resilience be facilitated? There is a huge opportunity to use climate change adaptation and ecosystem restoration as a source of jobs creation. It is far more economical to create a job in ecosystem restoration, than to create one in construction, which is the typical recovery program. This approach to green growth could help to create and support essential livelihoods in the wake of the pandemic.236238241242243249251What does the evidence on impacts of COVID on food security and livelihoods suggest governments and communities need to do to reduce the vulnerability of women and other marginalized people? Livelihood impacts along the value chain and increasing food insecurity among the broader population due to disruptions to food systems highlights the need to balance containment measures and public health concerns with food systems impacts, ensuring access to both inputs for production and markets. Moving goods between countries became challenging due to containment measures in place (food security was more impacted in countries that adopted more drastic health measures), and uncertainty around border closures impacted millions of animals ready to be slaughtered that could no longer cross borders due to border restrictions. Food distribution was particularly a challenge for communities with limited capacity to transport food. Mobility constraints were an aggravating factor for large facilities which depended on workforce and labour coming from abroad which was restrained, but also affected small scale producers relying on external labour at critical moment in the farming season. Lack of access to food and inputs because of the public health measures meant that people had to use strategies to adapt that were increasingly severe and harsh such as having to skip meals (especially women), selling land, and other various mitigation measures. Market closures and suspension of cross border trade as containment measures were particularly detrimental to those in the informal sector, small producers, and migrant farm workers – many of whom are women or youth – and relief measures such as social protection programs should be more targeted in addressing the impacts to these specific groups. When considering how vulnerability has increased during the pandemic, it is essential to also recognize the ways that confinement, restrictions on mobility and loss of livelihoods impacted social dynamics, including increased violence at a household level. Differential impacts of reopening may hold insights for how long-term recovery should be approached. In many instances, men are quicker to get back into the workforce than women. Emergency response systems were insufficient to respond to pandemics. Sectoral, segmental approaches didn’t work well during COVID. The pandemic highlighted the need to integrate responses from different sectors (health, agriculture, trade, etc). Across contexts, increasing food prices reinforced the need for greater action by governments and the private sector to ensure affordability and access to nutritious food. Fixed price schemes and school feeding programs were highlighted as one step towards addressing affordability issues, but these must ensure greater access to nutritious food. Limited access to quality food during the pandemic has been the result of challenges in production, transport, affordability of food, and compounded by food safety considerations. Civil society and non-governmental organizations offer important links between government responses and the most impacted. Front line non-governmental organizations and social support organizations such as food banks are essential for government responses to be able to reach the most vulnerable and less accessible populations. Cooperatives can play an important role in crisis situations because they are already embedded in the communities and are setting up production diversification systems, to support communications on COVID, protection measures, etc. More active and dynamic cooperatives set up awareness-raising activities, sought seeds to diversify people's diets and kept the commercial channels open to sell production. Their members were less impacted by public health measures than those from less dynamic ones. Greater coordination between governments and civil society responses should be established to ensure that policies better reflect differentiated needs, and those most impacted can access relief and recovery programs.236238241242243249251What are the mechanisms through which civil society and governments can work together to identify what works to support more resilient, inclusive and healthy food systems, and to scale them to different agroecological and sociocultural contexts? Potential mechanisms could involve technical assistance, capacity-building in the use of bottom-up approaches, promoting public-private sector partnerships, income diversification, social protection for the poorest, conduct more research and strengthen food distribution to reach markets. There is a need to increase resilience at the local level and concurrently capitalize on global food production resilience (global markets with transport and logistics systems which were considered essential). Each supply chain is going to have its own unique vulnerability and solution profile. At the local level, greater attention to strengthening food sovereignty based on traditional systems is needed, and this should be accompanied by support to more sustainable production at a global level. The pandemic and its effect on food systems highlighted the importance of social programs in response interventions, as well as the importance of supporting small businesses rather than only individuals. Community involvement in project cycle (design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) is essential for the identification of responses adapted to ecological and socio-cultural contexts. Provision by governments of credit and guarantee funds to support the development of small agricultural enterprises among women and young people, combined to capacity building would create favorable conditions for agricultural development. Access to credit is essential to support the development of agricultural businesses by vulnerable populations. The agricultural sector has enormous potential in terms of job creation and wealth, and governments must support the transition of small producers into the formal economy. Only technologies that are resilient to climate change, gender sensitive (labor-saving) and nutritious (biofortification), will foster resilient and inclusive food systems especially in context of vulnerability aggravated by shocks such as pandemics. Digitization of agriculture is important but often women are the ones who do not have access to phones so it’s important to ensure women are included in solutions. Digital tools can help the implementation of agricultural insurance systems. Cell phones can help formal and informal small-scale producers document their practices and show that crop losses are due to due to climate extremes or infestation, therefore supporting farmers claims and reassuring insurers that claims are valid (could we do the same for pandemics?) Pandemic impacts reinforce the imperative to bridge humanitarian and development assistance. Food security shocks related to COVID have compounded food security shocks from drought, and those related to forced displacement and other climate shocks. Women, youth and other marginalized groups are most impacted. Relief efforts must be combined with long-term recovery efforts. Governments need to take advantage of mechanisms put in place by community and civil society organizations, especially in rural communities where they can leverage existing trust, networks and more nuanced understanding of community needs. Support to producer organizations that are already present in rural areas (cooperatives can disseminate information and reach their members) can increase resilience – coops are socially conscious economic entities that contribute to social cohesion. They provide access to technical, financial and information services so investment in coops benefits communities. Civil society groups in urban settings have also played a key role but are often under-funded and disconnected from both government responses and other community efforts. Without greater government support, it will be challenging to leverage the full potential of these organizations in long term recovery.236238241242243249251Private sector must be part of recovery efforts, with a clear role to play in provision and distribution of nutritious and affordable food, in new modes of production that supports climate resilience. There is a huge opportunity to use climate change adaptation and ecosystem restoration as a source of jobs creation, and green growth could help to create and support essential livelihoods in the wake of the pandemic. More timely and disaggregated data is needed to inform planning, policy and practice that meets the needs of and can be accessed by policymakers and producers to react to potential future shocks. Collecting, collating and analysing data, then preparing it for decision-makers, requires technical capacity. Governments must invest in gender-sensitive agricultural research (including scientific, technological capacity building and leadership for women and young agricultural researchers) and provide research grants to help develop technologies that respond to the needs of women, men, and disadvantaged populations. Efforts should be made to further investigate instances of resilience in the face of the pandemic and conditions that allowed actors to pivot quickly to establish different food supply systems, and how sustainable this is and what lessons this offers for building more resilient, equitable food systems moving forward. New ways of analysing data to generate predictions will be needed. Data and methods should be made open access so that other researchers can examine, analyse and interpret the information and provide peer review.237238241242243249251The prevalence of small producers in the informal economy is a big challenge. It is important to recognize the role and potential of the informal sector as a key player in local food systems. There are different perspectives on the formalization of the sector in a context such as COVID where informality is a vulnerability factor but, in some cases, can be a resilience factor for some of the producers. Participants raised questions about whether informal systems were more nimble than formal markets in times of crisis, and whether they might offer more environmentally sustainable approaches. The dialogue surfaced different perspectives on the scale at which action should be prioritized. Some participants pointed to the value in large scale responses for broad based universal (not means tested) social protection policies, noting that mobilisation of robust safety nets must by design be large. Others called for greater attention to local and mid-level government responses which play a key role in implementation. Overall, participants supported the need to work at multiple scales. While the need for greater collaboration between civil society actors and government was echoed by many, the impact of the pandemic on these linkages varied across contexts. Some noted that pandemic responses strengthened linkages between civil society and governments, particularly when it came to sensitization of COVID-19 information, while others pointed to increasingly fragmented food aid with civil society attempting to fill gaps in an uncoordinated way.

2021-07-23 14:15:51204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14990/194

2727

Yes

234246249The discussion focused on ensuring food security, resilience, an equity in cities. It considered the methods, measurements, and goals necessary to increase cohesiveness and inclusivity in food systems planning and action. Speakers, panelists, and participants shared their community’s contexts, successes and visions. Food security, resilience, and equity are deeply intertwined. Food systems practitioners throughout the U.S. found that centering community voices and needs helped them do their job of ensuring food security, resilience, and equity.235246249Many local governments throughout the U.S. have a wide array of disconnected food programs. There is a movement toward connecting these programs and developing overarching food systems visions and goals across local government departments and with local stakeholders. To start creating holistic food systems improvements, leadership must come together with the community to develop an overarching vision, develop a structure, and connect programs and people. These disconnected food programs have often focused on solving the symptoms of an unjust food system. For example, distributing food to those that cannot procure it themselves. To holistically improve local food system outcomes, cities and communities are starting to look at food sovereignty, land access, community-led processes, and improving city and community-wide communication and commitment. Local governments throughout the U.S. are diverse. The structure and focus of planning depend on local context. Even with this variation, or maybe because of it, the discussion focused on centering and giving power to community members to shape the food system. The issues of food justice, racial justice, food sovereignty, community involvement, and sustainable production are all connected. As one speaker said, “today, I heard agreement across all panels and breakouts in the belief that all people and all communities should have the right and the means to produce, procure, prepare, share, and eat food that's nutritionally and culturally affirming free from exploitation of themselves, other people and nonhuman animals, and also in harmony with the rest of the natural world.” Actions and commitments (10 year/2030 vision) This dialogue was between practitioners and stakeholders from across the U.S. No overarching actions and commitments were determined. A general agreement among participants was that multi-level governance mechanisms in the U.S. are not well aligned toward creating food systems grounded in place or equitable access—but that local governments are critical actors to move the food system in this direction. Actionable messages to UNFSS When including local government voices at the international level, include local voices from the beginning. Ensure they have input into the processes that inform the UNFSS. Focus on the experiences and needs of those not currently served by the food system. Hire them as consultants to your work. Provide a platform for those that don’t currently have avenues to power but that have lived experience and connections. Cities have to do what’s right for their constituents. Cities can do this by putting their constituents in positions of power and influence through mechanisms like local food councils, food positions at the city, community hearings, and funding community-led initiatives. Protect small land owners, small food businesses, and communities from the influence of big business interests and consolidation. Protect and promote grassroots advocacy. Provide nations and regions with guidance on how to set a flexible national and regional food systems visions that help local governments align their visions while also centering and empowering local communities.236Community-led processes: Food systems outcomes are most successful when community led. Cities contribute to this success by facilitating community conversation, building networks and relationships, funding pilot projects, providing information, and codifying conclusions in plans and legislation. Actions: • Cities should facilitate and channel the voice of the community. Listen to, create relationships, and build trust with community groups. • Take on the expense of what the community wants/needs. For example, conduct soil tests on land that can go to the community for gardening. • Host demonstration projects, that train people how have a successful food endeavors followed by policy that enables these actions. • Have dialogues with the community and support what people are asking for through legislation. • Develop programs and structures that can be self-sustaining over time, since government resources shift. • Be transparent, report back to the community to hold government accountable. • Pay community members to be part of advisory boards. Include residents that aren’t usually involved in these processes and aren’t already affiliated with organizations that already have access to power in the city. • Use community engagement and ownership model of planning and action to alleviate disparities in actual representation and leadership. • Be flexible and humble. Always keep coming back and revisit the community and their recommendations.236Food Sovereignty: Structural racism limits access to healthcare, culturally appropriate nutrition, food preparation, retail food stores, and wellness programs. It causes disconnected BIPOC networks and high food insecurity. There are barriers to access infrastructure, food assets, community gardens, food programs, and community kitchens. Uneven access to funding to BIPOC organizations meant they were not able to respond quickly in times of crisis such as COVID-19. Additionally, land is prohibitively expensive for people to start new rural or urban farms. Racist policies took land from many farmers of color. Actions: • Place community leaders as experts, pay for participation, and create online opportunities to increases reach. • Declare anti-black racism as a public health crisis. • Advocate at the state level to improve land access for new farmers and farmers of color. • When non-Native communities and nations working with Native nations, approach as equals and ask “how can we support your solutions.” • Provide the resources, financial support, and information needed for communities to create their own thriving food systems.236Land Access and Urban Farming: Promoting urban agriculture can help residents, especially residents of color to build job skills, generate income, contribute to community development, increase food access and security, and foster connection to broader efforts that combat the root causes of structural inequities such a racial and economic justice. Actions: • Look at the open land from city operations, the military, utilities, schools, and universities. This land can be used for urban agriculture. • Invest in of testing soils, renovating, and putting in water infrastructure. From there, let the community take over. • Put grants in place to make properties available and accessible. • Provide urban agriculture training and work opportunities for inmates or recently incarcerated. • Support the creation of community land trusts as a way for the community to build wealth.236243Data: Data is important to mobilize action and engagement with key stakeholders and to effectively identify gaps and priority interventions. Food Asset mapping was discussed as a positive way to both collect data and mobilize action within communities. While collecting and sharing data is essential, it must not be seen as an end itself or as a substitute for action. Collecting data from more traditional sources (eg. Scientific peer reviewed studies) as well as non-traditional sources (“community intelligence” and experience) is key for promoting inclusive food systems.236242Resilience and Emergency Planning: The pandemic showed cities that they weren’t prepared for the level of food insecurity posed by disasters. Cities must integrate food access and resilience into adaptation and emergency planning, develop relationships with stakeholders across the food system to build resilience, and ensure at least some local food production for emergencies. One city surveyed its residents and found that residents recommended prioritizing food in emergency planning.236Rural-Urban Interface: Cities focus much of their effort and resources on urban agriculture projects. Greater connection between urban and peri-urban and nearby rural areas was discussed as a way to build resilience. Regional collaboration and resource distribution can strengthen both urban resilience and nearby rural agriculture economic sustainability.236Schools: Schools connect people of many backgrounds. Cities can use that as an opportunity to build relationships between rural and urban children and residents. To strengthen children’s relationship with food, build in science and education about food systems and have school gardening projects and farm to school food procurement.237Any divergences came from the different food system ecosystems different cities experience.

2021-07-23 14:20:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17447/203

2591311171158113651415165111051262815622

The Regional Dialogue for Europe and Central Asia (ECA) was convened by the Issue-Based Coalition on Sustainable Food Systems (IBC-SFS) recognizing the complexity of the food systems challenges and actions. The Dialogue was organised and convened through a multidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder approach that capitalized on the expertise of several UN agencies - FAO, UNICEF, WHO, IFAD, UNDP, UNECE, WFP, WMO - as an important element of the 2030 Agenda, with a strong focus on the most vulnerable groups. The IBC-SFS plays a key role in the Region to ensure inclusive, diverse, decision-making processes and also to enhance and promote multi-sectorial and multi-stakeholders approach in policy development. The Regional Dialogue was fully aligned to the principles of engagement of the UNFSS Summit as outlined in the Convenor’s manual. In the PLANNING PHASE of the Dialogue, the convenor made sure to create an interactive, diverse, inclusive and people-centred, solutions-oriented dialogue that could represent a diverse range of stakeholders in the food systems to allow the audience to gain a more complete view of the key policy and governance issues related to sustainable food systems, with the focus on i) improving the equitability of food systems by empowering all consumers and protecting the most vulnerable, and ii) improving the sustainability of agri-food systems by protecting the natural resource base, through nature positive actions, and re-shaping financing for greener outcomes. The dialogue was set up to also allow participants to share information and experiences on opportunities, challenges, and appropriate policy actions for sustainable transformation of the food systems. There were several ACTIVE ONLINE EXCHANGES to identify speakers to ensure REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL, GENDER_BALANCED as well as STAKEHOLDERS/SECTORIAL representation, including INDEPENDENT DIALOGUES, aiming at BUILDING TRUST, making sure all parties were comfortable with the focus, scope, format of the dialogue. We have established a UNFSS Community for the ECA region.ACT OF URGENCY: Prior to the dialogue, a general analysis of the major issues and challenges to be covered on an Independent Dialogue basis, to complement the Member State Dialogue support, was conducted among IBC-SFS Secretariat, chairs and members and all the relevant stakeholders in the Region. The nature of the Dialogue resulted from a consideration of where the Dialogue could add value through a regional exchange on specific aspects, particularly focusing on the policy and governance. COMMIT TO THE SUMMIT: The IBC-SFS is fully committed to supporting the UNFSS, as is reflected across the advocacy work throughout 2021 and over. The Dialogue complemented ongoing member state dialogues, by facilitating a regional discussion and exchange of information on key policy and governance issues important to transform food systems in the ECA region. BE RESPECTFUL: Speakers and participants from the region and all over the world were invited to attend. In preparing the Dialogue programme and content, different viewpoints and perspectives were considered both in English and Russian. RECOGNISE COMPLEXITY: This was acknowledged by the curator, the facilitators and the participants. The dialogue included two dedicated panel discussions to allow deeper discussions and analysis of complex issues inherent to transforming food systems, and recognize the diversity of food systems in the region. EMBRACE MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS’ INCLUSIVITY: Participants were invited, from across the whole food system. In order to maximize the participation in a limited time of the event, and to include concrete actions and experiences from countries, we have also included video contributions and major highlights from other Independent Dialogues. COMPLEMENT THE WORK OF THE OTHERS: The IBC-SFS believes strongly in working complementarily with the food systems sectors and actors. BUILD TRUST: The dialogue was convened with a transparent approach. One to one meetings and a general reharsal was organized prior to the event.When PLANNING the Dialogue, it is important to research and learn from the Gateway website how other Dialogues have been organized, developed and what are the key issues in your region/country. It is crucial also to identify in the Dialogue a DIVERSE POOL OF SPEAKERS AND PARTICIPANTS from different sectors, different geographies, with a gender balance and people-centred approach. The STRUCTURE of the Dialogue is very important and it is key to have a clear definition of the sessions, committed leaders for the opening, panel discussions and closing remarks. It is important to allow ample time for the panel discussion sessions, experiences and the information sharing. Communicating and publicizing the event widely is advantageous to ensure a wide participation. In order to provide the statistics required in the Official Feedback Form, registration process with all relevant information is key. CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION AFTER the Dialogue on the Community of the UNFSS is vital to ensure that the major outcomes and discussions can have an echo on the digital platform, through IBC-SFS and country level.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251Policy and Governance can drive the transformation for a systemic change in food systems in the ECA region. Policy makers in the ECA region face challenges which may be common to many countries, such as the need to improve the nutritional status for all, and stem the tide of overweight and obesity; providing an equitable, sustainable food system, while minimizing negative effects on the environment and reducing the contribution to climate change and GHG emissions. Determining how to ensure a balanced, just, and fair food systems transition – economically, socially and environmentally - to provide safe, nutritious food for all, protect the environment, support livelihoods, and address inequalities, requires policy-makers to foster multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collaboration and cooperation. AS A RESULT OF THE DISCUSSIONS, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCES WERE SHARED ON: - appropriate measures to address the specific nutritional challenges of the most vulnerable members of our society, focusing on children, youth and women; - means to shape food demand through actions of government and civil society, including consumers, to drive sustainability through their food choices and actions; - building equitable, inclusive food systems which allow small-holders and small and medium-sized enterprises to reach their maximum potential, and contribute to sustainable value chains; - drivers for adjusting food systems and incentivizing actors to adopt more sustainable models which meet food and nutrition security needs, with reduced depletion of natural resources and negative environmental impacts; - aligning policies with nature positive production, including financial support to incentivize a just transition to sustainable agriculture and greening of value chains. KEY PRIORITY POLICY/GOVERNANCE ISSUES ON NUTRITION AND FOOD VALUE CHAINS DISCUSSES: - Addressing nutritional needs and vulnerabilities of the most vulnerable in food systems both in urban and rural areas (including small-holders, children, youth, women) and how food systems can be more targeted to their nutritional needs - Providing the most vulnerable actors in food systems (focus on children and youth) with the tools and knowledge to access healthy diets, make healthy and sustainable food choices, and fulfill their aspirations and vision of sustainable food systems in the future - Improving value chains and market opportunity: supporting small-holders and SMEs – linking them to VCs, markets, improving the supply of nutritious, diverse foods - Ensuring smallholders, and SMEs have access to resources, finance, services, information, innovation, technologies, digital solutions ENVIRONMENT-RELATED POLICY ISSUES DISCUSSED: - Agri-food policy decisions and approaches to reverse and/or prevent biodiversity loss, manage natural resources, including water, for sustainable agri-food production. - Greening value chains, reducing environmental and climate impacts, climate smart agriculture, reducing food loss and waste, circular economy, technologies and innovation, reduce contribution to GHG emissions, public subsidies (more in the VCs, compared to previous point on policy) - Economic incentives and policies for SFS, greening VCs: Targeting finances, subsidies, grants, for agri-food sectors, for better nutrition, food safety, environmental outcomes. Responsible investment. Public and private financing options.235238239240241242244246248249250251STRONG GOVERNANCE and holistic policies in ECA are needed to develop, test and prove solutions to the challenges of a systemic transformation of food systems, particularly considering the post-COVID-19 recovery. Better food systems data will allow policy-makers make sound decisions to guide, navigate, and provide incentives for all other actors in the system, leading to better public health, a protected environment, while balancing social and economic needs. Food systems are key to accelerating changes and reaching Sustainable Development Goals including SDG 2. Food systems need to be EQUITABLE and promote the livelihoods and NUTRITIONAL STATUS of the MOST VULNERABLE in food systems both in urban and rural areas (including smallholders, children, youth, and women) with a view to addressing their specific needs, access to safe, nutritious food, and enabling them to catalyze income generation to be drivers of change through their food choices. Investing in agri-food systems which make nutrient-rich foods available, at affordable prices for all, is needed in the region. Studies conducted in the region show that both consumers and producers must be further educated about the importance of different aspects of sustainability of food systems, and the effect of individual’s actions and food choices. More research is needed in this area to monitor new and potential trends. Special attention needs to be paid to nutrition, especially among young people who will bring the habit of healthy eating to the next generations. Small-holders and other actors responsible for producing and supplying our food can also be VULNERABLE. Young farmers continue to face many challenges including access to land, finance and income; affordable knowledge and innovation. INVESTMENTS and policies need to be tailored to build an agri-food system which creates good conditions for people who are producing our food. This includes overcoming the digital divide, improving access to technology, knowledge and skills, and allowing farmers to work collectively, including peer to peer learning. BOOSTING NATURE POSITIVE production and building CLIMATE-RESILIENT solutions, including financing greening of agricultural production and value chains. Policymakers need to get as much information as possible to make sound decisions and see possible trade-offs. Such information and data is not always available in the region. It is therefore important to enhance research studies aimed at collecting data on food systems and model data for the future. Win-wins will not only depend on good governance, solid investment but also data driven decision-making processes. More must be done to scale up efforts to develop CIRCULAR ECONOMY approaches which promote food security by dealing with food loss and waste. One of the ways to shift the food systems towards sustainability is closing material loops, optimizing recycling opportunities and designing loss and waste out of the system. INNOVATION can change not only the way how the food system works and make it much more efficient, but also, make consumers healthier. ECA however still faces significant digital divides and millions of people are disconnected. There are areas where there's no investment in the fast broadband and there is a challenge of exclusion of the end user. The emerging technologies offer great opportunities for the efficiency to the food systems. Innovation in all its forms is important, not only technological but social as well. Additionally innovation has many pathways, sometimes it can also mean going “back” to producing local heritage plants, such as Georgian wheats. It is important to promote a MULTI-SECTORAL APPROACH to the food system so all agencies can work together including governments, the private sector, civil society and academia. Some governments in the regions –- adopted an approach which ensures inclusive value change development and cooperation between the government and private sector. The efforts also need to enable people engagement and empowerment. People, including smallholders, food business operators, and consumers, should be empowered to innovate, empowered to contribute to healthier diets, green solutions.236238239241243244245246248249250251The key outcomes of the discussed topics prioritize the need to: 1. Strengthen common understanding of and political commitment towards sustainable food system development at regional and country levels, through a holistic and multi-sectoral approach Actions in making food systems more sustainable, based on research and local knowledge should be prepared and taken up by stakeholders, including policymakers in a collaborative and coherent manner. The Eurasian Economic Commission is an example of a regional institution that develops projects to improve trade logistics to make food more affordable and accessible. It is currently discussing a policy document on food security and has created a platform to help secure food accessibility during emergency situations, such as COVID-19. The much needed policy coherence for sustainable food systems, will only happen when action is taken at country level to facilitate cooperation between the line Ministries and other actors. The Republic of Armenia (Ministry of Economy) adopted such a system approach and created two platforms to ensure inclusive value change development and cooperation between the government and private sector. 2. Improve nutrition among vulnerable consumers, especially children and women Despite regulations on school feeding programmes, many schoolchildren make unhealthy and unsustainable food choices. Research shows that in the Western Balkans food taste is the most important determinant of food choice followed by purchase convenience, health and price. The power of consumer choice in shaping food systems should not be underestimated. 3. Encourage collaboration between government, farmers, academia and civil society organizations to develop concrete policies, including financial incentives, so that the transition to more sustainable – from the biodiversity and climate point of view – greening agriculture and food sector becomes a reality In many countries in the region, such as the Republic of Uzbekistan incentives (or programmes) to “green” food systems are being implemented. These include water saving technologies, smart cultivation and harvesting technologies, organic production, investment in targeted sorting, grading, storage and processing technologies as well as minimizing food loss and waste (i.e. Let’s do Macedonia). Matching knowledge transfer with financial incentives or subsidies was also highlighted. For example in Azerbaijan subsidies are offered to farmer cooperatives to stimulate application of modern technologies, such as irrigation systems. The EU Green Deal and its Farm to Fork strategy is a crucial part of the significant transition that countries in the region are embarking upon. The role of NGOs in the food system’s transformation should be advocated and promoted (i.e. Let’s do Macedonia - an initiative on food waste prevention). 4.Invest in inclusive value chain development Value chains can play a key role in driving transformation within the food system. Governments and the private sector need to work together to support small-holders and SMEs engage in functioning value chains, which lead to increased market access and household income generation. Sustainable value chains need investments in roads and infrastructure, uptake of technologies, safe use of agricultural inputs, and production practices which do not pollute the environment. In parallel, enabling policy to allow for innovation, appropriate use of financial instruments for greening of value chains, and ensuring foods produced are safe and nutritious. Evidently, there can be multiple gains for human and planetary health, and economic growth.2362392402422442462482492502515. Protecting natural resources, minimizing degradation of the environment and resilience to climate change impacts Transitioning to more sustainable approaches and to greener economy needs to have climate and environmental dimensions at the centre, involving both human capital, investments and innovation technologies (ICTs). Many of these investments can also enhance agricultural productivity right now, under current climate conditions, and the latest techniques and technologies are useful to share the information on the innovations that drive sustainable agriculture and make the farm operation more profitable. To address climate impacts effectively, it is first necessary to understand the incidence and scale of possible impacts, and then to look for appropriate adaptation strategies. These strategies will build the resilience of the sector in different agro-climatic conditions. Droughts and other weather shocks, loss of biodiversity, and balancing agri-food systems with reducing GHGs were all discussed. Work is ongoing in the region at different levels to discuss appropriate policies, ways to incentivize sustainable agri-food production, building data and early warning information systems, including on agro-metrology (joint initiative of WMO, FAO, EUMETSAT and MeteoRomania). Climate change impacts on agriculture rely on the modeling of long-term observations and agro-climatic data in order to establish risk assessment and to highlight areas with high vulnerability to extreme climate events. The data on climate change, crop production and water demand indices can be integrated in GIS techniques in order to identify areas with high vulnerability to water scarcity and drought. Organizations, such as National Hydrological and Meteorological Services in Romania, do long-term observations, store, exchange and process data and provide tailored informaton and services. 6. Develop and apply innovative methods of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) use within the food system in ECA E-agriculture in many parts of ECA still suffers from underinvestment. The younger generation is the bearer of IT skills and knowledge and “loosing” more youth from the countryside will constitute a big problem for modernizing agriculture. The digital gender divide in the region also remains a reality, with still fewer women than men benefiting from Internet use. The ITU which is involved in monitoring and changing this situation called for more action in building an equal digital future. 7. Support people, including the young to get involved in activities to transform food systems Central to the notion of an inclusive food system, is ensuring people can participate in discussions on how to transform the food system and what type of food system should exist in their community and country. Good governance and policies should create the conditions for this to happen. Generation Z, the first generation to have grown up with access to the Internet and portable digital technology from a young age, in the region are becoming more interested and engaged in the food systems shift towards sustainability. (CEJA and Act4Change).237238239240241242243244245246248249250251No real areas of divergence of opinion among panelists during the Dialogue, but some areas of divergence on the ground were highlighted: During the ECA Regional Dialogue young activists from the Republic of Kazakhstan representing children’s rights highlighted that there is a discrepancy between what is “good” food (distributed in schools) and what is desirable and attractive for youngsters - sweets, fast foods, etc. Another areas of divergence identified during the Dialogue was the need for a balance between affordable food prices for the consumer, and decent income for farmers, which also depends on access to finance (including for young farmers). The factors influencing consumer’s food choices also vary in different countries, and regions within a country. At times consumers are influenced by messages and education on healthy food, the desire for tasty food, or convenience, while at other times the cost of food is the main driver. Achieving sustainability in our food systems, needs action to create a more level playing field, so that sustainable practices are adopted and the profit margin values it, and avoid that the polluter is still getting away with polluting the environmentit. Coupled with fiscal incentives to prevent damage to water, soil, climate so that these costs are not to be externalised to future generations.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/agenda_25may-ECA-Regional-Dialogue.pdfhttps://unece.org/issue-based-coalition-sustainable-food-systemshttp://www.fao.org/europe/events/detail-events/en/c/1397986/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qdR8YgR5cY&feature=youtu.behttps://foodsystems.community/communities/food-systems-in-europe-and-central-asia/http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1402087/icode/https://www.itu.int/en/myitu/Publications/2020/07/09/15/27/Status-of-Digital-Agriculture-in-Europe-and-Central-Asiahttps://www.itu.int/pub/D-IND-DIG_TRENDS_EUR.01-2021https://www.itu.int/en/myitu/Publications/2021/04/19/15/12/Digital-trends-in-the-Commonwealth-of-Independent-States-region-2021

2021-07-23 15:05:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20703/203

8875327160282061732514311437541683

As knowledge brokering initiative these principles have always been foundational to the work that has been done with this group around food insecurity in crisis areas. There has been a long-term investment in building trust, including the right stakeholders, linking up to the right national and international fora to make knowledge work for international development. Being respectful and building trust to create a community that shares a similar goal, creating more alignment, coordination and understanding has been key to that. This meeting has been one further step in that process, which continues beyond the summit process.Act with urgency: The dialogue built on an earlier exchange from November 2020 with many of the same participants who are already committed to implementing food systems resilience interventions. Commit to the summit: This dialogue already engaged one of the Summit proto-coalitions, whose leads took part Be respectful: Good facilitation and working with online sticky notes ensured that all could be heard Recognize complexity: The meeting was dedicated to operationalizing food systems resilience as an approach, building on lessons from practice Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: This dialogue invited stakeholders from all aspects of the aid architecture and aid chain in protracted crises from international to local level practitioners, policymakers and experts as it discussed adapting aid architecture. Complement the work of others: The work of this group has been ongoing outside of the summit, linking up to for instance the Global Network Against Food Crises, inviting Food Security and Livelihood Clusters in concerned countries as well. Build trust: This was not just a meeting but a community that has been working together in a fluid form, moreover, the Chatham House Rule ensured people felt free to speak their mindNot at this time.

Yes

234242243244246248249250251On 1 July NFP, FAO, and WUR-CDI organized an Independent Dialogue for the Food Systems Summit. The Dialogue brought together a community of practice from the FAO and WCDI-led FNS REPRO programme in the Horn of Africa and a community of practice facilitated by NFP, to exchange on and engage with the emerging Coalition on Conflict & Hunger of the Food Systems Summit. Based on a learning trajectory, paper and game-changing solution the meeting examined if and how the aid architecture needs to change to address hunger in protracted crises, to identify concrete actions to come to more aligned and localized Humanitarian-Development-Peace nexus interventions through a common understanding of food systems in protracted crises, and take more evidence-based, adaptive approaches. The dialogue had three objectives: 1. Contribute to the Food Systems Summit process 2. Recommend key actions for the emerging Action Track 5 (proto-)coalition on Conflict & Hunger to take up 3. Finalize the draft paper on food systems resilience based on meeting inputs The Dialogue built on previous actions of the group to understand the added value of Food Systems Resilience and operationalize it FAO, WUR-CDI and NFP submitted a Game Changing Solution (GCS) to Food Systems Summit Action Track 5 (FSS AT5), which was accepted and now part of the Conflict & Hunger/HDP nexus working group solution cluster. The GCS is called ‘FNS-REPRO - Building Food System Resilience in Protracted Crisis/Fragile Settings’ and argues that a food systems resilience approach should be operationalized specifically for protracted crises. This call to operationalize food systems resilience stems from a regional learning exchange organized by FNS-REPRO and NFP in November 2020 (read the detailed meeting report here). At the exchange practitioners, researchers, policymakers discussed what the added value of a food systems resilience approach could be to challenges in local resilience programming by looking at the REPRO case, and cases of CARE, Cordaid and ZOA in the REPRO focus countries (Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan). At the November 2020 exchange, the objectives of the FSS AT5 were validated. Participants however found that the added value of food systems resilience as a concept and approach is not clear when examined from a local programming perspective. Participants found that much of current resilience programming in protracted crises could be seen as working towards elements of food systems resilience. The meeting concluded that for the concept of food systems resilience to add value in local contexts it should address the practical challenges currently faced by resilience programming in protracted crises. On the one hand this means that a food systems resilience approach still needs to be further operationalized, and in doing so can build on good practices from current resilience programming. On the other hand this means that it is precisely on these remaining challenges where the concept and approach of food systems resilience proves its added value. Building on those conclusions a (draft) paper was produced, which identifies three key aspects of food systems resilience as an approach: ● Firstly, by bridging the timeline cycle of relief, recovery, resilience and development. Addressing the awareness that humanitarian assistance is not a solution to ending food crises. ● Secondly, by taking a food systems perspective – based on an understanding that issues cannot be dealt with in isolation and solutions for programming lie in cross-cutting humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) approaches that respond to dynamics of food system behaviour. ● Thirdly, by building on the increasing centrality of perceptions and existing resilience capacities of local communities and actors. Analyzing a food system and its resilience capacities together with local communities tends to break through aid siloes based on predefined policy objectives. While local actors are best placed to understand the interaction between emerging food systems dynamics and resilience capacities.235242243244246248249250251As one participant remarked, the theory and insight on food systems resilience for protracted crises is all there, the challenge now lies in making it work – making it operational. Insofar as the aid architecture can be adapted to better facilitate external support for building resilient food systems the meeting had a rich harvest of concrete suggestions for the Coalition on Conflict & Hunger to take up. On the basis of these, engagement with the emerging Coalition can continue during and after the Food Systems Summit process. Moreover, many actions have been defined that organizations can take up outside of this coalition. Based on the different paper recommendations, the group split up into five discussion groups. Each group started with a statement for a vision of 2030, to discuss and propose actions to reach this goal. Groups discussed their agreement with the statements, expected challenges, what they and others could do to move towards this goal – ultimately working towards an action agenda for the Conflict & Hunger coalition. From the the group discussions three broad themes emerged for the Coalition on Conflict & Hunger to take up. Firstly, the coalition should work to bring actors together in the HDP nexus and support dialogue between different types of actors (e.g. donors, practitioners, local actors) around important topics for coordination. These include more long term and flexible funding, pooled funding and transparency around what different organizations are planning so that coordination can take place. A bottom-up approach should be taken in this, linking to the next point. As, secondly, the coalition should make sure it connects to local actors, mechanisms and structures. It should involve national governments, commit to developing national/regional capacity in the long term so that local stakeholders capacities are built to actively contribute to analysis and building of food systems resilience. Thirdly, the coalition should help equip practitioners with the information and data that they need. For instance by unlocking the power of data science, and further developing research methods to analyse food systems resilience. For more detailed outcomes please see the descriptions of the group discussions.236242243246248249250Panellists reflected on key challenges in the current aid architecture for the implementation of this agenda, and key elements for this group and the emerging coalition on Conflict & Hunger to bring it forward. Improving the aid architecture for protracted crises: ● Due to the different rationales and reasons for humanitarian and development aid it is still very hard to make the two meet. One opportunity to bridge the two lies in better prediction of where and when crises will hit. If that understanding goes together with insight into food systems dynamics, for instance where food comes from and where it will need to come from in the future, longer term planning and more systemic approaches may be possible. However, mobilizing support for such anticipatory action is still more difficult than mobilizing it when a crisis has already hit. ● Understanding that the aid architecture for protracted crises would need to improve for humanitarian and development efforts to align has been there for a long time. In that time there has already been change in this direction. Currently there is agreement among some like-minded donors that a much better coordinated approach is necessary. The Food Systems Summit and the concept of food systems is an opportunity to achieve this. ● Policymakers and practitioners can work together better to both have the overview of how a system works and what is needed, and connect that to an understanding of how food systems work from the perspective of local people. The current aid architecture is not yet conducive to understanding the performance of food systems from a local level, and identifying where resilience of systems needs to be built from there. Ways forward for data- and evidence-based working: ● Data aspect of AT5 Conflict & Hunger proto-coalition is appealing to donors. Yet donors also need data presented in a more neutral way than is currently the case, so that they can really rely on the data. Methodical approach is sometimes too thin to support claims made. The coalition and the Platforms it proposes can be places where that can be worked out: what data is necessary for donors and aid organizations to act early? ● When talking about independent analysis, better data that is more grounded and rapidly delivered. The investment in this compared to the actual costs of humanitarian assistance is minimal. The Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit in Somalia for instance costs 3-4 million per year, but informs 1 billion of aid per year. If better analysis can increase efficiency of this aid only by 10% the investment will be more than worth it. ● Currently much analysis focuses on what is the current situation, what are current needs, how many people do we talk about and what does that mean for food provisioning. Understanding of how food systems have changed and how this resulted in food insecurity is limited. Differences between resilience in regions could be taken better into account, as well as cross-border aspects of food systems – for people living in these areas they are one and the same system. Some accountability in the aid system should shift from addressing needs, towards addressing resilience of food systems (indirectly addressing needs and preventing them from arising). Key actions for the Conflict & Hunger Coalition: ● AT5 Conflict & Hunger coalition should link up better to what is already going on in countries in terms of planning. If the data and analytical centres are there, make sure that people at local level are aware of how to get the data and can act on it. Link these activities up to ongoing country level planning. ● A key challenge today is not just to do better external intervention, but more so to move some of the aid infrastructure to national public investment. The main aspect of this is to make sure that such national investment is shaped in a way that it addresses fragility. For this a strategic alliance between key donors, analysts and different actors working in humanitarian, development, and peace fields is needed to deliver concerted support to governments. The Global Network Against Food Crises is trying to achieve this.236242243248249Group 1. Evidence-based, adaptive programming in the HDP nexus “in 2030 all humanitarian-development-peace nexus programming for protracted crises takes an evidence-based, adaptive programming approach, as required in volatile and dynamic local contexts” What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? 1. Long-term commitment to invest in a regions capacity to develop local ability to work with an evidence-based approach i.e., making the process sustainable. 2. Emphasis on linking peacekeeping, humanitarian, and development in food systems resilience programmes i.e., the nexus approach, especially linking peace actors at country level with the humanitarian and development work. 3. Unlocking the power of data science as an important tool: Integrating learning knowledge development by learning from mistakes and adapting interventions. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? ● Long-term funding structures for food systems resilience developed and adapted to joint multi-year food systems interventions. ● Existence of country level platforms working in the HDP nexus approach: Creating/building on existing platforms for actors to come together, identify their principles of engagement, and discuss food systems resilience interventions and ways to scale up. What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? ● There is the challenge of making sure that all voices are represented in the face of power structures. This requires trust-building which often takes time, and such an issue can’t necessarily be solved with money. ● Challenge of humanitarian excesses such as in Yemen where all countries moving out makes it difficult for humanitarian workers to work in these areas. ● Important to highlight the difference between co-creation and extensive learning. Co-creation happens when there are opportunities to do things as planned or differently while extensive learning is more that they are a part of setting the learning agenda, which is often already set by donors. Therefore, local partners should be given a chance to create or change the learning agenda. ● There is also a gap in the learning agenda across implementing partners. ● The 17 SDGs have given us a common language and a common goal which is important for setting the base for co-creation. Incubator spaces are therefore helpful, and they create innovation spaces which are helpful in reaching these common goals. ● We should also be aware of local power structures that stand in the way of co-creation and give a chance for an agenda set by locals, especially inclusion of women and youth. ● There is a challenge of inequalities regarding data access by local communities, which can be solved by empowering the local communities to use and generate data and evidence and interlink it with local knowledge and local knowledge systems. ● Where local data is not of the best quality, we can use reputable organizations to help. Also, by these communities generating more data, it keeps improving and being refined. What contributions will our organisations make? ● Local training and capacity building for sustainable generation, use and application of the evidence for learning and informing programming. ● Making adaptive programming design part of programme theory of change i.e., part of the initial programme design ● To influence the knowledge of local actors to combine evidence with local knowledge to inform sustainable pathways for food systems resilience interventions, not only learning technical skills but also how to implement it well. ● Making sure the current engagement programme has data science implemented by having incubation spaces for innovation and co-creation which will take longer term commitments. ● Donors should take a longer-term perspective of funding and allow space for mistakes, which are also part of the learning process. ● Strategic actors should be involved in design, especially government actors.236242243245246249Group 2. Food systems resilience analysis, co-created with local actors, guides funding “in 2030 the majority of funding for protracted crises is guided by food systems resilience analysis, which is co-created with local stakeholders and actors” What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? 1. Ensuring that all FSR work is done bottom up with local actors on board. This could be achieved, e.g. through making collaboration with local actors a requirement for receiving funds in the first place. Involving and creating buy-in from local governments 2. Advocate for flexible and long-term funding mechanisms based on evidence (adaptive programming). This needs to go hand in hand with mechanisms that enable evidence-based programming: Required is developing, testing, validating and improving mainstreamed Food System Resilience Assessment tools / frameworks 3. Bringing different actors together (private sector, NGOs, UN, governments, higher education and research (ideally in co-ordinated N-S-S partnerships). Building a platform of agencies that work on FSR. Mainstreaming approaches and sharing of best practices (preventing that the wheel is reinvented). How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Has not been extensively discussed in the group, only touched upon. ● But answers would tend towards: decision making closer to local context; seeing in long-term retrospective studies if / how interventions influenced outcomes; reduced need for international staff through better skilled locals to take over. What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? ● Lack of political will (Donors may themselves lack the flexibility to arrange funding on this basis since often the parliament has their own strict funding cycles that policy makers depend on. So indeed, political transformation is needed) ● Lack of skilled manpower ● Agencies competing over funds instead of collaborating ● A risk is to simplify complex reality and dynamics. Different shocks/stressors require targeted and specific interventions. This requires sounds understanding on shock/stressor occurrence / impacts to build resilience (resilience: of what, to what, for whom, through what?) ● Donors should require greater coordination between humanitarian and development actors; layer funding so that humanitarian and development funding intentionally overlaps (because contexts can change), and donors should plan further out for humanitarian funding (we know which shocks/stresses are likely in each country... so even if funding is limited to 12-18 moths, we can make a 5yr plan) What contributions will our organisations make? ● Educational institutes in the HoA are committed to contribute to creating skilled manpower to conduct assessments and coordinate effectively ● Being reflective professionals who are committed to continuously learn ● influence implementation of extension policies and strategies ● Maintaining a setting up additional N-S-S partnerships ● Setting minimum standards and the rules of the game for food system analysis .. and make sure this creates the foundation for developing food system resilience pathways (what interventions are needed - and who is best place to do that)?236242243245246249250Group 3. Funding and contracting frameworks in a food systems HDP nexus approach “In 2030 80% of donor funding to protracted crises is pooled, and inter-donor HDP nexus strategies are founded on and guided by food systems resilience analysis.” What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? 1. High level commitment from member states to commit to pooling majority of funding in protracted crises 2. More developed methodologies and processes of scoping for food systems resilience research 3. More involvement and capacitation of local stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, sectors and expertise with experience and knowledge of specific contexts How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? ● Percentages of pooled funding in areas such as Horn of Africa, Middle East, and other fragile settings will have increased. What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? ● Participants questioned how realistic it really is to have donors commit their funding in a pooled fashion to such a level. It was done in Myanmar through the multi-donor LIFT Fund, which was set up during the previous military regime due countries willingness to engage in development without setting up diplomatic ties with Myanmars military. In other countries there are similar funds. However, there will may always be individual countries with own interests, relations and history that lead them to set up their own initiatives. ● To what extent does this approach lead to the setting up of new mechanisms/platforms. It is important to work with existing thematic mechanisms in-country such as UN Clusters – need to work with what is there not create new platforms from scratch ● How to define scope of food resilience analysis: how to balance level of detail needed at local level with larger national and international dynamics, and how to let local stakeholders actively play a role in this analysis and feel capacitated to contribute ● To have this analysis will be one thing, how to ensure the analysis is also shared and utilized by different stakeholders at different levels. Complexity of data collection and possibility of too abstract findings may be a trade-off to participation, even though we need all different stakeholders to contribute and act based on information/data collected. What contributions will our organisations make? ● Involve women, youth in food system related programming ● Raise our voices for further localisation and embedding ● Endeavor to work with various stakeholders including private sector ● Commit to finding local ownership of creative solutions236242245248249250Group 4. Flexibility in programming allows for integrated HDP nexus response “in 2030 all funding to interventions in protracted crises allows flexibility, to allow for and facilitate integrated humanitarian-development-peace intervention” What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? 1. Information and data – equipping practitioners to monitor situations as they conduct their activities, and investing in gathering accurate real-time data to inform flexible planning and programming. For example, who are the target groups, how are their needs changing, when is the critical moment to switch approach and which approach is most appropriate? 2. Dialogue – more exchanges are needed between different types of donor, practitioner and local actors, to help operationalize flexibility, facilitate ‘handovers’ / smooth transitions between phases or activities, and understand the needs, constraints and responsibilities of different stakeholders. 3. Leadership – an entity to provide the bigger picture / longer-term view, integrate the different aspects of flexible programming and put them all firmly on the agenda (including the aspect of environment and natural resources in both humanitarian and development work). How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? ● First, we must operationalise flexibility / food system resilience in order to be able to recognise it within programme proposals, organisation and activities. This includes having indicators for the full response cycle (anticipation, prevention, early action, response and recovery). Thereafter, measuring flexibility within a project/programme would entail examining how they score in line with these different elements. ● It could also involve looking at to what extent budgets are made flexible (e.g. the portion set aside for flexibility and shifting activities) and how often flexibility is explicitly mentioned within proposals and ToRs. ● The number of dialogues held on this issue. What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? ● Whether emergencies should be left as emergencies. Not to lose the meaning of an emergency by mixing it in with broader development schemes. ● The trade-off between giving space to adapt projects in a way which maximises outcomes and fits current local context, and losing accountability due to shifting targets or losing site of the goal (distraction from the main objectives). ● Ideology versus reality. Coordination issues, side effects and insufficient information may make flexibility difficult in practice. Working in parallel and embedding M&E throughout the process rather than at the end could help with this. ● It is necessary to have clear pathways and plans in place for switching approaches in different scenarios, rather than just the flexibility to change however is felt at the time. What contributions will our organisations make? ● The coalition is well placed to take up a leadership role, to gather awareness and momentum, to facilitate these dialogues between stakeholders, and to push forward the agenda for data and flexibility.236242243245246249250Group 5. Common principles for HDP engagement in protracted crises “in 2030 all humanitarian, development, peace organizations as well as funders intervening in protracted crises adhere to a common set of principles for engagement with food systems in protracted crises” What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? 1. Transparency – If there is a real desire for cooperation through a common set of principles a lot more is possible. Actors should start by broadly sharing data they have available. For instance, share what you are planning in more detail so that coordination can take place. This should also include UN agencies. 2. Connecting to existing mechanisms and institutions - Connect to existing mechanisms for NGO coordination, like the Food Security and Livelihood Clusters, local/national universities and research institutes, to develop strong coordination and a joint approach. 3. Involving national governments - By involving national governments of countries affected by protracted crises, or religious organizations (and bond/trust between these and government) where government is absent. Governments can build coalitions like DRA, which has promoted alignment. But also in Ethiopia, the government got ten donors to work together on the Social Safety Net programme, this clear desire for external partners to work together helped alignment. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? ● National governments take the lead and push external donors and organizations to work together. ● FSL clusters develop common principles for food systems resilience analysis, that involves local institutions ● I/NGOs share plans and approaches for development oriented work through FSL Clusters or other mechanisms are developed to do this What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? ● Though participants found it a good idea to align HDP nexus interventions through a common set of principles they noted that currently the approaches taken by organizations are quite different. For humanitarian aid the sector tries to create alignment through the Grand Bargain, but there is no such thing yet for the development sector ● Participants also questioned the ability of organizations to always be in alignment. In some areas it is possible to align and determine the response, but in other areas of crisis this is not the case due to the severity of the crisis (for instance conflict). ● Participants also mentioned that in areas affected by conflict it may be difficult to create alignment based on community preferences as there groups may be in conflict with each other. ● It may also be difficult to create alignment as long as interventions are separated by national borders. In the Horn of Africa a regional perspective is key. If you take a food systems perspective you need to take into account Ethiopia even when working in Sudan and Somalia. ● Even within the same government it can be difficult to create coherence. For instance foreign policy and military strategy of one donor government may not be aligned with humanitarian, development, peace interventions implemented by its aid arm. As long as this coherence is not addressed in case of conflicts the hard security approach undermines development efforts. ● Furthermore, it may not even be possible to reach the areas where aligned intervention is needed in case of conflict. What contributions will our organisations make? ● Share data on programme implementation, details of planning, in coordination structures237242243244246247248249250A key divergence on the main topic of the meeting was about whether it was the aid architecture that needs to be adapted in protracted crises - to better facilitate food systems resilience to fight food crises - or if fundamental aspects like improved governance would count more towards that end. Food systems resilience is a relatively new approach, that builds on experience of resilience and disaster risk reducation approaches. While a (localized) food systems resilience lens inherently brings the cross-sectoral perspective needed for humanitarian-development-peace interventions, it depoliticizes the issue of crisis since external interventions have limited influence over governance conditions. Beyond this main issue, five breakouts groups all focused on different aspects where the aid architecture could be improved to facilitate food systems resilience building. The groups discussed based on statements to which they could agree or disagree and develop a concrete action agenda. Each came up with different areas of convergence. A first group, discussing the need for evidence-based, adaptive approaches noted that to do this right long-term, trust-based, local involvement is necessary. This is necessary for all voices to be included in the face of power structures, which cannot be just solved by spending larger amounts of money as the statement may suggest. Often learning agendas are also set by donors, while local partners should be given a chance to set the agenda. Moreover, learning based approaches are also difficult to implement if (humanitarian) access is restricted in conflict areas. A second group discussed the need for investment in protracted crises to be guided by food systems resilience analysis, co-created with local actors. Some participants agreed that communities are best placed to articulate their own resilience strategies, that true localization is very important, that a clear structure for the analysis should be in place and funding available. Other participants questioned whether there really is an interest locally to build resilient food systems, asking who sets this agenda? It may also be difficult for communities to fully have the system perspective for which they will need to rely partly on research organizations. This could simplify complex realities. Another risk seen was that a food systems resilience approach was not clear enough yet, which may result in repackaged old ways in new approaches. Furthermore, taking very flexible approaches may not be possible for donors to support due to restrictions they face with funding. The third group discussed the need for pooled funding and inter-donor HDP nexus strategies through food systems resilience analysis. On the one hand participants agreed because this would help improve the enabling environment, to better meet the demand of communities - as long as such an analysis does not lead to a one-size-fits-all approach. If this is a national level analysis, how does this balance with need for detail at local level, and the need to let local actors contribute? They questioned how realistic pooled funding was. It has been tried in some countries, but there will always be individual interests and this call has been there since the Paris Agreements. Such an approach should also work with existing in country mechanisms such as the UN clusters and not create new platforms. Finally, beyond having this analysis participants wondered how it would be ensured that it was used by different stakeholders at different levels. Its complexity may be a trade-off to participation. The fourth group focused on the need for flexibility to facilitate humanitarian-development-peace interventions. Participants agreed that it was a way to engage with a changing context to maximize outcomes in crisis areas. However they also felt that with shifting targets there would be less accountability, and that it would risk losing the meaning of emergency programming if they are mixed with longer term development programming. Moreover, coordination issues, and lack of information may make flexibility difficult to implement in practice. Therefore it may be necessary to have clear pathways and plans ready in place, to switch approaches in different scenarios to structure how flexibility is implemented. The fifth group discussed the need for common principles between humanitarian, development and peace organizations and funders to engage food systems in protracted crises. Though alignment through common principles in the HDP nexus was supported, the group noted that currently approaches differ a lot between organizations. There is no such thing as the Grand Bargain yet for development organizations. Common principles for these different actors would also be difficult to achieve in areas facing severe crisis, like active conflict. Alignment of interventions would need to cross national borders, so a regional perspective would be key in this. Moreover, in the case of conflict there is already limited coherence even within the foreign policies of donors (for instance on hard security versus development), which further complicates this.

At the independent dialogue a draft version of the paper was discussed, after the dialogue the writing process continued - including the inputs gathered during the meeting. This is the finalized paper that was published as a result.2023-03-29 14:58:44

2021-07-23 15:07:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29386/41

2231812204524343962

The York Region Youth Food Committee (YFC) hosted a United Nations Food Systems Summit Independent Dialogue that aimed to bring youth voices into the broader conversation taking place at the Food System Summit. Through hosting an Independent Dialogue, the YFC was able to engage with other youth in the region, province, and beyond. Youth have unique concerns, innovative ideas, and will ultimately inherit the food systems currently in place. The YFC incorporated and reinforced the Principles of Engagement laid out by the United Nations throughout the process of holding the Dialogue. The Dialogue was centred around the Principles of “Act with Urgency” and “Commit to the Summit”, with the SDGs and ways to move forward as the focus and drive behind the Dialogue. While organizing the event, the organizers sought to “Complement the Work of Others” by echoing the topics and conversations happening across our region, and through building connections with other youth groups. The Dialogue was structured to “Recognize the Complexity” of the issues impacting food systems by hosting the conversation in two parts. Organizers “Embraced Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity” by including a diversity of voices from different cultures, backgrounds, and sectors (including public health, agriculture, academia, environment, and ecology). The breakout conversations during the Dialogue were centred around “Being Respectful” of one another and of differing opinions and “Building Trust” with participants. After holding the Dialogue, the organizers continue to enhance the Principles by following up with participants, building on relationships formed during this process, and using the findings from the Dialogue as a springboard for their events, advocacy and actions moving forward.Act with Urgency- Despite limited time to plan and implement the Dialogue, the YFC acknowledged youth voices as a vital pathway to food systems transformation, which led to organizing a youth-led and youth-oriented discussion. Commit to the Summit- The Dialogue provided youth with a platform to discuss food systems issues. As the convenors, our network was expanded and partnerships were formed during the planning process. Official feedback will be used to inform the YFC’s actions on advocacy and projects. Be Respectful- The facilitators promoted the Principle of respect by providing everyone with an opportunity to voice their perspective and ensuring openness to different viewpoints. Recognize Complexity- The organizers acknowledged the complexity of food systems by separating the Dialogue into two parts. This structure allowed for a deeper discussion on intricate and intersecting issues. The keynote speakers also elaborated on the complexity through critical thinking during their presentations. Moreover, complexity was echoed in the representation of voices from different backgrounds and sectors. Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity- Youth working and/or involved in the areas of public health, forestry and conservation, nutritional sciences, food security, climate justice, food policy, and food systems were invited to the Dialogue. Complement the Work of Others- The YFC was able to connect with several youth groups and organizations operating in the region. In addition, our committee promoted the work of grassroots organizations, youth farmers, and community groups through social media and word-of-mouth. Build Trust- To maintain transparency and trust between participants and organizers, the YFC created a safe and welcoming environment for participants by keeping any data collected anonymous, encouraging open dialogue, asking for consent, and sharing the Dialogue summary with all participants.We recommend that Dialogue Convenors include time for introductions and a social icebreaker prior to starting a dialogue between stakeholders to uphold the “Build Trust” Principle. Introductions should allow participants to express their personal gender pronouns and preferred name. A social icebreaker should be brief, such as asking participants “What is your favourite food?”. We also recommend that Dialogue Facilitators encourage different forms of communication during discussion such as emojis and text by means of a chat box. We recommend the UN Food Systems Summit ensure underrepresented voices are present at the event, specifically peasant and Indigenous-led groups. Including these groups will ensure it is a “people’s summit” and reflect the principles of engagement. In addition, financial support, such as grants, for Independent Dialogue Convenors is needed from the Summit to pay for technology support and honorariums for keynote speakers. Lasty, Independent Dialogue Convenors require a multitude of resources, such as time, money, and people, to convene a dialogue.

NoThis Dialogue was convened on two separate evenings, as virtual events to address the topics of Food Justice (Day 1) and Sustainable Food Systems (Day 2). Each event was structured similarly to the Standard Dialogue Run of Show with an opening plenary, a keynote speaker presentation, a 1-hour breakout discussion group, and a brief group discussion summary. Breakout discussions consisted of groups of 4-8, including a facilitator and a notetaker. Facilitators developed questions based on the Reference Manual to guide the conversation, while notetakers used Chatham House Rules to collect data. Also, the YFC created a learning resource document (LRD) to complement the youth dialogue. The LRD is a compilation of articles, reports, and media on topics related to our Dialogue discussions. The LRD served as a tool for participants to continue conversations that occurred during the events. The Dialogue followed the method by selecting topics for discussion that relate to the objectives of the Summit. The Food Justice topic relates to Action Track 4. Inequitable access to resources, unpaid work, and labour issues of farmers emerged during the discussion. Additionally, a lack of youth and BIPOC representation in agriculture was also discussed, which relates to the Summit objective of “Advancing Equitable Livelihoods”. The second virtual event and discussion topic, Sustainable Food Systems, related largely to Action Track 3. The keynote speaker for this topic spoke mostly about the role of regenerative agriculture as a solution to the climate crisis. Improved soil health, increased biodiversity, and carbon sequestration are benefits of regenerative agriculture that reflect nature-positive food production. Based on participant feedback, the Dialogue was generally well-received. Youth were given a platform to discuss food systems issues and youth barriers and challenges. It was noted that 1 hour for discussion on topics was “not enough time” for some participants. We believe all voices were heard during the discussions, however, facilitation on encouraging equal speaking times for participants could have been improved. A few participants also expressed that dialogues like this one may be inaccessible to youth who are unfamiliar with food systems and food issues. Most of the participants had post-secondary education and were already involved in food-related work. Therefore, these participants were aware (or familiar) of concepts and issues such as ecology, food sovereignty, and local food politics. It is the YFC’s duty to make future dialogues more accessible and friendly to all youth, regardless of education and level of awareness of food systems.

234238239241244247251This Independent Dialogue was formed to capture youth voices as young people will inherit the future food system and therefore, youth play a critical role in transforming food systems. This youth-led Dialogue, titled Empowering Youth Food Systems Leaders, focused on food systems issues and how we can support youth to be agents of change in food system transformation. Food systems face plenty of challenges from labour issues, to food waste, to hunger, therefore the need to make food systems more innovative, inclusive, just, and sustainable was identified by dialogue convenors. Two discussion topics, convened over two days, were selected as key areas of concern for youth in food systems: Food Justice and Sustainable Food Systems. Food justice needs to be centred in food systems discussions and food system transformation. As youth conveners, we used a food justice lens: acknowledging that several forms of oppression (e.g. racism, colonialism, classism, sexism) have formed and are embedded in our current food system. Food justice is a call to dismantle inequities in the food system. Food injustices are a result of policies, actions, and rules by institutions and systems that hold the most power. Some examples of food injustices are the dispossession of land, hunger as a weapon, prevalence of higher food insecurity rates in Black and Indigenous households, and poor working conditions for migrant food workers. The role of youth in sustainable food systems was also important for this dialogue since the SDGs are yet to be achieved. The youth conveners recognize a food system to be sustainable when it is profitable throughout (economic sustainability), it has broad-based benefits for society (social sustainability), and has a positive or neutral impact on the natural environment (environmental sustainability). Two youth farmers were selected as speakers to inspire dialogue on food justice and sustainability. Speaker 1 presented on and educated participants on food security, food sovereignty, and food justice. Speaker 1 discussed how food intersects with many social issues such as gender inequality, housing, and income. The speaker also emphasized food system inequities, particularly the exclusion of peasant and Indigenous voices in the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The dialogue convenors also acknowledged this inequity during the planning process. Speaker 2 educated participants on regenerative agriculture and climate change. Speaker 2 discussed climate change as the most pressing issue we are facing as a global community. Agriculture is both impacted by climate change and offers solutions to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Speaker 2 emphasized agroecology and regenerative agriculture as the future of agriculture. However, as sustainable food systems include social, environmental and economic sustainability, the speaker noted that while regenerative agriculture offers many benefits such as improved soil health, plant biodiversity, and carbon sequestration, there are many risks and challenges involved. Farmers may face challenges such as lack of sustainable financing, pests, and consumer demand for a variety of crops. Since empowering youth food systems leaders was the major focus and title of the Dialogue, discussion questions prompted by facilitators for each discussion topic (Food Justice and Sustainable Food Systems) focused on the youth perspective of a just and sustainable food system, identifying barriers and challenges youth face in contributing towards food systems that prioritize food justice and sustainability, and strategies to overcome these barriers and challenges.235238239241244247251Our Independent Summit uncovered the challenges and opportunities faced by youth—the participants and facilitators alike—that could be used to educate and uplift youth contributions to an equitable and sustainable food system in Canada and across the world. Youth face many challenges getting involved in the food system. The most critical barriers that our Independent Dialogue uncovered are lack of food systems education, unpaid work, and underrepresentation of youth in the food system. In Canada, food systems careers and social issues in the food system are not a part of school curriculums. Youth may not even be aware of the career possibilities and opportunities for involvement. In addition, many internships in agriculture and food systems are unpaid, which makes them inaccessible. Most farms and businesses want 2-3 years of experience for starting positions, but there are limited pathways that are actually accessible to youth. Furthermore, the prevalent image of a farmer in Canada is the “old white man”. Youth need to be able to “see themselves” in the food system in order to be encouraged to take part. The Dialogue also uncovered numerous facilitators that can uplift youth into the food system and identified opportunities for innovation in our institutions. For example, to address the lack of intersectional food systems education in the Canadian school systems, it is crucial to set a curriculum surrounding food literacy and opportunities in the food system. It is also important to provide students with experiences out on the land to build an appreciation for nature and the food system through school gardens or access to urban farms. Grants and bursaries for programs and learning opportunities that expose youth to careers in the food system can help address financial barriers. It is particularly imperative to create programs and mentoring opportunities for BIPOC youth to get involved so that the food systems workforce reflects the diverse make-up of Canada. Combatting whiteness in the food system and greenwashing is critical to ensure we honour all cultures and ways of growing food. In accordance with the sustainable development goals set out by the UN, our Dialogue was also able to highlight areas of improvement for the Canadian food system as a whole. The Dialogue identified opportunities to improve environmental sustainability and equity in the food system. Environmental sustainability involves the system as a whole—to ensure that no harm is being done to the environment. This can be achieved by ensuring the food system is low waste and that individual daily habits demonstrate sustainable practices. Regenerative practices need to be incorporated in agriculture and should be encouraged through government grants and bursaries. Individuals should be encouraged to follow sustainable diets which generate low and decreased food waste. Sustainable diets should be locally sourced, financially accessible and culturally appropriate for all Canadians. A just food system is one where everyone has access to healthy and culturally appropriate foods that are made using fair methods. Many Indigenous communities live in communities with boil water advisories and it is essential to improve their access to safe drinking water. In addition, it is important to create more opportunities for Indigenous food sovereignty. Moreover, there is room to improve the food charity methods we use aimed to address food insecurity, to ensure that individuals are aware of these programs and can access them with dignity. Furthermore, temporary foreign migrant workers face many discriminatory policies despite being essential to Canada’s food production system.236238241245247251What values should a just food system demonstrate? Diversity was largely emphasized by participants, both in the food we eat and in people who work in the food system. A just food system should provide culturally-appropriate foods that are easy to access, which includes seed sovereignty in order for citizens and farmers to grow their own culturally-appropriate foods. Therefore, food sovereignty is a key contributor to a just food system. Participants agreed that freedom means not relying on (predominantly Westernized) grocery stores for food. People should not need to rely on supermarket chains where culturally-relevant foods are sparse and nutritious foods such as fresh produce are expensive relative to cheaper, calorie-dense processed foods. People should be able to grow their own foods in response to the inaccessibility of nutritious foods due to financial or geographic barriers. Additionally, relatively expensive and inaccessible foods, such as whole vegetables and fruits that are recommended by the 2019 Canada’s Food Guide, should be subsidized in order for the food system to reflect accessibility to a nutrient-diverse, healthy range of food for consumers. Diversity in people working within the food system calls for their appreciation, namely towards farmers and temporary foreign migrant workers. The voices of such food system workers, especially marginalized and racialized workers, must be prioritized and listened to for the food system to be just. Participants stated that this can be achieved through a democratic system where workers have a platform for their voices, concerns, and suggestions for improvement. Their voices should be considered when decisions are made regarding the food system and policy, instead of prioritizing the voices of those not directly affected by the food system. Fair compensation, living wages for farmers and food system workers, and land access for farmers are also necessary for a just food system, and can be made more attainable with a democratic system. Appreciation to farmers and food system workers should also be given by consumers. It was also commented that a just food system is one that works parallel to nature and regenerates soil. As soil health is often neglected and is far from a renewable resource, regenerative agriculture should be a primary aim towards a just food system that supports future generations of farming.236238241245247251What are the challenges/barriers youth face in food systems in contributing towards food systems that prioritize food justice? Lack of education around food systems in schools is a barrier to Canadian youth getting involved in the food system. Participants commented that in Canadian schools, food systems and agriculture careers are presented as unappealing because they are associated with poverty, lower-class and large investments of time and money. Participants called for schools to provide a robust education on food system careers and how the food system works. Participants identified that opportunities to get on the land and hands-on experience in nature or gardens are an important part of building an appreciation for food and the people who work in the food system. In addition, participants noted that taking students out on the land is particularly important for urban and low-income neighbourhoods where the youth may have few other opportunities. The curriculum should also cover social justice issues and exploitation of marginalized communities in the food system, such as foreign temporary migrant workers and Indigenous people. To achieve this, participants suggested that leaders in food system reform, including Indigenous elders, should be consulted during the curriculum revision process. The food system curriculum should be universal instead of being taught by a non-profit so that everyone has the same level of access. Participants identified that it can be daunting to participate in a discussion because often the vocabulary is unfamiliar to people who do not have a formal education regarding the discussion topic, therefore education is key for youth to get involved and participate in the discussion around food systems. Representation is an important aspect of encouraging youth to engage in the food system. Participants commented on seeing few people of colour, women and young people in the food system. In Canada, approximately 2% of the population are farmers and the typical image of farmers are “old white men”. The involvement of youth in agriculture could be increased if youth can “see themselves” in the food system. A fair and equal food system needs to represent the community that is participating in it. Additionally, it was noted that less than 2% of the 2% of farmers in Canada are involved in the National Farmers Union. As this was described as the most progressive farmers union in Canada which supports all the values that Dialogue participants discussed, there must be greater incentives and encouragement for farmers and youth interested in farming to get involved with this union. Unity of people with shared beliefs and power in number is imperative for food system policy changes. Unpaid work is a barrier to youth participating in the food system. Many internships in agriculture and food systems are unpaid, which makes them inaccessible to many students. Unpaid labour can result in “burnout” if students have to financially support themselves while balancing internships, school, and extracurricular activities. It is discouraging for youth who are interested in getting involved if they are not fairly compensated. Furthermore, participants commented that intergenerational wealth is almost a necessity to afford land and start-up costs in Canadian agriculture. In addition, working on farms requires long hours of hard work which is not always compensated with fair wages. It is imperative that youth are compensated fairly for their hard work so that they are able to take part in the food system.236238241245247249251What opportunities do you see to create a more just food system? Indigenous communities face many inequities in the Canadian food system. There are numerous Indigenous communities in Ontario and across Canada that still have boil water advisories and do not have reliable or easy access to safe drinking water. In Northern Canada, food prices are much higher than in the Southern provinces, which makes it very difficult for families to afford food. In addition, some areas in Canada have hunting bans, which prohibit access to traditional hunting grounds and limit the food sovereignty of Indigenous communities. Participants identified that in order to create a just food system we need to reform our food system to address the inequities that Indigenous communities face. Participants also expressed the need to involve and listen to the voices of Indigenous people in the food system. Food insecurity is often addressed by the use of food charity in Canada. Participants identified that there are areas of improvement in Canada’s food charity system. Individuals can be more comfortable using food charities, such as food banks, when they are certain the organization is non-judgemental and confidential. Food charities also need to be accessible so that individuals can easily locate them and that they are able to access them. Participants identified that some individuals who could benefit from food charities may not access the services because they do not think they fit the criteria or feel shame in accessing the services. To help lessen the negative stigma attached to food charities, the participants suggested these services advertise that they are open to all people without requirements. Food charities also need to have good quality and healthy food available. Participants identified that a barrier to individuals accessing a food charity such as a food bank may be that food is served on a first-come-first-serve basis and people arriving late will get the “ugly-looking” produce. Temporary foreign migrant workers are essential to food and agriculture production in Canada, yet face discriminatory policies. Migrant workers' visas are often tied to their employer therefore employers hold power over job security. This can cause workers to be hesitant to speak up about injustices. Participants identified that it is important for migrant workers to receive “landed status” upon arrival in Canada and for workers to have access to the same rights that any Canadian employee would have. Legislative changes are needed to create equity among the people who work in the production and agriculture sector of our food system. The introduction of Bill 216, Food Literacy for Students Act, 2020 into the Ontario education system in Canada presents an opportunity for curriculum change. Supporting the bill as a youth group would support other youth from grade 1 to 12 to receive food literacy education in the classroom, which currently is not mandated or permanent across the system. The amendment to the current school curriculum states that “Food literacy, including experiential or hands-on skills learned in gardens and kitchens, is critical for making healthy food choices that enable self-reliance and improve human health” in the Food Literacy for Students Act, 2020. The approval of the Act which is currently under-review will help us in applying educational change to youth in Ontario, Canada.236239240244249What does sustainability and a sustainable food system mean/look like to you? A sustainable food system is one that does not harm the environment, is economically viable and promotes justice for all its workers. Environmental sustainability involves the system as a whole to ensure that no harm is being done to the environment. This can be achieved by ensuring the food system is low waste and that individual daily habits demonstrate sustainable practices. The Seventh Generation Principle was appreciated by participants, which is a concept by the Haudenosaunee in that “the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future.”[1] Participants identified how the understanding of sustainability has been altered to seeing surface-level changes, such as using paper straws or bamboo cutlery, as methods to maintain sustainability; In reality, it is the system as a whole that needs to change. Participants also identified the ethical dilemma for grassroots organizations to secure funding. For example, grants for grassroots movements, such as youth food policy councils, may come from corporations with activities that result in environmental degradation. This is a double-edged sword that allows companies to “greenwash” themselves and hide the damage they are doing to the environment. Participants also noted food waste as a major sustainability issue that should be addressed on an individual and corporate level. People should be encouraged to be mindful of their food waste and take steps to mitigate it. Moreover, corporations should also be held accountable. Economic sustainability is essential to ensure that companies in the food system are able to use sustainable practices. For example, while regenerative agriculture on farms is ideal, it may be a financial risk that farmers are not able to take or invest in. Participants identified that it is important to create legislative changes that incentivize farmers to move towards sustainable practices. Equity and justice need to be at the forefront of a sustainable food system. Participants identified that there is an inequity of access to and availability of food across the world where some communities have an abundance and others do not have enough. Participants also suggested the importance of “Treating others the way you want to be treated” in that we have a responsibility to take care of the environment and take only what we need. These values were also reflected in the conversation of fair financial compensation for individuals working across the food system. [1] https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/seventh-generation-principle236239244249251How to get youth leaders involved in sustainable food systems? Education and opportunities for engagement are critical for getting youth leaders involved in sustainable food systems. Participants identified that learning can take many forms such as through school programs, urban gardens and eco-tourism. Schools can implement seed education programs or teach science and numeracy through food. It is important for students to get the opportunity to spend time out on the land, such as through school gardens, where they can build an appreciation for nature. Furthermore, youth should learn about critical issues in the food system and should be encouraged to take action. One participant shared an example of youths at their university who had organized a climate strike where youth gathered and led a large group of their peers to walk out of class in support of climate justice. Youth need to see examples of successful change so that they are not discouraged about standing up for issues they believe in. Urban farms and urban gardens can be a gateway for youth to learn more about food systems issues and to connect with farmers. These spaces can expose youth to different career prospects and build an appreciation for nature. These spaces are especially important in urban areas where youth may not have other opportunities. Participants identified that eco-tourism can have numerous benefits such as exposing youth to nature, helping to build a convention with Indigenous communities in the area and strengthening the local economy. Eco-tourism is a form of tourism involving responsible travel to natural areas. Participants also identified that eco-tourism does pose some challenges as it can result in damage to the ecosystem. For example, some of the Canadian and American national parks are treated like a theme park instead of with the respect and understanding that it is a living ecosystem.236239241244251What barriers do youth face in getting involved in a sustainable food system? Educational barriers prevent youth from being aware of issues in the food system. Participants identified that unless you are exposed to the food system field, you would not know about the people, organizations or the challenges that are faced. Participants identified that curriculum about food systems in Canadian schools and exposure through hands-on experience are currently limited. Financial barriers prevent youth from getting involved in food systems or from developing sustainable practices and lifestyles. Intergenerational wealth is almost a necessity to be able to afford land and start-up costs in Canadian agriculture. In addition, shifting agricultural, diets and food system practices to be more sustainable is costly and a financial risk. Youth who are just starting in the agriculture or food systems sector may not be able to risk changing their practices for fear they do not work and do not produce enough product to break even. Participants identified that perhaps the government could provide financial incentives to landowners who own land not used for agriculture and share the land use with youth or other farms for regenerative agriculture purposes. Youth can feel powerless to create change when working with limited resources. Participants identified that big corporations can be intimidating since they have vast financial resources and power. It can be discouraging because youth may believe they need extensive resources to accomplish impactful change. Participants also identified that “greenwashing” can further complicate youth’s ability to take part in sustainable initiatives. Participants identified that it is important to move away from commercialization and focus on local and resilient change. On the other hand, it was emphasized that a barrier to facilitating sustainable food systems at the local and individual level includes housing without a garden or a green space to grow your own food (e.g. apartments without balconies and housing with unusable or inaccessible backyard space). Therefore, community-level initiatives such as community garden spaces are essential for sustainable food systems to be accessible to all youth.236238239244251What does a sustainable diet look like for you? What values does a sustainable diet need to display? A sustainable diet should take into account the use of production and natural resources. Participants identified that plant-based or vegan diets can be beneficial in that alternative proteins require fewer resources to produce (e.g. water, feed, land). There are also options for more sustainable animal proteins, such as pasture-raised cows for beef or accessing alternative low waste protein sources such as crickets. However, there are many challenges to some of these practices. For example, pasture-raised cows are significantly expensive and take up more land than conventional industrial beef farms. A sustainable diet should be financially accessible to everyone. Participants identified that vegan or plant-based diets are becoming trendy and have become a “rich person diet” despite numerous communities across the world that have been eating plant-based diets for generations. Vegan or plant-based foods and products are often marketed to and enjoyed by middle and upper-class citizens as they are relatively expensive and more prevalent in exclusionary grocery stores such as health food stores and premium grocery chains. Excluding such foods from people of lower socioeconomic status limits the number of people adopting sustainable diets and can consequently increase the population forced to adopt unsustainable, non-nutritive diets. Therefore as sustainable diets become more financially accessible (for instance, through government subsidies), such diets can become easier to adopt and more widespread. It is also important that food is produced locally. Participants recognize that certain plant-based foods and ingredients eaten in North America have been shipped great distances, which increases their carbon footprint (e.g. coconut oil, cashews). Working alongside Indigenous communities is important because they have been using sustainable growing and hunting practices for centuries. For example, when Indigenous communities hunt, they make sure to use the entire animal and let nothing go to waste and show that there are ways to incorporate animal protein into a sustainable diet. In addition, Indigenous communities have been using a Three Sisters growing technique for generations, in which they plant corn, bean and squash crops together that all benefit each other’s growth. Indigenous growing techniques are very different from the conventional monoculture crops grown at a large scale today. However, it is important to ensure we work alongside these communities to create sustainable change by utilizing their methods of sustainable agriculture and not taking their ideas without credit. There are many chemicals used in food production that end up in our diet and it can be very difficult to remove these from one's diet. Participants identified examples such as bleach used to clean produce that ends up in the food we eat and mycotoxins secreted from fungi (moulds). Furthermore, antibiotics that are injected into animals to keep them free from disease also harm the human microbiome. Overall, participants identified that a sustainable diet should be locally sourced, financially accessible and culturally appropriate. In order to improve our diets, it will require collaboration among different communities, governments, and stakeholders across different sectors.236241251How to break down barriers for youth in the food system? Youth are key players in creating change in food systems, thus it is important to create incentives to encourage youth to get involved and pursue careers in the food system sector. Representation and education are critical factors in supporting youth involvement. In order to improve representation in the food system, the idea of agriculture as a viable career path needs to actively be shared with youth. Students should be exposed to farming as a career path while in school and food system sector careers should be portrayed in a positive and encouraging light. There are opportunities to use social media, such as Instagram, to share information about careers in the food system. Education, both in school curriculums and outside of school, should focus on how we can transform the food system and alternatives to current practices. Financial incentives such as grants and scholarships should be made to support youth performing internships or other forms of education needed for careers in the food system. In addition, more opportunities and student placements should be created so that students can get experience and have the opportunity to try out this career field. Many farming jobs require 2-3 seasons of prior experience, which can make it very difficult for someone who does not have family connections or the necessary resources to get into the industry.237241247251Overall, Dialogue participants came from a diversity of experiences in the food system, which led to a rich and vibrant discussion. Despite many different ideas and thoughts being expressed, there were no large points of contention in the group discussions. One area of divergence among the planning committee was on the decision to host the Independent Dialogue. The current structure of the Independent Dialogues for the Food Systems Summit works very well for corporations and governments, but we also believe that it neglects grassroots voices and voices of those who operate on the small-scale in the food system. The group discussed the critiques and counter events to the Food Systems Summit that have been taking place around the world, such as the one hosted by The Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSM). We decided to participate in the Food Systems Summit’s Independent Dialogue as a youth group because we were curious and wanted to give our voice, but we demand that voices of youth globally be incorporated through the UN Food Systems Summit. We hold the UN Food System Summit accountable in practicing anti-oppression approaches to collaboration and supporting under-represented voices to be heard , especially if they challenge the status quo. In the process of planning the Independent Dialogue, the planning committee has recognized some areas of improvement for the Summit Dialogue Method. While a standardized approach allowed for efficiency in organizing and implementing the Dialogue, there was a lack of flexibility and originality during the planning process. Following the Dialogue, it was evident that participants required food systems language and vocabulary to be a part of these conversations. It is difficult to attract a youth audience if youth do not have a basic understanding of concepts and terms the Summit uses, e.g. equity. Youth with a lack of food systems education, a discussion theme that emerged (see Main Findings), may not view these Dialogues as an entry to food systems discussion. The language and communication methods used by the Summit create a barrier to participation for youth. In regards to the Participation data collected for the Official Feedback Form (OFF), we found that it does not uphold the “Be Respectful” Principle. The 3 options available to choose a gender (Male, Female, Prefer not to say, and other) are not inclusive to trans, two-spirit, non-binary and gender non-conforming peoples. This method of data collection perpetuates the gender binary and literally “others” people into a separate group that is not male/female. We disagree with the marginalization of people based on their gender for the sole purpose of collecting participant information. Lastly, the ‘Number of participants from each stakeholder group’ section in the OFF Participation does not uphold the “Embrace Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity” Principle. It is disappointing that Youth is not included as an option for stakeholder groups in the OFF, yet there are 3 international organization options. If the Summit recognizes youth as stakeholders, this should be reflected in its processes. The Summit needs to acknowledge that many youths are interested in joining stakeholder groups like ‘Farmer’ but face barriers to entering this group, and thus, a student or youth option is necessary.

2021-07-23 15:10:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24051/343988102113127145165180181

14444613441608225253113363121021361221511148619

Registration was opened to various sectors and countries across the region. To address the issue of limited discussion time and potential technical difficulties contingent to online events, guide questions were included in the registration process so that participant views are documented in case they are unable to contribute to the session. A summary of these responses were reported in the breakout sessions. Additionally, a mixed group of participants were assigned to the breakout sessions so that different perspectives on the same topic would be reflected.Diversity and inclusion were key considerations in selecting the keynote speakers and sectoral respondents for the public forum.Even in a virtual setting, broadening geographic scope will pose several challenges to ensuring inclusivity. It is important to provide additional opportunities for providing feedback as necessary.

Yes

234238239240241242243245246248249251COVID-19 has exposed vulnerabilities in the agri-food system, which further threatens the nutrition and food security of already vulnerable groups. Building resilience is key and this entails exploring innovative solutions and collaboration among all stakeholders. Research will be crucial in informing policy decisions and future directions for food systems transformation, and the agricultural sector joins the movement to reformulate a shared vision of future food systems, anchored on socio-economic and health inclusiveness to ensure that no one is left behind. This Independent Food Systems Dialogue aimed to bring together a range of stakeholders across the food system -- from producers to value chain actors, consumers and policymakers -- to respond to the challenge of nourishing Southeast Asia in a post-COVID 19 context. Specifically, the dialogue aimed to address these three questions: 1) What areas of food and nutrition security need to be addressed and who are the stakeholders that need to be involved in the research, development, investment, and deployment process? What are the barriers to innovation uptake? 2) How can policymakers efficiently access research that can help inform the development of data-driven and evidence-based policies? What mechanisms should be in place to monitor, evaluate, and feedback results? 3) What investment support is needed to strengthen food systems transformation? How can we make access to resources more equitable to vulnerable and underserved sectors? The Dialogue consisted of two parts: an agenda-setting online public forum that serves as a conversation starter and ceremonial call to action, and a smaller private breakout session where key stakeholders can further discuss these ideas in depth.235238239240241242243245246248249251Initial context setting recognized the challenges and opportunities that emerged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The economic disruptions caused by restricted mobility amplified the social inequities of vulnerable sectors, and raised concerns about rising food insecurity and its consequences on nutrition in a region where the multiple forms of malnutrition continue to be a prevalent public health concern. The agriculture sector suffered its share of setbacks, but may have proven more resilient than other industries, such as tourism. Regional cooperation reduced the early disruptions to agricultural trade, and opportunities arose from changing consumer behavior and the rapid pivot to digital platforms, and a demographic shift from urban to rural locations could impact future agricultural labor practices and initiatives. Food Systems champions were invited to give their perspectives on how to catalyze food systems transformation in order to meet regional food and nutrition security goals in a post-COVID-19 context. The first champion, Dr. Shakuntala Thilsted of WorldFish, drew lessons from her experience in shifting mindsets on nutrition and aquaculture and how this can be applied to revisioning rice as a part of sustainable healthy diets. Diversity is a crucial element of change: in terms of solutions needed for diversifying diets, but also in perspectives engaged. Elevating the role and visibility of underrepresented sectors like women, youth and indigenous peoples throughout the research, development and deployment process would help contextualize global agendas into local solutions. Good quality data is necessary, and care must be exercised to ensure that the data provided does not mask inequalities and lead to mismatched policy priorities. Policy interventions must also be guided by a food systems approach, bringing in multiple disciplines and providing multiple pathways to address solutions. The second champion, Dr. Glenn Gregorio of SEARCA, viewed food systems transformation from the perspective of improving the agricultural research and development pipeline of technology generators, adopters, and end-users. By strengthening the academe-industry-government linkages through research collaboration and co-sharing of resources, the delivery of innovation from research to market can be expedited. Identified priority areas include: developing well planned local food production systems, improving fintech and investments in agriculture-adjacent sectors to sustain the growing interest in agripreneurship, and—from a regional cooperation perspective—striking a balance between trade priorities and food security. These science-based solutions must be underpinned by an understanding of Southeast Asian cultures and lifestyle in order to be sustained and scaled up. Sectoral responses provided multiple entry points on how food systems can be transformed. Representatives from the farming sector underscored the importance of social safety nets and access to financial mechanisms to ensure resilience from external shocks, while advocating for the promotion of sustainable and healthy consumption among consumers so that production processes in support of this advocacy will be profitable to farmers. A younger farmer-entrepreneur echoed the need for a supportive ecosystem to encourage the youth to engage in agriculture, and noted that transformation begins with habits, mindset, and culture. Two key policy recommendations were presented by the development sector representative: diversifying agri-food commodities to meet market demand, with a focus on food and nutrition, safety and quality; and greening and enhancing resilience of investments, with a focus on pricing environmental services and establishing incentive mechanisms. From the perspective of the value chain actors, profitability, demand creation and sustainability must be addressed in order to engender food systems transformation for people and planet. Sustainable crop production practices and market inclusiveness must be encouraged, and an evidence base must be developed for an enabling policy environment. These findings were discussed in further detail in the breakout sessions that followed (see succeeding responses). To close the opening forum, convenors reiterated the need to restructure food systems towards delivering healthier diets, economies, and environment through a holistic food-land-water approach and repurposing public support for agriculture to prioritize nutrition, deliver public goods like research and extension, and reduce market distortions and inefficiencies to ensure meaningful and equitable participation in the agri-food system. What is apparent from the conversations that took place is that all stakeholders understood the urgency of transforming food systems and the collaborative action necessary for change. They also highlighted the importance of building the resilience of food systems for future shocks and changes. Based on the identified priorities and proposed solutions, it was also clear that sustainable and inclusive transformation can and should take place at multiple levels and timescales, with some sectors and stakeholders focusing on short-term goals, while others can appropriately address medium- and long-term benefits.236238239240241242243245246248249251Breakout Session 1 focused on food and nutrition research areas, stakeholders that need to be engaged, and barriers to innovation uptake. It was noted that the Covid-19 pandemic response is a learning experience that can drive food systems transformation. It exposed inequalities inherent in the current food system, and underscored the importance of proper nutrition and good health in maintaining quality of life. An increased interest in food and nutrition security was demonstrated through the broad scope of suggested research areas spanning across the agri-food system (albeit mostly dependent on the participants’ expertise). Common themes include sustainability, value chain upgrading, availability and access to more nutritious food crops, a focus on aquaculture, and consumer research. Two parallel pathways for improving access to nutritious foods were presented: 1) improving the nutritive value of staple crops like rice, and 2) diversifying farm systems in order to diversify the food on consumers’ plates. Identified stakeholders were also spread out across the value chain: what was emphasized was the importance of acknowledging the different views, concerns and perspectives of producers, value chain actors, consumers at all stages of the program cycle. Barriers to innovation uptake were identified at the individual level: resistance to change or lack of acceptance among end-users, as well as insufficient financial capability—and at the institutional level, or the lack of an enabling environment or policy support for nutrition-related innovations. While poor knowledge, understanding or skills were identified as underlying factors, a lack of understanding on the part of program implementers about the social, cultural, behavioural factors of end-users was also acknowledged and the need for more participatory dialogue mechanisms was presented as a possible solution. Lack of evidence was also presented as a barrier: for as long as innovation has demonstrable benefits for its intended end-users, uptake will not be an issue. Participants acknowledged the importance of changing mindsets from “feeding to nourishing” to prioritize nutritive value over yield, and from “short-term to long-term” to emphasize more sustainable pathways to achieving nutrition and public health goals. This entails social and behavior change, which would require the participation of communication- and culture-focused stakeholders such as extension workers and social scientists, as well as “non-traditional” stakeholders such as designers and members of the creative sector, in food systems transformation. A roadmap to a sustainable food system should be collaboratively developed by agriculture, nutrition, health sectors, with clear targets, commitments, and accountability measures. This would help pivot towards a food systems mindset and adopt a more holistic understanding of how nutritious food is produced and consumed in a safe and sustainable manner.236238239240241242243245246248249251Breakout Session 2 focused on the research-policy interface, and what needs to be done to ensure the development and implementation of evidence-based policies. Multiple gaps were identified in the process of translating research into policy, beginning with the disconnect between the available evidence base and the intended outcomes that policymakers want to address. This was understood to be primarily a lack of access to data, though it could in some instances refer to a lack of relevant research for specific concerns, which points to the need to strengthen implementation of national research agendas. The issue of access to data is multi-faceted, ranging from lack of infrastructure widening the digital gap, the need to consolidate evidence into relevant open-access dashboards or platforms, to the comprehensibility of the presented data. Data quality is perceived to be important, and the need to independently validate data was raised. Streamlining bureaucratic processes was also identified as a barrier for evidence-based policies, particularly in the context of accessing and adopting the latest technologies such as gene editing. Some feedback was also provided on the nature of research—bringing in cross-sectoral expertise to provide the necessary cultural and social contexts, and the value of effective feedback mechanisms in generating quality evidence. Effective communication, lobbying and interfacing between research and policy is necessary. There is a perceived lack of information sharing from sectors involved in research (whether from academia, research institutes, or the private sector) and the need to have a regular platform for knowledge exchange or research dissemination was identified as a possible solution. Extending the conversation to the public sphere – through traditional or social media – was also viewed as a viable way for policymakers to be made aware of relevant research. Putting these recommendations into action would entail a baseline understanding and alignment among researchers and policymakers of their respective processes and languages. Researchers should be aware of which key areas are policy priorities, the types of evidence policymakers need and how these should be presented, while policymakers should be aware of the research process, the appropriate timeframes and success indicators, and how these can feed into the development of realistic outcomes that policy changes can help address.236238239240241242243245246248249251Breakout Session 3 focused on sustainable investment and ensuring inclusive access to resources.Two investment tracks emerged during the discussion: 1) a focus on production systems (affordable, adaptable and profitable inputs and technologies, and/or more efficient value chains) that provide tangible benefits to investors and end-users; and 2) a more transformative approach that incentivizes investments with long-term sustainability impact despite little immediate benefit. These include nature-based solutions and natural resource management, and ensuring the equitable participation of underserved sectors in the agri-food system. Another investment area considered was communication, in terms of infrastructure and as an extension service/activity, as a means to bridge the digital and information gap and enable grassroots end-users to make informed choices about investments or access resources for their livelihoods. Multi-stakeholder engagement was underscored throughout the discussion: as a top-down approach with government-industry-academe partnerships; and from the bottom-up, where grassroots stakeholders are empowered to participate in identifying and developing solutions for their community and financial mechanisms, project planning, and investment opportunities are devolved to local government units. Innovative financing instruments such as impact bonds and blended finance were viewed as potential tools for increasing investments from the private sector; it was also suggested that new investors should be cultivated from the younger generation. Strengthening the enabling environment was also emphasized: developing investment criteria and governance mechanisms, and ensuring that supportive legal instruments for sustainable investments are in place.237238239240241242243245246248249251Complementary pathways towards food systems transformation emerged during the discussion, particularly in the sessions on food and nutrition security research and in sustainable investments. Improving access to nutritious foods can be approached in two ways: by improving the nutritive value of staple crops like rice, and by diversifying production in order to diversify the food that consumers can afford to eat. These approaches are intended to improve market access, making it profitable for producers and other value chain actors, and affordable for consumers. Prioritizing research on production, whether on staples or diversified crops, would benefit from adding a lens on consumer research: understanding their knowledge, attitudes, and practices in order to shift behavior towards healthier food choices. Stakeholders involved in investments approached the issue of sustainability in two ways. First, by focusing on production systems that provide tangible benefits to investors and end-users; and then via a more transformative approach that incentivizes broader sustainability impact within a longer timescale. These pathways generally align with short- and long-term views on food systems transformation, and can be implemented in parallel if there is coordination and collaboration among the relevant sectors. It was generally agreed that grassroots sectors should be prioritized in investments, but different entry points were identified for their inclusion. Streamlining existing mechanisms—making value chains more efficient, improving access to information, technology, and finance–- can facilitate meaningful participation. However, it is important to note that participants working at or with local communities suggested the increased involvement of grassroots sectors in identifying their needs and planning, implementing, and scaling solutions, as well as in developing the evidence base that can be used to inform policy recommendations. The urgency and complexity of food systems transformation underscores the need to consider multiple perspectives and pathways.

2021-07-23 15:11:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30950/2387130

186257949612138271351111541613312111506214354119

Bringing grassroots participants to an online forum was identified as a challenge. To address this, country focus group discussions—conducted through a hybrid online/offline format—were conducted beforehand to ensure that these perspectives were well represented in the regional dialogue. Key findings were reported in the public forum by rapporteurs selected from among the FGD participants and organizers. The approach that we adopted reflected, in particular, multi-stakeholder inclusivity and promoting and building trust principles. Registration for the online forum was opened to various sectors and countries across the region, and a live broadcast was made available via Facebook to further broaden participation.Diversity and inclusion were key determinants in selecting the panellists for the country focus group discussions and the public forum. In addition, the range of food chain actors and interests invited to participate in the country-level FGDs recognizes the complexity of the food systems in South Asia.It is important to avoid falling into patterns of whatever dominant discourse that is fashionable. That trap is easy to fall into if the discourse is held only in European languages such as English, French and Spanish. In order to truly listen to stakeholders in a respectful and inclusive way, we felt that it was important to organize FGDs in local languages.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249The success of efforts to develop rural economies, ensure food and nutrition security, and eradicate rural poverty depend on building climate change resilient agricultural systems managed by smallholders and the widespread adoption of innovations at the technical, institutional, social and policy levels. However, although there are “islands” of climate-resilient agriculture practiced in the Global South, what has been lacking to date has been change at scale. The COVID-19 pandemic may present an opportunity to build back better if public and private investment is directed towards reinvigorating rural communities by developing an inclusive, climate-resilient smallholder agriculture sector that meets the needs of people and the planet. The Independent Food Systems Dialogue that we organized aimed to bring together a range of stakeholders across the food system -- from producers to value chain actors, consumers and policymakers -- to respond to the challenge of nourishing South Asia in a post-COVID 19 context. Specifically, the dialogue addressed the following questions: 1)What are the main barriers to agricultural innovation for climate resilience in South Asia? Who should be involved in research for development, investment, and deployment decisions for building climate resilience at scale? 2) How do we ensure that food value chains in South Asia are inclusive? 3) What kind of investments in food system transformation in South Asia can help reinvigorate rural communities? For example, investments in cold chains, custom hiring centres and mechanization? 4) How should digitalisation of the food value chain be implemented in South Asia in a way which benefits smallholder farmers? Will this help to build back better after COVID-19? The dialogue consists of two parts: a) a series of in-country focus group discussions (Bangladesh; Assam and Odisha in India; Nepal) with farmers, value chain actors, and policy makers addressing these questions, and b) an online public forum with stakeholders and experts at the regional level. The Bangladesh FGD was held on 8 July, focusing primarily on the themes of climate- and COVID-19 resilience, inclusive value chains, and rural reinvigoration. The Nepal FGD was held on 12 July and focused on the themes of climate- and COVID-19 resilience and inclusive value chains. FGDs for Assam and Odisha were simultaneously conducted on 13 July; Assam focused on inclusive value chains and digitalization, while the Odisha discussion centred on climate- and COVID-19 resilience and rural reinvigoration. Key findings were reported in the online public forum on 14 July to high level ministry officials and a panel of experts from Bangladesh, India and Nepal, who provided feedback and their own insight on these themes.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251The agri-food system is undergoing profound and drastic changes: globalization, demographic shifts, and changing dietary preferences, amplified by transforming land-water systems, climate change and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Urgent and collective action is required of all stakeholders across the system to ensure that it is able to build resilience to these changes and provide access to safe, nutritious and sustainably produced food for all. The food systems approach calls for an integration of the food system with the social system and the environment, and a clear recognition that equitable access to food is a human right. Climate change is a global phenomenon that has location-specific impacts. As such, some of the solutions that can help build climate resilience are necessarily local. For the countries included in this dialogue, rural and agricultural investment priorities include the development and dissemination of climate-smart crop varieties and technologies, pivoting to more resilient farming systems, nutrition-sensitive cropping systems, crop insurance, digitalisation of agriculture and real-time access to weather data, among others. Regional cooperation is also important for policy development, knowledge exchange and capacity building. It is now evident that climate change reduces productivity—and the lack of access to appropriate mechanized tools, machinery and other resources hinders the participation of women and youth. Making food systems more inclusive means that all actors—even vulnerable and underserved sectors—have equitable income earning potential. Social safety nets and incentives that allow access to financing, capacity building, and appropriate varieties, technologies and other resources are necessary to ensure that women and youth are able to meaningfully participate in the food system. Organizing and mobilizing constituencies play a key role in providing access. Discussions around nutrition-sensitive interventions also fall under the theme of inclusive value chains. Such interventions require that producers,value chain stakeholders and policy makers consider the nutritional needs and dietary preferences of consumers, while providing a compelling case for consumers to shift towards more nutritious diets. Rice will continue to play a key role in mediating the region’s food and nutrition security goals as a staple crop that billions of individuals rely on for sustenance and livelihoods. Improving agricultural value chains plays a critical role in rural reinvigoration: improving access to inputs, building storage and processing facilities, strengthening transportation systems and broadening market access through stakeholder linkages, digital platforms, and demand-driven production. Mitigating the impacts of male out migration through rural job generation, strengthening social safety nets, and safeguarding farmers’ incomes through the enforcement of minimum standard pricing and the promotion of domestic production can also contribute to rural reinvigoration. COVID-19 underscored the vulnerabilities of the food value chain that can be addressed through infrastructure investment, but opportunities were also identified in broadening markets, particularly in establishing digital platforms that can help producers, value chain actors, consumers, and policymakers make informed decisions. Digitalisation is perceived to be a lever of transformation, but current gaps in implementation must be addressed in order to reap its expected benefits. Human intervention remains necessary for technology adoption, and extension and advisory services can complement digital tools in strengthening the right to information. These outcomes are discussed in further detail in the following sections. While the goal of food systems transformation, in broad terms, can be envisioned as providing healthy, sustainably produced food on the plates of all people at all times, specific indicators for measuring the success of food system transformation have yet to be clearly articulated in detail. A proposed initial step in articulating these indicators would be through establishing multi-stakeholder participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to enable vulnerable groups and underserved sectors to provide grassroots perspective that can inform research and development priorities and policy recommendations. All stakeholders across South Asia must have a say on where time, money, resources are invested to maximize impact.236238239240241242243244245246247248250251There were clear differences in perspectives on the complexity of climate change and its impacts on the agri-food system between the on-line public forum and the individual FGDs. From a top-down policy perspective represented by the on-line public forum, addressing climate change is viewed as a complex system with agriculture being both casualty and a driver of climate change. This viewpoint was less prominent in the FGDs, where local discourse on climate resilience was mostly centred on the impact of climatic hazards on the agro ecological landscapes and how this leads to significant losses in productivity and income. Building resilience to these hazards also entailed interventions such as changing cropping systems, adopting productivity-enhancing technologies and infrastructure—which require financial investments that vulnerable smallholder farmers were unable to afford. Access to financial mechanisms and other necessary resources was particularly limited for women and youth, as well as those living in remote, less developed communities. Convergence and organization of key stakeholders at multiple levels were proposed as solutions. These include institutional mechanisms, such as merging government development schemes with agricultural plans, and expanding disaster risk, reduction and recovery plans to cover smallholder farmers. Organizing and clustering farmers is needed to improve their access to inputs, capacity building, and formal financial services. Mechanization and its associated increased productivity were also seen as pathways for increased participation of women and youth. Crop insurance and other safety nets can help smallholder farmers bounce back from climatic shocks. Identified priority areas for research and development are dependent on landscape and climatic conditions. These include the development of lower cost and scale-neutral stress tolerant rice varieties, improving rice-fish systems and polder farming, and the establishment of climate smart villages. It was also suggested that promising new technologies must be made readily available in the public domain.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251The transformation towards inclusive food value chains that improve the livelihoods of farmers and other involved stakeholders would have to seriously address the current gaps and inefficiencies of the value chain, such as poor farm-to-market infrastructure (lack of storage and processing facilities, underdeveloped transportation systems, among others) that lead to unfair disparities in farm gate and retail pricing; as well as lack of access to machinery, support services, financing mechanisms, and marketing channels that can help improve farmer income. Male out migration and the resulting agricultural labour shortages, household vulnerabilities and food insecurity were also identified as challenges for smallholder farming households. The fragmentation of farming holdings was again identified as a barrier to accessing resources and developing market linkages. Investments in infrastructure and research and development, possibly through public-private partnerships, are necessary to move forward. Research priorities varied by country and region. For example, in, Bangladesh the preferred focus was on the development of biofortified staple crops, whereas in Odisha, the FGD advocated for the scaling of nutrient-rich and resilient traditional crops. Behaviour change and communication programs are critical in enabling the participation of women and youth in the value chain. Increasing job creation in the agricultural sector can minimize the economic and social impact of male out migration. Digital tools for market linkages, advisory services and weather data can help in creating accessible pathways for underserved sectors. Aggregating farmers through formal organisations such as farmer producer companies (FPCs) can help develop linkages between farmers and other value chain/industry actors, including academia, for knowledge exchange and capacity building. Such linkages can increase their bargaining power as value chain actors and also help producers develop demand-based products that meet consumer needs and preferences. Multi-stakeholder cooperation and participatory monitoring and evaluation contribute to making value chains more inclusive. An important insight about the impact of increasing women’s participation in value chains is its impact on embedding nutrition as a key food value chain priority of agri-food systems—essentially scaling women’s nutrition-centred decision-making from the household to community. Improving community nutrition can help improve quality of life and productivity, leading to more opportunities for participation within the agri-food system.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251The third discussion topic centred on reinvigorating rural communities in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mobility restrictions imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19 underscored the vulnerabilities of the agricultural value chain: reducing access to inputs, labor and markets, as well as reducing incomes and purchasing power. In some cases, unfair pricing made local produce unable to compete with the lower cost of imported produce. Other challenges such as deteriorating food quality caused by disrupted value chains, food and nutrition insecurity in less accessible communities and male migration and its attendant issues were also exacerbated by the pandemic. A broad range of strategies were proposed for the reinvigoration of rural communities, underpinned by the recognition that food systems activities provide “essential services” and are, therefore, unlike other sectors of the economy in South Asia. To address the disruption of value chains, interventions such as Nepal’s “agricultural ambulance” experiment that deliver fresh produce direct to households could be institutionalized as an emergency response, and interventions that shorten the value chain developed. These include ensuring local access to inputs, building community processing facilities, building rural infrastructure, establishing community seed banks, and promoting local production and consumption through ICT based extension and marketing. Strengthening social safety nets is also necessary. Proposed activities include providing COVID-19 vaccines; issuing official identification certificates that can help farmers and their households to access government support mechanisms; and establishing reintegration plans for migrants who have returned to rural communities. Social networks, both formal and informal, can help farmers access knowledge and resources. Farmers’ incomes can be safeguarded from food shocks through emergency funding, crop insurance, and the establishment of minimum support price/buy-back policies. To help local produce compete with imports, domestic production must be supported through favourable polices and strengthened customs regulation. Investment must be made in strengthening local, regional and national supply chains to ensure adequate food supply and reduce reliance on imports. Development of up-to-date data dashboards can help improve food systems governance and inform policy development. Building back rural communities in a much better way would require continued and sustained effort from R&D and extension platforms along with policy support to facilitate the expedition of proposed suggestions.236238239240241242243244245246247248250251The fourth and final theme focused on digitalisation of the value chain and how it could be used to build back better food systems. While this was only discussed in depth during the Assam FGD, feedback and recommendations related to ICT and digitalisation cut across the different FGDs and occupied a central point of discussion in the public forum. Digitalisation of the food chain is seen to benefit both end-users and policymakers. End-users include farmers and value chain actors who are able to access updated tools and resources that can help them make better decisions about which crops and products to cultivate, and allow them to have a broader consumer reach. For policymakers, digitalising the value chain provides access to updated data (organized in relevant dashboards) that allows for foresighting, market analysis and development of evidence-based policies for a more inclusive agriculture sector. However, a number of challenges were identified at the local level. This includes limited resources and access at the household level and connectivity issues due to poor digital infrastructure. The digital divide also manifests itself in terms of poor digital literacy among the older generation and low confidence among end-users in accessing digital platforms—with the problem of information overload being identified. The language barrier was also identified as a factor, as apps and other digital tools are not always available in the local language. On the other hand, policymakers noted that availability of information and data pertaining to the agricultural value chain is still limited to a limited number of technologies and processes. There is limited availability of authentic data on other food value chain actors and available infrastructure at the regional level. This indicates that digitalisation is viewed as a lever of change, but on-ground implementation must be improved in order to meet its promise of providing more equitable pathways to participation in the food system. Some suggestions for the way forward include: addressing lack of household access by establishing common service centres and using traditional media to supplement access to the information available in digital tools; improving digital literacy through sensitization programs conducted by extension workers and the development of region-centric apps using the local language; and developing digital platforms on value chain actors and infrastructure to help inform policy decisions. Minimizing these barriers to digital uptake can help ensure that digital services and apps developed for marketing, advisory services, and financial mechanisms can be accessed by a greater number of their target end-users.237238239240241242243244245246247248249251What was remarkable was the convergence in thinking with respect to addressing food system transformation at the: a) local and regional level; and, at the b) value chain actor and expert/policy maker level. “Divergences” where they did emerge during the country FGDs and in the public forum were not indicative of differing priorities, but rather underscored: a) current gaps in implementation and expected outcome, as was the case in the conversation surrounding digitalisation and extension services; and b) how external stresses (e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic) can modulate the impact of social phenomenon such as male out migration from rural areas. Digitalisation and extension services: Digitalisation as a lever for transformation emerged as a common theme in all discussion groups, but this requires—among others— infrastructure investment and social and behaviour change communication initiatives that would address the digital generation divide. Therefore, investing in human capital, particularly in extension and advisory services, that could contribute to community organisation, knowledge exchange, and improve access to formal mechanisms is required. This would address current challenges in improving uptake of digital services for end-users. In addition, digitalising the value chain can also provide easy access to relevant and real-time data that policymakers can use for food systems governance. Digitalisation and extension services can both be viewed as transformative actions for making the food system more resilient and inclusive. Impact of male out migration from rural areas: In pre-pandemic situations, insufficient local opportunities contributed to the phenomenon of male out migration, which in turn increased the vulnerability of female-headed households. With COVID-19, migrants who have lost employment in urban areas began to return back to their communities, which were not equipped to reintegrate them, and this phenomenon disrupted the social norms that had been developed to cope with male out migration. For both situations, rural job generation was viewed as a potential solution. Different perspectives (although these could be complementary) emerged with respect to addressing nutritional imbalances as part of the food systems transformation. This was most evident in the identification of research priorities, which were aligned to the needs of the states or countries where the discussions were held. One example was in the discussion on access to nutritious food. In Bangladesh, the FGD identified the development of biofortified staple crops as a priority, whereas in Odisha, the FGD advocated for the scaling of nutrient-rich and resilient traditional crops. The FGD in Nepal, on the other hand, focused on local food production as a means of improving nutrition while addressing rural reinvigoration. Discussions on value chain upgrading provided another example of different, but complementary, solutions. The disruption of value chains due to COVID-19 mobility restrictions have underscored the challenges of bringing produce to market. A number of short-term solutions were identified, including emergency transport interventions, but there was consensus that more sustainable solutions are needed to shorten the value chain and establish the necessary storage and processing facilities, coupled with marketing initiatives to promote local production and consumption. A parallel solution was also proposed: to further broaden market access, perhaps to capitalize on the new markets reached during the pandemic, through digital platforms. Market analysis and consumer research, along with stakeholder linkages, could help make production more profitable by focusing on demand-driven products that meet market needs and preferences. The urgency and complexity of food systems transformation underscores the need to consider multiple perspectives and pathways.

2021-07-23 15:15:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27333/203

999

Dialogues were organized to incorporate, reinforce and enhance the principles by always including a diverse group of stakeholders, to ensure that multiple perspectives were acknowledged and able to communicate with one another. These dialogues also recognized the importance of collaboration between stakeholders, encouraging a complementary approach, which fostered new connections.This dialogue facilitated respectful discussions between members of multiple stakeholder groups. The diversity of stakeholders was embraced, and various topics including Indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence were able to be explored as a result. Various speakers were able to voice their opinions about policy design options. These dialogues also recognized the complexity of food systems, by acknowledging that humans, animals, land, water, climate and the ecology and economic systems are all interconnected and fundamental to creating resilient, equitable food systems.Designing sessions on the principles of diversity and inclusion from the outset helped to create dialogues that provided an opportunity for different stakeholders to connect across issue and sector silos, share perspectives and elevate areas of convergence and divergence.

NoSpeakers in the live dialogues were enthusiastic and curious to connect with one another from their respective locations and subject matter areas. Aided by the facilitators, connections were made throughout the conversation in order to point to areas of convergence, while it was acknowledged that tensions would always exist and require further dialogue and engagement to further unpack the issues and perspectives at play.

234238239240241242243244245246248249251Co-organized by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Food Tank, and Global Alliance for the Future of Food, and in partnership with the UN Food System Summit (UNFSS) Champions Network, presented seven-panel discussions (running one event each month from January to June 2021) focusing on how to transform the world’s food systems. Each virtual series explored one of the Global Alliance’s seven Calls to Action and brought together more than 25+ UNFSS Champion speakers worldwide, including world-renowned activists, journalists, business leaders, farmers, policy and technical experts, and many others. Each conversation will help set the stage and identify critical pathways to create a better future of food and strengthen our global food systems for the upcoming UNFSS in September 2021. This first event highlighted the Global Alliance's call to action: Ensuring integrated, participatory, rights-based approaches to governance and policy-making at all levels to address the structural inequities and power imbalances in food systems. The panel brought together an international array of food systems leaders to issue calls for action on global food systems, elevate public discourse about reforming our food systems, and develop principles to guide stakeholders in leveraging food systems to support the SDGs. During opening remarks, Ruth Richardson, Chair of UN FSS Champions Network and Executive Director of Global Alliance for the Future of Food, underlined UN FSS Champions Network's importance and its contributions to the UNFSS processes leading up to the Summit in September 2021. She stressed the network aims to co-create solutions, act as a sounding board for recommendations, and, lastly, engage in dialogue within their networks to ensure needs are met. Setting the stage for the discussion was indigenous youth leader Jessica Vega Ortega, who stressed the necessity for inclusion of indigenous peoples, women’s, and youths’ knowledge and perspectives in the UN FSS dialogue processes. She identified significant barriers these groups face when participating in the dialogues, such as lack of technology, language barriers, and access to the internet. Co-moderator Dani Nierenberg, President of Food Tank, and panelists agreed to this and stressed during the event these are common challenges across the globe and the need for better processes and mechanisms to include these groups more effectively. Christine Ciccone stated that for the UN FSS to be successful, it must engage more people in the dialogues, especially smallholder farmers, and receive feedback as solutions emerge in the dialogue processes. Christine also highlighted IFAD’s mandate and work with rural people and their communities, and as the UN agency for the UN FSS Action Track 4, along with CARE and other stakeholders. Michelle Nunn, President and CEO of CARE US, emphasized the role of women and gender equality in transforming food systems. She emphasized the need for providing tools to allow people to hold their governments accountable. Ajay Vir Jakhar, Farmers’ Forum India, insisted that farmers need an agency in agricultural policymaking and need to reorganize the food value chain. He stressed that changes in power relations and equality start from the top down and are represented in high-level decision processes. Mamadou Goita, Institute for Research and Promotion of Alternatives in Development (IRPAD), stressed the need for creating more spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogues, especially where farmers and IPs have a seat at the table. Many panelists concluded by sharing various success stories that offer hope for the future of our food system. Yet, all panelists underlined the intersectional issues regarding food; therefore, to solve the food problem, we must look beyond food. Their conversation addressed transformational changes needed within the food system in order to challenge deeply rooted power structures.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main finding of this discussion focus on the first call to action: ensure participatory, integrated, rights-based approaches to governance at all levels in order to address the structural inequities in food systems. Build processes and policy platforms on principles of transparency, inclusive participation, and shared power. This will ensure policies are driven not only by evidence, but also ethics and public interest. This call to action is the overarching umbrella of the other 6 call to actions in this series. A sustainable and equitable food system cannot be achieved without this call to action. This call to action found that there is a need to create a narrative that is inclusive and allows for participation, especially of farmers, women, and indigenous peoples. There are high levels of expertise in these dialogues, but all people should feel empowered to contribute, we are all “experts” when it comes to food. Amongst the speakers there was agreement that there is a need for more spaces for dialogues between all stakeholders, (research institutions, private sector, agricultural companies, CSO’s, states, etc.) Farmers should be recognized as key stakeholders as they produce 70% of the world’s food. We cannot make any progress without their engagement. There is also a need for greater access to technology, access to internet, and language, which are currently the main barriers to inclusion. We need a way to ensure that a multitude of people with varying perspectives are able to have their voices and knowledge heard. Another crucial finding is the importance of political power, which is the first step to addressing power imbalances. Equality starts with who is included at the very top.236238239240241242244245246247248249251Below are ten key discussion outcomes from this panel discussion: 1. It is essential for IP, youth, and women to have full and effective participation in the FSS processes, as they have a different but important lens to the food movement. 2. Major barriers to participation: technology, internet, and language. IP will need continuous consultations for technical support in order to be included throughout this process. Need to develop better mechanisms to transmit indigenous voices and knowledge. 3. For IFAD, it is critical that the voices of rural poor smallholders are heard throughout this process leading up to the FSS and in the summit itself. 4. Throughout the FSS process, we need to continuously engage more people. As further specific solutions emerge, it is necessary to share those solutions, get feedback, and adjust accordingly. This will help ensure the success of the people who need it the most. 5. Action Track 4 is really focused on livelihoods in the food system. A rights-based approach is at the center to addressing power imbalances in the food system. 6. Good governance is critical. Smallholder farmers should be at the center of all conversations. They need tools to give their voices agency and to hold governments accountable (like CARE’s “Score Card” tool). 7. It is important to identify and speak about the problems in a language that common people can perceive and grasp - Power imbalances are usually brushed aside in a well articulated Call to Action. Farmers need to be included throughout the process - not just the outputs. 8. The food value chain system needs to be reorganized. 60-70% of the market is controlled by agriculture input companies, brand companies, and online retail/ecommerce companies, etc. This is a power imbalance. 9. Another issue is with defining success and reworking the matrix for measurement. Measurement is focused on increasing productivity, but what about losses of biodiversity due to monoculture - how do we measure that? 10. We need participatory and progressive research mechanisms that are more aligned with farmers' needs. Adaptive farming systems, that are also according to local practices.237238239240241242244245246248249In this discussion the panelists seemed to hold supporting views and there weren’t any clear areas of divergence.

2021-07-23 15:20:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27369/203

999

Dialogues were organized to incorporate, reinforce and enhance the principles by always including a diverse group of stakeholders, to ensure that multiple perspectives were acknowledged and able to communicate with one another. These dialogues also recognized the importance of collaboration between stakeholders, encouraging a complementary approach, which fostered new connections.This dialogue facilitated respectful discussions between members of multiple stakeholder groups. The diversity of stakeholders was embraced, and various topics including Indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence were able to be explored as a result. Various speakers were able to voice their opinions about policy design options. These dialogues also recognized the complexity of food systems, by acknowledging that humans, animals, land, water, climate and the ecology and economic systems are all interconnected and fundamental to creating resilient, equitable food systems.Designing sessions on the principles of diversity and inclusion from the outset helped to create dialogues that provided an opportunity for different stakeholders to connect across issue and sector silos, share perspectives and elevate areas of convergence and divergence.

NoSpeakers in the live dialogues were enthusiastic and curious to connect with one another from their respective locations and subject matter areas. Aided by the facilitators, connections were made throughout the conversation in order to point to areas of convergence, while it was acknowledged that tensions would always exist and require further dialogue and engagement to further unpack the issues and perspectives at play.

234238239240241245247248250251Co-organized by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Food Tank, and Global Alliance for the Future of Food, and in partnership with the UN Food System Summit (UNFSS) Champions Network, presented seven-panel discussions (running one event each month from January to June 2021) focusing on how to transform the world’s food systems. Each virtual series explored one of the Global Alliance’s seven Calls to Action and brought together more than 25+ UNFSS Champion speakers worldwide, including world-renowned activists, journalists, business leaders, farmers, policy and technical experts, and many others. Each conversation will help set the stage and identify critical pathways to create a better future of food and strengthen our global food systems for the upcoming UNFSS in September 2021. This second event in the series highlighted the Global Alliance's call to action, Increase public research for the public good supporting ambitious, trans-disciplinary, inclusive, and systems-based approaches with an emphasis on the indivisible ecological, health, social, and economic goals. The panel brought together an international array of food systems leaders to issue calls for action on global food systems, elevate public discourse about reforming our food systems, and develop principles to guide stakeholders in leveraging food systems to support the SDGs. Speakers included three UN FSS Champions Network members, who explored the integral role of research to transform food systems to be renewable, healthy, inclusive, interconnected, and equitable. Dr. Kanayo Nwanze, CGIAR Special Representative to the Food Systems Summit and immediate former president of IFAD, highlighted the influence of the CGIAR - IFAD partnership, which has allowed research and innovation to target the most vulnerable rural communities. He stated that research results will not be relevant without the participation of smallholder farmers and local solutions. Dr. Kanayo Nwanze further emphasized that end-to-end networks spanning from governments to CSOs to farmers will be critical in transforming the food system. João Bosco Monte, President of Brazil Africa Institute and General Coordinator of the Brazil Africa Forum, discussed the need for “real” research that understands people’s priorities and generates results that can be put into practice, rather than simply put in a book. He stressed the importance of investment in detailed and pragmatic research that can work to change lives. Claudia Martínez Zuleta, Co-chair of country programs of the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU) and E3, underlined the role of citizen knowledge and science. She stressed the need for better education and allocational systems that allow youth and citizens to develop their research and create solutions within their communities. The discussion concluded with the panelists highlighting the issues of communication and dissemination of research. These barriers must be overcome to allow research to have more impact on the ground. Finally, all panelists agreed that the 5 Action Tracks of the UN FSS serve as a compass for discovering game-changing solutions, and this is where researchers need to focus.235238239240241243245247248249250Panelists believe that research must engage women, youth, Indigenous groups, and other communities that are most impacted by the food system in order for transformation to be possible. Findings must be communicated in accessible ways and research must be precise and pragmatic to effect real change. There is a lot of knowledge being held in different jurisdictions and communities. It is important to increase connections between top-down and bottom-up approaches - between universities/research bodies, governments, and communities to allow for the proper transfer of knowledge and learning from one another. There needs to be collaboration between researchers and other stakeholders and increased funding to allow the research results to be implemented on the ground. Creating strategic alliances and networks will be critical to bridge the gap between different actors and research bodies involved in food systems, and connecting producers to consumers. This is necessary for better integration of research and food systems transformation.236238239240241243244245246247249250The greatest challenge in research today is integration. It is important to bring together different perspectives, methodologies, and issues while focusing on the needs of the people who are at the core of the research. A systems approach when researching food systems is necessary. This means there must be more emphasis on increasing participatory research with youth, smallholder farmers, and Indigenous communities. Rural communities are the most vulnerable to today’s challenges including climate change, hunger and the pandemic. Not only should these groups be the focus of research, they also must be involved in identifying research priorities and implementing results. Panellists believe that an urgent change needed is the dismantling of silos. For example, researchers are doing important work around agriculture, diet, and climate change, but not enough of this research takes a systems based approach. This integration will be essential. New, innovative technologies and research can be used to reach a wider audience and to help communicate research effectively. Most research is conducted in English and this limits dissemination. Two-way communication between researchers and communities is necessary to ensure the research provides practical solutions. National and independent regional dialogues will be key to supporting dialogues between partners in various countries, to identify knowledge gaps across various topics (such as gender equality in food systems).237238239240241The panelists agree that education and communication have a large role to play in ensuring that research is accessible and pragmatic.

2021-07-23 15:22:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17414/57

We involved all sectors from the government, the municipality, the procurement, the wholesaler, the farmer and the interest organisations - Both before under and after the meeting.It shows, that it is possible to open tenders so that SME and farmers have a possibility to give an offer to the public tenders but it is not easy, and bends a lot of consideration.

Yes

234239246Food public procurement is the main topic of discussion. the Copenhagen food strategy sets new and ambitious goals and strategies on food and meals of high culinary quality, which can contribute to a healthier and more climate-responsible city for all Copenhageners. The strategy comprises initiatives that help to promote Copenhagen as a food city and contribute to develop the local food system around the city, The first part look at the opportunities for farm to fork procurement involving local and regional small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and farmers in compliance with applicable legal frameworks. Another focus is on linking school food procurement with education. The second part of the dialogue focuses on the domestic food market. Local and national stakeholders will discuss opportunities for upcoming tenders on the farm to fork procurement, focussing on potatoes (‘Copenhagen potato tender’).236239246A very important point that came up in all the discussions was the need to talk to each other to gain an understanding of the different needs and their reasons to act the way they are. It also came up, that procurement can be a very powerful tool to reach the strategies (including the set) that a municipality has committed to. Besides, to ensure sustainable, healthy food environments, and in particular, farm to fork procurement, a multi-stakeholder market engagement and a proper assessment of what is consumed and produced in the peri-urban context. Possible solutions: - Change how we procure: - Under threshold, direct purchasing i.e. buy a whole harvest from a farmer. Good for the producer, and results in good price for the buyer. - Dynamic food systems – using software solutions (increasingly widespread in UK) - Share farming i.e. as a municipality, agree in advance to buy a certain percentage of a farm’s harvest. - Follow good examples, and learn from leaders in your country i.e. Copenhagen and Milan. - Mapping is crucial and should be happening in every city around the world, based on: - What we consume (in the city) - What we have on offer (at local/regional/rural level) - We want the kitchens to be connected with the farmers, and also to bring this collaboration all the way to the teaching materials in the schools, but it needs to both involve the city officials so that not all have to know the procurement rules and how to do a food contract to do the cooking in the kitchens, this is what the project COACH can help with, by creating a teaching material of how to write public procurement that opens up for SME and farmers to give a direct bid to it. But it also has to involve the ministry level to have the right impact so that all the children in a country can have the benefit of the education material that is made. - Discussion on inter-sectorial working groups and how important is it that these are made to share knowledge – This is done within the Best ReMaP project. - Monitoring system is important (food waste, transportation miles, where crops are grooving, what we are using and so on) and by gaining this knowledge, we will be able to make better and more sustainable food procurement. We need to understand the food system, and the flaws to be able to help to fix it.236239244251Education on healthy and sustainable food is important and should be integrated into sustainable, healthy food procurement. It can be observed a lack of integration between procurement and education policy and departments. As outlined by the legal expert, it can also be a way to circumvent the difficulty to purchase local food by using a healthy food education strategy to ensure e.g. that school trips to (local) production sites are offered. Today it is challenging for children to eat healthy and to have a food education. They learn about food from Tik Tok: is it the right source of information? Schools are not able to serve the function of giving any influence on that. There should be a better connection between production and consumption, especially for children to easily navigate the way we shop and make independent decisions on food. Possible solutions: - Make link to educational purpose of procurement. Can be a legal loophole, but it’s also a fundamentally important opportunity to improve children’s diets, and to teach them about the links between food choices and environment. - Implementing interesting idea to “circumvent” local procurement prohibition by integrating food education (e.g.farmers visits) in public food tenders. Worth expanding the idea! - Food education to be integrated in all school curricula (good food and good food knowledge are basic rights and skills are important237239The participants did not agree on if it was a good idea (sustainable and green) or not to open To open the tenders to SME because of the more transportation.

2021-07-23 15:24:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36574/203

999

Dialogues were organized to incorporate, reinforce and enhance the principles by always including a diverse group of stakeholders, to ensure that multiple perspectives were acknowledged and able to communicate with one another. These dialogues also recognized the importance of collaboration between stakeholders, encouraging a complementary approach, which fostered new connections.This dialogue facilitated respectful discussions between members of multiple stakeholder groups. The diversity of stakeholders was embraced, and various topics including Indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence were able to be explored as a result. Various speakers were able to voice their opinions about policy design options. These dialogues also recognized the complexity of food systems, by acknowledging that humans, animals, land, water, climate and the ecology and economic systems are all interconnected and fundamental to creating resilient, equitable food systems.Designing sessions on the principles of diversity and inclusion from the outset helped to create dialogues that provided an opportunity for different stakeholders to connect across issue and sector silos, share perspectives and elevate areas of convergence and divergence.

NoSpeakers in the live dialogues were enthusiastic and curious to connect with one another from their respective locations and subject matter areas. Aided by the facilitators, connections were made throughout the conversation in order to point to areas of convergence, while it was acknowledged that tensions would always exist and require further dialogue and engagement to further unpack the issues and perspectives at play.

234238239241244246249250Co-organized by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Food Tank, and Global Alliance for the Future of Food, and in partnership with the UN Food System Summit (UNFSS) Champions Network, presented seven-panel discussions (running one event each month from January to June 2021) focusing on how to transform the world’s food systems. Each virtual series explored one of the Global Alliance’s seven Calls to Action and brought together more than 25+ UNFSS Champion speakers worldwide, including world-renowned activists, journalists, business leaders, farmers, policy and technical experts, and many others. Each conversation will help set the stage and identify critical pathways to create a better future of food and strengthen our global food systems for the upcoming UNFSS in September 2021. This third event in the virtual series highlighted the Global Alliance's call to action, Recognize and account for the positive and negative environmental, social, and health impacts and externalities of food and agricultural system policies and practices to inform decision-making. This discussion overlapped significantly with Food Tank’s Action Track #2: shift to sustainable consumption patterns. The panel brought together an international array of food systems leaders to issue calls for action on global food systems, elevate public discourse about reforming our food systems, and develop principles to guide stakeholders in leveraging food systems to support the SDGs. Speakers included were four UN FSS Champions Network members, who discussed the deep complexities of food and agricultural systems, and provided insights into pathways that can transform food systems to be renewable, healthy, inclusive, and equitable. The event is part of a series of panels with themes inspired by Global Alliance’s Seven Calls to Action to transform the food system. Moderated by Ruth Richardson, Executive Director of the Global Alliance and Danielle Nierenberg, President of Food Tank, each conversation features members of the United Nations Food Systems Champions Network. The panelists brought a range of perspectives to help understand food systems sustainability. Joao Campari of the Worldwide Fund for Nature put the environmental stress created by agriculture in focus and called on consumers to make conscious choices in order to have a profound collective impact. Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Co-President of the Club of Rome, urged consideration for those who have less choice in the products they consume and to involve young people, who will be most affected by the impacts of climate change. Naoko Ishii, Executive Vice-President of the Center for Global Commons, University of Tokyo emphasized the need for effective communication and accurate measurement to improve understanding of the impact of current unsustainable practices. Finally, Michael Taylor, Director of the Global Secretariat of the International Land Coalition, explained the need to support smallholder farmers, women, and Indigenous peoples who are crucial to the global food supply.235239243244246247250251The panelists provided important insights about how Action Track 2 and the call to action can be realized: • Food is a public good and it is essential. This point must override every conversation around the UN FSS and food systems transformation. • Equity and inclusion are core principles for transformation. Women and Indigenous peoples are essential to sustainable food production and biodiversity preservation; however, land tenure systems make both groups particularly vulnerable. • Not only do we need to recognize those who have no choice or “plate” at the table, we need to co-create solutions with them. • A focus on social contract and moving beyond the economic system is necessary to think about food systems from a new angle, with priorities beyond profit and short-term goals. • Finance can serve as a driver for change; however, the financial system needs to be overhauled by moving towards finance that prioritizes positive impacts. TCA can serve as a powerful instrument to drive change. • Agroecology and regenerative agricultural practices are key. These ecological systems that are in harmony with the environment also have social benefits and need to be scaled-up. To facilitate this, more research is needed that highlights the benefits of these systems.236239243244246247248249250251Below are ten key discussion outcomes from this panel discussion: Agriculture is responsible for 70% of freshwater withdrawals, 80% of deforestation, and 52% of farmland that is degraded, among many other major environmental impacts. The pandemic has had a direct impact on our food system and food value chains. It needs to be ensured that we are resilient to future crises. Research on land inequality by ILC and other partners found that land inequality is 40% higher than previously thought. 1% of the farms in the world operate 70% of the land Panelists also spoke at length about possible solutions and ways to move towards a more sustainable system. Key points from this discussion included: On the policy front, there are 4 universal principles to promote: 1) Food choices that reduce environmental impacts, 2) Promote food choices that support production that protects and restores nature, called nature-positive. 3) Everyone needs to embrace flexible food choices that are healthy and sustainable, and 4) G20 countries need to curb their food related missions. Finance can serve as an important lever, but the financial sector also needs to change. Instead of thinking about short-term gains, companies must re-prioritize and build shareholder value around long-term financial benefits, and link actions put in place to what is essential to humanity. It is possible to shift subsidies and put that revenue into positive investments in the agricultural sector, specifically agroecology. The feedback loops between biodiversity loss, climate change, and the food system are substantial. We need to view our food system as a positive contributor to climate mitigation, rather than as part of the problem. Agroecology is one solution. To achieve a sustainable food system, there needs to be a narrative shift, so that everyone along the supply chain feels a responsibility to make better choices, there needs to be a social contract. The current economic system isn’t doing this as it focuses solely on profit. Finally, panelists explained the necessity of including various disadvantaged groups in this conversation. Key points from this discussion included: It is important to avoid vilifying the food system, especially producers such as smallholder farmers. Rather, everyone must recognize the benefits of the food system over centuries, and help facilitate the transition to a system that works for nature and people, by incorporating these hidden costs into decision-making. Youth is the glue within communities. We need to forget how we envisaged youth in the past and move away from tokenism, as they are already a part of the solution. Youth are innovators; they need to be viewed as co-creators and enablers of the transformation we need. 70% of food is produced by small farmers, so the question really is what kind of policies can support the production systems of smallholder farmers? The current exclusion of these farmers is not a failure of the system because the system is deliberately designed to exclude them. It’s said that women feed the world, but we say that they feed us on somebody else’s land. Women are 60% of the agricultural labour force, but own only 15% of the world’s land. Women have less security and rights, and in emergency situations such as the pandemic, they are the first to suffer from the current food system, as they have little to fall back on. Indigenous peoples also face major vulnerabilities, and this translates to vulnerabilities of their land as well – including the ecosystems, biodiversity, and the carbon storage they protect.237239244251There was no significant divergence between panelists at this discussion. Conversely, there were many points of agreement. For example: Panelists agreed that current agricultural practices are unsustainable and need to be changed. While many consumers can be persuaded to change their consumption habits, some are unable to do so and need to be supported. Gender mainstreaming needs to be a part of any efforts to reform food systems.

2021-07-23 15:28:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36581/203

999

Dialogues were organized to incorporate, reinforce and enhance the principles by always including a diverse group of stakeholders, to ensure that multiple perspectives were acknowledged and able to communicate with one another. These dialogues also recognized the importance of collaboration between stakeholders, encouraging a complementary approach, which fostered new connections.This dialogue facilitated respectful discussions between members of multiple stakeholder groups. The diversity of stakeholders was embraced, and various topics including Indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence were able to be explored as a result. Various speakers were able to voice their opinions about policy design options. These dialogues also recognized the complexity of food systems, by acknowledging that humans, animals, land, water, climate and the ecology and economic systems are all interconnected and fundamental to creating resilient, equitable food systems.Designing sessions on the principles of diversity and inclusion from the outset helped to create dialogues that provided an opportunity for different stakeholders to connect across issue and sector silos, share perspectives and elevate areas of convergence and divergence.

NoSpeakers in the live dialogues were enthusiastic and curious to connect with one another from their respective locations and subject matter areas. Aided by the facilitators, connections were made throughout the conversation in order to point to areas of convergence, while it was acknowledged that tensions would always exist and require further dialogue and engagement to further unpack the issues and perspectives at play.

234238245246249251Co-organized by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Food Tank, and Global Alliance for the Future of Food, and in partnership with the UN Food System Summit (UNFSS) Champions Network, presented seven-panel discussions (running one event each month from January to June 2021) focusing on how to transform the world’s food systems. Each virtual series explored one of the Global Alliance’s seven Calls to Action and brought together more than 25+ UNFSS Champion speakers worldwide, including world-renowned activists, journalists, business leaders, farmers, policy and technical experts, and many others. Each conversation will help set the stage and identify critical pathways to create a better future of food and strengthen our global food systems for the upcoming UNFSS in September 2021. This fourth event in the virtual series highlighted the Global Alliance's call to action, Direct public sector finance and fiscal policy across the value chain towards ecologically beneficial forms of farming, better and healthier food, and resilient livelihoods and communities. This discussion overlapped significantly with Food Tank’s Action Track 1: ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. The panel discussed how the public sector can improve food access through not just production and subsidies, but also through various parts of the supply chain, externalized impacts of the food system, and taxes and procurement policies. The panel brought together an international array of food systems leaders to issue calls for action on global food systems, elevate public discourse about reforming our food systems, and develop principles to guide stakeholders in leveraging food systems to support the SDGs. Speakers included three UN FSS Champions Network members who discussed the central role of fiscal policy to transform food systems to be renewable, healthy, inclusive, and equitable. The event is part of a series of panels with themes inspired by Global Alliance’s Seven Calls to Action to transform the food system. Moderated by Ruth Richardson, Executive Director of the Global Alliance and Danielle Nierenberg, President of Food Tank, each conversation features members of the United Nations Food Systems Champions Network. Gabriel Cuevas Barron, Member of Parliament of the Mexican Congress, talked about the importance of having a long-term perspective when it comes to food systems sustainability and to improve cooperation between countries and the involvement of women. Lasser Bruun, Global Director of 50by40, highlighted the negative health impacts of current food policies, including obesity and malnourishment. Finally, Vijay Kumar of RySS pointed out the ways in which government programs such as subsidies can have undesirable consequences and the need for policy to take into account regional and local needs.235238243245246249The panelists provided important insights about how Action Track 1 and the call to action can be realized: Laws, budgets, and oversights most important tools when thinking about the long-term success of a food system, and to meet the needs of community members. It is parliamentarians’ responsibility to work with the people they represent in the communities because at the community level is exactly where change is happening. Conversations about food systems need to be held at a global level because it is a matter of humanity and sustainability, and it is vital that these conversations include different perspectives. To be more resilient and ‘build back better’, we need to shift ideals to focus on sustainability, and how to build a sustainable planet. The problem is not just finances; but preparing communities. Finance and public policy must be combined with action, science and evidence. Food issues can be connected to free trade agreements, and it is vital to be able to balance international commitments with national needs.236238245246249251There was extensive discussion about the uses of fiscal policy to promote food security and sustainability. Key points from this discussion included: Laws, budgets, and oversights are important tools when thinking about the long-term success of a food system. It is parliamentarians’ responsibility to work with the people they represent in their communities because at the community level is exactly where change is happening. Food issues can be connected to free trade agreements, and it is vital to be able to balance international commitments with national needs. Budgets also contribute to the sustainability of food systems, when it comes to fighting hunger, and developing stronger health systems, it is important to first understand it as a very comprehensive approach. Allocating budget to specific areas of the system is not sustainable in the long run because the system will no longer be symmetrical. Public procurement plays an important role and there is often a discrepancy between how public procurement is carried out at a sub-national level. There is a need to ensure a stronger alignment there. Panelists also spoke at length about the need for policy to consider equity and social justice concerns. Key points from this discussion included: When looking at the sustainability of our food systems it is important to look at problems through a gender lens. We can not continue thinking that women can be left behind because women and girls are an indispensable part of our economies, politics, and agriculture. In fact, there is data that shows if women are included in food systems we can have 30% growth in the sector. There need to be more policies that support women financially, such as taxes and subsidies to get women involved. Economic inequality leads to different issues in food systems around the world, including problems such as obesity, even in the Global North. Different countries around the world have different capacities to implement sustainable food systems.237238245246249251There was no significant divergence between panelists at this discussion. Conversely, there were many points of agreement. For example: Panelists agreed that governments have a role to play in creating more sustainable food systems through policy, taxation, and incentives. They agreed that gender mainstreaming needs to be a part of discussions about sustainability. All highlighted the need for international cooperation on food systems sustainability.

2021-07-23 15:28:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14004/203

140140

ICLEI, together with the FAO, was concerned with wide and transparent dissemination. We invite different types of stakeholders to participate.We worked to ensure the dialogue and associated engagement process will promote trust and increase motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement, and implementation.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251According to estimates made by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) at the end of 2020, the drop in GDP was 7.7% in the Latin American region, whereas in previous years, between 2014 and 2019, it registered low growth of around 0.3%. Along with an economic contraction, there is always a social crisis and the one that originated with the Covid-19 Pandemic will certainly be the strongest in the last 100 years, raising the number of people in poverty to more than 190 million from which 72 million are in extreme poverty in our region. In this context of rising social inequality, increasing unemployment rate and declining population's income, there is a serious escalation of food insecurity in the region's urban centers that must be tackled with structuring public policies. Given such a situation, local and regional governments acknowledge the challenge will be faced in cities, as they are home to 85% of the people. Also in this context, international commitments, such as the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact and the Glasgow Food and Climate Declaration are prescribed, setting important global milestones and pointing out urgent practical actions. These calls for action encourage the development of food systems aimed at promoting biodiversity, regeneration and ecosystem resilience, circularity, equity, access to healthy and sustainable diets for all, and the creation of resilient livelihoods for agricultural and food sector workers, thus contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The Independent Summit Dialogue of Latin American cities had the objective to reunite the cities to discuss their food systems. The region is one of the biggest food producers in the world, and also holds one of the greatest number of hungry people and is deeply affected by climate changes. Another purpose of convening this dialogue was to highlight the importance of the role of subnational governments in global food systems and the need for cities and regions to have access to public policies and financial resources, demonstrating that without the support of other levels of government and participation from the private sector and civil society, from planning to the execution of projects and actions, it will be more difficult to advance policies that promote food security for all. The priority urban food-related themes identified by the Latin American cities are: * Post-COVID-19 urban agriculture: Public policies for agroecological production as a strategy for economic recovery and combating post-pandemic poverty * Resilience and circularity, sustainable food systems as an instrument to tackle the emergency climate, social and economic crisis * Promotion of food and nutrition security for the vulnerable population: initiatives by public administration and civil society * Importance of the local government be integrated and listened by other levels of governments * Responsible Production and Consumption: Society without Waste * Union of efforts between sectors of society against hunger and poverty * Traditional knowledge and practices and their importance in public food policies * Training and financing mechanisms for the implementation of food systems in the cities * Conscious alimentation planning and the promotion of a healthier society.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major outcome of the dialogue is the call for actions that is jointly endorsed by the participants represented by 40 local governments across the Central and Latin American region as well as 27 partner institutions (organizations from civil society, national and international organizations and Cities Networks) and 10 universities during the Independent Summit Dialogue. According to estimates made by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), at the end of 2020 the drop in gross domestic product (GDP) was 7.7% in the Latin American region, whereas in previous years, between 2014 and 2019, it registered low growth of around 0.3%. Along with an economic contraction, there is always a social crisis and the one that originated with the Covid-19 pandemic will certainly be the strongest in the last 100 years, raising the number of people in poverty to more than 190 million from which 72 million are in extreme poverty. In this context of rising social inequality, increasing unemployment rate and declining population’s income, there is a serious escalation of food insecurity in the region’s urban centers that must be tackled with structuring public policies. As highlighted in the ICLEI’s Malmö Commitment and Strategic Vision 2021-2027, cities are complex systems. The components of urban systems, from food distribution networks and energy grids to transport and greenways, are interconnected and dynamic. Therefore, with the support of city networks and international organizations, we commit as local and regional governments to drive action through five critical, strategic and interlinked pathways that are the basis of sustainable urban development, towards low emission, nature-based, equitable, resilient and circular development designed to create systemic change. Therefore, we highlight the following recommendations: - Propose that the final declaration of the conference encourages member states to include local governments in their national policies, especially cities, providing them with financial and technical resources, as well as guidelines for the formulation of their local public policies; (impact indicator related to the corresponding SDG and at least 5% increase in the budget transferred to the municipalities for this purpose until 2030); - Creation of a cooperation program between cities, with the aim of highlighting best practices and disseminating replicable examples of local policies; (biennial program, covering at least 15 cities in the region per year, with impact indicators linked to the corresponding SDGs); - Include the healthy eating and sustainable food production agenda as a mandatory criterion for allocating funds related to the fight against climate crisis.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see the attached file

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Independent-Summit-Dialogue-of-Latin-American-cities_reporting-form_final.docx.pdfhttps://americadosul.iclei.org/

2021-07-23 15:29:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29356/203

505510510510

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has supported integrated solutions to systemic causes of environmental degradation for many years. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank Group (WBG) are all playing major roles in the preparatory process towards the Summit. As lead GEF Implementing Agencies for several major GEF integrated programs, all four are well placed to share experiences and achievements from GEF investments in food systems transformation through the integrated approach. To harness this opportunity, the GEF Secretariat organized the independent FSS Dialogue in collaboration with FAO, IFAD, UNDP and the WBG, to convene key stakeholders from country, regional and global levels and provide them with an opportunity to exchange on the themes and pathways that will strengthen the integrated programming for food systems transformation. This also gave the GEF partnership an opportunity to discuss integrated solutions to global food systems challenges based upon programmatic country experience to date, including how investment in the environment and nature can be appropriately incorporated within the Summit’s outcomes. Drawing upon the feedback, the Dialogue discussed game changing solutions that integrate key actions across the five Action Tracks to achieve sustainable food systems and generate global environmental benefits. The discussion was framed on experiences and lesson learned from across GEF integrated programming in the space. It also harnessed the convening power of implementation agencies to bring diverse stakeholders around the table to unpack the trade-offs and synergies of adopting a food systems approach to delivering global environmental benefits.The GEF approach reflects the FSS principles as follows: Demonstrating value-add of the GEF - As financial mechanism for the major multi-lateral environmental agreements, GEF is uniquely positioned to incentivize countries and global actors to work in an integrated manner across connected issues and root causes. GEF works with national governments, which are key for sectoral transformation. Demonstrating Program additionality - By embracing a programmatic approach, GEF programs are designed to ensure that the whole is greater than sum of the parts. GEF financing also offers the possibility of additional targeted investments directed at reversing disquieting trends in the global environment. Creating Institutional framework for Stakeholder Engagement – GEF programs are designed to bring stakeholders together for engagement on priority issues of global importance. The collaborative process helps to define the best niche for GEF funds to enable and scale up the work of others, including stimulation of increased private sector engagement. Dealing with complexity - The challenges of food systems as drivers of environmental degradation are inherently complex. The complexity is reflected in the economic, social, and institutional dimensions, and hence require a holistic and systems approach to advancing transformational change. Achieving results by promoting systemic shifts – GEF programs seek to promote sustained flow of multiple global environmental benefits while ensuring that progress in one dimension of the global environment does not negatively affect other related objectives. This requires a systems approach to incorporate spatial and vertical dimensions of the environmental challenge. Leveraging the private sector - Across all GEF programs, the integrated approach creates opportunities for a range of options to crowd-in the private sector, from co-financing and parallel financing to creation of institutional platforms for catalyzing change. Hence program design activities involve a wide range of private sector entities at national, regional, and global levels.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251Since its inception 30 years ago, the GEF has invested in a wide range of projects in the food and agriculture sector to address the need for sustainability and resilience. This has been largely driven by the recognition that sustainable food production and supply is one of the key solutions to environmental challenges. GEF financing and support through multilateral environmental agreements has focused on helping countries promote and scale up practices that improve agricultural productivity while protecting and restoring natural capital. This focus has strengthened further in recent years. During the GEF’s sixth (GEF-6) and seventh (GEF-7) replenishment cycles, the multilateral trust fund has used an integrated approach to tackle the drivers of environmental degradation on both the spatial and vertical dimensions of agriculture and food systems, addressing both production landscapes and supply chains. In GEF-6, spanning 2014 to 2018, two major integrated approach programs were piloted: the Resilient Food Systems focused on fostering sustainability and resilience for food security in the drylands of sub-Saharan Africa, led by IFAD; and the Good Growth Partnership focused on taking deforestation out of commodity supply chains, led by UNDP. A separate Coastal Fisheries Initiative, led by FAO, was also developed on a similar basis to improve the management and sustainability of artisanal fisheries in key geographies across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. During GEF-7, from 2018 to 2022, a more ambitious and globally focused Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program, led by the World Bank Group, was developed. This Impact Program further broadened the GEF’s engagement, targeting major commodities and food crops selected for their potential to transform food systems at regional and global scales and to secure global environmental benefits related to climate change, biodiversity, and other areas across multiple geographies. The overall programming and engagement strategy for these programs have been invaluable in helping GEF to advance the integrated and systems approach to transforming food systems. Collectively, the three programs involve nearly 50 countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and covering major commodities and globally food staples. In addition, each of the programs has mobilized and engaged diverse stakeholders, from the government, large corporations to small and medium enterprises, smallholder farmers, financial institutions, technical and scientific entities, development agencies, and farmer organizations. The experience and lessons emerging from these programs offers an invaluable opportunity for the GEF and partners to contribute to the UN Food Systems Summit and potentially pave the way for future GEF programming. The focus of the Dialogue was therefore on a comprehensive exploration of the programs and how the progress and achievements made are related to the FSS Action Tracks.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251Building on experiences shared by representatives of agencies leading the programs, stakeholders from government, private sector and civil society reflected on challenges and opportunities in moving towards the multiple objectives of ensuring resilient and environmentally sustainable food production, while also addressing livelihoods, food security, and health and nutrition goals. Defining the key criteria and parameters of a sustainable food system was highlighted as an important but largely under the radar issue. The dialogue consistently highlighted several issues that are key to advancing integrated solutions and serve as enabling conditions for transforming food systems. They include the following: • Platforms for stakeholder engagement and as “space” or “hubs” to influence change, foster collaborative action, and deploy knowledge resources and tools for supporting transformative action. This is key to fostering engagement between line ministries (e.g. agriculture, forestry, environment, and water resources) and between government agencies, businesses, and financial institutions. The challenge is ensuring the long-term efficiency of such platforms, which requires time for building trust with professional facilitation. • Effective partnership and dialogue between all relevant actors involved in food production and supply / value chain, including government ministries and departments, private sector and investors, and technical organizations and practitioners. Such engagement is critical for influencing supportive policies, mobilizing financing, and establishing institutional frameworks as levers to drive transformational change in the food sector. • Investing in smallholder producers to empower them and create opportunities for them to access to benefits and incentives. Frequently, the results of economic policies or subsidies in the food sector do not reach small holder farmers, who are often in need of dependable streams of finance/investment as well as technical support. Women and youth should be a major priority for such investments given their critical role in food systems globally. • Knowledge sharing and learning particularly amongst farmers, fishers, and smallholders at the base of the food production system. It was stressed, however, that while new experience and knowledge is an important ingredient to achieving sustainable food systems, what is being learned and transferred must also be relevant to the context within which producers are operating. • Investing in sustainable resource management and regenerative production practices that deliver benefits for people and the environment. These include agroforesty and agroecology for crop and livestock production, as well as protecting key ecosystems such as watersheds or coral reefs and mangroves. Local and indigenous knowledge can be as an important source of know-how for resilient food production practices. The Dialogue concluded with a call for integrated solutions and “radical cooperation” as key to harnessing limited GEF resources to support food systems transformation. This should be an important aspect for consideration by the Food System Summit Action Tracks as well as the cross-cutting levers.

2021-07-23 15:30:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27298/36687698164193

3411175116181034334523254164

The Dialogue was organized keeping in mind all the principles of engagement in every step of the process. Urgency of sustained and meaningful actions, complexity of food systems in Sub-Saharan Africa as well as comittment to bringing effective and constructive inputs to the Summit, and ensuring the Dialogue promotes trust and increases motivation were considered when developing the main topic as well as the Discussion Groups sub-topics. Respect of opinions, contexts, cultures, policies and practices was pivotal for the success of this Dialogue, also in view of encouraging and embracing a multi-stakeholder inclusivity.In an ex-post perspective, it can be argued that this Dialogue was coherent with all the Principles of Engagement in the ways and methods elaborated above. However, a major lesson learned is to work and engage a wider diversity of stakeholder. This task was made harder also by the fact that the geographical focus of this dialogue was transnational and that the event took place online, making it difficult to be attended by farmers with little to no digital literacy.No particular advice is to be given to other Dialogue Convenors.

Yes

234238240241244246248249250251By 2050, the world’s population could grow to 9.7 billion, food demand is expected to increase by 50% and global demand for grains such as maize, rice and wheat could increase by 70%. In Africa, food insecurity is one of the major problems and the continent is not on track to eliminate hunger by 2030. On the one hand, the population is growing rapidly and needs an abundant supply of affordable and nutritious food, while on the other, especially small-scale farmers do not have easy access to agricultural inputs and financial resources to raise crop productivity. At the same time, agriculture is a major contributor to the balance of payments for African economies, and needs to meet domestic demand as well as maintain its place in international trade. African Regions are suffering food insecurity at different extents with Eastern, Middle and Southern Regions suffering the most. One of the main reasons for food insecurity in Africa is related to the huge yield gap of the major food crops that in turn depends on a complex and interdependent variety of factors. How can we meet the food and nutrition demand of a rising population without negative environmental and social consequences? Sustainable Intensification is an approach that uses innovations to increase productivity on existing agricultural land with positive (or at least not detrimental) environmental and social impact. Both words, “Sustainable” and “Intensification,” carry equal weight. The ambition for Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI) can be reflected also in the Sustainable Development Goals. In particular, SDG 15 - Life on Land, which aims to sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and review land degradation and halt biodiversity loss; and SDG2 - Zero Hunger, which seeks to ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, help maintain ecosystems, strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters, progressively improve land and soil quality and maintain genetic diversity. If this ambition is to be realised, the efficiency with which existing resources are used will have to be enhanced to ensure that ecosystems services are maintained. Sustainability also requires ensuring social equity in the productive and environmental benefits from SAI, otherwise the poorer sections of the farming population and women farmers risk being left behind by the promotion of intensification. Despite the promises of SAI practices to ensure food security, a big scientific debate around the effectiveness of Sustainable Intensification strategies developed over the last decade. In particular, a number of NGOs worried about whether it might be used to justify intensification per se and the accelerated adoption of particular forms of high-input or hi-tech agriculture in vulnerable and poor areas at a smallholders scale. Sustainable Intensification can be achieved with a range of approaches at different scales (from plot to landscape). Different domains (productivity, environmental, socio-economic, human, social) can be considered to monitor and assess whether Sustainable Intensification has been achieved or not. Scientific evidences on the role of SAI practices adopted in African countries are still under development and somehow controversial depending on the scale of adoption, the site-specific conditions and the assessment indicators used. It is thus clear that no fixed SAI strategy is possible everywhere and the best trade-offs among different outcomes are to be searched for. The Dialogue discussed with representatives of Research and Academia, Civil Society and Farmers from Europe and Sub-Saharan African Countries, the challenges and the ways in which Sub-Saharan African farming systems can increase production of crops per unit of land, conserve or enhance important ecosystem services, improve resilience to shocks and stresses, while improving livelihoods, equity and social capital to ensure a food security system for all.235238240241244246248249251Participants overall converged on the following points: • Training and capacity building are seen as core elements to the overall success of improved Food Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Capacity building related to Sustainable Intensification and food security addressed to small scale farmers should consider training farmers on how to innovate and be competitive on the market and on how to link agricultural production to food and nutritional requirements. Capacity building and sensitization must be socially and culturally sensitive and shall take into consideration language and ethnicity barriers. Moreover, not only capacity building and training should focus on new technologies for Sustainable Intensification but also on traditional and local knowledge, favouring low-cost technologies and strategies, and adaptability to local farmers who do not have many practical tools. In this respect, access to formal and informal education for farmers in remote areas needs to be enhanced. In some contexts, informal education and innovative ways of raising awareness among farmers towards innovation can be more important and effective than formal education. In addition, improving access of women to education must be taken into consideration, also in light of the importance of enhancing and valorising gender crops (such as Fonio) in Sustainable Intensification strategies in order to ensure women's social and economic empowerment. All capacity building and education interventions should be accountable towards local communities and Donors. • Digital literacy and accessibility could make a difference. ICTs, especially mobile technology, could improve and overcome the constraints related to training and extending services. Technologies are available, but they do not reach those interested. A great effort must be demanded for these technologies to reach those that are most interested and in need. ICTs are helpful in teaching farmers on reproduction and preservation of seeds. People on the field and experts alike are also essential to educate farmers to new technologies in order to boost their productivity. • Cost of seeds and irrigation, and expensiveness of some relevant tools, such as photovoltaic panels and auto-machine, are a limit to accessibility for small farmers. To overcome this obstacle, farmers can create stakeholder groups or cooperatives for gaining access to those technologies. In this context, social networks, cooperatives and communities are encouraged to provide farmers with great opportunities even when accessing commodity markets. Moreover, access to micro-credit and insurance increases farmers’ capacity to be part of the value chain. Improving land tenure systems and ensuring the possession of land over the years for small holder farmers to stimulate long-term investments and perspective is also important. • It is necessary to work on a bottom-up process that takes into consideration farmers’ needs, involving all steps of the food chain, from the preparation of seeds and soil to the distribution of products to their disposal and recycling. This way also the quality of food and distribution between people will increase. On one side it will be pivotal to select a wide variety of crops, whereas on the other side it is crucial to use native species whenever trying to apply Sustainable Agricultural Intensification to avoid invasive species. Improved selection and crop variety for farmers is essential for climate change adaptation and rainfall variability in the coming years. A decentralized method and a multi-actor strategy need to be applied to make sure a wide variety of crops is established respecting the goal of sustainability. The valorisation of traditional knowledge by discovering local and ecological resources, and the use of local, accessible and already existing materials to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers, to increase nutrient cycling at farm and household level and recycling of crop residues, are important. Improvement of infrastructures and means of transportation is essential to allow for seeds and fertilizers to reach farmers on time as well as for the crops reach markets faster. Best practices such as the control of toxic fungi population, for avoiding food losses during post-harvesting; and solar drying for avoiding contamination in food are considered of great help. When discussing strategies to be implemented, also endogenous factors including geographic position, quality of soil, presence of water, general region characteristics should be considered. • A pivotal role has to be played by governments and institutions for providing affordability, distribution of technologies, and technical assistance, promote research and development of new practices, dissemination of results, contribution to capacity building and training of farmers. From the side of research and academia, it is important that research questions are co-developed with local communities since the early beginning of project cycles so that the results are appropriate and useful for farmers and they can continue beyond single interventions/projects. This will also reduce farmers' resistance to implement and use technologies or new ways of working. Finally, we cannot ignore some areas of Sub Saharan Africa where conflicts and political instability worsen food insecurity and contribute to high rates of malnutrition. In these areas capacity building is important but conflict and the fragility and disruption of the social networks lead to difficult implementation of sustainable and long-term interventions.236238240244246248249251"INNOVATIVE AND ACCESSIBLE PRE- AND POST-HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES ALLOW FOR HIGHER CROP YIELDS, AFFORDABLE, SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA" 1) Participants started the discussion focusing on which innovative pre- and post-harvest technologies and practices should be applied over the next years to increase crop yields while offering safe and nutritious food, and divided them in sectors of application: • SOIL MANAGEMENT: Precision farming. • WATER MANAGEMENT: Solar energy, drip irrigation. • AGRICULTURE LIVESTOCK INTEGRATION: Agro-ecology. • CROP MANAGEMENT: Neglected and Underutilized Crop Species. • POST-HARVEST: Drying solar systems and special bags that farmers can use for storing solar energy and avoiding contamination in food. • PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT: Push-and-pull technology; “Aflasafe”, natural product for minimizing aflatoxin limiting contamination from reaching dangerous level. It is used in Sub-Saharan Africa for augmenting the quality of products and quantity. • ICT TOOLS: Sensors for monitoring the conditions of grains during the storage. 2) Subsequently, participants identified indicators and best practices that could effectively measure the successfulness of these technologies and practices: • Time, in addition to quality and quantity, could be an indicator to measure technologies successfulness. Example: It is important to respect yields rotation/irrigation time and technologies could help in simplifying this process. • In general, when we assess successfulness of technologies and practices, endogenous aspects, including geographic position, quality of soil, presence of water, general region characteristics should be considered too. 3) Thirdly, participants discussed whether these technologies and practices can be easily accessible for small holder farmers, as well as the main constraints and possible solutions. The main issues raised were: • Economic constraints: - Land tenure systems limits farmer’s long term investments. - Cost of seeds and irrigation and expensiveness of some relevant tools, such as photovoltaic panels and auto-machine, are a limit to accessibility for small farmers. To overcome this obstacle, farmers can create stakeholder groups or cooperatives for gaining access to those technologies. • Digital literacy gap. In particular, a gap exists in countries such as Kenya, where young people create or invent new technologies for e-agriculture, but smallholder farmers are not informed about that and it is difficult to distribute these technologies. There are also structural gender inequalities and discriminations that need to be tackled. • Difficulties in reaching farmers with technologies and limited know-how. To overcome this obstacle, sharing knowledge among farmers and within farmers groups on how to use technologies is important. It is also important to work on a bottom-up process that takes into consideration farmers’ needs, a process that involves all steps of the food chain, from the preparation of seeds and soil to the distribution of products to their disposal and recycling. - Research and development, in particular on Sustainable Intensification technologies should identify which technologies could be implemented in a more efficient way, by performing a constraint analysis when projecting research. Working on adaptating technologies to the specific characteristics of the agro-geographic area is also necessary. - Involving farmers in the development, testing and adoption of technologies and practices and promoting capacity building, training and sharing of good practices i salso important. A key role in this sense will be performed by the Farmers Field Research Units within the EWA-BELT Horizon2020 Project. - A pivotal role has to be played by governments and institutions for providing affordability and distribution of technologies, technical assistance, research, development of new practices, dissemination of results, contribution to capacity building and training of farmers.236238240241244246248249“FOOD SECURITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA IS ACHIEVED THROUGH ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES ALONG THE WHOLE FOOD CHAIN” Participants started by developing their idea on how the Food System will change over the next 10 years: • Improved selection and crop variety for farmers is essential for adapting to climate change and rainfall variability in the coming years. • On one side it will be pivotal to select a wide variety of crops, whereas on the other side it is crucial to use native species whenever trying to apply Sustainable Agricultural Intensification to avoid invasive species. • Decentralized method and a multi-actor strategy need to be applied to make sure a wide variety of crops is established respecting the goal of sustainability. • Valorization of traditional knowledge by discovering local and ecological resources, thus reducing the use of harmful chemical products or pesticides, is important. • Management of natural vegetation (buffer strips, hedgerows) is also considered important to encourage presence of wild pollinator populations. • New ways to deliver production data from local crops and to improve crop protection knowledge will be found by improving the use of ICTs and mobile-linked tools. Specific environmentally sustainable practices and technologies can be applied and in the local food chain: • Intercropping – many options are to be explored, also by mixing cropping and intercropping to deal with climate stress and pest and diseases. One clear option is to work on what it is known to be already successful and very effective. One example is the push-and-pull technology, that is known to be successful and effective. • Use of local, accessible and already existing materials to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers, to increase nutrient cycling at farm and household level and recycling of crop residues. One example is to employ domestic and animal west. Among the challenges to applicability of these practices, participants agreed on the following: • ICTs (as implemented in the EWA-BELT Horizon2020 Project), especially mobile technology, could improve and overcome the constraints related to training and extending services. Technologies are available, but they do not reach those interested. A great effort must be demanded for these technologies to reach those that are most interested and in need. ICTs are helpful in teaching farmers on reproduction and preservation of seeds, also in order to increase entitlement of practices and seeds. People on the field and experts alike are also essential to educate farmers to new technologies in order to boost their productivity. Training on traditional knowledge is crucial, feasible and applicable, favouring low-cost technologies and strategies. It is also adaptable to local farmers who do not have many practical tools. • Covid-19 was also seen as a constraint in terms of people going back to farming without being given proper training on sustainability. • Improving seed variety is feasible, and has been made, but needs adequate investment in research and development for plant genetics improvements. • Give farmers access to financial institutions. Micro-credit and insurance increase farmers’ capacity to be part of the value chain. One of the ideas proposed is to work for reducing land tenure and increasing possession of land over the years, as farmers often do not think in a long-term perspective. • Social networks, corporative societies and communities are encouraged as they provides farmers with great opportunities even when accessing commodity markets. • Language barriers are considered a major constraint, especially in terms of education and knowledge-sharing. Efforts to overcome such extending limit are now due. Farmers need to understand what they are been taught, with respect to agricultural practices and the given technological tools. Translation to local languages could be a valuable solution. • Improvement of infrastructures and means of transportation. Seeds and fertilizers will reach farmers on time and the crops can reach the market faster.236238241246248249251“CAPACITY BUILDING, EDUCATION, TRADITIONAL AND SCIENCE-BASED KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION PROMOTE AFFORDABLE, SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA” Sustainable Intensification has different dimensions, one of these concerns the socio-economic and human aspects. Which is the role that capacity building and education can play in promoting Sustainable Intensification for food security in Sub-Saharan Africa? Some issues to take into consideration are: 1) Access to education for farmers in remote areas. We can speak of formal and informal education. Formal education is institutionalized, intentional and planned through public organizations and recognized private bodies of a country. In some contexts, informal education and innovative ways of raising awareness among farmers towards innovation can be more important and effective than formal education. Some examples of informal education: • Extension services: decentralization policies and focus on infrastructure are undermining the governmental extensions services that lack resources in Sub-Saharan Africa. Other actors such as NGOs or non-academic research centers are playing an important role for fostering informal education. • Promoting “modern farm models” as platforms where other farmers can learn how to implement technologies and where they can cooperate to share inputs to implement solutions. • New ways of promoting capacity building and awareness are based on the co-construction of knowledge and dialogue and communication among different categories of stakeholders through a multi actor approach. An example of this kind of practices is the case of the “Theatre Forum” on climate change adaptation strategies (see https://futureclimateafrica.org/coproduction-manual/). 2) Capacity building related to Sustainable Intensification and food security addressed to small scale farmers should consider: • Training farmers on how to innovate and be competitive on the market. • Training on how to link agricultural production to food and nutritional requirements. • Capacity building and sensitization must be socially and culturally sensitive and shall take into consideration language and ethnicity barriers. In this respect, the active engagement of leaders in the rural communities is crucial. • Not only capacity building and training should focus on new technologies for Sustainable Intensification but also on traditional and local knowledge (e.g. Traditional crops vs GMO; certification of local seeds, allowing and promoting locally-adapted, cheap and good quality seeds). 3) From the side of research and academia, it is important that research questions are co-developed with local communities since the early beginning of project cycles, so that results are appropriate and useful for farmers and they can continue beyond single interventions/projects. This will also reduce farmers' resistance to implement and use technologies or new ways of working. • In promoting Sustainable Agricultural Intensification practices and technologies, it is important to understand the different value systems of stakeholders and take into consideration the drivers behind agricultural choices that are not only related to cash or yield but they are also social and cultural (ex. pearl millet is also used for buildings and not only for food). • All capacity building and education interventions should be accountable towards local communities and Donors. 4) When we talk about education and food security, gender issues cannot be ignored. Some insights concerned: • Access of women to education. • Considering the importance of enhancing and valorizing gender crops (such as Fonio) in Sustainable Agricultural Intensification strategies in order to ensure women's social and economic empowerment. Finally, we cannot ignore some areas of Sub Saharan Africa where conflicts and political instability worsen food insecurity and contribute to high rates of malnutrition. In these areas capacity building is important but conflict and the fragility and disruption of the social networks lead to difficult implementation of sustainable and long-term interventions.237No particular areas of divergence emerged during the Dialogue. Indeed, participants converged on the vast majority of the issues discussed.

2021-07-23 15:31:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36599/203

999

Dialogues were organized to incorporate, reinforce and enhance the principles by always including a diverse group of stakeholders, to ensure that multiple perspectives were acknowledged and able to communicate with one another. These dialogues also recognized the importance of collaboration between stakeholders, encouraging a complementary approach, which fostered new connections.This dialogue facilitated respectful discussions between members of multiple stakeholder groups. The diversity of stakeholders was embraced, and various topics including Indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence were able to be explored as a result. Various speakers were able to voice their opinions about policy design options. These dialogues also recognized the complexity of food systems, by acknowledging that humans, animals, land, water, climate and the ecology and economic systems are all interconnected and fundamental to creating resilient, equitable food systems.Designing sessions on the principles of diversity and inclusion from the outset helped to create dialogues that provided an opportunity for different stakeholders to connect across issue and sector silos, share perspectives and elevate areas of convergence and divergence.

NoSpeakers in the live dialogues were enthusiastic and curious to connect with one another from their respective locations and subject matter areas. Aided by the facilitators, connections were made throughout the conversation in order to point to areas of convergence, while it was acknowledged that tensions would always exist and require further dialogue and engagement to further unpack the issues and perspectives at play.

234238241242245248249251On 27 April 2021, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Food Tank, and Global Alliance for the Future of Food, in partnership with the UN Food System Summit (UN FSS) Champions Network, presented the fifth of seven-panel discussions focusing on how to transform the world’s food systems. Each virtual series explored one of the Global Alliance’s seven Calls to Action and brought together more than 25+ UN FSS Champion speakers worldwide, including world-renowned activists, journalists, business leaders, farmers, policy and technical experts, and many others. This fifth event in the virtual series highlighted the Global Alliance's call to action:  Unlock private philanthropic and multilateral investment opportunities, and sustainable food systems, and better align those opportunities amongst actors for greater impact. The panel brought together an international array of food systems leaders to issue calls for action on global food systems, elevate public discourse about reforming our food systems, and develop principles to guide stakeholders in leveraging food systems to support the SDGs. Ruth Richardson,  Chair of UN FSS Champions Network and Executive Director of Global Alliance for the Future of Food, set the stage for the discussion by distinguishing the difference between public and private capital flows and the capacity of interconnectedness between them. On behalf of Global Alliance, she proposed questions to guide the discussion that highlighted topics such as agroecology and regenerative practices, encouraging more ambitious funding targets, and acknowledging organizations that use grants to promote positive change in our global food systems. Bettina Prato, Senior Coordinator for the Smallholder and Agri-SME Finance and Investment Network (SAFIN), opened the discussion by framing private finance issues in our global food systems' and the deeper complexities surrounding our current financial architecture. Prato stressed two inherent weaknesses in our current financial architecture on global and country levels. Firstly, finance in itself does not unlock investment opportunities, and the need to build up those opportunities is now required. We must design, prepare and de-risk those investment opportunities that are a weak area in the current financial architecture. The second identified was the need for fragmentation in our current landscape and recognizing the significant gaps in the types of capital being offered and the need to support the transition into more adapted and riskier agricultural practices. Prato stressed the need for riskier business models and investors to support investable opportunities that are really transformative and align with our agenda towards sustainable food systems. Andrew Mushita, Director of the Community Technology Development Trust, emphasized the role that debt plays with smallholder farmers stating that it makes them more risk-averse. He stressed that investments should be demand-driven and ensure that smallholder farmers are being reached. There must be adequate infrastructure and technologies to ensure that the pricing system is fair for farmers to return investments in their economy and the agricultural development sector. Geeta Sethi, World Bank, echoed Ruth’s initial point on the importance for public and private sectors to work together to define the price of carbon, soil as an asset and provide a policy framework that allows innovation to move forward, and compensating farmers for their role.  Co-moderator Dani Nierenberg, President of Food Tank, reemphasized the need to transform our food systems by actively engaging and recognizing smallholder farmers as critical stakeholders and mitigating the many power differentials commonly seen in the financial sector. Ndidi Nwuneli, Sahel Consulting/Nourishing Africa, stressed the importance of equitable funding and used Africa as an example of funding being received by the many start-ups driven by Americans and Europeans residing in Africa. She also emphasized the role gender plays in funding, stating that women farmers typically receive less funding.235241242245246249● Panelists believe that finance itself does not unlock investment opportunities, and thus good investment opportunities must have not only funding, but be well designed, prepared and de-risked. ● Panelists noted that investment opportunities must be demand driven and serve the interests of small-holder farmers. ● Some panelists argued that a next step which should be taken is for funders to actively track the number of local organizations that are getting financing, ensuring that local community actors are sufficiently funded and able to act sustainably. ● Panelists argued that stakeholders must break down silos and promote greater collaboration, between all sectors on the local, state and federal levels. ● Panelists believe there can be a mutually beneficial relationship between the public and private sector if collaboration is effective.236239240241242243244245246247248249251Discussion Topics: The first prominent issue the panel identified was the fragmentation and fracture of the sector, investors, there is a need for a greater understanding of different institutions and opportunities. The second major issue that was discussed in the panel was it is important to not assume that investment opportunities and finance are connected, or lead to one another. These investment opportunities need to be designed, prepared for and tended to. Another issue is private capital is moving away from this kind of investment, which is a big problem as we continue to look to invest in these solutions and put food systems at the center of the solutions set for many of the issues we are facing. Many funders focus almost exclusively on short-term horizons, and there is a need to focus on long-term horizons. Another prominent problem identified was risk, and the multiple dimensions of risk. The last issue identified was power differentials, there is a need to understand that they are very prominent within the financing world in particular. Power differentials are present in terms of who has a seat at the table, who is a part of the decision-making process, and solutions need to address how to balance representation at said table. Solutions Discussed by the Panel To address the fragmentation and fractured landscape as there is a need to be more interconnected and need to create an ecosystem landscape. There is a need to understand how private and public come together particularly for the repurposing of public support and how those financial offerings come together and are mutually supportive of one another. It is imperative to strengthen know-how, in particular, knowledge, and understanding of the system and opportunities within the system. Another solution suggested was co-designing with actors at the table. This goes back to power differentials, markets designed must be connected to and in service of, smallholder farmers by including all actors, especially those on the ground. Measurement and evaluation is a key solution in ensuring that things are visible, and progress is noticed. Values are important in measurement and evaluation because it helps determine what needs to be measured. It is important to ensure that intergenerational equity, youth, justice and fairness, equity, gender, resilience, and diversity are values at the center of conversations as they are important for funding flows to support deeper values.237239240241242243244245246248249251In this discussion the panelists seemed to hold supporting views and there weren’t any clear areas of divergence. The panelists agreed that the UNFSS will serve as a catalyst for change, but the challenge will be to translate these dialogues into national policies and implementation.

2021-07-23 15:34:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36602/203

999

Dialogues were organized to incorporate, reinforce and enhance the principles by always including a diverse group of stakeholders, to ensure that multiple perspectives were acknowledged and able to communicate with one another. These dialogues also recognized the importance of collaboration between stakeholders, encouraging a complementary approach, which fostered new connections.This dialogue facilitated respectful discussions between members of multiple stakeholder groups. The diversity of stakeholders was embraced, and various topics including Indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence were able to be explored as a result. Various speakers were able to voice their opinions about policy design options. These dialogues also recognized the complexity of food systems, by acknowledging that humans, animals, land, water, climate and the ecology and economic systems are all interconnected and fundamental to creating resilient, equitable food systems.Designing sessions on the principles of diversity and inclusion from the outset helped to create dialogues that provided an opportunity for different stakeholders to connect across issue and sector silos, share perspectives and elevate areas of convergence and divergence.

NoSpeakers in the live dialogues were enthusiastic and curious to connect with one another from their respective locations and subject matter areas. Aided by the facilitators, connections were made throughout the conversation in order to point to areas of convergence, while it was acknowledged that tensions would always exist and require further dialogue and engagement to further unpack the issues and perspectives at play.

234240244246248249Co-organized by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Food Tank, and Global Alliance for the Future of Food, and in partnership with the UN Food System Summit (UNFSS) Champions Network, presented seven-panel discussions (running one event each month from January to June 2021) focusing on how to transform the world’s food systems. Each virtual series explored one of the Global Alliance’s seven Calls to Action and brought together more than 25+ UNFSS Champion speakers worldwide, including world-renowned activists, journalists, business leaders, farmers, policy and technical experts, and many others. Each conversation will help set the stage and identify critical pathways to create a better future of food and strengthen our global food systems for the upcoming UNFSS in September 2021. The sixth event highlighted the Global Alliance's call to action: creating enabling environments for agroecology and regenerative approaches where investments can flourish and benefit all. This overlaps with action track #3, as it connects to nature-positive production. The discussion focused on ways to enable these practices through investment, education, advocacy, and government. Each participant brought a unique perspective to this challenge. This discussion aims to understand the ways that enabling environments can be created, the actions to be taken, what are the obstacles in the way, what are the dominant narratives that influence decision making, what are the knowledge gaps that need to be filled and how do we create the political will where agroecological innovation can flourish. The event is part of a series of panels with themes inspired by Global Alliance’s Seven Calls to Action to transform the food system. Moderated by Ruth Richardson, Executive Director of the Global Alliance and Danielle Nierenberg, President of Food Tank, each conversation features members of the United Nations Food Systems Champions Network. Helena Leurent of Consumers International explained that greater awareness among consumers can change dietary preferences in favour of sustainable agriculture. Vijay Kumar of RySS, India, described the pivotal roles of both government investment and grassroots, women-led collectives in increasing access to sustainable agriculture practices. Denisa Livingston of the Diné Community Advocacy Alliance and Slow Food International provided a reminder of the importance of Indigenous peoples and their traditional knowledge in creating more sustainable food systems. Lana Weidgenant of Zero Hour International highlighted the importance of young people to the future of both climate activism and agriculture, and argued that agroecology has promise to improve youth participation in agriculture. Finally, Emile Frison of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) presented some of the most challenging obstacles to creating policies which favour agroecology and sustainable food production, including poor awareness among policy makers and the profit-driven nature of the agricultural sector, and stressed the need for a paradigm shift in our thinking about food systems.235239240244246247249Key Findings: Panellists believed that knowledge bases on agroecology must be shared with policymakers, who can support and help scale up agroecology and regenerative approaches. They discussed the need for strong connections between various generations, countries and sectors in order to scale-up agroecological practices. Some panellists found that government financing and investments from philanthropists can aid in the transformation. For better transformation, it was found that healing frameworks should be used and implementation of intergenerational knowledge and knowledge transfer. Consumer advocacy groups have reached out to sustainable farmers in their respective countries and formed connections. Some consumer advocacy groups started to bring consumers into asking about where their food comes from, how their food is made, and where we are looking at substitutes for meat. Overall, agroecology as a science and a movement is a transformative way to break out of many current crises afflicting the planet. One of the reasons that agroecology is so transformational is that it provides us multiple benefits from restoring ecosystems to building climate resilience, from ensuring food security and nutrition to promoting sustainable livelihoods, from protecting biodiversity to upholding human rights.236239240244249251Discussion Topics: Investment in ways that consumers receive information that helps them with their choices and helps them understand the way healthy diets and sustainability can be built. The panelists argue that education at all levels is key. Panelists emphasized the importance of knowledge that is held by and shared within Indigenous communities, recommending that a focus is put on intergenerational knowledge and the knowledge transfer that needs to occur from the elders to the youth. A next step identified would be investment in ways that consumers receive information that helps them with their choices and helps them understand the way healthy diets and sustainability can be built. Technology can be used to create awareness and sustainability and healthy diets. E-commerce provides greater reach to and for the consumer.237239240243244246251All panelists agreed that it is important to support women, smallholder farmers, youth, and Indigenous peoples in agroecology. Some participants argued that consumer demand promotes the uptake of regenerative farming while others emphasized that there is generally a limited understanding of the topic amongst consumers. However, all agreed that more education is needed to help the public understand the impacts of their purchasing decisions.

2021-07-23 15:39:17204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36606/203

999

Dialogues were organized to incorporate, reinforce and enhance the principles by always including a diverse group of stakeholders, to ensure that multiple perspectives were acknowledged and able to communicate with one another. These dialogues also recognized the importance of collaboration between stakeholders, encouraging a complementary approach, which fostered new connections.This dialogue facilitated respectful discussions between members of multiple stakeholder groups. The diversity of stakeholders was embraced, and various topics including Indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence were able to be explored as a result. Various speakers were able to voice their opinions about policy design options. These dialogues also recognized the complexity of food systems, by acknowledging that humans, animals, land, water, climate and the ecology and economic systems are all interconnected and fundamental to creating resilient, equitable food systems.Designing sessions on the principles of diversity and inclusion from the outset helped to create dialogues that provided an opportunity for different stakeholders to connect across issue and sector silos, share perspectives and elevate areas of convergence and divergence.

NoSpeakers in the live dialogues were enthusiastic and curious to connect with one another from their respective locations and subject matter areas. Aided by the facilitators, connections were made throughout the conversation in order to point to areas of convergence, while it was acknowledged that tensions would always exist and require further dialogue and engagement to further unpack the issues and perspectives at play.

234238239241242244245246247249251Co-organized by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Food Tank, and Global Alliance for the Future of Food, and in partnership with the UN Food System Summit (UNFSS) Champions Network, presented seven-panel discussions (running one event each month from January to June 2021) focusing on how to transform the world’s food systems. Each virtual series explored one of the Global Alliance’s seven Calls to Action and brought together more than 25+ UNFSS Champion speakers worldwide, including world-renowned activists, journalists, business leaders, farmers, policy and technical experts, and many others. Each conversation will help set the stage and identify critical pathways to create a better future of food and strengthen our global food systems for the upcoming UNFSS in September 2021. This final discussion highlighted the Global Alliance’s Call to Action: Promote nutrient-dense, whole food diets underpinned by diversified food production adapted to different microclimates and socio-cultural contexts. Moderators Danielle Nierenberg of Food Tank and Ruth Richardson of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food opened the discussion by contextualizing it within the inequities and weak points of food systems highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Richardson stated that a shift towards resilience is required to prevent further such shocks to food systems. This panel discussion fhad key focus on Action Track 5, which aims to work to ensure the continued functionality of sustainable food systems in areas that are prone to conflict or natural disasters. The Action Track will also promote global action to protect food supplies from the impacts of pandemics. Panelists echoed these calls for change but presented differing ideas of what kinds of change are needed. Dorit Adler of the Israeli Forum for Sustainable Nutrition identified the western diet as a causal factor in the prominence of diseases including hypertension, diabetes, and COVID-19 as well as the environmental destruction of industrial agriculture and advocated for the subsidization of nutritious staples of the Mediterranean diet instead. Rick White of the Canadian Canola Growers Association pointed out the need to ensure that farmers continue to be economically viable and stressed the importance of government support for agriculture and nutritional education. Mike Nkhombo Khunga of the SUN Civil Society Network explained the need to make agriculture more accessible to youth, who are motivated to create sustainable food systems but encounter barriers to getting involved. The discussion presented connections between food systems, diet, the pandemic, and national security, among other concerns, indicating a need for a systems perspective when creating solutions. Panelists explained the need to incorporate gender and local culture in decision making and to seek opportunities for collaboration between the public and private sectors. Most importantly, all three panelists agreed that food is a human right and that it needs to be made affordable, accessible, and appropriate to local cultural and environmental context.235238239241242244246249250The main findings of this discussion focused on the areas listed below: 1. For food insecurity in the past, we have mostly focused on yield, income, and very particular metrics, but we know that we also have to look at equity, health and access. 2. Youth are an important part of the conversation because they are pushing for diets to change in many ways. They are not willing to have the same sort of calorie rich but nutrient deficient diets that have been part of our global diets for so long. 3. With so many people falling ill from the COVID-19, unhealthy diets are contributing to pre-existing conditions that put them more at risk. 4. COVID-19 puts diets at risk through disrupted health and nutrition services, job and income losses, disruptions in local food supply chains, and as a direct result of infections among poor and vulnerable people. 5. The manner in which food systems absorb, recover, adapt and transform in response to the shock of COVID-19 will shape their level of resilience and their ability to deliver on the longer-term triple challenge. 6. The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting food and nutrition security through economic and social systems shocks, food system disruptions and gaps in coverage of essential health and nutrition services. 7. Food systems in low- and middle-income countries must adapt and strengthen food and nutrition security in the wake of COVID-19.236238239241242243244246247249250251Below are ten key discussion outcomes from this panel discussion: 1. The pandemic has shown us that diseases which are nutrition related have led to the biggest number of hospitalizations and deaths. There is a correlation between diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and nutrition. 2. Food shouldn’t be treated as a commodity but rather a basic human right. 3. Unhealthy food options and processed food is cheaper for the consumer due to subsidies on foods like wheat, corn and soy. There is a need to subsidize healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. This would result in lowering the price of healthy food for the consumer. 4. Farmers are the soul and heart of healthy food systems and we must ensure that governments support them and ensure their survival and sustainability for the generations to come. 5. In terms of universalization of some of the policies, school feeding programs could ensure that young people and children within their school are able to have the nutrition they need. 6. A need is to incentivize some of the local growers within their society. They will be working in order to provide food within the society and the communities rather than focusing on very huge business opportunities which provide food but most of the food are high in calories and sugar. 7. The government mechanisms are effective in making sure that all these are key players that are working on the creature that is enhanced and are able to do their way. 8. The pandemic underscores the importance of resilience in food systems, which we should learn from to prepare for future emergencies. 9. Subsidization almost always gets capitalized in increased costs of land, labor, and capital, therefore the price structure increases, which eventually increases the cost to consumers. 10. The private sector is well aware that bigger and bolder moves need to be made in the direction of human rights, and the private sector and farmers have an important role to play.237238239241243246247249250251There were some areas of divergence seen between some panelists when it comes to the area of the private sector. The notion that the private sector is good at responding to market demand and consumer preferences, i.e.. reducing salt, sugar, saturated fats when demanded by consumers was not shared by all panelists. There was also divergence in the area of education and labelling products to consumers.

2021-07-23 15:48:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23555/192

18041121081043312411152211212

Prior to the Dialogue, the principles of engagement were sent in an email to all registered participants and the link to them was pasted into the chat at the start of the Dialogue to ensure that everyone had read them.We invited a wide range of stakeholders from different sectors and different parts of the world so that there was some country specific information but also a wide perspective from stakeholders from all over the world which were also relevant for each country represented. Some of the organisations present at the Dialogue already have some of the principles of engagement underpinning their mission statements such as recognising the complexity of food systems therefore there was already an understanding between the participants that they are striving towards a common goal and the spirit of community and listening to each other intently was present.

NoOf the 40 people invited, we had 35 sign-ups and as we run online events quite often, we were aware that actual turnout can be as low as 50%. We therefore had two possible schedules for the day, one was the same method as the Convenors Manual, dividing people into facilitated groups of between 8-10 people if every person who signed up turned up and the other plan was to keep everyone together in one large group if not everyone turned up. Having previously been a facilitator for 2 other Dialogues, our Curator was quite keen on the latter set up as although facilitators would feedback to everyone after their groups, he said it would have been quite nice to hear what everyone had to say. This also gave us the opportunity to include the voices of the planned facilitators most of whom were chefs from our network but who we were keen to have their voices in the conversation. So on the day when 18 participants gathered in total, we asked them how they felt about keeping it as one large group and they liked the idea. We had enough time, so everyone had the opportunity to have their voices heard and I helped the Curator to ensure that everyone had their chance to speak. It worked well as you could visibly see that people were bouncing off what other people were saying, some people had to sign off early but most stayed until the end and we had ample opportunity to go through our 3 discussion topics.

234238239241242245246247249251The triple burden of malnutrition – undernutrition, hidden hunger and overweight – threatens the survival, growth and development of children and young people worldwide. Well-nourished children are better able to grow, learn, participate in their communities and be resilient in the face of adversity. Having read the scientific paper for Action Track 1 and with the recent controversy around schools meals throughout Covid-19, especially - but not limited to - the UK, we decided to look deeper into how we can feed all children better. The following areas were identified by the scientific group for Action Track 1 in order to put children’s nutrition rights first: Empower families, children, young people and women to demand affordable nutritious food; Drive food supplies to do the right thing for children; Build healthy food environments for all children; Mobilise supportive systems to scale up nutrition results for every child; Collect, analyse and use good-quality data and evidence regularly to guide action and track progress. Through the Dialogue, we wanted to expand on these points and encourage collaboration among the different stakeholders invited as well as across sectors in different countries. Key statistics: • In the UK, 1 in 4 school pupils aged 11-15 are obese • Teenagers consume on average 8 times the recommended daily sugar allowance • Only 1 in 12 young people aged 11-18 eat five portions of fruit and vegetables every day • Approximately 36,000 children and young people under 19 have diabetes in the UK • London has more overweight and obese children than any other global city • Poor children are more likely than better off children to suffer from poor health as a result of food insecurity. • Worldwide, 38.2 million children under the age of 5 years were overweight or obese in 2019 and the prevalence of over overweight among children and adolescents aged 5-19 has risen dramatically from just 4% in 1975 to just over 18% in 2016.235238241242245246247248249251The origins of the health crisis we are currently facing in the west and certainly in the UK of obesity and overweight, has its origins in the education of children, youth and parents which should be prioritised and given financial support by the government. Nutrition needs to be prioritised for the first 21 years of life as non-communicable and chronic disease has its origins in the cells of our young people. We need to see the investment in the learner ages 0-21 as investments in the future to prevent illness and lifestyle diseases. Teachers can play a key role in this education. If they were trained about the importance of diet in their PGCEs, they would be less likely to accept poor food systems in the their schools. (see discussion topic 3) Community can also play a key role in this; encouraging everyone to be active members in their food system and use their voices for change. Schools could be at the centre of urban growing initiatives (example given in discussion topic 2) in support of their community and vice versa. We need to be a part of nature’s ecosystem again and show children how to be part of that ecosystem rather than detached from it. It is important to listen to the voice of children, empower them with the knowledge to recognise healthy and nutritious food, how they identify with it culturally and understand how the food they eat affects them. Children intuitively know what is good for them when we connect them to nature. Supply chains should be shortened wherever possible - the closer children are to food growing or growing it themselves either in a school or community garden the more likely they are to be interested in it and appreciate it. Not only can Chefs play a key role in school ecosystems but they are also key in communicating what good, whole food is and how we can cook it and make it taste good. In many countries in Africa, malnutrition and obesity lives side by side. This is a direct result of urbanisation and the glamorisation of fast food. In these countries, effort needs to be made to eliminate the stigma around growing your own food so that is no longer seen as poverty but community initiatives could come together to create urban gardens and remove the stigma. Chefs can play a major role in removing this stigma and teaching people how to cook with indigenous varieties of crops. Indigenous and heritage varieties of food should be prioritised for subsidies by governments when they are more nutritious than rice and wheat. Indigenous food should also be included in school feeding program meals and communities should have a say in what food is used for these meals & be able to shorten supply chains using locally grown food giving children nutrient dense food and not empty calories just to fill their bellies. Providing school meals and school feeding programs is good, but the food also has to be nutritious as this has a direct impact on learning & concentration. Food literacy i.e -the skills and knowledge for how to be healthy for life needs to be prioritised as part of school curriculums. Cooking and Nutrition was introduced into the English national curriculum for all 5-14 year olds in 2014, but no study or evaluation has since taken place on how it is being delivered. Food education and learning should be managed by an official body such as Ofsted. Where food literacy is not yet part of the curriculum, it should not be forgotten how relevant food is in so may subjects at school from languages, to history, to geography, there is no subject into which food cannot be incorporated and be used as an enriched learning tool. Food literacy needs to happen in tandem at school and at home and we can use innovative ideas to help teach parents how to cook such as mobile teaching kitchens which have already been shown to be successful in India and funding chefs to give community cooking classes. Exercise and teaching the importance of staying active needs to be a compulsory part of the curriculum worldwide. Governments should actively fund advertising to promote healthy foods, healthy, sustainable consumption habits and the importance of movement and exercise and follow up with a school roll out around the campaigns. Social media platforms should give free advertising for healthy food and lifestyle adverts. Governments need to intervene to stop the commercialisation of food in schools, hospitals and universities. The importance of chefs in these setting needs to be recognised. Ultra processed foods should be taxed by the government and additives in food should be reduced and some banned in order to prevent compulsive consumption. Some artificial colours and preservatives that should be banned worldwide are E-numbers tartrazine (E102), quinoline yellow (E104), sunset yellow (E110), carmoisine (E122), ponceau 4R (E124) and allura red (E129); the dangers of which are well known and are known to cause hyperactivity, are linked to stomach upsets and swelling of skin. Power needs to be taken away from the pharmaceutical industry in controlling the approach to public health and placed back into the hands of the individual. We need to move from disease care to preventive health care.Nutritionists should be available for appointments at GP surgeries and new parents should see a nutritionist as part of their baby care lessons. People do not realise the power that they do have over their own health and the earlier food literacy is taught, the earlier connection to nature is realised, the more we will have populations that are able to take care of their own health.236238241246247248249251Improving health and nutrition for children and youths relies on prioritising good food, reducing advertising for processed and junk food and connecting children to local, sustainable, nutritious and affordable whole food from a young age: Currently in the UK less than 2% of Food and Drink advertising goes towards advertising healthy food. Therefore not only should advertising be reduced for processed food but governments should actively fund advertising to promote healthy food and consumption habits and be matched by in-school campaigns that have shown to be hugely successful in engaging youth and encouraging them to be active citizens in developing their food system. Children naturally know what is good for them if they are not mislead. Advertising which glamourises unhealthy food should be banned and in places such as petrol stations unhealthy snacks should not be on display so much as children are attracted by the bright packaging. Bring back school cooking lessons - food literacy should be prioritised as part of the curriculum. There are many wonderful schemes and charities working with schools but they are usually one-off events. We need food education to be embedded in schools to help shift the publics preferences and behaviours: eg in the UK, Food For Life initiatives should be supported in schools by the government. Connection to nature is fundamental for children to learn about food and it is also very good for their mental health. The closer children are to growing food, and knowing where it comes from, the more excited they are likely to get about it and there is evidence to suggest that when children do these activities at school, they are more likely to eat their 5 a day at home. Food literacy needs to happen both at school and at home. Drawing parallels between Africa and Ireland, sometimes even when children are educated at school, they go home and all the effort is lost as the parents either do not understand or cannot afford to eat more nutritious food. We have to take a holistic approach looking at the whole picture. As a society we have lost the skills to use affordable nutritious food at home. In order to support parents in providing good nutrition regardless of budget and background, not only do we need to look to schools where parents can be invited in to take part in cooking, but also in less obvious places such as Sure Start centres in the UK which could positively benefit families who are struggling. In India, mobile teaching kitchens have been used to teach parents how to cook and would be a great initiative in other countries As suggested in the report by the Jamie Oliver Food Foundation, schools should be ‘healthy zones’. Unhealthy food environments, particularly in secondary schools, compromises pupils’ ability to make good food choices. We should protect children from advertising, ultra processed foods and counter it with education and good quality food available at school. Schools should be hubs for health within communities to ensure young people are receiving appropriate food education. More support should be given to the school workforce; improvements in food education qualifications and resources are needed and stronger reporting and evaluation needs to be in place. Chefs in particular can play a major role in this food education especially when chefs are incorporated into the school ecosystem - giving cooking lessons and engaging the children in what they eat. School cooks have a huge opportunity to influence children's diet. Chefs need to be paid a living wage to to do this. The wider Chef community are an important voice for communicating what good and whole food is, can explain to people how to eat the rainbow and its benefits. There also needs to be much more interaction between chefs and those who are providing school meals. Governments especially in parts of India and Africa need to look at subsidising and championing indigenous varieties of food such as millet and fonio which are more nutritious than traditionally subsidised wheat and rice crops. This would make the the nutritious food more affordable and would support women who are often the smaller scale farmers.236238242243245246247248249The reduction/elimination of chronic disease in adults is founded in healthy and nutritious food for children and youth - building healthy lifestyle and positive food habits: Food education in schools and initiatives highlighted in the previous discussion topic such as school gardens and school cooking classes that also teach parents should be prioritised and given financial support by the government in order to eliminate the health crisis we are facing long term. The money spent on chronic illness could be prevented by ensuring people eat real food. Children need a broad and comprehensive food education to be able to navigate the food system and be healthy consumers of sustainable diets. Parents need to know that they have the power to demand change over school food systems and school meals decisions. Emphasis should be placed on the importance of community in this. Educating parents and children is important but if building healthy lifestyle and positive food habits can be embedded into a community, everyone benefits. E.g there is a school feeding program in Benin where the community created the school garden and tends to the school garden, growing the food which feeds the school children and has food left over to go to the community living in proximity to the school. The parents therefore know exactly what their children are eating and the close proximity of the growing food means that the meals are fresh and nutritious. The benefits of projects like this are tangible but they also need financial support. The government has a responsibility to provide funding for initiatives like this when there is so much evidence to support how successful they can be. Rural schools are often space-rich and should be empowered to start these initiatives; inner-city should be encouraged to look at installing roof top vegetable beds to bring students closer to real whole food. Furthermore, India’s school feeding program feeds 100,000,000 children every day and a paper recently released showed evidence that this mid-day meal had a significant positive impact on the health of the children of the children who grew up eating this meal every day. Now that we know how successful this is, the nutritional content of the meal needs scrutinised and power given back to communities to decide what goes into these mid-day meals from their local vicinity including indigenous crops. To promote healthy eating habits in communities, fund chefs to run community cooking workshops whether online or in person to help teach parents and other members of the public how to cook. This could also be done is a community supermarket if it has its own kitchen. Since doctors only receive 8 hours of nutrition training in their degree and there is an ever growing base of evidence to support the connection between diet and mind and body health, nutritionist and dieticians should be a larger part of the health service. Each GP should have a nutritionist where patients who would benefit from lifestyle and diet changes can go and have a longer appointment. There are initiatives such as Culinary Medicine UK which provide training to doctors in nutrition with a chef and a dietician. Interdisciplinary work such as this can play a key role in connecting the missing dots between diet and poor health outcomes. Power needs to be taken away from the pharmaceutical industry in controlling the approach to public health and be placed back into the hands of the individual. We need to move from disease care and to preventive health care universally but also to prevent children from damaging their microbiome through antibiotics at a young age. Access to good food is a right for everyone and there needs to be resources for new parents to learn not just about breastfeeding but also about nutrition for their children. Spices and herbs have been used for millennia to heal and promote good health within the human body, the active ingredients of which are in many pharmaceutical drugs. The link between food and medicine needs to be taught to young people so it empowers them to be interested in these powerful, healing foods.236238239244246247249Driving food supplies to do the right thing for children and empowering families to demand affordable nutritious food for all children and youth are two of the most important outcomes for the next 10 years in a country's development: Driving food supplies to do the right thing for children is certainly needed but the change needs to come from policy level. Government intervention is urgently needed to stop the commercialisation of food in schools and universities. Many catering companies pay schools and universities to be able to serve their food there resulting in the catering companies searching to make a profit elsewhere by either taking out contracts with processed food companies and/or using cheap food in their catering. This needs to stop and kitchens need to be brought back to all schools As well as driving food supplies to do the right thing for children, supply chains should be shortened wherever possible - the closer children are to food growing or growing it themselves either in school or community garden the more likely they are to be interested in and appreciate it. One of the most effective things a country could do over the next 10 years would be to train teachers in their PGCE the importance of good, real, whole, nutritious food for children. In their training, teachers should be taught the physiological implications of poor diet and and the negative effect of obesity on IQ and cortex development as well as the link between food and behaviour/concentration in class. If children do not have access to their fundamental right to good food, - nutrient dense food and not just calories - they are also less likely to partake in academic learning so it is in the teachers interest to make sure children and youth are fed properly. If teachers were taught the importance of this in training, they would be less likely to accept unhealthy or cheap food in the schools they work in. Food can bring context to teaching in many subjects - Food for Life provides resources and lesson plans to do just this. Sometimes, messaging, teaching and advertising around healthy food can be quite dry -fun needs to be brought back into teaching healthy food and lifestyle habits. TastEd uses an evidence based approach using the senses - as applied in Finland for the early years curriculum- to help children to learn to like and enjoy eating healthy foods. The early years are so important for shaping dietary preferences and using the senses to explore food is a great tool for teachers and is great for giving kids the opportunity to explore and experience veg and fruit in a non-pressured way, away from meal times with their peers. This also takes some pressure off parents to instigate healthy eating habits. In Food for Life initiatives, schools have a School Nutrition Action Group which is pupil led and so empowers children to look after their own health. Teachers also need to be taught the link between food and climate change - if we changed our food systems, this could have a massively positive effect on climate change. If food supplies did the right thing for children, it would also have a positive effect on the climate and environment. Student exchanges from urban to rural schools and vice versa is a great idea. The Wheel of the year should be celebrated to give children a sense of connection to the changing seasons and school trips to see food growing should also be common place at schools. In some parts of the UK, there are local schemes to plant fruit trees in parks. not only is this a fantastic idea, but it brings children and the community closer to food, especially in urban areas but it also makes way for community initiatives to get together to look after the trees and furthermore can provide food for the homeless. Empowering communities is as important as empowering families. When we talk to people, we need to talk about real issues & not just small talk. We will use our voices to instigate change, get politicians involved and lobby them for change. It is not right that we still have hungry people worldwide and this needs to change. We can use social media for good to raise awareness about nutrition for school children.237It was brilliant and quite fascinating to see that although our participants came from many different places in the world, there were similar core challenges no matter where they came from and innovative solutions taking place.

2021-07-23 15:54:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20206/203

32811123010547253151014224221103

The Dialogue was organized and curated in a way that allowed for diverse, purposeful and respectful exchanges between different food systems stakeholders and participants at all times taking into account the Principles of Engagement. The goal was to connect ongoing critical discussions about food systems with initiatives on the ground to build new synergies across sectors and stakeholders. Therefore, it emphasized diversity and inclusivity both in the initiatives presented as well as among facilitators and participants. The initiatives ranged from farmer-to-farmer digital technologies to permaculture and agroecology in urban settings to traditional agricultural systems to indigenous women's projects and innovative government programmes. Facilitation was done by researchers from different universities and research centres. Participants belonged to most of the stakeholder groups identified in the UN FSS. It was an inclusive and international Dialogue that created a space for people from different professional backgrounds, ages and nationalities to re-imagine food systems. The Dialogue took one month to plan. The Convenor was based in the Netherlands while the Curator was in India. Speakers were located in USA, Brazil, Guatemala, South Korea and Indonesia. Facilitators joined from Germany, Scotland and the Netherlands. Organization and planning was done using Zoom platform, the Dialogue also took place virtually. The event was public and open to interested audiences from all over the world including field professionals, industry players, policy and decision makers, researchers, and students. Participants were invited through an open invitation posted on social media and emailed to different networks and individuals, phone calls and messages were also used to invite key participants without internet access. The Dialogue’s language was English, however there was simultaneous translation to Portuguese to ensure all participants felt included and also to facilitate engagement. Four discussion groups were in English and one in Portugues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244247248249251The Dialogue ‘Disrupting dominant food systems: Lessons from 5 initiatives’ invited participants and stakeholders to re-imagine food systems. Anchored in disruptive thinking, it aimed to challenge conventional approaches to food systems and explore alternate futures in order to build more resilient and balanced local food systems. Overall, the Dialogue advanced a systemic approach that encouraged participants, speakers and facilitators to regard the Action Tracks as inextricably interconnected. Overview The Dialogue started with an acknowledgement of the main issues in current dominant global food systems including scientific figures and numbers in terms of CO2 emissions, food waste, biodiversity loss, hunger and obesity. The initial presentation emphasized our shared responsibility to shift the way we think, produce, consume and relate to food. Elements of social justice and people’s relationship with the natural world were highlighted as well. The second part of the Dialogue introduced five initiatives led by diverse actors from across the globe that, in their own way, are contributing to transform the way people think and relate to food in their own contexts. With one exception all initiatives were grassroot. All five emphasized the importance of thinking and acting locally. (Individual presentations enclosed). The Distinguished Speakers included: • Rikin Gandhi – Co-Founder & Executive Director, Digital Green. Focus: India, Global. • Viviane Marinho Luiz & Laudessandro Marinho da Silva – Authors of the book ‘Roça é Vida’ (in English ‘To farm is to live’). Focus: Brazil • Siti Soraya Cassandra – Co-Founder, Kebun Kumara. Focus: Indonesia. • Rachael Cox – Director & Founder, Earth Empower. Focus: Mexico & Guatemala. • Seungha Baek – Deputy Director, Rural Development Division, Jeonbuk Provincial Government of South Korea. Focus: South Korea. The presentation of initiatives was followed by facilitated group discussions. Each Speaker was paired with one Facilitator, participants were given the option to choose the group/initiative that interested them the most. Three main themes were discussed: (i) issues related to gender, women’s empowerment and social diversity; (ii) innovation; and (iii) human rights. Participants engaged in a creative and critical process as they explored opportunities and challenges to build more balanced and resilient local food systems. All the Facilitators were researchers and included: • Annemarie van Paassen – Associate Professor, Wageningen University & Research • Birgit Boogaard – Researcher, Wageningen University & Research • Katharina Schiller – Senior Scientist, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research • Simon Fraval – Researcher, University of Edinburgh • Diana E. Lopez – Lead, The Sandbox T-Lab/Doctoral Fellow, Wageningen University & Research The final part of the Dialogue had Facilitators reporting back and presenting three take away messages from the group discussions which were framed according to all or one of these questions: • How were the gender/social diversity, human rights, and innovation aspects integrated into the discussion? • What were the tensions (divergences-convergences) in the group? • What aspect (concept, initiative, participants, argument, etc.) was found ‘disruptive’ and why?235238239240241242243244247248249251In general, Dialogue participants found it both important and ‘refreshing’ to step out of their professional or academic silos or areas of expertise and become exposed to initiatives and ideas from across the globe that are not only inspiring but can also be scaled and replicated in other geographies or in similar contexts. In the case of the Brazilian participants and speakers new relationships were created as they did not know each other but found enough shared interests (and challenges) to express their commitment to develop the relation further. Likewise, researchers based in Europe and in Brazil committed to translate the book ‘Roca e Vida’ from Portuguese to English as a way to honor and value local agricultural knowledge, and in particular, the dissemination of the traditional agricultural system of the Quilombo communities in the Ribeira Valley in Brazil to non-Brazilian settings. Likewise, researchers and entrepreneurs noted the innovativeness of the initiatives presented, particularly the farmer-to-farmer technologies and how ‘old’ concepts such as permaculture, agroecology and respect for nature resurfaced in a creative way that needs to be integrated in subsequent UN FSS discussions about food systems. Political will and government support were also identified as main challenges in reconfiguring the way we produce, consume and relate to food. Importantly, as exemplified in the case of Jeonbuk Provincial Government of South Korea, carefully designed food value chains that prioritize local farmers can report both social and economic benefits for all and not just for the farming communities. However, genuine and continuous support in terms of funding and expertise is necessary. Importantly, all the initiatives had a strong gender and diversity component with one, Earth Empower, specifically working together with indigenous women from Guatemala and Mexico to ensure local economic opportunities. Overall, and although many challenges were identified (see next section) participants highlighted the importance of embracing multiple solutions and diverse approaches to address the manifold problems in our current food systems. Importantly, there is a need to reconfigure our (global) behavior to food, to nature. In particular, to move away from thinking about nature as a mere provider of ‘resources’ and to value it as a living system that needs large-scale commitments from different stakeholders to regain its balance.236241242243244247248251Participants discussed issues of related to (i) gender, women’s empowerment and social diversity; (ii) innovation; and (iii) human rights in the context of each initiative. Follow key points for each initiative including specific challenges and actions needed. 1. Farmer-to-farmer digital technologies represented by Digital Green. Through digitalization and data farmers strengthen their position and gain voice to engage in constructive ways to change pre-existing power imbalances, such as top-down agricultural extension approaches. Farmers understand the value of their own data and have control/agency over it. Farmers use the cumulative information to make informed decisions and become empowered. This is possible through: • Targeting of elder, women, poor and landless farmers to work with them in equal pairing to build resilience and increase their empowerment. • Engage in atypical capacity building, farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing. • Develop effective tools to help farmers to become empowered. • Ensure enabling elements such as supportive policies. • Advance a mindset of democratization of knowledge production with capacity for global scaling. Challenges include: • Climate change is red herring for data usurpation. • Different approaches of government engagement, continuation of top-down approach and consideration of farmers as non-experts. • Further marginalization as data is taken away from smallholder farmers. • Exploitation of aggregated data, i.e. through future trading on prior knowledge without farmers’ consent. • Farmers lose all data. • Real danger of having a few multinational agri-food corporations privatize farmers’ data.2362382392402412422442472512. Permaculture and agroecology in urban settings represented by Kebun Kumara. Well-being of people living in cities improved by permaculture and regenerative approaches to produce food. Expansion of awareness and education about the origin and means of production of food. Gardening as a ‘perfect melting pot for communities’ to learn together and lead more healthy lives. This is possible through: • Peer-to-peer marketing that helps to reconnect people with food through showcase by growers in local areas. • Emphasis on local production reduces CO2 for food transport. • Farming and taking time to prepare the soil derives in mental health benefits. • Besides growing own food, surplus and replication of urban farming model can become profitable activities in a small scale. • Get children involved in the recovery and caring of empty lots or ‘dead spaces’ in the cities to educate future generations with different values. • Create digital content on YouTube and social media. Challenges include: • Pandemic limits community interactions but ‘Zoom gardening’ can still happen. • Local government is not supportive. • Urban landscapes cannot satisfy an entire city demand for food. • Urban farming is a fragile initiative without the support of private and public partners. • Still very new model, slow pace for transformation. • Dominance of large scale food retailers.2362382392402412422442472492513. Traditional agricultural systems represented by Authors of ‘To farm is to live’. Traditional communities (Quilombos) are empowered individuals and not victims. There is much knowledge and artistic talent in these communities that can contribute to disrupt unsustainable food practices. People from these communities commit to take concrete steps to continue and revive their traditional agricultural systems and transfer their cultural traditions, knowledge and practices to the next generation and to the society at large. This is possible via: • Continued process of revalorization of local culture and empowerment and taking pride in traditional values that prioritize a respectful relation with nature, especially with the land. • Strengthening of collaborations with external actors, in particular with government officials and researchers. • Dissemination of sustainable agricultural practices. • Responsible tourism in their communities that values nature and respects their culture. • Creation of role models derived from their own tradition rather than from the outside so that children no longer feel ashamed of their skin color or love for farming. • Develop other books and education materials to ensure better food practices are uphold within their communities as well as in other cities. Challenges: • Lack of government support. • External imposition of modes of food production and of land exploitation. • Continued denigration of their identity, belief systems and values by others in positions of power (teachers, government officials, etc.). • Selling of land or appropriation by large agrobusinesses. • Limited national and international forums to share about their traditional agricultural system.2362382392402412422442452472482514. Local financial opportunities for indigenous women represented by Earth Empower. Development of locally food-based businesses owned by indigenous women to reduce migration. The innovation is social and consists in development projects, researchers, private sector and others working together with indigenous women to create financially viable local businesses that at the same time value and recognize the women’s knowledge and expertise of particular herbs and other food. This is possible thanks to: • Development of partnerships with local and international actors. • Capacity building of the women that are part of EarthEmpower, including in relation to business, marketing, product design and use of computers to contribute to their economic and social empowerment. • Not dependent on external funding or donations but rather financially self-sustainable via selling of tea products, consultancies and capacity development. • Pandemic regarded as an opportunity to democratize further the organization and to the development of small home factories. Challenges include: • Land used to grow cash crops rather than herbs for tea or for other traditional foods. • Extensive bureaucratic hurdles to allow for certification and export. • Migration and social unrest. • Pandemic constrains women’s mobility for the business due to curfews, and limited transportation. • Business remains small.2362382392412422442462482492515. Innovative government programmes represented by Jeonbuk Provincial Government of South Korea. In south Korea, the youth tend to leave the rural areas and farmers are relatively old (> 60 years), have small plots of around 1,5 ha and have a hard time to make ends meet. Due to high price elasticity of the global food markets they are prone to high price fluctuations and small margins. Therefore the initiative advanced a potential disruption of global food value chains based on the successful experience of government programmes on local food markets and public meal centers. Potential for outscaling to other industrialised countries with rural areas characterised by an increasing elderly population of smallholder farmers was also identified. This is possible through: • Government commitment in terms of financial investments, logistics, infrastructure and mechanisms in place for direct exchange with farmers. The local food market enables poor farmers to have stable prices so that they can diversify their cultivation to deliver throughout the year. • Provision of small-scale food processing equipment and less strict certification, encouraging farmers to start processing such as the production of Tofu for the local food markets. • Value for community engagement, citizen’s organization and for farmers’ group activities. • Attached to the markets there are also public meal centres and connections for delivering meals to various schools and military bases. This provides women in rural areas additional employment, and provide fresh, quality meals for reasonable prices, affordable for ordinary people in the rural and urban areas. • Rural communities become less depended on fluctuating and uncertain prices and money transfers from supermarkets and traders in urban areas but become more self-providing. • Cultural change: consumers increasingly show interest in local food markets as it provides them fresh produce and a better feel to be connected with nearby producers. Challenges include: • Consumers might not value local food markets and/or (able) to pay a fair price for the fresh food. • Lack of cohesion, e.g. in highly urbanized areas where people massive started to order food digitally (amongst others due to COVID), supermarkets for digital platforms compete fiercely. • Poor engagement of the youth may lead to a loss or stagnation of these advances.237238239240241242243244247248249251The Dialogue was disruptive not only in its conceptual propositions but also in the way it forced participants, Speakers and Facilitators to reassess their assumptions, expectations and values by exposing them to very distinct contexts and realities. Hence, several areas of divergence emerged. Non-western values and behaviors were highlighted as ‘disruptive’ by several participants especially when discussing people’s relation to nature and food. Not all value the land or nature in the same way. For instance, one speaker started their presentation by giving thanks to their ancestors and to the land for everything that exists but this was not necessarily shared by others. Not only in Western context, in urban settings, and in particular in densely populated cities people has limited opportunities to encounter ‘nature’. As discussed in the Dialogue, this has several implications, for one city dwellers often ignore the most basic information about how food is produced. As noted by various participants, city children do not know where milk, eggs, meat, fish or fruit comes from which results in children (and later on in adults) being unable to empathize, care or respect those who producing it— i.e., farmers and nature. However, participants also noted that both in the cities and in rural areas value tends to be placed in processed and packed food rather than on fresh fruits and vegetables which results in numerous problems, including child obesity. Another issue is the lack of an efficient waste management system which often translates in open air dumps whose pollutants enter the soil and water that produces our food. Lack of government support for smallholder farmers, and who produce the majority of the food consumed globally was also a matter of concern and a point of divergence. Especially because some highlighted that current food policies affecting both the global and local markets overwhelmingly tend to support large agri-food companies in detriment of smallholder farmers. Relatedly, agri-food companies tend to rely in intensive and harmful agricultural practices which further soil erosion, biodiversity loss, deforestation, CO2 production and finally directly contribute to global change. Overall, there was an important reflection on the need to change our values and practices and learn from those participants and initiatives that advanced an interconnected approach to the land and to nature; to learn from those who understand and see nature as a living system that deserves respect rather than continuing with a distant and indifferent position to nature, to food, and to those who produce it.

Dialogue with 42 participants from different stakeholder groups and nationalities focused on disrupting dominant food systems and advance alternate futures. 2021-07-23 15:57:38

2021-07-23 16:15:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31516/87

04689105230201221521413222131

Incorporation: The Dryland Food Systems summit dialogue was organised to bring forth the underlying urgency in the transformation of food supply chains in the globe, India and the state of Telangana. In designing the dialogue, appropriate steps were taken to ensure all the principles of engagement were embedded across all conversations and preparations. By engaging diverse set of stakeholders including farmers, development agencies, government, agro-industries and start-ups the dialogue ensured that there was ample scope for building trust, complementing and respecting each other’s activities and contributions while we combat the complexity of addressing dryland food system challenges. Reinforcement: One of the difficult parts of organising a multi stakeholder dialogue is to ensure that all parties feel appreciated and represented appropriately within the context of the whole dialogue, as well as the specific breakout sessions. There were two components to this dialogue- offline and online. In the offline component- the farmers interaction, the principles of being respectful to local cultures and contexts was reinforced. However, to bring the urgency and commitment to the dialogue within the context of a rural community was a challenge. We overcame the same by patiently walking with the farmers on every aspect of dryland farming. Enhancement: The online component brought together well-intentioned leaders with the potential to leverage their knowledge and experiences with a macroscopic context. That was an opportunity to enhance the qualities of trust and multi stakeholder inclusivity while recognising complexity and bringing out the urgency with which actions are needed in these troubling times. Though there remained the dangerous intellectual trap of reverting to complacency since it was easy for an event of such nature to pass off for a familiar one with predictable outcomes as the past. We are happy to report that all the delegates participated with high levels of enthusiasm befitting their decorated positions.Specific aspects of the principles were reflected in the Dialogue in the following manner: Act with urgency: The delegates accommodated the Dialogue in their calendars immediately upon receiving invites, prioritising it above other engagements. Towards the end of the dialogue, calls to action were heeded by everyone and promises of action were made. Commit to the Summit: Dialogue and Post-dialogue engagement was clearly seen in how the delegates were mindful of the vision of the Food Systems Summit and the quality of the questions posed and answered. Be respectful of local cultures and contexts: The delegates were very appreciative of the video of women farmers created for setting context of Telangana-specific dryland food system challenges. The deliberations that followed took into account the cultural practices that determined the consumption patterns and supply chains at grassroot levels. Recognize complexity: The delegates were very patient throughout the process of the dialogue, both within the exclusive breakout sessions and plenary session. Everyone gave each other the necessary space and time to fully express and explore their subject matter since food systems are complex. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, Complement the work of others and Build trust: : These principles were very visible in the overall approach of the delegates to the dialogue. Inclusivity was especially seen in the manner certain institutions provided sufficient space with the framing of their action plans for other institutions to step in and provide their best possible support to maximise efficiency. The post-dialogue engagements that were promised, laid foundation for building newer and clearer goals.When an individual (either on behalf of an institution or independently, as a Convenor) sets out to accomplish a vision, it is common to find oneself staring at the unbuilt bridge between hopeful abstractions (in the form of frameworks) and manifested reality at the ground level. Every opportunity for human interaction presents this situation to all the parties involved. The Principles of Engagement form a pragmatic, viable and powerful bridge that can support convenors in their endeavours. Apart from the pointers provided in the training webinars, it would behove the convenors to stick as closely as possible to the Principles of Engagement in order to derive the maximum benefit from the dialogue. It is of utmost importance to recognise the complexity of the subject at hand, and to ensure actions taken as a Convenor subtly, yet firmly incorporate the Principles of Engagement at all stages of conducting the dialogue. There is sufficient reason to believe that the Principles of Engagement are applicable even in post-dialogue engagements since the commitment to the summit does not conclude with holding a successful dialogue. Every successful implementation of a Food Systems Dialogue can be seen as the fertile ground in which the seeds of intention, cooperation and trust have been sown. It then remains, as with any appropriate agricultural endeavour, to save soil and crops; provide appropriate care and nutrition to dryland farmers. The Principles of Engagement provide all these and more, in a structured manner.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249251Food systems are at the intersection of the challenges associated with malnutrition, human health, natural resource degradation, and climate change. As the world population is expected to touch 10 billion by 2050 countries are coming together to explore the complexities involved in food systems through many different lenses. While multi-front strategies are consistently being used from grassroot level to global level, it is pertinent to understand the importance of addressing dryland food system challenges from the household to the global level as drylands contribute more than half the food production in the world (crops and livestock and livestock products). Drylands are also home to the largest number of malnourished, and the poorest of the poor Drylands cover approximately 40% of the world's area and over 90% of the populations living in these bioregions are from developing countries. Another way of looking at this is that around two billion people in the World depend on dryland agriculture for their food needs. Developing countries are economies that still survive on agriculture for the most part, although other industries do support them. In this regard, it is important to address the problems faced by these bioregions as a whole in order to secure reasonable amounts of nutrition for the populations living in dryland tropics. More than 65% of India is dryland. While this reason is enough to pay attention to dryland food systems, it is important to note that the majority of India’s population is rural. The country is made up of more than 700 districts, with more than 664,000 villages that make up the 65% of the country’s population living in rural India. The majority of India’s farmers are small land-holders and have to reconcile with multiple realities that put them in a state of disadvantage as compared to farmers in countries where average farmer holds more than 25 hectares of land. The country’s governments (State and Central) are taking many steps to expedite the execution of solutions that have so far been arrived at through reasonable research and deliberation. Telangana, in addition to being the youngest state in the country, is also a dryland state. With more than 10,000 villages, Telangana’s population is heavily dependent on rain-fed agriculture. With pressing people-level problems such as population growth, migration to cities and reverse-migration due to Covid-19, it is a matter of utmost urgency that we start looking at the dryland food systems in Telangana and arrive at interdisciplinary approaches to address the following challenges in an efficient manner: • Irrigation Water supply: Telangana’s farmers depend on rain-fed agriculture. In the absence of rainfall, it is important to strategize for other possible methods of irrigation. For example, there is a pressing need to revivify existing tanks and water harvesting structures and build new water harvesting structures. • Genetic erosion: Increased loss of local crop varieties. • Local seed systems: Seed systems are weak in preserving local seeds. • Subsidies for locally cultivated seeds: Farmers purchase seeds every cropping season from the Government agencies at subsidised rates .There is a necessity for supporting local seed systems by extending subsidies to local seeds. • Increase in pest population- Dryland crops are increasingly infested by pests and diseases. Mono-cropping has contributed to this surge. • Lack of marketing infrastructure - Farmers need to be enabled to sell their produce in their own villages. Deferred sale could be made possible if warehouses and markets are established in each block/village. • Loss of soil fertility, soil degradation, crop loss due to climate change(rainfall pattern has changed). • Crops like cotton and soya have replaced millet, pulses(black gram, green gram) and oil seeds (safflower, Niger). • Government subsidies doesn’t reach the last mile.. • Less price realisation as the farmers sell their produce to local traders. • Lack of investments with FPOs and dry land farmers groups for bulk marketing235238239240242243246248249Contributions of each stakeholder for the development dryland food systems were identified during the deliberations 1. Technology and Knowledge Exchange: India and Africa face common challenges – among others, low volumes at individual farm gates, long and often inefficient value chains and value webs, inadequate storage capacities (especially cold storage for cold chains of perishable products), absence of efficient, transparent, well-regulated markets. India has been pioneering in developing improved agricultural technologies and improved varieties of dryland crops. Under the South-south collaboration, institutes like ICRISAT have been playing a major role in exchanging technologies between two continents. Technology exchange should also happen amongst different States in India. Research institutions have been creating knowledge banks which could be integrated into a Global Knowledge Bank on Dryland Food Systems 2. Agri data exchange: The status of agricultural data in India and African countries prompt us to initiate steps to establish state, national and global level agri data exchanges. Data lakes could turn into digital public good for data driven policy making and enable an ecosystem with intelligence on cropping and commodity marketing. The Government of Telangana and the Centre for Fourth Industrial Revolutions (C4IR) of the World Economic forum is implementing the Artificial Intelligence for Agricultural Innovations (AI4AI) project through which an agricultural data lake is currently being created and more than 30 emerging technologies developed by Indian start-ups have been carefully vetted and shortlisted for piloting and large scale deployment. Identified start-ups will use the standardised agricultural data shared from the data lake. (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Artificial_Intelligence_for_Agriculture_Innovation_2021.pdf) 3. Interdisciplinary development projects: Development project interventions, especially in nutrition amelioration does not sustain after the support period. Involvement of multiple stakeholders including research, industry, development agencies and start-ups, could lead to change in the cropping system and food consumption pattern, eventually contributing to better nutrition. It will also help in better implementation and sustainability. The state of Telangana has been implementing various nutrition amelioration programs, whose impacts are not sustainable. RICH has partnered with research organisations including the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), World Vegetable Centre, ICAR-National Research Centre for Meat (ICAR-NRCM); Development agencies including Nice Foundation(https://nicefoundation.in/), Grameen Mall Foundation(https://www.facebook.com/Grameenmall/) to develop and demonstrate sustainable and scalable nutrition amelioration protocol for the state of Telangana, which could be scaled across India. 4. Market linked production system: Market linked production system with end to end value system is essential to minimize wastage and increase value addition at the farm level instead of losing it to intermediaries. There has to be an anchor customer and anchor market, for whom the farmers produce. Database, crop monitoring and customised crop advisory reflects on the current crop conditions. ITC Limited- a leading Indian agro company is implementing a flagship platform called e-choupal(https://www.itcportal.com/businesses/agri-business/e-choupal.aspx), which acts as a solution integrator in various crop value chains, supporting new technologies to reach farmers. 5. Adaptive technologies: Increasing yield gaps and climate change are pushing researchers to develop high yielding and climate resilient crop varieties and hybrids. GMO technology is also facing regulatory hurdles in India. Hence, its necessary to look at alternative adaptive technologies. Smart Nanomolecule Induced Physiological Response(SNIPR) is an alternative technology developed by the RICH supported company-Bioprime Agri Solutions (https://www.bioprimeagri.com/snipr/) which developed biomolecules that modifies crop physiological responses. Adaptive crop varieties which are biofortified and suitable for India and Africa, could be potentially used to replace current varieties. 6. Grassroots level Knowledge: UNDP, India identifies grassroot innovations which could be potentially scaled across rural communities. While doing so, it has catalogued traditional ecological knowledge to develop community goals and policies. Grassroot innovations have great potential to solve hyperlocal cropping problems. 7. Policy Advocacy: Policy advocacy on use of emerging technologies is essential to address problems of dryland food systems. Policy advocacy should follow bottom-up approaches. The Government of Telangana and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) are joining hands to develop policies on agricultural data standardisation, ownership and sharing/utility. It is also planned to develop policies governing the use of government owned data by start-ups, industries and researchers. 8. Village seed banks and Seed Business Incubation: Making quality seed available at the farm gate will increase the chance of higher production by 15-20%. Research centres of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR) has been working with rural communities in establishing rural seed systems. Agribusiness and Innovation Platform(AIP) of ICRISAT (http://www.aipicrisat.org/) has been promoting lead farmers and NGOs into seed entrepreneurs.2362382422491.Knowledge exchange: Creation of intercontinental knowledge exchange platform for India and Africa would help researchers and other stakeholders. Peer-to-Peer learning: Projects and policies enabling peer-to-peer model of learning can be implemented between states and countries. States can implement technologies learnt from such models to reduce crop loss and reduce the total cost of production.236239243Mapping Food Consumption patterns: Mapping household food consumption patterns across all the states and continents, could help the research fraternity in framing food systems based research programs.236242248249Technology integrators and affordable Emerging Technologies: Creation of an agri sandbox- a centralised hub, where the tools/technologies are available in the repository, innovative ways of farming are promoted and a diversified ecosystem is created. Farmers are unable to adopt accessible technology due to financial limitations. A subsidy approach if taken by the Government, can help. Conventional breeding technology coupled with emerging technology solutions could lead to development of better technologies for specific dryland farming challenges.236238240246249Overarching policies: Agriculture is one of the highly regulated sectors in India and its policies require an overhaul. • Technology Regulation: Absence of clear-cut standards, regulations and operating procedures from the government. For instance, Drone deployment for agricultural spraying and crop diagnosis is a challenge. • Access to Data: Potential to increase value in dryland food systems requires better policies accounting connectivity and infrastructure to govern access to and use of digital technologies and related data in the agriculture sector. As data is key to digital innovations, governments may follow open data system as a means for promoting innovations which enable effective stakeholder decision making. • Hybrid Seeds: Extent of use of hybrids in dryland regions is till low. Government and all the responsible stakeholders should work towards the goal of increased use of hybrids. As GM faces regulatory hurdles, alternative technologies like Gene-editing may be promoted to develop drought, insect and disease resistant hybrids. • Increased Funding for Dryland Research: Increasing funding for dryland technology research and innovation can help in developing technologies for improving crop yields productivity. • Crop diversification will significantly help in eradicating malnutrition as it increases consumption of diversified foods with enriched nutrients.  National Forum for Dryland Food Systems could be established in countries with large dryland areas to catalyze activities of all the dryland food system stakeholders. The forum could work with its respective Governments to develop and enforce policies for the betterment of dryland research and extension.236241246251Women centric development programs: Women produce around 60-80% of food. It is important to acknowledge the feminization of agriculture. Women’s roles are diversified and inclusive in every step of the dryland food chain. We need to reduce women farmers' dependency on governments, and empower them to have entrepreneurial mindset and develop management capabilities within themselves.236238242246Research-Industry Network: Start-ups need an industry partner who could help penetrate their technologies for large-scale adoption. A collaborative approach of bringing stakeholders together to implement data driven solutions and prepare a global action plan on research, technology, market and policy interventions is essential for improving dryland food systems. A Global Centre of Excellence in Biofortification could be established to develop research programs, to promote biofortified food, advocate policy amendments and contribute to nutrition security of the malnourished population.236242249Greater Insurance Cover: Under the uncertainties of climate in dryland regions, we should incorporate crop insurance. Only 6% of the cropped area in India is insured. Farmer friendly crop insurance products may be offered by the Government and private insurance companies to cover the risk of crop in dryland regions.236241246249Integrated Marketing facility at Villages: Government and industries shall join hands to provide better marketing facilities to dryland farmers and conduct large scale awareness and PR campaigns on the available marketing and warehousing facilities and subsidy schemes.237238240242243244248249250Deliberations were focussed towards identifying and developing new strategies for the improvement of dryland food systems. Different options were identified by the participants for specific research and farming activities. 1. Cropping: Monocropping and Multi-cropping Research, Academia and the Department of Extension of the state and Central Governments suggest farmers do intensive monocropping of millets, oilseeds and pulses for better yields and economic returns. Mono cropping has brought better returns, by compromising nutrition. A millet farmer has to purchase pulses from fellow farmers or the local shops. In multiple cropping systems, dryland farmers sow pulses, oilseed and millets and use them for family consumption and sell the marketable surplus. Multi-cropping system not only helps in maintaining and improving the nutritional status of dryland farmers but also makes the dryland food systems, capable of supporting more people. 2. Policy advocacy-Single institution and Multistakeholder Policy interventions are essential for increasing technology adoption and faster reach of government support. Policy advocacy has been done by each stakeholder individually (research, academia, industry, development agencies and industry associations), which gives minimal results. To bring in a big change, it is necessary for all the stakeholders to join hands and propose development schemes for dryland regions. Multi stakeholders could plan periodical and sustained policy efforts. 3. Breeding programs - Crop breeding and Nutrition breeding Agricultural research institutes across the globe have been breeding crop varieties for high yield, pest and disease resistance and climate resilience. Increased crop production alone cannot ensure better income and health of dryland farmers. Research institutions may consider developing breeding programs not only for better crop production but also including nutrition traits. 4. Crop production- Cropping systems and Food systems The concept of cropping system research is slowly shifting towards food systems research. Research institutes have started developing research programs focussed not only on crop yield but also on its suitability for making diverse traditional and modern foods. The ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN) and the ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Extension Management (NAARM) have mapped the traditional foods of drylands in the state of Telangana, and across other states in India. Findings of these studies could be used in developing food systems based research programs. 5. Research- Single discipline research and Multidisciplinary research Research institutes conduct breeding programs for increased yield and resistance to biotic and abiotic stress, forgetting the aspect of marketability, nutrition etc., It is essential to breed crop cultivars which could be picked by seed and agro-processing companies. ICRISAT and Harvest Plus have developed Biofortified pearl millet varieties and hybrids, which have industry preferred traits like colour, yield and taste. Similarly, many national research institutes have been planning to breed nutrition rich red sorghum varieties. Such breeding programs may be developed involving food industries to provide details on the marketability traits; development agencies on farmers’ acceptance; and nutrition research institutes on the micro and macro nutrient traits. 6. Technologies - GMO and Alternative research tools As GMOs are facing regulatory hurdles in India researchers could use technologies like gene editing and plant associated microbes for trait modifications. Mutation breeding could be a potential technology for inducing variability to develop disease resistance and stress tolerant genotypes.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Agenda-final-.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJgGFUHgCM

Pictures of Farmers meet and virtual event 2021-07-23 16:20:46https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Farmers-meet-.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Event-Screen-shot-.png

2021-07-23 16:16:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29617/203

11415514034569242411203228326132187128

Our dialogue was designed to align with many of the Summit principles. Although our dialogue was focussed on the role of research and innovation to address these challenges, it was open to participants from all backgrounds and locations. Whilst we moderated final numbers so that the discussions were manageable, we embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by ensuring a balance of expertise and backgrounds across the breakout groups, as well the speakers and breakout group facilitators. We sought to complement the work of others by seeking input from other dialogue convenors in the planning of our dialogue. We also consulted with UK government representatives during the developmental stages of our dialogue to align with plans for the UK National Dialogue and specifically invited representatives from the UK’s National Food Strategy team to complement the work of the UK Government in understanding the research and innovation challenges associated with sustainable nutrition. The questions we posed to participants were designed to acknowledge and recognise the complexity of food systems and to encourage them to think of solutions and actions that take a systems approach. We also encouraged and invited participants from many aspects of the food system, with different perspectives, to encourage systems thinking. As part of the discussions, participants were divided into breakout groups, to consider actions that could be taken now to help reach the 2030 sustainable development goals, this maximised the opportunity for multiple voices to be heard. Further, we encouraged participants to contribute to the discussions using the chat function in Zoom throughout the whole dialogue event, particularly in addition to the breakout groups discussions giving everyone the opportunity to make their points and reflect better the diversity of opinions on the challenges facing the food system and the potential actions to be taken.The discussions at our dialogue mainly aligned to the principle of recognising the complexity of the food system. Participants strongly stressed the need to work in a multidisciplinary way in seeking solutions to food systems challenges, incorporating biological, economic, social and environmental perspectives and encouraging and leading this approach in research and innovation as a national funder. This was facilitated through inviting representatives from different sectors, backgrounds and nationalities and the framing of the three talks which were designed in a way to outline the complexity of the challenge. The outputs also strongly reflect other summit principles, including complementing the work of others. Participants recommended working with and learning from other approaches which have encouraged, monitored and evaluated research impact such as the UKRI’s Strategic Priorities Fund Mechanism and Research Industry Clubs. The dialogue also helped to promote multi-stakeholder inclusivity through encouraging consideration of marginalised and under-represented groups such as those in rural communities in developing nations, but also encouraging the incorporation of social and behavioural sciences into future activities to help to increase the realisation of impact for interventions in all sectors of society with a stake in the food system.We found that using the chat function in Zoom was a really valuable tool to enrich the discussions in the breakout rooms and between the panelists and participants in the plenary session. It can sometimes be difficult to get all participants to contribute but having the option to post comments and reply to other comments in the chat throughout the meeting levelled the playing field and reduced the barriers to participation. Before organising our dialogue, we met with other dialogue conveners to learn from their experiences and better complement their approaches and outputs. This meant that we were able to offer something different, while adding to what had gone before. Do not be afraid to advertise the dialogue to audiences you would not normally reach, this allows for different perspectives and enriches the discussion. The choice of the meeting chair and breakout facilitators is also important in this regard in attracting a different audience.

Yes

234238239240243244248249250Purpose: The UKRI-BBSRC dialogue focussed on discussion on the importance of nutrition and the need to integrate research and innovation across agriculture, food, nutrition and health while considering effects on the environment and inequalities. It was intended to: • create a virtual event to bring together a diverse range of research communities, industry, policy makers and other stakeholders across the agriculture, food, nutrition and health nexus to discuss and identify the key research and innovation challenges, opportunities and solutions to break down the barriers between disciplines and sectors to advance progress of the SDGs • discuss the importance of integrating nutrition research with environmental and social sciences, and highlight the divergences and convergences that may arise Context: The sustainable provision of safe and nutritious food for all is vital to address the global challenges of malnutrition, rising levels of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and to promote overall population health. At the same time, food production must be resilient and adapt to climate change and consider its impact on the environment and social inequalities. Transformation of the food system must consider sustainability, and nutrition and dietary needs at all levels from production through to consumption if it is to meet these challenges. Improving nutrition and food-related health outcomes while building resilience into the food system requires a multisectoral approach to understand the transfer of nutrients through the agricultural system* from soil to food to human health. However, integrating research across these sectors and translating this research into impact is a significant challenge. UKRI-BBSRC is ideally placed to support research which spans this nexus and worked with partners to convene a dialogue which brought together diverse research communities and stakeholders to identify the challenges and opportunities for research and innovation, and to discuss science solutions to bridge the gap between agriculture and health by preserving nutrition across the food chain and support the building of a resilient global food system that is sensitive to nutritional and environmental outcomes and social inequalities. *agricultural system includes horticulture, arable crops, livestock, fisheries/aquaculture and non-traditional food production methods. The dialogue started with three presentations to establish the context of the meeting and set the scene of the research and innovation landscape - highlighting unknowns, evidence gaps, challenges and emerging areas to facilitate open discussion in the seven breakout groups and plenary session. These were framed around three themed questions: • What is a healthy, nutritious diet for population and planetary health? • How can we improve linkages between agriculture and health research to produce an affordable, accessible and nutritious diet for all in a changing world? • What is the role of research and innovation in improving the nutrition quality of food in changing world? Participants were asked to consider and discuss a series of questions under each theme, for example: • What do we need to know, or do we know enough, about healthy diets for all? • What contributions will research make to achieving a healthy diet and healthy planet? • How can we improve interdisciplinary research across agriculture, food, nutrition and health to achieve a healthy, sustainable diet? What are the key research and innovation challenges and how can we overcome these? • What are the key contributions research can make to improving the nutrition quality of food in a changing environment? • What actions should be taken in the next 3 years that will have greatest impact and why? If you were Director General of the UN, what is the one thing you would do? (e.g. address a specific challenge, remove a barrier, are there examples of what has worked well that could be expanded on etc?). • How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • What are the divergences/trade-offs that are revealed and how to manage them?235238239240243244248249250We need to move away from using global averages when identifying the challenges facing food systems around the world. This approach can miss regional and local concerns which are dependent on regional and local context and can be lost when looking at international and national data. Applying a one size fits all approach can lead to resentment in areas where this is not appropriate and the building up of mistrust of decision makers. The importance of place-based solutions rather than world-based solutions were highlighted • Greater consideration of the economic sustainability of interventions made in the food system is recommended. This aspect is not always factored into research led by biological, environmental & social drivers and should be given greater prominence in future funding mechanisms. If the economics of research impact is not considered then the likelihood of successful interventions is reduced. • A diverse range of researchers, stakeholders & end-users need to be involved in the co-creation/co-design of projects to ensure viable products, uptake and impact of the research and achieve a sustainable system that delivers affordable, nutritious & safe food for all • To support interdisciplinary research in tackling food systems challenges, we need to support the building of a resilient research & innovation community of early career researchers, including more opportunities for staff mobility between institutes and disciplines, and training for systems thinking & approaches. • Much discussion focused on the complexity of the food system and the need for interdisciplinary approaches to tackle the challenges. A vital first step in this process is to establish a vision of where we want to get to and what we want future food systems to look like. It is important to establish a common goal using methods such as scenario modelling and foresight analysis, then we can design the best metrics to measure the success of meeting this vision. • It is very importance to be able to accurately measure and monitor the nutritional composition of foods & diets, and to better understand the nutrient bioavailability, bioaccessibility & uptake across the food chain from the soil to food as consumed including crop/animal breeding lines, harvested products, raw materials, processing & storage, food formulation & composition, cooking/shelf life, and biomarkers for human health outcomes. This requires the development of high-throughput, cost-effective assays, technologies and robust methods to identify where nutrient loss occurs across the food system and the impact of a range of factors that influence this. • The importance of plant-based diets were recognised, but there are many unknowns with much evidence focused on GHG emissions and wider aspects such as nutritional contribution/quality, cost, water & lane use, cultural acceptability, health, socioeconomic and geographical factors being overlooked. A more balanced approach is required • Despite the trend towards more plant-based diets, animal-based foods are still nutritionally important and research should focus on making livestock farming more carbon neutral and produce more affordable, nutritious, high quality animal-based foods. If intakes of animal-based foods are reduced, the essential nutrients they provide (not just protein) need to be readily accessible in bioavailable form from other sources. • Developing integrated indexes for human and planetary health were highlighted as vitally important • There was strong agreement that to address global challenges, systems/interdisciplinary research and multi-sector approaches are crucial. However, it is important that we do not lose sight of reductionist approaches to challenges where there can be some big wins • To deliver the actions and rapid change requested by the UNFSS, we should focus on research innovations already in progress along this pathway and improve or more effectively use the ones we currently have • The availability of tools, technology and data can advance a more comprehensive and systems-wide research approach, such as using AI, modelling, data integration & GM/gene editing techniques which have the potential to deliver quick results with a large impact. The UN needs to encourage countries to change local and National policies to use these technologies for human and planet benefit. However, the development and translation of technologies need to be tensioned against the needs and capabilities of smallholder farmers in the developing world by building a better understanding of rural issues and more support for rural infrastructure with low-tech solutions • Improvements to reduce food waste and nutrient loss at production/post-harvest stage can be a quick win to improve progress against the SDGs. Investing in stable post-harvest processes will provide economic security to farmers by preventing spoilage and degradation, developed with the whole system and energy efficiency in mind and contribute to improve human health • As poor nutrition, NCDs and obesity levels continue to rise globally, it was agreed that existing food based dietary guidelines need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are adequate as a basis for making diets more sustainable, fit for purpose in meeting nutritional requirements and how they can be tailored to specific population groups, based on robust scientific evidence • More food should be grown in urban areas in an environmentally friendly way to reduce supply chains and increase accessibility and affordability of fresh food to individuals who need it most2362382392432442462482491. Dietary guidelines Nutrition is fundamentally important for health, but it is difficult to define the optimum healthy diet for a healthy human, particularly given the diversity of the global population. Dietary guidelines have been in place for many years with much focus given to avoiding nutrient deficiencies, but the prevalence of poor nutrition, NCDs and obesity is rising which is major global challenge. While there are commonalties when comparing food based dietary guidelines (FBDG) from different countries, differences occur to reflect the cultural differences in foods, as well as variations in their level of detail, how they are employed and the level population adherence. For example, the FBDG in some countries consider other aspects such as environmental, food safety, dietary habits and food preparation. Therefore, we need to reassess whether the existing guidelines are adequate as a basis for making diets more sustainable, fit for purpose in meeting nutritional requirements and how we can better align them? The Federation of European Nutrition Societies (FENS) have conducted a number of systemic reviews on European FBDG (Tetens et al. 2020; BJN; doi:10.1017/S0007114520002469). In addition, a UK study reported health and environmental benefits were associated with higher adherence to UK national dietary recommendations (the Eatwell Guide) (Scheelbeek et al. 2020; BMJ Open; doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037554). While there is sufficient knowledge to be able to produce generic food based dietary guidelines, it is important to develop a better understanding of how FBDG can be tailored to specific population groups to address the health targets which vary across nations and consider environmental aspects. Actions: • more detail about micronutrient bioavailability from different food sources and fully understand the impact of gender, genetic variability, age, geography, culture/diets, climate, infection (how the gut responds to an adequate diet or if the gut functioning differs with infection) on diet, and the comparable and different nutritional/dietary requirements in low vs high-income countries • international collaboration to support and develop sustainable food based dietary guidelines that are tailored to specific population groups and incorporate environment aspects Success: • focused dietary guidelines that holistically reflect the interactions between nutrition, health and sustainability and are tailored to specific population groups so that the cultural and costs aspects are considered alongside the more commonly considered aspects and are based on robust scientific evidence • robust food compositional data, including information on micronutrient bioavailability, particularly for novel, niche and plant-based foods • Improved methods for objectively assessing dietary intake, that integrate modern technologies2362382392402432442482502. Sustainable healthy diets Nutrition and the quality of diets need to be more strongly recognised in the discussions, policies and actions about sustainable diets and addressing climate change. There are large knowledge gaps on the impact of what we eat on livelihoods, environment, ecosystems etc. We need a broader understanding of the connections between the different parts of the whole system and the impact on the planet. At present, much of the evidence is focused on GHG emissions whereas wider aspects such as cost, water usage, land use, cultural acceptability are being overlooked. What will the impact of a move toward more plant-based diets be on the food system and on achieving nutrient requirements? Due to COVID, individuals have become more aware of food systems and the concerns of the environmental impacts on the planet. A more balanced approach is required, e.g. the impacts of seeds and plant-based diets, such as pulses, should take into account the processing and energy taken to turn them into ingredients that people want to eat. The nutritional value of foods such as meat and dairy may outweigh GHG emission, particularly in countries where nutritional intake is relatively poor, or consumption of animal sourced food is low. We need ensure that nutrition and locally relevant data are included when considering sustainable diets and environmental impact. Actions: • Establish a clear challenge about how food systems might meet global and local needs in terms of nutrition/health and the environment. No one size fits all and there will be different challenges in HIC & LMIC countries. • More work is needed on the balance between nutrition and the environmental impacts of production and supply chains, for example, the metric ‘food miles’ does not currently take into consideration the impact of farm worker migration, supporting local economies (e.g. food exports), and better gender equality in LMICs, compared to the sustainability of food imports. • Integrated index: Incorporate nutritional quality into lifecycle analysis. Adopting this approach across different nutrients will give a sounder basis for decision-making. It will also need to include other dimensions such as water, SES. Provide accessible information for consumers, based on robust evidence, about the environmental impacts of their food choices • Additional research is required to look at the balance between the point at which the higher environmental footprint of some nutrient-dense foods is offset by their higher nutritional value • Build on available technology and the good practical research being undertaken in processing to reduce impact on planetary health (energy & water usage) to add value quickly and potentially make some traditionally negative planet health foods kinder to the environment • Develop the use of accurate & robust biomarkers (biomes) to allow the evaluation and monitoring of nutritional status and enabling early interventions to improve health. These need to be simple to collect easily at scale. • Grow more food in urban areas in an environmentally friendly way to reduce supply chains and increase the accessibility and affordability of seasonally produced and fresh food to individuals who need it most. This will also assist in reducing food miles. Success: • Good food system (whole chain) data production and analyses – using data better to give a clearer understanding of situation and sound basis for routes forward • An integrated index for human and planetary health informed by robust evidence base is developed and established • Established toolbox of nutritional and health biomarkers for use at individual and population level • Advances in technology research and building on current processing research for quick wins2362382392402412432442462482492503. Improving the nutrition quality of food in a changing environment • Animal based foods provide many nutrients important for human nutrition which are not found in plant-based foods or the plant form cannot be digested or absorbed as efficiently by humans. However, current pressures from animal welfare policies in the UK are making it harder to farm livestock in an environmentally friendly way. • Collaborations between plant and clinical scientists would remove the bottleneck between enhancing nutrition in plant studies and human trials by enabling preparatory work to improve understanding of/ remove barriers in project design, translation and impact • Stronger collaborations between industry and researchers are needed to improve nutritional profiles across all food groups and not just among niche products with perceived higher economic value, e.g. higher vitamin D in eggs with no price increase for consumer • Currently industry do not use gold standard accredited tests for nutrition screening as they are too expensive and time-consuming. High-throughput, cost-effective assays to determine nutrient composition need to be developed and could be used to improve labelling to inform the consumer about what they are eating • Also need simplified, but accurate methods to measure bioavailability and absorption of nutrients in humans in real life environments. • Bioavailability: There are many gaps in our understanding of nutrient bioaccessibility and bioavailability and the disconnect with the nutrient composition of food(s). Bioavailability is difficult to measure and is affected by meal composition and nutritional status/physiological requirements of the consumer, e.g. phytochemicals (phytates) and phenolic compounds (tannins) can bind important micronutrients such as Iron, Calcium and Zinc and make them unavailable to be absorbed by our intestinal cells. A better understanding of what happens to nutrients along the food chain from soil to production to processing to consumer is needed Actions: • Cross-collaboration across the different disciplines and sectors (agricultural, environmental, clinical and social sciences, nutritionists, livestock & crop farmers, industry, investors & retailors) is needed to advance the area – all whilst bearing the consumer in mind. • Research on livestock farming should focus on making it become more carbon neutral and produce more affordable, nutritious, high quality animal-based foods and reduce population consumption of more processed foods, particularly those high in saturated fat, sugar and/or salt. • The UN should encourage international legislation to focus the marketing of processed foods on nutritional quality (both composition and bioavailability of nutrients) • develop high throughput, cost-effective tests to determine and subsequently improve nutrient compositions and nutritional profiles for crop breeding lines/animal breeds, harvested products, raw materials, processing & storage, food formulation and cooking/shelf life • develop a real understanding of bioavailability of essential nutrients (e.g minerals) from soil to consumer and at the food level with human studies to progress and eventually predict the nutritional value of foods once consumed. Success: • Better cross-disciplinary work across all stakeholders and different countries to produce high impact work. • high-throughput nutritional screening assays for industry • Better food labelling • Improved nutrient flow and reduced nutrient loss along the food chain • processing to maximise the use of existing nutrients from a range of sources to produce affordable, healthy processed foods with a balanced nutritional profile which also address sustainability/waste issues2362382392412484. Food loss/waste • The post-harvest stage is often over-looked, but this is a key component of the food system. A reduction of food and nutrient loss during the post-harvest and processing phases is essential. Food loss often occurs at entry into the processing system. For example, large proportions of grain gets rejected, of which some passes into livestock feed and rejection levels increase with severe weather events. Actions: • Invest in stable post-harvest processes, such as low-cost cool supply and storage chains, to provide economic security to farmers by preventing spoilage and degradation, developed with the whole system and energy efficiency in mind. • develop better methods of processing foods to reduce nutrient loss Success: • improvements in reducing food lost and waste at production/post-harvest stage can be a quick win2362382392402412422442462482495. Research & Innovation – the role of technology • While there is a very strong focus on taking a systems or interdisciplinary research approach to address global challenges, it is important that we do not lose sight of the reductionist approaches to challenges where there can be some big wins, for example widening the gene pool of our cultivated wheat varieties • Innovation can take a considerably long time to convert an idea into a product (which is increasingly important to funders and policymakers) and it has been reported that on average, in the agricultural sector the time scale is approx. 30 years. Therefore, to deliver the rapid change requested by the UNFSS timeline, we should focus on innovations already in progress along this pathway, improve or more effectively use the ones we currently have • The availability of tools, technology and data can advance a more comprehensive and systems-wide research approach, such as - GM and gene editing techniques which have the potential to deliver quick results with a large impact such as increasing the resilience and nutritional value of crops, fruit and vegetables and livestock - Using AI, modelling, data integration and platforms, digital twin technology to capture, increase understanding and manage the complexity of, food chain supply and high throughput testing systems to determine nutrient compositions and status • The development and translation of technologies needs to be tensioned against the needs and capabilities of smallholder farmers in the developing world (who make up a significant proportion of agriculture). A better understanding of rural issues and more support for rural infrastructure with low-tech solutions should be factored in Actions: • UN to encourage changes to local and National policies, particularly those surrounding the use of GM/GE • Reduce the barriers to getting nutritious crops with improved functionality onto commercial lists and accelerating the breeding to marketing cycle • AI, modelling and digital twins to capture and manage the complexity that currently exists in the food system (e.g. environmental issues, human health, behaviour and inequalities). This will enable us to develop a better understanding of the divergences and trade-offs • Link food, health, and personalised food service (i.e., increasing use of online food shopping, food delivery services) using big data • Develop an integrated index for human and planetary health for monitoring purposes • Develop accurate & robust biomarkers (biomes) to allow the evaluation and monitoring of nutritional status and enabling early interventions to improve human health. These need to be simple to collect easily at scale • develop high throughput, cost-effective tests to determine and subsequently improve nutrient compositions and nutritional profiles for crop breeding lines/animal breeds, harvested products, raw materials, processing & storage, food formulation and cooking/shelf life Success: • Widespread use of tools and technologies to aid understanding of the nutrient quality of food once consumed and the impact this has on health outcomes • Increased support for rural smallholder famers with affordable technological solutions to relevant issues2362382392412432482506. Consumer behaviour • There is distinct gap between knowledge and practice – we know broadly what we should be eating, but how do we get there? The key challenge is how to use our knowledge to influence actual diet across diverse communities to achieve a win-win for human and planetary health. • the 'human' aspect of diets and eating go beyond nutrients. Not everyone is interested in or chooses foods based on health or the environment. They have other priorities of which the major is barrier is affordability of food as well as other influences such as pleasure, cultural and social aspects which are more important and effect wellbeing. Decades of research have shown that education alone does not change diets and making information about healthy diets available to people is a very partial solution • Food environments are currently skewed towards promoting unhealthy food choices (advertising, pricing etc) and we need to make it easier for people to make healthy choices so this becomes the normal practice. However, this needs to be balanced as food is also an economic commodity so we need to factor in economics, livelihoods and inequality of access as a driver and impact factor. This could be addressed by integrating data methodologies including qualitative data, modelling and scenario development • We need to help people to better understand what they are eating and to develop interdisciplinary approaches, embedding social/behavioural science (e.g. marketing psychology), to enable this. Methodologies and technologies, such as objective feedback and coaching are crucial, but there is an urgent need to develop better, more objective dietary assessment methods to improve the self-reporting of diet. Currently it is very difficult to capture misreporting (under- and over-reporting of dietary/food intake) • We need robust evidence to make a real difference to diet and health and must develop clear metrics to derive a sustainability index that includes the nutritional quality of food at its center. There are lots of trade-offs to consider such as, food safety (allergenicity), cleanness of label, socio-economics and finding a way between these needs in an environmentally balanced way which is highly complex, particularly considering the different agricultural/food production methods including local production and self-sufficiency • Food technology: interventions at food processing, manufacture and distribution level is key to providing nutritious and affordable food for all. As increased food production alone does not always ensure affordability, regulatory interventions to make nutritious foods affordable are crucial. Actions: • Increased investment in food technology (food processing, manufacture and distribution level) is key to closing the gap in food affordability and providing a culturally acceptable and nutritious diet for all • Integration of data methodologies including qualitative data, modelling and scenario development relating food environments, economics, livelihoods and inequality of access to influence consumer behaviour/food choice • Integrating economic and social science in food systems research to help interventions take account of behaviour and equity of access Success: • A better integrated food systems research community with an appreciation of the importance of economic and social implications of transforming food production and nutritional quality of diets2362382392402412432442452462482497. Co-creation and co-design of research • Research and innovation that enables us to sustainably deliver affordable, acceptable and nutritious meals every day for everyone is a massive challenge and a range of academic disciplines, the private sectors and other sectors must to come together to deliver this. • It is important nutritionists are involved the co-creation/co-design of research projects that are focussed on food • Stakeholders and end-users of research such as industry, farmers, consumers and policymakers must be involved in the co-creation/co-design of research projects and training to ensure viable products, uptake and impact of the research. For example, co-designing research with farmers who would be growing the new varieties of nutritionally dense food/crops, because if it takes extra efforts for farmers to grow those varieties without much return on investment then the whole research stays at laboratory level. Just as we have patient participation representatives in the design of human studies, we must involve consumers in food research, there is no point producing food products that consumers will not purchase or eat. This will provide some indication of the economic sustainability of interventions and the research impact in the medium to long-term (e.g. Environmental taxes, acceleration the breeding to marketing cycle) • The co-design of research with stakeholders, end users and civil society has been central in the UKRI Transforming UK Food Systems for Healthy People and a Healthy Environment Programme which has received positive feedback in terms of balancing quality of research with impact focushttps://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/research/foodsystems-spf/ • It is also important to have more active engagement (monitoring/support) during projects and follow-up after completion to help with the dissemination of findings and deliver impact. This has been very successful in the UKRI-BBSRC supported Diet and Health Research Industry Club (DRINC) which was first established in 2008 to support pre-competitive research that investigates the link between diet and health. The research has enabled the food and drink industry to develop products that deliver enhanced health benefits for consumers. https://bbsrc.ukri.org/innovation/sharing-challenges/drinc/ Actions: • UN to encourage research projects and programmes to be co-created and co-designed by a range of academic disciplines and with a wide range of stakeholders and end users of research such as industry, farmers, consumers and policymakers to ensure greater outcomes, uptake and impact of the research Success: • co-designing research and training across disciplines and stakeholders will deliver coherent evidence to enable concerted action from policy, business and civil society.2362382402432452508. Global Averages There is a need to move away from using global averages when identifying the challenges facing food systems around the world. This approach can miss regional and local concerns which are dependent on regional and local context and can be lost when looking at international and even national data. Applying a one-size-fits-all approach can lead to resentment in areas where this is not appropriate and the building up of mistrust of decision makers. Actions: • Less use of global averages when framing food systems challenges across different contexts • Increased support for research and innovation that focusses on local and regional challenges Success: • A better appreciation of local and regional challenges with interventions tailored to each specific context2362382489. Early Career Researcher training Alongside the need to support interdisciplinary research in tackling food systems challenges, it is critical to support capacity building and early career researchers. There is a need to build a resilient, sustainable research and innovation community with more opportunities for staff mobility between institutes and disciplines, and training for systems thinking and approaches. Large funding programmes can favour established researchers and research groups and should consider an element of future-proofing the sector. Actions: • Sandpit and network style events for ECRs to discuss food system challenges • Training packages or programmes on systems thinking and systems approaches for ECRs • Greater opportunities for staff mobility between institutes and disciplines Success: • A better connected, interdisciplinary community of early career scientists and innovators building capacity and capability in food systems science.23623823924024224324424624825010. Food System Vision A vital first step in tackling complex interdisciplinary challenges is the need to establish a vision of where we want to get to and what we want future food systems to look like. By gaining acceptance and agreement on common goals for a future food system, research and innovation can focus on areas that will have the greatest impact on achieving that vision. The importance of establishing a common goal was stressed by dialogue attendees using such methods as scenario modelling and foresight analysis. Once this is established, the appropriate metrics to measure the success of meeting this vision can be designed. Actions: • The commissioning of scenario modelling and foresight analysis to help frame common goals for a future food system • High-level commitments on agreeing what a future food system should look like • Agreed metrics on how to measure success of meeting this vision Success: • A shared understanding of the principles and goals of a future food system that progresses towards the SDGs237238239240243244248250There were few areas of strong divergence, but a number of issues or tensions recurred regularly throughout the meeting: • Planetary health vs Population health This was a topic of strong divergence. Despite the rising levels of NCDs and malnutrition in all its forms, it was considered by some participants that too much focus is given to sustainable diets – producing more resilient crops and enough food (calories) and skewed towards addressing environmental concerns and climate change. Nutrition and the quality of diets must be more strongly recognised as an equal priority in discussions, policies and actions about sustainable diets and addressing climate change. The alternative views expressed were that the agricultural sector is one of the biggest contributors to climate change and there is more urgency associated with this challenge and thus, is being addressing via mechanisms such as COP26 and the Paris agreement. • Dietary guidelines vs consumer behaviour Although it was agreed that there are some commonalities and differences in existing food based dietary guidelines (FBDG) between countries, they are designed as ‘one-size-fits-all’ despite different nutritional requirements across the lifecourse and the need to develop FBDG tailored to specific populations was clearly identified. Opposing views expressed were that as the majority of citizens do not follow these guidelines anyway, does it really matter? It needs to be acknowledged that there are many reasons behind consumer food choices: people know what the guidelines are but choose to ignore them; not everyone is interested or chooses foods based on health or environmental impacts; there other priorities or barriers, mainly affordability, accessibility and inequalities, but also culture; and social aspects and pleasure which are important for wellbeing. Food environments are currently skewed towards promoting unhealthy food choices and we must make it easier for people to make healthy choices so this becomes the normal practice. There are key roles for food technology/processing and the food industry sector to produce more affordable nutritious foods that people want to eat and for social and behavioural science to develop methodologies and technologies to enable consumer uptake • Livestock vs Plant This is a strong area of divergence. Opinions were expressed that the livestock industry, particularly red meat agriculture is heavily criticised for having negative impacts of the environment and health. There needs to be a shift between the negative perceptions towards unhealthy processed meats as distinguished from eating smaller amounts of good quality meats. Too much focus is also given to meat-based diets with less emphasis on the impact of dairy. The nutritional value of foods such as meat and dairy may outweigh GHG emission, particularly in countries where nutritional intake is relatively poor, or consumption of animal sourced food is low. There needs to be a more balanced approach with nutrition incorporated into an integrated index for human and planetary health. Research investment on livestock farming should focus on making it become more carbon neutral and produce more affordable, nutritious, high quality animal-based foods. Opposing views from participants were that increased production and consumption of plant-based foods is better for both planetary and population health. Although, it was noted that not all plant-based foods are ‘healthy’ depending on the method of cooking or processing and that some plant-only diets may have some unintended consequences for health • Animal-based vs Plant-based proteins There is currently an unbalanced focus on protein when in many countries the majority of citizens consume sufficient quantities of protein (although the quality may differ). It is important to encourage re-balancing of protein from animal- and plant-based sources for planetary health but also consider the changes to micronutrient content and bioavailability and the impact on health. It should also be noted that other macronutrients are important, for example, in the UK the consumption levels of fibre need to be improved. • Transparency vs Health by stealth There was discussion about whether improving the consumption of more nutritious foods & diets should be conducted in a transparent way by consumer information and education to encourage the uptake of healthier foods or to use ‘stealth’ to make the composition of ‘less healthy foods healthier via modifying food production & processing methods such as, gene editing technologies, breeding lines selection, biofortification & food fortification and the reformulation of foods to provide affordable priced products in order to reach the consumers who need it most. • Nutrition vs Taste Evidence suggests that taste, price and convenience tend to be greater determinants of food choice than health, resulting in increased intake of processed foods. Better education & reduced availability of heavily processed, nutrient poor foods could help overcome this. We also need to increase consumer understanding that not all plant-based food products are necessarily healthier, particularly those that are highly- processed foods. Also, when choosing alternatives to animal derived foods, protein content should not be only consideration, other nutrients that are present in animal derived foods also need to be considered • Yield Vs Nutrition Farmers are often focused on yield over nutritional value, incentives to produce more nutritious & environmentally friendly produce would be advantageous.

2021-07-23 16:51:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34533/106

50441530201523451124445

1. Demonstrated multi-stakeholder inclusivity by creating diverse breakout groups representing various perspectives on nutrition. Groups were both in-person and virtual assigned based on considerations of their subject matter expertise, gender, organizations and geographic locations. - The urgency of the need to act on nutrition and elevate nutrition programming was amplified in the opening speeches - including from the Government minister presenting stark statistics and reminders about SDG targets. - The need to act was also highlighted using key data from the Nutrition Call to Action to design ambitious, forward-looking discussion statements. - Opening speech of the Minister of Agriculture as head of Liberia UNFSS Committee and lead National Convener demonstrated Liberia's commitment to the Global Summit in September 2021. She outlined dates for the National Dialogue as 4 - 12 August, 2021 - Facilitators were selected from different organizations and representative stakeholder groups - international agencies, local civil society alliances and international NGOs - Trust and a safe dialogue space was created by outlining the importance of Chatham House Rules in a plenary session which preceded breakout discussions where facilitators further reinforced the rules. - Respect was fostered within the broader plenary group and the discussion groups by defining the guiding principles of engagement for the conversations at the beginning. - Facilitators also specifically encouraged participants to feel comfortable disagreeing with others as all perspectives will be documented- Dialogue reflected COMMITMENT to the Summit through the presence and opening by the Minister of Agriculture. The connections between the Independent Dialogue, National Dialogue and Global Summit were outlined and supported through several statements by the Curator. - Being RESPECTFUL was also clearly reflected throughout the Dialogue at several instances. The hybrid (in-person + virtual) nature of the dialogue led to slight delays assigning virtual participants to breakout rooms. Facilitators were informed of the challenges and they communicated to virtual participants who remained respectful and patient. Groups which reported back differing views amongst participants also indicated those views were shared using respectful words, focusing feedback on the message and not the person. - MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INCLUSIVITY was strongly reflected through the rich diversity of our in-person and virtual participants. Stakeholders included senior government technicians on Nutrition, heads of civil society alliances, leaders of rural-based NGOs, United Nations, bilateral donor agencies, international NGO country representatives and program staff working on areas of nutrition, WASH, agriculture and food security.Ensuring ALL 7 principles are integrated into the planning of the Dialogue event truly helps to capture the spirit of the efforts to build a global story on the future of food systems. Conveners should consider candidates for critical roles such as the Curators, Facilitators and Notetakers based on their existing demonstration of the principles in their ongoing individual work. This helps ensure those with key roles in designing discussion topics, identifying potential participants and capturing the critical feedback - is all done with a genuine commitment to ALL 7 principles. Conveners should also remind those with key speaking/enabling roles should consistently re-state key words of the 7 principles of engagement. Using any local expressions which convey the same sentiments may also be worthwhile to ease acceptance and internalization by the participants.

Yes

234238243249251The dialogue's key focus was to (i) highlight the urgency for adequate and sustained investments in nutrition in Liberia in order to meet national development agenda targets outlined in the Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development as well as the Sustainable Development Goals; and (ii) amplify the voices rural people living in poverty, especially women farmers and entrepreneurs working in remote areas, on this topic of nutrition and ensure their inclusion in the Global Dialogue Summit. (iii) ensure a multi-stakeholder & inclusive approach to consultations in Liberia ahead of the Global Summit Dialogue2352382422432452462492511. Data and Evidence remains critical to assess progress against the Pro Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development and SDGs. 2. Must invest in a SMART Survey. 3. Need national & sub-national coordination structure for nutrition interventions (across sectors and partners) 4. A government-led multi-sectoral national strategy for nutrition - through a collaborative effort 5. Increased involvement of legislative actors in advocacy & budget allocations 6. Need to reduce domestic household burden on women and increase their economic empowerment 7. Increasing Government expenditure on targeted nutrition interventions 8. Importance of partners providing coordinated support towards Government's prioritized actions 9. Partners coordinate on advocacy for Government's consideration of policy priorities236238242243245247249251STUNTING REDUCED TO 20% IN LINE WITH THE PRO-POOR AGENDA FOR PROSPERITY AND DEVELOPMENT: Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Scale-up advocacy on exclusive breastfeeding for babies and importance of nutrition for nursing mothers. 2. Government increased spending on nutrition-related programs through community healthcare initiatives 3. Expanding availability of local seeds for household gardening as dietary supplement 4. Establish a multi-sectoral coordination structure at national and sub-national level to elevate the importance of nutrition 5. Increase advocacy within Government - including elected legislative officials 6. Pursue an integrated approach to advocacy, including linkages between WASH, women's empowerment and nutrition 7. Expand preventative measures against malnutrition and programs creating awareness on food fortification and micro-nutrients. 8. Increased accountability of Government for existing and subsequent commitments to nutrition Who should take these actions: 1. Government has the primary responsibility to fund nutrition programs and drive advocacy 2. International and local NGOs should align programming to complement Government's efforts in view of resource constraints. 3. Local elected officials (Legislature) have a responsibility to increase budget allocations in their fiscal oversight role. Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Reduction in malnutrition and stunting rates 2. Increase in first 1000 days of life indicators 3. Uptake in exclusive breastfeeding for up to 6 months 4. Improved Human Development Indices for Liberia Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented. 1. Difficulty with behavior change on dietary and consumption habits for people living in extreme poverty with access to meagre finances 2. Financial constraints and limited fiscal envelope may lead to continued underfunding of nutrition interventions. 3. Limited ability to hold multiple government stakeholders and NGO partners accountable for inactions towards scaled up nutrition programming.236238242246247249251NUTRITION AS THE FOCUS OF FOOD SECURITY IN LIBERIA Views on actions that are urgently needed: 1. Enabling policy to guide public consumption towards more nutritious foods through behavior change 2. Behavior change communications for people in hard-to reach areas with increased awareness of nutrition for health outcomes and nutritious foods. 3. Re-imagine the role of transportation systems in the focus on the availability of nutritious foods in remote, rural areas. 4. Increased advocacy for nutrition focus from multiple sectors - ex: Agriculture, Food Security, Reproductive Health and WASH 5. Increased advocacy and behavior change around redistributing burden of food production, processing and preparation on women - women's empowerment. Who should take these actions: 1. Government was identified as the lead to act in a way that demonstrates the urgency and prioritization of nutrition. Particular mention of the need for increased capacities for coordination of nutrition-focused efforts at the sub-national level. 2. Civil society organizations - local NGOs and community based organizations working with farmers in remote areas should increase advocacy around the importance of nutrition 3. International and Local NGOs supporting government on policy formulation should also take lead roles in advancing these actions. Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Progress on coordination can be addressed through all partners in nutrition having a decentralized shared policy framework and plan for nutrition interventions. 2. Reduction in costs of nutritious foods 3. Improved indices on hunger index studies, malnutrition rates and stunting. 4. Increased consumption of locally grown foods and produce - also requires tracking of annual production quantities 5. Reduced reliance on imported staple foods such as rice Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented: 1. Continued rural to urban migration may further advance the current rate of agriculture labor leaving rural areas. 2. Slow pace of Government's fiscal decentralization to finance sub-national interventions. 3. Transportation difficulties in remote, rural areas to access communities for increased outreach to populations 4. Difficulty of farmers and agro-entrepreneurs to transport produce and moving nutritious food to markets 4. Limited availability of storage facilities for storing crops and produce at rural markets. 5. Differing perspectives on the role of women in household nutrition236238242243247249251WOMEN AS CHAMPIONS OF HOUSEHOLD NUTRITION IN LIBERIA Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Perception change of cooking and household chores as a woman's duty vs providing nutritious meals in partnership with spouse for the improved health of the whole family. 2. Involve men at household and community level to understand the importance of nutrition, of the woman's role in providing nutritious food for children and family, and the value of nutrition for health outcomes. 3. Media engagement as part of a focused perception change awareness campaign to introduce notions of healthy, nutritious food available from existing farming and gardening. 4. Using women entrepreneurs to engage in dialogues with other women regarding roles in the home and the importance of nutritious food for family diet, provide positive reinforcement for modified norms of household roles, and serve as role models for women nutrition champions. 5. Enable men to be perception change agents given their more frequent/present role in policy decision-making spaces. 6. National government driven investment in locally produced foods 7. Promoting climate smart agriculture to increase resilience and yields of harvest and reduce the food production burden on women. 8. Establishment of a national agency to coordinate nutrition interventions. Who should take these actions: 1. Government should create an enabling environment to empower women in their roles as household nutrition champions 2. NGOs should increase awareness of the importance of women in changing nutrition outcomes in the home 3. Individual family members and community members should feel that nutrition is their individual responsibility for the outcomes of their young children and family members. 4. Male family members should be enlightened about the importance of burden food gathering and preparation on women and supporting her to provide improved nutrition for the family. 5. Universal acceptance of nutrition as a human right which should be championed by Government. Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Reduction in women and child malnutrition, anemia and underweight statistics 2. Increased local production and consumption of locally-produced food. 3. Increased land access, titles/rights for women 4. Women's involvement in household decision-making beyond domestic chores (eg. financial decisions) Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented. 1. Difficulty with accepting perception change of women's roles from men, older women, community leaders and authorities. 2. Building a critical mass of men and women to drive behavior change around roles of women 3. Continued low enrollments for girls limits access to nutrition education and awareness and exposure to become nutrition household champions236238242243245246249251GOVERNMENT IS A STRONG AND DYNAMIC LEADER IN NUTRITION PROGRAMMING Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Government needs to review its overall nutrition strategy to ensure it captures the urgency 2. Establish an integrated, multi-sectoral strategic approach to nutrition, specifically inclusion of hygiene awareness. 3. Increased awareness raising for legislative officials to reinforce advocacy for action by ministries and agencies 4. Government action to incentivize importation of nutritious foods 5. Increased funding of nutrition-related interventions by Government to demonstrate commitment to nutrition. 6. Intensify nutrition and education awareness in school curriculums beginning in primary schools, through to university in order to effect behavior change. 7. Collaboratively develop standards to fortify locally produced staple products - especially rice and cassava 8. Establishment of a decentralized agency focused on nutrition to drive coordinated actions towards nutrition interventions 9. Intensify efforts to strengthen the value chain inputs for diversified local food crops - especially rural storage and processing facilities & farm to market access Who should take these actions: 1. The Executive Branch of government as the policy and implementing arm should drive the shift in urgency towards nutrition. Their action is needed to create the enabling environment and lead with accountability for partners to support their priorities and interventions. 2. The elected officials in the Legislature should increase their level of oversight and advocacy on nutrition through their roles in national budget allocation and approval. 3. International and local partners supporting the priorities of Government 4. Inclusion of other sector lead agencies collaborating with Ministries of Health and Agriculture as lead agencies on nutrition and food security. Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Increased national and agency budget allocations to direct nutrition-related interventions 2. Articulation of an integrated, multi-sectoral nutrition strategy 3. Established local food standards for food fortification and safety 4. Increased local production and processing of diversified food crops 5. Improved statistics on women and child malnutrition, anemia and stunting 6. Improved educational attainment Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented 1. Competing policy and political priorities with limited available fiscal resources 2. Coordination amongst donors and implementing partners, as well as within government across ministries and agencies. 3. Implementing decentralized activities and coordination in view of existing budgetary constraints237238251One of the Four Discussion Groups documented an area of divergence around perceptions of household consumption inequality. In discussing nutrition as the focus of food security in Liberia, participants in one group held divergent views on whether men's (HH head) household consumption is prioritized over women's household consumption in rural, remote areas - particularly poor households sharing meagre amounts of food. Some participants held the view that the consumption amounts for men are always higher - given the most nutritious foods available (eg: protein) rather than offering them to children or women in home to improve their nutrition outcomes. Other participants held the view that there is no discrepancy in household consumption and that men and women have access to the same amounts of food in the home as evidenced by weight gain in women.

2021-07-23 16:55:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13252/203

10509583350436112310103250500013313135251000119631453108020512

To complement the work of others, the breakout room topics were chosen after reviewing the emerging action areas from across the UNFSS action tracks to build on their important body of work. Discussion groups were extremely useful as a way for participants to share experiences and add value to their work while complementing the work of others – thereby paving the way for new coalitions and partnerships bringing together different organizations and expertise. Eleven discussion topics covered a wide range of domains (finance, soil health, agrobiodiversity, regenerative agriculture, nutrition, resilience, innovation, human rights, gender, youth, etc.) to understand and recognize the complexity involved in food system transformation. Also, each group was asked to highlight the proposed actions needed to meet the discussion topic target, committing to the Summit with a clear list of actions to undertake. This dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity through personal invitations from Bayer, CGIAR/CCAFS and The Earth Institute to a diverse and inclusive group of stakeholders, both globally and across sectors (agriculture, government, food industry, finance, health care, nutrition, retail markets, environment, trade, etc.) and stakeholder groups (farmers, NGOS, INGOs, governments, local authorities, science and academia, consumer groups, corporations, financial institutions, the UN, etc.).Each group discussed ongoing work that could be scaled up, as well as new actions, with a view to complement the work of others. Using the SDG agenda as a basis, discussions focused on the immediate actions needed to meet the 2030 deadline, thus representing the need to act with urgency. Discussion topics, all closely related to the action areas also showed commitment to the summit’s vision, objectives, and final outcomes. This is especially true as the new solution clusters within action areas are currently being organized under coalitions, therefore we made existing and new partnerships which could form the basis of these coalitions (second focus of the breakout room discussions)an important second focus of the breakout room discussions. The transparency of this dialogue’s organization, subsequent follow-up through this report, and continued partnerships between the organizers, as well as new collaborations, build trust and show respect. Trust was also built by highlighting that every participant could express their own voice, as diverse views were essential for the discussion. Also, Chatham House rules were applied and explained to participants to build trust among them.It is recommended to other conveners to take the time to understand the complexity and contexts of the region or locality where the dialogue is held. In the case of dialogues that span the globe, it is important to be as diverse and inclusive as possible when inviting participants. While this dialogue was held in English only, it is a good idea to provide translation in other UN languages when possible. Furthermore, to ensure diverse and active discussion, building trust is highly recommended by emphasizing that different views are encouraged.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Hosted by CCAFS/CGIAR, the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and Bayer, this fourth and final dialogue brought together almost 100 key stakeholders from across our global food system to discuss game-changing solutions that can put us on a transformative path to an equitable, sustainable, climate-smart future. Following the five Action Tracks, this event opened with high-level presentations and then moved participants into groups for intensive, facilitated discussions that explored the solutions needed and how they can be delivered on the necessary scale. Through this dialogue, the game-changing solutions put forward will inspire action from global leaders in what is potentially a make-or-break year for international cooperation on sustainable food systems. The dialogue’s objectives were: • Identify current coalitions, partnerships, and programs that are aligned with priority game-changing solutions • Evaluate key actions to advance priority game-changing solutions • Identify key stakeholders for implementing these actions The MAJOR FOCUS topics from the group discussions were: 1. Consider food systems in the broader context of the SDGs Planning for action and partnerships for food systems transformation must be considered in the larger context of sustainable development, with a more holistic approach for interventions, innovation, and solutions. Transforming food systems will advance progress towards numerous SDGs, including no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, decent work and economic growth, reduced inequalities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life on land, and partnerships toward the goals. Addressing food systems in alignment with related SDGs will optimize results in serving humanity and the planet. 2. Address environmental threats and opportunities Biodiversity loss threatens humanity and the planet. Additionally, soil degradation interferes with carbon sequestration. Researchers and scientists are vital partners in developing new technologies to monitor and evaluate progress in mitigating the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss. Evidence-based scientific findings and innovations must be disseminated to farmers and inform policymakers and consumers. By aligning efforts, diverse stakeholders can work together to improve food systems for a healthy and sustainable planet. 3. Provide support and resources for smallholder farmers Providing smallholder farmers with technical assistance, access to technology and connectivity, the best seeds, and crop insurance, will promote sustainable farming while also improving farmers’ livelihoods. Regenerative food systems and foodscapes must be attuned to local cultures, and economic and biophysical circumstances to produce food, on land and in water, in ways that actively restore habitats, protect biodiversity, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4. Educate consumers for healthier food choices Educating consumers is essential to supporting food decisions that are healthier and better for the planet, according to evidence-based science. For example, stakeholders should build awareness of the impact of the excessive consumption of animal-sourced foods, provide guidance regarding healthy portion sizes, and label food more clearly with regard to “sell by” and “use by” dates. 5. Promote government and public policies to advance food systems transformation Developing evidence-based scientific recommendations from the UNFSS to guide national and international action will be key to advance access to nutritious food for all, better livelihoods for farmers, and a healthy planet. 6. Take a broad view of innovation Innovation is not only new technology – it is knowledge sharing and combining traditional knowledge and technology to create enriched practices that better farmers and their livelihoods. Promoting what is working and disseminating it through extension and application will close gaps and make innovations accessible to the smallest farmer. Innovation can apply to farming practices, how we share information, and how specific innovations are adapted to work in local contexts.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251ACTIONS 1. Support smallholder farmers in adopting evidence-based regenerative agriculture practices. • Recognize that smallholder farmers are often on the frontlines of catastrophic impacts of climate variability and change, nature loss, deepening poverty, and the wide inequality gap. • Develop evidence-based regenerative food systems and foodscapes that are attuned to local cultures, and economic and biophysical circumstances. • Integrated approaches are good for soil and the environment, healthy animals, and raising farmer productivity and livelihoods. • Provide smallholder farmers with technical assistance, resources, incentives, payment systems, and access to technology and connectivity, the best seeds, and crop insurance, so they can produce crops sustainably, while making a livelihood for themselves and their families. o Ensure that digital tools are co-created and farmer-centric to address their issues, including lowering production costs and improving incomes. o Explore payments for ecosystem services. • Address challenges facing women farmers, such as lack of access to land, financing, markets, agricultural training and education, suitable working conditions, and equal treatment. 2. Involve young people. • Make farming more appealing to young farmers, who are often in the best position to advance evidence-based scientific innovations and technologies for sustainable farming. • Provide school-based agriculture education, including experiential opportunities. 3. Share effective, evidence-based, scientific practices beyond the communities where they originated. • Create coalitions that share these practices among NGOs, extension services, etc., that provide services to farmers so information can be disseminated widely. • Bring awareness about market trade to allow farmers to sell their crops to secure living wages and prosperity. 4. Educate consumers. • Educate consumers about farming and making food decisions that are healthier and better for the planet. Build awareness of the impact of the excessive consumption of animal-sourced foods; provide guidance regarding healthy portion sizes; and make food label dates more easily understood. 5. Better align international policy. • Promote harmonization of legislation/standards across regulatory systems. • Foster end-to-end solutions working across the food system and address the concrete needs of end users. PARTNERSHIPS 1. With organizations that work in the larger context of sustainable development, beyond the usual stakeholders who are involved in the food supply chain, for a more holistic approach for interventions, innovation, and solutions. 2. Between research institutions, farmers, and consumers to support the development, deployment and scaling of evidence-based scientific innovations. 3. With and among various government agencies and ministries, including agriculture, environment, education, etc., to provide education, technical assistance and outreach, data collection, financial assistance, and financial investment to smallholder farmers in remote rural areas. Everyone in food systems can benefit from these partnerships including many other food system actors. 4. With the private sector, to bring innovation, digital technology, finance, and insurance products to farmers, especially smallholder farmers. 5. With schools, to provide agriculture education and provide a market for local farmers by providing locally grown sustainable food, especially in countries greatly relying on smallholder farmers. 6. With youth – include them in decision making and empower them to bring innovative solutions to farming, and the rest of the food system, as they are often early adopters of technology. 7. With consumers to help them understand the challenges and opportunities related to farming and the environment, the true cost of food, and how to create change through demanding sustainably grown food. 8. Within regional and context-specific coalitions that include technology providers, farmers, NGOs and INGOs, and businesses. 9. Between conservationists, policymakers, and farmers. 10. Among members in the value chain to reduce the cost of food related to transportation, food waste, and pest reduction. A close network of communication from a coalition/connection between farmer, supplier, wholesaler, etc. 11. Between regulatory systems coalitions to promote harmonization and end-to-end solutions. 12. Between governments to create more compatible and global solutions. Going forward, it will be key to continue existing coalitions, building on partnerships that are already doing the work, as well as create new coalitions and continue conversations with people from diverse backgrounds far beyond 2021 to ensure action. It is important to ensure young people are at the table, as youth are not only our future, but the planet is their future. It’s up to all of us to keep the conversation going – the UN, farmers, companies, agricultural workers, academia, researchers, etc. The Summit should just be the beginning.236239243244245246247248249Discussion Topic, Group 1 By 2030, food loss and waste have decreased by 50% across key supply chains and demand for food production has diminished proportionally, leading to lower production emissions. ACTIONS 1. Recognize the long-standing inequalities that have been exposed by COVID, the Black Lives Matter movement and the present “policy window” to address these inequalities. Given this context, the dialogue process is a moment of opportunity that should not be squandered. 2. Recognize the urgency. There are only nine harvests remaining until 2030 to get this right. 3. Recognize lessons learned from food banks in 2020. It was the first year where 85% of the food they distributed was recovered from the industrial/agriculture sector (not purchased). There was a sense of solidarity among the communities they worked with, and there was no decrease in the amount of food distributed. 4. Map the actions that would lead to reduced production. Companies should have public commitments on reduced production based on food loss reduction programs. Indicators that would demonstrate this could be identified. • Companies and producers are there to create products to sell. Therefore, decreasing food loss will not necessarily lead to a reduction in production. 5. Understand the unique challenges facing smallholder farmers and provide resources to help them. • Understand and acknowledge the unique challenges facing smallholder farmers, who first need to meet their daily needs before addressing food loss. • Provide technical support and guidance to smallholder farmers to reduce food loss from the beginning of production. • Scale programs that assist smallholder farmers in distributing products via larger producers. • Work with the private sector to get insurance to small and medium farms. The group discussed a current example in Latin America. • Find ways to help smallholder farmers stay in the market when international trade is not possible. PARTNERSHIPS Foster partnerships with: 1. Organizations working in the broader context of sustainable development, beyond the usual stakeholders who are involved in the food supply chain. 2. Organizations that are addressing hunger and poverty. This is what food banks do, by adopting a holistic approach that includes technology, investment, new practices, and innovation, while trying to address human behaviors that cause food waste. 3. Private sector. This includes helping to create innovative insurance products to address the needs of smallholder famers. 4. Government agencies, like the ministries of agriculture, environment, and social protection, who play an important role in providing technical assistance. Via partnerships with governments, there can be more effective outreach, financial support, and assistance to bring useful innovations to smallholder farmers in remote rural areas.236240243244245246248249251Discussion Topic, Group 2 By 2030, livestock production ensures planetary health by fostering soil health, soil fertility, increased carbon sequestration, and biodiversity services. ACTIONS 1. Increase promotion and knowledge-sharing about sustainable livestock production practices. • Create collaboration between smaller/newer producers and more experienced producers to create a farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange. • Capture, study, and share traditional knowledge, especially integrated farming systems that provide ecosystem services and support livelihoods, to understand the contexts within which they work best. • Ensure women have the same access as men to education. 2. Create blended finance mechanisms and tailored financial instruments for farmers and increase the total availability of finance. • In certain locations this could be transition financing to move from unstable production to stable production methods, i.e. to reduce deforestation in Latin America. 3. Examples of successful practices that could be scaled up: • Create a global beef quality assurance program like the U.S. Beef Quality Assurance Program. • Integrated smallholder farming systems that have benefits for food security and income, and provide ample ecosystem services, such as those in Cambodia that also use small biodigesters to provide energy to cook food. • Successful adoption of integrated approaches that include other tree species and livestock by coffee farmers. 4. Share the evidence of sustainable production with consumers, help them understand that livestock production can be a solution to help increase demand for sustainable production. 5. Adapt innovations to work within local contexts. 6. Provide incentives for adopting innovations and solutions. For example: • Incentivize smallholder farmers to transition to more sustainable practices. • Incentivize farmers to improve the quality and sustainability of livestock production, as is already done in Germany. • Incentivize farmers to promote carbon sequestration. Find financial solutions to bring measurement tools, such as remote sensing, to smallholder farmers in developing countries; otherwise, measurement is prohibitively expensive. 7. Drive progress with government regulations and laws that repurpose subsidies, and support incentive programs. PARTNERSHIPS Foster partnerships: 1. Among players involved in the larger context of sustainable development, such as health and environment, for a more holistic approach for interventions, innovation, and solutions. 2. Between smaller, newer producers and those with more experience, as well as multi-generational farmers. 3. Between countries – both developing and developed. 4. With the financial sector, through blended finance mechanisms and tailored financial instruments. 5. Between retailers, public sector, farmers, and farmer associations. 6. Researchers and scientists who can disseminate information to farmers and consumers. 7. With animal agriculture alliances, USFRA, WFO, etc. and other rancher/farmer groups. 8. Tech experts who have monitoring methodologies, including those for carbon sequestration. 9. With schools, by providing locally grown sustainable food, especially in countries greatly relying on smallholder farmers.236240243244245246248249251Discussion Topic, Group 3 By 2030, soil health is managed sustainably through sequestration and organic carbon content, rewarding farmers and land managers through payments for ecosystem services, carbon farming and trading carbon credits. ACTIONS 1. Better understand and increase the use of MRV (Measurement, Report and Verification) with technology, as soil is the most critical and diverse area related to food systems. • Practices need to be flexible to each region across the world. 2. Consider how to address the economics considering the market has been moving farmers away from diversification. 3. Climate finance is a must; this includes cover crops for smallholders. 4. Award early adopters of carbon markets. This will help uncover the value of improving soil health. 5. Need to improve/scale up projects around: • Soil carbon • Transparency for carbon (blockchain) • Science-based understanding of technologies and products which enable no-till (such as some products important for farmers, like herbicides) • Capacity building • Landscape approach 6. Engage youth – for example, through the Climate Smart Youth Ag. This initiative aims to engage 100 million youth. PARTNERSHIPS 1. A “soil hub” can be an umbrella to ensure synergy in each project to deliver each region’s vision and include farmer and youth voices. It is crucial to reinforce and support potential solution clusters coming through Action Track 3. Living Soils of the Americas (LiSA) – founded by IICA and Ohio State University with Dr Rattan Lal and considered a lighthouse project by the World Economic Forum. Bayer, PepsiCo, and other companies are supporting it and welcome newcomers. 2. Regenerative food systems with a focus on regenerative foodscapes. These are meant to be food, action land- and seascapes that show the transformative impact of improved management practices which restore nature – climate-freshwater-biodiversity – in ways that are attuned to the local culture, economic and biophysical situation. • Implementation on initial foodscape in North West India, through the support of the Bezos Earth Fund. • Foodscape started in Latin America in the Argentine Gran Chaco with initial support from IKI (20M euro program across five foodscapes in LAR) and Nestle. Agenda setting science analysis will be issued on foodscapes in Aug 2021 with partners – FOLU, SystemIQ, and CCAFS. 3. Engage youth through the 100 mllion youth coalition. 4. In the US - in the central region TNC is working to make 100 million acres sustainable by to 2030. Also, Bayer is enrolling farmers in a carbon sequestration program that pays farmers for sequestering carbon through specific practices.236240242245246247248249Discussion Topic, Group 4 By 2030, more than half of investment in agricultural innovation provides end-to-end solutions that support the SDGs related to food, climate, and environment. ACTIONS 1. Recognize economic sustainability as an essential aspect of environmental and social sustainability. 2. Recognize that smallholder farmers are often on the frontlines of catastrophic impacts of climate change, nature loss, deepening poverty, and the wide inequality gap. 3. Grow financial investments in innovative and sustainable solutions by: • Promoting multi-lateral funding and creating a flow of financial investments in regions that are trying to advance agricultural innovation. Recognize that LMICs with a dependence on agriculture are key; help them to leapfrog the agricultural development curve and deliver benefits for people, nature, and climate. • Leveraging public funding to promote private financial investments, such as concession financing and de-risking. • Reducing exorbitant interest rates that put unreasonable burdens on farmers, particularly smallholder farmers. For example, 20+% in West Africa. • Driving procurement to regions that are advancing agricultural innovation. • Using carbon financing approaches to compensate regions for emissions reductions. • Shifting from a value chain to an ecosystems approach, while developing internal knowledge along the way. • De-risking food systems through innovation - making progress with climate and information systems. • Making innovations accessible, including to people who are the most vulnerable. • Rethinking how the private sector itself works together – because this often involves competitors working together. Right now, companies work on their own, using various platforms, which means other actors must pick companies to work with rather than picking a shared initiative on which to work. • Transforming the regulatory systems to promote end-to-end solutions, accelerating speed to address the urgency, and harmonizing regulations across countries. • Fostering collaboration among private companies in addressing pre-competitive issues. • Developing innovative payment systems to support sustainable farming. For example, using digital tech for consumer payments to go directly to farmers. 4. Ensure that the other half of investment is not actively undermining the SDGs. That is, if more than half of investment in agricultural innovation provides end-to-end solutions that support the SDGs, those efforts might yield limited results if there is little or no control over the other half of investment. PARTNERSHIPS Foster partnerships: 1. Between public and private actors to produce blended finance streams. 2. Between farmers and the private sector, including farmers who are often excluded because they don’t fit as easily within company sustainability paradigms. 3. Between the private sector and development banks for systemic approaches to leverage funding and expertise, while gathering real-time insights. 4. With consumers, to engage them in finding solutions. For example, farmer earnings are not keeping pace with consumer prices. 5. Among private sector companies to advance solutions. 6. With telecom and mobile banking providers to return more market value back to producers. 7. With research and development to inform private sector investment.236239240242244245246247248249251Discussion Topics, Group 5 & 7 Discussion Topics, Group 5 By 2030, 100 million farmers have adopted regenerative agriculture practices, supported by 1 billion consumers who demand and support products coming from regenerative agriculture. ACTIONS 1. Ensure that regenerative agriculture (RA) is defined in a way that encourages access to tools and technology. RA is about modern agriculture and about technology and innovation (this may include fertilizer and inputs). Modern agriculture can help the soil, biodiversity, etc. • The voice of the farmer (all farmers) should be heard. 2. Provide tools and tech for small- to medium-sized export-oriented agricultural producers in the Global South. 3. Reach all farmers, because in some contexts, farmers don’t have access to knowledge and resources. Additionally, access to technology may not be affordable, and many new technologies are not made for small scale farmers; small scale farm technology can be substandard/outdated. Reach them through: • Government policy and legislation • Forms of shared ownership. Shareholders in countries can create a boost of benefits reaching the farmers that work with these countries. • Distribute innovations to other countries: more crop per drop, better crops with higher nutrition. • Promote a science-based approach and international standards: (e.g. global statements, global policy approaches/ frameworks), that nations can readily align themselves with. • International companies that have the access/resources can hand over the tools and tech to the farmers. • Create broad statements from the UNFSS that are science-based and provide access to tools and technology to guide national-level action. 4. Ensure that RA products are affordable for consumers to demand RA products. 5. Buy farmer direct to shorten value chain where available. PARTNERSHIPS 1. Harmonize a baseline of legislation, including standards, to create a level playing field. This is achieved via strong international engagement. 2. Leverage farmer networks where there has been success. For example, the Global Farmer Network, which consists of local and regional industry leaders and role models who can provide technology demonstrations, break down myths, and add a voice to the regulatory legislation discussion. The key is for this to be practical to provide local credibility to demonstrate that technology isn’t scary or that companies aren’t trying to take advantage of local farmers. Discussion Topic, Group 7 By 2030, 300+ million small scale agricultural producers have become resilient to climate change. ACTIONS 1. Foster the adoption of new technologies by smallholder farmers by showing that they address/solve the risk of losing crops that are so precious. 2. Dignify lives by addressing basic needs such as better living, water, and other basic supplies. • Infrastructure is important. Farmers need access to basic needs and technology, but it is difficult to talk about innovation when they don’t have access to basic resources like water. 3. Ensure financial investment – make lines of credit available for smallholders with less guarantee requirements. 4. Provide tech tools via mobile phones – they are the key device. Social media is also an important tool. • Better use of digital space - For example, companies like Bayer could provide technology to diagnose plant diseases. This could also connect to government information and support. • Digital platforms - Big data works if is run in a massive way and includes a lot of data, especially regarding smallholders. The consolidation of data is impossible – data needs to be in collaboration platforms. • Digital solutions are key. • Re-engineer rural area schools for the future. Include policy related topics in the curriculum. 5. Rethink the role of philanthropy. PARTNERSHIPS 1. Develop partnership platforms to benefit small farmers; also involve governments. 2. Companies that provide digital tools should work in collaboration platforms; the consolidation of data is very difficult with low number of farmers. Big data performance will increase with the scale-up of information.236241244245246247249251Discussion Topic, Group 6 By 2030, all food systems workers globally are paid a living wage, making rural livelihoods sustainable and attractive, and generating economic prosperity. ACTIONS 1. Identify who is responsible for providing a living wage. The responsibility needs to tailor towards the government, where farmers are paid for externalities such as weather damage, environmental impact, etc. 2. Deploy policy, innovation, and research to develop economic prosperity for small holder farmers to create a living wage. 3. Provide farmers with access to crop insurance, the best seeds, and technology so they can make a profit and feed their families. 4. Ask farmers what they need. Policymakers and governments then need to provide those resources to farmers. Examples include finance, infrastructure, and proper seeds for growing. The risks are huge; governments must take action to expand assistance in the farmer sector to allow for “farmer security.” 5. Introduce more dialogues for farmers to participate in and address issues they are facing in which their voices can be heard. 6. Enforce labor law and labor policies. Promote dialogue and action to help fight child labor and gender policies. Promote social policies to ensure that workers feel safe and secure. 7. Governments and trade organizations need to make farmers aware of market trade to allow farmers to expand their horizons and sell their crops, which would help secure living wages and prosperity. Africa is a clear example where crop exports are high, yet many smallholder farmers are not a part of this market trade. 8. Make farming more attractive to young people to create greater prosperity in the agriculture sector. Youth have ideas and awareness of new technology, and they can be a key solution in protecting farmer rights and making society regard farmers as an important area of expertise for prosperity. 9. Increase economic opportunity to allow advancement for each farming generation. Greater opportunity will reduce the stigma of harsh labor that keeps people from staying with farming or starting to farm, which could improve lives. 10. Create tax incentives to bring new technologies for famers, such as no-till farming, that will mitigate the risk for farmers. PARTNERSHIPS Promote partnerships: 1. Among members in the value chain to reduce the cost of food related to transportation, food waste, and pest reduction. A close network of communication from a coalition/connection between farmer, supplier, wholesaler, etc. 2. Among youth to form support in farming to advance new technologies and better wages for farmers. Such a coalition will encourage people to stay in farming. 3. Government needs to play a very important role in providing assistance and partnering with farmers to protect them. For example, providing crop insurance and subsidies for bad harvests, to help them feel secure. 4. Among big businesses involved in agriculture production, such as Bayer, and farmers to introduce products and technologies that allow farmers to reduce waste and be more efficient in keeping up with feeding a growing world population. This partnership will allow farmers to make a fair living wage and reduce the risk of pests and diseases that ruin their harvest and their security. 5. Among older and younger farmers to better understand the need for innovation and changes occurring in agri-food systems. Older farmers can introduce younger farmers to farming and also learn from younger farmers how to use more efficient technologies to improve sustainability. 6. Among researchers and scientists to provide regulatory practices to help address challenges facing farmers and provide better support for new innovations that will emerge from such research partnerships, such as gene technology. 7. Between private and public sectors, such as universities and research facilities. Such partnerships will extend the scope of research in developing farmer prosperity by bringing sustainable and attractive agricultural practices into action.236240241243244245247248249251Discussion Topic, Group 8 By 2030, diversity in production systems has contributed to preserving and increasing agrobiodiversity, improved production and resilience, and provided livelihood opportunities for farmers. ACTIONS 1. Use local cultivars that can resist the impact of climate change. This will help address the loss in biodiversity, which endangers ecosystems. 2. Do not blame the agriculture sector. People producing food are responding to markets, policy, and climate. Agriculture must be considered a positive. It’s about being carbon-negative and more. 3. Recognize the roadblocks to innovation in the current system, especially for farmers. 4. Provide access to finance. 5. Recognize that for people in developing countries, deepening levels of poverty push farmers to put economics above the environment; they are aiming for survival. “We can’t NOT FARM.” 6. Consider the successes of developed countries and their environmental work. 7. Recognize that seed banks can be a spot where there are uncomfortable partnerships. Can we work with farmers to get those local varieties into the public-private partnership collaborations that are creating new varieties? Lean on the companies, governments, and organizations to share scientific knowledge. 8. Consider the consumer. Educate the consumer. We see changing perceptions on the quality of food, and we need farmers in the conversation because a gap exists. 9. Look at the food market as a system, too. 10. Give young people who are stepping into advisory roles a seat at the table, including the UN. Provide a forum for their solutions and use their ideas for inspiration. 11. Create a coalition to repurpose agriculture subsidies and support. Consider doing this in partnership with farmers. The climate community has been seen in opposition to farmers and that needs to change. 12. Continue exploring payments for ecosystem services. 13. Understand that for farmers working on biodiversity – pests like birds and bugs aren’t seen as beneficial by farmers. 14. Understand that there are technologies out there that are applicable, but they are dependent on things like glyphosate. What are the less toxic or less controversial chemicals? Companies need to radically change, too. Only 10-12 companies in the world dominate the input space. • Can we use other approaches that aren’t dependent on the same chemistries? 15. Recognize that small-scale farmers have different needs. Policies are too broad – they need to consider scale and location. All policies don’t work for all farmers. 16. Mitigate the fighting among farmers. Farmers have the same problems in Brazil as in France. Consumers don’t believe what they are doing anymore. They think it is so easy. 17. Diversify better. With climate change we will not have an option. 18. Understand that feeding the world sustainability does not mean we focus on fewer than 10 crops and 4 animals. Technology is key but it’s not the only answer. 19. Form coalitions for public markets. The situation in China is that with the economic growth and cities, there is aging infrastructure. Wet markets face challenges. COVID-19 exacerbated this. Let’s not create unsustainable scale in China as they grow. 20. Create partnerships based on an understanding that economics and resources influence food systems – money talks and influences decisions made by companies and policymakers, too. 21. Create coalitions to change the system so that we can include, for example, 5 crop rotations. If we do that (large scale farms in Kenya show this) then herbicides, for example, are minimized/phased out. There are pockets of real change, which is very exciting. PARTNERSHIPS Foster partnerships that can: 1. Help consumers understand what really happens on the farm and that farmers do care about agrobiodiversity and make decisions daily about how best to manage their farms for the future. 2. Form coalitions for public markets. 3. Encourage healthy eating among consumers with slow food organizations 4. Explore places across geographies to try various technologies and diversify diets. 5. Work even more closely with farmers 6. Embrace & encourage youth236239243244246248249Discussion Topic, Group 9 By 2030, excessive consumption of animal-sourced foods has significantly dropped at the global level, associated with an increase in consumption of plant-rich diets and a switch to animal products from sustainable practices. ACTIONS 1. Shift focus from avoiding animal-sourced foods to a more diverse intake of animal-sourced foods, as well as a better balance with other foods (for example, flexitarian diets), recognizing that health issues come from the overconsumption of animal-sourced foods. 2. Improve production practices. Support sustainable production of animal proteins by creating greater visibility for innovative technologies that support sustainable production of animal protein (reduced emissions, net zero, if not net negative). • We need governments to: Integrate food system reform within “building back better” plans (and not only focus on energy and mobility). Integrate into food action plans, combining health and environment plans. Redirect subventions and public procurement to prioritize products of these supply chains. For farm policy, adopt a comprehensive and inclusive approach that includes experts in human nutrition, farmers/producers, and climate experts. • We need companies/brands to: Develop technologies to reduce emissions on-farm (manure handling, enteric methane emissions, husbandry practices, genetics). Find premiums to make the choice easy for consumers. Keep farmers in the conversation (in particular, need to bring the food industry closer to the farmer). 3. Educate consumers. • Share a balanced message. Speak to healthy consumption rather than increased or decreased consumption (context-specific). • Consumer education is key, as it will allow consumers to: o Understand the impact of excessive consumption of animal-sourced foods. o Understand how animal-sourced foods are produced to help them make choices accordingly (ultimately increasing demand for sustainable production practices). • BUT make sure we don’t marginalize groups; we don’t finger point to them. • Potential actions: o Changing labels (changing “best by” to “best to use by”), including on animal-sourced foods (e.g. dairy). o Positive imaging of healthy food and portions by chefs and youth. o Regulation by governments on healthy portion size. 4. Build consensus on information such as: • What the best plate should be. • GHG data (still varying estimates today) • Pesticide use and the safety of those. PARTNERSHIPS Establish partnerships and coalitions including: 1. Regional and context-specific coalitions that include technology providers, farmers, and brands that sell products on the market (as livestock is very heterogeneous and very regional). 2. Soil health solutions and partnerships (including regenerative agriculture and carbon storage). 3. Make farmers' voices heard. Involve farmers in conversations. 4. Key question of how to partner with the food industry.236240242243244247248Discussion Topic, Group 10 By 2030, data and digital tools have allowed 100 million farmers - including low-income, smallholder farmer - to increase crop productivity and resilience under a changing climate, and to invest in nature-positive agricultural methods. ACTIONS 1. Address key issues, including: • Connectivity improvements (limited or no access to internet). • Training, with focus on co-creation which is key for digital uptake and must be serious about lowering production costs/improving income. • Potential inequality for gender, youth, and older farmers. 2. Ensure that tools are co-created and farmer-centric and actually address farmer issues, rather than tools developed that are disconnected to the actual use. Tools need to be USEFUL and APPLICABLE and they must be serious about lowering production costs/improving farmer’s income. a. Train farmers to use the tools - learning and literacy. Have farmer organizations partner with the minister of agriculture and other government partners such as education and health and the private sector. 3. Recognize that farmers are not a homogenous group; there are competing interests and a wide range of situations and needs. 4. Avoid inequality. Digital and data should come along with literacy and inclusivity. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how fragile the system is, including other issues like a lack of electricity/access to the internet, etc. PARTNERSHIPS Foster partnerships between: 1. Farmer organizations, public sector (especially inter-ministerial cooperation for a more comprehensive data collection for decision-making), agriculture, health, and education areas of government, private sector (including farmers), and academia (especially interdisciplinary). 2. Consumers and farmers 3. Inter-ministerial collaboration to enhance data collection, allowing for more comprehensive/holistic data. 4. And with research institutions, where there is a lot of niche work that’s disconnected from other efforts. Incentivize harmonization between these efforts and make sure the tools are broader and less niche: • Granting systems could be a catalyst to bring this together • Reduce duplication and redundancy • Identify problems and then create solutions, rather than developing tools without understanding the problems (doesn’t respond to a farmer-driven need). 5. How can foundations deal with these different stakeholders? • Think about the end user/downstream impacts • Do due diligence on the needs of the target beneficiary 6. Support and build on existing partnerships that are already doing the work: • 50 by 2030: Foundation and FAO, World Bank, IFAD - scale up development surveys • FAO’s international digital platform • WUR - Digital AgriHub • CGIAR Agroecological Transitions (IFAD) • CCAFS Big Data for Climate Smart Agriculture236241242243244245246248249251Discussion Topic, Group 11 By 2030, agriculture is attractive to the next generation as a sector with opportunities, and young farmers are empowered and equipped with the skills to work sustainably. ACTIONS 1. Empower youth, include them in decision making and power sharing. 2. Young farmers have a vital role in bringing innovative solutions to farmers; young farmers are the early adopters and change-makers. Young people as tech-conduits for both innovation and the application. 3. Provide school-based agriculture education. Include an experiential model to develop young people for farming. 4. Improve rural livelihoods. Economics are important. Young people need to see that farming is an option to support their families. 5. Integrating small and large farms is important to limit risk. 6. Facilitate young people moving back to farms if they see such careers as a choice. 7. Scale up effective approaches, such as: AgriCorps, Whole Child Development, and Integrated Community Development. 8. Recognize the opportunities of multi-generational farming. 9. Make sure that farming and nature come together. In Belgium, there are internships for policymakers and conservationists to spend time on farms; farmers, policymakers, and conservationists begin to align their understanding of the interrelationship between farming and nature. 10. Focus on consumers as well as farmers. Build a conduit of expectations of young consumers back to farmers. 11. Change the narrative to food and nutrition. Food as a way to deliver nutrition. 12. Conduct inclusive needs assessments. PARTNERSHIPS Create partnerships: 1. Among farmers, consumers, conservationists, and policymakers. 2. That are inclusive and diverse, such as the Global Poverty Research Lab at Northwestern University, Ministry of Education, World Bank, National Science Foundation, 4H, USFRA, and USAID.2372402412432442462472482491. Fragmentation of efforts to find evidence-based scientific solutions for nature-positive production. There was much discussion about innovative and evidence-based scientific solutions that some NGOs, multilateral organizations, academic and research institutions, governments, and companies a have discovered to improve food systems so they t provide sustenance to all and a healthier planet. • The dominant concern, however, was that these efforts are often fragmented—made in isolation from each other, in different parts of the world, without information-sharing or collaboration. Farmers, and particularly smallholder farmers in developing countries, on whom food systems ultimately rely, often have limited access to data and technology which are essential to advance nature-positive production. There was a strong sentiment that by fostering partnerships among diverse stakeholders, progress can be achieved in transforming food systems for a better world. • There were diverse ideas on how to make this happen, and how to make it important to smallholder farmers who might be more focused on solutions to day-to-day issues around providing basic needs for their families. Everyone agreed that knowledge needs to be shared, however some felt it was the responsibility of the government and extension services, while others felt large corporations should be sharing information. A third group suggested farmer organizations were key. A final group suggested these and other entities should partner to make sure knowledge gets to farmers. 2. Advancing equitable livelihoods, while boosting nature-positive production. There was also agreement that success in boosting nature-positive production will only be achieved by providing much needed resources, training, technology, support, and incentives for smallholder farmers, including women, and including farmers in remote rural communities in developing countries. • The perspectives varied somewhat in terms of emphasis, however. That is, some participants were more focused on the environment and conservation, while others put greater emphasis on providing sustainable livelihoods to farmers. Some of the concerns regarding the economics of sustainable farming included these: o Labor market governance and institutions need to be strengthened to advance more equitable livelihoods. o A challenge in advancing more equitable livelihoods is that rural and urban labor markets in food systems involve such a wide variety of employment relationships - in the small-scale agriculture sector, which is heavily comprised of women, as well as in large commercial farms, plantations, and cash-crop systems. o A barrier to equitable livelihoods among agricultural workers is the lack of access to social protections, such as health insurance. They also lack rights to collective bargaining and to health and safety. o To ensure more equitable livelihoods, it will be essential to address the lack of infrastructure, systemic marginalization, and limited skills and knowledge development opportunities. These constraints curb equitable access to resources and services and therefore to secure livelihoods. 3. The lack of coordination and alignment between governments and public policy worldwide. Participants shared doubts and concerns about the likelihood of success in terms of actions partnerships and without greater collaboration between national governments. The fragmentation of global public policy makes it difficult for diverse stakeholders to collaborate in advancing evidence-based scientific solutions and making measurable progress. 4. There was acknowledgement of the divergence of definitions around regenerative agriculture. The group discussion noted that it should be defined in a way that encourages access to tools and technology, including fertilizers and pesticides. Others were concerned about the inclusion of certain pesticides that they considered “toxic” and/or “controversial.” They asked if there were other approaches that could be used instead. However, there was consensus over the concern that farmers would not be included in making these decisions about what is included in regenerative agriculture.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FSS_Official_Feedback_Form_Final.pdfhttps://iica.int/en/press/news/rattan-lal-and-iica-launch-living-soils-americas-initiativehttps://tnc.app.box.com/s/p0muww0qbj6abo2qduyof76ihvvuie4thttps://www.100million.org/https://www.50x2030.org/https://ccafs.cgiar.org/research/projects/big-data-climate-smart-agriculturehttp://sbae.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Empower-Youth-Transform-Agriculture_0102.pdf

2021-07-23 16:59:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35700/92

17346311162111211132110110112244

There were 2 zoom dialogue tables. In preparation for the dialogue table, we sent out the agenda and how the tables will run. In addition, we held personal meetings and conversations with each participant in which we explained about the dialogues and its purpose. At the beginning of the meeting, we clarified again that there is no need to reach agreement and the rules of discourse, as well as the agenda of the meeting: Each participant has up to 8 minutes to present the challenges and goals. After this, time has given for references. In the additional round, a set time is given for the third part and additional reference time.Act with Urgency - The letter of preparation for the dialogue tables, the meeting and the opening remarks at the meeting, included the UN data and the purpose of the UN Food summit. Climate crisis and the status of health systems as been reflected at Covid19 Be Respectful-Participants in the Dialogues are expected to listen to each other and be open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Recognize Complexity - multiple stakeholders toke place in the Dialogues Build Trust-The Dialogues are curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust. The facilitator clarified that quotes will be taken but not in the name of the participant , encouraging mutual respect Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity- The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within government, the business community, civil society and research – working across the food system from production to consumption.To meet personally with the participants to clarify the Principles of Engagement

Yes

234238239240242243244245246247248249250251Our focus is on sustainable Israeli industry. A strong, independent local food industry is of high importance for: • Food security, in general and particularly in times of crisis. • Support for local agriculture. • Diverse, multi-gender employment and strengthening of the periphery. We have examined/researched the industry's challenges and interfaces with regarding to UN objectives on sustainability. The discussion focused on the following topics: 1. Develop innovative technologies; expand knowledge and academic and applied research on establishing local sustainable agriculture, reduce water consumption in agriculture as well as in the food industry. 2. Implementation of circular economy principles in agriculture and across the food industry's entire chain of production and supply. 3. Expansion of knowledge on food production and packaging, to have it focus on responsible production and consumption, use of clean energy, encourage innovation and advanced infrastructure for the local food industry. 4. Invest resources in fair employment and reduction of inequality; multi-gender employment. 5. Develop innovative technologies; expand knowledge and academic and applied research in food technology to enhance the food security of Israel's residents, encourage sustainable nutrition to promote public health and food safety. 6. Reinforce the connection between the relevant bodies to ensure reduction in waste of food, increase food security in Israel and reach the goal of zero hunger. 7. Deepen the connection and dialog between the relevant bodies with the aim of promoting the235238239240242243244245246247248249251The food industry is an important partner in achieving the 17 UN objectives, and a significant player in food systems. The importance of inter-sectoral cooperation with different stakeholders in order to deepen dialog and mutual learning: academia, consumers, health services, municipalities, insurance companies, regulator. The importance of cooperation between the industry and academia for development of innovative products and technologies to assist in reducing carbon and water footprints. Need for national goals and a uniform database. Measurement and evaluation: build a database encompassing all lifecycle data of food production and examine the carbon and water footprints across the food industry's production and supply chain. Multi-sectoral collaboration: construct a regulatory plan with sectorial objectives for savings and reorganization in areas of water, agriculture, industry, retail chains, and consumers. Build a single database for managing agricultural crops, planting and growing, to enable balancing of supply and demand. Define multi-annual national objectives for reducing poverty (and food insecurity) in Israel until reaching the existing average of OECD countries. Establish a coordinating food-saving body designed to synergize government ministries and food industries, retail chains, NPOs, and consumers. Define an objective of ZERO FOOD WASTE for food manufacturers and retail chains by the year 2030236239240243244245246248Responsible production and consumption, innovation and infrastructure 1. Strengthen ties between academia and industry: establish a food center in academia in cooperation with the industry, to advance students' education and applied economic development in the field, with the aim of promoting responsible production and consumption, and providing nutritional security and optimal health. 2. Strengthen ties between academia and industry: establish a food center in academia in cooperation with the industry, to advance students' education and applied economic development in the field, with the aim of promoting responsible production and consumption, and providing nutritional security and optimal health. 3. Support and grants for the Israeli food industry and technological companies for innovation in the food world and foodtech, as well as academia operating in this area. 4. Multi-sectorial collaboration: building a gender discourse on responsible production between industry, the Innovation Authority, and academia. 5. Advanced, rapid regulatory adjustment to the new food area and alternative protein236238239240242243244245246247251Health and healthy lifestyle – how to get there 1. Broad professional cooperation and dialog between industry, academia, health services, retailers, government ministries, and the regulator for the advancement of public health. Industry is a partner to the solution. 2. Build a common, uniform communication plan for all parties noted in section 2.3.1 for promoting public health, expressed in plain and simple language for all sectors (adjustment of discourse to relevant sector). 3. Strengthening ties between academia and industry to build a plan to promote communication and explanation of the importance of food processing and food processing technologies for a sustainable food environment. Harmonization with European standards with regard to pesticides and food supplements (exists) as well as attribution of healing properties to various food products. In the aim of promoting public health. 4. Build an education plan to promote healthy life style from kindergarten age until academia, in which all bodies noted in 2.3.1 shall participate, crossing boundaries and genders. Israel is a small country, and major impact can be made in it. 5. Subsidies and grants for companies developing foods with enhanced nutritional value. 6. Communication and advertising: encouragement of advertising foods with added nutritional value, encouraging adoption of a healthy life style. 7. Providing greater accessibility and lower prices for foods that promote a healthy life style237238239240242243244245246248251With regard to sustainable packaging: this area should continue to be studied, to strengthen academic and applied knowledge. Education should be strengthened, as well as solutions for recycling and development of sustainable packaging. With regard to advertising: a call to take advantage of industry's power and experience in the world of advertising, to advertise and promote healthy food.

2021-07-23 17:17:21205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34717/11

9511538401055403025428122402023013153210018344130160005719

The Final National Dialogue of Albania's Food Systems Summit was held on Wednesday 21 July 2021, in Tirana. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Dialogue took place in person, combining with a virtual connection (20: 75). It began with opening remarks from high-level speakers (Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, UN Resident Coordinator, UNDP Resident Representative, UN Women Resident Representative, FAO Representative, and the Convenor of the National Dialogues, Ms Ermira Gjeçi (Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development). The Facilitators and Curator presented findings and outcomes of the two sub-national food systems dialogues, conducted for lowland & coastal areas and mountain area. In the final Dialogue, national and international organizations reconfirmed their commitment to support agriculture, rural development and food industries in Albania. In the discussion session, participants discussed the 5 Action Tracks; 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns; 3) Boost nature-positive production; 4) Advance equitable livelihoods; 5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. They stressed the key challenges to strengthening food systems as highlighted in the previous dialogues and explored options and actions that can contribute via national pathways towards sustainable food systems. The concluding Dialogue successfully created the “5 Key trends” for sustainable food systems by 2030 for engagement and interconnection among food systems stakeholders, connecting the national and sub-national level, and consolidating country-level commitments. Principles of engagement under UN Food systems national dialogues have been respected. In addition, interested people participated in the live broadcast on the official YouTube live stream (https://youtu.be/_Tt0nB1z0d0).Albania has organized 3 stages of dialogues. Stage One of the National Dialogue - Initiating National Engagement was convened on June 10, 2021, online. Eighty-two participants attended, including representatives from central & local-government, national and international organizations, private sector, academia, civil society, public agencies as well as university, who all outlined the key trends for sustainable food systems in Albania. Stage Two-Extensive Explorations Everywhere was convened in 2 dialogues, one for the low and coastal area on July 7, 2021 (102 participants) and another one for mountainous areas on July 8, 2021 (93 participants) for the fact that the challenges and importance of food systems can be perceived differently in different regions. The third stage-Consolidation, intention and commitment was convened on July 21, 2021, and brought together (95 participants of the previous dialogues), who summarized and agreed on the findings/outcomes. The event took place in person, combining with a virtual connection. All four national and sub-national Dialogues brought together a wide spectrum of stakeholders. All participants were very active and detail-oriented during discussions. Eventually, all their suggestions and recommendations were taken into consideration, summarized, and compiled under the key trends and objectives. The National Dialogues outlined the key trends to ensure sustainable food systems in the country by 2030. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank and open discussion with the inclusion of respective stakeholders (with a gender-sensitive and participatory approach).In order to achieve sustainable solutions, it is important to appreciate the Principles of Engagement while building trust for open dialogue, clearly informing that any opinion, comments, and suggestions will be taken into consideration (make good use of the chat/inbox). It is crucial to notify participants that there is no right or wrong answer or opinion and that everyone’s voices and opinions count. Due to the interconnectivity of aspects of food systems across sectors, it is important to include participation from a range of stakeholders. This prevents unforeseen outcomes, ensures sustainability, and heightens the involvement. Moderation and presentation of all action tracks should be presented in clear language by presenting them from a local/regional point of view.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Stage 3 of the National Dialogue on Sustainable Food System in Albania was a powerful opportunity to engage meaningfully, explore collectively, and emerge resiliently to build sustainable food systems of the country in the framework of the UN Food Systems Summit. This third step aimed at the introduction of the key findings and outcomes from the previous Dialogues (within 5 Action Tracks) and but even cross-cutting between action tracks: • Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; • Shift to sustainable consumption patterns; • Boost nature-positive production; • Advance equitable livelihoods; • Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress; Also, it aimed to identify the national pathways towards sustainable food systems by 2030 while discussing how to implement these pathways and talking about possible commitments from the different stakeholders. The dialogue has been a continuation of the discussion around the visions presented at the first and second stages of national dialogue. The discussion was framed around the knowledge and innovation system, consumers, food producers and their conditions, financial and support systems/rules and regulations and the resilience of food systems. The National Dialogue has enabled stakeholders to work together by examining the national food systems, exploring options for change, shaping pathways for these systems to be sustainable by 2030, and has given a meaningful opportunity to Albanian stakeholders to further advance the food systems sustainability of the country. They will have an active role to work together by drawing and following national pathways towards sustainable food systems of Albania by 2030. Our priorities for the next decade are: (i) to ensure the existence of a competitive value chain in food systems; (ii) to develop agro-tourism and short value chains as mechanisms of rural development ; (iii) to develop an effective system of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection; (iv) to ensure sustainable use of natural resources, environmental protection, preservation of ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation; (v) to elaborate an effective systems for the crisis management. By the end of this stage, participants have a greater understanding and commitment to take action based on 5 national pillars (as above) in a way to improve the food systems in Albania.235238239240241242244Agriculture is one of the main economic pillars of the Albanian economy contributing 19% to the country GDP (INSTAT 2019) and around one-third of employed people (nationwide) are in agriculture. Albania ranks as one of the top ten countries in the world with the highest economic risk from multiple hazards: 88.5% of GDP generated and 86% of total territory is exposed to two or more disasters. The impact of disasters is increasing the vulnerability of Albanian citizens affected by them. Floods of 2015 and 2016, the 2019 earthquake, and lastly COVID 19 pandemic, highlight the need for increased resilience of the private sector and strengthened capacities to mitigate, manage, and recover from shocks. Regarding environmental challenges, the main ones for the country are water and air pollution, land degradation, biodiversity loss and waste management. Rapid urbanization and increasing demand for natural resources have led to increasing depletion and degradation. Caring for the most vulnerable, maintaining and ensuring access to equitable service delivery, addressing the digital divide, experimenting with alternative working options, and providing uninterrupted basic services for the most affected population are among key challenges to overcome for increased resilience to shocks. Considering the high rates of out-migration and farmers ageing, high rate of rural population at risk of poverty and risk of climate change impacts, as well as the prevalence of small farms, the raising the productivity and ensuring the sustainability of family farms (SDG 2.3) and resilient agricultural practices and capacity for adaptation to climate change (SDG 2.4) are key to achieve the Agenda 2030. Yet, from a development perspective, in order to contribute to sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth (SDG 8.1, 8.2. 8.4), there is a strong need to develop the food systems. Our priorities for the next decade are as follows: to ensure a competitive value chain in food systems; to develop agritourism and short value chains as mechanisms of rural development, to establish an effective system of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection; to guarantee the sustainable use of natural resources, environmental protection, preservation of ecosystems, and enable climate change mitigation and adaptation; and create effective systems of crisis management. A sustainable food system delivers food security and nutrition for all, and in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition are firmly established. All the main elements of food systems, such as the food supply chain, food environment, and consumer behaviour are of the utmost importance for Albania. Adequate nutrition is essential for the health and well-being of any nation, but food availability is not the only critical factor; the quality of food is also an issue that needs particular attention and efforts from all actors involved in the production, trade, and consumption of food. The development of the rural territories of Albania is important for addressing issues such as food security, environmental protection, economic development, and the establishment of high quality of life and security. Competitive agricultural & non-agricultural production and helping Albania to better adapt to deal with climate change are also essential factors for the development of food systems in Albania.2362382402412432442452462472482492511. Ensure competitive value-chains in the food systems (Action Track 1, Action Track 3, Action Track 4) Changes needed for national food systems to meet the defined expectations by 2030 - Increase the competitiveness of the agricultural products in Albania and development of their value-chains; - Ensure the compliance of products with marketing standards at all along value chains; - Reduce food loss and waste from the production level to final consumer; - Capacity building of the extension service on production technologies, markets requirements, prices, uses of agricultural inputs, innovation and digitalization in agriculture; - Capacity building and support to farmers to apply good agricultural practices and production practices that are nature friendly (e.g., organic production); - Empowering women – economically, socially and politically – must be a central effort to achieve food and nutrition security, shift to sustainable agriculture and food system, and achieve the SDGs; - Transform food systems to be attractive to youth, who will be innovators of the agricultural production systems; - A reliable database on agricultural and related fields is needed, to develop evidence-based policies. Improve monitoring and evaluation of policy interventions in the rural development by generating more data (e.g. FDNA, Market data, price information, socioeconomic, etc.) on the agricultural sector and related fields; - Socio-economic impact of the earthquake and Covid-19 on the agriculture sector and rural development should be used to program and implement long term recovery measures; - Involvement of vulnerable and food insecure people and communities into sustainable development processes to enhance their livelihoods, boost their food security and build resilience to disasters a climate change; - Support the cooperative actions between groups of farmers, processors, traders, and promote horizontal and vertical cooperation; - Improve animal health, welfare, and control of animal diseases, zoonosis, and transboundary diseases; - Improve agriculture irrigation and drainage systems; - Provide support to Blue Economy and sustainable development of fishery and aquaculture.2362402412432442452462482492512. Develop agritourism and short value chains as mechanisms of rural development (Action Track 3 & 4) - A comprehensive approach to sustainable development must entail coherent, future-oriented national policies, strategies and visions for food and nutrition security that are people-centred, with a focus on poor smallholders and food insecure, vulnerable communities, women and youth; - Supporting small farmers to access finance, national and IPARD subsidy schemes, and applying tools to incentive the formalization of the farmers; - Support to smallholder farmers to increase their agricultural productivity, promoting their access to markets and services, rewarding their efforts to preserve landscape and ecosystem services and strengthening their resilience to external shocks – particularly environmental and climate-related; diseases – through insurance and social protection; - The market demand for traditional products is increasing especially in areas that already have developed tourism. In order to build Short Value Chains some issues need to be considered: • Products in a short value chains should reach market minimum standards; • Good quality packaging and decent labelling are necessary to implement short value chains. • Good practices should be applied for harvesting and post-harvesting processes. • Small-scale equipment should be supported by grant schemes to guarantee the quality and safety of products. • Support innovative food processing technologies to ensure consumer protection and reduce overhead costs. In the case of family farming, this process requires capacity building for farmers and support with investment grants that are more accessible (e.g. with prepayment) than EU Funds. • Support digitalization and ITC as accelerating tools in agriculture and rural development.2362392432442452462482492513. Ensure effective systems of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection (Action Track 2) - Establishment of a food safety surveillance system associated with the traceability system; - Increase qualification of personnel involved in food safety and food controls; - Strengthen extension services to provide relevant information on food safety issues to farmers and food producers; - Improve the overall laboratory capacity in the country; adopt new methods for laboratory test diagnostics in the area of food safety, veterinary and plant protection; expanding accreditation; capacity building for laboratory employees; - Further improve on risk assessment, management and communication capacities in food safety and the effective enforcement of food safety legislation and traceability along the whole food chain “From Stable to Table”; - Enhance and strengthen post-harvest storage and processing systems; - Improve food environments, and raise population awareness on food safety and healthy nutrition, with particular emphasis on children and young population; - Strengthen control on the use of pesticides in accordance with approved procedures to protect consumer health and the environment; - Raising awareness and education of children in schools through food programs “From farm to school”.2362402432442452462482492514. Sustainable use of natural resources, environmental protection, preservation of ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation (Action Track 3) - Develop new multisector approaches and multi-stakeholder platforms that help overcome structural barriers to transformational change in food and agriculture systems; - Strengthen collaborative decision making and enable different stakeholders to resolve their diverse and frequently conflicting interests within an agreed common framework; - Awareness-raising for the representatives of municipalities, communities, schoolchildren about climate change and its impacts; environmental issues; - Ensure the sustainable use of water, land and forest resources, as well as the prevention of soil, air and water pollution; - Enforcement of early warning systems; ensure efficient management of the natural disasters; zoonosis and pandemics; - Prevention of erosion through supported by planting trees/vegetation etc.; - Prevent soil degradation and erosion, through sustainable use of forests and pastures, which have a contribution to the development of tourism, protection from erosion, but also contribute to the economic aspect and green economy; - Moving towards a circular economy, which delivers benefits to reduce waste to a minimum, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce pressure on the environment, to increase competitiveness, stimulate innovation, boost economic growth.2362422432442452462472482492515. Elaboration of effective systems for crisis management (Action Track 5) - Ensure effective crisis management plans are in place; - Approximation of the legal frame and methodology for assessment and compensation of damages and losses after disasters according to international standards in cooperation with insurance market actors; - Strengthen the communication mechanism between institutions to ensure effective crisis and shock management; - Strengthen food supply management systems and other basic needs during and after crises. Establish supply management systems for food and other basic needs; - Establish an effective communication mechanism between the state and the private sector for a force majeure situation, which ensures effective management of crises and shocks; - Developing the insurance market for agricultural activity through specific national support schemes.237N/A

2021-07-23 17:28:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30846/41194

59581431141

● Act with urgency: The Dialogue was framed within the context of an urgent need for action across the food supply chain to build and support a more sustainable and equitable food system, aiming to explore the role food businesses can play. ● Commit to the Summit: The Dialogue was to focus on moving forward in the lead-up to the Food Systems Summit, specifically considering how the U.N can better support sustainable food business and take broader food system lessons from mission-driven companies into its dialogues. ● Be respectful: We encouraged participants to raise their hand at any point to ensure that all voices were heard and respected, and we prepared the facilitators by emphasizing the importance of making participants feel welcome in the discussion. ● Recognize complexity: Participants came to the Dialogue with the understanding that there is not one solution to the complex challenges the global food system faces, and that the discussion would explore how all players are interconnected and interdependent. ● Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We carefully selected a diverse group of food business leaders to participate in the Dialogue in order to ensure that a wide range of voices were represented, heard, and respected. ● Complement the work of others: The Dialogue focused specifically on understanding what’s already working on the ground in the global food system to help facilitate collaboration between organizations that may benefit from each other’s work. ● Build trust: The Dialogue included structured time for participants to speak throughout the conversation, and we made it clear that the discussion would focus on collaboration, with participants’ points to be included in our feedback.The key principles our Dialogue focused on were Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, and Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity. We developed this Dialogue with the intention to focus on concrete collaboration and action. The discussion was broken into three parts—challenges, opportunities, and ways forward—in order to emphasize the need to lean into what’s working now and look ahead towards ways to overcome challenges. We recognized that many resilient and game-changing solutions came as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Dialogue was framed as a way to take these opportunities a step further. We deliberately focused on what’s possible and what’s hopeful in order to facilitate connections, coalitions, and collaborations between participants to lift each other up and amplify progress. Throughout planning the Dialogue, we worked to ensure participants brought a diverse range of perspectives to the discussion.We recommend preparing the scope of the Dialogue with all speakers prior to the event to ensure the conversation reflects the agreed-upon goals and principles of engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242244248249As the world comprehends the significant role our current food system has played in the planetary crisis, food companies around the world are quickly taking steps—some big strides, some early motions—to take responsibility and reduce the impact of their supply chains. But unlike big food, some mission-driven companies were conceived with the very goal of designing a new food system that’s built for planetary and human health. This Dialogue convened those mission-driven players to share their challenges, opportunities, and visions for the future and collect their perspectives as input for the U.N. Sustainable Food Summit. The Dialogue explored: ● Challenges. The major barriers facing new and established companies alike looking to embrace sustainability, whether that’s changing consumers’ attitudes towards food or adopting or developing new technology. ● Opportunities. How we make sustainable food more mainstream and what that will take on the part of farmers, companies, consumers, and governments. ● Ways Forward. How we can build a more resilient food system that is good for people and the planet and resilient to not just a pandemic, but other global shocks.235238239240241244246249Participants emphasized cooperation throughout the Dialogue. There is an inherent interdependency in the food system, and each player impacts others’ capacities to act. There is a need for more coalitions and collaborations not only between food businesses but across the entire food and agriculture system. Together, these individual players can have a much larger positive impact. This interconnected nature should also be reflected within each food business model. Participants identified the need to move from a single stakeholder to multi-stakeholder approach to business, in which leaders value the planet, community, workers, and natural resources in the decision-making process. Leaders can further push the dial by building people-centered businesses that focus on advocacy. Participants also spoke about the need to invest in women-led, Asian-led, and BIPOC-led businesses and organizations that are working towards sustainable solutions. Those that are closest to the issues facing our food systems must receive support to build culturally and locally appropriate solutions. Participants recognized that many food systems, particularly commodity-based, are legacy systems built around colonialism and deep-rooted unfairness, and that it’s important to bring historically invisible and forgotten members of the value chain into decision-making. Participants agreed that policy needs to catch up to forward-thinking companies’ ambitions and the scientific consensus as to the impact of the current global food system on planetary and human health. The government has a big role to play in making necessary changes. Because policies support industrialized agriculture, affordability remains a main concern in scaling sustainable production practices, as well. Participants spoke about how better policies can support sustainable and regenerative systems by incentivizing farmers to experiment with different ways of farming. By supporting and scaling regenerative supply chains, farmers can make a living wage while companies gain better access to healthy ingredients and these products are accessible to all consumers. Policy may also reimagine how consumers interact with food labels and expand what those labels look like to include factors like carbon footprint and animal welfare. Finally, the Dialogue centered on the theme that there is no one-size-fits-all for the food system. Rather than searching for a silver bullet, it’s imperative that all players focus on supporting family farmers, sustainable agricultural practices, education, and other investments to help incentivize making a radical change towards a healthier future. Moving forward, sustainable food businesses must maintain this open conversation and continue to challenge each other.236239240244246248249Discussion topic: Challenges Participants agreed that infrastructure is a major challenge across sustainable food businesses. While businesses have the initiative to make change, supply often isn’t sufficient. For example, there is a disconnect between material innovation and the supply chains to support sustainable packaging. The waste industry doesn’t have consistent or centralized infrastructure to keep up with private innovation aimed at reducing waste. Meanwhile, incapabilities across recycling systems produce confusion at the consumer level, threatening their faith in available steps towards positive impact like packaging recycling. Participants noted that focusing on scaling-up the circular economy plays an important role in helping the system catch up to the private sector’s ambitions. Regenerative farming needs support so businesses can access healthier and more sustainable ingredients at scale. Making sure everyone has access to these foods can also ensure that there is an equitable and fair playing field for all companies developing these products. Participants also agreed that policy has not provided enough support for those working to build sustainable and regenerative systems. Big dairy, meat, and seafood are pushing back against policies to support plant-based business, while current subsidies incentivize farmers to grow commodity crops using unsustainable methods. Without government and policy support, the onus falls on responsible food businesses to support these more sustainable food systems—and often, that higher cost of business reaches the consumer, making more sustainable food options less accessible to all. The Dialogue also identified the challenge of communicating the interdependence of all food system players in a way that is easy to understand. At the consumer level, sustainable food businesses need to make it convenient and easy for eaters to think about eating not only for human health but planetary health. New labels, for example, can frame carbon footprints similar to calories on food packaging. Companies must find simple ways to show that their products are part of many solutions to a large, interconnected problem.236239240241244245246249250Discussion topic: Opportunities Participants highlighted that sustainable food businesses have an opportunity to challenge the status quo. Multi-stakeholder business models that value the planet, community, workers, eaters, and natural resources can help move the focus from a singular devotion to profit. Large companies have the scale, resources, and ability to influence change that smaller businesses don’t have. But as these smaller businesses demonstrate financial and cultural success and find ways to engage with larger multi-national food companies, they can influence how large companies operate, helping to create greater impact. Participants also identified an opportunity for small and medium size enterprises to leverage shorter, more agile supply chains. A key component of sustainable food business is paying farmers a better-than-fair wage while also providing accessibility to consumers. Small and medium-sized businesses are at a disadvantage in terms of economies of scale, but they can reduce intermediaries in the supply chain to maximize return to farmers, allowing farmers to invest in sustainable initiatives such as reforestation efforts or pollinators habitats. In this way, small businesses can chart the path forward for larger, more established companies and supply chains. While it was also noted as a challenge, the theme of interdependence was seen by participants as an opportunity. Participants continually pointed to the power of collaboration and coalition. This means not seeing other businesses as competitors, but rather partners in solving the complex issues of the global food system. Each sustainable food business’s own success is positively correlated to the success of its competitors. Democratizing access to the tools necessary for radical food systems change will benefit all. The Dialogue emphasized an all-hands-on-deck approach to tackling the changes that are urgently needed. Participants saw an enormous opportunity for government and policies to better support sustainable and regenerative practices. Many companies are investing in farmers, but a system-level shift is needed. Farmers can be given the freedom to be brave, take risks, and make mistakes in the transition towards a better system. Better policies can properly compensate farmers and farm workers while keeping the cost of sustainably and ethically grown food affordable to all. Participants also note the opportunity for food business to involve more producers in key decisions, integrating them into the entire product development process. Well-intentioned initiatives and community projects, often based on public dialogue or the competition’s projects, aren’t always the best solution for farmers. Throughout the discussion, participants shared their own solutions to the food system’s challenges while noting that there isn’t just one solution needed. Participants agreed that many of the necessary solutions do already exist, but investors are needed. There is an opportunity to bring more investors that value the planet as highly as profit into this space.236239241244246249Discussion topic: Ways Forward Moving forward, participants focused on the need to shift core values not only for food business but the consumers purchasing from them. With simultaneous and interconnected planetary crises, it’s not enough for companies to be less harmful; sustainability and equitability must be inherent in their core products or services -- not just side product lines -- and companies should find a way to include advocacy in their work. Participants also spoke about marrying conversations surrounding sustainability more broadly. Often, food-specific discussions and climate-specific discussions focus on the same issues in separate forums. The food and agriculture system needs to be brought fully into the global conservation surrounding the climate crisis at forums like UNFCCC’s COP. The industry should acknowledge its role in the global environmental, human health, and social justice crises, and also recognize its potential as a powerful solution for those same crises. There remains a disconnect between the reporting on food and agriculture’s impact on the environment and the action taken at a policy level. For example, there is global scientific consensus on the environmental impact of industrialized, commoditized agriculture. The U.N. and other global bodies have reported widely on that consensus but neither international bodies nor country-specific administrations widely include it in policy, either in regulating harmful systems or in promotion of positive alternative ones. Moving forward, policies can help make the good choice the easy choice for consumers, as well as incentivize growers to produce more sustainably. Participants spoke about the need to push current administrations to pass policies that better support both human and environmental health. Participants also pointed to the importance of recognizing the extractive nature of many food supply chains. A more restorative system would invest in women and the BIPOC communities that are on the front lines of many of the issues that sustainable food businesses are striving to solve. Participants agreed that we must bring in the people and communities that are closest in proximity to these issues. Moving forward, different voices including historically forgotten and underrepresented communities need to be in conversation with food business. These conversations should focus on local and culturally appropriate solutions that serve all eaters. Finally, participants emphasized the need to move forward with solutions, even if they may not be perfect. Being more vocal about the barriers facing the solutions already at work can help push the dial. Often, we learn more from failures rather than successes. Pushing forward with what’s working right now, not what might work 50 years from now, should be the focus of the discussions.237240242243244246249There was a slight divergence in discussing how the food system measures the environmental impact of producing food. Some points of divergence occurred around: ● Carbon sequestration and the greenwashing of regenerative agriculture ● Need for further scientific evidence of the impacts of animal welfare and regeneratively raised beef ● Carbon credit systems and carbon farming

2021-07-23 19:31:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9592/45194

40162440622

By convening a dialogue among the college students in China and the U.S., who share the same interest in food systems, we recognize the urgency and complexity of setting up a global network of young people to contribute to more sustainable and equitable food systems.The Dialogue was the climax of a semester-long course on the relationship between food, health, and the environment. The students shared their learning and findings with their Chinese counterparts, embracing the complexity of the issue, being respectful of each other's culture and background, and building trust to achieve the common goal.

Yes

234238239240241244248249251The 90-minute dialogue focused on the following five themes: 1. Agrobiodiversity and Food System: The effects of agrobiodiversity (agriculture biodiversity) on food systems and vice versa. Specifically: 1) Mono crops (soybeans/corn etc in the US) 2) Crops in Brazil and how that affects the environment, specifically the Amazon, or other countries 3) Effects of industrialized farming on mono-culture crops. 2. Food Waste: What kind of food waste occurs on the dining table, in the kitchen, or on the production line (can be discussed in specific aspects such as the school cafeteria, the kitchen in the family, etc.); if you want to improve the problems related to food waste, what can the young people do? Any concrete action plans? 3. Fake Meat: As vegetarianism, health consciousness, and environmental consciousness have increased in recent years, fake meat has become more popular, though it still does not approach real meat in terms of popularity, even though they are significantly better for the environment. How can fake meat be marketed, produced, and sold in a way that will make it competitive to real meat? 4. Food Education: When discussing food choices, how do we balance the freedom to choose with the consequences of our choices? What methods should we adopt to promote and educate on food topics? How to keep the public's attention to sustainable food and take action? How do we combat food inequity relative to educational tactics? How do we educate people not in school about food systems and ethical purchasing? How do we inspire interest and for people to take action? 5. Consumers: To find out the challenges of how our food choices and the concept of sustainable food consumption relate to consumers in the aspects of different cultures, geographic environments, and the gap between the rich and the poor. And moreover, what we should do to help resolve them.235238239240241244246The major findings from the different discussion groups were all complex in nature but also had similar themes of cultural acceptance and ethical food systems throughout the discussions. The Agrobiodiversity and Food Systems group found that current food systems are not sustainable for the environment, and are mainly decreasing the agrodiversity due to the widespread use of mono-crops, which also depletes the soil of its nutrients and genetic diversity. The group also found how our eating habits have affected what we plant and vice versa, the effect industrialization and globalization (global trade) have on food systems. The Food Waste group discovered that while consumers should be aware of their personal contribution to food waste, those major corporations also needed to take responsibility for their share of the problem. The Fake Meat group determined that most individuals in our age demographic would be curious to try fake meat and that limiting our meat consumption would have a considerable impact on global health. The Food Education group concluded that food education is vital in order to allow people to make “good choices” about their food, and it’s also important to our health as a society to ensure that everyone gets a good food education. Food education not only affects our physical health, but it also affects the health of our environment (our water, our land, the air) and our future generations as well. Furthermore, it is the media’s and government’s responsibility to also inspire society to care more about food and how our choices affect not only us, but also one another. Finally, the Consumers group found that food equity is a challenge in eating and purchasing ethically and more options and choices would substantially increase healthy eating and sustainable practices.236238239240241244246249250A lot of interesting views and solutions were brought up during the Dialogue. The Agrodiversity group agreed on the importance of shifting to more of a "plant-focused" diet, instead of changing completely to a plant-based diet, to win wider acceptance from society. Their previous research also suggested that new innovations, such as vertical farming, could be a solution to the increasing population and food demand. The Food Education group agreed that science and cultural norms need to work together and not against each other to properly educate others about food and create a community that strives for a better system. The group was able to highlight an action that should be taken in order to benefit our future, and that was to establish an effective food education system such that society would be able to make the best-informed decisions about their food. This would include ethical purchasing, and taking into account how the production of our food affects others and the environment; does the production allow for mistreatment of workers, or does it harm the environment in any way? Food education is a responsibility that everyone should take because ultimately it affects everyone in the future. The Consumer group agreed on the importance to ensure the access and affordability of healthy and sustainable food that is good for the planet to all of the public. Actions should be taken by governmental and non-governmental organizations so that taxes and/or subsidies can be implemented to help increase access to good food for all of the public, and decrease availability/access to food that is not as beneficial to us, our communities, and our world.237238239240244246248249250The areas of divergence usually originated from cultural differences. For example, there was a question about “ethical purchasing” and how people should be taught to be aware of it in the Food Education group—however, most people that had a solely Chinese background were not aware of the term “ethical purchasing”. They also discussed the differences between food education in China and food education in America. One of the major points that came up was that in China, there’s no formal food education; since food is so ingrained into Chinese culture, there’s no formal way that citizens are taught about food. A lot of the education they get comes from their family or their peers, and there isn’t much attention focused on the corporations or government when it comes to food. The Agrodiversity group was not convinced about the possibility of erasing meat completely from our diet. They were uncertain about the environmental impact of a vegan diet, citing the social-economic hurdle to be a vegan for the poor. The Consumer group disagreed on how people make food choices based on their economic and cultural background. They noted the discrepancies in some scientific research supported by large corporations to sell certain products, such as organic food, sugar, etc. The conflicting but shared responsibility between consumers and corporations was also observed by the Food Waster group. Though most of the group members blamed the food producers for food waste, some participants reminded that consumers, such as college students in a buffet-style dining hall, contribute to food waste. The Fake Meat group disagreed on whether the government should subsidize the fake meat industry. Currently, fake meats just take 1% of the world market share, without help from the government, and it cannot be the mainstream of the food system only if accepting help from the government.

By convening an independent dialogue among the college students in China and the U.S., who share the same interest in food systems, we recognize the urgency and complexity of setting up a global network of young people to contribute to more sustainable and equitable food systems. The Dialogue was the climax of a semester-long course at Northeastern University on the relationship between food, health, and the environment. The students shared their learning and findings with their Chinese counterparts, embracing the complexity of the issue, being respectful of each other's culture and background, and building trust to achieve the common goal.2021-06-22 22:55:15https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FSS_program.pdf

2021-07-23 19:35:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11909/203194

08301630233401551163521183262474236

The Organic Trade Association’s Sustainable Food Trade Action Council aims to strengthen the organic sectors voice in climate policy and sustainability issues and boost the sector’s efforts to create an environmentally friendly, sustainable food system. Council members actively measure and refine their sustainability programs and chart their climate strategy. This established cohort of sustainable-minded businesses is always eager to work together to identify solutions that progress towards achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We recognize the complexity of the global systematic change required to achieve these goals, and that diverse stakeholder perspectives from all aspects of the supply chain need to play an active role in identifying solutions; we were fully prepared to take advantage of this opportunity to organize this important discussion. When we heard about the opportunity to organize an Independent Dialogue for the UN Food Systems Summit, we immediately started assembling a team and scheduling meetings to convene a Dialogue. We scheduled our Dialogue for May 10th, to assure that we would have time to reflect and summarize our findings to submit by July 23rd for inclusion in the synthesis incorporated in the Sept 2021 Summit. Our Dialogue hosting team consisted of 1 Convener, 1 Curator, 6 Facilitators, and 6 staff notetakers – all of whom took advantage of the Curator/Facilitator trainings made available online through the Summit Gateway platform. The hosting team met 4 times prior to the live dialogue event to collaborate on planning, discuss subtopics in the breakout group categories identified, build trust and rapport among the Curator and Facilitators, and outline a framework for allocating seats in our Dialogue to assure that attendees represented a wide range of diverse experiences and perspectives. We identified targeted prospects for inclusion in this Dialogue and sent personalized calls to action to participate, but also cast our invitations wide to allow for broad attendance and assure that everyone felt welcome to engage.The Organic Trade Association’s Sustainable Food Trade Action Council is aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and six Council leaders immediately stepped up to embrace the Summit Principles of Engagement and Facilitate one of the 6 breakout groups involved in our Dialogue topic. Once we reached maximum capacity attendance in our Dialogue, we took a close look at the participant list and selected thoughtful assignments to assure we were embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity within each breakout group cohort also. The hosting team outlined three guiding questions to approach our Dialogue discussion - In what ways is organic today meeting our needs for sustainable growth and development? What are the tensions getting in the way of progress? What solutions can be pursued and who needs to be included in the conversation so that we can continue to grow in an equitable, healthy and sustainable way? Structuring our Dialogue around these three guiding questions allowed us to remain focused on identifying tangible successes, challenges, and solutions. This environment encouraged participants to highlight and complement the work of their peers which in turn built trust and helped to foster idea sharing. All Facilitators were trained to be thoughtful shepherds of the conversation, encourage respectful debate, bring new viewpoints into the discussion, make all participants feel comfortable engaging, and keep the outcomes focused on solutions we can aim to collectively execute.At first glance the Principles of Engagement seem like a fairly straightforward and respectful approach to working together with peers and colleagues – but in reality each of the principles actually take quite a lot of careful attention to truthfully achieve. If we act with the urgency that this work requires, we need to be actively creating change by any means possible starting now, but many groups are still in discussion phases about how to approach these complex issues. Meanwhile, we are loosing time. Many diverse stakeholder groups have committed to the Summit Goals and pledge to work towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, but how many have actually taken actions on solutions towards those goals after agreeing that we need to act now? We were very intentional in outlining a framework for allocating seats in our Dialogue, and identifying diverse multi-stakeholder individuals who should be included in this conversation, and yet our biggest takeaway is that we need to bring new and different viewpoints into the fold in order to make progress towards addressing real challenges that are hindering progress. It is easy to fall into a pattern of collaborating with your own network of likeminded individuals with aligned viewpoints, and often difficult and uncomfortable to break loose from that environment. However, recognizing the complexity of these issues demands that we seek out those who have different views in order to find opportunities for common ground, compromise, and shared progress. Being respectful, complementing the work of others, and building trust are easy principles to abide by with our peers, but in the context of this engagement, and with the purpose of achieving the UN Summit Goals, it is imperative for Summit Dialogues to foster opportunities to practice those principles of engagement with those you disagree with too. I urge other Dialogue conveners to seek out the next tier of stakeholder perspectives in your network to include in the conversation, so that we can align more groups around common goals for more widespread success.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Organic agriculture is a pathway to a sustainable food system. It needs to be a part of the solution in finding ways to meet increasing demands from consumers and global markets, address environmental pressures, and achieve the UN’s 17 sustainable development goals. This dialogue explored ways policy makers can use organic to help address global challenges. How does organic achieve Sustainable Development Goal #2 of zero hunger and Goal #3 of ensuring good health and wellbeing? Twenty-six percent of the world is food insecure, and a staggering 21% of children under 5 have stunted growth due to malnutrition. In the US, 35 million are food insecure. Organic agriculture practices can help to turn that around. Studies of 60 different crops across 6 continents have shown that organic and conventional yields are almost equal (organic yields are just 8-9% lower than conventional) when organic is done well and certain organic practices like crop diversification and crop rotations are applied. Using organic practices can be a significant part of the solution in achieving zero hunger, and because it doesn’t use synthetic chemicals and other inputs that conventional does, it also achieves the goal of ensuring good health and wellbeing. In addition to yield returns, organic also provides financial and ecological returns. How does organic meet Sustainable Development Goal #8 of decent work and economic growth, Goal #1 of eliminating poverty, and Goal #10 of reducing inequalities? We know farming and rural communities struggle more than most with half of farms in the US losing money in 2019. Family farms are often being hit the hardest. Organic can address these challenges. A National Academy of Sciences study in 2020 found 50% higher profitability for organic agriculture, and research by the Organic Trade Association has shown that counties with a large organic agriculture presence (organic “hotspots”) have a median income that is $2,000 higher than in non-organic counties. How does organic make meaningful steps towards Goal #13 of climate action? Science has shown that organic farms sequester 26% more carbon than conventional farms; emit 18% less global warming potential, and use around 50% less new reactive nitrogen. How does organic achieve Goals #14 and #15 of protecting life below water and life on land? Organic farming has a proven ability to increase biodiversity by some 30%. Organic farms have been shown to have higher levels of beneficial insects such as pollinators, lady bugs, and parasitoid wasps, and worms. Organic also avoids over 700 toxic chemicals and pesticides because regulations require farmers to use non-chemical techniques such as crop rotation, selecting resistant varieties, using nutrient and water management, and providing habitats for the natural enemies of pests. This is a stark difference from highly toxic conventional practices and inputs. Three guiding questions were explored in our dialogue: In what ways is organic today meeting our needs for sustainable growth and development? What are the tensions getting in the way of progress? What solutions can be pursued and who needs to be included in the conversation so that we can continue to grow in an equitable, healthy and sustainable way? The virtual event was attended by 60 people. The Dialogue included six break-out sessions for stakeholders to consider: (1) Human health and wellbeing, (2) Socially responsible economic growth, (3) Feeding the world, (4) International trade, (5) Climate action, and (6) Innovation. Each breakout group was facilitated by a member of the SFTAC, and roughly 10 diverse stakeholders participated in each discussion group. Paul Schiefer of Amy’s Kitchen, an Organic Trade Association Board member who chairs the SFTAC, was the Curator of this Independent Dialogue. He encouraged participants to talk about the role of agroecology--in the form of organic agriculture--as a paradigm for transforming the food system to safeguard human rights, equity and food sovereignty so that no one is hungry, poor, or left behind. He and others pointed out that basically, the health of our food affects the health of people and our planet.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Organic offers a host of benefits for the environment and for overall human wellbeing and longevity. Organic farms sequester 26% more carbon than conventional farms and increase biodiversity by some 30%. Organic agricultural practices also build and foster healthy soil, mitigate climate change, conserve water use, reduce pesticide consumption/exposure, boost pollinator populations, allow for long-term self-sustaining farming viability to meet the growing needs of our planet and are ultimately more resilient to extreme weather conditions. Our Dialogue participants identified a handful of key strategies necessary to take advantage of the host of benefits that organic offers, to expand on this model and make organic part of the solution to achieving a global sustainable food system. Federal policies: There are many federal policies that could be improved to promote the development of equitable organic food systems. Subsidy reform is needed; there should be long-term incentives for sustainable farming, rather than subsidies for conventional farmers not using sustainable practices. Crop insurance reform is needed to provide an adequate safety net for organic farmers. Increased support and funding to help farmers through the organic transition process is needed. Increased capital and technical assistance is needed, and more research on organic agriculture needs to be underway. Extension support will help us understand on-farm challenges and solutions, and science-based information and tools need to be more accessible. Innovative solutions to biodiversity, seed development, and decentralized ways of measuring soil carbon should be explored. We need to better manage externalities, and create a fair playing field so that organic can grow and create a larger impact. Inclusion and empowerment: Organic agriculture has been shown to improve rural and local economies by offering a profitable farming option and by creating more farming community jobs. The hotspots study by the Organic Trade Association shows that organic agriculture boosts household incomes and reduces poverty levels. Being an organic hotspot increases median household income by over $2,000, and lowers a county’s poverty rate by as much as 1.35%. It offers a way for farmers to work in safe conditions and be paid a living wage. But the opportunity of organic farming is still out of reach for many farmers, especially marginalized farmers, and too often people of color and marginalized communities are left out of the conversation entirely. It is important to include support of organizations that represent people of color, and support the growth and development of underrepresented communities. Farmers, farmworkers, indigenous cultures, and non-white people are missing from these conversations, and need to be included to identify viable solutions. Financial and technical assistance is especially critical in communities of color and indigenous communities. Technology advancements can help with affordability and accessibility. Investment in the development of local food hubs, enabling schools to have better access to organic options, and empowering communities with the tools they need to feed and nourish themselves is critical. Consumer education: Consumers around the world have significant leverage in influencing the direction of agricultural and food policy. If consumers demand a clean, environmentally-friendly and sustainable food system through their purchasing decisions, businesses and governments will take heed and adopt policies to encourage such a system. But consumers need to be educated on the benefits of organic. Education to consumers should focus on the benefits of organic to environmental health and human health. The more we can connect organic as a climate solution, the more compelling it is for the younger generation. We need to elevate the multi-spectrum story of organic regulation and oversight, and use that story to educate consumers about the trust and integrity behind the organic seal. While there is confusion over competing label claims, this is an opportunity to educate consumers on all the benefits of supporting organic. Consumers want accountability and transparency in their food, and being honest and accountable are the main objectives of everyone under the organic umbrella. Global accountability and connectiveness: It is important to be engaged with international communities and trade partners. We need to create an environment that can help ensure the viability of organic farming practices and sustain growth and expansion; that involves getting our global partners to sign onto organic practices. It is important to make decisions on transportation, packaging, and water use that continuously move towards the sustainable development goals. There is a need for a national and international organic integrity database which can encourage transparency and fair trade, and an international distribution system that can ensure integrity and transparency throughout supply chains and among organic certifiers. We need global information sharing so all farmers around the word may have consistent sufficient yields without the use of GMO seeds. Organic can be used to empower and create better outcomes in disadvantaged parts of the world as well as help keep local traditional farming systems viable. Leaning into global organic is about helping to create accessibility to small scale disadvantaged farmers. Focusing on the UN Sustainable Development Goals begins to move us globally in the right direction for global agriculture and production236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Human Health and Wellbeing: This group defined human health and wellbeing as providing access to nutritious food that can be trusted and contribute to mental health, job security, living wages, and decreases chemical exposure. Organic helps eliminate direct exposure to over 700 toxic chemicals and pesticides while also providing nourishment. Accessibility is a challenge. Accountability and transparency need to be maintained in the standards. Inclusivity should allow growers, farmers, and knowledge-based cultures to have a voice and equal access to the organic marketplace in order to be fully engaged in progressive solutions.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Socially Responsible Economic Growth: This group recognized that it came up with more questions than answers. Participants were predominantly white and lacked diversity. There are limitations on land access and inclusion for diverse farmers. “Broken food systems are a broken capital system,” they pointed out. Representation needs to be diverse and inclusive. Farmers face barriers to transitioning, and some conventional farmers are still skeptical of organic. The more we can understand and account for social and economic externalities the more obvious it is that organic is the most valuable way to scale our global food systems236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Feeding the World Participants noted that while it is easy to define what the organic sector is doing well right now, it may not be good enough for the future. More education is needed on what organic is, and what it means in grocery stores and on labels. Would it be possible to communicate nutrition in terms of food per acre? It is important to address the overall inconsistency of supplies of organic food and organic growing conditions for people of color. Organic is proven to work and be scalable, but governments needs to support that development. If all farmers adopt organic practices, we can increase food production and lower yield gap (organic yields are just 8-9% lower than conventional). More policies and investment are needed to support this goal.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251International Trade: International trade of organic products is growing. Initially, trade primarily consisted of finished products. Now, mostly ingredients are crossing borders to fuel the processing industry. Some companies are experiencing growth but there are not enough organic ingredients in the supply chain to meet demand. With the right government support and incentives, this could change. Concerns center on transparency and fraud. Agronomic scientists encourage small farmers to lead the conversation on what would help them thrive using organic practices. We need to be more emphatic, listen, and learn from farmers, not burden them with being the solution. Farmers often export their organic agriculture for the economic incentive, and they are left with little or no access to the products for themselves. We need to help farmers support themselves and allow them access to the same organic products they are working so hard to provide to others outside of their own communities.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Climate Action: Organic is already proven as a climate solution. We are past the stage of exploring the viability of organic as a solution; we are ready to scale it up to achieve greater impact across the globe. Participants discussed the successes of organic to provide substantial benefits for food systems and textiles contributing to biodiversity, soil health, water quality and benefits for farmers. Organic farms sequester 26% more carbon than conventional farms; emit 18% less global warming potential and use around 50% less new reactive nitrogen; they also reduce human exposure to toxic chemicals, provide more income in rural areas, and more resilience because of diversity and soil health. Misinformation about organic has been a barrier, showing the need for more consumer education and transparency. Organic farmers in general have not been leading voices on climate change so they need to play catch-up to bring attention to organic’s important role. There is a need for more data collection, as well as technical support to help continuously improve standards.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Innovation: Years and years of advancements shaped innovations to create what is now the baseline for organic. Continuous improvement is about learning from the past and initiating new developments. Issues include hurdles to obtain improved seeds and genetic ownership as well access to land and more markets. The organic sector must collaborate and adhere to the three pillars of innovation: fairness, soil health, and biodiversity. “Are you meeting people where they are?” this group advised stakeholders to ask themselves.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251While this entire group firmly believes in the power of organic as the best option, there are points of divergence in the spectrum of organic. Some push for more pure, strict standards for animal, social, environmental impacts while others are more focused on making organic bigger, broader, and more accessible across the globe. The purity of organic vs large scale accessibility and economic viability/growth is a friction within the organic community. The organic community is a passionate group and highly accountable to ourselves in aiming to be the best, most transparent and trustworthy we can be. Points of divergence within the organic community really just point to the fact that we are all trying to remain highly accountable to our goals and we are critical of ourselves while striving for continuous improvement. The organic sector acknowledges there is a need to grow and improve the public/private partnership that defines the U.S. organic system. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program has been continuously evolving since 1997 when the first proposed rules to establish national organic standards were published. The organic sector in the United States has expanded greatly in the last two decades, and that expansion has made it critical that the government fulfill its role in its partnership. Recognizing that need, the Organic Trade Association has been the chief advocate for the recently introduced Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Organic Standards legislation which lays out a path forward for the USDA to advance organic. With that background on this area of divergence in the organic community at large, it is noted that there were no stark debates or harshly opposing viewpoints present in our dialogue, likely because our stakeholders were mostly likeminded organic advocates. We recognize the need to bring more viewpoints into the conversation, and will now aim to identify what the barriers are to bringing others into these conversations. Our participants recognized that this conversation needs to bring new people into the conversation, especially farmers and BIPOC, so that points of divergence can be identified and compromises and solutions can be achieved. Participants agreed that we need to move past conversations of agreeance with our peers and purposefully give opposing stakeholders a seat at the same table in order to get to the next level of growth and development towards the UN sustainable development goals. The question is – how does the organic community achieve this so we can start to push barriers and extend our reach and impact? How does the global agricultural community get to a point where we can articulate the fundamental divergences holding us back and identify a collective path forward? Conversations need to include diverse stakeholder perspectives, but although this fact is recognized it is not achieved in reality. This conversation, the organic industry, and organic consumers need to be more diverse but identifying immediate actions and long-term solutions are both challenging. Lending practices and land access have been designed to be intentionally discriminatory, but tangible solutions towards reconciling that are debated. Identity politics and income inequality results in deeply polarized communities. Organic needs to be an affordable and accessible option for farmers and consumers and a complex and comprehensive approach is needed to create and sustain systematic change.

2021-07-23 21:01:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28481/192

1901271091962323

The convener and curator worked closely together in preparing the agenda and then running the dialogue, flexing timing where necessary and allowing the space for trust to be built and complementary activities to be recognised.The discussion allowed specific views to be aired even if not everyone agreed, and everyone was respectful throughout.The hardest element to achieve is trust, and it does not come from one dialogue, but many conversations and actions pre and post dialogues.

NoAll voices were heard during the dialogue, but the format of breakout groups was not used due to the time constraints and individuals availability.

234238239240241242The main focus of the dialogue was the issue of food security in the town of Eastbourne and the surrounding areas, in the context of other food partnership initiatives, like health and education. Exploring current provision of support from different organisations across the town, their areas of collaboration and shared experiences. Discussion of challenges and barriers. Looking at ways in which the town can build resilience in the response to food insecurity, what longer-term solutions might be, and how to approach longer-term solutions as a network rather than in silo.235238a) There are opportunities and a desire across the network of organisations and institutions to collaborate on action towards strengthening acute emergency/response to need b) There are opportunities and a desire across the network of organisations and institutions to collaborate on a shared vision and action plan, towards what can be done locally to increase community resilience and tackle the drivers of food insecurity in the longer-term. c) There are shared experiences and challenges, within the organisations on the ground assisting the food insecure, as well as areas of divergence. d) There are gaps in practical support and areas of challenge with regard to who holds the funding and who makes the decisions in the area of food insecurity. e) A considerable amount of collaboration already exists across organisations, created organically between them according to need, but there is space for more according to a wider vision, and by extending the network of connections across the town. f) There is a shift happening within organisations from dealing with the emergency response, to a more holistic approach which aims to consider the drivers and looking on an individual basis at how to bring people into a state of food security. g)There is a need for shared action on uniform signposting across the town h) There is a desire to create equivalent intermediate provision across every ward in the town, for example a community fridge, community cafe offering affordable meals, and a community garden so that every resident has comparable access. i) There is a lack of collated local data on provision across the town and the detail of hours, volunteer hours, residents helped, funding allocated k) It was agreed that the network will collaborate on a list of goals and refine that to provide a set of smart goals with top priorities, from which a set of objectives can be drawn up.236238Potential drivers to being unable to access sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food Poverty and the drivers of this Lack of cooking skills Lack of time to cook Lack of equipment Lack of nutritional knowledge Lack of access to land to grow food Lack of knowledge as to how to grow food Local shops do not provide fresh healthy produce No local market Isolation Promotion of unhealthy ultra-processed foods Proliferation of fast food outlets near schools Lack of economic & financial incentives for regenerative food growing/processing/distribution schemes/projects/activities236238247Emergency response / tertiary prevention - eg foodbank, homeless support Establish central point(s) where the public can access up to date, comprehensive food support provision information, and staff hours are available to keep this tracked. Council website/Food partnership? Affordable Food Network mapping. Comprehensive signposting support across network including local services and eligibility for support eg. healthy start vouchers Establish a platform for the network to communicate & collaborate Focus group to establish acute emergency response plan Food bank (already in 8 most deprived LSOA’s) - what collaborative support/action would help the most? Action on cooking facilities in temporary accommodation Town-wide collaboration to coordinate winter night shelters236239242244249251Secondary prevention Establish comparable ‘intermediate’ food support services in every ward, so that every resident has access to a community fridge/pantry or similar. Establish central food redistribution hub where surplus/donated food can be effectively distributed to other organisations/fridges review council-owned community buildings and establish full collaboration and integration of community centres to offer comparable provision across the town including community cafe or similar, and community growing space if possible. Ensure all schools are aware of local support available and ideally set up fridges and growing spaces within easy access to local schools Establish network of community allotments/ growing spaces to enable access for every resident, along with growing workshops/skills development (including composting) - a ‘master gardener’ network in each ward Pilot a Social Supermarket, ideally in town centre location.236239242244251Primary prevention Access to cookery skills and nutrition classes for every resident Model whole-school food scheme in Eastbourne school and roll-out, including nutrition review, TastEd/similar in curriculum, food growing spaces, cooking skills, after-school clubs. Support network for private home growing, including skills workshops, seed swaps, knowledge sharing, land share etc - links to workshops and ‘master gardener’ network above. Making town more resilient by strengthening links with local producers - eg, ‘food festival’ event, local produce market, link surplus to distribution hub, website and social media promotion, online sales platform to raise awareness. Integrate regenerative local food producers/processors/distributors/retailers into a local monetary system with built-in rewards for regenerative practices.236242246249Governance/Policy: Food Partnership accesses network support bodies eg. sustainable food places, Feeding Britain. The importance of food systems work is fully recognised within local authority (how best to achieve this) Eastbourne Borough Council is integral in development of and adoption of town-wide food strategy either as stand alone document or becomes built in to other working strategies.237238Areas of divergence were as follows and to be discussed at future meetings. - A belief that money will solve the issues of food security. Not fully seeing the systems perspective. - Some individual wariness of the few individuals who may take advantage of sharing/free food, and therefore "ruin" it for others - A faction of the group would like to focus on short term/emergency aid, others look at the drivers and want to tackle more longer-term, systemic issues.

2021-07-23 21:20:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13965/93

66162821131351123332101513412315261223

Our dialogue has five thematic tables plus two plenary sessions to discuss cross-cutting issues and themes. Before our independent dialogue started, the curator translated the principles of engagement into Italian and disseminated them among curators and participants. Curators followed the principles of engagement when organizing their discussion tables in the following ways: 1) involving all types of stakeholders from national and local institutions to workers' and consumers' groups, private enterprises, cooperatives, and business networks, small-holders, processors, and financial institutions. 2) developing a scenario and a set of questions to discuss with participants. The scenarios and the related questions were circulated in advance among stakeholders to facilitate engagement. 3) asking stakeholders to react to the scenarios proposed and discuss the related issues based on their experiences and competencies. 4) identifying and addressing cross-cutting issues in the concluding plenary sessions to derive recommendations and findings.Our independent dialogue reflected on three specific aspects of engagement: A) RECOGNIZE COMPLEXITY: ----------------------------------------------------- Out five discussion tables were consecutive to enable participants to sit in multiple discussions groups and explore the food system from different perspectives. Two plenary sessions open to all participants and curators introduced and concluded the dialogue. The program of our tables was as follows: -- Welcome plenary session Table 1) Biodiversity and resilience Table 2) Access to safe and nutritious food amidst rights and needs Table 3) National policies, local administrations, and civil society organizations: new alliances for local food policies Table 4) Agricultural labor, migrants, and communities Table 5) Land, credit, and grass-rout level cooperation -- Concluding plenary session B) EMBRACE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INCLUSIVITY Our independent dialogue involved stakeholders from different fields of expertise based on the topics discussed in each table. However, we also put a particular effort to establish new contacts between groups that generally have few opportunities to discuss, Such as national policymakers directly involved in designing development policies for inland food systems and civil local associations, cooperatives, private enterprises, professionals, and academics. NOTE: We were surprised to notice that in the excel tool provided to convenors under "Dialogue Materials" some categories of stakeholders were not listed: i.e. business networks, cooperatives, professionals, such as development consultants, agronomists, and extension services to name but a few. We find that these groups represent crucial interests to move from a value chain to a food system perspective. C) URGENCY Our tables were aligned to the action tracks and keywords identified by the FSS to enable each participant to directly contribute to the Summit's goals.no

Yes

234238239240241242244246247248249251Around 60% of Italy’s territory is classified as inland, marginalized areas. Here, a long-lingering crisis is unfolding since the 1970s when thousands of hectares of land were abandoned due to migration. Today inland areas are home to 13 million people (about 22% of Italy's population) and 52% of its municipalities. In 2013, the Italian government launched the National Strategy for Inner Areas (SNAI) to counteract the far-reaching implications of this crisis in the economic, social, demographic, and environmental sustainability of the country. Inland areas are defined according to three criteria: first, essential services such as secondary schools, hospitals, and trains are on average 20 - 40 minutes distant. About 80% of Italy's inland areas have no secondary schools, forcing the youth to migrate to larger coastal cities at a very early age or to drop out of school entirely. This educational poverty thus reinforces the vicious cycle of lack of competencies, migration, unemployment, and underdevelopment. Second, inland areas are characterized by a rich cultural and natural heritage. Apennine regions from north to south are disseminated of archaeological sites, monasteries, and historical centres. These regions also preserve most of Italy's natural capital as crucial ecological corridors for wildlife, biodiversity reserves, unique agricultural landscapes, and hydric basins. The third characteristic of inland areas is their institutional diversity leading to several social innovations. This diversity ranges from community cooperatives to formal and informal business networks, consumers and producers’ groups, unions of communes, and several models of social enterprises. Based on participants’ experiences, our dialogue focuses on the need to create synergies between national policies, local administrations, and civil society organizations. The stories we gathered have a common thread: food is a powerful transformative force. Changing the food system means transforming culture, economic opportunities, social relations, and the natural ecosystem in a synchronic and coherent manner. We organized five tables to explore these changes across different realms. Table 1) Biodiversity and resilience. Natural capital is a prime resource for inland economies. This table focuses on nature-positive farming practices to preserve and value biodiversity through participatory seed selection. The table explores how these farming practices can create positive externalities and more resilient ecological systems [ACTION TRACKS 3 and 5]. Table 2) Access to safe and nutritious food amidst human rights and needs. The top-quality food produced in the inland areas is often sold in the city for high prices. Local diets, particularly those of children, are poor and based on low-quality industrial food. This table explores how to stimulate local demand for nutritious food in the inland areas. [ACTION TRACK 1 AND 2] Table 3) Coordination between local administrations and business networks: new alliances for local food policies. This table concentrates on the need to create synergies to align national programs with local development projects. It identifies ways to facilitate civil society participation in the co-definition of policy objectives based on local needs [KEYWORDS FINANCING, TERRITORIAL POLICIES, INNOVATION] Table 4) Agricultural labor, migrants, and communities. Attracting migrants and people from the city to live in the inner areas is a priority for local development. This table focuses on the inclusion of new inhabitants in traditional inland communities through labor. What are the competencies that are needed to work today in agriculture? How changing agricultural practices can change labor and social relations in traditional communities? [ACTION TRACK 4] Table 5) Land, credit, and grass-rout level cooperation. This table focuses on access to resources such as land and credit. Thousands of hectares have been abandoned as a result of migration, new forms of cooperation are emerging to manage land as a common. The table explores new forms of cooperatives, networks, and public-private partnerships [ACTION TRACK 4 AND 3].235238239240241242243244246248249251In inner areas, more than anywhere else, food systems require a high level of coordination because: a) smallholders cannot capture the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services; positive externalities are costs rather than added value; b) commons and public goods like open fields and traditional knowledge require community participation and institutional facilitation; c) products differentiation through labelling and certification helps capture value added, but poses entry barriers to weaker producers; d) limited skills and support services; e) small and micro enterprises lack the scale and resources to individually become change drivers. To overcome these issues, the dialogue highlighted the need to strengthen coordination at all levels: actor-to-actor, within communities, at the territorial level, and at the wider policy level. 1) Enhancing coordination among food chain actors. In inner areas, property is fragmented and soils unproductive; actor-to-actor coordination along the food chain helps achieve scale and upgrading to higher-value activities. The cases showed that, alongside traditional cooperatives, new contracts forms can respond to diverse needs (like the “network contract”). However, farmers lack the knowledge and experience to design and select the most appropriate coordination form. Actions proposed: Develop and disseminate toolboxes to facilitate coordination among private enterprises. Awareness campaigns and exchange of practices to revamp collective action through new instruments that reconcile private incentives with long-term coordination. 2) Extending coordination from the food system to the community. Sustainable food systems also require changes in non-food sectors. Community cooperatives (CC) are an innovative coordination form to manage common goods (i.e., abandoned public land) and generate value for the community. In many cases, the CC established for a specific objective (e.g., integrating migrants) grew to manage other areas like public housing, agri-processing, marketing, training and tourism. CCs, however, pose new challenges in communities that need to innovate, build trust, and manage conflicts when opening themselves to newcomers (migrants or new inhabitants). CCs regulations are fragmented and it is difficult to systematically monitor impacts across cases. Defining effective and equitable mechanisms for redistributing value to the community is complex. Actions proposed: a) Develop coherent laws for community cooperatives at national level b) Define transparent principles for redistributing value added among CC members, and for monitoring and evaluation. c) Strengthen community management processes to support social change and manage conflicts. d) Develop new professional profiles like community managers or development agents, with adequate experience to facilitate community development and coordination. e) Support peer-to-peer learning systems to favour knowledge transfers. 3. Strengthening territorial coordination. In inner areas, different administrative units operate within the same foodshed. Institutional coordination is essential to avoid duplication and overlaps between programs, and maximize synergies. Two territorial coordination mechanisms have emerged: 1) horizontal coalitions involving local institutions and administrations in the same foodshed like unions of communes, GALs (Local action groups), Comunità Montane, etc.; 2) vertical coordination aligning national programs, funding opportunities, local needs, and projects. The SNAI (National Strategy for Inner Areas) is a first attempt to coordinate inner area policies; in several cases, local institutional coordination led to successful territorial planning of policies and programs. However, not all local administrations can coordinate effectively, and the process is often difficult. Action proposed: a) Strengthen the capacities of local administrations to undertake territorial policies in their foodshed. “Unions of communes” are a positive territorialization process that could be extended. b) Develop local administrations’ capabilities to design projects and interventions. c) Create dissemination tools to explain financing opportunities and facilitate planning. d) Engage with local communities through participatory approaches rooted in the policy process. 1.4 Policy coordination. The National Strategy for Reconstruction and Resilience (NSRR) should recognize inner areas as an essential resource for the national economy. For centuries Italy has followed a diffuse urbanization model based on second-tier cities and towns surrounded by serviced foodsheds. This model can become a sustainable alternative to urban conglomerates. Technology can provide an enabling environment to spatially dislocate important productive activities and services. Action proposed: a) Improve and extend place-based policies like SNAI and SIBATER b) Extend basic services to inner areas Conclusions In addition to different coordination forms, the following recommendations also emerged: 1. Strengthen synergies between food policies and environmental policies at all levels. 2. Form new professional profiles at the national level to handle new food system processes and territorial planning. Developed curricula for agronomists specialized in agroecological contexts where industrial farming is not applicable, and community facilitators. Similarly, for other food related expertise. 3. Create toolkits to facilitate knowledge transfer and peer-to-peer learning. 4. Conduct research on inland areas.

In the following, I include the list of tables organized in our dialogue and the names of the key speakers that participated. In the attachment, there is a detailed description of our tables' findings. Table 1: on Biodiversity and Resiliency Key speakers: Sissi Alberti, Benessere Italiano; Fabrizio Antolini, Sistur; Rita Salvatore, Slow Food; Riccardo Bocci, Rete Semi Rurali; Giuseppe de Sanctis, Rete Semi Rurali; Paola Taviani, ARISAL; Miguel Acerbes, Azienda Tularù; Table 2: Access to nutritious food amidst human rights and needs. Key speakers: Tiziana Collutto (Gruppo Acquisto Popolare; Valentina Avantaggiato, Sindaco Melpignano; Davide Biolghini, Rete Italiana per l’Economia Solidale (RIES); Franca Bernardi, Comunità del Cibo della Garfagnana; Vincenzo Abbruzzese; Imprenditore agricolo; Giampaolo Cavallaro, Campagna “Cibo bene comune"; Mariagrazia Provenzano, coperativa di comunità “I live in Vaccarizzo”; Fiorella Stella, CdLM in Scienze per la Cooperazione e lo Sviluppo; Ester Cois, Università di Cagliari; Benedetto Meloni, Università di Cagliari; Table 3) Coordination between local administrations and business networks: new alliances for local food policies. Key speakers: Daniela Storti (CREA) Gerardo Cardillo (FORMEZSIBATER) Clelia Fusco (FORMEZ) Giampiero Lupatelli (CAIRE) Mario Di Lorenzo (GAL Alto Molise) Vincenzo Viola (Regione Basilicata); Table 4: new residents and agricultural labor Key speakers: Martina Lo Cascio, Contadinazioni; Giulia Jannelli, Cooperativa Agricola di Comunità “Germinale”; Ottavio Rube, “Valli Unite”; Rosario Zurzolo, Presidente Coop. Sociale “Eurocoop Camini Jungi Mundo”; Ugo Sergi, “il Bergamotto”; Donato De Marco, Direttore Comparto Agricoltura della “Rete dei Piccoli Comuni del Welcome”; Alessandra Parisi; Università Calabria; Francesca Uleri, Università di Bolzano; Giulia Sonzogno, Officina SNAI Rete Giovani Aree Interne; Benedetto Meloni, Università di Cagliari, Donato De Marco, Consorzio Sale della Terra. Table 5: Land and cooperation: experiences from the field. Key speakers: Francesco Monaco, SIBaTer (ANCI-IFEL); Simona Elmo, SIBaTer (ANCI-IFEL); Barbara Becchi, SIBaTer Abruzzo; Lepri, Cooperativa agricola Coraggio;Gianluigi Granero, Coopfond; Tiziana Diana, Food Coop Mesa Noa; Ramona Bavassano, Food Coop Mesa Noa; Bruno Sebastianelli, Coperative "Terra e cielo"; Giuseppe Canale, Sotrie del Bio;Giovanni Battista Girolomoni, Panificio Girolomoni; 2021-07-23 23:15:35https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/TableFindings.docxhttps://www.agenziacoesione.gov.it/strategia-nazionale-aree-interne/?lang=enhttps://www.sibater.it/https://riabitarelitalia.net/RIABITARE_LITALIA/

2021-07-23 21:43:38204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36136/398788113145199

34310615474

The week-long virtual forum held in March 2021 on wild foods, biodiversity and livelihoods was organized as a culminating dialogue to a series of dialogue events convened by the Wild Foods, Biodiversity and Livelihood SIANI Expert Group led by the Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme (NTFP-EP) Asia - see https://www.siani.se/expert-groups/wild-foods-biodiversity-and-livelihood/ - over the course of four months in 2020 and a virtual regional outlook session in January 2021. By design, the composition of the Expert Group (EG) and the dialogue it convened, extended to a broader network of individuals and organizations from multiple sectors as dialogue partners. All participants, from the EG convenor, to the dialogue partners, were tied together by a common interest to consolidate knowledge about wild foods in Asia and its links to food security, poverty reduction and sustainable forest management. The group was diverse; the breadth of the discussions also reflected the appreciation of the dialogue participants, of the complexity of food systems as they would relate to the current state of wellbeing of people and of biodiversity, and peoples visions and aspiration about the same. The dialogue process provided multi-disciplinary perspectives from grounded experience, indigenous knowledge, and not just technical expertise. We organized the virtual forum as an urgent response to the need for a dialogue that would focus on wild foods and the role of indigenous peoples and local communities, highlighting their unique and important perspectives often not heard or given adequate space in policy discussions about food security, eradicating hunger and poverty. Indigenous peoples and local community, and civil society visions do not figure very prominently in current discussions on food systems transformation. We wanted to document, gather evidence and learnings on the subject, as well as to develop strategic collaborations that would raise awareness and strengthen support for work on forests for food and livelihoods security, and inclusive food systems in Asia.In organizing the virtual forum, we designed sessions in a way that enabled participants to share their experiences, keeping in mind that these can lead to synergies and complementarity of actions or interventions, and moreso that they can contribute an important perspective and key messages to the Summit. The diversity of voices that were involved in the dialogues was a key contributing factor to the richness of the discussions. Given this plurality of views, we also made it a point to emphasize respect and openness to receiving ideas and views. The forum concept and agenda can be found in http://www.wildfoodsasia.com. The outputs of the dialogue series that preceded this culminating dialogue forum can be found here too. These show the collective knowledge and perspectives that were shared and committed in what we considered as a dialogue process rather than as a one-off dialogue event. The process truly embraced inclusivity in its mixed format, diversity in the forum's program content and participation. The virtual forum format was interactive and also incorporated spaces for personal (eg. women and youth, indigenous peoples) and community reflection and sharing. We used mixed methods of presentation and program formats. Designing the virtual space to be welcoming and inclusive was very important for us because we wanted to foster learning exchanges and interactions that would help build relationships and trust, which is important for collective action and advocacy. It also helped that in 2020, we held four webinar discussion series on the subject. Participants from those sessions were also involved in an earlier food systems outlook session in January, and the culminating March 2021 virtual forum. This helped forge stronger partnerships between and among interested parties who were involved in the dialogue. The Forum was forward looking as it also provided space to share participants' vision about inclusive and transformative food systems - and their particular outlook for the region with concrete recommendations and mechanisms to realize or act upon them.Communication is very important and translations of the sessions in various languages are very helpful in increasing stakeholder engagement and participation. Since the dialogue was mainly conducted virtually, it is important to pay close attention to the methods and format of the dialogue that would be most suited to keep diversity and inclusion. Virtual sessions do not lend well for community participation, both in terms of language and digital connectivity. Organizing break out rooms or discussion groups would not necessarily address breadth and diversity; the technical logistics would need to be prepared for and this entails additional costs to allow for maximum diversity not just across sectors but also across stakeholder groups - with particular attention to community and grassroots representatives, indigenous peoples and local CSOs. So instead of having break out/discussion groups in a one day event; we organized a number of short 1.5 hour plenary sessions in a course of five days with a different format of each session. This enabled us to address breadth, deepening of context (country discussion), targeting of participants (eg. youth, women, science and community, etc) providing also more meaningful interactive value. Use of other resources such as complementing with a website as landing page of the event provided us a repository for various resources to accompany the dialogue pre, during and post-event. Creativity and use of different media tools added to the interactive and content value of the dialogue. We also invite you to see the concept, agenda, and knowledge products produced from of the Virtual Forum and the events and activities preceding it in http://www.wildfoodsasia.com. Having a set of principles of engagement is a useful guide in designing and executing the dialogue program. It is also useful in post-event reflection about the method, format and ultimately in assessing the value of the contribution produced from the dialogue.

NoIn organizing the dialogue, we did not follow the standard format as prescribed but we believe that our dialogue process, up to the culminating virtual forum that was convened, covered the essential elements of an Independent Dialogue: from the welcome, to the opening and framing of the dialogue, and the discussion sessions to examine the topics in greater depth and inclusion, ie from challenges to solutions and recommendations, to finally, the synthesis and closing. The over-all curation of the dialogue process was strong particularly in the preparation, development of the agenda, identifying the participants and resource persons, speakers and presentors up to the moderation of the virtual forum itself. However, since the virtual forum was not originally envisaged and formalized as an FSS Independent Dialogue, the dialogue format was not standard and the curation did not originally include the compilation of feedback about the dialogue in the official form and was not published within the recommended time soon after the event. Instead, the feedback form was published at a much later schedule. In any case, the dialogue process has been documented and a report is available in the wildfoodsasia.com online platform and landing page of the dialogue. Furthermore there are several knowledge and communication products produced throughout the dialogue process that contribute well to a vision and outlook of the future of food systems particularly in Asia, and which to contribute to the action tracks and the global FSS. This has been much appreciated by the dialogue participants during the dialogue and beyond. The highlights of the virtual forum that represent the core elements of an Independent Dialogue was 1) an Opening Session to frame the discussion about inclusive food systems to 2030 in Asia as fundamentally to be capturing local realities, contexts and voices, in particular the context of the lesser visible forest foods or wild foods and indigenous peoples and local communities that continue to thrive and depend on these, 2) various Discussion sessions to go into greater depth and to illustrate the different facets about wild foods and indigenous food systems as they link to various thematic issues and stakeholders such as - a) the state of wild foods in south and southeast asia; b) creative and interactive sessions that depict the uses and values and revitalization of traditional food and wild tastes in Asia; c) conversations with women and youth and capturing their specific insights, experiences and key messages about wild foods and indigenous food systems; d) dialogue among policy and practice stakeholders about what makes for an enabling environment to promote, protect and enrich wild foods system, traditions and management; and e) networking around wild foods innovations and partnerships such as slow food and the future of food that is more sustainable and enriching for people and communities. It is worth mentioning that prior to the virtual forum held from March 8-12, 2021, we also organized 2-hour online discussions from June-September 2020 on the subject of wild foods, biodiversity and livelihoods which had breakout rooms to facilitate smaller group discussions. Another pre-session in January 2021 was held to recap and synthesize the key messages emerged from the discussion series and to develop a collective regional outlook about wild foods and the future of food systems in Asia. The emerging outlook about wild foods and transformative and inclusive food systems was the take off point of the virtual forum. Outputs from the dialogue series collectively fed into and were presented during the virtual forum, and which were enriched and validated by the diversity of the virtual forum plenary sessions (7 in total), in content and in terms of the participants. While we can point to an area for improvement in session time management, in general we believe that the method we used in the virtual forum as well as the pre-event activities, enabled well the surfacing of convergent views and insights about positive future actions of different stakeholders and their key messages, more than there was divergence.

234238239240241242243244246247248249251This virtual Independent Dialogue was convened by the Wild Foods, Biodiversity and Livelihoods SIANI Expert Group (EG) led by the Non-Timber Forest Products - Exchange Programme (NTFP-EP) Asia. It built on the outputs of an online discussion series held from June-September 2020 which explored wild foods and its links to customary tenure rights and traditional knowledge, biodiversity, and sustainable livelihoods, and an EG discussion of an emerging regional outlook on inclusive systems in Asia to 2030 held in January 2021. The objectives of the virtual dialogue / forum on March 8-12, 2021 were to: 1) Provide a platform to reflect on policy inputs, recommendations and insights from the expert group members, dialogue partners and contributors towards an indigenous peoples and local communities’ (IPLC) agenda on wild foods in the South and Southeast Asia region 2) Provide a venue for IPLCs and civil society to engage policy actors and donor institutions and stakeholders to support wild foods initiatives 3) Increase awareness, support and recognition on the role of IPLCs and wild foods for food security and community resilience towards an enabling policy environment for food security, biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, and enlivening a community of conscious practice. It was envisaged that the dialogue process that culminated with the virtual forum, will be able to provide a vital contribution to ongoing regional to global processes including the FSS. Collectively the dialogues surfaced the perspectives of multi-sector experts (including indigenous and local communities) about wild foods and traditional food systems, explored their current status and practice among thriving indigenous and local communities, and their future in the face of present day barriers and challenges. Our major focus was to convene and facilitate a: - sharing of experiences, cases and best practices in relation to wild foods work - a discussion on the challenges and threats to wild foods - recommendations on ways forward - an outlook on wild foods, biodiversity, livelihoods, and inclusive food systems - documentation and communication of key messages, insights, and lessons about transforming local to global food systems to be more inclusive; and - visioning of the future role of a wild foods, biodiversity and livelihood network towards a transformative and inclusive food systems to 2030. We had three (3) main sessions during the forum: (1) Opening Session: A synthesis of the key messages captured in the 2020 dialogue series that helps to frame the Virtual Forum, an outlook on wild foods and inclusive food systems in Asia towards 2030; (2) Country perspectives on the situation of wild foods in South and Southeast Asia; and a (3) Regional dialogue on wild foods, biodiversity and livelihoods: Enabling and enriching policy and practice. Side events on women and youth engagement and wild food stories in the region, including recipes and innovations on local ingredients, were also featured, and their distinct perspectives were also captured. The dialogue was directed towards an outlook of a more inclusive food system in Asia - covering the diversity of populations that will govern, manage and benefit from it, to the knowledge, culture and science combined that drive it and the biocultural resources that have been neglected or taken for granted that contribute to its vitality, resilience or sustainability. The group was able to identify the important issues that intersect with wild foods that are critical to be addressed in policy and practice. The dialogue produced holistic recommendations of collective and participatory future actions.235238239240241242243244246247248249251Common threads across the region on the state of wild foods and factors affecting them: 1. There is much knowledge about wild foods among indigenous and rural peoples. Most of them use wild foods to supplement their diets; many foods as well as their methods of preparation, storage or harvesting techniques are a part of their identity and culture. 2. Alongside, there is an overall decline in the knowledge regarding wild foods. The reasons can be traced to national policies that affect foods grown and their harvest (mainly due to import policies and subsidies), as well as an official oversight about the role of wild and traditional foods in rural diets; the expansion of monocultures and other changes in land uses . 3. Mainstream agriculture has delinked food from nutrition and culture/identity. Both of the latter are important components of indigenous food ways. 4. Across the region there is a need to establish and publicize the links between food and health. While statistics on health may be easily available within government/intergovernmental agencies and international organizations, what needs to be examined are the correlations between wild food, access and consumption. 5. It is important to include all food ways prevalent in the region, including rotational farming, gathering, fishing, trapping, food gardens and cultivation. Even some of these traditional systems focus on non-mainstream crops. Their strengths and vibrancy should be known better in the local contexts, as also the threats that they face 6. The work on wild foods requires continuous updating, with new foods and the knowledge/status around them documented; this also includes the gaps in knowledge observed within communities during workshops and the appropriate interventions to be designed to fill them; and also to make clear the traditional uses and the link between wild foods and their nutritional values. 7. Field work and observations are encouraged to be explored in relation to various other predominating issues such as biodiversity, climate change, food security and tenure rights. 8. Indigenous knowledge do not have to be validated by science particularly when they stand on a position of strength through demonstrated practice. Challenges and Threats to Wild Foods: 1) Sustaining community practice - The sustainable consumption of wild foods necessitates the passing on of traditional knowledge, mainly through actual practice. However, due to economic constraints, sustaining wild foods extraction and consumption is challenged by livelihood shifts, changes in cultural preferences, and the decreased willingness of people to spend time to collect or hunt wild food. 2) Environmental destruction - Wild foods are significantly found in forests and other natural environments. Thus, activities that cause destruction of natural environments or limit people’s access to their natural resources negatively impact the availability and consumption of wild foods. Such activities include deforestation, mining, monocropping, chemical inputs, and infrastructure projects. 3) Tenure issues - Tenure ensures food security, especially for indigenous peoples. It ensures people’s access to wild foods and in making community-based management plans for their forests. Tenure related problems, such as lack of recognition of ancestral lands and commons, land grabbing and encroachment endanger food security 4) Market-driven economy - A market-driven economy can cause over-exploitation of wild foods for selling or abandonment of wild foods in favor of cash crops or commercial species. 5) Unfavorable laws and policies - The lack of policies that enable the tenure of indigenous peoples and local communities to their lands poses challenges to the sustainability of wild foods. Supportive policies can empower people to manage their lands and capitalize on their resources for food security. Recommendations and Ideas to Sustain Wild Foods: 1) Awareness-building and knowledge transfers - Build awareness about the benefits of wild foods; hold activities that will facilitate knowledge and skills transfer 2) Sustainable trade - Impose trade restrictions that ensure sustainability; remove barriers to market access due to limited market information, inhibitive taxes, lack of transportation, etc. 3) Sustainable farming, aquaculture, and wild foods conservation - Support community seed banking, rotational farming, observance of fallow periods, and guided fallows have the potential to improve forest quality; establish community-managed fish hatcheries and forest gardens; pursue multiple-use strategies and community-based management plans that are environmentally-sound and food-focused 4) Advocacy and protest actions - Dialogue, workshops, research, legal actions; advocate for tenurial and management rights of indigenous peoples for their lands; hold protest actions236238239240241242243244246247249Exploring wild foods and wild foods systems: why they matter? What are wild foods? - Wild foods refer to edible non-timber forest products (NTFPs) usually uncultivated plant species, fungi, and animals that are not consciously domesticated but collected from the forests, or on the edges of forests, and also on traditional gardens and agricultural lands. These food are customarily included in the diet of local communities in different ways or forms. Some examples of wild food are leaves, seeds and nuts, shoots and stems, root crops, fruits, flowers, fish, meat, and insects. Wild food are important for food security and nutrition. The intangible aspects of wild food are also deeply related to the culture and identity of indigenous peoples and local communities. Harvesting and utilizing wild foods requires knowledge on identification of plant and animal foods. These are often passed down across generations in both active and passive ways. The problems facing wild food availability and consumption include: - issues and concerns on tenure security and recognition - the continuity of inter-generational knowledge - cultural changes brought about my migration, urban influences - market can be a double-edged sword (rejuvenation of food vs. exploitation) - deforestation and forest degradation - use of chemicals - extractive industries and changes in land use - monocultures threaten wild foods and indigenous knowledge, systems, and practices related to food Other points to note when discussing wild foods in inclusive food systems: - The matter of time should be factored in. Experience from villages have shown that many available food are missing from diets because people now have less time to dig, make and set traps, and all the other related activities and traditions connected to wild food. - The more biodiverse an area, the more protection is needed for wild foods to ensure sustainability. - The relation between the shrinking of world languages and wild food biodiversity is worth exploring. - Research and inquiry on wild foods and indigenous food systems can look into the aspect of conservation initiatives that are food-focused and conduct studies that explore how wild foods are conserved, restored, revitalized and if there are types of wild food that remain in the wild versus. those that are already being cultivated.236240241243244246247249Wild foods and tenure, traditional knowledge, systems and practices - We looked at how customary tenure supports diverse food systems and arrived at the conclusion that tenure security is essential in ensuring food security and threats to tenure undermines biodiversity and traditional knowledge, including systems and practices related to food. It is essential that we work together in reducing threats to tenure to ensure continuity of traditional, communal food systems. - Indigenous peoples' lands are the last frontiers for biodiversity. It is important to recognize the sacred relationship they have with their territories and their role as stewards and guardians of forests and natural resources. How do we ensure that traditional food systems are able to continue - We need to look at the ways in which indigenous peoples and local communities manage their areas and understand the system so as to be able to adapt our ways of thinking about rights, power dynamics, and all these other important issues that need to be discussed. - Indigenous practices on agriculture and food are related to their spirituality and identity. A lot of the knowledge within this spirituality relate to conservation, such as how to preserve the ecosystem, how to maintain ecology for the long-term. - Rotational farming is important but is often viewed as a negative system compared to other processes. Community-led research and documentation to raise awareness and build evidence help in policy lobbying and advocacy efforts towards greater appreciation for the contributions of traditional food systems to food security and resilience. - ICCAs (indigenous and local community conserved territories and areas) are a complementary way of establishing their tenure and ownership in their ancestral territories. ICCAs or Territories of Life that are governed by indigenous peoples and local communities all over the world demonstrate that communities who pursue the conservation of their own traditional areas are also able to take care of the biodiversity within that area. This contributes to their food security. - There are various tenure modalities available in different countries across the region. Countries and communities can learn a lot from each other based on exchanges of experiences on certain policies and actions on the ground. A thematic network on wild foods can help to facilitate regional, as well as in-country, learning exchanges on the topic. There are numerous challenges to wild foods in the context of tenure insecurity: - land grabbing - changes in land use - difficulty in securing government support - e.g. slow titling process, overlapping policies, conservation exclusion, etc. - differing world views on tenure - tendency for the state to see these lands as "idle" and not see its cultural and ecological value - market forces impact customary control and practices and has an effect on culture and traditions Recommendations and lessons: - Identify entry points for tenure and wild foods for partnership and policy - Highlight the economic benefits of tenure to food security and poverty alleviation - Recognize women and youth as purveyors of wild foods and continue to support them through capacity building - Multi-platform approach to engagement - Organizing learning exchanges that encourage sharing of regional perspectives that can provide ideas on potential models and best practices - Conduct research to deepen understanding and build evidence236240241242243244246247249Wild foods and biodiversity - The sustainable use and harvest of wild foods and other natural resources supports biodiversity. Rich biodiversity in turn supports forests and other life systems. Wild foods and agrobiodiversity are important resources that contribute to systems resilient to climate and market shocks. - Communities that are strong and have sustainable practices on natural resources governance and management have areas where biodiversity thrives and is kept intact. However, threats to biodiversity endanger a food secure future. Challenges to wild foods and biodiversity - decline in knowledge on wild foods and harvest practices at the local level - missing data on the nutritional aspect of wild foods and its conservation at the regional/global level - the lack of data also means that contributions of wild foods are not counted and are at best, mere estimates - conservation exclusion affecting IPLCs' access to territories - blanket bans on wildlife consumption, for example, undermine cultural practices - There is a need for a deeper dialogue to consider various perspectives on the issue - development aggression has led to conversion of forests at a massive scale and has encouraged monocultures, affecting habitats of species and biodiversity - Corporate farming has marginalized smallholder farmers and IPLCs - an orientation towards foreign markets for production and overreliance on cheap imports has undermined self-sufficiency of nations/localities, putting them at greater risk of food insecurity during times of crisis, such as pandemics - food production and diets as well are not diverse and are concentrated only on major crops - mainstream or popular food, which are usually processed and unhealthy, is preferred over traditional diets, which are more nutritious. Cultural perceptions and behavior also impact on wild food knowledge and practices - what does not get eaten gets forgotten, and with that, much knowledge and potential sources of nutrition, are lost Recommendations and lessons shared: - Document lessons, best practices and models and share these information with the network for learning exchange and possible applications and/or innovations - Continuously consider ways on how wild foods can be used and conserved for the long-term - Multi-stakeholder consultations and dialogue on wild foods and biodiversity can be organized - inclusive approaches and utilization of regional and local platforms help break silos and facilitate collaborations - Develop food-resilient communities by supporting capacity development for smallholder farmers and IPLCs and supporting self-strengthening processes that enable local groups to organize themselves - See wild foods as both an economic and an ecological system - Propose bills and pass laws that support tenure security and biodiversity sustainability236238239240241242243244246247248249251Wild foods and sustainable community-based livelihoods Wild foods are important sources of income for forest-dependent communities. Apart from subsistence, wild foods provide livelihoods for locally-driven social enterprises, supplying markets at a local, national and at times even global scale. It was discussed during the dialogues that there is an observed hesitation on the part of communities and support groups in engaging markets because of various concerns, but the link between wild foods, communities and markets is an important one to understand. How do we make markets work for indigenous food systems and biodiversity conservation? What are the lessons to be learned in upscaling to other markets while at the same time, achieving balance on the things that matter such as food sovereignty, ecosystem integrity, and cultural values? These were just some of the questions that were brought forth during the discussions. Through an exchange of personal experiences, case stories and an open dialogue on the link between wild foods and livelihoods, we were able to identify best practices and recommendations that can help address the threats to wild foods in the context of livelihoods and market engagement. Challenges to wild-foods based community enterprises/livelihoods: - Policies are put out by people who have limited understanding and perspectives on IPLCs, traditional food systems, mountain systems, etc. As a result, there is a tendency to leave out other groups and their voices do not get to figure in in discussions. - Products are undervalued and the time, effort and knowledge applied in harvesting of wild foods are not considered in its pricing. Middlemen tend to buy at lower price points and sell for higher profits. - Migration and modern education impacts food systems tradition and knowledge - Market demand can lead to overharvests, exploitation - it is important to be able to strike a balance and to be clear about terms or principles of engagement with markets, especially as they tend to be very dynamic Recommendations and lessons shared: - Policies and markets drive the state and conditions of global biodiversity, forestry and agriculture, affecting what is produced and what is eaten. It is important to review policy frameworks that affect wild foods and consider ways on how policies can also be designed to support the revitalization and restoration of wild foods and local food systems. - Storytelling is important and placing emphasis on the understory of wild food products can help highlight and optimize its value. Health and nutritional values of wild foods can be emphasized. - Engage the right kind of markets - i.e., markets that are respectful and understanding of IPLCs and the value of their wild foods and forest harvests - It is very critical to keep a balance between selling and consuming. - To alleviate demand-driven pressures on certain products, communities can diversity their supply and also package various products as part of a collection - Support the establishment of community producer companies, cooperatives and local enterprises. - Food festivals help revive interest and appreciation for wild foods and also encourage ideas on sustainable community-based enterprises - Recognize women and youth as agents of change and innovation - they are able to lead in both conservation and economic aspects - Strengthen local markets for food resilience - Explore collective marks and participatory guarantee systems that ensure sustainable harvests of wild foods marketed for trade - Capacity building and training are important to help communities have successful enterprises. Nurture the agency of IPLCs and provide encouragement - Policy level changes have the potential to bring wild foods back in people's diets236238239240241242243244246247248249251Emerging outlook on wild foods and inclusive food systems in Asia The right to food is a universal human right and inclusive food systems would ensure that this right is accorded to and enjoyed by all. During the dialogue, several conversations revolved around the discussion of a vision towards 2030 on inclusive food systems in Asia, particularly one that considers the perspectives of indigenous peoples and local communities who rely on wild foods and traditional food systems. The discussion on outlooks are meant to provide a frame in which we can begin to identify pathways and ideas in transforming our present food systems. The following key policy issues and suggested areas of engagement were identified: • Respect and recognition of traditional livelihood and food systems of IPLCs • Involving scientific community appropriately in wild food knowledge documentation and innovation • Production and consumption and mainstreaming of wild foods • Diversification • Health • Food distribution • Agriculture, biodiversity and environment What needs to be done towards the vision of inclusive food systems, including wild foods, to 2030: • Bottoms-up and inclusive policy making • Advocate for wild foods and sustainable food systems, including respect for collective rights of IPLCs • Build strong foundations for awareness raising, research and documentation • Invest in improving wild food education for youth • Secure tenure for IP and forest based communities • Develop wild foods harvest and management guidelines • Safeguard indigenous knowledge on wild foods from biopiracy • Harness digital tools to have a stream of technical support to policy making and practice or ground-level action • Scale up dialogues on food diversification and inclusive food systems The role of networks and support groups was also highlighted as an important facilitating factor in ensuring that knowledge is restored back to the people. A network on wild foods, biodiversity and livelihoods can facilitate learning exchanges and foster meaningful engagement across countries, regions and generations. This can lead to a better understanding and appreciation on the value of wild foods work in relation to its contributions to food security, livelihoods, cultural heritage and biodiversity conservation.236238239240241242243244246247248249251RECOMMENDATIONS It is important to strengthen and sustain wild foods practice, traditions and knowledge through local and global action. Likewise, the need to establish and publicize the links between food and health should be made a priority. Co-relations between wild foods and access and consumption need to be further examined. As we envision a more inclusive food system, it is important to keep in mind all food ways prevalent in the region –this means including rotational farming, gathering, fishing, trapping, food gardens and cultivation in the conversation. The strengths and vibrancy of these systems should be known better in various local contexts, along with the challenges that are faced. This implies the need for continuous updating of our work, with learning exchanges and interventions facilitated that would contribute to the documentation of the knowledge and status of wild foods, as well as addressing observed gaps and needs identified from our field work and studies. Other emerging recommendations from discussions led by the Expert Group include: • Bottom-up/locally-based strategies and solutions to address challenges and sharing these in appropriate and strategic platforms • Need for better and stronger messaging, especially when it comes to encouraging engagement of the youth (to counter-message other influences) • Nurturing the agency of communities so their voices are heard and they understand the policy arenas that impact their lives • Organizing local groups for them to have their own economic identity • Forging partnerships and exploring multi-stakeholder and multi-platform avenues for interventions • Engaging in future research and action that encourages co-production of knowledge; involving communities and letting them lead these actions • Advocacy and protest actions for better policies • Awareness-raising and knowledge transfers across generations • Supporting and upholding traditional systems and recognizing their contributions • Sustainable farming, aquaculture, wild foods conservation and revitalization • “Food-focused conservation” - protect, revive, restore wild foods • Sustainable trade and market engagements; engaging the right kinds of markets • Increase value of wild foods and raise awareness through storytelling • Linking our work to post-2020 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) discussions, climate change, food summits and tenure rights. It is important to include wild foods in the dialogue so it isn’t “missing from the picture • Respect IPLCs management of forests, lands – include them and see them as stewards, leaders – custodians and guardians; respect aspirations of communities and the rights of IPLCs • Develop and strengthen partnerships and capacities; facilitate multi-stakeholder interactions and dialogues, collaborations • Further explore linkages of wild foods to agroforestry, agroecology, permaculture, etc. • Identify factors that make the environment conducive for inclusive food systems. Look at the socio-ecological factors that enable best practices • Further explore linkages of wild foods to agroforestry, agroecology, permaculture, etc. • Identify factors that make the environment conducive for inclusive food systems. Look at the socio-ecological factors that enable best practices • Diversification of diets and including wild foods in meal planning and meal food distribution programs; Scaling up dialogues on food diversification • Think about safeguards to protect from overexploitation, biopiracy, negative effects of commercialization • Creative alternative discourses and also create spaces so that narratives on wild foods and traditional food systems are made visible, leading to increased awareness on its importance • Sharing messages of resilience and hope, along with lessons and best practices237238239240241242243244246247249250251The dialogue surfaced certain tensions that need to be considered in the discussion of wild foods within the context of local to global food systems. The areas of divergence identified during the dialogue were expressed as concerns that require further reflection, especially on its implication towards future interventions and its potential impact overall. The following were noted: 1) Wild foods are primarily used by forest-dependent communities for subsistence, personal consumption as well as livelihoods. The question of just how much of these wild foods should be traded and opened up to wider markets emerged. Some feel that wild foods are best valued for their contributions to local community resilience and food security and as an additional source of income, but should stay within a reasonable scale for it to be sustainable. Another point of view was opening up these wild food sources to a wider market for trade to increase income of communities. On the one hand, certain communities also have aspirations of scaling up their wild foods-based enterprises. Safeguards must be ensured to mitigate risks of commercialization which might lead to overharvests and undue stress. There was a call to be more cautious of this so we avoid the situation where indigenous peoples themselves who produce these food do not lose control over their products. 2) Raising awareness on wild foods and traditional food systems are important to gather support and to advocate for more conducive environments in support of indigenous peoples and local communities. Documentation of these species are also important and should be ensured. However, alongside this increased attention is the threat of overexposing these indigenous and local food to outside threats and communities losing intellectual property rights over their food and cultural heritage and practices. Carelessness can lead to endangering indigenous intellectual property rights. 3) The view that there is a dearth of information about wild foods that are available and easily accessible and the view that there actually is a lot of information and knowledge about wild foods and traditional food systems but perhaps not just in the format mainstream society is used to. In relation to this, there were also discussions on having the need for traditional knowledge and practices to be 'validated by science' in contrast with speaking from a position of strength with regards to indigenous food systems, knowledge and practices. 4) It was observed that there are diverging views on wild food. For some, there is a certain stigma attached to wild foods because people who depend on these sources are viewed as 'backward' or 'primitive'. More attention and value is given to the dominant and more 'socially acceptable' food sources such as rice, wheat, etc. On the other hand, there is the view that people with strong indigenous food systems like rotational farming and wild food gardens are far better off and are more affluent in terms of food security and resilience. IPLCs should take pride in their rich food heritage and change the narrative. 5) Policies on self-sufficiency tend to concentrate on certain species only, encouraging uniformity vs. diversity in species, thereby ignoring healthier and nutritious food options and placing stresses on the environment and threatening biodiversity. There are often well-meaning policies which have negative socio-ecological impacts on the ground. Policy making should be more holistic in its approach, taking into view as well agroforestry and how forests figure in the discussion on food systems. 6) The view that regional and international policies are important to push for versus concentrating efforts on strengthening local initiatives which often require customized or tailor-fitted intervention designs and strategies. What is the added value of regional/global policies, considering that local contexts have varying requirements? There is a need to recognize that not all communities are in a similar position as far as wild foods are concerned and thus require separate strategies. Consider further reflections on possible local-to-global-to-local and global-to-local-to-global actions that impact food systems. 7) During the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, wildlife consumption bans were endorsed and imposed left and right, prohibiting consumption and trade of wildlife to prevent further spread of zoonotic diseases. Dissenting opinions about this were surfaced, with some fully supporting a blanket ban on this, while others called for a more culturally-sensitive view, noting that certain communities have wildlife as part of their local diets and this practice is tied to their cultural beliefs and traditions. A call to co-craft potential solutions and deepen the dialogue on this was suggested.

2021-07-23 22:50:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28293/153

124050704745475547471461775137324101111758717217

For the dialogue to incorporate the principles of the engagement, we engaged all the stakeholders that we need to act together from all levels to build and sustainable food systems which will make healthy and nutritious foods available in Rwanda. With the support from the government of Rwanda, the private sector, civil societies organizations representing all groups including women and youth, taking into consideration our distinct roles in food systems, all agreed that we will put in action, all recommendations from the summit and dialogues. Through different workshops that were organized on the side of the dialogue, participants were respectfully exchanging their experiences and innovative solutions that can make healthy and nutritious foods available in Rwanda. The Food System Innovation Hub was supported as one of the key solutions to existing challenges for food entrepreneurs in Rwanda.During the dialogue and all the workshops that followed, the diversity of stakeholders was very encouraging. As one of the principles of engagement, we had representatives from all groups, from senior government officials, academia, representatives of research institutes, small holders' farmers, consumer’s rights representatives, students, women representatives in different cooperatives, international NGOs working in Rwanda and beyond. During the discussions, views from diverse backgrounds enriched the dialogue and the recommendations that came from the workshops.From the dialogues, we learned that there is a need to bring all stakeholders in the same room, to discuss practical and innovative solutions, which in most cases are not put in action due to lack of dialogue/ communication between all involved.

Yes

234238243245246248249251Our Dialogue focused on the role technology and innovation can play to make sure safe, healthy, and nutritious foods is available and accessible to all people regardless of their economic status. Through Food Systems Innovation Hubs (FSIH). FSIH looks to stimulate investment in resilient and responsive food systems and facilitate relevant technology transfer and knowledge from high-income countries, who benefit from large consumer markets and large pools of venture capital to test and try innovations to make food systems nutritious and sustainable, to LMIC. Through partnerships, government collaboration, impact investors, philanthropies in the context of local entrepreneurs, the hubs will catalyze a transformative change for society-wide dietary shifts towards more efficient, healthier, and more environmentally friendly food systems. The focus of our dialogue was in relation to action track # 1.235238245246248249251The Dialogue Building Healthy, Nutrition and Affordable food systems in Rwanda through innovations was divided into four breakout sessions: innovation, food safety, creating demand for nutritious food and advocacy and policy. The"Innovation" session aimed to answer two main two questions: what innovations are needed for smallholder farmers and small and medium enterprises to sustainably nourish Rwanda now and in the future? Aggregation is the answer identified for small-scale farmers and SMEs. Individual small food system actors confront far too many challenges, such as financial access and insurance. These issues can be mitigated when individual SMEs or farmers are brought together. Indeed, policymakers will be more aware of cooperation, and banks will be more willing to invest in innovative ventures. The second question was, what innovations make nutritious food accessible, affordable and desirable to all Rwandans? The answer to the second question focuses on the necessity to find out an innovation that makes healthy and nutritious food aspirational for consumers. This will lead to opportunities to market healthy food and guide consumers towards healthy foods. Overall, the FSIH will play a critical role in addressing all of these issues. The ‘Food Safety’ breakout group aimed to answer the following question “How do we address the issue of aflatoxins and its effect, mitigation options, and traceability”? The participants raised identified few key areas of interest which serve as a starting point to answer the problem statement, namely technology transfer and knowledge dissemination. In terms of technology and transfer, although it was mentioned that the Rwandan FDA is putting a lot of effort into mitigation (e.g., Government purchased mobile dryers and contracted entrepreneurs to support cooperatives), mycotoxin testing capacity remains a challenge (e.g., rapid test for aflatoxin is far from adopted). Indeed, farmers’ lack of access to these technologies needs to be addressed. Additionally, although affordable technology does exist, farmers are often not aware of it. It was agreed that both government but also entrepreneurs have a key role to play to promote this technology transfer. With regards to knowledge dissemination, it was underlined that communication between government and cooperatives must be improved and that this improved communication should be supported by universities as well as entrepreneurs. The breakout group "Creating Demand for Nutritious Food" emphasized the need to take actions to change consumer perceptions of healthy foods; one example given was the consumption of orange sweet potatoes, which has been related to a rise in diarrheal episodes in children. Furthermore, private-public partnership (PPPs) was pointed to an important role in increasing demand for healthy and nutritious foods. The government should take the lead in this process and give incentives for the private sector to participate. For example, given that plastic is prohibited in the country, how can the government assist SMEs in the preservation and management of healthy foods? Finally, the government should educate consumers on what constitutes nutritious food while also ensuring that such food is readily available and affordable. In few words, without awareness of health and nutritious food, there are not investing opportunities. In the "Advocacy and Policy" breakout session, it emerged the need to establish two key connections among the food systems. Policies should link food production to healthy food production in order to avoid the availability of unhealthy foods on the market. The government should improve the connection between academia and agribusiness entrepreneurs to mind this gap. Secondly, because entrepreneurs have the ability to influence the food environment, policy should connect entrepreneurs to the upcoming food dietary guidelines in order to engage the private sector with healthy and nutritious food. Lastly, it was pointed out that Government should implement further research to study the local healthy diets which are part of the culture but are not anymore visible to consumers.236238245246249251Advocacy and Policy Youth represent the backbone of the country. new policies should provide them with access to finance and training, as well as build capacity to engage youth in agriculture sectors. Young agro entrepreneurs should be given grants and training by FSIH. As the Rwanda government is willing to provide funding to youth, these strategies should be reviewed. The findings should be more accessible for youth, otherwise, money will not be used.236238245246248249251Reactions by panel What resources are most important for entrepreneurs to produce nutritious foods? 1.Infrastructure for post-harvest activities for example in storage and processing 2.Transportation is also another key area 3.There is the need for laboratories to test the nutrition of the foods being processed Entrepreneurs are creative but without the help of nutritionists and laboratories, it will be difficult to produce good food. Premixes are also needed and SMEs look up to the private sector to supply premixes and other specialized processing inputs. Advice for entrepreneurs: 1. Entrepreneurs are advised to reach out to the academic institutions for help 2. Collaborate with researchers and innovators and also engage with farmers 3. Graduate training at factories will go a long way to help them gain knowledge to produce nutritious foods.236238245246248Reactions by panel What are the most significant challenges entrepreneurs struggle with and how can the FSIH help lift across the hurdle? There are several hurdles faced by entrepreneurs these are: 1. Lack of resources to trial new ideas the Food System Innovation Hub (FSIH) can help surmount this hurdle. 2. Inconsistencies in energy supply render most small-scale enterprises not able to deliver goods and services on time. The FSIH can help by clustering entrepreneurs. 3. Good quality raw materials. It has to do with economies of scale as they cannot buy in bulk, again through clustering on entrepreneurs this can be solved 4. Cash flow constraints might hinder sustainable businesses, small companies will lose out on orders after their first or second deliveries if payments are delayed. 5. The FSIH must link entrepreneurs to dietary guidelines to help improve the quality of diets being produced by SMEs as they produce new foods.236238245246248Innovation What are the key factors that help drive innovation? It takes more than one key factor for innovations to scale in an emerging economy like Rwanda. For innovations to be successful in LMIC’s there needs to be the 3 C’s. They are: 1. Creativity 2. Capacity Building 3. Collaboration Entrepreneurs are extremely creative and market savvy but in emerging economies with the enabling system is so sub-optimal, entrepreneurs have to create the conditions that will enable their venture to operate successfully, and these enablers will often include capacity building with other players along the value chain that affects their business whether their vendors, customer or retailers. They have to collaborate with the social sector such as NGOs, the government to make sure their venture functions smoothly. Unlike entrepreneurs in high-income countries, the 3Cs are the foundations to be successful in LMIC’s.236238248Reactions by panel There is a systemic shift in food systems to suit the urban class we are seeing more distance from the farmer to consumers and the middleman is controlling the safety of our food. consumption of aflatoxins, for example, have a big impact on public health responsible for liver cancers and are also linked with negative growth. In March 2021, there were challenges with trade between Uganda and Kenya due to aflatoxins contamination, this means we need entrepreneurs to help solve the commercial challenges. Grain losses due to aflatoxins are between 14 to 35% annually. How can we reduce losses and rejects? We need innovation but must be affordable for smallholder farmers otherwise it will not be successful. For example, hermetic storage bags which has been around for about a decade but there has been a low adaptation level by farmers. Probably the key solution will be to engage entrepreneurs who will reach the farmers to educate them and supply them with his packaging at affordable prices.237238245246248249251The Innovation track in the UN FSS focused on Building Healthy, Nutritious and Affordable Food Systems for Rwanda through Innovations. The keys discussions were on the Innovations that are needed for smallholder farmers and small and medium enterprises to sustainably nourish Rwanda now and in the future. The participants identified the following innovation gaps in the food system and suggested ways in which they can be addressed. 1. Infrastructure - Nutritious value chains require sophisticated technology to sustain that smallholder farmers cannot afford. There is a need for post-harvest storage and process technologies and an effective logistic distribution system. 2. Access to Funds and Investments – Most financing companies are willing to provide either huge funds or nothing. But smallholder farmers need access to small-scale financing as they cannot afford high risks. 3. Knowledge – Farmers should be able to collaborate through one platform or a network such as an innovation hub that enables them to address concerns as well as share resources and knowledge that can add value to their produce. 

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Food-Systems-Innovation-Hub-Breakout-Sessions.pdfhttps://youtu.be/9oneYD-jhQEhttps://youtu.be/4IjxRRy2bjwhttps://sightandlife.org/blog/#food-systemshttps://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FSS_Brief_Food_Systems_Innovation_Hubs.pdf

2021-07-23 23:25:37205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29743/76

34215022560022112106250275152536488501612204547851201515450143048400722010

The organization of the National Dialogue on Ghana’s Food Systems greatly reflected the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement. • A Concept note detailing the relevance of the dialogue, objectives, expected outcomes and proposed participants was shared and discussed with facilitators to bring diverse perspectives and inclusiveness. • Facilitators and stakeholders were drawn from various sectors such as academia, private sectors, food system actors, media and civil society organizations. This was to ensure multi-stakeholder inclusivity • A Secretariat and National Technical Working Group of diverse backgrounds were established to support the Conveners to steer the national dialogues and preparations of the country report and commitment paper • Stakeholder groups were identified and sensitized about the UNFSS and Ghana’s Food system. These included MDAs, MMDAs, private sector, Development Partners, media, civil society, youth groups, women groups • Identified Facilitators received training organized by the Conveners and by UN Food Systems Summit Secretariat • Highly visible launch of National Dialogue Chaired by the First Lady of the Republic of Ghana, with participation from government officials, academia, private sectors, food system actors and civil society organizations • Notable publicity about the dialogue using various media platforms such as radio, print media, Facebook and YouTube. Registration portals were made available for individuals to register and participate A day before the National Dialogue, a pre dialogue dry run/ “mock dialogue” was enacted by the facilitators for the conveners and other National Technical •Committee members to gauge the level of preparedness. •On the day of the Dialogue, Dialogue Conveners, Curators, and Facilitators reiterated and reinforced the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement to elicit contributions from participants.• Implementing the National Food Systems Dialogue, the Conveners and other stakeholders of the Dialogue took cognizance of the Food Systems Summit Principles of engagement and ensured that the Dialogue was responsive to those principles. • First, regarding acting with urgency, stakeholders recognized, and reiterated the urgency with which the Ghanaian food systems needed to be transformed. As such the Dialogue requested specific policy tasks, and critical practice changes required to transform the Ghanaian food systems - by 2030. • “Commit to the Summit”: Dialogue Conveners, Curators, Facilitators, and Participants received orientation at different phases of the Dialogue preparation and execution on Dialogue Principles – including training organized by the UN Food Systems Summit Secretariate • “Be respectful”: Dialogue Conveners incorporated into the facilitation guidelines the need to show respect to allies but also to unusual “bedfellows” as transforming food systems require all stakeholders. Additionally, participants had the free hand to choose which breakout sessions to attend. • “Recognize complexity”: Cognisant of the fact that food systems are complex and are impacted largely by the actions and inactions of humans, Dialogue Facilitators engaged participants in discussions that facilitated the identification of actions that have the potential to positively impact a complex system.• The Conveners of Ghana’s National Food Systems Dialogue would like to share the following with other Dialogue Convenors (especially those who are yet to implement their Dialogues) • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: - Engage potential participants on the nature and expectations of the Dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of Engagement prior to the event. • Ghana’s High Level highly visible launch of National Dialogue Chaired by the First Lady of the Republic of Ghana, with participation from government officials, academia, private sectors, food system actors, and civil society organizations motivated interest and participation in the Dialogue • Dialogue Conveners should dedicate time to highlight the objectives and expectations of the Dialogue, and outline the principles of engagement on the day of the Dialogue – to educate new audiences or reinforce the message to those already informed. • We have learned that it is helpful to plan ahead of time but it’s even more important to be prepared to, as needed, take decisions extempore. The National Dialogue initially planned to hold 5 parallel discussion sessions on the day of the Dialogue. Upon assessing the number of registrants/dialogue participants on the day, the Dialogue Conveners innovatively duplicated the discussion rooms from 5 to 10 – to accommodate all interested participants. On the day of the Dialogue while some discussion themes were taken on in 2-3 breakout sessions due to large numbers of interested participants. Topics with manageable numbers remained as one discussion group. • Have the required background information for the ‘Official Feedback Form’ recorded via the online registration process but also on the day of the Dialogue. Not all who register for the dialogues turn up, and some find their way to the dialogue without registering.

Yes

234238239240241242245246249• The Ghana National Food Systems Dialogue convened by the National Development Planning Commission, and the Ministry of Agriculture had an overarching theme - “Developing a Resilient and Equitable Food System for Improved Food and Nutrition Security”. The discussions covered all areas of the food systems and were organized around the Five Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit Dialogues: • Action Track 1 – “Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all” – participants examined whether all Ghanaians currently have access to safe and nutritious food. If not, what is it that makes it difficult for Ghanaians to access safe and nutritious food? • Action Track 2 – “Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” – dialogue participants had conversations about what the key issues affecting healthy and sustainable food consumption were in Ghana. • Action Track 3 – “Boosting nature-positive production at scale” – examined how Ghana’s food production systems can be transformed to ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for the people. • Action Track 4 – “Advancing equitable livelihoods”– explored inequalities within the Ghanaian food systems • Action Track 5 – “Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses” – examined Actions to ensure the resilience of the Ghanaian Food System.235238239240241242245246249The discussions from the breakout sessions produced the following key findings: Dialogue participants agree that most Ghanaians have access to food but not necessarily safe, and nutritious food. Factors that militate against access to safe and nutritious food permeate the entire food system from production to consumption. Production: •most government- and donor-sponsored programmes and projects do not promote the production of nutritious local/traditional foodstuffs. •Illegal mining (galamsey) is affecting the quantity, quality, and safety of food produced. Also, improper use of agrochemicals in farming, processing, and retail makes food unsafe. •Food retailers do not adhere to safe practices resulting in microbial contamination, and foodborne diseases •Post-harvest level challenges include food loss, fragmented food chain, poor transport, poor road linkages from farm to market. Healthy food consumption • absence of food-based dietary guidelines and few standards for nutritional requirements for different age groups • little to no effort to valorize nutritious local, indigenous, traditional foods. •vulnerable local (small-scale) farmers are not protected from the inflow of foreign goods that infiltrate the market. •Poverty is pervasive and dictates access to food. To address these challenges, Dialogue participants recommended short/medium/long term actions including: •Improvements in conditions (roads, markets, appropriate mechanization and storage etc.) that promote small farmer production systems; to produce diverse foodstuffs. •Protection of local farmers by supporting them with appropriate and quality inputs, and regulation of food inflow from other countries •Valorisation of nutritious local/traditional food to incentivize production and consumption •Application of best practices including promoting good and appropriate agronomy practices, tracing, and containing contaminated produce. The EPA and FDA should ensure that only approved agrochemicals are imported •Government should set up food banks and land banks (reserve lands for agriculture) to increase food production. •Meaningfully integrate fiscal and economic measures into food systems transformation initiatives. Healthy and sustainable food consumption : • Influx of imported foods that are cheap but unhealthy • Food fraud (which includes adulteration, substitution, dilution, tampering, counterfeiting, and misrepresentation of the ingredients of food or composition of food). • Food waste and loss – significant post-harvest losses Innovations and new approaches to address the above problems include • Use of hermetic bags for the storage of cereals and legumes to reduce post-harvest losses. • Introduce warehousing systems or storage facilities at the time of bumper harvest: • Encourage healthful food processing to increase shelf life of locally produced agricultural commodities; • Mobilize resources to accelerate investment through public-private partnerships: Recommendations for Sustainable nature positive production: • Improving productivity of small-scale farmer production systems since they promote planetary health, are climate-smart, nutrition-sensitive • Adopting diverse and appropriate improved farming practices, techniques to increase food production and productivity; • Promoting practices that protect the loss of biodiversity of Ghana’s indigenous and traditional foods, and natural regeneration of trees • Avoiding destructive farming activities that destroy natural resources such as needless use of agrochemicals, uncontrolled • Improved and localized irrigation systems by government and the private sectors as only rain-fed agriculture cannot sustain the food production • •Increase incentives to make agriculture attractive (branding) especially to the youth, Inequalities prevail within the Ghanaian food systems. Dialogue participants identified and proposed solutions including • •Government should consider the deployment of mobile agricultural extension services in the digitization drive to attract the youth to agriculture • •Government should buy or subsidize lands for agricultural purposes and engage traditional landholders to address land tenure challenges for easier direct access by women and youth • •Regions with high hunger index and malnutrition should have a land tenure system that will support the production of food crops rather than cash crops • •Improving access to post-harvest technologies such as cold chains to reduce postharvest losses, especially during seasons of glut, and improve traditional production/processing/preparation technologies for competitiveness • Fixing of railway and road networks to enhance transportation of harvested commodities and reduce losses in transit from hinterland as well as link farmers to markets. • Improved handling of agricultural commodities that will reduce bruising in transit. Also, ensure that existing measures such as mandatory use of scales at both the farm gate and in the markets facilitate trading of farm produce. Resilience: •Government and other food systems stakeholders to support and promote all-year-round production system • build data on actors in the food systems value chain, their profile, location, needs and actions given the risks. •Improve the storage systems, e.g. producer capacity to store harvested produce •The need to digitize our food system using artificial intelligence, blockchain farming, hydroponics etc. •Improve road, and rail network • Consider innovative financing models236238DISCUSSION TOPIC 1: Access to safe and nutritious foods by all Ghanaians Dialogue participants agree that most Ghanaians have access to food but not necessarily safe, and nutritious food. Factors that militate against access to safe and nutritious foods permeate the entire food system from production to consumption. • At the production level, illegal minding (galamsey) is affecting the quantity, quality, and safety of food produced • Relatedly, improper use of agrochemicals in farming, processing, and retail make food unsafe. • Inadequate storage facilities and poor market linkages are other factors • Vulnerability and lack of protection of the local (small-scale) farmers - from inflow of foreign goods that infiltrate the market. • Food retailers, who are not properly regulated, do not adhere to safe practices resulting in microbial contamination and foodborne diseases • Food fraud (including deceptive labelling practices, unregistered food on the market) is a challenge • Post-harvest level challenges include food waste and loss, fragmented food chain, poor transport, poor road linkages from farm to market. • With respect of healthful consumption, challenges include absence of food-based dietary guidelines. • Little to no effort to valorize nutritious local, indigenous, traditional foods. • There are cultural and social misperceptions of what constitutes healthy foods e.g. people who consume meat are seen as rich people. • Low nutrition literacy of the populace. • Unhealthy packaging practices: everything is going into plastics instead of the leaves, earthen ware bowl and calabashes • Poverty is pervasive and dictates access to safe and nutritious food. • Poor water quality is a challenge as access to safe water is important for food cultivation and preparation. • “Unattractiveness of agriculture” – as a vocation to the populace – people do not consider training in agriculture necessary to become farmers. To address these challenges, Dialogue participants recommended short/medium/long term actions including • Protection of local farmers by supporting them with inputs, and regulation of food inflow from other countries • Make agriculture more attractive to all especially young people • Valorize nutritious local/traditional food to incentivize production and consumption • Apply best practices including enforcing good agronomy practices, tracing and containing contaminated produce. The EPA and FDA should ensure that only approved agrochemicals are imported • Training of farmers on best practices on the management of pests, chemicals, pesticides Dialogue participants offered specific recommendations for the government, development partners, private sector and other food systems actors: • In collaboration with academia, government should train and certify food systems stakeholders e.g. farmers and retailers • In collaboration with development partners, government should expand and promote livelihood and income-generating activities (e.g. backyard farming, livestock rearing) targeted at women to improve household food security • Government should improve the transportation system and enact regulations (including price control policies) that benefit all food systems stakeholders. • Regulate advertising/marketing of food in general, not just unhealthy foods. • Food safety and standards policies/regulations should have clear delineation of roles and responsibilities of regulators. • Government should set up food banks and land banks (reserve lands for agriculture) to increase food production. • Investment in food processing industry to produce healthy processed foods • Institute both economic and fiscal interventions (tax system) to make healthy food attractive, and unhealthy food unattractive.236239DISCUSSION TOPIC 2: Factors that affect healthy and sustainable food consumption in Ghana Dialogue participants identified the following: • Influx of cheap, but unhealthy imported foods • Food fraud (which includes adulteration, substitution, dilution, tampering, counterfeiting and misrepresentation of the ingredients of food or composition of food). A local challenge has been the adulteration of palm oil with Sudan IV dye, and tomato paste with starch rather than tomato concentrate • Chemicalization of foods from farm to fork and port: Inappropriate uses of various chemicals by food systems actors • Unhealthy foods are cheaper than healthy foods and consumers tend to buy foods they can afford, and these are mostly cheap unhealthy foods. • Risk of contamination/cooking methods and duration: For instance, some people add paracetamol when cooking cowpea to cook faster. • Bad fishing practices and trans-shipment of fish: (these have an impact on the sustainability of fish resources). • Food waste and loss – significant post-harvest losses Dialogue participants suggested innovations and new approaches to address the above persistent problems • Use of hermetic bags for the storage of cereals and legumes to reduce post-harvest losses. Government could subsidize the price of these hermetic bags • Introduce warehousing systems or storage facilities at the time of bumper harvest: Produce could be bought from farmers and properly stored and used during the lean season. • Encourage the use of traditional silos built using earth and straw grass to store maize and millet, and other produce: When produce is stored in these environmentally friendly traditional silos, they could last for more than a year without pests. • Encourage dry season farming using existing resources. • Encourage home gardening especially in urban centres, construct tanks or poly tanks at homes to harvest rainwater for the purpose. Dialogue participants suggested approaches for sustainable promotion and consumption of nutrient-rich and safe food • The language used in communicating healthy and nutrient-rich food should not be abstract. • Intensify nutrition education in school curricula: Include nutrition education in the curriculum of children at all levels of education (from kindergarten through tertiary level) as children are change agents. • Inclusion of men/heads of household in nutrition education discussions: Heads of families/ include men in the discussions. • Involvement of the media: There should be regular education on multiple media channels (radio, TV, print media, social media) on nutrition • Promote culturally appropriate indigenous foods that are nutrient rich and safe food for consumption. Dialogue participants emphasized that institutional reforms and arrangements are needed to address policy and strategic gaps, including inadequate and weak enforcement of food policies and regulations • Harmonization of work among institutions: Different institutions could be working together to ensure that we have targeted production. For example, if the Ministry of Agriculture promotes a particular crop, it could liaise with the Ministry of Health to know the nutritional problems that require a specific crop to be scaled-up in its production. • Development planning: The country should have long-term plans and then entrench in parliament. It should be legally binding on every government to continue existing agricultural projects that will enhance the sector. Parliament should pass a law binding on every govt to continue all agricultural projects. To address environmental/sustainability challenges dialogue participants indicated that • Policies and initiatives are needed to prevent/control overexploitation of natural resources in food value chains in Ghana • Extension officers could educate farmers focusing on the health implications of the use of hazardous chemicals. • Spatial production patterns could be more closely linked with soil fertility maps. i. e. Soil fertility maps are published by the soil research institute of CSIR to guide choice for crop for soils • Recycling of plastics/ Limit the use of plastic packaging: Recycle, reduce, re-us236240DISCUSSION TOPIC 3: Ensuring sustainable nature positive production in the Ghanaian food system The majority of Dialogue participants agree that Ghana’s food production system was not capable of ensuring sustainable food and nutrition security for the people. They identified factors that mitigate positive production as follows: • Lack of promotion (by government-sponsored programmes and projects) of small farmer production systems which enhance planetary health and are climate-smart, nutrition-sensitive, and inclusive. • Poor infrastructure especially bad road network in rural areas resulting in poor market access, low prices in producing areas but high prices in urban centres. • Absence of land use planning leading to inappropriate application of technologies and poor use of natural resources • Poor coordination, collaboration, and support among actors along the food value chain leading to high costs of activities at all levels of the chain. • Lack of appropriate mechanization facilities and equipment • Inadequate and inappropriate storage facilities leading to high postharvest losses • Anti-environmental practices that destroy the natural resources and some species (crops and livestock) such as deforestation, bush fires, use of destructive agrochemicals • Poor decentralization and distribution of resources as well as implementation of policy to the grassroots level • Lack of and/or inadequate localized irrigation systems and high cost of irrigation equipment. • Unattractive conditions and incentives in the agriculture sector Dialogue participants suggested approaches to ensure positive production in Ghana’s food system • Greater emphasis by government and development partners on improving productivity of diverse locally produced foodstuffs. • Scientific improvements of small farmer production systems to make them more climate-smart and resilient. • Adopting appropriate, diverse and improved farming practices, techniques to increase food production and productivity • Improve our storage systems to reduce postharvest losses. Also, it was suggested that future research innovations should focus on exploring food radiation • Avoid anti-environmental activities that destroy the natural resources and species (crops and livestock) • Well-developed land use policy and planning. Land use planning is important for appropriate application of relevant technologies. Also, information (data) on the potentials of different soils and what crops should be grown on which land will increase production and all-year farming. • Improved irrigation systems by government and the private sectors and emphasis on the localization of irrigation infrastructure and governance. • Increase incentives to make agriculture attractive (branding) especially to the youth, and to attract more investments into the sector. There is a need for appropriate and adequate branding of agriculture to make it attractive to the youth. Communication experts should be used to properly brand agriculture positively. • The need for planned or appropriate mechanization in agriculture • Improve smallholder farming in Ghana by encouraging site and crop-specific fertilizer usage. • Proper identification and selection of good varieties of crop seeds and the breeds of animal • Development of agronomic protocols. For instance, the current fertilizer recommendation for maize was developed many years back during the operation feed yourself era. However, in recent times more efficient fertilizers have been produced and need to be communicated to the right users. • Innovative research and strategies into controlling pests and diseases that affect crops and animals236241DISCUSSION TOPIC 4: Examination of inequalities within the Ghanaian food systems • Government should consider the deployment of mobile agricultural extension services in the digitization drive to attract the youth and make agricultural extension services readily available to all persons in need on time • Agriculture should be made attractive to youth; with innovations and education. For instance, seminars and training on agriculture; animal rearing, food production, and food processing as well as product enhancing will make agriculture attractive to the youth • Farming should be encouraged as a professional career from the lower educational levels through to the higher level. This will encourage more people to have the desire and passion to go into farming • Increasing opportunities for youth and women’s direct access to land, production credit, agricultural inputs, technology, technical information on improved agricultural practices, and marketing outlets • Training is geared more toward men but government and DPs should reach women farmers directly rather than training their husbands on the assumption that they will convey the skills to their spouses. • Institutional innovations such as promoting group approach to agricultural investment and cooperative structures to ensure everybody wins • In terms of inequalities in the access to premix by small SMEs, Government should consider subsidy or removal of import taxes to help make nutritious processed food products more affordable and available. • There should be deliberate efforts to engage and involve (tertiary) students of agriculture in the design and implementation of solutions to address some of the issues affecting food systems in Ghana e.g. through projects • Government should buy or subsidize lands purposely for agricultural purposes and engage policy revision/shift in consultation with traditional holders to address land tenure challenges for easier direct access by women and youth • Regions with high hunger index and malnutrition should have a land tenure system that will support the production food crops rather than cash crops • Government should promote irrigation, especially during dry seasons to improve food production • There should be more diverse ways of supporting small scale farmers with equipment as well as capacity strengthening on the best use of equipment to enhance production in the food system and subsidies, funding and input support should target the small and medium scale producers • Improving access to post-harvest technologies such as cold chains to reduce postharvest losses, especially during seasons of glut, and improve traditional production/processing/preparation technologies for competitiveness • Government should help in setting up common unit prices of farm produce for local processors and a different common unit price for foreign processors or buyers to help encourage and motivate local processors. Industrial food processors should not be allowed to dictate food prices • A policy should be enacted to provide incentives e.g. Subsidies to processors who site their firms in the rural areas especially where the road network is not good • Fixing of railway and road networks to promote agricultural activities and reduce losses in transit from the hinterland and link production sites to markets.236242DISCUSSION TOPIC 5: Actions to ensure resilience of the Ghanaian food system Short-Medium Term actions • We need to move to an all-year-round production system using modern systems. Focus on developing policies that will move us to seasonal production to all-year-round production. • Build data on actors in the food systems value chain, their profile, and location and determine tailored needs and actions given the risks. • Improve the storage systems, especially producer capacity to store harvest for later release on to the market. • Funds should be made available by government and other donors to purchase modern equipment for production, processing, and storage. • The need to digitize our food system using artificial intelligence, blockchain farming, hydroponics etc. The extent of digitization has major impact on resilience. • Identification of food security hotspot in Ghana will play very vital role in responding swiftly. • Invest in researching into how we can use modern technology to improve resilience in the food systems. • Agriculture affects climate change and is also affected by climate change. So crop production processes that impact climate change must be addressed. Support those farmers who adopt farming methods that are environmentally friendly. • Revamp our irrigation systems to adapt to climate change effects to produce all year round. Promote organic farming. • Insurance packages tailored toward the resilience of all players in the food chain will be another step in making our food system resilient. • Employ technologies targeted at fruit and vegetable, which are seasonal and perishable to increase the shelf life by employing packaging environments that help to produce safe and quality food for the short to medium term. Long Term Actions • Promote greenhouse farming among the youth in modernization of production systems • Consider innovative financing models to better support food system resilience • Agriculture affects climate change and is also affected by climate change, so crop production processes that impact climate change must be addressed. Support those farmers who adopt farming methods that are environmentally friendly. • Promote Government-Private Partnership where private partners would be engaged to handle areas where Government cannot. E.g. Government financing infrastructural projects-irrigation, silos, etc., and the private sector partaking in the distribution of farm produce in time or marketing. Development partners can also do the same as earlier mentioned. Additionally, they can partner with our research institutions to research more on our food systems and develop more improved seedlings, etc. • Government to create an enabling environment through designing favourable policies and strategies. Government can develop more support in terms of incentives, security for those starting their own business and making sure that any type of information and education on innovating their business and using new technologies for farming and marketing. • Government needs to provide incentives or some form of financial security for farmers. Most farmers are not business savvy, they go through middlemen to sell their produce, thus making them poorer. • The government should establish criteria for responsible agricultural investment so that PPP can be effective, and all players stand a chance of benefitting. • Government should make a budgetary allocation to support regular testing of food throughout the food chain especially those run by public institutions to ensure food safety and food security • We need a systems approach in dealing with food waste and increasing efficiency at each stage • Government needs to improve road networks to help transport food. • The private sector should adopt inclusive business operation models across the production, processing, and marketing segments of the food system. e.g. they can have good pro-poor financing mechanisms to support the actors in the food system • Funding and technical support also from development partners • Development partners need to work with government to understand our cultural issues to able to have an impact on our food system.237• Painting a gloomy and weak outlook of the Ghanaian regulatory sector, some dialogue participants noted that food retailers do not adhere to safe practices resulting in microbial contamination, and foodborne diseases. A representative of the Ghanaian Regulatory Sector argued that this dismal outlook may not be based on facts – contaminants could be due to poor hygiene and food handling and not organic contaminants. Another participant disagreed and cited local news evidence to support the claim of poor safety and the failure of the retail and regulatory sector to address this. • On the use of the term unhealthy, not nutritious, a participant indicated that every food is nutritious, but maybe not balanced and that it is advisable to use the phrase “not balanced” rather than “not nutritious”. • A dialogue participant noted that there are political and structural gaps that continue to fight against Ghana’s development. He further noted that decentralization is a complete failure and that federal governance of the food system should be considered. Another participant vehemently disagreed. “I think what the last speaker said, is 100% true. I will say it is rather better now since it has been decentralized. We are rolling out a lot of things. With the metropolitan, municipal, district assemblies, there are some challenges but it is not widespread. A lot of MMDCE are also supporting and prioritizing agriculture.” • Responding to a recommendation to promote use of hermetic bags, a participant noted that hermetic bags, and traditional silos, have been used in the past and have not yielded the results. So, what more do we need to do to address the existing challenges with food storage? he quizzed. Although effective, the holding capacity of traditional silos is a problem. There is a need to expand the capacity of the silos to store produce adequately. Some of these traditional silos can hold only up to 10 bags. Additionally, the cost of hermetic bags (@15 cedis for one bag) does not encourage its use. Consider the price for a farmer requiring 100 or more of these bags. The local bags are about 3 cedis per bag but do not protect against pests; hence there is the need to subsidize hermetic bags to promote use. • On policy on food importation, a participant emphasized the need for a government policy on importation of foods grown locally in Ghana and enforcement of the policy. However, others noted that given Government's commitments towards AfCFTA, trade restrictions may not be practical. It would be more practical to promote a culture of consuming locally. • The issue of conservation agriculture was also debated. A participant from Tanzania argued that conservation agriculture is a new technology, but other participant disagreed and stated that it’s already practiced by farmers and that only some newly introduced practices that have made it a more topical issue now. • Though participants held different views on the type of farming systems in Ghana, i.e., subsistence and commercial, in the end, it was agreed that both systems are important in our attempt to achieve food and nutrition security, as well as environmental sustainability, and emphasis placed on improving and making them better and sustainable. Some participants argued for monocropping to improve the efficiency of production. Others, however, argued that monocropping is a problem in sustainability. “We should not be concerned with only economic sustainability. It is important to emphasize social and environmental sustainability as well. Mixed cropping and mixed farming systems can ensure all three types of sustainability if practiced well (scientifically). Mixed cropping and mixed farming ensures diversity of foodstuffs and thus important for both food security and nutrition security (food and nutrition security)”

2021-07-23 23:50:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17438/203

271116318101211

The Dialogue was organized with the intention that there is an urgent need to address the flaws in our current global food system and that this needs to be addressed in the way development and humanitarian aid is conducted. We spread the message about this dialogue through different networks and outlets to reach a wide audience and left the participation open to anyone who was interested in the topic.The Dialogue recognized the complexity of food systems by allowing discussions to happen around each action track, and even within the action tracks, the participants were open to make links to other action track topics. The Dialogue was inclusive of participants from different contexts backgrounds who were encouraged to join and share their inputs. It brought together people working on similar issues but maybe very different context who would have otherwise never crossed paths. We aimed to build trust by being transparent about our purpose and intention for the discussion and by creating a safe space of mutual respect.No

Yes

234238239240241242246247The focus of our Dialogue was to help elevate the voices of those who are most directly impacted by development and humanitarian initiatives. It was open to development and humanitarian implementers, local leaders, and community members, as well as field and extension officers, national and local governments, and companies interested in providing contextual perspectives for how humanitarian and development strategies impact communities. Our purpose was to encourage a diverse and expansive pool of voices to help improve the representation and empowerment of local leadership in influencing the SDG goals. Therefore, the Dialogue was an exploration of food systems in the development and humanitarian context and was intentionally open to discussion topics related to all five Action Tracks to allow people to bring their own interests and individual roles within the food system to the table.235238239240241242244245246247249251- Build agency of local leadership and strengthen local food systems through the promotion of indigenous crops and traditional forms of agriculture - Complement traditional agriculture techniques with conservation and climate-smart agriculture techniques that are accessible to all local communities. - Ensure smallholder farmers have access to quality inputs and resources to grow for their own consumption and sell at prices that allow them to live adequately - Empower women and youth to be directly engaged with agriculture value chains and improve market access for both income generation and nutrition outcomes - Ensure that foreign assistance truly supports communities in becoming resilient and self-sufficient rather than perpetually dependent on aid236238240244247248250251- There are politics involved in ending hunger and inequities- leads to trade-offs, such as focusing on scaling up production, using non-organic fertilizers that harm soil health, and large scale producers instead of smallholder farmers - Water scarcity a major issue of hunger - Need to scale up innovative practices, such as the use of wastewater and fecal sludge in the growing system, which could assist in the affordability of fertilizer; could also learn from other regions with water scarcity - We must include the community, as they are the ones impacted by hunger and directly impacted by climate change- community should be educated on climate change so they can advocate and provide accountability. - We need to replenish indigenous crops and recognize the value of traditional methods of agriculture - How will we incentivize or recognize farmers for using conservation agriculture? - The humanitarian / development communities need to ask themselves if their work is creating cycles of dependency - Women and youth need to be empowered more, especially when it comes to livestock ownership to improve nutrition outcomes and where youth can serve in the value chain - Direct food relief should not be used as a long-term solution, we need to be looking at empowerment models that encourage local self-reliance236238239242243247- Concerned about the quality of food (in terms of vitamins and nutrients) being donated and distributed through local food pantries in the US - need more locally sourced food through a compression and decentralization of supply chains - Growth of healthy corner farmers on 1/10 of an acre plots to create food oases in food deserts in the US; step beyond the idea of healthy corner stores selling more fruits and vegetables to grounding production in the community (healthy corner farmers rather than healthy corner stores); use of hydroponic farms for production - In Nigeria, internally displaced persons (IDP) farmers have limited access to farmland, so home gardens and home animal raising is key to surviving offseason produce price spikes, when the community is dependent on transported foods. - Use of Tom Brown, a nutritious porridge made of millet, corn, sorghum, soya, and groundnuts, to feed malnourished children with locally sourced food in Nigeria - Mobile food markets in the US can reduce numbers of those living in food deserts, but the need must be mapped out first - Concerned by the wasted food production in Nigeria fueled by transportation, store, and preservation problems- for tomatoes, for instance, the population faces seasonal price spikes because there is no way to preserve the tomatoes; logistics are the key in avoiding off-season produce price spikes. - Childhood traumas/adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), often influence whether people eat healthily or desire fast foods and often correlates with diet-related disease, given the role of stress-related cortisol in cravings for high-fat foods236238241247248249251- Smaller, local farmers lack access to quality seeds/support and markets- need for regulations to ensure small holder farmers have access to the right resources both to consume as well as sell to their communities - Farmers get discouraged because of low prices and exploitation- having access to quality inputs at fair costs would allow them to also sell at appropriate prices (affordable for consumers, profitable for sellers) - High value crops are prioritized at the expense of other crops due to market forces - Western countries dictate what lower income countries receive through food aid, disturbs the market system; bulk buying and reliance on WFP exploits local farmers. - In Uganda, we need to organize farmers into unions so that individuals are not selling individually but as farmer unions who can collectively bargain for better prices - In Uganda, young people avoid agriculture because they consider it not profitable and are selling land to move to city- try to connect youth with older generations to show that you can have a farm and an office job - and that profit is possible; use SBCC with having peer to peer conversations that can show success stories and impact - Promoting Technology in agriculture would demonstrate that it is possible to make a profit by saving time and cost and makes it more attractive to the youth - In the US, youth not really involved in farming unless they grew up doing it as part of a family business - certain neighborhoods should start household cultivation. Each member of the community would have 1 type of plant (herb, fruit, vegetable) and then the community members would trade to sustain themselves - Role of government and how they can influence the system - COVID 19 as an opportunity to highlight the importance of local food systems and encouraging households to grow their own foods - Encouraging food sovereignty and the food as a right and not just a commodity236238242244246249- Need to be conscious of complexities in how individuals interact with food systems and deal with food insecurity- there is heterogeneity of vulnerability, and we need to look at it at different levels (community, household, and individual) - Need to provide farmers with education on managing risk where it be weather, conflict, currency fluctuations, etc- to make systems more resilient there needs to be more understanding of what the risks are and their impacts in the short, medium, and long term. - Real change needs happen at the local level especially in conflict areas- component of basic start up support as well as education - Need to move from basic caloric intake needed to live to providing full/balanced nutrition and diverse diets with fruits and vegetable - Protracted crisis and conflict change food systems fundamentally, but we treat them as temporary; development is possible in areas experiencing protracted conflict, but local leadership is critical - Should adapt weather-related risk management systems to conflict and have financial services that can work where there is a lot of uncertainty. - Need early warning systems for other types of uncertainty than famine and some weather challenges237None

2021-07-23 23:58:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22968/203

58326217128302141321155411913622291111137

Para poder incorporar los principios fue importante buscar coorganizadores y presentadores de sectores diversos, representantes de varias subregiones en Latinoamérica. Asimismo, invitamos a participantes de varias redes regionales con las que estamos conectados, por invitación por medio de los medios sociales y personalmente. Nos reunimos con anticipación con los organizadores y los facilitadores de los grupos para estar preparados para la facilitación de los grupos de discusión con los principios en mente.Uno de los temas del diálogo fueron las lecciones aprendidas en estos tiempos de crisis, que nos ayudó a entender la urgencia de actuar. Los temas acerca del fomento de la resiliencia y la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios para que sean más inclusivos, equitativos, diversos y sostenibles nos ayudaron a reconocer la complejidad. Una de las preguntas de discusión en todos los grupos fue hablar de los compromisos personales y organizacionales. En la medida de lo posible, tratamos de incluir la mayor diversidad de representantes de varios grupos de interés y de sectores. Durante el enmarque de temas, hubo presentadores de la academia, el sector privado y la sociedad civil quienes hablaron de temas incluyendo la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el rol del sector privado en tiempos de crisis, y como construir sistemas alimentarios más diversos y sostenibles. Las discusiones de grupos empezaron con presentaciones de los participantes para crear confianza y entender la labor de los demás.Las pautas dadas por los organizadores y la plataforma de los Diálogos fueron muy buenas, y al revisar y utilizar los materiales provistos, asistir a las capacitaciones, y organizar de acuerdo a las recomendaciones se logra incorporar los principios. Es bastante trabajo preparar y organizar un Diálogo y es necesario encontrar coorganizadores y empezar las preparaciones con suficiente tiempo para poder cumplir los objetivos.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247248249250251El Diálogo se tituló como, “Fomentando la Resiliencia en los Sistemas Alimentarios Latinoamericanos: Lecciones Aprendidas en Crisis y Soluciones Hacia la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional Sostenible.” El tema principal así fue el fomento de la resiliencia en los sistemas alimentarios a nivel regional y nacional a partir de las lecciones aprendidas durante estos tiempos de crisis y el planteamiento de soluciones y compromisos que nos ayuden a construir sistemas alimentarios más resilientes, equitativos, diversos y sostenibles. Para los grupos se desglosó el tema principal en tres temas de debate: 1) Lecciones Aprendidas en Tiempos de Crisis: Las crisis recientes han probado la resiliencia de nuestros sistemas alimentarios, mostrándonos áreas débiles que necesitan inversión y transformación, áreas fuertes que necesitan protección y crecimiento, y cómo los diversos actores del sistema pueden unir esfuerzos y trabajar hacia la reactivación, la resiliencia, y la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de todas las poblaciones. Las siguientes fueras las preguntas de discusión del tema #1: a. ¿En qué áreas del sistema alimentario observamos debilidades y/o fortalezas durante la(s) reciente(s) crisis? b. ¿Qué respuestas se pusieron en práctica que funcionaron, o no funcionaron, para la reactivación del sistema y la provisión de alimentos? c. ¿Qué hemos aprendido de las crisis y qué acciones a futuro podemos tomar? 2) Sistemas Alimentarios Robustos, Equitativos y Sostenibles: Todos tenemos un rol y ponemos de nuestra parte para crear sistemas alimentarios robustos, equitativos y sostenibles que provean ingresos justos para los agricultores y trabajadores del sistema, y que aseguren la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de todos, con atención especial hacia las poblaciones más vulnerables. Las siguientes fueras las preguntas de discusión del tema #2: a. ¿Qué áreas del sistema necesitan más atención en este tema? b. ¿Cuál es nuestro rol y el de las entidades a las que pertenecemos? c. ¿Qué soluciones proponemos y qué acciones nos comprometemos a poner en práctica, tanto a corto y largo plazo? 3) Transformación hacia Sistemas Alimentarios Diversos y Sostenibles: Los sistemas alimentarios transformados hacen posible una producción más diversa y sostenible, que regenere nuestra base de recursos naturales y proteja nuestra biodiversidad, y al mismo tiempo provea una alimentación diversa que supla las necesidades nutricionales de nuestras poblaciones presentes y futuras. Las siguientes fueras las preguntas de discusión del tema #3: a. ¿Qué áreas del sistema alimentario necesitan transformación hacia la sostenibilidad? b. ¿Cómo podemos proteger y regenerar nuestra base de recursos naturales y biodiversidad? c. ¿Qué soluciones proponemos y qué acciones nos comprometemos a poner en práctica, a corto y largo plazo?235238241242246247248249Varios temas y patrones se observaron durante la sesión de recapitulación de las discusiones de los grupos. Con respecto a las vulnerabilidades y fortalezas observadas en el sistema alimentario durante la pandemia, se mencionó que no estuvimos preparados para enfrentar este tipo de crisis, y que a futuro, se debería tener planes nacionales de prevención, respuesta y acción para el funcionamiento de los sistemas alimentarios y salvaguardar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de las poblaciones. Un resultado de la crisis fue la adaptación e innovación a varias escalas, en la grande, mediana y pequeña empresa. En varios contextos, hubo mucha dependencia en unas pocas y grandes empresas que, al sufrir las consecuencias de las restricciones y los cambios en los mercados, afectaron el sistema alimentario de forma significativa. Esta es una de las razones por la que se recomienda la diversificación dentro del sistema y sus actores. Se recalcó también la necesidad de invertir en la educación y capacitación, con enfoque en los pequeños productores, para que puedan innovar y acceder a las nuevas tecnologías. Un tema muy importante fue la necesidad de mejorar la vinculación entre los varios grupos de interés: productores, academia, sector privado, gobierno y la sociedad civil con vista hacia la creación de sistemas alimentarios resilientes y sostenibles.236238239240241242244248249250251Tema #1: Lecciones Aprendidas en Tiempos de Crisis. Las crisis recientes han probado la resiliencia de nuestros sistemas alimentarios, mostrándonos áreas débiles que necesitan inversión y transformación, áreas fuertes que necesitan protección y crecimiento, y cómo los diversos actores del sistema pueden unir esfuerzos y trabajar hacia la reactivación, la resiliencia, y la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de todas las poblaciones. Durante la pandemia se observó falta de apoyo a los productores y una desconexión de los mercados. Hubo producción agrícola, pero fallaron las cadenas de distribución. Hubo bastante contagio en los lugares de abasto, y también se observó presión poblacional en algunas zonas rurales, ya que muchas personas regresaron durante la pandemia y no estaban preparadas estas zonas para este cambio. Algunas de las soluciones presentadas incluyeron incrementar la diversidad de cultivos a nivel local, e incluir especies nativas o subutilizadas para mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en general y durante tiempos de crisis. Crear un mejor apoyo y acompañamiento para los productores con educación, capacitación y acceso a la tecnología, para promover la innovación y diversificación de producción e ingresos y así fomentar la resiliencia.236238239241242Tema #2: Sistemas Alimentarios Robustos, Equitativos y Sostenibles. Todos tenemos un rol y ponemos de nuestra parte para crear sistemas alimentarios robustos, equitativos y sostenibles que provean ingresos justos para los agricultores y trabajadores del sistema, y que aseguren la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de todos, con atención especial hacia las poblaciones más vulnerables. Es necesario tener un plan y estrategia para la resiliencia y la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel nacional, con la participación del gobierno y los varios grupos de interés. Para prevenir un efecto fuerte de las crisis para los productores y empresas es necesario diversificar tanto la producción como los actores dentro del sistema. Preparar a facilitadores y entrenadores de destrezas y tecnología que ayuden a estas mejoras. Promover leyes que protejan a los productores, no de forma paternalista, sino en asociación. Incrementar no sólo la seguridad alimentaria, sino también la soberanía alimentaria.

2021-07-24 01:04:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30120/203

109413533

The Dialogue was hosted online as an invited side event to the UN Food Systems Summit (FSS) Science Days. The event was widely promoted through online communities of practice and through the communication networks of each of the co-hosting organizations to encourage participation among diverse stakeholder groups. The online platform allowed for anonymous sharing of questions for the facilitated Q/A session, as well as open comments and participant discussion throughout the event using the chat function. *Note, additional participant data is available but not reported in the categories proposed by this form.The Dialogue was organized to incorporate, reinforce, and enhance the Principles of Engagement of the Summit. As an example, the Dialogue was organized to “Act with Urgency,” as panelists and participants were asked to elaborate on pathways for actionable steps towards food systems transformation through agricultural research and development, with actions focused on policy changes feasible in the next ten years toward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Recognizing the complexity of the agricultural research and development space, the dialogue brought together multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system, including representatives from international and local private sector organizations, regional and international research and development organizations, and the academic community. Additionally, through broad public invitation and outreach to the virtual event, the conveners aimed to embrace “multi-stakeholder inclusivity,” encouraging attendee participation through discussion, chat, and question and answer as well as sharing resources, including sharing divergent views and references.The organizers carefully cultivated a panel with diverse representatives and perspectives to complement and expand the dialogue. In addition, in the formation of the questions and topics to be discussed, the organizers discussed potentially diverse and opposing viewpoints and took these under consideration to ensure a far-reaching dialogue during the event itself, in addition to taking questions from the audience.

Yes

234240241242243244246248249250251As an invited side event to the U.N. Food Systems Summit Science Days, this event gathered leaders across the private and public research and development sectors to identify and discuss the key actions needed to advance adaptive agricultural research and develop an enabling policy environment to support the steady stream of technological innovations necessary for resilient and sustainable food systems. The discussion reviewed evidence of evolving economic transformation and progress towards resilience in sub-Saharan Africa from the Board for International Food and Agriculture Development (BIFAD)-commissioned Agricultural Productivity Growth, Resilience, and Economic Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa report; the World Bank publication Harvesting Prosperity: Technology and Productivity Growth in Agriculture; and the African Development Bank Group publication, Building Resilience in Food Systems and Agricultural Value Chains. Together, panelists and participants identified lessons learned from countries in which substantial investments in adaptive agricultural research and development and extension systems have shown the catalytic role of productivity-led agricultural growth in contributing to employment, resilience, and economic transformation. Panelists were asked to present recommendations for actionable steps towards addressing three key questions: 1) Investments in international CGIAR research and National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), do we have the right balance? 2) How do we best mobilize sustained political commitment in Africa for agricultural research, development, and extension? 3) Whose science counts, and how can we ensure that “science” is not appropriated by powerful actors that could potentially foreclose sustainable and accessible approaches to technical innovation?235240241242243244248249250251A review of recent evidence (see links provided at end of report) shows the importance of technical innovation driven by research, development, and extension as drivers of agricultural productivity growth, and further, the catalytic role of agricultural productivity-led growth in poverty reduction, food systems resilience, and economic transformation. Investments in agricultural research and development generate among the greatest impacts on agricultural productivity growth and poverty reduction per dollar spent, though many African governments invest less than 1% of agricultural GDP in agricultural research. Panelists from public and private sector, research, and development communities called for priority actions to ensure sustained support for agricultural research and development. Calls to action include: Demonstrate sustained government commitment for national agricultural Research & Development & Extension (R&D&E) investments, leveraging and building on international donor and CGIAR investments. Increase investments in locally relevant, adaptive national-level agricultural research and development, including the investments in improved institutional and absorptive capacity and ownership at National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) and improved education for innovation actors, including on-farm actors. Identify opportunities to further strengthen cooperation between national and international research systems and partnerships with the private sector. Prioritize rule of law, governance, and more favorable enabling trade, policy, infrastructure, and security environments to drive productivity growth and support private sector investment. Integrate inclusive, demand-driven, and adaptive agricultural research prioritization and technology development across all agricultural research and development efforts, including social sciences and policy research, ensuring R&D investments reflect choice and actively and meaningfully include smallholder farmers and innovators, women, and youth. Ensure that innovation systems are adaptive to environmental changes and local context. Each of these are further discussed in the next report section.236240241242243248249250Discussion Point 1) How to mobilize sustained political commitment in Africa for agricultural research, development, and extension Discussion addressed the need for governments to demonstrate sustained commitment for national agricultural research, development, and extension investments that leverage and build on international donor and CGIAR investments. Panelists called for national governments to fulfill current commitments to investments in agriculture and specifically agricultural research and development. One example cited is the Maputo Declaration, in which African governments agreed to allocate 10% of government spending to agriculture, with targets for agricultural R&D. However, many are only at 2-3%. Additionally, discussion addressed the need for governments to prioritize rule of law, governance, and more favorable enabling trade, policy, infrastructure, and security environments to drive productivity growth and support private sector investments in agricultural research and development. As an example, at least one reference highlighted how the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) can provide expanded markets for African farmers and provide incentives for the adoption of farm technologies that increase productivity, noting also that those technologies need to be developed and adapted to the highly varied farming conditions in Africa in order to realize these benefits, again pointing to the importance of supporting the NARS.236240241242243244248249250Discussion Point 2) Investments in international CGIAR research and National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), do we have the right balance? Panelists shared views and data supporting the idea that efforts to improve livelihoods across the board are now constrained by lack of progress in building national-level research and development capacity, particularly within NARS, and extension services. Given the highly varying farming conditions in the region, farm technologies and soil fertility management practices must be locally adapted to specific conditions. Strong NARS and extension systems are needed to achieve this. Technical innovation that is adapted to specific smallholder conditions is a precondition for sustainable and inclusive transformation of food systems. Panelists also recommended that smallholder farmers themselves be active voices and participants in this process. The CG system has contributed and continues to contribute substantially to innovations in developing countries. However, these centers alone do not have the resources to reach millions of smallholder farmers with their specific and highly varied needs. Adaptive national level R&D&E is a crucial source of technical innovation of the food system. Consensus was reached around the need for increased local and international investments in locally relevant, adaptive national level agricultural research and development, including the investments in improved institutional and absorptive capacity and ownership at National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), improved education for innovation actors, including on-farm actors, and incorporating indigenous knowledge and technologies. At the same time, discussion touched on the need to identify opportunities to further strengthen cooperation between national and international research systems, marrying best international practices with locally developed and relevant technologies, and partnerships with the private sector.236240241242243244248249250251Discussion 3) How can we ensure that “science” is not weaponized by powerful actors that foreclose sustainable and accessible approaches to technical innovation? Integrate inclusive, demand-driven, and adaptive agricultural research prioritization and technology development across all agricultural research and development efforts, including social sciences and policy research, ensuring R&D investments reflect choice and actively and meaningfully include smallholder farmers and innovators, women, and youth. Ensure that innovation systems are adaptive to environmental changes and local context. Discussion addressed the need for the inclusion of the user community to understand what their needs are so that research can respond to these needs with emphasis on product life cycles, gender, and farmer choice. Emphasis on the entire product life cycle is important to respond to demand which leverages the whole innovation system and improves scalability. Women and men have differential perceptions, experiences, access to resources, and sources of information. Gender-responsive agricultural research, development, and extension systems are crucial to ensuring innovations meet the needs of women and men in the community. In the same way, inclusive agricultural R&D&E systems address the needs of youth and other communities that may otherwise be marginalized. Panelists also discussed barriers to farmer access and farmer choice. Inclusion in policy making and technology development should be at the center of agriculture R&D work and will be important as we look forward to the future of technology advances.237240241242243244249251Through discussion, several points emerged as areas in need of further exploration, including: How can we build more political commitment to agricultural R&D, recognizing it as a key success factor in agriculture-led transformation and agriculture itself as a core component of economies? How can governments and international organizations invest in NARS capacity building while also leveraging the capacity of the international research community, private sector, and CGIAR system? How can modern agricultural R&D be compatible with, and incorporate, traditional and indigenous knowledge? What needs to be in place to foster these exchanges? Additionally, emerging from conversations during the planning of this event and from comments shared by at least one panelist and one participant, there was discussion about the importance of inclusivity and ideas on creating space for all kinds of knowledge, both modern and traditional. Views were expressed that technical innovation should not be limited to lab-based science, but also incorporate indigenous technologies and knowledge. Recommendations were made for future discussion with invitation to a broader panel, including agroecologists, to speak to the places of collaboration and overlap to avoid foreclosing on views, disciplines, or stakeholder groups. The co-organizers of this dialogue—the World Bank, the African Development Bank/African Development Institute (AfDB/ADI), the Regional Network of Agricultural Policy Research Institutes (ReNAPRI), the Alliance for African Partnership, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and BIFAD—are committed to championing and broadly disseminating these important themes and messages to policymakers, including at the UN Food Systems Summit, and in pursuing opportunities to continue and expand this dialogue with particular focus on inclusivity and seeking diverse stakeholder engagement for solutions-oriented discussion. This continued dialogue, exploration of evidence, and convening of stakeholders are expected to influence informed policy changes to increase strategic and targeted investments in agricultural research and development, including recommitment to existing policy frameworks. In the longer term, increased strategic investments in agricultural research, development, and extension are known to have catalytic and transformative impacts on food systems and broader development outcomes.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UNFSS2021_ScienceDays_RDforSustainableFoodSystems_flyer2021.07.07.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UNFSS2021_ScienceDays_RDforSustainableFoodSystems_SideEventReport.pdfhttps://bit.ly/agriculturalproductivitygrowthhttps://bit.ly/harvestingprosperityhttps://bit.ly/buildingresiliencefoodsys

2021-07-24 22:33:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16293/303341446296104123177192194

97231558105740191108124241363315132241211211

The Social Gastronomy Movement (SGM) commits to this year's historic summit by bringing diverse and often unheard voices to the table and always embracing a multi-stakeholder approach. This dialogue was a part of a series of six independent dialogues convened by SGM in partnership with Griffith Foods. The series focused on the five Action Tracks, one dialogue foreach Track and a last 6th summary Dialogue. In "Stories of Radical Resilience” we focused on Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress engaging original experts of resilience from our global community to collectively identify the key ingredients in a recipe for building resilience. SGM convened the dialogue in a manner that prioritized the Principles of Engagement every step of the way, emphasizing on inclusivity, active listening and building trust. From the start, we invited a cross-sector dialogue core team to co-create the agenda including different stakeholders and consisting of our curator, seven heroes of resilience, as well as facilitators, notetakers and artists. We wanted to share and learn the radical resilience stories from unheard, marginalized people and their vision for the future of food, thus complementing the work of others instead of creating new solutions without hearing and understanding the needs.In light of having a multi-stakeholder inclusive Dialogue, we didn't just hear from those who were most vulnerable and affected by shocks, and who then developed the resilience to overcome their challenges, our speakers were invited to participate in the dialogues. Invited not as a “beneficiary” but as an equal and an expert in resilience. Geographically, we had 7 countries represented in the stories from different regions around the globe from Latin America to the Middle East. The participants of our Dialogue also included young artists and activists that drew, and a variety of countries and ethnic origins were present. We held a safe space for listening where we managed to build trust through empathy and respect for one another. We followed Chatham House rules, not recording the breakout sessions to allow for honest, open conversations between participants. Takeaways and outcomes were anonymous. Furthermore, to respect everyone's realities, cultures and habits, we got interpretation so that some non-english speaking participants, specifically some of the storytellers from our dialogue, could fully comprehend and participate in the Dialogue and had English vs. Spanish speaking rooms. In recognition of the complexity of the food system and the other topics addressed in other independent dialogues, we tried to get to the roots of Action Track nº5. We looked at the root of Building Resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses. This is where we came up with our general topic. What makes resilience? What is the essence of building resilience? And so, by bringing a specific topic and hosting a Dialogue where people were brought to think of these simple questions, we could approach the Action Tracks complexity through a new and innovative angle. As said in the above paragraph, before finding the focus of our Dialogue we read the list of topics that were approached by other dialogues in order to have a topic that would complement the work of others, and prevent redundant outcomes and/or working in silos.Facilitating the route for communities is key. This includes tech barriers, access to utilities and resources, the right networks, knowledge and language. When implementing the principle of inclusion during a virtual dialogue ensure you have a good support team, two or three people you can count on to carry the work with you throughout this people driven journey.

NoThe Manual was widely used by the convener and the team to orient the method in building this dialogue. Many things we did were influenced by the manual, the length of the Dialogue for example, the organizational phases, the principles, the roles etc. Furtheron, as we were developing the topic of our Dialogue we started to deviate from some of the original recommended formats and adapt to our intentions and needs. So our answer would be yes and no. The space where we deviated the most was regarding the format & design of the dialogue. In the beginning of the dialogue we didn’t dive directly into discussion because we first had to make space at the table for voices we believed were worth being heard, ie. storytellers from around the world joined in and told their own resilience story. These individuals are often left out of the conversation and we believed that the realities shared by Melyna, Amal, Mohammed, chef Alex, Maria Eugenia, Tareek, Eva had the potential to change the narrative. Therefore, the first half of our dialogue was a Practice of Empathy: bringing together the Power of Listening and Power of Storytelling to inspire and asking people to reflect on what is the source of Resilience. And only after this context, we broke out into themed rooms and the dialogue began based around the question “What are the key ingredients of building resilience?” In terms of tools, we used the Convener’s checklist worksheet to keep track of our tasks and the worksheet to keep track of our invitees and the different breakout rooms. We put into practice the three roles of Curator, Convener and Facilitator, having assisted the training and intentionally using these roles to ensure a successful Dialogue. The convener role was led by one person and the responsibilities were split between two additional persons. As for Facilitator, we had a lead Facilitator to put together the Facilitator handbook and onboard other facilitators to the Dialogue roll out. And finally, we were blessed with a great Curator who drove the Dialogue in a smooth and respectful way. All in all, creating the space we were dreaming of putting together.

234242243248251“Poor people are the world’s greatest entrepreneurs. Every day, they must innovate in order to survive. They remain poor because they do not have the opportunities to turn their creativity into sustainable income.” ~ Pr. Muhammad Yunus Too often, those most affected and most vulnerable to shocks and stresses in our food system are left out of the conversation and excluded from decisions that affect them. In this Dialogue, we wanted to share first-hand accounts and learn directly from the frontline of resilience. We focused on sharing and learning from stories of people, resiliencers, who have been affected firsthand by food insecurity and came up with radical solutions to feed themselves and their loved ones. The possibility this Dialogue offered was to listen and learn from examples of community resilience to food insecurity that renew hope and the way we work together to replicate the success globally. In addition, we made art an integral part of our Dialogue. By bringing artists together with our storytellers and changing the people at the table, we allowed diverse opinions and different languages to tell and translate stories of resilience. We wanted to prove that creativity and art can lead to different solutions that deviate from the norm.235238241242243247248251“Resilience is not an ability one actively decides to acquire. It stems from a place of discomfort. In difficult times, empathy for our community sparks something within ourselves. By caring for each other and nurturing each other we strengthen our sense of community which in turn strengthens our individual resilience. But resilience should be thought of as a communal strength rather than an individualistic one.” ~ quote from a young artist at our Dialogue Watch summary: https://youtu.be/OJompq3IFPE&t=1783s The findings of this dialogue center on the human element of building resilience to inform and complement other efforts of solution-building. Here, we focused on the common patterns, insights and takeaways that emerged as a whole. The outputs of the breakout discussions are included in the next section. I. The value of dialogue and power of inclusion to create change 1. Shift in dynamics: The speakers participated in the breakouts as equals rather than as beneficiaries, speaking with authority. We observed a different level of engagement when it is the changemaker representing themselves sharing their reality, their definition of success and their dream. Bringing resilience leaders and role models to the table is essential to shift the narrative and the power relations. 2. Shift in language: The vernacular changed from “they” to “we” when we bring the resiliencer and the community to the table to join the conversation. 3. Keeping the problems and solutions real. It's just as important to have ears as well as voice to input, create the right options, and make decisions. Not to mention enabling efficiency and transparency. How can we enable this level of engagement consistently? 4. "I am not alone" was a sentiment expressed by more than one of our seven changemakers during the dialogue. This dialogue actually turned out to be an opportunity for them to learn from each others’ journeys. 5. Who are we actually inspiring? An unforeseen outcome of the dialogue was that one of our speaker’s stories was shared on national TV in Chile, reaching millions. Melyna Montes won a “Mujeres que Inspiran” (Inspiring Women) Award by Banco de Chile. Sharing each other's stories and learnings is a source of inspiration not just for organisations but for the communities and individuals as well. II. Art to inspire action (Full artwork https://www.socialgastronomy.org/sgm-stories/2021/6/18/at5-artwork Art, like food, builds bridges of understanding and can inspire feeling, imagination and creativity which in turn generate further dialogue and action. Our artists listened to the diverse opinions, contexts and languages to channel their equally diverse visual representations of their learnings. Creativity was named an important factor for achieving resilience. This factor can lead to different, innovative solutions that deviate from the norm. How can we cultivate a complementary space? III. The needs and "key ingredients of building resilience" 1. Resilience is as much about the mindset as the actions: Consistently, each speaker had a clear sense of purpose, the drive to pursue their mission and belief in themselves. Leaders also need support and care in return. 2. Feed the desire for learning and education that include: - Opportunities to learn, to gain employment and being given a fair chance. - A nourishing, supportive environment with role models and peers that uphold important values such as empathy, collaboration, courage, initiative, solidarity in order for leaders and multipliers to grow into their potential. 3. “More than the delivery of help is the delivery of possibilities''. Cultivate a partnership mindset: "Accompany us", "walk in our steps" to build the capacity for resilience together no matter if it’s a charity, NGO, business or individual. 4. Community and a sense of belonging are central to building resilience no matter the setting (restaurant, neighbourhood, refugee camp, rural village, etc). While self-determination is a foundational quality of those who shared stories of overcoming challenges, a solid support system, role models and a safe space for expressing vulnerability allows us to grow organically and find a place where we not only survive, but we thrive. 5. At a systemic or intersectional level, there were commonalities that encompassed many crucial values and principles. Cultivating empathy is key for building capacity for resilience. It can be found within ourselves, and when we have empathy for others, we become more resilient by proxy. When we do something to better the lives of those around us, it becomes easier to continue fighting for their futures. IV. Barriers and challenges 1. Basic access to participate and connect is limited for many vulnerable communities and local leaders who are often not well connected externally, relying on their partner organisation as an interface. Not all leaders (decision makers) provide transparency to guide the end group to help them find a way and join the system actively. Facilitating the route for communities is key. This includes tech barriers, access to utilities and resources, the right networks, knowledge and language. 2. Focus on what’s in front of us: Reinforcing our basic human rights and ethics is key to creating the environment for building resilience: equal opportunities, labour laws, upholding agency and dignity, food security as a human right. 3. How can we conduct inclusive multi-lingual, multi-regional, multi-stakeholder experiences better to facilitate connection, collaboration and participation.236241242247248251“WHAT ARE THE KEY INGREDIENTS OF BUILDING RESILIENCE?” Top takeaways from each breakout below. Full outputs https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_l_NW9YE=/ (ENG): Inclusive Learning & Labour 1. Continuous learning and a community that supports and allows for it. Having a role model, sharing vulnerability, and feeling a sense of belonging also allows for organic growth Inclusive learning- which is much more a family than a traditional colonial/institutional model of education that is top-down. 2. Peer-to-peer learning and working within your community creates multipliers and fosters resilience 3. The move from fear to strength. Being self-taught and creative problem solving out of necessity and a desire for a better future for yourself and those around you. (ESP): El Aprendizaje y Trabajo Inclusivos (Inclusive Learning & Labour) 1. The power of the collective: we lift each other up by doing so we become stronger together 2. Giving chances, to everyone, especially for those who need the opportunity 3. Helping others reach their truest potential and empowering them to grow236238242247248251Three ingredients of building resilience through Food Security & Social Cohesion 1. Confidence in our ability to recover. Nobody is born with resilience but it does go inside of us: going through difficulties makes us stronger 2. A support system to help us get up in the morning when it becomes too difficult 3. The will to leave a trace and making life better for others, not accepting things as they are236242246247248Three ingredients of building resilience Food Justice & Community Education 1. Commitment to a cause and commitment to finding solutions TOGETHER 2.Empathy for yourself and your community. 'We instead of me.' Empathy is the ingredient you find within yourself: finding empathy for others makes you more resilient too 3.Knowledge: also goes into empathy, as you first may have to learn about the problems others are facing. Also includes knowledge about food and nutrition (ESP) El Liderazgo Comunitario (Community leadership) 1. The fight is worth it. If you can, fight for hope. 2. Create networks that care for and empower leaders. 3. We can all be leaders from the experience of our realities.236241242247248251Three ingredients of building resilience through Social Entrepreneurship 1. Clear vision to give you purpose and priority; 2. Inclusion- businesses and entrepreneurs have a responsibility to include people in the conversion 3. Mindset and awareness- building an education network based on hope and open-mindedness237242247248251To change the conversation, we must change who is sitting around the table. We convened and conceived of the event in an unconventional way from the offset so, in that sense, we had already diverged from the status quo. Who did we bring who are not normally in the room? Resiliencers sharing their own experience instead of a representative from an organisation Artists sharing their perspective in their language of choice - art Youth - engaging the younger audience - need to see the participant split What did we do that diverged from the dialogue template? We started with a discourse to allow people who do not usually have a voice in forums like these to take the stage, and we allowed for questions and answers before bringing in the dialogue. What surprised us? How self-determined our protagonists are and how intentional they are about owning and leading their future, and empowering those around them.

2021-07-25 07:54:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24679/203

145

The dialogue was organised with full respect and commitment to the Principles of Engagement: Act with Urgency In light of this urgency, the Dialogue was organized as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Commit to the Summit The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. All stakeholders were consulted about ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The dialogue was organised around 2 main discussions which happened in small sub-groups to allow the most participative and safe open- discussions. Be Respectful Respect for one another is a foundation for genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Each sub-group was facilitated by experienced facilitators who ensured everyone had an opportunity to express his/her opinions. Recognize Complexity Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi- stakeholder inclusivity The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within SMEs, Ecosystem Support Organisations (ESOs), the broader business community, small-holder farmers and civil society – working across the food system from production to consumption. Complement the work of others The Dialogue built-on and added-value to existing policy processes and initiatives. It provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. Build Trust The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogue are not attributed to single individuals.The dialogue used small groups to engage each participant directly in the creation of an SME Pledge for the Food Systems Summit, taking into account their diversity but presenting a unified voice.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The UN Food Systems Summit asked Wasafiri Consulting to engage SMEs all around the world to answer one big question – How to boost their role in providing good food for all? More than 2500 entrepreneurs completed a survey, with representation from 135 countries. Most of those entrepreneurs also went on to submit entries to the Summit’s Best Small Business competition where we heard more depth about their stories. We ran 11 dialogues in 7 languages with over 1000 participants, plus many of the other summit dialogues explored issues related to small businesses. Dozens of experts provided insights, and we undertook a comprehensive literature review with the help of FAO. The focus of the dialogue was to present the findings of the Draft Report “A Small Business Agenda for the Food Systems Summit” which synthesised results of all that effort. The report highlights the essential role that SMEs must play in strengthening food systems, the constraints they face in elevating their positive impact, and offer recommended pathways to boost their contribution. The desired outcome of the dialogue was a joint statement presenting a collective SME voice to put forward to the pre-Summit and to continuing gathering endorsement up until the Summit in September.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Whilst they may individually be small, SMEs manage at least half of the multi trillion-dollar global food economy. Often overlooked, we have come to understand these SMEs as hidden heroes, who tirelessly ensure food gets on our tables, and collectively they have enormous influence over the future of food. They are also quiet revolutionaries, passionately pioneering better food in every corner of the world – whether that means making our food more nourishing, more sustainable, more equitable or more resilient. We learned that SMEs are change-makers in five different ways. Firstly, they integrate markets, strengthening supply chains where they are weakest. Most obviously they are linking smallholder farmers to markets, and in doing so provide services that improve farm productivity and profitability. Evidence clearly shows that this market integration reduces poverty and hunger, especially in rural areas where it is most persistant. Secondly, food SMEs create opportunities that improve equity. There is something about the universal nature of food that makes it an economic gateway for women, for youth, for indigenous and minority groups. These groups are a higher proportion of entrepreneurs and employees within food SMEs than you would expect compared to the average business in any country. Thirdly, SMEs are innovators, pioneering and scaling solutions for nutrition and sustainability – from zero-waste packaging, to alternative proteins, to regenerative farming practices. Often their role is to tap into known technology or business models, but then they make these work in a very specific context where they have nuanced understanding and local connections. Fourthly, they embody resilience. The SME response to COVID showed us that emphatically. Embedded within communities and landscapes, they have no option but to deal with shocks. But they are agile enough to pivot their business models and sustain services in the toughest of situations. Finally, SMEs and especially the entrepreneurs who run them, are influencers. Passionate about their products, their customers, their land, their staff, they are constantly advocating for better food and they are close enough and trusted enough to be changing hearts and minds all across our food systems.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The first pathway focuses on simply creating a business ecosystem in which food SMEs thrive The food sector is often burdensome for SMEs. Running a food SME is hard, and market elements are frequently wrong-sized for them. When food entrepreneurs have a business environment which gives them a fair chance to compete in the market, they then thrive to the benefit of consumers, producers, communities, nature, and investors. We heard numerous opportunities for cross-sector actors to strengthen the business ecosystem for food SMEs. • We must reduce the cost of doing business for food SMEs. This includes improving physical and digital infrastructure, regulations, and the ensuring rule of law. • We must improve access to finance, which was by far the most common request by SMEs who felt financial products rarely met their needs. • Governments can ease the graduation of informal businesses into the formal sector. • At their best, large market actors like supermarkets or governments, can use their buying power to lift small businesses, by intentionally sourcing from and supporting them. • And lastly, we can target business support at food SMEs through initiatives like incubators and offering business development services.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The second pathway aims to incentivise businesses to provide “Good Food for All” The best businesses are not always the most competitive, so they struggle to scale up. Most consumers currently prioritise price above all other factors, and good businesses cannot out-compete those who deliver their products whilst externalising their cost to public health, natural capital, or social equity. The food system will continue to fail us until these incentives change. Here, cross-sector actors also have opportunities to act: • We must ensure prices reflect the true cost of food, while also safeguarding the affordability of food to poor consumers. The Summit’s Scientific Group has an excellent paper on how this might be achieved. • There is cultural shift required to create consumer demand for “good food”. Until we value food for how it nurtures the health of our bodies, our landscapes and our communities; then the preference for cheap calories will dominate market signals. • Lastly, fast-track the innovative entrepreneurs that promise positive disruption of our food systems. The ecosystem for innovation and entrepreneurship is essential to the pace of change needed over the next decade.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The third and last pathway addresses an underlying issue. We must increase the power of food SMEs within sector planning. Small businesses have quiet and isolated voices. Compared to government or large businesses, they are relatively under-powered in their ability to collectively influence decision-making, regulations, resource allocation, and cultural values within food systems. Only once power dynamics change can we expect to make progress on rebalancing food systems in favour of the SMEs pioneering good food for all. This is especially true for the women entrepreneurs and those from other marginalised groups who both face additional barriers and are some of the most fervent champions of change. Again, there are clear opportunities to act to address this power dynamic. • Cross-sector actors must all elevate the voice of SMEs. Make sure they are consulted as, for example regulations get changed, as sector programmes get designed, or financial products are taken to market. • Then, help structure SMEs into dynamic networks. In places like Belgium, where food SMEs organise together, they are better able to influence and respond to national planning. • Finally, and this is really a cross-cutting issue, plan and invest in food SMEs according to their context-specific priorities. The changes needed by entreprenuers in Singapore versus Tanzania, or indeed in those in alternative proteins versus regenerative livestock, are different.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SME-pledge-UNFSS.pdfhttps://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/unfss-small_business_agenda.pdf

2021-07-25 08:04:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24692/203

135

The dialogue was organised with full respect and commitment to the Principles of Engagement: Act with Urgency In light of this urgency, the Dialogue was organized as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Commit to the Summit The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. All stakeholders were consulted about ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The dialogue was organised around 2 main discussions which happened in small sub-groups to allow the most participative and safe open- discussions. Be Respectful Respect for one another is a foundation for genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Each sub-group was facilitated by experienced facilitators who ensured everyone had an opportunity to express his/her opinions. Recognize Complexity Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi- stakeholder inclusivity The Dialogue brought to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within SMEs, Ecosystem Support Organisations (ESOs), the broader business community, small-holder farmers and civil society – working across the food system from production to consumption. Complement the work of others The Dialogue built-on and added-value to existing policy processes and initiatives. It provided an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. Build Trust The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogue are not attributed to single individuals.The dialogue used small groups to engage each participant directly in the creation of an SME Pledge for the Food Systems Summit, taking into account their diversity but presenting a uni�ed voice.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The UN Food Systems Summit asked Wasafiri Consulting to engage SMEs all around the world to answer one big question – How to boost their role in providing good food for all? More than 2500 entrepreneurs completed a survey, with representation from 135 countries. Most of those entrepreneurs also went on to submit entries to the Summit’s Best Small Business competition where we heard more depth about their stories. We ran 11 dialogues in 7 languages with over 1000 participants, plus many of the other summit dialogues explored issues related to small businesses. Dozens of experts provided insights, and we undertook a comprehensive literature review with the help of FAO. The focus of the dialogue was to present the findings of the Draft Report “A Small Business Agenda for the Food Systems Summit” which synthesised results of all that effort. The report highlights the essential role that SMEs must play in strengthening food systems, the constraints they face in elevating their positive impact, and offer recommended pathways to boost their contribution. The desired outcome of the dialogue was a joint statement presenting a collective SME voice to put forward to the pre-Summit and to continuing gathering endorsement up until the Summit in September.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Whilst they may individually be small, SMEs manage at least half of the multi trillion-dollar global food economy. Often overlooked, we have come to understand these SMEs as hidden heroes, who tirelessly ensure food gets on our tables, and collectively they have enormous influence over the future of food. They are also quiet revolutionaries, passionately pioneering better food in every corner of the world – whether that means making our food more nourishing, more sustainable, more equitable or more resilient. We learned that SMEs are change-makers in five different ways. Firstly, they integrate markets, strengthening supply chains where they are weakest. Most obviously they are linking smallholder farmers to markets, and in doing so provide services that improve farm productivity and profitability. Evidence clearly shows that this market integration reduces poverty and hunger, especially in rural areas where it is most persistant. Secondly, food SMEs create opportunities that improve equity. There is something about the universal nature of food that makes it an economic gateway for women, for youth, for indigenous and minority groups. These groups are a higher proportion of entrepreneurs and employees within food SMEs than you would expect compared to the average business in any country. Thirdly, SMEs are innovators, pioneering and scaling solutions for nutrition and sustainability – from zero-waste packaging, to alternative proteins, to regenerative farming practices. Often their role is to tap into known technology or business models, but then they make these work in a very specific context where they have nuanced understanding and local connections. Fourthly, they embody resilience. The SME response to COVID showed us that emphatically. Embedded within communities and landscapes, they have no option but to deal with shocks. But they are agile enough to pivot their business models and sustain services in the toughest of situations. Finally, SMEs and especially the entrepreneurs who run them, are influencers. Passionate about their products, their customers, their land, their staff, they are constantly advocating for better food and they are close enough and trusted enough to be changing hearts and minds all across our food systems.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The first pathway focuses on simply creating a business ecosystem in which food SMEs thrive The food sector is often burdensome for SMEs. Running a food SME is hard, and market elements are frequently wrong- sized for them. When food entrepreneurs have a business environment which gives them a fair chance to compete in the market, they then thrive to the benefit of consumers, producers, communities, nature, and investors. We heard numerous opportunities for cross-sector actors to strengthen the business ecosystem for food SMEs. • We must reduce the cost of doing business for food SMEs. This includes improving physical and digital infrastructure, regulations, and the ensuring rule of law. • We must improve access to finance, which was by far the most common request by SMEs who felt financial products rarely met their needs. • Governments can ease the graduation of informal businesses into the formal sector. • At their best, large market actors like supermarkets or governments, can use their buying power to lift small businesses, by intentionally sourcing from and supporting them. • And lastly, we can target business support at food SMEs through initiatives like incubators and offering business development services.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The second pathway aims to incentivise businesses to provide “Good Food for All” The best businesses are not always the most competitive, so they struggle to scale up. Most consumers currently prioritise price above all other factors, and good businesses cannot out-compete those who deliver their products whilst externalising their cost to public health, natural capital, or social equity. The food system will continue to fail us until these incentives change. Here, cross-sector actors also have opportunities to act: • We must ensure prices reflect the true cost of food, while also safeguarding the affordability of food to poor consumers. The Summit’s Scientific Group has an excellent paper on how this might be achieved. • There is cultural shift required to create consumer demand for “good food”. Until we value food for how it nurtures the health of our bodies, our landscapes and our communities; then the preference for cheap calories will dominate market signals. • Lastly, fast-track the innovative entrepreneurs that promise positive disruption of our food systems. The ecosystem for innovation and entrepreneurship is essential to the pace of change needed over the next decade.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The third and last pathway addresses an underlying issue. We must increase the power of food SMEs within sector planning. Small businesses have quiet and isolated voices. Compared to government or large businesses, they are relatively under- powered in their ability to collectively influence decision-making, regulations, resource allocation, and cultural values within food systems. Only once power dynamics change can we expect to make progress on rebalancing food systems in favour of the SMEs pioneering good food for all. This is especially true for the women entrepreneurs and those from other marginalised groups who both face additional barriers and are some of the most fervent champions of change. Again, there are clear opportunities to act to address this power dynamic. • Cross-sector actors must all elevate the voice of SMEs. Make sure they are consulted as, for example regulations get changed, as sector programmes get designed, or financial products are taken to market. • Then, help structure SMEs into dynamic networks. In places like Belgium, where food SMEs organise together, they are better able to influence and respond to national planning. • Finally, and this is really a cross-cutting issue, plan and invest in food SMEs according to their context-specific priorities. The changes needed by entreprenuers in Singapore versus Tanzania, or indeed in those in alternative proteins versus regenerative livestock, are different.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SME-pledge-UNFSS-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/unfss-small_business_agenda.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15AzgXKNJKI

2021-07-25 10:11:12205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33606/10

29860203350024850030202561012179505601051018065

The organizers of the dialogues took careful considerations in ensuring that the Principles of Engagement of the Summit, was implemented both at the subnational and national levels.Despite the difficult situations on the ground, we recognized the importance of the dialogues. As such, we acted with urgency and care by rapidly and effectively planning and mobilizing resources. During discussions and dialogue, there was respect to varying ideas and mutual understanding and respect among participants. It was mutually recognized by the facilitators and participants that food systems are complex, multisectoral, and multistakeholder issues. Consultations included participants from a wide range of relevant stakeholders. The dialogues highlighted the linkages between different sectors as well as the rural, national, and global aspects of the food systems. Convenors ensured that participants trusted the process and objectives of the dialogues in order to ensure the best possible outcomes. Overall, the principles of engagement as per the Food Systems Summit guideline were respected and reflected throughout the national and subnational dialogues. Measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19 INCLUDING using online consultations were applied in some instances.We encouraged all convenors and facilitators to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders in particular vulnerable groups such as women, children, the disabled, and those deprived of opportunities or undermined in the Food Systems such as retailers and street food providers. This will allow diverse participants to engage in meaningful discussions and draw a comprehensive picture of the country's food systems leading to generating high-level policy and programmatic recommendations.

Yes

234238242A core team composed of key government ministries, the UN, and development partners agreed to organize consultation in Afghanistan around track #1 and track #5 and to mainstream the other action tracks into discussions under the above two tracks. So, it means other tracks were deemed important, but for the reason of simplicity and interlinkages topics relate to tracks 2, 3, and 4 were touched upon under tracks 1 and 5. The following core discussion topics were identified under track 1 and track 2: Action Track # 1. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. 1- Reducing hunger, poverty, and inequality: Participants discussed the key factors and drivers of hunger, poverty, and inequality in Afghanistan and how they can be addressed through the food systems in the coming 10 years. Discussions focused on the production and consumption of agricultural crops that are available in different areas of Afghanistan. Questions on how to reduce food waste and food loss, and how livelihood can help reducing hunger were explored. 2- Increased access to Nutritious Food: Access to nutritious food was discussed in general but more specifically in line of local nutritional food and their production. There was discussion on the dietary habits of communities, and how access to nutritional food and traditional nutritious food could be made easier. Finally, measures to improve the current situation in the next 10 years and the role of nutritious and healthy food in food systems were discussed under this topic. 3- Food Safety: Food safety is critical for ensuring sustainable and healthy food systems. Participants explored food safety hazards and challenges, as well as measures to address these challenges. Issues such as personal hygiene, the partnership between the government, the private sector, and consumers to improve food safety. Overall, the long-term and irreversible impacts of food born hazards on human health and communities were conversed. Action track # 5. Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shock, and stress. 4- Conflict and instability: Participants discussed the adverse effects of conflict and instability on agriculture, food production, and consumption of food. Conflicts and instability are the main drivers of poverty, hunger and malnutrition, the loss of livelihood, and social problems in Afghanistan. 5- Climate/Environmental Extremes Economic Shocks: Discussions occurred around natural disasters and diseases that adversely affect agriculture and contribute to hunger, malnutrition, and loss of income. The relationship between root causes of disasters and crises and food systems was highlighted. Existing coping mechanisms to mitigate shocks, as well as the gaps in the coping strategies were also discussed. 6- Pandemics & Agricultural Negative Impacts: Discussions took place on various types of plant diseases pests that affected the food systems, measures to protect natural resources, and biodiversities such as soil, water, and animal species. Additionally, the harms posed to the food value chains and the lack of pesticides and professional staff to protect against such harms were highlighted.235238242Participants highlighted numerous factors that act as challenges to the current Food Systems in Afghanistan. These challenges and findings are categorized around the following seven categories. 1. Contributing factors to low production (quantity) of agricultural and livestock origin food o Food waste and food loss (plant and livestock diseases, cultural issues) o Traditional irrigation methods o Misuse and underuse of agricultural land (house construction in agricultural fields) o Poor local, provincial, and regional connectivity o Imbalance btw demand and supply in production and use of food items o Lack of local food markets and accessibility to these markets o Insufficient number of resistance agricultural and animal varieties o Little use of modern and innovative technology in food systems o Poorly and insufficiently established infrastructures to support food production 2. Factors contributing to low quality of locally produced and imported food products o Absence of nation-wide strong food safety and control system o Lack of agriculture and livestock verities with high nutritious values o Less number of quality food processing plants o Lack of input, knowledge, and skills at the farmer, producer, and consumer levels o Illegal and sometimes legal entry of low-quality food products o Low quality of pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, and other inputs used for agriculture 3. Social-political and economic factors: Conflict, Political, and Economic Instability o Protracted conflict o Political instability o Economic instability o Corruption o Poor execution of rule of law o Low income and employment opportunities o Modest financing and resource allocation to the agriculture and Food Systems o Population growth that is difficult to control 4. Factors related to policy, strategy, programmatic, and capacity dimensions o Presence of weak policy and legal frameworks (e.g., absence of FSs document) o Weak enforcement of available laws and regulations (e.g., food fortification) o Absence of well-established center of excellence-research, innovation, and technology o Poor farmer and producer knowledge and skills o Absence of strong food safety and control systems (e.g., laboratories) o Low coverage of health, veterinary, and extension services particularly in rural areas o Limited scale, and duration of food and agricultural projects 5. Factors related to Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices o Gender discrimination in employment and food consumption o Child labor throughout food systems o Low public awareness on healthy diets and nutrition o Absence of food diversity at production and consumption levels 6. Factors related to market o Poorly regulated domestic markets and food imports o Inadequate local, regional, and global connectivity including roads o Inadequate support to private sector those engaged in various aspects of food systems o Low number of public-private partnership cases for example for large agricultural projects o High food prices for nutritious food, particularly during crises such as COVID-19. 7. Factors related to climate change and resilience building. o Drought o Soil erosion o Soil erosion o Global warming o Lack of coping capacities particularly in the rural setting o Poor early warning and response mechanisms o Rapid deforestation o Water scarcity and poor water management236238242The discussions among the participants resulted in a set of tangible suggestions for all previously identified challenges mainly with the following STRATEGIC FOCUS around 6 Ps: People: The food system dialogues in Afghanistan recognized the importance of people's knowledge, experience, and engagement in shaping, implementing, maintaining, and improving the food systems. Therefore, the GoIRA, donors, development partners, UN, NGOs, CSOs, and the private sector, should concentrate on people as the core focus area of the food systems in their policies and programs. People’s interests, needs, and demands to be considered in all policies, plans, and regulations. People's voices to be heard and reflected throughout the decisions making processes. To do so, people and groups, and segments representing people should be actively involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of food systems-related interventions. Production (quantity + quality + safety): Due to high rates of food insecurity and malnutrition, food production is still a property for Afghanistan. However, national, and subnational dialogues emphasized on quality and safety of what is produced or imported to Afghanistan. The nutritious value and safety of food should be the paradigm shift in the future of the Afghan Food Systems. Quantity without quality and safety simply is not and should not be acceptable. Policy: Afghanistan needs to develop, update, and implement laws, regulations, standards, multisectoral policies, and plans to address the urgent, unmet, and long-term needs of its growing population in a sustainable manner. The enforcement of law and efficient implementation of large-scale programs that can result in visible changes in the situation of the food systems has been suggested. Policy framework to be gender, nutrition, and climate-sensitive and as mentioned should have a focus on people. Planet: People are not disconnected from the planet we live on. Their actions affect the planet either positively or negatively. People’s actions and their consequences bounce back to people affecting their lives ad livelihood. Afghanistan is currently being affected by the effect of climate change and it seems it will suffer more and more from drought, flood, avalanches, and other shocks in coming years. So, people, the GOIRA, and development partners have two big challenges ahead. How to cope with shocks and their negative consequences and how to pursue its development agenda. Both require capacity, resources, and strong management. Therefore, the need to link actions across Humanitarian-Development and Peace Nexus is more than ever evident. The scale of financing and actions to be sufficient enough to respond to the current climate-related challenges, but also to improve resilience at all levels to mitigate future shocks and stresses. Peace: Peace is the number one agenda for the people of Afghanistan. War and protracted conflict not only take lives but also destroys systems, infrastructures and diminish people’s hope for a better future. Therefore, peace is not only a political imperative, but it is a social, development, and human necessity. If lasting peace will be obtained, Afghans will witness rapid and positive changes in their food systems. Production will grow, organizational and system capacity will improve, the trade will expand, export, and import balance will get better, employment opportunities will increase, and people will invest in food system-related activities. Politics: There are also issues called cross-cutting such as good governance, gender, anti-corruption measures, and rule of law. The below-suggested interventions that should be future detailed and turned into programs and projects will hopefully lead to the reduction of hunger, poverty, and inequality. They will improve access to nutritious food, food safety, reduced conflict and stability, and climate-related distress.236238242Following are the key suggested areas and interventions for coming 3 to 5 and then 10 years summarized from the national and subnational dialogues in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that beneath proposed interventions supporting all SDGs in direct or indirect ways. (Please also see the ToC) Safe agricultural land and improve soil health (SDG 5) Agricultural land is reducing due to urbanization and improper urban expansion planning, thus, reducing domestic agricultural production. It requires urgent actions such as: o Law or other regulatory actions to stop using agricultural land for construction and urbanization. o Use water and other sources to grow food (fishery, other local solutions). Go for blue food. o More funding to soil friendly input distribution and extension o Fund large scale programs to expand arable land for production236238242Safe water (SDG 6) Afghanistan faces a serious scarcity of potable and irrigation water. The available water is not well managed and there is water loss despite its scarcity. Introducing innovative technology will help to address both issues. o Introduce smart and innovative water management and irrigation systems o Create and implement Water-Food- Energy Nexus o Manage groundwater through social learning interventions Safe Food (SDG 12) Food quantity is an issue. Today more than 45% of people in Afghanistan are food insecure and above 54% of the population live below the poverty line. But, despite that, we see food loss and food waste on many cultural occasions and across the value chains. Therefore, we need policies, laws, and actions to address these underlying factors to improve food availability but also to reduce inequality as well: o Prevent food waste at homes, offices, society o Prevent food loss across the value chain o Produce food keeping in mind the equilibrium between demand and supply o Build more cold-rooms and storage facilities to save and store food o Improve transportation, roads, and connectivity to improve access and availability of food.236238242Invest and use innovative, green technology to modernize food systems (SDG 7) In Afghanistan, we still use primitive technology in food systems. Farmers, producers, and traders are not equipped with the resources, equipment, knowledge, and skills to use modern technology to improve production and reduces waste and loss. This is the area of more investment and opportunities. Particularly: o Introduce a new and efficient method for irrigation (drip water) o Promote solar and green technology in agriculture o Use of locally adapted machinery to improve product quality and quantity o Promote business and entrepreneurial activities in bringing innovation and local solutions o Establish and strengthen local technology institutions and innovation projects o Use of Agricultural Biotechnology to boost production, quality, and resilience.236238242Educate and offer skills to farmers, producers, and consumers: Farmers, producers, traders, and consumers' education, skills development are highly needed to promote production, trade, and consumption of nutritious food. Therefore, we must: o Equip farmers with knowledge and skills to produce more nutritious food o Educate consumers on healthy diets and nutritious food to reduce malnutrition o Educate producers and traders on corporate social responsibilities in Food Systems o Generate demand for healthy & sustainable food and challenge meat consumption o Maximize the use of consumer information for healthy diets.236238242Prioritise food safety and nutrition value (SDG 2, 3) Today food safety is not only public health but also an economic and trade-related issue in Afghanistan. Improving food safety will improve health, reduce the burden of food-borne diseases and open up new economic opportunities. o Stop producing and importing unsafe food items o Go for nation-wide food fortification, bio-fortification, and Future Smart Food projects o Strengthen national and subnational food safety systems (labs, standards...).236238242Nature-positive food production, fight extreme shocks, and build resilience (SDG 13, 1) Drought, sessional floods, earth quick, and other climate challenges are prevalent in Afghanistan that affects production and livestock in Afghanistan causing displace and pushing people further down to poverty and food insecurity. Therefore, o Implement large scale resilience and coping programs to be designed and implemented o Implement large-scale social protection, food assistance, and asset creation programs are needed. o Strengthen National Early Warning System o Provide affordable high yielding climate-sensitive varieties of staple crops o Stop deforestation, invest in artificial forestation, and promote gardens o Reward regenerative farming practices for environmental services provided.236238242Save forests (SDG 15) Afghanistan is a mountainous country but has foresters too that are at risk of disappearing. This forest can become of great national importance to support Food Systems. o Stop cutting forests. This to become a national priority o Start artificial forestation. o Plant trees (one/person/ year). Fruit trees can greatly support local food systems.236238242Cross-cutting: Peace, good governance, anti-corruption measures, gender, population growth, capacity/skills development, and rule of law are cross-cutting issues that to be considered at all (political, policy, program, and operational) levels. This includes: - Create jobs and economic opportunities (SDG 8) Food Systems offer enormous job opportunities and thus reduce poverty and improve people's purchasing power for notorious food. o Create more jobs through food systems o Create more jobs through the agriculture and livestock sectors o Develop more Small and Medium Size Enterprises in Food Systems o Support women smallholders and women Food Systems related business - Promote gender, nutrition, and climate-sensitive multi-sectoral policies, laws, regulations, and programs (SDGs 5, 13, 2,3,) Afghanistan needs a paradigm shift from sole sector to multisectoral policies and programs. It also requires policies and actions to be made more gender, nutrition, and climate-sensitive. Therefore: o Revise current policies, laws, and regulations to transform the food systems o Strictly enforce laws and regulations o Local food market regulation must be endorsed and implemented o Introduce school feeding programs using local food products o Prioritize consumption of local healthy food products in policies, programs, and budgets o Work on province-to-province contracts and agreements on food trade and food safety o Go for large scale contracts and public-private partnerships in Food Systems e.g. farm modality o Plan national scale women economic empowerment programs in Food Systems o Apply Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus in Food Systems o Introduce policies to support the informal food sector to deliver safe, and affordable diets o Develop Afghan Agriculture and livelihood Acceleration Policy - Strengthen institutions, systems, and infrastructures (SDG 9, 16) Without strong structures, food systems can't thrive. These systems and structures are to be established, strengthen, and make them sustainable. Therefore, we must: o Strengthen Food & Drug Authority o Establish Centers of Excellence and Research on Food Systems across the country o Expand the scale and number of cooperatives and agricultural networks o Invest in creating local production plants for fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides through Public Private Partnership. o Invest in creating local plants for producing animal medicine, vaccines, hormones, semen o Train more researchers, academic professionals, and experts in food systems to be developed o Establish, expand, and support local/territorial food markets o Enhance multisectoral approach and coordination for FSN and Food Systems236238242Cross Cutting ... - More finances to produce more and better (SDG 17) Financial resources are key to improve on various aspects of the food systems. Afghanistan is spending limited amount of its public budget on the agriculture. The spending in privet sector is unknown but undoubtfully less than required. Therefore, we need more domestic and foreign investment from public, governments, and private sectors. o Advocate and attain more domestic and donors funding to the food security and nutrition o Offer subsidies to framers, private sector producing agreed nutritious food o Offer low tariffs and financial incentives on nutritious food, innovative technology, and system innovation o Improve banking systems, loan, and other financial provisions to those investing in food systems and in actions such as food production, trade (import and export). o Improve public procurement mechanisms in the FSs. For example, loan provision o Control and regulate food prices particularly during crises o Award large scale contracts and public private partnership in FSs o Invest in public sector marketing social marketing for healthy diets - Sustain long term Political Well and Commitment Enabling environment and long-term political commitment is crucial to achieve Food Systems related goals. However, these commitments should not remain in words but to be translated into concrete and SMART objectives and actions. o Demonstrate political will in more resource allocation to Food Systems o Create and be member of national, regional and global level Food Systems coalitions and networks o Prioritize food security, nutrition, and Food Systems in all policies o Promote strong leadership in FSs particularly women leadership in FSs o Take seriously the Rule of law and anti-corruption measures o Improve the role of data sharing and transparency & develop best practices - Peace (SDG 16) o End war and keep working on bring lasting peace and stability to the country o Consider eradication of poverty and improving the food security and nutrition as key driver to peaceful and productive nation in all policies.237There were no critical areas of divergence between participants.

2021-07-25 11:05:24205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24198/130

11498626132481706224236512391384021139347111125118

List of participants for the first national food system dialogues was prepared and shared among the stakeholders to get inputs to ensure representation of diverse participation in terms of sector and disciplines, ethnicity and gender. Series of revisions and addition were made to ensure inclusive participation. The national dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different regions and parts of the country.As we know, Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding and analysis. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. An organizing committee was formed representing key stakeholders to steer the overall process and technical committee to support technically. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. In order to have the consistent process and to facilitate the dialogues effectively, series to orientations were organized to the facilitators and curator of the event. These orientations were locally adapted in the context based on the original contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. All the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and future commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical analysis of the national Food Systems was done to examine in terms of their potential causes/barriers, drivers and actions for the next 3 years. Participant stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system. In order to have a meaningful dialogues among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and national dialogue process among the participants, a participants brief was prepared and share before the event. Further, Nepali languages was used in the event to have active engagement of participants in the dialogues; and a provision of simultaneous interpretation in English was made for the non-Nepali speakers.Further efforts have to put to increase participation of private sectors in the dialogues.

Yes

234Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the first National Food Systems Dialogue on 11th June 2011 on the theme Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system under the Chair of Honorable Dr Krishna Prasad Oli, Member, NPC and National Dialogue Convenor. Hon. Dr. Oli delivered welcome speech and opening remarks. He stressed on the need for collective efforts from all the sectors in the process to transform food system and contribute to achieve all SDGs. Major focus of the dialogue was to engage stakeholders for a comprehensive exploration of food systems in Nepal as part of the process for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • raise awareness and promote public discussion on the food systems, • examine current situation and identify key aspects of Nepalese food systems, such as the drivers, actions, pathways, and • explore opportunities for food system to make it equitable, sustainable and resilient. A total of 180 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. Dr Yogendra Kumar Karki, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoALD) and Curator for National Food System Dialogue curated the dialogues. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process. Each AT Group had proposition and reference questions to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Dialogue reference questions: Following 5 questions were presented to the participants to facilitate the dialogue: 1. What are the underlying causes/ barriers for achieving the stated proposition? 2. What are the key drivers of unsustainable food system? 3. What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 4. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 5. What are the role and responsibilities of the food system actors including those of the federal, provincial, and local Governments in sustainable food system transformation in Nepal?235The national dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the national food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. Indeed, this will be further verified and refined after the feedback from the Provincial, and second and third national dialogues. The dialogue also collected some learning to reflect impression and work further on as following: 1. Some participants were new to virtual meetings (attending the session using online platform to participate in specific groups); 2. Few participants showed up from industries and value chains (actors). 3. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs, like AT 1 and 2; AT 3 and 5; AT 4 and 6 in the context of Nepal. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 4. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants have suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 5. There was strong commitment from NPC and MoALD and Development Partners to address the issues through policies and programmes. However, participants raised concern for the same level of commitments from other public agencies, like Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP), Ministry of Forestry and Environment (MoFE), Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supply (MoICS) to address the issues of access to food, nutrition, distribution and effective implementation of policies and regulations. 6. Some gaps were experienced with regard to the representation from some value chain actors like processors, industrialists, transporters, wholesalers/retailers, working in different parts of the country. There is need of some additional efforts to have their participation during the provincial and local level dialogues. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food systems. Some potential and emerging issues were identified and validated; the dialogue was also helpful in raising awareness and elevating public discussion on key food system issues and identify potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable (refer Section C below). Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed on these topics following the ATs propositions and reference questions mentioned in Section A above. Relevant Joint Secretaries of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts. Since the participants of the Discussion Topics expressed very similar opinions on the reference questions on possible ways to tell, if these actions are being successful; and the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of governments (federal, provincial, and local governments), the discussion outcomes are summarized accordingly and presented at the end.236Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Situation of nutrition has improved over the period of 1996 to 2019: stunting decreased from 57 to 32%, underweight 42 to 24, and wasting from 15 to 12%. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: locally available nutritious crops/foods getting less importance; biodiversity/cultural diversity not promoted. No focus on micronutrients; poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices; many families do not have access to nutrient rich foods; growing burden of non-communicable diseases; divergence between nutrition and WASH programmes due to lack of coherence between food security and nutrition sectors. Drivers of change: low crop productivity; high losses (pre and post-harvest); inadequate road connectivity, and storage facilities. Loss of biodiversity; poor food diversity; low education and awareness level on the nutritive value of underutilized crops; preference to the readymade/ultra-processed foods. High cost of nutritious food. Poor food safety and hygiene conditions; dominance of brokers/middleperson in agricultural productions. Less access of farm households to technology, recurrent disaster events threatening agriculture system; increased risk to investors and farmers; land fragmentation and unscientific land use; youth migration from rural areas leaving fallow land behind. Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: promote home gardens for nutritious foods; employment creation to increase income of the poor; scale up social protection programmes and food fortification. Address double/triple burden of malnutrition; create awareness among the women about the value of food. All season road and connectivity to reduce food insecurity in remote areas. Educate people to consume homegrown foods through advocacy and awareness programmes, and school education. Promote local food production and develop distribution network; reduce long food chains from farm to fork. Increase on farm productivity by adopting sustainable practices; develop varieties, use bio fortified varieties of crops (essential micro-n). Improve agri-input and market systems (access and cost); enhance capacity of local researchers and scientist; increase dietary diversity and value addition. Capacity building of groups: women, cooperatives, users’ groups, etc. Integrate crops-vegetables with aquaculture for small-scale farmers; production diversity for livestock products. Reduce post-harvest losses (quantity and nutrient loss); awareness raising and education for breast feeding; education to remote consumers about the nutritive value of local foods and promote production diversification. Adopt food-systems approach for enhanced diets and nutrition, income and resilience. Promote nutrient rich food availability, consumption, and quality assurance. Taxation on less nutritious food. Target fresh food markets as a critical entry point for improving food safety and focus on investments in infrastructure and sanitation; consumer education for diet quality and food safety. Options to assess the actions being successful: Result monitoring and evaluation framework in place for all actions; agreement between/among the governments with clear roles and responsibility; education and awareness raising in mass scale. Collaboration/Partnership: Develop strong linkages among the governments; develop integrated information system; better communication on safe and nutritious local food and cost; address markets and distribution issues at local levels; development of linkages: agro-tourism-nutrition, agro-forestry-foods-nutrition.236Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure; triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades; women and children also suffer from some of the world’s highest levels of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Underlying causes for achieving the stated proposition: change in dietary pattern characterized by two-meal-rice (per capita rice consumption increased by nearly 70% in 50 years). Dietary shift towards unhealthy processed foods high in saturated and trans-fat, salt and sugar neglecting nutritious indigenous crop-based foods. Increase in fat intake in diet and undernutrition in childhood has coincided with increased overweight/ obesity and other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD); over two-thirds of adolescent girls in both rural and urban areas reported consuming sugary foods. Consumption of foods produced by using high dose chemical fertilizers and pesticides; items, such as biscuits, instant noodles and juice drinks may be supplying about a quarter of energy intake of children <2 years, which is lowering their intake of essential vitamins and minerals. Drivers of change: low level of consumer awareness about the healthy food habit and choice of nutritious foods; high cost of nutritious diet (nutritious diet is costlier by 242% than the energy only diet); urbanization and rapid proliferation of fast food culture. Weak market regulation for unhealthy and adulterated food products. Lack of legislation on labelling of nutritive value of food; no availability of essential nutrition package for different age groups; social, religious, and cultural aspects of food consumption behaviors. Government subsidies on food commodities in the form of social protection are not aligned with dietary guideline. Inflated advertisement of food. Many businesses are producing ultra-processed food items. Less awareness on food loss and waste among the actors across the food chain. No policy to reduce salt/sodium consumption, limit saturated fatty acid intake, eliminate industrially produced trans fatty acids, reduce the impact of marketing of foods and beverages high in saturated fats, trans fatty acids, free sugars, or salt on children. Proliferation of modern lifestyle, copying from others; poor knowledge about nutritious food and source of nutritious food at various service points-schools, community, and family. Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: analyze existing food consumption pattern and prepare national framework for sustainable food consumption. Increase investment in agricultural sector; policy framework for sustainable consumption pattern, link mid-day school meal to the homegrown foods. Prepare menu using local food, at least, twice a week by the government officials working in remote communities. Food Management and Trading Company to initiate Fair Price Shop in food insecure areas; food fortification and supply to vulnerable groups. Provision of subsidy and incentives for farmers to sustainable food production system; implement land use policy; upgrade national food based dietary guideline. Investment in infrastructure development; develop national policy for food waste management. Options to assess the actions being successful: Develop result frameworks and result- based accountability matrix for 3 spheres of governments. Federal government to develop policy, Provincial to infrastructure and monitoring, and create linkage and capacity development of local levels; local government to provide incentive package to the farmers and other actors. Collaboration/Partnership: Federal government should focus on developing capacity of local govt. and infrastructure development at provincial level; Province government should play role in monitoring, and promoting local farmers and local governments on mobilization of resources; local government should promote and incentivize nutrient-dense local food production and consumption.236Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation, land degradation. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Production of major staples and commercial vegetables in some pockets has caused excessive mining of soil nutrients, water depletion and agrochemical pollution. Food habits mostly towards rice and wheat have led to a narrow dietary diversity; this has resulted in loss of traditional crops and indigenous knowledge. Underlying barriers for achieving the stated proposition: Dependency on imported crop varieties is increasing with lack of site-specific food production; lack of production in broader landscape/agroecosystem level. Lack of land use policy and plans have promoted rapid conversion of fertile agriculture lands into settlements and other non-agriculture use. Disappearance of indigenous food system; rural out-migration; inadequate capacity development of farmers; lack of agriculture mechanization. Drivers of change: 1. Climate change impact: Climate induced disasters (flood, drought, extreme rainfalls, and disease and pest outbreaks) have negatively affected productions. Rise in temperature has made possible to cultivate some lowland crops in higher altitudes. 2. Socioeconomic change: Youth out-migration, change in food habits (food culture) and urbanization have created fallow land and shortage of agricultural workforces affecting eco-friendly food production. 3. Land degradation: conversion of productive agricultural land into infrastructure development and unscientific cultivation in the hilly terraces. Continuous cropping of narrow diversity of staples and modern varieties without legume rotation in Terai (plains) resulting in decline of soil fertility. 4. Weak governance: weak agricultural research and extension organizations (like NARC, DoA and AKC), and their weak coordination among 3 spheres of government. Lack of effective communication between NARC, AKCs and local agri-extension have constrained in the flow of adequate knowledge and information Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: investment on food-water-energy-biodiversity-health nexus, R&D on agroecosystem. Revitalization of indigenous food system; land utilization based on Land Use Act and Land Use Policy. Value chain of local crops based on comparative advantage, focus on quality seed, organic production and quality assurance services. Improvement of food governance and policy coherence. Assurance of market and irrigation; implementation of climate change national adaptation plan (NAP) and local adaption plan of action (LAPA). Development of evidence-based policy. Invest in agriculture research recognizing the value of local food system research. Options to assess the actions being successful: Political will on reducing land degradation; monitoring to oversee implementation of land bank, land use plans; minimum support price of production with buy back guarantee; fair price shops established; agriculture and livestock insurance policy in place; climate services to farmers through early warning and preparedness. Implementation of food and nutrition security and ecosystem policies. Collaboration/Partnership: Following are the specific roles and responsibilities of the governments at 3 spheres: Federal Government: national policy for natural resource management and agrobiodiversity; climate act to reduce GHGs emission; strengthen NARC as autonomous institution for providing support to all governments to develop and promote green agricultural technologies for nature positive production system. Provincial and Local Government: strengthened Agricultural Extensions- through Private- public partnership following Agriculture Development Strategy; strengthen Agricultural Knowledge Centers to focus on technical services. Implementation of LAPA; documentation and registration of native agrobiodiversity and natural resources; link production systems with agro-ecotourism and health for nature positive production systems.236Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Context: landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Inadequate institutional mechanisms for and limited capacity of women, small holders, old-age, people with disability (PWD), they have less access to production resources, space for voice, negotiation power in the market systems. State of food and nutrition security varies by provinces, ecological belts and gender. These groups are disproportionately affected during any kinds of shocks and emergencies. Underlying causes for achieving the stated proposition: agriculture sector is seen as less remunerative and less attractive. The skewed power relation over productive resources especially of land, water, forest to women and disadvantaged groups; Feminization of agriculture due to young male out-migration. Globalization trend has weakened competitive capacity of Nepalese SMEs. Fragmented policies have led to improper targeting in agricultural value chain. Inadequate support to the local governments for the localization of policies. Food and agriculture sector are highly vulnerable and the actors associated are more exposed to shocks. Discriminatory social norms and practices. Drivers of Change (positive): The Constitutional provisions on Right to Food and Food Sovereignty and Social Justice are key drivers for advancing equitable access to food and livelihood security. In addition, the Agriculture Development Strategy, Zero-hunger Initiative, Multi-Sector Nutrition Plan and localization of SDGs are positive drivers as the local governments can reach out to the poor and disadvantaged. Increased realization of potential niche-based enterprise and industrialization of local products through value addition and use of IT. Increased interest of financing institutions and development partners towards green policies and funds. Land management based on concurrent rights of the governments. Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: Support mechanisms and targets to small and commercial farmers as well as investments in commodity-based enterprises. Introduction of farmers’ identification card and develop proper database. Gender friendly mechanization and investments in land management, skills development, financing, and linkage with market. Engage youths in profitable agriculture that can enhance niche-based local products. Enforce/levy duties on the imports of agricultural products to facilitate secure market for local products. Strengthen local seed sector that are culturally acceptable, climate resilient and profitable. Consumers’ demand-based planning for production and support in post-production related infrastructure. For the destitute group, issue food supply card as per the provision of the RtF and Food Sovereignty Act as well as ensure targeted interventions linking with social safety net programs. Options to assess the actions being successful: Documentation of indigenous crops, commodities and recipes and wider sharing/publicity of their nutrition values; communication strategy in place to ensure proper messaging of local foods that are locally understandable and culturally sensitive; linkage of local foods with big hotels, domestic and export markets. Collaboration/Partnership: Federal government to devise harmonized umbrella policy including safety net measures and proper monitoring for standardisation; Provincial and local government to focus on customizing policies to their specific needs and priorities to promote inclusive and diverse food systems and facilitate collaboration with Universities and academia to engage youth in the research and extension. The local governments to document, promote, support in identification of locally available nutrition rich local landraces, promote culturally adaptive food eating habits, manage local seed and food banks, promote indigenous knowledge and skills-based food system. Farmer identification/categorization/Id card.236Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. These shocks, stress and disaster can be devastating for poor and vulnerable people. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Lately, COVID-19 has contributed to increase unemployment, poverty and vulnerability including loss of livelihoods. The 2015 Earthquake increased number of food insecure people by 3.5 million. Therefore, building resilience means helping individuals, households and communities to mitigate, cope with and recover from shocks and stresses, so that they can become even better off than before. Underlying causes/barriers: natural and climate induced disasters; high post-production losses; weak supply chain; pandemics (COVID-19) and other epidemics. Economic shocks, like food price hikes and income losses due to pandemics and disasters. Climate induced natural disasters are increasing more than before due to haphazard road constructions, improper infrastructure development and accelerated process of urbanizations. Limited investment on R&D to reduce vulnerability and build resilience. Farmers and stakeholders lack adequate incentives for climate initiatives and green agriculture. High post-production losses, unsafe transportation and weak supply chain resulting in inadequate/late access of safe food in affordable prices for marginal, poor and low income groups. Epidemics/pandemic (such as diarrhea, COVID-19, etc) have increased vulnerability of poor, women, and marginalized households. Improper food habits with poor feeding practices. Poor, landless, and marginalized groups have settlements in vulnerable places (river banks, landslide prone areas). Preparation and readiness arrangements are weak. Drivers of change: Lack of policy instruments, particularly of food policy at all spheres of governments on building resilience. Lack of in-depth analysis, data gap in production and consumption of foods have posed challenge to policy makers to design adequate policies and programmes to reduce vulnerability and build resilience. Inadequate climate smart technologies have affected to adapt to changing climate and improved food availability. Furthermore, price vulnerability and supply chain disruption have also contributed to the unsustainable food production and resilience building. Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: land use policy at sub-national level; technology transfer; capacity development of stakeholders in agriculture; increase coverage of insurance; make agriculture an attractive sector; and control out-migration. Policy coherence; prioritization of resources in the critical time; food storage at local level. Institutionalization of Nepal food security monitoring system (NeKSAP); early warning system and risk-based anticipatory actions. Establish climate smart technology and incentivize for their promotion; integrate sustainable agricultural production system including indigenous best practices. Link Prime Minister/Chief Minister employment programme with the food systems. Co-ordination mechanisms between the governments for disaster and post-disaster management. Options to assess the actions being successful: Result framework, indicators, and software-based information management system in place to monitor the progress; climate and vulnerability monitoring provisions; and development of information centers and network at sub-national level. Collaboration/Partnership: Coordination among the governments and private sectors to build resilience; priority plans based on available resources; provision of vulnerability card to the vulnerable people and nutritious food to the Pregnant and Lactating Women; sub-national level emergency operation centers to be linked to food system; federal government to establish a reliable Hydro-met services; all governments and private sectors to coordinate developing better preparedness plan.236Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context: Nepal has developed legal framework to ensure good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. This Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Underlying causes for achieving the stated proposition: In general, policies are often prepared in rush, and with less attention to preparing detail action plan. Lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. Governments, particularly at local levels have low level of awareness and technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Key Drivers: Limited livelihood opportunity and consumption of nutritious food; lack of proper information collection, analysis and management to identify and respond to vulnerable people; access to land is important aspect in food security, however there is no sufficient action to address this issue. Policies are not much supportive to smallholders and landless people. Less legal thrust, or incentive to consume locally produced nutritious food. Lack of impact analysis to understand the results of policy implementation to address the challenges. Actions in next 3 for greater impact: approval of Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018) and formulation of regulation based on this Act , and development guideline and setting up of institutional architecture as provisioned in the Act with clear roles and responsibilities and accountability measures (Federal Food Council, Provincial Food Council and Local Food Coordination Committee). Priority to orient stakeholders on the implementation of Act with targeted focus, budget, and preparation of regulations. Allocation of budget to the Province and local governments based on the performance on the implementation of Act and relevant policies. Implementation of 15th Plan, Periodic Plans, and localization of SDGs with priority. Control fragmentation of agricultural land; prioritize and invest on setting up a mechanism for systematic data collection, analysis, and management for promoting evidence-based policy making to contribute to achieve sustainable food system in Nepal. Ensure policy coherence in agriculture, food security and nutrition; build synergies among policies like MSNP, ADS, SDGs and others. Coordination among government agencies and stakeholders. Capacity development of local government. Identification and classification of farmers and landless households. Set up mechanism to analyze and respond to the impact of climate change. Options to assess the actions being successful: policy monitoring mechanism in place for different government agencies and stakeholders with relevant indicators based on the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act, SDGs, HDI, Hunger Index, Gini Coefficient, and food security and nutrition; annual planning/budgeting linked to the evidence-based information as guided by the Act; information management system and networks are in place at all levels. Collaboration/Partnership: Federal government to facilitate on detailing out of the implementation plan; Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development to take lead role, in collaboration with other key line ministries/policy agencies (NPC, MoICS, MoFAGA) to implement the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018) and set up institutional architecture (Federal Food Council). NPC and MoALD to coordinate and facilitate on developing National Food Plan. Accordingly, Provinces and local governments to coordinate on developing Provincial and local food plan and setting up of the institutional architectures (Province Food Council and Food Coordination Committee); NPC to take lead on coordination and collaboration among sectoral agencies and strategic guidance on policy formulation, implementation and monitoring.237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-07-25 13:16:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35493/10121416181926283336404142434445464748505556575862646768262717273757677808187888990939698106107110111115118125130131134135144147149153160161164170171174176178180182185189191192194198199200

2403155101954222232616108

Le thème de notre concertation interpelle les acteurs à agir pour l'atteinte des ODD pour 2030 ; L'objectif était de permettre aux participants de contribuer au Sommet en réfléchissant et en proposant des voies pour la réalisation de systèmes alimentaires durables, équitables et résilients. Le déroulement de la concertation a respecté le principe de l’écoute mutuelle et l'ouverture à la coexistence de points de vue divergents Les thèmes et sous-thèmes traités ont confirmé la complexité des systèmes alimentaires car ils ont un impact important sur la santé de l’homme et des animaux, sur les sols, l’eau, le climat, la biodiversité, l’économie et d’autres systèmes, et que leur évolution exige une approche systémique; Notre concertation a regroupé quelques acteurs des systèmes alimentaires en l'occurrence les producteurs, transformateurs, formateur/éducateur, communicateur, organisations non gouvernementales locales et internationales, etc. Notre Concertation s’est appuyé sur les processus et initiatives existants et a travaillé à les améliorer et d'autre part à proposer de nouvelles initiatives ; La concertation a été animée par un coordonnateur, un animateur et des facilitateurs. Les échanges ont été francs, inclusifs et dans un climat de respect mutuel ; Les conclusions de notre Concertation qui sont partagées dans les comptes rendus et autres supports sont anonymes.Notre évènement a regroupé une vingtaine de participants venant de diverses organisations. L'inclusion de chaque participant a été effective. Chaque participant a eu l'occasion de s’exprimer soit pendant les sessions plénières soit dans les groupes de discussion. Les différentes catégories de participants des systèmes alimentaires étaient présentes et ont pu s'exprimer librement selon les thèmes de discussion et selon leurs réalités propres.il est important pour chaque coordonnateur de veuillez à se former si possible sinon à intérioriser les documents, supports utiles et à échanger avec les autres coordonnateurs.

Yes

234238240245246247248249De façon générale, la concertation indépendante vise à permettre aux participants de contribuer au Sommet en s’appuyant sur des approches innovantes, issues d’expériences vécues, conduisant à des systèmes alimentaires durables dans la perspective du Sommet. Plus spécifiquement, la Concertation indépendante vise à : Permettre aux organisations de la société civile (acteurs non-étatiques) de réfléchir ensemble à des idées alternatives de mise en place de systèmes alimentaires durables ; Diagnostiquer les problèmes des systèmes alimentaires au niveau mondial, sous-régional et national ; Engager les OSC dans une approche innovante de réalisation des systèmes alimentaires durables mettant au centre l’agriculture familiale et l’agroécologie pour un Burkina Faso épanoui ; Élaborer ensemble des voies, des actions et des engagements pour aboutir à des systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables, et y perdurer jusqu’en 2030 au moins.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251La Concertation indépendante a regroupé plusieurs représentants d'OSC. Elle a permis de faire un diagnostic approfondi des systèmes alimentaires et de proposer des recommandations d'engagements à l'endroit des parties prenantes. Elle a établi les bases d'une synergie d'actions entre acteurs et le besoin de poursuivre les concertations sur divers thèmes pour des systèmes alimentaires durables, résilients et équitables. En perspective, il a été convenu de se revoir bientôt pour la priorisation et la planification des engagements ainsi que la définition de mécanismes de suivi-évaluation et stratégie de mobilisation des ressources nécessaires. La sécurité alimentaire et la souveraineté alimentaire se trouvera résolue avec les pratiques agroécologiques. Les recommandations d’engagements fortes retenues sont : A l’endroit de l’État - afficher une volonté politique claire pour l’agroécologie et les bios intrants à travers l’adoption et la mise en œuvre de stratégies, politiques et programmes conséquents de promotion de l’agroécologie et de l’agriculture biologique; - opérationnaliser les différents fonds nationaux au profit des systèmes alimentaires; - accélérer l’adoption de la stratégie nationale pour le développement de l’agroécologie en cours d’élaboration et veiller à sa mise en application; - adopter et mettre en œuvre des textes favorables à la promotion des fertilisants organiques et des biopesticides, mettre en place une structure de promotion de l’agriculture biologique et accompagner les initiatives privées dans le domaine; - intégrer des modules de production agroécologique dans les curricula d’enseignement dans les écoles professionnelles du secteur rural; - adopter des textes adaptés aux contextes du Burkina Faso pour la protection des populations contre les dangers des intrants chimiques et veiller à leur application rigoureuse; - Soutenir toutes initiatives de promotion de l'agroécologie (homologation des bios intrants, recherche-action paysanne et moderne, matériel et équipements adaptés à la production écologique, politique nationale) afin de faire de la production écologique le socle de la sécurité alimentaire et de la souveraineté alimentaire du Burkina d'ici à 2030; - Développer des infrastructures de stockage et de conservation adaptées dans toutes les zones de production et de transformation des produits agricoles et alimentaires; - Désenclaver les principales zones de production agricole et de transformation agroalimentaire; - Inciter les opérateurs économiques / hommes d’affaires burkinabè à s’intéresser davantage au secteur agricole; - Réaliser des études prospectives dans les domaines agricoles en vue de définir une Politique Agricole (agro-sylvo-pastorale, halieutique et faunique) à long terme (au moins 50 ans) assortie de plans d’actions opérationnels. A l’endroit des coopératives/groupements de producteurs/Organisations de la Société Civile - sensibiliser la population sur les dangers liés au mauvais usage des pesticides, des engrais chimiques, des insecticides et leurs emballages pour un changement de comportement ; - inciter les producteurs à l’utilisation des bios intrants (fertilisants organiques et biopesticides) ; - sensibiliser les producteurs sur les impacts positifs des bios intrants sur leur santé, leur finance, sur l’environnement et la fertilité des sols permettant d’accroître durablement les rendements et les productions pour une sécurité et souveraineté alimentaire ; - appuyer l’État dans l’application de la loi à travers la mise en place d’organes de veille et d’interpellation issus de la société civile ; - Approcher les opérateurs économiques / hommes d’affaires burkinabè pour des partenariats fructueux dans le secteur agricole. A l’endroit des transformateurs et consommateurs - éviter l’utilisation des produits chimiques dans la préparation et la conservation des aliments (carbure, formol, etc.) ; - exiger de plus en plus des produits agricoles sains et sans danger. « L’adage dit qu’il vaut mieux dépenser plus pour des aliments de qualité que de dépenser moins et passer le restant de sa vie ou la plupart de son temps sur des lits d’hôpitaux » - alerter les services compétents pour tout évènement inhabituel constaté dans les secteurs de l’agriculture, de la santé, de l’environnement, de l’élevage, etc. (veille citoyenne) - Renforcer l’appui-conseil et formation aux transformateurs pour le respect des bonnes pratiques de transformation et d’hygiène - Renforcer la concertation / collaboration entre transformateurs et les structures de normalisation - Renforcer le contrôle qualité et appliquer rigoureusement la loi en la matière A l’endroit des distributeurs - Respecter les normes de conditionnement / emballages, de transport et de stockage des produits chimiques. A l’endroit des Partenaires Techniques et Financiers et du secteur privé - Privilégier les produits locaux au détriment de ceux importés de même catégorie en s'imposant un quota d'au moins 50% (acheter au moins 50% de la production nationale avant d'importer des produits similaires et de substitution); - Financer le triple nexus (humanitaire, paix et développement) sur le long terme pour une résilience des populations aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs exogènes et au stress; - Respecter la souveraineté de l’État en octroyant des financements selon les priorités nationales et non selon les priorités des bailleurs236238239240244245246247248249THÈME 1 : LES DYNAMIQUES DE PRODUCTION, DE DIVERSIFICATION, DE TRANSFORMATION ET DE CONSERVATION/STOCKAGE GARANTISSANT UNE QUALITÉ NUTRITIONNELLE ET SANITAIRE DES ALIMENTS ET UNE SOUVERAINETÉ ALIMENTAIRE AU PROFIT DES POPULATIONS Sous thème 1 : Les systèmes de production (agroécologique et biologique) locaux peuvent assurer la qualité des aliments produits au Burkina Faso et garantir une souveraineté alimentaire pour la décennie à venir Les principales recommandations issues de la Concertation sont : 1. développer la recherche-action en valorisant les savoirs locaux paysans, 2. disponibiliser les intrants écologiques homologués ; 3. promouvoir un fonds vert dédié aux entrepreneurs/producteurs de l’agroécologie et du bio et appuyer les acteurs écologiques en équipement adapté ; 4. intégrer systématiquement le genre dans la recherche, la conception et le suivi des politiques nationales agricoles ; 5. prendre en compte et valoriser les savoirs endogènes et le patrimoine culturel/préférences des communautés locales dans les stratégies et politiques nationales ; 6. créer, renforcer et recycler les connaissances et les savoirs faire sur les techniques et pratiques écologiques; 7. promouvoir la consommation des produits écologiques et locaux. Sous-thème 2 : La diversification de production (prise en compte des changements climatiques) peut assurer une alimentation riche, saine et équilibrée au Burkina Faso dans les années à venir -Accentuer la recherche-action sur les effets bénéfiques des associations et des pratiques capables de maintenir la productivité car s’adaptant aux changements climatiques -Vulgariser davantage les bonnes pratiques en matière de diversification agricole (association, rotation de cultures) -Promouvoir l’association et la rotation des cultures à travers le renforcement des capacités y relatif ; -Assurer une intégration entre les diverses productions agro-sylvo-pastorales, halieutiques et fauniques -Prendre en compte l’Agroécologie et l’Agriculture bio dans les référentiels de développement (Référentiel National de Développement, Programme National du Secteur Rural phase III, etc.) -Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques en matière de diversification agricole (association, rotation de cultures) et adaptées aux changements climatiques -Assurer une intégration entre les diverses productions agro-sylvo-pastorales halieutiques et fauniques Sous-thème 3 : Les modes de transformation peuvent améliorer la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaires des aliments au Burkina Faso dans les années à venir -Renforcer les capacités techniques et opérationnelles des centres / entreprises de transformation agroalimentaire -Renforcer l’appui-conseil et formation aux transformateurs pour le respect des bonnes pratiques de transformation et d’hygiène -Renforcer la concertation / collaboration entre transformateurs et les structures de normalisation -Renforcer le contrôle qualité et appliquer rigoureusement la loi en la matière -Accompagner les transformateurs en équipements de transformation adaptés et à prix subventionné Sous-thème 4 : Les pratiques de conservation et de stockage des produits alimentaires peuvent assurer la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des produits au Burkina Faso dans un futur proche. Les circuits courts de commercialisation à l’échelle nationale, régionale et internationale permettent de garantir la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments au Burkina Faso -Soutenir les initiatives de promotion des circuits courts de commercialisation des produits agricoles dans la perspective de leur mise à l’échelle -Renforcer les capacités techniques et opérationnelles des acteurs sur les techniques de conservation/stockage des produits agricoles et alimentaires -Promouvoir des habitudes en faveur de la consommation locale, alternative à la mondialisation/uniformisation des habitudes alimentaires -Mettre en place des infrastructures de stockage/conservation de qualité et renforcer les capacités techniques et opérationnelles des acteurs dans ce domaine Ces recommandations d'actions seront priorisées, mises en œuvre par les acteurs des systèmes alimentaires avec des mécanismes périodiques de bilan-suivi-évaluation.236238239240242244245246247248249THEME 2 : LES ENGAGEMENTS DE TOUTES LES PARTIES PRENANTES FAVORISENT DE NOUVELLES ACTIONS ET ORGANISATIONS DE SYSTEMES ALIMENTAIRES RESILIENTS ET DURABLES AU BURKINA FASO Sous-thème 1 : Les politiques publiques, lois nationales, les finances publiques locales sont adéquates et suffisantes pour amorcer des nouvelles actions et modes d’organisations de systèmes alimentaires résilients et durables centrés sur l’agriculture familiale, l’agroécologie et le droit à l’alimentation au Burkina Recommandations d'engagements adressées à l'Etat : -Assurer le financement de systèmes alimentaires résilients et durables centrés sur l’agriculture familiale, l’agroécologie et le droit à l’alimentation au Burkina Faso en allouant au moins 10% du budget -Réaliser des études sur les impacts des intrants chimiques à court, moyen et long termes et vulgariser les résultats -Accorder plus de financement à la recherche agricole pour des travaux orientés sur les besoins / priorités -Renforcer le régime de contrainte des achats des produits locaux par les services publics -Mettre en place des mécanismes et des outils qui permettent d’opérationnaliser le droit à l’alimentation reconnu dans la Loi d'Orientation Agro-Sylvo-Pastorale, Halieutique et Faunique. Sous-thème 2 : Les financements extérieurs et nationaux sont conséquents pour l’appui au pays pour promouvoir de nouvelles actions et des systèmes alimentaires résilients et durables -Assurer le contrôle des ressources productives (foncier, semences, eaux, fertilisants écologiques, etc.) par l’État et les communautés afin de garantir une alimentation saine, nutritive et équitable d'ici 2030 -Financer le triple nexus (humanitaire, paix, développement) sur le long terme avec une forte implication des communautés locales -Inciter les opérateurs économiques / hommes d’affaires burkinabè à investir dans le secteur agricole. Sous-thème 3 : Les producteurs, les transformateurs, les distributeurs et les consommateurs adoptent de bonnes pratiques y compris la gestion des déchets pour assurer la durabilité d’un système alimentaire résilient et durable durant la décennie (2030) à venir. Synthèse des engagements : Des producteurs : -Produire à tous moments (temps normal, vulnérabilités, chocs, stress) des aliments en quantité suffisante et en qualité pour nourrir les populations rurales et urbaines -Acquérir du matériel et équipements adaptés pour une production suffisante et durable et respectueuse de la nature -Développer des mécanismes locaux de récupération des déchets plastiques pour une préservation de l’environnement et des animaux -Mettre à la disposition des populations des produits alimentaires sains, nutritifs, respectueux de la nature en quantité et en qualité suffisante par l’utilisation d’équipements post-récoltes adéquats et des infrastructures de stockage et de conservation adaptées Des transformateurs : -Produire des aliments transformés respectueux des normes et qualité requises au niveau national et international -Transformer au moins 30% des productions nationales de riz, céréales, légumes, fruits, etc. suivant les normes de qualité, d’hygiène, d’emballage et de conditionnement -Acquérir des équipements et matériels de transformation adaptés pour une meilleure transformation des produits agroalimentaires assurant une alimentation saine, nutritive et durable à tous les burkinabè d’ici 2030 Des distributeurs / commerçants : -Conditionner, transporter et stocker les produits chimiques et alimentaires selon les normes requises -Accompagner les efforts du gouvernement en réhabilitant / construisant 30% des infrastructures d’ici 2030 -Développer des infrastructures de transport, de stockage et de conservation adaptées dans les zones de production et de transformation des produits agricoles et alimentaires -Produire à grande échelle les intrants biologiques au profit des agriculteurs écologiques et biologiques en substitution aux intrants chimiques de synthèse Des consommateurs : Consommer des produits locaux sains, nutritifs et durables dont 30% issus de la production écologique d'ici 2030 Ces engagements seront priorisés, planifiés et mis en œuvre par les parties prenantes avec un suivi.237Il n'y a pas eu de points de divergence significative lors de notre Concertation.

2021-07-25 18:35:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7696/203

21036329212466348251925

The dialogue mobilized members from the Jamaica Network of Rural Women Producers, Caribbean Farmers Network, Real Agriculture and Schools across the Caribbean RegionThe dialogue reflected the principles in its organization, inclusiveness by design, and the format for engagementPlan for engagement Train the facilitators Do not have a one sided dialogue or a webinar where the speakers present more than they listen to and engage the participants

Yes

234238239240241242244246247248250251This dialogue examined and explored issues relevant to enabling more resilient and sustainable school feeding programmes in the Caribbean Region. The participants would explore issues related to sustainable procurement, issues of food safety, the need for a consistent and reliable supply of high quality food and examining ways to ethically and reliably support local and regional supply chains. After a short panel discussion led by the curators for the session. Participants would be broken into 4 discussion groups to discuss the following topics a. Improving quality education and mental health through healthy food. b. Scaling School and Community Gardens using innovative farming techniques (Aquaponics, Hydroponics, Integrative Farming) c. Sustainable Procurement in School Feeding Programmes d. Assuring food safety in school feeding programs e, Reducing food waste in school feeding programmes After the breakout groups the team facilitators presented a summary of the contributions and discussions in the main room in plenary format,235238239240241242244246247249251Comprehensive Action on the School feeding programme can derive multiple co benefits in health, safety, environment and in building the local economy. There’s is also a belief in schools that with pre-packaged food, [attention to good Ed.] food hygiene is not needed, and this could be a driver away from food preparation in schools. Children are supposed to have a box lunch which they have at 10 am and then a meal at lunchtime. (one contributor rated the quality of this meal at 5 to 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is good). Some schools have taken out their kitchens. There is need for quality and safety standards to guide the provision of school feeding programmes the cafeteria, and not enough nutritious food. There appears a preference for pupils to be given bread and more bread rather than a meal by their school. School Management appears focused on waste, and as such they only buy in what is pre-packaged food, this in order to cut down on waste. [this is a focus on a financial lagging indicator, and not on a quality indicator. And quality is not a cost, it is an enabler. Ed.] [This practice Ed.] reinforces bad habits in the pupils. There are too many soft drinks available, and whilst schools may try to stop selling them, pupils just buy them on ‘the black market’. Snacks are mainly low healthy options which contain too much sugar [carbohydrates Ed.]. The snacks are produced by local companies.236238239241242246247249251If there is a proper school feeding system in place that offers nutrient rich foods then healthier individual Translates into a greater success rate in exams and overall performance in education Productive individuals in society and building human capacity of the nation healthier nation – more mental and physically fit individuals, How we relate to each other- more positive interactions in families and amoungst friends and a healthier society, less social problems – eg vagrancy/homeless, crime, delinquency, domestic violence against women Government has to spend more money on health care system and public servants pay more taxes to upkeep these systems if more persons are unwell in society therefore it benefits the government and citizens as a whole to remain healthy or practice healthy lifestyles WHAT PARTNERSHIPS ARE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE SUSTAINABLE PROVISION OF HEALTHY MEALS DURING THE SCHOOL TERM Between farmers , ministry of agriculture , supermarkets, transport providers, caterers to ensure that quality standards are set, adhered to/maintained throughout the value chain until the school meals reach the children. Governments role - give farmers incentives to produce natural and organic foods, limit fast foods industry coming into the country that will supply unhealthy foods Between the social development or ministry of education to be involved in educating parents about the relationship between diet nutrition and learning (fostering mental wellness) Partner with media in order to relay the right messages and to stop glamorizing unhealthy foods and promote the benefits of healthy foods. Short term , medium and long goals needs to be set and monitoring in place to ensure they are reached. WHAT ACTIONS CAN BE TAKEN TO ENSURE GREATER ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD IN SCHOOL FEEDING School feeding guided by scientific research Parent education program general diet and nutrition and cognitive learning, especially educate on reduction on sugar and have more natural drinks – ban fake drinks Campaign in schools and community to promote healthy nutrient dense foods Procurement - quality control standards in place/food safety standards from farmer to plate/school feeding Implementation of policies directly related to school feed and nutrition Make education accessible to everyone – no discrimination – disabilities, special needs Bring back farming as part of curriculum for eg green house setting – encourage schools to get into agriculture and grade them. Introduce hydroponic or aquaculture systems. Affordability cost of food – Government could put systems in place to keep cost of healthy food down so as to make healthy foods more accessible and less costly. Make unhealthy foods more expensive maybe through taxation and therefore less accessible. Farmers educated on chemicals – need accountability on part of farmer so they accountable for peoples health. The adoption of CSA (climate smart agriculture) practices by farmers. Plastic pollution and mercury affecting fishes in sea and waterways236238239240241242244247248249251Scaling School and Community Gardens using innovative farming techniques (Aquaponics, Hydroponics, Integrative Farming) Designing a sustainable procurement and supply chain that incorporates produce from the school and community gardens is desirable in all instance There needs to be an encouragement, and a wider use of hydroponics and aquaponic=c growing programmes in schools and communities, Financing should be made available to enable scale of the programmes and alignment with Climate Actions These schools and community gardens can be structured to be food hubs and enable social enterprise which can then be reinvested into the development of schools, communities and the welfare needs of the children Partnerships with higher education institutions, civil society and others can play an important role in designing, planning, sustaining and scaling the hydro and aquaponic systems. Partnerships would be key to managing and navigating the interactions and trust required for success the policy environment should enable the alignment of the concepts, scaling of the models, education of stakeholders, governance of social enterprises created and the ongoing partnership and cooperation required Circular economy principles and practices should be designed and integrated into all the school gardens, food hubs and school feeding programmes236238239240241242244246248251Sustainable Procurement in School Feeding Programmes Local and Regionally Procured products should be given preferential treatment. The preference should be given on basis of need to decarbonize the supply chain and also on enabling sustainable livelihoods for local farmers Policies should promote healthy consumption and reduce unhealthy options The procurement needs to go beyond the school feeding to everything procured within school canteens Partnerships across heath, academia, mental health, social work and care would help to better manage the processes that lead to negative effects on health, mental health and so on A need for Co-ordination: Many contributors believe that there needs to be partnerships between the Ministry of health, education, community, and agriculture; and they need to work together on the four pillars of food supply for schools and communities. They need to help the teachers to help pupils and the community to change current habits. It was recognised that there are not enough staff currently available, but that has to be addressed if there is to be a change in current habits, and health. Agriculture is seen as an industry that only elderly people are interested in. [it’s not for the young Ed.] And many of these elderly farmers [due to the pressures and economics Ed.] believe that they can’t waste a day to go on a training course. Again, a reinforcing downward spiral resulting in little progress. This logjam needs breaking and that will only happen effectively with coordinated governmental intervention across many ministries. As farming and agriculture is viewed as a non-career, only external programmes will be able to change these perceptions. Particularly for youth, and through the curriculum. As there is a shortage of labour to check on food quality, oversee good practice (there is over use of fertilisers and pesticides), and assist with training, perhaps students studying agricultural practice, could be encouraged to spend more time working with local farmers on appropriate practices and routes forward.236238239240241242244246248251Assuring food safety in school feeding programs The implementation of Good Agriculture Practices, Good Manufacturing Practices, HACCP, risk Assessment and so on should be implemented and verified throughout the school feeding value chain. Food safety management system standards and certification /Third Party Assurance should be incorporated into the management regimes of the school feeding programme Principals and teachers should also receive basic food safety awareness. All food handlers should receive a bit more that basic food safety when involved in school feeding programmes Partnerships across the value chain can have a significant impact of both quality and safety of food provided. Partnerships with business, academia, civil social and social work sectors can all have impact on assuring both food safety and quality in schools. These relationships may also result in win win for businesses as they would better meet the needs of the schools "children" in a cost effective, efficient and affordable manner realizing many co benefits regarding healthier products and no loss of revenue streams236Reducing food waste in school feeding Circular economy principles, practices and models need to be implemented throughout value chain to reduce food loss and waste Excess food should be given to homes and donated to poor where practicable and safe There was an expressed view that there needs to be a ‘champion’ to intervene for the children to champion healthy fresh food. Teacher’s in agriculture at schools can grow food for the canteen and for sale to other teachers and the community. Mainly vegetables are grown, but the quantities are smallish. Tend to be a project for the pupils and not a sustained activity. Some schools do have chickens and small ruminants; but these are few in number. There are supposed to be food hygiene and safety checks, but there was a lack of knowledge about how in practice the inspectors are trained or how they organise their visits which are infrequent due to staffing levels. There are some schools that were originally built around agriculture with specialist teachers trained on how to run ‘Forage Clubs’. Some schools have an annual ‘Forage Fair’ which is judged by the Ministry of Agriculture. Teachers in charge of agriculture are trained in agricultural practice and basic animal husbandry, but it was reported that there is a lack of knowledge about Post harvest management, crop storage, and annual cycle management. Agriculture should be taught in schools, but [as reported, in some schools Ed.] after form three it is reportedly dropped and, in some schools, it is no longer on the syllabus at all. Community and Food: In the community, many families don’t cook anymore. There is a belief that we [society Ed.] we need to retrain people to buy, prepare wholesome food and to eat properly and eat nutritious food. It is seen as essential to get information about food to people whilst they are young so that good eating habits, and respect for food, stay with them for life. There is some general confusion about how to handle food that has been designated for human consumption. Once designated [the protocols for this were unknown Ed.] any leftover food cannot be disposed of easily. The concern is that such food may ‘spoil’ but still be in circulation for consumption. The Covid19 pandemic has added to the health problems of children. As they take less exercise, but consume high carbohydrate snacks, they are tending to obesity. [with all the attendant on-costs to society through health interventions Ed.] There is also a government feeding programme for lower income families. The scheme is called PATH for which recipients need to register in order to get the food delivered to their children’s school. A view of Agriculture: Career advice appears to follow the general perception of agriculture. i.e. ‘if you are not very bright you can go into agriculture’. If you go into farming, you are perceived to be no good at anything else. [this of course is weak career advice and re-enforces stereotyping of the industry Ed.] The industry is not seen as attractive. One repeated theme was the collapse of knowledge about where food comes from, what is nutritious, how to prepare food, and what is good for life, right across the community. [this can become a reinforcing downward spiral Ed.] Belief that if you are going to cook food then you need to know where it is from and how to grow it. The Ministry of agriculture runs a BTIS [? Ed.] extension training course. Again, the post crop handling of produce is seen as important as large percentages of crops are lost due to poor handling, and that it is perceived as poor quality against an arbitrary scale. i.e. not attractive enough for the consumer to buy it. But is still wholesome. At prestige schools, there is no training of agricultural or practical skills as they focus on academic subjects only. One contributor reported that there is a large governmental fund available, but they don’t know how it will be divided out or how to properly access it.237Trade barriers should not be used as means of promoting use of local food only and restricting trade and competition. While systems should enable better flows and use of local food it should not be restrictive to other markets entering the market to provide affordable food. Such practices can have adverse effects on other markets and also limit access to excess production of regional food to export Implementation of standards throughout value chain may not necessitate certifications or adherence to expensive certification schemes. However there should be affordable means of varying the safety practices and processes throughout

2021-07-25 19:45:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28667/172

2342755071662111252331352522

El pasado 29 de mayo se celebró el primer diálogo “Nutre tu Optimismo”. Previamente todas las organizadoras fueron informadas acerca de los principios de actuación y, así mismo, se les pidió que tuvieran muy presente toda la información relativa al Diálogo del Sistema alimentario compartida en redes sociales. La mayoría de las organizadoras de este diálogo son socias de Soroptimist International Costa del Sol. Al ser un grupo diverso de ocho personas de entre 18 - 74 años y con cuatro nacionalidades y orígenes diferentes, automáticamente y de manera natural, se generó una amplia red de contactos que sirvió para invitar a nuevos participantes para el segundo diálogo. El segundo diálogo tuvo lugar el pasado 13 de julio, se presentó un breve video de introducción elaborado por una de nuestras participantes. Este sintetiza todos los problemas resaltados durante el primer diálogo y refleja con claridad la complejidad del sistema alimentario, así como la urgencia de actuar. El video está disponible a través del canal de YouTube de Soroptimist International Costa del Sol, enlace https://youtu.be/HR9wggMWQ2Q Cabe mencionar algunas de las dificultades con la que nos encontramos, como el rechazo de ciertas organizaciones a participar en estos diálogos alegando que la United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards (UNFSS) no se está construyendo sobre el legado de las anteriores cumbres mundiales sobre la alimentación: “Vemos cómo en lugar de aprovechar las experiencias innovadoras de gobernanza que ofrece el sistema de las Naciones Unidas, la asociación entre la ONU y el Foro Económico Mundial (FEM) está ayudando a establecer el ‘capitalismo de las partes interesadas’ como modelo de gobernanza para todo el planeta”. El éxito de nuestro diálogo se materializará en un futuro muy próximo ya que nuestro objetivo es arrancar con la primera acción en nuestro sistema alimentario local antes de que se lleve a cabo la Cumbre sobre la alimentación en Nueva York.Para reflejar aspectos específicos de los Principios contamos con una ponente principal experta en biodiversidad y protección marina, la directora del Aula del Mar de Málaga. Explicó en su intervención la necesidad de cuidar la naturaleza no solo en la tierra sino también en los mares y océanos ya que si seguimos rompiendo el equilibrio de la naturaleza todos viviremos consecuencias devastadoras. Así mismo, también se abordó las consecuencias de la contaminación del agua con los plásticos, micro plásticos y metales. Al finalizar el diálogo nuestro curador invitó a todos los participantes a mantenerse en contacto y apoyarnos en el desarrollando de nuestras propias acciones locales. Actualmente estamos trabajando juntos gracias a la gran red de personas construida fruto de los diálogos independientes, por ejemplo, estamos llevando a cabo los objetivos del proyecto “Pueblo Acogedor”: crear vínculos entre la población rural y la población urbana, conocernos y aprender los unos de los otros. Hemos recibido 5.840€ del fondo de acción de la Federación Europea de Soroptimist Internacional*, esto nos dará un buen comienzo para pasar a la acción y cumplir objetivos. (*) Soroptimist International es una organización no gubernamental (ONG) con estatus consultorio en el Consejo Económico y Social de las Naciones Unidas (ECOSOC). Las Soroptimistas trabajan hacia los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible de las Naciones Unidas, apoyando o desarrollando proyectos para alcanzar nuestro objetivo principal: mejorar la condición de vida de mujeres y niñas.Cualquier persona que no esté muy involucrada en el mundo y la jerga de las Naciones Unidas y, cuyo primer idioma no es el inglés o español, leer y comprender los Principios de Actuación es una tarea algo complicada que conlleva tiempo y mucha atención. Como grupo de organizadores bastante motivados nos tomamos, con mucho gusto, el tiempo necesario para respaldar el significado de los Principios y tratamos de reformular el texto para hacerlo más accesible a nuestros participantes. Sentimos que la redacción actual podría alejar a las personas ya que los textos no terminan de conectar.

Yes

234238239240244246247El diálogo “Nutre tu Optimismo” se centró en los patrones de consumo actuales y en el cambio por unos modelos más sostenibles, enfocados en los retos y oportunidades que se presentan en la provincia de Málaga, Andalucía. Se reflexionó sobre las posibles acciones que podríamos llevar a cabo para que dicha transformación sostenible sea una realidad en nuestras localidades. Para poder realizar cualquier tipo de cambio, primero, necesitamos ser conscientes de los problemas urgentes que hay en el sistema alimentario de nuestra vecindad. Por ello, nos vimos en la necesidad de contar con el conocimiento de nuestros expertos locales para identificar las dificultades y apoyarnos en el desarrollo de acciones. ¿Cómo podemos motivar a los consumidores, a la industria y a los responsables políticos a realizar un cambio en la forma de consumo alimentario? Para responder a esta pregunta empezamos enfocándonos en la sobreexplotación de los recursos naturales y poniendo especial foco en los riesgos que nuestro consumo actual tiene para la salud de los niños y niñas.235238239240241244246247248249Es importante reconocer la abrumadora complejidad del sistema alimentario, como dijo uno de nuestros participantes: “Es como una montaña en la que no puedo ver cómo marcar la diferencia, especialmente con la oposición que recibimos de esta sociedad motivada por el dinero”. Sin embargo, vemos que hay mucho optimismo. Mientras nos damos cuenta de que necesitaremos mucho coraje, fuerza y motivación para cambiar el sistema alimentario, también sabemos que necesitamos más conocimiento sobre el proceso de elaboración de los alimentos y de cada paso que este ha tenido que dar antes de llegar a nuestro plato. El poder del consumidor está sobreestimado, veamos por qué: • La industria del marketing utiliza incontroladamente estrategias de “lavado verde”, lo que hace que sea muy difícil identificar verdaderos alimentos saludables. • La información en las etiquetas es demasiado difícil de leer y entender para cualquier persona. Especialmente para aquellas con enfermedades como la diabetes es bastante complicado encontrar alimentos sin azúcares ocultos. • La abundancia de alimentos disponibles en los supermercados significa que no estamos respetando el ritmo natural de los alimentos, así como de los recursos naturales que han sido empleados para su producción y distribución. • Convivir con el mundo de la comida rápida y prefabricadas es difícil de resistir. • Cuando vamos a un restaurante, ¿cómo saber qué ingredientes están usando? • Muchas personas llevan una vida cargada de estrés. La difícil conciliación entre el trabajo, los hijos y la vida social no permite a las personas tomarse el tiempo necesario para ir de compras y tomar decisiones conscientes, verificando de dónde proviene el producto. A menudo compran alimentos prefabricados que están etiquetados como saludables y que pueden ser preparados en poco tiempo. • A pesar de que la pandemia de la COVID-19 ha influido en la manera que tenemos de comprar, optando por los mercados que quedan más cerca de casa, no hemos cambiado los hábitos alimenticios, pues el estilo de vida y el tiempo limitado dificultan el cambio. El mundo en el que vivimos se basa en un sistema de generación de dinero, este círculo vicioso hace que la producción de alimentos sea lo más barata posible para poder lograr el máximo beneficio, sin sumar los costos de salud, la reducción de la calidad de vida y los costos del cambio climático. PRODUCCIÓN ALIMENTARIA: • Los peces producidos en piscifactorías, tratados con hormonas y antibióticos como la panga, tienen efectos secundarios para nuestra salud. • Los pescadores tradicionales están siendo expulsados por las grandes empresas pesqueras, lo que no es sostenible es rentable para sus bolsillos. • El almacenamiento de alimentos frescos, a veces durante años, antes de que se vendan en la tienda pierden valor nutritivo. • Algunos “bio productos” no respetan la vida de los animales, un ejemplo son las vidas marinas atrapadas en las redes de grandes buques que mueren por nada, ni si quiera para el consumo. También la producción de carne en macro granjas supone un potencial riesgo para la salud de las personas y la de los propios animales que como consecuencia son sacrificados a gran escala. • Métodos de producción para hacer que los alimentos duren más o tengan mejor sabor, como agregar potenciadores del sabor. • La mayoría de los productores ecológicos de la provincia de Málaga son microempresas con una producción limitada. Aunque reciben el apoyo de las autoridades locales, les cuesta adaptarse a los nuevos canales de promoción, tecnología y distribución. Raramente los productos llegan a las grandes superficies. DERECHOS HUMANOS Y ANIMALES • El pescador artesanal que trabaja de manera que protege el medio ambiente, que utiliza métodos de pesca menos agresivos y que no sobrepesca tiene derecho a un salario digno. • Mejorar las condiciones de vida de los animales y evitar las macro granjas. • Alertar de que la mayoría de los lobbies cárnicos manipulan las decisiones del mercado para su propio beneficio. MEDIO AMBIENTE Y CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO • Reducir el material de embalaje y el desperdicio de alimentos, reciclar siempre que sea posible. • Enfocarnos en los productos locales, ecológicos y de kilómetro 0. • Reducir el consumo de carne y volver a la dieta mediterránea. • El calentamiento global está causando problemas en todos los países del mundo, el cambio climático no está permitiendo a poblaciones locales a cultivar sus propios alimentos y como consecuencia tienen que abandonar sus tierras, sus hogares e incluso su país. No vivimos solos en el mundo, todos estamos conectados de muchas formas y lo que ocurre en otros países tarde o temprano terminará afectando al nuestro. Juntos podemos influenciar si dejamos de comprar en comercios insostenibles con el medio ambiente y con nuestra salud. ¿Es correcto comprar nuestro pescado a las grandes empresas cuya forma de trabajar es mala para el ecosistema y que no paga dignamente a sus trabajadores? Los responsables políticos deben fomentar la soberanía alimentaria, los recursos naturales para la población local y detener el capital extranjero que se apodera y explota la tierra. En este momento las autoridades de los cinco continentes se inclinan ante el dinero y el poder de las grandes internacionales.236238239240244246247249¿Hay luz al final del túnel? Escuchamos historias que tienen mucho sentido: cómo podemos cambiar el chip y crear una transformación hacia alimentos nutritivos que han sido producidos localmente y sin sufrimiento animal. CONCIENCIACIÓN • La pandemia del Coronavirus 19 nos ha hecho conscientes de la urgente necesidad de cambiar los métodos de producción alimentario y de acortar las líneas de distribución. Necesitamos tomarnos un tiempo para volver a las viejas costumbres como sentarnos juntos a la mesa a comer. • Los animales están siendo sacrificados para alimentarnos, necesitamos volver a aprender a apreciar la comida como hacen los pueblos indígenas, comer menos carne asegurándose de ingerir suficientes proteínas de las verduras. • Los alimentos producidos ecológicamente son más nutritivos y mejores para el medio ambiente, aunque el suelo ya no sea tan rico como lo era hace 50 años, las frutas y verduras no son tan sabrosas y nutritivas. • ¿Qué tal si encontramos nuevos o viejos héroes de la comida como Popeye el Marino quien fomentó que los niños comieran espinacas? • Comer alimentos procesados puede conducir a la obesidad y no hace que las personas se sientan bien ni se vean bien. ¿Somos conscientes de la influencia que tiene en nuestro cuerpo los venenos ocultos en los “alimentos”? • Tener en cuenta que los planes para cambiar el entorno toman tiempo y avanzan con lentitud, hay que mantenerse positivo, aunque no vea el resultado de un día para otro. • Es importante crear conciencia sobre lo que pasa con los residuos una vez son llevados a los contenedores, el impacto ambiental que tienen, qué se recicla y qué no. ¿Cómo podemos reducir nuestros propios desechos? • Sensibilizar sobre el medio ambiente, la necesidad de cambiar para que más gente se levante y presione a las autoridades para que hagan cambios.236238239240244246247249251EDUCACIÓN • Aprender a preparar alimentos frescos de temporada y comprender que es importante respetar y conectar con el ritmo natural de la vida, entender que las frutas y verduras necesitan tiempo para madurar, debemos cultivar paciencia. Esto tiene que ser enseñado desde una edad temprana para asegurar un cambio en nuestro sistema alimentario y hacerlo más saludable para el planeta y los seres vivos. • Conocimiento sobre alimentos saludables, los beneficios de los alimentos producidos local y ecológicamente. • Estar informado sobre el desperdicio de alimentos que generan las multinacionales, cuyos intereses radican en los accionistas que exigen más ganancias mientras no les interesa proteger el medio ambiente. Por ejemplo, en la industria pesquera se desperdicia pescado si este no les supone suficiente valor económico, por lo cual se tiran montones de productos pesqueros que nunca llegan a ser consumidos. Además, estos grandes buques contaminan las aguas. • Preparar comida saludable en lugar de calentar una comida prefabricada • Enseñar a las familias y a través de las escuelas la importancia de separar los desechos de la manera correcta y reciclarlos cuando sea posible.236238239240244246247248249251ACCIÓN • Necesitamos que los responsables políticos apoyen el movimiento del sistema alimentario sostenible mediante la financiación de campañas de sensibilización. • Comenzando con pasos pequeños y haciendo un cambio en la mente de nuestros hijos lograremos la transformación, siempre con respeto mutuo y siendo positivos. • Apoyar las acciones locales que ya se están llevando a cabo, como los planes educativos para una alimentación sana y sostenible organizados por Cruz Roja que, en estos momentos, está elaborando un mapa de los huertos urbanos / eco sociales de la provincia de Málaga. • Falta más promoción y difusión de los productos ecológicos, habría que buscar nuevas formas, como estando presentes en pequeños espacios en las televisiones locales. • Líneas de distribución cortas: apoyar a empresas como Sabor a Málaga, que promocionan productos locales. Apoyar también a los huertos familiares sostenibles locales donde se producen frutas y verduras. Incrementar el número de mercados locales donde se venden productos saludables de la zona. • Las rutas de tapas locales o similares podrían llegar a la población local. • Organizar campañas en la calle para informar a las personas sobre cómo reciclar y cómo hacerlo correctamente. • Organizar más diálogos sobre el sistema alimentario y asegurarnos de incluir a personas de todas las generaciones, especialmente niños y adultos jóvenes, que aprendan de sus ideas y su manera de describir el mundo. Necesitamos trabajar juntos, analizando y resolviendo los problemas de nuestra alimentación que impactan a todos los seres vivos de este planeta. • Etiquetas de alimentos, el texto debe ser más grande, para que se pueda leer sin ponerse gafas, se pueden agregar colores y formas para que la información sea más clara.236238239240243246247249POLÍTICA • Política contra el lavado verde o “Green Washing” el responsable de engañar a los consumidores conscientes del cambio necesario, pero que caen en las trampas de los engañosos colores verdes y palabras de moda como “eco”, “bio” …entre otros. • Crear espacios para huertos urbanos y huertos verticales ya que favorecen el autoabastecimiento, además, los vecinos aprenderían a cultivar y conocer mejor su alimentación, esto beneficiaría tanto a niños como a adultos. Importante: los huertos urbanos deben estar integrados en la naturaleza y el ecosistema de la zona. • Los mercadillos locales favorecen circuitos cortos de distribución • Apoyar campañas de educación ambiental a centros escolares sobre alimentación sostenible y las tres “R” (Reducir, Reutilizar y Reciclar) • Hacer que los productos ecológicos sean más accesibles para las personas con escasos recursos económicos. • Hacer que las etiquetas legibles sean obligatorias, nuestra salud depende de ello237238239240244246247249251Dependiendo de los antecedentes, de la propia experiencia y de sus perspectivas de futuro, los participantes tuvieron miradas distintas respecto al Sistema Alimentario. Los participantes que están involucrados activamente en el sistema alimentario se sienten con mayor capacidad de influencia y por lo tanto se mantienen optimistas. Otro tema de divergencia fueron los monocultivos, sistema de producción agrícola que consiste en dedicar toda la tierra disponible al cultivo de una sola especie vegetal. Mientras la mayoría de los ponentes pensaron que los monocultivos serían un problema serio de cara al futuro, uno de los participantes (el que tenía mucha más experiencia en el campo de conservación) dijo que los monocultivos tenderán a reducirse en el futuro ya que entidades conservacionistas a nivel internacional llevan décadas presionando a las autoridades sobre esta problemática y poco a poco se va regularizando y controlando. No obstante, sigue siendo un problema en los países en vías de desarrollo, donde no hay tanto control. El segundo tema donde hubo diferencia de opiniones fue la dieta basada 100% en vegetales y la dieta omnívora. Mientras algunos ponentes argumentaron que la dieta basada en productos de origen animal era muy contaminante, otros participantes puntualizaron que la dieta 100% vegetal no se libraba de tener impacto ambiental. Se habló de los pesticidas, los monocultivos y las semillas transgénicas que se usan en muchos productos 100% vegetales. Todos los ponentes estuvieron finalmente de acuerdo en ambos casos.

2021-07-25 22:07:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7699/203

5604212111243214323226104731323716

The principles were reinforced in the design, by facilitators and by the convenors at the opening of the dialogueThe dialogue reflected the principles in composition of participants, in the format of the dialogue and in the process used for engaging . A wide cross section of stakeholders were brought together with the sole aim of wanting to support improved sustainability and resilience of regional food systemsHave very short framing remarks and prioritize the engagement aspects Have solid prompt questions to help guide the discussions Ensure facilitators and convenors go through the training Have a facilitator briefing before the dialogue Open Dialogue a little early to test sound and other technical issues Discourage any long PowerPoint presentations during framing Use the Summit concept paper to help plan As an independent dialogue expect little or no support from UN agencies or member states in convening dialogues

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249251This dialogue examined the potentiality of improving our food systems using circular economy principles and models. With it potential benefits to impact on the agriculture, water, energy and waste management nexus issues, reducing the GHGS from agriculture, potential to improve soil health and to help increase participation in formal economy by informal sectors, participants shall explore what actions can be taken now to unlock the power of circularity to develop a more sustainable and resilient food system by 2030. After a short framing panel discussion by curators. Participants were broken into seven facilitated discussion groups outlined below 1. Optimizing the food system value chain 2. Improving soil health using circular economy principles 3. Incentivizing Circularity 4. Financing Circular Principles 5. Public Awareness and Social Marketing of Circular Economy Principles and Practices 6. Building sustainable agribusiness 7. Circular Economy for Livestock Production235238239240241242243244245246248249251Data and scientific information is going to be critical to planning and monitoring the benefits and tradeoff of the circular economy Managing the nexus in agriculture, food, water, waste energy will provide the greatest opportunities to make food system more resilient, sustainable and circular there is need to improve consumer awareness and help them to better play their role in th food system as relates to the proper management of waste There is a need to provide opportunities to share success stories in a simplified interactive format Need for Education and a Design that contemplates circularity throughout. National and regional programmes needed to support sorting waste at the various sources in the chain , from individual, community and commercial. Find opportunities to scale that sorting and enable the development of downstream sectors that also place emphasis on creating opportunities for the informal sectors Scale education programmes in composting/organizing/producing biofertilizers, enabling health biodiversity and ecosystem vitality by managing the waste flow etc Need to emphasize bottom up approach There is need to localize financing to support. There is need for greater cooperation There is also a need for innovative financing /ESG investment strategies that provide support for circularity in agriculture and food the food system participants need to work together to find ways to help manage waste flows. Contemplate using less, and placing greater emphasis on energy and power generation where practicable.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Optimizing the food system value chain There is a need for Collaboration across the Civil Sector, Private Sector, Academia, Communities and UN agencies to help scale actions in the circular economy A coordinating mechanism should be created regionally and nationally to guide and direct action on the circular economy in agriculture. The ISO Technical committees in Circular Economy, Climate Action Food, and other related areas should be incorporated into the national and regional efforts to scale actions on circularity in agriculture and in food systems Scaling Action is key Harmonization the efforts in the Foot System and Climate Action Standardization. Standardization efforts will also be critical especially standards pertaining to separation of waste, community scale collection of organic waste and other efforts to transform a loosely organized effort into a coordinated effort that can be scaled for the benefits to environment and the economy there is a need to create, map and expand job market and build trust in the process Managed and Facilitated Collaboration between civil society, academic, government, farmers and others in food system is critical to scaling action, assuring efficient and effective execution and sustainability Branding, Marketing, Awareness and Promotion is critical . Simple, effective and technologically enhanced ways should be found to promote and advance circular principles and practices across the food system. Optimization cannot take place in silos, vacuum and pockets b ut requires action on the entire system236238239240241242243244247249251Improving soil health using circular economy principles Indigenous Practices should be advocated Agroforestry should be encouraged and scaled there is no agriculture without soil health. Education of Farmers and other stakeholders will be critical to ensuring that all work together to improve soil health and biodiversity there is need for focussed action to reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides Good agricultural practices, organic grow standards and other forms of food safety management system standards can have significant impacts on the biodiversity of soil and food system Managing ewaste and other emissions is critical to preserving soil diversity National Policies providing for better application and verification of the international standards in preserving soil biodiversity can have many co benefits on health, safety, environment and on ecosystem vitality Mechanism need to be created to assure we get beyond having policies without processes and methods to assure impacts are managed, assessed and improved upon Partnerships between Academia, Private Sector and civil society can provide enhanced capability and capacity to design, plan, implement, monitor, improve, sustain policies, procedures and practices necessary to support soil health A regional and working group on soil biodiversity should be establish and provided with adequate funding to plan and implement education, awareness and intervention programmes relevant to supporting soil health and biodiversity . these actions should be aligned to SDGs and climate actions  Suggestions for minimizing the impact of husbandry or animal farming on the environment included: Regional Collaboration & Cooperation. • Specific reasons for this suggestion included provision of technical assistance by experts, knowledge-sharing and guidance (i.e., best practices, innovation, and technology (not necessarily smart farming options). • Develop, fund, and maintain a highly-integrated system. Improving access to information and resources to include greater connectivity was another suggestion. • Specific interventions such as government expanding and improving broadband access, allocating radio bandwidth dedicated to broadcasting information to outlying, tech-poor/tech unsavvy farmers. This includes dedicated government-sponsored audio/radio spots. China and Africa are contemporary examples of countries hosting forums/spots/access points for outlying persons. Incentivization. • Offer/fund efforts to identify other scientific means of minimization and/or mitigation in this discipline. Strengthening of existing regional extension services. • The current “bottlenecking” and inadequacy of service provided were identified as specific examples of how poor extension services act as barriers in this context. Other solutions. • Rotational grazing • Agro-forestry • Water harvesting (increasingly important as region experiences excessive heat, etc.) • Improved land & water management There is need for incentives to scale up Community Composting, Community Compost Bins, Anaerobic digestion, Permaculture clubs and waste to bio fertilizers and other good practices. The is need for flexible pathways to financing and as far as practicable neutering government bureaucracy and influence in the deployment of international funds. More third party avenues and flows are necessary to improve efficiency and alignment . There is need to avoid the policy gamesmanship, manipulation of symbols of progress and create independent third party of tripartite mechanisms that fulfil aims by channeling financing to aligned initiatives. It was strongly felt that government approval is not necessary for alignment to regional or national gaols but instead provide undue influence and control that more often than not hinders progress on the goals when political motives get confused as development objectives236238239240241242244245246248249251Incentivizing Circularity Innovating Financing models should be developed to support and encourage farmers using circular principles and models eg Funding anaerobic digesters, small scale waste to energy plants, composting systems on individual and community scale, procuring food from these farms with good agriculture practices in place Sustainable procurement is a powerful tool to encourage good sustainable and responsible agriculture production and consumption Incentives should be provided to support training, creating social enterprises using waste and reducing the flow of organic waste to landfills Several opportunities exist to create bio fertilizers at scale using fish waste, sargassum, poultry waste, coconut waste, cinnamon, neem and other natural agro based products. There is a need to create programmes . To accelerate and scale these programmes newly structured grants and other financial incentives are needed to support green entrepreneurs and social enterprises to scale and accelerate these practices regionally and nationally across the Caribbean region Incubator Programmes should be created to support innovations across the food system value chain Women, youth, differently abled and disenfranchised individuals should have flexible and preferential access to grant and innovative funding schemes developed to promote businesses that advance circularity  Livestock protocol should follow the same processes and protocols that govern the crop production model.  Government backing, development, and support of insurance specific for the agricultural sector, to include specialized sub-sectors and operations of varying levels. • Jamaica has recently launched such a program. NOTE: One example of an insurance product being introduced in the Caribbean’s is termed Parametric Disaster Insurance, an event-based rather than a loss-based payout system.  Dialogue among nation states in the region is essential. This is a mechanism, for among other things, identification of regional markets and non-traditional collaboration and cooperation.  A leader in the Caribbean research & development and ag education is the Bahama’s Agriculture and Marine Science Institute (BAMSI) is a rich source of real-time, authoritative entity providing ag-specific data and resources regionally and globally. Activities currently underway at BAMSI include: • An EU-funded incubator for small ruminants (i.e., goat, sheep, deer) • Research on feeding and farming methods • Development of regional best practices NOTE: The Cuba Model is the framework being utilized.  The Integrated Production Model is of value within this context.  The example of Tanzania’s planting of plantain and coffee together, was offered.  Incorporation of chicken into an environment such as this (Nathan is planning to expand his company’s farming interests to include chicken farming) was suggested, as appropriate in this context. The droppings (as well as those from ducks and pigs would serve as organic fertilizer.  Minimally, barriers to and concerns with the use of organic fertilizer were identified as: 1. Cost (within the large farm or commercial context). For example, one acre of farmland would require 2-4,000 pounds of manure annually. 2. The runoff and by-product effect – specifically, phosphorous-driven “green” water. The green water produced can be mitigated by planting “run-off” or “cover crops”. NOTE: Currently, one participant’s company has a team of scientists working on developing an organic fertilizer formulation. It’ll be 6-12 months before a usable sample/formulation is available for testing. The goal is making the fertilizer available commercially, as well as for their personal use on their 600-acre farm.236238239240241242244245246248Public Awareness and Social Marketing of Circular Economy Principles and Practices A regional platform on the circular economy in agriculture should be created to not only promote good practices but share and highlight success stories. The platform should also have a knowledge sharing space , discussion board and a means of generating consumer content The use of Green Marks and Sustainable procurement were strongly advocated for as part of a policy that supports education, training and awareness for circular economy principles, practices and standards across the food system value chain There is need for review of the education curriculum for agriculture. there is a need for emphasis on sustainable, climate smart and resilient practices that includes the circular economy . These practices should be included from primary to tertiary in adequate depth and breadth. More importantly demonstrable models of the practices should be created for applied learning. It was felt that service learning and other practices that allow the students and graduates in tertiary settings to gain credits for practical application of the science in benefits to the community can become a more dominant mode in education It was felt that there is need in the public awareness and education campaigns to reduce the technicality of the language used, use more local examples and terminology, promote national and regional pride by connecting and placing messages in the cultural context and expressions of song, dance, spoken word and regional genre. It was felt that simpler language, using dialect and real life testimonials will help better connect regional and national audiences to the messages and practices. The historical context in applying these principles and models were also critical to both acceleration and scale Utilize social media platforms and specifically designated platforms . You tube styled video, doodle, tic tok and other means should be used to share information, insights, success stories, lessons learnt and share opportunities for financing and incentives Climate financing, green funding and biodiversity funds should provide support for circular economy activities inclusive of education, public awareness, training and capacity building Partnerships between UNDP. academia, civil society, private sector, social enterprises, were seen as critical to the success of all aspects of PR, education, training and awareness activities. Education and awareness need to be integrated and incorporated into all interventions. Horizontal communications . Partnerships include Ministries of Education, Calypsonians, Reggae Artiste, Spoken Word, drummers, Dancers, Chutney Singers, Poets, Universities and Colleges, Ministries of Agriculture and Ministries of the Environment. A regional and national working group should be convened to assist in navigating these partnerships and assuring the relationships are managed and harnessed on an ongoing basis. technology should be leveraged in practicable ways to harness these relationships. The analytics and data can also be used to enhance the communication flows, planning and intervention. There is need to manage these interactions in the interrelated, interconnected and interdependent ways that they are and not get drawn into recreating or perfecting silos whilst using new technology236238239240241242243Building sustainable agribusiness To make agro businesses even more competitive, resilient and sustainable there is need to integrate circularity from design and manage the interactions to draw the full benefits out of the system. Zero waste is the most economical, sustainable and competitive way forward From Growing , Harvesting and Production, Manufacturing, Packaging, Warehousing, transportation, Delivery and Consumption there is a need to make system circular in its design and manage the relationships to capture every opportunity to make more circular and profitable at the same time. Many opportunities reside in energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste management, sustainable packaging and managing the relationship consumers have with the products . The better we can engineer these relationship the better we can increase competitiveness by being circular. It was felt that we can no longer compete by throwing things always. The example was given of oranges for making orange juice, Pul is often waste, skin is wasted. However if in addition to juice pulp is used and fermented for vinegar and alcohol there is added value. If the skin and rhine is taken and extracted for rhine used for cosmetics there is an added value, By doing so there is increased competitiveness, less waste and several opportunities to improve quality, expand the market, create jobs and make food system more sustainable and resilient. Seeds can be dried and used to grow new trees which can be distributed to farmers, community or even integrated into orchids of the processing business. this was one of several examples used to emphasize the concept. Mango , Coconut, Sugarcane , Pumpkin and Sapodilla were other examples used. Making agriculture zero waste and renewable was a concept advocated by the group developing the standards and the quality infrastructure for circular economy principles to be accelerated and scaled in agriculture and food system is of critical importance to the achievement of a net zero society There is need to implement training and education programmes that promote and advance this concept of business. There is a need for increase levels of grant, concessionary finance and loans to support agri entrepreneurs to apply and scale these circular economy concepts. there is also a need to provide funding to support development of social enterprises, community based organizations, clusters and others who may be capitalizing and innovating in the waste stream in partnership with others in the value chain. regional and National incentives should help bromote both agri business development, agro processing and the widespread deployment of circular practices and principles including the incorporation of renewables/sustainable technologies aquaponics and vertical hydroponics provide a good example of applying the circular economy principles and concept into a business model. Wider application, integration into schools, community gardens and other projects with clusters can have significant impacts in making agribusiness viable and sustainable Local, regional and International Funding and support should also cater to and provide access to resources to pay for mentorship, consultancy, coaching in marketing, quality assurance, food safety, food safety planning, climate smart and resilient practices, implementing circular economy principles and practices, HACCP, GMPs, GAPs and son on to help agri entrepreneurs take their businesses to the next level. Participants advocated for more non reimbursable grants as opposed to the reimbursable model in most incentives programmes. They felt the focus should be on realizing impact and not placing barriers on the farmers or processors having to find funds to participate in the funding programme. Access to land and facilities for start ups, and cluster organizations of women, ex prisoners, youth and differently abled and social organizations promoting their interest was raised. It was felt that moratoriums, lease access and making available in manageable proportions unused viable state lands to these groups. Governments around the region need to prioritize access, reduce barriers to access.236238239240241242244245248249Circular Economy for Livestock Production Livestock “loss and waste” to “resources” Waste is almost an unavoidable material that is generated in every livestock production or processing operation. In agriculture, these wastes are usually categorized as byproducts, coproducts or residues. The major difference between the term “waste” and “resource”, is the way it is being utilized. A resource is understood as an input of some value and may fall under economic, ecological, biological or sociological categories. For example, resources from the livestock industry can include manure or urine which can simply be used as crop fertilizer and soil conditioners. Another resource can be obtained from skins, furs, feathers and offal from the carcass fabrication process. These can be used to make non-conventional feed resources for other livestock and lower the total feed cost. Other simple resources are refuse products such as egg shells, poultry litter, deceased animals and feed spillage are also used in biomass based production and used in biofuel production systems. Circular Economy for Livestock production in the Neo tropics A good example of a circular model can be seen in an integrated farming system using Neo tropical animals and crops. This model would be using tropical species of “animal wildlife” with the potential of domestication, such as the agouti (rodent), tilapia, black conch, cassava and breadfruit. The concept of this model is that the breadfruit will be the long term food crop investment and will cover the boundaries of the plot (wind break advantage). The additional purpose of this food tree is that it would provide shade and some housing conditions for the agouti. The overripe fruit droppings and flowers will also be a feed resource for the roaming agouti. The agouti is allowed to feed and forage through the land and spread the local seeds of the tropical fruit trees by the caching process. The cassava would be a main staple that can withstand harsh and arid tropical conditions. This medium term food crop will feed consumers in various forms all the way up to cassava flour. The food loss and wasted materials will also be fed to the agouti, tilapia and black conch. In the pond lies the water resource for the plot of land that keeps everything alive. It is complimented with azola and duckweed which is also a nonconventional feed resource for the agouti as well as keeps the water quality stabilized from excessive aquatic waste. The breadfruit and cassava staples also act as nonconventional feed resource pellets for the aquatic species. The manure of the agouti fertilizes the land with a variety of beneficial microbes to condition the soil and ensure its health. All resources on this plot can be harvested and utilized by humans for food including the creation of value added products, while each loss or waste from the simultaneous operations feed into each other, ensuring a closed nutrient loop system. Most importantly, the resources used to make this system are all sourced within the Neo tropical zone and rely on each other synergistically.237240246247whether bio fertilizers are in fact better for the environment that synthetic. Whether all should be removed. The natural processes of nature were referenced

2021-07-26 01:28:13205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29956/49

0279857808810113137163852733422213136

El Diálogo se organizó en apego al Manual de referencia aportado por el Secretariado de la Cumbre. El grupo de trabajo responsable de la organización, participó en el proceso de capacitación realizado por el Secretariado. El equipo de facilitadores y tomadores de notas participó en dos sesiones de capacitación por parte del grupo de trabajo.

Yes

234240244248249El Diálogo se enfocó en la Vía de Acción 3, con el fin de “Identificar propuestas de acción en los próximos años para la transformación hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios, optimizando el uso de los recursos ambientales en la producción, el procesamiento y la distribución de alimentos, y logrando así la prevención de la pérdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación, el uso irracional del agua, la degradación del suelo y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero”. Para esto, en definitiva existe la necesidad de vincular las actividades de los sistemas alimentarios a otras vías de acción, disciplinas y sectores; por lo que se planteó la siguiente visión positiva para orientar toda la conversación que se dio en los subgrupos de trabajo durante el diálogo: “En todo nuestro accionar, seamos técnicos, profesionales, líderes comunales o políticos, académicos, productores o consumidores, debemos prever que nuestras actividades favorezcan los recursos naturales como fuente de vida, y se reduzca el impacto negativo” Se definieron diez tópicos de discusión que fueron desarrollados a lo largo de la discusión de los subgrupos. Hubo temáticas a las que se les dio mayor o menor énfasis, lo cual podrá suponer mayor interés por un tema u otro, pero también puede reflejar el grado de madurez en torno a ellas y la necesidad de considerar su potenciamiento y adecuación en futuras hojas de ruta.235240244248249250Experiencias y ejemplos de acciones y soluciones basadas en la naturaleza. Se citaron programas, proyectos, investigaciones, emprendimientos o producción relacionados a: conservación, recarbonización y mejoramiento de los suelos incluida la producción de abonos; producción orgánica y alternativa; inventarios de recursos fitogenéticos y creación de bancos de semillas; descarbonización de la ganadería y caficultura, agroecología, utilización de bioinsumos y promoción de uso adecuado y reducción de agroquímicos ; planes de reciclaje y gestión integral de residuos; disminución de pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos y su aprovechamiento; diversificación de cultivos y agregación de valor; reforestación y uso de tecnología tanto a nivel de agricultura de precisión como de alta tecnología en bioprocesos de diverso tipo Acciones requeridas para potenciar las soluciones basadas en naturaleza en los sistemas alimentarios y desde estos al entorno Un primer comentario se centró en la necesidad de políticas públicas y normativa articuladas y efectivas, con una hoja de ruta país clara; de hecho, se dijo que Costa Rica tiene una legislación visionaria y robusta, muchas veces lo que falta es aplicarla realmente El fortalecimiento de las capacidades, mejores servicios de extensión, transferencia entre universidad-sociedad y el trabajo interdisciplinario podrán incrementar el conocimiento, innovación y adopción de prácticas sostenibles (desde la finca a la mesa) en diversas temáticas; un ejemplo citado fue la concienciación sobre las pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos. Una acción positiva fue el fortalecimiento de programas ya existentes, como Bandera Azul Ecológica. También se requiere la creación y mejora en el acceso a incentivos, créditos y recursos financieros y materiales, así como una revisión de las cargas impositivas a nivel empresarial, para potenciar la inversión y soluciones basadas en la naturaleza. En todo ello, el involucramiento de jóvenes es vital, así como el fomento de la asociatividad y organizaciones locales Varios participantes comentaron la importancia de establecer indicadores de sostenibilidad ambiental y agrícola, de desperdicios de alimentos y en general de desempeño que permitan monitorear el estado de las prácticas implementadas. De manera vinculada a dichos indicadores, la trazabilidad juega un papel importante donde se comunique adecuadamente al consumidor lo que ciertas prácticas productivas implican, siendo una opción el etiquetado ambiental. En este sentido, el fomento de una cultura ambiental, la comprensión y comprobación de resultados positivos al productor y consumidor sumado a elementos de comunicación permitiría una mayor adopción de prácticas. Es necesaria la investigación en biorremediación Un tema reincidente respecto al primer diálogo y de alta incidencia en un enfoque de soluciones basadas en la naturaleza, fue la necesidad como país de avanzar en el registro de nuevas moléculas de agroquímicos que pueden resultar en aplicaciones más eficientes, con menor cantidad de producto y menos contaminantes Sugerencias de y para los actores del sistema: Se sugirió que era necesario hacer surgir un modelo de extensión y transferencia integral consecuente con una diversificación de cultivos, manejo sostenible de suelos, trazabilidad, entre otros. Se consideró clave que las distintas propuestas de proyectos productivas, además de incluir una perspectiva de equilibrio ambiental, sean regionalizadas, es decir consecuente con características edafoclimáticas y culturales de las localidades; por ejemplo, el conocimiento de las comunidades (indígenas y no indígenas) debe ser valorado en estos procesos, así como la acción de los gobiernos locales. Adicionalmente, la necesidad de articulación interinstitucional y las alianzas público-privadas se consideran una condicionante para que las acciones anteriores sean exitosas. Los aspectos relacionados a educación, investigación y capacitación fueron reiterados para aumentar las capacidades de actores de distintos eslabones de la cadena de suministro y tipologías (grandes, pequeños, de tipo familiar y sus potenciales interrelaciones). Además, se debe mejorar la divulgación sobre las acciones que se vienen implementando, al igual que las oportunidades tecnológicas, fuentes de recursos, infraestructura existente, y el intercambio de ideas para lograr la creación equitativa de conocimiento. Se resaltó también que en toda acción o política que se determine deberá tenerse la visión balanceada entre ambiente-sociedad-economía y no superponiendo una a otra, permitiendo una retroalimentación y monitoreo de los impactos constantemente y la consideración de las posibilidades de escalamiento reales que algunos de estos tengan. Un último comentario común a varios grupos fue la necesidad de contar con espacios de socialización, comunicación y de encuentro, de manera organizada, sistematizada y liderada, como lo han sido estos diálogos, debemos crear puentes institucionales para la buena coordinación. En su conjunto, estas propuestas podrán propiciar sistemas alimentarios más sostenibles desde una perspectiva de doble dirección: los sistemas pueden beneficiarse de recursos naturales más saludables y resilientes, y a su vez la naturaleza podrá verse beneficiada al implementar prácticas de los sistemas alimentarios más sensibles a su buen uso y conservación236240244248249 restauración de ecosistemas, bosques y fortalecimiento de la biodiversidad: algunos participantes llamaron la atención sobre la necesidad de la conservación dentro y fuera de áreas protegidas. Por ejemplo, más del 50% de los humedales a nivel nacional se encuentran en territorios privados; a su vez pueden darse proyectos de restauración específica como el caso de los manglares con el fin de conservación de recursos costeros para pesquerías y acuicultura. Un vínculo que no parece cercano en inicio pero que finalmente es consecuente con la conservación de la biodiversidad en el entorno alimentario, es la revisión y promoción de la gastronomía tradicional, promoviendo variedad de alimentos, la necesidad de diversificar las huertas para contar con ellos y contribuir a la salud y la cultura a su vez, e incluso puede generar otras actividades económicas vinculadas a experiencia gastronómica como podrá ser el turismo.  agricultura y ganadería baja en carbono: se comentó de ejemplos en ejecución como los NAMA´s los cuales contribuyen a la sostenibilidad en una forma integral (programa activo en café y en proceso en ganadería, musáceas, arroz y residuos); dentro de estos proyectos, la intensificación del uso de cercas vivas contribuye con servicios como la dotación de sombra (para animales u otros cultivos) y mayor biodiversidad.  re-carbonización de los suelos: en términos de este recurso, los participantes señalaron las oportunidades que las prácticas de conservación de suelos pueden tener desde diferentes perspectivas, ya sea esta conservando su estructura y función, capturando carbono, o reintegrando nutrientes a estos mediante el uso de enmiendas y abonos orgánicos  estrategias de adaptación para la pesca y la acuicultura: se destacó el gran problema de la sobrepesca y la pesca ilegal, por lo que se sugirieron actividades más armoniosas con la naturaleza y a su vez con los medios de vida. Se argumentó cómo a nivel internacional parece empezar a haber más conciencia de los impactos de la pesca no sostenible y mayor valorización de las acciones sostenibles, por esto se insta a trabajar en el mercado nacional para lograr lo mismo, y visualizar la oportunidad que la exportación puede representar en torno al ingreso de los pescadores y el efecto en el entorno natural (debido a un mercado que ya valora todo esto). De hecho, se citaron ejemplos de empresas que empiezan a llevar datos sobre las poblaciones de peces sobre las que incide, captura incidental, artes de pesca empleadas y su trazabilidad, lo que le permite al comprador conocer que el lote del que compró viene de pesca sostenible.  reducción de pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos: además de la existencia de una Red insterinstucional para este tema, algunos actores ejemplificaron con sus proyectos la posibilidad de rescatar productos alimenticios y redistribuirlos a poblaciones vulnerables, con un efecto ambiental, económico y social (seguridad alimentaria); también se conocieron proyectos de investigación y acciones de sensibilización en esta materia  agricultura urbana y árboles urbanos: más allá de estos dos conceptos, los participantes sugirieron abordar a nivel de ciudades, barrios, y territorios con la permacultura: diseñar entornos de manera sostenible y regenerativa pensando que cada proyecto tiene diferentes ámbitos. Lo anterior permite conjuntar diversos temas desde la arquitectura, la agricultura y el manejo de recurso hídrico, solo por mencionar algunos.  protección del recurso hídrico: si bien no se citó de manera individual, otros elementos relacionados a pesca y acuicultura, manejo de suelos, desarrollo urbano y gestión de residuos, tuvieron intrínseco este aspecto237240248Se detectó una desconexión o desarticulación entre sectores y el hecho puntual de que por más que se fomente, si no se demuestran realmente las cualidades de alimentos producidos de manera positiva hacia la naturaleza será difícil que haya una verdadera valorización de dichas prácticas Existen discrepancias entre lo que se quiere alcanzar y lo que se está haciendo, sobre todo de la parte de las políticas estatales. Un participante expresó la disyuntiva entre el reconocimiento de prácticas ejemplares del país en términos de conservación, y el uso de agroquímicos que se hace El desconocimiento del costo real de una transición a sistemas más sostenible basados en la naturaleza y fundamentados en principios bioeconómicos dificulta que muchos actores den el paso por temor a pérdida de empleos, ingresos, mercados. Por esto la investigación y comunicación es un gran aliado Si bien existen mecanismos financieros y de otra índole que pueden incentivar la adopción de soluciones basadas en la naturaleza, las convocatorias o documentos de trámites son incomprensibles muchas veces para todos los actores de la cadena de suministro, por esto la orientación, la extensión y el acompañamiento, así como la articulación interinstitucional son necesarias para que los procesos sean más ágiles y adecuados a las condiciones locales Otra discrepancia mostrada por los participantes fue la necesidad de comunicar adecuadamente respecto a sellos y etiquetas, donde a veces en un producto químico la etiqueta “verde” se usa más para fines comerciales pero no se refuerza el uso racional de productos Existió una gran divergencia en uno de los grupos donde algunos participantes mencionaron que la agricultura orgánica o sostenible no es posible en grandes escalas si no que es más viable a pequeña escala, agricultura familiar o PYMES. Sin embargo otros participantes manifestaron la existencia de experiencias exitosas a mayor escala en otras latitudes; lo anterior pone de manifiesto la necesidad de investigar, monitorear y divulgar, fundamentando las decisiones con evidencia científica La mayoría de los participantes convergían en el pensamiento que el tratamiento de residuos orgánicos por compostaje, la producción para autoconsumo de frutas y vegetales desde la formación escolar es de suma importancia

2021-07-26 01:30:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7708/203

5721830343027751322593195141394510151

Principles were reinforced in the design and by facilitator engagement of each group. An engaging space was created that allowed for all views to be expressed without evaluation, Facilitators engaged in active dynamic listening, recorded all contributions and engaged in deeper exploration through use of prompt questions and group facilitation techniquesThe dialogue reflected the principles in its design, structure, composition. The dialogue was open to members of the Impact youth sustainability Jamaica, the Jamaica Network of Rural Women Producers, The Caribbean Youth Environment Network, The Internet Society Chapters across all CARICOM States, The Caribbean regional Youth Network, Real Agriculture, TT Fixit, the National Youth Councils and all regional Farmer bodies and associationsPlan and prepare. Organize more time for engagement and less time for framing Have facilitators undergo the training Give a little time after plenary for additional comments leave some time at the end for participant open interactions Have facilitators log in early and provide them co host rights If in online have technical team start placing participants into groups on arrival

Yes

234238239240241242243244This dialogue examined how players in the food system ecosystem can accelerate the adoption of the Internet of Things and Technology that support enhancing the sustainability, resilience and innovation of the food system ecosystem in the Caribbean. Participants also examined issues contributing to the digital divide and strategies that can be executed now to begin creating a more sustainable and resilient food system by 2930. After a short framing session the participants will be broken into five facilitated discussion groups, namely a. Navigating the agriculture and Technology Divide b. Financing the acceleration of Technology Adoption on Agriculture c Improving agriculture value chains by leveraging available and future technology. Possibilities for accelerating Caribbean progress d. Improving Rural Connectivity e. Capacity building and skill development. Making Opportunities accessible to rural farmer women and youth After the discussion groups, facilitators shall present summaries of the discussions in a plenary discussion.235238239240241242243244246247249251Technology is an enabler but it is not the solution to the many challenges in agriculture and food systems As an enabler technology can enhance ability to collect, assess, disseminate, utilize information and data Aligning technology to support climate mitigation, adaptation and building community based social cohesion, equity and resilience is seen as the best use and means for acceleration technology use in food systems around the Caribbean Scaling Climate Finance and Improving access in areas that support greater energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste efficiency, processing effectiveness and connectivity of rural and urban communities provide many opportunities to accelerate and scale actions on SDGs, Paris Agreement and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction there is need to develop competencies, capabilities and capacity of farmers, processors and others in the food system to properly leverage technology. It was felt that shared platforms, leveraging social capital and clusters provides great avenues to reduce cost and realize benefits of wider deployment of technology It was felt that partnerships between agriculture organizations, trade facilitation and the Internet societies can go a long way in more expeditious deployment of community networks and addressing the digital divide in rural communities Coaching, mentorship, consultancy and capacity building can be critical enabling tools to support more efficient and effective uptake of technology in the food systems Leveraging technology to address issues of crime, security and monitoring the health of plants There is need to take a comprehensive view of risk. Risk from climate perspective, risk from community profile, risk by community, risk from specific and cascading risk there is need to leverage technology to improve data availability eg climate analytics, deploy share platforms and to safely and securely manage data in cyber space ie addressing cyber security issues and issues of accessibility, monitoring and tracking food waste There is need to leverage technology to support branding, marketing, advertising and promotion of food and agriculture as a viable career and business option for youth, women and vulnerable groups There is need for regional and at standards to support accelerating use of technology in agriculture Sustainable procurement can help shape the types of technology that is leveraged and brought to bear on agriculture There is also potential for drone technology and GPS technology in realizing climate smart and resilient agriculture practices A regional working group could be convened to help shape a regional strategy on the uptake of technology and champion the deployment of Community Networks regionally``` Utilize innovation Lan strategy to better connect innovators and food system participants236238240241242243244246248251Navigating the agriculture and Technology Divide There is a critical need to address connectivity within rural communities, rural producers and processors Deployed more regional community networks Equity should underline the strategy and there needs to be greater access, improved energy, water and waste management efficiency There is need to place an emphasis on education/digital literacy/technology literacy and the ways can position technology to make better use of natural resources, conserve water and improve yields Partnerships across e government, civil society, private sector, and academia are critical in navigating issues across the digital divide. Institutions like UTT, UWI, UWI Open Campus, ASTI and all the National Training Agencies need to work together in address green and technology skill gaps among food system providers236238239240241242244245246Financing the acceleration of Technology Adoption on Agriculture Scale should be leveraged to help reduced cost of technology that can benefit clusters and the entire sector Grant and donor programmes need to create flexible pathways to accessing financing Climate financing should also cater to the leveraging of sustainable technology or the alignment of traditional technologies to enhance climate smart and resilient approaches to technology There is need to help enhance the capabilities to apply for and mange grant and loan financing utilize to leverage technology Financing criteria should be aligned to and give support to producers and processors leveraging technology towards making their operations climate smart and resilient Insurance should provide reductions based on proper leveraging of climate adaptation and mitigation approaches and so on236243245246251Improving agriculture value chains by leveraging available and future technology. Possibilities for accelerating Caribbean progress there is a lot of room for IOT, sensors, GPS,, Drone, Analytic technologies, WIFI Cameras and other technology in the Caribbean Space Aquaponics, Vertical Hydroponic Farming (Indoor and Outdoor), bio digesters and others technologies have tremendous potential for improving Value chains Block Chain Technology can be a great tool for accelerating action throughout the food system value chain Smart factory, Industry 4.0 Traceability throughout the value chain is of critical importance. Providing support for farmers, processors and distributors could have significant benefits and impact in improving Caribbean competitiveness and resilience of its food system Partnerships across the value chain can make it easier to adopt technology and manage the transition process236238239241242243244246247249251Improving Rural Connectivity Community Networks are seen as a critical strategy for improving rural connectivity Connectivity and internet access needs to be seen as a right and providers need to be encouraged to connect rural communities as a matter of principle. It is critical to improving food systems, education and the overall quality of life that issues in rural connectivity needs to be addressed It has been a real challenge for rural communities regionally to remain connected and conduct e commerce and other business with limited and constantly failing internet regionally Internet connectivity, broadband and fiber should be a priority of government, private sector and local government regionally Partnerships can be an excellent vehicle for deploying greater access, community networks and free access finding ways to demonetize the internet through models of IAAS and SAAS should be evaluated and deployed A regional and national working groups should be created to examine and address the issues of rural connectivity. Technical members of ISACA, ISOC, ITU and ISO Technical committees could be drawn upon to support this initiative Flexible funding regimes should be developed and deployed to allow partner agencies to connect rural and vulnerable commutes as a critical requirement in enabling a just and equitable transition Free broadband nd and internet access should be provided to all rural schools, community centers, parks and other shared spaces as a means of increasing access and affordability. With all services and commerce being transitioned online connectivity can no longer be seen as a luxury but as the means by which people connect with services. To leave communities without access is to reduce the market and handicap the economic and social potential of countries and region as a whole236238239240241242243244245246249Capacity building and skill development. Making Opportunities accessible to rural farmer women and youth There is need to include digital literacy in all education programmes for farmers Priority attention needs to be given to women, youth, ex prisoners, justice involved youth There is need to leverage technology to help make agriculture sexy ie appealing as a career option and viable coaching, mentorship and support are critical to the success of all initiatives to accelerate and scale the use of technology in agriculture ongoing Proving effective support beyond deployment of technology is critical to learning and improvement of food systems Education needs to cover food safety, traceability, and the necessary components to assure literacy and proper use of technologies to improve practices at level of farm and communities Deployment in clusters (groups and network) is seen as one of the best ways to reduce cost of IOT and other technology deployment eg renewables servicing a community, commercial composting at community scale, bio digesters , drones to plant and monitor crops, water sensing technology monitoring water content and biodiversity of soil, Capacity building and skill development. Making Opportunities accessible to rural farmer women and youth, GPS tags tracking livestock location and health and so on There is need to revise currcula237240242243246248Blockchain technologies consume great deals of power and is not totally sustainable. Some participants felts there are other ways with lower carbon footprint to realize the same benefits of block chains.

2021-07-26 02:44:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7704/203

521520152322088417735141742410

The dialogue was designed using the prescribed format and drew on participants that were representative of the entire food system regionally.The dialogue reflected the principles by being totally inclusive, engaging, no evaluative and by assuring the audience were representative of farmers, academics, private sector, consultants, youth organizations, ex prisoners and civil society bodies that advocate on their behalfBe inclusive Create a non evaluative environment Have the facilitators and curators undergo the training maintain the standard format as far as practicable because it does lend itself to an effective and efficient dialogue have facilitators sign in early identify early the people you wish to participate recognize in the virtual settings some of your key partners like the rural women and rural men may have challenges connecting so find ways to ensure there participation. We were fortunate that at least seven of the women from the rural women in Jamaica, 3 from Trinidad and Tobago and others from St Lucia and Barbados were able to participate. Recognize people from outside your nation and region may also have value. Make everyone feel welcome and appreciate all contributions

Yes

234This dialogue examined how the Caribbean region can enable sustainable livestock production and improved agribusiness management. With livestock production having significant impacts on climate change, finding ways to take to scale more sustainable climate smart and resilient practices in livestock production is a critical imperative. After a short framing discussion by curators, participants would be broken into five facilitated discussion groups , namely a) Neo tropical Animal Conservation, Production and Utilisation b. Encouraging and sustaining good agriculture practices in livestock farming c) Reducing livestock impacts on environment d. Creating sustainable partnerships between farmers, food processors and consolidators/distributors e. Climate Resilient and Sustainable Livestock Production and Consumption (Challenges, risk and opportunities) After the group discussions, facilitators would present summaries in a plenary,235238239240241242There are several neo tropical non conventional livestock that provide a climate smart and resilient pathway for the livestock industry regionally applying circular economy principles, , indigenous techniques and integrative farming approaches are imperatives for making livestock production climate smart and resilient partnerships that allow for scientific testing, training and development, data collection and analysis, knowledge transfer, capacity building , mentorship and coaching is critical to the sustainability and resilience of the region's livestock sector GPS tracking, IOT sensors and other technology can help improve quality, safety, security and help better manage the key challenges and risk associated with the sector. Such as predial larceny, monitoring emissions and monitoring livestock impacts on soil health and biodiversity with intent for high impact mitigation and adaptation strategic intervention Improving the quality and availability of data and analytics in the livestock space regionally can have significant benefit in improving adaptation and mitigation impacts Applying international standards and indigenous practices can also have significant impacts with a lot of co benefits in issues of water availability and quality, sustainable and decarbonized energy, reducing emissions, and enhancing climate resilience while enabling sustainable livelihoods236238239240241242243244246247248249Neo tropical Animal Conservation, Production and Utilisation there are many opportunities to sustainably rear neo tropical animals as a sustainable livestock in a climate smart and resilient manner The major domestic livestock species being utilized are goats (meat and dairy), sheep, cattle (beef and dairy), pigs, rabbits, ducks and layers (table eggs). The issues encountered by subsistence and small scale livestock farmers are: 1) Lack of tropical and well adapted livestock species and genetics for breeding programs, 2) Cost of feed for monogastric animal production, 3) Lack of resources by the public sector to properly advise and train farmers, as well as to supply timely support services (Artificial Insemination), 4) Untimely distribution of land leases 5) Poor management and planning for fodder production for the dry season for ruminant production, 6) Praedial larceny, 7) Lack of a well-coordinated marketing agency for livestock and livestock products, 8) Inaccurate data collection methods by data collecting organisations, hence a misrepresentation of the true potential of local agriculture, 9) Lack of Policies for Wildlife farming (e.g. Intensive Agouti Production) and 10) The major “Disconnect” between the educating bodies, the public sector and the private sector. Small holder farms are facing very tough times as these issues have been plaguing the livestock industry for generations. Amendments should include 1) attaining adaptable livestock species for production, focusing on producing feed locally and utilizing non- conventional feed resources, considering public sector services year round since agriculture doesn’t have a start and finish period, implementation of commercial indigenous wildlife production and more active and meaningful round the table discussions between all food production stakeholders.236238239240241242243245246249251Encouraging and sustaining good agriculture practices in livestock farming. How can we better encourage the use and application of good agriculture standards and practices? How can we improve the provision of extension services, technical support and advisory service available to livestock farmers? What financial structures, support and regimes are needed to support and help farmers to scale climate smart resilient and nature positive livestock production, regionally, internationally? What partnerships and collaborations need to be developed to help scale, sustain and develop more climate smart resident and nature positive forms of livestock production? In order to encourage the use of GAP and standards there is the need to establish what are GAP and the standards to which will be adhere to. This may vary in some countries based on conditions there. Some of these GAP pertain to quality feed/water and also a health and safety of the animals through a controlled environment. Farmers can also be encouraged by making land available for livestock farrming and grazing and also giving incentives to use safe chemicals and develop proper and safe facilities for rearing and slaughtering. Need to ensure that the animals have quality feed like in other countries. There is a concern that the animals are not being feed good forage and hay. The need to look at how Caribbean nations could barter from each other in order to support needs. There is a challenge with feed and grain and instead of looking to gmo corn from outside we need to grow our own local products to make animal feed eg sweet potatoes, casavva which is more nutritious and better for animal consumption. Some persons have the challenge of no land to graze animals therefore it was suggested that countries with large land mass eg Guyana could grow lots of hay for other countries so that in times of shortage/disaster good hay can be accessed and it can be used as a feed bank (proper storage methods adopted). Traceability of feedstuffs. Also with respect to the health of the animals more natural medicines can be used eg neem as a wormer in Antigua where research has been done on this. The volcano in St Vincent is affecting livestock feeding, hence there is a need for proper post harvest storage of hay etc in times like these so farmers can access. Protective environment in order to keep them safe from larceny as this is an issue for most farmers and other external factors like extreme weather conditions as experienced in the Caribbean. The need for leaders to be proactive in order to deal with climate change and its impacts Micro chipping of animals with respect to safety and being able to track if stolen Proper slaughter house facilities Market price that is consistent with quality produce Have an appropriate waste management system and using the manure back into the soil – this contributes to zero waste and circular economy Need to ensure dairy farming practices do not have an adverse impact on the local environment The need for research and development in each island in order to have statistics and info to know what we are producing, what the animals are eating in order to support GAP Collaboration between organisations regionally eg CARDI, the university FAO236238239240241242243244246247Reducing livestock impacts on environment Greater use of indigenous practices Expanded use of circular economy principles regarding livestock was. Using bio digester convert waste to energy and biofuels Livestock protocol should follow the same processes and protocols that govern the crop production model. Government backing, development, and support of insurance specific for the agricultural sector, to include specialized sub-sectors and operations of varying levels. • Jamaica has recently launched such a program. NOTE: One example of an insurance product being introduced in the Caribbean’s is termed Parametric Disaster Insurance, an event-based rather than a loss-based payout system.  Dialogue among nation states in the region is essential. This is a mechanism, for among other things, identification of regional markets and non-traditional collaboration and cooperation.  A leader in the Caribbean research & development and ag education is the Bahama’s Agriculture and Marine Science Institute (BAMSI) is a rich source of real-time, authoritative entity providing ag-specific data and resources regionally and globally. Activities currently underway at BAMSI include: • An EU-funded incubator for small ruminants (i.e., goat, sheep, deer) • Research on feeding and farming methods • Development of regional best practices NOTE: The Cuba Model is the framework being utilized.  The Integrated Production Model is of value within this context.  The example of Tanzania’s planting of plantain and coffee together, was offered.  Incorporation of chicken into an environment such as this (Nathan is planning to expand his company’s farming interests to include chicken farming) was suggested, as appropriate in this context. The droppings (as well as those from ducks and pigs would serve as organic fertilizer.  Minimally, barriers to and concerns with the use of organic fertilizer were identified as: 1. Cost (within the large farm or commercial context). For example, one acre of farmland would require 2-4,000 pounds of manure annually. 2. The runoff and by-product effect – specifically, phosphorous-driven “green” water. The green water produced can be mitigated by planting “run-off” or “cover crops”. NOTE: Currently, Nathan’s company has a team of scientists working on developing an organic fertilizer formulation. It’ll be 6-12 months before a usable sample/formulation is available for testing. The goal is making the fertilizer available commercially, as well as for their personal use on their 600-acre farm.  Suggestions for minimizing the impact of husbandry or animal farming on the environment included: Regional Collaboration & Cooperation. • Specific reasons for this suggestion included provision of technical assistance by experts, knowledge-sharing and guidance (i.e., best practices, innovation, and technology (not necessarily smart farming options). • Develop, fund, and maintain a highly-integrated system. Improving access to information and resources to include greater connectivity was another suggestion. • Specific interventions such as government expanding and improving broadband access, allocating radio bandwidth dedicated to broadcasting information to outlying, tech-poor/tech unsavvy farmers. This includes dedicated government-sponsored audio/radio spots. China and Africa are contemporary examples of countries hosting forums/spots/access points for outlying persons. Incentivization. • Offer/fund efforts to identify other scientific means of minimization and/or mitigation in this discipline. Strengthening of existing regional extension services. • The current “bottlenecking” and inadequacy of service provided were identified as specific examples of how poor extension services act as barriers in this context. Other solutions. • Rotational grazing • Ambient water testing regimes should be adopted and deployed regionally Rigorous soil testing should also be implemented and small medium and large scale livestock farms236238239240241242246247248Creating sustainable partnerships between farmers, food processors and consolidators/distributors Contract farming and production can be a useful tool in improving partnerships The issue of traceability is of critical importance and with solid partnerships across the value chain can enable improved tracking of traceability through the value chain leveraging technology across the value chain can reduce cost to all players and enhance competitiveness across the value chain Farmers, processors and distributors need to build strong networks that help leverage, capital, and resources and improve flows of materials and resources throughout the value chain. formalizing these networks can have significant benefit Structuring solutions be it technological, managerial and otherwise to capitalize on opportunities and manage interactions across the value chain can have significant process and impact benefits Sustainable procurement practices can help communicate requirements and encourage the use of good agriculture practices, decarbonize transport and processing and bring other system wide benefits across the value chain for all parties and the environment236238239240241242244245247Climate Resilient and Sustainable Livestock Production and Consumption (Challenges, risk and opportunities) Livestock produces a high level of GHG and also contributes to some biodiversity loss Indigenous practices can relieve the burden of live stock on the environment greater use of circular economy principles and integrative farming techniques can help manage emissions and waste throughout production and delivery to the market Challenges includes issues in water availability and impacts, irrigation, storage. Other challenges include cold storage of fresh produce, feed supply, managing waste and emissions, environmental impacts, outmoded farm management approaches that affect quality, safety, yields, animal cruelty and environmental impacts. The production of animals is a function of the quality, quantity and seasonal distribution of forage, the amount of forages consumed by animals and the efficiency of forage consumed. The quality, quantity and seasonal distribution along with the amount consumed would rely greatly on the management of the forages available, while the effective conversion of the forage consumed would highly rest on the physiological state of the animal. The efficient utilization of available forage can be achieved by preparing a forage plan for the entire year. The global poultry industry holds a very successful and complex supply chain system that all other livestock production sectors hope to achieve. In the domestic world, poultry covers many species of egg and meat type chickens, ducks, turkeys, quails, geese, guinea fowls, peafowls and a wide range of semi domestic species. The poultry industry is broken up into three main areas; breeding and reproduction, growth and production and processing, packaging and marketing. Poultry is the largest agro-industrial enterprise surpassing both sugar and rice in the Caribbean. Annual gross industry sale is estimated at over US $500 million. The industry employs over 75,000 persons directly and is the largest generator of small business and rural entrepreneurship. Approximately 82% of all animal protein eaten in the Caribbean is from poultry. Significant investment opportunities exist in feed manufacturing and hatching egg production, value added products and increased intra-regional trade. The poultry industry strategically focuses on using the vertical integration approach to managing its supply chain. This system relies heavily on the supplier systems to feed directly into each subsector which lends to a higher production output, increased product quality and maximizing of profits. The vertical integration system for the broiler industry includes segments for: 1) primary breeding and genetic selection, 2) feed processing and distribution, 3) sub breeder farms, 4) hatchery operations, 5) grow out farms, 6) processing plants, 7) further processing and 8) transportation and marketing. There is a need to promote and have wider adoption of Global GAP (Good Agriculture Standards) and practices. there is need to improve farmer education and production at level of the farm by providing coaching, mentorship and technical support at the level of farm and community Partnerships that allow for students to work directly with farmers in a mutually respectful and interactive learning manner can help improve technology transfer and adoption on level of farms. It was felt that partnerships between farmers, academia, schools and civil society is an imperative to effectively navigate the many challenges Education is not only required for farmers in modern approaches but for consumers to enable them to demand higher standards and cruelty free food237N?A

2021-07-26 07:14:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14621/1117202531355166748597101103109124146150151152162166167196

4053051525731311563101055531155

The dialogue was designed having the principles act as a platform to ensure strong engagement of the participants. All of the principles were incorporated. Big focus put into ensuring multi-stakeholder inclusivity by diverse tools for outreach to invite participants to join the dialogue.- Act with urgency/ Recognise complexity: convenor and keynote speakers have shared key trends and developments in food systems, highlighting the urgency to make shifts in the way the food systems operate, in the light of wicked problems (incl. climate change); complexity of interconnections between various stakeholders in the system - Commit to the summit: the dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the discussion of current problem spaces and desirable future for the food systems. By sharing personal stories and reflecting collectively on bigger barriers for sustainable development of the sector, participants committed to making changes in the areas where they individually have agency as well as discussed the need to collaborate between each other. - Be respectful: deep listening was mentioned by curator and invitation to listen to other participants. - Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: as previously mentioned, ensuring diversity of participants was key for the organisers. Diversity of sectors, sizes of organisations, sectors, gender etc. - Compliment the work of others/ Build trust: Sharing trends and innovations, as well as personal stories of the participants enabled connection, broaden partnerships and overall building trust.Ensure you include them when the sessions are designed and maybe mentioning the principles during the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251Our food systems must become more nourishing, sustainable, equitable, and resilient. This is the imperative set by the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) constitute at least half the food system, so are fundamental in efforts to transform the ways we produce and consume our food. The Summit has undertaken a global consultation exercise to ask thousands of food SMEs and their expert supporters, “How to boost the role of SMEs in providing good food for all?” Food SMEs are quiet revolutionaries, working tirelessly to transform food systems in every corner of the planet. Listening to the SMEs in each discrete context will highlight priority actions to boost their contribution as change agents. This dialogue has created space for SMEs in Eastern Europe and Post- soviet Asia to get together and discuss some of the key challenges they face in the current food system as well as discuss what would a more desirable future look like and what are the ways to achieve it.235238239240241242244245246248249251These SME stories tell of their collective commitment to drive positive change in multiple ways: Pathway 1: Create a business ecosystem in which food SMEs thrive Opportunities to act: ● Leverage the power of SMEs by creating/ supporting dynamic networks, foundations, cooperatives, associations, ● Conduct frequent systemic dialogues between multiple stakeholders (public sector, business, SME's and farmers, consumers) to explore specific aspects of food systems in greater depth ● Promote education (public workers, business, academia, consumers) on sustainability, new technologies, policies, circular business models, nutrition, soil regeneration etc. Pathway 2: Incentivise businesses to provide “Good Food for All” Opportunities to act: ● Ensure prices reflect the true cost of food ● Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Educate consumers and food retail on topics related to “good food”, nutrition, sustainability, new technologies, innovative policies, circularity, zero waste, soil regeneration etc. ● Fast-track innovative entrepreneurs and support youth ● Improve access to digitalisation of the industry and integration of new technologies Pathway 3: Incentivise public bodies/ regulator (incl. municipalities, local and regional government, national and international) to provide “Good Food for All” Opportunities to act: ● Promote education (public workers, business, academia, consumers) on sustainability, new technologies, policies, circular business models, nutrition, soil regeneration etc. ● Ensure prices reflect the true cost of food and create policies supporting sustainable food production ● Policy should evolve faster to address fast changing technological and methodological innovation in the sector ● Integrating participatory governance and multi-stakeholder processes ● Foreign economic relations236238239240241242243244245246247248249How are you and your business contributing to the food system now? What challenges limit your positive impacts? The SME's participating in the dialogues as well as other representatives of the food industry have shared some of the key barriers they experience from their point in the system. It was a rich discussion in all breakout groups. Overall the actions of SMEs are fragmented, not coordinated. Each of the SMEs have shared their dedication to produce and deliver “Good Food for All”, either via use of new technologies including innovations in business models (e.g. direct sales), bio agriculture etc. It was interesting to notice however, that SMEs would embrace these innovations not as a result of incentives by regulators and governments, rather as a response to unfavourable market conditions and inability to compete with big business. Some key barriers identified included: - outdated legislation - the regulator is lagging behind - unfavourable market conditions - competition with big companies - insufficient education of farmers on "good food" and overall resistance to change - inappropriate distribution of products in households and food processing businesses and food waste - insufficient digitalization of the industry - the importance of maintaining local crop biodiversity conservation through the cooperation of local seed growers, farmers and seed exchange - lack of sustainability context - need to restructure value chains - lack of expertise in new technologies, lack of high-quality personnel - negative outcomes of digitalization - social aspects of the digitalisation and future of work - lack of education for consumers on "good food"236238239240243244245246248250251How to boost the role of SMEs in providing “Good Food for All”? The discussions on this topic in all groups were thoughtful and comprehensive. Interestingly, for all of the groups the focus on the quality of food for consumers and "Make good food matter" was the gravitation of the conversations. Some of the following needs were highlighted: - Pay attention to children's diet and nutrition - Networks require control, and research that needs to be invested in - Large enterprises have budgets, and small ones have no resources to innovate - Be attentive to what gets into marketing - Educate consumers on "good food" - Educate youth and children Additional topics of discussion included: - Provide SMEs with digital technologies, innovations, to reduce the gap between large businesses and SMEs - Democratise the digital food revolution - Bilateral interaction between the regulator and SMEs - Education for business, farmers on sustainable development, soil regeneration, biodiversity etc. - Reward responsible conduct - Youth involvement237241242246249250Area that need further exploration is foreign economic relations. The current structure of the system prevents SMEs to influence the shape and direction of the foreign economic relations, which in a lot of cases have very strong influence on the market conditions for SMEs. That in light of sanctions, closed borders, discrimination based on market of origin etc. creates a significant barrier for a lot of SMEs, especially those heavily dependent on import and export.

2021-07-26 08:37:25204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24623/153

45

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249The dialogue explored possibilities and opportunities for improving the resilience and sustainability of the food systems of Kigali and Rulindo district. Discussions moved beyond the short-term responses to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Kigali and Rulindo’s food systems, to more long-term approaches for ensuring continued access to nutritious and safe food in the face of climatic shocks and stresses and other disruptions. It considered policy interventions that are necessary for promoting healthy diets, food and nutrition security in Kigali city and Rulindo district. It unpacked ways in which we might better link urban, peri-urban and rural food systems to ensure sustainability of these systems.235238239240241242244245246248249The session highlighted key food system challenges both the City of Kigali and Rulindo district are contending with. These included price fluctuations and food losses (estimated to be about 30 to 40 percent) both of which significantly affect farmers. Transportation networks and infrastructure to facilitate food flows between both cities are also deficient. Environmental issues such as soil erosion, flooding, droughts as well as pests and diseases also constrain food production. Despite these challenges, the potential to achieve food system sustainability in both the City of Kigali and Rulindo districts is immense in the light of the opportunities inherent within the cities’ food systems. These opportunities include the relatively high production of some crops particularly vegetables, fruits and cassava, as well as the availability of marshland and irrigation water for increased production. The session emphasised the fact that there are enough policies in the country (albeit some can be improved). However, implementation needs to be improved. Some of the challenges in implementation relates to the lack of awareness of these policies and the fact that some of the policies are not translated to understandable language for some food system actors to be informed and to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the policies. In a similar vein, there is limited access to market information which negatively affects farmers. As a result, there is the need for awareness campaigns which must cut across all the food system actors. Participants also noted the need to invest in infrastructure development. Infrastructure which needs to be put in place or strengthened include among others, irrigation systems, storm water drainage systems, markets, transport infrastructure in order to better link the cities together and to reduce food waste, drying shelters and mobile dryers, as well as storage facilities. To mitigate against food loss and food waste, discussants suggested that there is the need to invest in storage infrastructure and to install cooling and refrigeration centres. Participants noted the importance of strengthening the linkages between urban areas and rural areas as well as between peri-urban areas and urban areas. Participants noted that symbiotic relations must be emphasised such that food systems relations are beneficial for both cities. Efficient food waste management strategies were also suggested including the conversion of food waste into organic compost and the valorisation of food waste. An integrated approach to food waste management needs to be put in place and this must cut across the entire food value chain. To enable the implementation foregoing, supportive legal and regulatory framework needs to be put in place. It is important also, according to the discussants, that the Action Plan for Food Waste Prevention and Management in the City of Kigali which has been developed in collaboration with FAO needs to be successfully implemented. Urban agriculture should also be seen as a source of food security and employment generation for people. Urban Agriculture has been officially incorporated into the Kigali conceptual master plan while the Kigali city government has also accepted the recommendation of the FAO to focus on urban agriculture. Nevertheless, a critical need to define and formally recognise urban agriculture in land use plans of urban areas. With poor people living in Kigali and Rulindo, there will be need to further support and strengthen urban agriculture programmes in order to achieve food security in both cities. Participants highlighted the need to focus on indigenous knowledge. In other words, in terms of planning for, and education about the food systems, it is important not to lose value of those knowledge and practices that are handed down culturally and historically. Investment in data management systems must also be prioritised, according to the participants. They noted that the ability to constantly evaluate progress towards achievement of food-related policies and programmes hinges on the collection, storage and synthesis of good data. The importance of collaborative food system governance also came to the fore during the discussion. Participants noted that governing the cities’ food systems should involve every food system actor who should collaborate to look at solutions to food system issues. Given that awareness about food system challenges and opportunities is a big constraint to food system resilience, the need for awareness and sensitization campaigns, not only for farmers, but also all other actors across the food value chain and within the food system was emphasised. It is important that actors are aware of policies and regulatory environment and also incentives and opportunities that they can take advantage of.236238239240241242244245246248249Participants responded to two major questions. These are summarised below: Question 1: What policies and incentive mechanisms are available or can be implemented to spur food system sustainability, resilience and symbiotic food system relations in Kigali city and Rulindo district? Rwanda’s key policies that are already in place: •Rwanda Vision 2050: Green Growth and Climate Resilience economy: targets transforming Rwanda from a middle-income into a high-income status country •National Strategy for Transformation (NST1) (2017-2024): focusing on social, economic and good governance transformation •The Updated National Agricultural Policy (2018) •Rwanda Biodiversity Policy (2011) •The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action plan (NBSAP II) (2016) •The Food safety Policy •Agro-forestry Policy and Forestry Policy 2018 Incentives and mechanisms already in place: •The African Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Cold Chain is a facility that can be used to store food coming from Rulindo in order to have a more sustainable food system •Inclusive markets and off-farm opportunities can improve. This incentive is within MINAGRI and intended to improve sustainable food systems. Policies, incentives and mechanisms that can be implemented: •Policies that promote food system, climate resilience, water and energy efficiency, as well as biodiversity conservation •Food Safety and nutrition policy which is under development should address postharvest handling •Policy on sustainable food production which would prioritise irrigation systems, valorisation of marshlansd, agroecology and address barriers that have affected production levels such as soil fertility, integrated pest management, increase storage in the district to match production needs. •Policies and programmes focusing on market linkages and improved access to market •Policies, programmes and incentives to catalyse value addition, food packaging and processing in Rulindo district •Increased investment in water management systems in Rulindo to manage drought and floods cycles •Policies and incentives that promote access to inputs and finance especially for small-scale farmers •Capacity building, skills development and knowledge sharing among food system actors (sometimes in the local languages) •Farmer training to improve farmers’ knowledge of sustainable food production and markets. This can be done through farmer field schools •Agro-forestry should be promoted as a way of farming on hillsides to manage soil erosion. There is an initiative to do this using avocado trees instead of using non-food trees like Eucalyptus •Partnerships between different farmers: for example between piggery farmers and maize producers •Collaborative food governance: Catalyse action between different stakeholders to promote correct policies on the sectors236238239240241242244245246248249Question 2: What solutions are feasible in responding to the challenge of environmental change, degradation and food waste in Kigali and Rulindo’s food system? •Environment protection policies and tools (which already exist) need to be mainstreamed at all level. •There is a need to develop a comprehensive approach to assess the impact of soil degradation based on production and to identify natural and human-induced causes of degradation. •Sustainable agriculture including agroecology and organic farming. •Explore hydroponics in Kigali for fruits and veggies in order to reduce the reliance on soil for ecosystem degradation. •It is important that a policy that preserve agricultural land is put in place in order to reduce environmental impact and to ensure that farmers have the land necessary for expansion and to continue food production. •Identify appropriate sustainable land management interventions in the current continuing soil degradation threat. •As there is low investment in waste management, public-private partnerships in food waste management should be explored. There should be support for businesses (incentives) which already has incorporated some food waste practices. Invest in food recycling industry for food waste in Kigali •Strong partnerships and coordination among key actors in urban agriculture, construction and urban food systems •Encourage the use of renewable and sustainable materials and products. •Put in place small processing units to absorb fresh produce. Put in place driers to absorb produce like maize and reduce humidity and the challenge of aflatoxins. •Marshland reclamation for increased agricultural production •Research to inform policies and programs. Without research it will be difficult to inform decision making at policy level. •Investment in transport and storage infrastructure as well as new innovations in preservation of crops should be given consideration •Farmer capacity building oriented towards achievement of all the above suggested solutions.237N/A

2021-07-26 10:59:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28176/189

30

Yes

234239240242243244246248249251The Dialogue was titled: Entebbe CITY Independent Food Systems Dialogue - The Significance of Lake Victoria to Entebbe’s Food System: Exploring the Opportunities for Food Security, Improved Livelihoods and Environmental Sustainability Outcomes Like other rapidly growing Ugandan cities, food security in Entebbe City continues to improve but at a slow space, even with the city’s strategic location within the Lake Victoria basin. The lake is very crucial to Entebbe’s food system because it is a source of fish such as Nile Perch and Tilapia, a regional trade hub, provides suitable conditions for farming and other agricultural activities, a source of raw materials for industries as well as an ecologically sensitive zone. The fishing industry is particularly a very important aspect of Entebbe’s economy as a source of livelihoods and food security. However, due to weather changes, ecological changes and increased fishing pressure, fish catches have declined thus threatening the food security status and livelihoods of the communities that depend on the lake. Moreover, other factors have contributed to food insecurity of Entebbe city such as poor road and market infrastructure and rapid urbanization within the peninsula. These factors have led to an increase in food losses and food prices and thus affected access to food within the city. The aim of the Dialogue therefore was to map the importance of Lake Victoria to Entebbe’s and Uganda’s Food System as well as discuss strategic ways in which Entebbe City can maximize the benefits from the lake to improve food security outcomes and the environmental sustainability of the peninsula. This Dialogue was attended by over 30 participants who discussed challenges and explored opportunities and solutions to improve food and nutrition security, the livelihoods of the lake communities as well as environmental sustainability. In addition, it showcased collaborations and initiatives that are already underway to transform the food system and how these can be strengthened This was based on the following key questions for the 3 presenters and the 5 breakup sessions: •What are the food flow systems in Entebbe City? •What are the structural challenges affecting Entebbe’s food System? •What policies, programs and incentives can be adopted / introduced to support systemic transformation of Entebbe’s food system to one that is resilient and maximizes its strategic location within the Lake Victoria basin to achieve food security and environmental sustainability? •Who are the key food systems transformation stakeholders and what are their requirements/ needs in order to drive food systems transformation? •How can Entebbe Municipal Council and local stakeholders be empowered to carry on, extend and identify opportunities to achieve resilient and environmentally sustainable urban food systems?235239240242243244248249251•Need for responsive policy architecture for sustainable food systems in Entebbe (addressing challenges in the food chain, food safety, etc.) •There is need to better regulate and improve land rights and access (ownership, land grabbing, conservation of commons, land use planning, fisheries management to benefit all, etc.) •Promote agro ecology / urban agriculture as part of urban planning in Entebbe Municipality to increase food security while conserving the Lake Victoria ecosystem in light of the increasing food, fuel and water demands; but also given Entebbe’s position as a bird sanctuary for ecotourism development / promotion. •Scale up consumer awareness / advocacy on food rights, food safety, nutrition standards, consumer complaints mechanism, media engagement, etc.) •Support nature based solutions including tree belts, buffer zoning for Lake Victoria to protect wetlands, forests, river and lake banks so as to sustain the fisheries sector and protect water resources for various uses •Scale up existing and potential good practices that benefit the vulnerable and poor communities and the environment: Cooperatives that bring together food suppliers and end users; alternative and efficient energy use at household and institutions; recycling of municipal organic waste / zero waste, water harvesting, local dishes •Launch stakeholder forums to discuss and implement food governance across Entebbe’s food chain and what can be done by whom in short, mid and long term. •Economic empowerment of communities especially the urban / rural poor that are part of the Entebbe food chain through skills development, inputs and other support •Food sensitive conducive policies for urban planning (taking care of the rural/urban realities in Entebbe; taking agriculture for food security for the vulnerable people; conservation of Lake Victoria ecosystem including wetlands, forests, lake and river banks) •Infrastructure needs to be developed further to harness Entebbe’s potential as a food basket (fisheries, crops, etc.) being an entry via water, air and land / road •Full compliance to existing policies and laws regulating use of the commons and food production •Promote sustainable fisheries including cage farming that takes cognisance of ecological limits and carrying capacity236239240242243244248249251What are the structural challenges affecting Entebbe’s food System? •Population growth that is leading to conversion of land into settlements and large scale infrastructural development •How to make agriculture more intensive - land will continue to dwindle so we need to come up with innovations on how to intensively grow food in small spaces in order to avail different options for feeding the rapidly growing urban population. •Political structure is not so conducive (there is need for openness to work with diverse actors) •Cage Farming - we need to study more and decide which the optimal carrying capacity •‘Urban’ connotation means food importer from other areas (food requirements, standards set by the colonial setting/ technocrats). •Lake Victoria - waste management and pollution (palm oil, fast growing urban areas), rising water levels affect provision of quality water for domestic and production including fisheries (safety) •Urban sprawl - commons like wetlands, forests are grabbed by the rich people and the poor encroach for agriculture, etc. •Less attention given to standards and practices of ready food (cooked) on which many people depend, raising concerns around food safety in Entebbe •Land management issues like individuals owning land titles in the buffer zones •Higher level Local Authority (Wakiso district) overshadowing the creativity and flexibility of Entebbe Municipal council is managing its local food system •Lack of technical and financial support to interventions like greening the municipality and other parts of the food chain •Weakness in multi-sector / actor coordination to improve the food systems in Entebbe. A lot of sectors at national level and departments still operate in silos •No consumer engagement / feedback. Consumers are not empowered What policies, programs and incentives can be adopted / introduced to support systemic transformation of Entebbe’s food system to one that is resilient and maximises its strategic location within the Lake Victoria basin to achieve food security and environmental sustainability? •Many policies that could potentially influence the nature of the food system exist but are not fully implemented •Government is moving away from sector-wide planning to program planning •Urban Farming – there is need to provide skills of intensive urban agriculture in response to the growing land shortage and projected food demand •Water Transport - Entebbe can become a regional hub for receiving goods from other ports along L. Victoria. This same transport infrastructure can be beneficial for the ease in transportation f food between different port cities in Kampala and the East African region. •Exploring Collaborative engagement for controlling pollution of the lake e.g. towards reducing the problem of plastic waste in the lake. •Conflict between political leaders and technical workers at local government level - we need to have cohesion236239240242243244248249251Who are the key food systems transformation stakeholders and what are their requirements/ needs in order to drive food systems transformation? •Urban planners: Strengthen urban- rural linkages (urban / per urban settings) and incorporate these in urban plans •Policy makers and planners: Food sustainability in Entebbe – to draft an inclusive urban food system policy in Entebbe as well as food safety policies and other practices •Territorial governance (stakeholder forums) to dialogue and support food governance through food councils that involve urban / rural continuum as well as different stakeholders across the food value chain •Public Health Stakeholders - Safe food especially cooked food for example: designated places for evening ready food markets. Should devise ways of monitoring food safety without necessarily excluding street food traders- possibly though licencing •Local Government authorities / Municipality and lower councils / the poor….Food must be made available, accessible, affordable as big part of the population is poor --- everyone deserves to eat safely given the food environment in Entebbe and other cities •National level actors: working closer with the Entebbe Municipality to draft implementable regulations at local level such as how to run and resource market safety and cleanliness programs How can Entebbe Municipal Council and local stakeholders be empowered to carry on, extend and identify opportunities to achieve resilient and environmentally sustainable urban food systems? •Employing researchers to come up with evidence based interventions •Coming up with enforceable by laws on food systems •Using a human rights approach to resource management •Infrastructure development like roads, waterways and food storage and carriage facilities •Investing in Alternative agricultural practices like fish pond farming •Capacity building of the citizens and local authority leaders in climate change, environmental sustainability, clean energy, water harvesting and agro forestry What initiatives/ programs/ good practice are currently happening that are promoting environmental sustainability and food security around the lake? •Adoption of farming systems with emphasis on agro-ecology, environmental sustainability and resilience •Advocacy and consumer awareness e.g. consumer forums – food safety and quality •Inspectors and enforcers of food safety standards should be empowered to conduct their responsibility. Government needs to invest and implement food safety standards. •Biotechnology and GMO law must be passed by government. The municipality and country should champion that. •Vertical agriculture should be promoted by making room for urban food production using appropriate technologies •Enabling fisher folks and communities to access skills, technologies and finance that can empower then to go into fish236239240242243244248249251What are the opportunities presented by L. Victoria to the Entebbe’s food systems and environmental sustainability? What initiatives/ programs/ policies can be implemented to empower communities or enhance the value of the lake? •Promoting and advance farming for sustainability to feed urban dwellers •Implementation of the existing policies - robust plan to roll out the policies •Involve the communities more! •Establishment of food banks •Address food waste as in the New market - is still a problem •Value adding section - process some of the food, meats etc. •Increased Storage facilities •Connection to energy - better practices, subsidies, address reliability •Promote access to agriculture finance/credit for urban farmers - across the food chain - difficult to access, need for more accessible - community bank (involving the private sector- banks) •Including informal and street food vendors in the planning process237239240242243244248249251•Periodic ‘closure’ of access to Lake Victoria fishery to communities affects food security and incomes of the vulnerable and poor (fishers) •The effects of cage farming on the Lake Victoria ecosystem is not yet fully understood

2021-07-26 13:16:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30028/76

21

Yes

234238241242244246249251Stakeholders in Tamale discussed the challenges faced by the city which are causing disruptions in its food system and negatively affecting the food security status of the city. Tamale also discussed possible initiatives to mitigate these to move towards a food system that is able to withstand shocks and stresses. Aim of the dialogue: The aim of the dialogue was to identify strategies and plans to improve resilience and reduce vulnerabilities of the Tamale city food system due to impact of climate change by enabling informed integrated strategies, policies and action plans. The dialogue discussions were guided by these key questions: •How does the Tamale CRFS look like and what are the main elements and stakeholders of the food system? •What are the main vulnerabilities to climate change and disruptions to Tamale's Food System that are impacting food security? •What are the existing capacity and contingency plans to deal with the effects of climate shocks and stresses? •What are the gaps and priority areas for policy actions? What policies, programs, institutions and technologies can enable the transformation to a resilient city-region system that integrates multiple actors at TaMA? •As a food systems stakeholder, how can your work contribute towards building a more resilient Tamale city-region food system?235238241242244246248251The increase in urban population growth in the city of Tamale is resulting in an increase in the number of vulnerable urban communities. A need for food system transformation (in livestock and markets) through spatial planning was identified as means to ensure that the city is able to cope with the rising population in Tamale. To cope with the stresses that come with urban population growth, the city has reserved streams for gardening purposes and has designated places for livestock farming. The Department of Agriculture is ensuring that farming activities are done to ensure food security. It was also noted that there is a need for capacity building to build resilience. It is important that the city empowers women in Tamale by building capacity in soya production. This could be done by allowing women access to finance such as loans and land for production. Soya can be processed into different nutrition recipes and feed families. The youth in the city can play the role of championing nutrition awareness in community by educating community members on the importance of consuming nutritious food. These were some of the factors to consider moving forward in building resilience in Tamale: •There is a need for alternative sources of water for the rises in gardening and livestock farming. There was a suggestion of ‘One Village One Dam’ Initiative to ensure that water is available regularly for farmers. •Droughts and erratic rainfalls are affecting farming in Tamale. These are causing the greatest impact on farming activities. They destroy infrastructure and crops and limit access to water for farming activities. •Land encroachment: there is restriction in agricultural production in the city region as land tenure systems belong to scheme lands. This limits access to land for food system related activities. •There is potential for technology and QGIS to enable urban planning. Urban planning can regulate, monitor and control urban city growth and ensure effective and efficient utilization of space.236238241242244246249251During the discussion session, possible strategies and plans to improve resilience and reduce vulnerabilities in Tamale caused by climate change were identified. Question 1: What are the main vulnerabilities to climate change and disruptions to Tamale's Food System that are impacting food security? •Transport system: Heavy rainfalls in Tamale result in road blockages which then limits accessibility to food. Limited access to food results in food prices increasing. The city should explore alternative means of getting food to ensure that food is readily accessible in cities. •There is a tendency to focus only on the technicalities of climate change (i.e. rainfalls and other variabilities in climate change). Other dimensions of climate change such as the different impacts climate change has on men and women is often overlooked. It was noted in the dialogue that it is important to consider these. •There is an increase of waste to landfills increases GHG emissions in the atmosphere which negatively impact on climate, promoting droughts or heavy rainfalls leading to floods. •A lack of spatial planning in the city: a lack of spatial planning means that there are no areas specifically designated for urban agriculture. •Land encroachment: land tenure system belongs to scheme land which results in resources for production being inaccessible to the vulnerable. As a result, those without ownership encroach because they are in need. •Poor legal framework on land scheme: lands do not belong to the state. It is the responsibility of the government to acquire these areas from traditional authorities and acquire land fully that can be utilised for planned for activities on the city masterplan. •Limited access to land: Smallholder women farmers do not have adequate access to productive resources. Women should be empowered to become economically independent. They need to be presented with opportunities of accessing finances (i.e. loans) which can help them build capacity in soya production. Soya can be processed into different nutritious recipes and families will be fed. •Unstable water access as a result of droughts: opportunity to invest in underground water for irrigation farming •Climate-smart agriculture has been leading the way. However, we should not treat farmers as a homogenous group. Different categories of farmers have different needs which must be studied/addressed •A lack of storage facilities. Storage facilities such as sheds for livestock are needed to protect livestock from impacts of weather changes236238241242244246249251Question 2: What are the priority areas for policy actions? What policies, programs, institutions and technologies can enable the transformation to a resilient city-region system that integrates multiple actors at TaMA? •The Department of Agriculture should ensure that farming activities are done to ensure food security- the city can plan for food and jobs. •‘One village one dam’ could be implemented as an initiative to provide a source of water for the rises in gardening and livestock farming •Encourage all community members (consumers and producers) to recycle to reduce waste and promote composed manure for farming activities in the city. •Incorporate traditional foods: this could be done by encouraging the city to produce its own food as food is mostly imported. Incorporation of traditional food has could help promote nutritious diets •Health Food Africa project: raising awareness and promoting food systems that can withstand shocks and stresses •Awareness programmes: community nutrition awareness education sessions are necessary. People tend to eat food that lack nutritional value because it is affordable and accessible. Benefits of raising awareness: Tamale citizens have now started consuming moringa because there has been awareness raised about its benefits •Issues should be addressed from a systemic perspective, looking holistically at the entire food value chain. •Incorporate policies that clearly define agricultural land from infrastructure land and facilitate the use of those lands reserved for urban agriculture237N/A

2021-07-26 14:59:29205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15315/141

Este diálogo se realizó de manera virtual. El mismo tuvo un enfoque participativo e inclusivo, con diversidad de grupos de interés vinculados a los diferentes procesos de los sistemas alimentarios, propiciando un espacio de discusión que generaron un intercambio abierto entre los participantes. Para desarrollar el intercambio abierto entre los participantes del Diálogo se manejaron cuatro grandes temas (preguntas orientadoras) que fueron abordados en igual cantidad de mesas de trabajo, sobre la base de los 5 objetivos propuestos para la Cumbre. Los participantes contaron con 60 minutos para la discusión y debate. Al finalizar el debate se presentó la relatoría de cada una de las cuatro mesas. Cada diálogo contó con un administrador, facilitadores y relatores por mesa. Una vez finalizado el diálogo se pasó a la consolidación de los aportes recibidos para su incorporación en el formulario oficial de comentarios.A raíz de la adopción de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible como guía para el impulso de las acciones del Estado, dirigidas a favorecer a aquellos que se han quedado atrás del desarrollo, se dio un impulso para asegurar la producción y disponibilidad de alimentos, garantizar la reducción del hambre, fomentando la seguridad alimentaria, mediante el compromiso y la participación del Gobierno, los organismos internacionales, los gremios y la sociedad. Además de desarrollar la seguridad alimentaria nacional con una política de soberanía alimentaria, el énfasis hasta el momento ha sido la reducción del hambre, la desnutrición y la mal nutrición en la población vulnerable, principalmente, la primera infancia, de acuerdo con el segundo Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible. Esto pasa por la preservación del ambiente, bajo un enfoque de prevención de la contaminación. De allí que ante el llamado a transformar los sistemas alimentarios realizado en el Día Mundial de la Alimentación (2019) por el secretario general de las Naciones Unidas y la convocatoria a una Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios a celebrarse en el 2021, se inició un proceso de articulación de esfuerzos entre las instituciones vinculadas al mensaje “como una familia humana y un mundo libre de hambre”. Esta Cumbre es una oportunidad para que Panamá pueda avanzar hacia el gran y ambicioso objetivo de contar con un sistema alimentario sostenible y será un importante catalizador que permitirá a través de los diálogos realizados, retroalimentarse de las necesidades, opiniones y otros aportes transmitidos por todos los sectores convocados, contando así con insumos que permitan fortalecer, continuar, corregir o iniciar nuevas acciones que en forma de programas, políticas u otros instrumentos legales e institucionales se avance hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios.Si bien es cierto se contó con una amplia participación de diversos sectores de la sociedad en tanto actores de los sistemas alimentarios, como actividades concretas de seguimiento, se podrían organizar consultas con representantes de sectores específicos para contar con sus recomendaciones y aportes de acuerdo con la visión y el papel de ese sector o gremio en los sistemas alimentarios. Así entonces, se podrían organizar actividades con el sector de restaurantes, organizaciones de chefs, gremios de agroindustriales, comercializadoras de alimentos, supermercados, transportistas, por mencionar algunos.

Yes

234238239240244245246247249251La consulta nacional y subnacionales de Panamá, tuvieron como lema “Cerrando brechas para la seguridad alimentaria”. El objetivo principal era determinar la futura dirección de los sistemas alimentarios en Panamá, hacia la consecución de los ODS explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030 y situar al proyecto de Diálogos dentro del contexto de trabajo intersectorial que realizará el Gobierno Nacional y los actores de la cadena alimentaria nacional. Sobre la base de las cinco vías de acción definidas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 (1. Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 2. Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción favorable a la naturaleza 4. Promover medios de vida equitativos 5. Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades), se adoptaron cuatro preguntas orientadoras que se utilizaron en todas y cada una de las sesiones de consultas realizadas. Las dos primeras preguntas hacen referencia a algunas acciones que se pudieran impulsar y nuestro papel como actores para avanzar hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible, mientras que las dos últimas tienen que ver con el abordaje de estos sistemas en las políticas públicas. Las preguntas orientadoras fueron: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? 2. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? 3. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? 4. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes?235238239240241244245249Las provincias de Herrera y Los Santos son conocidas como la Región de Azuero y están dentro del Arco Seco del país. A lo largo de los años se han caracterizado por su marcada vocación pecuaria, con extensos pastizales (aproximadamente 60% de su superficie); es por ello por lo que se observa poca vegetación y áreas expuestas a los efectos de la erosión, sedimentación en los ríos, así como sequías. Esta situación afecta la calidad del agua y suelo, al mismo tiempo limita el desarrollo de nuevos rubros ligados al ecoturismo, entre otras actividades. En el diálogo con los actores de los sistemas alimentarios de estas provincias resaltan los siguientes aportes: Promoción de huertos familiares., establecimiento de pequeños mercados, desarrollo de programas de orientación sobre hábitos saludables de alimentación desde la infancia, promover sistemas de producción orgánicos, gestión adecuada del agua, gestión de desechos para evitar contaminación de los ríos, incorporar a los municipios como actores de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, promoción del consumo de alimentos orgánicos, agilizar proceso de compras a los agricultores familiares a través del Programa Estudiar sin Hambre. , implementar plan completo de agricultura familiar con inclusión de las mujeres, implementar programas silvopastoriles, establecimiento de plantas para transformar materia prima de rechazo, apoyo a agricultores en aspectos de registro de marcas, fortalecer la asistencia técnica que se brinda a los productores, fortalecimiento con alimentos adecuados a los centros de atención integral a la primera infancia (CAIPI), acciones encaminadas a bajar el precio de los insumos a los productores, políticas dirigidas a la protección del ambiente, fortalecimiento de políticas públicas que favorezcan a las mujeres, inclusión de jóvenes en el sector de la pesca, y mejorar el acceso al crédito, tecnologías y a los mercados.2362382392402412442452491. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? • Fortalecimiento de los programas de huertos familiares. • Promover la producción y consumo de alimentos para una adecuada nutrición, a base de alimentos variados y saludables. • Facilitar a los pequeños productores la comercialización de sus alimentos promoviendo el establecimiento de pequeños mercados. • Establecer programas de orientación para la población en pro de mejorar sus hábitos de alimentación desde la infancia. • Creación de capacidades en el personal técnico para que apoyen a los pequeños productores en aspectos de buenas prácticas de manufactura, logística y comercialización. • Generación de tecnologías que conlleven a reducción de los costos de producción, para zonas del Arco Seco. • Fomentar la producción de cultivos orgánicos. • Creación de carreras técnicas para formar profesionales en el sector agropecuario.2362402412422442462472492. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? • Buscar mecanismo para bajar el costo de los insumos agropecuarios. • Mejorar la gestión del agua para que llegue a la población que actualmente no tiene acceso a la misma. • Implementar sistemas de evaluación y control en las fincas para verificar la calidad de los productos. • Promover la agricultura orgánica y favorecer la certificación para que los productores puedan comercializar y exportar sus productos con valor agregado. • Implementar políticas para agilizar los procesos de tenencia de las tierras. • Establecer una planta procesadora de desechos para evitar la contaminación de los ríos. • Incorporar a los municipios como actores de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. • Intensificar la educación ambiental y promover el consumo de alimentos libres de pesticidas.2362392422493. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? • Agilizar el proceso de compra a los agricultores familiares que venden a las escuelas a través del programa Estudiar sin Hambre. • Implementar un plan completo de agricultura familiar reconociendo el papel de la mujer. • Favorecer los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, para disminuir gastos y mejorar productividad. • Orientar a los productores sobre tecnologías silvopastoriles. • Establecer un centro de procesamiento para transformar y reducir productos de desechos. • Fomentar los servicios ambientales, como mecanismo de apoyo a los productores. • Apoyo en tema de registro de marca a pequeños productores.2362392402412442452492514. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes? • Favorecer el acompañamiento técnico a los productores. • Establecer huertos familiares con inclusión de las mujeres. • Fortalecimiento con alimentos adecuados a los centros de atención integral a la primera infancia (CAIPI) para mejorar la nutrición infantil. • Buscar mecanismo para bajar precios de los insumos y favorecer a los productores en su cadena de producción. • Implementar mecanismos y políticas para conservación del medio ambiente. • Implementar políticas públicas en favor de las mujeres y que les permita la generación de ingresos a través del trabajo en sus huertos familiares. • Apoyo a los jóvenes para dinamizar el sector pesquero en la zona de Azuero. • Implementación de políticas públicas para mejorar acceso a créditos, tecnología y nuevos mercados.

2021-07-26 15:09:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33727/130

601301991035232102511625533165131045202589201402051910

All the elements and activities of the dialogue were based on the guidelines given by U|FSS 2021- Conveners Reference Manual. It was held on zoom where a diverse range of stakeholders from different sectors was there. All the participants and facilitators were pre-informed about the Summit, Summit Dialogues, Principles and importance of the dialogue through the mail and virtual orientation program to make the session best out of it. The dialogue was inaugurated by the curator with his welcome note which was followed by a short speech of the Chief Guest Ms Christine (Founder and CEO of Thought For Food Foundation and Advisory Committee of UN Food Systems Summit 2021). After that, there was a main plenary session facilitated by the curator with the 5 speakers named Dr Yamuna Ghale, Dr Abid Hussain, Dr Atul Upadhyaya, Ram Chandra Uprety and Shanta Banskota Koirala representing government bodies, NGOs and INGOs, the Health and Nutrition Sector, Farmers and cooperatives, women and entrepreneurship respectively. The speakers helped our participants to set up a background of Nepal Food Systems by sharing their knowledge, experiences and major challenges/opportunities of our local food systems. The plenary session was followed by a Breakout session where 4 different zoom breakout rooms were allocated with 12-15 participants in a group. Each group was facilitated by a Facilitator. There were a total of 4 facilitators named Ms Sagarika Bhatta, Ms Pralisha Adhikari, Mr Jyoti Acharya and Mr Sampurna Rai. They were also an expert in their fields. The discussion on each room was carried out by considering all the 7 principles of the Summit Dialogues. After the breakout session, the facilitators presented the outcomes of the discussion that happened in their individual rooms. While presenting the outcomes, facilitators were made sure that they included the thoughts and voices of every participant on the specific topics of discussion. The presentation session was followed by summarization along with closing remarks by the curator at the ending of the dialogue.Nepal Food Systems Discourse has been a powerful opportunity to engage meaningfully, explore collectively and emerge resiliently for sustainable food systems. Anyone could be a part of shaping the change and help the country hear all voices of food systems through the dialogue. Nepal Food System Discourse was conducted by applying all the 7 principles. Since the dialogue was based on transforming Nepal Food Systems for the sustainable development of the nation, the dialogue was convened in such a way that it contributes to the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 and defines the pathways to the transformation of local as well as global food systems adding to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Dialogues empowered and energized the stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. We were able to set the ambience of respect for the thoughts and voices of every actor who participated in the dialogue. It was forward-looking, foster new connections, and enabled the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. Since every food systems are complex and connected, the dialogue has been able to cater to all the actors in the same platform to deduce roadmaps for enhancing each system. The Dialogue built on and add value to existing policy processes and initiatives. It has pointed an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to reconstruct sustainable, equitable and resilient food systems for the common good. Similarly, the dialogue followed the principle of building trust with each other. The Dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way that created a “safe space” and promoted trust, boosting mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that were shared in the feedback and other media is not attributed to single individuals.The success of a Food Systems Summit Dialogue depends in particular on how every person related to the dialogue carries their responsibility. Each role comes with a set of very crucial and critical duties that include several defined tasks. However, a convener is the master of the whole dialogue and the success of the dialogue depends upon how the one forms his/her team. In guaranteeing that dialogue builds on the experience, knowledge, interest and initiatives of participants, the roles of Dialogue Convener, curator and facilitator are especially important. They expand and enrich existing processes and explorations and provide participants with the opportunities to meet and connect with other stakeholders who have different perspectives for addressing the challenges of food systems. Being a convener, I can reckon that a convener should be very capable to manage each activity and related stakeholders very tactfully. The transparency and communication between each members become outmost while executing dialogue. Therefore, a convener must pay attention about the engagement of every elements of the dialogue and need to plan everything beforehand accordingly.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251Nepal Food Systems Discourse (NFSD) was one of the dialogues organized by Thought For Food Nepal (TFF) focused on transforming the local food systems for national development through an immense discussion with multi-stakeholders and youth participants in a common platform. To hear the voice of every actor of the local and national food systems, The dialogue was carried out by involving many farmers, scientists, Individual persons, youth, private sectors, civil societies, national governments and a few representatives from global bodies. It was an important avenue for people engagement and a key part of the UN Food System Summit process. Locally based, locally-led and fully adaptable to different contexts, this dialogue had crowdsourced the distinct solutions to strengthen local and national food systems for sustainable development. Nepal Food System Discourse was totally focused on reinforcing all 4 concerns of Nepal Food Systems by uprooting the status quo. It has been able to explore key drivers, existing challenges and barriers, solutions and ways forward of the food systems. The dialogue was revolved on all 5 action tracks. The Summit’s Action Tracks offer stakeholders from a wide range of backgrounds a space to share and learn, foster new actions and partnerships and amplify existing initiatives. Importantly, the Action Tracks are not separate, nor do they sit in siloes. Each Action Track has been designed to address possible trade-offs with other tracks and to identify solutions that can deliver wide-reaching benefits. based on these 5 tracks mapped down by the UN, the dialogue was taken place on the 5 related themes. These themes were drawn on the expertise of actors from across the nation’s food systems. Together, all the participating stakeholders explored how key cross-cutting levers of change such as human rights, finance, innovation, and the empowerment of women and young people can be mobilized to not only meet the Summit’s objectives, but also the sustainable, resilient equitable development of the country. In a nut shell, Nepal Food Systems Discourse aimed to connect a diverse range of stakeholders—including youth activists and Indigenous leaders, smallholder farmers, fishers, scientists and business leaders to identify the most powerful ways to make food systems more sustainable and equitable for all. Most importantly, the dialogue offered youth and experts everywhere the opportunity to contribute directly to the Summit’s ambitious vision and objectives.235238239240241242243244245246248249251The National Food System Discourse came up with a broad discussion about the food system amongst the diverse stakeholders. The plenary session brought about the voices of the experts working in the different sectors of the food system, while the breakout session raised the ground levels issues of the food systems observed and experienced by the participants. The plenary and breakout sessions both came up with many findings and recommendations to improve the food system and ensure food security for all. The major findings are well mentioned below: • Address and resolve the ground-level issues of the people for sustainable food systems. To build a sustainable food system, it is essential to address the people's problems at the grassroots levels, which are generally left unaddressed. • Ensure proper coordination between different stakeholders for problem handling. There are various stakeholders engaged in the food systems. There must be good coordination between them for effective and efficient problem handling. • Promote and implement data-driven farming practices to ensure sustainable food systems. • Organize different capacity-building programs to capacitate the farmers about the other sustainable practices and modern tools and technologies. There is a lack of awareness and access to modern tools and technologies amongst the farmers. • Increase opportunities for the people willing to work in the sectors of agriculture. There are no enough opportunities for the people willing to work in this sector. • Encourage, support, and motivate the farmers and other people working in this sector for better works and continued efforts. The farmers can share their stories of success and failures amongst the other groups, encouraging and motivating them to work. • Explore and cultivate wild varieties of cultivars and varieties in the agricultural fields as they are more climate-resilient. • Technically support the indigenous communities for effective and efficient works as many indigenous communities are still deprived of technologies and unable to grow enough as required. • Develop strong policies for reasonable pricing and marketing. There are many cases where the middle man or the shopkeeper tends to raise the price of the goods than that at which the farmers sell. So, to avoid the farmers' loss, a firm policy or guidelines are to be developed. • Establish technical ventures to fill the gaps between the consumers and the producers • Develop an act between the consumers and farmers to minimize the benefits taken by the middle man. The middle man is seen to benefit from the farmers and the consumers; there must be interaction and linkages between consumers and farmers through acts or other ways. • Build specialized laboratories for testing the soil, crops, and others as required. There is a need for specialized laboratories to conduct the tests as needed and choose the best-suited practices and technologies for the particular area under study and enhance the performances. • Develop good storehouses to avoid post-harvest loss. There is a lack of well-equipped and facilitated storehouses, which results in huge productivity losses as many harvested crops get damaged. • Encourage production, cultivation, and distribution of the local seeds at the local levels. In the present situation, many resistant local crop varieties have been replaced by hybrid crop varieties, which in the long term may lead to a food crisis. So, it's high time we start protecting and sustainably conserving the local seeds. • Develop and implement self-sustaining community development strategies and action plans to minimize dependency and import. • Develop and implement sustainable packaging rules and laws. Unsustainable packaging practices like the use of plastic are to be avoided as they make many severe impacts on the environment. • Introduce and use different environmentally friendly tools and technologies. Integrate traditional and indigenous practices along with modern tools and technologies for sustainable practices. • Promote organic models for use. Organic farmers and organic farming practices are encouraged rather than the inorganic ones, which has hazardous effects on our different environmental and health components. • Allocate specialized department or authorized person for the responsibility handling and monitoring. There is a lack of monitoring and evaluation in the food system sector like that of other sectors, due to which many issues are unaddressed and unresolved. • Change the education system so that the people from an early age understand the values and importance of the agriculture and food systems. • Initiate and ensure farmers' insurance to ensure their safety and security during the period of crisis. Provide allowances or incentives to the farmers for their works from the government, which will encourage them to continue to work. • Initiate and prioritize research activities under different related issues of the ongoing food system. There is a lack of adequate information and knowledge on other existing and arising issues about the food systems. • Advocate on the young farmers or youth farmers to ensure youth engagement and participation in the food system sectors. Youths are to be encouraged and motivated to work in the sectors of food systems to bring more innovative and creative ideas. • Develop penalty systems regarding the price hikes, this will make people think twice before they do anything. • Create easy access to financial resources to encourage the engagement of more people.236238239240241242243244245246248249251The discussion was mainly focused on the local and national food systems, revolving around the five action tracks. Firstly, we tried to figure out the food system drivers; producers & consumers are the key elements of the food system & the food system revolves around these two entities. The transition to a food system is rapid for developing countries like Nepal, but very limited analysis linking the food system to its drivers and its consequences exist there. The present food system of Nepal has created a serious question on the ability to make a positive transition. For this, the major outcome was policy priorities are imperative to be institutionalized at all three governments; federal, state, and local levels & need to be concerted to transform the food system. Changing food habits as a part of healthy eating on one hand was leading a millet movement in India. The millet movement made us realize that there is a space to endorse the local, indigenous food of Nepal too. An awareness towards a more nutritious and healthy diet can be endorsed by celebrities & health professionals like doctors which leads to the high acceptability of the product by citizens. Characterization of people based on their poverty status & segregating food distribution channels based on their incomes can be a very good example to ensure food security as exemplified by India can be easily applied in Nepal to uplift the food system. The pandemic of covid-19 made us realize the loopholes in transportation, rural-urban linkages, & as a whole the lack of knowledge in farmers about value addition of products. The example of farmers pouring the milk in the streets demands the government's attention to providing value-added training, equipment to the farmers. The intrusion of western culture, fast food, & lifestyle traditional foods are vanishing due to changes in the food habits of consumers. The overall agriculture system of the nation has been incapacitated. Exporting low price raw materials & importing final products at a high price, consumers are compelled to pay a higher price due to the lack of accountability. Government should come up with people-friendly policies and laws which can help create transparency between them benefiting the farmers more than the middle man. Being dependent on or using technologies does not develop resilience instead increases energy consumption and waste production. The farmers are to be provided with allowances, insurance, & economic support, to encourage them to be engaged in this sector in the long run and for safety. The overall scenario reflects, producers as farmers & investors are most impacted, they are more fragile & vulnerable to any crisis, shocks due to climate events, market value, etc. Since the majority of the farm-related activities are handled by women, there is ample space to reduce drudgery by actually introducing women-friendly mechanization in farming. Women who work as equally as men are paid less than their male counterparts. Women-led self-resilience mechanization should be implemented by providing them with women-friendly tools and technologies. The food system has 4 key dimensions: look at food security & nutrition, environment, social and economic. Production, consumption, material use, & disposal are four drivers that can impact the environment in the food system. The key drivers are Agrochemicals, no life cycle analysis, population growth, no self-sustaining model, and the relationship between market producer & consumers. The positive impact that our government can make in 3 years is initiating sustainable packaging rules and laws, with green stickers. Introducing environment-friendly technologies, promotion of an organic model of farming, & recognizing the work that does. The involvement of young people & women can be improved by capacity building in entrepreneurship, regenerative agriculture practices. There should be more opportunities for people who wish to work in the food system with easier laws. Promote farmer’s work, enterprise and also initiate farmers insurance programs for safety and security in cases like a pandemic.237238239240241242243244245246248249251The key focus of The Nepal Food System Dialogue was on the sustainability of the food and agriculture system by the utilization of local products so that SDG- 2030 could be met on a national level. The respondents participating in the dialogue discussed their idea on the improvement of the food system through the active participation of youth and women on a larger scale. They argued the key factor which provoked the failing agriculture system in the country. Some said that the major factor was Foreign Employment while other groups discussed the lack of government policy. For the discussion of fragility within the food system almost all the participants pointed out the lack of proper policy by the government and interference by the middlemen which are causing loss to both farmers and consumers and its result could easily be detected as the problems related to Food Security is constantly rising in major parts of Nepal. While discussing the key drivers for unsustainable food system participants pointed out that: lack of involvement of youth, lack of technologies and proper understanding of agriculture and lack of proper processing facilities within the food system along with copying of the western food habits and continuous practice of traditional farming methods has driven unsustainability within the food system. For the unsustainability in the farming system in the country, other stakeholders pointed out on excessive use of insecticides and pesticides which has harmed both food and the environment. The brief discussion on the impact of COVID in the food and agriculture system resulted in that majority of the problems during this was faced by farmers and to eradicate this government needs to keep a strict eye on the concerned parties by providing them with enough support and resources so that problems related to Food Security would be eradicated in the days to come. One group compared the situation of the food system in Nepal and India during COVID where Local markets took over the market during the COVID-19 crisis and the prevalence of home deliveries was done by small farmers and individuals, there even were innovations in the case of the food distribution system in India, while that in Nepal farmers were the one who suffered the most as the harvested crops could not be delivered to the authorities because of constant lockdown. In regards to minimization of impact on climate change on the food and agriculture system, the majority of the party suggested strict government policy and others suggested the role of youth in these sectors and also added that proper knowledge, guidance and support to the farmers is essential.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Nepal-Food-Systems-Discourse-NFSD-1-min.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Program-Structure-NFSD.pdfhttps://fb.me/e/2g6mfCelqhttps://fb.watch/6Z0xVpxS3r/

2021-07-26 15:16:41205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16795/44

26593915522162128111

Para este diálogo, se convocaron personas de diferentes áreas de la sociedad, instituciones públicas, academia, privados, instituciones de la sociedad civil, cooperativas, pescadores, agricultores, etc. Se les remarco, que el fin de la cumbre es actuar con urgencia sobre los compromisos a los que se llegue. También se les capacitó a los facilitadores para que exista un respeto por los invitados al momento de opinar en los subgrupos, conocer que cada invitado tiene un diferente punto de vista, lo que complejiza el proceso, pero al mismo tiempo le entrega una heterogeneidad necesaria para el debate.1. Actuar con urgencia: Se les recalco a los invitados la importancia de sus respectivas presencias, ya que debemos tener el máximo de opiniones y diversidad para actuar con urgencia. 2. Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre: Los comentamos a los invitados que como Elige Vivir Sano Biobío siempre hemos tenido y seguiremos teniendo un compromiso con la promoción de hábitos de vida saludable. 3. Ser respetuosos: A los facilitadores se les pidió específicamente que exista un clima de respeto al momento de escuchar los comentarios de los invitados antes las preguntas de sus respectivos subgrupos. 4. Reconocer la complejidad: Les expresamos a lo invitados que los sistemas alimentarios son como las sociedades, complejas y dinámicas, por lo que existió mucha heterogeneidad en los convocados, enriqueciendo así el debate. 5. Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples partes interesadas: muchas veces las opiniones de los agricultores, son miradas de forma diferente respecto a la opinión de expertos, por lo que se les entregó un espacio en el diálogo para puedan comentar desde su perspectiva que debemos hacer para mejorar los sistema alimentarios en la región del Biobío y el país. 6. Complementar la labor de los demás: Se les comento a los convocados que un trabajo en conjunto siempre será más eficiente que en un trabajo en solitario, por lo que debemos trabajar en equipo para solucionar problemática sociales como la obesidad infantil en el país. 7. Promover la confianza: Son tiempos complicados en Chile y el mundo, pero se les remarcó a los convocados que debemos confiar en las instituciones Gubernamentales y la ONU, ya que existen personas capacitadas para encaminar políticas públicas que vengan a mejorar los sistemas alimentarios en nuestro país.Como consejo, les diría a los próximos organizadores de los diálogos en regiones, que siempre velen por la heterogeneidad de los convocados, haciendo hincapié en la presencia de personas que vengan de sectores más vulnerables de nuestro país, ya que ellos nos pueden contar desde un punto de vista mucho más real los problemas para acceder a alimentos saludables.

Yes

234238240244246249En el Diálogo regional de la Región del Biobío, Chile, se abordó la temática de “Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos”, donde destacados representantes del mundo académico, sociedad civil, de instituciones públicas regionales y beneficiarios de políticas públicas del Sistema Elige Vivir Sano expondrán sus ideas sobre este desafío. Hubo 3 subtemáticas que se trabajaron en las distintas mesas de debate que incluyen: 1. “El rol de las ferias libres, mercados locales y mercados campesinos” 2. “Cómo incentivar el consumo de pescados y mariscos en la población nacional” 3. “La Industria en los sistemas alimentarios y la producción sostenible y con respeto a la naturaleza”235238240244246249● SE APRECIA UNA PREFERENCIA DE FERIAS LIBRES Y MERCADOS CAMPESINOS LOCALES: debido a que los y las participantes consideran que hay productos de temporada como las frutas, verduras y productos del mar y los precios que están al alcance de las familias. Además, se relaciona a alimentos más saludables e inocuos, siendo producidos mayoritariamente sin sustancias tóxicas y son alimentos libres de procesamientos. Las ferias libres son de fácil y rápido acceso y han permanecido abiertas durante la pandemia, manteniendo el abastecimiento. Los alimentos de supermercados no ofrecen buenos productos y eliminan partes que en la feria se pueden encontrar y aprovechar, por ejemplo hojas de betarraga y zanahorias. ● SE CONCLUYE BAJO CONSUMO DE PRODUCTOS DEL MAR: dentro de los programas de alimentación escolar, el consumo de pescados, mariscos y algas es crítico, porque en general lo niños y niñas no lo consumen y hay mucho desperdicio. No se sabe cuál es la causa, pero se cree que es la forma de preparación, la presentación y su procedencia. Por ejemplo al ser enlatados, los niños y niñas notan la diferencia sobre todo los de zonas costeras que están acostumbrados a su consumo en fresco, mientras que en las zonas interiores, no hay costumbre de consumirlo. ● FALTA MEJORAR LA ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE EN EL PROGRAMA ESCOLAR: se destaca la necesidad de que los niños tenga más tiempo para la alimentación, ya que los niños y niñas replican lo que hacen y ven, no siendo posible comer en minutos. ● SE DESTACA QUE LOS PATRONES DE CONSUMO HAN CAMBIADO: antiguamente, las personas con menos recursos eran las que más consumían pescado, pero actualmente productos de temas culturales y comunicacionales se está consumiendo más carne. El patrón de alimentación ha ido cambiando, se prioriza los alimentos con preparación corta debido a que las personas no tienen el tiempo para cocinar, por lo que se vuelcan a alimentos más procesados. Tampoco hay mucha oferta de alimentos listos para su consumo y de buena calidad nutricional, impidiendo que los niños y las niñas puedan tener este marco que tenían sus abuelos de comida tradicional. ● SE CUENTA CON BAJA DISPONIBILIDAD DE PRODUCTOS MARINOS: se destaca un estudio de levantamiento de evidencia sobre la disponibilidad en Concepción, que abarcó supermercados y ferias libres y otros, demuestra que, a pesar de la costa, la disponibilidad de productos del mar es baja. Cualquier formato de pescados y mariscos no están disponible en grandes cantidades. En comparaciones entre la ciudad y comunidades periferias, en ambas la disponibilidad era aproximadamente 30%., pero respecto de la relación precio-calidad (frescor del producto), en supermercados la calidad no es muy alta, pero en las ferias y caletas sí. ● FALTA APOYO A PEQUEÑOS/AS PESCADORES/AS Y AGRICULTORES/AS: se concluye falta de apoyo del sector privado a los productos locales, por lo que se sugiere incentivar las compras locales, considerando sus complejidades. Se destaca que la ley de Pesca no favorece la competencia entre la gran industria y la pesca artesanal. Se recomienda que las leyes públicas deberían enfatizar agricultura sustentable, apoyar más a agricultores pequeños con ayudas más directas y aumentar oferta programática para fomentar alimentos sanos. ● ALTOS PRECIOS EN PRODUCTOS SALUDABLES Y FACTOR CULTURAL: para los niveles socioeconómicos más bajos no es muy accesible la alimentación sana, ya que por ejemplo es más barato comprar el pan que frutas y hortalizas. Se sabe que el pan puede impactar en el sobrepeso y es más caro comparado con la avena que ha mantenido sus precios y es nutritiva, pero por temas culturales en Chile no está presente en el desayuno. Se señala que es un mito que la alimentación saludable es más cara y que hay factores económicos y culturales de por medio y que estamos insertos en un sistema que nos lleva a consumir comida rápida por falta de tiempo. Se destaca que no es caro si hay organización en los hogares, por ejemplo antes las familias iban a distintos lugares para acceder a precios más convenientes, hoy se privilegia comprar en un solo lugar y no necesariamente en lugares que son más económicos. Se señala que en los supermercados los productos más saludables están restringidos a áreas de exposición más pequeñas y son más caros. ● SE DESTACA LA CONTAMINACIÓN DEL MEDIO PRODUCTIVO: El mar está más contaminado que antes, cuando se podía comer alimentos crudos, recién extraídos del mar. Hoy en día no se puede hacer debido las enfermedades que están asociadas a ellos, los mariscos y pescados se deben cocinar. Se indica que esto también un factor que produce rechazo o temor en los productos del mar, debido a que las personas se cuestionan si se alimentarán con un producto que sea salubre y sin contaminantes. ● SE CONCLUYE QUE HAY MUCHA INTERMEDIACIÓN EN LOS ALIMENTOS: se sugiere potenciar descentralización logística de la cadena de alimentos, ya que muchos proveedores deben incluir en su cadena como destino a la capital de Chile (Santiago), ya que es una venta segura; por lo que se genera un aumento de los intermediarios en la cadena de comercialización.236238246249Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: • POTENCIAR LA PRODUCCIÓN Y COMERCIALIZACIÓN LOCAL: Las ferias libres son un espacio que permite que siga existiendo la producción campesina. A raíz de la pandemia, surgieron nuevos puntos de ventas, más presencia del mercado campesino y local, lo que permitió seguir abasteciendo a la población. La variedad alimentaria en ferias y mercados provoca mayor interés por la alimentación saludable en las personas. Fomentar políticas públicas para comercios locales. Se debe tratar de mejorar los incentivos de las compras públicas y locales, incluyendo productos marinos para mejorar su disponibilidad en el territorio. • POTENCIAR DESCENTRALIZACIÓN LOGÍSTICA DE CADENA DE ALIMENTOS: debido a que los productos se van a la capital de Chile (Santiago) se aumenta cadena de intermediarios comercializadores, por lo cual hay que dar más espacios a los pequeños agricultores para ofrecer sus productos en el territorio, potenciando el mercado local y de cadena corta. • DISMINUIR LOS PRECIOS A ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES: se puede generar mayor accesibilidad, por ejemplo, a través de la supresión del impuesto al valor agregado (IVA) en los alimentos saludables. Desde el punto de vista económico podrían ser más competitivos los precios de alimentos saludables, al no tener IVA. • POTENCIAR LA EDUCACIÓN Y PROGRAMAS ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE: Trabajar desde la primera infancia y enfatizar la educación alimentaria en programas del Estado para niños y niñas debido a que en los adultos el cambio conductual es más difícil. Fomentar el autocultivo de alimentos en la educación alimentaria e inyectar más recursos del Estado para masificar el consumo de alimentos saludables en establecimientos educacionales, para realizar actividades de promoción y prevención con componentes educativos, considerando la nutrición y la gastronomía. También, hay que mejorar el sistema de compra y legislaciones vigentes y las alianzas en los Programas de Alimentación Escolar. Se requiere una transformación cultural que considere horarios de comida, nuevas recetas y técnicas culinarias. En el mundo gastronómico, se presenta el marisco de otra manera porque es importante que el alimento entre por la vista, luego el olfato y luego el gusto. También es necesario educar sobre alimentación equilibrada, cómo alimentarse y mezclar productos, para no tener excesos de nutrientes. • AUMENTAR INVESTIGACIÓN Y DESARROLLO EN LA INDUSTRIA ALIMENTARIA.237238243246248249Se identifican como un área en la que hay que seguir analizando, el precio de los alimentos saludables y frescos, como agua, frutas, hortalizas y pescados, versus a productos de masas, bebidas o con alto contenido calórico, ya que, en opiniones de algunos participantes, existen precios más altos para los alimentos saludables y nutritivos, mientras que, para otros, existe la creencia de que el costo es el mismo. Se mencionan como los factores que realmente afectan la organización del presupuesto familiar y hábitos de consumo, la facilidad de compra en un solo lugar y el menor tiempo de inversión en la preparación de los alimentos procesados, en contraste con las escasas ofertas de alimentos saludables listos para el consumo. Por otro lado, dentro de los puntos débiles de la región se encuentra la distribución y disponibilidad de productos marinos. Incluso siendo una región con amplio acceso a las costas, la disponibilidad de los productos del mar es menos de lo esperado, el consumo de estos productos no se destaca dentro de las estadísticas. Se sugieren como prácticas que motivarían el consumo de productos del mar como la forma de presentación y preparación de estos alimentos.

2021-07-26 15:38:13205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15311/141

Este diálogo se realizó de manera virtual. El mismo tuvo un enfoque participativo e inclusivo, con diversidad de grupos de interés vinculados a los diferentes procesos de los sistemas alimentarios, propiciando un espacio de discusión que generaron un intercambio abierto entre los participantes. Para desarrollar el intercambio abierto entre los participantes del Diálogo se manejaron cuatro grandes temas (preguntas orientadoras) que fueron abordados en igual cantidad de mesas de trabajo, sobre la base de los 5 objetivos propuestos para la Cumbre. Los participantes contaron con 60 minutos para la discusión y debate. Al finalizar el debate se presentó la relatoría de cada una de las cuatro mesas. Cada diálogo contó con un administrador, facilitadores y relatores por mesa. Una vez finalizado el diálogo se pasó a la consolidación de los aportes recibidos para su incorporación en el formulario oficial de comentarios.A raíz de la adopción de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible como guía para el impulso de las acciones del Estado, dirigidas a favorecer a aquellos que se han quedado atrás del desarrollo, se dio un impulso para asegurar la producción y disponibilidad de alimentos, garantizar la reducción del hambre, fomentando la seguridad alimentaria, mediante el compromiso y la participación del Gobierno, los organismos internacionales, los gremios y la sociedad. Además de desarrollar la seguridad alimentaria nacional con una política de soberanía alimentaria, el énfasis hasta el momento ha sido la reducción del hambre, la desnutrición y la mal nutrición en la población vulnerable, principalmente, la primera infancia, de acuerdo con el segundo Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible. Esto pasa por la preservación del ambiente, bajo un enfoque de prevención de la contaminación. De allí que ante el llamado a transformar los sistemas alimentarios realizado en el Día Mundial de la Alimentación (2019) por el secretario general de las Naciones Unidas y la convocatoria a una Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios a celebrarse en el 2021, se inició un proceso de articulación de esfuerzos entre las instituciones vinculadas al mensaje “como una familia humana y un mundo libre de hambre”. Esta Cumbre es una oportunidad para que Panamá pueda avanzar hacia el gran y ambicioso objetivo de contar con un sistema alimentario sostenible y será un importante catalizador que permitirá a través de los diálogos realizados, retroalimentarse de las necesidades, opiniones y otros aportes transmitidos por todos los sectores convocados, contando así con insumos que permitan fortalecer, continuar, corregir o iniciar nuevas acciones que en forma de programas, políticas u otros instrumentos legales e institucionales se avance hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios.Si bien es cierto se contó con una amplia participación de diversos sectores de la sociedad en tanto actores de los sistemas alimentarios, como actividades concretas de seguimiento, se podrían organizar consultas con representantes de sectores específicos para contar con sus recomendaciones y aportes de acuerdo con la visión y el papel de ese sector o gremio en los sistemas alimentarios. Así entonces, se podrían organizar actividades con el sector de restaurantes, organizaciones de chefs, gremios de agroindustriales, comercializadoras de alimentos, supermercados, transportistas, por mencionar algunos.

Yes

234238239240241245246247249La consulta subnacional de Panamá Este, Panamá Oeste y Darién tuvo como lema “Cerrando brechas para la seguridad alimentaria”. El objetivo principal era determinar la futura dirección de los sistemas alimentarios en Panamá, hacia la consecución de los ODS explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030 y situar al proyecto de Diálogos dentro del contexto de trabajo intersectorial que realizará el Gobierno Nacional y los actores de la cadena alimentaria nacional. Sobre la base de las cinco vías de acción definidas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 (1. Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 2. Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción favorable a la naturaleza 4. Promover medios de vida equitativos 5. Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades), se adoptaron cuatro preguntas orientadoras que se utilizaron en todas y cada una de las sesiones de consultas realizadas. Las dos primeras preguntas hacen referencia a algunas acciones que se pudieran impulsar y nuestro papel como actores para avanzar hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible, mientras que las dos últimas tienen que ver con el abordaje de estos sistemas en las políticas públicas. Las preguntas orientadoras fueron: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? 2. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? 3. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? 4. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes?235238241242246247249250251Las provincias de Panamá, Panamá Oeste y Darién se ubican al este del país. La agricultura es la principal actividad económica de la provincia de Darién; sin embargo, se caracteriza por una baja productividad como resultado de la falta de tecnologías y problemas en la comercialización de la producción. La actividad forestal es relevante en esta provincia. En cuanto a la situación actual en materia de tenencia de la tierra, la misma no es favorable al desarrollo ordenado y permanente del sector, y no permite un adecuado manejo del suelo y del agua. El sistema de transporte en Darién en su mayoría es a través ríos y el mar, lo que ha afecta el grado de desarrollo, de ahí que entre los principales hallazgos en esta consulta destacan: establecimiento de programas de producción en Darién. Mejoras en las estructuras de transporte y comercialización de alimentos. Creación de huertos familiares. Programas sobre pérdidas de alimentos. Acompañamiento técnico para mejorar la producción. Promoción en el consumo de productos nacionales. Mayor divulgación de los programas que desarrolla el Gobierno Nacional. Agilización de los procesos en la titulación de tierras. Fortalecer al MIDA para que brinde mejor asistencia técnica a los productores. Elaborar políticas de estado a largo plazo. Incentivar la agricultura familiar, con inclusión de mujeres. Incentivar a los productores en temas ambientales. Establecimiento de mercados de circuitos cortos. Mejorar los hábitos alimenticios desde la niñez. Cerrar las brechas digitales en las áreas rurales. Generar políticas públicas para motivar a los jóvenes a permanecer en sus territorios.2362382392412422442492511. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? • Creación y establecimiento de programas de producción en la provincia de Darién, actualmente tienen una limitada capacidad de producción de alimentos. • Mejorar las infraestructuras de transporte y comercialización de alimentos. • Promover la colaboración de multi-actores con experiencia en otras regiones para llenar los vacíos en capacidad técnica. • Convertir huertos comunitarios en huertos familiares. • Fortalecer programas y medidas sobre pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos y los impactos al ambiente. • Analizar de manera estricta las características de las zonas y capacidad de producción de alimentos para la creación de programas efectivos.2362412422462482492. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? • Acompañamiento técnico para mejorar producción. • Cumplimiento de las leyes existentes y orientar a los productores sobre los puntos primordiales del marco legal existente para hacerlas cumplir. • Fortalecer los programas de educación a los productores para el uso de tecnología e innovación. • Enseñar cómo sacar provecho a la materia prima que utilizan en sus fincas. • Realizar campañas para incentivar más el consumo de productos nacionales. • Facilitar mejores estructuras y caminos de penetración. • Mayor divulgación de los programas que ejecuta el Gobierno Nacional.2362382402422462482492513. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? • Agilizar los procesos de titulación de tierras, solventar y bajar los intereses para el pequeño productor. • Fortalecer al Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario para dar seguimiento técnico a los productores. • Elaborar políticas de Estado a largo plazo y sostenible. • Todas las regiones deben contar con oficinas de instituciones como la Autoridad Nacional de Tierras, para facilitar los trámites que requieren los agricultores. • Incentivar el desarrollo de la agricultura familiar propiciando espacios que fortalezcan el liderazgo de las mujeres en la actividad.2362382402412422432442472492514. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes? • Incentivar a los productores en manejo de programas ambientales. • Actualizar la educación en términos de tecnología e innovación. • Establecer mercados de circuitos cortos que ofrezcan a los pueblos indígenas y a las mujeres accesos para mejorar sus actividades de comercialización de sus productos. • Monitorear el sistema de nutrición en Panamá y mejorar los hábitos de alimentación desde la niñez. • Cerrar las brechas digitales que aún existe en las áreas rurales. • Establecimiento de políticas públicas dirigidas a la protección familiar y a generar iniciativas para crear ambientes comunitarios propicios para las mujeres. • Generar políticas públicas para que se genere prosperidad en los territorios incluyendo a los jóvenes para que tengan oportunidades de crecer en sus localidades.

2021-07-26 15:45:11205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28493/44

19116116132811117112141143

Se planteó una pregunta que es de relevancia nacional e internacional, en el marco de las vías de acción de la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios: ¿Cómo garantizar el acceso a Alimentos Saludables y Nutritivos, que nos lleve a adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenible en el tiempo?A través del planteamiento de la pregunta, permitiendo la participación de distintos actores, respetando las distintas visiones, y reconociendo la complejidad de los Sistemas Alimentarios.La importancia de basarse y tener siempre presente dichos principios para promover el respeto en los diálogos.

Yes

234238239240244247La discusión del diálogo regional se basó en dos puntos importantes de las vías de acción que tienen relación con la realidad local de la región del Maule, bajo el título: Derecho a la Alimentación Saludable y Nutritiva en la Región del Maule. El objeto de la conversación y los trabajos en grupo fue abordar cómo garantizar el acceso a alimentos saludables y nutritivos, y que esto potencie las modalidades de consumo sostenible para el medio ambiente.235238239241246247249Dentro de los principales hallazgos del Diálogo en la Región del Maule, se destaca que existen varios factores que influyen en el acceso a alimentos saludables y nutritivos: culturales; poder adquisitivo; acceso físico; y de educación. Se destacan como aspectos que se podrían reforzar los siguientes: APOYO A PEQUEÑOS AGRICULTORES Y COMERCIALIZADORES. Se planteó que hay personas que no tienen interés en cultivar sus alimentos, porque no tienen espacios para ofrecer o vender sus productos, se cuenta con barreras para formalizarse o certificarse y faltan incentivos para la innovación de productos orgánicos y sin pesticida en territorios agrícolas. INCENTIVOS PARA LOS COSTOS D EPRODUCCIÓN DE ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES. Se plantea que si no existen programas de subvención a la producción, al manejo de tierras, no se podrá cultivar en la región y los productos serán aún más caros. FALTA EDUCACIÓN SOBRE PRODUCCIÓN Y ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE. Se plantea la necesidad de educar a las personas encargadas de cultivar alimentos, ya que deben mejorar sus conocimientos de cómo se trabaja la tierra y producen y cultivan alimentos más saludables y sin contaminación, así como los beneficios del autocultivo y los alimentos. Para generar cambios culturales desde temprana edad, se propone incorporar educación alimentaria transversal y nutricionistas dentro de las escuelas, apoyando desde lo local, a las familias. Y al mismo tiempo, fortalecer y fomentar el consumo de productos locales dentro de la alimentación escolar. Preocupa el bajo nivel de consumo de pescados y mariscos pues no está dentro de los hábitos de las personas, se podría fomentar el uso de recetas creativas. Es importante señalar que existen dos variables que marcan el diálogo y tienen estrecha relación entre ellos: los ingresos de las familias y los precios de los alimentos saludables En ese marco, se destacó la necesidad de cambiar las modalidades de consumo a través de los huertos comunitarios, programas de autoconsumo para cultivar nuestros propios alimentos.236238239240241245246247249251IMPLEMENTAR UNA POLÍTICA NACIONAL DE ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE. Se espera que el derecho humano a la alimentación se vea reflejado en la nueva Constitución, que comienza a redactarse en Chile. Además, la cadena alimentaria debe ser fortalecida en las políticas públicas, para que sean orgánicas y sostenibles. Por ejemplo, apoyar la agricultura orgánica, en el ámbito de calidad de proceso de cultivo y rentabilidad. Se considera necesaria la reducción de impuestos específicos para algunos alimentos saludables, apoyando a los pequeños/as empresarios/as y productores/as locales. Idealmente se espera que a largo plazo todas las instituciones y servicios de gobierno se involucren en el tema. MEJORAR EL ACCESO A ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES. Elaboración de una estrategia a nivel país que incentive una buena alimentación e incluya la accesibilidad a ciertos alimentos saludables y la prohibición de otro que no lo son en establecimientos escolares. Se sugiere incluir un subsidio/subvención a alimentos saludables y entregar productos más saludables en las canastas que entrega el Estado. A lo anterior, se suma la necesidad de apoyar la producción de huertos orgánicos, la trazabilidad de productos, como el proceso de regadío de frutas y verduras. FOMENTAR LA EDUCACIÓN DE PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE Y ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE. Se plantea que, mediante la educación alimentaria para el núcleo familiar, con apoyo de profesionales nutricionistas, se logrará modificar hábitos. La educación debe contemplar temas como el correcto lavado de frutas y hortalizas (para mejorar su inocuidad), la incorporación de productos de origen marino en la dieta de la primera infancia, y la enseñanza a los niños y niñas cómo reconocer un alimento sano. Se debe también trabajar temas de agricultura sostenible en los colegios y de huertos urbanos, para que los niños y niñas motiven la autoproducción en los hogares, así como preferir alimentos cuyos envases sean consecuentes con la sostenibilidad de los sistemas. Se plantea la promoción de la producción de temporada y la enseñanza a consumidores/as sobre conservación y mantención de alimentos. Se proponen charlas sobre estas temáticas a mujeres organizadas, personas mayores y establecimientos educacionales. Se comenta que desde el Gobierno se está comenzando a trabajar la economía circular y sostenibilidad para desarrollar proyectos más sustentables y se espera que puedan replicarse las buenas experiencias. APOYAR INICIATIVAS DE PRODUCCIÓN LOCAL Y AUTOPRODUCCIÓN COMO HUERTOS URBANOS. Los huertos urbanos son favorables para la salud mental y física y permiten disminuir los gastos por lo que deberían promoverse y apoyar su creación. Hay varios fondos estatales para incentivar la producción sostenible, se puede trabajar con los residuos para el compostaje y mejorar la tierra. Se necesita un fortalecimiento de la producción local, por ejemplo, mediante apoyo y subsidios a productores y productoras, y a las familias para que generen alimentos de autocultivo. Un buen ejemplo mencionado es la cárcel de mujeres de Talca donde se realiza un proyecto de invernadero que es un aporte también a la reinserción.237238243247Dentro de los comentarios divergentes, se ve como el Derecho a la Alimentación un tema fundamental para las personas, pero a nivel mundial nadie lo ha podido concretar y se considera utópico el poder garantizar el derecho a la alimentación para todos y todas. Sin duda es un tema que debe seguir siendo analizado con más profundidad.

2021-07-27 01:28:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27874/123

5540152035

For the organization of the Dialogue, the handbook for independent dialogues was used, adapting it to the local context. To contribute to the vision, objectives and final outcomes of the Food System Summit, the dialogue was structured around the 5 Action Tracks, using the same thematic tracks that the National and sub-national dialogues were focusing on. The purpose for this was to complement and further enhance the work that was being undertaken through the Member State Dialogues in the country to feed in to the Government’s policy-making and planning, to contribute to the outcomes of those dialogues to the Global Food Systems Summit, as well as to inform future programming and project implementation of the European Union, FAO and other donors and implementing partners. This purpose was also outlined prior and during the event to the participants, who were, thus, more engaged and committed to the discussions. The dialogue was open to the wider public, and particularly to youth from all 21 provinces of Mongolia and the capital city from different backgrounds (private sector, civil society, academia, international organisations, government, non-affiliated individuals).Recognising the complexity of food systems, during the opening of the dialogue a presentation was made to explain the different aspects of food systems that would be discussed, contextualising it to adapt to the local youth audience. A poll was organized also to capture this complexity and trigger the thematic discussions. The facilitators and note-takers of the three thematic sessions were trained prior to the Dialogue to understand the principles of engagement and the context of the dialogue. Given their expertise in the area, they managed to bring in guiding questions that triggered many exchanges and ideas, which further showcased the interconnectedness of food systems and impact to different areas of nature, life, and economy, and why the sustainability and transformation of food system is key and requires a systemic approach. In addition, to ensure inclusivity and have everyone bring in their diverse perspectives, simultaneous sign language interpretation was available, as well as Mongolian-English simultaneous interpretation.Understanding well the principles of engagement and communicating them further to the facilitators, participants is key to ensure that the dialogue is contributing to the local context and the Global Food System Summit, that there are complementarities and synergies created, and that the dialogue is inclusive and transparent, with a purpose. Participants’ understanding of why this Dialogue is needed, can really increase the level of engagement not only during the dialogue but also after it.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251The Dialogue focused on 3 main areas: 1) Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food 2) Advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution 3) Boosting nature-positive food production In each of these thematic areas/sessions, the youth audience was invited to express their views on the key challenges faced in the food systems in Mongolia, the primary reasons for those challenges, and solutions that could have a transformative impact including also active youth involvement, as well as what must be done in the next 10 years for the food systems sustainability and transformation and the stakeholders to be involved and engage into this. In more details the questions discussed in the 3 thematic sessions: Thematic session 1: -What are the key challenges faced in the food system of Mongolia in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all, especially youth, and improving the health, nutrition, and well-being of the population? -What are the primary reasons for excessive food consumption (food waste) and unhealthy food consumption habits? What shall be done to transfer knowledge, understanding, and habit to reduce wood waste and introduce healthy and sustainable food consumption? What solutions can you propose? -What must be done in the next 10 years to ensure food safety and security? To achieve the above goal, which stakeholders of the food system must establish mutually beneficial partnerships and how to cooperate? Thematic session 2: -What are the obstacles in increasing the youth involvement in business revenue generation and job creation within the food and agricultural product value-added network of Mongolia?Are youth interested in working food and agricultural sector? What are the main challenges faced by young entrepreneurs within the food value chain? (value chain means: food production, processing, sales, and consumption) -What are the reasons behind youth migration from the rural areas? Why youth uninterested in the agricultural sector? How to ensure the participation of youth, women, and vulnerable groups? What are your solutions? -What do you expect in 10 years concerning the poverty level, job creation, and food safety of Mongolia? To ensure the above goals, what must be done by the stakeholder to ensure a mutually beneficial partnership, and how to cooperate? -Youth expectations. What does the youth expect from the food system in the future? Thematic session 3: -Is the current practice of food and agricultural production environmentally friendly? How the climate change and environmental transportation are impacting populations and producers? How are the present level and use of natural resources? What are the challenges faced in the development of domestic food production? -What are the reasons for the lack of local food production development? Why youth refrain from food production? What recommendations, initiatives, and actions are implemented to support domestic food production? What solutions can you propose for Mongolian food producers to build capabilities to overcome climate change, shock, and stress? -What measures shall be implemented by the Government of Mongolia in the next 10 years to support nature-positive local and domestic production?/concentrate on solutions that do not require financial sources/. What activities shall be implemented and mutually beneficial partnership established between the stakeholders of the food system to achieve the above goals? -Youth desire. What is the youth expectation of the food system's future?235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Participants in the Youth dialogues expressed that there are the following pressing problems regarding the main three areas of discussion: - Due to the underdevelopment of the logistics network for food value addition chains intermediate traders, referred to as "change", make more profit than producers. - Following and applying standard requirements is not enough at all stages of food value addition chains. - Due to malnutrition issues among young people, obesity and excess weight are observed, which negatively affects their health. - Children accept insecure and unhealthy food in schools and kindergartens. - By-products of animal origin are thrown away without use and a lot of waste is generated during harvesting and from packaging, which has a negative impact on the environment. - Due to the lack of a standard of quality of life in rural areas, young people have a meager opportunity to live there quietly and satisfied and run a food business. - When running a start-up food business to create value, young people spend most of the money on building infrastructure and therefore face financial hardship. - Young people who want to do business in the food industry face political obstacles from government agencies. -Start-up business face difficulties with entering the market along with big, already well established competitors and the business opportunities are not supported by the government. The government policies treat equally the start-ups and the big businesses which result in failure of the start-ups. To tackle the mentioned issues in the food sector youth proposed the following actions:  Expansion of production and consumption of such foodstuffs of general consumption as flour and flour products;  Opening in rural areas of the specialized market “Market for organic food products” and creating the possibility of expanding the consumption of organic food;  Increasing the knowledge of stakeholders at all stages of the food chains about the standard requirements of food production and consumption, food security and nutritional value and proper nutrition, and intensification of work to convey information and agitation and training to them, using modern marketing methods;  To instill in the population the habits of sorting waste and garbage from food and food packaging and create appropriate conditions for this;  Ensuring investment support for the creation of enterprises for processing livestock by-products and enterprises for processing food waste in rural areas;  Improving the results of organizations for professional control over the quality of food products and transparent information about this to the public;  Formation of a favorable environment and infrastructure for the life and work of young people in rural areas, the use of incentive levers such as providing them with housing benefits and the issuance of a wage supplement;  Supporting start-up investments of young people who run agricultural, food production and business and expanding work on the dissemination of production, technological and innovative knowledge;  Supporting the initiatives of youth involved in food production and business, on cooperation and to accustom them to the culture of creating collective value;236238239244246248249251Key challenges faced in the food systems of Mongolia in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all, especially youth, and improving the health, nutrition, and well-being of the population: -In every stage of the value-added chain, starting from the farmers/herders, the standards tend to be overlooked. Enforcement of standards is weak, and stakeholders’ knowledge is low. Some standards are also outdated and not in line with the international benchmark. -Due to limited types and choices of food products in rural areas, malnutrition is commonly encountered. -Child obesity under five years old is becoming common in Mongolia. Children consume unhealthy food at schools. Primary reasons for excessive food consumption (food waste) and unhealthy food consumption habits: - Large quantity of animal intestines and byproducts; Large volume of food packaging; Although waste is sorted, there are no recycling facilities in the rural areas; Although animal intestines are processed, production capacities are insufficient; Large quantity of post-harvest vegetable waste. How to transfer knowledge, understanding, and habit to reduce food waste and introduce healthy and sustainable food consumption: - Sort food waste; - Disseminate information and knowledge on sorting waste to citizens and organizations; - Increase waste recycling capacity in the rural areas; - Enhance animal intestines and byproduct processing capacities in the rural areas; - Prolong vegetable shelf-life; - Establish a food waste recycle system for restaurants; - Define standards on sugar contents of the food products and increase requirements on imported products; - Transparently inform the public of the results of the inspections conducted by the professional inspection agencies (eg. conclusions on the use of food coloring in whole grain bread); - Enlarge the packaging size of the milk and dairy products (e.g. enlarging the package contribute to reducing the waste quantity); -Significantly increase the food sector production. Establish new start-ups in the agricultural sector and provide support. -Establish a logistics network for the food sector; -Improve knowledge among the entities/individuals involved of the value-added chains, and organize trainings; -Necessary to establish “Organic markets” in rural areas (increase nutrition-rich products) and disseminate knowledge and information on healthy food and meals to the rural population; -Essential to promote healthy and proper food habits by conducting promotion and research in this field -Assist youth in engaging in organic agricultural production. Organize trainings among youth on transferring knowledge and skills to operate production facilities. What must be done in the next 10 years to ensure food safety and security: -Amend the food and nutrition recommendations of Mongolia; -Transform the food system of Mongolia with the assistance of professionals; -Increase taxes on unhealthy food; -Enforce standards on all entities/individuals involved in the value chains; -Increase use of fortified consumer food products; -Strengthen the quality control over imported products; -Reduce pastureland overgrazing; -Improve training quality of the professionals of the processing industry; -Disseminate information on reading and using the product labels to the public; -Establish fair and transparent information flow for the consumer; -Educate the public on food and nutrition. To achieve the above goal, which stakeholders of the food system must establish mutually beneficial partnerships and how to cooperate: -Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, Ministry of Food Agriculture and Light Industry, Ministry of Environment, National Development Agency, General Agency for Specialised Investigation, Customs organization; Government organizations and research institutions; Logistics companies; Processing factories; Consumers; Local administration; Herders/farmers; Education institutions at all levels (schools, colleges, universities, institutes, TVET); -Ensure feedback and cooperation among stakeholders; -All stakeholders must monitor the enforcement of specialised inspection agencies236241244245246247248249251Key challenges: -Most of the initial investments for the food factory, processing, and value creation are spent on the infrastructure, limiting the potential of focusing on product quality. Most of the capital is spent on fixed assets and infrastructure. -There is an increased dependency by producers and newcomers in the sector on politics as a means to overcome certain challenges. -Domestic production is dependent on the mining sector. There is no clusterization of the food processing sector and there is lack of human resources. -There are strong doubts concerning the quality of local food production. -Insufficient production of nutritious and safe food products. Reasons behind youth migration from the rural areas? Why youth uninterested in the agricultural sector? -The agricultural sector is principally dependent on the environment; -Low capital capacity and high requirements on financing; -Irregular production revenue due to the short production cycle of the agricultural sector; -Rural politicization; -Youth misperception of the easy urban life; -Quality of life and living standards (eg infrastructure challenges, such as sanitary systems) are inadequate in the rural areas, and self-sufficient living conditions in the rural areas are not enabled also due to low incomes; -Low interest to work in the agricultural sector due to the lack of professional recognition; -The sector is principally dependent on the environment, weather and climate, which are subject to high risks; thus, youth are less motivated to invest and be engaged in the sector; -Lack of knowledge on the projects and programs amongst the small enterprises to obtain financial support; -Lack of knowledge and experience of agricultural production and technology; -Domestic products are mostly overpriced. Limited channels/points of sale for agricultural products, and no other options other than selling underpriced or to speculators. How to ensure the participation of youth, women, and vulnerable groups? -Provide incentives on start-up investment for youth in the food production sector; -Provide government support in the production sector; -Necessary to implement 5G technology in the countryside to enable self-development opportunities; -Disseminate knowledge and information on agricultural production; -It is important to develop various types of cooperatives; -Establish new sales channels, focus on establishing an integrated sales network; -Most importantly, the farmers must unite, creating an advantage of clustered business, e.g, some focus on warehouse services and the others produce products; -NGOs disseminate information and organize training on creating the clustered business structure; -Create food production infrastructure to produce products that preserve nutrition, in the well-ventilated environments and clusters, by establishing business incubators and industrial parks; -Promote and introduce the importance of cooperatives and joint efforts for youth; -Increase opportunities to participate in projects and programs; -It is recommended to focus on the agricultural sector as one of the economically significant industries and establish a favorable environment to improve the sectoral image; -Support domestic production by establishing an export and import control system; -Focusing on food safety means protecting national security. What do you expect in 10 years concerning the poverty level, job creation, and food safety of Mongolia? -Successfully implement middle, short and long term national goals; -Focus on creating hygienic food production in the agricultural sector and small and medium-sized enterprises; -Offer business loans dedicated to specific production; -Develop non-traditional industrial technologies in the production sector; -Reduce deficiencies in the healthy food supply in the remote area. To ensure the above goals, what must be done by the stakeholder to ensure a mutually beneficial partnership, and how to cooperate? -Give preference to public interest over personal gains; -Establish a professional ethical council; -Develop food production franchising.236240242243244245248251Is the current practice of food and agricultural production environmentally friendly? How the climate change and environmental transportation are impacting populations and producers? How are the present level and use of natural resources? What are the challenges faced in the development of domestic food production? -People produce a large amount of food waste; -Weak policy support on food quality; -Weak implementation of food law, policy, and resolutions; -Low rate of using food waste for fertilization; -Low rate of domestic and local vegetable production; -Plant growth has deteriorated due to climate change; -Environmental pollution due to waste; -Youth refrain from food production due to the lack of support programs and financial support; -Weak infrastructure development in 21 aimags; -Bank loan interest rates are high; -Youth knowledge on food production is insufficient; -Water consumption demand is high in farming; -No waste recycling plants; -Although organic food law has been adopted, its enforcement is unsatisfactory. The cost of organic food is high. What are the reasons for the lack of local food production development? Why youth refrain from food production? -The great hindrance for SMEs is the same standard imposed on large and SME producers; -Low vegetable consumption amongst the population; -No government support on vegetable procurement; -People tend to procure cheap vegetables from other countries; -Uncontrolled use of pesticide; -Extensive government benefits influence the lack of human resources for operating production -Support to SMEs is not always channeled to the right sector, and the businesses in need. What recommendations, initiatives, and actions are implemented to support domestic food production? What solutions can you propose for Mongolian food producers to build capabilities to overcome climate change, shock, and stress? -Provide government support in vegetable procurement; -Separate requirements set for SMEs and large producers; -It is essential to adjust the pesticide use; -Reduce waste and use environmentally friendly packaging; -Focus on youth participation and contribution in food production; What measures shall be implemented by the Government of Mongolia in the next 10 years to support nature-positive local and domestic production?/concentrate on solutions that do not require financial sources/. -Implement a summer internship program for high school students to practice in the food production sector -Cooperate with the science institutions, supporting and implementing the outcomes of scientific research and advanced technologies; -Sort waste and establish recycling factories; -Enable meat and dairy product sales opportunities to reduce the speculators' involvement; -Address issues of substandard food matters in food laws and regulations; -Establish a factory to produce compost food waste; -Train citizens the culture to reduce and sort waste and disseminate relevant information; -Government shall support youth willing to operate domestic food production by developing infrastructure in 21 aimags; -Get accustomed to using cloth bags. What activities shall be implemented and mutually beneficial partnership established between the stakeholders of the food system to achieve the above goals? -Government entities; -High schools; -Science institutions; -Private sector; -Civil Society Organizations’ -Citizens. Youth desire. What is the youth expectation of the food system's future? -Develop a comprehensive food system; -Produce dairy products, meat produces, and vegetables domestically; -Develop a cluster of the food production system; -Grow fruits and berries domestically and supply local demand; -Improve enforcement of government policy and resolutions, and ensure correlation; -Prevent the production of genetically modified food products and have the possibility to identify them; -Advance the development of biotechnology in the food sector.237238239240241242243244245246247248249251In all the three thematic discussions there was not really areas of divergence. Participants were aligning their views and concerns in relation to the key challenges, triggers, suggested solution and recommendations for the way forward.

2021-07-27 09:38:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32606/134

18315148182929130262225384275101919544653

La concertation a été organisée sous forme de Rue Marchande sur trois jours avec une exposition vente de divers produits locaux transformés couplée à deux ateliers de réflexion pour recueillir la position et la contribution des diverses parties sur la valorisation des aliments locaux transformés pour des systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables. La Rue marchande a constitué un cadre d’échanges sur les principaux goulots d’étranglement des chaines de valeur des produits locaux transformés pour ressortir des recommandations fortes qui pourront nourrir le document national sur les systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables au Niger. La Rue Marchande a été organisé en étroite collaboration avec HC3N et l’ONG AgriFocus Niger. Les parties prenantes venant du Gouvernement, de la Recherche, du secteur privé, des Organisations Paysannes, des transformateurs, de l’Union Européenne, des agences onusiennes (FAO, PAM) ont participé au lancement et aux ateliers de réflexion. Les deux thématiques de réflexion de la Rue Marchande, découlent de plusieurs discussions entre des acteurs intervenant dans le secteur de la recherche, de la production et de la transformation des aliments locaux sur les questions de qualité et d’innocuité des produits agro sylvo pastoraux transformés du Niger. La question des produits transformés est une priorité dans les politiques et stratégie de développement en raison de leur importance pour la sécurité alimentaire, la création d’emploi et la génération de ressources. Il faut noter que le consommateur devient de plus en plus exigeant quant à la qualité des produits alimentaires et surtout porter une attention sur leur provenance et la qualité de la qualité des matières premières. Ces dernières jouent un rôles importants en termes d’approvisionnement des unités de transformation d’où la nécessité de mettre ensemble les producteurs des matières premières et des transformateurs des produits alimentaires. Le choix du thème et des sous thèmes de discussion résulte de l’ambition du pays à faire de la valorisation des produits locaux une prioritéDes réunions préliminaires ont été organisées sous la coordination du HAUT Commissariat à l’Initiative 3 toutes les parties prenantes (recherche, SNU, Organisations Faitières, les ONG et les services étatiques…) pour mener des réflexions sur les thématiques dont les réflexions pourraient contribuer valablement à renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables eu Niger. Ces réunions ont permis d’élaborer la note conceptuelle de positionnement du Niger, de définir des thématiques de discussion, de discuter des modalités de l’organisation et du schéma d’animation. Le Gret assurant le lead des concertations indépendantes, a assuré en collaboration avec l’ONG AgriFocus Niger et le HC3N, la modération des ateliers.Il faut s’assurer de la participation des vrais acteurs en lien avec la thématique choisie afin de ressortir les vrais goulots d’étranglement et les solutions adéquates. Il est important de noter qu’Il faut prévoir une participation active au niveau opérationnel et s’assurer d’une bonne représentativité des acteurs. Il faut également: - Anticiper dans l'organisation par l'animation de plusieurs réunions - s'assurer de la répartition des tâches aussi bien au plan logistique qu'organisation des activités - S'assurer de la couverture financières des conférences et de la Rue Marchande

Yes

234238239243247251L’axe majeur traité lors de cette concertation est la valorisation des aliments locaux transformés pour des systèmes alimentaires durables et équitables à travers deux thématiques de discussion. La première thématique, « la valorisation des productions agro-sylvo-pastorales par la transformation, la conservation, le stockage et la commercialisation », a été centrée sur les politiques nationales, la définition des concepts système alimentaire et chaines de valeurs ainsi que les leviers à activer pour la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires. La deuxième conférence a porté sur « la valorisation des produits locaux transformés par l’emballage, l’étiquetage et la présentation des valeurs nutritives associées » a porté sur l’importance de l’emballage dans la valorisation des produits aussi bien sur les plans sanitaire et que de la mise à disposition des informations pour les consommateurs. Les deux thèmes ont été traités plus en profondeur en travaux de groupes pour ressortir les difficultés, les solutions, les actions, les acteurs de changement et les recommandations fortes à prendre pour lever ces obstacles dans une vision de systèmes durables. Les enjeux qui ont été discutés lors de cette concertation sont le système de stockage et la disponibilité des matières premières, la transformation des produits, la conservation, l’emballage et la commercialisation dans une approche chaine de valeur ou tous acteurs jouent leurs rôles et contribuent au développement économique autour de la chaine. En effet malgré le potentiel et la diversité des produits locaux transformés, ils restent méconnus et sous exploités dans le dispositif d’approvisionnement de l’état et font face à une concurrence déloyale des produits importés. De ce fait les produits locaux ont du mal à se positionner sur le marché national, encore moins le marché régional. Pourtant la valorisation des produits offre le double avantage de positionner les produits locaux mais aussi de renforcer la position des jeunes et femmes, qui sont les acteurs les plus importants dans ce maillon. La valorisation des produits permet de créer de l’emploi et de générer des ressources. Malgré les efforts de production, de transformation et de promotion (marketing, promotion), la commercialisation reste encore un défi. Au niveau de la production, les unités de transformation sont soumises à une fluctuation importante du prix, une disponibilité non constante et une qualité des matières premières à désirer. Le problème de qualité est d’autant plus important que la traçabilité des matières premières est inexistante de même que la centralisation et la collecte organisée. L’approvisionnement des unités de production auprès des organisations paysannes est donc difficile en raison d’un manque d’organisation et d’anticipation entre les deux acteurs des maillons de la production et de la transformation. Le lien entre qualité et traçabilité des matières premières et des produits finis est plein d’enjeux avec le respect des normes nationales et internationales, la stabilité des prix, la sécurisation de l’approvisionnement et le développement solidaire et social des paysans et des groupements féminins producteurs. La prise en compte de la qualité des matières premières dans la question de la nutrition constitue un espoir, au sein de la plateforme nigérienne des organisations paysannes, de visibilité et de communication autour des problématiques agricoles. Le renforcement des liens entre les unités de production et les organisations paysannes permettra d’améliorer l’organisation de ces filières, des chaines de valeur et des marchés.La promotion de l’agriculture axée sur les chaines de valeur et sensible à la nutrition pourrait permettre aux producteurs (matières premières) et aux transformateurs d’être considérés davantage par les pouvoirs politiques, les partenaires techniques et financiers pour mieux appréhender les besoins et apporter les réponses les mieux adaptées, surtout dans un contexte de changement climatique et de fragilisation des systèmes de production. Cette fragilité est encore renforcée par la forte pression démographique, les chocs sanitaires et les crises alimentaires.235238239240241242243247251Les perturbations des systèmes alimentaires et des moyens d’existence des populations pourraient affecter leur accès à une alimentation saine. Il est important donc de protéger les chaînes d’approvisionnement alimentaires pour assurer l’alimentation adéquate des populations en particulier pour les plus vulnérables. Des réflexions sur les transformations et actions prioritaires pouvant aider à rendre les systèmes alimentaires plus durables, résilients et sensibles à la nutrition sont nécessaires pour garantir la saine alimentation et contribuer à améliorer la nutrition et la santé des populations et la réalisation des cibles des ODD d’ici 2030. Le couplage de la rue marchande aux conférence-ateliers a permis de réunir les vrais acteurs et de ressortir les contraintes réelles. Ainsi, les conclusions générales liées aux pistes d’action sont les suivantes : 1. Prendre en compte la question de l’assurance agricole dans les politiques gouvernementales 2. Protéger les produits locaux transformés qui font face à une réelle concurrence avec les produits importés 3. Reconnaitre la qualité, la place et le rôle des transformateurs dans les systèmes alimentaires 4. Cartographier la transformation agroalimentaire en termes d’acteurs et de gamme de produits agro sylvo pastoraux transformés 5. Promouvoir l’éducation nutritionnelle, basée sur les connaissances, attitudes et pratiques locales existantes. 6. Faciliter l’accès au crédit, pour permettre à l’entreprise d’assainir sa situation financière et de faire face aux pics de production liés à la saisonnalité de l’activité afin d’attirer les investissements extérieurs. 7. Redynamiser/ créer des laboratoires accrédités pour assurer la qualité des analyses 8. Développer, moderniser et améliorer les infrastructures logistiques : transport, stockage, conditionnement et manutention 9. Créer un environnement favorable à l’entreprise (allégement des formalités administratives, cadre juridique et fiscal attrayant, qualité de la main d’œuvre…). 10. Rendre effective la Stratégie nationale d’achat d’aliments auprès des petits producteurs 11. Institutionnaliser/Faciliter l’accès des TPE et PMEs locales à la commande locale avec des quotas d’achats en faveur des produits locaux 12. Créer des unités de production d’emballages de qualité, adaptés et disponibles localement 13. Elaborer une table de composition alimentaire officielle, même basique 14. Subventionner les équipements et l’accès à l’énergie pour les transformateurs-tries 15. Diversifier et adapter les produits et services financiers au contexte des PMEs236238239240241242244247249251La valorisation des produits agro syslvo pastoraux pour contribuer à la sécurité alimentaires et notionnelle au Niger est au cœur des politiques nationales. Il a été recommandé de travailler avec les pouvoirs politiques et toutes parties prenantes (ONG, Recherche, Institutions de financement, secteur privé, OP) pour coordonner les interventions dans le secteur de la transformation des produits locaux et pour créer un environnement favorable au développement des PMEs agroalimentaires (allégement des formalités administratives, cadre juridique et fiscal attrayant, qualité de la main d’œuvre…) et rendre effective la Stratégie nationale d’achat d’aliments auprès des petits producteurs. Il faudra investir dans les techniques de transformation, stockage et conservation mais aussi dans les équipements pour augmenter la durabilité des aliments tout en préservant leur valeur nutritive et la sécurité sanitaire alimentaire. Il fut reconnaitre et ce, à un grand niveau, la qualité, la place et le rôle des transformateurs-trices dans les systèmes alimentaires. C’est cette reconnaissance qui servira de base pour renforcer les appuis existants, évoluer vers la professionnalisation et assurer des revenus durables. La disponibilité des matières premières pour les unités de transformation est également un point crucial qui passe nécessaire par une meilleure organisation au niveau des organisations paysannes et par l’augmentation les volumes de production. Cette recommandation est soutenu par le renforcement des capacités organisationnelles, institutionnelles et techniques des organisations de paysannes, des transformateurs-trices et des unités de production. Le renforcement des capacités passe par l’amélioration des techniques de transformation, stockage et conservation mais également l’amélioration de la qualité (hygiène sanitaire) tout en préservant leur valeur nutritive et la sécurité sanitaire alimentaire. L’accompagnement et l’encadrement des organisations paysannes (producteurs et transformateurs-trices) doivent continuer tout en intégrant le la jeunesse aux problématiques liées au système alimentaire et à la production agricole, afin qu’ils puissent appuyer et accompagner les organisations paysannes. Les débats de la concertation ont également permis de relever l’importance des normes pour assurer l’assurance qualité des produits mais aussi protéger les consommateurs sur les risques alimentaires. La promouvoir la mise à niveau des unités de production-transformation sur les plans des équipements, des ressources humaines, du contrôle de la qualité et de l’allocation des ressources publiques pour la recherche des données statistiques dans le secteur des produits transformés a été discuté et recommandée. Enfin la question de l’éducation nutritionnelle, basée sur les connaissances, attitudes et pratiques locales existantes a été recommandée comme action à promouvoir. Enfin, il est important, comme le prévoit ces concertations, que tous les acteurs, transformateurs, organisations paysannes, secteur public, secteur privé, universités, organisations internationales travaillent en synergie en fonction de leur expertise et expérience respectives237238239242243246248251Les différents acteurs ont une vision commune sur la valorisation des produits des produits et sa contribution des systèmes alimentaires durables au Niger. Cependant quelques points de divergence et d’éclaircissement ont été discutés. Production : la production a été traitée en tant que système de production alors qu’il était question de la traiter comme source d’approvisionnement des unités de transformation. Chaine de valeur : désigne l’ensemble des acteurs et des activités qui font passer un produit agricole de base du stade de la production dans les champs à sa consommation finale, processus dont chaque stade voit de la valeur ajoutée au produit. Filière : Une filière agricole comprend une chaîne d'acteurs (producteurs, transformateurs, distributeurs) engagés autour d'une même matière première agricole et ayant un projet commun de développement à moyen ou à long terme. Les interdépendances entre ces acteurs peuvent être de natures financières, économiques, réglementaires, techniques, sociales et environnementales. Industrialisation : l’industrialisation aura pour impact la disparition des petites entreprises et la réduction des emplois. Elevage : l’élevage pastoralisme a été complétement omis dans les travaux de groupe. Ce n’est que lors de la restitution que ce gap a été relevé et complété. Valeur notionnelle : la valeur nutritionnelle a été traitée en termes d’exigence à atteindre et de dispositions à prendre pour répondre à cette exigence. Ainsi le travail de groupe a été axé sur les mécanismes à mettre en place pour que la valeur nutritionnelle des produits locaux du Niger soit connue, évaluée et présentée sur l’étiquette.

2021-07-27 10:37:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17449/93

1201206060

The dialogue for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, organized by the Universities of Teramo (Enrico Dainese) and Bologna (Andrea Segrè) together with the Conferenza nazionale per la didattica universitaria di AG.R.A.R.I.A (Stefano Colazza), is the result of the shared work of the main stakeholders of the Italian agri-food system operating nationally and internationally and is structured in four areas. The four areas / objectives were handled by: Ilaria Pertot (reducing agri-food losses in the passage from agricultural production to distribution;), Marco Lucchini (increasing the recovery of agri-food surpluses in order to improve the distribution and access to food by all), Luca Falasconi (promoting the prevention of food waste at home and outside), Elisabetta Moro (promoting the adoption of a healthy and sustainable diet, such as the Mediterranean Diet, accessible to all, in particular to the population group depleted by the pandemic). Andrea Segrè coordinated the working group together with Marco Lucchini and Enrico Dainese.To maximize the participation and the discussion of the Principles we started two months before the dialogue inviting all the stakeholders to implement a shared document and giving suggestions on the four areas/objectives.Other convenors appreciated that the engagement was developed before the dialogue takes place.

Yes

234238239240241The reduction of agri-food losses, the recovery of surpluses for a better availability of food, the prevention of waste at home and outside the home, the adoption of a healthy diet, sustainable and accessible to all, represent a challenge for our country and for the whole world, made particularly urgent by the pandemic crisis. With this in mind, the principles of the Mediterranean Diet as a model for promoting the objectives of the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, with its added value linked to the number of epidemiological studies supported by solid scientific data, the enhancement of the person and recovery food education linked to the history of the territory and the preservation of biodiversity, represent essential values ​​for stimulating the adoption of models of responsible production and consumption, also and above all with respect to the strong increase in the difficulty of accessing food with a consequent increase in food poverty during the Covid 19 pandemic. The Mediterranean Diet proposed as a sustainable nutritional strategy to reduce waste and better distribute resources by enhancing the link with history and the territory with solid scientific bases, also as a necessary element to change eating habits, reduce the environmental impact of food and link human health to that of the planet.235238239240241The main findings of the dialogue have been discussed for each session by developing actions and commitments for each of the described area. For the section “Reducing agri-food losses in the steps from agricultural production to distribution” the following actions have been proposed: Identification of the agri-food sectors with major waste, mapping the critical points and the cause-effect links that contribute to the losses, implementing actions and monitoring their effect; Reduction of the production variability and precision agriculture; Reduction of losses from pathogens and parasites and applications of agricultural practices that favor the achievement of productions close to the productive potential of crops, in particular by promoting soil health and the use of slow-release fertilizers; Reduce rigidity to commercial aesthetic standards and offer the consumer non-standard products, but with sufficient organoleptic quality, at a lower price. More efficient and sustainable production and collection systems; Improve the conditions of transport, processing and storage of agricultural products. Agri-food education and continuous training of the supply chain operators; Guidelines, certification and branding; Supply chain and exchange between companies; research and technology transfer. For the section ”Increasing the recovery of agri-food surpluses in order to improve the distribution and access to food by all” the following actions have been proposed: communication and training; sales at discounted prices, donations for social purposes and / or for animal feed; Innovation. For the section “promoting the prevention of food waste at home and outside” the following actions have been proposed: promoting greater knowledge of food by encouraging correct eating habits and promoting major home economics; collecting real qualitative-quantitative data on the situation of food waste in catering and at home with targeted monitoring, trying to go beyond the mere measurement and taking into account also the behaviours, Awareness and education of the population towards the problem of food waste, participatory school lunch service, and anti-waste collective catering; establishment of a stricter regulatory framework with increased taxation on waste creation, and creation of information systems on existing regulations, encourage the discovery of new technological solutions, system vision of the entire agri-food chain, Innovative marketing systems and application of more sustainable sales and consumption practices, sustainable conversion of domestic waste with circular economy principles, use of technological and non-technological supports for the distribution of food surpluses. , For the section “ promoting the adoption of a healthy and sustainable diet, such as the Mediterranean Diet, accessible to all, in particular to sections of the population depleted by the pandemic” the following actions have been proposed: Re-launch the Mediterranean Diet as a healthy and sustainable lifestyle, Supporting and innovating local and quality agri-food production, Communicating, translating and adapting the Mediterranean Diet to other cultures, Promoting scientific and technical comparison on the Mediterranean Diet at an international level.236See above237No areas of divergence

2021-07-27 14:29:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16924/194

85012512020295604611022421521141136175132177

Field to Market's Cross-Sector Dialogue series is a strategic initiative that brings together diverse stakeholders from across the agricultural value chain to advance shared learning and drive collective action by focusing on seizing opportunities and overcoming systemic barriers to scaling sustainable agriculture. This Dialogue, like the others we convene each year, was grounded in the principles shared with the UN Food System Summit: we recognize the urgency of sustained, meaningful action, and are committed to the Summit and our common vision. Convening stakeholders from across our diverse membership requires a great deal of mutual respect, complementary work and trust. Our Dialogues are designed in a way that recognize the complexity of the environmental challenges US agriculture faces.Our Cross-Sector Dialogues facilitate multi-sector collaboration, advance shared learning, and drive collective action within our membership by focusing on seizing opportunities and overcoming systemic barriers to scaling sustainable agriculture. Field to Market's Cross-Sector Dialogues harness the expertise and insights of our membership to drive solutions to agriculture's most pressing challenges. This event opened with a message from A-dae Romero-Briones, Director of Programs, Native Agriculture and Food Systems at the First Nations Development Institute, who grounded the discussion in the understanding that regenerative agriculture has its foundations in indigenous farming. Field to Market follows Chatham House Rule to protect the ability of individuals to participate with respectful candor and the breakout groups are balanced across our five membership sectors.Field to Market believes that we can tackle the most pressing challenges facing agriculture, society and the planet only through pre-competitive collaboration. By uniting nearly 150 member organizations across the full food and agriculture value chain behind a shared vision, Field to Market strives to provide collaborative leadership that is transparent, grounded in science and focused on outcomes. We invite interested stakeholders to join us in advancing this collaborative approach for the food and ag value chain, ensuring all sectors and voices are represented in surfacing solutions to advance sustainable agriculture.

Yes

234240243244245248250Our Dialogue focused on building a shared understanding about how sustainable, regenerative and conservation agriculture systems intersect while exploring mechanisms to accelerate resource-positive outcomes. Leading food, beverage and retail companies are moving beyond traditional sustainable sourcing policies to embrace regenerative agriculture goals and principles within their supply chains. These commitments have the potential to accelerate investment and impact at the farm level, yet many growers are expressing confusion about evolving expectations and desired outcomes. A panel representing Walmart, Unilever and PepsiCo shared their companies’ aspirations for scaling regenerative agriculture, as well as the role downstream brands and retailers can play in spurring innovation and forging deeper partnership to unlock benefits for farmers and nature. The group imagined what would the innovation landscape look like if conservation organizations became the next venture capital investors. The Nature Conservancy shared a behind-the-scenes look at their new approach to unleashing the innovation flywheel to create an engine of impact to realize a triple win: scaling profitable ag-tech startups, improving farmer profitability, and positively impacting the environment. Next, the group considered what could be possible if the $863B restaurant industry in the United States was harnessed as a force for reversing climate change. Zero Foodprint, described their innovative emerging crowd-funding model that could unlock up to $8B a year to help farmers. Participants next learned about underway research to unlock a new kind of “hardware” for agriculture in the form of perennial crops. The Land Institute invited participants to visualize a future in which humanity depends on perennial varieties for all major row crops, creating new possibilities to both feed the planet and regenerate the asset on which farmers make a living—rich, vibrant and healthy soil.235240243244245248250To scale regenerative agriculture and improve soil health in US farmland, ambitious and courageous steps must be taken to diverge from the "business-as-usual" paradigm. Participants in this Dialogue emphasized two primary mechanisms that require widespread, multi-stakeholder support. The first is funding. Asking farmers to implement changes to their operations that are known to improve soil health and other environmental outcomes is risky. Producers are largely responsible for shouldering this risk, and although they are likely to enjoy improved economic outcomes eventually, the start-up costs are often prohibitive. Further, suppressed yields can sometimes be expected for a few years after initial implementation of new practices. The second mechanism is education. Growers, their employees and their trusted advisers need access to crop and region-specific information to help guide decisions about the best approach to applying different agronomic practices. Good data must drive technical support and inform decision making on financial investment and risk.236240243244245246248249250Lasting, systematic change requires supporting farmers as they adapt their operations. Clear messaging and support from the federal government was identified as a fundamental stepping stone. One form of this support is providing baseline data to have a firmer understanding of where the industry stands now and called for USDA-NASS (National Agriculture Statistics Service) to track annual use of standard sustainable practices like cover crops and no-till. That data will enable the whole industry to set realistic goals and make continuous improvement together. Another form of governmental support could come in the form of targeted policies to ensure crop insurance is more inclusive of practices supporting regenerative outcomes. Because collecting and interpreting data is central to understanding where an operation is starting and to measure progress as it happens, farmers need access to reliable broadband. Until greater access to stable broadband is available to all agricultural communities, it will be very difficult for growers to fully participate in programs that require data reporting. Farmer education on the economics of regenerative agriculture was identified as another fundamental ingredient to catalyzing systematic change. There is not a lot of room for unknowns in agriculture when factors such as weather are already unpredictable. There is a notion among growers that implementing any new practice will harm yields and ultimately, profitability. Despite ongoing projects to encourage cover crops, in Illinois, only 3% of farmland is in cover crops in the state. An affiliate sector representative said that despite the great research that has been generated since the 1980’s about best agronomic practices to support regenerative outcomes, that information is still very slow to reach the producers. The gap between university research and growers that do not regularly access Extension programs must be closed for advancement to be possible. Growers need realistic information breaking down implementation costs and the typical yield losses that can be expected to result from the target practice. Grower representatives stated that because there is still no premium for crops produced in a more sustainable way, the connection between profitability and environmental outcomes is still weak and current incentive structures are not widespread and accessible enough. To capture the attention of growers that have been watching from the sidelines, education should promote the potential for lower input costs that comes with some practices. Growers cautioned against creating incentive structures that exclude early adopters.236240243244245246248249250Agreeing on the definition of “regenerative” could get in the way of moving the needle in the right direction and keeping the focus on definitions will likely serve to slow progress in reaching industry goals. Participants echoed the need for consistency and careful messaging to growers: Changing the terminology from “conservation” to “sustainable” to “regenerative” may be perceived as changing goals and what is expected of them. Recommendations for crafting messages to grower: • The message must be consistent across sectors so the suppliers that are doing most of the heavy lift don’t become discouraged that they are chasing a fad. • Keep the message simple and find the appropriate, trusted messenger to deliver it. • Demonstrating the profitability of regenerative agriculture will be far more effective in motivating farmers than top-down mandates from consumer brands and retailers. • Despite the urgency for improved environmental outcomes, change takes time. Participants recommended patience and managing expectations in the journey. Alignment is also needed on metrics and measurement. As an industry, we should focus on the metrics that matter most in regenerative agriculture and agree on the outcomes everyone can align on. It should also be considered that not all agriculture is happening in the Corn Belt. Western states are dealing with other environmental challenges, mostly around water availability, that should also be addressed in conversations about regenerative agriculture. Quantifying the resilience to shocks that regenerative agriculture provides is needed. We understand it on an anecdotal level, but getting beyond that to making larger scale assumptions has not yet been possible. Attendees discussed the most critical factors in helping farmers meet these corporate supply chain aspirations, and considered different strategies and approaches needed to scale regenerative ag with early, middle and later adopters. An important strategy for reaching growers is taking a community approach to outreach. By getting a variety of trusted advisers on board and engaging them at every opportunity, the message of regenerative ag is reinforced with growers representing a variety of perspectives. Select the messenger carefully, because of their distance from the farm, downstream companies may not be the best suited to talk about the needed strategies to improve soil health. Form and maintain close relationships with land grant universities to ensure they are speaking the language of sustainability.236240243244245248250Attendees showed enthusiasm for the three audacious ideas presented. From impact investment to largescale composting of restaurant waste to perennial crops, all of these strategies have a place in the future of agriculture. How these niche ideas move into the norm depends on funding, partnerships and education. Asking growers to take on additional risk without a wide support net surfaced as a primary concern for participants. Plus, it is assumed that implementation will have costs which will likely be absorbed by the farm operator. In addition to the cost of new equipment, training field staff in the proper usage of such equipment and helping them understand the implications for field operations carries costs that may not be fully understood until the transition is underway. Additional support is provided through a variety of mechanisms, suited to growers representing diverse experience and cropping systems. Offering financial incentives is supported by grower groups, but other mechanism can also be helpful. Using warranties to de-risk conservation practice adoption could have widespread appeal to growers. A grower sector representative pointed out that it takes years to reap the benefits of most new practices, warranties can help improve farmer confidence during that time. It was pointed out that lending institutions and crop insurance providers should also play a role in de-risking during transition period. Corporate funding was identified as a powerful mechanism for taking transformative technologies to scale. by both Civil Society and Affiliate sector representatives. Groups have been able to provide some financial incentives to landowners with funding from corporate partners. This community, conservation-based approach allows landowners the flexibility to choose how they use the funds, and the NGO tracks progress on biodiversity, water quality and soil carbon goals. Growers also need access to skilled labor and highly trained trusted advisers to minimize risk. Farmer-to-farmer networks supporting peer mentorship is another way to support the transition inexpensively.237240243244245248249250There was some divergence regarding who should carry the message of regenerative agriculture to the grower. Although it is widely agreed that efforts should engage the grower's trusted adviser, there is a great deal of diversity within that group. Not all trusted advisers are fully-versed in the language of sustainability and may not enthusiastically support supply chain efforts to drive large-scale practice adoption. Landownership is a complex issue n regenerative agriculture. A large portion of US farmland is leased, and the terms of those leases are widely variable.

2021-07-27 14:32:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17917/68

44

The participant list of this Dialogue was organized to ensure that a variety of different stakeholders, including members of government, civil society and donor groups attend in order to maximise multi-stakeholder inclusivity. The diversity of voices was crucial to the aim of this independent dialogue in seeking feedback on the food system policies and interventions that currently exist and work towards promoting healthier diets within an environmentally sustainable and culturally appropriate framework. Not only did this incorporate the Principle of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, but also ensured the Principle of complementing the work of others was reinforced in the organisation of the Dialogue by ensuring the sharing of information, perspectives and experiences amongst a wide variety of stakeholders. Further, this Dialogue was organised to include extensive breakout room sessions to embody the Food Systems Summit principle of recognising complexity as this encouraged dialogue between members of the agriculture, health and nutrition communities in an attempt to create space to recognise the importance of working collaboratively, and not in silos, to achieve sustainable food systems transformation.This Dialogue aimed to stimulate dialogue amongst members of the agriculture, climate, and nutrition communities on the best policies and interventions to achieve food systems transformation and move towards healthier diets in a sustainable and climate-friendly manner. In so doing, it reflected the Principles of recognising the complexity of food systems transformation and the principle of complementing the work of others, in attempting to highlight the potential of cross-cutting interventions and policies. Additionally, by facilitating this cross-cutting discussion, the Dialogue reflected the principle of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and the importance of incorporating a range of perspectives into the discussion surrounding sustainable food systems transformation. Ultimately, in its aim of seeking inputs to the most effective roadmaps towards healthier diets and sustainable food systems transformation, this Dialogue reflected a strong commitment to the aims of the UN Food Systems Summit, specifically in striving to be “forward-looking, foster new connections, and enable the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions”.No

Yes

234238239242243244249250The Dialogue was an exploration of the nexus of food security, nutrition and climate change in Ethiopia with a specific view to receiving inputs on reasonable steps towards a food system transition pathway to healthier diets in Ethiopia. Specifically, the focus of the Dialogue was to receive inputs and feedback from stakeholders on proposed context-sensitive healthy diets, what they view to be the criteria and consideration for healthier diets and food system transformation, and the possible interventions and policies to achieve this based on their prior experience and opinion on potential opportunities.235238239242243244249250The main areas of discussion in the Dialogue were the role of interventions that diversify production and increase the production of nutritious foods, the need for an increase in nutrition education and educational awareness of healthier diets, and the role of policy frameworks and legislation in sustainable food system transformation. The overarching finding from the Dialogue was the need to consider policy interventions as a package rather than just sole programs. For example, supply side interventions to encourage the production of nutritious crops need to be accompanied by interventions which encourage market development and integration in order to overcome issues of affordability and seasonality in Ethiopia. Similarly, the provision of seeds without nutrition education about how to grow and cook the produce will not be effective. Sustainable food system transformation therefore requires a package of interventions and a long-term horizon. This links to another of the main findings of the Dialogue; that nutrition education is an important step in any policy roadmap that attempts to progress towards sustainable food system transformation. There are many opportunities for this ranging from school curriculum and school feeding programs to the promotion of diverse dietary intakes during the Orthodox Christian fasting period. It is necessary to explore this area further to ensure that interventions are both cost-effective and have an impact beyond caloric increases. The final main finding of this Dialogue regards the adoption of policy frameworks. Whilst Ethiopia is adopting a Food and Nutrition Strategy 2030, trade-offs will be necessary between these ideal standards and what is feasible. Importantly, it is important to consider the regional and seasonal variations in Ethiopian diets, as well as the affordability of nutritious foods. It is there necessary to ensure that implemented interventions take account of diversity and are context specific.236238239243248249One of the key areas of discussion of the Dialogue was the possible interventions that could be adopted to progress towards sustainable food system transformation in Ethiopia. One of the major issues that arose out of the Dialogue as hindering Ethiopians from having a healthy and nutritious diet was the affordability and accessibility of food items, with fruit and vegetables tending to be more costly than other food items. In consideration of this issue, two potential areas of intervention were raised; market development and integration so that production and seasonality are separate from consumption, and exploration into Public-Private-Partnerships, particularly as they relate to the growing and selling of nutrition food, which was deemed to be particularly relevant for Ethiopia as a net importer of food. However, in part this challenge is linked to issues of seasonality with certain types of foods, particularly fruits, only being available in certain time periods leading to variation in consumption. This is particularly an issue in rural areas where there is a lower prevalence of imported goods. Therefore, it was highlighted that alongside market development and integration, there is a need for supply-side interventions which boost the production of nutritious and diverse foods. In particular, interventions which scale up the production of wild fruits and plants such as spirulina, moringa and wild berries were mentioned due to their high nutritional value and contribution. Finally, linked to this is overarching need of rural development with many communities, especially in rural areas, lacking water sources, not only to grow the vegetables but also to cook the vegetables, and lack of sources of cooking energy. This elucidated how sustainable food systems transformation cannot occur by working in silos, or merely focusing on food security interventions, but must incorporate cross-cutting policies and adopt a multi-sector approach. Another major area of challenge and potential intervention that was raised by participants was the role of nutrition education as an entry point to try to address some of the key issues facing the Ethiopian food system. Here, it was noted that a key difficulty is ensuring that nutrition education is cost effective and is communicated to people in an easily comprehendible manner. Several policy interventions were raised as potential game-changing solutions to this problem. Many participants vocalised the possibility of increasing the number of educated nutrition professionals and targeting adolescents to maximise the likelihood of triggering behaviour change. This would overcome one of the key challenges in Ethiopia of the lack of skills to process, cook and preserve food. Alternatively, it was suggested that nutrition education should be more closely linked with the school feeding programs and university feeding programs, as in Ethiopia there is a large public university system which is boarding and so provides food. This offers a potential platform to provide healthier foods and increase nutritional awareness which can affect future consumption patterns and ultimately affect crop choices. A further proposed platform for nutrition education was linked to the Orthodox Christian beliefs and fasting periods. Currently, the fasting period is seen as a constraint to healthier diets, however Dialogue participants raised the possibility of using it is a platform to promote healthier diets. However, one of the key challenges identified in nutrition education campaigns is that implementation of development programs, especially those concerning nutrition, is often not as good as design. Participants used the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) to illustrate this as despite consciously trying to be nutrition sensitive, it often does not have any significant effect on nutrition outcomes. It was noted that often there is impact in terms of caloric availability and consumption, especially at the household level in terms of quality and diversity, but due to inadequate contact between mothers and health extension workers, there is limited impact on children’s diet and nutrition indicators.236239243249250Dietary frameworks and policies A further discussion topic focussed on the application and relevance of dietary policy frameworks in Ethiopia, especially in light of the development of Ethiopia’s Food and Nutrition Strategy 2030 which contains a number of policy actions to consider in order to transition towards a more sustainable food system. Here, there were two important outcome points. The first point regarded a need to identify a method to observe and measure the implementation and adoption of these guidelines. For example, the Strategy proposes to ban the advertising of 'unhealthy' foods, which is a problem in the country at the moment, however it is unclear how this would be implemented and what kind of institutional changes would be needed to meet the requirements of this guideline. The second outcome of this discussion was an identification that a one size fits all conception of healthy diets is not applicable in Ethiopia. The actual diets of Ethiopians is both affected by culture, for example affected by Orthodox Christian beliefs and fasting periods, and highly resource-driven. It is one thing to recommend policies and interventions for food system transformation, but it is another whether it is feasible and plausible to achieve them. Therefore, there is a need to study communities individually and propose realistic, evidence-based solutions for them. This was further explored in the Dialogue with reference to the Ethiopian value chain; in particular, that the price of vegetables or fruits varies massively depending on the region and season in question which poses a significant accessibility limitation on healthy diets and the applicability of broad policy frameworks.237238239249250There were no major areas of divergence in this Dialogue. A small area of divergence emerged with regard to the increasing proportion of Ethiopians who are consuming street food or food not produced at home. Whilst some stakeholders proposed this to be an important issue that needed attention, others held that eating out is still not a common feature of consumption for the majority of people and was instead linked to higher income, urban groups. It was agreed that this should be considered as an area of concern, but should not be prioritised compared to other food system challenges and interventions.

2021-07-27 14:33:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20093/112

26

The dialogue was organised in collaboration with the Department of Nutrition, HIV and AIDS in Malawi and invited a variety of different stakeholders, including members of government, civil society and donor groups to attend in order to maximise multi-stakeholder inclusivity. The diversity of voices was crucial to the aim of this independent dialogue in seeking feedback on the food system policies and interventions that currently exist and work towards promoting healthier diets within an environmentally sustainable and culturally appropriate framework. Not only did this incorporate the Principle of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, but also ensured the Principle of complementing the work of others was reinforced in the organisation of the Dialogue by ensuring the sharing of information, perspective sand experiences amongst a wide variety of stakeholders. Further, this Dialogue was organised to include extensive breakout room sessions to embody the Food Systems Summit principle of recognising complexity as this encouraged dialogue between members of the agriculture, health and nutrition communities in an attempt to create space to recognise the importance of working collaboratively, and not in silos, to achieve sustainable food systems transformation.This Dialogue aimed to stimulate dialogue amongst members of the agriculture, climate, and nutrition communities on the best policies and interventions to achieve food systems transformation and move towards healthier diets in a sustainable and climate-friendly manner. In so doing, it reflected the Principles of recognising the complexity of food systems transformation and the principle of complementing the work of others, in attempting to highlight the potential of cross-cutting interventions and policies. Additionally, by facilitating this cross-cutting discussion, the Dialogue reflected the principle of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and the importance of incorporating a range of perspectives into the discussion surrounding sustainable food systems transformation. Ultimately, in its aim of seeking inputs to the most effective roadmaps towards healthier diets and sustainable food systems transformation, this Dialogue reflected a strong commitment to the aims of the UN Food Systems Summit, specifically in striving to be “forward-looking, foster new connections, and enable the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions”.

Yes

234238239242243244249250The Dialogue was an exploration of the nexus of food security, nutrition and climate change in Malawi with a specific view to receiving inputs on reasonable steps towards a food system transition pathway to healthier diets in Malawi. Specifically, the focus of the Dialogue was to receive inputs and feedback from stakeholders on proposed context-sensitive healthy diets, what they view to be the criteria and consideration for healthier diets and food system transformation, and the possible interventions and policies to achieve this based on their prior experience and opinion on potential opportunities.235238239242243244249250The main areas of discussion in the Dialogue were the role of interventions that diversify production and increase the production of nutritious foods, the need for an increase in nutrition education and educational awareness of healthier diets, and the role of policy frameworks and legislation in sustainable food system transformation. One of the main findings of the Dialogue was the need to explore the nexus of food security, nutrition and climate change in greater depth so that food system transformation and the policies to bring it about are cross-cutting and not considered in silos. Other findings included an identification of the need to start the process of constructing Food-Based Dietary Guidelines for Malawi which can be implemented consistently across the government, and an awareness of a lack of resources for implementation of existing policies and interventions that could bring about sustainable food system transformation. Specifically, in Malawi there are lots of policies and strategy plans, and a lot of support, especially from donors, focuses on the production of these documents, as opposed to their implementation. Focus needs to be given to the translation of these frameworks into policy.236239244249250One of the key issues that emerged from the discussions was the affordability and accessibility of nutritious foods in Malawi. Some participants noted the continued need for supply-side interventions, especially those with a focus on improving the production and preservation of foods. These would have nutritional benefits by covering seasonal gaps and covering micro-nutrient gaps. In particular, nutritional benefits have been observed from orange-fleshed sweet potatoes and biofortified foods such as pro-vitamin A maize and iron-fortified beans. However, there are several anticipated challenges to achieving increased production and diversification. For example, the increasing shift of the fertiliser subsidy programme towards increasing maize production, which although beneficial from a production perspective, is nutritionally problematic as relatively cheap staples increase compared to more nutritionally beneficial foods. To overcome these challenges, there is a need for incentives or financing mechanisms to create an enabling environment for start-ups and entrepreneurship which would encourage farmers to take risks and diversify their production, and potentially explore commercial productions. Other participants highlighted the fortification program in Malawi which was deemed to be fairly good. Alternatively, the key issue identified was whether it was affordable to the people that needed it. Here, subsidies or community level fortification were identified as actions that could be taken to make biofortified foods more accessible to the communities that require them.236238239244249With regard to the discussion regarding healthier diets, participants highlighted that nutrition education and greater policy frameworks are needed to promote the awareness, and utilisation, of the existing body of knowledge on nutritious foods and food safety. Even with increased production, education in terms of end products that can be created from the diversified crops is required. Currently, there is a lack of knowledge on the uses of certain nutritious crops. In this sense, progress towards healthier diets could be achieved by the sharing of recipes around the use of nutritious crops, such as orange-fleshed sweet potatoes, to increase their consumption and utilisation. Alternatively, there are opportunities for increasing nutritional outcomes through the introduction dietary guidelines in school feeding or in improvements to the provision of food in boarding schools. Such curriculum changes would work towards addressing the nutritional challenges and stereotypes that emerge at an early age. However, it was raised that it is unclear how effective knowledge dissemination is in triggering behaviour changes, especially of ingrained actions and beliefs. A second intervention that emerged strongly from the Dialogue was the role of nutrition frontline workers. In this regard, it was considered that the provisions for frontline workers are available in Malawi, but implementation is lacking. Indeed, implementation challenges emerged strongly from the Dialogue as a key bottleneck for Malawian food system transformation as opposed to an absence of policy frameworks. However, on the other hand, additional policy frameworks are still needed on the taxation of unhealthy foods, so people find healthy foods affordable and better to access cost-wise. Finally, whilst Malawi has food groups, there is a need to establish creating Food-Based Dietary Guidelines and their consistent implementation across the government.237238239242243244249250The central area of divergence in the Dialogue was whether the key challenge facing food system transformation in Malawi is the lack of implementation or policy gaps. On the one hand, some stakeholders felt that there are a lot of policies and strategy plans in Malawi, but what is lacking is implementation and the translation of these policies into policy. Donors often focus their support on the production of policy documents and frameworks, but less on their implementation. From this perspective, what is lacking is the will and support to bring policies together to the extent that they are funded and operationalised. Specifically, in Malawi, institutional and resource capacities are not necessarily the issue, but the lack of tools and funding to implement programmes. However, on the other hand some stakeholders felt that whilst there are implementation problems in Malawi, this does not negate the remaining challenges regarding policy frameworks and capacity challenges. Importantly, there is a need for consistency across ministries. There are often good policies but they are isolated and do not talk to each other, operating instead in silos. For example, there are nutrition education guidance strategic policies that indicate the importance of nutritional frontline workers but at the moment most people are volunteers who lack support. Such transformative policies need to be emphasised more both so that other policies align with their priorities but also so that more is invested into their implementation. The second issue of divergence was over the extent to which sustainability should be considered in the food systems transformation in Malawi. It was fairly unanimously expressed that sustainability is a concerning issue and investments should be directed towards this, but divergence occurred over the extent to which sustainability should be prioritised compared to other pressing issues, such as malnutrition and poverty. For example, it was questioned whether as emissions from Malawi are quite low compared to other countries, it was unfair to ask Malawi to grow its agricultural economy without increasing its emissions. However, other stakeholders felt that it was not a simple issue of emissions and GHGs. They felt that whilst emissions and GHGs are important issues, there are other issues of soil degradation and lack of water (especially at the end of the dry season) that must be considered. Importantly, production is context specific and different levels need to be considered, which is often understated in the dialogues. For example, solar-related community level technologies or the use of firewood offer innovative opportunities to addressing the nexus of food security, nutrition and climate change, but they require more articulation and awareness. In particular, the visibility of climate change issues in nutrition spaces is often very low. Ultimately, there is a need to better understand trade-offs between nutrition, equity, and climate outcomes at both the micro and macro level.

2021-07-27 14:53:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29345/135

20

The dialogue was organised in collaboration with the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Agriculture, Office of the Vice President of Nigeria and invited a variety of different stakeholders, including members of government, civil society and donor groups to attend in order to maximise multi-stakeholder inclusivity. The diversity of voices was crucial to the aim of this independent dialogue in seeking feedback on the food system policies and interventions that currently exist and work towards promoting healthier diets within an environmentally sustainable and culturally appropriate framework. Not only did this incorporate the Principle of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, but also ensured the Principle of complementing the work of others was reinforced in the organisation of the Dialogue by ensuring the sharing of information, perspective sand experiences amongst a wide variety of stakeholders. Further, this Dialogue was organised to include extensive breakout room sessions to embody the Food Systems Summit principle of recognising complexity as this encouraged dialogue between members of the agriculture, health and nutrition communities in an attempt to create space to recognise the importance of working collaboratively, and not in silos, to achieve sustainable food systems transformation.This Dialogue aimed to stimulate dialogue amongst members of the agriculture, climate, and nutrition communities on the best policies and interventions to achieve food systems transformation and move towards healthier diets in a sustainable and climate-friendly manner. In so doing, it reflected the Principles of recognising the complexity of food systems transformation and the principle of complementing the work of others, in attempting to highlight the potential of cross-cutting interventions and policies. Additionally, by facilitating this cross-cutting discussion, the Dialogue reflected the principle of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and the importance of incorporating a range of perspectives into the discussion surrounding sustainable food systems transformation. Ultimately, in its aim of seeking inputs to the most effective roadmaps towards healthier diets and sustainable food systems transformation, this Dialogue reflected a strong commitment to the aims of the UN Food Systems Summit, specifically in striving to be “forward-looking, foster new connections, and enable the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions”.No

Yes

234238239242243244249250The Dialogue was an exploration of the nexus of food security, nutrition and climate change in Nigeria with a specific view to receiving inputs on reasonable steps towards a food system transition pathway to healthier diets in Nigeria. Specifically, the focus of the Dialogue was to receive inputs and feedback from stakeholders on proposed context-sensitive healthy diets, what they view to be the criteria and consideration for healthier diets and food system transformation, and the possible interventions and policies to achieve this based on their prior experience and opinion on potential opportunities.    235238249250One of the main areas of discussion in the Dialogue was the conception of a “healthier” diet, the current policy frameworks regarding nutrition in Nigeria and the challenges that exist with regard to their implementation. Here, the main finding was a need to enhance stronger interaction and coherence between State and federal policy creation and implementation for a concerted effort to embrace a multi-sector approach to nutrition. A second main finding was an agreement that whilst addressing malnutrition as a major issue facing Nigerians, the international community’s trend to move past caloric intake towards healthier diets represents a worrying trend which ignores massive issues regarding food availability. The second main area of discussion focuses on the interventions that could address the challenge of increasing availability of food (production-side interventions) and for the consumption of “healthier” diets. One of the main findings here was a need to increase agricultural research on the food system. Only with improved data on the food system can effective interventions be implemented to create a sustainable food system transformation in Nigeria. Other findings included an identification of the possibility of increasing social protection, the consumption of biofortified crops, and the delivery of nutrition education, especially when provided with consideration to cultural and seasonal variation.236238239242243249250Healthier diets The first discussion topic in the Dialogue centred around the conception of a “healthier” diet and dietary composition in Nigeria. The first issue that was raised was the complicated nature of Nigeria’s Food-Based Dietary Guidelines such that they cannot be easily communicated to people. Moreover, Nigeria is currently experiencing a triple burden of malnutrition (food insecurity, micronutrient malnutrition, overweight and obesity status rising). This has very significant costs, especially over time, as the rising malnutrition rates increase the need for healthcare to the non-communicable diseases (NCDs) which result from poor diet. Participants also highlighted the considerable issues regarding the design and implementation of nutrition policy due to the state/federal system. The federal level cannot force states to adopt a policy but effort has been made to call council level meetings which have the state organs present in order to encourage them to implement and domesticate nutrition policies at the state level, for example policies regarding nutrition-sensitive agriculture, cassava and orange-fleshed sweet potatoes. A further problem in implementation and policy design has arisen due to the siloed nature of thinking on nutrition, with it widely considered to be a health issue as opposed to an issue warranting a multisectoral approach. Therefore, in order to strengthen the concept of healthier diets in Nigeria coherence between state and federal policy needs to be made, as well as a concerted effort to embrace a multi-sector approach. Furthermore, whilst Nigeria is undoubtedly facing extensive challenges in policy design and implementation, there is also considerable diversity within the large, complex country exacerbating these problems. Specifically, the concept of healthier diets speaks more to the urban population who tend to experience a higher level of accessibility to food compared to the rural population whose problems often focus on a lack of access to food, as opposed to which types of food they are eating. Participants therefore raised concerns with the trend within the international community to move past caloric intake towards healthier diets, without addressing this massive ongoing issue of food shortages.236238239242243246249250Challenges and Interventions The second discussion topic of the Dialogue centred around the challenges that exist in Nigeria’s transition to a sustainable food system and the interventions that can be introduced to support the transition. Participants agreed that the food system in Nigeria is fragile with serious output challenges in both primary and secondary production, which are further complicated by climate change, land use, greenhouse gas emissions, desertification, human conflict, and other factors. However, whilst all participants agreed that Nigeria has a long way to go in terms of efficiency of the food system and infrastructure (for example, the lack of roads in rural areas preventing farmers moving food to the market), there was extensive discussion on the areas and avenues of potential progress in Nigeria. An example of this is the change in aquaculture which is bringing significant opportunities for production and food consumption patterns, with benefits for food security. More specifically two distinct challenges were raised in Nigeria. The first highlighted area of intervention in Nigeria raised by participants focused on how much food people are eating. In certain areas of Nigeria, the focus needs to remain on increasing caloric intake as people are unlikely to focus on what they are eating and nutritious diverse consumption if they are not eating enough. In this regard, several potential interventions were raised by the participants. The first was an increase and repurpose of social protection programs both to ensure sufficient access to food but also to provide more nutrition knowledge and benefits. The second was programmes to increase consumption of biofortified crops at household level and encouraging households to produce nutrient dense crops which would have benefits both for dietary diversification and access to micronutrients. The third was an increase in agricultural research to improve the data on food systems in Nigeria so that interventions can be appropriately targeted, and funding effectively used. Currently, there are massive disparities in global funding and agricultural research with the primary focus being on grains, maize and soybean compared to fruits and vegetables. A further highlighted potential intervention in this regard is the increase in capital flows to SMEs that have innovative ideas in providing healthier and more sustainable food. The second area of intervention which participants raised as crucial to sustainable agricultural transformation in Nigeria centres around nutrition education and a focus on what types of food people are eating. Specifically, attention needs to paid to appropriate dietary education, tailored across different groups and with a focus on what is culturally and seasonably available. Whilst in part this is about increasing households’ assets and income so as to increase the affordability of nutritious foods, it is also about increasing the capacity of institutions which provide nutrition education. One potential area of innovation that was raised by participants was the role of institutional buying programs, such as prisons and schools, whose shift in food purchasing can cause value chains to react, leading to different availability of food for the institutions but also potentially for others in the local areas.237238239242244249250One area of divergence occurred within the Dialogue over the extent to which priority in the Nigerian food system transformation should be given to issues of value chains and production, or whether the focus should be on mass scale nutrition education. Ultimately, participants seemed to agree that both were major issues and areas of intervention to promote sustainable food systems in Nigeria but the comparative importance of one or the other depended significantly on the context, for example North/South, rural/urban divides. It was deemed that in urban areas nutrition education could have a large positive impact whereas in rural areas potentially the focus needed to remain on production and value chains to ensure sufficient caloric access to food, before the focus migrated to dietary diversification and “healthier” diets.

2021-07-27 15:19:08205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16397/44

19811

El diálogo en la región de O’Higgins se ha organizado, en primer orden, bajo el principio de “colaboración”, vale decir, que varios servicios públicos y organizaciones de la sociedad civil, se asociaron en función del desarrollo de este importante espacio de conversación en torno a los Sistemas Alimentarios. Por otra parte, desde el compromiso de incorporar los objetivos de la Cumbre en los temas de alimentación y cambio climático. Debido al cambio climático se han generado daños importantes a los sistemas agrícolas que son la principal fuente de abastecimiento a nivel regional. Desde ahí la urgencia por generar conciencia en que es preciso actuar de manera acelerada en la construcción de objetivos a corto, mediano y largo plazo que nos lleven a un desarrollo sostenible que asegure y garantice la alimentación saludable a toda la población.Tal como se mencionó en la primera pregunta, el diálogo sin duda refleja los siete principios básicos que propone la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios. Los diferentes sectores que lograron aportar en el desarrollo del diálogo coinciden en que es preciso actuar con urgencia y que es necesario asumir compromisos tanto personales como profesionales para contribuir con la visión del cambio a futuro en nuestros sistemas alimentarios para que garanticen el acceso equitativo para todos/as. El respeto sin duda fue un elemento que primó en el debate, dado que desde las distintas áreas, se abordaron los temas con altura de miras, con la capacidad de mirar al otro desde sus experiencias, saberes y necesidades. Hablar de alimentación es un tema complejo, pues desde la salud también repercute fuertemente, en el aumento de la malnutrición por exceso, que acarrea enfermedades no transmisibles, así como también aumento significativo de la obesidad en nuestra población. Por otra parte, los sistemas alimentarios deben tener un componente inclusivo, desde los diversos actores y sectores, con sus saberes, condición física, conocimientos autóctonos y culturales, abordando este tan complejo escenario mundial.Es importante, como se ha mencionado, que tomemos medidas urgentes y generemos conciencia sobre el tema de la alimentación, que es primordial que se generen políticas públicas que garanticen el acceso equitativo a alimentos saludables para todos/as.

Yes

234238246247249El tema principal se enfocó en los sistemas alimentarios de la Región de O’Higgins y se trabajó en mesas de subtemas, donde los participantes analizaron, discutieron y propusieron tres soluciones para alcanzar los objetivos de la temática planteada en el plenario. Las subtemáticas discutidas fueron: • Sistemas alimentarios y Derecho a la Alimentación • Sistemas alimentarios y su impacto en la salud • Acceso económico a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y todas235238239240241244246249• FALTA ACCESO FÍSICO Y ECONÓMICO A LOS ALIMENTOS: Uno de los temas que más complica a la región es el acceso a los alimentos. Se menciona que es la segunda región con mayor producción de hortalizas, sin embargo, no tiene un mercado y no queda en la región, ya que la mayor cantidad se va a Santiago, capital del país. Los alimentos que se comercializan en las ferias libres más de un 80% provienen de la capital. La cadena es extensa desde que sale del productor hasta llegar al consumidor. Otro punto que se plantea, es como permitir que la exportación de los alimentos saludables, no disminuya la disponibilidad de estos en el territorio. Se plantea que no hay bastantes incentivos para la producción de alimentos nutritivos en la región y que hay escasez hídrica, lo que influye en la disminución de la producción de alimentos sanos y nutritivos en la región de O´Higgins. A la vez, se plantea que la inestabilidad laboral y vulnerabilidad, así como los efectos económicos de pandemia ha afectado el acceso económico a alimentos saludables, por tanto, las familias acceden a alimentos que no son saludables, disminuyendo la calidad de la alimentación familiar. • BAJA OFERTA DE ALIMENTOS LIBRE DE PLAGUICIDAS: Los participantes señalaron la dificultad de conseguir alimentos libres de plaguicidas, por la presencia de estos elementos en el aire como al agua que obstaculiza vender alimentos libres de químicos para el consumo humano.. • ESCASEZ HÍDRICA QUE INFLUYE EN LA PRODUCCIÓN DE ALIMENTOS: Uno de los principales problemas es el cambio climático y la escasez de agua en el secano costero de la región, ya que por el cambio climático han disminuido las precipitaciones. • FALTA DE INFORMACIÓN SOBRE ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE: En los padres, madres y/o adultos significativos de niños, niñas y adolescentes, respecto del consumo de alimentos saludables más allá de la promoción de la actividad física. Se propone elaborar material didáctico y cápsulas. • FALTA DE SUBSIDIOS ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES PARA FAMILIAS VULNERABLES: Se establece que las canastas de alimentos que entrega el Estado están pensadas en cubrir la alimentación de los estudiantes, sin embargo, en las familias vulnerables se ve que cubre las necesidades de todos los integrantes de la familia con un déficit en la alimentación. • ESCASEZ DE TIEMPO EN LAS FAMILIAS: La falta de tiempo obliga a comprar alimentos chatarra porque son rápidos, porque no hay tiempo para preparar alimentos en los hogares. Ambos, padres y madres, deben trabajar, lo que disminuye los tiempos en el hogar. • FALTA DE OPORTUNIDADES PARA PEQUEÑOS AGRICULTORES Y PEQUEÑAS AGRICULTORAS: Existen grandes brechas entre los pequeños productores y las grandes empresas que generan los alimentos, por lo tanto, compiten muy fuertemente con la posibilidad de venta de sus productos.236238239240244246247249Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: • EDUCACIÓN ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE: Se plantea realizar educación alimentaria para padres, madres y apoderados/as en las escuelas porque es donde se pueden hacer cambios. Ideal es que exista un profesional nutricionista con el fin de reforzar la importancia de la alimentación saludable, así como también enseñar preparaciones sanas y de bajo costo para las familias que rescate los saberes y sabores del territorio. Es preciso garantizar una educación en temas de alimentación a los niños/as desde la primera infancia, incluyendo a sus familias. Desde esta lógica garantizamos que exista manejo de información que permitirá elegir adecuadamente los alimentos que en las dietas de nuestros niños/as y a futuro prevenir la obesidad y aparición de enfermedades no transmisibles. • AUTOPRODUCCIÓN Y AUTOCONSUMO: Se sugiere implementar huertas escolares que sean sostenibles en el tiempo, con un equipo o profesional especializado, y talleres de huertas caseras para ciudades autosuficientes y autosustentables. • DERECHO A LA ALIMENTACIÓN: Se sugiere incluir este derecho en la nueva Constitución, y que se establezca que el Estado debe garantizar una política clara que respete la educación alimentaria y se transforme en una cultura. • APOYO A LA PEQUEÑA AGRICULTURA PARA UN DESARROLLO SUSTENTABLE: Se recomienda mayor inversión pública y municipal para los/as pequeños/as agricultores/as en nuevos métodos de riego, para que en las zonas que tienen dificultad y escasez de agua logren continuar con sus producciones. • REGULACIÓN Y POLITICAS PARA ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES: Se sugieren políticas públicas claras, a largo plazo y que no dependan de un solo Gobierno, por ejemplo estableciendo bandas de precios de alimentos, potenciando los mercados locales y ampliando la oferta pública de huertos y autoconsumo, en áreas urbanas y rurales. • POTENCIAR LA PRODUCCIÓN LOCAL Y ANCESTRAL: Potenciar el rescate, guarda, recolección e intercambio de semillas, como mecanismo ancestral.237No hay mayores divergencias.

2021-07-27 16:40:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33000/203

124793710010150060240265345413215215135101017222551050004024316

Throughout the preparatory stages, planning and actual dialogues sessions, basic tenets of stakeholder engagement were observed. Inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches were promoted and mainstreamed, while being respectful and building trust throughout the coordination process and facilitation of the dialogue sessions. The Dialogue brought together a diversity of stakeholders who worked together to identify overlooked issues and their promising options/solutions. The participants were drawn from 34 countries including Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana, Benin, Switzerland, Guinea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Botswana, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Brazil, Malawi, USA, Belgium, Cameroon, Tanzania, Niger, Senegal, Zambia, Spain, Eswatini, Netherlands, Mali, Burkina Faso, India, Cote D'Ivoire, Israel, Mozambique, Italy, Canada, Egypt, Mexico and Liberia. A robust and comprehensive was undertaken both during the pre- dialogue and the actual dialogues sessions, in order to effectively identify and often overlooked issues from the current dialogues happening in Africa by Action track experts. This has helped the selected action track discussants to research and deliberate on overlooked issues on those tracks and subsequent peer reviews, Presentation of draft African common position, presentation of analytical work on overlooked issues at the dialogues, smaller dialogues groups based on the action tracks but with diverse audiences to discuss emerging issues as cohorts(cohort 1: Action track 1and 4; cohort 2: Action track 2 and 4 and cohort 3: Action track 3 and 5). During cohort session virtual dialogues, there was also moderation on the chat facility to complement the plenary sessions.The process of inviting participants for the dialogues ensured that there was multi-stakeholder inclusivity, which allowed for the diversity of perspectives around hitherto overlooked aspects of food systems and to enrich the quality of discussions. The facilitation process provided an open platform where participants freely exchanged ideas, allowing for synergy while giving room for divergent ideas. The dialogues allowed for breakouts sessions (cohorts) where smaller groups of participants would effectively connect and explore different facets of food systems from varied perspectives. The insights from these breakout sessions were later incorporated into the main sessions’ emerging ideas and recommendations. During the sessions, a presentation was included to complement and enrich the discussions, while allowing participants to recognize complexity by intentionally analysing and bringing to the food system overlooked issues for transformation in Africa’s food system discourse. Creating a sense of urgency by using the NSA dialogue feedback to contribute to dialogues at member states (Kenya National Policy Dialogue), at Regional Economic Community level (EAC), Independent (AHADI Mentors’ Think Tank and Pragmatist Group in Kenya) and at Continental level (AU STC).Observing the principles of engagement allows the Dialogue to focus on the whole picture and not just a single element of Food Systems. Further to this, there is an appreciation for the interactions among different stakeholders, hence creates an opportunity for transdisciplinary thinking. Doing some analytical work to provide evidence and context for the dialogue ensure the dialogue is guided by facts and outcomes are pragmatic to real issues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The theme of the dialogue was Overlooked issues in Transforming Food Systems in Africa. It sought to contribute to the articulation of Africa’s Common Position on UNFSS by analyzing and bringing overlooked issues on board and further cross-fertilize these with the outcomes of the then ongoing Africa’s UN Member States and Independent Dialogues. The overlooked issues based on aligned to FSS 5 Action tracks were identified from a comprehensive analysis of Food systems literature on Africa, Regional and Country level dialogues, some topical independent dialogues and interim analysis from UNFSS pool of information reported to date. In addition, forgotten factors on cross-cutting issues were identified, additional game-changers and required interventions were proposed. The convenors sought to make the food system dialogues complete by looking at these forgotten issues and ensuring that they were incorporated in the strategies for transforming food system in Africa. Among the identified issues include: lack of recognition and prioritisation of smallholder farmers/producers contribution to food systems; lack of transformational leadership among food system actors; inadequate support to Agri-MSE that can transform them; influence of a few corporations and philanthropists on the food system, at the expense of the micro, small and medium scale enterprises; corruption undermining food systems transformation initiatives; inability to address core barriers to unleashing the power of youth and women in food systems, consistent underbudgeting for agriculture by allocating less of 10% consistently and not doing something to meet the minimum set by CAADP; inadequate investment in generating and disseminating reliable data; adoption of food systems that are good for the environment and reclaiming lost land and resources; scaling up appropriate post-harvest technologies, and building capacities of farmers on post-harvest management, , reduction of food wastage across the supply chain and food system is not valued leading to a drain on the system’s output; low investments beyond traditional main crops such as other indigenous crops that are nutritionally important in the food systems. Further to this, there is no prioritization for easy movement at border points, thus impacting producers and consumers; exacerbated by lack of legislation to facilitate such fast-tracking.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Additional 24 gamechanger propositions based on identified overlooked issues added to African Common Position on UNFSS as shown in section c below. b. Identified overlooked issues and proposed interventions required to create sustainable food systems at national and subnational levels in all the 5 action tracks as detailed in section C below. c. Governance of food systems as key transforming food systems in Africa. Transformative leadership and mindset change at all levels are required for transforming Africa’s Food systems d. Coalition of Non-state actors to create momentum and more coalitions for implementation of these overlooked issues in the implementation of UNFSS summit outcomes in Africa. Youth defined networks, for example, are identified and will be used as the entry point on policy, strategies, implementation, evaluation. These networks are finding their common youth agricultural agenda which will be endorsed by the AU and others e. There is a need to strengthen the resilience of food systems and explore tradeoffs across environmental and social systems to a larger extent. f. Rethink about Africa’s research agenda, taking the opportunity of indigenous technical knowledge to enhance innovation capacity and integrate indigenous ecological knowledge and science in natural resource management through action research. g. Make specific policy choices and investments to strengthen curricula in tertiary institutions to adequately cover the aspects of postharvest management and agriculture positively236238243246248249251Gamechanger propositions to African Common Position on UNFSS based on identified overlooked issues in Action Track 1 1.Increase road, rail, ports and other transport and logistics connectivity and reduce tariff and other non-tariff barriers to ease food access and lower the cost of food. 2. Increase smallholder farmer incomes, agricultural productivity and equity by enabling access to inputs, technology, mechanized services and finance through public-private partnerships. 3. Address smallholder farmer self-vulnerability by ensuring priority access to seeds that support crop diversity, and services, support, advice and inputs to optimize soil health. 4. Launch Coalition of Youth in African Agriculture within the formal AU framework. 5.Establish food and nutrition business development, innovation and financing hub for high-impact African agri-SMEs distributed around regional clusters around and within Africa (“hub and spoke” strategy). 6. Modernize the micronutrient value chain to support staple food biofortification and complimentary food industrial fortification strategies. 7. Develop systems and capacities to track and monitor food safety standards over time. 8. Develop systems and capacities to enable rapid responses to foodborne disease and related outbreaks. 9. Develop Digital Data and Knowledge Management frameworks to guide multiple food systems transition and transformation pathways in various settings and circumstances that ultimately support the “access to safe and nutritious food for all” framework around food security and the reduction of hunger, and access to food that is both nutritious and safe.236238243245246248249251Proposed interventions in Food System for National, subnational and lower levels for Action track 1 and cross-cutting issues (based on overlooked issues) Governance 1.Equip Leaders, farmers and key actors in food systems value chains with transformational leadership skills to: -inspire and motivate farmers and other actors in food systems to high-performance levels Model: CAADP-USAID/Africa Lead on ‘Champions for Scaling Up Food Security Initiatives” has been a game-changer. The over 2000 trained champions introduced major changes in their regions. e.g. current Vice President of Tanzania Dr Philip Mpango. 2.Mindset shift – Change narrative by thinking positively about agriculture and governance. 3.Tackle corruption head-on food systems value chains as it is an engrained issue and also a mental sickness that is encouraged by dysfunctional systems. (educated on enterprise and wealth creation that is sustainable and long-lasting; upholding professional values; a Judiciary which is supposed to deal with offenders need to be above reproach like Ceasor's wife) 4. Joint Sector Reviews at County Levels to receive and debate County Annual Progress Report. Action Track 1 1.Mindset shift – Change narrative by thinking positively about agriculture. 2.Redirect flow of capital from multi-national companies to have proper and targeted financing in the production system aimed at SMES\s, to develop the supply chains. 3. Women and Youth’s economic empowerment in agriculture and agribusiness from tilling the land to manufacturing- (WYEEAA Manufacturing Retouch Model). This entails a market analysis, documentation of the processing procedure including the required equipment, inventory of the women and women/youth groups who may be interested and ready to occupy this space, connections that need to be entered into with the producers, forward contracts signed with producer farmers, contracts with by the future buyers of the processed products, tap into African Continent Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and export to other countries intra-regional trade. 4. Increase road, railway coverage /interconnections and reduce tariffs on food transportation networks to ease food access and lower the cost of food. 5.Adopt action research to develop and implement innovations with the end-users of the technology. e.g. Egerton University Agro Science Parks which facilitate seed production and establishment of seed banks. 6. A change of proposal and grant design to intentionally incorporate action research - move the lab to farms and other parts of food systems where there is action. 7.The extremist middleman factor in agriculture: attach value to food and create awareness programs to empower producers to determine the prices of their products, use aggregation and structured markets e.g. Ethiopian Commodity Exchange system for coffee farmers model. 8. Investment in action research and improved data systems. 9.Catalyze north-south and south-south research collaborations focusing on climate change and resilient food systems. 10. Increased budgetary allocation to research and innovations. 11. Research should develop agricultural innovations which respond to the priorities of our food systems. 12. Invest in building the capacity of researchers to develop home-grown, contextualized solutions.236239246248249Gamechanger propositions to African Common Position on UNFSS based on identified overlooked issues in Track 2 1. Establish multi-stakeholder frameworks (public and private sector, business and households) that innovatively address overall food loss and waste with a bias towards incentives rather than sanctions in a way that builds a circular economy. 2. Pilot and/or scale-up existing investments in reducing on-farm and post-harvest losses through networks, partnerships and other collaborations.236239243245246249251Proposed interventions in Food System for National, subnational and lower levels in Action Track 2 1. Launch public awareness campaigns on food safety and enforcement of food safety standards through a cascaded training model to empower producers and consumers in organized cohorts e.g. farmer groups, professional bodies, welfare groups 2. Empowering women and youth in agri-nutrition through nutrition education and social behaviour change communication, and conducting participatory cooking training 3. Deploy promising models: -strengthen the performance of community health volunteers by incentivizing, - Bring Food back to the schools - Improve marketing of farm produce and value-added products through digital platforms, linking farmers to markets e.g. Aquaculture digital platforms - Success stories include Aqua Park model for fish production in Busia Kenya, Fish cage culture technology (One Acre Fish Cage farms of Prof Khama Rogo in Ogal Beach, Kisumu, Kenya) 4.Commercialize the traditionally grown food crops and invest in upgrading the same to ensure farmers engage in upgraded traditional food crops that are high yielding 5. Mainstream reduction of Post-Harvest Loss and Food Loss through a built-in post-harvest intervention with proper tracking - Identify context-specific solutions to address losses/waste at the critical loss points in the priority commodities. 6. Reliable data on Post Harvest Loss PHL and Food Loss should be generated and centralized to guide PHL strategies. 7. Adequate investment should be channelled into reducing PHL and Food Loss through: 8. Scaling up appropriate technologies and practices to reduce upstream losses targeting: a. Small scale processing technologies/facilities to transform the unsold or unsaleable perishable produce into shelf-stable products. b. Minimize losses and leakage from the system at each step, including through correct use of the technologies and storage arrangements c. The voucher system which enables off-take is already working under the East Africa Grain Council. 9.Targeted Capacity building – farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain (at all levels) and. intentionally deploy the innovations from research to impact the end-users (e.g. at University of Nairobi (UoN) the ‘lab to land’ approach using the ‘Hub and spoke model’ to build the capacity of diverse stakeholders in the food systems including farmers, processors, traders, extension agents, entrepreneurs among others. b. Low-cost cold storage technologies demonstration unit at UoN to train potential users of the technologies on good practices and technologies for cold chain management. c. Strengthen curricula in tertiary institutions to adequately cover the aspects of postharvest management. 10.Incentivize the private sector to participate in marketing and export of the locally produced products while also participating in processing and value addition. 11.Streamline and harmonize customs operations and simplify documentation processes 12. Leverage and employ the AfCFTA to move goods, including perishable foods as a priority element to the food system. 13. Implement cross-border and agreements for perishable foodstuffs holistically. This requires separate regulatory mechanisms, taking note of the right to food, food standards, the impact of the raised process on consumer and the injustice of poor prices/no price for producers236240244246247249Gamechanger propositions to African Common Position on UNFSS based on identified overlooked issues in Action Track 3.1 and 3.3 3.1.1 Explore and pilot the Sustainable Agriculture and Just Rural Transition initiative with a view to mainstreaming it into domestic policies that direct resource allocations and investment towards sustainable agricultural practices that support climate action 3.3.1 Promote sustainable food production through a mix of practices that balance and build ecological connectivity and human-wildlife coexistence among local communities236240244246248249251Proposed interventions in Food System for National, subnational and lower levels for track 3 (based on overlooked issues) 1.Targetted strengthening of existing small and medium scale food producers groups and formations of new organized movements to advance SMEs. 2. Acceleration of Cooperation and Investment. Restoring degraded lands, biodiversity and enhancing forecasting, early warning, and accelerating the provision of adequate investment in natural and man-made resources and inputs is key, to ensure sustainable production and productivity. 3. Introduce formal recognition, incentives and tangible rewards for all categories of farmers and small scale producers.3.Parliamentarians should endeavour to defend the biodiversity, indigenous cultures and national systems. There is a need for policies that will allow farmers to produce food using indigenous seeds that are readily available and that they can be shared amongst themselves. The policies should allow farmers to produce safer and healthier food in an environmentally safe way, not punitive policies designed to eliminate farmers and have our food system controlled by corporations out to make profits at the expense of our health and our environment. 4. Ensure availability of both macro (N, P, K) and micronutrients (S, B, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Mn, etc.) fertilisers in all agro-input shops and wholesalers in all agricultural corners of the country. 5. Harness the creativity and energies of the youth towards pursuing nature-positive agricultural production, and inharmonious collaboration with the relevant actors. 6. Continuous emphasis on the link between resilient food systems and associated environmental and social systems to a larger extent. 7. Promotion and support to business incubation for youth as a key driver for commercialization of agro opportunities 8. Apply The Yala Hub Participation Framework for Optimizing Community Participation in the Management of Yala Wetland Ecosystem in Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya. A 5-steps model with Community Facilitator and Information Resource Hub (By Prof Victor Odenyo and Dr Douglas Ouma, University of Eldoret, Kenya).236241244246247248249250251Gamechanger propositions to African Common Position on UNFSS based on identified overlooked issues in track 4 4.1.1 Pilot and roll out the Farmer Field and Business School concept (that builds on the Farmer Field School framework) as a participatory, women and youth-focused training, extension services and business development and market support approach 4.1.2 Empower youth as innovators and change-makers through training, mentorship, dedicated services and the requisite visibility and incentives 4.1.3 Women and Youth’s economic empowerment in agriculture and agribusiness from tilling the land to manufacturing- (WYEEAA Manufacturing Retouch Model). 4.2.1 Promote policy-coherent living incomes and social protection measures in value chains for smallholder and small scale farmers and agricultural workers 4.3.1 Develop and promote integrated food strategies that are relevant to geography and location (regions and provinces, counties or districts, cities and towns, rural centres) 4.3.2 Promote multi-stakeholder networks and platforms (public, private and 4th sector, non-state actors) across agricultural value chains within above national geographical and locational ecosystems.236241243244245246247249251Proposed interventions in Food System for National, subnational and lower levels (based on overlooked issues in Action track 4) 1.Building a pool of capable, confident, and influential individuals to lead critical advances and innovations in the agricultural research and development (ARD) sector. 2. Invest in strengthening the capacity of researchers and institutions to deliver agricultural innovations that respond to the needs and priorities of a diversity of women and men across Africa’s agricultural value chains 3. Building an enabling environment for gender responsiveness to become an embedded cultural norm and practice in the African ARD through policies, programs, and accountability mechanisms. Focus on increasing the visibility of women researchers and research leaders, generating, and curating compelling evidence on the value of gender responsiveness in ARD. Case Study: AWARD Model of Women and Youth Empowerment. 4. Making agriculture attractive to the youth and non- agricultural experts is crucial since they have the capacity to drive medium to large scale farming systems. a. Creating the enabling environments for modernization and mechanization of the sector through direct government investment.(e.g. Build Warehouse for the Youth to protect smallholder farmers from the middlemen). b. Involvement of youth in Policy initiation and development stages (OWN the process), engage them in policy execution and implementation (CONTROL the process) and Monitor and evaluate policy performance (ACCOUNT for the process) to ensure the Food systems Youth want for Africa. c. Youth to own land and resources and participate in value addition 5. Funding research projects on innovative technologies to improve farming systems in Africa 6. Policies on land tenure systems that will allow easy access to land for farming by the youth, women and non-agricultural experts across the continent. e.g. include traditional governance systems 7. Tax removal on farm inputs, equipment and machinery 8. Policies on Zero hunger solidarity Fund, at local and national levels taking a bit more from those who have a lot to redistribute to those impacted by the nature or other problems and then have less 9. Streamline and harmonize trade policies and customs operations 10. Develop policies that compel the smallest unities of governance (e.g. counties) to employ community extension agricultural officers in every village 11. Form new movements and coalitions to drive the Food systems agenda in Africa post the UNFSS summit and have strong mutual accountability for actions and results mechanisms. e.g. Revitalize joint sector reviews at the lowest levels of governance across Africa.236242244Gamechanger propositions to African Common Position on UNFSS based on identified overlooked issues in track 5 5.1.1 Explore integrated approaches to resilient food systems ( country examples ). 5.1.2 Establish systemic approaches to crisis management from disaster reduction to forecasting and monitoring to early warning and emergency response and mitigation. 5.2.1 Promote local food for local production across strategic national food supply chains and food systems that are pandemic resilient. 5.3.1 Develop strategic climate-resilient pathways through benchmarking of smart practices and development of context-relevant processes, systems and tools. Others 6.1.1 Establish National and Regional Food Systems Action Hubs on a multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder basis that places Food at the core of the development (and SDG) agenda.236242243244245246249Proposed interventions in Food System for National, subnational and lower levels (based on overlooked issues in Action track 5) 1.Build farmers capacities to regenerate soils, map areas and use appropriate fertilizers while regulating fertilizer imports. 2. Provide some resources like water in places (Arid and semi-arid regions) that are perennially experiencing problems. 3. Adopt Inclusive social protection measures. 4. Invest in an early warning system for disaster management. 5. Develop a pro-poor food systems policy that includes capacities for smallholders that are highly vulnerable to weather shocks and stresses in the food system (i.e. investments in small stocks, irrigated gardens, financial access). 6. The catalytic role of central banks in building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses especially on low presence of financial institutions, poor access to finance and high administrative costs. Therefore, it is important for central banks to leverage on exchanges to achieve monetary and price stability in the economy.237238239240241242246247249251a. Involvement of youth to own, control and be accountable to the Food Systems process. However, the youth need to clearly state and demonstrate what they can do. b. A concern that the UNFSS will be used as a conduit to echo the business-as-usual, quick-technofix policy prescriptions of the agribusiness agendas – a summit geared towards repeating the agribusiness-as-usual model to solve the food and climate crisis cannot deliver on the envisioned transformation of revitalized, sustainable and healthy food systems. c. The economic landscapes in which smallholder farmers in Africa have traditionally operated are shifting rapidly, however, the future of the food supply lies in the hands of smallholder and peasant farmers yet enabling environment for this emerging future is being curtailed by major players in Food Systems (Governments, Development Partners, Large Multinational Commercial companies and Large Scale Farmers.

2021-07-27 18:56:12205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15303/141

Este diálogo se realizó de manera virtual. El mismo tuvo un enfoque participativo e inclusivo, con diversidad de grupos de interés vinculados a los diferentes procesos de los sistemas alimentarios, propiciando un espacio de discusión que generaron un intercambio abierto entre los participantes. Para desarrollar el intercambio abierto entre los participantes del Diálogo se manejaron cuatro grandes temas (preguntas orientadoras) que fueron abordados en igual cantidad de mesas de trabajo, sobre la base de los 5 objetivos propuestos para la Cumbre. Los participantes contaron con 60 minutos para la discusión y debate. Al finalizar el debate se presentó la relatoría de cada una de las cuatro mesas. Cada diálogo contó con un administrador, facilitadores y relatores por mesa. Una vez finalizado el diálogo se pasó a la consolidación de los aportes recibidos para su incorporación en el formulario oficial de comentarios.A raíz de la adopción de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible como guía para el impulso de las acciones del Estado, dirigidas a favorecer a aquellos que se han quedado atrás del desarrollo, se dio un impulso para asegurar la producción y disponibilidad de alimentos, garantizar la reducción del hambre, fomentando la seguridad alimentaria, mediante el compromiso y la participación del Gobierno, los organismos internacionales, los gremios y la sociedad. Además de desarrollar la seguridad alimentaria nacional con una política de soberanía alimentaria, el énfasis hasta el momento ha sido la reducción del hambre, la desnutrición y la mal nutrición en la población vulnerable, principalmente, la primera infancia, de acuerdo con el segundo Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible. Esto pasa por la preservación del ambiente, bajo un enfoque de prevención de la contaminación. De allí que ante el llamado a transformar los sistemas alimentarios realizado en el Día Mundial de la Alimentación (2019) por el secretario general de las Naciones Unidas y la convocatoria a una Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios a celebrarse en el 2021, se inició un proceso de articulación de esfuerzos entre las instituciones vinculadas al mensaje “como una familia humana y un mundo libre de hambre”. Esta Cumbre es una oportunidad para que Panamá pueda avanzar hacia el gran y ambicioso objetivo de contar con un sistema alimentario sostenible y será un importante catalizador que permitirá a través de los diálogos realizados, retroalimentarse de las necesidades, opiniones y otros aportes transmitidos por todos los sectores convocados, contando así con insumos que permitan fortalecer, continuar, corregir o iniciar nuevas acciones que en forma de programas, políticas u otros instrumentos legales e institucionales se avance hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios.Si bien es cierto se contó con una amplia participación de diversos sectores de la sociedad en tanto actores de los sistemas alimentarios, como actividades concretas de seguimiento, se podrían organizar consultas con representantes de sectores específicos para contar con sus recomendaciones y aportes de acuerdo con la visión y el papel de ese sector o gremio en los sistemas alimentarios. Así entonces, se podrían organizar actividades con el sector de restaurantes, organizaciones de chefs, gremios de agroindustriales, comercializadoras de alimentos, supermercados, transportistas, por mencionar algunos.

Yes

234238239240241246247248249251La consulta nacional y subnacionales de Panamá, tuvieron como lema “Cerrando brechas para la seguridad alimentaria”. El objetivo principal era determinar la futura dirección de los sistemas alimentarios en Panamá, hacia la consecución de los ODS explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030 y situar al proyecto de Diálogos dentro del contexto de trabajo intersectorial que realizará el Gobierno Nacional y los actores de la cadena alimentaria nacional. Sobre la base de las cinco vías de acción definidas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 (1. Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 2. Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción favorable a la naturaleza 4. Promover medios de vida equitativos 5. Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades), se adoptaron cuatro preguntas orientadoras que se utilizaron en todas y cada una de las sesiones de consultas realizadas. Las dos primeras preguntas hacen referencia a algunas acciones que se pudieran impulsar y nuestro papel como actores para avanzar hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible, mientras que las dos últimas tienen que ver con el abordaje de estos sistemas en las políticas públicas. Las preguntas orientadoras fueron: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? 2. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? 3. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? 4. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes?235238239240241242243244246248249Este diálogo fue muy nutrido y resaltó la participación de la Universidad Autónoma de Chiriquí, quienes manifestaron su interés en trabajar en pro de los sistemas alimentarios. Entre otros hallazgos surgidos están los siguientes: Implementación de buenas prácticas agrícolas y de manufactura, interés en la promoción de la agricultura urbana y periurbana; fortalecer huertos escolares y comunitarios; fortalecimiento de la agricultura familiar; implementar Políticas Públicas que favorezcan los sistemas alimentarios y que integre ejes transversales como educación, equidad de género, enfoque territorial, entre otros; promover y fortalecer la agricultura orgánica y agroecológica; promover hábitos saludables de alimentación; inclusión de los pequeños y medianos productores en las cadenas agroindustriales del país; regular el etiquetado de los productos alimenticios; creación de más mercados municipales; reutilización de mermas y aprovechamiento de residuos de las cosechas para consumo humano; precios justos a los productores; apoyo a la producción nacional a través de la realización de ferias; rol de los Municipios en la recolección y procesamiento de frutas de temporada para ofrecer a los consumidores; gobernanza en el uso del agua; mas integración entre los actores de los sistemas alimentarios; legislación para protección de fuentes de agua, calidad del agua potable y saneamiento; manejo en la disposición de los residuos sólidos; fomentar una cultura en el uso del agua; construcción de políticas de Estado y no de gobierno; alianzas institucionales; seguimiento y evaluación a los programas de seguridad alimentaria; y apoyo a las organizaciones de base comunitaria.2362382392402412421. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? • Implementación de buenas prácticas agrícolas y de manufactura. • Fomentar la agricultura familiar orgánica, los buenos hábitos de consumo y la reducción de desperdicios de alimentos en los hogares. • Promover la transformación de alimentos (conservas, compotas). • Fortalecimiento de políticas públicas de los Sistemas alimentarios (producción, comercialización y exportación) teniendo en cuenta el ODS 12 (Producción y consumo responsable). • Retomar la ley de agricultura familiar aprobada en el 2020. • Promover convenios interinstitucionales. • Concientizar a la población acerca de la importancia de la producción rural como motor de la soberanía alimentaria. • Capacitar mediante campañas a toda la población sobre la producción de alimentos en el área urbana y periurbana como modo de tener SAN en los hogares, incluyendo el componente de nuevas tecnologías e innovaciones agrícolas. Ej. plasticultura, agricultura vertical, otros. • Coordinar acciones con la academia: Universidad Autónoma de Chiriquí (UNACHI) en temas de nuevas tecnologías, métodos de producción, inocuidad de alimentos, calidad nutricional, etc. • Apoyar a los sectores académicos para que estudiantes y docentes promuevan el cambio en la educación nutricional. • Fortalecimiento de las políticas para apoyar más la Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación. • Apoyo al establecimiento de un Laboratorio de análisis de residuos químicos y microbiológico y calidad nutricional en la UNACHI para realizar análisis y monitoreos pertinentes a la calidad (valor nutricional) e inocuidad (pesticidas, drogas de uso veterinario, disruptores endocrinos, etc.) de los alimentos en territorio nacional y para el cumplimiento de normativas internacionales (exportación) y competir en el mercado. • Coordinar esfuerzos intersectoriales. • Fomentar la hidroponía y otras técnicas de cultivo alternativas • Incorporar mayor diversidad de alimentos en la dieta actual de los ciudadanos. • Educación alimentaria y nutricional en todos los sectores (producción y consumo). • Promover consumo de productos ancestrales (batata, camote) • Fortalecer huertos escolares y comunitarios, para fomentar los buenos hábitos alimentarios. • Promover un cambio en la cultura de la alimentación. • Promover más diálogos y consultas para integrar y dar voz a todos los sectores y niveles de la sociedad civil. • Promover la organización de las comunidades y grupos para canalizar apoyo y capacitación. • En aspectos de desechos generados y manipulación de productos alimentarios, trabajar en: a. Reducción en la merma de producción. b. Capacitar en técnicas de transformación y presentación de productos. c. Reutilización de desperdicios o descartes de alimentos. d. Implementar protocolos de higiene en la manipulación de los alimentos en la cadena alimentaria. • Trabajar con indicadores para medir los avances y éxitos de las acciones tomadas. • Promover la equidad. Insertar a los pequeños y medianos productores en las cadenas agroindustriales del país. a. Facilitar el acceso al crédito de los agricultores familiares, hombres, mujeres y jóvenes. b. Mayor apoyo a la agenda de las asociaciones de mujeres rurales. c. Promover cadenas inclusivas de valor para la agricultura familiar. d. Tomar en cuenta el aspecto de género con la participación de la mujer en la producción y las cadenas de valor. e. Reactivar el convenio del MIDA-INAMU en donde las mujeres eran capacitadas en el huerto familiar. • En lo que respecta a la comercialización se propone: a. Clasificar la merma y los productos de calidad para la venta. b. Control de precios de algunos productos. c. Fiscalizar a revendedores que no cumplen con los protocolos de bioseguridad y precios. d. Regular la publicidad de los productos alimentarios. e. Regular el etiquetado nutricional. Incorporar en las normas del etiquetado advertencias sobre el contenido los alimentos procesados, empacados y envasados.2362392402442482492. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? • Buscar mecanismos para que los productos alimentarios que se venden en los mercados municipales estén a precios más accesibles para los consumidores. Que los productores puedan vender directamente al consumidor, a mejor precio. • Establecer mercados públicos, en aquellos distritos que no cuentan con ello, para facilitar la venta de los productos de los agricultores. • Educar al productor para produzca alimentos inocuos y de buena calidad. • Incentivar la agroindustria, lo que permitirá dar un valor agregado al producto y no se pierdan tantos productos, buscando siempre la buena calidad de los productos. • Promover sistemas de producción que protejan el ambiente, como la agricultura orgánica y agroecología. • Procurar que los productores reciban precios justos, y que reciban oportunamente sus pagos. • Educar al productor para disminuir la merma en alimentos. Utilizar eficientemente estos subproductos para elaborar alimentos con alto valor nutricional y que sea accesible a poblaciones desfavorecidas. • Capacitar al productor y al consumidor. • Formar a estudiantes de la UNACHI en aspectos relacionados a las buenas prácticas agrícolas, y que estos se conviertan en facilitadores para capacitar a los agricultores. • La participación de los estudiantes de nutrición de la UNACHO en la creación de nuevos productos con valor nutricional para comunidades con dificultad de acceso a alimentos. • A través de la innovación, ciencia, la tecnología y la investigación buscar alternativas para enseñar al productor a tener un producto de calidad al menor costo y trabajando amigablemente con el ambiente. • Realizar campañas televisivas para lograr cambios saludables de alimentación entre los panameños. Aprovechar las redes sociales para iniciar un proceso de cambio de hábitos y actitudes en la población, realizar una buena planificación para lograr los objetivos. • Apoyar la producción nacional reactivando las ferias libres, para que la población tenga acceso a alimentos a precios más módicos. • La UNACHI está a disposición para apoyar en temas de transformación de alimentos. • Apoyar al pequeño Agroindustrial para mejorar el control de calidad y disminuir el deterioro de los productos.2362392412422432442462482493. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? • Proteger las fuentes de aguas de la provincia, disminuyendo el número de hidroeléctricas. • Acciones municipales para recolección y procesamiento de frutas que se pierden en todo el país. Usar los mercados como centros de recolección de esta materia prima que se pierde. Vender estos productos procesados a bajos precios. • Establecimiento de mercados periféricos. • Educación nutricional para todos los sectores. • Implementar Políticas Públicas para aprovechar en campo las pérdidas de alimentos. • Las infraestructuras de la cadena de frío se pueden dar otros usos, por ejemplo, procesar los productos que se pierden en campo. • Fortalecer las políticas públicas en materia de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional. • Regular el rol de los intermediarios para que no especulen con los precios de los alimentos. • La gobernanza en el uso del agua es un gran reto. Hay muchas manos en ellas y sin una adecuada coordinación. • El Ministerio de Salud, Ministerio de Ambiente, Consejo Nacional del Agua, Autoridad Nacional de Tierras, deben trabajar en las áreas rurales e indígenas. Falta más integración entre estos actores. • Hacer cumplir las leyes para protección de las fuentes de agua. Las fuentes de agua se están perdiendo. • Implementar una divulgación masiva, que integre las áreas de riesgo con las políticas de Estado, instituciones, universidades, comunidades; sobre alternativas de reforestación, en temas de agua y la escasez de este recurso. • Incorporar en esta acción a los Comités de Cuencas, creados mediante la Ley 44 de 2002. • Crear una nueva institucionalidad para el manejo del recurso agua. • Trabajar en la cosecha de agua y cómo conservar la calidad de esta agua. • Las fuentes de agua naturales se ven afectadas por las malas prácticas en el uso de los recursos naturales, y su calidad va decayendo. Se requiere tomar medidas para contrarrestar este problema. • Fortalecer las Políticas Públicas para mejorar la calidad del agua potable y de saneamiento. • Hay mucha ineficiencia en la disposición de los residuos sólidos, por lo que se requiere mejorarlo. • Trabajar en cosecha de agua de lluvia para consumo humano. • Represar las cuencas bajas de los ríos, para uso agrícola. • Mejorar el sistema de distribución del agua. • Las Políticas Públicas deben pasar de los quinquenios, ser políticas de Estado y no de gobiernos. • La seguridad alimentaria y nutricional no es un tema solo del Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario y del Ministerio de Salud; es un tema de toda la sociedad. • Incrementar la inversión para los temas de Alimentación y Nutrición. • Incluir en las escuelas estos temas. Actualmente el currículo escolar carece de ello. Hay que trabajar más en la conciencia ciudadana. • La Secretaría Nacional para el Plan Alimentario y Nutricional debe ser un ente técnico y no político, y debe ser manejado por personas idóneas. • En el campo de la educación, es necesario que las universidades cuenten con un equipo de investigación transdisciplinario. • La UNACHI cuenta con licenciaturas en Nutrición y Dietética, Tecnología de Alimentos, Ciencias Ambientales y Recursos Naturales. Maestría en Inocuidad de Alimentos y un laboratorio de agua, el cual es un recurso que puede utilizarse a futuro. • Se requiere apoyar a la Academia para enseñar a los productores y sus familias acerca de la pérdida de los productos. • Las políticas públicas se deben elaborar sobre la base de información real. La Academia puede contribuir a ello. • Las políticas públicas deben tomar en cuenta a la población más vulnerable. • Crear una Secretaría que dé seguimiento a todo los Sistema Alimentarios, en todos los niveles. • Formar promotores de agua voluntarios. • Fortalecer la agricultura orgánica y la agroecología. • Incentivar al productor para el uso de bancos de agua y su reutilización para los cultivos. • Fomentar e incentivar la producción de hortalizas y frutales.2362382412422462482492514. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes? • Es importante apoyar a las organizaciones de base comunitaria, entendiendo el papel que juegan en la cadena de valor y puntualmente su acceso a las cadenas de comercialización. Evaluar algún programa de subsidios por parte del Estado para contribuir a ello. • Fomento de buenas prácticas agrícolas y dar seguimiento y monitoreo a los productores y puntualmente la asistencia y acompañamiento técnico a los productores. • Utilizar la infraestructura que ya existe de la cadena de frío en la provincia de Chiriquí, utilizarla a su capacidad para sacer el mejor provecho a esa inversión. • Apoyar la agricultura familiar, partiendo de la producción local y fomentando el fortalecimiento de las redes locales de producción. Fortalecer los programas de acompañamiento y asistencia técnica para esos productores locales, que les permita mejorar sus productos en materia de calidad. • Aprovechar la experiencia que tiene Panamá en materia de innovación y pilotajes de buenas prácticas y elevar estas prácticas y programas a una política pública integral que le permita al país institucionalizarlas. • Formular e implementar una política pública orientada a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional que tenga ejes transversales tales como: 1. Educación con especial atención a la capacitación continua y docencia. 2. Enfoque de género permitiendo así una verdadera inclusión de las mujeres a las cadenas productivas. 3. Potencializar la intersectorialidad y el trabajo entre instituciones y sectores. 4. Elevar el papel de la academia y la investigación como actores claves en el proceso. 5. Con enfoque local sensible a las particularidades de cada comunidad y que promueva el fortalecimiento del tejido social comunitario de las redes que existe.

2021-07-27 18:57:41205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15323/141

• La consulta se desarrolló siguiendo un enfoque participativo e inclusivo, con diversidad de grupos de interés vinculados a los diferentes procesos de los sistemas alimentarios, propiciando un espacio de discusión que generó un intercambio abierto entre los participantes. • Aprovechando las ventajas logísticas de los mecanismos virtuales de comunicación, la consulta se desarrolló en formato virtual, guiando el proceso mediante 4 preguntas orientadoras para obtener perspectivas diferenciadas por territorio. • La Consulta Nacional fue auspiciada por el Viceministro de Asuntos Indígenas, S.E. Ausencio Palacio, quien inauguró el evento y dio la bienvenida a los participantes.• El evento contó 23 actores de la cadena alimentaria de las diferentes Comarcas Indígenas del país. Representando a grupos representantes de los territorios indígenas del país, como Representantes de Tierras Colectivas, Congreso Emberá Alto Bayano, Tagakunyala, Congreso General Guna, Cámara Nacional de Turismo Indígena de Panamá, Congreso Nacional del Pueblo Wounaan Congreso General Madugandí, Consejo General Naso, Congreso General de la Comarca Emberá Wounaan, Organización Mery Ngäbe, Congreso General Wargandi, Congreso General Emberá de Alto Bayano, CONAMUIP, Comarca Guna de Madugandí, Red de Mujeres Indígenas sobre Biodiversidad, Congreso General de Tierras Colectivas Emberá/Wounaan, Territorio Bribri de Panamá y Coordinadora Nacional de Mujeres Indígenas de Panamá. Entre las autoridades públicas destacadas, el evento también contó con la participación de la diputada indígena S.E. Petita Ayarza.A pesar que la gran proporción del liderazgo de los grupos indígenas se encuentran en áreas rurales, con infraestructura de telecomunicación disminuida, es posible que tengan experiencia consolidada para participar de reuniones virtuales. Por ello, es importante discutir con ellos la metodología de trabajo, previo a la implementación. En el caso de Panamá, el Viceministerio de Asuntos Indígenas del Ministerio de Gobierno y el Sistema de Naciones Unidas contaban con experiencia de campo en materia de participación indígena en política pública e hicieron recomendaciones pertinentes para fortalecer la metodología de acceso a la población y discusión de los temas.

Yes

234238239240249251El intercambio con pueblos indígenas de Panamá tuvo como objetivo principal determinar la futura dirección de los sistemas alimentarios en Panamá, hacia la consecución de los ODS explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030 y situar al proyecto de Diálogos dentro del contexto de trabajo intersectorial que realizará el Gobierno Nacional y los actores de la cadena alimentaria nacional. Sobre la base de las cinco vías de acción definidas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 (1. Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 2. Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción favorable a la naturaleza 4. Promover medios de vida equitativos 5. Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades), se adoptó cuatro preguntas orientadoras. Las dos primeras preguntas hacen referencia a algunas acciones que se pudieran impulsar y nuestro papel como actores para avanzar hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible, mientras que las dos últimas tienen que ver con el abordaje de estos sistemas en las políticas públicas. Las preguntas orientadoras fueron: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? 2. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? 3. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? 4. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes?235238239241244246249251El intercambio con los pueblos indígenas identificó oportunidades para mejorar los sistemas alimentarios fortaleciendo la coordinación estratégica entre los actores, acción que pasa obligatoriamente por el respeto a la cosmovisión diferenciada que tienen los pueblos indígenas sobre la relación con la naturaleza y la explotación de sus recursos. La comunidad indígena manifiesta reiteradamente que sus prácticas de producción, comercialización y consumo son sostenibles. Para fortalecer el aporte de los pueblos indígenas a la seguridad alimentaria se requiere información sobre el acceso de recursos financieros que ofrecen los programas de crédito del sector público y privado, complementado con información y herramientas para la venta y comercialización de sus productos en los mercados disponibles. Como ejemplo, se recomienda que los mercados agroalimentarios tengan puestos específicos para los pueblos indígenas. Además, destacaron el reto permanente de administrar los altos costos de combustible que no les permiten desarrollar actividades como la pesca. Para reducir los impactos negativos de los procesos asociados a las cadenas y sistemas alimentarios, los pueblos indígenas recomiendan ayudar a impulsar que las mujeres indígenas se capaciten en materia de comercialización y acceso a mercado y se promuevan programas de emprendimiento e innovación, especialmente en aquellos con alto valor agregado a la agricultura orgánica. Los representantes de los pueblos indígenas reconocen la importancia que tiene la población de mujeres y jóvenes indígenas en la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios, identificando riesgos y oportunidades para cerrar brechas de inequidad que limitan el bienestar general en sus territorios. Por ejemplo, se identificó que los jóvenes están perdiendo el contacto con las tradiciones indígenas y su migración a grandes centros urbanos obstaculiza la operación de los sistemas alimentarios. Es necesario proteger y diseminar el conocimiento indígena de los sistemas alimentarios ya que se fundamentan en producción y consumo de alimentación nutritiva y local. Es necesaria mayor claridad sobre la disponibilidad de mecanismos de participación de las mujeres y jóvenes indígenas en la política alimentaria y nutricional, puesto que se ha entendido que estas actividades deben ser, en su mayoría, temas propios de los hombres. Según los representantes de los pueblos indígenas, las políticas públicas deben incorporar estrategias claras de titulación de tierras para facilitar el trabajo coordinado entre todos los actores. Las políticas públicas en torno a los Sistemas Alimentarios deben ser transversales para los pueblos indígenas y para hacerse operativas deben contar con presencia física de la red de instituciones públicas en los territorios indígenas.236238239240243245249251Pregunta guía 1: ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? • Importante contar con una agenda de trabajo que facilite la comunicación y coordinación que necesitan los sistemas alimentarios porque las intervenciones que llegan desconocen las preferencias locales. • los Pueblos Indígenas han contribuido por generaciones a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, pero no se mide correctamente. Por ejemplo, la pobreza multidimensional usa criterios científicos de países desarrollados, para los que los pueblos indígenas no clasificamos. • Los sistemas alimentarios no son nuevos para los pueblos indígenas saben que no se pueden adaptar a su cosmovisión, pero pueden aportar mucho, por ejemplo, la alimentación orgánica. El Estado presenta los programas, pero hay falta de comunicación y coordinación, ya el tema de sistema alimentario indígena sea plica desde su propia cosmovisión. Hay dos visiones el sistema alimentario occidental y el indígena. • Mayor divulgación de proyectos de gobierno, préstamos, cómo involucrarlos con el acceso a estos recursos que muchas veces no llegan a los pueblos indígenas. • Se solicita conocer COLMENA y otros programas del gobierno, quieren aportar sus conocimientos ancestrales. • Alinear a los bancos estatales para que sean creadas facilidades crediticias para pueblos indígenas. • Mayor presencia del Estado: El Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario, el Banco de Desarrollo Agropecuario, el Instituto de Investigación Agropecuaria y el Instituto de Mercadeo Agropecuario, sólo está presente en algunas comunidades. • Espacios en mercados nacionales para pueblos indígenas y mejorar su cadena de producción, distribución y venta. • Mejorar los métodos de siembra, respetando su cosmovisión. • Mayor participación de los pueblos indígenas en proyectos nacionales.2362382392442462502512- ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? • Seguridad alimentaria es un tema que requiere mayor compromiso sensibilidad por las autoridades, para incorporar la cosmovisión de los pueblos indígenas y actuar de manera efectiva. • Además de sembrar la tierra, producir los productos, se requiere aprovechar los conocimientos que los pueblos indígenas tienen, y seguir transmitiéndolo a futuras generaciones. Los pueblos indígenas reclaman la importancia de sus conocimientos sobre seguridad alimentaria. • Se requiere considerar la sostenibilidad en los procesos o programas que están desarrollando en su territorio, dado el riesgo de pobreza. • Promover el cultivo de productos orgánicos, garantizan la salud de las personas que los consumen. • Los pueblos indígenas trabajan con organizaciones para avanzar, continuamente se reúnen en la comunidad, y necesitan apoyo para seguir desarrollando sus actividades. • Actualmente, los pueblos indígenas cuentan con dos limitantes al comercializar productos orgánicos: transporte y la comercialización (no se da suficientemente el valor agregado de lo que es orgánico). • Necesitan el apoyo en cuanto al rol que juegan los intermediarios porque se quedan con gran parte del valor que debería llegar a los productores. • Dificultades para la comercialización de los productos. No poseen transportes para permitir que el producto llegue a las personas compradoras. Se podrían ampliar en cantidad la producción, pero el transporte supone un limitante. • Además de eso, subraya la importancia de la capacitación de los jóvenes sobre la producción para que el trabajo en la comarca siga adelante. • Se necesita considerar también los efectos de los cambios climáticas (invasiones de campesinos, las tierras se están degradando, entre otros) y eso influye en la salud de las mujeres y niños. Los programas tienen que ir de la mano de los pueblos. • Jóvenes están perdiendo el contacto con las tradiciones indígenas.2362402422472493-¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia de tierra y el agua? • Las políticas de la seguridad alimentaria requieren por parte de las instituciones que las elaboran, un mayor entendimiento de como los indígenas ven la seguridad alimentaria de sus pueblos. • El derecho a la tierra y la titulación constituyen una gran limitación para obtener los beneficios que ofrecen las instituciones. Esto ha traído durante muchos años serios conflictos con los campesinos, el gobierno y la empresa privada. • El acceso a la titulación de tierras ha sido imposibilitado por los trámites burocráticos que ejerce la Autoridad Nacional de Administración de Tierras. • La falta de acceso al crédito limita el desarrollo tecnológico, la producción y la seguridad alimentaria en los pueblos indígenas. • El transporte de volúmenes de alimentos hacia muchas comunidades indígenas ubicadas en orillas de los ríos y en las islas son demasiados altos y las poblaciones tienen pocos ingresos para comprar loa alimentos. • Debe existir políticas de seguridad alimentaria para que sean equitativas y transversales para los pueblos indígenas, de esta forma se reduciría la pobreza y la desnutrición. • No existen políticas de estado específicas para la seguridad alimentaria en los pueblos indígenas que le permita la participación y el bienestar a todos. • No cuentan con agencias del Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario para la asistencia técnica en la mayor parte de los territorios indígenas que ayudé a los productores en la producción de alimentos. • Consideran las políticas y programas de desarrollo del gobierno, empresa privada, y otros deben incorporar la herramienta universal del Criterio Libre Previo e Informado. • Las políticas públicas para los pueblos indígenas deben considerar sus modo y estilos de vida, dietas, preferencias alimentarias de la población.2362382392402492514- ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes? • Para garantizar la política pública en la seguridad alimentaria se debe partir por el cumplimiento de las leyes vigentes de los pueblos indígenas, que centran los principios rectores el respeto de las creencias, autonomía, forma de vida e idiosincrasia. Deben ser implementados mayores espacios de consulta con la comunidad y con las autoridades tradicionales y darle el reconocimiento a la sabiduría ancestral que debe aunarse con la tecnología y la innovación. • Es necesaria una política pública clara sobre seguridad alimentaria en Panamá, con mecanismos de seguimiento y una hoja de ruta participativa con las autoridades locales y tradicionales que considere el aporte, el fortalecimiento, creación de mecanismos de apoyo a las mujeres organizadas, que han vuelto a los cultivos tradicionales y que como administradoras del hogar son capaces de trabajar en el campo de la mano de sus compañeros para llevar una seguridad alimentaria sana la familia. • Debe evitarse que las áreas naturales sean invadidas por agentes de la industrialización que utilizan sustancias químicas que contaminan la tierra y que las bolsas de comida que entrega el gobierno sean compuestas de alimentos que son producidos de las propias comarcas. • Cualquier proyecto y programa que se implemente en los territorios comarcales deben cumplir con el derecho a la consulta y consentimiento previo libre e informado. • Crear redes comunitarias para trabajar organizadamente en los territorios indígenas y llegar con los programas y proyectos a los lugares de difícil acceso. • Fortalecer los consejos comarcales, fortalecer con la presencia de infraestructura institucional y personal que pueda articular con las autoridades locales. • Retomar el traspaso generacional a las mujeres jóvenes y los jóvenes acerca de los conocimientos ancestrales para tener familias fortalecidas con valores en cuanto a una buena alimentación significará en el tiempo jóvenes, niños, personas adultas mayores son fortalecidos, saludables y más longevos. • En cuanto a tema agrícola debe existir mayor claridad en cuanto a la participación de las mujeres y jóvenes, puesto que se ha entendido que estas actividades deben ser, en su mayoría, temas propios de los hombres. Las mujeres no únicamente tienen una mayor capacidad de organización en las comarcas indígenas, sino que son parte medular de las actividades agrícolas en las comunidades, por ejemplo, en Kusemi, en el sector de Kartí en Narajo Grande son áreas donde sobresalen el trabajo de la mujer en el agro.237241247El recurso agua es muy importante. Nos hablan de cuidar los recursos naturales, y que pasa con las hidroeléctricas en nuestros pueblos, estas crean conflictos sociales entre la población, gobierno y empresas. Existen proyectos hidroeléctricos en territorios indígenas de Bocas del Toro, la Comarca Ngäbe Bugle y de Madugandí, que han ocasionado muchos conflictos sobre la tierra, el agua, el bosque, y aún nuestros pueblos siguen luchan por obtener mejores beneficios.

2021-07-27 19:22:55205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15299/141

• La consulta se desarrolló siguiendo un enfoque participativo e inclusivo, con diversidad de grupos de interés vinculados a los diferentes procesos de los sistemas alimentarios, propiciando un espacio de discusión que generó un intercambio abierto entre los participantes. • Aprovechando las ventajas logísticas de los mecanismos virtuales de comunicación, la consulta se desarrolló en formato virtual, guiando el proceso mediante 4 preguntas orientadoras para obtener perspectivas diferenciadas por territorio. • La Consulta Subnacional de Colón fue auspiciada por la Viceministra Académica del Ministerio de Educación, S.E. Zonia Gallardo Smith, quien inauguró el evento y dio la bienvenida a los participantes.• El evento contó 80 actores de la cadena alimentaria de esta provincia, representando a instituciones públicas y privadas con presencia física en el área, tal como la Zona Libre de Colón, el Comité María Chiquita; cooperativas COOALAJUELA y COOPULAG; Fundación Etnia Negra, la Organización de Mujeres Viveristas y Voces de Mujeres Afropanameñas; organizaciones juveniles como Jóvenes de Achiote Repartiendo Esperanza, Jóvenes Haciendo la Diferencia y Juventud Emprendedora; entre otras.

Yes

234238239241242246247249251El objetivo de la Consulta Subnacional de Colón es determinar la futura dirección de sus sistemas alimentarios hacia la consecución de los ODS, explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030. Teniendo como base las vías de acción determinadas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios y grandes temas de interés nacional asociados con los sistemas alimentarios, se adopta las siguientes cuatro preguntas orientadoras que se han utilizado en todas y cada una de las sesiones de consulta realizadas. Las dos primeras hacen referencia a algunas acciones que se pudieran impulsar y nuestro papel como actores para avanzar hacía un sistema alimentario sostenible, mientras que las dos últimas tienen que ver con el abordaje de estos sistemas en las políticas públicas. Las preguntas orientadoras son: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? 2. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? 3. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los con􀂧ictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? 4. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes?235238239240241242243246248249250El sector alimentario puede contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional fortaleciendo la planificación incluyente de los sistemas alimentarios, utilizando mecanismos de diagnóstico de necesidades, como los censos de población y agropecuarios, que permitan analizar las poblaciones a escala desagregada en los territorios con el fin de crear incentivos para que los actores puedan coordinar su producción alimentaria de la manera más eficiente posible y que reduzca la volatilidad de los mercados internos. El marco de planificación debe fortalecer su sistema de monitoreo de políticas públicas para sistemas alimentarios con indicadores que permitan a la población. Adicionalmente, es muy importante que los actores manejen la mayor cantidad de información sobre las características de los sistemas alimentarios, oportunidades y riesgos en los mismos, y tecnologías disponibles para hacerlo lo más eficiente posible. Esto incluye servicios de capacitación técnica y sobre consumo de alimentos nutritivos. Los actores de los sistemas alimentarios coincidieron que para reducir el impacto negativo de los actuales procesos de procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios se necesita infraestructura para integrar a los diferentes actores y reducir los costos promedios del sistema total. Entre estos costos, los actores priorizan la necesidad de reducir la pérdida física de producción por ineficiencias de la cadena. Este trabajo también debe considerar la amenaza que representa el hábito de trabajo individual o aislado entre los productores de la provincia de Colón, que mantiene incentivos para no considerar externalidades negativas que afecten a otros actores de los sistemas. Las políticas públicas dirigidas a los sistemas alimentarios deben crear incentivos, basados en derechos humanos, como el derecho a la alimentación, que permitan el trabajo coordinado entre instituciones y el resto de los actores, a través de marcos legales coherentes que permitan la retroalimentación efectiva de todos los sectores (sociedad civil, gobierno, empresa, entre otros). Esta es la mejor manera como las políticas pueden contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en el país.236239241243246248249Pregunta guía 1: ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? • Implementando políticas para la producción, comercialización y consumo, que cree incentivos a los productores y compradores, fortaleciendo la agricultura familiar y modelos asociativos facilitando el acceso oportuno y saludables de alimento. • Diseñando e implementando un plan de trabajo integral de todas las instituciones que logren la caracterización de las necesidades de comunidades, con datos que centralicen las acciones prioritarias plan de trabajo integral, para lograr la integración de comunidades de forma territorial. • Empoderamiento la temática sobre seguridad alimentaria y nutricional (SAN) en temas territoriales, que incluya a la comunidad y autoridades locales. • Realizando un censo de población y vivienda y censo agropecuario, para conocer lo que se produce y la cantidad de población por lugar poblado, corregimiento, distrito y provincia. • Diseñar módulos de producción tipo clúster por grupo de población para que no todo el mundo produzca los mismos rubros al mismo tiempo (satura el mercado). • Establecer mercados locales para pobladores y visitantes. Vender productos a las escuelas. • Mejorar la curricular educativa que incluya en los temas agrícolas de producción y alimentación saludable, manejo de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos y reciclaje. • Capacitación constante y apoyo con seguimiento a los productores para formalizar sus registros legales y acompañarlos en los procesos que puedan considerar extensos y/o costosos. • Realizar un monitoreo cercano de las políticas públicas con distintos indicadores y dar seguimientos los diferentes Programas que se alcancen durante los destinos planes de Gobierno • Desarrollo de capacidades en gestión de proyectos con un acompañamiento que apoye el registro y sistematización de datos, generando una evaluación y socialización oportuna.236239240242244246249250Pregunta guía 2: ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? • El mercado es indispensable para intercambiar los productos, en el, los pequeños productores ponen a disposición sus productos para los consumidores. Sin embargo, en la Provincia de Colón, el acceso a los mercados es sumamente difícil, derivado, entre otros, a los elevados costos de transporte, así como los bajos precios que reciben los productores por sus cosechas (inestabilidad de precios). Esto hace que los pequeños productores encuentren dificultades para continuar produciendo y abasteciendo los mercados. • Es necesario ayudar a mitigar las pérdidas económicas y también de productos, que, entre otros, se debe pensar en cómo reducir la cadena de intermediarios y proveer de servicios y apoyo técnico a las diferentes cadenas. • Como mencionado anteriormente, derivado de las limitantes de acceso a mercados, es indispensable disponer de infraestructura y conocimiento técnico para almacenamiento de cosechas, sobre todo cuando no es posible vender al instante los productos, con lo cual se generarían pérdidas importantes. Por otro lado, Se debe fortalecer o priorizar con capacitación y educación para promover cambio de conducta y de hábitos de consumo a productos nacionales antes que importados, pero también aprovechar los subproductos de los procesos de transformación. Pensar en una economía circular para aprovechar los subproductos del procesamiento, con ello evitar los desperdicios y también generar oportunidades de empleo local. • La producción agropecuaria en la Provincia de Colón está en manos de productores que prefieren el trabajo individual y no organizado, en ese sentido, es preciso promover la organización de los productores en asociaciones y/u otros grupos de organización. • Es necesario cumplir con la aplicación de las normas y regulaciones, por ejemplo, para la explotación pesquera existe un vacío regulatorio, el cual requiere fortalecer las instituciones públicas responsables de su aplicación. • Transitar de únicamente producir a la transformación de productos por parte de organizaciones de productores, sobre todo de productos locales; para ello se requiere capacitación, innovación, inversión productiva, conexión con los mercados, entre otros. En ese sentido, los gobiernos locales deben trabajar en sistemas integrados de producción agrícola, acuícola y ambiental mediante, puede ser, incentivos a la producción agropecuaria. • En línea con el párrafo anterior, pensar en innovación rural implica robustecer el aspecto científico para el mejoramiento de la materia prima productiva (cultivares de alto rendimiento y adaptados climáticamente) destinado con enfoque de procesamiento, esto es, ofrecer al mercado lo que está dispuesto a comprar y consumir con lo cual se reducirían impactos negativos generados por la pérdida de alimentos y mejorar la eficiencia productiva desde un enfoque de sostenibilidad.236241242244246249Pregunta guía 3: ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera sería el reto para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes detenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? • Las existencias de áreas Protegidas y Reservas (Parque Nacional Chegres y Lago Alajuela y otras) creadas por Ley en Colón tiene consecuencias sobre los sistemas alimentarios en la producción de alimentos, así como en la tenencia de la tierra, y el uso de la tierra y el agua en la agricultura. • Las normativas (leyes) limitan el acceso formal al derecho a la tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra. • Dificultad para acceder a financiamiento por los agricultores que trabajan dentro de estas áreas. • Se requiere una nueva política pública a partir de las leyes existentes que rigen la materia de ambiente y que permita el acceso y uso a la tierra en beneficio de los agricultores de estas áreas. • Se debe permitir el uso de la tierra con innovaciones tecnológicas (agrotecnologías y de la agroecología) para la producción de alimentos en estas áreas especiales bajo el seguimiento del MIDA y MiAmbiente. • Los jóvenes por falta de oportunidades migran y uno de los factores que incide en ello es el poco acceso y derecho a la tierra y las restricciones en el uso agrícola en las áreas protegidas. • Se debe considerar el uso agrícola de la tierra bajo nuevas normas administrativas del Ministerio de Ambiente y la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá (ACP) con la aplicación de innovaciones tecnológicas. • Educación, producción, alimentación y consumo saludable. • Es necesario inculcar en las escuelas la importancia de producir alimentos saludables y consumo de los mismos para llevar una dieta saludable. Por ello la importancia de educar a los niños/niñas desde temprana edad. • Promover los huertos escolares a todos los niveles con actividades educativas para que los niños y niñas comprendan la importancia de la agricultura y la producción de alimentos. • Es necesario transformar los IPT-Agropecuarios al contexto actual de las innovaciones tecnológicas y los sistemas alimentarios a fin de que los jóvenes aprenden a desarrollar proyectos agrícolas y de transformación. • Enseñar a la población en el desarrollo de nuevos emprendimientos productivos (procesamiento, transformación, otros). • Promover la educación de la salud y la nutrición, y fortalecer el ambiente escolar. • Se requiere de más agroindustrias de procesamiento y transformación de la producción agrícola que fortalezcan los sistemas alimentarios y contribuyan al consumo de productos saludables. • Priorizar el cambio climático y sus efectos sobre la producción de alimentos y la alimentación. • Limitada infraestructura de producción para aprovechar el potencial y las ventajas que posee Colón con los puertos y conexión con la capital. • Es necesaria mayor infraestructura vial y portuaria (martítima) para incorporar y conectar áreas de producción al sistema alimentario. • Es necesario mejorar las cadenas de comercialización para que los productores obtengan mejores resultados en sus ventas. • Conflictos sobre el uso de la tierra • Las tierras no son explotadas en base al potencial agroecológico de las áreas lo que trae conflictos sobre el uso de la tierra. • Manifiestan que es importante la zonificación de cultivos para evitar los conflictos o reclamos que se dan por el desarrollo de actividades de producción no aptas de acuerdo al tipo de tierra. • Es necesario contar con políticas alimentarias que permitan a los habitantes del área de la cuenca del Parque Chagres producir con agrotecnología y poder insertarse a la producción. • Principales retos para la aplicación de las políticas • Revisión de las políticas de ambiente referentes a las áreas protegidas con la participación de los actores afectados. • Políticas públicas que aborden la situación actual de los sistemas alimentarios. • Atender la nueva ruralidad para vincular los territorios con los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS).236238241246248249251Pregunta guía 4: ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? Incentivar la agricultora orgánica para bajar costos. • Se requiere una ley marco, para la alineación del esfuerzo del estado a nivel horizontal y una articulación vertical de gobierno central con gobiernos locales. Esta ley debe involucrar y responsabilidad a todos los sectores (sociedad civil, gobierno, empresa, otros). • Alinear a las instituciones gubernamentales, gobiernos locales, empresas en el proceso de desarrollo en los territorios. • Reconocimiento formal y nominal del derecho a la alimentación • Sensibilizar a los tomadores de decisión en los temas nutricionales. • Sensibilizar a la población sobre los alimentos que deben consumir orientándolos para que consuman más sanos. • Aumentar el presupuesto a las instituciones (ACODECO) para dar seguimiento y continuidad a los programas (dar seguimiento a los comerciantes). • Reconocer las necesidades de cada población en los territorios, con enfoque de cultural. • Contar con proceso de ventanilla única con regulación de registros de pequeños productores. • Dar seguimiento y monitoreo al proceso productivo. • Mecanismos de mercados para que los precios de los productos bajen. Competencia y la soberanía alimentaria, producción local y accesibilidad de los productos. • Desburocratizar el proceso de adquisición alimentos del estado de los pequeños productores. Contar con ventanilla única. Contar con registros de pequeños productores agropecuarios. • Instalar mercados de calidad y más eficiente de manera accesible distancia y económicos. • Sensibilizar, capacitar y organizar a los pobladores y acercar a los productores con los consumidores estableciendo estrategia a través de ferias. • Educar y orientar a la población (estudiantes, padres de familias otros): Educación nutricional, comunicacional alimentaria (regular la publicidad de manera positiva orientando a la población como alimentarse). La población debe contar con información del nutriente de los productos que consumen a través de la orientación publicitaría. • Que la población tenga acceso a internet, que cuente con información que los oriente. • Acercar el mercado a la población, comercialización de los productos y contar con mecanismos estratégicos de mercado, ver la competencia y la soberanía alimentaria. • Contratar en los centros educativos nutricionista que den seguimiento a lo que consumen los niños • Incluir en los centros educativos educación alimentaria y conocimientos de elaboración de huertos y contar con programas de alimentación (vaso de leche, galleta y almuerzo) centros educativos públicas y privados. • Fortalecer las organizaciones comunitarias de mujeres y jóvenes e insertarlas en el proceso de desarrollo del territorio, que las mujeres puedan producir y comercializar sus productos. • Establecer convenios entre Red Nacional de Mujeres Rurales, Universidades e instituciones (INADEH)para que den asistencia a las mujeres, educación adulta. • Incluir a los grupos mujeres indígenas, asignándole proyectos con presupuestos y apoyar los proyectos con recursos económicos.

2021-07-27 19:48:05205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15319/141

Este diálogo fue el único que se realizó de manera presencial, debido a las dificultades en la comunicación de manera virtual. El diálogo tuvo un enfoque participativo e inclusivo, con diversidad de grupos de interés vinculados a los diferentes procesos de los sistemas alimentarios, propiciando un espacio de discusión que generaron un intercambio abierto entre los participantes. Para desarrollar el intercambio abierto entre los participantes del Diálogo se manejaron cuatro grandes temas (preguntas orientadoras) que fueron abordados en igual cantidad de mesas de trabajo, sobre la base de los 5 objetivos propuestos para la Cumbre. Los participantes contaron con 60 minutos para la discusión y debate. Al finalizar el debate se presentó la relatoría de cada una de las cuatro mesas. Cada diálogo contó con un administrador, facilitadores y relatores por mesa. Una vez finalizado el diálogo se pasó a la consolidación de los aportes recibidos para su incorporación en el formulario oficial de comentarios. La Consulta Nacional fue auspiciada por la Gobernadora de la Provincia de Bocas del Toro, Hon. Stella Stephenson, quien inauguró el evento y dio la bienvenida a los participantes.A raíz de la adopción de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible como guía para el impulso de las acciones del Estado, dirigidas a favorecer a aquellos que se han quedado atrás del desarrollo, se dio un impulso para asegurar la producción y disponibilidad de alimentos, garantizar la reducción del hambre, fomentando la seguridad alimentaria, mediante el compromiso y la participación del Gobierno, los organismos internacionales, los gremios y la sociedad. Además de desarrollar la seguridad alimentaria nacional con una política de soberanía alimentaria, el énfasis hasta el momento ha sido la reducción del hambre, la desnutrición y la mal nutrición en la población vulnerable, principalmente, la primera infancia, de acuerdo con el segundo Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible. Esto pasa por la preservación del ambiente, bajo un enfoque de prevención de la contaminación. De allí que ante el llamado a transformar los sistemas alimentarios realizado en el Día Mundial de la Alimentación (2019) por el secretario general de las Naciones Unidas y la convocatoria a una Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios a celebrarse en el 2021, se inició un proceso de articulación de esfuerzos entre las instituciones vinculadas al mensaje “como una familia humana y un mundo libre de hambre”. Esta Cumbre es una oportunidad para que Panamá pueda avanzar hacia el gran y ambicioso objetivo de contar con un sistema alimentario sostenible y será un importante catalizador que permitirá a través del diálogo realizado, retroalimentarse de las necesidades, opiniones y otros aportes transmitidos por todos los sectores convocados, contando así con insumos que permitan fortalecer, continuar, corregir o iniciar nuevas acciones que en forma de programas, políticas u otros instrumentos legales e institucionales se avance hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios.Si bien es cierto se contó con una amplia participación de diversos sectores de la sociedad en tanto actores de los sistemas alimentarios, como actividades concretas de seguimiento, se podrían organizar consultas con representantes de sectores específicos para contar con sus recomendaciones y aportes de acuerdo con la visión y el papel de ese sector o gremio en los sistemas alimentarios. Así entonces, se podrían organizar actividades con el sector de restaurantes, organizaciones de chefs, gremios de agroindustriales, comercializadoras de alimentos, supermercados, transportistas, por mencionar algunos.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249251La consulta subnacional de Bocas del Toro, tuvo como lema “Cerrando brechas para la seguridad alimentaria”. El objetivo principal era determinar la futura dirección de los sistemas alimentarios en Panamá, hacia la consecución de los ODS explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030 y situar al proyecto de Diálogos dentro del contexto de trabajo intersectorial que realizará el Gobierno Nacional y los actores de la cadena alimentaria nacional. Sobre la base de las cinco vías de acción definidas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 (1. Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 2. Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción favorable a la naturaleza 4. Promover medios de vida equitativos 5. Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades), se adoptó cuatro preguntas orientadoras. Las dos primeras preguntas hacen referencia a algunas acciones que se pudieran impulsar y nuestro papel como actores para avanzar hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible, mientras que las dos últimas tienen que ver con el abordaje de estos sistemas en las políticas públicas. Las preguntas orientadoras fueron: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? 2. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? 3. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? 4. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes?235240241242244245249251La Consulta Subnacional de Bocas del Toros obre los Sistemas Alimentarios, se realizó con éxito en Changuinola a fin de avanzar en la definición de las políticas públicas dirigidas a garantizar la alimentación adecuada de todo el país durante los próximos 10 años. Con la participación de 50 actores de la cadena alimentaria, se identificaron prioridades de cada uno de los eslabones del sistema como lo son la producción, recolección, elaboración, empaquetado, distribución, venta, almacenamiento, comercialización y consumo. La Gobernadora de Bocas del Toro, Stella Stephenson, expresó ante los participantes que todos los actores de la provincia necesitan trabajar activamente y de manera consensuada para que el sistema alimentario sea productivo, inclusivo, ambientalmente sostenible y resiliente a crisis como la experimentada durante la pandemia delCOVID-19. Entre los principales hallazgos surgidos en este Diálogo, destacan el interés de contar con políticas públicas dirigidas a fortalecer la producción, comercialización y las agroindustrias de alimentos. Implementar acciones para reducir la pérdida de alimentos. Favorecer y apoyar la agricultura familiar, el acceso a créditos de los pequeños productores. Inclusión en los sistemas alimentarios de mujeres y jóvenes. Sensibilizar a la población en general en temas de alimentación saludable. La protección del ambiente. Esta consulta, la única realizada de manera presencial, contó con la participación del Coordinador de la Oficina Subregional de FAO para Mesoamérica, Adoniram Sánchez, en representación del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas en Panamá. Sánchez reconoció el esfuerzo realizado por Panamá con el objetivo de presentar en septiembre, en la Cumbre Mundial sobre Sistemas Alimentarios de la ONU, un planteamiento claro y un acuerdo nacional sobre posibles soluciones ante desafíos como el cambio climático, el hambre y las formas de malnutrición como la obesidad.2362402412422452492502511. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? • Promover una política pública para que se pierdan menos productos. • Favorecer con incentivos a los agricultores de productos orgánicos. • Asistencia técnica sobre buenas prácticas de comercialización. • Facilitar acceso a créditos para emprendimientos de agricultores familiares. • Favorecer la agroindustria de plátano para obtener subproductos de valor agregado o procesados. • Las mujeres solicitan apoyo en transporte y logística para que puedan vender sus productos. • Gestión de un local para productores orgánicos de la provincia para venta y comercialización.2362392402442492. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? • Analizar los impactos ambientales y las medidas de adaptación para evitar pérdidas. • Evitar el uso de materiales inadecuados para el ambiente. • Mejorar la red de transporte de productos. • Fortalecer las bases legales para establecer programas según áreas de producción. • Realizar capacitaciones para que los productores eviten el uso de agroquímicos e incluir al sistema educativo para mejorar conocimientos sobre nutrición desde edades tempranas. • Capacitar a las mujeres para que participen activamente en la promoción del consumo de alimentos más sanos para los niños desde edades tempranas. • Identificar oportunidades para la innovación en la comercialización de productos. Promover intercambio de experiencias en buenas prácticas de producción.2362412422442462492513. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? • Preparar y capacitar desde la niñez en temas de alimentación y nutrición. • Orientar a los productores de áreas rurales en la venta y comercialización de sus productos. • Acompañar a los productores en cada provincia en la titulación de sus tierras y mejorar efectividad del proceso. • Establecer políticas de emergencia ante los fenómenos naturales. • Fomentar alcance del crédito para las mujeres productoras de huertos familiares. • Fomentar mayor participación en las políticas de las organizaciones con base comunitaria.2362382392442472492514. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes? • Sensibilizar desde la niñez sobre temas de alimentación adecuada y saludable. • Fomentar la educación en innovación en el área agrícola para dar paso a la juventud de continuar el legado en la carrera agropecuaria. • Garantizar la calidad del producto que se comercializa. • Integrar a los jóvenes y adultos mayores de las familias productoras para el intercambio de cultura productiva y de consumo en el hogar. • Incluir con ayuda de herramientas y fondos semilla a aquellas familias que deseen participar del sistema con sus huertos familiares y no cuentan con recursos. • Considerar el rol de las mujeres y jóvenes como protagonistas valiosos del sistema alimentario por lo que requieren más confianza y espacios de participación. • Mejorar y promover los procesos de transporte para garantizar que los productos lleguen de manera óptima a sus destinos.

2021-07-27 22:14:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35557/198

2822061315152128121114

El dialogo fue convocado por la Organización Alpargata Solidaria conformada por actores del Poder Popular Organizado para realizar un encuentro para contextualizar sobre la Cumbre de los Sistema Alimentarios que se llevara a cabo en el mes septiembre, a fin de debatir y acordar la realización de encuentros posteriores desde los territorios y con los actores y ejecutores de las experiencias exitosas. Para ello se convocaron a diferentes organizaciones populares quienes compartirán sus experiencias y debatirán sus aportes donde hay elementos comunes en el campo y en la ciudad, Impulsando la articulación entre las organizaciones para ir creando redes de intercambio y construcción colectiva.El dialogo se presento con la intención de dar a conocer la diversidad de aportes que presentan cada uno de los sectores urbanos y agrícolas, que convergen en un objetivo central mejorar la salud y el bienestar de las personas, respetando las opiniones y conociendo la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios.Es importante el aporte de todos los sectores involucrados en los sistemas alimentarios para la construcción de las políticas públicas de un país.

Yes

234238239240241242243245246248249251Experiencias validadas en los diversos territorios desde la producción, transformación, compras colectivas y comercialización, respetando los hábitos alimentarios y la capacidad de compra del pueblo, ofreciendo alimentos a un precio justo basado en la soberanía alimentaria. Debatir los distintos planteamientos para la construcción de los sistemas alimentarios de nuestro país. Son prácticas desde las organizaciones de Comunas quienes presentan las actividades que realizan para su sustentabilidad. Con enfoque de Resiliencia desde lo productivo, comunicacional, lo territorial, defensa integral y lo continental, basados en el tejido social con personas provenientes de Venezuela y del Continente, destacándose que se viene construyendo una dinámica productiva, donde las organizaciones se adaptaron y transformaron pasando de ser cultores a productores primarios.235238239240241242244248251Las organizaciones populares son los actores principales y deben participar y hacer presencia en la convocatoria de los diálogos que son a nivel mundial sobre sistemas populares. En este dialogo con actores del poder popular, las organizaciones están compartiendo sus conocimientos desde sus experiencias para su fortalecimiento, hay elementos comunes en el campo y en la ciudad, por ello deben impulsar la articulación entre las organizaciones haciendo que el pueblo se empodere y ayude a crear espacios de desarrollo sostenible. Durante el bloqueo los campesinos y campesinas han logrado colocar sus alimentos sanos y soberanos gracias al pueblo productor.236238239240241242244247251Entre las conclusiones principales esta la alianza entre las organizaciones del poder popular para el fortalecimiento del tejido social y el intercambio de experiencias entre las mismas, realizando formaciones, acompañamiento y avanzada en las comunas interesadas para la activación, el acceso y el consumo de alimentos soberanos. Asociación Civil Casa de Cronopios: Durante la pandemia se activo el trabajo con adolescentes para incorporarlos a la experiencia productiva, siendo exitosa la iniciativa. Comité de Lucha de Propatria: Comida sana no transgénica, que sea el mismo pueblo trabajando en la economía agroalimentaria. Comuna 5 de Marzo: Sirve de enlace entre las comunas rurales demostrando como se crea la economía comunal, así también se minimiza la cadena de intermediarios. De igual forma trabajan el tema formativo cuentan con personas desplegadas a nivel nacional en alianza con otras comunas, con producción en el área pesquera (Parroquia Valle- Caracas y estado Carabobo) incorporando jóvenes a esta labor trabajando con técnicas artesanales, y producción caprina (En Aragua- Ocumare de la Costa). Comunal El Maizal: Están ubicados entre los Edos. Portuguesa y Lara, son 24 consejos comunales, 12 Empresas de producción Social, 96 Unidades de Producción Familiar, 1 Banco comunal. El objetivo es ser autosustentable en cada uno de los territorios para ello se articulan con otras comunas. Son parte de la unión comunera. Buscan traspasar a producción Agroecológica. Comuna 5 de marzo: Concluye que hay que transcender desde lo local a lo nacional, las alianzas con productores de zonas cercanas son necesarias en este momento, se realiza intercambios de producción, así se benefician todos del alimento. Apostamos a la sustentabilidad. Es necesario no depender del gobierno, debemos apoyar la comuna. Alpargata Solidaria: La articulación adecuada elimina o reduce los intermediarios en la cadena agroalimentaria. Es una experiencia que desde hace 8 años conforman 181 familias, en ese mismo tiempo se enlazan con organizaciones como Pueblo a Pueblo y la feria conuquera para la articulación y llevar alimentos frescos y soberanos a las comunidades. Posteriormente con CECOCESOLA, la central de cooperativas ubicada en Lara, se ha logrado arrimar 4 toneladas de alimentos mensualmente, haciendo el ejercicio de eliminar la cadena intermediaria. Es una comunidad que funciona como una cooperativa de consumo como la Cooperativa Unidos San Agustín Convive. Nos hemos problematizado la forma de alimentarnos y a partir de eso también como pasar de ser solo consumidores a revisar cómo ser una comunidad productora, estamos en la etapa y el ejercicio de compra colectiva a la Comuna el Maizal. Aún tenemos muchos desafíos, creemos que la Unión Comunera hace una convocatoria pertinente al momento que vivimos en el país. La Minka: Colectivo con 5 ejes de trabajo: productivo, comunicacional, territorial, defensa integral y continental. Enfocados en el tejido social con personas provenientes de Venezuela y otros países del Continente, establecieron un conglomerado de Panaderías que debían tributar a un proyecto integral comunitario con la finalidad de generar sus propios procesos e impulsar el funcionamiento de un comedor popular Haciendo fuerza para pegar contra la pared a nuestros adversarios, como aplicamos el golpe de timón y avanzamos. Acuerdos • Potenciar la articulación de las organizaciones que formaron parte del dialogo y sumar otras para fortalecer el tejido social productivo. • Incorporar a los adolescentes a las experiencias comuneras productivas como centros de formación –recreación donde puedan invertir el tiempo libre que genera la pandemia por Covid 19. Avanzar en la implementación de intercambio entre mercados locales de producción de alimentos para la generación de la economía local. • Conformar redes de intercambio de experiencia e intercambio productivo237238239240241242244247251No hubo areas de divergencia, ya que se logro acuerdos en colectivo

2021-07-28 22:04:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32339/304446144

081012176712275421114622

Este diálogo de y para los jóvenes ha comenzado con una cálida bienvenida. Esto ha permitido generar un ambiente confiable y seguro. Asimismo, la maestra de ceremonias indicó que el respeto y la escucha del otro es importante y que en caso de no llevarse a cabo ello, se optará por sacar a la persona de la sala. También se solicitó permiso para filmar la sesión y se indicó que los nombres y la información brindada será para la sistematización. Por otro lado, para analizar la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios se dividió a los participantes en mesas temáticas bajo el enfoque de nuestro diálogo "Juventudes, Liderazgo y Alimentación en Latinoamérica", quienes además fueron elegidas por su experiencia profesional y para tener un grupo multidisciplinario.Esto se pudo evidenciar en los perfiles de los participantes porque a partir de su multidisciplinariedad se hizo posible abordar la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios. Los resultados, aciertos y desafíos identificados han sido posible a través de la escucha activa, el respeto por la opinión de otros, desde la guía de los facilitadores en cada una de las 3 mesas. Cada una tenía entre 4 a 7 personas, lo cual permitió un diálogo con bastante participación. Por otro lado, la presentación por parte de los facilitadores y de los participantes ha generado un espacio de confianza.

Yes

234239240241248249251El tema principal del diálogo fue juventudes porque desde Thought For Food consideramos que nuestro rol y el avance hacia sistemas alimentarios inclusivos, resilientes y sostenibles son complementarios. Esto a partir del liderazgo que se puede tener desde la juventud y los nuevos hábitos de alimentación que tenemos. Por ello el diálogo se basó en las siguientes tres temáticas: 1. El empleo en el sector agropecuario desde una perspectiva juvenil 2. Jóvenes frente a la gestión de la seguridad alimentaria 3. Sistema alimentarios frente a la lucha contra el Cambio Climático235239240241247249251.2362392402412472482492511. El empleo en el sector agropecuario desde una perspectiva juvenil -Incentivar los procesos de formaciones y capacitaciones agrícolas eficaces según necesidades y comunidades. - Mejorar la asesoría frente a facilitación de información y trámites que requieren las políticas públicas para la certificación de las empresas locales. - Crear plataformas de venta de productos agrícolas que sean accesibles y comprensible, como también para el repartimiento de estos a nivel LATAM. - Incluir dentro de los centros educativos y en nuestros comedores la difusión de información sobre las prácticas agrícolas que fueron necesarias para tener el alimento en la mesa. - Brindar capacitaciones al campesino sobre cómo transformar su producto, para ello se propone crear una agencia de capacitaciones que tengan como finalidad el empoderamiento y la visibilidad de la agricultura y sus actores. - Se requiere trabajar con los padres porque muchas veces son quienes no apoyan las decisiones de sus hijos cuando se trata del sector agropecuario. 2. Jóvenes frente a la gestión de la seguridad alimentaria - Capacitar a jóvenes mediante programas, proyectos y alianzas para generar propuestas y colectivos que luchen por el logro de la seguridad alimentaria. -Concientizar y visibilizar más los emprendimientos locales porque permiten valorizar los productos por medio de la financiación gubernamental del sector Agro en la región. - Visibilizar iniciativas existentes a nivel nacional o regional desde los colectivos de jóvenes. - Generar intercambios con áreas agrícolas y jóvenes que se están formando desde las universidades, los colegios u otros espacios de formación. -Incluir a los niños y niñas en la formación de seguridad alimentaria desde la generación de material o en las unidades educativas. 3. Sistema alimentarios frente a la lucha contra el Cambio Climático -Es importante abordar el cambio climático con justicia social, medioambiental y equilibrio económico en las practicas de empresas, con la inclusión de diferentes poblaciones, juventud, cadena productiva y suministro en el marco del fortalecimiento de las políticas publicas de cada país. -Educación en agricultura y nutrición dirigida a población vulnerable, consumidores, población en general, productores, campesinos, entidades privadas, proveedores. -Empoderar a las personas desde la perspectiva de autosuficiencia para incentivar la generación de cambio que se esta buscando dentro de una agricultura sostenible. -Involucramiento de todos sectores, poblaciones, actores de cadena productiva. -La juventud e infancia como actores clave para que la población tenga acceso a conocimiento y generación de cambio en aspectos asociados con agricultura, producción sostenible, nutrición.237239240241248249251-La subvención de precios no es un proceso muy viable en el sector de comercialización, no es funcional a largo plazo, no es sostenible. -La única área de divergencia fue si el género era una distinción que afectara la garantía de la seguridad alimentaria para los jóvenes.

2021-07-28 22:22:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20194/44

2261428142200

Yes

2021-07-29 09:10:29205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35048/39

160

This event was organized online but with the same formal agenda as the Technical Working Group for Food Security and Nutrition has previously observed. The dialogue took the form of formal speeches from the senior officials present and short reports on progress and the draft roadmap. Provision was made for Q and A in the agenda. Materials were widely circulated in advance with opportunity for all participants to submit comments on the draft either in advance of the meeting or subsequent to the meeting.The dialogue event reflected the urgency to act and also the formal requirements for government endorsement that are required for official recognition of the outcomes.To act in accordance with the established architecture for development management within the country and respect the formalities that may be required to engage at high level in political dialogue.

NoThis event was curated as a formal meeting of the Technical Working Group for food Security and Nutrition under the Chairmanship of HE Yim Chhay Ly, Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of CARD. This meant that the curation was formal. Provision was made for participants to submit feedback in writing prior to the event and also for comments to be made in a Q&A session during the event. This procedure was necessary for formally endorsement of the draft roadmap and the statement prepared for presentation a the Pre-Summit.

234246249The focus of the meeting was to report progress with the national dialogues, to present a draft statement for the Pre-Summit and for a formal statement to be made in relation to these items in terms of acceptance and endorsement or for refinement of the statement as necessary. The event provided an opportunity for high level statements on behalf of the Technical Working Group, including Deputy Minister as Chairman, the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Co-Leads for the Development Partners.235239240242245246249251The key findings are reflected in the statements made by the high level participants and in the endorsement of the draft statement to be presented at the Pre-Summit. The outcomes are reflected in the recommendations of the DPM which included: 1. Request the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, representative of the Royal Government, which will be attending the pre-summit meeting of Summit on the Food Systems, which is scheduled to be organized by the United Nations on 26-28 July 2021 in Rome, Italy, to use the Roadmap on Sustainable Food Systems in Cambodia, since this Roadmap includes significant numbers of inputs from representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as well as from other relevant ministries and institutions in relation to the food system process in Cambodia. 2. Request the meeting to review and give comments on the draft report on the progress of the National Dialogue on Food Systems and the draft Roadmap on Sustainable Food Systems in Cambodia towards 2030 before sending them to the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development for preparation and submission to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. 3. Following the Pre-Summit on Food Systems, which is scheduled on 26-28 July 2021 in Rome, request His Excellency Sok Silo, Convener of the National Dialogue on the Food Systems, to further cooperate with relevant ministries and institutions at the sub national level, development partners, civil society organizers, the private sector to review and revise the Roadmap on the Sustainable Food Systems in Cambodia towards 2030 to prepare for the Summit of the UN member states on Food Systems, scheduled for the upcoming September. 4. Request the development partners, the United Nations agencies, civil society organizers and the private sector, to further support the Royal Government in implementing this Roadmap through the provision of finance or credits and technical assistance for the implementation of the short-term plan from now to 2025. 5. Request for further strengthening the capacity of the Secretariat of the Joint Technical Working Group on Food Security and Nutrition, and of relevant ministries and institutions to implement the six recommendations of Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia in the inauguration ceremony to officially launch the implementation of the Second National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition 2019-2023 as stated in Notification no. 934 dated 20 October 2020 of the Office of the Council of Ministers. 6. Request for further building human resource capacity at all levels, promoting the use of information communication technology system, promoting gender and participation of youth and vulnerable groups, providing them with decent employment opportunities to improve their livelihoods and the food systems for human beings and the world to get healthier and become more prosperous. In addition, HE Veng Sakhon, the Minister for MAFF, recommended the following: His Excellency Minister has expressed his support for the draft Roadmap on “Sustainable Food System for Cambodia by 2030” in order to further strengthen the food system in Cambodia. His Excellency Minister has also provided recommendations and inputs for the working group with the following contents: First, jointly implement the Agriculture Development Policy 2021-2030, continue to promote good agricultural practices “GAP”, establish GAP farms/GAP farming communities, contractual agricultural production. Second, increase productivity, diversify, agricultural processing and commercialization; use of green technologies, climate-smart technologies; increase productivity and efficiency of land, water and genetic resources; and provide advanced agricultural extension and consulting services. Third, increase the construction of agricultural support infrastructure (water, roads, electricity and finance) and increase low-interest agricultural credit as well as consider food security for vulnerable farmers with small sized land. Fourth, engage in concerted activities to ensure the sustainable food security and food supply system in the world and in each region and country, by mitigating technical barriers and requirements and agribusiness through the implementation of the concept of “Food supply without borders) ”and establishment of a global food storage and reserve system, both regionally and locally as well as in communities, and of food security information management system. Fifth, collaborate and implement Future Smart Food by examining high-nutrition products such as beans, green leafy vegetables, fruits and tubers, essential fruits, meat, fish, eggs, milk and locally sourced forest products. His Excellency Minister has expressed his sincere hope before all relevant inter-institutional organizations including other working groups of working together on this Roadmap in order to achieve the main goals for our nation and thereby ensuring food security and nutrition with quality, safety and for the well-being of all people in line with the saying, “The worries of the people are those of the head of the Royal Government.”236238241242244246249251Draft Ministerial Statement for Cambodia by H.E. Dr. Hean Vanhan, Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Head of Cambodian Delegation to the Pre Food System Summit I would like to share in brief outline, our proposed national commitment and roadmap for achieving sustainable food system by 2030. Our vision is that: By 2030, all Cambodians will have access to healthy diets and safe food, with an initial focus on women and children to break the intergenerational cycle of malnutrition and attention to the nutrition transition. Food systems will nourish Cambodia’s population, strengthen local production and distribution, offer equitable livelihoods, be resilient to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses, steward the environment, and help mitigate the effects of climate change by shifting the system towards green growth. This vision will be achieved by expanding access to health and nutrition services, social assistance and education, and ensuring that agriculture and food value chains are productive, sustainable, support healthy diets and provide job opportunities for the poor and vulnerable. A major driver for advancing agricultural production and food systems in Cambodia lies in innovation, and investments for digitization and modern technologies across the food system. Four specific priorities have emerged from the National Food Systems Dialogues: 1. Healthy diets for all: Cambodia will work across key sectors to ensure that healthy diets and safe foods are accessible to all. Achieving this objective requires multi-sectoral action to address all forms of malnutrition - including through the expansion of access to health and nutrition services; consumer awareness and education; diverse, inclusive and competitive food value chains; healthy food environments and food safety; clean water, sanitation and good hygiene; and the provision of social assistance. 2. Youth empowerment and social transformation: Cambodia will work towards the creation of job opportunities for youth in food systems, aiming for gender equality, decent employment, the elimination of child labour and equipping youth to become agents of change. 3. Resilient livelihoods and food systems: Cambodia will address chronic and compounding vulnerabilities to strengthen resilience to shocks and stresses, and to adapt to and mitigate climate change, natural disasters or extreme events. 4. Governance for a more inclusive food system: Cambodia will continue to open the door for multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral collaboration, to make planning and implementation processes more inclusive and participatory at both national and sub-national level. There is a need for continuing dialogue to deepen the understandings and discuss the trade-offs that have surfaced. In addition to some gaps, there are also opportunities to go further with the pursuit of common and strategic interests. We are moving forward in accordance with the instructions of the Deputy Prime Minister, H.E. Yim Chhay Ly, Chairman of the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development and H.E. Veng Sakhon, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to continue with the dialogues, to finalise the roadmap and to provide the technical assistance and support to implement the roadmap. We look forward to the outcomes of this Pre-Summit and to the Summit itself, in progressing coalitions of interest, such as with ASEAN and other trading partners, and for the management of cross-border issues and common interests. We must work in an inclusive and participatory manner, across stakeholders, sectors, and at national and sub-national levels, for the elimination of hunger, poverty reduction and sustainable development, ensuring that no one is left behind.

Add one file attachment2021-08-14 04:23:23https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DPM-Speech-English_2.docx

2021-07-29 16:45:04205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16400/44

5610301627295111411015956142326

La organización del Diálogo en la región de Ñuble tuvo como referencia el diálogo nacional en cuanto al tema principal y los subtemas se priorizaron los atingentes a nuestra región a través de una reunión con la Mesa Intersectorial Elige Vivir Sano.El Diálogo de la región de Ñuble abordó de forma directa e indirecta los 6 principios de actuación de la Cumbre, porque desde la convocatoria al equipo colaborador como también a los participantes, nuestro objetivo fue aportar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. De tal forma de generar reflexiones en torno a los Sistemas Alimentarios desde diferentes miradas y experiencias locales y regionales.En relación a la convocatoria es muy importante considerar el enfoque inclusivo para asegurar un diálogo enriquecido con la mirada de diferentes actores ya sea de los servicios públicos, empresas sociedad civil, academia entre otros. Es un desafío que demanda mayor tiempo en la organización pero que en el caso de Ñuble nos generó resultados muy interesantes con una mirada intersectorial.

Yes

234238239240244246248249250Se trabajó en los siguientes subtemas por grupos: • Sistemas Alimentarios, Programas Alimentarios, y Educación. • Sistemas Alimentarios y su Impacto en la Salud Física y Mental. • Acceso Económico a Alimentos Sanos y Nutritivos Para Todos y Todas. • Producción Sostenible y con Respeto a La Naturaleza. • Rol de las Ferias Libres, Mercados Locales y Mercados Campesinos. • La Industria en los Sistemas Alimentarios235238239241244246249• NECESIDAD DE MEJORAR LA EDUCACIÓN ALIMENTARIA: Se establece que en el contexto escolar, no se encuentra incorporado en el currículo el conocimiento práctico respecto agroalimentación, por ejemplo, conmemoran hitos o celebraciones con alimentos con alto contenido de azúcar. Se establece que hay falta capacitación en alimentación saludable y aún se mantiene venta de alimentos con elevado contenido de azúcar y grasas en perímetro cercano a escuelas y centros de salud. También falta educación de los beneficios de la alimentación saludable y patrones alimentarios saludables de las familias. Existen pocos espacios en los contextos educativos para enseñar y aprender sobre la producción de alimentos y procesos alimentarios. Es difícil integrarlos como parte de la vida.. • BAJA COBERTURA DE PROGRAMAS DE VIDA ACTIVA Y ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE: para poder abarcar a mayor población con problemas de malnutrición por exceso, combatir la obesidad y mala salud física y mental, relacionados al consumo elevado de azúcar. Falta posicionamiento de programas de alimentación saludables, en centros de salud y educación, ya que faltan recursos para estos programas. También se concluye falta de conocimiento de la población respecto de preparaciones saludables y falta de promoción sobre el consumo de pescados y mariscos. Brecha cultural frente a la producción domiciliaria de frutas y verduras, la que suele ser más visible en los jóvenes. • ESCASO APOYO A LOS PEQUEÑOS AGRICULTORES Y PEQUEÑAS EMPRESAS AGROALIMENTARIAS: se señala que los pequeños agricultores no tienen herramientas y sus volúmenes de producción hacen complejo que puedan acceder a grandes mercados y licitaciones. Las empresas concesionarias compran a grandes productores. Falta de estrategias desde el Estado y/o autoridades locales para el apoyo/incentivos y permisos de productores locales de frutas y verduras. Se sostiene que se podría explotar más algunos productos locales, lugares para comercialización y precios. • SE PRESENTAN ALGUNOS DESAFIOS PARA EL SISTEMA ALIMENTARIO DE LA REGIÓN: 1.- Participantes señalan que predomina el mono cultivo, con agroquímicos lo que potencialmente podría afectar la salud de las personas. 2.- Carencia de recurso hídrico en la región, también a nivel país, que afecta directamente al sistema productivo y alimentario. 3.-Población envejecida en el sector rural. 4.-Falta planificación del territorio u ordenamiento territorial. 5.- Contaminación del agua de riego en ciertos valles. 6.-Desconocimiento de prácticas agrícolas o silvoagropecuarias sostenibles por los productores. 8.- Falta de una mirada integral del predio. • LIMITADO ACCESO FÍSICO Y ECONÓMICO A ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES: Se plantea que el factor económico y falta de locales de comida saludable hace más difícil acceder a los alimentos como frutas y verduras, especialmente en zonas rurales, ya que hay falta de movilización y conectividad y existe una dificultad de acceso a comprar por precios elevados en negocio locales. Las familias priorizan consumir alimentos menos saludables como bebidas, alimentos procesados y altos en azúcares que son más baratos y tienen mayor marketing. También se plantea que se han dejado de consumir las legumbres por diversos factores. El acceso es más difícil en la población vulnerable, agravado en pandemia, ya que las cuarentenas han afectado el acceso y asistencia a ferias, y han afectado el acceso a productos del mar, a pesar de la presencia que estos tienen en la costa de la región.236238239240241243244245249Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: • FORTALECER LAS REDES COMUNITARIAS E INTERSECTORIALIDAD EN LA REGIÓN: organizaciones sociales, municipios, colegios, programas de gobierno, sector privado. Invitar a líderes comunitarios a participar en diálogos de sistemas alimentarios, aumentando así espacios para dialogar. Reactivar mesas de trabajo sumando a las autoridades de agricultura, actores locales, juntas de vecinos, municipalidades, representantes de la sociedad civil, para tomar decisiones del Gobierno en conjunto con las comunidades. Generar alianza público-privado, con el objetivo de aprovechar alimentos que de otra forma se pierden y articular departamentos municipales de educación, salud y comité ambiental en sistemas alimentarios • LEVANTAR DATOS TERRITORIALES sobre hábitos alimentarios, y organizaciones productivas que existen para organizar los territorios del sistema alimentario de acuerdo a sus necesidades. Realizar diagnósticos participativos con la comunidad en cada sector, para identificar necesidades y poder adecuar las políticas públicas a cada realidad local. Realizar un análisis de las fortalezas de las ferias libres con los diferentes sectores y actores para identificar posibles mejoras y oportunidades • CREAR ESTRATEGIA REGIONAL Y COMUNAL: Ordenar y crear una estrategia regional y comunal de producción sostenible a corto plazo. Se sugiere que sea un proceso participativo con todo el sector público y actores locales de la comunidad, que considere buenas prácticas agrícolas, como la agroecología. • MÁS OPORTUNIDADES PARA PEQUEÑOS AGRICULTORES Y PEQUEÑAS EMPRESAS AGROALIMENTARIAS: por ejemplo, buscar un terreno o lugar que asigne el municipio o bienes nacionales para montar una feria 1 o 2 veces por semana, para que los campesinos, productores, comercio local puedan exponer sus productos.Otro ejemplo es que se formen asociaciones de pequeños productores o empresas para que exista mayor posibilidad de comercializar con los distintos mercados, y realizar capacitaciones o talleres para favorecer estas agrupaciones, así como su formalización. Fomentar las compras locales y públicas a estos pequeños productores • EDUCAR A TODO NIVEL: sobre alimentación, salud, producción para las familias, productores, niños, niñas y adolescentes. Formar líderes comunitarios, en escuelas y organizaciones sociales que promuevan hábitos saludables. Potenciar la comunicación y difusión de las experiencias locales sobre producción y alimentación, los huertos comunitarios en los colegios y en los hogares y la educación de alimentación saludable y sistemas alimentarios para profesores. • FOMENTAR LA PRODUCCIÓN SOSTENIBLE cuidando los recursos hídricos, integrando reciclaje domiciliario y la producción domiciliaria de alimentos, considerando técnicas como la agroecología o la cosecha de agua.237238239240244246249La educación de manera transversal se ve como una necesidad y solución en varios aspectos relacionados con los sistemas alimentarios, que incluyen desde la producción sostenible, hasta el consumo de alimentos saludables por medio de hábitos o incorporados desde la cultura, ya que por ejemplo, si bien hay programas en el sector escolar que fomenta el consumo de alimentos saludables y nutritivos, no se sigue el ejemplo al momento de hacer actividades escolares, donde se prefieren productos altos en azúcares o calorías en los mismos establecimientos. Entre los temas mencionados, pero que hay que seguir analizando a profundidad, está la escasez de agua en la región, que produce un gran impacto para la producción de alimentos. Se indica que los sistemas productivos deben ser más sostenibles y que se masifiquen técnicas, como la agroecología o la cosecha de agua, entre otras, como una solución a la escasez del recurso.

2021-07-29 18:33:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31404/1214283236373840424347485056586264656768727376808198105106107111112115118119125126128134135153159161163164169170171174182185189193201202

164486102443124642

The core activities of our institutions are directly committed to the Summit principles: Make sure our food systems work or take the road to where they should go. In practical terms we also had people specifically staff assigned to take care of the dialogues preparation tasks. Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, build trust - These are part of our code of conduct and we made sure to communicate with respect and look after each other. Our dialogue was co-organized by two fundations, which shows that working together is paramount for us. We are not alone and need to join forces to find the solutions needed for changes.We have dedicated a lot of time and effort to follow standard procedures, participating at training sessions, reading the manual, reference, and social tool kit to ensure we could achieve the level of details and complexities required to follow the Principals. We counted with the expertise of our advisors and colleagues from the African continent to made sure we focused not only on the problem, but with people who are already working on the solution, to deliver an actual dialogue instead of a lecture/webinar.Partially, by researching other dialogues information to understand in detail the practice. We could see the principles could be achieved by being inclusive and creating a safe space for discussion, as per the principles of engagement. It is also important to remark we have co-convened the dialogue together with the Social Gastronomy Movement that hosted other dialogues and were very important to granting adherence to the principles.

Yes

234238239240245246247248251Despite its huge agricultural potential, Africa spends around US$35bn each year on food imports. Our dialogue highlighted the importance of food and nutrition for women and girls worldwide. We could have a comprehensive exploration of the following major focus of the dialogues were: (i) Changing the face of agriculture - tenchnology and innovation (ii) The role of women and youth on job creation (iii) Investiment in African business The event brought together a good range of stakeholders, including civil society groups, those from the private sector, , regional, and international bodies. The dialogue was curated by Lady Mariéme Jamme, founder and CEO of iamtheCODE and iamtheFOOD and Nicola Gryczka, Co-Founder and Orchestrator of The Social Gastronomy Movement (SGM).2352392412452462482492511st - FOOD WASTE In the developing world the main problem is about leftovers. In the developed world excess shopping, people overbuying and not consuming In some countries waste happens in the farms, for example: When there is excessive production of tomatoes but there isn’t enough store space, or trucks for distribution to take to sale, these tomatoes are thrown away, and we see waste while people is hungry not even miles from this farm. One way to tackle this is processing food: if there were facilities to dry, cut, pack and send to supermarkets for consumers to buy. However there are basic Issues such as lack of electricity. How can developing countries can compete with the packaging, and all details requested by the market? Huge cost to meet the standards, also design is important to attract consumers. 2nd - SKILLS Ministry of Agriculture talks to many investing companies. Governments are ready to offer them tax breaks, and incentives to invest in the country, but many companies still say NO to these benefits because they do have money and big processing facilities. However they wanted trained and skilled people to work there for them. And many times they invest in a country and have to import talents, and how to achieve this? There are few agronomists, people who see the images of a satellite, to make sure the land is ok. The agro-tech business needs this, people who have studied a particular set of skills. Young people don’t want to get involved until we change the image of agriculture, show it is indeed attractive. We have to show this side and dissociate from only brutal and manual work. Government and UN could provide scholarships focusing on that. 3rd - INVESTMENT We spoke about the power of capital. There are huge investments being done, unfortunately we find that the money goes to people who are not african people.236238239240243244245246248250251Channeling the right Investment / Women as the driving force of our Food Systems How do we help women entrepreneurs to create jobs? - Create an obligation to have shelf space in big distributors such as Carrefour, Wholefood, being able to take it to the world without having to be a fight everytime. - Targeted investments, creating jobs, and all that comes with it The current and sad truth is that nor even 10% if national budgets goes to agriculture - University to create more agritech courses - When talking about private sector, should include LOCAL private sector to empower them, only the locals know how they will target sustainability. Trade balance statistics (More imports than exports) How can african-Americans can learn about how to invest in Africa? What kind of business can a rich person invest in and help? Make sure to talk to African people who is taking care of the businesses Share the steps of what is being done in africa in America, for exemple organised tours in these communities, have these them showing what they want and like, so they can go back and produce what the market wants Shared journeys of transformation Open investment or Real purpose of economy Power of capital, intersection of culture, storytelling, investment236239240242243245246248250The Continents Super Foods What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? -Engage and include major corporations to support local impact -Make sure the supply follows the demand What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? - The Food System needs to be changed since it’s an uphill battle and the United Nations needs to know where the battle is. - Provide investment and technology - Corporates need to be part of the solution. - Support small entrepreneurs who do not know how to add value to their products What contributions will our organisations make? - Connecting local farmers and families with the market - Provide sustainable farming - Support small companies that are the ones who are bringing market to small crops -Find technology and local partners in West and Central Africa Partners - Protect the seeds regionally and make sure the ultimate beneficiaries are the famers237242247249Participants were well aligned and no areas of divergence were raised. However these were sensitive topics worth mentioning. Performance of UN Food Programme - This is about intentional efforts for coordination of partnerships How effective current materials and information talk to people regionally and respect their background

2021-07-29 19:22:10205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33825/30

0982461812702982540722915202020404069153815414520311012382422543520305452135951523625574412

1. Los principios se presentaron en la introducción al diálogo, explicando el propósito de cada uno de ellos. 2. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores convocó a un proceso de diálogo de saberes e intercientífico, plural, abierto, buscando una amplia participación que incluya a mujeres, jóvenes, pequeños productores, empresas, área urbana y rural, y pueblos indígenas originario campesinos. De este diálogo han participado organizaciones indígenas, productores ecológicos, academia, gobierno nacional, gobiernos departamentales y municipales, cooperación al desarrollo, asociaciones de productores privados, colectivos ciudadanos, adoptando un enfoque inclusivo de diferentes grupos de interés. 4. Se ha aplicado la metodología de trabajo propuesta en los manuales elaborados para la Cumbre que, fue implementada con apoyo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, en su calidad de convocante; los ministerios de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras, de Desarrollo Productivo y Economía Plural, y de Medio Ambiente y Agua. También se contó con el apoyo de la Autoridad Plurinacional de la Madre Tierra; la Organización de Naciones Unidas en Bolivia (ONU Bolivia) y sus agencias; el Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y El Caribe (FILAC) y, de un conjunto de expertas y expertos en sistemas alimentarios. 5. La metodología ha hecho énfasis en el respeto entre los participantes, el reconocimiento de la complejidad, el enfoque inclusivo como tema transversal a todas las líneas de acción y la búsqueda de complementariedades entre los diferentes actores. 6. Mediante un equipo de más de 40 personas, entre personal de entidades públicas, personal de la FILAC y personal y voluntarios del SNU, se organizó, facilitó, moderó y sistematizó el taller, buscando crear un clima de confianza que propiciará el diálogo respetuoso y permitirá a todas y todos los participantes tomar la palabra y compartir sus ideas.El Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia asumió los compromisos de la Cumbre, reconociendo la complejidad del tema e impulsando a todos los actores convocados al diálogo, a actuar con urgencia. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. Se buscó encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y confianza. El diálogo tuvo como objetivos: • Generar visiones compartidas y complementarias de Bolivia. • Validar los documentos de la posición de Bolivia y hacer un balance del proceso de los diálogos nacionales rumbo a la Cumbre. • Iniciar un proceso de generación de alianzas público – privadas y comunitarias, que se consoliden y continúen trabajando más allá de la Cumbre, para alcanzar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles, más allá de la Cumbre.Ninguno.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DIÁLOGOS NACIONALES RUMBO A LA CUMBRE SOBRE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS GRAN DIÁLOGO NACIONAL Representantes y actores de diversas organizaciones, instituciones y entidades de los nueve departamentos del país relacionados a los sistemas alimentarios que participaron en los diálogos anteriores, así como autoridades nacionales e internacionales, se reunieron para validar las conclusiones y realizar un balance del proceso de los diálogos en Bolivia. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan a todo el entramado de actores y actividades interconectadas que conciernen a la alimentación de la población: es decir, producción, recolección, transformación, empaquetado, distribución, venta, almacenamiento, comercialización, consumo y eliminación. Los sistemas alimentarios abarcan los recursos naturales, el medio ambiente, la economía, las preferencias de las personas, la cultura, los conocimientos científicos y tradicionales, incluidos los de los pueblos indígenas, las políticas, el comercio, la tecnología, el transporte y otros. Por lo tanto, mejorar los sistemas alimentarios da lugar a un mundo sin hambre, con mejor nutrición y salud, protección y resiliencia de los ecosistemas, la biodiversidad y personas resilientes y empoderadas. El parágrafo II. del Artículo 6 de la Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia señala que: “El Estado tienen la obligación de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria, a través de una alimentación sana, adecuada y suficiente para toda la población”, en ese sentido, se han promulgado diversas leyes con relación a los sistemas alimentarios para lograr su sostenibilidad. Bolivia cuenta con 2.5 millones de personas ligadas a las Unidades Productivas Agrícolas (CNA, 2013). En el país existen sistemas productivos de agricultura familiar y comunitaria (indígena originario campesino, comunidades interculturales y pueblos afrobolivianos), convencional y agroindustrial. Territorialmente, la mayoría de las unidades productivas generalmente se encuentran en la región interandina del país (diversas condiciones de altura, suelo y acceso al agua). Los sistemas productivos cuentan con gran tradición y riqueza socio-cultural. Además, El 76% de las semillas utilizadas activamente en Bolivia son criollas o nativas. Desafortunadamente, debido a la homogeneización de los hábitos alimentarios en Bolivia la alimentación de menor calidad es de más fácil acceso que las especies nativas.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El proceso de los diálogos nacionales se inició el mes de mayo y continuará hasta el mes de julio de 2021 con el objetivo de elaborar participativamente la posición del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia sobre Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en la perspectiva de complementar y enriquecer sus políticas internas y presentar su posición ante la Cumbre Mundial. La metodología se basó en la propuesta en los manuales de la cumbre, aunque se adaptó a la realidad del país con base en dos diálogos iniciales: uno con entidades públicas relacionadas a la temática y con agencias del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y; otro con expertas y expertos que participan en los sistemas alimentarios del país. El propósito de estos talleres preliminares fue recoger y validar las prioridades inicialmente identificadas a través de publicaciones e investigaciones, políticas públicas (leyes y decretos), declaraciones y otros, considerando las 5 líneas de acción propuestas por la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios en apoyo a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. En ese sentido el proceso de diálogos en el país contempla un Diálogo Intersectorial y Multidisciplinario; un Dialogo de Expertas y Expertos (FASE 1), tres Diálogos Regionales en Altiplano, Valles y Llanos; un Diálogo con la Academia; un Diálogo con pueblos indígenas (FASE 2) y un Gran Diálogo Nacional (FASE 3), cuyo desarrollo se basa esencialmente en el método propuesto en el Manual de Referencia para los Convocantes de los Estados Miembros. En esta oportunidad, el Gran Diálogo Nacional contó con la participación de actores y representantes de todo el país que participaron en los diálogos anteriores. El primer día se presentaron los documentos de la posición país conformados por la Posición País, la Hoja de Ruta Nacional y la Declaración Política, los cuales fueron validados por los participantes. El segundo día se realizó un balance del proceso de los diálogos a cargo de autoridades nacionales e internacionales. Los principales hallazgos y conclusiones a las que se llegaron convergen en torno a los siguientes puntos: Se hizo énfasis en lograr la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios a nivel sub-nacional incorporando el enfoque de género y las visiones de los pueblos indígenas originarios y campesinos. Asimismo, en promover la creación de redes y observatorios para el monitoreo de los sistemas alimentarios relacionados a los ya existentes como el de seguridad alimentaria. También se sugirió llevar a cabo acciones inmediatas para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia causada por covid-19 en los sistemas alimentarios. Finalmente, se describieron lineamientos para fortalecer el enfoque hacia los Sistemas Alimentarios del Vivir Bien y el Saber Alimentarse para Vivir Bien. Las conclusiones del proceso de los diálogos nacionales se encuentran reflejadas en los documentos de la posición país adjuntos al presente formulario.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Por favor revise la sección de Documentos Adjuntos de este formulario para explorar las conclusiones a las que se arribaron a través del proceso de los diálogos nacionales realizados y validados en el Gran Diálogo Nacional. Los documentos adjuntos son: - Posición País - Hoja de Ruta Nacional - Declaración Política En el evento participaron Flora Aguilar Fernandez, Ejecutiva de la Confederación Nacional de Mujeres Campesinas Indígenas Originarias de Bolivia; Freddy Mamani Machaca, Viceministro de Relaciones Exteriores; Julio Antonio Berdegué, Director General Adjunto Representante Regional para América Latina y el Caribe de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura; Mirna Cunninghan, Presidenta del Consejo Directivo del Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y el Caribe; Mario Cimoli, Secretario Ejecutivo Adjunto de la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe; Susana Sottoli, Coordinadora Residente Sistema de las Naciones Unidas en Bolivia; María René Castro, Viceministra de Promoción, Vigilancia, Epidemiología y Medicina Tradicional; Néstor Huanca Chura, Ministro de Desarrollo Productivo y Economía Plural y Rogelio Mayta, Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores.237Los diálogos se desarrollaron en un ambiente de respeto y de diversidad de opiniones, los representantes asistentes asumieron visiones amplias y destacaron puntos en común para lograr consensos, por lo que no se presentaron áreas de divergencia y las conclusiones se adoptaron por consenso.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Posicion-Pais-Bolivia-UNFSS.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Hoja-de-Ruta-Nacional-Bolivia-UNFSS.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Declaracion-Politica-Bolivia-UNFSS.pdfhttps://www.cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4459https://www.cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4468https://www.cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/4483http://www.fao.org/bolivia/noticias/detail-events/es/c/1416404/

En esta sección se pueden encontrar los Documentos de la Posición del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia ante la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios, los cuales son: 1. Posición País 2. Hoja de Ruta Nacional -------------------------------------------------------------- In this section you can find the Position Documents of the Plurinational State of Bolivia before the Food Systems Summit, which are as follows: 1. Country Position 2. National Road Map2021-08-14 16:34:43https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Country-Position-Bolivia-EN.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/National-Roadmap-Bolivia-EN.pdf

2021-07-30 07:12:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15185/203

1233344466756610264461215625064154512231332

We started with a cross-regional dialogue allowing stakeholders from four regions to exchange among themselves, before entering into a cross-regional exchange. this allowed some that are not used to speak publicly to bring in their ideas / voice their concerns. As we had the first dialogue kicked off by a keynote of a young entrepreneur and activist from Ghana, this motivated also other youth to speak up. Also, in bringing in different views from different stakeholders, we were able to create a safe space.mutlistakeholder plus multisectoral; throughout the process we had a strong involvement of youth representatives. We also brought in voices that criticize the FFS21 for not being inclusive. As we invited in the global dialogue participants to challenge our declaration, and were open and transparent about the various views this helped to build trust in our dialogue and created a atmosphere that led to an animated and vivid discussion with good recommendations.

Yes

234238239240241243244245246247248249251Starting from the question on how to harmonize food systems and nature conservation towards just nature-people relations the dialogues were first reflecting in regional disparities and commonalities. Similar challenges were identified across the four regions in their transformation towards a just and sustainable food system and the following entry points were identified: promoting opportunities for the youth in the food system, realizing nature-positive and just food production, as well as bridging the disconnect between consumers and producers towards fairer food supply chains. The synthesized regional perspectives were incorporated into the discussion with global stakeholders and renowned experts. The global dialogue verified and refined the outcomes from the regional conversations and emphasized the importance of additional, cross-cutting points: The role of power asymmetries in the food system, with the poorest and the non-humans paying the prize. The importance of contextualized, local solutions, incorporating local knowledge, people and perspectives. The recognition of the interactions between food systems and health systems, with healthy food depending on healthy environments. The role of emotions as important drivers of change for the transformation towards a sustainable food system. The importance of gender equality for a sustainable food system. Focusing on the true cost of food in terms of unpacking the value of the food system.235238239240241243244245246247248249251To harmonize food systems with nature and climate protection and human wellbeing, just nature-people relations must be put center stage. We call for recognizing, harnessing and protecting the wealth of knowledge from diverse systems, including lay, practical and local knowledge that can help us make our global food system more just, sustainable and resilient. We consider promoting opportunities for youth in the food system, realizing nature positive and just food production and bridging the disconnect between consumers and producers to be mutually reinforcing if the right levers are deployed. In this context those levers would mean to 1) create governance structures and financial mechanisms that foster sustainable agriculture, fair food chains and healthy diets, 2) provide incentives and economic support for the youth to seek a career along the food value chain, as well as 3) empowerment, self-determination, dignity, the protection of rights and participation, allowing for engaged communities along the entire food chain that are encouraged to set development priorities and hold decision-makers accountable. Accountability and transparency in sustainable resources and land use can bring more justice and equity to agricultural production and natural resource management. Sustainable land stewardship that perceives land, water and agrobiodiversity as part of the global commons, represents the entry point to develop multiple-benefit strategies for cultivating diversified food production systems, transforming production and consumption habits, restoring our ecosystems, enhancing the resilience in the climate emergency, contributing to local livelihoods and promoting human wellbeing. To holistically address the climate and biodiversity emergency, fight inequality and achieve human wellbeing, the following principles must be applied: -Valuing existing knowledge and tailoring it to a specific context to explore novel approaches. -Sharing learnings, including across regions to assess the scalability of innovative ideas. -Promoting locally adapted solutions that combine the best of local as well as scientific knowledge systems. -Ensuring justice within societies by understanding the barriers as well as the incentives that cause injustice in the given contexts. Complexity must be acknowledged, as out of the myriad of solutions from the micro to the meso scale, the best approaches will very much depend on biophysical, socio-economic and cultural conditions, governance and policy framework, as well as specific drivers of change, including fiscal incentives. Systemic barriers must be removed and diversity celebrated, as solutions considering the specificities of the given context and which have been developed in a collaborative, holistic and integrated way, enhance the resilience of agricultural and food systems to pests, pathogens and the climate emergency. At the same time, those solutions must also promote gender equality and human wellbeing. Knowledge must be drawn from diverse systems, in promoting transdisciplinary approaches, and in bringing together scientific, lay, practical and indigenous knowledge and different world views. The freshness of perspective from the youth must be embraced and we must answer to the fundamental questions they dare to raise and which have been buried for too long. We call upon governments to implement governance structures and set the right incentives that reflect the ambition of creating just nature people relations and a sustainable food system. We urge the financial and private sector to use their capabilities and power for positive change. We call upon research to support the transformation through knowledge, including asking the uncomfortable questions related to power in our unsustainable food system. We require civil society to accept the shared responsibility and become agents of change.236238239240241243244245246247248249251Promoting employment and decent work for the youth mirrors measures proposed in Action Track 4 Advance equitable livelihoods. To further this goal, governance structures must change, including tackling the political economy that creates perverse incentives, and developing a new communication approach to increase the attractiveness of the food sector for the youth and enhance their opportunities; setting the right incentives and creating new employment opportunities within the sector prevents a “youth drain” and the loss of traditional knowledge.​ Youth has to have access to finance, in order for it to deploy its full potential to innovate and co-create new solutions and financial institution need to be convinced to invest in young farmers and entrepreneurs. Boosting nature-positive food production, as proposed by Action Track 3, requires a food system governance that reduces resource intensity to stop biodiversity loss, pollution and water and soil degradation, while recognizing and protecting the rights and needs of smallholder farmers, livestock keepers, fishers and hunters. This must go hand in hand with embracing multifunctional landscapes with diversified agricultural systems that build on the principles of agroecology as one specific entry point. In this context, land tenure security is a prerequisite for sustainable food systems, as secure access to land for land users can create incentives for the sustainable use of land. In this light, the financial sector needs to abandon financing unsustainable practices and finance innovative solutions that contribute to nature-positive food production. Bridging the divide between consumers and producers in order to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all and shift to sustainable consumption patterns, the interests of consumers and producers must be aligned to provide nutritious food at affordable prices, while ensuring a fair and livable income for producers. We call for addressing power structures in value chains that deepen the disconnect, by internalizing transparency and true costs, as part of redesigning food systems policy frameworks. One way to achieve this is by redirecting power towards consumers and producers, for example by shortening the food chain, strengthening local food networks and build consumer demand for sustainable food. Similarly, Action Track 1 promotes access to safe and nutritious food for all, while Action Track 2 calls or a shift to sustainable consumption patterns.237243245246249Role of science - to what extent does science also assume a normative function Role of technology - to what extent is it an enabler or an obstacle exacerbating power differentials Role and responsibility of business versus role of governments in terms of incentivizing transformation Regenerative agriculture : questioning the potential for new jobs, as other jobs get lost, or: is regenerative agriculture really the systemic solution to the challenge Notion of scaling / scalability - is not easy to capture Eurocentricity/westernised view of the debate, seeing nature of developing countries as the source for solving the universal challenges

2021-07-30 07:14:50204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21140/203

123334545675664156512231330

We started with a cross-regional dialogue allowing stakeholders from four regions to exchange among themselves, before entering into a cross-regional exchange. this allowed some that are not used to speak publicly to bring in their ideas / voice their concerns. As we had the first dialogue kicked off by a keynote of a young entrepreneur and activist from Ghana, this motivated also other youth to speak up. Also, in bringing in different views from different stakeholders, we were able to create a safe space.mutlistakeholder plus multisectoral; throughout the process we had a strong involvement of youth representatives. We also brought in voices that criticize the FFS21 for not being inclusive. As we invited in the global dialogue participants to challenge our declaration, and were open and transparent about the various views this helped to build trust in our dialogue and created a atmosphere that led to an animated and vivid discussion with good recommendations.

Yes

234238239240241243244245246247248249251Starting from the question on how to harmonize food systems and nature conservation towards just nature-people relations the dialogues were first reflecting in regional disparities and commonalities. Similar challenges were identified across the four regions in their transformation towards a just and sustainable food system and the following entry points were identified: promoting opportunities for the youth in the food system, realizing nature-positive and just food production, as well as bridging the disconnect between consumers and producers towards fairer food supply chains. The synthesized regional perspectives were incorporated into the discussion with global stakeholders and renowned experts. The global dialogue verified and refined the outcomes from the regional conversations and emphasized the importance of additional, cross-cutting points: The role of power asymmetries in the food system, with the poorest and the non-humans paying the prize. The importance of contextualized, local solutions, incorporating local knowledge, people and perspectives. The recognition of the interactions between food systems and health systems, with healthy food depending on healthy environments. The role of emotions as important drivers of change for the transformation towards a sustainable food system. The importance of gender equality for a sustainable food system. Focusing on the true cost of food in terms of unpacking the value of the food system.235238239240241243244245246247248249251To harmonize food systems with nature and climate protection and human wellbeing, just nature-people relations must be put center stage. We call for recognizing, harnessing and protecting the wealth of knowledge from diverse systems, including lay, practical and local knowledge that can help us make our global food system more just, sustainable and resilient. We consider promoting opportunities for youth in the food system, realizing nature positive and just food production and bridging the disconnect between consumers and producers to be mutually reinforcing if the right levers are deployed. In this context those levers would mean to 1) create governance structures and financial mechanisms that foster sustainable agriculture, fair food chains and healthy diets, 2) provide incentives and economic support for the youth to seek a career along the food value chain, as well as 3) empowerment, self-determination, dignity, the protection of rights and participation, allowing for engaged communities along the entire food chain that are encouraged to set development priorities and hold decision-makers accountable. Accountability and transparency in sustainable resources and land use can bring more justice and equity to agricultural production and natural resource management. Sustainable land stewardship that perceives land, water and agrobiodiversity as part of the global commons, represents the entry point to develop multiple-benefit strategies for cultivating diversified food production systems, transforming production and consumption habits, restoring our ecosystems, enhancing the resilience in the climate emergency, contributing to local livelihoods and promoting human wellbeing. To holistically address the climate and biodiversity emergency, fight inequality and achieve human wellbeing, the following principles must be applied: -Valuing existing knowledge and tailoring it to a specific context to explore novel approaches. -Sharing learnings, including across regions to assess the scalability of innovative ideas. -Promoting locally adapted solutions that combine the best of local as well as scientific knowledge systems. -Ensuring justice within societies by understanding the barriers as well as the incentives that cause injustice in the given contexts. Complexity must be acknowledged, as out of the myriad of solutions from the micro to the meso scale, the best approaches will very much depend on biophysical, socio-economic and cultural conditions, governance and policy framework, as well as specific drivers of change, including fiscal incentives. Systemic barriers must be removed and diversity celebrated, as solutions considering the specificities of the given context and which have been developed in a collaborative, holistic and integrated way, enhance the resilience of agricultural and food systems to pests, pathogens and the climate emergency. At the same time, those solutions must also promote gender equality and human wellbeing. Knowledge must be drawn from diverse systems, in promoting transdisciplinary approaches, and in bringing together scientific, lay, practical and indigenous knowledge and different world views. The freshness of perspective from the youth must be embraced and we must answer to the fundamental questions they dare to raise and which have been buried for too long. We call upon governments to implement governance structures and set the right incentives that reflect the ambition of creating just nature people relations and a sustainable food system. We urge the financial and private sector to use their capabilities and power for positive change. We call upon research to support the transformation through knowledge, including asking the uncomfortable questions related to power in our unsustainable food system. We require civil society to accept the shared responsibility and become agents of change.236238239240241243244245246247248249251Promoting employment and decent work for the youth mirrors measures proposed in Action Track 4 Advance equitable livelihoods. To further this goal, governance structures must change, including tackling the political economy that creates perverse incentives, and developing a new communication approach to increase the attractiveness of the food sector for the youth and enhance their opportunities; setting the right incentives and creating new employment opportunities within the sector prevents a “youth drain” and the loss of traditional knowledge.​ Youth has to have access to finance, in order for it to deploy its full potential to innovate and co-create new solutions and financial institution need to be convinced to invest in young farmers and entrepreneurs. Boosting nature-positive food production, as proposed by Action Track 3, requires a food system governance that reduces resource intensity to stop biodiversity loss, pollution and water and soil degradation, while recognizing and protecting the rights and needs of smallholder farmers, livestock keepers, fishers and hunters. This must go hand in hand with embracing multifunctional landscapes with diversified agricultural systems that build on the principles of agroecology as one specific entry point. In this context, land tenure security is a prerequisite for sustainable food systems, as secure access to land for land users can create incentives for the sustainable use of land. In this light, the financial sector needs to abandon financing unsustainable practices and finance innovative solutions that contribute to nature-positive food production. Bridging the divide between consumers and producers in order to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all and shift to sustainable consumption patterns, the interests of consumers and producers must be aligned to provide nutritious food at affordable prices, while ensuring a fair and livable income for producers. We call for addressing power structures in value chains that deepen the disconnect, by internalizing transparency and true costs, as part of redesigning food systems policy frameworks. One way to achieve this is by redirecting power towards consumers and producers, for example by shortening the food chain, strengthening local food networks and build consumer demand for sustainable food. Similarly, Action Track 1 promotes access to safe and nutritious food for all, while Action Track 2 calls or a shift to sustainable consumption patterns.237243245246249Role of science - to what extent does science also assume a normative function Role of technology - to what extent is it an enabler or an obstacle exacerbating power differentials Role and responsibility of business versus role of governments in terms of incentivizing transformation Regenerative agriculture : questioning the potential for new jobs, as other jobs get lost, or: is regenerative agriculture really the systemic solution to the challenge Notion of scaling / scalability - is not easy to capture Eurocentricity/westernised view of the debate, seeing nature of developing countries as the source for solving the universal challenges

2021-07-30 09:33:45207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24573/203

037140528197141441143411149191642569312135072834235255114

The Dialogue was co-organized by the Urban Food Systems Working Group, an inter-agency group with currently 26 organizations represented to raise the voices of local governments in the global and national food systems transformation, together with the FSS Secretariat and Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments. By closing consulting and coordinating with this broad base of co-organizers to organize an inclusive and diverse Dialogue, the Principles of the Dialogues were incorporated.Recognizing complexity: The complexity of the urban food systems transformation was recognized in that the Dialogue had breakout room discussions on six interlinked yet distinct topics. Embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The co-organizers ensured inclusiveness in selecting multi-stakeholder panel representing various geographical regions, typology (size) of cities and gender to bring in diverse perspectives to identify bottlenecks and to design policy options. In addition, the composition of the breakout room participants were made to ensure representativeness of stakeholders groups. Complement the work of others: The members of the Urban Food Systems Working Group are involved in other global policy processes such as COP26. Through this Dialogue the voices of the cities stakeholders were consolidated and converged and the results will be used to amplify and accelerate the effortsConcerted efforts are needed to bring onboard the stakeholder groups who are not usually on the discussion table at global level, such as youth and the most vulnerable groups.

Yes

234241243244245246248249250251The main purpose of the Urban Food Systems Global Dialogue was to bring political attention and promote significant action towards urban food system transformation. The dialogue brought together local and national government politicians, urban government practitioners, local food leaders and civil society organizations and local producers. The intent was to reflect on and recognize the role of local government and the importance of integrating food policy with national government and all food system stakeholders. In addition the dialogue provided an opportunity to share the results of the city consultations and independent dialogues supported by the Urban Food Systems Working Group and to advocate for the integration of the urban food agenda into the UN Food Systems Summit process. The Mayors of Quelimane, Belo Horizonte and Tunis provided the voice of Cities at the plenary panel as well as the Executive Director of GAIN, Director of Food Systems Division of FAO, an urban food systems researcher from the University of Cape Town and a representative of the National Food Policy Council in Canada. A representative of the Urban Food Systems Working Group shared the key messages emerging from the city consultations and dialogues. Break Out room discussions focussed on Food System Governance; Public Procurement and School Food; Food Waste and Circular Economy; Finance for Urban Food Systems; Social Protection and Inclusion and Resilience to Shocks and Stressors. There was spirited discussion in all the break out rooms with participants keen to advocate for the urban food agenda as a vehicle for integration of health, social, environmental and economic issues at the local level. While each session had a focus topic many common issues emerged. Participants stressed the importance of applying an equity and inclusion approach to all urban food systems work. They also emphasized the importance of building capacity and enabling local governments to leverage existing resources to promote sustainable food systems while advocating for integration with national policy and strategies. Food system analysis at the urban level is a key tool for providing baseline analysis and information for developing integrated food plans and strategies. These must be consistent with regional and national plans to leverage existing resources and maximize impact. Participants stressed that cities are already taking action on the ground but there is a need to leverage that capacity in order to realize multiple urban agenda goals. Cities can use existing infrastructure, collaborative partnerships with all food system stakeholders to build on this foundation. Cities have an important role in developing local and inclusive urban food systems, integrating the community perspective, as well as working in multi-stakeholder partnerships and connecting food system planning to social protection.235241243244245246248249250251The discussions converged on the need for deep strategic thought to advocate for an integrated urban food systems agenda which: (i) strengthen the connections between the different components of a sustainable urban food systems (food environments, food procurement and distribution, urban agriculture, food waste, school meals, etc.) and (ii) connect food system transformation with other policy priorities (such as public health and social protection) sustainable development. This integrated urban food systems agenda will require a systems leadership on urban food systems with improved capacities and competencies of urban and local government. Political will and leadership were mentioned as key levers of change for local and national food systems transformation. Raising awareness on the importance of promoting urban food systems transformation through initiatives across departments/policy domains and the development of a common urban food systems vision were introduced as crucial for accelerating food systems transformation. COVID-19 highlighted inequities in the food system. Cities have responded to emergency needs in innovative ways but they lack the resources and adequate capacity for promoting systemic responses. All levels of government (national, state/provincial, municipal) and other food system stakeholders must work together to promote equitable food systems transformation and ensure food is integrated into emergency planning, response and recovery. COVID-19 must be harnessed as a basis for securing political will for long-term, transformative action. Strong advocacy is required to ensure policy-makers understand that the COVID-19 food crisis is symptomatic of the fragility of our food systems. The urban food systems analysis at the urban level was promoted as key tool for providing baseline information, promoting systems thinking and for developing integrated food plans and strategies. There is a broad consensus on the lack of both urban food systems data and capacities in addressing systemic and cross-sectoral issues. Improving urban food governance was recognized at the heart of the transformative food systems change. The promotion of innovative and inclusive mechanisms to engage with communities particularly with the vulnerable ones was identified as key priority. To enable this engagement with the communities, local governments need to bring together actors involved in multiple processes, including civil society organizations, to co-create and co-design with them holistic food strategies and plans while advocating for integration with national policies and strategies to leverage existing resources and maximize impact. The urban food systems challenges need to be addressed leveraging on existing networks and experiences, creating space for dialogues and fostering new alliances and networks among different stakeholders and various level of governments.236241243244245246248249250251Theme 1, Group 1.1 Integrating food systems transformation into urban and territorial governance and planning In light of the group discussions’ vision, i.e. that “Multi-level food governance mechanisms are established and local governments are recognized and supported as active key players for promoting food systems transformation”, the group identified a number of actions that are necessary to better move towards the vision: National frameworks that legally, financially and institutionally make greater action at local level possible Capacity building of local actors once these resources become available An international framework that ensures national level accountability (to local level action) Joined up climate change (CC) and food policies at global level (i.e. get food on the CC agenda) Mechanisms within food policy councils (FPC) that ensure participation (of farmers for example) Investment in trans-local (city-to-city) alliances It was also noted that the private sector has a strong impact on the food environment. The question is: how to best engage with it? All agreed that a distinction needs to be made between different private sector actors (global, national, local) and that a different approach is needed depending on the actors involved. Organizations were not specific as to their contributions. There was a general consensus on the need to build local-level capacity, advocate for changes in legislation and finance streams at national level, and set up effective participatory mechanisms within FPCs. Indicators of success were briefly discussed and these included “technical” indicators, such as levels of waste recycled/reduced, diet-related indicators, and number of outlets that sell local product. In addition to this, it was noted that it will be important to ensure the sustainability of actions over time.236241243244245246248249250251Theme 1, Group 1.2 Integrating food systems transformation into urban and territorial governance and planning Challenges Participants identified challenges at the local, city level that make it hard to get food on the urban political agenda and to pursue an integrated approach: Local politicians tend not to see food as part of the urban agenda due to the persistent view that production happens in rural areas and consumption in urban. Local executive sees only some, separate aspects of food, such as food poverty, school canteens, and public procurement. They are unable to see the bigger picture and inter-connections, and how initiatives from across departments/policy domains can form part of a comprehensive framework and strategy. Participants also identified challenges of cooperation between governance levels – especially between local and national levels. One city participant said that their city advances the food agenda ‘in spite of [national] government’, rather than being enabled by a multi-level governance framework. Another is involved in efforts to connect municipalities working on food within the same geographical region, which enables integrated working in policy areas that are devolved to regions in their country (health, agriculture), but the absence of the national and EU levels means actions are not as effective as they might be. Urgent actions Participants emphasized the need to be opportunistic to get food on the local government agenda in cities, and seize upon every occasion to reframe the food system as an urban issue and promote integrated working. At present, there is an opportunity to harness the experiences of COVID-19 as a basis for securing political will for long-term, transformative action. This can be done in several ways: strong advocacy to ensure policy-makers understand that the COVID-19 food crisis was not a one off but symptomatic of the fragility of urban food systems; maintaining and reinforcing new network connections that emerged during the emergency response; reviewing of governance structures and processes in light of the COVID-19 experience, to ensure they have the adaptive capacity to pivot towards ways of working in future emergencies. Participants saw a need for more assessments of urban food systems using a systemic approach, to: i) build a common understanding of key issues to be addressed; ii) generate data (currently data is not systematically collected because food systems are not on the political agenda, but without data it is difficult to get food systems on the agenda). They acknowledged an urgent need for cities to documenting their experiences and share lesson, both about what worked and what did not. There is also a need to assist local stakeholders in adapting actions that have been tried and tested elsewhere to their specific context. Participants stressed that getting food on the long-term agenda is a long-term process. Food activists need to be resilient to knock-backs, think strategically about relationships, and be mindful of 4- to 5- year election cycles. Tactics for securing and retaining buy-in to the food agenda Approaching decision-makers within the municipality both at the institutional level and bottom-up through community advocacy. Providing data to politicians; taking them on learning journeys to experience aspects of the food system. Identifying a political champion to advocate within local government. Mobilizing civil society to put on pressure on politicians. Once food is firmly on the agenda in the city, using both hard (legislative) and soft (influence) power to push the message and retain engagement. Engaging with the community, voluntary sector and food growing organizations provide energy, ideas, and capacity Ensuring a governance model in which the voices of citizens are heard, and identifying who is not at the table on a continuous basis. Inclusivity is key to tapping local wisdom and developing actions based on community need.236241243244245246248249250251Theme 2: Promote Sustainable Food Systems through Procurement and School Food Public food procurement from local, sustainable sources is a powerful lever and needs to be enhanced all over the world. Scaling up school nutrition programs provides an effective solution that fosters improved nutrition and longer-term food literacy for millions of children while bringing co-benefits across the food system. Many school children rely on school food as their primary source of nutrition. The three key discussion points from the “theme 2: Promote Sustainable Food Systems through Procurement and School Food” breakout group session are as follows: School meals are one of the most important entry points to promote sustainable food intake. The pandemic demonstrated that there were no substitutes in place for school food when schools were forced to close. School food can help address food poverty, malnutrition and obesity, while promoting education and good learning outcomes. School food nutrition should not be only looked at as a feeding program but as a program that presents co-benefits such as climate change and health all together. Currently there is a lot of evidence on the benefits of expanding the school food to a more encompassing school nutrition education program, bringing the pedagogical aspects into the food that the children are consuming. In the next three years, all actors shall leverage this narrative. Sustainable and healthy school meals can be strongly supported by sustainable procurement policies, unifying all the environmental, social, economic aspects of the supply chains. Currently, sustainable procurement is not yet at the core of the global agenda. However, through the sustainable school meal programs, the important role of governmental procurements can be demonstrated and some key principles that are developed through the school meal programs can be expanded to other domains. Undertaking an assessment at the national and regional level about the various food related mandates and how they are being offered will be the first stepping stone. If a city doesn’t have the mandate in school food procurement, multi-level governance should be strengthened and the role that a local government can play should be acknowledged. Especially during the pandemic, it was proven that the citizens would direct their food-related challenges to their city government, not to the national government. Market engagement with regional stakeholders along with a mapping on the food production and consumption would support informed decision-making. In order to realize sustainable procurement, capacity building and guidelines development should be developed. For the procurement practitioners in cities, creating simplified guidelines that make the linkages of the benefits in prioritizing local production as opposed to open tenders would be a straightforward solution of improving the sustainable procurement practice. Building the procurers’ capacity is also crucial. Moreover, many local governments lack knowledge on how sustainable procurement can be achieved. In the case of Senegal, for instance, having robust national policies was advantageous. Through the UNFSS process, a coalition on school meals that will bring practitioners around the globe together will be formed. This is critical for scaling a sustainable procurement program and spreading the message. Global framework and implementation are both important. Such a peer-to -peer platform will boost the exchange between government and research on several kinds of networks. It will be highlighted during the UNFSS Pre-Summit. Joint communication with the parents and education to children will be complementary. 236241243244245246248249250251Theme 3, Group 3.1 – Urban and Local Actions for sustainable Food Systems: food environment, waste reduction and Circular Economy Local governments have a crucial role to play when it comes to shaping local food environments and circular economy interventions. Yet, any action or solution proposed needs to be concrete and practical so it can respond to the realities experienced stakeholders on the ground. Strategic actions that can already be taken by local governments include the improvement of local markets; food environments such as the school, restaurants, and street food; and land and infrastructure development (roads, storage, water provision). The latter is key as this is something that municipalities and local governments own and are strictly mandated with; improving local and city-region-level infrastructure could help reduce food loss and better connect farmers and consumers. In designing these solutions, it will be important to build on a holistic understanding of the food system. Data collection is essential to better understand each one of the components that make up the food system, as well as to inform the public and the political leaders charged with decision-making. Challenges with knowledge integration can be expected, yet there are good examples to learn from on how to manage multi-sectoral information systems – and this is where academia could play a key role, supporting local governments make strategic investments by advising on low-cost technological solutions. Beyond local government actions, measures will be needed to involve women’s groups, youth, and consumers more broadly. Consumers are key to implement initiatives, collect data and local knowledge, and build the public will needed for governments to enact change. For this, local governments will have to put systems in place to enable citizen engagement in circularity (e.g., to manage waste through urban agriculture). There can be a powerful food systems agenda if civil society is strong, empowered, and with the knowledge. Informality also plays a big role in shaping food environments. However, policies don’t account for the informal food system and there’s much we don’t know about its influence over the food value chain, e.g., who are the vendors and how many, who distributes the food and how much, who recycles and what is composted, etc. This dynamic increases the system’s complexity. The informal food market also makes up part of the private sector, which has potential to bring about change and, despite its informal character, can attract and unlock investments. Engagement of the school community will be a key strategy for building a new food culture that is both healthy and sustainable. School nutritional guidelines are a proven resource that has tremendous impact on emissions reduction and improving health. Here, food education will be critical to shift mindsets. Integrating food education in primary education will help grow the next generation of consumers, making them aware of what sustainability and circularity means from an early age. Overall, the above actions can be supported with a new thinking around the concept of the city and with an intention to diversify the food system. We need to have more diversity in the food system just like nature does – in what we eat, in how we innovate, in how we finance it – and at the local level is where diversity can happen. One way would be to design and promote different distribution systems, with incentives for decentralization. Another is to go back to the basics of food236241243244245246248249250251Theme 3, Group 3.2 – Theme 3: Urban and Local Actions for sustainable Food Systems: food environment, waste reduction and Circular Economy The discussion in the group “Urban and Local Actions for sustainable food systems: food environment, waste reduction and circular economy” revolved around four big entry points/solutions: 1) public food procurement and school food/meals; ) local fresh food markets (wet markets and wholesale markets); and 3) awareness raising and behavior change actions on healthy diets, food waste reduction, and food systems; and 4) cross-cutting food waste reduction activities, that can seen as integrated in the previous 3 entry points, or act a stand-alone entry point.  The focus on public food procurement and school meals was seen as one of the most strategic entry points since it’s a public instrument that, if used to achieve SDGs at the local level, can achieve tangible results on a significant scale at the local level, and potentially mobilize the country-wide shift in the public food procurement and provisioning system. Besides offering real impact on local diets, especially those of children, it can serve as a strong educational and behavioral-shifting campaign for empowering and sensitizing children, parents and the public institutions about their dietary needs, as well as the needs and challenges of the food systems. These sustainable public procurement and school feeding programs can go hand-in-hand with food waste reduction actions. However, it was emphasized that higher-level food reduction policies need to be put in place, such as policies for organic food waste segregation, feeding also into the issue of circular economy as food waste reduction in cities can reduce costs of municipal services. The issue of the food environment was addressed by highlighting the role of local, fresh food markets and the need for developing basic infrastructure such as roads, but also market and logistics infrastructure for wholesale markets and open-air markets, as these markets are essential for enhancing local food environments and enabling access to fresh, micronutrient-rich foods, especially in developing countries. The value and supply chains of those nutritionally-sensitive commodities that make part of such markets need to be strengthened.  The proposed format to encourage and push these actions forward was to start with relevant and strategic data collection in cities, and piloting “quick-win“ projects where this strategic data can be immediately harnessed and presented to policy makers/champions in order to get the political buy-in. In terms of governance, strategic coalition of partners through mapping different kinds of actors and bringing them on board was stressed. The key element is to include younger generations in decision-making processes because they are very driven and opinionated actors, and are imminent successors of the Agenda 2030 legacy.236241243244245246248249250251Theme 4: Financing Mechanisms for Sustainable Food Systems Solutions Public and private finance, as well as blended finance mechanisms, are required for investment in catalytic food security initiatives. A key question when looking into these financing mechanisms, is the role of local governments. There are business models and financing mechanisms with great potential in the public and the private sector that have not yet been tapped, but that could be brought to reality through the involvement of local governments: Business models that can drive the sustainable food systems from a local governments perspective. For local governments to untap that potential, they need the necessary fiscal space to encourage local food value chains, from rural to urban level. From the local governments perspective, it becomes clear that it's not (only) about the value chain of a commercialized financing mechanism, but also other sustainable financing mechanisms. The question is, how to create such financing mechanisms and business models, through instruments that cities have at their disposal or new instruments to cities. There are different opportunities to deploy such tools in ways that can make a big difference for financing food systems sustainably: Taxation: The role of local governments to improve tax collection and service delivery is important to ensure food security. A possible government solution is the use of tax cuts, tax breaks or tax subsidies to promote food companies that are invested, e.g. in nutritious and healthy food. Regulation: sustainable financing sources for food systems require a broader and more inclusive investment climate and security (enabling environment). Equity investments: Equity is usually missing in the value chains of local markets. Local governments should start looking into equity funds for investments in the local food value chains. Subsidies are an important instrument for public sector business models through which local governments can impact the pricing of e.g. healthy nutrition and provide incentives for consumers, reducing long-term health costs. Guarantees are crucial to reduce risks for (private) investors (blended finance). A key challenge for cities is how to cover the costs for guarantees. Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are another important mechanism and should be used by local governments where it makes most sense in the supply chain: E.g. food loss provides a huge opportunity for sustainable financial business models to improve the nutritional value chains locally. PPPs are also key when addressing challenges for local markets such as lack of competitiveness, weak infrastructure, etc. Cooperatives: The creation of small cooperatives (not only for farmers) will strengthen the food systems in cities, promote inclusion and support small businesses to access finance. Real estate is an important asset that local governments can use for food markets. Microfinance is usually accessible for small business and women and therefore an important mechanism to develop inclusive businesses. Capacity Building for different stakeholders throughout the supply chain can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a project, while reducing its risks and hence increase its competitiveness and attract investors. Stakeholder Engagement & Partnerships: We need to work on investments ways that are equitable, inclusive, and that connect the links within the food supply chain through partnerships. Key stakeholders include small scale businesses, banks, local governments, smallholder farmers, central governments, etc. Circular Economies: A mechanism that can link local production with the consumption side of food at city level could enhance local economy and circular economies. By defining these tools in nutritional value chains, the linkages between finance, food and people become the point to focus rather than the financial value chains. Cities should be at the forefront of integrating food systems and nutrition into the city government.236241243244245246248249250251Theme 5: Leveraging urban and local food systems to strengthen social protection and inclusion What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1.Codesign policies and programmes through a multidisciplinary lens, bringing participants from different backgrounds, build authentic relationships and go beyond those who already hold, power, access, and resources. 2.Meet people where they are at: actions aimed to support vulnerable groups should be implemented in a way that brings valuable services and resources to constituents in a way that is (physically, culturally) accessible to them. 3.Ensuring that the (historically and currently) oppressed communities have a lead role in the design of programmes & policies that affect them and that their knowledge is used as the basis for these programmes/policies. What contributions will our organisations make? Invest in healthy school canteens as a key leverage point to increase the nutrition status of children. This can be done by increasing children’s food literacy through education, providing better meals in the canteens and introducing school farming. In particular, cities can develop or update Standard Operating Procedures to include criteria related to social inclusion, health & nutrition, and sustainability. They can also mandate their local drug and food control agency to supervise food quality in the canteens. Scale-up the impact of school canteens by involving parents in the learning process and encouraging changes in diets at household level. Commit to working in multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder teams to incorporate as many perspectives as possible and to make sure that solutions are inclusive of all stakeholders, especially those most impacted. Meet vulnerable groups where they are sheltered and make healthy food available and physically accessible in these spaces. Center culturally-important foods – on school menus, in emergency food efforts, etc - that respond to the needs and preferences of the diverse communities in your locality. This respects the diverse food cultures of the communities that live throughout the world, and further downstream, has the potential to reduce food waste. Offer free meals to vulnerable groups throughout the pandemic via initiatives that bring together the community and private sector. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Success will be achieved when groups that are largely excluded from food programmes and policy discussions are recognised as key stakeholders, actively engaged, and hold true power in these discussions. This requires participation beyond the typical individuals and organizations that already hold power and access to resources. We must actively include stakeholder groups such as: children, food service workers, people who experience houselessness, and other oppressed communities. The knowledge they hold from their lived experiences must be recognized, valued, and used as a basis for the design of policies & programmes that support them. Only when this type of authentic inclusivity is realized can bidirectional learning truly inform policymaking and programme development.236241243244245246248249250251Theme 6, Group 6.1 COVID has taught us that the current approach for responding to emergencies is not effective. We need to move from short-term emergency planning to taking a more systemic approach and think about longer-term recovery planning. This will be particularly important as emergencies become more frequent in the wake of climate change (for example in Colombo they expect flooding every few years). Cities can build resilience by developing recovery plans as a stepping-stone to longer-term food strategies. Integrated into this approach should be capacity building. Building resilience is to build capacities of people and institutions so they can cope with shocks and stresses by absorbing them. Building capacities of different institutions will ensure that all actors in the urban food system are becoming more resilient. Harnessing the power of different stakeholders, and effective coordination between them, is key to creating more resilient cities. It’s essential that different stakeholders coordinate in order to push forward resilience planning and projects in spite of local government’s budgetary and electoral terms, to ensure continuit. In one city, they were able to overcome one of the world’s strictest lockdown and still provide fruit and vegetables to their citizens because of effective co-ordination between local governments, police, municipal and private transport companies and farmers. COVID further highlighted the role of civil society in helping cities respond to shocks and stresses. We need to untap the potential of civil society and other community groups to help cities respond to emergencies. Civil society and citizens can also play an important role in holding local governments accountable for their (in)actions. The private sector is another important stakeholder group; school food and public/private partnerships are another obvious solution to help cities become more resilient. Schools provide a stable market for local businesses and we can leverage public procurement as a tool to protect cities. We should connect local producers to nearby school kitchens, ensuring that local businesses are supported, children have healthy and sustainable food, and markets are diversified. Schools are an important platform to deliver nutritious food, but cities would like some support to help cities to do this. Diversification of food chains to improve resilience. Increasing urban agriculture, promoting the school feeding programmes like those outlined above, or leveraging the new supply chains that have been created through COVID or through people moving out of urban centres, as some of the ways cities can do this. The solutions put forward in our discussion highlighted the importance for multi-stakeholder collaboration and coordination to create resilient cities. The responsibility should not fall on the shoulders of one group of actors, instead all actors should be empowered to play a role and sufficient resources should be invested in different stakeholder groups (e.g. civil society organisations, private sector, academics, schools) to build capacity and agency. This means that emphasis should be focused on creating multi-stakeholder partnerships and effective coordination between groups. It should also mean that individual stakeholders groups are given sufficient support and resource to be able to play a role in shaping their local food system. Ultimately, it is the role of national government to ensure that local governments are sufficiently resourced to be able to invest in multi-stakeholder partnerships. As some of the above actions are implemented, some of the challenges may be: Lack of data on emergency and recovery (knowing who needs access to food and support) Vulnerable differs from city to city, The large number of institutions and stakeholders can lead to governance fragmentation Local governance has become too complicated and there are too many institutions, making policy change slow. This is compounded by the issue of budgetary and electoral terms being too short/frequent to make any long-term, systemic change. Stakeholder lack agency or resource to be able to play their role236241243244245246248249250251Theme 6, Group 6.2 - Resilience to shocks The Covid crisis has given us the opportunity to spot the weaknesses in our food systems. It has shown us that our current food systems need to change to ensure a more reliable and more inclusive food supply. And this is even more important during conflict situations. It has also shown us that if global / international trade is hit by something, local supplies become even more important. The pandemic has been an eye opener to realize that in recent decades we might have become over-dependent on long food supply chains (which are vulnerable to major disruptions) and therefore we should simultaneously look into shifting back to shorter supply chains. Finding a balance between global and local food systems; connecting the Global South with the Global North and connecting the producer with the consumer. This Covid situation also highlighted the importance of redundancy, if something falls away, something else can pick up. Diversity in foods and in the different elements of the food system are therefore critical. We have also seen that a disruption or shock might speed up processes and force people to work together, how could that be used for more longer-term planning and strategies? Concrete actions for the coming years need to be centered around: Empowerment, training and providing relevant information to the people at stake; we need to empower people to make best use of the natural resources around their city and to learn them to be more self-reliant and therewith more resilient. New infrastructure and technologies; new technologies and improved infrastructure are needed to improve availability of foods, protect harvests, reduce food loss, improve food safety, raise food quality, provide new job opportunities, etc. Improved strategies; we need a multi-channel food supply strategy, more coherence, a long-term vision and an organized effort to strengthen local economies. Networks and partnerships; better connections are needed not only between people, but also between the different stakeholder groups. And we have to make sure that the right people are at the right table at the right time. Especially resilience to shocks and disruptions asks for a joint approach. And all of that cannot be done without a strong political will. Covid hasn’t been the first shock to our food systems and it will definitely not be the last one. Therefore, we need to learn from the past and be prepared for the future. More knowledge exchange, more city-to-city learnings, more local data collection and sharing, keeping a systemic view and better understanding the current situation, limitations and opportunities is crucial to become more resilient in the future.236241243244245246248249250251Theme 7 - Empowering cities and local governments to improve food systems globally The key role of local and regional governments in the transformation of food systems is acknowledged by all discussants. These self-governments are clearly essential to surmount obstacles before food systems can be considered sustainable and resilient. Local and regional authorities are prompted to lead priority actions at three different scales, starting from a suggestion to create a common narrative on food systems. This is presented as a means to set collective goals and convince all stakeholders that food systems contribute to a sustainable urban development pathway. Once the potential of acting in this regard is made evident through sensitization and capacity building, the design process and decision-making should be made in an inclusive manner, with the effort to reach out to marginalized groups. Going into the specificities of food policy itself, two recommended actions targeted the distribution subset of the food chain, where most of the food waste is generated due to inadequate storage conditions. It is also at this point where the direct link between consumers and producers has been replaced by centralized and large-scale supply halls. In order to reduce the number of intermediate agents who contribute to hike food prices, the missing connection should be reinstated through local farmers’ markets. Apart from public authorities, other actors have their own responsibilities for the successful integration of food systems transformation into territorial governance. Academia should be seen as a pilar of research and data-collection to inform public deciders. International organisations and their partners should make use of their networks, resource mobilization and collective advocacy know-how on the global stage, for the benefit of local and regional governments. They could help share successful innovative localised experiences, build up technical and human resource capacities and voice out demands for a further decentralization of food-policy related competences or at least for real inclusion at the decision-making table. The conditions for successful actions to be carried out by local and regional governments can be presented along three consecutive phases, considering first the upstream preparation and justification of policies based on thorough research and reliable data. Second, fostering multistakeholder participation and engaging in collaboration with the private sector are positive steps towards the improvement of food systems. Finally, the post-implementation evaluation should always stay on guard for the possible degradation of community structures as they begin to rely excessively on public subsidies instead of consolidating an autonomous working system of their own. From a broader perspective, a few more elements should be highlighted as challenges related to the effective implementation of the above-mentioned actionable recommendations. Anticipating and debate the following bottlenecks as a whole society, can allow us to revisit these well-known issues as potential opportunities. The ongoing demographic boom of cities in developing countries, often seen as a strain, could be a legitimate reason to invest radically more in the transformation of food systems to respond to the growing demand, as well as an incentive to make use of generated waste as inputs for renewable energy. Regarding the urban-rural divide that nevertheless connects through food systems, some efforts could be directed towards promoting balanced territories with their respective economic development activities such as rural tourism or urban agriculture. On another topic, the thorough transformation of food systems, which should be led by accountable and transparent actions of local authorities, depends on a robust and cooperative multilevel governance system. Higher tiers of governments are expected to play a supportive role by interconnecting cities, providing technical advice to subnational governments and truly involving them in the design of all national policies that may have an impact on food safety and security for citizens.237241243244245246248249250251Participants agreed on the challenges, opportunities and actions needed. Instead of areas of divergence, a couple of dilemmas were mentioned that would benefit from a further discussion. These include: ● Governance systems are cumbersome and getting worse.Who is vulnerable differs from city to city or from local area to local area. How to identify and prioritize? ● There are significant dislocations among stakeholders i) at the local, city level that make it hard to get food on the urban political agenda and to pursue an integrated approach; and ii) between governance levels – especially between local and national levels. ● Short term versus long term; during a crisis a lot of action is suddenly’ possible, but talking about true improvement and resilience has a double edge; we need strategies that are set up to respond to acute emergencies, but also strategies that build in long term resilience.We need all relevant stakeholders to work together, but the large number of institutions and stakeholders can lead to governance fragmentation.

2021-07-30 10:07:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32387/203

60

We included many speakers from different background in the session. Also we encouraged questions to be asked in the chat and include participants in the meeting. We actively asked to join us in the coalition.

Yes

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UNFSS-science-days-One-Pager.pdfhttps://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UNFSS_true_cost_of_food.pdf

2021-07-30 12:58:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32071/112

4734137264242422243216633

The organization of the dialogue incorporated and reinforced the UN principles of engagement in the following ways: a) The invitation to the dialogue was clear on the need for urgency for Central Malawi in particular and Malawi in general to achieve the Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development, as such the meeting was meant to reflect on innovative ways towards the agenda. b) The invitation to the had the UN logo on food systems summit, reflecting our support for the summit. The dialoge was dialogues was registered on the UN Food Systems Portal. c) The dialogue invited stakeholders from various fields including the smallholder farmers as they are part of the food systems chain. e) The dialogue made space for presentations from Government Ministries and Departments on their existing efforts towards the 2030 global agenda on nutrition outcomes. This was meant to recognize the existing efforts and policy processes for the same.The organization of the dialogue incorporated and reinforced the UN principles of engagement in the following ways: a) The dialogue recognized the urgency for Malawi in general, and central Malawi in particular to move towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as such the dialogue came up a pathway mutually agreed by all multi stakeholders, through which the agreed outcomes can be achieved by the year 2030. Specifically, the dialogue envision a 50% reduction in malnutrition rates for central Malawi by the year 2030. b) The dialogues were made clear to the multi stakeholder group that they are supporting the UN Food Systems summit, as such were registered on the UN Food Systems Portal and feedback would be provide via the UN Food Systems portal. The dialogues ultimately contributed to the global 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development. Malawi as a whole, and central Malawi in particular must move towards the global 2030 Agenda for her sustainable development of her local food systems. c) The views of all participants regardless of their background including the smallholder farmers that attended the dialogue were respected and made part of the recommendations of the dialogue. d) The dialogue invited multiple stakeholder from diverse fields such as agriculture, trade, nutrition, community development, health among others. It was made clear that food systems is a complex field and require multi-faceted stakeholders to ably analyze issues along the food system chain. e) The cultural issues affecting especially nutrition outcomes in central Malawi were analyzed to come with lasting solutions to such challenges. e) The dialogue was in recognition of the existing initiatives and policy processes towards the 2030 global agenda on sustainable development. As such the dialogue was meant to learn from those initiatives and come up with better innovative ways for greater impact. The stakeholders were able to note what has been working and associated challenges thereby devising on what needs to be done for more impact before the year 2030.For other convinors, it is imperative that the dialogues should involve multi faced stakeholders along the food systems chain to capture a holistic outcomes for sustainable food systems. The rest of the principles are vital for the smooth and impactful outcome generation for the dialogue, as such need to be adhere to.

Yes

234238239243244245246247248249250251Food and Nutrition Rights for Food Systems in Central Malawi. The purpose of an Independent dialogue in Central Malawi was to initiate a district stakeholder dialogue of critical nexus issues that are key for sustainable food systems in central Malawi, through interconnection and engagement with the Food Systems Summit process. Specifically, the dialogue sought to: 1) Create a platform for discussion on the design of what it would take for a future sustainable food system for Central Malawi that delivers nutrition outcomes, and sustainable consumption patterns by 2030. 2) How district stakeholders can work together for such a future sustainable food system for Central Malawi towards 2030.235238239241242243244245246247248249250251Multi stakeholder recommitment to the global call for increased nutritional outcomes in local food systems, stakeholders in Central Malawi collectively agreed for a common vision of reducing malnutrition levels by 50% from the present 44% to 22% by year 2030. In repositioning for impact towards the Vision of reduced malnutrition by the year 2030, stakeholders agreed the following actions to be undertaken: i. Increased level coordination of nutrition programmes and nutrition reporting by all actors, with a central planning and reporting. The Nutrition Officer (Department of Health) to act as a focal point for this coordination, and facilitate development of nutrition action plan to be supported by all stakeholders. ii. Stakeholders both public and private involved in nutrition to support revamping and strengthening of local nutrition institution/committees for effective delivery of nutrition programmes. iii. Promotion of diversified local food production of both plant and animal for nutrition outcomes, and localized cooking demonstrations at community level. iv. Reposition local community leaders as nutrition champions in their communities and build their capacity for such roles. The Central Government and other national institutions were called upon to support the district initiatives through the following interventions: i. The Malawi Bureau of Standards to decentralize and localize their operations to ensure food safety standards are adhered to by all actors in the food systems especially the private sector at all levels. ii. The Government has to increase public investment in the livestock sector. Government has prioritized subsidies in the crop sector at the expense of the livestock sector. The livestock sector remains underfunded and without adequate support services. iii. There is need for supporting policy environment for the marketing of farmers’ farm produce. Government has to develop a pricing policy for farmers’ produce that should be enforced year in and year out to protect farmers from heartless private sector players who make lots of profits at the expense of poor farmers. iv. Introduction of nutrition education in primary schools, and re-introduce the home craft model of community nutrition education as it proved successful at community level.236238239243244245246247248249250251Multi stakeholder coordination for nutrition outcome. The Department of Health to be the focal point. CEPA to support multi stakeholder meetings for monitoring progress and ensure reporting of nutrition outcomes.237238239241242243244245246247248249250251Creating a vision for nutrition outcomes in Central Malawi. The stakeholders had different proposed targets ranging from 10% to 50%. A participatory discussion was facilitated with open views to every stakeholder to consolidate the multi stakeholder vision and finally agreed for 50%. The target had to be ambitious enough to call for each other participation and the need to invite others into the dialogue and the vision for sustainable food systems.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Food-Systems-Independent-Report-for-Food-and-Nutrition-Rights-for-Central-Malawi.pdfhttp://www.cepa.org.mw

2021-07-30 15:04:06205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23280/262

1039319212321533391010113124422131149

DG SANTE of the European Commission organised the online stakeholder meeting on 7 June 2021, from 10.00 to 15.30. Three topics were discussed: challenges and opportunities in the development of a policy framework on sustainable food systems, how aquaculture and fisheries can contribute to sustainable food systems, and boosting nature-positive production. The event was first advertised a week before the event, giving interested parties enough time to prepare their contributions. A total of 103 participants took part. They represented a broad spectrum of sectors (see tables above), 17 in total, including: national or local government (20 %), fish and aquaculture (18 %) and livestock (12 %) and crops (9 %). They came from a diversity of sectors, the top three being: government and national institutions (22 participants), small, medium or large-scale fish farmers (19 participants) and small, medium or large enterprises (12 participants).All the Principles of Engagement of the Food Systems Summit were followed. In particular the principles of recognising complexity, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and complementing the work of others were reflected in the dialogue. After each presentation, participants were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments, either by raising their hands or in the chat function. The presenters responded to these questions and comments. The moderator read out most of the comments on the chat function, especially those made by people who were unable to speak after raising their hand. The audience interaction tool Slido was used on several occasions to gather the participants’ opinions.I would advise to keep enough time to allow participants to discuss and interact. The use of slido and other interactive tools (such as the chat function) turned out to be a success. I would recommend these tools within these initiatives.

Yes

234239240244246248249The dialogue was divided into three sessions. The first one focused on the challenges and opportunities related to development of a policy framework on sustainable food systems. The second delved into the contribution of aquaculture and fisheries to sustainable food systems. The third addressed how the EU could contribute to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit’s (UN FSS) objective to boost nature-positive production. Particularly, the first session dealt with the question of an appropriate legal framework to help ensure sustainable and resilient food systems in the EU. A presentation by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) highlighted the essential elements of such a framework. DG SANTE’s presentation added to this by addressing the importance of framework legislation and its goals. The second session dealt with the relevant role of aquaculture and fisheries. Sustainable aquaculture focused on the untapped potential of blue food production, its advantages over land-based agriculture, and the challenges facing it. DG MARE’s presentation gave an overview of the sector and how it can make a greater contribution to feeding a growing world population and as animal feed. The discussion about nature-positive production, the third of the UN’s five action tracks, centred on the role of agroecology – farming in harmony with nature – and its contribution to food security. Three linked approaches to human interaction with ecosystems were discussed: protect, manage and restore. Other EU concepts and policies, such as regenerative agriculture and One Health, were also mentioned. DG AGRI discussed actions the EU can take to boost nature-positive production, mentioned in section C below.235239240244246249Many of the speakers emphasised the need to approach sustainable food systems not only from an EU perspective, but from an international one, too. The food system makes up nearly one-third of the human activities that are responsible for climate change and thus needs to be addressed in its entirety. Developing sustainable, resilient food systems is vital to ensuring an effective response to crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Opportunities to developing more nature-friendly food production and consumption patterns need to be identified, and the best available scientific knowledge used to define appropriate policy actions. Urgent collective effort is needed, to transform food systems and achieve a greener, sustainable planet. The EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy requires an integrated approach that puts citizens at its centre and includes actors at local, national, EU and international level. The UN FSS is a good opportunity to collect views from stakeholders and citizens on key topics. A framework law governing food systems is required to set out general principles for an integrated approach to sustainability of food systems. This framework legislation will be key in shifting the paradigm of placing food products on the Union market from mainly safety-based considerations to a wider approach integrating sustainability aspects. It will define the notion and objectives of sustainable food system. Given its ‘framework’ nature, this legislation will create an enabling environment for future policy and legislation to support the transformation of the current EU food system into a sustainable one. It will raise the political and legal profile of the food sustainability concept and place it at the heart of the EU and national decision-making processes. The process to achieve these aims is still in its early stages and requires continuous discussion with the public and private sectors. It is important to remember that there is no precedent in legislation for such a framework law. Consultations will begin as soon as an ‘inception impact assessment’ has been published. Aquaculture frequently comes under threat from agricultural practices – for example, when soil from maize fields is flushed into lakes, impacting activities like carp production, which is a very sustainable source of food. Therefore, it is vital not only to be aware of how various food systems affect one another, but also to ensure that efforts are made to strike a balance between them and to monitor the effects of actions taken. To promote and grow the seafood sector, consumers have to be better informed, and a robust legal framework must be put in place that regulates the issuing of licences and allocation of farming and fishing areas. This will in turn help to attract investment. Aquaculture and agriculture face similar challenges and it is important to see the links between sectors, monitor them and address trade-offs. The EU’s One Health approach encourages systemic thinking about the interrelations between nature and culture, production and consumption. This concept maps out the interrelationship between the health of the environment and that of humans and animals. An accelerated shift to sustainable fish and seafood production is needed, in line with the EU’s agenda for sustainable food systems.236239240244246249The policy framework on sustainable food systems The food system is a ‘complex compendium’ of laws, according to one FAO participant. A food systems framework law should have as its overarching goal the constitutional protection of the right to adequate food, the right to health and a healthy environment, while possibly taking into consideration gender and vulnerable groups. A framework law should include elements like general roles and responsibilities for public and private bodies, institutional coordination and participation mechanisms, and ways of ensuring compliance, enforcement and monitoring. A DG SANTE representative pointed out that the EU has no framework law on food sustainability. While EU food laws do include elements of sustainability, there is fragmentation. This is why the need for a framework law is vital.236240244246249Aquaculture and ‘blue food’ Blue food plays an important role in providing nutrition and food security to the world population. Over 3 billion people rely on blue food as their primary source of protein. There is a need to increase aquatic food production. Such growth will have to rely mostly on aquaculture growth. Molluscs and seaweed are especially important food sources that are underexploited. The development of aquatic resources has the potential to create new economic activity and contribute to a healthier planet. The development of blue food is present in the preparatory work of the UN FSS, especially in action area 3.2. The EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy recognised the potential of fish and seafood to contribute to sustainable food systems by providing a low-carbon food and feed. It seeks to accelerate the shift towards sustainable fish and seafood production and confirms the need to bring fish stocks to sustainable levels via the Common Fisheries Policy. The EU has published new strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021–2030. It has four objectives: building resilience and competitiveness, participating in the green transition, ensuring social acceptance and information to consumers, and increasing knowledge and innovation. Taking into consideration the situation of EU aquaculture, they can become a useful reference more globally. The Commission invites EU MS to promote the principles underlying the guidelines in the context of external action. The Commission has already proposed the guidelines as a reference document in the context of regional consultations for the preparation of FAO Guidelines on Sustainable Aquaculture. Aquaculture can contribute to a circular economy – for example, by using waste from fisheries as animal feed. There is vast potential in using algae as animal feed and food. One participant pointed out how sustainability is generally understood as environmental sustainability. However, it is important to look at the economic sustainability of such activities. SMEs are the primary actors in the field of aquaculture and their numbers are decreasing. While they would like to become ‘food system heroes’, these SMEs are struggling to survive for reasons that include water pollution. Although the EU has a Water Framework Directive, coastal waters are in poor health, which is threatening activities such as mollusc farming. To reverse this, greater protection of coastal waters is essential. The FAO indicated that an aquaculture workshop will be convened, during which an aquaculture legislation revision tool will be introduced. It will look at various issues, including biosecurity. In this respect, a robust, clear framework legislation and a discussion based on scientific evidence is needed to achieve radical transformation Blue food has several advantages over land-grown food, and this can be promoted through better consumer information, rebalancing of the playing field with regards to imports, and by creating a robust and clear legal framework. Participants were asked for their opinions via two Slido polls.The public considered that the most important aspects to ensure an appropriate role of fisheries and aquaculture in building a more sustainable food systems are: eliminating overfishing and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (41%), growth of aquaculture (36%), reducing the environmental/biodiversity/climate impact of fisheries and aquaculture (32%), diversification to underexploited and lower trophic species (algae, molluscs) (27%) and encouraging the development of small-scale fisheries and aquaculture (27%). They considered that the two best means to ensure that fisheries and aquaculture contribute to more sustainable food systems are consumer information (46%) and greater regional cooperation (46%). More attention should be paid to the role of producers in the food system. Too often, the focus is on managing an oversupply of food while no due regard is paid to rewarding producers. A sustainable food system must ensure that producers are rewarded for their efforts. There can be no sustainability without profits for producers and vice236240244246249250Nature-positive production The UN proposes three approaches to nature-positive production: protecting ecosystems from biodiversity loss, managing existing food-production systems sustainably, and restoring degraded ecosystems and rehabilitating soil function. For the EU situation, participants recognised the importance of all three action areas of Action Track 3. They indicated that sustainably managing the existing food production systems on land and water was more relevant to the EU than protecting natural ecosystems and restoring degraded ecosystems. Within the management approach, stakeholders were somewhat divided, with only a small majority indicating that, for their organisation, agro-ecological approaches will be the main focus of attention in coming years. The discussion was dominated by many aquaculture stakeholders who, while explaining the potential for aquaculture to contribute to sustainable food systems of the future, pointed to the environmental challenges for the sector. This includes water pollution and the need to adopt production models that ensure fair incomes for producers. There were calls for a One Health approach and socially acceptable conditions for workers in the food chain. An interesting outcome of the session was the clear need to establish new connections between terrestrial and aquatic farming stakeholder groups. They share a mutual dependence on healthy, functioning ecosystems, and share challenges such ensuring the economic and social sustainability of their farms. One participant said that while nature-positive production is very ambitious, it is difficult to achieve because of modern society and its current production model: there are few consequences for our actions and their impact on society and the environment. In a Slido poll, participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement: ‘Going forward, agro-ecology would be the main focus of the work of my organisation.’ Most participants said they neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, followed by ‘strongly agree’ and ‘somewhat agree’.237239240244246249One speaker said he had expected more critical inputs and questions from participants on achieving nature-positive production, given the urgency and broad nature of the issue. He reminded the audience of a Farm to Fork Strategy Communication of May 2020 which stated that food systems are one of the main causes of climate change and environmental degradation. Dependence on pesticides and antimicrobials must be reduced, excessive use of fertilisers avoided, organic farming increased and biodiversity loss reversed. One participant questioned whether a framework law is necessary and whether it would add anything to the existing provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. A European Commission official responded that framework law would provide an enabling environment for the mainstreaming of sustainability in all policy areas. The FAO representative said a framework agreement would enable all sectors in the food chain to better coordinate their actions. Food labelling was another issue that participants felt was not being adequately addressed. One said that consumers do not get enough clear, reliable information on food labels, creating problems across the hospitality, food and catering industry. In response, one of the speakers said there are many ongoing initiatives on labelling, such as the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). These will continue to be developed and efforts will be made to develop a framework on labelling that includes PEF methodology. One participant commented that organisations such as the Slow Food movement and Civil Society Mechanism have declined to participate in the UNFSS in September. This is due to concerns about corporate influence on the event and a lack of inclusion of the voices of the most vulnerable in the food system. More attention should be placed on the role of producers, one participant remarked. It is not enough to speak about managing abundant flows of food without considering how producers are rewarded for their work. The matter of animal health and welfare was another topic that some felt had been neglected. One participant said the UNFSS agenda does not take animal health into consideration. The subject is often seen as being of secondary importance in discussions about sustainability. The European Commission must also pay greater attention to including animal health and the use of antibiotics.

2021-07-30 15:24:58205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27852/262

3440221533125121531190

The Commission Expert Group “EU Platform on Animal Welfare” includes 74 members representing 27 EU Member States + EEA + Switzerland national authorities, international organisations, businesses, professional association representatives and civil society and scientists. The Dialogue was held at the plenary meeting of the EU Platform on Animal Welfare in the context of the EU dialogues in preparation of the Summit. Its Principles were introduced by EU dialogue Convenor.Our Dialogue reflected all specific aspects of the Principles starting by recognising the urgency of sustained action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The Platform, by definition, promotes food production practices that strive resilient food systems while recognizing its complexity and necessity of inclusion in it a wide range of stakeholders. Platform members’ are constantly working in promoting trust by evidence-based solutions to improve animal welfare.It is very important to respect and to stick to the Principles of Engagement as it influences the main lines of the Dialogue and thus its outcomes.

Yes

234239240243244245246248249250Our Dialogue allowed emphasising that the EU Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy have similar objectives with the UN Food Systems Summit, which are to create sustainable and resilient food systems. Animal welfare is a cross-cutting issue present in all five action tracks aligned with the Summit’s five objectives: to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; to shift to sustainable consumption patterns; to boost nature positive production; to advance equitable livelihoods and to build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. Therefore, to succeed in the task of creating sustainable and resilient food systems in which animal welfare plays a key role, we need to address all complexity of the food systems and to identify the challenges link to its transformation, to use to this purpose best available scientific knowledge and to identify gaps that requires more research and innovations. The involvement of all stakeholders is necessary to achieve the set-up objectives. All animal welfare actions set-up by the Farm to Fork Strategy can be categorised along these objectives.235239240243244246248249250The participants to the Dialogue agreed on the necessity to create sustainable and resilient food systems, which can only be achieved by an active involvement of all stakeholders of the food chain: farmers, agricultural service providers, food processors, government, scientific community, distributors, transporters, retailers, consumers. The large number of the stakeholders contributes to the complexity of the food system as each of these parties has different business and sustainability motivations and skills, which need to be incorporated into the sustainability plan. For instance, a major concern for farmers is the conversion costs of the current production system requiring long-term investment. Two main animal welfare actions set-up by the Farm to Fork Strategy were discussed more in details: the preparations for the revision of the EU animal welfare legislation (so called fitness check and planned impact assessment) and the conclusions of a subgroup as regards an EU animal welfare label. The revision of the EU animal welfare legislation with a view to align it with the latest scientific evidence, broaden its scope and make it easier to enforce will ultimately ensure a higher level of animal welfare. The participants agreed that the revision of the EU animal welfare legislation is needed and that a new legislation has to cover more animal species than currently the case. Nevertheless, the benefits that animal welfare legislation could bring are hindered by the fact that consumers are insufficiently aware of EU standards. To remedy this situation, another major objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy is to explore options for possible animal welfare labelling to better transmit value through the food chain. In this context, a large part of the discussion was devoted to the conclusions on animal welfare labelling elaborated by a respective sub-group of the Platform. According to this subgroup, the establishment of an EU animal welfare label could ensure an equivalent level of information level for consumers across the EU. It would offer consumers the possibility to choose their food on the basis of the level of animal welfare that they are willing to pay. It could also increase transparency in the market and provide better protection to EU producers who apply high standards. At the same time, it will offer business operators, including farmers, the opportunity and incentives to improve their animal welfare standards at their own pace. The group agreed that the scope of an EU animal welfare multi-tier label should include the whole cycle of production, including transport and slaughter for farmed animals for food production. Achievements of these two major projects will reshape EU animal welfare policies so to correspond to the general ambitions of the Farm to Fork Strategy in terms of sustainability of the food chain. In addition, the meeting discussed the European Citizens’ Initiative “End the cage age” and the representative of the European Parliament demonstrated that it fits perfectly with the Food Summit Systems objectives. Some members underlined the importance of including animal welfare standards in trade agreements with third countries as a necessary condition for achieving a global sustainable food system.2362392402432442462482491) Revision, by the Commission, of the EU animal welfare legislation on farm animals, transport and slaughter, by the end of 2023, to align it with the latest scientific evidence, broaden its scope and make it easier to enforce. The challenge to face is a very tight time-schedule and the need for a solid analysis of impact of a wide range of issues to address in this revision. 2) Recommendation by the subgroup that the Commission puts forward a proposal of an EU animal welfare label to better transmit value through the food chain. The challenge would be to find an agreement of all relevant parties as to the scope of the label, its technical requirements and its voluntary versus mandatory character, and to ensure that the label does not lead to excessive administrative burden. 3) Response by the Commission on the Citizens’ initiative request to phase out cage farming system in the EU. Challenges: the large scope of animals included, different farming systems in Member States, economic costs for farmers and consumers, need for a transition period. 4) Transport of live animals. The main challenge consists in improving the transport conditions to guarantee the welfare of animals during the whole journey.2372392402432442462492501) Livestock production On one hand, there were opinions on an absolute need to reduce the livestock production in the EU because of the climate damage (CO2). Opposite voices have underlined the importance of meat in the healthy diet; worries about higher meat price in case of its lower production, therefore problems for people with a low income; economic consequences for farmers and their families as well as an unfair competition from third countries. 2) Animal welfare transport Some would like to ban long distance transport of live animals, while some consider it as a vital for farming production.

2021-07-30 16:29:46205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29779/262

671173216127391179912910218461413233111197153222173

DG SANTE organised the online citizen dialogue on 12-13 July 2021. The event was first advertised in June 2021, giving interested parties enough time to prepare their contributions. It was advertised via different social medial channels, predominantly Twitter, ensuring that a wide audience of potential participants was reached. A total of 67 citizens out of 297 registered citizens took part. They represented a broad spectrum of 14 sectors (see tables above), including: Agriculture/Crops, Fish and aquaculture, Food industry, Communication, Health care and Nutrition. They came from 14 categories of stakeholder groups including: Local non-governmental organisations, science and academia, large national businesses and multinational corporations. All participants attended the opening plenary session on 12 July. The EU Convenor framed the focus for the dialogue with an overview of the structure, purpose and content of EU citizens dialogues on food systems. The Convenor and other speakers touched on the challenges of aligning different food systems with the full range of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This was an opportunity to raise awareness of the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, as well. Participants were divided into 6 thematic groups based on their stated interests on the registration form they filled in to participate. There were 10-15 participants per thematic session. Four discussion groups were held on 12 July and the remaining two on 13 July. Each breakout room session dealt with one topic, important for the Summit. Each discussion group was led by a facilitator and had an opening introduction and summary of the discussion at the end. The closing plenary was held on 13 July after the thematic sessions. Facilitators reported back on each thematic group and summarised the discussion, including points of agreement and disagreement and actions expressed in their discussion group.All the Principles of Engagement of the Food Systems Summit were followed. In particular, the principles of recognising complexity, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, and complementing the work of others were reflected in the dialogue. Each of the 6 breakout sessions began with a presentation from a relevant civil society case study and an address by invited speakers. Participants were encouraged to speak openly and discuss the theme of the session based on their personal and professional experience. They had the opportunity to ask questions and make comments by raising their hands or in the chat function. The facilitator ensured that each participant contributed and invited replies from other participants to include a variety of perspectives on the points made. The facilitator read out most of the comments on the chat function, especially those made by people who were unable to speak after raising their hand, and where appropriate questions were referred to the speakers. Each breakout session also used the Zoom Polls function to consolidate participants’ opinions on the following questions as grouped by the relevant theme.I would invite other convenors to make sure to guarantee that the principle of inclusivity and multi-stakeholders engagement is promoted during these dialogues. Interesting and alternative ideas came out by simply giving the opportunity to people that are not normally involved in these processes to speak.

Yes

234238239240241244246248249250251The facilitators invited participants to propose and discuss ideas on the topics prompted by questions prepared in advance. Green claims and sustainable food labelling: The discussion was predominantly focused on Europe’s food systems. The facilitator invited participants to propose and discuss ideas on the topic of sustainable food labelling, prompted by eight questions relating to the difficulty for consumers to make sense of environmental labels and initiatives; how ‘greenwashing’ can be better policed; the worst misleading terms to clamp down on to avoid confusion; empowering consumers to make sustainable food choices; making sustainable food labelling better; the next steps in terms of educating consumers; promoting the EU’s Farm to Fork to be more transparent on the sources of food. The views of young people on sustainable consumption: Participants proposed and discussed ideas around sustainable production, distribution and consumption. Prompts included questions on a vision of sustainable food consumption; key elements that need to be addressed; overcoming obstacles; policymakers’ actions to encourage that shift; the role of the private sector; actions to shift consumer behaviour; solutions for the most vulnerable and poor; reducing the potential trade-offs; and solutions to offset costs for farmers, food businesses and workers; mobilising young people to participate more fully in providing solutions. Sustainable production: The dialogue broadly covered: pricing, restrictive regulation, changing food consumption patterns, producer organisations, international trade and new business models. Prompts included questions on the main obstacles and challenges; shortcomings in current initiatives; the reasons for a continuous lack of understanding on sustainable food production; incentives that are needed to bring about a transformation; closing the barrier between rich and poorer countries; and involving farmers, food processors, retailers and consumers in sustainable food production in practice and in policy. Sustainable and healthy diets The facilitator asked questions on the availability to all of sustainable, healthy food to all and how to change this situation; the sufficiency of enough information to choose a sustainable and healthy diet; changing how people buy or access food; changes to farming or farming policy; trade agreements; empowering individuals and communities to produce more of their own fresh food; and support for food innovation and entrepreneurship. Prevention and reduction of food waste: The facilitator asked questions on the causes for food waste across the food supply chain and solutions to address these issues; causes of food waste at household level/at home and solutions to address these causes; barriers consumers face in reducing/preventing food waste; creating a wider societal movement to reduce food waste; actions food producers can take to improve consumers’ understanding of the dates to which their products can still be eaten safely; and the types of information need to help consumers decide whether to keep or throw away a product past its ‘best before’ date. Antimicrobial resistance: The dialogue touched on multiple action tracks, and topics broadly covered awareness of antimicrobial resistance, support to change farming practice, animal welfare, aquaculture, antimicrobials in the environment and international trade. Prompts included questions on public awareness of the issues and solutions for change; the roles of public policy and sharing information with farmers; the roles of farming organisations and other stakeholders; reducing the presence of antimicrobials in the environment and who should pay for it; and limits on antimicrobial in trade agreements and how could these be enforced.235238239240241244246248249250251Green claims and sustainable food labelling A number of participants agreed that most food labels are confusing and that consumers overall are ill-informed about the science behind green claims. Many agreed that they wanted more transparency. Overall, participants agreed on many points and there appeared to be only a few areas of divergence. Some citizens felt healthy eating should be merged with sustainability matters. It was agreed that there are many different dimensions and trade-offs within sustainability, which should be considered and clearly communicated on. Citizens generally thought one single labelling method was best, such as sustainability scores using colours. In conclusion, transparency, trust and education were the three main big issues for the group and how they would welcome an EU label, to help consumers differ between an official label and a commercial label. The views of young people on sustainable consumption There was wide support for actions to encourage more young people to enter farming, for youth-led innovation, and for more opportunities for young people to engage in shaping food systems. Young people also require more opportunities to have their voices heard in policymaking. There is a need for reduction and valorisation of waste in a more circular economy. Education is necessary to increase understanding, and research is needed to provide a scientific basis for the complex trade-offs. Pricing and tax systems should aim to ensure that the price of foods reflects their real value and also ensure fair prices. Clear labelling based on objective, independent standards would help. Misleading claims and gaps in consumer information need to be addressed. Sustainable production Participants felt that competitive markets put a downward pressure on farmer prices, which has led to income problems, overspecialisation, and a lack of incentives for sustainable production. There is a need to internalise in food prices the negative environmental and social externalities of the food production model. The concept of an environmental tax was discussed. Cooperatives have a role as promoters of agricultural development, allowing farmers to develop their own technical assistance and get involved in new technologies. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the importance of keeping trade flowing and has produced new business models. Waste and food poverty, however, remain severe problems. Some participants argued that trade supports balanced diets and brings improvements to the agri-food sectors in developing countries. What is needed is better international trade, including regulation and sustainability standards, which are sensitive at a local level. Sustainable and healthy diets Participants agreed that it is important to provide education and to disseminate reliable information. More needs to be done to promote the availability and affordability of sustainable and healthy food. The group felt it was important that approaches have some nuance – there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to diet or sustainability. There was a consensus that diets need to be rebalanced in favour of eating more plant-based products while reducing meat consumption. However, as consumption patterns change, farmers should receive support. EU trade policies with other parts of the world should support the transition to more sustainable and healthy diets. Polices relating to pricing, fiscal incentives and subsidies could all be rolled out to encourage sustainable food production and healthier consumption habits. Prevention and reduction of food waste Participants agreed that there are weaknesses throughout, from producer to consumer, with no single answer. The primary issues were agreed to be a lack of connection between consumers and the origins of their food; a lack of clearly communicated fiscal or moral incentives; a loss of skills in reusing food and an understanding how much is wasted at household level; the issue of food pricing not reflecting the true environmental cost; and the need for education and information campaigns for children and adults. The group agreed that digital tools can help to address some of these challenges. There needs to be better preservation of food from the time of harvesting and processing. Antimicrobial resistance The group agreed that everyone involved in the food system should be provided with reliable information about antimicrobial resistance in food production. Creating a network of intermediaries, advisory services and government bodies could support farmers as they try to reduce the use of antimicrobials. There was a strong focus on better animal welfare. The creation of multi-stakeholder platforms could provide guidance, knowledge and investment. Trustworthy food labelling schemes should also be supported. Steps should be taken to improve the sustainability of the EU’s aquaculture sector, not least as a way of reducing reliance on imports that might have longer supply chains and production that is more difficult to monitor than EU production. The EU’s trade policies should be used to drive up standards across the world. Efforts could be made to develop and promote global standards for the use of antimicrobials in the food chain.236239240243244246247248249Green claims and sustainable food labelling The large number of sustainable food labels and certifications was a discussion topic. Some participants asked for fewer sustainability labels on packaging but also stressed that labels had to be more informative. Governance on measuring sustainability would be useful and minimise greenwashing. Participants agreed that an ‘official’ label without commercial interests that is backed up by science would enhance consumer trust. It should be controlled by an independent body that ensures consistency. One citizen believed that greenwashing can be avoided by having a ‘certification of certification schemes’. Another discussion topic was how food producers can prove their sustainability claims. One citizen said that for transparency purposes, consumers should have access to the point of production. Farmers for instance, could allow consumers to visit farms. Another participant pointed out that organic farmers may want consumers to visit but larger producers do not. It was also pointed out that agri-food producers may be able to invite people onto site but that it is much more difficult for those in the fishing industry. Several participants agreed that alternative ways are needed to demonstrate how clean or ethical factories, farms and fisheries are in relation to the standards. Control authorities should be responsible. Cameras could be used in certain situations. There was much discussion on what elements should be taken into account within sustainable food labelling. Land-use footprints, micro-toxins and water-use were proposed by one citizen. Another cited the carbon footprint of transporting a product, working conditions and animal welfare as areas that need to be considered. Several participants also wanted pesticides use to be included. They argued this can be tracked using data collection in a similar way to animal welfare data, though there was a question about how to ensure data is used ethically once it has left a farm. Farmers may feel like they are being monitored by state as a result. Some participants suggested taking a systems approach to measure sustainability, which would be focused on outcomes rather than the tools or methods used for production. The design and format of sustainable food labelling was also a topic discussion. A simple sustainability label with a colour code system, similar to Nutri-Score, was proposed. It could come from the EU and should be based on scientific knowledge, evidence and data collection. It should be mandatory and not just voluntarily. Education as a means to support food labelling was a major discussion topic. One citizen thought that educating people should include the side effects of sustainable products, such as better pay for farmers via fair product initiatives. It was pointed out that education is also needed in professional sectors, such as small shop staff who are not aware of the issue. One participant said that people trust small shop staff and gave the example of a survey in the Netherlands. There, fishmongers were not aware of sustainability issues when asked by customers. The same participant went on to say that many people buy their groceries in big supermarkets so a different approach is needed to help answer consumer’s questions. Multi-channel campaigns are needed to inform consumers. Marketing strategies and social media advertising can also help to raise awareness of the issues.236239240243244245246248249250251The views of young people on sustainable consumption Participants stated the need for engagement between young people and policymakers, and the importance of taking opportunities to make their voices heard when possible. This could be facilitated through setting up discussion platforms to exchange ideas and launch grassroots initiatives, as well as advocacy via social media. Young people have grown up with climate change as a reality and have a valuable contribution to make. Dialogues such as this are important but young people need to see how far their outcomes are put into practice. Pressure on governments from citizens needs to continue, to ensure sustainability remains a priority. Where young people are not engaged in the debate, education and information services should demonstrate the link between food system sustainability and topics that interest young people, such as jobs. All actors in the food system should be included in shaping policy for a more sustainable food system, including young people. The food industry has important role here, according to some participants, as it has expertise and the financial resources to shift food systems to more sustainable models and healthier products. Consumers also need to be shown how policy in Europe works and what impact their own choices have on the environment. More directly, young people must be able to look critically at information about food and understand that their food choices are a political act. This should come via training and education about food and food systems from an early age, including lessons teaching cooking skills and education from farmers. People will not accept price increases if they don’t understand the reasons behind them, so evidence-based dialogue with consumers is essential. One solution proposed was that pricing should include a premium for food produced in an unsustainable way, with more sustainable products being more affordable. The issue is too complex to be the responsibility of consumers alone, but consumer demand can drive change, as can industry peer pressure. An independently verified labelling system could help, although it would be more complex to structure than e.g. existing labels for nutritional values. Industry needs to be incentivised and impartial regulators need oversight to prevent greenwashing, to ensure sustainability principles are adhered to along the food chain, and to provide guidelines on what claims producers can make about their products. Participants discussed farming practices, and some agreed that raising certain animals for food can add to biodiversity, e.g. in pastures. Where crops are grown, farmers should avoid monocultures, which are more susceptible to pests, with increased pesticide use as a result. However, there is a trade-off to be made between growing sufficient food and biodiversity. Household waste is another area of concern, and there is a need for new methods to limit and reuse organic waste throughout the food supply chain, including applications in non-food industries. While local food production was a focus of discussion, eating local/seasonal food is not always the most sustainable practice, some argued. One participant said that food miles are not a significant contributor to sustainability and another that it is better that food is sourced from countries with the most robust systems that have the least adverse effect on the environment. Technology such as hydroponics and aquaculture can be useful in responding to nutrient needs, e.g. providing wider access to fresh food year-round in countries where seasonal weather restricts local availability. The Zoom Poll showed broad agreement among participants that lobbying to change laws has more impact on making food systems sustainable than private or community action (82%), and that businesses rather than consumers should ultimately meet the costs of making food systems more sustainable (83%).236239240243244245246247248249250Sustainable production Participants discussed the pressure on production from supermarkets, with prices unchanged in many years. It was pointed out that techniques have been developed to produce more food at a lower price, but that higher production often comes at the expense of quality and flavour. One participant suggested that local animal breeds and plant varieties are being lost and that, while some actions are being carried out in this sphere, more protection is needed. Participants agreed that lots of food is wasted in fields, processing warehouses and at other points in the supply chain as minor cosmetic defects are considered a reason to throw produce away. Changing policies dictate how farmers work, but there is a lack of reward for nature-positive production. While there is a need for diversification, including urban farming solutions, some participants pointed out that it can be difficult for farmers to take steps into different methods of production. They often have large debts and need financial and technical support to transition. Participants agreed that eating patterns have changed in recent decades, with meat consumption increasing and a lack of connection between people and the food they eat. In addition, the loss of knowledge within certain demographic groups of how to store and use leftover food safely is resulting in unnecessary waste. It was felt that these are areas where information campaigns and education can play an important role. One participant suggested that reform of conventional agriculture is not sufficient to meet the demands of projected increases in meat consumption. Cell culture and plant-based alternatives were cited as possible solution but the technology hasn’t been widely embraced and private start-ups working in this area face regulatory hurdles. There was broad consensus on the need for a fairer food environment, with wages that enable people to afford good-quality, healthy, sustainable food. Particularly in the current climate, consumers will generally choose the cheapest option. Sustainability is not a priority for everyone, and not everyone has the information they need. While price is the primary driver, a lack of clear information is a problem. Participants largely agreed that a government mandate for universal, clear, trustworthy labelling with a product’s environmental footprint and other sustainability aspects, as well as information campaigns about what makes a sustainable diet, would allow people to make better-informed decisions. Taxes on less sustainable products could help to change habits. One participant raised the need to address the amount of revenue that goes to producers of, for example, coffee, which is consumed around the world. Solutions need to be global and systemic and make full use of available technologies. Participants discussed the need for citizens to be involved and organised to bring about change. Two participants highlighted the potential of cooperatives to help farmers to organise, obtain funds and public procurement and tackle the necessary administration. Technological intervention needs to be done quickly and collaboratively, with science and policymakers working alongside farmers and citizens for the benefit of everyone. Small farmers should be incorporated in decisions and policy, and the media has a responsibility to show different approaches to food production. On shortcomings in previous sustainability initiatives, participants said authorities have so far taken a short-term view, and that it is necessary to look at what will benefit citizens on the long-term, and accept that there will be a cost. The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic requires a new business model, some group members said, with a need for research into changing consumer behaviour and attitudes to pricing, waste and other issues. In the polls, participants felt that management (50%) and restoration (42%) were the most important of the UN’s three approaches for nature-positive production, followed by protection (8%). They highlighted reducing food waste (75%) and reducing pesticide use (58%) as the Farm to Fork initiatives most able to transform the EU's food system.236239243244246248250Sustainable and healthy diets The debate on the availability of sustainable, healthy food focused on the price of food and how that issue influences access. There was no universal agreement, with some participants feeling that healthy, sustainable food was sufficiently cheap and accessible while others felt it was too expensive for the poorest sections of society. Some believed it was about making the right choices, with many people still eating too many goods high in sugar, salt and fat. One idea proposed to make sustainable food more available was to lower taxes on healthy foods while increasing them on unhealthy options. Another idea was for the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy to become a food and health policy rather than an economic policy. According to one participant, the diversity of health needs of individual consumers and the cultural importance of specific foods, including meat, in regional cuisines should not be ignored. There was general agreement that many people need better-quality information about a healthy diet. Efforts to improve knowledge should start early with better food and nutrition education in schools. Group members reported good work already being carried out in this area through local projects, workshops and some TV shows. However, participants agreed that more could be done by governments to spread the message about eating the right foods for a healthier lifestyle. The group examined the role retailers, particularly supermarkets, play in driving access to healthy food choices. Debate focused on what retailers stock, with some feeling that too much junk food was available. Participants also noted that even institutions like hospitals do not always provide enough healthy snack choices for visitors. Bringing citizens closer to food production could help to change their buying habits, some participants suggested. This could be achieved by creating direct links between farmers and consumers through tools like ecommerce. Citizens also need to see how food is produced so they can make better-informed choices. Learning how to cook also teaches people (especially children) about ingredients and nutrition as well as sustainability issues like reducing and managing food waste. A comment in the chat noted that Sweden has developed public procurement criteria that includes economic, social and environmental aspects. When discussing the role of trade agreements, the group explored a range of issues. Is imported food clearly sustainable and can we be sure of the health and environmental standards of production methods for food grown outside the EU? One participant gave an example of imported goji berries labelled as organic, which turned out to have more pesticide residue than European non-organic alternatives. This sparked a debate about the value of accurate labelling and the role authorities should play in checking standards of imported goods, which should match EU standards. Debate turned to what role individuals and communities could play in producing their own food. The feeling was that community growing schemes can educate people about food and connect them to the food production process. However, this approach is limited as not everyone can “grow their own” and for practical reasons, general food production needs to be on a bigger scale. The group was very keen to see innovation and entrepreneurship play a greater role in food production and sustainability. Plant breeding, development of novel foods (like synthetic meats) and insects as a foodstuff were all mentioned in this context as a way of keeping the world’s population fed in an efficient and sustainable manner. In the first Zoom poll, respondents favoured incentives to make food more sustainable over stricter limits by 70% to 30%. In the second poll, 64% of respondents said that action should be international and only 36% preferred national or regional action.236239243244248249250Prevention and reduction of food waste Unpredictability and uncertainty are a problem, one participant pointed out, and this was especially true during the pandemic, when restaurants weren’t ordering food. It takes a relatively long time for producers to react to changes in consumer habits. It was largely agreed that digital tools can help but need to be easier and more useful, and that technology could be better used, particularly to improve packaging and labelling. Retailers often over-order, and consumers frequently buy more than they need. It was suggested that legislation obliging stores to give away surplus to charities, for example, could address the former issue. The group agreed that there is also a lack of connection between people, particularly those who live in cities, and what goes into producing the food they eat. At consumer level, information campaigns would help people relearn sustainable habits, such as eating only when hungry, using leftovers, planning meals and sharing food. Supermarket bulk buys are a problem, the group agreed, with smaller households having to pay more for smaller quantities or waste food they are unable to eat. There is no incentive to buy less food. Consumers are also used to products looking a certain way and rejecting edible food if it doesn’t meet those standards. Participants agreed that food is often too cheap, not taking into account the environmental or ethical cost. For consumers, it’s easy to throw away food that wasn’t expensive to buy. Information campaigns would help people value food from something other than a financial perspective. The media has an important role to play, some participants said, showing people the consequences of their choices and inspiring them to do better. Participants agreed that in their own lives, avoiding food waste comes naturally through habit. Their methods include using leftovers to create something new, tasting food before throwing it away, not strictly following best-before dates, sorting any waste into compost, using unusual ingredients to start conversations about food, and using food-sharing apps. These are all habits that can be taught in childhood. Better measurements at household level to see what we throw away would be valuable, they agreed. For a media campaign to work, it must be practical, something people can share easily with friends and family, avoid moralising and avoid information overload. Participants agreed that people know they shouldn’t waste food but that not many appreciate the true impact; high-profile ambassadors could be employed to raise awareness. Companies should also play a role, and it could be part of political manifestos during elections. Food waste platforms are a good way to spread knowledge, one participant noted. Children need to be in contact with unpackaged food and learn how food is produced, for example during farm open days. The connection between farmer and consumer is not very direct and there are limited possibilities to communicate directly. Participants thought people would be willing to pay a little more for more sustainable food but not enough to make a difference. As many foods are widely available year-round, there is less appreciation of food and seasons. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, emptier shelves prompted some people to stop taking food for granted. In the polls, 50% of the 10 participants said they would use food past its best-before date if the food looks OK, 30% of the 10 participants said it would depend on the type of food and 20% say they never look at dates. None would throw the food away. 45% said education and training on food waste would help reduce the amount thrown away, 36% thought incentivising consumers through taxation would be the best solution, and 18% wanted to see advice given through campaigns.236239240243246248249250Antimicrobial resistance The absence of reliable information on AMR was a focus, with some worried that there was too much “fake news”. The point was also made that sick animals do not feature in food marketing campaigns so the problem can be out of sight for the public. It was noted that the public is better informed about resistance in humans, but do not engage with this issue when it comes to livestock or even their pets. While the group was keen to see better information for consumers – including labelling schemes – it was accepted that it is not an easy subject for lay people to understand. Sweden was cited as model for change, where society as a whole is engaged in transforming the entire animal welfare system to minimise the use of antibiotics. Some participants felt that if people were more aware of AMR, consumers might be prepared to pay more for antimicrobial-free food. Another pointed out that all farms – intensive or not – should have good animal welfare as “microbes don’t discriminate between the farming system.” Because antimicrobials are part of their work, farmers understand the topic, participants agreed. Some farmers fear that reducing use will involve extra costs, although one participant’s experience was that these were not as great as anticipated. The group discussed measures and technologies available to reduce the use of antimicrobials. These include vaccines, which need to be made more affordable, and improvements in animal nutrition, biosecurity, disease monitoring and breeding programmes that can help animals stay healthy. It was suggested that an incentive-based approach could help farmers switch to healthier husbandry practices. Debate moved on to who can support farmers to change practices, with agreement on a multi-stakeholder approach that could include farmers, retailers and government. EU-supported projects are also helping farmers to engage with AMR-related research. In addition, veterinarians have a key role to play is supporting and informing farmers. The group examined what can be done to reduce the presence of antimicrobials in the environment and who should pay for it. Discussions began by focusing on aquaculture. Norway was offered as a success story because it ended routine use of antibiotics about ten years ago. Vaccination could also help drive further improvements in this industry, though this is a practical challenge as there are over 500 species of farmed fish worldwide. Even so, participants felt, European aquaculture should be prioritised for revival in the EU Member States. It was also noted that the EU has no plans to include invertebrates in animal welfare legislation. There was agreement that requirements applied to EU farmers to reduce use of antimicrobials should feature in EU trade agreements as part of a worldwide approach to reduce antimicrobial use in farming. One participant suggested that tariffs could incentivise more sustainable production, while others suggested that in parallel, producers outside of the EU could be supported to access technologies and capacity building to reduce antimicrobial reliance. It was also suggested that various EU Directorates-General could work more closely on this issue. More broadly, AMR was seen as a global challenge. The suggestion was made that the FAO could develop guidelines as key references for global trade. The potential value of harmonising labelling worldwide was also mentioned by one participant. The first Zoom poll supported views that the public need more information on AMR, as 75% of respondents said that people are not sufficiently aware of the problem. The second supported calls for more government intervention in practices, with 92% of respondents saying that more laws or policies are needed to reduce the amount of antimicrobials in food.237238239240241244246248249250251Green claims and sustainable food labelling One citizen stated that industrial farming and sustainable farming are conflicting approaches and that a breakthrough is needed for agri-food production. He felt big companies try to improve their image by promoting themselves with green initiatives. Another participant disagreed that industrial farming cannot be sustainable. Transparency can combat greenwashing even at a large scale of food production, though solutions must make sense for individual farmers. On the topic of pricing, both of sustainable products as a whole and the added costs of labelling food with more information, there was minor disagreement. Other participants felt that avoiding costs is unavoidable; some that the cost should not impact consumers and others argued that sustainable products should not be more expensive at all. One citizen argued that sustainable products are less affordable today than other choices and this must change. Others felt that in a democracy, any member of society should be able to make sustainable decisions. The views of young people on sustainable consumption The primary areas of divergence were on large-scale monoculture vs small-scale farming, and the issue of meat vs plant-based diets. Some participants said that organic farming may not always be the most sustainable option as it is less productive and results in more expensive food for low-income consumers. Others felt that it reduced negative environmental impacts and increased biodiversity. Some participants maintained that the future of sustainable food needs to be plant-based and that a reduction in meat consumption would free up land for other uses. Others said there is much land that can only be used for animal farming. Most participants felt that animal protein cannot be entirely replaced by plant-based food, although they had varying views on how far the replacement should go. Small-scale farming can be part of the solution according to some, while others felt that intensive systems can be more sustainable through more efficient use of resources. Sustainable production The primary area of divergence was on the issue of international trade. Some participants called for less trade, with more regional, sustainable production. Others called for more international trade and a rejection of protectionism, taking a global view and considering how producers in developing countries can add value to local produce through access to international trade. There was also divergence on the extent to which animal protein is an essential part of a balanced diet and on policy and public support for meat alternatives. There was no consensus on a proposal for seasonal taxes on fruit and vegetable products. It was pointed out that there is a risk that countries would react by imposing trade measures, and it is difficult to predict the result. While some participants called for a more regional and seasonal supply chain, with reduction in transport, this view was not widely shared as a driver of a more sustainable production system. Sustainable and healthy diets There was some disagreement on approaches that should be taken within the food. Some felt more investments should be made in organic production as way to improve the nutritional benefits of food. Other participants disagreed, noting that good food does not necessarily need to be organically produced. One person stated that food is too cheap now and that organic prices compared to conventional foods are not that different. Another participant claimed food is still too expensive, particularly for poorer members of society. Some felt they retailers, particularly supermarkets, could do more to stock healthier foods. However, another group believed that retail is making changes and that healthier choices are available. While many were very keen to see meat consumption dramatically reduced, some argued that livestock farming has a role to play in maintaining biodiversity. Countering this in the chat facility, one participant said that meat will never be sustainable. Prevention and reduction of food waste Some participants wanted to see a significant reduction in packaging of food items. However, it was pointed out that there is a trade-off to be made between reducing plastic use and ensuring food is packaged in the safest and most appropriate way, to protect it during transit and in store. Antimicrobial resistance Some in the group believed that public awareness of AMR in animals is higher than others suggested. One participant suggested that while additional bodies can support farmers on this issue, there are already a lot of organisations happy to work with farmers on improving animal welfare standards. They would also be willing to help with any transition away from use of antimicrobials. During the debate on trade, a participant pointed out that individual countries are very different and trying to homogenise their standards would be a big challenge.

2021-07-30 18:37:00204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25972/44

3501111940122307141823312103283111

El diálogo se organizó al alero de la Cátedra de Agricultura Campesina y Alimentación de la Universidad de Chile que está conformada por académicos y académicas de distintas facultades, representantes de FAO y de organizaciones campesinas y de desarrollo rural. La convocatoria al diálogo estuvo dirigida a la asociación de ferias libres de Chile, a pequeños productores y sus asociaciones, a municipios rurales, cooperativas de consumo y abastecimiento, ONGs, fundaciones e iniciativas que trabajan con la pequeña agricultura. La preparación del diálogo incluyó reuniones de coordinación temática entre el Consejo de la Cátedra y el público objetivo para definir preguntas de interés; y reuniones de coordinación metodológica a cargo de una subcomisión del Consejo. Para las reuniones grupales, se consideró un facilitador/a y una actuaria/o.Se realizó una presentación inicial donde se expusieron los objetivos de la Cumbre y la metodología de trabajo que tendría el diálogo, a través de la conformación de grupos donde todos y todas podrían abiertamente exponer sus puntos de consenso y disenso en forma respetuosa. Estos grupos se construyeron en función del rubro de la persona para que pudiesen ser heterogéneos en composición (productores, feriantes, consumidores, etc). Luego se trabajó muy participativamente en grupos y se tomaron apuntes de todo lo expuesto, sin excluir la opinión de ningún/a asistente. Finalmente el diálogo se cerró con un plenario donde se expusieron las ideas centrales de cada grupo y se realizaron preguntas y comentarios a cada grupo. Al cierre el Director de la Cátedra resumió las ideas fuerza del trabajo realizado.Se recomienda la construcción participativa del diálogo para obtener mejor respuesta del público de interés, así como la mezcla de disciplinas y quehaceres para compartir saberes y experiencias, eso fortalece y enriquece mucho la discusión. Al momento de realizar los grupos y su distribución, se recomienda solicitar a los asistentes que indique tipo de organización o rubro para poder realizar grupos heterogéneos.

Yes

234238239244249El diálogo versó sobre ¿Cómo mejorar el acceso a los alimentos saludables en zonas urbanas? El contexto temático es que Chile es un país con altas cifras de malnutrición por exceso y mala alimentación, con alto consumo de alimentos ultraprocesados y bajo cumplimiento de las recomendaciones alimentarias, en todos los grupos etarios, con mayor prevalencia en el nivel socioeconómico y educacional más bajo y en mujeres, mostrando inequidades inaceptables. Los alimentos saludables recomendados para la población provienen principalmente de la producción a pequeña escala (agricultura campesina y pesca artesanal) y son distribuidos mayoritariamente por pequeños comerciantes (mercados y ferias libres). Sin embargo estos pequeños productores y comerciantes, no cuentan con suficiente apoyo y no se les otorga la relevancia que tienen, por parte del Estado. Los grandes centros de abastecimiento están muy centralizados en grandes ciudades. Al mismo tiempo resultan ser un sector sumamente vulnerable, lo que ha quedado demostrado durante la pandemia. No existe un claro reconocimiento de la producción a pequeña escala y el desarrollo de mercados locales, la cadena de intermediarios es muy larga con lo que se va perdiendo el origen de los productos y aumentando su costo. Ejemplos claros de estas falencias es que la mayor parte de frutas y verduras pasan por la capital antes de ser distribuidas al resto del país, viajando una cantidad enorme de kilómetros contribuyendo a la huella de carbono y aumentar su costo; así también lo demuestra el bajo número de ferias libres en el país y su alta concentración en pocas urbes, vs una población con crecientes demandas. Las políticas alimentarias y de fomento agrario y pesquero en Chile se quedaron cortas y no están dando cuenta de las necesidades actuales. No existe una mirada integral institucional ni lineamientos claros sobre el sistema alimentario al que aspiramos. Estas falencias tienen consecuencias tanto en el acceso físico y económico, como en la disponibilidad y en el consumo de alimentos saludables, así como en el modelo de producción (poco sostenible). Se ha hecho más hincapié en producir para exportar y no faltar a los tratados internacionales, que en la soberanía alimentaria y la sostenibilidad productiva. Nuestra población conoce poco sobre temas de alimentos, alimentación y nutrición, se observa que los currículums escolares no incluyen estas áreas a pesar que la educación tiene un fuerte impacto en los hábitos de consumo, y por ende en el estado nutricional y en la salud, especialmente referido a enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles. En el último tiempo, se ha observado en algunos grupos poblacionales selectos que ha aumentado la demanda de productos orgánicos, naturales, y de origen vegetal, pero esto es excepcional y aún de muy alto costo. En Chile la alimentación adecuada no está considerada como un derecho, de hecho no está explícita en la Constitución vigente.235238239241244247249Para dar respuesta a la pregunta planteada de ¿Cómo mejorar el acceso a los alimentos saludables en zonas urbanas? se organizan las propuestas en los siguientes ámbitos: -Educación: importancia de profundizar en los currículums tanto preescolar como escolar para que incorporen obligatoriamente temas de alimentos, alimentación, nutrición y sistema agroalimentario, que incluya aspectos teóricos pero también prácticos por ejemplo a través del desarrollo de huertas escolares y otras actividades que acerquen a los niños, niñas y adolescentes al campo, al mar, a la cultura alimentaria y a la alimentación saludable. -Espacios de encuentro y organización social: fomentar la colaboración, intercambio de saberes y formación, donde participen los actores y actrices de toda la cadena alimentaria (productores, familiares, feriantes, consumidores y otros). Fortalecer la organización territorial, la solidaridad y la confianza, replicando experiencias exitosas durante la pandemia tanto en términos de compras conjuntas, de comedores comunitarios, de aprovechamiento de desperdicios y otras iniciativas que puedan surgir del diálogo entre comunidades y del fortalecimiento del tejido social. -Desarrollo local, soberanía territorial y producción artesanal: un asistente dijo “la respuesta está en los territorios”. Esto define esta reflexión colectiva. La base para la definición y acción de un modelo alimentario sostenible debe provenir de los propios territorios y sus comunidades, en base a sus saberes, su cultura, cosmovisión y soberanía. Es menester avanzar hacia modelos donde la cadena de intermediación sea menor y teniendo como eje la economía social, protegiendo los suelos, las semillas, el agua, los recursos naturales y el derecho a la alimentación saludable de los individuos, las familias y las comunidades, donde se fomente la biodiversidad, se desaliente el extravismo y se procure la protección del medio ambiente. -Tiempo para relacionarse con los alimentos: Los tiempos urbanos actuales no permiten que nos relacionemos bien con los alimentos, por ejemplo para la compra (los horarios laborales coinciden con los horarios de funcionamiento de mercados y ferias), para la preparación (el cansancio nos hace preferir la rapidez, más que el proceso como una oportunidad de placer y de aprendizaje para niños y niñas) y para la comensalidad (comer en familia, con amigos, compartir, conversar). Esto tiene relación con las extensas jornadas laborales, con las largas distancias de desplazamiento al trabajo o escuela, y con el modelo de crecimiento urbano, entre otros. Es importante repensar la perspectiva de desarrollo territorial integral, considerando la gestión de las propias comunidades y la reflexión del cómo queremos vivir. El sistema alimentario forma parte de este desarrollo. -Consumir sano y des-elitización del consumo saludable. La alimentación saludable está fuertemente determinada por el nivel educacional, social, económico y cultural, así como por los entornos que rodean a las personas. Es necesaria la democratización del sistema alimentario, mejorar las condiciones socioeconómicas y educacionales, reconocer la relevancia de lo cultural y mejorar los entornos alimentarios y comunitarios, para que todas y todos tengamos derecho a una alimentación sostenible y saludable.236238239249En esta sección se indican las principales propuestas emanadas del diálogo, las que hemos organizado por temática. Las propuestas deberían ser desarrolladas intersectorialmente, con actores de distintos ámbitos, incluyendo la participación social: Acciones educativas y comunicacionales en temas de alimentos, alimentación y nutrición: -Incorporar en el currículum escolar y preescolar estos temas así como los valores culturales del acto de alimentarse. -Desarrollo de huertas escolares, urbanas, comunitarias, y en los hogares. -Desarrollar planes educativos dirigidos a las comunidades para empoderarlas en estos temas. -Desarrollar campañas comunicacionales en torno a estos temas. Por ejemplo, recetarios con pertenencia cultural, alimentación saludable, origen de los alimentos, etc.236238239241249Acciones para transformar el sistema alimentario: -Articular a los actores y actrices de la producción, distribución y consumo de alimentos para fortalecer el desarrollo de mercados locales. Para ello se requiere apoyo estatal que permita ir realizando las iniciativas que nazcan de estos encuentros. -Desarrollo de mercados locales. Mayor incidencia de los municipios en el apoyo de un sistema alimentario local. Apoyar a la producción artesanal y ferias libres. Incorporación en planes comunales. -Compras estatales deberían ser a pequeños productores locales, sin intermediación de concesionarias. -Colectivización del consumo. Potenciar otras formas de consumo y de comercialización. Por ejemplo, desarrollo de grupos de consumos, redes en torno a la entrega de canastas o comunidades organizadas. Estos espacios a su vez tienen el potencial de autoeducarse en lo que respecta al sistema alimentario u otros tópicos. Financiamiento público para estas iniciativas. -Desarrollo de centros de abastecimiento de producción de pequeña escala a niveles locales y regionales. Para descentralizar la producción y consumo de alimentos y favorecer el desarrollo local mediante financiamiento público. -Redefinir la o las instituciones relacionadas al mundo alimentario considerando una perspectiva integral (por ejemplo, unir la institucionalidad de agricultura con pesca y relacionadas a la alimentación). -Aumentar disponibilidad de ferias libres en zonas urbanas, distribuirlas en muchos lugares, aumentar horarios y flexibilizar los formatos de funcionamiento. Lo anterior requiere considerar apoyo en su habilitación. -Acciones en torno a un comercio justo que favorezcan a los más pequeños y los circuitos cortos de comercialización, y que por ejemplo tengan ventajas tributarias como exención de impuestos u otros; esto podría incluir la fijación de precios evaluando el cómo y sus consecuencias. Al tener un diálogo activo entre distintos actores tales como productores y consumidores, se pueden implementar medidas permitan tener “un colchón” frente a eventos impredecibles y agresivos como el Covid-19.237238241247249La principal divergencia giró en torno si alimentarse de manera saludable es barato o caro; algunos opinan que se exagera al decir que es de alto costo, pero hay factores que influyen en ello tales como la disponibilidad (que no es igual en todas partes), si es orgánico (lo que encarece) y el acceso económico (es más caro en lo relativo para el más pobre, entre otros. Se manifestó que la alimentación saludable es para una determinada clase social. Otra divergencia no tan evidente, pero que surge, es cuánto pesa la educación en la mala alimentación de la población, vs los determinantes más estructurales de la alimentación.

2021-07-30 19:39:58205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16403/44

14491681210181221

Se incorporó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples partes interesadas convocando a participantes del sector público y la sociedad civil. Para tales efectos se incluyeron organizaciones no gubernamentales y profesionales de nutrición.Se reconoció la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios y se dio cuenta de las repercusiones en la salud humana y en la economía, por ejemplo, en el impacto en las pequeñas y medianas empresas.Se sugiere asegurar una buena convocatoria de participantes para poder asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre y actuar con urgencia, para que personas de distintos sectores pueden desenvolverse en todos los niveles de forma sostenida y coherente para alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para 2030.

Yes

234238249El tema principal se centró en los Sistemas Alimentarios de la Región de Antofagasta. Las discusiones giraron en torno de las siguientes temáticas: 1. Problemáticas presentes en el sistema alimentario de Antofagasta 2. Soluciones viables a largo, mediano, y corto plazo para resolver las problemáticas 3. Identificación de los participantes y herramientas necesarias para llevar a cabo estas soluciones235238244245246249Dentro de las inquietudes y problemas que presenta la región de Antofagasta en los sistemas alimentarios, se comentan los siguientes: • ALTO COSTO DE LAS FRUTAS Y VERDURAS EN LA REGIÓN. Especialmente si se compara con otras regiones, ya que hay una dependencia de traer estos alimentos desde otros lugares, lo que hace aumentar su precio por la larga cadena de distribución. Tampoco se promocionan los alimentos producidos en la zona, e incluso no están disponibles en los comercios. • FALTA DE ACCESO FÍSICO Y ECONÓMICO A LOS ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES. La oferta de frutas y verduras es muy reducida, ya que no hay buena distribución y faltan verdulerías. También hay poca presencia de ferias libres, o se desconoce dónde se encuentran ubicadas estas ferias. La pandemia acrecentó el problema de acceso a los alimentos saludables, debido a que era más fácil obtener alimentos desde los supermercados, para así tener productos que duren mucho más tiempo, debido a que, por las restricciones sanitarias, no se podía ir diariamente a comprar. • FALTA DE EDUCACION ALIMENTARIA EN LA REGIÓN. Además de los temas ya señalados se establece que existe una falta de educación alimentaria de la población, falta conocimiento sobre cómo preservar alimentos, qué comer, cómo comer y desconocimiento de las preparaciones. Por ejemplo se señala que existe un hábito común de consumir dulces en lugar de frutas. • GRAN PÉRDIDA Y DESPERDICIO DE ALIMENTOS. Debido a que muchos de los alimentos frescos provienen desde otras regiones, el largo trayecto genera que lleguen en malas condiciones y que muchas veces vayan directo al vertedero. Hay una falta de apoyo a las pequeñas empresas y productores y productoras en tecnologías e infraestructura, sobre todo para la conservación de los alimentos. Por ejemplo, por el clima desértico y porque no hay infraestructura para los pequeños comerciantes, se desperdician alimentos al no disponer de un lugar adecuado con temperatura controlada para su conservación. • FALTA DE APOYO A LA PEQUEÑA AGRICULTURA Y PRODUCTORES Y PRODUCTORAS EN PROGRAMAS ESTATALES. Si bien se reconoce la existencia de programas públicos se indica que los pequeños agricultores y agricultoras o productores y productoras , muchas veces no pueden acceder a ellos, por burocracia o ser muy escasos para tantas necesidades. • FALTA ACCESO AL AGUA. El acceso de la población a sistemas de agua potable es un problema que se traduce en malas condiciones de higiene, alimentación y salud, y lamentablemente se ve afectado directamente por la condición económica de las familias.236238240243244245246248249Las conclusiones más relevantes fueron: ● AUMENTAR LOS PROVEEDORES EN LAS COMUNAS. Hacer un levantamiento de información con los lugares de abastecimientos locales, para que las personas puedan identificar dónde acceder a los alimentos frescos, y potenciar a las pequeñas empresas agroalimentarias en la comercialización, para que existan más puntos de venta de alimentos saludables. ● MEJORAR LOS INSUMOS Y EQUIPAMIENTOS PARA EL CULTIVO. Realizar propuestas de enseñanza y capacitación a agricultores y agricultoras para mejorar su producción. Involucrando a la academia, reconociendo el conocimiento y sabiduría ancestral de los distintos territorios (Aymaras y Changos), e incorporando tecnologías e innovación, como un modelo mixto de cómo hacer agricultura en el desierto. Aprovechar la energía solar, para el secado de alimentos. ● RECETAS SALUDABLES EN PUBLICIDAD O EN MEDIOS MASIVOS DE COMUNICACIÓN. Dar a conocer productos del mar como mariscos y algas, que son una buena alternativa en la alimentación, pero se desconoce cómo prepararlos. También mejorar la información sobre nutrientes y valorización de los alimentos. ● CONVENIOS CON EMPRESAS. Se sugiere abrir un programa de franquicia tributaria (grandes empresas) para generar un fondo de ayuda a los pequeños agricultores y agricultoras. Hay que crear programas más accesibles y mayor fomento para que la gente invierta y se involucre en la agricultura, incluyendo fondos Latinoamericanos, como los del BID. ● PRODUCIR ALIMENTOS A NIVEL LOCAL. Fomentar los huertos comunitarios, aprovechar espacios públicos donde se pueden generar espacios de cultivo y compostaje. Crear un sello de identidad de productos locales de la región Antofagasta para potenciar los alimentos producidos en la zona y aumentar producción local de frutas y verduras. Hay ejemplos de otras regiones que se pueden replicar, como la región de Arica, que produce el 40% de los tomates del país. ● ABORDAR LA DEPENDENCIA EN LA PRODUCCIÓN DE ALIMENTOS DE OTRAS REGIONES. Se solicita poner especial atención en esta situación que aqueja a la región y que sugiere que exista mayor vinculación público-privada, con políticas que involucren más inversiones desde el extranjero, para desarrollar la agricultura en el desierto y evitar tanta dependencia de alimentos desde otras regiones. También, se propone potenciar la energía solar dentro de las alternativas de innovación, tanto para conservar alimentos, como para la producción. Este es un tópico que también debe involucrar a la academia, tanto desde la investigación como de la transferencia y capacitación de agricultores.237238239240249Dentro de la mayor vulnerabilidad que presenta el sistema alimentario de la región, se encuentra la falta de acceso a alimentos, debido a la enorme dependencia en la producción de alimentos de otras regiones. A su vez, esta dependencia provoca que exista gran pérdida de alimentos en la distribución, debido a las distancias y las condiciones climáticas de altas temperaturas que tiene la zona, con escasa o nula posibilidad de que los pequeños comerciantes puedan acceder a tecnologías como la refrigeración en el transporte o en bodegas, provocando así menor disponibilidad en la oferta de alimentos frescos.

2021-07-30 20:36:43205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28496/44

13252158314141141231

Asegurando que existiera un grupo diverso, donde se incorporaron las ideas desde los jóvenes hasta adultos mayores, considerando comunidades indígenas y empresas. Se realizó invitación vía email, explicando el diálogo y se reforzó con llamados telefónicos reforzando la importancia de la participación, diferencias de puntos de vista y de que sería un espacio seguro y de confianza.Se aseguró la participación de un grupo diverso, se generó un espacio de confianza y se mantuvo el respeto a las diversas opiniones.Nunca escatimar en preguntar si tienen problemas de conexión, reforzar llamar para comprobar participación y durante el diálogo tener un temporizador para ir asegurando que la participación de todos y que se cumplan los tiempos.

Yes

234238El tema principal fue la alimentación saludable y nutrición para los adultos mayores de Los Lagos. I. Descubrir y detectar las principales problemáticas y desafíos de la alimentación saludable para personas mayores en la región de Los Lagos. II. Escuchar sugerencias y propuestas de mejoras para cada uno de los desafíos y problemáticas sobre alimentación saludable para adultos mayores en la región de Los Lagos. III. Generar un espacio seguro y de confianza donde se puedan expresar distintas opiniones y miradas respecto de la alimentación saludable para adultos mayores en la región de Los Lagos.235238241243246249● FALTA DE EDUCACIÓN ALIMENTARIA. Falta educación, y prevención desde temprana edad, ya que los jóvenes consumen muchos alimentos no saludables y chatarra, lo que podría afectar a futuro. Las escuelas deberían hacer un esfuerzo para enseñar la alimentación saludable, ya que los niños y niñas no saben alimentarse correctamente. Muchos tienen alimentación monótona pero no saben diversificarla. No todos saben alimentarse saludablemente, necesitan más educación. Esto tiene que ver con el origen de los productos, y la disponibilidad de la comida rápida. Se puede considerar un “programa del adulto mayor activo” para apoyar a la persona mayor, para que se sienten útiles y activos. El consumo de pescado es bajo tanto por desconocimiento de cómo cocinarlo, como también por los precios. ● FALTA ACCESOS FÍSICO Y ECONÓMICO A ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES: Se identifica que el gran problema es el costo de los alimentos saludables, lo que podría afectar especialmente a las personas mayores con menor presupuesto. Falta una forma de acceder a compras locales para personas mayores, y mejorar las opciones existentes. Los adultos mayores que tienen acceso a la naturaleza o viven en sectores rurales tienen más oportunidades para comer sano, pero falta acceso y cercanía a los alimentos porque la distancia actual aumenta el costo al momento de comprarlos. Los adultos mayores tienen problemas de traslado y acceso a las ferias, y lugares de compra. Es necesario acercar estos puntos a los lugares donde viven ellos. ● PROBLEMAS DE SALUD FÍSICA Y MENTAL QUE IMPACTAN LA ALIMENTACIÓN: Muchas veces las personas mayores no son autovalentes y eso afecta su capacidad para cocinar, ya que no pueden hacer la vida solos y hay dependencia de la familia u tras personas. El encierro producto de la pandemia ha generado problemas para ir al supermercado y conseguir alimentación saludable. Las personas mayores no van a sus controles médicos y muchos son pacientes crónicos. La salud psicológica afecta mucho en la alimentación saludable. ● EXISTE DESCONOCIMIENTO SOBRE LA ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE: Falta información sobre los alimentos saludables y su valor nutricional (como la ley de etiquetados de alimentos). Se propone que se podría derribar el mito de que la alimentación saludable es cara, a través de la información y enseñando a hacer comidas más fáciles. Además del costo, no se aprovechan los productos del mar y de la tierra, falta mayor difusión de los alimentos y productos. Falta mostrar más información, degustaciones, programas, para difundir preparaciones y lugares de compra como ferias libres. Falta información y conocimientos asociados a la cultura, localidad, y hábitos comunes de las personas. Es necesario partir de la realidad local para proponer intervenciones y recomendaciones. Hay problemas con el procesamiento de los alimentos, estos deben ser consumidos en un estado más natural. Los adultos mayores deben comer de acuerdo a sus requerimientos nutricionales, consumiendo nutrientes que aportan a su salud. ● SE PODRÍA REALIZAR UN DIAGNÓSTICO DEL PROGRAMA DE ALIMENTACIÓN COMPLEMENTARIA DEL ADULTO MAYOR (PACAM): se propone hacerlo para evaluar el alcance y calidad del programa. Se plantea que hay conocimiento de las personas mayores beneficiadas por el programa no retiran los alimentos fortificados por desconocimiento, dificultades de acceso y/o movilidad, y quienes los retiran, no siempre lo consumen. Se plantea reformular y aumentar la cantidad de los productos entregados para garantizar el consumo de porciones necesaria mensualmente.236238239240241243244246249● EMPODERAR A LAS PERSONAS MAYORES para rescatar su alimentación tradicional y producir sus propios alimentos y enseñar recetas tradicionales. Se propone apoyar a las personas mayores para trasmitir a otras personas y jóvenes sobre alimentación saludable, y como Embajadores para prevenir sobre enfermedades a futuro. ● HACER HUERTOS COMUNITARIOS Y TALLERES PARA PERSONAS MAYORES para promover y enseñarles a cultivar, incentivando los huertos verticales, portátiles y huertos urbanos que deben complementarse hasta el momento de llegar a la mesa. Realizar talleres de cocina ancestral o basada en frutas y verduras. Talleres sobre la protección del medio ambiente, considerando la escasez hídrica y los ciclos de la naturaleza. Presentar las preparaciones y alimentos saludables como comida rica o como “Comida medicina”. Incluir alimentos regionales, como cochayuyo, habas, y quinoa. ● EDUCACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN EFECTIVA SOBRE ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES. Es necesaria la educación alimentaria y nutricional, a través de todos los medios posibles, desde la cultura local y temprana edad, incluyendo a nutricionistas en los colegios, y considerando a todo el grupo familiar. Se propone bajar la información a las bases y organizaciones sociales. En las redes sociales y medios de comunicación se deben filtrar la información que no es buena para la salud y educar a los adultos mayores con preparaciones de alimentos fáciles. Preparar cápsulas para mostrar recetas de otros alimentos como cochayuyo. También hay que capacitar a los profesionales de la salud sobre alimentación saludable, para que recomienden y actualicen sus conocimientos. ● MEJORAR EL ACCESO FÍSICO Y ECONÓMICO DE ALIMENTOS SALUDABLES PARA PERSONAS MAYORES. Lograr que los alimentos saludables sean accesibles, fáciles de preparar, atractivos y que esté al alcance de todos (como es ahora la comida chatarra). Se podría crear canasta para adultos mayores, que tenga productos saludables y todo lo que se necesita para su salud física y mental. Sensibilizar respecto a los beneficios de cocinar los productos al vapor. Se sugiere otorgar rebajas para que las personas mayores para incentivar su consumo de alimentos frescos. Mejorar delivery de los productos del PACAM y coordinarlo con una estrategia de difusión y educación para garantizar que se conozcan los beneficios y alternativas de preparación de los productos. ● GENERAR POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS CON ENFOQUE TERRITORIAL. El Estado debe liderar, asegurándose de que las personas mayores puedan adquirir los alimentos para comer sano. Distintas comunas tienen distintas necesidades, por lo que es importante que las políticas públicas nazcan desde los territorios. Las municipalidades deberían ser protagonistas también, para dar fondos en esta área. Se podría considerar convenios con distintos organismos locales e internacionales. Hay que ver las necesidades de las personas mayores y darles los recursos que identifiquen, participando en el desarrollo de políticas públicas. Revisar la ley de etiquetado nutricional y poner impuesto a la comida chatarra, a su vez, generar subsidio de alimentación saludable. ● LÍNEA BASE SOBRE ALIMENTACIÓN SALUDABLE EN PERSONAS MAYORES. Ejecutar un diagnóstico para saber cómo se está alimentando las personas mayores y por qué. Separar por comuna cuáles son las comunas que tienen más complicaciones y averiguar los mecanismos para abordarlas. Se propone también hacer investigación sobre por qué no están consumiendo los alimentos del PACAM. ¿Por qué no los retiran? ● TRABAJO EN CONJUNTO PARA GENERAR SOLUCIONES. Trabajo colaborativo de todos los agentes de la cadena alimentaria como, productores, nutricionistas, cocineros y comerciantes. Son importantes las iniciativas gremiales para promover la alimentación saludable. Los gremios productores de alimentos saludables se unan, y juntarse con iniciativas locales, que tengan una imagen y objetivo común (sello). Empezar a diseñar el modelo desde actores locales con apoyo del Estado. ● APOYAR A LOS PEQUEÑOS AGRICULTORES Y PYMES Crear una especie de liga de la alimentación saludable para apoyar a los productores locales y juntar esfuerzos para promover los alimentos saludables.237238241246249Dentro de las vulnerabilidades para que las personas mayores puedan tener una alimentación saludable, se encuentra las brechas de acceso económico y físico, debido a los ingresos, las distancias de puntos de venta como ferias locales, y el bajo conocimiento efectivo sobre lo que es una alimentación saludable. Para ello se pide reformular y/o reforzar iniciativas que permitan tener mejores accesos a alimentos nutritivos y frescos. Se propone involucrar a varios actores de la cadena, pero estos cambios son mucho más profundos, por lo cual hay que seguir analizando las políticas públicas y programas que se implementen en torno a estas temáticas y ajustarlas al territorio. También se cree que la motivación a cambiar hábitos alimenticios puede provenir de sus pares, por lo cual se recomienda empoderarlos como embajadores de la alimentación saludable, enseñándoles por medio de talleres coordinados con gobiernos locales del área social, salud y agrícola, municipalidades u organizaciones comunitarias, para de esta manera poder difundir a sus pares y ser ejemplo de jóvenes para mejorar la alimentación y estilo de vida hacia una más saludable.

2021-08-01 07:52:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20073/23

1232101490520324100607053470000463958331324015013155

The dialogue had six co-organizers coming from different sectors related to food systems namely, Bangladesh Food Safety Authority (BFSA), BSAFE Foundation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Promoting Knowledge for Accountable Systems (PROKAS) of British Council, and The World Bank (WB). BFSA is the central executive authority of Government of Bangladesh to ensure safe food at all levels. BSAFE Foundation is a not-for-profit civil society organization to address issues concerning access to safe and nutritious food to overcome barriers and challenges associated to food safety and nutrition and assist the government and policy makers in formulating appropriate policy environments. FAO, GAIN, British Council, and The World Bank are working with the government, private sector, and other stakeholders in multiple facets of food system. Thus, the dialogue brought together a diverse range of stakeholders working with the similar goals. This has paved the way to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, recognizing complexity, complementing each other’s work, and building trust and partnership to work together for the transformation of our food systems.Food markets are an important and integral part of the food systems. While organizing the dialogue, all the co-organizers shared the vision to promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals within their capacities and circumstances, while respecting the local food cultures and contexts. The organizers and participants also recognized the utmost urgency of taking sustained and meaningful actions at all levels to transform our food system. They have also expressed their intentions to work together taking a systemic approach and to contribute their best to achieve the goals.Ensuring participation or representation of different stakeholders is critical in order to explore and capture the nuances of the challenges faced by the food systems in a greater depth. Participation in the dialogues sparks enthusiasm among all to explore, engage, and contribute more into the process. Thus, Dialogue Conveners should create and widen the opportunities for everyone to stay involved.

Yes

234238239240241242244246249Markets play a critical role in delivering food to urban populations. A recent FAO study indicates that 95% of urban poor mostly purchase their food from fresh markets as foods there, are fresh, diversified, and more affordable. However, food safety and hygiene conditions have been poor in most urban fresh markets. Due to absence of cross contamination prevention measurements and proper sanitation facility, fresh markets have been associated with the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1), and most recently SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in humans. Fish constitutes 60% of total animal protein intake, but fish markets are commonly filthy, ill-managed, unhygienic and unhealthy. 50% of meat shops do not have proper drainage facility, 30% slaughter animals without inspection of a veterinary surgeon or meat inspector, 90% slaughter a sick animal, and 90% animals do not have anti-mortem examination. Risky practices (keeping live birds and slaughtering at the same place, keeping poultry overnight, holding poultry on floor, and housing sick and healthy poultry together), hygiene, and infrastructure in live bird markets (LBM) are associated with an increased likelihood of shop contamination with Avian Influenza Viruses. 62.8% shops do not isolate the sick, dehydrated, or physically damaged birds after arrival to the shops. No veterinarian is found in LBMs for anti-mortem and postmortem inspection. Dhaka’s population has increased by more than 4 folds in last thirty years, but market infrastructures and soft skills of people involved, have not been developed to handle such a boost in number of customers. Underinvestment in physical conditions of food markets has meant that bringing about change is a challenge with very little leadership coming forward to do so willingly in a coordinated manner. Bangladesh incurs food loss during handling and storage in markets due to lack of technology, infrastructure, and awareness. It loses 30% cereal, 35% fish and 45% from farm to distribution. Post-harvest loss of fruits and vegetables ranges between 22%-44%. The unmanaged food waste produced by fresh markets poses substantial threats to the environment (landfill gas emissions). These wastes can be used for energy recovery via waste to energy technologies, thus diverting food waste away from landfills. Reducing food loss and waste (FLW) and adopting these interventions can be benefitting for economy, environment, and communities. Most of the fresh market workers work under very poor conditions. A field survey in various vegetable markets suggests that sanitation facility there, is not adequate and in some cases is not present at all. A study on meat shops found that 60% and 65% of them did not have toilet and hand washing facility, respectively. 87% of retail fish market workers do not wash hands after defecation. The fresh markets and the backward value chain could not cope up well with the shocks of Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting lockdowns. Urban markets have seen price hikes due to lack of supplies, whereas, the small scale producers suffered in getting their produces to markets and ended up dumping off the perishable products. Also, fresh markets lost customers because of allegedly being the hotspots of spreading Coronavirus, making people to switch to more expensive alternatives. The growth in online food businesses during this period has been inequitable, for both consumers and fresh market vendors.235238239240241242244245246248249251Improving the value chain to reduce food loss and waste and ensure food quality: Establish cold chains and device an integrated plan across the value chain ensuring proper price for products; forecast demands for major agricultural products and modulate production accordingly; invest in research for climate-smart production and marketing systems and scientific and hygienic post-harvest management and processing to increase shelf-life of perishable products; promote business ethics and modern trading practices; introduce dedicated refrigerated vehicles; use GIS mapping to select most effective spots to situate storage facilities; device pre and post-harvest waste management systems; promote community enterprise approach; organize farmers under cooperatives; ensure access to safe inputs, financial services, and wider markets; mechanize agriculture to reduce production cost; traceability Upgrade market infrastructures: Build market infrastructures with trained manpower, WASH facilities, uninterrupted electricity, cold chains/ storage facilities, waste management and drainage systems, fire management and close routine monitoring by authorities engaging city governments, BFSA, and consumer associations; environment-friendly, gender-responsive, and climate-resilient physical designs; develop and implement a masterplan for markets; utilize biodegradable wastes in composting; improve crowd control; connect fresh markets with e-commerce; uptake digital payment systems; utilize resources in markets for food production for self-sustaining circular food system economy centering markets; mobilize public-private investments for market upgradation and transformation to smart markets; form fire safety response teams by market committees; source products from affiliated suppliers only; rapid food testing facilities; ensure proper functioning of market committees; introduce certification, grading, and registration scheme for actors; segregated space for different products and separate spots to display, process, and preserve; compliance with market infrastructure design standards; incentivize waste segregation at source; engage private sector in market management Capacity building and awareness: Train up and build widespread awareness among all actors (from producers, vendors to consumers) on food safety, food and personal hygiene, safe food handling and transportation/ preservation, market maintenance rules, good conduct, waste management, food quality, and nutrition over mainstream and social media in collaboration with market committees, government, and private stakeholders; make farmers/ producers aware of safe food production and GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) through trainings and demonstrations; strengthen civil society and consumers’ movement for safe and nutritious food; social and behavioral change programs; develop targeted knowledge products/ communication materials; conduct sector-wise mass campaign; trainings at different levels (market authorities, traders) on market management, governance, and systemic change to respond to shocks and crisis Policy, governance, monitoring, and coordination: Enact legal framework including policies and programs aligned with international standards; horizontal accountability by all stakeholders; decentralized authorities; stronger and more coordinated monitoring and supervision throughout supply chain; prioritize development of market infrastructures in development agenda to ensure adequate allocation of public resources; enhanced cooperation/ coordination among relevant government departments and ministries; formulation of a separate body inside city government responsible for market infrastructure development, planning, implementation, monitoring, upgradation/ maintenance, and management; formulate and enforce regulations for better governance of markets; market management guidelines with specific responsibilities for market committee; provisions for penalties and rewards; stakeholder mapping with roles played by different actors to generate informed recommendations to enhance food safety; align all rules, regulations, and law enforcing agencies related to food safety under a common legal framework for better coordination and integration; incentivize value chain actors for producing/ marketing safe foods; record keeping system for traceability; decentralized laboratory facility; joint market monitoring through multi-stakeholder engagement; common platform for suppliers-traders-vendors-consumers; access to production and product information for consumers; forecast consumer demands and ensure supply of products accordingly to avoid price shocks and reduce food loss; engage CSOs and volunteer groups into complaint management; mobilize social investment and capital to leverage technology transfer, adaption of GAP, and market transformation towards responsible consumption and sustainable production; grading and certification of products based on testing; engage different stakeholders in decision making process; central monitoring system to track implementation of market management policies; strengthen monitoring systems; ensure good governance including accountability and transparency; formal institutional structure for market legislation; acts, rules in place with institutional structure to enact those; encourage urban agriculture; efficient coordination among physical infrastructure, management, and governance236238239240241242245246248249251Discussion Topic 1.1: Market system, supply chains, and urban-rural connectivity - Challenges In the prevailing subsistence-agriculture system in Bangladesh, small scale producers are the major contributor in the market systems. Foods travel not only from rural to urban areas, but from urban to rural, as well. Mostly fresh, unprocessed foods are transported from rural to urban markets, while processed and semi-processed foods make their way from urban areas to rural markets. Foods grown by limited usage of fertilizers and pesticides are considered safer among consumers. Rural areas are mainly considered as production centers, middlemen are believed to be transporters engaged in short-term storages and distributions, and urban people are chiefly consumers. In Bangladesh, food safety is an enduring issue and intertwining challenge due to consumption of contaminated, unsafe, and unhygienic foods that have long-term multi-faceted adverse effects on people. Unsafe food containing harmful bacteria, virus, parasites, fungi or chemicals (pesticides/ fungicides/ antimicrobial / heavy metals) cause more than 200 diseases and about 600 million people suffer from illness every year in the world. It has adverse effects on health, livelihoods, economic, social, political and environmental dimension of the society, which needs to be addressed with appropriate policy initiatives. Food safety is a shared responsibility between governments, producers, and consumers. Everyone has a role to play from farm to table to ensure the food we consume is safe and healthy. Major challenges: • Rural market systems are quite different from urban markets, though rural markets are the major marketing systems prevailing in the country. • Supply chain is still traditional following age-old practices resulting in food loss and deterioration in quality and economic value. Modern trades, though slowly improving, constitute only 2% of the total market volume. • Transportation of agri-products from producers’ to consumers is very time consuming, often hazardous, and expensive. • There is no or very limited cooling facilities available along the value chains. • In most rural markets and urban growth centers, foods get contaminated by unhygienic environment, polluted water, and inappropriate handling, transportation, and storage • Vegetables and fruits are not treated hygienically, which results in contamination and loss of freshness and nutrients • Farmers are reluctant to grow safe foods using less pesticides as they think those products cannot attract consumers’ attention in the markets, compared to products grown with excessive application of fertilizers and pesticides. • More than 95% of the consumers in the market do not want to pay extra price for safe foods. • At most rural and urban growth centers/ marketplaces, running water supply, sorting, packaging and storage facilities are unavailable. • At urban points, departmental stores/ super-shops have potentials to offer safe foods but they constitute only about 1% of the supplies • Sometimes, agricultural and non-agricultural products are transported altogether, which augments the risk of cross-contamination and food loss • Transportation of agri-products from producers point to consumer point is very time consuming, often hazardous and expensive.236238239240241242245246248249251Discussion Topic 1.2: Market system, supply chains, and urban-rural connectivity - Recommendations • Establish cold chains across the supply chain to substantially reduce food loss and ensure quality and proper price for products, so that both producers and consumers can be benefitted • Forecast demands for major agricultural products ahead and modulate production accordingly • Invest in R&D for post-harvest management and processing to improve quality and shelf-life of perishable products • Build market infrastructures through public-private initiatives facilitated with trained skilled manpower, cleaning and washing facilities, uninterrupted supply of electricity, cold chains and close monitoring by responsible authorities • Enact legal framework including policies, programs, acts, rules, regulations, and guidelines aligned with international standards at national and local level • Instead of vertical accountability, ensure horizontal accountability by all stakeholders. Decentralization of authorities and stronger regular monitoring and supervision at all the levels in supply chain need to be in place • Government should allocate more funds and mobilize private investment for constructing suitable infrastructure like market places, storages, processing centers, training centers, and cool chains across the country • Food systems have 3 dimensions: local, regional and global ones; a guideline to integrate these three dimensions need to prepared and put in practice • Upgrade fresh markets immediately, as more than 95% foods are sold and traded there, mainly by small producers and traders • Encourage private sector invest in both rural and urban food systems and markets • Implement 3A concept to improve market systems: 1) Awareness among all the stakeholders; 2) Actions needed to establish a sustainable market system and 3) Accountability in form of traceability, quality control, good governance , decentralization of authorities, and greater resource allocation • Civil society and consumer’s movement should be further strengthened for safe and nutritious foods. • Promote community-based enterprising particularly for small scale producers and entrepreneurs • Farmers and producers should be made aware of GAP (Good Agricultural Practices), such as proper amounts/ limits and times of applying inputs, through regular trainings and demonstrations. • Scientific and hygienic post-harvest management and processing • Mass campaign is needed to clarify that agro-products do not spread Corona Virus • Encourage agricultural mechanization to reduce cost of production • Analyse the ‘syndicate’ issue in markets (esp. among middlemen/ stockpilers) and formulate national policy to address it • Farmers and small business operators should have easier and effective access to safe inputs (compost and natural fertilizers, safe feeds and fodders, natural pesticides, vaccines) and credits • Linkages between aquatic and terrestrial food systems should be better understood and thoroughly analyzed to ensure production of safe foods • Build widespread awareness among all actors (from producers to consumers at all steps) in the supply chain on food safety, nutrition, and its importance over mainstream and social media through advertisements, talk shows, brief videos; NGOs like BSAFE foundation can lead this; electronic media, esp. television can be the most effective media as most people can access it and pose greater belief on television contents • Promote modern trading practices • Introduce dedicated vans/ transports with short-term storage or cooling facility and make mandatory for agriproducts. Non-agricultural products should not be transported in the same vehicle to avoid any potential contamination. A round-trip rural-urban-rural transportation system can be deployed exclusively for agriproducts that will utilize the dedicated vehicles fully and efficiently, reduce transportation costs, and help keeping up product quality • Establish an accredited laboratory to comply with international quality standards by government or by public-private partnership236238239241242243244245246248249Discussion Topic 2.1: Role of markets in future food system (smart markets) - Challenges The fresh markets are an important avenue for consumers, especially for middle to low-income consumers to get fresh and nutritious food at an affordable price. It is also the agglomeration point of all types of perishable and non-perishable food items including agriculture, livestock, and fisheries and for social interactions. Most fresh markets in Dhaka city are heavily crowded without proper ventilation and have unhealthy and unhygienic passageways, lack of parking space, power-back up system and poor infrastructure. The experience of shopping there can be stressful and lead to health and safety hazards. As a result, supermarkets are becoming popular. During COVID-19 lockdowns, e-commerce has flourished and endangering the very existence of fresh markets in future. Despite all the shortcomings, fresh markets are the main source of food for the middle- and low-income consumers and an integral part of Bangladesh’s food system. However, there is a need to modernize the fresh markets so it continues to be the avenue for safe and nutritious food for low-income consumers while offering a healthy and safe environment. The concept of fresh market upgradation is about turning these traditional fresh markets into supermarkets. Rather, it is about ensuring that fresh markets’ infrastructures (including WASH, ventilation, hygiene, fire services) are safe for vendors and consumers for improved shopping experience. Challenges: Vendors and shopkeepers need to hydrate vegetables and fruits to keep them fresh, as long as markets are open. The water they apply to keep the products fresh is neither clean nor safe. As a result, around 200 types of diseases emerge among which fecal coli form is one of the significant one. Inadequate sanitation facility is another area that makes markets’ environment unwelcoming for the buyers and sellers. Unavailability of toilets increases health risks for vendors, especially female vendors when they cannot access toilets for a long time. Markets lack proper handwashing facilities thus, vendors cannot wash hands after using toilets and after processing fish and meat, which increases risks of cross-contamination. Both vendors and customers lack basic knowledge of hygiene and waste management which pose threat to public health. Due to lack of proper drainage facility, water clogs near the selling points and in the entire market area. This makes people’s movement difficult and also creates an unhealthy environment. Fresh markets in different city corporations do not have separate gateway for customers and food delivery vehicles to enter and exit. This creates traffic congestion in and around the areas where large and wholesale fresh markets are situated. In cases where passageways exist, those are narrow and clogged down with food wastes, delivery vehicles, and food stocks. This poor management of congestion augments the risks of spreading communicable diseases. Fresh markets do not have adequate lighting and uninterrupted supply of electricity. As a result, the very limited storage facilities that exist inside the markets, get interrupted which results into loss of quality of foods. Markets do not have separated space for live birds, other meats, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruits. Besides, fish, live birds, and meats are processed (slaughtering, cutting, cleaning, processing, and preserving) in the same place. There is no proper waste disposal system to dispose the wastes generated from fish and meat processing. Thus, fish and meat wastes and residues are often found on the floor. This is creating risk of cross-contamination and can spread many diseases (virus outbreak originated from animals). Markets lack adequate manpower for fire management. Local government has commitment, willingness, and legislations in place to improve fresh markets, but they have resource constraint.236238239241242243244245246248249Discussion Topic 2.2: Role of markets in future food system (smart markets) - Recommendations • Segregate the entry and exit paths and clean up heaped-up wastes or unused materials in the passageways to improve crowd control inside markets • Improve ventilation and lighting by replacing the walls of the markets with transparent and meshed materials • Put up rooftop solar systems on markets for power backup • Digitalize transaction and business processes of conventional food markets; Connect fresh market vendors with e-commerce platforms to improve their access; Uptake digital payment systems to reduce risk of cross-contamination by replacing cash handling • Utilize the rooftops of fresh markets for food production such as hydroponics, precision agriculture with IoT, and biofloc for fisheries, which can create alternate income source for low-income service providers working inside the markets and a self-sustaining circular food system economy centering the markets; however, research is required to identify the manageable and effective options for various kinds of markets • Mobilize public-private investments to leverage the opportunities for market upgradation • Changes in regulatory mechanism of fresh markets and governance of market committees • Install adequate water points and sanitation facilities (toilets, handwashing points) inside fresh markets to ensure safe and clean water supply and proper hygiene • Prioritize development of market infrastructures in development agenda of the government to ensure allocation of adequate public resources • Enhance cooperation among relevant government departments and ministries • Involve health departments to raise awareness regarding food safety • Educate food vendors on safe food handling, risks of cross-contamination, and fire safety • Conduct social and behavioral change programs and raise awareness among both vendors and consumers on personal hygiene, waste disposal and management, food safety, and good conduct in collaboration with market management committees, government agencies, and NGOs through IEC-BCC materials and other media • Form a separate body inside city government structures which will be responsible for market infrastructure development, planning, implementation, monitoring, upgradation/ maintenance, and management • Make fresh markets adequately spacious proportionate with the crowd • Device an integrated plan throughout the value chain to reduce food loss and keep up food quality • Allocate separate vending spaces for live birds, other meats, fish, and vegetables and fruits; Develop separate facilities to process fish, live birds, and meats (slaughtering, cutting, cleaning, processing, and preserving) • Develop proper waste disposal system in markets to dispose all kinds of food wastes; Introduce bin bags of different colors to ensure segregation of wastes at source • Ensure proper fire management facilities in markets with sufficient manpower, equipment, and resources allocated • Form fire safety response teams with participation of market committees • Provide farmers/ producers with direct access to markets to improve food safety • Formulate and enforce regulations for better governance of markets; provisions for penalties and rewards can be introduced236238239241242243244245246249Discussion Topic 3.1: Food safety and effective management of markets - Challenges • Food wastes of fresh markets are disposed unsafely leading to contamination of the nearby food products • Markets lack the minimal personal hygiene facilities for both sellers and buyers (handwashing facilities with soap is also absent), which augments the chances of contamination of the products from humans • Shops are very congested with no separate sections for different food items, increasing risk of microbial cross contamination which is a food safety concern • Markets lack sufficient supply of ices for preservation of fish leading to loss of quality and freshness • Prices of agricultural products rise by four folds while reaching the end customers from farmers. Food traders often increase prices irrationally which triggers price shocks, putting low-income groups in food insecurity. • Price of a few products sometimes rises up strikingly such as, onion, chilly, and potato due to fluctuations in production or imports. At such times, the syndicates of traders raise prices of those products even higher, to make very high profits unethically. Even if government takes steps to subside such price hikes by increasing international imports, reducing/ removing tariffs on imports, and subsidizing those products locally, their initiatives make no effect as the private traders’ syndicates control the entire market. Resisting such unethical business and disbanding the market syndicates are major challenges. • Meat shops keep raw meat hanging in the shops without any covering which may spur microbial contamination. • Vendors and buyers inside markets dispose all kinds of wastes together, without any segregation. There are no separate bins for different kinds of wastes and even if they are provided with separate bins, they are uninclined to segregate wastes. Thus, bringing behavioral change is a big challenge. • Food safety gets compromised at production level sometimes due to presence of heavy metals (arsenic or lead) in the soil. • Rates of food loss is very high along the chain while foods travel from farmers to the markets. • Some of the vendors apply harmful chemicals to keep products for a longer time • Risks of spreading diseases increase due to cash transactions conducted in markets236238239241242243244245246249Discussion Topic 3.2: Food safety and effective management of markets - Recommendations • Maintain good hygiene inside markets, especially for vendors; raise awareness among vendors on personal hygiene; introduce and conduct regular health checkups for vendors • Design and build necessary infrastructures to improve waste disposal and drainage systems of markets • Develop cold chains throughout the value chain and cold storages inside markets for products such as fish to prevent loss of quality and freshness • Encourage and implement basic waste segregate (biodegradable and non- biodegradable) inside markets; utilize biodegradable wastes to produce compost and use for soil fertilization • Conduct routine market monitoring by food inspectors; engage city governments, BFSA, and consumer associations into monitoring • Introduce grading system for food vendors • Train up food vendors on safe food handling and preservation, and market maintenance rules • Promote usage of refrigerated vans for transportation of perishable products • Generate stakeholder mapping along with roles played by different actors to come up with informed recommendations to enhance food safety • Develop targeted knowledge products on food safety for different actors with the help of social scientist and methodological approaches for better outreach and impact • Establishing separate specialized markets only for fish and live birds to improve hygiene and waste management • Put up potable water and sanitation facilities inside marketplace • Improve product load and unload facilities in markets to reduce food loss and keep up quality • Monitor waste management status of markets regularly • Device pre and post-harvest waste management systems to utilize agricultural wastes efficiently (i.e. as fertilizer, animal feed) and to reduce food waste • Upgrade traditional fresh markets to smart markets; examples of standard fresh markets from other countries can be followed • Engage a third-party to manage vendors of fresh markets where all vendors will require to get registered with proof of identity and knowledge of hygiene and safe food handling to be allowed to vend in the market; allocate uniform for all registered food vendors • Generate a list of safe food suppliers for each market and allow vendors to buy products from those affiliated suppliers only • Keep rapid food testing facilities (nomadic labs) inside markets • Raise awareness of food producers/ farmers on safe food production and GAP • Align all rules, regulations, and law enforcing agencies related to food safety under a single umbrella for better coordination and integration; BFSA can be the suitable one to organize other agencies • Develop guidelines/ user manuals for every actor inside markets mentioning their roles and responsibilities for proper maintenance • Introduce grading and pricing of food items according to freshness/ proximity to expiry date to reduce food loss • Use GIS mapping to select most effective spots to situate storage facilities236238239241242244245246248249251Discussion Topic 4.1: Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance - Challenges • Inadequate initiatives to educate consumers on food system and their role • Lack of consumers’ trust especially the educated group on food safety, as they believe that foods are not produced following safety standards • There is no/ inadequate monitoring in fresh markets especially to ensure consumer rights • Consumers pay tolls for public services but regulatory authorities often pay lower attention to improve market systems • Lack of awareness about safe food handling, transportation, and marketing • Inadequate consumer demand for safe foods • No scope of traceability • Food wastage due to inadequate storage and poor infrastructure in fresh markets • No separate section for different categories of products in fresh markets • Inadequate or inconvenient mechanism for consumers to submit complaint • Lack of climate-smart and weather-friendly infrastructures and facilities in fresh markets • Business of traditional markets are slowly shrinking due to expansion of online markets and super shops which is resulting into loss of work opportunity • Fresh markets are not connected to e-commerce and online marketplaces • Inadequate hygiene and sanitation facilities in markets for consumers, especially for women236238239241242244245246248249251Discussion Topic 4.2: Climate vulnerability, inclusion, and governance - Recommendations • Conduct sector-wise mass campaign about hygienic food production, transportation, storage and mobile marketing system to enhance access to safe and nutritious food through fresh markets • Allocate segregated space for different categories of products (fish, live birds, meat, vegetables and fruits) • Incentivize value chain actors for producing/ marketing safe food, such as providing them safe food certification, ensuring greater market share and easing up market access for them • Adopt good agriculture practices including record keeping for traceability • Enhance joint market monitoring linked to enforcement of relevant laws through effective multi-stakeholder engagement (public-private partnerships); harmonize relevant laws • Develop communication materials for digital platforms to bring changes into consumer behavior • Develop women friendly market system • Improve fresh market infrastructure with adequate hygiene and sanitation facilities • Activate and ensure proper functioning of market committees • Introduce certification scheme for fresh market actors • Enhance coordination among government regulatory bodies • Decentralize laboratory facility for food quality testing • Develop separate slaughtering facilities • Develop multi-stakeholder platform, common platform for suppliers/ traders-vendors-consumers • Promote grading of products based on testing and certify them • Set price ceilings for certain product clusters to reduce price shocks • Ensure access to production and product information for consumers • Forecast consumer demands ahead and ensure supply of products accordingly to avoid price shocks and reduce food loss and waste • Form CSOs and volunteer groups and engage them into complaint management systems to empower consumers • Develop climate-smart production and marketing systems and market infrastructures • Designate BFSA as the coordinating agency to improve the fresh market monitoring and law enforcement236238239241242243244245246248249251Discussion Topic 5.1: Role of governance and infrastructure of the markets in food systems - Challenges Fresh markets within a food system are a complex circuit of various stakeholders at all levels (formal, informal, government, authorities), their key functions, their interactions, coordination combined within the overall system of the fresh markets and the way it all works as a whole with infrastructure, operations and maintenance and revenue management. Most of the fresh markets of Dhaka were built in the 1980s, however, not much upgrading has been done since then. Thus, these markets are often dilapidated and overcrowded with vendors and customers. With little reinvestment of profits or expansion, fresh markets lack the modern amenities, safety measures, basic services, and size to cope. Fresh markets are essential parts of urban food system which impact food safety and affordability. They provide convenient access to food throughout the city for the entire spectrum of urban population. They connect rural and urban areas in terms of food and people. 85% of urban households in Dhaka, irrespective of income, purchase most of their fresh fruit, vegetables, fish and meat from traditional fresh markets. However, as fresh markets are usually densely crowded they have been marked as the potential “hotspots” of spreading COVID-19. These markets are also “public institutions” packed with food, vendors, and shoppers, most of which are under-performing and not delivering the quality of services needed. Considering that 63 of Dhaka’s 221 fresh markets were developed in the 1980s (when Dhaka’s population was a seventh of its current size), it is no surprise that the markets need attention and urgent intervention. Therefore, how well fresh markets are managed and function will impact the livelihood of people in the short term, and economic recovery and employment opportunities in the medium term. Challenges: • Fresh market workers and shop owners do not use existing toilets, instead, they use toilets of nearby mosques or go back to their houses or wait until the market closes. 60% and 65% of meat shops and slaughterhouses do not have toilet and hand washing facility, respectively. • 13,333 MTs of waste is generated by urban areas everyday (2005), producing 2.19 million ton CO2 every year, 68% of which is food wastes coming from markets and urban households, and 80-90% of which is biodegradable on average. Waste collection and dumping cost per ton is BDT 2,100-3000 in Dhaka metropolitan area. DNCC and DSCC spend 14% and 22% of their annual budget for waste management • Most market associations are often unable to be strategic and deal with issues on an ad hoc basis. • A 2010 study in Dhaka found that 42% of 100 fish sampled had been treated with formalin. Fecal bacteria from humans and animals were commonly detected on produce that is eaten raw, such as carrots and tomatoes. • 45% of meat sellers do not know proper duration of washing hands, 30% of these workers do not have knowledge of zoonotic diseases, 85% and 90% of them do not wear protective coat/apron and gumboots, and 27% fish retailers suffer from lesions on hands, fingers, toes, and 10% had diarrhea due to unhygienic conditions and unsafe handling of fishes. • Online sales rose by 70–80% during Covid-19 pandemic, with sales of grocery products the main contributor. 80% of e-commerce buyers live in metropolitan centers, leaving a large market untapped. Online vendors are predominantly formal private sector and do not cover informal food markets.236238239241242243244245246248249251Discussion Topic 5.2: Role of governance and infrastructure of the markets in food systems - Recommendations • Upgrade physical features of markets with modern amenities and facilities to ensure food security, safety and affordability, considering local needs and food culture • Introduce environment-friendly and gender-responsive physical design for markets • Keep wide and adequate entrance and exit passages in markets • Make market infrastructure resilient to withstand weather conditions such as monsoon • Ensure WASH facilities in markets; build separate toilets for men and women • Develop and implement a masterplan for markets • Build infrastructures to allow better access for female traders and customers • Upgrade by-laws and institutional arrangements such that to inform design guidelines • Check and maintain compliance with market infrastructure design standards • Develop a common framework to bring coordination among different acts/ laws and authorities • Conduct studies to identify stakeholders’ needs and roles, especially of vendors/ traders • Train up and provide guidance to local operators to ensure safety • Support small farmers/ farms so that they can best utilize the limited resource; organize them under some organization which can serve as an alternative to the conventional cooperatives • Carry out monitoring for both agricultural and non-agricultural products that markets offer • Organize and train up producers, transporter, traders, processors, marketers, and vendors on maintaining food quality throughout the entire value chain from production until delivery to consumers • Promote community enterprise approach, as it has been successful in organizing producers • Mobilize social investment and capital to leverage technology transfer, successful adaption of GAP, and market transformation with traceability towards responsible consumption and sustainable production • Develop the rural markets and road centers which serve as the nodes in food systems • Engage stakeholders (traders, vendors, consumers) in development of rules and decision making process through dialogues • Introduce a central monitoring system to track implementation of market management policies; strengthen monitoring systems • Engage private sectors in market management • Build capacity of producers, traders and consumers to ensure food safety • Make physical infrastructure, management committees, and governance to work together efficiently • Device proper physical planning to ensure good governance including accountability and transparency • Incorporate existing informal systems and understandings into market management guidelines • Use the bylaw under City Corporation Act 2009 (section 7) which allows city corporations to allocate shops such that the shop allocation complies with the layout, plan and design of markets • Introduce formal institutional structure for overall market legislation • Get necessary acts, rules, laws, and bylaws in place and institutional arrangement to enact those rules and acts • Form associations to manage markets following city corporation guidelines and taking public-private partnership approach • Provide proper guideline to market committees; assign specific designation and portfolio to committee members with detailed responsibilities • Provide trainings at different levels, market authorities, traders, especially on market management, governance, and systemic change to respond to shocks and crisis rather than going for ad-hoc solutions • Incorporate climate resilient market design, reducing carbon footprint • Encourage urban agriculture to reduce carbon footprint • Organize food production in different zones to reduce travel time and distance • Train up municipalities and producers about 3R to device waste management system, reduce usage of non-biodegradable packing materials, waste segregations at source, and connect them with waste traders/ recyclers • Incentivize market cleaners to uptake waste segregation at source237There was no major area of divergence among the participants.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/UNFSS-Independent-Dialogue-on-Fresh-Markets-Official-Feedback.docxhttps://www.dhakatribune.com/business/2021/06/08/study-95-of-dhaka-s-urban-poor-buy-fresh-food-from-kitchen-marketshttps://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/modernising-kitchen-markets-stressed-better-food-management-257842?fbclid=IwAR3m9FntRCm0uotvnuopZgHgmv-hK_S_gHqZultyyMubrpXXMTUZY4dmqP4#.YL906eWXmCM.facebook

2021-08-02 04:50:09260https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30445/10121420222328343640434750586272738081828889909697100101104107113114115118125126134135138139148160161164169174175179182185186187189191196200

2440106293119

The Dialogue was organized as an Inter-Regional Dialogue of South-South Cooperation for the region of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (56 member states). The Official Letters to all 56 member states was submitted on the invitation to participate and actively get involved in the organization of the International Conference titled “Best practices for building Sustainable Food Systems in the OIC region”. In Official Letters, member states were requested the participation of government agencies responsible for food security and involvement of other stakeholders, including National Food System Dialogue participants, representatives of various government agencies, private sector, research and science organizations, as well as civil society. Besides of that, the IOFS promoted the event through social media and encouraged the participation of private sector, academia and civil society from member states.The Dialogue comprised from Four Sessions. One Session was specifically dedicated to the National Food System Dialogues, where six countries presented their experience on the arrangement of National Dialogues in their countries. Particularly, they addressed the following topics: discussion of the organizational process, including the involvement of wide variety of stakeholders, as well as presentation of recommendations on building pathways and providing solutions for sustainable food systems.The Principles of Engagement certainly can contribute in having broad vision toward building sustainable food systems. Therefore, as it was shown in the examples of many countries, multi-stakeholder dialogues help to identify problems, especially at local or district level, and find ways of solutions jointly, by also increasing the level of accountability not only on the government side, but also on the communities side as well.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Considering the importance of enhancing the national and regional capacities of building resilient food systems to address the food insecurity challenges, the Conference focused on the following themes that elaborated within the dedicated Sessions: - Governance of Food Security (developing the coherent policy and legal frameworks; ensuring the coordinated intra- and inter-governmental actions; monitoring and evaluation mechanisms); - National Food System Dialogues (experience of member states of arranging National Dialogues, discussion of their organizational process, including the involvement of wide variety of stakeholders, as well as recommendations to build pathways and provide solutions for sustainable food systems); - Management of Food Supply Chains (maintenance of stable food supply chains and food imports; manufacturing, retail and logistics; technology trends in food supply chains, including digitalization of distribution and procurement systems); - Promotion of Agricultural Development (government support to small farmers and farmer livelihoods, enhancing food processing, use of smart technology in agriculture).235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251On Governance of Food Security:  The development of comprehensive frameworks with clear vision and objectives that entails the political commitment from the highest levels of leadership to the dimension of policies, strategies and action plans that set out roles and responsibilities of various actors for implementation and achievement of goals. It is important that these frameworks are formulated with the involvement of all stakeholders and incorporate the international norms, as well as target the various segments of food security domain.  Therefore, short and long-term strategic planning of these frameworks is vital for ensuring the food security in a country, as shown in the examples of UAE (National Food Security Strategy 2051 in line with the UAE Centennial 2071 Plan); Bangladesh (National Food and Nutrition Security Policy with 8 Five Year Plans and Vision 2041); Ireland (Agri-Food Strategy 2030);  It is crucial to have the coherence between frameworks and strategies, as well as the broad approach of coordination among intra- and inter-agencies at national and local levels with the involvement of multiple actors from government, private sector, academia, research organization, smallholder farmers and civil society. Legal frameworks shall be consistent with resources, capacity and timeframe. Principally, the establishment of a coordinating body at the highest government level is essential to arrange the processes of planning, implementation and monitoring and activities of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. As it is shown in the examples of UAE (Emirates Council for Food Security launched in response to COVID-19, and membership consists wide range of actors); Bangladesh (Food Planning and Monitoring Committee, that also comprises from the highest level of officials); Ireland (Strategy Committee; Chaired by business-trusted person, organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and consists various actors, such as researchers, industries, businesses, retailers, farmers, banking, environmental NGOs, young farmers and others).  The Strategies themselves are “live” documents containing SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time bound) goals, with clear steps toward strong food systems, and cover all aspects of food systems encompassing environmental, social and economic sustainability.  The government shall play the main role in ensuring the availability and accessibility of food to its population. As shown in the presentation of FAO, many governments take the commitment to ensure the right to adequate food in their countries. That commitment entails aspects of policy, legal, institutional, budgetary measures and monitoring/accountability. It also assigns responsibilities across sectors and institutions/coordination, direction to other legislation/coherence. On Management of Food Supply Chains:  As shown in all the presentations of this session, great emphasis is paid to strengthening food supply and value chains. Digitalization of food supply is essential to improve agricultural and food systems. It includes e-commerce, digital technologies to connect producers/farmers and traders, processors, buyers/consumers. Innovations are also significant in all processes, including food procurement, food supply chains and control systems.  Logistics infrastructure and storing facilities shall be enhanced to ensure the resilience at households, enable vulnerable farmers to be able to realize their activities, and reduce losses that would result in greater availability and accessibility for entire communities.  As shown in the practice applied in Russia, the development of a network of wholesale distribution centers (WDC) if the state federal task that can bring solutions for interregional trade, stimulation of agricultural production and the formation of related infrastructure at the local levels (warehouses, storage facilities, dryers, local processing facilities). Because many agricultural producers and especially smallholder farmers face problems of distribution, lack of coordination with retailers, buyers, storage of food at local levels, ensure its quality and freshness. On Promotion of Agricultural Development  Governments are not able to reform food systems without collaboration with businesses and agricultural producers that operate within the food system. Therefore, many presentations of the Session demonstrated how governments can promote the agriculture and support local farmers with the long-term goal of achieving food security and sovereignty, and reduce the dependency to external shocks.  As it was shown in the example of Turkey, the government play significant role in supporting to small and medium agricultural enterprises, young farmers and smallholders by putting the priority for R&D investment programs and organic agriculture. Overall, this state support improves access to financing for smallholders, cooperatives and small businesses, as well as helps rural areas to sustain their agricultural activities.  The universities and research organizations are also instrumental in promotion of agriculture and advance of food systems. The presentation of Kazakh National Agrarian Research University showed the Kazakhstan’s model of extension knowledge dissemination system, where the university provide online and in-person consulting and capacity-building training services with covering tens of thousands of farmers and enterprises at national, local and district levels.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251 The ongoing global financial and pandemic crises, along with climate change and other problems that the international community is facing today are having an adverse impact on the progress of ensuring food security across member countries and achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Therefore, it is crucial to find the right and optimal level of engagement between government and other stakeholders for ensuring all food security pillars: availability, access, utilization and stability.  All presentations of this Session demonstrated the consistency with the principles of engagement in the process of United Nations Food Systems Dialogues, particularly, the participation of wide variety of stakeholders at these dialogues, such as private sector, academia, research entities, local authorities, business enterprises, schools, universities, international partners and many other actors. The principles of engagement improve the communication among these stakeholders and increases the responsibility for each of them in contributing to better food systems. Therefore, the attraction of all stakeholders is essential to review the existing systems and generate ideas for re-building resilient food systems.  Major disruptions of food supply chains due to lockdowns and restrictions triggered by COVID-19 effects necessitate from governments in ensuring food that is sufficient in quantities, adequate in quality and supplied through food supply chains from domestic markets, food imports or food reserves. It is also important to improve food security through efficient local production and reduced losses and wastes, particularly post-harvest losses that affect mainly smallholder farmers. Reducing losses would result in greater food availability and accessibility for entire communities.  Agricultural development is the basis for food security in a country. In other words, agricultural development is critically important for improving food security and nutrition, that include: increasing the quantity and diversity of food; driving economic transformation; and providing the primary source of income for many vulnerable groups. For them, agriculture is their main source of income and employment. Therefore, agricultural development shall be integral part of strategies on food security.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/AGENDA-14-July-Conference.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/LIST-of-PARTICIPANTS.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/IOFS-Recommendations-to-UN-FSS.pdfhttps://www.iofs.org.kz/video/dZe-RhF4_-E

2021-08-02 09:25:07205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38373/192

426

The Principles remained a key part throughout all of the UK's engagements.

NoMore information on the method of engagement can be found in the attached report. The dialogue engaged over 400 young people across England. The country was split geographically into five regions: North West, North East, Midlands, South West and South East, speaking to approximately 100 people in each region. The dialogue was run as a series of workshops and an online national event.

234238239240The dialogue explored the themes of: Food and Health; Food and Our Living Planet; and Food and Money235238239240241Please note: This report represents the views of food systems stakeholders, it does not represent the official views of UK Government. Please see the attached report.236Please see the attached report.237Please see the attached report.

2021-08-02 09:47:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20542/203

5641141203678112119110212102111332281711455

The organizing team has selected a group of young and motivated individuals already (or ready to be) projected into the realm of food systems and provided them with a safe space to discuss, openly and creatively, the way forward for a more sustainable and resilient future. As such, both the organizing team and the participants understand the need to act with urgency and are committed, either personally or professionally, to contribute to the vision, objectives and outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. The BoT participants aim to be agents of change and wish to contribute to the outcome of the FSS. David Nabarro’s intervention during the first BoT virtual meeting clearly inspired them and helped them better understand the process behind the Summit. In the organization of the Dialogue, the BoT organizing team made sure to embrace multistakeholder inclusivity by inviting participants from different countries, backgrounds and sectors, including but not limited to civil society, government, academia and the private sector. It must be pointed out, however, that the Dialogue has been organized and carried out with a focus on the youth and on the Middle Eastern – Mediterranean region geographically speaking. The facilitators selected were all part of the organizing team and had been briefed with attention to ensure the creation of a safe space conducive for dialogue based on respect and trust. A number of ‘principles’ for discussion were shared with the participants at the beginning of each session to foster this sense of inclusivity, mutual respect and trust. These included the need to complement the work of others, build on what the person before has said, challenge only when you have an alternative to propose, and finally seek compromise in order to reach a unifying message.The Dialogue re-grouped and focused on all the topics that were addressed during the previous six workshops, with a major focus on narratives and advocacy; knowledge, connectivity and digitalization; habitats and proximity; diversity of food systems; renewed traditions and empowered culture; affordability and true value of food. The Dialogue is part of a broader set of workshops and events organized by the Bites of Transfoodmation team that aim to take into account and discuss different aspects of the food systems, thus recognizing their complexity. Previous dialogues and workshops have focused on the topics of sustainable consumption and on the future of production, transformation and distribution. Sometime has been dedicated to the unifying power of potentially divisive concepts. The final aim is to achieve some Lines of Action, which will take a holistic and systemic approach to food systems transformation. Yet, as the very name Bites of Transfoodmation suggests, the idea is to propose some ‘bites’ of change which are coherent to and reflect the vision of the group of young change-makers and the themes identified by the group as key. The principles of inclusivity, respect and trust were reflected in the design and roll-out of the Dialogue and have been an essential feature of the entire Bites of Transfoodmation process. The participants have not only been included in all stages of the project in a transparent and inclusive way but have been its very center. A real sense of trust has been created along the way, and this could be witnessed during the Dialogue as the participants felt they could express their views freely and openly, even when these did not necessarily reflect the views held by others.Thanks to the fact that there is a team working exclusively on the Bites of Transfoodmation project, a lot of information and knowledge sharing is able to take place both among the participants, and between the participants and the organizing team. The organizing team has ensured that various different avenues and spaces for exchange are created, both during and in the build-up to the Dialogues. This has definitely contributed to building trust as well as to keeping the momentum, engagement and commitment of the participants high. Our advice to other Conveners would be to make sure, if possible, that there is a strong point of contact between the Dialogue participants and the Conveners. This allows for participant's feedback and continued interaction after the workshops and Dialogue so that the ideas can be further refined, and knowledge further shared. Furthermore, it seems to be a valuable approach to choose participants with a diverse background in order to permit exchange about different realities, while working towards compromise and unifying elements.

Yes

234239240241244246248249250During the previous Bites of Transfoodmation Independent Dialogues the group agreed that there is a need to rethink our life habits and to develop some renewed traditions by a change of narratives lead by advocacy, incentives and intergenerational initiatives. We acknowledged the need to transform and reorganize our habitats and professional life based on the determinants of health and the well-being embedded in true values of food. We also understood that personalized diets demand a reorganization of food economy based on diversity, proximity and interconnectivity. During this Independent Dialogue, we decided to focus on the paragraphs of the Bites of Transfoodmation Manifesto and on discussing how the vision behind it could be achieved and implemented in practice. After a short introduction, in which we recalled the journey already made together since October as well as where it will lead us in the short term, we created six groups around the six main paragraphs of the Manifesto, namely: a) Narratives and advocacy b) Habitats and proximity c) Connectivity, knowledge, and digitalization d) Renewed traditions and empowered culture e) Diversity and food systems f) Affordability and true value. Based on the text of the Manifesto, the goal was to start thinking about some concrete lines of action through an inclusive, common and unifying language suitable for the whole group. After the group discussions, participants had the opportunity to share what was discussed in each group to the plenary, in order to connect the dots and work as a group towards possible future pathways.235239240241244246248249250In this Independent Dialogue, the participants had to focus on concrete lines of action with the departure point being the Bites of Transfoodmation Manifesto. Being divided into six groups, the participants had sufficient space for discussion and ideas sharing. The main take-away of the workshop has been that education - in all its forms - and knowledge sharing is at the center of a structural, systemic and long-term change of food systems. Indeed, even though people where discussing very different topics, in every break-out room the participants highlighted the importance of supporting initiatives related to improving the quality and accessibility to food education. The group figured out that education encompasses different ways of teaching and learning, in the sense that school education for children or teenagers is as important as intergenerational education activities with elderlies, workshops organised by local authorities, volunteering activities related to farming, or information campaigns on social media. At the same time, participants also stressed that the weight cannot only be given to consumers and that a bottom-up approach driven by the people also needs support from institutions and its infrastructure. In this regard, the group also suggested that (local and national) governments support initiatives aiming at making people responsible and accountable for their choices, support initiatives that try to collaborate with the private sector more closely in order to make the small-holder realities more interconnected, and ensure that (global and national) norms are set in place to create a framework that allows people to do the best they can with the means they have. In conclusion, the group highlighted the importance of having all actors involved in the process towards a change of food systems - from national institutions to people, and from international organisations, as well as non-governmental organisations, to the private sector - because of the complexity and interconnectivity that are prevalent in a globalised world.236241243Narratives and Advocacy. The group discussed the role of narratives and advocacy in the transformation of food systems. First, the group commented the paragraph of the manifesto, highlighting the importance of empowerment; of one’s own responsibility but also the responsibility at the higher level (e.g. community) as we want structural and systemic changes; of the emphasis on accountability of the different actors; of the concept of affordability in its multi-dimensionality; and of the role of behavioural change and education. They commented that the manifesto would need more practical examples as it is rather abstract. Then, the idea was brought up by a participant to create a visualisation of the manifesto through videos and storytelling. The group outlined the importance of having diverse narratives coming from diverse realities, empowering the people through sharing their stories. Other concrete ideas were discussed and included a social media campaign with local recipe and information on the “externalities” of each products, a storytelling showcasing diets of today’s families in comparison with diets from 3-4 generations back, a campaign using local influencers to promote local, healthy and nutritious diets and the BoT manifesto, a campaign through the BoT members in which they would advocate within their communities for the manifesto and encourage people to show a will for accountability when it comes to their food choices.236239240244246249Habitats and Proximity. After a re-reading of the paragraph "Habitats and Proximity" of our Manifesto, the newcomers expressed their thoughts about it and, even though they did not participate in the whole process that led to the drafting of the Manifesto, they agreed with the content. Above all, they supported the need to reconnect the urban area with the rural area, emphasising the importance of a cognitive approach - an aspect that, according to the group, is not considered as important. In support of this thesis, some participants reported examples of initiatives and projects that aim to bridge this gap by focusing on a form of education that leads to this goal. Another important aspect that the group felt necessary to reconnect and rethink our habitats, was to give space to cross-sectoral careers in order to make it easier to disseminate information and knowledge. In this regard, a fundamental element stressed by some participants was to rethink education in order to increase everyone's awareness on where the food we eat comes from, how it is produced, and what its real value is. The group also emphasised the importance of subsidies and their poor distribution among recipients, thus incentivising unsustainable production, especially in certain regions of the world. A participant underlined the need for new laws that would protect sustainable food production and consumption, giving weight also to the role of the private sector, envisaging a system of transparent reporting of the most virtuous companies that could act as an example for all others. A final aspect that some participants raised concerned the relevance of local production and how this should be protected and valorised, for example by relaunching local markets in order to make them attractive to all consumers and reforming food pricing policies without affecting small producers.236239241246248249Diversity of Food Systems. The group discussed how a different future world could look like through the lens of the manifesto, outlining certain premises of lines of actions. First, the group looked into the need of increasing awareness about diets fostering diversity, making them more personalised and - even more importantly - more sustainable. In this sense, two BoT participants recalled projects that they developed in previous steps of the BoT process: a health app that would tell you according to your health condition what kind of food fits you best, and an app that would assist you during your groceries to switch to more sustainable products. The group shortly discussed the possibility to combine these two apps into one. Second, the group discussed the role of the private sector in a future diverse system based on small-interconnected realities. All participants agreed that big international enterprises needed to rethink their ways of working. A participant proposed for example that authorities would decentralise production to the places the products are sold. Another participant pointed out that big companies created the unsustainable world in which we are living and thus needed to radically change or disappear to enable the creation of another sustainable system. Two participants, small entrepreneurs, pointed out the need to make competition fairer between SMEs and large companies but underlined the opportunities of collaboration between both. Lastly, someone pointed out the need to create global norms for private sector to enable fair competition. Related to this, participants discussed how the government could create incentives for local and healthy products by accounting, among others, the health costs of unhealthy products via e.g. the insurance system. To conclude, the group agreed that all actors were needed to bring changes and needed to be held accountable and that making information flow in the system was central.236241246247251Renewed Traditions and Empowered Culture. In the fourth break-out session dealing with the paragraph of the Manifesto about renewed traditions and empowered culture, the participants considered that food is perfect for connecting people to nature, because agricultural practices are considered as being the true connection between these two things, rather than only a product of human activity. From this starting point, the group proposed some lines of actions. First of all, in order to connect the youth with the elderlies, in other words connect innovations and traditional knowledge, they proposed to revive old traditions on an individual scale, rediscover traditional dishes, reintroduce traditional cooking ingredients, and make it become a “cool” habit again. Secondly, the participants concluded that it is highly important to give everybody the feeling of being included by empowering all cultures: in order to overcome social exclusion, differences and diversities need to be empowered and to be given space within the communities. Finally, in order to break down the barriers among traditionally separated sectors, as well as between urban and rural areas, the group proposed a “participatory guarantee system” allowing everybody who is interested in the processes behind food production to go and see themselves how everything functions (from production to distribution, to consumption, to disposal). In conclusion, the participants proposed to take old ideas and directing them into new pathways - so, connecting traditional knowledge with new ideas, new techniques and new people - to build trust between different generations, sectors, cultures, and geographical areas.236239243246248Digitalization and knowledge. In the fifth group dealing with digitalisation, technologies and knowledge, the participants considered that much knowledge is already out there and that digitalization is the tool offering many possibilities to share this and make it universally comprehensible. Moreover, the group highlighted the importance of using technologies in a wise way and of making data and information available in the right places and to the right people. More concretely, the participants proposed to link demand and supply for food through internet to make the production and consumption chain more transparent and efficient, in order to avoid unsustainable consumption patterns due to misinformation and disinformation, and to avoid food losses along the chain due to grey zones. They also stressed the importance of connecting knowledge with consumers, in order to de-complexify consumer behaviour and make consumer choices more informed. The lines of actions proposed by the group worked on many different levels. First of all, it was considered that on the political level authorities need to incentivise and promote certain behaviour, such as for example the recycling of organic waste. Second, the participants suggested more collaboration with the private sector, in the sense that for example supermarkets and small-holder farmers get access to digital solutions. Third, the group highlighted the need for education and capacity building for children, adults and elderlies through project weeks or workshops. Finally, also the possibility to collaborate with social media influencers and advocate in various languages was mentioned as a possible way of improving food systems.236238245246247250Affordability and True Value. In the sixth group dealing with true cost and true value, as well as accessibility and affordability of food, the participants considered that people definitely have not enough education on the origins and on the nutrients of food. Moreover, thanks to the international character of the group, we figured out that the fact of not having access to healthy, various and nutritious food in poorer countries is often due to the exportation of the good quality food to richer countries, which could be avoided by adopting the "principle of subsidiarity" proposed in the BoT Manifesto, as this practice suggests to consume as locally as possible and switch to import products coming from far away only when in-land production is not possible. Another important point that was raised was that the price of food needs to be calculated based on its true costs, which are currently not taken into account by our economic system, as the environmental, social, and cultural values have no or little weight in the financial markets. When coming to the lines of actions, the participants proposed some important ways to ensure that true values are considered and accessibility to food is ensured. For example, the participants proposed educational workshops connecting producers and consumers in order to get a feeling of where the food comes from, how much work and time is necessary to grow it, what it means to respect seasonality and understand the advantages of local supply by making the supply chain more transparent. Another proposition from the group was to strengthen education at school for children in order to teach the younger generations about food systems, in order to make food knowledge part of school programs from the beginning.237239241244246247Within group 1, while some participants were in favour of self-accountability in transforming food systems, others were rather redirecting accountability to governments or the private sector. In addition, some new-comers commented the not sufficiently practical character of the manifesto. Within group 2, while everyone agrees on a change in food systems, some believe it can only happen by applying some drastic measures, while others think it should happen slowly through education and awareness. A minority of the group believes that artificial intelligence will be key in the food systems of the future while others claim that it will be only a part of it, AI does not have to be essential for the proper fuctioning of the system. Within group 3, while some participants were rather sceptical regarding the role of large companies in a future sustainable world, others pointed out to the huge impacts they could have by changing their business model. Within group 6, some participants considered labels as a way to fix the lack of knowledge from the consumers about the origins and the treatment of food (biological growth, no pesticides, local production, etc.). For others, however, labels were considered misleading, in the sense that they do not tell the entire truth.

2021-08-02 13:59:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31946/203

This Dialogue was in line with the Food Systems Summit and discussed ways to accelerate the transition towards sustainable agri-food systems. Wide outreach on the event ensured participation from a diverse range of stakeholders. Participants were encouraged to share their views during the plenary and breakout rooms. Facilitators and presenters actively listened to inputs and clarified technical aspects where necessary.Commit to the Summit: The Dialogue’s breakout rooms were centered around guiding questions with a forward-looking tone, such as ‘How can research and institutions support knowledge transfer among different stakeholders?’. New connections were fostered by bringing together various stakeholders in the breakout rooms. Be Respectful: Facilitators and presenters actively listened to inputs and clarified technical aspects where necessary. They left space for participants to discuss diverging points of views. Recognize complexity: climate-smart agriculture as an approach recognizes the complexity of reaching sustainable agri-food systems. The need to recognize potential synergies and trade-offs was discussed. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: the Dialogue benefited from outreach through the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, a multi-stakeholder platform. Participants from a wide range of stakeholders joined the event. Guiding questions for the breakout room sessions included questions on how best to engage women, youth and indigenous peoples in the food systems transition. Complement the work of others: The Dialogue presented work completed under a FAO project on climate-smart agriculture, to inspire others to build on this work related to project implementation and creating knowledge products. Build trust: Speakers and facilitators were asked to encourage participants to openly share their views. This feedback report includes views expressed during the event, however these views are not attributed to single individuals, as per the Independent Dialogues Principles of Engagement.Inviting participants to speak during the breakout rooms as well as plenary sessions, to ensure those who would like to share their views can do so.

Yes

234240241242243244245246248249250251The dialogue focused on the contributions of the climate-smart agriculture approach in accelerating the transition to sustainable agri-food sytems. Climate-smart agriculture Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an approach that includes three pillars: sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, adapting and building resilience of people and agri-food systems to climate change, and reducing and/or removing greenhouse gas emissions where possible. CSA has grown from a concept into an approach implemented throughout the world, by all types of stakeholders. The event, hosted under the Independent Dialogues Food Systems Summit banner, organized by the Global Alliance of Climate Smart Agriculture (GACSA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment (OCB), provided stakeholders with an opportunity to exchange knowledge, raise awareness, and share good practices implemented in projects aiming to accelerate the transition towards sustainable Agri-Food Systems while adapting to - and mitigating -climate change and sustainably managing natural resources. Examples of CSA projects were shared with the audience and particular attention was given to projects empowering women, young people and indigenous peoples.235240241242243244245246248249250251The event re-established the value of knowledge sharing between a diverse range of stakeholders working to promote the implementation of CSA practices and make agri-food systems more sustainable. It highlighted FAO’s work on CSA and its three pillars: sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, adapting and building resilience of people and agri-food systems to climate change, and reducing and/or removing greenhouse gas emissions where possible. Speakers emphasized the importance of transforming agri-food systems to reach the SDGs and address the climate crisis while eradicating hunger. They recognized agri-food systems as being central to addressing many interlinked challenges. From the three parallel sessions, the following key messages were derived: • Technologies, tools and practices are important but a holistic approach is needed to involve all stakeholders to also involve political, research/knowledge and extensions aspects. • CSA knowledge needs to be translated into something practice that puts farmer at the center of what we want to achieve. • The importance of the policy-farmer interface, how to translate CSA policy into something that is understandable and attractive for farmers • Language is a barrier in the policy-farmer interface. It is also important to understand who farmers listen to e.g. policymakers or other farmers. • Cost-benefit balance for farmers to implement CSA is an important factor. Main findings from specific parallel breakout rooms include: 1. Need to mainstream CSA into other relevant and existing national policies, plans and strategies related to e.g. climate change, food security and agriculture strategies, sustainable development and adapt to local context. 2. Need to create an evidence database to support the implementation of CSA policies and programmes that includes all relevant data, composing e.g. climate and geographical data, socio-economic data at household level, prices and market data, agricultural sector data, greenhouse gas emissions 3. Enhance finance to ensure sustainability of CSA programmes as well as link with existing climate and agricultural finance and thereby creating linkages to other country and regional initiatives and programmes geared towards food security to enhance synergies, reduce overlaps and potential trade-offs. 4. Need to understand cost-benefit balance for farmers to invest in CSA practices. This will help support and guide policy decision making. 5. Need to overcome barriers with regards to bringing knowledge on sustainable agriculture and other capacities to farmers, and the need to explain what CSA is. Channels to reach these objectives may include policy-farmer and farmer-farmer interfaces, such as various types of schools as well as cooperatives. 6. Fear was recognized as a barrier to women’s participation. 7. Various actions were suggested to help overcome this barrier, including workshops on leadership, legislation, involving women in projects, sharing information, women’s participation in policy implementation, technologies and economic activities. 8. Need to develop more user-friendly platforms on FAO projects in order to deliver ad hoc information on ongoing projects. FAO expressed an interest in conducting a stock take on what actions have been taken on CSA and what benefits they have brought to farmers, to understand the cost-benefit balance of implementing CSA.2362402412422432442452462482492502511. Role of CSA knowledge to increase capacity building especially for achieving the SDGs What are the barriers to sharing knowledge in this context? • Lacking support from governments to convince farmers to adapt CSA practices. • Lack to access to information and knowledge, technology • There is a need for farmer-to-farmer sharing, collective action and policy that is flexible enough to address various context-specific climate challenges. • Fear that change will increase poverty. Investments by farmers. What are the cost benefits and no guarantee on return on investments • People don’t know what CSA is. What is CSA and what is not? Importance of being able to give examples that are relevant for local audiences. • Better analysis on who gets the information, and what type of information is communicated, local or national rainfall indications for example, while finding solutions to potential information gaps and unequal information dissemination is needed. How could policy and governance facilitate overcoming these barriers? • Difficulties operationalizing existing policies and frameworks. • There is clear need for the translation of knowledge into practice and understanding of the benefits • There is a need to understand who farmers trust most. There is also a need for farmer-to-farmer and policy decision making interface • Small farmers access to information on how to adapt to climate change e.g. use of fertilizers • Making farmers central to knowledge exchange. Who do farmers trust? Bringing farmers and agronomists together e.g. through farmer field schools. Taking into account gender considerations in scaling up CSA practices. • Farmer needs are to be sensitized and engaged throughout the policy processes and stimulate ownership by the farmer • Complicated documents, national m/eetings but the farmer who cannot invest in tools. Bring farmers to the table and help them access knowledge and invest in techniques. • Despite convincing advancements, questions around how to successfully move from case study findings to scaling up practices and understanding which type of policies and institutions best support climate-smart farming, persist. What is the role of platforms in facilitating knowledge sharing? What added value can they provide? (e.g. networking, building synergies among various actors within the value chain) • Cooperatives are important in increasing knowledge sharing to farmers as well as technology transfer. Example of village level meetings. Education and literacy. • Making farmers literature about weather and climate and the consequences of climate change is important. E.g. climate services, information on rainfall. • Including the technology and principles in schools. • Technology should be developed with and by the farmer. They know what their needs are • There is need to understand the cost and benefits of CSA practices from the farmers point of view, this will help support and guide policy decision making • Social networks and group action need to be supported and promoted. These platforms support farmers for example with labor throughout the season, or the group jointly trials and tests a few selected climate-smart practices reducing individual farmers’ risks What capacity development approaches work for CSA? Transformation must be country-owned, sustainable, scaled up, and scaled out. There is need to get an understanding of what are the national and subnational capacities across people, organizations, institutions, networks and policies that need to be enhanced and how will countries be supported in this process. How can research institutions support knowledge transfer among different stakeholders? • In the context of climate change, new models of knowledge production with an emphasis on generation of societal outcomes are needed. • New models of knowledge production needs to be developed, not only at the level of individual researchers or research projects, but also to be institutionalized to effectively address systemic limitations.2362402412422442462482492502512. Role of indigenous women and youth in agroforestry The breakout room was opened by a presentation on Ecuador shared by Izamar Valarezo, young indigenous leader and President of the Network of Cocoa Associations of the Napo Province, and followed by guiding questions on the role of indigenous women and youth in agroforestry. Inputs from participants are noted per guiding question below. What are the barriers on involving women, youth and Ips in this context? • The main problem is the fear to be questions or rejected. We have worked with capacitation on leadership so the don´t have fear to partipate in the problems. • The culture is one of the main cause of fear. Historically women didn´t have the rigth to participate or even talk, women have to make decision, they are in charge of the families What examples of projects/case studies where these barriers have been overcome? And How policy and governance could facilitate the overcome these barriers? • Workshops on leadership so women can overcome the barriers. • Legislation, women rights. • Involve the youg women in projects. • Web site with all the information needed. • The workshops help to let women know that they won´s be critized by their communities. • In Africa the policies encourage women that they are implementad with women 50% of participants are women, that helps to put more effort. • Technologies. • Economic activities, are trying to generate income in the house to envolve women. How platforms or services such as extension services could overcome these barriers? • Agroecology involving women in Uganda, lady farmers are the bigger exporters, there is a video about it. How that training and a fair access to information are key in involving women, youth and IPs? What would you suggest improving? • They can improve agricultural practices.2362402412422442462482492502513. Climate-smart livestock and crops practices Key questions: What are the obstacles/barriers that prevent the adoption and wide spreading of CSA practices in livestock and crop farming systems? How policy and governance could facilitate the overcoming of these barriers? Can you share today some good examples of projects/case studies where these barriers have been overcome? How can livestock and crop sectors be more interconnected and build synergies between them (such as with a circular economy perspective)? Answers by participants: • Lack of awareness of various type of stakeholders, in primis the governance and the farmers, on CSA practices and the benefits that they can bring to local level. This barrier can be overcome through the implementation of dedicated trainings and capacity building activities addressed to specific categories of stakeholders. • Lack of exchanges between the research sector and the local governance, for instance with reference to the adoption of improved varieties obtained from breeding to face climate change. Local research centres have already produced new varieties resistant to drought. Nevertheless, these new varieties are not available to farmers due to the lack of intervention from the local government. The seeds of these improved varieties shall be made available and accessible to farmers. To overcome this barrier, it is important for farmers to organize them in consortia and associations. • Lack of knowledge, education and capacities of farmers about these practices, especially in the case of indigenous people. This condition is further worsened by a lack of affordability of input and means used to implement the CSA practices. • The price of agricultural produce is not stable on local market and this could expose farmers to financial risks. To overcome these barriers an intervention from local authorities is required to improve the access of farmers to inputs (e.g. seeds of improved varieties, machinery fleet) and technologies needed to implement CSA practices. Most of the times the very limited size of local farms prevents the adoption of CSA practices, because these requires to switch to new tools and technologies, with unsustainable depreciation of investment cost. Experience of FAO in Sudan and South Sudan: • Lack of knowledge of local authorities about CSA practices constitute the main obstacle to the adoption of these practices by local farmers. • lack of community engagement in the implementation of CSA project: this component is absolutely needed to succeed in mainstreaming CSA practices at local level, as well as the enhanced accessibility to improved varieties and sustainable livestock trade. Consortia and farmers producers organizations can play a key role to improve the access of farmers to the market. • Lack of infrastructures and to the long distance existing from the livestock raising place to the market place. • The lack of access to the market prevent farmers to achieve good economic return from their activities: they are obliged to sell their product in the village, where other farmers do the same activities and produce the same type of product, and this reduce the value of the produce on the market. Policy and decision makers can play a key role to facilitate the overcoming of barriers, but first of all they need to develop a wide and deep knowledge of the local environmental, social, economic conditions, including type of soil, traditional practices, local challenges, such as conflicts. He explained that the adoption of CSA practices both in the livestock and in the cropping farms must be adapted and fine-tuned to the local context. Experience from Viet Nam: • Need to consider the agricultural and livestock value chain in a circular economy perspective. Farmers should be enabled to make the best use of the waste and residues produced from their activities. Good practices implemented in Viet Nam: each livestock farm, even if having a reduced size, is equipped with an anaerobic digester which allows to produce clean energy for cooking and, at in case of farms of bigger size, also energy to power local houses or water pumping for agricultural purposes.237240241242244246248249There was a discussion in the chat on the linkages and divergences between regenerative agriculture and climate-smart agriculture, with some participants emphasizing differences between these approaches, and other highlighting synergies. There were also comments in the chat on the differences between CSA and agro-ecology. One participant notes that “leading farmers haven't been invited to the UNFSS table. The input and presence stats clearly show this.”

2021-08-02 14:00:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22381/203

110244111033483263

The Principles of Engagement were reviewed in detail with the group of participants at the beginning of the session.All the Principles of Engagement were reviewed with the Dialogue participants at the beginning of the session.Explaining and adhering to the Principles of Engagement will help your Dialogue run smoothly and be productive.

Yes

234238239244246249The major focus of our Dialogue was exploring the vital role of nutrition professionals in advancing sustainable food systems and sustainable diets during the next ten years.235238239244246249Sustainable Food Systems • The general public is not cognizant of local, national or global food systems. • Registered Dietitian Nutritionists (RDNs) work in a wide array of roles within the food system, and are skilled at education, communication, policy development, advocacy, and research, which makes RDNs uniquely qualified to actively shape and deliver dietary guidance, improve nutrition security and water security, align food production and nutrition, optimize supply chains and food environments, and reduce waste. • Developing and implementing plans to advance sustainable food systems requires the participation of multidisciplinary teams with members representing all sectors of the food system. Sustainable Diets • Providing guidance on sustainable diets should become an integral element of the practice of dietetics. • Sustainable diets will differ between and within countries, e.g., in industrial economies a sustainable diet would include moderating animal protein intake and increasing plant protein intake (up to and including 100% plant-based diets), whereas in economies that experience protein inadequacy, increased animal protein intake may be necessary. • To establish and maintain a higher level of professional credibility among healthcare professions and the public, RDNs should avoid the perceived conflicts of interest that may accompany business relationships or sponsorships with certain commercial enterprises and trade associations.236238239244246249Sustainable Food Systems • The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics urges the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), to reconsider inclusion of sustainable food systems in the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. • Registered Dietitian Nutritionists (RDNs) are well-qualified to help educate the general public about national or global food systems, criteria to define a sustainable food system, and actions the public can take toward developing a sustainable food system. • RDNs are well-qualified to develop curricula and teach about sustainable food systems in primary and secondary school settings. • RDNs can develop curricula and teach about sustainable food systems in college and university settings, in collaboration with the campus food service management. • RDNs can use their personal social media accounts to communicate about sustainable food systems. • The Academy strongly encourages relevant agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to expand financial support options for students of color to increase diversity in the RDN profession so that RDNs can more effectively communicate with and represent those who are disenfranchised by the current food system. • Increase the availability of continuing education for practicing RDNs on policy, advocacy, and systems thinking to empower more RDNs to advocate for sustainable food systems with local, state and federal lawmakers. • RDNs can advocate for Increasing the availability of classes for prospective RDNs on policy, advocacy, and systems thinking that are offered in Didactic Programs in Dietetics, Dietetic Internships, and other related educational programs.236238239244246249Sustainable Diets • RDNs can advocate for increasing the availability of continuing education for practicing RDNs on culturally, geographically, and economically appropriate sustainable diets. • RDNs can advocate for increasing the availability of classes for prospective RDNs on culturally, geographically, and economically appropriate sustainable diets that are offered in Didactic Programs in Dietetics and Dietetic Internships. • RDNs can work with the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR) of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to develop and implement a sustainability requirement, similar to the ethics requirement, pursuant to which all CDR credentialed practitioners must complete a minimum of 1 CPEU pertaining to the topic of sustainability during each 5-year recertification cycle. • RDNs can use their personal social media accounts to share quick and simple recipes that align with a sustainable diet. • The Academy supports an effort to create a national, standardized, front-of-package symbol system to help consumers quickly identify healthier foods.237No areas of divergence emerged during our Dialogue.

2021-08-02 15:45:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21686/203

8313181322611131112

The Principles of Engagement were reviewed in detail with the group of participants at the beginning of the session.All the Principles of Engagement were reviewed with the Dialogue participants at the beginning of the session.Explaining and adhering to the Principles of Engagement will help your Dialogue run smoothly and be productive.

Yes

234238239244246249The major focus of our Dialogue was exploring the vital role of nutrition professionals in advancing sustainable food systems and sustainable diets during the next ten years.235238239244246249Sustainable Food Systems • The Academy recognizes that many of the actions that are needed to achieve sustainable food and water systems will require changes in practices, habits, and behaviors, which can be challenging or overwhelming to some people, businesses, and organizations. • The work of Registered Dietitian Nutritionists (RDNs) intersects with all the food system sectors, which makes RDNs uniquely qualified to actively shape and deliver dietary guidance, improve nutrition security and water security, align food production and nutrition, optimize supply chains and food environments, and reduce waste. • The Academy recognizes that revised socio-political structures will be needed to ensure that farmworkers are paid fair wages and work under suitable and safe conditions. Sustainable Diets • Providing guidance on sustainable diets should become an integral element of the practice of dietetics and RDNs are uniquely positioned to do so, as experts in client-centered care and motivational interviewing. • When RDNs integrate sustainable diets into their nutrition counseling practices, it will help drive consumer demand for more sustainable foods, and help motivate food producers and manufacturers to offer more sustainable food and beverage products. The Academy recommends support and facilitation of markets for sustainable foods, which are essential for viability of these foods and related production systems. • To establish and maintain a higher level of professional credibility among healthcare professions and the public, RDNs should avoid the perceived conflicts of interest that may accompany business relationships or sponsorships with certain commercial enterprises and trade associations. • BIPOC farmers have historically used more sustainable farming practices, which should be expanded and promoted through additional funding and support. • The Academy encourages USDA to work with other U.S. federal agencies and retailers to actively facilitate and promote purchases of sustainable food choices.236238239244246249Sustainable Food Systems • RDNs are skilled in behavior change counseling and can partner with other stakeholders to help people, businesses, and organizations effect changes toward sustainable food and water systems. • The Academy encourages the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), to reconsider inclusion of sustainable food systems in the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.236238239244246249Sustainable Diets • RDNs can advocate for increasing the availability of continuing education (including conferences) for practicing RDNs on culturally, geographically, and economically appropriate sustainable diets. • RDNs can advocate for increasing the availability of classes for prospective RDNs on culturally, geographically, and economically appropriate sustainable diets that are offered in Didactic Programs in Dietetics and Dietetic Internships. • RDNs can advocate to (1) develop and implement a sustainability requirement, similar to the ethics requirement, pursuant to which all CDR credentialed practitioners must complete a minimum of 1 credit pertaining to the topic of sustainability during each 5-year recertification cycle, (2) revise and strengthen Essential Practice Competency 1.8 (Demonstrates sustainable practices that are socially responsible, efficient, effective and environmentally friendly) and (3) develop sustainability questions for inclusion on the Registration Examination for Dietitians. • RDNs can obtain suitable training in order to support self-promotion as credible experts in sustainable diets and food systems. • RDNs who work in the food service sector can provide sustainability guidance related to purchasing decisions. • RDNs can work with culinary schools to develop a curriculum for sustainable diets that emphasize plant-based proteins. • RDNs can help develop and implement an assessment that food producers and manufacturers can use to assess and promote their commitment to sustainability. • The RDN profession can be rebranded to more effectively communicate to the public the diversity of our skills and knowledge. • The Menus of Change University Research Collaborative is a “nationwide network of colleges and universities using campus dining halls as living laboratories for behavior change” with the goal of moving “people toward healthier, more sustainable, and delicious foods using evidence-based research, education, and innovation.” RDNs can provide guidance to help adapt this model to K - 12 school meals. • RDNs can advocate for laws that will ensure farmworkers are paid fair wages and work under conditions that do not endanger their health.237No areas of divergence emerged during our Dialogue.

2021-08-02 16:16:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31514/203

241136120681613010831563953623422465755281329152161132118

Convenors organised the Dialogue with full respect and commitment to the UN Food Systems Summit principles of engagement. Inclusivity has been the guiding criteria adopted: all perspectives and farmers willing to express their vision and bring their voice to the Summit have been valued and welcomed. Efforts were made to involve farmers from across different geographies. Indeed, considering the complexity of food systems, it is essential to include everyone and leave no one behind. The occasion facilitated the identification of concrete actions aimed at developing strategies to be proposed within the Food Systems Summit in support of sustainable and fair solutions for all. The creation of a safe space in which attendees felt free to express their opinions, experiences and visions always with mutual respect among the presents was encouraged.The organisation of this independent dialogue provided a comprehensive view of the context in which global challenges can be addressed and offered an opportunity to commit to the Food Systems Summit as a vehicle to act with urgency and embrace inclusivity. Attention was paid to representing the needs and expectations of each and every farmer in every corner of the globe, ensuring that a wide and varied audience was reached. At the same time, concrete solutions were provided based on the results of previous independent dialogues held by some of the farmers' organisations involved and which identified how to respond to existing challenges. One of the most important aspects on which the dialogue focused was the axiom that food systems are complex and one size cannot fit all solutions.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces as some do not attend. Another aspect to consider: it is advisable to share in advance the topics on which the debate will develop so that participants can be more prepared and participate even more actively. In particular, if the topics addressed are specific, it is recommendable to offer the possibility of getting information in advance, in order to put the participants at ease during the dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue has been jointly organised by the World Farmers’ Organisation, by World Farmers’ Organisations, WFO, Asian Farmers Association for Sustainable Rural Development, AFA, and PanAfrican Farmers Organization, PAFO. This Independent FSS Dialogue follows a series of previous dialogues held on a regional basis by different Farmers’ organisations with the ambition of identifying solutions to facilitate the transition to sustainable, just, inclusive and empowering food systems. One round of break-out sessions was organized under the following themes: 1) What Farmers expect from the UN FSS to support them to overcome this challenge? What the world should stop doing to address this challenge? 2) What Farmers are already doing to contribute to address this challenge? 3) What kind of partnerships/coalitions Farmers need to establish? Each of these questions referred to different thematic areas such as 1) Resilience: Climate change, biodiversity protection, prevention and recovery from shocks 2) Rebalancing power in the food value chain 3) Access to finance: farmers, fishers, food producers Every discussion that took place in the various break-out sessions was reported back to the plenary. At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Policy needs to be more customized: farmers agree that it is vital to promote an enabling policy environment, tailored to farmers’ needs and diversity of local communities, in order to meet current and emerging challenges. In this regard, it is essential to maintain policy coherence and reduce fragmentation in key sectors such as agriculture, health, education and the environment. • Enable the provision of certain services to farmers such as access to production inputs, financial services, infrastructures, advisory services • Governments have an essential role in ensuring that appropriate innovation and information systems are available and affordable to farmers • Develop the capacities of farmers to access and use new technologies and innovation, including digital tools • Farmers ask for greater recognition of their activity as a business and to be fairly rewarded • Facilitate contacts and partnerships between food producers and other actors, such as private sector, credit and investment agencies, research institutes and academia • Empowerment of farmers through their participation in farmers' organisations: strong farmers’ organisations provide economic services at affordable terms to their members; help them to improve their livelihoods; offer easier access to markets, information, services, training; operate as intermediary to make the farmers voice be heard. • Family farmers are the biggest food producers. Nevertheless, 80% of extreme poor live in rural areas. It is therefore necessary to support them through solutions that narrow the gender gap and more effectively include young people in the agricultural sector, improve social protection coverage and increase their income. • Farmers are frequently exposed to extreme weather events and climate change effects. In response to this threat they have implemented several risk coping strategies which make their food systems more resilient. For this reason they want to be considered part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Resilience: Climate change, biodiversity protection, prevention and recovery from shocks On the issue raised, participants emphasized the importance of supporting policies that will result in access to natural resources, including land and seeds, access to technology, knowledge and facilities that are crucial to adapt to climate change events. An important part of this knowledge and resources should be directed towards restoring degraded ecosystems and protecting biodiversity. Some farmers are already implementing integrated diversified farming systems, which can effectively address the above mentioned challenges. Such systems are already helping to build soil health, preserve biodiversity and also store carbon in the soil. Another positive aspect deriving from these practices includes the reduction of chemical inputs and recycling nutrients. In order to do this, it is crucial to cut subsidies to GMOs, to chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and preventing the conversion of arable land to industrial use. In addition, there is a strong desire to stop using fossil fuels which worsen the effects of climate change, by replacing them with alternative energy sources. Finally, the last point regards the importance of building and strengthening partnerships. Partnerships between businesses, cooperatives and governments which lead to information sharing and learning exchange among farmers from different countries.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Rebalancing power in the food value chain Inequality is the problem that afflicts farmers. Food value chains are unbalanced, which inevitably makes food systems unsustainable. Farmers' products reach the markets, but the benefits and gains do not reach them. This problem also relates to the need for greater integration and inclusion of women and young people in the agricultural sector. Agriculture needs to become more attractive, less labour-intensive and more profitable if young people are to start considering it as an alternative way of life. On the other hand, facilitating access to credit and land, including for women, is an inevitable step towards rebalancing the food value chain and reducing poverty. Hence ,a recognition of risk and reward sharing and fairness in the value chain is needed to keep the whole system sustainable and avoid its collapse.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Access to finance: farmers, fishers, food producers The starting point from which the discussion began is the assumption that if farmers were adequately paid by the market, there would be no need for access to external financing. The real challenge of farmers' access to finance basically stems from the fact that prices are not really rewarding what farmers produce. This is one of the most relevant aspects that emerged from the discussion, reflecting the importance of recognising the farmers' activity as a business. Another obstacle mentioned was over-regulation, treating farmers as part of the problem instead of solutions. This implies difficult access to funding mechanisms, especially for young farmers, but also for women who do not even have the right to own the land. In terms of partnership, there is a need to work with governments, international financial institutions and insurance bodies to better protect them from all adverse events to which farmers are potentially exposed237All panelists and participants acknowledged the positions expressed and elaborated during this dialogue.

2021-08-02 23:16:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27985/163344143195

62934845326511412823116352222119132413

El diálogo fue organizado de forma colaborativa por el Programa Cooperativo para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Agroalimentario y Agroindustrial del Cono Sur (PROCISUR) y el Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA) en colaboración con los demás miembros del PROCISUR: el Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA Argentina), la Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa Brasil), el Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA Chile), el Instituto Paraguayo de Tecnología Agraria (IPTA Paraguay) y el Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA Uruguay). Se enfocó en analizar las oportunidades y desafíos de la I+D agropecuaria del Cono Sur en su contribución a las cinco vías de acción (VA), agrupando la discusión en tres ejes que contemplan los objetivos de las vías: 1) productividad y sostenibilidad de los sistemas de producción de alimentos; 2) acceso y la asequibilidad; y 3) calidad nutricional y salud.El diálogo se apoyó en un documento técnico elaborado por el IICA sobre el papel de la I+D agroalimentaria en la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios para América Latina y su contribución al logro de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS). El documento fue remitido con anterioridad al encuentro y presentado sus contenidos por la Organización al inicio del Diálogo. Si bien el documento es un llamado a actuar con urgencia sobre determinados aspectos, solo se resaltaron los temas sugeridos en su contenido para no condicionar los resultados del diálogo. Se organizó para escuchar propuestas de diferentes grupos de interés del Cono Sur, con una convocatoria respetuosa de las diversidades culturales y locales, reconociendo la complejidad de los temas que se abordaron y potenciando la complementariedad de opiniones y perspectivas. Se convocaron más de 90 personas de los cinco países de la región, de diversos sectores – gobierno, academia, CyT, sector privado y representantes de productores, y organismos internacionales de financiamiento y promoción de la I+D. Se registraron y participaron 77 personas. El trabajo en grupos promovió la confianza y el respeto de los participantes por la opinión de los demás, asegurándose que todas las voces fuesen escuchadas.La dinámica del trabajo en grupos facilita la generación de confianza y el respeto por las opiniones de todos los participantes, además de permitir una discusión más profunda de temas complejos, como los que se promueven en los diálogos. Una convocatoria inclusiva de grupos de interés y de género permite ampliar la visión y el alcance de los resultados.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251El tema principal del Diálogo refirió a la I+D agroalimentaria como instrumento de transformación del sistema alimentario, a partir de la contribución estratégica de la región del Cono Sur para el logro de los objetivos de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021, dada su importancia en la provisión de alimentos a mercados globales, la calidad de sus recursos naturales y la riqueza de su biodiversidad. La I+D es un componente esencial, en especial con las oportunidades que brinda el actual escenario científico-tecnológico de avances en biotecnologías, ciencia de datos, tecnologías digitales, visiones holísticas y agroecológicas, que, sumados a los conocimientos tradicionales y ancestrales, están estableciendo nuevas fronteras en términos de producción regenerativa e incremento de la productividad. Contemplando los objetivos de las 5 vías de acción, el debate se agrupó en 8 temas, abordados mediante dos preguntas disparadoras: 1. ¿Cuáles consideran que son los desafíos/oportunidades regionales para la agenda de I+D agroalimentaria en el tema respectivo y para la región del cono sur? 2. ¿Qué acciones concretas innovadoras deberían implementarse en la agenda de I+D agroalimentaria del Cono Sur para atender los desafíos/oportunidades identificados? Los 8 temas contaron con una breve descripción sobre sus definiciones y su relevancia en vinculación con los objetivos de la Cumbre, a fin de motivar la participación: Sostenibilidad de los sistemas ganaderos: La importancia de la actividad ganadera en las economías de la región y en las dietas alimentarias implica considerar la necesidad de alcanzar un equilibrio entre los tres pilares de la sostenibilidad, el económico, el social y el ambiental. Intensificación Agrícola Sostenible: Será necesario aumentar la producción de alimentos aprox. un 2,6% a través de un uso eficiente los recursos naturales, aplicando prácticas orientados a agregar valor ambiental a los productos con mejora gradual de eficiencia ecológica, productiva y económica, favoreciendo la equidad e inclusión social. Bioeconomía y economía circular: Para el uso eficiente de los recursos y la reducción y reutilización de los desperdicios de la producción agropecuaria para la producción de otros bienes, por medio de la utilización intensiva de conocimientos en recursos, procesos, tecnologías y principios biológicos. Adaptación al Cambio Climático: Los desafíos que impone el cambio climático, manifestados en forma de fenómenos climatológicos como las sequías y las inundaciones, hacen imprescindible centrar los esfuerzos en la adaptación de los sistemas productivos, a fin de garantizar su resiliencia y de mantener la producción necesaria para la seguridad alimentaria. Manejo de suelos y agua: La necesidad de aumentar la producción de alimentos incrementará la presión sobre los recursos naturales degradados y escasos, como el suelo y el agua. Mantener los suelos saludables y usar de forma eficiente el agua, es vital para la sostenibilidad ecológica, la resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios y la seguridad alimentaria. Acceso y asequibilidad de alimentos: Garantía o seguridad de acceso por parte de la población a los alimentos sanos, nutritivos y asequibles, respetando sus culturas y hábitos de consumo, para alcanzar una dieta equilibrada y nutritiva que contribuya a la salud humana. La producción de alimentos debe ser económica y socialmente sustentable a lo largo del tiempo. Calidad nutricional y “Una salud”: Importancia de la producción de alimentos nutritivos para una dieta saludable, producidos de forma sustentable, para que dentro de esquemas de “una sola salud” se desarrollen sistemas agroalimentarios que aseguren un adecuado equilibrio entre los aspectos productivos, la sostenibilidad ambiental y la salud animal y humana. Juventud, género y pueblos originarios: La atención a mujeres, jóvenes y pueblos originarios se debe a su importancia en la garantía de la seguridad alimentaria y la sostenibilidad de sistemas alimentarios, en especial los locales. Sin embargo, las mujeres integran el grupo más desfavorecido e invisibilizado.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Es posible resumir los principales hallazgos mediante tres grandes bloques de ideas a partir de las conclusiones de los debates de los trabajos de grupos para identificar y priorizar acciones para la agenda de I+D agroalimentaria del Cono Sur 1. Es necesario lograr un adecuado equilibrio entre la sustentabilidad y la productividad, reconociendo el carácter global de los desafíos, pero atendiendo a las especificidades locales. Con énfasis en la inclusión de los grupos más desfavorecidos. 2. Es necesario generar nuevas y renovadas políticas públicas y bienes públicos, partiendo de una visión holística sobre el conocimiento en general, para lo que es indispensable contar con financiamiento. Se enfatizó ampliamente en la necesidad de aumentar la inversión en ciencia y tecnología, incluyendo la articulación ente lo público y lo privado para la materialización de los logros. Se destacó la necesidad de generar datos, información y conocimiento para la toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia. . 3. Es necesario comunicar más y mejor, principalmente respecto a que el sector es parte de la solución, lo que requiere seguir trabajando en conocimiento para la acción. La comunicación entre los actores diversos, como estos diálogos, son el inicio de estos procesos. Otros aspectos transversales que fueron evidenciados y destacados en el diálogo incluyen: una fuerte apuesta al reconocimiento de las realidades y necesidades locales, y al rol de la agricultura familiar en los sistemas alimentarios en su vínculo con los territorios y la provisión de alimentos. A su vez surgen como necesidades la incorporación de la mirada prospectiva y de anticipación para establecer prioridades de acción en la región, el diseño y la adecuación de los marcos normativos, y la consolidación de redes regionales para investigación y políticas.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Tema de debate 1/8 - Sostenibilidad de los sistemas ganaderos Se plantearon 3 desafíos. El primero, cómo dar respuestas a los mercados internacionales respecto al rol de la ganadería, en particular la ganadería intensiva; el segundo, la necesidad de generar datos locales respecto a la emisión de GEI de la producción ganadera e información que permitan demostrar que la ganadería contribuye al secuestro de carbono y sobre los impactos del consumo de carne para la Salud Humana; y tercero, trabajar en la agenda de I+D a las necesidades de los productores según sus tamaños (Tecnologías apropiadas) propiciando una mejora en sus ingresos. Para afrontar estos desafíos, se propusieron 6 acciones. El desarrollo de Sistemas de Intensificación Sostenibles para la reducción de GEI, que integren ganadería con producción de granos y silvicultura.; la incorporación de tecnología de precisión a la producción ganadera (Ganadería 4.0); la mejora en los sistemas de pastoreo para contribuir a la reducción de emisiones de GEI; el trabajo conjunto y asociativo para la extensión) entre productores e Instituciones de I+D para acceder a tecnología; el desarrollo de proyectos de innovación abiertos con actores del sector productivo para responder a sus demandas; y la creación de fondos de apoyo para el financiamiento de acciones de innovación.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Tema de debate 2/8 - Intensificación Agrícola Sostenible El grupo planteó el desafío de adecuar los procesos de intensificación a las condiciones agroecológicas y los distintos tamaños del productor, de cada zona o región. También se mencionó la necesidad de democratizar el conocimiento vinculado a las políticas públicas con datos actualizados. y la necesidad de disminuir las pérdidas y agregar valor a la producción. Las acciones propuestas para atender estos desafíos refieren a hacer un mayor uso de las nuevas tecnologías para democratizar el conocimiento, dirigido a los diferentes públicos, institucionalizando la vigilancia prospectiva. También se mencionó promover proyectos transversales y holísticos que incorporen una visión prospectiva e incorporar los ODS en las agendas estratégicas de los institutos. Para ello, se requiere de fuentes alternativas de financiación más allá de Procisur.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Tema 3/8 - Bioeconomía y economía circular Se plantean 4 desafíos. Uno vinculado a mecanismos de integración más cercana de los sistemas de producción en circuitos cortos agroalimentarios para reducir las pérdidas sobre todo de alimentos frescos. Este desafío involucra cambios de patrones de consumo. Un segundo desafío se vincula con la necesidad de diversificar y transformar los sistemas de producción para quebrar la lógica de rubros determinados para un único mercado, para lo que se requiere volver a la visión holística y sistémica de la finca destacando rol de la agricultura familiar y su contribución a la bioeconomía. Para este desafío se precisa trabajar en políticas focalizadas que fortalezcan la AF y las cooperativas. Un tercer desafío es generar información y conocimiento sobre producción y comercialización, contemplando la biodiversidad existente y su potencial, para el acceso al mercado de este tipo de producción. En cuarto lugar, se necesita Investigar sobre los desechos de la industria alimentaria y sus subproductos, como valorizar y reutilizar y complementarlo con quien asume los costos económicos y ambientales. Para atender estos desafíos las acciones necesarias, identificadas por el grupo, tienen que ver con incrementar la inversión en I+D, fomentando el trabajo conjunto entre la academia y la industria. Conformar una red una red regional de actores territoriales locales y de carácter transdisciplinario e interdisciplinario, enfocada en prospectiva sobre temas bioeconómicos. Además, priorizan más investigación y comunicación tendientes a promover el cambio cultural y el diseño de políticas públicas hacia la producción y el consumo sostenible. Identifican necesario el desarrollo de un sistema de indicadores biológicos, ambientales y económicos.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Tema 4/8 - Adaptación al Cambio Climático El tema tratado en el grupo 4 trajo al debate como desafíos la necesidad de conocer más sobre los sistemas productivos (requerimientos de agua, influencia de la biodiversidad, entre otros) y sobre los efectos del cambio climático en ellos. Así como, la necesidad de transformar ese conocimiento en acciones concretas. Se destacó también la necesidad de conocer los mercados globales alimentarios. Para ello, se propone aprovechar el conocimiento para poder desarrollar herramientas que permitan alcanzar la sostenibilidad de la producción y la previsibilidad de eventos futuros que pueden afectar a los productores, con el objetivo de poder adaptarse al cambio climático sin afectar la producción de los alimentos. Planificar prioridades y fortalecer la cooperación al interno de los países del Cono Sur para coordinar un plan regional donde se compartan experiencias y aprendizajes entre países; crear sistemas de información digitalizados y utilizar la biotecnología, nanotecnología, tecnologías satelitales e iniciativas como las buenas prácticas en el uso y conservación de suelos, uso sostenible de pastizales y el mejoramiento genético tanto vegetal como animal, para alcanzar una mayor estabilidad frente a eventos climáticos drásticos. Mayor inversión y fortalecimiento de los sistemas de investigación y desarrollo tecnológico para alcanzar una agricultura sustentable, así como la creación de alianzas con el sector privado aparecen aquí como elementos indispensables para el logro de las acciones propuestas.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Tema 5/8 - Manejo de suelos y agua El grupo 5 planteo dos desafíos , el primero refiere a operativizar acciones que tengan relación con los recursos agua y suelo bajo el concepto de intensificación sostenible, y que estas acciones tengan un vínculo con la producción de alimentos y la oferta de servicios ecosistémicos y, en segundo lugar, atender las realidades de acuerdo a la diversidad existente en la región en cuanto a los aspectos sociales, económicos, ecológicos para el diagnóstico y la generación de Buenas Prácticas en relación a estos recursos. Como propuesta, se mencionaron la regionalización de las estrategias establecidas para el uso eficiente atendiendo los aspectos sociales, económicos, ecológicos siendo necesaria la identificación de indicadores de impacto en sistemas productivos con respecto a suelo y agua y la regulación de los servicios ecosistémicos. Por otro lado, la utilización de las tecnologías (genética, robótica, de procesos, de bioinsumos) como contribución para aumentar la eficiencia de uso de los recursos suelo y agua de manera a reducir los impactos negativos sobre el ambiente.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Tema 6/8 - Acceso y asequibilidad de alimentos El grupo de planteó la necesidad de posicionar el potencial productivo, con información científica que demuestren las ventajas comparativas de la región, de alimentos inocuos respecto a salud, manejo animal y cuidado del medio ambiente. Énfasis en contrarrestar la estrategia “anticarne” “anti producción animal”. Un segundo desafío lo representa la agregación de valor en origen para fortalecer economías regionales, contemplando la necesidad de generar productos con valor agregado para abrir nuevos mercados; promover la asociación de los agricultores para abordar productos con valor agregado y lograr competir con empresas de mayor tamaño; lograr alimentos seguros altamente nutritivos, etiquetas limpias, etc. Brindar apoyo en la logística y aspectos de comercialización que encarecen productos en el mercado, cooperativas, pequeña agricultura, etc., acercando los alimentos a la población, alimentos nutritivos y frescos. Es necesario disminuir costos de intermediación y producción de alimentos saludables con el apoyo de políticas públicas en las que la sociedad tenga una participación activa en el respeto y la conservación de la biodiversidad y culturas locales. Por último, un tercer desafío es aumentar fondos e inversiones en la I+D aplicable a AF para la sustentabilidad y desarrollo de los agricultores, para que sean más resilientes a los efectos del cambio climático y situaciones como la pandemia. Asimismo, promover la co-innovación para que los procesos de innovación sean inclusivos, con la participación de los agricultores. Para estos tres desafíos, se han resumido tres acciones consensuadas: 1. El fortalecimiento de las economías locales, por medio de consensos para la comercialización, distribución y logística, con responsabilidad social y con normas de seguridad e higiene para productos de calidad (asociatividad y cooperativas); 2.- El acercamiento de productos frescos al consumidor, con información del proceso de elaboración del producto, etiquetas limpias, certificación, etc.; y 3- Mayor inversión en I+D aplicada a la AF, mediante procesos de co-innovación, calidad, resiliencia, innovación inclusiva, etc.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Tema 7/8 - Calidad nutricional y “Una salud” El grupo 7 se planteó como desafío el desarrollar marcos jurídicos y mecanismos financieros, asociados a una producción eficiente, intensiva, amigable con el medio ambiente e inclusivos, que estén basados en realidades y conocimientos científicos y técnicos de los sistemas agroalimentarios. En segundo lugar, se requiere realizar un diagnóstico cuantitativo, que ponga a disposición información objetiva y contrastable -tanto para las instituciones de investigación como para los actores de la sociedad civil-, sobre los sistemas productivos virtuosos y realizar estudios de economía y calidad nutricional, que valoricen y relacionen el impacto de la producción de alimentos con la calidad nutricional de los mismos. Este proceso también requiere una revisión de los sistemas de registro de datos, donde los datos generados queden disponibles para las instituciones de investigación. La síntesis de las acciones concretas apunta a la mejora en la forma en que estamos negociando la generación de vías jurídicas y financieras que necesitamos para realizar los cambios necesarios, el desarrollo de modelos públicos-privados y el fortalecimiento de las redes locales de socialización, para construir cuáles son los sistemas ideales para esa región y para diversificar la comercialización. A su vez, se propone viabilizar los sistemas alimentarios con sellos distintivos y/o de identidad territorial e implantar laboratorios de innovación social, donde se desarrollen y entrenen las capacidades locales.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251Tema 8/8 - Juventud, género y pueblos originarios El grupo inició con un primer recorte respecto al abordaje que se le daría al debate, diferenciando entre entender a estos grupos como receptores de la I+D o como actores integrantes de redes de I+D. A partir de allí, se señaló la necesidad de salir del asistencialismo y pasar a la inclusión con empoderamiento, reconociendo la heterogeneidad que existe en las categorías excluidas, lo que requiere comprender con métodos científicos el qué hacen y por qué de su accionar. Asimismo, se requiere superar barreras de diferentes ámbitos y niveles para alcanzar la inclusión: en infraestructura, conocimiento técnico, productivo/comercial y organización, a fin de que el esfuerzo que realizan estos actores se transforme en mayores ingresos. Construir un enfoque que ponga la atención no solo en producir más, sino también mejor. Y en producir y distribuir mejor el producto del esfuerzo, un nuevo equilibrio al interior de la cadena de generación de valor agregado. Con foco en la I+D, se propuso tender un puente entre la ciencia y tecnología y estos grupos para superar las barreras, incluyendo a los sectores públicos y privados, apuntando a: 1) I+D vinculada infraestructuras. Tecnologías que mejoren caminos y transporte, telecomunicaciones, sistema de riego. 2) I+D para generar nuevas formas y contenidos de conocimiento técnico, aplicado para nuevos servicios técnicos, nuevos bienes públicos. También trabajo de I+D para ampliar, mejorar y facilitar aspectos regulatorios ligados a la inocuidad, la certificación, la sostenibilidad. 3) I+D con foco en nuevas formas organizacionales: trabajo con foco en esquema de circuitos cortos, conocimiento del consumidor, nuevas formas cooperativas de trabajo y comercialización, análisis de procesos de integración al analizar el contrato social. Combinar saberes tradicionales para adaptarlos a condiciones de mercado con perspectiva de producción y distribución El foco temático del grupo se refleja particularmente en el fomento a la participación y desarrollo de la mujer en la Ciencia y la Tecnología, en los diferentes niveles de intervención: gestión, dirección, etc; la generación de nuevas competencias en jóvenes, basados en la CyT y el vínculo de la I+D desde la perspectiva del Plan de Ordenamiento Urbano Territorial para que los pueblos originarios puedan ser incluidos y respetados en la decisión de qué acciones impulsar.237238239240241242En general, el diálogo se caracterizó por puntos de convergencia, complementariedad y acuerdos para las proposiciones grupales.

2021-08-03 01:41:07205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16638/123

8217112524212321111326233

The dialogue has incorporated all the principles. The dialogue organizers team and the participants were highly respectful and committed to the summit objectives and values. Action tracks were incorporated in to the three thematic sessions, so everyone's opinion could be heard. The participants were from multi-sector from local authorities working in the agriculture, food, environment, social protection an education sectors responsible for the policy making, farmers and herders in the community, food processors, research and academia, and private sectors.Building trust is one of the most important principle of engagement in starting the discussion around the food system and its transformation. It will make huge difference in the participation if the Dialogue Convenor makes everyone trust the discussion, its outcomes and their role in transforming the food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249250251Regional level National Dialogue in Food System had three main focuses which explored the Action Tracks of the Summit. To adapt into the local context, the action tracks were combined into three thematic area as follows: 1)Thematic area 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption; 2) Thematic area 2: Advance equitable livelihoods and wealth distribution; 3) Thematic area 3: Boosting nature-positive production and building resilience to vulnerability, shock and stress Each thematic are was discussed in the separate breakout rooms with representation from different background actors. The discussion focus was on the challenges aced in each thematic area, solutions that participants are proposing to tackle the issue in the medium (5 years) and in the long term (in 10 and above years). Major focus was on the solutions specific to the region, their area and nature positive solutions that could be incorporated into the current policy documents for better food systems in the future.235238239240241242243244246248249251There are few Western Region Specific aspects that were mentioned during the dialogue: The western region of Mongolia is located very far from the Capital and the urban areas. However, it good opportunities in trade because of its direct access to foreign market as its located by the international border. The food systems logistics and infrastructure is poorly developed and there is a high unemployment rate. In terms of the main challenges faced the regions in Mongolia faced similar issues such as: Weak policy and legal environment of the food systems; food safety standards are not fully met; the big difference in the consumption of diverse food between the rural and urban population; poorly develop education and information system regarding the healthy and diverse food in schools; poor capacity of human resource working in the nutrition and food sciences; policy incoherence in the sector; lack of investment opportunities for running a food business in the rural areas; small markets and poor infrastructure; lack of detailed information on food security indicators for low-income and rural population; women's employment opportunities are limited by age, occupation and experience; herder continuity is being lost and the number of young herders is declining due to the fast urbanization; weak raw material supply chain and system.236238239243244246248249251Outcomes from the thematic area I. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption: -To develop and ensure the food policy and legal environment of the food systems -To introduce and implement international quality standards at all stages of the value chain -Reduce dependency on imports of key food items and increase food accessibility for urban and rural population -To improve the coherence of policy and planning in the food systems -Establish and develop smart/digital food tracking system technologies -To improve the capacity and management of the specialists and professional nutritionists working in the hospitals, schools and kindergartens -To conduct more awareness raising and improve public knowledge and attitudes regarding the healthy diets. -Support the development of local food waster recycling and by-products processing plants at the regional level; -To develop and introduce a focused school program on nutrition, diet and food waste in the regional primary and middle schools; -There is a need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the consumption, hygiene and quality control of domestic and imported products, and organize work to promote rational use; -To conduct and organize awareness raising on the food waste recycling and reusing amongst the general public; -To improve the education program about the food, diet habits and nutrition from young age; -To improve the control mechanisms in antibiotics residuals in meat and milk and pest residual in vegetables. In order to implement these actions multi-stakeholder participation is needed. From farmers to the policy makers all actors along the food value chain need to have the same level of commitment in order to start transforming the food systems.236241243244246247248249251Outcomes from the thematic area II. Advance equitable livelihoods and Value Distribution Support the development of value-chain added products and regional cluster business models for livestock raw materials and products; To create favorable business environment for food businesses and producers; Create favorable environment to support innovation activities aimed at improving long-term business efficiency and competitiveness; To commercialize live animals, animal origin raw materials, by-products and create economic value; To increase the private sector investment; To analyze and improve the policies of welfare and industrialization; To organize systematically capacity building trainings focusing on marketing, production technologies, investment project proposal writing, business planning etc. To tackle the existing barriers to increase employment and improve the livelihoods of women, youth and vulnerable groups following actions are proposed: To Improve the number and availability of kindergartens and childcare services, and increase women's employment opportunities; Develop and implement a special education program/curriculum to train young herders Implement investment policy to support household production and business Support youth employment through soft loans and investment policies To support co-operative production and business Implement a training program for women entrepreneurs or women led businesses Provide financial support to vulnerable groups in the food system, support them to start production and develop a sales network; Implement effective welfare policies for vulnerable groups and combine welfare and employment policies Provide vocational training to young people in accordance with their needs236240242243244245246248249Within the Thematic area III. Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress following actions are proposed: To support the production of advanced technology based, export oriented, value-added products; Develop a comprehensive logistics network for agricultural food products and improve the operation of the Agriculture Stock Exchange; To develop the regional cluster models for agriculture food processing plants; Implement a policy to train food technology specialists abroad; Improving the business environment for local livestock, agriculture and SMEs To support and develop domestic production of imported ingredients/raw materials required for the processing of agricultural food products To establish meat, milk and vegetable processing plants based on sound analytical research To improve the education program/curriculum of the TVET, Colleges and Universities in the food sector programs; To create a legal environment for introducing an ecosystem service payment mechanisms which favors the environmentally friendly agriculture production; Develop and implement a special program which encourages re-using water from snow, rain in the agriculture; To introduce innovative processing technologies in the meat factories and develop brand products To improve the livestock breed and support intensive farming To evaluate the current government support and subsidy programs for agriculture sector and update based on sound analysis Introduce and localize the hydroponic technology in forage cultivation Introduce advanced technology to use grey water in production Use the livestock tax as an incentive for sustainable pasture use

2021-08-03 01:42:18205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31049/123

5244351339131352054113183

The dialogue has incorporated all the principles. The dialogue organizers team and the participants were highly respectful and committed to the summit objectives and values. Action tracks were incorporated in to the three thematic sessions, so everyone's opinion could be heard. The participants were from multi-sector from local authorities working in the agriculture, food, environment, social protection an education sectors responsible for the policy making, farmers and herders in the community, food processors, research and academia, and private sectors.Building trust is one of the most important principle of engagement in starting the discussion around the food system and its transformation. It will make huge difference in the participation if the Dialogue Convenor makes everyone trust the discussion, its outcomes and their role in transforming the food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Regional level National Dialogue in Food System had three main focuses which explored the Action Tracks of the Summit. To adapt into the local context, the action tracks were combined into three thematic area as follows: 1)Thematic area 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption; 2) Thematic area 2: Advance equitable livelihoods and wealth distribution; 3) Thematic area 3: Boosting nature-positive production and building resilience to vulnerability, shock and stress Each thematic are was discussed in the separate breakout rooms with representation from different background actors. The discussion focus was on the challenges aced in each thematic area, solutions that participants are proposing to tackle the issue in the medium (5 years) and in the long term (in 10 and above years). Major focus was on the solutions specific to the region, their area and nature positive solutions that could be incorporated into the current policy documents for better food systems in the future.235238239240241242243244246248249250251Khangai Region has relatively well developed food processing factories and processing units. However the main challenge faced in the region is the over-grazed pasture lands. In terms of the main challenges faced the regions in Mongolia faced similar issues such as: Weak policy and legal environment of the food systems; food safety standards are not fully met; the big difference in the consumption of diverse food between the rural and urban population; poorly develop education and information system regarding the healthy and diverse food in schools; poor capacity of human resource working in the nutrition and food sciences; policy incoherence in the sector; lack of investment opportunities for running a food business in the rural areas; small markets and poor infrastructure; lack of detailed information on food security indicators for low-income and rural population; women's employment opportunities are limited by age, occupation and experience; herder continuity is being lost and the number of young herders is declining due to the fast urbanization; weak raw material supply chain and system.236238239243244246247248249Outcomes from the thematic area I. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption: -To develop and ensure the food policy and legal environment of the food systems -To introduce and implement international quality standards at all stages of the value chain -Reduce dependency on imports of key food items and increase food accessibility for urban and rural population -To improve the coherence of policy and planning in the food systems -Establish and develop smart/digital food tracking system technologies -To improve the capacity and management of the specialists and professional nutritionists working in the hospitals, schools and kindergartens -To conduct more awareness raising and improve public knowledge and attitudes regarding the healthy diets. -Support the development of local food waster recycling and by-products processing plants at the regional level; -To develop and introduce a focused school program on nutrition, diet and food waste in the regional primary and middle schools; -There is a need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the consumption, hygiene and quality control of domestic and imported products, and organize work to promote rational use; -To conduct and organize awareness raising on the food waste recycling and reusing amongst the general public; -To improve the education program about the food, diet habits and nutrition from young age; -To improve the control mechanisms in antibiotics residuals in meat and milk and pest residual in vegetables. In order to implement these actions multi-stakeholder participation is needed. From farmers to the policy makers all actors along the food value chain need to have the same level of commitment in order to start transforming the food systems.236241243244246248249251Outcomes from the thematic area II. Advance equitable livelihoods and Value Distribution -Support the development of value-chain added products and regional cluster business models for livestock raw materials and products; -To create favorable business environment for food businesses and producers; -Create favorable environment to support innovation activities aimed at improving long-term business efficiency and competitiveness; -To commercialize live animals, animal origin raw materials, by-products and create economic value; -To increase the private sector investment; -To analyze and improve the policies of welfare and industrialization; -To organize systematically capacity building trainings focusing on marketing, production technologies, investment project proposal writing, business planning etc. To tackle the existing barriers to increase employment and improve the livelihoods of women, youth and vulnerable groups following actions are proposed: -To Improve the number and availability of kindergartens and childcare services, and increase women's employment opportunities; -Develop and implement a special education program/curriculum to train young herders -Implement investment policy to support household production and business -Support youth employment through soft loans and investment policies -To support co-operative production and business -Implement a training program for women entrepreneurs or women led businesses -Provide financial support to vulnerable groups in the food system, support them to start production and develop a sales network; -Implement effective welfare policies for vulnerable groups and combine welfare and employment policies -Provide vocational training to young people in accordance with their needs236240242243244246248249250Within the Thematic area III. Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress following actions are proposed: -To support the production of advanced technology based, export oriented, value-added products; -Develop a comprehensive logistics network for agricultural food products and improve the operation of the Agriculture Stock Exchange; -To develop the regional cluster models for agriculture food processing plants; -Implement a policy to train food technology specialists abroad; -Improving the business environment for local livestock, agriculture and SMEs -To support and develop domestic production of imported ingredients/raw materials required for the processing of agricultural food products -To establish meat, milk and vegetable processing plants based on sound analytical research -To improve the education program/curriculum of the TVET, Colleges and Universities in the food sector programs; -To create a legal environment for introducing an ecosystem service payment mechanisms which favors the environmentally friendly agriculture production; -Develop and implement a special program which encourages re-using water from snow, rain in the agriculture; -To introduce innovative processing technologies in the meat factories and develop brand products -To improve the livestock breed and support intensive farming -To evaluate the current government support and subsidy programs for agriculture sector and update based on sound analysis -Introduce and localize the hydroponic technology in forage cultivation -Introduce advanced technology to use grey water in production -Use the livestock tax as an incentive for sustainable pasture use

2021-08-03 01:42:54205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17574/123

181627111169112281

The dialogue has incorporated all the principles. The dialogue organizers team and the participants were highly respectful and committed to the summit objectives and values. Action tracks were incorporated in to the three thematic sessions, so everyone's opinion could be heard. The participants were from multi-sector from local authorities working in the agriculture, food, environment, social protection an education sectors responsible for the policy making, farmers and herders in the community, food processors, research and academia, and private sectors.Building trust is one of the most important principle of engagement in starting the discussion around the food system and its transformation. It will make huge difference in the participation if the Dialogue Convenor makes everyone trust the discussion, its outcomes and their role in transforming the food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251Regional level National Dialogue in Food System had three main focuses which explored the Action Tracks of the Summit. To adapt into the local context, the action tracks were combined into three thematic area as follows: 1)Thematic area 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption; 2) Thematic area 2: Advance equitable livelihoods and wealth distribution; 3) Thematic area 3: Boosting nature-positive production and building resilience to vulnerability, shock and stress Each thematic are was discussed in the separate breakout rooms with representation from different background actors. The discussion focus was on the challenges aced in each thematic area, solutions that participants are proposing to tackle the issue in the medium (5 years) and in the long term (in 10 and above years). Major focus was on the solutions specific to the region, their area and nature positive solutions that could be incorporated into the current policy documents for better food systems in the future.235238239240241242243244245246248249251There are few Eastern Region specific aspects that were mentioned during the dialogue: the region has good pasture resource and direct access to foreign market based on the bordering location with Russia and China. However, the region has still high poverty rates compared to other regions in the country. In terms of the main challenges faced the regions in Mongolia faced similar issues such as: Weak policy and legal environment of the food systems; food safety standards are not fully met; the big difference in the consumption of diverse food between the rural and urban population; poorly develop education and information system regarding the healthy and diverse food in schools; poor capacity of human resource working in the nutrition and food sciences; policy incoherence in the sector; lack of investment opportunities for running a food business in the rural areas; small markets and poor infrastructure; lack of detailed information on food security indicators for low-income and rural population; women's employment opportunities are limited by age, occupation and experience; herder continuity is being lost and the number of young herders is declining due to the fast urbanization; weak raw material supply chain and system.236238239243244246248249Outcomes from the thematic area I. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption: -To develop and ensure the food policy and legal environment of the food systems -To introduce and implement international quality standards at all stages of the value chain -Reduce dependency on imports of key food items and increase food accessibility for urban and rural population -To improve the coherence of policy and planning in the food systems -Establish and develop smart/digital food tracking system technologies -To improve the capacity and management of the specialists and professional nutritionists working in the hospitals, schools and kindergartens -To conduct more awareness raising and improve public knowledge and attitudes regarding the healthy diets. -Support the development of local food waster recycling and by-products processing plants at the regional level; -To develop and introduce a focused school program on nutrition, diet and food waste in the regional primary and middle schools; -There is a need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the consumption, hygiene and quality control of domestic and imported products, and organize work to promote rational use; -To conduct and organize awareness raising on the food waste recycling and reusing amongst the general public; -To improve the education program about the food, diet habits and nutrition from young age; -To improve the control mechanisms in antibiotics residuals in meat and milk and pest residual in vegetables. In order to implement these actions multi-stakeholder participation is needed. From farmers to the policy makers all actors along the food value chain need to have the same level of commitment in order to start transforming the food systems.236241243244246247248249251Outcomes from the thematic area II. Advance equitable livelihoods and Value Distribution - Support the development of value-chain added products and regional cluster business models for livestock raw materials and products; - To create favorable business environment for food businesses and producers; - Create favorable environment to support innovation activities aimed at improving long-term business efficiency and competitiveness; - To commercialize live animals, animal origin raw materials, by-products and create economic value; - To increase the private sector investment; - To analyze and improve the policies of welfare and industrialization; - To organize systematically capacity building trainings focusing on marketing, production technologies, investment project proposal writing, business planning etc. To tackle the existing barriers to increase employment and improve the livelihoods of women, youth and vulnerable groups following actions are proposed: - To Improve the number and availability of kindergartens and childcare services, and increase women's employment opportunities; - Develop and implement a special education program/curriculum to train young herders -Implement investment policy to support household production and business - Support youth employment through soft loans and investment policies - To support co-operative production and business - Implement a training program for women entrepreneurs or women led businesses - Provide financial support to vulnerable groups in the food system, support them to start production and develop a sales network; - Implement effective welfare policies for vulnerable groups and combine welfare and employment policies - Provide vocational training to young people in accordance with their needs236240242243244246248249250Within the Thematic area III. Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress following actions are proposed: - To support the production of advanced technology based, export oriented, value-added products; - Develop a comprehensive logistics network for agricultural food products and improve the operation of the Agriculture Stock Exchange; - To develop the regional cluster models for agriculture food processing plants; - Implement a policy to train food technology specialists abroad; - Improving the business environment for local livestock, agriculture and SMEs - To support and develop domestic production of imported ingredients/raw materials required for the processing of agricultural food products - To establish meat, milk and vegetable processing plants based on sound analytical research - To improve the education program/curriculum of the TVET, Colleges and Universities in the food sector programs; - To create a legal environment for introducing an ecosystem service payment mechanisms which favors the environmentally friendly agriculture production; - Develop and implement a special program which encourages re-using water from snow, rain in the agriculture; - To introduce innovative processing technologies in the meat factories and develop brand products - To improve the livestock breed and support intensive farming - To evaluate the current government support and subsidy programs for agriculture sector and update based on sound analysis - Introduce and localize the hydroponic technology in forage cultivation - Introduce advanced technology to use grey water in production - Use the livestock tax as an incentive for sustainable pasture use

2021-08-03 01:43:18205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17578/123

22713251711310611121215

The dialogue has incorporated all the principles. The dialogue organizers team and the participants were highly respectful and committed to the summit objectives and values. Action tracks were incorporated in to the three thematic sessions, so everyone's opinion could be heard. The participants were from multi-sector from local authorities working in the agriculture, food, environment, social protection an education sectors responsible for the policy making, farmers and herders in the community, food processors, research and academia, and private sectors.Building trust is one of the most important principle of engagement in starting the discussion around the food system and its transformation. It will make huge difference in the participation if the Dialogue Convenor makes everyone trust the discussion, its outcomes and their role in transforming the food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Regional level National Dialogue in Food System had three main focuses which explored the Action Tracks of the Summit. To adapt into the local context, the action tracks were combined into three thematic area as follows: 1)Thematic area 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption; 2) Thematic area 2: Advance equitable livelihoods and wealth distribution; 3) Thematic area 3: Boosting nature-positive production and building resilience to vulnerability, shock and stress Each thematic are was discussed in the separate breakout rooms with representation from different background actors. The discussion focus was on the challenges aced in each thematic area, solutions that participants are proposing to tackle the issue in the medium (5 years) and in the long term (in 10 and above years). Major focus was on the solutions specific to the region, their area and nature positive solutions that could be incorporated into the current policy documents for better food systems in the future.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251There are few Gobi Region specific aspects that were mentioned during the dialogue: The gobi region has developed mining sector but high scarcity of water resources. The desertification is a high rising issue in the region. In terms of the main challenges faced the regions in Mongolia faced similar issues such as: Weak policy and legal environment of the food systems; food safety standards are not fully met; the big difference in the consumption of diverse food between the rural and urban population; poorly develop education and information system regarding the healthy and diverse food in schools; poor capacity of human resource working in the nutrition and food sciences; policy incoherence in the sector; lack of investment opportunities for running a food business in the rural areas; small markets and poor infrastructure; lack of detailed information on food security indicators for low-income and rural population; women's employment opportunities are limited by age, occupation and experience; herder continuity is being lost and the number of young herders is declining due to the fast urbanization; weak raw material supply chain and system.236238239243244246248249Outcomes from the thematic area I. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption: -To develop and ensure the food policy and legal environment of the food systems -To introduce and implement international quality standards at all stages of the value chain -Reduce dependency on imports of key food items and increase food accessibility for urban and rural population -To improve the coherence of policy and planning in the food systems -Establish and develop smart/digital food tracking system technologies -To improve the capacity and management of the specialists and professional nutritionists working in the hospitals, schools and kindergartens -To conduct more awareness raising and improve public knowledge and attitudes regarding the healthy diets. -Support the development of local food waster recycling and by-products processing plants at the regional level; -To develop and introduce a focused school program on nutrition, diet and food waste in the regional primary and middle schools; -There is a need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the consumption, hygiene and quality control of domestic and imported products, and organize work to promote rational use; -To conduct and organize awareness raising on the food waste recycling and reusing amongst the general public; -To improve the education program about the food, diet habits and nutrition from young age; -To improve the control mechanisms in antibiotics residuals in meat and milk and pest residual in vegetables. In order to implement these actions multi-stakeholder participation is needed. From farmers to the policy makers all actors along the food value chain need to have the same level of commitment in order to start transforming the food systems.236241243244246247248249251Outcomes from the thematic area II. Advance equitable livelihoods and Value Distribution -Support the development of value-chain added products and regional cluster business models for livestock raw materials and products; -To create favorable business environment for food businesses and producers; -Create favorable environment to support innovation activities aimed at improving long-term business efficiency and competitiveness; -To commercialize live animals, animal origin raw materials, by-products and create economic value; -To increase the private sector investment; -To analyze and improve the policies of welfare and industrialization; -To organize systematically capacity building trainings focusing on marketing, production technologies, investment project proposal writing, business planning etc. To tackle the existing barriers to increase employment and improve the livelihoods of women, youth and vulnerable groups following actions are proposed: -To Improve the number and availability of kindergartens and childcare services, and increase women's employment opportunities; -Develop and implement a special education program/curriculum to train young herders -Implement investment policy to support household production and business -Support youth employment through soft loans and investment policies -To support co-operative production and business -Implement a training program for women entrepreneurs or women led businesses -Provide financial support to vulnerable groups in the food system, support them to start production and develop a sales network; -Implement effective welfare policies for vulnerable groups and combine welfare and employment policies -Provide vocational training to young people in accordance with their needs236240242243244246248249250Within the Thematic area III. Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress following actions are proposed: -To support the production of advanced technology based, export oriented, value-added products; -Develop a comprehensive logistics network for agricultural food products and improve the operation of the Agriculture Stock Exchange; -To develop the regional cluster models for agriculture food processing plants; -Implement a policy to train food technology specialists abroad; -Improving the business environment for local livestock, agriculture and SMEs -To support and develop domestic production of imported ingredients/raw materials required for the processing of agricultural food products -To establish meat, milk and vegetable processing plants based on sound analytical research -To improve the education program/curriculum of the TVET, Colleges and Universities in the food sector programs; -To create a legal environment for introducing an ecosystem service payment mechanisms which favors the environmentally friendly agriculture production; -Develop and implement a special program which encourages re-using water from snow, rain in the agriculture; -To introduce innovative processing technologies in the meat factories and develop brand products -To improve the livestock breed and support intensive farming -To evaluate the current government support and subsidy programs for agriculture sector and update based on sound analysis -Introduce and localize the hydroponic technology in forage cultivation -Introduce advanced technology to use grey water in production -Use the livestock tax as an incentive for sustainable pasture use

2021-08-03 01:43:57205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17580/123

1911711161339211133

The dialogue has incorporated all the principles. The dialogue organizers team and the participants were highly respectful and committed to the summit objectives and values. Action tracks were incorporated in to the three thematic sessions, so everyone's opinion could be heard. The participants were from multi-sector from local authorities working in the agriculture, food, environment, social protection an education sectors responsible for the policy making, farmers and herders in the community, food processors, research and academia, and private sectors.Building trust is one of the most important principle of engagement in starting the discussion around the food system and its transformation. It will make huge difference in the participation if the Dialogue Convenor makes everyone trust the discussion, its outcomes and their role in transforming the food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Regional level National Dialogue in Food System had three main focuses which explored the Action Tracks of the Summit. To adapt into the local context, the action tracks were combined into three thematic area as follows: 1)Thematic area 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption; 2) Thematic area 2: Advance equitable livelihoods and wealth distribution; 3) Thematic area 3: Boosting nature-positive production and building resilience to vulnerability, shock and stress Each thematic are was discussed in the separate breakout rooms with representation from different background actors. The discussion focus was on the challenges aced in each thematic area, solutions that participants are proposing to tackle the issue in the medium (5 years) and in the long term (in 10 and above years). Major focus was on the solutions specific to the region, their area and nature positive solutions that could be incorporated into the current policy documents for better food systems in the future.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251The Urban or Municipal area has highly centralized market. There is a deepening of income difference within the population and high concerning environmental pollution and poor living conditions. Food safety is one of the big issues in the food systems. In terms of the main challenges faced the regions in Mongolia faced similar issues such as: Weak policy and legal environment of the food systems; food safety standards are not fully met; the big difference in the consumption of diverse food between the rural and urban population; poorly develop education and information system regarding the healthy and diverse food in schools; poor capacity of human resource working in the nutrition and food sciences; policy incoherence in the sector; lack of investment opportunities for running a food business in the rural areas; small markets and poor infrastructure; lack of detailed information on food security indicators for low-income and rural population; women's employment opportunities are limited by age, occupation and experience; herder continuity is being lost and the number of young herders is declining due to the fast urbanization; weak raw material supply chain and system.236238239243247248249Outcomes from the thematic area I. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption: -To develop and ensure the food policy and legal environment of the food systems -To introduce and implement international quality standards at all stages of the value chain -Reduce dependency on imports of key food items and increase food accessibility for urban and rural population -To improve the coherence of policy and planning in the food systems -Establish and develop smart/digital food tracking system technologies -To improve the capacity and management of the specialists and professional nutritionists working in the hospitals, schools and kindergartens -To conduct more awareness raising and improve public knowledge and attitudes regarding the healthy diets. -Support the development of local food waster recycling and by-products processing plants at the regional level; -To develop and introduce a focused school program on nutrition, diet and food waste in the regional primary and middle schools; -There is a need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the consumption, hygiene and quality control of domestic and imported products, and organize work to promote rational use; -To conduct and organize awareness raising on the food waste recycling and reusing amongst the general public; -To improve the education program about the food, diet habits and nutrition from young age; -To improve the control mechanisms in antibiotics residuals in meat and milk and pest residual in vegetables. In order to implement these actions multi-stakeholder participation is needed. From farmers to the policy makers all actors along the food value chain need to have the same level of commitment in order to start transforming the food systems.236241244246247249251Outcomes from the thematic area II. Advance equitable livelihoods and Value Distribution -Support the development of value-chain added products and regional cluster business models for livestock raw materials and products; -To create favorable business environment for food businesses and producers; -Create favorable environment to support innovation activities aimed at improving long-term business efficiency and competitiveness; -To commercialize live animals, animal origin raw materials, by-products and create economic value; -To increase the private sector investment; -To analyze and improve the policies of welfare and industrialization; -To organize systematically capacity building trainings focusing on marketing, production technologies, investment project proposal writing, business planning etc. To tackle the existing barriers to increase employment and improve the livelihoods of women, youth and vulnerable groups following actions are proposed: -To Improve the number and availability of kindergartens and childcare services, and increase women's employment opportunities; -Develop and implement a special education program/curriculum to train young herders -Implement investment policy to support household production and business -Support youth employment through soft loans and investment policies -To support co-operative production and business -Implement a training program for women entrepreneurs or women led businesses -Provide financial support to vulnerable groups in the food system, support them to start production and develop a sales network; -Implement effective welfare policies for vulnerable groups and combine welfare and employment policies -Provide vocational training to young people in accordance with their needs236240242243244246248249250Within the Thematic area III. Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress following actions are proposed: -To support the production of advanced technology based, export oriented, value-added products; -Develop a comprehensive logistics network for agricultural food products and improve the operation of the Agriculture Stock Exchange; -To develop the regional cluster models for agriculture food processing plants; -Implement a policy to train food technology specialists abroad; -Improving the business environment for local livestock, agriculture and SMEs -To support and develop domestic production of imported ingredients/raw materials required for the processing of agricultural food products -To establish meat, milk and vegetable processing plants based on sound analytical research -To improve the education program/curriculum of the TVET, Colleges and Universities in the food sector programs; -To create a legal environment for introducing an ecosystem service payment mechanisms which favors the environmentally friendly agriculture production; -Develop and implement a special program which encourages re-using water from snow, rain in the agriculture; -To introduce innovative processing technologies in the meat factories and develop brand products -To improve the livestock breed and support intensive farming -To evaluate the current government support and subsidy programs for agriculture sector and update based on sound analysis -Introduce and localize the hydroponic technology in forage cultivation -Introduce advanced technology to use grey water in production -Use the livestock tax as an incentive for sustainable pasture use

2021-08-03 01:44:21205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18201/123

13193310219111101

The dialogue has incorporated all the principles. The dialogue organizers team and the participants were highly respectful and committed to the summit objectives and values. Action tracks were incorporated in to the three thematic sessions, so everyone's opinion could be heard. The participants were from multi-sector from local authorities working in the agriculture, food, environment, social protection an education sectors responsible for the policy making, farmers and herders in the community, food processors, research and academia, and private sectors.Building trust is one of the most important principle of engagement in starting the discussion around the food system and its transformation. It will make huge difference in the participation if the Dialogue Convenor makes everyone trust the discussion, its outcomes and their role in transforming the food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Regional level National Dialogue in Food System had three main focuses which explored the Action Tracks of the Summit. To adapt into the local context, the action tracks were combined into three thematic area as follows: 1)Thematic area 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption; 2) Thematic area 2: Advance equitable livelihoods and wealth distribution; 3) Thematic area 3: Boosting nature-positive production and building resilience to vulnerability, shock and stress Each thematic are was discussed in the separate breakout rooms with representation from different background actors. The discussion focus was on the challenges aced in each thematic area, solutions that participants are proposing to tackle the issue in the medium (5 years) and in the long term (in 10 and above years). Major focus was on the solutions specific to the region, their area and nature positive solutions that could be incorporated into the current policy documents for better food systems in the future.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Central Region has high capacity to develop intensive animal husbandry and agriculture plantations due to the agriculture favorable land and climate. However, the food systems logistic and infrastructure is still poorly developed. In terms of the main challenges faced the regions in Mongolia faced similar issues such as: Weak policy and legal environment of the food systems; food safety standards are not fully met; the big difference in the consumption of diverse food between the rural and urban population; poorly develop education and information system regarding the healthy and diverse food in schools; poor capacity of human resource working in the nutrition and food sciences; policy incoherence in the sector; lack of investment opportunities for running a food business in the rural areas; small markets and poor infrastructure; lack of detailed information on food security indicators for low-income and rural population; women's employment opportunities are limited by age, occupation and experience; herder continuity is being lost and the number of young herders is declining due to the fast urbanization; weak raw material supply chain and system.236238239243244246248249Outcomes from the thematic area I. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption: -To develop and ensure the food policy and legal environment of the food systems -To introduce and implement international quality standards at all stages of the value chain -Reduce dependency on imports of key food items and increase food accessibility for urban and rural population -To improve the coherence of policy and planning in the food systems -Establish and develop smart/digital food tracking system technologies -To improve the capacity and management of the specialists and professional nutritionists working in the hospitals, schools and kindergartens -To conduct more awareness raising and improve public knowledge and attitudes regarding the healthy diets. -Support the development of local food waster recycling and by-products processing plants at the regional level; -To develop and introduce a focused school program on nutrition, diet and food waste in the regional primary and middle schools; -There is a need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the consumption, hygiene and quality control of domestic and imported products, and organize work to promote rational use; -To conduct and organize awareness raising on the food waste recycling and reusing amongst the general public; -To improve the education program about the food, diet habits and nutrition from young age; -To improve the control mechanisms in antibiotics residuals in meat and milk and pest residual in vegetables. In order to implement these actions multi-stakeholder participation is needed. From farmers to the policy makers all actors along the food value chain need to have the same level of commitment in order to start transforming the food systems.236241243244246248249251Outcomes from the thematic area II. Advance equitable livelihoods and Value Distribution -Support the development of value-chain added products and regional cluster business models for livestock raw materials and products; -To create favorable business environment for food businesses and producers; -Create favorable environment to support innovation activities aimed at improving long-term business efficiency and competitiveness; -To commercialize live animals, animal origin raw materials, by-products and create economic value; -To increase the private sector investment; -To analyze and improve the policies of welfare and industrialization; -To organize systematically capacity building trainings focusing on marketing, production technologies, investment project proposal writing, business planning etc. To tackle the existing barriers to increase employment and improve the livelihoods of women, youth and vulnerable groups following actions are proposed: -To Improve the number and availability of kindergartens and childcare services, and increase women's employment opportunities; -Develop and implement a special education program/curriculum to train young herders -Implement investment policy to support household production and business -Support youth employment through soft loans and investment policies -To support co-operative production and business -Implement a training program for women entrepreneurs or women led businesses -Provide financial support to vulnerable groups in the food system, support them to start production and develop a sales network; -Implement effective welfare policies for vulnerable groups and combine welfare and employment policies -Provide vocational training to young people in accordance with their needs236240242243244248249250Within the Thematic area III. Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress following actions are proposed: -To support the production of advanced technology based, export oriented, value-added products; -Develop a comprehensive logistics network for agricultural food products and improve the operation of the Agriculture Stock Exchange; -To develop the regional cluster models for agriculture food processing plants; -Implement a policy to train food technology specialists abroad; -Improving the business environment for local livestock, agriculture and SMEs -To support and develop domestic production of imported ingredients/raw materials required for the processing of agricultural food products -To establish meat, milk and vegetable processing plants based on sound analytical research -To improve the education program/curriculum of the TVET, Colleges and Universities in the food sector programs; -To create a legal environment for introducing an ecosystem service payment mechanisms which favors the environmentally friendly agriculture production; -Develop and implement a special program which encourages re-using water from snow, rain in the agriculture; -To introduce innovative processing technologies in the meat factories and develop brand products -To improve the livestock breed and support intensive farming -To evaluate the current government support and subsidy programs for agriculture sector and update based on sound analysis -Introduce and localize the hydroponic technology in forage cultivation -Introduce advanced technology to use grey water in production -Use the livestock tax as an incentive for sustainable pasture use

2021-08-03 01:44:49205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31079/123

644420101824121224251108

The dialogue was organized in two formats: in-person and virtual format. This particular dialogue was organized in a High-Level to finalize the series of sub-national and independent dialogues organized in Mongolia. The Office of the Prime Minister of Mongolia convened a series of sub-national and national dialogues to bring together diverse stakeholders around the issue of food systems transformation and to identify concrete action pathways for Mongolia to follow in this Decade of Action. The main goal of these national dialogues was to explore what actions should be taken in Mongolia to be able to access sustainably produced food in ways that contribute to equitable, resilient livelihoods and provide healthy, nutritious diets for the whole population while adapting to and mitigating climate change. The dialogues were organized around three thematic areas: 1. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food 2. Markets and value addition 3. Boost nature-positive production and resilient food systems And to conclude all the dialogues the High-Level Dialogue was organized by the Office of the Prime Minister. During the Dialogue two presentation were given by the main Dialogue Facilitating organizations National Development Agency and the UNFAO in Mongolia to give a background information on the previous dialogues, food systems in Mongolia and the Global Status of Agrifood systems and possible implications for Mongolia to the Prime Minister of Mongolia and the Government. The dialogue organizing team has invited multi-sector stakeholders from private companies working in the food industry, scientific researchers and academics, professional association representatives and international organizations to share their ideas and solutions to the emerging food systems issues identified during the previous dialogues with the government of Mongolia and to the Prime Minister himself.The dialogue aimed to reflect all the Principles of the Global Food Systems Dialogue. Act with urgency, recognizing the complexity, being respectful to the local context and culture, embracing multi-stakeholder approach in all thematic sessions, building trust, committing to the global summit values and principles through covering the action tracks and complimenting the work of others working in the food systems in Mongolia.Providing good background information to the participants through various documents for reading, presenting the current context of the food systems at national level through presentations before the breakout room discussions were helpful in starting from the common point. Therefore, very good pre-summit preparation is crucial in conducting a successful dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Mongolia, along with other UN Member States, adopted the SDGs Agenda 2030 in 2015, announcing its commitment to sustainable development. The deadline for achieving the goals is less than 10 years away and many of these goals—especially on sustainable food systems—are not yet within easy reach. The Mongolian Government is therefore stepping up its efforts to achieve food security, improve nutrition and promote sustainable food production. The task of ensuring that all people have access to enough, safe and nutritious food is closely linked to efforts in a range of other areas including private sector development, job creation, livelihoods, natural resource management, climate change, biodiversity, gender equality, governance, health, education and nutrition. The Government of Mongolia will therefore take an integrated systems approach to the development of food and agriculture sector. Within this decade, the government will intensify efforts to increase sustainable food production, improve nutrition, enhance job and value creation, and promote capacity building and good governance. Special attention will be paid towards small-scale farmers, herders, small and medium enterprises and engagement of Mongolian youth in shaping this agenda. These efforts will build on what the government is already doing including strengthening cooperation with partners and stakeholders. A number of key Ministries, international development partners, civil society, farmer organizations, youth organizations, and the private sector are expected to play a role. The High-level dialogue kept in focus the main Action Tracks of the dialogues along with all the government goals mentioned above. Specifically, it focused on identifying medium-to-long term policy and action changes that are necessary to transform the food systems in Mongolia together with the main food systems stakeholders.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Mongolia adopted the Vision 2050 in early 2020 as the key mechanism to nurture and achieve Mongolian aspiration to become one of the leading Asian countries in terms of social development, economic growth and quality of life. It sets a clear framework and targets for key sectors, including agriculture and the environment. It prioritizes sustainable crop and livestock production, grassland management, protection of biodiversity, and reversal of land degradation and sustainable management as well as building national capacity and mechanisms for adaptation to Climate change. The Vision 2050 principles for sectoral development include (i) adoption of advanced technologies with high productivity in including encouragement of new products, production and service innovations; (ii) encouragement of production methods that are natural resource-efficient, and (iii) compliance with the principles of efficiency and effectiveness in all economic and social sectors. Within Food and Agriculture sector, the Vision places special emphasis on enhanced increase productivity in crop and animal agriculture; regulation of livestock numbers in line with grazing capacity; adoption of international standards in traceability and development of an internationally competitive livestock sector with particular emphasis on the export livestock and livestock products. In addition, the vision emphasizes provision of healthy and safe food products to the population, decent employment creation throughout the agriculture value chain, proper knowledge and skills to have a decent, etc. The vision also pays particular attention to establishing national capacity to cope with climate change, strengthening disaster disk management capacity, establishing early detection and early warning systems and educating citizens on coping with climate change through a framework of lifelong education. Within the broad framework of Vision 2050, Mongolia will intensify its efforts in pursuit of better production, better nutrition, better environment and better life. The government will encourage a more integrated approach to increase nature positive and resilient production systems, improve food security and nutrition, enhance job and value creation, and promote capacity building and good governance. Following broad action points have been identified to achieve this overall objective. Modern smart digital information and communication technologies will play an increasingly important in achieving these objectives .2362382392432442452462472482492502511. Food security, malnutrition and dietary patterns • Support national authorities in developing nutrition plans and to strengthen public education campaigns about dietary diversity, diet-related diseases, role of healthy diets and minimizing food waste. • Strengthen food consumption, production, and food system statistics (including food loss and waste) to track progress, strengthen monitoring, support evidence based policy making, and to contribute to reduced food waste and improved utilisation of resources • Accelerate the development and implementation of policies on food safety and promote comprehensive vocational training related to food systems • Strengthen institutions and legislation of relevance to food safety, including legislation on pesticides and animal and plant health and increase knowledge about this legislation throughout the food value chain. • Improve information and guidance on maternal and child health and implement measures to improve nutrition for schoolchildren, young people and adults. Efforts to improve nutrition will be more closely linked to food production, health and education including dissemination of information about maternal health and more diverse diets. • Further strengthening of school feeding programmes with an aim to provide more budget and giving priority to diverse locally produced food and mainstreaming nutrition/healthy diets education in school curriculum.2362382412422432442452462472482492502512. Value chains and markets • Prioritize support for small and medium enterprises and entrepreneurs in the areas of business development, access to commercial finance and help to put in place risk-mitigation instruments for start-up businesses. • Ensure that more women are able to engage in the full range of business activities along food value chains, by providing start-up support to women entrepreneurs, supporting the establishment of women’s groups, and promoting women’s access to loans and credit. • Promote farmer/herder organizations to build capacities, generate scale and enhance their bargaining power so as to facilitate a fairer sharing of value across the market chain • Build competence in the field of food processing, packaging and marketing by making available appropriate technology and financing • Develop a long -term vision, strategy and action plan for agriculture exports and provide coordinated support and leadership from the government in exploring new markets and facilitating entry of Mongolian firms into those potential markets. • Establish credible certification and traceability mechanisms and harmonize food safety and quality standards for mitigating cross-border risks. • Leverage/combine the power of youth and that of digital technologies to modernize food value chains, improve labor productivity in food and agriculture sector and enhance competitiveness. • Develop and promote “Mongol brand” food products in the international and domestic markets • Accelerate the process for obtaining FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease) free zone certification for Western Mongolia. • Competition policy, FDI, enabling business environment • Comprehensively reassess the public expenditure and subsidies in food and agriculture and align the budgeting processes to SDGs • Financial sector reforms aimed at reducing the overall cost of capital and facilitating access to newer technologies and practices.2362382402422432442452462472482492502513. Nature positive and resilient production systems • Strengthen the knowledge and skills needed for sustainable food production at local, national and global level. This will include improving extension services and vocational training in areas related to food systems, and strengthening knowledge in the fields of climate-resilient food production practices, increasing agricultural productivity in cooperation with herders, farmers and youth • Develop and institutionalize a uniquely Mongolian measure/index that captures the value of Mongolian culture, psychological wellbeing of people, standard of living, good governance, health and nutrition, and ecological diversity and resilience . • Mount a massive program on vegetable production to contribute to dietary diversity and reduce dependence on imported vegetables • Declare ‘Dairy Production’ as key priority sector and put in place appropriate institutional structure based on best global practices to foster long term development of dairy sector in a manner that contributes to nutrition, job creation (specially for women) and GHG mitigation • Increase access to the necessary inputs for food production and to information about the correct use of inputs. The government will also promote integrated pest management as an alternatives to chemical pesticides. • Institutionalize One Health approach and accelerate its implementation to protect animal and plant health and the fight against antimicrobial resistance. • Strengthen the management of genetic diversity of crops and livestock at local, national and international level including investing in the knowledge of herders and farmers about plant varieties and animal breeds, and provide access to a greater variety of both. • Promote use of conservation agriculture and climate smart livestock production practices to mitigate climate change and reduce releases of pollutants to air, soil and water • Reduce and regulate the number of livestock as committed in Mongolia’s NDCs and align incentives (including recently approved pasture use tax) in support of that objective • Promote global good practices, policy measures and regulatory instruments to promote ecosystems conservation and regeneration and create legal environment for operationalizing payment for ecosystem services. • Develop and implement a special program that encourages recycling of water from snow and rain into agriculture production. • Support the development of shock responsive social protection systems, forecast-based financing for risk reduction measures and insurance schemes for vulnerable food producers and other vulnerable groups. • Strengthen the development of weather and climate services for farmers and pastoralists to ensure increased access to, and use of, these services. • Increase knowledge about climate change, natural disasters, and disaster risk reduction­ among food producers. • Mainstream climate-resilient and sustainable food and agriculture interventions into 10-year-long Targeted Development Programs

2021-08-03 01:45:10205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18203/123

5521342417717247

The private sector dialogue was organized as part of the member state dialogues in Mongolia. Convened by the Prime Minister's Senior Advisor, co-curated by the UNFAO and the National Development Agency (NDA) of Mongolia, the dialogue was facilitated by the Mongolian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MNCCI). The Dialogue was organized in-person and in virtual mode to reinforce the participation and engegament of the stakeholders in the discussions. This Dialogue focused on the particular issues that food industry private sector stakeholders face along the food value chains and the exporting of food products from Mongolia. To incorporate the findings from the dialogue to the Member state and high-level dialogues in Mongolia, this particular dialogue followed the Member state dialogue handbooks and thematic session facilitators followed the respective handbooks issued by the Global Food Systems Summit.The dialogue aimed to reflect all the Principles of the Global Food Systems Dialogue. Act with urgency, recognizing the complexity, being respectful to the local context and culture, embracing multi-stakeholder approach in all thematic sessions, building trust, committing to the global summit values and principles through covering the action tracks and complimenting the work of others working in the food systems in Mongolia.Providing good background information to the participants through various documents for reading, presenting the current context of the food systems at national level through presentations before the breakout room discussions were helpful in starting from the common point. Therefore, very good pre-summit preparation is crucial in conducting a successful dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243245246247248249250251The private sector dialogues were held under two main topics on the following issues. 1) Topic I. Value chains and market:  Are there special policies and regulations to support the allocation of private investment, input, service (quantity, volume, quality, price) at each stage of the value chain? In particular, is there an investment for the formation of a logistics network based on modern advanced technology? What are the ways and solutions could there be to support such kind of investment?  How to develop a sustainable food system that ensures the distribution of the value chains, supports employment and ensures the correct allocation of natural resources? For this, where and how to invest?  What areas of education need to be developed to ensure the participation of young personnel in the food and agricultural sector? What ways can there be for young people to work in the food and agriculture sectors? 2) Topic II. Opportunities for market expansion and entering into a new market  What are the obstacles to raising healthy livestock for export? What policies are required to overcome these obstacles?  What changes should be made to the policy and regulation on collateral for soft loans and grants aimed at financial support? How to facilitate commercial financing of small and medium enterprises?  What needs to be done to improve transparency and traceability of livestock and livestock products and build persuasion?  Does the export policy, methods and means need to be changed? In particular, export restrictions on raw materials (taxes, quota, quarantine), incentives for the export of value-added products, regulating trade methods, bilateral and multilateral trade treaties and agreements, etc.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The participants in the dialogues noted that the following pressing problems are encountered within the framework of the above topics and questions. - Insufficient investment for the development of partnerships between processing enterprises and herdsmen and the procurement network. - Meat and dairy products are sold openly and do not meet hygiene and standard requirements. - Usually there are not proofs of the origin of “organic food products”. - Governmental subsidies and incentives to support food production tend to encourage quantitative rather than qualitative growth. - Commercial banks tend to underestimate collateral for food businessmen. - Local authorities do not resolve land issues necessary to create isolated livestock breeding without acute infectious diseases. - Insufficient funds for importing and raising highly productive livestock and access to credit is limited. - There is not enough study of target foreign markets for food products. - Many obstacles are encountered. In particular, they require many different papers and permits for the export of products, it takes a long time (30-45 days is required), the state bureaucracy is strong. - Trade agreements concluded with foreign states are of little benefit to Mongolia. - Partnerships and cooperation between domestic participants are weak to create national brands. - The influence of companies from neighboring countries is strong in the export of meat and the position of national companies is weak.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Dialogue participants offered the following general recommendations for solving the above pressing problems:  Providing investment support to businessmen who prepare livestock feed, raise high-yielding cows and process milk;  Providing support for the provision of winter greenhouse facilities with electricity;  Food value addition chains stakeholders should work together to create national brand products and direct joint investments to this;  Increasing the level of provision with special vehicles and equipment for transportation and storage of food;  Creation of enterprises for the production of packaging products and the provision of internal needs;  Development and implementation of policies aimed at improving the access of small and medium-sized food businesses to technology, innovation, finance;  Formation and application of an effective mechanism for cooperation between the Government and professional associations related to Food value chains;  Evaluation of the current activities of organizations for professional control over the quality and safety of food products and identifying ways of further effective control;  Virtualization of activities for the issuance of a license for the export of products and the collection of the necessary documents and thereby the elimination of bureaucratic obstacles;  Evaluation of the effectiveness of various benefits and subsidies provided by the state to the food and agricultural sector and the establishment and application of further quality and performance criteria;  Protecting foreign direct investment within the law and restoring their credence for investment;  Eliminating the overlap of functions of government agencies responsible for foreign investment and trade and improving policy planning;  Conducting training to increase the knowledge of herdsmen about the dangers of drug and chemical residues in food.

2021-08-03 01:46:35205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30618/123

864640103110221323312210

For the organization of the Dialogue, the handbook for member states dialogue was used, adapting it to the local context. To contribute to the vision, objectives, and final outcomes of the Food System Summit, the dialogue was structured around the 5 Action Tracks, integrated into three main Thematic Areas. The Dialogue was convened by the Senior Advisor of the Prime Minister of Mongolia. The participants were from different backgrounds and invited based on their expertise and role in the food systems of Mongolia. Particularly, the government officials and policymakers from the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, Ministry of Road and Transport, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Internal Affairs. The main facilitator of the dialogue was the National Development Agency, UNRCO in Mongolia, and the UNFAO in Mongolia.The dialogue aimed to reflect all the Principles of the Global Food Systems Dialogue. Act with urgency, recognizing the complexity, being respectful to the local context and culture, embracing multi-stakeholder approach in all thematic sessions, building trust, committing to the global summit values and principles through covering the action tracks and complimenting the work of others working in the food systems in Mongolia.Providing good background information to the participants through various documents for reading, presenting the current context of the food systems at national level through presentations before the breakout room discussions were helpful in starting from the common point. Therefore, very good pre-summit preparation is crucial in conducting a successful dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main goal of the national dialogue was to envision the kinds of national food systems that will be needed by 2030 and how to shape the pathway towards a sustainable food system in Mongolia. The dialogue was designed to encourage participating stakeholders to explore what actions should be taken for all people in Mongolia to be able to access sustainably produced food in ways that contribute to equitable, resilient livelihoods and provide healthy, nutritious diets for the whole population while adapting to and mitigating climate change. Specifically, the national dialogue envisaged the following objectives: 1. Raise awareness of food systems' centrality to the entire sustainable development agenda, and the urgency of transforming food systems, particularly in the wake of a global pandemic; 2. Recognize the need for inclusivity and innovation in food systems governance and action; and 3. Develop principles and identify concrete pathways and solutions that can be implemented by the government and other stakeholders in Mongolia. Specifically, the dialogue followed the same Action Tracks as the Global Food Systems Summit, localizing the action tracks into three thematic areas: 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food and promote sustainable consumption 2) Advance equitable livelihood and value distribution 3) Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. Each thematic session had detailed guiding questions such as: Under the thematic session 1: What policy do you propose and what measures need to be taken at what stage of the food value addition chains to provide the population with safe and nutritious food accessibly? 2. How to optimally form knowledge, concept and behavior for proper nutrition and food consumption of the population? 3. What policies should be pursued and what measures should be taken to ensure mutually beneficial partnerships between the stakeholders of the food systems so that they perform their functions better? Under the thematic session 2: 1. What policies should be pursued and what measures should be taken to sustainably preserve food producers' jobs and improve their livelihoods? 2. What policy do you propose and what measures need to be taken within the framework of changing and improving food value addition chains to improve the lives of young people, women and vulnerable groups and their access to food? 3. What policies should be implemented and what measures should be taken to ensure food security in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic? Under the thematic session 3: 1. What policies do you propose and what measures need to be taken to increase investments aimed at strengthening the production and business capacity in animal husbandry, agriculture and small and medium-sized enterprises? 2. What policies should be pursued and what measures should be taken to form a food system that made it possible to preserve the sustainable state of natural resources and their rational use and protection? 3. What policy do you propose and what measures need to be taken to further improve the economic support and leverage provided by the state to food producers?235238239240241242243244246247248249250251Through the National dialogue, following pressing urgent problems have been identified: Under the Thematic Session 1: -State policy on the food industry is unstable, lacks continuity and policy implementation is weak; -The ability of rural food industry specialists and professional labor force is insufficient; - Children of vulnerable groups are more exposed to malnutrition; - Research work on the peculiarities of Mongolians and food consumption, different by seasons is insufficient; loss of product quality during transportation, distribution, storage a lot; - There is no joint fund for registration and information on ingredients and input of domestic and imported products; - Control over unhealthy food advertisements on social media is weak. Under the Thematic Session 2: -Primary food production is seasonal, subject to natural risks; -Knowledge and information of small producers (herdsmen, farmers, small and medium-sized enterprises) about the food system is insufficient and their participation is weak; -Total social assistance reduces the interest of vulnerable groups to work; implementation of state policy and legislation is insufficient; -Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, food prices are rising, supply and quality are declining, and food production jobs are being cut. Under the Thematic Session 3: -Most agricultural producers are small, their capacity is weak, productivity is low, technological reform is insufficient, and there is no real investment; -Access to finance is poor, interest rates are high; -Overload and deterioration of pastures increases and the fertility of the cultivated areas decreases; -The impact of cheap, low-quality vegetables from China on the vegetable market is significant; import dependence of greenhouse vegetables is high; -The level of processing of food products of agricultural origin is low.236238239240241242243244246248249250251Participants in the consultative meetings of the national dialogues offered the following general recommendations to address the above pressing issues: In the next 10 years:  Development and implementation of a national program on the formation of a sustainable food systems in Mongolia;  Development and implementation of a national strategy that links further climate change and conditions with the future trend of food security;  Formation of a policy and legislative environment to improve the food supply of the urban and rural population and its assortment and reduce its seasonal and import dependence;  Updating and implementing social health policy;  Comprehensive implementation of the international food standard system and rational habits;  To carry out a coordinated policy for the comprehensive renewal of the food logistics network and for the development of common infrastructure and increase investments in this direction;  Updating the system of vocational training professional workers in the food industry in accordance with market supply and demand and supporting training young successors of food producers, especially young herdsmen and their sustainable work through the economic leverage;  Increase in investments for enterprises processing raw materials and products of livestock origin and having an export orientation;  Prioritize the development of smart farming and livestock breeding through foreign and domestic projects and programs;  Cluster development of local small and medium-sized businesses engaged in food and support for its technological reform;  Stimulate nature-positive organic agricultural production, and bring its share to 5% of the total cultivated area;  Supporting nature-positive agricultural and food production through economic incentive levers of green credit;  Formation and implementation of a rational mechanism for cooperation between government agencies, the private sector and scientific and non-governmental organizations for the effective implementation of food objectives of sustainable development.236238239240241242243244246248249250251In the next 3-5 years: • Comprehensive assessment of the implementation of state policy and legislation on food and improving the activities of the Food Security Council; • Adoption of a separate law on trade and improvement of the regulation of food and nutrition services; • Increasing the participation and accountability of local government institutions in the policy, planning and implementation of the food systems; • Improving the system of statistical indicators that measure food security and the formation of a joint fund for registration and information on domestic and imported food products and its use in policy development and decision-making; • Updating. development and application of national food norms, standards and methodologies in accordance with international standards for food quality and safety; • Improving quality control at the stages of procurement, transportation, storage and sale of food products; • Strengthening the capacity of foreign-recognized reference laboratories; • Evaluation of the results of the performance of professional monitoring organizations functions and their further updating; • Development of a network for the procurement of raw materials and products of agricultural origin based on herdsmen cooperatives of somons; • Conducting meat export management through a “one window” policy; • Formation of sustainable pasture management and guaranteeing the right of herdsmen to use pastures; • Regulating the number of livestock in line with grazing capacity by increasing meat exports and effectively applying taxes on livestock; • Guarantee relations of use and ownership of sown areas and their introduction into economic circulation; • Clarifiyng the criteria for defining people of vulnerable groups and pursue a policy of transferring part of them from social assistance to employment (approximately 50 thousand citizens belong to them); • Study and assess the impact of support and incentives provided to farmers from the Agricultural Development Support Fund and further increase their efficiency and direct them to adobtion the environmentally friendly technology; • Supporting private sector initiatives to develop and create enterprises that produce packaging products needed for food production and reduce imports; • Development of enterprises for the processing of non-food raw materials and by-products of animal origin as a new industry; • Supporting private sector initiatives to develop the habits of the population for sorting and disposing of food waste and the development of enterprises for their processing; • Consider the issue of the development of dairy farms near cities and settlements as a prioirity direction and support them with loans and investment policies; • Prioritizing support for producers of vegetables, berries, fruits and eggs through preferential loans and reduce import dependence on their procurement; • Supporting the initiatives of professional associations and citizens to develop the movement so that every rural family and fence have a food greenhouse and especially to develop winter greenhouse farms; • Development and implementation of a special educational policy to increase the knowledge and education of citizens, especially vulnerable groups, children, youth and women about the consumption of nutritious and healthy food products, proper nutrition and the reduction and use of food waste; • Establishing an independent food research organization and improving the scientic evidence-based food policy development.237238239240241242243244246247248249250251There has not been area of divergence in the main session and the thematic sessions. Participants were pro-active and very engaging to work together in tackling the pressing issues and offering solutions.

2021-08-03 06:54:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27876/123

621040121240

For the organization of the Dialogue, the handbook for independent dialogues was used, adapting it to the local context. To contribute to the vision, objectives and final outcomes of the Food System Summit, the dialogue was structured around the 5 Action Tracks, using the same thematic tracks that the National and sub-national dialogues were focusing on. The purpose for this was to complement and further enhance the work that was being undertaken through the Member State Dialogues in the country to feed in to the Government’s policy-making and planning, to contribute to the outcomes of those dialogues to the Global Food Systems Summit, as well as to inform future programming and project implementation of the European Union, FAO and other donors and implementing partners. This purpose was also outlined prior and during the event to the participants, who were, thus, more engaged and committed to the discussions. The dialogue invited representatives from the national and international CSOs working in Mongolian food, agriculture, environment and development sectors.Recognising the complexity of food systems, during the opening of the dialogue a presentation was made to explain the different aspects of food systems that would be discussed by the National Development Agency to further point out the need of the voices of the CSOs in the long-term policy planning and integration of the food systems in it. The facilitators and note-takers of the three thematic sessions were trained prior to the Dialogue to understand the principles of engagement and the context of the dialogue. Given their expertise in the area, they managed to bring in guiding questions that triggered many exchanges and ideas, which further showcased the interconnectedness of food systems and impact to different areas of nature, life, and economy, and why the sustainability and transformation of food system is key and requires a systemic approach. In addition, to ensure inclusivity and have everyone bring in their diverse perspectives, simultaneous sign language interpretation was available, as well as Mongolian-English simultaneous interpretation.Understanding well the principles of engagement and communicating them further to the facilitators, participants is key to ensure that the dialogue is contributing to the local context and the Global Food System Summit, that there are complementarities and synergies created, and that the dialogue is inclusive and transparent, with a purpose. Participants’ understanding of why this Dialogue is needed, can really increase the level of engagement not only during the dialogue but also after it.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Civil society dialogues were organized around the main three action tracks that were used in the Mongolian Member State Dialogues, which are: 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption; 2) Advance equitable livelihoods and wealth distribution; 3) Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerability, shocks and stress. The participants were invited to share their views and ideas on each area of discussion during the break-out rooms with the following set of questions for each thematic area. Thematic are I: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for the population and promote sustainable consumption I. At present: 1. Does Mongolia’s food system enable all people to access sustainably produced healthy and nutritious food? If does not, what are the incentives and solutions ? It also includes imported of foods. 2. What are the main challenges to food security due to the Covid-19 epidemic and opportunities to overcome? II – In 10 years ahead: 1. Where would you like to see Mongolia in ten years from now in terms of food security, nutrition, health and loss of food ? 2. What do we want in terms of health and nutrition; the well-being of women and children? III – In the 3 years ahead: 1. What must Mongolia do in the coming three years for food systems to meet the expectations? 2. What actions need to be taking to reduce wasteful and over-consuming habits and to increase knowledge and awareness for healthy diet and sustainable food consumption? IV – In the Future: 1. How can stakeholders work well together for collective action in pursuit of these objectives? 2. How do we facilitate practices and policy choices that contribute to sustainable food systems? Thematic area II: Advance equitable livelihoods and wealth distribution At Present 1. How can Mongolia shape its agriculture and food sector in a way that contributes to job creation and raises incomes across the food value chain? In 10 years ahead: 1. Where would you like to see Mongolia in ten years from now in terms of job creation, poverty levels, food security and etc? In the 3 years ahead: 1. How to leverage young people for championing the innovative, game-changing movements towards promoting decent jobs and equitable livelihoods for all? In the Future: 1. How can stakeholders work well together for collective action in pursuit of these objectives? 2. Who might support the change, who might oppose it and who might deserve the benefit of them? Back Up Questions a) What sub-sectors (e.g. livestock, other) in the agriculture food sector are the most potential to bring equitable livelihoods? How can be ensured that the growth in the food systems sector is sustainable from an environmental perspective? b) How can CSOs and other stakeholders contribute to introduce green business practices/circular economy practices in the food systems? c) What can be done to create a more conducive business environment for MSMEs and other market actors to invest in sustainable practices in agriculture and food sector? d) What is the role of digitalization in bringing about equitable livelihoods and more inclusive value chains in the agriculture and food systems sector? Thematic area III: Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerability, shocks and stress I – At present: 1. What are the main risks affecting and/or threatening Mongolian Food Systems ? What are system weakness, people’s needs and vulnerabilities, existing coping mechanisms, and long-term and structural causes for continuing degradation of natural resources and vulnerabilities in response to social, economic and climatic risks? 2. What are the key challenges faced by food value chain’s stakeholders (i.e. agricultural, herding, MSMEs, industries)? What are the harmful food production and processing practices that deplete natural resources and accentuate risks? How to discourage them and how to encourage a shift towards adoption of more sustainable & resilient practices? 3. What are the specificities, strengths and opportunities of current Mongolian Food Systems on which could be drawn a sustainable, healthy, resi235238239240241242243244245246248249250251Participants in the civil society dialogues of organizations determined that there are the following pressing problems regarding the above topics. - Due to the lack of implementation of the legislation on the food system, food security is not properly ensured. - Many projects and programs are being implemented to develop food value addition chains along the lines of foreign states and donor organizations, but due to their poor connection, the desired results are not achieved. - Family farms, engaged in farming, have the status of unofficial employment and their registration and information about them are not fully collected and therefore they remain outside the state support. - Control over the quality and safety of schools and kindergartens feeding is not open and transparent. - The level of development of the production of healthy food and food for children is low. - It should be noted that sweets are excessively used in children's sanatoriums. - The quality and safety of food products is lost at the stage of transportation and storage. The safety of food packaging is weak and the labels of imported food products are in foreign languages without translation. - The control of professional control organizations over the use of pesticides in agriculture is weak. - The level of security and maintenance of independent laboratories, which analyze and confirm the quality and safety of food products, is low. - The incomes of herdsmen and farmers as primary producers are lower than those of intermediate traders. As products pass through intermediate traders, the price of food products increases, their quality and safety is lost, and income inequality is formed. - The knowledge of farmers about pesticide residues in food products and the knowledge of herdsmen about drug residues is weak. - The expansion of the mining industry has an increasingly negative impact on livestock breeding and agricultural production. They have proposed following recommendations and actions to tackle the existing issues:  Comprehensive updating of legislation related to the food system and the formation of an institution and a mechanism for its effective implementation; Ensure the action of the Food Security Council in the form of a unified platform and increase the sustainability and efficiency of its activities;  Formation of a mechanism for the constant involvement of civil society organizations in the process of working out policy for the development of the food systems and making decisions;  Increasing the provision of independent and licensed laboratories and strengthening their capacity to improve the assurance of control over the quality and safety of food products;  Creation of a new warehouses for storing vegetables and expanding its capacity;  Formation and development of a system of delivery to the market and effective sale of products of herdsmen and farmers through Agriculture exchanges;  Improving food service standards for school and kindergarten children and strengthening implementation control;  -Ensuring real financial and investment support to entrepreneurs of organic agriculture and food production;  Supporting private sector initiatives for the creation and development of processing enterprises for milk and dairy products;  Supporting private sector initiatives for the creation and development of specialized enterprises for the production of diets and food for children;  Produce at home the main inputs, which are used in the production of the basic assortment of food products and packaging items to reduce import dependence;  Adobtion of the application of mobile phones, which translates labels of imported food products in foreign languages into Mongolian;  Create a special television channel to disseminate information on food security and food production and consumption to consumers and provide science-based information and training through it;  Increasing the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring cooperation between preschool education organizations, secondary schools and families to instill healthy nutrition habits in children from an early age. Advantages of the Mongolian food system - Because of underdeveloped heavy industry, Mongolia has a broad opportunity of producing, consuming, and exporting organic, traditional, and eco food. Therefore, it is possible to produce innovative products by empowering the herders. - Since herders also connected to the urban centers, there are a wide range of opportunities to deliver their produces to the market, and the products can be marketed using smartphones - Mongolian production industry can be clustered. There are broad opportunities to develop non-mining productions.236238239243244245246247248249251The key challenges faced in ensuring the healthy and nutritious food for all in Mongolia are described by the participants as follows: • “The law of Mongolia on Procurement of goods works, and services with state and local funds” requires to procure from “business entities,” restricting herders and producer’s participation in the school or kindergarten food tenders. • Food safety is the most challenging matter amongst the food system issues. If the food safety matter is not resolved, soon it will become a national and social issue. • Because the food production volumes of the household farms are not recorded, import quotes on vegetables are estimated higher. • Overconsumption of sweets and sugary products within children. Lack of environment for producing healthy meals and food for children. A comprehensive baby food production system has not been established. No workshops and factories that produce children’s food and baby formula. • It is likely to affect the genetic fund of Mongolia. Specifically: the number of young cancer patients is increasing. • Food safety is specifically disturbed in transportation and storage phases in the value chain of food production. Primarily, the safety of the food packaging. • Stores merchandise various types of colored and poisonous candies and foods at children’s eye level. • Lack of knowledge amongst the farmers on pesticides and herders on injections and drug residues. • The income level of the primary manufacturers or the farmers and herders is particularly inequitable to revenues of the speculators /changes/ and retailers. There is a large gap between the income levels of the stakeholders. • The “Organic product” labels are not monitored and do not guarantee product origin. • Imported products sold with foreign language labels, without translation. • Lack of consumer knowledge on healthy and nutritious food. • Consumer knowledge is deficient in reading and referring to the food label. Following actions are proposed to tackle the challenges: In the coming 10 years: • Enable herder’s and producer’s participation in the tenders under the provisions of “The law of Mongolia on Procurement of goods, works, and services with state and local funds.” • Establish an accredited and independent third-party laboratory /to monitor the quality and safety of the imported products/ • Increase the capacities of the vegetable warehouses and build new warehouses • Establish factories that produce primary food ingredients, ceasing their import. This includes the establishment of national food packaging factories. • Promote the use of wooden, cast iron, paper, and cotton utensils for cooking, support producers with policies, and increase the employment rate. • Establish food security management and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems in food factories. Introduce ISO framework in the food industry • Gradually replace carbonated drinks, such as Coca-Cola, chips, and food products with high sugar content. In the next 3 years and further: • Enforce the implementation of the “Law on food safety,” Activate “Food safety council” operation • Enable opportunities for rural farmers and herders to sell products • Introduce local best practices in the value chain • Implement a “healthy raw material” on products manufactured in Mongolia. Require product labels to contain information on the origin • Develop a mobile application to read labels printed in foreign languages • Establish a new TV channel that promotes information and knowledge on healthy food to the public • Organize training and campaigns to educate the public on healthy an • Depending on the damage caused in food safety, impose different sets of penalties on business entities and individuals. • Provide government support in establishing milk and dairy product processing factories in the rural area • Establish an integrated central platform in charge of food safety that resolves accessibility, safety, and waste matters.236238241243244245246248249251Thematic area II: Advance Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution Following challenges were mentioned during the discussion: - While herder women work in harsh conditions, their access to social services is limited, e.g. pregnant women are not provided with support, and elders are not covered with a pension. - Although the vegetable demand can be 100% supplied domestically, storage conditions and market regulations are unsatisfactory - Due to competition of the imported vegetable, prices of the domestic producers are reduced, further reducing farmer’s income. - In vegetable production, chemical substances (pesticides) are used without control and limitations. There is no equipment to control the use of chemical substances. - Investment is another challenge faced by the vegetable production sector. - Vegetable seeds are a challenge. The genetic roots of seeds are being lost. Irrigation systems and greenhouses are provided by donations, but those are disorganized, inefficient, and some of the spare parts are unavailable in the local market. - Household productions are implemented well at the project level; however, due to lack of policy support, the producers face obstacles in further development. Some actions proposed: - Government support is mandatory for the producers of healthy food products. It is essential to provide policy support by establishing an agricultural exchange for trading produces and product certification laboratories and government procurement policy support by the independent purchase of domestic products for the school lunch program. - Reduce and control the import volume of the locally produced products. - Mandatory to improve product quality by introducing a raw material certification classification system that supports competition. - There is demand for continuous capacity building of herders and farmers, the producers of primary agricultural products. - Establish an independent laboratory that conducts pesticide residue analyses - Establish an integrated exchange market of the agricultural products in the bag, soum, and aimag centers. - Reduce GMO production In the 3 years: - Educate teens on basic concepts of food, e.g. basic principles of producing healthy food - To enforce policy change, it is necessary to change the attitude of this group of society, which requires government focus - Support agricultural product sales at market rate and healthy food production, - Establish primary agricultural product market in UB - Establish integrated labor tariff of the labor market - Necessary to establish a government support scheme for youth involved in the primary agricultural productions, such as various social services benefits and scholarships - Concerning the youth involvement: recommended to conduct a survey amongst the youth regarding their expectations on animal husbandry, agriculture, and food production and potentials of contribution. - Innovation and production of the agricultural products that are attractive to youth are insufficient, and policy support is required in the agricultural sector to support youth employment. Partnerships and roles of stakeholders: - Government to conduct Food safety assessment - Establish a mechanism that regulates food-related matters - Sell food products at fair market price - Provide various types of support to civil organizations, for example, discounted rent, etc. - The vegetable farmers are most vulnerable period in the autumn season, and the Government must support in terms of labor supply and market to sell their products - Herder, farmers, and consumers are the supporters of the goal and beneficiaries of the changes in the system - Opponents are large chains, political figures engaged in agricultural production, and large importers.236240242243244245246248249250Thematic area III: Boost nature-positive production and building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress Some challenges and actions proposed: - The most adversely affecting factor to the consumption of the traditional domestic products /strategical food: meat and dairy products/ are the business operations of the mining sector. For example, the mining operations in the gobi region are besides extracting, with floating, concentrating, and transportation operations of the raw materials on the dirt road adversely affecting the wellbeing of several aimags and sums and ways of consuming strategically significant traditional food. This circumstance is principally due to land allocation overlapped with the pasture land. -Lack of knowledge on coping the climate change induced by human factors. -Lack of training and financing for lifelong learning, especially for women herders -No policy support on supplying the market with food and preparing safe food -Organic food production is underdeveloped. Since food additives are gaining popularity, there is a broad opportunity to develop organic food production at the sum level. -Slaughterhouses produce a considerable amount of meat in the winter season, and a large number of intestines are wasted. These can be processed to produce semi-finished products. But, due to the restrictions to have previous market experience, youth face financial difficulties. -Although lots of plastic waste are produced, there are no recycling facilities in the rural area. Thus, it is possible to establish small-scale workshops to recycle plastics. Possible to disseminate waste management information to the high school students -Ensure CSO involvement in the food chain, ensure transparency of information, and organize face-to-face meetings by the MOFALI and other government entities. Change present negligent practice, improve customs control on food shelf-life and involve CSO in control and monitoring activities. There must be a balance and boundary between agriculture, animal husbandry, and mining. Cattle ratio has been disturbed as well /goat headcount, which should be roughly 15% of the cattle, is now takes almost 70%/, which adversely impacts the meat safety and pastureland overgrazing; further, leading to desertification. -Improve cooperation amongst the ministries, state organizations, CSOs, and citizens -Empower herder, enable equitable allocation of benefits, and develop a long-term policy -Establish a food system that reflects human rights and public interest -Take measures against the use of chemicals in the mining and food processing sector -Make Mongolian pasture land an eco-friendly zone -Develop a veterinary service system and control the use of the antibiotic in the cattle What actions could be done in the three years? -Reduce the speculations in the food system, protect the market, and provide the consumer with safe food -Establish an independent laboratory and certification system -Protect food market and reduce import -Provide financial support in the organic food production -Improve food policy and food system based on the people’s participation and CSO -Organize educational campaigns and disseminate information to the herders and population concerning food safety and health -Establish waste recycling workshops in the rural area How can stakeholders work together? -The government of Mongolia shall establish a food supply chain and a system that focuses on human rights and public interests and improve cooperation between CSO and public -Improve production operations, train the public on the production of eco-food, and organize campaigns -Improve monitoring of chemical substances used in the mining and food processing industry237In all the three thematic discussions there was not really areas of divergence. Participants were aligning their views and concerns in relation to the key challenges, triggers, suggested solution and recommendations for the way forward.

2021-08-03 07:08:31205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28139/20

332933111111811131818171

A special attention have been paid to ensure the diversity and inclusion of all stakeholders during the Dialogue. Convenor of the Dialogue sent invitation letters to broad and diverse range of both government and non-government institutions to foster their participation in the process. A standardized approach have been adopted for the convening, curation and facilitation of the Dialogue, as indicated in the guidelines of organizing the Dialogue. Throughout the Dialogue, facilitator created a supportive environment for meaningful and open dialogue among the participating stakeholders. Respectful questions have been formulated by the facilitator to encourage dialogues and discussions, clarify some of the ideas mentioned and check understanding. Dialogue opened a space within which representatives of various organizations shared their ideas, positions as well as explored each other’s perspective that are essential to shape the food system in the following years. Forward-looking discussion topics have been chosen to build on and add value to the existing policy processes and initiatives directed to the agricultural development and food system transformation. Importantly, all of the discussion topics were related to the local realities within the country and this in turn made it possible to formulate challenges and define sustainable solutions. Amid COVID-19 outbreak, in line with the local rules, regulations and guidelines, Dialogue was organized using an online platform. It was agreed to communicate via emails to share participants’ comments and views that are not expressed during the meetings.For the organizing team is was essential to guarantee that Dialogue reflects specific aspects of the Principles as planned for the design. All the participants of the Dialogue embraced the principles such as building trust, be respectful, complement the work of others and recognise complexity. Discussions were organised in a way to ensure safe space as well as promote trust among the stakeholders. Participants of the Dialogue respected each other’s view in formulating sustainable food system, agriculture and rural development. Questions and concerns raised during the discussions have been addressed appropriately by the responsible participants. Participants of the discussions also recognised the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful actions to achieve SDG 2030. All of the participants were committed to contribute to vision, objectives and final outcomes of the Food System Summit preparation and follow up, because they are aware that this is an essential milestone to mobilize future actions in transforming food system. Regards the embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity principle of the most of the representatives of the different stakeholders were active during the open discussions. The second Dialogue provided a unique platform for national stakeholders to exchange their views and interact with each other’s aiming to support food system transformation.During the planning of Dialogue, one should take into account that not all invited institutions will participate in the meetings. In addition, one should also take into account that not all of the participants of the Dialogue will be active during the discussions. Selecting and briefing facilitator/s is also vital for the success. This may ensure that facilitator/s are not pushing their own agenda but creating a space for all to express themselves and listen to each other. Finally, one should design discussion topics that represents the current situation and points critical issues. This certainly will help avoid rather artificial conclusions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The main objective of the second dialogue meeting was to share information among stakeholders on the status of the food systems in the country including assessing the scientific approach in achieving sustainable national food systems, discussing and reviewing evidence on key challenges to strengthening food systems – as highlighted in Dialogue 1 – and determining practical next steps along the pathway to more sustainable food systems that can be pursued at the country level. During the first session a presentation on “The status of the food systems in the country, key challenges to strengthening food systems and practical next steps” was presented by addressing the below points: • Status of food systems in the country; • Major challenges to strengthen those systems; • Possible solutions. The presenters noted the importance of the identification of the priorities focused on transformation of the existing systems into sustainable systems up to 2030. Two major information sources are used: the first source of the information is the outcomes of the first dialogue when extensive information was provided on digitization. The second source is the set of different strategic papers prepared and implemented by the government, as well as international organizations Main priorities emphasized during the 2nd dialogue process were: • Priority 1: Promoting advanced technologies and digitalization throughout the food system; • Priority 2: Strengthening food safety and promoting healthy diet; • Priority 3: Strengthening sustainable use of natural resources and increasing climate resilience; • Priority 4: Supporting family farmers and agri-food SMEs; • Priority 5: Improving quality of education and research, strengthening collaboration between science and policy making; • Priority 6: Development of food systems in liberated territories and integration of them into the national food system. The dialogue was actively participated by representatives of scientific institutions and the relevant feedback provided on how to achieve the mentioned priorities with the effective scientific approach.235238239240241242243244245246248249251Main findings can be summarised as follows: • Improve the role of science in achieving the priorities defined under the national pathway via the enhancement the capacity of scientific institutions and ensuring their active engagement in policy making process. • A special attention should be paid to the Priority 2 which mainly focuses on nutritious and healthy diet. The responsibility of all actors of this specific issue should be clearly identified; • Effective coordination between the Food Safety Agency and the Ministry of Health is still crucial; • The comment on the food nutrition and health to be included as a sub-clause to the Priority 2 in order to emphasize the importance of all related actors’ roles – Establish stakeholder coordination and promote consolidated policy making on health dietary; • Priority 2 needs to be further discussed after the Summit by involving different agencies and stakeholders of various sectors including agriculture, education, health, nutrition. This issue is the main activity of FAO in Europe and Central Asia; the FAO is ready to support Azerbaijan as well; • Regards the Priority 6, it is offered to include the transfer of best practices and modern technologies; • The mitigation measures and adaptation in the climate change, forecast of changes in climate to be included to the Priority 3, as well; • Climate-smart agriculture technologies, capacity building and education on climate change should also be emphasized; • Improving and upgrading legal framework of cooperatives is of importance for small and medium farms to be considered; • The impacts and benefits of the identified priorities on sustainable food system to be further assessed; • Adaptive mechanisms or strategies for emergency/perilous situations can be included to the Priority List; • All priorities should be considered as a whole system while the implementation;236238239240241242243244245246248249251Discussion based on the pre-identified priorities listed below: Priority 1: Promoting advanced technologies and digitalization throughout the food system; Priority 2: Strengthening food safety and promoting healthy diet; Priority 3: Strengthening sustainable use of natural resources and increasing climate resilience; Priority 4: Supporting family farmers and agri-food SMEs; Priority 5: Improving quality of education and research, strengthening collaboration between science and policy making; Priority 6: Development of food systems in liberated territories and integration of them into the national food system. Participants raised the key challenges and proposed solutions for ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. The discussions also centered on the question of what measures should be taken towards transitioning to nature-positive sustainable production practices. Participants agreed that the impacts and benefits of the identified priorities on sustainable food system to be further assessed and the adaptive mechanisms or strategies for emergency/perilous situations to be included to the Priority List. A special attention should be paid to the Priority 2 which mainly focuses on nutritious and healthy diet. The responsibility of all actors of this specific issue should be clearly identified.

2021-08-03 08:28:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38744/201

Yes

2021-08-03 08:37:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38747/201

Yes

234238244251Policy Change to Unlock the Potential of a Resilient Small-Scale Agriculture Sector  There is a need for a policy with an emphasis on payments for ecosystem services instead of subsidies for synthetic inputs and hybrid seeds. Need to move away from Farmer Input Support Programme for commitment to sustainable subsidies that enhance local markets.  Integrated seed system laws endorsing local traditions and knowledge, rather than outlawing the use and sale of traditional varieties and breeds.  Climate change adaptation funds are to be used on agroecology principles rather than the “new” green revolution which does not respond to the desired needs of the vulnerable farmers.  Inclusive land rights giving priority to local youth and traditional community ownership rather than legislations that enable corporate land grabbing.  Public procurements schemes create a market and demand for organically produced diverse diets rather than highly processed food.  The drastic increase in funding for research with a focus on agroecological transdisciplinary and systemic approaches rather than research focussing on single crops or inputs.235239249Transition to Sustainable Food Systems for Social, Ecological, Economic & Democratic Development  Food choices are often considered as personal choices. But choice is instead determined by many factors and can be conscious, conditioned or constrained. Even if one has high nutrition literacy, the lack of local availability or the inaccessibility, due to high price, of healthy foods may prevent an individual from adopting healthy dietary habits. Hence, a transition to Sustainable Food Systems should have at their centre the full realization of the human right to adequate food, where by every individual and every community should be enabled to have adequate, accessible, nutritious, culturally adequate, healthy and environment-friendly food at all times. This requires putting right-holders at the centre, rather than the interests of the market.236239243Consequently, the Summit must urgently recognize the need and call for a supportive political will from national leaders open and transparent participation mechanisms for right-holders in all stages of policy making, implementation and monitoring of the food systems. Strong accountability and transparent mechanisms for all actors, from government bodies to the food industry should be in place in order to move away from the production model to a Production, Income and Nutrition Model

2021-08-03 10:04:46205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38785/262

15026502814061447131122161634181181311433497131333911310123201710

DG SANTE organised the online high-level meeting on 16 July 2021, from 10.00 to 17.00, to discuss the outcomes of the Citizens’ Dialogues held on 12 and 13 July. This discussion was followed by two panels on addressing global hunger and malnutrition, and the transformation of food systems in practice. The event was first advertised in June 2021, giving interested parties enough time to prepare their contributions. It was advertised on Facebook and European Commission, ensuring that a wide audience of potential participants was reached. A total of 105 registered participants took part. They represented a broad spectrum of sectors (see tables above) covering the 18 sectors. They came from a diversity of sectors, the top three being: agriculture/crops (47 participants), livestock (34 participants) and food industry (33 participants). All in all, the high-level event was attended by 164 participants including representatives from the European institutions, business organisations, NGOs and other undefined sectors. The 164 participants identified their gender in 3 categories: 69 men, 91 women and 4 ‘prefer not to say’.All the Principles of Engagement of the Food Systems Summit were followed. In particular, the principles of recognising complexity, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and complementing the work of others were reflected in the dialogue. After each panel, the online audience had the opportunity to submit questions or comments via the pre-moderated chat function, some of which were put to the panellists by the moderator. The outcomes of the Citizens’ Dialogues were presented by each session’s moderator and a representative of the citizens group.I would recommend to organise these events more often and engage the wider community to this important topic.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This event was the culmination of the EU Citizens’ Dialogue process, to discuss the outcomes collected during the dialogues on 12 and 13 July and to address two additional topics: the European contribution to addressing global hunger and malnutrition, and the transformation of food systems in practice. In the first session, held in the morning, moderators and six citizen representatives from each of the breakout sessions of the citizens’ dialogues presented the results of their discussions on six topics: green claims and sustainable food labelling; the views of young people on sustainable and healthy diets; sustainable food production; sustainable and healthy diets; prevention and reduction of food waste; and antimicrobial resistance. Representatives from the European Commission responded to the findings and provided further detail on the EU’s work in these areas. The second session, held in the afternoon, explored the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) action areas and the EU’s role in addressing global hunger and nutrition. The five panellists came from the European Commission, WHO, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition and the International Centre for Climate Change & Development. The final session looked at the transformation of food systems in practice with examples of ongoing initiatives at EU and international level. This featured five speakers from the European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization, European Economic and Social Committee and Nestlé. All 10 panellists presented their work and responded to questions from the moderator and the online audience.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Panellists agreed that the UNFSS is a solutions summit, and should be just the starting point for real change. The European Commission representatives welcomed and agreed with most of the points raised during the citizen dialogues and stated that citizens need to be at the centre of actions to be taken. Young people are the ones who will benefit the most from a successful transition and will also face the biggest challenges in the event of failure, so it is vital to give them the chance to speak and be heard. Business as usual is not an option, one speaker said, because business as usual is not sustainable. What society expects from farmers today is not just simply food and fibre, but also landscapes, climates, biodiversity and healthy food. There is a need to identify the opportunities and risks associated with transitioning to sustainable food systems, and to make use of the best available scientific knowledge. Binding regulatory initiatives should go hand-in-hand with a social impulse that influences business and politics to move towards sustainability. While the comprehensive legal framework for sustainable food systems is still a work in progress, scheduled to begin in 2023, the EU has taken a first step with the EU Code of Conduct for businesses and marketing practices. This is one of the first deliverables of the Farm to Fork strategy and an integral part of its action plan. It sets out the actions that food processors, food service operators and retailers can voluntarily commit to undertake to tangibly improve and communicate their sustainability performance. The EU’s Farm to Fork strategy makes it clear that research and innovation are key drivers in accelerating the transition to sustainable, healthy and inclusive food system, from primary production to final consumption, the strategy policies, research and innovation activities across the entire food system, and compensating all environmental, social and economic aspects. The Commission agreed with the need for clear food labelling and a level of uniformity in the way those labels are used, to help consumers make a sustainable choice. Animal welfare is another element of sustainability to be considered in legislation on food labelling. For food waste and other issues, there needs to be flexibility across Member States, with regulatory authorities in each state working effectively with food chain operators, farmers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers. It is not sufficient to look at food production, consumption or waste in isolation. A holistic and integrated approach is necessary but challenging to implement. This approach should build a sustainable production system that ensures improved ecosystem services, food security and human welfare as well as opportunities for decent employment. Agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture can play an important role in sustainable healthy food, and social partners can play a key role in making fisheries and aquaculture sustainable. It is essential that there is good quality food available for all, whatever their socioeconomic background, and those involved in food production should be reasonably remunerated for their work. Across the world, largely in Africa and Asia, there are 149 million children under five suffering from stunting, 45 million with wasting, and 3 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. Addressing this emergency calls for coordinated action among humanitarian – development - peace actors, for helping people with resilience to climate shocks and economic downturns, for tackling structural inequalities and for a profound transformation of food systems to get safe, healthy and sustainably produced food to the world.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Food labelling is an area where the EU wants to improve transparency and the value of information given to consumers, through using technology such as QR codes. In parallel, there needs to be education to ensure consumers are more aware of the nutritional and environmental impacts of foods, and are better able to exercise choices. The EU has committed to reaching the UN Sustainable Development Goal of halving per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer level, and reducing food losses along production and supply chains by 2030, and will come up with its own proposal to set legally binding targets for 2030. It was noted that the functioning of the food chain has had problems in the past. The price signal from consumers has not always reached farmers, and farmers have not always been able to find the right way to supply what the market required. In the last 10 years, the EU has done a lot to improve the way the supply chain functions, improve business-to-business relationships and eliminate unfair trading practices. There is now increased transparency in the food chain, particularly for better price information. Within the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, the Green Deal and the human capital strands are key, it was said, but they could be more closely integrated. Globally, tackling hunger and malnutrition requires a doubling of investment in 10 key areas, mainly related to on-farm investments, food value chain and social protection. Two major areas of urgent concern are wasting among children and anaemia, especially among women. The latest projections are that we will not achieve the 2030 SDG target before 2130. A transformation of the food system solution needs to be combined with a health system solution and environmental vector solution, alongside a framework for women’s empowerment. There is also a need to focus on food safety along the supply chain. The panel highlighted the need to make safe food a universal human right, not just a commodity. It was suggested that there is a need for global policies because of globalisation, driven not only by the market but by public investment. In a globalised world, global standards and global mechanisms are required for issues such as biodiversity, nutrition and corporate governance. In providing support to third countries, it is necessary to look beyond emergency food aid and look at the root causes of hunger and food insecurity more broadly: these are linked to the economic and social situation and frequently to conflict. All these elements must be viewed together in a systemic perspective. As well as dealing with an acute food crisis in parts of the world, it is necessary to consider the longer-term perspective and increase resilience. Investing in rural and smallholder farmers results in significant poverty reduction and positive impacts not just for farmers but for the entire economy. Fisheries and aquaculture is an important sector to be considered in a sustainable food system, producing a much smaller carbon footprint than a lot of land-based types of farmed animals, in some cases by orders of magnitude. Aquaculture and fisheries can be sustainable but fisheries face two big challenges: managing fish stocks in a sustainable way, and managing the impact that fishing has on the whole marine environment, such as bycatch and damage to marine mammals.237239241242244245246249The main divergence between speakers and the citizens involved in the dialogues was on the issue of taxes and price interventions to promote, incentivise or reward the production or consumption of sustainable foods. This was an issue that was raised in various contexts during the citizens’ dialogues as a potential option to encourage sustainable consumer choices; however, when put to the European Commission representatives, it was not seen as a solution. It was pointed out that previously, price fixing has led to overproduction and proved to be economically unsustainable. Price support has been replaced since the early 2000s by direct income support to producers, which is said to be better aligned with the objectives to ensure a fairer standard of living for agricultural workers. One speaker raised the issue of the EU’s development cooperation programme, saying that while it helps people in developing countries, EU and EU Member States’ domestic policies have major consequences for people all over the world when it comes to trade, environment and other issues. They called for the EU to examine its policies and how they affect food systems within the EU and elsewhere. A speaker disputed the idea that consumers need to be educated about sustainable diets, saying that they know what is sustainable and are able to make informed choices. It was suggested that despite best efforts towards resilience, it’s impossible for food systems to be truly resilient, as has been demonstrated by the COVID-19 crisis, which has placed extreme pressure and uncertainty on the global food system.

2021-08-03 13:08:53205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34350/190

70274984028420811223032154207122331220323133023040111425

The National Dialogue is organized in the format of an open public discussion, in open space at the Agro Exhibition 2021, that was attended by thousands of visitors. Initially, the moderator presented general aspects of food systems, highlighted the main directions proposed for the 2021 Food Systems Summit and to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, outlined the task of identifying national priorities for improving food systems and ways to achieve them. Then 8 speakers took turns, presenting visions from different groups of stakeholders and after each speech there was a discussion with the invited participants and everyone had the opportunity to ask their questions. Among the speakers: Deputy Minister of Economy and Trade Representative of Ukraine, First Deputy Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine, Vice Head of State Environmental Inspection of Ukraine, representatives of NGOs (traders, producers and consumers) and National Scientific Centre “Institute of Agrarian Economy”.The positions voiced and the proposed measures have clear deadlines and are urgent to implement related to the achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The importance of each country's contribution to the 2021 Food Summit is emphasized. Every expressed opinion is important, recorded and discussed. Food systems are considered in the context of the relationship with the environment, climate change, human health, the economy and other aspects. Dialogues involved a wide range of parties: government officials, consumers, non-governmental and business organizations, scientific organizations and open to all. Recognition of the contribution of each of the parties, importance of every direction is one of the key principles of the Dialogue. The process and results of the Dialogue are open.No

NoThe participants received clarifications from the curator about the general procedure for conducting the discussion. The speakers used presentations describing the state of the art in nutrition and agriculture, as well as options for analysis and development. The discussion took place not in small groups, but in a general open dialogue with all participants. Different points of view were expressed, the results were summed up, priorities and topics for discussion were announced

234238239240241242244245246247248249250Draw public attention to the issue of food systems development, to formulate proposals for vectors of food systems development in Ukraine in the context of global trends and to start the first stage of discussions within the national dialogue on food systems transformation in preparation for the 2021 UN Food Summit235238240242244245246247248249250The discussion aroused interest in participation. Three key priorities for Food System Transformation activities have been identified: Healthy nutrition for all. Environmentally friendly production. Resilience to market instability and food accessibility for all.236238240242244245246247248249250Healthy nutrition for all: sustainable consumption, changes in gastronomic culture, reduction of food losses and food waste, support for the introduction of food safety systems and resumption of catering business after the pandemic, development of craft and local production. Environmentally friendly production, namely: elaboration of measures in the direction of policy development, which can be conditionally called "Smart Green Agreement" for Ukraine as a movement towards climate neutrality of production, response to climate challenges through technology development, including transformation of small producers, introduction of condition receiving state support for compliance with certain agri-environmental requirements, emphasis on resource efficiency and environmental safety, transformation of irrigation systems, and in general - the continuation of policies in accordance with global recommendations and binding international documents and agreements. Resilience to market instability and food accessibility for all should focus on economic and social aspects and focus on strengthening the internal market and stimulating exports in general, combined with strengthening cooperation with global humanitarian organizations, implementing practical steps to develop inclusive food systems in Ukraine and support for small producers, food security and transition to sustainable production and marketing models, development of financial instruments

2021-08-03 15:02:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6737/203

390225120012261193002034201040010003100072727000070300

Our dialogue was designed to be attended by multiple stakeholder groups, including farmers, ranchers, research organizations, industries, NGOs and media. The main objective of the event was to discuss and develop coordinated and collaborative strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the agriculture sector that will support a more equitable and sustainable food system. We designed the discussion questions to center on farmers and ranchers sharing what they need to drive sustainable, profitable solutions on their operations, with scientists and industry partners actively listening and brainstorming solutions with them. The goal was to allow for tension and allow for challenging and complex discussion as to what has prevented adoption throughout the ag sector.Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity – The attendees represented a diverse group of stakeholders across the ag sector. Discussion within and across groups was focused on defining the research gaps, data and support needed to achieve transformative collaboration, and maximize knowledge, investment and scalability. Complement the Work of Others – The keynote speakers included two farmers to give their unique perspectives, and set the scene for the breakout discussions. We encouraged conversation around specific efforts farmers have already made towards implementation and adoption of climate-smart practices. Scientists and industry partners were then asked to discuss how these efforts can complement their own initiatives, and how they might be able to work together. Be Respectful & Build Trust – We encouraged honesty, transparency and active participation throughout the dialogue as a way to build trust between the various stakeholder groups. We reinforced the fact that there is a growing sentiment in the U.S. ag community that farmers and ranchers can’t take on the burden of solving climate change alone, and all participants in the dialogue have a role to play.FFAR is highly committed to Recognizing Complexity and Embracing Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity. Public-private partnerships are crucial to accelerating bold solutions to urgent food and agriculture challenges. These solutions are imminently needed to provide every person access to affordable, nutritious food grown in ways that sustain the environment. FFAR’s agile approach leverages public funds to form partnerships that match the public funds with private sector investments. Public-private partnerships position us to convene stakeholders both inside and outside the food and agriculture industry. Our convening capabilities and the depth of our relationships with wide-ranging stakeholders create an atmosphere of collaboration that is unique within the agriculture research community. It is not every day that competitors join forces to address a common challenge, but our mission helps unusual partners work together for the common good.

Yes

234240241242243244248The focus of the FFAR sponsored dialogue held on June 17, 2021, titled “Transformative Collaboration in Agriculture” examined both the links between Action tracks 3, 4, and 5 and levers of change. The objective of this Dialogue was to hold space for a conversation bringing together farmers, ranchers, research organizations, industries and NGOs to discuss the transformative collaboration needed to develop coordinated, collaborative strategies that reduce GHG emissions in the agriculture sector, ultimately to net negative. Through a series of breakout discussions, the goal was to engage farmers, ranchers and scientists in a candid conversation about what they feel a successful relationship can look like to accelerate adoption of climate-smart farming practices. Climate change is a threat to food security worldwide. While advances to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are happening in labs and fields around the globe, that work is fragmented, and the impacts continue to accelerate. Without an expansive, coordinated effort, we can’t connect knowledge and data from one part of the world that could benefit another. By creating an expansive, coordinated response, we can maximize knowledge, investment and scalability. That’s why FFAR, USFRA and WFO established AgMission, a partnership to mobilize farmers, ranchers, scientists, data providers, stakeholders and funders around the globe to develop, implement and accelerate climate-smart farming practices at scales previously unimagined. By working together, we can close the gaps in agriculture-climate research and data integration while accelerating the development and adoption of new and proven on-farm climate solutions. In pursuit of this goal, FFAR convened an Independent Dialogue on June 17, 2021 titled “Transformative Collaboration in Agriculture” to bring together farmers, ranchers, research organizations, industries and NGOs to discuss the transformative collaboration needed to develop coordinated, collaborative strategies that reduce GHG emissions in the agriculture sector, ultimately to net negative. The main objective of the event was to discuss and develop coordinated and collaborative strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the agriculture sector that will support a more equitable and sustainable food system. Through multiple small breakout group discussions, FFAR and partners focused on defining the research gaps, data and support needed to achieve transformative collaboration among farmers, ranchers, scientists, industries and NGOs to accelerate adoption of climate-smart farming practices.235240241242243244248The main findings from the four facilitated breakout discussions were as follows: Alignment exists between both farmers and industry on the need to balance risk and profitability when it comes to implementation of climate-smart practices. Proof of success and a need for rewards and recognition along the entire supply chain are valuable components for farmers and industry to assess potential profit. The industry breakout groups discussed that the issue of climate-smart implementation is not just an economic issue, but also an existential issue, because they acknowledge the desire from their consumers to become more aware and active in the GHG reduction space. Another finding expressed was a desire for a farmer-led system that connects researchers to farmers. Scientists often need farmers to participate in trials and demonstrations in order to produce the proof of success that farmers need. However, there is a disconnect in the system where farmers don’t know how to get involved, and scientists don’t know how to reach out. A clear need exists to facilitate these types of conversations. During the report out, it was noted that industry groups and private sector networks could assist with the execution of creating these engagement channels for farmers and researchers236242243244248Topic: Research and data Data is critical to the success of any climate-smart farming practice, and generating that data requires expansive research, both on and off the farm. Ensuring comprehensive representation of farm types, while identifying learnings from past research and data trials in other regions can be difficult and disconnected. An opportunity identified is matching farmers who are willing to be involved in trials with projects to coordinators on a larger scale. Farmers can be incentivized to participate in trials, similar to how the medical community rewards patient trial participants. Understanding gaps in current data to further support adoption must happen quickly. This includes documenting the risks and costs of a new practice at a comprehensive level (new equipment, additional labor, etc.). This will help clearly communicate the value of practices back to farmers – data, results, financial gain – and create opportunities for farmers to be paid for their data, what many believe is the most valuable commodity on a farm.236242243244248Topic: Data interoperability As data collection efforts begin to expand, the next step is creating a centralized and easily accessible depository to make data available to everyone. Many organizations are attacking this problem and contributing to solutions, but there is no central coordination strategy, resulting in continued fragmentation. While identifying all existing data is important, the results must be fully interoperable, democratized and supported by public policy and governance, ultimately contributing to long-term access to stakeholders. Barriers to success around data operability include the enormity of the effort and that much of the data from existing research is currently too narrow in scope to address opportunities holistically. Universal availability will broaden the scope and efficacy of practices and systems in overcoming growing climate challenges.236240241242243244248Topic: Measuring and maximizing results Success in reducing GHGs depends on how to measure the efficacy of climate-smart, on-farm practices. This requires a wholesale infrastructure approach that will identify effective practices to optimize and integrate on large scales. This may require outcome-based reporting tools that document what farmers and ranchers are doing to reduce GHGs, and also the production efficiency and economic impacts to an individual (but anonymous) farm or ranch.236240241242243244248Topic: Collaborate effectively While collaboration exists in agriculture and agriculture sustainability efforts, it tends to be regional or otherwise limited. No initiative to date has bridged geographies, crops and animals, production methods and other variances to realize the full value of existing and future collaboration within the global entirety of agriculture. There is a need to unify and connect efforts to prevent fragmentation or duplications while filling data gaps, maximizing resources and accelerating progress. To accomplish this, engaging farmer peer networks will be crucial, as well as connecting with farmer and rancher advisors. The focus of these efforts is to demonstrate transparency, build trust and drive effective outcomes.236240241242243244248Topic: Incentivizing adoption There are many public and private efforts to incentivize certain climate-smart practices. There are likely resources on the table that can be shifted to support this collaboration. There is a way to get costs covered by the whole system; without that, it will be difficult for private sectors to adequately address incentives for farmers.236240241242243244248Topic: Rapid-scale adoption The adoption of climate-smart farming practices is also about building high-quality, comprehensive datasets that can help drive adoption by connecting them to the most economically viable practices and systems on every farm. Through research and pilot projects, data can be applied industry-wide to specific practices and systems that will also generate new revenue for farmers and other key stakeholders. Currently, there is no platform or forum to provide expansive training on climate-smart practices to farmers. The need is even larger in developing countries and bridging that gap is critical for climate-smart ag production practices to become normalized globally.237N/A

2021-08-04 08:24:58205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34330/190

35081410301916044113221712011022101200231240713001413

Organization: a preliminary announcement, an event open for participation, engaging a wide range of stakeholders, a lively dialogue and taking into account the views and comments of the parties, an emphasis on achieving the indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals in Ukraine, respect for the interests and opinions of the parties. Evidence-based information, discussing of drafts of laws, analysis of current policy, high-level representation, including Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine, Deputy Minister of Economy, Deputy Head of National Institute of Strategic Studies (has a status of a major research institution, which provides analytical and prognostic support to the President of Ukraine), Deputy Director of NSC “Institute of Agrarian Economy”, NGOs, etc.Principles of Engagement are implemented.No

Yes

234238240242243244245246247248249250251Theme of the event: "Resistance to market instability and availability of food for all" The discussion is dedicated to one of the identified national priorities235238240242244245246247248249250"Resilience to market instability and food availability for all" Key areas for achieving the goal: Ensuring food security and transition to sustainable production and marketing models, market development, development of value chains focused on supporting SMEs, development of financial instruments, support for added products value, strengthening the internal market and stimulating exports in combination with strengthening cooperation with world humanitarian organizations236238240242244245246247248249250- guaranteeing the role in ensuring world food security with an emphasis on compliance with the provisions of the Strategy for the Development of Exports of Agricultural Products, Food and Processing Industry of Ukraine until 2026, strengthening cooperation with world humanitarian organizations; stimulating the production of value-added products, including using fiscal instruments; external activities contribute to sustainable production, transportation and consumption; - increasing the share of MSMEs in food systems through nationwide support for small food producers, expanding the system of advisory services; - compliance with the principles of environmental and social governance by introducing conditions for state support, development and implementation of national standards for sustainability reporting, improving the management of fertilizers and pesticides, traceability of the latter, reducing the use of non-biodegradable plastics, introduction of sustainable animal husbandry practices organic production, taking into account climate change and the development of agricultural insurance, emphasis on investment in environmentally friendly production; - science and education - drivers of innovation, improvement of professional agricultural education, introduction of agrometeorological observation system, forecasting of agricultural production indicators, digital transformation of food chains.237238240242243244245246247248249250During the dialogue, positions were discussed: proposals for sustainable solutions must be profitable; consumption is not optimal in conditions of sufficient production; healthy food production is not always environmentally friendly; sustainability requirements can be both an advantage and a disadvantage for competitiveness; trends towards short food chains and the development of world trade; development of technologies against inequality in access to technologies.

2021-08-04 21:54:51205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15917/44

10464312

El diálogo se organizó integrando en sus preguntas algunos de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para 2030 (principio de actuar con urgencia): - Sistemas alimentarios y su impacto en la salud: ODS 3 - Acceso físico a alimentos sanos y nutritivos: ODS 2, 3 y 10 - Pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos: ODS 2, 11 y 12Los principios se reflejan de la siguiente manera: - Reconocer la complejidad y la necesidad de incorporar diversos actores: en el diálogo fueron convocados actores de diversas áreas (pública, privada, academia, sociedad civil, entre otros) que dieron cuenta de la necesidad de un abordaje integral de los sistemas alimentarios. - Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo: la diversidad de sectores que fueron convocado permitió reconocer los aportes científicos, culturales y vivenciales de cada participante, llegando a soluciones lo más integrales posibles.Recomendaría más bien desde lo que a nosotros nos faltó en nuestro diálogo: asegurar una convocatoria lo más diversa posible, con enfoque de género, considerando a la población migrante y pertenecientes a pueblos indígenas. De esta forma, poder cumplir más fielmente el principio de enfoque inclusivo.

Yes

234238244246249Como Región Metropolitana, se ha escogido la siguiente vía de acción: Vía De Acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos inocuos y nutritivos para todos. Título: "Estrategias y políticas regionales que permitan garantizar acceso y disponibilidad a alimentos sanos e inocuos, involucrando a todos los actores del sistema alimentario (producción transformación, distribución y consumo); desde el punto de vista político, económico, social y ambiental”. Temas de debate: Cada grupo de debate recibe un tema que indica una visión de futuro de los sistemas alimentarios. • Grupo 1: Sistemas alimentarios y su impacto en la salud y la educación. • Grupo 2: Acceso físico a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y todas: Desiertos, pantanos y oasis alimentarios y el rol de las ferias libres, mercados locales y mercados campesinos.235238244245246247249• Desigualdad en el acceso a los sistemas alimentarios: Se reconoce que hay acceso, pero que se presentan problemas en las decisiones de compra de las personas, especialmente en zonas vulnerables, ya que al existir sobreoferta de productos ultraprocesados que son más económicos que las frutas y verduras, se opta por productos menos saludables. • Falta de educación para una correcta nutrición. A pesar de que se han integrado alimentos más saludables en los menús escolares, se deben hacer esfuerzos pata diversificar la alimentación y no basarse exclusivamente en alimentos menos saludables o un tipo de alimentos. • No reconocimiento el Derecho a la Alimentación Adecuada: Se requiere de un sistema normativo para regular este derecho, que se espera se garantice a nivel local y nacional. • Alta pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos: es también un tema cultural el desperdiciar comida, por lo que se necesita educar en buenas prácticas para generar un cambio. Saber qué cantidades comprar y las porciones que necesitan comer es una forma. Además en el programa de alimentación escolar, todos los productos que queden en la cocina, se podrían entregar a organizaciones y no eliminar.236238244246247249La conclusiones más relevantes fueron: 1. Acceso a alimentos saludables para todos y todas: Se debe promover mayor transparencia en los precios de ferias libres y fomentar el comercio justo en toda la cadena alimentaria. Otra alternativa es mejorar los planes de alimentación escolar y complementaria y acordar el desarrollo de políticas que tiendan a generar mayor acceso para adultos mayores. Algunos mecanismos o ejemplos: -Formar comisiones interministeriales con tareas concretas. -Ver ejemplos internacionales, subsidios, tarjetas verdes, y bancos de alimentos. -Organizaciones de la sociedad civil que apoyen o movilicen la agenda política. -Políticas de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos. -Potenciar las juntas de vecinos y el valor comunitario. -Que cada municipio genere ordenanzas en apoyo al comercio justo de forma local. -Estimular la producción de pequeños productores y la compra por parte del consumidor. -Facilitar el comercio online (mejorar acceso a internet). -Evaluar modificación a las compras públicas, de manera que se priorice la compra a la agricultura familiar, por ejemplo, en municipios. 2. Educar para una correcta nutrición: Se debe contar con una perspectiva de educación desde edades preescolares que contemplen a grupos familiares y salud primaria, especialmente en el marco de la prevención. Algunos supuestos: -Ir más allá de la educación escolar y potenciar la educación alimentaria comunitaria y familiar. -Participación activa de atención primaria de la salud y organizaciones locales en huertas comunitarias como ejemplo de educación activa y colaborativa. -Acceso libre e informado a la composición nutricional de los alimentos. -Incorporar de manera integral en currículos de carreras profesionales y técnicas en la materia. No tan solo en carreras de salud. -Desarrollar campañas de promoción de la salud de marketing social que sean potentes. -Recursos humanos disponibles para la educación in situ (ollas comunes inocuas, circuitos cortos, capacitaciones a los que cocinan). -Información nutricional de todos los alimentos: a granel, frutas, verduras, entre otros alimentos saludables. 3. Derecho a la Alimentación: -Organización de la sociedad civil como colaboradores del Estado para implementación de este derecho (legal, disponibilidad, precios, acceso, educación). -Se requiere de un sistema normativo para regular el DHA, derecho exigible a nivel de localidades y nacional. Algunos ejemplos: -Resguardo al patrimonio de los alimentos tradicionales, biodiversidad y cultura culinaria. -Ordenanzas de gobiernos locales que mejoren y regulen los ambientes alimentarios saludables.237238245246247249Pese a que la región Metropolitana cuenta con una gran variedad de mercados en distintos puntos abarcando, gran parte del territorio nacional, y permitiendo así un acceso físico privilegiado en comparación con otras regiones del país, hay una dicotomía con respecto al acceso. Esto de debe a que la mayor dificultad es de tipo económico para comprar alimentos saludables como frutas y hortalizas. Sin duda este es un punto que afecta el sistema alimentario y que ha producido una gran problemática en la salud de la población más vulnerable con respecto a las enfermedades no transmisibles vinculadas a la malnutrición (obesidad, diabetes, etc). Es por ello, que es imperioso potenciar los programas vinculados a temas de educación, pero también, poner en primera prioridad el derecho a la alimentación saludable y nutritiva, para que se puedan mitigar las barreras de precios de los alimentos saludables versus los muy calóricos ricos en nutrientes críticos como la comida chatarra. Se necesita un esfuerzo multi-sectorial que involucre a las áreas de salud, educación, agropecuarias y comerciales.

2021-08-05 08:47:27205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31390/190

27714421413243112713111112311261351

Organization: a preliminary announcement, an event open for participation, opportunities of hybrid participation and online translation, engaging a wide range of stakeholders, an open dialogue and taking into account the views and comments of the parties, an emphasis on achieving the indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals in Ukraine, CC factors, impact on environment, innovative technologies, respect for the opinions of the stakeholders. Evidence-based information, discussing of laws and drafts of laws, analysis of current policy, high-level representation, including Minister of Agrarian policy and Food of Ukraine, Deputy Minister of Economy, Deputy Minister of Ecology and Natural Recourses of Ukraine, Deputy Director of NSC “Institute of Agrarian Economy”, representatives of science organizations, NGOs and Business associations, etc.All the Principles of Engagement are implemented.No.

Yes

234238240242244245246247248249250Theme of the event: "Environmentally friendly production" Continuation of discussions in the framework of the National Dialogue. The second identified national priority area corresponding to Action track 3 "Boost nature-positive production" is discussed235" Environmentally friendly production", directions: Ukrainian version of Smart Green Deal, ensuring resource efficiency and environmental friendly production, nature recourses management, bioenergy, practical steps towards inclusive food systems, transformation of irrigation systems and national policies in accordance with the Koronivia Joint Work Program (on Agriculture). The main conclusion is that in order to succeed, the policy of environmental protection and adaptation to climate change must be applied through the entire chain and in all spheres of food systems. Ignoring the challenges facing the world today, there is a risk of falling out of the current context and, as a result, becoming uncompetitive in the international arena.236- adaptation of the national legal framework to the EU policy "Green Course" and "From farm to fork" to do commitments of DCFTA and the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, taking into account the specifics of Ukraine, improving management and monitoring of nature resources (soil, water, forests) and bioresources, expanding the use of green financing and support instruments, taking into account the implementation of environmental requirements, development of organic production; - sustainable management of water resources: water quality, rational and innovative irrigation systems and drainage, circular water use; - adaptation of agriculture to climate change: Second National Contribution to the Paris Agreement, Koronivia Joint Work Program (soil, use of nutrients and their residues, water resources, livestock, feed and waste management, socio-economic parameters), as well as the development of an National information platform focused on the adaptation of Ukrainian food systems to climate change; - reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including development of bioenergy, promotion of carbon low farming and improvement of greenhouse gas emissions monitoring; - improving the energy efficiency of food systems by promoting the use of renewable energy technologies, expanding the use of railways and waterways, standardizing "best available technologies" and "best available practices" for energy efficiency of farms.237The discussion was around the issues of balancing the economic effect of agricultural producers in the short term and the introduction of environmentally friendly production technologies.

2021-08-05 10:31:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25543/203

334100150841501841795010101032050232115100222

The dialogue brought together keynote speakers and panelists from many areas relevant to the Dialogue theme, involved at various levels in the food system transformation process. This degree of multi-stakeholder inclusivity builds trust and respect for one another in the process to achieve positive change. It also contributes to creating dialogue and exploring different standpoints, perspectives and challenges related to the food systems transformation. The Dialogue included international organisations, governments, regional organisations, scientific and research institutions, private sector and farmer representatives who showed commitment towards the upcoming UNFSS. The participants stressed the need to act urgently while recognising the complexity of the sustainable transformation of food systems and calling for a systemic approach to attain desired results. The principle of complementarity was reflected on two levels: (1) European level, through the complementarity of work of different EU DGs on sustainable food systems embodied in the European Green Deal; (2) and International level, through the contributions from governments (i.e. Costa Rica, Slovenia), science and knowledge platforms (i.e. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Research Institute of Agricultural Economics (AKI) from Hungary, farmers’ organisations (i.e. Asian Farmers' Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA), Pan-African Farmers’ Organization (PAFO), as well the private sector and finance institutions (i.e. AGREA, Rabobank).The principle of urgency was underpinned in the Dialogue’s solutions-driven spirit, enabling speakers to bring forward practical solutions and ideas for food systems transformation. For instance, the European Commission represented through its Directorates-General – DG for International Partnerships (INTPA), DG for Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), DG for Research and Innovation (RTD), as well as the Joint Research Centre (JRC) brought up the European Green Deal and its pillar strategies, such as the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies as a solid and robust vision for food systems transformation acting within planetary boundaries. Commitment to the UNFSS was, for instance, reflected through the recently published EU Council Conclusions on the EU’s priorities for the United Nations Food Systems Summit that highlighted the EU’s crosscutting priorities, such as (1) Strengthening sustainability and resilience; (2) Promoting healthy diets through sustainable food systems; (3) Strengthening food safety and public health; (4) Contributing to the sustainability and resilience of food systems through trade; (5) New finance solutions and business models; (6) Improving scientific knowledge and ensuring a strong science-policy interface. The complexity of food systems was underlined through the interventions from representatives of the science, government and farmers’ communities from Africa, Latin America and Asia who brought up context-related challenges linked to the regions, territories, local governance, cultural aspects, and others. The principle of multi-stakeholder engagement underpinned the whole Dialogue that brought together representatives from 86 countries from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Central Europe. The speakers and participants represented the voice of science, policy, farmers, the private sector, youth, women, and regional organisations. Everyone in the Dialogue had the possibility to engage and share its vision, concerns, propose solutions.Multi-stakeholder inclusivity is crucial for an engaging, interactive, successful, and productive dialogue. Consider including in the dialogue multinational corporations and food industries who currently run the food system and bear the responsibility for its current state of the art. Consider always discuss both, WHAT and HOW, as myriads of solutions for food systems transformation were proposed, but their implementation, including mythology and means, are still not very clear.

Yes

234238240243244245246247248249250251The FAO Brussels Dialogue that saw high-level speakers from various organizations delivering keynote addresses and involved in panel discussions had the following focus: • The need to bring forward the importance of science for efficient policymaking in the food systems transformation process, highlighting the role of the UNFSS Scientific Groups and the Science Days that preceded the dialogue. Value and consideration of the expertise of the Joint Research Centre and other Directorates-Generals of the European Commission (INTPA, RTD, AGRI) for strengthening research, innovation, scientific evidence, and the uptake of science by policymakers within the EU, and its potential to contribute to the global scientific capacity-building and partnerships to sustainably transform food systems, as highlighted in the European Green Deal and its pillar strategies (Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies); • The Dialogue focused on exploring the potential of the science-policy interface to achieving the objectives of action track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all and action track 3: Boost nature-positive production. In the first panel discussion on the science-policy interface and the action track 1 focused on how science-policy linkages can help fight hunger and ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all, highlighting the need for an international platform for food systems that would go beyond the UNFSS to ensure an effective food systems governance; • The need for new tools, approaches, and practices that would drive food systems transformation while proposing alternative strategies to produce more with less, address structural issues, and support small-scale producers for sustainability was equally reiterated; • The geographic focus on Africa and Asia enabled the audience to better understand the challenges of small-scale farmers, how existing policy frameworks, the role of the governments, the international community, and the private sector contribute to building systemic science capacity at national and regional levels. The session also stressed the need to enhance the support provided to agricultural farmers, producers, entrepreneurs, and small-holders, especially women and youths to sustainably transform agri-food systems; • The second panel put the emphasis on how science-policy dialogue can help reconcile agricultural productivity with environmental sustainability to minimize trade-offs for the environment. How science, technology, and innovation would contribute to the conservation of biodiversity, translating to innovation that focuses on sustainability and productivity as mutually inclusive issues were highlighted. In addition, the approaches made by the EU to bridge the gap between research and farming practices, advance research and innovation in developing countries to sustainably transform food systems were of major interest; • Furthermore, the prospective solutions of the private sector to ensure sufficient and healthy food for all while preserving biodiversity and ecosystems were highlighted while outlining that government/international support is needed to foster an enabling environment for private sector investments in agricultural research and innovation.235238240243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue’s speakers underlined the complexity and the multi-dimensional aspects of food systems transformation and called for urgency actions to make food systems more efficient, resilient, sustainable, and inclusive. The following findings and conclusions emerged out of the discussions: • Science, Technologies and Innovation (STI) have a great potential for food production and climate change, yet they need to be adapted to the needs of small-scale producers, provide the combination of incentives to accelerate the adoption, investments in rural infrastructure and capacity building to bridge the inequality gap. Global scale scientific assessments need to be translated into actionable knowledge at national and local scale. • Global coordination, partnership, and cooperation with the coalitions of actors ready to support the change, global events, and multilateralism are of paramount importance to build a common narrative and drive forward the transformative agenda. • The question of how to operate the transformation underlined the importance of co-creation and joint design of knowledge; • The EU High-Level Expert Group put in place by the European Commission is an important mechanism and one of the deliverables of the European Green Deal. The works of the Group will also contribute to the UNFSS. • An efficient transformation of food systems implies policies to be based on high-quality and multi-disciplinary science, while an efficient evidence and policymaking need scientific excellence and good understanding of policy cycle combined with an ability to communicate scientific evidence in a clear and digestible way; • There is a need to incorporate local-based solutions and local practices, consider interconnectivity between various actors and sectors in food chain. • For an efficient food systems transformation, we need to address data gaps about food systems, new methodology to integrate all the data and enhanced metrics to assess the progress towards food systems transformation. These three areas of work should be complemented with performance-based governance and link between policies and citizens. • Real-time data are key to take effective decisions and bring solutions, while technologies are helpful to identify best solutions for best policies. This needs to be complemented with an analysis of different trade-offs including social, environmental and economic. • The JRC works across four work streams in its science approach: (1) Models, integrated agricultural commodity and policy modelling platform allows JRC to model the situations and test policies; (2) Observations (i.e. soil) to test scientific approach to the collection process; (3) Combination of two – agricultural yield forecasting programme which combines the real time satellite imagery with the agricultural production modelling to identify the hotspots of change; (4) Standards and benchmarks. JRC has a very strong digital dimension with geospatial data, satellite science sharing and co-creation. JRC has also knowledge centres operating as science hubs for various topics, such as global food and nutrition security; • An efficient science-policy interface should take into account four different pre-conditions: investments, institutional arrangements, enabling environment and capacity-building, both institutional and know how. • Small-scale farmers are facing numerous challenges ranging from lack of appropriate knowledge and know-how, access to markets, equipment, financing, insurance, lack of agronomic practices. There is a need of a holistic approach to address the fragmentation of farmers, while farmers should be at the centre of all policies and interventions. They need to be the co-creators of knowledge and co-makers of decisions concerning them. • Cross-fertilization between the scientists and different actors through a multi-actor approach, including farmers, civil society, education, governance is needed; • Focus should be on the needs of farmers and bottom up and local solutions, while investing in transparency and traceability of food chains; • Mitigating climate change only will not be enough we need localized, regional scale adaptation strategies and science and technologies can help; • To see is to believe: farmers need to be co-researchers, co-creators, as they can conduct experiments on farms and inform policy-making with practical solutions and evidence. Important to create connection between farmers and research institutions, farmers need to be part of the whole research cycle. • Soil is the missing link in the food system transformation and we need a robust policy framework to create coherence and better manage soils. There is a need to set up globally a minimum set of standards for soil protection; important to learn and exchange views with other countries and regions.236238240243244245246247248249250251Food systems governance: We have food systems, but we need to address their dysfunctionalities. We should not reinvent the wheel, but rather take stock, fix, enhance and consolidate instruments, dialogue spaces, and mechanisms for an efficient food systems regulation and governance. The EU High-level expert group established for this purpose is ensuring this thorough analysis and will be advancing solutions and recommendations that can be considered in the UNFSS works. Co-creation/co-design: Co-creation, partnership, and co-design approach considering all forms of knowledge such as scientific and experiential knowledge should be integrated together to produce better and sustainable results. Need to involve farmers and small-scale producers: Farmers are the repositories of important evidence-based knowledge, as they have the possibility to test, experiment and try new technologies on farms. This evidence should be underpinned by cooperation with research institutions and governments in order to inform both, scientific ad policy uptake. Farmers need to be part of the whole research and policy-making cycle. There should be incentives, capacity-building, enabling environment, governance, and infrastructure as pre-requisite elements for farmer’s empowerment. Need for tangible data, methodologies and metrics: Tangible commitment by the agricultural sector and all stakeholders for transformative and nature positive solutions should be driven by facts, scientific evidence and market demands. Data, technologies, innovations and complements (governance, human development) should underpin the process. Need to address interconnectivity: A big challenge science will face, will be the implementation of jointed models since we no longer deal with individual issues but an interaction of numerous issues and challenges, such as environmental degradation, climate change, hunger and inequities. Coordinated collection and use of enormous data sets will be key in achieving the expected results from the use of joint models. Need to make soils and biodiversity central in the process: Soil is the missing link in the food system transformation and we need a robust policy framework to create coherence and better manage soils. There is a need to set up globally a minimum set of standards for soil protection; important to learn and exchange views with other countries and regions.237No divergence recorded

2021-08-05 13:38:32205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39015/125

80053930604139029725140181001020001000000050010422004012410

Le dialogue national a été organisé de sorte à intégrer, renforcer et améliorer les sept principes d’engagement du Sommet sur les systèmes alimentaires. Ces derniers ont été appliqués à toutes les étapes de la concertation depuis la phase de conception jusqu’à la phase de tenue des dialogues régionaux et du dialogue national.La démarche adoptée et sa mise en œuvre a permis également de refléter les aspects spécifiques des principes comme suit :  Agir sans délai et prendre des engagements : Lors des réunions préparatoires, les avis ont tous convergé vers la nécessité de transformer les systèmes alimentaires en vue d’avancer vers la réalisation des ODD. Le choix des sujets a porté sur ceux ayant vocation à accélérer ce processus de transformation . La participation active, des responsables nationaux et régionaux, a impliqué un engagement fort quant à la compréhension du pourquoi du sommet, de ses principes et de ses objectifs. Lors des dialogues tenus, les participants ont été invités à réfléchir autour d’actions urgentes, réalisables et adaptées au contexte national, et à identifier les responsabilités des différentes parties prenantes.  Associer toutes les parties prenantes, respecter, et instaurer la confiance : Ces trois principes ont été pris en compte à travers : a) la tenue de réunions de travail pour s’assurer que les principaux interlocuteurs concernés par un sujet débattu soient invités ; b) la tenue des dialogues régionaux en présentiel a permis des interactions sereines et engagées ; et c) la tenue de séances de formation des animateurs en amont des dialogues pour s’assurer que leur rôle de facilitateur neutre, à l’écoute et acceptant les divergences était t assimilé. Les animateurs ont également veillé à ce que les différentes participants contribuent équitablement à la discussion.  Reconnaître la complexité des enjeux et compléter le travail des autres : Ces principes ont été concrétisés lors du choix des sujets de discussion et la préparation des présentations correspondantes. Ces présentations ont permis à la fois de fournir des données synthétisées aux parties prenantes pour leur permettre de s’approprier et de comprendre les enjeux qui seront portés au dialogue et de circonscrire les sujets ainsi que les travaux accomplis et/ou en cours. Il est à noter également que les acteurs ont été informés sur la démarche adoptée ainsi que son déroulement.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251Le Maroc a choisi de mener des dialogues sur des sujets ayant vocation à accélérer le processus de transformation vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. Quatre sujets de discussion, couvrant les cinq pistes d’action arrêtées par les Nations Unies , ont été identifiés. Il s’agit de : 1) Sécurité alimentaire et nutrition ; 2) Adaptation et résilience des systèmes de production, 3) Autonomisation économique des femmes ; 4) pertes, gaspillage et gestion des déchets alimentaires et organiques. Ces quatre sujets ont permis à la fois d’intégrer les différentes composantes depuis la production jusqu’à la gestion des matières résiduelles, ainsi que les implications socio-culturels, économiques et environnementales des systèmes alimentaires, et d’associer la quasi-totalité des parties prenantes (acteurs institutionnels, producteurs agricoles, opérateurs privés, consommateurs, etc.). Pour tenir compte de la dimension territoriale, trois types de systèmes alimentaires ont été identifiés pour la conduite des dialogues régionaux, à savoir traditionnels, mixtes et modernes . Lors des dialogues régionaux, le premier et le dernier sujet ont été déclinés en deux sous-sujets de discussion. Le premier sujet a été articulé autour des questions associées au surpoids et l'obésité , et la sous-alimentation et la dénutrition. Pour le dernier sujet, le premier sous-sujet a porté sur les pertes et gaspillage et le second sur la gestion des déchets alimentaires et organiques. Les autres sujets ont été adaptés aux contextes territoriaux. Au total six sous sujets ont été retenus : 1. Une alimentation durable contribue au bon état nutritionnel et à la bonne santé des marocains, et contribue à la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires à long terme ; 2. Les politiques agricoles, commerciales, et sociales facilitent l’accès à des aliments abordables, sûrs et nutritifs pour tous, tout en contribuant aux objectifs économiques et commerciaux du pays. 3. L’autonomisation économique des femmes en matière d’accès aux ressources, aux services, aux possibilités économiques, et aux prises de décision, contribue à améliorer la sécurité alimentaire des communautés et des ménages et à rendre les systèmes alimentaires plus efficaces et plus durables. 4. Les contributions à l’action climatique déterminées au niveau national et déclinées à l’échelle des périmètres irrigués sont de nature à renforcer l’adaptation et la résilience aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress des systèmes de production agricoles, d’une part, et à stimuler une production respectueuse de l’environnement, d’autre part ; 5. Des chaînes d’approvisionnement équitables, sûres et durables garantissent une utilisation responsable des ressources naturelles et une réduction de la perte d’aliments et du gaspillage alimentaire, faisant de la durabilité un choix facile pour les consommateurs. 6. La promotion d’aliments produits de manière durable et de la réutilisation et du recyclage des ressources que représentent les déchets alimentaires et organiques contribue à la transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. Tels que formulés, ces sous-sujets décrivent le fonctionnement des systèmes alimentaires marocains dans dix ans. Ils ont été répartis selon les régions retenues, correspondant aux trois types de systèmes identifiés, à raison de trois sous-sujets par région, soit au total neuf groupes de discussion. Les deux premiers , ont été discutés respectivement dans les systèmes moderne et traditionnel. Le troisième sous-sujet a été traité dans les systèmes mixte et traditionnel. Le quatrième sous sujet a concerné les trois systèmes alimentaires caractérisés par des contextes agro-écologiques différents: agriculture irriguée ( système moderne), l’agriculture oasienne ( système traditionnel) et les zones d’agriculture pluviale et de montagne ( système mixte). Les deux derniers sous-sujets ont fait l’objet de discussion respectivement dans les systèmes moderne et mixte. Lors du dialogue national, les résultats des dialogues régionaux ont synthétisés, selon les quatre sujets susmentionnés, et rapportés aux instances nationales en vue de les débattre, les enrichir.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Le dialogue national a mis l’accent sur quatre sujets visant la mise en place de systèmes alimentaires durables et ancrés territorialement. Il s’agit de : a) sécurité alimentaire et nutrition ; b) adaptation et résilience des systèmes de production ; c) autonomisation économique des femmes ; et d) pertes, gaspillage et gestion des déchets alimentaires et organiques. Pour chaque sujet, des actions réalisables et adaptées ont été identifiées . Compte tenu des interconnections et des enjeux des sujets retenues ,les résultats ont été synthétisés en quatre domaines d’actions. 1. Environnement politique, institutionnel et de gouvernance Le premier domaine d’actions porte sur les dispositifs réglementaires et institutionnels ainsi que les mécanismes de coordination et cohérence des politiques, stratégies et programmes. Sur le plan réglementaire et institutionnel, les actions préconisées consistent à poursuivre, mettre à niveau et/ou opérationnaliser les dispositifs législatifs et juridiques, notamment dans les secteurs de l’eau, du changement climatique, de la biodiversité, la transition énergétique, l’autonomisation des femmes, la sécurité sanitaire, la qualité nutritionnelle, les pertes et gaspillage, et l’économie circulaire. Pour ce qui est de la cohérence des interventions, le dialogue a souligné les insuffisances dans le rapprochement entre les logiques d’action et les mécanismes de coordination des acteurs impliqués , ce qui se répercute sur l’efficience des interventions. A cet égard, l’accent a été mis sur deux aspects fondamentaux de la gouvernance des politiques, la participation et la coordination. L’implication active de tous les acteurs dans l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre des stratégies. En matière de coordination, les actions requises portent sur la formalisation des interactions interministérielles et le renforcement de la position des structures de coordination. Celles-ci doivent contribuer à l’harmonisation des interventions à travers une affectation optimale des ressources, une application des règles, et une communication efficace entre les acteurs. 2. Dotation des acteurs et des communautés de moyens et de ressources Pour ce domaine, les actions inscrites visent à doter les acteurs institutionnels, les opérateurs privés, les organisations professionnelles, les communautés, les femmes et les consommateurs de moyens matérielles, humaines et informationnelles leur permettant de soutenir la transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. Il s’agit de mobiliser les investissements dans les infrastructures et les services ainsi que les ressources humaines et matérielles pour développer des chaines de valeur soutenant des marchés finaux durables. D’autre part, il s’agit de poursuivre les mesures visant à minimiser les sources de vulnérabilité en supportant les groupes fragiles à exercer leurs droits fondamentaux, en facilitant leur accès à l’emploi, à l’entrepreneuriat, aux ressources naturelles, aux services et aux marchés, et en favorisant leur participation aux processus politique et de gouvernance. 3. Recherche scientifique, éducation et dispositifs statistiques Le troisième domaine intègre des actions ayant vocation à renforcer la recherche scientifique, l’éducation, et les dispositifs statistiques. Pour la recherche scientifique, les actions relevées ont porté sur deux volets: la promotion de programmes de recherche intégrés et multidisciplinaires. et la mobilisation des investissements, pour la création et l’incubation d’innovations adaptées aux conditions territoriales. Quant aux programmes d’éducation, les actions convergent vers le renforcement de l’intégration des notions de développement durable , dans les cursus de l’enseignement ainsi que dans les modules de formation destinés aux professionnels du secteur alimentaire . Les constats des concertations organisées ont souligné l’importance des dispositifs statistiques pour l'évaluation des progrès accomplis, et l' élaboration des stratégies. Le système national de statistique implique une multitude de départements ministériels et consiste à produire des données sur les enjeux économiques, sociaux, et environnementaux. Malgré une forte culture statistique au Maroc, ce système peut s’améliorer, notamment au niveau de la coordination, l’harmonisation des méthodologies, la dotation en ressources humaines et matérielles, et la communication. Les propositions d’action ont porté sur trois principales composantes : a) le renforcement de capacités et la mobilisation des ressources suffisantes ; b) la mise en place d’une structure de coordination opérationnelle ; et c) l’extension des champs d’investigation pour intégrer les aspects non encore couverts: le genre, l’environnement, etc. 4. Contexte socio-économique et culturel Ce domaine se rapporte aux actions visant à supporter l’émergence d’un contexte socio-économique et culturel favorable. Les actions retenues consistent à : a) Renforcer et opérationnaliser les programmes de sensibilisation du grand public pour transformer progressivement les mentalités ; b) institutionnaliser des campagnes d’information et de formation au sein des structures chargées de la diffusion des bonnes pratiques (agriculture, santé, etc.) et des organisations professionnelles ; c) renforcer le partenariat public-privé et entre les opérateurs des chaines de valeur en promouvant les mécanismes de coordination ; et d) capitaliser sur les expériences réussies et les diffuser à travers les les médias de masse et les réseaux sociaux.236238239241243245246247248249Sujet de discussion : Sécurité alimentaire et nutrition L’alimentation et la nutrition sont considérées à la fois comme une composante et un produit des ODD. Au Maroc, la vision politique de ce sujet est déclinée sous forme de plusieurs programmes . Sous leur dimension sectorielle, ils sont liés à l’agriculture, la pêche, l’eau, la santé, etc. D’autres sont de nature transversale comme l’Initiative Nationale de Développement Humain (INDH). Ce sujet a porté sur deux volets. Le premier volet a été axé sur les questions associées au surpoids, obésité, maladies non transmissibles (MNT) liées à l’alimentation ainsi que la qualité et la salubrité des aliments. La transition épidémiologique et démographique, que le pays a connue, s’est manifestée par une augmentation de la charge de mortalité des MNT, principale cause de mortalité. Des estimations ont révélé que leurs coûts annuels représentent près de 3% du PIB, soit le double du budget du Ministère de la santé. Le second volet a porté sur la dénutrition. Le Maroc a enregistré des progrès importants dans ce domaine. Néanmoins, des efforts additionnels sont à mener, essentiellement chez les enfants, les femmes, et les groupes vulnérables. Quatre engagements/intentions ont été identifiés : Le premier est lié à l’environnement politique, institutionnel et de gouvernance. Il a été structuré en quatre actions, à savoir : a) Institutionnaliser des mécanismes de coordination horizontale entre les départements concernés et impliquant les autres parties prenantes en vue d’assurer une bonne cohérence des politiques sectorielles et transversales ; b) Renforcer les capacités institutionnelles d’élaboration, d’exécution, et de coordination des stratégies et programmes ; c) Mettre en place des mesures et des instruments dissuasifs (taxes, réglementation de la publicité, …) aux aliments et des boissons malsains ; et d) Établir des normes visant à donner accès à des régimes sains dans les structures publiques et encourager la mise en place de dispositifs favorisant l’allaitement maternel. Le deuxième engagement consiste à appuyer le processus de transition vers des chaines alimentaires inclusives, tenant compte de la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle. Les actions structurantes portent sur la diffusion à grande échelle des bonnes pratiques agricoles ; le soutien des petits producteurs à s’inscrire dans une démarche de certification et de normalisation ; et l’intégration des préoccupations de sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle dans les contrats-programmes gouvernement-interprofessions. Le troisième engagement vise à doter les acteurs et les communautés de moyens leur permettant d’accéder et de contribuer à la sécurité alimentaire et à une nutrition saine et durable. Le renforcement des stratégies de réduction de la pauvreté ; la communication et la sensibilisation des consommateurs ; la création d’environnement porteur pour l’activité physique ; et l’implication active des associations de protection des consommateurs ; constituent les principales actions pour cet engagement. Le dernier engagement a été consacré à l’appui des programmes de recherche et d’éducation. D’une part, il s’agit de renforcer les capacités de coordination entre les institutions de recherche ; mobiliser les investissements dans la recherche axée sur la création, l’adoption et l’incubation de technologies et de pratiques innovantes en matière de sécurité alimentaire et de nutrition. D’autre part, le renforcement de l’intégration de la composante éducation nutritionnelle dans tous les cursus de l’enseignement Selon les participants, la mise en œuvre de ces engagements devrait prendre en compte la diète méditerranéenne et/ou marocaine, les spécifiées territoriales, le milieu de résidence et les catégories socio-économique de la population. Les quatre engagements impliquent les acteurs institutionnels, à l’échelle nationale et à l’échelle territoriale, les centres de recherche, les opérateurs privés, les organisations professionnelles ainsi que les ONG.La coordination et la cohérence des politiques /stratégies ont constitué les principaux défis pour la réalisation de ces engagements.236240242243244245246247248249Sujet de discussion : Adaptation et résilience des systèmes de production L’adaptation et la résilience des systèmes de production face aux changements climatiques, touchent plusieurs ODD. Au Maroc, les scénarios climatiques prévoient une hausse des températures, une réduction des précipitations et par conséquent une baisse des disponibilités en eau. Ces manifestations sont déjà ressenties sur les différents types de systèmes production. Pour en tenir compte , ce sujet a été traité dans trois régions retenues. Les discussions ont porté à la fois sur l’adaptation et la résilience des systèmes de production, et la réduction des impacts environnementaux de ces systèmes. Quatre engagements/intentions prioritaires ont été identifiés . Le premier concerne les dispositifs réglementaires, de gouvernance et de coordination. Il a été articulé autour de deux actions . La première action consiste à poursuivre, mettre à niveau et opérationnaliser le dispositif législatif et réglementaire des secteurs de l’eau, changement climatique, transition énergétique, biodiversité, et l’économie circulaire. La seconde action a porté sur le renforcement de la cohérence dans l’élaboration des politiques et stratégies en matière de changement climatique au niveau national et de leur déclinaison territoriale. Le second engagement a porté sur la consolidation des stratégies et programmes associés à la transition agro-écologique, aux moyens de subsistance durables, et au renforcement des dotations et de l’efficience d’utilisation des ressources naturelles. Les actions consistent à : a) diversifier les moyens de mobilisation et de protection des ressources en eau, de réhabilitation des infrastructures hydraulique, et de recharge artificielle des nappes surexploitées ; b) Diffuser les bonnes pratiques agricoles climato-intelligentes et prévenir les effets de l’agriculture intensive sur les écosystèmes ; c) Renforcer les initiatives et actions engagées sur l’optimisation des performances énergétiques et promouvoir les énergies renouvelables tout en veillant à limiter les impacts négatifs ; d) Renforcer les approches participatives associées à la gestion des ressources en eau ; et e) Renforcer les programmes de résilience économique des populations par l’emploi, la protection sociale et la création d’opportunités économiques pour les jeunes. Les domaines d’action du troisième engagement ont concerné la recherche et le transfert de technologie, le renforcement des capacités, et la gestion des connaissances. II a été scindé en quatre actions : a) Soutenir les institutions chargées de la production statistique et des connaissances et assurer l’accès aux données pour les utilisateurs ; b) Renforcer les capacités de recherche nationales et régionales et le transfert de technologies et de pratiques innovantes adaptées aux effets des changements climatiques ; c) Mettre en place des programmes réguliers de renforcement des capacités au profit des décideurs chargés de la formulation des politiques, des structures opérationnelles et de proximité, des organisation professionnelles et des populations locales ; et d) Identifier et promouvoir les pratiques et savoirs traditionnels d’adaptation et de résilience. Le dernier engagement consiste à soutenir les programmes d’anticipation et de prévention des catastrophes naturelles et risque climatiques. Il s’agit d’assurer une veille stratégique en matière de changement climatique ; étendre la portée du programme assurance multirisque climatique ; redynamiser l’observatoire national sur la sécheresse et activer les plans sécheresse ; et promouvoir les nouvelles technologies notamment la digitalisation pour la prévention des risques. L’ensemble de ces engagements implique les parties prenantes relevant de: départements ministériels, Parlement, les centres de recherche ,instituts de formation professionnelle, universités, structures de conseil, chambres d’agriculture, communautés locales, etc. Les défis relevés pour la mise en œuvre des actions portent sur le financement, la coordination, les dotations en ressources humaines ainsi que le transfert et l’adoption des technologies par les utilisateurs.236241242243245246247249251Sujet de discussion : Autonomisation économique des femmes l’autonomisation des femmes ont été annoncées dans l’ODD5 et réaffirmées dans les cibles de sept autres ODD. Pour le cas de l’autonomisation économique, elle intègre trois dimensions, à savoir le renforcement des opportunités économiques ; la participation dans les processus décisionnels économiques ; et l’amélioration des statuts légaux et des droits. Dans le contexte national, des progrès importants ont été enregistrés à travers la constitution de 2011, la promulgation de textes juridiques, et l’intégration de genre dans les stratégies et programmes de développement. En 2020, le Maroc s’est doté d’un programme national d’autonomisation économique des femmes et des filles, à l’horizon 2030, baptisé Maroc-Attamkine. Malgré les efforts déployés, l’autonomisation économique des femmes se heurte à plusieurs défis . En témoignent les indicateurs statistiques attestant d’écarts importants en faveur des hommes. Les actions ont concerné quatre engagements Le premier a porté sur l’environnement politique, institutionnel et de gouvernance et a été scindé autour des actions: a) Réformer le cadre juridique et réglementaire en lien avec l’autonomisation économique des femmes ; b) intégrer le genre et l’autonomisation économique dans tous les stratégies et programmes sectoriels et leur déclinaison territoriale; c) Inscrire l'entrepreneuriale féminin dans les plans de développement régionaux et étendre les dispositifs de formation, de pré-professionnalisation et d’insertion professionnelle selon des démarches adaptées aux besoins des femmes ; et d) Mettre en place des mécanismes incitatifs en faveur des femmes entrepreneuses. Le deuxième engagement vise à doter les femmes de moyens, de connaissances et d’information requis pour l’accès aux opportunités d’emploi, à entrepreneuriale et à l’économie solidaire. Les actions proposées sont : a) Renforcer les programmes de scolarisation des filles et mettre en place un mécanisme de suivi permettant aux élèves non réinscrits d’intégrer une formation d'apprentissage ou professionnelle; b) Mettre en place des dispositifs adaptés sur les offres d’emploi et de formation ; c) Étendre les dispositifs de formation, de pré-professionnalisation et d’insertion professionnelle ; d) Soutenir l’économie solidaire à travers l’accompagnement autour d’unités de production structurées et d’activités génératrices de revenu ; et e) Mettre en place un programme d’accompagnement des coopératives vers le statut entreprise. Le troisième engagement consiste à soutenir les dispositifs de collecte de données, d’éducation et de suivi évaluation. Les actions sont : a) Actualiser les données sur la participation économique des femmes ; b) Renforcer la sensibilisation au niveau des lycées/collèges, pour encourager les filles à opter pour des filières de formation traditionnellement masculines et le développement de l’esprit d'entrepreneuriat ; et c) développer une base de données statistiques sur l’entrepreneuriat féminin au Maroc pour l’observation des opportunités et des contraintes. Le quatrième engagement porte sur la promotion d’un contexte socioculturel favorable. En termes d’actions, il s’agit de : a) Concevoir et mettre en œuvre un programme de sensibilisation du grand public pour transformer les mentalités ; b) Lancer une campagne média sur l'éducation des filles ; c) Illustrer les notions d'égalité H/F dans les manuels scolaires ; d) Institutionnaliser des campagnes de sensibilisation au sein des administrations et des entreprises sur la prévention de discrimination ; e) Renforcer les infrastructures et les services permettant de réduire les charges familiales, et de faciliter l’insertion professionnelle des femmes ; f) Capitaliser sur les expériences réussies. Ces engagements impliquent: acteurs institutionnels , Haut-commissariat au Plan, INDH, observatoires nationaux, Office du Développement de la Coopération, académies régionales, universités et ONG féminines.Le financement, les délais d’adoption des textes de lois , et les contraintes d’ordre socio-culturel sont les défis potentiel relevés lors des concertations.236239241242243244245246248249Sujet de discussion : Pertes, gaspillage et gestion des déchets alimentaires et organiques La question des pertes et gaspillage alimentaires a fait l’objet d’une cible de l’ODD portant sur la consommation et la production durables. Elle a constitué également un moyen pour atteindre les cibles de plusieurs autres ODD. Au Maroc, des estimations récentes ont révélé l’importance des manques à gagner dus aux pertes et au gaspillage alimentaires. Les pertes en post-récoltes des fruits et légumes sont évaluées entre 20 et 40%. Les foyers marocains gaspillent près du tiers de ce qu’ils consomment. Cette problématique commence à se poser et des initiatives ont été lancées depuis 2015 en vue d’élaborer et de mettre en œuvre une stratégie et un plan d’action. Concernant la question des déchets, elle n’a pas fait l’objet d’un ODD spécifique. Néanmoins, 12 cibles dans 7 ODD lui ont été consacrées. Au Maroc, des progrès ont été consentis en matière de gestion des déchets depuis 2006. Ils ont été concrétisés par la promulgation d’un arsenal juridique ainsi que l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre de stratégies et de plans d’action, notamment le programme national de gestion des déchets ménagers. Toutefois, ce secteur se heurte à plusieurs défis: l’indisponibilité du foncier pour la réalisation des décharges contrôlées, le financement, la communication, la sensibilisation, l'éducation , et le contrôle et le suivi . Le taux de tri des matières recyclables se situe aux alentours de 6-8 %. Quatre engagements/intentions prioritaires ont été identifiés autour de ces deux questions lors des concertations tenues . Le premier concerne l’environnement politique, institutionnel et de gouvernance. Il a été articulé autour des actions structurantes suivantes : a) Élaborer des projets législatifs sur les pertes et gaspillage ; b)Renforcer l’arsenal juridique sur les déchets ; et c) Activer la concrétisation de l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre de la stratégie et le plan d’action dédiés aux pertes et gaspillage. Le second engagement a porté sur le renforcement des capacités des chaines de valeur agroalimentaires et du secteur des déchets ainsi que la sensibilisation de la population aux bonnes pratiques. Les actions retenues consistent à appuyer les initiatives de renforcement des capacités des acteurs et à diffuser les connaissances et technologies disponibles ; mettre en œuvre des campagnes de sensibilisation du grand public et au profit des enfants dans les écoles primaires et secondaires. Les domaines d’actions du troisième engagement ont porté sur les programmes de recherche et d’éducation ainsi que la constitution de bases de données et le suivi évaluation, il s’agit de : a) Mettre en place des mécanismes de collecte, de constitution de bases de données et de plateforme de partage des connaissances permettant de quantifier, suivre, et évaluer les progrès réalisés et d’éclairer les décisions des secteurs public et privé, b) Soutenir les investissements dans la recherche pour la mise au point de technologies adaptées aux conditions territoriales et encourager le partenariat public-privé dans ce domaine ; et c) Promouvoir l’introduction de la question des pertes et du gaspillage dans les programmes d’études des universités et des instituts supérieurs ainsi que dans les modules de formation destinés aux professionnels du secteur alimentaire. Le dernier engagement vise à doter les acteurs de moyens pour qu’ils puissent contribuer à la réduction des pertes et gaspillage et à la transition vers une économie circulaire. Ceci à travers la mobilisation des fonds, le soutien des infrastructures, et l’appui aux collectivités territoriales et aux organisations professionnelles ouvrant dans ces domaines. Les parties prenantes identifiées pour la mise en œuvre de ces engagements comprennent: acteurs institutionnels , collectivités territoriales, opérateurs privés, organisations professionnelles , ONG. La mobilisation des fonds, l’adhésion des acteurs, et la coordination constituent les principaux défis potentiels relevés pour la concrétisation de ces engagements.

2021-08-05 14:41:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32335/9398193

45733522233813326421525

The principles were briefly recalled at the beginning of the meeting, and clarified as part of the invitations to main speakers and participants, as well as in the way the dialogue-agenda and topics were selectedIn particular, we embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by selecting the main speakers from different food systems groups; and the principles of evidence-based and complexity by basing the dialogue on the results of the SASS multi-disciplinary research project that involved many stakeholders from Kenya and TanzaniaThe Principles are constructive so early sharing at the level on invitations and agenda-setting can help

Yes

234238239240241242243244246249251The Dialogue was titled ‘Neglected Species, sustainable food systems: experiences from Africa & lessons for research methods’ and its overarching theme was how to improve the sustainability of food systems through diversification using African indigenous vegetables as a case study and an exemplar of the opportunities/challenges for economic/social/environmental sustainability of the wider agri-food systems. After a short introduction and framing session, the Dialogue had three major focuses: (i) The environmental value of diversification in agricultural production: This focused on research findings from the SASS project about three local agri-food systems in Kenya and Tanzania (ecdpm.org/sass). This focus area endeavored to shine light on whether this diversification of agricultural production, and specifically the better integration of African indigenous vegetables, can increase the environmental sustainability of agri-food systems in East Africa. (ii) Health and nutrition challenges: This focused on social sustainability and predominantly human health. There was a specific attention on women, as they are considered vulnerable within society but also, they play a central position within the food system as nutritional agents through their role as a pillar within the household. (iii) The small-farmer as a driver of sustainability through rural-urban linkages in agri-food production and supply chain: This focused on the role of small farmers for improving economic sustainability and other sustainable development practices.235238239240241242243244245246249251(i) The environmental value of diversification in agricultural production: • A multi- and interdisciplinary research approach is essential for a nuanced understanding of the agri-food system. • Indigenous local vegetables are less demanding in resources when compared to staple crops. • Local agri-biodiversity should be promoted as it improves ecosystem services, such as pollination. • Indigenous local vegetables and staple crops can effectively be utilized and farmed together but synthetic pesticides associated with staple crops have negative impacts on the biodiversity, although this can be avoided or mitigated through the use of natural pesticides. • African indigenous vegetables are predominately cultivated for self or family consumption in urban areas while market demand drives the dominance of staple crops in rural areas. A majority of farmers use natural and traditional practices, but larger farms have increasingly employed intensive farming practices. • Pollinators’ richness decreases as landscape increases intensity due to urbanization and large-scale commercial farming. • The practice of breeding for uniformity has led to a spread of monoculture farming. There is a need to address this and establish farmer-orientated agricultural systems, particularly in relation to seed selection. Seed breeding for diversity needs to be promoted. (ii) Health and the nutrition challenges: • Biodiversity within the agri-food system needs to be approached through a health and nutritional framing. • Malnutrition, especially amongst children in East Africa, is still extremely high and urgently needs to be addressed. African indigenous vegetables can play a key role. • Only 16 percent of the sample consumed a portion of African indigenous vegetables. There was a higher consumption of indigenous vegetables observed in urban areas when compared to rural areas. • Empowering women through education can enhance their own health but can also have a positive feedback in the health of their offspring. This education can also reduce several forms of inequalities faced by women including gender, health, social, and economic inequalities. • Policy exchange of experiences between different actors is extremely beneficial. (iii) The small-farmer as a driver of sustainability through rural-urban linkages in agri-food production and supply chain: • In Kenya and Tanzania, there is a large range of farmer typology, varying with size of land and levels of commercialization. Income diversification and precarity leads to migration to urban centers and strengthening of rural-urban linkages. Created indexes for sustainable farming practices and waste management. • Social organizations are common and play a key role in helping small farmers. They are associated with risk and profit sharing, improved access to credit and capital, improved income security, and increased access to education and training. • Diversification of production and marketing channels needs to be recognized as important driver of economic development and biodiversity preservation. • The conventional food system is in crisis – disconnected from the environment, society, and material realities of small farmers. There needs to be new business models and governance structures to reconnect producers and consumers. • It was noted that it is not appropriate to use European categorisations of producers and consumers in the African context.236238239240241242243244245248249The outcomes from the environmental value of diversification in agricultural production topic included: • A four-step food systems approach should be utilized for a holistic understanding and improvement of food systems: firstly a food system analysis, followed by sustainability analysis, and then a look at the political economy of the system; all of which iteratively aimed at designing -with local stakeholders- realistic and context-based pathways towards more sustainability. • Researchers need to focus and undertake studies on indigenous crops with a view to improving and developing the sustainability of local food systems, including via in-situ experiments on the resilience of the vegetables. • Value chain specific multi-stakeholder platforms should be established in order to build consensus and strengthen coordination and governance along the whole chain. • There is a need to subsidize the distribution of indigenous vegetable seeds to promote biodiversity. • Quotas for indigenous vegetables and smallholders should be introduced in public procurement schemes. • Pollinator-friendly practices and policies are needed to mitigate the impact of agricultural intensification and urbanization. • Dietary diversity is essential for tackling both malnutrition and over-nutrition and for this diversification, indigenous vegetables will (and already are in the case of Kenya and Tanzania) play a central role. • It is incumbent to progress towards a decentralized agri-food system where the farmer can play a participatory role in diversification. • Biodiversity conservation and diversification within the agri-food system should be approached through a health and nutritional framing. • Europe and Africa can mutually learn from their experiences: alongside cooperation projects between Europe and Africa, there needs to be a transformation and diversification within the food systems in Europe as well236238239240241242243244246249251The outcomes from the health and the nutrition challenges topic included: • African indigenous vegetables have more micronutrients when compared to the majority of common staple and cash crops. Further, they contain natural cancer prevention. • Intervention in and education of the wider population is needed to raise awareness of the link between food and health. • Competent authorities (e.g. health professionals, dietitians, researchers) should engage in targeted food education to improve the food habits of women and to better advise women on matters related to food and nutrition. • Policymakers should promote clear food labeling which outlines nutritional information to stimulate consumer knowledge. • There should be a promotion of diversification of diets due to the evidence that diversification aids with combatting under nutrition and hidden hunger. • The need to promote the exchange of best practices for social inclusion of women and improving women’s place in the food system.236238239240241243244245246248249251The small-farmer as a driver of economic sustainability through rural-urban linkages in agri-food production and supply chain • Policymakers need to take an integrated approach as environmentally sustainable practices can only be implemented and thrive if paired with socially and economically sustainable supports (e.g. active education policies and market-integration mechanisms targeting commercially orientated small farmers). • Specifically, small farmers need educational opportunities to learn about good agricultural practices as well as the proper employment and disposal of chemical fertilizers. • There needs to be increased waste management infrastructure to support local farmers. • Policymakers need to promote indigenous vegetable production and sustainable practices. • Digital technology should be utilized to support and connect consumers to producers. • There is a need for policymakers and industry to develop a new integrated, cross-sectoral food policy. • There needs to be a reconfiguration of the food system through the relations between the market, state, and farmers towards political and economic democratization of food. • While reinforcing sustainable local food systems, policymakers and those working within the agri-food sector must be wary not to create local traps or elitist food communities. • Democratization can come about through the introduction of food plans and food councils on local levels in order to ensure effective policy and social inclusion.237246249Over the course of the Dialogue, there was only a small point of divergence about the balance between the efforts to improve global governance and policies versus territoriali dynamics. Some participants stressed the centrality of tackling climate change at global level, others preferred to focus on the problems within food systems at local level.

2021-08-05 15:19:17205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25198/79

2460471414711011812802720314015533029146432718208422813184375120151102824

-Se convocó de manera amplia y pública a los sectores y partes interesadas vinculadas a los Sistemas Alimentarios en Guatemala, buscando integrar inclusivamente a nuevos actores que no habían formado parte del proceso. -Se socializó de manera anticipada el contenido y objetivos de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, como de los resultados del Primer Diálogo Nacional y del Segundo Diálogo Nacional. -Se desarrolló un pre-registro, para caracterizar y conocer sobre el participante, sus intereses, temas de intervención y región, así como las prioridades de temas en el marco de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios. -Se incentivó la participación efectiva de los involucrados con herramientas didácticas para incluir sus ideas y conceptualizaciones, respetando las opiniones y aportes que cada uno podía brindar. -Se reconoció la amplitud de puntos que debían analizarse para poder garantizar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios, acordando que los retos que se enfrentan como país necesitan de la conjunción de esfuerzos de todas las partes interesadas.-El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores en representación del gobierno de Guatemala priorizó el Eje de Acción No.1 “Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos”. Según los temas abordados en los dos diálogos anteriores, se desarrollaron propuestas a partir de ellos. -Para impulsar los procesos de diálogo intersectoriales se definieron cuatro grupos de trabajo. Este fue el espacio en dónde se aplicó con mayor énfasis los principios de la convención, ya que se utilizaron los siguientes métodos: -Se tuvo representación de todos los departamentos del país, así como la mayoría de los sectores y partes interesadas que describe la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios. -Se involucró a los participantes en la construcción de la posición de país, definiendo las propuestas más importantes del país y que pudieran priorizar las temáticas más urgentes que Guatemala debe atender. -Se motivó a que las partes interesadas trabajaran de forma intersectorial, buscando que el diálogo complementara las soluciones que cada uno contribuyó en el proceso.-Es importante poder incluir las distintas perspectivas dentro del diálogo de los actores de cada sector y grupo interesado puedan aportar, permitiendo el intercambio y aporte que las labores de cada uno pueden complementar. -Por otro lado, es importante tomar en cuenta que la participación sea en igualdad de condiciones para todos los involucrados y que se les brinde anticipadamente la información necesaria para desempeñarse de la mejor forma durante el diálogo.

Yes

234238243244245246247248249250251En este Tercer Diálogo Nacional en seguimiento a los diálogos anteriores, se priorizó el Eje de Acción No. 1, denominado “Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos” el cual se basó en los insumos desarrollados previamente en los diálogos para encontrar las propuestas, prioridades y soluciones para los sistemas alimentarios del país e integrar estos insumos en la posición de país que Guatemala presentará en la Pre-Cumbre y Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios. Este tuvo como objetivo diseñar e implementar un proceso que permita a las partes interesadas intervenir en el desarrollo de vías hacia unos Sistemas Alimentarios Nacionales Sostenibles en el marco de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, acorde a la Agenda 2030, para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Para esta tercera etapa se definieron los siguientes resultados: Resultado 1: Socializar los resultados consolidados de los diálogos de la Fase 1 y de la Fase 2. Resultado 2: Identificar las intenciones y los compromisos de los sectores y partes interesadas que pueden aportar a la sostenibilidad de los Sistemas Alimentarios en Guatemala. Resultado 3: Retroalimentar la propuesta de posición de país para presentar en la Pre-Cumbre y la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios. • El proceso de Dialogo parte de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, 2021; • La construcción de una posición de país para presentar en la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, 2021; • El fortalecimiento de los procesos que ya se están impulsando en el país y; • La integración y búsqueda de las percepciones, posiciones, acciones, opiniones y pensamientos de los participantes. Inicialmente la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios presenta los siguientes lineamientos para el desarrollo de posiciones de país: • Valorar los propósitos de los sistemas alimentarios actuales. • Clarificar y acordar las expectativas sobre los sistemas alimentarios en los próximos diez años. • Identificar los cambios que deben producirse y las decisiones que deben trabajarse en los tres próximos años • Definir la forma en que las partes interesadas pueden trabajar bien conjuntamente • Resaltar y reforzar la conexión entre la hoja de ruta y otros documentos de planificación nacional • Indicar los principales hitos a lo largo del calendario de la hoja de ruta. Los participantes fueron distribuidos de manera mixta en 4 grupos de trabajo, en donde se generó el proceso de retroalimentación de la Posición de País a partir de los siguientes temas: 1) Programas Sociales; 2) Producción local de alimentos saludables y nutritivos; 3) Educación para el consumo de alimentos saludables; 4) Vinculación de producción local con consumidores; 5) Trabajo multisectorial por el desarrollo de los sistemas alimentarios.235238243244245246247248249250251Fortalecimiento de los programas de protección social •Diversificar los cultivos que ofrezcan más opciones saludables a los consumidores y reduzcan la vulnerabilidad que afecta a los monocultivos. •Desarrollar un Plan de Resiliencia a diferentes escalas. •Priorizar la asistencia de estos programas según indicadores de vulnerabilidad. •Fortalecer el trabajo de las instituciones rectoras de los programas sociales para que su enfoque sea integral y generen calidad de vida •Promover las transferencias condicionadas a escala familiar como una herramienta que cree capacidades y fortalezca la economía familiar. •Abordar las situaciones de emergencia y eventos climáticos en la planificación de los programas de protección social •Desarrollar estrategias de almacenamiento y reservas post cosecha administradas por los miembros de la comunidad •Brindar seguimiento y monitoreo a la ejecución de los programas, generar trazabilidad •Priorizar a la niñez dentro de los programas sociales y definir la situación del adulto mayor dentro de estos •Vincular las emergencias alimentarias, la sostenibilidad y la creación de nuevas vías de desarrollo •Incluir a otros sectores en el desarrollo de los programas para poder ampliar el monitoreo Fortalecimiento de la producción local de alimentos saludables Fomentar el apoyo institucional que permita que la producción local alcance nuevos mercados •Diversificar la producción agrícola •Incentivar la innovación y utilización de nuevas tecnologías •Implementar estrategias de incentivos agrícolas que compensen y promuevan las buenas prácticas •Empoderamiento de la mujer en su papel dentro de la producción de alimentos •Promoción de la descentralización de la cadena de valor y establecer centros periurbanos •Fomentar la producción de alimentos sanos, nutritivos y orgánicos y promover la comercialización de productos que provengan de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles •Impulsar la aprobación de iniciativas que fortalezcan la agricultura familiar •Promover el uso correcto de los recursos hídricos y el manejo sostenible dotando la infraestructura necesaria •Adaptar las estrategias de sostenibilidad a la prevención de los eventos climáticos para abastecer acorde a las necesidades de las comunidades •Promover el traslado de conocimientos y capacidades técnicas para las comunidades por parte de sectores no gubernamentales Fomentar la educación sobre consumo de alimentos saludables • Es necesario establecer espacios de diálogo a nivel comunitario, los cuáles sean manejados de forma horizontal para que la comunidad pueda tomar sus propias decisiones • Reforzar los principios de la Gran Cruzada Nacional por la Nutrición hacia estrategias de largo plazo que puedan garantizar estilos de vida saludables •Fomentar acciones afirmativas que incrementen la conciencia de los consumidores y les permitan tomar decisiones informadas sobre su consumo de alimentos •Fortalecer las capacidades de los productores para comercializar alimentos sanos y de alta calidad nutritiva • Promocionar el consumo de productos locales sanos, así como de una alimentación nutritiva • Evaluación y actualización de las guías y materiales relacionados al tema par readecuar los esfuerzos y mejorar los resultados • Posicionar la pertinencia cultural en el centro de la efectiva educación de una alimentación saludable. • Fomentar la estimulación temprana y educación alimentaria a partir de los 6 meses. •Desarrollo de programas educativos con participación intersectorial sobre el consumo y compra de alimentos sanos y nutritivos • Incluir la pertenencia cultural y adaptar los materiales educativos o de cualquier índole según la diversidad cultural de las comunidades del país. •Evitar la duplicidad de esfuerzos al fomentar el diálogo y colaboración de los actores involucrados. • Promoción y concientización acerca de buenos hábitos de consumo, cambios de comportamiento y buenas prácticas Vincular la producción local con consumidores nacionales •Brindar asistencia técnica y financiera a los pequeños productores para desarrollar su producción e integrarse a los mercados locales. •Garantizar la inclusión cultural al nivel comunitario y nacional. •Priorizar la trazabilidad tanto de la producción local como de los programas que asistan a los productores. •Trabajar en conjunto con las Organizaciones de Padres de Familia y los pequeños productores para crear sinergias que beneficien a la comunidad como en los programas de alimentación escolar. •Abordar la desnutrición sin dejar la malnutrición como una problemática secundaria. •Enfatizar los riesgos de la vulnerabilidad climática en la producción agrícola. •Promover la producción y consumo de alimentos saludables, así como asistir a su comercialización. •Apoyar por medio de asociaciones a los pequeños productores para un mejor aprovechamiento del excedente con el •Integrar a los pequeños productores con la cadena de valor •Conectar a los pequeños productores, los mercados locales y la economía familiar. Trabajo multisectorial por el desarrollo de los sistemas alimentarios •El fortalecimiento institucional es el primer gran paso hacia la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. •Promover la participación de todos los sectores involucrados directa e indirectamente en los sistemas alimentarios en garantizar su sostenibilidad y la erradicación de la desnutrición, el hambre y la malnutrición. •Fortalecer a las instituciones que brindan la asistencia y financiera del sector agropecuario a través de alianzas público-privadas.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Fortalecimiento de los programas de protección social • Apoyo financiero en la producción de alimentos a través de las transferencias condicionadas a escala familiar. • Promoción de la participación de las organizaciones locales en la administración de silos comunales y del manejo post cosecha de alimentos. • Diversificación de cultivos para tener opciones secundarias que apoyen la calidad de alimentación. • Fortalecimiento de los programas sociales del MSPAS articulado al MAGA para abordar la problemática de manera integral. • Procurar que los programas sociales no sean asistencialistas, sino que generen sostenibilidad en la calidad de vida de las personas. • Promoción de coordinación interinstitucional para la prestación de servicios públicos y evitar la duplicidad de los programas de protección social. • Consideración de indicadores de vulnerabilidad social y ambiental en los programas de protección social a escala nacional. Fortalecimiento de la producción local de alimentos saludables • Fomento de cadenas certificadas que promuevan alimentos orgánicos y ecológicos, sanos y nutritivos. •Fomento de centros de producción periurbanos para acercar los alimentos a los consumidores. •Desarrollo de una planificación de producción familiar para abordar las malas prácticas agrícolas. • Aplicación de para eficientizar la producción de alimentos y su diversificación. •Impulsar la gestión integrada de recursos hídricos que dote infraestructura para los sistemas de riego destinados a la producción de alimentos. • Promover la transferencia de conocimientos de extensión rural con investigación aplicada por parte del ICTA, academia y cooperantes. •Fortalecimiento de emprendimientos y productores locales que aseguran alimentos para el consumo y la comercialización del excedente. • Fomentar el cambio de comportamiento en el consumo de alimentos, priorizando la comercialización de productos provenientes de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Esto para reducir costos de campañas de divulgación y denominación de origen de los productos nacionales Fomentar la educación sobre consumo de alimentos saludables • Promoción de acciones educativas, con participación intersectorial, en el desarrollo de las estrategias que promuevan la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios y el desarrollo de una vida saludable. • Desarrollo acciones educativas con pertinencia cultural promoviendo el consumo de alimentos sanos y tradicionales de las comunidades locales y los pueblos indígenas. •Actualización de guías alimentarias para niños y niñas menores de 2 años del MSPAS, que promueven la educación alimenticia y previene la desnutrición crónica y aguda. • Desarrollo de una estrategia de comunicación sobre cambio de comportamiento articulado a la “Gran Cruzada por la Nutrición”. • Promoción de trabajo conjunto entre actores locales y nacionales para evitar duplicidad de esfuerzos. • Promover la certificación y uso adecuado de productos químicos para evitar contaminación de alimentos para el consumo. Vincular la producción local con consumidores nacionales • Articulación de pequeños productos agrícolas a la cadena de valor alimentación, brindando un valor agregado a los productos de alimentos. •Transversalizar la vulnerabilidad climática como un riesgo en la producción de alimentos, la cual puede transformarse en hambre estacional para las poblaciones vulnerables en la ruralidad. • Brindar asistencia técnica y financiera a pequeños productores en ser proveedores de alimentos en el programa de alimentación escolar. • Impulsar alianzas con organizaciones locales para promover la comercialización de alimentos saludables. • Promover la comercialización de productos saludables que aplican buenas prácticas agrícolas, para la generación de ingresos económicos para los productores. Trabajo multisectorial por el desarrollo de los sistemas alimentarios • Promover el trabajo conjunto de MAGA, MINEDUC, MSPAS, y SAT para asistir técnica y financieramente los productos agropecuarios. • Promover el trabajo conjunto de programas privados y públicas de protección social.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Fortalecimiento de los programas de protección social • Diseño e implementación de un programa de protección social que incluya el abordaje de atención en situación de emergencias. • Articulación de los programas de protección social con la producción de alimentos, fomentando la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios. • Desarrollo de una estrategia de reservas y producción de alimentos: Manejo de huertos y de traspatio a escala familiar y comunitario, como un sistema de almacenamiento de alimentos ante cualquier evento climático o emergencia. •Desarrollo de acciones que vinculen la atención a emergencias alimentarias, la recuperación de la vida y la generación de alternativas de desarrollo. Fortalecimiento de la producción local de alimentos saludables • Fomento del uso de la información climática para prevenir o adaptar los sistemas alimentarios para abastecer la producción a las comunidades locales. • Fomento de la participación de la mujer en la producción de alimentos y en el desarrollo de reservas y almacenamiento de alimentos antes los eventos climáticos extremos. •Diseño, producción y monitoreo de aljibes, para fomentar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios. • Asignar financiamiento al plan estratégico del MAGA, para fomentar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentación y la producción integral de alimentos saludables e inocuos. • Diseño e implementación de un incentivo agrícola impulsando la aplicación de buenas prácticas agropecuarias. • Promover el diseño y aprobación de iniciativas legislativas vinculadas al fortalecimiento de la Agricultura familiar, para asegurar la producción y acceso de alimentos. • Promover el diseño y aprobación de iniciativas legislativas vinculadas a la gestión integral del agua, para asegurar el riego vinculada a la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios Fomentar la educación sobre consumo de alimentos saludables • Fortalecimiento de la regularización para ofertar y comercializar alimentos. • Promoción de consumo de producción local de alimentos, más allá del alimento escolar. •Fortalecimiento de capacidades de los productores sobre comercialización de alimentos basado en calidad, salubridad y sanidad de estos. • Fomento de una alimentación saludables desde la edad de 6 meses. •Articulación de esfuerzos interinstitucionales en el desarrollo de campañas de sensibilización sobre el consumo de alimentos sanos desde la escala familiar. • Invertir y articular Estimulación temprana y educación alimentaria. •Desarrollo de campañas de divulgación para fomentar las buenas prácticas de alimentación. • Promoción de una adecuada alimentación, previniendo enfermedades a la inadecuada alimentación y la desnutrición. Vincular la producción local con consumidores nacionales •Desarrollo de una plataforma para vincular la producción local, con la junta escolar y la estructura familiar, para el fortalecimiento de la economía familiar. •Priorizar el apoyo a pequeños productores para integrarse a la cadena de valor, diversificando productos más allá de los granos básicos. Trabajo multisectorial por el desarrollo de los sistemas alimentarios •Provisión de recursos técnicos y financieros públicos y privados fomentando las alianzas intersectoriales. •Abordar y combatir el Hambre Estacional articulando esfuerzos entre sectores y partes interesadas públicas y privadas. •Ordenamiento y trabajo multisectorial donde el ejecutivo es actor y aporta a la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Fortalecimiento de los programas de protección social • Priorizar la atención temporal de familias vulnerables (por temas estructurales y medio ambiente) con los Programas de Protección social, en lo que se alcanza la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios. • Desarrollo de un Plan de Resiliencia Multianual, desde la escala familiar, comunitaria, departamental y regional. •Eficientizar la ejecución financiera, como la identificación de beneficiarios para un adecuado funcionamiento de los Programas de Protección Social. • Desarrollo de un sistema de monitoreo, donde se incluya a las organizaciones de sociedad civil, incluyendo la georreferenciación de beneficiarios, para una mejora continua de los Programas de Protección Social. •Fortalecimiento y armonización de las competencias interinstitucionales, para evitar duplicidad de funciones Fortalecimiento de la producción local de alimentos saludables • Promoción de los sistemas alimentarios articulado al manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales y así evitar el cambio de uso de suelo por agricultura. • Diversificar la producción agrícola, considerando especies nativas alimenticias con alto valor nutricional. • Promover a los productores que oferten la comercialización de alimento en los eventos públicos realizados por instituciones públicas. • Fomento de la descentralización de servicios de la cadena de valor, enfocándose a los servicios de logística y transporte. • Garantizar la definición de áreas destinadas para la producción de alimentos y fomentar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios para las familias y comunidades locales. • Desarrollo de un análisis financiero para adjudicar inversión a los sistemas alimentarios a través de incentivos agrícolas. Fomentar la educación sobre consumo de alimentos saludables • Socialización de los programas de incentivos forestales para un mayor aprovechamiento y beneficio de las familias. • Desarrollo e implementación de campañas integrales sobre el consumo de alimentos saludables con participación de los actores públicos y no públicos. • Desarrollo de un plan educativo formal e informal sobre consumo y compra de alimentación saludable. • Legislación en torno a temas de información nutricional para incrementar la conciencia por parte del consumidor y la toma de decisiones informadas. • Adaptación de todo el material educativo a la diversidad lingüística y cultural del país Vincular la producción local con consumidores nacionales • Debe brindarse apoyo técnico con enfoque de inclusión cultural hacia los pequeños productos para que puedan surtir adecuadamente a las Organizaciones de Padres de Familia. • En la coyuntura de la pandemia los alimentos escolares están siendo distribuidos a la familia completa, lo que puede mermar el impacto sobre la alimentación de los niños. • La vinculación de pequeños productores debe enfocarse en mercados locales y por medio de asociaciones impulsar su comercialización a otros mercados regionales, para aprovechar los excedentes. • El uso de los excedentes también debe propiciar dinámicas de procesamiento para generación de valor agregado. • Se debe enseñar a valorar los productos de la tierra desde un enfoque de salud, abordando no solo la desnutrición sino la malnutrición. • Los subsidios deben considerarse enfocados en apoyar la producción local para que puedan conectarse a las cadenas de valor. • La innovación y el uso de tecnología es crucial para el desarrollo de los productores. Trabajo multisectorial por el desarrollo de los sistemas alimentarios • Por medio del trabajo coordinado, se pueden maximizar los recursos institucionales. • Las transferencias buscan fortalecer los sistemas productivos a través del apoyo a los pequeños productores. • Es importante evaluar y redirigir las acciones para lograr los impactos necesarios para alcanzar los objetivos necesarios para alcanzar la sostenibilidad. • Las remesas condicionadas deben estar condicionadas a que las familias vayan implementando buenas prácticas agrícolas para mejorar su productividad y sus ingresos. Se debe pasar del subsidio al crédito.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Fortalecimiento de los programas de protección social • Un tema que demanda agilidad en territorios remotos, por ello es necesario incluir el acompañamiento de las personas que reciben la protección social para que no sea solo de forma vertical. Se requieren programas de comunicación. • El seguimiento a temas de protección social es un factor clave para la trazabilidad de los usuarios. • Protección social puede quedarse corto, es un concepto más amplio y demanda acciones sostenidas para ser efectivo. • Ante la falta de un sistema de protección social en el país es necesario reforzar la coordinación y la gestión de información para evaluar y tener un monitoreo de los cambios de patrones y conducta. • La alimentación de la niñez debe ser un elemento para diferenciar en materia de protección social. • Es necesario conocer la situación del adulto mayor dentro de los programas sociales. Fortalecimiento de la producción local de alimentos saludables • Considerar el factor de innovación para la producción local y para establecer competencias a nivel económico. Guatemala tiene productos ricos en valores nutricionales que deben abrirse a nuevos mercados internacionales Fomentar la educación sobre consumo de alimentos saludables • Lo cultural es esencial: territorio, beneficiario y el rol de la madre, son piezas clave para hacer efectiva una educación en alimentos saludables. • Fomentar espacios de diálogo a nivel comunitario para la toma de decisión de los mismos miembros de la comunidad y esto garantice la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios, así como fomentar la educación y nutrición. • Es un planteamiento muy vertical, se requiere trabajar con las personas, formar espacios de diálogo a nivel comunitario para la comprensión e internalización, y de allí tomar sus propias decisiones, esto le dará sostenibilidad a largo plazo. • La Gran Cruzada Nacional por la Nutrición tiene los principios enfocados en cambio de comportamiento, es necesario reforzarlos para que la estrategia sea a largo plazo. • La documentación y el sistema de información sobre el cambio de comportamiento es clave para poder medir si hay impacto en las acciones de las personas. • El enfoque preventivo es necesario reforzarlo en el pénsum de estudios para fomentar el cambio de comportamiento de la niñez en crecimiento. • Acciones afirmativas para bajar el nivel de azúcar de los productos que se venden en las tiendas y que son de fácil acceso para la población. Se requiere seguir la tendencia mundial de aplicar una legislación al respecto para las empresas productoras Vincular la producción local con consumidores nacionales • Promover programas sociales para las poblaciones más vulnerables a través de los cuales su producción pueda fortalecer su presencia en el mercado local. • Enfatizar la trazabilidad para garantizar que las acciones en los territorios sean accesibles Trabajo multisectorial por el desarrollo de los sistemas alimentarios • Incluir como sexto punto el fortalecimiento institucional para poder conocer la viabilidad de respuesta de las instituciones del Estado ante las necesidades que surjan de los sistemas alimentarios. • Mejorar la articulación entre institucionalidad pública y de diversos sectores. • Promover la participación efectiva de todos los sectores. • La investigación sobre sistemas alimentarios es importante, cómo involucrar a la academia. • Integrar a nivel de gobernanza y todos los niveles la SINASAN, CONASAN para poder tener una colaboración efectiva. • Revisión de los presupuestos, planes y metas a nivel nacional para poder conocer de mejor forma la planificación a corto, mediano y largo plazo, así como los resultados esperados.237238243244245246247248249250251Durante el desarrollo del Tercer Diálogo Nacional, se identificaron las siguientes recomendaciones por parte de los grupos de trabajo. Desde el Grupo 1, se destacó entre una de las mayores áreas de divergencia con la implementación de los programas sociales y su sostenibilidad a mediano y largo plazo. Estos programas de protección social deben de ser temporales y lo que se debe buscar es la graduación de las familias beneficiarias de estos programas a partir de hacer sostenibles los sistemas de seguridad. Se consideró la fusión y replanteamiento de algunas de las temáticas priorizadas, al considerar que se complementaban entre sí. Desde el Grupo 2, se consideró que los aspectos propuestos para la estructura de posición de país deben considerarse y agregar algunas otras más que están en este diálogo y las cuales se deben incluir dentro de los documentos que se entreguen al finalizar el proceso. Entre ellos destacaron, la revisión de los programas sociales con aportes sustantivos hacia los sistemas alimentarios y también tomar en cuenta la identificación de la doble carga de la malnutrición y no solamente hablar de uno de los aspectos Desde el Grupo 3, se planteó que, al momento de diseñar planes de protección social para la población con mayor vulnerabilidad, se consideren las transferencias condicionadas para que éstas puedan incluir un financiamiento pero que vaya dirigido a la producción de alimentos. Esto en aras de cambiar el enfoque y que estas intervenciones no sean asistencialistas, sino que se conviertan intervenciones que tengan un abordaje más integral. Además, se propuso ampliar a un mayor tipo de alimentos la cosecha y almacenamiento. Desde el Grupo 4, se destacó la gestión de información y monitoreo. Esto debido a la importancia de darle seguimiento y poder evaluar el enfoque de protección social según el ciclo de vida y poder verificar los impactos positivos y resultados de los programas que forman parte de las políticas públicas. Se considera importante incluir un sexto componente relacionado al fortalecimiento institucional dado que la viabilidad debe ser tomada en cuenta en lo que concierne a la capacidad de respuesta desde la institucionalidad del Estado.

2021-08-05 15:27:45205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14337/41

521112623111168

The Food Policy for Canada, a roadmap to a healthier and more sustainable food system, is built upon extensive multi-stakeholder engagement with a unifying theme of “Everyone at the Table!”. The Principles of Engagement for the Food System Summit are aligned with the Food Policy for Canada’s guiding principles and the approach to stakeholder engagement. Preparation for this member-state Dialogue involved broad consultation across multiple federal government departments at all stages of planning, from conceptualization through to implementation and event management. This encouraged the identification of diverse perspectives across the food system relevant to the topic and inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the invitation list for the Dialogue.The overall theme of the Dialogue was framed from the perspective of collective and collaborative action on food loss and waste. Discussion group topics were developed following a review of reports from Canadian organizations, approaches used successfully in other countries, and discussion across federal officials from several departments. Participants were assigned to discussion groups to ensure a balanced mix of stakeholder groups across the food system. Government of Canada officials acting as facilitators and note-takers were guided to play a neutral role, neither leading the discussion towards select outcomes nor challenging the ideas raised by participants, but instead asking questions to help participants bring forward their own ideas and perspectives and ensuring that all voices are heard. Special attention was paid to the use of Chatham House Rule to ensure that all participants could share perspectives openly.Adopting the principles of engagement, based on diversity, inclusion, respect and collaboration, are helpful in designing a meaningful Dialogue and ensuring constructive discussions among a diverse set of stakeholders and perspectives.

Yes

234Food loss and waste is a complex, dynamic challenge and all food system actors have a role to play. While many are taking action, stakeholders have identified the need for a more coordinated, cohesive approach in Canada. There are a multitude of reasons that food loss and waste is generated throughout the food system, including lack of awareness and quantification, operational inefficiencies, relationships between supply chain partners, quality standards, inadequate transportation and storage, inaccurate forecasting and inventory management. A collaborative approach is needed to disrupt the acceptance of food loss and waste and to prevent it at the source wherever possible while avoiding unintended consequences of shifting the problem up- or down-stream in the supply chain. Where prevention is not feasible, there are missed economic and social opportunities when food is discarded, as well as environmental consequences (e.g. landfill methane emissions). While the development of innovative solutions to recapture the lost value of food loss and waste are being stimulated through the Government of Canada’s Food Waste Reduction Challenge, collaborations and partnerships are needed to connect innovators with food supply chain stakeholders to increase awareness and adoption of these solutions. The objective of this Dialogue was to bring together diverse stakeholders and perspectives to identify specific mechanisms that can foster collaboration on reducing food loss and waste across Canada’s food system.235Participants representing diverse perspective and roles in Canada’s food system agreed that food loss and waste is an important food system issue to be addressed. In recognizing the truly systemic nature of the issue, participants reflected that all stakeholders and consumers have a role to play and that collaborative, cross-sectoral approaches are required to effect meaningful change. It was also noted that there is a complex set of interrelated factors that result in the generation and disposal of food loss and waste. Therefore, multifactorial solutions are required that can be tailored to each stage of the food system – there is no silver bullet solution. In tackling food loss and waste, participants noted the need for a culture change, from farm to fork, that no longer accepts food loss and waste. Another common theme to emerge is the need to prioritize source reduction efforts to help prevent the generation of food loss and waste. Nevertheless, noting the magnitude of the problem and the inevitability of some forms of food loss and waste, participants noted the opportunity to deploy innovative technologies and processes to utilize food loss and waste as a resource. Engaging discussions amongst the enthusiastic set of Dialogue participants yielded a number of note-worthy ideas to advance collaboration on food loss and waste reduction, including the development of national reduction targets, a collective strategy/roadmap, a common understanding and measurement framework, public-private partnerships, incentives for the adoption of innovative solutions, and hubs or networks that consolidate efforts around communications, research/data, innovation, and best practices. Their ideas are detailed in the following section under discussion topics/themes.236In discussion groups of up to 10 individuals representing diverse aspects of Canada’s food system, participants discussed their perspectives and brainstormed ways to foster collaboration on food loss and waste under four themes: Building Awareness and Motivating Change; Mobilizing Commitment and Collective Action; Empowering Action with Evidence; and Stimulating Innovation and Adoption. Building Awareness and Motivating Change Participants reflected the need for a “culture change” from the current acceptance of food loss and waste, both among food supply chain actors as well as households. It was noted that while consumers are often the focus of education campaigns, there is a need to communicate to/empower all stages of supply chain and connect with cross-sectoral partners who can use the “waste”. Participants raised a number of important considerations as well as tactics for more effectively communicating about food loss and waste: • The importance of transparency for consumers and the opportunity to capitalize on food loss and waste reduction can help food businesses build consumer trust. On the other hand, it was noted that consumers deal with a lot of misinformation and marketing claims, and cautioned against food loss and waste reduction becoming “another misleading marketing claim.” The opportunity to use digital mobile technologies, e.g. QR code, could be used to communicate with consumers could be explored. • Beyond awareness of food loss and waste, there is a need to shift consumer perception and increase acceptance of upcycled food products as healthy and acceptable options. There is a negative perception that surplus edible food is only for “poor people”. • Best Before Date labelling is misunderstood. Consumers and organizations are concerned about food safety concerns and liability, even though these dates are not “a safety mark” but rather a “quality mark”. Foods can safely be consumed after the best before date. • Social media campaigns can raise awareness as well as profile results of food loss and waste reduction efforts. However, using the example of a recent municipal-level household awareness initiative, campaigns can effect short-lived behavioural change, and there is a need to identify means to achieve sustained behavioural change. • Guidance for households to reduce food waste should be convenient and easy to digest. Positive and funny tips can be an effective tool, as can tailored messaging for youth (e.g. at school). • Improving consumer food literacy can help consumers use more parts of a plant or animal that are edible and can be delicious. For example, 30 years ago few people in North America ate chicken wings but they are now an accepted/popular food item. • Improving consumer food skills on how to use their “food waste” can help them avoid waste. For example, using carrot tops in soup. • Making food waste visible can be an effective tactic, e.g. showing pictures of the volumes of ham, cheese, turkey that are discarded. • When communicating with food processors, manufacturers and distributers, who are facing small margins, messaging should clearly indicate potential financial and other benefits of reducing food loss (i.e. business case). • Reframe food loss and waste as a valuable commodity to promoting ways to use it effectively at its highest value rather than lowest. Don’t call edible surplus food “food waste.” Participants also discussed the need for mechanisms to better coordinate food loss and waste awareness activities across Canada by organizing the information and communication “universe”, and the importance of repeating the same message to address the issue nationally. The development of a centralized hub or ‘node’ of communication to share information was raised as a potential mechanism to advance collaboration, coordination, and consistency in messaging.236Mobilizing Collective Commitment and Action Participants reflected that collaborative relationships across the food system and whole-of-chain approaches are needed to align common interests of maximizing value, drive shared responsibility, and address the challenges and barriers to reducing food loss and waste. An example that was shared is a Canadian whole-of-chain collaboration between Value Chain Management International, farmers, Vineland Growers Cooperative, Vineland Research Innovation Centre, and Loblaws. The project led to reduced waste in the stone fruit supply chain from farm to retail. The case study shows that addressing inefficiencies and improving processes naturally lead to reduced food loss and waste. It was also noted that increasing collaborative relationships can help ensure that food products get circulated to more areas in Canada. Supporting food banks by redistributing surplus food due to the closure of restaurants and foodservices during the COVID-19 pandemic was raised as a recent successful example. However, it was also noted that the volume of surplus food can quickly overwhelm the infrastructure and resource capacity of community food organizations. Ideas raised by participants that could foster collaboration on this aspect of food loss and waste reduction include: • Setting national targets. A (set of) collective reduction target(s) can spur meaningful collaborations to reduce food loss and waste system-wide, rather than shift the problem around within the system. An example raised was the National Zero Waste Council (NZWC)’s strategic goal to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030, noting that some industry groups have adopted this goal. Participants reflected that national reduction targets should align with international targets. • Developing a national roadmap. This could be informed by conducting a study to look at the existing research, analyze the challenges, and then develop a national roadmap that inclusive to all aspects of the food systems. • Establishing forum(s) or platform(s) to bring food industry actors together within multi-stakeholder groups to collaborate across various dimension of food loss and waste. Participants raised the convening role of government to this effect, and identified Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s value chain roundtables as an existing platform that could be leveraged. • Developing an inventory of best practices. It was noted that success stories and key learnings, both domestically and globally, could spur broader uptake and action. • Establishing an intergovernmental mechanism for food issues in general, that transcend diverse levels and breadth of government, such as agricultural, waste management, environment, social services, and regional/local government components.236Empowering Action Through Evidence Participants generally agreed that measurement and data on food loss and waste is fundamental to scoping the problem and supporting effective, evidence-based actions to address it. Important gaps and challenges that were raised in the Canadian context include: • Lack of standard definitions • Lack of baseline data due to the high cost to collect data • Inconsistent methodology, with no standardized approaches and/or guidance on methodologies • Lack of transparency in data and cooperation across the value chain • Lack of data on volume of food being purchased or consumed by consumers Ideas raised by participants that could foster collaboration on this aspect of food loss and waste reduction include: • Developing a common understanding of the problem, including standard definitions and baseline estimates. • Developing standardized methodology and common tools to improve consistency of approaches used across the value chain. This could incorporate the use of a variety of indicators such as mass and nutrient content. • Developing a national data strategy or roadmap. To this end, participants raised the example of Provision Coalition’s Food Loss and Waste dashboard that could serve as a good model to build on. • Establishing a national non-profit or a national government unit that could assemble data and knowledge about food waste in Canada, including existing food waste reduction initiatives in Canada, reasons for their success and opportunities for scaling up such efforts. An independent organization could be supported using a public-private partnership (PPP) model. • Developing a network, hub or other resource that is accessible to everyone to share the research on food loss and waste across the country. • Partnering with a research council (e.g. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) to offer a knowledge synthesis competition on food loss and waste. • Enhancing consistency of municipal waste audits. Common food waste audit guide/templates can support comparative analysis across municipalities or provinces. The Ontario Food Collaborative (OFC)’s municipal waste audit guide was shared as an example that is transferable to other audiences as well. • Exploring a mandatory reporting requirement on food loss and waste to provide more momentum for audit uptake across the country. • Allocating resources to support municipalities, restaurants, grocery stores, hospitals, schools and other organizations to conduct food waste audits. A national funding program could provide financial and other resources (e.g. consultants/expertise, staff members to run waste audits) for this type of initiative. • Exploring a “true-cost accounting” approach for food that incorporates externalities, which can reflect the true value of things we currently consider to be “waste” and incentivize prevention or recovery of food as a resource. However, it was noted that this could result in food being more expensive, which could impact risk factors for food insecurity.236Stimulating Innovation and Adoption Participants reflected on the importance of stimulating innovative solutions, such as through the Government of Canada’s Food Waste Reduction Challenge, and the need to create more incentives to support broader adoption of technologies that facilitate reduction of food loss and waste. It was noted that this could be supported by structuring programs to have smaller, faster projects, to emphasize the speed of learning, enable quicker testing of ideas to find solutions that work and get them implemented faster. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) were raised as a potential model to facilitate this approach. Participants also highlighted innovation with respect to specific food system areas or issue, including: • Food rescue technologies – Innovative food rescue (and other) technologies can help ensure broader distribution of edible food. Participants also raised the connection between innovation and infrastructure, noting that cities and regions are working on redistributing surplus food, but the sheer volume of food exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure to address. Examples includes infrastructure to store frozen meals and mobile infrastructure to redistribute surplus food. Technology can help address gaps, for example by localizing waste processing on site; however, participants also noted the need for additional investment in municipal infrastructure. • Digitalization in Supply Chain – There is an opportunity to increase the use of digital technology in the food supply chain. Examples raised included the use of blockchain for tracking the life-cycle of food items/elements of foods, and developing and adopting better predictive demand/supply models for agriculture. This could be built on platforms that are currently used by many supply chain actors (e.g. GS1 standards) to enhance and align tracking from farm to fork. Digital technology can also help to better organize the sourcing of foods for many retailers that want to work directly with farmers. • Supporting Farmers - Innovation that better identifies the nutritional content of food processing by-products that can be used as animal feed could increase acceptance and use by farmers. There may also be opportunities to connect surplus products at the retail/grocery stage back to farmers to be used as animal feed or other on-farm uses. • Preventing Spoilage – There is still the need to develop and adopt the best technologies that can keep foods fresh and/or extend their shelf life, which currently include plastic packaging. It was noted that while current policy efforts are aimed at banning single-use plastics, there could be the unintended consequence of increasing food loss and waste in certain commodities where appropriate and viable alternatives do not currently exist. • Renewable energy - Exploring opportunities to have the technology to support the generation of renewable energy to underpin the food system could increase energy autonomy and reduce reliance on fossil fuels and carbon footprint food system actors.236Other Topics Participants also raised some other issues and considerations related to food loss and waste that go beyond the four themes above, that include the following: • Regulations play an important role in the food system and should be considered when pursuing solutions to food loss and waste. Examples raised include consumer trust in certification processes and the implementation of innovative solutions (e.g. regulatory barriers). • Promoting local food production in order to shorten supply chains, especially for perishable items, and to make fresh food more accessible to consumers. • Increasing the cost associated with generating waste can incentivize prevention and recovery. One approach could be for the federal government to encourage more extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs so that the costs are incurred by those responsible for them. • It was noted that the current valuation approach to food is part of the reason Canada exports raw goods/commodities and imports finished food products, and a more holistic valuation approach (e.g. true-cost accounting) could help change these dynamics and stimulate the growth of Canada’s food processing capacity. • Diversifying commodities/products could serve as a risk management tool for farmers and food businesses. This can help farmers hang on during difficult times, e.g. sudden changes in demand, and potentially avoid unexpected surplus/waste. • Weather is a big driver of food loss on farms and there are limitations for the food industry because of the perishable nature of the goods produced and their susceptibility to inclement weather. This is a unique feature of food industry that needs to be recognized as a factor driving food loss and waste.237Areas of divergence, gaps, and challenges with specific ideas are noted throughout the Discussion Topic Outcomes above.

2021-08-05 15:30:33205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13613/41

49111716433292

We embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting diverse participants from various sectors, locations and stakeholder groups. We used a gender-based analysis plus lens to also consider diversity in the composition of individual participants. All facilitators and note-takers were briefed on the Summit principles and provided guidance on how to ensure they are addressed and promoted in discussion groups. This included ensuring respect among participants, abiding by Chatham House Rule to establish trust and encouraging participants to recognize complexity in conversations. We will circulate the report to all participants to ensure transparency. We invited an independent non-profit research stakeholder to give a short presentation before the discussion groups to help contextualize the dialogue.It included diverse participants from multiple stakeholder groups. The topics chosen were complex and participants frequently noted the need to move beyond siloed thinking. Outcomes of the dialogue will help to inform Canadian positions and actions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to commit to action at the Summit. Connections between stakeholders during the Dialogue can contribute to future multi-stakeholder processes in Canada.N/A

Yes

234This dialogue engaged Canadian actors on actions to improve how Canadian involvement in global agri-food value chains can drive positive change in the food systems of developing countries, especially for women. The discussions were framed by the Sustainable Development Goals to consider the environment, social and economic implications of Canadian actions. The focus of the Dialogue was on links to developing country food systems through agri-food imports into Canada from developing countries, Official Development Assistance (ODA) and international trade rules. The discussion topics were: 1. By 2030, Canadian actors will better support smallholder farmers, especially women, in developing countries to retain a greater value for agri-food products in local and global value chains, while also promoting women’s rights, empowerment and nutrition. 2. By 2030, import market for agri-food products into Canada are responsive to concerns about tropical deforestation and biodiversity loss and are consistent with Canada’s priorities to advance gender equality. 3. By 2030, more agri-food imports from developing countries into Canada are certified under voluntary sustainability initiatives that consider environmental, social and economic sustainability. 4. By 2030, transparent agri-food trade, based on science and international rules, has contributed to the achievement of SDG2 and promotes positive social and environmental outcomes. 5. By 2030, Canada is a leader in supporting inclusive markets for and consumption of nutritious neglected, indigenous and underutilised crops and livestock in developing countries.235• Greater coherence is needed between Canada’s domestic and international agendas, including in relation to agriculture, climate, trade, Indigenous food systems, and ODA. This was brought up in multiple discussion groups. • Improved access to financing and control over resources (land, labour) by women smallholder farmers is key to increased production and ensuring a greater value is retained for agri-food products. This will also contribute to women’s empowerment and improved nutrition. • Solutions, including investments, research and programming support, should be context-specific and developed in coordination with local communities, especially women and Indigenous Peoples who are often left out of decision-making processes. The idea of using a participatory approach was also raised in discussions of developing standards (voluntary or not) so as to include all supply chain actors in the design of standards, including those at the farm level, and to share resourcing and benefits along the supply chain as well. • Participants across multiple discussion groups agreed on the need to redefine value across food systems to encompass social and environmental dimensions which are often overshadowed by economic ones. • Social and environmental sustainability in international agri-food value chains should be supported by dedicated provisions in trade agreements. These agreements should seek to be relevant in local contexts as well as global, though this is difficult in practice, and be supported by evidence-based international standard setting. • Supply chain traceability and due diligence is necessary to capture sustainable food systems impacts and outcomes, especially at the farm level. However, these types of initiatives are not simple to implement. • There were divergent views surrounding how and to what extent global food systems/supply chains positively or negatively impact local food systems through effects on things like farmer livelihoods, food security or environmental outcomes.236Topic 1: By 2030, Canadian actors will better support smallholder farmers, especially women, in developing countries to retain a greater value for agri-food products in local and global value chains, while also promoting women’s rights, empowerment and nutrition. Participants’ views on actions that are urgently needed: • Power dynamics must shift from international civil society organisations to empowering local organizations, as they are better positioned to implement programs. • Access to financing would be a game changing solution for small-scale (female) farmers and organizations such as women led cooperatives. This would require the mobilization of significant international financing (for instance through a global investment matching fund). • Identification of the root causes of gender inequality in each area is needed prior to investing. • Women’s access and control over resources and infrastructure, including land tenure, water access, labour (some people won’t work for women run businesses) and access to affordable finance and financial literacy programs. • Better supply chain traceability that reaches to farm level and measures social as well as productive performance. • Research on the value women bring to their communities, especially Indigenous women that do not participate in long value chains yet feed their communities. • Shift towards shortening of the supply chain to more regional and national needs, promoting the role of women. Not all farmers want to be a part of a global agenda. Who should take these actions? • Systems approach: a value chain analysis can identify the correct actors and areas to maximize effectiveness of interventions. Information, communication, and governance issues are crucial in selecting appropriate, rather than just flashy, investments such as products and technology. • Women: Women around the world know what approach is right for their own communities. Development projects should allow them to lead and develop programs themselves. They hold the techniques to transform food systems and their knowledge is crucial to changing the nature of the game. • Farmers: In a food systems approach, farmers should be first and have the decision-making power. All food systems interventions should start with supply side issues to value and incentivize indigenous knowledge and practices and localize food systems as much as possible. • Governments: Historically they have adopted a top-down approach assuming that farmers need direction. Governments must walk beside local communities and ask what policies are needed to provide context-specific support for infrastructure and investment. Once goals have been identified, collaboration and iterative programming across industries is key • Private Sector: Businesses need to understand why women’s participation is important. Often they do want to involve women but are not always sure how to do so. • Male champions: Some programs run the risk of a push back from men and all precautions must be taken to mitigate potential for violence. It is important to actively engage men and pay attention to drivers of violence within food systems. Ways in which progress could be assessed? • Three pillars toward equitable food systems: agency, control of resources and opportunity structures (institutions and policies). • Gender is a cross cutting issue: it runs through many of the other SDGs. It can be a means to achieve other objectives such as climate adaptation or deforestation issues, as well as an end in itself. • Value is not only monetary. There is an enormous social return on investments in gender equality – societal and economic value are both important. • Quantitative and qualitative data are needed to understand barriers to women’s participation, including discrimination.236[Topic 1 continued...] Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented: • Must take care not to shoehorn women into economic systems that are biased against them. Beyond support to smallholder farmers, other rights can help such as right to food and right to work. • Scientific evidence should be more contextualized. Most research is of no use for smallholder farmers, as it adheres to a Eurocentric farming model. • There are no one size fits all solutions for investments in gender equity. • Women farmers know what is needed and have the expertise to increase production and retain greater value but they often lack the required financial resources. Mentorships can help.236Topic 2: By 2030, import market for agri-food products into Canada are responsive to concerns about tropical deforestation and biodiversity loss and are consistent with Canada’s priorities to advance gender equality. Participants’ views on actions that are urgently needed: • Build environment into trade agreements (e.g., Mercosur) which should have legally binding environmental clauses. • Provide incentives to farmers in developing countries to adopt more sustainable production practices. This can include funding through ODA or payments for ecosystem services. • Support education or subsidies for consumers to shift demand for food commodities domestically. • Align domestic and international agendas, including ODA, trade. • Monitor along the value chain including through traceability and due diligence. • Investments in new digital technologies can help make step-wise changes to traceability and structuring of the food supply chain. • Explore national standards/legislation. Effort to develop national sustainability index going on now in Canada. This could be leveraged to go out and inform. Start at home to get our story and evidence in line, and then globally promote. Who should take these actions? • Government of Canada with greater coherence of actions across government departments. • Agri-food private sector, including Canadian companies involved in food import or food transformation. Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented: • Trade offs are very difficult – food, forest, biodiversity, income, governance. It is a challenge to balance these, but all interconnected. • On traceability and enforcement – agreement on importance, but very difficult to do. Available technology is lacking in order to enable and invest in traceability as much as we can. • Locally developed and implemented solutions are needed. Developing countries should not be forced into positions by developed countries when they cannot or do not want to comply. Incentives are needed.236Topic 3: By 2030, more agri-food imports from developing countries into Canada are certified under voluntary sustainability initiatives that consider environmental, social and economic sustainability. Participants’ views on actions that are urgently needed: • A more participatory approach to standards development: development and use of voluntary standards must include all supply chain actors, including at the farm level. • Sharing of benefits and costs: Benefits of standards (price premiums) and costs of adherence/implementation must be shared along the supply chain. Too often, costs are borne by farmers and benefits are seen at retail level. • Tools to facilitate adherence: A digital solution that would enable a farmer to demonstrate adherence to multiple standards and reduce paperwork would be a major help. • Alignment: Coherence between Canada’s trade policy, domestic agricultural and climate policy and ODA is required, as is alignment between commodities and across the supply chain. • There are currently multiple sustainability standards in play, as well as some existing efforts to harmonize standards, which could be aligned to share capacity and reduce burden on farmers. Who should take these actions? • The Government of Canada, donors and other investment actors, supply chain participants Ways in which progress could be assessed? • Government policy changes and ODA spending • Import statistics • Creation of new tools to support use of standards and verification Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented: • Projects may fail when new obligations are placed on farmers without adequate compensation. • Standards could continue to be imposed on farmers, rather than co-developed. • Costs of implementation might continue to be a major barrier, and/or keep the most marginalized farmers out of the system. • When brands undertake a process to improve sustainability of supply chain, they may worry about being guilty by association (or guilty by omission). A culture of transparency must be built. • Can be difficult to avoid “gatekeepers” and be able to access the farm level. • Lack of public trust stemming from redundancy/proliferation of standards that do not become harmonized or equivalent. • “Green-washing” or “block-chain washing”.236Topic 4: By 2030, transparent agri-food trade, based on science and international rules, has contributed to the achievement of SDG2 and promotes positive social and environmental outcomes. Participants’ views on actions that are urgently needed: • Must work to break down silos between trade, environment, food security and health, including in relation to discussions of international trade rules. • Trade policy needs to be able to be discussed outside of the WTO and the WTO needs to allow other voices to be heard to ensure that discussions are not solely focused on economic point of view. This recommendation links to calls for WTO reform. • Need to look at expanding avenues of solutions through novel provisions in trade agreements like health and environment chapters. • Regulatory environments should be streamlined in order to improve economic efficiency and ensure that regulations can keep up with the pace of innovations related to improving food security (e.g., precision agriculture, sustainable intensification). • Global standards development is important to support coherent approaches to ensuring the economic, social and environmental sustainability of agri-food products. Who should take these actions? • Government of Canada to set domestic regulations. • Government of Canada, other UN member states, International Standard-Setting Bodies to agree on evidence-based international standards to guide regulatory frameworks. Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented: • Difficult for global trade rules or international standards to be sensitive to local context while still being globally relevant. • Domestic and international markets can be complementary, but it’s not easy to address the trade-offs. • Difficult to have trade conversations outside of the WTO. • Must acknowledge the role that investment and finance play in creating certain outcomes, especially in trade flows between developed and developing countries, which can contradict environmental sustainability initiatives and create negative consequences for food security outcomes in developing countries.236Topic 5: By 2030, Canada is a leader in supporting inclusive markets for and consumption of nutritious neglected, indigenous and underutilised crops and livestock in developing countries. Participants’ views on actions that are urgently needed: • Additional investments in research on production, innovation, and use of nutritious neglected, indigenous and underutilised crops and livestock. • Increasing knowledge and demand for these products, through support for inclusive markets and national procurement policies, such as school food programs and educational campaigns to promote the nutritional and environmental value of these crops and livestock. • Engaging with local stakeholder groups such as local farmers, Indigenous groups and women farmer groups to establish context-specific needs. • Eliminating agricultural dumping which can threaten and disrupt local diversity. • Rethinking the value of agricultural products beyond an economic perspective to include nutritional, food security, social, cultural and environmental benefits. • Considering the consequences on the local food systems when trading internationally. • Offering technical support to local food systems to better mitigate the negative impacts of climate change. • Offering technical support to local food systems to help with the digitalization of agriculture. • Inter-institutional coordination in development and research, ensuring that agriculture-for-nutrition programs focus on local priorities. Who should take these actions? • The Government of Canada through ODA • Research institutions like the International Development Research Centre • Civil Society Organizations and food security networks, women and women’s organizations, Indigenous communities and groups need to be central in these conversations Ways in which progress could be assessed? • Progress should be based off the needs expressed by the local communities and stakeholder groups. • Progress should be context-specific. • Conversations should be brought to the Committee on World Food Security Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented: • Canada’s domestic and international policies regarding Indigenous food systems and support for traditional crops are sometimes contradictory. • The current solution statement seems to place value on commercialisation which does not account for many social and environmental benefits of these crops and importance for food security and nutrition.237• Some participants placed western science as the basis of developing regulations, standards and trade-rules. Concerns were raised that emotion or philosophy is driving changes in the regulatory environment. Others suggested that scientific knowledge only takes us so far (e.g., we know that chips are unhealthy but we don’t tax them). Further comments contested the centrality of western science in defining these rules, highlighting other forms of evidence and knowledge. • Open trade promoted as the key solution to SDG2 by some actors, for others it is only one of the answers and for others it was seen as having more negative consequences than positive, particularly in how global trade can disrupt local markets in developing countries. • Participants disagreed on the extent of the role that trade can play in effectively addressing nutritious neglected, indigenous and underutilised crops and livestock. Some believed that the inclusion of trade and markets diluted the conversation away from key issues such as food security. Others argued that exports are critical in some contexts and that there is room for both local and global supply chains.

2021-08-05 15:32:30205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14351/41

540620143192962104121113218411023182212

The Food Policy for Canada, a roadmap to a healthier and more sustainable food system, was built upon extensive multi-stakeholder engagement with a unifying theme of “Everyone at the Table!”. The Principles of Engagement for the Food Systems Summit are aligned with the Food Policy for Canada’s guiding principles and its approach to stakeholder engagement. The Dialogue organizers targeted the discussion questions such that clear deliverables and barriers could be identified for Canada to achieve the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, exhibiting our commitment to the Summit. The discussion questions were broad to allow participants to volunteer their own interpretations and work together to identify concerns and actions. Stakeholders and Indigenous rights holders across the value chain were invited to represent their diverse interests and recognize the complexity of the food system. Other government departments were consulted for input and whom to invite to the Dialogue. Facilitators were provided with UN Food Summit training to encourage making everyone heard and engaged and to foster connections between participants.The Dialogue complements the outcomes of other dialogues by focusing on data collection and measurement for all aspects of food security. We followed the Chatham House Rule and reminded the participants at the introductory plenary and at the breakout sessions that their statements would be anonymized. Our facilitators were trained to create an inclusive and respectful environment to make sure the multiplicity of voices were captured. Most of the discussion groups were assigned two note takers with the aim of enriching the combined notes. We had government employees acting as facilitators and included a mixture of government employees and student volunteers as note takers. Participants were assigned to discussion groups to ensure a balanced mix of stakeholders and rights holders across the food system. We tied our future statement both to the 2030 UN SDGs and also to the Food Policy for Canada.Adopting the principles of engagement contributed to improved dialogue outcomes as the principles require diversity, inclusivity, respecting the complexity of discussion topics, and enable participants to share openly.

Yes

234Canada has committed to achieving zero hunger and food security for all Canadians and to achieving food security related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. The opening speech of Canada’s 2020 parliament (Speech from the Throne) emphasized that every Canadian deserves to have nutritious food on the table. The need to continue working with partners – including directly with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Nation – to address food insecurity in Canada was also highlighted. With these commitments in place, it is crucial that Canada has the ability to measure progress towards achieving the Food Policy’s priority outcomes. The focus of the Food Security Data and Measurement Dialogue was to identify how current methods of measuring food security can be improved upon in order to better track the achievement of Canada’s food security commitments. A key rationale for identifying data and measurement issues is the urgent need to develop appropriate actions targeting vulnerable people so that Canada will be on the path to meeting the SDGs relating to the food system including zero hunger, good health and well-being, responsible production and consumption, and climate action. The Dialogue was motivated by the following future statement: “By 2030, Canada will have the data needed to assess the ability of all those living in Canada to access sufficient amount of safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate foods. Such data will be used to monitor and track Canada’s progress towards achieving SDGs and indicators in the Food Policy for Canada. As a result, progress will be made toward the SDGs.” The future statement was closely aligned with the UN Food Systems Summit Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all by 2030. The Dialogue focused on fostering a diverse discussion with partners, stakeholders and rights holders about how to achieve the future statement. The attendees were specifically asked to provide their perspectives and input on the following four areas: (i) identifying current data gaps, (ii) approaches to close the identified data gaps, (iii) barriers and challenges in meeting the future statement, and (iv) identifying stakeholder and rights holders’ roles in meeting the future statement.235While participants commended the recent creation of a Food Policy for Canada they stressed the need for key organizational changes and investments into improving both food security related data collection and governance including data dissemination and access. The Dialogue provided a space for participants to share their perspectives about current food security data and measurements and ways to improve them. Main Finding 1: The role of the federal government in collecting, disseminating, and utilizing data to address food insecurity needs to be well defined and collaborative. Main Finding 2: There is a need for the federal government to increase investment in data collection methods that reflect the regional variation of food systems and populations across Canada. Increased focus on measuring and monitoring food insecurity within vulnerable populations is needed. Main Finding 3: Governments and organizations who collect data to measure food insecurity can improve data collection by supporting partnerships with target groups. Main finding 4: Transparency in the collection, use and dissemination of data needs to be improved. Target groups should be consulted throughout the entire process including survey design, analysis, and providing access to and/or ownership of final data products. Main Finding 5: There is a need for a food security definition that reflects the complexity of the dimensions of food security in Canada. A clear definition of both food sources and security are important when collecting data and measuring the status of food security. Main Finding 6: A comprehensive understanding of the interconnectedness of food costing and household income is necessary to understanding the affordability of food. Main Finding 7: There is a need for up to date, timely data on the current food security situation across Canada.236In discussion groups of up to 10 individuals representing diverse dimensions of Canada’s food systems, participants discussed their perspectives and brainstormed ways to address the identified food security data gaps. Each of the eight groups identified unique data gaps and solutions but many groups identified outcomes under common themes. These key outcomes identified by participants are listed below: • Establish a federal lead for achieving food security, increase collaboration between departments and fund further data collection. Many participants felt it would be helpful to have one federal body responsible for food security and the achievement of food security goals. Currently, participants believe there is considerable duplication and incoherency in efforts and as a result progress is being delayed. The lead department or agency should set a clear goal and strive to eliminate food insecurity with strategic milestones that can be gauged for progress over time through performance metrics. Further to setting goals, this government department or agency should take ownership of the process to gather data and develop strategies to foster partnerships with all stakeholders and rights holders by gaining their respect and mutual understanding of the significance of collecting information. This would include cataloguing all existing data that is being collected by stakeholders and rights holders (civil society, non-profit groups, other levels of government, and academia). • Improve data collection for vulnerable groups. Increasing sample size would help better assess the needs and food security levels of vulnerable groups. Participants recommended that the federal government increase sample size for marginalized groups when collecting data so programs and policies can be better targeted and assessed. Small sample sizes of marginalized demographic groups lead to an inability to measure the food security status of these demographic groups at a granular level. In particular, participants identified that the federal government needs to investigate ways that Indigenous-led data collection can be supported. Participants suggested that the federal government needs to focus on inclusive design and better reach for underrepresented groups by offering surveys in different languages and delivery methods while respecting their personal experiences. Participants felt that current data collection may exclude marginalized groups, especially online survey collection. • Develop and support partnerships with food security stakeholders and rights holders. While partnerships require a more intensive process and more resources, participants believe they would enable a deeper dialogue and understanding of food insecurity. Toward this goal, it was recommended by participants that the government work with stakeholders and rights holders to catalogue current data and measurements. Also, it was recommended that the federal government provide stable funding so that organizations can plan long-term priorities for data collection and invest in their organizations. Local groups have experience with the specific food security issues and can work to build trust within the community. Regarding Indigenous communities, it was suggested that the federal government needs to better protect and respect Indigenous data sovereignty and support Indigenous-led data collection. Data collection requires dialogue on a nation-to-nation basis to respect community developed data collection and sharing and ownership protocols.236• Defining and measuring food insecurity Food insecurity is multifaceted and participants felt that in Canada we tend to only focus on affordability and households’ financial access to market foods. Restricting the focus to an income-based model neglects the broader cultural considerations and social and geographical barriers to achieving food security. Participants proposed that the definition of food security should be expanded to include access to other alternative food systems (i.e. traditional/country food systems, local harvesting, community food sharing, and food banks) and other closely linked insecurities (i.e. nutritional and water security). The federal government needs to consult those who consume traditional foods to better understand these diets and ensure these food security dimensions are incorporated into surveys. • Increasing transparency Participants recommended that the federal government conduct a thorough analysis of food security programs to prove their effectiveness or request academics to undertake such analysis. Participants expressed that currently, they do not know whether programs and funding are actually reducing food insecurity. The linkage between data collection and policy development needs to be transparent. Participants noted that the federal government should improve communication about how data will be used as evidence in policy making when it is collected and provide follow up reports to convey the importance of the communities’ participation in data collection. Transparency and communication between the government and both rights holders and stakeholders in collecting data is key for coordinated efforts to advance food security data and measurement. • Data accessibility Participants urged governments to work on reducing the time lag between data collection and dissemination. Further, the need for a greater level of data granularity was highlighted. Organizations and researchers urgently need data to track who is most affected by food insecurity, the magnitude of the problem and how it is changing over time. • Frequent food insecurity data collection Participants felt that the inconsistent data collection in some provinces and in some years makes it more difficult to identify problems and trends. Therefore, participants urged that the federal government and provinces work together to ensure data is collected annually in order to avoid gaps in the data. The current lack of longitudinal data restricts research into whether the same households are becoming more or less food insecure over time. Thus, a longitudinal survey is needed.236• Canada needs a national food system surveillance system to act as an early warning for food security threats Participants believed that with appropriate data enhancements Canada could establish a system of data collection and dissemination, with a defined and broad set of food security performance metrics, including nutrition-related data, based on aspirational goals and targets. A key component of timely food security updates is frequent monitoring of food insecurity levels within the population. Participants suggested that after food security data sources are catalogued, the government could support organizations to access this data. One example proposed is a country foods database as a way to capture the availability of country food sources, hunting activity, and monitoring eco-systems. • Measuring the impact of climate change on food security Related to the need for a surveillance system, participants expressed the importance of understanding the impact of climate change on food security. Climate change is likely to have an impact on growing food, sustainable practices, and the seasonality of food access for remote communities. Participants recommended that the federal government track the impact of climate change on traditional food sources in remote and Indigenous communities, furthering the need for a country foods database. • Qualitative data collection Participants felt that in many areas there is a lack of qualitative data to complement the quantitative data. Qualitative data gaps exist around measuring the personal experience of food insecurity as well as the role of food in economic development and food sovereignty. Participants noted that there needs to be investment in case studies within remote communities who are excluded from current data collection and vulnerable groups who are not well represented in current data collection. Participants noted that case studies would help capture and communicate the experience of individuals and add context to the quantitative data collected.237While most participant groups came to similar conclusions, there were a few areas of divergence. • More research and data versus taking immediate action The most salient area of divergence was between those who focused on the need for more data and those who felt that Canada has enough data and the government needs to take immediate action to eliminate food insecurity. In the same token, some participants noted that this Dialogue was not ambitious enough to address food insecurity issue and that Canada needs to take action now and 2030 is too far away. These participants felt that between now and 2030, Canada needs to have concrete actions implemented to eliminate food insecurity not just to get the right data and measurements. • Focusing on the collection of standardized data versus region-specific data Participants identified the need for a standardized methodology across time and place to measure food insecurity. However, some participants noted that there is a need for regional approaches and tailored surveys to specific populations. • Data on food bank use The need for more data collection on food bank usage and food insecurity was noted. However, other participants emphasized that, in their view, food banks should not be considered a viable long term solution to food insecurity. As such, they felt that focusing data collection efforts on food banks would be expending effort in the wrong place. • Focus on income versus a holistic food systems approach Some participants felt it was important to look at food security as an income issue and focus on making food more affordable and increasing incomes. Others preferred to focus on the broader cultural and geographic barriers impacting food insecurity. • Food waste data Some participants felt that more data collection was needed related to food waste. Other participants felt that food waste and food security are separate issues. While there is some overlap between the two issues, these participants did not feel that a focus on food waste would significantly help advance food security objectives. • Expanding the definition of food security Many participants believed the definitions of food insecurity needed to be expanded. This included a greater focus on non-market foods and cultural foods, issues of food sovereignty and the inclusion of nutrition and water security. There were, however, divergent opinions about which aspects should be prioritized and included. • Timely data versus quality data Many participants noted the need for timely data collection and dissemination, especially due to how quickly the food security situation changed during COVID-19. However, some participants cautioned against prioritizing speed over quality and coverage. These participants pointed to recent examples such as the quick turn-around online surveys conducted during COVID-19 (the Canadian Perspectives Survey Series); they felt that such a survey with its shortened format and time frames likely excluded marginalized groups. • The role of government, academia and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) It was identified by most participants that the federal government has a lead role in combatting food insecurity and that one federal department should be in charge of the food security file. Many participants noted that the federal government needs to fund more standardized surveys targeting vulnerable populations. However, some participants identified NGOs as the most appropriate data collectors as they better understand vulnerable populations and can act as knowledge brokers. There was a divergence of views on the data collection approach between those who think that the federal government needs to act as a singular source for food security information and those who believe the role of NGOs should be expanded. Some believed that more social scientists needed to be hired by government to undertake more food insecurity related research. In contrast, others believe that data should be more accessible so that academia and NGOs can conduct the research themselves instead. Some participants felt that the federal government has not historically been as respectful as it should have been as data stewards regarding transparency and full accessibility, especially concerning Indigenous populations. There was a divergence of opinions between those advocating for data sovereignty and the need to fund Indigenous-led (as well as NGO-led) data collection; and those who prioritized a centralized, standardized data collection and central sharing system for data. Participants noted that placing more responsibility on NGOs and Indigenous-led organizations may result in overburdening NGOs by involving them too much in constant data collection without additional support.

2021-08-05 15:50:25205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14357/41

50424151429748153244311514121164411427110

Preparation for this member-state Dialogue involved broad consultation across multiple federal government departments and leveraged results of on-going engagement with other stakeholders on issues of sustainability to help inform all stages of planning, from conceptualization through to implementation and event management. This encouraged the identification of diverse perspectives across the food system relevant to the topic and inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the invitation list for the Dialogue.The overall theme of the Dialogue was framed from the perspective of collective, collaborative and urgent action on sustainable production across the food system, and how to increase adoption of sustainable practices, as well as participation of the whole supply chain. Participants were assigned to discussion groups to ensure a balanced mix of stakeholder groups across the food system. Government of Canada officials acting as facilitators and note-takers were guided to play a neutral role, neither leading the discussion towards select outcomes nor challenging the ideas raised by participants, but instead asking questions to help participants bring forward their own ideas and perspectives and ensuring that all voices are heard. Special attention was paid to the use of Chatham House Rule to ensure that all participants could share perspectives openly and respectfully.Adopting the principles of engagement, based on diversity, inclusion, respect and collaboration, are helpful in designing a meaningful Dialogue and ensuring constructive discussions among a diverse set of stakeholders and perspectives.

Yes

234The objective of this Dialogue was to explore and identify approaches to enhance the sustainability of agricultural and food production across the full value chain in Canada, recognizing the linkages between environmental performance and economic and social resilience. Canada’s Prime Minister has recently committed to increasing Canada’s nationally determined contributions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, reducing emission by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels and reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The agriculture sector worldwide, including the Canadian agriculture sector, can be part of the solution to reduce emissions, while increasing and maintaining carbon stores. Most of Canada’s agriculture emissions are from biological processes, including from nutrients being applied to soils, and livestock digestion. Thus, continued innovation, development and adoption of on-farm climate-smart practices and technologies have the potential to improve efficiencies, achieve further reductions, and increase carbon storage. Canada’s government has dedicated programs and funding to support the sector in meeting these challenges. In addition, many companies that source agricultural products have made commitments towards reducing the emissions from their supply chains, as well as address other environmental priorities. Participants were asked to consider the challenges at the production level and through the supply chain in order to identify opportunities to improve carbon sequestration and reduce emissions through the food chain, recognizing the complexity and trade-offs that exist. Numerous examples of sustainability initiatives exist that can help improve environmental outcomes and demonstrate the sustainability of Canada’s agriculture and food sector, including both supply chain certification and verification systems. In addition, Canadian provinces have been benchmarking one of Canada’s leading environment programs, the Environment Farm Plan (EFP), against the internationally recognized SAI Farm Sustainability Assessment tool. An EFP is voluntary awareness tool and process, whereby producers assess their operations to identify the environmental strengths and risks and develop an action plan to address risk areas. Today, more than 40% of producers have participated in programs to develop their EFP. The Dialogue examined how to build on existing initiatives to increase carbon sequestration and practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to enhance and improve participation in Canada’s sustainability initiatives, recognizing that these are complex, dynamic challenges and that all food system actors have a role to play. The dialogue focused on ensuring a broad representation of food system players were included in the generation of ideas. It also discussed the complexities, nuances and tradeoffs that cannot be ignored when developing solutions for the food system.235Participants represented diverse perspectives and roles in Canada’s food system, but agreed that increasing the sustainability of Canada’s food production system is a priority. In doing so, a full food systems perspective is necessary and cannot be focused solely on greenhouse gases or just the production sector, but must reflect consumers and the variety of stakeholders throughout the supply chain. Despite the complexity of the food system at a global level, it was noted that solutions needed to be considered on a regional basis in order to reflect the regional diversity of the country and landscapes and to increase sustainability while minimizing unintended consequences. It was noted that changes at the farm level can be costly in time and money, and that there is a need to support farmers with financial and non-financial incentives in order increase adoption of beneficial practices. Governments have a strong role to play in financing transitions to sustainable practices and technologies. However, continued dialogue and engagement amongst partners is an essential component in developing appropriate and integrated policies, programs, targets, and goals. A strong theme to emerge was the need to fairly, consistently, and transparently measure and report on the performance of the sector through performance metrics and data. Such work would support research priorities through the identification of problem areas, help to direct education and knowledge transfer, as well as track progress on performance. Communications were raised as an important theme, where it was felt that there is untapped potential to find solutions simply because some groups of people are not in contact. It was noted that opportunities to address food loss have arisen by bringing diverse stakeholders in different sectors together, and can often lead to reduced costs or to new revenue streams. Enhancing communication across the supply chain and with other sectors could lead to additional opportunities. Education was also a common theme throughout the discussions, where it was noted that the social and economic components need to be included when working with farmers. Peer-to-peer learning is essential and can be very effective, especially when supported with additional education and knowledge transfer initiatives that understand the realities at the producer level. The importance of raising awareness of agricultural and food practices at the consumer level, as well as the complexities and interrelatedness of the food system, were also discussed. Engaging discussions amongst the enthusiastic set of Dialogue participants yielded a number of note-worthy ideas to advance collaboration on sustainable production, including the development of a national soil health strategy, a Ministry of Food, additional targeted government funding programs to incentivize practice changes at the farm level, communications and education throughout the supply chain, dedicated data and performance metrics, and targeted environmental research supported with decision support tools. Their ideas are detailed in the following section under discussion topics/themes.236In discussion groups of up to 12 individuals representing diverse aspects of Canada’s food system, participants discussed their perspectives and brainstormed ways to increase the sustainability of production within Canada’s food system. Groups discussed two topics: Maintaining economic resilience while increasing carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs); and increasing participation in sustainability initiatives. Theme 1: What actions need to be taken to ensure Canada’s agriculture and food sector remains economically resilient while increasing carbon sequestration and reducing GHG emission contributing towards achieving a net-zero future? Three key ideas emerged from the discussion of this theme: • A national soil health strategy is needed in order to focus attention on the health of soils and develop policies to increase soil carbon. It would also include measurement of carbon in a consistent and credible way, as there are currently too many proxies for defining soil health. To do so, there is a need to enhance and support research and knowledge development in order to inform the adoption of improved practices. A soil health strategy could support the development of an ecosystem-based approach to food production, linking crop and livestock production to the ecosystems that are most environmentally appropriate. Consistent soil carbon measurement could also support carbon offset markets and provide an additional benefit for farmers. • Knowledge transfer and education require increased support, and should be tailored with the social science understanding of the barriers to adoption. Knowledge transfer can also be a two-way conversation that can help identify where more gains can be made to reduce emissions and sequester carbon. Consumers and the general public also require education related to the food system in order to better understand how the food system operates. • A venture capital fund could be created dedicated to supporting innovation and technologies in agriculture and food. Among other things, it could be built to recognize that the food system is evolving and there are opportunities for new technologies (e.g. vertical farming) and new protein sources (insects, cellular, etc.). In addition, participants gave significant attention to the need for strong and coherent policies and programming that could drive adoption of practices to reduce greenhouse gases and increase sequestration. The following ideas and considerations were noted. • Policies and programs to reduce food waste are a huge opportunity to reduce emissions, as well as decrease water and energy use, and need to span the full food value chain. Programs would need to help change consumer stigma around food waste and to change their expectations of perfect food. For producers, programs are needed to help innovate and find uses for food loss. • Support for local and organic school food programs could help local economies, build soil, provide nutritious food, and would help reduce emissions from transportation. • Current fertilizer industry programs to make fertilizer use more efficient have a conflict of interest, and consultancy services for crop production should have more independence. • Public policy needs to be considered over the longer term, not in 5 year segments as happens in Canada now. • Policies need to reflect flexible and innovative solutions, as well as the different challenges at each level of the food system and different production practices and commodities. • All three pillars of sustainability need to be considered when designing policies and programs. Environmental goals will not be reached if social and economic considerations are not being addressed at the same time. For example, a sudden and significant increase in the use of technology to produce food could improve environmental outcomes, but could lead to unaffordable food prices. • A science-based approach is necessary. For example, not everyone wants to eat food that uses genetically modified technology, but government is needed to show what is safe and what is not.236Theme 2: What do we need to do to enhance and improve participation in Canada’s sustainability initiatives and leverage this to enhance and take advantage of Canada’s sustainable reputation? Four key areas emerged from the discussion of this theme, related to using data, developing a Ministry of Food, strengthening incentives, and continuing research. Participants reflected on the need for metrics and data to support demonstrations of progress and to identify areas of weakness, and suggested the development of a “data repository” to collect, store, analyse and share sustainability data related to sustainability claims. With federal leadership, it could be a credible tool that creates improved and clear access to data and underpins decision support tools for producers, processors, retailers and consumers. A “database and query” function could be developed internationally and populated with country-level data, to ensure consistency and to support supply chain members in how to be more sustainable. The need for more data, to understand variability across data, and to use life cycle assessment to drive knowledge and research, and to verify sustainability claims were noted. Participants raised the concept of creating a dedicated Ministry of Food, as a potential way to improve coordination on agriculture production, fisheries, and health/nutrition issues, while also addressing sustainability and environmental issues at the same time. Participants noted that sustainability initiatives and adoption of new practices that enhance environmental conditions can impose several barriers to farmers, especially in terms of finances and time. In addition, for many of the practices that increase and enhance public goods, their benefits may not be fully realized by the farms adopting them. Thus, to increase participation, incentives and other supports are needed to provide insurance to farmers and help offset the added time and cost burdens associated with practice change. The federal government has an important role to play in developing policies and programs that could incentivize or otherwise support practice change. One area of support includes continued research on better practices, for example on more efficient use of nutrients and electrification of farm equipment. Research can also help to adapt global solutions into regionally-appropriate solutions, and drive the development of decision support tools that can facilitate the adoption of beneficial practices. Participants also identified the following considerations: • Trade-offs must be explored and addressed, though win-wins exist and can help accelerate momentum. Examples of trade-offs include balancing long term and short tem goals and objectives, and export/production targets versus social and environmental targets. • Producer burden is a concern related to the supply of data to make sustainability claims and to participate in verification and certification systems. Ways to minimize this burden need to be developed, particularly to support participation from small to medium sized producers. • Canada needs to be more proactive in showcasing its sustainability performance, and governments can help play a leadership role in achieving this. There are also opportunities to export technologies and expertise. • Innovation across the supply chain is essential, and supporting patentable innovation could be a focus for the federal government. However, this needs to be balanced with some flexibility as being too prescriptive will hamper innovation. • Farmers need to see business value in order to make changes. Consumer preference can become that business value. • Consistent communications across the supply chain, with producers, and with consumers is imperative. • Blue Foods (food from water production such as fish, seafood and sea plants) must be included as an important part of food systems dialogues.237Areas of divergence, gaps, and challenges with specific ideas are noted throughout the Discussion Topic Outcomes (Section C) above. While there was general agreement on the need for policies and programs to support sustainable production, carbon sequestration and emissions reductions, there was disagreement related to the focus and role of different production systems that could be used to accomplish this. While diversity in size and type of production was commonly accepted, there was disagreement as to whether synthetic crop inputs were required or whether organic agriculture could be scaled to meet food needs globally. There was also disagreement as to whether third party certification helped or hindered, where some felt it could take attention away from government goals related to net zero and lead to too many certifications and mixed messaging to consumers. Others felt certification systems provide an opportunity to drive change and to measure it.

2021-08-05 15:53:48205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14361/41

51724111211589

The Food Policy for Canada, a roadmap to a healthier and more sustainable food system, is built upon extensive multi-stakeholder engagement with a unifying theme of “Everyone at the Table!”. The Principles of Engagement for the Food System Summit are aligned with the Food Policy for Canada’s guiding principles and the approach to stakeholder engagement. Preparation for this member-state Dialogue involved broad consultation across multiple federal government departments at all stages of planning, from conceptualization through to implementation and event management. This encouraged the identification of diverse perspectives across the food system relevant to the topic and inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the invitation list for the Dialogue.The overall theme of the Dialogue was framed to focus on the perspectives of food systems stakeholders at the community and regional level, including planners, community organizers, public health professionals, food producers, distributors, retailers, Indigenous groups and civil society. Participants were assigned to discussion groups based on their regional affiliation, and to ensure a balanced mix of stakeholder groups across the food system. Government of Canada officials acting as facilitators and note-takers were guided to play a neutral role, neither leading the discussion towards select outcomes nor challenging the ideas raised by participants, but instead asking questions to help participants bring forward their own ideas and perspectives and ensuring that all voices are heard. Special attention was paid to the use of Chatham House Rule to ensure that all participants could share perspectives openly.Adopting the principles of engagement, based on diversity, inclusion, respect and collaboration, are helpful in designing a meaningful Dialogue and ensuring constructive discussions among a diverse set of stakeholders and perspectives.

Yes

234This dialogue’s focus was on exploring strengths and challenges specific to local food systems and share successful models and innovative approaches that can build on the strengths and/or address challenges to achieve more resilient regional food systems. Dialogue breakout discussions were grouped according to region, to focus on issues or themes particular to the area. At registration, participants selected a general region they identify with, from among the following groups: Atlantic Canada; Central Canada; Western Canada; and Northern Canada. An additional ‘National’ breakout discussion group, with representation from all regions and both official languages provided the opportunity for participants to identify common themes among regions. In each breakout room, participants were invited to discuss the following questions: 1. What are the key strengths that are unique to this region’s food system? 2. What are the key challenges faced by this region’s food system? 3. What are some successful models and innovative approaches that can build on those strengths and/or address key challenges in this region? 4. How can we best work together towards a more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable food system in this region? 5. If we were to identify concrete areas for collective action, what would they be?235Discussion outcomes brought to light a broad range of views and perspectives that reflect the diversity of Canada’s geography and food systems. Common themes that emerged, from across regions include: • Food insecurity – challenges with food insecurity can manifest differently across Canada. For example, participants from Central Canada noted that growing rates of obesity are linked with incidence of food insecurity; food deserts are increasingly problematic in Atlantic Canada; marketing strategies that promote unhealthy food contribute to poor diets in Western Canada; and in Northern Canada, food affordability and accessibility was raised a primary cause of high rates of food insecurity. The national discussion highlighted poverty as the root cause for food insecurity, and that strategies to make sustainable progress towards reducing food insecurity must include poverty reduction. • Infrastructure – having the right infrastructure in place, as well as funding and regulatory mechanisms to support local economic development and social enterprise are key to building and maintain resilient regional food systems. • Local Food – local food movements demonstrate strong potential to be game-changing solutions, strengthening the local food economy.236In discussion groups of individuals representing diverse actors across Canada’s food system, participants discussed their perspectives and brainstormed ways to make progress towards more resilient regional food systems across Canada. The questions identified in Major Focus (above) focused the discussion on: strengths; challenges; successful models; collaboration; and, areas for collective action, that are particular to each region. Five discussion topics have been segregated by region to capture the diverse perspectives shared. Atlantic Canada Food system strengths include: • Wealth of traditional ecological knowledge, supported by the intergenerational sharing of knowledge, First Nations communities’ promotion of traditional knowledge, and peer-to-peer sharing; • Abundance of farmers markets; • Strong, enduring community connections to agriculture, fisheries, and other natural resource industries; and, • Accessible governance – openness of senior government officials to meet with stakeholders, from industry to civil society. Challenges include those directly related to food as well as systemic barriers: • Food insecurity: Participants agreed that food insecurity, and food deserts in particular (especially among First Nations Communities) are priority challenges, with low income rates being the primary cause of one’s access to affordable, healthy and culturally appropriate food. • Infrastructure: Participants agreed that lack of transportation (e.g., lack of public transportation as a barrier to accessibility), cold storage and processing capacity present challenges to the region’s food system resilience. • Climate change: The impact of climate change on wild food systems, and traditional harvesting, was also raised as a barrier to resilience. • Lack of incentives or regulation: Participants expressed support for policies and regulations that would incentivize consumers and institutions to buy local (e.g., establishing targets for public procurement). Participants also identified regulations governing food inspection to be barriers, expressing concern that the regulatory framework does not adequately respect treaty rights. Successful models: • Participants identified that financial and human resources are key to success in developing and sustaining resilient food systems, and that leveraging resources from multiple initiatives could create synergies that yield positive results. • The following models and initiatives have been implemented in the region: Farmers markets, community gardens, Cape Breton Food Hub, and Community Food Mentors (Food For All NB), which is a food centered model that provides skills training and resources to support food security. Collaboration – Participants identified the following collaborative initiatives as having the potential to scale up or out, to support a more inclusive, resilient and sustainable food system: • Peer-to-peer networks among community and grassroots organizations; • Collaborative education, learning and skills development; • Sharing best practices and adopting successful models developed in other jurisdictions; and, • Information sharing platforms and virtual networks. Areas for collective action – Participants also identified a number of areas for continued or increased action, at the government- and organizational-level, as well as across the food system more generally: • Expanding funding programs that support local food security and infrastructure, to include human resources and other needs identified by communities. The federal government’s Local Food Infrastructure Fund was identified as having potential in this area. • Continuing public education, outreach and networking among organizations and with governments. • Broad policy and program support for improving the accessibility and affordability of nutritious, culturally appropriate food that is sustainably produced and consumed.236Central Canada Food system strengths include: • Diversity across the food system, including environmental, social and economic components of: geography, climate, culture, and production/supply chain. • Strong community-led supports from funding, to networks and relationship-building initiatives. • Strong individual and community connections to urban and rural food environments. Challenges noted include: • While the production and supply chain is generally diverse, industrial production lacks capacity in the processing and value-added sector. For example, many commodities grown in Ontario are exported to other provinces or outside Canada, for further processing or manufacture. Further, many processors use few local and regional products, having adopted business models that rely on imported goods. • Lack of connection among farmers, primary producers and communities; particularly in urban areas. • Increasing urbanization and industrial development of rural agricultural land. • Public procurement practices that exclude locally-sourced products. • Individual and family incomes that are insufficient to access nutritious, culturally appropriate food. Successful models – Participants identified a number of community and government initiatives that lever strengths and address challenges including: • Lufa greenhouse farm is an initiative that connects rooftop greenhouse farms with local farmers and food makers, in an online marketplace of locally and sustainably produced food baskets. The initiative also partners with local non-profit agencies to increase access to their products for low-income communities. • Participants noted that community gardens, and the networks that support them (e.g., Sustain Ontario) are prime examples of successful models that support resilient food systems at the local level. In particular, the use of public space for community gardens (e.g., on land surrounding public institutions such as hospitals or schools), can contribute to healthy diets of patients and students. • The Northern Ontario Indigenous Food Security Collaborative is a community-led initiative that brings Indigenous practitioners, funders and other stakeholders together in an integrated and comprehensive planning and resourcing process focused on strengthening Indigenous food sovereignty and food security. The collaborative is supported by the Maple Leaf Centre for Action on Food Security, which supports programs that advance the capacity of people and communities to achieve sustainable food security and have the potential to be replicated or scaled to increase their impact. The Centre’s goal is to reduce food insecurity by 50% by 2030. • The Middlesex-London Food Policy Council was identified as an example of a successful network and participants noted the Council’s initiative to reduce food loss and waste including educational tools for students aged 5 – 18 as a best practice. • Participants identified government policy and programs supporting food literacy as having potential for success. Private Members Bill-216, proposing that the Ontario Education Act be amended to include a food literacy and healthy eating curriculum from grades 1 through 12, was strongly supported in this discussion theme.236[Central Canada continued...] Collaboration - Participants identified the following collaborative initiatives as having the potential to scale up or out, to support a more inclusive, resilient and sustainable food system: • Regional and community-based food policy groups and councils can foster innovative partnerships and improve connections across the food system to strengthen capacity, resilience sustainability and inclusiveness. • Participants agreed that expanding public engagement and initiatives to promote food, and food system literacy would contribute to more positive outcomes. • Municipalities have collaborated with community groups and the agriculture sector, re-assessing by-laws to enable the establishment of farmer’s markets and development of urban agriculture and community gardens. Areas for collective action: • Participants agreed that governance mechanisms such as policy councils will improve coordination among orders of government, and that public education measures would support collective action among consumers. • Participants also identified collaboration between local suppliers and institutions (public and private) as areas to strengthen, however specific roles or initiatives were not discussed.236Western Canada Food system strengths include: • Diversity in the agriculture and food sector, and leadership in sustainable cattle production. • Collaborative approaches to preventing food loss and waste that connect farmers and grocers in the process. • Adoption of Indigenous knowledge and approaches to agriculture and food systems. Challenges noted include: • Transportation – lack of robust transportation networks connecting urban centres with northern and Indigenous communities, and lack of equity and opportunity in the market (e.g., while transport trucks bring food and supplies to isolated communities, they return south empty). • Paucity of value added production capacity, from local abattoirs to further processing. • Need for increased awareness of the contribution of animal sectors in supporting sustainable food systems. • Regulatory barriers including restrictions on land access, inter-provincial trade barriers. • Emergence of food deserts. • Food security challenges are particularly severe in northern and isolated areas, due to lack of fundamental resources such as water, roads and broadband. Successful models – Participants identified a number of community initiatives that lever strengths and address challenges relating to food insecurity and food loss and waste including: • Community-led initiatives that grow and produce food in a sustainable manner, for local consumption. The Smart Farm Project was highlighted as a particularly successful model: adopting smart growth principles to small farm acreages; levering increased density to create affordable housing and farming opportunities; and, establishing frameworks to help make farming more financially viable. • Food banks and food assistance organizations have shifted towards providing more fresh, nutritionally dense food. • Loop Resource partners with grocery stores across British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, to divert unsold grocery store food to registered charities and farms as feed and compost. Collaboration - Participants identified the following areas as having potential for further collaboration, to support a more inclusive, resilient and sustainable food system: • Partnerships between local growers/producers and processors, to increase capacity for regional and community sourced food. • Sharing knowledge and levering resources to support climate change adaptation. • Initiatives that promote circularity, such as Loop, to prevent food loss and waste. • Initiatives that support northern food security, and promote self-determination to improve access to nutritious, culturally appropriate food. Areas for collective action: • Participants agreed collective action among governments, sectors, industry, communities and individuals is needed to address priority areas including: support for education and training initiatives, as well as peer-to-peer learning; innovative solutions to adapt to climate change; and, strengthening production capacity.236Northern Canada Food system strengths include: • Northern communities’ creativity, adaptability and innovation have been key to survival and success in remote areas and harsh climates. These strengths are enduring and inherent in northern society, traditions and culture, and evident in cultivation and harvesting traditions. • Vast, diverse geography with rich natural resources and strong connections to the scientific community. Challenges noted include: • Government policy and regulations around safe food handling and sale are often misaligned with northern realities and culture. There is an opportunity to incorporate country food and traditional knowledge and harvesting methods into regulations and governance mechanisms. • Lack of sufficient local, accessible abattoirs and storage capacity, to promote traditionally harvested, culturally appropriate food. Successful models – Participants agreed that collaborative community-led models that bring together multiple disciplines in partnership for food security projects have seen great success. The following examples were identified in the discussion: • Partnerships with organizations in the South for skills development and training. • Integrated pest management strategies (across provincial and territorial jurisdictions). • Local community gardens. • Funding programs that take a long-term approach and are community centered are more been successful in building sustainable capacity and strengthening the resilience of local food systems. Collaboration – Participants identified three priorities for improving collaboration towards a more inclusive, resilient and sustainable food systems: • Including diverse perspectives in policy and program development, considering all food system actors in analyzing and monitoring food security and food systems in northern communities. • Increasing networks for – and expanding partnerships between – food hubs and local distribution, connecting individual producers and farmers with communities. The Yukon Agricultural Association was highlighted as a leading model. The association’s mission is “To foster and promote sustainable Yukon agriculture for the benefit of both private and commercial producers and consumers through education, infrastructure development, and liaison with government agencies and with non-government organizations.” • Reducing the regulatory and policy barriers to expanding the availability of and access to traditionally harvested country food. E.g., governments could collaborate with communities to include locally produced food in subsidy programs. Areas for collective action – Participants identified the following actions as initiatives governments, the sector, industry and civil society could take, to improve the resilience of food systems in Canada’s northern communities: • Provide workshops, training and skills development, equipment and other supplies to support small-scale food production. • Promote the region’s successes and capitalize on positive outcomes. • Adopt a community-centric approach to policy and program development, focusing on needs and mechanisms identified at the grassroots level. • Adopt more sustainable funding models to support local producer associations.236National Food system strengths – Participants identified the following strengths that are particular to a sub-region in each of the above categories: • Halifax, Nova Scotia: values of sharing food and supporting one another is woven into the culture. • Wellington-Guelph, Ontario: strong food culture, agri-food research and networks, and diverse farming operations. • Quebec: multiple and diverse food systems throughout the province. • Northwest Territories: Strong Indigenous practice, traditional knowledge and culture, and innovation. Smaller governments are adaptable and nimble to react to shocks (e.g., COVID 19). Food system challenges – Participants noted a variety of challenges related to: labour, the environment and climate change; the legacy of colonialism; and, food security, as priority challenges to the resilience of Canada’s national food system: • Labour: While the people who work in the food system are essential, they are often not treated as such, with low wages, unstable or precarious work conditions, and little to non-existent social or health support. This challenge exists throughout the food chain, from temporary foreign workers, to retail workers and transportation and distribution channels (e.g., truck drivers). • Environment and climate change: Participants expressed concern that Canada’s food system may not be well-positioned to weather the impact of an environmental shock analogous to the impact of the pandemic. • Colonial legacy: Significant traditional Indigenous knowledge and practices have been lost through the systemic racism of residential schools and other colonial policies. Participants strongly agreed on the need for change to preserve and promote Indigenous knowledge and practices, listen to Indigenous voices, and to adopt inclusive, self-determined approaches to funding programs and projects, and governance. • Food security: Access to affordable, nutritious and culturally appropriate food was identified as challenge, primarily impacting low-income communities. Participants expressed the view that while some people have the means to access ‘good’ food, the food system is two-tiered, leaving large groups of Canadians either food insecure currently, or at risk of becoming food insecure soon. Successful models – Participants identified the following models as successful in promoting food security and resilient, inclusive food systems: • Community food centres and organizations that take a holistic approach to food security by providing food literacy, training and skills development for employment, access to health and other social services. • Civil society networks that promote equity in food systems and enable connections with funding organizations and other supports. • School food programs that source locally grown and produced food and integrate food skills and literacy in educational programming. • Institutional procurement policies that prioritize local, sustainably produced food. • Consideration for the concept of a national food system, modelled after Canada’s approach to national health care. Collaboration: • Participants noted sharing best practices, and learning from others’ experience are key collaborative mechanism. The discussion highlighted that opportunities exist to strengthen and expand sharing networks, to include more diverse voices that represent actors, participants and partners from across the food system. Collaborative networks would also enable connections among funding organizations and recipients, with the potential to create synergies and maximize resources. Areas for collective action: • Participants agreed that organizations, civil society, governments and individuals could work together to develop school food programing that supports local production.237There was not a significant area of divergence among stakeholders. All stakeholders agreed on the need and the importance to build a resilient and sustainable regional food systems. As noted above, participants from each region considered different approaches.

2021-08-05 15:56:13205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17312/41

371153108

The Dialogue was organized to be as inclusive and unifying as possible, ensuring strong representation from all stakeholders at the “fork” end of Canada’s food system. Participant lists for each discussion group were developed to ensure diverse perspectives, with representation from industry, non-government organizations, academia and under-represented groups. The multi-stakeholder approach to engagement aligned with the Food Policy for Canada’s goal to include diverse perspectives in all discussion groups.All future statements targeted 2030 with the goal of helping to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Participants were encouraged to speak freely about ideas and suggestions, and it was noted Chatham House Rules were being applied. This dialogue looked at improving Canada’s food system from the retail perspective - including grocery retail and foodservices. Questions were framed to ensure the focus was on elements where food system stakeholders could make or influence changes, while respecting the autonomy of other stakeholders along the supply chain.Despite best efforts, there will be some no-shows in your discussion groups and it will impede attempts for an inclusive dialogue and proper representation. If efforts are made to ensure diversity amongst participants, this should improve the discussions. It is recommended that Dialogue Convenors invite more, rather than fewer, participants, because a portion of registrants will not show up. Selecting strong facilitators for each session will enable a free flow of conversation and ensure that diverse views – even if they conflict – are heard and registered. A strong facilitator is also needed to manage participants who may dominate the session. Having a list of prompting questions to help refocus the conversation if it veers off track can be helpful.

Yes

234The focus on this Dialogue was the “fork” end of Canada’s food supply chain – specifically, the contact point with the consumer. It focused on grocery retail and foodservices, but also included convenience stores, cafeterias and other food access points. While these food environments differ greatly, depending on context, they all serve to connect the consumer to food. The types of food offerings are expansive, diverse and provide a variety of different price points. Food environments can determine consumers’ access to foods and therefore have a significant impact on accessibility, sustainability and responding to consumers’ changing preferences. In focusing on these particular elements, this Dialogue sought to examine the links of Action Track 1, 2, and 5: • Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all by seeking ways to improve accessibility to nutritious and affordable food. • Shift to sustainable consumption patterns by exploring means to improve supply chain efficiency and distribute foods in a more sustainable manner. • Build resilient to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress by exploring means to improve food security and respond to shifts in consumer preferences. While developing the concept paper for the Dialogue, it became apparent there were strong linkages among these three Action Tracks – food security is strongly linked to affordability and more efficient and sustainable supply chains, which in turn also improve accessibility. These Action Tracks also aligned with a number of departmental and government policies, priorities, initiatives and commitments, including: • The Food Policy for Canada (seeking to improve food security). • the Agri-Awareness Campaign (seeking to improve consumer awareness and knowledge of food systems). • AAFC’s priorities of encouraging improvements along Canada’s food supply chain, working with industry to strengthen the sector’s capacity to develop and improve Canada’s food system to reduce vulnerabilities and lead to a more resilient food system. As a result, this Dialogue focused on the following Future Statements: 1. By 2030, Canada’s food environments will continue to drive change to support a resilient, innovative and sustainable food system. 2. By 2030, Canada’s food environments can significantly improve accessibility to food for all Canadians, including through the use and promotion of technology, innovation, and new approaches to procuring and distributing locally grown foods. 3. By 2030, Canada’s food environments will be increasingly responsive to changing consumer preferences towards affordable, diverse, and nutritious foods.235The Dialogue raised common themes as a result of the linkages among the three Future Statements. Main findings: • At the onset, most discussion groups struggled with the definition of “food environments” as being anywhere you can access and purchase food. Many participants were from an NGO or food bank where food is not purchased. Some participants noted that food banks are “retailer customers and wholesalers,” who leverage cash donations to achieve collective purchasing power. • Access to healthy, affordable, and sustainable food that meets the needs of diverse groups of people is achieved through a people-oriented and decentralized approach to the food system, supported by innovative and/or digital technology (i.e. e-commerce and other digital platforms) and simplified regulations. This goal would be supported by: - A better understanding of the barriers to accessing foods – from social, economic, cultural, and other perspectives. - Support for small and medium processors/enterprises, through the sharing of common resources such as innovative technologies, infrastructure and food supplies, could help to alleviate food loss and waste. - Support for local initiatives addressing the challenges of their communities. • Participants acknowledged that while a decentralized approach to food systems is extremely difficult to execute, it is useful in addressing the diverse needs and situations of citizens across the country. • Innovation and investment are affected by scale – large corporations fare better than smaller and medium-sized ones. Funding could target small and medium-sized enterprises which are likely better equipped to support local. • Local food production was frequently cited as a solution to food insecurity, along with the adoption of innovative technology such as e-commerce and vertical farming. • The cost of getting food to and growing foods in remote locations is forcing a rethink of how food supply chains work, especially in the North. - Local is desired, however not the only solution. • Participants also suggested considering the perspectives of others such as unions, municipalities, and consumers living in food deserts. As an example, municipal governments could play a greater role in enabling local food markets where people are living. • Acknowledgement by participants that Canada’s food system is vulnerable to shocks – including economic and environmental – and changes need to be made to ensure resiliency. Examples included investing in local (Canadian) food, assessing distribution models and collaborating with producers, city planners and other key players. • What qualifies as “nutritious” varies greatly. • Poverty reduction was cited as key to solving food accessibility issues.236In discussion groups, participants discussed the following future statements: 1. By 2030, Canada’s food environments will continue to drive change to support a resilient, innovative and sustainable food system. [Please note we had two discussion groups that focused on this future statement, resulting in additional comments compared to the other future statements.] Participants noted that large, diverse, metropolitan areas are in need of culturally appropriate food and that some community groups do not utilize food charities (food banks). One participant noted that food is a human right, and would like to see the current food hub model evolve from a reliance on grant funding to a self-sustained model through capital investment, including support for the use of local farmers and food organizations to advance storage and food waste reduction. A participant noted the logistical and financial challenges in reaching remote communities. Trucking/air transportation is expensive and costs to operate a local greenhouse in winter are prohibitive. An emphasis was placed on finding ways to improve access to nutritious and affordable foods. Proposed solutions to these challenges included the promotion of a “circular economy,” with a focus on supporting local suppliers for small/medium communities and leveraging e-commerce tools to improve food networks/hubs. The success of these solutions is underpinned by consumers’ understanding of how the food systems work. The consolidation of Canada’s food system has threatened rural, remote and Indigenous communities, so supporting regional suppliers could help improve resiliency. Reexamining regulations and reducing red tape may improve resiliency and sustainability of Canada’s food system. Small and medium-sized enterprises can increase resiliency, however funding supports need to be made available to achieve those goals as they don’t have the capital to invest in technology to the same extent as large organizations. Participants expressed support for a pan-Canadian school food program.2362. By 2030, Canada’s food environments can significantly improve accessibility to food for all Canadians, including through the use and promotion of technology, innovation, and new approaches to procuring and distributing locally grown foods. Participants noted the prevalence of food deserts is due, in part, to transportation issues and location challenges. For example, those in rural, remote or Indigenous communities have limited access to food as they often rely on a single, small, independent grocery store. One participant noted that Indigenous communities in the Northwest Territories are traditionally hunters, and that some residential school survivors only know agriculture as being an activity that provided food to priests, and not for their own consumption. Having a more thorough understanding of different populations’ relationship with agriculture could help educate consumers to improve accessibility. This could be done through Knowledge Hubs – which Farm Credit Canada is establishing -- to encourage communities and businesses to start up their own businesses or participate in the food system. Collaboration among consumers, unions and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities with the federal government is needed to understand the challenges of different parts of the country and develop tangible solutions. A one-size fits all approach will not work. A participant noted the importance of the Surplus Food Rescue Program in Northwest Territories communities and expressed the need for a permanent support to improve food security in rural and remote areas. Participants noted existing mechanisms could be leveraged to improve accessibility: • e-commerce • local champions with appropriate skills and tools who encourage collaborative efforts to improve affordability of items • using a collaborative farmers market method which supports low income families by providing produce and recipes developed by a nutritionist • the establishment of local/niche food harvesting organizations to capitalize on niche products that grow naturally and empower Indigenous groups to use their traditional knowledge to improve food accessibility and economic self-sufficiency2363. By 2030, Canada’s food environments will be increasingly responsive to changing consumer preferences towards affordable, diverse, and nutritious foods. One participant noted that consumer preference has shifted from types of food to affordable food. Participants agreed the focus should be on how consumer preferences can be met while ensuring accessibility (as it relates to affordability) to even the most vulnerable segments of the population. Suggested solutions included farmers’ market certificates (similar to food stamps) allowing low-income citizens to access fresh produce, and linking suppliers directly to consumers via a food bank. Participants agreed subsidies and research investments influence food environments, and smaller scale producers often are overlooked for these types of funding, limiting their capacity to become a key contributor to Canada’s food environments. Participants noted while global supply chains are key to resiliency, shorter supply chains are also essential. Canada’s vegetable producers need better support to provide affordable, diverse and nutritious food but experience limited access to insurance programs, compared to larger field crops. The diversity of agricultural operations needs to be supported by government programs. Innovation is key to responding to consumer preference. By investing in alternative growing systems, such as rooftop gardens and vertical agriculture, innovation can improve affordability of nutritious foods. Online purchasing is restrictive to rural, remote and Indigenous communities, and small and medium industries don’t have the capacity to invest in it. Supports for online initiatives need to be scalable.237Definitions of food environment-related elements • Questions were raised about what constitutes local – is it within the immediate vicinity, regional, provincial, or national? A few participants also questioned the value of the term “nutritious food,” noting the definition of nutritious has evolved over the years. Who influences who? • Some participants noted that while consumer preferences can influence food environments, those same food environments can also shape consumer preferences. Is the issue food environments or poverty? • A participant noted that accessibility to food cannot be separated from income inequality, and that the root cause of food accessibility issue is poverty. Ecommerce – an innovation that benefits some while leaving others behind • While ecommerce has improved accessibility for some, those in rural, remote and some Indigenous communities have limited access to broadband and/or computers, and are often far away from grocery retailers. In addition, these online services may exclude consumers who don’t have credit cards, which further restricts access to food. Policy and funding solutions: they may help large corporations, but can hurt smaller and independent ones • A number of participants noted many solutions would harm small businesses, such as independent grocery retailers in rural, remote and Indigenous communities, and asked how solutions could be more inclusive for small retailers. • There was some divergence over the purpose of agricultural policy – whether its focus should be on ensuring affordable food, or profitability of farms. Can these changes be incentivized if additional profit isn’t the end goal? • Some participants noted there is currently no incentive for industry to improve the situation for rural, remote or Indigenous communities as there’s no financial gain.

2021-08-05 16:00:13205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14365/41

519211511628764113427519121318461423312

Preparation for this member-state Dialogue involved broad consultation across multiple federal government departments and leveraged results of on-going engagement with other stakeholders on issues of sustainability to help inform all stages of planning, from conceptualization through to implementation and event management. This encouraged the identification of diverse perspectives across the food system relevant to the topic and inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the invitation list for the Dialogue.The overall theme of the Dialogue was framed from the perspective of collective and collaborative action to enhance the climate resiliency of Canada’s agriculture and food system and explore related food security challenges. Discussion group topics were developed following a review of reports from Canadian organizations, approaches used successfully in other countries, and discussion across federal officials from several departments, to incorporate a broad and collaborative lens. Participants were assigned to discussion groups to ensure a balanced mix of stakeholder groups across the food system. Government of Canada officials acting as facilitators and note-takers were guided to play a neutral role, neither leading the discussion towards select outcomes nor challenging the ideas raised by participants, but instead asking questions to help participants bring forward their own ideas and perspectives and ensuring that all voices are heard. Special attention was paid to the use of Chatham House Rule to ensure that all participants could share perspectives openly and respectfully.N/A

Yes

234Recent reports and studies, such as Natural Resource Canada’s ‘Canada in a Changing Climate’ report series indicates that Canada’s climate is changing. Temperatures are increasing, precipitation patterns are becoming more variable and the frequency and intensity of some extreme events have increased (e.g. floods, intense rainstorms, wildfires). These changes are anticipated to continue to intensify into the future and will exacerbate current issues facing Canada’s agriculture and food system. In Canada, the agriculture and food sector is recognized as being both one of the most climate impacted and one of the most adaptable sectors in Canada. Climate impacts on Canada’s agriculture and food sector are complex and different regions are and will experience climate impacts differently across the country. Climate change can also result in benefits, as well as new threats and challenges to Canada’s agriculture and food system. Climate impacts can also reverberate down the entire food system and supply chains, as well as directly impacting communities and rural livelihoods, the foundations of our agriculture system. Adding to the complexity, our agricultural systems need to adapt to a suite of climate change impacts that interact with other factors, such as economic pressures, an increasing global population, changing human dietary preferences, increased input costs and energy prices, competing land-use pressures and policy-related economic pressures. Food security is a complex issue and there are many factors which affect whether a person is food insecure, such as the availability of food that is healthy, nutritious and culturally appropriate, and the financial and physical access to food. With the world’s population projected to increase by two billion people by 2050, Canada has an important role to play in supporting food security at home and abroad. Successfully adapting Canada’s agriculture and food system to climate change will make important contributions towards improving food security. The objective of the dialogue was to bring together diverse stakeholders and perspectives to explore and identify approaches to enhance the climate-resiliency of Canada’s agricultural and food sector, including priorities to address food security challenges. Specifically, participants provided feedback on what additional support and actions are required to: • Enhance the agriculture and food sector's efforts to develop and implement adaptation strategies to ensure Canada’s food system is resilient to climate impacts now and into the future. • Ensure Canada continues to be a world leader in the development, testing and adoption of practices and technologies to improve climate-resiliency and support long term sustainability of the agriculture and food sector. • Engage with Canada’s Indigenous and remote communities to help address food security and production issues, including identifying climate impacts on locally produced traditional food and medicines.235There was broad consensus that many of Canada’s past and ongoing agri-environmental and sustainability actions have improved the climate resiliency of our agriculture and food systems. For example, the widespread adoption of Environmental Farm Plans, high adoption of no-till seeding, and development of agriculture adaptation planning, especially in British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario. At the broader food system level, there was also general consensus that Canada is sustainable and climate resilient due in part to our food and production systems being highly diverse (e.g. not specialized in one commodity, production type, or geographical region). Therefore, there are successes that can be built on and leveraged. However, gaps and challenges to enhancing adaptation and implementing actions were discussed, as were potential areas for improvement and solutions. Some noteworthy suggestions are further discussed below and included the need to develop transparent, clear objectives and goals through a national strategy focusing on climate adaptation and the sustainability of Canada’s food system, with more government leadership. Related to this is the need for dedicated and longer term approaches, programs and technical support for implementation and to accelerate action. There was agreement that accurate and measurable food system metrics are important, should be developed in a collaborative approach, in order to track progress and inform decision making/strategies. This also included the need to improve coordination and investment in data required to develop and refine metrics on climate resiliency, adaptation and sustainability of Canada’s food system. Other suggestions included increased efforts for education and communication ensuring technical transfer of knowledge from research to farmers, food supply chain stakeholders and consumers in formats that enable understanding of climate impacts and potential solutions. Similarly, participants suggested focusing on increasing capacity for local extension and knowledge transfer activities related to climate-resiliency, especially for small and medium producers, farmers, indigenous and remote communities. This includes increasing dedicated support for research and demonstration on climate resilient production practices and solutions (e.g. agro-ecological approaches, nature based climate solutions, new climate resilient crop varieties, etc.) and identifying their effectiveness, cost, benefits and operational impacts related to their adoption. It was further suggested to consider restructuring research support programming related to climate resiliency. For example, the current cost-share criteria between public-private funding to initiate research needs to be more flexible with increased government contributions for public good outcomes, such as adaptation solutions. Discussions also touched on needing to increase support for research, demonstration and programming related to diversifying production systems (e.g. agro-ecological, regenerative and organic production approaches), diversifying and developing varieties of crops better suited to new climate conditions (e.g. winter cereals and different wheat varieties, etc.), and supporting consumer awareness eco-labelling programs. In terms of engaging on food security, opportunities were noted to go beyond historical tendencies of focusing on commercial agriculture and food and ensuring that smaller-scale and aboriginal farmers have the opportunity to be included in dialogues with commercial operations and access flexible programming support tailored to their needs. Indigenous communities require technical support, but traditional knowledge can also help inform adaptation strategies for other producers. Addressing food security challenges needs to reflect Indigenous food sovereignty, respect the principle of self-determination, and recognize that a number of local and traditional food systems are under threat due to climate changes, while traditional knowledge is also being lost.236In discussion groups of up to 12 individuals representing diverse aspects of Canada’s food system, participants discussed their perspectives and brainstormed ways to increase the sustainability of production within Canada’s food system. Groups discussed three topics: Enhancing efforts to develop and implement adaptation strategies; continuing to be a world leader in the development, testing and adoption of climate resilient and sustainable practices and technologies; and engaging with Canada’s Indigenous and remote communities to help address food security and production issues. Theme 1: Enhancing efforts to develop and implement adaptation strategies Some groups spent time to outline what is working well today, while other groups focused immediately on the gaps, challenges and barriers, with potential solutions. Ideas generated for what is working well today included: • One of the key aspects of adaptation, adoption of beneficial (best) management practices, is/has been working well. Examples highlighted include nutrient management, developing environmental farm plans, adopting regenerative practices such as buffer strips, and high adoption rates of no-till seeding, especially across the prairie provinces. • Some participants noted that the existing Canadian food system is sustainable because it is highly fragmented (not specialized in one food/sector). However, this fragmentation also drives the need for improved communicative platforms where people are able to collaborate and share information. • In some provincial jurisdictions there has been success in developing regional adaptation plans for the agriculture sector (e.g. British Columbia’s Climate Adaptation Initiative which has a strong research network for climate adaptation). Other examples include Quebec’s on-farm funding approaches and Ontario’s focus in developing a Healthy Soil Strategy. The discussion on gaps, challenges and barriers included the following ideas and comments: • Need to invest in emergency preparedness and resilience building with a pan Canadian food system risk tool and/or food system preparedness plan. Requires addressing gaps in information and metrics. • Metrics could expand from those more traditionally used to include “out of the box” metrics such as the reliability of transportation, energy supply, etc. • Canada is a diverse nation with different sectors/commodities, production types, and variability between farms within a region. Therefore, there is a greater need to support adaptation with landscape, regional and place-based approaches and prioritize adaptation actions; this is complex and greater capacity and technical assistance is required for building an effective adaptation roadmap. • Farmers need to know the cost of adopting new practices. It is a major barrier not knowing how a change will impact your farm. The added cost of mitigation needs to be taken into account across the supply chain and down to the farm level. There is more pressure on producers to adopt new practices addressing climate change for both mitigation and adaptation. Greater efforts are needed on knowledge-transfer networks to facilitate farmer-farmer conversations, peer learning and extension support. • Need greater support to develop more diversification in our food production systems (e.g. regenerative agriculture on smaller scale farms, organic production, circular approaches, crop varieties that are more suited to future climates, etc.). • Need to develop and test solutions such as improved genetics for plants (e.g. drought/heat tolerance, pest and disease resistance), and approaches that build up and maintain healthy soils. • Need to educate consumers and supply chain stakeholders on implications of food choices, though it was noted that changing consumer habits/trends can take a long time. Public resistance to improved genetics and genetically modified foods presents a potential barrier to improving climate resilience. Some participants also noted that eating and growing a wider variety of foods and supporting more diverse diets could be beneficial in also supporting the environment and sustainability.236[Theme 1 continued...] • Invest more on educating students, next generation farmers, retailers, public, etc. on integrated food systems and food security at all levels to inform and prepare people (particularly our younger generation) to address adaptation and food security issues. • There was a suggestion to consider conducting a full agro-ecosystem analysis to better inform and understand what directions we want to go and how to best formulate climate solutions. Food system resilience needs to include fisheries and aquaculture issues and improved integration is required in Canada. • Profitability (especially for small and medium sized farms) and farm succession planning need greater attention in light of attracting and educating the next generation of Canadian farmers. There is a potential to attract people from both urban and rural settings. Young farmers will play a key role moving forward and there is a need for additional programming to increase access to land and opportunities to support the environment. • Need greater investment for supporting circular food economy approaches, including education, traditional knowledge and communication.236Theme 2: Ensuring Canada continues to be a world leader in the development, testing and adoption of climate resilient and sustainable practices and technologies • Canada has experienced a loss of government technical assistance and extension services, leaving only the sales and input companies to fill the gap. Extension services need to include field days and demonstration, and opportunities for peer-to-peer learning. Farmers need to feel supported in managing climate, weather and associated environmental risks. • There is a need for a communication bridge to fill the gap between science/innovation and the actual farmers conducting the work. Communications should be formatted to be more easily understood and accessible. • Support for climate adaptation research needs to be expanded, especially in the public domain, to be free of perceived bias and readily available to farmers. Existing knowledge from farmers should be leveraged. Consider restructuring research support programming related to climate resiliency and remove potential barriers related to research and innovation that has high public benefits, with unclear or no return on investment for private entities. • Need increased focus to adapt crops and plants to become more resilient to more extreme weather, and there is a need to improve water use and nitrogen use efficiency, including both equipment/technologies and biological innovation. • Recognition that farmers have always been innovating, and innovation should start at the grassroots level with farmers and food systems. Innovation should not only be focused on “high-tech” and larger companies, but should focus on what is actually feasible for farmers. There is a need to identify where agro-ecological practices are currently taking place and how these current practices can be better supported and improved. • There is a need to encourage and reward science and innovation for crops. Scientific research in this area should focus on environmentally friendly solutions and sustainability. There is a strong need to focus on science and innovation. • A shift in culture is required to look at the whole supply chain and not just the traditional focus on primary production – for example, need to expand statistics collected on food systems beyond what is currently done through the Census of Agriculture. • Governments can assist in the accounting of environmental standards and backing eco-labelling programs. On the producer side, there can be more support for “green” agriculture production and link these to support programs. Consumers could reward the supply chain through environmental leadership that will give incentives on the private sector side. • Incentive approaches to accelerate and support adoption need to consider and assess the societal impact of technologies – need to think about unintended consequences. • Need modeling to inform options related to food production and consumption and determine the way climate change is impacting our farming systems, food supply chains and the public. • The importance of verbal knowledge sharing among the Inuit and Indigenous communities was discussed. Investment in programs and infrastructure to allow for this kind of knowledge sharing is essential for the continuation of sustainable food harvesting and food security. • Ensuring the generational aspect of knowledge transfer is important in terms of land management and environmental sustainability. Learning from the past is essential and important, history must be captured in order to improve and provide insight to future innovations. • Increase collaboration and partnerships between ecological/environmental organizations and farmers to share expertise, funding, support communication networks and provide a space for knowledge sharing, collaboration and innovation. This should combine a variety of knowledge types (academic, working, generational, etc.).236Theme 3: Engaging with Canada’s Indigenous and remote communities to help address food security and production issues • Need to improve mechanisms and encourage directly engaging with Indigenous communities, improving information sharing and coordination of different players within government agencies and departments related to food and agriculture mandates. We have to recognize that colonial food systems that have been developed have impacted Indigenous communities and be respectful when we address these challenges. • Addressing food security challenges needs to reflect Indigenous food sovereignty and self-determination. Traditional food systems are under threat due to climate changes, such as rising waters, and traditional knowledge on managing and harvesting these foods are being lost. Indigenous peoples face higher rates of food insecurity. • In addressing challenges with food security we must also discuss food sovereignty. Research has shown that food insecurity leads to a number of health problems. Communities have been promoting traditional food systems. • In terms of engaging on food security, there are opportunities to go beyond historical tendencies of focusing on commercial agriculture and food. Ensuring that smaller-scale and Aboriginal farmers have an opportunity to be included in dialogues with commercial operations and are able to access flexible programming support tailored to their needs. • When addressing food security, looking at Indigenous and remote communities should be viewed as an example of strength and resilience. These communities can also act as leaders and indicators of climate change, and their connections to the land can highlight the impacts of climate change and make them leaders in environmental sustainability and innovation. Their knowledge can be leveraged to support and understand indicators of environmental and climate change. • Understanding why communities are food insecure is vital, for example, biophysical conditions to grow crops in their environment and other variables that may be impacting the situation such as transportation and trade/export issues acting as a barrier. More information and data is needed to fully understand this issue. • Collaboration and removing stigmas is essential to addressing food insecurity. Communication is key and sharing resources and an open-source approach would help support this. There also needs to be a willingness to adopt new technologies, where new technologies can offer innovative methods to address food insecurity at a low cost. • Several gaps exist within government programming in terms of obtaining necessary infrastructure to address food insecurity among Indigenous communities. Making programs more flexible and easier to access would remove this barrier and would better address the problem. • Food security includes seafood and need to work with Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada to improve recognition of Indigenous fishing rights.237N/A

2021-08-05 16:01:26205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14355/41

7784026228391056831941412611168325112021142612

The Food Policy for Canada, a roadmap to a healthier and more sustainable food system, is built upon extensive multi-stakeholder engagement with a unifying theme of “Everyone at the Table!”. The Principles of Engagement for the Food System Summit are aligned with the Food Policy for Canada’s guiding principles and the approach to stakeholder engagement. Preparation throughout the Member State Dialogue process involved broad consultation across multiple federal government departments at all stages of planning, from conceptualization through to implementation and event management. This encouraged the identification of diverse perspectives across the food system and inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the invitation list for the Dialogue.The overall theme of this Stage 3 Dialogue reflected the principles of engagement. In particular, it was framed to recognize the complexity of food systems and their interconnection with health, social, environmental and economic systems. This dialogue used a systemic approach, inviting a broad diversity of stakeholders and partners to come together to identify game changing solutions and actions to support positive transformation for a more sustainable and equitable food system in Canada by 2030. Individuals from government, the agriculture and food sector, civil society, academia, and Indigenous communities, participated in an inclusive, respectful discussion. Government of Canada officials and respected food system leaders acted as facilitators and note-takers and were guided to play a neutral role, neither leading the discussion towards select outcomes nor challenging the ideas raised by participants, but instead asking questions to help participants bring forward their own ideas and perspectives and ensuring that all voices were heard. Special attention was paid to the use of Chatham House Rule to ensure that all participants could share perspectives openly.Adopting the principles of engagement, based on diversity, inclusion, respect and collaboration, are helpful in designing a meaningful Dialogue and ensuring constructive discussions among a diverse set of stakeholders and perspectives.

Yes

234The purpose of this Stage 3 Dialogue was for participants to reflect on outcomes from earlier dialogues and identify potential game-changing solutions for more sustainable and equitable food systems by 2030. Breakout group discussions focused on four overarching themes that were considered in the Stage 2 Member State Dialogues. At registration, participants identified one or two breakout group themes and vision statements they would be most interested in discussing: Theme 1: Food insecurity – root causes, measurement and solutions • Vision statement: By 2030, all people in Canada are able to access a sufficient amount of safe, nutritious, and culturally diverse food. Theme 2: Inclusive and resilient food systems • Vision statement: By 2030, domestic food systems will have capitalized on Canada’s diversity to be more resilient to economic and environmental shocks, and better positioned to seize opportunities. Theme 3: Integrated approaches to food systems • Vision statement: By 2030, interconnected social, health, environmental and economic components of food systems are integrated in decision-making across all food system actors, including all orders of government, the agriculture and food sector, stakeholders and partners. Theme 4: Sustainable production, consumption and disposal • Vision statement: By 2030, Canada’s food system is recognized as the most sustainable in the world. The following questions were provided to participants in advance, to help guide the discussion in each theme: 1. What commitments and/or targets need to be made and by whom to achieve this vision? 2. Which key actions/solutions identified in the Stage 2 Dialogues and other UN Food Systems Summit discussions would make the most meaningful progress towards achieving the commitments? 3. What barriers exist and how can they be overcome?235Theme 1: Food insecurity – root causes, measurement and solutions • Participants identified that a more comprehensive national measurement and monitoring framework is needed to make progress towards reducing food insecurity. Particular gaps to address include lack of robust and consistent reporting on food insecurity among at-risk populations, and lack of specific goals, targets and indicators related to federal programs and initiatives whose objectives include addressing food insecurity. • Opportunities were identified to improve collaboration and policy coherence across orders of government (i.e., federal, provincial and territorial, municipal), in particular on social programs, housing initiatives and measurement. • Participants agreed that Indigenous perspectives and rights need to be respected, and supported self-determined, holistic approaches to food insecurity that improves health, economic, and cultural well-being. Access to country food is essential for Indigenous communities, as is the capacity to practice traditional agricultural and food practices. Participants also identified the need for programs supporting Indigenous communities to be tailored to regional and local needs, respecting historical community contexts. Theme 2: Inclusive and resilient food systems • Participants identified collaboration, education, rights-based approaches and establishing a performance measurement strategy (including a national sustainability index) as key actions to achieve positive change across food systems. • Participants expressed broad support for “Everyone at the table”, including young farmers, immigrants and Indigenous communities. • Biodiversity, improving food literacy for resilient and healthy populations, and business risk management practices for producers to sustain external shocks were highlighted as mechanisms for improving sustainability. • There was broad support for developing legislation and regulations with a local or regional lens, to incorporate community contexts, promote food autonomy and food sovereignty, particularly for Indigenous communities. • Participants also expressed support for action to support local food systems, including investments in local food infrastructure to grow and process food. • Root causes of food insecurity raised by participants include poverty, food prices, food deserts, lack of diversity, and lack of power in decision-making regarding local food systems. Theme 3: Integrated approaches to food systems • Participants reflected on key considerations with respect to integrated food systems in the Canadian context, noting the diversity of Canada’s multiple food systems (Indigenous, market, non-market etc.) that operate at different levels – local, regional, national, international. • Participants affirmed the need for integrated, systems-based approaches to addressing the social, economic, health and environmental aspects of our food system. In recognizing the diversity of food systems across Canada, participants identified the need to advance a collective vision and create opportunities to hear all food system perspectives when making decisions. • The importance of integrating the perspectives of Indigenous, Black and other marginalized peoples, and supporting Indigenous food sovereignty, was highlighted. Community and Indigenous-level participation in the food system can increase local economic resilience and improve food security and accessibility. Participants noted big opportunities in enabling community-based programs like community gardens and local processing. • Participants also identified the need for evidence-based targets and benchmarks for the economic, social, environmental and health dimensions of sustainability. These measures could catalyze change across the food system, helping to align food actors, improve public trust, and provide a new lens for policy-making. Leadership in this area could bring competitive advantages for the “Canada brand”, support sustainable economic growth, and make environmental and social improvements. • Participants identified the potential for integration on key issues where the interests of many stakeholders align, such as reducing food loss and waste and increasing procurement of healthy and sustainable foods in public institutions. Early successes in these areas can bring other partners/stakeholders to the table and build broader coalitions for food system transformation. Theme 4: Sustainable production, consumption and disposal • Participants reflected on the multiple dimensions of sustainability – environmental, social, health and economic – and affirmed that it should be a key priority for the food system moving forward. Recognizing the broad range of natural and industrial eco-systems across Canada, it was noted that activities to enhance food system sustainability may look different from place to place. Even so, participants identified the need to develop an overall direction to guide all food system actors. • The discussion centred primarily around four key areas where commitments and actions could improve sustainability: benchmarking goals, targets, and metrics with full-cost accounting across all four dimensions of sustainability; incentivizing innovation and adoption of climate solutions by the agriculture and food sector; reducing food loss & waste; and encouraging the shift to sustainable consumption. Cross-cutting actions include continuous engagement of all food system actors, investments in research & innovation, consumer education & awareness, and policy coherence and coordination.236Theme 1: Food insecurity – root causes, measurement and solutions Potential Commitments • National food insecurity reduction goal(s) and target(s). • A comprehensive, reliable, consistent and commonly-used food security measurement tool with robust indicators to track progress. • Increased access to food through economic and social programs. • A national healthy school food program. • Recognition of the “right to food security” through legislation. • Improved access to water. Potential Actions • Establish a federal observatory/dashboard to publically report on progress toward food security goals and align with the Poverty Reduction Strategy (Canada’s Official Poverty Dashboard) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. • Reassess food security indicators including the Market Basket Measure (MBM) and Low Income Cut-Off (LICO). In particular, participants noted that the metrics in the MBM focus on urban areas and poorly reflect smaller and rural regions’ food system realities. • Consider the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) – or elements of it – as a model framework of minimum standards for “right to food security” legislation. • Incorporate information on Indigenous food security in national indicators, respecting a rights-holder approach. The First Nations Food, Nutrition, and Environment Study was highlighted as a model for methodology and data strategies. • Support self-determined approaches to programs and policies for Indigenous communities. Some participants expressed support for more market-based initiatives in Indigenous communities, including independent food and grocery stores and increasing local food processing capacity. Support for regional food hubs and research on addressing food insecurity were also identified as potential actions to improve access to food. • Support collaboration between civil society and the private sector on mutual commitments toward common food security goals. • Increase funding for food councils or advisory bodies to increase support for civil society’s engagement on topics related to food security. • Improve income support initiatives. Participants noted that those launched during the pandemic have shown to reduce poverty and that stable employment can also reduce food insecurity. • Improve access to water for consumption, broaden water rights for irrigation, and impose stronger penalties for environmental mismanagement. Barriers and Critical Success Factors • Legal and regulatory barriers to land for Indigenous communities to improve their access to culturally appropriate food and traditional food practices. • All food system stakeholders have a role to play; collaboration and coordination among partners and across sectors and jurisdictions will be essential to setting realistic, commonly agreed-upon goals, improving measurement and achieving targets. • Participants identified the federal government as having lead responsibility for the measurement framework and data collection (e.g., through Statistics Canada), with provincial and territorial participation. • Federal and provincial/territorial governments need to work together to improve policy coherence where jurisdictions overlap. Municipal governments also influence important factors for food sovereignty, including the price of land, rental rates and access to space, especially in large cities. • Academia could play a key role in advancing collaborative research. • Physical access to processing facilities is a barrier to the availability of healthy, locally-sourced food. • Participants agreed that food banks are not a long-term solution to food insecurity and that many of these organizations advocate for eliminating the need for their services.236Theme 2: Inclusive and resilient food systems Potential Commitments • A farm-to-table approach based on relationship building across food system stakeholders and consumers. • More diversity in diet, agriculture and business by empowering farmers, small- and medium-sized food companies and by supporting migrant workers. • Strengthened local food system infrastructure, including food storage, food security organizations, schools, Northern communities, and by promoting Canadian products. • Rights-based approaches, including implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), supporting rights of Indigenous Peoples to participate in hunting/fishing, and supporting food sovereignty. • A more agile and adaptable legislative and regulatory framework. Potential Actions • Increase collaboration through dialogue and policy advisory bodies. • Develop and share business risk management strategies to support producers in risk management and mitigation, including adapting to and overcoming environmental and economic shocks. • Support consumer education and engagement in food systems to promote positive health, social, environmental and economic outcomes. • Create a National Sustainability Index for food systems that incorporate health, social, environmental and economic considerations. • Support public research into seed development, establishing public plant breeding programs and seed banks that promote biodiversity. • Reduce food prices in the North by improving the Nutrition North food subsidy and addressing the root causes of food insecurity rooted in poverty, high cost of living and lack of power. • Enhance long-term funding commitments to better support Indigenous communities. • Improve access to land and ensure food production assets are in the hands of many people, including younger farmers and Indigenous farmers. • Increase dialogue on social determinants of health and food systems and incorporating food security indicators as a measure of social programming achievement. • Link poverty reduction initiatives with food security and providing additional effective income supports, like the Canada Child Benefit. • Reduce regulatory barriers to accessing traditional food. Barriers and Critical Success Factors • Geography – Food distribution is a challenge in a country with a large geography and dispersed population. This is particularly evident in the North where lack of adequate storage for fresh food is a barrier to access for many communities. • Policy incoherence – Participants discussed incoherence between policies that promote health and nutritious diets and those that support less nutritious food choices. • Lack of connection between communities and the policies that are intended to support them. • Overly complicated growing systems dependent on costly external inputs and maintenance and do not address local needs – e.g., establishing greenhouses in Northern communities that traditionally rely on hunting, and harvesting country food.236Theme 3: Integrated approaches to food systems Potential Commitments • A mechanism to report on the food system as a whole, with metrics to track, define and set targets on important considerations across social, economic, health and environmental dimensions. These metrics should include, but are not limited to: food insecurity, food culture, Indigenous well-being, farmers’ incomes, food affordability, health, food literacy, diversity, traceability, and trade. • A more integrated approach to healthy and sustainable public procurement. This affects multiple dimensions of the food system, and can provide an opportunity to bring together all food system actors and communities to build collective commitment for social, health, environmental and economic objectives. • A more coordinated and food systems-based approach to addressing food loss and waste, that integrates environmental, social and economic perspectives. The integration of action across all orders of government was highlighted as a key factor, particularly the need for better integration of municipal and territorial perspectives. • Advance globally a more holistic approach that considers local, gender and Indigenous perspectives when addressing food system issues such as trade, food waste, food security and human rights. The UN Committee on Food Security and EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy were cited as examples. • A more integrated and structured decision-making process where the private sector, academics, and civil society have a role to provide perspectives to governments. • Better integrated health considerations in food systems decision-making, focusing on healthy local products, supporting organizations to promote healthy eating, and reducing chronic diseases • A resilient regulatory system that supports food safety, food security, and trade, particularly in the face of climate change and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Potential Actions • Promote a vision statement for Canada’s food systems that integrates social, health, environmental and economic benefits, and align government, industry and NGO action behind it. • Develop a comprehensive Food System Sustainability Index, that establishes a commonly agreed-upon set of indicators and benchmarks on sustainability, backed by evidence. • Advance an integrated approach that includes shared objectives and performance indicators for food-related policies and programs across federal departments and agencies as well provinces and territories that provides great coherence and predictability. • Improve or establish standards and tools to support integration, including data standards, guidelines, models, frameworks, and decision making tools. Important considerations include comparability, flexibility based on differing data availability and accessibility, and data sovereignty. • Strengthen Indigenous food systems and food sovereignty. This could include continued progress on reconciliation, creating space for Indigenous voices, and programs at Indigenous and community levels, e.g., community gardens, school food program, local processing/treating of foods. Participants supported the need to celebrate success stories of community action underway to demonstrate what is possible and build on these in future efforts. • Establish a more formal process to foster collaborative decision-making. As an example, a participant noted the need for a platform to bring all departments together that are responsible for any aspect of the food system. • Use the “One Health” approach to better integrate environmental, animal, and human health, break down silos, and get decision-makers on board. • Improve traceability and information flow through food systems in both directions – from producers to consumers, and from consumers to producers. This will lead to better decision-making throughout the system, not focused only on origin and endpoints. The use of IT/mobile technology to facilitate information flow was raised.236[Theme 3 continued...] Barriers and Critical Success Factors • Attracting food system actors to participate in efforts to better integrate food systems. There is a need to articulate a value proposition for different stakeholders – more explicit language on why this is important for communities, kids, businesses, etc. • Lack of food (system) literacy. There is a need to embed multiple aspects of food literacy (nutrition and health, food skills, eco-literacy, civics) within the education system, particularly as the connections across the food systems are learned inherently when taught at a young age. School food programming could provide an opportunity to advance food literacy. • A negative perception of food production and/or viewing it as “someone else’s” issue (e.g., rural, farmers). There is a need to promote the narrative that food production is empowering and encourage people to participate in it. Better outreach and awareness efforts (e.g., funded by government) can help change mainstream discussions about food. • The dynamic nature of food systems that are constantly evolving could pose a challenge to integration. There is a need to continually innovate and adapt, and consider the implications of choices on all four dimensions of sustainability. • The availability of financial capital to ensure that the system will adjust to the new challenges (e.g., sustainability, packaging) in the food system. • Transparency will be needed to adopt transformational change, particularly in light of food system changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. • Competing self-interests of various actors can pose a challenge to cooperation and integration. • Ensuring more diverse voices are at the table so that solutions from their communities come forward, are listened to, understood and heard.236Theme 4: Sustainable production, consumption and disposal Potential Commitments • A leadership role in global discussions on sustainability. • A process for benchmarking sustainability goals, targets, and metrics that are: science-based, achievable and measurable; include full-cost accounting across economic and environment factors; and integrate flexibility to account for the great variability across Canada’s diverse eco-systems. • A process for identifying agriculture- and food-driven climate solutions and link these solutions to proper incentives to ensure as rapid uptake as possible. • Dietary transitions to more nutritional, sustainable diets, and national targets to reduce the carbon footprint of Canadians’ healthy diet consumption (e.g., by 35%). • National target(s) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in production and supply chains (e.g., by 50% by 2030). • National target(s) to reduce food loss and waste (e.g., by 20-30% in the next five years, by 50% by 2030). • National target(s) to achieve electrification of all on-farm vehicles by 2035. • Concrete goals to reduce nitrous oxide emissions across food systems. Potential Actions • Conduct a scan/inventory of existing benchmarking methods and indicators and identify priority metrics that align with the sustainability outcomes we are attempting to achieve. • Identify climate solutions and strategies that have co-benefits for both the environmental and economic benefits on-farm, and increase support for further research to evaluate solutions to ensure the benefits and costs of adoption are well understood and shared with stakeholders. • Develop incentives for adopting climate solutions, with governments ensuring that all stakeholders throughout the value chain are engaged, incentives target the correct level of stakeholder (e.g., small family food producers, large scale farms), and adequate incentives are offered for participation. • Increase government-led efforts to help small farms engage in local markets, i.e., support small scale local farming. • Reduce food loss and waste through better measurement/tracking, identifying areas of action, developing public-private partnerships; participation of all supply chain actors; and research on behavioural considerations of consumer food waste. • Increase agriculture and food sector-led discussions on ways to discourage unsustainable/harmful practices, reward innovators, and shift the whole sector forward through continuous improvement. • Support shifts to sustainable diets through measurement, food reformulation and consumer education. Develop methods to ensure that sustainability metrics consider the nutrient density of food in determining sustainable consumption recommendations (e.g., consider nutritional equivalence when assessing recommendations to replace animal protein foods). Participants indicated that there should be policy coherence/alignment with Canada’s Food Guide recommendations. • Enhance government and industry collaboration to build public acceptance and trust scientific developments and technologies that can improve sustainability performance (e.g., genetically modified foods). • Increase government provision of, or funding for, research and extension services/training and not leave this to industry, due to potential conflicts-of-interest. Universities are a good source of extension services (research), and there is a need to better connect farmers, universities and governments on innovation development and adoption. • Encourage farmers to preserve and regenerate soils (e.g., by diversifying agricultural production). • Advance circular food economy approaches, particularly as it applies to food waste and agricultural waste (e.g., manure). • Establish a carbon sequestration credits-system for farmers.236Barriers and Critical Success Factors • The focus on the near-term harvesting season that food production requires can make it challenging to think about longer-term climate impacts. There is a need for continued engagement and involvement of food producers. • Ineffective communication of best management practices (BMPs) can create barriers to understanding and adoption. There is a need to improve access to information and expertise, and explore how best to share information, e.g., farmer-to-farmer, demonstrations, extension services. • Financial barriers that prevent governments from investing more to ensure that adequate supports and incentives are provided. There is a need for industry to engage governments to determine the extent to which extended support may be needed and where it is going to come from. • Reluctance of some supply chain stakeholders to work collaboratively, at both national and global levels, because sustainability measures may be considered proprietary and not fit to share openly. Establishing a dialogue with stakeholders that communicates the virtue of collaboration and that the environment is a common good may help break down some of these barriers. • Regulatory requirements can create disincentives to action and/or innovation. Examples were given of certain provincial regulations that prevent farmers from putting in a bio-digester or prevent hydro companies from buying electricity from farms. • The large number of UN Sustainable Development Goals may spread efforts too thin and risk achieving very little. There is a need to focus efforts those that have the most significant impacts on sustainability of the work becomes so fragmented there will be the danger of achieving very little. • Sustainable products are not part of our global or bilateral trade “brand”. If Canadian food production is not considered sustainable, it become a trade barrier with more environmentally discerning countries.237Theme 1: Food insecurity – root causes, measurement and solutions • Some participants identified that local food production, programs and food systems are assets, noting that local hunting, fishing, and gathering, local farm to school programs, and local economic development all contribute to food security. Others emphasized that local food is not the solution to food insecurity; an expanded local food market does not necessarily resolve the issue of accessibility and affordability for many with low incomes. Theme 2: Inclusive and resilient food systems • While some participants expressed support for vision statement and commitments and actions/solutions toward a resilient food system, others expressed the view that the vision statement should be more focussed on local food systems and tightening local “food loops”. One participant proposed the following vision statement: “By 2030, domestic food systems will be resilient and inclusive through protecting and enhancing the right and ability of people and communities to produce food for themselves and for others.” • Investment in agri-food technology, suggested as a solution by some participants, was considered too disruptive by others. Theme 3: Integrated approaches to food systems • No significant areas of divergence were noted for this theme. Theme 4: Sustainable production, consumption and disposal • In the discussion on metrics, some participants focused on the primacy of quality metrics before getting to solutions. Other participants noted that climate change is happening now, and while metrics are important, the absence thereof should not preclude setting ambitious goals and taking action. • Some participants saw the shift to sustainable diets/consumption as a key component of the transition to sustainable food systems. One participant did not see an opportunity to make big sustainability changes with this focus, noting that sustainable consumption really depends on how consumers cook, not the commodity used (e.g., fried chicken). • While some participants advocated for universities as a good source of extension services, one participant raised the risk of conflict-of-interest as university research is often paid for by industry.

2021-08-06 07:46:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23381/87203

1626173341216239493155211126422331651

The Dialogue was organized by inviting participants from various sectors and across various age groups. The discussion took place in a mixture of English , Bengali and Hindi language for ease of understanding and there was ample scope for each and every participant to express their ideas , views and suggestions. The recommendations from the breakout groups were well documented and presentedWe used the principles of engagement to discuss on specific topics.The Q & A sessions should consist of lucid language and direct questions to the farmers to receive answers straight from the field.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247248249251• Raise farmer awareness and elevate public discussion about how reforming our food systems can help us all to achieve the SDGs by implementing reforms that are good for people and planet. • Generate pro-farmer policy recommendation and significant action and measurable progress towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by identifying solutions and leaders, and issuing a call for action at all levels of the food system, including national and local governments and development partners • Agree on a system of follow-up and review to ensure that the recommendations generated at the national independent dialogue are considered by the national government and by various action tracks towards new actions and progress235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Key Findings from the three groups formed in the FGD are as follows: Group 1 - Access to safe and nutritious food for all (this group will also deal with Nature Positive production (Action Track 1 and 3): • Promoting sustainable agriculture vigorously with eco-friendly technologies to mitigate Food& Nutrition security through integration of multiple agriculture and rearing of improved livestock. • Localised weather-based food systems with diversified foods and water arrangement through agro-ecology to address malnutrition and sound health of the poor. • For landless people the activities on CPR management maybe legalised and make it functional through the local governance. Plantation of trees with food, fodder, fertiliser, timber on untapped land and fallow land in the CPR management to restore degraded ecosystem. • To minimise food waste energy efficient storage system may be promoted in the rural areas. • Significant policy initiatives may be made to recognise women cultivators as “farmers “conferring the land rights and ownership to productive resources and livelihood rights in domestic space and environment. Group 2 - Resilience (Action track 5). This group may deal with Sustainable consumption (AT 2): • Identifying the climate relevant crop through a zonal mapping, with a focus on local crop and nutritious crop • Identifying the existing climate relevant technologies and use them as a knowledge products.Disseminating the knowledge among small holders • Policy dialogue on appropriate crop risk coverage insurances • Practice of appropriate agriculture that would contribute to stress management. • Increasing women and youth involvement in agriculture infrastructure development. • Diversified livelihood for stress prone zone. • Farmer’s innovation should be well documented. • Efficient knowledge management across the farming community. • Policy dialogue for small food producers livelihoods, who are displaced due to extreme climate events. • More investment in climate resilient agriculture Group 3 - Livelihoods and equality (Action track 4) : • Focus on Organic certification • Availability of a cold storage in each panchayat is key • Regular soil testing to be mainstreamed as a practice supported by government/FOs • Proper training to women farmers on market linkage • Strengthening the extension services and adding innovative solutions.236238239240241242The outcomes are listed under the " Main Findings" section.237238239240241242243244245246247248249251There is need for searching innovative solutions as well as working closely with PRI (state) to promote food and nutrition security and to strengthen small food producers livelihoods.Focus needed on a comprehensive planning and collective efforts to this end. We are hopeful that PRI will take lead in promoting sustainable agriculture. There is also a pressing need for capacity building of the fishers and farmers, proper training on climate resilient agriculture,need for multilateral cooperation, innovative solutions and change in consumption behavior.

2021-08-06 08:53:50204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26809/203

57991213512219033195102844210542265121016

This dialogue series stick to all the principles of engagement as proposed by UN towards the fulfillment of 2030 agenda. As this dialogue includes people from all sectors and it is a 2 days programme discussion was conducted on 4 themes (2 theme on each day) where detailed discussion was conducted among the participants and the panelists and it gives respect to each and every comment by the participants.one of the specific aspects of the principle of engagement which was reflected in the dialogue series is the recognition of complexity which has impact on biodiversity, climate change, food production etc. As all these issues are closely connected with each other which has a long term effect on the human ecosystem, a complex issue raised in the series regarding the involvement of Industry in the food security.I as a convenor would like to advice my fellow convenors to include participants from all categories(farmers to high official) as the food system is interconnected i.e everyone is a part of the food system be it directly or indirectly. More focus to be given on the female and PLD participants as these are the vulnerable groups whose views and concerns are to be listened and included in the outcome.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249251As a convenor of this dialogue series my main focus is to include the comments(positive/negative) from all the participants and panelists through specific breakout rooms on Zoom platform so that we can touch all the action tracks and something good will come out of the discussion. For this I divide the 4 themes of our dialogue series in to 2 each on each day so that a lot of comments, suggestions will come out. What I found all comments are interconnected to each other.235238239240241242244245246248249251My main findings 1. All are agreed to work unitedly to fulfill the SDG 2 2. The academia/researchers are agreed to discover such technologies which will be user friendly. 3. Action to be taken to fill the gap between Laboratories to Land which means all the discoveries, theories, experiments should be feasible and practical 4. I as convenor proposed before all a concept of "Zero Food Wastage" where each and every individual will never waste food , rather distribute the excess(if any) among the needy as we know about 60% of food is wasted everyday across the Globe.236238239241242244245246248249251Outcomes of the dialogue series 1. About 80% of the participants agreed on a proposal of "Patent Free Technology" i.e UN should take a bold step informing all the member countries of UN to adopt the "Patent Free Technology" where all the innovations, research with regard to Agriculture, Climate Change mitigation, Pollution etc should be patent free so that a simple farmer can be able to get a high technology devised by the developed countries across the Globe. 2. women and PLD(People living with Disabilities) to be given utmost importance as it is the duty and responsibility of Government of each country. 3. All youth involved in farming/agriculture should be encouraged in every respect from all stake holders so that they will consider farming as a business and they are the agripreneurs.237239241242244245246248249251The majority of participants raised an issue of funding for a sustainable farming and food security as the poverty level across the Globe is now a days increased by 3 to 4 times than before due to Covid 19 Pandemic. 2. They proposed that Government /International agencies should come up with some positive strategies on this issue where as some participants mentioned that funding is not an important issue but the interest of the individual/community is more important so as to go forward in fulfilling the SDG 2. 3. Issues related to gender inequalities are also raised where most views are diversified.

2021-08-06 09:56:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24787/98

4105287102516412923312375314111112

We encouraged a high level of inclusivity through our wide partnering networks for Dialogue participation. Also, the principle of gender balance guided the panelist composition.Since the Dialogue was focused on identifying concrete financing and investment opportunities in the counties concerned, the session was very action-oriented and built around clear next steps to be taken, to further curate these opportunities into successful deals. Further, as these opportunities were discussed, clear guidance was given on the inclusion of women, youth, climate action, and leaving no one behind being coss-cutting for each breakout group discussion.It is important to allow enough time for discussions and for the facilitators to prompt various views to come out.

Yes

234241242243244245246248249251This Dialogue focused on the significant untapped potential for lucrative business investments within livestock, fisheries, and crops in the 10 Frontier Counties of Kenya, and on securing stronger financing for the sectors. The dialogue also catalyzed the ecosystem supports, with the aim of curating the potential into a pipeline of viable and investible deals. Structural, policy-level and climatic shock-related actions and opportunities to be identified to de-risk investments in these sub-sectors were also given focus.235241242243244245246248249251A. key opportunities identified in group discussions: • Hides and skin sector, with significant potential in youth involvement in value-add. Further information/data required to guide investments. • Milk – millions of litres a day untapped, with infrastructure development required by county governments, as well as transportation and the whole supply chain. • Meat value chain - Secondary and tertiary markets – need for cold chain investments and transportation. County Governments to create an enabling environment & incentives to attract private investors - Organized markets – livestock marketing associations across the FCDC Counties; Kenya Livestock Market Information System (http://www.lmiske.go.ke), physical market places and designated timing for livestock markets • Commercialisation of fodder production - need to provide sufficient feed to sustain livstock during dry periods. • Fruits and vegetables - Garissa mangoes in season when no production elsewhere in the country; Watermelons also significant. -Tomatoes - access to equipment to support value addition is needed (say, solar dryers) - Further utilization of the potential on groundnuts. • Community capacity and livelihoods in the region, with a linkage between wildlife conservation and food security (white giraffe in Garissa - global attraction) • Water as a game-changer in the region - bankable opportunities for commercial exploitation and business models to unlock and distribute water in Northern Kenya; new technologies to be incorporated • Gum arabica with strong potential to transform community livelihoods • Mudfish farming in water bodies - still has unmet market demand • Seafood from Lamu, particularly crabs as some of world’s finest - protection of the industry and youth involvement needed. Of these, priority opportunities to include: 1. Livestock – abattoirs:  Isiolo abattoir project for export meat products  additional local abattoirs to produce meat products for domestic markets  Value-add of skins/hides 2. Camel milk industry – 6-10,000 litres daily potential for scaled-up & commercialization 3. Fishing – Lamu, Marsabit and Turkana  need to upgrade fishing techniques/equipment, cold chain infrastructure  lobster, crab snapper tuna as key species 4. Crops production:  Potential of waterways of Tana, Enyiro, Turkwell, and Dawa Mandera to be harnessed to enable crops production in significant areas of arable land  Ground nuts for contract farming  For some crops, Frontier Counties can produce the most premium products in the market which gives them a competitive advantage. Complementary: • Gum Arabic  To support livelihoods particularly in Wajir, with numerous value-add possibilities from cosmetics to food industry, ceramics and textiles etc. B. Structural/policy-/partnerships related steps to be taken: • Processing and value addition of products to be supported through the adoption of new, efficient & sustainable technologies and business models as key in driving competitiveness and in promoting trade in local, regional and international markets in the value chains • Create a livestock masterplan led by the State Department for livestock at the national level • Relevant and accurate data information around meat and milk/value chains • Need to create a Kenya livestock information system and a Beef Board for Kenya • Improve ffunctionality and accessibility of livestock insurances • Leverage on existing climate adaptation financing, incl. linking with the counties’ climate adaptation funds • Support to enabling environment and coordination of animal health issues through county structures, including mass vaccination campaigns • Livestock Market Association across the FCDC counties can be utilized to strengthen partnerships • Further work on relevant ccounty policies, bills and frameworks; effective county governance influence • Critical need to look for alternatives beyond livestock as livelihoods, further expanding into crops etc. • Challenges include lack of commercialization culture and mindset, lack of understanding of value-chains from investors’ point of view • More focus on developing water resources and educating the communities in the area about the use of natural resources - FCDC Council to develop a programme to educate the communities • Improvement of general and specific knowledge within the communities. Information asymmetry creates difficulties for efficiency of markets; • Creation of a comprehensive model in terms of producers, marketing, etc. and need to be market-driven; notion of groups of cooperatives, such as in India/China • Gap between private and public sector; limited access to finance by private sector actors • Public-private partnerships -related legislation to be improved for a better contextual fit • Functional models for de-risking to be employed (such as Red Cross in Garissa). • Create working arrangements around the opportunities/working groups to cluster the opportunities and to curate the business plans - to be convened by SDG Partnership Platform. • An investment conference for FCDC will be convened later in the year where these curated plans can be presented.236241242243244245246248249251Steps to be taken & challenges to be resolved: - Create a livestock masterplan which is led by the State Department for livestock at the national level - Relevant and accurate data information around meat and milk/value chains - Leverage on existing climate adaptation financing, incl. linking with the counties’ climate adaptation funds - Enabling environment and the issue of animal health: how counties undertake mass vaccination campaigns Partnerships and opportunities - Livestock Market Association across the FCDC counties - Need for a Kenya livestock information system - Create a Beef Board for Kenya - Relevant County policies, bills and frameworks, Climate adaptation funds to be tapped into - Functionality/accessibility of livestock insurances improved - Critical need to look for alternatives beyond livestock as a livelihood -Challenges incude lack of commercialization culture and mindset, lack of understanding of value-chains from investors’ point of view - Need for effective county governance influence - More focus on developing water resources and educating the communities in the area about the use of natural resources - FCDC council to develop a programme to educate the communities - Improvement of general and specific knowledge within the communities. Information asymmetry creates difficulties for efficiency of markets; - For some crops, Frontier Counties can produce the most premium products in the market which gives a competitive advantage. - Creation of a comprehensive model in terms of producers, marketing, etc. and need to be market-driven; notion of groups of cooperatives, such as in India/China -Gap between private and public sector, there’s limited access to finance for the private sector -PPP-related legislation to be improved for a better contextual fit - Functional models for de-risking to be employed (such as Red Cross in Garissa). -Create working arrangements around the opportunities/working grops to cluster the opportunities and to curate the business plans - to be convened by SDG Partnership Platform. - An investment conference for FCDC will be convened later in the year where these curated plans can be presented.

2021-08-06 12:30:31205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34367/162

72454131393385211821412612316181431131117107

The first Dialogue in the Republic of Serbia was held as online meeting which allowed engaging more participants and enabled them to submit questions and comments in the chat of the virtual platform. Also, a post Dialogue Survey was sent to all the participants to fill, and it served in data collecting process for further actions and decisions. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust. Therefore, comprehensive preparatory work has been done with dialogue participants for making sure that their engagement contributes to the Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation in adding value to SDGs. Pre Dialogue communication with participants and speakers was very intensive to clearly point out the vision, objectives and expected outcomes of the Summit. The so called “pre-dialogue” or preparatory communication helped to motivate the participants and created a respectful atmosphere as a foundation for a genuine dialogue and collective action toward the goal of the Summit. As a result, the multi-stakeholder dialogue envisaged during the event has turned to a “safe space” for promoting trust, encouraging mutual respect, and establishing an effective platform for debate, collaboration, consensus-building, and shared commitment making.First National Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity from entire food system value chain. The topics discussed during the dialogue were formulated in very clear manner with intention to increase the level of interaction/exploration amongst all participants as this dialogue combined the first two stages of dialogues, as per the FSS proposal, i.e. initiating national engagement in the Summit (Stage 1), and extensive explorations everywhere (Stage 2). Introduction topic was the explanation of the process for the Summit and it was followed by the presentations from facilitators who guided their specific topics. Participants were also very satisfied with the curation process, as it gathered information relevant to particular topics covered in this Dialogue. All the facilitators have had specific expertise on certain topics discussed and the key points were summarized by the curator. In addition, all the UN Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement were met.Clear set of rules should be set by the dialogue convenors in line with the Summit principles of engagement. It is also critically important to emphasize to the participants that there is no right or wrong answer or opinion and that everyone’s voices and opinions count. This will ensure healthy discussion and richness of opinions and ideas. Be sure to give participants ample opportunities for questions and answers and make good use of the chat/inbox functions to provide opportunities for all participants to express their views-comments- questions.

Yes

234238239240241242The first two-stage National Dialogue focused on identifying challenges to: (a) ensure the availability of safe nutritious food; (b) shift to sustainable consumption patterns (c) boost nature-positive production at scale; (d) advance equitable livelihoods; (e) strengthen capacities to resist vulnerabilities and the often changing economic environment; thus, building more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food systems in Serbia. The discussions were broken into six main challenge areas aligned with the UN Food Systems Summit five “action tracks” as outlined below: 1. UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 2. TRANSFORMATION OF FOOD SYSTEMS 3. ADAPTATION OF FOOD SYSTEMS TO CLIMATE CHANGE 4. STATE PARTICIPATION IN THE VALUE CHAIN OF FOOD SYSTEMS 5. MODERNIZATION OF FOOD SYSTEMS 6. CONSUMER HABITS IN THE FOOD SECTOR235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Transparency, inclusiveness and ownership were of fundamental importance to guarantee successful outcomes of the first Dialogue of the Republic of Serbia. Different actors across the entire food systems were identified and selected in the preparatory phase. The expertise, past experiences and knowledge of these actors were taken into consideration in order to develop a common vision for a long-term sustainability of Serbian food systems. In total six panel discussion topics were jointly identified in accordance with the dialogue procedures and targeting the challenges that the actors of Serbian food systems are currently facing. Each topic was presented by a selected representative of governmental, international or local organization and discussed involving all panel participants for a collective sharing of reflections on each of the topics discussed. Finally, the results and outcomes of discussions were synthesized to incorporate into main findings. The most important output is that within the frames of this Summit a food systems’ transformation action plan shall be developed to stimulate the emergence of new ideas. In addition, the experience and knowledge of the parties involved will enable to unleash hidden opportunities and develop modern food systems with joined efforts. Structural change is necessary to address the socio-economic drivers behind malnutrition, inequalities and the climate and environmental impacts of food. A major finding is the necessity of cooperation especially between the government and private sector actors for finding solutions in developing agriculture, taking into consideration environmental issues to build strong food systems. This is important for building strong agricultural production and healthy diets for the population and building sustainable food systems based on three main pillars: economic, environmental, and social. Modernization and digitalization of primary production was also identified as one of the ways for improvement. Digital solutions in the field of agriculture, which is gaining momentum in recent years, are becoming much more affordable and cheaper and are finding their wider application. In the context of food systems, digital solutions can serve to connect producers and consumers (urban and rural), but they can also ensure that small market players are involved in food systems along the value chain in agriculture. They can also help keep trade channels open in crisis situations such as COVID-19. Nutrition and Food Safety was identified as another major field for intervention, while food safety refers to routines in the preparation, handling and storage of food meant to prevent foodborne illness and injury, proper nutrition means different things in different countries, but it is common to promote a healthy diet, a diet that contains enough nutrients, regardless of age, and it is important to give more attention to these 2 topics in upcoming period. Agribusiness companies’ modernization in order to obtain value added products with standardized quality. Put additional efforts to make more complex cooperative structure, where the modernization and growth of companies will be followed with their respective linkage with venerable groups which may be included as their suppliers or half-processors. As this First National Dialogue had and intention to increase the level of interaction/exploration amongst all participants, detailed Outcomes will be included in the Feedback Form after 2 subnational and 2nd National Dialogue.236238ACTION TRACK 1: ENSURE ACCESS TO SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD FOR ALL Increasing food safety was identified as one of main drive forces for this action track in Serbia, as Serbia already has A Directorate for National Reference Laboratories it is of most importance to keep supporting its further development regarding food safety analyses through education and equipment modernization. It is also very important to educate primary producers about food safety and educate them how to minimize risks in their production. Also, one of the questions regarding food safety was to find modern techniques and solutions for safe extend of products shelf life.236ACTION TRACK 2: SHIFT TO SUSTAINABLE AND HEALTHY CONSUMPTION PATTERNS As the consumer habits are changing and it is noticeable that people are more aware of “healthy food”, this means that production of food in Serbia has to adopt new trends and shift its focus to specialization of high quality and organic production. Participants agreed that there’s a lot of potential for improvement in this area, for instance, in Serbian markets, organic product are represented with less than 1%, while in some EU countries, their share takes in some countries more than 30%. Serbia is also a NON-GMO country, and all the mentioned gives the opportunity to focus more to production of “healthy food”. It is also important to empower small scale producers to deliver healthy, safe, and affordable diets and support livelihoods and income in rural areas of Serbia. This would especially mean to support and educate marginalized groups to produce food of standardized quality and distribute it locally, but also, to promote cooperation with advanced companies which will create some types of hubs, where smaller producers can act as satellites and thus be included in large scale production.236ACTION TRACK 3: BOOSTING NATURE POSITIVE PRODUCTION Participants agreed that it is necessary to more in the upcoming period on protection, sustainable management and restoration of productive system. Nature positive food system also covers the growing demand for food in a sufficient way and includes sustainable and healthy nutrition. Since land is the most important natural resource and we are witnessing many degrading processes (reduction of organic matter, acidification, classical exploitation...), special attention should be paid to it. It is needed to extend the measures of protection, regulation and more efficient land use. One of the proposed and mostly welcomed measures was to promote regionalization of agriculture production in Serbia, which would mean harmonization of agricultural production with agro-ecological conditions that would include recommendations of certain areas of agriculture in relation to land, climatic conditions and altitude.236241ACTION TRACK 4: ADVANCING EQUITABLE LIVELIHOODS Raising the level of knowledge of farmers was identified as of highest importance. The average level of knowledge of farmers in Serbia, especially in relation to their competitors from Western Europe, is at an unacceptably low level. Therefore, the application of adequate agro-technical measures, from crop rotation to technologies of food, milk, meat, storage and processing technologies is insufficient. Serbia has significant scientific and professional institutional and personnel potentials (faculties, institutes, private advisory services…) which can cover most of the modern tendencies in the development of agriculture. These resources should be mobilized more efficiently in future together as well as the promotion of the importance of farmers associations and unions. Some analyzes show that proper local adaptation of foreign technologies at all stages of agriculture production would increase its level by as much as 20% (without any other financial investments). Therefore, agricultural policy should provide quality education for farmers because it is a basic condition for increasing their competitiveness and sustainability of agricultural production in all areas. Participants also suggested that production of value added food products might be a chance to employ more people rather than exporting primary agriculture products from Serbia. This would mean further modernization of food system in Serbia, tracking World trends and adaptation of Serbian production capacities to the world demand. This also means opening of new markets for Serbian products, which should be focused more on “healthy food” as stated in the part of this report regarding AT2.236242ACTION TRACK 5: BUILD RESILIENCE TO VULNERABILITIES, SHOCKS AND STRESS While the impacts of COVID-19 are still unfolding, major disruptions of food supply chains due to lockdowns and restrictions triggered by government responses to the pandemic, but also a major global economic slowdown, resulted in lower incomes, and higher prices for some foods, making healthy diets even more unaffordable for many vulnerable groups. Participants agreed that small farmers are key to local and regional food systems, therefore, it is important to keep supporting them in all aspects as mentioned in outcomes for previous action tracks. Investment in their modernization and digitalization brings more power to Serbia to fight the shocks caused by unexpected pandemic. On the other hand, climate change in Serbia opened a lot of vulnerabilities. Therefore it is needed to continue with adaptation and mitigation programs to provide enough water for the arable land and to keep development of protection packages for other natural disasters. Therefore, climate action, including climate risk reduction and management to prevent, mitigate, transfer and prepare for risks is a critical entry point for action.

2021-08-06 21:57:50204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8014/203

21524513402953341228973973

This first session of UN DESA's Global Policy Dialogues for Climate Action "Building a Global Coalition for Sustainability after COVID-19" series focused on "Building Food and Water Security in an Era of Climate Shocks." Experts looked at how climate change is affecting people’s access to water for sufficient, safe and nutritious food. Cross-cutting issues such as financing, governance, gender, energy, data and statistics also were part of the discussion. For this event, UN DESA worked closely with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which is the specialized agency of the UN that leads international efforts to defeat hunger and the UN anchor agency for the UN Food Systems Summit Action Track 1 on “Ensure safe and nutritious food for all,” as well as the UN World Food Programme (WFP), which is the UN anchor agency for the Summit’s Action Track 5, “Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress.” UN DESA invited leading experts working to implement Sustainable Development Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation to the discussion. The event also supported World Water Day (22 March), to be celebrated during the same week, and the Department’s upcoming policy briefs on climate action and food security and nutrition. To enhance engagement, the event was held on Zoom and streamed live on UN DESA's Facebook page. Participants were invited to submit questions online at the time of registration and in the Zoom and Facebook chats during the event. A survey also was conducted throughout the event, through the Zoom platform. In addition to supporting the Food Systems Summit, the results of the discussion have been shared with UN leadership and will inform future UN DESA policy briefs on the economic and social impacts of the pandemic and strategies for better recovery, as well as the Department’s support for climate action.Our Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by including in the panel representatives of the UN system, academia, the private sector and civil society. The panelists included experts from all regions, about half were women (4 of 9), three were youth, and more than half represented developing countries. All panelists treated each other with respect including during the preparatory meetings when they were invited to meet. Furthermore, the event brought together people from these multiple sectors to because UN DESA recognizes the complexity of food systems and how we need to look at the issue from a lens beyond just SDG 2, Zero Hunger, with particular attention paid to climate change. We need a broad integration of the entire 2030 Agenda, with all stakeholders' voices amplified. Our Dialogue built on the ongoing work of the UN System, in particular our work at UN DESA and that of our partners for this event, FAO and WFP.We would recommend a journalist be used as the moderator for these types of discussions because the journalist skill set allows for sharp, to-the-point conversations.

Yes

234238242243244249On 24 March 2021, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), together with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP), held a Global Policy Dialogue focusing on building food and water security in an era of climate shocks. The event served as a UN Food Systems Summit Dialogue supporting Action Track 1 on ensuring safe and nutritious food for all, and Action Track 5 on building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. The dialogue also supported World Water Day, commemorated annually on 22 March. As the first Global Policy Dialogue on Climate Action, UN DESA invited experts both from within and outside the UN system to look at how climate change is affecting people’s access to water for agriculture and sufficient, safe and nutritious food.235238242243244247249Overall, panelists noted that water scarcity, floods and long-term drought are some of the factors leaving food production and distribution systems fragile and vulnerable to collapse, and that the COVID-19 pandemic offers the opportunity to examine these systems clearly and build back better. 2021 is a critical year for mobilizing the global coalition for carbon neutrality and panelists stressed that net-zero emissions would give us the best chance for protecting our water resources and ensuring an adequate food supply for all. Furthermore, climate change is increasing variabilities in the water cycle and the distribution of water, which will lower the predictability of water availability and demand, affect water quality, exacerbate water scarcity, and disrupt the livelihoods of millions of rural people who depend on agriculture. Experts stressed that we need to embrace a holistic approach, given that competition and demand for water is growing in all sectors. A more efficient use of water resources is needed in both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture. Three major entry points for action to address water and climate-related challenges in agriculture were proposed: 1) build the business case to make sustainable investments at technical and management levels; 2) ensure good governance, such as effective institutional and legal frameworks to create an inclusive, enabling environment for all actors; and 3) structure the overall policy environment to provide the right incentives and disincentive measures to encourage favorable investment for adaptation. Finally, humanitarian needs are rising faster now than at any other time in the 21st Century and the number of people who depend on life-saving humanitarian assistance is growing day by day. The rapid rise in global hunger is driven by an intersection of different crises, or what WFP refers to as the 3Cs: conflict, climate change, and COVID-19. Food and water security are inextricably linked, and if farmers don’t have adequate access to water resources for food production, people will continue being hungry. The “RAP” method can also help: RESTORING land and water sources using natural solutions against future climate hazards; ANTICIPATING those climate hazards and acting before lives need saving; and PROTECTING the most vulnerable with climate risk insurance and other safety nets.236238243244249251Key takeaways from Discussion 1: Ensuring sustainable access to water and food for all in an era of climate shocks To open the panel discussion, Ms. Sasha Koo-Oshima, the FAO Deputy Director of Land and Water, said that the lives of more than a billion people are threatened by water scarcity and shortages, and noted the importance of utilizing digital platforms and promoting investments at the local scale to ensure better productivity per unit of water for both food and non-food production. Mr. Mark Gordon, the WFP Head of Asset Creation and Livelihoods Unit, echoed this message and stressed the need to look at particular vulnerabilities of local communities regarding droughts and floods and their effects on livelihoods. In this regard, he noted the importance of ensuring better local infrastructure, introducing conservation agriculture and utilizing community-based and community-owned technologies to ensure both an increase in productivity and better preparation for future shocks. Several panelists represented the experience of local and smallholder farmers and noted the increasing difficulties of responding and adapting to the changing climate due to their negative effects on agricultural production. Ms. Betty Chinyamunyamu, CEO of the National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi, noted that climate change and water management are highly interlinked and unpredictable weather patterns, such as heavy rains and droughts, affect regional productivity and bring with them other problems like pests and disease. Ms. Cherrie Atilano, CEO and President of AGREA, shared her experience from the Philippines, noting that volcanic eruptions and flooding from more frequent typhoons are negatively affecting farmers, especially rice and coconut farmers who are the most vulnerable of all farmers in the country. Panelists including Mr. Mike Khunga, Youth Chair of the UN Food Systems Summit Action Track 5, also shared their ideas for improving agriculture resilience using new technologies. They suggested: 1) developing low-cost technologies driven by local needs; 2) implementing climate-resilient crop systems, such as the intercropping of primary products with root crops (e.g. turmeric and ginger), which are not only more resilient to harsh weathers but also nutrient-dense; 3) introducing solar water pumps during drought seasons; and 4) applying the concept of agricology for more long-term sustainable agriculture practices that protect ecological resources and ensure the health of future generations. With regard to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture, several panelists noted how smallholder farmers faced the difficulty of maintaining food production and distribution, especially during the lockdowns, by engaging more youth workers to fill the gap of elderly workers who are more vulnerable to the virus. They also relied heavily on digital platforms to aggregate information for market access and distribution, which is especially beneficial for female workers who comprise a significant portion of production labor but who experience more challenges to access markets. In this regard, one panelist especially thanked the effort of WFP’s Purchase for Progress (P4P) programme, which has pledged to source 10 percent of its food purchases from smallholder farmers.236242243244248249Key takeaways from Discussion 2: Innovative solutions for improving access to clean and safe water In keynote remarks leading into the second part of the discussion, Ms. Kelly Ann Naylor, the Vice Chair of UN-Water and Associate Director for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene at UNICEF, said that today’s greatest consumer of water is irrigated agriculture, which comprises about 70 percent of global water withdrawals, and of which about 40 percent are not compatible with sustaining ecosystems. In this regard, she proposed three actions for improving access to clean and safe water: 1) shift perspectives on water, by considering water as part of a solution and not an issue; 2) accelerate collective action on SDG 6, Clean Water and Sanitation, under the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework launched by UN-Water in 2020, focusing on five key areas (optimized financing, data and information to target resources and measure progress, capacity development for a better-skilled workforce, innovation for smart practices and technologies, and governance with collaboration across boundaries and sectors); and 3) broaden dialogue by inviting and interacting with participants from different sectors at all levels. She further emphasized that progress is possible only if we take advantage of the interconnected, universal and integrated nature of the 2030 Agenda. In the panel discussion, the experts showcased some examples of innovative solutions put into practice at local levels. Mr. Felix Reinders (South Africa), Chair of the Global Framework on Water Scarcity for Agriculture (WASAG), highlighted an example of a “Drinkable Book” by Water is Life, which includes tear out pages of actual water filters, each inscribed with hygiene and sanitation education tips. Ms. Tania Eulalia Martinez Cruz (Mexico), member of the Global Hub on Indigenous Peoples Food Systems, also noted that there are many ways in which indigenous knowledge can be combined with modern knowledge and technologies, such as making the best use of native crops and seeds which can be harvested to scale, while also combatting local challenges such as deforestation. Another focus of the discussion was how to successfully operationalize and make best use of existing technologies, rather than spending time and efforts to create “new and cross-cutting” technologies. For example, Mr. Samir Ibrahim (Kenya), co-founder of SunCulture, was able to commercialize the use of existing solar-powered water pumps in Africa, by combining it with other key technologies such as battery storage and the Internet of things, while also ensuring ways to secure and allocate enough funding for the project. Mr. Zahin Razeen, founder of Hydroquo+ and UN Young Leader for SDGs Class of 2020, shared the example of how his company helps optimize existing water infrastructure in Bangladesh by incorporating a set of standard operating procedures with decision-supporting models to ensure that water quality is monitored in a more streamlined manner. Furthermore, Ms. Martinez Cruz added that from policy side, any plan needs to be maintained beyond the cycle of political changes, to ensure that projects under implementation are provided with enough time to yield results and provide longer-term solutions.237238242244246Panelists noted that, from the policy side, any plan needs to be maintained beyond the cycle of political changes, to ensure that projects under implementation are provided with enough time to yield results and provide longer-term solutions.

2021-08-07 17:52:15205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24714/73

80082003202403205202800160816401640160802416800723284800325325000250040003907100230

The Gambia Food System Dialogues were three in nature. regional, national and independent. To help guide the process of the dialogues, a tool was developed to conduct key informant interviews, focus group discussions and town hall meetings. The questions in the tool were tailored and reflected characteristics of the various dialogues. The country is divided into 5 Regions and 2 Municipalities. The Regions are: West Coast, Lower River, North Bank, Central River and Upper River Regions, and, the Municipalities are Kanifing Municipality and the Banjul City council. A Dialogue was organized in each region and Municipality. For each Dialogue 50 participants were invited. The selection of the invitees was based on representation of actors across the value chain of all food-related enterprises (input dealers, growers, processors, traders, transporters, storage, exporters, food industry and consumers. The criteria ensured equal representation among crop, livestock and value addition actors. In addition to the regional dialogues, national dialogues were also organized. There were 4 thematic areas; namely, 1) ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all and a shift to sustainable consumption patterns, 2) boost nature-positive production and equitable livelihoods, 3) build resilience to vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses, and 4) encourage participation of the private sector. The participants were selected across ministries, departments and agencies, private sector, Non-government organizations, the UN agencies and civil society that are implied in the national food systems. In addition, an independent dialogue was organized. The invitees were the representatives of farmer-based organizations belonging to the umbrella National Coordination of Farmer Associations Gambia (NACOFAG). At the end of the various dialogues, the outcome of the discussions was compiled, analysed, synthesized, sorted and articulated in a single draft document which was subjected to a national validation.The FFSD process in The Gambia was conducted in the most professional way which complied to a large extend to the principles of the global FSSD. After the Convenor was named, a Steering Committee was created and a Curator and 2 facilitators named to assist the Convenor in her task of organizing the national dialogues. The SC planned the Dialogues, built the budget for supporting the activities and was responsible for all logistics involved. The Convenor working with SC created an Advisory Committee comprised of her fellow Ministers responsible for Environment, Fisheries, Finance, Trade and Health. The AC also included the UN Resident Coordinator, The Country Directors of FAO and WFP, The Vice-Chancellor of the University of The Gambia, The Secretary General and Head of the Civil Service and the Curator of the Dialogues. The AC is supposed to advise the Convenor and to approve of the draft and final pathway document. At the beginning a maiden ad-hoc group chaired by the Convenor established 1) the Action Track themes around which the national dialogues took place, 2) identified the Chairpersons of the various national Action Tracks and 3) approved a roadmap or plan of action to completing the dialogues and formulating the national pathway. The Regional Governors, regional directors of agriculture (both crops and livestock) were immediately contacted and committed to the process. The regional directors (crops and livestock) were assigned to select the participants to the regional dialogues respecting the FSSD principles of inclusivity among all the stakeholders of the food system. The food system being so complex we invited the men, women, youth, food processors, traders, marketers, producers, transporters, restaurant owners, environmentalists, health personnel, nutritionists, politicians and traditional communicators. During the dialogues and the validation workshop, the Chairpersons and meeting moderators ensured all participants had a chance to speak and be heard.First, one should Identify a good team (dedicated, committed) as a steering committee around the convenor and free them or reduce their other official duties as much as possible. The steering committee should meet regularly and in constant touch with the Convenor. The membership should come from the executive (Office of The President), UN partners (FAO & WFP), representative of Farmer Organizations and Ministries implied in the food system. The participants in the dialogues should include stakeholders from across the food value chain. One should utilize the decentralized offices (Regional Governors, Regional Directors of technical departments involved in the food system). The Chairpersons of the Action Tracks (Thematic Working Groups) in the national dialogues should be carefully selected. They should be good communicators, fair and balanced. Finally, we advise that the selection of the participants in the dialogues be as inclusive as possible taking into consideration all the possible actors (youth, women and civil society organizations and disadvantaged groups) in the food system. The dialogue process should be adequately resourced financially and there should be a timely flow of information across all levels of the organization.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246249251Describe in under 4,200 characters including spaces In The Gambia, our focus was on all the Action Tracks. We recognized the need to consult stakeholders from around the country and the stakeholders in each of the Action Tracks. We conducted dialogues in all regions, along the Action Tracks and an independent dialogue. i) The Gambia is divided into 7 regions (5 administrative regions and 2 municipalities) and we conducted a dialogue in each region. ii) All 5 Action Tracks of the FSSD were equally treated but we had them regrouped according to common linkages among some of them: Action Tracks 1&2 were merged into one Thematic Working Group (TWG); Action Tracks 3&4 were merged in a second TWG; Action Track 5 was treated alone in a third TWG. iii) The Independent Dialogue was organized by the apex body of farmer organizations called National Coordination Organization of Farmer Organizations Gambia (NACOFAG). iv) We added Private Sector participation in a fourth TWG.2352382392402412422442452462482492511) Increase access to land, financing and other productive resources that specifically target women and youth. The women form more than 50% of the farming population and in some regions, they are the major producers of vegetables, rice and groundnuts. Despite their numbers and their key contribution to agricultural production they are seriously disadvantaged in that they lack access to key production factors and inputs, particular land, finance and technical know-how. Women in the Gambia, for social, religious and cultural reasons, do not own land and can only inherit land from their mothers. Consequently, women in the Gambia, lack the opportunity to have land which they can present to the bank as a co-lateral to obtain bank loans. It is therefore imperative to increase their access to land and finance if their production is to increase. 2) Increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of the health delivery system There is a conspicuous inadequate access to quality health services especially in rural Gambia. This has led to high under 5, infant and neo-natal mortalities. This has led to serious ramifications on production and productivity of the nation’s food systems. In 2018, it was estimated that the country lost an equivalent of about GMD3.956 billion due to child undernutrition, which represented 5.1 percent of the GDP (COHA Report, 2020). 3) Sustainable exploitation of the country’s natural resource base. There has been remarkable degradation of the country’s resource base over the years. Deforestation, overfishing in our waters and inappropriate fishing nets, the poisoning of marine life, land degradation, frequent bush fires are some classical examples. Some of the adaptive measures undertaken to mitigate the degradation on the country’s resource base include sensitization on bush fire control measures, encourage agroforestry, regulating fishing and fishing nets, creation of appropriate policies. There is an alarming rate of wanton felling of indigenous and protected tree species. Bad agricultural practices on slopes have seriously aggravated soil and water erosion resulting in loss of topsoil and decline in soil fertility. 4) Increase food production by 100% According to the national statistics the country produces about half of the national annual food needs. There is urgent need to gradually increase food production over the next ten years leading to national food and nutrition self- sufficiency which is in-line with the attainment of SDG 2 target 3. Agricultural production can also be boosted if Gambians consume locally produced, safe and quality foods. Increase in production can also happen if the school feeding program, hospitals and the security services source their food needs from the local farming community. Production can further be increased by reducing vulnerabilities of the livelihoods of the population through building resilience of food systems through climate-resilient agricultural practices and social protection interventions. 5) A harmonized and better coordinated policy environment that directedly or indirectly affect food systems The effective coordination of relevant policies on food systems remains the major issue in the attainment of the SDGs by 2030 in relation to the National Food Systems. Existing policies should be reviewed and dovetailed to ensure and cater for equity, justice, empowerment and sustainability for all. 6) More privates sector involvement in the food systems. The private sector is a key player in ensuring food safety as it underlies the entire food system. The majority of foods are produced, handled, processed, distributed, and sold by the private sector, and thus, their responsibility to ensure that products are nutritious and safe for consumption. In view of the above, increased private sector support and involvement is integral in achieving the set goals in the SDGs in relation to food systems. 7) Government to fulfil its international fiscal obligations. In line with the call for globalization of resources for the enhance of National Food Systems, it is important for The Government to honor its commitments to national and international agreements/treaties such as the Malabo Declaration in committing 10% of public expenditure to agriculture. The Right to Food is a long-standing international human right to which many countries are committed according to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, CESCR, 1999. It is the right to feed oneself in dignity and the right to adequate food. National and Regional Food Reserves is part of building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses which may be caused by natural or manmade disasters. The Economic Community of West African States has adopted a policy requiring regional reserves by ECOWAS and national food reserves by the Member States.2362382392402412422442452462482492511) Increase access to land, financing and other productive resources that specifically target women and youth. Actions: a) The government must make specific and deliberate policy decisions (legislative and regulatory) targeting women and youths which grant them ownership of land for cultivation or to conduct agribusiness enterprises. The land can serve as co-lateral to give them access to finance. b) The agricultural loan interest rate in The Gambia is too high. It must be lowered to a single digit and loans should be discounted over multiple years with a minimum of 3 years. A graze period of 6 months for crops and 12 months for livestock should be given before repayment on the loan capital should start. c) The government should fast-track the establishment of an agri-business bank and a risk support facility, both of which are being formulated. d) Priority needs to be given to projects and programmes that will promote women and youth participation, eg, rice, vegetable and small ruminant projects tend to benefit women and youths. e) Promote gender equity with particular attention paid to youth participation throughout the food value chain. 2) Increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of the health delivery system Actions: a) Government and the private sector should increase access and improve health service delivery including Primary Health Care in the rural areas. b) Government should put in place strategies to systematically train and retain qualified personnel. c) Government should promote and enhance Private Sector investment in health service delivery, especially in the rural areas. d) Mainstream food-based nutrition and household food security into sectoral policies and plans. 3) Sustainable exploitation of the country’s natural resource base. Actions: a) Mainstream conservation agriculture in ANR policies and enact soil and water regulations. b) Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Review and enforce the fisheries regulations and practice the Maximum Sustainable Yield concept. Re-negotiate all fishing agreements in favour of sustained economic growth. c) Enforce forestry regulations to curb illegal logging and transportation of foreign timber through Gambian territory for export. Promote community forest management concepts and non-timber forest enterprises. 4) Increase food production by 100% Actions: a) Promote climate smart agriculture through the use of i) irrigation (drip and surface) to encourage year-round production and crop production intensification and ii) integrated farming systems cops, livestock and aquaculture). Less than 4% of the cultivable area in The Gambia is irrigated. Tens of thousands of irrigable lands can be made available for lowland production if salt intrusion in the second half of the River Gambia is controlled. The government should consider construction of an anti-salt bridge on the river somewhere ecologically feasible. b) Promote mechanization along the entire food value chain. About 30% of the cultivable land is not cultivated. Mechanization of pre and post-harvest activities will reduce drudgery and time, increase cultivation of larger areas, and will also reduce postharvest losses. c) Promote consumption of safe and nutritious diets, biofortified foods and mineral and vitamin supplements for all d) Promote home grown school feeding (HGSF) program and contract farming. The HGSF increases retention of the girl-child in school which curbs early child marriages and closes the education gap between boys and girls. When all the children are well fed, early child development (ECD) is guaranteed, and the child cognitive development is advanced. e) Promote access to markets for agricultural produce f) Empower agricultural, food and nutrition security research and development g) Strengthen national laboratory capacity for food testing (Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary system strengthening) h) Establish a robust early warning system to natural disasters and strengthen and the National Disaster Management Agency for rapid intervention, saving lives and restoration of lost livelihoods.2372392412422442462491) a) conflict between forestry and farmlands, 2) conflict between farmers and wildlife (hippopotamus) 3) conflict between farmers and livestock and 4) shifting land use patterns 2) Middlemen role between growers and markets 3) Conflict in policies affecting food systems A few areas of divergence emerged during the Gambian dialogue. The most important divergences were related to conflicts between various uses of land and those who use land. 1) The stakeholders from the forestry and food production value chains could not agree on the expansion of agricultural lands through destruction of forests. Also, 2) rice growers in the CRR complain about hippopotamuses invading and destroying their fields. They want the hippos killed but the animals are protected species in The Gambia. So, there is continuous push and pull between the agriculture and wildlife departments. Another 3) controversial area is the rapid take over of real estate developers of agricultural land for residential purposes especially in the 2 regions: namely, Kanifing Municipality and West Coast region. There was a divergence within the horticulture value chain. The growers that are far from the big urban markets sell their produces through middlemen called ‘Gyenda Jai’. These middlemen often shortchange, delay payments to the growers or even disappear with the growers’ money. A final divergence is related to policy conflicts affecting the food systems in the Gambia. The policies adopted by various ministries of agriculture and trade are often in conflict. The Ministry of Trade is responsible for Common External Tariffs and for the Investment Codes. The Ministry of Agriculture often require certain value chains protected to encourage growth and investment. Often, the two ministries do not align their schedules.

2021-08-08 14:54:45205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23711/23

18012951

The first stage national level inception dialogue was convened by the National Dialogue Committee (NDC) in Bangladesh in January. In the second stage, six sub-national dialogues were held between February to May 2021, to understand regional issues and challenges around sustainable food systems. In parallel, a number of independent dialogues have been held on a diverse range of issues impacting the food system, ranging from Agriculture, Aquaculture, Environment and Climate Change & Resilience, to Urban Food Systems, Women in Food Systems, Youth, and Private Sector engagement. As a culmination of this process, the Stage 2 National Dialogue was convened by the NDC on Sunday, 6 June 2021. The event was organized by the Food Planning & Monitoring Unit (FPMU), Ministry of Food (MoF), Government of Bangladesh, with support from the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the UN and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). It endeavored to bring to the table the outputs from the six sub-national dialogues, the numerous independent dialogues conducted and suggestions from a diverse group of stakeholders from different government institutions and ministries, development partners, academia, civil society organizations, private sector, and media. Given the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic situation, the dialogue had to be conducted in virtual mode. As a next step after the dialogue, all the stakeholders (government ministries, sector experts) who took part in it will be engaged with further, through small multilateral dialogues or another comprehensive dialogue.Recognizing the complexity of food systems, embracing multistakeholder inclusivity and respect for others, the Dialogue brought together a diverse group of stakeholders to discuss the issues emerging from subnational dialogues and independent dialogues, as well as recognize fresh perspectives, if any. There was an inaugural plenary session, followed by discussion in breakout groups, and a concluding plenary session. Key issues discussed in the breakout groups were presented back at the concluding plenary session for the benefit of all participants. The inaugural session was chaired by Dr. Mosammat Nazmanara Khannum, Secretary, MoFood and graced by the Minister of Food, Mr. Sadhan Chandra Majumder, MP, as the chief guest. Mr. Md. Shahiduzzaman Faruki, Director General, FPMU, MoFood, welcomed the gathering. This was followed by a presentation on activities in Bangladesh in the run-up to the UNFSS and the next steps. Dr. Rudaba Khondaker, Country Director, GAIN and Mr. Robert Simpson, FAO-R in Bangladesh made opening remarks. Professor Dr. Saleemul Huq, Director, ICCCAD and Global Chair, UNFSS AT- 5, Mr. Zakir Hossain Akanda, Secretary (PRL), Planning Commission, Mr. Md. Toufiqul Arif, Additional Secretary, MoFL and Mr. Md. Mesbahul Islam, Senior Secretary, MoA, participated as special guests and spoke on the occasion. This was followed by discussion in five breakout groups on the thematic areas of: i) Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious food; ii) Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector; iii) Governance, nutrition and food safety; iv) Inclusion, livelihood and social protection and v) Climate, vulnerability and resilience. Each group had an identified facilitator and a speaker. The latter presented a summary of the discussion in their group, in the concluding plenary session. Dr. Saleemul Haq summarized the presentations. Mr. Sheikh Muzibar Rahman, DG, Directorate of Food, made closing remarks. Mr. Khaja Abdul Hannan, Additional. Secretary, MoFood and National Dialogue Convener gave the vote of thanks.It is important to bring diverse voices together on a common platform in order to address the issues and challenges facing us. These cut across Action Tracks. Participation of different government ministries engaged with the Food System is also important as addressing the many issues requires working together in a synergistic manner.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249251The focus and expectations from the Dialogue were outlined in the speeches of the chief guests and key speakers in the inaugural session of the dialogue. The DG, FPMU, Ministry of Food in his welcome remarks said that Bangladesh had been focusing on Action Track1- Access to Safe and nutritious food, and an important objective to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and agenda 2030. The Ministry of Food was coordinating the dialogue process to find out game changing solutions to overcome the existing challenges of food systems in Bangladesh. Dr. Rudaba Khondaker, Country Director, GAIN in her introductory remarks said that we had to come up with a pathway that will set the stage for H.E Honourable Prime Minister to showcase Bangladesh at the UN Food Systems Summit, how we can work hand-in-hand with public-private sector, civil society, academia and other stakeholders including the youth and cutting all 5 action tracks. Mr. Robert Simpson, FAO Representative in Bangladesh, traced the evolution in the country from focus on production and food security to improving nutrition and food security and value chain approaches including production, processing, distribution, packaging, transportation etc. We have to work across the entire food system with an inclusive approach, addressing all 5 action tracks, with multi-ministerial and multi-sectoral approaches. Dr. Saleemul Huq, Chair of Action track 5 expressed that addressing climate change is one of the major priorities for Bangladesh. The country had recently developed the draft ‘Mujib Climate Prosperity Plan’ under the guidance of the Hon’ble Prime Minister, which will serve as a guiding document for food system resilience related to climate change. He expressed that, opportunities are open for all ministries to make contributions to the draft of the Mujib Climate Prosperity Plan. Mr. Zakir Hossain Akanda, Secretary (PRL), Planning Commission, expressed that it was important to focus on solutions based on our food systems context linked to our culture, diets, nutrition and economic development. Mr. Md. Mesbahul Islam, Senior Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture expressed that the country’s vision is to provide eco-friendly, safe, climate resilient, sustainable productive good agricultural practices and sustaining natural resources to ensure food security as well as commercial agriculture, and our mission to provide efficient, effective, decentralized, location specific, demand responsive and integrated extension services to all categories of farmers in accessing and utilizing better knowhow to increase sustainable and profitable crop production. The Honorable Minister, Ministry of Food and Member of Parliament, Mr. Sadhan Chandra Majumder, in his address as Chief Guest declared that ensuring food security for all is a basic human right in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The country had achieved food security under the leadership of the Honourable Prime Minister and the government was working towards ensuring nutrition security. Many aid-based, constructive and development focused initiatives had been undertaken by the government to ensure food and nutrition security. The chair of the session, Dr. Mosammat Nazmanara Khanum, Secretary, Ministry of Food, expressed that when the 1st national dialogue was organised in January, the objective was to use the dialogue process to shape our actions for sustainable food systems by 2030, involving both government, donor community, I/NGO, and private sector. Area focused findings had emerged from the recommendations of the sub-national dialogues highlighting the existing challenges and effective way forward to address them and ensure sustainable and safe food system. Mr. Sheikh Muzibar Rahman, DG, Directorate of Food, stated that the Summit will provide a strong platform for all to analyze our food systems, policies, priorities and drawbacks with other countries. Mr. Khaja Abdul Hannan, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Food appreciated the fact that stakeholders from all relevant fields participated in the dialogues and came up with recommendations to overcome the challenges prevailing in food systems.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Agriculture Policy Support: Farmers often do not get fair price for their produce. Access to quality inputs is also a challenge. Agricultural land is getting converted for non-agricultural purposes. There is need for policy support to protect farmers’ interests and ensure fair price for them; buyback guarantee for produce that meets quality standards; cheap food imports should not be allowed to flood the market. Identification as farmers in the National Identity System will facilitate access to necessary inputs. There should be regulation to prevent conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Policies should also promote fair and ethical business practices by middlemen and private sector. Capacity Development: Lack of awareness on safe production practices and use of technology are challenges; capacity strengthening through training and awareness programmes on good practices to enable safe and sustainable production. Effective Extension: Although Agricultural Extension services is being done very well in Bangladesh, there are still some lacunae (unidentified gaps) in the extension system delaying access to knowledge. There is need for effective implementation of existing policies on Agriculture Extension, Agriculture Mechanisation, Good Agriculture Practices; need for special attention to women and youth. Infrastructure Support: Although government is focusing on mechanization of farming activities (which has been started in the recent years), it needs to be strengthened and scaled up. It reveals that lack of mechanisation is one of the reasons for low productivity and high cost of cultivation; lack of processing and storage facilities leads to food loss. Integrated infrastructure development under the Water Development Board including durable flood and erosion control embankments, efficient management of natural water bodies to balance the supply of water for agriculture between rainy and dry seasons, international collaboration to modulate water flows of the transboundary rivers are required. Finance: Credit for production purposes and insurance to safeguard against risks are necessary requirements; there should be easy access to credit for agriculture and allied activities from commercial banks; both crop and animal insurance have to be promoted. Effective Use of Technology and Data Management: The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the need for e-commerce and online market platforms. Development of integrated e-commerce platform and online markets will help better manage the food supply chain in the face of pandemics like COVID-19; models for consumers to source directly from producers. Greater Role of Private Sector to Empower Smallholders: There are hindrances to the private sector in playing an active role in investment and enterprise development. Public private partnership models may be promoted and enabling environment created for ease of doing business by private sector in all stages of the food chain from seed production to processing and marketing; tax holiday of 5-10 years for private sector can spur more investments in cold chain, food processing and focus on nutritious and safe food. Institutional Strengthening: GoB has given most priority to ensure the safe food for all the citizens. In this regard, the government enacted Food Safety Act 2013 and established Bangladesh Food Safety Authority (BFSA) in early 2015. To implement Food Safety Act, GoB is giving efforts on massive awareness and surveillance activities on food safety standards and related issues along with the production and supply chain of food. Important rules and regulations have been prepared in the recent years. Now more focus should be given to expedite the implement process of those rules, regulations, standards aligned with Food Safety Act. Social Protection: Although government is giving more efforts to strengthen the social safety net activities, still there are some areas for improvement in delivery of social safety net programmes; effective delivery of social protection programmes has to be ensured with full coverage of ultra-poor, including those rendered poor by the COVID-19 pandemic; there is need for combination of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive approaches together with SBCC in social safety net programmes. Dietary Diversification: Strategies for promotion of production diversity, nutrition gardens of fruits and vegetables, and consumption diversity through focused social and behaviour change communication (SBCC) across the lifecycle addressing different population groups and engaging in a whole-of society approach on integrated nutrition issues to increase awareness of the importance of healthy diets and good nutrition practices are needed. Attention to Urban Food Systems: Growing urbanisation calls for attention to urban food systems. There is need to strengthen the food supply chain and promote safe food markets; increase awareness about nutritious food, to address problems of obesity and increasing incidence of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) Climate Resilient Food Systems: Climate change poses a major challenge to our food systems, affecting lives and livelihoods especially of smallholder farmers. We need to promote climate resilient crop varieties, put in place early warning systems and increase capacity of smallholder farmers to cope with challenge of climate change; building on the Mujib Climate Prosperity Plan, a group may be formed from this dialogue to examine effective response to threats to food systems posed by climate change.2362432442452462472482492511. Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious food: Challenges: ensuring safe and sustainable food production is a challenge, Climate change is making our farmers more vulnerable. The indiscriminate use of fertilizers affects soil health. Way Forward: -Agriculture policy: Need for an enabling and inclusive agricultural policy that pulls farmers out of income and resource poverty and makes them efficient producers; Identification of farmers in the National Identity (NID) system; Mchanization of agriculture, Pomotion of smart agriculture technologies -Effective extension system: for instance, a lot of stress tolerant and nutrient rich crop varieties are available with the agricultural research system - need effective dissemination through extension; ensure availability of quality seeds; effective land use planning; promote different models of poultry and dairy farming according to space availability.. 2. Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector: Challenges: -COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the fragile to supply chain in all over the world which is also revealed to some extent in Bangladesh. Although Govt. has given massive efforts to overcome to those challenges through ensuring uninterrupted transport mobility for food items. Way Forward: -For the next three years efforts should be undertaken to develop risk/ shock sensitive supply chain that protects the produce and ensure proper price for crops produce by smallholders. -Tri-party partnership like farmer-private sector-government can be an effective solution for facilitating access to finance to young entrepreneurs; financing terms should be eased up for small farmers, ease of access to finance will enable farmers to diversify to other crops, dairy, poultry, fishery. -online marketplace like Uber for agricultural products can be developed --Food processing: supply of raw materials should be ensured all around the year through storage facility, proper transportation, and infrastructure. 3. Governance, nutrition and food safety: Challenges: -Lack of dietary diversity; rising double burden of malnutrition: while chronic and acute undernutrition persist, overnutrition leading to obesity and cardiovascular diseases is rising. High salt content as well as trans-fat in diets; Arsenic, heavy metal and faecal contamination and salinity are issues relating to unsafe water. Poor sanitation, hygiene practices and waste management remain challenges for improving WASH. Way Forward: -considering two crucial windows of opportunity during the 1st 1000 days from conception, and adolescence; Enhance nutrition and food safety knowledge and awareness among consumers especially adolescents and youth;Accelerate actions which contribute directly to the reduction of wasting. Promotion of national dietary guidelines; Focus on coordinated governance to implement national nutrition policies and strategies at national and sub-national level; ensure safe food, safe drinking water and improve sanitation and hygiene practices in both rural and urban areas; 4. Inclusion, Vulnerability and Social Protection: Challenges: -Not all poor and vulnerable people are covered by social safety nets. COVID-19 pandemic has increased number of poor and vulnerable people; urban poor – not adequately addressed. Way Forward: Expedite the implementation coverage of existing food based social safety net programs in a better functional and inclusive manner, increasing coverage. Focus of food diversification. 5. Climate, vulnerability and resilience: Challenges: - Conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use; Flash flood, river erosion and increasing salinity of water levels are key detrimental impacts of climate change on food production. Way Forward: -The importance of soil health should be recognized; Effective river management through construction of embankments, dams, etc. can be undertaken to reduce the impact of erosion; Mujib Climate Prosperity Plan, is a plan formulated by the government to counter the threats of climate change on multiple aspects including food systems, agriculture, and the wider economy; focus on climate-resilient food systems.237238239240241242243244245246247249251There were no major areas of divergence among the participants.

2021-08-09 17:13:34205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15307/141

133706321020135081030170360

Este diálogo se realizó de manera virtual. El mismo tuvo un enfoque participativo e inclusivo, con diversidad de grupos de interés vinculados a los diferentes procesos de los sistemas alimentarios, propiciando un espacio de discusión que generaron un intercambio abierto entre los participantes. Para desarrollar el intercambio abierto entre los participantes del Diálogo se manejaron cuatro grandes temas (preguntas orientadoras) que fueron abordados en igual cantidad de mesas de trabajo, sobre la base de los 5 objetivos propuestos para la Cumbre. Los participantes contaron con 60 minutos para la discusión y debate. Al finalizar el debate se presentó la relatoría de cada una de las cuatro mesas. Cada diálogo contó con un administrador, facilitadores y relatores por mesa. Una vez finalizado el diálogo se pasó a la consolidación de los aportes recibidos para su incorporación en el formulario oficial de comentarios. Las consultas fueron auspiciadas por autoridades de alto nivel para ejemplificar el compromiso del Gobierno Nacional en incorporar la experiencia y sugerencias de los principales actores en los sistemas alimentarios del país. Así, la consulta de la provincias de Veraguas y Coclé por la Viceministra de Asuntos Multilaterales y Cooperación, S.E. Ana Luisa Castro.A raíz de la adopción de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible como guía para el impulso de las acciones del Estado, dirigidas a favorecer a aquellos que se han quedado atrás del desarrollo, se dio un impulso para asegurar la producción y disponibilidad de alimentos, garantizar la reducción del hambre, fomentando la seguridad alimentaria, mediante el compromiso y la participación del Gobierno, los organismos internacionales, los gremios y la sociedad. Además de desarrollar la seguridad alimentaria nacional con una política de soberanía alimentaria, el énfasis hasta el momento ha sido la reducción del hambre, la desnutrición y la mal nutrición en la población vulnerable, principalmente, la primera infancia, de acuerdo con el segundo Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible. Esto pasa por la preservación del ambiente, bajo un enfoque de prevención de la contaminación. De allí que ante el llamado a transformar los sistemas alimentarios realizado en el Día Mundial de la Alimentación (2019) por el secretario general de las Naciones Unidas y la convocatoria a una Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios a celebrarse en el 2021, se inició un proceso de articulación de esfuerzos entre las instituciones vinculadas al mensaje “como una familia humana y un mundo libre de hambre”. Esta Cumbre es una oportunidad para que Panamá pueda avanzar hacia el gran y ambicioso objetivo de contar con un sistema alimentario sostenible y será un importante catalizador que permitirá a través de los diálogos realizados, retroalimentarse de las necesidades, opiniones y otros aportes transmitidos por todos los sectores convocados, contando así con insumos que permitan fortalecer, continuar, corregir o iniciar nuevas acciones que en forma de programas, políticas u otros instrumentos legales e institucionales se avance hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios.Si bien es cierto se contó con una amplia participación de diversos sectores de la sociedad en tanto actores de los sistemas alimentarios, como actividades concretas de seguimiento, se podrían organizar consultas con representantes de sectores específicos para contar con sus recomendaciones y aportes de acuerdo con la visión y el papel de ese sector o gremio en los sistemas alimentarios. Así entonces, se podrían organizar actividades con el sector de restaurantes, organizaciones de chefs, gremios de agroindustriales, comercializadoras de alimentos, supermercados, transportistas, por mencionar algunos.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247249251La consulta sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios de las provincias de Coclé y Veraguas tuvieron como lema “Cerrando brechas para la seguridad alimentaria”. El objetivo principal era determinar la futura dirección de los sistemas alimentarios en este territorio, hacia la consecución de los ODS explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030 y situar al proyecto dentro del contexto de trabajo intersectorial que realizará el Gobierno Nacional y los actores de la cadena alimentaria nacional. Sobre la base de las cinco vías de acción definidas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 (1. Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 2. Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción favorable a la naturaleza 4. Promover medios de vida equitativos 5. Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades), se adoptaron cuatro preguntas orientadoras que se utilizaron en todas y cada una de las sesiones de consultas realizadas. Las dos primeras preguntas hacen referencia a algunas acciones que se pudieran impulsar y nuestro papel como actores para avanzar hacia un sistema alimentario sostenible, mientras que las dos últimas tienen que ver con el abordaje de estos sistemas en las políticas públicas. Las preguntas orientadoras fueron: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? 2. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? 3. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? 4. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes?235238239240241242245247249251Entre los principales hallazgos encontrados en la consulta, con los actores de las provincias de Coclé y Veraguas, destacan los siguientes: Establecimiento de Alianzas Público-Privadas. Planificación de la producción para disminuir sobre producción y pérdida de alimentos. Impulsar trabajo social comunitario incluyente, que impulse una cultura de producción de alimentos. Crear alianzas entren comunidades, universidades y colegios, para fomentar la producción de alimentos sostenibles. Fomento de la agricultura orgánica. Apoyo a los agricultores para tener acceso a créditos. Fortalecer organizaciones comunitarias. Estadísticas reales sobre el manejo de desechos sólidos. Agilización en los trámites para titulación de tierras. Cambio en las políticas sobre la tenencia del agua. Apoyo a la innovación y tecnologías a través del acceso al crédito. Agricultura resiliente. Asignación de recursos para la implementación de las políticas públicas. Inclusión de jóvenes y mujeres en los sistemas alimentarios. Promover hábitos de consumo saludables desde la familia que contribuyan a disminuir la obesidad. Promover la agricultura desde la niñez hasta a los estudiantes en las universidades.236238239241242243244247249250251A continuación, se presentan los principales aportes identificados en la consulta realizada con actores de las provincias de Coclé y Veraguas, por cada pregunta orientadora: 1. ¿Cómo podemos lograr que el sector alimentario contribuya a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, fortaleciendo la participación de la población en el proceso productivo, comercialización, patrones de consumo y manejo adecuado de desechos de alimentos? • Fortalecer los actores del sistema alimentario, con políticas integrales y trabajo intersectorial que incluyan: alianza público-privadas, acceso a tecnología, asistencia técnica, titulación de tierras y/o acceso a éstas, comercialización equitativa por regiones, organización de la producción para evitar la sobreproducción y pérdida de alimentos, programas alimentarios, entre otros, haciendo énfasis en poblaciones con mayor vulnerabilidad. • Impulsar el trabajo social y comunitario que involucre a las familias, niños, niñas y adolescentes fomentando la cultura de producción de alimentos de manera sostenible. • Implementar alianzas entre comunidades agrícolas, universidades, colegios con énfasis agropecuario para fomentar la producción de alimentos sostenible.2362382392402412422432452482492502. ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? • Realizar una campaña para incentivar la agricultura orgánica. • Creación de mercados de acopio regionales. • Apoyar a los productores en el acceso de crédito agropecuario. • Los sistemas de asistencia técnica deben ser eficaces y oportunos para los medianos y pequeños productores. • Promover elementos y herramientas para manejo de suelo. • Establecer organizaciones en las bases comunitarias para favorecer a las comunidades rurales. • Realizar estudios socioeconómicos ambientales para mejorar los caminos de acceso y la comercialización. • Contar con información real de las distintas regiones en cuanto al manejo de desechos.2362402412442462472482492513. ¿Cómo son abordados los sistemas alimentarios en las políticas públicas? ¿Cuál considera usted sería el reto principal para su aplicación y cómo afectan a sus actores los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? • Aplicar e implementar las leyes que existen para agilizar los procesos y los productores puedan comercializar a tiempo, así como agilizar los trámites de titulación de tierra. • Crear represas para distribuir mejor el agua en los sistemas de riego. • Cambiar las políticas de tenencias de agua desde la propiedad. • Incentivar más asesoramiento técnico para los pequeños productores. • Flexibilidad en políticas bancarias para modernizar los sistemas productivos. • Crear políticas para hacer la transición hacia la agricultura resiliente. • Apoyo técnico a redes o agrupaciones comunitarias.2362382392412432452492514. ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Qué mecanismos existen para impulsar la inclusión de las mujeres y jóvenes? • Asignación de recursos para la implementación de las políticas públicas. • Crear políticas e incentivos para que los jóvenes se incorporen al sector agropecuario e incentivar la participación de la mujer. • Incentivar políticas que promuevan mejores hábitos de consumo desde la familia, así como la actividad física. • Educar en temas de agricultura desde la infancia hasta la etapa universitaria. • Crear campañas educativas que busquen combatir la obesidad y mejoren los hábitos de alimentación saludable desde la niñez. • Hacer una revisión de todas las políticas públicas existentes e identificar si alguna va en contra de las tendencias actuales de seguridad alimentaria.

2021-08-09 18:07:05205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39508/134

1375205245150090472212180109161215080206020302020203021407000405070315130100280006020102121403

La concertation a été organisée sous forme d’atelier national avec des parties prenantes multiples du Gouvernement, des Agences des Nations Unies (NU), des PTFs, ONGs, organisations de la société civile et du secteur privé. Elle a été initiée par le par le Haut-Commissaire à l’Initiative 3N, Coordonnateur National et organisée en étroite collaboration et coordination avec la FAO, L’UNICEF, le PAM, l’OMS, la PNIN et l’ONG GRET. 75 participants ont pris part au dialogue. Mr Attaher Maïga, Représentant de la FAO au Niger a prononcé une allocution au nom de la Coordination des NU pour rappeler le contexte de la fragilité des systèmes alimentaires et l’ampleur des conséquences associées en présentant quelques chiffres et situations tirés du rapport SOFI 2020 et des rapports d’études et enquêtes nationaux du Niger. I a ensuite lancé un appel à l’action de l’ensemble des parties prenantes pour des SA durables au Niger et a salué, au nom des NU, la nomination du Coordonnateur National tout en réaffirmant l’engagement à accompagner le Gouvernement et les autres acteurs dans ce processus. Le discours d’ouverture a été prononcé par Mr Ali Bety, Haut-Commissaire à l’I3N et Coordonnateur National des Concertations sur les SA. Le Coordonnateur a réaffirmé l’engagement du Niger à poursuivre la consultation des acteurs à travers le processus des concertations jusqu’au sommet 2021 et au-delà, et d’en partager les résultats. Il a aussi rappelé l’ensemble des activités menées avant sa nomination et les dispositions prises depuis sa nomination pour rattraper le retard pris par le Niger dans le démarrage des concertations. L’Assistant au Coordonnateur et animateur de la concertation a présenté les objectifs du sommet et les détails sur l’ensemble du processus des concertations en 3 étapes et a rappelé les concertations subrégionales et indépendantes déjà réalisées, puis il a demandé à un membre de l’équipe de présenter les termes de référence des travaux de groupe en expliquant qu’une restitution sera faite en plénière.Au cours de cette concertation, nous avons été ravi de voir les décideurs de la partie Gouvernementale et ceux des PTFs discutés séparément de la même thématique. Cela a permis de confronter les points de vue de chaque groupe sur la base d’une série de mêmes questions portants sur la gouvernance des systèmes alimentaires y compris la décentralisation pour un meilleur fonctionnement des systèmes alimentaires ; la coordination multisectorielle des acteurs, et le financement des systèmes alimentaires. La partie Gouvernementale a ainsi pu examiner la situation et proposer des approches de solutions et inviter les PTFs à s’aligner sur les priorités identifiées. Du côté des PTFs, tout en acceptant d’entrée de jeu le principe d’alignement et d’accompagnement du Gouvernement, le groupe a identifié des goulots d’étranglement sur lesquels la partie Gouvernementale n’a pas insisté. La prise en compte et la conciliation des deux points de vue a permis d’avoir un regard plus large, tant sur le diagnostic que sur les solutions proposées pour renforcer la gouvernance, la coordination et le financement des systèmes alimentaires. Ces aspects sont capitalisés dans la section des résultats et intégrés dans la note de synthèse du pays.Les Pays et les organisateurs doivent agir à temps dans la préparation nationale (Nomination du coordonnateur, mise à jour des parties prenantes et préparation technique et financière des concertations. Une assistance technique à la carte peut être nécessaire. L'adaptation du processus au contexte et aux capacités du Pays est très importante.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Le thème général de la concertation est : « Quelles actions de transformation des systèmes alimentaires pour la modernisation du monde rural et l’amélioration de l’état nutritionnel des nigériens en relation avec l’atteinte des ODD” Après la cérémonie officielle d’ouverture et l’introduction en plénière, les échanges se sont poursuivis en travaux de groupe. 5 groupes ont été constitués : 1- Dialogue de haut regroupant des acteurs du Gouvernement pour discuter de la thématique « Gouvernance multisectorielle, décentralisation opérationnelle et financement des systèmes alimentaires : quelles actions et approches en zone stables et zones fragiles » ? 2- Dialogue de haut regroupant les partenaires techniques et financiers pour discuter de la thématique « Gouvernance multisectorielle, décentralisation opérationnelle et financement des systèmes alimentaires : quelles actions et approches en zone stables et zones fragiles » ? 3- Dialogue des acteurs de la société civile et du secteur privé sur la thématique « Approvisionnement des marchés ruraux et urbains en fruits et légumes (Chaines de valeur des fruits et légumes) » 4- Dialogue mixte des acteurs étatiques de divers secteurs (Agriculture, santé, protection sociale, éducation…) sur la thématique : « Recherches et innovations sur le développement du monde rural » et « Biofortification par sélection végétale et promotion des variétés naturellement riches en micronutriments » 5- Dialogue mixte des acteurs étatiques de divers secteurs (Agriculture, santé, protection sociale, éducation…) sur la thématique « Chaine de valeur du poisson (Pêche et aquaculture) » Les groupes 1 et 2 ont travaillé en répondant à une série de questions posées à la suite de l’analyse situationnelle proposées, alors que les autres groupes ont d’abord discuté de l’état actuel de la situation (diagnostic), Ils se sont projetés dans la situation souhaitée dans 10 ans (2030), ont identifiés les atouts et leviers disponibles pour booster la transformation, puis ont proposé des reformes et investissements nécessaires pour parvenir à ces transformations pour des SA durables en 2030. Chaque groupe a disposé d’un facilitateur et de deux rapporteurs dont un a partagé les résultats du travail en session plénière. Dans chaque groupe, chaque participant a eu l’opportunité de s’exprimer librement pour faire valoir ses idées. Les travaux de groupe ont durée 2 heures chacun (de 11h à 13h) et la restitution en plénière a pris 1h30 (de 15h à 16h30)235238239240242243244245246247248249250251Il est ressorti des discussions ce qui suit : (1) Les systèmes alimentaires jugés complexes avec des interactions multiples rendant difficile l’intégration systématique des actions nécessaires, utilisant l’approche système, pour les adapter aux besoins nutritionnels ; (2) Les mécanismes de financement des systèmes alimentaires ont besoin d’un réel changement des pratiques et de paradigme budgétaires publics et des donateurs pour tendre vers des fonds communs sectoriels en plus du fond d’investissement pour la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle (FISAN). Il faut donc changer note façon de mobiliser et d’utiliser les ressources ; (3) L’adoption des lois et des décisions qui ne sont pas systématiquement suivies des décrets ou arrêtés d’application rend difficile l’action des secteurs concernés ; (4) Les prix des fruits et légumes sont élevés en Afrique de l’Ouest en général et au Niger en particulier. Comment le Niger peut-il s’inspirer de l’expérience du Kenya et de l’Afrique du Sud disposant des prix relativement bas desdits produits par exemple et comment mettre en place des politiques d’importations suivies pour combler les gaps actuels? (5) La pertinence ou non des subventions d’intrants agricoles qui portent au Niger sur les équipements agricoles et les engrais et le besoin de les étendre aux actions post-récoltes ; (6) La pertinence de l’aquaculture au Niger et son avantage comparatif face aux contraintes de sa mise en place dans un contexte sous-régional où les pays côtiers sont plus avancés. Les importations ne peuvent-elles pas être la meilleure option dans ce cas ? Les défis des pêches artisanales et l’empoissonnement des mares ont été évoqués notamment la surexploitation ou plutôt les faibles capacités de production par rapport aux besoins ; (7) L’accès est difficile aux semences adaptées des légumes comme la tomate durant toute l’année pour éviter des baisses de production et d’accès saisonniers des légumes frais produits au Niger. Comment rendre les innovations technologiques semencières plus accessibles aux petits exploitants ruraux et péri-urbains ? (8) La nécessité d’insister sur la bio-fortification par sélection végétale pour ne pas ouvrir la porte aux aliments bio- fortifiés par transgénèse ou organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) ; (9) La recherche et la dissémination des innovations sur les systèmes alimentaires coûtent chères et sont sous-financées, c’est pourquoi il faut des priorités bien définies centrées sur des technologies innovantes pour les petits exploitants par exemple pour le financement public. Il est également suggéré des alliances avec des institutions sous-régionales pour mutualiser les efforts. Le financement public de ce secteur doit être prévisible dans la durée pour percevoir ses dividendes ; (10) La vulgarisation agricole et l’éducation des consommateurs progressent grâce à la création de l’Agence de Promotion du Conseil Agricole et un projet d’envergure nationale d’amélioration de la vulgarisation agricole avec des approches nouvelles d’adaptation des besoins aux marchés ; (11) Les petits exploitants qui produisent 70 % des calories disponibles doivent être protégés par rapport au gros business agricole même si ce dernier n’est pas encore fréquent mais en progression ; (12) La compréhension commune en construction est nécessaire et l’utilisation de la terminologie qualifiant les systèmes alimentaires (durable, équitable, sain, sensible….) doit être harmonisée et maitrisée. La concertation a mis en évidence les nombreux défis à surmonter et l’énorme potentiel d’adaptation des systèmes alimentaires pour devenir dans l’avenir un puissant levier d’amélioration de la justice sociale et du bien-être de tous les nigériens.236238239241242243244245246248249250251Le Groupe 1 « Dialogue de haut regroupant des acteurs du Gouvernement » sur la thématique « Gouvernance multisectorielle, décentralisation opérationnelle et financement des systèmes alimentaires : quelles actions et approches en zone stables et zones fragiles » ? Le groupe a eu à répondre à 4 questions posées à la suite d’une brève description de l’analyse situationnelle. Q1 : Quelles actions prioritaires le gouvernement peut-il prendre pour accélérer le processus de décentralisation et déconcentration des services pour un meilleur fonctionnement des systèmes alimentaires ? • Evaluation de besoin et potentialités d’accompagnement des communes et • Renforcement de capacité de pilotage des collectivités territoriales ; • Amélioration de la fonctionnalité et le leadership des cadres de concertations, • Renforcement du maillage des services techniques et promotion de l’intersectorialité. Q2 : Comment le Gouvernement compte-t-il améliorer le financement des systèmes alimentaires et à travers quels mécanismes ? • En renforçant la disponibilité des ressources et le fonctionnement du Fonds d’Investissement pour la Sécurité Alimentaire et Nutritionnelle (FISAN); • Rehausser le niveau de financement du FISAN et de la Banque Agricole du Niger (BAGRI) pour atteindre les ambitions fixées; • En renforçant le mécanisme et la capacité d’achat de vivres par l’Office des Produits Vivriers du Niger (OPVN) après les récoltes afin s’approvisionner chez les producteurs en quantité et à temps pour valoriser la Stratégie Nationale d’Achat Locaux Auprès des Petits Producteurs (SNALAPP). Q3 : Comment les documents de politiques et de programmation (DPPD, PAP) peuvent-ils intégrer systématiquement des systèmes alimentaires durables et sains (sûrs et diversifiés) ? • Faire un alignement entre les documents de planification stratégique-planification opérationnelle et la loi des finances; • Travailler pour l’application effective et à tous les niveaux de la directive de l’UEMOA sur les budget-programme avec davantage de transfert vers les régions responsables de la mise en œuvre opérationnelle • Bien cibler le cycle du budget et mener un plaidoyer pour que les besoins exprimés par les ministères et les collectivités local soient mieux couverts Q4 : Comment le Gouvernement peut-il créer un environnement favorable au développement du secteur agro-alimentaire privé ? • Développer l’approche de partenariat public-privé (PPP); • Dimensionner les unités de production (UP) de façon proportionnelle aux capacités de production; • Mettre en place un mécanisme de subvention des intrants agricoles; • Définir et opérationnaliser un mécanisme pour l’allégement de la fiscalité Défis au développement des SA • Décentralisation et déconcentration peu effectives des services techniques en fonction des spécificités locales; • Problème foncier (conflit droit moderne- droit traditionnel), • Financement extérieur non aligné aux priorités nationales; • Insuffisance de ressources humaines et matérielles au niveau des services techniques des collectivités territoriales; Recommandations • Décentralisation et déconcentration des services techniques en fonction des spécificités locales; • Alignement du financement extérieur aux priorités nationales; • Amélioration de la formulation de textes sur la décentralisation en vue de gérer le foncier; • Création d’un fonds commun de financement de la sécurité/systèmes alimentaires (approche programme); • Résolution des distorsions entre la loi des finances et les outils de planification des ministères et collectivités locales; • Pilotage multisectoriel très fort236238239241242243244245246247248249250251Le Groupe 2 « Dialogue regroupant les PTFs sur la thématique « Gouvernance multisectorielle, décentralisation opérationnelle et financement des systèmes alimentaires : quelles actions et approches en zone stables et zones fragiles » ? Le groupe a eu à répondre à 4 questions posées à la suite d’une brève description de l’analyse situationnelle. Q1 : Quelles actions prioritaires les PTF peuvent-ils prendre pour appuyer le gouvernement (GVT) à accélérer le processus de décentralisation et déconcentration des services pour un meilleur fonctionnement des systèmes alimentaires (SA)? A travers le plaidoyer avec des actions prioritaires suivantes : • Mise en place des mesures d’accompagnement de la transition ; • Application effective de la loi sur la décentralisation (prendre des mesure d’accompagnement, mettre en place un mécanisme de renforcement des capacités de la gouvernance locale) • Renforcement du niveau régional et départemental A travers le renforcement des capacités avec des actions prioritaires suivantes : • Effectivité de la décentralisation ; • Appui technique pour rendre effective la décentralisation • Renforcement de l’intégration des questions des systèmes alimentaires sains dans les plans de développement communaux (PDC), plans de développement régionaux (PDR) et les plan d’investissement annuels (PIA) • Appui à l’identification des organisations de de la société civile (OSC) qui pourront apporter un appui technique au niveau de la gouvernance locale Q2 : Comment les PTF peuvent –il davantage appuyer le GVT à améliorer le financement des SA et à travers quels mécanismes ? Le financement des systèmes alimentaires nécessite une priorisation préalable des chaines de valeur qui doivent renforcer une alimentation saine • Plaidoyer pour la décentralisation du financement des systèmes alimentaires dans les PDC et PIA • Appui à l’élaboration d’un dossier d’investissement (pour montrer ce qu’on gagne en investissant dans les systèmes alimentaires) et ses supports de communication • Alignement des PTF aux priorités du GVT • Appui au GVT pour le passage à l’échelle des initiatives qui ont donné de bons résultats • Respect des engagements pris par les PTF pour le renforcement du financement des associations à la base et le nexus humanitaire- développent -paix (HDP) • Appui au GVt pour l’organisation des tables rondes de mobilisation de ressources Q3 : Comment les PTF peuvent-ils mieux coordonner les financements et leur appui technique pour soutenir le GVT dans le renforcement des actions prioritaires, y compris le partenariat public –privé pour les SA durables et sains? • Bâtir sur la base des cadres de redevabilité : GVT, PTF, OSC • Accompagner l’état dans la rédaction des documents stratégiques ; • Accompagner le processus actuel gouvernemental sur le NEXUS HDP • Investir dans la capitalisation du NEXUS HDP • Promouvoir le dialogue entre le GVT et le secteur privé pour le renforcement de la chaine de valeur, la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, l’employabilité des jeunes et des femmes ; • Soutenir la génération des données, des évidences et capitalisation des expériences sur les SA sains et durables • S’inspirer de l’expérience du fonds commun Santé (du MSP/P/AS) pour attirer des financements pour les SA Q4 : Comment les PTF peuvent-ils soutenir le GVT pour permettre que les documents de politique et de programmation intègrent systématiquement les SA durables et sains? • Appui technique et financier pour rendre les politique et programmations sensibles aux SA • Appui à la vulgarisation des documents de politique et programmation et à leur mise en œuvre Recommandations • Créer un cadre de redevabilité des plateformes de coordination des PTF des SA • Créer un groupe de PTF sur le SA/ cadre de concertation pour une démarche holistique des SA (Définition des rôles et responsabilités, terme de référence…) • Accompagner le gouvernement sur le Nexus HDP (interventions et financements) • Appuyer la capitalisation des expériences du Nexus HDP • Mobiliser le potentiel de financement, assistance technique pour que les fonds jouent pleinement leur rôle et contribue aux objectifs nationaux.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Le Groupe 3 « Dialogue des acteurs de la société civile et du secteur privé sur la thématique « Approvisionnement des marchés ruraux et urbains en fruits et légumes (Chaines des valeurs des fruits et légumes) » Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • La disponibilité et l’irrégularité de l’offre (les matières premières, exemple de la tomate) ; • L’accessibilité (L’acheminement des matières premières aux niveaux des marchés, enclavement, infrastructure, tracasseries routières, conditionnement des produits) • La production (la non disponibilité des variétés adaptées) ; • L’insuffisance dans la vulgarisation de la technologie adaptée (les serres et autres technologies) ; • L’insuffisance de financement de la chaine de valeur fruits et légumes ; • La non maitrise des marchés ; • La non maitrise du circuit de distribution (structuration, conservation, commercialisation,) ; • Faible diversification des exploitations familiales ; • Manque d’une organisation interprofessionnelle de la chaine de valeur fruits et légumes ; Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • La sécurisation des personnes et des biens ; • Disponibilité permanente des fruits et légumes ; • Amélioration des conditions d’accès aux marchés ; • Une autosuffisance des fruits et légumes ; • L’interprofession de la chaine de valeur est créée et opérationnelle • SIMA (Système d’information sur les Marchés Agricoles) Q3 : Quels sont les atouts pour améliorer la situation d’ici 10 ans ? • Disponibilité des terres irrigables et eaux souterraines • L’engagement politiques ; • Disponibilité de la main d’œuvre ; • L’existence de la stratégie nationale de développement de la chaine de valeur ; • L’existence de la demande ; • La disponibilité des instituts et écoles de recherche agronomique ; • La stratégie ZLECAF (zone de libre-échange continentale africaine) ; • Disponibilité d’un potentiel des énergies renouvelables (solaire, l’eau) ; • La disponibilité des partenaires d’accompagnements • L’existence de l’axe stratégique de l’accélération de la croissance économique (PDES) ; Q4 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Elaborer et mettre en œuvre un plan opérationnel de développement de la filière fruits et légumes ; • Moderniser les moyens de transport ; • Accroitre la production fruits et légumes ; • Elaborer et mettre en œuvre un plan de désenclavement des bassins de production existants ; • Décréter une journée nationale de promotion de la filière (fruits et légumes) ; • Mettre à l’échelle la pratique des jardins potagers (amélioration de l’état nutritionnel) Recommandations • Créer une filière fruits et légumes dans les écoles ; • Mettre à jour le répertoire des marchés (Cartographie) ; • Mettre en place un comité de suivi de la mise en œuvre des recommandations de la filière (fruit et légumes);236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Le Groupe 4 « Dialogue mixte des acteurs étatiques de divers secteurs (Agriculture, santé, protection sociale, éducation…) sur la thématique 1: « Recherches et innovations sur le développement du monde rural » Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Méconnaissance des bonnes pratiques de production et transformation ; • Faible vulgarisation des technologies disponibles ; • Faible accessibilité aux technologies innovantes ; • Faible capacité d’investissement ; • Faible accessibilité à l’énergie ; • Faible appui à la recherche ; • Désengagement de l’Etat à la recherche ; Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Les producteurs maitrisent les bonnes pratiques ; • Les transformateurs maitrisent les bonnes pratiques ; • Les technologies performantes disponibles sont vulgarisées; • Accès facile aux technologies innovantes; • La capacité d’investissements des acteurs dans les technologies innovantes est améliorée; • Énergie disponible à moindre coût ; • Les capacités de recherches sont renforcées; • La recherche sur les problèmes nationaux est financée. Q3 : Quels sont les atouts pour améliorer la situation d’ici 10 ans ? • Acteurs motivés • Existence de centres de formation et de recherche ; • Potentiel important en matières premières ; • Existence de certaines technologies localement testées et adoptées; • Existence du Fonds d’Investissement pour la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle (FISAN) • Existence de la Banque Agricole du Niger (BAGRI) • Existence des plateformes de services intégrés comprenant des boutiques d’intrants, radio communautaire, magasin de stockage et de vente de produits, conseillers agricoles (…) dites « Maison du Paysan » (MP) • Existence du le Système National de Conseil Agricole mis en œuvre par l’Agence de Promotion du Conseil Agricole (SNCA/APCA) • Existence du Réseau national des Chambres d'Agriculture du Niger (RECA) et des plateformes des organisations paysannes et organisations des producteurs • Existence du Conseil national de la recherche agronomique du Niger (CNRA). Q4 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Formation des acteurs sur bonnes pratiques (production et transformation) ; • Renforcer les services de vulgarisation en ressources financières matérielles et humaines ; • Renforcer les capacités des centres de formation et recherches • Opérationnaliser les maisons du paysan (MP) Recommandations • Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques et les technologies pour la modernisation du monde rural236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Le Groupe 5 « Dialogue mixte des acteurs étatiques de divers secteurs (Agriculture, santé, protection sociale, éducation…) sur la thématique : « Chaine de valeur du poisson (Pêche et aquaculture) » Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Changement climatique impactant sur la promotion de la pêche et l’aquaculture (assèchement des marres, ensablement du fleuve, prolifération des plantes envahissantes aquatiques) ; • La non disponibilité des aliments de qualité pour l’aquaculture ; • Insuffisance des spécialistes dans le domaine de l’aquaculture ; • Surexploitation des ressources (non-respect de la réglementation) ; • La pollution, l’inondation la sécheresse ; • L'envahissement des plantes aquatiques ; • L'insécurité, la pandémie de la COVID 19 ; • Conservation du poisson ; • La non disponibilité du poisson ; • L’inaccessibilité du poisson ; • Conflits entre éleveurs et pêcheurs Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? Développement de la filière aquaculture ; • Disponibilité du poisson en quantité et en qualité ; • Contribution accrue du secteur de la pêche et de l’aquaculture à améliorer la situation alimentaire et nutritionnelle de la population • Création d’emplois et de revenus aux acteurs intervenant dans la chaine de valeur Q3 : Quels sont les atouts pour améliorer la situation d’ici 10 ans ? • Disponibilité des marres et des retenues d’eau ; • Existence du fleuve Niger ; • Disponibilité des techniciens ; • Disponibilité des sites favorables à l’aquaculture ; • Existence de la Stratégie nationale de développement durable de l’aquaculture (SNDDA) 2020-2035 et son plan d’action ; Q4 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Promotion de l’aquaculture pour la production des alevins qui contribuent à diminuer la pression sur les ressources et luttent contre la malnutrition ; • Transformation du poisson en d’autres produits dérivés tels que « Indomi », poisson séché et mis en paquet et en farine en particulier par les femmes et les jeunes ; • Empoissonnement massif des marres ; • Installation des unités de fabriques d’aliment pour poissons ; • Renforcement de capacité des aquaculteurs • Elaboration et vulgarisation du décret d ’application de la loi 2021 003 du 16 Mars 2021 portant régime de la pêche et de l’aquaculture au Niger • Acquisition des équipements moderne de transformation et stockage et conservation du poisson • Creusage plus profond des mares pour en améliorer la profondeur • Désensablement du fleuve pour faciliter la pêche • Accompagnement du secteur privé • Promotion de l’élevage de poisson en rizière • Promotion de la pisciculture en cage flottante dans les sites maraichers Recommandations • Mobilisation des ressources pour le développement de la chaine de valeur de la pêche et de l’aquaculture • Renforcement des capacités des spécialistes en pêche et aquaculture ; • Création d’une agence pour la mise en œuvre et le suivi de la Stratégie nationale de développement durable de l’aquaculture (SNDDA)237238239240241242243244246248249- La subvention des intrants agricoles : certains acteurs en séances plénière ont trouvé que cette recommandation avait du sens uniquement à court terme, car il crée une dépendance eux subvention, peut créer une distorsion sur la concurrence et les activités du secteur privé, mais peut aussi à long terme représenter un fardeau financier important pour l’état. D’autres au contraire pensent qu’un pays comme le Niger ne peut éliminer la faim sans subvention aux intrants et équipements agricoles - Le financement extérieur non aligné aux priorités nationales : C’est une réalité dans certains cas ; cependant il y a aussi des cas où les ressources disponibles et alignées ne sont pas utilisées et sont retournées aux Donateurs. Il est donc nécessaire de travailler sur les deux paliers, l’alignement aux priorités nationales, et le renforcement des capacités de planification et d’absorption des ressources allouées. - La bio-fortification des aliments : le concept de bio-fortification n’est pas bien connu et est trop souvent assimilé aux organismes génétiquement modifiés ; c’est une des raisons par exemple pour lesquelles la bio-fortification ne fait pas l’unanimité au Niger, en particulier auprès du Ministère de l’Agriculture. Il a donc été demandé de bien clarifier qu’il ne s’agit pas ici des OGM, mais de la sélection végétale et du croisement entre variétés pour aboutir à une variété nutritionnellement plus dense. - Les lois et les décrets pris par le gouvernement ne sont pas systématiquement suivis respectivement de décrets et d’arrêtés d’application ce qui rend difficile leur application dans les secteurs productifs alimentaires pour certains tandis que pour d’autres notamment de la primature pensent que la loi est immédiatement applicable.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/FR-Formulaire-CR-officiel-Concertations-nationales-Niveau-central-VF-09821.docxhttps://pnin-niger.org/web/2021/07/16/concertation-nationale-et-dialogue-multi-acteurs-sur-les-systemes-alimentaires/https://pnin-niger.org/web/2021/07/27/declaration-du-niger-au-pre-sommet-des-nations-unies-sur-les-systemes-alimentaires-en-faveur-des-systemes-alimentaires-durables-equitables-plus-resilients-et-protecteurs-de-lenvironnement-d/

2021-08-10 12:12:52205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39594/134

00201201010001204012085040212061050021210040300080210

La Concertation a été organisée avec les différentes parties prenantes du niveau régional en vue de prendre en compte les points de vues de tous. Le cadre existant de concertation des acteurs de l’Initiative 3N utilisant pour organisé la concertation au niveau de chaque région souligne la volonté de renforcer le dispositif de gouvernance existant et de promouvoir l’approche multisectorielle. Les participants ont tous eu l’opportunité de s’exprimer. Une présentation globale en plénière a été faite pour expliquer les concepts de base des systèmes alimentaires, les objectifs des concertations et les objectifs du sommet, ainsi que le déroulement de la concertation. Les travaux de groupe ont été l’occasion d’expression de chaque participant pour partager ses réflexions pour chacune des thématiques abordées. La répartition en deux catégories de parties prenantes principales (Gouvernement et Acteurs non étatiques) a aussi été favorable aux acteurs pour exprimer une perspective différente, d’un côté, le point de vue des acteurs gouvernementaux, et de l’autre, celui des acteurs non étatiques (ANE) tout en prenant avantage de la contribution des divers secteurs dans chacune des catégories des parties prenantes. La concertation dans chacune des deux régions a été animée par un Conseiller au Haut-Commissaire à l’Initiative 3N, Coordonnateur National des Concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires. L’animateur a été assisté par un facilitateur dans chaque groupe de travail.Les travaux étaient organisés en séance plénière au début de la réunion puis en travaux de groupe et, à la fin partager les résultats des discussions de groupe en session plénière. Toutefois, la constitution des groupes de discussion diffère de la méthode standard. En effet, la constitution des groupes n’a pas été faite comme recommandé. au niveau des régions, il ya eu deux groupes : (i) Groupe avec les acteurs étatiques comprenant l’administration régionale, les préfets, les Directeurs Régionaux, les responsables des projets, les services techniques déconcentrés des ministères sectoriels, les universités et chercheurs de chaque région, et (ii) Groupe des acteurs non étatiques (ANE) comprenant tous les acteurs non gouvernementaux : les élus locaux, PTFs, agences UN, ONGs, Organisations de la Société Civile (OSC), Organisations des Producteurs (OP), associations villageoises. Chaque groupe a discuté de façon indépendante de plusieurs thématiques au cours de la concertation en utilisant l’outil d’échange conçu à cet effet et répondre à au moins 3 questions principales sur les thématiques suivantes : 1. Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? afin de déterminer les principaux goulots d’étranglement au fonctionnement du système alimentaire local ; 2. Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment souhaitons nous voir la situation dans 10 ans ? visant à permettre aux participants de donner leur point de vue sur comment ils aimeraient voir les choses en 2030, 3. Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) mettre en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? A travers cette question, identifient les voies vers la transformation des systèmes alimentaires locaux, mais aussi les principaux leviers. Les groupes ont également proposés dans certains cas les principaux acteurs ou parties prenantes principales qui doivent être impliqués pour parvenir au changement souhaité. L’animateur principal venait du niveau central et avait été formé à l’animation des groupes pour les concertations du Sommet sur les systèmes alimentaires.Le Niger a pu organiser ses concertations dans deux régions sur huit. La mobilisation des ressources pour couvrir l’ensemble des régions n’a pu être possible à cause des délais courts. C’est pourquoi dans l’avenir, la mobilisation des ressources domestiques ou externes devait intervenir dès le début du processus en assurant par exemple le regroupement des régions par zone agroécologiques pour minimiser les coûts. Comme ce sont les premières concertations, elles ont servi de test et d’apprentissage pour le reste du processus. C’est pourquoi, il y a eu de gaps d’information liés à l’approche utilisée.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Neuf (9) thématiques différentes ont été discutées par les groupes d’acteurs (étatiques et non étatiques) dans la concertation organisée dans les deux régions (Agadez et Tahoua). Les piste d’action et leviers de changements se recoupent dans plusieurs thématiques et ont été étudiés transversalement, tant dans le diagnostic de la situation que dans l’expression de la situation souhaitée d’ici 2030 et dans l’identification des voies de changement pour parvenir aux transformations souhaitées. Thématique 1: Approvisionnements alimentaires et commerce (y compris e-commerce) Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Thématique 2: Recherche pour le développement rural Acteurs du Gouvernement, Région de Tahoua Thématique 3: Chaines des valeurs des légumineuses et/ou des fruits et légumes Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Thématique 5: Financement des systèmes alimentaires Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Thématique 6: Vulgarisation agricole au Niger (y compris e-agriculture) Acteurs du Gouvernement, Région de Tahoua Thématique 7: Chaine de valeur du lait et des produits dérivés Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Thématique 8: Normalisation des produits agroalimentaires Acteurs du Gouvernement, Région de Tahoua Thématique 9: Chaîne de valeur du poisson (pêche et aquaculture) Acteurs du Gouvernement, Région de Tahoua Thématique 10: Chaine de valeur du mil Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua235238239240241242244245246248249250251En matière d’approvisionnements alimentaires, les groupes ont identifier la construction, la réhabilitation et l’entretien routier comme des leviers importants pour le désenclavement. Des moyens de transports adaptés sont nécessaires y compris l’utilisation de camions frigorifique pour les produits périssables qui nécessitent le respect de la chaine de froid. L’amélioration des moyens de communication y compris l’accès à Internet sont aussi nécessaires. La recherche coûte chère ; elle est très peu financée et les résultats peu ou pas suffisamment vulgarisés. Il est nécessaire d’avoir un cadre approprié et d’allouer un budget suffisant pour permettre à la recherche de contribuer au développement rural et de proposer des innovations et de l’appui-conseil aux utilisateurs. Pour cela, il faut développer un cadre de partenariat entre les institutions de recherche Les chaînes de valeur des légumineuses et Fruits et légumes sont faibles particulières les fruits et surtout basées sur le maillon production. La transformation/conservation est le maillon le plus faible, ce qui se traduit par des pertes post-récolte/post production. Des investissements majeurs sont nécessaires renforcer les maillons de transformation, de conservation, transport y compris à travers les véhicules frigorifiques pour le respect de la chaine de froid des fruits et légumes. Des unités de collecte et transformation de lait sont à créer et promouvoir dans chaque région et département du Niger. La chaine de valeur du mil se heurte à l’insuffisance des semences adaptées, à la dégradation des sols, un faible accès aux intrants agricoles et faible mécanisation. Les solutions proposées portent sur la levée de ces contraintes. La chaine de valeur du poisson a un grand potentiel qu’il faut renforcer avec le développement de l’aquaculture continentale en vulgarisant la politique nationale des pêches, en aménageant les points d’eau et mettant en place un projet structurant en matière de pêche. La Vulgarisation agricole et l’appui-conseil se heurtent à un problème de connaissances et de maitrise de techniques et innovations agricoles. C’est pourquoi il faut développer durablement les synergies entre la recherche et les services de vulgarisation et restructurer les organisations paysannes. En matière de normalisation des produits agrosylvopastoraux et halieutiques (PASPH), l’insuffisance d’identification des produits agricoles à normaliser et leur répertoire, la méconnaissance des normes et standards internationaux (des intrants au conditionnement) et la méconnaissance du processus de normalisation et des coûts associés sont parmi les principaux obstacles. Le renforcement des capacités techniques et opérationnelles des acteurs et des institutions en charge de normalisation, la vulgarisation des normes existantes et la définition de normes pour un large éventail de PASPH sont requis pour un meilleur fonctionnement des systèmes alimentaires. Le contrôle de qualité le long des maillons de chaine de valeur des denrées alimentaires est aussi nécessaire pour renforcer la sécurité sanitaire des aliments. Le processus de normalisation de violet de Galmi et de la viande séchée (Clichi) est en cours Les systèmes alimentaires sont insuffisamment financés. Mettre en place des institutions de financement au niveau local en lien avec les fonds existants au niveau central. Une meilleure organisation des organisations des producteurs en association ou coopérative structurée avec une plus grande bancarisation des avoirs sont des réformes nécessaires pour renforcer leur capacité de mobilisation des financements.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Thématique 1: Approvisionnements alimentaires et commerce (y compris e-commerce) Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Les voies de communication (routes, pistes….); • Insuffisance de couverture réseau téléphonique et internet ; • Insuffisance des magasins et des marchés structurés ; • Coût élevé de transport ; • La concurrence déloyale Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Améliorer l’état des routes ; Sécuriser les voies de communication ; • Quelles Développement des voies de communication : • Création des magasins et marché structurés ; • Réduction du coût de transport ; • Politique de valorisation des produits locaux ; Q3 actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Entretiens réguliers des routes ; Réhabilitation et construction des routes • Réalisation des infrastructures marchandes ; • Subventionner les produits locaux ; • Achat des produits locaux auprès des petits producteurs236238239241242243244245246248249250251Thématique 2: Recherche pour le développement rural Acteurs du Gouvernement et Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Manque de financement ; • Insuffisance de cadre approprié de recherche. • Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Cadre de recherche opérationnalisé ; • Allouer une part du budget pour la recherche. Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Réhabiliter, financer et valoriser la recherche • Développer le partenariat avec les institutions de recherche236238239241243246248251Thématique 3: Chaines des valeurs des légumineuses et/ou des fruits et légumes Acteurs du Gouvernement et Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Manque des centres de transformation des produits locaux ; • Cherté de de l’énergie ; • Insuffisance des compétences techniques ; • Insuffisance dans la promotion des espèces à haute valeur productive • Insuffisance des semences adaptées Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Création des centres de transformation des produits locaux ; • Promouvoir les énergies renouvelables ; • Renforcer la création des centres de formation professionnelle spécialisés dans la transformation ; • Vulgarisation des espèces productives ; Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Création des centres de transformation des produits locaux ; • Promouvoir les énergies renouvelables ; • Renforcer la création des centres de formation professionnelle spécialisés dans la transformation ; • Vulgarisation des espèces productives ;236238239241243245246248251Thématique 7: Chaine de valeur du mil Acteurs Non Etatiques, région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Insuffisance des semences adaptées ; • Dégradation des sols ; • Faible taux d’utilisation des engrais ; • Faible mécanisation. Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Mécanisation de l’agriculture ; • Mise à disposition des engrais ; Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ?236238239241242243244245246248249250251Thématique 5: Financement des systèmes alimentaires Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Faible niveau d’organisation des producteurs en vie associative • Insuffisance des institutions de micro-crédit au niveau local ; • Difficulté d’accès aux crédits ; • Faible structuration des organisations des producteurs. Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Mise à disposition de moyens financiers • Organisation des producteurs (OP) • Création des institutions au niveau local; • Faciliter l’accès aux crédits; Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Bancarisation des producteurs • Sensibilisation des producteurs sur l’importance des OP • Constitution de fonds de garantie; • Redynamiser les OP;236238241242243244245248249251Thématique 6: Vulgarisation agricole au Niger (y compris e-agriculture) Acteurs du Gouvernement, Région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Méconnaissance des techniques et technologies • Méconnaissance des politiques et stratégies agricoles • Insuffisance d’encadrement rapproché et de l’appui-conseil technique Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Connaissance et maitrise des techniques et technologies agricoles innovantes • Efficacité de la mise en œuvre du Système National de Conseil Agricole opérationnalisé par l’Agence de Promotion du Conseil Agricole (SNCA/APCA) Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Développer durablement la synergie entre la recherche et les services de vulgarisation pour la production, la conservation, la transformation, la commercialisation et la consommation • Structurer les Organisations Paysannes et Organisations de producteurs236238239243246Thématique 7: Chaîne de valeur du lait et des produits laitiers Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Manque de structure de santé animale ; • Manque des centres de transformation des produits locaux ; • Cherté de de l’énergie ; • Insuffisance des compétences technique ; • Insuffisance dans la promotion des espèces à haute valeur productive • • Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ?236238240241242243244245246248249250251Thématique 8: Normalisation des produits agroalimentaires Acteurs du Gouvernement, Région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Insuffisance dans l’identification des produits agricoles à normaliser et leur répertoire • Méconnaissance des normes et standards internationaux (des intrants au conditionnement) • Méconnaissance du processus de normalisation et des coûts associés Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Maximum des produits agrosylvopastoraux et halieutiques (ASPH) identifiés et normalisés • Le processus en cours pour la normalisation du Clichi (viande séchée) et de l’oignon « Violet Galmi » finalisé et étendu à d’autres produits similaires ou de la même catégorie Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Identifier, répertorier, les produits ASPH • Normaliser, les produits ASPH • Vulgariser les normes existantes et définir de nouvelles normes pour un large éventail de produits ASPH236238239241242243244245246248250251Thématique 9: Chaîne de valeur du poisson (pêche et aquaculture) Groupe Institutions gouvernementales, Région de Tahoua Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Ensablement des points d’eau • Prolifération des espèces envahissantes • Pêche frauduleuse • Déstructuration de l’habitat du poisson • Méconnaissance de la politique nationale de la pêche • Contamination par des ordures ménagères Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Réaliser l’autosuffisance en poissons • Assurer l’exportation du poisson Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Aménagement des points d’eau ; • Réhabiliter l’habitat ; • Vulgariser la politique nationale en matière de pêche ; • Formulation et financement d’un projet structurant en matière de pêche237Information non disponible

2021-08-10 19:56:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22925/185

8256263349217211158372617424159202

La Municipalité de la ville de Tunis a organisé la concertation indépendante de la ville de Tunis en collaboration avec ses partenaires nationaux et internationaux en impliquant un grand nombre de parties prenantes et de secteurs d'intervention en relation directe ou indirecte avec les systèmes alimentaires durables. Au-delà des recommandations d'ordre stratégiques, les groupes de travail ont proposé des actions concrètes et urgentes pouvant être implémentées sur le court terme, en plus des activités déjà engagées par la Municipalité de Tunis, des associations et des agences publiques. L'approche systémique dans la réflexion et la recherche de solutions a été présente tout au long des discussions dans les groupes de travail et dans le débat mené en plénière sur la base des résultats obtenus dans les sessions de groupes, en donnant une opportunité d'expression à tous les partenaires participants.Agir avec diligence + adopter l'inclusion de plusieurs parties prenantes: La concertation a impliqué plusieurs parties prenantes pouvant agir sur les systèmes alimentaires durables : Ministères et institutions publiques et privées, institutions de recherche, organisations de la société civile, experts et spécialistes dans divers domaines (agriculture, santé, commerce, industrie, éducation, etc.).S'engager pour le Sommet : Une grande partie des institutions participantes à la concertation sont déjà engagées dans la réflexion et la mise en œuvre de projets et d'actions relatives aux systèmes alimentaires durables (Municipalité de Tunis, Instituts nationaux de consommation et de Nutrition Ministères de l'éducation, de l'Enseignement Supérieur , de la Santé, de l'Agriculture et des affaires locales et de l'Environnement, Associations et opérateurs du secteur privé). Être respectueux : La concertation s'est tenue au respect du contexte national et local de la Tunisie, en se basant sur des données et statistiques récentes et fiables exposées par des chercheurs et des institutions spécialisées dans des domaines divers tels l'agriculture, la santé, la nutrition et le commerce. Reconnaître la complexité + compléter le travail des autres : Les axes abordés lors de la concertation tiennent compte de la complexité et de la relation intrinsèque des sujets et ont abordé divers aspects d'intervention potentielles sur les trois niveaux : Macro (cadre légal et réglementaire, engagement politique, mécanismes incitatifs et allocation de ressources), Meso (renforcement des capacités des parties prenantes, développement des partenariats entre acteurs complémentaires), micro (actions directes dédiées aux consommateurs et aux producteurs ainsi qu'aux acteurs à différents niveaux de la chaîne d'écoulement des produits).Bâtir la confiance : La concertation a réuni des participants de divers horizons qui ont travaillé dans des groupes hétérogènes et disposant de temps suffisant de débat et d'échanges afin d'atteindre un consensus sur les voies, stratégies et urgentes à engager.Une concertation indépendante impliquant un nombre respectable d'acteurs et de représentants d'organisations nécessitent une période de temps préalable pour être organisée d'une façon optimale. Les restrictions imposées par la COVID-19 nécessitent souvent des sessions à distance, qui demandent une organisation particulière et des moyens logistiques dont il faut tenir compte. Pendant la concertation, les partenaires ont besoin d'un temps suffisant pour pouvoir exposer, analyse d'une façon systémique et synthétiser les résultats. Pour ce faire, la Municipalité de Tunis a opté pour une organisation en deux temps (voir la méthode dans le chapitre 3 ci-dessous). Cette option a été judicieuse dans la mesure où elle a permis à tous acteurs de s'exprimer suffisamment dans les groupes de travail.

Yes

234238239241243244246249La concertation indépendante de la Municipalité de Tunis a été organisée sur deux demi-journées (le 14 Juin et le 17 Juin 2021). La première demi-journée a été dédiée à une introduction générale et aux discussions de groupes qui ont porté sur cinq (5) thèmes, à savoir : 1-Nexus alimentation, nutrition et santé pour les citoyens de la ville de Tunis. 2-Rôle et promotion de l'agriculture urbaine et périurbaine. 3-Circuits de distribution et le rôle d’e-commerce et plateformes 4-Quel rôle de l’économie sociale et solidaire et de la protection sociale dans la transformation des systèmes alimentaires urbains ? -5Gaspillage alimentaire, gestion des déchets alimentaires et économie circulaire Chaque groupe de travail a discuté sa thématique selon la démarche suivante : Analyse des défis et des enjeux, recherche et partage d'expériences, proposition de solutions – actions et recommandations. La deuxième demi-journée, tenue le 17 Juin 2021 a été réservée d'une part à la communication du message d'engagement de la Municipalité de Tunis, exprimé par Madame la Maire ainsi qu'aux discours de personnalités et responsables (message du Coordonnateur de la concertation nationale, message du Coordonnateur résident des Nations Unies en Tunisie, message du Représentant de la FAO en Tunisie, message de la représentante de UNHABITAT en Tunisie). D'autre part, les rapporteurs des 5 groupes de travail ont exposé les résultats obtenus lors des sessions de groupes du 14 juin 2021. Au vu de la situation sanitaire, cette session a été limitée en présentiel à une trentaine de participants, alors que XX participants ont suivi et participé aux discussions en mode virtuel. Par ailleurs et en vue d'élargir la participation citoyenne, la Municipalité de Tunis a mis à la disposition des citadins de la Ville sur les site de la Municipalité de Tunis ainsi que sur les réseaux sociaux (Facebook) un formulaire  qui comporte les thèmes de la concertation  de discussion et ceci dans le but d'une participation plus importante. Axes de la concertation et résultats A) Axe majeur La concertation indépendante de la ville de Tunis, promue par la Municipalité de Tunis a porté sur le thème "Vers des systèmes alimentaires urbains sains, résilients et inclusifs pour la ville de Tunis". Cinq thèmes ont été sélectionnés, en relation directe avec les objectifs de l’ODD et les systèmes alimentaires. Le choix des thèmes a résulté d'une concertation avec plusieurs parties prenantes (organisations de la société civile, experts, partenaires publics et organisations internationales).235238239241244245246248249La Municipalité de Tunis compte approximativement près de 620 Mille d'habitants et un demi-million de non-résidents affluent quotidiennement pour des raisons surtout professionnelles (réf). Instaurer des systèmes alimentaires sains et durables nécessite obligatoirement un travail d'envergure et une approche systémique afin d'aborder tous les sujets inter reliés comme la production agricole, le traitement, la transformation,l'écoulement, le commerce, la consommation et la gestion des déchets. C'est notamment l'une des raisons pour laquelle les responsables de la Concertation ont prévu cinq thématiques importantes, complémentaires et inter dépendantes. Les réflexions ont été organisées de façon homogène dans la mesure où chaque groupe de travail avait approché une problématique selon la démarche "Enjeux et défis – expériences – actions et recommandations".236238239241244245246248249Les résultats de la concertation sont exposés par thème et d'une façon synthétique dans le chapitre suivant "Outcomes des groupes de discussion". On a Cinq thèmes thème 1 :- Nexus alimentation, nutrition et santé pour les citoyens de la ville de Tunis. S’alimenter est un geste naturel quotidien qui peut paraître anodin et qui détermine en réalité une grande part de notre santé. Nous sommes de ce fait amenés à relever des défis majeurs afin de garantir l’adéquation entre notre alimentation et notre santé.Dans l'un des arrondissements communaux de la ville de Tunis (El Mourouj 2), l'analyse de 27 plats a démontré que près de 52 % sont malsains contre seulement 15 % de plats sains. En tant que signataire du "Milan urbanfoodpolicypact", la Municipalité de Tunis vise à offrir à ces citoyens une alimentation saine, suffisante, à la portée et abordable. Autant d’enjeux qui se retrouvent dans plusieurs des Objectifs du Développement Durable, dont les cibles sont fixées pour 2030 et particulièrement les ODD n°2 : Faim « zéro » ; n°3 : Bonne santé et bien-être, n°11 : Villes et communautés durables. Dans le cadre de cet axe, trois pistes d'actions ont été analysées : 1 : Améliorer l’accès aux fruits et légumes et aux produits laitiers pour encourager et augmenter leurs consommations. 2 : Améliorer la qualité nutritionnelle des menus offerts à la population. 3 : Intégrer la nutrition et la sécurité alimentaire dans le plan de développement local. Toutefois, ces pistes d'actions se doivent de tenir compte de défis et enjeux majeurs, à savoir : la difficulté de garantir des prix abordables des fruits et légumes et des produits laitiers ; la difficulté de préserver la qualité des fruits et légumes et produits laitiers pour des périodes prolongées ; la difficulté de multiplier les points de vente du producteur au consommateur ; l'impossibilité de contrôler les menus des restaurants (et fastfood) qui dépasse les prérogatives de la municipalité de Tunis ; la difficulté de fournir des menus nutritifs à des prix encourageants comparativement aux prix relativement bas pratiqués par les fast-foods ; la nécessité de changer les habitudes/préférences alimentaires des tunisois (moins de graisse, moins de sel, moins de sucre) ; la lenteur du processus d’intégration de la nutrition et de la sécurité alimentaire dans le plan de développement: faible implication de certains acteurs, déficit de l’approche participative. Des initiatives ont pourtant pu être lancées dans la ville de Tunis, comme celle du point de vente du producteur au consommateur à El Mourouj 2. Pareille expérience a prouvé son efficacitédès que plusieurs parties prenantes ont entamé une collaboration (CRDA de Tunis, Municipalité, citoyens, société civile). Ainsi, le groupe de travail a identifié une série de solutions et d'actions à promouvoir, notamment : améliorer l’accessibilité à des produits alimentaires sains en multipliant les points de vente du producteur au consommateur et en privilégiant les circuits commerciaux courts afin de garantir des prix abordables aux populations à faible revenu. Encourager la vente des fruits et légumes dans les épiceries et améliorer l'accès aux marchés existants sont également des actions souhaitables à court terme et à coûts relativement réduits/ pouvant être entreprises immédiatement ; favoriser et encourager l’agriculture urbaine et péri-urbaine et implanter des potagers éducatifs dans les jardins d’enfants ; multiplier le contrôle d’hygiène dans les établissements de vente de denrées alimentaires et renforcer la traçabilité et le respect de la règlementation relative à l’étiquetage ; la sensibilisation des citoyens est une action incontournable afin d’améliorer les habitudes alimentaires des tunisois, grâce à l'usage des médias de masse et des réseaux sociaux ; des programmes d'aide aux restaurants avec l'appui de nutritionnistes (assistance technique, promotion, compétition) pourra les motiver à proposer des menus améliorés et plus sains ; réactivation des cantines au niveau des jardins d’enfants municipaux tout en veillant à ce qu’elles servent des menus sains et nutritifs.236238239241244245246248249Thème 2 : Rôle et promotion de l’agriculture urbaine et périurbaine :L'agriculture périurbaine dans le gouvernorat de Tunis (8000ha) continue à exercer par ses différentes activités (végétale, animale, pêche) et sa richesse en forêts et réserves naturelles desfonctions économique, environnementale et sociale et représente une ceinture verte pour la cité. Plusieurs défis se dressent face à cette pratique. Parmi ces derniers, la réticence des jeunesàce type d'activité et l'absence de plan d’Insertion économique et sociale visant sa promotion auprès des jeunes. Face à l'urbanisation galopante de Tunis qui attire depuis toujours une masse significative de nouveaux résidents, les terres agricoles s'amenuisent au profit de quartiers nouveaux. La pollution de l’environnement et de l’eau d’arrosage altère aussi bien la quantité que la qualité des produits agricoles qui perdent de leur compétitivité. Le manque d'eau d'irrigation et les doutes qui planent sur la qualité des eaux usées, détournent les promoteurs désirant s'orienter à l'agriculture urbaine et périurbaine. Le coût relativement élevé de la main-d'œuvre spécialisée dans les zones urbaines affecte la rentabilité des projets agricoles quand ceux-là existent. Par ailleurs, sur un plan structurel, la planification urbaine ne tient pas compte de la pratique de l'agriculture urbaine durable et n'accorde que très peu ou pas d'importance à l'ancrage et à l'intégration territoriale de ce genre de pratique. La ville de Tunis ne manque pas pourtant de petits projets d'agriculture urbaine et périurbaine : des petites fermes de permaculture persistent et certaines voient le jour.Desjardins de quartiers gérés par les syndics sont présents sporadiquement et plusieurs ménages pratiquent le compostage individuel. Des associations mènent avec succès des expériences (à titre indicatif, l'espace éducatif pour la culture des potagers, du compostage et de l’apiculture au parc Belvédère aménagé par l'association AAB en collaboration avec la Municipalité de Tunis). Le groupe de travail a proposé une série d’actions à promouvoir, notamment : * intégrer l’agriculture urbaine et périurbaine dans les plans et programmes urbains et renforcement de la législation et de la réglementation en faveur de la préservation et de la promotion de l’AUP et des espaces naturels, paysagers et de biodiversité en milieu urbain et périurbain ;*promouvoir les expériences et initiatives citoyennes et entrepreneuriales et valoriser les projets pilotes de l’AUP et encourager les startups et assurer leur insertion harmonieuse dans le milieu urbain ;* généraliser et valoriser les initiatives et projets en cours, portés par la Municipalité (les jardins communautaires) et installer des jardins collectifs en assurant leur gestion durable et encourager les jardins familiaux et de quartier ainsi que toutes pratiques privées de l’AU par les citoyens ;* promouvoir les pratiques agricoles respectueuses de l’environnement et de la biodiversité et de gestion des déchets (composte,...) et de mobilisation des ressources ; * former et sensibiliser sur les bénéfices et la multifonctionnalité et la diversité des activités marchandes et non marchandes de l’agriculture urbaine et périurbaine (environnementale, gestion des déchets, développement économique et social, éducative, récréative, paysagère, d’aménagement urbain, etc.) ainsi que leur rôle social de paysage et de bien-être et de qualité de vie ;* créer et consolider un réseau ou portail d'opérateurs ou plateformes pour l’agriculture urbaine favorisant les échanges d'expériences et de projets réussis et encourager l’organisation des opérateurs dans des groupements et associations ; * élaborer des programmes pédagogiques afin de promouvoir l'AUP et développer des projets et activités pédagogiques (visites organisées, jardins et animation et autres) ;* Proposer un programme national de mise en valeur et d’exploitation des espaces disponibles pour la permaculture ;* Inciter les institutions financières à promouvoir ce secteur et à faciliter l’accès au financement des projets ;*Organiser les marchés communaux en favorisant la commercialisation des produits agricoles de proximité236238239241244245246248249Thème 3 :Circuits de distribution et le rôle du e-commerce et plateformes L'un des défis majeurs à ce niveau est de pouvoir digitaliser les processus et services de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire, de bout en bout. L'objectif étant d'assurer une alimentation saine et durable en garantissant la disponibilité et l’accès aux consommateurs et d'améliorer la visibilité des produits existants chez les producteurs et autres opérateurs de la chaine de distribution, tout en maîtrisant les prix des produits frais. Ceci nécessite unequalité et une traçabilité des produits ainsi que des mécanismes de contrôle de qualité et de protection des consommateurs. La Municipalité de Tunis œuvrera en vue de renforcer le contrôler les circuits de distribution tout en considérant l’existence de vendeurs informels, notamment ambulants, dans les circuits de distribution. La digitalisation des services liés aux circuits de distribution devra aussi tenir compte de son acceptabilité et des problèmes de payement en ligne. En terme d'acquis, il existe une plateforme en ligne "code online"qui offre, à douze millions de consommateurs, le moyen de suivre les prix des produits frais 7/24 et de participer directement à la lutte contre la hausse anarchiquedes prix de détail dans les marchés limitrophes. La pandémie de la Covid-19 a par ailleurs obligé plusieurs entreprises à créer le service de livraison à domicile de produits alimentaires. Les recommandations qui ressortent du groupe de travail portent sur des point divers, aussi bien stratégiques que opérationnels. A moyen terme, la Municipalité de Tunis visera à : * augmenter le nombre des marchés périodiques et renforcer la présence des produits frais dans les marchés de proximité ; * améliorer la visibilité des produits labélisés bio ; * intégrer les commerçants ambulants dans le circuit formel ; * accompagner le changement des formes associatives ; * promouvoir l’émergence des villes intelligentes orientées vers les besoins des consommateurs. A court terme, des opérations pourraient être engagées, telles : * l'organisation d'espaces dédiés aux producteurs pour des ventes directes dans les marchés municipaux ; * mener des campagnes de sensibilisation ; * intégrer les produits locaux (huile d’olive et dérivés, produits frais, fromages...) dans les menus des cantines scolaires ; * revoir impérativement les lois régissant les plateformes et sites de commerce électronique pour une meilleure approche prix/services ; * mettre en ligne une plateforme de collecte des réclamations consommateur ; * coacher les acteurs de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire sur le digital ; * former les SMSA (société Mutuelle des Services Agricoles) pour faciliter l’écoulement des produits.236238239241244245246248249Thème 4 : 4. Rôle de l’économie sociale et solidaire (ESS) dans la transformation des systèmes alimentaires urbains La Tunisie dispose, depuis 2020, d'une loi sur l'ESS (Loi 2020-30) qui permet aux institutions et collectivités locales de s'engager pour promouvoir ce domaine. A ce niveau, la Municipalité de Tunis pourrait jouer le rôle d'une locomotive pour d'autres communes, en promouvant des modèles novateurs d'ESS,qui répondent aux problèmes des systèmes alimentaires actuels,permettent de créer des sources d’emploi durable et offrent un appui alimentaire soutenu pour les couches vulnérables (notamment les sans-abris). Des initiatives à succès ont vu le jour chez des associations. A titre indicatif, "Citoyens d’El Mourouj 2" (une zone de grands quartiers à Tunis), une association locale a pu lancer une opération pilote appelée "Marché-souk solidaire", et ce depuis 2017. En coopération avec des communes de villes espagnoles, l'association a offert aux femmes artisanes un espace de vente de leurs produits frais à des prix abordables. La promotion de l'ESS et sa contribution dans les ODD nécessitent des actions préalables tels : l'inventaire des terrains municipaux exploitables et disponibles pour l’agriculture urbaine et s’assurer de la disponibilité des systèmes d’arrosage ; mettre en place des mécanismes d'appui aux jeunes chômeurs pour les aider à lancer des microprojets (des pépinières, des jardins communautaires, etc.) ; inciter les privés à exploiter leurs jardins privés (les jardins des résidences et les toits comme jardins botaniques) et prévoir des mesures d’encouragement (par ex. des prix annuels) ; assurer des formations en jardinage au profit des jeunes afin qu’ils puissent intégrer ce programme ; favoriser des démarches de coopération entre les divers acteurs soutenant les initiatives solidaires.236238239241244245246248249Thème 5: Gaspillage alimentaire gestion des déchets alimentaires et économie circulaire Trois défis majeurs sont à relever pour réduire le gaspillage alimentaire et optimiser la gestion des déchets alimentaires : Un défi environnemental qui interpelle à lutter contre le niveau de gaspillage en augmentation. Un défi socio-économique pour instaurer une culture de lutte contre le gaspillage et de valorisation des déchets et un défi institutionnel qui nécessite l'engagement de plusieurs parties prenantes. A ce sujet, les expériences dans le mode ne manquent pas. La Tunisie, également, a mis en œuvre plusieurs expériences dans la lutte contre le gaspillage alimentaire et la gestion des déchets. A ce titre, la Municipalité de Tunis met en œuvre un programme de séances pratiques relatives à la valorisation des déchets ménagers dans le cadre d'une convention avec le Ministère de l’éducation et l'INC.Les expériences engagées par l’INC en collaboration avec la FAO en matière de campagne de sensibilisation, Caravane pour les écoles visant l’éducation au gaspillage alimentaire ou l’élaboration du guide de l’éducation à la consommation, sont toutes des initiatives intéressantes à retenir et dupliquer.A citer également l’expérience de"Foodealz" , plateforme de lutte contre le gaspillage, dont le principe est d'écouler les produits restants en fin de journée, issus des restaurants et pâtisseries à des prix attractifs et les produits des épiceries fines dont les délais d'expiration sont proches. Le groupe de travail a identifié une série d'actions recommandables, qui portent sur différents niveaux d'intervention. Sur le plan du cadre légal et réglementaire, le groupe recommande de : mettre en place un cadre réglementaire pour la lutte contre le gaspillage alimentaire, qui prévoit par exemple une sur taxation des déchets en fonction du poids pour tous les acteurs (ménages, détaillants, restaurateurs), un système de récompense/exemption de paiement de taxes pour les acteurs qui valorisent ou réduisent leurs déchets alimentaires (créer des incitations et des sanctions). Dans le domaine de l'IEC (Information, éducation, communication) visant un changement social, il a été proposé de : officialiser l’éducation environnementale et l’éducation à la consommation en tant que matières principales dans les programmes scolaire; élaborer des programmes de sensibilisation qui émanent directement des propositions et des réflexions des enfants et qui sont adaptés à leurs besoins réels ; lancer des actions de communicationpartenariales et multimédias destinées à tous les acteurs concernés sur les méthodes de conservation, d’emballage ou de recyclage des aliments ; renforcer les capacités des parties prenantes sur les techniques de gestion et traitement des déchets (formation des formateurs sur l’économie circulaire, le gaspillage, la valorisation des déchets). La formation des détaillants et des restaurateurs dans la bonne gestion des commandes et les facteurs essentiels du gaspillage alimentaire. Sur le plan plutôt opérationnel, le groupe propose de : généraliser l’expérience du compostage (comme celle de l’INAT) et sensibiliser les parties prenantes à l’utilité du compostage et dupliquer l’expérience de l’INC dans la réduction de gaspillage du pain en installant des "gâchimètres" au niveau des cantines scolaires et des restaurants universitaires ; mettre en place un système de tri des déchets où les déchets organiques doivent être envoyés à un site désigné pour être compostés dans chaque région.237238239241245246249Il n'existe pas réellement de points de divergence identifiés lors de la concertation. Toutefois, il est opportun de citer une remarque à titre de faiblesse : La Tunisie est un pays en voie de décentralisation depuis la promulgation de la nouvelle constitution en 2014. Les communes disposent progressivement d'un pouvoir local étendu. Ainsi, la Municipalité de Tunis, bien qu'ayant toutes les opportunités de promouvoir ses propres projets en matière de systèmes alimentaires durables, devra s'appuyer sur un cadre juridique national et dépend de l'engagement politiqueet financierd'autres acteurs clés comme les Ministères et organismes sous-tutelles (Ministères, organisations nationales comme l'UTICA, institutions de la société civile).

2021-08-11 00:24:39205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12406/88

2392511225841114125161255354711421713173123120392151427

The 1st Indonesian Food Systems Summit Dialogues (Indonesian FSSD) was organized according to the convenor reference manual of the UNFSS Secretariat. It aimed at ensuring that the dialogue incorporates, reinforces and enhances the principles of engagement. We set the ultimate result of the dialogues is to produce a national strategy of food systems transformation as part of the national development plan and contribution to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. This statement is a reflection of the principle of the act with urgency. We recognize the complexity of food systems that all aspects are closely connected. With respect to the principle of recognizing complexity, we invited a wide range of stakeholder representatives across sectors and experts to deal with the complex problems of the food system. There were 239 participants from various sectors involved in the dialogues. This was also our effort to ensure the principles of embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity in the dialogues processes. Moreover, we started to involve key stakeholders in the planning and preparation process to ensure a sense of ownership and togetherness in the dialogues. In a series of preparatory meetings, we reinforced the principle of build trust, be respectful and commit to the summit as the foundation of our collaboration. We developed the structure of the committee of the dialogues and secretariat to reflect the representation of key stakeholders. We appointed co-convenor, curators and co-curator, facilitators and co-facilitators, rapporteurs, and co-rapporteurs to accommodate the roles of key stakeholders. Moreover, to ensure the inclusiveness of the dialogues then we invited small-scale producers, women, indigenous people, consumers, and representatives from subnational governments. In terms of gender representation, there are 125 of 239 participants are women.The 1st Indonesian FSSD mostly reflected the aspects of inclusivity and participatory of multistakeholder process from planning, preparation, and implementation of the dialogues. This was further reflected in the level of participation and enthusiasm of participants as well as the high expectation that dialogues would be directed to formulate a national strategy on food systems transformation.The dialogues should incorporate the principle of diversity to accommodate specific contexts, especially stakeholders from sub-national levels since Indonesia is an archipelagic and decentralized country.

NoThe dialogue was curated well, which introduction session covered statement commitment on food systems transformation from the government and UN representatives. We prepared a paper as background information for participants. The participants were enthusiastic in the discussion until the end, and willing to get the results of the dialogues. The facilitation in the discussion groups was conducted to ensure that all the voices were heard where all participants could express their ideas, experiences, and interests. The dialogue was to gather many stakeholders from various interest groups and levels. In addition, the dialogue was done virtually, then the committee must anticipate all possible risks. In doing so, the Convenor strengthened and expanded the committee, which did not only consist of the curator and the facilitators, but including Co-convenor, co-curator, co-facilitators, rapporteurs, and co-rapporteurs. It is to ensure that the dialogue could be convened in a well-conducted manner.

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The 1st Indonesian Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD) focuses on comprehensive exploration of food systems that involves a broad range of stakeholders such as national and subnational government institutions, private sectors and business association, civil society organizations including small-scale producers and family farming groups, youth, women and consumer organizations, customary communities and UN-based organizations in Indonesia. The objectives of the dialogues are: (i) gathering inputs and ideas, as well as share learning and experiences of multi stakeholders process on food systems transformation in Indonesia, (ii) identify problems, analysis and possible solutions to develop strategy and pathways for food system transformation, (iii) determine Indonesia position related with food system transformation to achieve SDGs that will be presented in UN Food System Summit 2021. The Indonesian FSSD has developed as part of the implementation of the national food system transformation agenda as stated in Law 18/2020 on Food. The law is a regulatory framework to ensure food system transformation for sufficient, affordable, safe, good quality and nutritionally balanced diet is available to all. The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has made bold commitments on food systems, with the Presidential Decree 18/2020 on Mid-term National Development Plan 2020-2024 establishing food systems transformation as one of the national policy priorities. The Indonesian FSSD is an opportunity for GoI and other stakeholders to present and discuss the plan with key national and sub-national stakeholders, to engage them concretely in the dialogue process and beyond. The dialogue is organized based on Five Global Action Tracks as a framework in the process and analysis. The Five Global Action Tracks are integrated, cross-cut each other, and cannot be managed separately. The Indonesian FSSD has drawn upon the expertise of actors from across Indonesia’s food systems. Based on the Five Action Tracks, the Indonesian FSSD has provided a purposeful forum for stakeholders to share their views on how to advance progress towards food systems transformation, map their respective roles, identify and minimize potential trade-offs across sectors and intervention, for comprehensive and upscaled results, as well as to identify ‘game changers’, key interventions that can change the ways in which food system operate. This means that the Indonesian FSSD is a process of multi-stakeholder dialogues to develop a pathway of food systems transformation in Indonesia.235238239240241242244246The 1st Indonesian FSSD has covered a broad range of issues related to food systems transformation. Adopting the five global action tracks in the discussion group has contributed to the comprehensiveness of the results of the dialogue. There is problem reformulation, articulation of new narratives, experiences from the ground and ideas for solutions, and some points of consensus to follow up in the next series of dialogues. The participants agreed that the food system in Indonesia should reflect the context of Indonesia as an archipelagic country. This needs further to be explored in the upcoming sub-national dialogues. The participants in each discussion group agreed to follow up on the result of the dialogues in terms of reshaping the substance with groups discussion and some of them will organize independent dialogues. There is a need for a more in-depth discussion in the local context in the sub-national dialogues that involve the participation of provincial and district governments as well as local key stakeholders.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Participants hav identified that ensuring access to safe and nutritious food need to integrate food provision into poverty reduction/social safety-net program. To ensure food access, there is a need to encourage the participation of the community to practice family farming, home garden utilization and urban agriculture. Supports to small-medium enterprises in food sectors are crucial to enhance healthy and nutritious food. Food systems planning should be integrated from national and sub-national, and there is a need for further capacity building at the local level. The provision of safe and nutritious food need behavior change, so appropriate communication strategy and community education are important to increase food literacy. The group identified that the increase in fruit and vegetable consumption is one of potential game-changers. Action Track 2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns Participants agreed that shifting to sustainable consumption needs community education on healthy and nutritious food. Therefore, it needs massive education and campaign, particularly on promoting local foods. The discussion also identified the role of women in shifting sustainable consumption due to the importance of early and childhood education for healthy diets. There is a need to develop food systems dashboard to provide comprehensive information on production and consumption status that are useful for policymaking. The group agreed that food safety is aimportant aspect to strengthen and need to develop incentives for food producers that produce healthy and nutritious foods. It also needs shifting on practices and behaviors of the producers, distributors, and consumers to reduce food loss and waste. The group identified that healthy and nutritious food education and reducing food waste as potential game-changers. Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production The participants in the group agreed that forms of sustainable agriculture practices such as agroecology and climate-smart agriculture are driving forces to boost nature positive production. Supports on promoting agroforestry as approach to sustainable utilization of marginal land are needed, with the objective to integrate agriculture and conservation. There is a need to strengthen agrobiodiversity, particularly the conservati of plant genetic resources. Therefore, promoting local food production systems is important to ensure diversification and regionalization of food system. The participants agreed that it is time to develop aquaculture as a potential food source in the future. The groups identified that agroecology approach and promoting the local food system are potential game-changers. Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods In advancing equitable livelihood, there is a need to ensure community access to agrarian resources such as land, capital and information. The group agreed that strengthening institutional capacity, such as farmer and fisheries corporation, is important. The discussion identified the importance of inclusive business and access to finance for small-scale producers as well as equitable value chain of food production. Increasing added value of production through circular economic concept is an idea to increase income and sustainable livelihood. There is a need to develop incentives for youth to participate in agriculture production for the sake of farmers regeneration program. The group identified that farmer corporation and circular economy are potential game-changers. Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerability, shocks and stress There is a need to map and decentralize food stock as part of strengthening community access to food-related with vulnerability, shocks and stress. The group agreed to promote adaptive agriculture to build resilience to disaster and climate change. With high intensity of natural disaster, innovation and investment in technology of logistic system are options as well, as the development of holding state-food production company. The group identified that adaptive agriculture and innovation in logistic system are potential game c237238239240241242243244245246248249251Generally speaking, there are some diverse views and different opinions that emerged during the dialogue. These are particularly occurred in the area of prioritized solutions or game-changers to address the existing and future problems, challenges, and opportunities to build and strengthen the resilience of Indonesian food systems. It was agreed that a long list of game-changers will be listed. Since there are still other five dialogues both at the sub-national and national levels, the proposed solutions (long listed of gam changers) will be validated and the priority will be the subject of the discussion among the participants.

2021-08-11 03:10:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35489/45

16367481214525

After brief opening remarks and detailed keynote speeches, two round-table discussions were held, which focused on production and consumption independently.A wide range of stakeholder groups is invited to participate in the discussion. Over 100 thousand people watched the Dialogue through live stream. Here is the list of our participants: Jian Yi, Founder and President of the Good Food Fund (CBCGDF) Zhou Jinfeng, Secretary-General of China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation Steve McIvor, CEO of World Animal Protection Melinda Hou, Executive Director of the Good Food Fund (CBCGDF) Mia MacDonald, Founder and Executive Director at Brighter Green Sarah Ison, Global Farm Animal Advisor, World Animal Protection Dawn Moncrief, Founder, President, and CEO of A Well-Fed World Becky Ramsing, Senior Program Officer at Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future Wang Lan, PhD, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Xu Shaoshan, Director, Operating and Development Department, China Quality Certification Centre Guo Yixin, Postdoctoral Researcher jointed between Peking University (PKU) and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Long Ruijun, Distinguished Professor of Pastoralism and Ecology at School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University, Doctoral Supervisor, Consultant to the World Yak Herders Association He Pan, Lecturer in Environmental Science and Sustainability. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences Cardiff University Xi Chunling, Vice President and Secretary General of China Association for the Promotion of International Agriculture for the Promotion of international Agriculture Cooperation(CAPIAC) Doris Lee, General Manager of GFIC Chu Xueqin, China Farm Animal Project Manager of World Animal Protection

Yes

234239243244248This dialogue dove deep into the crucial role of animal welfare improvement in the transformation of the food system from both the production and consumption sides and explored how to guide people toward a healthier and sustainable diet.235239243244248Animal welfare is not an isolated issue, but is closely related to climate change, environmental issues, and public health. Improving animal welfare will drive breakthroughs in a series of urgent social issues236239243244248• The global pandemic has shown us that environmental health, animal health, and human health are closely intertwined, and this awareness must form the core of future plans and actions. • Improving animal welfare is not the only result that will be achieved--these measures will also reduce the probability of food crisis, improve public health and make the food system more resilient. • Consumption of meat alternatives will increase 35% by 2040. • The significance and value of the global Meatless Monday movement, and expressed her anticipation for China to promote this movement in the future. Production: 1. Reducing the consumption of animal products can effectively reduce our carbon, water, and land footprints while adjusting the proportions of different meat sources we consume can also reduce the environmental footprint. The environmental footprint of plant-based diets is much smaller than that of omnivorous diets. 2. Chinese enterprises need to pay attention to the dynamics of carbon trading markets and carbon tax. The transformation of the industry towards low-carbon consumption and production will also reduce businesses’ carbon tax burden. 3. Improving the management of aquaculture can significantly reduce the emissions of active nitrogen pollutants, benefiting individuals, society, the economy, and the environment. 4. If meat consumption can follow the example of grassland yaks and other local varieties, it will reduce the demand for industrialized animal agriculture systems and promote regional pastoral economies and independent herders. Consumption: 1. Dietary change starting with urban and high-income populations can bring more obvious environmental benefits. 2. Real “good meat” must be the product of high-welfare animal farming practices. 14 animal welfare products have been included on the list--an important step towards the marketization of high-welfare animal products in China. 3. New plant-based meat products are gradually emerging in catering and retail markets, and multinational corporations and food giants are also entering the Chinese plant-based meat market. By expanding production scale and increasing output, costs can be reduced, and more consumers can enjoy safe, delicious, affordable and healthy plant-based meat products.

2021-08-11 06:50:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32349/45262

16029500880331275511112

This dialogue focused on opportunities for China and the EU to collaborate on animalwelfare and food system transformation from the perspectives of policy making, business practices, and public engagement. At the beginning, guest speakers conducted opening remarks and keynote speech to introduce the background and reasons of the China-EU corporation on animal welfare. Then, three parallel forums were set up around the topic to further discussions.A wide range of stakeholder groups are invited to participate in the discussions. Additionally, over 90 thousand people watched the Dialogue through livestream. Participants: Stéphanie Ghislain, Trade & Animal Welfare, Programme Leader of Eurogroup for Animals Jian Yi, Founder and President of the Good Food Fund, Member of Action Track 2 Core Leadership Team and Action Track 2 Lead of Action Area 6.1 Governance, UN Food Systems Summit Gudrun Gallhoff, Minister Counsellor for Health and Food Safety, Delegation of the European Commission to China Zhao Wanping, Deputy to the National People’s Congress and Vice President of Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences Xi Chunling, Vice President and  Secretary General of China Association for the Promotion of International Agriculture for the Promotion of international Agriculture Cooperation(CAPIAC)   Long Ruijun, Executive Dean Professor at Cuiying Honors College, Director of the International Centre for Tibetan Plateau Ecosystem Management, PhD Tutor  Paul Littlefair, Head of International of Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals  Jeff Zhou, China Chief Representative, Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)  Dr. Xiong Chuanwu, CEO at IQC (Shanghai) Co., Ltd  Chu Xueqin, World Animal Protection (WAP)  Han Taixin, Vice President of Ovodan Foods China Ouyang Huiyu, Food Policy Officer of Good Food Fund  Zhang Jing, founder of Elefam  Lucky Wu, China Representative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)  Michelle Sinclair, International Animal Welfare Program Manager, University of QueenslandPromote the Dialogue and engage as many as public audience through multi-channel social media and livestream.

Yes

234239240241243245249250This dialogue focused on opportunities for China and the EU to collaborate on animal welfare and food system transformation from the perspectives of policy making, business practices, and public engagement.235The new EU regulation is a great opportunity for policy making and business practices to improve animal welfare in China. Industry-standards, labelling, education all play an important role in the transition.236239240241246249From a policy making perspective: 1. To promote animal welfare, it is important to take into account the interests of all stakeholders and achieve win-win results. 2. China should take incremental and phased steps to keep up with the international trend. 3. China and Europe would acknowledge each other’s animal welfare standards and expand areas for cooperation. 4. China's western region is more suitable for grazing than for growing crops. The Animal Freedom Indexes (AFI) of cattle, sheep and chicken raised by herders are very high, so these are all highwelfare farming products. 5. The importance of animal welfare labeling.236239240245250From a business practices perspective 1. China seemed to have produced more animal products than needed. Improving farming to meet export standards is an opportunity for Chinese farming enterprises in the years to come. 2. So long as companies transform themselves in a timely manner, the EU’s resolution can be a great opportunity for Chinese companies rather than a threat. 3. Transformation took time and those quick to take action could get better market returns.236239248From a public engagement perspective 1. It is essential to be active, respectful, understanding, and cooperative. 2. The need to find specific communication narratives for different target groups. 3. Public communication should return to the animals themselves. Rebuilding the humananimal relationship among youths, leveraging science to boost animal welfare, and bringing humanistic care and concern to science. 4. Animal welfare education boils down to food system education. so long as young people learn more about sustainable food systems, healthy diets, and holistic health, the concept of animal welfare would naturally arise within them.

2021-08-11 07:21:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17073/87203

7001046140020500612121143652972211613631321229

We organized this dialogue on the topic of women empowerment in the agri-food sector since we believe that it is an issue that needs to be addressed with urgency. Empowering women would take us one step closer to achieving our goal of making our food system more inclusive and sustainable. To fully commit to the summit process, our team followed every step and stuck to the recommended guidelines for executing this dialogue. We are also continuing to engage in coalitions and conducting larger activities keeping the Summit’s goals in mind. We recognized the complexity of the topic of gender inequality. The dialogue focused on women in agriculture, specifically looking at technology as an enabler. It was divided into 6 discussion topics to tackle this complex topic from all perspectives. During the planning process of this dialogue, we scouted for participants with a very inclusive viewpoint. We ensured that every person involved in this topic, no matter the level of their role, got an equal voice in the dialogue. We invited a variety of participants from both large-scale commercial and small-holder backgrounds to ensure that the change we need in the system is ignited at every level. Our participants came from diverse backgrounds including, but not limited to, the Livestock industry, Agroforestry, Education, Food processing, and the Government sector. Our facilitators too came from different disciplines and ensured that every participant could feel comfortable in sharing their opinion. We complemented the work of various other institutes such as FAO, CGIAR, World Bank, etc. by researching about the work being done by them and understanding how we could support them through the dialogue. The dialogue process itself ensured that participants from different backgrounds and stakeholder groups could build connections and collaborate towards our common goals.The dialogue focused on bringing gender inequality and the digital divide in the food sector to the focus of multiple stakeholders. In order to tackle this complex problem, we designed 6 discussion topics to tackle the diverse nuances of this larger topic. Each discussion topic was researched extensively and prompt questions were made on the 3 main themes of problems, solutions, and challenges. This ensured that our dialogue was solution-oriented and that the participants asked the right questions and came up with actionable insights to implement the vision in their own practice. We used a collaborative brainstorming tool for participants to be able to visualize these problems and solutions better on a 10-year time frame. We invited participants from varied backgrounds for this dialogue. Along with people from leadership roles in big corporations, we also had people working on the ground with small-holder farmers and the farmers themselves. While splitting the participants into the different discussion groups, the team put in efforts to add a mix of voices from different backgrounds for each topic. We also invited keynote speakers from different stakeholder groups to share their experiences and their vision. This gave a stage to their efforts to bring about gender equality and reduce the digital divide in the food system. In order to build trust and a safe space to let the participants speak freely, Mooofarm and Future Food ensured that we follow the Chatham House Rule. Participants could also start interacting before the dialogue through the initial email threads sent out by our facilitators. This not only helped in breaking the ice but also ensured that the participants got a chance to build connections with others working towards the same vision. Real stories of small-holder women farmers were also shared on our social media pages prior to the dialogue to build momentum and to share the real issues that exist on the ground. To keep the momentum going post-dialogue, the team sent out key takeaways to all the participants.We took some crucial steps while planning and conducting this dialogue to ensure that we get the best results out of it. We believe that it is important to invite and involve stakeholders from multiple perspectives in the dialogue and to ensure that the discussion groups are evenly distributed to embrace inclusivity. Every participant needs to be given equal space and the opportunity to share their views openly. It is important to recognize the complexity of the problems and to design the discussion topics in a way that the participants can discuss and reach some conclusion in a limited time. Having a solution-centric approach ensures commitment from the participants towards solving these issues at their own levels after the dialogue. This approach helped us get real results during our dialogue. (eg. an investor in the agri-food sector committed to checking whether companies are involving women in their solutions before deciding to invest in them) It is important to have a positive outlook towards a future that is equitable and sustainable. The positivity builds trust in the minds of the participants regarding the intentions of the dialogue convenors.

Yes

234241244245248249251The Dialogue “DAWN of women in agriculture: technology as an enabler”, coordinated under the Project DAWN (Dairy, Agriculture, Women, Nutrition), a flagship initiative of MoooFarm, aimed at understanding how to empower small-scale women farmers starting from the reach that local projects such as DAWN can have in terms of real-life experience and effects. Women are undisputed actors in the global food system, both in developed and developing countries. However, despite formal data confirming the high rate of the female agricultural labor force, most of them still remain invisible workers in the eye of UN Agencies and the broader society. The reference is to female farmers, breeders, and fisherwomen who work informally, without being contractually employed, without receiving adequate compensation, or with extremely limited access to agricultural resources, improved seed varieties, equipment, information, education, credit, insurance, technologies compared to men. Gender inequality in agriculture remains one of the more significant areas of gender disparity worldwide and this phenomenon hits the North and the South of the globe, making it an urgent challenge to face. For this reason, the dialogue spotlighted the role of technologies as an enabling tool to ensure food security and food justice, through more effective forms of inclusion, equal productive employment, and decent work for all actors along the food value chain. The Dialogue started from on-ground assumptions of the Indian context but looked at global solutions. Through this two-way approach, it is possible to make the global food system more resilient and adaptive, starting from the urgency of leaving no one behind, for the sake of female farm returns and the broader agricultural production that, especially in developing countries, massively rely on the female role. From the observation of the current system failures and evidence we identified six sub-topics to be addressed during the Discussion Groups: 1. Women often remain excluded from information access, decision-making processes, and governance structures of dairy value chains. - How might technology enable women in agriculture to be included in the decision-making process for their family thus ensuring equal representation and overall progress for the family? 2. Women’s agricultural productivity and yields are 20 percent to 30 percent lower than men’s because of well-documented constraints such as restricted access to quality seeds, equipment, hired labor, technology, training, and markets. In addition, less than 5% of women own a cow in India. - How might technology enable women to own farm resources, thus boosting their agricultural productivity and profitability? 3. In low and middle-income countries, over 1.7 billion women do not own mobile phones. In cases where they do, they are less likely to make full use of their full suite of services. Although the use of mobile internet is increasing throughout India, only 28% of the rural internet users are women. - How might we enable women in agriculture to achieve digital literacy to help them utilize technology to its maximum potential thus making them independent? 4. Digitalization helps to connect women with advisory services, potentially removing middlemen or reducing labor burdens, providing market or legal information, and enabling financial transactions. - How might technology enable women in agriculture to break down market barriers(like access and financial advisory) thus encouraging local food systems? 5. In India 75 million women are engaged in the dairy sector, compared to 15 million men. Giving them access to technology has been proved to bring financial benefits in terms of income. - What would 2030 look like if ALL women small-scale dairy farmers have access to technology? 6. Gender inequality undermines progress toward sustainable agricultural development across multiple dimensions. - How might we enable women to be catalyzers of sustainable practices in agriculture and achieve increased carbon sequestration and neutrality?235241245246248249251The first conclusion that emerged from the Dialogue is that the current old mindset based on a rigid patriarchal approach is neither working nor beneficial to the whole community. Women, and especially women farmers, are proven to be keener on learning from each other, exchanging knowledge, and being more trusted by institutions. Overcoming this anachronistic attitude characterized by supposed weakness and exclusion from the decision-making process is more urgent than ever. A community-based approach might be more realistic and sustainable. Scaling through educational institutions and private corporations to invest in women who want to pursue and grow in agri-entrepreneurship or digital literacy could bring tangible transformations. With an increased focus on mentoring and training, women could get the training and tools they need to help other women in the fields. The second conclusion touches on the urgency of ensuring female access to basic education as the main step to promote gender equality in society. Education not just on the aspect of cultural awareness, but also on skill-building and machine handling knowledge from a practical perspective. Programs should accelerate the pathway, shaped by the surrounding ecosystem, towards both access and new structures on which education is conceived, considering their physical inclusion. Although moving in different directions, it is important to consider education and technology as intertwined, as technology could dramatically increase women’s access to knowledge and education, and at the same time, education is fundamental to completely understand the potential of technological solutions, as well as their functioning. The main solutions that came up at the intersection between these two elements were related to a peer-to-peer connection allowing women to share knowledge and experiences despite being far away from each other, therefore kick-starting a dialogue that empowers local women to be at the forefront of initiatives and solutions designed to help them. The third main conclusion deals with the relevance of providing gender-based solutions. To work in the long run, actions, programs, and technologies should be designed on women’s real needs, by women. This means creating a new interface design conceived to facilitate the use of technologies for women and new tools shaped on their position and daily activities. But it also means introducing programs and solutions tailor-made to the specific role that women have within the family. In developing countries like India, agriculture continues to absorb and employ the female workforce but fails to give them recognition of employed or hired labor. In these contexts, women mostly perform manual tasks like weeding. Advancements for reducing the heaviness of this type of work can be life-changing and increase productivity, starting a virtuous loop where productivity advancements, in turn, improve day-to-day life for female agricultural workers and also benefit their families and communities over the long term: female farmers who increase their income reinvest that money into the family’s health and education. The fourth conclusion is that the overall value of women increases on the supply chain level and when we move towards technology as an enabler for the 'Marketing linkages'. Women are adapting to the technology - faster - if given a chance! The only efficient way ahead is to optimize the channels of knowledge acquisition: access to the right information and providing them marketing linkages. Finally, we need to look beyond IT-enabled technology to envision women as Policy Decision Makers, providing practical insights, ownership, and the representation of the very gender for whom all the policies are being made.236241243249251GENDER EQUALITY: How might technology enable women in agriculture to be included in the decision-making process for their family thus ensuring equal representation and overall progress for the family? Equal inclusion of women in agriculture requires broader and better representation of women in the whole society. Besides being at the kitchen table, women are needed in leading positions: communication, decision-making, agricultural meetings, farmers gathering, traditionally represented by men. Men could play a crucial role, especially if they are more sensitized and aware that these kinds of actions may have positive impacts on the whole family and children. But also programs and national policy can be central in making agribusiness more attractive and better designed for women. Social platforms and social marketing too can play a central role, bringing women and female farmers together, letting them exchange knowledge, and learn from each other. Success is the best tool to assess progress, not income itself, because when female farmers are successful, other women are keen on learning from their example. Increasing productivity and, most of all, tracking the percentage of women leading farms on regenerative agriculture is therefore a must. However, traditional rule division and deep patriarchal society still represent a concrete challenge as these actions are implemented. Women are traditionally seen as weak individuals, while female empowerment can be regarded as a threat. Inclusion and better representation of women in society cannot be reached without female access to schools, this is the reason why training is conceived and provided amongst the most urgent actions. It is widely known that in many developing countries education is male-centered, even though women are taking care of everything else in real life. National policies and programs should accelerate female access to education, which is strictly related to women's respect from the whole society. The urgency to reverse the current mindset characterized by male superiority over women and lack of consideration of female knowledge starts with access to education. Also how training is conceived can ease women equality: to be targeted on women, education shall focus more on the ecosystem around them. This approach can be further strengthened by increasing the number of gatherings and events on education, shaped to make women feel safe. Access to land and technologies are additional urgent actions when dealing with women’s equal entitlement. If for the land the issue starts with ownership, for technologies the challenge concerns both access and ability to use. This explains why participants stressed, among the most needed activities, the promotion of a systematic use of technologies through specific programs, in support of farming activities and to increase income, from housing improvement to better mobility. Given the severe and widespread gender digital divide, also for technologies, just as education, their design should not forget to embrace the whole environment characterizing women's daily activities. Both the housing dimension and their farming role should be therefore equally considered to reach outstanding benefits for women and the community as a whole.236241242245248251PRODUCTIVITY: How might technology enable women to own farm resources thus boosting their agricultural productivity and profitability? Inequality in women’s yields has a lot to do with social norms, less quality of inputs and less ability to access and get resources, inevitably bringing to lower yields for women. In most cases land owned by men is over-fertilized, whilst land that is owned by women receives fewer resources. This gender inequality has seeped so strongly into people's mindset that the agricultural sector itself is mainly conceived as a man’s sector and society does not embrace the vision of women owning resources. The fact that most women are not educated adds on to the problems. In many dairy programs all over the world, aimed at pushing towards higher yields or higher productivity, more inputs are required and more loans have to be taken. However, women's lack of financial literacy brings the system in favor of men. Indeed, many existing solutions, like mechanization programs, tend to indirectly push women out because they usually do not meet the collateral requirements of such programs: land ownership, financial resources, and investment knowledge and capacity. Hence, even if the programs are meant to be inclusive, the design of such programs tends to make them unequal: women’s output is equal to women’s input. The participants agreed that before we address the issue of providing women with technology and mechanization, we first need to bridge that gap of literacy. Added to this, women need to be involved right from the design and investment phase of the programs they should benefit from. To make sure that women can actually have a voice in what technology they want to actually get benefits from it is important to understand the subtleness of gender relations. If not, even a women-oriented solution could eventually benefit men and feed the vicious loop, leaving women out of it. One more piece of evidence that needs to be taken into account is that not all women want to own a farm. An ever-increasing number of women prefer working on value addition tasks rather than working on the field, due to the heavy physical labor required in the tasks they are assigned to. Giving women a bigger voice to express what they want, what their aspirations are, and where they see empowerment coming from is therefore crucial. In many cases, female farmers lack recognition from local communities and the government for their accomplishments and farm work. A solution could be a database of female farmers who are at different stages of their farming activities, to better map the diverse needs. This would help in giving the right inputs to the right people through the activatable programs.236241248251DIGITAL LITERACY: How might we enable women in agriculture to achieve digital literacy to help them utilize technology to its maximum potential thus making them independent? There is a need to visualize in detail the digital ecosystem regionally, and women as its key users to build our own and others’ understanding of it. People designing the digital platform should take into consideration the transparent evidence-based research approach. Digitalization can help shape a more sustainable future with evidence-based solutions, contributing at the same time to a more tangible transformation. But to reach the full potential of digital solutions, it must be user-centric. Technology can answer most difficulties farmers face. It can assist them with predicting climate all the more precisely, decrease the uncertainty, increase yield, and their net profit margins. In dairy farming, community-oriented connections need to be developed to do that to exponentially engage more purpose-oriented users. Bringing women into the design process is crucial to increase productivity, profitability, and adaptability to specific contexts: to empower women to stand for themselves, female farmers should be able to decide which technologies they want to use according to their interests and concrete role, before making sure they could benefit from such tools.236241245248249251MARKET BARRIERS: How might technology enable women in agriculture to break down market barriers (like market access and financial advisory) thus encouraging local food systems? Addressing proper education is the key enabler element for the empowerment of women to enter the markets. First of all, proper education is needed from the side of people who actually want to help solve the problem at any level. In order to provide concrete help and impact in a specific context, it is necessary to have extensive knowledge of such context and the mechanisms that govern it. In this sense, starting off from our local ecosystem or basing solutions on the consultancy of a local partner is fundamental to make sure no issue or obstacle is left behind, and no energy or resources are wasted on addressing issues that do not represent a priority. Moving on, education strategies need to be boosted also in the local context where we want to unlock market access for women. This will pass to different dimensions of intervention. The first important element is related to using education to break down the cultural stereotypes that are related to the agricultural sector, and it being envisioned mainly as a “men thing”. In this dialogue, it’s fundamental to stop positioning women in a comparison with men, and start thinking about the unique skills and perspectives that they can bring to the table, therefore improving the whole performance and efficiency of the sector. This is a key ingredient to unlock real innovation. Then, of course, education efforts need to be addressed directly to the women we want to help. It’s important for them to know how to differentiate their product in the market so as for it to be impossible to be ignored, to know how to access credit, and to know where to find concise and down-to-earth information about the context they’re operating in. Two elements are perceived as critical in order to attain this goal. The first is an intervention at the policy level, able to generate a wide impact and take full-on responsibility for the education of women. Each country needs to step in, but many companies can also help by starting from their own best practices and striving to disseminate them into the market. The second important aspect necessary to achieve these educational goals is leveraging technological solutions to create a connection network between women from the same area and different parts of the world. This is critical to allow for knowledge flows, making sure women learn from one another and join forces to create a change in their contexts. The impact of the pandemic on remote learning modalities could definitely be a blessing in this sense if channeled properly towards positive solutions.236241245248251What would 2030 look like if ALL female small-scale dairy farmers had access to technology? The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development set 17 goals to guide the world on how to manage development over the next 15 years. Goal number five aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Envisioning what 2030 will look like and how technology can be used to empower future generations of female dairy farmers and help them achieve their goals is empowering in itself. How can we improve the livelihoods of female small-scale dairy farmers? What do they need? How can we make their lives easier? What can we do to help them increase their productivity and profitability? Through the use of new technologies like the Internet of Things, different wearable technologies, and artificial intelligence, we can improve the livelihoods of female small-scale dairy farmers. The very first basis of the dialogue for women is that females are nurturing in their nature. They care for their surroundings around them. They go beyond their sense of selfish needs and make the communities around them grow together. If we really want to use technology as an enabling tool we need to make it gender-neutral: as of now technology is patriarchal, made by men for men. We need technologies linked to financial requirements, social inclusion, and market access: these are the areas in the dairy sector where technology is to be provided to women. A major issue is the knowledge gaps. If we see a more sustainable equitable future for women - the distribution of the resources and access to the technology needs to be ensured to reach them equitably. Patriarchy plays a major role when women are not the decision-makers. Thus, the social upliftment of women in this sector is another important side where urgent action is required. Making women entrepreneurs is a major channel to encourage leadership and cross this very patriarchal challenge. For example, on Facebook groups, people are sharing their experiences of Agri leadership. These spaces are still being dominated by men but on the ground level, women are handling the majority of the dairy tasks from the backend. Institutions and public policy play an important role, able to generate a great impact - policies need to be more gender-inclusive as well as gender-sensitive to cater to the sensitivities of women and at the same time including that very much required representation in the dairy sector!236240241244245248251SUSTAINABILITY: How might we enable women to be catalyzers of sustainable practices in agriculture and achieve increased carbon sequestration and neutrality? Why does sustainability take the back seat as a priority in the topic of women and agriculture? We can find many answers: issues related to gender inequality, such as women having a lower voice culturally, women not being able to inherit certain assets in some parts of the world and a lack of self-esteem and empowerment amongst women, need to be tackled first. Especially in the case of emergent markets, the issue of carbon sequestration is not looked at as a key point. The focus areas there would span from increasing productivity. When it comes to women empowerment, the change needs to occur at multiple stages. At an individual level, women need to become confident and self-reliant to be able to make decisions on their own. At a family level, it is critical for the woman to be appreciated at home by the family members, the husband, the kids, and the in-laws. A change in the family’s mindset towards women is essential not only for the progress of the woman but also for the progress of the family. Women tend to be the center of the family and any skills and knowledge get easily passed on to the family. At a community level, we need to understand the importance of female role models in the field of agriculture all around the world and especially in developing countries. Recognizing and acknowledging champions who are progressive in their practices would be a key factor towards inspiring widespread change. The individual level is as important as the systemic level. These changes would empower women to be able to access the market and engage directly with multiple stakeholders. Such a development would help in bringing about a policy-level change. Moving closer to the topic of sustainability, regenerative agriculture breaks the current traditions of the past 100 years and makes way for ancient knowledge. Female farmers practicing regenerative agriculture in the central European region are getting highlighted and taking up role model status. Sustainable practices in agriculture are used all around the world but we need to build connections to be able to share this knowledge. We need to take into account that technology can contribute to the further marginalization of women if not implemented correctly. Cultural education and machine-handling knowledge would be needed to ensure that women can truly reap the benefits of using technology. Going further into the connection between technology and sustainability, tech companies step away from taking any responsibility for the health of the planet. Experiences of women in India with sustainable energy alternatives like cow dung and biogas were discussed. The participants shared stories of how the usage of these sustainable resources helped women get more time at hand, thus helping them pick up new skills such as embroidery. One way towards solving a lot of these problems women face would be to let them control financial resources around the world.237241245246248249251Although spaces of intersections rather than areas of divergence prevailed during the dialogue, some aspects raised different opinions from the participants. The first one is related to the perceived priorities to tackle in order to reduce gender disparities in agriculture. Some participants identified equality as the starting point for better implementation of SDG 5; others identified women empowerment as the most urgent aspect, others stressed the attention on productivity in agriculture. Different divergences arose when considering the needed actions to break down market barriers for women in agriculture. With the participants being mainly aligned on the priorities to be achieved, divisions were identified when considering whether a top-down or a bottom-up approach is preferable to tackle problems in the most effective way. Some of the participants argued that policy is the first thing that needs to change, therefore suggesting the fundamental role of national governments and companies to act in favor of women empowerment in agriculture. Others pointed out that real change needs to start from people’s mentality. Different views arose also in the identification of which technologies and modalities can best ensure inclusion and equity for women in agriculture. Some participants stressed out that the use of mobile phones appeared not efficient in terms of increasing farming productivity and gender inclusion in specific geographical areas. Other participants pointed out the systematic approach that should be embraced by technologies, touching both farming practices and improved housing conditions as the sole way to ensure real equity. Other aspects of divergence dealt with the level of education to be ensured to women to guarantee both respect and a leading role within society, and an active presence in farming. In fact, with no doubt on the needed urgency to provide women more and better quality knowledge inputs and education, also in the form of reducing the drastic gap in digital literacy, some participants highlighted the concern that higher quality education often comes at the detriment of farming involvement, leading girls and women to avoid returning to the fields. This kind of concern was also exacerbated in disagreement among the speakers on the fact that women really want to have exactly what men have. Finally, some doubts were raised from the participants on the forms of the dialogue, as the best way to lead towards concrete and long-lasting actions.

2021-08-11 07:55:30205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39816/116

517201552730355411152213451013

Malta recognised the need to heed the UN Secretary General’s call to hold a Food Systems Summit National Dialogue. As a first step the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs recognised the complexity of food systems by prioritising the involvement of a wide range of sectors in order to organise a multi-stakeholder national dialogue. In preparation for the National Dialogue four inter-Ministerial preparatory meetings were held to ensure that the dialogue was held on a solid basis and in accordance with the UN Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement and to foster the necessary trust and mutual respect between all stakeholders. A concept note for the Dialogue with a set of questions was developed. To enhance multi-stakeholder inclusivity participation was extended to members from the private sector and civil society. The invitation was also circulated on social media and everyone had the opportunity to register and participate.The dialogue was forward-looking and highlighted the needs of Maltese society to improve its relationship with food systems. In line with the 2030 SDG agenda and the upcoming UN Food Systems Summit, this dialogue helped us to identify possible approaches which we need to adopt, in order to achieve national sustainable food systems by 2030. This was one of a number of steps in Malta’s national efforts to enhance understanding and cooperation between different stakeholders, with a view to converge the perspectives of all stakeholders into a collective action which shall be guided by the National Pathway which Malta is developing based on the outcome of the National Dialogue.Our advice is that the dialogue should be well prepared, with consultations progressively including a wide range of relevant stakeholders. In particular, we highlight the need to actively involve young farmers, food producers and the food business sector. Young farmers are a key component of our food system and more efforts are necessary to raise awareness and appreciation for the farmer’s role. Farmers need to be supported and more importantly empowered to be part of our solution to establish a healthier and more sustainable relationship with food systems.

Yes

234238239243244The dialogue focused on Action Track 1 (ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all) and Action Track 2 (shift to sustainable consumption patterns). The starting point of the dialogue was that the incidence of child obesity in Malta is very high. In this regard, the dialogue addressed the needs of consumers in terms of accessibility, availability and affordability of healthy food for children and the actions that the Government, relevant stakeholders, and citizens as advocates and consumers can take to make healthy food for children more accessible, available and affordable.235238239243244251The National Childhood Obesity Prevalence Study (2017) showed that 40% of children between the ages of 4.7 and 17 years were overweight or obese, with a tendency for obesity to peak in 5-8 year olds. This does not augur well, since a study conducted in 2016 found that around 70% of adults in Malta are either overweight or obese. Recent evidence shows that the major contributor of obesity are poor eating habits characterised by the consumption of highly processed food, which is high in sugar and fat and thus considered very palatable. These foods also increase the risk for tooth decay, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease, amongst others. A National Health Literacy survey in 2014 showed that the level of nutrition knowledge had increased, yet individuals were still refraining from opting for healthy choices. The recent National Food Consumption Survey (2018, unpublished) shows that the vegetable and the dietary fibre intake is significantly low, such that the nation needs to double its intake. In contrast, fat and sugar need to be reduced significantly. A pilot study on foods for infants aged between 6-36 months showed that only 36% of tested food products met the nutritional standard criteria set by the WHO. Research confirms that children’s diets are normally restricted to around 15 foods (study year). What is worrying is that children may not be consuming a balanced diet due to this limitation and often they are not pushed to try new food. It was noted that when teenagers prepare their own meals, they are more likely to establish a healthy relationship with food. The National Breakfast Club Initiative implemented by the Education Department in state schools, has been running since 2014. It provides all school children who apply with an opportunity to have a free healthy nutritious breakfast in a secure environment before school starts. Furthermore, vulnerable children from deprived backgrounds are also provided with a free healthy packed lunch daily. Ironically, despite the fact that fresh produce and other food is available the demand is low. People often resort to buying from supermarkets and other outlets for convenience, and these retail outlets typically carry more imported food products, even vegetables, fruit and fresh cheese or dairy items. If the demand for fresh produce increases, farmers have the capacity and will be encouraged to produce more. Currently, the cheaper price of imported frozen food is affecting the consumers’ purchasing decisions. Malta is witnessing the impacts of desertification. A lack of rainwater is contributing to soil erosion and so does the lack of worked soil. The ocean is also being impacted as it is becoming more acidic which in turn affects the sustainability of the seafood chain. Security of our food systems is being threatened by climate change. In 2020 the Government published for public consultation the Long-term Waste Management Plan, which has a strong focus on food waste prevention and management. Malta has worked on several educational and structural campaigns on environmental issues targeting the genera l public or even schoolchildren. Perhaps it is time to initiate campaigns which target the corporate industry.2362382392432442511. Main challenges for a sustainable food system in Malta It is necessary to make the healthy food choices, the natural and easy choice for both adults and children. Since highly-processed or ultra-processed foods are typically nutrient-poor foods which are high in saturated and trans-fats, sugar, refined grains, refined starch and salt, it is crucial to ensure that healthy and wholesome food is easily accessible, available and affordable. A key factor that needs to be addressed is eating behaviour. Schools have an obligation to ensure that our young generation have access to healthy sustainable food. The education level within households can also lead to better eating behaviours. It is imperative to educate children at a young age to ensure that they adopt healthy eating practices, through positive attitudes and valuation and by motivating change with the adults in their household. For the industry to go down a route of developing and producing nutrient dense foods instead of high energy food, there must be a demand for such products. Industry can reformulate existing products, however this is a costly exercise which would need to cater for the interest of the brand by retaining the current high quality, appearance and organoleptic properties of the product intact. It is pointless to develop a healthier product if the demand is not there. Therefore it is important to create a demand for healthier foods and adoption of active lifestyles. Food labelling is also a factor which needs to be revisited so that consumers’ healthier food choices are facilitated.2362382392402432442482492502512. What are the actions that Government can take in making healthy food for children more accessible, available, and affordable? The Government is currently drafting a national policy on food systems in their entirety. This will necessarily involve stakeholders from along the food supply, production, consumption and disposal chain in order to clarify needs for healthy, sustainable dietary patterns and discuss practical strategies and solutions for meeting these needs in the short-, medium- and long-term. It is necessary to support farmers by ensuring that they have access to land, equipment, technical knowledge, the market and finance. In addition, it is important to identify areas where the government can assist farmers and food producers to help them manage and mitigate the impact of climate change. Health campaigns have a pivotal role to positively influence families to adopt healthier food options as part of their everyday lifestyle. Children need nutritious food from a young age and adult ‘gatekeepers’ (parents, relatives, school communities) have a critical role in educating about food and creating an environment conducive to healthy eating. It is crucial for our educational programmes to address current and future needs by also enabling children to fully understand the interconnectedness between food, health and the environment. At the same time, we need to towards a society where the right food decisions are easy to make. Examples of possible solutions include: moving less healthy snacks away from the checkout aisles at supermarkets (where they are often a temptation to young children and adults alike); assisting sport groups, scouts, youth and catechism centres to promote healthy eating through facilitating hands-on cooking sessions and subsidising vending machines with healthier food items; providing low-income families with vouchers which can only be redeemed to buy fresh produce or to buy directly from local farmers or fisherfolk. Authorities should make sure that food is produced as sustainably as possible, and that it is produced in line with animal welfare standards. If farmers are promoted to sell their products on their property, more people will be encouraged to directly support the local community by buying fresh food directly from the farm. Furthermore, this will also enable children to understand where food comes from and to appreciate the process through which food goes from farm to fork. The linkages between physical health, obesity and exercise, also highlight the importance of facilitating physical activity and the availability of open, green spaces. Both informational and structural efforts towards the promotion of shifting from a sedentary to a more active lifestyle should be pushed across all age groups by the state and also non-state entities.2362382392402422432442513. Choosing a healthier lifestyle: the Path towards a sustainable food system by 2030 As a society it is paramount to move away from a dietary pattern laden with highly- or ultra- processed food and towards a more balanced Mediterranean Diet –style pattern. It is crucial to invest in young people, not only through food, nutrition and Home Economics education as an entitlement throughout compulsory schooling and even beyond, but also by improving the nutritional quality of the local food products designed for children and adolescents. There is a need to overcome the physical and psychological distance between what is on the plate and the sources of our food. Children frequently do not have a clear concept of where their food is coming from and therefore this aspect needs to be addressed through in-class and onsite education. Consumers must be empowered to value sustainable and healthy food choices and behaviours. Through the upcoming national policy on food systems Malta needs to work on strategies which prioritise the needs of the consumers within a sustainable production/consumption framework and to adopt a system which is more conducive to healthier food decisions. Through the ongoing Pitkalija (fruit and vegetable market) Reform, Malta has launched a Food Agency which is expected to adopt measures and mechanisms which safeguard our food systems while promoting the consumption of local produce. Food products should be labelled in a way which makes it easy for customers to identify the healthier and local options. This labelling could perhaps also be extended to restaurant menus. Simultaneously, due to high temperatures in Malta, it is necessary to invest in better storage capacity to keep products fresh keeping in mind safety and consumer appeal.237238239243244251Rather than having areas of divergence, one of the things that came out of the dialogue was that there are different possible approaches to changing the food systems in ways that serve the health and nutrition interests of consumers, whilst safeguarding the natural environment. On one hand, we know that industry is well equipped to reformulate food and to invest in R&D to develop healthy products; however, unless this is done in response to a demand by consumers, businesses risk losing profits. Another view was that there are areas where food products can be reformulated with long-term positive outcomes; for example, in the case of infant foods. Here, industry has an opportunity to influence the taste buds and the eating habits of children right from the very start, so it should lead by example and not wait for incentives. In general, it was agreed that there is a need to make healthy food more accessible and more affordable, so it becomes easier and cheaper for consumers to make the right food choices. Simultaneously, efforts to influence consumer valorisation of local, fresh, seasonal produce, seafood and less processed food items need to be ongoing, through different media and targeting different age groups. Although food labelling is one tool that would help consumers to value and choose healthy options, this area is still an issue of debate even at European level, and we are far from reaching consensus and, more importantly, harmonisation of standards, which is the only way to ensure a level playing field for businesses in different sectors of food production. Furthermore, since Malta relies heavily on imported food, it would also be necessary to ensure that guidance on voluntary adoption or even legislation for a food labelling policy would not discriminate between local and international products.

2021-08-11 16:12:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19148/203

3001315216141057353127710

This dialogue was convened by the University of California [CLEAR Center, UC Davis and World Food Center, UC Davis]. This dialogue was organized as expert-to-expert discussions focused on science-based innovations developed in collaboration between academic, government, industry and NGO partners, many of whom represented farmers large and small. The three discussions focused on looking forward and enabling the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions while fostering new connections. Our participants represented many different stakeholders who recognized the complexity of food systems. The discussion groups were diverse so as to complement the work of each other, and to connect and share information and innovations so as to build trust across the board.This dialogue was held on July 20, 2021 and a video recording was immediately posted at (https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-clear-center-and-world-food-center-convene-independent-dialogue-un-food-systems and at https://worldfoodcenter.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-clear-center-and-world-food-center-convene-independent-dialogue-un-food-systems). Immediate posting of the video represents our commitment to UN principles of engagement to” act with urgency” and to “build trust” by being “evidence-based, transparent, and accessible“ in our work. The recording capturea participants’ respectful commitment to “move forward collectively and creatively.” Experts in the videos exhibit deep recognition of the systems complexities in efforts at “‘promotion of food production, protection of the health and well-being of individuals, enhancement of resilient livelihoods and communities, and stewardship of natural resources.” It is our hope that this dialogue serves to “share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good.”As with any such events, additional planning time allows one to attend to the high ideals and systems complexities embodied in the Principles of Engagement.

Yes

234240243244248249This dialogue's major focus was an exploration of Action Track 3 of the Summit, Boost nature-positive production.235240243244248249A common theme in all of the three discussions within this dialogue was the need for a systems approach that takes into account global production of beef and dairy products. We will need to see both developed and developing countries make good use of better practices and technological improvements in efficiency and mitigation strategies that are incentivized to limit burden of producers. Without a market for things like manure byproducts and ecosystem services, for example, ranchers operate on thin margins and will not be able to implement mitigation strategies which inevitably will raise their costs. Panelists and participants agreed that removing barriers, doing more research on enteric solutions, and developing product markets encourage sustainability. It is incumbent on all global regions to develop climate-smart solutions if we are to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. Large-scale climate change benefits when a combination of methane mitigation strategies are achieved in beef and dairy.236240243244249250The U.S. beef and dairy sectors can be climate neutral. The question is: How soon? Answering that question will depend on how we choose to assess and measure. There will always be trade-offs when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How we choose to evaluate these trade-offs will affect whether or how we can achieve climate neutrality. Mitigation comes at a cost and policy can address societal needs in a way that makes mitigation economically feasible. All the while we need to be in dialogue with farmers and ranchers, sharing information, as well as getting their input. Connecting and reaching the next generation of farmers will be crititical in finding ways to leverage technology to improve efficiencies for livestock farmers. Educating multiple audiences such as consumer, farmers, the public, decision makers is necessary. Producers must be involved when building communication plans and programs from the ground up. This remains complex as it examines multiple impacts of sustainability such as social, economic, and environmental impacts. What a policy might incentivize might not be what the farmer or rancher needs or is feasible to implement, and therefore not be practically achieveable. Market incentives, grants, and markets for greenhouse gas reductions and other ecosystem services are critical to successful adoption of mitigation measures. Putting research realities into an achievable timeline acknowledges the time it takes to do mitigation research and bring those solutions to market. We need more research funding on various aspects of the system and that research needs to be funded, not only by industry, but also governments and non-profits.236240243244246248249Public policy can incentivize an acceleration of climate-smart solutions in beef and dairy production to reach climate neutrality. We need a standardized life-cycle analysis of the beef and dairy systems that can be used regionally and more broadly. Ultimately climate neutrality for the sectors cannot happen without policy and a mechanism to incentivize farmers and ranchers to mitigate greenhouse gasses. Programs that allow farmers to sell the energy they make from tools such as dairy biodigesters back to the grid, can make the investment in the technology worth the cost. Not being able to reverse meter is a big policy roadblock. Inconsistent policies across state lines are also confusing and costly. Incentives and initiatives that count multiple ecosystem services at once may help to cover mitigation costs. For example, in California it might be feasible to combine GHG management opportunities with air- and water-related environmental policies. Ultimately we need engagement from industry and researchers to craft policy that meets both environmental and economic needs. Market limitations on biodigester products is one example of impediments to their widespread adoption. Policy can open up markets or provide other incentives that make mitigation strategies profitable for farmers and ranchers. Public policy can provide a guideline on development and approval of technology.236240243244248250The livestock sector will see increased innovation and deployment of various mitigation tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle. There are many powerful tools available to reduce methane emissions from livestock such as feed additives, manure management, and animal efficiency. While reducing enteric methane emissions is promising it is not the only strategy. In fact, reaching 50% methane reduction will be an uphill battle with feed additives as our only strategy. There is no silver bullet for farmers. We must look at the system as a whole and make reductions along the supply chain at every chance we have. If we zoom out and look at the whole system we can begin to identify inefficiencies. We then must communicate these efficiencies to the whole supply chain. More research to measure emissions from grazing systems and deeply understand methanogenesis in the rumen is needed. It cannot be on farmers and ranchers alone to achieve neutrality because they still have a bottom line and not all solutions can be adopted across all operations. If we can find a viable market for mitigation solutions farmers and ranchers will adopt them.237240244249250Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized are the farmers and ranchers, both large and small. A common theme in each of the discussions was it cannot be on farmers and ranchers alone to achieve neutrality because they still have a bottom line and not all solutions can be adopted across all operations, but the emissions from each type of operation can be mitigated.

2021-08-12 03:31:08205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33843/49

01062293028751722021222180119411032

En el Diálogo se integraron todos los principios de la cumbre, al abordar la temática de garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todas y todos, la cual es de interés nacional , más aún en el contexto de la crisis por la pandemia de COVID-19 y en la que se ha trabajado con una visión interdisciplinaria y multisectorial. (Reconocer la complejidad, Actuar con urgencia) Se extendió la invitación al diálogo al sector público, privado, academia y sociedad civil, fomentando un ambiente de respeto y confianza para que los participantes pudieran expresar sus opiniones e intercambiar visiones. (Ser respetuosos, Complementar la labor de los demás, Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, Crear confianza) Asimismo, el diálogo abordó temáticas que contribuyen al avance en la vía de acción 1: Garantizar alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todas (Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre)El Diálogo buscó la integración de las opiniones de los diferentes sectores. Se inició brindando un contexto general del impacto de las acciones sensibles a la nutrición en la salud de la población. Asimismo, los participantes recibieron una inducción dentro de cada uno de las mesas de trabajo para profundizar sobre los aspectos que impactan tanto los entornos alimentarios como las prácticas alimentarias, permitiendo de esta manera que los participantes pudieran conversar libremente y con la perspectiva de su sector sobre las acciones necesarias para garantizar alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todas las personas.Fomentar el involucramiento en los diálogos de la mayor variedad de actores que permita integrar las visiones de la problemática con el fin de plantear soluciones pragmáticas y que pueden ser implementadas por los diferentes sectores.

Yes

234238243245247249251En este diálogo se abordó la Vía de acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos, para ello se propusieron una serie de objetivos: Objetivo General Identificar propuestas de acción en los próximos años para la transformación hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios con énfasis en las acciones que tienen un impacto directo e indirecto en la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de la población. Objetivos Específicos • Identificar las acciones que desde el enfoque de sistemas alimentarios se pueden realizar para lograr una alimentación saludable y sostenible para la población. • Determinar las intenciones de apoyo por parte de los distintos actores nacionales interesados. • Identificar políticas, prácticas, sistemas y mecanismos de mayor repercusión para la transformación hacia los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y sensibles a la nutrición. Con la visión positiva de “Lograr a 2030 sistemas alimentarios sostenibles que sean sensibles a la nutrición y que garanticen el acceso a alimentos saludables para todos y todas” que orientó la discusión en las seis mesas de trabajo que tuvieron a cargo dos grandes temáticas: a) entornos alimentarios y b) prácticas alimentarias. En cada una de las temáticas se brindaron líneas generales de discusión para ser abordadas por los participantes, en cuánto a entornos alimentarios se consideraron: disponibilidad de alimentos, asequibilidad, inocuidad, mercadeo, publicidad, etiquetado nutricional y programas de protección social. En cuanto a prácticas alimentarias se tomó en cuenta: el aspecto de brechas socioeconómicas, conocimientos, actitudes, prácticas, preferencias y el contexto sociocultural del consumidor. Este diálogo contó con la participación de múltiples actores del sistema alimentario tanto del sector público como del sector privado, la academia y la sociedad civil.235238248250251En cuanto a lo que se requiere para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios hacia una visión más sostenible y saludable, se encontró que es indispensable que todas las intervenciones sean integrales y organizadas desde una plataforma multinivel y multisectorial que involucren al sector público y privado, a través de alianzas que permitan el avance hacia objetivos comunes que sean basados en la evidencia, con el apoyo de la academia y de las instituciones comprometidas con la investigación. Todo esto con el respaldo y empoderamiento de consumidores informados que exijan alimentos saludables. Para lograr esa transformación se requieren acciones urgentes en cada una de las siguientes dimensiones: Política pública Intervenir en medidas estructurales a través de la regulación del etiquetado frontal de alimentos y la regulación en la publicidad de alimentos no saludables para evitar mensajes confusos a la población sobre calidad y preferencia de alimentos. El estado debe generar políticas que fomenten que la industria alimentaria mejore nutricionalmente los alimentos. Generar una política para exonerar la canasta básica saludable de impuestos. Debe existir congruencia entre políticas en uso de agroquímicos y políticas de sostenibilidad y seguridad alimentaria Los gobiernos locales deben empoderarse y asumir un rol protagónico amparando a los agricultores y apoyar a los actores principales de las cadenas agroalimentarias Educación y comunicación Educación integral para los distintos sectores (consumidores, productores, industria) Sensibilización con respecto al concepto de los alimentos saludables en los diferentes actores, existe un importante componente con respecto a la toma de decisiones de compra. Iniciar la educación en temas de alimentación más saludables desde una temprana edad en la población, como escuelas y colegios. Se deben utilizar los medios de comunicación como vehículos para la transformación de los hábitos alimentarios, haciendo uso de estrategias positivas y persuasivas. Tecnología Rescatar técnicas de producción sostenibles, prácticas ancestrales como los estilos de vida saludables en nutrición (Zona Azul de Nicoya) contemplando agricultura orgánica, artes de pesca artesanales, economía circular y consumo local. Se requiere hacer un estudio de como el sistema alimentario está cambiando a las comunidades indígenas, afectando la salud, y como se puede hacer para cuidar la salud. Se requiere educación, apreciación, recuperación de alimentos tradicionales, Rescate biodiversidad, local y alimentación, conocimientos ancestrales para los territorios y la población. Se necesita tecnología para conservar los alimentos y sus características nutricionales y darles valor agregado. Características de los alimentos y productos Se necesita el rescate de tradición gastronómica junto a técnicas de preparación de alimentos. Garantizar la calidad nutricional de los alimentos y no solo en la inocuidad. Exigir empaques amigables con el ambiente y que sean fácil de reciclar. Se debe mejorar la trazabilidad de los alimentos para lograr esos entornos alimentarios más saludables y sostenibles y que permitan que los consumidores conozcan el ciclo de vida de cada producto. Deben ser productos con etiquetas legibles y comprensibles para el consumidor. Los participantes resaltan que hay una contradicción importante en la imagen país. Por un lado Costa Rica ha realizado grandes avances en materia de descarbonización pero nuestros sistemas alimentarios aún requieren más trabajo, recursos e incentivos para apoyar en la transformación tanto en producción como en el consumo. Aunado a esto y en el contexto por COVID-19 se requiere también de manera urgente el involucramiento e integración de la mujer en procesos de producción y comercialización de alimentos para garantizar sus medios de vida y de las juventudes para fomentar el recambio generacional en el sector agropecuario del país y así garantizar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional.236238248249SOBRE LOS ENTORNOS ALIMENTARIOS. Lo qué se necesita para poder lograr entornos alimentarios más saludables sin sacrificar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios. A- Política pública: - Intervenir en medidas estructurales a través del a regulación por ejemplo del etiquetado frontal de alimentos y la regulación en la publicidad de alimentos no saludables para evitar mensajes confusos a la población sobre calidad y preferencia de alimentos. - El estado debe generar políticas que fomenten que la industria alimentaria mejore nutricionalmente los alimentos. - Congruencia entre políticas en uso de agroquímicos y políticas de sostenibilidad y seguridad alimentaria. - Promover la diversidad de la dieta, el rescate del conocimiento ancestral en términos de recetas y producción de alimentos variados y nutritivos. - La asequibilidad de productos saludables y sostenibles requiere analizar la estructura de costos e incentivos. El producto sostenible y saludable tiene que ser económicamente atractivo para que a su vez permita generar ingresos al productor. - Se deben regionalizar las acciones para acertar en las necesidades específicas. - Se requiere una canasta básica saludable que incluya alimentos fuente de fibra, vitaminas y minerales y que sea accesible a todas las personas. Generar una política para exonerar la canasta básica saludable de impuestos. - Los gobiernos locales deben empoderarse y asumir un rol protagónico amparando a los agricultores y apoyar a los actores principales de las cadenas agroalimentarias. B- Reducir la intermediación y hacer los mercados más accesibles: - Disminuir los intermediarios en las agro-cadenas ya que existen grandes márgenes de ganancia para algunos actores en comparación con productores y consumidores (que pagan sobreprecios que se quedan en los intermediarios). - Acceder a mayor cantidad de mercados, para tener más opciones de productos baratos y de diferentes calidades. - Una solución es la organización de los productores (fomentar la asociatividad), donde se formen y se informen para ofrecer los mejores precios a los consumidores. - Los consumidores también son responsables de la participación de los intermediarios por lo que se requiere sensibilizar al consumidor de la importancia del consumo local. C- Incentivar las técnicas de producción sostenible: - Rescatar técnicas de producción sostenibles, prácticas ancestrales como los estilos de vida saludables en nutrición (Zona Azul de Nicoya) contemplando agricultura orgánica, artes de pesca artesanales, economía circular y consumo local.236238248249SOBRE LOS ENTORNOS ALIMENTARIOS Lo qué se necesita para poder lograr entornos alimentarios más saludables sin sacrificar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios C. Investigación y tecnología - Se requiere hacer un estudio de como el sistema alimentario está cambiando a las comunidades indígenas, afectando la salud, y como se puede hacer para cuidar la salud. Se requiere educación, apreciación, recuperación de alimentos tradicionales, Rescate biodiversidad, local y alimentación, conocimientos ancestrales para los territorios y la población. - Trabajar con las tecnologías y economía solidaria. - Fortaleciendo las carreras con un vínculo en la investigación sensible a la nutrición. D- Abordaje desde un enfoque sistémico y articulado: - Las transformaciones sistémicas deben estar fundamentadas en evidencia para seleccionar los productos que colaboren en la salud nutricional, focalizar el sistema educativo para incluir educación alimentaria y prácticas saludables vinculando los diversos programas del Estado que provean herramientas para niños, jóvenes y adultos. - Enfoque sistémico, donde se promueva una transformación en los sistemas que conserve los beneficios de los alimentos. - No es una responsabilidad individual, por lo que las medidas estructurales le competen al país. - Se busca un trabajo basado en la coordinación intersectorial y la articulación - Incluir la participación de la población y apropiamiento de los que se involucran en el proceso con perspectiva y sensibilidad local. - Se debe involucrar al sector privado, los productores y las empresas agroalimentarias en la transformación de los entornos alimentarios. - Los gobiernos locales tienen un rol primordial que desempeñar para la salud de las ciudades.236238248251¿cómo apoyar la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios para que sean más sensibles a la nutrición? Investigación, educación y tecnología - Investigación y evidencia para la generación de datos estadísticos e indicadores que permitan la toma de decisiones fundamentada en producción, intermediación e industrialización y hábitos alimentarios. - Se necesitan nuevas tecnologías para conservar los alimentos y sus características nutricionales. - Desde la academia (nutrición y salud pública) se puede apoyar la investigación para estudiar y comprender mejor los determinantes sociales de la salud y a la vez abordar inequidades. - La academia puede brindar asesorías a empresas y organizaciones relacionadas con la alimentación y la nutrición y atender el público en general (ejemplo el PREANU de la UCR). - Impulsar una extensión agropecuaria más integral, que abarque más allá de solo producción y que atienda el abastecimiento de alimentos variados de las familias agropecuarias para que puedan autoabastecerse una mayor diversidad nutricional. Articulación de actores vinculados al tema - Forjar alianzas estratégicas por parte de los distintos actores y sectores para proveer instrumentos adecuados con el fin de cambiar el paradigma productivo hacia alimentos saludables - Desde la academia, trabajo colaborativo organizaciones públicas y privadas, transferencia para la mejora y tecnificación en la producción. - Trabajo desde un enfoque sistémico en donde exista una representatividad de todos los sectores involucrados, coordinación intersectorial (cultura, ambiente, educación, salud). - Potenciar acciones que genere herramientas a la población, también iniciativas y proyectos que generen alianzas estratégicas para mejorar en conjunto. - Trabajo colaborativo con organizaciones del estado y organizaciones no gubernamentales, donde el trabajo en equipo permite mejorar procesos, producciones y educación financiera. - Alianzas publico privado (APP), para potenciar el recurso humano y desarrollar a las empresas. - Mediante una red de apoyo institucional se puede empoderar a la población asegurando la información que necesitan para tomar decisiones más responsables en cuento a las propiedades nutricionales y la salud. - Promover espacios de contacto e intercambio entre consumidores y la producción agrícola para sensibilizar a la población sobre el valor real de los alimentos. - PROCOMER puede orientar a los productores para el cumplimiento de estándares y resaltar de cualidades positivas. - Desarrollo de campañas que acompañen a las comunidades en todos los rincones del país, dado que la seguridad alimentaria y nutrición es dependiente del contexto. El trabajo conjunto entre los ministerios, MINAE, SALUD y MAG puede ser muy beneficioso. - El MEP junto al Ministerio de Salud puede apoyar en la alfabetización nutricional y de cero desperdicios a los estudiantes desde tempranas edades. - Llevar a cabo alianzas institucionales con la academia, actores nacionales e internacionales para realizar planes monitoreo y evaluación de políticas y proyectos, planes de trabajo y articulación de política pública, entre otros. - Involucrar y valorar comunidades indígenas es vital en la transformación del sistema alimentario.236238246249¿cómo apoyar la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios para que sean más sensibles a la nutrición? Prácticas sostenibles de producción y distribución - Se debe apoyar a la agricultura familiar y las prácticas sostenibles como huertas familiares y comunales y el autoabastecimiento (caso de comunidades Indígenas). - Incentivar el aprovechamiento sostenible de recursos naturales mediante la tecnificación y especialización de la producción de alimentos nutritivos y saludables (caso acuicultura, pesca artesanal y agricultura orgánica). - Incentivar la diversificación de la producción. - Impulsar acciones basadas en la pirámide de utilización de residuos. Consumo local - Incentivar un consumo más natural y de productos autóctonos, disminuyendo las importaciones de productos exteriores y apoyando a los productores nacionales tanto con la comercialización como con la producción. - Ferias del agricultor en todas las comunidades - Feria gastronómica indígena que sea una posibilidad de llevar y algunos recursos a las comunidades y mujeres con un enfoque de rescate de la gastronomía local y autóctona desde los gobiernos locales. - El rescate de la biodiversidad productiva tiene que ir de la mano con la gastronomía saludable y sostenible. Hay importantes oportunidades de desarrollo para las zonas rurales al promover las rutas gastronómicas. Educación, capacitaciones y certificaciones - Capacitaciones para apoyar el proceso de transformación, además de apoyo a la industria, apoyo técnico a las instituciones y apoyo en procesos más normados. - Educar al productor, y permitirle el acceso a mercados diversificados para ampliar sus horizontes. - Proyectos de certificación de responsabilidad laboral a empresas (por INTECO) donde se integran temas importantes y generan beneficios tanto para los colaboradores, mejorando aspectos nutricionales y de autoestima, como aspectos laborales disminuyendo las incapacidades. Todo esto genera una mayor productividad. - Certificaciones de responsabilidad empresarial. - Apoyo a organizaciones como colegios, escuelas y zonas indígenas donde se aprende y no se impone, poniendo en práctica el aprendizaje en conjunto. - Empresa privada debería apoyar acciones para mejorar y simplificar el etiquetado de los alimentos para apoyar al consumidor en sus elecciones. Incentivos: - Se necesita reformar el acceso al crédito con micro-créditos de la banca, o créditos a la medida del sector productor, tanto para producción primario como para proyectos de valor agregado, que sean sanos y nutritivos y que disminuyan los desperdicios de alimentos.236238246248250Desde las prácticas alimentarias: Producción de alimentos armoniosa con el medio ambiente y sostenible social y económicamente. - Se requiere planificación de la producción de alimentos a nivel país, una mayor accesibilidad a los alimentos depende de cuánto se produce. Por ejemplo, en el caso del frijol analizar cuánto se requiere, cuánto se produce y cuánto se necesita, para reducir la huella de carbono comprar a nivel regional. - Debemos disminuir el plástico con el que empacamos alimentos. Se debe utilizar alternativas más sostenibles. - Como comunidad debemos exigir la recolección de materiales de reciclaje para que existan más opciones. - La bioeconomía es importante para las políticas públicas ya que las actividades económicas se relacionan con los procesos. - Los productos agropecuarios deben ser sostenibles y que no lleguen con contaminantes al consumidor. Son necesarias las Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas - Debemos producir alimentos nativos, endémicos o propios. Se comenta sobre la importancia de la educación, comunicación y revitalización de los productos propios, tener una identidad y rescate de las tradiciones. - La degradación de la tierra, se requiere de una producción holística con innovación tecnológica. Educación en alimentación y nutrición. - La educación en alimentación y nutrición constituye una base fundamental para la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios que persigan el logro de una alimentación saludable, nutritiva y sostenible y debe brindarse desde inciativas públicas, privadas y de la sociedad civil. - Esta educación debe procurar el desarrollo de conocimientos y habilidades en las personas para que realicen la selección más adecuada de los alimentos, con base en su calidad integral, y la comprensión de la importancia de que los sistemas alimentarios sean saludables y sostenibles tanto para las personas como para el planeta. La educación en alimentación y nutrición debe ser llevada a cabo desde una visión integral y holística, que permita comprender y hacer consciencia sobre la relación entre sostenibilidad y agrobiodiversidad, así como de la relación entre la producción, el ambiente, la salud y el cambio climático. Se debe educar también para la disminución de la pérdida y el desperdicio de alimentos y en buenas prácticas para la inocuidad y el adecuado manejo de los alimentos. - La educación debe dirigirse a la niñez y la adolescencia, de manera paralela al proceso educativo curricular, a las familias (padres), ya que muchas de las prácticas alimentarias son definidas en el seno de la familia, a las personas consumidoras en general, a las personas productoras, pues se requiere de esfuerzos educativos para lograr cambios significativos en los esquemas mentales vinculados con la producción y su significado para la salud de las personas y del ambiente. - Se debe educar también a las familias que reciben compensaciones por parte del Estado, para que logren aprovechar al máximo la transferencia recibida, logrando obtener los mejores alimentos posibles para su consumo. - Se requieren procesos de educación, revitalización, identidad gastronómica, comunicación. - La información existe pero hay una brecha muy grande entre lo que conozco y lo que hago Ambientes que promuevan, estimulen y refuercen las prácticas alimentarias más saludables. - El entorno condiciona las prácticas alimentarias, por ello hay que regular la publicidad de los productos industrializados y controlar las prácticas comerciales persuasivas, reconociendo la vulnerabilidad de los niños y los adolescentes ante esta influencia. - Se debe promover la obligatoriedad del etiquetado nutricional frontal con la idea de facilitar al consumidor las tomas de decisión sobre su consumo mediante el acceso a información veraz y transparente. - Las medidas fiscales deben facilitar el acceso económico a alimentos saludables, por ejemplo implementar impuestos a alimentos no saludables mientras se abaratan los que sí lo son. - Disponibilidad y acceso a los alimentos nutritivos debe ser a precios razonables, y que además de nutritivo sean inocuos también.236238244247248250Garantizar el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación para toda la población. - Se requiere de acciones que sean inclusivas, para lo cual es urgente la investigación sobre la situación de los grupos vulnerables de nuestra población y así tener más elementos para responder a sus necesidades. - Se debe trabajar en asegurar el acceso de las poblaciones de menores recursos a una alimentación saludable, por ejemplo atendiendo la necesidad de contar con una Canasta Básica Tributaria y otras medidas económicas que lo permitan e incentivando la producción para autoconsumo con prácticas sostenibles. - También trabajar en el encadenamiento de pequeños productores y de agricultura familiar para el logro de mejores procesos de comercialización que redunden a su vez en una mayor disponibilidad y acceso a alimentos de calidad en los niveles locales. - Merecen especial atención los grupos que son atendidos mediante la Red de Cuido, pues hay muchos lugares que dependen de donaciones de alimentos que no necesariamente son saludables. Investigación. - Se requiere investigación que ofrezca el sustento científico y la evidencia necesaria para el desarrollo de todas las acciones anotadas anteriormente y que permita conocer más profundamente el comportamiento de consumo de la población. - Alianzas entre academia-ONGs y población para aprovechar desechos en compost y los huertos familiares y de ahí además se puedan generar empleos, entre muchos otros temas más. - Se requiere conocer cómo se puede apoyar con recursos para la sostenibilidad, especialmente de los ecosistemas marinos.237238248Los sistemas alimentarios y en específico los ambientes alimentarios, dada su complejidad requieren ser abordados mediante un enfoque sistémico en el cual se contemplen los diversos sectores involucrados en el tema. Para llevar a cabo dicho enfoque se debe trabajar desde el pensamiento complejo, comprendiendo y respetando las diferentes realidades y determinantes culturales, ambientales, educativos, salud entre otros. Los grandes temas mencionados fueron: - La educación alimentaria y nutricional en las distintas etapas de la vida y los distintos actores de la cadena alimentaria desde la producción hasta el consumo. - La intermediación la cual no debe ser eliminada sino regulada. - La producción y consumo sostenible que vayan acorde a las prácticas culturales y sociales de cada región. - Se menciona una desconexión entre el agro y la nutrición, por tanto, se sugiere el fortalecimiento de alianzas entre actores que interactúan a lo largo de la cadena de suministro. - Se conocen las metas país, pero no se tienen las herramientas para realizar la transformación a nivel de empresas. - Existe una disonancia entre el interés comercial que se antepone antes de la salud de la población, por eso se debe impulsar una regulación robusta en torno a la publicidad. - En ocasiones los productos y las prácticas más sostenibles no son rentables a corto plazo (aunque a largo plazo de puedan analizar argumentos sobre su impacto en el sistema de salud). - Hay una contradicción importante en la imagen país. Por un lado, Costa Rica esencial y ecológica pero nuestro sistema de alimentación no refleja esos principios tanto en producción como en consumo. - Por otro lado, se busca la participación e integración de la mujer en procesos de producción y comercialización de alimentos, pero no se brinda el apoyo social para permitir garantizar el cuido de los hijos. En la agricultura familiar hay un tema de cultura, tradición, políticas públicas, mercados, etc. Se debe preguntar a los actores las propias visiones del problema pues es vital la incorporación de los agricultores familiares en todas las acciones, dada su importancia en la producción de alimentos de consumo nacional. Es necesario visibilizar el poco acceso a la información que tiene el consumidor y la población en general. Debido a ello, se duplican esfuerzos aislados entre las diferentes instituciones estatales por lo que afloró que es indispensable establecer enlaces permanentes por medio de convenios, cartas de intenciones, planes de trabajo interinstitucionales e interdisciplinarios, que permita que cada institución brinde su aporte desde su fortaleza y así consolidar un trabajo en equipo con un impacto directo a las necesidades establecidas.

2021-08-12 07:12:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14970/192

0110760420342311558122102110

The dialogue was a local community event covering a few London boroughs. We put out calls for people to engage - whether they were growers, producers, consumers or something in between. We also actively contacted people and invited them to come along. The aim was to have around 20-30 people representing different areas of the food system. Once we gathered we introduced the topics we would be covering, the two break-out sessions, and asked people not to photograph the event, and that everything said was in confidence. We broke up into four groups for the sessions. At the end we came together for a larger group session.We asked people questions based on local experience and thoughts about the food system, and touched on themes from the five action tracks.No.

Yes

234238239242245246247249251There were three sessions - two break out group sessions and a larger group session. Each session considered one main question: Session 1 - Do people in north London have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food? Session 2 - Is there social justice in our food system? Can we make improvements? Session 3 - What do we want to see this picture look like in 10/3 years’ time?235238239242246247249251Most participants, on a personal level, thought they did have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food, although many were keen to acknowledge their privilege and that not everyone does have this access. It was suggested that the key barriers to access are available resources and education. When it came to the question of social justice in the food system the answer across the groups was a resounding ‘no’. It was suggested major corporations are largely responsible for this as they shape the food system to match their own agendas. Some people have too much food and waste it, others are starving. Other takeaways include that farmers could be made more visible in the food system, and connected to consumers. Food hubs is one way to achieve this. The local food system should be linked and connected better. Access to land is key to achieving sustainable production and access. Change needs to happen at a policy level.236238239242246247249251Do people in north London have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food? PT1 Most participants, on a personal level, thought they did have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food, although many were keen to acknowledge their privilege and that not everyone does have this access. It was suggested that the key barriers to access are available resources and education. It was recognised that north London has a wide range of incomes. There are very wealthy people living alongside families who are really struggling. It was noted that the intersection between people’s level of education and their income is stark. Education is also key when it comes to food - people don’t know what to do with food and how to cook it. People often say that they don’t have enough time to cook but perhaps it’s more a question of not knowing how to cook fast, simple, but healthy meals. It was suggested that we no longer prioritise food and healthy eating, or eating together and enjoying food in the way that other cultures do. The question arose whether this is also a political question: the politics of convenience and the food lobby. Have we lost our interest in a creative food culture and does this benefit big business? It was also pointed out that some people’s living situation makes it difficult to cook food- they have no facilities, utensils, space etc. People might compromise on the food they buy due to other factors such as rent and bills. Also people who are chronically ill, not earning, or need support can’t always access healthy food. There are people locally who are starving/can’t afford food. There are also elderly people who can’t chop veg, lift pans etc. so end up microwaving their food. The point was made that food banks are great as a lifeline but do not always provide high quality or fresh food. Much of it is pasta, tinned food etc. Variety of food isn’t a problem in the area, with there being a lot of choice on the high street with a diversity of cultures and diets catered for. However it was argued that local councils should regulate the high street better to create a more mixed high street with cohesive planning, to build better, stronger more resilient communities. An increase in smaller independent shops and less betting shops, hair dressers and estate agents. It was suggested that Belsize Park and Marylebone are good examples of this. It was however also mentioned that independent shops can be expensive. Generally it was considered that organic food can be inaccessible due to its pricing. It was particularly mentioned that Muswell Hill is expensive for organic fruit and vegetables but there are alternatives close by such as Wood Green Market which is lots cheaper but people don’t know about it. This messaging needs to improve so the community are aware of all options on their door step. It was added that if you are aware of local food sources and are resourceful it is also possible to access cheaper, nutritious foods. It was noted that big supermarkets dominate the local food supply and due to aggressive pricing the smaller independent shops are affected by this. It was also noted that during the pandemic there has been a rise in online shopping. Customers often go for the cheaper deal which is not always the best quality – such as processed fast food. Convenience impacts on our health – in terms of nutrition and physical health and weight gain. And people were generally not happy with the excessive plastic packaging that supermarkets use. It was considered that as the main source of food shopping supermarkets should be more responsible.236238239242246247249251Do people in north London have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food? PT2 It was felt that the UK had lost its rich history of locally produced good food compared to other countries where the street food markets bring to the city a diverse range of fresh, local food that is affordable and the place where most people shop. Large scale farming in the UK since WW2 meant the loss of farmers markets, market gardens and orchards. There are examples of organic farms within London eg. Forty Hall Farm in Enfield that sells organic veg and meat, but they are often expensive. Rather than being a cheap way for people to get their fresh produce and being a direct route to market for farmers, they have become ‘artisan’ and ‘gentrified’. It was felt that this was due to the commercialisation of public space, where even food markets are expected to generate profits rather than provide a public service. There was also concern that the few remaining genuinely affordable street markets in London are at risk due to new building developments. It was noted that the environmental and health agenda are connected in the long run and more should be done together. It was thought that subsidies are not always directed towards organic farms and producers and this needs to be addressed at a Policy/government level. A lack of education equals people eating unseasonably which has negative health and environmental consequences. It was also raised that there is little to no transparency about the logistics and delivery chain of the food – both its transportation and origin. Among the participants there were people with access to an allotment and others with gardens who grow smaller crops. Having children seemed to be a driving force for home growing food – to create awareness and educate the children about seasonal, sustainable food - personally growing food amplifies that message. Allotments also provide escape which is great for mental wellbeing. More growing spaces should become available to everyone. Corporations should free up their space for community plots - some developers have started to successfully do this so it is evident positive intention does exist. The group went on to discuss the importance of primary curriculum to include gardening and cooking - fundamental life skills that needs to be weaved through the learning from an early age. Schools used to teach home economics but school education now values academic achievement over life skills such as cooking. Totteridge Academy is an example of a school that teaches children how to grow and cook food. People feel that schools are an important place for learning about food and eating healthy and nutrition but the quality of food being served to school children is not always good enough. People felt that the problem was the fact that school meal services have been privatised in many cases. And then post schooling, society puts a lower value on working in the service industries and it is not seen as a good career path. It was noted that improved education and access to healthy and nutritious food would take pressure off the NHS.236238239242247249251Is there social justice in the food system? The answer across the groups was a resounding ‘no’. It was suggested major corporations are largely responsible for this as they shape the food system to match their own agendas. Some people have too much food and waste it, others are starving. As a safety net, it was considered that food banks, while sadly necessary are perhaps an excuse for the government to not address the underlying issues that create the need for food banks in the first place. In north London there has been a seismic change in attitudes to using food banks with some of the group noting that may of their friends and colleagues who have been adversely affected by Covid (creatives, company directors etc) are using food banks. There were discussions among several groups as to whether food banks are a good or bad thing. It was suggested that if there were no food banks using up the surplus food, there would be a lot more waste going to land fill. However should we be tackling food poverty in a different way? On waste it was also suggested that best before / sell by dates are wrong and scare people into wasting stuff. Issues with the Universal Credit system were noted – with the application process and the length of time it takes to access/receive funds. One possible solution touted was for there to be a basic universal income which may also help reduce or alleviate food bank demand. It was also discussed that people could be issued a fruit and vegetable box with recipes as part of the Universal basic Income package. Possible routes to social justice in the local food system discussed include more independent shops, shopping directly with suppliers/producers, further use of allotments (more would be needed), affordable farmers’ and local markets. It is complicated to provide social justice for everyone so strategies are needed at policy level – both national and local - thinking about metrics other than GDP. Buying directly from producers was echoed across several groups. Buying directly - ie from the Milk Delivery Person and using companies like Crop Drop / Odd Box - ensuring the farmer gets the fair return for his produce that major super markets refuse. Generally improved connections with farmers and other suppliers was mentioned. An improved focus on land management would also help. There is inherently injustice in the management of land which is largely owned by very few people. It is difficult to get access to land for the rest of the population so there is very little land for people to grow food. The question was asked how much land is needed to sustain the population of London. Could parks be used for growing food? London is surrounded by a green belt and we should be accessing food from local farms – but farmers are largely invisible. In the city, there is no or little connection to how our food is grown and access is mainly through large retailers with little connection to the shopper or corner shops with little transparency on provenance. It was commented that there is racial discrimination in our food systems. POC growers have little access to land, pay is low but it was also suggested that the farming industry is systemically racist and not as progressive as many other industries. There were also local examples of discrimination such as in allotments. Better intertwined communities was seen as one part of the solution. There is amazing work going in with different projects: Chalk Farm Village is going to be a large urban farm. Grange Big Local is a neighbourhood of East Finchley that has won a grant to be run by residents for the community. The aim to create an inclusive eco system where people support each other. Soup kitchens could also benefit from linking up to make better use of their resources. There is an website born out of the Muswell Hill Soup Kitchen which aims to help people find where soup kitchens are using GPS: nextmeal.co.uk236238239242246247249251Notes from the Circle discussion It was commented that farmers are fairly invisible in the food system. It was questioned if farmers can afford to grow organic food. The notion of food hubs came up – a much better way for engagement across the food system. But is it easier for people not to engage? The question was raised as to how we could map out and link the local food system better. It was commented that the local authorities hadn’t been very useful or forthcoming during the pandemic and that most of the support that happened was generated by the community. There’s no profit here so private companies not interested. How do we change the notion that good healthy food is expensive? Food should be an entitlement, and the next step would be for that food to be good food – not just the cheapest. It was suggested that there is affordable food at supermarkets – but it requires time, knowledge and education. Why pick up lentils when you can pick up processed food which is quick, easy and can taste food? Do people even have the means to cook? Access to land is key – it was commented that even among local growers/allotments there is racial discrimination. It was questioned whether food banks improve or decrease social justice. It was commented that food banks are not shameful places. How do we reframe the narrative? It was suggested that universal income could include a voucher for a veg box. It was mentioned that there is a universal baseline income pilot that is going to happen – there is dignity in having the resources rather than just hand outs. Food is a good way into having wider conversations about equity. The idea of a community fridge being tested in East Finchley. It’s not just about us managing locally but also about pressure being put on the government. And we have to think wider – the global south – and get involved in action. Food shortages are a racial issue what we’re becoming more aware of.237238242245246247249Questions were raised about what privilege and access really meant. Even when people in a position of privilege were trying to be open minded and think about wider society - it was very much from their own perspective and a better understanding of the real situation on the ground would change that perspective. One of the people in the group supports people in poverty, but also commented that there were worse situations that what they were dealing with. The situation is bad and people don't fully comprehend that, Some people thought direct action is necessary to affect change, others thought that this isn't the way. There was generally a lot of frustration among the group - some were angry and upset.

2021-08-12 12:45:11205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30933/62

082417933251231627021432242321623141213611

We were keen to split into 5 working groups. Each group included different stakeholders to ensure the inclusiveness of the dialogue as well as the effectiveness of the discussions. In the second part we organized a panel discussion in which the chair of each working group briefed the audience on the discussions and the recommendations of the respective group.

No

234238239240241242244245246249250251- Explore the key challenges that face the transformation of food system in Egypt and brining more staekholders to the national dialogue.235238239240241242- The dialogue highlighted the key challenges and threats to Egypt food systems and their transformation toward sustainable forms of production and consumption. These include water scarcity, population growth, urbanization, persistent food safety and quality problems and the prevalence of unhealthy consumption patterns leading to concerning levels of malnutrition among others.

2021-08-12 13:49:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35559/30334446496061637984120133143144147172195

534310223141202112

Se compartió previamente un documento base, desarrollado a partir del trabajo de las y los parlamentarios iberoamericanos en los últi-mos doce años a favor del ODS2 y el ODS5. Previo al evento se tomaron en cuenta sus aportes para enriquecer dicho documento. Durante el evento, se presentaron con toda transparencia los elemen-tos del documento en cuestión y se dividió en dos mesas de trabajo el grupo de 18 parlamentarios/as y 19 asesores legislativos de 16 parlamentos de la región de ALC, así como parlamentarios/as de España; para que las y los parlamentarios pudieran participar, co-mentar y enriquecer la propuesta. Se terminó el evento con una ple-naria, en donde un representante por mesa comentó de manera resumida los aportes que se tuvieron en cada mesa. Por último, como es costumbre parlamentaria se votó a favor del documento en lo general, estando de acuerdo con el mismo sugiriendo que se incor-porarán algunos comentarios realizados.Como en todas las reuniones del Frente Parlamentario contra el Hambre de América Latina y el Caribe (FPH-ALC) se manifestó el respeto a las dife-rentes opiniones y se caracterizó el diálogo por la pluralidad de parlamenta-rios y parlamentarias, de diferentes países y corrientes políticas. Se promo-vió la confianza, pues con toda transparencia se comentó el documento de la propuesta compartido una semana antes con los 25 frentes de la región y se abrió el foro para enriquecerlo. Se buscó un enfoque complementario, de parlamentarios nacionales, regionales y locales. Participando un total de 16 parlamentos de la región y parlamentarios/as de España. Reconociendo la complejidad, se realizó un trabajo cuidadoso de estudio y análisis de cómo el trabajo del FPH de ALC, así como de la Alianza Parlamentaria Española por el Derecho a la Alimentación, puede contribuir a los objetivos de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 en las 5 vías de acción propuestas por la Cumbre con propuestas concretas y además se propuso una vía adi-cional transversal propuesta por las y los parlamentarios de Iberoamérica.Consideramos que los principios son muy pertinentes y los abrazamos, pues sin ellos los esfuerzos pueden brindar muchos menos frutos. Creemos que los principios permiten un trabajo estratégico, inclusivo y enfocado.

NoSe compartió previamente un documento base, desarrollado a partir del trabajo de las y los parlamentarios iberoamericanos en los últimos doce años a favor del ODS2 y el ODS5. Previo al evento se tomaron en cuen-ta sus aportes para enriquecer dicho documento. Durante el evento, se presentaron con toda transparencia los elementos del documento en cuestión y se dividió en dos mesas de trabajo el grupo de 18 parlamentarios/as y 19 asesores legislativos de 16 parlamentos de la región de ALC, así como parlamentarios/as de España; para que las y los parlamentarios pudieran participar, comentar y enriquecer la propuesta. Se terminó el evento con una plenaria, en donde un representante por mesa comentó de manera resumida los aportes que se tuvie-ron en cada mesa. Por último, como es costumbre parlamentaria se votó a favor del documento en lo gene-ral, estando de acuerdo con el mismo sugiriendo que se incorporarán algunos comentarios realizados.

234238239240241242244246248249251Ante la convocatoria del secretario general de Naciones Unidas, António Guterres a todos los actores de la sociedad a ser parte de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021, legisladores y legisladoras de Iberoamé-rica realizaron un diálogo independiente con el propósito de contribuir a la Cumbre mediante una serie de recomendaciones parlamentarias, teniendo en cuenta su experiencia y compromiso en relación a: 1) Las líneas de trabajo y acciones llevadas a cabo en los últimos años por los Frentes Parlamentarios contra el Hambre de América Latina y el Caribe (FPH-ALC). Lo que ha permitido resultados de gran impacto, como la aprobación de decenas de leyes contra el hambre y la malnutrición con mayor pre-supuesto y fiscalización para su adecuado cumplimiento. 2) Los acuerdos establecidos por los FPH-ALC en espacios de diálogo político (nacionales y regionales) sobre seguridad alimentaria y agricultura sostenible en tiempos de pandemia. 3) La coordinación de acciones iberoamericanas de orden parlamentario fruto del relacionamiento entre los FPH-ALC, las Cortes Generales de España y la Asamblea de Portugal, e instancias como la Asam-blea Parlamentaria Europea-Latinoamericana (EUROLAT). 4) El abordaje de nuevas líneas de trabajo y temáticas clave para la erradicación del hambre y la malnu-trición, tales como: la igualdad de género, el reconocimiento de los pueblos originarios, la innovación para el desarrollo rural sostenible y la lucha contra los graves efectos del cambio climático, entre otras. Las recomendaciones están estructuradas con base en las cinco vías de acción planteadas por la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 y a una vía transversal adicional que se consideró relevante añadir para el logro de los objetivos planteados.235238239240241242246248249251Nos dimos cuenta de que las 5 vías trabajan de manera conjunta y no están aisladas. Al analizarlas nos perca-tamos, que desde nuestra perspectiva parlamentaria existe una vía transversal que debe considerarse para el logro de las 5 vías: Vía transversal para el logro de las 5 vías. Alianzas parlamentarias nacionales e internacionales, inclusión de los pueblos originarios e igualdad de género para transformar los Sistemas Alimentarios. Ante la apremiante realidad que estamos viviendo como humanidad, las catastróficas cifras y las actuales proyecciones que indican que se retrocederán tres décadas en la lucha contra el hambre y la malnutrición, se torna necesario la consideración de añadir una vía transversal para lograr las 5 vías de acción propuestas por la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021. Está nueva vía está orientada a la reducción de la brecha de género en la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, a la inclusión de pueblos originarios y a la promoción de alianzas parlamentarias en todo el mundo bajo la consigna: sin el alcance del Objetivo de Desarrollo Sosteni-ble 5 “Igualdad de Género” (ODS5), no se cumplirá el ODS2. Por lo anterior, y con el objetivo de dar seguimiento a los compromisos de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios, desde los Parlamentos de Iberoamérica se propone: • Trabajar en la reducción de la brecha de género mediante el impulso de legislación sobre seguridad alimen-taria y nutricional con enfoque de género. Se recomienda trabajar en leyes que aseguren presupuestos ade-cuados orientados a brindar derechos y bienes públicos (asistencia técnica, crédito, capacitación, entre otros) a las mujeres rurales. • Promover la inclusión de los pueblos originarios y la interculturalidad en los procesos de discusión e im-plementación que surjan a partir de la transformación de los Sistemas Alimentarios. Para aprovechar sus co-nocimientos, especialmente en lo concerniente con formas de producción más amigables con el medio am-biente. • Promocionar Frentes y Alianzas Parlamentarias como plataformas plurales en contra del hambre y la malnu-trición en los Parlamentos nacionales y regionales. La existencia de estas plataformas plurales en los parla-mentos permitirá tener una agenda permanente en estos temas, justo en el espacio donde se discuten y aprue-ban las políticas de Estado. Se sugiere impulsar, desde los Parlamentos, además el desarrollo de espacios de diálogo de múltiples actores locales, nacionales, regionales y mundiales que posicionen y hagan trabajo político y legislativo en favor del ODS2 y el ODS5, tal como se realizó en la Primera Cumbre Parlamentaria Mundial contra el Hambre y la Malnutrición realizada en el Senado de España en 2018. • Crear la Alianza Parlamentaria Iberoamericana por el ODS2 y OD5, compuesta por el FPH-ALC, las Cortes Generales de España y la Asamblea de Portugal, cuyo fin sea impulsar acciones que apunten a resultados concretos en materia de seguridad alimentaria y agricultura sostenible con enfoque de género, intercambian-do conocimiento, lecciones aprendidas y experiencias exitosas, y coadyuvando al incremento de la coopera-ción internacional para la consecución de los retos de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 a fin de no dejar a nadie atrás.236242243244245246247248249251Vía de Acción 5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones Sistemas Alimentarios más resilientes en beneficio de todos y todas. La propuesta de los y las parlamentarias iberoamericanas en relación con la Vía 5 de la Cumbre de los Siste-mas Alimentarios 2021, se basa en la promoción de iniciativas que aseguren el acceso a alimentos sanos a toda la población y que protejan a los pequeños productores, quienes son parte de los grupos poblacionales más vulnerables ante los efectos del cambio climático y la crisis por el COVID-19. • Visibilizar en las agendas nacionales la alimentación como un componente central de la respuesta frente a la crisis del COVID –19 y su recuperación. Algunos ejemplos: con el objetivo de posicionar en la agenda política de los países la importancia de no des-cuidar la lucha contra el hambre y la malnutrición en tiempos de pandemia y postpandemia, en 2020 el FPH-ALC se pronunció internacionalmente mediante una carta abierta suscrita por más de 400 parlamentarios y parlamentarias. También se generaron declaraciones del PARLATINO sobre la la distribución internacional de alimentos, la agricultura familiar en contexto de Covid19 y la inversión responsable en sistemas alimenta-rios ante la crisis del COVID19, y una Declaración de PARLACEN sobre la producción de alimentos ante la crisis por COVID – 19. • Promoción de legislación y presupuestos vinculados a seguros agrícolas que aumenten la resiliencia de las y los pequeños y medianos productores. Algunos ejemplos: En Paraguay el FPH está promoviendo el Proyecto de Ley de Seguro Agrícola que se en-cuentra actualmente en espera de ser dictaminado. • Impulso de normas, incentivos, presupuestos y políticas públicas que aseguren acceso a alimentos en tiem-po de crisis. Algunos ejemplos: el FPH-ALC ha promovido políticas sobre acceso a los alimentos en tiempos de pandemia en n Costa Rica, El Salvador Honduras, Panamáy Lima. • Generación de legislación que articule la seguridad alimentaria y la lucha contra el cambio climático. Algunos ejemplos: en esta línea se destaca el trabajo del FPH de Paraguay que impulsó la Ley PROEZA, la cual propone al mundo una nueva forma de encarar el cambio climático y combatir sus efectos en la pobla-ción rural en situación de pobreza y extrema pobreza. También se destaca la aprobación en PARLATINO de la Ley Modelo de cambio climático y seguridad alimentaria y nutricional.236241243244245246247248249251Vía de Acción 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos Territorios rurales consolidados y con Agricultores Familiares que salen de la pobreza y transforman los sistemas alimentarios. En relación con la vía 4, las y los parlamentarios iberoamericanos proponen realizar trabajo político y legisla-tivo que fortalezca a las y los pequeños productores, impulse el desarrollo de cadenas de valor nacionales y regionales, y promueva la inversión responsable para la agricultura en los territorios más vulnerables, por medio de: • La promoción de políticas fiscales y territoriales para ayudar a las y los pequeños y medianos agricultores. Se recomienda apuntar a acciones que logren mayores y mejores inversiones responsables y sostenibles, polí-ticas fiscales para promover equidad distributiva de la tierra y certeza jurídica, la creación de fondos, la pro-moción de emprendimientos, el desarrollo de las alianzas público-privadas y el acceso a créditos para la agri-cultura familiar. Algunos ejemplos: en este ámbito se destaca el trabajo legislativo del FPH-ALC logrado en en El Salvador, Honduras, Paraguay, Uruguay y San Vicente y granadinas (éste último país ha llevado a cabo una acción de gran impacto para asegurar la inversión en la agricultura y la seguridad alimentaria a través de la creación del Fondo Fiduciario Hambre Cero. Así como el trabajo del Frente del Concejo Municipal contra el Hambre de Lima Metropolitana que lleva las políticas a favor del ODS2 a nivel local lo que las hace sumamente efecti-vas. • El impulso de legislación que desarrolle cadenas de valor que den ventajas comparativas nacionales y re-gionales a los países. Algunos ejemplos: en este ámbito El Salvador cuenta con la Ley de Creación del Fideicomiso para la Sobera-nía Alimentaria y el rescate del sector agropecuario que busca incrementar el nivel de tecnificación de las cadenas agroalimentarias y fortalecer los sectores agropecuarios y agroindustriales, a fin de mejorar el abaste-cimiento nacional de alimentos. Asimismo, se destaca la la Ley que establece la organización y funciona-miento de las cadenas agroalimentarias de Panamá. • Seguir promoviendo las compras públicas a la agricultura familiar con suficientes recursos y fiscalización. La agricultura es el sector en el que trabajan más personas en el mundo; no en vano da sustento al 40% de la población mundial. (...) Unos 1,500 millones de personas viven en hogares cuya subsistencia depende de un minifundio; muchos de esos hogares padecen pobreza extrema. Algunos ejemplos: en esta línea cabe destacar la Ley por la cual se establecen mecanismos para promover la participación de pequeños productores agropecuarios y de la agricultura campesina, familiar y comunitaria en los mercados de compras públicas de alimentos de Colombia. • Priorizar en las agendas de los países la inversión responsable para la agricultura sostenible mediante la ge-neración de nuevas capacidades en los parlamentos, ejecutivos, actores sociales y sector privado. Algunos ejemplos: con el apoyo de la FAO, la Cooperación Española y la Agencia Mexicana de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AMEXCID), el FPH-ALC ha participado en capacitaciones sobre la incorpo-ración de los Principios del Comité Mundial de la Seguridad Alimentaria para la inversión responsable en la agricultura y los sistemas alimentarios (CFS-RAI) y ha seguido na Guía práctica para asesores y parlamenta-rios sobre inversión responsable, producto de lo cual PARLATINO y FAO trabajaron durante el 2020 en la Declaración conjunta para el aumento de la inversión responsable en la agricultura y sistemas alimentarios ante la crisis del COVID-19.236240243244245246247248249251Vía de Acción 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza Agricultura Familiar consolidada digitalizada y sostenible para transformar los Sistemas Alimentarios. A modo general, la propuesta de los parlamentarios y parlamentarias iberoamericanas en relación a la Vía 3 de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021, es impulsar acciones parlamentarias a favor de la agricultu-ra familiar y el uso sostenible de los recursos ambientales en la producción, el procesamiento y la distribu-ción de alimentos, mediante: • La promoción de legislación que fortalezca una agricultura sostenible impulsando su producción y el con-sumo desde lo local, permitiendo mejorar la producción nacional y la reducción de la huella de carbono, así como sus efectos en el medio ambiente. La agricultura sostenible puede reducir la deforestación, contribuir a la salud de los ecosistemas terrestres y (...) brindar el sustento indispensable a personas de todo el mundo. Algunos ejemplos: el FPH-ALC ha impulsado leyes de agricultura familiar en Argentina, Colombia, El Salva-dor, Ecuador, Panamá, Paraguay y Perú. Honduras se encuentra impulsándola también. A nivel local, motivó la aprobación de la Ley de Agricultura Familiar en la Ciudad de México y, a nivel regional, las Leyes modelo o marco sobre agricultura familiar en PARLATINO y PARLANDINO. Del mismo modo, ha promovido leyes que impulsan la conservación de la agrobiodiversidad como la Ley Orgánica de Agrobiodiversidad, Semillas y Fomento de la Agricultura Sustentable de Ecuador y la Ley Federal para el fomento y protección del maíz nativo de México. Brasil por su parte, se encuentra impulsando legislación para reducir el uso de plaguicidas y fomentar la transición orgánica y agroecológica. • El impulso de legislación que asegure la adopción de tecnología y la digitalización de la agricultura familiar de las zonas rurales. En específico, se propone impulsar políticas que promuevan la ciencia, investigación e innovación para el desarrollo sostenible de los territorios rurales, tal como se abordó en una reunión entre la coordinación del FPH-ALC y el director general de FAO QU Dongyu en octubre de 2020. • Promover legislación e investigación para asegurar el uso sostenible del agua. La escasez de agua afecta a más del 40 % de la población mundial, y se prevé que este porcentaje vaya en aumento. Por ello, es necesaria la promoción de legislación, investigación y presupuestos para asegurar el uso sostenible de este recurso. Algunos ejemplos: sobre esta temática existe legislación aprobada e impulsada por el FPH en Ecuador y Uru-guay. Vale señalar también que en 2020 Costa Rica logró incluir el Derecho Humano al acceso al Agua den-tro de su Constitución; El Salvador también lo incluyó ya en su Constitución (Art. 2º), en espera de ser ratifi-cado por la presente legislatura. El FPH de México está trabajando en el Proyecto de Ley General de Aguas y ha apoyado al PARLATINO en la Ley Modelo sobre Sistemas Comunitarios de Agua y Saneamiento. Por su parte Brasil está promoviendo un proyecto de ley que crea un programa enfocado a recuperar y perennizar el agua y a nivel regional, FROPEL cuenta con la Ley Marco Regional referida al Derecho Humano al Agua Potable y Saneamiento. • El impulso de normativas vinculadas a la agroecología y la producción sostenible. Algunos ejemplos: el FPH-ALC ha impulsado en Ecuador la Ley Orgánica de Agrobiodiversidad, Semillas y Fomento de la Agricultura Sustentabley la Ley Orgánica para el Desarrollo de la Acuicultura y Pesca, y en Uruguay la Ley N° 19717 que Fomenta la Producción Agroecológica. En este ámbito, PARLATINO cuenta con la Ley Modelo de Pesca Artesanal y PARLANDINO con el Marco Normativo para Luchar Contra la Pes-ca ilegal, no declarada y no reglamentada y Fomentar el Desarrollo Sostenible de los Recursos Marítimos en los Países Miembros.236239243244245246247248249251Vía de Acción 2: Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles Sistemas alimentarios con consumidores mejor informados, más conscientes y con mejores hábitos de consumo. En relación con la vía 2 se propone promover acciones parlamentarias que cuiden la salud de las y los con-sumidores, mejorando sus hábitos de consumo por medio de: • El impulso de legislación para la reducción de las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos (Leyes de PDA) para que los alimentos se produzcan y se consuman de forma responsable. Se estima que un tercio de todos los alimentos producidos termina en el cubo de la basura de los consumido-res o vendedores, o bien se echa a perder a causa de unos sistemas deficientes de transporte o recolección. Esto puede reducirse visibilizando ante la sociedad este problema y generando políticas que consideren dis-tintos estímulos fiscales que incentiven la reducción de la pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos, y la donación de éstos. Algunos ejemplos: Argentina, Colombia, Perú y Lima cuentan con Leyes de PDA, Guatemala y Costa Rica están trabajado en proyectos de Ley en la materia. PARLATINO, por su parte, se ha propuesto en 2021 desa-rrollar una la Ley Modelo de PDA. En relación a la donación de alimentos, el FPH-ALC ha promovido dife-rentes legislaciones en Argentina, El Salvador, Paraguay y Lima. • La generación de una agenda política que busque el desarrollo de legislación y programas que promuevan el consumo de frutas y verduras. Se trata de una acción alineada al Año Internacional de las Frutas y las Verduras instalado por Asamblea Ge-neral de las Naciones Unidas (Resolución A/RES/74/244). Algunos ejemplos: En 2021 la Cámara de Diputados y Diputadas de Chile aprobó un innovador proyecto de ley sobre alimentación escolar saludable presentado por el FPH, cuyo objetivo es garantizar menús saludables que incorporen una mayor cantidad de alimentos frescos, entre ellos frutas y verduras, y ofrezcan opciones de alimentación vegana o vegetariana. PARLATINO por su parte, promoverá una declaración en esta temáti-ca. • La promoción de legislación que asegure información de calidad para el consumidor. Se recomiendan políticas que logren regular alimentos poco nutritivos, restringiendo la publicidad de éstos para niños y niñas, promoviendo hábitos saludables y la educación nutricional. Algunos ejemplos: desde el FPH -ALC se han impulsado diferentes leyes en este ámbito, tales como la Ley de promoción de una alimentación saludable de Bolivia y la Ley de regulación del consumo de sodio de Ar-gentina. Varios países cuentan con Leyes o decretos de etiquetado de alimentos, tal es el caso de como Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, México, Perú y Uruguay. A la fecha Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Para-guay y República Dominicana, se encuentran trabajando en proyectos de ley en la materia. El Frente del Con-sejo Municipal contra el Hambre de Lima Metropolitana promovió en 2021 la ordenanza de entornos salu-dables, que incentiva hábitos saludables y actividad física en centros educativos y restaurantes. A nivel regional, PARLATINO ha aprobado la Ley Marco para América Latina sobre la regulación de la pu-blicidad y promociones de alimentos y bebidas no alcohólicas dirigido a los niños, niñas y adolescentes.236238243244245246247248249251Vía de Acción 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos: El Derecho a la Alimentación Adecuada como motor de la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. En relación con la vía 1 se propone promover políticas públicas de Estado, con una amplia participación so-cial, que contribuyan a la realización del Derecho a la Alimentación Adecuada, por medio de: • La incorporación del Derecho a la Alimentación Adecuada en las Constituciones de los países de Iberoamé-rica. La Constitución es la norma de mayor jerarquía dentro del ordenamiento jurídico de un país, suele prevalecer cuando hay cambios de gobierno o coyunturas políticas. (...) En América Latina y el Caribe 15 países consa-gran el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación Adecuada en sus constituciones de forma explícita. Se trata de Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haití, Honduras, México, Nicara-gua, Panamá, Paraguay y Surinam (FAO, s.f.). Lograr que el Derecho a la Alimentación llegue a la Constitución asegura que todas las leyes de ese país se armonicen a ésta y que el Derecho sea para todos y todas, desde el nacimiento hasta la muerte. Algunos ejemplos: el FPH de Brasil impulsó la Enmienda Constitucional N 64 del año 2010 a la Constitución Política de 1988 y el FPH de México trabajó en la aprobación del reconocimiento Constitucional del Derecho a la Alimentación en el 2011. En 2021 El Salvador busca ratificar este derecho en su Constitución y la Cáma-ra de diputados y diputadas de Chile lleva trabajando en dicha incorporación desde el 2019. • Seguir impulsando legislación, presupuestos y control político, que consoliden diferentes instituciones, que aseguren la realización del Derecho a la Alimentación de manera permanente y la promoción de sistemas alimentarios saludables, sostenibles e inclusivos. Algunos ejemplos: Leyes de seguridad y soberanía alimentaria como las de Honduras, Nicaragua, Perú, Portugal y República Dominicana. PARLATINO y PARLANDINO también cuentan con Leyes Modelo o Marcos Normativos en esta área. El Salvador seguirá promoviendo su Ley SAN en la presente legislatura. • El fortalecimiento de los Programas de Alimentación Escolar (PAE), aumentando su presupuesto, cobertura y acciones de fiscalización. La alimentación escolar contribuye a la mejora de la nutrición y la educación nutricional de niños y niñas. Asimismo, aporta a la generación de riqueza local a través de las compras públicas a la agricultura familiar y a los productores locales. Algunos ejemplos: los FPH-ALC han promovido leyes de alimentación escolar en Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala y Paraguay; así como leyes conexas, tales como: la Ley del Vaso de Leche de de El Salvador, Regulación de la Alimentación Escolar en Uruguay, Ley que promueve alimentación adecuada en los Centros Educativos en Panamá, Ley de Promoción de Alimentación Saludable para Niños, Niñas y Ado-lescentes de Perú, entre otras. El PARLATINO también cuenta con una Ley Modelo en esta área. • Iniciativas legislativas que promuevan la lactancia materna durante los primeros seis meses de vida y el desarrollo infantil temprano. Algunos ejemplos: en este ámbito se destaca el trabajo realizado en El Salvador, Paraguay y Uruguay y Méxi-co. Así como del Frente del Consejo Municipal contra el Hambre de Lima Metropolitana.237No existieron áreas de divergencia, solo puntos de vista que nutrieron el documento que inicialmente se compartió. Todas las recomendaciones que se vertieron durante el diálogo se incorporaron en el punto anterior, aprobando los participantes el do-cumento propuesto con los ajustes mencionados.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Borrador-Cumbre-Sistemas-Alimentarios.pdfhttp://parlamentarioscontraelhambre.org/noticias/se-realiza-primer-dialogo-parlamentario-de-iberoamerica-previo-a-cumbre-de-los-sistemas-alimentarios/http://parlamentarioscontraelhambre.org/cumbre-de-los-sistemas-alimentarios-2021/

2021-08-12 14:08:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20252/134

012251800381704322371111521240100551330013002033

La concertation a été organisée sous forme de conférence débat en présentiel et en plénière avec toutes les parties prenantes comprenant des représentants du Gouvernement, de la société civile, du secteur privé, des chercheurs et universitaires, des ONGs nationales et internationales, des organisations des Nations Unies et des bénéficiaires ou utilisateurs de services d’alimentation et de santé.Un état de la situation actuelle a été fait à travers les présentations des orateurs en plénière. Ensuite, des discussions libres ont été menées avec les parties prenantes à travers une série de questions-réponses et contributions des participants à la concertation. Une synthèse a été faite à la fin de l’activité. Chaque participant a eu la possibilité d’exprimer son point de vue et toutes les contributions ont été prises en compte.Oui. En terme de mobilisation, il est important de bien communiquer sur l’annonce de la concertation et le partage de l’invitation. Cette expérience a été la première pour le Niger dans le cadre des concertations pour le sommet 2021 sur les systèmes alimentaires. La définition claire des concepts de systèmes alimentaires d’entrée de jeu a permis de retenir l’attention des participants. Le dynamisme des intervenants et des facilitateurs est important pour produire un effet d’entrainement parmi les participants et pour susciter le débat, surtout lorsque les thématiques abordées constituent des défis réels, actuels et à venir pour le pays.

NoNous avons utilisé une rencontre avec participation présentielle sous forme d’atelier avec panel de discussion. Trois présentations ont été partagées avec les participants afin de couvrir le thème principal de l’atelier : « Relier la santé et les systèmes alimentaires durables pour améliorer la sécurité nutritionnelle » : 1) Indice de la faim dans le monde : une décennie vers la faim Zéro ; 2) systèmes alimentaires durables pour améliorer la nutrition et la santé dans les contextes de fragilités ; 3) systèmes d’information pour la nutrition : comment prendre en compte les indicateurs nutrition-sensible pour une meilleure intégration de la nutrition dans les systèmes alimentaires. Toutes les présentations ont été effectuées en plénière par un spécialiste de la thématique. Les participants ont eu l’opportunité à la fin de chaque présentation de poser des questions et de participer aux discussions. Au terme de l’ensemble des présentations, une discussion générale a été organisée avec la participation de l’ensemble des parties prenantes, sous l’animation de l’animateur de la concertation. Les participants ont ainsi eu l’opportunité de poser d’autres questions et de faire des propositions pour améliorer la situation.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les discussions durant la concertation ont porté sur les trois thématiques présentées et des contributions en lien avec d’autres thématiques des systèmes alimentaires. La première communication a porté sur l’Indice de la faim dans le monde : une décennie vers la faim Zéro. L’analyse de la situation mondiale de la faim et son évolution évaluée par le Global Hunger Index (GHI) développé par WHH, Concern Worldwide et leurs partenaires a été présenté pour l’année 2020 qui constituent la 15e édition. Cet indice combine les données de quatre (4) indicateurs : l’apport alimentaire inadéquat (pourcentage de la sous-alimentation), la mortalité infantile (taux de mortalité des enfants de moins de 5 ans), l’émaciation et le retard de croissance chez les enfants de moins de 5 ans. Cette thématique a abordé des questions de réflexion autour des environnements alimentaires, sanitaires, économiques et comportement des consommateurs. Les pistes 2 (modes de consommation durables), piste 4 (moyens d’existence équitables) et piste 5 (renforcer la résilience aux chocs). Dans la seconde communication, il était question des « systèmes alimentaires durables pour améliorer la nutrition et la santé dans les contextes de fragilités ». Il a été rappelé par l’orateur que les systèmes alimentaires incluent l’ensemble des actions et des acteurs engagés dans les chaines d’approvisionnement des aliments, de la production à la consommation (incluant l’ensemble des aspects post récolte : stockage, transformation, transport, distribution…) et leurs interactions avec les divers environnements (socioéconomiques, démographiques, climatiques, sécuritaires, sanitaires, etc.). La durabilité des systèmes alimentaires et leur résilience sont essentielles à la stabilité des approvisionnements, à la génération des moyens d’existence pour les plus vulnérables, de revenus décents aux petits producteurs et l’amélioration de la nutrition et santé des populations. Cette communication a permis d’aborder des éléments des 5 pistes d’action du sommet avec les participants qui ont saisi l’opportunité pour partager leurs larges expériences pour les divers points abordés. La question de la contribution de la pêche et l’aquaculture à la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle a été aussi abordé aux côtés des autres questions en liens avec les approvisionnements d’aliments diversifiés La troisième communication a porté sur les « systèmes d’information pour la nutrition : comment prendre en compte les indicateurs nutrition-sensible pour une meilleure intégration de la nutrition dans les systèmes alimentaires ?». Les participants ont échangé sur la problématique de la génération et l’utilisation des données de qualité pour renseigner les indicateurs sensibles à la nutrition et aider à la prise des décisions. Les parties prenantes ont ainsi partagé leurs difficultés et frustrations pour l’accès aux données fiables. La question de la périodicité de la production des données, leur harmonisation et validation à la suite d’un processus de contrôle qualité a aussi été discuté. Pla Plateforme Nationale d’Information pour la Nutrition (PNIN) dont le rôle est de valoriser les données existantes et de les utiliser pour la formulation des questions d’analyses, l’amélioration de la qualité des indicateurs et leur suivi, ainsi que l’élaboration des messages d plaidoyer à l’endroit des décideurs et autres parties prenantes de la nutrition. Le problématique du financement des données a aussi été abordée à la satisfaction des parties prenantes qui se sont engagées à approfondir les réflexions. La thématique des données et indicateurs de nutrition est transversale à l’ensemble des piste d’action du sommet 2021 sur les systèmes alimentaires.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les discussions sur les différentes communications ont permis de faire ressortir quelques points d’attentions: • La Politique Nationale de Sécurité Nutritionnelle (PNSN) 2017-2025 n’est pas suffisamment vulgarisée. Cette politique dispose d’un plan d’action multisectoriel budgétisé, mais qui est peu connu des acteurs, ce qui se traduit par une faible mise en œuvre des interventions planifiées et un faible alignement des partenaires aux priorités gouvernementales ; • Insuffisance de partage d’informations sur la nutrition et la méconnaissance de certaines instances de gouvernance de la PNSN. Les instances de dialogue et de coordination des acteurs et leurs mécanismes de fonctionnement existent, mais ne sont pas connus par plusieurs acteurs. Or l’information sur la nutrition est partagée à travers ces instances et d’autres plateformes de dialogue. Il est donc important de faire connaitre davantage ces instances et plateformes aux parties prenantes pour des meilleurs résultats en termes de partage d’information sur la nutrition ; • La méconnaissance de Plateforme Nationale d’Information pour la Nutrition au Niger (PNIN). Cette plateforme constitue l’un des principaux systèmes d’information pour le suivi de la mise en œuvre de la Politique Nationale de Sécurité Nutritionnelle (PNSN). L’absence de passerelles directes avec d’autres systèmes d’informations, en particulier les systèmes d’informations dans les secteurs clés de la PNSN (Santé, Agriculture, Elevage, pêche/aquaculture Environnement/foresterie, Education, WASH, protection sociale, communication). Les participants ont fortement suggéré de parler de la PNIN aux différentes rencontres sur la nutrition ; • La fiabilité des données et la qualité des indicateurs sont des défis importants pour le Niger. Le nombre d’indicateurs est élevé dans chaque secteur clé, mais la plupart de ces indicateurs ne sont pas d’une qualité fiable et ne sont pas SMART (Spécifique, Mesurable, Atteignable, Réaliste et Temporel). La PNIN travaille avec les institutions publiques de la nutrition pour améliorer certains indicateurs ; la qualité des données disponibles, l’irrégularité de leur collecte et le manque d’harmonisation de plusieurs sources pour le même type des données rendent le travail très difficile. • Le manque de certaines données (pour 2020) pour le Niger n’a pas permis de générer les valeurs de l’indice de la faim pour 2020 ; • Insuffisance du financement de la statistique. Les données les plus fiables pour les interventions sensibles à la nutrition sont collectées à travers des enquêtes financées pour la plupart par des partenaires. En dehors du système de santé qui dispose d’un bon système de collecte des données de routine à travers la plateforme DHI2 (District Heath Information Software 2 (DHIS2), le secteur public alloue très peu ou pas de financement pour la collecte des données de routine sur les indicateurs sectoriels. Les participants ont donc recommandé un plaidoyer pour une plus grande allocation de ressources aux départements des statistiques des ministères et institutions publiques. De même, pour les projets sous-tutelle des ministères, il est à prévoir un financement pour les aspects de collecte d’information et de suivi des indicateurs ; • Les discussions ont aussi porté sur l’accompagnement des femmes productrices et transformatrices des produits locaux destinés à la consommation directe et à la commercialisation. En plus des appui-conseils et des financements, les participants ont souligné l’éducation/la scolarisation comme un facteur clé à prendre en compte pour parvenir à des meilleurs résultats sur l’autonomisation des femmes. Il a été partagé l’expérience selon laquelle plusieurs difficultés de gestion et de comptabilité apparaissent chez les femmes à mesure que leurs activités économiques, unité de productions, PME croissent. Un plus grand niveau de scolarisation permet de mieux atténuer ces difficultés et leurs impacts négatifs.237Pas de points de divergence.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Communique-de-Presse-Concertation-Independante-Relier-Sante-et-SA.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Rapport-Atelier-Relier-Sante-et-Systeme-alimentaire-Niger.pdfhttps://pnin-niger.org/web/2021/05/26/concertation-independante-sur-le-systeme-alimentaire-au-niger-sur-la-thematique-relier-la-sante-et-les-systemes-alimentaires-durable-pour-ameliorer-la-securite-nutritionnelle-lindice/

2021-08-12 14:10:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14107/134

09601023800935165951517321620583162071220209601078

La concertation a été organisée sous forme de conférence universitaire en présentielle. Elle a connu la participation de diverses catégories de parties prenantes et a touché particulièrement les jeunes qui ont montré leur enthousiasme à suivre les communications partagées avec eux et apporter leur voix aux réflexions sur les voies d’amélioration des systèmes alimentaires au Niger. Une cérémonie d’ouverture avec les officielle a été animée sous la direction du Ministre de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation et en présence du Coordonnateur National des concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires au Niger. Des thématiques ont été présentés par des spécialistes, puis des discussions ont été engagées avec l’ensemble des participants.Les thématiques présentées et discutés avec les participants ont retenu l’intérêt du public qui a pleinement participé et exprimé le souhait de répéter cette expérience de dialogue, en l’approfondissant davantage. Ces thématiques sont toutes en lien avec diverses fonctions des systèmes alimentaires et l’approche systémique comme levier pour l’amélioration des interventions multisectorielles sur les systèmes alimentaires. La liberté d’expression des participants a été promue et respectée. Un temps d’échanges a eu lieu après les présentations des conférenciers.Il est plus avantageux d’organiser des concertations distinctes entre les étudiants et les enseignants-chercheurs pour tenir compte des particularités de chacun de ses deux groupes.

NoLa concertation indépendante a été réalisée sous forme de conférence débat en milieu universitaire sous le haut patronage du Ministre de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, monsieur Mamoudou Djibo, sous le thème principal : « Eau-Hygiène, Assainissement comme déterminant essentiel des systèmes alimentaires sensibles à la nutrition ». Elle a été organisée à l’occasion de la semaine académique, culturelle et sportive de la Faculté des Sciences et Techniques (FAST) de l’Université Abdou Moumouni de Niamey, dans l’amphithéâtre de la FAST, le vendredi 9 Juillet 2021. La concertation a été organisée par le Réseau Nigérien d’Information et de Recherche en Sécurité Alimentaire et Nutritionnelle (ReNFoRSAN) en collaboration avec l’Université Abdou Moumouni de Niamey et avec l’appui du Haut-Commissariat à l’Initiative 3N (les Nigériens Nourrissent les Nigériens), la Plateforme Nationale d’Information pour la Nutrition (PNIN), des Agences du Systèmes des Nations Unies au Niger (FAO, UNICEF et PAM) et l’ONG Welthungerhilfe. Elle a regroupé plusieurs parties prenantes incluant des personnalités du Gouvernement, des étudiants et enseignants-chercheurs de la FAST, l’administration universitaire (recteur, Doyen de la FAST, chef des départements). Une cérémonie officielle d’ouverture a été dirigée par le Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur en présence du Coordonnateur des Concertations nationales. La cérémonie s’est déroulée en présentiel pour l’ensemble des participants et dans le respect des mesures contre la Covid-19. Elle a été l’occasion pour les officiels de partager leurs réflexions sur le rôle de l’éducation, de la recherche et de l’innovation dans les transformation des modes de production et de consommation des aliments. Les officiels ont également à travers leurs discours partagé des informations et sensibilisés le public sur les défis et enjeux des des systèmes alimentaires sensibles à la nutrition. Ensuite, le ministre, Haut-commissaire à l’Initiative 3N et Coordonnateur des concertations nationales sur les systèmes alimentaires au Niger, Monsieur Ali Bety, a souligné la place de l’Initiative 3N « Les Nigériens Nourrissent les Nigériens » pour la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle au Niger avant de donner des directives appelant à participer au processus des concertations multi-acteurs sur les systèmes alimentaires au Niger. Le Haut-Commissaire a également salué tous les acteurs engagés qui soutiennent les concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires. Dans la lecture du discours d’ouverture, Monsieur le Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, Mamoudou Djibo, s’est réjouie de l’intérêt porté sur la recherche dans le cadre des concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires. Il a reconnu les nombreux défis en la matière et surtout le sous-financement de la recherche qui constitue un handicap majeur pour les innovations. Le Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur a rappelé que son ministère est ouvert à toutes les concertations aussi bien avec les étudiants qu’avec les enseignants et a déclaré que son ministère répondra présent à tout débats et/ou discussions constructives. Le Ministre a salué le fort engagement du Maire de Niamey et de son conseil municipal à soutenir l’Université Abdou Moumouni et la FAST en particulier l’octroi annoncé des deux bourses doctorales pour la recherche sur la contribution de l’eau, l’hygiène et l’assainissement à l’amélioration de la nutrition et santé des populations de la ville de Niamey. Le ministre a également pointé du doigt le manque de moyens comme une des principales sources des problèmes de l’Université. Une fois les allocutions des officiels terminées, des courtes communications ont été faites pour susciter les discussions avec les participants. Ces ont eu l’opportunité de s’exprimer librement au terme des communications thématiques présentés

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251La concertation a porté sur cinq (5) thématiques : 1. « Systèmes alimentaires durables pour une meilleure sécurité nutritionnelle » a permis d’introduire les concepts de systèmes alimentaires comme un ensemble de chaines d’approvisionnement des aliments, des environnements alimentaires et des interconnections entre les acteurs et les secteurs multiples impliqués. La présentation a aussi montré des voies par lesquelles les systèmes alimentaires peuvent améliorer la nutrition et leurs connections avec les cadres politiques et opérationnels du Niger, notamment la stratégie de l’Initiative 3N « les Nigériens Nourrissent les Nigériens » et la Politique Nationale de Sécurité Nutritionnelle (PNSN) dont un pilier principal (Engagement 4) porte sur « Eau, Hygiène et Assainissement sensibles à la nutrition ». 2. « Eau, Hygiène et Assainissement (EHA) comme déterminant essentiel des systèmes alimentaires sensibles à la Nutrition » a permis de mieux élucider les interrelations, d’une part entre la qualité de l’eau usuelle et l’eau de consommation avec l’état nutritionnel et d’autre part, entre les risques sanitaires associés à des mauvaises conditions d’hygiène et d’assainissement et leurs effets néfastes sur l’état nutritionnel. Sans montrer des résultats de causse à effet en raison de l’insuffisance des données, le conférencier a montré que les bonnes pratiques d’EHA étaient associées à un taux de malnutrition chronique plus faible. Alors que la PNSN et son plan d’action intègrent bien les question d’EHA, les stratégies et programmes sectoriels d’EHA comme la Stratégie Opérationnelle de Promotion de l'Hygiène et de l'Assainissement de Base (SOPHAB)-2014-2018 et le Programme Sectoriel Eau Hygiène et Assainissement (PROSEHA) - 2016-2030 n’incluent pas d’objectifs de nutrition. Cette situation doit être inversée en intégrant davantage d’objectif de nutrition dans les actions de l’EHA au niveau sectoriel et intersectoriel pour un meilleur impact sur l’amélioration de l’état nutritionnel. 3. « Principaux déterminants de la malnutrition chronique chez les enfants de moins de cinq ans au Niger » a mis en relief la situation préoccupante de la malnutrition chronique au Niger avec des taux au-dessus du seuil élevé de l’OMS (30 %) depuis plus de 12 ans au niveau national et des disparités régionales importantes. Parmi les déterminants étudiés, les indicateurs en lien avec le taux d’utilisation des sources d’eau améliorées (-23 %) et les taux d’accès aux services d’assainissements améliorés (-63 %) sont ceux qui présentent les écarts les plus importants, suggérant une association inverse entre la malnutrition et les indicateurs EHA. Plus l’écart est grand, plus le taux de malnutrition chronique est élevé. 4. « Relier la santé et les systèmes alimentaires durables : Indice de la Faim dans le monde » a permis de discuter des progrès accomplis à travers le monde sur la faim en utilisant un indice composite (Indice de la Faim) associant quatre (4) indicateurs (sous-alimentation, émaciation, le retard de croissance et le taux de mortalité chez les enfants de moins de 5 ans. Il ressort de la communication que le monde n'est pas sur la bonne voie pour atteindre l’objectif « Faim Zéro » d'ici 2030 et que la pandémie de la Covid-19 aggrave d’avantage la situation. 5. « Renforcer la résilience aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et aux stress et contribuer à des systèmes alimentaires durables » a rappelé que les interventions du PAM apportent un soutien à toutes les composantes du système alimentaire (de la production à la consommation) et ciblent les pauvres et très pauvres au niveau national, communautaire et individuel. La création d’actifs productifs (Food for Asset), le paquet intégré de résilience, le soutien aux petits exploitants pour l’accès au marché pour l’assistance aux petits producteurs (aligné sur la Stratégie Nationale d’Achats Locaux d’Aliments auprès des Petits Producteurs (SNALAPP), ainsi que l’appui à la fortification de produits alimentaires transformés de consommation courante au Niger, sont au nombre des stratégies et interventions menées par le PAM en appui au Gouvernement au profit des populations vulnérables.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251La concertation sous forme de conférence universitaire avec étudiants et enseignants-chercheurs a permis de mettre en évidence que : 1. Le milieu universitaire a besoin d’être fortement engagé dans les processus de dialogue sur les systèmes alimentaires, ainsi que sur les approches systémiques et holistiques permettant de d’améliorer la nutrition, la santé, les revenus des petits exploitants agricoles ; 2. Les enseignants-chercheurs étant à la fois impliqués dans le système éducatif, la recherche dans ses divers aspects avec des applications pratiques sur le terrain ont un rôle important dans les transformations souhaitées et les voies vers des systèmes alimentaires durables ; 3. Les résultats de plusieurs travaux de recherche demeurent dans « les tiroirs des bureaux » et ne sont pas vulgarisés, ni appliqués pour améliorer le fonctionnement des systèmes alimentaires (de la production à la consommation). Un renforcement de partenariat entre les chercheurs/institutions de recherche et exploitants agricoles/organisations de producteurs à la base pour une valorisation des résultats de la recherche (en terme d’appui-conseil, formation, utilisation de nouvelles technologies et innovations) est une voie identifiée pour améliorer les fonctions des systèmes alimentaires; 4. Offrir aux jeunes la possibilité d’exprimer leur point de vue sur les réflexions visant à identifier les voies de transformation vers des systèmes alimentaires durables, inclusifs, équitables, sains et protecteurs de l’environnement au Niger est important pour garantir un processus participatif et inclusif pour toutes les parties prenantes. A cet égard, les étudiants, âgé de moins de 30 ans à plus de 80% des cas ont demandé de multiplier ce genre d’initiatives permettant de discuter à la fois des politiques et stratégies, mais aussi des aspects opérationnels des systèmes alimentaires. Les étudiants reconnaissant qu’ils ont un rôle à jouer comme futur décideurs, mais aussi comme partenaires des opérateurs le long des fonctions des systèmes alimentaires ; 5. La question des indicateurs pour mesurer la durabilité et l’équité des systèmes alimentaires a été abordée, mais des réflexions ultérieures sont requises pour l’identification desdits indicateurs ; 6. L’insuffisance de financement de la recherche et de l’innovation a été soulevé et discutée, d’abord par le Ministre de l’Education Supérieure, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, puis dans les échanges ultérieurs avec les enseignants-chercheurs et les étudiants. Des réflexions pour obtenir un engagement ferme et concret du Gouvernement pour le financement de la recherche ont été initiés. Certains participants ont suggéré de définir un pourcentage du produit intérieur brut (PIB) nominal pour s’assurer de convenablement financer la recherche, alors que d’autres ont proposés d’avoir un pourcentage du budget du Ministère systématiquement et directement consacré à la recherche de façon continue;

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Communique-de-presse-concertation-FAST_UAM_VF.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AT_FIRST_FAO_Theme-1-SA-durables-et-securite-nutritionnelle_ReNFoRSAN.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/UNICEF_Theme2_EHA_NUT_UNICEF_ReNFoRSAN.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WHH_Theme4_GHI2020_Presentation_Niger_ReNFoRSAN.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PAM_Theme5_Renforcer-la-resilience-aux-vulnerabilites-aux-chocs-et-aux-stress-et-contribuer-a-des-systemes-alimentaires-durables_ReNFoRSAN.pdfhttps://pnin-niger.org/web/2021/07/09/concertation-independante-du-reseau-nigerien-dinformation-et-de-recherche-en-securite-alimentaire-et-nutritionnelle/

2021-08-12 18:10:41205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39677/134

0020120101000110501218050402120610350212100403050802101406000005052215160000450012000200100800

La Concertation a été organisée avec les différentes parties prenantes du niveau régional en vue de prendre en compte les points de vue de tous. Le cadre existant de concertation des acteurs de l’Initiative 3N a été utilisé pour organiser la concertation au niveau de chaque région soulignant la volonté de renforcer le dispositif de gouvernance existant et de promouvoir l’approche multisectorielle. Les participants ont tous eu l’opportunité de s’exprimer. Une présentation globale en plénière a été faite pour expliquer les concepts de base des systèmes alimentaires, les objectifs des concertations et les objectifs du sommet, ainsi que le déroulement de la concertation. Les travaux de groupe ont été l’occasion d’expression de chaque participant pour partager ses réflexions pour chacune des thématiques abordées. La répartition en deux catégories de parties prenantes principales (Gouvernement et Acteurs non étatiques) a aussi été favorable aux acteurs pour exprimer une perspective différente, d’un côté, le point de vue des acteurs gouvernementaux, et de l’autre, celui des acteurs non étatiques (ANE) tout en prenant avantage de la contribution des divers secteurs dans chacune des catégories des parties prenantes. La concertation dans chacune des deux régions a été animée par un Conseiller au Haut-Commissaire à l’Initiative 3N, Coordonnateur National des Concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires. L’animateur a été assisté par un facilitateur dans chaque groupe de travail.La méthodologie recommandée a été utilisée : Une Séance plénière au début de la réunion puis travaux de groupe, permettant de partager les résultats des discussions de groupe en session plénière. Toutefois, la constitution des groupes de discussion diffère de la méthode standard. - Deux groupes sont constitués : (i) 1. Groupe avec les acteurs étatiques comprenant l’administration régionale, les préfets, les Directeurs Régionaux, les responsables des projets, les services techniques déconcentrés des ministères sectoriels, les universités et chercheurs de chaque région, et (ii) 2. Groupe des acteurs non étatiques (ANE) comprenant tous les acteurs non gouvernementaux : les élus locaux, PTFs, agences UN, ONGs, Organisations de la Société Civile (OSC), Organisations des Producteurs (OP), associations villageoises. Chaque groupe a discuté de façon indépendante de plusieurs thématiques au cours de la concertation en utilisant l’outil d’échange conçu à cet effet qui permettait de répondre à au moins 3 questions principales sur chacune des thématiques : 1. Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? Cette question visait à poser un diagnostic rapide pour identifier les principaux goulots d’étranglement du bon fonctionnement du système alimentaire local ; 2. Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans, quel changement dans 10 ans ? Ici, la question visait à permettre aux participants de donner leur point de vue sur comment ils aimeraient voir les choses en 2030, quel fonctionnement du système alimentaire veulent-ils voir ; 3. Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) à mettre en œuvre pour y parvenir d’ici 10 ans afin d'identifier les voies vers la transformation des systèmes alimentaires locaux, mais aussi les principaux leviers. L’animateur formé à l’animation des groupes a été appuyé par 2 facilitateurs. Chaque groupe disposait d’un rapporteur pour saisir les d’un rapporteur pour saisir les informations. Les thématiques sont celles préalablement identifiées dans la note conceptuelle élaborée par par la coordination nationaleLe Niger a pu organiser ses concertations dans deux régions sur huit. La mobilisation des ressources pour couvrir l’ensemble des régions n’a pu être possible à cause des délais courts. C’est pourquoi dans l’avenir, la mobilisation des ressources domestiques ou externes devait intervenir dès le début du processus en assurant par exemple le regroupement des régions par zone agroécologiques.

Yes

234238239241242243244245246247248249251Huit (8) thématiques différentes ont été discutées par les groupes d’acteurs (étatiques et non étatiques) dans la concertation organisée dans la région d’Agadez. Les pistes d’action et leviers de changements se recoupent dans plusieurs thématiques et ont été étudiés transversalement, tant dans le diagnostic de la situation que dans l’expression de la situation souhaitée d’ici 2030 et dans l’identification des voies de changement pour parvenir aux transformations souhaitées. Thématique 1: Approvisionnements alimentaires et commerce (y compris e-commerce) Acteurs du Gouvernement et Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Thématique 2: Recherche pour le développement rural Acteurs du Gouvernement Thématique 3: Chaines des valeurs des légumineuses et/ou des fruits et légumes Acteurs du Gouvernement et Acteurs non étatiques (ANE) Thématique 4: Sécurité sanitaire des aliments le long des chaines de valeur Acteurs du Gouvernement, Région d’Agadez Thématique 5: Financement des systèmes alimentaires Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Thématique 6: Vulgarisation agricole au Niger (y compris e-agriculture) Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Thématique 7: Chaine de valeur du lait et des produits dérivés Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Thématique 8: Qualité des données statistiques sur les systèmes alimentaires locaux Acteurs du Gouvernement235238239240241242243244245246248249250251En matière d’approvisionnements alimentaires, les groupes ont identifier la construction, la réhabilitation et l’entretien routier comme des leviers importants pour le désenclavement. Des moyens de transports adaptés sont nécessaires y compris l’utilisation de camions frigorifique pour les produits périssables qui nécessitent le respect de la chaine de froid. Un allègement de procédures d’accès aux crédits agricoles faciliterait les initiatives locales et contribuerait à la création d’emploi pour les jeunes qui sont une cible prioritaire. Ces derniers, tout comme les autres acteurs doivent être bien formés y compris sur l’importance du calibrage, du conditionnement et du maintien de la qualité des produits. L’amélioration des moyens de communication y compris l’accès à Internet sont aussi nécessaires. La recherche coûte chère ; elle est très peu financée et les résultats peu ou pas suffisamment vulgarisés. Le matériel existant est vétuste et les capacités des utilisateurs sont faibles. Les innovations technologiques sont peu appliquées. Il est donc nécessaire d’allouer un budget suffisant pour permettre à la recherche de contribuer au développement rural et de proposer des innovations et de l’appui-conseil aux utilisateurs. La mutualisation des efforts avec d’autres pays et le partenariat sont des leviers importants à valoriser. La formation des acteurs et la création, réhabilitation et l’équipement des centres de recherche sont requis. Il convient de développer durablement des synergies entre la recherche et les services de vulgarisation le long des fonctions principales du système alimentaire : production, conservation, transformation, transport commercialisation et consommation/demande des consommateurs. Les chaînes de valeur des légumineuses et/ou fruits et légumes sont faibles et surtout basées sur le maillon production. La transformation/conservation est le maillon le plus faible, ce qui se traduit par des pertes post-récolte/post production. Des investissements majeurs sont nécessaires renforcer les maillons de transformation, de conservation, transport y compris à travers les véhicules frigorifiques pour le respect de la chaine de froid des fruits et légumes. Le Renforcement des capacités des acteurs sur les techniques de conservation et la Recherche de déboucher pour les produits frais est une priorité La faible qualité des données statistiques et les faibles capacités des acteurs en matière de production des données et d’indicateurs de qualité limitent le suivi –évaluation des progrès et la capitalisation des acquis. Des moyens techniques, matériels et financiers adéquats sont plus que nécessaires pour renforcer le fonctionnement des systèmes d’information, de collecte et analyse des données en vue d’aider à la prise des décisions pour la formulation des politiques, programmes et interventions adaptés aux besoins des populations. Recruter et former les ressources humaines maitrisant les outils Statistiques et Redynamiser la chaine de production des données En matière de normalisation des produits agrosylvopastoraux et halieutiques (PASPH), l’insuffisance d’identification des produits agricoles à normaliser et leur répertoire, la méconnaissance des normes et standards internationaux (des intrants au conditionnement) et la méconnaissance du processus de normalisation et des coûts associés sont parmi les principaux obstacles. Le renforcement des capacités techniques et opérationnelles des acteurs et des institutions en charge de normalisation, la vulgarisation des normes existantes et la définition de normes pour un large éventail de PASPH sont requis pour un meilleur fonctionnement des systèmes alimentaires. Le contrôle de qualité le long des maillons de chaine de valeur des denrées alimentaires est aussi nécessaire pour renforcer la sécurité sanitaire des aliments. Redynamiser la chaine de production des données et utiliser des pesticides homologués et enfin éviter la production sur les sols pollués.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Thématique 1: Approvisionnements alimentaires et commerce (y compris e-commerce) Acteurs du Gouvernement et Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Manque de financement ; • Manque de matériels moderne ; • Durée de la mise au point des résultats de la recherche ; • Insuffisance des ressources humaines ; • Insuffisances du renforcement des capacités ; • Insuffisance des centres de recherche ; Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Améliorer l’état des routes ; • Moyens de transport appropriés ; • Résoudre les chômages des jeunes ; • Mettre l’accent sur l’éducation des jeunes ; • Sensibilisation des populations ; • Désenclavement des localités éloignées ; • Régularisation des marchés ; • Améliorer la qualité des produits alimentaires ; • Rendre accessible le financement agricole ; • Instaurer un système de calibrage et de conditionnement appropriés ; Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Entretiens réguliers des routes ; • Utilisation des camions frigorifiques et/ou appropriés ; • Création des emplois pour les jeunes (création des PME) • Application de la loi sur la scolarisation des jeunes (6 – 16 ans) ; • Conception et diffusion des supports de communication ; • Construction des pistes des dessertes pour les localités éloignées ; • Construction d’un port sec; • Instauration d’un système régulier de contrôle des marchés ; • Alléger les procédures d’accès aux crédits agricoles ; • Sensibilisation et formation des acteurs sur l’importance du calibrage et conditionnement ;236238239241242243244245246248249251Thématique 2: Recherche pour le développement rural Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Manque de financement ; • Manque de matériel moderne ; • Durée de la mise au point des résultats de la recherche ; • Insuffisance des ressources humaines ; • Insuffisances du renforcement des capacités ; • Insuffisance des centres de recherche ; Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Allouer une part du budget pour la recherche ; • Acquisition de matériel moderne; • Réduction de la durée de la mise au point des résultats de la recherche ; • Mettre à la disposition des institutions de recherche le personnel qualifié ; • Multiplier les centres de recherche ; Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Allocation conséquente du budget à la recherche ; • Mutualiser les efforts de recherche avec les autres pays ;236238239241242243244245246248249250251Thématique 3: Chaines des valeurs des légumineuses et/ou des fruits et légumes Acteurs du Gouvernement et Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Manque des unités de transformation des fruits et légumes ; • Difficultés de Conservation ; • Manque de déboucher • Perte de la production (attaque parasitaire, aléa climatique, pourrissement) • Insuffisance des eaux d’irrigation • Manque des infrastructures de conservation et de transformation • Inondations récurrentes liées au changement climatique • Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Créations des unités de transformation ; • Création des chaines de froid, utilisation des variétés résistantes ; • Renforcement des capacités des acteurs sur les techniques de conservation ; • Recherche de déboucher • Des fruits et légumes de bonne qualité sont suffisamment produits et écoulés Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Investir dans la création des unités de transformation, des chaines de froid et dans l’utilisation des variétés résistantes ; • Maitrise des techniques de conservations ; • Recherche de partenariat productif. • Réalisation des seuils d’épandage et d’infiltration • Construction d’infrastructures adéquates • Conditionnement des produits • Protection des berges236238239241242243244245246247248249251Thématique 4: Sécurité sanitaire des aliments le long des chaines de valeur Acteurs du Gouvernement, Région d’Agadez Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Manque de maitrise des techniques de productions ; • Utilisation des pesticides non homologués ; • Production sur des sols pollués par les radiations Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Bonne pratique des itinéraires techniques de production • Utilisations des pesticides homologués • Eviter la production sur les sols pollués • Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Renforcement et accompagnement des producteurs ; • Contrôler la vente des pesticides sur les marchés ; • Procéder à l’analyse des sols pour s’assurer de leurs états236238239241242243244245246248249250251Thématique 5: Financement des systèmes alimentaires Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? - Insuffisance de moyens financiers - Faible niveau d’organisation des producteurs en vie associative Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Mise à disposition de moyens financiers • Organisation des producteurs (OP) • Création des institutions au niveau local ; • Faciliter l’accès aux crédits ; Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Bancarisation des producteurs • Sensibilisation des producteurs sur l’importance des OP236238239241242243244245246247248249250251Thématique 6: Vulgarisation agricole au Niger (y compris e-agriculture) Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Insuffisance de ressources humaines, matérielles et financières • Faiblesse de la couverture réseau Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • La grande majorité des producteurs maitrise les nouvelles techniques agricoles Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Renforcement de capacité des services techniques, des professionnels et des privés • Extension du réseau236238239241242243244245248251Thématique 7: Chaîne de valeur du lait et des produits laitiers Acteurs non étatiques (ANE), Région d’Agadez Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Manque de moyens de collecte • Insuffisance dans la promotion des espèces à haute valeur productive Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Le lait et ses dérivés de qualité sont disponibles en quantité Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ? • Mise en place des unités de conservation, de transformation du lait et de ses sous-produits236238239242243244245248251Thématique 8: Chaîne de valeur du mil Q1 : Quels sont les problèmes actuellement rencontrés ? • Insuffisance des semences adaptées ; • Dégradation des sols ; • Faible taux d’utilisation des engrais ; • Faible mécanisation ; Q2 : Situation souhaitée dans 10 ans ou comment veut-on voir la situation améliorée dans 10 ans ? • Mécanisation de l’agriculture ; • Mise à disposition des engrais Q3 : Quelles actions (reforme ; intervention, investissement…) peuvent être mises en œuvre pour parvenir au changement voulu d’ici 10 ans ?237Information non disponible

2021-08-12 21:40:43205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40097/69

Yes

2021-08-12 22:25:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35283/2333447687131145170192194

0202530151015552025

Every body was allowed to speak their minds based on their own ideas and thoughts.Conscious efforts were made to bring multiple stakeholders from different fields to participate in the dialogue.Yes

Yes

234238239240241242243248249It explored the role that advanced innovations like biotechnology can be used to improve upon food systems.235238239240241242243248249There is the need for agricultural biotechnology to be recognised as one of the key tools that can revolutionarize agricultural production. GMOs and gene editing tools should be accepted in the agricultural value chain globally.236238239240241242243248Agricultural biotechnology is a crucial tool for transforming global food systems to meet the United Nation’s goal of ensuring zero hunger by 2030. Evidence abounds that biotechnology has had a positive overall impact on agriculture in the areas where it has been employed. If adopted more widely across the globe, it could be instrumental in meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2, which aims to end world hunger, boost nutrition and support agricultural sustainability within the next nine years. GMO technology is working for farmers. In Bangladesh for example, there's been a six-fold increase in income that farmers in Bangladesh have earned as a result of growing Bt eggplant, an important food crop genetically modified to resist the destructive fruit and shoot borer pest without the application of insecticides. More opportunities must be created for farmers to access crop biotechnology if the world’s food systems are to be transformed to meet the challenge of feeding the more than 811 million people who suffer hunger across the globe. It is high time for us all to come forward and allow people to innovate and use GM technology for food security and sustainability. Given the world’s high population growth, limited land for agricultural production and ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it will be more challenging to achieve the SDG on hunger, Hossain said, adding that all options that can help deal with food insecurity should be explored. Between 1996 and 2018 produced an additional 824 million tonnes of food, feed and fiber worldwide. He said farmers earned an extra US$225 billion in income by growing GM crops during that same period, while reducing the use of agricultural pesticides by 8.6 percent, resulting in a 19 percent cut in associated environmental impacts. The technology also helped reduce carbon emissions equal to taking 15.3 million cars off the road. Because GM crops increase yields, if they had not been available during that time some 24.2 million extra hectares of land would have been destroyed to make way for the same amount of crop production, he noted. There is a growing range of gene editing research that is focused on crops and traits that have been almost impossible to tackle using conventional breeding technologies. There is a quick rise in use of CRISPR technology in crop improvement to ensure agronomic value, food and feed quality, biotic stress tolerance, herbicide tolerance, abiotic stress adaptations, enhance breeding, etc. These applications are looking at problems that have been difficult to tackle over the years.237238239240241242243248249Enhanced advocacy for agricultural biotechnology is needed.

2021-08-12 22:30:44205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33855/61

838213953914017138545123904642061277178484363052798131141113210341558401654134250333471

Reconociendo la complejidad del sistema alimentario ecuatoriano se ha convocado el diálogo, desde un enfoque holístico considerando todas las vías de acción y palancas de cambio. Además reconociendo la necesidad de actuar con urgencia en cada uno de los desafíos identificados, se recogen propuestas y planteamientos de los actores para trabajar en el impulso de cambios necesarios.Se ha adoptado un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés realizando una convocatoria amplia a diversos actores, los mismos que han aportado sus puntos de vista, intereses y demandas en el marco de proponer elementos claves para lograr un sistema alimentario sostenible.Todos los principios de actuación que promueve la cumbre son relevantes, se recomienda considerarlos en el marco del diseño de los diálogos, y promover el asumir compromisos para hacer realidad las acciones que se identifican como prioritarias, desde coaliciones de actores y desde el rol del sector público como garante de derechos.

NoEl proceso nacional de diálogos en el país ha tenido como objetivo forjar vías hacia la transformación del sistema agro-alimentario en consonancia con los ODS. En este sentido se han desarrollado dos diálogos el primero tuvo como resultado la construcción de la visión al 2030 del Sistema Alimentario Sostenible del Ecuador e identificó los principales desafíos sobre los cuales se focalizó la atención para el segundo encuentro realizado el 22 de julio. El segundo diálogo se realizó en formato virtual, durante tres horas y media de trabajo. Se contó con 838 inscritos y una convocatoria masiva de productores/as convocados por las distritales provinciales del MAG, que facilitaron la participación en 550 puntos de conexión individual y colectiva. La participación fue amplia en las mesas de diálogo como en las plenarias. . Según la agenda hubo una apertura por parte de los representantes de las tres agencias del Sistema de Naciones Unidas que forman la Secretaría técnica de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en Ecuador (FAO, PMA, FIDA). Seguido se contó con una bienvenida al diálogo por parte de la autoridad nacional convocante que es el Viceministerio de Desarrollo Rural del MAG. A continuación se dio lugar a los espacios de trabajo por cada vía de acción y palanca de cambio. La clausura fue realizada por la Dirección de Cooperación Internacional del MAG en su rol de apoyo a la coordinación técnica de los diálogos. Los insumos presentados como parte de la apertura al diálogo sintetizaron los resultados de la visión construida, los objetivos por tema y las líneas de trabajo propuestas en cada una de las 5 vías de acción y 3 palancas de cambio consideradas durante el proceso de diálogos nacionales. El trabajo de las mesas de diálogo se realizó con la colaboración de los equipos de apoyo conformados por las agencias ONU que son parte de la secretaría técnica de los diálogos, incluyendo al PNUD con Proamazonia, para facilitar y orientar las preguntas generadoras. Además, el personal del MAG apoyó en la secretaría de cada grupo de trabajo y fue el encargado de sistematizar los aportes por cada mesa. Durante el proceso preparatorio del segundo diálogo se delimitó las temáticas, los insumos a presentarse y las preguntas de análisis en cada una de las mesas, esto fue un trabajo colectivo entre los equipos y la facilitadora nacional realizando para ello varias sesiones virtuales de trabajo y coordinaciones bilaterales con los facilitadores. En las mesas se contó con presentaciones introductorias sobre cada desafío, considerando los avances en los grupos de expertos del proceso mundial de la cumbre, insumos país en la temática, experiencias relevantes y en algunos casos se partió de varios insumos producidos durante el primer diálogo que fueron procesados para avanzar en definiciones. Luego se presentaron las (2-3) preguntas generadoras del diálogo que motivaron la participación. El diálogo en cada grupo fue promovido por el facilitador/especialista, se contó con el apoyo de 1 ó 2 co-facilitadores cuya tarea era apoyar la visualización de las ideas en un mural y con un secretario que llevó el registro de los aportes en el formato de memoria. Metodológicamente se continuó con el uso de la herramienta Mural y a que incrementó las posibilidades de participación a 3: de forma escrita en el mural, chat del zoom y de forma verbal. En las mesas en las que se tuvo mayor cantidad de participantes se abrió un canal adicional con el uso de google form para recoger aportes a las preguntas generadoras. Se reconoció por parte de los facilitadores de las mesas que la participación fue muy activa y amplia durante el diálogo y diversa debido a que diferentes tipologías de actores expresaron sus opiniones generando un espacio de igualdad; sin embargo, el tiempo fue corto en algunas mesas por la complejidad de las temáticas. Sigue siendo un reto recoger contribuciones verbales debido a la gran cantidad de participantes por cada una de las mesas. La plataforma digital (Mural) facilitó el trabajo para recoger múltiples aportes, aunque se han realizado sugerencias para optimizar el uso de la misma.

234238239240241242244245246248249251El proceso de diálogos nacionales se concibió con un enfoque sistémico del sistema alimentario ecuatoriano por lo cual se continuó con el trabajo en ocho mesas conformando grupos de análisis y construcción colectiva enmarcados en cinco vías de acción y tres palancas de cambio propuestas para la Cumbre: 1) acceso a alimentos, 2) consumo sostenible, 3) producción favorable a la naturaleza, 4) medios de vida equitativos, 5) resiliencia, 6) innovación, 7) finanzas y 8) género. La propuesta mostró una continuidad en la reflexión, construcción y definiciones. En el segundo diálogo la temática general fue: profundizar en cómo superar los principales desafíos del Sistema agroalimentario ecuatoriano que se identificaron en el primer diálogo. Las temáticas profundizadas en cada mesa fueron: -Mesa 1: Acceso a alimentos. Tema de debate: Malnutrición y cultura alimentaria, hábitos, patrones de consumo y acceso a dietas saludables. -Mesa 2: Consumo sostenible. Tema de debate: Alimentación escolar vinculada a la agricultura familiar campesina (AFC), ¿hacia dónde va el modelo en Ecuador? -Mesa 3: Producción favorable al ambiente. Tema de debate: Sistemas de producción sustentables: agroecología, producción limpia, alimentos azules, etc. -Mesa 4: Medios de vida equitativos. Tema de debate: Procesamiento, comercialización y asociatividad. -Mesa 5: Resiliencia. Tema de debate: La protección social reactiva a emergencias para asegurar la funcionalidad permanente de los sistemas alimentarios. -Mesa 6: Innovación. Tema de debate: Innovación social e institucional para el sistema alimentario sostenible ecuatoriano, valorando los saberes y sistemas alimentarios ancestrales. -Mesa 7: Finanzas. Tema de debate: Los tipos de productos e incentivos financieros y su funcionamiento para alcanzar un sistema alimentario sostenible. -Mesa 8: Género. Tema de debate: Rol de las mujeres en las diferentes etapas de vinculación del sistema agroalimentario: brechas, desigualdades, incentivos. Las mesas 6, 7 y 8 tuvieron un enfoque transversal, es decir desde su entrada temática incluyeron en su reflexión las 5 vías de acción de la cumbre.235238239240241242245248249251Algunos de los aspectos específicos que se han identificado que requieren mayor profundización son: -El procesamiento de los alimentos y el valor nutricional que los consumidores deberían conocer. -Distribución de alimentos, precio justo y alternativas para romper las largas cadenas de intermediación que recortan la rentabilidad de los pequeños productores dentro de los sistemas alimentarios y cadenas de producción. -Vinculación de asociaciones de pequeños productores de la AFC como proveedores de alimentos a los programas de protección social, tal es el caso de la alimentación escolar (MINEDUC) y de los centros de desarrollo infantil (MIES). -Reforma urgente (a través de acuerdos intersectoriales concretos) a la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Nacional de Contratación Pública (LOSNCP) para mejorar el sistema de compras públicas para el acceso de las asociaciones de pequeños productores de la AFC. -Estrategias para la implementación de leyes nacionales vigentes relacionadas con la ley de soberanía alimentaria, ley de suelos, agua, sanidad agropecuaria, agrocalidad y Agrobiodiversidad. -Tecnologías que permitan cuantificar la mitigación de emisiones de GEI en la producción, energías verdes y su impacto en la producción sostenible. -Soluciones / acciones para fortalecer los servicios ecosistémicos o adaptación basada en ecosistemas para enfrentar el cambio climático, la seguridad alimentaria y el riesgo de desastres. -Digitalización del campo. -Nichos de mercados especializados con herramientas inclusivas e innovadoras de comercialización. -Fragmentación de la tierra como una práctica que puede ser negativa para la producción sostenible. -Articulación entre el sistema nacional descentralizado de gestión de riesgos y el sistema nacional de inclusión y equidad social como elemento clave para que el sistema nacional alimentario sea parte de los mecanismos de preparación y prevención ante desastres y de adaptación ante el Cambio Climático, contando con un registro único de damnificados por emergencias y/o desastres a nivel nacional. -La innovación como impulsor promueve la eficacia de la sostenibilidad alimentaria y en sí, de todos los elementos que apuntan al desarrollo rural y al sistema alimentario sostenible, adaptando ejemplos de innovación exitosos para que se identifiquen de una forma adecuada y más aterrizada elementos para la toma correcta de decisiones y el planteamiento de estrategias. -Se considera imperativo analizar detalladamente las condiciones en las que se otorgan los productos financieros sectoriales, actualmente; a fin de buscar mecanismos que faciliten el acceso a los usuarios de los créditos y las condiciones específicas de cada producto. -Búsqueda y articulación de acciones con actores estratégicos para impulsar acciones afirmativas de género y el empoderamiento de las mujeres, reconociendo y diseñando planes de trabajo que garanticen la igualdad de derechos entre los hombres y las mujeres que son parte de los sistemas agroalimentarios. Finalmente dada la composición de participantes en el segundo diálogo se ve necesario ahondar en el rol de la empresa privada/ agroindustria como actores en la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios por tanto avanzar en la definición de compromisos desde los cuales la empresa privada puede aportar a sistemas alimentarios más sostenibles y la pertinencia de acuerdos públicos privados.236238239247248249251Mesa 1: Acceso a alimentos. Tema de debate: Malnutrición y cultura alimentaria, hábitos, patrones de consumo y acceso a dietas saludables. El acceso a los alimentos saludables enfrenta grandes desafíos que involucran a todos los actores de la cadena agroalimentaria, desde la planificación, el costo de producción, la comercialización, medidas de control y regulación de alimentos ultra procesados, hasta la concientización del consumidor para elegir alimentos frescos, inocuos y culturalmente apropiados. Es por ello, que se deben implementar estrategias que aporten a mejorar el acceso a dietas sanas en cuanto a nutrientes e inocuidad y con pertinencia cultural, considerando la articulación entre los actores locales para trabajar en conjunto por un mismo propósito, así como también, en la aplicación de normas, incentivos y control de la producción agropecuaria en el país. Para facilitar el acceso a alimentos más saludables, se podría generar incentivos a los productores a fin de que cuenten con la certificación de buenas prácticas agropecuarias, cumpliendo con todos los parámetros de inocuidad. Para garantizar que los consumidores adquieran alimentos frescos e inocuos se recomienda tecnificar la producción y transporte de los alimentos a través del fortalecimiento de capacidades, asociatividad y líneas de créditos para acceder a este tipo de equipamiento. El relevo intergeneracional en el campo con la inclusión de carreras tecnológicas de diversas áreas permitirá reforzar las actividades productivas, de transformación y de comercialización, contribuyendo a dietas nutritivas, diversas y accesibles a nivel nacional. Sensibilizar y motivar a las nuevas generaciones en continuar con la producción en el campo, a través de incentivos, seguros agrícolas y créditos diferenciados que respondan a sus contextos, contribuirá a prevenir la pérdida de productores de la AFC como actores principales proveedores de la alimentación del país. Visibilizar el rol de la mujer en toda la cadena productiva, permite reconocerla como eje fundamental en la dinamización de la economía local, además como pilar central en la formación de los patrones alimentarios del hogar. Por tanto, contribuir en su educación asegurará la salud de los hogares mejorando el acceso a dietas nutritivas, inocuas, diversas y culturales. Fortalecer las reformas o generar nuevas leyes que controlen la calidad de los alimentos en cuanto a composición nutricional e inocuidad favorecerá en la salud de los ecuatorianos. Sensibilizar y educar a productores y consumidores en valorar los alimentos naturales, nutritivos, locales e inocuos contribuye en la prevención y reducción de la malnutrición como causante directo de enfermedades no transmisibles, incrementando la mortalidad, además de generar altos costos para el país. Fortalecer la articulación entre diferentes sectores (público, privado, academia y sociedad civil) generará proyectos sostenibles alineados a un mismo fin y construir capacidades desde la producción hasta el consumo responsable.236239246247249Mesa 2: Consumo sostenible. Tema de debate: Alimentación escolar vinculada a la agricultura familiar campesina (AFC), ¿hacia dónde va el modelo en Ecuador?. Se ha identificado como oportunidad la normativa vigente de la Ley Orgánica de Alimentación Escolar (LOAE) que especifica un presupuesto para la compra de productos provenientes de la AFC; sin embargo se requiere impulsar reformas urgentes (a través de acuerdos intersectoriales concretos) de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Nacional de Contratación Pública (LOSNCP), para lograr que los pequeños productores que presentan dificultades para acceder puedan conocer, capacitarse, cumplir requisitos y participar de los procesos de compra pública. De este modo, se generaría el vínculo entre la oferta de la AFC con la demanda de alimentos por parte del Estado contribuyendo de manera directa al fortalecimiento socioeconómico de los productores de la AFC y el impulso del consumo local de alimentos. Otra oportunidad es la posibilidad de ampliar la demanda del estado para productos de la AFC hacia la provisión a los centros de desarrollo infantil (niños de 0 a 3 años) que maneja el MIES. Por el lado de la oferta, los requerimientos de la compra pública al ser una demanda definida con precios justos generaría incentivos para los productores de la AFC para la planificación de su producción local de alimentos frescos y saludables a gran escala con aplicación de BPA, para fortalecer su asociatividad y asegurar la calidad, cantidad y continuidad de las entregas y organizar la cadena de logística para acopiar, almacenar y distribuir los productos para cumplir con las entregas. Por el lado de la demanda, es necesario fortalecer la cultura alimentaria local y saludable que es una de las principales dificultades, promover la participación comunitaria activa en el sistema de provisión (padres de familia, agricultores, docentes, directores de escuelas, autoridades locales), difundir las guías alimentarias con las que cuenta el país. Hay varias experiencias de alimentación escolar en otros países que pueden aportar para no repetir errores y adaptar estrategias. Es imprescindible rescatar la identidad de los diferentes miembros del sistema alimentario y lograr un empoderamiento de todos los actores en los modelos descentralizados de Alimentación Escolar, tanto de beneficiarios y productores, con igualdad de oportunidades. Además hay que mejorar o cambiar de manera sostenible los hábitos alimentarios de los niños, como mecanismo para revalorizar la cultura alimentaria y el respeto por el medio ambiente y sus componentes. Para ello, es necesaria la concientización de toda la población beneficiaria, y hablar de la alimentación en todos los ámbitos, es decir no solo con estudiantes sino también con padres de familia que son beneficiarios indirectos. Los modelos descentralizados no deben ser burocráticos y su enfoque debe ser territorial-inclusivo -para potenciar las oportunidades de desarrollo de emprendimientos/ asociaciones/ cooperativas de productores de la agricultura familiar campesina cercanos a los sitios en los que se tenga que suministrar- y participativo para identificar problemas en la cadena de producción y suministro del Sistema Nacional de Alimentación Escolar. Se busca que tanto el gobierno central como el local sean actores fundamentales para impulsar el sistema nacional de alimentación escolar. Y desde la política pública hay que promover acuerdos interministeriales a largo plazo y ejes de acción conjunta. Es necesario además una coordinación interinstitucional con la participación de GADs, MIES, Ministerio de Educación, MSP, MAG y productores AFC. Hay que evaluar la posibilidad de incluir al sector privado, pues tiene buenas prácticas que se pueden implementar en un modelo a gran escala. La academia cumple un rol importante en la educación alimentaria nutricional para las poblaciones beneficiarias y productoras, es un actor importante con el que hay que vincularse para mejorar los hábitos alimentarios.236240244246248249Mesa 3: Producción favorable al ambiente. Tema de debate: Sistemas de producción sustentables: agroecología, producción limpia, alimentos azules, etc. La producción sostenible contribuye a la adaptación y mitigación al cambio climático regulando el estado del recurso y su biomasa, lo que se complementa con la aplicación de un enfoque ecosistémico, de tal manera que se logre el desarrollo sustentable y sostenible que garantice el acceso a la alimentación, trabajando en armonía con los principios y derechos hacia los usuarios, cuidando el medio ambiente y respetando los conocimientos y formas de producción tradicionales y ancestrales. Se plantean algunas acciones con mayor impacto positivo: Fortalecimiento del trabajo interinstitucional para fomento de producción sostenible y libre de deforestación. Desarrollo de tecnologías que permitan cuantificar la mitigación de emisiones de GEI en la AFC para generar incentivos mediante mecanismos de financiamiento climático, tomando en cuenta inventarios de GEI con énfasis en los procesos de fertilización (sintética) en fincas y posterior reducción de emisiones con implementación de mejores prácticas, investigación y colaboración con la academia. Producción bajo enfoque de sistemas agroforestales, ganadería climáticamente inteligente y regenerativa, con plataformas digitales para conocer los GEI que emiten estos sistemas, vinculados a la planificación territorial. Estos sistemas permiten la regeneración del suelo, producción de alimentos nutritivos, disminución de costos de producción y recuperación de los ecosistemas. Mayor inversión en investigación, tecnología e innovación. Proyectos Verdes en las áreas agropecuarias, ambientales, biología, ecología y biodiversidad. Promoción de energías verdes y fomento de altos niveles de reforestación. Respecto a cómo logramos dar el salto hacia una masificación de sistemas de producción sustentable se ve necesario que surja como parte de una política nacional, impulsada desde acuerdos interinstitucionales y que esté acorde a los compromisos internacionales en el marco de REDD+ y los ODS, instrumentos jurídicos todos, que promuevan el uso de insumos orgánicos y naturales y estimulen la producción limpia mediante incentivos y subsidios a los campesinos. Algunas de las estrategias que se deben promover: Certificación de BPAs, con el reconocimiento por parte del consumidor. Sistemas de producción agroecológicos, agroforestales y agrosilvopastoriles sin monocultivos. Reducción de uso de plaguicidas y fortalecimiento de las capacidades para elaboración de bioinsumos y cultivos orgánicos. Implementación de la agricultura de precisión con uso de sensores remotos (imágenes de satélite) que permitan ahorro en fertilizantes. Control del ingreso de fertilizantes e insumos importados. Restauración de fuentes de agua y biodiversidad con un enfoque ecosistémico; considerando los principios y derechos hacia los usuarios respetando los conocimientos y formas de producción tradicionales y ancestrales. Fortalecimiento de una educación técnica eficiente para la producción sostenible y fomentar el interés de jóvenes en carreras relacionadas con la agricultura orgánica, agronegocios y medio ambiente, que permitan el apoyo con asistencia técnica a los productores, manejo de tecnología y alfabetización digital. Digitalización del campo e implementación de sistemas de trazabilidad a lo largo de la cadena de suministro (blockchain). Fortalecimiento de la asociatividad entre productores, así como de la generación de alianzas estratégicas para obtener mejores rendimientos productivos, de calidad y en términos de negociación. Reducción de la intermediación en la comercialización y lograr precios diferenciados, acordes a la calidad y certificaciones. Plan de promoción para productos verdes y difusión de los beneficios de producir y consumir productos sostenibles, orgánicos o naturales, desde el punto de vista económico, nutricional, ambiental, medicinal, social y cultural. Creación de una red nacional de productores de alimentos orgánicos y agroecológicos eliminando la estandarización de la producción mediante la entrega de kits.236241243246248249Mesa 4: Medios de vida equitativos. Tema de debate: Procesamiento, comercialización y asociatividad Sobre los temas interrelacionados de la agregación de valor, comercialización y asociatividad, el mensaje principal es que los pequeños productores/as rurales de la AFC claman para el reconocimiento de la importancia de su rol como responsables de una proporción importante de la producción de alimentos en Ecuador que debería concretarse en el apoyo del Estado para que sus medios de vida sean realmente equitativos e inclusivos. Las barreras identificadas son la intermediación excesiva que reduce rentabilidad a los productores, inseguridad de precios justos para sus productos, competencia desleal por contrabando de países vecinos, desconocimiento de los requerimientos específicos de la demanda que no jala la producción y transformación, poco desarrollo de mecanismos de articulación inclusivos de pequeños productores a grandes empresas para acceder a mercados, la infraestructura y tecnología son insuficientes y costosas para la postcosecha, transformación, transporte, almacenaje y comercialización. Por otro lado, los conceptos y normas de asociatividad promovidos por el Estado (EPS), no se adaptan a las formas y costumbres que se dan en las comunidades y zonas rurales. Esto afecta al funcionamiento de las asociaciones (“asociatividad desechable”) que sólo dura mientras exista una posibilidad de acceder a recursos públicos y no permite construir relaciones de confianza entre socios y economías de escala, ni acceder a mercados en condiciones más ventajosas. Además las normas y regulaciones del estado dificultan la agregación de valor por parte de la AFC debido a que no logran cumplir los requerimientos para empresas agroalimentarias y se convierte en una barrera de entrada para acceder a mercados de mayor valor. Soluciones propuestas A través de la creación de un marco de incentivos y normas diferenciadas y preferentes para la AFC, de la disminución de los costos de producción, control de la competencia desleal, acceso a tecnologías e insumos mayormente sostenibles, impulsar la producción con agregación de valor y de calidad, alianzas comerciales y negocios inclusivos con empresas ancla en condiciones ganar-ganar, fortalecimiento de cadenas y circuitos cortos de comercialización en mercados locales y/o sin intermediación, acceso a mercados diferenciados, manejados en un marco de asociatividad funcional y de mayor poder de negociación de los productores, se pueden crear mayores opciones de trabajo digno - inclusivo, con salarios justos y una redistribución equitativa para todo el grupo familiar, especialmente para las mujeres. Todo esto aporta a la inclusión de grupos vulnerables, reducción de pobreza y migración, a la sostenibilidad ambiental, económica y social, para, finalmente, “no dejar a nadie atrás!”. Respecto a la competencia desleal es necesario modificar leyes que permitan un control efectivo en las fronteras, especialmente en lo referente a los productos agropecuarios. En síntesis acercar la inteligencia de mercados, el conocimiento de la demanda, la asistencia técnica e innovación para cumplir con requerimientos de calidad y promover un mercado seguro y justo, es un incentivo suficiente para los productores de la AFC. Respecto a los modelos asociativos las instituciones deben reformular los modelos que se promueven, buscando mayor congruencia con la realidad social, cultural y económica de la AFC. Una solución sería reformar el modelo de Economía Popular y Solidaria (EPS), regido por la LOEPS y normado y controlado por la SEPS. En alternativa, una posibilidad sería “Basar la asociatividad productiva en el Art. 15 de la LOEPS y en la promoción de cooperativas productivas que se ajusten a las condiciones culturales de las y los productores”. Para promover la asociatividad, transformación y comercialización de la AFC es necesario una coordinación interinstitucional y mesas técnicas público-privado con la participación de GADs, SEPS, MAG, productores de la AFC, Ministerio de la Producción, Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Banca pública y privada, INIAP, ARCSA, Agrocalidad, INEN y empresas privadas del sector.236242244246249Mesa 5: Resiliencia. Tema de debate: La protección social reactiva a emergencias para asegurar la funcionalidad permanente de los sistemas alimentarios. Los sistemas de protección social son una herramienta eficaz para lograr la resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios, a través de la reducción de vulnerabilidades antes, durante y después de emergencias y/o desastres, sin embargo, su aplicación y beneficios para el sistema nacional alimentario como medida de adaptación y/o afrontamiento a mediano o largo plazo no está totalmente entendida a nivel nacional. Esto implica una articulación intersectorial entre los sistemas de gestión de riesgos y de protección social. Es necesario crear espacios para divulgar, generar evidencia y fortalecer las capacidades nacionales para la inclusión de los sistemas de protección social en emergencias y desastres informados en análisis de riesgos y adaptación al cambio climático. El desarrollo y operación de los sistemas de protección social reactiva durante emergencias y/o desastres son necesarios para fortalecer la resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios locales y proteger los medios de vida de las personas vulnerables. Por lo que se requiere que, el estado planifique mayor inversión en los análisis de riesgos, sistemas de alerta temprana y sistemas de información técnica para la generación de escenarios, además es necesario fortalecer, adaptar y transparentar los programas de protección social actuales para que sean más inclusivos con todos los grupos vulnerables y que puedan reaccionar a los cambios que se dan en las emergencias y aumentar la confianza de la sociedad. Para lograr sistemas alimentarios más resilientes y sostenibles con una funcionalidad permanente es necesario que la aplicación de los sistemas de protección social durante emergencias y desastres tengan en consideración un enfoque de riesgos sistémicos y multi amenazas que permita además una atención integral a las personas más vulnerables. Hay que impulsar además la articulación a través de protocolos que mejoren la comunicación con los actores locales, comunidades y Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados (GAD) Municipales para la identificación de los roles y capacidades que cada uno tiene para reaccionar y actuar proactivamente ante los desastres o emergencias. Es importante contar con una legislación que contemple la atención para emergencias (antes, durante y después) y garantizar que en la actualización del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo se establezcan objetivos y políticas para alcanzar un sistema alimentario resiliente.236238239240241242244246248249Mesa 6: Innovación. Tema de debate: Innovación social e institucional para el sistema alimentario sostenible ecuatoriano, valorando los saberes y sistemas alimentarios ancestrales. La innovación en el sistema alimentario sostenible articulada entre los conocimientos de expertos y de las y los productores agropecuarios (saberes ancestrales), es vital para alcanzar la seguridad alimentaria de Ecuador. Esta articulación y conexión entre los actores nacionales y del territorio puede ser posible a través del uso de medios digitales, de la mejora en la asistencia técnica y extensión rural y la valoración de conocimientos ancestrales, del desarrollo de programas de incentivos y recompensas y, del planteamiento y ejecución de políticas públicas. Estos elementos son importantes para lograr una correcta difusión de tecnologías e innovaciones, para lograr mecanizar, digitalizar y automatizar procesos; para generar espacios de comercialización y diálogo entre actores públicos y privados (nacionales y locales), para crear redes y ecosistemas de innovación: institucionales y sociales. Todo esto, con el fin de brindar herramientas que faciliten una producción sostenible, resiliente al cambio climático, e inclusiva para los sistemas alimentarios. La producción alimentaria, impulsada con la innovación, debe estar acorde con la situación actual y futura de los actores e interesados. Este proceso debe considerar a la academia, a los centros de investigación y los saberes ancestrales de los pueblos y nacionalidades como actores clave para el desarrollo de insumos y actividades para el fortalecimiento de los sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles del país. Con los impulsores de la innovación identificados en el diálogo y que se listan a continuación, se espera fortalecer el ecosistema de innovación y a los actores que son parte de este. Impulsar alianzas con actores claves como la academia, ONGs, cooperantes internacionales, empresa pública y privada, productores, etc. y con una eficiente articulación de parte de estos se fomentará una correcta vinculación con el mercado nacional e internacional a través del impulso de la innovación, la tecnología y los conocimientos. Los impulsores de la innovación para el sistema alimentario ecuatoriano considerando las pistas de acción son: -Acceso a alimentos: Condiciones adecuadas para el acopio, transporte y distribución de alimentos con mayor eficacia de la cadena de frio. Creación de puntos de venta de productos agropecuarios donde no exista la intervención de intermediarios. -Consumo sostenible: Aprovechamiento de subproductos derivados de la agricultura y ganadería. Normativas regionales que promuevan el consumo de alimentos locales. Determinación de períodos de veda en captura para peces amazónicos. Controlar, aprovechar y reducir los desperdicios generados en toda la cadena productiva. -Producción favorable al ambiente: Implementación de producción sostenible haciendo uso de innovaciones tecnológicas. Control de calidad para la producción de alimentos inocuos para el comercio nacional e internacional. Investigación de productos naturales y fito bióticos para tratamientos preventivos y curativos en especies acuícolas nativas y en producción pecuaria. Aprovechamiento de productos locales para la elaboración de balanceado para producción pecuaria y de peces. Equipos e insumos que permitan una producción sostenible. -Medios de vida sostenibles: Rescate de los saberes ancestrales y vincularlo con el sector turístico. Creación de cadenas de valor para los cultivos y nuevas técnicas de procesamiento de alimentos. Regulación y control de la sanidad de los productos alimenticios ecuatorianos. Mejora en el acceso a capital semilla y créditos, disminuyendo la cantidad de requisitos inaccesibles para un agricultor. Ingreso a mercados internacionales. -Resiliencia: Diseño de medidas de adaptación al cambio climático a partir del diálogo de saberes y los avances tecnológicos. Mejora en el acceso a aplicaciones para medir efectos de cambio climático. Por ejemplo las huellas de carbono de cada producto.236238239240241242244245249Mesa 7: Finanzas. Tema de debate: Los tipos de productos e incentivos financieros y su funcionamiento para alcanzar un sistema alimentario sostenible. A fin de impulsar el sistema alimentario sostenible, el Ecuador requiere incentivar el crédito agropecuario replanteando la oferta y su contenido, entre otros: impulsando la producción orgánica; desarrollando plataformas para el comercio comunitario justo; rediseñando la oferta de productos e incentivos financieros, que se enlacen al mercado de valores; trabajando fuertemente en incentivos tributarios e implementación de seguros agropecuarios y fortaleciendo los esquemas de economía popular y solidaria y apoyando a la agricultura familiar y campesina. Se debe profundizar el debate con un análisis de la normativa vigente en cuanto a crédito e incentivos financieros y no financieros que se pueden desarrollar para la promoción de medios de vida sostenibles y sistemas agroalimentarios que se identificaron durante el diálogo organizados por cada vía de acción son: -Acceso alimentos: Crédito para recuperar cultivos tradicionales en peligro de desaparecer (chocho, mashua, oca, etc). Crédito para desarrollo de plataformas de comercio comunitario. -Consumo sostenible: Crédito para infraestructura de producción agropecuaria/ agroindustrial. Crédito para producción orgánica y limpia. -Producción favorable al ambiente: Crédito para infraestructura de producción agropecuaria/ agroindustrial. Crédito para el recambio de producción, mejoramiento de la producción y tecnologías amigables con el medio ambiente. Créditos verdes para sistemas silvopastoriles con doble propósito. Crédito para el acceso a productos forestales maderables y no maderables, bioeconomía. Crédito para obtención de certificaciones de calidad, inocuidad y sostenibilidad, incluyendo mejoras en infraestructura. -Medios de vida sostenibles: Líneas de crédito para insumos agrícolas, ganaderos e importación de maquinaria agrícola; para implementar y fortalecer bancos o casas de semillas campesinas; para agroturismo y reforestación; para fomentar procesos socio organizativos, monitoreo comunitario para conservación de bosques y producción sostenible; para centros de acopio con fines de exportación. -Resiliencia: Líneas de crédito para proyectos de manejo forestal sostenible que garantice productos maderables legales, fomentar procesos socio organizativos a través de monitoreo comunitario para conservación de bosques y producción sostenible, para adquirir maquinaria que transforme el excremento en abono. Implementación de seguros agropecuarios. Incentivos tributarios para la inversión en investigación y las alianzas público privadas para la diversificación de la producción. Con la finalidad de impulsar el desarrollo de la oferta de productos crediticios en el Ecuador, se debe considerar programas de capacitación y seguimiento técnico, a través de alianzas con instituciones financieras, academia e instituciones públicas; considerando la búsqueda de mercados nacionales e internacionales, para la comercialización de productos; mientras, se debe implementar políticas públicas de manera integral y articulada. Siendo el interés de que los actores del sistema alimentario ecuatoriano tengan garantizado el acceso a los productos financieros, se deben hacer cambios en el marco jurídico que promulguen nuevas alternativas de inversión, como bonos de género, bonos verdes, líneas de crédito que financien sistemas de trazabilidad, planes de negocios realizables, con seguimiento técnico; articulando un trabajo conjunto con el ejecutivo, los GAD en sus tres niveles de gobierno, la academia, ONG nacionales e internacionales y otros actores; enfatizando en el cooperativismo; mejorando los incentivos y creando fondos de capital de riesgo; sin descuidar el fortalecimiento de la educación financiera y digital. Así, los productos financieros que se propongan, pueden y deben ser un motor que favorezca la recuperación de la crisis económica post pandemia y la transición a un sistema alimentario sostenible.236238239240241247249250251Mesa 8: Género. Tema de debate: Rol de las mujeres en las diferentes etapas de vinculación del sistema agroalimentario: brechas, desigualdades, incentivos. Durante el diálogo realizado, se recogió que, es necesario reconocer y visibilizar a las mujeres vinculadas a los sistemas alimentarios, mismas que cumplen un triple rol: productivo, reproductivo (familiar) y comunitario. Son quienes contribuyen con el desarrollo rural, mientras que por otro se garantiza la producción, transformación, comercialización y consumo (autoconsumo) de alimentos. Se identificaron brechas y desigualdades que tienen las mujeres para el acceso y control de recursos y el empoderamiento en el sistema alimentario ecuatoriano referidos a: -Producción: participación en procesos de capacitación y limitado acceso al conocimiento de prácticas sostenibles, pérdida de biodiversidad y semillas, sobrecarga de trabajo en actividades productivas, acceso a la propiedad de la tierra e insumos para la producción, altos costos en los insumos y acceso al crédito. -Transformación: acceso y uso de adelantos tecnológicos apropiados, ausencia de capacitación y formación técnica para la transformación y los centros de capacitación se encuentran distantes y no consideran realidades y horarios específicos; la transformación en la mayoría de los casos es empírica debido a que no existen procesos de capacitación y menos que tengan en cuenta las barreras que enfrentan las mujeres para su participación.; por el limitado acceso de las mujeres al crédito, ellas usan estrategias manuales de transformación de los productos. -Comercialización: precios no son equitativos, alta presencia de intermediación; limitado acceso a herramientas y capacidades en negociación, promoción y comercialización de productos por parte de las mujeres; limitado acceso a internet y redes de apoyo de comercialización; no existen espacios de comercialización diferenciados; limitado acceso a educación financiera o manejo de finanzas sostenibles (para reinversión de recursos) y crédito; -Consumo/autoconsumo: en los mercados locales hay desconocimiento de tendencias de consumo; desconocimiento de las propiedades nutricionales de los productos; ausencia de capacitación y sensibilización para el consumo; ausencia de incentivos para el consumo de productos saludables y una dieta nutritiva. En este marco, es necesario trabajar en: -Incorporar género de manera transversal en TODAS las mesas de diálogo en los SAS, generando SAS con las mismas condiciones y oportunidades, facilitando servicios orientados a las necesidades específicas de las mujeres. -Fortalecer a la par: las posibilidades de “agencia” y capacidades blandas, así como fortalecimiento de capacidades, productivas, para la transformación, comercialización y consumo, así como acceso a información. -El empoderamiento de las mujeres se logrará trabajando en el acceso a información/ capacitación, revalorizando el trabajo reproductivo. -Trabajar en normas sociales para hombres, con el fin de romper las estructuras sociales patriarcales y machistas. Ampliar su sensibilización, o el cambio de patrones sobre los problemas de la desigualdad. -Fomentar los aspectos de asociatividad para la producción, transformación y comercialización de la producción. -Articulación de políticas públicas y de instituciones para un real impacto en el territorio, pues “hay políticas, pero no se aterrizan a lo local”, así se garantizará que funcionen y se apropien las mujeres. -Fortalecer la política pública especializada: Estrategia Nacional Agropecuaria para Mujeres Rurales (ENARM) y la territorialización -Establecimiento de presupuestos reales que permitan el empoderamiento de las mujeres dentro de los sistemas alimentarios. -Visibilizar el trabajo de las mujeres en los sistemas alimentarios a través de datos estadísticos, estudios lo que facilite tomar acciones en el marco de la protección social y corresponsabilidad con los hombres. -Tener sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, sólo será factible si logramos la igualdad y el empoderamiento de las mujeres en la producción, transformación, comercialización y consumo.237239240241242245248251En la temática de alimentación escolar vinculada a la agricultura familiar, los participantes desde el ámbito de sus competencias generaron diferentes puntos de vista principalmente respecto a los desafíos. Así los representantes de asociaciones y productores independientes mencionaron la inseguridad para la comercialización de los productos a precios justos; los representantes de la academia, sugieren que es importante revalorizar la educación alimentaria, mejorar los hábitos alimentarios e involucrar a todos los beneficiarios directos e indirectos. Desde el sector público se muestran preocupados por el tema de distribución y precios justos, para lo cual sugieren urgentemente empoderamiento de todos los actores involucrados en el sistema de alimentación escolar, así como también reformas urgentes a las normativas vigentes. En la mesa de trabajo de sistemas de producción sustentables se pudo colegir el dilema de la agricultura de precisión vs la producción sostenible. En la mesa de medios de vida se reiteró en las limitaciones que se tienen en temas asociativos y comerciales manifestando casos concretos en los cuales se revela esta problemática. Respecto a la mesa de resiliencia se ratificó que los sistemas de protección social han demostrado ser una herramienta útil durante emergencias y desastres (Terremoto 16 A y COVID-19) sin embargo todavía no existe una política clara que permita el uso eficiente de estos mecanismos, no solo para los procesos de respuesta sino también durante las fases de preparación, recuperación, y reducción de riesgos. En el país existe una gran brecha de información y evidencia sobre el uso de los mecanismos de protección social y su factibilidad como medida de adaptación al cambio climático. En la mesa de innovación al ser un proceso que actúa de forma transversal sobre los ejes de acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos, consumo sostenible, producción favorable de la naturaleza, medios de vida equitativos y resiliencia, se concluyó que tiene un papel impulsor y apalancador de cambios globales. En este sentido, la innovación social, económica y tecnológica, deben formar parte de todos los eslabones de las cadenas productivas como un ente positivo que asegure la competitividad, se adapte al cambio y aporte valor agregado a la producción de alimentos. De hecho, durante el diálogo se lo trató como un punto convergente y clave para garantizar modalidades de consumo y producción sostenibles. En la mesa de finanzas hubo consensos en la necesidad de desarrollar productos financieros en condiciones favorables (tasas, plazos, seguros, etc.) para los sujetos de crédito en función a las cadenas de valor y realidad del sector para el desarrollo del sistema agroalimentario sostenible. En la mesa de género se identificó la necesidad de promover y fortalecer el empoderamiento femenino como la única vía que permite a las mujeres participar y mejorar en todos los aspectos de su vida personal, social y productiva para lo cual se identificó la necesidad de la transversalización del enfoque de género, el empoderamiento, la lucha contra la violencia y la igualdad de derechos de las mujeres dentro de todas las vías de acción vinculadas a la cumbre de sistemas alimentarios. El enfoque de género se volverá realidad si se definen acciones específicas, procesos y metodologías concretas en cada parte del sistema alimentario . Además es necesario promover alianzas para que las políticas, programas, y proyectos transverzalicen el enfoque de género, territorialicen la problemática y de esta manera el trabajo articulado sea la vía para brindar las respuestas a las necesidades de las mujeres. Finalmente, otro de los aspectos de diálogo y análisis es la demanda de la sociedad civil para la aplicación y potencialización de las normas ya existentes, ejemplo, la Estrategia Nacional Agropecuaria para Mujeres Rurales. Aspecto que pone en diálogo la gestión y administración de recursos (económicos, técnicos, etc.), para una real intervención que fomente la participación y el empoderamiento de las mujeres rurales y promueva enfoques transformadores de género dentro de los sistemas agroalimentarios.

2021-08-12 22:31:18205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40102/69

21504213038593122641315101215911341110353889342187167275232161526

Following the 5 Action Track Dialogues, the UN FSS pre-summit National Dialogue was divided into 3 day events of three categories beginning from 21st July, 2021. The theme - Pathways for local food system transformation: How to make them more inclusive. Day one event was curated by National Convenor, Permanent Secretary for Agriculture Mr Ritesh Dass who welcomed UN Resident Coordinator Mr Sanakar and Chief Guest Prime Minister of Fiji- Mr Frank Bainimarama who, officially opened Fiji’s pre-summit UN FSS national dialogue to show leadership support and Government’s commitment in this very important multi -sectoral dialogue. As this was a People’s summit, the following speakers engaged were from diverse backgrounds – previous farmer, exporter and business owner Mr Wah Singh, Chief Operating Officer for RB Patel chain of Supermarkets Mr Deepak Rathod, Vuda Piggery Meats owner and Chairman of Fiji Livestock Association Mr Simon Cole and CEO Consumer Council Ms Seema Shandil. A panel of discussion was held amongst these speakers at which participants were allowed to pose comments and questions using the chat function if unable to speak on the virtual platform. The preparatory meetings occurred daily and supporting agencies such as UN RCO’s office, WFP, UN FAO, other Government Ministries highlighted principles of engagement ensuring that they’re understood and incorporated into the event Agenda. Participants were encouraged to fully utilize the chat function for valuable comments that needed to be considered. The Permanent Secretary for Rural Maritime Development and National Disaster Management officially closed Day 1 event to ensure recognition of multi sectoral participation.The dialogue ensured that UN FSS seven principles were observes throughout the Pre- summit National Dialogue that the seven (7) Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the Agenda and in careful consideration of participants from diverse backgrounds. The need to act with urgency, commit to the summit, respect for all views and individuals was included in the development of the multi-sectoral preparatory committee meetings, acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted by through panel discussions, embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity was clinched to so that a balanced view from participants was reached amicably, complement the work of others and build trust among participants. This was evident when participants from the areas of science, business, policy, health care and academia, farmers, youth and women organisation, consumer groups, market vendors and environmental activists. The pre-summit provided an opportunity to be innovative, connect with stakeholders and broaden opportunity for partnerships. Build Trust – the dialogues were curated and facilitated in a safe space that promoted trust and encouraged mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Pre- Summit Principles of Engagement are an important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its national dialogue. The National Dialogue and its Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovatively, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s national dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were respectively heard and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration and recorded.

NoThe UN FSS Pre-summit event was curated through multiple preparatory meetings amongst the various agencies that were in the preparation committee. This included Ministry of Agriculture Policy staff, Ministry of Fisheries staff, Ministry of Health staff, WFP, UNFAO, UNRCO’s office, REDDR, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Office of the Prime Minister and Ministry of Economy. The Agenda was developed in agreement with all members of the multi sectoral preparatory committee and observed all the seven principles of engagement. The pre-summit dialogue 2021 was conducted at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with restrictive measures and lockdowns. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back better. This is the first of the three day event held on Wednesday 21st July, 2021. The main goal of the dialogue is “Pathway for local food system transformative perspectives of different stakeholders.” Curation and Methodology: As this was a People’s summit, this day one event included the engagement of the following speakers who were from diverse backgrounds – previous farmer, exporter and business owner Mr Wah Singh, Chief Operating Officer for RB Patel chain of Supermarkets Mr Deepak Rathod, Vuda Piggery Meats owner and Chairman of Fiji Livestock Association Mr Simon Cole and CEO Consumer Council Ms Seema Shandil. A panel of discussion was held amongst these speakers at which participants were allowed to pose comments and questions using the chat function if unable to speak on the virtual platform. In compliance with country’s COVID-19 restrictions, the Fiji national dialogue was a three and a half (3 1/2) session virtually curated on the Zoom platform, using a participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. More than one hundred participants took part in the dialogue that was officially opened by the Hon Prime Minister of Fiji Hon. Frank Bainimarama. This signified a strong commitment from leadership and Government as a whole ensuring openness and forward looking multi sectoral discussions. The platform encouraged participants to use the chat box function for comments, criticism and questions. The session was fully recorded and the panel discussion was immediately carried out with the above stakeholders to ease reference of pathway for local food system transformative perspectives following which there were two questions allowed for each speaker. The moderator for the panel discussion was moderated by Ram Bajkael who was Director Flour Mills of Fiji. The moderator is a motivational speaker and encouraged open respectful dialogue that were built with trust. Participants were impressed by the level of Professionalism and were able to realize their role and its importance in the food system. This was the first time organisations both large and small were represented in the pre-summit dialogue.

234239241242243245246249There were a total of three presenters that were engaged on Day 1 of the UN FSS pre-summit event. The resource persons were engaged in the discussion panel which was moderated by motivational speaker and Director of Flour Mills of Fiji – Mr Ram Baejkal. This day one event included the engagement of the following speakers who were from diverse backgrounds – previous farmer, exporter and business owner Mr Wah Singh, Chief Operating Officer for RB Patel chain of Supermarkets Mr Deepak Rathod, Vuda Piggery Meats owner and Chairman of Fiji Livestock Association Mr Simon Cole and CEO Consumer Council Ms Seema Shandil. A panel of discussion was held amongst these speakers at which participants were allowed to pose comments and questions using the chat function if unable to speak on the virtual platform. The summary of Mr Wah Sing’s presentation discussion began with what he believed to be a massive decline in Agriculture resulting from Fiji’s reliance on imported Agricultural inputs. Mr Wah Sing claimed that though rehabilitation is taking place they end up in unmitigated decline with pasture for instance. The speaker further stated that policy failures also contribute to the decline in production. Other factors like socio culture factors such as losing market access in Thailand for Ginger is also a contributing factor. However, overseas bilateral agreements can be encouraged to provide preferential spaces for Fiji’s Agricultural export commodities/goods. Another concern raised by Mr Sing is the need for us to protect our environment, re-assign local authority areas (enlarge municipal areas), provide more incentives for the rural areas but specifically asked participants to begin in small scale and focus on increasing yields and productivity. The next speaker Mr Deepak Rathod stated that consumption is subject to demand and supply and Supermarket goods compliment roadside market supplies. However, in the Supermarket, grocery shops would like to mark Green, Orange and Red Zones to signify what foods are good for you and what is not. However, Mr Rathod states that retailers are exploring means f how this improvement can be made easier, what policies need to be made to enable this encouraging people to move towards consuming a more healthy life style. Mr Rathod also stated that healthy choices are more expensive so consumers preference is towards unhealthy choices due to its price. Another tax that exists to signal this preference (for junk food) is sugar tax. The third presenter is Vuda Piggery Meats owner and Chairman of Fiji Livestock Association Mr Simon Cole. The speaker Mr Cole insisted that the approach that should be undertaken now is targeted at leaving no one behind particularly when 40% of total employees in Fiji directly work in the Agriculture Sector. The Government should in its UN FSS proposal consider more research undertaken is to focus on Livestock and Crops pests and diseases and that there should be more trainings undertaken for these research results (Research on Pests and Diseases). Moreover, presenter Mr Cole stated that livestock farmers are price takers and that there should be some restructure made to support farmers with their livestock sales. The presenter also stated that in Fiji, 20% of livestock losses are through thefts on the farm which could be solved through better structural policies which could also maintain the balance from undersupply to oversupply. Another avenue that could be explored is, broadening or expanding bilateral partnership arrangements such as, Melanesian Spearhead Groups where policies could be developed to allow preferential arrangements where premium could be paid for quality meat. Another factor that needed exploring is the farmers relationship with the market and how it can be provided with incentives and intervention to promote quality and safe crops and livestock products. The fourth panel discussion presenter is, Ms Seema Shandil whose presentation focus on the challenge of people who have lost their sources of livelihoods due to the pandemic that is, loss of employment, loss of income, not able to afford proper food and nutrition for each meal.235239240241242243246249A comprehensive exploration of food systems: The discussion undertaken sought to explore priorities and desirable transformations across the food systems 10 years into the future. Using the SDG as our compass, discussions findings are that in the future food systems accessibility pathway need to be developed, nutritious aspects including prices of food (affordability) following which every potential stakeholder need to participate in the development of the pathway of action. Suggestions received also considered seed and planting material security and organic food production including continued systems dialogue and regular review for improvement. In Fiji, the ratio of Ministry of Agriculture staff at locality level per farm is 1:1000, the future will need a more focused systematic means of ensuring effective service delivery and access to food and nutrition security. It was further discussed that local produce should be prioritized in the pathway. Another consideration that needed to be prioritised is the use of Organic agro inputs like organic fertiliser and organic pesticides to improve Crop production. The pathway should prioritise reversing land degradation and maintain sustainable land use activities. In the meantime, Government should provide more intervention for subsistence farms, analysis of food chains to promote self-sufficiency providing opportunities for e-commerce options for all including women, girls and other vulnerable groups. The pathway should also consider regenerative agriculture, resilient crops, establish farmer schools in localities as a means of technology transfer, improve infrastructure and whole chain supply system, development and enhancement of local contemporary recipes, increase taxes on unhealthy food choices (set nutrient targets), government intervention to develop more holistic coordinated approach that is accountable, product target (quantity and quality, type and detail) specific. Priorities should be according to production analysis with an emphasis on reversing land degradation, reducing negative impacts of climate change, sustainable management, improving smart agriculture and biodiversity. The priorities analysis should have an emphasis on protecting small holder to commercial farmers. The next set of discussions focussed on priority entry points and opportunities for food system transformations. The outcome of these discussions recommended the instituting of; farmer organisation – dairy sector, middle men in the livestock sector, nature’s way cooperative – papaya, vegetables, establishment and improvement of Collection centres for milk also distribution centre, Market vendors associations which is an untapped entry point, Sustainably produce green and blue foods through one health approach...actors within the food supply chain, need to acknowledge and value the role of the environment on soil health, oceans and quality and safe foods...start small with farmer and consumer awareness and the analysis of how much it costs a farmer to produce a particular commodity and then put a unit cost for selling the commodity would be a good start. Main challenges envisaged discussion outcome resulted in the following: Organising of women farmers cluster group distributed by produce type, MOA to focus on women in the agriculture programs, Staff Turnover should ensure smooth transition of work, training needs analysis should be undertaken regularly to identify capacity and capability, collaborative work encouraged between producers and players in the value and supply chain. Agriculture as the new sexy- people are able to provide for their family and make it more lively as the industry as getting older, digitise agriculture, prioritise proper record keeping among farmers, encourage value addition and create market access for sustainable sources of livelihoods, build resilience through inclusive awareness programs, update Agriculture legislations to support, stimulate and harmonise farming business environment that is globally accepted, implement Hazard Analysis Critical Control points or PRP. HACCP should be enforced through each value chain process (ie growing, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, distributing, merchandising to preparing food for consumption.236239241242243246249A comprehensive exploration of food systems: The discussion undertaken sought to explore priorities and desirable transformations across the food systems 10 years into the future. Using the SDG as our compass, discussions findings are that in the future food systems accessibility pathway need to be developed, nutritious aspects including prices of food (affordability) following which every potential stakeholder need to participate in the development of the pathway of action. Suggestions received also considered seed and planting material security and organic food production including continued systems dialogue and regular review for improvement. In Fiji, the ratio of Ministry of Agriculture staff at locality level per farm is 1:1000, the future will need a more focused systematic means of ensuring effective service delivery and access to food and nutrition security. It was further discussed that local produce should be prioritized in the pathway. Another consideration that needed to be prioritised is the use of Organic agro inputs like organic fertiliser and organic pesticides to improve Crop production. The pathway should prioritise reversing land degradation and maintain sustainable land use activities. In the meantime, Government should provide more intervention for subsistence farms, analysis of food chains to promote self-sufficiency providing opportunities for e-commerce options for all including women, girls and other vulnerable groups. The pathway should also consider regenerative agriculture, resilient crops, establish farmer schools in localities as a means of technology transfer, improve infrastructure and whole chain supply system, development and enhancement of local contemporary recipes, increase taxes on unhealthy food choices (set nutrient targets), government intervention to develop more holistic coordinated approach that is accountable, product target (quantity and quality, type and detail) specific. Priorities should be according to production analysis with an emphasis on reversing land degradation, reducing negative impacts of climate change, sustainable management, improving smart agriculture and biodiversity. The priorities analysis should have an emphasis on protecting small holder to commercial farmers. The next set of discussions focussed on priority entry points and opportunities for food system transformations. The outcome of these discussions recommended the instituting of; farmer organisation – dairy sector, middle men in the livestock sector, nature’s way cooperative – papaya, vegetables, establishment and improvement of Collection centres for milk also distribution centre, Market vendors associations which is an untapped entry point, Sustainably produce green and blue foods through one health approach...actors within the food supply chain, need to acknowledge and value the role of the environment on soil health, oceans and quality and safe foods...start small with farmer and consumer awareness and the analysis of how much it costs a farmer to produce a particular commodity and then put a unit cost for selling the commodity would be a good start. Main challenges envisaged discussion outcome resulted in the following: Organising of women farmers cluster group distributed by produce type, MOA to focus on women in the agriculture programs, Staff Turnover should ensure smooth transition of work, training needs analysis should be undertaken regularly to identify capacity and capability, collaborative work encouraged between producers and players in the value and supply chain. Agriculture as the new sexy- people are able to provide for their family and make it more lively as the industry as getting older, digitise agriculture, prioritise proper record keeping among farmers, encourage value addition and create market access for sustainable sources of livelihoods, build resilience through inclusive awareness programs, update Agriculture legislations to support, stimulate and harmonise farming business environment that is globally accepted, implement Hazard Analysis Critical Control points or PRP. HACCP should be enforced through each value chain process (ie growing, harvesting, processing, manuf

2021-08-13 02:21:44205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38303/49

1650294504811416021151123018364022

En el Diálogo se integraron todos los principios de la cumbre, al abordar la temática de innovación digital en la agricultura para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios , la cual es de interés nacional , más aún en el contexto de la crisis por la pandemia de COVID-19 en dónde se requieren medidas integrales que permitan mejorar la productividad de los cultivos sin descuidar los aspectos económicas, ambientales y culturales. (Reconocer la complejidad, Actuar con urgencia) Se extendió la invitación al diálogo al sector público, privado, academia y sociedad civil, fomentando un ambiente de respeto y confianza para que los participantes pudieran expresar sus opiniones e intercambiar visiones. (Ser respetuosos, Complementar la labor de los demás, Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, Crear confianza) Asimismo, el diálogo abordó temáticas que contribuyen al avance en la vía de acción 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza y vía de acción 5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, conmociones y tensiones (Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre).El Diálogo buscó la integración de las opiniones de los diferentes sectores. Se inició brindando un contexto general de la innovación digital para la agricultura. Posteriormente, los participantes tuvieron la oportunidad de escuchar tres ponencias sobre el tema: a) Transformación digital, como elemento esencial para la competitividad; b) Importancia del uso de la tecnología y la innovación en la agricultura y c) Tecnologías digitales aplicadas al sector agroalimentario. Además, se realizó un breve diálogo político entre el sector privado y público para profundizar sobre Oportunidades y Factores críticos para la innovación y la transformación digital de la agricultura. Finalmente, los participantes recibieron una inducción dentro de cada uno de las mesas de trabajo para profundizar sobre los aspectos que impactan en la innovación tecnológica en el sector agropecuario y en la transformación digital, permitiendo de esta manera que los participantes pudieran conversar libremente y con la perspectiva de su sector sobre las acciones necesarias para transformar los sistemas alimentarios desde la tecnología.Fomentar el involucramiento en los diálogos de la mayor variedad de actores que permita integrar las visiones de la problemática con el fin de plantear soluciones pragmáticas y que pueden ser implementadas por los diferentes sectores.

Yes

234240242243244245248251En este diálogo se abordó la Vía de acción 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza y Vía de acción 5: Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones. Objetivo General Proponer soluciones basadas en innovación y tecnología, que aplicadas a la actividad agropecuaria costarricense mejoren su competitividad, procesos productivos y comerciales fortaleciendo así los sistemas alimentarios incluyentes y sostenibles. Con la visión positiva de “Las acciones de los diferentes actores públicos y privados del sector agropecuario, pesquero y rural se enfocan en propiciar el uso más eficaz y eficiente de los avances científicos y tecnológicos para favorecer sistemas alimentarios más competitivos, rentables y sostenibles con una gestión participativa y de responsabilidad compartida” que orientó la discusión en las nueve mesas de trabajo que tuvieron a cargo grandes temáticas: a) Entorno de la innovación tecnológica y la transformación digital en el sector agropecuario, pesquero y rural; b) Brechas: Juventud, conectividad, educación, generacionales, etnia, manejo tecnológico y saberes y c) Agenda de innovación y transformación digital para el sector agropecuario, pesquero y rural. Este diálogo contó con la participación de múltiples actores del sistema alimentario tanto del sector público como del sector privado, la academia y la sociedad civil.235240242248251En cuanto a lo que se requiere para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios hacia una visión más sostenible y saludable, haciendo las tecnologías e innovación digital se encontró que es indispensable que todas las intervenciones sean integrales y organizadas desde una plataforma multinivel y multisectorial que involucren al sector público y privado, a través de alianzas que permitan el avance hacia objetivos comunes que sean basados en la evidencia, con el apoyo de la academia y de las instituciones comprometidas con la investigación. Hay que hacer un cambio lo más pronto posible y se requiere de acciones urgentes en cada una de las siguientes dimensiones: 1. Política Pública : La política pública debe considerar los aspectos de innovación tecnológica y adaptarse a la utilización de nuevas tecnologías como los drones. 2. Educación : Educar y sensibilizar al sector agropecuario sobre la importancia de la digitalización en la agricultura como herramienta para mejorar la competitivad y aumentar sus ingresos, se debe atacar el desconocimiento con datos. 3. Financiamiento : Propiciar que existan plataformas de financiamiento para facilitar la tranformación digital 4. Recambio Generacional : Aprovechar el recambio generacional como palanca para movilizar la transformación digital. 5. Uso de datos : Utilizar correctamente los datos recolectados a nivel nacional para una buena toma de decisiones. Existen bechas importantes que deben manejarse de forma integral para llevar la tecnología a las mujeres, juventudes, zonas rurales y pequeños y medianos productores, quienes fueron identificados como la población que menor acceso tiene a los recursos digitales. Se recalcó que el ser humano es el centro de las tecnologías digitales, y que se debe invertir en formación de habilidades duras (ingenierías) pero también habilidades blandas (pensamiento crítico, resiliencia, adaptación al cambio, trabajo en equipo, empatía con el entorno rural, entre otros para facilitar la transformación digital.236240242246248249251Tema 1. Entornos para la innovación Desafíos y oportunidades • Hay una gran resistencia al cambio, se tiene la impresión de que la tecnología desplazará a los humanos, en especial a los profesionales en agronomía y esto impide avanzar. • Se debe explicar que la tecnología hará todo más eficiente, por lo cual se requiere comunicación, se deben entender los miedos y motivaciones de los profesionales para utilizar o no utilizar la tecnología. • El costo de la transformación digital, no debe asumirse únicamente por parte de los productores. Se debe facilitar esta transición para productores de pequeñas y medianas empresas, se necesitan mecanismos y plataformas de financiamiento que lo hagan posible. • Se requieren plataformas de actualización, para mantenerse al tanto de la evolución de las tecnologías y poder hacer uso de ellas. • La tecnología debe ser desarrollada pero también adaptada a las condiciones del país, no todos los modelos calzan a la realidad del territorio, sin embargo, los centros de investigación pueden ser un gran aliado para probar las tecnologías y ajustarlas de acuerdo a los datos nacionales. Por ej. LAICA, INTA, ICAFE, CORBANA. • La brecha digital generacional hacen que las innovaciones tecnológicas no sean adoptadas ni despierten un gran interés en el sector primario y agroindustrial. Adicionalmente existen debilidades en aspectos administrativos y de gestión de la información que dificultan la adopción de innovaciones tecnológicas y la transformación a formas más sofisticadas y eficientes. • Incentivar más fincas para que las personas jóvenes puedan liderar áreas de producción ej fincas orgánicas. Tienen procesos eficientes, son ejemplos que han tomado fuerza en el marco de la pandemia. • Sensibilizar al sector de las pequeñas PYMES del sector agroalimentario. Las micro PYMES requieren ser fortalecidas en capacidades más básicas, como la administración, operaciones internas de la empresa, organización unitaria. • Se debe mejorar y facilitar la conectividad. • Considerar los datos como una innovación tecnológica orientada a la toma de decisiones. • Sociabilizar las experiencias exitosas de adopción de tecnología a otras cadenas productivas con potencial de adecuación. Impulsar el cambio • Fortalecer el trabajo interdisciplinario entre instituciones públicas y empresas privadas de forma permanente, para aprovechar las fortalezas en la solución de problemas, generación de innovación y proyectos de mediano o largo plazo para el sector pecuario y agrícola. • Desarrollar metodologías que involucren a las nuevas generaciones para generar nuevos conceptos de soluciones a los problemas que acechan al sector (rallys de innovación y otras actividades tecnológicas-geoespaciales), involucrando remuneraciones económicas y asesorías para su posterior ejecución. • Tomar en cuenta el conocimiento empírico y generacional de los productores, que sean parte de las soluciones y la producción científica. • Capacitar agricultores que puedan servir de capacitadores (capacitación entre pares) • Generar alianzas público-privadas para lograr desarrollar tecnología accesible. • A través de proyectos piloto concretos y sencillos, donde el uso y acceso de la tecnología para facilitar procesos. Mecanismos de monitoreo • Hay sectores muy bien organizados que disponen de mecanismos, y son principalmente los que tienen un importante nivel corporativo y tienen acceso a mercados internacionales, sin embargo, es importante hacer un análisis de los sectores que tienen menos disponibilidad, para poder diseñar políticas específicas para aportar a los sectores que están más rezagados. • No existe un sistema permanente para el levantamiento de la demanda ni para conocer las innovaciones e iniciativas para la transformación digital que están disponibles. Existen algunos mecanismos aislados pero son incompletos y no se desarrollan periódicamente como fuente de información para orientar la formulación de política pública que promueva la transformación digital o para el diseño de estrategias de diseño e implementación de planes o proyectos que vayan en esa dirección.236240242248249Tema 2. Brechas en la transformación digital • El pequeño y mediano agricultor no están educados en la parte gerencial de las fincas, dificultando el saber donde están y donde quieren llegar , tienen poco acceso a TIC’s, los productores no saben usar una computadora • Acceso a las zonas, porque la gente para poder recibir una capacitación es muy difícil. • Precios, el precio del mercado hace imposible generar utilidades, se necesita de tecnología que permita equilibrar oferta y demanda. • La parte financiera es difícil no solo en agricultura sino también en innovación el gobierno no brinda mucha ayuda (Ley de Avales). • Algunas brechas generacionales, limitaciones para usar tecnologías. • Hay brechas de género y étnicas a los recursos tecnológicos • La centralización de los servicios, ya que la mayor tecnología está en las áreas metropolitanas y en manos de los productores más fuertes. Capacitar a los productores puede ayudar a disminuir las brechas. • No hay cambio generacional evidente. Hay jóvenes interesados; pero, es claro que hay ofertas académicas más llamativas en comparación al sector agro. • El arraigo a las prácticas tradicionales o heredadas por los ancestros. Muchas personas se resisten al cambio, a desarrollar prácticas innovadoras por miedo o temor a lo desconocido; o bien, porque les ha funcionado la forma en la que han trabajado y no lo ven necesario. • No todos los sectores poseen las mismas oportunidades tecnológicas. Por ejemplo el pequero, de pescadores artesanos a pesca de arrastre. • Necesario crear alianzas entre sector público y sector privado, así no se limitarían tantas actividades. • Actualizar la legislación en tema de drones. • Buscar que las personas jóvenes se involucren, ya que tienen más fresco el uso de las nuevas tecnologías informáticas. Que los jóvenes involucren y enseñen a los adultos. • Procesos de extensión agrícola, que exigen desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías y dan las capacitaciones necesarias. El uso de nuevas tecnologías están visualizadas para ayudar a los productores. • Fomentar el uso sostenible de los recursos, con tal de atraer innovación tecnológica y poder transformar los sistemas agroalimentarios. • Volver a los cultivos que se han puesto de lado y buscar mejorarlos. • Buscar que las herramientas de innovación y transformación tecnológica sea atractiva y de fácil uso para los productores agrícolas.236240242248251Tema 3. Agenda nacional de innovación digital • Se piensa en una innovación hay que iniciar con el acceso a los datos, dado que estos son infinitivos y una red de telecomunicación es un inicio. • Darle más acceso a la red 5G. • Realizar un diagnostico de la población y del acceso a tecnología. • Desarrollar sistemas inclusivos. • Priorizar los recursos que se tienen hoy en día y a su vez administrarlos mejor. • Adecuar las tecnologías que se tiene para así poder repartirlas entre los sectores • Participación entre el sector agro y los técnicos • Facilitar el financiamiento de tecnologías accesibles. • A nivel de formación, capacitación y talento humano, deberá mantenerse la formación de profesionales con una base científica rigurosa, pero el pragmatismo y empatía con el entorno son necesarios. • Los procesos de seguimiento y monitoreo son necesarios en una agenda de este tipo pues la valoración de resultados (cuáles fueron, quién los emplea, dónde se acopian, etc) a su vez permitirá retornar a la actualización constante de las necesidades para cerrar un círculo de constante actualización y dinamismo • Las dos áreas prioritarias se consideraron que fueron Formación e Infraestructura para la conectividad accesible y real en todas las áreas del país. • Particularmente se recalcó en la necesidad de invertir en formación de habilidades duras (ingenierías) pero también habilidades blandas (pensamiento crítico, resiliencia, adaptación al cambio, trabajo en equipo, empatía con el entorno rural, entre otros.237240242248Divergencias en Tema 1 No ha existido una cultura de sistematización de los procesos, por este motivo hay que cambiar la cultura, plataforma y estrategia de sistematización de información y compartirla para bien común. Divergencias en tema 2 • Inicialmente la conectividad es deficitaria. Muchas zonas del país, principalmente las más rurales, son las que tienen mayores problemas y es donde hay más productores agrícolas, pecuarios o pesqueros. Se debe diseñar una estrategia nacional de democratización de la conectividad. • La capacitación en nuevas tecnologías no es suficientemente robusta para educar a los productores o técnicos para que se dé la apropiación de la tecnología. Se deben aumentar los esfuerzos en capacitación en temas tecnológicos. • De nada vale tener acceso a las tecnologías y herramientas digitales, si posteriormente no hay un mercado que respalde económicamente esa producción y permite darle rentabilidad y sostenibilidad al sistema productivo. Debe promoverse el acceso directo de los productores a los mercados. • No ha habido actualización de leyes y reglamentos en temas tecnológicos, por un lado, en la utilización de los Vehículos Aéreos No Tripulados (VATS) y por otro lado en el manejo de los datos productivos. Actualizar leyes de acuerdo a las necesidades específicas de las nuevas tecnologías. • La diferencia entre el trabajo desde una oficina al trabajo realizado en campo. Se evidenció que muchas de las brechas existentes se deben a que se dirigen políticas o proyectos desde una oficina, sin tener en pleno conocimiento lo que pasa en realidad o las necesidades inmediatas del sector educación y productivo Divergencias en tema 3 Unificar bases de datos que nos funcionen a todos, centralizar información. Definir prioridades para hacer uso más eficiente de los recursos.

2021-08-13 05:56:32205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27043/145

81285313221543357171

The Philippines Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Commission on Population and Development (POPCOM) discussed through an online meeting the initiative to collaborate and generate significant actions and measurable progress towards the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development and provide inputs to the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS). Both agencies agreed on how to be able to invite key stakeholders and bring out tangible and positive changes to the country’s food systems. The Consultation Forum took on the population trends, including population growth, as it affects the many aspects of the food systems. The participants from the agricultural and population program side were invited to represent the group that could possibly provide inputs during the forum. The growing population of the country has been connected with the topic of food security and the need to take actions and pursue a more vigorous population program for the sustainability of the food security in the country.The Consultation as mentioned will provide preparations and inputs to the National Food Systems Dialogue as well as to the UNFSS. The forum highlighted the demographic dimensions of the food systems and the linkage to create a sustainable and equitable food security. The interrelationship between population, food security and sustainable development involve more than a mere sufficiency of nutrients for a growing population (UN-Department of Economic and Social Affairs). The implementation of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action will also contribute to food security as well as improved nutrition. Efforts to increase education, prevent child marriage, reduce adolescent pregnancy, improve nutrition and access to family planning can help reduce risks to women’s and children’s health. Various population program interventions and strategies are being adopted to include responsible parenthood and family planning, adolescent health development and population and development integration at the national and sub-national levels. In this context, the key players to include the population sector, healthcare, academia, farmers and other stakeholders need to act accordingly to achieve the objectives of the forum.As Convenors, they should ensure that the food systems dialogue can provide a venue to engage and enable different stakeholders put some actions on the discussion that were not appreciated by other groups. Interactive discussion is a way of gathering different perspectives and dealing with issues and concerns affecting the main topic. Along this line, understanding the demographic aspect of the food systems may clear the issue on the sustainability of the food systems in the country. The engagement of these different groups including farmer groups is necessary to contribute towards the attainment of the objectives of this forum. Through alignment of the methods of engagement and interactive participation with different stakeholders, a more exhaustive discussion that would encourage them to share different perspectives could generate ideas and networks within them. Thus, engagements with different stakeholders including farmer groups and civil society organizations will contribute to the social and economic aspects of the country’s food security as well as long-term transformation of food systems.

Yes

234238243245246The main discussion of the forum focused on the demographic dimensions as it affects the food system of the country. Based on the ICPD Principle 2 that “Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development…They have the right to an adequate standards of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing, housing, water and sanitation.” It was further stressed under Section 3.20 that “Measures should be taken to strengthen food, nutrition and agricultural policies and programmes, and fair trade relations, with special attention to the creation and strengthening of food security at all levels”. Population determines the level of demand and also affects the core processes of food systems: as producers, processors, distributors and consumers. The discussant also presented data on the current population, population growth and changing age structure, fertility and mortality which undeniably affect the food production of the country. Food insecurity among Filipinos has significantly increased from 53.9% in 2018 to 64.1% in 2019 (based on 2019 Expanded National Nutrition Survey). As emphasized, food insecurity was higher in the rural areas, poor households, households with heads with lower educational attainment, without financial assistance from abroad and those that are engaged in agriculture.235238246249The need for a sustained program to help increase food security may be achieved through the collaboration of both the government and the private sector. The joint effort may ensure continued outcome and progress in the food system of the country. Another response would be on the productivity support and incentives that should be provided to the farmers as they are the main drivers for food security. In addition, the population growth based on the projection of the Philippine Statistical Authority by 2025 will be down to 1.04% if the trend in 2019 continues. This would mean that there will also be a possibility of achieving an equitable food system in the country. Further, the improving literacy and education among the populace especially the youth in order to address the problem of teenage pregnancy, among others, need to be addressed as part of the needed action and program of the country’s Department of Education (DepEd). The idea is to come up with programs and policies which could help in resolving the premarital pregnancy and the well-being of young mothers and their children. Spatial planning for more food production, on the other hand, is also important as part of the Department of Agriculture’s program intervention. Exploring spatial plans to help in the advancement of food security through mixed land use that could result in accessibility and quality of the food systems.236238244246248249251One of the highlights of the presentation and discussion is on key population-related issues affecting food systems in the Philippines, including: • Increasing population would also result in increasing demand for food; • Changing age structure (e.g. increasing proportion of those in the working age) impacts on the level and types of food needed by the population; • Continuing influx of population to urban areas affects human resource for food production while it increases demand and consequently the prices; • Large family size affects per capita investment for the health and welfare needs including food for the members; and • Poor households, many of them with large family size, have inadequate access to nutritious food. Some of the policy recommendations put forward and agreed include: • Improve institutional mechanisms for more integrative programs (e.g. integration of population management strategies in food security and anti-hunger mitigation programs); • Strengthen the population and development integration policy and program (i.e. comprehensively address concerns on population distribution due to unmanaged internal migration and optimizing changing age structure – demographic dividend; • Reduce regional imbalance in economic opportunities by expanding economic opportunities in other regions outside NCR, Central Luzon and CALABARZON; • Enhance the linkages within the core system of food systems (production, aggregation, processing, distribution and consumption) and their support service providers, as well as the interactions between the core system and social and natural contexts they are embedded in, affected by and have impacts on; and • Enhance governance mechanisms among diverse stakeholders of the food systems.237238246249250251Although there is divergence among the concerns and perspectives of the stakeholders, the discussion was towards a common goal. The role of government, specifically at the local level, should be ensured and supported to come up with the sustainability of the food systems. Agricultural areas should be protected through land use planning. Although there is divergence in this area, adequate tools/processes to maintain sustainable agriculture should be maintained and protected for sustainability and good food to be provided to the population. The issue on the rapid increase of population also matters. Addressing the needs of families, including access to family planning to help slow the rapid population growth, improves their health and enhances their food security.

2021-08-13 06:08:40205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29776/145

6523421222402250101

As an initial activity, the Philippines Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Commission on Population and Development (POPCOM) held an online meeting (via zoom) last June 2, 2021 to discuss on how to collaborate and generate significant actions and measurable progress towards the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development and provide inputs to the UN-Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) to be held on July 2021. Both agencies agreed on how they will be able to invite key stakeholders and bring out tangible and positive changes to the country’s food systems. The two (2) agencies agreed to stage separate forums that will highlight the demographic dimensions of the food systems and the linkage of sustainable food systems with peace building and population and development. There is an undeniable link between conflict and hunger. For people who rely on agriculture, conflicts destroy food systems, cost of assets and incomes which may trigger food insecurity, malnutrition and hunger. Moreover, population living in countries affected by conflicts was more likely to be food insecure and malnourished.To better understand the interrelationships of population and peace building towards food security, the discussion focused on good governance as crucial in building healthy conditions for agriculture. Preventing environmental destruction, reducing violence and poverty were some of the main conditions to achieve development and rehabilitation/sustainability in agriculture to achieve food security. Peace building is a freedom from deprivation of basic needs and the right to development. Peace building as a global development goal by emphasizing SDG 16 (Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels). We cannot achieve or hope for sustainable development without peace, stability, human rights and effective governance, based on the rule of law. Addressing fragility, conflict and violence (FCV) is a strategic priority to achieve our twin goals – end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity…. (World Bank on SDG 16). In this context, the key players to include -- the population sector, healthcare, academia, farmers and other stakeholders is needed to act accordingly in order to achieve the objectives of the forum.The Convenor ensures that this food systems dialogue can engage different stakeholders in dealing with issues and concerns affecting the main topic. Along this line, understanding the population and peace building as it affect the sustainability of food production is a major issue that should be addressed by the different stakeholders. Food systems encompass the entire range of actors and their interlinked value-adding activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal of food products that originate from agriculture, forestry or fisheries and parts of the broader economics, societal and natural environments in which they are embedded. A food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised. The engagement of these different groups including farmer groups is necessary to contribute to the attainment of the objectives of this forum. Through alignment of the methods of engagement and interactive participation with different stakeholders, a more exhaustive discussion that would encourage them to share different perspectives could create ideas and networks within them. Thus, engagements with different stakeholders including farmer groups, non-government organizations, national agencies, local authorities and civil society organizations will contribute to the social and economic aspects of the country’s food security as well as long-term transformation of food systems.

Yes

234238242243244246We cannot hope for sustainable development without peace, stability, human rights and effective governance, based on the rule of law. Yet our world is increasingly divided. Some regions enjoy peace, security and prosperity, while others fall into seemingly endless cycles of conflict and violence. This is not inevitable and must be addressed. By using the framework for Analyzing the Demographic Dimension of Peace and Security, the following were emphasized: • Migration of lowlanders to the upland areas could be a source of peace and order problems; • An expanding urban population with an economy that is not providing commensurate socioeconomic growth could instigate political instability; • Where education is low and poverty incidence and hunger is high, conflict or crimes are likely to be higher and demand for peace and security interventions is also likely to be higher; • Cultural ideologies pose a threat to peace and security (e.g. ideology based armed conflicts or IBACs, tribal wars); • Political conflicts in specific areas likewise affect the status of peace and security; and • Economic reforms and development opportunities impact on securing peace. Along this line, conflict has strong and unambiguous adverse effects on food security and nutrition. It is the major driver of food insecurity and malnutrition, both acute and chronic. The causal effects of conflict-food security nexus vary across conflict zones, but common features are disruptions in the food production and food systems, plundering of crops and livestock, loss of assets and incomes, hence directly and directly affecting food access.235238242246249Using the conceptual framework for Peace Development, Population and Poverty it identified some takeaways to include: • Ideology based armed conflicts (IBACs) delay the development of affected communities • IBACs can be resolved with strong institutional support from national and local governments • IBACs has affected the resiliency of the population The IBACs impinge upon development. Poverty and deprivation are conflated reasons for armed conflict, where delivery of services, livelihood and economic activities of the population are disrupted or delayed, and thus, IBAC-affected areas are left behind by their counterparts. IBACs develop in remote and poverty stricken communities where social services such as schools, health facilities are barely delivered or none at all due to inaccessibility. Frustrations over impeded delivery by local government of basic social services including infrastructure and utilities translate to dissent. IBACs impact on population factors as in migration (in-migration); in-migration in search for safer areas such is an inevitable reaction to armed violence. The movement of the population towards urbanized areas is largely temporary, the sources of their livelihood and properties being located in their original domiciles. Combined poverty reduction, population management, peace development and peace-making strategies are needed to make a dent on the effects of IBACs on the population. The attainment of lasting and sustainable peace through peace-making coming from state, non-state actors with the direct involvement of the grassroots in the IBAC affected areas enables the population to move forward to development. Policy enhances and strengthens peace development, poverty reduction and peace-making. The attainment of peace as a matter of policy will realize peace dividends. Policy change and policy advocacy are necessary towards full development of IBAC areas.236238242244246248249251The integration of peace-making and peace building in community-based development planning through organization and development of consultation mechanisms in planning as well as direct peoples’ participation in peace-making and peace development in IBAC areas. There is need to review policies and implement advocacy plans at all levels of governance through the following actions: • Push for the adoption of an improved local peacemaking in the national agenda for peace and review to strengthen presently adopted institutional approach in security forces’ peace development policy in IBAC areas. • Revisit and draw lessons for improving the processes involved in successful local peacemaking initiatives. • Revisit the bottoms-up-budgeting as fiscal policy to enhance acquisition of peace development programs or peace development funds and resources. • Develop and enact fiscal policy measures that enhance access to local and national legislated funds for peacemaking and peace development in IBAC areas. Another take away is to improve and support strategies to strengthen food security and nutrition in conflict affected areas vis a vis strengthening of peace building specifically on agricultural productivity, livelihood, infrastructure and expansion of market and value chain management. Some of the policy recommendations provided and agreed include: • Improve institutional mechanisms for more integrative programs (e.g. integration of population management strategies in food security and anti-hunger mitigation programs); • Strengthen the population and development integration policy and program (i.e. comprehensively address concerns on population distribution due to unmanaged internal migration and optimizing changing age structure – demographic dividend; • Reduce regional imbalance in economic opportunities by expanding economic opportunities in other regions outside NCR, Central Luzon and CALABARZON; • Enhance the linkages within the core system of food systems (production, aggregation, processing, distribution and consumption) and their support service providers, as well as the interactions between the core system and social and natural contexts they are embedded in, affected by and have impacts on; and • Enhance governance mechanisms among diverse stakeholders of the food systems.237238242243246249250251There is divergence among the perspective and opinions of the participants, however the discussion focused towards a common goal that population and food production should go hand in hand including peace building. The government should look at improving conditions of underdeveloped areas and what appropriate industries should be given to them. The divergence on this issue somewhat varies on the idea to put the emphasis on the local government jurisdiction on the matter. This somehow influenced the majority of the participants and agreed on the same ground. At the onset, peace-making indeed as a strategy can gain towards community development and thus affected the food production of a protected area. The experience of gaining peace dividend has indeed reduced poverty and increase food security in the previous conflict areas in the country like North Cotabato and Bukidnon.

2021-08-13 07:04:10205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29793/145

17522451081017426561018551622611611216661

The National Dialogue on Responsible Agricultural Investments, which was held on 29 June 2021, was conducted as a venue for discussion and sharing of ideas on how to maximize the country’s regulatory environment to attract more responsible investments in agriculture. This dialogue with the private sector was undertaken through a panel discussion, joined by two representatives from the private sector and four from the government sector. The event aimed to update participants on the current investment policies of the government so that these can be maximized. Furthermore, the event highlighted the role of current investment policies of the government in enabling the entire food value chain to become more sustainable and resilient to environment shocks. The panelists from the government were from the Land Bank of the Philippines, Board of Investments, Department of Agrarian Reform and Department of Agriculture. These agencies are instrumental in stimulating agri-fishery investments in the Philippines. On the other hand, the panelists from the private sector were representatives from two of the biggest corporations in the Philippines that are heavily involved in food production: Pilmico Foods Corp and Nestle Philippines Inc. These two food companies are also involved in Pilipinas Kontra Gutom (PKG), a national and multi-sectoral anti-hunger movement that works on various programs. Their goal is to achieve 1 million fewer hungry Filipinos by 2022 and hopefully eradicate hunger by 2030. This goal is in line with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the UN’s Decade of Action, which include, among others, no poverty, zero hunger, and good health and well-being by 2030.When the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the limitations in the Philippines food system -- such as logistical issues when borders closed and movement was restricted, or the issue of accessing quality and safe food at affordable prices -- the urgency of effecting major changes in outlook and approaches to attain food systems transformation to make them responsive to the ever-changing needs of the time, was highlighted. It is within this context that the Department of Agriculture held a virtual national dialogue on responsible investment in agriculture. Responsible agricultural investments and its principles have already been agreed to as far back as 2014. One of these principles is that it should contribute to food security and nutrition. While the importance of this principle was underscored in the dialogue, the private sector identified several challenges as well as the needed interventions from the government to achieve economies of scale for a market-driven, value-chain oriented food system. This principle is also in line with the Philippine Department of Agriculture’s New Thinking in Agriculture, which aims to achieve zero hunger, render the country food secure, and make its farmers and fisherfolk prosperous.None.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249The Dialogue focused on the four of the eight paradigms of the Philippine Department of Agriculture’s “New Thinking in Agriculture”– modernization, industrialization, consolidation, and infrastructure development. All of these paradigms are anchored on investments, the bulk of which comes from the private sector. Since responsible agricultural investments should contribute to food security and nutrition, among other principles, key challenges, gaps and areas of improvement were discussed to identify and formulate necessary policies and interventions from the government to address these concerns.235238239240241242243244245246248249The following were the findings and recommendations of the National Dialogue on Responsible Investments in Agriculture: 1. Investments in agriculture are necessary for food and nutrition security. Based on the discussion, there is a need to work on incentives, technology, credit support and investments in the whole agriculture value chain, particularly on farm consolidation or clustering to achieve economies of scale for a market-driven, value-chain oriented food system. One important suggestion is for the government to launch an awareness campaign highlighting the advantages if farmers and fishers consolidate/cluster. 2. It is vital to increase the confidence level of investors in the agriculture and fisheries sector. A step towards this goal can be observed in the passing of the CREATE Law. With this, the government should openly engage with the private sector to maximize government policies on investment and support in the agriculture sector. 3. The government needs to prioritize provisions of fiscal incentives to help the private sector regain confidence after going through the adverse effects of the pandemic. The government and its stakeholders should continue working together to achieve national food security. Furthermore, investments should focus more on post-harvest infrastructure, such as cold storage facilities, warehouses, and refrigeration facilities to mitigate post-harvest losses and food wastage along the value chain, and to develop markets for perishable products, among others. 4. The private sector takes big risks when investing in agriculture. Therefore, the government should provide a fair, transparent, consistent, and enabling environment. Furthermore, the farmer/beneficiary/cooperator should also be considered by the private sector/investor so that they share in the wealth generated by the land. 5. Statistically, it is possible to achieve zero hunger by 2030 but this will need extreme political will. Specifically, this period will practically cover two administrations which may not necessarily have the same political vision. There is a need to continuously increase production and investment to level up the agri-fishery sector. Consequently, this shall address the demand of the growing population of Filipinos. 6. The efforts of the government should be clearly targeted and focused to achieve the SDGs by 2030. For example, government interventions should target stunting among Filipino children. 7. The government should take a whole-of-country approach seriously and beyond this administration. This includes ensuring the active participation of non-government stakeholders in eradicating hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, and promoting sustainable and responsible agriculture.236238239240241242243244245246248249The results of the Dialogue are as follows: 1. Extensive discussion on the CREATE Law It was shared that both the government and private sectors support and are very optimistic about the Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises (CREATE) Law. The law improves the country’s incentive system including the reduction of the corporate income tax rate and aims to lower investment costs for borrowers and operating capital. It was underscored that this law will also help the country become more competitive, particularly with other ASEAN countries, as it elicits and encourages more investments into the country. It was also suggested that the CREATE law be amended to consider imposing taxes on imported finished goods to level up the playing field. 2. Demonstration of support for Land consolidation and clustering It was underscored that land consolidation and clustering is an avenue to help modernize agriculture and will help improve the payment capacity of borrowers, through efficient production and marketing. This strategy also addresses the concerns of some investors who would like to invest in a big area of land, which could not be catered before without clustered lands. It was highlighted that this strategy could only succeed when full support is given in the whole value chain in terms of technology, financing, marketing, and enabling the policy environment. Aside from these, legitimizing clustering was also recognized as a priority for the private sector. Through this initiative, there is assurance that support is being provided for the whole value chain. On the side of the government, concerns such as rapid sharing, marketing agreement and income concerns of farmers with the corporations, as well as pole-vaulting or side-selling issues were raised. Awareness campaigns could highlight the benefits of clustering/consolidation. Monitoring of productivity and income will help meet the goals of farmers. There is also a need to develop a more effective business model by cooperatives. 3. Empowering the community of farmers, workers, and independent beneficiaries There were main strategies shared by the private sector during the dialogue. First, there must be partnership between and among the farmers. This partnership must include a mechanism by which the produce of the farmers are to be purchased by the private sector or investors. Second, machineries must be provided and be made available to the farmers. Third, farmers must be taught new techniques (e.g. rejuvenating and rehabilitation of farms to increase farmers’ production and income). Government support must be in place (e.g. financing assistance and incentives). 4. Enabling environment for agricultural investment The tax programs of the government should be expanded to the whole value chain. Engagement of the government with the private sector through public private partnership was also recognized.Another suggestion was focused on increasing the investments in technology. 5. Soliciting more support from the government The private sector underscored the necessity for the government to prioritize fiscal incentives because it gives confidence for them to get back from the adverse effects of the pandemic and for the farmers to continue producing goods. It should also invest in post-harvest infrastructure, such as cold storage facilities, warehouses, and refrigeration facilities to mitigate post-harvest losses and food wastage along the value chain, thereby expanding markets for perishable products, among others. The private sector also shared its support to the government’s approach of “One region, one product” since not all crops can be planted in all regions. 6. Commitment to work in achieving zero hunger by 2030 There is a need for extreme political will. Government interventions in eliminating hunger should be well targeted and focused and this requires the necessity for disaggregated data. Interventions should start at the level of expectant and lactating mothers.Finally, school feeding programs should be expanded.The government should take the whole-of-country approach.237None.

2021-08-13 08:14:20205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30738/145

58131181319264251122211232011129

The National Forum on Models of Sustainable Agri-industrial Business Corridors (ABCs) was structured as focus group discussion but embraces multi-stakeholder inclusivity with diverse set of stakeholders that brought in different perspectives. Participants were thoroughly selected to ensure that they represent various stakeholder groups belonging to different sectors of society. The models presented were likewise diverse in nature, scope and landscape. One dealt with an island economy under the auspices of the local government unit of one of the island municipalities of the country. Another tackled a sustainable partnership between the private sector and the community where a sustainable aquaculture investment operates spanning across coastal communities along one of the fisheries management areas of the country. The last model discussed the importance of seed system innovations in food security and rural development, providing an overview of the national seed landscape in the Philippines and the key role of the National Seed Technology Park as an ABC model in boosting the agriculture sector performance.The Forum, as a sub-national activity geared towards preparations for the National Food Systems Dialogue, focused on the context of showcasing existing or potential agri-industrial business corridors that can be replicated to gain more support and help contribute to the attainment of the vision of the agriculture and fisheries sector, i.e. a food secure and resilient Philippines with empowered and prosperous farmers and fishers. As such, it committed to the principles of engagement as well as professionally contribute to the attainment of the vision and objectives of the UN Food Systems Summit and its anticipated outcomes relative to the achievement of the SDGs. In addition, apart from embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity among its participants, it respected and promoted food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to enhance resilient livelihoods and communities and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures, contexts and spatial dimensions. Showcasing various models from island economies of an archipelagic country up to models of national scope and reach in terms of stakeholders recognizes that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several governance processes. At the same time, it encourages bold and innovative new thinking and approaches that deliver systems-level transformation in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives.Convenors should ensure that the food systems dialogues, whether individual or state-initiated, truly engage all stakeholders along the entire food value chain systems, including those who typically are not included in the discussions. Direct alignment with the principles and methodologies of engagement is of paramount importance to ensure a meaningful engagement where stakeholders not only share perspective in dealing with issues and concerns affecting their lives or livelihood, but also in exploring ideas together, encouraging their creativity, and empowering them to emerge as one but more powerfully through network connections that may be built in the process. Moreover, to maximize the opportunity of engaging a multitude of participants, dialogues or forums should be initiated not only to come up with palliative solutions to persistent issues. Rather, is should draw up comprehensive actions, intentions and commitments of stakeholders to once and for all work together and shape national pathways that lead to sustainable food systems in line with the common aspirations towards achieving the SGDs.

Yes

234240241245248The Forum directly focused on the identified models as existing prototypes of promising Agri-Industrial Business Corridors (ABCs) that can serve as mechanisms for a) promoting sustainable agricultural development through value chains within agricultural clusters along existing infrastructure corridors, b) establishing transformative multi-sectoral public-private partnerships, and c) providing catalytic financing to attract capital from domestic and international, public and private sources. The ABC is actually one of the key strategies of the ONE DA reform agenda in transforming Philippine agriculture and fisheries, specifically under the major category - Industrialization, that will guide the DA in pursuing major programs and activities that can pave the way towards attaining a modest agriculture and fisheries sector growth. The main objectives of ABCs are a) to disperse agri-based industries to the regions and decongest highly populated urban centers, b) to entice the private sector to invest and to allow greater application of modern farm technology and knowledge that aims to dramatically raise agricultural productivity, c) to integrate smallholder farmers by providing them access to resources, including state-of-the-art production technology, capital, and value-adding facilities, and d) to help address employment challenges in the “new normal” or post-COVID-19 environment.235238240241244245246248249251The major findings of the forum based on analysis conducted during the workshop includes the strengths and vulnerabilities as well as replicability of each ABC model: Small-Island Economy: The Case of Bantayan Island Among the strengths of this model includes being able to capitalize on the biosecurity aspect given its characteristic as an island with a natural barrier that protects it from human or man-made-induced spread of pests and diseases. Likewise, the leadership of the current local administration proves to be a formidable force towards developing the island’s economy through the crafting of a local agri-fisheries comprehensive development and investment plan linked or coordinated with the Department of Agriculture’s programs to maximize the rich resources of the municipality. Finally, being an island municipality of the Province of Cebu which is a “magnet” for tourists with high propensity on consumption of seafood, demand for fisheries and aquaculture products will surely increase ensuring ready market that will ultimately help boost the economy of the island. Vulnerabilities of the model are hinged more on the existing capacities of the local fishers (including women) who need to be trained on the business and technology aspects of production and value adding as well as ensuring sustainability of programs and projects in case of change in administration which might shift the priorities of the LGU. In terms of replicability of the business model, the island economy model is viable and may be replicated depending on the political will and receptiveness of other island municipalities to open up their areas for commerce. Possible options and opportunities for change involves the participation of the private sector especially in the development of nurseries (hatcheries – specifically for milkfish and rabbit fish) and in capacitating the local fisherfolk in the island particularly in the non-capital intensive industries, such as seaweeds, mussels etc., and in the development of aquaculture and ecotourism industries. Corollary to this is enforcement of policies for marine protected areas in partnership with the marine police to prevent destruction of fishery habitats and other possible production areas. Small Brother-Big Brother Partnership: Clustering Sustainable Aquaculture Parks The strength of this model includes full support of enabling laws such as the Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises (CREATE) Law, Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) Law, Local Investment Code, Guidelines and Procedures for Entering into Joint Venture (JV) Agreements Between Government and Private Entities, the DILG-PPPC Joint Memorandum Order 2019-01 or the LGU P4, etc. This entails a whole-of-society approach with high degree of replicability, hence, a good model in generating jobs, income and ultimately in addressing food security. Perhaps, the perceived vulnerabilities along this model are more on the need to establish the required infrastructure and logistics component especially in rural areas. This is where government may come in to catalyze the growth of agribusiness and pouring in of private sector investments by providing the needed infrastructure support. Possible options and opportunities for change available in the context of this model are the available credit facilities for micro, small, medium and large enterprises through banks (like Land Bank and Development Bank of the Philippines) and other financial institutions as well as programs offered by concerned agencies like Agricultural Credit Policy Council and Cooperative Development Authority. Seed System Innovations: The National Seed Technology Park (NSTP) The NSTP is probably the most definitive model of a component of a budding ABC in one of the growing industrial hubs of the country. Its strengths are inherently built in its infrastructure component that can serve as one stop shop accessible to farmers. Technology innovations through the establishment of the NSTP can definitely be sustained which consequently serve as an incubation hub of technology. Vulnerabilities of this model are budget-related, especially in its fledgling stage to ensure sustainability. As such, and similar with the Clustering Sustainable Aquaculture Parks, it should take advantage of the provisions of existing enabling laws. Possible options and opportunities to address its vulnerabilities include a) Strengthen the seed industry through the establishment of an Office to handle/steer the Seed Industry Development Program, b) Integrate the functions of DA agencies, academe and other concerned agencies in seed development, c) Replicate the National Seed Technology Parks in other parts of the country; d) Strengthen and provide financing to the Seed Industry Council, e) Continuously provide capacity building activities, farmers training facilities, and shared service facilities, and f) Revisit the existing laws and regulations on seed industry to amend provisions that constrain or hamper its growth and development.236238240241244245246248249251Outcomes of the forum are recommended priority actions that can contribute to the narratives along the five-point action tracks. For the small island economy model, there is a need to include in the national fisheries and aquaculture commodity industry roadmaps the development of small island economies as a major strategy. This is not only to ensure improvement in the economy and ultimately in the lives of people in the island municipalities but also to shield this development intervention from local politics that may shift priorities when there’s change in local administration. To further sustain this model, participation of the private sector especially in the development of nurseries (hatcheries) to put up with the requirements of the island is of paramount importance. There is also a need to capacitate the local fisherfolk as well as women in the island especially in value-adding of fish products to create more jobs in the community. Finally, to prevent the possible entry of pest and diseases in the island, an “all-out, no-in” policy in ensuring biosecurity should be considered. For the Clustering Sustainable Aquaculture Parks, one strongly recommended priority action is the identification of platforms for replicability in the local level wherein the LGUs are more capacitated to adopt the Big Brother–Small Brother (BB-SB) partnership, considering the following: • Group readiness to adopt the partnership • Transparency (farm gate price, long term agreements) • Production incentives • Credit access and financing programs • Collaboration with intermediaries • Policy support • Gender-responsive Another is the establishment of a strong market linkage based on the whole-of-society approach through the inclusion of CSOs, NGAs, LGUs and private companies through the conduct of roadshows, widening up of the collaborative mechanism among cooperatives such as “Coop Kapatid Program”, and the utilization of information technology and social media platforms for market expansion. In the case of the NSTP, the identified options and opportunities for change were likewise considered to be the priority actions to be considered.237238246249250There is not much divergence of perspectives among the participants since the facilitators were adept at steering the discussions towards consensus building. Among the areas of divergence that cropped up is the role of LGUs in ensuring sustainability of potential ABCs. While some argued that projects or initiatives that are inherently good and promise a high ROI are intrinsically shielded from politics, others countered that this may not be true most of the time depending on the culture of governance and priorities of elected local leaders.

2021-08-13 08:19:56205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29784/145

3112921351

The National Dialogue, convened virtually by the Department of Agriculture (DA), targeted participants belonging in the youth cohort. As part of the preparatory activities for this event, written consultations were conducted with the DA’s Committee for the Youth and Women to seek advice on how the Dialogue would be able to capture the youth’s perceptions on the existing programs of the DA, and how these recommendations would be utilized to be able to frame better initiatives that would ensure multi-sectoral engagement with youth as one of the key stakeholders. Likewise, the concept design and work program of the activity were developed under the guidance and/supervision of the Curator, the Chairperson of the Committee on Substantive Matters, relevant DA agencies, and resource persons to ensure that the objectives are aligned with the thrusts of the Department. The title of the National Dialogue was based on the idea that the youth are the key to achieving sustainability. To achieve this vision, the youth must be engaged, and food systems must be transformed. The complexity of this undertaking warranted the participation of all actors who have huge roles in youth engagement and youth development. As such, invitations were sent to various sectors of government institutions, international organizations, academe, youth/non-government organizations, start-up companies founded by youth in agriculture, private individuals interested in farming; and beneficiaries of our Department’s youth-related programs, i.e., scholarships and internships. To focus the discussion on two of the most important aspects of youth involvement, the organizers deemed it necessary to structure the Dialogue into two Plenary Sessions: 1) Efforts and Initiatives on Engaging the Youth in Food Systems and 2) The Role of Youth in Food Systems. Participants' views, perceptions, and opinions were gathered after each plenary session.It was ensured that the resource persons will come from national and international organizations with programs and interventions for the youth; and are champions who could share their experiences on promoting agriculture to their fellow youth in the community. The Dialogue also aimed to strike a balance for the participants from the youth sectors coming from the government and non-government organizations. The participants were also asked to describe what “good food” is to gather perceptions across all sectors.Dialogue conveners should carefully integrate the principles in the design of their Dialogues. These would serve as reference or guidance on how the Dialogue should be executed to achieve the desired objectives. When convening Dialogues virtually with a huge number of participants, it would be a good strategy to conduct breakout sessions to better facilitate interaction and be able to tackle all issues given a limited amount of time. Moreover, developing a set of guiding questions, which are open-ended and focused on inquiry, would help in keeping the discussions aligned with the objectives of the Dialogue. Lastly, it is important to have proper documentation of the discussion in order to ensure that issues tackled and recommendations presented are considered and integrated into the planning and policy agendas of all the sectors concerned.

Yes

234238241242243245248249251Given the country’s aging farming population, the engagement of the youth in food systems is of predominant importance. Thus, the National Dialogue served as a platform to discuss mechanisms to encourage and motivate the youth to take the lead in transforming food systems. Specifically, the National Dialogue aimed to: 1) Facilitate exchange of information on the best practices and initiatives aimed to provide access to knowledge and information to improve the skills of youth along the value chain; 2) Identify gaps and challenges, and determine areas of joint action in developing integrated approaches to advance the participation of youth in food systems; and 3) Translate this knowledge into policy-related actionable recommendations. Youth as stakeholders in food systems are viewed as potential agents of change. Thus, there is a need not only to recognize but also to put into action the role that today's youth will have in the development trajectories and future sustainability of food systems.235238239240241242243245246248249251The National Dialogue was structured to have two plenary sessions, which focused on 1) efforts and initiatives on engaging the youth, and 2) the role of youth in food systems. Efforts and Initiatives on Engaging the Youth in Food Systems In this session, several activities and programs initiated by both government and non-government organizations were presented, all of which are aimed at building capacities, providing opportunities, and setting the policy environment in order to advance the involvement of youth in food systems. Although there exists a variety of interventions, it was highlighted that changing the mindset of the youth should start as early as childhood and should emanate from within their homes. Attracting the interest of young people therefore requires engaging their parents, teachers, and the community as a whole. While there are efforts towards increasing the appreciation of youth in agriculture, success would only be attained if these are complemented by efforts to promote awareness of agriculture as a viable and rewarding career. The Role of Youth in Food Systems Building upon the discussions in the first plenary session, the second session focused on how the youth, given their capabilities, are taking part or could take part in transforming food systems. Hence, central to the discussion was the need for collective effort to establish the foundation and address key constraints on involving the youth in agriculture and the food systems as a whole. In particular, the needs of the young people have to be addressed—among others, they should be given access to education and resources that would help them build their expertise and be equipped with the right skillset. Most importantly, youth must be given the opportunity to participate in various decision-making and agricultural policy-making bodies initiated by the government and private sector. At the end of the Dialogue, the importance of having collaborative effort among government, private sector, and other agencies in changing the mindset of the youth towards agriculture was emphasized.236241243245246248249251The following outcomes were based on the issues and recommendations gathered during the open forum as well as in the feedback form that was distributed to the participants at the end of the Dialogue. Efforts and Initiatives on Engaging the Youth in Food Systems 1. Access to education was regarded as one of the most vital steps towards youth engagement. Under the Department of Education (DepEd), the following efforts are being pursued: a. Agri-fishery as one of the components of its Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE). It also provides 23 specialized subjects related to agriculture for Senior High School. b. Gulayan sa Paaralan Program, which aims to teach the children/youth the opportunities in agriculture and fisheries. 2. For secondary level education, the plan is still being shaped and surveys are being conducted from different universities for their inputs to make the curriculum attractive and enterprise-ready. 3. Agriculture should not be focused solely on the aspect of production; if the goal is securing the engagement of the youth in agriculture and food systems, then there should be opportunities for them to take up jobs across each component of the agri-food system. 4. Participants pointed out that opportunities for employment especially in the agriculture sector are scarce. Thus, there is a need to transform the curriculum into one that is employment- and enterprise-ready. 5. Parents and members of the local community play major roles in shaping the mindset of youth towards agriculture. If young people were to be taught as early as their childhood, then appreciation of agriculture will be inculcated towards adulthood. 6. There is a need to strengthen information, education and communication (IEC) campaigns to bring awareness and provide more information about these programs. 7. Engaging the youth should be a holistic approach; thus, there is a need to work hand in hand with other actors/agents of change in the food system such as the academe, the industry, and government agencies, among others. It was also acknowledged that the media play important roles in creating awareness on the value of agri-food systems. The Role of Youth in Food Systems 1. To gather the views and perception of young people, prior to the start of the Dialogue, participants were asked to describe the role of the youth in the transformation of food systems. These responses revealed that there exists a certain level of awareness among young people on how important their role is in transforming food systems. 2. To realize the potential of young people as future leaders and agents of change, there is a need to address bottlenecks in every segment of youth engagement and involvement in agri-food systems. Participants were asked to identify the major challenges being faced by young people involved in food systems. The following responses revealed the importance of government in providing opportunities and ensuring access to support mechanisms: ● Lack of knowledge and/or access to resources and government support ● Lack of experience and employment opportunities ● Lack of access to technology and financial support 3. There is a need to democratize, and be deliberate and intentional on youth involvement because young participants have different impacts in the agri-fishery industry. They need to be provided with the right platform, taking into consideration the balance in geographical location, age, gender, etc. 4. To promote the goal and strengthen the voices of young farmers and fisherfolk, the first step is for them to be recognized by the state legislators. Thus, a bill, entitled Magna Carta for Young Farmers Act, has been filed in Congress, seeking a Magna Carta for the youth to promote and protect the rights of young farmers. 5. Youth should be recognized as stakeholders. Thus, there is a need to ensure that the youth are given a voice in decision-making processes of the government and private sector. 6. There is a need to have a concerted effort among the public and the private sectors in promoting opportunities in agriculture (with the value chain in focus).237None.

2021-08-13 08:26:47205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29821/145

1061225103227

The Food Systems Summit provides an opportunity for diverse, purposeful and respectful exchanges between food systems stakeholders, at all times taking into account the Principles of Engagement of the Food Systems Summit. Act with urgency: We recognize the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Commit to the Summit: We commit to practice what we preach personally and professionally to contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. Be respectful: Within our respective capacities and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures, contexts. Recognize complexity: We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities that bring in diverse perspectives, including indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence to enable stakeholders to understand and assess potential trade-offs and to design policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. Complement the work of others: Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with, amplifies and accelerates these efforts where practicable, avoiding unnecessary duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches that deliver systems-level transformation in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives.1. How did you organize the Dialogue so that the Principles were incorporated, reinforced and enhanced? The DA 4K NPMO organized the UN Food Summit System 2021 – Workshop Symposium on Indigenous People Development and Thrusts using DA protocols, an activity design was prepared which includes the agenda for the activity. Invitations were sent out to offices with programs that benefit the indigenous people to share their practices with their activities. 2. How did your Dialogue reflect specific aspects of the Principles? The speakers shared their practices towards their activities for Indigenous Peoples. The DA 4K does share most of their practices when interacting towards the IPs, as the mandate states that our interventions must be done in respect to the Indigenous Knowledge System and Practices.The Dialogue Convenors should ensure that the invited resource speakers are in sync with their program’s mission and vision so that all the information shared by the speakers would greatly be beneficial to the participants and the program’s beneficiaries

Yes

234239240243248249As an initial intervention, the DA launched a locally funded program called Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran ng Kababayang Katutubo (4K). The program aims to provide assistance to the ICCs/IPs in the form of agricultural and fisheries related livelihood opportunities, investments, and various support services. Thus, the activity was conducted to: • Contribute to the statement on UN transformational pathways • Enhance awareness on the new DA 4K banner program • Enhance awareness of other agencies with programs for Indigenous Peoples • Generate recommendation on concerns and interventions from other agencies regarding Indigenous Peoples beneficiaries • Solicit inputs such as challenges and best practices that can serve more in the Indigenous Peoples Development in their Ancestral Domain The DA 4K presented the legal policies, laws and framework governing IPs in the Philippines all of which must be respected and followed when IPs are involved with the interventions. They also discussed the Ethnography of IPs in the Philippines and included the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) areas. Then, a brief program description of the DA 4K was discussed which this includes the program’s objectives, selection criteria and framework. The DA 4K works by components 1.) Social preparation – where community assessment takes place, then capability trainings for the IPOs to enhance their skills and help them express themselves better especially to agencies. 2.) Agri-Fisheries section – where the program conducts various trainings and provide interventions that relates to Agri-fisheries culture, this new technology provided by the trainings and interventions must respect the Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSP). 3.) Finance – focuses on the budget of the whole project and 4.) Monitoring and Evaluation – monitors the program status.235238240249Main findings during the dialogue are the IKSP, Philippines is known for their rich culture and every single Indigenous Community has its own unique culture, knowledge and practices that includes their way towards food production. With all the new technology provided to us today the DA 4K still implements its intervention in respect to the IP Culture in order to preserve it to more generations to come. As our mandate the new technology for food production must co-exist with IKSP to improve their access to more safe and nutritious food. By employing the IKSP with the intervention given, it boosts nature positive food production with less focus on machineries and materials that might harm the environment since part of the IKSP is protecting their Ancestral Domain. Roadblocks when interacting with Indigenous Peoples within Ancestral Domain • Areas are located at remote, far-flung and upland areas • IPs are easy to get involve in armed conflict and recruited to join in anti-government movement • Wastage of provided intervention • Lack of knowledge on technology on agriculture and livelihood • Lack of information and negative outlook236238239240248249251Discussion of Possible Solutions to Roadblocks encountered (Please see PPT table) Who should be involved when interacting with IPs within AD? • Department of Agriculture • DA Regional Field Office – DA implementing arms, • National Commission on Indigenous Peoples – main government agency for IPs • Indigenous People Organizations – main beneficiaries) Best Practices from other agencies Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations – discussed their practices towards their support to Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Cultural Communities. FAO is a specialized agency of the UN for food, nutrition, agriculture, fisheries and forestry and one of their mandates is to work closely with IPs/ICCs. Like the DA 4K, due effort is done by FAO to include the IPs/ICCs beliefs, customs, traditions in all FAO’s work United Nations Women – UN Women is the United Nations organization dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. IP Women globally experience cross-cutting discrimination that exacerbates inequalities. With, this UN Women presented ideas on making IP Women contributions count. This is done by consistently collecting gender/sex/age disaggregated data especially for IP women, Document IP women’s narratives and experiences, ensure IP women’s voices are heard during consultation, develop gender & culture sensitive processes as well as information, and ensure that GAD Budget allocation are included on programs and projects especially with IP women. IFAD – shared their policy on Indigenous Peoples, adopting a three-fold approach in carrying that mandate. IP global forum has institutionalized consultations and dialogues with representatives of IP institutions, The Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility (IPAF) which is an innovative funding instrument that IPs/ICCs can use to finance small projects, IFAD investment projects in the respective countries that integrates inclusion of IPs in the development projects of partner government implementing agencies.237238239240244249There was not much divergence among the agencies when it came to implementing their interventions towards Ips. The DA 4K and the UN agencies employ their interventions with respect to the culture and practices of the Indigenous Communities to preserve their culture while improving food production, ensuring safe and nutritious food for all without / minimally affecting the culture of the beneficiaries.

2021-08-13 08:37:22205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23795/145

6588329328

The Online Symposium on Dynamic Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agrobiodiversity in Traditional Agroecosystems: Empowering Indigenous Peoples (IPs) towards Sustainable Food Production Systems was designed to showcase the IPs in preserving the traditional ecosystems and their contribution to food production systems. The following Department of Agriculture (DA)-Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)-Global Environment Facility (GEF) project components and outputs were discussed to create awareness and promote strategies that can be adopted by other stakeholders: 1. Mainstreaming agrobiodiversity considerations into policy and legal frameworks, development strategies, and institutional structures; 2. Piloting activities to enhance and expand dynamic conservation practices for agrobiodiversity in 17 pilot communities; and 3. Dissemination of information, awareness-raising, and preparations for scaling up Participants of the symposium were composed of representatives from the State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), Local Government Units (LGUs), National Government Agencies, the private sector, and women’s groups and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs).The symposium presented the collaboration of different agencies to capacitate the IPs in boosting agricultural production as a source of livelihood with respect to local cultures. Also, the agencies/groups/institutions involved developed and enhanced different existing policies to create a favorable enabling policy and legal environment, both at the local and national levels. The project’s contribution to the development of three policy instruments wherein IP’s rights and Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices in conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity, were taken into account. The diverse perspectives from different groups/stakeholders towards conservation and sustainable use of our genetic resources and traditional species of plants and animals were considered, and ensured their participation in decision making, planning, engagement, and implementation of the project. The interrelatedness of conserving and promoting good stewardship of natural resources, livelihood, and resilience to risk and disasters were also reflected in the whole process of the entire value chain (input, production, postharvest, processing, marketing) towards the attainment of food availability contributing in attaining Sustainable Development Goal 2: Zero Hunger.None.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247248249251The symposium presented the direct relationship of the DA-FAO-GEF’s project’s output and outcomes to the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) area of focus for Action Track 3: Nature Positive Production, and Action Track 4: Livelihoods and Equity. The specific policy-related activities initiated in the project were the following: 1. Amendment to RA 7308 or the Seed Industry Development Act of 1992 wherein the specific provision added in the draft measure pertains to the strengthening of the informal seed system by taking into account the IPs right act and other relevant legislations; 2. Draft DA-Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)-National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCCA)-National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC)- Rules and Regulations Governing the Joint Confirmation and Recognition of Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (NIAHS) and Providing Appropriate Mechanisms for their Dynamic Conservation and Sustainable Use; and 3. Draft DA-Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)-DENR-Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Joint Memorandum Order (JMO)-Institutionalization of Agro-Biodiversity (ABD) Management within the National Convergence Initiative for Sustainable Rural Development (NCI-SRD) Framework Multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities, in terms of enhancing and expanding the dynamic conservation practices for ABD, were also presented: 1. Capacity building exercises at the pilot sites to capacitate local government units and local stakeholders in the development of ABD management measures and integration of these measures into the local plans and policies; 2. Establishment and maintenance of Community Seed Banks (CSBs) through partnership/collaboration with concerned agencies such as the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) and the establishment of demo plots to generate seeds and source of planting materials during typhoons and in times of calamities; 3. Mapping, characterization, and documentation of ABD crops including relevant Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) on rice farming system in partnership with the academe and concerned government agencies; 4. Knowledge-sharing on the ABD practices and conservation practices for farmers in pilot and neighboring communities and provision of agricultural input and farm tools; 5. Development of contextualized lesson plan packages and workbook with IKSPs and agrobiodiversity; 6. Distribution of appropriate small farm tools and equipment, and construction of processing centers adding value to the ABD crops with potential for enterprise development; and 7. Market study and value chain analysis of the ABD crops and capacity building activities to enhance entrepreneurial skills and strengthened organization conducted for the IP producer group, and development of ABD products235238240241244245246248249251Showcasing of the DA-FAO-GEF project creates awareness of the contribution and importance of agrobiodiversity conservation and sustainable use in the country’s pursuit of a sustainable food system. To shape pathways to sustainable food systems, policy-making on food business shall not be left to indigenous communities. The Philippines’ agrobiodiversity is the basis for resilient agroecosystems. It provides crucial ecosystem services to make food available, nutrition, water and soil regulation, and agricultural heritage. Similar projects have to be implemented with actions, interventions, and involvement contributory in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals.236238240241244245246248249251Participants of the symposium gave their support in adapting strategies in biodiversity conservation and empowering the vulnerable and marginalized sector towards food production systems such as the provision of community seed banks in the local communities. Support of the LGUs in legislations and policy making is necessary to regulate the use of natural resources as source of livelihoods and recognizing the importance of agricultural heritage sites.237238239240241242246249250251There is not much divergence observed during the symposium proper, as well as during the discussions in the open forum. The activities done by the DA-FAO-GEF Project in the pilot sites can be duplicated in other local communities for sustainable food production within their respective capacities and circumstances. The SUCs and other educational institutions/agencies shall provide science-based knowledge in preserving traditional knowledge and practices in capacitating the vulnerable and marginalized like the IPs. The trade-off, on the other hand, can include the possibility of low-yielding varieties, presence of pest and disease management, etc.

2021-08-13 12:04:12205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40132/28

543321941131512275712232230512455410212193

La concertation a été largement participative de la conception à la tenue des concertations. Un groupe technique a été mis en place sous la conduite du Coordonnateur National le Secrétaire Permanent du Conseil de l’Alimentation et de la Nutrition (SP-CAN), Dr ACAKPO Alfred. Des discussions périodiques ont eu lieu pour organiser les divers événements conduisant au dialogue national. Un consultant a été recruté pour faciliter le dialogue sous la conduite du groupe technique. Le dialogue a été itinérant et a concerné toutes les parties prenantes des systèmes alimentaires sans distinction. Le rapport est en cours de validation par le groupe technique et les parties prenantes.Le Groupe Technique (GT) mis en place dans le cadre des dialogues nationaux s’est élargi dans le temps à d’autres acteurs en respect des principes de confiance et de complémentarité entre acteurs des systèmes alimentaires. Conscients de la complexité de l’enjeu des systèmes alimentaires, le GT a validé une planification flexible assortie d’un plan d’actions budgétisé usant du principe de co-financement et de co-responsabilisation afin d’atteindre les objectifs assignés que sont la participation du Bénin au Sommet puis la poursuite des actions après Sommet dans le cadre de la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires.

NoUn groupe technique (GT) a été mis en place par le Coordonnateur National des dialogues nationaux. Le GT a tenu des séances périodiques techniques pour orienter le type d’organisation à mettre en place. Un Consultant National a été recruté pour faciliter les dialogues vu la disponibilité limitée des membres du GT. Tenant compte du contexte de la pandémie à la covid-19, une d»marche d’animation des dialogues en 4 étapes a été retenue: (i) validation d’un guide d’entretien, (ii) collecte des données auprès des acteurs des systèmes alimentaires (entretien individuel en présentiel ou en ligne), (iii) synthèse des données collectées et rédaction du rapport des concertation nationales, (iv) validation du rapport par les parties prenantes. Une phase importante de ce dialogue a été l’identification des parties prenantes des systèmes alimentaires au Bénin. Elle a été faite par maillon des systèmes alimentaires, par filière, par catégorie d’acteurs tenant compte des pôles de développement agricoles et de l’aspect genre. Le guide d’entretien contient des questions ouvertes intégrant les points de vue des parties prenantes avec la possibilité certaine d’observer des divergences de points de vue. Il a été aussi question dans le guide d’entretien de donner les points de vue sur la gouvernance du secteur de l’alimentation au Bénin ce qui offre l’opportunité de commenter le management et l’organisation de l’événement.

234238239240241242244246248249250Les concertations au niveau du Bénin ont été axées sur une étude complète des systèmes alimentaires avec un regard prospectif sur les changements probables attendus dans les décennies à venir. Ainsi, sur la base des composantes et des facteurs classiques des systèmes alimentaires, il s’est agi pour les parties prenantes d’analyser les facteurs influençant les systèmes alimentaires au Bénin actuellement et leurs tendances probables la décennie à venir. Ensuite, l’analyse s’est poursuivie sur l’identification des acteurs des systèmes alimentaires et les changements observables en perspectives des points de vue de la quantité et de la qualité des acteurs. La perception des parties prenantes sur l’environnement alimentaire a été explorée ainsi que la tendance des changements probables dans cet environnement la décennie à venir. L’analyse s’est intéressée au choix des consommateurs béninois en terme de comportements particuliers des consommateurs, changements observés au niveau de ces comportements et les raisons qui justifient ces changements. L’analyse s’est intéressée aux impacts des systèmes alimentaires sur le système de la santé humaine et animale, sur l’environnement, sur la situation nutritionnelle nationale, sur la situation socio-économique nationale. Enfin, l’analyse s’est étendue à l’appréciation de la gouvernance du secteur de l’alimentation au Bénin en terme de degré d’implication des acteurs et de la prise en compte de leurs intérêts ainsi que des pistes de suggestions pour améliorer la gouvernance.235238239240241242244246248249250Face aux nombreuses contraintes, surtout celles du secteur agricole et pour adresser des réponses idoines aux problématiques de l’alimentation dans les rues et de la salubrité alimentaire, des leviers d’actions importants sont proposés par les acteurs rencontrés dans le cadre du dialogue. Ces actions touchent (i) l’amélioration de l’accès aux facteurs de production, de transformation et de commercialisation des produits agricoles alimentaires, (ii) la promotion de la production agricole saine et résilient au changement climatique, (iii) l’accroissement de la production, de la transformation et de la consommation des produits alimentaires, (iv) l’amélioration de la gouvernance du système alimentaire.236238239240241242244246248249250Selon la typologie des modèles alimentaires, les modèles domestique, de proximité, et celui de commodités sont les plus répandus au Bénin. Le modèle agro-industriel et celui de qualité différenciée sont certes présents et adoptés par les nouveaux entrepreneurs du secteur agro-alimentaire, mais sont peu développés.236238239240244246248249250251Plusieurs facteurs en rapport avec la production des aliments mais aussi les comportements des consommateurs et les pratiques culturelles et cultuelles influencent le système alimentaire au Bénin. Ces facteurs ont connu quelques changements au cours des dix à vingt dernières années. Le secteur agricole est le plus déterminant du système alimentaire. Les évolutions récentes au niveau de la configuration des acteurs du système alimentaire au Bénin concernent l’amélioration du degré d’organisation des acteurs des filières agricoles qui se constituent progressivement en coopératives, en association par corporation professionnelle mais aussi en interprofessions à l’échelle nationale.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Plusieurs situations affectent négativement l’environnement du système; il s’agit entre autre du faible pouvoir d’achat de la majorité des consommateurs face à des prix élevés des produits locaux, de l’insuffisance des infrastructures marchandes (magasins de stockage, places de marchés animés, etc.) et des industries de transformation occasionnant des pertes post-récoltes, de la faible connaissance des consommateurs de l’alimentation équilibrée, de la prolifération de la vente d’aliments dans des conditions précaires. Au cours des vingt dernières années, quelques avancées positives et négatives sont notées par rapport à l’environnement du système alimentaire. Le changement positif important est l’amélioration de qualité des produits issus de la transformation. Quant aux changements négatifs ce sont l’augmentation des prix des produits alimentaires locaux, la baisse des rendements due au changement climatique, la non amélioration de la sécurité sanitaire, la mauvaise pratique d’hygiène alimentaire, etc. Globalement le choix des aliments par les consommateurs est fonction des prix, des goûts, de la disponibilité à proximité, des habitudes culturelles, religieuses et de l’état de santé.237238239240241242244245246249250Les points de divergences sont divers selon les thématiques abordées. Les agriculteurs et les éleveurs n’avaient pas eu les mêmes points de vue sur la gestion des couloirs de passage des animaux qui occasionnent annuellement des conflits. Les consommateurs et les producteurs n’ont pas les mêmes perceptions de la tendance des prix des denrées alimentaires. En effet, pour les producteurs le renchérissement des prix des denrées est bien perçu tandis que pour les consommateurs, il est perçu comme un facteur de pression sur le panier de la ménagère. En ce qui concerne le choix du consommateur, pour la plupart des consommateurs béninois (à faible revenu) la qualité du produit alimentaire n’est pas l’élément déterminant tandis que pour les consommateurs à revenu élevé la qualité du produit est un facteur déterminant.

2021-08-13 16:39:58205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34605/103

39414524902828887477920282841

The National dialogue was organized by the Latvian rural advisory and training center which was selected because it serves wide range of public across entire Latvia and serves as a network for rural development, fisheries and rural innovation as well provides advice in rural development, agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Professional coaches from Riga Coaching School were moderating expert groups. They are independent from any of the Food systems stakeholders. Politician's discussion group was composed of a wider range of Ministries related to the Food systems. The public group was open to any member of the public. The event was in hybrid format and was broadcasted in live in a dedicated interactive webpage developed by 3k.lv. The national dialogue had a Plenary introduction followed by three kinds of discussion groups in parallel: 8 groups of invited expert groups, one group politicians and one public group.For the summary of the work and conclusions we looked at issues holistically.Engage the Head of State in this work to provide his/her political guidance. Have multiple ministries not just agriculture directly contributing the resources of the dialogue in order to have a balanced outcome. Be inspired by the Guidelines but do not bind and limit yourself literally.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245248249250251Resilient Rural areas and Food systems for future generations was the focus of this National dialogue, first of this kind in the history. President of the Republic of Latvia H.E. Mr. Egils Levits in his opening speech emphasized that: • Over the past decades Latvia has successfully transformed itself into a food exporter country. We have integrated into the global food production chain. • The latest UN calculations show that nearly 700 million people or 9% of the world population still live in hunger, while 2 billion people or 25% do not have regular access to safe and healthy food. • Biological diversity continues to decrease. Pesticides are still harming nature, reducing its diversity, accumulating inside living organisms and entering the food chain, as well as the human body. • Agriculture is one of the sectors contributing most, in the medium-term, to humanity threatening climate change, the adverse effects of which can already be seen today and the grave consequences expected by the end of this century. • People’s diets throughout the world are becoming increasingly unvaried. It means that we receive less nutrients, thus harming our health. There are three levels of issues: 1. Farm structure Over the last 10 years the number of large and wealthy farms in Latvia has increased, as has the area of land they cultivate, however, they still constitute only a small portion of the total number of farms in Latvia, employing the smallest portion of agricultural workers. Only 3% of economically active farms produce more than 100 000 EUR in goods. In turn, medium, small and micro farms, which constitute 90% of the total, employ 76% of the total workforce in agriculture. Over the last three decades Latvia has undergone two major agricultural reforms. The first one was in the second half of the 1990s, when Soviet kolkhozes and sovkhozes were liquidated and land was restored to its former owners. The second reform occurred rapidly since Latvia's accession to the European Union in line with the European Union policy which started in the mid-1990s. It has been a turning point towards economic efficiency, industrialisation, product unification and monopolisation. Is this the agricultural structure that our society really wants? Is this something to just be taken as a given or do we, in fact, have more or less power over it to drive it one way or another? Is the current structure and the policy supporting it truly the best choice for Latvia and its countryside? This really calls for an in-depth public discussion going beyond just a conversation among stakeholders. 2. Effects of agriculture on the environment Harmful effects of agriculture on the environment are constantly being reduced. But the rate at which this is being done is too slow. We will have to radically alter our agricultural practices in order to continue to receive EU subsidies, maintain competitiveness on the EU single market or even just continue to work in agriculture. Obviously a major role here will fall to organic farming. In order to increase its role, technological innovations, as well as new skills and shifts in consumer preferences will be needed. 3. Social and cultural dimension of agriculture and rural areas It is an issue of what we want our countryside, our agriculture to look like. It is an issue of the Latvian identity, which is rooted in our countryside. It is an issue of lifestyle. It is an issue of farmers as the upholders of a special lifestyle. But what is a farmer today? Is it an agricultural company, its shareholders, managers, workers — are they all farmers? What the so-called genuine farmer? One new trend in the development of the countryside as a cultural space has occurred lately, especially since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The attractiveness of the countryside as a living space has increased for city-dwellers and also new families. This could, possibly, lead to a rapid increase of the number of people living in rural areas, maybe even on small farms, but not engaging in agriculture.235239244250These are the main findings on which the majority of participants had a broad agreement: 1. Changes in the behavior of the society and individuals have high potential in transforming the food systems. 2. Minister of Agriculture Mr. Kaspars Gerhards in his concluding remarks emphasized that the national dialogue will be continued. Holistic and multidisciplinary approach with well-developed dialogue methodology will facilitate the future work.236239249Fair and transparent cooperation at all stages of food supply chains in order to ensure the long-term resilience of all actors: 1. ensuring traceability of food: full information available to the consumer on the cultivation, production, logistics, storage, marketing of the product; 2. ensuring fair competition, including in public procurement; 3. professionalism in smart and evidence-based decision-making.236239244Environmentally friendly and responsible practices in food product production: 1. educating the public and raising awareness of food production; 2. educating all parts of the food chain, especially farmers via vocational, higher and life-long education; 3. mobilizing farmers to change policies; 4. financial support for organic farming, i.a. support to start-up for young families to set-up small and average size farms.236239Meaningful and sustainable use of agricultural land for food production and the maintenance of a diverse rural livelihood 1. at least 85% of household should consume healthy locally produced food; 2. maintaining the balance of interests (population, farmers, environment) in land use; 3. educated and motivated farmers, processors, consumers; 4. financing system to finance sustainable business solutions; 5. decisions are made from the holistic point of view;236239248249Promoting the development of food producers for local and foreign markets 1. strengthening cooperation among producers and between producers and consumers, cooperatives; 2. understandable and focused financial support based on clear national strategy; 3. education and promotion; Do it step by step! If everyone of us would eat just locally produced food every Saturday it would be already a good start.236238239Responsible consumer for the environment and food to ensure resilience at all stages of the food chain 1. to become smarter consumer and to reduce overconsumption: educating professionals; listening to youth, their needs and views; 2. reduction of food waste: identifying food waste in catering and households, data-based household planning; 3. reduce the amount of food packaging using it only to the extent necessary for food safety. Start with yourself as an example: replace bottled water on the table with water in carafe.236239241244Rural territory for livelihood and food production: 1. exchanging with the information and knowledge; 2. improvement of practical skills at all levels; 3. the reduction of food waste along all the steps of the value chain, the development of the circular economy; 4. development of economic activities basis of which cultural environment and infrastructure can be developed.236239Fair competitiveness and the market - when small gets big and big becomes small: 1. educating the public on food production at all stages of the chain; 2. the same conditions in international trade, both in terms of financial support and in terms of restrictions.236239Food safety and traceability: solutions for sustainability: 1. education of consumers: to have information about product from the very beginning to the plate; 2. a common understanding of the objectives of the policy, surveillance, production, consumption; 3. a rapid process of safety and traceability checks.236239Results of the discussion of politicians: 1. changes in the education system to provide basis for new production systems; 2. promoting healthy food consumption; 3. sustainable agricultural production systems: transition to environmentally friendly methods with appropriate transition and financial support.236238239240241242Public Discussion: 1. to close supermarkets on Sundays; 2. higher VAT on products of animal origin and lower VAT for bio-products; 3. each citizen should start by at least one change in his/her own food consumption pattern, e.g. one missed meal per week; 4. a common food policy across agriculture, environment and health - the food system is a complex issue; 5. environmental impact needs to be improved; 6. the use of fertilizers and pesticides must be significantly reduced; 7. improve the quality of products, meaning healthier ingredients, ecologically sustainable; Online survey results showed that the majority of respondents had voted for the need to transform the Latvian food system (74%) (i.e. to lower the impact on the environmental 33%, health concerns 20%, and significant reduction of mineral fertilizers and pesticides 21%). On the other hand, 5% were of an opinion that everything is well and that it is still safe to continue production without thinking about the environment, but more profit is needed.237238239240Latvian farmers work hard to enhance the Latvian countryside, maintain habitats for native plants and animals, maintain landscapes, protect watercourses and support wildlife species. Agriculture provides a population with one of the most important need – food. In spite of this, the farming is still one of the biggest sources of environment pollution. Divergence appears whether and at what scale farmers should transform their practices. Whether Latvian food is safe and traceable? How much information should be made available to consumers? The complex nature of the food supply chain and the economic motivation to provide cheaper food products increase the likelihood of fraud. If on one side there are regulations, control authorities and opinions that everything is under control, on the other side opinions emerge that the systems are losing credibility, consumers are being misled, food quality is lost, food safety is threatened and unfair commercial practices are being pursued harming environment and public health. Self-sufficiency and external trade - if on one side higher productivity and export of food products above self-sufficiency levels is good for economy, on other side it has high load and risks towards environment.

2021-08-13 16:51:34205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33167/145

60426631226339155108

The dialogue was organized to inform the stakeholders on the role of State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) in developing and providing available innovations and technologies contributory to a sustainable and resilient food systems, specifically: 1. To present salient contributions (technologies, innovations) of the SUCs on agri-fishery sector 2. To establish the roles of the SUCs in agri-fishery major strategies and the food systems framework 3. To initiate potential partnerships among the SUCs, Department of Agriculture (DA), and the private sector in pursuit to modernize, industrialize, and professionalize the agriculture and fisheries sector Furthermore, the conduct of the symposium ensured that outputs focused on the following: 1. List of generated technologies and innovations of the SUCs aligned to agricultural modernization, industrialization, and professionalization 2. Recommendations and agreements to further define the roles of the SUCs in the modernization, industrialization and professionalization strategies 3. Possible collaborations of the SUCs with the DA and the private sector.The symposium was held to highlight the current role and initiatives of various State Universities and Colleges in the Philippines in shaping the country’s agriculture food systems. Furthermore, the symposium was strengthened by the presence of the invited resource speakers from the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges (PASUC) and the State Universities and Colleges-Association of Colleges of Agriculture in the Philippines (SUC-ACAP), and the participation and insights from the DA national and regional offices, private sector partners and key experts. The recognition of urgency to sustain and formulate actions to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals was highly considered in this symposium. Specifically, the symposium was designed and conducted to focus on the role of SUCs in advancing the innovations and science-based farm production systems. The symposium directly contributes to the fulfillment of the Food Systems Summit vision, objectives, and final outcomes. During the plenary session, the Presidents from PASUC and SUC-ACAP were able to effectively represent the current and ongoing initiatives of SUCs in the country, highlighting their research, development and extension (RDE) programs, and the technologies they have developed which can be of contribution for the modernization and industrialization of the agri-food systems. The current modalities and initiatives to develop the agriculture and fisheries sector were also highlighted in their presentations. This greatly aligns with one of the Food Systems Summit outcomes of highlighting existing solutions towards brave, bold, and new actions for transforming reshaping food systems. The open forum of the event allowed an inclusive multi-stakeholder process. During one of the discussions, perspectives from the private sector, technology generators/developers, etc. emerged as various issues and concerns arose from the discussion.None.

Yes

234238239240241242248249The symposium focused on the role of State Universities and Colleges in modernizing, industrializing, and professionalizing Philippine agriculture food systems. Technologies and innovations play a key role to achieve and realize DA’s goal to modernize, industrialize, and professionalize the agriculture and fisheries sector. One of the enablers in creating such technologies is the academe, particularly the SUCs. With the mandate, technical expertise, and facilities to conduct RDE programs, the SUCs are major partners of the DA in its pursuit to steer agri-fishery growth and transformation toward a modern and industrialized Philippine agriculture through its strategies under the Food Security Framework. Under the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), the DA along with the other government agencies are mandated to support and prioritize the research and technology initiatives, tools, and facilities of SUCs for the latter to develop innovations. The SUCs in the country have been partners by the government (e.g. DA, DOST, CHED) and the private sector in developing and providing available tools and technologies in various segments of the value chain such as crop varieties, animal breeds, farm inputs, production and post production package of technologies, decision support tools for precision agriculture, machineries development, and value added food products. Providing these available opportunities for SUCs adapting innovations in food systems, it is important to provide a venue for the SUCs to increase their awareness and strengthen their collaboration through possible partnerships with the private sector; hence this webinar.235238239240241242248249The major findings of the symposium during the open forum are the following: 1. With the full devolution of the Agri-Aqua R4DE to the LGUs starting 2022 and with the start of the Mandanas-Garcia ruling, SUCs should initiate close partnership with Regional DA offices for better R4DE linkages (with possible funding) and synergy of relevant agri-aqua initiatives. There is also a need to strengthen the Agri-Business Incubation Centers for promising AB technologies (with the inclusion of other government offices such as the DTI aside from the DA and DOST). Further, with the pilot implementation of the Province-led Agriculture and Fisheries Extension System (PAFES), SUCs will have an excellent partnership platform to be actively involved with DA and LGUs Agri-Aqua programs. SUCs are in the best position to be an important contributor to local area transformation. 2. Private sector, consumers, and farmers, as the next and end user of technologies, should now be fully involved during the early stages particularly in technology development process to establish the needs based and demand driven approach. 3. There is a need to revise parameters or indicators to measure the activities being conducted for research for development (R4D) within SUCs. Rather than an output-based statement (i.e. number of projects/research generated, number of research projects presented, etc.), there should be a focus on the number of technologies transferred or adapted/scaled and commercialized by the end users/clients/farmers/fishers. This can also be addressed by more impact-driven substantive evaluation methods. 4. The labor market in terms of their needs in modernizing and advancing towards the needs of the 4th industrial revolution in agriculture was also recommended to be looked upon. It was raised that entrepreneurial initiatives for the students are timely and significant; hence the need to focus on the business orientation/aspect aside from the employability aspect. This will have a great impact on the review of the agriculture and fisheries curriculum in the country. Furthermore, this will also have implications to the Philippine Qualifications Framework for Agriculture. 5. The current reward system present for university/college researchers is supply-oriented or supply driven. Publication is the basis and serves as an incentive to develop technologies. The rewards or incentives for university researchers are based on the number of technical publications and reports. The symposium recommended to have this revisited and reshaped to further strengthen the roles and responsiveness of the SUCs on addressing the needs/demands of the agriculture and fisheries sector.236238240241244245246248249251The outcomes of the forum are recommended priority actions that can contribute to the narratives along the five-point action tracks. 1. Research for development should aim for use and impact by the next user(s). To do this, it is suggested to involve the intended users from the planning process not only when the R4D has been already developed. The application of an inclusive approach in the agriculture and fisheries industry pertains to the involvement and participation of key stakeholders during the early stages of research planning and process. Through this participatory planning and consultations, prior to jumping into any R4D investment, technologies will be suitably developed based on the needs of the intended users. Also, resistance to the adoption of the technologies will be less. This method also opens a wider network of collaboration between the developers and the adopters of technologies, which are in this situation, the farmers and fishers. 2. There is a need to revisit and revise the reward system to university researchers who are the developers of the technologies. Specifically, there is a need to focus the criteria on the application of technologies being generated within their respective industry. As an initially proposed solution, the need to have intellectual property modalities and tools were emphasized to increase application of generated technologies in the agriculture and fisheries sector. However, some private sector representatives expressed that patenting might only hinder the scaling out to farmers. 3. There are numerous technologies being developed by SUCs. The need to follow up on a study on adoption and impact of these technologies on stakeholders was emphasized. There is also a need to validate and verify if the private sector or other significant groups are adopting or commercializing these technologies. It is also necessary to identify ways to further boost or develop these technologies for these to be adopted or commercialized. 4. There is a need to further involve the private sector, consumers, and farmers in the early stages of the technology development process. The challenge pertains to including or ensuring the involvement of key stakeholders before the start of any R4D activity. The assumption is that an industry or a taker should already be part of the endeavor beforehand. With this, an R4D investment should also have an immediate return on investments. 5. The financial gain for new products and technologies may be a very good incentive for technology developers.237238239240241242246249250There is not much divergence observed during the symposium proper as well as during the discussions of the open forum. One main divergence observed from the symposium emanates from the technologies developed by the SUCs. Some of the participants disagree that technologies being developed by SUCs are being fully utilized by the industry, specifically in the agriculture and fisheries sector.

2021-08-13 17:08:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27041/203

751535252450124913132411151431431634

The secretariat thoroughly read the document Reference Manual for Convenors of Food Systems Summit Dialogues to ensure that the Principles of Engagement are taken into account during the whole process. Stakeholders from the government (both national and local level), non-government organizations, private industry, international organization, and academe were invited to ensure multi-stakeholder inclusivity, and to cover the complexity of the food systems elements affecting food loss and waste. Discussion topics were prudently laid down to showcase the urgency of the issue, and to capture participants’ commitments. After the presentation of discussion topics, an open forum was held to encourage complementation of work, networking, and building of trust among the participating stakeholders.The National Dialogue on Food Loss and Waste reflected all the Principles of Engagement. During the conduct of the open forum, through a participatory approach, the stakeholders recognized the need to act with urgency, and provided various commitments in addressing the problem of food loss and waste in the Philippines. The promotion of food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve well-being of individuals, communities, and the environment was reflected in the discussion topics of the resource speakers. The Dialogue’s moderator acknowledged the complexity of the issue on food loss and waste, and conveyed it to the participants. Each stakeholder group was given an opportunity to share individual initiatives and approaches on how to collaborate with other groups moving forward in tackling food loss and waste in the country. Towards the end of the Dialogue, the moderator encouraged all participants to network and build trust among themselves.The Dialogue Convenors must keep an open mind, be neutral, and be rational to appreciate the Principles of Engagement. The Convenors must realize that it is necessary to involve stakeholders from multiple groups operating in food systems, and that all participants have the right to speak. Fundamentally, the Principles of Engagement will guide the Dialogue Convenors to create opportunities for the widespread engagement of various stakeholders in food systems.

Yes

234239243246248249The Dialogue focused on the Food Systems Summit Action Track #2 Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns specifically on the matter of food loss and waste. The concepts of food loss and waste based on the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) definition were conveyed to the participants. Food loss is the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by food suppliers in the chain, excluding retailers, food service and consumers. On the other hand, food waste refers to the decrease in the quantity or quality of food resulting from decisions and actions by retailers, food service providers and consumers. Overview of the extent of food loss and waste at the national level were presented. In the Philippines, substantial post-harvest losses of up to 50% were from initial harvesting, grading, packaging and transportation from field to storage and distribution. In terms of food waste, an estimate of 2,175 tons of food are wasted daily in Metro Manila. It was emphasized in the Dialogue that food loss and waste is an economic waste— every time food is wasted, all the money, packaging, manpower, and water are wasted too, all along the supply chain. There are three ways to address food loss and waste. These include prevention, donation, and composting. The Philippines has the Food Donation Act of 2009 through which the food surplus can be donated such as the community pantries. It was emphasized that a nation feeds its people, soils, and its animals. Commercialized technologies for reducing post-harvest loss developed by the Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and Mechanization were presented. The available commercialized technologies are low-cost, and are applicable to commodities such as cassava, rice, corn, soybean, cashew, and coffee. In addition, the effectiveness of post-harvest facilities particularly for rice production was also discussed. In 2008, the wasted rice in the Philippines was equivalent to 12.2% of the total rice imports which is equivalent to Php 7.27 billion or the consumption of nearly 2.5 million Filipinos in a year. One of the strategies applied to address rice wastage is thru information and awareness-raising campaigns. The result of this campaign was discussed by the Philippine Rice Research Institute. The initiatives in the Legislative Branch in addressing the issue of food loss and waste, specifically the Senate Bill No. 1242 An Act Providing for a System of Redistributing and Recycling Food Waste to Promote Food Security, was also reported in the Dialogue. Hunger is a social issue. Hunger can be addressed by sustainable consumption. Addressing food loss and waste can contribute to the alleviation of hunger.235239243246248249In the National Dialogue on Food Loss and Waste, the active participation of all stakeholders coming from the private sector, non-government organizations, international agencies, academe, and the government was highly appreciated. This aspect is significant in understanding and addressing the issue using a multisectoral approach. Each stakeholder group is eager to forge partnerships among themselves for the creation of programs that will address the issue of food loss and waste. The national government can facilitate the institutionalization of the intended partnerships among the stakeholder groups. All of the participants recognized the importance of their institutions, and the effectiveness of collaboration for the various initiatives that were discussed. The majority of the participants across all stakeholder groups expressed their current initiatives and future commitments in addressing the issue at hand. There must be a continuing discourse on these initiatives and commitments to really operationalize them in a participatory and collaborative manner for all stakeholder groups. The ideal future scenario is that there are collaborative programs being implemented by various groups of stakeholders which are institutionalized through formal agreements. Relevant to this, it was noted during the Dialogue that the Philippine House of Representatives has already approved the Substitute Bill for House Bills (HB) 2031, 2186, 2189, 3342, 3370, 3849, 3973, 4450, 4465, 4524, 4616, 4903, 5467, 5974, 6468, 6474 and 7709, and has transmitted to the Senate as HB 7956 or the Food Surplus Reduction Act. There is a proposed consensus in the Dialogue to reinforce data relevant to food loss and waste. With this, the data collection and database establishment shall be identified as the top priority activity. The data that will be collected and analyzed will be the prerequisite for all the policies and programs that will be developed intended for tackling the issue of food loss and waste in the country.236239243246248249The discussion topic of the Dialogue mainly focused on the issue of food loss and waste. Participants from the various stakeholder groups provided a great number of ideas during the discussions. Among the significant ideas include coming up with an economic definition of food loss and waste, establishing data, integrating the concept of food safety to the Zero Waste Act, extending advocacies, value-adding of commodities, improving postharvest handling, and developing metrics on food loss and waste. There is a basic definition of food loss and waste that is provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization. According to the participants, it can be further supplemented with an economic definition of food loss and waste. This will resolve the dilemma on whether it will be more economical just to throw foods or there will be an economic benefit in redistributing foods. This will be highly applicable to the Zero Food Waste Act, and other initiatives involving food banks. Lack of data on food loss and waste is a major concern for all the stakeholders. Data collection on postharvest loss and food waste are very patchy and inadequate. The Philippine Statistics Authority can be requested to be involved in this initiative to include in their activities the data collection specific for food loss and waste. Subsequently, the stakeholders across the value chain must help identify the variables that must be gathered. One of the main components of the Zero Food Waste Act is the redistribution of edible food waste to the food insecure. This is a great initiative that must also consider the principles of food safety. The technical experts from the academe will be keen on working with the legislators to ensure that food safety will be incorporated in the draft bill. The RICEponsible campaign was an effective advocacy for reducing food loss and waste in the rice commodity. This program can serve as a blueprint to extend the advocacy to other commodities such as vegetables, fruits, livestock, and fish. Consumers shall also be educated to purchase food without having a bias on its physical quality/appearance. The government may lead this initiative in collaboration with other stakeholder groups. Value-adding of commodities is one of the strategies to extend the shelf life of commodities and increase their economic value. Making use of available technologies to value-add specific commodities will result in reduced food loss and waste. The academe in partnership with the private sector can lead this. The concept of a community-based food processing facility shall be further explored and amplified. Postharvest handling to reduce food loss and waste shall rely on postharvest technologies, storage facilities, and improved packaging to lessen food loss and waste. The government, private sector, and international organizations have expertise and resources to complement the proposed initiatives under this subject. Developing context-specific metrics in measuring how the Philippines is progressing towards the reduction of food loss and waste is also an important proceeding. The tool that will be developed must be useful to the policymakers, and program implementers.237239243246248249Food loss and waste is an issue that everyone wanted to solve. Thus, in the conduct of the National Dialogue on Food Loss and Waste, there is no area of divergence. The participants are respectful of each other’s views, and the discussions were purely rational.

2021-08-13 19:05:27205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27245/194

902815241281222431621112894452110121

The United States hosted its final National Food Systems Dialogue (“the Dialogue”) on June 30, 2021. The event used the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust. See below for specifics.The U.S. National Food Systems Dialogues seek to empower U.S. domestic stakeholders to participate in the preparation for the UN Food Systems Summit. The final U.S. National Dialogue, held virtually, embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity, and engaged stakeholders from across U.S. food systems, ranging from U.S. producers, agricultural organizations, food industry, research and academic institutions, farm and food workers, and civil society groups. All invitees from the first and second U.S. Dialogues were invited to the final Dialogue. The Dialogue sought to ensure representation from minority groups, women, and youth in food and agriculture and provided a forum for participants to share diverse perspectives, learn from each other, and collaborate to identify solutions to pressing challenges. Small group discussions at the Dialogue emphasized respect and trust-building through facilitation by objective U.S. government experts and researchers. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank and collaborative discussion. The Dialogue discussion topics highlighted the complex synergies and tradeoffs of food systems policy interventions and solutions. To build trust, promote transparency, and accurately reflect the voices of U.S. food systems stakeholders, readout reports and summaries went through multiple levels of review and validation. The notetakers sent anonymized notes from the breakout rooms to facilitators, who developed anonymized reports that were shared and validated by participants before incorporation into the final official UN Dialogues Gateway feedback form. A complementary report highlighting high-level outcomes will be posted on the USDA Food Systems website.N/A

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251In following with the guidelines of the UN Dialogues Toolkit and to ensure a systematic, comprehensive approach to assessing food systems, the final U.S. National Dialogue focused on identifying pathways for building more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food systems in the United States. The discussions built on the results of the first and second U.S. National Food Systems Dialogues. The event agenda consisted of opening remarks, followed by one fifty-minute small group breakout sessions led by U.S. government experts and researchers, and concluding with a closing plenary featuring read-outs of the breakout session discussions by facilitators. To motivate the breakout discussions, participants were requested to come to the Dialogue ready to share their perspectives on the steps necessary to create pathways towards more sustainable food systems in the United States over the next 3-5 years, keeping in mind the challenges and solutions identified in the first and second National Dialogues.  Discussion Questions: To encourage a systematic assessment of pathways, breakout groups considered the following main questions: • How do we advance sustainable food systems in the United States over the next 3-5 years (economic, social, environmental)? What approaches are necessary? • How can food system actors work together to meet these goals? • Additional questions: o What steps/approaches are necessary to make progress? o What structures/processes are necessary to ensure that all stakeholders and perspectives are included? • Consider synergies and tradeoffs between the three pillars of sustainability: o What are the synergies among social, economic, and environmental objectives? o What are the tradeoffs among social, economic, and environmental objectives and how will we manage these tradeoffs and recognize or compensate those who might be made worse off? Breakout groups were asked to consider pathways to advancing the three pillars of sustainability: 1. Economic - Decent incomes for farmers, farm workers and workers along the supply chain plus fair and competitive markets that serve all sized producers (production, processing, aggregation/distribution, markets) 2. Social - Access to nutritious foods and healthy diets, bolster participation of socially disadvantaged groups 3. Environmental - Agricultural production that minimizes negative environmental impacts and mitigates climate change235238239240241242243244245246248249250251This report represents the views of U.S. stakeholders who participated in the Dialogue; it does not represent the official views of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the United States Government. The focus of the final Dialogue was to identify pathways for improving the sustainability of U.S. food systems. While the discussion topics were organized around the three pillars of sustainability as described above, some pathways addressed a single pillar of sustainability while others considered cross-cutting aspects of sustainability and tradeoffs across food systems. Participants agreed that all three pillars of sustainability should be considered holistically. The pathways towards more sustainable U.S. food systems by 2030 that emerged were: 1) resilient, efficient, and productive food systems based on fair and competitive markets; 2) nutrition security, equitable livelihoods, and inclusion ensured by collaboration; 3) climate-smart agriculture enabled by innovation, incentives, and markets; and 4) cross-cutting approaches including access to technology and adoption of innovation, climate change mitigation and adaptation, education and capacity building, equity and inclusion, incentives for change and investment at all levels, resilience, efficiency, and productivity, and trust and collaboration across sectors. (1) Economic Pathway: resilient, efficient, and productive food systems based on fair and competitive markets Dialogue participants identified building resilient, efficient, and productive food systems through fair and competitive markets as a pathway towards greater economic sustainability. Some participants hypothesized that increased productivity, efficiency, and deployment of appropriate technologies could increase profitability and create synergies between social, environmental, and economic goals. Some participants noted how resilient supply chains and access to rural broadband could increase market access. Some participants emphasized that science- and rules-based international trade is also a key to expanding market access. Funding and market-based mechanisms were noted by some participants to incentivize social and environmental actions. Some participants stressed the importance of resilience, noting the need to increase adaptivity across infrastructure, supply chains, and food systems. (2) Social Pathway: nutrition security, equitable livelihoods, and inclusion ensured by collaboration Dialogue participants agreed that pathways towards greater social sustainability require collaboration to achieve positive outcomes in nutrition security, equitable livelihoods, and inclusion. Participants emphasized the urgent need for diverse stakeholders to build trust and work together to make progress towards sustainable food systems. Some participants highlighted the importance of nutrition security, not simply increasing calories, but enhancing the quality of those calories and access to safe, nutritious, healthy food. Participants also agreed that producers’ equitable access to economic opportunities is a priority, and that policies and programs should prioritize the most vulnerable communities. Some participants noted the importance of youth engagement in food systems. Some participants highlighted the need to improve information flows amongst disadvantaged and minority farmers to increase access to markets and programs. (3) Environmental Pathway: climate-smart agriculture enabled by innovation, incentives, and markets Dialogue participants agreed that pathways towards greater environmental sustainability are built through innovation, incentives, and markets that enable the adoption of climate-smart agriculture. Some participants stressed that multiple levels of public investment and support are needed to plan and adapt to environmental crises. Some approaches mentioned by participants include resilient infrastructure and supply chains, voluntary incentives for climate-smart agriculture, financial measures to mitigate risk (price or yield supports, crop insurance, and insurance markets), investment in research and development, and extension and capacity building. Some participants noted that improved use of and access to technology could allow producers to stay competitive, resilient, and to learn from extreme climate events. Some participants explored the idea of building soil health and carbon markets, noting that better-functioning carbon markets could encourage farmer participation. (4) Cross-Cutting Approaches Some participants highlighted approaches that would address the social, environmental, and economic aspects of sustainability and should be considered in U.S. pathways towards more sustainable food systems. Some participants agreed that multi-stakeholder dialogue was an important first step in the pathways to more sustainable U.S. food systems. Cross-cutting approaches included: o Education and capacity building amongst producers and consumers o Equity and inclusion, with a focus on youth, women, and marginalized groups o Incentives for change and investment at all levels o Multi-stakeholder dialogue o Resilience, efficiency, and productivity o Trust and collaboration across sectors236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Economic Pathway: Participants agreed that pathways towards greater economic sustainability should be based on fair and competitive markets that contribute to productive, efficient, and resilient food systems. Some participants noted the importance of building more fair and competitive markets for large and small producers. Strategies mentioned by some participants include avoiding excessive market concentration and identifying and addressing barriers to entry to level the playing field. Some participants hypothesized that increased productivity, efficiency, and deployment of appropriate technologies could increase profitability and create synergies between social, environmental, and economic goals. Some participants suggested that productivity gains were the best way to satisfy most stakeholders, noting that there should be sustainable, profitable production by our farmers. Some participants stressed the need for continued innovation and technology that is scalable and inclusive. Some participants noted how supply chains and rural broadband could increase market access. Supply chain dynamics could contribute to a more diversified output and expand market access opportunities for farmers, some participants hypothesized. Some participants noted that infrastructure and broadband could improve supply chain management and help to communicate economic signals across the value chain (e.g. commodity prices, availability, input costs). Rural broadband could connect farmers to consumers and producers of all scales to work with clients including integrators, feed sales, consumers, and processers, added some participants. Some participants emphasized that science- and rules-based international trade is also a key to expanding market access, noting that further discussions on the role of trade in sustainability and resilience are needed. Some participants noted that support for place-based food systems compliments a large-scale focus on national and global markets. One group outlined a Local Pathway, which could seek to strengthen domestic local and regional food systems through procurement, subsidies, and market access. The group also outlined a Global Pathway to contribute to global food security through a rules-based trading system and sharing U.S. expertise in agricultural research, innovation, and technology. Both Local and Global Pathways could be complementary. Another group noted that Indigenous communities face nutrition security challenges and that all communities should have access to decentralized food systems that allow for local food sovereignty. Funding and market-based mechanisms were mentioned by some participants to incentivize specific actions (social or environmental). For example, some participants mentioned that giving greater value to farm labor could generate more livable wages or better-functioning carbon markets could encourage farmer participation. Some participants stressed the importance of assuring livable wages, access to healthcare, and equity/fairness for all people with emphasis on those working in the food system. Some participants highlighted that approaches to investment and regulation should benefit national and international interests to grow markets and improve food systems at all scales. Some participants stressed the importance of resilience, noting the need to increase adaptivity across infrastructure, supply chains, and food systems. Some participants agreed that more diversified food systems could improve resilience, as well as generate novel economic opportunities. Improved nutrition security and the ability to adapt to climate-related shocks and stresses were additional benefits of resilience cited by some participants. Some participants noted a possible tradeoff between efficiency and resiliency, mentioning how efficient supply chains lacked resilience during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some participants noted that economic objectives may be in opposition to other sustainability goals, mentioning how sustainable agricultural practices could increase the cost of food production and food prices.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Social Pathway: Participants agreed that pathways towards greater social sustainability involve collaboration to achieve positive outcomes in nutrition security, equitable livelihoods, and inclusion. One group suggested that the social aspects of sustainability are the most difficult to resolve. Some participants agreed that there is an urgent need for stakeholders to collaborate and take steps to alter existing power dynamics to enhance social equity in food systems. Some participants highlighted that nutrition security is a key element of social sustainability. Some participants noted that building a resilient and sustainable food system will not simply involve increasing calories but enhancing the quality of those calories and increasing access to safe, nutritious, and healthy food. Some participants noted that building a nutrition “safety net” is important in disadvantaged communities and highlighted the opportunity for long-term savings in healthcare through nutrition assistance and education. Some participants agreed that food systems need to be easy and accessible to consumers, especially populations lacking in access to nutritious foods. Some participants noted that vulnerable low-income, marginalized, and/or non-English speaking consumers can lack access to available food delivery programs. Participants agreed that equitable access to economic opportunities by producers is a priority. Barriers to equitable livelihoods facing producers, noted by some participants, include geographical and market barriers and fair pricing that hinder the ability of smaller producers or new entrants in the production sector. Pathways identified for equitable access for producers by some participants include price controls to facilitate market access, support for creation of farm-to-school, food pantry, and other programs, the use of cooperatives (transportation and other) to get products to market, and the potential for food production and processing decentralization at the local level. Some participants also highlighted “soft infrastructure,” or community approaches that adapt food systems models to local contexts. Some participants noted that government procurement practices should prioritize the most vulnerable communities, for instance incentives could promote purchases of products from small minority-owned farmers and from American businesses. Some participants noted that incentives should ensure equitable distribution of wealth. Some participants highlighted the importance of incentives to remove institutional barriers and improve access to land. Some participants noted that government investment among and within various production sectors is unevenly distributed and should be more equitable. Increasing information access amongst disadvantaged and minority farmers was highlighted by some participants as important for increasing access to resources for all communities and stakeholders. Some participants noted that all programs should be inclusive of different languages and socioeconomic groups, citing the example of direct-to-consumer, on-line food delivery that may be difficult to access for those without internet or phone access or non-English speakers. Some participants noted that a central online space for accessing information, rural broadband and education, and intercultural education could increase access to resources for all. Some participants agreed that language we use needs to better reflect the diversity of stakeholders, foods, and production/harvesting methods of our food systems.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Environmental Pathway: Participants agreed that pathways towards greater environmental sustainability are built through innovation, incentives, and markets that enable the adoption of climate-smart agriculture. Participants highlighted the urgency of climate change and agreed that food systems should transition to respond to climate change through more sustainable and environmentally friendly food production. Some participants emphasized that policy should be flexible as there is no one-size-fits-all approach and supportive of innovation. Some participants added that encouraging regenerative farming and exploring the circularity of farming operations are promising ideas. Some participants stressed that multiple levels of public investment and support are needed to plan and adapt to environmental crises. Some approaches mentioned by participants include resilient infrastructure and supply chains, voluntary incentives for climate-smart agriculture, financial measures to mitigate risk (price or yield supports, crop insurance, and insurance markets), investment in research and development, and extension and capacity building. Some participants noted the importance of voluntary, incentive-based measures designed in an equitable way to increase adoption of climate-smart practices. Other participants highlighted that price guarantees or yields-supports could mitigate risk and increase participation by ensuring that farmers will make the same income while experimenting with new technologies and climate-smart practices. Some participants discussed that additional financial incentives might include stacked financing, deferred interest on loans, deferred payment on loans, or higher levels of cropping insurance. Others noted that risk mitigation is important for both local and global pathways, noting that crop insurance to build soil health is a model that could be transferred to other countries. Some participants noted that increased investment in research and development is needed to improve sustainability. Some participants posited that capacity building and extension services targeting underserved communities are needed to help farmers transition to sustainable farming. Some participants noted that improved use of and access to technology could allow producers to stay competitive, resilient, and learn from extreme climate events. Some participants noted that nationally and internationally, sharing of data can provide better directions for researchers and producers, prompting development and adoption of innovations. Some participants cited the example of grocery-store availability of information on reducing food loss and waste such as the FoodKeeper app. Some participants explored the idea of carbon markets, noting that better-functioning carbon markets could encourage farmer participation. Some participants agreed that carbon markets would benefit from improved information flow as well as publicly shared definitions, measurements, and standards, which is where the government can play a role as an “honest broker.” Some participants discussed soil carbon and the need to support soil testing and verification to allow farmers to take steps to improve their soil health, likening the importance of investing in soil health to a retirement savings plan. Some participants recognized that soil health is a highly complex and multi-dimensional challenge and that farmers should not focus myopically on soil carbon as the only solution to soil and ecosystem health on their land. Likewise, some participants noted that soil health is one of many dimensions to the challenge of addressing climate change in the context of food systems. Some participants stated that there is also a need to focus on the health of water and river resources as well as air in this discussion. Participants speculated that environmental co-benefits could emerge from adapting agriculture to changing climates and producers could also benefit economically from have more adaptive and resilient systems, for example when facing water scarcity or other environmental crises.236238239240241242243244245248249250251Cross-Cutting Approaches and Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue: Some participants highlighted approaches that would address the social, environmental, and economic aspects of sustainability and should be considered in U.S. pathways towards more sustainable food systems. Some participants agreed that multi-stakeholder dialogue was an important first step in the pathways to more sustainable U.S. food systems. Cross-cutting approaches included: o Education and capacity building amongst producers and consumers o Equity and inclusion, with a focus on youth, women, and marginalized groups o Incentives for change and investment at all levels o Multi-stakeholder dialogue o Resilience, efficiency, and productivity o Trust and collaboration across sectors Some participants emphasized the urgent need for stakeholders to collaborate to make progress towards more sustainable food systems. Some participants noted the need to build trust between all relevant stakeholders (government, industry, farms, consumers, farm and food workers, and others). Some participants agreed that the U.S. National Food Systems Dialogues have provided a forum to meet people from across different interest groups and agricultural sectors and begin to listen to people with different perspectives. Some participants posited that an iterative dialogue and inclusive forum where all interest groups can participate would be an important pathway. Some participants highlighted the importance of taking steps to alter existing power dynamics to enhance social equity in food systems. Some participants agreed that examining the systemic inequities at play in the food system, such as issues of environmental justice, and having inclusive dialogue should be step one.237238239240241242243244245246248249250251While not all discussion groups reached consensus on a pathway or pathways, discussion participants built on each other’s ideas and agreed that pathways for U.S. food systems sustainability need to holistically consider economic, social, and environmental aspects and related trade-offs. Participants agreed that the complexity and interconnectedness of our food systems will continue to create challenges and require compromises for solutions that optimize all dimensions of sustainability. Some participants noted the significant challenge of identifying who should pay for actions to address climate change at the producer and farm level. Some participants expressed that consumers should pay more for the climate-friendly agricultural commodities, but this is a tradeoff for equitable access to healthy foods. Some participants emphasized that policies should avoid tradeoffs such as farmers raising consumer prices to pay for sustainable practices. Some participants noted that the preference for the use of voluntary, performance-based incentives is complicated by the difficulty in quantifying environmental benefits. Participants agreed on the need to assure the inclusion and input from diverse farmers, including women and minority farmers, as well as the need to ensure their access to innovative programs and tools. Some participants recognized the need to listen to participants in all sectors of the food systems, including farm workers (including immigrant farm workers who often lack protected rights), owners of production, processors and retailers, and consumers. Some participants noted that local communities and producers stakeholder interests must have a seat at the table, in particular Black, Indigenous and other people of color (BIPOC) producers, pastoralists, hunters, fishers, and wild harvesters who must see their values and interests reflected in any pathway that is advanced through these discussions. Some participants noted that the communities and stakeholders most negatively impacted by current food systems, predominantly BIPOC communities, must be central in these discussions. Some participants mentioned relevant approaches including the “Values Aligned Approach” by the National Farm to School Network and long-term investment strategies and approaches led by the Intertribal Agriculture Council with Native producers under the Native American Agriculture Fund. Some participants noted the importance of youth engagement in food systems, and the need to address structural barriers for youth and youth of color through programs, removing institutional barriers, and improving access to land.

2021-08-13 19:48:28205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17030/82

1407763

The principle to act with urgency was emphasized from the preparation of the national dialogue and was evident in its execution given the need for urgent actions to achieve the 2030 agenda. The principle of multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced, thereby allowing a wide cross section of stakeholders to share possible actionable solutions. In organizing the National Dialogue the Convenor has committed to identifying and providing possible solutions to the challenges of food systems transformation and putting them into practice, thereby contributing to the vision, objectives and final outcome of the Food Systems Summit.Recognizing the complexity of food systems, Guyana's National Convenor highlighted the need for adopting a holistic food systems approach rather than an individual sector approach. As such, representatives from different sectors where invited to participate in the dialogue. Additionally remarks were giving by the Minister Health as the health sector plays a key role in ensuring that there is safe and nutritious food for all Guyanese. In achieving the 2030 Agenda Guyana must align its plans and strategies with the outcomes from several of the global discussions on the issue. The principle of complementing the work of others was reflected in the remarks of the FAO Chief Economist on the global context of food security and how Guyana fits into the bigger picture.All the principles of engagement should be used to guide the preparation of the dialogue as they help with ensuring meaningful engagement and fruitful outcomes. The incorporation of the principles of engagement at both the preparatory and execution stage of the dialogue allows for inclusivity and provides an environment for all stakeholders to respectfully let their voices be heard by the policymakers.

NoThe dialogue was conducted in the following way: - Opening Remarks from the Moderator of the event, H.E. Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Permanent Representative of Guyana to the United Nations (New York) - A video message from Dr. David Nabarro, Strategic Director, Food Systems Summit Dialogues Support Team on Developing a Pathway Towards Sustainable Food Systems - Brief Remarks from Dr. Maximo Torero Cullen, FAO Chief Economist on the Global Status of Agri-Food Systems and implications for Guyana - Brief Remarks from Dr. Eduardo Trigo, Special Advisor to the Director General of IICA on how the Americas are on the Road to the UN Food Systems Summit - Brief Remarks by the Hon. Dr. Frank Anthony, Minister of Health on Safe and Nutritious Food for all – A Healthy Guyanese Population - Brief Remarks by Mr. Paul Cheong, Chairman, Private Sector Commission giving the Private Sector Perspective in Transforming the Food System in Guyana - Feature Address by Hon. Zulfikar Mustapha, Minister of Agriculture and National Dialogue Convener for Guyana on the Vision for Guyana’s Agri-Food System: Roadmap to 2030 -A Questions and answers segment by the moderator (Questions/Comments/Suggested solutions were received from the participants on both the zoom platform and facebook live) - Summary of Next Actions and Closing Remarks by the moderator

234238239240241242244245248249The major focuses of the dialogue where: 1. Safe and Nutritious food for all - Healthy Guyanese Population This was aligned with Action Track 1 and offered an opportunity to bring together the elements of food safety, nutrition, poverty and inequalities in the framework of food systems in climate and environmental change to ensure that all people have access to a safe and nutritious diet. 2. Private Sector Perspective in Transforming the Food System in Guyana Public private partnerships are vital and re-emphasizes the importance of investment in agriculture infrastructure that contributes to a well functioning food system. Focusing on the private sector perspective gave the Private Sector Commission the opportunity to express their commitment to working with government and other stakeholders to develop and implement a national food security system as a transformative strategy. 3. Vision for Guyana’s Agriculture Food System: Roadmap to 2030 By adopting a “food systems approach” rather than an individual sector approach, Guyana will be more productive, more inclusive of the poor, more environmentally sustainable and resilient, and better equipped to deliver healthy and nutritious diets to all Guyanese. Guyana’s food system transformation is at the core of our development aspirations. Guyana envisions a modernized e-agriculture sector with enhanced incomes, enhanced productivity, value-addition, increased market access, and the production of safe and nutritious agricultural commodities that Guyana will produce for itself and the global market.235238242244245249Transforming Guyana’s food system will provide an environment where: a. agriculture can continue to provide a good livelihood for many (not just farmers); b. the country can take advantage of emerging trade opportunities in agriculture both regionally and internationally; c. the country can meet its development goals by leaving no one behind; and d. Everyone can have healthy, affordable diets that promote good health and reduce non-communicable diseases. To achieve this the following conclusions emerged from the dialogue: - Greater emphasis must be placed on increased production in the non-traditional sector, in an effort to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables and root crops which are required for balance and diversified diet. - There needs to be a focus on encouraging consumers to consume healthier diets. This may be achieved through the development of effective pricing policies which seek to curb the demand for foods high in saturated fat, trans fats, sugar or salt, thereby prompting persons to consume more fruits and vegetables. - Increasing investments in a more sustainable food system will require changes in policy and public and private sector support to encourage investments in national food production which plays an important role in supporting rural transformation and mitigating risks. - And with regards to climate resilience, the importance of maintaining and increasing the genetic diversity of crops and livestock within the country is recognized. It is urgent that both marine and terrestrial ecosystems are safeguarded from imminent threats to enhance climate resilience and provide safe, healthy and nutritious diets for all.236238242244245249Food Security Due to Guyana's agriculture sector vulnerability to factors such as flooding, market demand and volatile supply chain, ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for all, food availability, access, utilization and stability must be holistically addressed. As such, the following strategic approaches that should taken were highlighted in the dialogue: - Expanding the non-traditional agricultural sub-sector to promote diet diversification and enabling equality in availability and access, especially for rural populations; - Adopting appropriate harvesting, post-harvest, and storage technologies to reduce on-farm and post-harvest food loss and waste; and - Consolidate our National School Feeding Programme by strengthening connections between consumers and producers of food, including by fostering more robust food value chains and creating solid alliances between farmers and the wider society, to deliver safe, healthy and nutritious school meals. Guyana has signed the Declaration of Commitment for the Global School Meals Coalition. Climate Resilience In light of Guyana’s vulnerability, the Government of Guyana is fully aware of the increasing climate- related threats and is committed to the transformation to a low-carbon economy and enhancing the resilience of vulnerable ecosystems as well as local rural, and indigenous communities to combat the effects of Climate Change. Practical solutions from Guyana’s National High-Level Dialogue include: - Measures to de-risk the agriculture sector, such as a vulnerability fund or agriculture insurance, to mitigate risks to the sustainability and productivity of the sector.  - Relevant innovation and technological tools to assess food systems, identify risks and relevant actions to manage shocks and to increase the resilience. - Develop Climate Smart Practices to help address the adverse effects of Climate Change. - Increase investments in disaster preparedness focusing on addressing long-term and structural causes in addition to sudden shocks (droughts, etc). Funding and Financing Transforming the food system will require significantly greater public financing as well as private capital from national, regional and international partners. International support, including from FAO, IFAD, WFP, IICA, international financial institutions, and bilateral partners, will be critical to ensuring a more resilient agricultural sector through financing, technology, and creating an enabling global environment.237238239240241242244245246248249There were no areas of divergence that emerged from the dialogue. The participants are all in agreement that there is a lot of work to be done to transform Guyana's food system, the solutions are known and it is a matter of implementing them so that the current challenges will be addressed.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Key-Messages-from-Guyanas-High-Level-Dialogue_-May-11-2021.pdfhttps://fb.watch/7l--FCTzVO/

2021-08-13 20:41:10205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40154/32

98016334450425635900211648100121158199012140161025030001133

A diverse range of stakeholders interacted to form opinions highlighted in this track submission. Every opinion was recognised for the transformation and success of Botswana food systems. The aim of such a multi-faceted approach was the recognition that food systems are complex and require a systemic approach. The desire is to transform our consultations from previously parallel approaches to inclusive and participatory approaches that improve the already established processes of governance and allow the formation of new ones. Through this process, priorities of action were identified.Participants were from different sectors and stakeholder groups, and from different age categories.Embracing the principles ensures collective accountability and collective action by all. It also creates a sense of ownership among different stakeholders, with regards to the priorities identified for action.

Yes

234238248249250The focus was organised around the objectives of Track 1 – ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. National policies and programs that are related to Track 1 were discussed considering the food system in Botswana. Challenges were identified and solutions for bridging the gaps were recommended.235238248249250Organisation of players in the food system: Create organisations for farmers/processors/transporters/vendors and others for efficiency of pathways. Re-design the existing associations. Botswana to look at how to increase productivity in the livestock sector given the limited resources such as land and water. Educate farmers on how to sustainably produce with limited resources. Access to markets: infrastructural development (roads. Electricity, water and market infrastructure) and improved communication (networks). Creation of a transportation network to ensure that food gets delivered fresh and does not lose the nutritional value. Government, private (PPP) sector and farmers can also collaborate to build storage facilities at remote production areas. Policies and standards: Formulate nutrition policy. Review and update the existing policies. Centralisation of food standards at Botswana Bureau of Standards (BOBS) for all sectors. All stakeholders to be accountable to the implementation and conditions set out in the policies. Extension services: Intensify monitoring of primary production and update skills of extension officers. Food street vendors: Policies should be made to govern street vendors on nutrition and safety. Nutrition education: Teach farmers on proper farming, harvesting, storage and packaging to ensure that food arrives at markets in good conidtion. Incorporate nutrition in the curriculum from early childhood. Public education on how to eat balanced diets and the importance of serving portions/sizes. Encourage consumption of indigenous food. Home-grown school feeding programs: It would be ideal for schools to source food from local farmers, following the consumption patterns of each area. Value chains: Identify and assist farmers who can make a difference by producing enough food for fresh supply and processing. Target the whole value chain - from inputs to processing. Government should provide sufficient grants to farmers to help them buy implements.236238248249250It is clear from the discussions that transforming food systems requires resources such as water, land, infrastructure (e.g. road networks and storage facilities) and implements to build strong value chains. The need for cohesion through famers’ groups was also highlighted. Upgrading the skills and education of farmers and extension officers is also important. Incorporation of nutrition in production and processing activities is crucial as well as educating the public in good nutrition practices.237238248249250None

2021-08-13 20:42:33205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40187/32

13854940000100610000001004000010000601000100

A diverse range of stakeholders, though limited in number as this was the first dialogue held in Botswana, interacted to form opinions highlighted in this track submission. Every opinion was recognised for the transformation and success of Botswana food systems. Through this process, priorities of action were identified.Participants were from different sectors and stakeholder groups.Embracing the principles ensures collective accountability and collective action by all. It also creates a sense of ownership among different stakeholders, with regards to the priorities identified for action.

Yes

234239245248249The focus was organised around the objectives of Track 2 – shift to sustainable consumption patterns. National policies and programs that are related to Track 2 were discussed considering the food system in Botswana. Challenges were identified and solutions for bridging the gaps were recommended.235239245248249National agriculture programs: End-user focused research activities. Equitable subsidy of seeds and fertilizer with accountability by ensuring that subsidy is comparable to yield. Inclusion and commercialisation of traditional crops to improve food security. Implementation of cropping plans according to agro-ecological zones. Infrastracture development. Appropriate and equitable funding schemes per agricultural program. Adoption of affordable smart agriculture to mitigate climate change, improve production and commercialise agriculture.Coordination of labour to reduce competition between farming activities and other Government initiatives for poverty alleviation. Improve skills of farmers. Encourage the uptake of agriculture insurance by farmers. Implement a National Horticulture Cropping Plan to make the sector competitive and to improve diversification of consumer choices and food security. Creation of new markets and other distribution channels in the region and internationally (e.g. Africa Free trade Agreement and AGOA). In addition, creation of agro-processing parks in strategic locations to expand product choices. Review National Land Policy and make land available that is suitable for agriculture and with resources such water and electricity, especially for youth. Real-time data collection and management; and avail data to improve planning and implementation. In addition, consistent monitoring and evaluation to effectively measure impact. Extension Services: Increase resources and skill base for agriculture extension officers. Increase the number of extension officers and streamline their services according to value chains. Service Provision (service centres): Re-institutionalise agriculture service centres. Value chains: Reduce transaction costs along value chains and offer consumers better prices. Adequate funding for value addition and processing. Attractive environment for PPPs. Establish cooperatives for manufacturing enterprises .Use of indigenous knowledge systems in food processing. Establish entrepreneurial development programmes. Apiculture and aquaculture: Develop and commercialise the sectors. End-user focused research activities. Provision of stock (bees and fish) for farmers interested in the sectors. Provide adequate funding to develop the sector. Training of apiculture and aquaculture farmers. Capacity building of extension officers. Distribution channels and markets: Markets development. Incentivise the private sector. Commercialised and competitive agriculture: Reduction in transaction costs (at each stage in the value chain) and make agriculture profitable as well as offer consumer better prices. Equity in subsidies across all sectors. Equitable labour conditions and decent wages. Protection of markets for locally produced goods and assist with market penetration especially for start-ups.236239245248249Training of farmers as well as training extension officers is imperative to ensure food security. Accompanied by adequate financing along the value chains as well as markets for locally produced products will ensure a win-win situation and better consumer prices. For food systems to be profitable for all players, it important to lower transaction costs, which also will give consumers better prices.237239245248249None

2021-08-13 21:29:00205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14993/46

900145122027621711125241521421212141479710

De los seis Diálogos previstos en Colombia, este es el tercero y el primero de carácter subnacional. En este espacio participaron organizaciones y personas naturales tanto del ámbito privado como público, quienes tienen injerencia en el tema de los Sistemas Alimentarios en el país. Representantes de la academia, sociedad civil, organizaciones cívicas, pequeñas y medianas empresas, así como organizaciones del nivel descentralizado y organizaciones de cooperación internacional, confluyeron alrededor de un diálogo incluyente en el que se retoman aspectos recogidos en las anteriores experiencias para llegar a nuevos puntos de acuerdo. Dentro del diálogo, cada mesa de debate se organizó de manera tal que se favoreciera la participación de los diferentes actores y una discusión abierta y constructiva.El diálogo favoreció la participación de diferentes tipos de actores relacionados con la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional alrededor de un ejercicio plural y abierto, orientado a generar consenso en el marco de la diversidad, con el fin de generar aportes que apunten a contribuir con el objetivo de la Cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios. El diálogo reconoció la complejidad de la implementación de muchas acciones que se identifican como prioritarias, pero al mismo tiempo, la posibilidad de generar alianzas que permitan potenciar los esfuerzos que cada una de las organizaciones presentes realizan, en muchas ocasiones, de manera individual.No por el momento.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Como antesala a la realización del primer diálogo, se realizó un ejercicio orientado a identificar las acciones desarrolladas y retos a enfrentar para avanzar hacia sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, como una contribución al logro de la Agenda 2030 de los ODS. Cada uno de ellos fue analizado bajo la perspectiva de las Vías de acción que propone la Cumbre para los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021. Con este insumo, se inicia la fase uno (1) con dos diálogos; el primero se orientó a identificar acciones y retos adicionales, además de propuestas que contribuyeran en la construcción de la ruta, así como en la validación de la metodología y las temáticas a tratar en los diálogos subnacionales y nacionales subsecuentes. Para el segundo, esta dinámica se mantiene de la misma manera, buscando validar la información sobre las acciones, retos y propuestas realizadas en el ejercicio anterior, adicional a la identificación de nuevos aportes que contribuyeran en la construcción de la hoja de ruta. En este sentido, la apuesta dentro de la fase dos (2) con el tercer diálogo denominado: Primer diálogo subnacional de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios es continuar con la dinámica de validación y generación de nuevas propuestas que nutran los ejercicios anteriores y ofrezcan nuevas alternativas, altiempo que se ofrece una mirada sectorial y territorial desde una perspectiva de diversidad. Los resultados de este primer diálogo subnacional, junto con los de los dos anteriores, servirán como insumo para continuar enriqueciendo la hoja de ruta hacia la consolidación de la apuesta nacional para el logro de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, que contribuyan al cumplimiento de la Agenda 2030 de los ODS.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Dentro de las acciones que se vienen adelantando en el país y que han sido socializadas por el equipo organizador de los presentes Diálogos, los participantes consideraron que se debe priorizar las siguientes en los próximos 3 años: Priorización de la protección del medio ambiente, que vincule el fortalecimiento del Plan de Gestión de Cambio climático y el control de la deforestación ; Programa de “Red de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional” que busca que los campesinos y los agricultores cuenten con su propia producción, la cual sea sostenible ;;acciones de fomento a la lactancia materna, como mecanismo para combatir la malnutrición y desnutrición. De otro lado, se priorizó el fomento las cadenas de valor locales, así como la implementación de la ley de compras públicas locales (Ley 2946/2020); Formalización e implementación a la Ley de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos;;;; Fortalecer las acciones encaminadas al mejoramiento del tema de vías para conectividad entre los territorios, especialmente la implementación del Plan Nacional de Vías para la Integración Regional; Implementar medidas para la integración de la innovación y la tecnología a la producción agrícola, como el Plan Nacional de Conectividad Rural. Adelantar acciones orientadas a garantizar la seguridad jurídica sobre la propiedad y uso de la tierra; garantizar el acceso a agua potable para el consumo humano.236238239240243244245246247248249250251De la misma manera, en este Primer Diálogo Subnacional, los participantes hacen mención sobre los siguientes retos que se presentan para la consolidación de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles: Garantizar el acompañamiento territorial de la Comisión Intersectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional; Implementar y certificar las buenas prácticas agrícolas (BPA) para el mejoramiento en la cadena de transformación; Capacitar a las personas en el manejo adecuado de insumos y materias primas que generen productos con sostenibilidad ambiental y aporten a la seguridad alimentaria; Fortalecer las relaciones interinstitucionales a nivel nacional, departamental y municipal, que favorezcan la articulación, coordinación, participación, monitoreo e impacto territorial de las políticas; Implementar las políticas públicas relacionadas con la garantía del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación; Impulsar propuestas de sistemas alimentarios alternativos que fomenten la economía circular, mercados verdes, mercados campesinos, custodios de semillas, autoconsumo, aprovechamiento de desperdicios, huertas comunitarias y agricultura familiar, compras locales; desarrollo de modelos agroalimentarios replicables que puedan ser escalados por diferentes actores; Generar información y conocimiento que contribuya a mejorar el diseño e implementación de políticas y programas y la toma de decisiones; Dinamización de la economía agrícola mediante acciones de economía circular alrededor de los sistemas alimentarios; Proyectos de fortalecimiento a cadenas productivas agroalimentarias; Apoyo y fortalecimiento a proyectos de agricultura urbana y rurales de autoabastecimiento; Mejoramiento de buenas prácticas en procesos agroalimentarios, inventarios de unidades productoras agroalimentarias por departamento; Visión integrada de los Sistemas Alimentarios y con enfoque diferencial. De otro lado, continuidad, seguimiento y sostenimiento de los proyectos agroalimentarios regionales con horizonte de largo plazo y asegurar su financiación; Promover acciones que fomenten la autonomía alimentaria; Desarrollar investigación y análisis del contenido nutricional de alimentos autóctonos y propios de las regiones que no se encuentran en la tabla de composición de alimentos colombianos; Fortalecer el proceso de asociatividad de las organizaciones relacionadas con los sistemas alimentarios; Asegurar que se realizan procesos de gestión del conocimiento y aprendizajes de manera que se fortalezcan las buenas prácticas; Fortalecer la capacitación y formación en carreras y asociaciones de medicina y enfermería para la identificación y manejo de la malnutrición. Asimismo, implementación y fortalecimiento de circuitos cortos de comercialización de agricultura campesina, familiar, local y comunitaria; Fortalecimiento en la formación, divulgación y promoción para la adopción de patrones de consumo adecuados y sostenibles; Consolidar el concepto de Ciudadanía Alimentaria, a partir del reconocimiento de experiencias nacionales; Consolidar un Sistema de información, monitoreo y evaluación de los Sistemas Alimentarios en los territorios; Financiación de proyectos de investigación; Rescate de las cocinas, la producción autóctona y ancestral y la transformación de los alimentos para la protección de la cultura local.236238239240241243244245246247248249250251Con el fin de contribuir a la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios, los y las participantes realizaron las siguientes propuestas: Dinamizar la producción alimentaria sostenible en la Mesa de ciencia, tecnología e innovación agropecuaria mediante la reconversión productiva promisoria, basada en productos autóctonos, inocuos y endémicos de los ecosistemas; Realizar investigaciones que permitan visibilizar los efectos de incorporación de la Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional en los proyectos educativos institucionales; Estrategias de Información Educación y Comunicación con enfoque diferencial, especialmente étnico; política agropecuaria que oriente sobre la producción, comercialización y garantía de precios justos a los pequeños productores, en armonía con las necesidades nutricionales de los consumidores/as; Realizar los estudios de la canasta básica por regiones; Alianzas con el sector educativo para la transferencia de conocimiento en investigación y agroindustria sobre la cadena agroalimentaria; Alianzas público-privadas para fortalecer esfuerzos técnicos y financieros; Capacitación a los campesinos y productores en materia de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, especialmente sobre sostenibilidad, buenas prácticas agrícolas y participación en los mercados local y regional; Caracterizar e identificar las semillas autóctonas para favorecer el auto abastecimiento y disminuir la dependencia de semillas especializadas; Fomentar la oferta agroecológica nacional desde el componente de ciencia, tecnología, educación e innovación para favorecer la soberanía alimentaria; Desde el Ministerio de Educación Nacional, integración de lineamiento curricular transversal de Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional en todos los niveles educativos; Afianzar lazos con las Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales para incentivar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles; Mesas de trabajo nacionales con industria de productos ultraprocesados para generar acciones que aporten a la disminución de Enfermedades No Transmisibles; Vincular a la academia para el desarrollo de investigaciones, proyectos de grado, pasantías, prácticas en campo y comunitarias. Para llevar a buen puerto las propuestas, se hace necesario establecer alianzas que permitan potencializar la acción individual de cada una de las organizaciones y entidades. En este sentido, los participantes en el diálogo proponen las siguientes alianzas potenciales: • Entre Prosperidad Social (PS) y entes territoriales e internacionales. • Entre entidades gubernamentales y asociaciones de la sociedad civil. • Entre Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN) e instituciones educativas y universidades. • Entre organizaciones de cooperación internacional, entidades gubernamentales y/organizaciones del territorio. • Entre el Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar –ICBF, y las administraciones departamentales y locales. • Entre la Unidad Administrativa Especial para la Atención y Reparación Integral a las Victimas – UARIV, y las administraciones locales. • Entre el Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje – SENA, y las asociaciones de productores. • Entre las administraciones municipales y departamentales, y el sector privado.237No se presentaron controversias o desacuerdos durante el diálogo.

2021-08-13 21:31:10205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40209/32

180081000108310000075001000001000000400001200000101

A diverse range of stakeholders interacted to form opinions highlighted in this track submission. Every opinion was recognised for the transformation and success of Botswana food systems. The aim of such a multi-faceted approach was the recognition that food systems are complex and require a systemic approach. The desire is to transform our consultations from previously parallel approaches to inclusive and participatory approaches that improve the already established processes of governance and allow the formation of new ones. Through this process, priorities of action were identified.Participants were from different sectors and stakeholder groups, and from different age categories.Embracing the principles ensures collective accountability and collective action by all. It also creates a sense of ownership among different stakeholders, with regards to the priorities identified for action.

Yes

234240244245The focus was organised around the objectives of Track 3 – boost nature-positive production. National policies and programs that are related to Track 3 were discussed considering the food system in Botswana. Challenges were identified and solutions for bridging the gaps were recommended.235240244245Agrochemicals: Promotion of organic farming. Central collection points for fresh produce and testing before distribution to consumers. Establishment of a regulatory body. Continuous public education on agrochemicals. Food processing technologies for indigenous products: Continuous public education and promotion of indigenous food products. Operationalisation of the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Policy. Entrepreneurship: Promotion of entrepreneurship for improved livelihoods. Mindset change and embracing business development by citizens. Integration of research into industry’s daily businesses for development of appropriate agro-food technologies. Appropriate funding levels for processing of indigenous products. Pollution: Continuous public education on water management. Sustainable water mining. Wastewater management. Conservation agriculture: Promotion and implementation of climate-smart technologies. Renewable energy: Research on appropriate renewable resources. Appropriate funding levels for adoption of technologies.236240244245The use of agro-processing technologies that are climate-smart, coupled with conservation practices was highlighted. Business development with appropriate funding is fundamental.237240244245None

2021-08-13 21:36:22205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40259/32

490132214002425122000112160202001010630000306001702000561

A diverse range of stakeholders interacted to form opinions highlighted in this track submission. Every opinion was recognised for the transformation and success of Botswana food systems. The desire is to transform our consultations from previously parallel approaches to inclusive and participatory approaches that improve the already established processes of governance and allow the formation of new ones. Through this process, priorities of action were identified.Participants were from different sectors and stakeholder groups, with a good gender balance and from different age categories.Embracing the principles ensures collective accountability and collective action by all. It also creates a sense of ownership among different stakeholders, with regards to the priorities identified for action.

Yes

234241251The focus was organised around the objectives of Track 4 – advance equitable livelihoods. National policies and programs that are related to Track 4 were discussed considering the food system in Botswana. Challenges were identified and solutions for bridging the gaps were recommended.235241251Indigenous people: Inclusion of indigenous foods in the local food systems. People living with disabilities: Enabling infrastructure for an active life especially in rural and remote areas. Elderly people involvement in the food systems: subsidy for labour costs. Women: Gender equity in allocation of programs for commercialisation. Access to infrastructure (Land, water, electricity, etc.). People living below the poverty datum line: inclusive approach in food systems to improve livelihoods. Youth: Access to infrastructure and appropriate financing. Horticulture sector: Equitable distribution of schemes and initiatives accessible to all farmers. Smallholder farmers: Affordable processes to lower transaction costs. Decent lives for smallholder farmers. Re-establishment of cooperatives for distribution and access to markets. Decent agriculture jobs with decent wages. Access to competitive technologies for a competitive economy. Policies: Inclusive approach to development of policies – bottom-up approach. Protection of land rights of people living in poverty. Monitoring and evaluation of approved policies. Education: Inclusion of nutrition and entrepreneurship in curriculum for an early age. Finance: zero taxation of agricultural produce. Tailor-made financing for each value chain. Regularisation of market prices to reduce price fluctuations and erratic increases. Psycho-social: Change of mindset and reduction of dependency syndrome. Support programs for improved livelihoods.236241251It is clear that there are inequalities and power imbalances at household, community and national level, which consistently constrains the ability of food systems to deliver poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods.237241251None

2021-08-13 21:39:21205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40321/32

127088336004384339000421136020140529950011521200541231001300

A diverse range of stakeholders interacted to form opinions highlighted in this track submission. Every opinion was recognised for the transformation and success of Botswana food systems. The aim of such a multi-faceted approach was the recognition that food systems are complex and require a systemic approach. The desire is to transform our consultations from previously parallel approaches to inclusive and participatory approaches that improve the already established processes of governance and allow the formation of new ones. Through this process, priorities of action were identified.Participants were from different sectors and stakeholder groups, and from different age categories.Embracing the principles ensures collective accountability and collective action by all. It also creates a sense of ownership among different stakeholders, with regards to the priorities identified for action.

Yes

234242245246248249The focus was organised around the objectives of Track 5 – build resilience to vulnerabilities, shock and stress. National policies and programs that are related to Track 5 were discussed considering the food system in Botswana. Challenges were identified and solutions for bridging the gaps were recommended.235242245246248249Climate change: Adoption of climate-smart agriculture. Policies: Holistic review of policies and aligning them to international obligations that support agriculture and food systems. Cohesion of national policies to ensure consistency in implementation. Inclusive policies to cover vulnerable groups. Social Protection Systems: Resilient communities through provision of support to venture into production and food processing projects. Natural disasters: Adopt modern technologies for agriculture. Service centres: Re-activation of service centres. Education and training: Capacity building for farmers and extension officers. Review schools’ curriculum and align it to comparative advantages of food systems of specific districts. Include sustainable use of natural resources in school curriculum. Reliance on imports: Invest in local producers to ensure local access to food. Resuscitate school gardens. Access to funding: Appropriate funding for the stages in the value chain. Processing and value addition: Diversification of products. Formation of cooperatives with access to inputs and start-up capital. Access to markets: Develop distribution channels for all value chains. Secure market for local producers. Healthy market competition. Strengthen farmers’ linkage to Home Grown School Feeding Programme. Security of production areas: Initiatives to safeguard agricultural production areas. Human wildlife conflict: Protection of food production areas Vulnerable groups: Access to funding and land for production. Support the elderly in food systems. Mentorship programs for youth. Research and development: Increase investment end-user focused and cutting edge solutions.236242245246248249The use of agro-production technologies that are climate-smart, coupled with conservation practices was highlighted. Business development with appropriate funding is fundamental.237242245246248249None

2021-08-13 22:29:59205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33153/145

536591042039476220316145218513271613111581413182213391628410267136145675

The National Food Systems Dialogue (NFSD) was organized meticulously with careful consideration of the overall goals of the UN Food Systems Summit, the five Action Tracks, and their corresponding solution areas. Prior to the NFSD, subnational food systems dialogues were conducted to gather inputs for the discussions. Several conversations were initiated and conducted in less than two months, considering the urgency of contributing to the achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Keeping in mind that for endeavors to be successful, they need to be inclusive, the NFSD brought in perspectives from a diverse set of stakeholders from the government, private sector, civil society organizations, gender groups, Indigenous Peoples (IPs), science groups, research and academe, farming and fishing communities, among others. The program was also drafted in consideration of the different players across the Philippine food systems, from production to consumption and even promotions. Prior to the NFSD, there were series of meetings with various government agencies to ensure that the organization of the activity and the facilitation of post-event interventions are distributed among various organizations and government units. This initiative also aimed at building trust among agency representatives involved in the NFSD preparations.The NFSD clearly reflected the aspects of the UNFSS Principles of Engagement. In terms of commitment to the Summit, its program flow and contents were aligned to the five Action Tracks, to ensure that the final outcomes of the activity will contribute to the UNFSS. With the understanding of the complexities of food systems, breakout groups were setup, allowing various discussions to move beyond agriculture and food productions. The participants of the NFSD plenary and breakout sessions were also carefully selected to ensure inclusivity and adherence to the principles of engagement. Each of the breakout sessions was patterned in support of the five-point Action Tracks, and were spearheaded by identified lead agencies and supported by relevant designated agencies. The need to act with urgency and to work together was also clearly articulated throughout the Program -- from the messages to the mechanics of the breakout sessions. Throughout the activity, recognition of the various accomplishments and critical roles of other groups was evident. With the openness of the participants and their level of engagement during the discussions, the NFSD helped build trust and motivated the participants to unite in transforming the Philippine food system.Results-oriented. Being results-oriented will ensure commitment to the Summit objectives and address the complexities of the food systems. The outcomes of the discussions should be clearly defined even from the planning stages. Keeping these outcomes in mind will help in drafting the most appropriate program flow, target speakers and invitees, contents of messages, and the discussion questions. Reasonable time. While having a sense of urgency is critical in contributing to the achievements of the 2030 SDGs, proper event/dialogue planning is critical. An activity as important as this, which aims to open further discussions and elicit support towards working together, should be organized months in advance. This will ensure that all the agencies and organizations are aligned with the goals of the Summit and the visions beyond the Summit. Collaborative and inclusive approach. The participation of various stakeholders and agencies is paramount to achieve success and promote complementation, inclusivity, and diversity. The representations of vulnerable groups should always be considered as we would need to understand their needs and situations to draft appropriate support and interventions. Consider the appropriate number of people per discussion room. This will ensure smooth flow of discussions and give opportunities for the participants to be heard. A more intimate (smaller number of participants) group will also promote the building of trust and respect as each point may be discussed thoroughly, giving opportunities to various players/perspectives to be elaborated.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The National Food Systems Dialogue (NFSD) brought together the outputs of the concluded subnational food systems dialogues. The event gathered and validated the ongoing initiatives and initial recommendations that were identified during the said dialogues and other related activities. The concept of the NFSD was to build on efforts that are already underway and work together on pathways that would lead to sustainable food systems. It highlighted a consensus-building approach to trim down priority interventions and policy actions that will transform the Philippine food systems by 2030. The NFSD primarily focused on the following outputs and outcomes and resulted in: 1. Increased awareness on the Food Systems Summit goals and objectives, highlighting that it cuts across food systems and covers health, environment, social, agricultural, and even political aspects; 2. Gaining support from various sectors, agencies, and organizations towards contributing to the achievement of the 2030 SDGs; 3. Identified priority strategies, areas of interventions, and lead agencies; and 4. The promotion of the importance of collaborations, inclusivity, diversity, and open communications towards food systems transformations.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Generally, the discussions during the NFSD highlighted the following points: 1. There is an increasing support from various agriculture and non-agriculture players to collaborate to improve food systems in the Philippines and address challenges that hinder national growth; 2. Various government agencies are finding more ways to work together to develop and implement wider-scale and long-term solutions. These agencies expressed strong commitment to collaborate with the Department of Agriculture in transforming the Philippine food systems; 3. Collaborations of various sectors, including the livestock, dairy, fisheries, among others are imperative to create resilient and sustainable food systems that are equitable, secure, and that ensures high-quality nutrition for all; 4. Policy reviews and enhancements on laws related to food systems are critical to create a more enabling environment for food systems transformations. Related to this, accreditation/registration guidelines, import and export rules, and fiscal incentives should also be assessed and updated to respond to current demands of the sectors; 5. Agriculture and the rural economy are key sectors for supporting livelihoods in protracted crises; 6. To ensure proper monitoring and evaluation processes, national baselines and periodic assessments should be conducted, specifically on food loss and wastage, for an informed, evidence-based legislation and other actions; 7. Youth engagement programs should be developed to attract more youth to be more involved in interventions related to food, agriculture, environmental protection, and social development; 8. Outside of all the policy proposals and recommendations, pathways should be gender responsive and inclusive (including IPs and other vulnerable groups); 9. Challenges related to land access affect different sectors and responding to these is important to move forward with others points of intervention; 10. Agriculture and farming should more and more be treated as business venture/s even at the farm level to pave the way for increased profits. Agro-entrepreneurship programs should be rolled out to professionalize farmer cooperatives and level up the dignity of farming; 11. Farmer clustering and consolidation does not necessarily mean land title consolidation; 12. Deeper private sector engagement programs are called for to be able to harness resources and expertise, link farmers to institutional buyers, and support infrastructure improvements; 13. The role of communications and awareness campaigns cannot be disregarded in implementing a whole-of-society approach for food systems transformation; 14. There is value in looking at approaches to change mindsets and behaviors especially towards influencing a shift to healthier diets and nature-based productions; 15. Mitigating food loss and food waste concerns requires ecosystem-based interventions and concerns the society as a whole; 16. There is a need to involve the local government units more aggressively to maximize the impact of interventions; 17. Building resilience in the food systems should also prioritize addressing foundational concerns like soil heath, water security and climate resiliency, among others. Building resilient yet progressive agriculture and fisheries livelihoods and communities will largely contribute to a sustainable and equitable food systems; 18. The importance of addressing malnutrition was emphasized, as stunting among Filipino children is very high in the country. Interventions related to this will include zero hunger and good health and well-being, among others; 19. Issues confronting the food systems include landslides, soil erosion, sea water intrusion, threat of biodiversity loss, lack of technologies for adaptation, lack of capital to avail of technologies, lack of social protection, insufficient number of post-harvest facilities, power supply interruptions during typhoons, among others; and 20. Heavily mentioned throughout the sessions were the need for gender-aggregated data, access to market, information, and financing, interventions to promote ease of doing business, streamlined quality, import/export, and food safety regulations, and the improvements in post-harvest and storage facilities.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The discussions during the NFSD breakout session covered a wide scope of possible action items which are summarized below. Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Engagement of youth in food systems. This will require: 1) the enactment of the Magna Carta for Young Farmers in Congress; and 2) improving programs that incentivize youth participation in agriculture. More specific interventions could be simplifying the application process and requirements of existing programs, providing livelihood opportunities to graduates of agricultural courses, providing opportunities for free access to lands as entrepreneurs, or matching them with private employers as employees. Compensate the farmers properly. This can be undertaken through the following: 1) linking farmers to institutional buyers; 2) promoting consolidation and clustering to farmers for them to benefit from economies of scale; 3) providing social protection programs for landless farmers and impoverished fishers; 4) strengthening engagement with LGUs on the provision of technical support to farmers and fishers; 5) speedy implementation of the Agrarian Reform Law through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), to provide tenure to small farmers and help increase their productivity; and 6) in the long term, implementing concrete and sustainable market tax and financial policies. Mitigate post-harvest losses and food wastage. The participants agreed to work on the following action items: 1) establish strategically located post-harvest facilities and infrastructures to extend the shelf life of produce; 2) review the entire permit application cycle to simplify the process and encourage the private sector to invest; 3) maximize the collection and utilization of organic waste; and 4) provide incentives to companies who can collect and process organic wastes into fertilizers. Enhance the capacity of the public to secure safe and nutritious food. This will cover the following strategies: 1) increase public awareness on food systems and promotion of nutritious foods; 2) enforce existing policies, such as the Milk Code, Bio-fortification, Food Fortification Law and the National Feeding Program; and 3) promote the inclusion of fresh produce in the food pack reliefs distributed during calamities. These food packs should advocate compliance to Nutrition Cluster Recommendations on Healthy and Nutritious Family Food Packs and Sustainable Food Source. Provide equitable and sustainable food production. 1) Strengthen food, nutrition, and agricultural policies, programs, and fair trade relations, with special attention to the creation and strengthening of food security at all levels; 2) integrate population programs in all development activities related to food systems; 3) include local peace making and development; and 4) properly implement the Organic Act. Moreover, the following interventions were also suggested: enforce international-level standards/practices and quarantine measures on imported as well as local goods; ensure that LGUs give priority to agri-fishery development by allocating at least 10% of their National Tax Allotment (NaTA) to agriculture and fisheries; and include demand-driven agriculture and fisheries in government strategies.236238239240243245246248249The discussions during the NFSD breakout session covered a wide scope of possible action items which are summarized below. Action Track 2: Shift to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable options. Priority interventions include 1) Promoting investments through targeted responsible consumer education; 2) strengthening interventions that promote nutrition-seeking behavior; 3) targeting other agriculture sectors to produce healthier crops; 4) crafting policies that will promote and encourage more consumers to patronize locally produced food products; and 5) strengthening of the enforcement, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies on nutrition and food safety. The general public should also be encouraged to shift to healthy food diets and to more sustainable methods of food production. These could be attained by improving consumers’ awareness on healthy foods through information campaign and making locally produced food available and accessible. Slashing food losses and waste. Agreed upon strategies are: 1) improvement in post-harvest processing to reduce food losses, which can be attained through capacity building for farmers and provision of post-harvest facilities; 2) improvement of traceability, handling, processing and packaging, and distribution systems by establishing a national baseline and periodic assessment on food loss and wastage in the country; 3) supporting the Department of Agriculture’s advocacy on farm clustering, shifting from household level to community-based organization; 4) establishment of community-based agri-fishery infrastructures will address the need for value adding; and 5) establishment of food banks and capacitating household on food preservation will also prevent food wastage. Addressing malnutrition. Stunting among Filipino children is very high in the country. Addressing this challenge plays a vital role in transforming the country’s food systems to be more resilient, inclusive, competitive and environmentally sustainable, and responsive to the 2030 SDGs. Interventions related to this will include zero hunger and good health and well-being, among others.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The discussions during the NFSD breakout session covered a wide scope of possible action items which are summarized below. Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Promote inclusive nature-friendly production. 1) Highlight the benefits of environment-friendly practices and food production processes; 2) develop eco-friendly technologies that provide concrete and attractive benefits to producers; 3) manage natural resources sustainably; and 4) support the full implementation of sustainable upland development in small island provinces. Aside from these, the following were also recommended as priority interventions: pursue initiatives towards water security and water-use efficiency, implement proper nutrient management, promote the use of environment-friendly machinery and equipment at the farm level, develop and generate a robust database on the extent of degraded soils/farmlands and remaining lands which are available for use for agricultural activities in each province, shifting to agro-ecology/organic agriculture, and implement proper waste management systems. Empower IPs, fishers, farmers, and communities towards Sustainable Food Production Systems. Priority interventions that were suggested during the session: 1) create awareness on the contribution and importance of IPs in preserving traditional ecosystems and their contribution in food production systems; 2) capacitate IPs to boost their agricultural production with respect to their local cultures; and 3) implement similar DA-FAO-GED projects with actions, interventions, and involvement that helps attain the SDGs. Moreover, providing assistance for upland communities/tenure holders and ensuring support from LGUs through issuance of local policies supportive of this endeavor were also recommended. Give attention to farmers, and not only on crops, ecosystems and food production systems. Priority interventions should include institutionalizing Global Environment Facilities at the local and national levels, creating monitoring mechanisms for the implementation of sustainable food systems, integrating Management Information Systems in database development, and strengthening support for community involvement and engagement. It is also necessary to continue independent dialogues to: engage farmers, fishers and IPs; institutionalize the Provincial Monitoring Committee; and allocate more budget for monitoring activities. Achieve economies of scale and factor in Ecosystem Services Valuation for a market-driven, value chain-oriented food system and mitigate post-harvest losses and food wastage along the value chain. Farmers and fishers should be clustered into small organizations or cooperatives, with mechanisms for monitoring of productivity and income within the clusters to be developed. There is a need to develop a more effective business model, where the cooperative can have control on the produce and can effectively manage the clustered farms. Meanwhile, providing fiscal incentives to private firms through improvements in the government’s policies on investments should also be prioritized. Improve the role of SUCs in modernizing, industrializing, and professionalizing Philippine food systems. Support for research and technology initiatives, tools and facilities of state universities and colleges (SUCs), and revisions of the reward system to university researchers who develop technologies should be included in the priority list of the government. SUCs should also initiate close partnership with the DA Regional Offices for better research for development (R4DE) linkages and synergy of relevant agri-fishery initiatives. Other priority interventions include the strengthening of agri-business incubation centers for promising technologies; involvement of the private sector, consumers, and farmers during the early stages of technology development process; and verifications on the private sector adoption and commercialization of the technologies being developed by the SUCs.236238240241242243244245246247248249250251The discussions during the NFSD breakout session covered a wide scope of possible action items which are summarized below. Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods and value distribution Review government regulations on procurement to be able to link farmers and fisherfolk produce/catch. The possibility of transacting directly with farmers through government procurement was heavily discussed. This would entail conduct of a series of consultations with the Government Procurement Policy Board and other relevant agencies on the possibility of easing procurement of relief goods especially if this would be sourced from farmers and fisherfolks. Moreover, market linkage, promoting fair trade, and farmer professionalization were some of the highlighted interventions. Strengthen micro entrepreneurs and cooperatives. Establishing and strengthening of farmer organizations through capacity building and consolidation and clustering efforts were highlighted. In particular, farmer groups can access support mechanisms such as input supply, credit, machineries, marketing, training and extension support, among others. This is seen as an opportunity to diversify markets for agriculture, forestry and fisheries (AFFs) and eliminate the practice of pole-vaulting or side-selling issues. Doing this would require support not only from national government agencies (NGAs) but also from local government units (LGUs) , to harness the full potential of local products. Invest in improving competitiveness of local farmers and fishers. The following strategies were proposed: 1) capacitate farmers and fishers on technologies and techniques, and entrepreneurship; 2) analyze whether the current rates of farm workers are sufficient for them to avail of basic needs; and 3) remove discrimination in labor by establishing single rate of labor in the regions regardless of industry. Priority should be given to improving working conditions through compliance with general labor standards and establishment of measures that would protect the health and safety of agricultural workers in their work environment. It was suggested that creating opportunities and linkages for increased private sector engagement and putting focus on post-harvest infrastructures should also be prioritized. Adopting a targeted multi-pronged holistic approach in providing interventions to stakeholders. This policy recommendation can be achieved by: 1) reviewing the need to restructure government programs into one that is targeted, multi-pronged, and adopts a holistic approach; and 2) strengthening strategic communication of available programs especially in the rural areas through various media platforms. Enhancing land tenure systems towards improved agricultural productivity. This can be attained by supporting policies that promote and secure land tenure of farmers, fisherfolk and IPs, such as the enactment of the National Land Use Act that would institutionalize a holistic, rational and comprehensive land use and physical planning mechanism. It was also highlighted that the establishment of community seed banks was also seen as a vital component in terms of conserving and protecting traditional crop varieties. Establishment of a strong market linkage based on the whole-of-society approach. This will necessitate engagement in meaningful and on-the-ground conversations with concerned stakeholders by providing incentives, such as discussion spaces for interactions and participation of key actors in the food system, in particular the most vulnerable groups, and empower them through skills and capacity building that would enable them to address the issues affecting their own communities. Outside all the policy proposals and recommendations, pathways should be gender responsive and inclusive.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The discussions during the NFSD breakout session covered a wide scope of possible action items which are summarized below. Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses Reduce existing risks and prevent future risks in the food systems. This will focus on the sustainable use of natural resources and adoption of appropriate technological and economically viable practices through the promotion of community-based, disaster-resilient food systems facilities for sustainable food production, processing, and distribution. Interventions include provision of adequate storage, drying and processing facilities; community-based and multi-sector-supported initiatives and activities; and enhanced support to community-based service providers. Also critical are research for development, and scaling of technologies to raise yields and reduce risks of production failure and development of location-specific technologies and practices. The endeavors should focus on breeding of crop varieties, livestock and fish that are resilient to biotic and abiotic stresses. Priority actions should include the following: 1. Improvement of watershed management; 2. Implementation of soil conservation measures, rain and flood water harvesting; and 3. Introduction and promotion of salt-tolerant crops that would result to sufficient water supply, minimized flood risks, reduced erosion, rich biodiversity and healthy soil. In terms of food production, farm diversification, value-adding, increased farmer participation in value chains, transforming food production groups into climate-resilient businesses, and increased youth engagements in food systems should be undertaken. Strengthen disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and mitigation governance in agriculture and fisheries. Appropriate policies and institutional frameworks, and increased institutional capacities should be in place. It is necessary to develop and implement sector specific policy frameworks, strategies, and plans for disaster risk reduction, climate change adaption, food safety, and prevention and management of major plant pest and animal disease outbreaks. This would include the adoption of finance-based forecasting for early warning system and to increase investments in public good. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaption and mitigation (CCAM) in the context of food systems into the Provincial Physical Framework Plan (PPFP) and Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) should be mainstreamed. Furthermore, the government could work on promoting low carbon facilities and transport adopted to climate change for post-harvest processing and transport. Enhance and promote knowledge management and early warning systems. Food producers lose much of their harvest due to climate hazard because of their lack of awareness and knowledge on how to use climate information services (CIS) and other information related to disaster and climate risks. Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and mitigation information systems should thus, be enhanced in terms of monitoring and early warning systems (EWS) or rapid alert system of multiple threats. Additionally, climate information service needs to be institutionalized at municipal level. Farmers and fisherfolk should similarly be informed and capacitated on the available CIS and technologies. This would entail enhancement of DRR and CCAM information systems.237238241243246247249The areas of divergence during the NFSD highlighted the need to the following action items: ● Clearly define the difference between the ‘consumers’ and the ‘public’. The discussion arose during the discussion in the breakout group under Action Track 1, specifically on the solution area: Enhancing the capacity of the public to secure safe and nutritious food. The participants did not arrive at an agreement on which of the two words is more appropriate to use for this specific strategy. ● Clearly define the roles of the middlemen or intermediary organizations. There was a feedback on the suggestion to ‘eliminate the middlemen’. The critical role of middlemen in the supply chain was also recognized. While it was agreed that there are middlemen who conduct unfair practices, there are still others who implement and advocate for fair trade practices and significantly support the farmers to be linked to the market.

2021-08-13 23:00:21205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40380/145

1288652537274458

Women were identified to be major participants in the production and consumption of food. In the food systems, they are involved in the various phases of the value chain. They, however, are often prevented from realizing their maximum potential for lack or limited access to resources and services that their male counterparts receive. If women will be given the support they need for improved productivity and increased income, they will contribute greatly to the welfare of family members and the community and help alleviate food insecurity, hunger, malnutrition and ensure provision of proper health care, education, employment and other basic needs of people. The Town Hall Consultation was deemed to be a platform where women who have made headway in agribusiness could share their success stories to inspire more women to go into agripreneurship and inform them how the government, DA in particular, could help them in providing services that will improve their productivity and income. The organizers paid careful attention to inclusivity by inviting individuals from diverse stakeholder groups, gender, and the members of the vulnerable sectors such as Indigenous people (IPs), Senior Citizens (SCs), and Differently-Abled Persons. The event was also shared virtually through Webex and Facebook live to reach more audiences who will participate in the discussion. The event was facilitated by DA GAD/GESI to create a safe space for everyone as well as to ensure respect and trust to each other. The discussion topics revolved around the challenges and the assistance that the Department has provided to strengthen the agri-entrepreneurial activities of the participants. The various perspectives on food systems were also captured to embrace their complexity. This summit provided an opportunity for the public to have awareness and discussion about the importance of food systems and for the Department to formulate a plausible solution to the problems cited by the speakers.The summit reflected the principles of building trust and respect as well as inclusivity since the participants came from the different provinces of the Philippines (attended virtually) and the members of the vulnerable sector are well represented, as planned in the design. The participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency” as they recognized the need to have a plausible solution to the problems that they have encountered. The participants also recommended various changes and solutions and they exhibited commitment to act. Moreover, they are dedicated to contributing to the Food system transformation since they saw that breaking through the barriers of agriculture is a catalyst for such transformation.Paying utmost attention to the design and planning is a very crucial part in preparing for a dialogue. Various stakeholder groups, sectors, gender, and ethnicity must be well represented, thus, creating an invitation list as well as inviting participants are equally important. Facilitators whose principles align with the engagement must be selected to avoid assertion of their personal agenda. Most importantly, the discussion topics must be formulated to address critical issues that will benefit the people and the environment.

Yes

234239241251The consultation focused on the discussion of the women’s struggles in the field of agriculture and how they were able to break the barriers that impede the fulfilment of their objectives. They chronicled the processes that they went through and cited the assistance that the DA has provided in the course of developing their agribusiness endeavors. Surprisingly, the COVID 19 pandemic, in a way, has given them opportunities to succeed as some of their products were sought after in the market as those were found helpful in preventing infection of the virus, for example virgin coconut oil (VCO) and ginger brew (salabat).235239241248251• Women are in the various stages of the value chain of the food systems but are more successful in the value adding/processing/marketing of products • Barriers are evident : common notion that agriculture is for men, lack of sufficient knowledge on technologies and services that they can avail, limited ownership of land and capital, domestic roles limiting time for productive activities • Strategies Employed : Ventured in value adding, availed of assistance from DA and other entities, made use of women’s innate characteristics (patient, persevering, innovative, meticulous with attention to detail, passionate in pursuing excellence, etc)236239241246249251• DA to look into the needs of women such as those cited by the speakers : mushroom – easy wilting; dairy – low protein content of grasses for feeding cows; coconut – low production/yield due to senile trees and low income due to low prices of copra; rice – high cost of production and others • Enhancement of reach of information dissemination: continuous conduct of webinars and other extension methodologies fit for the new normal • Enabling more women to be registered in the RSBSA for access to DA services • Inclusion of women in the vulnerable sectors in the planning and targeting of participants and beneficiaries of DA Programs and Projects.237There were no areas of divergence that arise from the consultation.

2021-08-13 23:02:04205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40383/145

7117222573833310108062001040502080104450105

The Dialogue was held on 28 June 2021 and was organized by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Philippines Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture (PPSA). This was conducted as a follow up discussion on the results of the independent dialogue convened by KAMPPIL led by Mr. Frank Roy Ribo and ten farmer/fisherfolk federations held on 8 June 2021, with the following objectives: a) To raise awareness; b) To provide venue for discussion among organized farmers and fishers on the UNFSS Action Tracks and propositions on game changing solutions; c) To come up with actionable propositions from the vantage point of small farmers and fishers; and d) To engage government, UN agencies and development partners on the actionable propositions and policy recommendations. The follow up dialogue on 28 June 2021 aimed to generate suggestions from farmers, fishers, and other representatives for each of the stakeholder groups on how to ensure inclusivity and actionability of the outcomes of the June 8 independent dialogue and determine concrete plans to move forward. It was organized with urgency in mind to sustain the momentum of strengthening an open communication between the farmers and the government. Moreover, the flow of the dialogue was strategically aligned with the UNFSS Action Tracks to ensure commitment to the Global Summit. Despite some differences in beliefs and motivations, the dialogue ensured that there is trust and respect among the participants of the activity. There were 71 participants who joined the event.Among all of the principles of engagement, the principle that was reflected the most was RESPECT. While there may be varying views on strategies and outcomes, the farmers groups and government representatives present during the session had a common goal: growth for all. This allowed each of the dialogue participants to respect each other’s views. The Leader of the Farmers and Fishers’ groups led the presentation of the farmers/fisherfolk concerns and proposed policy recommendations/actions together with the representatives from the federations. The DA officials and other government representatives responded to these concerns. The facilitator also encouraged the farmers/fisherfolk to voice their concerns and issues, which were responded to by relevant DA units/bureaus/agencies. Throughout the program, each participant was mindful of the efforts and intentions of the other stakeholder groups. Aside from this, the dialogue evidenced the recognition of the complexity of the problems being addressed and the need to work together to co-create solutions.Convenors should ensure that in the conduct of the food systems dialogues, all relevant stakeholders should be invited. However, for the convenor to attain the desired participants, the dialogue should be conducted in consideration of the stakeholders’ schedules and the complexity of the topics for discussion. It is important to consider the composition and diversity of the invitation list. It is best if more individuals are invited to ensure that stakeholders across the value chain are well represented, which includes the academe, other civil society organizations and the government sector. In order to obtain the desired outputs, participants should be encouraged to freely express their ideas within the topics or even outside the topics for discussion. Equal opportunities should also be given to the participants in expressing their opinions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue’s discussion focused on the recommended policies and actions to all five (5) UNFSS action tracks. These recommended policies and actions are the outcomes of the independent dialogue conducted by the farmers and fishers’ groups on 08 June 2021. These are all provided in the outcomes of the discussion in this report. The sub-national Dialogue discussed the following: a) Actionable results and outcome of the first Philippine Farmers and Fishers National Independent Dialogue; b) Commitments of actions on policy recommendations and action points from and among participating farmers and fishers and the DA; and c) Areas of convergence in run-up to the Pre-Summit and the UNFSS.235238239240241243244245246247248249250251The discussions were very fruitful. The participants expressed their appreciation for the conduct of the dialogue and engaging them in this very important activity to help improve the country’s food systems. The organizers also appreciated the active participation of the stakeholders and in providing valuable inputs to attain the sustainable development goals of the UNFSS. The contribution of the farmers and fishers were acknowledged as the most important aspect to attain the UNFSS strategic goals. The government supported the ideas, experiences shared during the dialogue as valuable inputs in the government’s efforts to improve its plans, programs and policies. While there are existing interventions from the government in the form of policies, plans and programs, the agriculture, livestock and fishery sectors still need to do more as identified in the recommended policies and actions during the discussion in order to attain the desired productivity to enhance their incomes. At the end of the forum, all the participants both from the government and the farmer groups expressed support in this undertaking. The participants from the stakeholders will actively monitor the outcomes of the national food system summit.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251During the independent dialogue of the farmers and fishers’ groups held on 8 June 2021, all of the five (5) actions tracks were discussed. Thus, the sub-national dialogue (28 June) specifically discussed and validated the outputs of the independent dialogue. Following are the outcomes of the discussions: AT 1: There were two concerns identified by the farmers and fishers’ group for this track: a) Food access and affordability are not only about improving the supply. There is a need to enhance the capacity of consumers to buy and secure the food that they need; and b) In the production of safe and nutritious food, farmers and fishers should be properly compensated for their efforts. Given these concerns, the following are the policy recommendations identified: 1) Promotion of Integrated and Diversified Organic system; 2) Disallowing adulteration or blending of food commodities; and 3) Asset reforms National Land Use (NLUC), Agrarian Reform, and Municipal Waters. AT 2: The farmers and fishers groups identified these challenges: a) The need to provide farmers with the proper market signals and incentives to support shifts to healthy food diets and more sustainable methods of food production, and b) The need to develop the marketing infrastructure and system that allows producers to respond to market signals. The identified policy recommendations are as follows: a) Massive info drive to promote local products, food safety; b) Review of trade Policies on Importation of Food Products; and c) Set-up dialogue mechanisms on Fair Food Trade. On the concern on trade policies, it was mentioned that farmers will be affected if tariffs are very low and the country over-imports. However, on the government side, it was emphasized that the food security framework prioritizes domestic production but there are products which are enough, which resulted in importation. It was also mentioned that there is a need to balance the interests of the producers with those of the consumers, and that the government is open for a dialogue to further explore the issue as well as address concerns on the competitiveness of the agriculture sector. AT3: These are the concerns identified this track: a) The Farmers should be given attention, and not only on crops, ecosystems, and food production systems; b) Ensure a nature-positive production for small farmers such as benefits of environment-friendly practices and technologies that provide concrete and attractive benefits to producers. The following are the recommended polices: a) Protection of Marine Ecosystems; b) Creation of mechanisms to monitor the implementation plan on sustainable food systems; c) Education campaign to boost nature positive production. AT4: The identified challenges are: a) Need to strike the proper balance between producer and consumer interests; b) Calibrate trade so that it does not unduly depress farmer incomes and deprive them of opportunities to advance; and c) Anti-farmer policies are also a form of exploitation and abuse. These are the identified policy recommendations: a) Strengthening of micro-entrepreneurs/cooperatives; b) Strengthening the implementation of Magna Carta for Small Scale Producers; c) Ensure that RA 11524 directly benefits coconut farmers AT5: The discussions gathered the following recommended strategies: a) Decentralize and diversify food production; b) Adopt farming system, instead of crop-based, strategies; c) Improving farmers’ incomes as a key strategy to reduce vulnerabilities and improve capacities of small producers to cope with risks; and d) Importance of farmer organizations. The recommended policies are the following: a) Participatory climate risk and reduction management/Disaster Risk Reduction; b) Call for UN to set-up Empowerment Trust Fund for Farmers/Fishers; c) Ensure PCIC funds are not diverted to other uses.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251The government emphasized that the resilience of farming communities can be addressed through the following interventions: 1. Social resilience - working with groups instead of individuals in crafting policy-based interventions on crop diversification, climate-smart technologies, inclusive financing, etc; 2) Technology - adoption of appropriate technologies that can reduce pollution of soil and water due to agricultural farming activities and climate-smart production methodologies. Further, the government highlighted importance of farmers’ group consolidation in order to achieve economies of scale. There were also cross-cutting policy recommendations such as: 1) Increasing the competitiveness of smallholder farmers by providing them with access to services, technologies, and entrepreneurial mentoring and coaching; 2) Securing land tenure rights for smallholder farmers and clustering for economies of scale, which need further evaluation in terms of the proper interventions that should be implemented; and 3) Joint call for UN to set-up Farmers Resiliency and Empowerment Trust Fund. There were other concerns/recommendations/proposed actions from the participants such as the following: 1. The implementation of gender-sensitive programs should be considered. 2. There are systems that don’t work with other systems and a balance needs to be struck among them. 3. The ballooning population and high caloric intake were also some of the major concerns. 4. There is also a need to work for a sustainable food system to achieve the 17 sustainable development goals of the UNFS. There are five action tracks, all of which need game-changing solutions. 5. The protection of food-producing areas in the policy track, and that when there are policy conflicts, agricultural development should be favored. 6. There is a need to ensure that farmers’ incomes are enough. Moreover, it was mentioned that additional processing at the farm level can increase farmers’ income. The importance of balancing the capacity of consumers and income of producers, was also emphasized, since farmers are also consumers. 7. On cost of production, it was agreed that farmers/fishers submit its cost of production on key crops: rice, coconut, coffee, and some vegetable to compare with the current cost of production computation of DA. The purpose is to validate the costing and serve as guide on programs and policy interventions that ensures incomes for small producers. The government representatives provided responses and clarifications on the above cited concerns, policy recommendations and actions. These are as follows: 1. On the production cost, relevant government agencies should also push for farmer education for them to know how to calculate production cost and appropriate selling price to avoid losses. 2. Safe food starts from the production stage and reiterated the need for literacy training for the farmers and fishers. 3. There is also a need to push for farmer education for them to know how to calculate production cost and appropriate selling price to avoid losses. 4. To increase the purchasing power of the farmers, the bottlenecks across the value chain should be addressed. 5. The multiplication of good seeds and connectivity of businesses should also be supported by the government. 6. To ensure food safety, the government needs to continue the development of standards for every agricultural product. 7. Global supply chains should be looked into for a guided decision to sell local or go global. 8. On the proposal to review the government infrastructures that play a part in food production, it was suggested to implement location-specific government interventions. 9. There should be a unified database in order to address the concern on prices, supply and demand. 10. On the concern about the implementation of policies, the government will need to look into the existing laws and the loopholes and gaps.237238245246247249The divergent idea was expressed on the fortification of food. There was a suggestion to fortify food, however, other participants feel it is not needed and should not be a priority. Also, there were varying views on the idea of clustering and consolidation. Some support the idea of land or farm consolidation, while the others only support the farmer clustering approach.

2021-08-14 02:23:15205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30834/33

20108291055096413253020250002333103365106921501141512593611204021866

In view of the ongoing COVID-19 emergency, the second round of the Brazilian National Dialogue on Food Systems took place by video-conference (VC4). The public was informed about the event through a dedicated digital platform in the Ministry of External Relations (MRE) web page, which included relevant reference documents, practical information and records of the first 3 video-conferences of the Brazilian National Dialogue. Information about VC4 was widely transmitted through the official social media channels of relevant government agencies. Participation was open to all interested parties, through an on-line registration form. In addition, the event was broadcasted through MRE’s Facebook and Youtube channels for the wider public. The video file will remain available at the official National Dialogue website until de Summit.The VC4 reflected the main guidelines contained in the Principles of Engagement. It allowed the participation of all interested parties from all relevant sectors involved in the Brazilian Food Systems debate. It fostered a comprehensive and cordial exchange of views about critical issues in the current international discussion and provided an opportunity for dissenting views to be heard. The opinions of all participants were valued, from those who used the floor as pre-registered speakers to those who sent comments on the chat box, in addition to the official guest speakers. Many relevant points were presented and discussed. The compilation of the various inputs reflects the diversity of ideas, concepts, and experiences related to the theme of the meeting - Sustainable Food Systems: Proposals from Brazil. The active involvement of participants was extremely important to enrich the discussions that took place in the video-conference.Whilst the Principles of Engagement offer a useful template for the organization of the National Debates, they need to be adapted to the local circumstances. In view of the pandemic emergency, it was not possible to hold face to face meetings at local or regional level. Even though participation was open to all interested parties, indigenous populations, traditional communities and minority groups were underrepresented. As a way to further enhance the participation of all stakeholders, the publicity for the event should specifically take into account the situation of such groups. Due to budget and time constraints, it was not always possible to target specific groups or communities – many of which have limited access to facilities such as the internet, computers or cell phones.

NoThe suggested methods of work were the basis for the debates in the second round of the Brazilian National Dialogue on Sustainable Food Systems, but they were adapted to local circumstances and to the virtual format used in the debates. The government prepared reference materials and made them available to all participants and stakeholders through the National Dialogue official website, including a substantive document to guide the debates. The first part of the VC4 was dedicated to thematic presentations from representatives of the main government agencies involved in food systems policy. The invited speakers to VC4 were Fernando Sardenberg Zelner Gonçalves, from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply; Teresa Barroso, from the Ministry of Citizenship; Paloma Abelin, from the Ministry of Health and Luiz Vicente Vicentin Aguilar, from the Ministry of Environment. Pre-registered participants were given the floor to present comments and views for 3-5 minutes each, related to the topic of the video-conference. The VC4 chat box was made available to all the participants since the beginning of the initial presentations. The moderator gave ample opportunity for all pre-registered participants to take the floor and invited written comments from all stakeholders. The panelists had the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the participants and were invited to make final remarks. The discussions played an important role in facilitating reflections on the future vision of food systems by the participating group. In addition, the questions and comments presented in the “chat” throughout the entire VC4 also helped guide these discussions and collaborated to various positions and opinions – which also bore points of divergence and convergence – to be expressed and debated. As mentioned before, not all relevant groups were able to participate actively in the discussion.

234238239240241242243244246248249On July 8, 2021, the fourth video-conference of the Brazilian National Dialogue took place under the theme “Sustainable Food Systems: Proposals from Brazil”. It addressed the Brazilian contributions to the development of sustainable food systems, highlighting responsible production and consumption, food safety and nutrition, dietary patterns, and the reduction of food loss and waste. Special attention was given to the effects of the current Covid-19 pandemic and the importance of sustainable and resilient food systems that promote the production of healthy foods, ensuring food and nutritional security (FNS) for all the population. It was emphasized that food systems should contribute to economic growth, the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as to social inclusion. The initial presentations sought to showcase different Brazilian proposals for sustainable food systems. The VC4 presented contributions of the Brazilian experience in the development of sustainable food systems relevant to the current international debate on the topic, as well as identified the challenges of the multiple burden of malnutrition (coexistence of malnutrition and obesity), the relevance of Brazilian traditional diets and the positive effects of investments in research and development. While sharing best production practices, the discussions addressed the positive impact of free and fair international trade on prices and supply levels. Under the current pandemic, it became essential to improve and guarantee food security, despite the challenges at national and international supply chains. In this regard, it was emphasized the fundamental importance of the Brazilian agricultural sector in this debate, as it encompasses several agrifood systems coexisting in a sustainable way, such as agroecology, family farming and extractive systems, intensive and monoculture systems, which cover livestock systems, production of biofuels and planted forests. It was observed that modern agricultural methods are compatible with national and international standards for environmental conservation of rural properties. The VC4 also pointed out the pivotal importance of formulating policies that respect cultural differences, ethnic, racial and gender specificities, young people and traditional communities. To that effect, it was deemed important to integrate policies that aim to guarantee food and nutrition security and the protection of the right to adequate food, together with environmental protection. The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the need to promote public and private food distribution to vulnerable groups (in line with recommendations established by the Food Guidelines). Social policies aimed at water access are crucial to ensure human consumption in homes and schools and to foster food production, providing guarantee of FNS for low-income rural families living in areas with regular water shortages.235238239240241242243244246248249The debates in VC4 identified the need to foster collaboration among all (countries, governments, producers, consumers, industries, civil society, etc.) to make sustainable food systems a global reality in the shortest possible time-frame. However, it was also evident throughout the discussions that different challenges should be addressed to advance in the development process, for example, the implementation of the SDGs and compliance with the 2030 Agenda. In this sense, it is worth remembering that the extraordinary development of the Brazilian agriculture promoted since 1970’s strengthened economic growth and contributed to the evolution of environmental regulations, social standards, and the well-being of rural and urban communities. State investment in agricultural research, innovation and development contributed to the sustainability of food production in the country and was essential to obtain robust and consistent results, in line with the Millennium Development Goals and later to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable healthy food systems depend on permanent policies that integrate health, science, agriculture and social sectors. Climate change implies finding new solutions to adapt to problems such as droughts, pests and excess rain. In order to ensure an adequate and healthy diet and to overcome the obstacles identified in this dialogue, healthy and sustainable food systems must be developed, based on the Food and Nutrition National Policy, the Brazilian food Guidelines and other relevant principles. They (não está claro a que refere “they”) must also be supported by inter-sector public policies and protective measures that guarantee the access to food and promote a healthy and adequate diet. For Brazil, the Summit preparatory process played a positive role. It contributed to identifying the challenges faced by national food systems, especially those that are closely related to tropical agriculture. In this context, it is necessary to highlight the importance of the governance and management policies, which should be strategic, coordinated, based on scientific evidence and on qualified information, allowing the country to transform part of its natural potential into effective production, incorporating technologies at their various levels in favor of sustainability.236238239240241242243244246247248249Strengthening programs and institutions that deal with issues related to FNS and food production using the various production systems in place in the country and incorporating/adapting external technologies. Increase support to local food production with active government policies, including credit incentives for small producers. It is necessary to foster dialogue with civil society, with a view to encouraging the promotion of food and nutrition security. It is also urgent to stimulate and enhance the dialogue among different classes of producers – exporters, small farmers, transformation industry - consumers, and researchers in order to find a consensual roadmap to promote public policies that connect the economic, social and environmental aspects of food systems in a balanced way. The food system governance structures should be revised and strengthened, based on robust public policies that consider the principles and practices for the exercise of nutritional education. The Brazilian food guides are of utmost importance to encourage healthier eating habits and to develop policies and programs that broaden the access of the whole population, especially people in situation of vulnerability, to healthy and adequate food, while respecting cultural circumstances and local realities. Consideration of an environmental policy based on the tripod of sustainability: economically viable, socially fair (based on solidarity) and ecologically balanced. Label information on the characteristics of marketed foods: short-term standardization. Transparency in clarifying the taxation of different types of food.237238239240241242243244246248249During the VC4, points of divergence were identified in relation to the presentations made by the panelists, as well as to opinions expressed in the chat box and interventions shared by pre-registered participants who took the floor. Among the areas with greater degree of divergence, the following themes were observed: a) map of Hunger in the Amazon region; b) support for local food production; c) strengthening dialogue with civil society in order to encourage food and nutrition security; d) construction of a governance system for the food sector; e) construction of an environmental policy that strengthens the tripod of sustainability: economically viable, socially fair (based on solidarity) and ecologically balanced; and f) transparency in food labeling and taxation processes. Although the discussion on the points listed above elicited divergent views, it was based on the common and shared concern with the dietary patterns available to the population in general. There is a convergence of opinions that the food and nutrition security policy must be supported by healthy eating originating from sustainable food systems, with low environmental impact, in balance and harmony with the environment. Food must also be culturally acceptable and economically accessible, be adequately available and safe. In this context, in order to increase strategies to promote adequate and healthy eating and to minimize all forms of malnutrition, all parties that integrate food systems, from production and processing to storage and distribution, must be taken into account. Brazil has encouraged actions aimed at promoting adequate and healthy eating, such as the establishment of food guidelines; financial transfers to municipalities and states for the purpose of structuring food and nutrition actions in the health area, especially in the current pandemic; incentives to the implementation of the Health at School and Healthy Growing Programs, among others. It was also observed that the SDGs should underpin all activities related to food systems. SDG 12, in particular, which deals with responsible production and consumption, should be strengthened during the Summit discussions. It is necessary to consider the availability of adequate and healthy food, at affordable prices so that it does not hamper access to other essential needs, as well as stability in access and availability of such foods. Those are the pillars of food and nutrition security. Finally, it is important to strengthen health-promoting food environments that provide healthy and sustainable food alternatives, as well as promoting education and food culture by encouraging the consumption of adequate and healthy food and by raising awareness about the importance of traditional diets.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/programa-preliminar-videoconferencia-iv-versao-4-7.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/minuta-de-documento-de-base-da-vc4-rev-02-07-21-rev.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Documento-de-base-da-VC4-para-tradução_PO-EN.docxhttps://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/cupula-2021-sistemas-alimentares-dialogos

2021-08-14 08:08:53205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39706/112

9330501366274822144130887317136122

Ahead of the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) to be convened by the United Nations Secretary General in September 2021, the State President of Malawi, His Excellence Dr Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera appointed Honourable Lobin C. Lowe, Minister of Agriculture as the National Convenor of the Malawi National Food Systems Dialogue. This was done in consonance with the guidelines for the United Nations (UN) member states dialogues to ensure robust, inclusive and coordinated dialogue series with the utmost government leadership and commitment. To ensure effective, holistic and seamless dialogues, the Convenor constituted a multi sectoral Task Force chaired by the Directorate of Planning in the Ministry of Agriculture, as an apex coordination mechanism. The Taskforce comprised UN Agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Civil Society Network of Malawi (CISANET), Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (MCCCI), Farmers Union of Malawi (FUM), Donor Committee on Agriculture and Food Security (DCAFS) and other development partners such as the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) to work collaboratively without leaving any one behind. Furthermore, the task force put in place a curator, note taker and facilitator to help in carrying out the dialogue processes. The inaugural dialogue session was held on 19th May 2021 at Bingu International Convention Centre in Lilongwe with financial support from the United Nations and AGRA. The dialogue was held through a hybrid approach involving both face to face and virtual attendance. In total, 93 people physically coming from different sectors attended the national dialogue. The dialogue was officially opened by the Convenor. The Secretary of Agriculture, Erica Maganga and the UN Resident Coordinator, Marrie Torres also delivered remarks during the opening session. Afterwards participants were engaged through breakout group sessions and plenary.Act with Urgency: The Malawi Government recognize the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the recently launched Malawi 2063 Vision to be implemented through the 10-year implementation plans. The dialogues will also inform the upcoming 10-year implementation plan of the national vision and the review of the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP). Commit to the Summit: The Government of Malawi is committed to contributing to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit as a member of the UN. The Convenor attended the Pre-Summit in Rome in July 2021 and the national dialogue provided content used for the event. Be Respectful: The national dialogue ensured genuine discussions without undue influence of any kind. The diversity of stakeholders included youth and women who were given equal opportunities to speak and engage freely in framing the future of food systems. Recognize Complexity: The task force acknowledged that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact upon, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The participation of multi-stakeholders, working across the food system from production to consumption ensured that no one is left behind and maximized outcomes on the intersectionality of different sectors. Complement the work of others: The dialogue was held with recognition that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global, regional and national governance processes. Build Trust: The dialogue put in place a conducive environment in the groups and during plenary sessions that promoted trust and increased motivation to participate by being evidence-based. The dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect.The Convener of Malawi’s National Food Systems Dialogue would like to share the following with other Dialogue Convenors (especially those who are yet to undertake their Dialogues) as follows: • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: Engage as organizers on the nature and expectations of the dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of Engagement prior to the event. The invitations to the delegates also need to make clear the expectations and outcomes to be achieved during the dialogue session. • High level government leadership and commitment is a key driver for serious participation of all stakeholders. The appointment by the Head of State of the National Convenor showcased political will and commitment from the Government which has put agriculture as a priority area and a key pillar in the Malawi 2063 Vision. • Be as inclusive as possible: The participation from government officials, academia, private sectors, food system actors, and civil society organizations including youth and women is key to a national dialogue process as it motivates interest and participation in the dialogue. • Be clear on expectations and objectives during the dialogue session. The facilitator of the dialogue should dedicate time to highlight the objectives and expectations of the Dialogue, and outline the outcomes expected of the dialogue sessions. • Ensure submission of official feedback forms as soon as possible after the dialogue: It is important for organizers to have the required background information for the ‘Official Feedback Form’ recorded via the online registration process and to upload on the Summit gateway as soon as possible in order not to lose perspectives and ensure that your dialogues are informing the synthesis reports at the global level.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249250251The Malawi’s inaugural dialogue was held under the theme “Building healthier, sustainable and equitable food systems for a better Malawi”. The national dialogue session was the first in a series of many regional and district specific dialogues that were held in the country henceforth. The objective of the dialogue was to share information on the UNFSS and reflect on the status of Malawi’s food systems, identify challenges and constraints, potentials and opportunities, and game-changing solutions and ideas for its transformation, including defined roles and responsibilities. Based on the guiding remarks of the Convenor, the dialogue covered all areas of the food systems and were organized around the five Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit Dialogues: • Action Track 1 – “Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all” – participants examined whether all Malawians currently have access to safe and nutritious food. If not, what is it that makes it difficult for Malawians to access safe and nutritious food? • Action Track 2 – “Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” –participants had conversations about what are the key issues affecting healthy and sustainable food consumption in Malawi. • Action Track 3 – “Boosting nature-positive production at scale” – participants examined how Malawi’s food production systems can be transformed to ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for the people. • Action Track 4 – “Advancing equitable livelihoods”– explored inequalities within the Malawian food systems. • Action Track 5 – “Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses” – participants examined actions to ensure the resilience of the Malawian food system. The Convenor emphasized the need to link the dialogue sessions with existing national policies and strategies such as the Malawi 2063 Vision which has a pillar that focuses on “agricultural productivity and commercialization”. The Secretary for Agriculture noted that the Malawi’s food systems touch every aspect of human existence. She therefore encouraged delegates to focus the discussion on what would be a well-functioning food systems that have the power of bringing families, communities and nations together since if that fails, there could be disorder threatening education, health and economic outcomes. The Secretary further noted that rising incomes, rapid urbanization and growing middle classes lead to strong adjustments in dietary preferences and consumer behaviour and require public and private investments for improved food market integration. Therefore, she concluded with acknowledgement that increasing agro-food production has not reduced malnutrition levels. Therefore, the dialogue outcomes and recommendations need to feed into the new National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP). The presentations from session 2 provided context, noting that the landscape and mapping analysis of institutions, players, and policies will provide information useful for the prioritization of actions/interventions and policies to build a food system that deliver healthy and sustainable diets. Therefore, consensus was reached that the national dialogue is not a parallel, stand-alone process rather it is building on existing structures and it is not duplicating past efforts. It was noted that the dialogue process would be underpinned with clear principles such as (i) ensuring that sustainable healthy diets for all is the basic vision, (ii) considers food system transformation as the long-term process, (iii) takes a systems approach to this challenge, (iv) adopts an iterative approach, considers national governments as the lead in all matters of governance, (v) takes a supportive and co-creative rather than prescriptive approach, (vi) build on existing structures when feasible, (vii) create new ones only when necessary, (viii) embrace both evidence and innovation, (ix) proactively address frictions related to facts, interests, and values, and (x) approach the challenge with an attitude of learning, humility, and optimism.235238239240241242244246248249251Action Track #1: Ensuring safe and nutrition food for all Current challenges • Low agricultural production and productivity; • Limited food and diet diversification with too much emphasis on maize and high cost of nutritious food, especially animal source foods; • Food safety challenges mostly due to lack of national level food safety policy, standards and regulations; • Limited coordination across the sectors on food security, nutrition and food safety (no delivery mechanism to enable this); and • Limited training programmes in food and nutrition in primary schools that has resulted in high rate of malnutrition especially among under 5 years of age. Drivers • Gender inequalities persist in accessing safer and health foods including incidences of gender based violence and abuse; • Policy bias towards crops, specifically maize production with very little on livestock and fisheries; • Lack and inconsistency of NAP implementation and investments e.g. no alignment of the budget to the National Agriculture Investment Plan despite the agriculture budget being over 10% of the overall national budget; • Masking of nutrition under agriculture that result into limited utilisation of processed food and lack of agriculture nutrition programmes in the national education curriculum; • Lack of food safety standards and legislation; • Unequal intra-household food distribution and mind-set towards foods e.g. Resistance to behaviour change with regard to production and consumption of nutritious foods; • Lack of nutrition sensitive safety nets and social protection programs; and • Limited linkages between agriculture extension messages and nutrition messages. Action Track #2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns Current Challenges • Lack of a comprehensive definition of sustainable consumption; • Limited use and consumption of indigenous foods because these are deemed inferior though highly nutritious; • High food waste and pollution; • Low dietary diversification; • Low accessibility of some food types in some parts of the country; and • Increased post-harvest food losses. Drivers • Uncoordinated actors in the food systems space; • Misconceptions and myths surrounding indigenous food types despite the high nutritive value; • Lack of knowledge in value addition and modern post-harvest management technologies that result in food waste and losses; • Poor road infrastructure to reach out to most parts of the country affecting supply and distribution of diverse food options; and • Capacity challenges in enforcement of food safety standards by the Malawi Bureau of Standards (MBS). Action Track #3: Boosting nature-positive food production Current challenges • Poor soil and water management practices; • Limited access to inputs such as seedlings for afforestation and agroforestry initiatives; • Weak interventions to manage flora and fauna and their interaction thereby endangering biodiversity; and • Over-reliance on rain-fed agriculture has resulted in low productivity and production including fluctuation and seasonality of production. Drivers • Policy incoherence, contradictions and weak coordination in the environmental management and agricultural sectors; • Low awareness by actors on effective nature based practices that lead to sustainable production systems; • Poor land management and soil conservation measures; • Challenges with market access and linkages, for example input markets; and • High poverty and unemployment levels. Action Track # 4 Advancing equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Current Challenges • Women and youth are marginalized in the agri-food systems, in particular, on access to land; • Limited access to productive resources by women. Despite that women are the custodian of productive resources like land (in the south and central regions), they don’t have control since decisions regarding land use are dominated by men; • Limited access to financial opportunities. There are structural barriers associated with smallholder farmer access to finances; and • Limited investment in processing, marketing and value addition that creates employment and boosts the economy. Drivers • Lack of policies to enhance equitable access to productive resources by all; • Limited focus on the value chain approach which focuses on the food systems towards processing, value addition and marketing of end products; • Unconducive land laws, hence the need for thorough review to address land tenure through titling; and • Market failures: There are no marketing incentives and low enforcement of minimum prices. Action Track # 5 Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses Current challenges • Production challenges include low productivity due to low technology use, fragmented land size, low access to quality inputs and high pests and disease infestation; climate change challenges that lead to floods and droughts; and high lending costs/bank interest rates for farmers and these discourage to access financing; • Processing challenges included limited technology adoption, low energy availability and high post-harvest losses; and • Distribution challenges included poor road infrastructure, poor storage facilities, long distances to access inputs and outputs points, and high cost of transport. Drivers • Poor road infrastructure; • Degraded habitats due to deforestation and wanton cutting down of trees; • Poor storage facilities; • Long distances to access inputs and outputs points and high cost of transport; and • Destroyed biodiversity that has led to loss of local indigenous fo236238244248249251Action Track #1 Outcomes The opportunities for Action Track #1, to ensure safe and nutritious food for all were identified as follows: • Strong donor support that can be fully utilised by the new government in Malawi that is promoting change of mind-set; • Availability of diverse local foods; • Existence of a digital technology strategy can also advance positive outcomes of the food system. Technology needs to be used to harness information distribution; • New agricultural technologies are available (climate smart agriculture, new varieties and seeds); • Existing policies and strategies to address safer and healthy foods; • Social programmes which are in place can be expanded to support diversified production and nutrition itself by looking for support in critical areas; • Nutrition education system in place including care group model useful to disseminate information; • There are nutrition teams, with a lot of capacity and competence from national to district and local level to support nutrition sensitive programs; and • With regard to research, there is a huge amount of data, evidence that need to be put at the disposal of policy makers, private sector to understand the landscape better. Game Changing Priority Actions The game changing priority actions under Action Track # 1 were as follows: (I) promotion of bio-fortified crops for sustainability, (ii) supporting nutrition education in communication for social behaviour change towards production of diversified food and diets, (iii) coordination, linking extension and research (whereby research findings ought to reach and transform the household), (iv) allowing nutrition frontline workers to translate messages from production to consumption and they should be visiting household more often to strengthen existing social and behaviour change communication interventions, (v) promotion of food safety and hygiene practices across the food system that will entail development of food safety policy, standardisation and enactment of food safety legislation, (vi) enhancing production, food processing and marketing to ensure that there is increased access to safe and nutritious food, (vii) supporting communities to develop community driven solutions, (viii) enhancing public private partnership for effective markets for good distribution and better access to safer and health foods and (ix) ensuring that there is adequate budget allocation towards food systems aligned priorities that promote diet diversification.236239244248249251Action Track # 2 Outcomes The opportunities identified towards shifting to sustainable consumption patterns were as follows: • Availability of natural resources that can be used to advance food system goals such as consumption of indigenous foods; • The political will and this needs to come together with citizen empowerment; • There are various/diverse stakeholders working in the food sector that need to be coordinated to enhance sustainable consumption patterns. Enablers that can allow the country to advance sustainable consumption included: • ICT Infrastructure; • Road networks/Infrastructure; • Investment in machinery and equipment for processing; • Capacity development/human capital efforts in food systems; and • Private sector engagement and interest to invest in value addition, processing etc. Game changing priority actions The game changing priority actions under Action Track #2 were as follows: (i) Policy review and foster implementation (cross cutting across various levels, that is, ICT, markets or private sector engagement), (ii) invest in technologies/innovations for value addition, (iii) enhance knowledge levels/sensitization on food systems, nutrition, health and education system, (iv) promote post-harvest handling and management practices, (v) establish National Waste Management Strategy on food systems, (vi) support access to agri-finance (by private sector, NGO sector and small-holder farmers) to enable them invest in food systems, (vii) invest in agrobiodiversity especially protection of indigenous seeds/crops, and (viii) improve food safety standards – enforce policies and regulating standard through the Malawi Bureau of Standards (MBS)236240244248249251Action Track # 3 Outcomes The opportunities identified under Action Track # 3 to boost nature positive production were as follows: • Robust policy framework in the environmental management sector; • Fairly good political will; • Space to review and enact new legislation is always available; • Availability of unused land and water for irrigation; • Youthful population that can be exploited in nature positive production systems • Increased public private investment; • Data is also available from different research efforts to drive nature positive production; and • Space to promote biodiversity Enablers identified included the following: • International markets; • Local expertise; • Strong network of traditional leaders; • Availability of farmer organizations; • Private sector innovation; and • Potential for value addition. Game changing priority actions The game changing priority actions under Action Track #3 were (i) enhance soil, land and water management, (ii) increase availability and access to seed technologies, (iii) enhance integrated pest management, (iv) invest in irrigation infrastructure, (v) zoning or ecological preferences for crops, (vi) ensure a just and equitable land tenure system, and (vii) promote agriculture diversification.236241244248249250251Action Track # 4 Outcomes The opportunities that were identified under Action Track # 4 included the following: • Refocusing our policies and re-alignment to the new development blueprint (Malawi 2063 Vision) through the 10-year implementation plan; • Institutions like National Planning Commission (NPC) should steer the government machinery to align all development activities towards nationally agreed priorities; • Availability of political will to transform food systems at all levels of governance • United Nations Food System Dialogue (UNFS) offers an opportunity to realign the National Agriculture Policy (NAP), National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP) and other agri-food systems policies; • Review of the Land Act of 2016 provides an opportunity to address issues affecting access to land by women, youth and vulnerable groups for equitable livelihoods; and • Stakeholders and fora should advance the issue of equity in food systems. Enablers that can support the attainment of the opportunities included: • Institutional capacity building; • Policy and technical support; • Co-resource mobilization; • A shared vision that is inclusive; and • Investment in bottom-up research approaches. Game Changing Priority Action # 4 The game changing priority actions under Action Track # 4 included (i) improve productivity of small-scale farmer production systems since they promote health, climate-smart, nutrition-sensitive production, (ii) adopt diverse and appropriate improved farming practices and techniques to increase sustainable food production and productivity; (iii) promote practices that protect the biodiversity of Malawi’s indigenous and traditional foods, and natural regeneration of trees, (iv) reduce destructive farming activities such as farming in river banks that destroy natural resources (v) invest in large scale irrigation systems by government and the private sectors as rain-fed agriculture cannot sustain the food production, (vi) increase incentives to make agriculture attractive (branding) especially to the youth, (vii) increase investment in agricultural research including refining the research agenda, increasing funding and capacitating the National Research Council of Malawi so that it is able to lead and regulate research in Malawi and (viii) the need to expedite the Land Act review process to enhance sustainable land use management236242244248249251Action Track # 5 Outcomes The Opportunities to enhance resilience include: • A lot of attention towards climate change mitigation and adaption measures by the development partners and appropriate policies; • Availability of information through digital technologies to the vulnerable populations such as digitized and real time climate information services; • Existing social protection and safety net programs that also contribute to acquiring of productive assets; • Availability of programs focusing on climate change adaptation and mitigation measures by both public and civil society; and • Existing programs on Covid 19 as one of the major shocks affecting production and productivity. Enablers include: • Availability of social protection programs; • Availability of disaster management mechanisms to respond to different shocks and stresses faced by communities including floods and droughts, among others; and • Donors readiness to support emergence interventions. Game Changing Priority Actions # 5 The game changing priority actions under Action Track #5 covered issues at production level including (i) promoting crop diversification, (ii) use of integrated rural approaches that cut across sectoral boundaries, (iii) increasing adoption of modern agriculture technologies, (iv) strengthening advisory services across all sectors, (v) strengthening farmer organisations, and (vi) land consolidation. At processing level, the game changers were (i) provision of reliable, sustainable and clean energy, (ii) increased resource allocation to processing, (iii) improving postharvest infrastructure, and (iv) enhancing fortification of foods. For distribution, game changers included (i) establishing structured markets, (ii) supporting Micro, Small and Medium enterprises (MSMEs), and (iii) establishing special trade agreements with emerging economies and regional blocks. Finally, on consumption, the participants proposed enhancing nutritional education and diversified diets.236238239240241242244248249251Cross cutting outcomes: Changes to be made within 3 and 10 years This section provides areas that have to be considered in the short term (3 years) and medium term (10 years). The participants recommended that in the first 3 years, the nation should focus on the following actions: • Capacity development of farmer organizations and cooperatives; • Investments in climate smart agricultural technologies; • Digitization and privatization of the extension system; • Enhancing coordination through the National Planning Commission under a unified vision for Malawi on food systems; • Promoting nutrition sensitive agriculture; • Investing in irrigation of nutritive and commercial crops; and • Investing in machinery and equipment for value addition. In terms of expectations of the food systems in the next 10 years, the participants at the dialogue identified the following areas: • Promoting positive mind-set or behavioural change towards safe and healthy foods; • Promoting nutrition inclusive and sensitive food systems • Industrialisation and processing of food products, going beyond exporting of raw materials; • Enhancing food safety through legislation and investments in food safety laboratories (domesticating global food standards); • Improving gender transformative approaches across the value chains to ensure that women can participate and benefit in the food systems; • Increasing private sector involvement and enhance commercial farming • Enhancing resilience of food systems and livelihoods; • Strengthening agricultural financing mechanisms including creation of the Agriculture Development Bank; • Exploiting the youth demographic dividend in the food systems e.g. create employment opportunities, enhance innovation opportunities for young people to be involved across the value chain functions; • Strengthening the land tenure system through the review of the land laws; and • Adoption of improved technologies to enhance crop and livestock productivity.236238239240241242243244246248249251Cross cutting outcomes: Productive partnerships The national dialogue also explored how stakeholders can work well together for collective action and forge powerful partnerships towards transformations of food systems. The participants noted that currently, the country has several partners working in the food systems but they rarely work together and share lessons and best practices. This was linked to lack of proper coordination at country level between and among ministries, departments and agencies of the government. The participants noted that the opportunities, enablers and recommendations to transform food systems are multi-sectoral in nature, hence deliberate efforts need to be put in place to improve coordination. Some stakeholders noted that in most cases, some sectors leave the Ministry of Agriculture to handle all issues surrounding food systems when other ministries such as those responsible for nutrition, environment and climate change, infrastructure development, energy and trade are at the core of an efficient food system. As such, the participants explored and suggested mechanisms that will allow stakeholders to work together for a collective action and forge powerful partnerships as follows: • Develop common results framework. It was noted that there is a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework being developed under the Malawi 2063 Vision that could be leveraged among other existing frameworks; • Develop sustainability and exit strategy especially for program and projects; • Establish holistic coordinating structure for food systems so that all stakeholders and actors can work together towards a transformed food system agenda; • Enhance intra- and inter-ministerial coordination in the public sector; • Enhance cooperative’s information to improve value chain functions; • Strengthen dialogue sessions with involvement of all Ministries and stakeholders; and • Strengthen the linkage of the grassroots and the central levels for policy harnessing, coherence and enforcement.237238239240241242243244246248249251The Affordable Input Program (AIP) was a contentious issue with some participants thinking that the subsidy is a necessary evil that meets the nation’s food self-sufficiency goal. For example, in the current season, the yields are at the highest levels compared to the average of the last five years. On the other hand, other members felt that AIP is a social protection instrument that has outlived its life span and the nation needs to graduate from it despite all the positive restructuring it has gone through over the years. However, AIP needs to diversify beyond being maize-centric to other crops such as legumes and include livestock so that it contributes fully to Action Track #1 in providing safer and healthy foods. Other views bordered on its negative on the agricultural sector budget vote since some critical services such as research and extension suffer low allocations despite that the overall agricultural budget is able to meet the Malabo target of 10% of the national budget.

2021-08-14 08:38:41205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39714/112

140141012149149318128414181367341222621581424412861

Ahead of the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) to be convened by the United Nations Secretary General in September 2021, the State President of Malawi, His Excellence Dr Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera appointed Honourable Lobin C. Lowe, Minister of Agriculture as the National Convener of the Malawi National Food Systems Dialogue. To ensure effective, holistic and seamless dialogues, the Convener constituted a multi-sectoral Task Force chaired by the Directorate of Planning in the Ministry of Agriculture, as an apex coordination mechanism. Furthermore, the task force appointed a curator, note taker and facilitator to help facilitate the dialogue process. The regional and district dialogue sessions aimed at capturing voices from local stakeholders. This report focuses on the Northern Region Dialogue sessions that were conducted in Mzuzu city, Rumphi and Karonga districts from the 15th to 17th June 2021. The dialogues were held through a face to face approach. In total, 140 people attended the Northern Region dialogues coming from different sectors such as the public sector e.g. Ministries of Agriculture and Environment etc., academia, development partners, non-governmental organizations, food producers, processors, consumers, women, youths and health experts. The regional dialogues were held with financial support from the Government of Flanders and the United Nations. The dialogue was officially opened by a representative of the Convener from Mzuzu City Council. Afterwards through presentations, breakout sessions and plenary, participants discussed the current situation and challenges, drivers, opportunities, enablers, game changing priorities and actions to transform food system in Malawi based on the five action tracks from a regional perspective.Act with Urgency: The Malawi Government recognize the urgency of sustained and meaningful actions at all levels to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the recently launched national Malawi 2063 Vision which will be implemented through the 10-year implementation plans. Therefore, the dialogues will also inform the upcoming 10-year implementation plan of the national vision and the review of the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP). Commit to the Summit: The Government of Malawi is committed to contributing to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the UN Food Systems Summit. The Convener attended the UN Food Systems Pre-Summit in Rome in July 2021 and the national dialogue provided content for the event. Be Respectful: The national dialogue ensured genuine discussions without undue influence of any kind. The diversity of stakeholders that included youth and women were given equal opportunities to speak and engage freely in framing the future of food systems. Recognize Complexity: The task force acknowledged that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact upon, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The participation of multi-stakeholders, working across the food system from production to consumption ensured that no one is left behind and maximize outcomes on the different sectors. Complement the work of others: The dialogue was held with recognition that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global, regional and national governance processes. Build Trust: The dialogue put in place a conducive environment in the groups and during plenary sessions that promoted trust and increased motivation for participants to participate effectively. The dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect.• Think global but act local: The regional dialogues provided an opportunity for location-specific engagement with diverse stakeholders on issues that are emanating from the global level to spur local actions. Hence, the facilitator need to ensure that participants understand that the global issues have local significance and that local voices are also critical in shaping the global agenda. • Appreciate location-specific game changers: The experiences at the regional and sub-regional levels revealed the need to be cautious and cognizance of specific location-specific game changers that would need to be driven by local resources and decentralized development plans. • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: Engage as organizers on the nature and expectations of the dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of engagement prior to the event. The invitations to the delegates also needed to make clear the expectations and outcomes to be achieved during the dialogue session. • High level government leadership and commitment is a key driver for serious participation of all stakeholders. At the regional level, involvement of key political and government leadership is key to ensure commitment for decentralized structures to embrace the dialogues and be ready to implement actions thereof. • Be as inclusive as possible: The participation from government officials, academia, private sectors, food system actors, and civil society organizations including youth and women is key to a national dialogue process as it motivates interest and participation in the dialogue. • Be clear on expectations and objectives during the dialogue session. The facilitator of the dialogue dedicated some time to highlight the objectives and expectations of the Dialogue, and outline the outcomes expected of the dialogue sessions. • Use of local language to ensure that peoples’ voices are heard. This helped people to bring out issues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249251The regional dialogue was held under the theme “Building healthier, sustainable and equitable food systems for a better Malawi”. The objective of the dialogue was to reflect on the status of Malawi’s food systems, identify challenges and constraints, potentials and opportunities, and game-changing solutions and ideas for its transformation, including defined roles and responsibilities from local voices at the regional level. Based on the guidelines, the dialogue centred on the five Action Tracks underpinning Food Systems Dialogues: • Action Track 1 – “Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all” – participants examined whether all Malawian’s currently have access to safe and nutritious food. If not, what is it that makes it difficult for Malawians to access safe and nutritious food? • Action Track 2 – “Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” – participants had conversations about what were the key issues affecting healthy and sustainable food consumption in Malawi? • Action Track 3 – “Boosting nature-positive production at scale” – participant examined how Malawi’s food production systems can be transformed to ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for the people. • Action Track 4 – “Advancing equitable livelihoods”– participants explored inequalities within the Malawian food systems. • Action Track 5 – “Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses” – the dialogue examined actions to ensure the resilience of the Malawian Food System. The Convenors’ representative also emphasized on the need to analyse the food systems issues in consideration of existing national policies and strategies including the national aspirations enshrined in the Malawi 2063 Vision.235238239240241242243244246248249251This section summarises issues coming out of the dialogue in the Northern Region. It includes food system challenges and drivers as well available opportunities and enablers to support food systems transformation. Based on these, the section also brings out some proposed action areas to improve food systems within the short term (3 years) and in the medium term (10 years). Action Track #1: Ensuring safe and nutrition food for all Current challenges • Inadequate dietary diversification exacerbated by seasonality of food availability and perishability; • Food safety challenges due to inappropriate use of chemicals, poor food handling and processing; • High poverty levels affecting food access due to limited number of livelihood options (full reliance on subsistence farming); and • Poor road infrastructure and hilly topography in many areas of the Northern Region that affect accessibility and distribution of food supplies within the region. Drivers (Causes) • Limited crop diversification with too much focus on maize production system; • Poor handling of chemicals resulting in chemical contamination and pollution of food and water; • Market failures including unregulated contract farming agreements, uncompetitive prices, dysfunctional and unstructured markets; • Limited transport infrastructure resulting in uneven food supply and distribution; • Limited investment, equipment and knowledge in food value addition and processing – rice, vegetables and fruits; • Lack of enforcement of food standards and selling licences; and • Cultural values and socialization processes affecting food preparation and consumption.   Action Track #2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns Current Challenges • Food deficit due to poor food handling and storage, poor food budgeting, post-harvest food losses and food wastage; • Low diet diversification due to extinction of some indigenous food species, poor distribution and insufficient knowledge on food processing, preservation and utilization; and • Low supply of energy to facilitate food processing and preparation at home and industrial levels. Drivers (Causes) • Inappropriate use of pesticides including use of harmful chemicals resulting in food contamination e.g. tomatoes; • Poor post-harvest handling and management of farm produce e.g. poor storage facilities, untimely harvesting, thefts, low food budgeting skills, low food processing and food waste in cultural celebrations such as wedding and funeral ceremonies; • Poor roads network; • Lack of steady and structured markets and related infrastructure; and • Low generation capacity/overreliance on hydroelectricity and limited use of alternative energy sources. Action Track #3: Boosting nature-positive food production Current challenges • Low productivity and unsustainable food production (crops, livestock and fish). • Land degradation and low soil fertility; • Chemical pollution of food and water due to use of inappropriate pesticides and inorganic fertilizer. Also affecting aquatic life; and • Climate change induced shocks such as flooding and droughts. Drivers (Causes and Activities) • Poor road network exacerbated by flooding, erosion and siltation; • Destruction of fish breeding ecosystem due to farming near water bodies, siltation, high use of inorganic materials, overfishing and limited local monitoring control and surveillance; • Poor and unsustainable farming methods such as cultivation in marginal lands, mono-cropping, use of poor quality inputs, high pests and diseases e.g. fall army worm etc. and overdependence on rain fed agriculture; • poor market linkages; and • Poor natural resources and environmental management practices. Action Track # 4 Advancing equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Current Challenges • Unequal and low access to productive assets such as land, finance, insurance especially for women and youth; • High population growth; • Poor road infrastructure affecting transportation of goods and inputs; • Poor targeting in subsidy program e.g. people from Mlowe in Rumphi district being given maize seed and fertiliser coupons while they grow cassava and fish; • Low investments in industrialisation; and • Unequitable access to land. Drivers (Causes and Activities) • Cultural practices and gender stereotypes perpetuating adult male dominance and lack of control of assets by women; • Deforestation: for settlement, energy, bricks moulding, charcoal production; • Early marriages, teenage pregnancies, social cultural activities along the lakeshore areas (e.g. Nkhatabay and Karonga) limiting future livelihood activities; and • lack of key infrastructure in most of the northern region. Action Track # 5 Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses Current challenges • High poverty levels in rural areas making people vulnerable to shocks and stresses; • Low capacity of service providers and farmers to generate, interpret and use meteorological information; • Climate change induced natural disasters such as floods, droughts that affect crop productivity and general resilience; and • Inadequate early warning systems. Drivers (Causes) • Limited access to, and low quality of extension services; • Obsolete/old meteorological equipment and lack of innovative ways in translating information for use by the local population; • Poor road conditions and networks and political interference resulting in derailed investment in railway line transport system; and • Unsustainable natural resource management practices such as deforestation, cultivation of margin2362382432442452462482492511 Action Track #1 Outcomes The opportunities for Action Track #1 to ensure safe and nutritious food for all were identified as follows: • Availability of collaborating partners and structures in implementation of projects. These partners provide agricultural information through farmer field schools, care groups, school feeding programmes; • Existence of agricultural extension and communication facilities e.g. extension workers, community radios and local health personnel e.g. Health Surveillance Assistants (HSA’s) at the local level; • Availability of new agricultural technologies e.g. storage technologies such as pics bags that have reduced post-harvest losses; • Availability of natural resources e.g. land, diverse agro-ecological zones and perennial rivers favourable for production different foods such as fruits, fish, potatoes, cassava, maize, constant water supply, all year-round rivers and streams (Lake Kazuni, South Rikuru, Rumphi river, Hewe river); and • High production potential for different agricultural commodities in some areas in the north e.g. Mphompha and Mtchenachena areas have good rainfall and agro-ecological conditions favourable producing Irish potatoes, beans, Apples, Peaches, tomato, cabbage, onions, bananas, coffee, honey); Chiweta area suitable for cassava, fish, rice; Bolero area for livestock, tobacco, maize and honey) and Katowo-Hewe area for production of ground nuts, maize, beans, honey, soybean tobacco. The major enablers identified under Action Track # 1 were as follows: • Existence of government policies, laws and regulations (e.g. agricultural policy, irrigation policy and nutrition policy). Implementation and enforcement at all levels can spur productivity; • Existing investments in the agricultural sector such as the Affordable input program and the agricultural commercialization project; • Availability of research institutions that generate knowledge and technologies to guide farmers in their agricultural activities; • Decentralized structures and funding mechanism able to trigger location specific interventions; • Existing farmer organization and structures such as cooperatives and associations; and • Local people and Malawians in the diaspora with interest to invest in farming and processing of agricultural products.2362392432442452462482492512 Action Track # 2 Outcomes The opportunities identified towards shifting to sustainable consumption patterns were as follows: • Availability of structures at all levels to drive efforts towards sustainable consumption patterns e.g. presence of extension workers, and nutrition workers from Government & NGOs (e.g. Total Land Care, Find Your Feet, Self Helf Africa, National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi), and presence of local structures for coordination at district level e.g. District Agriculture Extension Coordinating Committee (DAECC) etc.; • High literacy levels in the northern region general; • Availability of natural resources such as land, perennial rivers and lakes to support irrigation; • Conducive policy environment and existing government programs; • Existing agro-processing plants e.g. for rice and coffee; • Well trained agricultural staff though not adequate; and • A network of agro-dealer shops facilitates input and output marketing.2362402432442452462482492513 Action Track # 3 Outcomes The opportunities identified were as follows: • Existing policies and investments in agriculture e.g. the affordable input program and Agriculture Commercialization (AGCOM) project; • Available natural resources to harness productivity such as wet lands, perennial water bodies for irrigation and Lake Malawi for fishing; • Availability of technologies to promote sustainable production such as climate smart agriculture, conservation agriculture, permaculture, intercropping, agroforestry, land and water conservation measures; • Road network; • Decentralisation of service delivery and funding which could drive more location specific interventions through district councils; and • Existence of self-help initiatives among communities such as Savings Loan Groups (SLGs).2362412432442452462482492514 Action Track # 4 Outcomes The opportunities that were identified under Action Track # 4 included the following: • Growth in local financial initiatives especially informal structures e.g. Village Savings and Loan (VSL); • Existing markets infrastructure of the Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC) that has capacity to facilitate storage and marketing; • Government increased investments in public works program and road infrastructure; • Vision 2063 focus on industrialization has potential to open up economic and employment opportunities; • Existing social protection and safety net programs; and • Exploiting the youth demographic dividend.2362422432442452462482492515 Action Track # 5 Outcomes The opportunities under Action Track # 5 were as follows: • Availability of natural resources including fertile lands, fresh water from lake Malawi and perennial rivers for irrigation and aquaculture (fish farming); • Availability of investments by multi stakeholders such as research/ academic institutions, NGOs and private sector players; • Presence of mines and game reserves in the northern region which could provide economic activities; • Conducive weather conditions that are ideal for crop and livestock production and diversification; and • Presence of different farmer groups and cooperatives (Irrigation schemes, Water Users Associations). The enablers under Action Track # 5 were as follows: • Political stability/political will by the central government and good multilateral and bilateral relationships; • Availability of good policies (Malawi 2063 vision, NAP 2016; NAIP 2018); • Growing population offers market demand and labour; • Existing systems and structures at all levels e.g. Extension system, agro-dealer network-input suppliers, decentralized local structures etc.; • Free education in primary school and high literacy rate in the northern region as compared to other regions; and • Availability of market infrastructure such as ADMARC warehouses that can support structured markets.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The northern region dialogue session identified game changing priorities that apply across all the five action tracks. These include the following: 1. Scale up and enhance coordination of existing interventions by government, civil society and the private sector to enhance production and productivity, food safety and resilience e.g. farmer field schools, school feedings programmes, subsidy in crop and farm mechanization, road infrastructure, community nutrition training centres, processing plants in community and producing areas; 2. Promote a food systems oriented education system through curriculum review; 3. Increase utilization of existing structures in extension and research: a. Improve the functionality of DAESS structures to improve extension service delivery; b. Increase number of extension workers; and c. Improve research services for increased innovation and technologies (e.g. new varieties and methods of farming) 4. Diversify energy sources: a. Enhancement of rural/semi-urban electrification to spur small processing of agriculture produce; b. Promote adoption alternative energy sources (hydro, solar and wind) and energy saving technologies; 5. Enhance agriculture productivity and diet diversification: a. Commercialize agriculture with emphasis on crop and diet diversification; b. Promote diversified agriculture and diets including off-farm activities; c. Promote indigenous crop varieties and foods; d. expand and diversify Affordable Input program (AIP) to support agriculture diversification; e. Promote adoption of climate smart technologies; f. Intensify reforestation; and g. Invest in irrigation through increased utilization and expansion of existing irrigation schemes and construction of multipurpose dam for irrigation, hydro power generation, drinking water and fish farming. 6. Ensure conducive policy environment and enforcement of regulations a. Government should put in place enabling policies on land issues e.g. to ensure that land ownership be for every member of a household; b. Enforce council by-laws on agricultural marketing, food marketing standards and regulated fishing; c. Improved governance and functioning of decentralisation systems; and d. Develop and implement of settlement policy to regulate settlement. 7. Intensify extension services, civic education and communication approaches: a. Undertake civic education for mind-set change & economic empowerment; and b. Increase awareness and knowledge on nutrition, food consumption and climate change through extension workers and other communication channels. 8. Strengthen value chain functions including making markets work for the poor: a. Enforcement of minimum prices; b. Promote value addition and food processing; c. Build capacity on food processing and utilisation including food safety; and d. Increase investments in food processing and storage equipment and technologies. 9. Strengthen farmer organizations and cooperatives: a. Facilitate, revamp and empower cooperatives and associations to facilitate better access to inputs, markets and mechanization services as well as engage in industrialisation; b. Facilitate accessible and favourable financing and lending mechanisms; and c. Support community initiatives and approaches such as Village Savings and Loan to support food systems interventions. 10. Exploit the youth demographic dividend and community empowerment a. Provide loan facilities targeting the youth; b. Build skills and knowledge of the youth in agricultural activities in their areas; and c. Increase use of technology and digital innovations to attract youth in agriculture. 11. Enhance access to finance to support food systems development a. Develop and establish an Agricultural Development Fund/Bank with affordable interest rates that support agricultural activities; and b. Put in place friendly financial policies.2362382392402412422432442452462482492502517. Changes to be made within 3 and 10 years This section provides areas that have to be considered in the short term (3 years) and medium term (10 years) based on the regional dialogues. The participants recommended that in the first three years, the region and the nation should focus on the following actions: 1. Restructure the Affordable Input program (AIP): a. Implement universal AIP to improve access to inputs for all farmers; b. Diversify AIP to include livestock and fish farming; and c. Ensure proper targeting of inputs (seeds and fertiliser) according to location specific interventions and priorities. 2. Strengthen and intensify existing productivity enhancing initiatives such as: a. Research (more investment and funding); b. Utilize existing working models for farmer empowerment e.g. farmer field schools; c. Strengthen extension services through improved welfare of extension workers e.g. housing of local extension workers, recruitment and training of new extension staff; and d. Review the demand driven extension policy to enable adoption technologies that would help build resilience. 3. Ensure affordable Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) services (affordable airtime, internet and phones) to facilitate effective extension, communication and market transactions; 4. Invest and promote technologies for improved storage (e.g. solar driers), processing and value addition; 5. Improve road and railway infrastructure to increase access to inputs and markets and ensure timely delivery; 6. Strengthen decentralized structures, by-laws and investments: a. Develop and enforce district bylaws; b. Develop and implement district agricultural investment plans; c. Depoliticize Constituency Development Fund (CDF); d. Prioritise and promote food budgeting, processing, preservation and utilization at community level; and e. Strengthen and expand Monitoring, Control and Surveillance of fishery resources. 7. Intensify on irrigation farming through establishments and rehabilitation of irrigation schemes; 8. Restoration of natural forests and improve land use planning; 9. Strengthen market structures and systems e.g. enforcement of minimum farm gate prices; 10. Establish of agriculture development bank to serve farmers; and 11. Contain population growth. To improve food systems in the next 10 years, the participants at the dialogue identified the following areas: 1. Promote wealth creation opportunities at community level to improve livelihoods; 2. Increase investments and improve functioning of transport systems including road and railway systems; 3. Exploit international and regional trade opportunities; 4. Promote sustainable agricultural production practices: • Reduce dependency on subsidies; • Promote livestock farming; • Expand fish farming industry through construction of dams and water reservoirs; and • Invest in irrigation schemes. 5. Make agriculture attractive to young people through provision of finance, mechanisation and digital technologies; 6. Invest in commercialized agriculture with necessary equipment and systems across the value chains: • Improve agro processing and value addition at community level; • Invest in alternative energy sources; • Invest in mechanization; and • Establish functional food reserves at district level and community grain banks. 7. Improve natural resource and conservation management practices e.g. reduce land degradation, ensure well managed catchment areas.2362382392402412422432442452462482492502518. Cross cutting outcomes: Productive partnerships The regional dialogue also explored how stakeholders can work well together for collective action and forge powerful partnerships towards transformations of food systems. The participants noted that currently, the region has several partners working in the food systems including NGOs both local and international, faith based organizations, farmer based organizations including cooperatives, government departments, private sector players and other food industry players but they rarely work together to share lessons and best practices. This was linked to lack of proper coordination at regional and district level including between and among ministries, departments and agencies of the government despite existing structures in the decentralized system of governance. The participants noted that the opportunities, enablers and recommendations to transform food systems are multi-sectoral in nature, hence deliberate efforts need to be put in place for a coordinated approach at the regional and district level to ensure impact. Food systems transformation requires working together among several stakeholders such as those responsible for agriculture, nutrition, environment and climate change, infrastructure development, energy and trade. As such the participants explored and suggested mechanisms that will allow stakeholders to work together for a collective action and forge powerful partnerships. These include: • Sharing of information through sectoral periodic review, that is, through joint planning, implementation and monitoring at all levels; • Strengthen coordination amongst different stakeholders in the food chain within the district, through joint planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the activities in the food systems; strengthening/revitalizing of the District Agricultural Extension Service System (DAESS) structures for coordination; enforce punitive measures for uncompliant stakeholders to coordination efforts; • Restructure tax regimens to create conducive environment to investment especially for private sector; • Introduce affirmative measures in different sectors to enhance food systems; and • Create a conducive environment for investors like land, security, transparency and accountability.  237238239240241242243244245246248249251The Agricultural Input Program (AIP) was a contentious issue with others thinking that it is a necessary evil that meets the nations’ food self-sufficiency goal. For example, the yields are at highest levels in the current season compared to the average of the last five years. On the other hand, others members felt that AIP as a social protection instrument has outlived its life span and the nation needs to graduate from it despite all the positive restructuring it has gone through over the years. Others noted that the subsidy program is good though it just needs to diversify beyond being maize-centric to other crops such as legumes including livestock so that it contributes fully to Action Track #1 in providing safer and healthy foods. Others also thought the program is good but needs proper targeting. Other views bordered on its net negative effect on the agricultural sector budget vote since other critical services such as research and extension suffer from low allocations though the overall agricultural budget is able to meet the Malabo target of 10% of the national budget. The other issue that came out in the Northern Region dialogue was the need to embrace indigenous food varieties and not only focus on the so-called modern/improved varieties. The promoters of the indigenous food varieties noted that such foods have high nutrition status and are resilient to climate change whilst those championing improved varieties were considering mostly on the high yielding and resilience of other varieties such as drought resistant varieties of maize.

2021-08-14 09:21:29205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39720/112

10012852746634421064112251132251067785211484

Ahead of the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) to be convened by the United Nations Secretary General in September 2021, the State President of Malawi, His Excellency Dr Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera appointed Honourable Lobin C. Lowe, Minister of Agriculture as the National Convenor of the Malawi National Food Systems Dialogue. To ensure effective, holistic and seamless dialogues, the Convenor constituted a multi-sectoral Task Force chaired by the Directorate of Planning in the Ministry of Agriculture, as an apex coordination mechanism. Furthermore, the task force appointed a curator, note taker and facilitator to help in carrying out the dialogue process. The regional and district dialogue sessions aimed at capturing voices from local stakeholders starting from Blantyre City. This report focuses on the Southern Region Dialogue sessions that were conducted from 5th to 8th July 2021. The report also takes into consideration the specific issues that came out from the sub-regional dialogues conducted in Mulanje, Mwanza and Nsanje districts. The dialogues were held through a face to face approach. In total 100 people participated with 41 people attending the dialogue in Blantyre, 32 people in Mwanza, 21 people in Mulanje and 26 people in Nsanje. The representation was from different sectors, including the public sector e.g. Ministries of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the academia, development partners, non-governmental organizations, food producers, processors, consumers, women, youths and health experts. The regional dialogues were held with financial support from the Government of Flanders and the United Nations. The dialogue was officially opened by the Convenor representative in the Southern Region. Afterwards through presentations, breakout sessions and plenary, participants discussed the current situation and challenges, drivers, opportunities, enablers, game changing priorities and actions to transform food system for Malawi based on the five action tracks from a regional perspective.Act with Urgency: The Malawi Government recognize the urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to achieve the 2030 SDGs and the recently launched national Malawi 2063 Vision. The dialogues will also inform the upcoming 10-year implementation plan of the national vision and the review of the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP). Commit to the Summit: The Government of Malawi is committed to contributing to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit as a member of the UN. The Convenor will attend the Pre-Summit in Rome in July 2021 and the national dialogue provided content to be used for the event. Be Respectful: The national dialogue ensured genuine discussions without undue influence of any kind. The diversity of stakeholders that included youth and women were given equal opportunities to speak and engage freely in framing the future of food systems. Recognize Complexity: The task force acknowledged that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact upon, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The participation of multi-stakeholders, working across the food system from production to consumption ensured that no one is left behind and maximize outcomes on the different sectors. Complement the work of others: The dialogue was held with recognition that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global, regional and national governance processes such as the SDG processes, AU 2063 agenda, the Malabo declaration and the Malawi 2063 vision. Build Trust: The dialogue put in place a conducive environment in the groups and during plenary sessions that promoted trust and this increased motivation for stakeholders to participate fully. The dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect.• Think global but act local: The regional dialogues provided an opportunity for location-specific engagement with diverse stakeholders on issues that are emanating from the global level to spur local actions. Hence, the facilitator needed to ensure that participants understand that the global issues have local significance and that local voices are also critical in shaping the global agenda. • Appreciate location-specific game changers: The experiences at the regional and sub-regional levels revealed the need to be cautious and cognizant of specific location-specific game changers that would need to be driven by local resources and decentralized development plans. • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: Engage as organizers on the nature and expectations of the dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of Engagement prior to the event. The invitations to the delegates also needed to make clear the expectations and outcomes to be achieved during the dialogue session. • High level government leadership and commitment is a key driver for serious participation of all stakeholders. At the regional level, involvement of key political and government leadership was key to ensure commitment for decentralized structures to embrace the dialogues and be ready to implement actions thereof. • Be as inclusive as possible: The participation from government officials, academia, private sectors, food system actors, and civil society organizations including youth and women was key to a national dialogue process as it motivated interest and participation in the dialogue. • Be clear on expectations and objectives during the dialogue session. The facilitator of the dialogue dedicated some time to highlight the objectives and expectations of the Dialogue, and outlined the outcomes expected of the dialogue sessions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The regional dialogue was held under the theme “Building healthier, sustainable and equitable food systems for a better Malawi”. The objective of the dialogue was to reflect on the status of Malawi’s food systems, identify challenges and constraints, potentials and opportunities, and game-changing solutions and ideas for its transformation, including defined roles and responsibilities from local voices at the regional level Based on the guidelines, the dialogue was centred on the five action Tracks underpinning Food Systems and making Summit Dialogues: • Action Track 1 – “Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all” – participants examined whether all Malawian’s currently have access to safe and nutritious food. If not, what is it that makes it difficult for Malawians to access safe and nutritious food? • Action Track 2 – “Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” – dialogue participants had conversations about what the key issues affecting healthy and sustainable food consumption were in Malawi. • Action Track 3 – “Boosting nature-positive production at scale” – Participants examined how Malawi’s food production systems can be transformed to ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for the people. • Action Track 4 – “Advancing equitable livelihoods”– participants explored inequalities within the Malawian food systems. • Action Track 5 – “Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses” – the dialogue examined actions to ensure the resilience of the Malawian Food System. The Convenors’ representative also emphasized the need to analyse the food systems issues in consideration of existing national policies and strategies including the national aspirations enshrined in the Malawi 2063 Vision.235238239240241242243244246248249251Action Track #1: Ensuring safe and nutrition food for all Current challenges and their causes/drivers 1. Low productivity and production of diversified and nutritious foods: a) Climate change – floods, dry spells, drought and erratic rains; b) Low adoption of improved agricultural technologies and irrigation; and c) Handout syndrome or overdependence of relief after climatic shocks. 2. Seasonal availability of foods a. High post-harvest losses; b. Inadequate knowledge in processing techniques or technologies; and c. Limited winter food production systems. Use of residual moisture and wetland crop production. 3. Poor utilization of food a. Limited knowledge on how to integrate some food in the diet. 4. Unstable prices of foods a. No competition among the buyers. b. Currently there are no auction markets for livestock 5. No value addition of foods a. Limited skills on value addition particularly among small-scale producers; and b. Lack of facilities to enable value addition despite having a lot of citrus fruits. Action Track #2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns Current Challenges and causes/drivers 1. Consumption of unsafe foods a. Inadequate inspectorate services on livestock products, especially the open markets for meat; b. Lack of adherence to Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) i.e. there is rampant abuse of veterinary drugs and/or pesticides; and c. Inadequate Good Hygienic Practices (GHP). Increasing industrial waste in rivers flowing through Blantyre city and downstream districts. 2. Inadequate access to nutritious food leading to malnutrition including stunting a. Limited knowledge on types of nutritious food, food budgeting, food processing, food preparation and utilization; b. Rapid urbanisation is also leading to poor feeding habits for both urban and rural dwellers; c. Cultural and religious beliefs that limit consumption of some nutritious foods; and d. Inadequate food availability and distribution at other times of the season. 3. Low use of indigenous foods a. Climatic challenges like dry spells that affect production of wild indigenous foods; b. Loss of indigenous knowledge, especially in food preparation; and c. Perceptions that indigenous foods are of the poor and of low nutrient quality. 4. Over reliance and dependency culture on the government-handouts e.g. Chikwawa and Nsanje districts a. Natural disasters e.g. floods and droughts which always attract government and partners’ relief response actions. Action Track #3: Boosting nature-positive food production Current challenges and causes/drivers 1. Poor industrial and domestic waste management resulting in pollution a. Peoples’ negligence e.g. vandalism of sewer lines especially in the City of Blantyre, damping of plastics etc.; b. Inadequate enforcement of the city by-laws but also the Environmental management and act and regulations; and c. Limited resources for waste management. 2. Poor management of agricultural pesticides and chemicals a. Increased use of pesticides in containing pests like fall army worms; b. Increased use of chemical, some of which are persistent in food and also affect water sources; and c. Negligence to adhere to safety measures especially on withdrawal periods and consumption of horticultural produce. 3. Destruction of natural environment due to poor agricultural practices a. Failure to adopt best practices of managing agricultural production is leading to challenges like soil erosion and siltation of rivers; b. Deforestation as a result of increased demands for energy, timber etc; c. Cultivating along the riverbanks due to land scarcity and conflicting land use policies; and d. Land degradation due to population growth, overgrazing, monoculture e.g. unsustainable farming practice (continuous use of farmland). 4. Climate change/ change in rainfall patters a. Prolonged dry spells, flash floods and heavy winds due to climate change; b. Cutting down trees and leaving bare land; c. Over harvesting of natural resources e.g. overfishing and trees; and d. Unsustainable development practices e.g. brick burning and use of timber in infrastructure development. Action Track # 4 Advancing equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Current Challenges and causes/drivers 1. Inequitable access to land a. Culturally land is owned by women but controlled by men; b. The limited land available is rented out to others and sold out worsening the situation; and c. Most land in Thyolo and Mulanje is under estate use for tea production. 2. Undiversified income sources a. Lack of innovativeness on marketing; and b. Social set up favours men over women in terms of education e.g. education investment in families are bent towards men than women. 3. High unemployment rate among the youth a. Many of the youth in migrate to South Africa; and b. High level of school drop-out among girls and related teen pregnancies, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Action Track # 5 Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses Current challenges and causes/drivers 1. Natural disasters a. The floodplain of Malawi (Lower Shire) is mostly affected with floods and dry-spells. Cyclone Idai also recently affected the livelihoods in the region. 2. Land shortage a. Increase in population and unfair land tenure arrangements have led to low crop and livestock production, conflicts and wrangles over land and gender based violence. 3. Pests and diseases Infestations a. High incidences of Fall army worm have mostly affected the region especially the in lower shire.2362382432442462482492511 Action Track #1 Outcomes The opportunities for Action Track #1 to ensure safe and nutritious food for all were identified as follows: 1. Availability of institutions and structures that focus on agriculture production; 2. Extension structures and service are available across the country; 3. An opportunity of accessing quality inputs from government and NGO 4. Subsidized inputs from government; 5. Clean banana suckers from agriculture production units; and 6. Supply of farming inputs on credit from NGOs such as One Acre Fund. The major enablers identified under Action Track # 1 were as follows: 1. Availability of regulatory services in the district; 2. On-going national drive to change some of the negative cultural practices; 3. Irrigation policy that is promoting winter and wetland crop production to maximize production; 4. Marketing and export strategies that is focusing on improving markets for agricultural commodities; 5. Horticultural strategies that is promoting value addition; and 6. Multi-sectoral approach to food and nutrition (policies and strategies).2362392432442462482492512 Action Track # 2 Outcomes The opportunities identified towards shifting to sustainable consumption patterns were as follows: 1. Availability of skilled government workers e.g. environmental inspectors, nutrition officers, Health surveillance assistants; 2. Availability of diverse and nutritious food types across the region; 3. Existence of processing companies e.g. dhal from pigeon peas factory in Phalombe district; 4. Availability of governance structures and government extension service systems e.g. community structures dealing with issues of nutrition; 5. There is very high potential for citrus and livestock production in both Mwanza and Neno districts; 6. Diversified production (crop and animal) is possible because the districts have a lot of potential land for production of either of the enterprises; 7. Gender programming encouraging men and women to participate in nutrition related issues (not just regarded as a woman issue); and 8. Growing interest among traditional leadership and other stakeholders on issues of nutrition education. The enablers that can allow the country to advance sustainable consumption included: 1. Existence of infant and child feeding strategy – recipe books; 2. Availability of the food and nutrition policy and strategies that promote 6 food groups; 3. Gender strategy; 4. Food budget guidance; and 5. Existence of health personnel to provide information on good hygienic and sanitary practices.2362402432442462482492513 Action Track # 3 Outcomes The opportunities identified under Action Track # 3 were as follows: 1. Good weather for production of wheat, potatoes and citrus fruits; 2. Existence of agriculture extension services that can facilitate: Increased adoption of new technologies by farmers – farmers are receptive to innovation and learning – across the value chains; and availability of call in services to access information related agricultural production (Toll free lines). 3. Abundant water - perennial rivers for both irrigation and power generation e.g. Mkulumadzi, Shire and Mwanza rivers; 4. Distribution of subsidized farm inputs that can be extended to irrigation (winter cropping) agriculture; 5. Very favourable weather conditions conducive for a variety of crops especially horticultural and other cash crops while the lowlands are suitable for livestock production; 6. Ongoing developmental programmes such as the Shire valley transformation project that offers an opportunity for increased learning, production and income generation; 7. Solar powered farms are an opportunity for increased power generation and electrification of rural and urban areas; Enablers identified included the following: 1. Availability of conducive government policies, regulations and by laws at all levels; 2. Existence of agriculture research stations e.g. Bvumbwe Research Station, Kasinthula Fisheries Station; 3. Government setting of minimum prices and licensing of agro-dealers; 4. Government and development partners have interest to assist farmers in value addition; and 5. Farm managed natural regeneration program underway through Forestry Department including availability of village forest areas to be used for afforestation.2362412432442452462482492514 Action Track # 4 Outcomes The opportunities that were identified under Action Track # 4 included the following: 1. High potential for tourism e.g. the mountain, wildlife, tea estates, Lengwe and Majete National parks. These can be used as main sources of economic diversification; 2. Availability of other infrastructures e.g. warehouses at community level where buyers can keep their goods before transporting to processing sites or markets; 3. High youth population as source of labour and innovation; 4. Proximity to an international border with Mozambique which allows cross border movement of food items into and out of Malawi in times of hunger; and 5. Potential mining and energy opportunities in the Kirk Range e.g. gold in Thambani, coal in Kamwamba, bauxite on the Mulanje mountain as well as hydroelectric power stations along the Shire River. Enablers that can support the attainment of the opportunities include: 1. Main road network and railway is there to support transportation, these however will need rehabilitation and upgrading; 2. Trade policies and laws. Food systems traders are given a warrant to source food outside the country (Mozambique); 3. Liberalized economy that allows for free trade; and 4. Readily available markets for mining products.2362422432442462482492502515 Action Track # 5 Outcomes The opportunities under Action Track # 5 were as follows: 1. Availability of skilled environmental inspectors and other officers e.g. extension workers, forestry officers etc.; 2. Availability of institutions that focus on environment management, climate change and disaster preparedness; 3. Availability of funds in decentralized structures such as the District Development Fund; 4. The already existing farming culture; 5. Availability of enthusiastic and committed local leaders; and 6. Availability of tree stumps- high probability of regeneration. The enablers under Action Track # 5 were as follows: 1. Existence of conducive policies, by-laws at all levels with support from local leaders e.g. environmental management, irrigation, disaster preparedness policy, forest by-laws that control the use of forest land and its products 2. Local governance structures; 3. There is an improved saving culture among communities through Village Savings and Loan (VSLs); 4. Good road network although with poor road infrastructure needing attention; and 5. One stop border post at Mwanza that can increase trade and economic activities in the border district.2362382392402412422432442452462482492502516. Crosscutting Game Changing Priorities The Southern region dialogue session combined the game changing priorities across all the five action tracks as follows: 1. Enhance food quality transformation and standards o Enhancing regulatory services and capacity in key ministries such as Ministries of Health, agriculture and trade, district councils, community structures, institutions such as the Malawi Bureau of Standards (MBS); o Increasing collaboration of different stakeholders (to ameliorate overlap of roles among different regulators), including consumers; o Develop a National Food Safety policy to address all the food safety issues identified; o Recruiting more officers to strengthen food inspectorate services; o Overcoming corruption by regulatory service providers; o Sensitisation of food producers and consumers on food safety and nutrition e.g. introduction of nutrition education at primary school level; and o Adoption of nutrition labelling as a mandatory requirement. 2. Increasing agricultural productivity across all value chains o Develop a legal framework (legislation) for District Agricultural Extension Services System (DAESS) structures to ensure adherence to food safety and other related food system issues; o Construction of mega irrigation schemes tapping on abundant water bodies and perennial rivers; o Intensive nutrition education targeting communities through community radio, frontline workers and non-conventional platforms for promotion of diversified diets; o Re-introduce dip tanks and veterinary services in rural areas; o Provide conduce working environment for extension workers by providing vehicles, good housing etc.; o Promoting innovative extension approaches on food budgeting and good agriculture practices; and o Extending the subsidy program to winter or wetland cropping. 3. Enhance value addition and processing o Promotion of small-scale food processing companies for milk, pineapples (fruit juices) avocado pears (oil), tomato, sweet potatoes, Pigeon peas (dhal); o Improve dry and cold production and marketing infrastructure to improve storage and processing; and o Support value addition and processing facilities managed by cooperatives. 4. Improve market systems and structures o Introduce structured markets and promote contract farming; o Enhance business knowledge and access to market information; o Introduce supply chain financing mechanism to mitigate shocks; and o Revitalize ADMARC so that they facilitate structured markets for both inputs and crop produce. 5. Mind-set Change o Culture - full recognition of local leadership e.g. chiefs to influence mind set change via awareness & enforcement; o End corruption; o Diversification of food production and consumption; and o Promote family planning. 6. Promote alternative sources of energy o Rural electrification program; and o Access to solar and wind power.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502517 Cross cutting outcomes: Changes to be made within 3 and 10 years This section provides areas that have to be considered in the short term (3 years) and medium term (10 years) based on the regional dialogues. The participants recommended that in the first 3 years, the region and the nation should focus on the following actions: 1. Empower local leaders on land tribunal issues especially in Thyolo and Mulanje districts; 2. Finalize the national Food Safety Policy; 3. Phase out handouts and train people to be independent; 4. Promote improved, climate smart technologies and mechanization to enhance productivity and reduction of post-harvest losses; 5. Enforcement of existing policies that can trigger food systems transformation; 6. Promote family planning to reduce overpopulation and land pressure; 7. Enhance research in food systems; 8. Increase the minimum wage; 9. Government should exempt taxes on essentials e.g. milk, salt, sugar etc.; and 10. Youth empowerment: soft loans for the youth enterprises, internships, youth innovation awards, coaching and mentoring. In terms of expectations of the food systems in the next 10 years, the participants at the dialogue identified the following areas: 1. Include nutrition education in primary school curriculum; 2. Introduce new investments in the agricultural sector and agro processing industry e.g. loans for final food processing, soft loans for agricultural initiatives. Invest in large scale irrigation schemes and ensure that they are functional with private sector and community collaboration; 3. Enhance social behaviour change to address issues related to nutrition i.e. encourage consumption of certain types of food (crabs, mice); 4. Invest in livestock and aquaculture development including raring of non-convention animals i.e. rabbits, quails, guinea pigs; 5. Increase use of bio-fortified varieties and breeds; 6. Incentivising workers at grass roots levels from different sectors. i.e. rural electricity, housing, portable water, road infrastructure and reliable networks; 7. Promote public private partnerships to accelerate transformation of food systems; 8. Promote alternative non-farm income sources and empowerment of youth with start-ups and private sector involvement; 9. Provision of incentives to farmers to adopt Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) that are environmentally friendly; and 10. Ensure market systems and structures that work for farmers including reviving ADMARC, institute market innovation centres, among others2362382392402412422432442452462472482492518. Cross cutting outcomes: Productive partnerships The regional dialogue also explored how stakeholders can work well together for collective action and forge powerful partnerships towards transformations of food systems. The participants noted that currently, the region has several partners working in the food systems including NGOs both local and international, faith-based organizations, farmer-based organizations including cooperatives, government departments, private sector players and other food industry players but they rarely work together let alone share lessons and best practices. This was linked to lack of proper coordination at regional and district level including between and among ministries, departments and agencies of the government despite existing structures in the decentralized system of governance. The participants noted that the opportunities, enablers and recommendations to transform food systems are multi-sectoral in nature hence deliberate efforts need to be put in place for a coordinated approach at the regional and district level to ensure location-specific coordinated actions. Some noted that in most cases, other sectors leave just the Ministry of Agriculture to handle all issues surrounding food systems when other ministries such as those responsible for nutrition, environment and climate change, infrastructure development, energy and trade just but to mention a few are at the core of an efficient food system. As such the participants explored and suggested mechanisms that will allow stakeholders to work together for a collective action and forge powerful partnerships as follows: 1. Strengthen networking platforms for all actors in different sectors to enhance collaboration and partnership; 2. Utilize existing research facilities such as Bvumbwe Research Station in Thyolo district in collaboration with extension services to disseminate new crop varieties and animal breeds; 3. Leverage Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to foster dissemination and sharing information among food systems actors. Strengthen information sharing among stakeholders e.g. a database as a repository is supposed to be developed that all stakeholders can use; 4. Enhance implementation of key outputs of forums on similar thematic areas to ensure that there are actions and accountability systems in place on the game changers agreed upon such as: a. Engaging with various stakeholders/experts including local authorities to take dialogues outcomes as part of the district plans; and b. Institutionalizing food systems e.g. a task force at decentralized structures has to be established, which is multi-sectoral in nature and include private sector stakeholders to continue the dialogues post UNFSS in September 2021.237238239240241242243244248249251Increased use of pesticides vs pollution: The issue came out based on the understanding that there has been increased use of pesticides due to the infestation of Fall Armyworm and increased cultivation of horticultural crops in the Southern Region. Even as much as it is important to ensure high productivity of the crops, other participants noted that this puts lives at risk if those pesticides are not handled and used properly. For instance, the withdrawal times on vegetables are not adhered to thereby leading to unsafe consumption of foods and pollution in general. Handouts in form of relief items vs empowerment: The issue of handouts as a social protection measure came out strongly in the Southern Region because of the frequent occurrence of natural disasters. It was noted that communities are used to getting relief items. For instance, there are communities in Chikwawa district that are affected by floods every year and these communities are not willing to relocate to other areas. This has become a political issue as well. Additionally, the dialogue felt that these relief items will, in the long run, increase dependence on government as communities are not willing to be innovative and empowered to graduate from such relief programs. Conflicting extension messages: Technical misguidance and conflicting extension messages i.e. one crop per piece of land against the message of crop diversification. This was noted as an issue that happens especially amongst NGOs and at times between different sectoral ministries where different guidelines or messages are given to farmers thereby rendering them confused. Indigenous foods vs improved varieties: The is need to embrace and consume indigenous food varieties as a major source of nutritious foods and not only focus on the so-called modern/improved varieties came out in the Southern Region dialogues. The promoters of the indigenous food varieties noted that such foods have high nutrition status and are resilient to climate change whilst those championing improved varieties were considering mostly the high yielding and resilient varieties such as drought resistant varieties of maize.

2021-08-14 09:49:53205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39724/112

11227529864485123112881511441138214810213992323

Ahead of the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) to be convened by the United Nations Secretary General in September 2021, the State President of Malawi, His Excellency Dr Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera appointed Honourable Lobin C. Lowe, Minister of Agriculture as the National Convenor of the Malawi National Food Systems Dialogue. To ensure effective, holistic and seamless dialogues, the Convenor constituted a multi-sectoral Task Force chaired by the Directorate of Planning in the Ministry of Agriculture, as an apex coordination mechanism. Furthermore, the task force appointed a curator, note taker and facilitator to help in carrying out the dialogue process. The regional and district dialogue sessions aimed at capturing voices from local stakeholders as part of the national dialogue process. This report focuses on the Central Region Dialogue session that were conducted from 12th to 15th July 2021. The report also takes into consideration the specific issues that came out from the sub-regional dialogues conducted in Ntchisi, Kasungu and Dedza. The dialogue was held through a face to face approach. In total, 47 people attended the dialogue in Salima, 21 people in Ntchisi, 29 people in Kasungu and 25 people in Dedza coming from different sectors such as the public sector e.g. Ministries of Agriculture and Natural Resources, etc., academia, development partners, non-governmental organizations, food producers, processors, consumers, women, youths and health experts. The regional dialogues were held with financial support from the Government of Flanders and the United Nations. The dialogue was officially opened by the representative of the Convenors throughout the region. Afterwards through presentations, breakout sessions and plenary, participants discussed the current situation and challenges, drivers, opportunities, enablers, game changing priorities and actions to transform food system for Malawi based on the five action tracks from a regional perspective.Act with Urgency: The Malawi Government recognize the urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to achieve the 2030 SDGs and the recently launched national Malawi 2063 Vision. The dialogues will also inform the upcoming 10-year implementation plan of the national vision and the review of the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP). Commit to the Summit: The Government of Malawi is committed to contributing to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit as a member of the UN. The Convenor will attend the Pre-Summit in Rome in July 2021 and the national dialogue provided content to be used for the event. Be Respectful: The national dialogue ensured genuine discussions without undue influence of any kind. The diversity of stakeholders that included youth and women were given equal opportunities to speak and engage freely in framing the future of food systems. Recognize Complexity: The task force acknowledged that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact upon, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The participation of multi-stakeholders, working across the food system from production to consumption ensured that no one is left behind and maximize outcomes on the different sectors. Complement the work of others: The dialogue was held with recognition that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global, regional and national governance processes such as the SDG processes, AU 2063 agenda, the Malabo declaration and the Malawi 2063 vision. Build Trust: The dialogue put in place a conducive environment in the groups and during plenary sessions that promoted trust and this increased motivation for stakeholders to participate fully. The dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect.• Think global but act local: The regional dialogues provided an opportunity for location-specific engagement with diverse stakeholders on issues that are emanating from the global level to spur local actions. Hence, the facilitator needed to ensure that participants understand that the global issues have local significance and that local voices are also critical in shaping the global agenda. • Appreciate location-specific game changers: The experiences at the regional and sub-regional levels revealed the need to be cautious and cognizant of specific location-specific game changers that would need to be driven by local resources and decentralized development plans. • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: Engage as organizers on the nature and expectations of the dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of Engagement prior to the event. The invitations to the delegates also needed to make clear the expectations and outcomes to be achieved during the dialogue session. • High level government leadership and commitment is a key driver for serious participation of all stakeholders. At the regional level, involvement of key political and government leadership was key to ensure commitment for decentralized structures to embrace the dialogues and be ready to implement actions thereof. • Be as inclusive as possible: The participation from government officials, academia, private sectors, food system actors, and civil society organizations including youth and women was key to a national dialogue process as it motivated interest and participation in the dialogue. • Be clear on expectations and objectives during the dialogue session. The facilitator of the dialogue dedicated some time to highlight the objectives and expectations of the Dialogue, and outlined the outcomes expected of the dialogue sessions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The regional dialogue was held under the theme “Building healthier, sustainable and equitable food systems for a better Malawi”. The objective of the dialogue was to allow regional and district stakeholders to reflect and analyse the status of food systems in their locality, identifying challenges and constraints, potentials and opportunities, and game-changing solutions and ideas for its transformation, including defined roles and responsibilities at the regional level The dialogue covered all areas of the food systems around the five Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit Dialogues: • Action Track 1 – “Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all” – participants examined whether all Malawian’s currently have access to safe and nutritious food. If not, what is it that makes it difficult for Malawians to access safe and nutritious food? • Action Track 2 – “Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” – dialogue participants had conversations about what the key issues affecting healthy and sustainable food consumption were in Malawi. • Action Track 3 – “Boosting nature-positive production at scale” – Participants examined how Malawi’s food production systems can be transformed to ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for the people. • Action Track 4 – “Advancing equitable livelihoods”– participants explored inequalities within the Malawian food systems. • Action Track 5 – “Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses” – examined actions to ensure the resilience of the Malawian Food System. Emphasis was made to ensure linkages with national aspirations enshrined in the Malawi 2063 Vision as well as provisions of existing policies and strategies. The dialogue process was underpinned with clear principles such as (i) ensuring that sustainable healthy diets for all is the basic vision, (ii) consideration of food system transformation as the long-term process, (iii) taking a systems approach to this challenge, (iv) adopting an iterative approach, considering national governments as the lead in all matters of governance, (v) taking a supportive and co-creative rather than prescriptive approach, (vi) building on existing structures when feasible, (vii) creating new ones only when necessary, (viii) embracing both evidence and innovation, (ix) proactively addressing frictions related to facts, interests, and values, (x) and approaching the challenge with an attitude of learning, humility, and optimism.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The main findings of the Central Region dialogue have been summarized under the 5 action tracks focusing on the current challenges and the drivers (causes) as follows: Action Track #1: Ensuring safe and nutrition food for all Current challenges 1. Limited and undiversified food production due to land shortage; 2. high levels of poverty; 3. Climate change related challenges such as floods and droughts/dry spells; 4. Elephants (Thuma forest) destroying crops both at field and home of villagers around the forest; and 5. Deforestation. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. High poverty levels in the region; 2. Limited off-farm sources and opportunities for income generation to support access to food; 3. Increased numbers of women headed households – increasing levels of vulnerability; 4. Limited access to markets for both inputs and outputs including limited market information and lack of enforcement of minimum set prices; 5. Lack of agricultural industrialization to drive processing and value addition e.g. lack of machines for processing; 6. Land shortage; 7. Gender inequality; 8. Poor extension services resulting in poor adoption of good agricultural practices. Negative cultural practices affecting farming practices; and 9. Overpopulation leading to land shortage and deforestation including low water supply downstream due to poor catchment preservation. Action Track #2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns Current Challenges 1. High rates of malnutrition and other diseases like HIV/AIDS; 2. Child labour, school dropout, early marriage resulting; 3. Unbalanced diet due to poor food budgeting, low yields and unavailability of foods in other areas/ seasons; 4. Food wastage; 5. Population growth and extended families; and 6. Low household income. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. Lack of knowledge dietary diversification, food preparation of balanced diet, technologies for processing of food stuffs, food budgeting, post-harvest handling; 2. Poor policies that do not encourage diversification i.e. subsidy programs promoting only maize food system; 3. Lack of ownership of available natural resources i.e. fisheries or forests; 4. Poor road network, leading to poor distribution of food from high production areas to low production areas (Dedza vs Nkhotakota in terms of horticultural crops); 5. High illiteracy levels; 6. Cultural beliefs and practices affecting consumption of food and food wastage; 7. High food prices; 8. Unavailability of indigenous foods i.e. fruits; and 9. Unreliable markets. Action Track #3: Boosting nature-positive food production Current challenges 1. Land degradation; 2. Increased climate change induced natural disasters resulting in unreliable rainfall patterns, floods, dry spells and pest and diseases infestations; 3. Limited production resources resulting in conflicting uses (e.g. land for wildlife and land for crops, crop residues for mulching and crop residues for feeding livestock) competing priorities between livestock production, wildlife and crops; 4. Reduced water levels in the lake and drying up of perennial rivers thereby affecting fish species and irrigation farming; and 5. Decrease of fish species. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. Deforestation, unsustainable farming practices (excessive use of chemicals in farms, mono-cropping, cultivating along riverbanks, charcoal burning; 2. Siltation and poor water shed management; and 3. Unsustainable fishing practices e.g. overfishing, fishing using chemicals, illegal fishing gear. Action Track # 4 Advancing equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Current Challenges 1. Unequal distribution of resources leading to poverty; 2. Gender imbalances in the food system livelihoods; 3. Cultural beliefs and values; 4. Poverty; and 5. Weak market arrangements. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. Gender inequalities e.g. men dominate most food & economic decision making, asset ownership bias towards men, women and children are exposed to risks e.g. sex for fish, and food practices that favour men over women and kids e.g. meat for men only; 2. Natural disasters e.g. dry spells; 3. Low access to inputs; 4. Land degradation; 5. Lack of market structures of most of food crops 6. Weak farmer organizations that lead to inadequate agribusiness skills and collective marketing; and 7. Poor road network. Action Track # 5 Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses Current challenges 1. Negative coping mechanisms i.e. cutting down trees for charcoal, selling productive assets like dairy cattle, prostitution, migration to urban areas; 2. Climate change related natural disasters e.g. floods, drought; and 3. Dwindling fish supply Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. Deforestation; 2. Unequal access to production assets i.e. woman to access land and loans; 3. Unregulated fishing leading to overfishing; and 4. Human over-population affecting fish demand and other natural resources.2362382432442452462482492511 Action Track #1 Outcomes The opportunities for Action Track #1 to ensure safe and nutritious food for all were identified as follows: 1. Availability of arable land, abundant water and favourable conditions for some districts favourable for production of diversified crops during the winter season and for irrigation purposes; 2. Existence of subsidy programs that increase access to inputs; and 3. Existence of different district and community structures across all sectors e.g. agriculture, forestry, nutrition, community development etc. The major enablers identified under Action Track # 1 were as follows: 1. Available Policies guiding agriculture activities, nutrition and gender; and 2. Availability of Community radios to facilitate access to information.236239243244246248249251Action Track # 2 Outcomes The opportunities identified towards shifting to sustainable consumption patterns were as follows: 1. Fertile soils for production of various crops in central region; 2. Availability of water sources and land to steer irrigation e.g. in Salima and Nkhotakota districts have the Lake Malawi and major rivers; 3. Availability of cultivatable land and fertile soils in central region; 4. Availability of development partners who complement government efforts; 5. Availability of infrastructure i.e. railway line (Salima, Dedza districts), road network, water bodies (Salima); and 6. Diverse ecology in the region that necessitates the growing of different crops i.e. maize, rice, horticulture in order to enhance diet diversification The enablers that can allow the region to advance sustainable consumption included: 1. The presence of the Green Belt Initiative to spur increased crop production and diversification; 2. The Buy Malawi campaign advocating for consumption of home-grown local foods; 3. Availability of government agencies e.g. Department of Environment Affairs, Malawi Bureau of Standards and the Pesticides Control Board etc. to ensure food safety and standards; 4. Availability of conducive policy environment and by laws in different sectors to transform food systems e.g. Nutrition policies and strategies, extension and advisory services policies, fisheries policy; and 5. Availability of community radios that support nutrition education.2362402432442462482492513 Action Track # 3 Outcomes The opportunities identified under Action Track # 3 were as follows: 1. Availability of waste which can be used for manure making to support agriculture production; 2. Alternative sources of energy e.g. solar; 3. Availability of natural resources such as water bodies such as Lake Malawi, rivers, Chia lagoon and parks and wildlife reserves e.g. Kuti Wildlife Reserve, Thuma Forest Reserve and Nkhotakota Game Reserve; 4. Availability of agricultural technologies e.g. drought tolerant crops; and 5. Availability of natural resources management initiatives such as tree planting, water harvesting etc. Enablers identified included the following: 1. Existence of conducive policies such as climate change policies, strategies and commitment by the government e.g. National adaptation plans, National resilience strategy; 2. Availability of environmental related guidelines such as climate smart agriculture guidelines, catchment and watershed management guidelines; 3. Fishing bylaws e.g. closed season regulations; and 4. The new land policy promoting improved tenure security and sustainable land management.2362412432442462482492514 Action Track # 4 Outcomes The opportunities that were identified under Action Track # 4 included the following: 1. Availability of stakeholders and technical capacity to support implementation food systems programmes; 2. Availability of programmes which have mainstreamed issues of Gender E.g. Cash transfer programs, adult literacy training; 3. Availability of safety net programmes to support livelihoods for vulnerable households e.g. subsidy input programme; and 4. Existence of Farmer based organizations such as cooperatives and associations. Enablers that can support the attainment of the opportunities included: 1. Existence of policies to guide food systems transformation e.g. National agricultural policy; 2. Existence of agribusiness programmes to assist farmers to increase incomes e.g. Agricultural commercialization (AGCOM) project; 3. Existence of decentralized development structures up to the community level e.g. Community development workers, women and youth clubs, community based organizations (CBOs) and associations; and 4. Existence of by-laws and district development plans.2362422432442462482492515 Action Track # 5 Outcomes The opportunities under Action Track # 5 were as follows: 1. Availability of disaster preparedness and adaptation measures such as construction of water dyke, early warning systems; 2. Availability of community structures to respond to shocks and stresses such as extension workers, village civil protection committees etc.; and 3. Availability of drought tolerant and early maturing varieties. The enablers under Action Track # 5 were as follows: 1. Availability of Disaster Management and resilience building policies and strategies; and 2. Fisheries guidelines on closed fishing seasons.2362382392402412422432442452462482492516. Game Changing Priorities The dialogue session identified the game changing priorities across all the five action tracks as follows: 1. Make markets work for the poor through the restructuring of ADMARC and promotion of structured markets; 2. Invest in mechanization and processing equipment to spur agricultural productivity, value addition and agro-processing; 3. Improve transport infrastructure i.e. road networks in rural areas, railway and water transport systems; 4. Promote use of alternative energy sources to boost agriculture operations including agro-processing and value addition; 5. Promote climate change adaptation and mitigation measures such as watershed catchment management practices, disaster preparedness etc.; and 6. Increase production and productivity of various crops, livestock and fisheries throughout the year e.g. by promoting of irrigation farming (vibrant mega and anchor farms), agro-ecological practices etc.2362382392402412422432442462482492517 Actions: Changes to be made within 3 and 10 years This section provides action areas that have to be considered in the short term (3 years) and medium term (10 years) based on the identified game changing priorities. The participants recommended that in the first 3 years, the region and the nation should focus on the following actions: 1. Revamp extension services through recruitment of more extension workers and harmonization/standardization of messages; 2. Enhance resilience of communities to respond to shocks/stress before outside help is sought; 3. Increase food production and productivity through promotion of climate smart and appropriate technologies across the whole value chain such as soil fertility improvement practices; 4. Government should provide balanced support in all food crops e.g. through the AIP; 5. Resuscitate ADMARC to facilitate both input and output markets for small scale farmers; 6. Improve road network; 7. Government should stop politicizing maize crop; 8. Revise school curriculum to address food consumption issues e.g. nutrition education and home economics; 9. Prioritize value addition through establishment of local industries with deliberate investments in food processing machinery, food fortification and labelling; and 10. Review certification procedures by Malawi Bureau of standards and ensure enforcement of the same to ensure consumption of safe foods. In terms of expectations of the food systems in the next 10 years, the participants at the dialogue identified the following areas: 1. Ensure policy coordination, coherence and enforcement of regulations towards transformation of food systems; 2. Enhance collaboration and coordination of stakeholders, investments and programs at all levels and across all sectors involved in the food systems; 3. Increase sustainable productivity of foods including aquaculture development by ensuring that farmers are following sustainable good agricultural practices that support/enhance a balanced ecosystem. Government should also consider graduation from the subsidy input program; 4. Exploit the youth demographic dividend by economically empowering youth and building their technical and entrepreneurial skills and rebranding agriculture to make it attractive to them; 5. Enhance climate change adaptation and mitigation measures through investing in early warning system and climate information systems, use of alternative energy sources such as briquettes, chitetezo mbaula, gas, promoting permaculture/ agro ecology and watershed Catchment management practices; 6. Invest in commercial oriented agriculture through large scale, solar powered Irrigation farming e.g. starting from 3,000 hectares; 7. Speed up the industrialization drive i.e. agro-processing and mechanization to allow for import substitution and benefit from regional and international trade opportunities. This includes re-establishment of abandoned factories such as the cotton ginning factories; 8. Put in place gender transformative initiatives across the value chains to ensure equitable benefits and participation among all gender groups; 9. Make markets work for the poor through revitalization of ADMARC and introduction of structured markets including enforcement of minimum prices; and 10. Institutionalization of food systems approach in district councils.2362382392402412422432442462482492518. Cross cutting outcomes: Productive partnerships The regional dialogue also explored on how stakeholders can work together for collective action and forge powerful partnerships towards transformation of food systems. The participants noted that currently, the region has several partners working in the food systems including NGOs both local and international, faith-based organizations, farmer-based organizations including cooperatives, government departments, private sector players and other food industry players but they rarely work together let alone share lessons and best practices. This was linked to lack of proper coordination at regional and district level including between and among ministries, departments and agencies of the government despite existing structures in the decentralized system of governance. The participants noted that the opportunities, enablers and recommendations to transform food systems are multi-sectoral in nature, hence deliberate efforts need to be put in place for a coordinated approach at the regional and district level to ensure location-specific coordinated actions. Some noted that in most cases, some sectors leave it to the Ministry of Agriculture to handle all issues surrounding food systems while other ministries such as those responsible for nutrition, environment and climate change, infrastructure development, energy and trade just but to mention a few are at the core of an efficient food system. The participants explored and suggested mechanisms that will allow stakeholders to work together for a collective action and forge powerful partnerships as follows: 1. Ensure functioning and use of existing structures to support food systems: a. Establish a food systems structure/coordinating committee at district and community levels; b. Integrate sectoral groups such as nutrition care groups, farmer field schools into the food systems approach; c. Ensure greater involvement of private sector in the food systems approach at all levels; d. Ensure that all non-state actors work collaboratively with government structures when working in an area; 2. Stakeholder multi sectoral joint resource mobilization, planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and learning including sharing information and networking; and 3. Ensure transparency and accountability of stakeholders, so that progress is tracked by all.237238239240241242243244248249251The subsidy Agricultural Input Program (AIP) was a contentious issue with some thinking that it is a necessary evil that meets the nations’ food self-sufficiency goal. For example, the current season has produced surplus maize compared to the average of the last five years. Other members felt that AIP as a social protection instrument has outlived its life span and the nation needs to graduate from it despite all the positive restructuring it has gone through over the years. Still others noted that the subsidy program is good and it needs to diversify beyond focusing on maize to other crops such as legumes and livestock so that it contributes fully to Action Track #1 in providing safer and healthy foods. Other views bordered on its net negative effect on the agricultural sector budget vote since other critical services such as research and extension suffer low allocations though the overall agricultural budget is able to meet the Malabo target of 10% of the national budget. The other issue that came out in the Central region dialogue was the need to embrace indigenous food varieties and not only focus on the so-called modern/improved varieties. The promoters of the indigenous food varieties noted that such foods have high nutrition status and are resilient to climate change whilst those championing improved varieties were considering mostly on the high yielding and resilience of other varieties such as drought resistant varieties of maize. The issue of conflicting messages came out very strongly in the Central Region that resulted in delegates recommending the urgent need to harmonize messages that go to farmers. It was noted that in most cases NGOs and Government go to communities with different/conflicting information like incorporation of residues in gardens and yet others say don’t incorporate them but give them to livestock. The need for sustainable production systems such as agro-ecology and permaculture was discussed versus the conventional farming systems approach. It was noted that the current food production system is at the breaking point. It was noted that conventional farming yields large amounts of products for our use. However, it uses resources faster than they can recover and that if we continue this way, at some point we will have to face the moment when our lands will fail to produce enough food. Therefore, it was concluded that there is a need to strike the balance as both approaches are promoted to avoid confusing the farmers.

2021-08-14 10:19:34205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39717/112

128258815913750939563226122213911141213382893

This was the second regional dialogue session to be conducted following the launch at national level. The multi-stakeholder Task Force and the facilitation team comprising the curator, facilitator and the note taker facilitated this dialogue. In this region, the dialogue was carried out in Zomba City, Mangochi and Balaka districts from the 28th -30th June 2021. These dialogues were held through a face-to-face approach. In total, 128 people participated representing different sectors such as the public sector e.g. Ministries of Agriculture, Natural Resources and health and others, the academia, development partners, non-governmental organizations, food producers, processors, consumers, women, youths and health experts. The regional dialogue was held with financial support from the Government of Flanders and the United Nations while the district dialogues were funded by the UN and the civil society. The dialogue was officially opened by the Convenor, Hon Lobin C. Lowe, Minister of Agriculture in Mangochi whilst his representatives officially opened the Zomba and Balaka district dialogues. Afterwards through presentations, breakout sessions and plenary, participants discussed the current situation and challenges, drivers, opportunities, enablers, game changing priorities and actions to transform food system for Malawi based on the five action tracks from a regional perspective.Act with Urgency: The Malawi Government recognize the urgency of sustained and meaningful actions at all levels to achieve the 2030 SDGs and the recently launched national Malawi 2063 Vision which will be implemented through the Implementation plans. The dialogues will therefore inform the upcoming 10-year implementation plan of the national vision and the review of the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and the National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP). Commit to the Summit: The Government of Malawi is committed to contributing to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the UN Food Systems Summit. The Convener attended the UN Food Sytems Pre-Summit in Rome in July 2021 and the national dialogues provided content for the event. Be Respectful: The national dialogue ensured genuine discussions without undue influence of any kind. The diversity of stakeholders that included youth and women were given equal opportunities to speak and engage freely in framing the future of food systems. Recognize Complexity: The task force acknowledged that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact upon, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The participation of multi stakeholders, working across the food system from production to consumption ensured that no one is left behind and maximize outcomes on the different sectors. Complement the work of others: The dialogue was held with recognition that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global, regional and national governance processes. Build Trust: The dialogue put in place a conducive environment in the groups and during plenary sessions that promoted trust and this increased motivation for stakeholders to participate constructively. The dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect.• Think global but act local: The regional dialogues provided an opportunity for location-specific engagement with diverse stakeholders on issues that are emanating from the global level to spur local actions. Hence, the facilitator needed to ensure that participants understand that the global issues have local significance and that local voices are also critical in shaping the global agenda. • Appreciate location-specific game changers: The experiences at the regional and sub-regional levels revealed the need to be cautious and cognizant of specific location-specific game changers that would need to be driven by local resources and decentralized development plans. • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: Engage as organizers on the nature and expectations of the dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of Engagement prior to the event. The invitations to the delegates also needed to make clear the expectations and outcomes to be achieved during the dialogue session. • High level government leadership and commitment is a key driver for serious participation of all stakeholders. At the regional level, involvement of key political and government leadership was key to ensure commitment for decentralized structures to embrace the dialogues and be ready to implement actions thereof. • Be as inclusive as possible: The participation from government officials, academia, private sectors, food system actors, and civil society organizations including youth and women was key to a national dialogue process as it motivated interest and participation in the dialogue. • Be clear on expectations and objectives during the dialogue session. The facilitator of the dialogue dedicated some time to highlight the objectives and expectations of the Dialogue, and outlined the outcomes expected of the dialogue sessions. • Use of local language to ensure that peoples’ voices are heard. This helped people to bring out issues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The regional dialogue was held under the theme “Building healthier, sustainable and equitable food systems for a better Malawi”. The objective of the dialogue was to share information on the UNFSS and reflect on the status of Malawi’s food systems, identify challenges and constraints, potentials and opportunities, and game-changing solutions and ideas for its transformation, including defined roles and responsibilities from local voices at the regional level. Based on the guidelines, the dialogues were organized around the five action tracks of the Food Systems Summit: • Action Track 1 – “Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all” – participants examined whether all Malawians currently have access to safe and nutritious food. If not, what is it that makes it difficult for Malawians to access safe and nutritious food? • Action Track 2 – “Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” – dialogue participants had conversations about what were the key issues affecting healthy and sustainable food consumption in Malawi. • Action Track 3 – “Boosting nature-positive production at scale” – participants examined how Malawi’s food production systems can be transformed to ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for the people. • Action Track 4 – “Advancing equitable livelihoods”– dialogue explored inequalities within the Malawian food systems. • Action Track 5 – “Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses” – participants examined actions to ensure the resilience of the Malawian Food System. The representative of the Convenor also emphasized the need to analyse the food systems issues in consideration of existing national policies and strategies including the national aspirations as enshrined in the Malawi 2063 Vision.235238239240241242243244245246248249251Action Track #1: Ensuring safe and nutrition food for all Current challenges 1. Low crop productivity and limited dietary diversification; 2. High rates of unemployment resulting in more people migrating to neighbouring countries; 3. Covid-19 related challenges for example government directive restricting meetings has affected tourism businesses; 4. Unorganised and unstable food markets thereby affecting availability of food in both time and space; and 5. Poor sanitation and hygiene among the people and poor health-seeking practices. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. Limited knowledge and use of appropriate practices on crop and diet diversification; 2. Fish production has gone down due to overharvesting, overpopulation, overfishing; 3. Limited income generating activities and high unemployment levels; 4. The region practices matrilineal system of marriage hence men normally are not willing to invest where they marry; and 5. Environmental degradation - and wanton cutting down of trees in Machinga and Balaka districts for charcoal burning and in Zomba for timber. Action Track #2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns Current Challenges 1. Inadequate incomes, knowledge and skills affecting food budgeting, food preparation, food processing and preservation hence consumption of unbalanced diet; 2. High postharvest losses and food wastage due to some extent, wasteful cultural and religious practices, poor storage capacity and facilities; 3. Low funding in nutrition sector affecting implementation of relevant programmes and strategies; 4. No reliable cash crops thus the majority of the population resort to selling food crops hence affecting long-term food and nutrition security; and 5. Food aid is more prevalent in the region, hence people deliberately sale their harvest or produce because they know that the Government will provide relief aid for their survival. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. Cultural values, beliefs and practices fuelling wastage, for example, during cultural ceremonies and traditions; 2. Increased population impacting on production – there is high land pressure which affects both levels of investment on that land as well as forcing people to encroach onto marginal lands; 3. Poor road network – this contributes to reduced availability of and access to nutritious and safe foods; and 4. Negative perception towards local nutritious foods, with improvement in levels of income-most people switch to ultra-processed and imported foods at the expense of highly nutritious local foods. Action Track #3: Boosting nature-positive food production Current challenges 1. Pests and diseases for crops e.g. fall army worms affected the region (24,437 ha affected out of 59,676 ha in all the EPAs); 2. Frequent natural disasters e.g. dry spells, floods etc.; 3. Inadequate agricultural diversification, the region is more suitable to production of livestock due to climatic and environmental factors. 4. Increased cases of malnutrition due to inadequate intake of animal proteins, legumes and oils (at 30% access currently); and 5. Soil loss and land degradation due to deforestation for charcoal production and opening new farm land. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. Unfavourable weather conditions and low arable land holding sizes; 2. Low adoption of improved production technologies; a. Poor access to extension services resulting from: poor quality extension service delivery; and b. Conflicting extension approaches to issues for example livestock vs land resources. 3. Mind-set and perception, that is, fishing culture along the lake which the fisher folks are preoccupied with and not attending to other livelihood options; and 4. High dependency on rain fed agriculture. Action Track # 4 Advancing equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Current Challenges 1. Market failures affecting household incomes; 2. High levels of unemployment; 3. Youth related challenges which have forced most young people migrating to South Africa for greener pastures; 4. Natural resource degradation – deforestation, poor farming practices, population pressure etc.; 5. Low utilization of existing infrastructures like marketing facilities built by the State marketer across the country including the region; and 6. Gender inequalities. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. Cultural practices and beliefs and gender inequalities; 2. Climate change that result into unpredictable rainfall patterns, floods and droughts; 3. High input prices especially fertilizers leading to low production; 4. Lack of technical expertise in crop standards and qualities, especially cash crops – extension system failure; and 5. Inappropriate use of chemicals and marketing standards – lack of know-how. Action Track # 5 Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses Current challenges 1. Climate change related shocks such as disturbed rain patterns and increase in natural disasters e.g., Cyclone Idai; 2. Diminishing biodiversity (species of plants and fishes) e.g., fish species in Lake Malawi; 3. Increased poverty levels; and 4. Negative coping strategies to shocks and stresses, e.g., child marriages. Drivers (Causes and Activities) 1. High poverty levels; 2. Lack of cleaner and sustainable renewable alternative energy sources; e.g., Gas, electricity, solar; 3. Unreliable markets – high input prices, low commodity prices; 4. Climate change leading to increased dry spells, flooding, pests and diseases; and 5. Poor market systems and lack of structured markets e.g. dysfunctional nature of ADMARC.2362382432442462482492511 Action Track #1 Outcomes The opportunities for Action Track #1 to ensure safe and nutritious food for all were identified as follows: 1. The region is endowed with natural resources such as water bodies (Lakes Chilwa, Malawi and Malombe) and Shire River hence availability of fish, potential for irrigation; 2. Good road and rail network among the districts in the region, this provides an opportunity for improved transportation and logistics; 3. Migration and cross boarder markets leading to availability of goods being brought to the region; 4. Tourism activities in the region e.g. L. Malawi National Park, KuChawe, Liwonde National Park etc. for income and employment; 5. Low rainfall areas good for livestock production hence can promote diversification; 6. Availability of companies in the region e.g. fertilizer company, cement and lime companies in Machinga and Balaka districts; 7. Business opportunities - factories to process fish to ensure consistent supply and reduce food waste, and an opportunity for fish feed production; 8. Presence of government extension workers and organisations – government structures are there to support transformation; and 9. Availability of stakeholders-NGOs supporting food systems-provide food, inputs, irrigation facilities and livestock. The major enablers identified under Action Track # 1 were as follows: 1. Fisheries by-laws and community fisheries committees that help to control fishing, all what is needed is to enforce laws; and 2. Good road network and railway lines. The region is the hub of major transport systems in the country.2362392432442462482492512 Action Track # 2 Outcomes The opportunities identified towards shifting to sustainable consumption patterns were as follows: 1. Availability of stakeholders willing to finance development programs across the value chains; 2. Presence of local knowledge in food preservation and traditional nutritious foods such as Luni, Molinga, Amaranthus; 3. Availability of nutrition and health experts; 4. Availability of natural resources - water bodies e.g. Lake Chilwa, Lake Malawi, Shire River, National parks and other natural minerals (gold); and 5. Availability of land suitable for small stock (livestock) production. 6. Food aid. The enablers that can allow the country to advance sustainable consumption included: 1. Available policies and strategies; 2. Political will; 3. Good national security; 4. Good environment for livestock production; and 5. Local leadership.2362402432442462482492513 Action Track # 3 Outcomes The opportunities identified under Action Track # 3 were as follows: 1. Availability of nature positive production interventions such as climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, soil improvement and watershed management e.g., MWASIP project sites like Chingale and Masaula, agroforestry and water harvesting technologies; 2. Availability of natural resources that can trigger nature positive production such as Lake Chilwa, Lake Malawi and Shire River and rich arable land; 3. Existence of locally available botanicals for pest and diseases controls; 4. Good transport system e.g. railway line to ferry produce to Blantyre for sell and good road network connecting Mangochi, Zomba, Blantyre and Lilongwe districts; 5. Favourable environment for livestock production and cotton production, mineral resources that provide alternative income sources; 6. Presence of a lot of food security stakeholders with a lot of resources and research expertise; 7. Availability of markets i.e., the population and presence of tourist attraction centres (lodges); 8. Availability of strategic grain reserves e.g. National Food Reserve Agency (NRFA) silos; and 9. Existence of community structures e.g. committees protecting natural resources e.g. Lake Chilwa. Enablers identified included the following: 1. Communities are committed to issues of development and sustainable management of resources; and 2. Government policies e.g. stringent policies to protect forests, availability of policies that promote sustainable agricultural production.2362412432442462482492514 Action Track # 4 Outcomes The opportunities that were identified under Action Track # 4 included the following: 1. Free primary education and adult literacy learning opportunities including access to bursary. With increased literacy, the population is bound to benefit from livelihood opportunities around them; 2. Existence of family planning methods if well harnessed can contribute to reducing population and improving livelihoods; 3. Availability of other non - farm income sources e.g., fishing opportunities in the Lakes, rivers and utilization of existing ponds for aquaculture; 4. Availability of abundant natural resources e.g., lakes, forest reserves, grazing land, fisheries and minerals; 5. Availability of marketing structures such as cooperatives, farmer organizations and infrastructures (National Association of Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi and Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation; 6. Availability of on-going nutrition programs such as school feeding programs by both NGOs and government; 7. Processing of fish so that when the lake is closed, they can sell the processed fish; 8. ICT based extension approaches e.g. video extension, extension helper application etc.; and 9. Enforcement of farm gate prices in place. Enablers that can support the attainment of the opportunities included: 1. Availability of funding by donor agencies; and 2. Availability of conducive policies such as land policy, extension policy, gender act, free primary education.2362422432442462482492515 Action Track # 5 Outcomes The opportunities under Action Track # 5 were as follows: 1. High labour availability in the region due to high population of youths in Mangochi and those that are incarcerated in prisons (Mikuyu, Zomba), as well as soldiers (Cobbe barracks, Changalume) – utilize these in community development, farming, infrastructure development projects, vocational skills training; 2. Presence of natural resources – mountains (e.g., Zomba mountain for bee keeping), water bodies for irrigation intensification (Shire River, Lake Chilwa, Lake Malawi, Lake Malombe), Zomba plains full of water and good soils which are potential for irrigation and fish farming, Namizimu and Phirilongwe forests, Mangochi Forest Reserve and Liwonde National Park, potential for mining – cement and lime production in Zomba, Mangochi, limestone in Balaka, gold and other precious minerals; 3. Availability of raw materials for agro-processing including availability of organic and inorganic wastes for fertilizer production, e.g., water hyacinth in Shire River and Lake Malawi for fertilizer production; 4. Closeness to Mozambique – the region borders with Nacala – potential market for agriculture produces; 5. Availability of many projects largely driven by development partners and government e.g. resilience building projects; 6. Good weather for livestock production and fertile arable land conducive for production; 7. Upgrading of Mangochi to a city status; 8. Infrastructure investments – rail, water transport on the lakes, road network, cold chain facilities for fisheries, livestock, farm fresh commodities; and 9. Market facilitation and contract farming-assist farmers to embark on contract farming. The enablers under Action Track # 5 were as follows: 1. Political will – encouraging export-based production; 2. Trade regulations – flexibility of laws; 3. Promote activities run by faith-based organisation e.g. Catholics, Islamic community, ensuring that government and the faith community work collaboratively in identifying and implementing game changing strategies for the growth of the region; 4. Land tenure system – needs to be reviewed to accommodate prevailing practices; and 5. Speed up Mining Act and related regulations to provide structure to the industry.2362382392402412422432442452462482492502516. Game Changing Priorities The eastern region dialogue session identified game changing priorities that apply across all the five action tracks. These include the following: 1. Enterprise diversification and rebranding: a. Enhance agricultural diversification through increased investment in research and extension, adoption of good agricultural practices including climate smart agriculture e.g. green house production, conservation agriculture; b. Promote integrated household farming e.g. diversified crop production (vegetables, fruits, legumes and livestock); c. Increase youth participation in agriculture through rebranding of agriculture to make attractive to young people; d. Strengthen production capacity of farm inputs locally – Malawi fertilizer company in Liwonde, more investments of the same kind and value addition capacity for commodities – e.g. ADMARC rice processing in Liwonde (not being used). 2. Farmer organization and cooperative development: Organize farmers into cooperatives-farmers growing to sale (have high bargaining power on prices) and enhance value addition. 3. Nutrition and Food Systems Education: a. Enhance nutrition education and civic education which lead to behavioural/mind-set change amongst communities to implementing technologies e.g. good agricultural cultural practices accompanied; and b. Adapt school curricula to train pupils in food systems – encompassing production, processing, distribution and utilization’; 4. Food Systems Coordination Structures: Ensure better coordination and collaboration in food systems among actors across all levels and sectors by setting up structures and systems to move the agenda forward; 5. Transport System and Logistics Hub: Improve transport network infrastructure e.g. rail (Nacala, Balaka – Blantyre – Lower Shire and Mozambique, Balaka, Salima – Lilongwe – Mchinji – Zambia) and water transport systems on Lake Malawi and Shire River – vessels on these water bodies to reduce cost of transport and roads – Zomba to Liwonde, Mangochi – Monkey Bay, Ntaja – Nayuchi, Liwonde – Chingeni, Mangochi – Makanjira, Chingale – Lirangwe, access to Lake Chilwa. In addition, make Balaka a logistics hub for the country and this will transform the district’s economy base and skew it towards logistics and transport; and 6. Market infrastructure: Improve market infrastructure through structured markets for commodities other than tobacco, resuscitate ADMARC, organize farmers into mega cooperatives – land consolidation, decentralization of the provision of training and capacity building for cooperatives, improved market information systems.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502517 Cross cutting outcomes: Changes to be made within 3 and 10 years This section provides areas that have to be considered in the short term (3 years) and medium term (10 years) based on the regional dialogues. The participants recommended that in the first 3 years, the region and the nation should focus on the following actions: 1. Promotion of diversified crop production and productivity with a business mind-set in the region through use of good agricultural practices such as soil fertility improvement programs, increased mechanization; 2. Government should provide balanced support to all food crops and stop politicizing maize crop; 3. Ensuring stable and structured markets e.g. resuscitate ADMARC by reviewing its operations and injecting in capital; 4. Improving road network across the region; 5. Review school curriculum to address food consumption issues e.g. home economics; 6. Food fortification and improve processed food labelling; 7. Harmonization of programs/messages that go to farmers e.g. in most cases NGOs and Government go to communities with different/conflicting information (like incorporation of residues in gardens and others say don’t incorporate give to livestock); 8. Ensuring that systems of communication among actors in the food system are functioning; 9. Improving infrastructure and telecommunications with reduces costs – digital technology is key to transforming food systems in the country; and 10. Enhancing natural resource regeneration – plan new trees, regenerate natural forests. In terms of expectations of the food systems in the next 10 years, the participants at the dialogue identified the following areas: 1. Recruitment and capacity building of extension workers to facilitate implementation of food systems; 2. Enhancing cooperatives approach: a plan of 60% of producers to be members of cooperatives; 3. Implementation of catchment conservation management approach to curb environmental degradation and improve natural regeneration; 4. Increasing food diversification, food distribution, food processing and preservations through providing a conducive environment for the growth of secondary processing factories; 5. Investing in alternative energy sources e.g. subsidizing gas, this is extremely important if the country is going to curb the problem of natural resource degradation; and 6. Promoting value-added products in Malawian shops by Malawians; and 7. Consolidating farm lands in order to support farm mechanization at community level.2362382392402412422432442452462482492518. Cross cutting outcomes: Productive partnerships The regional dialogue also explored how stakeholders can work well together for collective action and forge powerful partnerships towards transformations of food systems. The participants noted that currently, the region has several partners working in the food systems including NGOs both local and international, faith based organizations, farmer based organizations including cooperatives, government departments, private sector players and other food industry players but they rarely work together to share lessons and best practices. This was linked to lack of proper coordination at regional and district levels including between and among ministries, departments and agencies of the government despite existing structures in the decentralized system of governance. The participants noted that the opportunities, enablers and recommendations to transform food systems are multi-sectoral in nature, hence deliberate efforts need to be put in place for a coordinated approach at the regional and district level to ensure impact. Food systems transformation require working together among several stakeholders such as those responsible for agriculture, nutrition, environment and climate change, infrastructure development, energy and trade. As such, the participants explored and suggested mechanisms that will allow stakeholders to work together for a collective action and forge powerful partnerships as follows: 1. Strengthen decentralised structures in both extension and nutrition programs and set standards on food systems initiatives for all stakeholder operating in the district; 2. Enhance coordination and collaboration of food systems actors at district level. 3. Improve implementation and monitoring mechanisms for agreed actions – less meetings, more implementations; 4. Improve capacity of local councils to coordinate development partners and projects – Development Partners to work hand in hand with Government towards common goals; and 5. Improve private sector involvement in development planning and implementation e.g., commercial banks, transporters, commodity traders.237238239240241242243244246248249250251The government supported subsidy programme (Agricultural Inputs Programme - AIP) was a contentious issue with some thinking that it is a necessary evil that meets the nations’ food self-sufficiency goal. In the current season, the yields are at highest levels compared to the average of the last five years. Other members felt that AIP as a social protection instrument has outlived its life span and the nation needs to graduate from it despite all the positive restructuring it has gone through over the years. Still others noted that the subsidy program is good and it needs to diversify beyond focusing on maize-centric to other crops such as legumes and livestock so that it contributes fully to Action Track #1 in providing safer and healthy foods. Other views bordered on its net negative effect on the agricultural sector budget vote since other critical services such as research and extension suffer low allocations though the overall agricultural budget is able to meet the Malabo target of 10% of the national budget. The Eastern Region also brought about the contradicting discussion on the benefits of fishing as a major source of income in the region. Others argued that overreliance on fishing affects production of crops since most men are busy with the fish business, hence not putting much effort to produce other foods to enhance diet diversification. Another interesting scenario came out on the issue of the tourist attractions in the region such as Lake Malawi and Liwonde National Park which positively affect the economic choices in the district such as offering employment to young people. Other participants felt that the tourists’ attraction are bringing about diseases in the region. Another interesting phenomenon was high migration of young people to other countries especially South Africa due to high unemployment rates that give them livelihood options whilst on the other side, it also triggers shortage of labour in the district.

2021-08-14 14:04:55205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38158/64

720336276045273032825219131592517242234

La serie de Diálogos Nacionales sobre los sistemas Alimentarios fueron lanzados por la ministra de Agricultura, Ganadería, Bosques y Medio Ambiente, Excelentísima Sra. Francisca ENEME EFUA durante una reunión mantenida el 22 de julio del 2021 con distintas partes interesadas del Sistema Alimentario de Guinea Ecuatorial, apoyados por el Sistema de las Naciones Unidas en el País. Anterior a estos Diálogos, el país había convocado en el 2019 una conferencia económica nacional durante la cual, actores del sector, junto con el Gobierno, realizaron un primer diagnóstico que puso de relieve la fragilidad del Sistema alimentario del país. Las conclusiones de estos trabajos fueron recogidas en un documento unificado que traza la estrategia económica del país al horizonte 2035. Basándose en los diagnósticos ahí mencionados, se ha determinado que el Sistema Alimentario del país presenta debilidades principalmente en la fragilidad de su producción, fragilidad en garantizar alimentos nutritivos sanos e inocuos, así como la fragilidad en el acceso a alimentos para las capas más vulnerables y que puede traducirse en una inequidad en la distribución de estos. Atendiendo a estas conclusiones, el país ha decidido centrar sus diálogos en torno a tres de las cinco vías de acción escogidas para esta cumbre 2021 a saber: a) Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza, b) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y c) Promover medios de vida equitativos. Los distintos ministerios implicados también se movilizaron desde la perspectiva de las tres vías de acción para garantizar la socialización del contenido y objetivos de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, así como los objetivos del desarrollo del Primer Diálogo Nacional. Ante la premura de tiempo, y para reforzar los principios de la cumbre, el diálogo se llevó a cabo durante jornadas de 8 horas, permitiendo espacios de dialogo más extensos en grupos de trabajo organizados de manera inclusiva y complementaria.El comité político constituido para la organización de los diálogos y liderado por la ministra de Agricultura, Ganadería, Bosques y Medio Ambiente en representación del gobierno de Guinea Ecuatorial priorizó tres vías de acción: a) Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza, b) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y c) Promover medios de vida equitativos. Para impulsar los procesos de diálogo intersectoriales se definieron tres grupos de trabajo (cada uno abordó una vía de acción). Este fue el espacio en dónde se aplicó con mayor énfasis los principios de la Cumbre, ya que se utilizaron los siguientes métodos: - Cada grupo se conformó con representación intersectorial pública, privada, social, academia y de productores. Esto para generar un diálogo constructivo, inclusivo, respetuoso y complementario. - En las invitaciones al dialogo, se acompañaba información de la Cumbre y elementos de antecedentes sobre la tercera conferencia económica nacional celebrada en el 2019 y donde se abordó ampliamente la temática de los Sistemas Alimentarios. - Los grupos estaban moderados por funcionarios de las Naciones Unidas motivando a que las partes interesadas se expresen con total libertad y transparencia y que puedan proponer alternativas para el fortalecimiento de los Sistemas Alimentarios de Guinea Ecuatorial, partiendo de las realidades y el contexto país.- La pandemia que azota el mundo entero es un factor importante a tener en cuenta en la organización de diálogos presenciales para países como el nuestro ya que la logística organizativa puede ser aún más compleja. - Es importante realizar una campaña de divulgación de la problemática ante los actores para que esos no sean sólo invitados, sino verdaderos actores. - La complejidad de la problemática requerirá dedicarle más tiempo para las consultas exhaustivas que involucren actores de diferentes regiones del país.

NoEl método utilizado se ajusta al escaso tiempo del que se disponía para la celebración de diálogos más exhaustivos a diferentes niveles del país, por lo que consistió en la creación de un comité técnico multisectorial compuesto por diferentes partes interesadas del Gobierno, sector privado, agrupaciones de productores y funcionarios de las Naciones Unidas. Este comité técnico ha estado pilotado por un comité decisional o político compuesto por ministros del gobierno, la coordinadora residente del sistema de las Naciones Unidas y los representantes residentes de FAO, UNICEF y PNUD. La inclusión y la diversidad de participantes fue garantizada en todo momento permitiendo a los productores, transformadores, técnicos, transportistas, comerciales, consumidores, sanitarios y otros, llevar a cabo conversaciones muy abiertas. Se trataba pues de reunir en un solo dialogo actores de diferentes sectores para construir de manera conjunta una visión compartida de la situación del Sistema Alimentario del país. Se trataba también de crear un espacio de trabajo conjunto para todos los sectores, vegetal, animal, académicos, gobierno, sociedad civil, sanidad…etc. Las fases 1 y dos se llevaron a cabo en dos tiempos: - Fase 1: esta comienza desde la Tercera Conferencia Económica Nacional (IIICEN ) y continua durante los diálogos a través de una primera sesión en la que los participantes identificaron y reiteraron las principales vulnerabilidades que presenta el Sistema Alimentario del país (puntos débiles/ amenazas). - Fase 2: Es llevada a cabo en la misma jornada, en esta se sigue la metodología de la cumbre a través de un análisis exhaustivo de las debilidades y amenazas anteriormente identificadas durante la primera sesión. Los participantes identifican fortalezas y oportunidades que podrían robustecer de forma complementaria los diferentes sectores del Sistema Alimentario. - Al término de las dos fases anteriores, todos los participantes se encuentran en plenaria para presentar las conclusiones resultantes de los intercambios de grupo. - Gracias al carácter inclusivo del comité técnico creado para los diálogos, se organiza un taller en el cual las partes se comprometen a llevar a cabo acciones urgentes, sostenidas y significativas bajo los principios de la cumbre para alcanzar los respectivos Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para 2030.

234238240241243244245246248249251Lema: “La alimentación sana asegura el futuro” “Si quieres escuchar la epopeya del trovador, escúchalo de la boca del mismo trovador. Son ustedes los trovadores, queremos escuchar la poesía de vuestras bocas.” En los Diálogos Nacionales están presentes todos los actores de la cadena alimentaria: agricultores, ganaderos, pescadores, importadores de alimentos, sector salud e investigación, veterinarios, técnicos del medio ambiente, agrónomos, sociedad civil, distribuidores y expendedores en mercados Vía 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza Ponencia: Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería, Bosques y Medio Ambiente Grandes importaciones de alimentos para abastecer mercados locales, baja producción agropecuaria (subsistencia) y pesca artesanal, escasez de almacén de alimentos; alimentación poco nutritiva, alto ritmo de crecimiento poblacional, pocos productores de alimentos, baja innovación tecnológica, limitada implicación de actores. Las estrategias para la producción alimentaria: Plan de Seguridad Alimentaria de la Cumbre en Roma, 1996; Primera Conferencia Económica para fomentar el sector alimentario, 1997; participación en la Cumbre de Maputo, 2003, donde se estipuló reservar 10% del presupuesto para la seguridad alimentaria, ratificado en la Declaración de Malabo, 2014. La inversión pública en el sector agropecuario fue 0.50% (2019) y 1.89% (2020). El Programa Especial para la Seguridad Alimentaria (PESA), 2001; Programa Nacional para la Seguridad Alimentaria (PNSA), 2012; simposio con empresas para el desarrollo, 2013; NEPAD, plan de acción en la Unión Africana; Programa de Inversión de Sistemas Alimentarios. Sin embargo, no han sido consolidados por limitación en financiamiento. Para enfrentar situaciones como el Covid-19 se requieren compromisos del gobierno y alianzas entre actores para contar y ejecutar un sistema alimentario formalizado, permanente y sostenible. Ponencia: Instituto Nacional de Conservación del Medio Ambiente La deforestación fue 0,34% y la degradación del 0,89% (2004-2014). Para producir de manera favorable con la naturaleza, se deberá aumentar la diversidad en los sistemas de producción (el monocultivo gasta el ecosistema del suelo); mayor producción por unidad de superficie; fomentar el hábito de reciclaje; resiliencia a la vulnerabilidad climática, tomando en cuenta la tala inmoderada de árboles. Vía 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos Ponencia: Autoridad del Programa Nacional de Nutrición Existe inseguridad en la alimentación sanitaria por los elevados precios de importaciones, deficientes condiciones de transporte, inadecuada manipulación y conservación de alimentos, deficiente legislación en alimentación y nutrición, bajo poder adquisitivo, acceso limitado de agua y saneamiento en entornos rurales, bajos conocimientos en hábitos nutricionales. La malnutrición es la base de la mortalidad infantil. La desnutrición crónica es 26%, el bajo peso al nacer en la población más pobre es 16%; la anemia en niños menores de 5 años es 70%, igual en hogares con ingresos altos y bajos. 20% de la población cubre necesidades alimentarias diarias. La afectación en la salud es mayor en mujeres: 38% de las mujeres y 23% de los hombres tiene obesidad y sobrepeso; 49% de las mujeres tiene anemia en comparación con 22% en hombres. Se cuestionó la fiabilidad de conservar alimentos en los mercados porque éstos se disponen en el suelo, al aire libre y se mezclan alimentos con productos tóxicos. Se recomendó mejorar la adopción de prácticas alimenticias saludables en las familias, escuelas y el empoderamiento de mujeres en educación nutricional. Vía 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos Ponencia: Ministerio de Asuntos Sociales e Igualdad de Género Se requiere promover el empleo pleno y decente para todos en la cadena de valor, reducir riesgos para los más pobres, eliminar la pobreza de las mujeres, eliminar desigualdades en el acceso y distribución de recursos. La mayor parte de los alimentos en los mercados son producidos por mujeres. La mano de obra de la mujer en el sector supera ampliamente la de los hombres.235238240241243244245246248249251Vía de Acción 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza La productividad del sector agrícola, ganadero y pesquero es muy baja y la falta de ventas reduce aún más los ingresos. También es común el obstáculo de las cargas fiscales y elevadas tasas municipales que se suman a la carga de costos existentes en un contexto de baja productividad y venta. Resaltan los siguientes puntos: •Crear un banco de semillas de calidad en Guinea Ecuatorial (fácil acceso y a bajos costos). •Conservación y almacenamiento de alimentos. •Poner en marcha el laboratorio bromatológico para el diagnóstico de las enfermedades animales. Habilitar la ruta de acceso. •Contar con una fábrica de pienso. Se discutió opciones, si estatal, privada, compartida, extranjera. •Atención focalizada a los pescadores que padecen profundas necesidades y riesgos en la mar por la falta de servicios de reparación de embarcaciones tradicionales, falta de equipo de seguridad y supervivencia en la mar como radar en caso de siniestro, repuestos de motores, facilidades para la conservación, manipulación y venta del pescado fresco. En todos los sectores -agrícola, ganadero, pesquero, bosques y forestal- existe una alta necesidad de asistencia técnica en la producción, de diagnósticos de los problemas, de coordinación y financiamiento para la investigación. De manera transversal, se requiere de la coordinación entre el Plan nacional de política científica del CICTE y demás instituciones de investigación. Por consenso, se requiere un fondo nacional de apoyo a la investigación científica y tecnológica de Guinea Ecuatorial. La solución de las vulnerabilidades debe ser integral, es decir, incluir financiación a través de fondos fiduciarios, tecnológica, formación de capacidades, aplicación de leyes, reconocimiento de las autoridades directamente en campo. Vía de Acción 2: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos Los alimentos sanos y nutritivos son caros, lo que limita a que la población acceda a ellos. En consecuencia, las enfermedades como la obesidad, anemia y la malnutrición infantil han ido en aumento. Existe una deficiente manipulación de los alimentos en la cadena, desde el transporte hasta la exposición en los mercados. El control de calidad de los alimentos en los establecimientos de venta, mercados públicos y abacerías es bajo. Resaltan los siguientes puntos: • Bajo conocimiento y disponibilidad de información sobre alimentos nutritivos y manejo apropiado de los alimentos en mercados. Introducir educación de alimentación equilibrada en enseñanza primaria y superior. Realizar campañas continuas sobre la alimentación sana, que no se suspenda. • Implementar un programa de suplementación con hierro, Vitamina A y desparasitación a los niños menores de 5 años y niñas adolescentes. • Redinamizar el Comité de Coordinación Multisectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. • Aumentar los anuncios de los beneficios de la lactancia materna y disminuir la publicidad de leches que la sustituyen. Incluso en los hospitales actualmente se promueve más el uso del biberón, lo que perjudica la lactancia materna que conlleva a mayores beneficios para el desarrollo físico y mental del recién nacido. Vía de Acción 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos Para aumentar la equidad en los sectores productivos, se hizo un llamado al Gobierno para que asuma su rol en apoyo, asesoramiento, mayor presencia del servicio de extensión agraria, modernización de técnicas para el aumento de la producción, control de precios, inclusión de las mujeres en los mercados nacionales e internacionales (exportación de productos), protección fitosanitaria para que el producto llegue al mercado con la mejor calidad, seguimiento en la forma de cultivar e insumos utilizados para cumplir con las condiciones mínimas sanitarias, actualización de registros de las asociaciones, trabajo activo del INPAGE, implementación de la Ley Agraria, revaloración de la actividad agrícola, etc. Se expresó que la producción es tradicional y la mayor dolencia es la falta de recursos. Se solicita al Ministerio de Agricultura implementar criterios de equidad en el reparto y acceso de apoyos. Que exista un procedimiento regulado por un comité que analice las propuestas de los distintos productores y créditos. El Covid-19 mermó la equidad social porque los precios aumentaron, con una mayor afectación para las poblaciones más vulnerables. La desigualdad se acentúa con la falta de regulación en los precios. La exclusión de las poblaciones rurales se manifiesta también en las dificultades para distribuir los productos agrícolas. Actualmente se transporta según la capacidad económica de los productores. Se requiere mejorar la equidad en el transporte rural para cubrir las necesidades de la población rural. – “Lo que producimos a mano no llega ni para un pueblo durante el año.” Existe menosprecio cultural a la actividad productiva de las mujeres que profundiza la desigualdad. Faltan programas para el desarrollo rural dirigidos a los jóvenes donde se revalore el trabajo productivo. Ausencia de condiciones de sanidad para la comercialización de los productos agrícolas que se producen de manera local. Se desconoce la fecha de caducidad de algunos productos. Algunos recurren a los productos importados porque son menos caros y porque éstos sí ofrecen información en función de las categorías.236238240241243244245246248249251Insumos • Crear un banco de semillas en Guinea Ecuatorial para tener acceso a semillas de calidad y a costos accesibles a través de redefinición del centro de producción de material vegetativo y semillas de Dumasi, Niefang, para transferencia de semillas de calidad y material vegetativo. • A través del INPAGE, disponer de semillas y pesticidas para mejorar la producción agropecuaria. • Mejora de las vías de acceso a las fincas, para facilitar el proceso productivo y comercialización. Comercialización • Promoción de productos agrícolas y pesqueros nacionales Formación/capacidades • Articulación de investigaciones agropecuarias a nivel nacional entre Universidades, Escuelas agrícolas y MAGBOMA. • Reactivación y equipamiento del servicio de extensión agraria. Transporte • Reforzar el proyecto de pistas de acceso a zonas rurales. Mejorar la logística para el traslado de alimentos a los mercados. Tierra • Delimitación de uso de la tierra para uso agrícola mediante los mapas de uso agrícolas actuales y potenciales. • Hacer estudios sobre la calidad de suelo. Conservación y almacenamiento • Habilitar y reformar las plantas de conservación existentes. En Bata existe una cámara, aunque se desconoce formas de uso y acceso. Residuos de pesticidas • Promover la buena gestión de los residuos a través de capacitaciones y sensibilización de los productores. • Cada agrupación debe tener un plan de gestión de residuos. Reutilización de plásticos. • Transferencia de conocimientos en manejo seguro de pesticidas Sector Ganadero Insumos • A través del INPAGE, disponibilidad de productos veterinarios (Despensa nacional) para mejorar la producción animal. • Fortalecer los servicios veterinarios • Incremento de mayor inversión en sector agropecuario. Enfermedades • Poner en marcha el laboratorio bromatológico para el diagnóstico de las enfermedades animales. El Gobierno comentó que las obras están finalizadas. Se reconoce el mal acceso del camino al laboratorio y la necesidad de habilitarlo. Sector Pesca Comercialización • Poner en funcionamiento la lonja de Ekuku, Bata. • Divulgar, compartir los conocimientos de la experiencia de Milong-Milong y adoptar manejo de pesca ahumado y construir centros similares. En centros de producción pesquera Seguridad • Adquisición de equipos de seguridad para las actividades marinas y supervivencia en el mar. • Creación de inspectores marítimos, para aplicación de ley 2017 • Suscripción internacional de a convenio de pesca ilegal, (Sin costo) • Monitoreo de proyectos de pesca. . Vía de Acción 2: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos Los alimentos sanos y nutritivos son caros, lo que limita a que la población acceda a ellos. En consecuencia, las enfermedades como la obesidad, anemia y la malnutrición infantil han ido en aumento. Existe una deficiente manipulación de los alimentos en la cadena, desde el transporte hasta la exposición en los mercados. El control de calidad de los alimentos en los establecimientos de venta, mercados públicos y abacerías es bajo. Resaltan los siguientes puntos: • La baja información sobre alimentos nutritivos y manejo apropiado de los alimentos en mercados. Introducir educación de alimentación equilibrada en enseñanza primaria y superior. Realizar campañas continuas sobre la alimentación sana, que no se suspenda. • Implementar un programa de suplementación con hierro, Vitamina A y desparasitación a los niños menores de 5 años y niñas adolescentes. • Re dinamizar el Comité de Coordinación Multisectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. • Aumentar los anuncios de los beneficios de la lactancia materna y disminuir la publicidad de leches que la sustituyen. Incluso en los hospitales actualmente se promueve más el uso del biberón, lo que perjudica la lactancia materna que conlleva a mayores beneficios para el desarrollo físico y mental del recién nacido.236238240241244245246248249251Información • Revisar y difundir el manual de nutrición infantil elaborado en 2016. Existe un manual de alimentación infantil que sólo se distribuyó en los centros. • La revisión y actualización de la ley No 7. / 18 de octubre 2002 • Fuerte campaña de sensibilización a la población sobre los riesgos de la automedicación. • Elaborar y difundir tablas nutricionales de alimentos locales. Hábitos y costumbres • Sensibilización de educación alimentaria y nutricional • Fuerte sensibilización social para cambiar comportamientos sobre las horas de toma de alimentos. Evitar pasar todo el día sin comer y llenar el estómago por las noches.237238240241243244245246248249251Los principales ámbitos de divergencia y /o convergencia se referían a las siguientes cuestiones: - Se destacó la importancia de la actualización de la legislación nacional vinculada a los Sistemas Alimentarios y su sostenibilidad. De igual manera promover la producción y consumo de alimentos saludables, inocuos y nutritivos. - Promoción de la producción: la productividad del sector agrícola, ganadero y pesquero es muy baja y la falta de ventas reduce aún más los ingresos. También es común el obstáculo de las cargas fiscales y elevadas tasas municipales que se suman a la carga de costos existentes en un contexto de baja productividad y venta. - La conservación de los productos: habilitar y reformar las plantas de conservación existentes. En Bata existe una cámara, aunque se desconoce formas de uso y acceso. - El sector ganadero presentó la necesidad de la construcción de una fábrica de pienso: la discusión se centró sobre quien implementa la fábrica, si el gobierno o el sector privado. - Financiamiento y facilidades de crédito: el sector productivo resaltó la necesidad de una coordinación entre las instituciones financieras y los departamentos ministeriales competentes para mejorar la selección de beneficiarios a la hora de ofrecer facilidades financieras. - Calidad de los alimentos: se señaló que existe una deficiente manipulación de los alimentos en la cadena, desde el transporte hasta la exposición en los mercados. El control de calidad de los alimentos en los establecimientos de venta, mercados públicos y abacerías es bajo. - Se destacó igualmente el fortalecimiento de los micro y pequeños productores de alimentos, como de la agricultura familiar, el desarrollo y promoción de las asociaciones y cooperativas. - Desde el Sector de las Organizaciones Productivas, se destacó el rescate de los conocimientos tradicionales sobre consumo y producción de alimentos. - Desde el Sector de las Organizaciones Ambientales, se insistió en la importancia de impulsar el manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales y la conservación de la biodiversidad.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Dialogo-Malabo-official-feedback-Guinea-Ecuatorial-revisado-al-10-08-21-para-circular.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/PNSA-GE-2012.pdfhttps://minhacienda-gob.com/2035-2/

2021-08-14 14:09:35205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38484/64

7764027453241752112583532112191116112251555

La serie de Diálogos Nacionales sobre los sistemas Alimentarios fueron lanzados por la ministra de Agricultura, Ganadería, Bosques y Medio Ambiente, Excelentísima Sra. Francisca ENEME EFUA durante una reunión mantenida el 22 de julio del 2021 con distintas partes interesadas del Sistema Alimentario de Guinea Ecuatorial, apoyados por el Sistema de las Naciones Unidas en el País. Anterior a estos Diálogos, el país había convocado en el 2019 una conferencia económica nacional durante la cual, actores del sector, junto con el Gobierno, realizaron un primer diagnóstico que puso de relieve la fragilidad del Sistema alimentario del país. Las conclusiones de estos trabajos fueron recogidas en un documento unificado que traza la estrategia económica del país al horizonte 2035. Basándose en los diagnósticos ahí mencionados, se ha determinado que el Sistema Alimentario del país presenta debilidades principalmente en la fragilidad de su producción, fragilidad en garantizar alimentos nutritivos sanos e inocuos, así como la fragilidad en el acceso a alimentos para las capas más vulnerables y que puede traducirse en una inequidad en la distribución de estos. Atendiendo a estas conclusiones, el país ha decidido centrar sus diálogos en torno a tres de las cinco vías de acción escogidas para esta cumbre 2021 a saber: a) Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza, b) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y c) Promover medios de vida equitativos. Los distintos ministerios implicados también se movilizaron desde la perspectiva de las tres vías de acción para garantizar la socialización del contenido y objetivos de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, así como los objetivos del desarrollo del Primer Diálogo Nacional. Ante la premura de tiempo, y para reforzar los principios de la cumbre, el diálogo se llevó a cabo durante jornadas de 8 horas, permitiendo espacios de dialogo más extensos en grupos de trabajo organizados de manera inclusiva y complementaria.El comité político constituido para la organización de los diálogos y liderado por la ministra de Agricultura, Ganadería, Bosques y Medio Ambiente en representación del gobierno de Guinea Ecuatorial priorizó tres vías de acción: a) Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza, b) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos y c) Promover medios de vida equitativos. Para impulsar los procesos de diálogo intersectoriales se definieron tres grupos de trabajo (cada uno abordó una vía de acción). Este fue el espacio en dónde se aplicó con mayor énfasis los principios de la Cumbre, ya que se utilizaron los siguientes métodos: - Cada grupo se conformó con representación intersectorial pública, privada, social, academia y de productores. Esto para generar un diálogo constructivo, inclusivo, respetuoso y complementario. - En las invitaciones al dialogo, se acompañaba información de la Cumbre y elementos de antecedentes sobre la tercera conferencia económica nacional celebrada en el 2019 y donde se abordó ampliamente la temática de los Sistemas Alimentarios. - Los grupos estaban moderados por funcionarios de las Naciones Unidas motivando a que las partes interesadas se expresen con total libertad y transparencia y que puedan proponer alternativas para el fortalecimiento de los Sistemas Alimentarios de Guinea Ecuatorial, partiendo de las realidades y el contexto país.- La pandemia que azota el mundo entero es un factor importante a tener en cuenta en la organización de diálogos presenciales para países como el nuestro ya que la logística organizativa puede ser aún más compleja. - Es importante realizar una campaña de divulgación de la problemática ante los actores para que esos no sean sólo invitados, sino verdaderos actores. - La complejidad de la problemática requerirá dedicarle más tiempo para las consultas exhaustivas que involucren actores de diferentes regiones del país.

NoEl método utilizado se ajusta al escaso tiempo del que se disponía para la celebración de diálogos más exhaustivos a diferentes niveles del país, por lo que consistió en la creación de un comité técnico multisectorial compuesto por diferentes partes interesadas del Gobierno, sector privado, agrupaciones de productores y funcionarios de las Naciones Unidas. Este comité técnico ha estado pilotado por un comité decisional o político compuesto por ministros del gobierno, la coordinadora residente del sistema de las Naciones Unidas y los representantes residentes de FAO, UNICEF y PNUD. La inclusión y la diversidad de participantes fue garantizada en todo momento permitiendo a los productores, transformadores, técnicos, transportistas, comerciales, consumidores, sanitarios y otros, llevar a cabo conversaciones muy abiertas. Se trataba pues de reunir en un solo dialogo actores de diferentes sectores para construir de manera conjunta una visión compartida de la situación del Sistema Alimentario del país. Se trataba también de crear un espacio de trabajo conjunto para todos los sectores, vegetal, animal, académicos, gobierno, sociedad civil, sanidad…etc. Las fases 1 y dos se llevaron a cabo en dos tiempos: - Fase 1: esta comienza desde la tercera Conferencia Económica Nacional (IIICEN) y continua durante los diálogos a través de una primera sesión en la que los participantes identificaron y reiteraron las principales vulnerabilidades que presenta el Sistema Alimentario del país (puntos débiles/ amenazas). - Fase 2: Es llevada a cabo en la misma jornada, en esta se sigue la metodología de la cumbre a través de un análisis exhaustivo de las debilidades y amenazas anteriormente identificadas durante la primera sesión. Los participantes identifican fortalezas y oportunidades que podrían robustecer de forma complementaria los diferentes sectores del Sistema Alimentario. - Al término de las dos fases anteriores, todos los participantes se encuentran en plenaria para presentar las conclusiones resultantes de los intercambios de grupo. - Fase 3: gracias al carácter inclusivo del comité técnico creado para los diálogos, se organiza un taller en el cual las partes se comprometen a llevar a cabo acciones urgentes, sostenidas y significativas bajo los principios de la cumbre para alcanzar los respectivos Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para 2030.

234238240241243244245246248249251Lema: “La alimentación sana asegura el futuro” “Si quieres escuchar la epopeya del trovador, escúchalo de la boca del mismo trovador. Son ustedes los trovadores, queremos escuchar la poesía de vuestras bocas.” En los Diálogos Nacionales están presentes todos los actores de la cadena alimentaria: agricultores, ganaderos, pescadores, importadores de alimentos, sector salud e investigación, veterinarios, técnicos del medio ambiente, agrónomos, sociedad civil, distribuidores y expendedores en mercados Vía 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza Ponencia: Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería, Bosques y Medio Ambiente Grandes importaciones de alimentos para abastecer mercados locales, baja producción agropecuaria (subsistencia) y pesca artesanal, escasez de almacén de alimentos; alimentación poco nutritiva, alto ritmo de crecimiento poblacional, pocos productores de alimentos, baja innovación tecnológica, limitada implicación de actores. Las estrategias para la producción alimentaria: Plan de Seguridad Alimentaria de la Cumbre en Roma, 1996; Primera Conferencia Económica para fomentar el sector alimentario, 1997; participación en la Cumbre de Maputo, 2003, donde se estipuló reservar 10% del presupuesto para la seguridad alimentaria, ratificado en la Declaración de Malabo, 2014. La inversión pública en el sector agropecuario fue 0.50% (2019) y 1.89% (2020). El Programa Especial para la Seguridad Alimentaria (PESA), 2001; Programa Nacional para la Seguridad Alimentaria (PNSA), 2012; simposio con empresas para el desarrollo, 2013; NEPAD, plan de acción en la Unión Africana; Programa de Inversión de Sistemas Alimentarios. Sin embargo, no han sido consolidados por limitación en financiamiento. Para enfrentar situaciones como el Covid-19 se requieren compromisos del gobierno y alianzas entre actores para contar y ejecutar un sistema alimentario formalizado, permanente y sostenible. Ponencia: Instituto Nacional de Conservación del Medio Ambiente La deforestación fue 0,34% y la degradación del 0,89% (2004-2014). Para producir de manera favorable con la naturaleza, se deberá aumentar la diversidad en los sistemas de producción (el monocultivo gasta el ecosistema del suelo); mayor producción por unidad de superficie; fomentar el hábito de reciclaje; resiliencia a la vulnerabilidad climática, tomando en cuenta la tala inmoderada de árboles. Vía 1: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos Ponencia: Autoridad del Programa Nacional de Nutrición Existe inseguridad en la alimentación sanitaria por los elevados precios de importaciones, deficientes condiciones de transporte, inadecuada manipulación y conservación de alimentos, deficiente legislación en alimentación y nutrición, bajo poder adquisitivo, acceso limitado de agua y saneamiento en entornos rurales, bajos conocimientos en hábitos nutricionales. La malnutrición es la base de la mortalidad infantil. La desnutrición crónica es 26%, el bajo peso al nacer en la población más pobre es 16%; la anemia en niños menores de 5 años es 70%, igual en hogares con ingresos altos y bajos. 20% de la población cubre necesidades alimentarias diarias. La afectación en la salud es mayor en mujeres: 38% de las mujeres y 23% de los hombres tiene obesidad y sobrepeso; 49% de las mujeres tiene anemia en comparación con 22% en hombres. Se cuestionó la fiabilidad de conservar alimentos en los mercados porque éstos se disponen en el suelo, al aire libre y se mezclan alimentos con productos tóxicos. Se recomendó mejorar la adopción de prácticas alimenticias saludables en las familias, escuelas y el empoderamiento de mujeres en educación nutricional. Vía 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos Ponencia: Ministerio de Asuntos Sociales e Igualdad de Género Se requiere promover el empleo pleno y decente para todos en la cadena de valor, reducir riesgos para los más pobres, eliminar la pobreza de las mujeres, eliminar desigualdades en el acceso y distribución de recursos. La mayor parte de los alimentos en los mercados son producidos por mujeres. La mano de obra de la mujer en el sector supera ampliamente la de los hombres.235238240241244245246248249250251Vía de Acción 3: Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza Se necesita la presencia del Ministerio de Agricultura en el campo para proyectar los trabajos hacia el futuro y asegurar que la producción sea sostenible. La limitada presencia de técnicos agrícolas en el campo ha sido una gran limitante para el desarrollo adecuado de la producción agrícola. Para aumentar la producción, es inaplazable implementar a la brevedad formaciones integrales y diversificadas para los técnicos y productores en todos los sentidos en materia de agricultura y ganadería: trabajo en equipo, emprendimiento, asociacionismo, comercialización, procesos de producción para la transición de la producción tradicional a la moderna, implementar metodologías para que los productos agrícolas y los animales se reproduzcan con más rapidez, entre otras. No es necesario importar la mayor parte de los alimentos, cierto, se puede producir alimentos en el país, pero esta política debe acompañarse del apoyo requerido como visitas a las plantaciones, proveer de material e insumos, apoyo financiero, asistencia técnica, maquinaria, bombas de agua, etc. Las plagas y su falta de control por carencias en insumos y técnicas han generado que muchas productoras se rindan y abandonen los cultivos. La falta de mano de obra en el campo también incide en la baja productividad. Se comentó que actualmente quienes trabajan en el campo son personas mayores de 50 años y el profundo desinterés de los jóvenes y de la familia en general de en la agricultura. Se requiere que el gobierno promocione el valor de las actividades de producción y sensibilice a los ministerios para facilitar trámites y exonerar de cargas fiscales. –“Todos queremos comer, pero nadie quiere participar.” La ausencia de exportación de productos agrarios y pesqueros a países vecinos tampoco incentiva la producción ni venta de los excedentes que, en vez de que se gasten, podrían generar ingresos. Se requiere poner en marcha el Plan nacional de ordenación del territorio para que los pequeños agricultores cuenten con parcelas sin la vulnerabilidad de que perderán su producción cuando cultivan en terrenos alquilados. Recomendación de Políticas Públicas: •Promoción de alianzas para activar el sector agrícola. Crear un triángulo entre gobierno–investigación/innovación-sector productivo para resolver las deficiencias s de los problemas del sector. •Dialogo de alto nivel para alcanzar el convenio de Maputo de invertir el 10% de los recursos a labores agrícolas. •Trasformar los sistemas agroalimentarios en vistas de que la industrialización es la mejor opción durante el Covid-19 y Postcovid-19. Vía de Acción 2: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos La formación sobre la temática de la nutrición es baja entre la población en general. El modo de vida actual tiende más a la compra de alimentos no sanos, como congelados y la ingesta de grasas que derivan en enfermedades como el sobre peso y la obesidad. La calidad y el acceso a los alimentos sanos también se ha mermado por los altos precios de los productos agrícolas, la dudosa calidad de algunos productos de importación, los altos costos que pagan los productores en numerosos impuestos y tasas a lo largo del ciclo productivo, de distribución (transporte caro y poco accesible) y en los puntos de venta (tasas municipales en los mercados). –“Los productos de las vendedoras se estropean por la subida del costo de los impuestos.” –“La población compra lo que encuentra en el mercado, con o sin nutrientes de acuerdo al bolsillo.” –“Con todos los gastos, los pescadores se ven obligados a subir el precio del kilo de pescado.” Se solicitó a los Ministerios de Agricultura y Pesca identificar a los verdaderos actores de la producción, quienes producen y trabajan a diario, para ser apoyados técnicamente y financieramente en tiempo y forma. Los productores deben cubrir gastos corrientes y mantener las fincas. –“Dar dinerito no mejora la producción.” Que se implemente un sistema en los Ministerios para asistir a los productores a mejorar sus competencias. Sensibilizar a las autoridades locales y nacionales para facilitar el trabajo de los productores y de las asociaciones en cuanto a transporte, distribución, venta, etc. Para empezar, falta un censo agropecuario para conocer la producción específica por cultivos. También se requiere actualizar registros de las asociaciones. –“Sensibilizar a todos los departamentos, y defendernos para que los agricultores y pescadores trabajen con total libertad.” Se expresó abiertamente que desean que las opiniones de los asistentes que fueron vertidas en este Diálogo produzcan resultados. También se solicitó a ambos ministerios operar una sección de asistencia técnica de monitoreo de las agrupaciones para evitar la pérdida de conocimientos cuando termina la realización de los proyectos. –“He participado en seminarios para identificar tierras de cultivo y hasta hoy no se tienen los resultados de estos seminarios. ¿Cómo puedo implementar y progresar para transformar hortalizas?” Aplicación y divulgación de las leyes en los sectores. Vía de Acción 4: Promover medios de vida equitativos Resalta la aparición de enfermedades entre mujeres que transforman el pescado por el uso de técnicas arcaicas y falta de hornos modernos. Resalta la contradicción de falta de oportunidades y prácticas para los egresados de las escuelas y universidades agrícolas en un contexto de gran necesidad de técnicos para el sector agropecuario. –“No hay recursos o apoyo a los nuevos egresados236240241244245246248250251Insumos • Crear un banco de semillas en Guinea Ecuatorial para tener acceso a semillas de calidad y a costos accesibles a través de redefinición el centro de producción de material vegetativo y semillas de Dumací, Niefang, para transferencia de semillas de calidad y material vegetativo. • Fortalecer INPAGE para realice gestión realice la compra de los insumos y materiales necesarios para su la compraventa de insumos y materiales adecuados como piensos para los agricultores y producción ganadera. • Mejora de vías de acceso a las fincas, para facilitar el proceso productivo y comercialización. Comercialización • Promoción de productos agrícolas y pesqueras nacionales Formación/capacidades • Articulación de investigaciones agropecuarias a nivel nacional entre Universidades, Escuelas de agrícolas y MAGBOMA. • Reactivación y equipamiento del servicio de extensión agraria. Transporte • Dotación de transporte isotónico, para pescado desde lugares de pesca a los mercados. • Reforzar el proyecto de pistas de acceso a zonas rurales. Mejorar la logística para el traslado de alimentos a los mercados. Tierra • Delimitación de uso de la tierra para uso agrícola mediante los mapas de uso agrícolas actuales y potenciales. • Brindar técnicas de conservación del medio ambiente a los productores • Hacer estudios sobre la calidad de suelo Conservación y almacenamiento • Habilitar y reformar las plantas de conservación existentes. En Bata existe una cámara, aunque se desconoce formas de uso y acceso. • Habilitar centros de acopio y conservación de productos agrícolas en las localidades Residuos de pesticidas • Promover la buena gestión de los residuos. • Cada agrupación debe tener un plan de gestión de residuos. Reutilización de plásticos. • Transferencia de conocimientos en manejo seguro de pesticidas Sector Ganadero Insumos • Construir una fábrica de pienso. Discusión sobre quien implementa la fábrica, si el gobierno o el sector privado. • A través del INPAGE, disponibilidad de productos veterinarios (Despensa nacional) para mejorar la producción animal. • Fortalecer los servicios veterinarios • Incremento de mayor inversión en sector agropecuario. Enfermedades • Habilitar una institución para combatir los problemas de plagas y enfermedades en el seno del sector agrícola. Poner en marcha el laboratorio bromatológico para el diagnóstico de las enfermedades animales. El Gobierno comentó que las obras están finalizadas. Se reconoce el mal acceso del camino al laboratorio y la necesidad de habilitarlo. Sector Pesca Comercialización • Apoyo de inspectorías marítimas al sector pesquero en la aplicación de regulaciones establecidas. • Dar credenciales a los productores y pescadores, que avalen el transporte de su producción del camino a los puntos de venta. • Fortalecer las cadenas de valor en producción agropecuaria y pesquera, lo que incluye transporte de la producción los puntos de venta. Poner en funcionamiento de lonja de Ekuku, Bata. • Divulgar, compartir los conocimientos de la experiencia de Milong-Milong y adoptar manejo de pesca ahumado y construir centros similares. En centros de producción pesquera Seguridad • Adquisición de equipos de seguridad para las actividades marinas y supervivencia en el mar. • Creación de inspectores marítimos, para aplicación de ley 2017 • Suscripción internacional de a convenio de pesca ilegal, (Sin costo) • Monitoreo de proyectos de pesca. .236238241244245246248251Vía de Acción 2: Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos Los alimentos sanos y nutritivos son caros, lo que limita a que la población acceda a ellos. En consecuencia, las enfermedades como la obesidad, anemia y la malnutrición infantil han ido en aumento. Existe una deficiente manipulación de los alimentos en la cadena, desde el transporte hasta la exposición en los mercados. El control de calidad de los alimentos en los establecimientos de venta, mercados públicos y abacerías es bajo. Resaltan los siguientes puntos: • La baja información sobre alimentos nutritivos y manejo apropiado de los alimentos en mercados. Introducir educación de alimentación equilibrada en enseñanza primaria y superior. Realizar campañas continuas sobre la alimentación sana, que no se suspenda. • Implementar un programa de suplementación con hierro, Vitamina A y desparasitación a los niños menores de 5 años y niñas adolescentes. • Re dinamizar el Comité de Coordinación Multisectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. • Aumentar los anuncios de los beneficios de la lactancia materna y disminuir la publicidad de leches que la sustituyen. Incluso en los hospitales actualmente se promueve más el uso del biberón, lo que perjudica la lactancia materna que conlleva a mayores beneficios para el desarrollo físico y mental del recién nacido. Información • Revisar y difundir el manual de nutrición infantil elaborado en 2016. Existe un manual de alimentación infantil que sólo se distribuyó en los centros. • Elaboración de reglamento para aplicación de normativas en sector pesquero. • La revisión y actualización de la ley No 7. / 18 de octubre 2002 • Fuerte campaña de sensibilización a la población sobre los riesgos de la automedicación. • Elaborar y difundir tablas nutricionales de alimentos locales. Hábitos y costumbres • Sensibilización de educación alimentaria y nutricional • Fuerte sensibilización social para cambiar comportamientos sobre las horas de toma de alimentos. Evitar pasar todo el día sin comer y llenar el estómago por las noches.237238240241244245246248249251En este Segundo Dialogo Nacional, todos los participantes han hecho hincapié en la necesidad de desarrollar centros de acopio para la transformación y conservación de los productos agrícolas, la necesidad de fomentar la producción local, así como la necesidad de reforzar la legislación nacional sobre los sistemas alimentarios. El transporte de los productos agrícolas desde las zonas de producción hasta los puntos de comercialización también ha suscitado mucho interés durante el dialogo en esta parte continental del país.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dialogo-Bata-official-feedback-Guinea-Ecuatorial_Final_revisado-el-10-08-21.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PNSA-GE-2012-1.pdfhttps://minhacienda-gob.com/2035-2/

2021-08-14 16:35:06205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39283/163

1621641010

The dialogue started with a short introduction of the United Nations Food Systems Summit as part of a global initiative to transform and add more value and equity to the world food systems and to deliver the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 2, and the need to build a more robust food and nutrition security and sovereignty ecosystem. The participants were briefed about the strategy of involvement and participation in the form of broad spectrum national dialogues to harvest inputs to articulate the changes that must happen to the current food system at country level. The participants were guided to complete the UNFSS assigned Attendance Form during which time the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement were elaborated to provide a framework for convergence to purpose. The introduction concluded with a short presentation about Seychelles' current food system that was built from secondary data to provide a clear picture of the current state of affairs and to provide the participants with some background information as thought and discussion starters.The relevant principles were intentionally repeated throughout the Dialogue to instill a sense of purpose and to encourage the participants to deeply reflect about the principles as motivational anchor points and drivers that underpin the change and transformation process that would be required to build a robust food defense strategy at country level.The seven Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement could evolve to become a generic/global framework of core values and principles with potential for inclusion in all Member States food defense strategy. This could become one of the strand (in the mix of strands) to self-perpetuate the longevity of the United Nations Food Systems Summit strategic intent.

Yes

234240242245246248249The Dialogue was anchored around the subtheme “Growing the capacity and capability to produce more farm commodities – The targets, barriers and critical success factors. The subtheme is a reflection of the current debate and aspiration of the country to rethink its food system which is built on a mix of 10% local production and 90% on imports at a cost of close to 25% of the country total importation bill. The imperative to drive up local production and to remove barriers is a super-top national priority especially as we gradually migrate out of the Covid 19 pandemic. The purpose of the dialogue is to hear from the local producers in terms of their aspiration, perception of barriers and what we must get right to increase local production of food commodities.235238239240241242244245246248249The main findings that have been identified as the key barriers that could slow down the imperative to increase local production of farm commodities are listed below: • The development of a more challenging trading environment where local producers have to compete with cheaper import substitutes. The situation is partly associate with the adoption of the fair, free and open market policy, limited capacity of farmers to exploit economies of scale at local level due to the size of the farms where the average is 8000sqm. This affects all categories of farm commodities especially livestock. The main argument advanced by the local food producers was the limited scope for economies of scale and as such they find it difficult to compete on price with exporting countries where the opportunity for economies of scales and location provide them with a competitive advantage. The general tone is that global food trade could constrain the imperative to grow the local food production system. • The participants were of the opinion that there is inadequate traction and coordination to implement and drive policy decisions to improve the productivity of the local food production system and to contribute a bigger part to the food basket. The general perception was that more often the benchmark tends to be set at policy document availability level and not enough drive given to tangible execution of decisions to transform the local food production system. • The scarcity of farm land and the restrictive land use policy. Seychelles has a total land mass of 452 km2 of which 50% is under protection regime and only 600 hectares are allocated for agricultural activities; which is less than 2% of the total land mass. The policy to restrict agriculture activities in areas demarcated as buffet zone is seen as a barrier to the growth and development of the sector. • The impact of climate change and the consequences of higher temperature, new rainfall patterns and distribution, frequent extreme events, floods and increases severity of pests and diseases are serious threats to the local food production system. • Difficulty to access development grants and low interest financing instruments. The limited access to grants to finance core infrastructure of strategic importance but with limited commercial direct return as well as the lack of venture capital to finance high risk developments were mentioned. • The participants discussed at length the gaps in the value and supply chains such as sourcing difficulties, access to technology, limited farm workers on the local market, regional temperature controlled storage facilities, demand and supply management platform as well as inadequate services from support institutions. • Inadequate marketing investment to promote local farm commodities and local cuisine to counter and mitigate the risks of homogenization and globalization of taste.236238239240242245246248249The Dialogue with the local producers of farm commodities has produced six key recommendations: • The participants unanimously recommended that the country should reappraise its self-sufficiency targets for all three categories; to increase the share of local production out of total consumption of livestock from 23% to 80%, local fruits and vegetables from 70% to 90%, and for carbohydrates from 10% to 50% by 2030. The targets are not based on capacity evaluation model but instead on the collective opinion, knowledge and insight of the group. • The second recommendation is to recalibrate and reprioritize the imperative of a food defense strategy and the necessity to reduce the country’s dependence on imports for its food commodities within the framework of a global initiative to transform and improve the country's food sovereignty obligations. • The third recommendation is the need to rethink the agroforestry potential of land in the buffet zone to increase the productive use of such lands in making a significant contribution to the agenda to increase local production. • There is a call for more investment in climate change adaption and mitigation measures; including flood defense system, transfer of technology to deal with pests and diseases, new farming systems such as climate smart agriculture and the adoption of agritourism practices to build more socioeconomic resilience of farmers. • Another output is the need to remodel the financing strategy especially inflows from bilateral and multilateral sources to finance core infrastructure of high strategic value but of less direct commercial attractiveness, innovation and other high risk ventures, which otherwise would not pass the test for investment based predominantly on direct commercial return. • There is a need to rethink and invest in the marketing strategy to promote the benefit of local farm commodities and cuisine and to move the consumers to value more and consume more local farm commodities and reduce the importation burden.237There were no significant areas of divergence.

2021-08-14 21:37:16205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39296/163

105542310

The dialogue started with a short introduction of the United Nations Food Systems Summit as part of a global initiative to transform and add more value and equity to the world food systems and to deliver the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 2, and the need to build a more robust food and nutrition security and sovereignty ecosystem. The participants were briefed about the strategy of involvement and participation in the form of broad spectrum national dialogues to harvest inputs to articulate the changes that must happen to the current food system at country level. The participants were guided to complete the UNFSS assigned Attendance Form during which time the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement were elaborated to provide a framework for convergence to purpose. The introduction concluded with a short presentation about Seychelles’ current food system that was built from secondary data to provide a clear picture of the current state of affairs and to provide the participants with some background information as thought and discussion starters.The relevant principles were intentionally repeated throughout the Dialogue to instill a sense of purpose and to encourage the participants to deeply reflect about the principles as motivational anchor points and drivers that underpin the change and transformation process that would be required to build a robust food defense strategy at country level.The seven Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement could evolve to become a generic/global framework of core values and principles with potential for inclusion in all Member States food defense strategy. This could become one of the strand (in the mix of strands) to self-perpetuate the longevity of the United Nations Food Systems Summit strategic intent.

Yes

234238239242251The subtheme of the second Dialogue was “What must we do right to get more local householders to consumer more local farm commodities? The second subtheme was designed with the intention to capture the perspective of the demand side of the equation; that is the consumers’ views and insights with regard to what must we get right to create more consumer demand and pull for local farm commodities in a market that has open access to imported food commodities and is on the receiving end of the strong influence of globalization and homogenization of taste, and the explosion of fast food outlets that serving "junk" food. The subject is also high on the national agenda of the Ministry of Health to tackle the problem of obesity in the population and to encourage local consumers to eat more nutritious food to mitigate the risk of brewing a local epidemic of unhealthy eating.235238239242251The participants debated and identified four main groups of problem areas that they thought are limiting the demand and the pull for locally produced farm commodities at household level. These are: • Inadequate education of householders of the superior nutritive value of local farm commodities and local cuisine. • Local farm commodities are more expensive than import substitutes. • Difficulty to easily access food commodities that are produced locally. • Less attractive product packaging and presentation that affect the perceived value. The issue of inadequate education of householders of the superior nutritive value of local farm commodities and local cuisine is considered a key challenge to overcome. This is more so especially in a market where there is more visibility, more mojo and more marketing drive to promote fast food as a convenient, cool and affordable option for a meal. In fact the power of better marketing is so strong and visible that fast food has become the default option for lunch in most schools, and in many food outlets. On the other hand there is practically no investment to promote local farm commodities and limited activation campaigns to course correct the situation of skewed and bias advertising and promotion. The overall conclusion is that a do nothing position will continue to provide the space for the growth of junk food and the consequential associated dietary problems and other associated socioeconomic challenges. The higher prices of local farm produce and the associated premium is linked to a system of low production and low productivity, coupled with an expensive route to market with speculative vendors and middlemen who collective drive up the price with margin that spreads from 50% to 200% compared to the farm gate price. The situation is exacerbated when demand for local farm commodities increases with increased tourism activities. The pricing component of the marketing mix problem is such that it is considered one of the most impactful challenges that could help or hurt the growth of the local component of the country food system and food defense strategy. Other than a few market places scattered around the three main islands, and some road-side outlets, it is difficult to source local food commodities that are produced locally. This is due the poor level of distribution and low level of organisation of the local food production system. Most of the 500 retail outlets do not normally stock and sell local farm produce and most of them prefer to retail import substitutes. Even the dedicated market places that is supposed to sell only local farm produce have tilting towards imported substitutes. The issue of packaging and presentation of local farm commodities is considered a smaller barrier. Most farmers do not sort, grade their produce and the general presentation of the produce is unattractive. Often the commodities are exposed to direct sunlight and roadside pollutants resulting in loss of quality.236238239242251The participants made three main recommendations to influence consumer preference and demand for locally produced farm commodities and local cuisine. There is an immediate need to activate a sustained national educational and marketing campaign to create more awareness of the superior nutritive value of local produce especially those that are cultivated under organic and natural farming system and to stimulate more interest in local cuisine, The campaign, communication channels and activities should be broad-base to target a mixed audience. The actions should include a mix of above and below the line interventions targeting schools as a primary group with a mix of formal and extracurricular messaging, the use of social media as a low cost channel to deliver contents to all segments, food fairs and sampling experiential to influence preference and the appointment of influencers. The key actors could involve the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, NGOs and the private sector. To address the issue of high speculative pricing and accessibility, there is a suggestion to put in place a partnership with the retailers association to build better linkages between the farmers and the community retail outlets to offer a more structured and organised alternative route to market and consumer as a short term solution. There is also a proposal to facilitate the development of cluster farming system whereby farmers will form groups, associations that will own their retail outlets as well as the retailing of their farm commodities. To improve product attractiveness there was suggestion to encourage and train farmers in sorting, grading, packing and presentation of their farm produce.237There were no significant areas of divergence.

2021-08-14 21:45:36205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40312/164

116710647913110924181491923131436816066613114201214131511211316823115271041619

The convenor in close collaboration with the UN country team, formed a Technical Working Group (TWG) comprising, NGOs, MDAs, civil society organisations, research institutions, academia and private sector players. Based on the multi-sectoral dimensional nature of the dialogue process, stakeholder mapping was categorized to ease coordination in three-sector approaches namely: 1. Private sector players coordinated by Sierra Leone Chamber for Agribusiness Development (SLecAD). 2. Ministries Departments and Agencies (MDAs) coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) 3. Civil Societies, and any other relevant actors coordinated by FOCUS 1000 The dialogue provided equal opportunity for participation by leaving no one behind and established ownership. In consultation with SUN Secretariat, the existing SUN district level structures coordinated the identification and selection of participants for the regional dialogues. Depending on the number of districts in each region and to adhere to the Covid-19 restrictions, 45 to 50 multi-sector stakeholders participated in the dialogue process from all sixteen districts. The selection criteria were focused on the actors in food system including development partners, MDAs, agribusiness actors, producers, SMEs, aggregators, distributors, retailers, and consumers. During the consultations, eleven thematic areas were discussed as follows: Access to finance, Access to inputs, Production Requirements, Processing, Marketing and Distribution, Consumption and Utilization, Food waste management, Policy development, enforcement, and coordination, Conflict and Instability, Climate/Environmental Extremes and Economic Shocks, Pandemic and negative agricultural impacts The dialogue process started by organizing a high-level inception meeting which targeted development partners, government line ministers and heads of agencies of the UN and INGOs. The concept of the national food system dialogues, roadmap, work plan and indicative budget were presented for their buy-in and financial commitment to support the process.The national stakeholder engagement approach used included the formation of the technical working group, selection of relevant stakeholders, established a good pathway for inclusiveness and orientation of district level consultations before the dialogue sessions. The dialogues reflected on the principles of the summit by bringing in all categories of stakeholders for the dialogue process including school pupils, youths, men, women, and persons with disabilities from different categories along the food systems chain. Due to the Covid-19 restrictions which does not permit public gathering for more than 50 people, the hybrid approach (virtual and in person) was used in the Western Region and face to face in the rest of the other regions. For the face-to-face meetings in the provincial regions, regional curators in close collaboration with the SUN Secretariat, organised simulcast radio discussion programs that lasted for two hours by connecting community radio stations in each region so that additional/more views could be gathered across the regions. Respect for views, confidentiality in information provided and commitment to providing relevant information were adhered to. Irrespective of the covid-19 restrictions, participants made their voices to be documented. Organization of the national dialogues involved very good planning to achieve success. As such the commitment and dedication of the technical working group was key for the dialogue process to have taken place. TWG members had to hold several meetings to plan and execute the dialogues and this even had to interfere with the regular activities of the members. The commitment of the government and development partners especially Irish Aid, UN country team and individual UN agencies (FAO, WFP, UNICEF), Welthungerhilfe and FOCUS 1000 to support the process was very key because the dialogue sessions would not have taken place without the much-needed funds.The principles of engagement for the dialogue process as listed above were very helpful and have the tendency to build and maintain national cohesion along the system by making it more sustainable. Participants were given the opportunity to talk freely in smaller groups highlighting their constraints, possible solutions and recommended actions for the attention of specific responsible entities. Based on the conduct of the dialogue process, the following are recommended for other conveners: 1. Nomination of a convenor from high level political decision-making office (office of the president, vice president, or Prime Minister) can provide prominence to the dialogue process and enhance better resource mobilization drive and coordination among sectors. 2. The principles could be used as problem solving instruments to address food and nutrition security issues at country level and those principles should be customized to specific situations. 3. Convenors should ensure good and timely communication with all stakeholders so there are no delays in the execution of dialogue activities and a follow up mechanism to ensure communication messages reach the right people and right time to act. 4. Setting standard operating procedures (SOPs) and tools that should be used across all dialogue sessions can enhance harmonization of feedback reports in a timely manner. 5. Convenors should uphold the principles of engagement since it enhances not only stakeholders’ ownership of the process but also motivates commitment and support to the dialogue process. 6. Moreover, adhering to the principles will help to complement the work of others, build the trust and ensure total understanding of the process by all stakeholders that will enhance their meaningful contributions to sustaining the food system. 7. All facilitators of dialogues should have a workshop to discuss use of developed tools for dialogues so that everyone has a clear understanding of required data or information to be collected.

Yes

234238242243244245246248249251During the dialogue process, the eleven thematic areas selected focused on almost all the five action tracks: List of thematic areas: a. Access to finance b. Access to inputs c. Production Requirement d. Processing e. Marketing and Distribution f. Consumption and Utilization g. Food waste management h. Policy development, enforcement and coordination i. Conflict and instability j. Climate/Environmental Extremes k. Economic Shocks However, during the discussion, emphasis was more on action tracks one and five; 1. Action track #1 ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all 5. Action track #5 building resilience to vulnerabilities shocks and stress This is because Sierra Leone is a developing country and the priority is to establish a sustainable food system that ensures access to safe, nutritious foods at all times, and building the resilience of the food system to adapt to shocks from climate change variabilities (floods, droughts, wildfires), pandemic/epidemic (COVID-19, Ebola, cholera) that is and had affected the country. Linking the themes above to the selected action tracks and bringing out constraints with recommendations in a form of an action plan could position the country in a better way in the drive for food and nutrition security.235238242244245246249251The discussion was very participatory and brought out key issues or challenges that need to be addressed if Sierra Leone should attain a sustainable food system to meet the 2030 agenda as outlined below: 1. The issue of land tenure system affecting commercial farming was a concern which could be resolved by reservation of land for agricultural purposes. 2. There is a big challenge of mining companies degrading lands for agricultural and fishery purposes. One possible solution is the reclamation of lands in mining areas for food production. 3. Slash and burn are the culture of our farming system. Sensitization on farming systems from shifting cultivation to intensification supported by trainings for smallholder farmers. 4. Inadequate access to agricultural finance. Policies surrounding access to finance for agricultural activities should be reviewed as the conditions for loan repayment pose challenges for farmers to access loans for farming activities. 5. The current interest rate in commercial banks is very high (double digits) to support agricultural activities this should be a single digit to be supported by Bank of Sierra Leone. Period for repayment of loans by financial institutions should be specified in financial loan policies. 6. High cost for agricultural inputs- Cost of agro-chemicals should be regulated, and they should be available, accessible, and affordable for farmers. Quality seeds should be available, accessible, and affordable and inputs dealers should be available if not at chiefdom level but at district level. 7. To address the problem of food waste and low food consumption diversity: Government should ensure availability, accessibility, and affordability of sustainable electricity supply particularly in urban areas. 8. Low advisory services to farmers’ pastoralist and fisher folks: Improvement in the low capacity of smallholder farmers will be achieved through provision of extension services by increasing the number of extension workers and the required logistics for them to visit farmers in the catchment areas. 9. Gender inequality in accessing productive agricultural inputs: Consideration should be given to the gender friendly processing tools and equipment when government and partners are procuring farming tools and equipment as women play very big roles in food production. 10. Bad road networks came out as one of the major challenges in our food systems as such construction of feeder roads and routine maintenance of roads can assist in improving our food systems. 11. Climate change variability and limited early warning systems: To address the problem of seasonal food production, government and partners should consider the infusion of modern farming technology and irrigation system, crop intensification, and integrated farming into our farm management culture as well as the continuation of tax waiving on the importation of all agricultural inputs for the next five years. 12. Limited early warning systems: In the event of shocks that affect smallholder farmers, government and partners should establish seed banks to support smallholder farmers to revive their faming activities. The seed banks will also prevent the extinction of specific crop varieties and certain species of animals. 13. Poor dietary diversity is a major concern for both children and adults: Active or robust sensitization on nutrition education, scaling up sensitization on Sierra Leone Food- Based Dietary guideline for Healthy Eating. 14. Lack of food reserves stocks: Formation of food banks, provision of improved storage facilities and manufacturing of key foods for improved preservation. 15. Limited participation of women in policy making: Total inclusion of women in policy formulation and implementation along the food system chain and linkages. 16. Weak health system: health system strengthening can assist in improving the health status especially of women and children under the age of five years. 17. Dumping of inferior agricultural products from foreign countries: Discourage importation of inferior agricultural and nutritional products and encourage homemade foods by supporting large and small and medium enterprises. 18. Lack standalone animal settlement policy: Animal settlement policy will address the community disputes that emerge as a result of destruction of farmers’ crops by grazing animals in rural communities.236238243245246249251Topic: Access to Inputs Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Strengthen Research Institution/and the seed certification agency to support the input sector and total involvement of private sector players the input supply chain. Example, encouraging private sector to invest seed breeding and production of foundation seeds. Support registered and certified seed growers to establish their businesses in country. 2. Government should increase allocation of resources/funds towards agricultural research for development. 3. Support registered and certified seed growers to establish their businesses in country. 4. Establish seed multiplication farms through Agricultural Business Centres (ABCs) at chiefdom levels and initiate seed fares at chiefdom levels. 5. Review land tenure system to accommodate provision for commercial farming. 6. Policy review on interest rate to allow farmers to access agricultural loans to support food systems. 7. Build capacity of actors on input management and supply chain. 8. Consideration should be given to the gender friendly processing tools and equipment when government and partners are procuring farming tools and equipment as women play very big roles in food production. 9. Provision of adequate storage facility for agricultural produce especially at farm gates 10. Review of policy shift for the machine ring approach for the supply of government’s agricultural inputs to boost food production. 11. Agro-chemical regulations/policies should be implemented to the fullest. 12. Capacity building for personnel involved in the provision of plants and animal health services as well as increase in the human resource required. 13. Institute regular and effective monitoring to ensure inputs get to the targeted beneficiaries. Who should take these actions: Ministry of finance and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Sierra Leone Roads Authority National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA) Anti - Corruption Commission (ACC) Legislative arms of government on Finance in parliament Private Sector and local councils Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Conducting feedback session or follow up session after three cropping sessions to get feedback 2. Increase acreage cultivated by smallholder farmers and increase in mechanized farming which will boost food production.236238243245246248249251Topic: Production Requirements Actions that are urgently needed: 1.Government to develop a policy on land tenure system protecting farmers and Investors in Agriculture by clearly stating the value of farmland per hectare and minimum duration of lease of farmland. (supporting Responsible investment in agriculture) 2. Government should reserve land for agricultural purposes and given to large companies to go into commercial farming in the country. 3. Government should directly engage and support the Private Sectors in Agriculture to embark on production of rice and other food components with a clearly defined output and outcome. (tonnage of rice produced per year) 4. Private sectors to develop one model Youth farms of 25 Hectares each per district across the country that the youths can manage instead of the current initial 100 hectares. 5. Model farms to be established with irrigation facilities and train identified youths with passion for Agriculture to fully manage with technical extension support from MAF, Private Sectors and NGOs. 6. Construction of feeder roads especially those leading to large food production areas and linking farmers to markets including routine maintenance of roads to assist in improving our food systems. Feeder roads construction and maintenance schemes at community level could be supported by provision of food for work. 7. Promote the production and investment in livestock infant industries for livestock. 8. To address the problem of seasonal food production, government and partners should consider the infusion of modern farming technology and irrigation system, crop intensification and integrated farming into our farm management culture and train personnel in land development. 9. Assessment and identification of farmers in integrated farming. Based on the report actions should be taken to address the situation if less farmers are not involved in integrated farming practices through capacity building of smallholder farmers. 10. Identification of professional Irrigation engineers for the designing and monitoring of land irrigation. 11. Create competitiveness for the policy shift on the ring machinery for a quality delivery of services through assessment of the performance of agro-dealers based on the tonnage of food produced in their districts of operation instead of the acreage cultivated. 12. Establishment of Facilities where farmers can easily access improved and modern inputs at an affordable cost. 13. Development and rehabilitation of inland valley swamps (IVSs) in economic zones with such ecology. 14. There is a big challenge of mining companies degrading lands for agricultural and fishery purposes. One possible solution is the reclamation of lands in mining areas for food production. 15. Establishment of institutional farms for Police, Military, and Correctional Centers that government provide huge quantities of food for their monthly rations. 16. Improvement in the low capacity of smallholder farmers will be achieved through provision of extension services by increasing the number of extension workers and the required logistics for them to visit farmers in the catchment areas. 17. Establishment of basic social amenities in the form educational games and sports and recreational facilities in each chiefdom to reduce youth migration from farming communities. Who should take these actions? Ministry of Lands, Law officers Department and Ministry of Agriculture, SLeCAD, Youth Ministry, Land holding families, Implementing Partners, local Authorities and Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA), Ministry of Works, Local Councils. Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Percentage increase in food production, availability in diversity throughout the year. 2. Good roads linking all districts and food production areas 3. Increase in youth farms in every chiefdom and well-established farms for government support institutions like the police, army, and correctional centres.236238243245246248249251Topic: Processing Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Create and enabling environment (access to loans, reduced taxes) to processing companies/ individuals. 2. Assessment to map private sector players interested and provide loan facilities to them to construct and manage the storage facilities 3. Provide adequate knowledge by training processor on the preservation techniques of crop types and construction/ rehabilitation of storage facilities based on crop type and food zones. Provide facilities that promote appropriate processing and preservation of foods. 4. Provide affordable and gender friendly processing tools and equipment by granting duty waiver to agricultural processing tools and equipment. 5. Encourage private sector player to take the lead and do farming as business 6. Provision of uninterrupted accessible and affordable electricity especially in industrial processing areas on a sustainable basis. 7. Construction of Hydro-Dams, Installation of Solar Plants, and biomass technologies. 8. Establish cold rooms in fish economy and vegetable production zones, Revive the food processing infant industries. 9. Government to collaborate with development partners to provide transportation facilities on loan scheme to private sector players using Public Private Partnership (PPP). 10. Processing and storage facilities for food stuff particularly perishable goods 11. Train market women and farmers on appropriate food preservation techniques and provide solar drying floors for preservation of foods Who should take these actions? Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Finance, Fabricators (FINIC, WINGIN), Importers, Processors, farmers, and training/academic institutions Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Increase in the number of large, medium, and small business enterprises processing local foods for both domestic consumptions and exporting for international trade. 2. Availability of adequate foods (especially fruits and vegetables) for domestic consumption all year round.236238245249Topic: Marketing and Distribution Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Government to increase subsidizing for fuel pump to reduce cost of local foods. 2. Constructions of roads especially roads connecting districts and those leading to farm gates. 3. Increase purchase/provision of transport vehicles specifically for farm produce. 4. Provision of appropriate vehicles to transport fresh and perishable foods. 5. Provide appropriate stores for the storage and preservation of foods for sale. 6. Provision of storage facilities in markets and transport facilities at all levels by building of market and storage structures/outlets. 7. Provision of adequate and appropriate food markets with stores and appropriate cold rooms for frozen foods. 8. Discourage importation of inferior agricultural and nutritional products and encourage homemade foods by supporting large and small and medium enterprises. 9. Establishment of market information system to enhance fair trade of agricultural produce especially for smallholder farmers. Who should take these actions? Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of trade, SLRA, NaCSA, Private sector, Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Percentage decrease in the cost of marketing and distributing produce. 2. Availability of variety of locally produced food/products as well as imported food products in markets throughout the country.236238242245246248249251Topic: Consumption and Utilization Actions that are urgently needed: 1. To address the problem of food waste and low food consumption diversity: Government should ensure availability, accessibility, and affordability of sustainable electricity supply particularly in urban areas. 2. Increase taxes on imported agricultural and nutritional products and establish women led enterprises with support for production local nutritious crops with reduce taxes to encourage consumption of healthy foods over inferior foods that flood the market. 3. Formation of food banks and engage line MDA’s, Food institutions, restaurants, hotels, and supermarkets on the idea of a food bank especially of perishable foods. Form a system or organization to collect donations and distributions to agencies or individuals in need. 4. Processing of left-over foods to serve as manure for animals and plant 5. Support training of women of childbearing age and care takers on appropriate feeding practices of young children and good maternal nutrition. 6. Households establish backyard gardening or urban agriculture for those in big cities for diversified food crops for households’ consumption. 7. Popularize Food based dietary guidelines for healthy eating in communities through radio discussions. Airing of Jingles. Organizing focus group discussions to get information on what is known and sensitize communities on benefits of diversified food production and consumption. 8. Promotion of food safety guidelines among all food businesses in the country. 9. Provision of improved storage facilities and manufacturing of key local foods for improved preservation. 10. Health system strengthening can assist in improving the health status especially of women and children under the age of five years. 11. Increase safety net programmes such as the national school feeding programme to target primary schools in the country and Food vouchers for extremely poor households. 12. Promotion of family services to especially poor rural households that have large family sizes. 13. There should be a multi-sectoral approach including establishment and support of all nutrition security networks. 14. Collaborate with relevant Ministry Department Agencies (MDAs) on how to ensure food consumption and utilization through the Scaling up Nutrition secretariat. 15. Provide potable water in every community and local authorities should make byelaws of water management to avoid pollution of rivers and streams. Institution of water user committees and train consumers on the storage of water to avoid contamination. 16. Placement of farm gates at appropriate centres and construct appropriate composts for the disposal of wastes. 17. Monitor the quality of foods sold at the farm gates Who should take these actions? Ministry of finance and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Health and Sanitation, NGOs, and CBOs Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Percentage decrease in malnutrition. Increased awareness and practice in healthy eating 2. Reduction in Non-communicable diseases (NCDs).236238244246248249251Topic: Food Waste Management Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Construction of facilities and recruit waste recycling trainers 2. Identify youths for waste recycling as a livelihood measure 3. Recruitment of garbage collector and provision of protective gears to enhance their safety 4. Make available garbage bags for household use and garbage collection. 5. Procurement and supply of adequate dumper trucks to meet the needs of cities 6. Create appropriate waste dumping sites in every city. 7. Formulation of appropriate policies and laws and close monitoring of the implementation of those byelaws. 8. Using peels of cassava or vegetables as compost manure and using the waste as animal feeds and or mushroom cultivation e.g., cassava peels, rice brown, saw dust Who should take these actions? MoHS, Local councils, NGOs, and CBOs, NaCSA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ministry of Agriculture Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Reduction in the incidence of malaria and diarrhoea among children under the age of five years 2. Cleaner cities and communities 3. Reduction in seasonal flooding236238245249Topic: Access to Finance Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Provision of credit/insurance facilities and review of interest rates for farming. 2. Address gender discrimination in accessing agricultural loans 3. Reduce administrative bottlenecks (Too many procedures and bureaucracy with extra cost by FSA/ Community banks) that frustrates farmers who need financial loans as agricultural activities are time bound. 4. Government Commercial banks should have a desk purposely for Agricultural credit facilities to recognize farmers. Loans should be given within two weeks of application and the repayment process should start at least after the second crop harvest. 5. Improve access to government subsidy, grants, and farmer support initiative. 6. Provision of soft loans to processors by financial institutions especially community banks. 7. Revision of collaterals for agricultural Loans and include guarantors for smallholder farmers who may not have collaterals. Who should take these actions? Ministry of finance and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Financial institutions, Bank of Sierra Leone, and IFAD Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Conducting feedback session or follow up session after three cropping sessions 2. Percentage increase in diversified food availability236238244245246248249Topic: Policy Development, Enforcement, and Coordination Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Total inclusion of women in policy formulation and implementation along the food system chain and linkages. 2. Animal settlement policy will address the community disputes that emerge because of destruction of farmers’ crops by grazing animals in rural communities. 3. Enforce the local content policy on deforestation through regular monitoring and supervision of the agreement on the policy, and tree planting nationwide. 4. Enactment and enforcement of byelaws on environmental protection. 5. Enforcement of the Housing and Environment policies by developing concrete policy implementation plans, which can reviewed from time to time. 6. Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of policies and actions for household nutrition and food security. 7. Establishment of SUN Secretariat at District or Regional level with increased support for effective coordination of food systems actors. 8. Anti-corruption to be a key driver at every level of the food chain and linkages for a sustainable food system. 9. Coordination of relevant stakeholders in support of relevant policies and actions relating to food production 10. All outdated policies that can support food systems strengthening should be reviewed and popularized for proper implementation by the appropriate sectors. 11. Establishment of an effective system for price control and standardization of units of measures of local foods. 12. Institution of an effective monitoring system for prices, unit of measures and expired food commodities in shops and markets. This will required adequate human resource to be deployed throughout the country. Who should take these actions? Ministry of lands, Law officers’ department and Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Local Government, Standards Bureau, Ministry of Health and Sanitation Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Effective coordination mechanism in place along the food system 2. Food systems policies in place and implemented to support sustainable food security for all.236242246249Topic: Conflict and Instability Actions that are urgently needed: 1. Animal settlement policy to address disunity that is existing among cattle owners and crop famers. 2. All paramount chiefs to formulate byelaws and implement them for animal settlement. 3. Government to review the land tenure system as land issue often leads to conflict in communities. Who should take these actions? Ministry of lands, law officers’ department, Ministry of Local Government and Ministry of Agriculture Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Conflict reduced among farmers 2. Peaceful communities and progress towards sustainable development goals for 2030.236242243244246248249Topic: Climate/Environmental Extremes and Economic Shocks Actions that are urgently needed: 1. In the event of shocks that affect smallholder farmers, government and partners should establish seed banks to support smallholder farmers to revive their faming activities. The seed banks will also prevent the extinction of specific crop varieties and certain species of animals. 2. Afforestation and agro forestry farming system intensified 3. Establishment of affordable irrigation system for all chiefdoms 4. Government subsidies for SMEs for recovery from economic shocks 5. Establish the green belt and enforce it, institute urban planning in the context of the current design of our cities 6. Use our higher learning institutions to research and generate credible and sustainable solutions 7. Construction of drainages and canals, fire belts) and community dialogue programmes. 8. Set-up of emergency response team, construction of stock house, strong measures to stop people from habiting in disaster prone area. 9. Strengthen and capacitate Fire Force Department to reduce time for quick response to fire incidents by fire force. 10. Institute a strong monitoring mechanism to discourage youths from mining sand in prohibited areas along the coastline. 11. Training of local CSO’s on environmental hazards and its mitigation and provision of logistical and other support to local to conduct sensitization 12. Replant mangrove trees in areas where they have been cut down. 13. Introduce disaster management modules into our learning institutions 14. Government to transform all mining pits into aquarium at community and chiefdom level 15. Relocation of houses /slums constructed on canals, wetlands, reserve forest to safer areas or environmentally friendly areas. 16. Enforcement of the Housing and Environment policies by developing concrete policy implementation plans, which can be reviewed from time to time. Who should take these actions? Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of trade, EPA, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Local Government, NRA, Office of national Security, Local Councils, Ministry of lands, Traditional and local Leaders. NGO’s, CSO and Private sectors. Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1. Decreased in deforestation, increase in agricultural production year-round. 2. Reduction in the occurrence of natural disasters and fire hazard 3. Increase in beaches along the peninsula to illegal sand mining along the peninsula in Western Area2372382422442452462492511. Establishment and Operation of Agricultural Business Centers In 2009, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Security (MAFFS) developed the National Sustainable Development Plan 2010-2030 (NSADP) under the umbrella of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) with the broad involvement of all stakeholders. The NSADP sets out ambitious targets: (i) Increase in the agricultural sector growth from its current 4 per cent to 7.7 per cent per annum by 2015; and (ii) increased incomes of farming households by 10 per cent and increased household food security by 25 per cent. At the core of the NSADP was the Smallholder Commercialisation Programme (SCP). The MAFFS has developed a USD 403 Million National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP) for the implementation of the SCP covering the years 2010-2014 including one key component: (i) Improving smallholder production and commercialisation by setting up 2,750 FBOs and building 650 Agricultural Business Centres (ABC) nation-wide. The ABC approach was to establish a one-stop shop market linkage between farmers and buyers using comprising so many value chain components including storage facility to generate revenue using the business lens. However, due to other competing priorities, under this programme, over three hundred (300) Agricultural Business centres (ABCs) have been constructed in every chiefdom by government but most of these structures are not functional as per purpose for which they were designed. Participants went into argument as to what should be done with the ABCs. Some people had the view that the ABCs should be revitalized, and a strong monitoring mechanism put in place for proper management while others had the view for the management and ownership of the Agricultural Business Centres be privatised for proper utilization. 2. Government should stop constructing new stores without existing strategies of ownerships: In addition to the SCP programme, other development projects funded by the World bank, Irish Aid, etc. constructed additional community stores including dry floors to reduce post-harvest loss along the various chain products supported and were left in the hands of local authorities without proper utilization and management. During the dialogues process, since the inadequate storage facilities were mentioned as challenge along the thematic areas of access to inputs, production and processing, some participants were against constructing new community stores without establishing proper ownership structure in place for sustainability. Majority suggested that, let there be a mechanism in place where by a private sector player will manage and to be paid for by community members at a subsidised rate for a period until it becomes a freehold for the private sector player. In that case, the private sector will also in turn pay for the investment with time. 3. The government inputs supply chain/model for the community youth farms should be reviewed: Feedback from most participants highly appreciated the effort of the government by creating job opportunities for the youths across the country through farming activities. However, some participants were with the view that the model of accessing inputs through mobile money needs to be revised to a voucher system without indicating the amount of money or worth of the inputs to be delivered to the farms. This will reduce diversion of the funds allocated to access inputs to the actual farming activities as expected. 4. Strong debate on not allowing women to own Land: All the traditional leaders who witnessed the dialogue are against the motion for women to own land. There was a lengthy discussion in such area due to the strong defence of all the women representatives. Women believe that hence they are the key players presently in the field of Agriculture they deserve to own land. According to them, they ascend that women are facing lot of violence by family members in the activities of farming especially when it comes to collaboration.. 5. Service Providers not working in the interest of farmers: During the discussions at group level, it was very difficult among participants to agree that all of the service providers are working in the interest of the farmers based on the erratic nature of changing prices for inputs in the market and other services they provide at community level. Some recommended that government should establish price control system for all service providers along the input supply chain, while others were against such recommendations based on the fact that majority of them are not getting financial support from the government to operate their businesses.. 6. Access to Finance by farmers- As others ask for no collateral whiles others are in support of collaterals: This topic was never agreed upon by majority of the participants based on the following reasons: • That some farmers are in the habit of always expecting handouts from government and if government influence financial institutions to remove collateral from accessing finance, most of the financial institutions will run out of cash to run their business due to high none repay patterns and asking for collateral is the best option • Others said that financial institutions should not use collateral as the best option to permit access but to use reference checks through their local leaders about their honesty and hard work/investment in terms of farming activities carried out and use that to provide financial assistance to them.

2021-08-15 00:06:57205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39451/141

6732923813621701139043361290017290070450

Cerrando brechas es el objetivo de un nuevo acuerdo nacional en cuanto a los problemas más acuciantes de la sociedad panameña, incluyendo los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles. El diálogo fue organizado de manera tal que la convocatoria fuera lo más amplia e incluyente posible, para lograr contar con el parecer de la sociedad panameña en torno a los sistemas alimentarios y las acciones requeridas para lograr su sostenibilidad. La metodología consistió en un proceso por etapas que va desde la expresión de problemas y presentación de soluciones, hasta la construcción de acuerdos de consenso que recoge una amplia participación de actores de todos los territorios del país. Se identificaron temas centrales desde los territorios hasta el país en su conjunto. Más allá de las diferentes situaciones en cada uno de los territorios, se ha logrado identificar consensos en los grandes principios alrededor de los modelos incluyentes, sostenibles, resilientes, competitivos, alimentación sana, inocua y nutritiva para toda la población, con énfasis en niños, mujeres y jóvenes, así como en la agricultura familiar, las comunidades indígenas. De manera relevante se identificaron consensos en materia de tecnología, reducción de costos, mayor rentabilidad e ingresos para los productores, infraestructura de caminos, almacenes, mercados locales, regionales y nacionales. Finalmente, los participantes apostaron el desarrollo de capacidades, educación extensión y fortalecimiento institucional público y privado.En la mayoría de los aportes recibidos se ven reflejados los cinco principios de actuación definidos, principalmente en lo referente a la necesidad de tomar acción con urgencia, la necesidad de que el abordaje de los retos sea lo más inclusivo posible y que se trabaje de forma coordinada entre todos los sectores involucrados. Uno de los temas medulares se refiere al principio de la inclusión de actores en condiciones de mayor vulnerabilidad social, económica y ambiental, con especial referencia a las comunidades indígenas y a las mujeres en particular. Otro de los temas destacados es el incremento de la producción de alimentos a partir de la economía familiar y los pequeños y medianos productores y su aporte a la reducción del hambre y la pobreza. Asimismo, destaca una mayor producción de alimentos saludables y la sostenibilidad ambiental como ejes centrales de una mayor resiliencia ante el cambio climático. A raíz de la adopción de la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible como guía para el impulso de las acciones del Estado, dirigidas a favorecer a aquellos que se han quedado atrás del desarrollo, se dio un impulso para asegurar la producción y disponibilidad de alimentos, garantizar la reducción del hambre, fomentando la seguridad alimentaria, mediante el compromiso y la participación del Gobierno, los organismos internacionales, los gremios y la sociedad. Esta Cumbre es una oportunidad para que Panamá pueda avanzar hacia el gran y ambicioso objetivo de contar con un sistema alimentario sostenible y será un importante catalizador que permitirá a través de los diálogos realizados, retroalimentarse de las necesidades, opiniones y otros aportes transmitidos por todos los sectores convocados, contando así con insumos que permitan fortalecer, continuar, corregir o iniciar nuevas acciones que en forma de programas, políticas u otros instrumentos legales e institucionales permitan avanzar hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios.Si bien es cierto se contó con una amplia participación de diversos sectores de la sociedad en tanto actores de los sistemas alimentarios, como actividades concretas de seguimiento, se podrían organizar consultas con representantes de sectores específicos para contar con sus recomendaciones y aportes de acuerdo con la visión y el papel de ese sector o gremio en los sistemas alimentarios. Así entonces, se podrían organizar actividades con el sector de restaurantes, organizaciones de chefs, gremios de agroindustriales, comercializadoras de alimentos, supermercados, transportistas, por mencionar algunos Estos diálogos deben concretar en el establecimiento de políticas de Estado que garanticen su continuidad en el tiempo, el establecimiento de mecanismos de co-ejecución público privados, así como el uso de sistemas de seguimiento y rendición de cuentas.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249251La consulta nacional y subnacionales de Panamá, tuvieron como lema “Cerrando brechas para la seguridad alimentaria”. El objetivo principal era determinar la futura dirección de los sistemas alimentarios en Panamá, hacia la consecución de los ODS explorando las opciones de cambio necesarios para darle sostenibilidad a los sistemas alimentarios del país para el año 2030 y situar al proyecto de Diálogos dentro del contexto de trabajo intersectorial que realizará el Gobierno Nacional y los actores de la cadena alimentaria nacional. Sobre la base de las cinco vías de acción definidas para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 (1. Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. 2. Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción favorable a la naturaleza 4. Promover medios de vida equitativos 5. Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades), se adoptaron cuatro preguntas orientadoras que se utilizaron en todas y cada una de las sesiones de consultas realizadas. Si bien cada una de las regiones del País presenta en sus propuestas características específicas, en todas las provincias, en general, se registra con mucha claridad dos tipos de propuestas que se pueden agrupar según emergen desde las “metrópolis” (Panamá y ciudades del interior) cuyas propuestas se centran predominantemente en la perspectiva de “consumidores de productos del agro”, por un lado, y por el otro, las que provienen de los productores, y agentes vinculados al agro, desde las cuales se emiten propuestas desde una posición de “oferentes de productos”, los cuales se destinan a satisfacer esos grandes “estómagos sociales de la gran urbe y la urbes provinciales”, pero que solo logran abastecerlas en parte de sus requerimientos, conviviendo con las importaciones que vienen supliendo cada vez más mayores proporciones de dichas necesidades. En la consulta específica con pueblos indígenas se manifestó la necesidad de una mayor coordinación y participación de este grupo en actividades productivas que contribuyan al sistema alimentario nacional. Rescatar prácticas tradicionales de cultivo y su aporte productivo a las propias comunidades y a programas sociales. También fue señalada la necesidad de una mayor articulación de las autoridades indígenas con la institucionalidad gubernamental. Fueron abordados también temas que van desde el recurso hídrico y su importancia, impulso a prácticas de producción amigables con el ambiente como la agroecología y la agricultura orgánica, así como la disminución del uso de agroquímicos en la agricultura. La educación fue identificada como herramienta fundamental para promover hábitos saludables de consumo y prácticas de producción innovadoras, sostenibles y competitivas que apoyen al desarrollo de los pequeños productores y agricultores familiares de todo el país. Entre los temas señalados está también la necesidad de garantizar un mayor nivel de acceso a créditos y seguros agropecuarios dirigidos específicamente a pequeños productores que les permitan participar en las cadenas de comercialización y poder generar ingresos. En general hay plena conciencia de la importancia que tiene para todos, el contar con sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y que para avanzar en esa dirección se requiere el concurso de todos los actores que participan de una forma o de otra que deben cooperar y coordinarse con esta meta común. Por una parte, las instituciones gubernamentales con políticas claras de apoyo al sector productivo del país, la empresa privada, con buenas prácticas de producción y los consumidores con hábitos de consumo saludables. Desde todas las provincias y comarcas se distingue con toda claridad las posiciones de un lado y del otro. Esta distribución de las propuestas, entre consumidores y productores, sigue un patrón muy claro: se abre una brecha de posiciones, más en los diagnósticos que en las soluciones, pero también se establecen “puentes” en las propuestas, para acercar intereses de las poblaciones en general.235238239241242243245246249250Es importante señalar que la pandemia reafirmó la importancia de contar con sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y la continuidad de la producción de alimentos por nuestros productores para garantizar la alimentación de la población en todo el país. 1. El problema mayormente expresado por los consumidores fue el “alto nivel de precios de los alimentos”. Este abrumador señalamiento se refiere principalmente a los precios de los productos nacionales, aunque también se repiten con mediana frecuencia referencias a los altos precios de los productos de importación. 2. Desde la perspectiva de la mayoría de los productores del país el tema de los precios, con muy alta frecuencia, es uno de los principales problemas que les aqueja, pero, contrario a los consumidores, para ellos representa “bajos precios de sus productos”. Si bien estos son percepciones reales de ambos lados, las propuestas de solución, en ambos casos, se dirigen a resolver las causas de esta aparente “oposición”. 3. El otro gran problema señalado fue la “mala calidad de los productos” que provienen principalmente de la producción nacional. Para los consumidores este señalamiento es más frecuente de lo que señalan los productores. En ambos casos, los problemas de calidad de los productos, también es compartido como un objetivo de política y de acción. 4. Lo mismo sucede con el señalamiento más destacado por todos la: “ausencia de suficientes y eficientes mercados, nacionales, regionales y locales”, así como sus condiciones ineficientes de operación y malas prácticas, escasa transparencia, ausencia de información y predominancia de intermediarios, muchos de los cuales no agregan valor y encarecen más los productos, amén de la presencia de oligopsonios y monopolios en la comercialización de varias de las cadenas de valor. 5. Otros de los importantes temas que se comparten entre ambas posiciones, con alta frecuencia por los productores y con mediana frecuencia por los consumidores, son los “altos costos de producción y comercialización de los productos” y los “bajos niveles de productividad” de las actividades agropecuarias de los productores. 6. Con diferente frecuencia se señalan otros tipos de problemas como son: el “bajo acceso de los productores al crédito”, más señalado por los productores, el “atraso tecnológico de los productores”, más señalado por los consumidores, la “escasa infraestructura”, más pronunciado por los productores, la “baja agregación de valor” a los productos, igualmente pronunciado, y los “bajos niveles educativos” y la “ausencia de organización de los productores”, más destacados por el lado de los consumidores. 7. Se presenta con alta frecuencia, principal y exclusivamente por los productores, los problemas de la inexistente e ineficiente “infraestructura y caminos de producción” que agravan las condiciones de acceso a los mercados. 8. Con mucha mayor fuerza por los productores y en menor medida por los consumidores, se señala la “ausencia o escasa presencia y apoyo a los productores de las instituciones públicas del sector agropecuario”, principalmente el MIDA y otras instituciones como el ISA, el IMA, el BDA, entre otros. 9. De la misma forma y características, los productores destacan la “inexistencia, insuficiencia e ineficiencias de los servicios agro-logísticos” dentro de los cuales están los almacenes, centros post cosecha, redes de frío, información, transporte, entre los principales. También el tema de “encarecimientos de insumos”, es otro de los que se repite con alta frecuencia, sobre todo, entre los productores.2362382392412422432452462482492511. Tema de debate 1: ¿Cómo podemos mejorar la contribución del sector agropecuario para una seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en las actividades económicas a nivel local o nacional para fortalecer la participación de la población general en desarrollo de la producción, el procesamiento, la comercialización y consumo? - Los sistemas necesitan ampliar la participación de actores locales, en especial los productores nacionales y locales, para mantener una diversidad adecuada de organizaciones que produzcan alimentos nutritivos a precios que permitan ampliar la cobertura nutricional, mayor estabilidad en esta oferta y una distribución más equilibrada de los beneficios generados. - También se señaló la importancia de un mayor apoyo a los pequeños productores y agricultores familiares para que puedan transitar de una agricultura de subsistencia hacia niveles productivos que le generen ingresos a su núcleo familiar o cooperativa, las que también requieren de mayor apoyo para su fortalecimiento como una vía de inclusión del pequeño productor a mercados con precios justos. - El intercambio con las poblaciones indígenas identificó obstáculos en la interacción o cohesión social que impiden la comunicación necesaria para construir estrategias y agendas de trabajo participativas. Como consecuencia, son frecuentes las intervenciones públicas o privadas que desconocen las preferencias locales de los territorios. - Para una mayor participación ciudadana también se requiere aumentar la divulgación de los proyectos de gobierno, disponibilidades de financiamiento, entre otros recursos, y los procesos o requerimientos necesarios para acceder a los mismos. - También se identificó que es necesario aumentar la presencia institucional del Estado en áreas de difícil acceso ya que esto obstaculiza la interacción directa con las comunidades impactadas por la política pública. Esta interacción es necesaria para equiparar la visión de desarrollo nacional con la de la comunidad local, exponiendo las características diferenciadoras de los territorios que deben considerarse para garantizar el éxito de cualquier acción tomada. - Para facilitar la participación indígena en los procesos de toma de decisión se recomendó crear redes comunitarias para trabajar organizadamente en los territorios indígenas, además de fortalecer los consejos comarcales, con mayor presencia de las instituciones gubernamentales y personal que pueda articular con las autoridades locales. - En general, se señaló la importancia del fortalecimiento institucional de las entidades del sector agropecuario, así como de otras instituciones gubernamentales vinculadas a los sistemas alimentarios y la necesidad de fortalecer el trabajo coordinado entre instituciones y sectores. - Para aumentar la cobertura nutricional en el país, los participantes solicitaron ampliar la infraestructura de acceso y fortalecer la cultura de alimentación nutritiva. La primera destaca la importancia de las iniciativas usuales para expandir la infraestructura de transporte para acceso a mercados; ya sea por vía terrestre, aérea o marítima; mientras que en segunda instancia también es importante ayudar a impulsar la demanda por alimentos altamente nutritivos y/o producidos con mínimo impacto al medio ambiente. Una fórmula para lograr esto es impulsar el trabajo social y comunitario que involucre a las familias, niños, niñas y adolescentes fomentando la cultura de producción de alimentos de manera sostenible - La política pública debe mantener un enfoque en reducir las barreras de costos de producción, especialmente en materia de fertilización del suelo, que impiden ampliar la cobertura nutricional con oferta local. Para ello, es muy importante impulsar la innovación, aprovechando de mejor manera el conocimiento generado en los sistemas alimentarios. - A pesar de que las consultas contaron con presencia de múltiples organizaciones cooperativas a lo largo del país, la gran mayoría de los participantes todavía identifica al sector público como la principal fuente de financiamiento para el sector.2362382392402412422442462472492502512. Tema de debate 2: ¿Qué deberían hacer los actores del Sistema Alimentario para reducir o compensar los impactos negativos generados en los procesos productivos, procesamiento, transporte, almacenamiento, intercambio y consumo de los productos alimenticios? - Se identificó que la falta de infraestructura para la comercialización alimentaria, a escala nacional, es fuente de ineficacias, asignación inefectiva de la producción agropecuaria, incluyendo su pérdida o merma en las diferentes etapas de la cadena agroalimentaria. Se identificó principalmente la necesidad de ampliar la red de mercados alimentarios en los territorios para integrar de mejor manera la producción y consumo subnacional. Con un mayor número de mercados se estimulan los “circuitos cortos”, promover ferias de productores, contar con vías de acceso a los sitios de producción y transporte adecuado y acceso a la cadena de frio. Además, la constitución y coordinación de redes de mercados facilita el impacto de los incentivos creados por las políticas agroalimentarias para aumentar la sostenibilidad del sistema y alinearlo con las metas de desarrollo nacional. - Hay que abordar el problema de pérdidas en productos alimentarios y el manejo de los desechos que se generan y relacionado a esto, impulsar programas de capacitación dirigidos a los productores sobre el manejo y disposición adecuada de estos desechos y la disminución de las pérdidas (mermas) en la producción. - Es importante fortalecer a todos los actores del sistema alimentario con políticas integrales y trabajo intersectorial que incluyan: alianzas público-privadas, acceso a tecnología, asistencia técnica, titulación de tierras y/o acceso a estás, comercialización equitativa por regiones, organización de la producción para evitar la sobreproducción y pérdida de alimentos, programas alimentarios, entre otros, haciendo énfasis en poblaciones con mayor vulnerabilidad. - El uso y manejo de los recursos hídricos fue señalado consistentemente como un factor a considerar para la construcción de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Deben impulsarse proyectos de cosecha de agua de lluvia, así como la aplicación de innovaciones y tecnología para un uso eficiente del agua y es muy importante impulsar la reforestación de cuencas hidrográficas. El país mantiene una situación de inequidad en el acceso al agua para la población, que afecta especialmente a la población que reside en áreas de difícil acceso. - Con miras a garantizar el uso sostenible de la tierra y los recursos naturales, las comunidades indígenas también destacaron que es importante retomar el traspaso generacional a las mujeres jóvenes y a los jóvenes de los conocimientos ancestrales para tener familias fortalecidas con valores en cuanto a una buena alimentación, lo que posibilitará en el futuro, el contar con jóvenes, niños, adultos mayores con fortaleza, saludables y más longevos. - Se necesita impulsar la participación continua de la sociedad civil y la población en general a través de sus organizaciones en lo relacionado a las actividades productivas de comercialización y consumo de alimentos para ir avanzando hacia la sostenibilidad de estas actividades en el país.2362382392412422432462472492502513. Tema de debate 3: ¿Cómo definen las políticas gubernamentales las acciones para el sector agropecuario para una seguridad alimentaria y nutricional? ¿cuál es el reto en su aplicación y cómo se ven afectados sus actores como resultado de los conflictos por los regímenes de tenencia y derechos sobre la tierra y el agua? - La población identificó de manera positiva los programas de alimentación escolar como herramienta de cobertura nutricional a población de niños, niñas y adolescentes, en su etapa crítica de desarrollo físico y mental. Estos programas se vieron afectados directamente por las restricciones de la pandemia durante el 2020, reestructurándose para impulsar actividades de capacitación en educación alimentaria y nutricional al personal docente e inversión infraestructura adecuada en los comedores y cocinas. - En varias de las consultas se identificaron debilidades que tiene el mercado para regular adecuadamente los sistemas alimentarios, con oportunidades para mejoras o intervención estatal. Un ejemplo fue la solicitud de un marco jurídico más robusto para estimular la participación en la oferta de alimentos nutritivos de manera que permita coordinarla con otros usos o zonificaciones de la tierra, como aquellas requeridas para preservación ambiental, y que estimule la coordinación efectiva y una mayor colaboración entre los actores dentro de los sistemas alimentarios. Además, el esquema legal es crítico para establecer principios de interacción armónica entre la oferta nacional y la importada. - En lo que se refiere a las cadenas de valor, se requiere fortalecer las instituciones que puedan apoyar una adecuada gobernanza de las cadenas inclusivas de valor en la que se apoye a los pequeños productores y deben reducirse, cuando sea posible, los intermediarios en estas cadenas. La tenencia de la tierra y el derecho a la misma tiene muchas limitaciones y es un problema, principalmente para los micro y pequeños productores que producen para ellos y para el mercado. - Por otro lado, las consultas reiteraron la necesidad de contar con datos actualizados para identificar y abordar los problemas de los sistemas alimentarios, como son las distorsiones a nivel de producción, de cadena de comercialización y en el consumo. - En este último sentido, la falta de información impide la participación y toma de decisiones efectivas. Por ejemplo, las consultas identificaron que persiste la necesidad de impulsar el etiquetado de alimentos confiable, como vehículo de información de las características nutricionales del producto y su inocuidad - Deben implementarse procesos para el seguimiento permanente a los programas y proyectos a partir de las experiencias exitosas. - Resulta importante fortalecer las acciones orientadas al ordenamiento de la tenencia de la tierra a nivel nacional con el fin de minimizar los conflictos que se puedan generar por falta de instrumentos legales que respalden los derechos de sus propietarios.2362382392402412422432452462472482492514. Tema de debate 4: ¿Cómo pueden las políticas públicas contribuir a la mejora de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con el propósito de garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, el consumo de productos saludables de calidad? ¿Cómo es la inclusión con perspectiva de género y jóvenes? - En el país se requiere impulsar formas sostenibles de producción, abaratando los costos para lo cual es importante contar con una Estrategia nacional para producción sostenible. Se requiere una Política de Estado en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional que se aplique eficazmente, que incluya efectivamente a los pueblos indígenas, reconsiderando que la política alimentaria está asociada tanto con la oferta de alimentos saludables, como con los mecanismos y estrategias para promover los hábitos de consumo saludables. - Para garantizar la política pública aplicada a la seguridad alimentaria se debe partir por el cumplimiento de las leyes vigentes para los pueblos indígenas, que centran los principios rectores, el respeto de las creencias, autonomía, forma de vida e idiosincrasia. - Hay que partir de la sistematización de las experiencias exitosas, por ejemplo, la agricultura “Nainu”, enfatizando en la implementación de huertos familiares, actividad que las familias indígenas desarrollan cada año. Hay que garantizar el apoyo al rescate de estas y otras prácticas tradicionales. - Es importante involucrar la temática de género, los derechos de las mujeres, jóvenes y niños en los sistemas alimentarios y su inclusión y empoderamiento en todas las políticas que se generen en este tema - En lo que se refiere a las cadenas de valor, se requiere fortalecer las instituciones que puedan apoyar una adecuada gobernanza de las cadenas inclusivas de valor en la que se apoye a los pequeños productores y deben reducirse, cuando sea posible, los intermediarios en estas cadenas. - Hay que impulsar una política estatal para la producción, comercialización y consumo que cree incentivos a los productores y compradores, fortaleciendo la agricultura familiar y modelos asociativos facilitando el acceso oportuno a alimentos saludables. - Se requiere una Política de Estado en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional que se aplique efectivamente. Es importante retomar o considerar dentro de las políticas públicas no solo la oferta de alimentos saludables, si no también buscar o implementar mecanismos y estrategias que promuevan los hábitos de consumo saludables. - Debe impulsarse la educación alimentaria y nutricional a todos los niveles (formal e informal) - Hay que impulsar el etiquetado de alimentos confiable y como medio de información de las características nutricionales del producto y su inocuidad. - Es importante involucrar la temática de género, los derechos de las mujeres, jóvenes y niños en los sistemas alimentarios y su inclusión y empoderamiento en todas las políticas que se generen en este tema. - Es importante fortalecer a todos los actores del sistema alimentario con políticas integrales y trabajo intersectorial que incluyan: alianzas público-privadas, acceso a tecnología, asistencia técnica, titulación de tierras y/o acceso a estás, comercialización equitativa por regiones, organización de la producción para evitar la sobreproducción y pérdida de alimentos, programas alimentarios, entre otros, haciendo énfasis en poblaciones con mayor vulnerabilidad. - Hay que impulsar el trabajo social y comunitario que involucre a las familias, niños, niñas y adolescentes fomentando la cultura de producción de alimentos de manera sostenible.237En ninguna de las consultas hubo áreas de divergencia.

2021-08-15 05:40:34205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39299/163

10461010

The dialogue started with a short introduction of the United Nations Food Systems Summit as part of a global initiative to transform and add more value and equity to the world food systems and to deliver the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 2, and the need to build a more robust food and nutrition security and sovereignty ecosystem. The participants were briefed about the strategy of involvement and participation in the form of broad spectrum national dialogues to harvest inputs to articulate the changes that must happen to the current food system at country level. The participants were guided to complete the UNFSS assigned Attendance Form during which time the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement were elaborated to provide a framework for convergence to purpose. The introduction concluded with a short presentation about Seychelles’ current food system that was built from secondary data to provide a clear picture of the current state of affairs and to provide the participants with some background information as thought and discussion starters.The relevant principles were intentionally repeated throughout the Dialogue to instill a sense of purpose and to encourage the participants to deeply reflect about the principles as motivational anchor points and drivers that underpin the change and transformation process that would be required to build a robust food defense strategy at country level.The seven Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement could evolve to become a generic/global framework of core values and principles with potential for inclusion in all Member States food defense strategy. This could become one of the strand (in the mix of strands) to self-perpetuate the longevity of the United Nations Food Systems Summit strategic intent.

Yes

234238239242251The subtheme of the third Dialogue was “Recalibrating food preferences and perception. How do we get the young people to consume more nutritious food and tackle the problem of youth obesity?” The third subtheme is an extension of the second subtheme to deep dive into the pop culture of fast food, to better understand the drivers and motives for preferences for such food category, and what could be learnt to mitigate the risk of a significant distortion of the dietary preferences, increased dietary related diseases in the population which is already a major concern and the potential loss of food and culinary cultural heritage.235238239242251The participants debated and identified six main drivers that are influencing youth dietary preference in favour of the fast food category. These are: • The high visibility, accessibility and affordability portions of fast food. • Tuck shops and food vendors in the vicinity of schools do not offer sufficient alternative choices of dishes and servings. • Inadequate youth engagement to participate in activations to promote local farm commodities and local cuisine. • The higher price points of local farm commodities. • Inadequate investment to promote local farm produce and cuisine. • The adoption of open market policy and inadequate protection for small scale local producers. The high visibility, accessibility and affordability portions of fast food is perceived as the main driver that is positioning the fast food category as the top of mind food option and which is influencing and shifting dietary choices in the young people segment of the population. The fact that tuck shops and food vendors in the vicinity of schools do not offer sufficient alternative choices of dishes and servings is seen as the accelerator for the growth of the fast food category. The same remark as flagged by the householders was made in that a do nothing position will continue to provide the space for the growth of junk food and the consequential associated dietary problems and other associated socioeconomic challenges. Young people influence young people, therefore the participation of the youth community to recalibrate dietary choices is considered as one of the critical success factors.236238239242251The recommendations made by the youth group follow similar line of interventions as proposed by the householders. There is an immediate need to activate a sustained national educational and marketing campaign to create more awareness of the superior nutritive value of local produce especially those that are cultivated under organic and natural farming system and to stimulate more interest in local cuisine, The campaign, communication channels and activities should be broad-base to target a mixed audience. The actions should include a mix of above and below the line interventions targeting schools as a primary group with a mix of formal and extracurricular messaging and activations, the use of social media as a low cost channel to deliver contents to all segments, food fairs and sampling experiential to influence preference and the appointment of influencers. The key actors could involve the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, NGOs and the private sector. In addition tuck shop owners, other food vendors and youth groups should form part of the campaign as they are major influencers. The need for the Seychelles National Youth Council to reactivate the youth entrepreneurship competition as part of the yearly Youth Festival was strongly supported. Interestingly they also promoted the idea that small scale local producers should be accorded some form of protection against cheaper import substitutes and that the list of items that are protected under the fair and free trade agreements should be revisited.

2021-08-15 06:26:25205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38799/148

74516454186412245226565612131444

Please find our approach on the five principles below, responding to the questions of the three text boxes. First: Act with urgency The Qatar national dialogue was opened by our Minister, the Minister of Municipality and Environment and Chairman of Qatar’s National Food Security Committee, Dr Abdullah bin Abdulaziz bin Turki al-Subaie. In his statement he made clear reference to the climate change issue and the fact that 30% of the problem lies in the food we consume and how we consume it. Referring to the floods and heat waves in Europe and the rest of the world as a grave warning and the need for efforts to prevent or limit climate change. The statement in the opening ceremonies came from Qatar’s National Convenor Dr Masoud Al Marri, secretary of the National Food Security Committee and Director of the Food Security Department at the Ministry of Municipality and Environment. He stressed and explained the importance of the Dialogues in the international context of the Global Food System Summit and the more than hundreds of dialogues being organized globally. He also presented the 17 Sustainable Development Goals in detail and how they are influenced by our global and local Food Systems. If we don’t transform our food systems to be sustainable, we won’t achieve the 17 SDG’s by 2030 he stated. Second: Recognize complexity The opening ceremony started with a 5-minute video with a voice over explaining the complexities of global food systems in general and Qatar’s local food system in particular. The video showed all entities in full operation. Footage of the more and more professional and sophisticated farmers and producers, including the input industries such as fertilizer companies, seed suppliers, water and energy utilities. Logistic companies providing more and more intelligent transport, storage and warehousing facilities, keeping produce fresh from start to finish. Marketeers, traders and retailers offering an immense diversity of products on a day-to-day basis, sourced from all over the world and – in these days - often delivered to our doorsteps.Ctd: At the end of the food chain are the waste processors turning crop residues and food waste into “brown gold” the valuable organic fertilizers. Then there are the scientists and technology providers tackling food system challenges and turning them into business opportunities. And policy makers developing rules and regulations keeping our food systems safe, resilient and sustainable in the service of people and the environment. And last but not least, students and teachers, busy and ambitious in preparing the future of today’s food system. All these efforts in a food system that feeds us, keeps us safe and healthy, now and in the future. It is important to recognize that our food system is not just about food production Qatar’s National Convenor explained. Third: Embrace stakeholder inclusivity The opening ceremony closed by Ms Khadeja Ahmad Abuhaliqa. Vice president of Qatar’s Youth Council. And dialogue invites were sent to the broadest range of spectrum of stakeholders and publicized in national Arabic and English newspapers. In total 10 different stakeholder groups were represented and 5 different types of entities. Fourth: Complementing the work of others Qatar already made great strides making its food system resilient, sustainable, equitable and safe in line with the goals and ambitions of the Global Food Systems Summit. Local production tripled in a very short period from less than 10% not so long ago, to an average of 30%, and over 70% and up to 100% for the most critical perishable items. Centralized strategic reserves and decentralized commercial buffer stocks have been established for a very broad spectrum of products in effective partnerships with the public and private sectors. We are producing animal fodder using recycled water thereby preserving our local aquifers and implementing offshore aquaculture projects to relieve the pressure off our local wild fish stocks. And we are running an annual cycle funding scheme for R&D projects in Food Security facilitating innovations in local food production, food storage and food supply chains.Fifth: Build trust Participants were invited and instructed to participate in a dialogue that follows the ground rules of a dialogue explained to us by the Food Summit facilitator and curator training sessions. The rules were presented and explained to the participants by our national convenor and summarized as follows: • A dialogue is an open forum for the wider public and not a closed convention. • The table is yours (the participants) not ours (the organizers) • The focus is on listening and understanding instead of persuading • An exploration of what might be possible not how things are or should be. • Looking for both areas of both convergence and divergence • Uncover differences instead of avoiding them. • It is OK to disagree, without being disagreeable • Recognize and acknowledge different points of view. • All opinions are welcome, don't hesitate to express them. The press was invited to the opening ceremonies but not to the action sessions to enable participants to feel safe to express their opinions and questions candidly and freely.

NoThe format of the dialogue was done in a theatre style venue with physical participation (and on-line streaming for the wider public). The venue could hold about 200 participants, with 50% of capacity available due to Corona restrictions. The format of the sessions was slightly different from being taught in the handbook and training sessions. Our focus was on four action tracks with the first three in line with the Food Summit Action Tracks: 1. Food system resilience 2. Nature positive production 3. Equitable trade. The fourth action track was about the introduction of information technologies in Food Safety inspections. This was because the Ministry of Public Health had already organised dialogue type sessions on the topics of Sustainable Food Consumption and Healthy Nutrition (see appendix). For each action track we gave 15-minute opening presentations and a 30-minute panel discussion with selected leading local practitioners for each topic selected. After that the floor was to the public to engage in a 40-minute Q&A with the practitioners and experts. The moderator of the discussion summarised the outcomes of the session. Each action track session covered 90 minutes of constructive presentations, panel discussions and public Q&A. Only the fourth action track followed the method in the training sessions more closely seeking out questions in three subgroups first before handing them to the panel for a response. The other action tracks did not separate discussion groups as we did not have enough facilitators to assist the many stakeholder groups present and the theatre venue did not lend itself easily for such an approach.

234238239240241242243244246248249250251Qatar already made great strides making its food system resilient, sustainable, equitable and safe demonstrated by the presentations that were given. The public did raise a few important items pressing the sectors to go a few steps further than they have done so far. The public raised the need to find more effective ways to protect our local industries and their investments post the economic blockade of Qatar. The need to consider allowances for regional exports to improve the economic feasibility and attractiveness of food production and food manufacturing in Qatar. The education and training of home-grown agronomists and the urgent need to take action in establishing reserves for agriculture inputs (seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, packaging material and animal feed). We also obtained a strong mandate from the public to tackle the issue of food waste. Our local retailers and our government are already a fair way in testing options to convert food waste into valuable non-food items such as pet foods and fertilizers. With some retailers already voluntarily committed to the 2030 goal of a 50% reduction. The simple measure to separate “Best Before Use” and “Best Before Sales” shelf-life dates on food labels was introduced and expected to potentially decrease food waste significantly. Furthermore, the public found it important to get to know the extent of environmental issues in Qatar that influence our food production capacity: land degradation, aquifer depletion, and water quality. One of the speakers suggested to use the Global GAP (Good Agriculture Practice) certification as minimal standard for local food production and food imports to ensure our food is safe: for consumers, farm workers and as well as for the environment. And finally, the public believes we need to educate our consumers about the environmental impacts of their day-to-day food choices by adopting food labelling schemes that are already used in other countries showing the true cost of a food item (including environmental costs) versus the actual cost (the current consumer price). There are sufficient controls on securing affordable food prices for consumers in Qatar, especially the basic commodities. And there also government support programs in place to ensure fair pricing for producers. It was strongly felt though, by both retailers and producers, that local producers are not rewarded for their efforts to produce in summer, using more capital-intensive growing systems and adopt environmentally friendly production methods preventing them from making these essential steps forward in food system resilience and sustainability. Further discussions are needed to identify effective producer incentives to achieve this next level up in local production or find alternatives for year-round product availability and eco-friendly production practices. In light of the release of the most recent IPCC report on climate change, the topic was raised many times. Many of the stakeholders present believed Qatar is ready for it, having already such harsh climate conditions. Others were not that certain. They observed that many of the impacts we are witnessing now people were not prepared for. So, there is a need to assess the climate change readiness of Qatar’s food system. And vice versa, the impact of our food system on climate change. Finally, the introduction of the automated food safety inspection system by the Ministry of Public Health, was applauded by many if not all stakeholders. The system is just in pilot phase but already with impressive achievements, with comprehensive coverage of all critical points at risk in all steps in the supply chain, increasing the number of inspections that can be done by one inspector by a threefold and reducing or even eliminating the clearance times of food imports at customs.235238239240241242243244246248249250251The dialogue session outcomes clearly gave us a mandate from the participants to improve on our current policies but also to go beyond our current policy and strategy scope. Food System resilience and sustainability have been in focus for the last five years with great achievements under our country’s leadership. But still room and urgency for improvements to effectively and comprehensively tackle the issues of environmental degradation, climate change and improve and sustain the economic feasibility and sustainability of food production and food manufacturing in Qatar.236238239242243244246248249250The most relevant discussion topics that would require further action, study or exploration, in progressing action track food systems resilience: • The need to find more effective ways to protect our local industries and their investments post the economic blockade. • The need to consider allowances for regional exports to improve the economic feasibility and attractiveness of food production and food manufacturing in Qatar. • The education and training of home-grown agronomists • The urgent need to take action in establishing reserves for agriculture inputs • A strong mandate from the public to tackle the issue of food waste.236238239240242243244246248249250The most relevant discussion topics that would require further action, study or exploration, in progressing action nature positive production: • To get to know the extent of environmental issues in Qatar that influence our food production capacity: land degradation, aquifer depletion, and water quality. • The use the Global GAP (Good Agriculture Practice) certification as minimal standard for local food production and food imports to ensure our food is safe: for consumers, farm workers and as well as for the environment. • The need to educate consumers about the environmental impacts of their day-to-day food choices by adopting food labelling schemes that are already used in other countries showing the true cost of a food item (including environmental costs) versus the actual cost (the current consumer price).236238240241242243244246248249250The most relevant discussion topics that would require further action, study or exploration, in progressing action track equitable trade: • Local producers are not rewarded for their efforts to produce in summer, using more capital-intensive growing systems and adopt environmentally friendly production methods. Further discussions are needed to identify effective producer incentives to achieve this next level up in local production or find alternatives for year-round product availability and eco-friendly production practices.236238239240242243244246248249250In light of the release of the most recent IPCC report on climate change, the topic was raised many times. Many of the stakeholders present believed Qatar is ready for it, having already such harsh climate conditions. Others were not that certain, observing that many of the impacts we are witnessing now people were not prepared for. So, there is a need to assess the climate change readiness of Qatar’s food system. And vice versa, the impact of our food system on climate change.236238243246248The introduction of the automated food safety inspection system by the Ministry of Public Health, was applauded by many if not all stakeholders. The system is just in pilot phase but already with impressive achievements, with comprehensive coverage of all critical points at risk in all steps in the supply chain, increasing the number of inspections that can be done by one inspector by a threefold and reducing or even eliminating the clearance times of food imports at customs.237240241242243244248250We only witnessed two significant areas of divergence. Some stakeholders believed there were sufficient measures in place to allow producers to obtain a fair price for their produce. Others believed there was insufficient incentive for farmers to make the next step in making food production year-round and environmentally friendly. Some stakeholder believed Qatar was ready for the impacts of climate change, given the already harsh climate conditions of Qatar. Whilst others were not so sure witnessing the climate change impacts in other countries and see that the people there were not prepared for those impacts. It is very likely that when subsequent dialogues will be held in smaller venues with smaller groups more differences of opinion will emerge.

2021-08-15 06:54:59205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28415/120

15801960671208572125313394627338383160746642

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión tranformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar, y la interdependencia entre sectores. Además este diálogo tuvo una participación relevante de la Dirección de Atención a Cambio Climático de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER).o Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de diez facilitadores. El equipo de facilitadores estuvo compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), el Instituto Nacional para los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), y la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO). o Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso de la Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asiste en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS).Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos. Esto para monstrar la inclusividad del proceso. Además ha mostrado ser útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239240241243244248249El objetivo general del diálogo fue que los participantes propusieran mecanismos para la articulación desde los recursos genéticos, hasta la comercialización equitativa para una alimentación saludable y sostenible.235238239240241243244248249El grupo coincidió en la necesidad de: • Capacitaciones a productoras/es para garantizar su seguridad alimentaria. • Impulsar el consumo en los mercados locales. • Reducir las cadenas de transporte para lograr distribuciones justas. • La articulación de la academia con los conocimientos tradicionales. • Diseñar e implementar de un plan/proyecto nacional de recursos genéticos, que establezca directrices, un marco legal, y una visión a futuro en cuanto a los recursos que se fomentarán a nivel nacional. • Destacar la agroecología como una respuesta para los sistemas de producción a todos los niveles. • Trabajar por la aprobación de una ley del derecho a la alimentación adecuada, cuya función tiene que ser transformar nuestro sistema agroalimentario. Barreras identificadas para el acceso a recursos genéticos: • Falta de recursos para comprar las semillas de calidad. • Desgaste de los suelos agrícolas. • Falta de reservorios de semillas, por lo que cuando hay alta demanda escasean las semillas y se elevan los precios de venta. • Uso de transgénicos. • Contradicción en los paquetes productivos que se promovieron para el uso de semillas comerciales, no para que los productores conservaran las propias semillas. • Paquetes tecnológicos que incluyen el glisfosfato. • Rentabilidad de la producción: mucha de la gente dejó de sembrar porque es más rentable trabajar en Estados Unidos de América como campesino que en su propio país. • Dependencia externa de los productores para acceder a las semillas. • Falta de extensionistas que apoyen a los pequeños y medianos productores principalmente en el uso de tecnología. • Hay un abandono en el campo: la edad de los productores es de 50-65 años promedio. Propuestas: • Los problemas que se manifiestan a causa del cambio climático. Se mencionaron posibles soluciones: a) Promover la ciencia ciudadana, b) Educación ambiental y concientización sobre esos temas, c) Incentivar y apoyar los proyectos que conserven y protejan la biodiversidad. • Crear fondos de semillas para conservar las semillas de manera local. • Capacitación técnica para ampliar la conservación y vida de las semillas de manera sustentable. • Enfocar los programas públicos al productor comunitario y familiar para mejorar el material genético, para que la semilla se produzca sea de alta calidad, que sean ellos los suministradores de material genético. • Reducir los costos de los traslados mediante la producción local de los alimentos. • Talleres para revivir los procesos tradicionales de cultivo, y conservación de semillas. • Reconocer los derechos a los campesinos e indigenas a los recursos y al territorio mismo, así como en el acceso a las semillas. • Combatir el monopolio sobre la producción de semillas mejoradas por la industria e impulsar la producción de semillas locales. • Fomentar programas de mejoramiento y democratizar acceso a semillas, siempre y cuando éstas sean de calidad, en términos de adaptación en tipos de suelos y que esté contextualizado en un desarrollo rural sustentable para una mejora de la población rural. • Articular y ejecutar la Ley Federal de Protección de Maíz Nativo, así como establecer un programa nacional de producción de semillas en manos campesinas que considere necesidades y producción regional, bajo un marco alimentario nutricional. • Desarrollo de empresas rurales y locales que sean incluyentes y equitativas, sirviendo como plataformas para que las propias comunidades puedan empoderarse a sí mismas. • Producción regionalizada y que existan estudios para retomar conocimientos tradicionales locales más adecuados para cada zona, promocionando productos para su comercialización, sin que exista un privilegio global con ciertos granos. • Vínculo de los sistemas de compras públicas con productores locales.2362382392402432442482491. Verduras y frutas ¿Qué barreras identifican para el acceso de semillas de verduras, frutas y hongos? •Estigmas sobre los quelites, u otras verduras y legumbres, consideradas como alimento para gente de escasos recursos. •Falta de disponibilidad de semillas de calidad y altos costos de las mismas. •Falta de incorporación de frutas y verduras en los desayunos escolares. •Cambio climático. •Falta de difusión de las propiedades nutrimentales de las frutas y verduras. •Gastos de transporte que aumentan los precios de frutas y verduras. •Brechas de acceso por precio y accesibilidad. •La inseguridad, como el narcotráfico, es una gran barrera para la producción de alimentos, y por lo tanto afecta el acceso a semillas, frutas y verduras. •No hay promoción por parte del Estado para impulsar la producción agroecológica. •No hay un conocimiento integrado de cuáles son las variantes que pueden ser cultivadas, por lo que se requiere identificar, caracterizar y registrar las variantes biológicas locales. ¿Cómo articular la producción de verduras, frutas y hongos desde la semilla hasta su acceso justo? •Crear redes de trabajo involucrando a todos los actores de la cadena de valor. •Valorar a los poseedores de conocimientos tradicionales. •Empoderamiento de la mujer, cultural y académicamente, que sea sucesora en los títulos de propiedad. Incluir a Secretaría de Bienestar para ver los mecanismos. •Articulación de los agricultores y sus familias en las cadenas agro industriales. •Transferencia de tecnología, capacitación para articular la producción. •Censo de población de los cultivantes de hongos. •Cadenas cortas y precios justos para los productores. •Programas de apoyo para los pequeños productores y productoras, que en casi todos los casos son independientes y no tienen muchos recursos. •Información dirigida a los consumidores, para que valoren los productos y el esfuerzo que se pone en cada uno de ellos. •Desarrollar mercado de orgánicos, canastas de semillas para acercar las variedades a más productores. •Incentivar redes de producción justa y equitativa. •Ayudar a proporcionar una adecuada infraestructura, como cuartos fríos, transporte, carreteras, trenes, etc. ¿Cómo producir eficientemente, de manera sostenible y saludable, verduras, frutas y hongos para las demandas de la creciente población? •Sistemas de producción diversificados. •Impulso y producción de insumos, incorporación de desperdicios en compostas. •Optimizar el conocimiento científico, tecnológico y de investigación que ya existe. •Aprender a comer alimentos locales y estacionales. •Incentivar la producción familiar. •Atender las problemáticas ambientales como la de los monocultivos. •Es necesario tener una perspectiva del cambio climático así como gestionar los riesgos que existen en las producciones. •Atender las emergencias y crear planes estratégicos para evitar colapsos y crisis en las producciones. •Aprobación la Ley de Variedades Vegetales para garantizar el derecho de los obtentores. •Programas de apoyo económico para transformar los cultivos sustentablemente. •Importancia de considerar infraestructura adecuada para la trasportación de alimentos, ya que no contar con una eficiente cadena de frio provoca pérdidas enormes. ¿Cómo incluir verduras, frutas y hongos para una dieta diversa y saludable en población que vive en zonas marginadas con recursos naturales limitados? •Equipar a las comunidades para la conservación de alimentos. •Fomentar los huertos de traspatio. •Fomentar la diversificación alimenticia con base en los productos regionales, usos y costumbres. •Incluir la producción de alimentos locales. •Otorgar servicios básicos como agua potable y acceso a la electricidad. •Campañas de nutrición en donde se integre todo el conocimiento académico y tradicional. •Reducción de productos procesados, ya que existe una competencia desleal por parte de quienes producen éstos. •Sobre las tiendas de Diconsa, que se deberían establecer más estrategias para ampliar el catálogo de productos por productos saludables, para ello se necesita mejorar las logísticas, y fomentar el consumo de alimentos y productos saludables. •Investigación sobre hongos2362382392402432442482492. Leguminosas, granos y oleaginosas ¿Qué barreras identifican para el acceso de semillas de leguminosas, granos y oleaginosas? •No hay recursos para comprar las semillas, pues tienen un alto costo. •La semilla criolla en muchos lugares ha desaparecido. •El uso de semillas híbridas que desgastan los suelos. •Falta de capacitación técnica para ampliar la vida de las semillas sustentablemente. •La ley proteje las semillas certificadas y se debe legislar por el derecho al productor que pueda producir semillas. •Existe dependencia externa de los productores ya que usan semillas de Monsanto. •Las semillas nativas se han ido desplazando. Los productores se adaptaron a los paquetes tecnológicos y es un reto volver a la producción anterior. •Poco interés gubernamental para apoyar a los productores de escasos recursos. •Se requiere apoyo técnico. Hay mucha curiosidad de los campesinos por conocer nuevas variedades. •Acceso restringido al crédito. •Proceso productivo monopolizado por grandes empresas. ¿Cómo articular la producción de leguminosas, granos y oleaginosas desde la semilla hasta su acceso justo? •Fomentando la producción y consumo local, para reducir los costos. •Impulsando los mercados locales de producción agroecológica. •Diseñando zonas de cultivo, tratar de incentivar a los campesinos a regresar a sembrar. •Diseñando un programa para reaprender la producción a nivel regional •Teniendo un acercamiento con las comunidades, a fin de rescatar el conocimiento tradicional, empoderar comunidades rurales, ser guardianes de semillas, crear sinergias con empresas y productores y centros de investigación para acompañar los procesos de producción. •Hacer alianzas para el financiamiento y crédito. •Políticas públicas diferenciadas por tipo de productor: gran escala, mediana escala y pequeña escala. •Valorar la gastronomía mexicana, a través de ferias de gastronómicas ¿Cómo producir eficientemente, de manera sostenible y saludable, leguminosas, granos y oleaginosas para las demandas de la creciente población? •Reactivar la PRONASE (Productora Nacional de Semillas), pues las semillas están acaparadas por las empresas que trabajan agroquímicos y transgénicos. •Conservación de las semillas nativas y de producción local. •Para contrarrestar la influencia de los transgénicos, se han hecho propuestas de modelos alternativos para evitar su uso ya que son semillas acondicionadas o adictas al uso de agroquímicos. Entre otros problemas, se requiere trabajar en los paquetes tecnológicos que incluyen el glifosato y transformarlos a una visión agroecológica. •La agroecología es una respuesta. El verdadero conocimiento está en los campesinos y todo debe sancionarse bajo el protocolo de Nagoya. •Diversificación de cultivos y consumo. •Apoyar a productores de autoconsumo que requieren semilla. •Crear talleres para trabajar con el productor para hacer un cultivo más sustentable en todo el ciclo. •Cuidar la producción postcosecha. No sólo es producir más sino considerar que hay muchos desperdicios. •Hacer uso eficiente de agua. •Campañas de sensibilización de la población creciente, es importante que se dé a conocer de dónde viene los alimentos. •Apostar por la recuperación de los suelos y la biodiversidad, con un plan nacional para recuperación y regeneración de suelos agrícolas, así como de la propiedad genética de las semillas. No se necesita abrir más tierras para el cultivo, el problema es la falta de acceso para mejorar la producción y comercialización. •Que los programas de gobierno se alineen. ¿Cómo incluir leguminosas, granos y oleaginosas para una dieta diversa y saludable en población que vive en zonas marginadas con recursos naturales limitados? •Ligar la política nacional de compras públicas a la de salud, para que instituciones como SEGALMEX incluyan productos locales y diversos. •Con campañas de difusión y en las escuelas fortalecer su consumo. •Rescatar el consumo y la producción de la tortilla. •Rescatar la diversidad de maíces nativos, utilizar la biodiversidad y procesos de elaboración adecuados, principalmente en la tortilla pero también para otros derivados. •Redes de articulación de mercados regionales.2362382392402432442482493. Recursos genéticos acuícolas, pesqueros e invertebrados ¿Qué barreras identifican para el acceso a recursos genéticos acuícolas y pesqueros? •La barrera principal es la poca accesibilidad a recursos genéticos acuícolas. La mayoría de los que se consiguen son de mala calidad y generan mucha merma y productos inutilizables. •Falta de agencias certificadoras. •Falta de recursos humanos que tengan por objetivo la investigación para el mejoramiento de los recursos genéticos locales. •Falta de un marco legislativo que obligue a los productores/laboratorios de recursos genéticos a certificarse con medidas estrictas para poner al alcance recursos de calidad. ¿Cómo abordar la producción y consumo de insectos comestibles? •El país tiene la ventaja y desventaja de que en algunas regiones existe la cultura de consumo de insectos. No obstante, si se plantea como parte constitutiva del plan alimentario nacional, es necesario llevar a cabo campañas a nivel nacional que fomenten su consumo. •La producción de insectos no se ha desarrollado lo suficiente como para producir en magnitudes comerciales. Por ello, es muy caro y se consume poco. •Si se desarrollan los insectos como recurso genético alimentario, es necesario hacerlo a nivel regional, aprovechando las zonas de consumo y evitando introducir nuevas especies en regiones en las que pueden ser dañinas para el entorno. ¿Cómo articular los recursos genéticos acuícolas y pesqueros desde su producción hasta su acceso justo? •Fomentando el extensionismo para impulsar que las nuevas tecnologías, capacitaciones y nuevos conocimientos se compartan y acompañen directamente a los productores. •Diseñando e implementando un un programa/ plan nacional de recursos genéticos, cuyos lineamientos estén encaminados hacia un fin ulterior en función de objetivos a corto, mediano y largo plazo. Este plan necesita tomar en cuenta los recursos genéticos locales, los recursos genéticos externos que forman parte del alimento común del mexicano, y los recursos genéticos que se exportan y representan un ingreso para muchos productores. A partir de este plan, los diferentes actores y agentes podrán seguir una línea establecida. ¿Cómo producir eficientemente, de manera sostenible y saludable, productos acuícolas y pesqueros para las demandas de la creciente población? •Haciendo que las capacitaciones y conocimiento lleguen a los productores, no se queden sólo en la academia. •Fomentando el consumo de organismos no depredadores y que tengan poco impacto o bien un impacto positivo en el entorno, como es el caso de los moluscos y las algas. •Tomando en cuenta el contexto climático que existirá en el futuro a causa del cambio climático. •Pagando justamente las producciones que respetan el medio ambiente, de lo contrario siempre se optará por producir de manera no sustentable. Precio justo a buenos productores.2362382392402432442482494. Recursos pecuarios ¿Qué barreras identifican para el acceso a la carne y otros productos pecuarios? •El ingreso económico de las personas limita su poder adquisitivo. •Oleada de veganismo, en contra de todo producto animal. •El costo de producción es caro, así como acceso al agua y alimentos como el forraje. •Para los genotipos industriales se requiere la importación de ingredientes. •La población prefiere adquirir sus productos en tiendas de supermercado, hay una creciente indiferencia por los productos elaborados artesanalmente. ¿Cómo articular la producción de carne y otros productos pecuarios desde su producción hasta su acceso justo? •Apoyando los mercados locales y regionales. •Integrando el sistema de producción de carne, para disminuir la presencia de intermediarios. •Buscando que la producción no sea extensiva e intensiva para cubrir la demanda a corto plazo. Necesita ser sustentable como los sistemas silvopastoriles. •Promoviendo la participación de los actores locales en la distribución de los productos. •Creando segmentos de mercados regionales, para articular la producción y comercialización a nivel regional. ¿Cómo asegurar la cacería sostenible en comunidades rurales? •Aprovechando la creación de las Unidades para la Conservación, Manejo y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Vida Silvestre (UMAs), y apoyando la organización de los productores para obtener autorizaciones. •SEMARNAT juega un papel fundamental en la cacería comercial con animales de mucho valor, donde se hace el conteo de cuáles están en exceso, existen cintillos que se venden para cazadores profesionales en el país. •Impulsando un proceso educativo en las comunidades para que se hagan los proyectos de manera adecuada. •Fomentando ranchos para la cacería, como en Tamaulipas, Sonora, y Nuevo León. Al estar reguladas por UMAS y SEMARNAT se asegura que no exista un abuso. •Se propone que en áreas rurales se implementen programas para el manejo, producción y reproducción de animales de traspatio para consumo humano y así obtener los nutrientes de origen animal, esto sumado con una educación en temas ambientales. ¿Cómo producir eficientemente, de manera sostenible y saludable, carne y otros productos pecuarios para las demandas de la creciente población? •Promoviendo la ganadería de traspatio y el empleo de animales criollos. •Revisando la normatividad para mejorar las condiciones de competencia de los productores artesanales. •Evitando especies invasoras, y buscando sistemas integrados para que los residuos puedan ser iniciadores de otra producción y sustentabilidad. •La organización de los productores es vital, para poder formar grupos de trabajo y abatir los costos. Así se puede entrar a economías de escala. La atomización aumenta los costos, el 78% de los productores tiene menos de 35 unidades de animal. •Integrando el trabajo de las diversas dependencias (Salud, Economía, Agricultura, etc;) para promover la salud en general y aprovechar la tecnología que se está generando como resultado de los trabajos de investigación. •Empleando los empadres cortos en animales ya que es una tecnología que se ha desaprovechado y muy poco se utiliza. •Fomentando el extensionismo rural desde los diferentes niveles de gobierno para promover la tecnología en la producción pecuaria. Las universidades no son suficientes para realizar las acciones de extensionismo que se requieren en el país. •Definiendo el término eficiencia ¿es una mayor producción con un menor costo? o ¿es producción con menor impacto ambiental? ¿Cómo incluir el consumo de carne y otros productos pecuarios para una dieta diversa y saludable en población que vive en zonas marginadas con recursos naturales limitados? •Promover la ganadería de traspatio en diferentes especies. •Promover el consumo de productos de origen animal “alternativos” como el conejo y las codornices. •Incorporar lombricultura al traspatio. Así, se puede crear un ecosistema que crea proteína para gallinas y aseguras el abastecimiento de carne y huevo. •Promover una ganadería diversificada, apoyo técnico en la conservación. •Generar mecanismos de comercialización local. •Recurrir al consumo de insectos.237238239240243244248249•Se comentó que una crítica de esta Cumbre es de favorecer la idea de producir con tecnología y mucha maquinaría para atender las demandas de la población, cuando no debería de ser así. •Hubo divergencia al intentar señalar las causas de que el consumo de insectos no sea una práctica ampliamente difundida por la nación. Unos señalaron que la razón de ello es cultural, es decir, que no existe el hábito y la costumbre de consumir insectos. Otros, por otro lado, señalaron que es debido a su alto precio en el mercado, el cual se debe a la falta de desarrollo e investigación para producir a niveles comerciales. •Se presentó un disenso sobre la repercusión ambiental, específicamente en el alto consumo de agua que se utiliza en la producción de carne de bovino. Dejando entrever que sí se puede presentar esta repercusión al ambiente sobre todo por parte de los grandes productores. •Algunas personas estuvieron de acuerdo en bloquear el acceso de productos para que la comida chatarra no pueda ser vendida en ciertas zonas. Sobre esta opinión hubo polémicas y un pequeño debate. Otras personas pensaban que todos y todas tenemos derecho a adquirir un producto y eso no era una buena idea, pero lo que sí se podía hacer, era asegurar y proteger la soberanía alimentaria para que la compra de esos productos se viera reducida. •Sobre el etiquetado también hubo algunas opiniones en contra y a favor, para algunos participantes es un gran comienzo, pero para algunos hace falta un reforzamiento de esta campaña, acompañado de asesorías e información que se pueda difundir acerca de lo que realmente causan esos productos. •Aunque no hubo conflicto, sí hubo disenso sobre la necesidad de invertir en ciencia y tecnología a fin de crear organismos resistentes al cambio climático y, por otro lado, hubo comentarios en contra ya que consideran que la privatización del alimento por empresas como Monsanto y Bayer (líderes en semillas modificadas) pone en riesgo la autosuficiencia alimentaria. •Sobre la operación de las tiendas de Diconsa, hubo disenso sobre si pertenecen o no a la comunidad, por lo que se argumentó que pueden incluir más productos en su catálogo sin la aprobación de la comunidad.

2021-08-15 07:17:20205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39548/120

1150124646925360236102271851111611132136147111221131546

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión transformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa, sostenible y competitiva para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar, y la interdependencia entre sectores.o Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de doce facilitadores. El equipo de facilitadores está compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), el Instituto Nacional para los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), y el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF). o Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso de la Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asiste en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS).Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos. Esto para mostrar la inclusividad del proceso. Además ha sido útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239240241243244246248249El objetivo del Diálogo fue obtener propuestas que puedan servir a la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores para la participación de México para la Cumbre Mundial de Sistemas Alimentarios.235238239240241243244246248249El grupo coincidió en la necesidad de: •Enfatizar la importancia de la investigación científica y su financiamiento. •Contemplar el cambio climático. •Incluir la agricultura resiliente y la agroecología. •Mencionar la importancia de las cadenas cortas de mercado con productos locales saludables. •Crear alianzas para impulsar sistemas agroalimentarios alternativos. •Reafirmar posturas como el rechazo a ciertos tipos de acuerdos que patentan las variedades genéticas. •Incluir el reconocimiento e inclusión al trabajo de las mujeres. •Sumarse al Acuerdo de París y al Acuerdo de Escazú. •Pensar en los recursos como elementos finitos, siendo difícil reproducirlos en condiciones de violencia, deterioro y explotación. •Destacar lo importante de los conocimientos locales y la cultura desarrollada en el contexto de estos ambientes naturales. •Incluir un enfoque de derechos: medioambiente sano, salud, alimentación y territorio. •Enfatizar que la salud ambiental y la salud humana, la justicia social, la alimentación deben estar contemplados de manera integral. •Llevar a la cumbre la narrativa de que se debe privilegiar los derechos humanos ante los intereses económicos, ya que el derecho a una alimentación sana debe ser vista desde una perspectiva de derecho humano. •Tomar acciones para que las empresas transnacionales se hagan responsables de su actuar y el gobierno desarrolle acuerdos con éstas y aplique obligaciones tajantes al respecto. •Considerar la participación del sector privado. •Retomar como prioridad el proceso organizativo de la pequeña y mediana escala, ya que las organizaciones impulsan de manera central los sistemas agroalimentarios. •Impulsar los compromisos hacia el financiamiento de los productores para la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios. •Transitar a la alimentación sostenible, justa y nutritiva, con compromiso de evitar el uso de transgénicos, con base en los alimentos tradicionales. •Trabajar en educación nutricional. •Crear un esquema de fondeo internacional (coalición) para la producción alternativa-sana, contra los alimentos chatarra. •Fortalecer la agricultura familiar, muchas veces en desventaja por no tener acceso a los mecanismos de comercialización de los productos.2362382392402412432442462482491. SECTOR AGRÍCOLA 1.1 ¿Considera que hizo falta algún elemento prioritario en el resumen de los Diálogos? •Mayor fomento y apoyo al uso de huertos familiares y rompimiento del intermedialis-mo innecesario en la comercialización de productos agrícolas. •No se aborda el tema de la agroecología como principio de producción sustentable frente a la agricultura de revolución verde, •No hay una línea que se enfoque en el crecimiento productivo, es un propósito esen-cial, y no se detallan acciones concretas para que el crecimiento se traduzca en bie-nestar. •Uso racional de los recursos naturales con la visión, reconversión de cultivos, reno-vación de suelos y mantos acuíferos. •Las dietas alimentarias promovidas a escala regional estén soportadas en la disponi-bilidad y accesibilidad de alimentos, de tal manera que las metas sean alcanzables. •Se mencionó que es necesario destacar la propuesta de transición proteica como respuesta a la crisis alimentaria y sanitaria por la COVID-19, y para hacer frente al calentamiento global. •Falta hablar sobre la accesibilidad de los productos saludables y orgánicos. •Mencionar la Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable que sigue vigente en México, ya que tiene conceptos necesarios para hacer frente a las problemáticas del sistema agroalimentario. •No hay una instancia que articule todos los programas sustantivos, ni se habla de al-guna propuesta sobre este tema. Se necesita crear integralidad entre dependencias y entidades de la administración pública nacional e instituciones internacionales. 1.2 De acuerdo con lo que se compartió en el resumen de los Diálogos anteriores, ¿cuáles son las prioridades más relevantes para el sector agrícola en los próximos tres años para avan-zar hacia un sistema agroalimentario saludable, justo, sostenible y competitivo? •Diferenciación entre pequeños y medianos productores en la agricultura general, ca-pacitación y educación es un tema estructural y prioritario. •Cambios en el sistema educativo con recursos para los productores pequeños para disminuir la importación de granos. •Indispensable transitar hacia modelos agroecológicos. •Políticas integrales, más que solo el enfoque a programas prioritarios. •Definición de la instancia que será la responsable de armar el “rompecabezas” entre dependencias y entidades para contar con una posición conjunta. •Priorizar el tema de la comercialización y mercados alternativos. •Destacar el tema de regularización de precios justos y condiciones saludables y sa-nitarias. •Priorizar la gestión de la reducción de las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos. •Trabajar por orientar la producción hacia el mercado interno, para apoyar a los pro-ductores del país. •Importancia de aumentar la resiliencia del sistema agroalimentario. •Falta modificar las leyes para que las mujeres y jóvenes tengan acceso a la tierra. •Políticas públicas regionalizadas y no generalizada para todo el territorio nacional. 1.3 ¿Qué oportunidades en la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios identifica que no podríamos lograr en el sector agrícola desde propuestas nacionales? •Controlar la intromisión de las grandes empresas transnacionales de alimentos en México, mismas que afectan en gran medida a productores nacionales. •Mecanismos jurídicos vinculantes. •Se señaló que se puede compartir mejores prácticas internacionales y experiencias locales exitosas. •Nuevos esquemas de financiamiento con instituciones internacionales. •Que se generen coaliciones para cambiar el sistema alimentario.2362382392402412432442462482492. CUIDADO DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE EN EL SISTEMA AGROALIMENTARIO 2.1 ¿Considera que hizo falta algún elemento prioritario en el resumen de los Diálogos? •Enfatizar sobre la importancia de la investigación científica y su financiamiento. •Hacer mención del cambio climático, y sus retos en el corto y mediano plazo. •Resaltar la necesidad de reducir los plaguicidas y que los residuos peligrosos tengan un manejo adecuado. •Mencionar el fortalecimiento de las políticas relacionadas con el uso del glifosato y oponerse a las transgénicos. •Reforzar la perspectiva del derecho a la alimentación. •Destacar que la agricultura familiar, y la pequeña y mediana producción son las que pueden aportar la producción de una alimentación saludable y sostenible. •Destacar que la innovación tecnológica necesita considerar los saberes locales y ancestrales. •Resaltar el problema de un campo envejecido, y tener consideraciones especiales para jóvenes ya que el campo requiere de transición generacional. •Incluir acciones para que el consumidor conozca el impacto ambiental que producen sus alimentos. •Hacer uso de lenguaje incluyente, necesitamos reconocer la labor de las mujeres en la agricultura, en el comercio y en el campo. •Hablar sobre la piratería de los conocimientos tradicionales y el pago justo a campe-sinos. •Resaltar los derechos de las comunidades indígenas y campesinas. •Señalar que se requiere una agricultura resiliente, integrada por sistemas alimenta-rios agroecológicos, pero de cadena corta. •Incluir elementos sólidos sobre la protección para las semillas. •Destacar el cuidado del agua, de su uso y no contaminación, uso eficiente y accesi-bilidad. 2.2 De acuerdo con lo que se compartió en el resumen de los Diálogos anteriores, ¿cuáles son las prioridades más relevantes para el cuidado del medio ambiente en el sistema agroalimen-tario en los próximos tres años para avanzar hacia un sistema agroalimentario saludable, justo, sostenible y competitivo? •Una estrategia emergente para recuperar la fertilidad del suelo, fuera de agroquími-cos y agrotóxicos. •Una estrategia para fomentar la producción de semillas nacionales asegurando que mantengan el control de estos reservorios. •Seguimiento al Decreto contra el uso de glifosato y la siembra de maíz transgénico. •Proteger las semillas nativas. •Optar por los sistemas circulares. •Atender la crisis hídrica, ya que es la base de todos los sistemas. •Suficiente agua para consumo ya que es un derecho humano y en algunas comuni-dades ya no hay agua potable segura para consumo. •Que las mujeres tengan posesión legal sobre la tierra y sean tomadoras de decisio-nes. •Acabar con los intermediarios. •Impulsar políticas públicas que ayuden a la regeneración del tejido comunitario. •Impulsar la agricultura regenerativa. •La claridad del vínculo entre los ecosistemas y el entorno, fundamental en el respeto al aspecto cultural. •Incluir la protección del ambiente y la salud humana para la alimentación. •La importancia del policultivo y la visión holística para promover las vocaciones re-gionales. 2.3 ¿Qué oportunidades en la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios identifica que no podríamos lograr en el cuidado del medio ambiente desde propuestas nacionales? •Creemos que debe haber un viraje serio de la política internacional, sobre los mode-los de producción en el campo. •La declaración debe ser firme sobre el tránsito hacia sistemas sostenibles. •Denunciar las políticas diferenciadas entre los países dónde en unos no se permite el uso de agrotóxicos mientras que en otros sí. •La seguridad de la tierra para las mujeres. •Acciones sobre producción y cambio climático. •Que las grandes trasnacionales sacrifiquen sus sistemas productivos para migrar a sistemas agroecológicos.2362382392402412432442462482493. NUTRICIÓN Y SALUD 3.1 ¿Considera que hizo falta algún elemento prioritario en el resumen de los Diálogos? •Hacer mención sobre los entornos alimentarios en específico los ambientes escola-res. •Especificar todas las regulaciones que son necesarias para mejorar los sistemas alimentarios. •Incluir la perspectiva de género no sólo a partir de las mujeres rurales productoras de alimentos (que sí es muy relevante), pero también el papel de las mujeres en toda la cadena de los sistemas alimentarios. •Incluir en el resumen garantizar la alimentación en situaciones de emergencia. •Enfatizar la promoción de la transición hacia modelos de producción agroecológica. •Impulsar un modelo de alimentación culturalmente pertinente, además de saludable, y sostenible. •Promover una pedagogía intercultural, escuchando a la gente desde su diversidad y cosmovisión, y construyendo con ella las alternativas. •Resaltar y promover el consumo de alimentos de los sistemas tradicionales de pro-ducción. •Retomar propuestas sobre cómo se lograría una mayor disponibilidad y accesibilidad de los alimentos mínimamente procesados. •Incorporar explícitamente acciones relacionadas con la garantía del derecho al agua. •Incorporar la alimentación escolar, especialmente el acceso de alimentos regionales. •Enfatizar en las acciones para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria en medio de un contexto crítico de cambio. •Considerar los productos de acuicultura y pesca artesanal como parte de las fuentes de nutrición importantes. •Incluir a la empresa socialmente responsable para priorizar el tema de salud y nutri-ción. •Que la ciencia mida los impactos de toda acción que se genere para dar seguimiento a las políticas o a la implementación de estas. •Mecanismos específicos de participación. 3.2 De acuerdo con lo que se compartió en el resumen de los Diálogos anteriores, ¿cuáles son las prioridades más relevantes para favorecer la nutrición y la salud de la población en los próximos tres años? •Gobernanza desde dos perspectivas: 1) salvaguardas al conflicto de interés 2) de-mocratizar la participación. •Medidas para asegurar la disponibilidad de alimentos saludables incluida el agua po-table. •Priorizar las estrategias y políticas con sustento en la evidencia científica. •Las frutas y verduras sin agroquímicos como prioridad. •Fortalecimiento de la soberanía alimentaria y las dietas/alimentos tradicionales. •Producción agroecológica y sistemas de producción campesinos. •Campañas para la promoción de alimentos sanos locales. •Alinear los acuerdos de la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios con los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS). •Resaltar las estrategias de comunicación para los cambios a dietas saludables y sostenibles. •Estrategias específicas para que la población enfrente exitosamente los ambientes obesogénicos externos y en la familia, por ejemplo la creación de grupos de auto-ayuda. •Darle importancia a la alimentación en los primeros 1000 días de vida, la lactancia materna como el primer sistema alimentario. 3.3 ¿Qué oportunidades en la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios identifica que no podríamos lograr para la nutrición y la salud de la población desde propuestas nacionales? •Hacer coaliciones con países alineados al respeto a los derechos humanos e intere-sados por la salud. Se puede crear una Comisión Internacional donde OMS, FAO, Organización Panamericana de la Salud, Derechos Humanos y Cambio climático im-pulsen la educación nutricional. •Construir una narrativa que favorezca la salud y la vida sobre intereses económicos. Se debe trabajar internacionalmente con la intervención de los organismos internacionales para reducir la especulación de los precios de los alimentos de la manera como se planteó para los medicamentos post- pandemia. •Compromiso internacional de mirar los sistemas alimentarios desde un enfoque de derechos, desde la producción hasta el consumo. •Mecanismo internacional vinculante para prevenir el conflicto de interés. •Compromiso internacional para prohibir progresivamente la fabricación y uso de glifosato (entre otros agrotóxicos) a favor de la salud humana y ambiental.237238239240241243244246248249•Nunca se mencionó que se necesitaba un compromiso del gobierno, no se menciona en el documento que la declaratoria tiene un enfoque de derecho a la alimentación y de soberanía alimentaria, no se mencionó la desarticulación de las leyes actuales. Es necesaria una transformación del sistema agroalimentario, pero el resumen no recogió estas opiniones y tampoco se tomó en cuenta la agroecología como factor de cambio y reestructuración del sector. Algunos mencionaron que falta el compromiso del gobierno nacional para financiar la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios. •Se afirmó que el interés por incorporar a nuestro país acuerdos como el de UPOV91 es externo. Es decir, que no es interés de México, por lo que se requiere de acciones urgentes para poder defender a los campesinos y garantizar su derecho a la no privatización de los alimentos con la incorporación de transgénicos, ya que esta postura no se menciona hacia afuera de nuestro país y esta discusión sólo se queda dentro sin repercusión. •Se mencionó que es necesario cambiar nuestra forma de consumir y producir, así como reajustar las estrategias desde lo local para influenciar hacia los grandes capitalistas y poder cambiar las estrategias de comunicación desde los consumidores para rescatar las técnicas tradicionales y otros modelos productivos. •Algunos participantes opinaron sobre que la Cumbre está coartada por grandes empresas trasnacionales, por lo que éstas deben "sacar las manos" de la Cumbre para que puedan ser los productores quienes tengan la posibilidad de decidir sobre la mejora en sus condiciones de vida.

2021-08-15 08:20:17205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2551/39

90

This was a stage 3 event to finalise the draft roadmap and take feedback from stakeholders after circulation of the draft. The meeting was chaired by the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and attended by many officials and representatives of donors, UN, civil society and business. The event was run according to formal procedures. The endorsement of the draft is a formal process in itself and there were opportunities to submit comments in writing or during the meeting. Many ministry representatives used this opportunity to express their views.The format of the dialogue reflected the formalities required for comment by ministries and institutions and development partners and for endorsement. After the presentation of the Roadmap there was opportunity for comment and prior to the event the document was circulated to collected any comments in writing. By these mechanisms there were final opportunities for stakeholders to contribute to the draft Roadmap.Anticipate the processes required to obtain endorsements for the Roadmap and consider how to build a consensus and agreement on the the national directions without curtailing opportunities to discuss issues remaining and trade-off situations in the future. Assure participants that the dialogue does not end with the Summit and set up the architecture for this dialogue to continue.

NoThis was the final meeting of the broad stakeholder group to consider the draft Roadmap and the formal process involved did not allow for small group discussion and reporting back to a plenary.

234238239240241242244246248249251The focus of this dialogue was on gaining consensus around the vision and the four main themes for the Roadmap and the commitments supporting the recommended actions. The collective vision proposed was: By 2030, all Cambodians will have access to healthy diets and safe food, with an initial focus on women and children to break the intergenerational cycle of malnutrition and attention to the nutrition transition. Food systems will nourish Cambodia’s population, strengthen local production and distribution, offer equitable livelihoods especially for youth, be resilient to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses, steward the environment, and help mitigate the effects of climate change by shifting the system towards green growth . This vision will be achieved by 2030, by expanding access to health and nutrition services, providing social assistance and education, and ensuring that agriculture and food value chains are productive, sustainable, support healthy diets and provide job opportunities for the poor and vulnerable. A major driver of advancing agricultural production and food systems in Cambodia lies in innovation, and investments for digitization and modern technologies across the food systems. The four main themes were: • Healthy diets for all: Cambodia will work across key sectors to ensure that healthy diets and safe foods are accessible to all, especially for women and children, to address all forms of malnutrition. Achieving this objective requires multi-sectoral actions including the provision of food security, expansion of access to health and nutrition services, consumer awareness and education, diverse, inclusive and competitive food value chains; healthy food environments, and food safety; clean water, sanitation and good hygiene through awareness raising and enhancement of quality systems; and the provision of social assistance. • Youth and Women’s empowerment in Cambodia’s food systems: Cambodia will work towards the elimination of child labor, promotion of gender equality, decent employment, enterprise development and the creation of job opportunities for youth and women in the food system. Cambodia will continue to engage youth, promote their understanding of food systems and the importance of healthy diets, equipping them to become agents of change. • Resilient livelihoods and resilient food systems: Cambodia will address chronic and compounding vulnerabilities to strengthen the resilience of individuals, households, and communities, and for producers, SMEs, industry and food system infrastructure to human and climate related shocks and stresses. In addition, it will improve the potential of food systems to adapt to and mitigate climate change, natural disasters or extreme events. • Governance for a more inclusive food system: Based on the successful facilitation of the national food systems dialogues, Cambodia will continue to open the door for multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral dialogue, coordination, and collaboration to make planning and implementation processes more inclusive and participatory. These processes will be promoted at both national and sub-national level, and include collaboration between academia, the private sector, civil society, development partners and government. To succeed, we must work together, across sectors and stakeholders at national and sub-national level, to create multiplier effects for poverty reduction, ending malnutrition and hunger, and protecting our environment. Most importantly, we will engage and include voices of the youth, consumers and producers, women, ethnic minorities, and the most vulnerable to shape the food system of tomorrow, for a healthier population, planet, and equitable economy and prosperity.235238239240241242243244245246248249251The main findings or outcomes of this event were in the form of endorsement of the draft Roadmap by the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. He made recommendations for all stakeholders to adhere to the approach and advised that the directions and commitments for the MAFF will soon be released in the Agricultural Sector Master Plan 2030. He asked that stakeholders speed up implementation of the changes required in the next 2 to 3 years and that more research should be directed into identifying priority measures for sustainability, and for medium and longer term measures to strengthen the resilience of food systems and to promote innovation, both during and post-COVID-19. The Minister for the MAFF suggested a comprehensive review to identify options and solutions to problems, by thinking strategically about food security and nutrition nd economic growth , to support the nation as it progresses to upper middle income status so as to fruitfully implement the Roadmap. The Roadmap is intended to consistent with existing legal instruments such as the 2nd National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition 2019-2023 and designed to achieve food and nutrition security for a growing population as well as a foundation for economic growth. The Secretary of State representing the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Supreme National Economic Council highly commended the Roadmap and also made a number of suggestions. He felt that the focus on food systems and agriculture reflected the key role of agricultural production and the priorities of the Royal Government of Cambodia. He suggested that the vision should reflect both domestic and export interests for rice and other products and emphasise not only the national importance of the food system but to highlight the growing importance of regional and international trade. He suggested that food systems are not just for vulnerable households and that more emphasis should be given to consumers broadly and to the generation of income. He also stressed the importance of diversification of food systems in the Roadmap and the need to incorporate consideration of investments in the development of infrastructure for improved food systems. Finally he pointed to the need to take into account environment so that increased production did not come at the expense of greater chemical use with accompanying dangers to the environment and to human health. He urged that the roadmap must pay more attention to environmental protection. His comments were backed by another representative of SNEC who asked that the narrow emphasis on nutrition and food quality should not dominate the importance of a sufficiency of food and the creation of emergency reserves of food. He also suggested more attention to the potential for digitalisation for supply chain management and investment purposes within food systems. The Secretary of State representing the Ministry of Innovation, Science, Technology and Industry also expressed full support the draft. He asked that the sources for the data concerning levels of malnutrition be reviewed, asked that the terms social transformation and social change not be used since these have undesirable connotations for Khmer people. He also requested that the call to eliminate child labour should be removed since this implies that there is child labour, The Youth representative asked that youth be recognised for the commitment to mobilise awareness about food security and nutrition. The National Committee for Sub-national Democratic Development recommended that there must be more consensus nationally to avoid confusion at the sub-national level, to ensure that national policies aligned with D&D frameworks and to ensure that there is capacity for sub-national level to implement the policies. There should be a clearer division of labour between the national and sub-national level. The Ministry of Planning commented that Cambodia was lagging behind other countries in fortification despite the potential benefits. He called on agencies concerned and the MEF and MAFF to support further fortification efforts. The Ministry of Women's Affairs asked that Priority 2 be reworded to add women and vulnerable groups into the title and associated activities . Other speakers asked that there be good follow-up to the Summit to ensure the necessary laws and regulations and guidelines are in place for food systems improvement so as to ensure fruitful implementation. More attention is needed to consider the pre-conditions to achieve the goal and to educate all parents, youth and consumers about the importance of healthy diets and safe food. .In addition, an NGO representative asked that a policy incentive be considered to operationalise the objectives relating to more resilient livelihoods and resilient food systems by offering the private sector incentives to deliver on the green growth and to promote opportunities for women women in agri-food value chains because they tend to be hit hardest by climate change. The UNICEF Representative endorsed the Roadmap, including the four priorities and made the commitment of UNICEF for ongoing actions and especially asked that attention be given to sustainable financing for nutrition and for support to the National Roadmap for the Global Plan of Action for the prevention and treatment of wasting. Responsibilities for incorporating the changes were allocated and the participants were asked to further consider the requirement for M&E for implementation of the roadmap.237238239241242246250251There was some evidence of differences in the weighting that should be given to different perspectives, including in the emphasis given to nutrition and food quality as opposed to production quantities; the emphasis on the vulnerable as opposed to economic growth, enterprise; and trade; on the need to consider physical infrastructure to support food system improvements; and on existence or otherwise of child labour.

2021-08-15 08:21:03205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39520/163

11164651111

The dialogue started with a short introduction of the United Nations Food Systems Summit as part of a global initiative to transform and add more value and equity to the world food systems and to deliver the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 2, and the need to build a more robust food and nutrition security and sovereignty ecosystem. The participants were briefed about the strategy of involvement and participation in the form of broad spectrum national dialogues to harvest inputs to articulate the changes that must happen to the current food system at country level. The participants were guided to complete the UNFSS assigned Attendance Form during which time the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement were elaborated to provide a framework for convergence to purpose. The introduction concluded with a short presentation about Seychelles’ current food system that was built from secondary data to provide a clear picture of the current state of affairs and to provide the participants with some background information as thought and discussion starters.The relevant principles were intentionally repeated throughout the Dialogue to instill a sense of purpose and to encourage the participants to deeply reflect about the principles as motivational anchor points and drivers that underpin the change and transformation process that would be required to build a robust food defense strategy at country level.The seven Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement could evolve to become a generic/global framework of core values and principles with potential for inclusion in all Member States food defense strategy. This could become one of the strand (in the mix of strands) to self-perpetuate the longevity of the United Nations Food Systems Summit strategic intent.

Yes

234242246249The title of the subtheme of the forth Dialogue was “From policy to legal instrument. Is there a need to elevate the food and nutrition security policy to the status of a legal instrument?” The rationale to address the subtheme from policy to legal instrument is rooted in the need to have some form of consistency in policy objectives and some aspects of the strategic choices that underpin the controlled transformation of any system that spans a significant period of time. Therefore, the purpose of the Dialogue was to have a deep dive conversation with the representatives of the people to pulse their position, opinion and reasoning.235242246249The eleven Members of the National Assembly who took part in the Dialogue expressed their unanimous support for the global initiative to rethink and transform the food systems to deliver the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 2 and to build a more robust food defense strategy for Seychelles. They showed their concerns with regard to the gaps that exist between the local food production capacity and the total volume of food consumed. They also expressed their intention to get closer to the agriculture sector and to help drive the imperative of food and nutrition security and sovereignty. They debated at length on the merits of elevating pivotal policy objectives and strategic choices in the form of a legal instrument. There was bipartisan alignment and agreement in favour of the proposal to draft a food defense bill to ensure adherence to plan and policy continuity. The issue of what form of taxation policy should be applied to the agriculture sector was also debated. There was a general agreement that the sector activities should be taxed but a different taxation regime must be formulated and applied in synergy with the food self-sufficiency objectives. Another subject that was discussed was the need to review the investment strategy to ensure that the sector receives a yearly minimum amount of investment to fund the sector CAPEX. They argued that this approach would facilitate sector development planning.236242246249The Members of the National Assembly made the following recommendations: The Ministry with portfolio responsibility for food and nutrition security and sovereignty is welcome to present the food system transformation policy and strategy to the National Assembly for final discussion, alignment and consolidation. The Executive should seriously reflex on and consider the proposal to formulate a food defense bill. The Executive should consider an investment model based on a percentage of the sector contribution to GDP. There was a recommendation that the minimum investment should be 10% of the sector contribution to the country GDP. The Executive should consider investing 25% of the annual sector investment budget in turn-key farms that would be allocated to young farmers. There was a call for the establishment of an innovation trust fund that would drive sector innovation and transfer of technology similar to the SeyCCAT investment model. There was a strong recommendation to formulate a separate taxation regime for agricultural activities to avoid the risk of taxation being seen as a growth barrier to the sector. There was strong support in favour of a flat single digit taxation rate on profit before tax. It was also suggested the specific regulations that regulate food standard and advertising should be reviewed to protect consumers from food additives and rogue advertisement and promotion.

2021-08-15 08:51:06205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39347/119

70052050255742135194101510223105204403153

Food Systems Summit provide an opportunity for diverse, purposeful and respectful exchanges between food systems stakeholders, at all times taking into account the Principles of Engagement of the Food Systems Summit. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities that bring in diverse perspectives, including indigenous knowledge, cultural insights and science-based evidence to enable stakeholders to understand and assess potential trade-offs and to design policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. Both at the launch and during the various phases of consultations with stakeholders, all participants respected the principles of engagement defined for the UNFSS.Act with urgency: We recognize the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Commit to the Summit: We commit to practice what we preach personally and professionally to contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. Be respectful: Within our respective capacities and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures, contexts. Recognize complexity: We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Complement the work of others: Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with, amplifies and accelerates these efforts where practicable, avoiding unnecessary duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches that deliver systems-level transformation in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives. Build trust: We will work to ensure the Summit and associated engagement process will promote trust and increase motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement and implementation. We – from member states to private businesses to individual actors – will hold ourselves accountable for commitments made with mechanisms in place to uphold this accountability.

No1 Launch of the National Dialogue A ceremony marked the launching of the National Dialogue under the chairmanship of the Honourable Maneesh Gobin, Minister of Agro-Industry and Food Security, designated by the Government of the Republic of Mauritius as convenor, and her Excellency Christine Umutoni, United Nations Resident Coordinator for Mauritius and Seychelles, whose office is responsible to facilitate the consultation. The launching, organized jointly by their services, was done simultaneously with the launch of the Green Recovery Fund of the PAGE coalition. 2 Preparation of the Dialogue In the days following the launching, a series of working meetings between the organizers and facilitators of the Dialogues: • members of the team of the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator for Republic of Mauritius and Republic of Seychelles, in charge of facilitating coordination, starting with the Consultant recruited for this purpose • executive of the Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security • representative of the Food and Agricultural Research & Extension Institute (FAREI) and the main executives in charge of sectoral development within this body, in charge of the technical assistance of the Dialogue 2.1 Themes of the sessions: - Waste (special workshop as part of launching) - Crops - Livestock - Agro processing value addition - Whole value chain along the food system (production, storage, transformation, transport distribution, reuse) - Fisheries - Youth Innovation (online symposium for International Youth Day : Youth Innovation for Human and Planetary Health) 2.2 Cross-cutting issues : - Links to or dependence on imports (e.g., supporting local production, but in the same time importing competing products). Import substitution - Link between the situation, prospects, and policy - Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) and the Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) for Rodrigues Island as a strategy for local development - Food waste - Sustainability - Adaptation and mitigation to climate change - Youth and community engagement - Gender dimension - Poverty attenuation - Labor issues 2.3 Groups of stakeholders (Mauritius and Rodrigues) at all levels of the food chain - Assemble list of stakeholders of producers, consumers, policy makers that include selected producers, agro-processors, association of Mauritian manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chamber of Agriculture, NGOs, other civil society organizations (including youth organizations), academics (including students in agriculture) … 3. Consultation sessions Roadmap for the different consultations: • An explanatory and engaged speech by the Minister concerning the challenges linked with the transformation of food systems. Focus was placed on reducing dependency on agricultural imports to meet food self-sufficiency, with the motto: “We have to produce what we eat and to eat what we produce” • An introductory word from the representative of the UN RCO; • A presentation by CEO of the FAREI executives on the actual situation and strategic issues of the sector as well as elements of the Mauritian food system specific which the session of the day. It should be noted that these presentations are fully aligned with the priorities established by FAO in the latest version of the Country Programming Framework • Moderation and facilitation of the dialogue was conducted jointly by the Assistant Director of the FAREI and the Consultant of the UN RCO

2341. Crop Production Crop Production in Mauritius was described as being a difficult sector. All were agreeable that the high dependency on food imports need to be reduced and there was need to boost local production through government incentives, grants and schemes to promote crop production. The numerous constraints and challenges of the sector were enumerated. Participants also voiced out their frustrations and expectations from government authorities. Organic agriculture and production our own seeds should be among government priorities. 2. Agro-processing Actually, the agro-processing sector is facing many challenges including the irregular supply as well as the quality of raw materials at competitive prices. Other constraints include the high cost of production and equipment, difficulty to comply with food safety and quality assurance system, limited market access, especially during the covid pandemic, the tourist market (hotel and catering industry) is dire. Eventually, our food needs is satisfied by local production (55%), of which only 50% uses locally sourced raw materials. The entrepreneurship spirit, the know-how, and the technical and financial support are available. However, much more need to be done. Agro-processing has been performed since a long time, mostly at a small and medium scale, targeting niche markets in some instances. But nowadays there is an urgent need to boost up this sector at the same time creating new jobs for entrepreneurs/youth. There is need to have a strategic plan for the sector. Focus should be on local products and for the different value chains, have “accords de filiere”. The sector is likely to expand and it is important to remove all barriers/hurdles and it is therefore important to continue the dialogue on a regular basis to know growers’/entrepreneurs grievances and difficulties. 3. Livestock The livestock sector in Mauritius was described as being one with numerous constraints and challenges. Stakeholders voiced out their frustrations and their expectations from the authorities on how to improve the sector. Those involved in the sector were however willing to stick to their activities to expand them further and persevere in this direction in order to cut down our high dependence on import products. A complete review of the livestock sector was proposed after discussions with the stakeholders, need to adopt Good Animal husbandry practices; need to relocate farmers from residential areas, need for better waste management; with government support and better incentives, more attention to safe safety, become more demand oriented, as well as requirement for an improved market information system and value chain facilities, and to have a sustainable production system. 4. All Value chain There was a need to review the food system in order to make it more fair to planters. Access to markets was a major issue. There was need to promote more local production and address the difficulties faced by planters. Issues related to seeds in particular potato seeds and other inputs were discussed. Farmers expressed their concern with regard to their vulnerability in the light of shocks such as Covid19 and climate change. The possibility of having an online marketing platform would be a useful tool for agro-processors to market their produce directly to consumers.235Waste In complement of its work on food systems, the UN is organizing a global dialogue to strengthen the capacities of governments and other stakeholders across food systems to measure and reduce food waste. Mauritius has been selected to be part of the dialogue based on its Government’s political will. Beyond food waste, this will contribute to on-going initiatives on circularity in Mauritius’ food systems. Discussions during the NDFS were on: • Priority challenges to be tackled and questions to be answered in the global dialogue on food waste, and of technical assistance that could be needed • How to collaborate to gain useful answers and assistance to meet the priority challenges through the global dialogue as well as through local discussions Crop Production Problems of thefts, labour shortage and its high cost, high cost of inputs, need for proper agricultural planning and monitoring, regular updating of APMIS, need for land and crop suitability maps, need for light machinery, access to fine derocking/mechanization facilities, improved facilities for longer cold storage (for storage of seeds and commodities), need for modernizing agriculture to make it more attractive to youth. Support was needed for organic agriculture. There was a need for an equipped soil laboratory and an independent certification body. Agro-processing Following the discussion, some major points need to be considered: • The agro-processing sector should be professionalized and one should shift from small scale to large scale, provided all necessary facilities, equipment tax exemption and support are given by the Government, FAREI and other stakeholders involved. • There is also shortage and lack of inadequate processing, storage (capacity/duree de stockage et volume) and distribution facilities • Technical assistance should be provided for proper implementation of HACCP and other quality systems. • High rent paid/high freight • Training and awareness should be done among growers to encourage Good Agricultural Practices. Vulnerable groups should be taken on board. • Promote development of new products and encourage value addition for example producing flour from local starchy crops. • To come up with new environment friendly packaging materials, these could be made available throughout the year. • There should be more experts in agro-processing to train the entrepreneurs and more certification body should be set up. • There is an urgent need to establish a “coin pour produits mauriciens” in supermarkets and hypermarkets. Should encourage the local entrepreneurs to move forward in their business. • Creation of one-stop shop for SMEs. • Survey to know the exact number of growers and their cultivation to avoid over and under production. • Regular Meeting with growers and entrepreneurs to know their grievances. • To provide more facilities and undertake advanced research and development on new systems of preservation of local produce. • Regrouping of fishermen, developing of aquaculture for sustainable production and supply to the customers. • Creation of a seed bank with all local seeds and provide training on all steps required on seed production. • To minimize cost of production entrepreneurs to use solar panels for dehydration procedures. Livestock • Need to review sector, high cost of feed and overdependence on imports for feed availability; • Limited access to land for livestock grazing; limited access to finance; • Inadequate animals of improved races for breeding purposes, consanguinity problems affecting progeny quality, waste disposal and effective waste management issues, • Production to be demand oriented and policy to import livestock products should not be disadvantageous to local farmers, • Marketing difficulties and need for updated market information systems, • Access to veterinary services, thefts of animals and fodder, • Labour shortage, inadequate investment for modernization of farms, • Request for regional composting facilities, access to quality water supply, • Food safety and food standards requirements, slaughterhouses to be upgraded and relocated, need for training, support from authorities, and more schemes and incentives to give a boost to the sector. All value chain There was a general interest of planters to promote local production and there was a need to promote market access for small and medium producers/entrepreneurs. The agro-processors would need assistance to meet required norms and standards so as to compete with imported produce. There should be a dedicated space in shopping malls and other retail outlets for locally processed food items. In order to deal with the ageing planting community, there is a need to engage more youth in agriculture. This can be achieved by giving free training to youngsters especially drop outs from schools. Land should be dedicated for agricultural purposes so as maintain a certain level of food crop and livestock production with a view of achieving a certain level of self-sufficiency. Fisheries • Finding ways & means to secure raw materials and thus decrease reliance on EU Vessels • Looking into the Quota system imposed on Yellow Fin tuna • Working with Ministry of Tourism to promote Artisanal Fishermen • Pension system for fishermen to be put in place236Action 1: Sustainable Production 1. Move towards organic agriculture. 2. Create enabling environment for the adoption of sustainable production systems. 3. Shift toward agroecological production systems. 4. Reduce chemical inputs. Action 2: Local Crops 1. Develop local seed industry. 2. Encourage production and value addition of local crops. 3. Diversify crop base Action 3: Climate Change Adaptation/Mitigation 1. Sensitize/involve farmers on climate change: adaptation and mitigation strategies. 2. Develop the small ruminant sector. 3. Develop climate and health resilient agriculture. 4. Reduce energy expenses and promote use of renewable energy. 5. Adopt farming practices that prevent land degradation. 6. Further promote Agroforestry. 7. Integrated management of pests and diseases. 8. Water/irrigation efficiency. 9. Soil health management. Action 4: New Technology 1. R & D for the introduction of new technologies to increase productivity. 2. Digitalisation of local agriculture 3. Use of ICT tools for improving extension and training services. 4. Develop Information Systems to align production and marketing. 5. Acquisition of new technologies e.g. vertical farming, controlled environment agriculture. Action 5: Land 1. Identify and reconvert abandoned agricultural land. 2. Building permit to be restricted. 3. Agricultural land to be considered in land planning. 4. Facilitate access to land and other production resources. Action 6: Livestock 1. Assist farmers in acquiring new breeds adapted to local conditions. 2. Develop fodder production, produce quality fodder.  237Areas of divergence Crop production Import permits for specific vegetables should not be delivered by authorities when the same crops are being grown locally. Agro-processing Competition exists between locally produced products and imported products. Hence collaboration of all partners concerned is very important to sort out this issue. Livestock Fodder production and availability. Some farmers mentioned its limited supply and need to produce more, while someone mentioned he has fodder for sale but has frequent thefts of the fodder; import of livestock by authorities is disadvantageous to local production. Issues we need to explore further Crop production • Land suitability map • Crop suitability • Exact amount of cultivated lands. • Agricultural planning and volume to produce to avoid overproduction • Production to be linked with agro-processing • Need for regular liaison meetings between different partners Agro-processing The Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security along with all stakeholders concerned to provide all the necessary supports and facilities to restructure the agro-processing sector. This includes training, loan schemes with low interest rate, grant schemes, equipment, tax exemption/removal of customs duties, experts in the field of agro-processing, recognition of the identity of the local entrepreneurs and gives value to their locally produced products. There is also a need to gather data/market information to ensure that the right products are being manufactured. Also identifying and linking of producers to markets (local and international). Livestock • Access to land • access to finance • theft of animals • adoption of good animal husbandry practices All value chain • Planned Production system to be put in place • Soil health card so as guide planters on fertiliser requirements • Registration of Planters • Proper Guidance on processing and marketing (e.g. access to markets). • Promoting good agricultural practices and organic agriculture • Storage capabilities needs to be enhanced for agro processors and relevant institutions such as the Agricultural Marketing Board and cooperative societies. • Made in Moris label should be promoted for agro industrial products • Access to finance to set up the agro-processing business Differences do we have that seem to be currently unresolvable Crop production • How to tackle theft problems? • The need to import foreign labour. • How to solve the problem of overproduction? Agro-processing • How to solve the problem of overproduction? • The price of all raw materials. • Storage capacity and duration. • Exportation of locally processed products to other countries. • Creating links among producers, processors and retailers. • Food quality and safety standards. Livestock Relocation of farmers from residential areas All Value Chain • Determine on what to produce for processing • Thefts in plantations seems to be the most problematic area for almost all planters. • Not all locally grown food crops can be used in agro-processing. There is a need to introduce specific high yielding varieties to promote the value chain towards agro-processing. Cross sector approach • Cross border initiative level Given limited resource availability for staple foods (rice, wheat and maize; meat and milk) and huge resources available in the neighbouring countries, joint ventures and contractual arrangements for its production in friendly countries is to be given the highest priority. Besides providing for food security, the region could also produce raw materials for agro industry purposes thus ensuring development of this sector. Government will invest in the agricultural sector by providing the right environment (fiscal, financial, security of investment) at the disposal of investors to materialise such regional cooperation initiatives. With the support of development partners like FAO, investment opportunities for agricultural production have been prospected. Our country can benefit to some extent if research ventures could target maize as a large-scale crop. This would be to start collaborative research ventures with African countries with industrial capacity. • Food security, environment stability and health benefits For sustained food security it is also a critical prerequisite that Mauritian consumers change their food habit so as to reduce staple food import. Consumers should adapt to locally produced food items (cassava, potato, breadfruit, eddoes), while also taking initiatives at household level in terms of kitchen and roof gardening, urban agriculture, and diminishing food wastage. In line with the Government vision of sustainable agricultural production, the Ministry has initiated several actions to encourage the farming community to adopt sustainable farming practices to ensure long term environment stability and health benefits. Food loss and food waste is a major concern. Postharvest treatment to improve shelf life of fresh produce such as carrot, litchi, butternut to improve their marketability and reduce postharvest losses are being developed. Support is being given to agro-entrepreneurs in the development of value-added products from local fruits and vegetables such as gluten free breadfruit and cassava flour, ginger paste, turmeric paste, lime paste, guava fruit paste, dehydrated papaya and fruit paste sorbet.

2021-08-15 08:57:29205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35053/39

9818226111424717228

This event was organized to sensitize the different departments of the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, the Provincial Departments of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (PDAFFs), the private sector and other relevant stakeholders and to discuss the opportunities for transformation of agricultural extension services as part of a new era for digitalization. The event incorporated, reinforced, and enhanced the principles of engagement as described in the section below.The Food Summit Dialogues aim is to provide a powerful opportunity to engage meaningfully, explore collectively and emerge resiliently for sustainable food systems. With that in mind, the event successfully imbibed the principles of the engagement by committing to the summits aim of sustainable food system by kick-starting the pilot of the MetKasekor model during the event. This not only contributed directly to the aim of the summit, but also reinforces the Act with urgency principle as it reflects on the need for the Cambodian agriculture sector to reinvent itself by shifting towards sustainable intensification. The event also recognized the complexity behind the development of the model which is a result of a ten plus years of dedicated work in research on Conservation Agriculture in Cambodia primarily led by the Department of Land Resources Management (DALRM). Through the participation of different public-private and development organizations, it recognized that the model was built up on previous work done by multiple stakeholders, thus building trust, complementing the work of each other, and embracing the multi-stakeholder inclusivity.Use social media to promote high level events in webinar format using live streaming online or links to recorded video to allow wide participation and increase awareness of events. With so many Zoom meetings taking place it is important to provide information on forthcoming events for the potential attendees.

NoThis meeting was relatively small and highly technical, all participants were able to listen to presentations and join in discussion without need for breakout discussion.

234240241244248The focus of the event was to sensitize the different departments of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the private sector partners on the MetKasekor model. The consultative meeting served as a platform where the MetKasekor working group was introduced to one another including the management structure. All the attendants then were briefed on the history, timeline, milestone, and lesson learnt throughout the development of MetKasekor model that has been instrumental in piloting the promotion of CA in Cambodia. The various Conservation Agriculture technologies under the implementation of MetKasekor such as land levelers, roller crimpers, no-till machines etc. were introduced, and all attendants were made aware of the potential of the MetKasekor to be an innovative extension model that can make effective contribution towards developing sustainable food systems.235240241243244248Some of the findings from the event: • Metkasekor, as a new innovative extension model of the government, was widely welcomed by the participants. • In the planning leading up to the event, it became clear that MetKasekor is the government resource for the future with the intention to improve the public agricultural extension service system in Cambodia. This was further endorsed in the meeting. • MetKasekor, is seen as a concrete mechanism to link between the national and provincial government agencies, farmer cooperatives, and service providers. This serves as the missing link between research and commercialization. • Though only the CA/SI part of MetKasekor will be piloted in the 2 provinces from 2021-2024, DEAFF sees the potential of this model beyond CA/SI. In fact, the lessons from the pilot can be integrated as a part of the Public Innovative Agriculture Extension framework for Cambodia sustainable agriculture sector in the future. • Although the target of this model is smallholder farmers, the approach to promote agriculture technology is through medium and big farmers by collaborating and establishing them as service providers in their location. • Since a MetKasekor IT platform is in the planning, the data collected from MetKasekor will help the PDAFFs and MAFF to have a proper system of data collection on CA/SI. • For such models to be developed from ‘’bottom up’’ a coordinated effort between the public sector, private sector and development organisations is a must. However, this coordination must be based on the ground activities, and this takes time. The model for CA/SI was based on the hard work carried out by Conservation Agriculture Services Center (CASC) of the Department of Land Resources Management with the participation of other agencies.236238240241242243244248249251TOPIC 1. Extending MetKasekor model beyond the pilot target areas • To consider other location that has the potential for agriculture (rice, maize, cassava) i.e., Rattanak Kiri, Mondul Kiri, Strung Treng, Kratie, Takeo, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng within the next few years if the model is a success in the two pilot provinces (Battambang and Preah Vihear) • To consider collaboration with other departments, universities, research institutes, which are related to the expansion of the model depending on the technology to be promoted • To include young researchers so that the implementation of MetKasekor provide the opportunity see their willingness to put more effort in field studies. • To conduct further studies on the agroecological condition and type of appropriate machineries for each location before the implementation of MetKasekor • To clearly determine the role of each actor in the collaboration (private sector, technical departments, research institutes, supporting/coordinating organization) and to make sure that the pieces of information which farmers receive are consistent236240244246248249TOPIC 2. Metkasekor launch and alignment to existing projects • Covid-19 would still be a problem in conducting the launching event. The PDAFF should start the activities according to plan and may organize a field trip for the His Excellency Minister, MAFF to visit when possible. • MetKasekor could also look at sectors other than rice, maize, and cassava. us on other important crops such as vegetables in consistence with what other existing projects/CASIC has been working on. • A steering committee at MAFF could monitor the progress of MetKasekor pilot so that the learnings are embedded into the extension work in Cambodia.

2021-08-15 09:12:52205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35264/130

21411912167515458284913252564242171129917913193868211464418

In order to ensure participation of all stakeholders, participants list for the first dialogues was reviewed and further added. Participants from seven provinces were also included. The second national dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different regions and parts of the country.As we know, Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding and analysis. For that, systematic approach and procedures as suggested by UN FSS were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. Similar to the first dialogues, all the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and garner commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical review of outcomes from first national Food Systems dialogues and seven provincial dialogues was done. Participant's stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system. In order to have a meaningful dialogues among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and national dialogue process among the participants; a participants brief as well as the summary of seven provincial dialogues and first national dialogues was prepared and shared to all participants before the event. Further, Nepali languages was used in the event to have active engagement of participants in the dialogues. Additionally, provision of simultaneous interpretation in English was made for the non-Nepali speakers.Further efforts have to put to increase participation of private sectors in the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242246249251Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the second National Food Systems Dialogues on 19th July 2021 on the theme "Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system". This dialogue was convened by Mr. Kewal Prasad Bhandari, Secretary, NPC and National Dialogue Convenor. Mr. Bhandari delivered welcome speech and opening remarks. He stressed on the need for collective efforts from all the sectors in the process to transform food system and contribute to achieve all SDGs. Dr. Yogendra Kumar Karki, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoALD), highlighted on the purpose of Second National Food System Dialogue and dialogue process to be followed. Dr. Basudev Sharma, Joint Secretary of NPC made a presentation of feedback from first National Food Systems Dialogue held on 11 June 2021. The Secretaries (Provincial Dialogue Curators) or their representative of respective Ministry of Land Management and Cooperatives (MoLMAC), who coordinated and led to organize provincial dialogue in their province, gave presentation on the feedback from provincial dialogues that were held from 24 June to 5 July 2021. Mr. Nahendra Khadka, National Peasant’s Coalition presented the feedback from independent dialogue organized by National Peasant’s Coalition. Similarly, Ms. Sara B. Nyanti, UN Resident Coordinator mentioned the importance of food system as it touches every aspect of human existence and stressed on to consider triple nexus of food security, agriculture, and nutrition. Major focus of the dialogue was to review and synthesize the outcomes of first national dialogues and seven provincial dialogues. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • To synthesize the outcomes from the provincial level consultation of local food systems, • To understand perspectives and options for sustainable national food systems with a view to ensure that they are considered in developing national pathway to sustainable food systems. • To ensure commitment of different stakeholders in transforming food systems. Dr Yogendra Kumar Karki, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoALD) and Curator for National Food System Dialogue curated the dialogues. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process in the breakout sessions. Each AT Group had proposition and reference points to consider the prioritize and synthesize the outcomes, specifically the underlying causes /barriers and proposed actions for coming three years, of seven provincial and one national dialogues: Points to consider while prioritizing the underlying causes of weak food system and proposed actions for three years. Points to consider in identifying important underlying causes / drivers leading to weak food system • Causing visible / direct link to negative impact on the food system • Scale of impact in the food system • Multiplier effects on damaging food system • Creates inequity and bad governance in the food system • Increases vulnerability of the food system, people and planet Points to consider in prioritizing the actions • Direct link to the proposition / visions proposed for each action tracks • Scale of impact in transforming the food system • Contribute to improved governance of food systems • Contributes positively to other actions tracks • Logically linked to address the underlying cause identified As in the earlier dialogues, five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed and reviewed the outcomes of national and provincial dialogues specifically on causes and proposed actions considering the ATs propositions and points provided to prioritize the causes and proposed actions. Relevant Joint Secretaries of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions235238239240241242246249251The second national dialogue was participated by national, provincial and local levels and this provided opportunity to engage to review the outcomes from national provincial and local territorial perspectives as well. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to prioritize and synthesize the underlying causes of weak and unsustainable food system and proposed actions for coming three years There was strong commitment from the organizations that participated in the dialogue to address the issues through policies and programs on nutrition, food security and agriculture and stressed on effective mechanism to coordinate at policy and programmatic levels. The second national dialogue was successful in achieving intended objectives of synthesizing and prioritizing key outcomes from first national dialogue and seven provincial dialogues considering the propositions mentioned below, raising awareness and elevating public discussions on food system issues. AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. The dialogue was also helpful in ensuring commitment from key food system actors such as MoALD, provincial MoLMACs, NPC and development partners to further work on identifying potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable for achieving SDGs. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food systems. Potential and emerging issues identified during the first national and provincial dialogues were further validated and synthesized. (refer Section C below).236238249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Underlying causes/Drivers for achieving stated proposition: • Inadequate roads & storage facilities, collection centers, chilling centers, cold chains and low investment in infrastructure related to agriculture. • Difficult terrain, water scarcity, lack of climate adaptive tech and marketing, R&D not contextual. • Low Seed Replacement Rate • Low awareness on nutritive value of underutilized crops and breast feeding, nutritional sensitive and Food safety social protection, less involvement of private sector • Outmigration of youth and feminization of agriculture • Inadequate skilled agricultural human resource at province and local level • Low coverage by extension, poor incentives and support to farmers, low adoption of context specific technologies, • Low supply and consumption of animal source foods, • Less priority to agriculture by all three tiers of governments and poor coordination and less accountability • Inadequate breast-feeding friendly workplace and maternity protection and increasing use of junk/ultra-processed foods • Low promotion of Home-grown foods for the midday meal, • Low level of agricultural productivity and high pre & post-harvest losses, • Fragmentation of land holdings, subsistence production system, fallow land and soil erosion • Use of unsafe water, haphazard use of pesticides and chemicals and anti-microbial drugs • Loss of local biodiversity and existence of poor food diversity, • Lack of land ownership to cultivators and many landless families • Emergence and attack of new pests and frequent occurrence of natural disasters • Poor access to affordable and nutrient rich foods for many families, • High food wastage and our social and cultural traditions, • Poverty driven food insecurity and non-farm income opportunity in rural area Actions in next 3 years that will have greatest impact: • Development of roads and agriculture infrastructures with increased investment, climate adaptive technologies, adoption of new and digital technology, • Increase investment in technology-varieties, breeds, appropriate machine tools, storage facilities and for production promotion and post-harvest and value addition, • Promote biodiversity based ecological agriculture, community-based food stocking/food bank • Implement nutrition sensitization, SBC and social protection programs and increase qualified human resources at all levels, • Food Security Information Management System at different levels, generate database and improve Food System Governance, promote cooperative-based insurance system • Promote Home-grown foods for the midday school meal-policy and coordination, • Restructuring extension and research system to address the needs of the farmers and value chain actors • Promote breast feeding and implement Breastfeeding friendly workplaces • Formulating policies that promotes the consumption of low-cost nutritious food products • Emphasis on the development of formal food trading and distribution system • Integrated agro plan with priority of the 3 layers of the govt and provide agro based incentives, • Incorporate nutrition and health aspects in school curriculum, • Encourage entrepreneurship among the youths by providing technologies, enhancing access to finance and improving their skills • Land rights to cultivators, Land to landless, classification of farmers/peasants based on ownership and production • Develop project bank for nutrition and food security by the governments (3 tiers) • Update dietary guidelines and incentive for those producing nutritious foods, Introduce digital agri info system • Promote Indigenous food and livestock production and food practices, diversify production system, conserve local crops, mapping of indigenous crops/commodities. • Focus on pocket/cluster to increase productivity, implement land utilization plan. • Continue/expand school meal program to support the local food production • Implement organic/high value cash crop production (Mulyawan Campaign) and off farm employment to reduce poverty driven food insecurity. • Review traditional farming practices, adopt climate friendly practices236239246249Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Underlying causes/drivers for achieving the stated proposition: • Not consuming a variety of food grains, not producing enough food. • Lack of necessary identification of local crops, protection, and promotion of nutritious food items. • Not using Climate Resilient Agriculture system, lack of employment. • Consumption of ultra-processed foods and less priority on locally available nutritious food. • Water and sanitation is the long term problem causing health hazards, deteriorating nutrition status particularly in pregnant and lactating mothers and children. • Traditional food consumption (roots, tubers, creeper, Gittha & Bhyakur- Chepang, Bankariya, Tamang, etc.), Socio-cultural practices of households (marriage, value, norms etc.). • Higher Post harvest loss and growing food waste and are not aware. • Increasing barren land due to migration among several reasons • Lack of information/data of food and nutrition insecure/vulnerable community and family • Urbanization, migration, land fragmentation, and different type of topography. • Lack of information about the content of nutrition or value of the food products. • Migration and shortfall of labor for production activities and value chain. • Inadequate awareness raising programs at school level related to the foods adulterated with heavy pesticides. • Inadequate subsidy/ supportive policies for the promotion of local products and development of agricultural value chains and inadequate technologies for food processing and value addition, traditional and subsistence farming practices. • Low level of consumer awareness on healthy food habit and choice of nutritious foods; increased fat proportion in adult’s diet, and undernutrition in childhood. • High cost of nutritious diet (nutritious diet is 242% expensive than the energy only diet). • Unregulated market for unhealthy and adulterated commercial food products. • Social, religious, and cultural aspects of food consumption. Actions in next 3 years that will have greatest impact: • Construction and use of storage structures, protection of local food crops and establishment of Seed Bank. • Diversification of crops, establishment of agricultural industries, promotion of local endangered healthy food items. • Increase of capacity of agricultural produce markets; development of Climate Resilient Agriculture system. • Conduct school nutrition program and make agricultural education practical. • Maintain buffer stock of food for emergencies • SBC on food habit and link school meal programme with that of home-grown food. • Strengthen Water and sanitation program emphasizing on utilization and awareness for improving health and nutrition status of children through supplementary food • Promote agroforestry product (SALT technology, aquaculture, bee keeping). • Develop and implement land use policy for agriculture, industry and human settlement, crop insurance expansion program. • Develop database by land type, food security and vulnerability situation, monitoring mechanism, production and consumption, increase utilization of fallow land. • Policy formulation of locally produced agricultural product at the local level • Promotion and commercialization of indigenous crops / local crops. • Emphasize the school meal program utilizing local food production and promote milk, milk products and poultry product. • Develop land use policy for agriculture, industry, human settlement, database for land type, utilize fallow land. • Prepare food consumption guidelines and implement BCC. • Establish food security information management system at different levels and implement the targeted response • Promote decentralized food systems, strengthen farming communities and effective transfer of technology. • Prepare national framework for sustainable food consumption pattern. • Prepare food menu using local food by the government officials working in remote areas. • Fair price shops in the remote and food insecure communities. • Provision of subsidy and incentives for farmer to sustainable food production system. • Update national food based dietary guideline, policy on food waste236240244246249Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Underlying barriers/drivers for achieving the stated proposition: • Limited technologies and policies to address climate induced disasters (eg. flooding, landslides, drought, extreme rainfalls, disease & pest outbreaks) and lack of technologies and farming system to address them • Land fragmentation and unplanned urbanization leading loss of fertile agriculture lands • Lack of adequate protection of agricultural land (unused fallow land; underused, misused, exploitation) • Loss of agrobiodiversity /indigenous crop varieties, lack of site-specific production • Soil erosion, degradation of soil fertility, lack of incorporation of organic matters (burning of cowdung) • Haphazard and unsafe use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer in vegetables, cash crops and unsafe use of hormones, antibiotics and feed additives in livestock and poultry • Limited knowledge on scientific management of land, water, soil, plants and forest • Poor management of livestock and open grazing system resulting in degradation of lands and vegetations • Poor market price control mechanism, unstable markets and lack of food safety • Socioeconomic change brought out by youth migration, change in food habits and urbanization • Weak Institutions and Governance systems & weak coordination among three spheres government • Lack of reliable data base system and research for diverse food species for nature positive production Actions in next 3 years that will have greatest impact: • Adoption of Climate Smart agriculture system: Develop and promote climate smart villages and food system with climate resilient better agricultural and animal husbandry technologies; adopt climate smart policies and plans. • Enforcement of Land use Act (2019) and Land Use Policy (2015) to minimize land conversion and degradation • Agroecosystem and Landscape based planning focusing on local comparative and competitive advantage • Revitalization of local indigenous food system and social system utilizing traditional wisdom and culture • Conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity by promoting site specific crops, NUS and community seed banks • Organic /ecological farming and marketing with the development of organic technologies and policies • Improvement of soil fertility through legume rotation, conservation agriculture, green manuring and agroforestry promotion • Value chain development of local crops /commodities in partnership with private sector • Better management, restoration and improvement of agroecosystems (land, water and soils) and their better utilization • Management of livestock and pastureland with focus on agroforestry /integrated farming systems • Investment on food-water-energy-biodiversity-health nexus • Land use planning enforcement for optimum and productive use of land by addressing the issues of unused fallow land, under used. misused and exploitation of land beyond carrying capacity • Restoration of degraded agroecosystem; convert degraded river-beds to gardens; water shed conservation • Sustainable land management with land consolidation/pooling for nature positive production • Build the capacity of farmers, private sectors and R &D stakeholders in nature positive production program implementation with inclusiveness of women, youth and marginal groups • Establish a comprehensive agricultural information, knowledge, database and services systems including market and agro-metereologial information center and build capacity of farmers and stakeholders • Improved coordination and governance of agri-food system in 3 tiers governments • Update Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) with biodiversity, climate and agroecology focused production system236241243246249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Underlying causes/drivers for achieving the stated proposition: • Improper implementation of land use policy and continued land fragmentation is leading to less opportunity for women, small holders and marginalized group’s access to productive resources; • Inadequate supporting mechanism for women, small holders and landless, • Weak implementation of existing policies, targeted for upliftment of women, poor, vulnerable communities to build sustainable livelihoods options; • Inadequate programs for subsistence farming system and target groups; • Inadequate connectivity, storage, distribution and distribution mechanism for food security and livelihoods options; • Loss of local landraces/crops/food that are in use by women, indigenous communities and vulnerable groups; • Lack of awareness and less knowledge of nutritious native and indigenous crops/seed; • Less interest of people specially of youth to engage in agriculture, • Unequal access to food for all; • Outmigration of youths and men and increasing work burden on women; • Improper management of rain water affecting agricultural productivity specially in the low stream areas and small holders who are inhabited in the risk zones; • Lack of strong enforcing mechanism for proper utilization of allocated budget and expenditure; • Less opportunity for sustained and secured income generation opportunities for marginal and ultra-poor groups; discriminatory employment opportunities, • Increasing use of processed foods and minimal utilization of local crops. • Insufficient monitoring and control of food distribution system, price and quality of food, • Social discriminatory practices that denies children, girls and women’s access to nutritious food and relief package; • Weak market linkages and price transmission mechanism for agricultural and livestock produce • Inadequate cooperative responsive laws and policies. Actions in next 3 years that will have greatest impact: • Implementation of land use policy to ensure equitable access to productive resources specially for women, landless, smallholders; • Facilitate to provide land ownership certificate to farmers, fix minimum support price and subsidy to farmers directly; • Formulate and implement market regulation, implement income generation programs for small and marginal farmers; • Strengthen cooperatives for increasing access to small holder, • Advance joint collaboration with cooperatives in promoting agriculture related services and reaching marginalized groups, • Support for processing, branding and market linkage of agricultural and livestock products that are promoted by cooperatives, • Mass awareness campaign and capacity building on consumption of balanced diet for all, • Promote family farming for better homestead supplied nutritional diets, • Include producer, vendors, market and consumer organizations in decision making process related to rural food system transformation, • Strengthening capacity and improvement in infrastructure development for agriculture sector • Support in conservation, promotion and registration of indigenous seeds, • Identification, registration and issue farmer’s ID, categorization of farmers and provision of output-based supports and services, • Promote agro-ecology based high value crops and gender-friendly post-harvest technologies, • Policy with provision of production loyalty for organic farming system, • Devise targeted policy for engagement and promotion of women and youth’s role in agriculture. • Promote organic agriculture and food, ban on unhealthy foods, enforce labeling; • Promote youth-led agri-based enterprises and marketing, • Develop food information system and information management system that is accessible to all; • Establish local food banks in collaboration with cooperatives; • Link food security and relief programs with social safety net specially for destitute groups as well as school day meals such as use of NeKSAP information; • Manage equitable relief system in agriculture sector; • Develop and implement disaster early warning system and introduce vulnerability based insurance236242244246249251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Underlying causes/barriers for achieving stated proposition: • Negative effect of disasters (flood, drought, disease, epidemic, pandemic, etc.) • Feminization of agriculture due to male out-migration (drudgery for women), • Low agricultural productivity, • Lack of early warning and preparedness (preparedness not in place to respond to disasters), • Lack of vulnerability mapping and information management system, • Weak implementation of existing preparedness/response plan, • Settlement of people at the vulnerable areas e.g. Riverside, unplanned infrastructure. • Land encroachment in vulnerable areas like river banks • Diseases and pest outbreaks in crops, livestock and poultry • Losses of bio-diversity and indigenous crops and technologies • Market and price vulnerability, low value addition • Low insurance coverage (human, livestock and crops) • Less awareness on food for health and healthy lives • Resilience not embedded in policies and programmes—to much sectoral perceptive • Management of malnutrition not effectively implemented • Weak inputs supply system Actions in next 3 years that will have greatest impact: • Land use policy and legal framework implementation • Agro-met services/advisory, • Market and price information system in place • Conservation of Chure/Bhavar range • Effective enforcement/implementation of land use policy • R&D on resilient technology, • Proper water management and irrigation technologies • Strengthen supply chain system, • Multi-sectoral approach to enhance resilient, • Proper coordination mechanism between the 3 spheres of govt and stakeholders, private sector and nongovernmental organizations • Food security monitoring system (NEKSAP) in place for vulnerability and mapping of affected people, • Provision of vulnerability card to the vulnerable community • Evidence-based decision-making linking to food security monitoring system to early warnings and disaster risk and response management, • Preparedness, response and recovery mechanism in place, • Expansion of insurance coverage • Vulnerability card to the vulnerable people for providing relief and recovery assistance, • Mainstreaming resilience into sectoral programming; develop risk informed programme, building resilience for food system • Fair price shops in food insecure areas, • Food storage and stocking of food including supplementary/therapeutic food for emergency, strengthen food distribution system • Prevention and management of malnutrition, • Link Prime Minister (PM)/ Chief Minister (CM) employment programmes to Food Systems • Social protection system in place, • Policy coherence related to resilience building • Re-settlement of people living in vulnerable areas to safe area • Livelihood improvement programs in place236238239240241242243247249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Underlying causes/barriers for achieving the stated proposition: • Ineffective implementation of existing food laws and lack of policy compliance. • Inability to conduct adequate programs by identifying appropriate food insecure areas. • Inadequate efforts for effective implementation of the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act and committed by the representatives. • Ineffective coordination between provincial and local bodies as well as unclarity on policies, • Weak of policy coherence and ineffective implementation of food Acts and Regulations, • Inadequate of information and awareness about the law, implementation efforts, • Provincial and Local Level guidelines on Bylaws on RtF act not yet developed. • Lack of institutional set up like technical food security committee are challenges to implement RtF act at Municipality and Provincial levels • Lack of harmonization among sectoral policies and regulations. • Lack of clear roles and responsibilities and accountability mechanism among the stakeholders. • Lack of policy coherence and full implementation of Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act • Lack of appropriate food system governance mechanism at provincial and local level • Limited consultations with stakeholders, while formulating the Act; outcomes of the consultations were not widely shared. • Inadequate sensitization/awareness on constitutional, legal and policy issues. • Inadequate monitoring and oversight of the implementation process. • Culture of non-compliance in the governance system and lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. • Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. • Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Actions in next 3 years that will have greatest impact: • Implementation of regulations on Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act; formulation and implementation of food plan; Institutional mechanism of National Food Council, Provincial Food Council and Local Food Coordinating Committee should be set up, • Set up and strengthen institutional architecture at 3 spheres of government (based on Act, policy, strategies, etc). • Orientation to people’s representative, farmers and stakeholders about the act, policies and programs as well as Periodic review of policies and programs • Youth motivation programs, school feeding program link to make the food system sustainable, prioritization of local products. • Coordination mechanism to regulate the law and guidelines, strengthen governance and accountability. • Corporate- social responsibly of business and private sector to be linked to strengthen food system and university. • Distribute Below Poverty Level (BPL) card for reservation to living below poverty levels • Guarantee of food security and good governance through implementation of Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act, • Managing the availability of essential food items to the ‘at-risk groups • Formulation of provincial Act and regulation. • Implementation of agricultural development programs related to sustainable food system. • Development of appropriate structure and mechanism for implementation of Act. • Implementation of agricultural development programs related to sustainable food systems. • Implement farmers’ identification card. • Strong legal coordination mechanism between local, provincial, and federal government. • Ensuring policy coherence in agriculture, food security and nutrition; build synergies among policies like MSNP, ADS, SDGs and other national plans based on the Act. • Orient stakeholders on the implementation of Act (preparation of regulations and budget). • Adequate financing to the Province and Local Governments based on their performance on the implementation of Act, and relevant policies. • Implementation of 15th Plan, Periodic Plans, and localization of SDGs with priority. • Invest on setting up a mechanism for systematic data collection, analysis, and management for strengthening the evidence-based policy making237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-08-15 09:34:41205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39525/163

1611238831112121131117141

The dialogue started with a short introduction of the United Nations Food Systems Summit as part of a global initiative to transform and add more value and equity to the world food systems and to deliver the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 2, and the need to build a more robust food and nutrition security and sovereignty ecosystem. The participants were briefed about the strategy of involvement and participation in the form of broad spectrum national dialogues to harvest inputs to articulate the changes that must happen to the current food system at country level. The participants were guided to complete the UNFSS assigned Attendance Form during which time the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement were elaborated to provide a framework for convergence to purpose. The introduction concluded with a short presentation about Seychelles’ current food system that was built from secondary data to provide a clear picture of the current state of affairs and to provide the participants with some background information as thought and discussion starters.The relevant principles were intentionally repeated throughout the Dialogue to instill a sense of purpose and to encourage the participants to deeply reflect about the principles as motivational anchor points and drivers that underpin the change and transformation process that would be required to build a robust food defense strategy at country level.The seven Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement could evolve to become a generic/global framework of core values and principles with potential for inclusion in all Member States food defense strategy. This could become one of the strand (in the mix of strands) to self-perpetuate the longevity of the United Nations Food Systems Summit strategic intent.

Yes

234242246249The title of the subtheme of the fifth Dialogue was “Aligning on the risks and opportunities, vision, goals and strategic choices of the agriculture sector” The purpose of the Dialogue was to present to the key policy influencers the findings and recommendations that were being generated from the previous dialogues, desktop research and Presummit outputs and the shape that the emerging transformation roadmap of the food system is taking for their alignment and critical input. This would provide a sense check assessment in preparation of the country final report for the Summit.235242246249There was general alignment with regard the Agriculture Sector vision, the underpinning seven goals, the framework of the strategic choices (the priority areas) and the appreciation of risks that could hurt and derail the transformation of the food system and well as the opportunities that the sector could leverage and stretch to deliver the sector goals. Kindly refer to the attachment for details.236242246249The main output of the dialogue was the proposed top-line strategy (see attached file) would serve as the base for the drafting of a more detailed country’s food transformation roadmap for the September Summit as well as the starter for the development of the agriculture sector strategy and action pathways for the next planning cycle.

2021-08-15 10:22:29205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23520/75

4951883073211143132332221105130262701226004501570441101510111001101511110

The event was aimed at initiating a longer-term dialogue process on sustainable food systems in Germany. Existing processes, policy initiatives and current social issues, above all, served as the starting point and reference framework for the kick-off event. Based on this, the dialogue focused on identifying potentials and obstacles and deriving concrete activities from them. On this basis, scalable measures are to be identified in the further dialogue process in order to realise sustainable food systems involving all actors. The dialogue was, in a technically sound manner, based on scientific findings. Despite the large number of actors and partly controversial viewpoints, the actors embarked on a respectful and productive dialogue through transparent preparation and qualified facilitators.There was a general consensus among all actors that the global food system must undergo transformation. This underlined the need for the UN FSS 2021 and the actors adopted the call to action. The event pursued an inclusive multi-actor approach. All actors were thus able to interact with each other and contribute their broadly diversified perspectives. Alongside the active participants, all interested parties were able to digitally follow and comment on the plenary sessions on the conference platform via livestream. Participants of the kick-off event chiefly included experts from civil society, the scientific and business communities and other sectors. The variable methodology rendered good and genuine cooperation possible, which even extended to the formation of new partnerships. Aided by creative methods and communication tools and channels, the actors succeeded in engaging in a motivated, creative and open exchange on how food systems can be made more sustainable. The professional conception of the event was aimed at breaking up a one-dimensional technical viewpoint. The integral approach to challenges and solutions was pursued in all five thematic areas. To this end, the actors drew upon current policy papers from the fields of agriculture and food, environment, health, development cooperation, diplomacy, finance, etc. as a foundation for different national policies. The participants responded very positively to this.The digital event format has proved its worth, notably for the workshop segment. A broad participation of different food system actors was achieved. What matters in particular is good planning of the event and the entire follow-up process. The role of the moderators/facilitators in the working groups or in the entire dialogue process is very challenging and calls for strong methodological skills. Society harbours high expectations, a fact which makes good communication, participation and transparency all the more important. A longer-term and structured process, in which intermediate goals are set, is recommended.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue process in Germany strives to analyse existing national food systems and identify positive approaches on the way towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and render them useful for the future. The dialogue was structured into five thematic areas, which were based on current issues that are vital for the future: 1. Costs and benefits of environmentally sound and socially acceptable production 2. Requirements for sustainable agricultural food production 3. Sustainable food systems in rural and urban areas: Infrastructure requirements 4. The future food industry 5. Food of the future - more plant-based The selection was based on current, existing political dialogue processes and issues from science, industry and civil society.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The following overriding subjects were identified in the individual thematic areas, which will be further explored in the follow-up process: • Transparency in supply chains ranging from production via processing right up to consumers (contribution to Action Tracks 2 and 3) • Systemic educational approach to sustainable food production and nutrition (contribution to Action Tracks 1, 2 and 3) • How is sustainability achieved through new framework conditions? (contribution to Action Tracks 3 and 4) • Structures - notably the implementation of measures (at regional level) (contribution to Action Tracks 1, 4 and 5) • Responsibility also in a global context (contribution to Action Tracks 4 and 5)236239240243244245246247248249250251Thematic area 1: Costs and benefits of environmentally sound and socially acceptable production Selected results and impetus for future dialogues: • It is important for all parties involved to achieve a paradigm shift based on the insight that "avoiding damage is more economical and ecological than making good damage". • The theoretical groundwork for the evaluation of costs and benefits has been laid. One excellent instrument is the true-cost approach. • Transparent supply and processing chains represent a basic requirement. • Agricultural holdings are called upon to develop new distribution channels, diversification and new business models. • Operational bookkeeping and accounting of holdings should be brought into line with sustainability criteria (societal performance). • Sustainable production methods should be rendered visible and tangible for consumers. Notably at the local level. • Communication by farmers is required to enable direct consumer interaction and thus deepen the perception and appreciation of the agricultural sector. • In order to sustainably convert the food system in Germany, state intervention is required (levies, taxes, subsidies, etc.). • State instruments should be used in line with the objectives (e.g. geared towards the SDGs) in order to genuinely foster environmentally and socially acceptable production. • In the longer term, a global matrix for social, economic and environmental standards must be developed.236238239240243244245246247248249250251Thematic area 2: Requirements for sustainable agricultural food production Selected results and impetus for future dialogues: • Smart farming systems (e.g. agro-forestry systems) are required in order to implement ecological intensification. • Substance cycles, also beyond farming, must be closed. • The importance of breeding should be highlighted, as well as the need to support it. • A central role is attributed to research and the quick transfer of results into practice. • Technical innovations should be reinforced and the importance of social innovations should be underlined. • Education and knowledge exchange are key factors in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.236240241243244245246248249250Thematic area 3: Sustainable food systems in rural and urban areas: Infrastructure requirements Selected results and impetus for future dialogues: • Municipalities and regions should be better equipped to support regional structures such as value-added chains. • Consideration should always be given to reducing red tape. • Coordinators are needed who develop networks and promote networking and knowledge-sharing. • Regionality should be promoted. It would be wise to establish a federal network for regional value chains in order to learn from one another across the board. Bringing together local initiatives on the ground is also helpful. • Away-from-home catering, in particular in communal catering facilities, is considered as a great lever for change to strengthen regional value-added chains. • The subject of sustainability should be integrated into vocational training and continuing training curricula more and more. Across the board, there was a call for comprehensive and inclusive educational work. • A targeted training of training officers, vocational teachers and other educators was identified as key. • If small producers and processors pool their product range, for example via food hubs and other trading formats, they can benefit from shared logistics and marketing. • Product policies in the regional sector should focus on a quality strategy, because regional processing operations cannot keep abreast in an all-out price war. Developing professional infrastructures is key to the success of these operators.236238241242243244245246248249250Thematic area 4: The future food industry Selected results and impetus for future dialogues: • Avoiding food loss and waste must be an absolute priority. • Pioneering entrepreneurs in existing companies and in start-ups as well as think tanks should be made more visible so that solutions can be implemented and disseminated. • Sustainability needs more investment (capital), which also includes funding options with a minimum of bureaucracy, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (upfront financing). • Long-term planning predictability should be assured, including the implementation of a coherent sustainability policy with clearly defined aims and a timeline for implementation. Policy-makers are generally urged to step up the pace and be more pragmatic. • A new way of consumer communication with a focus on mainstream consumers is necessary. • The appreciation of foodstuffs should be promoted and explicitly demanded. • A dialogue format gathering consumers, industry, academia and administrations should be established. Basically, this forum should do away with silo mentality and confrontation, but focus on cooperation and togetherness instead. • Support schemes should be set up for the targeted introduction of new approaches in marketing and food loss and waste reduction. • Food business operators should be obliged to offer/accept further training opportunities on sustainability issues. • Better assessment of food loss and waste and reduction/use of invisible food via platforms. • Sustainability should be reward in a more visible manner and by paying premiums (THG budget, carbon leakage etc.).236241242243244245246247248249250251Thematic area 5: Food of the future - more plant-based Selected results and impetus for future dialogues: • The share of consumption of (red) meat and milk/dairy products should be reduced. • By 2030 sustainable food consumption should have a significantly higher share of diverse foods of plant origin. • Sustainable food consumption takes into account health, social and environmental impacts of the entire food system. • The influence of food environments is underestimated. Societies should put more emphasis on designing these food environments. • The food systems of the future should be innovative and break new ground. • Producers and foods should be better appreciated. • Good communication is vital. • More steering impulses from the consumption side are needed, in addition to the political measures that are predominantly on the supply side. • We need evidence-based food and nutrition policies. • Awareness-raising of sustainable food consumption has to be a natural part in all phases of living and learning. • Our mindset and jobs should be guided by the concept of circularity (“CircularSociety”).237238239240241242243244245246247248249250Divergences emerged in all areas. They were, in particular, related to aspects of perception and/or target achievement (trade-off between goals). They included issues with respect to: • The integration of climate and ecological criteria into the agri-food sector; • Should we have more organic production, and are conventional practices bad? What is a balanced relationship of cropping practices in an integrated product approach? • What is the right diet? Should we all become vegans or can those of us who can afford it continue to eat meat? • Which labels have the qualities to guarantee transparency, clarity and trust? Do we need new labels? • How can we improve the image of agriculture and producers? • Why do many people in Germany eat unhealthy diets, and why is it so hard to convince people to adopt healthy eating patterns? All participants were aware that in Germany our views and thoughts are based on a German perspective. At European and international levels (e.g. in the global South), there are other problems that depend on our way of producing and trading food. International food systems are composed of many (national) subsystems and are closely linked. It is all the more important to maintain our dialogue and possibly expand it beyond Germany's borders.

2021-08-15 10:50:06205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40053/130

135117842388451505212225831912571610914391273314

Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the third National Food Systems Dialogue on 13th August 2021 on the theme “Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system” under the convenorship of Honorable Dr Dil Bahadur Gurung, Member, NPC and National Food Systems Dialogue Convenor. In his, welcome and opening remarks, Hon Dr Gurung stressed on the need for collective efforts and commitments from all the sectors/stakeholders in the process to transform food system and contribute to achieve all 17 Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs) as part of the Decade of Action. List of the participants for the third national food system dialogues was shared among the stakeholders to get their inputs to ensure representation and participation of diverse stakeholders in terms of sector and disciplines, institutions, ethnicity/ gender, and spheres of governance. Revisions were done to ensure inclusive participation. Efforts were made to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organizations, civil society and private sector organizations from different parts of the country.Given the Food System is a complex system and involves many actors, we need to have a deeper level of understanding that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding and analysis. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed through the activation of organizing and technical committees representing key stakeholders to ensure active engagement of the stakeholders. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. The National Planning Commission organized series of orientations to the facilitators and curators in order to have consistent process while facilitating the dialogues. These orientations were designed to adapt to the local context following the contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. Respective federal and provincial governments had led the dialogues with the support from the experts and key stakeholders for ensuring ownership and commitment of all stakeholders to the outcomes of the dialogues. During the dialogue, critical analysis was done to examine the national food system and sort out causes/barriers, drivers and to prioritize potential actions for the next 3 years. Participants actively worked in different groups shared ideas and actions amicably for analyzing, prioritizing and improving the Nepalese food system. In order to have a meaningful dialogue among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, key outcomes from the previous dialogues (9) was prepared and shared to all participants before the event. Nepali language was used as medium of conversation to have active engagement of participants of farmers in the dialogues; and a provision of simultaneous interpretation in English was made for the non-Nepali speakers.We did our best to encourage the participation of diverse stakeholders under the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Virtual interactive dialogue was useful to successfully reach and interact with stakeholders from diverse geography and culture in the country during the nationwide lockdown and movement restriction during the pandemic.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249251Total of 135 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions to review the consolidated outputs from the earlier dialogues, including the suggestions from the UNFSS Scientific Group and Action Tracks. The major focus was to shape the national pathways and determine their scope, prioritize the actions for three years, and most importantly get the institutional commitments from stakeholders to contribute to transforming the food systems of Nepal. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. Each AT Group had proposition, pathways, actions and commitments to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. Pathway: Ensure policy coherence (especially of the agriculture, food security and nutrition, education and health) and food governance and encourage farmers/youth to involve in agricultural sector to intensify the production of affordable, safe, healthy and nutritious food for all people in a sustainable way. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. Pathway: Set up regulatory mechanisms and educate people to consume healthy and nutritious local food, reduce food loss/waste, and promote, protect and support for breastfeeding practices. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. Pathway: Agroecosystem based resilient planning and revitalization of indigenous food systems, and concentrated efforts on conserving and using the biodiversity and nature by improving the value of nature positive food system AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. Pathway: Invest on R&D and innovation to diversify the food systems and develop entrepreneurship skills of small and commercial farmers including SMEs to raise their income from the food value chains and improve their livelihoods and address the problem of food insecurity leaving no one behind. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. Pathway: Ensure longer-term investments on developing the resilient food system and community to withstand shock and stresses for sustainable and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Pathway: Develop coherent policies and strategies in line with the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act, and prioritize implementing the Act through the approval of Bylaws and comprehensive orientation to the stakeholders to ensure accountable food governance at all federal structure for achieving resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems.235238239240241242246247249251The national dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. The specific focus of the third dialogue was to sort out barriers/, drivers and prioritize actions for the next 3 years based on the outcomes from the previous two national and seven provincial dialogues, and get commitments from key stakeholders on the specific themes and action areas. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the national food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. The bold actions under each track were refined and validated. Some specific commitments received from the stakeholders were presented in the plenary so far available. Many stakeholders have mentioned that they would send their official commitments in the coming weeks to transform and make the food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable in Nepal. The dialogue also drew some learning to reflect impressions and work further on as following: 1. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs, like AT 1 and 2; AT 3 and 5; AT 4 and 6 in the context of Nepal. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 2. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants have suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 3. There was strong commitment from many stakeholders including Government Ministries, Research Organizations, farmers, Development Partners, including the UN agencies and Private Sectors in specific themes and action areas to address the issues through policies and programmes. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing, prioritizing and improving the actions areas of the Nepalese food systems. The third national dialogue has also identified and prioritized potential options/ (refer Section C below). Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups in five Action Tracks and one in cross-cutting policy theme rigorously discussed on the topics of the ATs propositions, pathway and actions. Joint Secretaries of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts supported by the key Government Ministries and stakeholders.236238243249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: Cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Situation of nutrition has improved over the period of 1996 to 2019: stunting decreased from 57 to 32%, underweight 42 to 24, and wasting from 15 to 12%. Drivers of change: • Inadequate infrastructures and investments (roads & storage facilities, collection centers, chilling centers, cold chains). • Low level of Technological research and development, climate adaptive technology and marketing • Inadequate promotion of seed bank and Food bank, low education/awareness level, • Less involvement of private sector agriculture, food, and nutrition. • Outmigration of youth and feminization of agriculture, Inadequate skilled agricultural human resource • Low priority to agriculture by all three tiers of governments and poor coordination and accountability • Inadequate breast-feeding friendly workplace and maternity protection and increasing use of junk/ultra-processed foods meal (agri-education and health) • Low level of agricultural productivity and high pre & post-harvest losses • Fragmentation of land holdings, existence of subsistence production system and land remaining fallow and soil erosion • Use of unsafe water, injudicious use of pesticides and chemicals and anti-microbial drugs • Loss/ Erosion of local biodiversity and existence of poor food diversity • Poverty driven food insecurity and non-farm income opportunity in rural area, Actions for next 3 years that will have greatest impact: • Harmonize agriculture, food and nutrition and health and other sectoral policies, and set up accountable food governance mechanism through the implementation of Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act to create an enabling environment for promoting local food production systems. • Increase investment in agricultural research, extension and education to develop and disseminate agricultural technologies as per the diverse climatic condition and need of the stakeholders • Operationalization of food banks, and conservation and utilization of local crops that have high nutrition • Set up strong food security information management system at different levels to strengthen evidence-based agriculture, food security, and nutrition planning. Conserve and utilize local crops/commodities that have high nutrition • Expand irrigation coverage, and develop infrastructures like roads, storage and processing. • Develop gender friendly pre/post-harvest technology and improve quality agri-input supply and product marketing systems involving private sectors. • Integrate crops-vegetables with aquaculture and Animal Husbandry for small-scale farmers and increase dietary diversity and value addition. • Education and awareness raising programs for the consumption of nutrient rich foods • Restructuring research and extension system to address the needs of the farmers and value chain actors for nutrition and food security. • Ensure Infant and children nutrition by enhancing access to breast feeding through policy/programs and enacting Breast Milk Substitutes Act, levying additional taxes for unhealthy foods and regulation for unhealthy food marketing, • Ensure proper nutrition for Old-age generation including food bank for them at different levels; food safety, hygiene and nutrition, food fortification focusing more on biofortification to enrich nutrition, and food composition database preparation • Digitization of agril practices, and capacity building in agriculture, nutrition, and food safety at all levels of governance. • Recognize the role of Pvt sectors in food production/value addition and engage/involve them • Adopt Quality Assurance and Quality Certification system for the products through adopting GAP, GMP etc.236239243246249251Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure; prevalence of triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades; women and children also suffer from some of the world’s highest levels of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Drivers of change: • Unregulated market for unhealthy commercial food products and marketing of such products. • Legislation on mandatory labelling on the nutritive value of food and portion size is not included available in the commercial food products. • High cost of nutritious diet (nutritious diet is 242% more expensive than the energy only diet) • Inequitable access to nutritious food and inappropriate consumption pattern. • Present policies favour energy-dense foods over nutritious foods and lack of resilient value chains and marketing system • Social, religious, and cultural aspects denying nutritious diets for women and vulnerable groups • Globalization, urbanization, migration, and other socio-economic drivers changing dietary patterns. • Lack of age-specific dietary guidelines and government subsidies on food commodities as a form of social protection not aligned with dietary guidelines. • Low awareness on healthy diets and the nutritive value underutilized crops • High post-harvest loss, insufficient/limited technologies for food processing and value addition. • Low level of awareness on food loss and waste (FLW) and no adequate regulatory mechanism, • Insufficient integration of food production/processing/storage. • Inadequate and weak policy coherence, or practices among the concerned ministries, among 3 tiers of the governments & private sectors • Inadequate capacity of public and private sector to implement the statutory and regular service provisions, Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: • Develop nutrient profiling model and nutrient profiling-based taxation on food, • Marketing control- regulation of misleading advertisement of unhealthy packaged foods and other low grade ready to consume foods. • Update/develop the age specific FBDGs considering the issues of environment, food waste, affordability, local foods etc. • Front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) also containing information on trans fatty acids-ecolabelling/traffic light labelling and mandatory labelling with on pack visuals • Raising awareness of improved choices, and stimulating demand for nutrient-rich foods. • Update national guideline of MIYCN to create maternal baby friendly environment at workplace, health system, public places and community setting. • Monitor the implementation of Breastmilk Substitute Act; increase maternity and paternity protection to at least 6 months with full salary • Invest in lactation management skills and competencies for health care workers and establish human milk banks in Kathmandu and provincial hospitals • School nutrition program- Promote healthy diet, healthy eating behavior and knowledge through school education. • Promote local diverse foods in public gathering and as snack in official meetings. • Subsidize and incentivize the farming of nutrient-dense local crop and landraces; • Infrastructure development and maintaining cold chain to reduce on-farm and post-harvest losses • Develop technologies and mandatory guidelines for post-harvest handling of foods to reduce food loss and waste and monitor food safety guidelines • Policy and interventions to minimize antibiotics and chemical pesticides residue in foods • Develop framework for the private sector engagement in producing healthy foods; popularizing healthy dietary pattern; • Provisioning startup funding for promising MSMEs producing and marketing healthy foods • Mobilize civil society and youth in promoting healthy food habits. • Develop National food security and nutrition framework with clear delineation of roles of different government and enhance capacity of institutions for improving governance.236238240243244249251Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation, land degradation and pollution. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Production of major staples and commercial vegetables in some pockets has caused excessive mining of soil nutrients, water depletion and agrochemical pollution. Food habits mostly towards two major staples such as rice and wheat have led to a narrow dietary diversity; this has resulted in loss of traditional crops and indigenous knowledge. Drivers of change: • Climate change: Lack of climate agro-advisory, information and preparedness mechanisms and policies • Land and water degradation/depletion and land conversion: Lack of judicious and balanced use of chemical and organic fertilizers; lack of regenerative agriculture practices, conversion of fertile lands to settlements and industrial uses. • Pollution (water, land, air): Unsafe /injudicious use of agrochemicals in production (land, water), storage and marketing, forest fires causing air pollution • Socioeconomic changes (-demographic, institutions): Youth migration, change in food habits and urbanization; limited capacity and support to farmers and stakeholders for nature positive production • Policy, Institutions & Governance drivers: Inadequate coordination and inadequate policies,-disintegrated planning of agriculture, livestock, forestry, water • Science and Technologies: : Lack of proper use of modern as well as as indigenous knowledge, technologies; lack of native original (Maulik) technologies development; haphazard introduction of exotic technologies without considering native adapted technologies ; inadequate knowledge and upgrading • Unplanned/haphazard & non-resilient infrastructure development: Damage of irrigation canals, loss of vegetations and fertile soils from improper road building, crushing industries resulting in soil erosion, landslides and flooding, • Lack of circular agri-food systems/economy’s based livelihoods: Lack of regenerative system with high food losses and wastes • Loss of agrobiodiversity : Loss of indigenous crops, varieties plants /animal breeds, aquatic, insect , microbes, and, lack of site-specific production and value chain development • Lack of reliable data base system, market information and research for diverse food species for nature positive production Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: • Develop and adoption of Climate resilient agriculture and food system . • Integrated Sustainable Land Management by enforcement of Land use Act (2019) and Land Use Policy (2015) at Agroecosystem and Landscape based planning • Revitalization of local indigenous food system and social system through agroecological /organic farming • Improvement of soil health through legume rotation, conservation agriculture • Value chain development of local crops /commodities based on green technologies/regenerative agriculture practices in partnership with private sector • Integrated Management of Crops- livestock-forestry/ pasture-land with focus on agroforestry /integrated farming systems through revitalization of indigenous regenerative production system • Investment on food-water-energy-biodiversity-health nexus for improved and healthy agroecosystems • Empowering and build the capacity of farmers and institutions by bringing private sector investment in research and development including indigenous and local knowledge and good practices • Establish and communicate a comprehensive agricultural information, knowledge, database and services systems through effective community based and private sector driven extension system • Reorient and apply community forestry concept to Forests based food production & restoration of degradation ecosystems • Research investment in green, climate smart, resilient, and regenerative technologies, and innovations • Conservation & sustainable use of agrobiodiversity by promoting site specific crops, commodities & NUS (neglected and underutilized species).236241245249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Context: landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Inadequate institutional mechanisms for and limited capacity of women, small holders, old-age, people with disability (PWD), they have less access to production resources, space for voice, negotiation power in the market systems. Underlying Causes/Barriers/Drivers • Improper implementation of land use policy; land fragmentation denying access for women and small holders • Lack of access of women and marginalized groups to control over productive resources including land, water, credit etc. • Lack of supporting mechanism for small holders (e.g. land consolidation prefers organising and mobilizing relatively larger farmers); • Least access to indigenous crops/seed and problem of food diversification, which is predominantly a domain of indigenous people, poor, disadvantaged and women • Low level of involvement of human resources (as agriculture sector is considered as low-grade work) where women, poor and disadvantaged groups are involved for their livelihoods • Improper management of water sources affecting agricultural productivity specially in the low stream areas, and small holders for e.g. people in downstream side of Chure range affected by floods and loss of productive lands, displacements; • Lack of enforcing mechanism for budget allocation and expenditure in agriculture sector supporting to youth, women, small holders • Discrimination in employment opportunities, wages including agriculture • Minimal utilization of local crops and depend on processed foods • Inadequate market linkage for agricultural and livestock produces • Lack and or inadequate cooperative responsive laws and policies. Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: • Categorize farmers, producers, issuance of farmers ID and provision of categorized services and incentives. • Implement and land use policy to ensure to inclusive tenure and user rights for women, small holders and poor; • Implement policies, guidelines, procedures for equitable access to water, employability within food systems, and targeted provisions; • Formalization of agriculture sector jobs to ensure regular employments, fix wage rates without gender discrimination, assurance of decent work. • Partnership with private sector in promoting agriculture-based production, enterprising, marketing and reaching services to marginalized. • Capacity strengthening of all actors in use of IT, infrastructure development in both on farm and off farm employment sectors to diversify economic opportunities for women, youth, poor; • Research and evidence-based planning based on needs, priorities and demands of consumer and market. • Improvement conservation, promotion and registration of indigenous seeds. • Robust monitoring and evaluation of program, grant and any other support that are entitled to women, youth and small holders • Prepare inclusive communication strategy to raise awareness on local and nutritious foods. • Diversify food system, innovate culinary arts and promote processing industries for high value industrial crops. • Strengthen producers, vendors, market actors and consumers in the decision-making of rural food system transformation; • Define inter-connected initiatives linking with income generation, safety net, health e.g. breastfeeding, school meal programs, tourism etc.; • Capacity building and skill enhancement, easy access to production inputs for SME’s growth and market explorations as well crisis responsive actions • Support youths to engage in profitable niche-based competitive local produce for both domestic and export markets • Inclusive governance in food system in both production resource management as well as market governance to benefit by all (women, poor and vulnerable communities); • Execute programs to ensure right to employment, work place safety, equal pay for equal work, better health, choice of livelihoods options for women, youth, poor, marginalized groups236242243244246251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: Current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. These shocks, stress and disaster can be devastating for poor and vulnerable people. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Lately, COVID-19 has contributed to increase unemployment, poverty and vulnerability including loss of livelihoods. The 2015 Earthquake increased number of food insecure people by 3.5 million. Therefore, building resilience means helping individuals, households and communities to mitigate, cope with and recover from shocks and stresses, so that they can become even better off than before. Drivers of change: • Negative effect of disasters (flood, drought, disease, epidemic, pandemic, etc.) • Feminization of agriculture due to male out-migration (drudgery for women),Lack of early warning and preparedness (preparedness not in place to respond to disasters), • Lack of vulnerability mapping and information management system, • Weak implementation of existing preparedness/response plan, • Settlement of people at the vulnerable areas e.g. Riverside, unplanned infrastructure. • Land encroachment in vulnerable areas like river-banks • Diseases and pest outbreaks in crops, livestock and poultry • Losses of bio-diversity and indigenous crops and technologies • Market and price vulnerability, low value addition • Low insurance coverage (human, livestock and crops) • Less awareness on food for health and healthy lives • Resilience not embedded in policies and programmes—to much sectoral perceptive • Management of malnutrition not effectively implemented, • Weak inputs supply system (seeds, fertilizers, agri machines, credits), . • Lack of food storage for emergency Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: • Effective implementation of land use policy and legal framework, agro-met services/advisory, • R&D on resilient technology (including local crops and soil mgmt.), proper water management and irrigation technologies • Strengthen supply chain system, multi-sectoral approach to enhance resilience, • Proper coordination mechanism between the 3 spheres of govt and stakeholders • Food security monitoring system (NeKSAP) in place for vulnerability and mapping of affected people, • Provision of vulnerability card to the vulnerable community, evidence-based decision-making, • Preparedness, response and recovery mechanism in place, expansion of insurance coverage • Mainstreaming resilience into sectoral programming; develop risk informed programme, building resilience for food system, agroforestry, • Fair price shops in food insecure areas, food storage and stocking of food including supplementary/therapeutic food for emergency, strengthen food distribution system • Prevention and management of malnutrition, • Link Prime Minister (PM)/ Chief Minister (CM) employment programmes to Food Systems, Social protection system in place, re-settlement of people living in vulnerable areas to safe area • Maintain food storage and food bank for emergency situation (Local govt to take responsibly)236238239240241242243245247249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context: Nepal has developed legal framework to implement the constitutional guarantee of the right to food and food sovereignty including through ensuring good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. This Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Key Drivers: • Inadequate efforts for effective implementation of the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act. • Ineffective coordination between provincial and local levels. • Weak policy coherence among three spares of government under the federal set up. • Inadequate of information and awareness about the law, implementation efforts. • Federal, Provincial and Local Level Bylaws on Right to Food (RtF) act not yet developed. • Lack of institutional set up such as National Food Council , provincial food council and local food coordination committee have not yet been established. • Lack of clear roles and responsibilities and accountability mechanism among the stakeholders. • Limited consultations with stakeholders, while formulating the Act; outcomes of the consultations were not widely shared. • Inadequate monitoring and oversight of the implementation process. • Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare local laws and policies on right to food. • Lack of institutional set up like technical food security committee are to implement RtF act at Municipality and Provincial levels Actions in next 3 for greater impact: • Set up and strengthen institutional architecture at 3 spheres of government (based on Act, policy, strategies, etc). • Develop Bylaws on Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act and implement them for advancing food system and food governance. • Orientation to people’s representative and farmers about the law, policies and programs • Coordination mechanism to regulate the law and guidelines, strengthen governance and accountability. • Formulation of provincial Act and regulations. • Implement farmers’ identification card. • Strong legal coordination mechanism between local, provincial, and federal government. • Ensuring policy /programme coherence in agriculture, food security and nutrition; build synergies. • Adequate financing to the Province and Local levels based on their performance on the implementation of Act, and relevant policies. • Implementation of 15th Plan, Periodic Plans, and localization of SDGs with priority. • Invest on setting up a mechanism for systematic data collection, analysis, and management for strengthening the evidence-based policy making237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-10-06 02:12:49https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Country-Report-Nepals-Food-System-Latest-version.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Compiled-Stakeholders-Commitments-Nepal-.pdf

2021-08-15 13:02:40205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27771/199

15003107254726766417117942132165011505

Describe in under 2,100 characters including spaces The Sub-national Food Systems Summit Dialogue in Northern Vietnam was successfully organized in Hanoi on 22nd June 2021 as a hybrid event, combining both in-person and virtual participation. In order for the principles of engagement to be integrated, reinforced and enhanced, the committee carefully followed key steps in organizing a food systems summit dialogue. In the preparing step, the program was designed in such a way that three core elements i.e. plenary session with official introduction, dialogue session, and summary session are included. Next, the inclusive and diverse list of participants was made and the pre-reading materials on the food systems summit were prepared. Then, the documents and invitation letter was sent out to invitees well in advance so that they have time to get prepared before attending the dialogue. During the event, the welcome and high-level introduction started, followed by the technical presentation to provide participants with background information on the Northern food systems so that they further go in depth discussion in a smaller group in two discussion sessions, 45 min each. After that, the key findings were summarized by each group facilitator and finally by the curator to cover all convergence and divergence opinions of the participants. To fully catch-up the contribution of all people, after the event the curator and facilitators follow-up with the participants via email to continue collecting their ideas for report completion. To conclude, the summit principles was largely incorporated and boosted up in the food system dialogue in Northern Vietnam.The Sub-national Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD) in Northern Vietnam was fruitfully organized with more than 160 participants from different sectors of food systems. The Northern Dialogue reflected specific aspects of the principles of engagement as indicated below: 1. Act with urgency: It is clearly recognized by many stakeholders that the current food systems in the North is unsustainable, low resilience to shock, stress, and vulnerabilities. Therefore, all stakeholders agree that we must act together urgently in order to transform the food systems in a positive way. 2. Commit to the summit: The number of participants attending the Dialogue was much higher than our expectation. During the dialogue, they actively contributed their knowledge and experience to the Northern food system characteristics and provided creative and practical solutions toward more sustainable, responsible and transparent systems. After the event, lots of them still followed-up with the organizers to provide their opinions to the report. 3. Be respectful: During the discussion sessions, participants had open discussion, respected each other opinions, accepted the divergent points of view. The initiatives and solutions proposed build on the existing ones and suit to the local context. 4. Recognize complexity: It is recognized that the Northern food systems are complex and involve in many sectors. Therefore, in order to achieve the systematic transformation the organizers invited multiple stakeholders and designed two dialogue sessions with small discussion groups in which they identify actions across the system with potential synergies and trade-offs. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The Dialogue brought diverse participants from seven food systems related sectors, from central to provincial governments, agriculture, agri-business community, associations, academia, multilateral organization etc. They work across the food system from production to consumption and raise the voice during dialogue, largely contributing to the system transformation.From our experience, there are some advices given to other dialogue conveners below: - Have curator and facilitators well prepared and trained before the Dialogue - Strictly follow time-frame of the program, especially the dialogue session so that every participant has opportunity to share his/her opinion. - Welcome both convergence and divergence opinions from all participants. - Create a trustworthy, friendly and opened atmosphere for discussion.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The Northern region consists of 25 provinces (6 provinces in the Northwest, 9 provinces in the Northeast, and 10 provinces in the Red River Delta) with a total area of approximately 110,000 km2; population: 35 million people, accounting for one third of the country's area and population. In the North, agriculture is identified as one of key economic pillars. However, the production and consumption of food, accessibility to nutritious and safe food for all, and operation of food value chains in the North are still facing to many challenges such as small-scale and fragmented production, out-dated farming methods, un-biosecurity, abuse of plant protection drugs, chemical fertilizers, veterinary drugs, and additives processing etc. In the Northern mountainous areas, the rate of low-income households and children with malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies is still very high. Furthermore, many locations there have complex topography, sloping land, and frequent experience with extreme climate phenomena such as heavy rains, floods, landslides, causing heavy damage to crops and livestock, seriously affecting people's livelihood. Many food value chains are not sustainable; the linkages between actors are loose, and the flow of information is not transparent. Therefore, the Sub-National Dialogue on food systems in Northern Viet Nam focus on three themes, corresponding to five Action Tracks exploring the current challenges, opportunities, trade-offs and synergies of the Northern food systems (i) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all and shift to sustainable consumption patterns (Action track 1 and 2); (ii) Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress (Action track 3 and 5), and (iii) Eliminate poverty and increase income, advance equitable livelihoods, and value division (Action track 4). After official welcome by the Chair of the Dialogue Event - Mr. Le DucThinh, Director of Department of Cooperative and Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and opening remarks by the international organizations (UNICEF, IFAD, Embassy of Canada, CGIAR), a series of introductory and technical presentations were given to participants namely introduction of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit given by Mr. Hoang Van Tu, FAO, followed by the key outcomes from 1st National Dialogue by Mr. Rodd Dyer – the regional curator, finally the overview of food systems in the Northern Vietnam: Characteristics, Problems to be solved, Challenges, and Opportunities given by Ms. Tran Thi Dinh, the Northern Dialogue curator. Once the presentations completed, two dialogue sessions were organized in which the participants were divided into five online discussion groups according to their preferred Themes. Each group was supported by a Facilitator and a Note-taker. First, the facilitator gave a brief introduction and overview of the discussion theme topic and process, and then participants were invited to contribute their opinions, guided by several focus questions. In the first session, participants explored the questions: What is the current situation, issues, challenges and gaps need to be addressed related to the discussed Themes? In the second session participants explored the questions: What are the initiatives, solutions and actions within the discussed Themes that Northern Viet Nam should take to contribute to the Food Systems to foster rapid and lasting changes.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The Sub-national Dialogue on food systems in Northern Vietnam was successfully organized with the participation of diverse stakeholders coming from 25 Northern provinces. The Dialogue created a friendly and trustworthy platform for participants to share the ideas, experiences and knowledge on specific problems and challenges of the Northern food systems and to contribute bold ideas, creative solutions to set a pathway toward more sustainable, responsible, and transparent food systems. In the official plenary session, departments in the central government as well as national and international partners strongly showed their interests and commitment to the food system summit. Then, in the first dialogue session the typical characteristics, challenges and gaps need to be addressed in the food systems in the Northern Vietnam were clarified by active contribution of all participants such as high prevalence of children malnutrition and nutrient deficiency in the remote and mountainous areas, a major problem on food safety, unbalanced nutrition in the diets, unsustainable supply chain operation, low awareness of people on food safety and nutrition, climate change and environmental pollution due to abuse of chemicals and over-exploitation, inefficient and ineffective policy implementation, the invisible role of women in the society etc. In the second Dialogue session, the participants identified opportunities, solutions, and actions pathways to achieve more responsible, sustainable and transparent food systems in the Northern Vietnam. The solutions could be groups into (i) innovation and technology applied across the entire food systems including labelling, traceability, food safety, product quality, e-commerce, (ii) legal framework and policy implementation to support or control sustainable/un-safe production, (iii) funding distribution to be effective, (iv) environmental protection, and gender equality and social inclusion, particularly most vulnerable groups affected by shocks and stress.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Current situation, issues, challenges and gaps need to be addressed in the food systems in the Northern Vietnam Participants identified various characteristics, issues and problems in each discussion Theme. Several consistent issues and cross-cutting themes were identified, some across multiple Themes (e.g., food safety, communication, climate change, traceability, food labelling). Summary of the problems, vulnerabilities, and gaps for each of the three discussion themes corresponding to five Action Tracks is given below: Theme 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all and shift to sustainable consumption patterns - Food safety is a major issue due to abuse of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, veterinary products, food additives and traditional farming habits; - Food safety management in the wet markets is still a big challenge while most of foods are purchased in these markets. Traceability for the products in the wet markets is currently almost impossible. - Rate of children malnutrition and nutrition deficiency in the mountainous areas is high due to low rate of breastfeeding, low nutrition value and diversity of baby foods while the rate of obesity in the big cites increases due to consumption of unhealthy foods. - Awareness, knowledge, and best practices of the Northern people, especially producers and consumers on food safety and nutrition are still low; - Capacity of the management authority is still low both quality and quantity; - Communication on food safety and nutrition is not effective and transparent; - Implementation of food policies and law is not yet effective; - Food labeling is not transparent; - Accessibility to safe and nutritious foods has not yet assured for the entire Northern resident. Theme 2: Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress. - Production is unsustainable, focusing on quantity not yet quality - Small-scale and fragmented production is typical in the North. Lots of producers do not follow technical regulations and standards. - Small holder farmers face many difficulties to produce safe foods due to lack of investment and low income, limited access to the big markets. - Lack of young and high quality labour for agriculture production - Climate change increases natural disasters, floods, and epidemics, causing heavy damage to crops and livestock, seriously affecting people's livelihood. - Pollution of soil, water, biodiversity degradation due to overuse of chemicals - Market is unstable due to weak linkage, lack of technology, and pandemic (Covid 19). The most vulnerable actor is producers. - Lack of supportive policies, especially for small-holder farmers Theme 3: Eliminate poverty and increase income, advance equitable livelihoods, and value division. - Many food value chains are not sustainable; the linkages between actors are loose, and the flow of information is not transparent; - Postharvest and processing technologies are out-dated; - Infrastructures in the wholesale and wet markets do not meet the standards, thus it is difficult to assure food safety and the food loss and waste are huge; - Unbalance of food distribution in urban and rural areas; - Limited involvement of private sectors; - Unfair competition among enterprises due to lack of information transparency.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Describe up to 10 Discussion topics, each in under 4,200 characters including spaces A summary of the opportunities and solutions identified for each discussion Theme is provided below. Theme 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all and shift to sustainable consumption patterns - High demand on safe and nutritious foods; - Application of a multidisciplinary approach, combination of both health and agriculture to reduce stunting/malnutrition rates; - Including the indicator of stunting/malnutrition and food safe into the socio-economic indicators from the commune level up to central level; - Improvement of household meals by using existing food ingredients; - Encourage using local food rather than processed foods containing unhealthy substances - Raising consumer awareness in both rural and urban areas about the importance of food safety and nutrition through education, training, and attractive communication; - Strengthening the role of consumer protection association; - Improving communication with simple and attractive images and videos; - Strictly monitoring food labeling - Prioritizing policies for healthy and adverse food products - Establishing the nutrition law Theme 2: Boost nature-positive production and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress - Investment in smart agriculture, boosting application of innovative and advanced postharvest and processing technology - Promotion of biosecurity production, application of standards and regulations in production - Expanding centralized production areas for specialty products in the localities to meet market demands. - Promotion of biosecurity production, balance between livestock and crop production - Political support for strengthening, scaling up and scaling out - Strengthening surveillance and monitoring systems - Improving mechanisms and policies to support farmers and cooperatives to be able to access resources for safe production with high product quality. - Food safety management along the value chain using a risk-based approach - Investment of infrastructure and equipment for both production areas and lab analysis - Human capacity improvement for the value chain actors to be sustainable - Enhancing e-commerce. Theme 3: Eliminate poverty and increase income, advance equitable livelihoods, and value division - The legal framework of the food system is internationally integrated; - Wholesale and retail markets build up a decentralized network for an efficient and equitable distribution of fresh food products; - Traceability, better information flow by application of digital technology, shared governance - Improvement of coordination among stakeholders, market linkages - Sharing risks, better distribution of value and power in the supply chain - Promoting public-private partnership237238240242243244245248249250Describe in under 5,600 characters including spaces There are some divergent views from the participant inputs are listed as follows: - The priorities given for policy, food safety, equality and inclusion; - Balance between safe production and quantity to meet the economic goals; - The consumer perception on seriousness of microbial and chemical food safety hazard; - Who are responsible for food safety: government authority, private sectors, and consumers? - The causes and solutions to improve malnutrition and stunting in children; - The legal framework is internationally integrated but the policy implementations need to be reinforced.

2021-08-15 13:25:16205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35195/199

1131695310130113310413139263839326162

Describe in under 2,100 characters including spaces The 2nd National Food Systems Dialogue in Vietnam was held in Hanoi on Friday 16th July. Over 240 participants from a range of sectors and stakeholder groups participated in a hybrid event. Approximately 50 high-level officials participated in-person in a COVID-safe venue, with the remainder joining online. The main objectives of the 2nd National Dialogue was to: 1. Report the synthesis of participant inputs from the 1st National and three Sub-National Dialogues: 2. Provide an opportunity for key stakeholder representatives to propose opportunities and communicate commitments; and 3. Communicate the Government of Vietnam’s proposed vision and pathway to achieving responsible, sustainable and transparent food systems by 2030. Given the hybrid event, a small number of experienced senior participants that representative strategically important stakeholder and institutions were invited to participate and contribute to the Dialogue. Invited participants were provided synthesis materials from the 1stNational Dialogue, prompt questions, and were each given opportunities for input. Other participants could also join online and contribute remote input into the Dialogue process.The following examples demonstrate how Vietnam’s National Dialogues reflected the seven principles of engagement: 1. Act with urgency: Vietnam’s call for urgent action is evidenced by the adopting a broad goal that seeks to develop a pathway towards more transparent, responsible, and sustainable food systems by 2030. In concrete terms this urgency has mobilized a series of two National Dialogues and three Sub-National Dialogues (in the Northern, Central, and Southern regions of Vietnam) in which almost one-thousand stakeholders have participated. 2. Commit to the Summit: Firstly, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) has been nominated by Vietnam Government as the lead agency to prepare Vietnam for the Summit. In this lead role MARD has mobilized two National Dialogues and three Sub-National Dialogues in coordination with other supporting Ministries in preparation for the UNFSS in September. The opening address at the 2nd National Dialogue was given by Deputy Prime-Minister Mr. Phạm Bình Minh who outlined the Vietnam’s bold vision and commitment of food system transformation. This high-level commitment was further emphasized during the closing address by Mr. Lê Minh Hoan, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). Further commitment to the Dialogue process and the Summit is evidenced by commitment of Vietnam’s High Level to represent Vietnam’s role as a "responsible, transparent and sustainable" food supplier in the global food system at the UNFSS. Whilst the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for MARD will participate in the July Pre-Summit. 3. Be respectful: The Dialogue process has engaged and valued input from a wide and diverse range of food systems actors and key stakeholders. The Dialogue process has aimed to provide participants an opportunity to openly contribute their views and ideas to the discussions and play an active role shaping the future of Vietnam’s and the global food systems. Despite the large online format, participants were provided multiple ways for providing inputs into Dialogues, including direct inpSome reflections that could be useful to Convenors of future Dialogues include: i. Provide synthesis and pre-reading materials to participants for prior to the Dialogue for their consideration. ii. Identify strategically important and respected participants from a range of representative stakeholder groups to participant. iii. Formulate question for key stakeholders to respond to and elaborate on during the Dialogue to provide more focused input. iv. Embrace on-line and hybrid delivery but engage professional technical expertise. v. Provide multiple modes for participants to provide input into Dialogues

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The 2nd National Dialogue had a broad and comprehensive focus on priorities, pathways, and commitments for developing transparent, responsible, and sustainable food systems in Vietnam. The first area of focus for the Dialogue was for the Government of Vietnam, and MARD to present: 1. an overview of Vietnams preparations for participation in the Food Systems Summit (FSS); 2. a summary of key outcomes of the 1st National and three Sub-National Dialogues; and 3. Present proposed priorities and pathways for food systems in Vietnam. The second focus area was an opportunity for key invited stakeholders to express their views, interests,and commitments for working together to achieve a transparent, responsible and sustainable food systems in Vietnam. These views were supplemented by inputs and comments from online participants. The level of Government commitment attributed to the UNFSS process was evidenced by opening remarks provided by the Deputy Prime-Minister Mr. Phạm Bình Minh. This set the scene and provided an overview of Vietnam’s vision and pathway for food system transformation. Opening remarks were also provide by Mr. Kamal Malhotra, the UN Resident Coordinator, and Ms. Carolyn Turk, the World Bank Country Director, who both chaired the 2nd National Dialogue together with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Mr. Le Minh Hoan. The keynote presentation was provided by Mr. Le Duc Thinh, the Director General, Department of Cooperatives and Rural Development (DCRD), MARD. This presentation provided an overview of Vietnam’s participating in the Food Systems Summit, a summary of the key outcomes from the synthesis of the 1st National Dialogue and three Sub-National Dialogues and an overview of some possible cross-cutting priorities and pathways for food systems in Vietnam. The synthesis of challenges and opportunities from the1st National and three Sub-National Dialogues, explicitly addressed the five Action Tracks. The synthesis of stakeholder inputs was provided as a summary report to Dialogue participants. During the 2nd Dialogue, most stakeholder input addressed cross-cutting themes, links between various Action Tracks issues and key change levers. See findings and outcomes below. Eighteen invited senior representatives from national ministries and provincial governments, county embassies, international research and development organisations, NGO’s and senior experts express their view about priorities, areas of mutual benefit, potential collaboration and commitments to working with Vietnam to achieve responsible and sustainable food systems. See the summary of their inputs in the Discussion Outcomes sections below. Finally, concluding and closing remarks were provided by the UN Resident Coordinator, the World Bank Country Director and Mr. Lê Minh Hoan, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD).235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The opening remarks of Deputy Prime-Minister Mr. Phạm Bình Minh and conclusions of Mr. Lê Minh Hoan, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) respectively laid out the vision of Vietnam’s proposed pathway for food system transformation by 2030to ensure access to safe, nutritious and balanced food for its population of 100 million people, and become a transparent, responsible and sustainable food producer and supplier, making bold contribution to global food security. Several initiatives and key interventions were proposed: i) Scale up farmer-market linkage innovations, especially those initiated and built up from the ground namely “our garden”. This model is considered the best practice, which strengthens partnership between farmers and other actors, especially consumers, and promotes integration of multiple values in food value chains such as quality, culture, green, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability and sustainability through co-creation, co-ownership and co-responsibility principles. Such creative initiatives can serve as building blocks for all actors in the food system to share values, responsibilities, actions and benefits across economic, social and environmental dimensions; ii) Intensify research and development and transfer of technology in response to demands of businesses and requirements for the development of transparent, responsible and sustainable food systems; enhance cooperation and assistance in study, forecasting and building of disaster, disease risk warning, and integrated management systems with credit and livelihood support packages in the context of Covid-19, climate change and agricultural diseases and pests; Promote the digital transformation and develop the digital economy in agriculture by encouraging firms and farmers to apply digital technology to their production and value chain management processes, including agricultural services. The digital transformation will go hand in hand with the green transformation and will be closely linked to the institutional innovation process in order to develop integrated food systems with multiple values, including economic, cultural, social, landscape and environmental ones; iii) Strengthen domestic and international innovation networks. Specifically, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has been and will intensify its partnership with the World Economic Forum to promote the Initiatives on “Food Innovation Hub in Asia” and “100 Million Farmers Initiative: Transitioning towards net-zero, nature-positive food systems”. MARD has also participated in “the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate initiative” initiated by the United States and the United Arab Emirates. In addition, MARD has made a joint statement on “Agriculture development and sustainable food system for the monsoon tropics” initiated by Japan together with some other ASEAN countries; iv) Viet Nam defines that its Food systems need to be transformed into “green”, sustainable and low-emission direction. Due attention should be given to eco-friendly and climate smart agricultural production. Viet Nam aims at advancing low-emission and sustainable agricultural development, and strives to reach net-zero emissions. Viet Nam also considers this an opportunity to promote “green” growth/circular economy and the development of new “green” products, services and jobs; v) Formulate and update the national food balance sheet as the basis for production and distribution; at the same time, intensify education and awareness-raising to promote more healthy and nutritionally balanced eating habits for all, and reduce food loss and food waste, to shift to more healthy, sustainable, and responsible consumption patterns; vi) Enhance the collaboration and information sharing in sustainable management of natural and water resources, including trans-boundary water resources, marine resources and South-South cooperation. At a high level, it appears to be strong alignment, between the Government’s vision, pathways and priorities, and commitments of food system actors as well as other stakeholders. The most frequent and common issues to Viet Nam, raised by stakeholders includes the imminent seriousness of the climate change crisis, and the market viability. These form major challenges and critical impact on food security, sustainable livelihoods of smallholder farmers as well as poor people and other vulnerable groups. Inclusive and equitable transformation, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and rapid transition towards a low carbon “green economy” whilst ensuring inclusive growth and protection of the environment and vulnerable groups was a repeated theme. Another area of broad consensus was the importance for better inter- and intra-institutional and sector collaboration and coordination. Particularly between National and Provincial Government Ministries and Departments, but also with and between the private sector, research and development organisations and civil society. Vietnam recognizes the need to take concrete actions to promote cooperation, create additional external forces to support the formation and development of a smart food system adapted to climate change and sustainability, ensuring food security and nutrition not only for nearly 100 million Vietnamese people but also contributing to ensuring world food security. Particularly in the complicated context of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The food systems framework provides a multidisciplinary and multi-level cooperation approach in line with Vietnam's current action prog236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Below are a summary views, ideas, and responses to the discussion questions about proposed food systems transformation solutions and pathways provided by National and Provincial Government stakeholders, industry associations and the private sector to the 2nd National Dialogue. • The Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) outlined Vietnam’s achievements towards Sustainable Development Goals 2030. The first national five-year progress report towards SDG goals (recorded prior to the outbreak covid-19) show that Vietnam is likely to reach five out of seventeen targets by year 2030. These include Goal 1 and Goal 2, which are directly related to the food and nutrition system. Whilst Vietnam has improved food production and national food security, reduced hunger across the country, and doubled income in rural areas a lot more work remains to be done. Better coordination between stakeholders is needed, along with financial support and technology transfer from development partners. The impact of COVID-19 is expected to increase the prevalence of extreme poverty. To withstand serious long-term impacts of the pandemic, it is essential to strengthen food production systems to ensure food security, especially for poor households, vulnerable people and reduce inequality in society. Increasing resilience to climate change, and strengthening orientation of small farmers towards sustainability, higher quality, and value of agricultural products are also priorities. Finally, the application of improved technologies, strengthening value chain linkages between producers and consumers, and better support farmer’s organisations, particularly cooperatives is required. • The Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT)is committed to the development of transparent, responsible, and sustainable food systems in Vietnam. MOIT will work closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and other Ministries, Departments, as well as businesses and industry associations to achieve these outcomes. A key development is a new agreement between MARD and MOIT signed on July 13. This facilitates greater coordination across the production, processing and export of agricultural products, with the broad aim to intensify production and promote Vietnamese agricultural products and brands in the domestic and international markets. A cross-Ministry task force will work on seven solution areas: 1. Agriculture intensification and modernization; 2. Promoting market-oriented production; 3. Removal of trade barriers and taxes; 4. Trade promotion of Vietnamese agricultural and fishery product brands to overseas markets; 5. Support for local production of specialized agricultural products; 6. Improve management of illegal markets, trade fraud and counterfeit goods; and 7. Improve quality and safety of agricultural products. • The National Institution of Nutrition (NIN) within the Ministry of Health (MOH) described that in Vietnam today, uneven food distribution, rapidly changing consumption patterns and increasingly unhealthy diets are creating a serious double burden of malnutrition. This includes the persistent problem of undernourishment and micronutrient deficiency, particularly amongst children in mountainous and ethnic minority communities. The other problem is increasingly unhealthy diets amongst urban consumers, including increasing consumption of meat, salt and sugary foods which are driving up rates of overweight and obesity, particularly in children. Linked to this is the higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and cancer, and associated deaths. In a new initiative MOH and MARD will coordinate to develop regional food balance sheets to identify local food accessibility and supply gaps to better coordinate local food production, rather than just focus on productivity. • The United Nations key overall message from the UN Resident Coordinator was that the 2nd National Dialogue has shown the UNFSS is extremely important, timely and critical, and deserves the attention of Heads of State level in September. FAO and all other UN agencies will continue to support Vietnam’s active participation in the Summit. Vietnam has an important contribution to make i236238239240241242243244245246248249250251A summary of key views and outcomes from international bilateral and multilateral organizations represented at the Dialogue is provided below. There was broad and strong commitment to working with the Government of Vietnam, through a variety of modalities, initiatives, regions, and thematic areas towards the development of sustainable food systems. • The United Nations in Vietnam is committed to working side by side with and providing support to the government of Vietnam in strong partnership with development partners and other stakeholders working on food systems. The UN is prepared to provide technical and financial assistance to support the development of inclusive and sustainable food, value chains and market systems, promote business opportunities for the rural population, and strengthen resources and markets to enhance linkages and economic transformation while improving employment and income opportunities and reinforcing sustainable livelihoods. The UN will support Vietnam in developing national pathways towards inclusive and sustainable food systems, and for Vietnam to use its scarce public resources to leverage responsible private investment to support this transformation in food systems. • The World Bank in Vietnam offered full support as Vietnam moves forwards and faces multiple food system challenges. The World Bank can provide global technical expertise to some of these very complex problems. It can provide financing and knowledge work as needed working in partnership with other colleagues and development partners. The most urgent priorities for Vietnam’s food systems were: 1. climate change mitigation; 2. climate change adaptation; 3. food safety and a focus on higher quality, higher value food, and: 4. challenge associated with changing demography, in particular the impact of an aging rural labour force, and outmigration. • Canada is supporting food systems related initiatives in Vietnam through strengthening food value chains, increasing farmers' incomes through cooperative enterprise development, improving food safety, enhancing gender equality, and protecting the environment. The Food for Growth Project is working to improve food safety across select value chains in Vietnam. In addition, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently signed an MOU with MARD to support enhanced sanitary and phytosanitary measures and approaches in Vietnam. The Ambassador said that Canada remains committed to supporting Vietnam's efforts to transform its food systems and ensure that they are transparent, responsible, and sustainable. • The Netherlands highlighted three ingredients for successful transformation of Vietnam’s food systems: 1. strong leadership; 2. Multistakeholder involvement by ensuring provincial governments are participating and engaging their local expertise and by including farmers and the private partners; and 3. a strong interface between science and policy making to increase evidence-based decision making. The agricultural transformation program in the Mekong Delta headed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and supported by the Netherlands and several international partners was proposed as an illustrative model with these ingredients to enhance Vietnam’s potential by moving from food chains to food systems. • The United States mission to Vietnam extended an invitation for Vietnam to join the AIM for Climate initiative during the upcoming FSS. Announced by the United States and the United Arab Emirates during President Biden's leaders’ summit for climate, the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate or “AIM for Climate” aims to increase and accelerate global innovation and research. And development on agriculture and food systems in support of climate action. AIM for Climate partners will mobilize new investment in climate smart agriculture and generate better coordination and cooperation. It was emphasized that sustainable food systems are critical to addressing climate change, and the need to promote the adoption of climate smart agriculture practices and other low emissions practices and food systems. Doing so will enhance resilience of food systems to climate change. The food237238240242243244245248249250Online participants were invited to submit their ideas, comments, and suggestions to the 2nd National Dialogue. The prompting questions were provided below to guide input. How and where might your organization be interested in working or collaborating to support the transformation of food systems in Vietnam? “Where” in terms of thematic or action track areas, regions, or cross-cutting initiatives) and “how” in terms of role and modality - i.e. a funder, co-investor, technical collaboration, implementation partner, research and innovation partner. What might this involvement look like? What needs to be done? By whom?] A list of research and development organisations and projects currently working on aspects of food systems submitted information and a description of their capability and area of work. Comments and suggestions from online participants also provided more emphasis in some key areas which had less focus in the main presentation. These included: better understanding of food safety risks and causes; causes and possible solutions to infant malnutrition in mountainous areas; importance of diversification and higher-value markets in large-scale, low priced food crops; importance of engaging SME’s, particularly food processors to improve nutrition; importance for understanding trade-offs to identify practical food system solutions in poor marginalized communities; and need to improve skills, knowledge and market connectivity of cooperatives. A key question going forward, is how can sharing of ideas, coordination and collaboration between these, and many other relevant stakeholders, organisations and projects working in the food system be improved and operationalised. What changes will be made to the current situation of fragmented institutional and project design and implementation. What concrete actions, mechanisms and initiatives will be implemented. By whom? One area of divergence will be how Vietnam can both modernise food production and increase whilst simultaneously implement a rapid transition towards a low carbon “green economy”, at the same time ensuring protection of the environment and strengthening resilience of vulnerable groups to risk and shocks, particularly from the ongoing impacts of the pandemic, climate change and natural disasters. Progressing this agenda, whilst also tackling persistent malnutrition in mountainous areas, and the rapidly emerging health and nutrition issues associated with unhealthy diet in urban areas, requires the serious transition from a food production to food systems focus. Only a food system approach can assist tackle this complexity and multiple trade-offs.

2021-08-15 13:27:24205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29753/198

10313945126050537103120151223531352310113473415

El Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela como Estado Miembro de la ONU realizó varios procesos de formación establecidos con la finalidad de empoderarse de la metodología propuesta y así afinar su participación como país vanguardista que construye colectivamente a través de la consulta que ha mantenido y mantiene con el pueblo organizado y con los diversos sectores vinculados con el sistema y cadena agroalimentaria sostenible para garantizar una alimentación saludable al pueblo venezolano respetando el medio ambiente. Es por ello que el Convocante designado el Ministro del Poder Popular para la Alimentación M/G Carlos Leal Telleria, nombro un comité organizador y convoco a jornadas de socialización con diversos sectores, ministerios, instituciones y organizaciones de las áreas productivas, científicas, educativas, ambientales; así como representación de las comunidades organizadas en plataformas de mujeres, jóvenes, pueblos indígenas y comunas para participar en el proceso de construcción colectiva mediante los diálogos, para debatir sobre el modelo venezolano, acordando la realización del Dialogo Nacional sectorial Sistema Alimentario y Medio Ambiente, donde se contó con un co-convocante el Ministro del Poder Popular para el Eco socialismo. Josué Alejandro Lorca, cumpliendo con el proceso establecido para la realización de mismo, que fue a través de preguntas generadoras: 1. ¿Cómo pueden lograrse Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en el mundo que sean justos equitativos y amigables con el planeta orientados y conectados con la ODS y la agenda 2030? 2. ¿Cuales acciones contribuirá a continuar con los avances de Venezuela en la concreción de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles basados en 5 vías de acción que están propuestas?. 3. ¿Cuales consideran que son los factores fundamentales para la consolidación de los Sistemas Alimentarios y cuáles son los roles fundamentales y funciones que se debe cumplir? 4. ¿Qué acciones se deben implementar para disminuir en la incidencia negativa en la pandemia COVID 19 en el tema de la producción, acceso, distribución?El Diálogo refleja el intercambio entre los diversos sectores relacionados con la preservación y cuidado del medio ambiente, según el enfoque integral, multisectorial, incluyente y ecológico donde los participantes realizaron propuestas y aportes para el fortalecimiento de la propuesta del Sistema Alimentario Sostenible Venezolano. Considera y refleja los principios de: 1. Actuar con Urgencia 2. Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre 3. Ser respetuosos 4. Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés 6. Complementar la labor de los demás 7. Crear confianza entre los participantes, y organizadores del Diálogo.Basar la discusión en la garantía de la alimentación como un derecho aplicando acciones promotoras de la seguridad alimentaria y no en la acción mercantilizada de la alimentación para la erradicación del hambre y la malnutrición orientador del consumo sustentable.

Yes

234238239240244246247248249El tema principal fue Sistema Alimentario justo, equitativo y amigable con el medio ambiente. Enfoque venezolano Considerando el ambiente suelo, afluyentes de agua como primer medio dador de los alimentos necesarios para garantizar la nutrición al pueblo y generaciones futuras.235238239240241242244246247249251El Diálogo de los Sistemas Alimentarios justo, equitativo y amigable con el medio ambiente propone acciones que permitirán continuar con los avances de Venezuela en la concreción de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, entre las cuales se mencionan: 1. Fortalecer el aprovechamiento sustentable de la diversidad y apoyo de programas de consumos ecológicos. 2. Intensificar el impulso de tácticas ancestrales de la agricultura indígena, la agricultura campesina, la pesca ancestral y otra forma de producción con equidad y respeto a la naturaleza. 3. Fortalecer la agro-ecología, el aprovechamiento ecológico, social, político y cultural que sean sustentables para la diversidad biológica, es decir, promover la economía desde las perspectivas ecológicas para el desarrollo social. Impulsar la producción favorable de alimentos cuidando la naturaleza, optimizando los recursos ambientales y la producción, procesamiento de los alimentos que garantizan la reducción de la pérdida de la diversidad, disminuir los niveles de contaminación en el uso del agua, la degradación del suelo, erupción de los gases efectos invernaderos, esto es uso racional de tierras, recursos naturales, la biodiversidad y los componentes. De esta manera favorecer las oportunidades de los pequeños y medianos productores incorporados en toda la cadena agroalimentaria, tomando los principios de solidaridad, cooperativismo, equidad y justicia social, a fin de optimizar los recursos ambientales, reducir la pérdida de la biodiversidad y desarrollar una agricultura que sea agroecológica y sustentable. Para la consolidación de los Sistemas Alimentarios se avanza en el fortalecimiento de los roles siguientes: 1. El Ejecutivo Nacional quien articula con las gobernaciones y alcaldías, promueve el intercambio de productos e insumos agrícolas. Su objetivo primordial en el caso de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles es incentivar la investigación, el desarrollo, extensión, avances de la tecnología para el esquema de una agroecología que sea sustentable y que garantice las necesidades alimentarias del país. Analiza las potencialidades de cada uno de los territorios del país mejorando la producción, conservación, transformación, transporte, intercambio, distribución y el análisis de los alimentos, así como la inversión en la investigación que resguarde la salud, preservación del ambiente y sus componentes orientados al desarrollo sostenible. 2. La Asamblea Nacional se encarga de realizar la legislación, participación social, gestión, regulación y el control de las políticas públicas agroalimentarias a fin de seguir impulsando que el contenido de la Ley de Plan de la Patria se cumpla en lo referente al cuidado del planeta. 3. Universidades públicas y privadas del país que cada una posean carreras relacionadas a la agronomía o a la agricultura para aplicar investigación en la planificación de la política agroalimentaria, para el desarrollo de sistemas alimentarios productivos que promuevan la conservación, optimización del uso de los recursos naturales renovables y la relación entre la preservación del ambiente y sus componentes. 4. La participación de los actores fundamentales de los sistemas agro productivos organizados en consejos campesinos, consejos comunales, comando forestales, asamblea agrarias en la regulación y el control de las políticas públicas relacionadas con los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Los consejos campesinos fomentan la cultura alimentaria, la plantación social y la distribución de los productos agroalimentarios de manera justa y equitativa. Los Comité locales de abastecimiento y producción (CLAP) junto con consejos comunales que sus objetivos es de impulsar la conformación y creación de las redes de producción territorial de alimentos saludables para la consolidación de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. En este diálogo adicionalmente se presentaron los logros del Ministerio del Poder Popular para el Ecosocialismo vinculado con el Sistema alimentario y medio ambiente sostenible, a saber: - El establecimiento de las metas de neutralización y degradación de la tierra como una contribución fundamental para sustentar la funciones y servicios de los ecosistemas e incrementar la seguridad alimentaria. - Puesta en marcha de los Comités de Coordinación Nacional de lucha contra la desertificación, la elaboración de la estrategia nacional de sequía y el fortalecimiento del Plan de Forestación, y aumento del nivel de siembra y plantación. - La Instalación de los comando forestales aplicados desde hace 5 años en conjunto con el Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Justicia y Seguridad Ciudadana que contribuirá a la biodiversidad. - Diseño de re-inversión de la zona andina en la producción de café y cacao, como en otras regiones del país. - Actualización en el marco ambiental con la elaboración legal de la Ley del Suelo. Proyecto de ley y normativa de la responsabilidad extendida en el sistema productor. - Conexión con la plantación de viveros con las comunidades que fortalecen la producción.236238239240241242244246247249El grupo coincidió en las siguientes respuestas 1° ¿Cómo pueden lograrse Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en el mundo que sean justos equitativos y amigables con el planeta orientado y conectado con la ODS y la agenda 2030? Para garantizar sistemas alimentarios la experiencia venezolana ha mostrado buenas prácticas con el impulso de experiencias tecnológicas tradicionales que aseguren la biodiversidad del acceso al agua, la tierra y los recursos genéticos, dignificando el trabajo del campo para el desarrollo económico, garantizando el papel protagónico de los campesinos y las campesinas, además de mejorar las condiciones de acceso que garanticen los derechos humanos a los campesinos y la vida digna.2362382392402412422442462482492512. ¿Cuáles acciones que contribuirá a continuar con los avances de Venezuela en la concreción de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles basados en 5 vías de acción. Que están propuestas -Intensificar acciones que aseguren los SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS SOSTENIBLES basados en los cuatro componentes fundamentales: el ambiente, los recursos, la producción agrícola y necesidades de las poblaciones. - Fortalecer la producción agrícola y su procesamiento que garantice su distribución a la población para que la misma tenga el acceso de los productos nutritivos, seguros, variados, precios justos y productos de manera responsable con el ambiente. - Mantener las políticas de seguridad alimentaria, nutrición para todos y todas, basados en alimentos saludables. - Garantizar la seguridad alimentaria cuyos procesos no generen un efecto negativo en las bases ambientales para las futuras generaciones, orientando consumo conscientes sobre la higiene, disponibilidad de agua, minimizar los productos procesados, disminución del consumo de sal, azúcares y grasas, minimizar desechos alimentarios, así como utilizar los productos relacionados directamente con la producción agrícola del país. 3. En relación a las acciones se deben implementar para disminuir en la incidencia negativa en la pandemia COVID 19 en el tema de la producción, acceso, distribución, comercialización, y consumo de alimentos. • El Ejecutivo Nacional de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, en sus competencias primordial ha establecido la Ley Orgánica de Seguridad y Soberanía agroalimentaria, en el artículo 24 prevé las políticas de contingencia cuando lo considere necesario para garantizar los principales consumos de alimentos. • Priorizar los productos agrícolas y su consumo relacionado, tomando en cuenta la estructura agrícola por agro regiones como medidas de contingencia que permite la regulación de los mercados de alimentos productivos e insumos agrícolas. Basado en producción, distribución, comercialización y consumó de alimentos privilegiando las cadenas de distribución local.237238239240241242244247248249251No hubo áreas de divergencias, ya que hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones, adoptando un gran nivel en la discusión y puntos de vistas planteados

2021-08-15 14:10:33205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29755/198

1251216732405471203915113010355523301215

El Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela, en el marco de la Cumbre de Naciones Unidas sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles garantiza su participación como país innovador en el desarrollo, transformación colectiva con los diversos sectores que engloban los sistemas y cadenas agroalimentarias por medio de sus experiencias en materia alimentaria, con la finalidad de socializar y construir entre todos un pliego de propuestas que serán elevadas ante los países del mundo; en aras de proponer acciones que permitan transformar los sistemas alimentarios. Por tanto el Convocante designado el Ministro del Poder Popular para la Alimentación Mayor General Carlos Leal Telleria, nombró un comité organizador y convoco a jornadas de socialización a los diversos sectores, ministerios, entre estos Agricultura Productiva y Tierras, Pesca y Acuicultura, Alimentación, Tecnología y Ciencias, Educación, Comunas y la plataforma de corte comunitario como organizaciones de campesinos, pesca, red de empresas agroalimentarias, productores agro urbanos, asociaciones alimentarias y de consumidores con la intención de sumar voluntades en el proceso de construcción colectiva en los diálogos para el avance del modelo venezolano en los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles.El Diálogo abordado con los diferentes sectores relacionados con la producción, distribución, transformación y consumo de alimentos, agricultura ecológica, alineados a los principios de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles.Basar la discusión en la garantía del derecho aplicando acciones promotoras a la protección de la seguridad alimentaria y no en la acción mercantilizada de la alimentación para la erradicación del hambre y la malnutrición, orientador del consumo sustentable.

Yes

234238239240241242244245247248249El tema principal fue “Motor productivo del Sistema Alimentario Venezolano”. Con atención en la producción de alimentos en el país. Su objetivo es propiciar un espacio plural e incluyente para el intercambio entre los diversos sectores que inciden en el Sistema Alimentario sobre los desafíos y acciones para consolidar la visión sostenible y equitativa, conducente al cumplimiento de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) establecidos en la Agenda 2030, para la mejora de la calidad de vida de nuestros pueblos y el cuidado del planeta.235238239240241242243245246248249El Diálogo de los Sistemas Alimentarios plantea las acciones que Venezuela como país vanguardista ha implementado para garantizar el avance en la consolidación de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, entre las cuales se mencionan: 1. Desarrollo de la industria pescadera innovadora, sustentable y sostenible como vía para la diversificación de la economía nacional. 2. Distribución de los productos de la práctica pesquera y acuícola a través de los programas sociales de la mano de los Comité Locales de Abastecimiento y Producción (CLAP). 3. Descolonización de conceptos, patrones culturales alimentarios de la producción, rescate y preservación de semillas soberanas como modelo para el desarrollo productivo ecosocialista. 4. Planes de acción para el impulso a la siembra en los espacios sin cultivar en la ciudad como medio de producción en la agricultura urbana y familiar 6. Fortalecimiento de los circuitos agro-productivos y sus componentes en los espacios rurales, como vía de desarrollo de capacidades de auto gestión, en los pequeños y medianos productores agrícolas. 7. Impulsar la agricultura urbana y emprendimientos agro productivos, mediante la vuelta al conuco como mecanismo local del auto sustento 8. Fomentar la demanda y consumo de alimentos de alta calidad nutritiva, como medios sostenibles y menor impacto ambiental en la producción alimentaria. 9. Apoyo a los productores locales en el consumo de sus rubros, a precios justos, como vía de solidaridad en la población venezolana. 10. Aumentar la productividad de las tierras agrícolas, como medio de reducir el número de personas en riesgo de padecer hambre y malnutrición. 11. Involucrar a todos los sectores del país en prácticas productivas y administrativas auto gestionadas, como vía que permita consolidar el desarrollo endógena de la economía. Para la consolidación de los Sistemas Alimentarios y seguir en el avance en el fortalecimiento de los roles siguientes: -La República Bolivariana de Venezuela se ha creado a partir de la Constitución de la República, en la cual se consagra la alimentación como un derecho, además de una serie de leyes que van en beneficio de los pequeños productores como la Ley de Tierras, Ley de Semillas, Ley de Pesca, Ley de Seguridad y Soberanía Alimentaria, entre otras, que buscan garantizar el acceso de todos a los medios de producción de alimentos, estas leyes y otras decisiones del Gobierno nacional permiten un importante repunte en la producción de alimentos para la población que contribuye a disminuir la pobreza y a contener la malnutrición derivada de las medidas coercitivas unilaterales que le han aplicado al país con la intención de afectar la seguridad alimentaria de la nación. -Impulsar la autodeterminación y la organización en el cumplimiento efectivo de los artículos 5 y 126 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, para lograr la responsabilidad del poder popular organizado en función de asumir su competencia para el control del desarrollo sustentable. -Fortalecimiento de leyes de protección para el sector agrícola y pecuario, dentro de los ámbitos locales y ambientales en construcción de zonas especiales que respondan al modelo socialista de producción.236238239240241242244245246249A partir de las acciones legislativas se ha avanzado en la creación de una amplia y robusta plataforma institucional sumada a otros sectores de la sociedad relacionados con la producción y transformación de alimentos donde destacan redes de organizaciones campesinas, pescadores, agroindustria con enfoque de género y reconociendo los conocimientos ancestrales de nuestros pueblos originarios y desagregada en la dimensión espacio de la geografía nacional, lo que ha hecho posible el diseño, implementación, seguimiento y control de políticas exitosas que proponemos al debate mundial enmarcada a las 5 vías de acción, entre la que planteamos: • Fomentar en los territorios el establecimiento de unidades de producción de alimentos aplicando tecnologías amigables con el medio ambiente, como el uso de bio-insumos en los cultivos. • Promover confianza en los nuevos sistemas de producción sostenibles, con lo cual, se garantizará la permanencia del modelo a ejecutar en el tiempo, aun cuando se presenten dificultades de cualquier índole; en el caso de Venezuela, en los últimos veinte años se ha estudiado el disfrute pleno a la alimentación, la vida digna y el papel protagónico del campesinado. Se avanzó en la implementación de políticas de manera concretas en sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles y sustentables con la creación de una ley de Seguridad Agroalimentaria. • Promover el conuco como una modalidad de consumo sostenible, la cual garantiza la producción de alimentos para una comunidad específica, además de que el impacto en el medio ambiente es controlado. • Cultivar el pensamiento agrícola y de solidaridad en la población, dicho en otra palabras apoyar a los productores locales en el consumo de sus rubros y estos a su vez en establecer precios justos para ambas partes. • Desde las instituciones gubernamentales se impulsa la autodeterminación y la organización como cumplimiento efectivo de los artículos 5 y 126 de la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, para lograr la responsabilidad del poder popular organizado en función de asumir su competencia para el control del desarrollo sustentable. • Fortalecimiento de leyes de protección para el sector agrícola y pecuario, dentro de los ámbitos locales y ambientales en construcción de Zonas Económicas Especiales” en Venezuela que respondan al modelo socialista de producción. • Aumentar de forma sostenible la productividad de las tierras agrícolas existentes constituyendo la mejor opción para evitar fuertes subidas de los precios de los alimentos, mejorar las economías rurales y los medios de vida de los agricultores y reducir el número de personas en riesgo de padecer hambre y malnutrición. • La actual guerra económica y el bloqueo existente en nuestro país, obliga a nuestro sistema productivo a trabajar y orientar hacia la producción de la diversificación de rubros; para poder mantener en el tiempo la producción, se debe hacer uso de manera eficiente de los recursos agua y suelo como elementos esenciales dentro de la producción, debemos implementar el establecimiento de policultivos y debemos orientar a los productores acerca de la importancia de generar valor agregado a los cultivos con la transformación de la materia prima.237238239240241242243244245246248249No hubo áreas de divergencias, ya que hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones, adoptando un gran nivel en la discusión y puntos de vistas planteados

2021-08-15 15:05:13205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10879/88

999126883043913183471817411419781141624701509100386224103482033421017517547136688152679528

We held 6 sub-national dialogues on two consecutive days, with ensuring that all principles of engagement for the Food Systems Summit (FSS) were incorporated, reinforced, and enhanced. In the area of acting with a sense of urgency, we set the ultimate result of the dialogues is to contribute to FSS and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Development Agenda. We recognize the complexity of food systems that all aspects are closely connected. We invited various stakeholders across sectors and groups to deal with the complexity of food systems. Around 1,552 participants involved in the dialogues. The sub-national dialogues also embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity taking place. In these two days' dialogues, we managed to conduct a bottom-up process and engagement through a participative, interactive, and enriching exchanging information. The inclusiveness of the dialogues became more apparent because we organized them in six zones to ensure all the stakeholders from various regions actively involved. The complexity is also reflected by the variability of cultural background, ethnicity, and local tradition which affecting variation practice and behavior in our local food systems. Besides, with the same purpose, then we invited small-scale food producers, women, and local communities. In term of gender representation, there were 718 of 1552 participants are women. Moreover, we started to involve key stakeholders in the planning and preparation process to ensure a sense of ownership and togetherness in the dialogues. In a series of preparatory meetings, we reinforced the principle of building trust, being respectful, and committing to the summit as the foundation of our collaboration. We developed structure of the committee of the dialogues and secretariat to reflect the representation of key stakeholders. We appointed co-convenor, curators and co-curator, facilitators and co-facilitators, rapporteurs and co-rapporteurs to accommodate the roles of key stakeholders.The Sub-National Food Systems Dialogues mostly reflected the aspects of inclusivity and participatory multistakeholder process from planning, preparation, and implementation of the dialogues. This was further reflected in the level of participation and enthusiasm of participants as well as the high expectation that dialogues would produce a national strategy on food systems transformation.Yes. Food systems dialogues should incorporate the principle of inclusivity and diversity to accommodate specific and local contexts such as Indonesia as an archipelagic country. Implementing sub-national food systems dialogues is our strong effort to develop such localized food systems.

No

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The Sub-National Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD) focuses on the sub-national level to explore more perspectives and inputs from local stakeholders. This is also the process of verification and validation of the result of the first national dialogues in April 2021. Due to its geographical location, the dialogues were organized in six regions: Sumatra, Kalimantan, Java, Sulawesi-Maluku, Bali, and Nusa Tenggara, Papua. This aimed at covering the diversity of food systems in Indonesia as an archipelagic country and enhancing the process of food system regionalization. The objectives of the dialogues are: (i) gathering inputs and ideas, as well as share learning and experiences of local stakeholders from six regions on food systems transformation in Indonesia, (ii) validating, verification and justification of the results of the first national dialogues with the local evidence, experiences and best practices, (iii) collecting the ideas and inputs on action areas and game changing solution for food system transformation. The Sub-National Food Systems Dialogues have involved a broad range of stakeholders such as national and subnational government institutions, private sectors and business associations, civil society organizations including small-scale producers and family farming groups, youth, women and consumer organizations, customary communities, and UN-based organizations in Indonesia. The Indonesian FSSDs both at the national and sub-subnational level have been developed as part of the implementation of the national food systems transformation agenda as stated in Law 18/2020 on Food. The law is a regulatory framework to ensure food systems transform in the right direction and make sufficient, affordable, safe, good quality, and nutritionally balanced diets available to all. The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has made bold commitments on food systems, with the Presidential Decree 18/2020 on Mid-term National Development Plan 2020-2024 by establishing food systems transformation as one of the national policy priorities. The Sub-National Food System Dialogues are a holistic, comprehensive and system approach through public participation and multi-stakeholder process to develop national strategy on food system transformation. Similar to the FSSD at the national level, the sub-national level dialogues were organized based on Five Global Action Tracks as a framework in the process and analysis. The Indonesian Sub-National FSSDs have drawn upon the expertise of actors from across Indonesia’s food systems. Based on these tracks, the Indonesian Sub-National FSSDs have provided a purposeful forum for stakeholders to share their views on how to advance progress towards food systems transformation, map their respective roles, identify and minimize potential trade-offs across sectors and intervention, for comprehensive and upscaled results, as well as to identify game-changing solutions that can change the ways in which food systems operate. In other words, the Sub-National FSSDs are a process of multi-stakeholder dialogues to develop pathways of food systems transformation in Indonesia.235238239240241242243244246248250251The Sub-National FSSDs have covered a broad range of issues related to food systems transformation. The adoption of five global action tracks in the discussion group has contributed to the comprehensiveness of the results of the dialogue. The Sub-National FSSDs have provided opportunities to local stakeholders to express issues, concerns, and problems related to the food system in each region and proposed possible game-changing solutions and best practices. In the six regions (Sumatra, Java, Bali and Nusa Tenggara, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Maluku, Papua), there are specific cases, concerns, and game-changing solutions depending on the local context and characteristics of each region, therefore, there is no one size fits for all solutions. In the Papua region, the participants we raised the concern on the lack of infrastructure and logistic support that contributes to the low accessibility to healthy and nutritious food for people in the region. There was a suggestion based on a study that local production is low, hence needing to be improved. The participants We proposed to promote local food sources such as sago, tubers, and other local food resources to consume for the people living in Papuan. There is a need to do research and innovation, product development, and marketing to advance the role of local foods. Other concerns are related to food security indicators, which we participants proposed local indicators that are more suitable with the context of Papua. In Sulawesi and Maluku Regions, the participants are concerned about the vulnerability of the regions regarding natural disasters that negatively impact food production and supply. Food stock management and logistic support to enhance people's access to foods in the regions is a must. Not only terrestrial-based food development, but we also propose research and innovation to develop blue food (coastal and marine-based food). Farmer capacity and institutional building are needed such as cooperation and farmers' corporations to enable small-scale food producers to engage in the value chains as well as more specific forms of capacity building, such as farmers' field school on climate change. In the Sumatra region, there are issues raised related to food safety due to increasing intensity in food distribution in the regions. It needs proper monitoring and support in place to ensure all of them meet the health and safety aspects of food for the consumers. The empowerment of the small-scale and medium (SMEs) to produce healthy and nutritious food in the regions is apparent. The participants We proposed integrated farming, reduced food loss and waste, and innovation of technologies to support food systems transformation in the regions. In the Java region, the participants are concerned about the increasing rates of agricultural land conversion and stressing the importance of land use and spatial planning policies to support food production. The participants also raised the issues on food safety, food loss and waste, and the fairness of food value chains in the region. It needs to support farmer empowerment on sustainable agriculture and organic farming, increase their access to capital, information, and technology with the support from the public-private partnerships and link them to research institutions and universities. In Bali and Nusa Tenggara regions, the participant highlighted the importance of marginal land development and strengthened local food stocks to increase the food security of the regions, particularly in disaster-prone areas. Participant, We proposed integrated farming including livestock, the protection of local seeds and other germplasm, and promoted local food and diversification of consumption. It needs to empower farmers on sustainable agriculture and climate-smart farming, and other supports such as small-holder farmers' access to capital, technology, and financial services. In the Kalimantan region, the participants stressed the protection of customary land and the promotion of local knowledge and wisdom on food production. There is a need to develop appropriate technologies and sustainable agriculture to improve land/soil management, particularly in peatland areas. They also expected an open opportunity for local small-holder farmers to participate in the development of the food estate program and to get benefits from it and other forms of partnership models. The participants in the region also highlighted the importance of the promotion of local food stock management based on the local culture and wisdom. The participants call for the government to take into account the improvement of food security in the intra-country border, remote and under-developed areas. In all regions, there are some common issues raised by the participants such as the importance of food literacy, research, and innovation, improving the food value chain, data-driven policy and program support for sustainable agriculture, and enhancing farmers' access to capital, information, and technology and building resilience of food systems to climate change. The participant agreed that food systems in Indonesia should reflect the context of Indonesia as an archipelagic country. . After thorough discussion and observation, there is a commonality that all these uniqueness and regional or even local specific character must be supported by adequate facts and scientific evidence in order to formulate a relevant appropriate policy towards sustainable food systems.236238243244245246247248249251Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Improving the availability and affordability of food is still a commonly proposed solution to overcome food insecurity, which still occurs in different degrees across all regions in Indonesia. Many areas in Indonesia still depend on food supplies from other areas because their land is not suitable for cultivating certain food crops. Even if suitable land is available, it cannot produce enough to meet the needs of the population living in these areas. Only a small part of Indonesia’s land is able to properly produce rice, which is the population’s main staple food. The long and complicated food distribution chain must be made more cost-efficient. A proper logistics system is paramount to ensure food is available in every area at all times and accessible to all the population. Low connectivity between the islands results in high logistic costs, resulting in a dramatic increase in prices. Interventions from the Government are needed to address these issues. Food price fluctuations negatively impact the food security of the low-income population, who spend more than 50 percent of their total income on food. All regions in Indonesia should also be encouraged to promote their local food as alternatives to foods that require transporting from other areas. As a mega-biodiversity country, Indonesia will easily fit this purpose with its varied types of local food crops. In addition to availability and affordability, we also took safe and nutritious food into account in the dialogues. Food literacy is proposed as a key intervention, considering that some people are still unfamiliar with the nutritional value and the safety of food in the markets. Fruit and vegetable, animal meat and fish consumption is still low. Unaffordable food prices have become an issue in some communities. In terms of food safety, food standards and traceability are crucial. In line with their implementation, the Government is committed to providing technical and financial assistance to small and medium enterprises working in the food sector to meet the existing standards. The low-income population is the most vulnerable group considering they are the main consumers of food produced by these SMEs. The needs for safety aspects of foods particularly occur in household-scale industries, street foods, and SMEs as well as on farms and post-harvest handling due to contaminations and environmental climate that may produce unsafe foods or huge. Finally, additional resources should be provided to ensure safe and nutritious food in remote, outermost, and underdeveloped areas, starting from human resources, infrastructure, and appropriate technology. The Government is expected to work with the private sector to provide fortified and biofortified food at affordable prices to overcome micronutrient deficiencies among the low-income population, as they are less financially capable of accessing healthy food. Food assistance programs for the vulnerable population are also proposed as a complementary solution. At the community level, food donations from retailers, restaurants, other food processors, and food-sharing initiatives need to be supported to continue to provide healthy foods for low-income communities, as unutilized food surplus turns into waste. Food waste is a loss of economic opportunity and nutritional value for low-income communities. Similarly important are interventions by the Government to ensure food safety and safe storage so that these foods could last longer. Finally, there is also an expectation for the Government to encourage the people both at the individual and community levels in urban areas to produce their own food through urban farming. Organized people working in urban agriculture can take advantage of idle land. Incentives, both fiscal and non-fiscal, need to be provided to those involved in urban agriculture, including the landowners. In addition, the community needs to be able to access the knowledge and technology that are simple, environmentally friendly, and with a circular approach, using little water, which allows narrow land in urban areas to produce a high yield.236239243244245246247248249250251Action Track 2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns Changes in food consumption patterns have occurred in almost all levels of society. The biggest challenge is the low level of food literacy among the people. Massive advertisement in printed mass media, social media, and television has changed people's views about food. A lot of people have changed their views on food and have a perception that local food is out of date. This type of demand push driven overrides the supply push driven and undermines the need for good and safe nutritious food for their diets As a result, local food crops, such as sago, cassava, and sorghum, have become increasingly unpopular in Indonesia over the past few decades. In addition to the disappearance of local food crops, people's dependence on rice and imported food-based processed food such as wheat is getting higher. Another trend is that changes in consumption patterns have led to a significant increase in obesity and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Processed food that is high in salt, sugar, and fat will put consumers in a disadvantage situation where people have to pay the price for the economic and health costs affected by the increasing occurrence of these NCDs. Ultra-processed food is high in salt, sugar, and fat. Accordingly, people have to pay the price for the economic and health costs affected by these diseases. The 'Isi Piringku' campaign on diversified diets consisting of nutrient-rich sources of food is interesting but not as strong in people's minds as the Empat Sehat dan Lima Sempurna' campaigns that used to be so popular. There is a need for more massive promotion of healthy food with creative communication strategies and the use of communication channels that are well-known to certain audiences. For the youth, for example, healthy food campaigns can take advantage of social media, such as Instagram and TikTok, which are popular among them. At the household level, awareness-raising on healthy food consumption should target both men and women, with women as the main target of the campaign considering that they are the main decision-makers in food procurement. In addition to food literacy, there is also a need to organize public awareness about responsible consumption. Indonesia is known as the second-largest food waste producer in the world. We need to revive the food taboo, as local wisdom, which was once known by almost all ethnic groups in Indonesia, which stated that throwing away food was a disgraceful act. This taboo is no longer remembered or consistently taken into account by the public. New knowledge and technology must be introduced to the public to minimize food waste along with supportive government regulation. The cold supply chain is an unavoidable technology to prevent perishable food, such as fruit, vegetables, meats, into food waste when it is distributed from the production area to the area where consumers are living. This technology is strongly needed considering the low connectivity between regions in Indonesia as an archipelago country. There is an expectation that the Government will reduce excessive attention and intervention on rice and encourage farmers to cultivate local food crops suitable to the character of the individual area and its local tradition and values. There is already a grassroots movement to protect seeds through seed banks, mapping, and planting of local food, including local rice, in several places in Indonesia that can grow well in their native areas without high intervention such as food crops imported from outside. Databases on local food should be strengthened to support these initiatives. Processing and packaging are issues that need to be taken into account so that locally processed food can be accepted by the public. The government needs to provide incentives for these local food producers to develop and be able to introduce their food in the markets. In addition, the government can encourage and provide incentives for the private sector to use local food content along with wheat for the production of instant noodles which are so popular in Indonesia.236240243244246248249250Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production Conversion of agricultural land for food is the biggest issue in Java, which poses a threat to rice supply in the future. The population's dependence on rice is so high that the opening of rice farming land is unavoidable. Existing regulations are not able to protect this conversion process. Rice importation from the international markets is not popular among the people. The opening of new rice land on a large scale in Kalimantan, Sumatra and Papua, for example, is not easy to do. In addition to land that is not as fertile and suitable for rice as in Java, land clearing has the potential for conflict with efforts to reduce deforestation, which is high in Indonesia. Agricultural land in Sumatra, for example, must give up if the same land is to be used as mining land which is considered more economically profitable. Another challenge is that farmers in those areas do not have a similar capacity with rice farmers in Java. The development of new rice land then requires the development of human resource capacity. Instead of prioritizing rice agricultural development, the promotion of local food crops as discussed in other Action Tracks is a possible solution to address this land conversion trend. Excessive use of chemical fertilizers also needs to be taken seriously because it has been proven to have damaged soil fertility as well as environmental sustainability. There is a proposal to shift the subsidies from agricultural inputs, such as chemical fertilizer, to agricultural output, such as fairer and more affordable prices. At a more practical recommendation, new technologies and knowledge to support climate-smart agriculture and to increase productivity and at the same time not to cause environmental degradation as well should be in place to ensure agricultural activities to be more economically viable and environmentally friendly.236241244245246248249251Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods Similar to other countries, Indonesian farmers are aging. The development of food agriculture cannot move quickly considering there is a tendency for old farmers to find it difficult to accept new knowledge and technology to increase productivity. The financial institutions and banks are also not interested in working in this agricultural sector. As a result, farmers have difficulty getting credit to develop their businesses. At the same time, not many young people are interested in working in agriculture because it does not provide them with a better economic future. As mentioned in AT 3, land conversion is an issue. There is a growing perception that the agricultural sector is not as economically viable or profitable as other sectors. Worse, small-holder farmers are marginalized in the food value chain. Accordingly, this situation will threaten the effort to feed the growing population. One possible solution that can make food agriculture more economically profitable and at the same time attract young people is an inclusive business model that encourages collaboration between small-scale farmers and private businesses or state-owned enterprises. An inclusive business model can happen only if small-holder farmers are well organized. Farmer corporations that are managed in a modern way, have large members, and control large areas of land are the basis for partnerships in this inclusive business model. There is an expectation that inclusive business models are able to provide a fairer share or distribution of value for small-holder food producers. On top of that, in the macro perspective, there is also an expectation that the models can contribute to the socio-economic outcome of food systems activities: job creation, poverty alleviation, and reduced inequality.236242243244245246247248249251Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerability, shocks, and stress The high dependence on rice makes Indonesia's food systems vulnerable. Low connectivity between islands causes logistics costs to rise dramatically if there is a disrupted distribution from rice production areas to areas where consumers are living due to climate change-affected disasters or the Covid-19 pandemic. As a consequence, low-income people are the most vulnerable people. Infrastructure development is one of the potential solutions. The Government’s intervention to stabilize food prices and food aid is the list of possible solutions to ensure the low-income people access food. Besides, an alternative to rice is another solution. Not only local inland foods such as corn, cassava, sorghum, and sago, do we need to take coastal and marine source foods, such as Gracilaria sp seaweed for analog or artificial rice, into account as healthy alternatives to rice and to contribute to dietary diversity. Accordingly, research and innovation are key for more resilient food systems in Indonesia, the mega biodiversity country in the world. Centre for research and innovation on local seeds is also a proposed solution in this area. Small-holder food producers need protection from The Government against crop failure due to climate change-affected natural disasters, such as floods and drought. At the same time, information on climate change prediction and its mitigation is in place and accessible for them to mitigate. Farmer field school on climate, climate-resilient seeds, knowledge on water drip irrigation for example are in the small-holder farmer’s list of expectations to protect themselves from changing climate and environment. Again, research and innovation will play a key role. In the area of making regions more resilient, we highlighted the importance of marginal land development and revived or strengthened local, community, and individual-based food stocks to increase the food security of the regions. This is an institutional innovation in the area of food governance at the local level. The existing local wisdom, the so-called Gotong Royong in Java, Nganggung in Bangka, Ngayah in Bali, Marsiadapri in North Sumatra, for example, played a key role in the development of community-based food stocks where people help each other both in the normal and difficult times. We also proposed integrated farming including livestock, the protection of local seeds and other germplasm, and promoted local food and industrialization of local food to meet the population’s needs. It needs to empower farmers on sustainable agriculture and climate-smart farming, and other supports such as small-holder farmers' access to capital, technology, and financial services to contribute to the effort to the development of local food industrialization. Within these 5 action tracks focus which can identify various initiatives to formulate good policy recommendations, there seems to be one common need to support formulating good policy for food sustainable food systems which is good and valid data based on rigorous scientific exercise. The complexity of Indonesia will even emphasize more the importance of having good scientific data, facts, and evidence and put it in the higher priority in supporting a strong sustainable food systems policy development for Indonesia.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Cross-cutting Issues Learning from the fresh experience, we proposed both national and sub-national dialogues as an institutional innovation in the area of food governance where stakeholders at the local and national level get engaged meaningfully in the food systems transformation. The Government is also expected to develop a food systems dashboard to real-time monitor the situation at the district level and also provide updated data and information for policy-making processes.237238239240241242243244245246248249251In general, there are some diverse views and different opinions that emerged during the dialogue. These have particularly occurred in the area of prioritized solutions or game-changers to address the existing and future problems, challenges, and opportunities to build and strengthen the resilience of Indonesian food systems. Different opinions also occurred when one stakeholder emphasized the need for land expansion for cultivation to maintain rice supply while another stakeholder tried to prevent deforestation. This is also the case when we discussed food certification. Food safety standard is important for consumers, but small and medium enterprises have difficulties in meeting the standard in the area of knowledge and finance. The enforcement of the standards to secure the consumer’s health has negative impacts on the existence of these small and medium enterprises. This is also the case when we discussed the potential roles of the private sector in supporting the marginalized position of small and medium food producers, including small-holder farmers, fisherfolks, to engage in the value chain.

2021-08-15 15:05:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25845/120

139031921510449411515265182112211381021361106011714110181322041323

La realización de este diálogo independiente surgió por la urgencia de colocar áreas de discusión sobre las que, se consideró, es necesario profundizar de forma más decidida: los sistemas alimentarios locales. Las organizaciones convocantes trabajan bajo el entendimiento de que las y los pequeños productores requieren de apoyos y políticas particulares que fomenten su productividad, que impulsen el consumo local y se garantice su derecho a la alimentación y a una vida digna en el espacio en el que se desenvuelven. Sin esto, no será posible alcanzar lo planteado por la Agenda 2030 y en particular, por el ODS2. Se buscó colocar y dar espacio a las voces desde las comunidades, cuyo espacio en el proceso de preparación de la Cumbre, ha sido limitado. Además, durante el diálogo, se impulsó el sentido de urgencia de abordar estos temas, no únicamente desde la parte individual, que sin duda tiene un impacto. Sin embargo, el foco principal está en la construcción de ambientes favorables, políticas públicas, programas de gobierno, que habiliten la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. Todos los grupos de trabajo se llevaron a cabo bajo un ambiente de respeto y crítica propositiva, reconociendo la urgencia y complejidad de los temas que se abordaron. Estos principios, además, fueron tomados en cuenta en la formulación de las preguntas guía que se usaron en los grupos de trabajo para las vías de acción 1 y 4, que guiaron este diálogo independientemente.Este diálogo buscó visibilizar los elementos que estaban haciendo falta en la conversación hacia la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios, resaltando la urgencia de no dejar a nadie atrás, y reconocer la complejidad de la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. Durante el diálogo, se tuvieron 5 grupos de trabajo, 3 grupos enfocados en la Vía 1 y 2 enfocados en la vía 4. Vía de Acción 1: Sistemas alimentarios liderados por las comunidades con perspectiva de género, ¿Cómo no dejar a nadie atrás? En este grupo se propusieron las siguientes preguntas guía: La ONU informa que los precios de las frutas y verduras nutritivas están fuera de su alcance. ¿Qué pueden hacer las comunidades para que sean más asequibles? ¿Qué pueden hacer otros actores (sector privado? sector público?) para que eso suceda? ¿Existen alianzas con resultados favorables en este sentido? ¿Qué políticas deben cambiar para que los alimentos nutritivos sean más asequibles en las comunidades de bajos ingresos? Vía de Acción 4: Resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios y medios de vida. ¿Cómo transitar hacia un sistema alimentario nutricional, justo y sostenible? El grupo trabajó con las siguientes preguntas guía: El tema de medios de vida rurales dignos en las comunidades no es nada nuevo; han habido acciones impulsadas por gobiernos o actores internacionales en este sentido. ¿Por qué son tan pocos los avances? También se ha trabajado ya en aspectos de resiliencia en las comunidades. ¿Qué progresos se han tenido, qué es lo que sigue pendiente? ¿Qué es, concretamente, una comunidad resiliente? ¿Hay forma de resolver las asimetrías de poder en los sistemas alimentarios usando medios que no sean confrontativos? ¿Qué rol juegan las comunidades rurales en el reequilibrio de las asimetrías de poder de los Sistemas Alimentarios? ¿Cómo haría frente a eventos desastrosos por el cambio climático, por ejemplo?Es pertinente que las instancias convocantes al diálogo puedan compartir los principios de trabajo, incluso previo a las reuniones, para que quienes participen, los tengan presentes en todo momento. Una convocatoria amplia, con tiempo para difusión, facilita el registro de personas y su incorporación a las conversaciones. También podría resultar conveniente compartir las preguntas que guiarán los grupos de discusión, para puedan tener alguna información o propuestas preparadas de forma previa, y el diálogo fluya de una mejor manera.

Yes

234238241246247249Terminar con el hambre ha sido un objetivo constante en la agenda de desarrollo global, que implica una transformación en la forma como se producen, procesan y consumen los alimentos necesarios para alimentar a la población global. La crisis sanitaria por covid-19 develó las profundas desigualdades que afectan a la mayoría de sociedades en lo global. Específicamente en el ámbito alimentario, develó la necesidad de fortalecer el vínculo entre salud y alimentación, para tener sistemas inmunológicos más fuertes y resilientes a enfermedades. Asimismo, mostró la vulnerabilidad de las cadenas de producción y comercialización. En el caso de América Latina, los mercados y centrales de abasto fueron focos de contagio, comprometiendo el abasto alimentario además que mostró la vulnerabilidad de ese sector. En 2018 en México, 25.5 millones de personas tenían carencias en el acceso a la alimentación. La pandemia por COVID-19 está poniendo en riesgo a 13 millones más (CONEVAL, 2018). Además, la población mexicana enfrenta dobles cargas de malnutrición (obesidad y desnutrición), asociada a un aumento en la disponibilidad de alimentos ultraprocesados, así como a la falta de disponibilidad de frutas y verduras. La preparación hacia la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios contempla 5 vías de acción. Sin dejar de lado la integralidad de los temas considerados en las vías de acción, todas necesarias para transformar los sistemas alimentarios, este diálogo independiente busca enfocarse en brindar elementos de análisis y aportar las discusiones de las vías de acción 1 (Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todas las personas) y 4 (Promover medios de vida equitativos), reforzando los diversos elementos que han surgido de los diálogos liderados por el Convocante Nacional para la Cumbre. En particular, se ha visto, a lo largo de los diálogos independientes que se han realizado y en la estructura de la Cumbre, una participación insuficiente de las comunidades locales. Por ello, vemos necesario organizar un diálogo que cuestione y reflexione sobre el rol de las comunidades locales en los sistemas alimentarios, la forma en que están experimentando el derecho a la alimentación, y cómo están siendo reestructurados sus medios de vida frente a la crisis por la COVID-19. Los esfuerzos por remodelar los sistemas alimentarios para que sean más resilientes, productivos e inclusivos son vitales para resistir las amenazas a la seguridad alimentaria y alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Un enfoque holístico para abordar los desafíos modernos de la inseguridad alimentaria y el nexo entre el clima y los conflictos debería incorporar enfoques basados en la comunidad, apoyo a los medios de vida y programas de protección social que construyan relaciones y promuevan la cohesión social, todas ellas características de los sistemas alimentarios basados en las comunidades.235238241242244246247249251Vía de acción 1. Sistemas alimentarios liderados por las comunidades con perspectiva de género, ¿Cómo no dejar a nadie atrás? - Las políticas sociales enfocadas en el medio rural han sido insuficientes en México. Han tenido efectos diferenciados entre sectores con más o menos vulnerabilidades. La forma de medir el éxito de alguna iniciativa se concentra en el número de personas que recibieron apoyo, pero no en sus efectos de largo plazo. - Es necesario contar con políticas que consideren los elementos óptimos para vivir una vida rural digna, con base en las visiones y experiencias locales, en donde existan liderazgos comunitarios rodeados de ambientes favorables para el ejercicio de sus derechos. Esto significa abordar las problemáticas locales desde sus reglas, creencias tradiciones y cultura, y no mantener esquemas de planeación centralizados y alejados de las realidades territoriales. - Se requiere de alinear políticas focalizadas en poblaciones rurales, para construir un marco normativo y programático acorde a sus necesidades, en donde exista una institucionalización de procesos, acciones y programas de apoyo, evitando la burocratización que pudiera tener un efecto contrario, por dificultar el acceso a recursos, por ejemplo. - Dentro de los planes nacionales de desarrollo en México, considerar esta construcción programática y normativa. El Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2018-2024 tiene planteamientos ideológicos sobre cómo no dejar atrás a pueblos indígenas, y sobre la necesidad de replantear el esquema agrario en el país, para que deje de ser un campo empobrecido. Los programas nacionales y sectoriales derivados, no aterrizan estos planteamientos ideológicos, por lo que se requiere de una alineación programática mucho más rigurosa. Vía de acción 4. Resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios y medios de vida. ¿Cómo transitar hacia un sistema alimentario nutricional, justo y sostenible? - Respecto de la noción de resiliencia, se consideró que no en todos los espacios se ha logrado entender el concepto de resiliencia y al no entenderlo se implementan programas y estrategias erróneas. Por ejemplo, no se genera información sobre los aspectos de las cosas que priorizan las comunidades y las personas impactadas, y no se considera que los impactos en cada comunidad son diversos y los procesos de resiliencia y adaptación ocurren de manera diferenciada. - Tendencia de tratar como mercancías a los alimentos, lo que dificulta el cumplimiento del derecho a la alimentación. Algunos alimentos están fuera del alcance de las personas en espacios rurales, pero también en ciudades. - Carencia de diagnósticos pertinentes y adecuados que determinen cuáles son las necesidades reales de las comunidades rurales e indígenas en México. Es necesario, que esos diagnósticos sean participativos desde su fase de diseño, para tener un panorama real sobre esas necesidades comunitarias e indígenas, que cierre brechas históricas de desigualdad, y permitan el ejercicio pleno de derechos (derecho a la alimentación, a la salud, al medio ambiente sano). - Falta de coordinación en las acciones impulsadas por gobiernos locales. Se habló del caso de una comunidad que contaba con una valiosa diversidad de semillas nativas entre sus recursos propios, pero el gobierno local decidió impulsar un proyecto para promover semillas mejoradas en las comunidades que perjudicó gravemente los recursos biológicos nativos propios de la comunidad. - Se identificó que, aún cuando los gobiernos locales o federales impulsan acciones y proyectos para las comunidades rurales, existe poca o insuficiente difusión, lo que ocasiona que estos apoyos no lleguen a los grupos para los cuales se concibieron. - Las nuevas generaciones se encuentran distanciados de los trabajos agrícolas y del campo, por lo que cada vez hay menos jóvenes que eligen esta actividad como medio de trabajo. Una preocupación adicional son los desafíos que traen los efectos del cambio climático. Las alteraciones en los ciclos productivos, las lluvias y heladas atípicas, son eventos que ponen en riesgo la productividad y la resiliencia de la producción en todos sus tamaños. Sin embargo, los recursos que se tienen para enfrentar estos retos, son diferentes. Preocupa en particular el que existan grandes cantidades de población que dependen de su producción para autoconsumo, y que la pérdida de cultivos y de suelos fértiles, terminen por poner en riesgo su abasto alimentario. - La insuficiencia de recursos hídricos es una preocupación constante, pues los medios para resolver estos problemas son muy lentos. Existen además procesos de acaparación de este recursos, que termina afectando a las poblaciones más vulnerables. Hallazgos generales - La pandemia por COVID-19 tuvo un efecto negativo en la calidad, cantidad y diversidad de productos en diversos espacios. Hubo un aumento en el precio de alimentos básicos, que dejó desprotegidos a grupos vulnerados. En México no hubo políticas compensatorias o de apoyos especiales para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria de la población. - Una preocupación general es el acceso al derecho a la tierra, particularmente para mujeres rurales. Se reflexionó sobre sus efectos y que no hay programas que reduzcan esta desigualdad. Esto implicaría además una transformación de práctica locales tradicionales, en las que las mujeres no tienen las mismas consideraciones que los hombres para heredar tierras, a pesar de que sean ellas quienes las trabajen. Esto además reduce su acceso a créditos, capacitaciones y un aprovechamiento pleno de actividades productivas.236238244246249251Las conversaciones de los grupos de trabajo se enfocaron en identificar propuestas concretas de políticas y reglamentaciones necesarias para garantizar el acceso a una alimentación saludable y nutritiva, y garantizar medios asequibles de vida. - Desarrollar marcos normativos específicos que garanticen que el abasto de programas estatales provenga de la pequeña producción agroecológica y familiar, como ocurre en Brasil, donde existe una ley que garantiza estas prácticas. - Revalorización de cultivos locales tradicionales. A raíz de la pandemia se buscó promover especies endémicas, que aumenten la resiliencia de las comunidades. Esto amplía la diversidad de productos alimentarios, y se reduce el fomento de consumo de frutas y verduras que no son locales, o propias de las regiones. Esto implica la transformación de patrones de consumo. - Se requiere de políticas que garanticen que la producción de las pequeñas comunidades llegue a mercados locales y /o regionales, evitando el coyotaje y otros intermediarios que encarezcan el producto y que limiten las ganancias para la producción primaria. - Fomentar procesos organizativos y programáticos para tener circuitos cortos de comercialización, que además consideren certificaciones locales, como los sistemas participativos de garantía, para fomentar la transición hacia una producción agroecológica. - Desde los gobiernos, contar con políticas de fomento a la producción local. “Una buena política pública es como la sombra de un árbol”. Es necesario que los gobiernos municipales/estatales brinden apoyos a los mercados locales: espacios públicos, facilitar transporte y logística de traslados, lo que además tenga un efecto positivo en las economías locales y en evitar el alza en el precio de los productos. - Es necesario que exista una planeación de la producción nacional a partir de la diversidad local, de la producción regional y la consideración de microrregiones, que puedan aumentar el número de productos locales. - Terminar con relaciones paternalistas entre los gobiernos y las comunidades rurales, lo que propicia un vínculo dependiente que puede afectar el tejido social. Es necesario cuestionar y terminar con acciones que son impulsadas o promovidas desde una noción de superioridad que pone a las comunidades rurales en posición subordinada. - Desde el sector académico, pueden contribuir con procesos organizativos y brindar apoyo en cuestiones técnicas, en la desarrollo y fortalecimiento de capacidades productivas, en sistematizar conocimientos locales y tradicionales, y contribuir a transformar patrones de consumo, en tanto cambios de comportamiento. - Los espacios escolares también pueden tener la posibilidad de acercar a estudiantes a una alimentación saludable, cuestionando y evitando el consumo de productos ultraprocesados. - Tanto los gobiernos locales como el sector académico, pueden contribuir con campañas de sensibilización sobre educación nutricional, alimentación saludable, consumo local, ambiental y socialmente responsable. - Fortalecer marcos regulatorios en espacios escolares, para garantizar un entorno alimentario sano, reduciendo la exposición de niñas, niños y adolescentes a productos ultraprocesados. En México existen marcos normativos relacionados con este tema, pero no se cumplen. El sistema alimentario predominante actual tiende a fomentar el que las comunidades de bajos ingresos, las comunidades rurales o costeras, cuenten con una pequeña producción para autoconsumo: productos del mar, traspatios. Y que haya un aumento exponencial en su consumo de ultraprocesados o bebidas azucaradas, como ocurre con poblaciones indígenas en Chiapas, que tiene el mayor consumo per cápita de refrescos del país. Este mismo sistema también provoca que otras comunidades de bajos ingresos urbanas o periurbanas, tengan un mayor consumo de productos ultraprocesados, que no tengan un acceso constante a productos frescos (desiertos alimentarios), y por lo tanto, su fuente principal son tiendas de conveniencia o centros comerciales.236241244246247249Vía de Acción 4: Resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios y medios de vida. ¿Cómo transitar hacia un sistema alimentario nutricional, justo y sostenible? - Una comunidad resiliente es un socio-sistema con la capacidad de persistir, adaptarse y transformarse al cambio (donde el socio-sistema involucra no solo a las personas sino también a los recursos naturales y biológicos). Es la capacidad de recuperarse de una situación, pero este fenómeno afecta de diferentes maneras y es distinto en cada comunidad. - Para fortalecer esta noción, y que pueda ser construida a partir de un debate amplio, también es necesario preguntarnos ¿Cuáles son los aspectos prioritarios que se deben considerar cuando hablamos de este proceso de resiliencia dentro de una misma comunidad y cuáles de esos aspectos se repiten más? - Es necesario retomar experiencias sobre proyectos que proponen un análisis de riesgo, cuando se habla de aumentar la resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios. El PNUD tiene una metodología en la que se lleva a la reflexión comunitaria donde las comunidades pueden identificar los eventos naturales con consecuencias sociales que les son más cercanos. A partir de ello, la comunidad construye su propio plan de resiliencia, sus propios análisis de riesgos, sin la necesidad de una mirada externa dictando sus prioridades. - Es importante señalar que no toda la responsabilidad recae únicamente en la comunidad. No podemos perder de vista las responsabilidades y obligaciones por parte del gobierno, ya que es necesario que haya formas de respaldar a las localidades. - Es fundamental desarrollar un sentido de identidad y pertenencia para que las personas identifiquen el propio valor de lo que se encuentra en sus comunidades, y apuesten por seguir cultivando y promoviendo los recursos locales. - Para aumentar la resiliencia, se necesita también fomentar el arraigo de nuevas generaciones al campo. Necesitamos reducir el riesgo de que “el campo se quede solo”, o que sea “capturado” por transnacionales. Un área concreta de incidencia está en detener el uso de los agroquímicos (fomentado incluso desde las instituciones públicas). Para ello, se requiere compartir información hacia la población, visibilizar la contaminación del suelo y del agua, los efectos que tiene en a calidad de los alimentos, los riesgos a la salud, por mencionar algunos. - Educación agrícola: que las escuelas introduzcan programas educativos en lo que se enseñe a sembrar y cultivar. Esto puede facilitarse con la reforma al Art. 3º constitucional en México, en donde se considera obligatoria la educación ambiental, y que puede ser la base para fortalecer programas sobre vida saludable, considerando una noción amplia de sistemas alimentarios locales, regionales diversos, resilientes, y bajo un enfoque de derechos. - Se requiere generar conciencia sobre lo que implica la labor agrícola y el gran esfuerzo que conlleva. Esto permite revalorar la vida de las personas campesinas, y tendría un efecto en la calidad de sus medios de vida. - Conexión de la cultura alimentaria y habilidades culinarias. Se propone la realización de ferias de platillos regionales y tradicionales, producción y transformación de los productos locales. Una transformación en los medios de vida rurales e indígenas va de la mano de un consumo socialmente responsable; buscar menores precios para el consumo, generalmente va en detrimento del nivel de vida de las comunidades productoras. - Sociedad civil, academia, comunidades y gobiernos (nacional, estatal y local) tienen una responsabilidad colectiva en la transformación de los patrones de consumo actuales. - Es necesario no promover acciones o políticas coercitivas, sino que las acciones propuestas siempre deben ofrecer una propuesta de valor para los actores involucrados. - El caso del etiquetado frontal de advertencia es una política que ha demostrado que los procesos participativos son posibles, en donde haya una consideración de los distintos sectores, y que existan espacios para dirimir diferencias. El tema de conflictos de interés sigue siendo una preocupación importante.237238239244Una preocupación relevante, particularmente para la región de América Latina y el Caribe, está en la asequibilidad de las dietas saludables. Esta dimensión es muy relevante, sin duda; sin embargo, durante el diálogo se reflexionó sobre otras consideraciones que van más allá de la asequibilidad. Lograr dietas asequibles en frutas y verduras, que es una preocupación dentro de la seguridad alimentaria de las comunidades rurales e indígenas, puede ser un objetivo que de ser alcanzado, podría no tener un efecto relevante en su seguridad alimentaria. Durante el diálogo se habló sobre el aporte calórico de frutas y verduras, pero que en términos de saciedad, podría no ser determinante para fomentar su consumo. Las conversaciones dentro de los grupos de trabajo tuvieron una fuerte tendencia a considerar la producción agrícola, desde el traspatio hasta la gran industria. Sin embargo, se conversó relativamente poco sobre la pesca tradicional. En el caso de México, la extensión costera y el acceso a productos del mar, podría ser también una alternativa de relativo bajo costo, para garantizar el abasto alimentario y el acceso a nutrientes de calidad. Esta consideración implica una transformación en los sistemas alimentarios más alejados de las costas, en primer término, para introducir estos productos. Además, es necesario invertir en el desarrollo de capacidades para transformar esos productos (que puedan viajar distancias más largas, sin el riesgo de pérdidas o merma por no contar con cadenas de frió, por ejemplo), y lograr que esto no se traslade al consumidor, por tener productos del mar con altos costos. Sin que fuera un área propiamente de divergencia, pero que también fue mencionado de forma tangencial, fue el tema de la pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos. Se habló de cómo existe una merma importante en productos dirigidos a la exportación, al no cumplir con las normas; también productos con fecha de caducidad que podrían seguir siendo consumidos.

2021-08-15 17:22:36205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21237/120

47429725211580873852614916995132111441432981792962281211

El diálogo se organizó por medio de una plataforma intersectorial existente llamada GISAMAC (Grupo Intersecretarial de Salud, Alimentación, Medio Ambiente y Competitividad). Éste tiene como misión transformar el sistema alimentario a fin de garantizar una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para la población mexicana. Dentro de esta plataforma el sentido de urgencia y compromiso está presente. También se reconoce la complejidad de los temas a trabajar, y la interdependencia entre sectores. Además contó la participación y convocatoria del Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia (SNDIF).• Complementar la labor de los demás: El Diálogo contó con un equipo interdisciplinario e intersectorial de doce facilitadores. El equipo de facilitadores está compuesto por funcionarios de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la organización de la sociedad civil Salud Justa. • Reconocer la complejidad: Dada la complejidad de los temas a discutir y del proceso de la Cumbre, el Convocante Nacional nombró a un secretariado técnico para que lo acompañe y asiste en este proceso. El secretariado técnico está compuesto por un equipo de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER), de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), el Centro Nacional de Prevención de Enfermedades (CENAPRECE), la Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), el Instituto Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (INPI), la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en México (FAO), el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia en México (UNICEF) y la Organización Panamericana de la Salud en México (OPS/OMS).Es importante que el Convocante comunique a los participantes sobre la integración, de preferencia multisectorial, del equipo organizador y facilitador de los diálogos. Esto para mostrar la inclusividad del proceso. Además ha mostrado ser útil compartir los Principios de Acción de los Diálogos al inicio del evento, y al inicio de cada grupo de discusión.

Yes

234238239243249251El objetivo del Diálogo fue identificar y discutir las principales barreras y soluciones para que los sistemas alimentarios hagan sinergia con otros sistemas (salud y saneamiento, educación, protección social) en favor de la adecuada alimentación y nutrición desde los primeros mil días de vida, considerando a partir de la concepción hasta los 2 años de edad.235238239243249251El grupo coincidió en la necesidad de: •Es necesario modificar el catálogo sectorial de puestos de la Secretaría de Salud no tenemos un eje rector exclusivo de nutrición, eso es urgente porque el tema es transversal, y en toda la línea de vida. Así mismo, se debe de dar una buena paga a estos profesionales. •Se necesita ofrecer alternativas saludables con base en los alimentos locales de la región. •Llegar a un consenso de lo que es la alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible para tener un marco de referencia, para que se pueda hablar de lo mismo. •Se debe de fortalecer, apoyar, y proteger los mecanismos y programas ya existentes (por ejemplo, programas de bienestar o las acciones de orientación y educación alimentaria de DIF). •Trabajar más en los hogares vulnerables, impulsar la fortificación de los alimentos a gran escala, inseguridad alimentaria, falta de servicios de atención a la salud. •Fortalecer la información, de los cuidados prenatales, la lactancia materna, la preparación de los familiares y tutores para poder educar en hábitos alimenticios. •Realizar una mayor vigilancia y educación a los profesionales que atienden en los centros de salud y hospitales para evitar la promoción de los sucedáneos de leche materna. •Regulación legal y valorar la necesidad de sacar del mercado los alimentos que contienen sustancias dañinas y peligrosas •Falta una mejor orientación en temas de alimentación saludable. Sería recomendable que los nutriólogos tuvieran una capacitación en educación y no solo en salud. •Los mitos que permean entre las madres y embarazadas respecto a la alimentación y en la forma de darles comida siguen siendo muy arraigados y muchas veces basados en alimentos ultra procesados. Desaprender sobre los malos hábitos alimentarios que se inculcaron desde hace décadas, ayudará a tener un un cambio de mentalidad en los adultos para causar un impacto que logre modificar los malos hábitos en una alimentación saludable y sostenible. •La geografía estatal es una barrera significativa para la alimentación saludable, puesto que puede hacer difícil el acceso a alimentos nutritivos a la población que vive en zonas alejadas. Es muy importante mejorar los alcances de logística y el acceso a alimentos saludables y regionales, así como lo ha hecho la iniciativa privada. •Organizar una nueva estructura social, especialmente para madres trabajadoras es difícil sobre todo por la falta de tiempo en su vida cotidiana. El cambio de comportamiento en la rutina diaria de las madres trabajadoras es un gran reto. •Primordialmente, se debe tener una muy buena educación y atención tanto emocional, •Los sectores cuya participación goza de mayor influencia, son los correspondientes a salud, educación y el agroalimentario, siendo el sector salud la punta de lanza al respecto, buscando además un involucramiento positivo de los los medios de comunicación. •Se debe sensibilizar no sólo a los entes de la estructura estatal sino desde la estructura familiar, los padres deben mostrar interés por la alimentación de sus hijas e hijos y la suya propia. •Promover, respetar y crear espacios para la lactancia materna. •Los entornos que se identifican para apoyar la adecuada alimentación durante los 1000 días son los centros de trabajo, hospitales y espacios donde hay publicidad. Se relacionó directamente con la necesidad de establecer regulaciones o normativas, por ejemplo: la presencia de lactarios entre otras medidas como las licencias de maternidad y paternidad; la regulación de todos los espacios de publicidad y promociones incluidos los espacios digitales y la implementación de un etiquetado como el que indica la NOM051 para los alimentos y bebidas en general. En general se debería llegar a hacer cumplir el Código Internacional de comercialización de sucedáneos de la leche materna (LM), incluyendo las acciones de vigilancia y sanciones que establece. •Otro punto en el que se hizo énfasis reiteradamente fue la necesidad de un abordaje multisectorial y por tanto de unificar esquemas de atención/ creación de entornos más saludables para apoyar esta etapa de los 1000 días. También dejar de pensar solo desde el nivel nacional y hacerlo también a nivel estatal y municipal. •En esencia, se requiere de una política permanente de atención a los 1000 primeros días, que no termine con el sexenio, y que reconozca como derecho humano a la lactancia materna y para la que se deben garantizar las condiciones para ejercer este derecho. •Las estrategias deben enfocarse en intervenciones a largo plazo para lograr un cambio de comportamiento sostenido, ya que es la única manera de lograr un cambio en los hábitos alimentarios. •Las estrategias deben planearse, ejecutarse y medirse, a través de un esfuerzo interinstitucional conjunto de los planes y políticas públicas, además de trabajar de manera coordinada con los líderes comunitarios y las redes sociales para promover soluciones a los problemas nutricionales, de tal manera que haya una participación concertada y activa. •La capacitación a los agentes de cambio, a los líderes comunitarios así como a los demás eslabones de la cadena en habilidades educativas, de consulta y comunicación en la comunidad, para que las experiencias puedan ser replicadas y reconocidas en otros contextos, es fundamental para el éxito en la implementación de las estrategias.2362382392432492511. Estrategias de cambio de comportamiento asertivas para una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible durante los primeros 1000 días de vida . ¿Qué modificaciones consideran que se deberían hacer para mejorar la alimentación desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida para lograr que sea saludable, justa y sostenible? •Verificar o reforzar las pláticas, guías a las madres, padre de familia. Revisión de los programas actuales y fortalecimiento de los mismos. •Trabajar más en los hogares vulnerables. •El Sector Salud debe ser la primera entidad gubernamental multidisciplinaria en la atención a la madre, de modo que pueda hablarle de temas álgidos como la lactancia y para ello debe mejorarse la orientación que se imparte actualmente. ¿Qué retos y barreras identifican en el núcleo de cuidados para promover un cambio de comportamiento que favorezca una alimentación saludable desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? •Se debe trabajar más en la comunidad en general, haciendo la distinción por edades, para que la información llegue a los padres y madres de familia que son los formadores de hábitos. •Campaña donde se sensibilice a las futuras madres para que tengan una alimentación sana. •Hacer que la alimentación perceptiva algo que se sostenga con el tiempo. Con la pandemia ha sido difícil mantener la alimentación que existía en la casa. ¿Qué retos y barreras identifican a nivel de la sociedad para promover un cambio de comportamiento para favorecer una alimentación saludable desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? •Desmitificar el tema de la alimentación saludable, porque se piensa que es difícil una buena alimentación •Hacer una sinergia con las empresas para que aquellas que produzcan alimentos saludables puedan ser más visibles •Los sellos son importantes, pero también sacar del mercado los alimentos que no sólo no son sanos, sino que llegan a ser dañinos •Otra limitante, es la geografía estatal. En algunas zonas no hay consumo de ciertos alimentos o productos porque el acceso es limitado, aunque se tenga el recurso para comprarlo. •Prejuicios entorno al cuerpo femenino y al proceso de amamantar. •Condiciones de vida precarias en el trabajo •Se requiere que los centros de trabajo cuenten con personal de salud capacitado para orientar a la madre, así como una guardería para garantizar la lactancia materna. ¿Qué intervenciones anteriores o soluciones innovadoras y transformadoras identifican para promover un cambio de comportamiento para una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? ¿Cuáles serían las tres acciones de mayor prioridad? •Cambio de paradigma, y que los ultraprocesados sean más caros y difíciles de conseguir. •Algo importante son los medios, la iniciativa privada y que las instituciones gubernamentales garanticen la regulación. •Cambiar hábitos en cuanto a alimentación y educación física, seguir en contacto con los padres de familia. •Hay que vincular la atención psicológica con la emocional. •Difusión masiva sobre técnicas en la preparación de alimentación, técnicas culinarias, habilidades culinarias etc, para tener varias opciones en la preparación de platillos con un mismo producto. •Programa de educación para ambos padres de familia. •Procedimientos de gestión para consejeros, promotores de salud, actores individuales e institucionales, basados en el enfoque participativo. ¿Qué sectores consideran que deberían liderar y participar en el diseño y la implementación de las acciones de cambio de comportamiento para mejorar la alimentación desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? ¿Cuál debería ser el rol de esas instituciones? •Se considera que todas las personas tienen que estar involucrados. Sin embargo, el sector salud y educativo son los que preponderantemente tienen que llevar la batuta como se ha estado haciendo, e incluirse al sector agroalimentario en esta ecuación. Actualmente se vive con escasez de agua y de alimentos, y el trabajo conjunto de Salud, Educación y Agricultura será crucial para poder afrontar los problemas derivados de alimentos que requieren agua.2362382392432492512. Servicios de salud y nutrición esenciales durante los primeros 1000 días de vida. ¿Qué servicios de salud y nutrición se deberían proporcionar desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? •Vacunación. •Consejería en lactancia materna. •Suplementación. •Asesoría sobre alimentación complementaria •Tamiz neonatal y metabólico ampliado. •Recuperar guarderías, con nutriólogos. •Servicio de salud con licenciados en nutrición. •Concepción con mayor acercamiento en la etapa de embarazo, que el personal de salud explique y capacite sobre las consecuencias de las fórmulas infantiles, así como aplicar y capacitar sobre la importancia de prácticas como el apego inmediato, el corte retardado del cordón umbilical para prevenir anemia. •Servicios dirigidos a ambos padres y madres. ¿Qué retos y barreras identifican para la adecuada provisión de servicios de salud y nutrición para garantizar la atención integral de los primeros 1000 días de vida? ¿Qué ser-vicios identifican que se ha quedado más rezagados en los últimos años y a raíz de la pandemia? Retos: •Vacunación •Prueba capilar de anemia •Seguimiento postparto de la madre y el niño •Carencia de medicamentos •Falta de suplementación •Educación alimentaria •Atención a niños desnutridos •Tenemos pocos hospitales y pocos medicamentos, no se ha podido atender a toda la población, se queda a un lado nuestro derecho a una alimentación saludable. •Ante el reto de la regionalidad, se pidió mayor compromiso y respeto con médicos tradicionales para conjuntar saberes, haciéndolos aliados para mejorar la nutrición. Barreras: •Lingüística •Personal poco capacitado y sensibilizado con un enfoque intercultural •Falta de recursos para el primer nivel •Falta de recursos humanos •Politización de los servicios. •Durante el Diálogo se pidió fortalecer las capacidades del personal de salud y sus habilidades de comunicación, con respeto de la pluriculturalidad propia de México, para ello se propuso que se mejoren los currículums en temas de nutrición y alimentación del personal de salud. ¿Qué intervenciones anteriores o soluciones innovadoras y transformadoras en los ser-vicios de salud identifican para incidir en la disminución de la mala nutrición desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? ¿Cuáles consideran que serían las tres acciones de mayor prioridad? •En general es necesario sensibilizar tanto a tomadores de decisiones como a profesionales de la salud sobre la importancia de la nutrición en esta etapa de la vida •Es necesario tener protocolos de servicios de salud para situaciones de emergencia como la pandemia para que no vuelva a afectar los servicios dirigidos a los primeros 1000 días. Tomando en cuenta el esquema de suplementación de micronutrimentos que se ha utilizado en el país, por ejemplo, en el programa PROSPERA, ¿considera que se debería retomar la suplementación de micronutrientes y ser así de qué manera? •Sí es necesario tener un esquema de suplementación para esta etapa, sin embargo se podría diseñar un esquema más simplificado diseñado por expertos, por ejemplo: a) Ácido fólico para mujeres en edad reproductiva; b) Tabletas con múltiples nutrimentos para mujeres embarazadas y en periodo de lactancia; c) Fortificación casera de alimentos (chispitas) para niños y niñas mayores de 6 meses; y d) Alimentos complementarios fortificados, sin azúcar y que no sean ultraprocesados. ¿Qué sectores consideran que deberían liderar y participar en el diseño y la implementación de las acciones desde los servicios de salud y nutrición para mejorar la alimentación desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? ¿Cuál debería ser el rol de esas instituciones? •Salud para la promoción y el diseño de la alimentación nutritiva. Se pidió unificar los criterios de los servicios de salud y de IMSS bienestar, (homogeneizar los protocolos). •Educativo para la atención a la primera infancia y nutrición comunitaria. •Agricultura. •INPI para involucrar a los pueblos indígenas originarios, sector con situación de vulnerabilidad. •Poder legislativo.2362382392432492513. Producción y acceso de alimentos saludables, justos y sostenibles para niños menores de 2 años, con énfasis en programas de protección social y fortificación de alimentos básicos . ¿Qué modificaciones consideran que se deberían hacer para mejorar la alimentación desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida para lograr que sea saludable, justa y sostenible? •La promoción de la lactancia materna exclusiva hasta los 6 meses de vida y complementaria hasta los 2 años o más, ya que no todos los padres lo saben. •Es importante la educación alimentaria en las mujeres embarazadas y en madres en general. •Importancia del fortalecimiento de la alimentación en el consumo de frutas y verduras frescas, en todos los niveles socioeconómicos. ¿Qué barreras identifican que impiden el acceso a alimentos saludables, justos y sostenibles desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida, incluyendo la promoción de la lactancia materna en contraposición a las fórmulas lácteas? ¿Qué soluciones proponen para vencer estas barreras? •La mayoría de las mujeres trabajan y por la falta de tiempo toman decisiones sobre las alternativas que son más rápidas y poco nutritivas. •Es difícil acceder a alimentos saludables mientras que los no nutritivos se encuentran prácticamente en cada esquina. •Tener alimentos con bajo costo que cumplan con los requerimientos nutricionales. •Planificación de salas de lactancia en espacios públicos. •Buscar programas que puedan apoyar brindando alimentos a familias de bajos. •Las diferencias de los retos en la zona urbana y en la zona rural respecto a acceso a alimentos. •Evitar el uso de fórmulas lácteas y promoción de la lactancia materna considerando el bajo costo que esta implica. ¿Qué prácticas se podrían mejorar para evitar deficiencias de micronutrimentos en mujeres embarazadas y niños menores de 2 años (además de promover, proteger y apoyar la lactancia materna)? ¿Considera que la fortificación de alimentos es una opción para mejorar la adecuación de micronutrientes en este grupo y cómo se debería llevar a cabo? •Desmitificar aprendizajes (usos y costumbres) sobre ciertos alimentos para las mujeres embarazadas, no requieren gastar en suplementos, ya que los alimentos los contienen. •Es una opción cuando las condiciones del entorno dificultan el acceso a los alimentos naturales y entonces es necesario buscar la fortificación. •Concientizar a los padres de familia para que los niños acepten los grupos de alimentos que aporten los micronutrientes. •Orientación para el bien comer de las madres (saber qué comer). •Políticas públicas para dar el mensaje de que las mujeres son el eje para la nutrición y prevención de enfermedades de las personas menores. En términos de infraestructura, recursos humanos, sensibilización y presupuesto, ¿qué hace falta para vincular los programas de protección social y de emergencia dirigidos a mujeres embarazadas, en periodo de lactancia y niños y niñas de 0 a 2 años, con la entrega de alimentos saludables y sostenibles y cuáles son los retos? ¿Cuáles serían tres acciones de mayor prioridad? •Instauración de padrones con población objetivo + sensibilización en municipios para la contratación de un nutriólogo + aportación de recursos financieros para llegar a los puntos de entrega. • Falta de capacitadores y atención de calidad a las mujeres embarazadas. • Falta de presupuesto. • Ausencia de nutriólogos y profesionales de la salud que puedan difundir el mensaje. • Sensibilización a los padres de familia y a la comunidad en general. • Revisión de las etiquetas por parte del sector salud para los alimentos procesados. ¿Qué sectores consideran que deberían liderar y participar en las acciones para mejorar la producción y el acceso a alimentos saludables, justos y sostenibles para mejorar la alimentación desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? ¿Cuál debería ser el rol de esas instituciones? •La aproximación debe ser por sectores poblacionales. Las abuelas, que también son cuidadoras, han aportado recetas nutritivas, justas y saludables.2362382392432492514. Políticas y normatividad que favorecen entornos para la alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible durante los primeros 1000 días de vida. ¿Qué modificaciones consideran que se deberían hacer para mejorar la alimentación desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida para lograr que sea saludable, justa y sostenible? •Que se apruebe la Ley de derecho a la alimentación. •Políticas específicas para pueblos indígenas. •Adaptar los mensajes que se generan a nivel central, a la realidad de las personas. ¿Qué retos y barreras identifican para mejorar las políticas para lograr entornos favorables a la adecuada alimentación y nutrición desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? •Oposición de la industria de productos ultraporcesados. •Una barrera es la cultural de las madres y padres. •Hacer concientización de la leche materna, sobre todo a la madre de familia. •La difusión del etiquetado frontal, que llegue a todos los rincones del país. •La falta de espacios como los lactarios para apoyar a las mujeres en periodo de LM y en algunos casos la dificultad de empresas o instituciones para cumplir con los estándares mínimos. ¿Qué entornos consideran prioritarios intervenir para favorecer la adecuada alimentación y nutrición desde la concepción hasta los 2 años de edad? (Por ejemplo, hospitales, centros de trabajo, guarderías, escuelas, etc.). •Hospitales y centros de salud. •Entornos comunitarios. •En las guarderías y las escuelas que dan alimentos a los niños y niñas. •En el ámbito laboral es muy importante que los directivos tengan la sensibilidad y conocimiento de la importancia de la lactancia materna. •El entorno educativo e informativo en hospitales y centros de salud. ¿Qué normativas se necesitan crear, mejorar o implementar para lograr entornos favorables a la alimentación y nutrición desde la concepción hasta los 2 años de edad? ¿Cuáles serían tres elementos necesarios de normar de mayor prioridad? •Más allá de normativas sueltas, se requiere de una política permanente de atención a los 1000 primeros días, que no termine con el sexenio, y que reconozca como derecho humano a la lactancia materna. Las regulaciones o normativas específicas que se mencionaron estuvieron relacionadas directamente con los entornos identificados a modificar: •Creación de la Ley de Salud Alimentaria para Niños y Niñas. •Implementación de lactarios en los centros de trabajo, entre otras medidas como las licencias de maternidad y paternidad más extendidas. •La regulación de todos los espacios de publicidad y promociones incluidos los espacios digitales y la implementación de un etiquetado como el que indica la NOM051 para los alimentos y bebidas en general. •Modificar el Reglamento de la Ley General de Salud en Materia de Publicidad así como la NOM-131 Productos y servicios. Fórmulas para lactantes, de continuación y para necesidades especiales de nutrición. Alimentos y bebidas no alcohólicas para lactantes y niños de corta edad. Disposiciones y especificaciones sanitarias y nutrimentales. Etiquetado y métodos de prueba y retomar los avances del Proyecto de NOM-050-SSA2-2018, Para el fomento, protección y apoyo a la lactancia materna. •En general se debería llegar a hacer cumplir el Código Internacional de comercialización de sucedáneos de la LM, incluyendo las acciones de vigilancia y sanciones que establece. ¿Qué sectores consideran que deberían liderar las políticas para transformar los entornos alimentarios para mejorar la alimentación desde la concepción hasta los dos primeros años de vida? ¿Cuál debería ser el rol de esas instituciones? •El sector salud de la mano con el estado y la sociedad civil, que participen en la elaboración de políticas públicas alimentarias a través de conjunto de programas, proyectos y acciones orientadas a garantizar el derecho humano a la alimentación los primeros días de vida. •Sector académico (universidades o institutos nacionales). •Se debe de aprovechar la estructura y el área geográfica que abarcan tanto Secretaría de Salud, como Secretaría de Educación para concientizar a las familias.237238239243249251•Algunos participantes consideraban que el sector salud y el sector educativo son los que deberían de liderar las políticas, mientras que otros participantes consideraban que diversos sectores deberían de liderar de acuerdo a sus atribuciones. •Se comentó sobre la importancia de un enfoque preventivo, pero también hubo opiniones sobre la necesidad de la focalización y consideración de la estacionalidad de la dieta para tener intervenciones precisas cuando la dieta no provee suficientes micronutrientes.

2021-08-15 17:26:38205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28672/130

90

List of participants for the provincial food system dialogues was prepared and shared among the stakeholders to get inputs to ensure representation of diverse participation in terms of sector and disciplines, ethnicity and gender. Series of revisions and addition were made to ensure inclusive participation. The provincial dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different parts of the province.Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding, analysis and looking for way forward. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. An organizing committee was formed representing key stakeholders to steer the overall process and technical committee to support technically. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. In order to have the consistent process and facilitate the dialogues effectively, series of orientations were organized to the facilitators and curator of the event at the province. These orientations were locally adapted in the context based on the original contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. All the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and future commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical analysis of the provincial Food Systems was done to examine in terms of their potential causes/barriers, drivers and actions for the next 3 years. Participants stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. In order to have a meaningful dialogues among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and provincial dialogue process among the participants, a participants brief was prepared and shared before the event. Further, Nepali languages was used in the event to have active engagement and participation of farmers in the dialogues.Yes, we received feedback to further represent the private sector and entrepreneurs and farmers in the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242246249251Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the provincial Food Systems Dialogue of Bagmati Province on 24th June 2021 on the theme Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system. National Convenor and Member of National Planning Commission Hon Dr. Krishna Prasad Oli delivered welcome and opening remarks. He stressed on the need for collective efforts from all the sectors in the process to transform food system and committed to contribute for transformation. Dr. Matina Baidhya Joshi, Secretary, Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoLMAC) and Provincial Dialogue Curator curated the dialogues. Major focus of the dialogue was to engage stakeholders for a comprehensive exploration of food systems in Nepal as part of the process for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • raise awareness and promote public discussion on the food systems, • examine current situation and identify key aspects of Nepalese food systems, such as the drivers, actions, pathways, and • explore opportunities for food system to make it equitable, sustainable and resilient. Total of 90 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process and documented the discussion outcomes. Each AT Group had proposition and reference questions to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Dialogue reference questions: Following 5 questions were presented to the participants to facilitate the dialogue: 1. What are the underlying causes/ barriers for achieving the stated proposition? 2. What are the key drivers of unsustainable food system? 3. What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 4. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 5. What are the role and responsibilities of the food system actors including those of the federal, provincial, and local Governments in sustainable food system transformation in Nepal?235238239240241242243246249251The provincial dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the provincial food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. Indeed, this will be further verified and refined after the feedback from the Provincial, and second and third national dialogues. Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed on these topics following the ATs propositions and reference questions mentioned in Section A above. Relevant officials of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts. The dialogue also collected some learning to reflect impression and work further on as following: 1. Some participants were new to virtual meetings (attending the session using online platform to participate in specific groups); 2. Less numbers of participants from industries and value chains (actors). 3. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 4. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 5. There was strong commitment from the stakeholders to address the issues of access to food, nutrition, distribution and effective implementation of policies and regulations. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. Some potential and emerging issues were identified and validated; the dialogue was also helpful in raising awareness and elevating public discussion on key food system issues and identify potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable (refer Section C below).236238246249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: The cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Situation of nutrition has improved over the period of 1996 to 2019: stunting decreased from 57 to 32%, underweight 42 to 24, and wasting from 15 to 12%. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Locally available nutritious crops/foods getting less importance; biodiversity/cultural diversity not promoted. No focus on micronutrients; poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices; many families do not have access to nutrient rich foods; growing burden of non-communicable diseases; divergence between nutrition and WASH programmes due to lack of coherence between food security and nutrition sectors. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Low Institutional and individual capacity • Inadequate availability of sustainable agricultural technologies. • Poor Infrastructure development and availability for storage of crops and foods with high nutritious value. • Less nutritional sensitive and Food safety educational programs and program for social protection. • No support to produce organic food and diversification of food production. • Less priority for agriculture in urban and the promotion of household gardening. • Less knowledge and awareness about the knowledge regarding the values of nutritious food. • Poor and or inadequate understanding of three tiers of government with designated roles to enhance food system competence. Actions for three years: • Promote diversified production system and safe food. • Increase qualified human resources. • Enhance individual capacity, institutional capacity and technological capacity. • Promote sustainable agricultural technologies. • Infrastructural development for storage of crops and foods with high nutritional value • Implement nutritional sensitization and social protection program. • Food safety education and campaign • Encourage organic food, diversified food and fruits • Promote agriculture in urban as well as in rural areas, promote home gardening • Enhance family knowledge regarding the values of nutritious foods • Promote socio-culturally acceptable foods and discourage non-nutritious and junk foods • Capacity building of three levels of the governments • Focus on behavioral aspect, building a system for food security, access to infrastructures and their development • Equitable distribution of food • Invest for sustainable agricultural technology generation • Develop infrastructures such as roads and storage • Conserve and utilize local crops/commodities that have high nutrition • Implement nutrition sensitive social protection programs • Increase education/awareness among the people. • Prioritize specific commodities that have high nutrition such as fruit crops Assessing the success of Action: • Develop strong M&E system • Develop periodic plan of action • Ensure the implementation of plan of action • Develop database and reuse of data • Make ten years plan of action • Develop appropriate indicators to assess the impacts Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Policy review and revision related to food system • Socio-economic infrastructure development • The federal, provincial and local governments and private sector to support to enhance access to safe and nutritious foods for all • Collaborate with food system actors • Make strategic policy for marketing and promotion • Collaborate with food industry to ensure the quality of food as a social responsibility • Community empowerment, behavior change, communication and socio-economic empowerment • Promote a farming culture in small land area • Promote awareness of low-cost food and promote low cost high nutritious foods.236239243246249251Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure in Nepal; Prevalence of triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades; women and children also suffer from some of the world’s highest levels of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Change in dietary pattern characterized by two-meal-rice (per capita rice consumption increased by nearly 70% in 50 years). Dietary shift towards unhealthy processed foods high in saturated and trans-fat, salt and sugar neglecting nutritious indigenous crop-based foods. Increase in fat intake in diet and undernutrition in childhood has coincided with increased overweight/ obesity and other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD); over two-thirds of adolescent girls in both rural and urban areas reported consuming sugary foods. Consumption of foods produced by using high dose chemical fertilizers and pesticides; items, such as biscuits, instant noodles and juice drinks may be supplying about a quarter of energy intake of children <2 years, which is lowering their intake of essential vitamins and minerals. Underlying Barriers for attaining the Stated Propositions: • Weak market monitoring system for food • Food labelling not practiced properly. • Only half of the population receiving minimum diet diversity (52 percent) • High sugar, salt, and fat consumption. • Urbanization, different type of topography • Migration and land fragmentation • High use of insecticide and pesticide • Horlicks, Viva and packaged food consumption is increasing. • Local paddy exporting trend and use of polished rice increasing. • Local chicken and whey disappearing, and it is replaced by Soft drink and noodles • Third country migration, over digitalization and consumption behavior changing. • Ginger and turmeric farming almost disappear. • Shortfall of labor for production and value chain activities • Plenty of opportunity for agro-forestry, agro-tourism, and agro-industry • Urbanization and increasing access to unhealthy foods with expanding commercial marketing • Some communities still consuming roots and tubers available in the forests (e.g. Chepang) Action for three years: • Follow diversified cropping pattern. • Promote postproduction diversity. • Developing a programme on food consumption behavior. • Promote safe food, Developing a program on food consumption behavior • Promote agro-forestry product, fish farming, bee farming, napier grass, pineapple farming • Develop land use policy for agriculture, industry and human settlement • Develop database by land type, food security, production and consumption • Increase utilization of fallow land • Develop system to fix the wage of laborers • Distribute below poverty level (BPL) card for reservation of services to population living below poverty • Engage people under below poverty in conservation programs (e.g. riverbank protection) • Promote education program on breast feeding to children Assessing the success of Action: • Availability of Provincial Land Act • Availability of land and other socio-economic data base. • Availability of regulation to promote healthy food and discourage the sale and distribution of unhealthy foods with high sugar, salt and fat Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Establish Provincial Health, Social Development and Education Authority • Provincial govt should provide Below Poverty Level card /social scheme card • Local government should implement awareness raising programs236240244246251Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation and land degradation are major problems. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Poverty has forced households in forest and pastureland encroachment. Production of major staples and commercial vegetables in some pockets has caused excessive mining of soil nutrients, water depletion and agrochemical pollution. Food habits mostly towards rice and wheat have led to a narrow dietary diversity; this has resulted in loss of traditional crops and indigenous knowledge. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Dependency on imported crop varieties is increasing with lack of site-specific food production; lack of production in broader landscape/agroecosystem level. Lack of land utilization policy and plans have promoted rapid conversion of fertile agriculture lands into settlements and other non-agriculture use. Disappearance of indigenous food system; rural out-migration; inadequate capacity development of farmers; lack of agriculture mechanization. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Climate change Impacts resulting extreme disaster events • Inadequate investment and lack of technical capability • Lack of act and poor implementation of the existing acts and regulations (e.g. land use act & right to food & food sovereignty act) • Conversion of productive agricultural lands into non agri purpose • Reclamation of Unutilized degraded land (92,000 ha in the Bagmati province) and they can be made available for food production • Haphazard use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers leading mainly in commercial production pockets. • Poor economic efficiency of farming • Climate change and associated factors • No assured markets for diversified food products • Inadequate value chain development for safe food and organic products • Less diversification of agricultural production, poor marketing of agri products, no premium price for local land races/indigenous crops/commodities and no development of value chain of such commodities • Unplanned urbanization and preference for ready-made foods • Lack of nature positive innovation and technology development • Poor food governance (price, quality, nutritive value, research with farmers) Actions for the next 3 years: • Conservation of bio-diversity (organic agriculture, conservation agriculture, environment friendly agriculture, zero budget, permaculture) • Policy and programs for incentivizing in the cultivation of fallow land • Encourage land consolidation for cooperative and group farming employing land use policy • Integrated/joint programming and implementation by three tiers of governments • Ensuring markets and developing value chains for indigenous crops and production systems • Increase research on climate adaptive and mitigative type of technologies development • Develop nature positive production system and encourage farmers to adopt such technologies • Emphasize integrated agriculture system Assessing the success of Action: • M&E system developed involving multi-stakeholder, mechanism developed for collection, processing and utilization of information • Transformed land area (from forest and others) used for food production • Statistics on the area under organic and safe food production, productivity • Certification of ecological agriculture • Rehabilitation of fallow and degraded lands and their area • Wider awareness on food nutrition, food loss and waste • Regulation developed for ecological agriculture and effective implementation of Food rights Act Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments & other Stakeholders: • Federal Government to facilitate in policy, acts and regulations formulation and implementation, monitoring and statistics, fixation of Minimum Support Price (MSP) • Provincial Government to develop M&E system, generate provincial level statistics, program implementation, MSP implementation and certification. • Local Government to implement program, M& E, resource allocation and management236241243246249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Context: Landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Deep rooted social and economic inequalities in employment opportunities increase vulnerability. Inadequate institutional mechanisms for and limited capacity of women, small holders, old-age, people with disability (PWD), internally displaced people (IDPs) to claim their rights, they have less access to production resources, space for voice, negotiation power in the market systems. State of food and nutrition security varies by provinces, ecological belts and gender wise. These groups are disproportionately affected during any kinds of shocks and emergencies. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Agriculture sector is seen as less remunerative and less attractive. The major reasons are of skewed power relation over productive resources especially of land, water, forest to women and disadvantaged groups; land fragmentation and use of agricultural land for other purposes have reduced options to secure access and land rights of people in the value chain. Feminization of agriculture due to young male out-migration. Globalization trend has weakened competitive capacity of Nepalese small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Fragmented policies and inadequate support to the local governments for the localization of policies. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • The major underlying cause of the food and nutrition insecurity are of lack of access to production inputs by the farming population in specific the small-holders; • The priority given to certain staple crops such as rice, maize, millet, buckwheat, wheat, oat. The food items related to livestock, fisheries, forest-based products are yet to get priorities; • There are indigenous caste and ethnicities have no legal ownership of production resources, access to regular employment and income opportunities; • Geographical inaccessibility that restricts the food supply systems being equitable for all. Actions for three years: • Mapping of marginalized and poverty areas and identification of food insecure groups, communities and areas for preparing targeted policies, plans and investments; • Documentation of the land which can be used for food production and study on the possibility for enhancing productivity; • Modernization of agricultural production system and use of technologies that are women-friendly; • Diversify production system with expansion of forest-based and agricultural commodities; • Documentation of organic production and commodities produced by the indigenous communities and their marketing; • Enhancing capacity of the women and farmers involved in agriculture. • Develop programs to improve healthy food consumption behavior including breast feedings; • Develop system to fix the wage rate for agriculture laborer; and • Distribute below poverty level card (BPL) to provide reservation of services to population below poverty. Assessing the success of Action: Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Federal government is expected to play role of defining policies that enhance equitable access to production inputs, facilitate investments specially in research and promotion of technologies that are appropriate to women farmers, small holders and in post-production chains that can create opportunity for employment and incomes for women, youth and local communities; • Provincial government is expected to support in establishment of food-based industries, diversify and commercialize local food products, promote processing related technological developments and create opportunities for employment, income and better livelihoods of women, youth and local communities; • Local governments are responsible for devising and implementing local targeted policies and programmes; • Development partners support to disaster affected communities in food relief as well as post-disaster support programs.236242243247249251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: Current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. These shocks, stress and disaster can be devastating for poor and vulnerable people, who have limited resources and options. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Lately, COVID-19 has contributed to increase unemployment, poverty and vulnerability including loss of livelihoods. The 2015 Earthquake increased number of food insecure people by 3.5 million. Therefore, building resilience means helping individuals, households and communities to mitigate, cope with and recover from shocks and stresses, so that they can become even better off than before. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Natural and climate induced disasters; high post-production losses; weak supply chain; pandemics (COVID-19) and other epidemics. Economic shocks, like food price hikes and income losses due to pandemics and disasters. Climate induced natural disasters are increasing more than before due to haphazard road constructions, improper infrastructure development and accelerated process of urbanizations. Limited investment on R&D to reduce vulnerability and build resilience. Farmers and stakeholders lack adequate incentives for climate initiatives and green agriculture. High post-production losses, unsafe transportation and weak supply chain resulting in inadequate/late access of safe food in affordable prices for marginal, poor and low income groups. Epidemics/pandemic (such as diarrhea, COVID-19, etc) have increased vulnerability of poor, women, and marginalized households. Improper food habits with poor feeding practices. Poor, landless, and marginalized groups have settlements in vulnerable places (river banks, landslide prone areas). Preparation and readiness arrangements are weak. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Fragile geology and topography leading to frequent occurrence of disaster events • Different types of political conflicts and instability • High probability of the occurrence of different types of disasters • Subsistence type of production system not modernized and commercialized. • Lack of incentive in production and no assurance of market and price • Practice of land remaining fallow and rapid migration Actions for the next 3 years: • Development of disaster early warning system and its effective implementation • Develop climate and environment friendly production system including seed and production inputs • Appropriate use of food bank and land bank • Scientific management of land • Planned settlement and resettlement program management for disaster prone areas and affected people • Disaster resilient development programs and infrastructure development • Full compliance of building codes • Therapeutic and Supplementary feeding in Emergencies. Assessing the success of Action: • Continuous monitoring and supervision • Data and input collection from the grass root level • Food security monitoring system development and implementation • Carryout survey and research to identify vulnerable communities and households • Establish reporting mechanism for disasters and shocks • Proper use of ICT (in social media responsive) in reporting • Coordination among different tiers of the government. Collaboration and Roles/responsibilities of 3 tiers Government and other Actors: • Analysis and full implementation of the existing policies and strategies by federal, provincial and local governments • Localize the food sovereignty and food security (with clear roles and responsibilities) • Ensuring market and prices of agri-foods by federal and provincial govt. • Establish food banks and empowering farmers to grow more foods • Incentive to farmers on production basis by provincial and local govt. • Disaster resilient development/ land and food safety first federal and provincial govt. • Taking govt programs to those who are in real need and vulnerable236238239240241242243246247249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context: Nepal has developed legal framework to ensure good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. The Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Underlying Barriers to Achieve the Stated Proposition: • Lack of information and awareness about the law. • Lack of effective implementation efforts to preserve the local nutritious food. • Preference to highly processed food. • Food is cross cutting so that cross-cutting mechanism has to be developed. • Provincial and local level guidelines and SOP has not yet been developed. • Youth motivation in agriculture is lacking, very difficult to attract and motivate youths. • More attraction toward migration. Actions for the next 3 years: • Education should be linked with functional skills and capacity to use the skills in the practical life. • Institutional arrangement- establishing marketing centers, mobilizing cooperatives • Leasing land for consolidated farming • Involving academia and expert to the real agricultural work, farm/field could be started in small plot. • Youth motivation programs to be implemented • Local Government should be motivated to implement programs to increase local production and should be prioritized and incentivized. • School feeding can be a transformative activity to make the food system sustainable, local contextual menu must be implemented based on the local production potentialities. • Nutrition education must be promoted and should be interlinked with other subjects as well • Reducing risk associated with the farming, commercial farming, competition with the Indian market • Coordination mechanism to regulate the law and guidelines, strengthen governance and accountability • Gap between the producers and consumer is very big, long supply chain; this long chain increases the cost to the consumer, but on the other hand producer is under paid for their product • Food Bank and its integration with other programs like School feeding and market to book local economy • Effective dissemination and increasing awareness about provisions of the law, • Education should be linked with functional skills and capacity to use the skills in the practical life • Institutional arrangement - establishing marketing centers, mobilizing cooperatives • Leasing for consolidated farming • Interlinking academia /expert to the real agriculture work/ farm/ field, could be started in small scale • Underutilized crops (like stinking needle Sisno) to be further utilized and strategized for that • Mobilizing /sharing farmers local knowledge and skills in the agriculture • Community /cooperative and government collaboration food bank and seed could be integrated in the food bank • Corporate Social responsibly of Business and private sector to be linked to strengthen food system and university Assessing the success of Action: • Linkages with university for monitoring and evaluation • Effectives of utilizing the expertise of the universities • Increased investments in the research • Human Rights Monitoring • Partners’ assessment Roles and Responsibilities of the Governments and Other Stakeholders/Actors: • Three tiers of governments need to organize frequent dialogues • Community /cooperative and government collaboration food bank and seed could be integrated in the food bank • Three tiers of governments and their planning institutions need to be strengthened • Create institutional mechanism (as provisioned made in the law) to implement the Act and Regulation237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-08-15 17:50:54205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29199/130

109

List of participants for the provincial food system dialogues was prepared and shared among the stakeholders to get inputs to ensure representation of diverse participation in terms of sector and disciplines, ethnicity and gender. Series of revisions and addition were made to ensure inclusive participation. The provincial dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different parts of the province.Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding, analysis and looking for way forward. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. An organizing committee was formed representing key stakeholders to steer the overall process and technical committee to support technically. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. In order to have the consistent process and facilitate the dialogues effectively, series of orientations were organized to the facilitators and curator of the event at the province. These orientations were locally adapted in the context based on the original contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. All the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and future commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical analysis of the provincial Food Systems was done to examine in terms of their potential causes/barriers, drivers and actions for the next 3 years. Participants stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. In order to have a meaningful dialogue among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and provincial dialogue process among the participants, a participants brief was prepared and shared before the event. Further Nepali languages was used as medium of conversation to have active engagement of participants of farmers in the dialoguesYes, we received feedback to further represent the private sector and entrepreneurs and farmers in the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246249251Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the provincial Food Systems Dialogue of Province 1 on 25 June 2021 on the theme Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system. Hon. Dr Krishna Prasad Oli, Member of NPC and National Dialogues Convenor delivered the welcome and opening remarks. Ms. Niru Dahal Pandey of Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoLMAC) and Provincial Dialogue Curator curated the dialogues. Major focus of the dialogue was to engage stakeholders for a comprehensive exploration of food systems in Nepal as part of the process for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • raise awareness and promote public discussion on the food systems, • examine current situation and identify key aspects of Nepalese food systems, such as the drivers, actions, pathways, and • explore opportunities for food system to make it equitable, sustainable and resilient. Total of 109 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process and documented the discussion outcomes. Each AT Group had proposition and reference questions to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Dialogue reference questions: Following 5 questions were presented to the participants to facilitate the dialogue: 1. What are the underlying causes/ barriers for achieving the stated proposition? 2. What are the key drivers of unsustainable food system? 3. What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 4. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 5. What are the role and responsibilities of the food system actors including those of the federal, provincial, and local Governments in sustainable food system transformation in Nepal?235238239240241242244246249251The provincial dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the provincial food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. Indeed, this will be further verified and refined after the feedback from the Provincial, and second and third national dialogues. Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed on these topics following the ATs propositions and reference questions mentioned in Section A above. Relevant officials of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts. The dialogue also collected some learning to reflect impression and work further on as following: 1. Some participants were new to virtual meetings (attending the session using online platform to participate in specific groups); 2. Less no. of participation from industries and value chains (actors). 3. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 4. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 5. There was strong commitment from the stakeholders to address the issues of access to food, nutrition, distribution and effective implementation of policies and regulations. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. Some potential and emerging issues were identified and validated; the dialogue was also helpful in raising awareness and elevating public discussion on key food system issues and identify potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable (refer Section C below).236238246249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: The cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: No focus on micronutrients; poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices; many families do not have access to nutrient rich foods; poor and or inadequate understanding of three tiers of government with designated roles to enhance food system competence is also one of the major underlying causes. Drivers of change: • Low level of agricultural productivity and high pre & post-harvest losses. • Land fragmentation, loss of biodiversity and existence of poor food diversity. • Absence of good practices such as Good Agricultural Practices, Good Animal husbandry Practices. • Use of unsafe water for irrigation, haphazard use of pesticides and chemicals and anti-microbial drugs. • Inadequate roads for connectivity & storage facilities. • Absence of Good Manufacturing Practices. • Absence of infrastructures and facilities. • Loss/ Erosion of local biodiversity and existence of poor food diversity. • Low education and awareness level on the nutritive value of underutilized crops. • Low awareness regarding the home-based solutions for the preservation of the nutrition of foods. • Poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices. • Poor access to affordable and nutrient rich foods for many families. • Ineffective coordination among the stakeholders involved in food value chains. • Low level of awareness about the safe and nutritious foods. Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: • Creation of enabling environment and provide support for adoption of good practices. • Strengthening of the food institution for the identification of mycotoxin and other harmful pesticides. • Support to and motivate for the adoption of skills, knowledge and technologies. • Development of roads/storage to facilitate the marketing of highly perishable commodities, • Development of climate adaptive technologies. • Emphasis on the development of formal food trading and distribution system. • Diversify the production of food products and enhance their access. • Enhancing skills and knowledge on household level food preservation. • Creating awareness among the consumers about the quality food and balanced diet. • Minimization of the occurrence of food borne diseases and contamination. • Education and awareness raising programs for the consumption of nutrient rich foods. • Formulating policies that promote the consumption of low-cost nutritious food products. Options to assess the actions being successful • Awareness on use of pesticides, chemicals, and drugs, and formulation of regulation to monitor quality. • Effective implementation of food safety policy. • Development and adoption of effective surveillance system. • Harmonization of the food trade and distribution system and use of tracking and tracing system. • Survey and monitoring of the access and consumption of safe, diversified, and nutritive foods • Appropriate management of agricultural land. Collaboration/Partnership: • Prioritize the programs for increasing the production and productivity of nutritious foods at local level. • Integrate food safety policy with agriculture and nutrition policy. • Strengthening national research capacity on the pandemic. • Prioritize effective Food safety and nutrition surveillance (in all the level). • Prioritize Food innovation and food formulation. • Preparation of emergency policy and action plan. • Awareness raising programs on food safety and nutrition. • Women empowerment at the local level (local govt). • Multi-sectoral strategy for nutrition improvement. • Distribution of nutrition card and nutrition allowance236239243246249251Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure in Nepal ; Prevalence of triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades; women and children also suffer from some of the world’s highest levels of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Change in dietary pattern characterized by two-meal-rice (per capita rice consumption increased by nearly 70% in 50 years). Dietary shift towards unhealthy processed foods high in saturated and trans-fat, salt and sugar neglecting nutritious indigenous crop-based foods. Increase in fat intake in diet. Drivers of change: • Inadequate production and inconsistent distribution mechanism • Inadequate road network and electricity distribution/development • High post-harvest losses • Poor quality management in Animal Food Supply Chain • Inadequate adoption of modern agricultural technologies and skills • Less or no adoption of Climate Resilient Agricultural system • Lack of Emergency and disaster Preparedness • No promotion and conservation of locally available nutritive foods • Marketing promotion of unhygienic food products • Lack of basic knowledge among the farmers on processing and storage • Inadequate mechanism(s) to regulate the market for food products. • Existence of subsistence production system • Poor knowledge on the real market prices • No access to the modern storage facilities and infrastructures • Unemployment and inadequate budgetary resources for agriculture Actions in next 3 years for greater impact: • Enhancing the capacity of the farmers. • Develop the low-cost storage infrastructures and their usage at the local level. • Conserve local food crops/commodities and promotion of local seed banks. • Encourage the establishment of small agro-based cottage and large processing industries • Enhance capacity for adopting Climate Resilient Agricultural production systems. • Establishing subsidized price shops for regulating/controlling prices. • Strengthening/ Enhancing the capacity of agricultural markets • Diversify the production of food crops based on ecological/geographical diversity • Development of modern cold storage facilities. • Establishment of processing centers at local level for local • Promote breast feeding practices among the lactating women • Promote and use the services of Nutritionist and Dieticians. • Introduce agricultural education and nutrition at school level. • Improve and expand road network and increase the access to electricity • Development & implementation of effective M&E system • Available agricultural commodity prices (of markets) using ICT • Increase the production of raw materials required for agro-based industries • Develop mechanism for maintaining buffer stock. • Regulate the advertisement and promotion of unhealthy food products • Promotion, awareness and marketing of local healthy food products Options to assess the actions being successful: • Effective Monitoring and Evaluation in the use of local storage facilities • Assessing agro-based employment. • Assessing the level of post-harvest losses of foods • Assessing the accessibility of consumers in subsidized price shops • Study the import substitution impact of local/domestic production • Assessing the effectiveness of local food processing centers • Monitoring the trend of market prices • Evaluating the effectiveness of food security indicators • Carry out social/public auditing of the implemented programs Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Federal government: Formulation of polices and regulations • Provincial government: Formulate and implement polices and regulations • Local government: Implement policies and regulations • Private sector: Invest in food industries and ensure the supply of quality food products • Farmers: Produce raw materials required for the agro-based industries236240243244246249251Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation and land degradation are major problems. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Poverty has forced households in forest and pastureland encroachment. Production of major staples and commercial vegetables in some pockets has caused excessive mining of soil nutrients, water depletion and agrochemical pollution. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Dependency on imported crop varieties is increasing with lack of site-specific food production; lack of production in broader landscape/agroecosystem level. Lack of land utilization policy and plans have promoted rapid conversion of fertile agriculture lands into settlements and other non-agriculture use. Disappearance of indigenous food system; rural out-migration; inadequate capacity development of farmers; lack of agriculture mechanization. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Traditional low productive food system • Lack of awareness and knowledge among farmers about negative impact of agri-food system • Lack of clear-cut policy and legislation about sustainable crop and animal production system • Lack of knowledge among farmers about new technologies and practices. • Lack of development of climate resilient agricultural system • Limited accountability of farmers and food system actors • Focus on only increased production of agriculture without considering negative impact on nature. • Overuse and misuse of agrochemicals, hormones, and additives in animal production • Loss of local seed diversity, native animal breeds • Loss of soil health without adequate management and protection. Actions for the next 3 years: • Formulation of policy and laws for nature positive food production system • Create awareness and orientation on nature positive food production. • Conduct study, analyses and predict about how and to what extent existing food production system is affecting agricultural sufficiency and food security in the province 1 without damaging nature • Implement and reorient gradually agricultural and livestock development program towards nature positive direction • Implement food production programs by adopting agroecological zoning and suitability • Develop plans and programs on organic /ecological farming • Adopt climate smart agricultural system • Adopt technologies and practices in agriculture and livestock that reduce GHG emissions • Implement soil testing programs in every municipality • Establish “Agricultura Data Bank” to promote broader agricultural information system • Develop ecological based agricultural planning • Develop and implement programs on conservation of agrobiodiversity • Implement agroforestry and water resource management programs. Assessing the success of Action: • Inclusion of nature positive food production system in policy plans and programs • Regular monitoring and evaluation and feed-back collection mechanisms • Annual and quarterly review of nature positive production programs • Long-term (10 years), medium term (7 years) and short term (3 years) planning and implementation of nature positive food production programs. Roles and Responsibilities of the Governments and other Actors: • Federal Government: Enforce land use policies and act for nature positive food production system, conduct research and develop new technologies and innovations. • Provincial /Local Government: Disseminate new technologies and solutions developed from research system for nature positive production system, develop directives and standards for the nature positive programs; capacity development to maximum number of farmers and other relevant stakeholders for promoting nature positive production systems. • Private Sectors and Other Civil Society Actors: Engage private sectors in nature positive production, processing and marketing of agri-food products • Other relevant stakeholders consumers, processors, industries and market intermediaries to take ownership and promote nature positive food sy236241243246247249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Context: Landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Deep rooted social and economic inequalities in employment opportunities increase vulnerability. Inadequate institutional mechanisms for and limited capacity of women, small holders, old-age, people with disability (PWD), internally displaced people (IDPs). Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Agriculture sector is seen as less remunerative and less attractive. The major reasons are of skewed power relation over productive resources especially of land, water, forest to women and disadvantaged groups; land fragmentation and use of agricultural land for other purposes have reduced options to secure access and land rights of people in the value chain. Feminization of agriculture due to young male out-migration. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Inequalities exist across the food chain; • Rigidness in institutional provisions and response mechanisms as well as institutional biases that do not support poor and vulnerable; • Disaster hits the poor and vulnerable disproportionately; • No promotion of cultural foods of high nutrition values; • Lack of quality control specially of nutritional aspects in the food chains; • Lack of multi-stakeholder’s collaboration working on social-cultural-economic issues to ensure diversified food baskets; • Food price hikes and quality deterioration; • Social discriminatory norms and practices that inhibits girls and women and certain caste and ethnicities for accessing nutritious and diversified food; • Unequal food system specially during disaster and emergencies (price hikes, artificial shortage, black marketing, poor cannot afford and vulnerable have no information and or access to relief support) • No secured employment, income and food supplies for the poor, small holders, vulnerable groups. Actions for three years: • Deal with discriminatory norms and practices; • Strengthen producer, vendors, market actors, consumers in decision-making process of rural food system transformation; • Establish processing industries for high value industrial crops such as ginger, cardamom, bettle nuts that create employment for women, youth and agri-laborers; • Establish, regularize and manage food storage system for emergency supplies; • Issue cards for poor and marginalized communities to access food in subsidized rates; • Crop insurance to the marginalized and small holders. Assessing the success of Action: • Establish relief fund based on pre-assessment of needs for targeting to informal sector workers and vulnerable groups; • Pre-planning for production and relief package; • Establish grievance dealing and response mechanisms for inequalities in accessing food for all; • Establish data bank and monitor it regularly; • Ensure work place safety for informal workers, agricultural wage workers and workers in the food chain. Roles and Responsibilities of Governments and Other Stakeholders: • Federal government: devise policy frameworks that promotes rights-based approach for ensuring food for all, facilitate long-term investment for structural transformation in food system, support in developing scientific pricing mechanisms for food and strengthen regulatory systems; make food estimates and support provincial and local governments in making forecasts and food supply plan. • Provincial governments to prepare comprehensive food supply plan, food banks for the crisis period; • Provincial government to facilitate collaboration among the municipalities, inter-provincial and with federal government for public private partnership in creating equitable food supply system; • Local governments have the prime role to establish food bank at local levels; • Local governments to establish identifying the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups • Local governments to create awareness against the discriminatory practices.236242243244246249251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: Current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. These shocks, stress and disaster can be devastating for poor and vulnerable people, who have limited resources and options. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Lately, COVID-19 has contributed to increase unemployment, poverty and vulnerability including loss of livelihoods. The 2015 Earthquake increased number of food insecure people by 3.5 million. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Natural and climate induced disasters; high post-production losses; weak supply chain; pandemics (COVID-19) and other epidemics. Economic shocks, like food price hikes and income losses due to pandemics and disasters. Limited investment on R&D to reduce vulnerability and build resilience. Farmers and stakeholders lack adequate incentives for climate initiatives and green agriculture. Epidemics/ pandemic (such as diarrhea, COVID-19, etc) have increased vulnerability of poor, women, and marginalized households. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Social: Male migration, outmigration, conflict in natural resources, less youth attraction in agriculture, socio-cultural taboos • Economic: Economic crisis: loss employment and livelihoods, pandemics (Covid-19), food price spike, farmers’ not getting reasonable prices of their products • Environmental: natural disasters, drought, flooding, land-slides, soil erosion, earthquake, forest fires • Policy and governance: low effective implementation of policy and regulations, Actions in the next 3 years • Early warning system development and flow of proper information (weather related forecast) to disaster prone areas • Strengthening of institutional and structural aspects of 3 tiers government • Agricultural diversification, irrigation investment and agricultural insurance promotion • Social safety net: productivity safety net such as Food bank, Emergency food pantries etc. • Development and utilization of agricultural data, weather insurance, market information and research impacts • Policy coordination: Transnational and within three tiers of government • Community organization and local innovation • Inventory of indigenous knowledge, promote underutilized and indigenous crop Assessing the success of Action: • Effective monitoring and evaluation, reporting feedback • Evidence of effective implementation of acts, policy and regulations • Indicators of increased technology transfer, production and productivity increase • Equitable distribution of benefits of value chain development among food system actors • Self-assessment: ownership enhancement, gap determination Collaboration and Roles/responsibilities of 3 tiers Government and other Actors: Federal Government: Strengthen coordination among international actors, Coordinate with public and private investments, enforcement of act, policy and regulations on food system; awareness, food assistance program, Infrastructure (Transport and Storage), cross ministerial collaboration, public-private partnership for resilience, food system and safety traceability system to be developed. Provincial Government: Strengthen coordination among central and local level government, resources utilization, infrastructure Development, technological innovation, strengthen social protection system: Food bank, Food safety net etc., Surveillance and rapid response-to tackle risks. Local Government: Community organization and local innovation, program to increase production and productivity, monitor and analyse vulnerability, partnership with local community based organizations (CBOs) to increase investment to improve food security and resilience, Monitoring of local food safety issues Private Sectors, Civil Societies and Academia: Cross sectoral /disciplinary collaboration in federal and provincial level to ensure food security and food safety, traceability system.236238239240241242243244246247249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context: Nepal has developed legal framework to ensure good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. The Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Limited consultations with stakeholders, while formulating the Act; outcomes of the consultations were not widely shared. In general, policies are often prepared in rush, and with less attention to preparing action plan. Lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Underlying Barriers to Achieve the Stated Proposition: • No effective implementation of the Food Act and no policy harmonization • No awareness among the targeted groups about the provisions of the Act • No update of the Acts • Inadequate development of infrastructures to support agri. value chains. • Lack of adoption of production-based subsidy system • Existence of weak and inadequate institutions and mechanisms and inadequate technical manpower • Poor awareness among the food security and weak advocacy about it • Increasing fragmentation of cultivated land • Very less recognition of agriculture as a profession • Inadequate modern scientific laboratory, human resources, and poor allocation of resources for it • Lack of identification of food insecure areas and implementation of appropriate food programs Actions in the next 3 years • Formulation of Regulation to implement the provisions of the Act • Implementation of all provisions of the Act • Preparation and implementation of Food Plans • Inclusion of Nutrition Education in the school curriculum • Development and operation of modern laboratories with sufficient equipment and resources • Prepare database of every citizen • Formation of National Food Council, Provincial Food Council and Local Food Coordination Committee • Practice group farming, provide land to landless people for cultivation • Identify the food insecure targeted people • Promote kitchen/home gardening, monitor the prices of imported food products and harmonize the price with local products • Increase the capacity of food storages and increase the transportation subsidy Assessing the success of Action: • Formulation of Food Regulation to implement the Act • Monitoring and Evaluation of the distribution of subsidy and technical support for agricultural commercialization through developing a participatory mechanism. Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: Federal government: • Stabilize price, Study and research, M&E, facilitation of export and import, establishment of food storages, and judicial distribution Federal & province govt: • Allocation of required resources and strengthen food system for achieving desired outcome and implement governance mechanism for transparency and accountability Province & Local govt: • Formulation of regulations, dissemination of public messages, awareness raising education programs, establishment of food storages, technical support, Local govt: • Control the land fragmentation, identification of food insecure families and provide food to them, regulate the middlemen and develop marketing infrastructures.237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-08-15 17:55:09205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30854/198

156154769196589883514963021336235101546951522

El Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela como Estado Miembro de la ONU, basado en el principio de la pluralidad de pensamiento, como país vanguardista ha incluido la visión de los diversos sectores, ministerios, instituciones y organizaciones de las áreas productivas, científicas, educativas, ambientales; así como representación de las comunidades organizadas en plataformas de mujeres, jóvenes, pueblos indígenas y comunas llamándolos a participar en el proceso de construcción colectiva mediante los diálogos para debatir sobre el modelo venezolano como elemento de equilibrio y de pertinencia sobre las propuestas y acciones del estado, construyendo colectivamente a través de las consultas que ha mantenido y mantiene con el pueblo organizado y con los diversos sectores vinculados con el sistema y cadenas agroalimentarias sostenibles para garantizar una alimentación saludable al pueblo venezolano.El Diálogo refleja el intercambio entre los diversos sectores relacionados con los Sistemas Alimentarios, según el enfoque integral, multisectorial, incluyente donde los participantes realizaron propuestas y aportes para el fortalecimiento del Sistema Alimentario Sostenible Venezolano. Considera y refleja los principios de 1. Actuar con Urgencia 2. Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre 3. Ser respetuosos 4. Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés 6. Complementar la labor de los demás 7. Crear confianza entre los participantes, y organizadores del DiálogoEn Venezuela se ejecuta política humanista, socialista y vanguardista con la estructura gubernamental destinadas a generar políticas sociales, planes y proyectos en materia de promoción, atención, protección para los actores claves, siendo algunos de estos entes los siguientes Ministerio del Poder Popular para: Mujer e igualdad de Genero, Juventud y Deporte, Pueblos Indígenas; y de Comunas, entre otros, lo mismos se convocaron para los Diálogos respetando los principios establecidos. Adicionalmente es importante tomar en cuenta en cada actor clave, la diversidad en la cultura alimentaria y nutricional de acuerdo a cada región lo cual se rige a la producción de alimentos locales.

Yes

234238239240241242244247248249251No se puede hablar de sistemas alimentarios, considerando solo los aspectos productivos, comercialización y distribución, es vital tener presente que estos alimentos van a diferentes grupos poblacionales, con necesidades y hábitos alimentarios particulares, donde la intervención de la mujer es crucial es los patrones de consumo, producción, compra y distribución, no solo en el hogar, sino en el mismo sistema alimentario global. Así como también es necesaria la participación de los pueblos indígenas a fin de recordar nuestras raíces y cultura alimentaria ancestral. Para nuestro diálogo se discutió acerca del Sistema alimentario desde la visión estratégica de Pueblos indígenas, Mujer, juventud y deporte, las acciones que desde esos espacios han desarrollado para lograr equidad y justicia social desde los últimos 4 años, ante el bloqueo y guerra económica por la cual atraviesa nuestro país. ¿Cuáles son los problemas? y ¿cómo se pueden solucionar?, con la finalidad de lograr la alimentación como un derecho para toda la población, con mayor énfasis en la construcción colectiva para alternativas conducentes a la justicia social. Los temas abordados fueron: 1) Reflexiones de enfoque de género sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles 2) Reflexiones de los Pueblos Indígenas sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles 3) Reflexiones de las y los Jóvenes en la transformación de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles 4) Participación de Vocerías territoriales235238239240241242244246247248249251En la mesa 1 sobre Reflexiones de enfoque de género sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles se identificó como tema central las consecuencias del bloqueo económico que ha ocasionado grandes heridas en la población venezolana, principalmente en el ámbito alimentario y nutricional, impactando el derecho a la alimentación en los grupos vulnerables. Así como la participación creativa y amorosa de la mujer como pilar fundamental para enfrentar esta situación. En la mesa 2 Reflexiones de los Pueblos Indígenas sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles Las diferentes poblaciones indígenas has sido víctimas de la cruel guerra económica que atraviesa nuestro país, donde la disponibilidad de combustible ha limitado el cumplimiento de las rutas de distribución de alimentos, así el arrime de sus productos para la comercialización e intercambio. En la mesa 3 Reflexiones de las y los Jóvenes en la transformación de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles Se identificó como problema principal la falta de cartografía que permita la cuantificación de las tierras versus la relación de necesidades para fomentar e iniciar procesos productivos y la formación de los jóvenes en materia agroalimentaria para su incorporación al plan productivo. En la mesa 4 sobre Participación de Vocerías territoriales La vocería planteo lo que han venido desarrollando desde sus territorios para convertir la guerra económica en grandes oportunidades, donde lo más valioso e importante ha sido el rescate de la cultura alimentaria ancestral y los cambios de patrones de consumo por hábitos más sanos y saludables.236238239240241242244247248249251Conclusión de la mesa 1. Reflexiones de enfoque de género sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles El Poder Popular organizado, comunas y plataforma de la Mujer, han sido un pilar fundamental en la participación protagónica para enfrentar la guerra económica y sus consecuencias, las mujeres han diseñado, rescatado y ejecutado menús, platos alternativos, con rubros soberanos, innovadores y sabrosos que permiten la alimentación de sus integrantes de la familia. Así como, también su participación en los programas de atención social desarrollados por el Gobierno Bolivariano que no han cesado ni en tiempos de pandemia como lo son el Programa de Alimentación Escolar (PAE), las casa de alimentación, la atención a los pacientes con covid 19, entre otros, aportando soluciones innovadoras. Por otra parte los comités locales de abastecimiento y producción junto a los consejos comunales llevan a cabo interesantes experiencias de producción alimentaria local. Se suma las mujeres como población productiva participan en toda la cadena agroalimentaria desde la producción hasta el consumo, razón por la cual se debe revalorizar su participación en el Sistema alimentario. Conclusión de la mesa 2. Reflexiones de los Pueblos Indígenas sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles Que el Gobierno Bolivariano, a través del Programa de Alimentación Escolar (PAE), masifique la compra de rubros autóctonos producidos por los pueblos indígenas, y campesinos y campesinas , aun cuando se han regionalizado los planes de menú y se han consolidado estos menús en algunos lugares, se debe masificar a fin de reforzar las raíces autóctonas. Así mismo se planteó el diseño de rutas priorizadas de distribución de alimentos garantizando la atención a las comunidades indígenas más vulnerables y ubicadas en zonas de difícil acceso. Conclusión de la mesa 3. Reflexiones de las y los Jóvenes en la transformación de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles Diseño de cartografía de tierras fértiles, formación integral a los jóvenes en materia de agricultura. El Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Juventud y el Deporte pone a la disposición la plataforma de chamba Juvenil para su incorporación a los planes de siembra, vuelta a los campos, patios productivos, entre otros para sumar esfuerzos y repotenciar la capacidad productiva del país. Conclusión de la mesa 4. Participación de Vocerías territoriales La vocería territorial continuara en el diseño y ejecución de soluciones desde el Poder Popular organizado, los pueblos indígenas y la plataforma de mujeres donde la guerra ha traído consigo grandes oportunidades, donde lo más valioso e importante ha sido el rescate de la cultura alimentaria ancestral y los cambios de patrones de consumo por hábitos más sanos y saludables.237238239240241242244247248249251No hubo áreas de divergencias, ya que hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones, adoptando un gran nivel en la discusión y puntos de vistas planteados

2021-08-15 17:57:29205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40503/83

2257252292661125346101744

Les ateliers de concertation du département du Centre d’Haïti se sont tenus à Hinche le chef-lieu dudit département. Ils se sont réalisés à un moment critique de la vie nationale. En effet, les troubles socio-politiques auxquels Haïti fait face a contraint les organisateurs a toujours profiter des fenêtres d’opportunité, marqués par des périodes de calme, lorsqu’ils se présentent et d’aller vite en besogne. En vue de renforcer le niveau de participation, des dispositions ont été prises pour le lancement d’une campagne de sensibilisation autour de la tenue du sommet mondial et de l’implication impérative des autorités haïtiennes. Cette campagne médiatique a permis au public de comprendre combien la participation de tous, à tous les niveaux, était attendue. L’inclusion de l’ensemble de parties prenantes a permis des échanges fructueux sur la complexité des systèmes alimentaire, la nécessité de prioriser des approches pluridisciplinaires et multisectorielles et le besoin d’une appropriation collective pour transformer les systèmes alimentaires et résoudre les problèmes. Elle a aussi permis des débats touchant tant à la gouvernance du sommet hiérarchique qu’à celle des niveaux opérationnels d’intervention. Par ailleurs, le processus de participation a servi à instaurer la confiance des acteurs dans les nouvelles voies de transformation des systèmes alimentaires. Ainsi, les acteurs étaient sensibilisés à la nécessité d’entreprendre des actions urgentes et ciblées pouvant favoriser l’atteinte des Objectifs de Développement Durables (ODD). Ils étaient aussi prêts, par leur engagement, à soutenir les processus de transformation de ces systèmes.

NoLes ateliers de concertation de Hinche se sont déroulés en présentiel suivant cet agenda : • Salutations- Prière • Présentation de l’équipe d’animation/ facilitation • Présentation des participants • Lecture du mot du coordonnateur • Présentation des objectifs de la rencontre et de la mméthodologie • Définition du concept Système Alimentaire • Présentation des systèmes alimentaires en Haïti, le constat • Constitution des groupes de travail • Travail en ateliers restreints • Retour en plénière et présentation des résultats d’ateliers Dans l’ensemble le processus de concertation a connu trois grands moments : a) La période d’ouverture marquée par de grandes présentations des animateurs et des facilitateurs sur les systèmes alimentaires et sur le processus d’organisation du Sommet. Ces présentations furent suivies de longs débats. Les participants émettaient leurs opinions sur les différents systèmes alimentaires en faisant ressortir leurs forces et leurs faiblesses. Les réflexions qui ont été engagées sur la problématique de la SAN se basaient sur les informations dont disposent les participants concernant la réalité de leurs zones et sur d'éventuelles actions que les agents de terrain auront à entreprendre dans le cadre de l'accompagnement à donner aux communautés locales. b) La période des ateliers proprement dite. L'introduction a été faite de manière à indiquer aux participants qu'après la phase du diagnostic c'est la phase de recherche de solution. En ce sens, les participants furent regroupes selon leur secteur d’appartenance et leur expertise. Cela donna lieu à la constitution de trois groupes thématiques ou les participants, se penchant sur les enjeux du système alimentaire existant y compris les forces et vulnérabilités, explorent les options et opportunités de changement et déterminent des pistes d’action prioritaires pour le futur. c) La période de restitution pour une mise en commun et la recherche d’engagement. Elle offre l’opportunité de s’assurer que toutes les voix ont été entendues d‘une part et d’autre part de mettre de l’ordre dans les idées afin de faire ressortir les grands points de consensus sur les sujets suivants : a. Accessibilité de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs b. Modes de consommation et de production durables c. Disponibilité des moyens de subsistance équitables

234238241244245249a) Thème majeur : Les transformations des systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD L’atelier de concertation étant un espace de débat et de résolutions qui permettra au gouvernement haïtien de s'engager dans les questions de construction de systèmes alimentaires durables dans leur ensemble, le thème majeur de la concertation aborde l’impérieuse nécessité de transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD. Il s’agit d’une étude complète qui prend en compte les différents enjeux et questions clés en lien avec l’atteinte des ODD. Le cadre de référence, qui suit, nous aligne sur les enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux à la recherche de solutions durables et d’engagement. Des réponses aux différentes questions permettent une analyse profonde des différents aspects de la Sécurité alimentaire et Nutritionnelle (SAN) en Haïti. Cadre de référence 1- Enjeux nutritionnel : Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable  Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc) actuels de la population ?  Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production ? Pistes de réflexion : toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire ?  Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires ?  Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires ?  Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés ?  Comment organiser la logistique de distribution ?  Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages ?  Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés ?  Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique : Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire  Comment développer l’’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils etc), les industries d’emballage ?  Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ?  Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?)  Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ?  Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ?  Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ?  Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire  Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels ?  Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques ?  Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels ?  Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs ?235239242246251Les principaux résultats issus de la concertation sont en grande majorité en lien avec l’amélioration de la gouvernance des systèmes alimentaires. La gouvernance apparait comme un élément transversal touchant à tous les volets et à tous les niveaux d’intervention de la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle. Il conviendra de :  Relever le déficit de coordination des interventions de développement de la production agricole appuyées par des organisations nationales et internationales et d’accélérer la mise en œuvre des PCD (plans communaux de développement) élaborés pour les communes du département.  Combler les gaps institutionnels et le manque de leadership administratif et technique des représentations départementales du MARNDR (Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural), et du MDE (Ministère de l’Environnement) dans le département du Centre et de réduire l’influence de la masse critique de produits alimentaires importés de la République Dominicaine entrainant la démobilisation progressive des agriculteurs locaux face à l’activité agricole.  Réguler la question de la situation foncière en prenant en compte les revendications d’organisations paysannes victimes d’expropriation et en empêchant l’utilisation peu rationnelle de grandes superficies à vocation agricole vacantes ou occupées par des entreprises peu rentables pour l’économie de la zone.  Corriger les mauvaises habitudes alimentaires constatées au sein de la population qui résultent surtout d’un manque d'éducation et d’information en matière nutritionnelle par des éléments de réponse comme : un travail de sensibilisation de masse notamment à travers les médias, des rencontres avec des groupes socioprofessionnels ainsi que l’organisation de séminaires de formation et d’orientation destinés aux jeunes et aux enfants d’âge scolaire. Cela implique un accompagnement de proximité des instances impliquées comme le MSPP et MEF.  Garantir la protection sociale des groupes vulnérables (handicapés, femmes seules, familles monoparentales pauvres, jeunes démunis, paysans sans terre et sans métier, les exclus en général), via des programmes de protection et de sécurité sociale sur le moyen et le long terme, des programmes d'accompagnement de proximité allant de repas journaliers, de soins de santé gratuits, d'emplois temporaires et durables, jusqu'à la construction de centres collectifs d'hébergement et la mise à disposition de terres de l'État à des groupes vulnérables pour l'agriculture. Ces programmes concerneraient au premier chef le ministère des affaires sociales avec l'implication des autres structures chacune en ce qui la concerne, ainsi que les collectivités territoriales et les sociétés civiles locales.236238241245Accessibilité de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs L'accessibilité alimentaire renvoie à l'ensemble des moyens permettant à la population, le ménage ou l'individu d'obtenir la nourriture disponible. L’accessibilité à des aliments sains, de son coté, introduit la partie non strictement alimentaire de la sécurité alimentaire, à savoir les conditions faisant que si l’alimentation est consommée, son utilisation physiologique aboutit à une satisfaction des besoins alimentaires. Il s’agit notamment de l’aspect nutritionnel de qualité qui englobe l’accès à l’eau potable, l’assainissement et la disponibilité de services de santé, toutes étant des conditions requises pour qu’une personne puisse rester en bonne santé et utiliser pleinement les aliments consommés. Ainsi, se référant à la notion d’utilisation qui recouvre également la qualité et la sécurité des aliments en vue d’un régime alimentaire équilibré et sûr, les propositions de stratégies d’action, issues de cette concertation, incluent : • les aspects physiques reliés à la disponibilité effective des produits propres à la consommation et aux réseaux de distribution de ces produits, • les aspects socio-économiques reliés en particulier aux moyens d'existence et aux dispositifs de protection et d'aide sociale, • Les aspects de droit des consommateurs qui recoupent les prix des produits versus le pouvoir d'achat des gens. Les organes étatiques comme le MARNDR, MAST, MSPP et le MCI ont été identifiés comme porteurs de dossiers. Ils seront corrélés par des organismes locaux capables d’assurer l’autosuffisance alimentaire dans les principales filières de production agroalimentaires (filière céréale et féculents, filières tubercules, filière protéines animales, filière fruits et légumes, filière sucrerie et filières boissons), de mettre en place une politique de contrôle de qualité alimentaires et de respect des normes nutritionnelles. Le MSPP procèdera à la mise en place d’un vaste programme d’éducation nutritionnelle et de mécanismes de surveillance de la qualité des produits mis en circulation. Le MCI veillera à la stabilité des prix des produits alimentaires de base garantissant ainsi le respect des droits des consommateurs. Le MAST, par la mise en place des filets de protection sociale, au profit des groupes les plus vulnérables, réduira leur niveau de vulnérabilité.236239244248Modes de consommation et de production durables Nos systèmes alimentaires actuels sont loin de contribuer à une consommation et production responsables. Les opérations et/ou les comportements au niveau de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ont des impacts environnementaux négatifs tant en milieu rural qu’en milieu urbain. Des mesures de redressement s’imposent. Fort de ce constat, la concertation sur cette thématique indique la nécessité d’une réforme du secteur de l’énergie dans certaines filières de production et de consommation. Cela sous-tend : la promotion de la conscience environnementale de la population, la mise en place d’un programme de valorisation des déchets dans la chaine d’approvisionnement et des changements dans l’énergie utilisée pour la cuisson domestique et dans les activités routinières comme la blanchisserie, les boulangeries etc. Par ailleurs la pêche, l’élevage ont été identifiés comme un moyen sûr et incontournable de production durable. Le développement des lacs collinaires et l’encadrement des éleveurs ont fait beaucoup d’écho. Il revient au MARNDR d’établir une politique de pêche et de chasse, de mettre en place un programme de développement des produits agro-forestiers et un programme de développement de la pêche durable et d’inciter les agriculteurs à utiliser des variétés végétales ou animales pouvant s’adapter au changement climatique.237238245Relativement à l’accessibilité et la disponibilité.- En effet, certains participants ont reproché au débat d’avoir été trop centré sur l’accessibilité alors qu’Haïti, ne produisant pas assez de denrées pour subvenir au besoin de la population, se voit contrainte de se plier aux exigences de la production massive primordialement. D’autres considèrent que même en cas de disponibilités suffisantes, on peut être dans l'insécurité alimentaire si les produits disponibles ne sont pas accessibles à cause des contraintes diverses. Sur cette base, la question de l'accessibilité alimentaire a été abordée sous un triple angle permettant de prendre en compte, d'une part, l'état actuel du niveau d'accès physique aux aliments ce qui réfère à la disponibilité des produits de consommation et, d'autre part, les facteurs et conditions influençant le niveau d'accès aux aliments sur le plan monétaire mettant en relief les systèmes de protection sociale.

2021-08-15 18:12:11205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29508/130

100

List of participants for the provincial food system dialogues was prepared and shared among the stakeholders to get inputs to ensure representation of diverse participation in terms of sector and disciplines, ethnicity and gender. Series of revisions and addition were made to ensure inclusive participation. The provincial dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different parts of the province.Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding, analysis and looking for way forward. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. An organizing committee was formed representing key stakeholders to steer the overall process and technical committee to support technically. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. In order to have the consistent process and facilitate the dialogues effectively, series of orientations were organized to the facilitators and curator of the event at the province. These orientations were locally adapted in the context based on the original contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. All the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and future commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical analysis of the provincial Food Systems was done to examine in terms of their potential causes/barriers, drivers and actions for the next 3 years. Participants stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. In order to have a meaningful dialogue among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and provincial dialogue process among the participants, a participants brief was prepared and shared before the event. Further Nepali languages was used as medium of conversation to have active engagement of participants of farmers in the dialogues.Yes, we received feedback to further represent the private sector and entrepreneurs and farmers in the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246249251Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the provincial Food Systems Dialogue of Karnali Province on 27th June 2021 on the theme Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system. Hon. Dr Krishna Prasad Oli delivered the welcome and opening remarks. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Secretary Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOLMAC) and Provincial Dialogue Curator curated the dialogues. Major focus of the dialogue was to engage stakeholders for a comprehensive exploration of food systems in Nepal as part of the process for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • raise awareness and promote public discussion on the food systems, • examine current situation and identify key aspects of Nepalese food systems, such as the drivers, actions, pathways, and • explore opportunities for food system to make it equitable, sustainable and resilient. Total of 100 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process and documented the discussion outcomes. Each AT Group had proposition and reference questions to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Dialogue reference questions: Following 5 questions were presented to the participants to facilitate the dialogue: 1. What are the underlying causes/ barriers for achieving the stated proposition? 2. What are the key drivers of unsustainable food system? 3. What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 4. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 5. What are the role and responsibilities of the food system actors including those of the federal, provincial, and local Governments in sustainable food system transformation in Nepal?235238239240241242243246247249251The provincial dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the provincial food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. Indeed, this will be further verified and refined after the feedback from the Provincial, and second and third national dialogues. Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed on these topics following the ATs propositions and reference questions mentioned in Section A above. Relevant officials of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts. The dialogue also collected some learning to reflect impression and work further on as following: 1. Some participants were new to virtual meetings (attending the session using online platform to participate in specific groups); 2. Less no. of participation from industries and value chains (actors). 3. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 4. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 5. There was strong commitment from the stakeholders to address the issues of access to food, nutrition, distribution and effective implementation of policies and regulations. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. Some potential and emerging issues were identified and validated; the dialogue was also helpful in raising awareness and elevating public discussion on key food system issues and identify potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable (refer Section C below).236238246249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: The cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Situation of nutrition has improved over the period of 1996 to 2019: stunting decreased from 57 to 32%, underweight 42 to 24, and wasting from 15 to 12%. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Locally available nutritious crops/foods getting less importance; biodiversity/cultural diversity not promoted. No focus on micronutrients; poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices; many families do not have access to nutrient rich foods; growing burden of non-communicable diseases; divergence between nutrition and WASH programmes due to lack of coherence between food security and nutrition sectors. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Lack of access to production inputs including irrigation • Emergence and attack of new pests like army worm • No profits and margins to the stakeholders involved in value chains. • Lack of storage and value adding infrastructures. • Difficult terrain of Karnali province. • No proper conservation, consumption and marketing of indigenous/local crops and commodities • Indigenous/Traditional skills and knowledge not utilized properly • No scientific validation of Indigenous/Traditional practices • Poor adoption of time specific/context specific technologies • Inadequate nutrition security and food diversification • Discriminatory behavior and discrimination in distribution of food • No proper identification of climate adaptive crops/commodities for production and marketing • Lack of proactiveness of the committees concerned with food and nutrition • Inadequate skilled agricultural manpower at province and local level • Inadequacy of financial resources • Low availability at the local level and poor economic and physical access to food • Occurrence of natural disasters and diseases • Less priority to agriculture by all three tiers of governments and poor coordination among them Actions for three years: • Regulation/control of junk/ultra-processed foods • Food fortification to increase the consumption of micro-nutrients • Provide seed capital for youth-targeted programs to promote entrepreneurship. • Food fairs, demonstrations, and promotional programs • Promote integrated food value chains • Increasing the crop and livestock insurance coverage • Demonstration of food nutrition baskets/local recipe • Documentation and mapping of indigenous crops/commodities and prepare food consumption guidelines • Development of agricultural infrastructures • Home-based/local based school meal program • Culinary education at schools and community • Publication about the status of agriculture and food security • Documentation and dissemination of knowledge about the production and consumption of alternative food products • Managing agricultural technicians at Municipal level and maintaining information desk • Enhancing the capacity of farmers and cooperatives • Protect crops from wild animals. Assessing the success of Action: • Inclusive Planning • Strengthening Monitoring system • Progress reporting and auditing • Delineate clear roles and responsibility and develop accountability mechanism. • Organize learning sharing sessions. • Strong coordination among three tiers of the governments and other stakeholders Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Proactiveness of the committees concerned with food and nutrition. • Effective implementation of multisectoral nutrition program • Priority to agricultural sector in plans, policies, and budget allocation • Agricultural pockets development based on the potentiality and allocate required budget. • Formulate food and nutrition policy at province and local level.236239246249251Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure in Nepal; Prevalence of triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Change in dietary pattern characterized by two-meal-rice (per capita rice consumption increased by nearly 70% in 50 years). Dietary shift towards unhealthy processed foods high in saturated and trans-fat, salt and sugar neglecting nutritious indigenous crop-based foods. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Ineffective execution of Acts and regulations • Lack of awareness, high reproductive rate, lack of food diversification • High use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that have negative impact. • Problem with culture and traditions • No value addition of food products and no proper utilization of food grains. • Inadequate infrastructures like roads and storage facilities • Inadequate technologies for food processing and value addition • Lack of promotion of local food products • Lack of research and studies and less use of indigenous seeds • Inadequate promotion of fruits available in the province • No clear policy for local seeds, replacement of local seeds of food grains by imported seeds • Lack of research of different nutrition required for different age groups, women, and youths. • No mechanism developed and enforced for behavioral change and it is not linked with education and training. • Marketing of junk food whereas Himalayan food system is not attractive. Actions for three years: • Sharing of policies formulated by federal, provincial and local governments. • Managing the export of locally produced apple and beans through government and private procurement • Programs to promote low volume high value products • Prioritize for agro-ecological tourism (Rara, Shey Phoksundo etc.) and their promotion • Effective implementation of school feeding program with high priority, adoption costed menu of food • Considering the NCD in adults, give attention to hygienic food product consumption. • Discourage the use of pesticides and promote the organic products • Improve the child nutrition by diversifying the balanced diet menu • Conservation of wetlands for increasing crop productivity • Promote Nutrition education at the school level by developing curriculum • Establish linkage of local products with markets • Programs for collection, processing and value addition, production, and marketing of NTFPs • Establish fair (subsidized) shops targeting poor and vulnerable communities. • Proper management of people living in the pasture areas and encourage them for livestock raising • Branding of organic production and marketing them in major cities • Increase access with Tibet for the sale of locally produced commodities. • Establishment of cold stores and cold chains • Promote environment-friendly agriculture and prioritize the production and use of organic pesticides at the local level • Promotion of local crops like chino (chino millet), kaguno (foxtail millet) and other local products Assessing the success of Action: • Develop strong monitoring system • Social auditing of the implemented programs • Monitoring of the nutritive value and expiry date of food products • Regular reporting and feedback mechanism • Research and continuous studies Role of Governments and other Stakeholders: • Transform sustainable consumption of foods in collaboration of three tiers of governments • Provision of necessary legal aspect and policies • Wider sharing and dissemination of policies among the stakeholders • Mobilization of local farmers for sustainable production of foods by the local government • Collection and management of statistics by the local government and request for needed support from the province • Identification of production pockets by the local government • Promote drip irrigation system in rainfed/water deficient area236240244246249251Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation and land degradation are major problems. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Poverty has forced households in forest and pastureland encroachment. Production of major staples and commercial vegetables in some pockets has caused excessive mining of soil nutrients, water depletion and agrochemical pollution. Food habits mostly towards rice and wheat have led to a narrow dietary diversity; this has resulted in loss of traditional crops and indigenous knowledge. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Dependency on imported crop varieties is increasing with lack of site-specific food production; lack of production in broader landscape/agroecosystem level. Lack of land utilization policy and plans have promoted rapid conversion of fertile agriculture lands into settlements and other non-agriculture use. Disappearance of indigenous food system; rural out-migration; inadequate capacity development of farmers; lack of agriculture mechanization. Underlying barriers for achieving the stated proposition: • Lack of proper management soils • Loss of agrobiodiversity • Lack of research on sustainable management of agricultural systems • Open grazing system resulting in degradation of lands and vegetations • Absence of climate smart technologies • Transboundary trade disturbing local competitiveness Actions for the next 3 years: • Revitalization of traditional agricultural system • Niche based agriculture production and marketing • Micro-irrigation based farming system • In situ conservation of agrobiodiversity • Sloppy land-based technology (SALT) adoption and farming in mountains • Fruit and agroforestry based farming system • Mechanization to reduce drudgery • Community based land /organic technologies and service delivery • Gender friendly post-harvest technologies • Promotion of community seed banks • Formulation of local resource conservation with CSB • Establishment of in-situ farms (crops, livestock) Assessing the success of Action: • Strengthening monitoring system at the local and provincial level • Indicators based tracking system • Development of feedback mechanisms • Develop a master plan for organic based farming Roles/responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments & Other Stakeholders: Federal government: Policy formulation, guidelines development, International level dialogue and linkages Provincial government: Monitoring and coordination with 3-tiers government Local Government: Data collection and implementation236241243244246249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Context: Landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Deep rooted social and economic inequalities in employment opportunities increase vulnerability. Inadequate institutional mechanisms for and limited capacity of women, small holders, old-age, people with disability (PWD), internally displaced people (IDPs) to claim their rights, they have less access to production resources, space for voice, negotiation power in the market systems. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Agriculture sector is seen as less remunerative and less attractive. The major reasons are of skewed power relation over productive resources especially of land, water, forest to women and disadvantaged groups; land fragmentation and use of agricultural land for other purposes have reduced options to secure access and land rights of people in the value chain. Feminization of agriculture due to young male out-migration. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Low productivity resulting to low availability specially for poor households; • Pre and post-production losses and more cost of production; • Land degradation and fragmentation, fallowness; • Poor connectivity and limited mobility and market access of products specially produced by women, poor and smallholders; • Loss of biodiversity and food diversification; • Low level of information on local food, nutrition and breast feeding; • More attraction to processed foods; • Disproportionate impact of disaster on poor and vulnerable groups; • No wage rates fixed and differentiated rates for men and women; • Lack of regular employment opportunities; • Male migration and increased feminization; • Lack of technical human resources that responds to needs of diverse communities; • Lack of awareness among farmers on market information • No long-term policies and plans in favor of small holders • Social discriminatory norms, practices and role divisions in accessing food. Actions for three years: • Create employment opportunities; • Ensure wage equality in the jobs; • Increase incomes in all nodes of food value chain; • Enhance social and cultural capital • Risk aversion plans for poor and vulnerable; • Assessment of local potentials to diversify and promote food and nutrition sources • Prepare 3-10 year’s midterm and long-term policies, plans and programs; • Deploy technical human resources specially at the local levels; • Targeting policies and programs for women, people with disabilities, small holders; • Ward level structure to identify and recommend backward groups to get access to services • Women to organize in groups for capacity building • Awareness raising about right to food; • Farmer identification and targeted support; • Geography responsive technologies throughout the food chains; • Climate responsive pro-poor production system and vulnerability-based insurance schemes; and • Establish inclusive food system. Assessing the success of Action: • Local level agriculture strategy; • Participatory program design, monitoring and evaluation system in place; • Class based representation in those processes will be ensured; • Farmers networks get supported and mobilized; • Strengthened mobile monitoring, indicator based monitoring, and joint monitoring • Farmer’s participation in the food policy development process. Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Federal governments: devise policies and make necessary amendments to make it demand responsive of different actors in the food chain; • Provincial governments: to develop provincial strategy for inclusive livelihoods opportunities for all in the food chain; and • Local government: to define local strategy, guidelines that need based, demand and potential of local demography, geography and cultural needs.236242243244246249251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. These shocks, stress and disaster can be devastating for poor and vulnerable people, who have limited resources and options. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Underlying causes/barriers for achieving stated proposition: • Fragile and remote mountainous geography • Unplanned physical infrastructure development, politicization in development planning, encroachment of agricultural land • Weak implementation of land use policy in agricultural land • Adverse impact of climate change in agriculture and food system (e.g. drought, land slides) • Disappearance of indigenous adapted crops and local varieties • Lack of collection of agricultural and food system statistics • Lack of emphasis on family farming • Weak coordination among extension, technology, production, post-production (storage, transportation) and marketing sector agencies • Poor storage facilities (for off-season sale) and go-downs for storing foods during emergencies Actions in the next 3 years that will have greatest impact: • Advance preparedness for disaster and planning for prompt actions to reduce disaster • Identification of traditional foot trails to develop prompt actions during disasters • Promotion of climate resilient technologies and practices focusing on indigenous short duration crops in high Himalayan regions where winter is longer. • Identification and improvement of indigenous nutrient rich crops and commodities for promotion to develop healthy food system • Advertisement of nutritious local foods and their marketing • Identification of vulnerable groups during disasters • Organic production and marketing for ensuring local food and nutrition security • Collection and mobilization of rainwater for small-scale irrigation and household sanitation • Development of resource centres for making them competitive and promote sustainable food system • Establishment of cold stores and food stores based on local adapted technologies • Fair price shop for nature positive products for easy access of foods • Develop value chain of local foods and organic ecologically produced foods and their products. Assessing the success of Action: • Development of indicators • Capacity development for use of budget and advanced planning • Access to technology and capital • Monitoring with the participation of consumers and multi-stakeholders Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments and Other Stakeholders: • Federal Government: develop weather forecasting models and methods, policy and Acts for nature positive resilient food system, enforce land use policy and act at the national level, strengthen national Information management system, coordinate and develop partnerships with stakeholders, NGOs and private sectors, access to organic markets at the international level and national market level • Provincial Government: communicate weather forecasting information, formulate and implement organic act and directives, develop institutional capacity, information system and capacity of farmers and stakeholders on resilience, management of provincial level information management, implement land use acts and regulations, coordination and partnerships with stakeholders, NGOs and private sectors, access to national and provincial markets for organic market. • Local Government: Identify households and groups based on risks and vulnerabilities and storage and distribution of special nutritious foods during disaster, risks and resilience, identify malnourished and vulnerable households and groups, coordinate with CBOs, NGOs and private sectors. collection of local information and management, management of local markets • Private sector: Market promotion of local nutritious foods and business models • NGOs/CBOs: Sensitize about the role of agrobiodiversity for healthy and nutritious foods and resilience building236238239240241242243244246247249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context: Nepal has developed legal framework to ensure good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. The Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Underlying Barriers to Achieve the Stated Proposition: • Lack of appropriate structure to implement the provisions of the Act • No formulation of Food Sovereignty Regulation till date • Lack of awareness about the food rights at the local level • Existence of inappropriate ethnic and religious related traditions and customs in Karnali province regarding food consumption • Unexpected natural disasters and pandemic • Big impact of climate change and climate induced disasters • Lack of land classification, Land use policy and policy to discourage land fragmentation and increasing conversion of agricultural lands for other usage • Lack of effective M&E system • Lack strategy and plan to utilize fallow land Actions for the next 3 years: • Development of appropriate technologies to suit the diverse terrain and ecology of Karnali province • Coordinate with local level for creating awareness through organizing campaigns about the food rights • Give proper attention to income-based food security by implementing appropriate programs • Categorization of farmers (into groups) and provide support and subsidy based on classification • Implementing the distribution of farmer’s identification card • Formulate and implement appropriate programs to those who are food insecure and vulnerable • Adopt collaborative and partnership approach (PPP) in development programs • Delineate clear roles and responsibilities of three tiers of governments for effective implementation of the provisions by making effective coordination • Prepare programs and activities considering the provisions of the Act • Classify land based on scientific Land use policy and province and local governments should also formulate their land use plans based on their local condition • Make policy to utilize the fallow land for agriculture Assessing the success of Action: • Policies and programs of the governments • Development of indicators and their monitoring • Ensuring the participation of farmers in food security related policy and program formulation • Preparation of integrated policies and programs by three tiers of governments • Coordination by the Provincial Food Council Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments and Other Stakeholders: • Development of effective information system and its implementation • Formulation and implementation of Food rights regulation • Coordinated programs in agri roads, agri-markets and others infrastructures among the three tiers of governments • Agri commodity collection and marketing • Fulfillment of commitments as per the international conventions and agreements • Develop performance evaluation system • Effective roles to be played by three tiers of governments to implement the provisions of Act.237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-08-15 18:25:54205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30856/198

218761112561101081230997719424

La República Bolivariana de Venezuela basada en el principio de la pluralidad de pensamiento, responsablemente ha asumido el debate de los temas de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional convocando a múltiples sectores, entre ellos: red de campesinos y campesinas, red de innovadores, científicos, maestros, pueblo, consejos comunales, funcionarios públicos, jóvenes universitarios, pueblos originarios, sector pesquero, investigadores, organización con enfoque de género y cobertura geográfica amplia para debatir la problemática global y las propuestas y acciones del estado conducentes a consolidar los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Cumpliendo con la metodología de presentación de conferencias orientadoras sobre problemáticas mundiales y sus prácticas exitosas en Venezuela y las acciones ejercidas para seguir avanzando en el cumplimiento de los ODS relacionados a la alimentación y nutrición.Los temas abordados reflejan los principios de actuación de la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios asumiendo y reconociendo la complejidad del tema para impulsar a todos los actores convocados al diálogo. Adoptando un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, así como encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y solidaridad.Basar la discusión en la protección del derecho aplicando acciones promotoras de la garantía de la seguridad alimentaria y no en la acción mercantilizada de la alimentación para la erradicación del hambre y la malnutrición orientador del consumo sustentable.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251El tema para el Diálogo se basó en: Distribución suficiente, justa y equitativa del Sistema Alimentario Venezolano, donde se socializaron las políticas alimentarias que ha generado el gobierno venezolano como experiencia inédita de sistemas alimentarios en emergencia sostenida, a través del Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Alimentación, con el apoyo del pueblo organizado.235238239240241242244247248249251A través del Congreso Bicentenario de los Pueblos las organizaciones de base de los sectores comunitarios que forman parte de las diferentes estructuras se consolidaron como una estrategia unificadora de los diferentes movimientos en todo el territorio nacional que tributan a la recuperación de la Patria, frente al bloqueo y las sanciones criminales contra el pueblo venezolano, para dejar sus aporte que serán discutidos en la convocatoria, con la finalidad de plantear diversas formas de fortalecer el sistema de distribución de alimentos en el país. Lo que permitirá trascender de las recomendaciones biomédicas a la adopción consciente de prácticas, modos y estilos de vida basados en la nutrición y sus factores condicionantes, entre estos proponen: -Fortalecer la producción local para disminuir los procedimientos logísticos y acortar las cadenas de distribución de manera de mejorar las posibilidades de acceso a alimentos tradicionales, sanos y frescos. -Promover en los Comités Locales de Abastecimiento y Producción (CLAP) la producción de alimentos a pequeña y mediana escalas para enriquecer los alimentos distribuidos por el estado, a través de los programas de atención social con alimentos frescos como frutas, vegetales, hortalizas, granos y proteínas de origen animal producidos por quienes se encargan de los procesos de organización y distribución de alimentos, para así fortalecer el actual sistema de distribución con la incorporación productos nacionales de alta calidad nutricional como son los rubros autóctonos frescos. -Apoyo a los pequeños y medianos productores con elementos para garantizar el transporte y la logística. -Incrementar las vías de comunicación para el traslado y distribución de los alimentos. -Promoción de los mercado de intercambio locales de la producción de los pequeños y medianos productores. -Acompañar a la medianas empresas transformadoras de alimentos en los procesos logísticos de distribución - Garantizar el acceso a toda la población a los alimentos, primordialmente la atención a las familias que posean integrantes con condiciones especiales derivadas de discapacidades, salud, niñas niños y adolescentes, ancianas, ancianos y mujeres en estado de gravidez y comunidades indígenas los cuales cubren aproximadamente el 75% de las necesidades nutricionales de una familia. A través de los Comité Local de Abastecimiento y Producción que se conforman a escala local en cada una de las comunas, comunidades y sectores sociales del territorio nacional, de forma flexible y en atención a las circunstancias de la realidad cultural, económica, política y social, -Proteger y promover la organización social y la integración del pueblo productor, la comunidad consumidora, el estado y la industria alimentaria, en consejos decisores que permitan la conducción y afianzamiento de sistemas agroalimentarios que realmente cumplan con las premisas de derecho a la alimentación, la seguridad y soberanía alimentaria y nutricional.236238239240241242244245248249251En este sentido se orientó a identificar acciones y retos adicionales, además de propuestas que contribuyan en la construcción del fortalecimiento de los sistemas alimentarios, con el objetivo de establecer sus contribuciones desde su experticia para enfrentar los retos hacia el logro de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en el país y por tanto; como primer paso hacia la consolidación de la apuesta nacional entorno al cumplimiento de los ODS. -Impulsar la multiplicación de unidades productivas a nivel primario y de transformación de alimentos en las distintas regiones con sus diferentes potencialidades logísticas para garantizar que todas las personas tengan acceso a alimentos nutritivos de calidad para garantizar un estado nutricional adecuado. -Fortalecer los Comités Locales De Abastecimiento Y Producción (CLAP) promovidos por el Gobierno de Venezuela a través de una modalidad de entrega de productos casa por casa, mecanismo de distribución se suman las redes de abastecimiento del Estado, Mercal y PDVAL. Esta política surge para hacer frente a la escasez de alimentos y la crisis económica del país.237238239240241242244247248251No hubo áreas de divergencias, ya que hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones, adoptando un gran nivel en la discusión y puntos de vistas planteados

2021-08-15 18:40:57205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29874/130

95

List of participants for the provincial food system dialogues was prepared and shared among the stakeholders to get inputs to ensure representation of diverse participation in terms of sector and disciplines, ethnicity and gender. Series of revisions and addition were made to ensure inclusive participation. The provincial dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different parts of the province.Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding, analysis and looking for way forward. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. An organizing committee was formed representing key stakeholders to steer the overall process and technical committee to support technically. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. In order to have the consistent process and facilitate the dialogues effectively, series of orientations were organized to the facilitators and curator of the event at the province. These orientations were locally adapted in the context based on the original contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. All the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and future commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical analysis of the provincial Food Systems was done to examine in terms of their potential causes/barriers, drivers and actions for the next 3 years. Participants stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. In order to have a meaningful dialogue among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and provincial dialogue process among the participants, a participants brief was prepared and shared before the event. Further, Nepali languages was used as medium of conversation to have active engagement of participants of farmers in the dialogues.Yes, we received feedback to further represent the private sector and entrepreneurs and farmers in the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247249251Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the provincial Food Systems Dialogue of Lumbini Province on 28th June 2021 on the theme Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system. Hon Dr. Krishna Prasad Oli, Member, NPC and National Dialogue Convenor delivered the opening and welcome speech. Dr. Rewati Raman Poudel, Secretary Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOLMAC) and Provincial Dialogue Curator curated the dialogues. Major focus of the dialogue was to engage stakeholders for a comprehensive exploration of food systems in Nepal as part of the process for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • raise awareness and promote public discussion on the food systems, • examine current situation and identify key aspects of Nepalese food systems, such as the drivers, actions, pathways, and • explore opportunities for food system to make it equitable, sustainable and resilient. Total of 95 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process and documented the discussion outcomes. Each AT Group had proposition and reference questions to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Dialogue reference questions: Following 5 questions were presented to the participants to facilitate the dialogue: 1. What are the underlying causes/ barriers for achieving the stated proposition? 2. What are the key drivers of unsustainable food system? 3. What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 4. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 5. What are the role and responsibilities of the food system actors including those of the federal, provincial, and local Governments in sustainable food system transformation in Nepal?235238239240241242243244246249251The provincial dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the provincial food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. Indeed, this will be further verified and refined after the feedback from the Provincial, and second and third national dialogues. Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed on these topics following the ATs propositions and reference questions mentioned in Section A above. Relevant officials of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts. The dialogue also collected some learning to reflect impression and work further on as following: 1. Some participants were new to virtual meetings (attending the session using online platform to participate in specific groups); 2. Less no. of participation from industries and value chains (actors). 3. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 4. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 5. There was strong commitment from the stakeholders to address the issues of access to food, nutrition, distribution and effective implementation of policies and regulations. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. Some potential and emerging issues were identified and validated; the dialogue was also helpful in raising awareness and elevating public discussion on key food system issues and identify potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable (refer Section below: Outcomes for each discussion topic).236238243249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: The cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Locally available nutritious crops/foods getting less importance; biodiversity/cultural diversity not promoted. No focus on micronutrients; poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices; many families do not have access to nutrient rich foods; growing burden of non-communicable diseases; divergence between nutrition and WASH programmes due to lack of coherence between food security and nutrition sectors. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Inadequate technologies development and irrigation infrastructures. • Inadequate skilled and trained human resources, lack of motivation and positive attitudes • Unclear and ambiguous policies, lack of farmers supportive and motivating programs • Outmigration of youths and trained manpower • Fragmentation of land holdings, subsistence production system • Low level of investment in agricultural sector • No harmonization between extension and research and in terms of investment • Inadequate attention to the farmers needs while formulating policies and plans • Poor and or inadequate understanding of three tiers of govt. with designated roles to enhance food system competence. Actions for three years: • Prepare policies and plans to motivate and support small farmers • Increase investment for production promotion and post-harvest and value addition • Recognize the leader farmers of a group in a Community • Improve the service delivery system in terms of quality targeting • Develop programs to be self-reliant in agricultural and livestock products • Develop a supportive policy for nutritious food production and distribution and levy tax to junk and ultra-processed foods • Incorporate nutrition and health aspects in school curriculum. • Encourage entrepreneurship among the youths by providing technologies, enhancing access to finance, and improving their skills. • Development of milk authority for commercialization of milk production and diversification of the products • Develop and implement programs for import substitution in major crops and commodities. • Conserve and utilize local crops/commodities that have high nutrition • Implement nutrition sensitive social protection programs • Increase education/awareness among the people. Assessing the success of Action: • Implement production program by developing result framework and indicators • Increase access of small farmers to resources and inputs • Develop appropriate indicators and ensure the access of production inputs and resources on equitable basis • Develop strong M&E system and carryout it regularly • Ensuring markets for agricultural products • Categorization of farmers into small, medium and large group, develop appropriate packages • Policy to support below poverty level people and communities Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders • Local government- develop a mechanism for distribution of supports and subsidies and technical skills and technologies in a balanced manner; development of resource centers, entrepreneurship development, monitoring of quality and standards, • Province: operationalization of medium-sized projects, carryout need based research, implement nutrition related programs to landless farmers, development of policies and programs considering geographical diversity and ecological context • Federal: R&D, implementation of large-sized projects, managing the foreign aids in agri., formulation of policies, Acts and regulations, provide or ensure justice to landless farmers in terms of their rights to food, Regulate/monitor for export promotion and import substitution236239246249251Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure in Nepal; Prevalence of triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades; women and children also suffer from some of the world’s highest levels of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Change in dietary pattern characterized by two-meal-rice (per capita rice consumption increased by nearly 70% in 50 years). Dietary shift towards unhealthy processed foods high in saturated and trans-fat, salt and sugar neglecting nutritious indigenous crop-based foods. Increase in fat intake in diet and undernutrition in childhood has coincided with increased overweight/ obesity and other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD). Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Weak market monitoring system for food, no proper food labelling • Only half of the population receiving minimum diet diversity (52 percent) • High sugar, salt and fat consumption. • Urbanization, Migration, land fragmentation, and different type of topography • High use of insecticide and pesticide • Local paddy exporting trend and use of polished rice increasing. • Third country migration, over digitalization and consumption behavior changing. • Ginger and turmeric farming almost disappearing. • Shortfall of labor for production activities and value chain. • Lack of information about the content of nutrition or value of the food products • No control/banning of unhealthy food products. • Inadequate implementation of awareness raising programs at school level related to the foods adulterated with heavy pesticides. • Inadequate subsidy/ supportive policies for the promotion of local products and development of agricultural value chains • Poor development and dissemination of new and modern technologies to the farmers and entrepreneurs Actions for three years: • Emphasize the school meal program utilizing local food production • Promote milk and milk-based products and poultry for school feeding program • Develop storage facilities for seasonal products (to add value) • Implementation of healthy food campaigns and fairs at the community level • Dissemination of message (jingles or songs) about the healthy foods through media • Adopt strict quarantine of the imported food products and levy tax on them • Creating awareness by organizing drama and dance program at local level • Development of technologies to minimize and utilize the wastage foods • Emphasizing organic production and marketing in major cities and market centers • Developing a program on food consumption behavior • Develop land use policy for agriculture, industry, and human settlement. • Develop database for land type, iIncrease utilization of fallow land • Develop system to fix the wage of laborers • Distribute below poverty level (BPL) card for reservation of services to population living below poverty • Engage people under below poverty in conservation programs • Promote education program on breast feeding to children • Develop scientific labelling practices. Assessing the success of Action: • Social auditing and public hearing program implemented. • Management of trained human resources • Management of human resources at the ward level • Assurance of budget for program and activities • Development of Management Information System Role of Governments and other Stakeholders: • Local government: Develop policy guidelines, policy and program implementation and awareness raising. • Provincial govt: support for the development of infrastructures • Federal government: Formulation of policies and Acts and Regulations, Budgetary support to province and local governments, support to province and local levels and expansion of school feeding program up to the 8th class236240243244246249251Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation and land degradation are the major problems. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Poverty has forced households in forest and pastureland encroachment. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Dependency on imported crop varieties is increasing with lack of site-specific food production; lack of production in broader landscape/agroecosystem level. Lack of land utilization policy and plans have promoted rapid conversion of fertile agriculture lands into non-agriculture use. Disappearance of indigenous food system; rural out-migration; inadequate capacity development of farmers; lack of agriculture mechanization. Underlying barriers for achieving the stated proposition: • Rapid migration from hill side to the cultivable lands in valleys and Terai • Non-Regulation and use of community forestry. • Lack of Protection of Public lands • Fragmentation of agricultural land. • Prioritization of cultivable lands/ mapping • Problem in proper management and utilization of Water resource. • Unscientific management of forest for food production (linked with agro forestry) • Deforestation, landslide, flash flood, extreme rainfall , drought • Uncontrolled use of chemical inputs and degraded the quality of land. • Forest fire and its effect on wild foods and biodiversity • Loss of genetic resources and agro biodiversity. • Inappropriate mechanism causing pollution and soil degradation. • Un planned/unnatural use of water resources (river, stream) for irrigation • Unscientific use of land for settlement, fragmentation, fallow land due to migration • Deforestation, forest fires and poor management of forest and vegetations • Air pollution and environmental pollution from forest fires and over use of agrochemical uses • Soil erosion, landslides, flooding, haphazard use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers • Lack of technologies for land, soil and water/irrigation management, farming system etc. • Lack of appropriate knowledge on scientific forest management, scientific soil management, integrated crop and water management etc. • Lack of adequate technologies for seed, sapling and breeds, cropping system/ mixed farming Actions for the next 3 years: • Enforcement of land use polices and conversion act. • Promotion of appropriate mechanization • Promotion of agro forestry, income generation with conservation • Construction and management of dam, water harvesting technology. • Genetic improvement and use of local genetic resources. • Use of Organic manures and focus of sustainable farming. • Regulation and use of community forestry. • Incentives to farmers for promoting sustainable and organic farming. • Low-cost climate resilient technology • Land use planning and agricultural zoning • Integrated agriculture, livestock and forestry farming • Reforestation to protect and minimize degradation of lands • Conservation of agrobiodiversity • Utilization of water resources, improvement in soil fertility and control of soil erosion • Climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration, substitution and conservation Assessing the success of Action: • Coordination among three tier government • Management of Human resources at provincial and local levels • Climate resilient technology development. • Identification and promotion of priority crops in hilly and terai Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers of Governments & Other Stakeholders: • Federal Government: Policy Guidance, linkage with International agencies, trade facilitation, implement land bank guidelines and regulation, progressive taxation for industry for healthy and unhealthy foods productions, technology transfer • Provincial Government: strengthen Provincial Food Security and Nutrition Steering Committee, implementation ADS, Awareness of MSNP, Develop resilient technology, exploration visits for the farmers • Local Government: identify the local genetic resources and prepare inventory, localization of ADS, LAPA, MSNP, community Seed bank, Food bank236241243246247249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods Context: Landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Deep rooted social and economic inequalities in employment opportunities increase vulnerability. Inadequate institutional mechanisms for and limited capacity of women, small holders, old-age, people with disability (PWD), internally displaced people (IDPs). Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Agriculture sector is seen as less remunerative and less attractive. The major reasons are of skewed power relation over productive resources especially of land, water, forest to women and disadvantaged groups; land fragmentation and use of agricultural land for other purposes have reduced options to secure access and land rights of people in the value chain. Feminization of agriculture due to young male out-migration. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Lack of data on people in vulnerabilities and ownership of production resources; • Migration and impact on women in agriculture and value chain employment; • Land fragmentation; • Lack of market access for smallholders and marginalized producers; lack of regular employability within the food chain; • Lack of diversities in crop and food; • Lack of connectivity, storage and distribution mechanisms; • More attraction to processed foods; • Low knowledge on importance of breast feeding and food related information; • Inaccessibility of poor to nutritious foods; • Pre and post-harvest loss of crops and foods; • Lack of negotiation capacity among the smallholders; • Social discriminatory practices Actions for three years: • Context, locality, demography and geography specific policies, plans, programs; • Discourage fallow land and promote land consolidation and contract farming; • Facilitate for easy access to credit through banks; • Promote organic agriculture and food, regulate on processed food and proper labelling • Organic fertilizer production and irrigation priority; • School education program, guide children for healthy diets and nutrition • Ensure children’s voice in food system • Promote youth led agri-based enterprising and marketing • Invest in consumer education for safe and nutritious food; • Link with social protection programs; • Product diversification • Post-harvest related infrastructures specially for milk, vegetables, fruits; • Farmer’s ID and targeted inputs; land use policy • Placement of technical staff; one crop, one palika program; • Age-wise food recipes for children to senior citizen; • Link with mid-day meal program to education sector plan 2021-2030; • Identify vulnerable hh and communities and response such as use of NeKSAP information; • Link with safety net programs, education, tourism, health • Awareness on production, processing, marketing and consumption of locally available nutritious foods; • Ensure access to production inputs for smallholders, women and youths equitably; • Innovation and research to respond equitably; • Food plan; establish ideal food system. Assessing the success of Action: • Agri-inputs supply mechanisms for access to all; • Set minimum support price for staple foods; • Farmer’s categorization and issuance of farmer’s ID; • Decreased child mortality rates; • Result frameworks in place; • Access to healthy foods and diets for children throughout the supply chains • Accountability framework and measures in place; Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Federal government: Prepare acts and policies, mobilize foreign aid in agriculture, trade facilitation, fair and balanced supply system and TA • Provincial government: Invest in technological development, market facilitations, enterprise development, quality monitoring, establishment of resource centers; land races development • Local government: Depute technical HR, facilitate investment in agriculture and food chain, promote nutritious local landraces, nutrition programs for landless and poor;236242243244249251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: Current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. These shocks, stress and disaster can be devastating for poor and vulnerable people, who have limited resources and options. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Lately, COVID-19 has contributed to increase unemployment, poverty and vulnerability including loss of livelihoods. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Natural and climate induced disasters; high post-production losses; weak supply chain; pandemics (COVID-19) and other epidemics. Economic shocks, like food price hikes and income losses due to pandemics and disasters. Climate induced natural disasters are increasing more than before due to haphazard road constructions, improper infrastructure development and accelerated process of urbanizations. Underlying causes/barriers for achieving stated proposition: • Weak implementation of agriculture and land use related policy and regulations • Inequitable distribution of rainfall and monsoon based agriculture • Overdependence on weather and lack of sustainable irrigation • Lack of climate resilient diverse crop varieties • Unavailability of agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers) on time for increased productivity • Fragmentation and conversion of agricultural lands into housing and settlements • Degradation of land and destruction of irrigation sources from natural disasters • Lack of weather forecasting based agricultural planning and investment Actions for the next 3 years: • Management of whole production resources focusing on food security • Focus on research, innovation, conservation and promotion based on whole value chain • Investment on agricultural product-based industries that have local potentials • Increased focus on technical education that have market demand • Exploit and promote huge potential of agriculture that have local potentials • Identification of agricultural and other plant and animal genetic resources • Develop and promote agricultural value chain • Establishment of food banks and food distribution • Uncontrolled migration of people from rural areas • Promote off-season farming system, establishment and scaling up of food information system and enhancement of its access. • Investment on agro-based weather forecasting and Agro met -weather forecast based action/financing • Adoption of need based improved technologies for food production • Simplification of balanced food distribution programs • Establishment of cottage and homebased industries • Timely availability of fertilizers to farmers • Protection of agricultural lands from fragmentation and conversion into non-agriculture • Implementation of consolidated farming • Establishment of storage structure for storing produced foods Assessing the success of Action: • Collaboration among agriculture, food security and climate change sector • Formulation of food security plans for climate change adaptation and mitigation • Establishment of food security monitoring system • Monitoring and supervision of food security during disaster • Participation of all 3-tiers governments in land use policy and act implementation • Adoption of disaster risk reduction activities Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments and Other Stakeholders: • Reserve food storage at the province and local level • Implementation of land use policy • Adoption of regulation and institutional strategy system development • Federal government should make timely available chemical fertilizer • Provincial government should control fragmentation of agricultural lands • Mitigation of agricultural lands and resources timely during disaster • Establishment of weather forecasting system and its improvement and promotion • Pre-disaster storage of food and strengthening food distribution system after disaster • Special attention to be given on the basis human needs during disaster236238239240241242243244246249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context:Nepal has developed legal framework to ensure good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. The Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Underlying Barriers to Achieve the Stated Proposition: • Lack of effective implementation of the Act and Regulation • Lack of harmonization among sectoral policies and regulations • Lack of clear roles and responsibilities and accountability mechanism among the stakeholders • Inadequate coordination and collaboration among the stakeholders • Rise in the food prices. Actions for the next 3 years: • Formulation of provincial Act and regulation • Effective implementation of the provisions of Act with appropriate mechanisms and structures • Respective roles to be played by stakeholders involved in agricultural value chains • Emphasize in accountability, coordination and collaboration • Promote the production and marketing of local commodities • Create awareness about the provisions of the Act among the stakeholders • Preparation of provincial food plan • Development of appropriate structure and mechanism for implementation of Act • Environment-friendly technology development based on ecological region and geography • Development of Ideal food system • Creation of appropriate policy environment • Preparation and distribution of below poverty level identity card • Ensuring food security to most vulnerable communities • Implementation of agricultural development programs related to जोsustainable food system Assessing the success of Action: • Development of appropriate structure for implementation • Monitoring & Evaluation Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments and Other Stakeholders: Federal government: • Prepare national food planning in consultation with province and local governments • Prepare food rights related indicators • Prepare and disseminate the food security and nutrition related information and promote education about it • Develop technologies through research and innovation on sustainable agriculture and food system • Distribute farmer’s identity card by categorizing them and provide support based on their category • Develop contributory pension scheme to farmers All governments: • Improve the living standards of the farmers a through protection and support to them • Prepare land use plan for sustainable use and control land fragmentation • Implement targeted agricultural programs to support Dalits, indigenous people, vulnerable and poor and women. • Initiate programs to minimize the impact of climate change in agriculture • Develop compensation mechanism to farmers during disasters and pandemic. • Implementation of food and nutrition security programs237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-08-15 18:57:28205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30407/130

125

List of participants for the provincial food system dialogues was prepared and shared among the stakeholders to get inputs to ensure representation of diverse participation in terms of sector and disciplines, ethnicity and gender. Series of revisions and addition were made to ensure inclusive participation. The provincial dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different parts of the province.Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding, analysis and looking for way forward. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. An organizing committee was formed representing key stakeholders to steer the overall process and technical committee to support technically. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. In order to have the consistent process and facilitate the dialogues effectively, series of orientations were organized to the facilitators and curator of the event at the province. These orientations were locally adapted in the context based on the original contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. All the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and future commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical analysis of the provincial Food Systems was done to examine in terms of their potential causes/barriers, drivers and actions for the next 3 years. Participants stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. In order to have a meaningful dialogues among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and provincial dialogue process among the participants, a participants brief was prepared and shared before the event. Further, Nepali languages was used as medium of conversation to have active engagement of participants of farmers in the dialogues.Yes, we received feedback to further represent the private sector and entrepreneurs and farmers in the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247249251Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the provincial Food Systems Dialogue of Bagmati Province on 30th June 2021 on the theme Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system. Hon Dr. Krishna Prasad Oli, Member of National Planning Commission and National Convenor delivered the welcome speech and opening remarks. Ms. Sabnam Shivakoti, Secretary, Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation (MoLMACPA) and Provincial Dialogue Curator, curated the dialogues. Major focus of the dialogue was to engage stakeholders for a comprehensive exploration of food systems in Nepal as part of the process for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • raise awareness and promote public discussion on the food systems, • examine current situation and identify key aspects of Nepalese food systems, such as the drivers, actions, pathways, and • explore opportunities for food system to make it equitable, sustainable and resilient. Total of 125 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process and documented the success outcomes. Each AT Group had proposition and reference questions to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Dialogue reference questions: Following 5 questions were presented to the participants to facilitate the dialogue: 1. What are the underlying causes/ barriers for achieving the stated proposition? 2. What are the key drivers of unsustainable food system? 3. What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 4. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 5. What are the role and responsibilities of the food system actors including those of the federal, provincial, and local Governments in sustainable food system transformation in Nepal?235238239240241242244246247249251The provincial dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the provincial food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. Indeed, this will be further verified and refined after the feedback from the Provincial, and second and third national dialogues. Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed on these topics following the ATs propositions and reference questions mentioned in Section A above. Relevant officials of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts. The dialogue also collected some learning to reflect impression and work further on as following: 1. Some participants were new to virtual meetings (attending the session using online platform to participate in specific groups); 2. Less no. of participation from industries and value chains (actors). 3. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 4. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 5. There was strong commitment from the stakeholders to address the issues of access to food, nutrition, distribution and effective implementation of policies and regulations. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. Some potential and emerging issues were identified and validated; the dialogue was also helpful in raising awareness and elevating public discussion on key food system issues and identify potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable (refer Section below: Outcomes for each discussion topic).236238243246249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: The cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Situation of nutrition has improved over the period of 1996 to 2019: stunting decreased from 57 to 32%, underweight 42 to 24, and wasting from 15 to 12%. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Locally available nutritious crops/foods getting less importance; biodiversity/cultural diversity not promoted. No focus on micronutrients; poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices; many families do not have access to nutrient rich foods; growing burden of non-communicable diseases; divergence between nutrition and WASH programmes due to lack of coherence between food security and nutrition sectors. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Lack of school education program to educate the students about the agriculture and food and nutrition • Inadequate awareness about the nutrition and increasing use of junk/ultra-processed foods • High food wastage and our social and cultural traditions • Inequitable distribution system of foods. • Lack of promotion of the underutilized nutritive foods • Inadequate appropriate storage facilities • Lack of awareness about the food and nutrition among the marginalized and poor communities • Influence of middlemen in agri-distribution system • No assurance of markets and poor marketing system for the locally produced commodities • Poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices • Poor rural-urban linkages for the movement of agri commodities • No targeted programs for small farmers • Weak coordination and linkages between research and extension • Existence of subsistence farming and very less commercialization • Poor and or inadequate understanding of three tiers of government with designated roles to enhance food system competence. • Actions for three years: • Enhancing capacity to implement the special commercial agricultural production plan • Develop targeted programs to attract youth in agriculture • Trainings on nutrition sensitive agriculture for all the personnel at all levels of the government • Subsidy related programs to be implemented by the local government • Development of land utilization plan and implement through local government • Establishment of collection centers at the remote areas • Farmers’ supportive programs identification of and management of trained/skilled agri- technicians at the province and local level • Identification of food and nutrition insecure areas and implement nutrition related programs • Develop database/statistics on the status of food and nutrition and continue/expand school meal program to support the local food production Assessing the success of Action: • Activate the joint mechanism in food and nutrition and effective implementation of feedbacks and suggestions • Develop mechanism among the three tiers of government to coordinate and collaborate the food and nutrition at all levels • Develop result indicator and framework for each program • Periodic review of result framework of the programs Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders Federal Government: • Enactment of Acts and Regulations, Management of Foreign aid for projects, Implementation of research and extension-based activities, and promotion/mobilization of Nepal Agriculture Research Council Provincial Government: • Establishment of Resource/development centers, entrepreneurship development, research on crops and commodities, establishment of province as a center of statistics. Local Government: • Technical assistance and support, balanced allocation and management of resources, implementation of PPP approach in agricultural development236239246249251Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure in Nepal. Prevalence of triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency in the country. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades; women and children also suffer from some of the world’s highest levels of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Change in dietary pattern characterized by two-meal-rice (per capita rice consumption increased by nearly 70% in 50 years). Dietary shift towards unhealthy processed foods high in saturated and trans-fat, salt and sugar. Increase in fat intake in diet and undernutrition in childhood has coincided with increased overweight/ obesity and other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD); over two-thirds of adolescent girls in both rural and urban areas reported consuming sugary foods. Consumption of foods produced by using high dose chemical fertilizers and pesticides; items, such as biscuits, instant noodles and juice drinks may be supplying about a quarter of energy intake of children <2 years, which is lowering their intake of essential vitamins and minerals. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Inadequate research and information about the nutritive value of underutilized/indigenous crops and commodities • No food and culinary research of indigenous crops • Less knowledge about the product diversification and no value adding activities to the locally available foods, • No alternative search for the preparation of the alcoholic beverage instead of cereals. • No inclusion of consumption behavior and food and nutrition delivery system in existing school education system • Home culture does not promote the changes in food system • Lack of research and information on the naturally available foodstuffs • Inadequate food technologists and inspectors for monitoring of the food quality • No explicit policy to conduct research on foods and very less budget allocation for it. • Lack of identification of practices for reducing/minimizing post-production losses Actions for three years: • Formulate policies to utilize the locally produced foods at the local level • Regulate and more taxing to the ultra-processed foods • GIS mapping for statistical updating and improvement • Processing, value addition, marketing, and storage of indigenous crops/commodities • Preparing a roster of consumable/edible commodities and emphasize for their conservation, promotion, and utilization • Laboratory strengthening along with technical knowledge and management of the manpower • Awareness raising programs to change the food habits • Identification of wild/forest-based foods, their research, conservation and seed multiplication • School feeding program to link with production, market regulation and markets • Coordination with the farmers to formulate the programs as per their needs and demand • Provision of soft loan programs to promote agricultural value chains Assessing the success of Action: • Effective implementation of food Acts and regulation and preparation of food standards • Ensuring access to nutritious foods • Access to markets and storage • Creating a framework for participatory monitoring and evaluation • Development of Food management information system • Identification of key indicators for quality food system • Developing input system, markets, and marketing management system • Dedicated public institutions for post-production handling of food products • Technical support system for inputs and outputs Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Federal: Formulation of polices and regulations • Province: Formulation of polices /regulations, and their implementation • Local government: Implementation of policies and regulations and documentation • Private sector: Investment in food industries and ensuring the supply of quality food products • Farmers: Produce raw materials required for the agro-based industry236240244246249251Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation and land degradation are major problems. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Poverty has forced households in forest and pastureland encroachment. Production of major staples and commercial vegetables in some pockets has caused excessive mining of soil nutrients, water depletion and agrochemical pollution. Food habits mostly towards rice and wheat have led to a narrow dietary diversity. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Climate change impact and lack of effective technologies for climate change adaptation • Fragmentation and degradation of agricultural land, depletion of water sources • Loss of local knowledge and skills due to changes in food habits • Reduction in agrobiodiversity and loss of indigenous crop varieties and animal breeds • Inadequate and inappropriate management of soil fertility • Lack of management of reliable diversified agricultural markets • Poor management of household and urban wastes • Keeping agricultural land fallow due to urban and oversea migration of youth • Lack of conducive policies and plans for agricultural production based on agroecological zoning and potentials • Pollution to soil, water and air due to haphazard use of agrochemicals • Degradation of pasture /range lands in Himalayan region • Existing policies not providing adequate incentives to promote local agrobiodiversity Actions for the next 3 years: • Effective enforcement of land use act and regulation • Agrobiodiversity research and development program implementation • Formulation of needed policy, strategy and research for nature positive food system • Formulate and implement suitable policy on fallow land utilization • Diversification in forest lands for promoting food production • improve and restore soil fertility in degraded lands • Improvement and promotion of pasture /rangelands for livestock production in high mountains • Identification of important critical and degraded watersheds for protection • Development of value chain of locally produced foods • Strengthening local seed system mobilizing community seed banks • Develop and implement policy and action plans by linking organic and ecological farming with tourism and health • Focus on conducting research on agrobiodiversity and organic farming. • Develop and promote eco-zone specific climate smart technologies in partnership with local government • Implement programs for local food production and food recipes preparation for running school meal and nutrition programs at the local level. Assessing the success of Action: • Agricultural land being protected with the implementation of land use /management program • Program planned and being implemented considering climate risks • Increased production and availability of organic and ecological products at the local markets • Establishment of community seed banks and local varieties being registered for their promotion • Program planning and budgeting being implemented at the provincial and local level by mainstreaming agrobiodiversity, organic and climate smart agriculture • Improved soil fertility and increased organic matter in the soils • Increased number of productive livestock and productivity in the high mountain region Roles/responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments & Other Stakeholders: • Federal Government: Development of policy, regulation and directives for community seed bank, local variety registration, source seed maintenance and commercialization • Provincial Government: Formulation of operational guidelines and directives • Local Government: Community mobilization for implementation of community seed banks, resource leverage and budget allocation. • NGOs/CBOs: Social mobilization, technical support in community seed bank, diversity block maintenance and organization of agrobiodiversity fairs and farmers diversity field school implementation • Private: Seed marketing, processing, value addition and marketing of local seed based nutritious food product236241244246247249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods of people involved in food systems Context: Landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Deep rooted social and economic inequalities in employment opportunities increase vulnerability. Inadequate institutional mechanisms for and limited capacity of women, small holders, old-age, people with disability (PWD), internally displaced people (IDPs) to claim their rights, they have less access to production resources, space for voice, negotiation power in the market systems. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Agriculture sector is seen as less remunerative and less attractive. The major reasons are of skewed power relation over productive resources especially of land, water, forest to women and disadvantaged groups; land fragmentation and use of agricultural land for other purposes have reduced options to secure access and land rights of people in the value chain. Feminization of agriculture due to young male out-migration. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • The availability of food for all is lesser; • Lack of proper nutritious diet, child under-nourishment, overweight; • Food processor business groups are engaged in highly processed food, • Local landraces/crops/foods are less known and promoted; • Lack of research on food, culinary arts, food diversity and value additions; • Cereals used in liquors; • Dominance of middle persons in food price settings and market management, • School education system and family culture not oriented to proper food habits; • Lack of ecological zone-based prioritization, soil degradation, pasture/grazing land degradation; • No adequate targeted programs for poor and vulnerable groups. Actions for three years: • Capacity building and effective implementation of land use Act and Regulations, • Development and implementation of agri-biodiversity based research and development; • Development of eco zones specific policies and action plans promoting local foods; • Policy and program to use fallow lands; • Diversify food products/crops/recipes including utilizing forest spaces; • Promote local crops-based value chains specially of enterprises and businesses promoted and led by women, cooperatives, youths etc.; • Land leasing for poor and marginalized groups; • Promote climate smart agriculture system; • Promotion of nutrition gardens for family nutrition; • Awareness raising about local crop based nutritious foods; establish seed banks and food banks; • Manage relief programs that are transparent and inclusive. Assessing the success of Action: • Land use plan; • Agricultural land protection; • Climate risk-based agriculture system; • Local crops and foods in market; • Mainstream agriculture biodiversity; • Organic farming in food system; • Soil organic matter improved; and • Livestock-based food diversity specially in high altitudes; functional community seed banks; and registered local crops. Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Federal government to focus on policies, mobilization of development partners, invest in research and innovation, coordinate for financing as well as stabilize price for staple food items; • Establish institutional arrangement made in the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act • Provincial govt: prepare provincial policies and implement guidelines, make financing and program design for inter-municipality coordination, data management, support agri-based enterprising and marketing; • Local governments: implement programs, monitoring, reporting with proper data management on food security status; manage food bank and local seed bank to ensure equitable access for all, and mobilize public private partnership as well as cooperatives • Private sector to invest in value chain development of agri-based and safe food enterprising, marketing and job creation; • Academic institutions to integrate agriculture biodiversity in course curriculum and research; • NGOs/CBOs in social mobilization236242244246249251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: Current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Lately, COVID-19 has contributed to increase unemployment, poverty and vulnerability including loss of livelihoods. The 2015 Earthquake increased number of food insecure people by 3.5 million. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Natural and climate induced disasters; high post-production losses; weak supply chain; pandemics (COVID-19) and other epidemics. Economic shocks, like food price hikes and income losses due to pandemics and disasters. Climate induced natural disasters are increasing more than before due to haphazard road constructions, improper infrastructure development and accelerated process of urbanizations. Limited investment on R&D to reduce vulnerability and build resilience. Farmers and stakeholders lack adequate incentives for climate initiatives and green agriculture. High post-production losses, unsafe transportation and weak supply chain resulting in inadequate/late access of safe food in affordable prices for marginal, poor and low income groups. Epidemics/pandemic (such as diarrhea, COVID-19, etc) have increased vulnerability of poor, women, and marginalized households. Improper food habits with poor feeding practices. Poor, landless, and marginalized groups have settlements in vulnerable places (river banks, landslide prone areas). Preparation and readiness arrangements are weak. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Agriculture not being remunerative profession, high import dependency • Changes in food culture • Lack of promotion of local production of foods • Weak food storage and distribution system • Increased negative effect of climate change • Lack of storage /conservation of local seeds at the local level and high dependency on imported hybrid seeds • Lack of adoption of farmer’s friendly technologies and practices • Lack of harmonization of policy among different sectors and ministry (eg. Forest-livestock-people interface) • Lack of effective preparation and preplanning for disaster risks reduction Actions for the next 3 years: • Use of agriculture technologies, innovations and mechanization for cost-effective competitive food production and marketing • Use of diverse public awareness, communication, sensitization an education programs and mechanisms for the development resilient, equitable and sustainable food system • Remove restrictions for all food system production and supply mechanisms during crisis (eg. COVID-19 lock down) • Establishment and operationalization of food banks and seed banks. • Implementation of climate mitigation and adaptation programs and projects • Carry out research and development suited to local agroecology • Reform and revision in policies and legislations for resilient food system development and reduce the vulnerability of vulnerable people • Planning and advance preparation of risk reduction plans and programs Assessing the success of Action: • Evidence in policy, programs, and budget speech • Quarterly and annual progress report • Periodic monitoring and evaluation jointly with multi-stakeholders • Health and nutrition related indicates Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments and Other Stakeholders: • Federal Government: Multisectoral disaster response unit, Early warning system, Emergency fund management, Policy alignment. • Provincial Government: Farmers’ friendly research based on local land and agroecological context, Land bank establishment and operation, Extension of Climate Smart Technologies • Local Government: Disaster risk assessment, use of new agriculture technologies, mechanization, community seed banks establishment, and ensure enhanced equitable access to them. • Concerned Stakeholders: Awareness program, joint monitoring and public-private partnership236238239240241242244246247249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context: Nepal has developed legal framework to ensure good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. The Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Underlying Barriers to Achieve the Stated Proposition: • No regulation formulated to implement the provisions of the Act • Delay in the revision of the Food Act by the Federal government • No formation of Provincial Food Council and Local Food Coordination Committee • Not yet provided the identification card to poor and farmers as per the Act • No seriousness in implementation and monitoring the provision of the Act • Inadequate awareness raising activities by the government about the Act • No assurance of food storage and marketing of the food grains • Lack of skilled/trained human resources at the local level • No identification of the needs of different categories of the farmers as they are not classified yet. • Inadequate availability of resources and logistics to implement the Act. Actions for the next 3 years: • Formulation of Regulation to implement the provisions of the Act • Formation of Provincial Food Council and Local Food Coordination Committee soon • Awareness raising activities by the government about the quality of the food products • Formulation of Food Act at the provincial and local level and mention provision for the facilitation of production and marketing of locally produced commodities. • Distribution of the identification card to poor and farmers • Spell out the coordination mechanism among the three tiers of the government in the Regulation Assessing the success of Action: • Formation of an effective mechanism for implementation and monitoring of the provisions of the Act • Implementation of awareness raising and capacity building programs. • Publication of the Monitoring Indicators • Assurance of timely supply of production inputs • Food rights to be recognized, protected and promoted. Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments and Other Stakeholders: • Federal government: Formulation of Regulation to implement the provisions of the Act, Stabilize the price of basic foodstuffs. • Provincial government: Formation of Food Council • Local government: Formation of Food Coordination Committee • All Governments: Management for food storage, buffer stocking and distribution, Coordination for maintaining quality and standards for food, Policy and system improvement for ensuring access to foods. • Other stakeholders: Coordination, collaboration, and partnerships with governments237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-08-15 19:11:05205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31102/130

108

List of participants for the provincial food system dialogues was prepared and shared among the stakeholders to get inputs to ensure representation of diverse participation in terms of sector and disciplines, ethnicity and gender. Series of revisions and addition were made to ensure inclusive participation. The provincial dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different parts of the province.Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding, analysis and looking for way forward. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. An organizing committee was formed representing key stakeholders to steer the overall process and technical committee to support technically. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. In order to have the consistent process and facilitate the dialogues effectively, series of orientations were organized to the facilitators and curator of the event at the province. These orientations were locally adapted in the context based on the original contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. All the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and future commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical analysis of the provincial Food Systems was done to examine in terms of their potential causes/barriers, drivers and actions for the next 3 years. Participants stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. In order to have a meaningful dialogue among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and provincial dialogue process among the participants, a participants brief was prepared and shared before the event. Further, Nepali languages was used as medium of conversation to have active engagement of participants of farmers in the dialogues.Yes, we received feedback to further represent the private sector and entrepreneurs and farmers in the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249251Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the provincial Food Systems Dialogue of Sudurpaschim Province on 2nd July 2021 on the theme Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system. Dr Basudev Sharma, Joint Secretary, NPC delivered the welcome and opening remarks. The event was curated by Dr. Kishan Lal Bhatta, Secretary Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOLMAC) and Provincial Dialogue Curator. He stressed on the need for collective efforts from all the sectors in the process to transform food system and committed to contribute for transformation. Major focus of the dialogue was to engage stakeholders for a comprehensive exploration of food systems in Nepal as part of the process for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • raise awareness and promote public discussion on the food systems, • examine current situation and identify key aspects of Nepalese food systems, such as the drivers, actions, pathways, and • explore opportunities for food system to make it equitable, sustainable and resilient. Total of 108 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process and documented the discussion outcomes. Each AT Group had proposition and reference questions to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Dialogue reference questions: Following 5 questions were presented to the participants to facilitate the dialogue: 1. What are the underlying causes/ barriers for achieving the stated proposition? 2. What are the key drivers of unsustainable food system? 3. What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 4. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 5. What are the role and responsibilities of the food system actors including those of the federal, provincial, and local Governments in sustainable food system transformation in Nepal?235238239240241242244246247249251The provincial dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the provincial food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. Indeed, this will be further verified and refined after the feedback from the Provincial, and second and third national dialogues. Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed on these topics following the ATs propositions and reference questions mentioned in Section A above. Relevant officials of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts. The dialogue also collected some learning to reflect impression and work further on as following: 1. Some participants were new to virtual meetings (attending the session using online platform to participate in specific groups); 2. Less number of participation from industries and post production value chains (actors). 3. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 4. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 5. There was strong commitment from the stakeholders to address the issues of access to food, nutrition, distribution and effective implementation of policies and regulations. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. Some potential and emerging issues were identified and validated; the dialogue was also helpful in raising awareness and elevating public discussion on key food system issues and identify potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable (refer Section below: Outcomes for each discussion topic).236238246249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: The cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Locally available nutritious crops/foods getting less importance; biodiversity/cultural diversity not promoted. No focus on micronutrients; poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices; many families do not have access to nutrient rich foods. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Irrigation: Inadequate irrigation facilities and dependent on monsoon rain • Land: Fragmentation of land, land remaining fallow and affected by soil erosion • Research: Technological research and development not focusing on the geographical context, • Policy: No policy on Land use, protection of cultivable land and attraction of the private sector • Subsidy: Subsidy policy not appropriate and at the reach of all • Physical infrastructures: Poor road condition and network • Outmigration of youth and feminization of agriculture • No assurance of the markets for the products • Agriculture occupation is not honored • Nepalese producers not getting remunerative prices • Lack of awareness about the nutritious foods. • No coherence between policy and budget allocation Actions for three years: • Reform in policy, nutrition education at the school level. • Use of media for awareness raising, formulate policy to attract the private sector • Establishment of research centers considering geographical diversity. • Commercialization of production of crops/commodities • Attract educated youths in agriculture • Identification of exportable crops and NTFPs and their cultivation • Climate change adaptive agricultural technologies development • Organic agriculture practices • Conservation of indigenous/local crops and their promotion • Increase the access of transportation, communication, and electricity, • Develop agricultural roads to enhance market access • Development of storage facilities for seed, fertilizer, and other inputs • Utilize available irrigation • Homestead gardening to improve nutrition. • Awareness raising campaigns by disseminating message as “ I eat for health not for taste” • Development of post-harvest technologies and their utilization • Development of climate adaptive value chains and adoption • Strong coordination and collaboration among the stakeholders Assessing the success of Action: • Establish appropriate policy and implementation mechanism. • Development of Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators • Integrated coordinated system for reporting (ICT in Reporting) Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders Federal Government: • Policy formulation and execution, budgetary support to province and local level • Acting as a role of facilitator for effective coordination. • Human resources and their appropriate management • Publication and management of national level statistics Provincial Government: • Capacity building of the human resources, coordination and collaboration • Monitoring and Evaluation of the programs • Database management at provincial level and its analysis • Periodic plan preparation • Self-sufficiency program on seeds, feeds, fertilizers and ensuring markets for products. • Policy and program formulation for food safety Local level: • Awareness raising on nutrition, food safety, and consumption. • Capacity building of HR • Database management at Municipal level • Promotion of commercialization and market promotion • Policy and program formulation for food safety Other stakeholders: • Supply of quality production inputs, market promotion • Research and Demonstration of technologies • Awareness raising on nutrition, food safety, and consumption236239243246249251Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure in Nepal.; Prevalence of triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades; women and children also suffer from some of the world’s highest levels of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Change in dietary pattern characterized by two-meal-rice (per capita rice consumption increased by nearly 70% in 50 years). Dietary shift towards unhealthy processed foods high in saturated and trans-fat, salt and sugar neglecting nutritious indigenous crop-based foods. Increase in fat intake in diet and undernutrition in childhood has coincided with increased overweight/ obesity and other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD); over two-thirds of adolescent girls in both rural and urban areas reported consuming sugary foods. Consumption of foods produced by using high dose chemical fertilizers and pesticides; items, such as biscuits, instant noodles and juice drinks may be supplying about a quarter of energy intake of children <2 years, which is lowering their intake of essential vitamins and minerals. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Lack of education and awareness, high reproductive rate, lack of food diversification • No value addition of food products and no proper utilization of food grains. • Inadequate infrastructures like roads and storage facilities resulting no food preservation • Inadequate technologies for food processing and value addition • No clear policy and programs for local foods and seeds. • Marketing of junk food whereas Himalayan food system is not attractive. Actions for three years: • Implement commodity specific programs • Implement School feeding programs • Local crop use promotion policy • Food diversification and branding of local crop • Research and extension of nutritional value of local crops/commodities • Processing of local crop • Expansion of mid-day meals as social protection program • Development and enforcement of localized menu on the basis production capacity and potentiality • Develop school as market for local small holder farmers through mobilization of farmers group/cooperatives. • Development as well as management of infrastructure and equipment at various level supply Chain • Promotion and expansion of one school one health/nutritionist • Nutritional education promotion Assessing the success of Action: • Develop indicators. • Social audit/Public Auditing of programs • Monitoring and evaluation through outsider and jointly • Prepare and monitor Program profile • Annual survey and Management Information system Role of Governments and other Stakeholders: Local level: Data collection, disseminate information, capacity building of local staff Provincial and federal: Data management Province and Local: Develop technical messages- Federal Govt: Include sustainable food system in school curriculum Private sector: Marketing, branding, processing of local product Financial institutions: Investment in local crop related program236240243244246249251Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation and land degradation are major problems. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Poverty has forced households in forest and pastureland encroachment. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Dependency on imported crop varieties is increasing with lack of site-specific food production; lack of production in broader landscape/agroecosystem level. Lack of land utilization policy and plans have promoted rapid conversion of fertile agriculture lands into settlements and other non-agriculture use. Disappearance of indigenous food system; rural out-migration; inadequate capacity development of farmers; lack of agriculture mechanization. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Fragmentation of land • Degradation of agricultural land (road and building construction) • Outmigration leading to increased fallow/barren land in hilly region • Lack of province level integrated land use policy • Lack of coordination between agriculture and land related institutions • Improper research and development on agro-biodoversity and climate change • Improper land use pattern (mono-cropping) Actions in the next 3 years: • Focus on nature based research and development • Development and implementation of consolidated land use policy and programmes • Implementation of land bank concept for the proper use of fallow land • Identification, characterization and promotion of NUS crops and engaging private sectors in marketing • Strengthening local seed system • Promotion of organic farming • Awareness raising and nutrition education through integration of required information in the course curriculum of schools and universities • Promotion of climate smart agriculture in partnership with local governments • Promotion of rain water harvesting technique • Development and implementation of soil fertility improvement related program • Restoration of degraded land and watersheds/landscapes (SSNM/SALT technologies, agroforestry, conservation agriculture, bioengineering) • Identification and promotion of agriculture niche based commodities • Improved livestock management system in high altitudes areas Assessing the success of Action: • Regular participatory monitoring and evaluation of the programme • Development of impact indicators of the proposed activities • Integrated land use plan developed and implemented at province and local level • Climate smart agriculture technologies and practices promoted • Irrigation problem solved with water schemes • Established land bank concept for the proper use of land • Reduced fallow and abandoned land • Local seed system, Agro-biodiversity restored • Mainstreamed agro-biodiversity, food system and climate smart agriculture • Restored soil fertility (enhanced soil organic matter) • Improved course curriculum of schools and universities Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments & Other Stakeholders: Federal government: • Development of relevant Acts/policies, • Focus on research/innovation, • Coordination with donors for financing Provincial government: • Development of province level policies/plans/strategies, • Design and implementation of province level program, • Piloting and model implementation, • Allocate required budget for the program Local government: • Development of local plan and programme related to food system, • Implementation and scaling up of program and models developed by provincial government, • Regular monitoring and reporting, • Data management at local level Private sectors including NGOs: • Support three tiers of governments for policy formulation and programme development • Collaboration with provincial governments for the implementation of programme and monitoring • Engage in value chain of agriculture produce (processing and marketing) Academic institutions: • Integration of agro-biodiversity and climate change in course curriculum • Engage in nature based research and development236241246247249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods Context: Landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Deep rooted social and economic inequalities in employment opportunities increase vulnerability. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Agriculture sector is seen as less remunerative and less attractive. The major reasons are of skewed power relation over productive resources especially of land, water, forest to women and disadvantaged groups; land fragmentation and use of agricultural land for other purposes have reduced options to secure access and land rights of people in the value chain. Feminization of agriculture due to young male out-migration. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Lack of comprehensive understanding of agriculture, food and nutrition among the actors; • Migration of youth and male and feminization of agriculture tasks; • Inequality in access to production inputs specially for women, smallholders and people from remote areas; • No formal salary and wage rates for agriculture labors; • Inequality in employment, income, distribution etc.; • Lack of negotiation capacity of smallholders; • Social discriminatory norms and practices; • Disaster and vulnerability impacts women, vulnerable; • Agriculture, food, nutrition not in priority • Lack of technical human resources; • Poor value chain; no food banks. Actions for three years: • Establish proper distribution mechanism; employment creation; • Financing from both the government and private sectors; • Discourage fallow land keeping, promote land consolidation, land utilization, support landless for farming in public land and leased lands; • Diversify and promote nutritious local landraces; promote agro-tourism; • Establish equipment mobilization center; • Devise local need and priority specific policies for vulnerables; • Climate smart agriculture; • Subsidies as per the needs and priorities; • Promote high value crops; • Support in production, processing, storage and marketing of local and nutritious crops; • Devise targeted policies and programs; • Support for household /community food banks; • Fix minimum support price for major local crops, • Improve connectivity; • Data collection, documentation, management for farmer’s categorization and vulnerable groups for categorized services and financing; and • Establish women responsive mechanization. Assessing the success of Action: • Accessibility and support mechanisms to ensure equitable livelihoods to all; • The indicators to include health and nutrition; • Food security council at the provincial as per right to food and food sovereignty act; • A multi-stakeholder platform for coordination and cooperation; • Quality monitoring of food as well as amendment of policies and programs; • Feedback collected through the use of information technologies as well as public audits; • Monitoring based on results for both the government and non-government sectors; and • Gender equality and social inclusion will remain as cross cutting theme throughout the defined processes. Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • All three tiers to implementation of existing policies and role clarities among them, proper coordination to understand, define and prioritize, plans and programs, provision of incentives as per the need of categorized group of farmers, as well as target for relief to vulnerable groups; • Federal government is responsible for defining umbrella policy, work plans as well as invest in capacity building of provincial and local level; • Provincial government to develop indicator and institutional mechanisms to monitor state of food security; coordination with both the federal and local governments, prepare strategic plans; and • Local govt. to prepare front line response strategy with proper data collection, mapping and quality assurance; • Local govt to introduce demonstration programs on home gardens at school level236242244246249251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: Current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. These shocks, stress and disaster can be devastating for poor and vulnerable people, who have limited resources and options. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Lately, COVID-19 has contributed to increase unemployment, poverty and vulnerability including loss of livelihoods. The 2015 Earthquake increased number of food insecure people by 3.5 million. Therefore, building resilience means helping individuals, households and communities to mitigate, cope with and recover from shocks and stresses, so that they can become even better off than before. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Natural and climate induced disasters; high post-production losses; weak supply chain; pandemics (COVID-19) and other epidemics. Economic shocks, like food price hikes and income losses due to pandemics and disasters. Climate induced natural disasters are increasing more than before due to haphazard road constructions, improper infrastructure development and accelerated process of urbanizations. Limited investment on R&D to reduce vulnerability and build resilience. Farmers and stakeholders lack adequate incentives for climate initiatives and green agriculture. High post-production losses, unsafe transportation and weak supply chain resulting in inadequate/late access of safe food in affordable prices for marginal, poor and low income groups. Epidemics/pandemic (such as diarrhea, COVID-19, etc) have increased vulnerability of poor, women, and marginalized households. Improper food habits with poor feeding practices. Poor, landless, and marginalized groups have settlements in vulnerable places (river banks, landslide prone areas). Preparation and readiness arrangements are weak. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: Environmental • Lack of EIA, unplanned road construction, mining of sand and stones from Chure hills Hazards: • Obstruction on supply chain, lack of trustworthy weather forecasting system, traditional system, lack of operation of an effective food system; lack of awareness, declining use of agricultural land Physical Infrastructure: • Poor storage, weak coordination in distribution system • Geographical remoteness • Absence of appropriate technologies • Lack of food bank operations Action for the next 3 years: Policies and Programs: • Land use and fallow land utilization policies • Special program for target groups • Food banks ( household and community food banks) Investment: • Targeted investment for risky sector and group • Adoption of climate friendly /smart agricultural-food system • Implementation of environmentally friendly programs Assessing the success of Action: • Participatory program and monitoring implemented • Integrated information system and Early Warning System established • Advance action plans prepared Roles and responsibilities of Governments and other Stakeholders: Federal Government: • Formulation of umbrella policy and action plans • National Capacity building • Coordination with national multi-stakeholders. Provincial Government: • Coordination with Federal and Local Government • Preparation of strategic action plans • Mobilization of technical manpower • Developing storage facilities Local Government: • Local strategy and frontline response in disaster Strategy development • Data collection and database management • Mapping of natural disasters and other events • Provisioning of quality local services236238239240241242246247249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context: Nepal has developed legal framework to ensure good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. The Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Limited consultations with stakeholders, while formulating the Act; outcomes of the consultations were not widely shared. In general, policies are often prepared in rush, and with less attention to preparing action plan. Lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Underlying Barriers to Achieve the Stated Proposition: • Lack of awareness among the stakeholders about the Act • No effective implementation of Act • Lack of effective mechanism and structure to implement by multi-stakeholders • Lack of mandatory provision for coordination among the multi-stakeholders in the Act for taking accountability • No proper management of statistics and information for its effective implementation (collection, analysis, and use in planning, etc.) • No clear roles and responsibilities delineated for the stakeholders. Action for the next 3 years: • Specify the action areas (roles and responsibilities) for each government • Formulate regulation, and action plan and develop institutional structure to implement the Act • Create awareness among the stakeholders • Make mandatory provision for effective coordination (among the stakeholders) • Collection and management of statistics for implementation of Act. • Prepare and orient the programs to be implemented by the Municipalities. • Manage buffer stock of food during emergency and disasters Assessing the success of Action: • Development of indicators and institution for monitoring • Establish province food council and entrust for monitoring • Arrange for multi-stakeholder monitoring • Initiate the process of monitoring of the major aspects/indicators related to health, food security and nutrition (Hunger Index, Obesity, stunting, micronutrients etc.) Roles and responsibilities of Governments and other Stakeholders: Federal government: • Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the provincial and local governments • Make provision of necessary legal aspect and policies • Capacity building of provinces and local levels and provide necessary support • Carrying out research and update information • Timely M&E • Maintain linkages/relationships at international level and with multi-stakeholders • Prepare quality indicators and standards • Initiate appropriate process to implement the provisions of Act Provincial and Local governments: • Implementation of policies and regulations • Maintain effective coordination • Collection and management of Statistics • Create awareness and dissemination about the provision of the Act Other Stakeholders: • Adoption of the provisions of legal instruments • Create awareness and dissemination about the provision of the Act237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-08-15 19:24:39205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31729/130

134

List of participants for the provincial food system dialogues was prepared and shared among the stakeholders to get inputs to ensure representation of diverse participation in terms of sector and disciplines, ethnicity and gender. Series of revisions and addition were made to ensure inclusive participation. The provincial dialogue has provided opportunities to engage participants from different stakeholder groups representing Government, academia, research, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sector organizations from different parts of the province.Food System is complex and need to have deeper level of analysis that requires to set the background for the comprehensive understanding, analysis and looking for way forward. For that, systematic approach and procedures were followed. This was also helpful to ensure active engagement of the stakeholder. An organizing committee was formed representing key stakeholders to steer the overall process and technical committee to support technically. Further six Working Groups were also formed to work on specific action tracks and policy environments. In order to have the consistent process and facilitate the dialogues effectively, series of orientations were organized to the facilitators and curator of the event at the province. These orientations were locally adapted in the context based on the original contents of the Curator and Facilitators training organized by UN Food System Secretariat. All the sessions were led by government and supported by experts and key stakeholders in order to ensure ownership of outcomes and future commitments for the proposed actions for transforming the food system. During the dialogue, critical analysis of the provincial Food Systems was done to examine in terms of their potential causes/barriers, drivers and actions for the next 3 years. Participants stakeholders were actively engaged in different group discussion to interact, exchange and share ideas and actions respectfully for analyzing and improving Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. In order to have a meaningful dialogue among the participants and have a basic level of understanding on food system, UN Food System Summit, key issues related to food systems and provincial dialogue process among the participants, a participants brief was prepared and shared before the event. Further, Nepali languages was used as medium of conversation to have active engagement of participants of farmers in the dialogues.Yes, we received feedback to further represent the private sector and entrepreneurs and farmers in the dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249251Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC), organized the provincial Food Systems Dialogue of Province 2 on 5 July 2021 on the theme Nepal towards an equitable, resilient and sustainable food system. Dr Basudev Sharma, Joint Secretary, NPC delivered opening and welcome speech. Dr. Samjhana Kumari Kafle. Secretary of Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoLMAC) and Provincial Dialogue Curator curated the dialogues. Major focus of the dialogue was to engage stakeholders for a comprehensive exploration of food systems in Nepal as part of the process for the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. The specific objectives of the dialogue were to; • raise awareness and promote public discussion on the food systems, • examine current situation and identify key aspects of Nepalese food systems, such as the drivers, actions, pathways, and • explore opportunities for food system to make it equitable, sustainable and resilient. Total of 134 participants attended the event representing different stakeholder groups, background, institutions, and professions. In order to generate focused dialogues and collect the specific inputs, participants were assigned to respective Action Track (AT) Groups after a brief opening session in the plenary. The AT coordinators, facilitators, co-facilitators, and rapporteurs facilitated the dialogue process and documented the discussion outcomes. Each AT Group had proposition and reference questions to engage in dialogue and provide inputs as follows: AT 1 Proposition: Increased agriculture productivity and develop sustainable food chain for affordable safe, healthy, and nutritious diet to improve levels of nutrition, ensure all people to be well nourished and healthy and achieve zero hunger. AT2 Proposition: Enabling, inspiring and motivating people to enjoy healthy and sustainable consumption options; Slashing food loss and waste; and transitioning to a circular economy through advancing in technological, environmental, economic, social, regulatory, and institutional fronts. AT3 Proposition: Protect natural ecosystems from new deforestation and conversion for food and feed production; manage sustainably existing food production systems; restore degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production. AT4 Proposition: Developing inclusive and diverse food systems that contribute to the elimination of poverty and food and nutrition insecurity by creating jobs, raising incomes across food value chains; protecting and enhancing cultural and social capital; reducing risks for the poorest and increasing value distribution. AT5 Proposition: Developing inclusive and equitable food systems to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability and participate in a food system that, despite shocks and stressors, delivers food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. AT6: Referring to the overarching legal document developed based on the constitutional provision, Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act (2018), is considered as a legal framework. Hence, this Act and related policies are the key to strengthen food system governance and accountability and transform food system that is resilient, equitable and sustainable. Dialogue reference questions: Following 5 questions were presented to the participants to facilitate the dialogue: 1. What are the underlying causes/ barriers for achieving the stated proposition? 2. What are the key drivers of unsustainable food system? 3. What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 4. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 5. What are the role and responsibilities of the food system actors including those of the federal, provincial, and local Governments in sustainable food system transformation in Nepal?235238239240241242244246249251The provincial dialogue provided opportunity to engage participants from different agencies, sectors, and disciplines including the government, academia, researcher, farmers’ organization, civil societies and private sectors from different parts of the country. During the dialogue, critical discussions were held to examine the provincial food systems to understand potential causes/barriers and drivers and generate ideas to decide bold actions for the next 3 years. Indeed, this will be further verified and refined after the feedback from the Provincial, and second and third national dialogues. Five Action Tracks and one cross cutting lever of change were the Discussion Topics. Following the constitutional provision, cross cutting lever of change was selected as the Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act as a legal framework for the sustainable food system in Nepal. Hence, six groups rigorously discussed on these topics following the ATs propositions and reference questions mentioned in Section A above. Relevant officials of the Government of Nepal had chaired the groups, while the thematic experts from the government and non-government sectors had facilitated the discussions, and designated rapporteurs from different agencies had documented the discussion points. Whole exercise was concluded with big team efforts. The dialogue also collected some learning to reflect impression and work further on as following: 1. Some participants were new to virtual meetings (attending the session using online platform to participate in specific groups); 2. Less no. of participation from industries and value chains (actors). 3. The issues were well understood by the participants, which were common for some of the ATs. Drivers of change and actions mentioned were also common to some tracks. 4. There was a common understanding among the working groups about the role and responsibilities of the three spheres of the government in Nepal, in terms of formulating policies, regulations, education, and their implementation. Participants suggested to draw clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the three spheres of government. 5. There was strong commitment from the stakeholders to address the issues of access to food, nutrition, distribution and effective implementation of policies and regulations. Overall, participants had actively engaged in different groups to exchange and share ideas and potential actions for analyzing and improving the Nepalese food system in general and provincial food system in particular. Some potential and emerging issues were identified and validated; the dialogue was also helpful in raising awareness and elevating public discussion on key food system issues and identify potential options and solutions for making food system inclusive, resilient and sustainable (refer Section below: Outcomes for each discussion topic).236238246249251Discussion Topic AT 1: Ensure safe and nutritious food for all Context: The cereal grain availability is fluctuating due to variations in production; per capita availability has reached from 194 Kg (2001/02) to 237 Kg (2017/18); 48.2% households are food secure, whereas 10% are severely food insecure. Percentage of severely food insecure households are more in rural areas (11.7%) than in urban (8.8%), the percentage is highest in Karnali Province (17.5%) followed by Sudurpaschim (13%) and Province-2 (10.7%). Situation of nutrition has improved over the period of 1996 to 2019: stunting decreased from 57 to 32%, underweight 42 to 24, and wasting from 15 to 12%. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Locally available nutritious crops/foods getting less importance; biodiversity/cultural diversity not promoted. No focus on micronutrients; poor nutrition including breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices; many families do not have access to nutrient rich foods; growing burden of non-communicable diseases; divergence between nutrition and WASH programmes due to lack of coherence between food security and nutrition sectors. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Lack of food storage and management system • Lack of cultural food practices • Low investment for infrastructure, technologies- varieties, breeds, appropriate machine tools, Storage structures. • Low income of majority of the marginal farmers • Inadequate infrastructures and support for value addition activities • High level of post-harvest losses of perishable commodities. • Low level of awareness about the locally available nutritious foods. • Low coverage of agri-extension and low or no incentives and support to farmers • Poor and or inadequate understanding of three tiers of government with designated roles to enhance food system competence. • Actions for three years: • Overall food security seems to be strongly associated with household characteristics such as family size, gender, age and education levels, together with land ownership. Hence, consider these aspects in formulating programs. • Integrated agro plan with priority of the 3 layers of the govt • Carry out population and socio-economic research • Increase extension coverage and provide incentives and support to farmers • Improve the access to markets and roads • Adoption of new and digital technology • Climate change adaptation practice promotion • Indigenous food and livestock production and food practices • Inter-sectoral relationship and food bank management • Increase investment, develop infrastructure, and technologies-varieties, breeds, appropriate machine tools, storage facilities. • Formulate and implement market regulation, implement income enhancing programs for small and marginal farmers. • Focus on pocket/cluster to increase productivity. • Strengthening cooperatives for increasing access to finance for smallholders. • Envisioning extensive multiyear plan like PMAMP in province level. Assessing the success of Action: • Food buffer stock in each municipality. • Effective implementation of Minimum Support Price • Riverbed/riverbank farming promotion • Ownership development of land for squatters and landless (Sukumbasis) • Encourage and support to traditional mechanism of production, preservation and usage. • Effective quarantine system for import of plant and animal products Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders • Long term plan and strategy preparation by all the governments • Climate smart technology development by provincial and federal governments • Food sovereignty Act and its implementation at local level • Review and reflection workshops at all levels to improve coordination and effective implementation of policies and programs.236239246249251Discussion Topic AT2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Context: About 4.6 million people are food insecure in Nepal; Prevalence of triple burden of malnutrition-under nutrition, overweight/ obesity, and micronutrient deficiency. Stunting, wasting and low weight in children contributing to 52 percent of child mortality; obesity among children and adolescents has increased by 29 times in the past four decades; women and children also suffer from some of the world’s highest levels of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Change in dietary pattern characterized by two-meal-rice (per capita rice consumption increased by nearly 70% in 50 years). Dietary shift towards unhealthy processed foods high in saturated and trans-fat, salt and sugar neglecting nutritious indigenous crop-based foods. Increase in fat intake in diet and undernutrition in childhood has coincided with increased overweight/ obesity and other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD); over two-thirds of adolescent girls in both rural and urban areas reported consuming sugary foods. Consumption of foods produced by using high dose chemical fertilizers and pesticides; items, such as biscuits, instant noodles and juice drinks may be supplying about a quarter of energy intake of children <2 years, which is lowering their intake of essential vitamins and minerals. Underlying Barriers to Achieve the Stated Proposition: • Consumption of ultra-processed foods • No labelling about the nutritive value of food and expiry date. • High level of fatty and sugary food consumption among the young people • No proper utilization of locally available low-cost nutritious food • Improper management of school feed program • Poor availability of technology and infrastructure for post-harvest and value addition • Inadequacy of technical manpower on food technology, food safety and monitoring Actions for three years: • Food productivity should be enhanced to increase the availability • School feed program should be promoted at the local level. • Value chain development and link it with markets. • Menu with local foods and under-utilized Crops (UUCs) must be strictly enforced for school feed program. • Post-harvest technologies should be developed to minimize the wastage and loss • Behavioral and attitude change of the citizen of the province through education and training • Database on production, consumption, vulnerable groups should be developed and monitored the status regularly. Assessing the success of Action: • Database management and M&E system development • Development of Indicators • Strengthening the capacity of food inspector and seed inspector • Promote/Increase local food promotion related programs Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Formulation of Acts and Regulation and their enforcement- Federal and Province • Insurance of crops and livestock-Federal and provincial • Identification of food insecure and vulnerable households- local level • Distribution of Below Poverty Level card – Local level • Unused lands and Trust-based lands/land should be brought under cultivation through the coordination of all 3 govts • Land use and environment friendly policy should be promoted- provincial and local govt236240244246249251Discussion Topic AT3: Boost nature-positive food production at scale Context: Increased biodiversity losses, deforestation and land degradation problems. One third of agricultural lands are fallow and degraded, and a large portion are converted to settlements and infrastructure. Poverty has forced households in forest and pastureland encroachment. Production of major staples and commercial vegetables in some pockets has caused excessive mining of soil nutrients, water depletion and agrochemical pollution. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Dependency on imported crop varieties is increasing with lack of site-specific food production; lack of production in broader landscape/agroecosystem level. Lack of land utilization policy and plans have promoted rapid conversion of fertile agriculture lands into settlements and other non-agriculture use. Disappearance of indigenous food system; rural out-migration; inadequate capacity development of farmers; lack of agriculture mechanization. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Land fragmentation • Land degradation from poor management of soil and lack of incorporation of organic manures • Chure (Siwalik hills) destruction from overmining of sands, forest encroachments, lack of drainage causing flooding and landslides. • Haphazard and unsafe use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer in vegetables, cash crops and major food crops • Climate change impacts with major negative impact through flooding, drought, siltation and loss of fertile lands • River banks cutting by major rivers and decline of water level • Forest fires, rice straw burning and diesel engine mechanization causing pollution, GHG emissions and loss of biodiversity • Lack of human resources and lack of coordination among 3 spheres of governments Actions for the next 3 years: • Conservation of Chure area- Biodiversity conservation, construction of water ponds and water harvesting measures • Land levelling for collective and consolidated farming and improvement of lands • Enforcement of Land use policy 2015 and Act 2019 • Restoration of river bank land through riverbed farming and other measures • Balance use of chemical fertilizer and use of Biochar for integrated soil fertility management • Focus on organic / bio-pesticides • Introduce legume and green manure in crop rotation • Awareness and refresher training on IPM and organic pesticides for agrovets and farmers • Awareness on value of beneficial insects such as predators and pollinators • Production of agricultural machines and tools that can be operated from electricity and biogas for reducing GHG emissions and pollution • Promote crop and livestock insurance for nature positive production system • Promote healthy feed additive supplement Assessing the success of Action: • Budget allocation and incentive-based participatory and multi-disciplinary monitoring • Use of number of water harvesting ponds and drainage canals • Area under legume crop rotation increased • Plans/programs prepared and budget allocation • Capacity development of human resources in nature positive production system • Research focus on ature-positive production system • Relevant institutions nature positive production management developed and strengthened Roles and responsibilities of 3 tiers Government & other Actors: All Three Tiers Governments: Consistent policy framing with clearly defined roles from all spheres of government, budget allocation at local, provincial and federal, policy and regulation for restriction of sand mining in river banks and chure hills Federal and Provincial Government: Empower local governments, enhance technical capacity to address the issue of environment and climate change, Implement land use policy and act, land bank, Policy on IPM and organic pesticides Provincial and Local Government: Awareness IPM and organic pesticides, capacity building of technicians, farmers and biodiversity, climate smart agricultural technologies, water management, soil fertility management- provincial and local govts Local Government: Nature positive demonstration program- e.g. Riverbed farming, drainage canal repair,236241246247249251Discussion Topic AT4: Advance equitable livelihoods Context: Landless, smallholders, women, Dalits, indigenous people rely on agriculture and forest-based foods; many of them are unrecognized as farmers, underpaid and, or wage rates differ by gender. Deep rooted social and economic inequalities in employment opportunities increase vulnerability. Inadequate institutional mechanisms for and limited capacity of women, small holders, old-age, people with disability (PWD), internally displaced people (IDPs). Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Agriculture sector is seen as less remunerative and less attractive. The major reasons are of skewed power relation over productive resources especially of land, water, forest to women and disadvantaged groups; land fragmentation and use of agricultural land for other purposes have reduced options to secure access and land rights of people in the value chain. Feminization of agriculture due to young male out-migration. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Lack of access to production inputs such as land, tools and equipment specially for small farmers; • Lack of water management strategies and programs; • Maximum and haphazard use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and in food chains; • Poor implementation of existing policies, plans and programs that supports for upliftment of women, poor, vulnerable communities to build sustainable livelihoods options; and • Lack of technical human resources at the local levels to support farmers for better production, productivity, market linkages and livelihoods options. Actions for three years: • Facilitate to provide land ownership certificate to farmers; • Empower farmers and improve access to markets to them; • More youth focused plans and policies, transformation of agriculture (improve the perception of the people towards agriculture); • Focus on result-oriented programs and policies rather than traditional ones; and • Monitor the import from India (in the borders as product exported(illegally may be) from Nepal to India and it comes back again) Assessing the success of Action: • Establish Information Technology based data management; • Monitor and respond to minimize risks specially for poor and marginalized; • Systematization of program supervision by the local government representatives to create ownership and accountability towards their role in responding inclusivity; • Support and monitoring of local and climate smart seed development of comparative advantages and culturally sensitive; • Right to information to small holders, women and vulnerable groups to be provided for their access to program related supports; and • Ensure equitable livelihoods options will be facilitated through multi-stakeholder engagement and diversify options. Roles and Responsibilities of governments and other stakeholders: • Inclusion of gender dimension in plans and policies at three tiers of policies, institutional mechanisms and programs; • Requirement of sustainable policies and plans at all three tiers that serves to all equitably; • Prioritize agriculture in policy and plans of provincial govt to ensure equitable access to means of production, employment opportunities and fair distribution of incentives to the vulnerable groups; • Protection of chure area for sustainable management of cultivated lands and geographically inclusive cropping patterns and food system; • Advocate for sufficient budget allocation for agriculture and livestock sector at local level; • Development of programs for youth to change their attitudes towards agriculture specially at the local and provincial levels; • Agriculture related skill development programs to women administrative support to local govt to improve coordination, deputation to local level by province to act as a focal point; • Maintaining database from local level and mapping of vulnerable area and households; and • Allocation of budget to support vulnerable community-local and provincial government.236242243244246247249251Discussion Topic AT5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses Context: Current food system is under pressure from climate crisis, conflict, COVID-19 pandemics, economic shocks, natural disasters and environmental degradation, including food price hikes and disease-pests outbreaks. These shocks, stress and disaster can be devastating for poor and vulnerable people, who have limited resources and options. Climate induced and other natural disasters have significant impact on national economy. Lately, COVID-19 has contributed to increase unemployment, poverty and vulnerability including loss of livelihoods. The 2015 Earthquake increased number of food insecure people by 3.5 million. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Farmers and stakeholders lack adequate incentives for climate initiatives and green agriculture. High post-production losses, unsafe transportation and weak supply chain resulting in inadequate/late access of safe food in affordable prices for marginal, poor and low income groups. Epidemics/pandemic (such as diarrhea, COVID-19, etc) have increased vulnerability of poor, women, and marginalized households. Poor, landless, and marginalized groups have settlements in vulnerable places (river banks, landslide prone areas). Preparation and readiness arrangements are weak. Underlying Barriers for Achieving the Stated Proposition: • Subsistence and unremunerative farming • Disaster vulnerability is increased by level of poverty as poor households are dependent on flood/disaster prone lands for cultivation • No protection of poor farmers during disasters • No proper orientation of plans, policies and programs to farmers • No proper continuation of transport facilities during disasters • Lack of new technologies and seeds to farmers • Lack of preparedness for disasters and no early warning system to share the information with the farmers • Lack of knowledge to cope with disasters • Subsidy administration not well targeted to real farmers and need based • UN agencies and other private agencies are not involved in food distribution collectively during disasters Actions for the next 3 years: • Water outlets and irrigation should be focused by relevant governments and projects • Need based Disaster related plans and policies prepared and implemented • Fertilizers and pesticides should be accessed easily by the farmers • Subsidies should be provided to all needy farmers (poor) rather than elite. • New knowledge creation and market management mechanism developed • Women and youth should be encouraged for farming • Black marketing should be discouraged through regular monitoring • Determine minimum price by the government and discourage middlemen in marketing • Promotion of traditional practices of disaster response Assessing the success of Action: • Implementation structure should be strong for investigating policies and laws • Increment in productivity rate needed • Food (Rasan) card system should be introduced • Enhanced access to irrigation facility • Stored agri products should be transferred properly • Budget allocation and spending trend should be at the right track • Implementation of farmers oriented policies • Awareness raising activities should be increased for farmers • Publication of every work related with budget spending on them • CIAA should always develop a system to get complaints by the farmers for any corruption during disaster Collaboration and Roles/responsibilities of 3 tiers Government and other Actors: • Central level decision related to budget allocation to be implemented by provincial and local agencies on food security • Climate adaptation related plans and policies • Concerned authority in their working area of land degradation should be accountable • Cold storage should be constructed by the province and local government • Coordination in hazard mapping and recovering plan should be collectively managed • Insurance co. desk related to agriculture should be established in every local government • Formulating laws which allow UN and other private agencies to work with 3 tiers of govt in preparedness, risk reduction and relief.236238239240241242244246247249251Discussion Topic AT6: Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act-a legal framework for sustainable food systems in Nepal Context: Nepal has developed legal framework to ensure good governance of food systems and transform them. The right to food and food sovereignty is enshrined in the constitution, and the government has given priority to ensure safe and nutritious food to all in a sustainable manner. The Right to Food and Food Sovereignty Act accommodates all ATs and provides as a legal framework for the resilient, equitable and sustainable food systems in Nepal. Underlying causes affecting the stated proposition: Limited consultations with stakeholders, while formulating the Act; outcomes of the consultations were not widely shared. In general, policies are often prepared in rush, and with less attention to preparing action plan. Lack of organized efforts in the implementation of policies. Poor accountability measures on the implementation of laws/policies. Governments, particularly at local levels lack technical capacity to prepare laws and policies. Underlying Barriers to Achieve the Stated Proposition: • Lack of efforts for effective implementation of the Act, regulation, and policies • Farmers are not getting subsidy provided by the government • Inadequate storage facilities at the local level • No minimum support price fixed by the local government, even it is fix lack of ability to procure. • Problem in the storage production inputs like fertilizer • Lack of ensuring cultivate land to landless (sukumbasis) • Not all the agricultural functions carried out by the province and local government as per the constitution • No proper management/regulation of middlemen in agricultural markets • Inadequate financial resources for agricultural programs more specifically for targeted programs • Lack of clarity between provincial and local policies • Lack of agricultural policy to provide employment to skilled/trained/educated people • No clarity about water use and cropping pattern in irrigation projects and programs Actions for the next 3 years: • Internalization of irrigation and capacity development programs of the Ministry • Categorization of the farmers and distribution of Identity card • Control the activity of middlemen in agricultural commodity pricing and marketing • Periodic review of policies and programs • Ensure the participation of farmers in policy and program development • Orientation to people’s representative and farmers about the policies and programs need and their preparation • Managing data base and their dissemination • Proper management and timely action on complaints regarding programs and subsidies • Resource mapping of the agricultural investment Assessing the success of Action: • Develop format for M&E and carry out survey • Carryout timely M&E • Ensuring gender responsive agri policy and price determination • Evaluating the sample agricultural programs to assess their effectiveness • Periodic supervision and monitoring by the concerned agency to ensure the good governance in program implementation • Proper analysis and dissemination of information on food and nutrition security Roles and Responsibilities of 3 tiers Governments and Other Stakeholders: • Collaboration among the three tiers of government on policy formulation and their effective implementation • Formation of all party Monitoring Committee • Agri policy to be formulated by local government and publish in the gazette • Creation of emergency fund (through using legal instrument) for ensuring emergency nutrition and food security related aspects • initiating campaign by involving all the stakeholders (Farmers’ federation, Consumer Federation etc.) to promote good governance in agriculture • preparing working policy by focusing on targeted groups/communities • Agricultural land management237There was no marked observation on the areas of divergence.

2021-08-15 19:42:53205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30858/198

853333955364951015830566556456

El Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela como Estado Miembro de la ONU, basado en el principio de la pluralidad de pensamiento, como país vanguardista ha incluido la visión de los diversos sectores, ministerios, instituciones y organizaciones de las áreas productivas, científicas, educativas, ambientales; así como representación de las comunidades organizadas en plataformas de mujeres, jóvenes, pueblos indígenas y comunas llamándolos a participar en el proceso de construcción colectiva mediante los diálogos para debatir sobre el modelo venezolano como elemento de equilibrio y de pertinencia sobre las propuestas y acciones del estado, construyendo colectivamente a través de las consultas que ha mantenido y mantiene con el pueblo organizado y con los diversos sectores vinculados con el sistema y cadenas agroalimentarias sostenibles para garantizar una alimentación saludable al pueblo venezolano.El Diálogo muestra el intercambio entre los diversos sectores relacionados asumiendo los acuerdos de la Cumbre, donde los participantes realizaron propuestas y aportes para el fortalecimiento del Sistema Alimentario Venezolano. Los temas abordados reflejan los principios de actuación asumiendo y mostrando la complejidad del tema para impulsar a todos los convocados al diálogo. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, buscando encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de respeto y solidaridad, creando confianza entre los participantes, y organizadores del Diálogo.

Yes

234238239240241242245247248249251Los hábitos saludables son un conjunto de prácticas que se interconectan e interrelacionan entre sí, para garantizar el bienestar de las personas, pero va más allá de la individualidad, es necesario tomar en cuenta el desarrollo de las relaciones interpersonales, el entorno, la cultura, e inclusive la plataforma tecnológica usada en todo la cadena alimentaria para el desarrollo de la producción de alimentos, el desarrollo social, con la influencia, intrínseca de los factores económicos y políticos que generan las condiciones de vida de una sociedad. Los temas abordados son: • Hábitos saludables • Marco legal en Venezuela235238239240241242244247248249251En Venezuela existen condiciones legales promovidas por el estado que permiten el desarrollo de los elementos que pueden dinamizar y cristalizar un sistema agroalimentario sostenible que permita a la población materializar la práctica de hábitos saludables para el bienestar2362382392402412422472482492511 Hábitos alimentarios para el bienestar: Es Contemplar que estos se sustenten y a la vez promuevan sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles, concebir la educación e información nutricional y alimentaria como eje transversal en todos los componentes del sistema alimentario, con fines emancipadores ante el consumo direccionado por el marketing y la publicidad de grandes transaccionales que atentan contra el bienestar de las poblaciones, debe surgir una poderosa estrategia comunicacional orientada a crear una nueva cultura de consumo de alimentos basada en las necesidades nutricionales, identidad alimentaria de los países y que favorezca el ambiente e impulse la práctica cotidiana de Comer con conciencia. En Educación Nutricional el Instituto Nacional de Nutrición ha realizado de manera continua y sostenida campañas para la concienciación de la población en el cambio de patrones de consumo acordes con los sistemas agroalimentarios que dinamicen las economías rurales y promuevan el consumo de alimentos 4S sano,seguros, sabrosos y soberanos, que estén disponibles y sean accesibles en lo local, garanticen el mantenimiento de un estado nutricional adecuado al tiempo que estimulen el desarrollo económico de las zonas vulnerables priorizadas y los sectores rurales del país. 2. Enfoque de Salud para los sistemas de salud sobre los sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles: el sector salud del país, reconoce la importancia de una alimentación saludable para garantizar un estado de salud adecuado y un bienestar integral. Identifica en un sistema agroalimentario sostenible, la base para que las personas puedan tener acceso a alimentos sanos, que no afecten sus patrones culturales pero que les permitan prevenir enfermedades crónicas, mantener un sistema inmunológico funcional; desde el sistema de salud se evalúa el acceso a los alimentos a través de sistemas alimentarios respetuosos con el ambiente y promotores de desarrollo como una medidas pudiera permitir disminuir los gastos en salud al estado, pues se pudiera garantizar poblaciones más saludables. Adicionalmente se avanza en resoluciones previa consulta públicas con el pueblo se para regular el etiquetado de alimentos manufacturados con alto contenido de azúcar, grasas saturadas y grasas trans, para la promover el consumo de alimentos saludables 3. Reflexiones del poder popular sobre los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles: El poder popular consciente de la importancia de asumir patrones saludables y sostenibles, considera que un sistema agroalimentario sostenible es la respuesta para el bienestar integral desde el punto de vista económico, social y de salud, consideran que los pasos gigantes que ha avanzado el estado venezolano con el apoyo y un marco legar que promueve la pequeña agricultura y la educación nutricional para el cambio de conciencia.237238239240241242247248249251Aun es necesario crear los mecanismos que en lo concreto permitan entre el estado y la sociedad civil, dinamizar la producción rural a pequeña y mediana escala y apalancar los mercados locales y nuevas formas de acceso e intercambio que garanticen alimentos saludables a bajo costo en todos los espacios del país, haciendo uso de la tecnología y los conocimientos soberanos para el aprovechamiento máximo de las capacidades productivas del país, a través de medios amigables con el planeta e inclusivos que permitan empoderar a las minorías, como una medida de auto desarrollo y resiliencia frente al bloqueo criminal Aunque la economía nacional necesite un gran impulso para garantizar los programas de atención social en Nutrición y Alimentación, no solo los grandes productores tienen la capacidad de mejorar la calidad de la alimentación de todos los miembros de la población.

2021-08-15 21:08:45205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31202/198

731041224825111164555612

El Gobierno Bolivariana de Venezuela como Estado Miembro de la ONU basado en los principios básicos del derecho internacional, se rige por los principios de integridad territorial, cooperación, solidaridad, concurrencia y corresponsabilidad. Atiende el llamado a participar en el desarrollo de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles ha asumido el debate de los temas de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional convocando a múltiples sectores, entre ellos: red de campesinos y campesinas, red de innovadores, científicos, maestros, pueblo, consejos comunales, funcionarios públicos, jóvenes universitarios, pueblos originarios, sector pesquero, investigadores, organización con enfoque de género y cobertura geográfica amplia para debatir la problemática global y las propuestas y acciones del estado conducentes a consolidar los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Aplicando la metodología de presentación de conferencias orientadoras sobre problemáticas mundiales y sus prácticas exitosas en Venezuela y las acciones ejercidas para seguir avanzando en el cumplimiento de los ODS relacionados a la alimentación y nutrición.Los temas abordados reflejan los principios de actuación de la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios asumiendo y reconociendo la complejidad del tema para impulsar a todos los actores convocados al diálogo. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés. Buscando encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y con solidaridad.Basar la discusión en la protección del derecho aplicando acciones promotoras de la garantía de la seguridad alimentaria y no en la acción mercantilizada de la alimentación para la erradicación del hambre y la malnutrición orientador del consumo sustentable.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247248251El Diálogo estuvo basado en la base organizacional de la estructura nacional, estadal, municipal y parroquial conocida como “Estado Mayor de Alimentación" enfocada para el Impulso de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles.235238239240241242244245247249Desde el año 2007, el Gobierno Bolivariano ha diseñado un plan de acción concreta para el logro de los objetivos de desarrollo económico, social, cultural de la nación. En el tercer Plan Socialista de Desarrollo Económico y Social de la Nación, Plan de la Patria 2019 – 2025, en su Objetivo Histórico N° 1 Defender, expandir y consolidar el bien más preciado ha reconquistado después de 200 años: La Independencia Nacional, en su Objetivo Estratégico 1.4 Lograr la soberanía alimentaria para garantizar el sagrado derecho a la alimentación sana, el Gobierno estableció una serie de acciones para el logro de la meta de Hambre Cero, en concordancia con el Objetivo N° 2 de la CEPAL. Estas acciones, están enmarcadas en: -Democratización de las tierras y fortalecimiento de las prácticas agroecológicas, en la organización e inclusión de las fuerzas campesinas, en las distintas formas de organización productiva para un mayor acceso a los recursos, necesarios para la producción que pueda impulsar el uso racional y sostenible de los mismos, logrando el incremento de manera sostenida la producción, procesamiento, distribución y comercialización de los rubros alimenticios básicos para la población. -Fortalecer las estrategias nacionales para garantizar el derecho a la alimentación, exigir el pleno conocimiento de los principios de responsabilidad, transparencia y participación popular, capacidad legislativa con la finalidad de eliminar la pobreza y asegurar modos de vidas saludables para todos. -Lograr la sustentabilidad agroalimentaria en el mundo y suscribirse en acuerdos que comprometan a los países a utilizar semillas de origen natural sin la incorporación de material transgénico. -Iniciar programas educativos para incentivar una buena lactancia materna que llegue a los entornos escolares y laborales. -Realinear las políticas, el apoyo a los movimientos sociales y la innovación para construir sistemas alimentarios más resistentes que pueden lograrse a través del cambio en los sistemas económicos, hegemónicos e imperiales que manejan el poder de vida del mundo, por sistemas económicos, humanos, justos y equitativos con el planeta, en favor de los más vulnerables, como un sistema económico socialista. -Fortalecer los planes de formación científica y técnica que garantice la innovación en materia agroalimentaria y una educación integral desde la infancia diseñada para la formación cultural basada en los principios de conservación del planeta tierra y del humanismo. -Enfoque tecnológico en la alimentación con aportes nutritivos y seguros para el desarrollo de la agroindustria alimentaria. -Diseño de nuevas formas de alimentación que garanticen una mayor ingesta de nutrientes. -Promover un modelo de política social para la crianza y cuidado amoroso y respetuoso que incorpore buenas practica en alimentación y nutrición y oriente acciones para la erradicación de la Malnutrición infantil en todas sus formas, con la participación activa de la comunidad y las fuerzas sociales que hacen vida en el territorio, considerando sus diversos factores condicionantes.236238239240241242244245247249El Ministerio del Poder Popular de Alimentación desarrollo este Diálogo, a través, del encuentro con el Estado Mayor de Alimentación a nivel nacional, para impulsar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles y Soberanos orientados a satisfacer plenamente las necesidades vitales (alimentarias y nutricionales) de los ciudadanos y no verse como un conglomerado de actividades que solo buscan el interés mercantilista. “Alimentos y Sistemas Alimentarios como un Derecho Humano Fundamental, y no como mercancías o instrumentos de guerra y desestabilización social ,en pro de garantizar una alimentación saludable y el derecho de alimentación del pueblo venezolano. Esta discusión incluyó aspectos clave de la Agenda Nacional relacionada a sistemas alimentarios, analizando la situación actual, así como los retos y necesidades para lograr producción nacional, adecuada distribución para el consumo de la población, minimizando las pérdidas en toda la cadena agroalimentaria. Por tanto los medios más adecuados para aplicar el derecho a una alimentación adecuada varían inevitablemente y de modo considerable de un país a otro, cada uno debe adoptar las medidas que sean necesarias para garantizar que todas las personas estén libres del hambre y a todas las formas de malnutrición existentes, además que puedan disfrutar del derecho a una alimentación sana, sabrosa, segura y soberana. Esto exigirá el reforzamiento de la política pública garantizando la seguridad alimentaria y de nutrición para todos con base a los principios de los derechos humanos que definen los objetivos para formular planes y los indicadores correspondientes, además de identificar los recursos disponibles para la consecución de los objetivos.237238239240241242246248249No hubo áreas de divergencias, ya que hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones, adoptando un gran nivel en la discusión y puntos de vistas planteados

2021-08-15 21:37:28205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32226/198

1211624511255669315254102321028515254210

La República Bolivariana de Venezuela, en conformidad con los principios de pluralidad, pensamiento, responsablemente asume el debate de los temas alimentarios en los Diálogos de la Cumbre de Naciones Unidas sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles, donde presenta las experiencias en materia alimentaria. Para ello ha diseñado estrategias que construyan el camino para fortalecer los mismos, haciendo un llamado amplio con todos los sectores, ministerios, instituciones y organizaciones de las áreas productivas, científicas, educativas, ambientales; así como representación de las comunidades organizadas en plataformas de mujeres, jóvenes, pueblos indígenas y comunas a participar en el proceso de construcción colectiva mediante los diálogos para debatir sobre el modelo venezolano con la finalidad de socializar, construir entre todos unos pliegues de propuestas que serán elevadas a los países del mundo en aras de proponer acciones que fortalezcan la transformación de los Sistemas Alimentarios para beneficio del pueblo venezolano.El sector Universitario aborda los principios fundamentales de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles, como actores claves en la convocatoria a los diálogos. Los cuales contribuirán en fortalecer las alternativas para lograr el impulso de la nación, en materia formativa en las diferentes áreas competentes a la producción, tecnología e investigación.Se recomienda que se invite a múltiples actores a los diálogos, en especial representación comunitaria con enfoque de género y generacional de manera de conocer la diversidad de los puntos de vista para lograr acuerdos fortalecedores y metas claras.

Yes

234238239242247248El Diálogo del sector universitario se fundamenta en: “La Educación Universitaria y su contribución en la construcción de pensamiento para la producción sostenible”.235238241243247248250El sector Universitario siguiendo los principios para al desarrollo de la nación, sigue las líneas estratégicas en cuanto a las políticas para el fortalecimiento, construcción de la democracia participativa, el ejercicio del pensamiento crítico, el acceso al conocimiento y la pertinencia social de la educación superior; hace énfasis en la transformación de la educación universitaria venezolana y propulsar su articulación institucional y territorial, garantizando el derecho de todas y todos a una educación universitaria de calidad sin exclusiones”. En tal sentido, una de las estrategias más importantes son: 1. Desarrollo de profesionales en diferentes áreas productivas para el impulso de la nación, por medio de una educación universitaria de calidad sin exclusión. 2. Creación del Proyecto “Alma Mater, como vía de mejoramiento de la calidad, equidad y excelencia de la educación Universitaria. 3. Creación de las Aldeas Universitarias Bolivarianas, con pertinencia social, sentido de arraigo, propósito, como medio de acceso a poblaciones estudiantil de difícil acceso en todo el territorio nacional. 4. Fortalecimiento de las Universidades Nacionales, Experimentales y Territoriales, como vía de impulso de las áreas de producción, investigación, innovación en las carreras y programas de formación afines a los sistemas alimentarios, tecnológicos y biológicos. 5. Desarrollo de centros de investigación universitarios relacionados con especialidades en el área de agroecología, producción animal, vegetal y biológica, como medio para elaboración de alternativas con respecto a los sistemas alimentarios En tal sentido es fundamental, lograr la integración del campesino a los procesos educativos caracterizados por la construcción y socialización del conocimiento de saberes que, junto a la ciencia y la tecnología, potencien la producción de alimentos en el marco de los planes territoriales locales, regionales y nacionales. En ese sentido, el uso de la tierra con fines agrícolas, el proceso agroindustrial, el sistema de comercio justo para garantizar el acceso a los alimentos de toda la población y demás procesos inherentes a la vida y la cultura campesina representan los motivos esenciales para sistematizar la formación integral de los hombres, mujeres y niños que han de ser los protagonistas de la revolución agraria venezolana.236238239248249251El sector Universitario no solo generan el talento humano con el perfil requerido para impulsar sistema alimentario sostenible al capacitar a estudiantes, tanto en pregrado y postgrados, a través de cursos, programas nacionales de formación, carreras afines; como alternativas frente a las medidas coercitiva en materia alimentaria, sino que además promueve la inventiva e innovación permitiendo la identificación de proyectos, iniciativas y líneas de investigación que representan soluciones concretas a las necesidades alimentarias y nutricionales de la población venezolana enmarcadas el contexto social, económico, cultural, ambiental, logran la unificación de criterios y garantizan los mecanismos que permite los avances y contribución en el desarrollo del país haciendo énfasis en las líneas de investigación, de las diferentes Universidades Nacionales en beneficio del fortalecimiento de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. En este sentido el gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, sigue desarrollando intercambios con estas casas de estudios Superiores para fortalecer la producción, investigación tecnológica, avances significativos en la adopción de modalidades de consumo sostenibles, que impulsen la producción favorable a la naturaleza promoviendo los medios de equidad, así como crear resiliencia ante la vulnerabilidad de las conmociones y las tensiones, por medio de la socialización, el impulso del debate de ideas, a fin de unificar los aportes de los mismos; que permita la contribución de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles para el desarrollo la nación y del mundo. -Desarrollo de centros de investigación, carreras de pregrado y posgrados relacionadas con especialidades en el área de agroecología, producción animal, vegetal y biológica. -Proyectos agroproductivos para la producción de rubros de alimentos dirigido a las comunidades cercanas a las universidades nacionales experimentales, que permite lograr la soberanía alimentaria a nivel local conjuntamente con los diferentes miembros de comunas, poblaciones campesinas, actores comunitarios y la participación de otras universidades y productores agrícolas de la localidad. Entre las propuestas de proyectos podemos mencionar: -El sector Universitario lleva a cabo el programas nacionales de formación en Seguridad Alimentaria y Cultura Nutricional por medio de Programas Nacional de Formación (PNF), prioritaria para la misión Alma Mater ejecutada en 13 Universidades a nivel Nacional, entre ellas la Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela y la Universidad Territorial del Estado Mérida “Kleber Ramírez”; impulsada por el Instituto Nacional de Nutrición ante el Ministerio de Educación Universitaria que es gestionada por las mismas, teniendo como eje fundamental los principios de orientación en la atención a la investigación, agro-biodiversidad venezolana, rica en numerosas especies alimentarias. -La Fundación Misión Sucre, desarrolla la integración de proyectos socio-productivos desarrolladas en las áreas de agro-alimentación tales como la producción de hortalizas, así como, productos terminados de harina de yuca, esencias de vainilla y pastas artesanales, que tienen una influencia directa en la distribución y acceso a los alimentos en cada una de sus comunidades y municipios vecinos, utilizando proyectos metodológicamente anclado en el desarrollo alimentario.237238239242248249251No hubo áreas de divergencias, ya que hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones, adoptando un gran nivel en la discusión y puntos de vistas planteados

2021-08-15 21:44:15205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32829/198

165170731559075109128265204015127505058350100030104702060201000

La República Bolivariana de Venezuela basada en el principio de la pluralidad de pensamiento, responsablemente ha asumido el debate de los temas de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional convocando a múltiples sectores, entre ellos: red de campesinos y campesinas, red de innovadores, científicos, maestros, consejos comunales, funcionarios públicos, jóvenes universitarios, pueblos originarios, sector pesquero, investigadores, organización con enfoque de género y cobertura geográfica amplia para debatir la problemática global y las propuestas y acciones del estado conducentes a consolidar los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Se aplicó la metodología de presentación de conferencias orientadoras sobre problemáticas mundiales, prácticas exitosas en Venezuela y acciones para seguir avanzando en el cumplimiento de los ODS relacionados a la alimentación y nutriciónLos temas abordados reflejan los principios de actuación de la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios asumiendo y reconociendo la complejidad del tema para impulsar a todos los actores convocados al diálogo. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, buscando encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y con solidaridad.Se recomienda que se invite a múltiples actores a los diálogos, en especial representación comunitaria con enfoque de género y generacional de manera de conocer la diversidad de los puntos de vista para lograr acuerdos fortalecedores y metas claras.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247248249251Diálogo con organizaciones institucionales y representación comunitaria del área de la Ciencia y Tecnología relacionadas a la Alimentación, enmarcado en la Cumbre Mundial sobre Sistemas Alimentarios. La República Bolivariana de Venezuela ha promovido el fortalecimiento del sector agroalimentario desde el enfoque de Ciencia y Tecnología a través del modelo denominado “Alianza Científico-Campesina”. Dicha iniciativa plantea la articulación y diálogo permanente de los actores del Sistema Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (SNCT) con los actores del sector agroalimentario, principalmente, con las familias campesinas, promoviendo una investigación pertinente, social y colectiva.235238239240241242244247248249251Los principios de esta Alianza Científico-Campesina, se resumen en: 1) Organización social de la producción siendo la familia campesina el epicentro de los procesos culturales y productivos. 2) Contribuir al desarrollo territorial. 3) Reconocimiento de saberes ancestrales. 4) Reconocimiento de la cultura campesina generadora de arraigo. 5) Participación activa de la mujer en los procesos organizativos y productivos/ inclusión social. 6) Diversificación de la producción agrícola y de la práctica agroecológica. 7) Transferencia de conocimientos y tecnologías. 8) Formación horizontal permanente productor-productor. 9) Apropiación del conocimiento. 10) Fortalecimiento de la agricultura familiar. En el marco de la Alianza Científica-Campesina, se identifica la alta dependencia de importación de semilla como factor limitante para alcanzar la soberanía y seguridad agroalimentaria en nuestro país; en este sentido, uno de los logros más relevantes de esta alianza es la producción de semilla sana, segura y soberana, accesible a las familias campesinas para garantizar la disponibilidad de alimentos a la población. Es - Conformación de bancos de semillas comunitarios para la conservación de semilla bajo metodologías artesanales. - El fortalecimiento de asociaciones de producción local de bio-insumos de calidad para la producción artesanal de semilla. - Formación de familias en la producción de semilla de cereales, hortalizas y leguminosas. - Incremento de la producción agropecuaria y la soberanía y seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con enfoque de resiliencia en comunidades rurales. - Fortalecimiento de las capacidades Científico - Tecnológico de las comunidades agrícolas para el escalamiento de semilla de Cereales, Hortalizas y Leguminosas, territorios de mayor potencialidad de esos rubros básicos para dietas saludables con enfoque de gestión de riesgo agro climatológico, Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional (SAN) y bajo el modelo de alianza Científico - Campesina. - Acompañamiento técnico territorial para la promoción e impulso de la comercialización e intercambio comunal a través de la red de bancos de semilla y/o bio-insumos. - Apoyo a la rehabilitación del sistema nacional de semilla para la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional (SAN) en el contexto COVID-19 asesorado por el impulso de los programas de mejoramiento genético y de manera paulatina promover la divulgación de los procesos implícitos en la producción y certificación de semillas, todo esto para contribuir con la soberanía nacional en producción de semillas de rubros fundamentales para dietas nutritivas desde el autoabastecimiento. Es importante destacar que el Gobierno Venezolano de la mano del pueblo organizado ha venido implementando estas y otras acciones de manera de fortalecer las capacidades de innovación tecnológica para avanzar en la construcción de un Sistema Alimentario sostenible y se propuesto como meta reforzar el trabajo realizado para ampliar el margen de cobertura.236238239240241242244246247248249251Impulso a la reactivación de la producción convencional y artesanal de semilla genética, fundación, registrada, certificada, fiscalizada y semilla común de rubros básicos de origen local. Acompañamiento científico-tecnológico para la aplicación de prácticas agroecológicas y sustentables donde la prioridad es la utilización de productos naturales como los biofertilizantes, biocontroladores, el uso de abonos orgánicos compuestos de humus liquido como prácticas conservacionistas, además de atención de modelos de organización que ha permitido colocar directamente los productos en las urbes con la menor incidencia de intermediarios que acarreen costos adicionales en los productos y han generado la producción de semillas autóctonas. Desarrollo e implementación de programas dirigidos a las comunidades agrícolas campesinas y a los distintos grupos de productores, garantizando el apoyo financiero, la dotación de insumos, maquinarias y equipos, donde cada organismo adscrito a la institucionalidad de Ciencias y Tecnología ha inducido el acompañamiento y la asesoría desde sus competencias a los pequeños y medianos productores. Favoreciendo el desarrollo sustentable al mantener mayor cantidad de productores reciclando esos apoyos para que los avances obtenidos puedan ser replicados a otros grupos productores de pequeña y mediana escala que aún no los han recibido. En la República Bolivariana de Venezuela podemos reconocer que especialmente nuestras organizaciones campesinas y pequeños productores han incidido en el rescate de tierras conformando los Fundos zamoranos, a través de la articulación de la plataforma institucional con vocación agroalimentaria complementado con las áreas de Ciencias y Tecnología más la organización campesina. Impulso de políticas integrales para generar menores costos en la equitativa distribución y comercialización.237238239240241242244247248249251No hubo áreas de divergencias, ya que hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones, adoptando un gran nivel en la discusión y puntos de vistas planteados.

2021-08-15 22:08:22205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33470/198

963382530415560221315373123

La República Bolivariana de Venezuela basada en el principio de la pluralidad de pensamiento, responsablemente ha asumido el debate de los temas de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional convocando a múltiples sectores, entre ellos: red de campesinos y campesinas, red de innovadores, científicos, maestros, pueblo, consejos comunales, funcionarios públicos, jóvenes universitarios, pueblos originarios, sector pesquero, investigadores, organización con enfoque de género y cobertura geográfica amplia para debatir la problemática global y las propuestas y acciones del estado conducentes a consolidar los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Se aplicó la metodología de presentación de conferencias orientadoras sobre problemáticas mundiales y sus prácticas exitosas en Venezuela y las acciones ejercidas para seguir avanzando en el cumplimiento de los ODS relacionados a la alimentación y nutrición. Es por ello, que el Convocante designado el Ministro del Poder Popular para la Alimentación M/G Carlos Leal Telleria, nombro un comité organizador y convoco a jornadas de socialización a los diversos sectores, para este dialogo en especifico se contó con un co-convocante la Ministra del Poder Popular para la Agricultura Urbana Greicys Barrios, cumpliendo con el proceso establecido para la realización de mismoLos temas abordados reflejan los principios de actuación de la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios asumiendo y reconociendo la complejidad del tema para impulsar a todos los actores convocados al diálogo. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, buscando encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de complementación, respeto y solidaridad.Basar la discusión en la protección del derecho a la alimentación aplicando acciones promotoras de la garantía de la seguridad alimentaria y no en la acción mercantilizada de la alimentación para la erradicación del hambre y la malnutrición orientador del consumo sustentable.

Yes

234238239240241242244247248251En el marco de la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios el Ministerio del Poder Popular de Agricultura Urbana desarrollo un dialogo que llevo por nombre: La agricultura urbana en el marco de la construcción de un sistema agroalimentario sostenible, saludable, soberano y solidario.235238239240241242244245247248249251En este encuentro se planteo múltiples propuestas referentes a la promoción de diferentes modelos del sistema de producción en agricultura urbana y familiar, ya que ellas cumplen un rol importante en la activación de los espacios de ocios y pequeños en la ciudad. Se han podido conformar distintas formas de organización que han permitido garantizar el autoabastecimiento, según la FAO el 65% de la población mundial viven en las grandes ciudades y en Venezuela aproximadamente el 70% vive en las zonas urbanas, lo cual nos lleva a cumplir un gran reto, que todas las familias asuman la agricultura urbana como una cultura de producción, y que esta nos permita aportar a la soberanía alimentaria de nuestro país, de acuerdo el objetivo 1.4 del Plan de la Patria, que nos indica la importancia que debemos darle al sagrado derecho de la alimentación. Siendo nuestro País vanguardista en la implementación de políticas públicas, ya que, muchos de los objetivos que se han planteado en la cumbre fueron alcanzados en Venezuela en años anteriores.236238239240241242244246247249251En dicho dialogo, se generaron las siguientes propuestas por los participantes: 1. Entendiendo que el acceso a los alimentos y su producción es un sagrado derecho en Venezuela, gracias a nuestra Revolución Bolivariana, se han implementado políticas que garantizan una justa distribución a toda nuestra población, pero esta política de nuestro estado se ha visto profundamente afectada por el bloqueo económico generado de forma criminal por los EEUU, por ello se plantea que desde este espacio se deben condenar enfática y monolíticamente estas medidas coercitivas y unilaterales, que en vez de ayudar a los pueblos del mundo lo que hace es generar violaciones al justo derecho humano de poder adquirir alimentos. 2. Continuar la revisión y actualización de los contenidos educativos, en función de lograr un sistema alimentario sano, seguro y soberano para seguir fortaleciendo nuestro sistema alimentario, solidario y sostenible se hace necesario que descolonicemos los conceptos y patrones culturales alimentarios, que se nos han impuesto por encima de nuestras propias realidades. 3. Fomentar el hecho de sembrar con una perspectiva agroecológica, promoviendo el uso de bioinsumos, los cuales son amigable con nuestros suelos, además que permite cosechar alimentos sanos, sin la utilización de químicos los cuales son nocivos para la salud. 4. Consolidar los espacios comunitarios en las grandes ciudades, para la capacitación de la siembra y producción Agrourbano. 5. Adaptar la agricultura Agrourbana a los cambios climáticos. Promover políticas en pro de la importancia de los reservorios de agua o su siembra, para poder darle una mejor utilidad al uso de la misma. 6. Consolidar el sistema educativo universitario, para generar investigaciones que den respuestas a los grandes desafíos que nos enfrentamos en cuanto a la producción de alimentos. 7. Afianzar la importancia de la mujer en el marco de la producción agrícola y alimentaria, resaltando los grandes aportes que generan a la construcción de economía locales y los cambios de sistema alimentarios en nuestros territorios urbanos y rurales. 8. Garantizar la mayor accesibilidad a la tierra para los campesinos y campesinas, quienes con el furor de su trabajo aportan la mayor cantidad de alimentos necesarios a las familias del mundo; adaptando las políticas enmarcadas en optimizar sus condiciones sociales, laborales y económicas, siendo la agricultura una de las mayores empleadoras en la economía del mundo. 9. Es necesario llevar a cabo un cambio profundo en el sistema agroalimentario del mundo, que vaya de la mano con una profunda re-educación alimentaria, ya que es de suma importancia adaptarse a los cambios climáticos que se viven en este momento histórico, siendo una de las principales causas la deforestación gracias a la ganadería descontrolada. Así que un cambio radical en la alimentación, acompañada de una campaña educativa y comunicacional como la elaborada por el Ministerio de Alimentación de nuestro país, sobre una dieta donde abunden las verduras, hortalizas y alimentos agroecológicos locales de temporada que ayudarían a disminuir nuestra huella de carbono en el planeta. Todo esto, también aplica a las grandes problemáticas que nos ha venido generando esta pandemia, el producir alimento debe ir de la mano de dimensiones sociales, ecológicas y económicas, es por ello que los gobiernos del mundo debemos unificar criterios y generar líneas de investigación científicas que den respuesta en un corto, mediano y largo plazo a cada una de la adversidades que nos conlleva a producir alimentos bajo principios que coloquen al planeta y al ser humano en los primeros dos puestos de importancia.237238239240241242247248249251No hubo áreas de divergencias, ya que hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones, adoptando un gran nivel en la discusión y puntos de vistas planteados

2021-08-15 22:23:51205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39998/129

01835

This dialogue brought together more than 50 participants that represented actors from across the local food systems. A broad a range of stakeholders were invited to the dialogue that ranged from producers, retailers, civil society, environmental groups, government departments, state-owned enterprises, and other actors in the food sector. During the dialogue participants were divided into groups representative of the established action tracks. To capture wide experiences and contributions, participants were strategically placed in groups that coincided with their expertise or reflected their background in relation to their role within the local food system. Measures were taken to also include underrepresented stakeholders and ‘non-experts’ in each group to allow the sharing of new and diverse perspectives during the discussions. Divergent views were important to address the complexity of the local food system. Recognizing the complexity of the issue, The Chantam House Rule applied throughout the discussions in the break-out group to reinforce and create a safe space for the exchange of ideas so that novel ideas and solutions could be generated. Participants were further reminded that mutual respect must be adhered to and that this involved listening intently and being opened to contrasting views/opinions. Throughout the dialogue facilitators moderated the discussions and encouraged participants to actively engage and contribute their views. At the end of the dialogue session, all the participants were merged into one group to have a ‘reflection session’ where they were presented with a summary of the contributions made throughout the day and were allowed to share any further inputs/takeaway messages from the dialogue.To address the challenges and vulnerabilities of the local food systems in Nauru a multi-stakeholder approach was organized. • Act with urgency, embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, recognize complexity: To initiate the dialogue participants were presented with an ‘ice breaker’ that allowed them to share specifically the role that they play within local food system and to further highlight a single challenge they face with their respective groups. This allowed participants to be recognize their role in the food system and recognized the interconnectedness of the food systems. Facilitators then used the inputs from the icebreaker to further explain to the wider group how food systems relate to all the 17 SDG’s and stressed the urgency to get back on track to achieve the 2030 target. • Commit to the Summit, Be respectful: The topics discussed in each break-out group were discussed in four groups and developed on the basis of the 5 action tracks of the FSS, also integrated was the priorities of Nauru’s Sustainable Development Strategy- 2019-2030 (NSDS). The NSDS is linked to UN agenda 2030 and the SDGs was used as a reference framework. In this national strategy four of the development goals directly related to food systems as highlighted below: • Development of domestic food production for food security. • Enhance resilience against the impacts of climate change that is inclusive of rehabilitating and restoring degraded land. • Access to quality education, both formal and non-formal. • Provision of enhanced social and infrastructure and utilities services This was integral in the design of the dialogue in order to link national priorities with the achievement of all SDGs since food systems are an essential lever that have a transversal impact both nationally and globally.It is especially important use method/format of dialogue that is conducive to diversity and inclusion- with particular attention to actors with differentiated backgrounds e.g public servants, community-based organization, grass root representatives. Communication is very helpful to ensure effective stakeholder engagement and participation. Therefore, where possible, facilitators and participants should be encouraged to communicate in the native language or local vernacular and provide translation where necessary to allow fair and interactive value to the dialogue session.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249250In preparation for the Food System Summit in September 2021, the government of Nauru organized a Member State dialogue at the national level to engage actors across the local food stems to have the opportunity to contribute to the FSS by discussing their roles within the food system, highlight challenges, vulnerabilities and reflect on novel forms of joint action to shape the pathway to a sustainable food system by 2030. This exploratory dialogue attempted to holistically analyse the challenges that exist in the local food systems in Nauru in order to raise awareness and propose new forms of joint actions that are drawn from a ‘bottoms up approach’. Constituting to the core of the dialogue, the 5 actions tracks were used to develop and topics and prompt questions that are the most relevant to Nauru’s food system – specifically pertaining to: Consumption patterns/Diet, Nutrition, Food Security (Agriculture & Fisheries), Livelihoods and Resilience to Climate Change. Reference was also made in the discourse to Nauru’s National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) that is linked to UN agenda 2030 and SDGs. In this national strategy four of the development goals directly related to food systems. Overall, this event was the first step in the process of the multi-stakeholder National FSSD of Nauru, which provided a unique opportunity to discuss the current state of the local food system and the importance of raising ambition to get back on track by 2030. In the second stage of the dialogues, on 13 August 2021, a more in-depth discourse will be led to draw solutions at the local level and discuss possible commitments from different stakeholders.235238239240241242a. Legislative and Policy Frameworks- there is lack of policies and legislative frameworks that positively support the local food system. For the policies that do exist, there is poor enforcement that often leads to non-compliance. Additionally, policies are often misplaced or non-complementary e.g., Food Security, Environment, Health & Nutrition. The ‘top down’ approach to policy implementation is also a hindrance to achieve the goals that support the country’s national priorities. Consequently, participants have suggested for public policies to be complemented by a more social approach through regular consultation with communities in order to improve local food systems. b. Paucity of data/Lack of awareness - better dissemination of knowledge related to sustainable and healthy diets should be integrated into school curricula (both theoretically and practically). Generally, the importance of eating nutritious food and maintaining a healthy lifestyle is often overlooked due to the lack of information or education readily available to the public. Outreach programmes are in place, but there is also a lack of capacity and resources required to maintain these initiatives directed to vulnerable groups (elderly, expectant mothers, disabled, people living with NCD’s) to improve awareness. c. Effective uptake of information-There is ongoing work by the Public Health sector but the overall impact is challenged by the cultural stigmatization of ‘healthy food’ and lack of access to better dietary systems. Consumer preferences are also negatively influenced by the abundance of unhealthy imported food that is far more affordable than healthy food options. d. Lack of investment in local fisheries sector - remains untapped to improve food production locally. Scaling up investment is needed at the sub-national level in order to support the livelihoods of smallholders in the fisheries sector and to boost domestic food production. Some potential priorities for the Fisheries sector lie in job creation, food security and nutrition. e. Lack of resources and support for ‘local champions’ within the food system- Small- scale growers and fishermen play a central role in the sustainability of the local food system, but many do not have the means to invest in the market or adapt new technologies needed to produce food. Access to financing or micro-loan schemes to promote private sector engagement remains a major challenge to improve domestic food production. f. Cultural and Livelihood Shift- the loss of traditional knowledge continues to lead to the decay of community practices and values that maintained the sustainability of food systems in the past. This decline in the passing down of traditional knowledge has inhibited the younger generation to incorporate healthier practices into their dietary and nutritional regimen. g. Nauru’s largely cash-based economy- has led to the abandonment of subsistence living and there is a general lack of interest in horticulture/small scale agriculture. There are few incentives or opportunities in the market to use agriculture and fisheries as a viable livelihood option. h. Land Availability/ Land degradation- Nauru’s history of mining has led to the exploitation over 80% of natural vegetation. The central plateau of the island now remains fallow with no potential to grow food or to accommodate housing. Due to the increase in competition for land resources at present the demand for housing often takes precedence over the use of land for investment in food security. i. Resilience and Climate Readiness- Climate change mainstreaming fails to be consistent with complementary policies that support the sustainability of the food system. There are no existing early warning systems for extreme weather events, there is also the lack of innovation in agriculture practices that promote resilience e.g., introduction of resilient crop varieties, soil health management, agroforestry. Additionally, no recovery strategy against shocks has been defined i.e no strategic food reserve to buffer the impact of shocks related to shipment delays, disaster events, Covid- 19. j. Waste Management- there is a need to reduce emissions from diets by preventing food loss and waste. Waste management is outsourced, and the system lacks the technology and innovation to efficiently reduce and recycle waste.236238239243244245246247248249250- Nauru is heavily reliant on food imports. The supply of processed food is higher than that or healthier food options. - Healthy foods are away more costly than unhealthy processed food that is imported (cost of living in Nauru is excessively high and household income is generally low). - - Social welfare is also not sufficient since healthier food options tend to be expensive (There is support for the elderly and disable but no support for single parents). - No price control of goods- food prices fluctuate weekly, no food regulations in place. - Fish is a healthy food option but not enough is available locally. In addition, there is competition on the market with imported fish. Fisheries sector does not produce enough blue foods to contribute to supply the local demand a healthier diet. (There is no definitively organized fisher’s association). - Very costly to to fish at times especially where there is shortage of fuel in country. - Lack of awareness on the benefits on the importance of developing to healthier consumption patterns. People live very sedentary lifestyles that also contribute to the prevalence of NCD’s. - Food labelling not read by consumers (even more so for people living with disabilities). - Most of the soils in Nauru are thin and sandy. More fertile areas exist in Buada district. Overall, there is not enough land to plan since land availability is already an issue and people prioritize building houses on available land rather than to plant food to sustain their diets. Most of the population-now relies on food shipped into the country by sea or air. - Changes in traditional food culture that has led to an unhealthy dietary shift. During economic downturn people would partake in subsistence agriculture. - General consumer preferences have led to poor diet habits that has passed down to the younger generation (based on choice and affordability, quality vs quantity). Consumer preferences have also been highly influenced my social media and the internet. Air freighted fast food is becoming a popular choice of food (McDonald’s). - In addition to poor diet, now after years of unhealthy lifestyles the younger generation is now genetically disposed to NCD’s (diabetes and high blood pressure). Solutions • Improved dissemination of knowledge and awareness raising both theoretically and practically. • Issues related to sustainable food systems and sustainable diets should be integrated into education curricula. • Food labelling is required to (e.g., labels on sustainability for imported items) sensitize the public and positively influence consumer preference. • Stronger commitment at political level is required to promote healthier lifestyles e.g better policies and welfare systems • Some participants also suggested revising the Nauruan Food Pyramid, in order to go beyond its currently exclusively nutritional approach and to integrate local foods and the the three dimensions of sustainability. • Catering in schools and hospitals should be reviewed so as to provide healthy meal options. • Support of local growers and fishermen in order to improve domestic food supply e.g microloan schemes, providing a local facility to sell produce (centralize market ), market incentives, farmer training initiatives.236241246248249Political, economic and territorial factors - Policies are essentially ‘window dressing’ and noncompliance remains a huge challenge. The enforcement of policies rest upon the government but has not at all been effective. - Land is privately owned in Nauru and only Landowners can decide what their land will be used for. Currently housing is being prioritized over planting food. - Completion with local businesses mainly owned by Chinese merchants – there is no price control. - Income level influences access to food- there is a disparity between what expat vs local salaries. Most locals do not earn high levels of income therefore accessibility to healthy food is an issue due to cost. - The economy of Nauru has been in flux for many years and is largely a cash-based economy. People livelihoods have had adapt to when there is abundance vs shortages. When the economy is performing well there is higher incomes and availability of food vs when there is a downturn there is very low income and shortages of food. - There is no investment in food systems by the government. It is very difficult to boost further investments because it is heavily political. - While gender has no influence, economic disparities due to income affect how people are able to engage in the food system (affects both consumption and production). Infrastructure & Technology - Water storage/catchment units need to be increase because people have enough water for household needs but not necessarily enough to support kitchen gardens. - Regular shipment of sea and air freighted goods – currently no goods are coming into the country from Fiji due to Covid. Therefore, population is highly dependent on-air freighted goods that is more expensive than goods shipped by sea. - Market is not conducive to local produce goods- no centralized market or retail outlet for locally produced goods. - Lack of infrastructure to produce food – nurseries, fertilizers, farming equipment, composite facilities - Lack of technology & education to encourage food production – aquaponics, hydroponics. - Biggest losses of food come from storage and preserving food Food Supply Chains - Minute amounts of goods produced in country (main fish and coconut). Some families practice subsistence agriculture and get food from their kitchen garden to supplement their diet but still have to purchase food from the store to feed their families since it is not sufficient (e.g meat, milk, rice etc). - Most food are imported into the country and therefore is very susceptible to shocks that cause disruptions along the food chain. Solutions - Enforce existing legislations, policies and activities to reduce waste, protect biodiversity and promote sustainable practices (Litter Act, Environment & Climate Change Act) and start a campaign to implement the 3 R’s (reduce, reuse and recycle). - Establishment of a centralize market for growers to sell produce and have a fair market share. - As a part of a building strategy for the Housing Scheme government should require landowners to plant native trees on their land. - Local native plants should be planted by different groups as a part of a nationwide campaign that involve government, private sector, community-based organizations etc. - Governments should lease or purchase land to use for agroforestry and agricultural practices. - A centralize storage are to preserve food properly is also needed. All supermarkets/store should be required to reduce prices after food is deemed no longer fresh. This is also required for household and the management of food and sewage waste - Outreach campaign specifically targeting landowners to educate on sustainable land management practices that promote food and water security. - Training and capacity building programmes to improve financial literacy to ensure sustainability of livelihoods generated by local food systems236242244245246249250Production -Covid-19- caused disturbances to food supply chain (affects local food availability and distribution of foods) - Drought- inhibits food production due to the availability of water and stability of soils - Limited resources in Nauru- equipment, fertilizer, pig feed. Distribution -Transport and logistics- disruption of food distributions channels brought about by covid. Delayed shipment and broken machinery at the port often delays distribution. - Early warning systems are non-existent. Consumers - Cost of healthy food options far supersedes cheaper unhealthier options. Limited availability of healthy food on the market. Rice is the most cost efficient and is staple to the Nauruan diet that consume this in large quantities. - Generally, participants are unaware of the policies and legislation governing food systems. Solutions - Awareness programmes- teach growers/communities to plant incorporating smart agricultural techniques, development of a local almanac for planting, use of gray water for plants, creation of nurseries and field schools to teach planting to the general public, Environment Day campaign to plant trees, revision of school curriculum to incorporate climate change. - Importation of seedlings that can withstand weather variation and climate in Nauru -cassava, potato, taro, dragon fruit. - Infrastructure- expedite work on port project so this allows for efficient distribution of goods and reduce the cost of imported food - Investment in new and innovative technology- aquaponics, improved water catchment systems to combat drought - Improvement of warning systems- implementation of meteorological warning systems for improved disaster risk preparedness for farmers, warning sirens, emergency texts, establishment of safety and evacuation zones, utilization of Community liaison officers for enforcement.237Areas of Divergences - Policy and Institutional Framework- Participants agreed that the measures are to be put into place in the form of stronger regulations and polices to transform food systems. However, others argued that efforts should be focused on awareness raising and public outreach that focuses on personal responsibility in order to generate action and not to rely on governments and/or donor funded programmes to initiate change. - Healthy and Sustainable Diets – While many participants acknowledged that there is a need to increase awareness on healthy lifestyles, others objected that even with the dissemination and uptake of this information by the public the main challenge is the being able to afford healthy food options due to the exorbitant costs of imported food in Nauru. - Price control of Goods- This was identified as one of the major influences to purchasing decisions for Nauruans. Participants acknowledged that Nauruans spend most of their income on food, and that consumers are restricted to purchase healthier options due to high prices that fluctuate regularly. Others objected that consumer preferences are largely influenced by social media the internet and the availability of cheaper imported goods e,g snacks and sugar drinks that are way cheaper that healthier options e.g. Fruits and vegetables. - Overall, despite contrasting views majority agreed that bottom up and top-down processes along with initiatives at the regional and national level are all factors that are necessary to generate sustainable patterns of actions.

2021-08-15 22:39:24205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33067/198

82122834812707152252281522275108554

El Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela como Estado Miembro de la ONU realizó varios procesos de formación para convocante, Administradores y facilitadores con la finalidad de empoderarse de la metodología propuesta para la realización de los Diálogos de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenible para una Dieta Saludable y así afinar su participación como país vanguardista que construye colectivamente a través de las consultas que ha mantenido y mantiene con el pueblo organizado y con los diversos sectores vinculados con el sistema y cadenas agroalimentarias sostenibles para garantizar una alimentación saludable al pueblo venezolano. Basados en los principios de la pluralidad de pensamiento el Convocante designado el Ministro del Poder Popular para la Alimentación M/G Carlos Leal Telleria, nombro un comité organizador y reunió en jornadas de socialización a los diversos sectores, ministerios, instituciones y organizaciones de las áreas productivas, científicas, educativas, ambientales; así como representación de las comunidades organizadas en plataformas de mujeres, jóvenes, pueblos indígenas y comunas a participar en el proceso de construcción colectiva mediante los diálogos para debatir sobre el modelo venezolano, acordando la realización del Dialogo Nacional sectorial Plataforma de Mujeres y Sistemas Alimentarios, donde se contó con un co-convocante Carolys Pérez Ministra del Poder Popular para la Mujer y la Igualdad de Género, cumpliendo con el proceso establecido para la realización de mismoEl Diálogo refleja el intercambio entre los diversos sectores relacionados con el rol de la mujer como transformadora de los patrones de consumo, donde los participantes realizaron propuestas y aportes para el fortalecimiento del Sistema Alimentario Sostenible Venezolano. Los temas abordados reflejan los principios de actuación de la cumbre asumiendo y reconociendo la complejidad del tema para impulsar a todos los actores convocados al diálogo. Se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, buscando encontrar alternativas de acción que surgieran del consenso, en un marco de respeto y solidaridad.

Yes

234238239242246247249251El Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Mujer y la Igualdad de Género como órgano rector de las políticas públicas, planes, programas y proyectos del Estado Venezolano, que impulsa la participación de las mujeres en el poder popular y garantiza el ejercicio de sus derechos y la igualdad de género, realizo diálogo presencial: Plataforma de Mujeres y Sistemas Alimentarios, para debatir, generar acuerdos y proponer desde el enfoque de genero el rol de las mujeres como fuerza productiva en toda el sistema y cadena agroalimentaria, así como su rol protagónico como principal agente de cambio para el cambio de patrón de consumo de alimentos.2351 En Venezuela, como en muchos hogares de América Latina, la mujer ejerce un importante rol en el hogar y la comunidad, especialmente en aspectos vinculados con las estrategias para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria de su núcleo familiar. En la mayoría de los hogares las mujeres ejercen el rol de jefa del hogar y en aquellos hogares en los que es el hombre el jefe de familia, ella ejerce influencia importante en la administración del presupuesto para la adquisición de los alimentos. Por esta razón, el gobierno nacional genera acciones que estimulan la seguridad alimentaria en los hogares y a nivel de territorios locales, potenciando el rol de las mujeres, ya que como lo expresa (Latham, 2002), “….es muy importante fortalecer y conseguir la participación de las mujeres…. y prestar especial atención a la posición de las mujeres en la sociedad, no sólo por sus méritos sino porque además las mujeres tienen el papel más importante en la seguridad alimentaria (y en general en la producción de alimentos), en el cuidado de los niños y en la salud de la familia. 2. La mujer ha enfrentado los embates de la guerra económica con estrategias producto de sus saberes ancestrales y de la cultura alimentaria autóctona que había sido desplazada por la industrialización de alimentos. Para los venezolanos, el maíz forma parte de la dieta diaria, así como los granos y otros alimentos de la mesa tradicional. Ante esta situación, la mujer venezolana ha vuelto su mirada hacia los procesos de siembra, cosecha, transformación, procesamiento y comercialización de alimentos para su hogar y para su comunidad, estimulando el consumo de alimentos producidos localmente, disponibles en el mercado y que son de bajo costo y de fácil acceso, con el fin de potenciar estas estrategias que la mujer ha incorporado a su cotidianidad. 3. Promover la crianza y cuidado amoroso y respetuoso que incorpore buenas practica en alimentación y nutrición y oriente acciones para la erradicación de la Malnutrición infantil en todas sus formas, con la participación activa de la comunidad y las fuerzas sociales que hacen vida en el territorio, considerando sus diversos factores condicionantes. 4. Estimular en el sector rural la producción de alimentos autóctonos en huertos familiares y/o comunitarios, generalmente adelantados por mujeres; influir positivamente en los factores acceso y estabilidad, garantizando la educación y orientación para lograr la minimización de pérdidas de alimentos, asesorar a la población urbana, sobre el almacenamiento, procesamiento artesanal y conservación de alimentos para promover las reservas estratégicas de alimentos en el hogar y la comunidad. Conviene trascender hacia la estructuración de sistemas locales soberanos y seguros, estimulando con la orientación necesaria y los recursos económicos para ello, sistemas locales que fortalezcan a las familias y promover su participación en el quehacer de las instituciones públicas.236En el marco de la Cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios el Ministerio del Poder Popular de la Mujer e Igualdad de Género desarrollo encuentro presencial con diversos sectores como órgano rector de las políticas públicas, planes, programas y proyectos que impulsan la participación de las mujeres en el poder popular y garantiza el ejercicio de sus derechos y la igualdad de género, establecidos en la Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela. El Empoderamiento de la mujer en el proceso de toma de decisiones relativas a los Sistemas Alimentarios como bastión de la lucha contra las desigualdades, así como la participación de los y las jóvenes, los pueblos indígenas y afrodescendientes. Tomando su cosmovisión y conocimientos ancestrales armonizados con la naturaleza para la construcción de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles que permitan desmontar las prácticas consumistas impulsadas por el Modelo Neoliberal, cuya lógica invita adquirir más de lo que se necesita, causando un despilfarro de 31% de alimentos entre pérdidas y desperdicios, patrón depredador del medio ambiente y la calidad de vida de los pueblos.

2021-08-16 01:08:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39567/44

14464644311521123113

El Diálogo se organizó en el marco del proyecto que sostiene la comunidad de Villa Amapolas (vecinos, vecinas y feriantes del sector) en conjunto con Fundación Brotes, a propósito de generar un Espacio Socioagroecológico en el sector, que incluye principios de recuperación de residuos desde la feria libre del barrio, entrega de alimentos a vecinas y vecinos vulnerados económicamente, huerto comunitario (con fines sustentables y terapéuticos) y educación al aire libre para niñas, niños y jóvenes. En ese sentido, el presente Diálogo se orientó a convocar a organizaciones sociales y comunitarias, dirigentes sociales, vecinas, vecinos, ONGs, fundaciones y autoridades locales, todos quienes tuvieran relación con el trabajo territorial y comunitario, ya que el enfoque del Diálogo se centró en prácticas comunitarias que desde lo local contribuyen a construir sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Desde la fundación se establecieron preguntas que han sido trabajadas previamente con las comunidades en el marco de distintas iniciativas territoriales, orientándose a la forma en que las comunidades pueden tener un rol activo en este tema. Para el desarrollo del Diálogo dividió el grupo general en dos, y por cada uno de las salas pequeñas se contaba con la participación de un facilitador y un actuario, quien realizaba el registro apoyándose en la plataforma Google Jamboard, y compartiendo pantalla con el resto.El Diálogo se introdujo mediante la exposición sobre la experiencia en curso del proyecto comunitario Espacio Socioagroecológico Villa Amapolas, que pudo enmarcar la instancia y dar cuenta de que las comunidades también necesitan actuar con urgencia frente a los desafíos que implica la construcción de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles desde lo local. Asimismo, en la recolección de diferentes opiniones y facilitación de debates, existió un complemento entre personas provenientes del área técnica y profesional, en conjunto con dirigentes sociales portadores de un conocimiento de carácter experiencial.Se recomienda aprovechar las instancias de divergencia, para que el grupo pueda establecer consensos y llegar a propuestas de carácter más innovador, y que también reflejen un complemento entre disciplinas y trayectorias de los participantes (a propósito de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, así como también de reconocer la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios).

Yes

234238239241242246248249El tema principal del presente diálogo fue el desarrollo de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles a nivel comunitario y barrial, poniendo un énfasis a la indagación en las prácticas y experiencias locales de los participantes en torno a la alimentación y sus diversas implicancias. A modo de ejemplo y para incentivar la discusión, se expuso el caso del proyecto de Espacio Socioagroecológico de Villa Amapolas en la comuna de Ñuñoa, Santiago de Chile, llevado a cabo por la comunidad del sector y Fundación Brotes. A partir de este ejemplo, el diálogo se guió desde un enfoque comunitario y participativo, buscando relevar opiniones y experiencias de los participantes como miembros de sus comunidades para arrojar luces sobre la construcción colectiva de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. En línea con este enfoque, el diálogo se centró en dos interrogantes: por un lado, la pregunta diagnóstico por las posibles limitaciones experimentadas por los participantes, que dificultan la creación de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en el tiempo. Por otro lado, la pregunta por el posible rol del vecino/a en la generación de estos sistemas y la proposición de acciones concretas para aportar en este proceso.235238239240241244245246247248249251El principal hallazgo consiste en que el rol de la comunidad de vecinos y vecinas es un eje crucial para co-construir sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, diagnóstico que surge a partir de la desintegración del tejido social y las redes comunitarias que existe dentro Chile según la opinión de las y los participantes del diálogo. Esto se aprecia en el individualismo presente el día de hoy y ha provocado que exista una desesperanza aprendida en relación a la creación de proyectos comunitarios, que son vistos como algo difícil de realizar o que no generan beneficios suficientes para que las y los vecinos se involucren, considerando que actualmente las personas se cambian constantemente de hogar y por ello no viven personalmente los resultados de las iniciativas vecinales al demorar años en ejecutarse. El Estado se sitúa a su vez como un ente crítico para este grupo de interlocutores, ya que no ha otorgado educación nutricional suficiente ni fondos monetarios o espacios públicos que permitan crear proyectos en y para la comunidad. En este sentido, desde el presente diálogo surge la propuesta de que el aparato estatal se vincule con las y los vecinos de una forma menos asistencialista y más facilitadora, brindando herramientas para que las comunidades gestionen sus propias propuestas, así como ayudas financieras para estos proyectos y asesoría con los temas de burocracia estatal ligados a estas políticas gubernamentales. La co-construcción de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles podría obtenerse, entonces, con el compostaje de residuos y re-utilización de alimentos desechados por ferias populares, así como con la creación de huertas comunitarias. Estas iniciativas permiten fortalecer los lazos e identidades comunales, empoderar a quienes están involucrados en los proyectos, distribuir alimentos sanos y brindar instancias terapéuticas mediante el trabajo con plantas medicinales. Dichas iniciativas igualmente otorgan conocimientos y herramientas a vecinos y vecinas para llevar una vida más saludable, lo que también se obtendría a partir de otras actividades sugeridas en este diálogo. Es decir, ollas comunes, instancias de educación popular con infantes o el rescate de prácticas culinarias y ecológicas de generaciones pasadas, las cuales se han ido perdiendo a través de los años.236238239241246249Uno de los grandes temas surgidos en los diálogos apunta al rompimiento del tejido social y el individualismo del día a día percibido por los participantes, lo cual se evidencia en la falta de cercanía e iniciativa entre vecinos, y la poca capacidad para convocarlos a participar en proyectos comunitarios. En este sentido, se plantea la falta de herramientas básicas de gestión para convocar a las personas y la necesidad de facilitación de espacios de inclusión y participación. Se levanta la figura del “vecino activo” empoderado, que se haga parte de la toma de decisiones y mantenga una conciencia para con los otros, figura a partir de la cual se pueda generar un sentido de comunidad y de pertenencia, necesario para llevar a cabo proyectos con conciencia alimentaria y ambiental. Por otro lado, un tema importante surgido en los diálogos es el de la utilización de espacios públicos para el levantamiento de proyectos comunitarios, específicamente en la creación de huertas comunitarias, las cuales se configuran como una de las propuestas más consensuadas. También, se habló de las iniciativas de recolección y recuperación de alimentos en ferias libres, talleres de cocina con enfoque nutricional y ollas comunes saludables, las cuales en conjunto con las huertas son consideradas acciones que aportan en la articulación de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles a largo plazo. La falta de espacios públicos comunitarios, o bien el descuido de estos mismos, es uno de los mayores obstáculos en la creación de proyectos colectivos como las huertas, por lo que, surge la necesidad de una mejor gestión de éstos. Es necesaria la creación de una cultura comunitaria de los espacios y un cuidado a cargo de todos los actores, tanto vecinos como agentes estatales/municipales. Otro aspecto es el de la educación y la compartición de conocimientos, ya que es sumamente relevante para los participantes. Bajo esta temática, surgen dos necesidades: rescatar, compartir y transmitir los saberes culinarios tradicionales que pasan de generación en generación, que se han ido perdiendo a lo largo de los años, por un lado, y habilitar espacios de educación popular y culturización que permitan problematizar los temas alimentarios con la comunidad, por el otro. Se evidencia, así, la necesidad de educación sobre cómo manejar y utilizar los recursos alimentarios disponibles Sobre esto último, también destaca la importancia de la educación ambiental y nutricional desde temprana edad, por lo que, se necesita que ésta sea incluida en el plan educativo escolar, tarea que debería ser llevada a cabo por el Estado. En específico, y en relación a las huertas comunitarias, se habló de capacitaciones para realizar de mejor forma el cultivo, y aprender a crear recetas para poder utilizarlo. La pérdida de conocimientos adscritos al patrimonio culinario fue otro asunto aludido en la actividad, ya que los platos típicos y las festividades donde estos se consumen permiten enriquecer la identidad de las personas y comunidades, e igualmente contribuyen a la nutrición de las personas con alimentos originarios de la realidad ecológica local. Por último, vale recalcar un aspecto señalado en el apartado de hallazgos principales: que a juicio de las y los participantes del diálogo el Estado debería actuar como un ente facilitador y patrocinador de proyectos comunitarios vinculados alimentación saludable, favoreciendo la organización y el financiamiento de estas iniciativas en contraste a la falta de atención que históricamente ha demostrado en estos temas.237238239240243246249El mayor disenso presentado en este diálogo consiste en el rol que debe tener el aparato estatal para la promoción de un sistema alimentario sostenible. Como se aludió anteriormente, cierto número de participantes sostuvo la importancia de las instancias comunitarias y de índole autogestionado, señalando que estas debían asegurar el acceso a una alimentación más sana y sustentable, mientras que el Estado debía auxiliar a este tipo de iniciativas con fondos monetarios o infraestructura. Sin embargo, otras personas plantearon que el Estado debía capacitar en torno a la implementación de huertas urbanas y educar en escuelas y otros espacios sobre qué comidas son sanas, cuáles dañinas y también entregar conocimiento sobre cómo manipular los productos correctamente y sin riesgo de insalubridad. Otro aspecto de divergencia radica en el papel de la información científica para la nutrición, ya que algunos testimonios apuntaron a la relevancia de este tipo de conocimiento y otras opiniones giraron en torno al valor del conocimiento popular y tradicional, por ejemplo, señalando la importancia del rescate de platos típicos que no son necesariamente avalados como más saludables y/o sostenibles según la ciencia. Finalmente, algunas opiniones aludieron a que la carencia de iniciativas comunitarias en la época actual se debe problemas estructurales como la falta de infraestructura estatal y la destrucción del tejido social, como se ha señalado anteriormente, a la vez que otros testimonios dieron preponderancia a factores individuales como son la falta de iniciativa y liderazgo de las personas a la hora de participar o no en estos espacios.

2021-08-16 03:31:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40512/40

265166404931611223521641226214241

The dialogue adhered to all the principles of engagement as an enabler to enhance the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Inclusivity was equally an asset reason being indigenous people meaningfully participated to ensure No One Is Left Behind.One of the aspects of the principle of engagement which was reflected in the dialogue series was the recognition of the following : Complexity , Build Trust , respect and acting with Urgency .As Convenor, I have the following recommendations for my fellow conveners to include participants from all works of life especially people living with disabilities reason being this is a solution and people`s summit.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Focused on youth , women , persons living with disabilities as well as indigenous people . The Deputy Mayor for Tiko Council was equally present meaning that no one was left behind towards addressing the five action tracks .235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251We grouped the participants into 7 working groups (WGs) with specific goals and objectives . In the course of the dialogue series , the following key messages came out from their WGs: 1. Infrastructure was a key area of concern and ensuring the farm -to-market roads as well as storage facilities are constructed for a better and sustainable food systems transformation. 2.Tree planting and growing was equally an important milestone that was denounced for a proper education of young people in the community of Tiko. 3. Advisory group services were underscored for proper follow up and education of the small holder farmers.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. More emphasis was laid on farmer fields schools and school feeding. 2.Rural agricultural financing was a key component that spiced the dialogue . 3. Agribusiness and agripreneurs were equally identified within the context of transforming the broken food systems . 4.A comprehensive and transparent UN Food Systems Summit Heroes(UNFSSH) was established to facilitate follow up and review of key actions within the communities of Tiko.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251One of the issues that were highlighted was participants never knew heard about the UNFSS2021 before then and it brought along of divergence such as: Why are we organising another summit whereas in 2014 there existed one summit ? What's going to be different from previous UN meetings etc. ? Other areas of interest that stepped was the issue of how shall they be able to participate and engage meaningfully . The above mentioned issues were well answered by the Curator during the report back systems .

2021-08-16 03:35:00205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41023/83

729312515175252159321112226661319597662

Les ateliers de concertation du département de la Grand’Anse d’Haïti se sont tenus à Jérémie le chef-lieu dudit département. Ils se sont réalisés à un moment critique de la vie nationale. En effet, les troubles socio-politiques auxquels Haïti fait face ont contraint les organisateurs à toujours profiter des fenêtres d’opportunité, marquées par des périodes de calme, lorsqu’ils se présentent et à aller vite en besogne. En vue de renforcer le niveau de participation, des dispositions ont été prises pour le lancement d’une campagne de sensibilisation autour de la tenue du sommet mondial et de l’implication impérative des autorités haïtiennes. Cette campagne médiatique a permis au public de comprendre combien la participation de tous, à tous les niveaux, était attendue. L’inclusion de l’ensemble de parties prenantes a permis des échanges fructueux sur la complexité des systèmes alimentaire, la nécessité de prioriser des approches pluridisciplinaires et multisectorielles et le besoin d’une appropriation collective pour transformer les systèmes alimentaires et résoudre les problèmes. Elle a aussi permis des débats touchant tant à la gouvernance du sommet hiérarchique qu’à celle des niveaux opérationnels d’intervention. Par ailleurs, le processus de participation a servi à instaurer la confiance des acteurs dans les nouvelles voies de transformation des systèmes alimentaires. Ainsi, les acteurs étaient sensibilisés à la nécessité d’entreprendre des actions urgentes et ciblées pouvant favoriser l’atteinte des Objectifs de Développement Durables (ODD). Ils étaient aussi prêts par leur engagement à soutenir les processus de transformation de ces systèmes.

NoLes ateliers de concertation de la Grand’Anse se sont déroulés en présentiel suivant cet agenda : • Salutations- Prière • Présentation de l’équipe d’animation/ facilitation • Présentation des participants • Lecture du mot du coordonnateur • Présentation des objectifs de la rencontre et de la mméthodologie • Définition du concept Système Alimentaire • Présentation des systèmes alimentaires en Haïti, le constat • Constitution des groupes de travail • Travail en ateliers restreints • Retour en plénière et présentation des résultats d’ateliers Dans l’ensemble le processus de concertation a connu trois grands moments : a) La période des présentations d’ouverture. Elle vise la production d’informations sur les systèmes alimentaires et à fournir des explications sur le processus du Sommet. Ces présentations furent suivies de longs débats. Les participants émettaient leurs opinions sur les différents systèmes alimentaires en faisant ressortir leurs forces et leurs faiblesses. Les réflexions qui ont été engagées sur la problématique de la SAN se basaient sur les informations dont disposent les participants concernant la réalité de leurs zones et sur d'éventuelles actions que les agents de terrain auront à entreprendre dans le cadre de l'accompagnement à donner aux communautés locales. b) La période des ateliers proprement dite. L'introduction a été faite de manière à indiquer aux participants qu'après la phase du diagnostic c'est la phase de recherche de solution. En ce sens, les participants furent regroupes selon leur secteur d’appartenance et leur expertise. Cela donna lieu à la constitution de cinq groupes thématiques ou les participants, se penchant sur les enjeux du système alimentaire existant y compris les forces et vulnérabilités, explorent les options et opportunités de changement et déterminent des pistes d’action prioritaires pour le futur. c) La période de restitution pour une mise en commun et la recherche d’engagement. Elle offre l’opportunité de s’assurer que toutes les voix ont été entendues d‘une part et d’autre part de mettre de l’ordre dans les idées afin de faire ressortir les grands points de consensus sur les sujets suivants : a. Production et service b. Post-récolte : transformation et consommation c. Accessibilité à des moyens de subsistance équitables et la résilience aux chocs d. Santé et nutrition

234238239244245249Thème majeur : Les transformations des systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD L’atelier de concertation est un espace de débat et de résolutions qui permettra au gouvernement haïtien de s'engager dans les questions de construction de systèmes alimentaires durables dans leur ensemble. Le thème majeur aborde l’impérieuse nécessité de transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD. Il s’agit d’une étude complète qui prend en compte les différents enjeux et questions clés en lien avec l’atteinte des ODD. Le cadre de référence, qui suit, nous aligne sur les enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux à la recherche de solutions durables et d’engagement. Des réponses aux différentes questions permettent une analyse profonde des différents aspects de la Sécurité alimentaire et Nutritionnelle (SAN) en Haïti. Cadre de référence 1- Enjeux nutritionnel : Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable  Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc) actuels de la population ?  Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production ? Pistes de réflexion : toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire ?  Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires ?  Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires ?  Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés ?  Comment organiser la logistique de distribution ?  Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages ?  Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés ?  Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique : Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire  Comment développer l’’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils, etc), les industries d’emballage ?  Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ?  Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?)  Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ?  Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ?  Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ?  Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire  Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels ?  Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques ?  Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels ?  Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs ?235238239241242244245246249Les principaux résultats issus de la concertation sont en grande majorité en lien avec l’amélioration de la gouvernance des systèmes alimentaires. La configuration de ce département le rend vulnérable à des catastrophes naturelles. La gouvernance apparait comme un élément transversal touchant à tous les volets de la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle. Il convient de : • Relancer la coordination des activités des nombreux intervenants dans tous les secteurs de la vie nationale. • Mettre en place des mécanismes institutionnels adéquats et opérationnels pour faciliter la coordination entre toutes les parties prenantes (Organisations locales et non gouvernementales) en évitant les chevauchements et les trous. • Développer des outils d’aide à la décision adaptés et opérationnels permettront aux instances étatiques de sécurité alimentaire et nationale d’assurer en toutes circonstances la prise en charge de la population. • Réguler la question de la situation foncière en prenant en compte les revendications d’organisations paysannes victimes d’expropriation et en empêchant l’utilisation peu rationnelle de grandes superficies à vocation agricole vacantes ou occupées par des entreprises peu rentables pour l’économie de la zone. • Garantir la protection sociale des groupes vulnérables à travers des programmes d'accompagnement de proximité allant de repas journaliers, de soins de santé gratuits, d'emplois temporaires et durables, jusqu'à la construction de centres collectifs d'hébergement et la mise en place de petites entreprises familiales et collectives. Ce programme concernerait au premier chef le ministère des affaires sociales avec l'implication des autres structures chacune en ce qui la concerne, ainsi que les collectivités territoriales et les sociétés civiles locales.236240244245Production et service Le terme « production et service » a été appréhendé par les participants comme la disponibilité alimentaire locale effective qui désigne le stock total de produits alimentaires générés par la production agricole du département de la Grand’Anse, auxquels il faut ajouter les produits alimentaires importés et les commodités alimentaires provenant de l’aide internationale. Ce stock comprend donc les céréales, les légumineuses, les racines et tubercules, les produits maraîchers, les produits transformés ainsi que les produits d’origine animale. Le débat est orienté vers une augmentation de la production locale et une régulation des produits importés. En effet, l'augmentation de la production locale adresse les problèmes identifiés au niveau de l'offre alimentaire, particulièrement les problèmes influençant le rendement et la productivité dans les filières agricoles, d’élevage et de pêche. En ce qui a trait aux produits alimentaires importés, l’accent est mis sur les problèmes liés à la concurrence inégale. De l’avis de tous, le renforcement des capacités des agriculteurs est incontournable. Les interventions visent l`amélioration du rendement unitaire des cultures, l`utilisation de semences de qualité, le respect des itinéraires techniques agrémentés de bonnes pratiques agricoles. Les agriculteurs seront incités à se regrouper en coopératives, sociétés ou organisations interprofessionnelles (OIP) afin d’être plus productives et efficaces. De plus, un vaste programme de financement sera conçu et supporté par les banques et coopératives et organismes concernés. Il inclura: crédit agricole adapté aux besoins et à la réalité des agriculteurs, recherche de crédit et d’assistance technique pour la production de semences, micro crédit agricole pour les agriculteurs, assurance agricole. En ce sens, certaines sous-actions ont été envisagées; il s'agit essentiellement de procéder au :  Montage de structures d’approvisionnement en intrants et services d’équipements agricoles ;  Montage de structures de financement agricole ;  Mise en place d'infrastructures de stockage de produits agricoles ;  Vulgarisation de paquets techniques, intrants agricoles, irrigation, équipements ara toires ;  Promotion et vulgarisation des cultures sous serres. Ces interventions se feront avec le ministère de l'agriculture et d'autres acteurs dans une perspective d'élargissement progressif de la base productive du département.236239248Post récolte / Transformation et consommation La période « post récolte » a été présenté comme celle allant de la production à l’utilisation des produits. En ce sens un accent fort fut mis sur la valorisation des produits agricoles et la promotion d’activités de transformation créatrices de revenus. Les producteurs seront incités à se lancer dans l’agro-industrie de manière à favoriser la conservation, la création de nouveaux produits adaptés aux besoins alimentaires des consommateurs (locaux et internationaux) et l'adoption de pratiques commerciales plus adaptés à la demande actuelle. Ont été retenues les sous-actions suivantes :  Développement d’entreprise de Transformation de fruits (mangos, Avocat, ananas …) et de la transformation de produits agricoles (canne à Sucre, Tamarin) ;  Appui au montage d’unités de transformation de produits agricoles et de transformation de produits animaliers ;  Développement de paquets technologiques axés sur la transformation des produits.  Développement d’entreprise de Transformation de fruits (mangos, Avocat, ananas …) et de la transformation de produits agricoles (canne à Sucre, Tamarin) ;  Appui au montage d’unités de transformation de produits agricoles et de transformation de produits animaliers ;  Développement de paquets technologiques axés sur la transformation des produits. L’engagement est pris pour l’établissement d’un partenariat public-privé-communautaire capable de potentialiser les actions.236238241242245251Accessibilité à des moyens de subsistance équitables et la résilience aux chocs Partant du principe que la disponibilité à elle seule ne peut résoudre les problèmes de sécurité alimentaire ce groupe s’est penché sur l’accessibilité à des moyens de subsistance et l’existence des moyens de prévention et de gestion des crises alimentaires et nutritionnelles. Il s’est attardé sur les goulots d’étranglement dans l’accès à l’alimentation aux groupes vulnérables du département de la Grand’Anse en prenant en compte : le faible niveau de revenus, la décapitalisation ou les pertes des moyens d’existence et les déficiences généralement quelconques. La prévalence de l'insécurité alimentaire et de la pauvreté extrême sont décrits comme les principaux éléments d’intervention. Elle passe par une meilleure prise en charge des groupes sociaux vulnérables et à besoins spéciaux. Cela sous-tend des actions qui visent à :  Réduire les inégalités dans l’accès aux ressources productives entre les sexes dans les différentes composantes des systèmes alimentaires  Réduire les inégalités dans l’accès aux services de base et aux ressources productives entre les milieux de résidence (urbains et ruraux) Par ailleurs, le renforcement des capacités de prévention et de gestion des crises alimentaires et nutritionnelles visant la stabilité alimentaire en toutes circonstances est formulée en réponse aux problèmes constatés surtout en temps de crise comme : la fluctuation des prix et la rareté des produits alimentaires, la variabilité des saisons, l'inadéquation et de l'inefficacité des réponses en cas d'urgence. Les propositions d’interventions tournent autour d’une stabilisation des prix et un accès continu aux produits, d’une augmentation des capacités de résilience des ménages et d’une augmentation des capacités de réponse des structures de gouvernance locale en situation d'urgence. Les ministères de l’intérieur et des collectivités territoriales (MICT), ministères des affaires sociales et du travail (MAST) sont identifiés comme porteurs de dossiers. Il leur revient de travailler au renforcement des pouvoirs d’achat, des moyens d’existence et de la protection sociale. L’engagement est pris pour un respect collectif des droits des citoyens et la recherche de la participation communautaire à grande échelle.236238240246Santé et nutrition Il apparait clair que l’amélioration de l’état de santé de la population passe par une alimentation équilibrée et de qualité. De même, l’insalubrité du cadre de vie et le dysfonctionnement des structures de santé ont un effet néfaste sur la sécurité alimentaire et la qualité nutritionnelle des aliments. Les participants étaient unanimes à reconnaitre que les habitudes alimentaires dans la région ont des conséquences néfastes sur la santé de la population. De plus, la qualité des aliments n’est pas toujours assurée. Il est important de mentionner que le transport des produits se réalise fort souvent dans de mauvaises conditions (à dos d’âne, de mulets et de chevaux) et surtout sans emballage pour les protéger. Ils étaient aussi unanimes à admettre que les causes fondamentales s'articulent autour du développement socio‐économique du pays et des caractéristiques institutionnelles. Aussi les solutions à ce problème passent-elles par le renforcement des connaissances des ménages en matière de nutrition et de sécurité alimentaire, la mise en place des mécanismes de contrôle de la qualité sanitaire et nutritionnelle des aliments (produits locaux et importés) et l’amélioration de la prise en charge sanitaire. Il s’en suivra des sous-actions comme :  Promotion d’une agriculture diversifiée et de cultures bio-fortifiées ;  Redynamisation des structures de gouvernance locale  Suivi de la croissance du nourrisson, du jeune enfant, et de l’adolescent ;  Promotion de bonnes pratiques d’alimentation du nourrisson et du jeune enfant ;  Promotion de jardins potagers familiaux. Le Ministère de la sante publique et de la population et le ministère du commerce ont été identifiés comme porteurs de dossiers. Ils seront appuyés par les organismes déconcentrés de l’état. L’engagement est pris pour la mise sur pied d’un système de vigilance sanitaire communautaire.237244245Les indicateurs de développement économiques ont fait objet de points divergents. En effet, la coupe de bois et les mesures de redressement par la plantation de Bayahonde sur de grandes surfaces ont été identifiées comme un élément de productivité économique en Haïti. Le commerce de charbon de bois a été valorise pour la première fois, d’après certains participants. Le consensus ne fut pas assez fort pour le retenir comme piste de solution

2021-08-16 04:44:05205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41040/83

501432328221101013333225313493551012110

La CNSA, Coordination Nationale de sécurité alimentaire, en tant qu’instance d’aide á la décision destiné á influencer les politiques publiques dans le domaine de sécurité alimentaire, a reçu mandat et support nécessaires des autorités gouvernementales pour préparer le sommet sur le système alimentaire qui auront lieu en septembre prochain á New York. Les ateliers du département du Sud ont eu lieu les 15 et 16 juin 2021. Durant les deux journées, un total de cinquante (50) personnes étaient présentes dont vingt-deux (22) hommes et vingt-huit (28) femmes Participation d’au moins quinze secteurs avec dix groupes de parties prenantes avec un fort pourcentage d’entreprises artisanales et d’exploitants de petites tailles de plusieurs secteurs ce qui reflètent très bien la réalité de notre système alimentaire, des étudiants d’universités de la place étaient en quantité non négligeables.L’urgence de la situation a été démontrée avec les conséquences pour le futur si rien n’est fait pour renverser la tendance Les concertations doivent s’inscrire dans un registre plus global. Compte tenu de l’importance du système alimentaire et les conséquences de sa mauvaise gestion sur l’avenir du pays et de tout un peuple, un système d’alerte doit être mis en place afin de mieux sensibiliser la population pour une prise de conscience. Pour la préparation du sommet, tous les secteurs et parties prenantes étaient certes contactés mais ils n’ont pas vraiment eu le temps de bien s’imprégner du sujet comme il se devrait, pour le placer dans son véritable contexte. Il fallait respecter le délai. Ces principes d’engagements seront toujours valables. Chaque état membre doit faire en sorte de les intégrer, renforcer et améliorer pour une meilleure gestion de leur système alimentaire. Le concept étant nouveau, ces principes serviront de prémices pour édifier un bon système alimentaire au profit de tous. C’est un travail de longue haleine qui ne peut s’arrêter qu’avec un sommet, il doit faire partie de nos habitudes de vie quotidiennes car notre survie et celle de nos descendances en dépendent.

NoLa méthodologie adoptée est celle préconisée par le secrétariat du sommet, la présentation est faite à l’aide du fichier « série de diapositives standard des concertations pour le sommet » • Accueil des participants • Propos et Prière d’ouverture • Programme de la journée et objectifs de la concertation • Présentation des participants (nom, secteur et institution ou organisation) • Lecture du mot du Coordonnateur (version créole) • Lecture de la définition du Système alimentaire • Diagnostic des systèmes alimentaires mondial et local • Formation des groupes de discussion et présentation de l’outil contenant les questions à débattre au sein des groupes • Animation et supervision des groupes de discussion • Animation de la séance plénière pour le partage des comptes-rendus sur les résultats et les sentiments du groupe de discussion • Résumé et clôture du processus des concertations • Prise de vue La journée de concertation peut être divisée en trois grandes périodes :  Présentation et mise en contexte La période de prise de connaissance, d’échange, des grandes présentations visant la production d’informations sur les systèmes alimentaires et d’explication sur le processus du Sommet.  Plénière Les participants se regroupent pour travailler  Restitution Deux rapporteurs de chaque groupe lisent les procès-verbaux Durant les moments de pause les participants prennent une collation et fassent de plus ample connaissance.

234239244249Les Objectifs de Développement Durable (ODD) ne pourraient être atteints sans transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour qu’ils deviennent plus productifs, écologiquement durables et capables de fournir des aliments plus nutritifs et abordables. En ce sens, la réalisation de la concertation dans le département du sud suggère un changement de paradigme. Il s’agissait de réaffirmer l’importance du passage de l’agriculture de subsistance, axée principalement sur la consommation, à la possibilité de remodeler le système pour qu’il devienne plus productif, résilient, durable et sain. Un changement seulement possible par une approche collective des principaux acteurs fortement impliqués dans la chaîne d’approvisionnement alimentaire sur les voies et moyens lies à la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables. Il s’agit d’une étude complète des systèmes alimentaires qui tient compte des cinq pistes d’action avec pour cadre de référence des enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux. 1- Enjeux nutritionnel : Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable.  Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc.) actuels de la population ?  Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production ? Pistes de réflexion : toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire ?  Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires ?  Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires ?  Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés ?  Comment organiser la logistique de distribution ?  Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages ?  Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés ?  Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique : Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire  Comment développer l’’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils etc.), les industries d’emballage ?  Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ?  Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?)  Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ?  Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ?  Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ?  Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire  Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels ?  Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques ?  Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels ?  Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement ?  Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs ?235238239240244245246249Gouvernance c’est la bonne gestion des institutions publiques et ou privées. L’instabilité politique empêche á l’Etat de jouer son rôle régalien dans tous les secteurs de la vie nationale, il a failli á sa mission. La population n’a pas á accès aux services sociaux de base. Alors que l’Etat à travers ses organes devrait construire des routes, ponts, hôpitaux, école, faciliter l’accès aux soins de santé. Les institutions de socialisation ne respectent pas les normes et les principes. La population n’a pas accès aux soins de santé, pas de sécurité alimentaire, la pauvreté est féminisée. La décadence de l’état a de gros impact sur la bonne marche des institutions qui ne fournit presqu’aucun service. Les communes sont toujours traitées en parents pauvres, des mesures doivent être prises pour les doter de certains services primaires. Au niveau de la production Il faut redéfinir le rôle de l’Etat dans les prestations des services publics et la gestion de l’espace. Un zonage s’avère important pour délimiter les espaces, les terres cultivables en proie à de grandes constructions. Le MARNDR doit : renforcer les BAC en les dotant d’équipements, mécaniser l’agriculture, construire et renforcer les systèmes d’irrigation, normaliser le transport des bétails ; doter les pêcheurs de matériels adaptés (de gros bateaux pour conserver leurs produits), informer la population sur le rôle de la Banque Nationale de Développement Agricole(BNDA). Le politiques publiques doivent inciter à la mise en place de services de fournitures d’intrants dans les différentes communes, encourager la production de poulets de chair et d’œufs et le création de centres de production de nourriture pour bétail. Une loi cadre devrait être votée sur le bien être animal : les animaux sont transportés dans de mauvaises conditions. La vaccination et l’identification doivent être systématiques. Le MARNDR devrait encourager les éleveurs dans la production et la conservation de fourrage. Les producteurs (agriculteurs, éleveurs, pêcheurs) devraient se regrouper en association apolitique pour avoir plus de force dans leurs revendications. Le MTPC doit construire des routes agricoles pour faciliter le transport des produits pour diminuer les pertes post-récoltes. Le MCI doit contrôler et vérifier les produits importés. Le MEF doit encourager les mutuelles de solidarités. Les organisations de producteurs devraient faire des plaidoyers au près des mutuels de solidarités pour octroyer des prêts rapides á un taux plus bas par rapport á la banque Sante Nutritionnelle, consommation responsable Le Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Formation Professionnelle (MENFP) doit encourager la population à faire du sport pour prévenir certains problèmes de santé publique, intégrer l’éducation nutritionnelle dans le cursus scolaire. Le MSPP doit doter les sections communales de centres et d’agent de santé. Le MSPP et le MARRDR doivent contrôler la qualité des produits importés et locaux, renforcer des structures déconcentrées pour faire respecter les lois, les normes et les règles d’hygiène. Le MSPP doit Bâtir des horaires de repas en tenant compte de leur apport en énergie, en calorie, en protéine et vitamine et micronutriments, il doit encourager la population á boire de l’eau et lui montrer l’importance d’une bonne alimentation saine et équilibrée. Enfin il doit doter les sections communales de centres et d’agents de santé. Questions environnementales : Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques. Avec le changement climatique, les problèmes environnementaux deviennent de plus en plus préoccupants. Les déchets plastics occupent tous les espaces, lors des pluies les villes sont inondées avec perte de vies humaines, de bétails, et de construction. L’urbanisation sauvage devient la règle : les constructions tendent á occuper les espaces cultivables. Il est urgent d’apporter des solutions pour diminuer les impacts. Les MDE, MARNDR, doivent travailler en synergie pour mieux gérer le milieu ambiant, l’eau et le matériel génétique ; promouvoir le système agroforestier pour la diversification des produits, encourager la consommation de produits locaux, mettre en place des forêts énergétiques pour aussi séquestrer le carbone, mettre en place ’un système de veille climatique pour l’alerte précoce, l’utilisation de plantes qui s’adaptent au changement climatique. Les entrepreneurs doivent encourager l’utilisation d’énergie renouvelable. Le MTPTC devrait encourager les constructions parasismiques et la modernisation du transport en commun pour diminuer les effets de serre. Le ministère de la communication doit sensibiliser la population aux effets de la surpopulation sur l’environnement et le bien être. Protection sociale et gouvernance /genre. Les législateurs doivent redéfinir de nouvelles politiques publiques sur les valeurs de la famille, et la typologie de la famille, prendre en compte le quota de participation des femmes dans l’état, et encourager la participation des femmes dans les élections, permettre aux filles de s’impliquer dans tous les aspects de la vie nationale en les considérant comme des personnes á part entière.236241244245Filières agricoles, Elevage, Pèche, Stockage, Transformations, commercialisation des produits agricoles, Fournisseurs de services financiers, Fournisseurs d’intrants agricoles et d’équipements agricoles, Prestataires de services, transport. Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, L’Etat doit créer un climat permettant la libre circulation des biens et services pour que les échanges des produits puissent se faire sans encombre. Cela évitera le gaspillage en période de production. L’Etat doit créer un climat propice à l’investissement, ce qui augmenterait le niveau de production et réduire l’importation. Des campagnes de sensibilisation de masse à travers les médias et les réseaux sociaux aux problèmes de surpopulation pour une prise de conscience collective qui aboutira à une réduction de taux de natalité, il en résultera une diminution de pression sur les ressources. Entres autres actions pour lever les contraintes liées à la production, on peut citer : Zonage pour éviter l’urbanisation des terres agricoles, Formation des agriculteurs aux techniques modernes de culture, l’utilisation et l’entretien d’équipements modernes, de matériels automatisés et véhicules agricoles. La mise en place de plans financiers qui soient accessibles dans chaque commune afin de pouvoir acheter des semences et matériels agricoles. Incitation à la mise en place de boutiques d’intrants agricole au niveau de chaque commune. Gestion de l’eau par la réhabilitation des systèmes d’irrigation et la mise en place d’impluvium, de citernes dans les zones arides. Promouvoir le regroupement des agriculteurs en association apolitique pour une meilleure gestion de leur milieu. Favoriser le développement des mutuels de solidarité pour octroyer des prêts le plus rapide et á un taux plus bas que les banques commerciales. Les acteurs qui influencent les actions Le pays doit jouir d’un climat de paix, propice au respect des normes établies. L’Etat doit créer un environnement stable propice á l'investissement, créer des marchés pour écouler les produits, augmenter les taxes sur les produits importés pour appuyer le développement des filières de production locale. On doit sensibiliser la population à la consommation des produits locaux, mettre en place des usines de transformation pour éviter les gaspillages. Les administrations des services déconcentrés (MARNDR, MF, MTPTC) doivent être renforcées pour soutenir le développement des filières agricoles. Après le renforcement et le mise á niveaux des membres des comites des associations, ils seront en mesure de :  Réaliser des études de marchés, faire des recherches qualité /prix pour les produits.  Contrôler la gestion, le fonctionnement des boutiques d’intrants, produire des rapports sur la qualité des intrants qui seraient accessibles à tous.  Accompagner les producteurs dans la gestion et l’utilisation des intrants.  Se placer comme intermédiaires et ou médiateurs si nécessaire, entre les cultivateurs et les boutiques d’intrants Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès  Les rapports de suivis des protocoles signés entre les acteurs.  La qualité de l’environnement des affaires  Le niveau d’importation des produits alimentaires, plus précisément le niveau d’auto-suffisance dans certaines filières alimentaires  Le niveau d’approvisionnement des marchés en produits locaux  L’évaluation du respect des principes de transparence de partage d’information entre toutes les parties prenantes et vérification des informations importantes.  Réalisation des enquêtes avant, pendant et après la mise en œuvre des actions pour évaluer d’ici à 2030.236240244245Groupe 2 : Santé Nutritionnelle, Consommation et nutrition responsable Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, Les produits hors saisons sont hors de prix pour les petites bourses. La population est obligée de consommer ce qui est disponible. Elle n'a pas connaissance de l’interrelation entre la nutrition et la santé. La population est vulnérable aux maladies n'ayant pas consommé les vitamines et minéraux dont le corps a besoin pour rester en santé. Manque de moyen financier pour acheter de la nourriture, manque d’hygiène. Les actions urgentes sont :  Former des agents sanitaires pour des services de proximité  Construire des centres de santé dans toutes les sections communales  Accompagner les cultivateurs dans la transformation de leurs produits Les acteurs qui influencent les actions Les organisations sensibiliseront la population à la ration alimentaire à adopter et le respect des règles d'hygiène et elles surveilleront le bon fonctionnement de la santé. Le MTPTC/MSPP construit les centres de santé, les marchés publics. La société civile s'organise pour assurer le suivi pour la bonne marche des institutions. Les familles prennent leur responsabilité pour bien nourrir leur progéniture. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Des enquêtes statistiques avant, pendant et après la mise en œuvre des actions pour suivre les changements dans les indicateurs nutritionnels, plus précisément les ODD associés aux indicateurs..236239240244Questions environnementales : Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques. Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, Les pratiques d’incinération des déchets polluent la nappe phréatique. La perturbation des saisons qui affecte le niveau de précipitations aurait des conséquences sur les productions agricoles. Le déboisement et les érosions dus aux pratiques culturales (sarclage des cultures dans les zones à pentes.) provoquent des inondations dans les villes des cayes, cavaillon, centre ville de Maniche. Perte de bétails, de récolte, déplacement temporaire de population Les actions urgentes :  Elaborer un plan de reboisement  Mise en place de centres de décharge dans les communes pour le traitement et le recyclage de déchets  Plan d’assainissement urbain et rural, avec réseau de drainage intégré  Points fixes et permanents de poubelles communales  Système de ramassage d’ordure permanent  Mise en place de toilettes modernes dans les marchés publics. Les acteurs qui influencent les actions Ces actions seront surtout menées par le MDE et le MARNDR  Augmentation des compétences des associations dans la gestion de déchets et la protection de l’environnement  contrôler l’utilisation de produits chimiques Protection des aires protégées  Promouvoir la transparence dans la communication des rapports entre tous les parties prenantes  Créer des espaces pour des banques de carbone  Reboisement, conservations de sol et correction des ravins Les organisations accompagnent la population dans la transition vers des pratiques et des habitudes respectueuses de l'environnement Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès  La reddition de compte sur une base cyclique avec le principe de transparence  La vérification et le contre vérification de données de rapports  L’évaluation des ressources en voie de disparition avant et après l’adoption de nouvelles mesures et projets.236242247Groupe 4 : Protection sociale Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes,  Création de la base de données sur les populations vulnérables  Recensement de la population et des habitats  Implication des communautés dans la production relative à l’aimentation des enfants en âge scolaire  Renforcement de la transparence dans la gestion des fonds alloués.  Plus de disciplines dans la gestion des fonds de « cash for work », avec audit de la cours supérieure des comptes. Les acteurs qui influencent les actions IHSI, CNSA se chargeront des enquêtes de suivi des indicateurs, les MAST et les autres institutions étatiques impliquées dans la protection sociale s’occuperont de la mie en œuvre des actions.  Faciliter l’accès des groupes vulnérables aux soins de santé et à un paquet minimum de biens et services  Extension de la couverture des assurances santé aux travailleurs dans le secteur informel  Assurer une meilleure gestion des fonds de pension comme l’ONA pour assurer aux affiliés retraités des revenus capables de garantir leur sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès  Les reformes des programmes d’assurance et de retraite  Le taux de couverture de la population par le système d’assurance santé  La situation nutritionnelle des personnes bénéficiant d’une couverture d’assurance et de pension236251Gouvernance et Genre, rôle et participation des femmes Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, L’Etat est absent dans les sections communales, les services sociaux de base sont quasi inexistants, pas de travail autre que dans l’agriculture. Or le travail agricole est saisonnier, les jeunes ont tendance à migrer massivement dans les villes á la recherche de services, et envisager plus tard à s’orienter vers des cieux jugés plus cléments, des pays étrangers. D’où une rareté de main d’œuvre. A cela s’ajoutent les problèmes fonciers. Des recommandations :  Voter des lois cadres facilitant la mobilité des femmes, leur participation à des espaces de pouvoir  Faciliter l’accès des femmes aux ressources productives  Réduire l’écart dans l’accès aux services de base entre les femmes résidant en milieu urbain et les femmes résidant en milieu rural. Il en est de même de l’écart entre les ménages ruraux et les ménages urbains dans l’accès de ces services.  Redéfinir le rôle de la famille qui est une institution de socialisation qui est là non seulement pour construire des hommes capables d’autonomie individuelle mais aussi de création collective.  Redéfinir de nouvelles politiques publiques sur les valeurs de la famille et les typologies de famille. Les acteurs qui influencent les actions Les ministères de MCFDF, MAST sont les premiers concernés. Mais les associations de producteurs, les associations de femmes pourront servir de catalyseur pour permettre au gouvernement de mieux assurer l’autonomisation des femmes. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès  Représentation des femmes dans les espaces de pouvoir  Accès des femmes aux ressources productives (crédit, accès à la formation, aux marchés, etc)  Enquête avant, pendant et après la mise en ouvre des actions237244Désaccord sur le mode de gestion des boutiques d’intrants au niveau communal. Pour certains les mairies devraient s’y impliquer, pour d’autres un comité de membres des associations de toutes les sections communales ferait l’affaire. A la fin, ils se sont mis d’accord pour l’adoption d’ une structure mixte ( les mairies et les membres des associations ensemble). Sur la mise en œuvre du plan de reboisement et de la protection des ressources naturelles, comme planificateur et gestionnaire, ils avaient identifié les autorités locales (mairie, ASEC, CASEC) uniquement. Mais après discussion ils ont jugé bon d’intégrer aussi les associations d’agriculteurs et de pêcheurs.. Concernant le retour après les ateliers, certains pensent qu’on devrait les appeler nommément pour qu’ils participent à la mise en œuvre des projets, parce que ce sont eux qui avaient participé à l’atelier en l’occurrence á l’identification des projets.

2021-08-16 13:25:21205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40714/39

21

This dialogue event was organized to provide an opportunity for a group representing some 67 communities, associations and NGOs to provide their feedback on the draft National Roadmap for Cambodia and to have input to the Synthesis Report being prepared for the Global Summit. The dialogue was carefully managed to create a space where the parties present could listen to each other’s views and to identify points in common and differences regarding food systems and sustainable development in Cambodia. The meeting was preceded with a smaller event to build trust.The main principles reflected by this event were for involvement of representatives of different stakeholder groups, mutual respect and a willingness to listen, and the creation of a trust through the presence of different organizations including human rights observers.Ensure sufficient preparation and introductions between parties and take steps to ensure the dialogue protocols are well understood. Ask for mutual respect for all parties and ensure the process is well moderated to diffuse tensions.

Yes

234238239241246247249This event allowed representatives of some 67 Civil Society Organizations and community groups representing farming, fishing and forest dependent communities the opportunity to present their priority interests and suggestions for the pathway to sustainable food systems for 2030 and to express their commitments for actions to support sustainability. Given the restrictions for face-to face meetings due to COVID-19, a small group representing the many NGOs, associations and communities involved was invited to meet with the National Convenor for the Food Systems Dialogues. The focusing questions for the dialogue were: 1. What points do you agree with in the food systems roadmap? 2. What are your suggested areas for improvement? The Civil Society representatives present made a number of requests to the Royal Government Representatives present and to FAO. Mostly these points were directly concerned with the rural situation for the communities they represented and their production and marketing challenges, Some points were directed at the representativeness of the Global Summit for smallholders, indigenous communities and the poor and vulnerable.235238240241242244245246249251The dialogue was conducted in a manner which reflected the guiding principles for the conduct of food systems dialogue with respect on all sides for the effort to meet and listen to each other’s views. The civil society representatives expressed some concerns about the Global Summit relating to limited opportunities to participate. They wished to have the opportunities for their voices to be heard and for their suggestions to be incorporated in the National Roadmap. The representatives recognized the achievement in drafting the roadmap and wished for successful implementation. They expressed the hope that their views would be taken into account and appreciated the opportunity to meet together with RGC and UN representatives. The National Convenor explained that the dialogue process had been limited in terms of community meetings and in reaching to all levels because COVID restrictions on meetings and travel had greatly impacted on the plans for the National Dialogues. A special effort was made to act quickly to arrange this event and to ask for an opportunity for the feedback to be included in the Global Synthesis Report. Since the food system includes all sectors and value chain actors, the food environment and the decisions of consumers there are many voices and interests to be taken into account. Cambodia has now conducted 30 dialogue events involving almost 200 participants. A lot of effort has gone into promoting inclusivity, with civil society well represented amongst stakeholder groups. The vision and key themes for the National Roadmap were summarized and the focusing questions presented. Participants were invited to look into the Roadmap and make suggestions. The feedback from civil society indicated that although there was agreement on many points, as representatives of farmers, fishers and forest communities, they had some points to add. 1. There is a need for more access to irrigation for smallholder farmers 2. Even for farmers, there is limited access to safe and healthy diets and a lack of understanding about what is safe and healthy. 3. Imports should be restricted to give more opportunities for local producers and more value for local products 4. Request for technical support from experts and extension services 5. Request for services to reduce risk, reduce chemical use and to increase yields, Civil society representatives stated that sometimes families lack food even though they are producers themselves because they spend their money to purchase inputs and machinery. They have growing indebtedness and face difficulties in repayments. In addition their success is rain dependent. Indigenous peoples find it very difficult to deal with climate stresses and low prices for their produce. They feel that small scale producers are not prioritized by government and too much emphasis is given to agro-industry and large scale production. Farmers experience food shortages and resort to immigration to find paid employment and earn income. They are sometimes at risk of losing their land for development activities. They request that the UN and Government uphold the rights of all citizens and provide help especially during COVID -19. Their suggestion was to prioritize domestic food production and provide opportunities for smallholders and the informally employed instead of to larger scale producers. The representatives for civil society stated that it is their wish to preserve their traditions, their seeds and varieties and to protect their forests. They would like to promote and encourage local markets and they asked that Government consider provision of seed funds for enterprise development for women and youth, especially for fisheries communities and indigenous people. It was also stated that the process of communal land titling is important for indigenous peoples and that this process could be expedited. Cash transfers for women and young children are much needed and help to overcome lack of food and poor nutrition. At the global level, and concerning the UN, the representatives asked that there be greater transparency in food systems. They suggested that the influence of large corporations at the Global Summit should be rejected and that there be an end of control of food systems by large corporations and an end to cooperation with the World Economic Forum. They requested that their voices be included in the Summit and that they be allowed to live on their ancestral lands and not be driven by economic circumstances to sell their labour to live. Responses from the Government affirmed that there were many common interests listed in these requests and that much of the detail relating to this is reflected by the sectoral plans such as for the agricultural sector. There are some important points raised and particularly relating to inclusion of indigenous issues and interests. These are points for incorporation in the roadmap. Civil society representatives asked for a record of minutes and an indication of what changes will be made in the roadmap to reflect their statements. They asked that the Roadmap should ensure that the healthy diets for all objective must include not only women and children, but the poor and vulnerable and the rural unemployed. They asked that food safety systems be established and that the Roadmap should reflect the UN Declaration of the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP). The meeting concluded with an assurance that minutes would be shared and that a reformulated roadmap would be available shortly, reflecting national consensus and points raised.237241245246249250Many of the concerns and interests of the civil society representatives are represented in the national roadmap. There was agreement that indigenous interest could be represented specifically amongst the priorities for the roadmap. The main concern was to ensure that their voices were taken into account at the summit and whether those interests were subsumed to those of big business. Government representatives were of the opinion that there is a need for investment funding from the private sector and that this is not necessarily a threat to smallholder interests. Government strategies place much emphasis on the improvement of the productivity and profitability of smallholders and SMEs and for the creation of market linkages for smallholders and their associations and cooperatives.

2021-08-16 14:35:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25252/44

167951414

La convocatoria se realizó al alero del Grupo Transdisciplinario de Obesidad de Poblaciones de la Universidad de Chile (GTOP) que convoca a académicos/as de distintas disciplinas de todas las Facultades. GTOP reconoce la complejidad de los problemas alimentarios y la necesidad de una mirada y reflexión integral en un ambiente de confianza y pluralidad.Se realizó una presentación inicial donde se expusieron los objetivos de la Cumbre y sus principios, luego la metodología de trabajo propuesta en base a preguntas y luego una discusión abierta donde todos y todas pudieron abiertamente exponer sus puntos de vista, los consensos y disensos en forma respetuosa, tomándose nota de todo sin votaciones ni exclusiones. El diálogo se cerró con un plenario donde se expusieron las ideas centrales de cada grupo y cada participante del diálogo pudo agregar comentarios, los que fueron incorporados al informe.Se recomienda la transdisciplinariedad en los diálogos, eso fortalece y enriquece mucho la discusión. Así también favoreció la discusión el realizarlo en un grupo de confianza entre quienes se pudo expresar fácilmente opiniones contrarias.

NoEl dialogo siguió una estructura bastante similar a la propuesta en el manual de referencia. Se realizó una presentación introductoria y la discusión posterior. No se conformaron grupos de discusión dado que el grupo de participantes fue acotado y de confianza, pero se ordenó la discusión para favorecer que todos y todas pudieran participar y escuchar las distintas voces planteadas y reaccionar a los planteamientos.

234238239240241242243244247248249El diálogo fue guiado por 2 preguntas claves: i) ¿Cómo avanzar para que la población tenga alimentación saludable y sostenible? ii) ¿Cuál es el rol de este grupo transdisciplinario de académicos y académicas (GTOP) para contribuir a este objetivo? A través de esta pregunta, se abordaron los 5 objetivos de la Cumbre de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios, dado que incluye las temáticas de alimentos sanos, seguros, consumo y producción sostenible, equidad y resiliencia. El diálogo recorrió temas de disponibilidad y acceso a alimentos saludables, así también la necesidad de avanzar hacia la producción sostenible de alimentos. Los determinantes sociales y económicos de las decisiones alimentarias, y los ambientes alimentarios fueron temas que salieron reiterativamente en la discusión. Así también la paradoja de las intervenciones individuales vs estructurales y la necesidad de políticas públicas para mejorar el sistema alimentario en su globalidad. La importancia de lo territorial y el reconocimiento de la soberanía local, fueron temas que se sumaron en la discusión también. Dado el contexto de nueva Constitución de Chile, se hizo énfasis en la importancia de contar con este derecho explícito como “paraguas” para la acción.235238239240241242243247248249Los principales hallazgos del dialogo se relacionan con la discusión de lo siguiente 1) Recuperar la identidad alimentaria de los pueblos, la denominación de origen. La gente se hace partícipe de su producción y la consume. Soberanía alimentaria. 2) Sostenibilidad de la producción, controlar la industrialización. Rol de la academia en investigación para la producción más sostenible de alimentos. Se requiere eficiencia y tecnología en la producción agrícola y pecuaria para disminuir la huella de carbono en la producción de alimentos. 3) Biodiversidad. Combatir los monocultivos puesto que dañan las tierras. 4) Favorecer las cadenas cortas de alimentos saludables para disminuir los costos. Se debería subsidiar a los pequeños agricultores y pescadores para aumentar la producción y bajar los costos de los alimentos saludables. 5) Necesidad de educar a los pueblos respecto a la importancia de la alimentación saludable y sostenible, necesidad de que esto sea visto como prioridad, y que la población pueda realizar demandas sociales para ello. Transversalizar el concepto de saludable sin discriminaciones. Se requiere el trabajo con las comunidades, y GTOP tiene las competencias para impulsar estas demandas. 6) Se discute a la importancia de lo comunicacional, y de cómo competir con la industria alimentaria con mensajes atractivos para la población, que los invite a el disfrute de una alimentación sana y sostenible. Se habla de cambiar paradigmas de lo rico y saludable y la necesidad de contar con campañas para alimentos saludables como las de los no saludables. No centrar las campañas sólo en lo saludable sino en lo placentero. 7) Asegurar la disponibilidad de alimentos saludables en todo lugar. La centralización de Chile favorece la mala alimentación, todo pasa en las grandes ciudades. La estructura construida de las ciudades incide también en la mala alimentación y la falta de acceso físico. Es necesario pensar en políticas públicas de construcción urbana para privilegiar a las personas y los entornos saludables en todos los puntos del país. 8) Relevar el rol de las ferias libres como fuentes de alimentos saludables. Se debe pensar en políticas que aumenten la cobertura de ferias en el país. Además, aprovechar este espacio para la promoción de una alimentación saludable y sostenible. 9) El ingreso económico de los hogares no permite acceder a alimentos más saludables. Se discute si basta que los alimentos saludables estén disponibles sin las personas no cuentan con los medios económicos para adquirirlos. Se discute respecto a la necesidad de abordar el problema poniendo en primera línea los determinantes sociales de la salud y alimentación, con políticas públicas estructurales, y la relevancia de la academia en impulsar y apoyar la política pública, sobre todo para aquellas que son más difíciles de lograr. Acá GTOP tiene un rol fundamental en presentar una mirada transdisciplinaria. 10) GTOP tiene las competencias para generar evidencia e informar. Hay necesidad de monitorizar y evaluar políticas públicas. Además, GTOP debe tener rol sobre cómo comunicar la evidencia que se genera y acercar la ciencia a las comunidades. 11) GTOP puede apoyar a la Convención Constitucional para que el Derecho a la Alimentación sea incorporado en la nueva Constitución chilena. 12) En suma, los temas que emergieron con más fuerza fueron los de seguridad alimentaria (disponibilidad y acceso), soberanía (identidad y decisiones), sostenibilidad (medio ambiente protegido), derecho a la alimentación (nivel constitucional), ambientes alimentarios (saludables, no obesogénicos) y determinantes sociales de la salud y alimentación (causas estructurales).2362382392402412422432442472482491. Generación de políticas orientadas a mejorar la producción de alimentos, para que haya una mayor disponibilidad y acceso a alimentos saludables y producidos de manera soberana y sostenible. 2. Necesidad de favorecer las políticas públicas que aborden los determinantes sociales de la salud y la alimentación, como el ingreso económico y los ambientes o entornos alimentarios. 3. La nueva Constitución se visualiza como una buena oportunidad de relevar el tema de alimentación saludable y sostenible incorporando el derecho a la alimentación saludable, soberana, pertinente, sostenible. 4. Rol de la academia, y en especial de los grupos transdisciplinarios como GTOP, en generar evidencia e impulsar el desarrollo de políticas públicas integrales, eficientes, eficaces, basadas en evidencia y evaluables; así también de apoyar a los territorios en su desarrollo y movilización, fortaleciendo los canales de comunicación y acción entre la academia y la comunidad.237241249Un área que generó más discusión fue si el rol de la academia debería quedarse en la generación de evidencia y evaluación o si debiese ser también más de trabajo territorial y de vinculación con el medio; así también qué tan político debería ser, que tantas posibilidades de incidir en política públicas debería ejercerse desde la academia. El grupo concluye que todas estas son áreas de acción que la academia debe tomar.

2021-08-16 22:11:16205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40151/69

179035113274681115812101451611014400910012477020417514726601220141217

The Fiji National Food Systems Dialogue was held virtually over three days with the overall theme of discussion on “Pathways for local food system transformation”. The dialogue was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue themes, agenda, framed questions and topics for discussion, developed group reporting templates to focus and guide group discussions during the dialogue. The theme for Day 2 focused on “Pathways for local food system transformation: How to make them more inclusive” and the programme was officially opened by the Minister for Fisheries, Mr Semi Koroilavesau while the closing remarks was made by the Permanent Secretary for Environment and Waterways, Mr Joshua Wycliffe. The preparatory meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register. This ensured that everyone read and understood the Principles and committed to the SDGs before participating in the Dialogue. A group of 179 stakeholders participated in the Dialogue from diverse, multi stakeholder backgrounds consisting of government ministries, civil society, international and regional agencies by the participants listing and data.As highlighted above, the Fiji National Food Systems Dialogue ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process, and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 179 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement served as important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all the three days. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

Yes

234238240241242244245248249251The Fiji National Food Systems Dialogue on Day 2 –“Pathways for local food system transformation: How to make them more inclusive” was held virtually on July 22nd, 2021 at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with restrictive measures and lockdowns. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, Day 2 of the Fiji National Food Systems Dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform and created a lot of participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and platforms such as Zoom chat box were busily engaged to crowdsource questions from participants throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. One hundred and seventy-nine participants took part in the dialogue that was officially opened by the Minister of Fisheries, Mr Semi Koroilavesau. Participants represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, farmers, women’s groups, youth groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format for Day 2 - Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) - Welcome address - Official opening address by the Minister of Fisheries - Introduction to the dialogue(Video on the Summit by Dr Agnes Kalibata) Presentations on Day 2 - “Pathways for local food system transformation: How to make them more inclusive.” - Food systems transformation, that boost opportunities for women and youth participation across different elements - The role of food environments on healthy diets - Women Inclusiveness- Inequity in food systems - Young people our future - key to transforming Fiji’s food systems - Blue Food Questions to speakers Discussion groups focussed on different themes where discussions were reported and recorded by rapporteurs; Breakout Session 1- Women’s Inclusiveness in the Food System - Question 1: What are the desirable transformations across the food system for women in 10 year’s time? - Question 2: Main entry points and opportunities to enhance women’s participation in food system? - Question 3: Main barriers/challenges limiting women’s participation in food system? - Question 4: What are other vulnerabilities relevant for food system transformation that have not been considered - Breakout Session 2 - Youth Transformation - Question 1: What are the desirable transformations across the food system for youth in 10 years’ time? - Question 2: Main entry points and opportunities to enhance youth participation in the food system? - Question 3: Main barriers/challenges limiting youth participation in the food system? - Question 4: What are other vulnerabilities relevant for food system transformation that have not been considered? - Breakout Session 3 - Rural Communities and Informal Settlements - Question 1: What are the desirable transformations across the food system for rural communities and informal settlements in 10 years’ time? - Question 2: Main entry points and opportunities to enhance rural communities and informal settlements participation in the food system? - Question 3: What barriers/challenges do we foresee in the implementation of these measures? - Question 4: What are other vulnerabilities relevant for food system transformation (availability/access to land, COVID-19) that have not been considered? Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs235238240241242244247248250251“Pathways for local food system transformation: How to make them more inclusive.” a) Food systems transformation, that boost opportunities for women and youth participation across different elements The Basa exchange concept is based on Fiji can Feed Fiji. This is a return to the traditional trading systems where the concept of “solesolevaki” is employed by rural and remote communities in the Western part of Fiji by coming together to supply fresh root crops, fruits and vegetables to boost nutritional needs for those in lockdown and containment zones and support each other during these difficult times. This Basa exchange also promote circular economy where funding comes from the aid sector, crops are purchased from the community at village gate and shared to those who are in containment and lockdown areas. At the end of the day, this community goes to small shops in town or in their communities to buy things that they need, supporting of social circular economy during this pandemic. Through the growth of e-commerce and wholesale export opportunities, critical progress is made in establishing new markets to maintain market access during this pandemic. b) The role of food environments on healthy diets In a recent research carried out by USC and FAO FIRST Programme, they found that there has been changes to diets, in both rural and urban populations in Fiji. This research also found that there was a high availability of ‘unhealthy’, or highly processed/nutrient poor foods around schools e.g 80% of outlets sold sugar sweetened beverages, 60% sold lollies and very few outlets sold fruits and vegetables. Vulnerable groups esp children need attention and there is a need for multisectoral engagement and collaboration of all the school stakeholders. Some school interventions have worked in other countries such as; use of clear and accurate dietary guidelines/school meal standards, monitoring and sustainability of guideline implementation + sustainability of the program, better outcomes when interventions are based on scientific evidence and facilitate access to healthy + appealing meals and snacks, replacement of highly processed foods with healthier alternatives, focus on fruit has better outcomes, social inequalities must be addressed, environment surrounding schools is important. A few entry points for intervention may include a comprehensive school feeding program, establish nutrition standards for boarding school meals, establish adequately resourced support, monitoring, enforcement and reporting mechanisms to promote their implementation. Consider opportunities for school food and nutrition initiatives to promote nutrition, economic and environmental outcomes. Increase awareness of the Fiji food and health guidelines for healthy living (in schools and communities) and develop simple messages for children and parents. Progress draft regulations to control the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic drinks to children. c) Young people is our future- key to transforming Fiji’s food systems In transforming Fiji’s food system, we need to start now if we want to get it right with the future. In the past few months during the UN Food System Summit, we heard the important role of stakeholders including the private sector in transforming our food systems. We need all the voices to be heard - the most affected farmers, fishers, women and girls, youths and indigenous people, to be at the centre of the discussion. Education and awareness is critical for our young people from young age, efforts to strengthen training of our traditional leaders for land owing unit for the protection of our biodiversity, change the mindset of our youths that push to white/bluecollar jobs and relegate farmers and fishers jobs. National efforts to transform our food systems must include voices of young people and genuine efforts to meaningfully engage them, who brings with them innovative ideas and solutions. Together with digital technologies and community best practices for our young generation we can catalyse efforts to improve some of the challenges around data collection, monitoring and enhancing multi-sectoral coordination. Private sector support for our young entrepreneurs is also important in the area of food security and food systems. d) Transformation Pathway of Local Blue Food System Diversity of blue food resources - finfish, shellfish and seaweeds. Value addition and preservation of functional blue foods are some of the pathways to transform blue foods. In Fiji, research into seaweeds (nama) for beauty products and shellfish-sea urchins for processing and scoping for market access has been carried out. Other student research has been done on Sea weeds (Climate Change, Carrageenan & Agar) and Ciguatera Fish Poisoning. Some of the suggested transformative approaches to blue food is the determination and extraction of bioactive compounds e.g. Omega 3 – from seafoods and applications in food processing and value-adding and anti-oxidant compounds – e.g. anti-cancer. Determination and extraction of other functional compounds – carrageenan, gelatin, pectin and agar. Determination of blue functional foods with identified markets, where participation of women and youth could be enhanced e.g. sea urchin and sea grapes processing. Functional Blue Foods could be the game changer in this Food System Transformation Approach for the Pacific Ocean Island Communities.236238240241242244246248249251Women transformation Fiji has a delicate food system where women come last. Women should not only be treated as beneficiaries but be given equal opportunities and awareness should be done to men on the critical role women play in society especially when they make up majority of workforce in Agriculture (farm level). Traditional structure is a barrier where there is a lack of participation from women in important decision-making issues such as land, property rights, finance, education, farming, family, food, culture and other social norms. Land tenure decision making is dominated by men. Women are natural food gatherers but we never value as important because it is part of women's role in Fiji. Digital inclusion of rural communities add value to the food supply chain. It will open avenues for entrepreneurship and promotion of products that different villages specialize in. Being digitally inclusive helps women use digital platforms for health, education, entrepreneurship and vital information for productive farming for planning, financial management and marketing skills. Financial management should be designed according to the need of farmers. Women drive a critical role in accessing finance. Rural women lack the capacity and knowledge of value adding to transform the food system effectively using fresh foods around them. Creating short videos is recommended to assist these women. Government to take the leading role to ensure less advertisement of unhealthy foods and more on healthy foods. More participation of women in food safety, training and implementation in the community settings, food wastes from schools, households and markets to be put to good use such as animal feeds. In coastal areas, most coastal fisheries are operated by women and there is a need for financial assistance, training, market opportunities and promote value adding, more collaboration with researchers, government and NGO and financial institutions. Enhance participation by targeting whole rural communities especially women and youths to ensure they understand what we want to do. Youth Transformation A key barrier for youth participation particularly in the pacific is social and cultural dimensions. Need to better understand the aspirations of the youths, differentiated by gender, class, ethnicity and other forms of differences, to enable sustainable food systems - through regular engagements as dialogues or think tanks and incorporate these into institutional planning for government agencies and organizations. Encourage and develop leaders in the community that actively include youths in the food systems such as Nayarabale Youths are encouraged to plant village land and were able to sell crops worth $66,000.00. Raising awareness amongst youth on the importance of growing your own foods and empowering them to take up ideas that are practical to them. Education programs through technical institutions on food systems curriculum specifically developed to address the challenge of increased literacy and capacity in the food systems and get champions to show Youths how we can promote Youth involvement. Food Science and Technology has been marketed, thoughts have been placed on how we can entice Youths to join Food Science and Technology. Rural Communities and Informal Settlements Communities need to take ownership of initiatives in the food systems and to ensure that roles and responsibilities can be clearly understood by all to allow sustainability. Recognize community local/traditional knowledge and include new approaches to complement this knowledge. Human resource is an ongoing issue while capacity and interest is a huge challenge. Sustainability of programs is a challenge due to limited resources - more complex food and value adding systems, lack of funding support and lack of community collaboration in policy formulation. Gap assessment in rural and informal settlement participation in food system is to enable us to look at vulnerability through an intersectional lens (e.g. gender, ethnicity, economic status, (dis)ability). Adhere to what already works well in communities, promote a participatory approach e.g.237238240241242244246249251Women Unhealthy candies are sold at school canteens since they are appealing to children, however, the same candies could be produced using fructose as substitute of sucrose. Other countries use other substitute for sucrose such as coconut sugar etc, so lot of scope in these areas as well Sugar which has for decades tied up good agricultural land and the same land could be used to feed Fiji if government could revisit the international agreements on sugar. Equitable livelihoods, building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. COVID restrictions including border closure has left women with less choice but to sell produce cheaply from nearest town where food prices are high in the supermarket. Youth Government has an important role to play in encouraging young people to participate in redesigning our food systems - whether by making agriculture more appealing through new technologies or making the system financial rewarding. Perhaps run a Food System Game Changer campaign? But it needs to be appropriate and practical and also needs to be evaluated. Rural Communities and Informal Settlements Land issues in informal settlement can be a concern, since it’s difficult for women to acquire land as an asset and access to most government led initiatives requires ownership of land and women and minority groups in rural communities lose out on such opportunities. Informal settlements need better organised landscape but people don't have landscaping knowledge. Trees usually need more time to grow than crops and technical knowledge on soil rehab, food forestry systems, processing methodology, product development & marketing is required. Access to soil improvement resources. Sand is often mentioned to use for drainage improvement, but the sand would need to be mined from rivers, thereby degrading the river ecosystems … Fiji doesn't have things like perlite readily available! Availability and accessibility of arable land and basic agricultural inputs for communities in rural areas and informal settlement that plays a major role in ensuring food security for women and households in the communities.

2021-08-17 07:35:51205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36231/140

86174220746401721324329211164123741725243132

Principles of Engagement were localized to be culturally appropriate. 1) The concept of urgency was prevalent given Palau’s climate and NCD crises. Discussions used 2030 as a reference while also seeking areas for immediate action. 2) Palau has already committed to achieving the outcomes of the Summit by tasking the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment to become a “Champion” and to pursue partnerships to sustainably increase production with benefits for indigenous fishers, farmers and aquaculturists. 3) Palau modified materials to be cognizant and respectful of social and cultural norms. The Dialogue was in 3 parts to reach different parts of society. Pathways mainstreamed society, economy, culture, and environment. 4) Palau recognized complexity by breaking the Dialogue into pieces, using an existing body of work, convening participants from multiple sectors, and recognizing connections in a food system model. 5) The Convener and a diverse working group (representing Finance, Environment, UN, and NGOs) recruited participants who were inclusive of multiple stakeholder groups (in terms of expertise, gender, and sociopolitical capital). The design of the three-part Dialogue, with small groups and facilitation, a separate opportunity for technical experts and producers plus a unique leadership briefing, and incorporation of previous assessments provided by stakeholders, was purposeful to allow for input from all sectors of society. 6) Palau’s Dialogue purposefully complemented the work of others by drawing on the existing and extensive body of work on Blue Foods (nearshore and offshore fisheries and aquaculture) and using it to frame questions and reduce gaps in understanding of the agricultural food system. The Dialogue also identified successful initiatives with scalability. 7) To build trust and accountability, the Dialogue was marketed as a partnership platform and materials were shared publicly for transparency with no single entity taking credit for work done.The Palau Dialogue modified aspects of the Action Tracks to reflect the principles. For instance, Palau modified the action track on “Nature-Positive Production” to reflect culture. All references were to “Nature- and Culture-Positive Production,” so that production would have positive impacts on environmental processes and cultural processes. This reflected multiple aspects of the Principles: for instance, food production is an (1) urgent matter for cultural resurgence, protection, and preservation given the modern world’s demands for uniformity and efficiency. By framing production as a cultural issue applying broadly to the entire society in addition to an environmental issue, this increased participation in the Dialogue and thus (2) commitment to achieving its outcomes. Modifying the Action Track espoused (3) respect for cultural practices in food production while also being cognizant of the needs of diverse families. This change also reflected the inherent (4) complexity of food production, which has economic, environmental, social, and environmental aspects that vary based on land and sea. Validation of these complex objectives in the Action Track (increasing production, steady and diverse nutritious and safe products, and maintaining or restoring biodiversity and ecological, social, and cultural systems) required active recruitment of (5) inclusive stakeholders with environmental, cultural, nutrition, and social expertise.As with gender mainstreaming, incorporation and appreciating the Principles requires taking a step back during the planning process to analyze the work done. Breaking the Palau Dialogue into pieces offered several opportunities to do this, because planning included pauses to think objectively about how the Dialogues were coming together and whether they were representative. In addition, as with all SDGs, localization and specification at the country level will help with achievement. By localizing the Action Tracks to reflect the local circumstances and priorities, and by specifying the Action Tracks with specific, discrete objectives, Palau could more easily operationalize the Dialogues to lead to actionable outcomes.

NoThe Palau Dialogue was not a stand alone event and was not the first systems perspective applied to food. Thus, Palau's Dialogue built on existing initiatives while still following most aspects of the Convenors Reference Manual. Notably, the Palau Dialogue grew out of the findings from the 3rd National Environment Symposium, held in August 2020. The 2020 Symposium, convened during the country’s Covid-caused border closure that brought a standstill to tourism, brought together diverse stakeholders to identify “new opportunities” for building economic and food resilience, thus taking a systems perspective. Findings of that Symposium included 1) increasing and commercializing production in offshore fisheries, aquaculture (all marine in Palau), agriculture, and livestock; 2) diversification to build resilience; and 3) strengthening Palauan communities and culture. Following the symposium, stakeholders commenced in-depth systems analyses of aquaculture (e.g. “Aquaculture Industry Map” and “Aquaculture Business Strategy”), nearshore fisheries (“Tekoi era Omeged” and “2020 Gender Natural Resource Study”), and offshore fisheries (“Offshore Fisheries Policy Brief”), among many other analyses. This recent body of work further expanding on many years of investment into sustainable Blue Food systems, most notably creation and management of the Palau National Marine Sanctuary, its associated Domestic Fishing Zone, and the Palau Protected Areas Network (PAN). The National Convener created a small working group of diverse stakeholders to plan the Dialogue. The 2021 Food System Dialogue first complemented the body of work on Blue Food by filling the gap with a systems analysis of agriculture. The first part of the Dialogue was held on June 8 specifically to add agricultural information to a concept model about Palau’s food systems that included economic, social, cultural, and environmental sectors. Agricultural actors were recruited from Palau’s four production sectors (vegetables, root crops, fruit trees, and livestock) with expertise in discrete parts of the process cycle (production, processing/added value, distribution, and consumption). Discussions, held in small groups with a facilitator, also included system-wide questions about waste and transportation. A second part of the Dialogue was held on July 15 to assess the food system model based on Action Tracks, which Palau combined and localized: 1) Safe and Nutritious Food, and Healthy and Sustainable Consumption; 2) Nature- and Culture-Positive Production, and 3) Equitable livelihoods and Value distribution. Participants identified gaps and barriers, opportunities and successes, vulnerabilities, risks, and areas for resilience, and suggested priorities and pathways. Findings from the first two parts of the Dialogue were curated for an Executive Leadership Discussion on July 22, where high level agreement and commitment were sought. Points of divergence and convergence were both able to surface.

234238239240241242243244245248249250The goal of Palau's Dialogue was to examine Food Insecurity from a systems perspective and to determine pathways for achieving Food Security. After confirming the problem - due to reliance on imports, preferences for unhealthy food, and challenges with affordability for high-nutrients foods, Palau is NOT “Food Secure” - the Dialogue set a goal to "better understand Palau’s food system in order to build resilience and improve the livelihood, health, nutrition, and consumption patterns of Palauans." The first part of the Dialogue examined products and processes to create a conceptual model of food flows throughout the country. The focus at first was on societal, economic, cultural, and environmental factors on production, processing/adding value, distribution, and consumption, and to identify where wastes are generated and where food is transported. The model revealed that societal and economic factors have the greatest influences on the food system, highlighting the essential need for a cross-sector approach. Previously, much of food system focus has fallen to the environment sector and has focused on environmental production limitations. The Dialogue identified the need for a drastic shift in thinking. Thus, the second part of the Dialogue purposefully focused on cross-sector issues using Action Tracks as guides. Based on stakeholder input and a review of the existing body of work on food and especially Blue Foods, the second part of the Dialogue focused on achieving specific objectives to reach the goal of Food Security: Diet and Nutrition: 1) Zero hunger (sufficient food), 2) Access and consumption of nutritious, healthy, and safe food by all - A definition of nutritious foods was established: Healthy, nourishing food that that meets vitamin and mineral needs; rich in micronutrients, fiber, and high-quality proteins and high-quality fats. Non-nutritious foods include those with high levels of added salt, added sugar, and saturated and trans fats. - Unsafe foods were defined as those contaminated with toxic chemicals, metals, residues, bacteria, or pathogens; or that cause foodborne illness. - Gaps in knowledge were acknowledged: a push to convert consumption from nearshore reef fish to offshore pelagic fish needs to consider safe mercury levels by gender and group; this has not been established in Palau. Nature- and Culture-Positive Production: 1) Increasing the amount of sustainable production 2) Steadily/continually offering a diversity of nutritious and safe products, and 3) Maintaining or restoring biodiversity and ecological, social, and cultural systems Participants were asked to think broadly about locally-produced and processed nutritious foods, not focus solely on Palauan traditional foods. Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution: 1) Stable livelihoods (jobs, income, and sociocultural stability) for families and businesses from participation in the Food System, enabling a quality of life on par with other peers, 2) Fair and transparent transfer of values among users in the Food System value chain. To reach these objectives, participants focused on Gaps, Barriers, and Challenges (factors, processes, places, things, that stop achievement of Food Security) and then on Opportunities, Solutions, and Scaling up (actions that are already being taken, working, and ready to be scaled up to achieve objectives). Participants were then asked to take a step back and focus on Resilience. This included first identifying vulnerabilities ("those parts of the model that, when stressed, may lead to poor achievement of objectives"), then areas of resilience ("the ability of any part of the model (person, thing, process, place) to maintain functionality in the face of change, thus ensuring continued access to adequate, healthy, nutritious, and safe foods, livelihoods, and values"). After sharing findings based on objectives, the Dialogue then examined links between Action Tracks and objectives in an effort to guide a whole-of-society response.235238239240241242243244245246248249250Systems Perspective The overarching finding from the Food Systems Dialogue is that Palau must apply a "Systems Perspective" to food in order to reduce the multiple cross-sector factors contributing to food insecurity. This requires elevating food insecurity to the level of a national emergency with a whole-of-government response. This also means integrating the short- and long-term cross-sector impacts of climate change into Palau's Blue and Green Economies. Taking a systems perspective requires a coordinated government response plus the partnership of civil society and the private sector. Partnerships for Production The dialogue confirmed the immediate need to increase, innovate, and commercialize production of offshore fishery, aquaculture, agriculture, and livestock products through "Partnerships for Production", particularly Private-Public Partnerships but also those that facilitate technical innovation. Education and Policies to Transform Consumption At the same time, education is needed to drive demand and consumption of healthier, locally-produced foods. Investment into training on processing and diversification will further improve resilience, especially in the face of natural, climate, and economic disasters. A "Buy Local" initiative, backed up with a shift in government buying power to support local pelagic fish, sustainably produced aquaculture, and agricultural producers, would contribute to improved nutrition, production, and livelihood objectives. Modern Market Connections The Dialogue also confirmed the continued need to improve connections between subsistence and smallholder fishery and farming producers to local businesses and markets. These connections should rely on Palau's culture of cooperation to reduce and spread financial and environmental risks, but also modernize to take advantage of technology to find new markets and improve efficiency. Within the Fisheries sector, transitioning to a more resilient Blue Economy requires more efficiently utilizing, connecting, and marketing Palau's National Marine Sanctuary (PNMS) and Domestic Fishing Zone to achieve joint food (healthy proteins), tourism livelihood, fishery income, and conservation benefits. Cultural Values Finally, Palau maintains it commitment to increasing production in line with its cultural values.236240242243244245246248250Increasing Efficiency of Initiatives like PNMS A primary priority for increasing nature- and culture-positive production is scaling up and commercialization of existing successful initiatives at sea and on land to make them serve multiple purposes (food security, conservation, and tourism marketing) and thus be more efficient as the basis for a more sustainable Blue Economy. Palau's National Marine Sanctuary, for instance, has provided proof of concept that setting aside an area of the EEZ for domestic production led to increased Palauan participation in the offshore fishery including through cooperative business models. Tying the initiative to culture increased pride and knowledge about offshore fishery products which led to an increase in consumption of healthy, locally-produced pelagic fish. Expanding on this initiative with Private-Public partnerships to increase supply and diversify products offered will further improve resilience and drive consumption. Sustaining and expanding on Palau's Blue Economy (pelagic fishery and tourism-based) will support growth in the Green Economy (agricultural innovation). Decentralization through Private-Public Partnerships for Production Similarly, Palau has proof of concept for clam and rabbitfish aquaculture, and in fact is a global innovator in the science of endangered giant clam aquaculture. Scaling up these successes will be most fruitful through decentralization (physically to outer States as well as logistically away from the national government) and by transferring and supporting production by private parties. Commercialization of agriculture on land requires Private-Public Partnerships to expand and secure public lands available for agriculture while enabling private businesses to operate them efficiently. Existing decentralization of actors in the PNMS's Domestic Fishing Zone has shown proof of concept. Support for Modernization Modernizing Palau's system away from smallholders to cooperative systems of fishers and farmers needs specialized training, access to improved technologies, mentoring and assistance with relationship-building and networking, and planning to identify and manage risks and stabilize supply. Local and global technical and trade partnerships would facilitate modernization. Cooperation and Financial Shifts An additional recommendation of the Dialogue is to reduce subsidies and giveaways across blue foods and agricultural products and instead support cooperative fishery and agriculture associations and corporations negotiate reduced prices for inputs and guaranteed buys (secured at first with a shift in government spending away from imports). Innovating Food Waste Simple, highly successful programs such as the Koror State Collection and Composting Program can easily be scaled up to reduce food waste and provide a lower-cost nutrient input for agriculture (fertilizers) and aquaculture (feed). Technologies to do this are available, and would be most efficiently applied through technical and business partnerships. Better coordination of available materials would drive down the cost and temporal instability of many inputs. Business Incubation Investment into small, cooperative processing centers combined with business incubation services would allow for small business development leading to processing of more fishery and agriculture products into a diverse selection of foods. Data and Profiles Improving data collection and analysis is necessary across all parts of the blue food system (offshore fisheries, nearshore reef fisheries, aquaculture) and the agricultural system (livestock and crops) to better understand the supply chain and to understand how the profile of producers and consumers has changed in modern times. Shifting to Local Labor Finally, Palau should actively develop a plan for increasing Palauan indigenous citizen participation in production while utilizing foreign labor more strategically.236238242243244245246248249Changing Consumption The focus for improving nutrition and health needs to be on consumption. Food preferences lean heavily towards imported, unhealthy foods, both because of historical tendencies and misperceptions. Changing consumption means changing the story about healthy food, with a focus on education and outreach and cross-government aligned policies. Healthy foods are abundant in Palau, both in the sea and on land, but are not appreciated by the populace. Aligned Government Policies for Nutrition Government policies needed to transform healthy eating include aligned government buying policies (by reducing spending on unhealthy imported foods to instead support local producers of healthy fishery, aquaculture, livestock, and agricultural products), aligned educational policies (and implemented simultaneously by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education), and aligned infrastructure and investment policies (such as modernizing food preparation and storage facilities in government facilities to reduce the need for canned foods and improve safety). There are few consumer protection policies, which when combined with improved tracking and feedback systems would improve safety and decrease negative perceptions associated with food safety. A coordinated government plan to connect healthy consumption with increased sustainable production needs to be championed by a "Nutrition Champion." Private-Public Partnerships could be drivers of a shift in consumption and could be utilized to modernize public facilities to ensure safety while also offering business opportunities in the food system. Partnerships to Modernize As in other sectors, nutrition approaches need to be modernized and to rely on partnerships, for instance by partnering with media experts to create social media trends and using popular technology platforms (such as YouTube) to increase knowledge about nutrition. Localizing food guidance, for instance identifying healthy levels of tuna and taro consumption, are also needed as targets. Successful programs ready for scaling include the Airai State Elementary School Farming and Cooking Training Program. Proof of concept is abundant and families and children are willing to shift their consumption to healthier foods if they grow it or catch it themselves. Affordability through Production and Policies Increasing production of fishery, aquaculture, and agricultural products will increase supply and therefore increase affordability, which remains an issue. Additional financial mechanisms to make healthy, locally-produced foods more affordable and attractive may be needed, such as taxing imports and unhealthy foods and using those streams of income to offset the costs of small batch locally-produced healthy foods. As in production, rebalancing and reducing subsidies and free handouts is needed: handing out free agricultural and fishery tools does not appear to reduce food insecurity as well as training, cooperative negotiation, and discount programs. Data and Profiles Finally, as with production, improved data collection and analysis is needed to fully understand the food system and how it relates to nutrition and health.236239242243244245246247249251Recognizing Hunger Hunger remains a problem in Palau, particularly in rural areas. The first step to reducing hunger is to recognize that hunger exists, both through government recognition and planning and cultural recognition. Experts on hunger at the Dialogues strongly advocated for the definition of hunger to include "nutritional hunger", especially for families who cannot access healthy fish and agricultural products due to distance or affordability issues. Increasing and commercializing production through "Partnerships for Production" will increase the supply of healthy foods and help improve its affordability. These partnerships can also bring new actors to the food system, especially in rural areas. Targeted outreach could also help change the perspective about food and increase willingness to eat healthy foods that are growing locally. Cultural Networks to Reduce Food Waste While there is hunger in Palau, there is also significant food waste, often arising from customary events, government facilities (schools), and larger retail outlets. Most of this food waste goes to the landfill. Scaling up successful programs such as the Koror State Collection and Composting Program, ideally with a Private-Public Partner, could divert this food waste and use it to further improve production. Closing this gap between hunger and food waste is a priority and there are cultural networks in place to connect food waste to producers. Palau's youth and their high technological savvy could be better utilized to make those connections. Reprioritize Policies Dialogue participants suggested a review of government policies to address hunger and to align approaches with nutritional guidance. School lunches remain important to minimizing hunger, but school facilities need investment to ensure food safety and waste minimization, and updated school food policies could be promoted more to meet nutritional standards and encourage more students to shift to healthier foods.236241242244245246247248249251Producing as an Essential Profession The majority of food producers - from fishers to farmers - are smallholders with limited access to markets and limited business acumen to achieve profitability, yet they must operate in a cash economy with global influences. Using education to change the mindset of production from one of a part-time pursuit to a full-time essential job, combined with specific training in how to plan for and navigate Palau's tourism-oriented cash economy, is needed to commercialize these professions. Social and behavioral marketing is also needed to make these foreign-labor dominated essential industries "trendy" for Palauan indigenous citizens. Given Palau's high-end tourism market, "Farm-to-Table" and "Dock-to-Dish" programs that track and tell the story of producers and their products would also boost respect and production. Sustainable Blue Economy Palau's large ocean resource offers enough natural resources to support sustainable livelihoods in a variety of sectors (food production, tourism, industrial fishing, conservation), yet it is underutilized and constantly shifting due to climate change. Cross-sector planning that incorporates climate adaptation into diversified livelihoods will help stabilize and expand on Palau's Blue Economy, which will then contribute to expansion of a sustainable green economy. Stabilizing Supply and Demand Driving demand for locally produced and diverse products is essential to improving income for offshore fishery and agriculture producers, and requires a cross-sector approach (school education, tourism markets, government mandates and buying policies, certifications and branding, and access points). Increased demand will secure increased production and provide stability to these industries, thereby securing livelihoods. There is also room for diversified fishery and agricultural products, and indeed demand exists but supply is unstable. Investment into training and small-scale added-value processing facilities are needed to enable diversification. This will also enable better livelihoods for women producers and other vulnerable groups. Efforts to drive demand, however, should be aligned with nutritional guidance, especially in the case of tuna sourced from the PNMS. Technology is underutilized and could more efficiently drive demand. Low use of technology in Palau's food system means that producers are missing out on opportunities for distribution and consumption and thus losing value along the supply chain. Similarly, producers struggle with inconsistent inputs (such as breeding stock in aquaculture and livestock production) that would also benefit from improved use of technology to connect supply and demand. Private-Public Partnerships for Production A successful program that is ready for scaling is the Ngiwal Taro Program, which utilizes a Public-Private Partnership to increase production and share profits. However, expanding on this program to make private lands available for public farming with profit-sharing would require policies to ensure that local labor participates and benefits. Reducing Risks through Diversification and Cooperation Current systems make smallholder producers take on the highest levels of risk. Cooperatives can help reduce these risks and help stabilize supply. Putting securities in place, such as guaranteed government buying programs, designating a clear buyer and market buying mechanism (such as the 10% purchasing rights offered under the PNMS through a private-public Partnership), and helping to set up networks of buyers and producers can reduce risk and improve the sustainability of livelihoods in the food system. Diversified career training for women and vulnerable people, especially in processing and adding-value, would further increase profitability and resilience of food system livelihoods.237238241245249250Differing views on scale and priority objectives Dialogue participants had differing views on the scale of future investment. Some participants felt that investment should be prioritized towards fewer but larger commercial fishing companies and farms. For other participants, investment should be prioritized towards Palau's many artisanal fishers and smallholder family farmers. Focusing on larger farms could increase nutrition and health, whereas focusing on smallholders could secure more livelihoods. Production versus Consumption There were divergent views about the drivers of nutrition objectives. Some participants argued that increasing production would lead to improved nutrition outcomes, whereas others argued that a focus on education to shift consumption away from preferred unhealthy foods should be a higher priority. There were also divergent views about existing school lunch programs. With limited budgets, the current school lunch program ensures a minimum amount of food for all (thereby reducing hunger), but sometimes relies on unhealthy and inexpensive imported foods. Some participants argued that government buying power should be shifted to healthier foods, whereas others argued that prioritizing hunger reduction should remain the focus. Production and Food Waste Some participants argued that food should be used more efficiently before increasing production. They note that high amounts of food go to waste, especially in schools, arguing that production is currently high enough to meet the current demand. Others argued that food waste is a matter of distribution. Foreign Labor There are divergent views on the role of foreign labor in the food system. With a small local indigenous Palauan population, the local labor pool is limited. Some participants felt that maintaining or even increasing foreign labor is necessary to scale up production, especially for pelagic fishing operations and labor-intensive agriculture. Other participants felt that a contraction of the labor pool and a focus on Palauan labor could supply enough production to meet needs, if this production was more efficient and commercialized.

2021-08-17 10:50:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38492/98

40025010050250150505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505050505051010255

We invited several Stakeholders onboard. We conducted a four day virtual sessions before finalizing with a physical one on one D-DayThroughout the sessions, there was trust among the participants, they complemented each other for the great job they were doing on food security, they were respective, recognized complexity and fully committed to the summitThese are very fundamental and key to realizing any dialogue objective

Yes

2342382392402412422432442452482492502511. Smart farming systems 2. Gaps in Financing food systems 3. Opportunity in food systems 4. The role of Partnerships in food systems235238239240241242243245246248249251The participants agreed on the need to come together and spearhead on advancing food systems. It was agreed that the Youth were already working at the grassroots level to develop innovations that will ensure food security in their Communities. Support through financing and partnership was agreed to be key to creating sustainable livelihoods for young people236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Access to nutritious food for all. Shift to Sustainable consumption patterns and building resilience to vulnerabilities, shock and stress237239241242243245248251The role of SDGs and Partnerships in Food Systems

2021-08-17 12:45:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15202/93

33122112

The event was organized on Twitch. It was available to everyone online.While the Twitch platform is open to everyone, the target between 18 till 30 years old was the most interested.We used and explained all the different terminology in order to welcome all of the participants in asking questions. Simplification and clear words always help dialogue.

NoThe event was online, live on Twitch available to all participants online. Everyone could ask questions and we always answered them.

234239251a comprehensive exploration of food systems235242251the need to establish new connections between certain stakeholders

2021-08-17 12:48:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18312/93

332111112

The event was organized on Twitch. It was available to everyone online.The event was organized on Twitch. It was available to everyone online.We used and explained all the different terminology in order to welcome all of the participants in asking questions. Simplification and clear words always help dialogue.

Yes

234239242The event was online, live on Twitch available to all participants online. Everyone could ask questions and we always answered them.

2021-08-17 12:49:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20128/93

44223122

The event was online, live on Twitch available to all participants online. Everyone could ask questions and we always answered them.The event was online, live on Twitch available to all participants online. Everyone could ask questions and we always answered them.We used and explained all the different terminology in order to welcome all of the participants in asking questions. Simplification and clear words always help dialogue.

Yes

234The event was online, live on Twitch available to all participants online. Everyone could ask questions and we always answered them.

2021-08-17 12:51:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21830/93

332111121

The event was organized on Twitch. It was available to everyone online.While the Twitch platform is open to everyone, the target between 18 till 30 years old was the most interested.We used and explained all the different terminology in order to welcome all of the participants in asking questions. Simplification and clear words always help dialogue

Yes

2021-08-17 12:52:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23138/93

33122112

The event was organized on Twitch. It was available to everyone online.While the Twitch platform is open to everyone, the target between 18 till 30 years old was the most interested.We used and explained all the different terminology in order to welcome all of the participants in asking questions. Simplification and clear words always help dialogue.

Yes

2021-08-17 12:54:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24974/93

3312111

The event was organized on Twitch. It was available to everyone online.While the Twitch platform is open to everyone, the target between 18 till 30 years old was the most interested.

Yes

234We used and explained all the different terminology in order to welcome all of the participants in asking questions. Simplification and clear words always help dialogue.

2021-08-17 13:07:18205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39561/80

6001530100504119008505050303303082033022302005040205010103020200002500030000020304

Les Journées de concertation ont été organisées dans les quatre régions naturelles suivant une démarche participative et inclusive autour des thématiques liées à la production, la transformation, au développement et à la promotion d’un système alimentaire fiable et pérenne au bénéfice de la population guinéenne. Les échanges ont été effectués à travers des séries de présentations et de débats ouverts axés sur les thèmes, sous-thèmes et sur les filières identifiées selon la région. Ainsi, après chaque présentation, ont eu lieu des travaux de groupes qui ont permis aux participants de partager leurs connaissances et expériences autour des thèmes retenus sur les chaines de valeurs notamment en matière de production, de transformation, de conservation, de transport, de distribution, … des produits alimentaires ; de maitrise et d’approvisionnement d’intrants et équipements, de lutte contre le changement climatique, de suivi et d’anticipation pour relever le défi de la sécurité et de la qualité alimentaire en Guinée. Des personnes ressources réputées pour leur expertise et leur implication dans les systèmes alimentaires, ont été conviées à l’animation des débats. Ces acteurs sont venus essentiellement des départements de l’agriculture, de la pêche, de l’élevage, de l’industrie, des transports, du commerce, de la santé, de l’environnement, du secteur privé, des Associations paysannes, du monde culturel, des institutions d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche et des organisations de la société civile ainsi que les partenaires techniques et financiers, notamment le Système des Nations Unies. Cette démarche a été mise en œuvre dans les quatre régions naturelles (Nzérékoré, Kankan Labé et Kindia) et a permis de mettre en exergue les spécificités de chaque région par rapport au processus ainsi que leur interconnexion.Le Coordonnateur national, dans son discours de lancement a situé le cadre de l’atelier en exhortant les participants, de contribuer activement et qualitativement dans ce processus de diagnostic et d’évaluation des systèmes alimentaires de notre pays assorti d’un rapport régional sur les défis et propositions de solutions. Concernant les concertations des Régions de Kankan, Labé et Kindia, l’honneur a été accordé aux Gouverneurs pour représenter le Ministre d’État, Coordonnateur National, transmettre son message et ouvrir la cérémonie.Encourager les gouvernements et les partenaires techniques et financiers de poursuivre les efforts pour assurer le financement nécessaire pour la suite des concertations et le suivi de la mise en œuvre des recommandations et engagements qui seront contenus dans les feuilles de routes nationales sur la production, la transformation et le changement des systèmes alimentaires des pays.

Yes

234238240241242243244245246247248249250251Ont pris part à ces journées de concertation dans les régions naturelles, plus de deux cents participants venant des services sectoriels déconcentrés, du secteur privé, des ONG, des universitaires et autres personnes ressources. Les participants ont été mis en groupes de travail spécifiques afin d’examiner les systèmes alimentaires à travers une grille d’analyse composée de quatre (4) thèmes que sont : 1. La chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (production, transformation, transport et distribution, commercialisation); 2. Les contextes qui influencent les régimes alimentaires des personnes (disponibilité, accessibilité et habitude alimentaire) 3. Les facteurs qui façonnent les systèmes alimentaires locaux (facteurs biophysiques et environnement, facteurs infrastructurels et technologiques) 4. La sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle (économie et impact sur la santé). Sur la base de ces thèmes, les participants ont fait l’état des lieux en mettant l’accent sur les forces, les faiblesses, les opportunités, les menaces et les recommandations sur les thèmes ci-haut.235238240241242243244245246247248249250251Les journées nationales de concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires dans les régions se sont déroulées conformément au chronogramme et la Note Conceptuelle définis suivant les orientations du Coordonnateur National appuyées par le Système des Nations Unies en Guinée, aussi et surtout, celles apprises les séances de formations relatives à l'organisation des dialogues sur les plateformes/236240241242243244245246247248249251Les résultats obtenus de ces ateliers ont été d’abord une large concertation sur les thèmes et objectifs assignés et les rapports de chaque région assortie de recommandations. Ce qui nous a permis de faire une évaluation avec exactitude, de l’ensemble du système alimentaire afin de contribuer à l’atteinte des Objectifs du Développement Durables au compte de la république de Guinée.237240241242244245249251• Divergences en termes de gestion des conflits domaniaux. • Divergence en termes de gestion des conflits entre acteurs notamment agriculteurs et éleveurs. • Divergence en politique de partage et octroi de terres aux jeunes et aux femmes. • Divergence en matière de culture et habitude alimentaires.

2021-08-17 16:47:57205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41321/101

709421275713

Yes

234238239240242244245246247248249250251Устойчивые продовольственные системы Кыргызской Республики через внедрение инновационных решений, зеленой экономики и адаптацию к климатическим изменениям

2021-08-17 16:49:29205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31031/101

50401011

Yes

2021-08-17 16:50:41205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31047/101

Yes

2021-08-17 18:01:40205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35323/76

664010046888804372272127129132058142410416702320556754725906216819111629104900081975

The organization of Ghana’s sub-national Dialogues for each of the three ecological zones/special development areas (n = 3), as with its national Food Systems Dialogue, reflected the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement. Measures put in place to promote trust, ensure diversity, multi-stakeholder inclusivity and respect included; • Development of concept notes which detailed the relevance of the dialogue, the objectives, as well as expected outcomes. This was disseminated to the facilitators and relevant stakeholders for review to bring diverse perspectives and inclusiveness. • There was an inclusive identification of facilitators and relevant stakeholders from various sectors- Facilitators and stakeholders were drawn from various sectors such as academia, private sectors, food system actors, media and civil society organizations. This was to ensure multi-stakeholder inclusivity • A Secretariat and National Technical Working Group of diverse backgrounds were established to support the Conveners to steer the national dialogues and preparations of the country report and commitment paper • Stakeholder groups were identified and sensitized about the UNFSS and Ghana’s Food system. These included MDAs, MMDAs, private sector, Development Partners, media, civil society, youth groups, women groups • Identified Facilitators received training organised by the Conveners and by UN Food Systems Summit Secretariat • Publicity about the dialogue was mounted using various media platforms such as radio, print media, Facebook and YouTube.• Implementing the sub-National Food Systems Dialogues, the Conveners, Curators, and other stakeholders of the Dialogue took cognizance of the Food Systems Summit Principles of engagement and ensured that the Dialogue was responsive to those principles. • First, regarding acting with urgency, stakeholders recognized, and reiterated the urgency with which the Ghanaian food systems needed to be transformed. As such the Dialogue requested specific policy tasks, and critical practice changes required to transform the Ghanaian food systems - by 2030. • “Commit to the Summit”: Dialogue Conveners, Curators, Facilitators and Participants received orientation at different phases of the Dialogue preparation and execution on Dialogue Principles – including training organized by the UN Food Systems Summit Secretariat • “Be respectful”: Dialogue Conveners incorporated into the facilitation guidelines the need to show respect to allies but also to unusual “bedfellows” as transforming food systems require all stakeholders. Additionally, participants had the free hand to choose which breakout sessions to attend. • “Recognize complexity”: Cognizant of the fact that food systems are complex and are impacted largely by the actions and inactions of humans, Dialogue Facilitators engaged participants in discussions that facilitated identification of action that have the potential to positively impact a complex system.• The Conveners of the Ghana’s National Food Systems Dialogues have learnt that: • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: - Engage potential participants on the nature and expectations of the Dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of Engagement prior to the event. • Ghana’s High Level highly visible launch of National Dialogue Chaired by the First Lady of the Republic of Ghana, with participation from government officials, academia, private sectors, food system actors and civil society organizations motivated interest and participation in the national and subnational Dialogues • Dialogue Conveners should dedicate time to highlight the nature and expectations of the Dialogue, as well as the outlined principles of engagement on the day of the Dialogue • We have learned that it is helpful to plan ahead of time but it’s even more important to be prepared to, as needed, take decision extempore. • It is essential to have the required background information for the ‘Official Feedback Form’ recorded via the online registration process but also on the day of the Dialogue. Not all those who register turn up, and some find their way to the dialogue without registering.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• The Ghana sub-national Food Systems Dialogues were convened by the National Development Planning Commission, and the Ministry of Agriculture had an overarching theme - “Developing a Resilient and Equitable Food System for Improved Food and Nutrition Security”. The discussions covered all areas of the food systems and were organized around the Five Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit Dialogues: • Action Track 1 – “Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all” – participants examined whether all Ghanaians currently have access safe and nutritious food. If not, what is it that makes it difficult for Ghanaians to access safe and nutritious food? • Action Track 2 – “Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” – dialogue participants had conversations about what the key issues affecting healthy and sustainable food consumption were in Ghana. • Action Track 3 – “Boosting nature-positive production at scale” – examined how Ghana’s food production systems can be transformed to ensure sustainable food and nutrition security for the people. • Action Track 4 – “Advancing equitable livelihoods”– explored inequalities within the Ghanaian food systems • Action Track 5 – “Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses” – examined Actions to ensure resilience of the Ghanaian Food System. • While a whole of food system approach was adopted, in implementing the sub-national Dialogues a deliberate effort was made to identify key local actors to play key roles before and on the day of the Dialogue. Unlike the national Dialogue, emphases were made on sub-national, zonal particularities (e.g. Unique Food Systems issues, challenges, and solutions for the northern ecological zone, middle belt, and the coastal zones.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The discussions from the breakout sessions produced the following key findings:  High input cost, poor farming practices including inappropriate use of agrochemicals (insecticides, weedicides, and pesticides).  Contamination of grains and legumes by aflatoxin and the lack of screening methods to ensure safe levels of aflatoxins  Poor climatic conditions result in poor yield.  During the dry seasons, there is no water for irrigation and then during the rainy season, there is overflooding.  Poor access to seeds, and seedlings in the communities to encourage backyard gardening  With respect to transportation of food, there are poor road network in villages where food is produced making it difficult to transport food to markets thereby resulting in postharvest losses.  Poor regulation of foods produced: there are no standards for regulating produce especially those for the local market.  With respect to consumption, there is no screening for food vendors on diseases such as typhoid thus putting consumers at high risk.  Poor production, storage, and distribution systems across the food system  Most Ghanaians lack access to processing facilities which helps to add value to raw produce (resulting in postharvest loss and waste).  Lack of education and low nutrition literacy among the population  Unsafe water from hospital waste is discharged into rivers, which is utilized by farmers to irrigate their crops.  Poor food environment for Ghanaians where processed food are high on the diets of Ghanaians and the media publicity for unhealthy foods and beverages (Advertisement).  Unhygienic food environment e.g. unsafe process in abattoirs  Key issues affecting healthy and sustainable food consumption in Ghana include:  Low capacity of local farmers to produce healthy and sustainable food.  Constraints to accessing finance and loan credit for the production of healthy and sustainable foods.  Difficulty of some professionals whose work relate to land to mainstream the land tenure agenda in their work.  Foreign rather than local dietary guidelines are used or adapted in Ghana.  Much attention is given to cocoa which is a major cash crop in the Ashanti region and main source of income to farmers, hence low production of food crops causing food insecurity.  Cocoyam is a very important indigenous crop but for some years now, the production levels keep reducing due to the use of herbicides on cocoa farms which has reduced production.  Local fishermen use a lot of chemicals in the fishing activities and this, coupled with other factors have caused a decline in the fish stock.  Over dependency on rain fed agriculture  Continuous decline in soil fertility amidst climate change.  Poor access to credit by farmers and women to diversify and re-invest in agriculture  Lack of access to gender-sensitive equipment especially to women for small scale processing of food  Production is unattractive to the youth to replace the aging farmers  Lack of stability in terms of pricing.  Sand winning and urbanization with no compensation for the farmers and lack of proper restoration of land properties after winning the sand Lack of support for farming and fishing  Some recommendations for addressing these issues include:  Deploy extension officers to communities to educate local farmers on the use of farm chemicals and other farm inputs.  There is the need to inspect production sites as well as the levels of chemicals in foods before sale or exportation.  Mainstream the land tenure agenda into programming of all relevant sectors.  Accelerate the development and use of Ghana’s dietary guidelines.236238244245249250Access to safe and nutritious foods by all Ghanaians Dialogue participants identified factors that militate against access to safe and nutritious foods in Ghana. These factors include;  High cost of production  Contamination of grains and legumes by aflatoxin and the lack of screening methods to ensure safe levels of aflatoxins  Misuse of agronomic chemicals  Poor access to seeds and seedlings in the communities to encourage backyard gardening  Poor regulation of foods produced: there are no standards for regulating produce especially those for the local market.  Irregular screening for food vendors on diseases such as typhoid thus putting consumers at high risk.  Due to hight costs and concerns of food safety, consumers/households omit vegetables and fruits from the family diet, which depletes the nutritional value of our food.  Poor storage system across the food system, production, transportation, retailing and household  Low nutrition literacy  Unsafe water from hospital waste is discharged into rivers, which is utilized by farmers to irrigate their crops.  Low capacity of local farmers to produce healthy and sustainable food.  Reliance on foreign rather than local dietary guidelines by dietitians and other professionals.  To address these challenges, Dialogue participants recommended short/medium/long term actions including:  The need to research into variety of seeds/vegetables, that are insect resistant, planting materials and livestock production.  Monitoring of foods on market: There is the need for random checks of the foods on the market which can be done by the Food and Drugs Authority / Ghana Standards Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, among others.  Dialogue participants offered specific recommendations for the government, development partners, private sector and other food systems actors:  Government should enact policies that reduce food wastage and enhance healthy cultivation.  There is the need for land development (especially in Oti Region) by stakeholder (Donors, government etc.).  The Northern Development Authorities should partner with engineering directorate of MOFA to collaborate and develop simple farm machineries which can help reduce the over-reliance on agro chemicals.  The cost of production should be reduced by providing low cost for tractors to prevent the use hazardous weedicides. This can be done by MOFA and other stakeholders.  The Ministry of Roads and Highways should contribute to minimizing post-harvesting losses by improving the road network in the villages.  Irrigation facilities are also key when it comes to enhancing production. The government should rehabilitate existing dams in the upper East regions. It takes rehabilitation of the canals (including extending the canals to cover more irrigable areas), desilting the reservoirs, e.tc. to put them in good shape.  The district assemblies should be willing to finance some extension activities, which are mostly financed by donor organizations.  Scaling up of good agronomic practices  Contamination traceability issues should be addressed236238239245246249250Factors that affect healthy and sustainable, food environment In relation to inadequate supply of healthy foods, and food consumption in Ghana, dialogue participants identified several challenges including:  Low capacity of local farmers to produce healthy and sustainable food.  Inappropriate use of agrochemicals, including insecticides and pesticides.  Constraints to accessing finance and loan credit for the production of healthy and sustainable foods.  Inadequate knowledge on healthy eating.  Difficulty of some professionals whose work relate to land to mainstream the land tenure agenda in their work.  Foreign rather than local dietary guidelines are used or adapted in Ghana. Some recommendations for addressing these issues include:  Deploy extension officers to communities to educate local farmers on the use of farm chemicals and other farm inputs.  There is the need to inspect production sites as well as the levels of chemicals in foods before sale or exportation.  Mainstream the land tenure agenda into programming of all relevant sectors.  Accelerate the development and use of Ghana’s dietary guidelines. On innovations and interventions necessary to make nutrient-rich and safe food (particularly fruits and vegetables, pulses, whole grain and their products) sustainable and affordable to all, participants suggested that:  Government should control food prices.  Government should invest in vegetable farming by establishing or strengthening irrigation programs especially for vegetable farming to ensure adequate production and affordability.  Individuals should be encouraged to undertake backyard gardening.  The private sector should also be engaged in mobilising resources.  Government should support with the provision of innovative irrigation systems for farmers as this will help year-round production to increase availability and affordability of produce for consumers.  Eliminate too many “middlemen” in the value chain as they contribute to inflation of prices.  Through investments in the production of nutrient-dense foods, support farmers to shift from cash crops to nutrient-dense crops.  Promote culturally appropriate indigenous foods that are a nutrient-rich and safe food for consumption.  Regarding approaches needed to deploy sustainable promotion and communication of nutrient-rich and safe food consumption, the following recommendations were made:  Continue education through school systems, with programmes such as the Nutrition Friendly School Initiative by the Ghana Health Service, UNICEF and Ghana Education Service. These programmes promote the consumption of healthier foods through initiatives such as “fruit days” or “vegetable days”.  There should be collaboration between the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and Ghana Health service to educate farmers on the need to consume healthy and nutritious foods.  Use existing health facility personnel such as nutrition officers to educate people.  Develop a national policy that would regulate the sale of unhealthy foods and advertisement on radio and television.  Media companies, especially the telecommunications agencies should collaborate with the Ministry of Agriculture to use SMS to conscientize phone users on the need to consume nutritious food.  Authorities like the Food and Drugs Authority should have the capacity to ‘bite’ when it comes to enforcement of laws.  Consumption of healthy foods should be championed by high level ambassadors. They should be involved in the advertising of local foods on national television (and other media) consistently to draw the people’s attention to patronizing such foods.  Establishment of Agric information centers where farmers could call in or walk in at a time (where closer) for information.  Education /advertisement on nutrient rich foods on the local TV, radio stations, community durbars, town hall meetings and every available means to counter the advertisement of junk foods on media.236239246249250Inadequate and weak enforcement of food policies and regulations  Prioritisation of cash crops and commercial trees (e.g cocoa, sea) in certain regions of the country and thus transportation systems is a big challenge in the region.  Cocoyam is a very important indigenous crop but for some years now, the production levels keep reducing due to the use of herbicides on cocoa farms which has reduced production.  Inappropriate use of agrochemicals in farmers bid to increase production  A major activity in the coastal areas, and that is important for food and nutrition security. However, lack of resources such as modern technologies, skilled personals etc., have impeded the sector from performing efficiently  The local fishermen use a lot of chemicals in the fishing activities and this, coupled with other factors have caused a decline in the fish stock.  Crops such as yam, rice and maize can be stored unlike perishable crops such as vegetables and fruits.  Quality data is needed to address challenges faced by small sale and large-scale farmers. For instance, what they do, what they produce and how much they produce.  Promote agricultural intensification by using high yielding crop varieties on the current small land areas farmers’ farm on, without having to expand land sizes.  The forest areas need to be protected as farmers are encouraged to increase production on the large scale  Training of farmers on organic and sustainable farming practices  Demarcation of proper areas for food vendors which ensure that foods are not displayed directly in the sun. This will help to reduce the carbon footprint an improved waste management, especially where waste is segregated.  District Assemblies should provide proper markets for food vendors that ensure food safety.  Inadequate resources contribute to weak implementation of policies. For example, Extension officers are sometimes constrained the lack of means of transport. There is need to provide the needed resources for such officers. Employing and deploying more extension officers would reduce travel distances.  Increase investments in roads linking forest areas to markets.  Establishment of a legislative instrument backing nutrition that ensures that nutrition is addressed at a high level and prevents any party from doing away with it.  Establishment of institutional arrangements to establish small-scale processing systems close to farms that can take off the produce from the farmers and process them.  Establishment of warehouses in local communities close to production areas.  Develop a clear policy on healthy food production and consumption.  Sensitize all actors along the values chain, including farmers on existing policies, using understandable language.  Increase sensitization through a food safety day/ healthy eating day and provide good media coverage on the need to eat healthily.236239241244245246248249251Examination of inequalities within the Ghanaian food systems Dialogue participants proposed the following to bridge gaps and improve equitable livelihoods for all actors Food Production:  Targeted policies and interventions (e.g. reduced bank rates, input support, and “women’s crop” support) to attract the youth and women into agriculture and agro-processing.  Sensitize traditional authorities to improve access to land  Women need to be empowered  Actors should be educated on water management and climate change adaptations  Government should create land banks for actors  Small dams and boreholes should be constructed for women for dry season farming  Strengthen women farming groups along the food crop production chain. Food Processors:  Business management, branding, packaging and marketing training  Improved access to loans.  There is the need to manufacture simple and gender friendly production and processing devices to reduce drudgery and cost of operations. Food Marketers:  A viable value chain should be developed and supported with the requisite infrastructure and competencies to operate profitably.  Local processing factories should be revamped to create additional market for producers of perishable commodities.  Institutional purchases by Government could create assured markets and control prices  Youth could be encouraged into marketing of agricultural products.  Value addition to foods coupled with market linkages like the school feeding programme.  Local foods should be advertised to promote their consumption. Food Transporters:  Introduce cold vans to preserve fruits and vegetables in transit.  Hire purchase of vehicles should be promoted Food Preparers:  Set and enforce food quality standards to ensure accessibility of wholesome food  Intensify training of preparers, especially on the consequences of malnutrition and unwholesome foods.  Provision of iron-rich for adolescent girls and compulsory healthy snacks at school  Workers in the hospitality industry should not show preferential treatments based on race or gender236242244246248249250Ensuring resilience of the Ghanaian food system  Enhance efficiency in distribution system and provide direct access to produce at the farm gate (including the provision of roads)  Address climate change issues that are affecting rain fall patterns in the country, including engaging in climate-smart agriculture to ensure all year-round production  Provide policy incentives for regional trade (imports) to make up for shortfalls  Provide extension services on preservation of farm produce  Providing, equipping and siting storage and processing facilities at areas easily accessible to the farmers  Taking advantage of virtual platforms to advertise food items.  Strengthen our surveillance system to be able to predict and anticipate shocks in order to prepare  Improve women access and control of productive resources like land and investment in machines for processing  Having an intermediary to distribute products to benefit both the farmer and distributor  Bui power plant is situated in the middle belt and that can help power food processing plants.  Private sector should be able to do a Ghanaian version of the tricycles at cheaper prices for our farmers to be able to use to transport their produce  We should intensify vertical farming in our backyards and small markets gardening in areas where we have pockets of land left  Engaging in land zoning and regulating the acquisition of agricultural lands to protect agricultural lands  Invest into education, trainings and sensitizations at all levels targeting farmers, youth and children in school on the importance of storage, access to credit and markets, making processing more nutrition sensitive and producing local fortified foods among others.  Explore preservation mechanism for our farm produce and more research into sustainable food processing practices  Encouraging formation of youth groupings provide financial assistance and mentor them into aqua culture237238239240241242244246248249250 It was suggested that, Agriculture should be made attractive to youth. However, some indicated that the youth are already attracted to agriculture and face difficulty e.g. entering poultry industry. That said, the youth are not receiving the needed support from the Government including access to arable land.  Women should be supported where they can perform.  It was suggested that Ghana establishes a Ministry for Food and Nutrition in order to guarantee budget allocation to address food and nutrition rather than leaving allocations to the discretion of Ministries such as Food and Agriculture and Health. Another participant thought this was not necessary as nutrition issues were multi-sectoral in nature. Rather, the authority for nutrition could be placed at the Office of the President or Vice President which have the mandate to direct several sectors.  There was a suggestion to eliminate too many “middlemen” because they inflate prices. On the other hand, it was alluded that some middlemen are instrumental connecting farmers to markets.  The major point of divergence during the conversation was the decision on whether Ghana’s food system had the ability to prepare for, withstand and recover from crises. A few participants agreed in the affirmative; however, further discussions on the indicators of resilience brought about consensus where everyone agreed that Ghana’s food system is not well prepared to withstand and recover from crises. Although everyone agreed there is great potential for resilience building.

2021-08-18 04:45:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39164/120

4311321031229331091321211221162

El Diálogo se organizó con amplia convocatoria, apertura y pluralidad para las y los parlamentarios, las y los académicos, instituciones, organizaciones sociales y personas interesadas para sumarse a través una plataforma virtual. Se desarrolló una participación introductoria de los "Sistemas alimentarios regenerativos, inclusivos y resilientes" en el marco de la Cumbre 2021 de Sistemas Alimentarios, posteriormente se inicio con las sesiones de debate programadas por 90 minutos, dividas en tres mesas de debate: "A.Contexto global para los sistemas regenerativos, inclusivos y resilientes", B. Acciones parlamentarias e institucionales nacionales, C.El rol de la sociedad civil en los sistemas alimentarios regenerativos, inclusivos y resilientes, que por medio de preguntas detonadoras y con el apoyo de las personas facilitadoras por cada mesa apoyaron el debate para que se desarrollara de manera respetuosa, plural, inclusiva sin discriminación y en un ambiente de confianza para todas y todos los participantes. Posteriormente se desarrolló una Plenaria general en que se compartieron todas las aportaciones y compromisos asumidos en las mesas de debate con todas y todos los participantes del Diálogo por 30 minutos y finalmente se compartieron las conclusiones generales durante 20 minutos.El Frente Parlamentario Contra el Hambre Capítulo México, desde ámbito legislativo busca fortalecer la articulación social e institucional como señala el Principio de urgencia de acciones a todos los niveles, de forma sostenida y coherente, para alcanzar los diversos Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para 2030. Así, atendiendo el Principio de respeto y reconociendo el carácter interdependiente de los derechos humanos nos seguimos esforzando por emprender acciones tendientes a la promoción de políticas y prácticas de producción regenerativas. Buscamos a través estas acciones seguir fomentando comunidades resilientes para garantizar la administración y gestión de los recursos naturales, respetando las conexiones bioculturales y los contextos locales. Reconocemos el Principio de complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios y su interconexión con la biodiversidad del planeta y planteamos un enfoque regenerativo que tomen en cuenta, el clima, la biodiversidad, la salud, la tierra, el agua, así como las economías locales y circulares para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios actuales. Se privilegio también, el Principio de inclusión de múltiples partes interesadas al hacer un amplia convocatoria y vinculación entre la sociedad civil, la academia, legisladores e incluir diversas opiniones en las mesas de debate. Asimismo, refrendamos el Principio de compromiso para continuar con la promoción de todos los esfuerzos locales, nacionales y mundial que fortalezcan los sistemas agroalimentarios justos, saludables y sustentables por medio del trabajo colaborativo de las autoridades, organizaciones sociales, académicos y la sociedad civil. Con el fomento de nuevas ideas y enfoques para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios se buscó desarrollar el Principio de Complementar la labor de los demás. Bajo el Principio de confianza, en el Diálogo se incorporaron distintas visiones para compartir los retos, críticas, experiencias y estrategias que permitan fortalecer la cooperación y acciones concretas de todas y todos los actores.Promover convocatorias plurales y abiertas que permitan participar a diversos actores interesados en los sistemas alimentarios.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251El “Diálogo independiente: sistemas alimentarios regenerativos, inclusivos y resilientes” el cual ha fue convocado desde el Frente Parlamentario Contra el Hambre, Capítulo México, ha tenido la finalidad de promover acciones comunes que permitan avanzar en la resolución de los problemas estructurales del hambre, la malnutrición, la emergencia sanitaria y el cambio climático en nuestro país y en el mundo, rumbo a la Cumbre 2021 Sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios. Este Diálogo ha representado una oportunidad para fortalecer políticas y directrices de atención prioritaria a los sistemas alimentarios, desde una perspectiva integral, regenerativa, inclusiva y resiliente. Esto, con especial relevancia en el contexto de la contingencia sanitaria que enfrentamos actualmente a nivel mundial y que pone en peligro la vida y salud de todas las personas. Asimismo, es la oportunidad propicia para plantear la reflexión nacional y mundial en la Cumbre 2021 de Sistemas Alimentarios sobre la necesidad de transitar a sistemas agroalimentarios más sanos y sustentables que faciliten el acceso de las personas a mejores condiciones de calidad. También, ha puesto en el centro de la deliberación, la preocupación compartida por el último informe del Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC), en el la comunidad científica está observando cambios en el clima de la Tierra en todas las regiones y en el sistema climático en su conjunto. Muchos de estos cambios no tienen precedentes en cientos de miles de años, y algunosde ellos que ya se están produciendo, como el aumento continuo del nivel del mar, no se podrán revertir hasta dentro de varios siglos o milenios. La evidencia que ofrece este informe sobre la gravedad de la situación climática actual en el mundo y sobre la estrecha relación de causalidad que la conducta de nuestras sociedades guarda con tal fenómeno, es un llamado urgente para que transitemos de las actuales prácticas de producción, comercialización y consumo de alimentos, hacia modelos no solo sostenibles, sino regenerativos. No basta con producir más alimentos en forma que se minimicen los daños al planeta: debemos empezar a producir alimentos de forma que activamente restauren al hábitat, la biodiversidad y la salud y reduzcan las emisiones de fecto invernadero. Desde las mesas debate convocadas por Capítulo Mexicano del Frente Parlamentario Contra el Hambre, se manifestó la voluntad por seguir impulsando el avance en la consecución de los 17 Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible de las Naciones Unidas y la reiteración de nuestro compromiso para promover todas las acciones tendientes a fortalecer los sistemas agroalimentarios justos, saludables y sustentables a través de un trabajo colaborativo de las autoridades, organizaciones sociales, académicos y la sociedad civil para avanzar en mejores resultados en la Cumbre 2021 Sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios.235238239240241242243244247248249251Primero. Que la resolución de los problemas estructurales del hambre, la malnutrición, la emergencia sanitaria y el cambio climático, requieren soluciones integrales, regenerativas, inclusivas y resilientes. Segundo.Que es urgente para que transitemos de las actuales prácticas de producción, comercialización y consumo de alimentos, hacia modelos no sólo sostenibles, sino regenerativos. No basta con producir más alimentos en forma que se minimicen los daños al planeta: debemos empezar a producir alimentos de forma que restauren al hábitat, la biodiversidad y la salud y reduzcan las emisiones de efecto invernadero. Tercero. Que es urgente atender la distorsión del mercado mundial alimentario a través regulaciones y acuerdos transnacionales y nacionales que fomenten la protección de sistemas alimentarios más sanos, justos, regenerativos y resilientes. Cuarto. Fortalecer las visiones transversales de género, intercultural y etaria en la creación de legislaciones y políticas públicas. Quinto. Que es necesario fortalecer las políticas y acciones programáticas concretas con enfoques agroecológicos y promoción de sistemas alimentarios locales, con pleno respeto a su relacion biocultural y conocimiento tradicional. Sexto. Que requiere una cooperación y coordinación interinstitucional, transdisciplinaria y multisectorial para la elaboración de políticas públicas trasversales orientadas a la construcción de sistemas alimentarios integrales, regenerativos, inclusivos, justos y resilientes. Séptimo. Que es prioritario garantizar mecanismos de transparencia, acceso a la información y parlamento abierto y co-creación de normas y políticas públicas con una amplia participación social.236238239240241242243244245246247248249251Grupo A. Contexto global para los sistemas regenerativos, inclusivos y resilientes: • Atender la distorsión del mercado mundial alimentario que privilegia la obtención de ganancias por encima de los derechos humanos a la alimentación, la salud, medio ambiente sano y los derechos sociales las poblaciones más rezagadas. • Promover regulaciones transnacionales y nacionales que fomenten la protección de sistemas alimentarios más sanos, justos, regenerativos y resilientes. • Proponer mecanismos que atiendan el incremento de la problemática de la renta de la tierra y falta de ingreso en los campesinos. • Desarrollar políticas que fomenten la revaloración del trabajo campesino. • Fortalecimiento del rol de las mujeres y los jóvenes en el campo. • Atender en la construcción de legislaciones y políticas públicas que tomen en cuenta la relación biocultural y conocimientos ancestrales locales. • Atender la falta de incentivos e inversión económica adecuada para desarrrollo de las comunidades campesinas. • Fomentar políticas públicas que incentiven a sistemas economía solidaria.236238239240241242243244246247248249251Grupo B. Acciones parlamentarias e institucionales nacionales: • Fortalecer un trabajo de armonización integral de los ordenamientos jurídicos para los sistemas alimentarios que no presenten antinomias con otras legislaciones o normatividad. • Promover el uso de la evidencia técnica dentro del proceso legislativo y de creación de políticas públicas. • Identificación de áreas de oportunidad para fortalecer la capacidad institucional de fiscalización y vigilancia. • Fortalecer una visión la transversal de género en la creación de legislaciones y políticas públicas. • Crear mecanismos que fortalezcan el autoconsumo sostenible por medio incentivar la producción local y el consumo responsable y sostenible para cumplimiento de los ODS 2 y 5. • Fortalecer las legislaciones que garanticen los derechos de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas y afrodescendientes. • Establecer lineamientos que identifiquen y prevengan los conflictos de intereses que puedan interferir en la construcción de políticas públicas o legislaciones. • Creación de mecanismos de monitoreo, fiscalización y evaluación periódicos que permitan medir la eficiencia de las legislaciones y políticas públicas implementadas que tomen encuenta los recursos humanos, técnicos, materiales y presupuestales disponibles. • Fortalecimiento de mecanismos de transparencia, acceso a la información y rendición de cuentas con mayor participación social en los parlamentos e instituciones de todos los niveles de gobierno.236238239240241242243244246247248249250251Grupo C. El rol de la sociedad civil en los sistemas alimentarios regenerativos, inclusivos y resilientes: • Promover la construcción y fortalecimiento de grupos y redes globales que impulsen la participación organizada de grupos vinculados a todas las fases de los sistemas alimentarios. • Desarrollar acciones para la incorporación de los sujetos sociales locales y así como la elaborar de diagnósticos técnicos, sociales, culturales y económicos y ambientales. • Fortalecimiento de políticas y acciones programáticas concretas con enfoques agroecológicos y promoción de sistemas alimentarios locales, con pleno respeto a su relación biocultural y conocimiento tradicional. • Fomentar los programas que incentiven la producción de traspatio y así como el uso de espacios públicos, promover la autosuficiencia alimentaria. • Fortalecimiento de los circuitos cortos de comercialización: comercio justo, compras públicas, vinculaciones locales y regionales entre otras acciones. • Coordinación interinstitucional y multidiciplinaria para la elaboración de las políticas públicas trasversales orientadas a la construcción de sistemas alimentarios integrales, regenerativos, inclusivos, justos y resilientes. • Garantizar mecanismos de transparencia, acceso a la información y parlamento abierto y co-creación de normas y políticas públicas que permitan una mayor deliberación e incidencia efectiva de las distintas demandas por parte todos los sectores de la población.237238239240241243244246247249Grupo A. Contexto global para los sistemas regenerativos, inclusivos y resilientes: Preocupaciones sobre la reforma de la Ley Federal de Variedades Vegetales no concensuada, planteada tras la firma del Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá (T-MEC) y el Tratado Transpacífico (TPP) y las cláusulas de UPOV-91. Grupo B. Acciones parlamentarias e institucionales nacionales: En el grupo de debate surgió la disyuntiva sobre la necesidad de realizar reformas al texto constitucional (artículo 73) para otorgar la facultad de legislar sobre el derecho a la alimentación o de reelaborar la propuesta de redacción del artículo 1º del Proyecto de la Ley General del Derecho a la Alimentación Adecuada para establecer los alcances sin realizar una reforma constitucional. Grupo C. • Existe un interés por promover prácticas agroecológicas y se trabaja en un programa nacional. Al mismo tiempo, otros apoyos al campo están enfocados en una producción más amplia e intensiva. • Se reconoce la voluntad de trabajar en la construcción de una postura integral hacia la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios, pero preocupan las contradicciones al interior del país. • Se reconoce que hay una diversidad de postura aun dentro de organizaciones y pequeña producción: no todos esos grupos conocen de agroecología, o están dispuestos a dejar de usar agroquímicos. Desde sociedad civil, se puede promover las ventajas de una producción sana que garantice una alimentación saludable. • La gestión de parte de estas contradicciones o diferencias puede venir de un liderazgo fuerte por parte del Estado y las autoridades nacionales, hacia la unificación de posturas en cuanto a alimentación saludable, a sistemas alimentarios diversos, basados en producción agroecológica, en la regulación del sector privado para hacerlo responsable de sus efectos negativos en temas alimentarios y climáticos.

2021-08-18 08:38:45205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41412/22

Yes

2021-08-18 09:08:48https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/قمة-لنظم-الغذائية-2021-حوارات.pdf

2021-08-18 08:51:30205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35894/193

0864772362104953253015111202913440111619554510451937610020986993010530102111051016

Yes

2021-08-18 09:44:13205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29905/111

6885714401639038229016199902534298630183035511984719914121376491186832748170

Pour Madagascar, la première concertation nationale a été organisée le jeudi 08 juillet en mode hybride (en présentiel et en ligne) en raison du contexte sanitaire mais également afin de pourvoir impliquer tous les acteurs issus des 22 régions de Madagascar. En respectant la méthodologie préconisée par le Guide du Sommet sur les Systèmes Alimentaires (SSA), la concertation a été organisée sur la base des principes véhiculés ci-après : - L’approche inclusive et multi-acteurs avec l’implication effective de plusieurs catégories d’acteurs issus des 22 régions de Madagascar - La mobilisation des acteurs issus de divers secteurs pour s’engager ensemble vers des pistes de solutions nationales. - La fixation des thématiques traitées en alignement au contexte national relaté dans les résultats du diagnostic des systèmes alimentaires récemment effectué pour Madagascar. - L’observation de 2030 comme repère temporel par rapport au changement à mettre en œuvre. - La sensibilisation des différents acteurs à proposer des solutions innovantes en tenant compte des défis mondiaux, des principes du SSA, des leviers de développement identifiés à travers le diagnostic national ainsi que des politiques nationales déjà existantes. - La mobilisation des parties prenantes à s’engager davantage dans le cadre du processus de concertation en vue d’aboutir à une feuille de route commune avec une vision partagée pour la transformation des systèmes alimentaires durable pour le pays. Afin de renforcer l’engagement et la prise de responsabilité des acteurs, des points focaux ont été désignés au niveau des Départements ministériels clés directement touchés par les systèmes alimentaires et associés pour aider dans la mobilisation et la forte implication d’un large éventail d’acteurs. Les facilitateurs volontaires ont été formés quelques jours avant le dialogue sur les techniques de base de facilitation, les principes d’actions du SSA, la conduite technique des groupes de discussions lors du dialogue national, ainsi que les aspects technologique liés à l’organisation logistique.Les aspects spécifiques des principes lors de la concertation sont reflétées à travers : - L’engagement fort du Gouvernement à participer à ce processus de mobilisation mondiale et avec l’engagement personnel du Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche désigné officiellement comme Coordonnateur des concertations nationales pour Madagascar - La mise en place d’un Task force sous le lead du Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche (MAEP) avec des représentants de l’Office National de la Nutrition (ONN) et des agences des Systèmes des Nations Unis ayant appuyé directement le Ministère dans ce processus, à savoir la FAO, le FIDA, le PAM, le PNUD et l’UNICEF. - Le briefing des facilitateurs avant la concertation portant sur l’encouragement des participants à proposer des solutions innovantes et pragmatiques. - La répartition des participants dans 50 groupes de discussion pendant 60 minutes pour s’assurer de donner à tous le temps de comprendre les enjeux et de s’exprimer librement. - La latitude qui a été donnée aux participants pour s’exprimer sur la base de la culture locale ou des données scientifiques, de parler de plans et de stratégies à élaborer ou à mettre en œuvre dans le cadre de ces divers systèmes. - Le profil multipartite des participants au dialogue national. - La stimulation de la volonté de participation de tous les acteurs: la participation a été ouverte aux invités ciblés mais également au grand public.

Yes

234238241242244246248251En tenant compte du contexte et des enjeux au niveau du pays, Madagascar a choisi comme titre guidant sa concertation nationale : « Population malagasy bien nourrie et en meilleure santé, grâce à des systèmes alimentaires performants, inclusifs, résilients et durables». La concertation nationale a été basée sur les résultats d’un diagnostic des systèmes alimentaires mené au premier trimestre 2021 en collaboration avec la FAO, l’Union Européenne et le CIRAD, visant à construire un récit cohérent et systémique sur les principaux défis actuels et futurs rencontrés par les systèmes alimentaires à Madagascar et en incorporant les différentes dimensions de la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires: (i) Sécurité alimentaire, nutrition, santé, (ii) Socio-économie, (iii) Equilibre territorial et équité et (iv) Environnement et ressources naturelles. Ce diagnostic des systèmes alimentaires malagasy a permis d’identifier les divers problèmes relatifs aux modes de consommation et de production alimentaires de la population, des performances du Systèmes alimentaires malagasy par rapport à ces 4 dimensions de la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires. A l'issue de ce diagnostic, huit défis à relever ont été également ressortis, à savoir :  La culture alimentaire  La pression démographique  La paupérisation  La politique et la décentralisation  Les inégalités  L’insécurité  L’enclavement  Les changements climatiques Afin de faire face à ces défis, 19 leviers au niveau national ont été identifiés à l'issue des consultations faites, dont 8 leviers clés priorisés pour améliorer la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires à Madagascar: - La nutrition et la sécurité alimentaire - L’organisation des chaînes de valeur des produits agricoles - Le renforcement des services agricoles de proximité - L’amélioration et la remise en état des infrastructures agricoles et de transport - Le renforcement de la décentralisation - La gestion de la fertilité des sols (limiter lessivage, re-fertiliser, pratiques climato-résilientes) - La gestion et l’accès à l’eau (potable et pour l’agriculture) - Les changements climatiques Ces 8 leviers ont été par la suite catégorisés et alignés aux pistes d’actions du SSA pour être pris en compte dans les thématiques de discussions de la concertation nationale. Ainsi, l’examen des liens entre les différents leviers prioritaires nationaux et les pistes d’actions du SSA a abouti au choix de 3 thématiques majeures pour Madagascar: - la promotion de l'accès à une alimentation diversifiée, saine et nutritive liée à la Piste d’action 1. - la promotion d’une gouvernance favorisant des moyens de subsistance équitables et résilients liée à la Piste d’action 4 - la promotion d’une production résiliente face au changement climatique assurant la durabilité des ressources naturelles (sols - eau) liée à la Piste d’action 5. Le premier thème majeur ayant trait à la promotion de l'accès à une alimentation diversifiée, saine et nutritive est assez vaste. En tenant compte des priorités du pays, les éléments de discussion considèrent également les questions de nutrition et de sécurité alimentaire ainsi que l’organisation des chaînes de valeur notamment celle relative à la coordination entre les différentes parties prenantes et l’aspect logistique. Le second thème relatif à la promotion d’une gouvernance favorisant des moyens de subsistance équitables et résilients traite à la fois les questions (i) de renforcement des services agricoles de proximité par les conseils, le financement et la formation, (ii) d’amélioration et de remise en état des infrastructures agricoles et de transport, et (ii) du renforcement de la décentralisation afin de mieux définir les priorités régionales et les complémentarités entre les zones et de réduire les inégalités. Le troisième thème de discussion portant sur la promotion d’une production résiliente face au changement climatique assurant la durabilité des ressources naturelles a été axé sur la gestion du sol, la gestion de l’eau et l’application des techniques de production résilientes au niveau des producteurs.235238241242244246248251La première concertation nationale sur les Systèmes alimentaires, intitulé "Population malagasy bien nourrie et en meilleure santé grâce à des systèmes alimentaires performants inclusifs résilients et durables", a permis de mettre en lumière sur la table de discussion les défis majeurs auxquels Madagascar doivent faire face pour promouvoir l'accès à une alimentation diversifiée, saine et nutritive, promouvoir une gouvernance favorisant des moyens de subsistance équitables et résilients et enfin de promouvoir une production résiliente face au changement climatique assurant la durabilité des ressources naturelles. A l’issue de cette première concertation nationale, de nombreux avis et réflexions ont pu être dégagés par rapport actions à mettre en œuvre pour atteindre les objectifs de la transformation de notre système alimentaire. Ces avis englobent à la fois des actions de renforcement de ce qui ont déjà été menée depuis mais aussi des actions innovantes. Parmi les renforcements des actions ou initiatives déjà mises en œuvre : - il est capital d’améliorer les connaissances de la population sur les bonnes pratiques de nutrition et d’hygiène et de mettre en place des dispositifs d’amélioration de la nutrition accessibles aux ménages pour la promotion de l’accès à une alimentation diversifiée, saine et nutritive. A cela s’ajoute l’importance d’une amélioration de la valeur ajoutée issue de la vente des produits agricoles au niveau des paysans producteurs au niveau des chaines de valeur. - la promotion de la gouvernance pour les moyens de subsistance équitables et résilients, requiert à ce que les collectivités décentralisées disposent des ressources humaines, matérielles et financières adéquates pour appuyer une production agricole sécurisée, rémunératrice et durable. Le renforcement des organisations paysannes liées à la production alimentaire par le biais des relais techniques et la connexion au marché fait partie des résultats tirés de cette concertation. - Pour la promotion d’une production résiliente face au changement climatique assurant la durabilité des ressources naturelles, des renforcements de la capacité de résilience des communautés rurales face au changement climatique sont incontournables. Cependant, au vu des évolutions de systèmes de production, il a été également soulevé qu’une valorisation des résultats de recherche dans le domaine de la durabilité des ressources naturelles ne pourrait qu’être bénéfique pour cette transformation. Par contre, l’innovation perçue réside dans les approches. En effet, il est ressorti : - qu’il est fondamental d’adopter une approche inclusive sur les systèmes alimentaires. Il s’agit d’autonomiser les femmes, piliers dans la transformation et dans le transfert de connaissance en matière de nutrition et de mettre les pères de famille et les jeunes au cœur de l'action. Il est aussi question de renforcer l'engagement du secteur privé et de la société civile tout en assurant des appuis à l'agriculture familiale pour une professionnalisation non seulement des petites exploitations familiales mais également des organisations paysannes. - qu’il est primordial de renforcer les stratégies de changement de comportement en encourageant les consommateurs à opter pour les produits locaux. La responsabilisation de tout un chacun dans l’entretien et la gestion des infrastructures, en marge des diverses associations serait de mise, en passant par l’institutionnalisation des meilleures pratiques tirées des expériences des acteurs. - qu’il est indispensable de favoriser les approches multisectorielles par la prise en compte de l’approche paysage en considérant les systèmes de production dans leur globalité. Le désenclavement des zones productrices ferait suite à cela mais surtout par la promotion de l'accès à la terre pour tous et en particulier pour les paysans pour s’assurer de l’appropriation de cette approche multisectorielle par tous. Cette première concertation a également mis en évidence la nécessité d'approfondir les points suivants dans les prochaines rencontres : - la manière d'amorcer les changements ainsi que la manière dont les parties prenantes pourront collaborer dans chaque étape. - les modes de financement qui vont soutenir la transformation des systèmes alimentaires malagasy.236238248251THEME 1 : PROMOUVOIR L'ACCES A UNE ALIMENTATION DIVERSIFIEE, SAINE ET NUTRITIVE. Les observations sur le premier thème se sont portées sur la nutrition, la sécurité alimentaire et sur l’organisation des chaînes de valeur.  En matière de nutrition et de sécurité alimentaire, les effets recherchés portent sur l’adoption d’une approche inclusive pour des systèmes alimentaires dans lequel il est nécessaire de renforcer les stratégies de changement de comportement pour l'adoption d'une alimentation diversifiée, riche en micronutriments et en quantité suffisante et aussi une amélioration de la connaissance de la population sur les bonnes pratiques de nutrition et d’hygiène. Des dispositifs d’amélioration de la nutrition doivent être effectifs et accessibles aux ménages pour que la population (enfants de moins de 6 ans, femmes, ménages) ait un accès satisfaisant à une alimentation diversifiée, riche en micronutriments et en quantité suffisante, répondant aux besoins journaliers. Cela ne pourrait cependant être atteint sans une augmentation de la diversification de l’offre en produits alimentaires diversifiés incluant les fruits et légumes au niveau des producteurs face aux besoins du marché et aux besoins des consommateurs. L’atteinte de ces effets doit passer par : - Des actions de sensibilisation, de formation et d’éducation nutritionnelle de masse, des familles, des pères de familles, des femmes et des leaders locaux sur l'alimentation saine, diversifiée et nutritive et apporter de l'innovation dans l’alimentation : plus de fruits et de légumes, plus de produits de la pêche, valorisation des insectes, etc. - Des améliorations des habitudes alimentaires et de renouvellement des cultures locales en matière d'alimentation ; - Il serait important de s’assurer de l’autonomisation des femmes, piliers dans la transformation et dans le transfert de connaissance en matière de nutrition - la mise en place d’un programme national d’intensification agricole /diversification agricole et alimentaire et l’adoption d’une approche intégrée entre l’agriculture, l’élevage et la santé dans le milieu rural.  Pour ce qui est de l’organisation des chaînes de valeurs, les consultations ont appuyé le besoin d’une augmentation de la résilience des capacités de production alimentaire face aux divers aléas de production et de commercialisation. Cela pourrait être atteint par la promotion d’une nouvelle approche de l'économie de ménage dans le cadre de la professionnalisation des petites exploitations familiales. II serait aussi recommandé de créer une amélioration de la valeur ajoutée issue de la vente des produits agricoles au niveau des paysans producteurs. A cet effet, les actions à mener auraient trait à : o L’incitation à la création d'usines ou d’unités locales pour renforcer la conservation et la transformation visant à réduire les pertes post-récoltes et créer de la valeur ajoutée ; o La promotion des échanges locaux par la revitalisation des marchés locaux, l’incitation des citoyens à acheter et à consommer les produits locaux ; o La création de dispositifs pour faciliter la mise en relation des paysans avec des opérateurs économiques ou de marchés, ainsi que la promotion de l'agrégation dans la planification et l’organisation des chaines de valeurs ; o L’organisation périodique de Salons de la créativité pour les producteurs dans chaque Région ; o La promotion de l'entrepreneuriat des jeunes ; o Le renforcement des organisations paysannes liées à la production alimentaire de base par des relais techniques, la connexion au marché, la valorisation de la qualité des produits. Les groupes d’acteurs concernés sont : Ménages: pères, femmes, jeunes ; leaders locaux ; éducateurs et formateurs ; sociétés civiles ; Secteur privé ; organisations paysannes ; agents de communications (radio et autres médias) ; autorités locales ; Gouvernement (Office, projets et programmes).236241246248THEME 2 : PROMOUVOIR UNE GOUVERNANCE FAVORISANT DES MOYENS DE SUBSISTANCE EQUITABLES ET RESILIENTS En se focalisant sur le renforcement des services agricoles de proximité, l’amélioration et la remise en état des infrastructures agricoles et de transport et enfin le renforcement de la décentralisation, les discussions ont fait ressortir :  Que les services de l'Etat, déconcentrés et décentralisés doivent avoir les moyens et les pouvoirs de décisions nécessaires (conseil, financement, formation) pour rendre effective la décentralisation. Il en est de même pour les collectivités décentralisées qui devraient disposer des ressources humaines, matérielles et financières pour appuyer une production agricole sécurisée, rémunératrice et durable. Cela devra être accompagné d’une amélioration de l’équilibre de distribution des ressources financières et humaines entre les zones. Il faudrait donc pour se faire s’assurer : o De l’appui à la maîtrise d’ouvrage et à la bonne gouvernance des fonds octroyés aux Collectivités Territoriales Décentralisées o De la mise en application des textes en vigueur sur la décentralisation effective o De l’intégration de la promotion des systèmes alimentaires durables dans les planifications locales (Plan Communal de Développement et Plan Régional de Développement) ; o De la mise à disposition d'un budget spécifique dédié à l'appui aux paysans au niveau des Communes ; o Et de la mise en place des centres ou entités de suivi des avancements/résultats en termes de système alimentaire durable.  L’importance des services agricoles de proximité devant fournir des offres de services adéquates avec appui technique, suivi et accompagnement aux producteurs. Pour cela, il a été recommandé la capitalisation des acquis ou la redynamisation des structures déjà existantes, la mise en place des dispositifs d’accès aux services et conseils agricoles au niveau Districts ou Communes ainsi que la mise à jour des bases de données des intervenants dans les systèmes alimentaires au niveau local.  la nécessité de l’augmentation des investissements dans la remise en état des infrastructures agricoles et de transport en réponse aux besoins de la population et permettant d’améliorer le niveau de la production ainsi que l’écoulement des produits. Le désenclavement des zones productrices et à fort potentiel agricole requiert également la mise en place de staff technique au niveau des Communes, permettant de mieux prioriser les constructions, la réhabilitation des routes, pistes et voies de dessertes. Pour les infrastructures, il est préconisé l’usage des techniques modernes pour obtenir des infrastructures agricoles et de transport résilient face au changement climatique. Néanmoins, il y a lieu de renforcer la sensibilisation, la redevabilité et la transparence dans la gestion locale des infrastructures (ex : système de traçabilité, digitalisation des recouvrements, ristourne, péage...) ; ainsi que la mise en place de dispositifs permettant la conscientisation des citoyens dans la responsabilisation dans la gestion et l'entretien des infrastructures (responsabilisation, respect des périodes d'entretien...) pour s’assurer de leur durabilité.  L’importance des actions de sécurisation foncière massive et de facilitation d'accès des producteurs aux titres fonciers, de promotion du droit foncier communautaire, et de la digitalisation des données sur le foncier disponible dans chaque Région. Il faudrait aussi un appui au service foncier décentralisé à travers le développement de la dématérialisation du service foncier.  Des actions transversales en appui à ces initiatives méritent d’être considérées : o Le renforcement de la stratégie de communication/ utilisation des médias pour la conscientisation, le partage des informations et des techniques de production et aussi de transformation appropriée ; o L’initiative depuis les Communes et Régions par l’implication des acteurs locaux dans la formulation des solutions (leaders d’opinion).  Les groupes d’acteurs concernés Gouvernorats, Ministères, Services Territoriaux Déconcentrés - Services décentralisés, Communes, Organisations des producteurs, médias et citoyens.236242244246THEME 3 : PROMOUVOIR UNE PRODUCTION RESILIENTE FACE AU CHANGEMENT CLIMATIQUE ASSURANT LA DURABILITE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES EN PARTICULIER POUR LES SOLS ET L’EAU Les défis majeurs discutés dans ce thème concernent la résilience face aux changements climatiques, la gestion de la fertilité des sols et la gestion de l’eau et de son accès autant pour l’eau potable que pour l’agriculture, et la recherche.  En termes de gestion et de restauration des sols pour une production d’aliments sains et nutritifs, la restauration des sols par la limitation du lessivage l’analyse de la fertilité du sol et la mise en application des pratiques climato-résilientes sont à renforcer.  S’agissant de la gestion de l’eau, il a été recommandé le besoin d’amélioration de la qualité de l’eau et de son accessibilité pour tous ; l’optimisation de l’utilisation des infrastructures de gestion de l’eau adapté en milieu rural, notamment dans les zones touchées par la sècheresse à travers : o L’appui aux Associations d'Usagers de l'Eau ; o La promotion des pratiques et des outils qui utilisent peu de ressources en eau (canal de ceinture, bassin de rétention d'eau, impluvium, Réservoir d'Eau Enterré Plein de Sable (REEPS)...  En vue de renforcer la résilience face aux changements climatiques, il a été recommandé l’application de mécanismes de gestion des ressources naturelles répondant de manière résiliente aux différents chocs et risques ; la mise à l’échelle des pratiques agro-écologiques et la mise en place de parcelle de démonstration- champ-école. Ces activités devant être accompagnées de changement de comportement des paysans face à la détérioration des systèmes de production à travers l’institutionnalisation des meilleures pratiques tirées des expériences des acteurs.  Pour la valorisation des résultats de recherche dans le domaine de la durabilité des ressources naturelles, il est question de renforcement de la diffusion des résultats de recherche et de leur application. Il a été aussi recommandé de mettre à disposition des groupes de chercheurs des parcelles de démonstration permettant de diffuser les résultats de recherche, ainsi que la mise en place des « vitrines de bonne pratique agricole/parcelle de démonstration » au niveau des Communes et des Régions.  les actions transversales d’appui concernent: o La mise en place d’une stratégie pour le changement de comportement incluant la sensibilisation et la communication de masse pour un changement de comportement des agriculteurs producteurs pour vers l’adoption d’un mode de production résilient face aux changements climatiques (agroécologie, restauration de paysages forestiers, protection des bassins versants, réduction de l'utilisation de bois de chauffe et du charbonnage ...) ; o La promotion de la formation et la professionnalisation des jeunes pour la maîtrise des pratiques agricoles respectueuses de la nature ; o La promotion de l’approche paysage tout en considérant les systèmes de production dans leur globalité. o La mise en œuvre des programmes d'éducation citoyenne pour sensibiliser et promouvoir des activités de reboisement pour visant à préserver la nappe phréatique ; Les groupes d’acteurs suivant doivent agir : Départements Ministériels, éducateurs et formateurs, producteurs, médias, usagers de l’eau, Organismes Non Gouvernementaux, médias, société civile, secteur privé.237238241242244246248251Au cours de cette première concertation nationale pour Madagascar, les participants ont partagé la vision et les principes du SSA et se sont accordés sur l'urgence et l'opportunité d'agir pour la transformation des systèmes alimentaires nationaux. Cependant, des divergences d'opinions ont pu être relevées dont les plus fréquentes concernent : - Gouvernance et décentralisation effective : Les acteurs de la base ont tendance à penser comme ne faisant pas partie des cercles de décisions et n’ont pas tellement leurs mots à dire même s’ils sont les premiers concernés. Par contre, les agents de l’Administration soutiennent que la loi promeut la décentralisation et la bonne gouvernance à Madagascar. - La gestion de la fertilité des sols : il ne s'agit pas tout simplement de lutter contre la fertilisation chimique du sol mais il serait nécessaire de mener des diagnostics des fertilités des sols et en faire une cartographie à diffuser pour atteindre les objectifs. - Le changement climatique : Les techniciens ont insisté sur l'urgence d'adapter les techniques existantes. D'autres acteurs ont par contre mis l'accent sur la nécessité de faire des études approfondies sur les actions à mettre en œuvre et la nécessité de faire un transfert de connaissance avec les acteurs premiers concernés. - La motivation des producteurs a aussi fait débat durant les échanges : Comment les motiver ? Même motivés, vont-ils agir activement pour la transformation des systèmes alimentaires ? - La spécialisation des filières : si certains acteurs affirment que la spécialisation dans les filières est incontournable, d'autres estiment que professionnaliser les acteurs à la base constitue déjà une alternative. - Les centres d’appui agricoles ne doivent pas se limiter à donner des conseils mais offrir un paquet d’activités (orientation, formation, suivi, encadrement,…).

2021-08-18 10:45:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12672/203

33704418010480160172421600000007200044080288040004176420900284002820

The Dialogue approach was used in a virtual webinar for different stakeholders and participants to: • Listen to each other in an inclusive multi-stakeholder platform; • Welcome diverse perspectives; • Demonstrate respect for one another and differentiating views; • Learn new information; • Explore synergies in complex, interconnected themes; • Identify promising courses of action; • Review potential impact of different strategies; • Highlight the urgency of action; • Engage the plant health community to the UN Food Systems Summit. The event was open for everybody.The event was inclusive and engaged a wide array of stakeholders. The event had speakers from different stakeholder groups from all FAO regions to ensure geographical balance, as jointly agreed by the International Steering Committee for the International Year of Plant Health. The selection of speakers also took account of gender balance. The event aimed to ensure a continuous engagement of the international community to keep promoting awareness of plant health and its importance to food systems after the official closure of the International Year of Plant Health. A question and answer session was open for all participants during the event.In global events, it is important to ensure balanced representation from different geographical areas, genders and stakeholder groups. It is also important to communicate in a transparent and timely way to all speakers and participants, and maximise the benefits of utilizing social media in sharing information about the event and conveying its key messages. Planning-ahead is the key in virtual events. We organized dry runs for speakers to test the platform and presentation mode the previous day in order to ensure smooth passage during the event itself to avoid technical issues.

Yes

234238239241242243244245246247248249The International Year Plant Health (IYPH) Webinar Series was one of the events building path to the International Plant Health Conference, which will place during the week of 9 to 13 May 2022, following its cancellation in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The series aligns with advancing the objectives of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Strategic Framework 2020-2030. It aims to ensure continuous engagement of the international community to promoting awareness of plant health after the official closure of the IYPH, and to support the potential declaration of the International Day of Plant Health on 12 May each year by the United Nations General Assembly. The first event of the IYPH Webinar Series took place virtually on 29 June 2020. Technical panels offered detailed presentations on different plant health tools to be implemented to obtain sustainable food system and presentations on the results obtained by certain regions and structures implementing these tools. With the increase in globalization as well as national and international trade plant pests are offered more pathways to spread, with potentially disastrous consequences. This coupled to climate change allowing for pests to establish in areas that were previously hostile to them will signify changes in plant pest distribution resulting in changes in food production patterns and trade. Seen the predicted spread and effect of plant pests it is vital to increase the implementation of techniques to limit plant pest effects and protect food systems. During the webinar, various experts presented techniques to prevent pest spread to new areas as well as techniques to allow rapid identification and reaction to new pests. These techniques included Pest Risk Analysis, appropriate surveying procedures, sample size calculation and technological improvement of surveillance tools. The Webinar supported the implementation of the IPPC Strategic Framework 2020-2030 development agenda as well as informing the participants of the correct practices to implement to protect food systems.235238239241242243244245246248249The participants highlighted the importance of informing the international community about the work of the IPPC community and its importance to food security and attainment of the SDGs. Thus they highlighted the importance of including plant health considerations and the IPPC international standards into the UN Food System Summit dialogues, seen the relevance of the topic to all five summit action tracks. The participants reiterated that multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to achieving plant health and sustainable food systems. The vital role plant health and safe trade of food and agricultural products can have in alleviating food insecurity was recognised, with specific focus on pests and the logistical value chain that can affect safe agricultural trade. Hence, international commodity standards, better private/public cooperation in the development of standards and a global implementation of the e-Phyto Solution were determined to be essential tools to be worked on to facilitate safe trade. The participants highlighted the importance of implementing the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) as a first action point to obtain safer trade. The ISPMs were thus mentioned as sources of guidance for safer provision of food aid. The participants also reiterated the importance of focusing on prevention rather than on reaction, hence the need to improve the capacity of different countries was discussed, especially with regard to regulatory plant health. Among the capacities analysed during the event were capacities to predict pest risks through Pest Risk Analysis, Horizon Scanning Tool as well as the digitalization and improvement of other technological pest surveillance tools to monitor pests and prevent spread. In addition to the above, the importance of accurate sample size calculation tools to be implemented in pest surveillance was also agreed upon during the event. The importance of improving alert systems and immediate response activities was also explored as a means to efficiently react to newly established pests whenever prevention mechanisms failed. Among the techniques discussed, the need to develop and implement adequate pest surveys, tailored for specific species was highlighted as a necessary strategy to monitor pests and to allow their reliable identification. In addition, focus was also given to developing early detection systems and effective response systems, including emergency plans and preparedness activities to immediately contrast the spread of plant pest and prevent further damage. The event also analysed specialised structures established to train plant health practitioners with pest-specific and country-specific expertise in order to properly implement the plant health protection techniques, including the ones mentioned during the event. The various panellists encouraged the establishment of these structures, which also play a major role in popularising plant health to the public through events and by producing advocacy material. As plant health and especially the IPPC are natural stakeholders in the One-Health approach and activities with regard to antimicrobial resistance, the suggestion that the IPPC should be a full partner in the FAO internal cross-sectorial One Health activities, was advanced.2362382392412422432452462482491. The relation between Plant Health and Food Security This session presented different ways in which Plant Health and Food Security are related to each other. Key take-aways of the session: Food aid to providing food commodities to a recipient country in need of assistance, can act as a pathway for plant pests ultimately doing more harm than good. To reduce pest risk by promoting safe provision of food aid that implement phytosanitary measures, the following suggestions were made: - Develop and maintain emergency plans and preparedness activities to reduce regulated pest introduction risk; - Raise awareness of pest risk to stakeholders and partner with relevant stakeholders to improve the phytosanitary aspect of the food aid provision plan also using the guidance available from International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs); - Encourage donor countries to perform pre-dispatch and during transit treatments; - Increase the visibility of information about goods posing a pest risk; - Encourage exporting countries to meet phytosanitary requirements of the recipient country. Another aspect that was explored in this section was facilitating safe trade of grain suggested different means to improve grain trade as well as overall trade of plant-based commodities, these include: - Share vital research and expertise on the global supply chain through technical, legal and economic evaluations nationally and internationally; - Promote partnerships, forming networks working with experts from all over the world to facilitate safe trade; - Prioritize the IPPC and promote the implementation of the already existing ISPMs while also encouraging the establishment of new trade-related ISPMs to promote a rule-based trading system; - Encourage the use of the ePhyto Solution especially to governments deemed important grain traders, involving of the whole supply chain to improve these initiatives; - Create of an Industry Advisory Group to complement the FAO’s private sector strategy; - Develop non-trade distortive means for food and feed processing risk management; - Connect smallholders to the global network. The topic of phytosanitary system to protect food security at a national level was also explores and recommendations were made accordingly: - Promote implementation of preventive measures rather than curative measures; - Develop effective predictive models like Horizon Scanning Tool, Pest Risk Assessment and pest surveillance support tools; - Enhance cooperation between agencies, organizations and countries, to create a network for efficient pest detection and management activities; - Invest more in research focusing on emerging phytosanitary threats to ensure knowledge to tackle them if they become widespread; - Consider food security, trade and economic development equally when developing plant protection strategies; - Strengthen focus on regulatory plant protection, advisory plant protection and research plant protection to support access to food and support compliant production respectively. The last section of this panel was dedicated to recognising the role youth engagement and One Health play in food security and plant health. One Health approaches are essential for anticipation, prevention, detection and control of diseases and issues in the human-animal-plant-environment interface and thus, overall, also for ensuring food safety. - One health is essential in fighting zoonotic pandemics and antimicrobial resistance; - Enhancing national and international preparedness and performance in managing disease and pest outbreaks; - Direct focus to the development of policies for spill over containment through foresight approaches; - Mainstreamed One Health approaches and concepts to environment and natural resource-related agencies, that should direct their effort to abiding to these concepts; - Improving the national capacity of certain countries is essential to allow the inclusion of harmonious One Health approaches; - Empower youth and include them in environmental conversations, seen as they are the future, stimulate their enthusiasm about the matter by appealing to them with appropriate events.2372382392402412422442452462482492. Technical session: Plant health tools for sustainable food systems This session was a technical session with experts from different fields exploring different technical approaches to protect plant health and obtain sustainable food systems. Key take-aways of the session; Among the techniques discussed was Pest Risk Analysis (PRA), which was presented as an essential tool for National Plant Protection Organizations and Regional Plant Protection Organizations to protect plant resources and biodiversity, increase safe global trade, provide economic growth and prevent plant pest introductions. Among the recommendations made it was noted that it is important to use the right type of PRA in the correct situation: - Rapid PRA for a qualitative evaluation following new pest interceptions and outbreaks; - Comprehensive PRA to yield a more detailed qualitative and quantitative evaluation to justify changes to phytosanitary legislation; - A detailed analysis of certain aspects of PRA for a quantitative assessment to resolve major uncertainties. It was also duly noted that PRA should be performed even if certain information about the pest is lacking as PRA would still have a degree of efficiency. This panel also discussed the importance of detection tools and surveillance mechanisms such as plant pest surveys. The development of adequate plant pest surveys through a national network of co-operators and stakeholders, can be tailored to cover different target pests, provide pest information and help countries prepare to pest outbreaks. It was highlighted that for an ideal survey a network should be created, ideally different experts from different branches of plant protection should be involved to draft different aspects and areas of the survey for more accurate results. Sample size calculation and appropriate statistical analyses were also presented as crucial components of pest surveillance and early detection mechanisms. This section of the event also detailed the importance of establishing specialised structures at national and regional level to suppress plant pest dispersion and protect food systems. Certain important roles these structures have should be highlighted when analysing some existing structures: - Train phytosanitary practitioners in a variety of techniques including PRA and other surveillance mechanisms, tailored to specifically address national and regional issues; - Mainstream national plant health information through advocacy material production; - Establish national plant health conferences to coordinates and focus phytosanitary activities; - Promote the creation of an effective phytosanitary network by partnering with other organizations and cooperating with other countries; - Encourage the construction of national structures containing biosecurity laboratories. During the session important considerations were also made for phytosanitary efforts to be made at regional level. Once again the importance of using systems like PRA, alert procedures and similar mechanisms was reinforced. Suggestions were also made to develop more technological pest surveillance systems and adapt these systems to take into consideration changes in plants and pests that may occur as a result of climate change variability. The digitalization of these practices would also allow having access to easily updatable databases with complete regarding the whole region. Suggestions to prevent plant pest introduction included: - Support countries and areas of the region with low pest prevalence to prevent introduction of pests; - Strengthen the implementation of phytosanitary inspection and certification; - Utilize integrated pest management techniques to both prevent pest introduction and eradicate pest in a sustainable manner.

2021-08-18 11:03:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12757/203

3040391857730131173019514300570003001100002260330001493617003006372620

The Dialogue approach was used in a virtual webinar for different stakeholders and participants to: • Listen to each other in an inclusive multi-stakeholder platform; • Welcome diverse perspectives; • Demonstrate respect for one another and differentiating views; • Learn new information; • Explore synergies in complex, interconnected themes; • Identify promising courses of action; • Review potential impact of different strategies; • Highlight the urgency of action; • Engage the plant health community to the UN Food Systems Summit. The event was open for everybody.The event was inclusive and engaged a wide array of stakeholders. The event had speakers from different stakeholder groups from all FAO regions to ensure geographical balance, as jointly agreed by the International Steering Committee for the International Year of Plant Health. The selection of speakers also took account of gender balance. The event aimed to ensure a continuous engagement of the international community to keep promoting awareness of plant health and its importance to food systems after the official closure of the International Year of Plant Health. A question and answer session was open for all participants during the event.In global events, it is important to ensure balanced representation from different geographical areas, genders and stakeholder groups. It is also important to communicate in a transparent and timely way to all speakers and participants, and maximise the benefits of utilizing social media in sharing information about the event and conveying its key messages. Planning-ahead is the key in virtual events. We organized dry runs for speakers to test the platform and presentation mode the previous day in order to ensure smooth passage during the event itself to avoid technical issues.

Yes

234238239241242243244245246248249250The International Year Plant Health (IYPH) Webinar Series was one of the events building path to the International Plant Health Conference, which will take place during the week of 9 to 13 May 2022, following its cancellation in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The series aligns with advancing the objectives of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Strategic Framework 2020-2030. It aims to ensure continuous engagement of the international community to promoting awareness of plant health after the official closure of the IYPH, and to support the potential declaration of the International Day of Plant Health on 12 May of each year by the United Nations General Assembly. The second event of the IYPH Webinar Series took place virtually on 30 June 2020. Technical panels offered presentations on the relationship between climate change, plant health and biodiversity. Mitigation of climate-change related impacts on agriculture and plant health will present a major challenge to national plant protection organizations and international organizations in the plant health field. Changes in food production patterns and trade will become evident over the next two decades. The resulting changes in plant health, such as anomalies in pest epidemiology and frequent expansion of pest distributions, will pose new challenges, especially in the areas of surveillance, monitoring and pest risk analysis. The danger of pests adapting to changed climate parameters may cause new pest risk to major staple crops. The webinar provided input for the implementation of the IPPC Strategic Framework 2020-2030’s development agenda item on assessing and managing the impact of climate change on plant health. All the participants were also encouraged to read the FAO Scientific review of the impact of climate change on plant pests - A global challenge to prevent and mitigate plant-pest risks in agriculture, forestry and ecosystems, which was published on 1 June 2021 as one of the legacies of the IYPH. The review provides scientific foundations for the IPPC community’s actions on assessing and managing the impact of climate change on plant health.235238240241242243244245246248249250251The nexus between climate change, biodiversity and plant health is highly relevant to global food security and food systems, and the attainment of the SDGs. Climate change is allowing plant pests and diseases to thrive in places where we did not see them before. Climate change will result in more frequent extreme weather events, potentially leading to altered locations and methods of food production around the world. Climate change will affect pest epidemiology, pest distribution and host distribution, and thereby pest impacts. Water security will become an increasing challenge for more regions in the world, affecting where crops are grown and marketed. New or mutated pests or their more aggressive strains will emerge and have a significant impact on crop productivity and quality, the environment and trade. Therefore, the participants highlighted the importance of implementing the IPPC standards and policies and the new IPPC Strategic Framework 2020-2030 to prevent the spread of pests. The IPPC goal is that all countries have the capacity to implement harmonized measures to prevent pest introductions and spread, and minimize the impact of pests on food security, trade, economic growth, and the environment. Climate change may make this more challenging, but also more urgent. Mitigating the impact of climate change provides yet another powerful driver for a harmonized effort. To ensure global food security and attainment of the SDGs, it is important to achieve the objectives of the IPPC Strategic Framework 2020-2030, which stipulates that by 2030, the impact of climate change on plant health and the safe trade of plants and plant products should be evaluated on a regular basis, especially in relation to pest risk analysis and global surveillance issues, and that phytosanitary issues are adequately reflected in the international climate change debate under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This goal was also reiterated among the participants. Innovative solutions like the establishment of global surveillance networks, coordinated research activities and integrated global pest risk analysis databases should be investigated to ensure that also less developed countries have access to sufficient scientific tools and data. It is suggested that International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) relevant to Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) are assessed with regard to their suitability to address issues related to climate change. PRA activities need to be intensified at national, regional and international levels and climate-change aspects need to be included in the assessment of pest risk. With regard to biodiversity, the participants reiterated that plant health does not only protect agricultural production, but also our ecosystems and biodiversity against invasive alien species, and what the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) calls quarantine pests. For this reason, the IPPC has cooperated with the Convention on Biological Diversity for 20 years. Participants highlighted that it is important that the IPPC as a Biodiversity Liaison Group (BLG) member keeps collaborating with other biodiversity related conventions and entities, and maintains an open dialogue with them. It was especially stressed that international cooperation between biodiversity related conventions should be increased and an inclusive One-Health Approach, including environmental and plant health, established. The participants also stressed the importance of increased regional and international cooperation in order to address efficaciously challenges posed by climate change to preserve biodiversity and protect plant health. The participants believed that plant genetic resources are key to future plant health challenges and the risk of erosion of biodiversity, and that data collection plays a major role in that. It was thought that possibilities to create an international system for easy, but safe movement of genetic material should be explored.2362382402412422432442462482491. The Impact of Climate Change on Plant Health This session discussed the relation between climate change and plant health. Key take-aways of the session: In general, all important life-cycle stages of insect pests, pathogens, and weeds (survival, reproduction and dispersal) are more or less directly influenced by temperature, relative humidity, light quality or quantity, wind or any combination of these factors. The physiological processes of most pest species are particularly sensitive to temperature. Under warmer air temperatures, especially in early spring under temperate climatic conditions, life-cycle stages in the host plant may occur earlier. This can affect pathogens that infect the host during a particular life-cycle stage. Climate change may thus threaten food security with impacts on food crops and plant-based animal feed. Climate change will result in increasing plant health problems in managed (e.g. agriculture, horticulture, forestry) and semi-managed (e.g. national parks) ecosystems, and presumably in unmanaged ecosystems as well. Adjustments in phytosanitary policies and plant protection strategies are already necessary, and will be even more crucial in the future. The most effective way to prevent and limit the global spread of pests from trade and passenger movement is through regulatory means, phytosanitary import legislation, pest risk analysis, surveillance and monitoring, best management practices and information exchange. - Pest risk analysis activities need to be intensified on national, regional and international levels, and climate change considerations need to be included into the assessment of pest risks. - National, regional and international surveillance and monitoring activities for plant health threats should be intensified. Multilateral surveillance programmes should be developed to offset phytosanitary threats. - National phytosanitary authorities are encouraged to carry out an IPPC-recommended phytosanitary capacity evaluation to determine if their phytosanitary capacities are sufficient to address plant health risks, including those presented by climate change. - International cooperation, including international information exchange on trade flows, pest occurrences and pest interceptions are crucial. We need to improve understanding of climate change effects on complex interactions: establishment of a global mechanism for research coordination, and multidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder collaboration, coordination, capacity building and knowledge exchange in climate-change biology research would be beneficial to tackle the issue. - Considering climate change, a global surveillance system would help countries respond to increased risk and uncertainty. The direct impact of climate change on the effectiveness of management strategies, particularly for chemical and biological control measures should be evaluated. More studies are needed on below-ground pests, on below‑ground processes and their influence on soil health. More research in forestry and unmanaged ecosystems is also needed. It is important to develop consensus on data collection standards and access protocols, and deploy FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) data principles. Data access for risk analysis purposes would benefit decision-making processes and preparedness of Ministries and National Plant Protection Organizations’ officials.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502. Climate change, Plant Health and Biodiversity Conservation: making the connection This session discussed the interconnection between climate change, plant health and biodiversity conservation. Key take-aways of the session: Plant health does not only protect agricultural production, it also protects our ecosystems and biodiversity against invasive pests and diseases – what the International Plant Protection Convention calls quarantine pests. For this reason, the IPPC has cooperated with the Convention on Biological Diversity for 20 years. Climate change, biodiversity conservation and plant health are centrepieces in the endeavours to preserve the health and life of the human population by ensuring food security and a healthy and diverse environment. Ensuring the success of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and synergies among biodiversity-related conventions is crucial. We need to strengthen capacity for active monitoring of pest dynamics in biodiversity hotspots and ex-situ and in-situ sites, and modelling for future risk assessment and preparedness. The germplasm health, virology, and diagnostics play an important role in plant health. We need to focus on intellectual property policies and regulations around the access and benefit sharing of genetic resources. Challenges of germplasm exchange include: - Emerging new diseases and insect pests. - Minor pests and diseases are becoming important due to the climate change. - Variable standards and different phytosanitary demands. - Limited funding for preventive measures. Climate change and biotic threats are among the key contributing factors for genetic erosion. Increased support for the collection and safe conservation, characterization of biodiversity ex-situ and in-situ collections are needed. It is also important to enhance support to develop and use of technologies for safe conservation and exchange of germplasm, and prevent the risk of pest spread with germplasm distribution activities. We need to support development of globally accepted policy/system for expedited distribution of pre-tested germplasm crucial for climate change adaptation. It is beneficial to maintain public and private partnerships for conserving seed biodiversity. The development of coherent and user-friendly legislations for the conservation, access, use and benefit sharing of genetic resources at the national, regional and international levels is important.237There was no major area of divergence among the participants.

2021-08-18 11:52:43205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41456/118

655213

Par une démarche participative, les participants aux réunions de concertation ont essayé de trouver des réponses aux questions fondamentales, dont notamment : Comment améliorer l’état des systèmes alimentaires en Mauritanie et réduire la part des importations de denrées ? Comment promouvoir les technologies agricoles plus modernes numériques et mécaniques ? Quelles options pour renforcer la compétitivité des produits Mauritaniens ? Comment gérer durablement les systèmes alimentaires existants ; Quels systèmes alimentaires basés sur la biodiversité ? Les concertations ont reflété les principes d’action du sommet sur les systèmes alimentaires car elles ont été pleinement participatives et orientées vers la recherche des synergies possibles et à développer entre les secteurs de productions alimentaires pour une meilleures complémentarité et une meilleure efficience. Les discussions ont pris en considération les savoirs locaux en rapport avec les thématiques traitées portant sur l’agriculture, la pêches, l’élevage et les produits forestiers non ligneux (techniques paysannes locales à améliorer, produits traditionnels, etc.), en prenant en considération les avis d’ingénieurs et d’experts (délégués régionaux de l’agriculture et de l’élevage, cadres des départements concernés).A chaque fois, le diagnostic de la situation a fait ressortir des contraintes/ lacunes et les échanges entre les intervenants (petits producteurs, structures d’encadrement, administrations, partenaires) ont permis de dégager des approches de solutions sous forme de recommandations à mettre en œuvre pour le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires à l’horizon 2030.Oui, le défi de l'organisation a été le plus difficile à surmonter. Il faudra nécessairement l'envisager à temps. La diversité des opinions est telle qu'il est nécessaire de disposer de facilitateurs impliqués suffisamment à temps pour donner de meilleurs résultats. La documentation du Sommet est bien faite mais encore faut-il la partager à grande échelle pour une meilleure implication des acteurs.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249Nous avons choisi d’étudier la situation des systèmes alimentaires nationaux dans leur ensemble à travers les cinq pistes proposées. Groupe1 : Garantir l’accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs et favoriser des modes de consommation durable A chaque fois, un diagnostic de la situation au niveau des différents domaines, les suggestions et les divergences ont été abordés. Ces points sont discutés au niveau institutionnel, l’accessibilité et la durabilité. Groupe 2 : Stimuler la productivité, le respect de la nature et la promotion de la petite agriculture L’objet de la concertation peut être présenté comme suit : Discuter les défis et les enjeux : Quels systèmes de sécurité alimentaire en Mauritanie et la dépendance à l’importation ; - Comment promouvoir les technologies agricoles plus modernes en Mauritanie ; - Quelles options pour renforcer la compétitivité des produits mauritaniens, comment gérer durablement les systèmes alimentaires existants ; quels systèmes alimentaires basés sur la biodiversité). Partager des expériences réussies : Proposer des actions et identifier les étapes pour une transformation. Les discussions ont porté sur l’agriculture, l’élevage, la pêche et l’aquaculture, et les produits forestiers non ligneux à vocation alimentaires. Un bilan de situation par secteur a été établi et des recommandations dégagées pour une meilleures efficacité alimentaires. L’agriculture doit être promue à travers l’appui et l’encadrement des paysans. L’élevage doit aller vers la valorisation du lait et ses dérivés à travers des systèmes plus sédentaires, un effort visant les races plus productives, l’appui à l’industrialisation. Le secteur des pêches doit être plus efficace par le renforcement des réseaux de distribution, l’appui à la chaine du froid et la protection des espèces les plus visées par la consommation locale. L’aviculture doit être promue à travers des projets ciblés dans les centres urbains et des études de caractérisation des produits alimentaires issus des PNFL conduites pour identifier les zones cibles et les possibilités de valorisation. Groupe3 : Renforcer la résilience face aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress Les participants après des échanges préliminaires ont décidé d’organiser leur concertation sur la question de la résilience communautaire autour des axes suivants : 1. Risques majeurs 2. Les dispositifs de prévention et d’alerte précoce et les réponses aux chocs 3. Les filets sociaux en réponse aux chocs et protection sociale 4. Stratégies et programmes intégrés d’appui à la résilience communautaire On peut globalement retenir que les concertations nationales ont constitué une opportunité pour tous les acteurs de se retrouver ensemble et de discuter des questions qui sont interdépendantes (système) et pour lesquelles il est nécessaire de trouver des solutions consensuelles, tenant compte des contraintes et défis à surmonter. Les contraintes/goulots d’étranglement: Les contraintes qui ont été soulevées par la majorité des participants peuvent être classées et résumées comme suit : (a) Des Contraintes liées à l’offre alimentaire : l’utilisation de techniques archaïques, du niveau faible des capacités techniques des producteurs, des difficultés d’accès à la terre et au financement (moyens de production) ; (b) Contraintes liées à l’accessibilité aux denrées alimentaires : difficultés d’accès au marché, de hausse des prix des produits alimentaires et du faible pouvoir d’achat des ménages (Taux de pauvreté : 31% en 2014) ; (c) Contraintes liées à la stabilité des approvisionnements en denrées alimentaires : les pertes post-production élevées (estimées à 30%) ; la faible transformation des produits agropastoraux ; le déficit en infrastructures de stockage et de conservation (faible taux d’électrification, estimé par EPCV à 36,9% des ménages en 2014) ; (d) Contraintes liées à l’utilisation des aliments : insuffisances de l’éducation nutritionnelle dans un contexte d’analphabétisme élevé, particulièrement chez les femmes (plus de 41% des femmes âgées de plus de 10 ans ne savent ni lire ni écrire, selon le RGPH, 2013) ; (e) Contraintes budgétaires : les ressources publiques consacrées235238239240241242243244245246248249Dans le contexte COVID-19 et pour un pays vaste comme la Mauritanie, les concertations nationales ont été difficiles à organiser dans les délais. Elles ont néanmoins démontré que les liens entre les principaux acteurs (petits agriculteurs, paysans, éleveurs, encadrement technique et décideurs politiques) constituent un élément essentiel dans l'amélioration des systèmes alimentaires. A la fin des quatre ateliers, une feuille de route consensuelle a été établie comme suit. Trois groupes de discussions ont été composés dans le cadre de chacun des quatre ateliers. Ils ont eu à approfondir une ou plusieurs pistes. Les résultats des discussions ont été synthétisés dans la Feuille de route ci-dessous. Elle comporte les interventions à mettre en œuvre pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires durables et qui prennent en compte toutes ses dimensions (la chaine d’approvisionnement, l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs). Constats/Justifications Solutions proposées Acteurs concernés 1. L’accès aux aliments sains et nutritifs Contraintes liées à l’offre alimentaire : l’utilisation de techniques archaïques, du niveau faible des capacités techniques des producteurs, des difficultés d’accès à la terre et au financement. Maîtriser/Rationnaliser l’utilisation de l’eau MHA/MA/PTF Impliquer les communautés dans la mise en œuvre des interventions au profit des systèmes alimentaires MA/ME/MPEM/MIDEC Mettre en place un système national de conseil aux producteurs qui tient compte de toute la demande de services. MA/ME/MPEM Actualiser les normes d’aménagement et de mise en valeur MA/MAEPSP/PTF Viabiliser l’espace rural cultivable par la réalisation de schémas directeurs d’aménagements, le cadastrage et le remembrement des propriétés foncières. MA/MF Promouvoir et vulgariser la mécanisation agricole MA/MAEPSP Favoriser l’accès des petits paysans et de l’agriculture familiale aux financements et au crédit agricole. MAEPSP/MA/ME/BCM Contraintes liées à l’accessibilité aux denrées alimentaires : difficultés d’accès au marché, de hausse des prix des produits alimentaires et du faible pouvoir d’achat des ménages Désenclaver les lieux de production et des marchés secondaires éloignés des centres urbains ; MET/MAEPSP Soutenir la demande de produits agricoles à travers un ciblage des ménages pauvres MAEPSP/TAAZOUR Contraintes liées à la stabilité des approvisionnements en denrées alimentaires : les pertes post-production élevées (estimées à 30%) ; peu de transformation des produits agropastoraux ; déficit en infrastructures de stockage et de conservation Réhabiliter/construire des dispositifs de stockage, notamment pour les denrées périssables (légumes, fruits, poissons) MA/MPEM/MET Favoriser la transformation des produits agricoles MA/MCIAT/MAEPSP Réduire les coûts de l’énergie des stations de pompage et/ou la subventionner le gasoil destiné à l’agriculture ou rechercher des solutions alternatives MF/Ministère de l’énergie/MA Contraintes liées à l’utilisation des aliments : insuffisances de l’éducation nutritionnelle et du cadre institutionnel Renforcer le cadre institutionnel national de gouvernance en matière de prévention et de lutte contre toutes les formes de malnutrition PM/MS Renforcement du cadre institutionnel et réglementaire de contrôle de la qualité et de l’innocuité des aliments PM/MS Créer et opérationnaliser une Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments PM/MS/PTF Tenir durablement les engagements pris en matière de lutte contre la malnutrition dans le cadre de sa participation au Mouvement SUN PM/MS/PTF 2. Les modes de consommation durables Contraintes liées à l’insuffisance de la production locale dans la consommation nationale de denrées alimentaires : faible productivité, pertes de produits, mauvaises habitudes de consommation Réduire les pertes post-récolte et améliorer les capacités de stockage/conservation/transformation/accès au marché des petits producteurs y compris la promotion des produits locaux MA/MET Développer des filières locales) et renforcer le rôle d’accompagnement assuré par les services techniques MAEPSP/MA/ME/MPEM Assurer la promotion de la production et du consommé local MA/ME/MPEM 3. La production respectueuse de la nature Contraintes liées au respect de l’environnement : une dimension insuffisamment prise en considération Lutter contre la dégradation environnementale et la désertification MEDD/PTF Promouvoir des pratiques agro-pastorales respectueuses de l’environnement et adaptées aux effets du changement climatique MA/ME/MPEM/MEDD/PTF Promouvoir une Gestion durable des ressources halieutiques et environnementales MPEM/MEDD/PTF Promouvoir des mécanismes d’appui à la lutte contre les pollutions liées à l’azote toutes origines confondues MA/ME/MPEM/MEDD/PTF 4. Les moyens de subsistance équitables Contraintes liées aux inégalités : de genre, d’accès aux ressources et aux opportunités Développer des filets sociaux réguliers en faveur des populations les plus vulnérables MEN/TAAZOUR/CSA/PTF Promouvoir un accès équitable aux ressources et au foncier MAEPSP/MIDEC/MA/MPEM Lutter contre les inégalités de genre et d’accès aux ressources MASEF/MAEPSP/MA/MPEM Renforcer les moyens d’existence des populations vulnérables TAAZOUR/CSA/PTF 5. La résilience face aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress Contraintes liées à l’insuffisance de la prise en compte des questions de résilience face aux changements climatiques et aux crises de toute nature : ensablement, sécheresses, pénuries Etendre les zones cultivables MA/MHA/PTF Renfo2362382392402412422432442452462482491.1 Les principales actions préconisées 1. Au cours des concertations, deux aspects se dégagent des interventions : la nécessité d’entreprendre i) des réformes pour crée un cadre favorable à l’amélioration des systèmes alimentaires et ii) des mesures d’accompagnement des réformes. 1.1.1 Réformes pour créer un cadre favorable à l’amélioration des systèmes alimentaires a) Au plan institutionnel 2. Pour être efficace, la mise en œuvre des stratégies et programmes sectoriels exige des réformes institutionnelles pour améliorer les performances des institutions. Il s’agit en particulier des structures chargées de la recherche, de la formation et de la vulgarisation/ conseil et concernent en particulier, les secteurs de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche. 3. L’efficacité de la réponse nutritionnelle requiert une meilleure continuité dans les services de prise en charge des cas de malnutrition et une coordination entre les acteurs en vue de l’efficience des résultats. b) Au plan des ressources humaines 4. L’insuffisance de ressources humaines qualifiées, notamment depuis les départs à la retraite administrative se fait sentir à tous les niveaux ainsi que l’allocation optimale des ressources disponibles. Il en est ainsi pour des secteurs vitaux pour les systèmes alimentaires comme l’hydraulique, le génie rural, le génie civil, la médecine vétérinaire et la zootechnie. 5. La solution passe notamment par le renforcement des mesures d’évaluation/ motivation/ sanction mais aussi à travers les rémunérations et l’adéquation postes aux profils des postulants. 6. En outre, la mise en œuvre des programmes nutritionnels, devra s’accompagner d’un renforcement des capacités techniques et de la formation des gestionnaires. c) Au plan des ressources budgétaires 7. Pour améliorer durablement les systèmes alimentaires, les allocations budgétaires doivent être revues à la hausse pour répondre aux besoins en infrastructures de base et en ressources humaines. On rappelle qu’un ratio de 10% des ressources budgétaires à consacrer à l’agriculture avait été retenu en 2003 lors de la conférence de Maputo. Il va sans dire que les ressources devront être utilisées dans le quadruple soucis d’efficacité, d’efficience, d’équité et de durabilité. d) Au plan de la disponibilité des terres cultivables 8. La revue « Faim Zéro » (2017) avait préconisé qu’un accent particulier soit mis sur l’assainissement juridique du foncier rural à partir d’une étude des structures agraires et le cadastrage de toutes les zones traditionnelles. Cela commence par l’établissement d’un état des lieux sur la question agraire en Mauritanie, la préparation d’un cadastre national, notamment pour les zones où la pression foncière est forte (vallée du Fleuve Sénégal) et des remembrements au niveau des périmètres aménagés sur fonds publics (petits, moyens et grands périmètres irrigués).237238239240241242243244245246248249Au cours des débats, les points de divergence n’ont pas été nombreux. On note toutefois que: - Des opinions divergentes ont été constatées au sujet de la relation entre le dividende démographique et l’autosuffisance alimentaire ; - Certains participants ont préconisé des mesures plus protectrices, visant le renforcement de mesures de limitation à l’entrée de produits étrangers (notamment les dérivés du lait), alors que d’autres participants privilégiaient les mesures de soutien en amont à la production locale (renforcement de la structuration des associations productives et encadrements des groupements de producteurs). - Des différences d’appréciation ont été constatées lors du débat sur les moyens d’appui devant être apportés au secteur de l’élevage notamment à la filière lait et dérivés. - Certains participants ont évoqué la nécessité d’instaurer des mesures protectrices de type impôts différentiels visant spécifiquement les produits importés pour les rendre moins concurrentiels sur le marché local face aux produits mauritaniens. D’autres participants ont suggéré de s’en tenir aux mesures en amont de la filière visant les appuis aux producteurs en organisation, en matériel et en intrants, compte tenu des Accords qui lient la Mauritanie au reste du monde (OMC, ZLECAf, CEDEAO).

2021-08-18 15:50:272021-08-18 15:51:46

2021-08-18 20:07:32205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36167/46

80215421920334719121511320114251223613148

De los seis diálogos previstos en Colombia, este es segundo de carácter subnacional y el cuarto que realiza el país, como parte de la segunda fase de diálogos. En este espacio participaron organizaciones y personas naturales de las diferentes regiones geográficas del país organizadas así: Caribe y Seaflower; Central y Santanderes; Amazonía y Orinoquía; Pacífico, Eje cafetero y Antioquia. Se contó con la participación de representantes de la academia, sociedad civil, organizaciones cívicas, pequeñas y medianas empresas, así como entidades públicas territoriales y agencias de cooperación internacional. Durante el diálogo se retomaron aspectos recogidos en los anteriores encuentros, como acciones adelantadas en el país, retos prioritarios para cada uno de los actores, propuestas y temas por profundizar. Dentro del diálogo, cada mesa de debate se organizó de manera tal que se favoreciera la participación de los diferentes actores y una discusión abierta y constructiva.El diálogo favoreció la participación de todas las regiones del país con diferentes actores relacionados con los sistemas alimentarios, bajo una metodología comprensiva e integrativa, orientada a generar incidencia positiva con enfoque inclusivo, fomentar ideas nuevas, innovadoras, priorizar las trazadas con anterioridad, para finalmente generar aportes con enfoque sistémico y armónico que contribuyan a los principios y objetivos de la Cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios. El diálogo reconoce la urgencia, niveles y complejidad para la implementación y actualización de políticas y prácticas de producción y consumo de alimentos, entre otras acciones identificadas como prioritarias. De igual manera, reconocer la multiculturalidad, prácticas autóctonas y ejercicios locales que se puede aportar soluciones a la visión y resultados de la Cumbre. Asimismo, son aspectos fundamentales a considerar: las alianzas estratégicas para proteger y mejorar la salud y el bienestar de las personas, potenciar medios de vida y comunidades resilientes y fomentar una buena administración de los recursos naturales, respetando al mismo tiempo las culturas y contextos locales, comunitarios e individuales.No por el momento.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Como antesala a la realización del segundo diálogo subnacional (fase 2) se realizaron tres encuentros previos, orientados a identificar las acciones desarrolladas en el país, los retos adicionales, la validación de la metodología y temáticas a abordar, así como a la identificación de nuevos aportes que contribuyan a la construcción de la hoja de ruta para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. En este sentido, la apuesta con el cuarto diálogo denominado: Segundo diálogo subnacional de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios (contemplado dentro de la fase dos - 2) es continuar con la dinámica de validación y generación de nuevas propuestas que nutran los ejercicios anteriores y ofrezcan nuevas alternativas, al tiempo que se ofrece una mirada desde las regiones de Colombia, con una perspectiva de pluralidad. Los resultados de este segundo diálogo subnacional, junto con los de los tres anteriores, servirán como insumo para continuar enriqueciendo la hoja de ruta y como un paso más hacia la consolidación de la apuesta nacional para el logro de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y aportar a la Agenda 2030.235238239240241243244245246247248249250251Las acciones priorizadas por todas las regiones durante el Diálogo fueron: Fomento de la Investigación, formación y educación en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional y Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles; Garantía Progresiva del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación; Plan de Gestión del Cambio climático; Promoción cadenas de valor locales y compras públicas; Formalización de la propiedad y uso de la tierra; Promoción agroecología con enfoque ambiental, diferencial y territorial; Eliminación del hambre y la malnutrición; Reconocimiento y protección de saberes ancestrales; Gobernanza alimentaria y nutricional; Tecnología, innovación e infraestructura para desarrollo de producción agrícola; Formalización e implementación de la Ley de prevención de Pérdidas y Desperdicios de Alimentos. Los retos priorizados por región fueron los siguientes: Región Caribe SeaFlower: Participación social y comunitaria; Consumo sostenible, Desigualdad en acceso a bienes y servicios y a formalización de la tenencia de la tierra; enseñanza sobre explotación responsable de recursos marinos; fortalecer Información Educación y Comunicación sobre el desarrollo de las acciones priorizadas; aprovechamiento de recursos marinos y estuarinos para la Seguridad Alimentaria. Región Central y Santanderes: Garantizar la Soberanía Alimentaria; inclusión en agenda pública la garantía del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación en emergencias y desastres; estandarización de bancos de alimentos para apoyar población de mayor vulnerabilidad; investigación por parte de la academia en la captura o pérdida de carbono. Región Amazonía y Orinoquía: gestión de impacto de la pandemia; adaptaciones territoriales de las minutas del Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar; garantía de derechos a pueblos indígenas, en especial del Derecho Humano a la alimentación gestión de los sistemas alimentarios y de salud para incluir a la población migrante ; alimentación sostenible en temporada de lluvias; impacto y sostenibilidad ambiental por explotación petrolera; mejora, adecuación y sostenibilidad de acceso al agua potable en centros poblados. Región Antioquia, Eje Cafetero y Pacifico: disminuir intermediación en comercialización de alimentos; financiación y asistencia técnica para transición de modelos convencionales a biológicos; mejoramiento de vías y conectividad rural; mitigar aumento de enfermedades no transmisibles por hábitos alimentarios no saludables; mejoramiento de la inocuidad alimentaria.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Partiendo de las acciones y retos presentados, los cuales muestran un panorama inicial, los participantes refieren los siguientes retos adicionales: Empoderamiento y participación comunitaria en los procesos de gobernanza y gestión; reconocimiento y protección de las semillas nativas para garantizar la soberanía alimentaria. Además, fortalecer la capacitación en los territorios en el diseño e implementación de Estrategias de Información Educación y Comunicación; Fortalecer mecanismos de articulación de actores de los diferentes eslabones de la cadena agroalimentaria; Fortalecimiento de la Seguridad Alimentaria, a través del aprovechamiento de los recursos marinos y estuarinos: moluscos bivalvos (Ostras, mejillones) y crustáceos (Camarones) de alto contenido proteico; Buscar alianzas Público-privadas con las empresas del sector Agropecuario existentes en los territorios, para permitir fortalecer los encadenamientos productivos con el acceso a venta de productos; Determinación de los niveles de inseguridad alimentaria y nutricional resultantes de la pandemia; protección del recurso hídrico a través de mecanismos jurídicos concretos; Cultivos de agua; Fortalecimiento de sistemas agroalimentarios en territorios con alta presencia de cultivos ilícitos; Acuerdos de frontera sobre migración y pueblos indígenas binacionales; Consolidación del Observatorio de Soberanía y Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional Nacional; Financiación y asistencia técnica para la transición de modelos convencionales a biológicos a mediana y gran escala.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Con el fin de lograr la consolidación de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, los participantes realizaron las siguientes propuestas: Convenios para formación en materia de emprendimiento e innovación con el Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje- SENA; Crear sitios de acopio de semillas nativas; Gestionar proyectos de aprovechamiento de residuos agroindustriales, con pérdidas no comestibles; Implementar emprendimientos productivos y circuitos cortos de mercado con un enfoque de economía social y solidaria; Crear y poner en marcha el Observatorio del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación Adecuada –ODHAA; Implementar estrategia territorial de Compras Públicas Locales desde el enfoque de DHAA; Procesamiento y aprovechamiento de la ostra para Seguridad Alimentaria e incluirla en la Alimentación Escolar a nivel regional y Nacional; Organizar Diplomado en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional para servidores públicos de los entes territoriales y comunidades; realizar mayor extensión agropecuaria; Intervención intersectorial con el enfoque de ciudadanía alimentaria; Asociación de pequeños productores y consolidación como actores importantes de los sistemas alimentarios; Ordenamiento social de la propiedad en el fortalecimiento de los sistemas agroalimentarios; Fortalecimiento y/o Creación de nuevos bancos de alimentos; Incentivos económicos para la producción basada en la conservación del bosque, conservación de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos (productos no maderables del bosque); Controlar alimentos no saludables y ambientalmente nocivos en programas públicos de alimentación como el Programa de Alimentación Escolar y las modalidades y servicios del Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar, etc.; Involucrar en los sistemas alimentarios a la iglesia y organizaciones religiosas que son muy influyentes en las zonas rurales ; Incentivar los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en la Mesa de ciencia, tecnología e innovación agropecuaria, y la sostenibilidad ambiental en los centros de educación y de formación para el trabajo; Integración de lineamiento curricular transversal de Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional en la educación formal, con pertinencia cultural y territorial; Identificación y posible réplica de estrategias de adaptación al cambio climático, orientadas a la erradicación sostenible del hambre y la pobreza; Fortalecimiento a sociedad civil para empoderamiento en Derecho Humano a la Alimentación Adecuada y participación en espacios interinstitucionales de gestión; Implementar un Programa Nacional de Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional; Establecer mesas de trabajo interdisciplinarias e interinstitucionales; Hacer caracterización socioeconómica por subregiones, que permitan entender su realidad y sean la base el desarrollo de programas y proyectos; Fomentar el establecimiento de huertas caseras y cultivos preestablecidos; Bases de datos actualizados para priorizar población más vulnerable; Infraestructura de potabilización del agua en lo rural como factor fundamental en la seguridad alimentaria. En este sentido, con el fin de materializar estas propuestas, se hace necesario establecer alianzas que permitan potencializar la acción individual de cada uno de los actores, por lo tanto, los participantes sugieren las siguientes alianzas potenciales: • Entre productores y organizaciones de comercialización. • Entre bancos de alimentos y administraciones municipales. • Entre asociaciones de agricultores y administraciones municipales. • Entre el Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje -SENA y pequeños productores • Entre industrias alimentarias y las asociaciones de productores. • Entre el Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar y las administraciones locales. • Entre entidades de cooperación internacional y pequeños productores. • Entre organizaciones cívicas y sociales con la Academia. • Entre el Instituto Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos y Alimentos - INVIMA, población civil y centros de investigación. • Organizaciones eclesiales que adelanten trabajo con comunidades.237No se presentaron controversias o desacuerdos durante el diálogo.

2021-08-18 20:42:47205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38862/46

11403562170031821112512121265229116122748331019

De los seis Diálogos previstos en Colombia, este es el primero de carácter nacional y el quinto de los que adelanta el país. En este espacio participaron organizaciones y personas naturales tanto del ámbito privado como público, quienes tienen injerencia en el tema de los Sistemas Alimentarios en el país. Representantes de la academia, sociedad civil, organizaciones cívicas, pequeñas y medianas empresas, así como organizaciones de cooperación internacional, confluyeron alrededor de un diálogo incluyente en el que se retoman aspectos recogidos en los anteriores encuentros para llegar a nuevos puntos de acuerdo y se comenzaron a delimitar los aspectos centrales que harán parte de la hoja de ruta que como país se presentará en la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios. Dentro del diálogo, se dispuso de 4 mesas de debate, organizadas por sector (Academia, Sociedad Civil, Sector Privado, Sector Público), lo cual favorece la profundización en cada una de las temáticas.El quinto Diálogo hacia la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios fue un espacio dispuesto para garantizar la participación de diferentes tipos de actores relacionados con el tema, buscando la realización de un ejercicio plural y abierto, orientado a generar consenso en el marco de la diversidad, con el fin de generar contribuciones que apunten a la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. El Diálogo reconoció la complejidad de la implementación de muchas acciones que se identifican como prioritarias, pero al mismo tiempo, el gran potencial con que se cuenta para generar impacto teniendo en cuenta la cantidad de actores allí congregados y la posibilidad de generar alianzas que permitan potenciar los esfuerzos que adelantan cada una de las organizaciones y entidades participantes.No por el momento.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Como antesala a la realización de los Diálogos, se llevó a cabo un ejercicio orientado a identificar las acciones desarrolladas en Colombia, así como los retos a enfrentar para avanzar hacia Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles - SAS, vistos desde la óptica de su contribución al logro de la agenda 2030 y desde la perspectiva de las cinco Vías de acción que propone la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021.Con este insumo, se inició la primera fase, compuesta por dos diálogos orientados a identificar acciones y retos adicionales, además de propuestas que contribuyan a la construcción de la ruta, así como en la validación de la metodología y las temáticas a tratar en los diálogos subnacionales y nacionales subsecuentes. Posteriormente, la segunda fase de los Diálogos estuvo orientada a recoger los aportes de diferentes sectores a nivel territorial (academia, sociedad civil, sector público y sector privado) y escuchar las voces de las regiones del país, a fin de continuar con la dinámica de validación y generación de nuevas propuestas que nutran los ejercicios anteriores y ofrezcan nuevas alternativas para contar con diversidad de enfoques, y un acercamiento específico a las problemáticas y necesidades que se presentan en cada una de las regiones y de los sectores participantes para la consolidación de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Con este primer diálogo nacional se inició la fase 3 del proceso de diálogos previsto en el país. Este encuentro se enfocó en reunir a las distintas entidades públicas del nivel nacional con actores de la sociedad civil, la academia y el sector privado, a fin de reconocer los avances de los diálogos anteriores y establecer la priorización de los retos en el corto (3 años) y largo plazo (2030) para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en el país. Asimismo, los y las participantes brindaron sus perspectivas sobre los elementos necesarios para dicha transformación. Los resultados de este primer diálogo nacional, junto con los anteriores, servirán como insumo para continuar enriqueciendo la hoja de ruta nacional para el logro de Sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y su contribución al cumplimiento de la Agenda 2030.235238239240242243244245246247248249250251Dentro de los retos que se socializaron para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en Colombia, los participantes consideraron que se le debe dar prioridad en los próximos 3 años a los siguientes: Garantizar el tránsito de los Sistemas productivos hacia Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles; Fortalecer procesos de abastecimiento de alimentos en el país; Consolidar la soberanía alimentaria sobre la base de producciones agroecológicas; Consolidar la gobernanza en materia alimentaria y nutricional; Garantía de los medios de vida en la ruralidad; Universalizar el programa de alimentación escolar; Construir infraestructura para el desarrollo de la producción agrícola; Formar a la población para la tecnificación del sector agrícola, principalmente en la ruralidad; Impulsar la innovación y desarrollo tecnológico en la agricultura; Impulsar la productividad y la comercialización local a partir de las compras públicas; Gestión del relevo generacional en la ruralidad; reconocimiento del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación; Dar cumplimiento a lo estipulado en los Acuerdos de Paz; Promover la economía circular, la agricultura familiar, campesina y comunitaria. Para lograr enfrentar tales retos de manera efectiva, los participantes consideran que se requiere tomar en cuenta los siguientes elementos: Creación de una unidad técnica y administrativa con capacidad presupuestal para dar línea a los territorios, la cual permita centralizar procesos y consolidarlos; Participación de la academia a través de investigación aplicada para favorecer la protección de prácticas de transformación tradicionales (estándares de inocuidad diferenciales) y el consumo de alimentos locales; Fortalecimiento de las capacidades técnicas de los actores sociales e institucionales para la participación en espacios de desarrollo comunitario y político; Coordinación de acciones con la Comisión Intersectorial de Cambio Climático; Articulación entre los diferentes niveles Nacional - Departamental y Territorial; Generación de alianzas público/privadas desde lo territorial alrededor de la Seguridad, Soberanía y Autonomía Alimentaria; Incremento de las compras públicas locales en asistencia alimentaria ; Promoción de prácticas y estilos de vida saludables culturalmente apropiadas; Mejoramiento de vías terciarias para llevar los productos agropecuarios a los centros de acopio y mercados locales; Fortalecimiento del acompañamiento técnico a los territorios; Apoyo a iniciativas existentes en materia de innovación en Colombia; Procesos de toma de decisiones soportados en evidencia técnica y científica; Inversiones en infraestructura y equipamientos sociales focalizadas según acuerdos con comunidades e implementación de proyectos de los Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial (PDET), los cuales son un instrumento especial de planificación y gestión a 15 años, que tienen como objetivo estabilizar y transformar los territorios (170 municipios) más afectados por la violencia, la pobreza, las economías ilícitas y la debilidad institucional, y así lograr el desarrollo rural que estos requieren.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251De la misma manera, en este Primer Diálogo Nacional, se consultó a los participantes dentro de los retos identificados, cuáles debería priorizar el país para el año 2030; se señalaron los siguientes: Garantizar el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación; Dar cumplimiento a lo establecido en los Acuerdos de Paz en lo concerniente a la Reforma Rural Integral; Garantizar la formalización del uso y propiedad del suelo; Priorizar el cuidado de los océanos, así como regular la pesca industrial y fortalecer las condiciones de la pesca artesanal; Garantizar la consolidación de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles; Garantizar la participación social, intersectorial y comunitaria en la definición de acciones para promover Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles; Gestión del Cambio Climático; Dar cumplimiento a los ODS con las metas que aún están pendientes; Generar programas de largo aliento que generen mayor impacto y procesos de transformación de los sistemas alimentarios locales; Estructurar los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles bajo un criterio de prevención de posibles riesgos futuros; Reducción pobreza y desigualdad en la ruralidad; Recuperación de usos alimentarios propios de la biodiversidad nativa y de los saberes tradicionales como estrategia nacional; Priorizar la lucha contra la desnutrición y malnutrición; Promoción de las cadenas de valor locales y mejoramiento de las cadenas de transformación; Educación a la familia sobre los modelos de producción, con acompañamiento técnico, tecnológico y administrativo; Implementar estrategias de Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional articuladas al Derecho Humano a la Alimentación; Promover el uso sostenible de la biodiversidad; Compromiso del país con los derechos de los campesinos de acuerdo con lo establecido en la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los campesinos y de otras personas que trabajan en las zonas rurales. Para enfrentar tales retos, los participantes manifiestan que se necesita trabajar en los siguientes temas: Fortalecimiento y promoción de la Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional territorial como mecanismo para reducir indicadores de malnutrición por déficit y por exceso; Priorización de las necesidades y demandas de los territorios según sus características edafoclimáticas y socioculturales; Fortalecimiento de emprendimientos de base tecnológica agrícola; Recursos financieros para la implementación efectiva de las acciones hacia la garantía del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación; Articulación de las organizaciones que intervienen en los diferentes territorios, con la intención de fortalecer los procesos; Reducción de la pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos; Protección de conocimientos indígenas; Facilitar el diálogo inter-científico entre pueblos indígenas y la academia; Producción de alimentos saludables de forma sostenible; Construcción de políticas mediante la inclusión de los productores rurales; Implementación de alianzas multiactor sostenibles; Dejar capacidad instalada en las comunidades para garantizar la sostenibilidad de las acciones desarrolladas; Generación de mecanismos de seguimiento y monitoreo a los espacios de participación (Comité SAN) así como a la implementación de políticas públicas territoriales en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional; Delimitar la frontera agrícola del país e identificar sus conflictos con las zonas protegidas; Definir los usos con mejor eficiencia, eficacia y efectividad de las zonas productoras agroalimentarias alimentos .236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Finalmente, los y las participantes relacionan los siguientes retos o temáticas adicionales por profundizar para alcanzar Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles – SAS, los cuales complementan los que ya se han señalado: Aumentar la escala de los cultivos biofortificados; Energía limpia; Canalización de los recursos del sector privado; Incorporación de árboles alimentarios con cultivos complementarios en paisajes degradados; Soluciones de refrigeración asequibles, sostenibles y altamente integradas para evitar pérdidas de alimentos; Centro virtual global de innovación en alimentos nutritivos para las Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas - PYME; Responsabilidad de impacto social y medioambiental empresarial; Etiquetado nutricional y ecológico; Reconocimiento y reivindicación de la mujer en los Sistemas Alimentarios; Conservación y restauración biocéntrica; Paisajes resilientes a escala; Política fiscal de los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles; Entornos favorables a la lactancia materna; Directrices alimentarias sostenibles; Marketing de alimentos saludables; Codex Planetarius; Soluciones de inocuidad alimentaria; sistemas de producción ganadera positivos para la naturaleza; Alimentos azules sostenibles; Ampliación de la base genética de los sistemas de producción; Agricultura del carbono y el comercio de créditos de carbono; Lucha contra la discriminación y los derechos laborales de los trabajadores migrantes (extranjeros) en la agricultura y en toda la cadena agroalimentaria.237No se presentaron controversias o desacuerdos durante el diálogo.

2021-08-20 06:12:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39923/18

204

In planning, organising and implementing the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD on-line event a number of strategies were employed to shape an event where i) community leaders, government/non-government policy-makers, service providers and academics could consider together solutions to food security built on evidence and with health and wellbeing outcomes important for communities; ii) there be robust, honest and respectful discussion on issues such as food affordability, a trained local nutrition workforce, minimising harm from unhealthy food and drinks with retail competition and viability of remote stores considered, and capacity building opportunities across the food system locally and nationally; and, iii) there be celebration and sharing of initiatives whilst acknowledging reflection of barriers to working in the challenging context of remote Australia. A key strategy was the establishment of a 32-member working group with eight Indigenous advisers in February 2020. This working gp met monthly via Zoom, with the convenor in contact with members by phone and email between meetings to build relationships and support Indigenous Peoples to be empowered in lead roles in the story direction, story telling and sharing. The working gp determined a set of guiding operation principles (such as, there be Australian-wide representation, priority be on involvement of Indigenous people in the working group, and, strong representation of Indigenous peoples in the sharing of stories and participation in the event and there be First Nations people’s voice and community ownership in the inclusion of content). The working group also set criteria for the selection of community initiatives to be showcased. The 8 Indigenous advisors had final decision on significant event design decisions. Nicole Turner, a Kamilaroi woman, nutritionist and chair of Indigenous Allied Health Australia and NSW Rural Doctors Network, curated the event and built trust, showed respect of different perspectives, was inclusive of different stakeholders, and prioritising space for Indigenous Peoples voices.Act with urgency: We recognised that sustained and meaningful action to build food secure communities can only be achieved with Indigenous Peoples at the centre of decision-making for their communities. Commit to the Summit: In registering this HEALTHY STORiES=GOOD FOOD on-line event as a food summit independent dialogue we contacted and sought support from the event working group and participating organisations. All were supportive of contributing to such a significant global forum. This action in itself brought the food summit to people’s attention who previously may not have been aware of it. We will continue to share news of the food summit with these stakeholders to facilitate new connections and enable wider participation of stakeholders in remote communities of Australia in food system dialogues and the thinking of ways forward. Be respectful: The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD on-line event strived to provide a public forum where the vision, concerns, effort and initiatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and their leadership in promoting food-related policies and practices that strive to protect and improve health and wellbeing, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, could be listened to, celebrated and showcased to inspire others. Recognise complexity: In this dialogue 8 government, 21 non-government organisations, 15 Aboriginal organisations, 21 academic organisations, 4 retail organisations and civil society participated. The stories featured and the presenter and panellists were chosen to showcase the multiplicity of voices working across the food system in relation to remote stores. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We sought to present multiple and diverse perspectives and experiences from a strength-based perspective to learn and build from local knowledge and insights. Complement and work of others: We presented key discussion points from this event to a food security summit hosted June 2021 by the Aboriginal Medical Services Association of the Northern Territory.

NoThis event was curated to share evidence on community initiatives aimed at improving the supply of healthy affordable food and highlight the innovative and emerging approaches to the challenges experienced by community stores in providing a healthy, quality and affordable food supply. The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event was curated via 4 on-line webinar events due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and risk. The on-line event culminated through consultation with many stakeholders and sharing of ideas. The artwork used for this event was created by the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD Young artist winner Jarrod Stains of the Gamilaroi region, with his artwork “Food Dreaming”. This artwork was selected by the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD online series First Nations selection committee to best represent the event. Stories of community initiatives to showcase in the event were chosen Nationally that met our working group’s guiding principles and criteria. The process of selecting stories to showcase included: 1.Identifying stories with working group members through community consultation 2. Review of the Australian Government parliamentary inquiry submissions for good stories impacting food supply for health outcomes that involved Stores only. 3. Checking alignment of identified stories with the working group’s objectives 4. Screening the list of identified stories with working group members and our Indigenous selection committee (Stories included needed to be well-established, related to the store/takeaway, evidence of community involvement in development and implementation, and aimed to improve access to healthy/ affordable food 5. Relevant organisations were then contacted to double-check that stories met our brief. The consultation process then began with interview briefs co-designed with the filmmaker and involved organisation. First Nation story leaders were empowered to take leading roles in the story direction, telling, sharing of experience in a way they felt comfortable. The one-hour on-line event was structured as follows: - Acknowledgement of the traditional custodians of the lands and paying of respect to their Elders past, present and emerging and Indigenous Peoples present - Acknowledgement of the balance Indigenous Peoples maintained for millennia between human and environmental/planetary health and the impact on this balance of colonisation - Acknowledgement of the continued consequences of colonisation and prevailing colonial power structures that impact on food security and people’s access to healthy, affordable food - Showing of the four films on community initiatives to improve the quality of food in their stores and takeaways - 10mins presentation by an expert in the field on remote store businesses and their role in relation to health of the community - QandA with panellists with questions from event participants - Showing of graphic illustration of the events key themes that emerged from the films, presentation and QandA - Close. The reaction to the event and its curation of the few participants who completed the short evaluation survey were extremely positive. One commented on how much they appreciated the celebration of "proactive health initiatives that will hopefully inspire other communities" and the illustrator who captured a summary of each discussion. Another praised the convenor and curator for the “highly grounded and knowledgable contributors, inspiring films and case studies; the obvious, collective love, warmth and passion to tackle the hard issues in culturally safe, pragmatic and respectful ways to make meaningful and positive differences to individual and community wellbeing; and the wonderful mix of voices, doers and leaders who, with their communities, are just getting on with strengths, community based real action and solutions. So many wonderful examples of powerful, leadership, insight and grounded pathways for action really - for remote AND mainstream Australia." This same participant thought the mix of presentations, films and discussion worked well but thought more time for discussion and interaction would have been good too but understood the challenges of this online.

234238247248249The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event had a focus on Action Track 1 with the recognition that the other action tracks relate to Action Track 1 as shifting to sustainable consumption patterns, building resilience to shocks and stress etc are fundamental determinants of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. This consideration of all action tracks also aligns with Indigenous knowledges of the interconnectedness of food system elements, people and the natural environment. This is reflected in the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD artwork, where Jarrod says, "In this artwork I have tried to represent HEALTH STORiES in a number of ways. In the middle of the painting is a group of people eating - we come together at meal time. The situation in which we eat is equally as important as the food we eat. Surrounding these are nuts, berries and witchetty grubs - important traditional food sources that our old people survived off for millennia, we need to take lessons from these (even if our food sources have changed) and watch what we are eating always. Stretching in four directions are the journeys we make for food, with a yam plant in each corner and bush food extended off of the branches. This represents our health journey, there are many paths we can take. The hands and spirals represent the relationships to people we have. These can also be important in our relationship with food, we need to surround ourselves with the right people and also encourage each other to eat well and nurture each other in times of health and illness alike." In this dialogue, HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD 1, we explored the theme of the policy role of stores and take-aways in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in relation to community health and wellbeing and levers of change. We showcased innovative initiatives led by Indigenous communities and leaders as such initiatives can be overlooked by governments and organisations perpetuating a history of imposed and inappropriate policy-action that is neither effective nor sustainable for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Underpinning our event was the recognition of the human right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in and lead decisions impacting their lives, communities, culture and lands. Themes explored were how locally harvested foods in communities can be made available for sale through locally (Indigenous) operated and owned take-away businesses and that the employment and training of local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in these enterprises can provide meaningful employment and livelihood pathways. A further theme was the importance of creating opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in food retail and business operations to train other Aboriginal Peoples and the benefits and cultural appropriateness of this type of training. This theme also explored how the provision of quality training in kitchen operations and food preparation for Aboriginal Peoples can help ensure the availability of healthy meals and prepared foods in remote communities and thereby contribute to the health of the community, where presently access to healthy pre-prepared foods is limited. Issues raised were that current government funding schemes do not recognise store businesses as providing essential services to remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and yet store businesses and the quality, range and price of foods and goods they provide directly impacts the health and wellbeing of the community. Many store businesses operating in remote Australia particularly those owned by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have prioritised health and wellbeing in their store policies and wear the business costs of these bold and innovative policies. Recognition by government of the health-promoting role of food retail businesses in communities and the potential health-cost benefit of these store policies by provision of funding incentives could strengthen the uptake of these policies across remote communities to the benefit of all communities.235238247248249A number of findings emerged from our HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event that were presented at the AMSANT food security summit in June 2021 to stimulate further discussion to support healthy, affordable and sustainable food systems in remote Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are leading transformation of their stores and takeaways to be healthy through innovative policy that recognises the impact that food price, availability and promotion/marketing has on food choices and community health. Non-Indigenous people can assist this transformation by supporting Indigenous Peoples as trainers of their own people, and providing technical support and evidence/information to inform policy-making where needed. With appropriate training opportunities, the food retail sector is contributing to the training, preparation and aspirations of future store business leaders, Aboriginal corporation leaders, and community leaders. Funding opportunities (such as grants for infrastructure improvement and workforce development) are necessary to enable stores and takeaways to provide a quality service to their communities and continue to strengthen store policy that promotes healthy affordable and quality food for all. A regulatory framework with inbuilt funding incentives co-designed with Indigenous Peoples could potentially support standardised store and takeaway business practices for quality, healthy and affordable food and goods including professional advice readily available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander store directors. With appropriate and adequate training and infrastructure support, takeaways in remote communities can offer quality, affordable and healthy meals.236238247248249The actions that emerged from the story-telling, presenters and panellist discussion for further discussion and consideration were: 1. Non-Indigenous Peoples be trained on how best to support Indigenous leadership and be ready to learn from Indigenous peoples before engaging with communities and when in community 2. Training be structured so Indigenous Peoples are training Indigenous Peoples 3. Funding schemes (such as grants for infrastructure improvement and workforce development) recognise the essential service role of stores and takeaways across remote Australia to enable stores provide a quality service to their communities including the provision of healthy, quality and affordable food and goods 4. Focus be on improving the quality, affordability and healthiness of pre-prepared meals in remote communities through provision of training and employment opportunities for Indigenous Peoples 5. There be consideration of co-design with Indigenous Peoples of a regulatory framework implemented and adequately monitored to ensure standardised quality store and takeaway business practices across all remote community food retail businesses that support the provision of quality, healthy and affordable food and other essential goods.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/HealthyStories_01_V2-scaled.jpghttps://youtu.be/GsKEoBa882shttps://youtu.be/uTvRlWgiQrYhttps://youtu.be/6KphyfTcBLIhttps://youtu.be/uRxVGivXeF8

2021-08-20 06:14:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41008/18

217

In planning, organising and implementing the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD on-line event a number of strategies were employed to shape an event where i) community leaders, government/non-government policy-makers, service providers and academics could consider together solutions to food security built on evidence and with health and wellbeing outcomes important for communities; ii) there be robust, honest and respectful discussion on issues such as food affordability, a trained local nutrition workforce, minimising harm from unhealthy food and drinks with retail competition and viability of remote stores considered, and capacity building opportunities across the food system locally and nationally; and, iii) there be celebration and sharing of initiatives whilst acknowledging reflection of barriers to working in the challenging context of remote Australia. A key strategy was the establishment of a 32-member working group with eight Indigenous advisers in February 2020. This working gp met monthly via Zoom, with the convenor in contact with members by phone and email between meetings to build relationships and support Indigenous Peoples to be empowered in lead roles in the story direction, story telling and sharing. The working gp determined a set of guiding operation principles (such as, there be Australian-wide representation, priority be on involvement of Indigenous people in the working group, and, strong representation of Indigenous peoples in the sharing of stories and participation in the event and there be First Nations people’s voice and community ownership in the inclusion of content). The working group also set criteria for the selection of community initiatives to be showcased. The 8 Indigenous advisors had final decision on significant event design decisions. Nicole Turner, a Kamilaroi woman, nutritionist and chair of Indigenous Allied Health Australia and NSW Rural Doctors Network, curated the event and built trust, showed respect of different perspectives, was inclusive of different stakeholders, and prioritising space for Indigenous Peoples voices.Act with urgency: We recognised that sustained and meaningful action to build food secure communities can only be achieved with Indigenous Peoples at the centre of decision-making for their communities. Commit to the Summit: In registering this HEALTHY STORiES=GOOD FOOD on-line event as a food summit independent dialogue we contacted and sought support from the event working group and participating organisations. All were supportive of contributing to such a significant global forum. This action in itself brought the food summit to people’s attention who previously may not have been aware of it. We will continue to share news of the food summit with these stakeholders to facilitate new connections and enable wider participation of stakeholders in remote communities of Australia in food system dialogues and the thinking of ways forward. Be respectful: The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD on-line event strived to provide a public forum where the vision, concerns, effort and initiatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and their leadership in promoting food-related policies and practices that strive to protect and improve health and wellbeing, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, could be listened to, celebrated and showcased to inspire others. Recognise complexity: In this dialogue 10 government, 24 non-govt organisations, 14 Aboriginal organisations, 24 academic organisations, 4 retail organisations and civil society participated. The stories featured and the presenter and panellists were chosen to showcase the multiplicity of voices working across the food system in relation to remote stores. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We sought to present multiple and diverse perspectives and experiences from a strength-based perspective to learn and build from local knowledge and insights. Complement and work of others: We presented key discussion points from this event to a food security summit hosted June 2021 by the Aboriginal Medical Services Association of the Northern Territory.

NoThis event was curated to share evidence on community initiatives aimed at improving the supply of healthy affordable food and highlight the innovative and emerging approaches to the challenges experienced by community stores in providing a healthy, quality and affordable food supply. The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event was curated via 4 on-line webinar events due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and risk. The on-line event culminated through consultation with many stakeholders and sharing of ideas. The artwork used for this event was created by the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD Young artist winner Jarrod Stains of the Gamilaroi region, with his artwork “Food Dreaming”. This artwork was selected by the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD online series First Nations selection committee to best represent the event. Stories of community initiatives to showcase in the event were chosen Nationally that met our working group’s guiding principles and criteria. The process of selecting stories to showcase included: 1.Identifying stories with working group members through community consultation 2. Review of the Australian Government parliamentary inquiry submissions for good stories impacting food supply for health outcomes that involved Stores only. 3. Checking alignment of identified stories with the working group’s objectives 4. Screening the list of identified stories with working group members and our Indigenous selection committee (Stories included needed to be well-established, related to the store/takeaway, evidence of community involvement in development and implementation, and aimed to improve access to healthy/ affordable food 5. Relevant organisations were then contacted to double-check that stories met our brief. The consultation process then began with interview briefs co-designed with the filmmaker and involved organisation. First Nation story leaders were empowered to take leading roles in the story direction, telling, sharing of experience in a way they felt comfortable. The one-hour on-line event was structured as follows: - Acknowledgement of the traditional custodians of the lands and paying of respect to their Elders past, present and emerging and Indigenous Peoples present - Acknowledgement of the balance Indigenous Peoples maintained for millennia between human and environmental/planetary health and the impact on this balance of colonisation - Acknowledgement of the continued consequences of colonisation and prevailing colonial power structures that impact on food security and people’s access to healthy, affordable food - Showing of the four films on community initiatives on food supply, food delivery and local food economies - 10mins presentation by an expert in the field on remote store businesses and the food supply chain - An interview with an Indigenous Leader - QandA with panellists with questions from event participants - Showing of graphic illustration of the events key themes that emerged from the films, presentation and QandA - Close. The reaction to the event and its curation of the few participants who completed the short evaluation survey were extremely positive. One commented on how much they appreciated the celebration of "proactive health initiatives that will hopefully inspire other communities" and the illustrator who captured a summary of each discussion. Another praised the convenor and curator for the “highly grounded and knowledgable contributors, inspiring films and case studies; the obvious, collective love, warmth and passion to tackle the hard issues in culturally safe, pragmatic and respectful ways to make meaningful and positive differences to individual and community wellbeing; and the wonderful mix of voices, doers and leaders who, with their communities, are just getting on with strengths, community based real action and solutions. So many wonderful examples of powerful, leadership, insight and grounded pathways for action really - for remote AND mainstream Australia." This same participant thought the mix of presentations, films and discussion worked well but thought more time for discussion and interaction would have been good too but understood the challenges of this online.

234238239240241242247248249The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event had a focus on Action Track 1 with the recognition that the other action tracks relate to Action Track 1. This consideration of the relatedness of action tracks aligns with Indigenous knowledges of the interconnectedness of food system elements, people and the natural environment. This is reflected in the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD artwork where Jarrod says, "In this artwork I have tried to represent HEALTH STORiES in a number of ways. In the middle of the painting is a group of people eating - we come together at meal time. The situation in which we eat is equally as important as the food we eat. Surrounding these are nuts, berries and witchetty grubs - important traditional food sources that our old people survived off for millennia, we need to take lessons from these (even if our food sources have changed) and watch what we are eating always. Stretching in four directions are the journeys we make for food, with a yam plant in each corner and bush food extended off of the branches. This represents our health journey, there are many paths we can take. The hands and spirals represent the relationships to people we have. These can also be important in our relationship with food, we need to surround ourselves with the right people and also encourage each other to eat well and nurture each other in times of health and illness alike." In this dialogue, HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD 2, we explored the theme of food supply, food delivery and local food economies in relation to the community food retail businesses and levers of change for improved community health and wellbeing. We showcased innovative initiatives led by Indigenous communities and leaders, as such initiatives can be overlooked by governments and organisations, perpetuating a history of imposed and inappropriate policy-action that is neither effective nor sustainable for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Underpinning our event was the recognition of the human right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in and lead decisions impacting their lives, communities, culture and lands. The stories of community initiatives featured: Maningrida, Northern Territory - Wildfoods Enterprises (commercialisation of local foods) and Tucker-Run (supplying groceries to homeland residents), Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation Ti Tree, Northern Territory - Remote community garden supplying the store, a community meals program and teaching children about Indigenous foods, Ti Tree Farm Garden Store Cape York Region, Northern Queensland - Local Indigenous run abattoir supplying local remote store, Seisia Meatworks235238239240241242247248249The natural environment has provided for the nourishment and health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples for millennia with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in turn managing and caring for the environment. The intergenerational knowledge of the natural foods, their growth, harvesting, preparation and conservation continues. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples since settler colonisation continue to fight for access to and ownership of their customary lands and waters, and for the protection of the environment. April Campbell, Assistant Teacher and Coordinator for language and culture, in the Ti Tree Farm Garden Store film, speaks of the importance of passing knowledge of the food and waters to the younger generations so they can continue to fight for access to these and for their protection. The critical importance of intergenerational transfer of Indigenous knowledges of food, water, country, kinship and culture for health and wellbeing and environmental sustainability was a recurring theme that emerged from the events films and the curator’s interview with Associate Professor Elaine Maypilama. Dr Maypilama shared the story of her childhood of living with her parents ‘on country’ and her learning about the plants, animals, the environment and people's relationship with the environment. She emphasised the changes that have happened in the food system in her lifetime. A further theme was how Stores and Takeaways enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to live on their country with their families. This was illustrated by the Tucker-Run film. Without the delivery of food to homelands, a large proportion of people’s income is spent on travel for food and other goods. Not all people living on homelands in Australia however have this service available to them. Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation are a not-for-profit organisation and bear the cost of this service. Local and Indigenous owned food enterprises (such as Bawinanga WildFoods enterprises, SEISIA meatworks and community farms/gardens) are important to secure a sustainable food future for remote communities and provide affordable options for communities. These enterprises also advance equitable livelihoods providing opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to participate in the local economy whilst enabling looking after of resources and passing on knowledge to younger generations. These enterprises however require adequate investment in infrastructure and workforce development and appropriate government policy to support this and provide flow on resource commitment as commented about by Floyd Constable in the dialogue. There has been a history of good-intent community garden/farm initiatives in remote communities of Australia that have failed due to inadequate foresight of capital and human resources needed for these ventures. There are stories of success however to learn from. Stores can help make locally sourced foods available to the community as shown by the Maningrida Wild Foods Café, and Ti Tree farm gardens and store. Community gardens can also familiarise children to different types of store plant foods as shown in the Ti Tree farm gardens film. A further discussion point was how the quality and range of store food available to people living in remote communities has improved since the 1990s due to government investment in food delivery routes and store infrastructure. Provision of a quality food service to remote areas of Australia however is costly. Continued investment in infrastructure is needed to maintain a quality and affordable food supply in remote communities. This needs urgent consideration particularly in light of the vulnerability of the food supply to remote communities in Australia as demonstrated with Covid-19 and the future shocks to the food supply that are likely to occur with climate change. A further reason why local food production initiatives need serious consideration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders.236238239240241242247248249The following actions emerged from the discussion points for further discussion and consideration on who should take this action, ways progress could be assessed and challenges that might be anticipated with implementation. 1. Appropriate policy be in place to support intergenerational Indigenous food system knowledge transfer, for food and water secure communities and protected environments 2. There be continued policy investment in provision of groceries and home goods to homeland communities. Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation provide a model of how this can be done. 3. There be adequate investment in infrastructure and workforce development for Indigenous led local food procurement and production enterprises in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities 4. There be continued investment in infrastructure improvement to enable remote store businesses to provide quality, affordable and a full range of grocery items to communities These discussion topics focus on the role of government policy in commiting resources to enable remote communities ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all,enable sustainable consumption patterns etc.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/HealthyStories_02_V2-scaled.jpghttps://youtu.be/Ia7YL4OFMXwhttps://youtu.be/7_t4ApVuoXEhttps://youtu.be/Aq3d1baNIashttps://youtu.be/3VCGGZxNSqkhttps://youtu.be/cxVB64rovyY

2021-08-20 06:15:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41015/18

202

In planning, organising and implementing the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD on-line event a number of strategies were employed to shape an event where i) community leaders, government/non-government policy-makers, service providers and academics could consider together solutions to food security built on evidence and with health and wellbeing outcomes important for communities; ii) there be robust, honest and respectful discussion on issues such as food affordability, a trained local nutrition workforce, minimising harm from unhealthy food and drinks with retail competition and viability of remote stores considered, and capacity building opportunities across the food system locally and nationally; and, iii) there be celebration and sharing of initiatives whilst acknowledging reflection of barriers to working in the challenging context of remote Australia. A key strategy was the establishment of a 32-member working group with eight Indigenous advisers in February 2020. This working gp met monthly via Zoom, with the convenor in contact with members by phone and email between meetings to build relationships and support Indigenous Peoples to be empowered in lead roles in the story direction, story telling and sharing. The working gp determined a set of guiding operation principles (such as, there be Australian-wide representation, priority be on involvement of Indigenous people in the working group, and, strong representation of Indigenous peoples in the sharing of stories and participation in the event and there be First Nations people’s voice and community ownership in the inclusion of content). The working group also set criteria for the selection of community initiatives to be showcased. The 8 Indigenous advisors had final decision on significant event design decisions. Nicole Turner, a Kamilaroi woman, nutritionist and chair of Indigenous Allied Health Australia and NSW Rural Doctors Network, curated the event and built trust, showed respect of different perspectives, was inclusive of different stakeholders, and prioritising space for Indigenous Peoples voices.Act with urgency: We recognised that sustained and meaningful action to build food secure communities can only be achieved with Indigenous Peoples at the centre of decision-making for their communities. Commit to the Summit: In registering this HEALTHY STORiES=GOOD FOOD on-line event as a food summit independent dialogue we contacted and sought support from the event working group and participating organisations. All were supportive of contributing to such a significant global forum. This action in itself brought the food summit to people’s attention who previously may not have been aware of it. We will continue to share news of the food summit with these stakeholders to facilitate new connections and enable wider participation of stakeholders in remote communities of Australia in food system dialogues and the thinking of ways forward. Be respectful: The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD on-line event strived to provide a public forum where the vision, concerns, effort and initiatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and their leadership in promoting food-related policies and practices that strive to protect and improve health and wellbeing, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, could be listened to, celebrated and showcased to inspire others. Recognise complexity: In this dialogue 12 government, 26 non-govt organisations, 13 Aboriginal organisations, 20 academic organisations, 4 retail organisations and civil society participated. The stories featured and the presenter and panellists were chosen to showcase the multiplicity of voices working across the food system in relation to remote stores. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We sought to present multiple and diverse perspectives and experiences from a strength-based perspective to learn and build from local knowledge and insights. Complement and work of others: We presented key discussion points from this event to a food security summit hosted June 2021 by the Aboriginal Medical Services Association of the Northern Territory.

NoThis event was curated to share evidence on community initiatives aimed at improving the supply of healthy affordable food and highlight the innovative and emerging approaches to the challenges experienced by community stores in providing a healthy, quality and affordable food supply. The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event was curated via 4 on-line webinar events due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and risk. The on-line event culminated through consultation with many stakeholders and sharing of ideas. The artwork used for this event was created by the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD Young artist winner Jarrod Stains of the Gamilaroi region, with his artwork “Food Dreaming”. This artwork was selected by the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD online series First Nations selection committee to best represent the event. Stories of community initiatives to showcase in the event were chosen Nationally that met our working group’s guiding principles and criteria. The process of selecting stories to showcase included: 1.Identifying stories with working group members through community consultation 2. Review of the Australian Government parliamentary inquiry submissions for good stories impacting food supply for health outcomes that involved Stores only. 3. Checking alignment of identified stories with the working group’s objectives 4. Screening the list of identified stories with working group members and our Indigenous selection committee (Stories included needed to be well-established, related to the store/takeaway, evidence of community involvement in development and implementation, and aimed to improve access to healthy/ affordable food 5. Relevant organisations were then contacted to double-check that stories met our brief. The consultation process then began with interview briefs co-designed with the filmmaker and involved organisation. First Nation story leaders were empowered to take leading roles in the story direction, telling, sharing of experience in a way they felt comfortable. The one-hour on-line event was structured as follows: - Acknowledgement of the traditional custodians of the lands and paying of respect to their Elders past, present and emerging and Indigenous Peoples present - Acknowledgement of the balance Indigenous Peoples maintained for millennia between human and environmental/planetary health and the impact on this balance of colonisation - Acknowledgement of the continued consequences of colonisation and prevailing colonial power structures that impact on food security and people’s access to healthy, affordable food - Showing of two films on community initiatives to improve store fruit and vegetable provision and food affordability - 2 x 10mins presentations by experts on food prices, food affordability and food security - QandA with panellists with questions from event participants - Showing of graphic illustration of the events key themes that emerged from the films, presentation and QandA - Close The reaction to the event and its curation of the few participants who completed the short evaluation survey were extremely positive. One commented on how much they appreciated the celebration of "proactive health initiatives that will hopefully inspire other communities" and the illustrator who captured a summary of each discussion. Another praised the convenor and curator for the “highly grounded and knowledgable contributors, inspiring films and case studies; the obvious, collective love, warmth and passion to tackle the hard issues in culturally safe, pragmatic and respectful ways to make meaningful and positive differences to individual and community wellbeing; and the wonderful mix of voices, doers and leaders who, with their communities, are just getting on with strengths, community based real action and solutions. So many wonderful examples of powerful, leadership, insight and grounded pathways for action really - for remote AND mainstream Australia." This same participant thought the mix of presentations, films and discussion worked well but thought more time for discussion and interaction would have been good too but understood the challenges of this online.

234238247248249The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event had a focus on Action Track 1 with the recognition that the other action tracks relate to Action Track 1 as shifting to sustainable consumption patterns, building resilience to shocks and stress etc are fundamental determinants of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. This consideration of all action tracks also aligns with Indigenous knowledges of the interconnectedness of food system elements, people and the natural environment. This is reflected in the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD artwork, where Jarrod says, "In this artwork I have tried to represent HEALTH STORiES in a number of ways. In the middle of the painting is a group of people eating - we come together at meal time. The situation in which we eat is equally as important as the food we eat. Surrounding these are nuts, berries and witchetty grubs - important traditional food sources that our old people survived off for millennia, we need to take lessons from these (even if our food sources have changed) and watch what we are eating always. Stretching in four directions are the journeys we make for food, with a yam plant in each corner and bush food extended off of the branches. This represents our health journey, there are many paths we can take. The hands and spirals represent the relationships to people we have. These can also be important in our relationship with food, we need to surround ourselves with the right people and also encourage each other to eat well and nurture each other in times of health and illness alike." In this dialogue, HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD 3, we explored the theme of food affordability and pricing for healthy food in relation to the community food retail businesses and levers of change for improved community health and wellbeing. Food insecurity is experienced by the majority of households in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Food prices are dramatically higher than in urban centres due to remoteness, high food retail business overheads, limited food retail business buying power; incomes are dramatically lower due to limited employment opportunities and/or western-imposed views on what constitutes work, lower education attainment. We showcased innovative initiatives led by Indigenous communities and leaders as such initiatives can be overlooked by governments and organisations, perpetuating a history of imposed and inappropriate policy-action that is neither effective nor sustainable for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Underpinning our event was the recognition of the human right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in and lead decisions impacting their lives, communities, culture and lands. We featured community stories from: Thursday Island, Northern Queensland - Fruit and Vegetables in focus (quality & pricing improvements), CEQ Thursday Island Store Laynhapuy Homelands, Northern Territory - Homeland stores: An essential services health model, Laynhapuy Homelands Aboriginal Corporation (LHAC)235238243247248249Food affordability is a lead contributor to the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. High cost of groceries and home goods coupled with low income and inadequate household storage and food preparation facilities result in purchase of non-perishable “filler” foods (energy dense-nutrient poor foods) or take-away food (that ends up being more expensive than a home prepared meal and/or of low nutritional value because of limited choice). These important social determinants of diet and health need urgent attention by policy-makers with community leaders to address inequities in food price experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. The right to affordable food was presented as a human right in this dialogue event. Investment in local food procurement and production will contribute to provision of a more secure, sustainable and affordable food supply in remote communities. Using an essential service model, as shown by Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation with the Tucker Run (refer to HEALTHY STORiES dialogue 2) and Laynthapuy Homelands Aboriginal Corporation with Gan Gan store, are examples of two Aboriginal corporations, enabling access to grocery and home goods to Peoples living in homelands. Store owners/operators have put a number of different policies in place to help make healthy food more affordable (e.g., off-setting freight costs on fruit and vegetables, better price deals with suppliers e.g. $1 for 600ml bottled water, increasing mark-up on unhealthy food to fund decreased mark-up on healthy food). Small economies of scale, high overheads (e.g., infrastructure maintenance, utility costs) and freight costs however all contribute to the higher cost of food in remote communities compared to urban centres and so stores cannot fully address the price differential whilst running viable businesses. A better understanding of factors contributing to higher food costs in remote communities is needed to inform policy decisions on how best to support reduced food costs. In addition timely information systems are needed for monitoring and feedback of food pricing and food affordability to policy-makers including retailers and community leaders to inform appropriate policy action.236238243247248249The areas for action that emerged from dialogue discussion points for further discussion and consideration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders included: 1. Urgent attention be given by government to determine with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders the best policy approaches to address the high cost of groceries and home goods in remote communities 2. Continued access to groceries and home goods be provided for Homeland residents 3. A timely and reliable monitoring and feedback information system be established to provide community store owners/operators with information needed to guide policy making for healthy stores 4. Serious policy consideration be given to investment in local food procurement and production for a secure, sustainable and affordable food supply in remote communities.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/HealthyStories_03_V2-scaled.jpghttps://youtu.be/RgARTLS8xrshttps://youtu.be/bykFl28BA_Mhttps://youtu.be/R73dMJFeKUE

2021-08-20 06:19:50204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41018/18

184

In planning, organising and implementing the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD on-line event a number of strategies were employed to shape an event where i) community leaders, government/non-government policy-makers, service providers and academics could consider together solutions to food security built on evidence and with health and wellbeing outcomes important for communities; ii) there be robust, honest and respectful discussion on issues such as food affordability, a trained local nutrition workforce, minimising harm from unhealthy food and drinks with retail competition and viability of remote stores considered, and capacity building opportunities across the food system locally and nationally; and, iii) there be celebration and sharing of initiatives whilst acknowledging reflection of barriers to working in the challenging context of remote Australia. A key strategy was the establishment of a 32-member working group with eight Indigenous advisers in February 2020. This working gp met monthly via Zoom, with the convenor in contact with members by phone and email between meetings to build relationships and support Indigenous Peoples to be empowered in lead roles in the story direction, story telling and sharing. The working gp determined a set of guiding operation principles (such as, there be Australian-wide representation, priority be on involvement of Indigenous people in the working group, and, strong representation of Indigenous peoples in the sharing of stories and participation in the event and there be First Nations people’s voice and community ownership in the inclusion of content). The working group also set criteria for the selection of community initiatives to be showcased. The 8 Indigenous advisors had final decision on significant event design decisions. Nicole Turner, a Kamilaroi woman, nutritionist and chair of Indigenous Allied Health Australia and NSW Rural Doctors Network, curated the event and built trust, showed respect of different perspectives, was inclusive of different stakeholders, and prioritising space for Indigenous Peoples voices.Act with urgency: We recognised that sustained and meaningful action to build food secure communities can only be achieved with Indigenous Peoples at the centre of decision-making for their communities. Commit to the Summit: In registering this HEALTHY STORiES=GOOD FOOD on-line event as a food summit independent dialogue we contacted and sought support from the event working group and participating organisations. All were supportive of contributing to such a significant global forum. This action in itself brought the food summit to people’s attention who previously may not have been aware of it. We will continue to share news of the food summit with these stakeholders to facilitate new connections and enable wider participation of stakeholders in remote communities of Australia in food system dialogues and the thinking of ways forward. Be respectful: The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD on-line event strived to provide a public forum where the vision, concerns, effort and initiatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and their leadership in promoting food-related policies and practices that strive to protect and improve health and wellbeing, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, could be listened to, celebrated and showcased to inspire others. Recognise complexity: In this dialogue 7 government, 20 non-govt organisations, 16 Aboriginal organisations, 20 academic organisations, 4 retail organisations and civil society participated. The stories featured and the presenter and panellists were chosen to showcase the multiplicity of voices working across the food system in relation to remote stores. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We sought to present multiple and diverse perspectives and experiences from a strength-based perspective to learn and build from local knowledge and insights. Complement and work of others: We presented key discussion points from this event to a food security summit hosted June 2021 by the Aboriginal Medical Services Association of the Northern Territory.

NoThis event was curated to highlight and share evidence on innovative community initiatives aimed at improving food retail practice and policy to promote healthy food and disincentivise unhealthy food in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community stores. The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event was curated via 4 on-line webinar events due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and risk. The on-line event culminated through consultation with many stakeholders and sharing of ideas. The artwork used for this event was created by the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD Young artist winner Jarrod Stains of the Gamilaroi region, with his artwork “Food Dreaming”. This artwork was selected by the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD online series First Nations selection committee to best represent the event. Stories of community initiatives to showcase in the event were chosen Nationally that met our working group’s guiding principles and criteria. The process of selecting stories to showcase included: 1.Identifying stories with working group members through community consultation 2. Review of the Australian Government parliamentary inquiry submissions for good stories impacting food supply for health outcomes that involved Stores only. 3. Checking alignment of identified stories with the working group’s objectives 4. Screening the list of identified stories with working group members and our Indigenous selection committee (Stories included needed to be well-established, related to the store/takeaway, evidence of community involvement in development and implementation, and aimed to improve access to healthy/ affordable food 5. Relevant organisations were then contacted to double-check that stories met our brief. The consultation process then began with interview briefs co-designed with the filmmaker and involved organisation. First Nation story leaders were empowered to take leading roles in the story direction, telling, sharing of experience in a way they felt comfortable. The one-hour on-line event was structured as follows: - Acknowledgement of the traditional custodians of the lands and paying of respect to their Elders past, present and emerging and Indigenous Peoples present - Acknowledgement of the balance Indigenous Peoples maintained for millennia between human and environmental/planetary health and the impact on this balance of colonisation - Acknowledgement of the continued consequences of colonisation and prevailing colonial power structures that impact on food security and people’s access to healthy, affordable food - Showing of the four films on community initiatives to promote healthy food and disincentivise unhealthy food - Presentation by experts in the field on remote store businesses and policy in relation to the 4Ps of marketing for the promotion of healthy food - QandA with panellists with questions from event participants - Showing of graphic illustration of the events key themes that emerged from the films, presentation and QandA - Close. The reaction to the event and its curation of the few participants who completed the short evaluation survey were extremely positive. One commented on how much they appreciated the celebration of "proactive health initiatives that will hopefully inspire other communities" and the illustrator who captured a summary of each discussion. Another praised the convenor and curator for the “highly grounded and knowledgable contributors, inspiring films and case studies; the obvious, collective love, warmth and passion to tackle the hard issues in culturally safe, pragmatic and respectful ways to make meaningful and positive differences to individual and community wellbeing; and the wonderful mix of voices, doers and leaders who, with their communities, are just getting on with strengths, community based real action and solutions. So many wonderful examples of powerful, leadership, insight and grounded pathways for action really - for remote AND mainstream Australia." This same participant thought the mix of presentations, films and discussion worked well but thought more time for discussion and interaction would have been good too but understood the challenges of this online.

234238239247248249The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event had a focus on Action Track 1 with the recognition that the other action tracks relate to Action Track 1 as shifting to sustainable consumption patterns, building resilience to shocks and stress etc are fundamental determinants of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. This consideration of all action tracks also aligns with Indigenous knowledges of the interconnectedness of food system elements, people and the natural environment. This is reflected in the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD artwork, where Jarrod says, "In this artwork I have tried to represent HEALTH STORiES in a number of ways. In the middle of the painting is a group of people eating - we come together at meal time. The situation in which we eat is equally as important as the food we eat. Surrounding these are nuts, berries and witchetty grubs - important traditional food sources that our old people survived off for millennia, we need to take lessons from these (even if our food sources have changed) and watch what we are eating always. Stretching in four directions are the journeys we make for food, with a yam plant in each corner and bush food extended off of the branches. This represents our health journey, there are many paths we can take. The hands and spirals represent the relationships to people we have. These can also be important in our relationship with food, we need to surround ourselves with the right people and also encourage each other to eat well and nurture each other in times of health and illness alike." In this dialogue, HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD 4, we explored the theme of the 4Ps of marketing for healthy food in relation to community food retail businesses and levers of change for improved community health and wellbeing. We showcased innovative initiatives led by Indigenous communities and leaders as such initiatives can be overlooked by governments and organisations, perpetuating a history of imposed and inappropriate policy-action that is neither effective nor sustainable for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Underpinning our event was the recognition of the human right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in and lead decisions impacting their lives, communities, culture and lands. Store directors with access to evidence and information needed for decision-making are putting policies in place in their stores for the health of families and the community (e.g., as shown in the ALPA Healthy Stores 2020 short story, and the sugar-reduction policies in the communities of Ali Curung and Engawala). These policies are innovative, bold and trail-blazing and come from recognition of community leaders of the devastating impact on health of high fat/sugar/salt/highly processed foods and drinks. There is little evidence of these bold policy actions being implemented by non-remote retailers in Australia and/or overseas. This dialogue shows ownership of these store-related policies by Indigenous community leaders and how this community leadership underpins the successful implementation of these policies for the benefit of the community. While not a discussion point of this dialogue, these store-related policies aimed to reduce purchase of unhealthy foods, also relate to the Action Track 2: shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Unhealthy foods are usually packaged, contribute to overconsumption and are not needed in a healthy diet. The current high production of these unhealthy products is detrimental to the environment. For this HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD dialogue we featured stories from: Northern Western Australia - Bidyadanga Community Store: Use of nutrition promotion and social marketing for increasing healthy food sales, Boab Health Service and Cancer Council WA Alcoota and Ali Curung, Northern Territory - Sugar reduction strategies and community store policies: Engawala Store (Alcoota) and Mirnirri Store (Ali Curung), Outback Stores (OBS) Santa Teresa, Northern Territory - Uncle Jimmy says....ThumbsUp! Good Tucker Long Life store and nutrition promotion including the Good Tucker App, Uncle Jimmy Thumbs up!235238247248249The Healthy Stores 2020 randomised controlled trial conducted by the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation in partnership with Monash University and other universities, provides empirical evidence that making unhealthy foods less visible in the store (i.e., restricting their merchandising) can reduce the amount of sugar from food and drinks sold and not adversely impact the store business. The Ali Curung and Engawala Stories also provide evidence of how store directors can make bold policy decisions in relation to their store businesses that can impact on the health and wellbeing of the community. We need to share these stories/evidence and have conversations with all communities so store directors can consider the Healthy Stores 2020 strategy and other successful strategies (such as the Ali Curung and Engawala stories) for their store and community for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Visual signs on store shelves can point out the healthy choice to customers as shown in Santa Teresa and Bidyadanga communities. Community-designed visual signs (shelf talkers) showing good food choices with community-wide healthy food promotion (such as cook-ups and displays in school, child care etc) can help increase people’s knowledge of healthy food choices as shown in Bidyadanga community. This nutrition/healthy food promotion needs to be ongoing and lead by people in the community with all community settings involved (such as school, child care, sport and recreation centres). Evidence-based resources have been developed to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander store directors make good policy for the promotion of healthy food and less promotion of unhealthy food in their stores (refer to Healthy Stores 2020 Policy Options, Good Tucker App). The Healthy Stores 2020 Policy Options co-designed with Store directors, retailers, practitioners, policy-makers and academics combine the most current research evidence on use of the 4Ps to promote healthy food and disincentivise unhealthy food with evidence from the ground on what is feasible and acceptable. These Policy Options can inform policy standards for health promoting stores. A five-year research project (2021-2026), Benchmarking for healthy remote stores, funded by the Medical Research Future Fund, Australia, and involving academics, retailers, community leaders, public health nutrition practitioners, and policy-makers, will develop with remote store and takeaway owners and operators, a way to support store directors/owners across remote Australia consider and put in place evidence-informed policy to promote healthy food and promote less healthy food in their stores.2362382462472482491. There be consideration for the establishment of a community-based nutrition promotion workforce where community members are trained and adequately supported (by public health nutritionists/dietitians) as local nutrition promotion officers. These nutrition promotion officers to be involved in: a. Community-wide nutrition promotion through cook-ups, group education, hunting trips and education on traditional foods to children in schools with elders b. Store assessments so as to provide information to store owners/ operators on where improvements could be made for the promotion of healthy food and less promotion of unhealthy food c. In partnership with stores, set-up and maintenance of store promotional activity, such as shelf talkers 2. Resources (i.e., healthy stores 2020 policy options and Good Tucker App) be made available to store owners and operators to guide their policy making for promotion of healthy food and less promotion of unhealthy food 3. Store owners/operators, community leaders, Aboriginal health services, government policy-makers, nutrition practitioners work as a collective to develop a sustainable way building on all the work to date to support all store directors/owners make good policy to promote healthy food and promote less healthy food in their stores.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/HealthyStories_04_V2-scaled.jpghttps://youtu.be/woJCEOopEZ8https://youtu.be/Oaxem5sueYQhttps://youtu.be/EIMkhFl2kDQhttps://youtu.be/evoY1zpDlXAhttps://youtu.be/h0EI_mUMezwhttps://thumbsup.org.au/good-tucker/https://healthyfoodretail.com/resource/healthy-stores-2020-policy-action-series-healthy-policy-to-support-retailers-and-communities/

2021-08-20 14:18:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7173/203

107067401113621164324

The Dialogue was organized closely following the UNFSS’ Principles of Engagement. Participants had been closely following the past dialogues and were informed of the summit vision, objectives and action tracks. The agenda was developed with principles of engagement in mind prior and shared with the participants prior to the online event, briefly reviewed by the conveners, facilitators and curator.The Dialogue was organized with a focus on developing contributions to the FSS by clarifying the linkages with key Action Tracks, and elaborating pathways toward transformation and modernization of food systems with a view to contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The choice of focus on agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) for food systems transformation very much addressed the cross-cutting relevance of AEAS across a range of food system issues, and filled the gap due to relatively limited focus of the past UNFSS dialogues focusing specifically on AEAS. The participation of multiple stakeholders was encouraged by bringing together a diverse group of actors engaging in AEAS policy formulation, implementation and operation, and research. The Dialogue invitation was sent to actors in government institutions, implementing institutions, research and academia, farmers groups at various scales, private sector actors, etc. Perspectives from researchers and practitioners were both shared, which informed the breakout session discussions. The Feedback from the breakout discussion was reported back to the plenary sessions to share the key messages and recommendations to the FSS. Breakout room discussion topics covered diverse key areas within food systems transformation (sustainability, nutrition-sensitivity, market-orientation of AEAS), and the ways to expand and enhance efficiency of AEAS to contribute to each of these areas.As was also recommended in various other earlier dialogues, it is recommended to set the stage early on regarding the ‘purpose’ of the Dialogue by explaining the UNFSS’ objectives and vision and action tracks, as well as key outcomes from Pre-Summit to keep the discussions up-to-date within UNFSS process. Structuring the event by a diverse set of sessions, through presentations of research and field evidence, sharing of perspectives by practitioners through panel discussions, in addition to breakout sessions, significantly informed the discussions. Livestreaming the event also significantly expanded the viewership to audience who are not familiar with AEAS and thus not join as registered participants, but still want to learn regarding AEAS as audience.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251To feed its growing population amid climate change and other challenges, Africa needs a flourishing food system that is nutrition-sensitive, efficient, safe, healthy, and environmentally sustainable. This requires bringing modern technologies to local communities, helping stakeholders to acquire the relevant technical know-how, and building strong partnerships and institutions. Developed countries around the world, including Japan, can play important roles in these efforts. Disseminating modern technologies and enhancing knowledge and skills among Food Systems Actors are important components of these efforts. Different models exist for agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS). Considering these challenges in today’s global food systems, it is paramount that more consideration is given to the important role of AEAS as the primary enablers of enhancing knowledge and skills of food systems actors. Enhancing the effectiveness of AEAS, and providing relevant research and field evidence will require bold actions and new mindsets directed at enhancing human capital among food system actors to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The Independent Dialogue was convened in partnership between the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA) to discuss the role of AEAS for Food Systems Transformation in developing countries including Africa. Insights emerging from this multistakeholder dialogue will be presented to contribute to the United Nations Food System Summit (UNFSS) in September 2021. Transforming #foodsystems is among the most powerful ways to make progress toward all 17 #SDGS. The dialogue discussed the importance of enhancing knowledge and skills for a diverse set of actors for all aspects of food systems, with a focus on achieving sustainable, nutrition-sensitive, and market-oriented agriculture. The dialogue also highlighted measures related to AEAS that ensure equity, inclusion, capacity, innovation and sustainability, including insights on how food systems need to change to achieve no poverty (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and well-being (SDG 3) through nutrition-sensitive agriculture, reduced inequalities (SDG 10) through enhanced human capital formation among vulnerable smallholder farmers, responsible production and consumption (SDG 12) through relevant knowledge and technology disseminations, climate action (SDG 13) through climate-smart agriculture. This pre-UNFSS2021 session therefore sought to achieve the following goals: • Explore how extension can best contribute to promoting climate-resilient sustainability, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and market access; answering the following questions: what knowledge and skills do farmers require in these areas? What are the priority actions for countries, funders, managers, and implementers to improve extension for these areas? • Share what SAA and IFPRI are learning, as implementers and researchers, in these areas • Highlight ongoing IFPRI-Japan collaboration in the areas of AEAS applications • Prepare for a virtual summit side event for the Food Summit (by bringing recommendations from the dialogue to the Summit for action)235238239240241242243244246248249251Farmers remain central to food system transformation. How to share knowledge and information with farmers, while critical, has been one of the most often neglected issues in transforming today's food system. Participants agreed with various key issues associated with agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) within the food system. First, it was re-emphasized that AEAS is one of the weakest links in the agrifood value chain, such that ensuring the successful transformation of food systems is not possible without significant strengthening of AEAS, no matter how much development is made in other elements of the food system. Second, scaling-up and scaling-out of successful AEAS models is urgently needed. Numerous pilot interventions based on different modes of AEAS have been implemented with insufficient evaluation and subsequent uptake elsewhere. Enhancing capacity is also critical for enabling such scaling-up / scaling-out. Third, building and strengthening institutions for AEAS continue to be essential. These include institutions for extension workers in general, through colleges, universities and technical/vocational training and continuing education for skill enhancement. While training individual staff is important, it is also crucial to simultaneously strengthen extension systems / institutions. Fourth, identifying and strengthening the enabling environment for AEAS is important. These include the policy environment and national extension policies / strategies, which not all countries have established. Critical strategies for the enabling environment also must be backed up by sufficient public resource allocation and funding. Developing sufficient public-resource mobilization toward extension is crucial in ensuring that extension efforts do not operate at individual farms or farming communities in isolation, but are connected back to the agrifood policies and strategies at the national level. Fifth, conscious efforts are needed to reorient the capacity building efforts for AEAS within a context that is becoming increasing broader. These means expanding from a traditional focus on production into broader aspects including climate change, emerging markets, nutrition-sensitivity, and sustainability. These should not be achieved by merely focusing on disseminating knowledge and skills exclusively through extension workers, but also mobilizing broader frameworks to support farmers from the bottom up to enable them to be market-oriented and market-intelligent, understanding and responding to market demand. It is equally important to strengthen extension systems, not only for production, but also along the entire value-chain focusing on marketing, consumption, environmental sustainability, food safety, and improved post-harvest handling. Sixth, AEAS can also benefit from, and drive improved inclusiveness, including engaging youth in food systems. Helping youth to join extension systems in both the formal and the informal sectors, by designing appropriate programs, is essential - whether as providers or recipients of AEAS. SAA's current approach offers valuable insights in this process. Seventh, digitization, digital transformation of extension systems, must be capitalized on more than ever to compensate for the low extension-to-farmer ratios in developing countries including those in Africa today. An e-extension platform implemented in Ethiopia, as well as successful apps developed and disseminated by SAA can offer useful lessons for other countries. Social behavioral changes are likely to play key roles in transforming eating patterns, dietary intake, and consumption behaviors. The discussions revealed that, especially in rural areas, much of these are both affected through direct communications to induce behavioral changes as well as the crop diversification at farm household levels, both of which can be directly informed through improved AEAS. The discussions also highlighted the need for transforming AEAS to meet regional food systems challenges, not only national challenges, given the fact that food systems are increasingly integrated globally, and sharing knowledge across countries is essential to exploit economies of scale in boosting the effectiveness of AEAS overall. Given the increasing complexity of challenges faced by today's food systems, it was also emphasized that it is essential to extend collaboration among diverse actors involved in AEAS, including health, environmental sectors, various government ministries, and sectoral organizations. Bringing together AEAS implementers and researchers, as is ongoing IFPRI-SAA collaborations, is important in enhancing AEAS effectiveness through positive evidence-implementation cycle. Along similar lines, combining governmental and private-sector systems remain some of the most effective options in strengthening AEAS. For example, while Ethiopia has large government extension system, other African countries like Uganda have AEAS systems primarily led by the private-sector leads (including farmer-to-farmer, village-agent systems). Harmonization between government and private systems is key for exploring the complementarity and synergies to boost overall effectiveness of AEAS. Lastly, as mentioned in the opening remarks, donors in developed countries like Japan continue to play critical roles in sustaining the effective functioning of AEAS that provide key public-goods in the form of knowledge and technologies to food system actors including smallholders.236239240243244Breakout room 1: Promoting sustainable agriculture and the roles of agricultural Extension and Advisory Services 1. What are three tangible ways that AEAS can contribute to food system transformation through promoting sustainable agriculture? - Continuing and scaling-up existing climate-smart agriculture, nature-positive agriculture development and promotion initiatives. These include the following: - Training and capacity building of farmers on the use of weather / climate-based information, soil-quality testing, risk management, and management of other information - Training and capacity building of farmers on new areas including payment for ecosystem services, incentive mechanisms for farmer-adoption of new sustainable practices, instead of simply providing subsidies; these approaches may bring the benefits more in the medium-to-longer terms, but with higher cost-efficiency overall - Promoting agricultural-resource based incentives through showcasing and field demonstration to improve knowledge ownership by farmers themselves 2. What action tracks or clusters or coalitions should take up the recommendation? - Action tracks 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns - Action tracks 3: Boost nature-positive production both of which benefit significantly through improvement management of ecosystems 3. What other actors should be brought on board? - Bring private-sector, and promote public-private partnership like Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA), universities, government ministries - Diversify activities beyond traditional extension programs to ensure bilateral and multilateral cooperation partnership and cooperation, instead of simply relying on public-extension236238243246251Breakout room 2: Promoting nutrition-sensitive agriculture and the roles of agricultural Extension and Advisory Services 1. What are three tangible ways that AEAS can contribute to food system transformation through promoting sustainable agriculture? 2. What action tracks or clusters or coalitions should take up the recommendation? 3. What other actors should be brought on board? Collectively, the following approaches are considered effective: Increase nutrition awareness among service providers and clients - Without assuming that the knowledge on nutrition by farmers is sufficient, it is important to recognize that the knowledge including that of researchers and extension staff is still basic Engage not only the mothers but need to also communicate with entire families and communities - Without the support from the entire family, informing mothers can only have limited effects on bringing actual nutritional outcomes of the household members Foster collaboration between health and ag extension service providers (will require reskilling) - Agricultural extension agents typically have limited skillsets and knowledge on nutrition and health - Ministries of Health and NGOs working in nutrition and health domains have advanced their skillsets and knowledge in recent years - It is critical for agricultural extension agents to collaborate with these groups to expand their knowledge and skillsets on nutrition and health, and their links with agriculture Promote diversity of production and consumption for income generation and balanced diets - Improved nutrition can be achieved through diversity in both production and consumption - Income generation is also important achieving this diversity through consumption of more nutrient-dense food from both animals and plants, which tend to be more available through market developments Package extension material around nutrition sensitive agriculture, promote nutrient dense plants and animal sourced foods as they can complement each other - While specific agricultural production and other practices may be effective under certain circumstances, they may only achieve a limited set of outcomes, like achieving higher productivity alone without necessarily bringing in improved production of a range of micronutrients - It is therefore critical to incorporate nutrients and their diversity in designing agricultural extension programs Use media around food preparation, food safety, etc. (including apps) - Modern digital media, including smart phones, can be utilized to convey information on agricultural practices and their implications on nutrients, in more practical and creative ways - These approaches help conveying messages to farmers that the improved nutrition-sensitive production process is not simply about raw materials (nutrient-dense plants, animals and fish), but how to handle, process and store them safely (relating to food safety) in ways that minimize food-borne diseases Track nutrition related indicators (e.g., increase in dietary diversity) - Retooling extension staff and overall human resources engaging in AEAS of newer skillsets on Monitoring & Evaluation is critical - Train extension staff and other relevant actors on key indicators on nutrition and health, and linkages with agricultural production; such training also empower these staff in gathering these indicators Partnerships across broader set of actors are key in developing AEAS to address emerging needs for transforming food systems in nutrition-sensitive ways - While the private sector can play roles, allocating sufficient public resources is critical for AEAS to achieve critical knowledge and technology dissemination to transform food systems236241242243244246248249251Breakout room 3: Market-oriented agriculture and the roles of agricultural Extension and Advisory Services 1. What are three tangible ways that AEAS can contribute to food system transformation through promoting sustainable agriculture? - Farmer training remains critical in fostering commercial mindset, entrepreneurship, improving farmers' skills to negotiate and engage with market actors, conduct market-surveys and analyses, make critical decisions in terms of identify appropriate markets to sell - Curriculum overhaul or revisions for extension service providers, expanding more materials on market-oriented approach, value-chain oriented approaches, so that they can empower farmers to undertake different aspects of engaging and interacting with markets; revisions in curriculum can include marketing, entrepreneurships, having market-oriented extension approaches, value-chain based extension focuses, and leveraging more with ICT - Focus on mobilizing farmers into business-entities, by encouraging the formation of groups and collective actions when engaging with market actors, accessing necessary resources for required investments, through the provision of incentive mechanisms for them to shift from current subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture - In addition, support for promoting the development of institutions providing AEAS, including institutions that provide market information, remains crucial 2. What action tracks or clusters or coalitions should take up the recommendation? - Track 4 – Advance equitable livelihoods: - Track 5 – Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress: which are both expected to be achieved as AEAS successfully enhance farmers' aspirations to be more market-oriented, as increased market sales help smallholder and vulnerable farmers to transform their farming into more reliable source of economic livelihoods, and also enhance their resilience against future shocks through improved financial resources237238239240241242243244246248249251Overall, there were no substantial divergence in views and perspectives regarding the roles of AEAS. What was observed during the dialogue was relative diversity in views on which issues are of paramount importance, without necessarily downplaying the importance of other aspects. Some participants placed greater emphasis on informing farmers of the ever growing set of multi-functional roles that agrifood systems in achieving sustainable development goals, ranging from not only productivity, but also soil health, efficient post-harvest handling to reduce food loss and waste. Participates also emphasize different aspects of capacity enhancement efforts that are particularly critical for AEAS. These range from focusing on enhancing skills of existing extension staff, or recruiting and training new staff, whether to focus on skills on businesses, group dynamics to promote efficient collective actions, or focusing on developing soft skills and light skills on communications, whether to continue strengthening the focus on production (for which challenges continues to remain substantial), or broader issues along the entire food systems. Some participants also place greater emphases on informing farmers of how natural resources are increasingly becoming scarce, while others significantly emphasized the role of digital technologies as the utmost importance in enabling AEAS systems in coming era. Other participants highlighted particularly the importance of cultivating greater economic incentives that lead to greater market-orientation and commercial aspirations of smallholder farmers. They emphasized that, developing markets themselves is insufficient in the short-to-medium terms because farmers cannot, in short term, efficiently develop capacity to develop market-intelligence, for example, conducting cost-benefit analyses of their farm production, gathering accurate information about the market demand including quality, safety or nutrient values of food commodities. Some participants place greatest importance in enhancing AEAS capacity to inform and educate farmers and other food system actors on how to adapt to evolving food environment under the accelerating global climate change. Much as mobilizing AEAS for modern production technologies is important, participants also emphasized the importance of continued support for informing farmers to address challenges that arise in more traditional production systems, that are rainfed and more extensive that continue rely on relatively limited quantity of modern inputs. Others emphasized the need to capacitate farmers to deal with, for example, low input quality, transportation of harvests and outputs, credit-market imperfections. Some participants also emphasized that, AEAS should not be try to promote sustainable agriculture, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and market-oriented agriculture. Some participants argued that, for example, AEAS promoting market-orientation tends to place less emphasis on providing complementary nutrition education to farm household members. Similarly, some participants argued that, part of the existing AEAS in certain countries like Uganda continue to biased toward export-oriented agriculture, with insufficient attention to food and nutrition security. Other participants place greater emphases on scaling up successful interventions. They mention, for example, the potential of developing agricultural commercialization cluster in which farmers are clustered to improve their access to both inputs and outputs markets through collection actions that exploit economies of scale, as well as strengthening of farmer-training center which is a promising institution in which knowledge of successful AEAS interventions can be more effectively disseminated among farmers. Some participants continue to emphasize the importance of supplementing AEAS with sufficient provisions of successful materials, including, for example, quality protein maize, legumes, post-harvest handling, introducing metal silo. Other participants also continue to emphasize the importance of domestic agricultural R&D capacity, as critical providers of improved technologies, without which AEAS cannot effectively enhance the productivity of food system actors.

2021-08-21 12:23:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11419/203

922124025134943916241112858983623686512451616

This Independent Dialogue was built in order to guide the discussion on a respectful, holistic and pro-active approach. While put in place, the event was constantly reviewed in order to provide Facilitators, Curators and Participants with the maximum of comfort, assistance and voice. It reflected the Summit’s principles of engagement and encouraged all involved parties to consider the Food Systems Summit as a major milestone and a call to action to: • Listen to each other • Welcome diverse perspectives • Seek out new connections • Explore both synergy and divergence • Work together to identify promising options • Debate their potential impact and over time, shape pathways and commitments for action towards food systems that will be equitable and sustainable by 2030The Convenors made sure to select a wide range of assets and skills around the tables, balancing the age and gender repartition. All Participants, Facilitators and Convenors included, had a direct field expertise in the main topic, to secure the legitimacy of the debate and the quality of the recommended outcomes. All details of the events were shared beforehand in a transparent worry, including the specificities of the debate and the related questions of the sub-groups. The Curator remained available to questions the whole length of the event preparation, during the event and afterwards. Convenors provided training sessions (pre-event rehearsals) with the Facilitators and Curator in order to enhance coordination and fluidity of information flow. During the Independent Dialogue subgroup exchange, Facilitators made sure to present themselves, and asked everyone in their respective sub-groups to present themselves. Cameras on Zoom were up all the time, allowing a friendly and open discussion. During the debates, the Facilitators made sure every voice was heard from, asking for precisions and wrapping up main arguments to ease the continuity of the argumentation. Going further, Facilitators made sure to moderate the debates to ensure expertise was shared in a polite, honest and constructive way. In addition, Convenors took the liberty to have one Rapporteur per breakout for summarizing the discussions.Trainings and test-runs in advance with Facilitators and Rapporteurs were greatly appreciated in order to guide them through their role. A Concept Note shared in advance helped to the transparency of the event building and enabled all participants to seize the topic beforehand with enough perspective to be proactive on the event day. The diversity of views around the table ensured a balanced discussion while creating bonds and dialogues across the food supply chain. Using the chat function to share in written form thoughts, helped increase the level of exchange

Yes

234238240242243244245246247248249250251Biobased agricultural inputs (bioprotection, biofertilizers, and biostimulants) represent today only 5% of the global market share of agricultural inputs. Bioprotection and in general terms bioag inputs are nature based, strategic technologies and readily available solutions to achieve several of the UNFS Summit´s objectives. The consolidation and expansion of a robust biobased inputs industry is an instrumental bridge to achieve sustainable food systems, through biosolutions that facilitate the transition towards a more nature positive and resilient agriculture that is better prepared for the global climate crisis and catalyze the achievement of the UN 2030 SDGs, the CBD, and the Paris Climate Agreement. Today’s science, technology and innovation allow us to be optimistic about biobased solutions catalyzing the achievement of these goals. Proven advances in bioprotection / biocontrol, biofertilizers and biostimulants development and introduction (into multiple scales of productive systems) together with data science and digital technologies, are setting new frontiers in terms of sustainable production and productivity increases, as well offering promising new perspectives for regenerating soil health, biodiversity and ecosystems functions. The challenge is to focus that potential and make it deliver all its benefits in terms of reaching the wider audience (farmers around the world) through increased (massive) adoption to decarbonize agriculture and covert in a nature based solution to nutritiously feed the global population while regenerating vital ecosystems and planetary biocapability. The immense majority of biobased products has not demonstrated issues around toxicity, persistence in the soil or water, nor residues on food crops. Hence, these don’t pose a risk to humans, non-target organisms nor the environment. Bioprotection Global (or BPG, the Convenor) considers that the bioprotection industry (and biobased inputs industry in general) does not have the visibility that it deserves amongst key stakeholders (invited to this Dialogue) in consideration to the potential added value that it can (and in some sectors and geographies is already delivering) to the agri-food systems including the primary production sector, the consumers and society and nature at large. It is of utmost importance for the bioprotection industry to understand and anticipate the profound transformations that the food systems are undergoing in order to boost the adoption of bio-based solutions. Food systems are nowadays dendritic and present features of complex systems: i.e. entirety, emergence, interrelations, non-linearity, feedbacks, self-organization, adaptation, counter-intuitive nature, time perspective and hierarchical organization. To intensify their complexity, they are multiple and develop themselves in coexistence with hybridizations, synergies, complementarities, coevolution, confrontations, competitions or exclusions. The Food Systems Summit 2021 is an opportunity for BPG to raise awareness of food systems actors about the potential contribution of the bioprotection and bioag inputs industry in general to the elaboration of solutions and strategies to deliver progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which rely on healthier, more sustainable and more equitable food systems. It is also a tremendous opportunity for BPG to explore and identify new ways to interact with food systems stakeholders globally to achieve its purpose i.e. “the adoption of bio-based solutions designed to protect crops, forests, people, homes and life on Earth” especially through broadening its audience, synergies, and collaborations among food systems actors.235238240242243244245246247248249250251Bioprotection inputs comprise only 5% of the global market share of crop protection solutions. The concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) indicates that chemical, biological, and cultural solutions shall be integrated for an effective pest management. Adoption rates indicate that a true implementation of IPM that takes into account biological (nature based) solutions, is still far from being a reality. A systemic approach that delivers exponential change towards massive adoption through transformative partnerships, appropriate public policies (that acknowledge the importance of enhancing the development and adoption of these type of bio-based solutions to sustainably boost productivity) and streamlined, proportionate, harmonized, “globally-local” and collaborative regulatory frameworks that enable the registration of alternatives (to chemical and fossil fuel based pesticides and fertilizers) that minimize duplications, overlaps and unnecessary costs, whilst optimizing data requirements/waivers and clearing Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) requisites and protocols, are some of the key factors for the successful expansion of these technologies worldwide. Fundamental elements and triggers for this to happen are: • Education and training • Proportionate and harmonized regulatory frameworks • Public policies and incentives • Systems thinking (which in agriculture is instrumental to understand the role of biology (life) and biobased (biological) inputs)236238239240242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic 1: What are the actions needed to accelerate the adoption of biobased agricultural inputs as key contributors to food systems transformation? • Education and communication around biobased inputs at all levels is critical, starting with farmers who need to understand their benefits and how to use these. Transferring knowledge at the farmer’s level is critical. • Next generations of farmers need to understand this to ensure from now a broader implementation in the future. • It is essential to have a global curriculum where agronomists and other related professionals can be trained in holistic management understanding bio-inputs as a key tool. • At the farmer’s level, especially small farmers, there is a lot of distrust and lack of confidence on the effectiveness of biobased products. This occurs because technicians and field advisors don’t have a unified discourse and are often not proficient in the philosophy and correct use of biobased products. • Greater consumer awareness about the benefits of bio-based agricultural inputs is needed. This awareness can boost producer’s preference for bio-inputs. • Private, public, and academic institutions working with biobased agricultural inputs need to work closer to develop public policies that put biobased inputs in the mainstream discussions. • Governments shall develop incentives for farmers to use these types of products considering their positive externalities for society and nature (e.g. market securities and protection against the risks of harvest loss). • Under the current paradigm of pest management most farmers do not perceive biological products as effective as chemical pesticides. • Registration and approval times must be shortened eliminating regulatory hurdles and duplications from one country to another. On average a biobased product can be developed in 2 to 3 years, but in many countries its approval by the relevant authorities takes 5 years in many countries, making its commercial acceptance and adoption very slow and expensive. • Brazil could be an example of successful collaboration to promote a “national biobased inputs plan” integrating different stakeholders including the government, research institutions, and the private sector (industry and farmers) to stimulate the use of biobased agricultural inputs. • In some countries, consumers are not ready to pay a premium price for clean biobased produce. This may be a constraint for smallholder producers to adopt these solutions. • The linear way of thinking that the petrochemical technologies left as legacy is not easy to surpass. Biobased inputs work as part of holistic systems and therefore, the way of thinking cannot be linear. • Harmonization of international terms and definitions regarding bioprotection and biocontrol is needed since internationally diverse terms are used with varying meanings. This would also facilitate international trade.236238239240242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic 2: Are there new feasible approaches to streamline harmonized, proportionate, cost / efficient, collaborative global regulatory frameworks for biobased inputs? • The main challenges are at the national level. where individual countries have a duty to ensure safety to protect their citizens and environment. • FAO guidelines http://www.fao.org/3/i8091e/i8091e.pdf to register for the registration of microbial, botanical and semiochemical pest control agents for plant protection and public health uses can be used as a basis for guidelines at national and regional level. • Once developed guidance then needs to be used to authorise products. Here a lack of expertise in risk assessment of products can be a problem and delay market access. • Ensuring expertise, or at least someone to talk to if no expertise as well as a transnational committee could speed up evaluations. • Regional approach, registration for chemicals currently exists but could be used for biologicals too. Examples of regional collaboration eg In Colombia there is also the Comunidad Andina where Colombia works together with Ecuador and other countries. So regional differences also come out of the registrations. • In some countries biologicals are dealt within the chemical legislation - this can cause delays since chemical pesticides legislations were designed to handle the risks of contaminant and hazardous substances. Examples are Brazil and Europe where a specific regulation for biologicals would speed up registrations. To effectively and efficiently authorise bioprotection products requires a bioprotection specific approach. • In countries where there is a specific regulation e.g. Colombia other problems manifest themselves in this case lack of analytical capacity in country. • Distribution channels are set up for chemicals with financial and advisory structures associated with chemicals, This means biologicals face financial and advisory challenges to enter the distribution channel as they are not supported with the same finances (often supplied by SMEs) and advise on how to use bioprotection requires a systems thinking and not a direct replacement or comparison to chemicals. Direct comparison of efficacy is not therefore a "fair" comparison. Bioprotection needs more support from the government and companies to try to access the market. Changes in financial reward and advisory systems within the channel are necessary. Product use needs to be considered within a holistic farming system approach. • Bioprotection companies are often SMEs (80%). Often small companies have financial and resource difficulties with the whole regulation and market access process, so additional support is especially relevant to an SME focussed industry • As an industry, we need to show when and where biocontrol works better than chemicals (and sometimes it is the other way around, indeed it is true, it is not a war). F.i. until the pheromone for Tuta absoluta, the pest was destroying tomatoes across the world but this Is now manageable with bioprotection. • Bioprotection works best within a systems approach, which can be a challenge to manage expectations and explain how they work, in specific situations. It is a change in mindset and distribution channel reset that is required to ensure farmers understand how they work and where they work the best. • The situation is different in each country. National priorities have to be considered when harmonising regulation such as South Africa where there are several Biodiversity hotspots protected by different laws. • A global positive list for biocontrol, that could then be a fast track for approval in the specific countries. • Develop the role of associations, bring in government officials, associations that can help developments of guidelines and recommendations. We need that all the stakeholders in the industry work together because we cannot only rely on public authorities work.236238239240242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic 2: Are there new feasible approaches to streamline harmonized, proportionate, cost / efficient, collaborative global regulatory frameworks for biobased inputs? • More often than not, there is a copy paste of requirements from the Chemical products – a Hangover from the Chemical Regime, which needs new approaches, fresh outlook, open mindset, new talent of abilities and expertise. • Market size and not need is what mainly determines resources for registration, which causes many small countries to lose out on beneficial products/ technologies. • Sometimes a simple answer submitted to a simple question asked, generates a knee-jerk reaction of data requirement overload (sometimes/ usually not needed/ required or even unrealistic), which is a major challenge. There is a need for harmonization between nations, which could be facilitated by transnational discussion. There is a need for more bioprotection experts and the formation of independent expert groups, which could be at a regional or national level to whom regulators and companies can refer for sound scientific advice. This is because even where there is a specific regulation, there is not enough knowledge, expertise to address biocontrol. In addition, there is a need to consider commercialization problems due to a distribution system built around chemicals. Bioprotection works best in a system approach and managing expectations explaining how and when biologicals work often requires mindset change in farmers, advisers and distribution. We do have great examples such as Tuta absoluta. In particular in Brazil and Europe we need a specific regulation while Colombia does have it but apart from export crops it does not effectively solve problems elsewhere in the value chain (i.e produce for national consumption) since there is no official control for Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) of chemical pesticides sprayed. Harmonisation between countries is necessary and on a global basis companies and NG0s have a role. A real issue is lack of expertise in evaluating biocontrol.236238239240242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic 3: Possible solutions and recommendations to resolve regulatory and registration bottlenecks for bioprotection products • Global positive list of products for biocontrol: this could provide a way for authorities to fast track registration of these products. Note that industry holds this data and can provide it and should be part of this solution. Industry needs to be trusted more to provide the solution. Example cited was Bacillus subtilus, it makes no difference if tests are done in US, Europe or Colombia the result will be the same so we should pool these results. The WHO periodically releases a list of Essential/ Critical/ Life-Saving medicines as a recommendation for use in many countries; why not a similar approach to biologicals? • Need of an international body of experts in biocontrol that authorities can refer to obtain expert advice when authorising a biocontrol product. • Fast track on a regional basis as f.i. FAO has done on the Fall Army work (FAW) project with biocontrol solutions. Enablers for authorities trying to register biocontrol: • Terms of reference for making biocontrol evaluations - Use FAO guidance although noted that this is too detailed and onerous for some so the global positive list (see above) is a good option • Specific biocontrol guidelines wanted for Brazil and EU. Existing regulation in these countries are still based on chemical legislation. However, Colombia and South Africa have specific ones but it is not easy to register products in these countries either due to other factors and regulations impacting the authorisation process. Additional challenges once countries have a specific regulation are: • Money – need substantial investment to register a biological and bio-based companies generally have less money than chemical companies (usually smaller and less developed) • Fast track – need fast track approach e.g. 420 days to registration (South Africa) is too long for companies to wait for a return on their investment • Teaching farmers and advisers – need to explain how a product should be used for best results – managing expectation of the farmers is key • Efficacy – biologicals are often seen as not as efficacious as chemicals – this can be used against the biological in a sales setting. Important to explain that efficacy should be seen in the widest context of yield and quality and season long control as part of the overall system. This is a change in thinking. • In some situations, chemicals provide control and in others they do not. An example is the use of Tuta absoluta where no chemical worked and control is now entirely biological. • Capacity for laboratory testing and performing regulatory studies especially analytical capability. • National situations may be specific like in South Africa – Cape biodiversity site means that any introduced biological must be carefully evaluated to check fit in this unique environment. General points • As industry we have to explain to the world that there are many good examples of biocontrol • Need to make industry part of the solution as they hold many of the solutions and the understanding – there is a role for Associations in explaining this. • Recommendation of simple regulation for biocontrol including market access with fast track.236238239240242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic 4: What are the best ways to interact with food systems actors globally to increase the adoption of bio-based solutions? Regulatory: Even though Europe has is in general a very favorable environment for bio-based products, regulations and specially MRLs are a limitation for a quick and sustainable coordination with the food industry. The process is manufacturer-un-friendly and is time consuming, delaying/limiting quick responses to the requirements of the food industry. International coordination is needed by all stakeholders to increase the logic and the simplification of the requirements by authorities. Communication: Improved communication with the food chain to build together production schemes to fit the needs of farmers and food industry. For e.g., coffee production using bees to pollinate, a very positive method for farmers, which positively impacts the consumer, portraying coffee production as bee-friendly. Traceability helps engaging with the food industry, as it demonstrates safety to people and planet via Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and precision farming. Demonstrate that Bio-based production is sustainable and safer for the food industry. Role of the OECD (Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development) in influencing better policies and trade practices for improving quality of life. Generate and show new alternatives that, use of biologicals can fulfill needs of farmers and food industry. Using IPM by complementing Biologicals, with certain chemicals to enhance bio-products performance, without negative effects. Education and Communication is imperative to promote Biologicals. - Non-Tariff Trade Barriers adopted by the EU i.e., rigid regulatory regime and MRLs among other are the biggest barriers to increase adoption of Biologicals. - Need to establish technical criteria for the registration of biobased products, not just to fit them in the rules of chemical products. - Suggestion: a global initiative for a technical discussion to prove that establishing MRLs for biological products is not appropriate. - There is a global need for Bio-inputs produced food to be recognized as a safer and more sustainable production system. Contextually, more sustainable means providing measurable economic, social and ecological benefits (KPIs). Practically, bio-inputs must provide concrete benefits to farmers, by optimizing resources, creating value or greater acceptance of the final product by consumers. - Digital solutions, precision farming (drones), traceability and certification are important tools to support communication globally (e.g., bee friendly technologies to control pests during the pre-flowering and flowering period). - Showcasing best practices helps to share successes of Biologicals in achieving more sustainable agricultural systems. For e.g. in Brazil, the market for biologicals on soy, sugar cane, coffee, fruits, vegetables, is expected to grow about 33% in 2021. The biggest challenge in enabling sustainable growth of biological is creating awareness among farmers on efficient use of high-quality products. -The use of Biologicals drastically reduces the carbon footprint and climate change effects of Chemical Products -Biologicals industry needs to engage more with NGOs, Regulators and control entities interested in reducing carbon footprint in Agriculture and on the table impact of crop inputs. -Imperative for Biologicals industry to support science-based initiatives and protocols to have carbon neutral supply chains and demonstrate that Biologicals reduce carbon footprint. -Important actors are producer and consumer groups, engaging with other actors interested in promoting Biologicals, so that the importance of Bio-based food production is understood by stores and brands. -The key influencers in agricultural production are important actors including retailers, agronomists, university extension specialists that can block or promote Bio-based adoption. Small-Medium Bio-Products producers can’t match resource allocation of large agro-chemical companies for engaging the key influencers/ actors.236238239240242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic 4: What are the best ways to interact with food systems actors globally to increase the adoption of bio-based solutions? -Another big challenge is Transparency in sharing information on trials and products by extension workers/ agronomists such that no particular company/ product is unduly highlighted whilst promoting integrated food production systems that deliver desired environmental outcomes towards regenerative agricultural systems. -BioProtection has a yet to match the traction gained by biostumulants and bionutrients among big/ mega corporations. -Many growers are interested to achieve economic benefits of innovative Biologicals, along with environmental benefits. -Bio-products need concept promotion, companies have to invest in people, demonstrate field efficacy, build confidence in product use among both growers and Retailers. -A “good distribution network” is the key; integrating biological and chemical products; exploring partnerships with Large Companies; showcasing Bio-Products success stories on various crops, addressing different agricultural challenges, delivering value to growers, thus building strong relationships. -Making retailers focus on the Value Add/ Speciality of a Bio-Product. -For e.g., in Brazil the use of multi-action Bio-nematicides has increased due to issues of resistance to single-action Chemicals. Bio-fungicide use too is growing as part of control programs (not yet replacing chemicals). For Bio-insecticides, there is a need for more pest-specific products besides Beauveria, Bt-K, etc. -Public-Private Partnerships help in research and innovation of bio-products. -Technologies like sequencing soil micro biota can unlock value for small bio-product companies. -Eventually markets will help achieve a balance between chemical inputs and bio-products. -Large companies are partnering with / acquiring small bio-product companies to fast-track innovation with capital investment. -A good example of increasing market size by Industry action, is the Argentinian Chamber of Biobased products (CABIO), working to unite companies, which is supported by the national regulatory and control entities. It is developing a national agenda to: unify and strengthen the industry with participation from universities, pushing for approving a national bio-inputs law, publishing articles on bio-inputs to increase relevance in mainstream scientific peer reviews.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic 5: In reference to Tolerance Limits and Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) could bioprotection products be accepted in international trade without quantitative restrictions (analytical methodology to determine presence) much like organic commodities are mutually recognized via international agreements? • Currently, there is not an internationally accepted methodology for biological products to determine if they have residues of toxicological concern • In at least one country, regulators have the authority to accept foreign products without MRLs, but the regulator would conduct its own risk-based assessment as needed and if there was a hazard concern, it would establish an MRL • Codex is working on nonbinding guidelines for low-risk products. Accelerating this process is instrumental to avoid MRLs turning into unnecessary trade barriers to bioprotection (biobased) products. • Some regulators will accept scientifically robust waiver rationales in place of field data, others won’t. • When growers try to export crops that have had biological products that are exempt from tolerance applied to them, they are being asked by some regulators to provide country of origin MRL information, which is creating a barrier to trade. • There are some examples of joint regulatory review programs (e.g., EPA/PMRA). • Nations with the most stringent regulatory schemes will expect other countries to “come up” to satisfy those standards. • MRL lab testing capability will require extensive capacity building in some areas • There are several regional efforts already underway to harmonize MRL requirements for biological products at least within that particular geographic region. • Global harmonization for MRLs for bioprotection products may be extremely difficult, but regional harmonization may be an easier first step. • A progressive or regional approach to resolve MRLs issue of becoming a trade barriers could be a good approach but it is important to avoid conflicting standards between countries that are exporting agricultural products in which bioprotection products were used and those countries that are importing those same products.237238239240242243244245246247248249250251Bioprotection / biocontrol and biobased inputs in general are not strongly enough in the radar of public policies nor in the reports and recommendations of key institutions related to Food Systems. EU policy, like the Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy could be very relevant tools to create space and incentives for the bio-based solutions sector to innovate and develop. Generally, creating a system conducive to life is desirable and needed to accelerate the transition from the old eradication mindset that started around World War II in the EU. It is important to consider bioprotection and its efficacy and benefits within the context of the whole agricultural system considering positive and negative externalities for farmers, nature and society when comparing its performance to conventional / chemical pesticides. Distribution channels in some countries are structured under a rebate system where chemicals are rebated more than biologicals as system is set up for chemicals and are supplied by large companies while biocontrol is mostly supplied by SMEs and they tend not to operate within the rebate system. This varies by country but is a systemic block to biocontrol.

2021-08-23 03:58:49205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41721/69

15525943246392461098512601350080022961019713665401111132011

The Fiji National Food Systems Dialogue was held virtually over three days with the overall theme of discussion on “Pathways for local food system transformation”. The dialogue was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue themes, agenda, framed questions and topics for discussion, developed group reporting templates to focus and guide group discussions during the dialogue. The theme for Day 3 focused on “Pathways for local food system transformation: the importance of considering innovation”” and the programme was officially opened by the Minister of Agriculture, Waterways and Environment, Dr Mahendra Reddy while the closing remarks was made by the Fiji UNFSS Convenor and PS Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. The preparatory meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register. This ensured that everyone read and understood the Principles and committed to the SDGs before participating in the Dialogue. A group of 179 stakeholders participated in the Dialogue from diverse, multi stakeholder backgrounds consisting of government ministries, civil society, international and regional agencies (including UN agencies), academia and oAs highlighted above, the Fiji National Food Systems Dialogue ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process, and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 179 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement served as important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all the three days. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

NoThe Fiji National Food Systems Dialogue on Day 3 –“Pathways for local food system transformation: the importance of considering innovation” was held virtually on July 23rd, 2021 at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with restrictive measures and lockdowns. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, Day 3 of the Fiji National Food Systems Dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform and created a lot of participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and platforms such as Zoom chat box were busily engaged to crowdsource questions from participants throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. One hundred and fifty five participants took part in the dialogue that was officially opened by the Minister of Agriculture, Waterways and Environment, Dr Mahendra Reddy. Participants represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, farmers, women’s groups, youth groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format for Day 3 - Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) - Welcome address - Official opening address by the Minister of Agriculture, Waterways and Environment - Introduction to the dialogue (Video on the Summit by Dr Agnes Kalibata) Presentations on Day 3 - “Pathways for local food system transformation: the importance of considering innovation.” - Climate change and vulnerability - Role of Digital Technology in transforming the current food systems - Contemporary Cuisine – Use of Local Food –Traditional Knowledge Innovation- - Food and Nutrition - Multi-sector collaboration: opportunities and challenges Questions to speakers Discussion groups focussed on different themes where discussions were reported and recorded by rapporteurs; Breakout Session 1- Women’s Inclusiveness in the Food System - Question 1: What innovations in the food system have we seen in the last 10 years and what impact have they had? - Question 2: For the next 10 years, what innovative transformations do you see as priority actions for the food system? - Question 3: What are the principal challenges in the adoption of the innovations that you have identified and how they can be overcome? Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs Communications and media ─ The outcomes of the dialogue and key messages from the Fiji Convenor were highlighted in a Press Release issued to the media which received extensive coverage by local mainstream media and on social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter). UNFSS hashtags #UNFSS @foodsystems #SDGs and #foodsystems were used in all media content to ensure that messaging had a multiplier effect. Links to media coverage are included in the Attachments section at the end of this report.

2342382392412422442452462492511. Climate Change and Vulnerability – Digital Earth Pacific and Climate Science In 2021 UNCDF and WFP collaborated to support climate risk insurance pilot for Department of Social Welfare (DSW) recipients. UNCDF are already rolling out a parametric insurance product to farming cooperatives in Fiji. Climate risk insurance relies on climate science data and modelling to trigger a payment based on an event for target at-risk populations. The climate risk insurance pilot process could identify geographic risk areas and target population, develop climate insurance product model, agreement on climate shock trigger and data, community and beneficiary sensitisation, climate shock and payment made to target population. Climate risk insurance have multiple benefits but timeliness is key where parametric insurance payment can be delivered within one month after the shock occurs and so people negatively affected can be assisted very quickly. 2. Digital Transformation in Current Food Systems Technology plays an important role in the food system in connecting producers straight with consumers. Government with technology partners have enabled small-medium enterprise to be part of an online trading platform to list their products and services and deal directly with consumers. Mobile wallet solution, an integrated payment system where farmers could receive money remotely from consumers, is also helping farmers especially women to build a credit or saving history for loaning purposes. M-paisa platform provides farmers some security through parametric insurance since Fiji is vulnerable to climate change effects. The use of smart gadgets for “Internet of things in agriculture” by ensuring all online tools used in agriculture are all connected to provide timely information in monitoring farm activities. A database could be built from this information over a period of time to predict the future and alert farmers. There is a need to change mindset, develop capacity and train agriculture scientists who are able to use this technology. Attracting young people into agriculture through technology by creating online food system games to make agriculture more sexy, vibrant, appealing and fashionable. 3. Contemporary Cuisine - Traditional Knowledge Innovation Chefs and cooks are the innovators and change makers in the food systems. Innovation leads to demand for example edible fern is used in limited way in local cooking. What is happening in our food system that make us not conducive in eating local produce - the key missing link is knowledge not often shared to the grassroot level and need to be addressed through education. We need to teach our people about nutritious diet and local foods since people think food is only available in supermarkets but they have fresh vegetables from the garden and fresh fish from the sea. We need to transform our food system by less reliance on processed foods and eat more healthy local foods. By increasing this knowledge and innovation we will be able to increase demand. As a way forward, land and sea in Fiji could be used to transform our food to feed the world, with high value produce such as herbs and pharmaceutical products and medicine that could give a pandemic proof market for Fiji. 4. Food and Nutrition Security - The Need for Multi-Sector Collaboration Challenges identified to progress a multi-sectoral collaboration include non-communicable diseases, population sub-groups with less economic opportunities, inequity, inequalities, competing government priorities, lack of information and documentation and COVID-19 and climate change. There are opportunities for multi-sectoral collaboration through the Fiji Policy on Food and Nutrition Security, Food Based Dietary Guidelines, breastfeeding, economic opportunities, green food, targeted capacity building programs, blue food, digital technology and innovations, coordination and partnerships, investments, ’solesolevaki’, taxation-based approaches and legislations. This multi-sector engagement is required at all levels for partnerships to operate on a digital platform and innovative transformations to impact our local food systems.235238239241242243244246249251Digitalisation to be introduced more on the use of mobile phones and online tools for data collection, remote image monitoring for crops, production, early warning, linkages of climate monitoring for trend analysis as well as Geographic information system (GIS) - new techniques, improvements in processes for infrastructure (storage) and improvement in seeds. Digital transformation through digital marketing, digital food system games, providing database access to nutrition information for each food product that is available on the shelf, cooking shows that are educational and entertaining - huge benefits in these areas for research purposes and accessing finances for example. Climate change has been a challenge in the last 10 years. We have opted for more multiple cropping system looking at local and export market, sustainable farming systems which allows us to look after high value ecosystems which are beneficial to us with significance of environmental, human health protection and more awareness on our local traditional plant biodiversity. Greater focus on traditional foods such as breadfruit in climate change mitigation. Traditional food knowledge (history, ethics, medicinal value) should be taught at schools and integrated at the earliest age, including for pregnant women to understand the importance of nutrition during this critical time and train Fijian chefs on how to cook and use local foods. Revive traditional farming practices and traditional vegetables cultivation that are locally important for the sustainability of economies, human nutrition and health. Climate smart agriculture for sustainable agriculture practices and e-commerce is a way forward. Regenerative agriculture is paramount to complement reforestation to sustain ecosystem services. Adaptation resilience for farmers as a new way to transform products. Increase agroforestry models to perfect the integration of forest trees and food crops reflecting the appropriate biodiversity for a range of landforms and localities. In times of disaster food security is the main issue. Strengthen backyard gardens for all levels including high rise flats, more awareness on seeds/planting materials to women groups and maritime areas, gene-banks, identify high value crops for export market like turmeric, drumstick for medicinal purposes, integrating of environmentally friendly commercial productions and need for policy changes as well as promoting importation and usage of suitable innovations for green economy. Circular organic waste management from domestic and commercial entities, development of local facilities for organic fertiliser /soil conditioners and elimination of inorganic and synthetic products. Establishing a Guideline to help farmers on how to access grants, for example: cash flows maintained, book keeping, farm harvest record, sales and plans. Opportunities for Blue foods on baseline assessment, functional blue food, build on scientific assessment, mineral content of some fish species and nutrient content, strengthening of stakeholders, support the empowerment of coastal fisheries, value adding of tilapia, invest in value adding our local fisheries product, culturing of marine species, more collaboration with research and financial institutions and inclusive engagement with all stakeholders. School Curriculum to include agriculture and nutrition as core subjects from pre-school through to secondary level and should include fisheries and forest foods, traditional crops in Agricultural Science curriculum and traditional food recipe in Home Economics. Innovative and inter-sectorial- academic introduction of courses linking food science with agribusiness locally at university levels to boost local entrepreneurship, innovation and research. Addressing NCDs issues on food systems – Fijians have full access to fresh foods and cooking local nutritious foods but it is how you present it to attract Fijians to eat fresh nutrition food from an earlier age. Pathways to food system transformation should also include pathways for collaboration with multi stakeholders, Government and the education system. Exploring of having bar coding system for our agricultural, fishery and forestry products sold to consumers and tag the information from the data sets to assist in marketing and informing consumers on nutrients contained in products for awareness and general information. More technical information such as the nutritional value of foods to be made available in everyday language. Value adding has played a huge part in having our meals prepared. It would be great to put in more effort on scientific research on value addition. Introduction of tax-based strategies and subsidies to industries that promotes value addition on green and blue foods with less loss and emissions. Chefs and cooks can help showcase how important diversity is in creating a more sustainable and equitable food system by incorporating underutilized and traditional species in their menus. This innovation should then be shared widely across the food system to provide a blueprint for expansion of existing farms or potential future farming projects. Attitudinal shift in young people to expand the agricultural sector as a viable source of living by promoting in the digital space or projects conducted at the grassroot level. The current system is too focused on getting people into blue-collar and white-collar jobs.236238239241242243246249251Fiji to transform the land & sea to feed the world with a focus on high value products but the main challenge will be the availability of research grants. More investment into Agriculture, Research and Extension, and increase collaboration and capacity building by working with Partners & Donors to engage in projects that Fiji needs and not what Partners & Donors think is needed. E-commerce through electronic payment gateway has been identified as a barrier in linking producers to the market. Researcher’s knowledge on pest and disease management has been enhanced through exposure to various training program. The existing legislative framework that affects the food systems needs to be reviewed to consider current challenges like climate change and pandemic. More innovative mechanisms on application of new technologies, new principles of change, use of multi-sectoral approach, use of international agreements, learn from other countries, exchange information and develop framework for action of food and nutrition security protracted crisis for now and to the future. Multi-sectoral collaboration is not well organised since we need to identify correct partners to collaborate with e.g Ministry of Education plays a vital role in the involvement of food systems and curriculum. The country needs to take a more systematic approach which requires us to be multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral in our approaches and decision making. This requires changes in the way institutions are structured to make decisions, and respond quickly and dynamically to changes. Improved cropping systems using organic fertilizer and efficient use of water in farms. Irrigation system need resources, finance and technology is also key in modernising the use of water in an efficient way. Development of new farming projects has been in isolation and hence many projects have resulted in less demand or having the farmer search for customers after harvest. Empowerment of youth and women as leaders in the food system and to ensure that women are included in the discussion. We need to develop models including accompanying data to conduct mass demonstrations at community levels to address the slogan of "seeing is believing' in any innovation that we come up with together with incentives to help the adoption rate of the model. Improve in the aquaculture industry by improve access to market, aquaculture feed, diversification into other commodity, and also promote food security/protein source at the grassroots level. The "FishSmart" awareness campaign is educational and innovative in the blue foods space, it is bringing consumers, retailers and restaurants into the dialogue as part of the sustainable fisheries and blue foods solution. Consumer and buyer demand, can help drive sustainable practices and Ministry of Fisheries could provide people to understand Fiji’s fish law and have it integrated in their daily lives. Export of raw and value- added products to new overseas markets enabled growth in specific products development. Chefs are the innovators and change-makers in a sustainable food system. Kitchenettes are the sites of transformative innovation in the food system where chefs can leverage traditional food knowledge about local food species to create delicious and nutritious dishes. Chefs love the challenge to pioneer and be ground breaking by encouraging excellence at all levels – these pushes chefs to discover and rediscover unique sources of gastronomy by engaging with neglected and underutilized food materials and exploring diverse culinary knowledge that holds potential for productive engagement with food system transformation efforts. Use of Television cooking shows and programs will teach the public innovative ways of cooking and increase the use of local foods in the tourism market.237238239241242The dialogue discussed some concerns in schools on the ‘Child Labour’ definition with ILO that deter schools from taking children out for practical in the development of school gardens which is classified as an occupational health safety issue in Fiji. COVID has forced people to start back-yard gardening. Public can take advantage of MOA free seeds distribution initiatives for short- and long-term food security that include new varieties of seeds and digital short videos provided on MOA website and Facebook page. Participants expressed the high cost of doing business, e-commerce is a good option however there are very high fees and charges for transactions by the service providers. Climate smart agriculture would require training and resources which also comes with a cost. Funding for agroforestry is only for a few years but trees could take up to 10 years to grow. Innovation can be introduced in processes or through technologies, but protection risks must be considered all the time. Innovation in the food system for one stop shop initiative with other basic food items e.g availability of variety vegetables, root crops, whole fish and honey products in the supermarkets or assisting the workforce in saving time after work for cooking by increasing cooked food vendors around major urban centers. Online food delivery concept through curiosity of foods driven by the 'boredom' set by Covid has provided opportunity to deliver food with technology. Food fortification or enrichment programs to address the nutrient deficiency problems. Consumer’s knowledge and understanding on food labels have increased and have allowed regulators to improve their game plan and keep them on their toes in the enforcement of the Food Safety standards and regulatory requirements. There is a need to accelerate innovation in the Fiji food systems since currently we are overwhelmed by products from food industries that is evident through nutrition landscape and translating into poor nutritional status. Lack of local knowledge on the use of our foods could increase our import bills. Common platform for standardised protocols of information acquisition, and better utilisation of this data supporting adaptation plans. Availability, sharing and access of data and technology transfer to target groups to be encouraged but to ensure the group have a clear understanding of the technology you are promoting and the process of documentation to be followed.

2021-08-23 21:04:27205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39674/46

54053513101737752511451143322015578

Este es el último de los seis Diálogos previstos en Colombia, y el segundo de carácter nacional. En este espacio participaron representantes de entidades tanto del sector público como privado, la academia, sociedad civil, y organizaciones de cooperación internacional, los cuales confluyeron alrededor de un diálogo incluyente en el que se consolidan los retos identificados en los anteriores encuentros, con el fin priorizar aquellos en los que se centrará la apuesta del país para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios.El diálogo favoreció la participación de diferentes actores relacionados con los sistemas alimentarios, alrededor de un ejercicio plural y abierto, orientado a generar consenso en el marco de la diversidad, con el fin de generar aportes que permitan identificar los retos que revisten mayor importancia sobre el tema para el país. El diálogo reconoció la complejidad que significa enfrentar los retos prioritarios, pero al mismo tiempo, la posibilidad de generar propuestas que permitan potenciar los esfuerzos que ponen en marcha los distintos actores de la sociedad.No por el momento.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251El presente diálogo da por terminada la tercera fase de diálogos previstos en el país. Este estuvo enfocado en consolidar los resultados obtenidos en los encuentros anteriores y favorecer la priorización de los retos que enfrenta el país para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. Posterior a este diálogo, se consolidará la hoja de ruta para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en Colombia, la cual se complementará con los aportes de jóvenes de diferentes regiones del país. Finalmente se abrirá un espacio de validación y socialización de los resultados obtenidos en el proceso, a compartirse en la Cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Los retos transversales para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios fueron priorizados por los participantes en el siguiente orden: 1. Implementación del Acuerdo final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera 2. Implementación de Ley de compras públicas locales 3. Aplicación del enfoque de Derecho Humano a la Alimentación  Universalizar el Programa de Alimentación Escolar (alimentación sana, nutritiva y culturalmente apropiada) 4. Plan Nacional Rural del Sistema para la Garantía Progresiva del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación  Innovación en todos los procesos de los sistemas alimentarios 5. Transición de economía lineal a circular 6. Investigación, generación y gestión de información. 7. En la última posición se encuentran los siguientes:  Formalización e implementación de la Política Nacional para la Prevención de Pérdidas y Desperdicios de Alimentos  Adaptaciones territoriales de las Minutas del Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar  Usos alimentarios de la biodiversidad nativa236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Para el presente Diálogo se presentaron los retos identificados a lo largo de los ejercicios anteriores, organizados de acuerdo con cada una de las Líneas de Acción propuestas por la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios, para que posteriormente, fueran priorizados de acuerdo con su necesidad de implementación o fortalecimiento en la coyuntura actual colombiana. Para tal efecto, se propusieron 11 bloques temáticos, cuyos resultados son los siguientes: VÍA DE ACCIÓN 1: Temática: Nutrición y Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional Retos en orden de prioridad: • Agricultura sensible a la nutrición • Promoción de práctica de lactancia materna e inicio adecuado de alimentación complementaria • Eliminación de la malnutrición • Mejora nutricional de trabajadores agroalimentarios VÍA DE ACCIÓN 2: Temática: Nutrición y Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional Retos en orden de prioridad: • Promoción de dietas, ambientes y entornos alimentarios saludables y sostenibles • Consumo responsable Temática: Abastecimiento, Transformación y Conservación Retos en orden de prioridad: • Promoción de cadenas valor locales (primer lugar) • Mejoramiento de cadena de transformación (primer lugar) • Estándares diferenciales de inocuidad de alimentos, que reconozcan los conocimientos locales • Brindar importancia comercial a la Economía Campesina, Familiar y Comunitaria Temática: Información, Educación y Comunicación en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional Retos en orden de prioridad: • Articulación de la Estrategia de Información, Educación y Comunicación en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional como apuesta de país. • Educación a familias sobre modelos de producción • Educación formal, informal e investigativa en Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional, Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles, e Información, Educación y Comunicación en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. Temática: Cultura Alimentaria Local Retos en orden de prioridad: • Reconocimiento, protección y promoción del patrimonio cultural, culinario y agroalimentario familiar, comunitario, campesino y étnico • Implementación Política para el conocimiento, la salvaguardia y el fomento de la alimentación y las cocinas tradicionales de Colombia VÍA DE ACCIÓN 3: Temática: Cambio climático y sostenibilidad Retos en orden de prioridad: • Protección y reconocimiento de sistemas productivos indígenas y campesinos • Reconversión productiva - Sistemas productivos amigables con el medio ambiente • Práctica de la agroecología en todas sus dimensiones • Adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático sobre sistemas agroalimentarios • Protección y recuperación de agrobiodiversidad nativa • Recuperación y protección de semillas autóctonas • Cuidado de los océanos, regulación de la pesca industrial y priorización de la pesca artesanal236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251VÍA DE ACCIÓN 4: Temática: Gobernanza y participación Retos en orden de prioridad: • Fortalecer participación comunitaria en toma de decisiones en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, hacia la realización progresiva del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación. • Adecuación institucional para aplicación del enfoque de Derecho Humano a la Alimentación • Territorialización de políticas. • Inclusión y participación de grupos étnicos en sistemas alimentarios sostenibles • Articulación intersectorial • Empoderamiento y participación de mujeres y jóvenes en sistemas alimentarios sostenibles • Acompañamiento territorial de la Comisión Intersectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional Temática: Medios de vida en la ruralidad Retos en orden de prioridad: • Seguridad jurídica de la propiedad y desconcentración de la tierra • Universalizar la Reforma Rural Integral, como componente del Acuerdo de Paz • Trabajo digno en sistemas agroalimentarios • Legitimar ordenamiento territorial alrededor del agua • Aseguramiento y protección social en la ruralidad • Relevo generacional en el campo • Conectividad en el sector rural (Mejoramiento de vías de acceso, especialmente terciarias) Temática: Medios de reivindicación del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación Retos en orden de prioridad: • Resignificación y enfoque de Soberanía Alimentaria • Reconocimiento de la autonomía alimentaria • Fortalecimiento de cultura alimentaria local • Protección de conocimiento asociado a recursos genéticos de los pueblos étnicos (semillas, razas) • Ciudadanía alimentaria Temática: Cierre de Brechas Retos en orden de prioridad: • Garantía de derechos de los campesinos/as y pequeños productores de acuerdo con la Declaración sobre los derechos de los campesinos y de otras personas que trabajan en las zonas rurales • Garantía del enfoque de derechos en la implementación de políticas públicas • Eliminar las brechas entre el campo y la ciudad-Ordenamiento territorial alrededor de lo alimentario • Mejora, adecuación y sostenibilidad de acceso al agua potable • Reconocimiento de las mujeres como actores clave del sistema agroalimentario • Financiación y asistencia técnica para reconversión productiva • Brindar oportunidades a los y las jóvenes rurales VÍA DE ACCIÓN 5: Temática: Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles en emergencias Retos en orden de prioridad: • Recuperación rápida de producción agropecuaria diversificada en contextos de riesgo y humanitarios • Mejora en calidad de asistencia alimentaria y nutricional en emergencias y su adaptación a los contextos. • Reactivación económica - Formalización del empleo • Resiliencia de sistemas alimentarios en contextos humanitarios y de riesgo. • Preparación de los sistemas alimentarios ante nuevas pandemias • Superación de los efectos de la pandemia a todo nivel237No se presentaron controversias o desacuerdos durante el diálogo.

2021-08-24 12:42:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39382/45

6242161630111130

The dialogue is based on China's National Youth Dialogue, which is combined with in-depth dialogue and exchange on food security system conducted by educational institutions and corresponding academic institutions. Combined with the suggestions of various industries of various educational institutions, public utility institutions conducted in-depth exchanges and discussions from the production chain, transportation chain to our dining table, and produced in-depth views from the current national food security production to the introduction of international advanced technology.The dialogue has promoted the participation of different actors related to the food system, a pluralistic and open approach at the level of the food security system, aimed at building consensus within the framework of diversity, generating sustainable development momentum and helping to identify the most important challenges to the country and the world. The dialogue recognizes the complexity of the food security system, which means addressing priority challenges, but it is also possible to make recommendations to strengthen the efforts of various actors in society. The participants made in-depth follow-up efforts from life to the national level.At the discussion level, distinguish the in-depth significance of different views and summarize them, so as to summarize and publish them from different interest groups. Make use of different interest groups to publish in-depth suggestions, so as to analyze and exchange from different angles.

Yes

234238239240242244247249250This independent dialogue is centered on the theme of "world food security". It is not only in response to the United Nations Food System Summit (unfss), but also hopes to explore social views, thoughts and suggestions under the theme of "world food security". We hope to invite outstanding young people from all walks of life to combine critical thinking, all-round perspective and multi fields, Jointly focus on "food security" and make suggestions for the convening of the summit! The dialogue adopted: 1. Briefly introduce yourself and talk about your understanding of "good food"? 2. Talk about the food security problems or experiences in your life? 3. What is food security and what are the main indicators to measure food security? 4. How did the problem of food security arise? 5. Brief introduction to the world food problem and its solutions? 6. What are the specific aspects of the weakening of food security awareness? 7. As young people, how should we participate in the transformation of food security? How to deepen the concept of "good food" into society? 8. What are the main solutions to the consensus reached by you? 9. If the discussants have different opinions, discuss and supplement the questions. 10. The collaborator summarizes the results of the group discussion And other issues were discussed in depth.235238239240242248249250251The purpose of this dialogue is to summarize the views of participants' youth groups, not the views of the government The dialogue summarized the following systemic perspectives on food security: 1. National and international level 2, social and global level 3, personal behavior level. As young people, they can mainly participate in the latter two levels. Of course, it is better to formulate relevant laws and regulations in the first level. Young people can learn from it and publicize it. You can also actively participate in relevant theme activities held by society and campus. From the perspective of individual participants, you can strictly require yourself not to waste food, not to eat expired and deteriorated food, not to eat three no products, etc236238239240242246251This opinion only represents the views of the participants in this dialogue, not the views of the government: Participants' views are: Food security can be divided into ① quantity (❶ country: the quantity occupied can be self-sufficient to meet the needs of Chinese people❵world perspective: on the premise of meeting the domestic demand, we can also appropriately promote the improvement of product rate and contribute to solving the problem of food and clothing in the world. Food security is not only related to the national economic and political security, The deeper thinking is also related to whether human beings can really get rid of hunger, survive and adapt to nature) ② quality: the food problem from production to use (such as preservation, excessive additives, harmful to human body), and whether the substances contained in it are worth using Indicators: indicators can also be divided into ① quantity: (❶ quantity of species ❶ product rate of grain) ② quality (❶ nutritious ❶ food that will not cause human disease or death) 4. The emergence of food security problems can be divided into three points + 5. Measures ① environment: food production will also be restricted by the environment. We need to reduce the dependence of food on the environment and form a sustainable food supply chain ② management methods of management: waste is also the key to food security (quantitative security), The management class can properly formulate some rules (for example, what punishment will be given to the number of grams left after eating). ③ in terms of concept, it is also an important issue of food security (for example, superstition, some people use animal protection as medicine to lead to violations and crimes - "ideal shines on China"). I think people should improve their understanding of food in terms of spiritual education.237238242246250251In the seventh question of this dialogue, "how do young people participate in food transformation and the concept of" good food "go deep into society? There are some differences: Some participants believed that: ”I feel familiar and distant. This kind of personal practice problem is mentioned almost every time. Everyone deeply realizes that these social problems need to be internalized and externalized in practice, but they often feel helpless because there are too many system departments involved and it is difficult to implement and promote. As a youth, I hope to participate in the grain transformation as much as I can, but I feel I can't start.

2021-08-24 13:19:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24289/30

500

Yes

En el marco de los Trabajos de diálogo de la Cumbre Mundial de Sistemas Alimentarios (CMSA), que incluyen a los diálogos independientes, el Movimiento Agroecológico Boliviano – MAB ha convocada a la realización de las Cumbres Independientes de Sistemas Alimentarios (CISA), que pretendieron reunir a actores de todas las partes de los sistemas alimentarios (productores, distribuidores, transformadores, gastrónomos, consumidores, activistas, etc.), llegando a realizar 9 Cumbres departamentales, 4 Cumbres sectoriales y 1 Cumbre Nacional (14 en total). El objetivo fue: Generar espacios de reflexión respecto al estado del Sistema Alimentario actual, para identificar y elaborar propuestas de acción, que permitan lograr sistemas alimentarios agroecológicos, inclusivos y sostenibles en beneficio de la soberanía alimentaria, la salud humana y de la naturaleza, con protagonismo de la producción campesina indígena. Los objetivos secundarios fueron: • Analizar el Sistema Alimentario actual, los efectos en la salud y nutrición de la población, su relación con el modelo de desarrollo, con los sistemas productivos y su dependencia a los intercambios comerciales convencionales. • Elaborar propuestas a nivel local, nacional y mundial para lograr sistemas alimentarios inclusivos, agroecológicos y sostenibles en beneficio de la salud humana y del planeta. Las cumbres se basaron en las 5 vías de acción de la CMSA, que son: 1. Asegurar acceso a comida segura y nutritiva para todos 2. Cambiar a patrones de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción positiva para la naturaleza a una escala suficiente 4. Avanzar hacia modos de vida y distribución de valor equitativos 5. Construir resiliencia a vulnerabilidades shocks y tensiones 2021-08-24 13:26:11En el marco de los Trabajos de diálogo de la Cumbre Mundial de Sistemas Alimentarios (CMSA), que incluyen a los diálogos independientes, el Movimiento Agroecológico Boliviano – MAB ha convocada a la realización de las Cumbres Independientes de Sistemas Alimentarios (CISA), que pretendieron reunir a actores de todas las partes de los sistemas alimentarios (productores, distribuidores, transformadores, gastrónomos, consumidores, activistas, etc.), llegando a realizar 9 Cumbres departamentales, 4 Cumbres sectoriales y 1 Cumbre Nacional (14 en total). El objetivo fue: Generar espacios de reflexión respecto al estado del Sistema Alimentario actual, para identificar y elaborar propuestas de acción, que permitan lograr sistemas alimentarios agroecológicos, inclusivos y sostenibles en beneficio de la soberanía alimentaria, la salud humana y de la naturaleza, con protagonismo de la producción campesina indígena. Los objetivos secundarios fueron: • Analizar el Sistema Alimentario actual, los efectos en la salud y nutrición de la población, su relación con el modelo de desarrollo, con los sistemas productivos y su dependencia a los intercambios comerciales convencionales. • Elaborar propuestas a nivel local, nacional y mundial para lograr sistemas alimentarios inclusivos, agroecológicos y sostenibles en beneficio de la salud humana y del planeta. Las cumbres se basaron en las 5 vías de acción de la CMSA, que son: 1. Asegurar acceso a comida segura y nutritiva para todos 2. Cambiar a patrones de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción positiva para la naturaleza a una escala suficiente 4. Avanzar hacia modos de vida y distribución de valor equitativos 5. Construir resiliencia a vulnerabilidades shocks y tensiones 2021-08-24 16:21:19https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/FORMULARIO-OFICIAL-DE-COMENTARIOS.docxhttps://www.facebook.com/MovimientoAgroecologicoBoliviano

2021-08-24 14:04:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3321/1214283236374042434850565862646567687273768081105106107111112115118125126128134135153161164169170171174182185193201202

08391511204316188141141202127163023

This Dialogue was developed to be engaging and inclusive. By design – and in the interest of advancing this most pertinent of topics – the Dialogue was structured in a way to maximise interaction and encourage and accommodate diverse perspectives. This is reflected by the composition of the three convenors which together bring together large and diverse global communities of researchers, students, educators, practitioners and policymakers. The session was programmed so as to avoid long, passive segments, instead allocating most time for smaller group discussions and feeding back, so as to facilitate the emergence of ideas, the embracing of different perspectives, and the exchange of subjectively derived potential solutions. Given the challenge that this Dialogue sought to address - the shortfall in many countries for food systems research capacity, which requires long-term planning – the convenors perceive their very constituting of this meeting as a signal of the concern regarding the urgency with which this topic must be addressed.• Act with Urgency As noted above, the issue of research capacity is challenge that requires urgent but long-term planning, for which progress is currently too slow. For food system policies to be steered appropriately by context-specific evidence, that evidence must be produced in-situ. This urgency was conveyed in the introductory lecture of the Dialogue and was a theme that was palpable among participants, particularly in the breakout groups where proposed solutions ranged from short-term bursts of investment to longer-term changing of norms and systems. • Commit to the Summit By organising this Dialogue and inviting esteemed participants under the banner of UNFSS, our organisations have given a tacit endorsement of the Summit and have shown commitment to it’s intended goals. We remain concerned – as is also clear from the Dialogue participants – as to whether the evidence base in all regions is sufficient to justify conclusive or overarching policies, but hope that this Dialogue will in some way stimulate progress in this area. • Be Respectful, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and complimenting the work of others A key ethos underpinning everything that the ANH Academy does is equity and fairness, which together cannot be achieved without respect. This ethos was baked into the planning and execution of this Dialogue. This was achieved through providing detailed training to facilitators so that breakout groups operated in a fair and respectful manner, thus providing the environment for all voices to be heard and appreciated for what they bring. Inviting a diverse and broad group of participants to take part in the Dialogue meant that stakeholders from a wider range of positionalities and perspectives were able to contribute to this important topic. This in turn allowed these diverse stakeholders to be exposed to ideas that may not be common among their usual circles. Selecting strong facilitators who are warm, open-minded and encouraging ensured an atmosphere of inclusiveness and openness conducive to meaningful discussion.Since there are now over 1000 dialogues this may not be necessary. But essentially, we would recommend carefully selecting facilitators and ensuring that they are equipped and trained to maintain an enabling environment for fair, respectful and meaningful discussion.

NoThis Dialogue was curated around the adaptation and application of a novel game methodology first designed by the ANH Academy Working Group on Sustainable Diets, called ‘Diet Dimensions’. This methodology was originally developed to: • Foster interactions between groups that might otherwise not communicate • Develop innovative policies to make food systems more sustainable • Encourage players to think and work in an interdisciplinary way through a collaborative and reflective process. "For the duration of the game, participants coming from a wide range of backgrounds form teams and collectively develop project ideas that aim to deliver sustainable food systems in various contexts, whilst critically engaging with ongoing debates and challenges. The idea is that the more interdisciplinary a team, the more holistic and comprehensive their proposed projects can be as they will be informed by multiple perspectives and can address issues and concerns of different disciplines and sectors.” Reference: Kalamatianou, S., Yates, J., Joy, E., Vermeire, Z., Rutting, L., Vervoort, J. and the members of the ANH Academy Working Group on Sustainable Diets (2017). “Diet Dimensions”: a case study on a sustainable diets policy game. Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy Sustainable Diets Working Group. Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA) programme. London, UK. The convenors of the Dialogue have all been involved in using this methodology in different contexts, from academic conferences and universities, to major meetings such as the SUN Global Gathering. Therefore, it’s utility for this Dialogue was clear. The session itself was opened/curated by Namukolo Covic, who occupies important positions as both the President of the African Nutrition Society, but also a longstanding member of the ANH Academy and a Research Coordinator with IFPRI/CGIAR. Dr. Covic also plays and important role within UNFSS processes so was very well positioned to provide the context and rationale for the Dialogue. Facilitators were all trained in the game methodology and were given very clear and comprehensive guidance and support in advance and on the day, with dedicated technical support and note-takers in each room. The session was structured as follows: OPENING Plenary: Framing and context: Research capacity to generate cross-cutting evidence is a “game-changing solution.” And overview of game methodology GAME COMMENCES Formulation of ideas: Breakout groups develop ideas in response to questions (each group discussed all questions) Peer-to-peer evolution of ideas (in paired groups): Key criteria for comments and critique: Feasibility? Intersectoral / interdisciplinary? Adaptation to context and scale? Game-changing / step change? Then…with feedback, Dialogue breakout groups reconvene to fine-tune their ideas. Final plenary discussion: Breakout groups present updated ideas, incorporating the critique from peers. CLOSING Summary, close and follow up (i.e. staying in touch) The game methodology encouraged and facilitated diverse perspectives to come to the fore, and created smaller enabling environments whereby these – often disparate – ideas could be bounced-off one another, constructively critiqued and fine-tuned, before being presented back to the whole group. This approach maximised participant interaction and meaningful dialogue in a short space of time.

234238239240241242243245246248249The UN Food System Summit promises to “launch bold new actions to transform the way the world produces and consumes food, delivering progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” An ambitious aim that reflects the urgency needed to address the profound global and local problems linked to existing food systems – from poor diets driving malnutrition and chronic disease, to the climate crisis, environmental degradation and widening inequities eroding the safety and sustainability of livelihoods. Many of these are shared global challenges, yet significant variations exist across regions and within diverse country contexts, where levels of food and nutrition security and safety are hugely divergent. While high level rhetoric around food system transformation is positive, it is critical to understand how the evidence-base needed to underpin, guide and re-evaluate such priorities and policies in different settings will be generated and sustained. Ambitious ideas and goals emerging from the Summit must be supported by robust types of information. The expertise to generate contextually appropriate and scientifically robust evidence (cutting across disciplines) in a timely way is arguably as important as the policies themselves. In other words… “A game changer!” But unlike statements drafted for the Summit, they cannot be produced in a matter of weeks or months. Generating evidence that spans disciplines and sectors is inherently complex, but not insurmountable. However, bottlenecks may exist in the pipeline of expertise, particularly in countries where existing capacity may not yet be sufficient. In light of, this, investing in systems of research, learning and sharing – within and among affected regions, particularly low- and middle income settings – will be paramount to steering context-specific interventions, informed by robust evidence-bases as food systems evolve. The political and financial commitments expected to flow from the Summit should extend to these systems, to ensure that support is provided ‘upstream’ to interdisciplinary curriculums and training, alongside mechanisms for cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder research and learning collaboration. But before this can happen, a range of important questions must be better addressed, which this Dialogue sought to respond. These include, but are not limited to: • Both food systems and research will have to coevolve, one informed by the other in an ongoing fashion. How can we plan and invest in long-term research capacities needed to support this? • What type of capacities are needed to prioritise policies in an evidence-informed way? I.e. to generate evidence to understand what works, what does not, how to improve, who wins, who loses, trade-offs and co-benefits across diverse outcomes of interest, as well as cost-effectiveness and financing • How can countries identify and prioritize solutions that could be most catalytic for positive food system transformation, informed by evidence? • Multi-disciplinary expertise is needed in all regions to help address these questions and to underpin key recommendations from the Summit and beyond. By convening stakeholders across communities of research, education and policy, with a specific focus on the African context, this Independent Dialogue will provide a space for these important questions to be discussed, and for new concerns and considerations to be shared.235238239240241242243244245246248249• Expertise cannot be fostered overnight. Policymakers themselves require a minimum comprehension of intersectoral solutions to food, nutrition and environmental challenges. Developing the next generation of researchers and practitioners requires multi-disciplinary investment well in advance. • Funding is central. It should be well-planned and diversified, so it’s not entirely externally driven. This will allow research agendas to be formulated by African institutions and academics. Certainty around long-term funding would give universities and research institutions the confidence to invests in their own systems that support high-quality teaching, learning and research • It is critical to develop systems for forecasting and proactively planning to fill gaps in research expertise and scientific systems. This means investing in data collection and cross-institutional information sharing (between and within governments and universities). • Communicating with policymakers and funders is of utmost importance for the future of evidence-based food system actions. Building capacity in stakeholder engagement and scientific communications, including expertise to liaise effectively and ethically with the private sector and political leaders should be a priority. • Linkages between research and policy should be prioritised. Involvement of researchers from myriad disciplines in designing education policy and interventions is paramount. But barriers exist in engaging with policymakers and funders. Policymaker involvement in processes of identifying capacity would instil a firmer understanding of the research process and the significance of these shortfalls for the wider economy and society. • The significant depth of indigenous and traditional knowledge systems across Africa should be more purposely brought inside curriculums. • Regional and international networks and platforms for teaching, learning and research are pivotal to promoting collaboration and sharing the latest evidence, technologies, lessons learnt and best practices.236238239240241242243245246248249Both food systems and research will have to coevolve, one informed by the other in an ongoing fashion. How can we plan and invest in long-term research capacities needed to support this? There was strong consensus around the need for collaboration between institutions to ensure joined-up thinking and scalable approaches to increasing research capacity. Ideas included the creation of platforms to collaborate at national, regional and global levels, as well as multi-institutional grants that could foster intra and inter country collaboration, knowledge and expertise sharing. This approach was seen as a ‘multiplier’ for the continent that could add value to country investments and combat ‘brain drain’. Another area of agreement concerned processes by which research capacity gaps could be identified and filled. Identifying gaps requires well-planned approaches that apply the right designs and tools, since errors could result in the misdirection of resources at the cost of other priorities. Participants suggested that robust monitoring, evaluation and feedback systems should be developed to identify research gaps, direct planning and funding. Locating gaps in capacity for food systems research is only useful if it is effectively communication to decision makers. Therefore, a high value was placed on developing the expertise to communicate research to the right stakeholders, beyond publications and conferences, so as to promote research uptake into action. The idea of ‘multisectoral approaches’ emerged among the breakout groups. This term is often used but participants questioned whether it is authentically pursued across the continent, and if not – what are the barriers? Collecting multisectoral data is an important starting point, as is the need to build and/or strengthen the capacity of national institutions to work together (example: Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture) in order to improve collaborative capacity. Upstream work is urgently needed to ensure that curriculums and research agendas at African universities are interdisciplinary and intersectoral. A debate around terminologies took place in plenary, and participants agreed on the need for coherence around the phrases: multidisciplinary; interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. Communicating and collaborating with policymakers and funders was deemed of utmost importance among all, with a strong emphasis on the need to articulate the value added of research and research capacity investment in each subnational/national/regional context. Linked to this was a common call to identify the relevant decision-making stakeholders and structures (i.e. donors/governments/processes) and target these with refined advocacy asks. There was broad consensus that implementation evidence is powerful in helping policymakers make decisions to change the system. Therefore, fostering research-based policies through long-term relationships between researchers and policymakers is crucial. Involvement of researchers from myriad disciplines in designing education policy and interventions is paramount. However, Dialogue participants agreed highlighted barriers to engaging with policymakers and funders, including other sectoral priorities and bureaucracy. Bringing policymakers into the process of identifying capacity gaps early on would give them a better understanding of the research process and the significance of these shortfalls for the wider economy. Also, a wider range of stakeholders into policy dialogue processes -i.e. students, educators, beneficiaries/users– will further demonstrate how research impacts on people’s lives, and thus the importance of directing resources into the pipeline of expertise. Some outlying ideas emerged from separate groups. These included sending postgraduate students abroad to build capacity and foster ideas exchange; to place greater emphasis on indigenous knowledge and traditional systems in curriculums and policy forums; and to establish institutional sharing systems for costly equipment and resources. While these topics were not necessarily proposed by every group, they are none-the-less invaluable ideas that stimulated discussion.236238239240241242243245246248249What type of capacities are needed to prioritise policies in an evidence-informed way? ? I.e. what works/does not, how to improve, who wins/who loses, trade-offs and co-benefits, cost-effectiveness and financing Several major themes emerged under this discussion. Firstly, that strong linkages should be prioritised between research and policy. Research questions should more often be formulated by African institutions and academics, but this requires significant and urgent investment into R&D in order to bring more people into research. Building on the discussions in question 1, there was a consistent feeling that policymakers themselves require a minimum comprehension of intersectoral solutions to food and nutrition challenges, and that the next generation of these decision-makers would therefore benefit from A) more cross-cutting curriculums and B) being incorporated into research processes from the beginning of their policy roles. Alongside this were debates around how build capacity in stakeholder engagement and scientific communications, including expertise to liaise effectively and ethically with the private sector and political leaders. All groups agreed that collaboration is critical for ensuring the best use of resources and information, and that linking researchers with implementing organisations is critical. Secondly, a priority is to make better use of data and technology in identifying and addressing capacity gaps in food systems research and the scientific expertise needed to undertake this. Implementing more robust data collection systems across universities, agricultural extension services, government departments and municipalities would provide more granular information about capacity shortages on the horizon. Alongside this, Africa’s growth in digital technologies should be better harnessed for food systems transformation, not only for improving resilience of farmers and markets, but for increasing access to education and training for the next generation of scientists who will drive technological innovation in agriculture-food systems across the continent. Thirdly, overarching both above is the need to develop research capacity, urgently, equitably and holistically. Participants consistently highlighted the need for interdisciplinarity to be embraced, not only for governments to place a greater emphasis on anthropology, humanities, social sciences and law as valid food system disciplines, but to incorporate traditional and indigenous knowledge which is rich and still an untapped reservoir of expertise across the continent. The groups discussed the role of ‘research informed learning’; for instance how community and local engagement, people-centred and actionable research could be championed and showcased in curriculums. These changes cannot be implemented at the individual level, they require institutional reforms alongside the strengthening of partnerships and consistent funding mechanisms. Certainty around long-term funding would give universities and research institutions the confidence to invests in their own systems that support high-quality teaching, learning and research. Only through longer term investment will a new generation of researchers and leaders emerge to generate and disseminate evidence. The fourth theme arising was the utility and importance of networks and platforms, to promote collaboration among researchers, not just across the continent but around the world. Such platforms expose researchers, teachers and students to cutting-edge ideas and technologies, while providing opportunities for sharing best practices and lessons learnt in food systems sciences. Furthermore, platforms facilitate communication which can avoid duplication of effort and ensure that knowledge is not lost as trends in research and funding changes. Some outlying themes emerged from separate groups. These included greater emphasis on communicating economic benefits of increasing research capacity; funding of long term feasibility studies at specific universities; and the importance of building expertise around navigating the private sector ethically to avoid and conflicts of interest.236238239240241242243245246248249How can countries identify and prioritize solutions that could be most catalytic for positive food system transformation, informed by evidence? Research capacity building was the most frequently discussed topic under this discussion point, with a strong desire for expertise to be prioritised in areas such as evidence synthesis, research innovation and leadership. Each of these would give country governments greater insights into the solutions needed their specific contexts, which in turn would reduce the need to revert to global or regional policy fixes. Mentorship emerged as an important common idea among the participants, with partnerships between researchers, alumni and their institutions as one important strategy to increase expertise within countries. Multisectoral approaches to identifying and solving problems through multi-level governance involving food system actors on all levels, as well as community beneficiaries was a theme that arose in several groups. Opening channels of communication and collaboration with policymakers and government was seen as an important step broadening the ‘expertise’ considered valid for agenda setting and policymaking. Participants agreed that funding is the elephant in the room, and would need to be diversified from multiple sources, so it’s not entirely externally driven. Establishing a national, regional and/or continental system of case studies and lessons learnt could provide Finance Ministries with greater evidence for what works and what doesn’t (example: using youth ambassadors for food systems awareness in the community, or introducing a new cross-cutting ag-nutrition-health curriculum module). Alongside this, was the idea of linking government frameworks and research priorities, and to prioritise the synthesis of existing evidence so as not to reinvent the wheel with unnecessary policies, or programmes that have been shown not to be effective. There was a broad consensus around the need for locally-driven frameworks and research agendas that respond to the needs of each country and/or region. Agenda that are driven by African researchers, traditional and indigenous knowledge systems, but that also draw upon, and weigh against the global body of scientific evidence, so that priority setting is locally-driven but evidence-informed. Following this, monitoring and evaluation systems should be developed to track progress, highlight gaps/challenges and indicate whether transformation in food systems research capacity is actually happening over time.

2021-08-24 16:54:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31510/203

9713373512434212512011066810631352158

These dialogues are organized by a coalition of Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) who agreed upon an internal set of principles. Those principles included respect for one another's beliefs and traditions. Commitment to elevating human rights. Being open to difference. Resolving conflict through mediated dialogue. Amplifying underrepresented voices.We consciously chose speakers committed to community development and principles of justice and equity in their work. We committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity and highlighting the complexity of problems and the solutions. Our dialogues are globally diverse, bring together multiple stakeholders, have multi-faith representation, feature Indigenous voices throughout, and privilege the voices of front line communities.

Yes

234238241242244247248249250251Major Focus “Please detail the focus of your Dialogue. For example, it could be (i) a comprehensive exploration of food systems, (ii) an exploration of one of the five Action Tracks or levers of change of the Summit, (iii) examination of links between one or more of the Action Tracks and levers of change, (iv) or another specific theme.“ This Inter-faith dialogue is designed to engage global faith and indigenous communities with the Food Systems Summit processes via co-convened dialogues through shared experience and learning underlining shared values and principles, spirituality and/or beliefs that propel solidarity and mutual accountability with local communities, stewardship of the environment and sustainability of food systems. The objectives of the dialogue are as follows: Share and discuss different faith traditions around food and food systems; Discuss how the above shape the different initiatives of different faith communities and faith-based organizations; Articulate common values around food and raise awareness on the importance of mutual accountability to transform food systems towards sustainability; and Promote engagement and partnerships between faith-based organizations, indigenous peoples and other actors working on food systems. The dialogue was divided into three parts; Part 1 - Faith traditions and shared values in sustainable food systems; Part 2 - Parallel Breakout Sessions: Deep dive on values around food as well as on accountability; Part 3 - Feedback and reflections235238241242244245247248249251Main Findings “Please share your appreciation of the main findings (or conclusions) that emerged from your Dialogue. For example, your key findings might detail a) the need to establish new connections between certain stakeholders, b) an agreement on actions that stakeholders will take together (expressed as intentions or commitments), c) a decision to explore specific aspects of food systems in greater depth. ” Faith and spirituality are deeply connected to food systems. There is much common ground in religious values, such as the dignity of humans and compassion for others, which drives people of all faiths towards ending hunger. How we manage food systems can promote equity, justice and adequate and nutritious food distribution or perpetuate hunger, inequity and injustice. Food systems have profound implications on the quality of our relationships with others and our relationship with our environment with a spectrum of outcomes. The direction taken in the way Food systems depends very much on the values that undergird it. How we deal with food systems has ethical and moral implications. Faiths point us to values that are not non-negotiable- Truth and respect for life, respecting the other and the Earth. There was also agreement about misuse of religion by political leaders, corruption, hypocrisy, bribery, lobbying, etc and the way this has negatively impacted food systems.236238241242244245247249250251Building solidarity through faith-based coalitions can be truly transformative; it can work to re-educate consumers or to shift corporations’ behaviour (an example was given of an Oxfam and Unilever partnership). Faith has a huge role to play in this because common values bring people together, with a shared impetus towards compassion and transformation of oppressive systems. Accountability is necessary for the damage that has already been done to poor communities, lower-income countries, and the environment. Yet we must also cultivate compassion, re-educate consumers, increase access to information, support youth farmers, and take concrete actions to hold the agro-industrial complex accountable and to transform global food systems. Sharing aspect in faith traditions - important in Islam such during Ramadan in sharing of food with each other, an example given also in Yogic farming started in India such as custom of meditating during the farming cycle (over seeds, and segments during the growing process) – these are aspects that have been lost. Similarly in the Christian faith – as shown in the bible miracle story of Jesus multiplying the bread to feed a multitude - sharing is a key aspect which underscores the importance of sharing whatever little you have. Sharing of food from seed to the table; farmers to farmers. Sharing is relevant especially in an individualistic society. Stewardship in faith – which is also present in traditions ie Judaic for example in the Brahma Kumaris where overconsumption is not a good example of stewardship. We are all stewards of all the materials on the earth. Being steward also carries the responsibility to only take what we need. There is also the intersection of the needs of human and the needs of flora and fauna; protecting these communities is strong in Islam. This stewardship concept has been lost over time, however, replaced by legal private ownership resulting to inequity and inequitable distribution of goods. Rights based approach, respecting rights of others, respecting diversity. Related to responsibility I.e. in voting and linking it to financing, corruption Tradition of gift of food even if food is grown or cultivated by human effort - because of the strong sense of “gift of food from the Creator” in the Judaic traditions alongside a sense of responsibility towards food, a sense of gratitude and respect; sense of wonder and gratitude of receiving the gift of food; sense of not wasting food – sanctity of food. Also present in Indigenous cultures and other faith traditions Value of empathy in faith traditions – if practiced/adhered to can solve the problem of hunger. Empathy among humanity is important because while one community is starving, the other is living in plenty when there’s enough production to feed the whole world. The problem is capitalistic living that is detriment of others. This value also relates to global empathy among nations esp during food crises. All faith groups and indigenous traditions put a high value on production as it is essential for survival – a lot of text on importance of production in growing food, livestock etc. Huge emphasis on equity – that food is important, thanks given after consumption and everyone has right to access to this food Where equity is absent, provision to the vulnerable – clear in Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, absolute necessity to provide food / access to food to vulnerable groups. Interconnectedness: all faiths are in this together; all can and should come together; also the power as consumers Humility – relatedness to the soil; it’s the beauty of creation transformed into feeding human. Love - linked to the golden rule: do unto others as what you would like to do unto you; rule of love, do what love requires. Gratitude – giving of thanks and offering of food, fundamental. We are now too far removed in food production, and lack connection to the food we eat. Truth/transparency – need to demand what is contained in our food and where it comes from. Moral imperative and opposing corruption. There is power in faith community, including the power of voting to effect change in society; what is needed is also the syst237Rather than areas of divergence, the following areas were mentioned as topics which deserve further exploration. Accountability - what should accountability look like? Awareness and reeducation are just as much a part of the solution as concrete actions could be. Suggestions included public policy changes, cutting subsidies, reparations, consumer boycotts, or pricing changes on products to correlate with their climate impact. Individual vs collective responsibility and accountability - what should the role of individuals be in accountability? I.e. responsibility and blame on corporations but individuals are accountable as consumers (Mindful consumption of food and avoiding of wastage of food), concept of karma, etc.

2021-08-24 18:11:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23149/203

76443116411421273111625212231912313

1) El diálogo tuvo como foco la discusión respecto a la agricultura tropical y su relevancia para la contribución a la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios hacia modelos sostenibles e inclusivos, organizado por dos instituciones que reúnen los ámbitos políticos, académico, de investigación y de gestión del conocimiento. 2) Los grupos de trabajo – discusión promovieron el diálogo abierto, seguro y respetuoso con amplia participación de todas y todos. 3) Se plantearon preguntas generadoras vinculadas a los objetivos de la Cumbre y alineadas a las vías de acción. 4) El diálogo buscó motivar la discusión y pensamiento crítico respecto a la contribución de la agricultura tropical a los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, sinergias entre adaptación y mitigación al cambio climático en la AT, brechas tecnológicas, capacidades en investigación, alineación con las vías de acción y aporte institucional en el tránsito hacia sistemas alimentarios sostenibles e inclusivos 5) Se invitó a participantes de distintos sectores como el público, privado, la academia, sociedad civil y se brindó un espacio seguro y de confianza para la participación de todas y todos. 6) Se instó a generar propuestas de solución conjuntas para la acción.Se llevó a cabo un trabajo sinérgico entre dos instituciones que atienden mandatos de política pública e investigación y enseñanza, involucrando a personal técnico de diferentes disciplinas, quienes facilitaron el diálogo con participantes de diversos campos temáticos y países. La mayor parte del tiempo del evento se destinó a los grupos de trabajo y la presentación de principales mensajes en sesión plenaria. La dinámica en los grupos de trabajo buscó mantener el respeto y la libertad de expresión entre participantes. En lo posible, los mensajes clave fueron sometidos a verificación final dentro del grupo. Las conclusiones y recomendaciones resultantes servirán para la construcción de propuestas de soluciones para el cambio.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251Discusión con respecto a la agricultura tropical y su relevancia para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. Durante el diálogo se abordaron distintos temas como brechas tecnológicas, mapeo de capacidades en la agricultura tropical, propuestas de soluciones para el cambio, la formación de alianzas y capacidades en investigación en agricultura tropical. Se buscó identificar propuestas de solución para el cambio considerando sinergias entre metas de acción climática, plataformas de investigación y colaboración, incorporar el conocimiento ancestral para la transferencia tecnológica, entre otras.235238239240241242243244245246248249251Entre los principales hallazgos del diálogo se encuentra que: • Para promover la sostenibilidad de la agricultura tropical es importante tener como punto de partida el desafío del cambio climático, cuyos efectos los sufren desde el agricultor hasta el consumidor. Se requiere un ambiente habilitador en donde las políticas en temas ambientales puedan coadyuvar a la labor de los agricultores. • Es importante que la información compartida entre los actores clave esté basada en ciencia y que pueda ser comprendida e incorporada en las decisiones cotidianas. La inequidad en el acceso a información y tecnologías e internet en las zonas rurales dificulta la comunicación y la transferencia de tecnología. • Se requiere fortalecer el marco de políticas agrícolas para garantizar el acceso a la digitalización y reducir la brecha digital entre lo rural y urbano y entre las pequeñas y medianas empresas. • Asimismo, las políticas gubernamentales deben de estar vinculadas con programas de financiamiento para el agricultor. Las dificultades de acceso a financiamiento e infraestructura (física, natural, social, etc.) impacta en el acceso a nuevas tecnologías por parte del productor. • Es importante brindar condiciones acordes con las necesidades de los mercados locales y promover precios y comercio justo. • Es necesario brindar más educación de modelos de negocios para generar una identidad orientada a la innovación y el emprendimiento. • Con respecto a la investigación y la tecnología, es importante comprender mejor en qué parte de la cadena de valor (desde la producción al consumidor final) se encuentran desarrolladas las tecnologías. Importante mencionar que las investigaciones deben ser coherentes con las necesidades de las comunidades. • Es fundamental empoderar a las familias productoras a través del fortalecimiento de sus capacidades (blandas-técnicas) para fomentar el desarrollo de soluciones innovadoras que aprovechen el conocimiento de todas las fuentes, tanto científico como autóctono. • Incentivar a que se incremente el relevo generacional para reducir la migración de las juventudes de zonas rurales a zonas urbanas, lo cual aportaría a mejorar la canasta básica local y/o regional de las familias.236238239240241242243244245246248249251 Los agricultores son parte fundamental de los Sistemas Alimentarios. Los agricultores son los protagonistas.  Las decisiones deben estar basadas en ciencia para reducir los riesgos.  La agricultura es parte de la solución para atender los principales retos globales. Infraestructura de riego es el regulador frente al desafío del cambio climático. Sinergias entre mitigación y adaptación, la ACI es identificada como una solución para alcanzar metas de adaptación.  Se reconoce que se está en un momento crucial para promover transformaciones sustantivas en la agricultura tropical para el alcance de Sistemas Alimentarios más sostenibles. Para promover esas transformaciones, es necesario lograr un consenso respecto a lo que se entiende por agricultura tropical, abordar las brechas tecnológicas y mapear las capacidades y fortalezas que existen en la región, en un horizonte de largo plazo.  La documentación y la efectiva comunicación de los casos exitosos en la agricultura tropical es clave. Por un lado, es fundamental documentar los casos de impacto y transformaciones de la agricultura tropical y los Sistemas Alimentarios como base de las negociaciones para atender las barreras que enfrenta la agricultura tropical. Por otro lado, es necesario contar con estrategias de comunicación de los exitosos que sean efectivas, eficaces, claras, contundentes y que permitan fortalecer el lugar de negociación de la agricultura.  Es importante pensar en un renovado marco de políticas públicas que permita implementar acciones que respondan a los desafíos actuales. La toma de decisión requiere información precisa y oportuna, por lo tanto, es importante fortalecer los sistemas de información en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, y el aporte de la agricultura.  Entre las principales barreras que enfrenta la agricultura tropical se encuentra el limitado acceso a financiamiento, falta de políticas públicas inclusivas, falta de inclusión social verde, brechas digitales y tecnológicas. Con respecto a la inclusión social, es fundamental mejorar las negociaciones desde la agricultura ¡la agricultura tropical! para segmentos vulnerables, los cuales son el centro de atención de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios. Las brechas de tecnología, como sesgo en la cadena de valor, son asimétricas; esto significa que conforme se avanza en la cadena de valor y se acerca al consumidor, los pesos en decisión son más fuertes y la asimetría se presenta contra los productores, quienes muestran las brechas de tecnología por desconocimiento, y la falta de pertinencia cultural.237248 El único aspecto por resaltar es que se consideró que las brechas tecnológicas, relacionadas con la tecnología e innovación, son un problema en la agricultura en general y no es exclusivo de la agricultura tropical que inciden en los sistemas alimentarios.

2021-08-24 23:49:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29420/203

298139142971901361620662336184722490739011207750811323419425132331223284729

All principles of engagement were incorporated. In particular, in the selection of participants attention was devoted to the principles of Recognise complexity, Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, Complement the work of others, and Build trust.Commit to the Summit: The Dialogue was organized by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and the LAC Regional Office of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, with the collaboration of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture, the World Food Program, the United Nations Development Program, and the United Nations Environment Program, These UN organizations committed, within their fields of competence and the existing UN monitoring and coordination frameworks, to help their member countries in monitoring the commitments and results from the Summit and to support them in the transitions required for the transformation of their food systems.It is important to give voice to different perspectives, even if they do not fully agree on some issues. Pinpointing areas of disagreement is as important as it is to identify convergence.

NoThe dialogue was organized in four sessions, without break-out rooms for discussion. Rather space was provided to conveners of national dialogues and to representatives of regional public, international, and non-governmental organizations, to identify areas of convergence and opportunities for collaboration. // Sessions: // I. Inauguration: Alicia Barcena, Executive Secretary UN-ECLAC; Julio Berdegue, Regional Director FAO; H.E. Pedro Brolo Vila, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Guatemala. // II. National Dialogues Session: Identification of the main issues highlighted as priorities in national consultations. 1. Ms. Karla Rubilar, Minister of Social Development and Family, Republic of Chile. 2. Mr. Renato Alvarado, Minister of Agriculture and Livestock of Costa Rica. 3. Ms. Ambassador Carola Ramón-Berjano, Undersecretary of Bilateral and Multilateral Economic Negotiations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship, Republic of Argentina 4. Mr. Erwin Freddy Mamani Machaca, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Plurinational State of Bolivia. 5. Mr. Hernani Mendoza, Vice Minister of Rural Development, Republic of Ecuador. // III. Regional cooperation Session: Identification of cooperation opportunities for the development of sustainable and inclusive food systems in Latin America and the Caribbean. 1. Agriculture, climate change, resilience, environmental impacts: Mr. Jesús Quintana, Managing Director for the Americas of the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance. 2. Indigenous peoples and family farming: Ms. Mirna Cunningham, President of the Board of Directors, Fund for the Development of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean (FILAC). 3. Food and nutrition: Mr. Juan Rivera, Institute of Public Health, Mexico. 4. Women and the food system: Leticia Teleguario, Senior Specialist for Inter-Agency, Public and Corporate Alliances of UN Women, Guatemala. 5. Rural sociodemographic dynamics: Mr. Efraín Quicaña, Regional Specialist in Rural Economy, ILO. 6. Investment and financing: Ms. Jessica Jacob, Regional Manager, Green Climate Fund. // IV. Conclusions: Executive Secretary UN-ECLAC on behalf of the UN organizations involved.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main focus of the dialogue was to identify regional agreements in Latin America and the Caribbean regarding the challenges and opportunities for building more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient food systems with a view to the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021.2352382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. The transformation of food systems to make them more sustainable, inclusive, resilient, and produce safe and nutritious food is key to strengthening their contribution to the economy of the countries of our region, to ensure food and nutritional security, for the reduction of poverty and ethnic, gender, and territorial inequalities, for health and nutrition, for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, for climate action, and for a people-centered inclusive, sustainable and resilient recovery from the crisis caused by COVID-19. The existence of more sustainable, inclusive, resilient food systems that produce safe and nutritious food is essential to achieve most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 2. The transformation of food systems requires complex transitions related to how food is produced, processed, distributed, preserved, and consumed. The transformation will imply transitions that will be complex and take time, must be done with the concurrence of all relevant public and private actors, and will require the construction of agreements with a long-term country vision. 3. In the transformation of food systems, it is essential to promote balance among the various functions that food systems fulfill, especially among the objectives of production, health and nutrition, and sustainability in the use of natural resources. 4. There is a diversity of food systems in the region, which vary in terms of job creation, income distribution, market orientation, contribution to local and global food security, and environmental impacts, among others. Therefore, the transition to more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient systems will need to consider local realities, needs, and priorities. 5. The transformation of food systems in Latin America and the Caribbean should consider that the population affected by the "double burden of malnutrition" has increased substantially. Malnutrition has high economic costs due to the loss of capacities and productivity, and health systems costs, especially those due to the increase in obesity-related non-communicable diseases. 6. The transformation of food systems should promote productive employment, the creation of decent work, and the strengthening of sustainable enterprises in the rural economy with an emphasis on women and youth. It is essential to strengthen productive development policies to enhance economic diversification and promote rural productive transformation. It is also important to promote labor laws that recognize the conditions of employment in rural areas and in the agricultural sector. 7. International food trade must be rule-based and predictable, avoiding unilateral distorting measures, especially in the context of pandemics and other shocks such as conflicts, natural disasters, and the displacement of refugees. It is important to strengthen at the multilateral level the discussion on agricultural support, export subsidies, and trade barriers that create distortions in agricultural trade. Also, attention should be given to the need to create synergies and complementarities between production for export and production for local markets; and between global and intraregional food trade, considering that in the region there are both net-food-exporting and net-food-importing countries. 8. Improving the governance and transparency of food systems is important, through strengthening public institutions and inter-sectoral coordination, expanding the space for intra-sectoral dialogue, and incorporating sub-national governments. 9. Good, timely, and reliable statistical data is essential for the transformation of food systems. It is necessary to strengthen the governance of agro-environmental and market information systems and to support the consolidation of the statistical and impact evaluation frameworks at the country level. 10. The post-Covid-19 pandemic recovery makes the transformation process more complex but creates a sense of urgency that we must take advantage of to create more robust, inclusive, sustainable, and competitive food systems.236238240244250Recognize the indissoluble relationship between the natural environment and the human environment. This relationship is at the center of society's new demands on agriculture and food, with implications for human health and general well-being, as has been seen in the current pandemic. Attention to the link between food systems and the natural environment is also an increasingly important factor for market access and as a source of competitiveness. We need to enhance our role as a region that provides food for the world, without affecting our biodiversity and fragile ecosystems.236240242244249Guarantee sustainability in land and water use and the ecosystem services on which agriculture depends. It is important to encourage a transition towards more agroecological production systems and practices with less environmental impact at all levels of agriculture; for example, through crop rotation, the recovery of degraded soils, and the improvement of ecosystem services, complemented by governance systems and technologies that guarantee efficient water use. Nature-based solutions supported by science and evidence are an alternative to improve the environmental performance of agriculture, especially if they promote synergies among areas related to the conventions of climate change, biological diversity, and control of desertification.236238239240241242244248249251Promote the sustainable use of agrobiodiversity resources to increase the resilience of agriculture to climate change, provide new alternatives for rural livelihoods, and diversify diets with more nutritious foods. For this, it is essential to enhance the role of cultural diversity and the knowledge of indigenous peoples.236241247249251Incorporate social inclusion and equity criteria in public policies related to food systems to reduce poverty, gender and territorial gaps, and ethnic inequalities. Access to productive resources for women, including access to land, and respect for the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples must be guaranteed. It is necessary to invest in the development of capacities in young people, women, indigenous peoples, and Afro-descendants, and in lagging territories and give them voice and representation in the management of policies for their development.236240242244249250Addressing climate action in agriculture with a focus on adaptation aimed at building resilience and promoting synergies between adaptation and mitigation actions. The relationship between agriculture and climate change is complex; on the one hand, agriculture is one of the sectors most negatively affected by climate change; on the other, it generates significant greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, agriculture is the only productive sector capable of capturing its emissions and those of other sectors. Climate action in agriculture must consider this complexity, adequately balancing mitigation and adaptation activities, as well as carbon-sink services.236238240245248249Improve the quality and impact of investments, including those in science, technology, and innovation. Investment in these areas is required to encourage creativity and the development of new and innovative ideas to improve the production, transformation, and preservation of food and its nutritional attributes. New target areas for investment include the bioeconomy and nature-based solutions, which foster value addition, diversification, and sustainability. For this, it will be necessary to promote public-private alliances and value the knowledge and resources of local communities.236240245248249251Guarantee family farm access to new technologies. This implies encouraging a holistic technological improvement process, which integrates the adoption of digital and information and communication technologies (DTs/ICTs), technologies derived from the revolution in biological sciences, nature-based solutions and agroecological practices, as well as the creation of synergies and complementarities amongst them. DTs / ICTs improve agricultural practices and environmental performance, improve market access, and bring producers closer to consumers. Biotechnology applications —along with nature-based solutions— increase resilience, improve soil health, and restore poor soils, and allow the development of biological alternatives to reduce dependence on fossil-based agricultural inputs.236240242244248249Promote circularity through circular bioeconomy processes to increase resilience and sustainability, make more efficient use of resources, diversify development options, and increase value addition.236238239249Promote healthier eating patterns, to reduce the double burden of malnutrition and the economic costs of associated health problems. The transformation requires policies and regulations to encourage the consumption of healthy foods, and restrict the consumption of ultra-processed products, especially by children and adolescents.236239248249Promote more sustainable production and consumption patterns that help reduce losses and waste throughout the food distribution chain, from farm to fork.237240244248249It was highlighted that in the region there is a variety of food systems; therefore, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The best option varies according to local realities, needs, and priorities. There was agreement on the need to achieve more sustainable food systems, but not on the degree of transformation. Instead, the position of a just transition was voiced, indicating that such transition should consider both national priorities and local realities and stressing that within their diversity, not all food systems must be transformed. Such a position recognized that in some cases food systems must be improved, without radical transformations that could imply large economic and social efforts, in times of great need of resources for the recovery from the pandemic.

2021-08-25 02:17:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39042/106

50720183203218832232345411012133355332

The dialogue was organized through Google Meet(online). During the meeting, the Moderator muted the mics of all participants except the participant that was requested to give his or her presentation. Each speaker was allowed to share their opinion. There were time reserved for questions and contributions among participants. The contributions of all the participants were welcomed and questions addressed satisfactorily.1. Act with urgency; Being aware of the importance of the food system summit and the goal of reaching SDG 9 of industry, innovation and infrastructure by 2030, the Dialogue developed series of answers that will provide innovative approaches to having an improved food system and achieving the SDG 9. 2. Be respectful: The views of every participant from different regions and from different backgrounds were all respected, despite their cultures. Every context were evaluated to reach a better conclusion. 3. Recognize complexity: The Dialogue recognized that food systems are complex and also interconnected with other systems. Hence, it allowed the opportunity to consider other aspects in answering the questions. 4. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Stakeholders like small scale farmers and large scale farmers (who require reliable means to acquire agro inputs as well buyers of farm produce) and ICT experts who supplied answers to their question were all invited. Opinions from Individuals from various communities were also embraced to reach a better agreement on the outcomes. 5. Complement the work of others: The Dialogue was hosted to benefit from an existing innovation (ICT) that has not being fully utilized by most farmers in Africa. It complements the innovations already existing in information and technology sector and seeks to leverage on its tools for better food system as well as achieving SDG 9. 6. Build trust: This dialogue allowed opportunity for everyone to participate irrespective of gender, allowing mutual respect and trust. It is transparent, evidence based and accessible for decision making and planning.

Yes

234241246247251The major focus of the dialogue was on youth and their potential to transform food systems. In Liberia, over 65 percent of the population falls in the youth bracket. We see this as an opportunity for the food system. The potential of the youth lies in their population, capacity to innovate, young energy and their admiration and likeness of new technologies. Looking at these factors, the discussion was centered on how the food chain actors can leverage their potential so as to realize zero hunger. The dialogue was interactive where panelists and participants advanced ideas and ways to make the youth major actor in the food system and how to inspire them to taking actions necessary for food systems transformation. The focus was captured under tract 4, that talks about advancing equitable livelihoods. This is about including youth in the process of food system transformation by empowering and making them unleash their potentials.235241245249250251 For youth to fully be involved in the food systems and be active players, they must be provided with finance (seed fund, grants and business incubation support) so as to make them resilient and sustainable players in the food sector. Lack of access to finance which remains a major challenge for Africa’s food systems is a clumping block to youth active involvement in national and regional food systems transformation. The participants and panelists call on policy makers and major food actors( UN, FAO, UNDP) to provide access to finance programs for youth who are thriving to make impact in the agriculture sector which will serve as motivation for other young people who see agriculture as a underprivileged and less fortunate family ventures. This can be carried out by policy makers through the allotment in the national budget funds for grants and seed funds to youth agri enterprises and young farmers who are striving to make agriculture their livelihood.  A network of youth in agriculture need to be formed which will connect youth involves and aspiring to do business or farming to policy makers and donor for support that can enhance the operations in the agriculture sector. There is a disconnect with youth in agriculture and stakeholders which has created less attractive situation for youth. Participants and panelists intimated that only when you are empowered, then we can assure that the future of food lies in their hands. Participants and panelists call for young people participation in the planning and decision making of the food systems transformation processes.  Technology integration and innovation Technology integration is key in advancing and transforming the food systems. The discussion highlighted the need to put technology innovation on the forefront as a factor to transform the food system for people and planet. The use and promotion of technology can drive youth participant and full involvement in feeding the world. Participants, especially, youth pointed out the need to provide information communication technology solutions and the provision of machineries for on farm and off farm production activities.236241245248251 Future of food system depends on the investment in today youth. Participants highlighted that for a better food system, the youth must be at the core of global investments, food systems transformation conversations, decision making processes. The investment in youth through the provision of access to finance, technical capacity, market linkage and infrastructure. A panelist stressed the need to create awareness among youth for the change of mindset that agriculture is dirty job or not decent for youth involvement.  Youth need to invest energy in the agriculture value chain. The potential of the agriculture value chain in Liberia is untapped. Youth must take advantage to innovate where they can bring solutions on the table for the food systems transformation. Discussion around youth cultivating the mind of entrepreneurship in the agriculture sector was raise by few panelists and youth are encouraged to look around to pick up a problem in the agriculture sector where they can turn it to opportunity. In order to reduce the youth unemployment situation of Liberia and Africa, youth must start to think about agriculture differently as oppose the long held perception of it being for uneducated and old age.  Transition from traditional agriculture to modern agriculture with the promotion of technology. Discussion on the importance of modern agriculture that requires new approach and method of farming and food production. Panelists and participants expressed their views and call for innovation that promote the use of technology in agriculture which will lure youth to agriculture investment and operations. Participants highlighted that government and food security stakeholders can lead this and will help in attracting the young labor force to the sector.  Access to finance for youth in agriculture. The topic, youth access to finance which is considered as a challenge was discussed. Several suggestions made: allot money in the national budget to provide grants and seed fund to youth enterprises by national government, provide programs that give seed fund and innovation challenge by agriculture development partners.237241242245251Quick income: some panelists and participants noted that youth nowadays, go for quick income activities such as motorcycle riding and political affairs/white collar jobs. This discourages them since they can get fast income from such activities than agriculture. Generally, the area of divergence is youth of this generation are less interested in agriculture because they always looking out for quick/fast income. Other participants held the view that that is not the case but it is mainly due to lack of support and finance. Another area of divergence is that opportunities are out there but youth are not making use of them. A Panelist highlighted that opportunities for youth are available but many of the youth are not going for it. Other participants refute the view and expressed that the systems and processes out there are not inclusive and hidden from general public.

2021-08-25 05:14:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41989/18

21111051222216331113

facilitated round table discussionagenda was preset

Yes

234239242243244247249The aim of the dialogue was to discuss the importance of creating a sustainable food solution for the region and report the findings to the Summit.235238239240241242244247Regional Development Australia ACT called together agrifood industry representatives from across Canberra and the surrounding regions to conduct a Food Summit Dialogue. The aim of the dialogue was to discuss the importance of creating a sustainable food solution for the region and report the findings to the Summit. It was agreed unanimously that the approach required inclusion and consideration of the complete city region food system process. The FAO defines city region food systems (CRFS) as “all the actors, processes and relationships that are involved in food production, processing, distribution and consumption in a given city region that includes a more or less concentrated urban center and its surrounding peri-urban and rural hinterland”. Concern has been voiced within the consultation group hosted by RDA ACT that the importance of this system is being overlooked by the UN food Summit dialogue and, as a consequence, missing important opportunities to achieve sustainable food security goals. Truly inclusive initiatives, that equally include all stakeholders, and include a focus on the development of city-region food systems, are far more likely to achieve the UN objective that called on all cities that have the capability, to create local food buffers. The State of Food in the ACT and Regions: Food is a necessity, a fundamental human right and one of life's great pleasures. Food shapes cultures, tradition, customs and beliefs. It brings people together and is essential to personal wellbeing, community, cultural expression and health. The delivery of fresher, cheaper, local, and more nutritious food supports all domains in the ACT Wellbeing Framework, with an essential premise being the continued availability of food, which food insecurity undermines. Yet food availability is being increasingly tested by climate change, COVID-19 and international disputes; illustrating how vulnerable our food supply chains are. The ACT and the immediate region grow very little of their own food, with 90% coming through Sydney and much further afield. There are at least 400 individual enterprises in the ACT involved in production, manufacture & sales; a further 500 individual enterprises in Canberra Region; 100 community groups and NFPs with an interest or existing involvement with food; 40 ACT restaurants engaged in and deliberately sourcing local food; several hundred institutional settings including schools and care settings; 8 transport companies; and the growing presence of dozens of community gardens, small urban farms and food producers in our immediate region. There are 160 farms in the ACT and a further 7,500 in southern NSW. Despite the food potential of the region, over 25,000 people in the ACT are experiencing some form of food stress. At the same time, while healthy eating is featuring more strongly in preventive health policy, levels of obesity and diet-related diseases remain stubbornly high. The ACT community in common with cities around the world needs to be able to: • guarantee access to healthy, affordable, locally grown & sustainably produced food. • ensure that Canberrans have access to and more say over the food they eat, with confidence that it is healthy, environmentally sustainable and ethically produced. Stepping Forward: A whole of system approach to nurturing a sustainable urban and regional food system is vital to addressing the future food challenges, with all stakeholders in the food system being brought together to co-designing and build a city-region food system. City Region Food Systems (CRFS) have proven the most successful and durable forms of their kind, and include facilitation of food hubs, food cooperatives, innovation, and new food business models. Initial investment into the development of city region food systems is essential to support growth and ensure long-term sustainability. Many of the ACT and region enterprises have reported that they would expand their local food production and purchasing if provided with assistance. There is evidence of strong latent demand for more accessible, abundant and local food; with the region having, on average, high disposable income and very strong levels of motivation to support sustainability. There is significant inward investment interest in the food sector here, as well as new start-ups, which require food knowledge and specialist facilitation. This will also better establish our region’s competitive advantage in food production, sales and hospitality. World impact investment flows are looking for opportunity in the sustainable food space, including CRFS – not only large-scale food production and processing. Economic impact analysis of such initiatives across the world such as Vermont USA demonstrate strongly positive returns on government investment – in market growth, jobs and community outcomes. A widely recognised study shows a gross output multiplier of 1.75 (every dollar invested produces $1.75 dollars in additional output) and an employment multiplier of 2.14 (for every food job created a further 2 jobs are created). This is sorely needed as the world seeks to exit covid and build economic recovery. Conclusion: With adequate investment, intense consultation and collaboration, and a focused strategic planning, the Canberra Region and similar areas around Australia would be able to successfully meet the UN SDGs and its objective of a local food buffer. This would ensure food security, support economic growth, and positively impact on the physical and mental health of the communities involved.236238244246248With adequate investment, intense consultation and collaboration, and a focused strategic planning, the Canberra Region and similar areas around Australia would be able to successfully meet the UN SDGs and its objective of a local food buffer. This would ensure food security, support economic growth, and positively impact on the physical and mental health of the communities involved.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Food-Summit-Dialogue-Report.pdfhttps://www.agrifood-hub.com/sustainableurbanfood.html

2021-08-25 08:38:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28241/112

700

The event was convened through a consultative process that fully subscribed to the principles of engagement. Two multi stakeholder forums partnered to host the event, which involved seven NGOs collaborating and sharing resources to plan and deliver the dialogue (ActionAid, Concern Worldwide, GOAL, Irish Rule of Law International, Oxfam, Self Help Africa, and Trócaire). In this way, the dialogue built on the existing work of others and avoided unnecessary duplication. A strong effort was made to ensure a wide range of stakeholders were included in the Dialogue, including from government, civil society, the private sector and research institutes. Smallholder women farmers were facilitated to travel to the physical event to share their experiences. For those who were unable to attend in person, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the dialogue was also available online where the hybrid approach was used to ensure wide participation. Pre-recorded farmer testimonies were broadcast to further ensure multi-stakeholder inclusivity including cultural insights. Keynote speakers included Dr Judith Kamoto, Senior Lecturer at Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR) who spoke on Gender Equality in Food Systems; Mr. Lawrence Munthali, Trócaire Malawi, who made a presentation on Fixing Farming Systems which referenced evidence from recent Trócaire funded research on agroecology and women in farming. In addition, two local women farmers; Mary Jeffrey and Catherine Amin who are part of Trócaire’s programme with the Catholic Development Commission Zomba (CADECOM Zomba) in Machinga, spoke passionately about their experience of working within the Food Systems value chain and how they are adapting their farming practises to the impacts of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, a farming entrepreneur, Ms. Ngabila Chatata, outlined the potential for improved food systems in Malawi and the challenges thatneed to be addressed by various stakeholders, such as government, before these positive changes can be realised.The Dialogue was curated and facilitated in a way which created a “safe space” and promoted trust, encouraging mutual respect. In particular, a system of breakout rooms was organised to ensure that individuals could discuss the dialogue questions in small groups and contribute to the overall Dialogue findings. The conclusions emerging from the breakout rooms were shared in plenary and were not attributed to any individuals. The breakout rooms were both within the meeting space and online to ensure maximum participation. The breakout room dialogues were complemented by keynote presentations which outlined the gender and food systems context in Malawi and across Africa. These presentations helped to set the scene and encourage dialogue and discussion.The hybrid format of the Dialogue (physical and online) was very effective in enabling the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders and is something that should be considered for future dialogue events. Seeking out partners for hosting a dialogue event is also recommended to complement the work of others and to build on existing initiatives.

Yes

234238240241242244245247249251The dialogue was convened under the Malawi Irish Consortium on Gender Based Violence (MICGBV) and the Irish Forum on International Agricultural Development (IFIAD) with the aim of integrating issues of gender equality into the dialogues on the food systems sector. The aim of the Independent Dialogue session was to discuss ‘’how to achieve gender equality for healthy and sustainable food systems”. Through the dialogue the conveners sought too: 1. Develop a set of recommendations for gender equality in food systems in Malawi 2. Establish the position of the MICGBV as to what they believe are the commitments needed to achieve gender equality in food systems for Malawi. These recommendations will be in support of the work of the Government of Malawi and in line with Malawi’s vision 2063, pillar one in particular on, “enjoying food security and sustainable agricultural growth by having an optimally productive and commercialised agricultural sector”.235241242246247249251Key Messages: • While rural women play a major role in in productive activities, gender inequality in agriculture is stifling productivity. • Food insecurity and hunger are well known in Malawi and throughout much of the developing world. Women and girls represent 60% of undernourished people in the world. • Investing in women farmers is one of the most effective strategies for reducing extreme poverty and hunger, yet women, are seldom targeted effectively or reached by agricultural investments. Therefore, many Consortium member organisations in collaboration with Government and Development Partners work on food and agriculture with a focus on women and youth. • There is need to target both men and women within the household and community when seeking to achieve gender equality in food systems transformation. As we empower women, there is need for interventions that involve men as well. If everyone takes part, this will lead to transformation in our food systems. Inclusion of Chiefs, religious and local leaders is also critical. • All programming focusing on agriculture and women needs to be context specific. Research on sustainable agriculture diversification from Malawi indicates that it is not effective to take recommendations wholesale using a one size fits all approach as this will not be successful. For instance, research has shown that even within districts there is a need to have different approaches for effective agriculture programming. All programming must be context specific. • To overcome barriers which constrain women’s access to land and other assets, behaviour change initiatives and mind-set change are key. This is not an option; it is a must. • There is a need for strong gender analyses to inform all activities conducted within food systems programming. GBV is real in agriculture – we must be conscious of it in interventions and ensure that we are addressing this within our programmes. • Promoting joint advocacy: There is a need for stakeholders to work together on one common agenda and common purpose to advocate for women’s rights.236241242245246247249251Guaranteeing women’s rights to land Women’s access to, use of and control over land and other productive resources are essential to ensuring their right to equality and to an adequate standard of living. Throughout the world, gender inequality when it comes to land and other productive resources is related to women’s poverty and exclusion. • There is a need for better reinforcement/implementation of existing laws and policies by the police and judiciary, to protect women. • Women often don’t know their rights. Creating awareness among women on their rights to land and the specific laws that exist can help them to take action when their rights are violated. • Advocate for men’s involvement in gender activities • Access to land is not just about discrimination but is also about money, women’s economic empowerment through Small & Medium Enterprise (SME) activities can help them to purchase land. • To overcome barriers to women’s access to land and other assets, behaviour change initiatives and mind-set change are key. This is not an option; it is a must. • Involvement of local and religious leaders in advocating for land rights is key. For example, Chiefs in Malawi are the custodians of much of the land. Chiefs are a key stakeholder when it comes to shifting mind-sets, as they are custodians of social and cultural values. The church also has a big role to play in sensitising their followers. • The economic empowerment of women is a critical enabling factor which supports women to be more involved in decision making at the household and community level. Examples of economic empowerment activities that have been success include IGAs, diversification, irrigation and providing capital for small businesses. • Promoting joint advocacy: There is a need for stakeholders to work together on one common agenda and common purpose to advocate for women’s rights. • Households should be encouraged to own land as a family, for example, the land ownership model in Southern Malawi is joint ownership. • Agriculture policies should respond to gender issues including land ownership. For example, government policies should be able to respond to different contexts such as where land is owned by women or owned by men.2362412422452462472492512. Economic empowerment of women in food systems and addressing women’s unpaid care and agricultural labor burden Women play multiple roles in the food system, as producers, traders, processors, wage workers, consumers and researchers. Pathways to their economic empowerment are going to be different depending on where they are in food systems. New ways of thinking are needed to ensure women’s economic empowerment at scale. • Financial institutions should work with women as individuals in their own right to support them to access loans, and not defer to husbands for permission. • Central banks (Reserve Bank of Malawi) should monitor the percentage of loans accessed directly by women • There is a need for stronger monitoring and enforcement of gender policies such as The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act • Work on behaviour change on social cultural norms is critical. However, there is need to start this work much earlier when children are young, as mindsets once ingrained are difficult to change. • For effective programming, it is important to use the District Based Agricultural Extension Services (DAESS) system for coordination at district level. • The quantity and coverage of extension services was identified as an issue and there is a need to reduce the ratio of farmers to extension workers, as at present this is much too high. The group also observed that there are very few women extension workers. Therefore, many of the extension workers do not fully understand the specific challenges facing women farmers and adapt their support to take account of this. Power relation issues in households also negatively impact women’s ability to access to extension services, as in many instances women are denied access to training because their husbands won’t allow them attend. This results in less agricultural knowledge being passed on to women. • Evidence form Malawi shows that women’s household workload is 7.7 hours compared to 1.2 for men. The group considered the impacts of this and how this time poverty impedes the ability of women to engage in more diverse livelihood and agriculture activities. It also noted how it is social cultural norms that bring about this situation and that these practices start at a very young age. The key to addressing this issue is social behavioural change programming. However, with current social change programming the focus tends to be on adults, not children. Therefore, there is a need to engage with people while they are still young. Possible entry points include schools, churches, and local leaders who can act as agents of change. • There is often a concept of “women’s crops” and “men’s crops” which acts as a barrier to women’s full participation in the value chain. For example, legumes are regarded as women crops but when a market appears for legumes men jump in. Addressing this social practice requires engaging with households as a whole and not just with the head of a household. Support should focus on creating more harmony in the home and getting men to see that women in value chains can have benefits. One approach cited was the “Family Life Approach” which can support families to create a shared vision for the management of households and farms. This approach uses Gender Champions who go to families and work with them on visioning. However, this approach is challenging, resource intensive and relies on the goodwill and personal commitment of champions (lack of incentives for champions). There needs to be more social workers / extension workers who can support gender programming and work with families on gender equity issues. • In general, women are active in the lower parts of the agri-food value chain and have no control over higher value crops. We need to support women to move to the next stage in the value chain so that they move beyond household level and link with markets for high value crops. All work on gender in agriculture needs to make business sense.2362412422462472492513. Women’s voice, leadership and decision making in food systems: how to create gender transformative agriculture and food systems policies while addressing institutional barriers and systemic GBV Women are actively involved in food systems in many roles, but their contributions often go unrecognized and they face many inequities. Part of the problem is that women’s voices are often missing from decision making processes in the food system. Women’s leadership is central to ensuring that women’s needs are well articulated and addressed. • For women’s social movements to be effective it is important to understand the dynamics in the different districts of Malawi and to not take a homogenous approach. In particular, social norms must be addressed. • There is need for a strong gender analysis before engaging in any programming involving women and food systems. This will help programmes to better understand the barriers that are there for women’s movements and the involvement of women in decision making. • It was recommended that public procurements should set aside a proportion of funding to be allocated towards purchasing from women only co-operatives, this will help support the capacity of these cooperatives and help them grow to the next level. • Government programmes such as the Access to Mechanisation programme needs to be looked at with a gender perspective. This will help ensure that the government better understands the barriers that women face in accessing these programmes. • There is a need to monitor expenditure of the national budget with regards to gender.2362412422452472482492514. Access to technologies, including digital technologies There are gaps in access to technologies and this leads to productivity and profitability gaps between male and female owned and managed firms, as well as male and female owned food businesses. Closing this technology gap is critical for making food systems inclusive and equitable. Digital technologies, Artificial Intelligence and other disruptive technologies are expected to play a key role in driving the transformation of food systems. Whether it is accessing information, making payments, accessing markets, or getting insurance for their farms, farmers are relying more and more on technologies. • There is a need to promote technologies which are user friendly to both men and women. For example, some Treadle Pumps are not user friendly to women. Other technologies such as solar are very expensive and not easily accessed by women. • Increase coordination and partnership between service providers and end users, especially women, so that technologies are designed in a way that will work for women. Existing coordination platforms should be used to facilitate this. • Women economic empowerment for accessing the agricultural technologies is important. • There is a need to make better use of existing Research Institutes to design food system technologies that respond to the needs of women. • Support for agriculture research and development should be strengthened by viable public-private partnerships, where both sides see the value in the partnership, indeed there is a lack of research on this viability. At present, within the government’s agriculture budget research is least funded budget line. Funding for research should be increased as this will bring about improvements in food systems. • There is a need for more civic education on the importance of information technologies in order to close the technology gap. Information on technologies which are currently easily accessible should also be made available to women. • Social norms also impact women’s access to and use of technology and need to be addressed, for example, in some communities, a radio is seen as men’s property. • Successful business models can be supported by engaging banks, and other financial service providers. Advocacy for more access to loans, and to strengthen the capacity of women in financial literacy is also important.237241242244247249251There was some debate also on why are we not seeing more gains for women in the southern and central regions where women have more access to productive assets, like land, due to matrilineal systems? It was found that land is just one factor in production. You might have access to land through the matrilineal system, but the final decision maker is still a man, in most cases their uncle. So, women may have access to land but there are other factors which they lack access to such as inputs, labour etc., and together this will produce food system inequalities. Once the food is produced, there are also other challenges at the market like gender inequalities so there is need to look into all the factors of food production and not only land. One group discussion considered whether Conservation Agriculture can reduce women’s work burden? For example, farmers who are using the Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) / drip kit irrigation method spend less time irrigating their crops. In addition, soil fertility improves, and they have a better yield which reduces the lean season, all contributing to reduce burden on women. However, some conservation techniques like potholing is labor intensive and may increase women’s work burden. Another question raised was on the risks of women empowerment and whether women’s empowerment would increase GBV in the household. Here the importance of ensuring that all programme fully integrate issues of gender and that men are actively engaged in programme delivery were identified as potential ways of addressing these concerns.

2021-08-25 10:19:25204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42006/23

027722880765768104528751038542252144173396185694810

The dialogue was organized jointly by BRAC, CARE Bangladesh, UNFPA, UN Women and WAVE Foundation where CARE was the lead for organizing the event. The dialogue was organized with inclusive participation of multi stakeholders at all level like national and international development organizations, policy makers, private sector players, farmers and business organizations, civil society alliance, media platform, etc. The dialogue has created space to share the challenges faced by the actors of different stages of food systems so that the challenges are reflected into policy interventions at national level to achieve the SDGs by 2030. The dialogue created scope to share experiences from each of stakeholders that will complement and reinforce the efforts of each other we are paying for a stronger food systems in future. The dialogue also amplifies the voices of grassroots to fit into wider level policy actions. The joint initiative of the dialogue accelerated the process of engagement to promote innovative and new ideas in food systems for systems level changes.The dialogue was conducted virtually due to COVID and was divided into five breakout sessions to discuss about five thematic areas to focus on specific aspects of food systems- i) Impact of COVID-19 on Women in Food Systems and Agriculture ii) Impact of Climate Change and Shocks on Women across the Food Systems and Resilience iii) Social protection and sustainable livelihoods for women through resilient food systems iv) Young Girls and Women and their SRHR in the context of Food Systems and Climate Change v) Access to Productive Resources for Women in Agriculture as Producers and Farm Laborers. The group discussion brought out a diverse perspectives of government and communities including indigenous practices, science based evidence that enable stakeholders to understand and assess potentials to design policy options.The principles of engagement are found very useful as a set of guiding notes to organize such event with multi-stakeholders participation. The principles of engagement support the organizers to align with the vision and objectives of the summit. So, it has been advised for other Dialogue Conveners to follow and practice the principles at all level of the summit.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Women play critical roles in ensuring food security and proper nutrition of families. According to the Labor Force Survey (2016-17), women account for nearly half of the work force in agriculture and nearly 3/4th of the rural female work force is engaged in agriculture in Bangladesh. Despite their crucial role in delivering food security, women are common victims to malnutrition, unhealthy food consumptions, lack of accessibility to necessary healthcare services among other crises. It is essential to recognize the position and challenges of women and formulate action plans accordingly to ensure a sustainable and inclusive food system for the society. This dialogue focused on one of the levers of change of the Summit, which is gender (https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/levers-of-change ); that elevate gender equality, women’s empowerment and the engagement of women across all Action Tracks that includes; women’s rights to land; economic empowerment of women in food systems; unpaid care and agricultural labour burden; women’s leadership in food systems; access to technologies (including digital); changing norms and addressing institutional barriers; and gender-responsive agricultural and food systems policies. Women in rural areas of developing countries are at a disadvantage due to the fact that they do not have access to the same opportunities or resources as men owing to stereotype issues based on gender. There is a gender gap as regards access to certain resources such as: land, energy, technology, loans, and pesticides (file:///C:/Users/NAZNEE~1.RAH/AppData/Local/Temp/Dialnet-TheRoleOfWomenInFoodSecurity-4229912.pdf). Similarly in Bangladesh, there is however wage disparity between men and women and gender gap in the nature of employment. And even, in Bangladesh, women farmers face constraints in expanding their production, as they do not have equal rights over land. Property rights of women and girls fall mainly in the domain of family laws. Most of the family laws including Muslim and Hindu inheritance laws are discriminatory against women. Rules and procedures of khas (public) land distribution also often disempower women. As per Khas land management and distribution policy, single women and widows are not eligible to apply for khas land unless they have "an able-bodied son". Only 15.8% of rural land is owned by women; while one-fourth of that land is effectively controlled by them. The ownership ratio of water-bodies by women is also very insignificant (https://www.thedailystar.net/round-tables/news/womens-contribution-agriculture-and-access-land-covid-19-and-beyond-2040253). Women constitute almost half of the agricultural labor force of Bangladesh, but they still do not have official recognition as farmers. As a result, they also do not have access to the various resources and services that they are deserving of Official recognition of women as farmers, with proper means of identification such as agriculture card is required. For decades, there has been wage discrimination between male and female agriculture laborers. Setting minimum wage rates for agriculture labor (with proper grading for different works) should be in place to eliminate such discrimination. Government has introduced agriculture cards to give farmers better access to inputs and other facilities, but women's limited access to these not only denies them access to a wide range of agricultural services, but also depicts the policy level failure to give women farmers the due recognition they deserve. Restructuring of agricultural policies and management is required to bring all women farmers under the coverage of farmers' cards. Private sector partners (banks, mobile financial service providers) can help GoB to enhance such coverage and access. Experts shared these observations through the discussion during the dialogue and this event will support developing a national vision for the future of women in the food system. This dialogue focused on challenges to discuss and proposed the way forward to mitigate the prevailing gaps.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue arranged separate discussions focused around impact of COVID-19 on women in food systems, impact of climate change and shocks on women, social protection and sustainable livelihood for women, young girls and women in Climate Change, food systems and sexual and reproductive health rights, access to productive resources for women in agriculture. The following overall recommendations came out from the dialogue:  Recognizing women as 'farmer' to ensure access to farm loans, basic services and government incentives/stimulus package  Women friendly mechanization can help reduce women’s workload  Women friendly transportation can help secure women’s mobility.  Consultation with wider stakeholder groups e.g. non-govt. stakeholders may result in better policy outcome  Ensuring access of women smallholder farmers or agri-entrepreneurs to COVID-19 Stimulus Package with affordable terms and conditions  Special Package (Finance and Policy Support) for women entrepreneurs needed to inspire and engage them with advanced stages of agri-value chain (besides the production level)  Ensuring medical education, sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) and food security rights for gender diverse populations like transgender and marginalized populations like sex workers; there should be designated doctors in every hospital to provide basic medical support to this group  Integration of SRHR needed into strengthening food systems and climate adaptation strategies  Women rights need to be protected according to the existing Hindu Family Law  Inject regulation to reduce labor discrimination, increase women’s engagement in the commercial business, bank loan for female farmers and other one stop services236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Impact of COVID-19 on Women in Food Systems and Agriculture: Challenges: • Production vs harvest: Changes in market demand forced many farmers not to yield crops from the field. Women dairy and vegetable farmers were badly hit. (CARE survey 2020) • Volatile market and disrupted supply chain: Women smallholder farmers could not sell major portion of their produce including vegetable, milk due to lockdown in 1st and 2nd phases. Livestock are half sold during the Eid-ul Azha. Women’s mobility and access to market further affected. (CARE survey 2020) • Income erosion and unemployment: 1.08 million jobs were lost. Wage and salary declined from 33% to 49% in major metropolis. (CPD-BILS study 2021) • Food Consumption: FAO described this "crisis within a crisis" for the malnourished population. Price of staple food increases. Women including poor households have to skip meals. Increased school dropout, child marriage become inevitable, • Unpaid care work and violence against women: Women burden of UCW along with domestic violence increased amid pandemic (MJF 2020). Recommendation: • Recognizing women as 'farmer' will provide access to farm loan, basic services and government incentives/ stimulus package. • Transforming conventional social safety net program into Universal Social Protection in the form of income transfer and health insurance for poor including women headed household/ disadvantaged women. • Expanding and deepening public food distribution system (PFDS) for rural and urban informal workers and farmers considering nutrition and health needs of women and children. Provisions could be created for home delivery of mid-day meals during school closure. • Promote rural e-commerce and alternative transportation and supply chain to protect women smallholder farmers/ family farms. • Initiate 'minimum price support' mechanism to protect the interest of farmers. • State should recognize care work and undertake initiatives to redistribute the burden of care work.236239240241242244245246249251Impact of Climate Change and Shocks on Women across the Food Systems and Resilience : Challenges: • Existing policies did not recognize women’s roles as farmers. • Differentiated power relations between men and women undermined their adaptive capacity. • Women are adversely affected by climate change due to their social roles, economic vulnerabilities, discrimination and poverty. • Limited access to technology, marketing and presence in the market place due to women-friendly environment. • Decreases women’s food security and protection due to Climate Change • Inadequate information on women farmers’ contribution in the economy/GDP • Insufficient gender budget and budget expenditure monitoring Recommendation: • Tailored-made weather report should be made accessible for women farmers. Also, they should be equipped to undertake appropriate decision through understanding, assessing and analyzing the situation/report effectively. • More context specific climate-sensitive crop advisory services, easily accessible women-friendly climate-resilient technology, usage of ICT, financial package such as loans, card, insurance etc. should be made available for women farmers to increase overall agricultural activities particularly stemming from female farmers. • Incorporate women’s opinion into various relevant policy planning, formulation and implementation processes. • Provide an appropriate platform to render women raise their concerns on climate change and agriculture. • Engage women in the overall food processing, packaging and gaining access to market.236238240241242244246247249251Social protection and sustainable livelihoods for women through resilient food systems Challenges: • Women lack ownership of resources and access to inputs and support services • The COVID-19 pandemic crisis has magnified these challenges and women are struggling to secure food, since production has been affected due to limited availability of agricultural inputs and services as well as labor force. Recommendation: • Need to ensure that women have effective land ownership so that they have the necessary decision making power as well as control over the food production system and process • Need to provide them necessary training, productive resources (e.g. land, loan, technology), marketing facility, information, and technology support; • Inclusion criteria: according to household service data analysis, some indicators have been -proposed to understand ultra-poor, poor these have been included into directives, there are four pillars in food security these need to be aligned with social security and it should be added & reflected. • Women friendly mechanization is also required to reduce the work load of women • Need to create enabling initiatives for securing women’s mobility through women friendly transportation. • The policy makers need to change their thought process and support them appropriately by conducting a consultation along with the NGOs and other organizations • Indigenous women needs to recognition as farmers and access the relevant services; also get coverage in the social protection programs.236238239241242244246247249251Young Girls and Women and their SRHR in the context of Food Systems and Climate Change Challenges: • Climate change have severe development and humanitarian consequences: • Declining agricultural yields and food production and increased poverty is a huge challenges • Increased poverty and food insecurity driven by climate-related loss of livelihoods will also increase maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality • Woman’s household roles – more responsibility for obtaining clean water, requiring more time and travel by women and girls • Menstruating girls without access to water and sanitary facilities at school are much more likely to drop out of school • Girls no longer in school are at risk of child marriage, especially in economically difficult times Recommendation: • Research should be conducted on the gaps of and interlinkages between climate change, food systems and SRHR for the women and young girls particularly who live in climate affected coastal areas, slums etc. • Ensure SRHR and food security in community level for the young girls who are school drop outs or for the girls who are victims of early marriage • Ensure medical education, SRHR and food security rights for gender diverse populations like transgender, and marginalized populations like sex workers. There should be designated doctors in every hospital for them to give them the basic medical supports • Digital information and device accessibility should be increased in both rural and urban areas. Every deprived woman in slums and rural area should be trained and motivated to the use of digital information and devices. Ensuring the digital security is also a very important factor to take in consideration. • Integration of SRHR into strengthening food systems and climate adaptation strategies • Strengthen individual and community resilience on the issue • Cross fertilization b/w youth network on SRHR and youth network on climate change and food systems • Identify potential protection systems (e.g., education) that can help to reduce child marriage, GBV, etc. • Prepare for growing climate-related displacement, ensuring supports for women and girls and mitigating protection risks • Need to build strong data systems for climate vulnerability, food systems and adaptive capacity, especially for the women and girls236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Access to Productive Resources for Women in Agriculture as Producers and Farm Laborers Challenges:  Despite significant contribution, women have no sectoral recognition, they are not counted in the GDP;  Women have poorer command over productive resources;  A male worker gets BDT 265 to 352 per day while women get only BDT 182 to 214 for the same work; wage discrimination is a challenge and wage inequality has further aggravated during this COVID-19 pandemic Recommendation: • To ensure joint ownership both for women and men on khas land. If needed, necessary amendment in the laws and priority for women-headed family in allocation • Recognition of women farmers in all policies including the Seed Policy • Ensure participation of women in all national committees including the Food Safety Authority • Initiatives for implementing Agriculture Policy addressing women farmers • To ensure land reformation for women's land rights • To ensure capital support for women for participating in value chain mechanism • To establish female market corner in those places where women can get access easily and arrangement of women friendly environment (toilet, breast-feeding corner, etc.) • Provide government facilities (loan, input support, training etc.) for women Agri-producers • To ensure women participation in market committees • To increase women participation in commercial agriculture • Initiatives for abolish the wage discrimination between women and men laborers • Social awareness and movement are essential for ensuring women rights in land and changing cultural values on women mobility • Political process on women farmers' rights is essential • Media should play a crucial role to construct the gender role in the society • To establish one-stop service centers for women producers/entrepreneurs • E-commerce regulatory framework should be introduced • Information should be enriched and available on commercial agriculture • To work together among relevant all stakeholder (government, non-government, CSOs, commercial sectors, etc.)237238239240241242244245246248249250251 Contribution of women in food production and agricultural farming practices should be well recognized which was an extensive debate in the dialogue.  A diverse range of discussion was taken place in the dialogue about ensured market so that the farmers can sell their produces at better price round the year. This is very crucial and prioritized issue for the farmers’ community. The experts shared their views about access to market through facilitating market linkages, community branding of products, collection hub at rural community, etc.  Safe food production and nutrition awareness and training have been discussed as one of the priority issues  Financial inclusion – farmers’ friendly credit facilities should be ensured to optimize production and the use of appropriate inputs at the right time. Flexible repayment system is a critical factors for the agricultural farming households. Due to collateral and complex formal banking procedures, smallholder farmers are lagging behind to avail formal banking services at rural level.  A discussion was held on Strengthening the Public Private Partnership (PPP) across the food systems that needs to be considered for a greater impact and sustainability which includes both backward and forward market linkages.

2021-08-25 12:33:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21152/30

En el marco de los Trabajos de diálogo de la Cumbre Mundial de Sistemas Alimentarios (CMSA), que incluyen a los diálogos independientes, el Movimiento Agroecológico Boliviano – MAB ha convocada a la realización de las Cumbres Independientes de Sistemas Alimentarios (CISA), que pretendieron reunir a actores de todas las partes de los sistemas alimentarios (productores, distribuidores, transformadores, gastrónomos, consumidores, activistas, etc.), llegando a realizar 9 Cumbres departamentales, 4 Cumbres sectoriales y 1 Cumbre Nacional (14 en total). El objetivo fue: Generar espacios de reflexión respecto al estado del Sistema Alimentario actual, para identificar y elaborar propuestas de acción, que permitan lograr sistemas alimentarios agroecológicos, inclusivos y sostenibles en beneficio de la soberanía alimentaria, la salud humana y de la naturaleza, con protagonismo de la producción campesina indígena. Los objetivos secundarios fueron: • Analizar el Sistema Alimentario actual, los efectos en la salud y nutrición de la población, su relación con el modelo de desarrollo, con los sistemas productivos y su dependencia a los intercambios comerciales convencionales. • Elaborar propuestas a nivel local, nacional y mundial para lograr sistemas alimentarios inclusivos, agroecológicos y sostenibles en beneficio de la salud humana y del planeta. Las cumbres se basaron en las 5 vías de acción de la CMSA, que son: 1. Asegurar acceso a comida segura y nutritiva para todos 2. Cambiar a patrones de consumo sostenibles 3. Impulsar una producción positiva para la naturaleza a una escala suficiente 4. Avanzar hacia modos de vida y distribución de valor equitativos 5. Construir resiliencia a vulnerabilidades shocks y tensionesSe han seguido los mecanismos de participación de la CMSA, mediante una convocatoria abierta tanto a la organización cumbres, como a participantes de todos los sectores y edades, del área rural como urbana. Fue un proceso de participación y reflexión colectiva de la sociedad civil, movimientos sociales, campesinos e indígenas y toda la población boliviana, que en un formato de diálogos multi actor

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249250251a. Tema Principal • Sistemas Alimentarios Agroecológicos: Complejas interrelaciones entre actores, ecosistemas, culturas y sociedades, cada uno y una con procesos históricos, características propias y diversas. No están aislados, ni son estáticos, sino que son variables. No existe una definición única y finita, como tampoco existe una forma de comprender el mundo. Reconocimiento y el respeto por la vida, todo lo biofísico y lo social; relaciones de respeto mutuo; creación conjunta y el intercambio de conocimientos. • Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles: Son complementarios a los sistemas alimentarios agroecológicos, que buscan generar resultados positivos para las generaciones presentes y futuras, mediante la seguridad alimentaria para todos y todas, sin poner en riesgo a las bases ambientales. Tienen en común la búsqueda de gestión y conservación de recursos naturales; el uso eficiente de recursos; la equidad social; la resiliencia de las personas y las comunidades; como el fortalecimiento institucional. • Sistemas Alimentarios Familiares, Indígenas y Campesinos: son complementarios a los sistemas alimentarios agroecológicos, ya que estos se caracterizan por un respeto a las tradiciones históricas culturales; la provisión de alimentos a nivel local como principal objetivo; el intercambio de semillas y conocimientos; la autosuficiencia y la redistribución de recursos. • Sistemas Alimentarios Agroindustriales: Los sistemas alimentarios agroecológicos (como los sistemas alimentarios familiares campesinos y los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles) no son compatibles ni complementarios con los sistemas alimentarios agroindustriales. Se basan en: la maximización de ganancias económicas a corto plazo para grupos oligárquicos empresariales, convirtiendo a los sistemas alimentarios en un negocio (agro negocio); Paquetes tecnológicos patentados (como maquinaria pesada, semillas genéticamente modificadas, agroquímicos, etc.); Expansión de tierras para monocultivos a costa de bosques, ecosistemas vulnerables y territorios indígenas; Procesamiento a gran escala y el comercio principalmente para exportación; Distanciamiento entre actores con una importante intervención de intermediarios; Alta concentración de tierras agrícolas en personas con suficiente poder adquisitivo y capacidad de inversión; Alto apoyo estatal e institucional en subvenciones; Severa deforestación; contaminación de agua, suelos y aire; infertilidad de suelos; desplazamiento de comunidades indígenas y campesinas; desaparición de especies alimentarias nativas; amenazas a animales silvestres en vulnerabilidad; intoxicación de polinizadores; aparición de plagas; desequilibrios eco sistémicos; inequidad de acceso a la tierra. • Propuestas a la Cumbre Mundial de Sistemas Alimentarios: Que se ocupe de incluir a la soberanía alimentaria y la agroecología como ejes transversales de transición hacia sistemas alimentarios que cuiden la vida. Que adopte enfoques agroecológicos en favor de la equidad social, apoyando las transiciones hacia sistemas alimentarios inclusivos y participativos, otorgando un papel central a los grupos vulnerables e históricamente marginados. Las empresas responsables de vulnerar derechos humanos e invadir territorios y comunidades, no tienen la legitimidad de construir un proceso colectivo.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251Vía de Acción 1 • Restricción a la oferta globalizada de productos ultra procesados y dependencia de importaciones • Deben reconocerse los daños a la salud y al ambiente de los productos ultra procesados, y proponer políticas para su regulación, como medidas fiscales, etiquetados frontales de advertencia, límites a su publicidad en todos medios • Fortalecer la presencia estatal y los mecanismos de control en frontera para limitar y restringir el ingreso de alimentos de países vecinos, que compiten con la producción nacional • Promover políticas programas y acciones (como campañas) de fomento a la sustitución del consumo de productos importados por alimentos transformados locales • Elevar aranceles a productos de consumo no alimenticio, como azúcares y dulces, para limitar su oferta a gran escala • Autoabastecimiento mediante las estrategias de producción y consumo comunitarios, limitando así la demanda a la vez de aportar a la oferta de alimentos agrícolas y naturales • En situaciones de emergencia, el apoyo a la sociedad civil con donaciones y subsidios de alimentos deben ser con productos sanos y nutritivos, adecuados a la región y cultura locales • Rescate de saberes alimentarios permite la apropiación de las mismas comunidades para reforzar su identidad local • El Ministerio de Cultura, las Gobernaciones y los Municipios deben comprometerse con políticas para patrimonializar y revalorar la identidad alimentaria tradicional • Impulsar desde los municipios la masificación de la producción urbana y periurbana para fortalecer el acceso a alimentos sanos mediante el autoconsumo y el intercambio • Compras estatales sostenibles destinadas a programas alimentarios generando beneficios a los proveedores • Los consumidores requieren capacitación y organización para hacer un mejor control de calidad y apoyar a los pequeños productores, así como participar activamente en campañas de difusión y comunicación • Fortalecer los Sistemas de Garantía basados en la confianza y en la creación de un tejido social local de gran dinamismo Via de Acción 2 • Programas y políticas integrales, que rescaten y protejan los conocimientos y las prácticas ancestrales • En combinación con las nuevas tecnologías de información y comunicación (TICs) • Promover un diálogo de saberes campo-ciudad e intergeneracional • Turismo Comunitario y las Rutas Turísticas como factor complementario • Educación alimentaria es transversal y debe ser incluida de forma oficial como no oficial en todas las etapas de la vida • Institucionalidad de generación de conocimiento, como centros de educación e investigación gastronómica y nutricional, con enfoque agroecológico • Normativa nacional y municipal que regule la alimentación escolar, fomentando recreos y kioscos saludables, como huertos escolares • Información veraz y accesible sobre los sistemas alimentarios, orientada a revelar los impactos ambientales y en la salud de la agroindustria • Limitar las propagandas, el marketing y la publicidad engañosa • Promoción urgente de la disminución de la producción y del consumo de carne • Visibilizar e informar las alternativas de alimentos de origen vegetal • Promocionar los productos locales estratégicos de todas las ecorregiones • Promocionar los productos locales estratégicos de todas las ecorregiones Via de Acción 3 • Rechazamos contundentemente los monocultivos y proponemos el retorno a la diversificación de los sistemas de Vida • Respeto a Bolivia como centro de origen de diversidad biológica y cultural • Que el Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, genere en diálogo con la sociedad civil una Estrategia de Transición Agroecológica y Regeneración de la Madre Tierra • Orientar inversiones a través de políticas, programas y proyectos que apalanquen y fortalezcan acciones de la sociedad, organizaciones productivas, asociativas y comunitarias reconociendo su autonomía • Política Nacional de Desarrollo y Acceso a BioInsumos y otras Tecnologías • Una gestión sostenible, regenerativa y estratégica de los suelos, bosques, agua, biodiversidad y todos los recursos y bienes comunes • Modelos productivos basados en sistemas agroforestales, sistemas silvopastoriles, ganadería sostenible y respeto a la autonomía y autodeterminación • la conservación y regeneración de los recursos y bienes comunes • Velar por los recursos colectivos de los bosques, asegurando su accesibilidad a comunidades indígenas • Acelerar y completar el proceso de saneamiento de los territorios indígenas • Regulación y fiscalización de los mecanismos de mercado que permiten el despojo de las poblaciones tradicionales de sus tierras • Fiscalizar y penalizar el uso de las semillas OGMs • Promover la fiscalización conjunta entre INIAF y Ministerio de Medioambiente de los sembradíos de maíz transgénicos • Las semillas deben circular libremente a través de donación, trueque o compras privadas o institucionales • Regulación más contundente de los agrotóxicos • Acceso a tecnologías adecuadas, culturalmente apropiadas y energéticamente limpias para transformar alimentos • Reconversión de los suelos degradados de los espacios urbanos y periurbanos • Ciudades con estrategias de abastecimientos más allá de sus fronteras • Fomento y financiamiento de líneas de investigación y desarrollo tecnológico con enfoque en las siguientes dimensiones: tecnologías agroecológica, campesina, indígena y comunitaria; uso de metodologías participativas Via de Acción 4 • Acortar las brechas de desigualdad dentro de los sistemas alimentarios • Que los productores y productoras del sector agroecológico mejoren sus condiciones236238239240241242243244246247248249250251• El MAB llevó a cabo 14 Diálogos o Pre-Cumbres (9 departamentales y 4 sectoriales) virtuales y presenciales, más 1 Cumbre Nacional. Los diálogos fueron inclusivos y participativos, con el objetivo de construir conjuntamente un camino en común hacia sistemas alimentarios agroecológicos, de forma independiente de partidos políticos y cualquier tipo de injerencias político-económicas. • Hubo una apropiación social del proceso por parte de organizaciones sociales. • El documento final es una “Agenda de la Sociedad Civil Hacia la Transición Ecológica de Sistemas Alimentarios”. • La Agenda del MAB se enfocán en los Sistemas Alimentarios Agroecológicos (SAE), reconociendo su existencia y manejando al concepto en plural. Además, menciona que hay una complementariedad entre los SAE, los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles y los Sistemas Alimentarios Familiares, Indígenas y Campesinos. • Señala el rol del Estado (y todos los gobiernos de turno) en la expansión del Sistema Alimentario Agro industrial, ya que este actor central otorga apoyo discursivo, político y normativo, además de ser su aliado directo. • Se busca salir de la mirada reduccionista que pone a la producción como centro de los sistemas alimentarios. Por ello, la agenda incluye a más sectores, como consumidores, agricultura urbana, intermediarios, comerciantes • Se demanda la inclusión transversal de la agroecología y de la soberanía alimentaria; un reconocimiento de los actores más vulnerables y marginados; y se denuncia que las empresas responsables de estas detrás de la agroindustria no son aceptadas como legítimas para ser marte de este proceso. • La Agenda del MAB puntualiza problemas que deben ser detenidos urgentemente, sin lugar a negociación: los OGMS, los agroquímicos, la deforestación, las importaciones baratas y contrabando, la ampliación de la frontera agrícola, la producción a gran escala para exportación, los incendios forestales, la producción de biodiesel, la apropiación de tierras comunitarias, la explotación a pueblos indígenas y mujeres, ni la privatización y patentado de semillas. • El MAB no concreta indicadores específicos para los sistemas alimentarios, pero sugiere una propuesta más inclusiva, que es la construcción conjunta de indicadores a través de un Observatorio Independiente Multiactor.

2021-08-25 12:59:32260https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42048/14333881126147181

12123201545131535345136154

CPLP Member States developed these Dialogues within CPLP’s institutional architecture for governance of Food Systems , established in the guidelines of the CPLP Food Security and Nutrition Strategy (ESAN-CPLP) and currently in force at the Member States National Councils for Food Security and Nutrition (FSN). This process was validated at the CPLP Council for Food Security and Nutrition (CONSAN-CPLP) meeting, held in Luanda on 15 July 2021, and at the XIII CPLP Summit of Heads of State and Government, held on 17 July, also in Luanda, Angola.

Yes

234238239240241242244246247249Territorial approach and governance for the transformation of Food Systems The CPLP Member States recognise a lack of progress in reducing hunger and malnutrition in all its forms due to an array of factors which call for a transformation of Food Systems. They also recognise several paths to build resilience, to overcome the driving forces of this situation and help transform Food Systems. Any path requires adequate governance, a multidisciplinary approach and coherent sets of complementary policies and investments, determined within the framework of public institutions created for this purpose, with the participation of all relevant actors. For this reason, a priority issue for the transformation of the Food System is the need to reinforce its governance architecture at different territorial levels, with greater coherence in the actions involving its subsystems, i.e., agrifood, environment, health, and social protection at the different levels of political and operational decision-making (local, national, regional, and global). CPLP Food Security and Nutrition Strategy (ESAN-CPLP) framework has already implemented a coherent architecture for the governance of the Food System at the Community level. In this regard, the CPLP Member States: • Recommend a territorial approach to food systems governance in national policies, programs, and projects related to the five lines of action of the Summit, namely: i) ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all; ii) shift to sustainable consumption patterns; iii) boost nature positive production; iv) promote equitable livelihoods and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress; • Emphasise the importance of a multi-level architecture for the governance of the Food System, centered on the United Nations Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and on supranational, national, and local platforms articulated within the framework of the decentralisation processes underway in most countries. This inclusive, multi-level, and multi-actor architecture reaching different levels, actors, and spaces can help to strengthen the coordination, coherence, and alignment of policies and programs for more sustainable Food Systems while building trust and security through inclusive solutions; • Promote more significant involvement of local authorities in the construction of local food policies and Food System governance mechanisms, considering the relevant role of cities and the new relationships between urban and rural areas.235238239240241242244245246247249The CPLP Member States recognise a lack of progress in reducing hunger and malnutrition in all its forms due to an array of factors which call for a transformation of Food Systems. They also recognise several paths to build resilience, to overcome the driving forces of this situation and help transform Food Systems. Any path requires adequate governance, a multidisciplinary approach and coherent sets of complementary policies and investments, determined within the framework of public institutions created for this purpose, with the participation of all relevant actors. For this reason, a priority issue for the transformation of the Food System is the need to reinforce its governance architecture at different territorial levels, with greater coherence in the actions involving its subsystems, i.e., agrifood, environment, health, and social protection at the different levels of political and operational decision-making (local, national, regional, and global). CPLP Food Security and Nutrition Strategy (ESAN-CPLP) framework has already implemented a coherent architecture for the governance of the Food System at the Community level.2362382392402412422442462472482491) Adoption of active measures to encourage sustainable production and national food consumption and reduce the consumption of food products with a negative impact on the nutritional situation of the population The CPLP Member States have not been immune to the global trend of increasing dissociation between people’s eating habits and local production: the growing dependence on globalised food chains contributes to the change in the nutritional and health profile of their people, increasing overweight and obesity, diabetes, and other food-related chronic diseases. In this regard, the Member States: • Recommend the reinforcement of actions to strengthen national family farming, including specific legislation, national registries of producers, and measures for their positive discrimination in the access to financial resources and public markets. Within the framework of the CPLP, such actions shall reinforce the commitments of the Community celebrated in the Lisbon Charter, in the Guidelines for the Support and Promotion of Family Agriculture in the Member States, in the Declaration of Rights of Peasants and other people living in Rural Areas (2018) and other commitments made in the UN Decade of Family Farming (https://www.cplp.org/id-5004.aspx); • Recommend financing for food and nutrition education actions and adopting fiscal policy measures for the reduction of consumption of ultra-processed foods with a negative impact on health. The adoption of these policies aims at reducing health costs borne by the States that result from the increase in the prevalence of diseases related to inadequate nutrition by promoting domestic production of quality food and improve diets of groups in a situation of greater vulnerability to malnutrition. 2) Development of cross-sectoral national programmes to promote sustainable territorial Food Systems and healthy diets The CPLP Member States recognise the multidimensional and multi-level (local-national-international) nature of the challenges currently posed to promoting a sustainable food system. They also recognise the need to implement intersectoral or even multi-sectoral policies and programmes to promote sustainable territorial Food Systems and healthy diets. Given the transversal nature of FSN, these policies and programmes should involve health, education, agriculture, environment, economy, and tourism, among others, in a coordinated manner. Therefore, there is the need to work at various territorial levels to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions. In this regard, and based on the lessons learned from the pilot initiatives developed under the CPLP Initiative to Promote Food Systems and Healthy Diets, they recommend: • Integrated actions involving several territorial levels to strengthen capacities of young people and rural women for entrepreneurship in sustainable food systems; increasing sustainable food production; reduction of food waste; risk reduction; diversification and greater access to markets (urban, quality, public procurement) for smaller producers; strengthening and decentralisation of food purchases for national food, health, and school nutrition programs; positive discrimination in public procurement from local farmers using sustainable methods and producing food with better nutritional quality; reinforcement of research and innovation based on traditional and scientific knowledge; reinforcement of rural extension to producers and support their access to fundamental goods and services including land, water, credit, education, and health, among others necessary in each particular context; • Expand joint initiatives to promote sustainable territorial Food Systems in all Member States. These initiatives will include pilot programs to promote sustainable territorial Food Systems and healthy diets, considering each national context and contemplating its means of financing. These actions will make it possible to improve coordination between public actors and to strengthen farmers' capacities and consumers' knowledge. It will also generate lessons learned to enhance policies and programs discussions within National Food Security and Nutrition Councils

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CPLP-Dialogues_CPLP-contribution-to-UNFSS-dialogues-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PR6_Recomendacoes-do-CONSAN-CPLP-1.pdfhttps://www.cplp.org/id-4665.aspxhttps://alimentacplp.com/home/

2021-08-26 00:52:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26610/1633464961120144195

105105

La Red de Ciudades Intermedias y Sistemas Agroalimentarios (La Red), con el apoyo de FAO, convocó e invitó a distintas ciudades intermedias del continente que están comprometidas con la puesta en marcha de políticas públicas que favorezcan la implementación de sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles.La Red trabajó de tal forma que se garantizara la realización de un diálogo interactivo y participativo entre las ciudades asistentes, con el objetivo de intercambiar experiencias, buenas prácticas e información basada en evidencia sobre las políticas públicas que las ciudades están implementando en esta materia.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249Las denominadas ciudades intermedias albergan al 20% de la población mundial y a un tercio del total de la población urbana y constituyen un factor fundamental de amortiguación ante los desafíos que enfrentan las grandes metrópolis. La pandemia del Covid19 puso en evidencia los problemas existentes en torno al desarrollo humano, los aspectos de logística, transporte, producción de alimentos y el vínculo de las ciudades con los espacios verdes. Es urgente comprender las causas fundamentales de la vulnerabilidad existente y promover políticas, planificación y medidas para movilizar los recursos locales, nacionales e internacionales en torno a estos desafíos. Tomando en consideración los planteos de los municipios y otros actores locales, que apunten a establecer mecanismos de coordinación entre las diferentes partes y eslabones del sistema alimentario. En este sentido, la función de las ciudades intermedias como amortiguador entre las zonas rurales y urbanas es fundamental, en el entendido de que son espacios y territorios de coordinación que facilitan instalaciones, centros logísticos y servicios básicos para la producción sostenible de alimentos y la economía circular. Es en este contexto que un grupo de ciudades intermedias de Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, México, Perú y Uruguay han conformado la Red de Ciudades Intermedias y Sistemas Agroalimentarios que busca avanzar en la construcción de una Agenda Urbana Alimentaria con la perspectiva de vincular el sistema de producción de alimentos con la política territorial. El Diálogo Independiente sobre Ciudades Intermedias y Sistemas Agroalimentarios tuvo como objetivo visibilizar el rol de los gobiernos locales en la construcción de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles tanto en el contexto de pandemia como post pandemia. El diálogo abordó aspectos vinculados a la planificación e interacción entre lo nacional y subnacional para el mejoramiento de los entornos alimentarios; las cadena de suministro eficiente y la promoción de la economía circular; la soberanía alimentaria y la seguridad nutricional de la población; el fortalecimiento de la producción sostenible de alimentos en la agricultura familiar y promoción de las cooperativas y otras formas de organización social para la comercialización; la incorporación de innovación y tecnología del sistema agroalimentario en ciudades pequeñas e intermedias; y la disponibilidad de información basada en evidencia, resaltando el rol de las áreas urbanas y su influencia en el territorio rural. Las discusiones mantenidas en relación con la agricultura urbana y los mercados locales enfatizaron que en los próximos años será clave avanzar en alternativas de funcionamientos agroalimentarios, garantizar abastecimientos en las ofertas de productos e innovar en las formas de comercialización que se efectúan actualmente. Los grupos de trabajo abordaron las acciones y compromisos que las ciudades intermedias deben tomar en los próximos 10 años y que impacten directamente en la Agenda 2030. Asimismo, se acordó que se deben tomar decisiones en base a las conclusiones de los estudios desarrollados sobre agroecología, adaptación al cambio climático, inocuidad agroalimentaria y la gobernanza de los sistemas agroalimentarios.235238239240241242243244245246248249El principal resultado o hallazgo de este diálogo fue el visibilizar el rol que juegan las ciudades intermedias, en el contexto de pandemia y post pandemia, en materia de producción de alimentos, así como en las acciones para garantizar el derecho a la alimentación de las personas que habitan sus territorios y zonas metropolitanas a las que acceden. Quedó de manifiesto la necesidad de fortalecer los lazos de cooperación entre las ciudades de la red e intercambios de buenas prácticas relativas a la implementación de políticas de sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles y efectivas. En ese sentido, un elemento clave es la necesidad de acceso a financiamiento para mejorar las infraestructuras relacionadas con los corredores logísticos, los mercados de abastecimiento y la mejora de las condiciones de comercialización de los productores locales. Se destacó el rol de los gobiernos locales en la ayuda y asistencia alimentaria a los sectores vulnerables y afectados en sus condiciones de empleo, ingreso y seguridad alimentaria durante la pandemia. Los gobiernos locales de la red realizan acciones de asistencia alimentaria a través de diversas modalidades. Asimismo, se destacó la importancia de establecer vías de trabajo conjunto con los gobiernos nacionales que permitan garantizar una implementación exitosa de las políticas locales sobre sistemas agroalimentarios y seguridad alimentaria. Por último, se consideró clave para la implementación de políticas locales sobre sistemas agroalimentarios, trabajar en red con las comunidades y actores sociales determinantes para el cambio social, reconociendo como un obstáculo central la inequidad en el acceso y la distribución de los alimentos.236238239240241242243244246248249250251Tema 1: Agroecología/Producción Sostenible de Alimentos/Agricultura Familiar (Coordinado por Canelones, Uruguay) En este grupo de discusión se entendió que en los próximos años se deberán realizar acciones que permitan avanzar en la promoción de la agroecología en las ciudades intermedias. Estas acciones están relacionadas con: Trabajar en la reducción del costo de alimentos nutritivos. Promoción de la agricultura y el desarrollo rural con innovación y buenas prácticas agrícolas. Profundizar y avanzar en el concepto economía circular, distribución y consumo kilómetro 0 y la cercanía a la producción de los alimentos, situación en la cual las ciudades intermedias con zonas rurales tienen ventajas comparativas. Establecer políticas de apoyo y fomento a la producción agrícola por parte de personas jóvenes y mujeres. Se detallaron diversas buenas prácticas en esta materia vinculadas a i) avanzar en un ordenamiento rural gradual, reconociendo que la producción agroecológica es un desafío para el productor, razón por la cual el apoyo de los gobiernos locales es clave; ii) avanzar en la instalación de huertas urbanas que permitan garantizar la seguridad alimentaria en los territorios; iii) se destacó que algunos gobiernos locales han desarrollado institutos de soberanía alimentaria para implementar políticas públicas y comprar productos locales, iv) generar acopio y distribución garantizando al productor su venta e incluso agregarle valor; v) establecer los espacios campesinos de comercialización y promoción de nuevas variedades. Además, las ciudades intercambiaron sobre el rol de la alimentación escolar y política públicas con medidas concretas. En ese sentido recomendaron la compra de porcentajes mínimos de alimentos orgánicos para los comedores escolares, lo que puede incentivar la producción agroecológica; promoción de las chacras familiares urbanas de autoconsumo y generación de producto agroecológico. Asimismo, se insistió en la importancia de establecer ferias itinerantes que permitan acercar a las personas a la producción local. Por último, se abordaron los desafíos que enfrenta la producción sostenible. En ese sentido, las ciudades acordaron que el sostenimiento del productor familiar es el principal desafío, así como también su entorno social y comunitario juegan un factor clave en la transición a la agroecología. También se identificó como desafío, el poder acercar los productores familiares a los espacios de consumo, así como también avanzar en una regulación de los procesos de producción agropecuaria que permitan una producción agroecológica de largo plazo, apoyando a la producción para personas jóvenes. Finalmente, se entiende que la búsqueda de nuevos suelos para renovar y cultivar es otro desafío importante que enfrentar.236238239240241242243244246247249Tema 2: Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional – SAN (Coordinado por Salta, Argentina) En el marco de las discusiones mantenidas en este grupo, se enunciaron varias acciones que será necesario realizar en los próximos años a efectos de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de las distintas poblaciones de la región. Estas acciones están vinculadas con: la elaboración de una agenda alimentaria para las ciudades intermedias; el acceso de los pequeños productores a los mercados de abastecimiento, puesto que muchas veces quedan fuera de la cadena; el agregado de valor, con la incorporación de tecnología; acortar circuitos en la cadena producción-comercialización; acercamiento de lo rural a la ciudad; el enfoque de género en las políticas alimentarias, el rol protagónico de organizaciones de mujeres y de agricultores; las buenas prácticas de producción y consumo; reducción de la pérdida y desperdicio de alimentos; laeducación alimentaria asociada a la regulación del etiquetado frontal de alimentos. Se destacó el trabajo en red para el seguimiento de las familias con inseguridad alimentaria mediante la asistencia alimentaria directa, como son las ollas populares y merenderos, con el involucramiento de otros actores como la comunidad educativa y el sistema de salud. Tejer redes desde la construcción de comunidad, con respuesta en territorio y atención a las complejidades culturales. En tanto acciones y compromisos a establecer para los próximos 10 años, vinculados con la Agenda 2030, se subraya el objetivo de erradicar y poner fin al hambre amerita tomar diversas decisiones y asumir un conjunto de retos y compromisos, dada la actual situación en pobreza, desnutrición y malnutrición en muchas ciudades de la región y su complejización con la pandemia de la COVID-19. También se enunció la institucionalización de las acciones vinculadas a la SAN como la constitución de Oficinas de seguridad alimentaria. Se planteó sistematizar experiencias con un enfoque de doble vía, es decir, el puente agro-consumo, entre productor y consumidor y la escuela de agricultura alimentaria. Se destacó, también, la nutrición en los primeros años de vida, con atención a embarazadas y niñas y niños menores de 3 años, con visitas domiciliarias, apoyo a la crianza, corresponsabilidad, y alimentación saludable. En este punto se señala como un objetivo a cumplir el garantizar los primeros 1000 días de vida con acompañamiento familiar (personal y a distancia por vía telefónica), alimentación, nutrición, estado nutricional; y el funcionamiento de consejerías que difunden y refuerzan buenas prácticas alimenticias. Se informó, como antecedente, que UNICEF Uruguay dio apoyó para implementar un sistema de mensajería dirigido a poblaciones vulnerables en Canelones, referido a temas de nutrición, salud, etc. A esta perspectiva, se agrega el funcionamiento de centros de capacitación que operan como dispositivos con otras franjas etarias como adolescentes, para medir la seguridad alimentaria, en alianza y articulación entre municipios, actores locales, comunidad educativa y de salud. Sensibilización y empoderamiento a la comunidad. Con relación a los desafíos, se identificó como principal desafío lograr el compromiso de los gobiernos locales con la elaboración y fortalecimiento de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y una mejor nutrición para la población, puesto que se enuncian en varios aspectos la ausencia o déficit de políticas públicas de gobiernos locales en materia de SAN. En este aspecto se subrayan las experiencias de las ciudades que trabajan con este objetivo, para que sean sistematizadas de modo de poder transferirlas. Las ciudades que iniciaron el camino de construir políticas alimentarias lo transitaron con dificultades diversas, desde los procesos administrativos a los propios de gestión, de modo que esa transferencia a ciudades que están en proceso de desarrollo de sus políticas se considera una prioridad. Finalmente se plantea como un reto, consolidar en las ciudades la gobernanza de la seguridad alimentaria, con la implicación de todo un conjunto de actores y aliados, para lograr sistemas alimentarios sostenibles236238239240241242243244246249Tema 3: Agricultura Urbana, Mercados Locales, Ferias, circuitos cortos (Coordinado por Portoviejo, Ecuador) Las discusiones mantenidas en este grupo en relación con la agricultura urbana y los mercados locales enfatizaron que en los próximos años será clave avanzar en alternativas de funcionamientos agroalimentarios, garantizar abastecimientos en las ofertas de productos e innovar en las formas de comercialización que se efectúan actualmente. Asimismo, se promovieron buenas prácticas vinculadas a la resiliencia y el asistencialismo; el apoyo a grupos vulnerables mediante el establecimiento de huertas traspatios y muros verdes brindando asesoría técnica efectiva en esta materia utilizando herramientas de crecimiento; garantizar el acceso a la alimentación en tanto derecho humano y, a la promoción de cooperativas de emprendedores y ferias de producción. En lo que refiere a los desafíos identificados, las ciudades participantes acordaron en las dificultades asociadas al diseño e implementación de políticas públicas para la producción alimentaria vinculadas al procesamiento de alimentos; la sostenibilidad climática; el garantizar circuitos alimentarios tanto en la producción como en la sostenibilidad y; la generación de autoempleo. Por último, este grupo entendió que será clave que las ciudades intermedias en los próximos 10 años avancen en acciones y compromisos relacionados con la Agenda 2030 y se trabaje con profundidad en sostenibilidad climática, sostenibilidad alimentaria y se implementen proyectos y planes que garanticen y beneficien a las comunidades y promuevan su desarrollo sostenible.236238239240241242243244245246248249250Tema 4: Gobernanza de Sistemas Alimentarios locales, mecanismos de discusión e intercambio (Coordinado por Huancayo, Perú) En el marco de las discusiones mantenidas en este grupo, se enunciaron varias acciones que será necesario realizar en los próximos años referidas a la gobernanza de sistemas alimentarios locales. Estas acciones están vinculadas con: la creación de mercados de cercanía y circuitos cortos para la agricultura familiar, para evitar los altos costos, generar valor agregado y mejorar su economía. mejorar la producción agrícola mediante las prácticas agroecológicas, que garanticen alimentos sanos y nutritivos. fomentar la agroindustria y poner en marcha la producción artesanal. La implementación y promoción de la soberanía alimentaria por parte de los gobiernos mediante las compras públicas, a través de la vinculación de la agricultura familiar a sus poblaciones vulnerables. Para ello debe tener el refuerzo mediante las ordenanzas para ser sostenible. fortalecimiento de mercados, mediante la asociatividad fortalecimiento de la red de la agricultura familiar formando una mesa de desarrollo rural. Fortalecimiento de los actores que integran la cadena de valor. Asimismo, se destacaron buenas prácticas en las cuales se enfatizó que los gobiernos locales con sus propios recursos deben propiciar proyectos productivos para garantizar la cadena de suministro y producción de los alimentos agropecuarios dentro de su propia localidad. La seguridad alimentaria y nutricional debe incluir un enfoque de sistema alimentario en el cual se involucre a todos los actores y se tenga mejor conexión en el territorio, conociendo los roles y funciones de diferentes actores, y liderado por los gobiernos locales. En tanto desafíos, las ciudades resaltaron diversos temas clave a enfrentar en los próximos años, vinculados a: el hambre y la malnutrición la deforestación para lo cual se debe aplicar técnicas con innovación agroecológicas el cambio climático la implementación de las huertas familiares tanto urbanas como rurales el establecimiento de ferias de la agricultura familiar dentro del territorio, que tengan vinculación directa con los consumidores urbanos y sea una alternativa a los intermediarios tradicionales, en las que el gobierno local tenga mayor compromiso y apoyado mediante una ordenanza. Además, se acordó que un reto que mantienen los gobiernos locales es educar en los temas culturales (malos hábitos alimentarios, por ejemplo) con el objetivo de modificar las prácticas de los consumidores mediante campañas de difusión, con más compromiso de la alimentación saludable. Se deberá disminuir la cadena de valor dado que actualmente esta cadena se encarece en el consumidor final. En lo que refiere a la capacitación, se recomienda promover la escuela de campo de agricultores dado que es una metodología desarrolla pasantías dentro del territorio y se generan nuevas prácticas. Por último, y en relación con las acciones y compromisos que las ciudades intermedias deben tomar en los próximos 10 años que impacten directamente en la Agenda 2030, se acordó que se deben tomar decisiones en base a las conclusiones de los estudios desarrollados sobre cambio climático e Inocuidad agroalimentaria que permitan fomentar una correcta gobernanza.237238239240241242243244245246248249En lo que refiere a las divergencias expresadas durante el diálogo, se plantearon cuestiones vinculadas a las ausencias de políticas públicas, o de agendas de gobiernos con escasa centralidad en la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional. En este sentido, el desafío por delante desde la gestión pública y comunitaria está en cómo los gobiernos desarrollan políticas sostenibles e innovadoras, en cómo se consolida una gobernanza entre todos los actores involucrados, y la importancia de la generación de alianzas con organizaciones como FAO, la academia, organizaciones sociales de mujeres y de agricultores y otros, que redunden en el empoderamiento de la propia comunidad. Una agenda de trabajo común debería incluir la producción de alimentos agroecológicos, la inclusión y expansión de suelo agrícola, el fomento a la mano de obra agraria o agro-urbana, y el apoyo a la agricultura familiar, de modo que procuren como resultado la reducción de la inseguridad alimentaria, el bienestar y salud de la población, y la sostenibilidad del ambiente. El diseño e implementación de políticas públicas en el tema bajo discusión, es otro de los temas en los que las ciudades plantearon opiniones divergentes. En ese sentido, algunas ciudades plantearon la inclusión y alineamiento de las necesidades de las poblaciones en distintos territorios para garantizar el acceso efectivo a la alimentación y a las prioridades de cada gobierno, así como también la necesidad de establecer un abordaje integral sobre la desnutrición crónica y la pobreza. Por otra parte, reclamaron identificar cuáles son las poblaciones vulnerables, para implementar una política de producción estable y acceso de alimentos sanos y frescos dentro del territorio. La crisis sanitaria ha mostrado que las ventas móviles y las canastas básicas, en tanto que los municipios fueron los socios estratégicos para los gobiernos centrales, debido a los subsidios que se debieron implementar durante la pandemia. Finalmente, un grupo de ciudades entiende necesario avanzar de manera prioritaria en nuevas políticas vinculadas a la promoción de los mercados locales. Las ciudades se expresaron en torno a que los gobiernos locales deben fomentar los mercados cortos delegando el liderazgo a los actores de la cadena.

2021-08-26 04:48:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41972/40

954816129

We followed the guideline from the Food Summit Dialogue Handbook shared by Mr. Ntiokam Divine, Founder and Director, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network Global (GCSAYN) and UN Food Systems Champion.We tried as much as possible to reflect the local realities of apiculture within the context of Kumbo Central Sub-Division and Bui Division in general. This activity, if well harnessed will act as a socio-economic safety net for food securityConvenors should organise dialogues based on their local realities

Yes

234238240244Our focus was apiculture (bee) farming as an alternative to securing local food security. Apiculture itself is a climate smart activity as it is used as a Nature-based Solution (NbS) and an Ecosystem-based Adaption (EbA) to Climate Change. This is because apiculture farms in places like watersheds become no go zones for trespassing animals and humans. The trees planted for bees to extract nectar are also ecologically friendly, used for Nitrogen fixation and carbon sequestration.235238240244Stages Challenges Solutions Growing Unsustainable land use and agro-chemicals Education and training, watershed protection through apiculture, fire tracing, use of organic manure and planting bee-friendly trees (Nature-based Solutions/Ecosystem-based Adaptation) Honey harvesting Unhygienic practices, inadequate equipment, poor storage Education and training, provision of equipment Processing Inadequate equipment, unhygienic processes, incomplete knowledge Transformation of honey into wines, bees wax into cosmetics Packaging Sub-standard, poor branding, inadequate equipment Provision of packaging equipment Transportation Poor farm-to-market roads Improve farm-to-market roads Marketing Poor Market Information System Regulatory framework Honey consumption High demand, scarcity Increase production Input needs Multiple trainings and equipment Creation of a cooperative and regulatory framework236238239240241242244245248251We had a number of discussion topics: 1) Site and situation of an Apiary: The convenor (Mr. Njodzeka Gilbert) gave the modalities of setting an apiary. He emphasized that places like watersheds which provide multiple ecosystem services to the community 2) Adding value to honey and its byproducts: All the participants made contributions to honey harvesting, processing, packaging and transformation (honey itself, honey wines, beeswax, propolis, etc).237241244251At the beginning of dialogue, the participants were not certain that apiculture could be a veritable source of livelihood diversification and environmental resilience in the face of climate change. At the end, they all realized that it is a climate-smart activity which needs only little financial investment and can yield high dividends. The lone woman who attended the dialogue was encourage to sensitize her peers on the importance of diversifying from their traditional peasant subsistence agriculture (which is not sustainable and environmentally friendly).

2021-08-26 07:37:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21161/98

251015151017221511523

Identification of a problem that became the topic of the dialogue - The topic on managing food loss and waste in Kenya links the food producers and consumers who are all involved in agriculture at either farm production, processing and marketing and policy levels. - The complexity of Food loss and waste in Sub Saharan Africa is that there is not much data and evidence to the extent of food loss among small holder farmers. It is also assumed that there is no food waste since most of the population is pro poor. The reverse is true. The proportions of food loss and food waste almost equal except no data/evidence is available - The dialogue was seeking to link different actors and stakeholders in the food industry and remove silos that limit them to their experiences but rather seek wholesome solutions - The dialogue built on helping the stakeholders seek solutions for their own problems rather than seek external expertise but rather identify problems affecting food systemsAs above.- The topic should be relevant to the audience. - The topic should provoke and catalyse discussions - Convene an audience that is diverse but also involved as stakeholders in the industry ( for an online audience, will help avoid teaching moments, that could be boring/repetitive to others) - Seek an industry authority ( change agent) to help drive interest

Yes

234239244248249250251DISCUSSIONS ON ACTION TRACK 2: SHIFT TO SUSTAINABLE CONSUMABKE PATTERNS IN KENYA Action 2: Food loss and waste Background: Contrary to SDG Goal 2: Zero Hunger, food insecurity and malnourishment plagues hundreds of thousands of Kenyans every day. An estimation of one in three Kenyans (1 in 3) is food poor which translates to 14.5% of the population and one in four Kenyan children under five years (1 in 4) have stunted growth (Source). Kenya is facing increasingly complex food and nutrition security problems and producing and providing food is a power game that its smallholder farmers are losing. Due to this complexity, the long-term sustainability of its food system and its resilience to shocks (and unexpected events) depends on a wide range of local and global drivers. For Kenya’s food systems to provide food security, the food supply needs to be stable both in availability and affordability including through price stability. One of the primary inefficiencies of the global food system is food loss and waste. Food loss happens in various parts of the value chain. Some crops are destroyed in the field before ever making it to market. Other crops are harvested and then spoil on the way to market. Consumers contribute to food waste every time someone goes grocery shopping and throws out fruits and vegetables before eating. It is estimated that almost 30 percent of the world’s agricultural land is devoted to producing food that will never even be eaten because of these inefficiencies. Minimizing food loss can help to increase the amount of food that reaches the market.235239244GAPS, OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS IN FOOD LOSS AND WASTAGE IN KENYA’S FOOD SYSTEMS Break out session 1: Which gaps exist in our food system that contribute to food loss and wastage? • International markets collapse from factors such as pandemics, e.g. COVID-19 or other factors leading to reduced demand of fresh produce from the international markets thus the farmers are left with produce they can’t sell. • Farmers engaging with brokers instead of having standing contracts with exporters can also leave them in the lurch if the brokers do not secure the promised markets. • Attack by pests and diseases at the farm level leading to high post-harvest losses. • Lack of cold-chain and other required storage facilities at production level thus the produce goes bad. • Contamination of milk during milking, transportation or bulking leads to spoilage thus milk loss. • In the farms, farmers not follow guidelines offered in technical assistance such planting timing- i.e. requirement to plant seeds within one weeks of collection of seeds , instead they keep the seeds and plant later on, even after couple of months. This also leads to wastage of food, as the produce will flood the market due to lack of planting coordination. • High cost of Kenyan produce (due to high production costs) in the international markets leads to low demand of the produce thus what is not sold goes to waste. • Exporters not sticking to their commitment to the farmers to sell the contracted amount of produce (VegPro fir instance uses the excess produce for the production of bio-energy and the generated power is even sold to KenGen). • There is a need to strengthen food systems from the grass root level, improving the capacity of the farmers and this will help reduce food loss and wastage • Food safety is not taken seriously by the farmers especially when it comes to meeting the international standards and requirement on the food production systems such as use of pesticides. If these are not followed, there is a high rejection rate of the produce which then goes to waste. • Poor adherence by farmers to international markets requirements. • Limited or low value addition of the exported produce. • Lack of supporting policies and strategies on export of value added produce and poor regulatory environment. • Lack of certification systems for export produce. • Poor local, national and international market access for all agricultural products. The challenging marketing environment does not favor or support farmers. • Low government support to the food system supply chain. Break out session 3: Potential barriers in food loss and pathways to addressing them Barriers identified • Limited funding. Only 4 % of the national budget goes to the agricultural sector in Kenya and 10% in Uganda yet it’s the mainstay of the two countries’ economies. This affects investment into food storage systems such as silos and other off farm activities. • Technology: Donors and governments focus on investing in interventions that enhance technology at farm level mainly in cereals and horticultural crops and little is done for off farm activities with processors, manufacturers and consumers. In addition, governments have not fully promoted innovations around local technologies especially for cereal crops and existing storage facilities are not affordable which greatly affects the shelf life of the products in local and export markets. • Regulation: Governments have not fully enforced use of the right innovations and standards aimed at promoting reduction of food losses at farm and market levels. For example, all the players in cereals and potato value chains in Kenya should be mandated by law to use the newly recommended storage bags and embrace use of silos. • Uncoordinated value chain actors. There is a gap by the actors to better understand market specifications, requirements and standards to inform their investment activities while dealing with post-harvest handling challenges. Also, focus is majorly on farm level activities to enhance production and aggregation and little is done by transporters, processors and food manufacturers to support reduction of post-harvest losses, storage and understanding consumer needs. • Low community involvement. Most interventions funded are not contextualised, and there is a mismatch between community needs and solutions provided to address food losses for example the solar driers provided by a UNDP project in Nakuru county and other 7 counties are not functional. Pathways identified • Improve coordination. Currently, bodies such as KEPSA, ACEA, ASNET and farmer organisations are in place. They need to be strengthened to provide consultative input to improve advocacy, production and strengthening capacities of their members to invest in systems that reduce post-harvest losses. • Rollout the warehouse receipt system initiatives. This government initiative has worked so well in the cereal sector and should be replicated to other industries in Kenya. Interventions were informed by a food assessment report conducted in 2012 whereby out of 37 million bags of cereals produced, 12% ended up as waste. Interventions promoted were geared towards increasing access to skills in post-harvest handling, access to financial services and reliable markets. • E-commerce. Focus on programmes that support start-ups whose aim is reducing post-harvest losses and scale up.236244248250251Break out session 3: Potential barriers in food loss and pathways to addressing them Barriers identified • Limited funding. Only 4 % of the national budget goes to the agricultural sector in Kenya and 10% in Uganda yet it’s the mainstay of the two countries’ economies. This affects investment into food storage systems such as silos and other off farm activities. • Technology: Donors and governments focus on investing in interventions that enhance technology at farm level mainly in cereals and horticultural crops and little is done for off farm activities with processors, manufacturers and consumers. In addition, governments have not fully promoted innovations around local technologies especially for cereal crops and existing storage facilities are not affordable which greatly affects the shelf life of the products in local and export markets. • Regulation: Governments have not fully enforced use of the right innovations and standards aimed at promoting reduction of food losses at farm and market levels. For example, all the players in cereals and potato value chains in Kenya should be mandated by law to use the newly recommended storage bags and embrace use of silos. • Uncoordinated value chain actors. There is a gap by the actors to better understand market specifications, requirements and standards to inform their investment activities while dealing with post-harvest handling challenges. Also, focus is majorly on farm level activities to enhance production and aggregation and little is done by transporters, processors and food manufacturers to support reduction of post-harvest losses, storage and understanding consumer needs. • Low community involvement. Most interventions funded are not contextualised, and there is a mismatch between community needs and solutions provided to address food losses for example the solar driers provided by a UNDP project in Nakuru county and other 7 counties are not functional. The community does not have the required skills to operate the equipment provided to them. Pathways identified • Improve coordination. Currently, bodies such as KEPSA, ACEA, ASNET and farmer organisations are in place. They need to be strengthened to provide consultative input to improve advocacy, production and strengthening capacities of their members to invest in systems that reduce post-harvest losses. • Rollout the warehouse receipt system initiatives. This government initiative has worked so well in the cereal sector and should be replicated to other industries in Kenya. Interventions were informed by a food assessment report conducted in 2012 whereby out of 37 million bags of cereals produced, 12% ended up as waste. Interventions promoted were geared towards increasing access to skills in post-harvest handling, access to financial services and reliable markets. • E-commerce. Focus on programmes that support start-ups whose aim is reducing post-harvest losses and scale up their operations to address conventional challenges. This can be done through incubation support, promoting matchmaking businesses, increasing access to funding and technology. • Promote innovative renewable sources of energy – e.g. solar.236238239Break out session 1: Which gaps exist in our food system that contribute to food loss and wastage? • International markets collapse from factors such as pandemics, e.g. COVID-19 or other factors leading to reduced demand of fresh produce from the international markets thus the farmers are left with produce they can’t sell. • Farmers engaging with brokers instead of having standing contracts with exporters can also leave them in the lurch if the brokers do not secure the promised markets. • Attack by pests and diseases at the farm level leading to high post-harvest losses. • Lack of cold-chain and other required storage facilities at production level thus the produce goes bad. • Contamination of milk during milking, transportation or bulking leads to spoilage thus milk loss. • In the farms, farmers not follow guidelines offered in technical assistance such planting timing- i.e. requirement to plant seeds within one weeks of collection of seeds , instead they keep the seeds and plant later on, even after couple of months. This also leads to wastage of food, as the produce will flood the market due to lack of planting coordination. • High cost of Kenyan produce (due to high production costs) in the international markets leads to low demand of the produce thus what is not sold goes to waste. • Exporters not sticking to their commitment to the farmers to sell the contracted amount of produce (VegPro fir instance uses the excess produce for the production of bio-energy and the generated power is even sold to KenGen). • There is a need to strengthen food systems from the grass root level, improving the capacity of the farmers and this will help reduce food loss and wastage • Food safety is not taken seriously by the farmers especially when it comes to meeting the international standards and requirement on the food production systems such as use of pesticides. If these are not followed, there is a high rejection rate of the produce which then goes to waste. • Poor adherence by farmers to international markets requirements. • Limited or low value addition of the exported produce. • Lack of supporting policies and strategies on export of value added produce and poor regulatory environment. • Lack of certification systems for export produce. • Poor local, national and international market access for all agricultural products. The challenging marketing environment does not favor or support farmers. • Low government support to the food system supply chain.

https://www.farmafrica.org/latest/news/post/981-unfss-independent-dialogue-on-food-loss-and-waste-in-kenya 2021-08-30 16:00:59https://www.farmafrica.org/latest/news/post/981-unfss-independent-dialogue-on-food-loss-and-waste-in-kenya

2021-08-26 14:52:24205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39019/202

208027127504102104274108291113731023102030454221113175218011010203312

The dialogue was organised in the true spirit of the principles of the Summit. An interdisciplinary group of stakeholders registered for the meeting which was held online because of COVID-19 regulations. They were given a report on the findings from stage 1 and 2 and communication about the dialogue, the principles of engagement and the Summit was shared. Stakeholders were encouraged to select the breakaway room of their choice where they would be more comfortable and are willing to commit towards. In the breakaway rooms participants were reminded and made aware of the principles of engagement, to understand the complexity of the dialogues, to engage with each other with respect and for the members to share their ideas freely.Various stakeholders were involved to participate in the dialogue. The multisector national dialogue was convened by the Hon. Minister Dr. A. J. Masuka (Min of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Resettlement) and Curated by Dr D Kutywayo following the 7 UNFSS principles of engagement. The minister indicated that Zimbabwe is committed to food systems transformation and the need for a multisectorial approach to attain sustainability. A total of 19 stakeholder groups were represented in the dialogue. To ensure active participation stakeholders were allowed to join desired breakaway room relevant to their interests and intentions. Communication was shared with all stakeholders to submit their statements of commitments and intentions through the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Reseetlement and consultants. The UN Resident Coordinator, Ms Maria do Valle Ribeiro urged all the stakeholders to be involved in the dialogues and help transform food systems in Zimbabwe.Continuous feedback and engagement with the stakeholders beyond the UN Food systems summit are important. This would strengthen the inter-relations created during the dialogues

NoNO. Due to the COVID-19 related restrictions, a virtual National Stage 3 Food Systems Synthesis Dialogue was hosted on the 18th of August 2021 from 9AM-1PM CAT and curated by Dr D. Kutywayo. A total of 208 members’ registered for the meeting using a google form that was shared by the National Convener (Hon. (Dr) AJ Masuka). Invites and reminder emails were sent out attaching the agenda and some of the findings from stage 1 and 2. On the day of the dialogue, • Remarks by UN Resident Coordinator, Ms Maria Ribeiro congratulating Zimbabwe on joining other countries in this series of dialogue and appreciated the diversity in the dialogues and explained its merits. She pointed out that sustainable food systems are important to reach zero hunger for all and that it is important to engage the youth in these food summit dialogues. She urged all key stakeholders to be involved. • Official Opening was done by the Convener, Hon, Minister AJ Masuka giving the background of the UNFSS. Zimbabwe has held stage 1 and 2 dialogues which raised key issues that are important for Agriculture and Food Systems Transformation. In his concluding statement, the Minister states that he food system transformation agenda is important for our country because we have faced perennial food insecurity as a result of climate change induced low production and productivity. The UNFSS offers Zimbabwe an opportunity to reshape agriculture production systems, storage and postharvest handling, food distribution channels, food environment and consumption patterns. There is need to address the current inherent weakness and inequalities within our current foods systems as the nation pursues the global drive to eliminate hunger and all forms of malnutrition by the year 2030. • Dr Tonderayi Matsungo (Consultant) gave a Presentation on Key Outcomes from Stage 1 & 2 and Independent Dialogues. He also discussed the findings of the independent dialogues. Key issues and proposed pathways that were extracted from discussions in stage 1 and 2 were projected. • Dr D Kutywayo opened up the Break Away Session Discussions. The curator led the facilitators in sharing the findings, solutions and commitments from the breakaway sessions. • Statement of Commitments to the Zimbabwe Food systems transformation agenda were delivered by Government departments, UN Resident Coordinator, Private sector, Civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Focus of this dialogue was to engage the various stakeholders on the issues raised through consultations, in stage 1 and stage dialogues. This stage aimed to shape Zimbabwe’s pathways for transforming agriculture and food systems to achieve sustainable food systems by 2030, and to identify the intentions and commitments of different stakeholders. In addition the were also structured into five sub themes or action tracks as listed below: 1. Action Track 1: National Food safety regulations ensure all consumers have access to comprehensive information about how and where food is produced, empowering them to make informed choices. 2. Action Track 2: Sustainable supply chains ensure a responsible use of natural resources, healthy food choices and a reduction of food loss and waste. 3. Action Track 3: Farmers adopt home-grown nature positive agriculture practices 4. Action Track 4: National agriculture and food policies promote the production of affordable nutritious, sustainably produced food while remunerating all farmers and food workers. 5. Action Track 5: Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities Shocks and Stress Expectations of the dialogue: • Stakeholders were to agree on issues where consensus exists • Identify areas for further dialogue • Shape the national pathway and seek to reach agreement on its scope • Work out and prioritize the actions they expect to take in coming years to support the pathway and agree on intentions and commitments for future action. The statement that guided the discussions was; Working together we will achieve the transformation in our national food system. This shared and collective vision was backed by the following discussion questions: 1. What are the prioritised actions we intend to undertake? 2. What will be our real breakthroughs? 3. Who is committed to participate in this work?235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Action Track 1: Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all • There is need to ensure food safety through legislation, support healthy environment. MoHCC should put in place a food safety act. The government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) and partners should promote and enforce food safety standards in both formal and informal food markets to protect consumers. During anthrax outbreaks unscrupulous businessman sell meat that poses harm to consumers. Consumers to be advised to purchase meat from registered abattoirs. • Breastmilk substitute restrictions to be enforced to promote breastfeeding • It is critical that all agriculture strategies apply a nutrition lens and pursue a deliberate contribution to diversification of the diet.- Increase consumption of local nutritious foods through product diversification at both household and commercial levels. • Promote home grown school feeding programs which should be under intensified investment which include at least 5 or more types of fruits and vegetables (dietary diversity). • Investment in production and post-harvest technologies especially at small holder level • All social protection strategies should consider how explicit actions can be taken to address nutrition needs, this should be fairly low investment, high impact. • The provision of inputs that are compatible with the target agro-ecological region • Promote biofortification of staple crops like millet and sorghum in addition to what is already listed. Nutrient rich varieties of Fe, Zn and Ca to be considered for Biofortification. We need to market bio-fortified foods so that they are part of national food supply systems • Reformulation of current food products to contain less fat, sugar and salt • Incentives for private sector to engage into producing nutritious healthy food- the notion that healthy food is profitable. • The government in partnership with relevant stakeholders should provide incentives for small-holder farmers who are growing healthy foods. Action Track 2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns • CCZ to Focus on consumer marketing, education and awareness (CCZ intends to grow their efforts to increase consumer demand for healthy food). Deliberate sensitization of the younger generation about the benefits of the indigenous and traditional foods is key. • To improve interest for indigenous foods especially amongst younger demographics. This will raise demand and stimulate production of these traditional Foods. Sustainable urban agriculture and development of value chains to improve production and consumption. • There is need to create an environment that is conducive for sustainability e.g. having food vouchers for nutritious foods, instil nutrition education and healthy food product promotions in the supermarkets. • Research is needed to understand the food environment, food consumption patterns and developing indicators that need to be tracked and characteristics of sustainable consumption • There is need to reduce the levels of food wastage and losses in Zimbabwe. Investment in post-harvest infrastructure and value addition is essential to ensure that we maximize on all that we have, come up with ways to reduce food loss in informal markets as well. Action Track 3: Boosting nature positive production at sufficient scale • Increase soil fertility through the use of organic soil fertilizers and doing away with the use of harmful synthetic fertilisers. Starting on farm organic fertilizer production. • Introduction of the use of live mulching when doing pfumvudza farming by doing intercropping. This will allow people located in areas where dry grass may not be available to still do pfumvunda. This also allow higher yield of various crops from a small pfumvudza plot. • When conducting the reforestation exercise there is need to plant fruit trees as well, like Avocado trees which can grow without any close monitoring to enhance nutrition. • Introducing curriculums that teach children at primary level on food and nutrition security focusing on the nature conserving productions. • There is need to address the lack of strict environmental governance and impose strict penalties for people who are starting veld fires as means of clearing land. • Scaling up community level nutrition sensitive agriculture interventions • Implement effectively the already existing policies and the already available resources to implement nature positive productions so as to prevent further degradation of the environment. Action Track 4: Advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution • Equip extension workers to reach more rural farmers (motor bikes, fuel, capacity building etc). Dedicate specific extension workers to women and youth • Create a platform for specific set of skills for women and youth so that they can become specialised in certain area of agriculture as opposed to giving generic information on farm management • Banks that offer loans to young people and women should consider offering financial literacy skills for both women and youth. • Inclusion of names for both male and female couple for livestock cards • Awareness to communal leaders to include women to access land in order to avoid segregation of women • Capacity building for both women and training on specific skills e.g. women on management of funds and youth in ICT skills Action Track 5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities shocks and stress • Pfumvudza is improving yield and thus it needs to be strengthened, intensified and up scaled • Crop varieties resilient to drought and diseases need to be pro236238239240243244245246247248249250251Action Track 1 • Continued humanitarian Support from WFP • MOHCC to put in place a food safety act • The Department of VET to enforce the food legislation • The Food security Cluster should be reengage for accountability purposes regarding access and utilization of food Action Track 2 • Improve food markets so that they promote healthy eating. To come up with a possible solution in involving the markets in diversifying menus and still have them to be affordable. • UNICEF is willing to engage with CCZ and other stakeholders including the government on consumer awareness of nutritious foods and consumer awareness projects. • WFP will be ready to partner in programs that make interventions in consumption of traditional foods. • The Academia, ZimNA, eMkambo and other stakeholders are willing to engage and research more on food systems and food consumption • Government subsidies for healthy foods are recommended to increase availability of cheap nutritious foods. On the contrary heavy taxes on unhealthy foods are also required. E.g sugar tax • Domesticating/localizing dietary guidelines will be another achievement, readdress dietary guidelines • Accommodating street vendors in our by-laws since they are more affordable, have them maintain food standards, there should be a facilitation of dialogue between vendors and authorities • Developing indicators and characteristics of sustainable consumption. Food may be cheap but produced through plundering the environment. We need to look more at the production aspect e.g. farm level, organic farming being promoted • To an extent, people follow personalities, our group can identify famous personality (musician/sports star) who can be the face to sustainable consumption. • Nutritional information on food packages in order to educate the consumers on the foods they choose and the likely consequences. • KTA/eMKambo is already committed to continuous evidence gathering in markets as well as playing a daily watch dog role for food flowing into markets daily. Working with CCZ and other stakeholders, they will be able to come up with weekly report on the quality of food in markets. • CFU is committed to be the link to the farmers and encourage production of sustainable crops and livestock Action Track 3 • Intensively implementing Bee keeping across the country as this is underutilized resource which can generate significant income and boost the economy. Bees are also known to be the most efficient pollinating insects. • Scaling up the innovations on agro-ecology down to the household level as well as communities • Developing inclusive robust value chain which result in high output by utilizing minimum inputs. • Educating the rural community on issues on environmental protection highlighting the benefits it has on them and the future generations as well as the consequences of not taking any action. • Synergy between the Ministries e.g. Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Mines and find productive way towards protecting the land before the country is plagued with ghost rural communities with toxic lands. • ZIMOFF Masvingo is implementing soil fertility management and water harvesting schemes are underway. Efforts are being put for a local seed bank • Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre has a Training centre in Agroecology already established at Bindura University • In order to have orderly commitments from various stakeholders, there is need to present proper budget allocation towards activities then other interested parties can assist financially as well promoting a stated common goal. There is need to make full use of the already available resources for example making use of Environmental Management Agent (EMA) to implement strict environmental protection rules. • Trocaire Zimbabwe is willing to work with partners that are focusing on agro-ecological development236241242243244245246247248249250251Action Track 4 • IFAD programs are being implemented to promote savings creating and a saving culture • There is need for creating group circles which facilitates team work and strong sense of affiliation • Clear cut value chains and then at each stage of the value chain we identify opportunities available for women and youth • For technology solutions it would be good to piggyback developments that can assist women and youth on the ICT platforms • Capacitation should be conducted in correct places and in suitable times which makes it possible for women and youth to participate • Industrialization of food processing in rural areas –agro-SMEs will create employment for women and youth • Information dissemination on loan opportunities at the banks and credit facilities • Review all gender sensitive policies and put them in practice • Engage producer groups to have access to information during policy formulation • There is need for women farmer representation on policy forums where decisions are made • Agricultural and Land policy review for inclusion. • Monitoring the implementation of policies e.g. participation of the Gender Commission Action Track 5 • WFP is currently providing certified seeds to farmers however there is need for consumer awareness. Increase investment in seed sector development , improve market access to farmers growing indigenous foods • Creation of enabling policies e.g. Kenya has a policy that for maize meal to be put on market, it must be blended by small grain and incorporation into diets for people in special institution cares, prisons, orphanages, boarding schools, rehabilitation centres • Operationalize climate services-have a framework to encourage research. Promote weather insurance and early warnings on national and household level, meteorological settings capacitation • Social safety, need for conditionality in the designing programs and asset creation (FFA), e.g. roads to improve access237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Buy in and support from permanent Secretary for Health on food quality and safety legislation and marketing of fresh and processed (convenient foods) is critical to ensure compliance. Compliance is better than enforcement • ZRBF produced a manual on resilient and sustainable agriculture covering issues on agro-ecology and other nature positive production mechanisms. They are planning to translate the manual into different local languages. • Food legislation is clear however there are still enforcement issues. • Proposing the first statement on Action Track 1 proposed Pathways to read ‘The government of Zimbabwe and partners should promote and enforce food safety legislation and standards not to be limited to enforcement of standards only • Harmonisation of policies and efforts in transforming food systems and agriculture by the government and other stakeholders. • Private sector participation in production, joint ventures of resettled farmers on the ground. • To look at social initiatives through nutrition • Government to incentivise private sector to venture into production of healthy food • The issue regarding trans-fat, sugar and salt taxes would create more problems than solutions and might not change the consumption patterns as expected • There is sometimes a disconnect between the farming skill and management of the farm business • Youth has better knowledge in internet and modern technologies

2021-08-27 03:08:24205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30325/18

1118721311131158

Participants were invited from government, academia and industry to bring a diverse range of knowledge and experiences in relation to public health, food information and labelling, consumer knowledge, health and sustainability. We sought First Nations perspectives into the dialogue, with a participation from a First Nations public health representative. This diverse expertise was represented in the key speakers at the dialogue. The Principles of Engagement were provided to all participants and the facilitator as pre-reading for the event.The Department of Health dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder engagement and complementing the work of others. As Australia is a co-convenor of the Global Action Network on Labelling (Network), this dialogue focussed on food labelling to complement the work of the Network and considered innovative ways in which food labelling can contribute to improved health and sustainability. We targeted invited speakers which covered the complexity of food systems and the information available to consumers relating to nutrition, human health as well as planetary health and sustainability issues. While the dialogue was invitation only, a diverse range of stakeholders were invited to ensure a range of views were represented. To broaden the scope, we asked invitees to suggest others who may be able to contribute to the conversation. Through targeting the conversation with a small group, our dialogue reflected the principle of building trust.A principle that we found particularly important is to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity – such as First Nations voices and those who work with the community. Including participants from a range of areas provides the opportunity for a wide array of experiences, learnings, and views – including divergent views – to be heard.

NoThe Department of Health used a method similar to that recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual. The dialogue was a 1.5 hour invitation-only, small-group virtual discussion. The event featured five key speakers (approx. 45 minutes total), who delivered short presentations about initiatives related to food labelling. This was then followed by a facilitated discussion of 45 minutes, in which all participants were engaged and asked to share their views or perspectives. The discussion was facilitated by an external moderator and scribed by the Department of Health. Key discussion questions were posed to the group by the facilitator. Participants were called upon by the moderator to share in discussion areas where they had expertise, or where previously expressed views diverged from the recent conversation. There was also the opportunity for all participants to virtually raise their hand to speak or to comment through the online chat box, which allowed the conversation to continue following a discussion point. As such, all voices were given the opportunity to be heard. Following the discussion, the facilitator summed up the main outcomes of the discussion, including the points of agreement and contention. It was important for views to be shared as a group given the breadth of areas of expertise and experiences represented by the participants. The focus of this dialogue was on innovation in food labelling, and having all participants included in the one group discussion encouraged idea sharing among the group as a whole.

234239244246248249The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) is the National Convenor for the Australian FSS dialogues. DAWE has held a series of webinars around FSS Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production. To complement these webinars, the Department of Health’s roundtable dialogue focused on FSS Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable and healthy consumption patterns. The dialogue was an online roundtable discussion which considered the role of food labelling to help shift consumers towards healthier, safe and sustainable consumption. This roundtable provided a purposeful and organised forum for stakeholders share examples and experiences, ideas, opportunities and solutions on the role of labelling in consumers making healthy, safe and sustainable food choices. This topic was selected as Australia is a co-convenor of the Global Action Network on Nutrition Labelling. The dialogue featured short presentations from five key speakers from a range of areas including government, academia and industry, as follows: • The Department of Health provided examples of current government food labelling initiatives that focus on safety, health and origins of food including country of origin labelling and date marking with discussion on how these initiatives can help consumers make safe and sustainable food choices. • The Department of Health also presented to the group on the Health Star Rating, Australia’s front of pack nutrition labelling system, which aims san help consumers make healthier choices when selecting packaged food. • The George Institute delivered a presentation on the FoodSwitch app and the Planetary Health Rating. This app includes an Australian database which allows consumers to scan the barcode of a product and see both healthier choices and the impact of that food on the planet. • Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation presented on the Australasian Recycling Label Program, focusing on the idea of packaging as the link between the product and consumer. • OpenSC (SC stands for supply chain) presented on their traceability platform, providing an example of how scanning a QR code on a package can show a consumer exactly where the food has come from. The group discussion was focused on the future of food labelling, and the following key discussion questions: • How can food labelling motivate and empower consumers to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable food choices? • How can food labelling help to inform consumers about food choices that are better for the environment? • What is currently working well in food labelling for sustainable diets? What is not working well? • What are the incentives and disincentives for using food labelling to improve the health, safety and sustainability of diets? • What are the barriers to using or understanding food labels, which could reduce consumers’ ability to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable choices? • How can labelling be incorporated into food systems to ensure consumers can make informed decisions about both health and sustainability? • What innovative food labelling solutions have been tried, and what were the outcomes and learnings? • Are there any trade-offs? • What does the future of food labelling look like? • How can we utilise technology to improve the effectiveness of food labelling?235238239240243244246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health or the Australian Government. The main findings of the dialogue were as follows: Evidence finds that consumers are mostly driven by price, health, taste and nutrition. Issues such as the environment and sustainability are lower priorities when choosing food. Food labelling initiatives range from simple symbols or text on a label to interactive experiences via QR codes and/or apps that can provide much more information to consumers. Labels may start as a consumer facing symbol, but this can evolve into the products themselves changing (for example, product reformulation due to Health Star Rating front of pack labelling, or better adherence to sustainable fishing practices). Labelling on its own doesn’t change behaviour. Consumers need to invest the time to look at, and act on, the information presented on a label. Even with good food labelling, nutrition and sustainability literacy is important for consumers to understand and make better choices. Consumer comprehension can be quite limited and therefore there is a need to engage with consumers to find out what they need to improve their understanding. Understanding the requirements of the community is especially important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It was noted that aside from the targeted Good Tucker app, developers are generally not engaging diverse communities, such as Aboriginal communities, when developing new food labelling solutions. It was also noted that the range of information that can be made available consumers is ever increasing and can be overwhelming. Different consumers will engage with different types of information. The role of a food label and innovative options for sharing information needs to be considered and balanced. The sustainability of food is so complex that we can’t necessarily just leave it all to consumers to make sustainable choices – food producers, manufacturers and retailers all have a role to play as well. Participants considered whether we are moving towards a future where conscious consumer food choice is taken away and becomes something delivered by an algorithm. Algorithms can nudge consumers into more environmentally friendly choices either without their knowledge, or by design (i.e. if the consumer can choose how to set the algorithm then they could set it to select more sustainable choices if that’s what they’re interested in). For data and algorithms to be trusted it must be either 100% transparent or independently verified. However, algorithms may not be useful in Indigenous communities which are grappling with more fundamental issues such as access to local healthy food supply (i.e. food security).236238239243244246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health or the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted, there were a number of additional messages that emerged during the discussion, which related to the key discussion questions outlined above. The key outcomes of these discussion topics were as follows: What innovative food labelling solutions have been tried, and what were the outcomes and learnings? Some examples of innovative solutions were discussed, including: • Carbon labelling, which presents information about the carbon footprint of a product in a relatable way that is also easy to understand. “Lightbulb minutes” on the label were presented as something people could relate to. A study found people were more likely to choose the lower carbon footprint options based on the label. However, it was noted that in general, knowledge of the carbon footprint of different foods was low. • The FoodSwitch app, which scans barcodes and provides simple health information for a products as well as healthier alternatives to ‘switch’ to. A ‘Planetary Health Rating’ has been added to the app and displays a star rating between 0.5 stars (higher greenhouse gas emissions) and 5 star (lower emissions) to provide consumers with information about the emissions associated with producing a certain food product. • The Good Tucker app, which is targeted to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The app scans barcodes and gives a thumbs up, thumb sideways or thumbs down to indicate the healthiness of the food choice. The app was developed in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including elders and local Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, which empowered communities and contributed to the success and acceptance of the app. • OpenSC (supply chain), which uses QR codes to help consumers verify whether a product was sustainably and ethically produced and trace their food from the origin to their plates. For example, consumers can see when and where a specific fish was caught, by which fishing company, verify that it was caught in a legal fishing zone, and trace its journey to their location (e.g. restaurant). The app helps consumers make sustainable choices but is also a powerful tool to ensure businesses are adhering to sustainable and ethical practices. A deliberate decision was made to display the information on a webpage, as the requirement to download a specific app was identified as a potential barrier to uptake. • The Australasian Recycling Program, which provides on-pack information to consumers about whether the different components in packaging (box, lid, wrap etc.) are recyclable, non-recycle or conditionally recyclable, and how to dispose of them correctly (e.g. in bin, in recycling bin, return to store, etc). The governance structure is designed to ensure the labelling is consistent, fair and accurate, with representation across the supply chain, including brand owners, packaging manufacturers, waste and recyclers, independent experts and government. This contributed to the increasing adoption of the label by many Australian and New Zealand brands. • A partnership in the UK between Waste & Resources Action Programme, the UK Food Standards Agency and the UK Department of Environment, Food & Regional Affairs developed standardised food labelling guidance to help consumers to better manage their food and waste less of it, resulting in a reduction of household food waste in the UK by a quarter. The initiative focused on educating consumers on the meaning of ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates, how to store different categories of food, whether a food product is suitable for home freezing (indicated by a snowflake logo), how to safely defrost and use frozen foods, and the temperature that should be maintained in fridges and freezers. The Food Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre in Australia intends to take these learnings to replicate in Australia.236238239243244250What are the barriers to using or understanding food labels, which could reduce consumers’ ability to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable choices? There is limited real estate (space) on a food label, with many legislated requirements competing with other information such as branding and images. Solutions other than on-pack labelling need to be considered in order to give consumers more information than space allows. The FoodSwitch app and the OpenSC platform are examples of how this can work. Consumers need to have the motivation, time and understanding to really take in the information presented through food labelling. Many consumers do not have sufficient health or environmental literacy to understand the information and respond accordingly. In addition to understanding labels, the community also needs to trust the information included on food labels or apps. Education and engaging with communities is an important part of this. Research has found that consumers are influenced by price, taste, health and nutrition when grocery shopping, while factors such as animal welfare and environmental impact rank quite low. Therefore clear sustainability labelling would not necessarily push consumers to make sustainable choices if the price is not competitive.236238239243244248250How can labelling be incorporated into food systems to ensure consumers can make informed decisions about both health and sustainability? While some consumers may have the time, motivation and health/environmental literacy to seek information from a food label to make healthier and more sustainable food choices, many do not. As consumers do not necessarily prioritise sustainability, one suggestion was to incorporate healthier and sustainable food choices into food systems by moving decision away from the consumer and instead delegate it through algorithms so that sustainable choices are the default. Alternatively, consumers could retain influence over algorithms, for example by selecting sustainability as a preference for a food delivery service’s suggested menu items. It was also noted that choices about the healthiness and sustainability of a product need to be made before the products even reach consumers; that is, innovation is required further up the pipeline at the agriculture/farming/fisheries and manufacturing levels, so that by the time the consumer is purchasing, it’s the best possible choice. Labelling and technology may help make this push.236238239243244248How can we utilise technology to improve the effectiveness of food labelling? As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Australian consumers have become more familiar with using QR codes. There is an opportunity to harness QR codes to provide the additional information consumers desire about their food without taking up limited space on food labels. Technology can also influence the healthiness and sustainability of packaged food before it even reaches consumers. For example, the OpenSC software can identify companies that are not producing food ethically and sustainability and use the platform to encourage them to change practices.237238239243246248249This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health or the Australian Government. Expanding on the summary of the main outcomes and discussion topics outlined above, several areas of divergence emerged during the dialogue. Views diverged about what is needed for food system sustainability. While much of the discussion was focused on the use of technology and algorithms moving forward, it was noted that in some parts of Australia, in particular rural and remote communities, food security remains an issue and some participants considered this should be prioritised for food system sustainability over the use of technology. Algorithms to drive food choices will not make a difference in food insecure remote communities. With regard to the use of technology and algorithms to nudge consumers towards more sustainable and healthy choices, views diverged about data that would sit behind the algorithms. Some participants highlighted concerned about transparency of the data and suggested that the data and assumptions driving algorithms should be accessible to researchers and the public to ensure public trust. There were also concerns that the use of technology will take away choice from consumers. Other participants voiced disagreement and noted that the use of algorithms to make food choices for consumers already happens without transparent data – for example, the products available on the shelves of major supermarkets impacts consumer choice and the decisions about what is stocked is not transparent. Concerns were raised that it is mostly technology experts deciding on the algorithms and therefore issues of health, sustainability and equity are secondary considerations. It was suggested that diverse expertise needed around the table when algorithms are being developed.

2021-08-27 08:12:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23765/203

261

COVID-19 continues to have a devastating impact. Around the world, the pandemic has exacerbated underlying structural inequity – creating more hunger and nutrition insecurity for vulnerable groups such as women and children. Essentially, the pandemic is three crises in one: the economic crisis and unprecedented job losses, the food and nutrition crisis, and the health crisis. The highlighted the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic and that inaction to mitigate this damage is unacceptable. With several competing priorities, it was important that the dialogue respect that different countries will have different challenges and grasp the complexities which the pandemic has surfaced. However, we challenged speakers and participants to commit to the Summit as a platform to raise awareness of the devastating consequences of inaction on COVID-19 and malnutrition and the need to act, urgently.Act with Urgency: With the COVID-19 pandemic raging on, it is vital that we all act with urgency. This dialogue highlighted the urgent need for immediate financing to mitigate the damage on nutrition outcomes of this generation and the next. Commit to the Summit: By hosting this independent dialogue, ST4N demonstrates its commitment to the Summit and wishes to raise awareness of the potential impact of covid-19 on malnutrition without urgent action in the form of policy change and investment to mitigate the damage. The speakers challenged decision-makers to work together and commit to make nutrition a priority, using platforms such as the Summit. Be Respectful: The dialogue was structured to include as many voices as possible, with speakers from the ST4N Consortium, donor community, youth, financial sector, and national governments. Recognize Complexity: ST4N is a multi-disciplinary consortium which aimed to model the complexity of the pandemic on different systems and their impact on malnutrition. For example, the consortium modelled the impacts of the food system (using food pricing), health systems (through reduced health coverage rates) and the economy (changes to GNI). This complexity was reflected in the way the dialogue was put together so that the implications for each system and potential solutions discussed. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The dialogue brought to the table a diversity of stakeholders from governments, research community, business, youth, finance, civil society and more. We aimed to have at least one representative from each stakeholder group as panel members to speak on how COVID-19 had impacted their sector and the urgent need for action and investment. Complement the work of others: ST4N- a group of multi-disciplinary researchers with the aim of building on one another’s expertise to model the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on nutrition outcomes. The dialogue reflected the nature of this consortium, having invited individuals from across the globe to build trust and stand together for nutrition and call for action.NA

Yes

234238242243245249251Our dialogue focused on the opportunities of how COVID-19 recovery policy can prioritize nutrition policy, financial investment in nutrition, and strengthened nutrition services, emphasizing COVID-19’s inequitable impact. Given global turbulence, ST4N, a collective group of nutrition, economic, food, and health system experts, modelled the potential impacts of COVID-19 on nutrition outcomes, compelling decision-makers to act. The potential dramatic effects of this crisis on human life and well-being, alongside the long-term negative consequences on human capital and economic growth, make a renewed investment in delivering effective nutrition interventions an imperative. Investment in nutrition not only improves nutrition outcomes but is a vital contribution to the resilience building of people, communities, and countries. AT1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all - THE PROBLEM New research published in Nature Food paper highlights the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on global levels of malnutrition by 2022, with leading global experts projecting as many as 13.6 million additional children wasted, 3.6 million additional children stunted and 283,000 child deaths – equivalent to 258 children dying per day. World hunger increased in 2020 under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is projected around 118 million more people were facing hunger in 2020 than in 2019, heightening the challenge of achieving the Zero Hunger target by 2030. The pandemic is three crises rolled into one: an economic crisis with jobs lost, a food crisis with reduced access to healthy food, and a health crisis with decreased access to health services. Together, these combine to create a nutritional crisis amongst millions of vulnerable mothers and children that, based on the third wave of COVID-19 in South Asia, is tragically worse than initial estimates. An economic downturn translates directly into increased unaffordability of food and greater food insecurity and malnutrition – as people have less income to buy food, let alone more expensive nutritious foods required for healthy diets The high cost of healthy diets coupled with persistent high levels of income inequality put healthy diets out of reach for around 3 billion people in 2019 in every region of the world, especially the poor. New research estimates that due to the onset of COVID-19 an extra 141 million individuals could not afford a healthy diet in 2020. In 2021 the estimate is an additional 94.6 million compared to the no-COVID-19 2020 counterfactual. Malnutrition exacerbates gender inequality, impacting the most vulnerable including women and children. Most children with malnutrition live in Africa and Asia. These regions account for more than nine out of ten of all children with stunting, more than nine out of ten children with wasting and more than seven out of ten children who are overweight worldwide. THE CONSEQUENCES Malnutrition reduces the immune response. Together, COVID-19 and malnutrition create a mutually reinforcing vicious cycle. Diet-related illnesses increase the risk of dying from COVID-19, while the pandemic makes it harder for people to access healthy diets, in turn, contributing to a higher risk of malnutrition. The world has the know-how and the resources to reverse this cycle. Invest in nutrition - we need to Stand Together and Act Now. Dire financial landscape for low- and middle-income countries malnutrition reduces human capital and economic productivity. The generation of children affected by stunting will suffer a lifetime of reduced schooling performance and adult productivity losses, which in turn, can be passed on to their children. The estimated pandemic-related increases in child stunting and child mortality may result in future productivity losses of $44.3 billion, enough to impact national economies. Additional cases of anemia during pregnancy would result in $177 million in lost productivity between 2020-2022. Costs associated with the immediate impact of COVID-19 on children as outlined by the above projections are only one part of a much larger, complex picture.235238242243245249251Taking into account all the other forms of malnutrition in adults and children that have been exacerbated by the pandemic, costs to lost productivity will be far higher. Nations are struggling to fund mitigation measures at the same time as needs continue to grow. Domestic financing for health in LMICs, including nutrition-specific financing, is projected to fall by 4.2% in 2021 and 2.2% in 2022, not recovering to pre-crisis levels until the end of the decade, absent a V-shaped economic recoveries in LMICs. Unfortunately, ST4N estimates a 19% reduction in ODA to nutrition-relevant sectors through 2030 (compared to pre-COVID levels) accompanied by a similar decrease in domestic health budgets. For a resilient future: invest today for a stronger tomorrow The 2017 Global Nutrition Investment Framework estimated that approximately $7 billion per annum is needed to reach the World Health Assembly targets for stunting, wasting, maternal anemia, and breastfeeding by 2025. ST4N projects additional needs of $1.7 billion per annum to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19. Taking into account all the other forms of malnutrition in adults and children that have been exacerbated by the pandemic, costs to lost productivity will be far higher. Nations are struggling to fund mitigation measures at the same time as needs continue to grow. Domestic financing for health in LMICs, including nutrition-specifc financing, is projected to fall by 4.2% in 2021 and 2.2% in 2022, not recovering to pre-crisis levels until the end of the decade, absent a V-shaped economic recoveries in LMICs. Unfortunately, ST4N estimates a 19% reduction in ODA to nutrition-relevant sectors through 2030 (compared to pre-COVID levels) accompanied by a similar decrease in domestic health budgets. For a resilient future: invest today for a stronger tomorrow The 2017 Global Nutrition Investment Framework estimated that approximately $7 billion per annum is needed to reach the World Health Assembly targets for stunting, wasting, maternal anemia, and breastfeeding WHY WE MUST ACT NOW: We have evidence-based, cost-effective nutrition interventions that are ready to scale. Country-level innovations can offset COVID-19’s gendered impact on nutrition, such as scaling up micronutrient supplements and coverage of breastfeeding interventions. SMART investments to drive COVID-19 recovery can be delivered across health, food and social protection systems.  COVID-19 is a risk and an opportunity: together we can make it an opportunity to build nutrition back better. We stand to lose a decade or more’s worth of progress on nutrition. New projections confirm that hunger will not be eradicated by 2030 unless bold actions are taken to accelerate progress – especially actions to address inequality in access to food. It is projected that around 660 million people may still face hunger in 2030, 30 million more people than in a scenario in which the COVID-19 pandemic had not occurred, due to the lasting effects of COVID-19 on global food security. The ST4N Consortium estimates that an additional 1.7 billion will be required on top of the $7 billion per annum is needed to reach the global targets for stunting, wasting, breastfeeding and anemia articulated by the Nutrition Investment Framework. Given the likely reductions to Official Development Assistance (ODA) and challenging domestic health finance landscaped, we must Stand Together and invest in nutrition, more than ever before. The UN Food Systems Summit 2021 and N4G present an opportunity to bring forward a series of concrete actions that people from all over the world can take to support a transformation of the world's food systems. While 2020 was an immense challenge for the world, it may also be a warning call of unwelcome events to come if the world does not take commitments into bolder actions to change course. Support for the recommendations: • ST4N calls for Member States to improve allocative efficiencies gains in favour of proven nutrition interventions, such as Maternal MMS, Breastfeeding Promotion, Vitamin A Supplementation, Balanced Energy Supplementation, Treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition and the proportion and provision of Infant and young child feeding practices. • ST4N supports the global nutrition community in advocating that the G7 Leaders Statement includes resolve to take action to advance progress on malnutrition. • ST4N supports the global community in advocating for renewed focus on women’s and maternal nutrition by governments, donors, philanthropy, civil society and multilaterals: - Ensure that food and health systems interventions promote and enable sustainable and equitable access to healthy diverse diets and essential health and nutrition services. - ST4N supports global action to prevent and respond to anemia in women of reproductive age, as part of the U.N. Food Systems Summit Action Track One (Ensure Access to Safe and Nutritious Foods for All). • ST4N calls for nutrition to be integrated into the World Bank’s IDA20 Replenishment Funds and in particular, that wasting is considered a Tier One indicator. Nutrition must receive the appropriate allocation of IDA resources in the Crisis Response Window to safeguard other development priorities. • ST4N recognises the critical importance of integrating nutrition information and data systems into early warning systems and shock responsive safety nets with a focus on women and children. New and targeted investment is required for shock responsive social safety nets to include nutrition specific and sensitive interventions.237238243245249251• The role of youth One of the representative speakers argued that youth need not only to be at the table but play a central role, and a driving force for change. Youth are often referred to as future leaders, however it was clear that youth need to be given opportunities to share their views and actions in helping to address malnutrition. • COVID-19; a risk or an opportunity? COVID-19 has wreaked havoc across the world, over 4 million people have lost their lives, significant economic downturns leading to disruptions to livelihoods and of course significant impacts on healthcare. Whilst the scale of the challenge to build back better is daunting, it was argued that projections are not destiny and mitigation is possible if immediate action and investment is taken. Whilst COVID-19 presents huge risks to women and children in particular

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ST4NInvestorBrief_AUG2021.pdfhttps://www.standingtogetherfornutrition.org/https://www.standingtogetherfornutrition.org/research

2021-08-27 12:03:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20837/33

8120418354642117111115291771112717

The dialogue was organised with a sense of urgency the face of acute pressures and attacks on food producing communities in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes, and the Northeastern region of Brazil (see attached Denouncement). The dialogue was prepared, delivered, synthesised and evaluated via an organising committee comprised of riverine, forest and quilombola representatives; non-governmental organisations and academic partners from the areas. These Organisers were invited to suggest 16 invitees each, and the list was reviewed to ensure a balance in terms of participation, gender, and multi-stakeholder engagement that respected and embraced ancestral and indigenous knowledge and academic-based evidence. Several regional pre-dialogue meetings were hosted by committee members and additional communication was undertaken in response to concerns over community voices being lost, and also the limitations of technological access. Partner organisations went to remarkable lengths to ensure participation of those with limited or no access to the online platforms. A pre-event 66 page diagnostic report was prepared and shared with all participants in advance of the event. This served to: 1) provide community- and academy- based evidence for the critical position being adopted; 2) relate concerns with the dominant, industrialised food system to previous and contemporary FAO documents and strategy; 3) ensure the dialogue event would not revisit critiques of the above, but rather focus on the roots and pathways towards transforming agrifood systems that can systemically safeguard territory, ancestral practices, health, land, water in culturally and bio-diverse ecosystems. The engagement of 16 experienced facilitators and note takers (who attended a briefing session) ensured that the discussions between the stakeholders, organised in transversal, heterogeneous groups (of no more than 9 people), were respectful and that each participant could be heard. The participants were aware that their individual and collective contribution would inform the report that now follows.The convenors were delighted by the response to the invitation and the diversity of stakeholders from indigenous territories; quilombola, African-descendant communities; agrarian reform settlements, fishing and forest communities. Interestingly, approximately one half of participants identified as 'other' in relation to the demographic questions. The dialogue hinges on an urgent appeal for action in the face of attacks and the dismantling of public policies that previously supported smaller scale, sustainable food producing communities. In other words, the 'urgency' of the principles is reflected in the attached denouncement, passed unanimously by the participants. This calls for an end of degrading processes to the environment and human life, so that healthy, sustainable agrifood models that enhance human life and its positive relations with nature can be (re)constructed and maintained. Significant steps were taken in the preparation for the dialogue to share with the diverse stakeholders the SDG ambitions and responsibilities that sit with FAO, and the previous briefing papers most relevant to our dialogue (attached 'Opening Presentation'). This was designed to build upon previous work and enable us to emphasise more specific blind spots and needed actions in constructing agrifood systems. The pre event report, preparatory meetings and a preparatory webinar with more than 40 participants sought to ensure inclusivity of diverse voices. The event was structured into small working groups to ensure voices were heard and noted. The timing of the event was also organised to ensure optimum engagement, given the reliance on an online format, and the decision of a shorter event was taken in consultation with communities committing to the process. The organisers were honoured that leaders from indigenous, forest, riverine and agrarian communities went to considerable lengths to participate; and the opening comments (attached Report) from an indigenous woman was important in outlining the urgency, the expectations, and responsibilities for those attending the event.The difficulties presented by COVID-19 and the consequent reliance on online platforms was a barrier to engagement. The preparation of a user-friendly online document for registration that complied with FAO regulation and our own data protection and ethical policies proved very important in ensuring ethical and informed participation. The dialogue could not have succeeded without the committed support of members of the organising team, community and civil society organisations who communicated with potential participants in advance of the dialogue; assisted in registration; facilitated the installation of internet access in geographically remote areas; and throughout the event itlsef provided support for entry and participation in the meeting. The engagement across community, university, civil society and statutory bodies raises issues of access, power and privilege. It is considered that explicitly acknowledging these and discussion often uncomfortable issues that arise from this also strengthened trust and confidence in the process. It is evident that working through the outcomes from the dialogue must continue to be attentive to this and ensure the same voices rendered invisible in dominant agroindustrialised food systems are not lost in these important developments.

Yes

234240241243244245246247248249251The Dialogue posed two simple questions, What is the agrifood system you want to build?” and, "How can you construct this food system"? It was immediately evident that complex agrifood systems, organised and practiced in distinct territories and biomes have existed for centuries. Their defence and reproduction, therefore can not be separated out from the human-nature interactions that have produced profound knowledge, sustained diverse cultures and communities, and produced food in cycles that are in tune with the environment and have not required manufactured, fossil fuel-based and harmful inputs. In the current national, international political and economic climate, these food systems are being threatened by the advances of hydroeclectric dams, agribusiness, deforestation, mining and other invasive action by illegal land gabbers and financial corporations at a pace and extent that unprecedented in recent times. While plantations and homes are being torched; while leaders are forced into hiding, while invasions and land grabs or either ignored or encouraged, then communities can not realise their productive potential. As we heard, a mother who must defend attacks on her territory against armed men has less time in the house with the family, less time in the field to plant, less time to pass knowledge. For every life that is lost, indigenous aldeia burnt, or community dismantled, there follows a loss of knowledge, of diversity, of possibilities for transforming inequitable, unjust and dangerous systems of production. This 'defence' of existing agrifood systems is first. Secondly, we open a dialogue with FAO and invite the organisation to recognise that we can not imagine, create, technically support, value and validate sustainable agrifood systems in the absence of resolute protection of the rights of food producing communities (recognised in many FAO documents; see appendix report 1), who through their everyday practice defend and protect some of the globe's most important and complex ecosystems. Without access to land, to clean water, to security and health, or public policies to safeguard long fought for rights, communities cannot progress existing knowledge, safeguard health and family; nor 'boost nature-postive production', or equality. The most immediate 'shocks and stresses' impacting communities are often from the very same agents proclaiming higher yields, clean energy, new trade opportunities, economic growth and development linked to dominant commodity trades. 'Equitable relations' and 'nature-positive' production are possible; indeed the latter has been practiced by stakeholders and can be strengthened via the dialogue outcomes below. The success of this dialogue in unveiling key actors in a dominant inequitable, contemporary food system; in avoiding nostalgic reflections of the past in favour of deep-rooted and determined resistance to further violent, dispossession; and articulating pathways for a future agrifood system merits broader attention. Importantly, the dialogue links the 'pathways' for a food system transformation to the deep 'roots' of communities whose material and spiritual life is embedded in their distinct territories. This advances the discussion and strategy towards sustainable food systems by transferring knowledge and practices of food production, of collective resistance; of legal strategies; of technical support where it is invited (and not imposed) across traditional and more recently settled agrarian communities. The reproduction, restoration, and re-existence of ancestral knowledge, human and plant cultures, and of practices are essential to a future agrifood system. The maintenance of conditions for production (land, soil, air and water), and circulation of foods free of harmful substances are needed. The support of these from innovations in research, technique and policy that respect and build from ancestral, in-situ knowledge underpin the forward looking strategies that are articulated below.235240241243244245246247248249251The Dialogue finds that: a) territorial respect, protection and sovereignty are paramount. The arguably unprecedented scale and pace of attack on food producing communities, whose food sovereignty has been undermined, compromised and in many cases ended, demands immediate action across our networks, in dialogue with international organisations, including FAO (see outcome 1). Participants vocalised the loss, and painful consequences of a 74% increase in deforestation in indigenous territories in the last year; and the 1,576 land-related conflicts, violent threats and assassinations in 2020, the highest number recorded since 1985, 25% higher than 2019 and 57.6% in 2018 (CPT 2020) . b)the presence of internationally renown companies and financial institutions in the land grabs, and encroachment from speculation and agroindustry (see outcome 4), highlights the disingenuous character of attempts to tie agrifood, community-based systems to commodified trades. Mato Grosso state, Brazil's 'granary' exemplifies this, with 76% of all agricultural devoted to commodities for export, rising to 98% in some fertile regions such as Basin of Rio Juruena (leaving just 2% of available land to food production). c)ecologically-sensitive, food sovereignty can not be separated from territorial and human rights. These rights, many encompassed in the SDGs for 2030, are being systematically contravened. In Brazil, the instrumentalisation of the Rural land Registraton (CAR), and the use of third companies by transnational speculators is providing a veneer of legality for land that has been illegally appropriated for cattle and soy production. The Dialogue finds that State, and Federal laws are routinely broken in the appropriation of public lands and community territories, and international conventions, such as ILO Convention 169 contravened for large scale industrial advance. d)there is an urgent need for a reconstruction of public policies (see outcome 2) for traditional and familial agriculture. We note: (i) the extinction of the Agrarian Development Ministry (with budget of R$30 billion); (ii) the hollowing out of the Food Acquisition Program-PAA (recognised for good practice by FAO in 2014) that fell from R$586 million for 115,489 food suppliers in 2012 to just R$41 million for 5,585 suppliers of food in only half as many municipalities; (iii) that Legal guidelines (Law 11.326/2006) for the National Policy on Family Agriculture insist that beneficiaries are the following peoples i) forest ii) aquaculturists; iii) extractivist; iv) fishing (artisanal); v) indigenous peoples; vi) remnant communities of rural quilombos and other traditional peoples and communities. (The last two groups of beneficiaries were included in Law No. 12,512 of 2011). e) the above changes are linked to Brazil's return to the global hunger map, with a drastic fall of food security from 77% of the population in 2014 to only 44% in 2020, with 55.2% experiencing food insecurity; and 9% living with hunger. The Dialogue makes the important distinction between food sovereignty and access to food, as the focus is on strengthening food producing systems that guarantee conditions for in situ production; but also making safe food available to rural and urban populations. f) transforming agrifood systems involves the strengthening of counter-hegemonic networks, organising local arrangements to support and promote food production that maintains families, young and old in distinct territories; and links this safe, health food production to rural and urban communities currently facing hunger. Food producing territories are being invaded; where they are not, most are now encircled by agribusiness and commodity plantations, with grave implications for access, contamination and compromised food production. g) quality of life, of food and food systems matter: Brazil remains within the top 3 consumers of agrotoxins in the world, a hazard that we argue is under analysed by FAO to date. Stakeholders draw attention to to the detriment to health, to watercourses, air, food, vegetables from the intensive and extensive use of these chemicals that compromise local efforts of chemical free production. In Mato Gross, there were four deaths from 2007 to 2016. Of the 141 municipalities in Mato Grosso, 83 reported occupational poisoning by agricultural pesticides. The stakeholders urge a considered response from FAO in dialogue with this event. It is recognised that FAO cannot alone resolve the structural impediments to a transformed food system that protects human rights and biodiverse ecosystems. It can, however, help to name the key systemic problems. These are unveiled here by many stakeholders who are symbolically and physically marginalised from decision making, yet whose humid, biodiverse territories, forests and soils are so central to profit seeking by agribusiness. This contradiction is, we argue, untenable: the reproduction and deepening of the consequent injustice leads to charges of genocide and ecoside from various stakeholders. The violence we find is not an abstraction but a daily occurrence. Communities who historically, and more recently, have occupied land in order to live peacefully and productively, ought to be able to do so, free of harassment, eviction and period flights of refuge. The Dialogue finds that defence of their rights and territories, in which roots for healthy and sustainable food systems exist, can lead to reconstructed agrifood systems that promise a socially and ecologically committed future.236240241244246247a) Territorial sovereignty and food production "They took over our territory and we no longer have the right to come and go. We are increasingly surrounded by agribusiness. We don't want our communities to depend on manufactured products for a living." It is necessary to defend the territory so that there is space for families to continue producing on the land. The territorial integrity of the communities is fundamental. This means recognition of the boundaries of these collectively occupied lands, and upholding the protective Federal laws: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6040.htm; http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2003/d4887.htm that are not respected in practice. It also means that the water, seeds and soils should not be taken, extracted modified, or contaminated by unwelcome activities within or in the vicinity of the territories. The network should share experience and legal expertise to assist those communities who are still awaiting final demarcation of their lands-often for decade or more. For this, the role of supportive organisations, lawyer associations (e.g. AATR) are important in sharing best practice and pathways to successful demarcation. Consultation. Communities have rights to be fully informed and consulted on matters that affect their lives (e.g. ILO Convention 169, the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). Communities can articulate their own consultation protocols, with support from the Federal Public Ministry, to outline their own visions and plans for the community. We need respect for ancestry, traditions of peoples and communities, and support the recovery of cultures that are being undermined and attacked. It is evident that organisation and resistance by these communities allows us to have this dialogue. For this, the residents of the communities are articulating and organizing themselves, so that they can achieve benefits and improvements for the community to be able to produce and live. The violence against peasant and traditional communities is reducing the area to plant and diverting time and energy from the production of healthy food. Ensure that we take care of the memory. The immense damage means that we often can't even keep track of.events. The learning from Belo Monte (Xingu Vivo, 2021), for example, must be shared so that it cannot happen again. We must show the effects also to those investors and companies involved in the massive scale projects, infrastructure, ports that have created harm and currently face charges of genocide (appendix) so that minds can be changed. Research teams can assist in understanding and publicise these hidden parts of production (Rede Social, 2020). Outsourcing oppressive security teams or land grabbing does not absolve corporations of responsibility. The agrifood system we want requires us to be able to use our entire territory, we need more space, not least because we don't have productivity in 100% of our areas. With smaller and smaller spaces, there is a lack of food and, therefore, it is difficult to guarantee a livelihood. We want to be sure that our children and grandchildren will also be able to stay in our territories. We want the environment to be protected. Community leaders cannot produce food sustainably when they are seeking refuge in exile, and when their houses or plantations have been burnt.236240241244246247249(Re)constructing Public policies for agrifood production " Today there is no support or funding for anything. The açaí harvest is over, the farmer has no other possibility: he has to go to [the city of] Belem to be a bricklayer's assistant. If he had incentive, he would stay on his land and produce". 1.The sharing of experiences and connections at the event should refocus energy and activity to: a) Create and strengthen rural public policies (health, education, culture) b) Create and strengthen public policies for rural youth that encourage them to remain in rural territories and avoid exploitative work in agribusiness, often synonymous with slave-like labour c)Advocate that existing law complied with and not dismantled; with Agrarian Reform as a central concern and demand d) improve popular education to build a broad understanding of state decision making, and help put pressure on local and state authorities (city councilors and deputies) to honour commitments to food producing communities; and to enhance the many inspiring community initiatives that have built before and during the pandemic. This relates to a need to inform policy agendas, demonstrate and lobby for policy changes in advance of elections. e) the naming and condemnation of those who overexploit fish stocks and seafood that includes smuggling and overfishing of regionally distinct species, or decimation of species through massive projects (e.g. Belo Monte) f) strengthen/ensure emancipatory public policies (e.g. Technical assistance and rural extension -ATER) to facilitate food sovereignty 2.Technical support Interest (or not) and demands in relation to technical support are specific to particular areas, histories and realities. Stakeholders propose the following: a) Non-interest finance for Traditional Peoples, Communities and small farmers for land and food sovereignty, not indebtedness b) Specially designated public financing for family farming and sustainable food programmes; with agroecological technical support; rather than promotion of imposed and polluting technologies c) For families and young people to remain on the land, technology and financing are needed, creating conditions to plant: irrigation systems where appropriate, adequate machinery; that the agriculture of the ancestors can incorporate technologies and continue to be modernized and encouraged, with the support of universities, federal institutes and the government. d) In agro-extractivist areas, strategies that are supported by favourable public policy must help generate sustainable income for the families who live there. e) Effective health, education, social assistance and technical policies, that respect diverse cultures, towards sustaining life and food sovereignty 3.Recognition of crime Although the extent of cultural and environmental harm is incalculable, engagement with FAO in the first instance towards an effective regulatory framework that prosecutes, rather than imposes fines, on harmful corporations who easily absorb these costs Engage with the individuals and organisations that are putting Ecoside, the systematic destruction of the environment, on national and international policy agendas 4. SDG targets FAO states that by 2030 SDG 2 would, “double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment”. Concerted, co-ordinated action, in tandem with affected communities, is required at a range of local, regional and international scales to reverse to current dismantling of agrifood systems and we seek to open the dialogue with FAO in this regard. This includes a call for an end to the dismantling of public organs with social and environmental responsibility.236238240241244245246248251Agrifood and agroecological production "In total there are 150 farming families. They agroecologically plant fruits, cassava, short-cycle and perennial plants. Families in agroecological transition. They suffer a lot of harassment from the mills. They offer, or rather, rent the poison, seeds, machinery, and buy all the production from the small ones who are willing to produce sugarcane – and then deduct all the expenses. Families are sometimes unable to sell their food production, and as the mill buys all the sugarcane that is planted, some families surrender to the monoculture of sugarcane." There is a need to create new -and reinvigorate existing - productive, solidarity arrangements for the circulation of healthy food between rural and urban locales, and that omit exploitative intermediaries. These connections should be articulated at national and international level to confront massive scale, wasteful industrialised chains of production. This network should also help challenge the 'modernity' of agroindustry where 10 to 20 liters of pesticides are used for each hectare of monoculture. We recognize that there is ongoing destruction with a complicit legal apparatus. Who or what gives power to a person to build a business to destroy others? We must strengthen ecological -based agriculture in place of harmful practices . We must, therefore, -create new, and build upon existing, local productive arrangements and networks of solidarity between communities. These should share knowledge, co-ordinate activities, agroecological experience that organize national events and connected with global processes, -build and share education and technical assistance focused on agroecological roots and innovations. -find progressive financing and partnerships to build collective spaces to encourage the production and sale of healthy food; Such an agrifood system values the knowledge of traditional peoples, their production techniques, and includes women and youth. It enhances knowledge and practice at local and regional level, anchored in the particularities of place and diversity The replacement of harmful systems requires a constitution of circuits that safeguard a socially committed market for food and ensures access to food; the countryside and the city Share the best practice of seed banks for safeguarding and reproduction of creole seeds (see MCP), free from contamination from agribusiness or exploitation from corporations. (see International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). It is necessary to encourage the agroecological transition so that more farmers can produce with quality; there must be public markets so that peasants can have their food sold. It is also necessary to invest in the education of young people. More universities and technical schools focused on genuine sustainability and experiments are needed so that future generations can learn what is best and exchange learning with communities. - Public policies that value sustainable, healthy family farming and agroecology as a food production model are necessary. Despite arguments to the contrary, this model is capable of producing food in the quantity necessary for human demands for food, especially considering innovate techniques, for example, poly-cultural production that feeds producers and allows for the sale of surplus. Agroecology is a very important tool in the dispute of agricultural model for the countryside, only in this way can we guarantee respect for Mother Earth, for ancestral knowledge, and for all beings that inhabit this common home . Its growth requires strengthening socio-political networks and joint efforts with partnerships between associations, unions, social movements, universities, churches, public authorities to continue the production of healthy food. Strengthening of production networks (production, management, marketing) of agroecological and organic production. Establishing, expanding and strengthening partnership between universities, research institutes and other organizations of research and make available equipment, machinery, and inputs suitable and affordable for family farming.236238239240241244247248Towards health and security, and away from harm in agrifood systems " In the community, which is directly bordering the crop, there was aeiral spraying less than 10 meters from homes of often elderly residents, making it impossible to produce food, because the plants dry and die every time the spraying occurs". " We were always healthy. Nothing bad happened to us. Before, we didn't even use medication" 1. a) Join calls and actions towards the prohibition of harmful and hazardous agrotoxins (pesticides, herbicide, fungicides, maturing agents, drying agents) in agriculture; b) The construction of an alternative agrifood system involves sanitary and food surveillance with stronger mechanisms for punishing actions of harmful food providers; demand inspection follows from denouncements c) Defend and promote agroecological production, free of pesticides, fossil fuel based inputs, and heavy metals (see outcome 3) d) Committed to reducing pandemic and syndemics through productive strategies that avoid further habitat and forest loss and monocultural encroachment in biodiverse, complex ecosystem. e) Avail of training and promotion of agroecology (eg Agroecology and Citizenship, Para) Insist on protection of our food, our water, our crops, our animals, our well-being. "Even our bees are being impacted". "Recently, a Quilombola community in the Pantanal region of Mato Grosso suffered from chemical dust arising from the surrounding soy plantations, leading about 15 people, including children, adolescents and adults to seek assistance at the Health Unit after presenting signs and symptoms of intoxication acute, such as headaches, difficulty breathing, nausea, vomiting and dizziness ". 2. a)Advocate for toxin free territories b) Greater transparency about how our food is produced, and know the traceability of its production chain; c) An agri-food system where reroducing life is the priority, not profit. For this, it will be necessary to build a new way of existing as a society. "It is cruel to know that the current food system prevents the reproduction of traditional peoples' food without pesticides is very good, even for our health. We often get sick from eating food with pesticides. It's good to preserve what we already have and use what is good to produce. That way it is not necessary to deforest, we already have the lake and we can use it to raise the fish, without having to use pesticides that are harmful to health". 3. The need for a different pathway to food security and food sovereignty is demonstrated in the worrying statistics. There was a drop of 82% in the number of Brazilians in a situation of malnutrition in the period between 2002 and 2013, the State's actions were paramount in the development of policies aimed at food and nutrition security, with emphasis on the Zero Hunger Program and the creation of the Food Acquisition Program (PAA). These were in addition to the National School Feeding Program (PNAE), which was responsible for providing meals to 43 million children in 2012. (FAO, 2014). In fact, if in 2004 food security (SA) was 65.1% after ten years of the PAA's operationalization, it reached 77.4% with a significant decrease in severe food insecurity (FA) (read hunger) of 6 .9% to 3.2%, and that is why Brazil had left the hunger map in 2014. Data from the Household Budget Survey (POF) in 2018 is worrying. The dismantling of social policies is evident, showing that the food security has dramatically decreased and that by December 2020 the Human Right to adequate nutrition was afforded to only 44.8% of Brazilian households. This contravention of the SDG 2 for zero hunger and food security (2.1.2).236238239240241244246247249The right to, and necessity of, water "They have no scruples and no sense of dignity. They said nothing would happen and now the river is dry, fish sick, we got sick. An analysis was done and our river was drinking water, healthy, sculpted by nature. Now the oxygen is weak, the iodine... everything changed. They point to [bame] the fisherman, but it is not. They don't like us or the indigenous people because we defend our river, winning or losing, we don't give up. They have a reservoir in which the fish reproduce at the head of the river, there is a dam that does not allow them to return to the river, they stay and die in their dam. We ask to fish there and they forbid it and the fish dies, but they don't let the fisherman fish there, they beat him, take the fish and break his things. There are judges, prosecutors who are for us, but there are others against. Belo Monte did not bring anything good, only the destruction of our rivers. The only thing they bring is money, but we don't take that. God left it for us to take care of, but the human being is destroying it. The Covid virus came because of this greed. I witness fish mortality, I see fish with malformations, greenish water... Belo Monte, like any other enterprise that destroys nature, is rotten". 1. Regulation - Policies for the effective protection of water, and forests. - Combating water contamination by any activity, especially mining, with monitoring, inspection and punishment of polluters, by repairing environmental impacts It ranges from river protection to public policy and labour. It cannot be degrading to working people, it has to be dignified and fair 2.As FAO states there is a need for, “Increased support for small-scale fishers will be critical in light of the coronavirus pandemic to allow them to continue earning a livelihood and nourishing local communities”. This is echoed in the calls for action by fishing communities whose rights and access to rivers and fish have been curtailed. 3. Human rights as environmental rights "They talk about having to the 'Indigenous component' when considering projects. How do you talk about indigenous rights, with the rights of nature, of the forest? They have rights. You can not separate our rights, our life or survival from that of the river, of the trees[..] conservation areas, ecological corridors, these are something, but they are not sufficient" Agrarian reform settlements, quilombolas; even if surrounded by monocultures, their waters still need to be protected, the superficial water, the rivers, the lakes, the groundwater. The territories, of they are going to be surrounded, at the very least must have clean water, potable water, water for farming within the territories. 4. Water sources must be clean and protected Communities must have access to clean, potable, usable water to maintain and healthy, agrifood systems. The pattern, unfortunately, is away from this right, and the aspirations of clean water and sanitation that underpin SDG 6: "ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all); water stress (6.4)" “Water scarcity, water pollution, degraded water-related ecosystems and cooperation over transboundary water basins”, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people, and according to FAO, “COULD lead to widespread socio-economic disruptions unless urgent measures are taken”. Our dialogue points out that, like climate change, these feared disruption are a present and NOT a possible future event. Mitigation for 'future' problems requires urgent action to confront 'today's' challenges and abuses.236"So, for me, today we are here to discuss our children's lives. When we talk about a plant, a healthy food, today we plant it with our own hands, we take care of our children... a baby is born, we have to take care of it, and even so, we plant, right, we plant for our children, but we are careful, right. We always have that care."237238240241243244245246247248249251The Dialogue did not reveal particular divergences; rather, it insisted on a recognition of the diverse realities, experiences, practices and knowledge that are intimately related to particular environments and territorial designations. For example, a strong message from several representatives of indigenous communities was they were requesting no assistance, no technical support, no intervention other than, simply, being left alone. The life systems like theirs -and many others that were depicted- have existed for generations and could do for generations more if they were left to continue, with an end to encroachment, violence, dislocation and invasion. Their capacity to do so, is of course is dependent on the forest that they protected for centuries. For others where there has been disruption to livelihoods then strategies to recover and revive memory and practices are required. The fate of fishing communities impacted by, for example, dam construction, siltation, pollution has meant that fishing livelihoods must be complemented by new food producing strategies in the territories, a situation complicated by the demise of public policies. Residents of agrarian reform settlements and other agro extractive territories are similarly hampered by unfavourable policy, and the need for progressive, not for profit financial support and technical assistance is articulated. Importantly, the stakeholders of the dialogue represent communities ostensibly protected by conventions to which FAO is signatory, and speak on themes relevant to SDGs for which FAO has responsibility (SDG 2 zero hunger; SDG 5 gender equality; SDG 6 clean water and sanitation; SDG 12 responsible consumption and production; SDG 14 life under water; SDG 15 Life on land. This serves to further highlight the indivisibility of future, sustainable agrifood systems from upholding the rights of farmers. This is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas ; in the Treaties for Indigenous peoples, and in Brazil specific laws for agrarian reform, agroextractive communities and Quilombolas. From the accounts of stakeholders; however, the trajectory, is a regressive one in relation to the key articles of this commitment (these include equality, women's participation, right to nature, civil and political rights, justice, labour rights, food sovereignty, right to land, right to seeds, right to biodiversity; right to water and clean water systems; right to health and social security; right to housing; right to education; cultural rights, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions). Traditional knowledge and its link to sustainability, food security and climate change Impacts is acknowledged by FAO and its Traditional Knowledge report recognises these “are increasingly endangered by large-scale commercialization of agriculture, population dynamics, land-use/cover changes and the impacts of climate change”. If there is a divergence, it is a broader systemic divergence from the harmful, predatory and wasteful model of commified agroindustrial production. It is an insistence that discourses and misguided attempts to reconcile the interests of sustainable, food producing communities with deep, cultural, spiritual; and practical territorial links with commercialised monocultures and large scale mineral and energy complexes is at best illusory, and at worst genocidal in the view of participants. Amidst a traumatic year of pandemic and, on evidence, yet more missed goals and failed promises in relation to sustainability, human rights and climate change across the globe; the stakeholders invite a formal response from FAO to the violent disruption of agrifood systems in globally important biomes that are articulated here. It is clear that the communities, represented here, will continue to resist further detriment and destruction; but the efforts are costing lives, compromising production, and threatening biodiverse ecosystems. They should no longer be expected to provide 'resilience' to shocks and stresses that are structured, and are predictable in dominant agroindustrialised systems and related environmental changes. These stresses include but are not restricted to climate change. The many immediate problems are articulated above. We modestly ask that this Independent Dialogue begins a critically important dialogue with FAO, that the articulation of violent abuses underlying agroindustrial advance is heightened and addressed through this dialogue and that an ending of the many transgressions can allow us to continue and further the important transformation towards a socially and environmentally committed agrifood system within and beyond the contours of our discussions.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DENOUNCEMENT_FAO_2021_English.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DENÚNCIA-FAO_2021_Portuguese.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Opening-presentation.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/opening-presentation_fala-de-abertura_Portuguese.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Pre-Dialogue-Report_FAO_2021_English-version.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/pre_Dialogue-Report_FAO_2021_relatorio_Portuguese.pdfhttps://www.social.org.br/pub/revistas-portugues/252-especulacao-com-terras-na-regiao-matopiba-e-impactos-socioambientaishttps://www.politicaleconomyoflabour.org/Themes/New-enclosures-conflict-and-labourhttps://xinguvivo.org.br/2021/08/03/trf1-derruba-decisao-que-garantia-agua-para-a-volta-grande-do-xingu-mpf-deve-recorrer/https://acervo.socioambiental.org/acervo/documentos/protocolo-de-consulta-montanha-e-mangabalhttps://theconversation.com/brazils-jair-bolsonaro-is-devastating-indigenous-lands-with-the-world-distracted-138478https://www.cptnacional.org.br/publicacoes/noticias/conflitos-no-campohttps://www.mcpbrasil.org/sementes-da-vida

2021-08-27 17:29:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/36526/46

11302550344024890446000380013000444000000481300000210001684210

Actuar con urgencia Desde la academia se reconoce la importancia de actuar de manera sostenida y coherente para dar alcance a la agenda 2030 al introducir desde la formulación del diálogo elementos que permitan que se constituya en un espacio de discusión intersectorial en la que participen diferentes actores de la sociedad, y que los hallazgos del mismo se entiendan como una iniciativa que permita la construcción sostenida de propuestas concretas en miras de modificar los sistemas alimentarios para lograr su sostenibilidad Ser respetuosos En el establecimiento inicial de roles -administradores, facilitadores y relatores- al interior del diálogo se acuerda como propósito permanente fomentar la escucha, el respeto por la opinión del otro y de la importancia a la perspectiva plantea por cada una de las personas que participaría activamente en el diálogo Reconocer la complejidad Al reconocer la complejidad que revisten los sistemas alimentarios la búsqueda de participación diferentes actores fue un propósito – al que se le dio alcance - desde el accionar de cada uno de los miembros del equipo convocante durante el periodo de organización del evento. Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés como se ya se mencionó, el equipo convocante del diálogo al tomar la decisión de enmarcar el mismo que la Política Pública de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, atiende a la necesidad de darle al espacio un enfoque intersectorial que propende por la inclusión de diversos grupos de interés quienes desde su perspectiva pudieran alimentar los insumos finales resultantes del evento. Complementar la labor de los demás al reconocer el arduo trabajo que implicó la reformulación de la Política Pública de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, a través de la cual se trascendió a un nuevo referencial e incorporó la intersectorialidad, se da alcance a este principio en la organización del diálogo ya que se procuró la participación de la sociedad civil, de grupos de interés, y adicionalmente se escuchó la voz de aquellos que normalmente no participan en estos.Asumir los compromisos de la cumbre: el diálogo se desarrolla en el contexto de un semillero de investigación de una institución de educación superior, cuyos temas de interés son los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y la garantía del derecho humano a la alimentación, este principio cobra gran relevancia en la medida en que hay un compromiso académico frente a la construcción de conocimiento colectivo para establecer propuestas en la búsqueda de acciones eficientes favor de lograr la sostenibilidad en las dinámicas e interrelaciones propias de los sistemas alimentarios de un territorio como Bogotá. Ser respetuosos desde la organización del diálogo se buscó la participación de diferentes sectores y actores que desde su accionar al interior de los sistemas alimentarios pueden tener discursos encontrados o divergentes, pero se propendió porque el espacio se considerara un ambiente seguro para el debate, en la búsqueda de la construcción de conocimiento colectivo, para establecer propuestas relacionadas con estrategias a favor del funcionamiento de los sistemas alimentarios y por ende la garantía del derecho humano a la alimentación. Este principio va en sintonía con el de crear confianza para continuar en diálogo permanente de cara a un escenario en el que urge considerar y validar opciones para transformar las propuestas de acción. Reconocer la complejidad: el desarrollo del diálogo no solo reconoce la complejidad que reviste “lo alimentario” y los sistemas alimentarios, asuntos en los que convergen diferentes perspectivas, intereses, grupos y sectores de actuación, sino además, la complejidad de los problemas que imposibilitan la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios, de modo que uno de los desafíos que supuso el diálogo fue incorporar un enfoque intersectorial desde planificación hasta le ejecución del mismo, de modo que se logró congregar ocho grupos de interés quienes con su participación activa en el escenario, permitieron corroborar que los sistemas alimentarios permean todos los aspectos de la existencia humana.Ninguno

NoSe relata a continuación el método adoptado para la realización del diálogo independiente: Diálogo sobre producción y consumo de alimentos en el marco de la Política Distrital de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, haciendo explícitos los momentos que se consideran clave para consolidación del mismo: El equipo organizador base, conformado por los miembros del Semillero Sistemas Alimentarios y Derecho Humano a la Alimentación, del Departamento de Nutrición y Bioquímica, de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana decide enmarcar el tema general del diálogo en la Política Pública Distrital de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional (Bogotá, Colombia), por tanto, se hace necesario realizar acercamientos con diferentes sectores e instituciones. A continuación, se detallan dichas articulaciones: Articulación con la Secretaría Distrital de Salud: Se realiza coordinación con la Referente de Seguridad Alimentaria de la Subdirección de Determinantes en Salud, de la Subsecretaría de Salud Pública, con el objetivo de realizar la planeación conjunta del evento, y adicionalmente con el propósito de lograr la inclusión y aporte del mayor número de grupos de interés, relacionados con el desarrollo de la Política en Bogotá. Como resultado de esta articulación se logra: El apoyo institucional en la convocatoria y realización el evento, con una participación importante de las Referentes de las localidades de Bogotá (territoriales) de SAN, quienes trabajaron mancomunadamente con los estudiantes que hacen parte del semillero. La participación de representantes de instituciones clave tales como: secretaria distrital de Salud, Secretaría de Desarrollo Económico, Jardín Botánico de Bogotá, Secretaría Distrital de Integración Social, entre otros. Articulación con FAO – Colombia: Angela Marcela Rivera Espinosa. Punto Focal. Frente Parlamentario contra el Hambre. Observatorio de Derecho a la Alimentación. FAO Colombia Observatorio del Derecho a la Alimentación: Participación del Observatorio en cabeza de la Dra. Olga Cecilia Restrepo Yepes, quien, durante el curso del primer semestre de 2021, participó activamente en actividades académicas propias del semillero a través de sesiones plenarias en las que se revisaron temas como: El derecho alimentario como derecho constitucional, exigibilidad y justiciabilidad del derecho a la alimentación, entre otros. Para efectos del diálogo, la Dra Restrepo Yepes inauguró la mesa general del diálogo, mediante la introducción del tema central que convoca la realización del mismo, desde la perspectiva del derecho a la alimentación como concepto trazador de la Política Pública Distrital de Seguridad Alimentaria. La realización del diálogo se acogió a lo establecido en el Manual de referencia para convocantes de los Diálogos de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios.

234238239247249El diálogo denominado: Diálogo sobre producción y consumo de alimentos en el marco de la Política Distrital de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, tal como lo deja explícito en su título aborda como tema principal la producción enmarcada en la cadena de suministro de alimentos como elemento constitutivo de los sistemas alimentarios y el consumo, relacionada desde la teoría de los temas alimentarios, con el comportamiento de los consumidores. Se incorporó el concepto de sistema a través del cual se reconoce que los eventos, decisiones y problemáticas que surgen en un elemento constitutivo de los Sistemas Alimentarios se reproducen y generan impacto sobre los otros elementos, adicionalmente, surge el interés de provocar el debate a partir de los elementos ofrecidos por en la Política Pública de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional para Bogotá: Construyendo Ciudadanía Alimentaria 2019 – 2013; la cual es una política intersectorial, que se establece como un instrumento de planeación estructurado sobre el enfoque de derechos y determinantes sociales. Como se mencionó esta política pública tiene un alcance intersectorial que parte de entender que la malnutrición es el resultado de factores biológicos, pero además está íntimamente relacionado con otros factores como los económicos, culturales y sociales, así como con las formas de producción y consumo de alimentos. Adicionalmente y atendiendo el llamado de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios de congregar grupos de interés para debatir, y posteriormente configurar vías para alcanzar sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, el enmarcar la temática principal en la Política Pública Distrital permite acogerse al referencial provisto por la misma en el cual se entiende la seguridad alimentaria como un concepto que ha evolucionado y aparte de incorporar la dimensión alimentaria y nutricional, incorpora la humana y la ambiental; lo que posibilita ampliar tanto los grupos de interés, como las discusiones que se suscitan a partir de la temática propuesta para el desarrollo del diálogo. Es propósito de la política lograr un sistema antes abastecimiento y distribución de alimentos sostenible lo que demanda desde la organización y planeación del diálogo darle la preponderancia suficiente al tema de producción y posterior comercialización de alimentos, principalmente alimentos frescos de clima frío, qué son los que se pueden cultivar en el territorio y específicamente fue este el tema abordado en la mesa de debate N° 1: Modelos de distribución de alimentos-canales de comercialización. Complementario a lo anterior se incorporó en el tema principal el análisis a la luz del contexto que deja la pandemia por COVID 19 – en términos de producción de alimentos – ya que se reconoce que esta situación afecta la producción de alimentos, y empeora las condiciones negativas que ya existían en el periodo pre-pandemia en la distribución de la tierra y los recursos en general, condiciones de los productores de alimentos, roles ejercidos por los intermediarios, etc (mesa de debate N° 2). Por otra parte la política también hace un llamado a centrar las discusiones sobre la búsqueda de acciones concretas sobre los elementos que influyen en las preferencias de compra y consumo de alimentos de quienes habitan la ciudad de Bogotá, puesto que se parte de un escenario en el que el consumo del de alimentos no contribuye a mantener una alimentación saludable, se evidencia un alto consumo de productos ultra procesados que contribuyen al deterioro de la salud e impactan de manera negativa del estado nutricional de las personas. Es así como se incorpora como tema principal del diálogo la importancia que reviste la legislación para el control en la distribución de alimentos que exacerban las prácticas nocivas en relación con el consumo de alimentos. Se incorpora al tema principal del diálogo el concepto de ciudadano alimentario, como referencial conceptual de la Política Pública a través del cual se reconoce que cada uno de los actores e individuos entendidos como ciudadanos alimentarios, son sujetos de deberes y derechos, lo que establece unas obligaciones en el comportamiento privado y público.235238239246247249En el escenario de la Cumbre mundial sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios convocada por las Naciones Unidas 2021, como estrategia para alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) al 2030, el Semillero de Sistemas Alimentarios y Derecho Humano a la Alimentación de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, en alianza con la Secretaría Distrital de Salud (SDS), y la Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y Alimentación FAO; se desarrollo el Diálogo sobre Producción y Consumo de alimentos en el marco de la Política Distrital de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. El propósito del evento fue promover un espacio de participación y propuestas de acción que contribuyan a dinamizar y fortalecer los sistemas alimentarios, y la garantía del derecho humano a la alimentación, como apoyo a la Politica publica de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional de Bogotá, 2019 – 2031. Las conclusiones principales del diálogo fueron: • Se recomienda a las entidades Distritales, Nacionales, Departamentales, promover la capacitación y seguimiento respecto a los requisitos necesarios para la participación en los mercados y comercialización de los productos por parte de los productores locales • Generar espacios y oportunidades para la construcción de puntos de acopio en los territorios con el fin de fortalecer a la población campesina y productores primarios frente a las TICS, que promueva la comercialización de sus cosechas y reducir la acción de intermediarios en los canales de comercialización. • En el periodo de confinamiento por la pandemia de COVID 19, la oferta de los productos y/o alternativas de venta llevo a la adaptación de ventas virtuales, y canales digitales para la entrega directa de los alimentos por parte de sus productores, disminuyendo los intermediarios. • El confinamiento por la pandemia de COVID 19, evidencio vulnerabilidad en la oferta alimentaria, por tanto, es necesario que los pequeños productores, cuenten con un mayor apoyo para la distribución de sus alimentos, de manera que se garantice una venta equitativa con los gastos de producción generados. • Como parte del confinamiento por la pandemia de COVID 19, se afecta el acceso a los alimentos, se recomienda fortalecer apoyo y seguimiento a las familias en vulnerabilidad alimentaria. • El periodo de confinamiento por COVID 19, genera cambios en las practicas alimentarias, se hace necesario reforzar los procesos de educación alimentaria y nutricional, y las acciones que permitan fortalecer la promoción de hábitos alimentarios saludables. • Se reconoce que existen varias legislaciones tanto a nivel nacional como distrital, aún hacen falta políticas públicas y leyes que logren la garantía total del DHHA • Para dar cumplimiento al DHAA y promover la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, así como la soberanía alimentaria y nutricional a nivel nacional y distrital, se hace necesario Implementar y cumplir el acuerdo de paz, relacionado con el acuerdo 1(Reforma Rural Integral) • Se reconoce el avance en la aprobación de la Ley de comida chatarra para el fortalecimiento del DHAA y a la información clara y veraz para el consumidor • La noción de Ciudadano alimentario, incluye la participación de todos, con deberes y derechos, por tanto, la importancia de las decisiones que tomamos, debe empezar desde temprana edad, promovida por el proceso educativo. Se reconoce la importancia del apoyo en educación al campesinado, y los pequeños productores. • Se requiere generar conciencia alimentaria desde temprana edad, que busque la apropiación de la población en cada uno de los procesos de la cadena de producción de alimentos, reconociendo el valor que tienen los actores involucrados en los sistemas alimentarios, quienes producen el alimento como quienes lo consumen. • Promover la participación en los comités locales de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, y en las diferentes iniciativas que se construyan dentro de la comunidad, como insumo en la formación del ciudadano alimentario, y construcción de la ciudadanía alimentaria. • Se reconoce el rol de la academia como actor de los sistemas alimentarios, en la construcción y generación de conocimiento, para contribuir en la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y la garantía del derecho humano a la alimentación.236238244248TEMA 1: MODELOS DE DISTRIBUCIÓN DE ALIMENTOS (CANALES CORTOS DE COMERCIALIZACIÓN Preguntas Orientadoras: ¿Qué ventanas de oportunidad representan los mercados campesinos para alcanzar la sostenibilidad de la Seguridad Alimentaria en Bogotá́? ¿Qué oportunidades de mejora se identifican en los canales cortos de comercialización existentes en Bogotá y qué alternativas de solución se pueden proponer? • Acompañamiento de las entidades Distritales, Nacionales, Gubernamentales o Departamentales frente al conocimiento de los procesos de comercialización con respecto a los requisitos que se requieren para el desarrollo de los mercados o comercialización de los productos. • Reconocer los procesos de tejidos sociales en el marco de la comercialización de productos locales, que se tienen desde procesos de la comunidad que reconoce las necesidades de su territorio y la producción del mismo con relación a los productos ofrecidos, lo cual ayuda a visibilizar la construcción de la ciudadaniza alimentaria que busca la PPSAN. • Concertar las acciones pertinentes que se deben dar a las acciones de asistencia técnica para volver a la producción limpia de alimentos sanos, con el uso de la agroecología, y a su vez el incentivar el seguir produciendo sus alimentos, teniendo en cuenta los centros de acopio frente al tema de la demanda de dichos productos que se acopien. • Reactivación y construcción de puntos de acopio en los territorios , frente al tema de las acciones pertinentes a eliminar los intermediarios, y a su vez fortalecer a la población campesina y productora primaria frente a las TICS, con relación a la comercialización de sus cosechas.236238239247TEMA 2: DESAFÍOS Y OPORTUNIDADES EN LA PRODUCCIÓN DE ALIMENTOS EN TIEMPO DE PANDEMIA Preguntas orientadoras: ¿Cuáles de las estrategias de adaptación implementadas durante la pandemia por los productores, permitieron fortalecer la producción de alimentos? ¿Cuáles comportamientos de los consumidores durante la pandemia, se constituyen en retos y desafíos para la producción de alimentos? • Se evidencia como principales estrategias para la producción y venta de los productos, en el marco de la pandemia por COVID 19, la adaptación de ventas virtuales, canales digitales, entre otros, para la oferta de los productos y/o alternativas de venta como la entrega directa de los alimentos por parte de sus productores, disminuyendo los intermediarios para asegurar un mejor precio de los productos. • Los productos se ofrecen a la población en general, ubicándose en los sitios donde se considere exista mayor concurrencia de personas, brindando mayor visibilidad a los mismos. • Es necesario que los pequeños productores, cuenten con un mayor apoyo para la distribución de sus alimentos, de manera que se garantice una venta equitativa con los gastos de producción generados. • A partir de la pandemia, se ha evidenciado ganancia de peso en la población en general, asociada a la falta de práctica de actividad física, así como a la inadecuada selección de alimentos para el consumo, identificándose preferencias por alimentos ultraprocesados y dejando de lado el consumo de alimentos de mayor calidad nutricional como las frutas y las verduras. Por lo anterior, se hace necesario reforzar los procesos de educación alimentaria y nutricional, brindando orientaciones para la adecuada selección de los alimentos, de manera que se continúe promoviendo hábitos alimentarios saludables. • Se requiere fortalecer el apoyo a las familias en inseguridad alimentaria, dado que ésta se ha profundizado aún más en el curso de la pandemia en el país, viéndose más afectado el acceso a los alimentos236239246249TEMA 3: RETOS DE LA LEGISLACIÓN PARA EL LOGRO DEL CONSUMO SALUDABLE Y SOSTENIBLE DE ALIMENTOS Preguntas orientadoras: ¿Qué logros desde la legislación identifica para la garantía del DHAA? ¿Qué asuntos están pendientes por legislar para garantizar el DHAA a las poblaciones? • Implementar y cumplir el acuerdo de paz, más específicamente el punto 1 (Reforma Rural Integral) para dar cumplimiento al DHAA y promover la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional, así como la soberanía alimentaria y nutricional a nivel nacional y distrital. • Ley comida chatarra para el fortalecimiento del DHAA y a la información clara y veraz para el consumidor • Formulación y creación de políticas públicas para que el DHAA se cumpla y no se vulnere la SAN y la SA • Aunque existen varias legislaciones tanto a nivel nacional como distrital, aún hacen falta políticas públicas y leyes que logren la garantía total del DHHA. Asimismo el rol que cumplen los nutricionistas para crear conciencia en las personas acerca de la importancia que tiene el estar informado respecto a las leyes que regula la SAN y el papel que juega la educación alimentaria y nutricional desde la primera infancia dentro de la prevención de las condiciones no transmisibles. • Se resalta la importancia de no dejar olvidado el papel de la educación alimentaria y nutricional y el gran reto que existe a nivel de la legislación de trascender de la ley del etiquetado nutricional a un plan nacional y distrital de educación alimentaria y nutricional para poder alcanzar un consumo saludable y sostenible de alimentos. En general no se presentaron puntos de debate sino más bien el diálogo generado se enfocó en enriquecer los aportes de cada una de las personas que participó dentro del debate.236239241246247251TEMA 4: PARTICIPACIÓN CIUDADANA: DESDE LA PERSPECTIVA DEL CIUDADANO ALIMENTARIO ¿Qué significa ser un ciudadano alimentario? ¿Conocemos los mecanismos mediante los cuales podemos participar en los procesos inherentes a la alimentación? • Ciudadano alimentario somos todos, con deberes y derechos, Importancia del apoyo al campesinado, y a nuestros pequeños productores, donde también se les da educación y apoyo. • Importancia de las decisiones que tomamos, la educación debe empezar desde temprana edad y los colegios deberían tener este abordaje. La educación alimentaria debería tenerse toda la vida. • Generar conciencia alimentaria a través de la educación alimentaria y nutricional desde temprana edad, tanto en colegios como en universidades e involucrar a la población en cada uno de los procesos de la cadena de producción de alimentos con el fin que conozcan el valor que tienen los actores involucrados quienes producen el alimento como quienes lo consumen. Volvernos prosumidores, producimos y de esto nos alimentamos. • Las instituciones no son las únicas responsables de promover la participación de la ciudadanía, si bien ellas son las encargadas de plantear las políticas es importante que los ciudadanos se apropien de ellas y tengan la voluntad de exigirlas, es deber de ellos adquirir el conocimiento, así mismo se propende la difusión de la información entre la misma comunidad para que sean más los ciudadanos que participen. • Importancia de la participación en los comités locales, y como comunidad participar en las diferentes iniciativas que se construyan dentro de la comunidad. Eligiendo bien a la hora de comer. Planear bien el consumo de alimentos, sólo lo que necesitamos, manejo adecuado de los alimentos.

2021-08-29 08:00:19207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28341/203

2023875751410397253417817327713260351052112622211391591329

This global dialogue is designed to be convened by producers, respecting the feedback received on the importance of having farmers, fishers, pastoralists, and all types of producers setting the discussion agenda instead of only being invited as participants in dialogues. On participation, the organizing team paid careful attention to inclusivity by striving to invite individuals from diverse stakeholder groups, sectors, gender, and countries. This entailed going through various iterations of the invitation list, each convening institution drawing on their respective networks. Facilitators were selected and briefed with care, to ensure they create a space for dialogue that is conducive to respect and trust. The discussion topics were designed to consolidate and complement the outcomes of a series of producer-focused independent dialogues at national, regional and global levels. The dialogue aims to capture multiple aspects of the challenges, contributions, responsibilities and expectations of producers in transforming our food systems so as to embrace their complexity and linkage.Fully embracing respect, trust and complexity of producers’ role in transforming our food systems, discussions in the groups were carefully curated with a mix of different stakeholders from producers (both small, medium and large scale), member states, civil society, private sector and others emphasizing an open and secure discussion environment. The principle of inclusivity was also fully reflected throughout the dialogue participation both in terms of sector, regional, age and gender representation. All participants were encouraged to “act with urgency”, recognizing the importance of accelerating the pace of change in their recommendations and demonstrating commitment to act. With discussion topics featuring producers’ commitments and the support needed from other stakeholders, all participants were encouraged to committed to contributing to the Food Systems Summit preparation and follow-up, recognizing it is an important milestone to catalyse further action on food systems.It is important to carefully select and brief the session discussion facilitators properly to ensure they are fully onboard with the dialogue design and can guide participants in a well-framed discussion space rather than completely starting from scratch. To ensure participants have an interactive experience during the breakout session, it is important to have back-up facilitators and note-takers in case more participants show up at the event than initially expected.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Building upon the outcomes of a series of producer-led independent dialogues, the Global Summit Dialogue with Farmers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Other Producers examined the challenges, contributions, responsibilities and expectations of farmers, fishers, pastoralists and others in transforming our food systems with regards to nutrition, climate, biodiversity, livelihoods, resilience and other areas. The outcomes of this Global Dialogue contribute to the UN Food Systems Summit to advance the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The dialogue discussions were framed based on the following complementary perspectives: • The five Food Systems Summit Objectives and Action Tracks: o Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all, o Shift to sustainable consumption patterns, o Boost nature-positive production, o Advance equitable livelihoods, and o Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. • Key themes and challenges in food systems transformation raised in over 50 producer-focused independent dialogues at national, regional and global levels, such as agroecology, cooperatives that foster inclusive value chains, producers’ access to finance and technology, evidence-based and rights-based approaches, as well as empowerment of the agency of producers. • Key discussion outcomes of other global dialogues that concern the producer constituency were mapped out to inform the design of this producer-led global summit dialogue. Achieved outcomes The global dialogue contributed to the following outcomes: • Build awareness about the key roles of farmers, fishers, pastoralists and all types of producers in building sustainable and equitable food systems. • Consolidate and clarify key commitment of producers in transforming our food systems before the Pre-Summit. • Identify key support request of producers towards other stakeholders in order to achieve joint collaborations across the food systems value chain. • Ensure producers in all their diversity are considered as one of the key stakeholders in forming coalitions around food system transformation as well as designing national food systems transformation pathways. The 4 discussion topics across all discussion groups were: • What producers are ready to commit to? • What producers would like to see others commit to? • What producers need to see the world stop doing? • What do you think is missing in the Food Systems Summit?235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Main issues and recommendations for actions raised includes the following: 1. What producers are ready to commit to? Overall producers are committed to playing an active role in transforming food systems. A strong and clear commiment towards agroecology and fishing methods that benefit people, planet and prosperity was identified. Producers also commit to promoting inclusive value chains that give farmers, fishers, pastoralists and other producers more market power through their organizations and cooperatives. They also commit to organizing and federating movements and organizations of producers and to buidling the capacities of producers to be key actors for sustainable food systems. Young and female producers were recognized as critical agent for change in transforming our food systems. Producers also commit to actively engaging in evidence-based and technology-empowered solutions for food system transformation as equal partners. Producers also commit to respond to the changing realities and needs of our society (e.g., growing population, increasing fragmentation of land holdings, harmful fishing subsidies increasing divide and conflict between industrial and small-scale fisheries, consumers’ demand for more nutritious food, etc). Food producers are the first to experience the impacts of climate change and have consequently implemented a series of risk coping strategies which make their food systems more resilient. 2. What producers would like to see others commit to? Producers have identified consumers, governments, private sector, science and technology community, as well as financial institutions as five main stakeholders that they would like to seek support from. In order for producers to play an active role in transforming food systems, it is requested that consumers need to better undertand the challenge producer face especially regarding the overall cost of food production (e.g. ecosystem damage and bycatch when excessively damaging fishing gears are used), and mutually beneficial solutions are needed to ensure fair price and food affordability. Governments should commit to developing more targetd policies that are rights-based, evidence-based, and meet prodcuers’ needs, specifc areas mentioned include securing rights of producers over their natural resources (e.g., lands, waters, forests, and seeds), infrastructure, price stability, trade barriers, support to stronger producer organizations and transition to agroeology. Also, to design and implement national action plans for the UN Decade of Family Farming, with family farmers as key stakeholder. Moreover, local differences should be taken into account and a flexible approach should be adopted. It is vital to promote an enabling policy environment in order to meet current and emerging challenges, and to maintain policy coherence and enhance integration in key sectors such as agriculture, health, education and the environment. Private sector actors are urged to commit to ensuring that producers get fair financial return, and make efforts to ensure their trade doesn’t marginalise small scale fishers or farmers. This can be achieved by promoting innovative contractual forms, which are not detrimental to the weaker contracting party and by recognising all actors along the value chain as economic actors and equal partners. Support from science and technology community is needed in investing more in research and technology , in partnership with producers, that helps improve productivity and effiency of farming and fishing activities while respecting traditional and indigenous agricultural knoweldge, as well as making data more accessible for farmers, fishers, pastoralists and other producers transitioning towards agroecology. Financial support, including subsidy transitions, direct financing to producer organizations and cooperatives, and innovative credit systems that can be taliored to the needs of different types of producers were requestd from financial institutions. 3. What producers need to see the world stop doing? Producers request the world to stop criticizing them as part of the problem, but to recognize them as a key part of the solution, especially when they are using responsible gears and techniques. A strong emphasis on re-balancing value distribution across the food systems value chain, and have producers treated as equal partners was raised. Producers also demand the world to stop disrespecting producers’ knowledge and experience, but to treat them as experts in their own fields and invite them to sit at the decision table. A strong urge to stop using general, one-size-fits-all, and top-down policy approach to producers was raised, and the need to pay for the true cost of raw materials and food was emphasized. Porducers also request to stop having the food system value chain controlled by a few powerful actors without factoring in the voice, rights and needs of grass-root level producers. 4. What do you think is missing in the Food Systems Summit? Key issues raised by producers as currently missing in the Food Systems Summit include the involvement of local transporters, specific focus on small scale producers’ interests, concrete support mechanisms for family farmers and small scale fishers, a balanced understanding and recognition of the livestock sector and animal proteins, a nuanced view of technology, a stronger voice of young and female producers, a clear understanding of rights and responsibilities among stakeholders, as well as an urgency for concrete actions on issues such as climate change.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. What producers are ready to commit to? Across all breakout discussions, producers have raised the following joint commiment areas: - Active player in food system transformation – producers commit to continue playing a key role in sustainably feeding and nourishing the world, creating more decent jobs, and generating incomes for communities. Specifically, producers are willing to take concrete actions and lead the transformation process towards a healthy and sustainable food systems. - Transition to agroecology and least damaging fishing gears – producers commit to agroecological and regenerative approaches such as natural farming, with least damaging fishing gears and method for better livelihoods, for saving the planet, for good health, as well as for the changing climate. Agroecology offers the best protection for our livelihoods, where producers are able to sustainably produce more safe and nutritious food with minimal inputs, greater local employment, and least impact on the environment and the climate. - Partnership across the value chain – producers commit in creating alliance with all types of stakeholders (e.g., governments, private sector, financial institution, science and academia, consumers, etc) across the food system value chain to move away from working in silos; as well as in strengthening their cooperatives. Partnerships between food producers and businesses, cooperatives and governments which lead to information sharing and learning exchange among producers are considered vital to achieve the goal of more sustainable food systems. - Invest in young producers - producers are ready to encourage and facilitate youth to take up agriculture and responsible fishing, through training and knowledge transfer, and plan to advocate for the inclusion of agriculture and fisheries related subjects as part of school curriculum. - Recognition and support of female producers – producers commit to giving full recognition of the role female farmers, fishers, pastoralists and other producers play in our food systems, as well as their potential in continue transforming our food systems. - Evidence-based and technology-empowered – producers commit to actively engaging as equal partners in evidence-based solutions for food system transformation, and to invest in technology to improve productivity and efficiency of farming and activities (e.g., minimise post-harvest losses), while minimising their impacts upon supporting ecosystems (e.g., transitions away from excessively damaging fishing gears). - Respond to changing realities and needs – producers commit to responding to the changing realities and needs of our society (e.g., growing population, increasing fragmentation of land holdings, growing divide and conflict between small scale and industrial fisheries, consumers’ demand for more nutritious food). - Commitment towards climate change. Food producers are the first to experience the impacts of climate change and have consequently implemented a series of risk coping strategies which make their food systems more resilient. Their role gives them the capacity to be enablers of solutions, which is why their efforts are aimed at: taking actions to mitigate climate change as well as adapt to it, restoring land and soil, protecting biodiversity, promoting innovation in order to reduce food waste and loss, feeding people with safe and nutritious food.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502512. What producers would like to see others commit to? - Consumers: o Consumers need to better understand the challenges producers face, especially regarding the overall cost of food production and processing across the food system value chain. o Need to identify mutually beneficial solutions between producers and consumers to ensure both fair price and food affordability. This can be done through better marketplaces, digital solutions connecting farmers and consumers directly, efficient value chains, better informing consumers, etc. - Governments: o Governments should commit to develop more targeted policies that are rights-based, evidence-based, sustainable and meet the actual needs of producers, specific attention should be given to young and female producers. Regular review of existing policies to cope up with changing contexts and emerging needs of producers are also essential. o National governments should allocate more resources in infrastructure development such as road networks, irrigation infrastructure and production inputs, improved cold chain support, advisory services, available and affordable innovation and information systems, financial services, and better digital infrastructure. o National and state governments need to support the building of strong producers’ organizations that can collectively organize producers and support them with accessing finance, fair prices, subsidies, market linkages, value chains and capacity building in areas needed. o Governments should play a key role in ensuing price stability, which sets fair price of agriculture and fisheries products to allow producers to make a decent living. o Governments should facilitate the removal of trade barriers at national, regional and international level to improve market access, while balancing the interest of local small-scale producers. o Allow for and proactively support equitable competition between small producers and big producers/corporations/companies. o Governments should support producers’ transition towards agroecology, and the use of least damaging fishing gears. - Private sector: o Private sectors that are expending more on large scale productions need to be mindful of the nature, habitants of biodiversity, and the broader impacts their market drives for lowest prices cause. o Food processers, retailers, wholesale markets and other private sector actors on the value chain need to ensure that producers get fair financial return by setting a fair price. o Need to genuinely empower consumers to make well informed and responsible purchase decisions. - Science and technology: o There is a need for more investment in research and technology that places producers as equal partners with key roles as well as being based on their needs, with an aim to improve the sustainability of food production. o Technology should be made more user-friendly for small-scale fishing and farming practices. o Make reliable data accessible to producers, promoting farmers’ learning farms and farmer extensionists, to convince and then support co-farmers to transition into agroecological production or the responsible use of least damaging fishing gears. o Traditional and indigenous agricultural knowledge should be respected while conducting new research and developing new technology. o More regular interaction between the producer group and the science group is needed to ensure latest science development on agriculture both takes producers’ inputs into consideration and is easily accessible to producers at all levels and all sizes. - Financial institution: o Producers need more financial support, from both private and public financial institutions, in order to have access to necessary resources and infrastructure. Producers call for direct financing through their organizations and cooperatives. o Such financial support should be tailored to different needs of producers. Producers demand the access to tailored and innovative credit systems, rather than traditional banking schemes, that empower and better protect them from potential adverse effects and unlock sustainable investments. Greater inclusion of young people and women is needed.2362382392402412432442452462472482492502513. What producers need to see the world stop doing? - Stop criticizing producers as part of the problem but to recognize them as a key part of the solution. - Stop treating producers as beneficiaries, as targets. Treat them as equal partners. - Stop being devious when dealing with producers, but be straightforward, honest and accountable instead. - Stop being unfair to producers, and stop social inequality among producers: stop not recognizing the role of women in farming or seafood production who often do most of the work; stop exploiting small scale producers and not giving them social security. - Stop unbalanced value distribution across the food systems value chain, where producers are at disadvantage. Fundamentals of equity, transparency and fairness in the governance of the value chains should be respected, and policy, research, development support, financing and technology should align accordingly to support producers. - Stop improper disposal of inedible products in the ground affecting micro-organisms in the soil, which in turn affect production (“so as not to kill the life we are trying to produce”). - Stop using excessively damaging and wasteful fishing gears that cause unnecessary ecosystem damage, bycatch and pollution - Stop disrespecting producers as experts in their own fields. People who do not farm or fish need to stop trying to tell producers how to farm or fish. - Stop discounting producers’ knowledge, and only treating them as information consumers rather than decision makers. Invite and allow producers to sit at the table: hear what producers have to say and not discount it for whatever reason they choose to discount it. Producers’ knowledge can be valuable in many areas such as climate change and biodiversity protection. - Stop using general, one-size-fits-all, top-down policy approaches to producers, which is an extreme diverse group. Policies and interventions need to be tailored to local contexts, and support responsible production practices. - Stop stealing Producers’ data. Pay the true cost of raw materials and food, while also accounting for the unwanted ecosystem impacts that result from irresponsible production practices. Pay for ecosystem services that responsible producers provide. - Stop stealing biodiversity and genetics from local farmers. Make sure that farmers are able to produce their own seeds, their own genetics in their own local condition. - Stop being inconsiderate of the issue of access to land or shared marine resources, and respect the need for quick and fair resolution of land litigation or resource quota issues. - Stop attacking famers for using technology and modern advances. There is room for organic, conventional, and biotechnology. We need to recognize that each of these approaches has its space. - Stop giving small producers chemicals and small scale fishers damaging gears, but encourage them to embark a transition to agroecological approaches and the efficient use of least damaging fishing gears. - Stop having the food system value chain controlled by a few powerful actors without factoring in the voice of grass-root level farmers, fishers, pastoralist and other producers.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502514. What do you think is missing in the Food Systems Summit? - Involvement of local transporters. The role of local transporters is vital. Without them, producers’ produce does not get to the processors, to the market. - Focus on small-scale producers’ interests. The written document of the FSS does not mention anything on this issue. It does not define well what is going to happen as far as small-scale producers are concerned. It has to identify actions that promote the interest of small-scale producers (e.g., current global discussions around investment are focusing more on larger scare agriculture which put small-scale producers and industrial fishing at disadvantage, often marginalized from globalized trade systems as a result). - Concrete support mechanisms for the participation of family famers and small-scale fishers in food system governance is unclear, this includes specific issues such as access to land and other resources (e.g. internationally shared and highly migratory tuna resources). - A balanced understanding and recognition of livestock sector, and the value of animal proteins. The view regarding a balanced diet should include both plant- and animal-based foods is needed, and producers commit to have sustainable livestock sector that respects planetary boundaries as part of solutions during the summit process. - A nuanced view of technology, with the understanding that it should always developed in the interests of producers, who have traditional and indigenous knowledge and skills that should also be respected. - A balanced view of our agriculture, farming and fishing system. Our agriculture and fisheries systems are not completely broken and not everything about farming or fishing needs to be changed. Many producers are already changing and adapting their farming practices to leave their farming and fishing environment in a better place. A thorough understanding of science and markets is needed, which should lead policy. - A stronger voice of female and young producers is needed throughout the Summit process. - Practical conversations on how to support producers and their organizations financially is needed. - Conversations on how international trade plays an important role in increasing resilience and food security, but with cognizance that globalization must not marginalize smaller scale producers that apply agroecology or use least damaging fishing gears and methods. - An enabling policy environment for producers. Policy makers who make decisions on farming or fishing systems are not farmers or fishers and have little understanding of rural life. Policy makers need to develop a better understanding to create enabling environments that support producers. - A clearer understanding of rights and responsibilities among stakeholders in the food system value chain, currently there is a big gap, and small-scale actors are too often marginalized as a result. - More transparent and clear connection between summit and national implementation plans, which are how producers will actually be impacted. - An urgency for concrete action. The Food Systems Summit should not just be a talk show but a platform that is followed by concrete actions. Action needs to be taken with a stronger sense of emergency especially regarding climate change, and the need to transition towards agroecology and the use of least damaging fishing gears.237240241242244246249250Overall, there was no significant divergence in terms of producers’ commitment, expectation for other stakeholders. However there tend to be different views in the following two areas: 1) Small scale v.s. large scale producers: some participants think small-scale family farmers and fishers should be the main target of the Summit process as they are the ones that need support the most. However, some participants think both small- and large-scale producers should be taken into consideration as they are both important players in the food systems, and therefore both deserve attention and support. A balanced view between the two is needed, and we can’t afford a one-size-fits-all approach. 2) International trade v.s. local production: there are participants strongly advocating for local production and consumption for nutrition, livelihoods and environmental reasons, especially when it concerns small scale producers. On the other hand, there are voices on how international trade plays an important role in increasing market access, resilience and food security. The latter must be cognizant of how trade globalization can marginalize smaller scale fishers and producers though, so a balanced approach between the two is needed.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Full-Version_Global-Producer-Dialogue-Official-Feedback-Form_0816.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31514/

2021-08-30 05:22:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23439/203

18732100469524814685111448189316914414121618

The Dialogue was organized in a participatory manner with other farmers' organizations in Asia-Pacific. This dialogue focused on the consolidation of 4 independent dialogue co-organized by farmers' organizations.It was designed to learn through sharing and to surface out urgent actions that needs to be done to address the challenges faced by small-scale farmers and fishers. The dialogue acknowledge the need to work with various agencies because the issues faced by farmers and fishers are complex.Different topics were discussed including Agroecology, Climate change adaptation, Sustainable fishing, and Market power. Representative from various agencies joined such as UN agencies, Action track leadership teams, government representatives, the business sector, and research institutions. At the end, there was a call to invest directly to farmers' and fishers' organizations so they can scale out much faster their solutions acknowledging the urgency of transforming food systems.Design the dialogue in a way that it welcomes diverse perspective by having ample time to have an exchange. Include a session where there is a clear ways forward after the event, pre-Summit and post-Summit.

Yes

234238240241242244245246248249251The dialogue focused on consolidating the proposed farmers’ and fishers’ solutions in the areas of climate change adaptation, agroecology and organic production systems, sustainable fishing, and increasing market power of farmers and fishers, and scaling out and scaling up strategies. It is also aimed at securing support and commitment from key stakeholders, development agencies and other institutions including action track leadership teams. Lastly it is aimed at developing partnerships and collaborative endeavours between farmers’ and fishers’ organisations and key institutions.235238239240241242244245246248249251Many and diverse solutions already exists in the rural communities and coastal communities. Details of the proposal are as follows: Action 1: Establish farmers’ resiliency trust fund for transformative food system  Grant facility supported by various development partners (EU, etc.) and lodged at IFAD.  Specific unit in IFAD to manage the trust fund ensuring that the fund generates enough interest that will be used to finance grant projects. This lean and mean unit shall also serve as the secretariat to take charge of technical and operational concerns (report preparation).  Governed by a specific dedicated mechanism with decentralized operation and FO representation  Global council with representation from global FAFO members (50% FO/Coop and 50% IFAD)  Tasked to oversee the growth and performance of the trust fund, including risk management.  Allocate the resources across regions equitably.  Regional council with representation from regional FOs  Eligible projects to be supported  Institutional capacity building of FOSs to provide economic services to members  Agri-based enterprises managed by FOs/Agri-cooperatives/RFOs  Policy engagement at all levels  Rural women engagement in inclusive agri-food value chain  Attracting youth in agriculture  Climate resiliency to support sustainable agri-food production (disaster affected communities)  Knowledge management (learning exchanges, developing KM products, etc.)  Farmers’ innovation (piloting new variety, etc.) Action 2: Establish farmer impact investment fund  Impact investment fund lodged at IFAD  Specific unit in IFAD to manage the impact investment fund pooled from various impact investors for agri-food  Link the impact investors with qualified FOs and agri-coops  Manage the call for agri-food impact investioment for FOs and agri-coops  Act as secretariat to take charge of technical and operational concern (report preparation)  Governed by a specific dedicated mechanism with decentralized operation and FO representation  Global council with representation from FOs/agri coop federations (50% agri coop federation/FOs and 50% impact investors)  Regional council with representation from regional agri coop federations  Eligible projects to be supported  Agri-based enterprises managed by FOs/Agri-Coops/RFOs  Rural women engagement in inclusive agri-food value chain.  Attracting youth in agriculture through innovative and feasible agri-based enterprises  Climate resiliency to support sustainable agri-food production/climate resistant technology  Risk coverage insurance  Farmers’ innovation (upscaling a successful model on new crop variety, etc.) Action 3: UN partnership with Global Farmers’ Forum  Institutionalized participation (with financial and technical support for meaningful participation) of FOs in the various mechanism tasked to formulate and review policies and programs on FSS and SDF  Enhancement and expansion of producer-public-private partnership ensuring equitable sharing of risks and benefits.236238239240241242244247248249251Climate Change AdaptationRecommendations 1. Traditional food systems and community seed banks that have stood the test of time to be revived and be woven with today’s sustainable science to allow innovative solution. Promote local varieties of vegetables to create the demand, then work on production of vegetables, introduce nutritional education. 2. Mitigation and traditional systems that have been researched, tested to be shared with farmer to farmer (F2F) Learning Exchanges within the Asia Pacific region. 3. Policy support to improve the capacity of the household to control the resources, including land ownership. 4. Increase crop/livestock/fishers production without creating damage to the environment. 5. Develop, target local FOs to develop rainwater harvesting systems and affordable structures ensure system works (save drinking water, recharge groundwater). 6. Use innovation with science and technology and introduce indigenous species of fruit trees, nuts, traditional varieties, e.g., breadfruit. 7. Work with private sector for investment and partnership with FOs, linking farmers’ products to markets. 8. Encourage formation of farmer organizations, farmer cooperatives that have climate change/sustainable agriculture as core values/themes as service and market-oriented organizations for its members. Farmer organizations to work with government, agriculture sectors together towards the integration of agriculture activities to plan, design, and implement activities. Agroecology Recommendations/Policy Statements 1. Put people at the center of policies; localize food systems; build knowledge and skills on traditional and local knowledge; put control of resources at the hands of food producers to create a sustainable food system. 2. Sustainable agriculture based on local biodiversity and forgotten foods – beneficial to poor farmers and should be supported by appropriate policy and regulatory framework. 3. Craft policies to support agroecology; funding for research, documentation and dissemination of success stories; a policy framework that forwards Food Sovereignty. 4. Farmer to farmer exchange, PGS, local policies to strengthen organic agriculture and agroecology, banning of GMOs and harmful pesticides, protection from biopiracy and patents. 5. Need for systematic redirection of investment, funding, research and policy towards the needs of small farmers. Focus on the need of women and youth in training, development and education, policy and support to production, postharvest, processing and marketing systems of small scale producers and cooperatives. 6. Educate and connect food producers to consumers to minimize carbon footprint; create appropriate distribution channels (e-commerce) to sell products to consumers. 7. Recognize, uphold and protect farmers’ rights to land, seed, knowledge, and resources. Sustainable Fishing Recommendations 1. Establish strong SSF organizations so that they are able to provide service to members with governments and other organizations supporting them with access to finance, pre and post-harvest facilities, capacity building, fishing technologies for marine and fresh water resources. 2. Provide spaces for women and young fishers to act. 3. Invest in post-harvest value chain, access to credit. 4. During fish bans, provide support mechanisms. 5. Educate and enforce practices for sustainable fisheries. 6. Empower and organize women and youth fishers. 7. Rehabilitate fishery resources. 8. Recognise the role of SSF and IP communities to restore, co-manage, conserve and protect local aquatic and coastal ecosystem. Recommendations and Strategies 1. Formation of cooperatives. 2. Promotion and standardisation of organic farming policy. 3. Establishment of processing centers and storage facilities managed by farmers. 4. Digitalisation (from production to marketing). 5. Strengthening and empowerment of farmers. 6.Increasing of knowledge and awareness on demand and supply. 7. Market positioning – market offers high buying price but with minimum volume requirement and high quality product. Forging of partnership agreement between farmers and institutions and organisations.237238239240241242244245246247248249251The solutions are context specific so what is working in one country may not necessarily work in other countries.

2021-08-30 10:20:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3221/18203

953020152010102055105151510

This workshop, "What Can Farmers Do? Farmer-led, science-based greenhouse gas mitigation strategies for Australia and abroad," was organised to be an interactive event that allowed participants to reflect on actionable solutions that are already being developed and used by Australian farmers. As Australia's first Independent Dialogue, the workshop provided an entry-point for Australian farmers to engage in the global conversations about food systems that the UN Food Systems Summit was bringing to the world's attention. The Dialogue was organised in a way that incorporated and reinforced the principle of engagement. The event brought together diverse voices from across the agricultural sector to present diverse solutions, and allowed participants to ask questions to explore these innovations further.The Dialogue recognised the complexities of food and agricultural systems, and panelists invited to speak represented diverse viewpoints. By bringing together many voices, the Dialogue sought to encourage building on and complementing the work of others. Many stakeholders were involved in this Dialogue, and the organisers set a respectful and inclusive tone for the event, which allowed participants to speak freely and comment on each others' ideas in a way that built camaraderie and trust.This Dialogue was structured appropriately to the Australian context. Following advice from the UN Food Systems Secretariat, Dialogue Convenors should interpret the Principles of Engagement in a locally-specific and culturally-relevant way to stimulate the best discussion possible.

NoAs this was Australia's first Independent Dialogue, some of the methods as recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual were inadvertently not fully adhered to. The Convenors learned from this Dialogue and refined engagement methods in subsequent Dialogues. This Dialogue brought together a number of panelists who presented to a group of participants about various agricultural innovations that could transform food systems. The participants were engaged through a hybrid format, with some people listening in the room, online in real time, and many more able to watch the event recording online afterwards. Participants were able to ask questions of the panelists, and engaged the the content material through several poll questions that were shared through Facebook Live as the event was being streamed. While this Dialogue did not have Discussion Groups as part of the event, all participants were able to share their thoughts through an event chat. The panelists, who represented several stakeholder groups, were able to safely express differing opinions and had robust conversation that allowed points of divergence and convergence to surface.

234238240242243244248250Australia has taken a leading role in participating in the UN Food Systems Summit Action Track 3 Working Group. The impact of boosting nature-positive production on sustainably transforming food systems is of great important to many Australian farmers, and this Dialogue primarily focused on exploring Action Track 3. The Dialogue was convened by the Crawford Fund and the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) to demonstrate emerging innovative practices to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by farmers and to showcase implementable strategies in Australia and the world. The Dialogue was conceived as a way to bring together leaders in agricultural innovation and science to discuss ways that Australia can boost nature-positive production. Australia chairs the Global Research Alliance (GRA) on Reduction of Greenhouse Gases in 2021 and is committed to supporting global efforts towards reducing emissions. Farmers in Australia are leading the charge in reducing emissions on-farm, based on sound science, and are demonstrating a way forward for policy makers to assist in achieving their objectives.235240243244248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of event participants and does not represent the views of either convening organisation. This report shares the organisations of the speakers, as this event was public and a full program and video recording is still available (see relevant links). The main findings reported here are drawn from the presentations of speakers who represented the following organisations: The Crawford Fund, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Rennylea Pastoral Company, Jigsaw Farms, Resource Consulting Services, the Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre at the University of Melbourne, the Australian Government Commonwealth Scientific Industrial and Research Organisation (CSIRO) and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). It is important to note that many topics were covered and that speakers from the above organisations may hold differing views on the findings presented below. Main conclusions are presented below through the lens of shared sentiments towards ambition, challenges, and opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture. Ambition: Australian farmers and industry stakeholders share strong ambitions for the agricultural sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. - There is an appetite for investment in agricultural innovation that will increase production in a sustainable way. The National Farmer's Federation has a goal of creating $100 billion dollars in output by 2030 but achieving that at the same time as trending towards carbon neutrality by 2050. - Change needs to be driven from the production end, and industry should always take an evidence-based approach when considering trade-offs between economics and environment. Many groups are forming around this drive to consider climate change when planning agricultural production pipelines, and allowing people to form partnerships around shared interests and goals will likely further increase ambitions. - There is agreement that all change and innovation should happen with an inter-generational view to improving not only profitability and productivity, but also sustainability of agricultural production. - In order to bolster resilience and help guarantee future productivity, there must be ambitious goals around rebuilding elements of the natural environment that supports agriculture. Two such proposed measures are rebuilding soil health and re-vegetating landscapes, which will require action on grand scales to make a difference. - Private companies are often setting the bar higher than governments with regards to increasingly ambitious emissions reduction targets. Across the world, tackling climate change is seen as a global problem which requires increasingly ambitious targets to address it. This means that to stay competitive in a global marketplace, increased ambition is needed to bolster emissions-reducing actions. Challenges: There are still many challenges to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and boosting nature-positive production, particularly to do so in cost-effective and scalable ways. - A major challenge that emerged during this Dialogue was the ability to measure baseline figures and changes due to interventions. For example, while soil carbon sequestration was considered an opportunity to lower emissions, one challenge that remains is the current lack of quick, affordable, reliable, and user-friendly soil carbon measurement. This makes it difficult to encourage widespread implementation without a way to track mitigative impacts over time. - The climate of Australia is very variable, which makes it difficult to recommend one technique across all farming regions. Farmers must be responsive and adaptive in their own local contexts, but this makes it more difficult to share all learnings across the country. - There is the trade-off between sustainable production that reduces emissions while still producing enough to provide everyone with access to safe, nutritious food. This is a challenge both in Australia and abroad, where agriculture provides a real opportunity lift smallholders and others out of poverty. Opportunities: The Australian landscape and R&D into emissions-reduction has also presented many opportunities for the sector to reduce on-farm emissions. There are many technological solutions and methodological innovations that can help boost nature-positive production. - When systems are re-evaluated through an entire lifecycle, it allows for potential solutions to become much more impactful. For example, there is a possibility to reduce methane emissions from livestock by 80% (compared to 20%) through early life programming in addition other technologies. - There is an increasing focus on creating and using more points of evidence to determine the best interventions. This is leading to increased efficiencies in production and lower emissions. For example, lifecycle data about cattle is allowing producers to lower the kilograms of CO2 emission per kilo of beef or per hectare of production, and therefore increasing efficient production across other measures as well. - Through forums like the Food Systems Summit, there will be opportunities to share expertise and technologies across the region and the world, allowing innovation to be scaled across contexts. When scaling solutions, the enormous diversity of production systems must be recognised and accounted for with changes across geographies and time-scales to make innovations applicable to local contexts.236240243244245248249250As this Dialogue was not structured to include Discussion Groups, the Discussion outcomes presented here reflect the engagement from participants who engaged with the online discussion and Q&A session that followed the presentations and contributed to the panel discussion. Those who were engaging with the event in real time were asked to participate in a number of polls. These polls were asked at various times during the event, and therefore may not capture respondents' views after having listened to all of the information shared by all speakers. The first question asked what participants thought was the most significant barrier for farmers to invest in greenhouse gas reductions. Many people thought the primary barrier was a lack of knowledge or access to technologies that reduce emissions, as well as the ability to track and measure emissions effectively. A notable number of respondents (about 20%) also thought that lack of financial capacity and/or confidence in markets was a barrier to reducing on-farm emissions. Only 20% of respondents thought that a lack of commitment or community attitudes were preventing investment in mitigation. The second question asked respondents to share what they considered to be a priority on-farm practice that could mitigate agricultural emissions. Almost half of respondents agreed that agroforestry and tree-planting on farm should be a priority activity, closely followed by 40% who thought that conservation agriculture, which could improve pasture and soil health, should be the main priority. A small number of respondents selected innovative feed for livestock and better breeding practices as priority on-farm practices for mitigation. The consensus among respondents was not reflected in the priorities shared by earlier speakers who advocated for all of these practices. The third question asked respondents to reflect on the barriers to achieving increased soil carbon levels. Most respondents were concerned with ensuring longevity of higher soil carbon levels and with sequestering carbon deeper in the soil profile. A smaller number of respondents thought the greatest barriers were related to being able to measure carbon-soil changes and the relevant issues of carbon pricing and carbon markets. These secondary concerns may be related to concerns raised that lack of financial capacity and/or confidence in markets can be a barrier to reducing on-farm emissions. The fourth question asked respondents to share their thoughts about the most effective way to reduce methane emissions from livestock systems. Many respondents agreed that R&D into diet moderation or feeds and forages that improve production and reduce methane was very important. However, a similar number of respondents thought that incentives for farmers to adopt solutions was the key missing element. This suggests that while farmers consider R&D and innovation to be important, the technological solutions must be paired with policies and incentives that will translate research into action. The fifth question asked respondents to reflect on whole-of-lifecycle approaches and how they thought production practices could help to lower emissions. Almost all respondents agreed that extending new agronomic practices and creating new markets (and expanding market incentives) were the best way to boost nature-positive production practices that could lower emissions. Almost no respondents thought that purchasing novel cultivars, machinery, or crop nutrient inputs, or regulating on-farm practices was a preferred avenue to sustainable production. The final question asked about the best strategies for guiding Australia’s role in supporting reduction in agricultural emissions in developing countries. There was equal support for several approaches, including supporting more collaborative research and development, focusing on capacity building, and demonstrating opportunities to integrate carbon credits into farming systems.237A wealth of information was shared and discussed during this Dialogue. Many of the innovations discussed for Australian agricultural production would be relevant to other contexts. However, not all participants of the Dialogue agreed on the use of all innovations presented, and there were some differing perspectives on the priorities needed to support nature-positive production methods. Full presentation slides from each speaker can be found through the 'Event details and slides' link below, and a full recording of the event is also available. The clear agreement between all speakers was that the food system is integral to solving many of the other complex challenges facing the world. Many Australian farmers share ambitious goals and plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to improve efficiency and scale up agricultural production sustainably. While there is no 'silver bullet' solution for how to do this, there is a great arsenal of Australian innovation upon which farmers can draw when committing to ambitious action.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Agenda.pdfhttps://www.crawfordfund.org/news/farmer-led-science-based-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-strategies-for-australia-and-abroad/https://www.crawfordfund.org/news/now-available-online-workshop-what-can-farmers-do-farmer-led-science-based-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-strategies-for-australia-and-abroad/https://www.crawfordfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/poll-results.pdf

2021-08-30 10:34:51204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14869/1841203

90606271052143247214

This Dialogue aimed to bring together a diverse range of stakeholders to discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with food loss in transforming food systems. It was co-convened by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and Canada's International Development Research Centre, who are together funding a Food Loss Research Program to better understand the nature of food loss in the Global South. The Dialogue sought to recognise the contributions of international partners (including government, industry and academia) in coming together to tackle complex food systems challenges, and particularly focused on Global South-South collaborations that are addressing food loss issues. The Dialogue was organised so that key international and domestic stakeholders could come together for robust discussion about the value of partnership in developing and scaling innovation. By allowing time for small-group discussions under Chatham House rules, the Dialogue encouraged participants to share the experiences and reflections confidently and freely. This resulted in higher levels of trust among these stakeholders, which will allow deeper exploration of complex issues moving forward. Representation at this Dialogue was from: Australia, Laos, Kenya, Canada, Thailand, Indonesia, Chile, Egypt, Philippines, USA, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Malawi, Ghana, Samoa, Fiji, Taiwan, Zimbabwe, India, Taiwan, Zambia, New Caledonia, Israel, United Kingdom, Uganda, Bangladesh, China, France, Thailand, Italy, Brazil, Ecuador, Senegal, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Tonga, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Benin, Denmark, and Cambodia.The Dialogue was designed and implemented in a way that reflected all the Principles of Engagement suggested by the UN Food Systems Summit. Reflect complexity: The dialogue was very rich with a diverse range of perspectives and ideas on priority actions. Participants actively contributed to the discussion through small groups, which allowed ideas from many different contexts to be shared with a diverse group. In this way, the complexities of food loss from the perspective of different geographies and stakeholders were captured in the Dialogue. Act with Urgency: This Dialogue recognised the important place of food loss research in the transformation of food systems globally. Food loss and waste are often spoken about in the context of developed nations, but food loss is a real problem that requires attention all over the world, at many points of the value chain. Complement the work of others: The Dialogue was co-convened by two organisations on opposite ends of the world that both work in many other regions. The need to share knowledge and solutions has been highlighted by the Summit, and the interactive nature of this event enabled participants to seek out new connections and build new relationships around their work. Build Trust: All discussions took place under Chatham House Rules, which allowed participants to share their ideas freely and have respectful disagreements in order to advance a collective understanding of food loss issues.

Yes

234238239241242243244246248249250251This Dialogue, convened by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the International Development Research Centre, Canada (IDRC), focused on the global problem of food loss. Leading researchers from around the world joined together to discuss and advance a collective understanding of food loss challenges and opportunities. Introductory remarks and four short keynote presentations were given to set the scene for this Dialogue. These presentations were recorded and are publicly available to view through the link to the recording in this report. - How can research help us address global food loss? - Dr. Máximo Torero, Chief Economist of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - What does food loss look like on the Pacific islands? - Prof. Steven Underhill, Professor of Horticulture, University of Sunshine Coast - How does animal welfare and health impact food loss? - Dr. Rebecca Doyle, Animal Welfare Scientist, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) - How can we bring technology closer to smallholder farmers? - Dr. Jane Ambuko, Associate Professor of Horticulture, University of Nairobi - What are the opportunities for food loss recovery and transformation across ingredients and foods in developing regions? - Dr. Pablo Juliano, Group Leader Food Processing and Supply Chains, CSIRO Following these introductory statements, participants were broken up into small discussion groups under Chatham House Rules. Each group had a mix of stakeholders to ensure diversity of industry and geography was represented. The discussions groups each had an experienced facilitator to guide conversation around two major questions: What are the different dimensions to the food loss problem? How can we develop locally relevant solutions to reduce food loss? These two main questions were followed by a number of supporting questions that encouraged participants to delve into specific challenges and opportunities related to food loss. Prompting questions included: - What are examples of food loss issues experienced by men and women in different contexts? - What are the different types of food loss (e.g. quantity, quality, value)? - Who is being impacted by food loss issues and how is the impact different for particular groups (for example those in the informal sector, women, marginalised groups, immigrants etc.)? - What are some solutions, and who is successfully delivering them? - What can we learn from these solutions, in particular what solutions can make a difference for women and other marginalised people? - How can these solutions be applied elsewhere in different socio-cultural and other contexts? The design of the dialogue was informed, in part, by new research supported by IDRC and ACIAR. The new co-funded Food Loss Research Program focuses on enhancing South-South leadership and cooperation in addressing food loss issues. During the Dialogue, the details of these projects were discussed as examples of research that could help advance understanding of food loss issues. More information is available through the links section at the end of this report.235238239241242243244245246248249250251This Dialogue brought together a variety of stakeholders from all over the world. This means that the findings are drawn from a number of example contexts, though participants agreed that food loss is a complex issue across all regions. The main findings from this Dialogue included: - In order to address food loss, there must be high levels of awareness of this problem and high levels of good data. Some participants felt that awareness of food loss is not as deep or widespread as is needed to address these issues. There needs to be good collection of robust data in order to better understand the relevant behavioral aspects of food production and consumption leading to food loss. Raising levels of awareness and collection of baseline data would also create an opportunity to more easily engage with policy-makers on these issues. - Food loss happens across many types of crops and livestock. Interventions should not focus exclusively on fruits and vegetables, but should acknowledge that food loss affects all value chains, including those of grains that provide major caloric nutrition for many people in developing nations. Food that is left unproduced is another type of food loss, for example livestock that does not reach maturity and cannot be slaughtered. - Quality is an important aspect of food loss. Smallholders are producers and consumers of food, and quality should be considered equally to quantity when measuring food loss, as this issue impacts the nutritional value of food consumed in some communities. Farmers are often not paid in relation to the quality of their food, so it will take innovative solutions that assign responsibility for looking after quality in the value chain and reducing this type of food loss. - Addressing food loss through systems-thinking would also allow the world to address other hidden costs of food production and loss across the value chain. Solutions will need to address the way in which COVID-19 has impacted food production and value chains, as well as ongoing food insecurity, lack of access to markets, and the gendered impacts of food systems. - The impacts of COVID19 are affecting food loss in several ways. While there have been limitations to transport and access to markets, shorter value chains and decentralisation have occurred as a resilience response to the pandemic. In some cases, these shorter value chains have provided many benefits to local communities and may be reducing food loss. However, shorter value chains may also result in a loss of product value as compared to longer value chains. These trade-offs must be better understood in order to determine whether shorter value chains as a resilience response should be maintained in some contexts. - There is an opportunity to translate a large body of research from developed countries into technologies that will be relevant to new contexts and adopted by new users, including smallholders across other regions. How do we better share information and resources to facilitate this? The best solutions will be those that are tangible and whose value can be demonstrated, in order to encourage adoption by smallholders and facilitate adaption to new contexts. - The role of government in addressing food loss issues must start at the problem definition stage of innovation. This will create more buy-in between different levels of government that must work together to address food loss across multiple stages of value chains. Participation in innovation from all types of stakeholders early on, including industry and research, will be needed to translate data and technology into practical solutions that will work within local policy contexts.236238239241242243244246249250251The first Discussion Topic asked participants to consider the different dimensions to the food loss problem. This section expands on the main findings presented above and provides supporting examples shared by participants to illustrate the nature of food loss issues in their own countries and regions. There must be a focus on measuring food loss and providing baseline metrics in order to understand and address food loss. - In some contexts there is political support and will to address food loss, but without adequate data it is difficult to know where to start. In order to be useful in policy and programming, there needs to be information about the drivers of food loss, the most affected regions, the concentrations of loss in a commodity group or a geography, and so on. - There are hidden elements of food loss that are currently not being measured, and therefore will likely not be included in any policies designed to address these issues. More research is needed to uncover systemic causes and impacts of food loss. Many participants agreed that food loss can be experienced differently by different groups, and the impacts of food loss can be felt more deeply by women than by men in some contexts. - Many market vendors that experience food loss are women, as they run the majority of stalls in some local contexts. Women are often the ones who have to deal with food loss across a number of points in the value chain, as women deal with both small-scale production and post-harvest handling. - COVID-19 has led to increased food loss, reduced availability and subsequent reduction in consumption by women (as food may be preferentially given to children). Food loss issues can affect women more strongly, especially in terms of access to fresh food. - Power relations are an important consideration in food loss issues. Gender hierarchy can create barriers to women accessing solutions to food loss, including animal welfare solutions. In one example, when women were empowered to sell produce directly (after processing) rather than relying on men to take produce to market, there was a significant impact on women's livelihoods in the local community. There was consensus that food quality needs to be considered as a dimension of food loss. - Issues of food loss should consider qualitative losses as highly as quantitative losses, as nutritional content of food can otherwise go overlooked. One participant noted that women are more interested in nutritional content, while men are more concerned with quantity in market losses. Interventions should be designed to take advantage of these different concerns about food loss to create holistic solutions. - A focus on volume rather than quality can be detrimental and lead to loss of value as well as loss of product (through improper storage of large quantities, for example). - Loss of value can often happen at farm level, as produce is not often sorted for quality at the farm level before going to market. In one example given, when farmers graded their produce on the farm, they received 30% higher prices for their high-quality produce. There may be many barriers to reducing food loss for smallholders. - Lack of access to markets and other market forces can lead to food loss. Relevant examples given included situations where infrastructure is poor and farmers cannot transport their goods to market, storage facilitates are too far from the production site and inhibit transfer of goods, proper cold storage is not available, or other costs of fulfilling transactions pose a barrier to selling goods and therefore contribute to food loss. - Other examples given focused on the lack of a relevant market for certain goods. For example, in some countries there is very low vegetable and fruit consumption (relative to neighboring countries) and food loss is exacerbated by a lack of demand for available produce. - Smallholders do not have the same level of resources as bigger producers to invest in food-loss reduction technologies. However, targeting interventions at bigger producers who can then help support and scale technologies could provide better adoption rates by smallholders.236238239241242243246248249250251The second Discussion Topic asked participants to consider how the world can develop locally relevant solutions to reduce food loss. There are already a number of solutions that help address food loss, and the challenge will be to adapt and scale these solutions in ways that are appropriate to local contexts. - Cultural norms can differ across regions, and even within country contexts. Presenting solutions that do not fit with any existing norms or practices is likely to be unsuccessful, and so solutions may be iterative processes rather than overhauls of current systems. - There is a big opportunity to engage with youth to address food loss, as this demographic is likely more interested in and has the aptitude for using new technologies to increase market opportunities (including development of e-commerce, as given in one example). - Solutions must consider the demand for certain types of produce when considering food loss. It will not be enough to improve parts of the value chain to reduce food loss if there is no appropriate market. Behavioural changes may be considered, though these are often difficult to encourage. - Researchers and innovators must check assumptions related to food loss and focus on education and awareness, as food loss may not be considered an issue where it is simply an acceptable part of daily life, and not thought of as a problem to be solved. - Systems-thinking and circular production can also help reframe food loss if it leads to positive inputs for a broader food system. Innovations to address food loss should be developed in a way that increases access to knowledge and technologies by smallholder farmers. - Solutions must be affordable for smallholders to adopt them. It can be difficult to encourage long-term investment, so it is key to choose tangible solutions that have visible impacts. Start addressing food loss through 'low hanging fruit' solutions that will encourage smallholders to continue applying those interventions. Examples given included transporting tomatoes in boxes instead of bags, increasing the quality and value of all products sold at market. - Smallholders must be supported to collaborate and to join resources. Creating more collective infrastructure in local areas or supporting collective co-investment in cold chain storage solutions could encourage more farmers to implement solutions that reduce food loss. - An example was given of significant food loss of onions during monsoon season, which is prevented through drying them. Smallholders do not have the financial resources to invest in individual drying facilities, but are likely to use a community drying facility supported by government. This reduces food loss at harvest time and supports selling the produce over a longer period. Bringing together policy-makers, researchers and industry is needed early on in the problem-definition stages of innovation to create culturally-relevant solutions. - Local government action is key to encouraging engagement with proposed innovations. Local government (or other forms of local leadership) are often instrumental in supporting collective centres and collaborative action. Local government is likely to be most effective at implementing context-specific policies that can encourage adoption of available technologies. - Researchers who provide information to government can be frustrated if this doesn't result in great impact. However, this may be because they have not successfully involved government stakeholders from the beginning and solutions are not viable in the policy environment. Sometimes research may not have involved government at the right level, and there is not enough buy-in to implement the proposed solutions. - Private sector participation is also key, as industry often takes the initiative to reduce food loss, emissions, and other waste.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Food-Loss-Dialogue-programme.pdfhttps://www.aciar.gov.au/aciar-idrc-partnership/food-loss-research-programhttps://www.aciar.gov.au/media-search/events/food-loss-research-dialogue

2021-08-30 23:34:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41624/46

3041763001216211731611336171

El dialogo estuvo encaminado a ayudar a la cumbre sobre sistemas alimentarios de la ONU que pretende recopilar información de sistemas agroalimentarios alrededor del mundo y producir cambios tangibles y positivos en dichos sistemas, se busco incluir a la comunidad educativa de diferentes zonas y etnias del país dentro de los diversos objetivos y ejes transversales que establece el programa de alimentación escolar (PAE) con el fin de dar a conocer las garantías alimentarias instauradas por el gobierno nacional. Además, se genero un espacio de liderazgo y participación por parte de los estudiantes para proponer diversas alternativas de transformación cultural y social frente a las problemáticas alimentarias actuales, promoviendo la creación de ideas innovadoras frente al avance de las técnicas agroalimentarias sostenibles. También pretendemos fomentar la concientización y el empoderamiento frente a la creación de políticas públicas que respalden y garanticen la soberanía alimentaria en Colombia desde los estatus legales, garantizando el derecho a una alimentación de calidad. Finalmente, se busco promover el análisis crítico de situaciones sociales a través del planteamiento de alternativas actuales frente a la producción y consumo de alimentos, proponiendo diversos puntos de vista que desarrollen soluciones desde una perspectiva ecológica y consciente, resaltando la idea que como fundación tenemos de garantizar la equidad racial y de genero además de proyectar el liderazgo juvenil en alternativas que sean ambientalmente sostenibles y mitiguen el cambio climático.Actuar con urgencia: Con el desarrollo de este diálogo, Barranquilla+20 afianza su compromiso en garantizar la igualdad de género y racial, promoviendo el desarrollo del liderazgo juvenil con un enfoque social, ambiental e institucional que permita aplacar la brecha social entre los sectores vulnerables y menos favorecidos, planteando alternativas para mitigar el hambre a través de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible (ODS 2, 4, 5, 13) implementados por la ONU para alcanzar los diversos Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para 2030. Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre: El dialogo estuvo encaminado a ayudar a la cumbre sobre sistemas alimentarios de la ONU que pretende recopilar información de sistemas agroalimentarios alrededor del mundo y producir cambios tangibles y positivos en dichos sistemas, para este caso el Programa de alimentación escolar encargado de alimentar al sector educativo público en Colombia. Ser respetuosos: Dentro de la dinámica del dialogo se tenía como regla fundamental que todas las personas que tengan la palabra debían usar un lenguaje basado en el respeto, sin insultos, comentarios de desigualdad ni que promuevan el odio y dentro de los objetivos proteger y mejorar la salud y el bienestar de la comunidad educativa favorecida por este sistema alimentario fomentando una buena administración de los recursos naturales, respetando al mismo tiempo las culturas y los contextos locales. Reconocer la complejidad: El dialogo se desarrolló desde un punto de vista critico planteando las problemáticas sociales y ambientales que impiden el correcto funcionamiento del sistema, problemas como corrupción, desconocimiento ambiental y agrícola, y cambio climático, buscando alternativas utópicas como la economía solidaria y reales como escuelas sostenibles y bajas en carbono. Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés: En el dialogo se logró convocar personas de diferentes etnias indígenas, comunidad afrocolombiana, jóvenes y adultos, hombres y mujeres de diferentes zonas del país por lo que se logró tener un enfoque inclusivo.Se recomienda que antes de definir los ejes temáticos que abordaran en su dialogo realicen una revisión bibliográfica de los diálogos independientes ya realizados en la cumbre, esto permitirá que se relaciones con otros diálogos, en especial si son diálogos desarrollados en el mismo pais, de igual forma consideramos que el dialogo debe estar encaminado a cumplir con uno o mas objetivos de desarrollo sostenible, esta articulación permite alcanzar soluciones reales a problemáticas reales que afecten la soberanía alimentaria, la igualdad y la conservación de los recursos naturales, finalmente recomendamos que el grupo participante como el grupo organizador y coordinador del dialogo sea interdisciplinar y contenga actores inmersos en la realidad del contexto si es posible de diferentes géneros, razas, zonas geográficas, estratos y organizaciones.

Yes

2342382392402412422432442472482491. Plan de Alimentacion Escolar -PAE- en Colombia. 2. Políticas públicas y propuestas de innovación tecnológica que amparan y desarrollan el Sistema Agroalimentario del PAE en Colombia. 3. Seguridad Alimentaria y el papel de la economía solidaria en los Sistemas Agroalimentarios del PAE en Colombia. 4. Cambio Climático y retos ambientales que ponen en riesgo la seguridad alimentaria en Colombia.235238239240241244246247248249Se establece que la corrupción junto con el desconocimiento a las técnicas innovadoras para la producción en los sistemas agroalimentarios del país son las principales causas sociales que impiden el desarrollo correcto del Programa de Alimentación Escolar PAE, esto sumado a los problemas naturales como el cambio climático, inundaciones, sequias y avenidas torrenciales ocasionan un riesgo para seguridad alimentaria de la población escolar publica en Colombia, población que está en un rango de edad de entre los 5 a los 17 años de edad, por esta razón se propone la educación agrícola y ambiental como un eje transversal para el desarrollo de la economía solidaria, basada en una reconstrucción de la ingeniería agrícola, con la posible reforma constitucional para velar por la correcta ejecución y destinación de los recursos económicos y naturales en pro de que la soberanía alimentaria sea un hecho tangible en el Programa de Alimentación Escolar, para esto se propone la implementación de huertas escolares, bancos de semillas, composteras estudiantiles, sistemas de captación de aguas lluvias y estructuras verdes con cero producción de carbono para que todas las escuelas sean sostenibles, mitiguen el hambre, el cambio climático, la deserción escolar, la desigualdad racial y de género y potencialicen el desarrollo económico, social, el aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales (suelo, agua, aire, biodiversidad) y el liderazgo juvenil. Los participantes afirmaron que la alimentación es un derecho global que asegura la cobertura universal de alta calidad con el apoyo de entes territoriales, sin embargo, existen muchos factores que impiden su cumplimiento como lo es la corrupción, la magnitud de la población escolar en condición de pobreza y problemáticas ambientales. Por lo anterior, es necesario aplicar alternativas sostenibles que permitan el cumplimiento del programa social PAE y el mantenimiento de los recursos naturales. También afirmaron que las prácticas de producción alimentaria sostenible y las estrategias de adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático se sostienen mutuamente. Muchas estrategias de manejo del riesgo climático y meteorológico calzan plenamente con prácticas de agricultura y pesca sostenibles, y pueden, de esta forma, promoverse a través de muchos de los programas y políticas que persiguen una producción medioambientalmente responsable. La integración de ambas es un factor clave tanto para la práctica y promoción sostenible de alimentos como para el desarrollo de políticas de adaptación al cambio climático. En Colombia no está muy desarrollado el proceso de los alimentos transgénicos solo se han manifestado a través de las materias primas los producto alimentos transgénicos pero no han sido consumidos directamente dentro del PAE, sin embargo, existe un proyecto para experimentar con alimentos transgénicos del Maíz y tubérculos como la papa y granos como el arroz, y a nivel internacional podemos hablar de un modelo de alimentos transgénicos que ha sido el de Estados Unidos más del 50% o 70% de alimentos que consumen los estadounidenses son de producción transgénica a partir de semillas de producción transgénica. Se recalca sobre la importancia de la seguridad alimentaria en Colombia y que si bien no tenemos la solución total para garantizar el alimento a la población escolar podemos aportar con la educación ambiental y la cultura ecológica haciendo énfasis en que se debe fomentar a los niños la importancia de la economía local, la producción del campo y valorar el agro Colombiano. Finalmente, como idea principal que aportaron es que la educación ambiental es un proceso que les permitirá a las personas investigar sobre temáticas ambientales, involucrarse en la resolución de problemas y tomar medidas para mejorar el medio ambiente y a la seguridad alimentaria en Colombia, ven a la economía sostenible como una idea utópica en el país y proponen la implementación de huertas como una estrategia más real y aplicable en todo el territorio.236238241243246247El Programa de Alimentación Escolar es el suministro organizado de un suplemento nutricional a los niños, niñas y adolescentes en todo el territorio nacional matriculados en el sistema educativo público que rige desde el año 2002, que es de vital importancia ya que, es una de las principales estrategias del sector educativo que busca contribuir al acceso y permanencia escolar de los niños, las niñas, adolescentes y jóvenes en edad escolar, fomentando estilos de vida saludables y mejorando su capacidad de aprendizaje y que la Unidad Administrativa Especial de Alimentación Escolar – Alimentos para Aprender (UApA) se encarga de su manejo. En medio de la emergencia ocasionada por el COVID19 que evitaba la educación presencial y por ende la alimentación en los colegios, el gobierno estableció 3 modalidades para su ejecución durante la pandemia: ración industrializada, ración para preparar en casa y bono alimentario, mediante las cuales se pretende apoyar el aprendizaje en casa, hasta marzo del 2021 se han alimentado 1,406,671 Niños, niñas, adolescentes y jóvenes entre 5 y 17 años y repartido 4.971.664 raciones en 73 entidades territoriales, siendo la ración para preparar en casa la de mayor distribución. El programa Inicia con la asignación de recursos que el Ministerio de Educación nacional y el Ministerio de Hacienda y Crédito Público y priorizan de acuerdo con cuatro criterios de selección y a partir del diagnóstico de cada institución educativa se selecciona la modalidad es decir si el complemento alimentario es industrializado o se prepara en la sede y el tipo de complemento que recibe el estudiante un complemento en la nada de la mañana o de la tarde según sea su horario o el complemento almuerzo. También informa que al inicio del año escolar en cada institución educativa se conforma el comité de alimentación escolar CAE. En 2012 tan sólo el 23% de las sedes educativas recibían algún tipo de alimentación escolar, en 2019 el país logró llegar al 96.3% de las sedes educativas oficiales del país en este periodo el número de alumnos beneficiados creció cerca de 600%. Las manipuladoras (personas que cocinan los alimentos) son reconocidas por su labor y su buena relación con los estudiantes y el 84% de las veces hay suficientes para atender los servicios, sin embargo, hay aspectos por mejorar por ejemplo se encontró que no se hace una revisión de la infraestructura antes de adjudicar los contratos a los operadores que las condiciones de cocinas y menaje son insuficientes o no están en buen estado y que hay poco conocimiento sobre quién es el responsable de su adecuación y dotación el seguimiento y control del programa también debe aumentar las entidades territoriales deben fortalecer los equipos país ya que estos tan sólo visitaron el 48% de las sedes debido a sus múltiples labores administrativas y el poco personal desde las instituciones educativas en el seguimiento, además, las porciones corresponden con los requerimientos nutricionales, sin embargo, son pequeñas y con exceso de harinas. El programa ayuda a que los estudiantes deserten menos además de afectar positivamente los resultados de las pruebas saber en general los estudiantes padres y funcionarios beneficiarios valoran positivamente programa, aunque piden mejorar tanto en la presentación como en la cantidad de los complementos nutricionales. Se debe realizar un diagnóstico anual de estado de equipos y menaje través de los responsables de la dotación de equipo, de igual forma se debe mejorar la preparación de los menús y que las entidades nacionales y territoriales aseguren la asignación de recursos de todo el año escolar para que el programa no pierda continuidad.236238239240243246247248249El PAE es un programa social por ende debe ser financiado a través de los recursos del estado en una parte de cumplimiento al esquema tradicional sobre el que está planteado nuestra forma de organización civil, lo cual es un requisito fundamental para el desarrollo del socialismo moderno. Este programa social es un derecho amparado por el artículo 44 y 67 de la constitución política, donde se sostiene que son derechos fundamentales de los niños la vida, la integridad física, la salud, la seguridad social, la alimentación equilibrada y que La familia, sociedad y el Estado tienen la obligación de proteger al niño para garantizar su desarrollo armónico e integral y el ejercicio pleno de sus derechos, además que el Estado regula y ejerce la suprema inspección y vigilancia de la educación garantizando el adecuado cubrimiento del servicio, asegurando al menor las condiciones necesarias para su acceso y permanencia, recalcando que el PAE es uno de los programas que promueven derecho fundamental de los menores y de los estudiantes que es el derecho a que se garantice Una alimentación sana y equilibrada para el correcto funcionamiento de sus actividades en sus escuelas y también se garantiza y respalda el derecho a la vida a la integridad física y a su salud. La realidad es muy diferente a lo que se plantea en la norma y que se presentan muchas problemáticas para el correcto desarrollo del mismo, entre ellas muchas veces se recalca que hay mucho desconocimiento por parte de los directivos y los aspectos técnicos que componen el programa, además, afirma que una realidad social que nadie puede negar en la actualidad y gran problemática para que el PAE no pueda funcionar correctamente en nuestro país es la corrupción, menciona que actualmente el programa bajo la administración de recursos nacionales afirman que los recursos proporcionados para el desarrollo del programa no son suficientes tanto en lo monetario como de los cultivos, sin embargo, las diversas entidades que componen los recursos que recibe el país reclama que aproximadamente 1.5 billones de pesos se destinan al programa, y con este presupuesto sería suficiente si se aprovechan honestamente los recursos, por ende la mala administración es la causante de que el programa de alimentación escolar no cumpla su función y que los responsables de desviar los recursos son las entidades encargadas, ministros y los mismos rectores. Como solución a esta problemática y para asegurar el cumplimiento del programa se propone la idea de hacer de un programa social una política pública y las políticas públicas son aquellas necesidades de una comunidad presentadas por un mecanismo de participación para que respalden con estatutos legales estas problemáticas y se propone la reforma de la constitución Ámbitos que especifiquen de forma explícita la protección, ejecución y la administración de los recursos del programa y que por ejemplo sería muy viable la idea de que se especifique que este programa hace parte del ejercicio fundamental cubrir los derechos fundamentales de la constitución para presentar cargos frente a las personas que desvíen los recursos. Menciona que los cultivos son vitales para el desarrollo del PAE pero que según DANE los cultivos existentes no son suficientes para cubrir las necesidades del programa y menciona la implementación de cultivos transgénicos como una alternativa viable para cubrir esta necesidad. Dentro de las ventajas de la producción de alimentos transgénicos está la idea de que existen una gran cantidad de alimentos que son resistentes a las plagas gracias a su ADN modificado no hay necesidad de utilizar tanto material químico para su mantenimiento, Porque estos mismos crecen con esa capacidad de resistencia y de la misma forma se ha comprobado que hay muchos alimentos transgénicos que son resistentes a los cambios climáticos como la temperatura, sin embargo, existe un problemática del tipo moral, ya que muchas teorías apuntan a que estamos dándole una transformación del tipo producción al ser o sea estamos viendo al ser al ser animal y vegetal y esto puede causar un daño dentro de las especies y a su vez puede dañar su variabilidad.236238239240243246248250Los pilares de la economía solidaria están el ser humano y la protección del medio ambiente en las técnicas de producción y que dentro de la economía solidaria está asociada la seguridad alimentaria y a la soberanía alimentaria, que los actores fundamentales son los productores del sector Agrario y consumidores, es decir, familias productoras de la economía local, comunidades vulnerables, los gobiernos, las organizaciones solidarias de campesinos, asociaciones y cooperativas La economía solidaria se debe destacar equidad trabajo y operatividad de las grandes diferencias con la economía capitalista empresas de economía solidaria también se pueden organizar a través de cooperativas porque lo más importante no es solamente la productividad y competitividad ya que la economía solidaria sólo representa el 4% del PIB en Colombia. Los programas de alimentación escolar se relacionan con la economía solidaria ya que el estado demanda alimentos para contribuir con su misión institucional y que a través de la economía solidaria se puede fortalecer los procesos promoviendo la soberanía alimentaria, además que el estado fortaleciendo estas organizaciones locales generaría empleo al sector agrícola combatiendo el desempleo ya que el país tiene altos niveles de desempleo juvenil y el campo podría ser una fuente de trabajo. Es fundamental que el estado haga un diagnóstico del territorio para conocer cuáles son las organizaciones productoras y cómo pueden satisfacer esta demanda de alimentos de municipios y corregimientos, para fortalecer la alimentación de instituciones educativas públicas con compras públicas locales y capacitación a través de universidades y entidades territoriales como las alcaldías, gobernaciones, ICA y que se promuevan sistemas alimentarios sostenibles con innovación tecnológica, como cultivos orgánicos, preparación de riegos y suelos. Lo anterior contribuye a la soberanía alimentaria porque se está promoviendo el empleo local, a economía local y que podría fortalecer el PAE ya que más de 200 programas de alimentación escolar con un abrazo solidario garantiza la alimentación escolar con productos como por ejemplo la panela, leche y diferentes productos locales, como restos para la implementación propone la inexistencia de un acompañamiento integral a la agricultura, afirma que el SENA y el ICA podrían ayudar en el fortalecimiento de las cooperativas locales y que para garantizar la economía solidaria es fundamental hacer una caracterización de productores.236238239240242244El Cambio Climático es un fenómeno que se manifiesta en un aumento de la temperatura promedio del planeta y este aumento de la temperatura tiene consecuencias en la intensidad de los fenómenos del clima en todo el mundo y que Colombia no es la excepción, por otra parte afirma que la seguridad alimentaria es la importancia de consumir alimentos que no sean dañinos para nuestras vidas pero que implica varios factores que van mucho más allá y que la seguridad alimentaria se da cuando todas las personas tienen acceso físico, social y económico permanente a alimentos seguros, nutritivos y en cantidad suficiente para satisfacer sus requerimientos nutricionales y preferencias alimentarias, y así poder llevar una vida activa y saludable. La relación entre los conceptos expuestos anteriormente afirmando que el cambio climático empeorará las condiciones de vida de agricultores, pescadores y quienes viven de los bosques, poblaciones ya de por sí vulnerables y en condiciones de inseguridad alimentaria. Aumentarán el hambre y la malnutrición. Las comunidades rurales, especialmente las que viven en ambientes frágiles, se enfrentan a un riesgo inmediato y creciente de pérdida de las cosechas y del ganado, así como a la reducida disponibilidad de productos marinos, forestales y provenientes de la acuicultura. Los episodios climáticos extremos cada vez más frecuentes e intensos tendrán un impacto negativo en la disponibilidad de alimentos, el acceso a los mismos, su estabilidad y su utilización, así como en los bienes y oportunidades de los medios de vida tanto en zonas rurales como urbanas. Además, que los seres humanos, las plantas, el ganado y la pesca estarán expuestos a nuevas plagas y enfermedades que florecen sólo a determinadas temperaturas y condiciones de humedad. Esto implica nuevos riesgos para la seguridad alimentaria, la inocuidad de los alimentos y la salud humana. Se puede contribuir a reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, así como su impacto, mediante el manejo de los servicios del ecosistema, la disminución de los cambios del uso de la tierra y la deforestación vinculada a ello, el uso de variedades de cultivo más eficaces, un mejor control de los incendios fortuitos, la nutrición mejorada del ganado de rumiantes, un manejo más eficaz de los desechos del ganado, el manejo del suelo orgánico, la agricultura de conservación y sistemas agroforestales. Además de reducir la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero, las tierras de pasto y cultivo bien manejadas pueden secuestrar cantidades significativas de carbono. Mientras que para el manejo sostenible de la ganadería propone que la tierra utilizada incluidos los pastos y las praderas destinadas a la producción de forraje deben evitar el sobrepastoreo que es la principal causa de degradación de las praderas implementando prácticas de manejo de la tierra. En Colombia una de las mayores causas de la inseguridad alimentaria no radica en la escasez, sino en la imposibilidad de acceder a los alimentos. Las poblaciones más pobres y vulnerables se encuentran en las periferias de los centros urbanos y en el campo, haciéndolos especialmente vulnerables a los factores que determinan la sostenibilidad y suficiencia de los alimentos básicos y las ineficiencias en las cadenas de abastecimiento observadas en Colombia se agudizan por los cambios en las condiciones ambientales que toman forma de derrumbes, erosiones y fenómenos climáticos severos como La Niña o El Niño, además que estos eventos extremo-climáticos representan cierres parciales o completos de los corredores viales que movilizan la producción agrícola de un municipio hacia los mercados finales de otro.237238239240241242244246248249Se debate la viabilidad de la economía solidaria en Colombia ya que se considera un contexto ideal pero no real ya que nosotros sabemos que la economía agropecuaria en Colombia tiene un problema grave con la tenencia de la tierra, el suministro de agua, distribución de producto y asistencia técnica y que el PAE no compra a pequeños agricultores si no a grandes productores para comprar en mayor cantidad y menor precio, porque para ellos no es un programa de ayuda si no que es un negocio. Además, menciona que por ejemplo en el oriente del país donde el reside se trabajan las raciones industrializadas en los colegios públicos y que estas raciones contienen mucho azúcar y no nutren a los niños. Otro problema que se menciona es que los jóvenes no quieren trabajar en el campo y la población campesina es adulta, además que el gobierno prefiere la minería que la agricultura y que los TLC no favorecen al sector campesino. Por esta razón no se ve viable esta alternativa ya que la economía solidaria se basa en la producción y comercialización de pequeñas cantidades y precios más altos, para que la economía solidaria funcione se necesita una gran revolución y una reingeniería de los sistemas de producción y para proponer soluciones realistas se tiene que hacer un diagnóstico profundo. Otro tema en el que se ven expuestos dilemas morales ocurrió con el tema de alimentos transgénicos, ya que, desde una perspectiva crítica se cree que sí vamos a orientar nuestro panorama en la producción de alimentos transgénicos deberíamos de tomar como ejemplo las bases que ha establecido los programas de producción transgénica de los Estados Unidos sin embargo dentro de la perspectiva ética se buscaría otras alternativas y no implementaría la producción de estos alimentos.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DIALOGO-INDEPENDIENTE-–-FOOD-SYSTEMS-SUMMIT.-convertido.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Comunicado.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Relatoria.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oliOrOQjgsY&ab_channel=BarranquillaSostenible

2021-08-31 04:27:02205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15712/18

10993955664505132493511618649433317

The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) looks to achieve more productive and sustainable agricultural systems for the benefit of developing countries and Australia by enabling international agricultural research partnerships. This purpose aligns with that of the UN Food Systems Summit as a people’s summit – bringing together key actors from diverse sectors – and a solutions summit – creating tangible, actionable changes to the world’s food systems. ACIAR, together with the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), convened this Dialogue to reflect the multi-stakeholder inclusivity and system complexity that informs all of Australia’s research and development in international agriculture. The Dialogue sought to recognise the contributions of various international partners and Australian stakeholders (including government, industry and academia) in coming together to tackle complex food systems challenges. The Dialogue was organised so that key international and domestic stakeholders could come together for robust discussion about the value of partnership in developing and scaling innovation. By allowing time for small-group discussions under Chatham House rules, the Dialogue encouraged participants to share the experiences and reflections confidently and freely. This resulted in higher levels of trust among these stakeholders, which will allow deeper exploration of complex issues moving forward.The Dialogue specifically reflected Principle 6 in encouraging partners to ‘complement the work of others’, as well as being respectful (3), building trust (7), and embracing inclusivity of diverse viewpoints (5). This Dialogue informs the National process being conducted by the National Convenors at the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, and contributes insights collected from participants using the method as recommended by the UN Food Systems Summit process. Informed by short scene-setting presentations, participants had the opportunity to then break into smaller discussion groups of about ~8-10 people, where discussion was facilitated under Chatham House rules. This afforded participants the opportunity to speak freely and constructively about challenges that arise during the process of innovation that will allow us to transform food systems. The Dialogue brought together a wide variety of stakeholders from 29 countries and represented a truly global collaborative effort to explore partnerships in innovation. Representation was from: Australia, Belgium, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, France, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States, and Vietnam. Please note that some participants chose to self-select into multiple categories for sector and stakeholder identification, and some did not self-categorise (explaining the discrepancy in participant numbers across sector/stakeholders).The ‘Principles of Engagement’, as outlined by the Food Systems Summit, provide guidance for National Food Systems Summit Dialogue Convenors, and should be considered as a useful starting point. Dialogue Convenors are encouraged to consider modalities and processes which suit their national circumstances.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251This Dialogue, convened by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), focused on the role of partnerships in successful agricultural innovation. This theme of partnership was explored through five suggested foundations of partnership, which are integral to ensuring success at each stage of innovation and scaling out solutions for maximum impact. As Australia’s principal agricultural research for development ACIAR has a long history of building lasting, effective partnerships, which allow for Australia to support collaborative research in local contexts and deliver benefits domestically and abroad. Building on this strong foundation the Dialogue brought together research and development stakeholders from around the world to reflect on the elements of partnership that have allowed Australia to support science and innovation in low and lower-middle-income partner countries. The key learning from the Dialogue was the five foundations that should be considered in building partnerships as we scale food systems solutions: - Effectively managing risk - Promoting inclusivity - Integrating systems thinking - Defining impact - Strengthening capabilities Through the Dialogue it was demonstrated that strong partnerships require that each of these elements is considered at each stage of innovation. Innovation is a process of creating value by applying knowledge or technology to a complex challenge in a novel way. This process is not linear, but often moves through four general stages of problem definition, options analysis, testing and validation, and scaling. Different stages of innovation require different forms of collaboration, and the scaling stage in particular relies on effective partnerships that help translate and apply innovative solutions to new contexts. With a focus on scaling solutions globally, the UN Food Systems Summit provides an opportunity to codify foundational elements of partnership that will support and govern innovation efforts. Since the convening of this Dialogue, the UN Food Systems Summit has notably expanded the Action Tracks to include the cross-cutting area of (6) Governance and Planning. Australia supports and funds agricultural research for development with a strong focus on capacity building and collaboration. ACIAR is celebrating a 40-year history of long-term partnerships and collaborative research planning that has laid the groundwork for ongoing research to be taken forward by partner countries and organisations. By supporting governance structures for international research organisations such as the CGIAR, Australia has also contributed to the global pool of knowledge and resources for planning the future of sustainable food systems. While the theme of this Dialogue was particularly relevant to the Innovation lever of change, partnership is also key to unlocking the other change-levers including gender, human rights and finance. Partnership is the mechanism through which all of these levers will be operationalised in order to create tangible change in the world’s food systems. This Dialogue brought together Australian and international stakeholders to discuss how partnerships are instrumental in scaling solutions across all of the UN FSS Action Tracks. Participants were able to discuss tangible elements and application of partnership through their own examples of innovation, and share best-practices with one another. These learnings will continue to inform progress towards the SDGs through collaborative scaling of game-changing innovations through the next decade.235238239240241242243244246248249250This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of Dialogue participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. The main findings that emerged from this Dialogue: 1) In order to successfully scale game-changing innovations and propositions that can transform food systems, we will need robust partnerships that bring together different skill sets and capabilities, as identified through the case studies shared as examples. 2) Participants agreed that there are at least five foundational elements of successful partnership, though this is certainly not an exhaustive list. Participants agreed that to work successfully to scale innovation, partnerships need to reflect on and implement these foundations: a. Systems thinking: integrating systems-thinking into the innovation process opens up partnerships to include more varied and dynamic members than might otherwise be involved. b. Inclusivity: promoting inclusivity creates an explicit focus on bringing together diverse viewpoints that might not organically emerge from all partnerships. c. Capability: partnerships can create a successful platform for sharing knowledge and strengthening capabilities, particularly if these activities are actively prioritised. d. Risk: effective risk management is integral to successful partnership, and means that risk is adequately identified, acknowledged, and appropriately shared by all partners. e. Impact: defining impact is key to long-term change. When partners can work towards clearly defined goals, collective efforts are much more likely to create ‘game-changing’ impact. 3) While many existing partnerships already informally practice the above foundations that contribute to collaborative and productive work, participants agreed that formal practices that institutionalise these foundations of partnerships would improve partnership arrangements and lead to enhanced, wider and enduring impacts. 4) There is recognition that scalable solutions do not emerge from a linear innovation process. Rather, innovation takes place in a number of stages that can meander back and forth between problem definition, options analysis, validation and testing, and scaling. 5) The type and value of partnership across each of these stages may vary, and it is not always the same partnerships that are needed when scaling an innovation as were integral to the options analysis and testing of that same solution. A key question remains: how to maintain strong, purposeful partnerships that are responsive to the challenges of supporting locally-relevant, globally-impactful solutions. Introductory keynote presentations shared learnings from diverse case studies of innovative practices that could be taken to scale to transform food systems. These examples were shared to prime the participants to think about partnership in action across a number of disciplines and at different stages of the innovation process. Brief notes are below. SOLAW-LIVE: The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) State of Land and Water (SOLAW) report that is published every 10 years provides a wealth of information that can be used to improve relevant decision-making. A pilot project in the Philippines – supported by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Griffith University, and the Philippines Government (through Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development (DOST-PCAARRD) and the Bureau of Soils and Waste Management) – is testing a ‘living assessment framework’ that could shift the decadal report into a tool that collects and shares environmental information more quickly and nimbly. Creating an interactive tool and supportive system for gathering, applying, and sharing land and water data could transform decision-making at every level, with greater ability to examine existing practices and identify co-benefits of other responses. At the validation and testing stage, this ‘SOLAW-LIVE’ tool has enormous potential impact if scaled successfully through supportive partnerships. Community-based fisheries management: ACIAR has been supporting research relevant to community-based fisheries management (CBFM) for over a decade. Current research efforts draw on the skills and contributions of several partners, including the Australian government and researchers, the New Zealand government, and numerous organisations within the Pacific region, including government, academia and civil society. CBFM is based on collective knowledge and action that draws on systems-thinking to sustainably manage fisheries in a way that also respects local communities. Notably, CBFM requires different types of partnership at different scales to best share and spread this very successful practice. Island-level scaling from a community requires formal and informal networks, while international forums have helped to share and shape transferable lessons for other islands. Smallholder irrigation: In an Australian–African collaboration, ACIAR funding contributed to the development of the Virtual Irrigation Academy, which brings together new irrigation monitoring tools with an online communication and learning system. This project is already creating global impact, with the Chameleon Soil Water Sensor tool from the project now semi-commercialised, available and in-use across Africa and Australia. Expanding the partnership and sharing risks (and benefits) among other public and private actors could encourage further scaling of this transformative innovation236238239240241242243244248249250This section reports in greater detail the discussion participants had around the five foundational elements of partnership that were deemed important to successfully scaling innovation. As participants were split into smaller discussion groups, the commentary on each of the discussion topics has come from a relatively small number of participants. Each group shared key takeaways back with the plenary and there was great enthusiasm to delve more deeply into each of these topics. Systems-thinking Participants agreed that systems-thinking is needed to optimise food systems innovation. Key reflections about what systems-thinking entails included: • People are a dynamic, integral part of the food ‘system’. Systems-thinking is different to systems analysis or big-data approaches. While considering environmental and technical elements of a systems is important, a people-centred approach to research and innovation is key if systems-thinking is truly to be operationalised. This means that community engagement must be at the heart of food systems change. One participant noted that change arises from working within a system, by stimulating different parts of a system that naturally interact rather than by forcibly changing any particular part of that system. o This raised a further point that building capabilities and capacity should be part of all innovation, in order to create self-sustaining value. Reserving resources to record, review and reflect on previous successes will allow for greater development impacts. • Reframing the start and end points of innovation may be helpful in stimulating systems-thinking. Systems-thinking supports an iterative process for developing solutions as there can be many strands of ideas and testing at once. o Considering value propositions from the perspective of numerous potential end-users or adopters could help anticipate co-benefits and prioritise research streams. • Systems-thinking requires both specialists and connectors, with each player recognising their own place in this ‘system’ of innovation. The role of enablers or knowledge brokers is key in creating partnership structures that define what each actor contributes at each stage of innovation. • Because of the complexity of systems, they can often be defined as narrowly or broadly as convenient to each party. For successful partnership, assumptions about systems pathways must be clarified and communicated so that all relevant actors, value-chains, etc. are identified, and constraints are agreed upon. This ties to the foundations of defining impact and inclusivity at various scales. • While systems-thinking should in theory enable multi-stakeholder, cross-disciplinary partnerships, it can actually be the difficulties of partnering that inhibit successful systems-thinking. Participants discussed many of the challenges associated with operationalising systems thinking in innovation: o Competition for resources often results in narrowly-focused solutions because funding arrangements seldom prioritise systems-thinking over timeliness, cost-effectiveness, etc. In order to demonstrate fast, scalable impact in the competition for resourcing, solutions are often pared back in complexity. o Institutionalised funding structures may prevent systems-thinking. Agriculture historically has not often been prioritised in allocations of funding (domestic or development aid), especially in comparison to sectors such as education, health, and trade. How might the traditional ‘zero-sum game’ be reframed so that partners across sectors see value in collaboration (e.g. 1+1=3 mindset)? • Systems exist on a number of spatial scales that require different types of actors to be considered or prioritised throughout the innovation process. • Practical approaches for encouraging systems-thinking in multi-stakeholder partnerships through the innovation process could include: o Resourcing fore-sighting and reflection activities to build a library of good examples accompanied by contextual information Formalising mechanisms for integrating various scales of systems and enabling multi-scalar connections236238239240241242243244245246248249Inclusivity Participants agreed that inclusivity must drive each stage of innovation, from problem definition to scaling for impact. Key reflections about inclusivity included: • It is crucial to consciously consider inclusivity during problem-definition stages of innovation, as this allows us to define a common problem in terms that are accessible and relevant to the greatest number of people. Participants noted importance of gender-inclusivity in agricultural innovation, as women are more likely to undertake agricultural activities without access to information, technology, or markets that would create better outcomes (in empowered decision-making, production, and livelihoods). • Participants agreed that successful scaling of food systems solutions relies on community understanding and uptake, which in turn necessitates inclusive practices, at least within that community. A point was raised that during the scaling stage of innovation, principles of inclusivity can be overlooked; this is sometimes justified by the fact that earlier stages of innovation were inclusive, but participants agreed that there must be attentiveness to inclusivity when scaling ideas/technology into new contexts. • Questions were raised about the relationship between inclusivity and accessibility. Does one necessarily guarantee the other, or are they unfortunately conflated in matters of innovation and development programs? • Participants agreed that including voices and considerations of marginalised groups, including women, youth and persons with disabilities, remains of utmost important in research for development activities. • Partnerships are key to sharing information effectively, which can in turn improve inclusivity in innovation. In situations where technologies have already been developed, communicating about the contexts in which these technologies have been successful (e.g. which stakeholders were instrumental to applying it successfully, what institutional capacities are required) can help ensure all relevant stakeholders are involved when scaling the technology into new contexts. • Inclusivity necessitates systems-thinking and goes beyond collecting stakeholder’s views to consider the nexus between social, environmental and economic issues. • Informal partnerships are often as important as formal partnerships, and inclusivity should recognise the value of social capital and networks in supporting action towards shared goals. • Inclusivity on a large scale will likely accompanied by conflict, as various groups will likely disagree on certain issues. Participants discussed that lessons from work on including specific marginalised groups (like women or youth) in deliberation processes could be harnessed to create guidelines for generalised inclusion processes. o In this way, inclusivity or lack there-of carries some element of risk. Conflict around appropriate levels of inclusion is likely to arise, particularly as existing solutions or technologies are scaled into new contexts. Explicit addressing of these issues in multi-stakeholder partnerships could provide greater structure to principles of inclusivity and therefore alleviate risk associated with scaling innovation. o Systems at different spatial scales will likely require a focus on different actors. As an example, at a farm-scale level, farmers and private industry might be prioritised in developing farm-level solutions that maximise smallholder returns, but when considering innovation at the catchment-level, regional or national authorities, water-user associations and other large institutions may set different priorities which may be less inclusive of smallholder participation. What is the responsibility of partnerships across every system-level to include actors from different scales? o There was some agreement that scaling innovation at the expense of inclusivity could be one step forward, but two steps backwards in achieving the SDGs and reducing global poverty in a sustainable way.236238239240241242245246248250Risk Participants agreed that effectively identifying and proactively sharing risk burdens could improve partnerships and collaborations, further optimising the innovation process. Some key discussion outcomes included: • The process of innovation carries inherent risk-taking, as the process of discovery, validation and application of new solutions will not always result in the impactful changes envisioned and can have unintended system consequences. Reframing innovation as a process of iterative learning may encourage greater risk taking. However, there will always be a tension in research for development, which seeks to iteratively create sustained impact while often needing to address urgent issues. Despite being urged to ‘think big’, researchers seem to agree that starting small and enhancing solutions is progressive innovation that can eventually achieve the same large impacts but with lower risks. • Participants discussed that institutional arrangements that fund and support research can sometimes encourage projects that seem to over-promise and under-deliver, as the available resources are limited, and the true expectations of funders are not always communicated. This can lead to risk-aversion in public innovation processes, particularly when there are few resources available for long-term forward planning into future stages that is needed to create sustained value. o This raised reflections on the level of innovation common in public and private sectors, and whether there is sense in adopting private-sector risk levels and approaches. Even if there was value in this strategy, how could it be operationalised given that the drivers and motivations of each sector remain so different? However, if the difference in risk-appetite between public and private is not overcome, it will continue to be difficult to form robust partnerships between sectors, further stifling global innovation. • Participants identified that a major risk of research and innovation is that the validation and scaling stages will not be properly supported due to constraints such as funding or implementation difficulties in-country. These risks could be managed, but current funding processes don’t often encourage planning 5-10 years into the future. • Effective management of risk is a key part of successful partnerships, as multi-stakeholder relationships will almost certainly bring together different risk appetites and strategies. Participants discussed the benefits of bringing together partners with similar risk profiles yet acknowledged that this attitude would likely lead to lower overall risk-taking in innovation. • Ideas for funding were discussed and a staged approach was proposed whereby funding comes online at different stages of innovation, dependent on appropriate partners being engaged (somewhat like borrowing money to build a house in evolving stages). • A need was identified for partnership frameworks that help identify not just similar characteristics and goals on which many partnerships are based, but also assign value to the right combination of dissimilar or ‘competing’ interests that can more boldly drive transformation. • Research for development activities are planned to overcome known unknowns as they arise, drawing on previous knowledge and risk management plans to solve problems that are likely to come up. However, translating outputs to outcomes (and creating sustained impact) can be more challenging than anticipated because of numerous unforeseen difficulties (unknown unknowns) that arise. Managing risk means building resilience into the process of innovation itself. • The greatest risk-holder is often seen to be the funding agency, which can make funder-fundee relationships transactional. Participants agreed that a true partnership is one in which power, and therefore risk, are truly shared. Boundary organisations and brokers must advocate for changed governance structures to change the nature of risk-management in innovation processes236238239240241242246248249250Capability Growing capabilities and skills is sometimes conflated with capacity building in research for development. This discussion did not seek to specifically interrogate the topic of capacity building, and therefore centred around the broader language of ‘building capabilities’ between partners when undertaking innovation. • Participants debated whether partnerships should be focused on bringing together the right combination of existing capabilities, or whether they should be formed with the intention of strengthening capabilities. The discussion was nuanced and considered various types of partnerships between organisations that have or do not have political power, funding, community influence, etc. While it may seem easier to set up a partnership between organisations that already share similar skills and capability-levels, the long-term benefits of partnership with clear goals of sharing and growing capabilities will likely be greater. • Participants noted that to grow capabilities through partnership, adequate resourcing and recognition of power are required. The impact of power dynamics on the ability to share and grow capabilities in partnership can be strong, particularly when resourcing disparities between actors are large. • Communicating in a way that distinguishes between the individual and the collective is very important, even if it is not seen as ‘team-spirited’ and therefore often discouraged. Making these distinctions clarifies the intentions and expectations of all parties. For example, saying “I will do this” differs from “We will do this” and also from “You will do this and I will contribute”. Honesty about strengths and weaknesses in partnerships would create much greater opportunity for building capabilities. Although formal partnership agreements outline legal requirements, it is uncommon that partnership arrangements are governed in a way that operationalises these distinctions in everyday language and interactions. • Participants noted the skills and capabilities developed in the private sector which allow outputs to become outcomes, and which support scaling of innovation. While the motivations of the private sector may also contribute to this ability, participants agreed these drivers had over time resulted in stronger development of specific skills that are under-represented or under-utilised in public sector innovation. • A key factor in effectively managing risk is ensuring people have the skills and capabilities needed to fulfil their responsibilities and are supported to be resilient and nimble in continued decision-making. To support all partners and mitigate risks, partnerships might choose to standardize language and share ideas and plans to ensure all stakeholders are confident in their own capabilities .236238239240241242243245246248249250Impact As there are no ‘silver bullet’ solutions, there are therefore no ‘silver bullet’ outcomes. Defining impact is a key part of creating impactful change, and participants discussed how to encourage this throughout the innovation process: • Participants agreed that iterative progress is as important, and often more rewarding than ‘big wins’, but only when all involved parties have agreed to define and acknowledge impact in smaller steps. Small changes can be empowering and motivating when they are celebrated in partnership. • This highlights the importance of establishing different partnerships for the different types of impact we seek to create. Just as in systems-thinking, where components are not all directly connected to one another but are still interlinked, so partnerships could be set up and governed in a way that values indirect connections. • This type of governance arrangement that is less prescriptive creates trade-offs where competing interests may exist, or efforts may be duplicated. However, some participants likened this to any imperfect system in the real world that we deal with as a matter of course. Other participants advocated for clear leadership that is responsible for making the partnership work – this raised further issues related to inclusivity and scale discussed previously. • Regardless of governance arrangements, partnerships which successfully define and create impact will rely on trust. Methods of building trust will differ according to the nature of relationships and cultural contexts, but leadership and guidance provided through global forums (such as the UN Food Systems Summit) could start to formally engender trust as a critical piece of innovation. Drawing on participatory best-practice could appropriately align levels of consultation needed for different types of partnership. • While defining impact is critical, so too is measuring it. Participants noted that a seeming lack of impact or change can relate to the measurement and communication of it. Without standardisation – or at least transparency – about the methods used to measure impact, it is difficult to understand and communicate progress. The SDGs provide a starting global framework for progress, yet some indicators continue to lack standard measurements of impact. • There was some discussion about the role of governments in defining impact. Governments (at all levels, but particularly national governments) are seen to represent their constituents, and therefore hold some weight in defining impact for their people. Participants agreed that all innovation must therefore take place understanding the role of government, the structure of governance and operations, and national contexts and priorities that are constantly evolving. • Participants also discussed the connection of risk with impact. In partnerships that are risk-averse, it may be more difficult to define, measure, and therefore create impact. Setting ambitious (perhaps risky) goals, can drive innovation and help scale solutions more rapidly. While this has implications for inclusivity and systems-thinking, defining impact in these ambitious terms could help bridge public-private sector divides and strengthen capabilities for those involved.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of Dialogue participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. There were certainly areas of divergence across all elements of partnership and innovation discussed during this Dialogue. Many of the participants were self-reflective during conversation and recognised that their views and contributions were influenced by their own experiences. Many points of divergence are presented throughout the Discussion Outcomes sections. There was robust discussion about trade-offs between various approaches to partnership, and to innovation to transform food systems. Participants debated the benefits of bringing together partners with similar skills and goals versus bringing together diverse partners with the direct goal of strengthening capabilities – which creates greater, sustained value? Wanting to be inclusive of all relevant stakeholders raised similar trade-offs, particularly when considering the many spatial scales of systems which necessitate engagement on many levels. The trade-offs of increased aversion to risk were discussed in the context of innovation speed and impact. The divergent views that emerged demonstrated that innovation is possible in any number of circumstanced. They then converged to establish that if progress is to take place at the great speed and scale necessary to achieve the 2030 agenda and make progress towards the SDGs, then robust and steady partnerships will be needed to integrate and scale solutions globally. As such, a key practice for achieving food system sustainability will be increased reliance on and resourcing of partnerships. Establishing formal guidelines and processes for working collaboratively across sectors and industries, based on successful models, could encourage greater collaboration and better transformation of intentions into impact. The diverse geographic spread of participants and corresponding breadth of experiences shared during this Dialogue further highlight the importance of food systems solutions that are locally-contextualised and relevant to the problems faced in specific environments. Ensuring that partnerships are representative of these local contexts will be important in supporting research and innovation that solves relevant problems and can be scaled appropriately

2021-08-31 06:11:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29953/23394555878895101102123127130139145173179180199

118764276402

The design of the event made sure that the priorities, in terms of challenges as reflected in the support needed, of farmers from across Asia were surfaced out. See attached report for more information about the event. AFA invited all partners to take part in the dialogue and provided spaces during the event for participants to share their views and propositions.Priority and concrete recommendations were discussed. This is crucial because the Summit needs more actionable solutions and concrete proposals form various stakeholders. See attached document for more information about the event.See attached report for more information about the event.

Yes

234238240241242244245246248249251The focused is on the family farmers' innovative solutions and proposed actions to scale out and sustain these innovative solutions under the following themes: Promote secure tenurial rights of small-scale women and men family farmers over natural resources: lands, waters, forests, seeds Produce diverse and nutritious food through sustainable, integrated, diversified, resilient, organic, agroecological family farming systems and practices in farms and forested landscapes Build and strengthen family farmers’ cooperatives and their enterprises that will give farmers stronger involvement in value chains and increase their market power Promote fair treatment and ensure equitable rights and opportunities among women and men farmers Promote agriculture towards the young and build their interests and capacities towards sustainable and resilient farming and related enterprises235238239240241242243244245246247248249251Farmers continue to face challenges from including control to productive resources and access to technologies, essential information, financial service, and fair market. There is a need to invest in strengthening farmers' organizations. The central role of family farmers and their organizations in food system has been proven and widely acknowledged: - Family farmers are feeding the world (IAASTD) - Maturity and Sustainability of FFOs are closely associated with increased benefits of smallholder (based on IFAD commissioned study in the Philippines) - Membership in a farmers’ organization was associated with positive effects on income (CERES 2030) FFOs are SOLUTION PROVIDERS/INNOVATORS/GAME CHANGERS FFOs are ACCELERATORS of SDG FFOs are PROPELLERS of Climate Resilient Agriculture236238239240241242243244245246247248249251Smallholder farmers have been practicing sustainable agriculture. However, it is changing due to degradation and availability of natural resources, commercial agriculture, climate changes, etc. Build and strengthen farmers’ cooperatives and their enterprises that will give farmers stronger involvement in value chains and increase their market power. Tireless and creative campaigning and land right movement has achieved policy results and established that access and ownership of land have to be provided farmers/tillers. Family farming and the family property are the inseparable parts of a coin women are the game changer of socioeconomic development of family and nations. So land ownership should be provided to women. Creative and solution-based big movement can bring great politic change. For change, organisations should strengthen organisation for effective movement. Collaboration with government actors for effective programs and execute the better results provides more credibility and increases local leverage. So collaboration with government has to be done. Strengthen young farmers’ organisation in the country through continued organizing efforts. Rethink community organizing strategies in this pandemic/use of digital platforms. We need community champions and leaders

2021-08-31 09:04:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/35072/104

124204040244777410110109206051713621012050

Independent Summit Dialogues are both an important avenue for Lebanese citizen engagement and a key part of the Summit process. Everyone with an interest in food systems, as well as all stakeholders were invited to attend Food Systems Summit Dialogues. A diverse range of stakeholders—including youth activists, smallholder farmers, scientists and business leaders—engaged in a lively discussion with a moderator for each subgroup, and ensured that our Dialogue identify the most powerful ways to make food systems more sustainable and equitable for all in Lebanon. Most importantly, the dialogue offered participants the opportunity to contribute directly to the Summit’s ambitious vision and objectives. The dialogue was organized by the UN in Lebanon, particularly FAO, WFP, ESCWA, UNIDO and UNIC Beirut.The Dialogue brought together participants for a lively and constructive discussion on how to make the food system in Lebanon safer, stronger and more equitable especially amid the multiples crises the country is facing. It included a diverse array of perspectives, including stakeholders of the Lebanese Food systems, women cooperatives, research centres, students from the faculties of agriculture and food sciences, smallholder farmers and business leaders who brought to the table their expertise and suggestions to ensure sustainability of the food systems in Lebanon. Four separate discussions were conducted during the dialogue revolving around three tracks: ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all, advancing equitable livelihoods, and building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress and the role of youth in technology and innovation of the food systems.It is important to reflect these principles in the concept note or the invitation to be shared with participants ahead of the dialogue.

Yes

234238241242248251Participants presented the main challenges of the food systems in the 3 different tracks in a comprehensive exploration of the food systems. They agreed on a number of ways that the food system in Lebanon can be strengthened including capacity building for farmers in agricultural operations. Participants examined solutions linking between different Action Tracks and levers of change.235238241242244245246248249251In the short-term small farmers and the most vulnerable should be supported by vouchers for input, cash transfers, land reclamation. There is a risk of a major decline in total production as small farmers cannot afford the price of imported inputs, therefore production size will decrease. On the other hand, consumers are shifting to cheaper, less nutritious, products which are leading to malnutrition and obesity. In the medium term, there is a need to promote more Lebanese produce and increase consumers' awareness of more local fresh food. The devaluation of the Lebanese pound might give a higher comparative advantage for the Lebanese agriculture production that will replace imports and lead to more export. This will attract more investment and thus increase production size. On the other hand, if consumers shift to locally produced foods, they would have chosen a healthier and more nutritious option. There is a need to capitalize on the role of cooperatives while encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship in the food sector to decrease production cost, introduce sustainable techniques, and providing more job opportunities to women and youth. It was recommended to create innovative ways of managing farmers’ markets to increase income. Specific and advantageous production value chains for specialization increasing comparative advantage were identified. Water harvesting in addition to using hydroponics farming as part of urban agriculture were prioritized. There should be more youth involvement in the sector and farmers should be directly connected to their respective consumers. In the current crisis, the fuel shortage in Lebanon is affecting the food system. It was noted that the absence of appropriate and advanced technology in addition to the lack of financial support for farmers and investment in proper infrastructure is adding to the sector’s vulnerability. As far as youth are concerned, macro-level policies and regulations are needed to support innovation and technology. A mapping of all needed data should be made available. It was also recommended to scale up funding from food innovation enterprises. On the meso level, institutions should be enforced and partnered with international cooperation. Partnerships between the youth and private sectors should be maximized. On the micro-level, it is highly necessary to maximize the use of resources and raw materials for the industrial sector in addition to link green technologies and energy efficiency with innovation. Fostering clustered approach leads to comparative advantage. Innovation should focus on more affordable cost-efficient produce that matches the local demand. It was also recommended by most participants to promote high technology used in farming, to reduce costs and improve production.236238245248251Short-term • Small farmers cannot afford the price of imported inputs = reduce area planted, number of animals => major decline in total production • Consumers are shifting to cheaper less nutritious products: e.g. bread, potatoes => malnutrition + obesity Recommendations for short-term  Emergency assistance to small farmers to buy inputs (vouchers, etc.)  Support to farmers’ livelihoods  Support to land reclamation to expand food production  Cash transfers to poor consumers Medium-term • Devaluation of LBP will enhance comparative advantage of Lebanese agriculture => higher production to replace imports+ more exports • Reduced use of inputs through more GAP/IPM; shift to more sustainable crop mix • More investments in farming by new comers and expansion by existing farmers • Consumers shift to locally produced foods, including more nutritious fruits and vegetables and food legumes as a healthier source of proteins than animal proteins Recommendations for medium-term  Promotion of high technology in farming to increase productivity and sustainability  Promotion of GAP/IPM to reduce input use and enhance food safety  Marketing through coops to bypass wholesale traders  Increase consumer awareness to consume local fresh food, especially fruits and vegetables  Encourage circular economy: composting, solar, etc.236241246248249Identifying specific and advantageous production value chains for specialization and that have comparative advantage for circumstances of farmers. Creating innovative ways of managing farmers’ market to increase their income and reliance on middlemen Enhancing/increasing use of technology to reduce costs and improve production Building capacity for farmers in agricultural operations (pesticide use, irrigation methods, agricultural inputs) Enhancing role of cooperatives and organizing farmers' cooperatives or agricultural cooperatives Encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship in the food sector to decrease production cost, introduce sustainable techniques and providing more job opportunities to women and youth.236242248251Vulnerabilities: Absence of appropriate and advanced technology (monitoring) In Lebanon, people are heading more towards the cities, leaving rural areas that contribute to food production. Lack of financial support for research in nutrition and food systems Lack of coordination between the different food systems (production, packaging…) and lack of standards, mainly in the Arab World Lack of investment in proper infrastructure, specifically in Lebanon, that could sustain long term production and suffice local consumption Export of all the best goods Lack of support for farmers No land tenure security Absence of proper monitoring of expiry dates and prices of food products Lack of proper investments and attention to the food sector, especially food production, in Lebanon Lebanese politicians considered Lebanon a country that provides services rather than a producer Fuel shortage in Lebanon is affecting its food sector Solutions: Water is essential for farming. Water harvesting should be prioritized. This could be done through small dams. Create programs that attract the youth to farming and the agricultural sector Prioritization of farming Hydroponics farming as part of urban agriculture Connecting the farmers to their respective markets/consumers directly237238241242No areas of divergence were detected. The discussion was smooth and most of the participants were on the same page and had similar views and aspirations.

2021-08-31 09:31:56205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41867/42

750436341062132712213869105330201

Le contexte socio – politique de la RCA a été troublé par la crise post – électorale. Le Gouvernement a été mis en place le 23 Juin 2021 en dehors de la limite pour l’organisation des dialogues (31 Mai 2021). Toutefois, le Coordonnateur National a été désigné le 16 Juillet 2021 par un Arrêté du Premier Ministre. Une équipe d’experts a été constituée pour préparer la tenue d’un seul dialogue élargi à tous les acteurs du domaine alimentaire dans le pays à savoir les Institutions étatiques, les autorités administratives locales, les opérateurs économiques privés, les organisations paysannes, les industriels et les organisations non gouvernementales ainsi que les partenaires techniques et financiers. Le pays a pris part, malgré le retard, au Pré-Sommet de Rome en présentiel et les experts ont suivi les sessions en ligne. Les experts ont ensuite travaillé sur l’état des lieux du système alimentaire centrafricain avant l’organisation pratique du dialogue. Il a fallu mobiliser les partenaires financiers en très peu de temps pour rassembler le budget nécessaire à la tenue de la concertation nationale retenue comme approche. Les différentes parties prenantes ont été identifiées de manière inclusive pour assurer la représentativité de tous les acteurs. Les termes de référence ont été partagés aux invités en prélude à la tenue des sessions. Une intense campagne d’information a été menée par les médias de la place. L’engagement du Gouvernement s’est matérialisé par la présence du Premier Ministre, Chef du Gouvernement à l’ouverture de l’atelier de concertation nationale sur le système alimentaire centrafricain. La coordonnatrice des Agences du Systèmes des Nations Unies a aussi marqué sa présence et son engagement pour la tenue de cette concertation nationale afin de soutenir ce processus. Trois jours de sessions (25, 26 et 27 Août 2021) ont permis aux participants de discuter des enjeux du système alimentaire en général et de formuler des recommandations.Dès l’engagement du Gouvernement, les préalables à l’organisation de la concertation nationale ont été apprêtés sans délais. La concertation nationale a été organisée de manière inclusive et représentative. Ce qui respecte la diversité des acteurs et la complexité des enjeux. Les délégués invités ont répondu en toute confiance et ont débattu des thématiques en toute sincérité. Des engagements ont été pris à tous les niveaux en lien avec les recommandations formulées.Les concertations nationales obligent à tenir compte des contextes agro – écologique et sécuritaire. De même, il est intéressant de faire un état des lieux de manière participative. Enfin, il est souhaitable, pour un engagement avec diverses organisations, d’anticiper la mobilisation des ressources auprès des partenaires et potentiels bailleurs.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les termes de référence ont pris en compte l’ensemble des cinq pistes d’action. L’objectif général de la concertation nationale était d’explorer les voies nationales vers un système alimentaire durable afin de dynamiser et accélérer l’atteinte des 17 ODD à l’horizon 2030 en l’occurrence l’ODD2. Par ailleurs, l’examen de l’état des lieux a été discuté avec les participants au dialogue et des contributions enrichissantes ont été faites. Quelques liens inter pistes ont aussi été discutés. La sécurité, les semences, le foncier, les infrastructures rurales, l’énergie, le financement agricoles ont été des points transversaux à toutes les pistes d’actions. Les principaux de leviers de changements identifiés sont relatifs à : - Leadership du gouvernement à travers la mise en place d’une banque agricole - Le renforcement de la gouvernance au niveau régional et local - L’adoption d’un nouveau code foncier - Le développement d’une stratégie d’achat auprès des petits producteurs et développement de chaine de valeur - La mise en place d’une réserve alimentaire stratégique articulée autour de filets sociaux adaptatifs de sécurité alimentaire - Le renforcement de capacité des services techniques et des organisations de producteurs afin de garantir la pérennité des actions.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Le diagnostic de la situation fait ressortir que les potentialités alimentaires du pays sont largement sous exploitées. Les petits exploitants qui représentent l’essentiel de la chaine de production alimentaire font face à des défis agricoles multiples. Il s’agit notamment du manque d'accès aux intrants de bonne qualité (tels que les semences, les engrais, les pesticides, l’encadrement) et des équipements de qualité insatisfaisante (faible mécanisation). L’insécurité civile demeure le facteur déterminant de l’insécurité alimentaire du fait de son impact profond sur les principales sources de nourriture et de revenus des ménages. Cette décennie des systèmes alimentaires, est l’occasion pour notre pays de prendre conscience de la nécessité d’améliorer la résilience économique en général et le système alimentaire en particulier Les différents échanges ont fait ressortir des leviers de changements importants pour surmonter les défis et valoriser les systèmes alimentaires comme un puissant moyen pour améliorer les conditions de vies des communautés et renforcer la paix, la réconciliation et la cohésion sociale. L’implication des différentes parties prenantes des systèmes alimentaires nationaux, gouvernement, partenaires techniques et financiers, société civiles, organisations paysannes ainsi que la communauté scientifique nationale, ont dégagé une vision commune à l’horizon 2030. Des engagements ont été pris à tous les niveaux pour actions en faveur de la transformation des systèmes alimentaires. Le gouvernement à travers le ministère de l’agriculture renforcera sont leadership dans la coordination des actions afin de garantir les synergies et complémentarités entre les différents acteurs. Les points d’accords ont principalement porté sur - la consolidation de la sécurité sur toute l’étendue du territoire, le renforcement de l’autorité de l’Etat et son leadership dans la coordination des actions. - le développement d’une agriculture sensible à la nutrition avec l’ambition de réduire la malnutrition chronique d’au moins 10% dans 3 ans - la mise en place d’une stratégie d’appui des petits producteurs incluantla faciliter l’accès au financement, la réhabilitation des infrastructures - l’exploitation d’environ 40% de nos terres agro – écologiques d’ici les 3 années à venir ; - Le renforcement de la résilience des communautés vulnérables à travers le développement des chaînes de valeurs agricoles et la mise en place de filets de sécurité alimentaire ; - Le renforcement de la capacités services techniques du gouvernement ainsi que des acteurs locaux afin de garantir la pérennisation des actions Les besoins d’établir des liens entre acteurs porte sur les défis de l’intégration de la nutrition dans le secteur agricole afin de réduire l’écart entre les aliments disponibles et accessibles et les aliments nécessaires pour une alimentation saine (sûre et nutritive) et équilibrée de toutes les populations Des réflexions et approfondissements sont nécessaires sur les questions de l’accès à la terre, l’adaptation des habitudes alimentaires et certains réactualisation et harmonisation de certains des textes règlementaires relatifs aux systèmes alimentaires.236238243244245246247248249250251- La disponibilité des aliments à haute valeur nutritive au sein des ménages est durablement assurée - La mise en œuvre d’actions visant à réduire la malnutrition chronique d’au moins 10% dans 3 ans ; - Les infrastructures et les bonnes techniques de conservation et de transformation des productions sont vulgarisées - le système d’analyse du risque fonctionne et d’alerte précoce - le système de surveillance épidémiologique incluant les maladies d'origine alimentaire est renforcé - Les agriculteurs, les pécheurs, éleveurs, les commerçants sont formés à l’adoption de bonnes pratiques - Les acteurs de la distribution et de la vente des denrées alimentaires sont formés et offrent des denrées alimentaires sûres.236239243244245246247248249250251- Promouvoir une agriculture sensible à la nutrition - la création des chaines des valeurs en conformité avec le changement des habitudes alimentaires ; - l’accroissement des mécanismes de production nationale par le renforcement des capacités des différents acteurs avec l’appui des partenaires techniques et financiers ; - l’éducation, la formation des producteurs et des consommateurs et la vulgarisation des modes de consommation et de gestion durables des déchets - Mettre l’accent sur les personnes aux besoins spécifiques que sont les femmes enceintes, les enfants, les personnes âgées et les handicapés - Résoudre la question de malnutrition par la création d’un répertoire des aliments locaux et leurs valeurs nutritives afin d’informer et éduquer la population à leur consommation saine et leur combinaison. - Une communication axée sur le changement de comportement en matière d’alimentation.236240243244245246247248249250251Elle a été examinée sous différents angles notamment dans les domaines de production agricole, de pêche, de l’élevage et produits forestiers non ligneux. En vue de réaliser cette vision, les différentes propositions d’actions ont porté sur: - L’actualisation des textes réglementant les productions agropastoral calendrier culturaux afin de s’adapter aux changements climatiques - Adapter les pratiques agricoles aux exigences du changement climatiques - Promotion de bonnes pratiques agricoles, d’élevage et des produits forestiers non ligneux des modèles adaptés aux Changements climatiques pour maintenir la production respectueuse de la nature. - La promotion de l’utilisation rationnelle des intrants performants, des bio pesticides; des fertilisants et la fabrication des composts. - Le renforcement de capacité technique et opérationnelle des institutions et des producteurs. La formation des agriculteurs a également été mise en avant de façon générale, il était question de définir les mécanismes pouvant limiter le recours à l’agriculture sur brulis - Relance du système agro – sylvo – pastorale à travers le financement de la recherche agronomique, la production semencière, et la mécanisation.236241243244245246247248249250251• Accès équitable à la terre pour tous ; • Mise à disposition des moyens conséquents et effectifs aux différents Responsables Institutionnels pour la mise en œuvre des activités dans leurs zones respectives ; • La réglementation des prix des denrées Alimentaires ; • Renforcer les capacités des services sociaux de base existant ; • Développer un programme d’éducation nutritionnel ; • Promouvoir les cantines scolaires dans tous les établissements scolaires ; • Rendre opérationnel les services d’hygiènes et assainissement dans marchés publics ; • Assurer l’hygiène des denrées Alimentaires dans tous les circuits de distributions ; • Installation d’une chambre froide pour le conditionnement des denrées dans tous les marchés.236242243244245246247248249250251A court et moyen termes l’Etat et ses partenaires doivent continuer les efforts de restauration de la paix et de la sécurité dans le pays. L’analyse du contexte fait ressortir 3 types de zones i) zones d’urgence ii) les zones post-urgence et relèvement iii) les zones de développement. L’objectif de résilience doit tenir compte du contexte de chaque zone et les investissements à réaliser doivent assurer une cohérence d’ensemble visant une progression des communautés en zones urgences vers les zones de développement. D’une manière spécifique, il s’agit de: Au niveau central et stratégique - Garantir l’effectivité de la présence des cadres techniques de l’Etat sur le terrain à travers un plan de redéploiement et affectation adapté aux besoins - Un engagement ferme du Ministère de l’Agriculture et du Développement Rural (MADR) à coordonner et mettre en place une stratégie nationale intégrée d’appui aux petits producteurs incluant o L’accès aux moyens, outils et intrants pour renforcer la production o Un plan de réhabilitation d’infrastructures rural et des routes d’accès aux grandes zones de productions ; o Un mécanisme de commercialisation et d’accès à l’information sur les prix o La mise en place d’institutions de microfinance et/ou de banque de développement agricole dans les zones de relèvement et de développement pour faciliter l’accès au crédit. - Assurer une meilleure implication des sectoriels dans la planification et l’élaboration des projets ainsi que leur plan de désengagement pour la pérennisation des projets - Renforcer la coordination entre les services de l’Etat en charge des statistiques agricoles, de l’alerte précoce, des filets sociaux sécurité alimentaire, afin d’assurer la disponibilité et l’utilisation efficace des Informations. - Organiser un forum national sur la contribution du petit producteur à la cohésion sociale, à la paix et à la réconciliation afin de remobiliser les acteurs. Au niveau régional et local - Assurer des transferts sous formes de filets de sécurité, conditionnelle ou non, selon le statut de vulnérabilité - Appuyer la formalisation administrative des organisations de producteurs et faciliter leur mise en réseau - Renforcement continu de la capacité de production des petits exploitants pour une progression vers le statut d’entrepreneur - Appuyer le fonctionnement des marchés en facilitant la relation client-acheteur à travers des informations sur les prix - Assurer l’inclusion de tous les acteurs dans le renforcement des capacités sur la chaine d’approvisionnement (production, conservation, conditionnement, stockage et de transformation et commercialisation) - Créer des marchés de proximité et de regroupement afin de faciliter l’écoulement des produits locaux et l’accès aux produits de base. - Renforcer la sensibilisation des communautés sur les pratiques de destruction et d’exploitation anarchiques des ressources naturelles - Développer et animer des cadres de concertation entre les acteurs autour des plans de développement locaux. Les préfectures, les sous-préfectures et les communes doivent mettre à jour et vulgariser leur document de planification et autre plan de contingence au niveau local.237238239240241242- La question d’accessibilité aux terres agricoles : le droit coutumier ne permet pas l’équité dans l’accès à la terre - La promotion de l’agriculture extensive ou intensive : le mode d’exploitation agricole est resté extensif alors que l’accroissement de l’offre alimentaire nécessite une intensification - Le contexte foncier coutumier ne permet pas une exploitation durable des PFNL - L’organisation agricole actuelle (moyens rudimentaires et concentration autour des villages) ne facilite pas la mise en place des grandes exploitations agricoles et crée des tensions foncières.

2021-08-31 11:01:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/24914/203

1475904939210108421533

The dialogue was organised with diversity and regional representation as possible selecting a sub-topic: Agriculture Value Chain and Increasing Marketing Power to Family Farmers which is an urgent concern and faced perennially by smallholder family farmers. the Dialogue highlights the related issues to it such as barriers to trade, policy environment barriers, and to Internal and External Governance. Speakers from sub-regions were being put an emphasis such that are resource speakers and sharing of experiences from Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Pacific.The Dialogue incorporated key aspect that smallholder farmers are also investors in the Value Chain development, and recognising the important role that Farmers' Organisations and Agriculture Cooperatives have in self-help, participation in value chain processes, promotion and advocacy of important trade and investment policies. Speakers aside from coming from different sub-regions, also presented diverse experiences related to market approaches in different commodities and crops, and willingness to enhance or further innovate their game changing solutions out of the lessons of these diverse experiences. Recognizing the complexity of the issue at hand, while documenting the lessons learned from the sharing, it was included in the later part of the dialogue how the participants and stakeholders can compliment each other.

Yes

234238239241242244245249251The major focus of the dialogue is on advancing equable livelihoods specifically recognising the game changing initiatives of farmers' organisations and cooperatives in market access at the same time affirming the diverse related issues and challenges in agricultural value chain development. The presenters were also able to present the inter-relatedness of different action tracks based on country specific realities and priorities.235238239241242244246249251The following are the main findings and recommendations as a result of the Dialogue> 1. Formation of cooperatives, as they play a major role in terms of value addition, development of agri-enterprises and access to support and financing from different institutions; empowerment of cooperatives in negotiating with markets. 2. Establishment of rural distribution network/trading centers managed by farmers; provision of storage facility system to reduce pest, enables bulk orders/wholesale. 3. Involvement of youth in agricultural activities – advanced methodologies in farming, technologies used in processing and online marketing platform; awareness of youth on benefits of farming. 4. Empowerment of farmers to utilize online platforms or e-commerce; creation of platform where farmers and buyers meet; farmers dictate the price. 5. Implementation of organic agriculture suitable for small scale farmers; prioritization of healthy and organic produce; standardization of organic farming policy. 6. Cutting of long market value chain/processes; strengthening of farmers to negotiate directly to end consumers/large scale companies. 7. Incentives and support to farmers from agricultural banks. 8. Market positioning – tapping markets offering higher price regardless of the minimum bulk volume, at the same time, ensuring product quality. Establishment of partnership with other organizations/institutions to highlight farmers’ products. 9. Land security for farmers. 10. Reduction of tax for agricultural products 11. Focus on market requirements and needs 12. Long term branding and plan 13. Assessment of different types of seeds for resiliency; farmer to farmer exchange seeds, non-dependence on hybrid seeds 14. Plant health clinic: platform to discover and diagnose pest issues.

2021-09-01 11:26:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39679/203

03137120047341647108433452104442

In organizing the dialogue, Lukenya University collaborated with institutions that are committed to the summit mandate and are aware of the need for urgency in food systems. These include Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network Global (GCSAYN) and Narasingha Choudhury Autonomous College Jajpur Odisha India. Due to the the global outlook of the institutions different stakeholders from various parts of the world were invited for the summit. This brought in diverse rich inputs in the dialogue. During the session, the speakers were given space to express their thoughts freely without intimidation. In this way, people developed trust in the whole dialogues process, including in the breakout rooms. Contributions given by different stakeholders built on the work of fellow contributors and this created harmony and good flow in the dialogue.The dialogue reflected the act of urgency through the concept note that brought out the need for urgency in food systems by emphasizing the fact that climate change is taking place and that there is dire need for improving food systems. Multistakeholder involvement was reflected through the different people from different sectors that took part in the dialogue. They included agricultural crop farmers, scientists and researchers, national and local government representatives among others. Commitment to the summit was reflected by the act of organizing the summit. The people who attended the summit also exhibited commitment as they did so voluntarily. The diaologue process was carried out in a professional manner, avoiding any form of disrespectful remarks. This also helped to build people's trust in the dialogue process.It is important to observe the pricinples of engagement. By doing so people become free to engage thereby providing very important information on what they doing to handle different situations that they meet in ensuring sustainable food systems. When principle of engagement are respected, more and more people will be willing to attend the dialogues and give the information that they have, using the method they know best, without feeling intimidated. This encourages very rich feedback from the people.

Yes

234238240241242244245246247248249251In the dialogue theme “Innovative inclusion of the youth, women and persons living with disabilities in sustainable food systems for development”, we explored the question, in what innovative ways can the youth, women and persons living with disabilities be meaningfully involved in ensuring sustainable food systems for the development of economies in Africa and the world? This was an Independent Food System Summit Dialogue to gather practical experiences and ideas from different stakeholders to ensure inclusion of all in food systems. The objectives of the dialogue were: • To create a platform for all stake holders to speak out on diverse experiences of the inclusion of the youth, women and persons living with disabilities in food systems. • To spell out strategies to foster the inclusion of the youth, women and persons living with disabilities (enabled differently) in global food systems to enhance sustainability. • To foster innovativeness in the inclusion of the youth, women and persons living with disabilities (enabled differently) in food systems to transform global, regional and national food systems Expected Outcomes were as follows: • Strategies to foster the inclusion of the youth, women and persons living with disabilities in global food systems for sustainability • Suggestions and recommendations gathered from participants’ experiences on ways of ensuring the inclusion of the youth, women and persons living with disabilities in food systems • Greater innovativeness in the inclusion of the youth, women and persons living with disabilities in food systems.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251-Nature based solutions that involve actions to work with and embrace nature e.g developing riparian areas are important in ensuring sustainability of food systems for all. They sustain production, mitigate climate change and erosion, increase income and biodiversity and sustain healthy ecosystems. This idea should be implemented in members' localities. -Agripreneurship should be positioned for youth employment. The youth should be equipped through skill development, financing and financial literacy and land access policies. -People with disabilities should be capacitated with farm inputs and be faicilitated with materials on food production and other opportunities that they can read e.g. by use of braille, so as to enjoy the same benefits as the rest of the population. -There should be effective advocacy processes by all to ensure the youth, women and persons with disabilities are represented in food systems policy making. A bottom- up approach that begins from the local communities should be used. -Acess to information: Manuals and other advocacy material developed should resonate with the needs of the persons with disabilites as well as the women and youth. They should be simple and in formats that all can access. -Partnerships between government and the private sector should be pursued in providing credit, soiling testing services, community edcuation through demonstration farms and agricultural insurance for sustainable food systems. -Research is essential where gender transformative indicators should be used to ensure inclusion of all e.g. how many are engaged from each gender and interest groups. Calls for proposal should be tailor made for different groups (youth, women, persons with disabilities). -Social protection programmes that are linked with families for people with disabilities are essentail to ensure access to quality nutrition. Training and capacity building required to engage in decision making, for value addition of produce and in finding markets. Digital training of farmers is also essential. Equal access to resources by all (youth, women and persons with disabilities) is required for sustainable food systems.236238241243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic 1: How do we measure success in the inclusion of the youth, women and persons with disabilities in sustainable food systems? Outcomes: -By their participation in decision making. -When we see succesful agribusinesses by the youth, women and persons with disabilities -Check requirements specific to the people are considered e.g. sign language for those with hearing impairment, braille for those with visual impairment. These should include websites. -Reading material is practical and friendly to the youth, women and persons with disabilities. -When we see the youth, women and people with disabilities training others236238240241242243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic 2: Strengthening the role of the youth, women, and persons with disabilities in sustainable food systems. Outcomes: -More involvement in dialogues and conferences - Food systems competitions and challenges where they present their ideas and people hear them. -Clear land ownership rights for youth, women and people with disabilities. This is for the female gender who have no rights to land especially in Africa and Asia. - Nature based solutions and sustainable management of resources to fight climate change and enable sustainable agriculture. -Friendly documentation for all. -Affordable and accessible financing for all. -Motivation of young people to act as agents of change to talk to fellow young people to be part of the food system. -Empower girls to be part of the change needed. -Laws and policies involving them. They should be part and parcel of policy making.236238239241243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic 3: The innovative ways to ensure inclusion for sustainability of food systems. Outcomes: -Policies that do not segregate anyone e.g. women in relation to land ownership. -specific tasks for all. -Having indicators in all projects e.g. number of youth, women, persons with disabilities etc. -Data on knowledge: Are they aware of their roles in food systems -Real time feedback on their engagement in sustainable food systems236238241246247248249250251Discussion topic 4: What do youth, women and persons with disabilities offer to ensure sustainable food systems? Outcomes: -A taskforce in the food systems. -A source of knowledge: They can be trainers of others. -A pool for innovation.236238241242243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic 5: Policy considerations to ensure inclusion of the youth, women and persons with disabilities for sustainable food systems. Outcomes: - Land ownership by all policies to be enacted. -Indicators for inclusivity to be stipulated and made mandatory. - Access to affordable finance by the youth, women and persons with disabilities. -Inclusion in policy making processes affecting them.236238241242243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic 6: How do we determine that there is fair inclusion? Outcomes: -When the young people represent the youth, women represent women and persons with disabilities represent persons with disabilites. -Bringing out those with disabilities and not hiding them to ensure they get access to benefits like everyone else. -Projects for sustainability -Provision of soft loans for ideas from youth, women and persons with disabilities.237238241242243244245246247248249250251Use of ICT- There was the advocacy for more digitalization to improve agriculture. However, people with disabilities feel left out when more digitalization is done. This is because the digital innovations do not take into consideration their unique needs. Therefore, they are unable to use these innovations. This is an area that requires further and broader consideration. People with disabilities should not be left behind through new innovations that they cannot be able to use.

2021-09-02 07:11:36205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38905/191

1405311315950439133411635104150318206213226622

The national dialogue was organized and guided by the seven principles of the Food Systems Summit: 1) act with urgency; 2) commit to the Summit; 3) be respectful; 4) recognize complexity; 5) embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity; 6) complement the work of others; and 7) build trust. By organizing this dialogue, the UAE is taking one-step forward with a concrete plan through the FoodTech Valley initiative, to create an enabling environment to support the transition towards sustainable food systems. Cognizant of the importance of food security as a cross-sectoral issue, and the need to act with urgency given the specific context of UAE, the UAE is the first country in the world to have appointed a Minister of State for Food and Water Security, with the overall responsibility to streamline all efforts towards the goal of ensuring adequate, safe, affordable and nutritious food for all. This presents a unique position not existing anywhere else in the world. The UAE acknowledges the intrinsic complexity of food systems and the challenges of transformation under national socioeconomic, political, environmental, cultural, compounded by regional and global drivers. The UAE is committed to ensuring inclusive engagement and participation of all stakeholders across all sectors, and in doing so it has conducted a series of stakeholder consultations and established a national committee on “promoting modern advanced farming in the UAE” that serves as an advisory body to the federal government on issues related to food security and sustainability. The committee recommended a series of interventions, which have been identified and prioritized based on their impact and role to facilitate the transformation and adoption of Agricultural Technology (Agtech) and innovation solutions. The Plan has identified (10) intervention areas, prioritized (6) of them and has explicit (26) points of action, entailing the timeline of implementation, responsible government body and the impact on transition towards sustainable food systems. (continued in official attached report)The national dialogue reflected the principles of the United Nations Food Systems Summit. It was organized following a series of consultations (multi-stakeholder inclusivity) that led to the development of a comprehensive plan to enable the transformation of food systems in a more resilient and sustainable way in the UAE. The UAE Government at all levels has adopted an inclusive approach of partnership, working closely with all relevant stakeholders (federal government entities, local authorities, the private sector, agri tech companies, food and nutrition experts, international organizations, academia, farmers, youth, NGOs, etc.) throughout the food value chain for meeting the SDGs. The UAE faces significant challenges to producing food domestically and competitively, and imports more than 90% of its food. To meet the current and future food needs of a growing and urbanized population, it is time to act urgently. Cognizant of the importance of food security, the UAE appointed a Minister of State for Food and Water Security to streamline all efforts towards the goal of ensuring adequate, safe, affordable and nutritious food for all. The UAE is developing advanced expertise in integrating technologies throughout the food value in order to facilitate the transition from inefficient food systems to more sustainable ones. The UAE is more than ever committed to the United Nations Food Systems Summit. While the lack of progress in meeting the SDGs is a matter of concern, the call for a decade of action nevertheless provides th eUAE a prime opportunity to contribute towards having a focus agenda that will enable us to get back on track to achieve the SDGs. For the national dialogue, 120 invitations were sent out to ensure broad-based consultations and representations of all relevant stakeholders (Government entities, private sector, academia, research organizations, youth, agri tech companies, food and nutrition experts, and farmers’ organizations). About 109 participants from a wide... (continued in official attached report)The principles of engagement of the UN Food Systems Summit are key to the success of the national dialogue. They should be embraced from the planning phase to the dialogue itself and post-dialogue. In particular, the identification and participation of the right stakeholders, according to the topic selected for the dialogue, is critical to have successful deliberations and reach the expected outcomes. The UAE has always adopted the participatory approach, as a principle of the planning, designing and implementation of its national agenda. This role of the government serves the nation’s wide interest including those of its citizens and residents and acts as a key success factor

Yes

234240241242243244248251In the UAE, ensuring food security (current and future) is a high priority. By 2051, the UAE vision is to become a world-leading hub in innovation-driven food security. To realize this vision, the UAE has formulated a National Food Security Strategy anchored upon five strategic directions (agribusiness trade facilitation, technology-enabled food production, reduce food loss and waste, food safety and nutrition and food risks and crisis management) and five enablers (building an effective food security governance model, establishing national research and development agenda, ensuring quality data and information availability, enhancing availability of quality human capital for food, and the food movement) were identified. Guided by the principles of inclusiveness (leaving no one behind), and after a series of stakeholder consultations, the UAE have identified the development of Special Zones for modern Farming and access to agtech as a key strategy to increase local food production in a sustainable way. The UAE, being a leader in the area of agtech, has taken the initial step of piloting its first special zone for agricultural technology in the Emirate of Dubai known as “The FoodTech Valley”. The FoodTech Valley is centered on food, innovation, knowledge, technology and sustainability, and is seen as a catalyst to transform the UAE generally and Dubai specifically to be the hub for future clean tech-based food and agricultural products, and as an economic zone to spearhead innovation and create collaborative networks to lead national and regional transformation for sustainable food systems. This complex development will feature incentives to allocate and provide different modalities for growers who are interested in establishing their advanced modern farming. The major focus of the national dialogue was on the FoodTech Valley. The objective of the dialogue was to discuss the details of the FoodTech Valley. More specifically, to, obtain holistic feedback through an inclusive process of how to enhance special food production zones and maximize the use of this state-of-the-art development; enable all relevant stakeholders to contribute toward a master plan for development of special food production zones and advises on key success factor in an effort to create a win-win situation for all; and finally strengthening relationships with the private sector to enable a transition towards sustainable food systems through adoption of renewable resources and environmentally friendly approaches.235240241242243244248251Attendance: 109 participants attended the event. Participants were drawn from a wide and diverse category of stakeholders group and sectors and with a good gender distribution (see part 1 – participation). The event was organized around three plenary thematic discussion sessions: - Session 1: Role of the Food Innovation Center and lab requirements: three questions were posed for discussion: a) what do you envision the future trend of food innovation will be in the next decade? b) what is needed to effectively utilize the innovation center as a catalyst to transform your idea/innovation, c) Can you identify the required equipment and materials to support your food innovation? - Session 2: Priorities and Zoning for AgriTech: participants reflected on three questions: a) what are the most significant thematic sub-zones of each main zone? b) what is the recommended plot size for each sub-zone and are they specific zoning needs that must be taken into consideration? and c) Are there any specific infrastructure or regulatory needs for each sub-zone? - Session 3: Enablers required by subsector: participants discussed and shared viewpoints, expectations and enablers or success factors of the FoodTech Valley initiative. Summary of deliberations (curator) Embracing the 7 principles, the dialogue was constructive and has helped participants to share common understanding and value, components of the FoodTech Valley and its potential for contributing towards increasing local food production in specialized zones and thus contributing to the overall agenda to achieving food security. The food tech value is an exciting and futuristic project aiming at transforming food systems in a resilient and sustainable manner. It was noteworthy to understand that the following comments were instrumental in planning the FoodTech Valley initiative and were shared by the attendees: a. Integrated research and development approach to capitalize on the wide knowledge and expertise of the NGOs, research institutes, academia and private sector. b. The desert farming approach shall enable a higher value proposition for the FoodTech Valley. c. The need to incorporate a digital modern farming zone, which enables many of the fourth-industrial revolution applications. d. When creating subzones, it is necessary to take into account integrated and shared facilities to serve the full food supply chain including marketing and sales channels. e. Food Innovations is a critical component to the success of the initiative, thus the need to enhance regulations around labor law to attract scientists for part time employment during experimentation. f. The need to ease the process of access/import of equipment’s utilized in food innovation. g. Provision of natural resources at affordable costs including solar energy, TSE and Carbon dioxide. h. Provision of standard laboratory and equipment’s to support cellular agriculture, material testing for CEA, fermenters, 3D food printing, bio-reactors. i. Provision of space for CGIAR research and development institutes. j. Provision of Water Cooling Infrastructure to enable farming during summer period (underground water reservoir). Key takeaways from the discussions: - Need to look for means of utilizing water resources in a sustainable manner (be it conventional and non-conventional), as water scarcity is a major constraint to food production in the UAE; - Use of controlled environment agriculture (CEA), biosaline agriculture, cellular agriculture; - Engaging youth is a key enabler to making the FoodTech Valley successful; - Innovation Center: need to look at human capacity, training, guiding start-ups throughout an innovation development cycle; as well standard lab provision, integration with CGIAR research enters, ability to enhance access of specialized food equipment’s and finally ease of labor law for scientists during experimentation time - Ecosystems to enabler innovators to move from idea/concept into piloting to large scale production; - Resources are needed: i.e. natural gas, hydrogen, storing water, reservoir, using solar energy; - Ecological impact of the FoodTech Valley should be well assessed to attract investments; - Need to define sub-zones and adopt an integrated and systemic approach, exploring linkages between different components and zones within the FoodTech Valley using the integrated desert farming approach; - Innovation Center: not over complicated but establish basic labs to cater for multiple activities, looking at standard things that can be fine-tuned to cater for the different users; - Enabling technology: should always look at ways of simplifying processes; - Sub-zones: digitalization is important (e.g. biosecurity, traceability, test food quality, transform to data); - Alternative feed; - Enablers: not only reversible funding mechanisms, but also grants and engage the private sector.236240241242243244248251Role of the Food Innovation Center and lab requirements Water scarcity is a key constraint; integration and connection of all stakeholders; holistic assessment of research project; commercial outcomes should drive the FoodTech Valley; funding is needed to ensure sustainability and promote exchange and investments; focus on youth, building capacities, training programmes should be tailored for SME; research in food systems is needed; need to define the topic (ideas and innovation for the center); need standardize labs; incentives for external investments; standardized assets. Priorities and Zoning for AgriTech Water, biosecurity, collaboration, vertical farming, integrated and systemic thinking, research into water treatment and treated sewage effluent; quality control areas for products, sustainability goals, different forms of energy, waste recycling, agtech platform, IT and blockchains. Enablers required by subsector Funding with direct economic returns, competitive pricing, engaging the private sector, and considering the stage the company is at, to ensure there are no gaps in the process.237241242243244248251None

2021-09-02 12:38:24205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21401/74

543271593123

Considering the scope of discussion topics of the Dialogues, for the Second dialogue we invited municipality representatives. The second Dialogue was announced well in advance to let every invited participant join the meetings. As food systems are complex, a holistic approach of three key measurements (economic, social, and environmental impacts) was applied. The participants of the National Dialogues shared opinions with each other. Participants of the Dialogue shared their feedback and suggestions in writing as well. The final draft of the document was sent out to all participants for their perusal. Based on thorough analysis and discussions, the key trends and the respective activities were outlined.The second stage meeting of the National Dialogue was held on May 20, 2021. Fifty-four representatives from all municipalities of Georgia attended the meeting, discussed the identified key trends, and amplified the existing initiatives with their own visions about the food systems. Both National Dialogues brought together a wide spectrum of stakeholders. All participants were very active and detail-oriented during discussions. Eventually, all their suggestions and recommendations were taken into consideration, summarised, and compiled under the key trends and objectives.

NoThe second preparatory meeting of the UN Food Systems brought together fifty-four representatives from all municipalities of Georgia. The National Convener and the Curator opened the session with the presentations and introduced the findings of the first National Dialogue to the participants, including the key priorities for the sustainable food systems, as follows: • Ensure competitive value-chains in food systems; • Ensure effective systems of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection; • Sustainable utilization of natural resources, environmental protection, maintenance of ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation to the changing climate; • Elaboration of systems for effective crisis management. The participants were grouped into four groups. Each group was assigned to outline recommendations for the specific priority through the support of a facilitator. After group discussions, the facilitators presented the findings, which reinforced and enhanced the previous recommendations.

234Development of the full value chain in food systems and stimulating rural economic activity is crucial for sustainable development and inclusive economic growth in Georgia. The vital responsibility of the next decade will be to reinforce the development of quality and production technologies, which ensures competitiveness in both local and international markets. Despite implemented and ongoing reforms and development-oriented programs, the food system still faces challenges, which need to be solved as a precondition for the social-economic growth of the country. Our priorities for the next decade are to ensure the existence of a competitive value chain in food systems; To develop an effective system of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection; Sustainable use of natural resources, environmental protection, preservation of ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation; Elaboration of effective systems for crisis management.235Involvement of the civil society sector in policy performance along with the public agencies is of utmost importance. It is vital to actively communicate with the direct stakeholders of the food systems such as producers, unions, associations, NGOs, scientific circles, donors, international organizations, higher educational and vocational institutions, local municipality representatives, and the civic sector in the municipalities. Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models as well as the establishment of the Civil Committee can be considered as one of the best mechanisms of cooperation. Collaboration at the level of Municipalities, for instance, with rural councils is worth noting as well.2361. Ensure competitive value-chains in the food systems - Increase the competitiveness of the agricultural products in Georgia and development of their value-chains; - Ensure availability of the respective infrastructure for the compliance of products with marketing standards at all stages of value-adding; - Ensure additional supportive policy for the small farmers and the households; - Promotion of engagement of women and young producers in agri-food sector; - Make mechanization more accessible; - Development of agricultural land market; - Development of highly-qualified services and ensure capacity building of human resources in the retail market of agricultural materials; - Increase a range of veterinary drugs and plant protection products in the municipalities; Enhancement of control; - Improve access to funds, agricultural insurance (to cover more risks) knowledge, information and awareness-raising; - Provide support to the diversification of rural economic capacities; - Provide support to agri-tourism and eco-tourism; - Ensure efficient infrastructure (standards, labs, certification agencies) in the agri-food sector; Introduction of international standards in primary production; - Support the development of organic agriculture; - Formation of producers’ associations, their enlargement, and cooperation as well as the improvement of access to the market; Ensure availability of high-quality production equipment and agri-food processing facilities; - Development of infrastructure such as green-houses, storage, hydro-melioration, mechanization, transport, energetics, roads, internet, etc. - Support the development of livestock and breeding activities, fostering preventive actions against livestock diseases and control processes; Ensure compliance of management of severe infections, quarantine, and liquidation actions with the international standards. - Biodiversity conservation, identification of indigenous species, their restoration, and improvement as well as the formation of the genetic bank; - Improvement of irrigation and drainage systems;2362. Ensure effective systems of food/feed safety, veterinary and plant protection - Increase the qualification of food safety and food control personnel. - Achieving the goals of continuous development of integrated food safety system in the country through the elaboration of the guidelines, standard operational procedures (SOPs), and the instructions both for the competent agencies and for the food business operators. - Improvement of the food environment, awareness-raising of the population on food safety and healthy food with the focus on adolescents and the young; - Enhancement of risk assessment capacity of food safety (to improve risk assessment methodology), risk assessment and management, risk communication, and effective enforcement of food safety legislation as well as a systematic approach to the risk assessment process. - Enhancement of lab capacities in the country. Introduction of new methods for the diagnosis of the lab tests in the area of food safety, veterinary and plant protection, and/or to expand the accreditation area. Capacity building of lab personnel;2363. Sustainable utilization of natural resources, environmental protection, maintenance of ecosystems, climate change mitigation, and adaptation to the changed climate - Awareness-raising about climate change – ensure training for the representatives of municipalities and to hold intensive meetings with communities about climate change and its impacts as well as to organize the training of schoolchildren on environmental issues. - Sustainable use of water, land, and forest resources as well as avoidance of soil, air, and water pollution; - Restoration of windbreaks and promotion of planting of more trees for this purpose; - Effective utilization of renewable energy in the regions. - Support the development of circular economics.2364. Elaboration of systems for the effective crisis management - Ensure food security; - Ensure crisis management plan is in place; - Establishment of supply management systems for food and other basic needs; - Ensure effective communication mechanisms for the public and private sector in emergencies, which will secure the effective management of crises and shocks. - Management of food losses and expired food and improvement of respective processes.

2021-09-02 16:06:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33623/68

081061413103201010023210010000333403000001200

-We made sure to invite a diverse set of participants -The curator reminded everyone to be respectful, embrace diversity, actively listen & act according to these principles -Our facilitators were briefed in advanced, everyone had the training, so they could make sure to incorporate the principles in each of our discussion groups-Even though, we had some opposing views, everyone was recognized and treated respectfully -We followed a multi-stakeholder approach, inviting everyone involved “from farm to fork” -We built new connections, complemented each other’s work and will keep discussingMake sure to always remind everyone of the principles.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251To understand the relationship between poverty and malnutrition in Ethiopia, we are hosting an ‘Independent Dialogue’ on “How To Unlock Positive Change In Ethiopia’s Food System”. With 13 Million children under the age of five living in Ethiopia1, one in twenty of these children dies before even reaching this age2, meaning 650.000 children don’t get to celebrate their fifth birthday. Reasons range from malnutrition, poor sanitation and hygiene to contaminated water, amongst others. Following the Acumen Academy’s Systems Practice course for nine weeks, our team developed a simplified systems map to grasp and visualize the interconnections of different challenges: poverty in rural, local communities, education, malnutrition in children, agriculture and the role of governments and big corporates, all being part of the Ethiopian food system. Before sharing our findings with the UNFSS, this open Summit Dialogue shall serve to validate the map and build on it by bringing in diverse ideas and perspectives from international stakeholders, like: Next-generation innovators and systems thinkers, entrepreneurs, farmers, scientists, public and private sector representatives, civil society representatives, activists, financial sector representatives, chefs, as well as individuals outside of the food and agriculture industry.2352392402412422432442452462472482492502511st Focus Topic: Courageous leaders and social enterprises As many projects and initiatives implemented by NGOs and the government focus too little on education about food and nutrition, families and communities continue to lack this important knowledge on how to feed themselves for improved health. This is a result of "only" focusing on malnutrition instead of investigating deeper into the root causes of malnutrition and health problems which are also: hygiene, infrastructure, such as water and sanitation. Because they see the need for intervention towards more education about food and nutrition in Ethiopia, courageous leaders create initiatives towards solving this social issue. Through these initiatives, communities feel empowered to lead and create a change. It increases the interdependence and self-sufficiency of the communities. People from the communities become aware of their own power and fight for their rights, not letting themselves be suppressed and overpowered by the government and corporations. This leads to an increase of powerful leadership and a change not only in communities but also in government institutions. More people take action. These projects aimed at behavioral change at community level lead to the growing # of social businesses, civic society and community-led programs that become enablers in the nutrition sector. The social businesses made a huge change in terms of several topics: It increased projects based on human-centered research and encouraged the involvement of the communities and religious organizations. It makes such progress in giving awareness to the public. It creates more partnerships and opportunities for self-help groups, civil society orgs, and community-led programs. Social sector grows stronger and can apply pressure on the government to improve action on nutrition. It increases the opportunities for the social businesses within the food and nutrition sector that results in adequate projects and policies being implemented. The market for social businesses is scaling and people are becoming more aware of it and joining the action. One of these successful projects is VitaBite, a social enterprise with a SMS recipe program that tackles behavioral change approaches in the local communities on food nutrition. VitaByte is only one of the thousands of social projects that tackles food nutrition in Ethiopia focusing on behavioural change. 2nd Focus Topic: Education and Resources When first researching on the topic about malnutrition in Ethiopia we set the intention to find out more about its relation to education. It seems to be a topic that is often missed out when it comes to malnutrition in children and adults alike. Even when resources can be provided, many people lack concrete knowledge on how to eat to nourish their bodies in a healthy way. In addition to this, some cultures or religions restrict options for healthy nourishment, which can especially be dangerous for children. People must be educated on what to eat and how to eat, they must gain awareness of the cause and effects that food has on their bodies and their health. Education on the topic of food and nourishment also includes enabling communities to grow their own food and in this case, enabling diverse agriculture instead of mono-cultures. Organisations focusing on food and nutrition must become more aware of the effects that education can have on the topic of mal-nutrition, they must also start to tackle that problem more systematically instead of in silos by simply providing food to the local people. The approach must change towards education and empowerment, otherwise those people will forever depend on aid-agencies. 3rd Focus Topic: Gender & Politics A misunderstanding of the bigger picture and the true root causes of people being in states of malnutrition results in projects and interventions that are not effective. As a consequence, people lose trust in government and non-governmental organisations and their “solutions” implemented in the local communities. With a reduced level of trust comes a reduced level of openness in sharing information which again limits the interventions to be effective. Governmental as well as non-governmental organisations must work together with the local communities, involving all people to find solutions that suit them for a thriving and sustainable future; this includes open discussions and learning from and with the local communities. The focus point Gender & Politics is directly related to education, asking for a systemic approach instead of focusing on just providing food providing people with skills, tools and knowledge to become independent and outgrow external help to ensure their livelihoods.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492511st Focus Topic: Courageous leaders and social enterprises (1.1) Empowering local communities to take leadership We believe in the power of “stand up & act”. But how can we encourage people to do so? How can we make people realize they actually have power to promote change, especially in countries where they are used to just listening and following? People don’t recognize the power they have – but they have so much more knowledge than people who come from the outside with the intention to help - and knowledge is power. So how can we ensure they know their rights to stand up? (1.2) Social entrepreneurship - new ways of solving malnutrition How can we engage the private sector in Ethiopia in the fight against malnutrition? How do mothers get the knowledge about nutritious food? How can we create a system of sharing knowledge? Can midwives be the champions of sharing knowledge? Or people of authorities? Who can local communities trust? There is little to no support for small social businesses in Ethiopia. Founders experience difficulties to find loans, especially in the starting phases. Besides the lack of funding opportunities, founders are also lacking knowledge and network. The existing policies are challenging, it is hard to get the right licence to produce food, for example. „What made us continue throughout the years was the feedback we get from our customers and how it is helping them“, says Melat, founder of VitaBite Nutrition. One approach for a solution, taken from other countries and contexts, isleveraging existing organizations and partnering up. (1.3) Human-centered design - understanding the culture Before you design a solution for someone, you need to understand your target group. Working towards solving malnutrition in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, Danielle Marques, product owner at IBM and Amani fellow, partnered with a communitary association acting against food insecurity for years into Rio das Pedras, one of the biggest favelas of Brazil. The goal: teach recipes to people taking full advantage of food. “If you teach something that is not aligned with the food culture, they won’t cook it or buy the idea”, says Danielle, “As a consequence, they won’t trust the initiative or they will not incorporate in their lives”. Vegetarian recipes, for example, were not accepted by some households in this favela as eating meat is seen as a privilege and a sign of a “proper meal”. You have to be aware of the culture of the local community – understanding the culture is key and local leaders are a trustable source to provide that knowledge. No matter where we want to work, from Brazil to Ethiopia, a human-centered approach is the way to go. How did it work for Melat in the Ethiopian communities she wanted to understand? For her research, Melat went from home to home to study the eating culture. She went to local markets to study food availability as well as prices. From there, she started thinking about how to enrich the diets. Introducing new diets to local communities is very hard and critical. (1.4) A conducive environment for innovation - leading the change There are only around 10 companies producing nutritious food for relief as private businesses in Ethiopia. Similar to nutrition education, there are only a few individuals who write books and provide information on the topic. There needs to be a lot more. It all comes down to having a conducive environment for innovation, the government plays a big role there. The good news is: there are courageous leaders in the (food) system, creating change step by step. Melat was part of forming “Social Enterprise Ethiopia”, a network of social Enterprises working to create a more conducive ecosystem for social enterprises. Even though it is not focused on nutrition, the network supports entrepreneurs solving social issues overall. They tweak the system in different ways. In 2019, they co-hosted the Social Entrepreneurship Forum. Currently, they are working on policy reform, capacity building and creating a networking ecosystem.2362402412422442472482512nd Focus Topic: Education and Resources -For projects to be more effective communities must be involved in the whole process and seen as protagonists instead of being talked down to -Connect financial resources with education → enable people to grow their own food and educate them on what to eat → do keep in mind supply and demand of the market -Smallholder farmers know their problems/challenges but the system itself is broken and as such they don’t have the resources to find better solutions for themselves → Ask: How can we better empower them?? (instead of seeing and treating them as victims) -Education on the “right” diet (depending on the country) → value the food that can already be found/grown in the country and make it more diverse -Problem of chemical industry/fertilizer companies coming into the country and telling people what and how to grow food → agriculture gets mono-culture → where there was a diverse variety of fruits and vegetables in the past, now they only grow one or two kinds of grains and big parts also get exported (profit first culture) → policy makers and industry leaders must be involved and become aware of the problems they create (if it’s not on purpose → problem of corruption!) -It’s important to bring in diversity and permaculture → again, educate policy makers and industry leaders in systems thinking and lead them to understand the interconnections of the whole system and pros and cons of their actions -Get away from the “doing something instead of nothing” approach without understanding positive AND negative effects → get away from the linear understanding and get into systemic understanding of the problems and solutions → it’s about a mindset shift from working in silos to working in systems -Mind local culture: in some countries (in Kenya f.ex.) eggs are only given to boys/men → caregivers/families must be educated about the negative effects this can have on the girl’s health -When implementing new ideas or projects, make sure to know who to involve (stakeholder analysis) and who to educate where and how → bring awareness to the systemic point of view → make sure to also educate people working for governments, NGOs and donors → complex problems/projects need systemic approaches -Know/define the desired and the ultimate impact, create environment for continuous learning and change while keeping vision/north star -Challenge mental models from short term success to medium and long term success and benefits2362382402412422442452462472493rd Focus Topic: Gender & Politics -Aim on funding projects with a focus on women → they tend to spend more time and money on food, the family and the community as a whole -When working with women make sure to involve men in the learning process as gender models, culture and religion can be complicated to deal with and even have negative effects on women and the whole family -Teach diverse sets of skills to men and women for them to contribute to the family income Establish early childhood development centers for children to be educated about food, nutrition and even farming at an early age -Involve all age groups in the solution finding process - the youngest and the oldest, combine traditions and new ways of thinking to make change and transitions available and acceptable for all -Women are the main caregivers - how can we empower men, how can they contribute towards a more inclusive society and a mindset shift from men not taking care of children to also playing a role as a caregiver → start campaigns about gender stereotype issues -Train healthcare workers in educating people about healthy food and eating habits for the communities -Think of visual campaigns as sometimes language can be a barrier in Ethiopia -Limit the power and influence of big corporations in the country, especially when it comes to buying resources, creating mono-cultures or destroying the local markets -Example projects for inspiration: Home https://fourthway.co.uk/better-coffee-farming/237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251-Small farmers, SMEs and consumers are often missing from the discussion (we all talk on their behalf, but they are not ‘in the system’ to join these sorts of discussions. They also do not have time!) -Consumer preferences and actions are contradicting each other: Two examples would be wanting to eat only local food, but have it available all year round, as well as asking for the highest quality food, but not willing to pay a premium for it.

2021-09-02 17:00:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42224/83

820424827313213431131193344232

Les ateliers de concertation du département du Nord-est se sont tenus à Ouanaminthe une ville frontalière à la République Dominicaine (pays voisin partageant une même île). Beaucoup d’échanges commerciaux s’effectuent entre ces deux pays et créent donc une dynamique particulière pour l’ensemble de la région, au sein de cette ville. Les communes de ce département étant très éloignées l’une de l’autre, il a fallu l’apport des agents de liaison traditionnellement engagés par la CNSA à multiplier les contacts pour atteindre et inviter les différents acteurs à venir prendre part à cet atelier de travail. Malgré la faible présence, le travail a été très fructueux. Les participants bien animés et conscients du mécanisme nécessaire et inhérent pour apporter des changements au sein du système alimentaire ont bien décrit la réalité qui se présente à travers la spécificité dudit département. Au cours de l’atelier, plusieurs médias locaux ont pu communiquer avec les responsables présents et les invités pour mieux comprendre d’abord le bien fondé de ce travail qui se fait au niveau du département et aussi transmettre au grand public les informations clés sur le fonctionnement du système alimentaire haïtien tout en se questionnant sur les attentes ou retombées provenant des résultats de cette conceertation. Les acteurs assez sensibilisés ont pu produire un diagnostic rapide du système existant et présenter un ensemble de propositions qui devraient favoriser l’atteinte des Objectifs de Développement Durables (ODD). Ils souhaitent une vraie prise en charge partagée dans la nouvelle gouvernance de l’action à entreprendre pour une réelle transformation au niveau du département.La Coordination Nationale de la Sécurité Alimentaire (CNSA) est l’organe chargé de la préparation du sommet mondial pour Haïti. Selon un calendrier élaboré par les responsables, des ateliers de concertation seront organisés au niveau des dix départements du pays en vue de potentialiser la participation des différentes couches de la société et de toutes les parties prenantes. Les ateliers du département du Nord-Est ont eu lieu le 10 et 11 juin 2021 à Ouanaminthe. Ils ont connu un taux de présence assez faible. Pour l’ensemble des communes, l’on n’a eu que 32 personnes présentes. En matière de diversité, la majorité des secteurs clés (producteurs, transformateurs, fournisseurs de services) étaient présents. Le Nord-est comporte deux grands blocs répartis en Haut Nord-est et Bas Nord-est respectivement catégorisés comme zone humide ou d’altitude supérieure et comme zone sèche ou de plaine.

Yes

234Thème majeur : Les transformations des systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD L’atelier de concertation étant un espace de débat et de résolutions prises sur de large consensus permettra au gouvernement haïtien de s'engager dans les questions de construction de systèmes alimentaires durables dans leur ensemble. Le thème majeur de la concertation défini par la CNSA s’arrange autour de la nécessité de transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD. Il s’agit d’une étude complète qui prend en compte les différends enjeux et questions clés en lien avec l’atteinte des ODD. Le cadre de référence, qui suit, nous aligne sur les enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux à la recherche de solutions durables et d’engagement. Des réponses aux différentes questions permettent une analyse profonde des différents aspects de la Sécurité alimentaire et Nutritionnelle (SAN) en Haïti. Cadre de référence 1- Enjeux nutritionnel : Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc.) actuels de la population ? Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production ? Pistes de réflexion : toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire ? Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires ? Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires ? Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés ? Comment organiser la logistique de distribution ? Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages ? Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés ? Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique : Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire Comment développer l’’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils etc.), les industries d’emballage ? Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ? Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?) Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ? Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ? Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels ? Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques ? Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels ? Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs ?235Les acteurs du Nord-est ont tracé la voie à suivre pour l’engagement et le leadership d’Haïti dans la transition vers un système alimentaire durable. Ils ont préconisé : - l’accès aux équipements agricoles et équipements de pêche (bateau, matériels de pêche) à travers le crédit agricole, la formulation de politiques publiques pour la promotion des initiatives d’agro-industrie, d’élevage amélioré et de pêche industriels et/ou semi-industriels. Ce travail doit viser l’autosuffisance alimentaire en Haïti qui suppose un engagement concerté, à part équitable, d’institutions clés comme les ministères ayant respectivement pour mandat le secteur d’agriculture, les infrastructures, l’aménagement du territoire, et l’environnement. L’accessibilité à des produits alimentaires de qualité. La conservation (transformation de produits) est un sous-secteur en négligence qu’il faut renforcer par des politiques publiques de promotion de la modernisation des techniques de conservation ou de transformation. La démocratisation du crédit agricole et de pêche dont l’Etat devrait avoir le leadership dans la promotion de ce service, la mise en place de la Banque nationale de Développement Agricole (BNDA) au niveau de la Direction Départementale du Nord Est avec pour mandat : l’investissement pour les petites et moyennes productions et la création de nouvelles entreprises au sens de micro développement autant qu’au sens de macro développement est vivement attendue. La mise en œuvre de cadre légal régissant la relation haïtiano-dominicaine sur certaines pratiques et habitudes locales en termes de service de crédit agricole. A cet enseigne, il importe de réguler les coutumes tels que : - Les producteurs locaux obtiennent des dominicains, un crédit en nature sous forme de semence en contrepartie d’une portion du volume de la récolte. - Les producteurs locaux obtiennent le labourage de leurs champs par des dominicains avec des équipements à moteur dominicains. - La mise en œuvre de politique publique pour la création de service d’assurance de production agricole, animale et de pêche compréhensive des spécificités régionales et locales (écosystème, climat, sècheresse). - La disponibilité et l’accessibilité aux produits sains et nutritifs pour une alimentation équilibrée en faisant promotion pour des modèles de plats équilibrés et en renforçant l’éducation nutritionnelle. - La gestion axée sur les résultats (GAR) au sein d’une gouvernance locale fonctionnant dans la transparence et capable de rendre compte aux communautés desservies.236Production agricole et pêche Au dire des acteurs, l'État devrait : définir le profil type d'un producteur agricole, mettre en place des banques de semences, définir une politique sur la fertilisation, mettre un service de quarantaine dans les villes de province et renforcer la structure de protection des végétaux et des animaux. En partenariat public privé, il faudrait rendre fonctionnels les centres de formation agricole et y annexer un volet de recherche en agriculture et pêche.236238245248Stockage, transformation, transport et commercialisation L’Etat devrait encourager le développement de l'agro industrie en faisant promotion pour l’investissement privé, investir dans les infrastructures routières pour améliorer le transport, produire en quantité suffisante pour exporter.236245248Services techniques et financiers L’Etat devrait rendre disponibles en quantité suffisante les matériels agricoles (tracteur, moissonneuse, charrue) , investir dans les systèmes d'irrigation, centre semencier, mettre en place un dispositif de crédit agricole à des taux abordables, instituer un service d’assurance récolte pour les producteurs. Le secteur privé et les organisations devront aider les producteurs à trouver les intrants, former les producteurs, faire des plaidoyers pour forcer l'Etat à prendre ses responsabilités. Ce secteur peut aider dans le marketing pour la vente des produits locaux, accompagner les producteurs, investir dans l'agriculture, mettre en application les nouvelles techniques pour une amélioration de la production.236240244249Problématique de l’environnement : Il est fortement souhaité de changer de stratégie dans la gestion des ressources en eau disponible, trouver des variétés de plantes cultivées qui s'adaptent mieux aux conditions actuelles. Il faut envisager de construire de nouvelles routes agricoles, rendre disponibles les intrants agricoles, diminuer le prix des produits locaux. Il est aussi demander d’élaborer une politique d’éducation environnementale.236238241Santé/nutrition Les acteurs encouragent les responsables à sensibiliser la population sur les bonnes façons de préparer à manger et aussi apprendre comment balancer les repas. Un support sur le planning familiale afin de contrôler les naissances est fortement recommandé. L’Etat pourrait subventionner les produits locaux pour faciliter leur accès aux petites bourses et enfin développer les cours de nutritions dans les écoles.236246Gouvernance Il n’existe pas de disposition légale en aménagement du territoire pour l’identification et la définition de zone/parc industriel ou semi-industriel. Les espaces d’exploitation agricole en périphérie des villes perdent en superficie face à l’expansion urbaine non contrôlée. Il faudrait réaliser un travail de zonage pour déterminer les terres à exploiter pour la production agricole et celles à utiliser pour les constructions d’habitats.237Relativement à l’accessibilité et la disponibilité. Les autorités ainsi que les associations locales doivent avoir le leadership dans l’identification et la délimitation des espaces destinés à l’élevage afin que l’appui fourni par des ONG à ce secteur n’ait pas pour effet de nuire à la production végétale.

2021-09-02 17:47:01205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41095/160

5324110431011331333101352311333255315311

On August 17, 2021, the Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture hosted the second meeting of the national dialogue on determining the pathways of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the sustainable transformation of the agricultural ecosystem to build better national food systems. The dialogue was organized through the participation of multi-stakeholders involving policy-makers, governmental and private institutions, and companies operating in the agricultural and food sector, academics and researchers, in addition to producers, small and large farmers, to achieve the principles of multiplicity and diversity of participating experiences, exchange and develop ideas and find common solutions among the participating parties.In this dialogue, key themes affecting our food systems were discussed by presenting the multiple dynamics around the development of effective nature and science-based solutions in the presence of a high-level panel of experts and many stakeholders. • Nature-based solutions to protect ecosystems and biodiversity services for developing more sustainable food systems in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia • Science-based solutions to enhance resource use efficiency to tackle the challenges faced by our Food Systems • Future Pathways to facilitate stakeholders across the supply chain towards the adoption of new agricultural and value chain innovations to deliver sustainable and efficient food systemsA multi-pronged approach by engaging and working to collect data on multiple dynamics, solutions and future pathways will maximize the contribution of all participants and enable them to work together in an equal, meaningful and productive manner.

Yes

234238239240241242Developing effective solutions that have a direct impact on the food systems in the Kingdom and setting future paths towards adopting new agricultural and food innovations in the food chain to develop sustainable and efficient food systems.235238239240241242• Giving priority to the introduction and application of modern agricultural systems, such as advanced protected agriculture, vertical farming, precision and controlled environment agriculture, and working to improve them in proportion to the nature of the agricultural sector in the Kingdom. • Creating an integrated system concerned with collecting various agricultural and food information and activating its role, which would identify market needs, monitor food supplies and demand, and detect and predict commodity shortages, in order to support decision-making. • Encouraging the exchange of experiences and international cooperation with research centers and universities in the leading countries in the field of food security236238239240241242Nature-based solutions to protect ecosystems and biodiversity services for developing more sustainable food systems in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia • Providing the necessary support to small farmers and productive families, encouraging them to adopt rural agriculture, and adopting the integrated farming approach with the aim of integrating and sequencing agricultural operations, and exploiting agricultural residues as sources for many different purposes such as fodder and fertilization. • Exploiting renewable natural resources through expanding the preparation and cultivation of terraces, relying on water harvesting techniques, and rain-fed agriculture. • Encouraging and spreading the culture of expanding the application of good agricultural practices, especially those related to production systems in the Kingdom (SAUDI G.A.P) and organic farming, and developing their practices and related policies.236238239241242Science-based solutions to enhance resource use efficiency to tackle the challenges faced by our Food Systems • Supporting and adopting the application of the results of scientific research based on innovation and translating them into practical practices in order to improve and increase productivity and reduce production costs in the Kingdom. • Developing economic feasibility studies for the use of modern agricultural techniques and methods in the cultivation of crops with comparative advantage at the regional level and improving the effectiveness of the crop structure. • Shifting to the use of innovative electronic platforms with the aim of strengthening the agricultural extension and marketing system across the food supply and production chain. • Encourage and support investment in post-harvest technologies and packaging processes, through vertical, horizontal and technical expansion.236238239240241242Most important future pathways • Applying the latest agricultural technologies in various sectors, especially those related to open crops, greenhouses, and hydroponic cultures without soil, through the use of modern technologies such as in the fields of irrigation, fertilization and control, for example, the use of slow-release fertilizers, modern irrigation, nanotechnology, biopesticides, remote sensing, biological control and cultivation of improved varieties. • Restructuring and raising the efficiency of workers in the agricultural sector through capacity building and improving the effectiveness of agricultural extension. • Work to raise consumer awareness through intensive awareness campaigns with the aim of improving consumption patterns and reducing food waste. • Developing and activating the role of agricultural associations and agricultural service companies to enhance the efficiency of the agriculture and food sector.

2021-09-02 20:28:27205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42992/83

59392010845213510155109355142542

La CNSA, Coordination Nationale de sécurité alimentaire, en tant qu’instance d’aide á la décision destinée á influencer les politiques publiques dans le domaine de sécurité alimentaire, a reçu mandat et support nécessaires des autorités gouvernementales pour préparer le sommet sur le système alimentaire qui auront lieu en septembre prochain á New York. Les ateliers du département du Nord-Ouest ont eu lieu le 2 Juin à Port de Paix et le 3 Juin á Jean Rabel 2021. Durant les deux journées, un total de cinquante-neuf (59) personnes étaient présentes dont trente-neuf (39) hommes et vingt (20) femmes. L’effectif était plus élevé le premier jour, trente-quatre (34) présents dont vingt (20) hommes et quatorze (14) femmes, contre vingt-cinq (25) présents le deuxième jour dont dix-neuf (19) hommes et six (6) femmes. Mais les sujets étaient bien traités dans les deux zones. A Port de Paix, lors des débats l’accent a été mis sur la gouvernance, la complémentarité qui devrait exister entre les différentes institutions pour une meilleure gestion de l’état pour le bien-être de la population ; á Jean Rabel, l’accent a été mis sur la main d’œuvre les effets sur le niveau de la production agricole. Ils ont apporté des éléments de solution pour remédier á la situation.L’urgence de la situation a été démontrée avec les conséquences pour le futur si rien n’est fait pour renverser la tendance. Les concertations doivent s’inscrire dans un registre plus global. Compte tenu de l’importance du système alimentaire et les conséquences de sa mauvaise gestion sur l’avenir du pays et de tout un peuple, un système d’alerte doit être mis en place afin de mieux sensibiliser la population pour une prise de conscience. Pour la préparation du sommet, tous les secteurs et parties prenantes étaient certes contactés mais ils n’ont pas vraiment eu le temps de bien s’imprégner du sujet comme il se devrait, pour le placer dans son véritable contexte. Il fallait respecter le délai. Ces principes d’engagements seront toujours valables. Chaque état membre doit faire en sorte de les intégrer, renforcer et améliorer pour une meilleure gestion de leur système alimentaire. Le concept étant nouveau, ces principes serviront de prémices pour mettre en place des systèmes alimentaires plus performants. C’est un travail de longue haleine qui ne peut s’arrêter avec un sommet, il doit faire partie de nos habitudes de vie quotidiennes car notre survie et celle des générations futures en dépendent.

NoLa méthodologie adoptée est celle préconisée par le secrétariat du sommet. • Accueil des participants • Propos et Prière d’ouverture • Programme de la journée et objectifs de la concertation • Présentation des participants (nom, secteur et institution ou organisation) • Lecture du mot du Coordonnateur (version créole) • Lecture de la définition du système alimentaire • Diagnostic du système alimentaire haïtien • Formation des groupes de discussion et présentation de l’outil contenant les questions à débattre au sein des groupes • Animation, supervision de la séance plénière, partage des comptes-rendus • Résumé et clôture du processus des concertations • Prise de vue La journée de concertation est divisée en trois grandes périodes : ❖ Présentation et mise en contexte La période de prise de connaissance, d’échange, des grandes présentations visant la production d’informations sur les systèmes alimentaires et d’explication sur le processus du Sommet. ❖ Plénière Les participants se regroupent pour travailler ❖ Restitution Deux rapporteurs de chaque groupe lisent les procès-verbaux Durant les moments de pause les participants prennent une collation et fassent plus ample connaissance. 1. Présentation et mise en contexte La concertation a débuté avec les salutations d’usages, suivi d’une courte prière et une mise en contexte de l’activité. Travail collectif qui vise à décrire le système alimentaire dans la communauté, á identifier les problèmes et á proposer des éléments de solutions. Activités extrêmement importantes qui se réalisent dans tous les départements afin de dégager une concertation nationale qui définit la position du pays sur le système alimentaire, position qu’Haïti va adopter lors du sommet mondial en septembre prochain. A l’aide d’un support illustré, mis à la disposition de chaque participant, le système alimentaire est défini avec ces objectifs, ses problèmes et des pistes de solutions. Le diagnostic du système alimentaire d’Haïti leur fut exposé, les raisons de sa défaillance, une nécessité pour la repenser pour notre survie. D’où la nécessité de la concertation pour explorer les problèmes du département du Nord-Ouest et en proposition des éléments de solution. Ces présentations furent suivies de longs débats où les participants profitent pour afficher leur méfiance par rapport à ces genres d’activités où l’on ne fait que collecter des données sans aucun retour ni sous forme de restitution d’informations ni sous forme de projets au profit du département. 2. Plénière Afin d’avoir le maximum d’informations les groupes thématiques sont arrangés en fonction de l’effectif de participants. Les groupes de réflexions furent constitués, ainsi les participants sont repartis en 6 groupes, chacun avec une liste de question, selon leur domaine d’activité ou d’expertise. Groupe 1 : Filières agricoles, Elevage, Pêche Groupe 2 : Stockage. Transformations et commercialisation des produits agricoles Groupe 3 : Fournisseurs de services financiers, Services financiers, Fournisseurs d’intrants agricoles et d’équipements agricoles, Prestataires de services de transport Groupe 4 : Santé Nutritionnelle, Consommation et nutrition responsable Groupe 5 : Gouvernance et Genre, rôle et participation des femmes Groupe 6 : Questions environnementales : Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques. 3. Restitutions La séance a été réalisée avec les 6 groupes de discussion qui ont travaillé sur les sujets précités pendant environ 67 minutes. Ensuite, les groupes se sont réunis et un rapporteur de chaque groupe a procédé à la lecture des procès-verbaux, suivi de débats pour éclaircir les points d’ombre. Les représentants ont pleinement participé aux différentes séances de groupes. Ils ont décrit leur système alimentaire actuel avec toute leur complexité passant des problèmes au niveau de la production, du transport, du stockage, de la transformation et à la commercialisation. Ils ont fait état du rôle joué par la mauvaise gouvernance dans l’instabilité du pays.

234238239241244249Les Objectifs de Développement Durable (ODD) ne pourraient être atteints sans transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour devenir plus productifs, écologiquement durables et capables de fournir des aliments plus nutritifs et abordables. En ce sens, la réalisation de la concertation dans le département du Nord-Ouest suggère un changement de paradigme. Il s’agissait de réaffirmer l’importance du passage de l’agriculture de subsistance, axée principalement sur la consommation, à la possibilité de remodeler le système pour devenir plus productif, résilient, durable et sain. Un changement seulement possible par une approche collective des principaux acteurs fortement impliqués dans la chaîne d’approvisionnement alimentaire sur les voies et moyens lies à la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables. Il s’agit d’une étude complète des systèmes alimentaires qui tient compte des cinq pistes d’action avec pour cadre de référence des enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux. 1- Enjeux nutritionnel : Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable. ➢ Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc.) actuels de la population ? ➢ Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production ? Pistes de réflexion : toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire ? ➢ Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires ? ➢ Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires ? ➢ Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés ? ➢ Comment organiser la logistique de distribution ? ➢ Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages ? ➢ Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés ? ➢ Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique : Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ➢ Comment développer l’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements ; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils etc.), les industries d’emballage ? ➢ Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ? ➢ Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?) ➢ Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? ➢ Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? ➢ Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ? ➢ Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ? ➢ Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? ➢ Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire ➢ Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels? ➢ Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques? ➢ Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels? 8 ➢ Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement? ➢ Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs?235238239240241242244246249251L’aide humanitaire n’a jamais pu développer aucun pays d’autant qu’avec le changement climatique les pays donateurs auront aussi leurs propres besoins à combler, ils n’auront plus autant de surplus pour aider les autres. Chaque pays doit développer des stratégies pour trouver des solutions pour diminuer les impacts négatifs sur son système alimentaire. Groupe 1: Filières agricoles, Elevage, Pêche. Le département du Nord-ouest a beaucoup de potentialités, plusieurs rivières, des terres irrigables, la possibilité de faire du maraichage durant toute l’année; il peut pratiquer la pêche dans ces huit communes sur dix qui ont accès á la mer; pour ne citer que ceux-là. Le MARNDR doit: pour la mise en valeur des terres agricoles, construire des systèmes d’irrigation fonctionnelles sur les principales cours d’eau; des bassins, impluviums, citernes pour conserver l’eau là ou il n’y a pas de rivière; Introduire de nouvelles variétés résistantes pour remplacer celles qui ont tendance à disparaitre par les maladies et ou l’attaque d’insectes, citrus, cocotiers ; Inciter les éleveurs à construire des abris; développer la pêche en dotant les pêcheurs des matériels et équipements. La vaccination et l’identification doivent être systématiques. Les entrepreneurs doivent renforcer la production de poulets et d’œufs en mettant dans chaque commune des installations. Les associations devraient exercer des pressions pour faire appliquer les lois sur l’élevage. Le MTPTC doit construire des routes agricoles pour faciliter le transport des produits pour diminuer les pertes. Le MCI doit contrôler et vérifier la qualité des produits importés. Le MF doit encourager les mutuelles de solidarité. Groupe 2 : Stockage. Transformations et commercialisation des produits agricoles L'absence de stockage défavorise la commercialisation. L’Etat et les Collectivités devraient coopérer pour de meilleurs moyens de transformation en accréditant les entités de la grande paysannerie. Le MTPTC devrait se doter d’un cadre légal pour la gestion du transport, où l’on prendra en compte tous les risques encourus par les personnes, les produits et animaux lors des voyages. Groupe 3 : Services financiers, Fournisseurs d’intrants et d’équipements agricoles, Prestataires de services de transport Le MARNDR devrait doter les BAC de leur propre équipement, matériels et techniciens pouvant servir les sections communales qui sont le moteur de la production agricole. Le MTPTC devrait construire des routes pour faciliter l'accès au marché. Les entrepreneurs pourraient encourager la mise en place de boutiques dans chaque commune pour faciliter l’accès aux intrants. L’état, le secteur privé et les organisations devraient se mettre ensemble pour renforcer la capacité technique des producteurs, surtout sur l’utilisation de pesticide. Les organisations de producteurs devraient faire des plaidoyers pour avoir des crédits échelonnés sur plusieurs années sur la vente des matériels agricoles et pour avoir un taux de crédit très faible. Groupe 4: Santé nutritionnelle, consommation et nutrition responsable Les produits ne sont pas disponibles en tout temps. La population n’est pas assez formée ni informée sur la façon de bien manger, et elle n’a pas toujours les moyens pour se procurer des aliments en période morte saison, surtout des fruits. Groupe 5: Gouvernance et Genre, rôle et participation des femmes L’amélioration de la gouvernance passe par un cadre légal en lien avec le système alimentaire haïtien. Les législateurs doivent définir un cadre légal pour le système alimentaire qui reflète la réalité de chaque zone du pays et qui tient compte des voies et moyens pour rendre disponible des aliments sains en tout temps. Le MSPP se chargera de revoir les habitudes alimentaires de chaque zone du pays en mettant l'accent sur la disponibilité des produits. Le secteur privé sert d'appui au système en créant des structures pour accorder des crédits dans le système agricole, en investissant dans le commerce, l'exportation, la transformation. Il faut un partenariat entre le public et le privé pour une bonne gestion du système. Le MAST et le MENFP doivent encadrer les jeunes en renforçant leur capacité pour les encourager à mettre leur connaissance au service de la communauté. Groupe 6: Questions environnementales: Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques. Certains concepts sont nouveaux pour la population, les MDE et MC doivent travailler de concert pour mener de vastes campagnes de sensibilisation et d’information au profit de la population à travers les écoles, les églises, les réseaux sociaux etc.; où tous les nouveaux thèmes relatifs au changement climatique et à l’environnement seront abordés: effet de serre, pollution, déchet plastic, érosion, nappe phréatique, recyclage de déchets, aménagement du territoire, zone protégée, etc. Le plan de développement pour les sections communales et les communes doit être mis en application.236245248Filières agricoles, Elevage, Pêche Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, L’achèvement de la construction d’infrastructure d’irrigation prendra certes beaucoup de temps mais mobilisera beaucoup de personnels, donc création d’emplois directs et indirects, diminution de l’exode, circulation d’argent. Au niveau de l’élevage les actions directes sont production de poulets et d’œufs, vaccination, renforcement de capacité des éleveurs sur la bonne gestion du bétail. Au niveau de la pêche acquisition de matériels et équipement, moyens de conservation, renforcement de capacité des pêcheurs sur la gestion des biens. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Les MTPTC, MARNDR, MDE, MAST MF doivent être renforcées pour être plus compétents et améliorer la qualité de leurs services. Les organisations devraient d’abord identifier les problèmes et ensuite les résoudre. Chaque producteur travaillera davantage tout en cherchant l’appui d’encadreur technique pour une meilleure orientation. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès ✓ Les rapports de suivi et contrôle des bailleurs, ✓ Les rapports d’audit de la Cour Supérieure des Comptes ✓ Niveau de production agricole ✓ Taux de chômage, niveau d’exode, ✓ L’analyse comparative de la situation d’avant et d’après.236245Stockage, transformations et commercialisation des produits agricoles Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, Le MARNDR encouragera la construction d’infrastructures de stockage et de transformation pour réduire les pertes et le gaspillage. Le MTPTC construira des routes agricoles pour faciliter le transport des produits. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Coopération entre l’État et les collectivités pour de meilleurs moyens de transformation en accréditant les entités de la grande paysannerie. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès ✓ Disponibilité des produits sur le marché ✓ L’avis des consommateurs ✓ Diagnostic avant pendant et après les travaux, les rapports mensuels236239245250Fournisseurs de services financiers, Fournisseurs d’intrants agricoles et d’équipements agricoles, Prestataires de services de transport Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, Le MTPTC devrait construire de route agricole pour le transport des produits vers les marchés. Les entrepreneurs devront inciter à la mise en place de boutiques d’intrants agricole au niveau de chaque commune. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions L’état, le secteur privé et les organisations se mettront ensemble pour renforcer la capacité technique des producteurs. Les organisations paysannes s’organisent pour l’acquisition des matériels ensemble. Les producteurs se mettront en réseau pour éviter le gaspillage des produits lors des récoltes, surtout pour la mangue. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès ✓ Présence des boutiques d’intrants ✓ Cadre légale régissant le transport ✓ Réseau routier en bon état ✓ Disponibilité des produits en toute saison236238251Santé Nutritionnelle, Consommation et nutrition responsable Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, La population consomme ce qui est disponible sans vraiment se soucier de la qualité nutritionnelle, par manque de connaissance. Ainsi elle souffre de déficience ou excès momentané. La création d’une plateforme de formations et de partage d'expériences de la culture alimentaire ou les différentes organisations de femmes auront à réfléchir sur la ration alimentaire s’avère une nécessité. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Les agriculteurs devraient ouvrir des fermes pour garder des animaux capables leur donner des produits pour leur consommation. Les familles vont essayer de transformer les produits qu'ils possèdent pour l'autoconsommation. Les organisations sensibiliseront la population sur l’importance de la consommation des produits sains, naturels, feront la promotion des produits locaux. Les groupes de femmes partagent les recettes. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Pour voir si les actions ont porté des fruits, on organise des enquêtes sur le changement de comportement, sur l’état de santé, vérifie les statistiques.236246248251Gouvernance et Genre, rôle et participation des femmes Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, L'État doit permettre à tout le monde, homme et femme, d'avoir les mêmes opportunités, la même possibilité de participer et de bénéficier des services qu’offre le système. Dans toute communauté, les femmes sont les moteurs du développement, elles sont importantes dans tous les domaines. Elles doivent participer au même niveau que les hommes dans la production et avoir les mêmes privilèges que les hommes dans leur vie sociale. Dans toute société, les jeunes doivent participer dans la prise de décision, s'impliquer dans toutes les activités afin d'aider à la bonne marche du système. Ils doivent mettre leurs talents au service de la communauté et transmettre des idées novatrices. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Les premières concernées sont les ministères de MCFDF, MAST, MENFP. Les associations de producteurs encouragent les planteurs à participer aux formations pour renforcer leurs capacités. Elles ont un rôle de médiateur entre l'État et la population, de porte parole de la population. Elles sont là pour aider au développement, à matérialiser une bonne politique de sécurité alimentaire. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Enquête approfondie avant et après; -Changements de comportement, de mœurs.236239240244Questions environnementales: Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques. Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, Beaucoup de déchets sont produisons: résidus agricoles, résidus animaux, plastic etc. qui polluent l’environnement terrestre et marin; alors qu’ils pourraient servir à d’autres fins. Ils peuvent être recyclés pour faire du compost, fertilisant organique, briquet de charbon, objet d’art, du méthane etc. Les zones agricoles, protégées sont urbanisées. La population n’est pas consciente des conséquences de la pollution sur l’environnement et la santé. Les actions urgentes : ✓ Opérationnaliser les plans communaux du ministère de l'environnement ✓ Campagne de sensibilisation pour le reboisement et l’assainissement ✓ Elaborer un plan d’assainissement ✓ Encourager les jeunes dans la transformation des déchets ✓ Promouvoir des réchauds améliorés et ou à gaz /solaires pour diminuer la pression sur les arbres. ✓ Renforcement de capacité des organisations Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Ces actions seront surtout menées par le MDE et le MARNDR, MC ; Les agents forestiers ou des gardes qui empêchent aux gens de couper les arbres au bord des rivières et des ravins. Les organisations aideront la population dans la gestion de déchets et protection de l’environnement. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès ✓ Changement de comportement des ménages ✓ L’état de salubrité des villes et commune ✓ Niveau d’importation avant et après ✓ La couverture végétale avant et après l’adoption de nouvelles mesures et projets ✓ Les rapports de suivi237244Les interventions se complétaient, les débats étaient très animés sur la mauvaise gouvernance, le manque d’interventions des acteurs étatiques et les conséquences sur le niveau d’insécurité global du pays, la faiblesse de l’état en matière de gestion de l’eau en général et de l’eau de pluie en particulier accentue les effets néfastes du changement climatique sur Haïti. Le la partie Est du département est bien pourvue en eau alors que les cultures souffrent de sécheresse, la population n’a pas accès á l’eau potable. La construction d’infrastructures d’irrigation et de rétention d’eau augmentera la production agricole et diminuera l’exode rural. La commune de Chansolme n’a pas de système d’adduction d’eau potable. Les producteurs laissent les villes de province pour aller vivre dans les bidonvilles à la recherche de mieux être. Pour la production de charbon, ils comptent étudier le système avec le bayahonde, arbre non exigeant ni en soin ni en eau, qui repousse même en période de sécheresse; et qui donne déjà de très bons résultats dans certains autres départements les Nippes, dans la commune de Belle Anse dans le Sud est. A noter que le Nord-Ouest est déjà bien pourvu en bayahonde.

2021-09-02 22:51:51205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22952/132

146038663111071732

- The dialogue facilitator was trained in the 4SD/UNFSS dialogues approach - Diverse participation of people and organisations - Diversity of perspective and views was promoted- mulitple stakeholders participated - online and in-person dialogues were held - respectful debate was promoted - when recording the views and opinions expressed they were not attributed to specific individuals to encourage inclusive and frank discussion- The principles of engagement prov ided an inclusive and collaborative guide for meaningful discussion

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251A) Major focus box Three National Dialogues were held with participants discussing what a sustainable food system could look like for New Zealand. The Dialogues were a comprehensive exploration of New Zealand’s food system. The Dialogues brought together a diversity of stakeholders to explore key food system issues and ways of working together. Participants included food growers and producers, agribusinesses, industry bodies, community groups, the science community, national and local government, and non-governmental organisations. The Dialogues were designed to reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi and integrated te ao Māori. Treaty partner representatives were invited to participate in the Dialogues and two Māori food system experts presented at the in-person Dialogue. Dialogue participants were encouraged to explore how they consider the New Zealand food system should look in 2030 to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, and what might be required to get there. Participants were allocated to discussion groups of up to ten people. Each group received a discussion topic outlining a vision for the New Zealand food system, as well as conversation prompts designed to be broad enough to allow for a range of perspectives. The National Dialogues were independently facilitated by Emily King, a food systems expert who was trained in the UN dialogue format and had previously facilitated independent food systems dialogues in New Zealand. Three broad food system topics were discussed. • environment and sustainable production • food and human wellbeing • food waste. Participants were encouraged to share their perspectives and values on how the New Zealand food system could transition to possible future states (see table below). Participants were welcome to discuss the viability of these possible future states and their own views on desired future states. These possible future states were developed by the independent facilitator of the National Food System Dialogues. Possible future states for the New Zealand food system Environment and sustainable production • Fishing, farming, and growing practices are transformed to achieve environmental, social, and economic sustainability. • The New Zealand food system has a positive environmental story that mitigates and adapts to the effects of climate change and improves soil and water quality. Food and human wellbeing • Healthy, sustainable, and culturally appropriate food is accessible and affordable for all New Zealanders. • New Zealand food is known internationally as high quality and environmentally sustainable, while at home, our people can afford to eat healthy and culturally appropriate food. • New Zealanders can express their identity, choose their preferences, and have the right to define their own food systems. Food waste • Food waste is reduced by 50% by 2030.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Four key findings: - There are diverse perspectives and values on New Zealand’s food system and how to improve sustainability. - The importance of working with Māori (indigenous people of New Zealand) to transition New Zealand’s food system to be more sustainable, in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi (New Zealand's founding document) - The requirement for national policy coherence in food systems. - Major threats to our food system such as soil loss, climate change and water quality, and how to build a resilient food system. Environment and Sustainable Food Production Findings Te ao Māori approaches and their potential to address food system challenges: • the value of indigenous knowledge of food systems when used alongside, or as an alternative to, other scientific approaches. • the value of a holistic approach, trying to balance and work in harmony with the entire ecosystem. • the interface between mātauranga Māori (traditional indigenous knowledge) and regenerative farming, with some participants noting the similarities between the two. Climate change and biodiversity loss, with the natural world seen as key to addressing these challenges: • the tensions between the goals of economic, environmental, and social sustainability • potential for organic and regenerative agriculture • the progress New Zealand has made over the past decade in addressing these challenges • the complexity of sustainable production in New Zealand • the shared challenges that farmers are facing • the value in international connections • the importance of the local approach in combination with international cooperation, as there are global commons issues. Approaches to incentives and regulation that have shaped the New Zealand food system and its outcomes: • the removal of agriculture subsidies in the 1980s and the economic and environmental effects of this • the establishment of the nitrogen fertiliser cap in Taupo • the role of supermarkets and large food businesses • the high levels of debt carried by many farmers and how economic sustainability could be supported by commercial banks building a better understanding of farm systems. The role of learning, innovation, and communication in improving New Zealand’s food system: • the importance of a coherent industry approach to move towards industry sustainability. • the benefits of collaboration on best practice and the need to communicate across the food system. • the importance of localised approaches that align with a broader national context. • the role of traditional and established practices • the role of innovation Ensuring sufficient domestic access to food while maintaining exports: • the interaction between food exports and domestic food prices • the importance of primary sector exports to rural communities and wellbeing • the right balance of food that should be produced for local consumption and for export • the length of supply chains with respect to reducing cost. Food and Human Wellbeing findings The role of the government in New Zealand’s food system: • government’s role in feeding the New Zealand population and the importance of ensuring access to healthy food is provided in a culturally appropriate way, • the importance of long-term cross-government leadership and commitment • the need for collaboration across government • the role of a national food strategy, with many participants considering it necessary to provide a framework for action • the lack of official data on food consumption and nutrition. The national food regulatory system relating to food exports and safety: • the focus on export producers or local producers with some participants considering that export producers are prioritised above producers growing for the local market or community. • the regulatory burden of the food system and its impact on consumers Major threats to our food system such as soil loss, climate change and water quality, as well as how to secure the food system’s health and prosperity: • the challenges facing our food system are interconnected and complex. • the importance of land use to ensure that access to traditional food baskets is retained and that fertile land is not lost to development • supporting local growers to operate and grow food • the relation between poverty and access to nutritious food • the intergenerational impacts of policy decisions on food systems • the benefits of diversifying New Zealand food production New Zealand’s food identity and the cultural importance to many groups; • the opportunity to incorporate and learn from te ao Māori • championing the role of diverse cultures, including Māori and Pasifika, as leaders in the food system. • food as culture and not just nutrients • the human right to access food and water and how it is essential to community wellbeing and human development • the role of colonisation and its influence on the current food system with respect to inequality of access and nutrition. Access to nutritious food: • the relationship between income and food choices • the role of the community in healthy food choices • accessibility to high quality food • perceptions around the quality of food that is exported and food that is available in domestic markets. Several options to ensure New Zealanders have access to nutritious food: • empowerment to access and grow nutritious food • education and guidance • community support services. For further information please see pages 6-14 from the Summary of New Zealand's National Food System Dialogues (attached).236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The role of a national food strategy Many participants considered it necessary to provide a framework for national action on food systems. Most participants also agreed that a national food strategy with clear governance, based on te ao Māori was critical. A health first approach was considered central to the development of a national food strategy which supports local producers whilst also considering New Zealand’s need to stay connected to global supply chains. The New Zealand Government currently has cross agency governance in place to establish metrics and indicators to measure and manage our food system. Food Waste Participants discussed how to develop an agreed and understood definition of food loss and waste as this was seen as a key first step for effective discussion and action. Many participants considered that the food waste definition needs to include both pakeha and Māori perspectives and can draw from international bodies such as the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation. Quality data was seen as a crucial place to start to ensure that we can track national improvement. A stocktake of current data is required with a scope to establishing new data – recognising that there is often a high cost for robust measurement. The Ministry for the Environment is developing an official definition of food loss and waste. The Ministry is also working on targets for food waste as part of the development of a waste strategy. For further information please see pages 6-14 from the Summary of New Zealand's National Food System Dialogues (attached). [Below is continued from Main Findings] How to better connect communities with New Zealand’s food system. Potential solutions included: • creating robust data systems to measure sustainable food system indicators that align with New Zealand’s values • scaling up existing initiatives • improving marketing and advertising as participants discussed that it is currently skewed towards unhealthy food and business profit • the food industry communicating the value of health and sustainability to the public • exemptions to compliance costs for local producers to increase food affordability. Food waste findings The importance of having an official definition of food loss and waste: • the definition needs to include both Pakeha (non-Māori New Zealander) and Māori perspectives • quality data is a crucial place to start to ensure that we can track improvement • a stocktake of current data is required Participants noted that the Ministry for the Environment is developing an official definition of food loss and waste. The Ministry is also working on targets for food waste as part of the development of a waste strategy. Food waste is an issue that cuts across all parts of the food system: • how consumers understand food waste is important • the role of producers in preventing food waste • there are examples of best practice throughout New Zealand. The discussion often took a step back and considered the broader, systemic issue of food insecurity. • questioning how the level of food waste reflects on food distribution • the role of innovative thinking. The role of social attitudes in minimising food waste. • the importance of changing attitudes • the role of education • intergenerational leadership on reducing food waste. Solutions to food waste and how multiple lenses are needed. The discussions emphasised the importance of considering food waste through a climate change lens: • consideration of alternative approaches such as closed loop systems • rebuilding our connection to the process of how food reaches us as consumers.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There was divergence of opinion on how to provide sufficient access to food domestically while maintaining food exports and environmental indicators: • the interaction between food exports and domestic food prices, with some participants considering exports were placing pressure on domestic food prices. • the importance of primary sector exports to rural communities and wellbeing which is a driver for maintaining export levels. • the right balance of food that should be produced for local consumption and for export. • the focus on export producers or local producers with some participants considering that export producers are prioritised above producers growing for the local market or community. • the regulatory burden of the system and its impact on consumers, with some participants raising that the high compliance costs associated with meeting export requirements are passed onto consumers or are a barrier to entry for many. • perceptions around the quality of food that is exported and food available in domestic markets. Participants discussed the perceived tension between exporting our ‘best’ food and not having affordable food available to New Zealanders. Some industry representatives were surprised by this perception, given that domestic standards are calibrated with international standards. It was noted that communication was required to present information on the quality of food locally compared to that of exported food. • The role of the food industry was discussed and it’s significant part in defining food systems and community, however, that health and sustainability could be valued higher and there was an opportunity for industry to step up and communicate this to the public. • The tensions between the goals of economic, environmental, and social sustainability. Many participants considered policy direction to be required to balance the three dimensions of sustainability, and clarification on the outcomes that New Zealand is seeking for the food system. For further information please see pages 6-14 from the Summary of New Zealand's National Food System Dialogues (attached).

2021-09-03 11:27:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43079/87

Yes

2021-09-03 15:32:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21898/203

132019723191696039833174181453219192214716313344

The Independent Dialogue was organized and delivered based on STDF's approach to connect relevant stakeholders (international and regional organizations, national governments, private sector and others) across agriculture, health, trade and development. A short concept note for the event outlined the contribution of safe trade systems to food systems transformation, the diversity of stakeholder roles and responsibilities, and the interlinkages and complementarity between them, and emphasized the need for urgent action. Preparatory discussions with panelists before the event helped to further clarify the contribution of safe trade facilitation to the objectives of the FSS. These steps enabled the event to be delivered in a way that ensured good participation, exchange across different types of stakeholders and a lively and respectful dialogue. In follow-up, the key conclusions, findings and lessons from the STDF Independent Dialogue were shared widely (including via an STDF e-news item), with linkages made to other relevant events. These included: • A Global dialogue on trade organized by the WTO Secretariat in collaboration with the UN FSS, entitled "Trade, an essential piece of the food systems puzzle" on 6 July 2021. • side-session for the FSS "Promoting Sustainable Food Systems: The role of international standards" organized jointly by Codex, IPPC, OIE and the STDF on 27 July 2021 as part of the official Pre-Summit.The STDF's global partnership of public and private sector actors from across agriculture, health, trade and development is working to facilitate safe trade, and support sustainable economic growth, poverty reduction and food security in developing countries that contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals. The STDF is a multi-stakeholder partnership of diverse organizations with an interest in facilitating safe trade across agriculture, health, trade and development. Engaging different partners involved in this network (from international organizations to public and private sector from developing countries) and linking the dialogue to the STDF's Strategy for 2020-2024 "Safe and Inclusive Trade Horizons for Developing Countries" provided a way to reinforce and reflect specific aspects of the UNFSS Principles such as complexity, complementarity, multi-stakeholder, use of evidence-based approaches, etc. The Independent Dialogue was organized in line with the recommendations in the Convener's Reference Manual. The Dialogue was widely disseminated in advance, including on the STDF website and via STDF e-news articles, and open to all interested participants globally. Professor Spencer Henson (Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Guelph, Canada) was invited to make a keynote presentation during the opening session to clarify and tease out the linkages between safe food facilitation and food systems transformation. As part of the event, members of STDF's global partnership (including FAO, WHO, OIE, the World Bank, donors and developing country experts) participated in a plenary panel discussion, followed by breakout groups where all participants could contribute. STDF's short film "Shaping a safer world" (released in January 2021) was shown during the event to illustrate the issues at stake and link to the breakout room discussions.

Yes

234238243244245248249250251The Dialogue focused on how the implementation of international standards (including Codex standards for food safety) and the facilitation of safe trade contribute to the transformation of food systems and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Recognizing the importance and urgency of such transformation to deliver food security for the future, the Dialogue aimed to better understand and position the facilitation of safe trade towards this outcome. Trade helps to create jobs, improve incomes, attract investment and boost economic growth. Meeting international standards for food safety, animal and plant health is essential to facilitate safe trade. Safe trade enables developing countries to participate in and benefit from export-oriented agri-food value chains that generate employment and promote sustainable economic development. Safe trade protects the health of consumers, animals and plants, while helping to mitigate and adapt to the risks posed by climate change, promoting sustainable development. International standards for food safety, animal and plant health are at the core of STDF's work to facilitate safe and inclusive trade horizons for developing countries, building on STDF's Strategy for 2020-2024 "Safe and Inclusive Trade Horizons for Development Countries". Meeting these standards results in effective national food control, veterinary and phytosanitary systems, which facilitate safe trade, in line with the WTO's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Meeting these standards promotes agricultural development, protects the environment and helps to mitigate against the risks of climate change. Like agri-food systems, effective SPS systems depend on inter-disciplinary, cross-sectoral and inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches that cut across agriculture, health, environment, trade and development to enable diverse stakeholders to achieve more and stronger results together than would be possible alone. The STDF Dialogue engaged members of STDF's global partnership to: • Share experiences and learning about innovative and collaborative safe trade solutions in Africa, Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean, and explore how they are contributing to food systems transformation. • Reflect on how ongoing trends – from the growth in regional and South-South trade to digitalization and inclusive and sustainable trade – are influencing SPS capacity development, and what this means for food systems transformation. • Identify new opportunities for STDF's global partnership to influence and catalyse sustainable improvements in SPS systems that support agri-food systems to deliver for the world of tomorrow.235238243244245248249250251The STDF Independent Dialogue highlighted why facilitating safe trade matters for food systems transformation, and how interventions to build sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) capacity for trade can have even greater domestic impacts including to to improve food safety for domestic populations. There has been a huge increase in global agri-food exports, from US$32.1 billion in 1961 to US$1,448.6 billion in 2018. This increases the need to manage SPS risks linked to trade, and also to better understand the complexities and trade-offs linked to the implementation of SPS measures. For instance, trade-offs related to the relationship between food safety compliance, trade and food security, such as questions related to the local sale and consumption of products that do not meet standards for export. These linkages and trade-offs are complex, with positive as well as potentially negative effects depending on the specific context. Trade plays a significant role in economic growth, job creation and poverty reduction. Trade benefits vulnerable groups, including women and youth, and generates other positive impacts on domestic systems. While there is recognition that SPS capacity building and trade contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals – including cross-cutting impacts on gender equity, environmental impacts and sustainability, and other domestic impacts – there is a need to better understand these interactions and, in particular, to move from recognition to mainstreaming. Firstly, research has highlighted the linkages between gender and trade (including the Joint WTO declaration on Women and Trade in 2017). For instance, that women are disadvantaged in national and international food systems, or that they are more likely to be found in the informal trade sector, to face higher export costs and/or to be excluded in processes to promote compliance with SPS measures. In general, gender is not well mainstreamed in the design of SPS measures and SPS capacity building activities. Secondly, on environmental impacts and sustainability, there are critical interplays between the implementation of SPS measures and efforts to promote sustainable agriculture. For instance, SPS measures may be associated with the improved and/or reduced use of pesticides, which is critical for sustainable agriculture. However, while this is recognized to some extent, it is inadequately mainstreamed. Thirdly, the inter-linkages between SPS capacity development, trade and domestic impacts are not well articulated. While it is assumed that increasing SPS capacity to promote trade to regional and international markets generates wider, indirect domestic benefits (for instance for firms and groups not directly involved in trade), it is difficult to find examples of these indirect "domestic spillovers" in practice because they not identified and streamlined in the design of the capacity building efforts, and therefore not measured. Moving forward, the key question is how to mainstream gender, environmental sustainability, and domestic issues in the SPS arena around trade? This also very much depends on the stakeholders who are engaged, and the frameworks used for priority-setting and decision-making. The importance of partnerships for food systems transformation was emphasized. The STDF's multi-stakeholder partnership can play a role in promoting better practices to support the mainstreaming of these issues and food systems transformations. For instance, the STDF's evidence-based framework to prioritize SPS investment options for trade (P-IMA) identifies cross-cutting issues (including gender, environmental impacts and domestic impacts) as key decision criteria to be considered in ranking SPS investment priorities for market access. This is one example of an effort to begin to mainstream these topics. Other key messages from the panel discussion addressed the following: • the importance of international standards to promote harmonization and facilitate trade in support of food systems transformation. • the importance of greater transparency, engagement and more effective collaboration (including with the right partners) to strengthen results. This includes, for instance, collaboration and partnerships across diverse public sector stakeholders working across SPS systems and trade facilitation, as well as public-private cooperation. • The role and added-value of the "One Health" approach to promote synergies and address interconnected global issues (such as trade in wildlife or antimicrobial resistance) related to food safety, animal health and domestic public health. • the crucial role of the private sector and the need to find new ways to leverage the private sector's knowledge to drive innovation and for the public and private sector to work together more effectively and with greater impact. • the need for substantially increased resources and action to make access to safe and nutritious food a right, not a privilege. • the importance of a food chain approach and utilizing systems-based approaches to strengthen food safety as well as plant and animal health for trade that contributes to food systems transformation in a way that promotes gender equity, as well as environment sustainability and other domestic impacts. • emerging opportunities to promote innovation, including digitalization, to facilitate safe trade that mainstreams cross-cutting issues and promotes gender equity and environmental sustainability.2362382432442452482492502511. Promote collaborative One-Health approaches and develop agri-food value chains rooted in international standards to boost market access. 2. Further strengthen cooperation between SPS authorities and other relevant agencies, including those addressing customs, border management and environment. 3. Increase public-private dialogue on SPS issues to build trust and create new opportunities for collaboration. 4. Learn how cross-cutting issues have been addressed in other sectors, and develop and roll out new approaches to support gender mainstreaming in SPS capacity development. 5. Design interventions to reach more small-scale farmers and business operators, and increase access to financing mechanisms to meet international standards. 6. Clearly identify and communicate the business case for SPS investments, including through use of the STDF's evidence-based P-IMA framework to prioritize SPS investments for market access. Members of STDF's global partnership will further discuss how to address these actions areas within the STDF's global partnership as part of future workplans under the STDF's Strategy for 2020-2024. Other work carried out by STDF partners and other STDF members will also contribute to these action areas.237There were more elements of convergence, rather than significant areas of divergence, during the short event.

2021-09-03 22:36:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38093/151621242730334446495259606163787982838494120133141143144155156175184195198

82162534719232852410

The regional dialogue was organized along with the coordinators and members of the 4 Thematic Working Groups of PLACA, which are professionals from 10 countries of the LAC region. This organizing team selected a group of key stakeholders from 15 countries, from different backgrounds and sectors. The overall objective of the event was to promote a safe space for the public and private sector, research institutes, universities, farmers' organizations, producers, and extensionists from Latin America and the Caribbean to share their experiences in the agricultural sector and food systems at the subnational, national or regional level, considering their impacts, and finding new ways to unite in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). During the event, the facilitators and notetakers promote the dialogue in the break-out room sessión and conduct the conversation among the panelist and participants to ensure inclusivity and respect.The overall organization represented a joint effort from the members of PLACA and PLACA Secretariat. The process to define each of the themes of the breakout rooms was define by each of its group members during previous meetings. The process was inclusive and all its members contribute to the definitions of the specific objective of each session and also in the design of the guide questions. Also, all the members look for key stakeholders outside their institutions to ensure a richer discussion during the event. This was accomplished, as all the panelists that attended the regional dialogue were from the public and private sector, research institutes, universities, farmers' organizations, producers, and extensionists from Latin America and the Caribbean. This process promoted trust and increase motivation within the groups of PLACA, and the event had a very active and interesting testimonial from both the panelist and the participants, as they felt they could express their views or build on what the person before.

Yes

234240242243244246248249The regional dialogue focus to promote a space for public and private sector actors, research institutes, universities, farmers' organizations, producers, and extensionists from Latin America and the Caribbean to share their experiences in the agricultural sector and food systems at the subnational, national or regional level, considering their impacts, and finding new ways to unite in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). During the first part of the event, there was a brief presentation about how to achieve balance in LAC agri-food systems: addressing the climate crisis while fighting poverty, combating hunger and malnutrition, and preserving resilient ecosystems. Then, four break-out rooms were created around the following topics: a) Public Policies in the context of adaptation and mitigation of climate change (TGW1 and TWG2); b) Knowledge transfer and good practices (focus on extensionists and producers) /TWG3; c) Research, development, and technological innovation (TWG4). After the group discussions, participants had the opportunity to present their a resume in the plenary, in order to show possible future pathways and provide concrete lines of action. After the plenary, the Presidency of PLACA emphasized that the global problem of climate change is not foreign to the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Local impacts require their own solutions, as well as the identification of the regional space as a spill-over of knowledge to reduce climate vulnerability. PLACA is an opportunity to generate regional synergy and be able to talk about local impacts, as well as how countries can enrich and collaborate with each other through science, innovation, and research. He emphasized strengthening the capacity for climate action in agriculture.2352382402422432442462482491.TWG1 and TWG2 > According to the experiences consulted, the focus is on agriculture organic production, economic efficiency, as well as the reduction of environmental impacts. Another relevant aspect is the use of technology in soil protection practices, low carbon emission strategies, and the importance of NAMAs to promote the adoption of technologies. The importance of respecting the specific characteristics of the countries on a technical and scientific basis, as well as economic and productive efficiency, was emphasized. The importance of technical assistance and dialogue with the agricultural and environmental sectors was key. It was also mentioned that each country has its own approved public policies related to the environment and agriculture. Finally, it is important to take into account food security and sovereignty, limited resources to implement climate actions, the resistance of producers to change adopted practices, as well as investment in research. Climate management should be one of the factors to be taken into account in the climate agenda, considering the climate agenda as a whole and not only mitigation; conservation and adaptation are more important. 2. At the TWG3 extensionists' roundtable, it was noted that, in terms of who has benefited from adaptation and mitigation practices in the region to address climate change, it has benefited the producer family. Agroecological practices with local knowledge have been captured. When discussing the results and/or impacts of the implementation of these practices, they focus on the fact that they have had to face the chemical degradation of soils. In the coastal drylands of the O'Higgins region in Chile, the adaptation to water deficit conditions was noted. Work has been done on soil water conservation. Regarding key actors for the implementation of these practices, in the case of Mexico, there is the integration of multiple actors. In the case of Chile, they highlighted the role of PRODESAL, the central axis for reaching farmers. Finally, in terms of constraints, they suggested learning by doing with others, co-construction with local actors with the support of science. In short, it is important for farmers to incorporate the use of technologies. The producers' roundtable of TWG3 addressed the different practices implemented in agriculture. There were participants from Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico. It was discussed that there are several practices that make up a strategy. Water management, agrosilvopastoral management, aspects of dynamic bio-agriculture, seeds, and plants that adapt to climate variability were highlighted. In turn, the importance of linking agricultural practices and the community with other schools and markets, as well as with the final consumer. Demonstration of practices is important. The involvement of a larger network of technicians from research institutions, markets, schools, among others, was mentioned as a factor in the success of these practices to mitigate climate change in agriculture. Finally, it was mentioned that these practices should be low-cost and adaptable to different situations. Finally, with regard to the network of actors, it was identified that the reaction among actors is key to a successful strategy: producers, professionals or extensionists, governmental and research institutions, among others. 3. TWG4 indicated that the research experiences in the agriculture and livestock areas are the search for species that are resistant to arid conditions. Climate variability is being incorporated into aspects of agriculture and livestock. At the same time, other elements are being sought to adapt, such as the use of microorganisms to promote the resistance of species to water stress and pests. Another important element is the search for mechanisms to add value to products. On the other hand, in aquaculture and agriculture, it was mentioned that climate variability should be considered in the management of resources. The challenges are to face the problem from an intersectoral point of view, to incorporate the topic from a local point of view, and how to disseminate research results to interested persons (farmers).236238240244246249Public Policies in the context of adaptation and mitigation of climate change (TGW1 and TWG2) The objective of this dialogue session was to learn about what is being done in terms of public policies related to adaptation in agriculture in the context of climate change and climate scenarios. The questions posed to the panelists were as follows: 1. In your country, what type of agricultural production practices and measures to increase adaptive capacity are being successfully adopted by producers. What mechanisms are being used for their extension and generalization? 2. In your opinion, what are the immediate challenges that need to be addressed in terms of public policies to deal with the impacts of climate change on agriculture? Why? Juan Mancebo (Ministry of Agriculture, Dominican Republic), indicated that the focus is on organic agriculture (banana, coffee, and mango production, together with zero-tillage actions). There is an agreement between the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the National Institute of Water Resources for the recovery of degraded soils. In turn, Juan Torres (Universidad Agraria La Molina, Peru) stated that there are two scenarios, 1) at a macro level: referred to climate change policies (National Adaptation Plan to Climate Change) and Plan to Combat Desertification; 2) at a micro-level: that of farmers' daily life (farmers with ancestral capacity and adaptive experience regarding climate variability). However, there is a lack of capacity to adapt to climate change. Finally, there is an explicit adaptation given by public policy and an implicit adaptation given by experience. Finally, Mauricio Chacón (MAGA, Costa Rica) indicated that the country has increased its forest cover from 30% to 52% of the territory, as well as actions to make productive and environmental variables compatible. Costa Rica has developed a strategy to implement adaptation actions through the NAMAs program; however, it is not the only strategy. There are currently two (2) NAMAs under implementation and three (3) NAMAs under design. About to the second question, the representative of the Dominican Republic emphasized that the challenges that exist have to do with training and awareness (change of behavior among farmers), incorporation of technologies, investment in agricultural research and development (new cultural processes, varieties, and species). The representative of Peru mentioned that there must be a strategy for food sovereignty and security. Finally, the representative of Costa Rica stressed that the challenge is to understand that the agricultural sector has a wide range of issues, including climate change, which must be made compatible with other elements in agricultural production. The objective, therefore, is sustainable development - in agriculture - that is compatible with the climate.236238240244246b) Knowledge transfer and good practices (focus on extensionists) /TWG3 The objective of this dialogue session was: i) to gather perceptions of the attendees of good practices in Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (TARE) in climate change and ii) to gather successful experiences. The questions to the table of extensionists were the following: 1. What are the results and/or impacts of the application of agricultural and livestock practices? 2. Who has benefited from these practices? 3. What factors do you think may hinder the adoption of these practices? 4. Has collaboration with other participants or stakeholders been important for the implementation of the practices? ● Eloy Fernández (Sustainable Mixteca Project, Mexico), points out that the implementation of good practices has benefited the producer family (with more income, with production in shifts, with greater job stability, as agribusinesses). They have also worked to protect the environment, with sustainable production that benefits all stakeholders. ● María Paz Martínez (INIA TAMEL AIKE, Chile), with good management of Sphagnum moss, has contributed to lower CO2 emissions; otherwise, it presents a great contribution to climate change (when there is poor management of peatlands). One of the relevant aspects is that local families have been integrated (with less intervention from external actors), to the benefit of the families directly related to these resources. Trails have been integrated that has contributed to educating about the good management of these peatlands. ● Sigrid Vargas (INIA, Chile), linked to organic production, has benefited small farmers, under the framework of a participatory farmer-consultant model with agroecological practices; with local knowledge. The work has focused on vegetables and the production of some berries. It has managed to be independent of external inputs. With practices such as the incorporation of residues, the carbon footprint has been reduced, with soils that are more resilient to climate change, especially in the central-southern zone (near the 40°S parallel). There was rescue of genetic resources, also benefiting seed savers. ● Regarding the results and/or impacts of the application of practices that have been implemented, Mexico's experience highlights that in the semi-arid zone in the south of the country is related to facing chemical degradation of soils, practices have been promoted linked to soil stabilization, crop rotation, use of bio-inputs, with an increase in microfauna, especially for the cultivation of corn (a staple crop for this region). This has allowed the increase of organic carbon in-depth and concentration in soils. A relevant achievement has been self-sufficiency, with the availability of corn all year round; with a community organization, with collective work of mutual help. ● Cristian Rodrigo Aguirre (INIA, Chile) mentions the adaptation to water deficit conditions in the coastal drylands of the O'Higgins region. Work has been done with grasses and legumes in areas with low rainfall (no more than 200 mm per year approximately). The soil has been managed with conservation practices to increase its water storage capacity. Complementary forage production has been achieved and farmers are being encouraged to convert their production from oats to triticale due to its good results in yields in this area. In Chile, in irrigated areas in this same region, agroecological management is being carried out, that is, a transformation from conventional to agroecological management, under the principles of this technique and recycling. The incorporation of natural fertilizers has been achieved, with flower bands that have allowed biological control, with natural enemies.236238240242244246248The questions to the table of producers were the following: 1. What practices do you apply to make your agricultural activity adaptable/resilient to climate change? 2. Why do you think these practices have been successful and would you recommend them? 3. Has collaboration with other participants or stakeholders been important for the implementation of the practices? ● Regarding the practices implemented to mitigate climate change in agriculture, the members stated that the practices are part of a strategy to be successful given the conditions of climate change. The practices that stood out were: 1) construction of ponds for fish production, backyard poultry, and corrals, 2) harvesting rainwater, using it for drip irrigation (for times of drought), 3) agrosilvopastoral management with extensive cattle raising, promoting reforestation with native trees in the north of Salta-Argentina in association with pasture. Animal mortality was reduced due to the lack of available feed due to climate change. Drought is combated by taking advantage of the shade of the trees, and humidity is retained with the pasture. In addition, with the shade, the animals are less stressed by high temperatures, 4) planting vegetables and grain without using agrochemicals. With this, food was produced for the farm, 5) reforestation programs, with native trees, in conjunction with research and educational institutions, 6) sustainable production (biodynamic agriculture), and 7) water management, native trees, rustic greenhouses with lower cost, to manage variability in climate, water management, and water catchment. Produce seeds and native plants that are adapted to climate variability. Finally, regarding the keys to the success of these practices, they highlighted: 1) awareness process, that the farmer understands that there is a strong dependency and the conditions of agriculture cannot continue the way it has been carried out, given the conditions of climate and market change, 2) demonstration, it is necessary that the farmer and rancher see that sustainable production is a better option and generates more profits, 3) involve the value network by shortening it, specifically encouraging the final consumer by shortening the chain and thus the intermediation reducing the cost of products and increasing the economic benefit for the producer, as well as for the consumer. The above through physical spaces where these products can be found; for example, fairs, media, etc., and 4) linkage, with the community, government institutions, schools, families, and markets (local consumer). ● Participants concluded that for practices to be most effective, they must be low-cost and adaptable to any situation. Regarding the network of actors, it was identified that the reaction between actors is key to a successful strategy: producers, professionals or extensionists, governmental and research institutions, among others.236238240242243244246248249The objective of the research session was: i) to learn about their experiences (good or bad) and how the research institutes have exchanged or transferred knowledge to the farmer, ii) what projects are currently under development and whether they are in line with current (critical) problems and iii) what expectations they have regarding research applied to agriculture. The questions posed to the panelists were as follows: 1. what are your previous experiences and current research projects that can be converted into knowledge transfer and solutions to current problems for farmers with a focus on the particular vulnerability of agriculture? 2. What do you consider to be the future trends and challenges in applied research on the impacts of climate change with a focus on the particular vulnerability of agriculture? - Francisco Arreguín Sánchez (CICIMAR - Mexico) pointed out that fishing is the only branch of primary production that does not require inputs. The environmental conditions had been relatively stable until a few years ago; since 1980 there has been a change in the climate regime, which has had repercussions on the productivity of marine ecosystems. - Isaac Andrés Azuz Adeath (CETYS - Mexico) emphasized that he studies the relationship between agricultural production in the coastal region and environmental variability on decadal and geographic time scales of about 100 km. Due to these characteristics and the political times that determine the duration of the periods that authorities in the sector in Mexico remain in office (six-year periods), it is difficult to transfer knowledge to the small producer. - Francislene Angelotti (EMBRAPA - Brazil) mentioned as examples the conservation of natural resources for productive purposes, the search for species tolerant to high temperatures and water stress, phytosanitary aspects, the use of microorganisms to increase resistance to water stress, diseases and pests, and the use and management of water, among other aspects. He mentions as an example livestock systems with a neutral carbon balance. - Gabriel Ciappesoni (INIA-Uruguay) said that his institution is researching the best management practices, forage species, supplements, and forage concentrate in order to optimize livestock production and reduce GHG emissions. Other lines of research address the production of disease-resistant species with low GHG emissions, as well as the development of livestock and agricultural systems with soil conservation and biodiversity. Knowledge transfer is the greatest challenge and is currently carried out by region with the purpose of increasing the resilience of productive systems. - Doris Soto (INCAR-Chile) pointed out that her institution focused on preparing climate change risk maps for 20 sectors, including artisanal fishing and aquaculture. Biological, physical, climatic, productive, and management information was integrated into these maps. (https://arclim.mma.gob.cl/). - Pablo Yax (IPICC-Guatemala) said that among the lines of research being addressed is the adaptation of local technology that is easily accessible to farmers, the search for crops that are resistant to climate variations, particularly species used in subsistence crops. Some of these efforts are carried out through collaborations with other countries. - Mercedes Andrade (CCC and Sustainability-Mexico) mentioned that her institution is focused on the study of climate change. Knowledge transfer is done through several strategies, one of which is to involve local human populations both in the research processes (e.g., in the evaluation of climate variability) and in the dissemination of results (e.g., through home garden workshops incorporating traditional knowledge).

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Resumen-Dialogo-Regional-PLACA-GACSA.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/americas/prioridades/agricultura-sostenible-y-resiliente/placa/es/

2021-09-06 04:22:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21812/203173

7604392904581850132532152111332831533

We invited participants with a wider range with various experience in real ground level and policy level and experimental level who engaged in food production, supply and nutrition and they have been given equal opportunities to represent, express their views in a respectful platform where the trust among is assured that they really take part in the food industry as an essential and required element. By inviting the multi-stakeholders, it has been created a complementing platform where everyone gets to benefit from each other by sharing their experience, view and suggestion and is a learning platform on which the line out has been made to make the food chain sustainable and profitable. The exposure for invites made complex to give them a chance to see how diverse the food chain/food industry and support system and to open their minds in a broad spectrum of food in terms of production, supply and consumption. The agenda includes the introduction in which the principles are elaborated to the participants so that they are unified in terms of principles and their application in each step forward.When the dialogue is open and flows with the lineout, every discussion has been subjected to the relevant principles applicable in real practical scenarios concerning the different stakeholder perspectives. The majority of the participants were medium and small scale farmers and they expressed the urgency and the requirement of a sustainable food system to introduce to provide low cost and high nutrition food and how to fulfil the required productions to be aligned with the requirement. The nutritionist and the police level participants from the state enhanced the requirement for having a sustainable food system with policy-level decisions to be implemented so that they were complimenting each other.Yes. We suppose to make engage representatives from all sectors of food producers such as fishery, livestock, dairy and organic base producers. Also, the suppliers, value adders and consumers of all social levels to be included and have free opportunity to express themselves.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The entire summit had been focused on all ATs to track how much each representative contribute to the thematic areas in the trackers. The summit has recognized the trackers are really useful in determining how much of efforts have been made so far and what are the possibilities, suggestions and available solutions that could be found in the ground levels and the top policy levels. Additionally, the focuses were on how to link the there two-level in terms of fulfilling the requirements of a sustainable eco-friendly food system that fulfils the requirements of nutrition as a whole. It has been expressed the requirement of having access to safe and nutritious food for all with focus on the current tendency towards unsafe food and the high usage of them especially in the young generation and the bad consequence of that. This has been deeply highlighted in connection to the AT2, to make the change towards safe food usage with a sustainable consumption pattern to ensure minimal food wastage and to reduce the post-harvesting losses as much as possible at all levels in the food supply chain. Summit has recognized the optimized livelihood with equity will be a leading factor to establish nature positive food production which will be the key to solve the quantity of food for family levels and to have high-quality food that fulfils the nutrition requirements. The synergistic effect of all above will be the in build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress that the family and the community level has been highlighted by the summit. Additionally, the summit drew the focusses on the financial aspect and policy-level actions to be taken in enhancing the sustainable food system to be established in the context of ensuring the human rights are respected and ensured.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The summit elaborated that how has the current unsafe food consumption emerged and the supply has been contributed to enhance the unsafe food consumption. Keeping this disaster in minds of the representatives, it has been suggested many sustainable actions be taken to ensure the current food trends are rejected and the sustainable food system has been established. The key findings suggested reducing the current bad food consumption pattern (i) To force the policy actions to reduce the high level of marketing and media usage in advertising such junk foods. (ii) To force/suggest policy levels to get media more involved in popularizing nutritive environmentally beneficial food production and consumption, (iii) To take actions to build an efficient, effective and participatory stakeholder platform to take the required action to change the current food trends to more eco-friendly and sustainable one ensuring the better livelihood, a better nutrient with food secure and finally the whole food system to become food sovereignty. It has been suggested for this system to be positively changed, all state entities, who are directly or indirectly affecting all levels of the food system, not just the agriculture ministry, should work in unions, and move towards nutrition-based food production, embracing the concept of food sovereignty. In addition, the local seed banks (state and private) and watersheds should be protected, post-harvest technology and ecological farming knowledge should be promoted, young farmers and women should have rights to land and farming, and farming should have an integrated management system. Moreover, the policies and bilateral agreements the state enters should be transparent, local teams should be linked with the global knowledge-based who are already working on these issues, and the cooperative systems should be promoted more. Moreover, it has been deliberated his submissions around the 5 action tracks associated with the food system summit. While recognizing the importance of discourse on the food system, he emphasized the significance of pushing the agenda from food security towards food sovereignty. It has been pointed out that the so-called multi-stakeholder platform which is organizing the FSS, is not representative enough and consequently does not look at the food system with a holistic approach. The food summit is focusing largely on corporate businesses and state interventions and does not give enough attention to people’s engagement and peoples ownership of food productions. It has been commended the current government’s decision to move towards toxin-free agriculture and stated that there should be an organized collective strategy to push this forward in a people-friendly way, blocking it from being hijacked by the lobbying groups lead by chemical companies.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. Farm organizations are not strong and do not always represent the needs and rights of farmers. There are about 15,000 registered FOs with legal authority to act on farmer’s needs. But only about 5000 are really engaged with the mandate they are supposed to be working on. Most are politicized or organized only to distribute fertilizer grants from the state or to undertake local infrastructure contracts. There is a lack of knowledge and competency for FO leaders to engage with the policy and the market. Suggested- strengthening the FO should be done in a coordinated manner, involving all those who have a vested interest to do that. For this a proper national plan and a coordinated action process should be developed, profitable businesses should be introduced to farmers, FO leaders should be well networked to cross learn and empower each other. 2. Members are poor and highly indebted to Microfinance companies. Most farmers are encouraged to grow what is sold at supermarkets and organized markets. What they grow are often easily perishable crops. When distribution channels are disrupted or farm production is not properly organized, they find it difficult to sell at wholesale markets. Suggested - organize better distribution in local areas using locally available state Agri officers, part-time farmers should be promoted to engage in subsistence farming and also to grow what can be preserved, more local markets should be created. Market expansion should be bottom to top, not top-down where a few supermarkets expand their presence in every township. 3. Farming has become unprofitable. Farmlands have become highly toxic, water seed, fertilizer and pesticides have become very expensive inputs. Suggested - Crop diversification should be promoted, post-harvest food wastages to be reduced, improved distribution systems backed by the government should be introduced to minimize the middlemen in the supply chains. 4. Food produced by farmers are not safe/ Consumers are not getting good food at an affordable price. The promotion of Agribusiness had delinked the farmers from the concept of food production. Suggested - Traditional echo-friendly farming systems should be reincorporated into the current farming system Intercropping should be promoted, Traditional, nutrition-rich grans should be promoted. 5. It is important to regulate and standardized how media portray food. Current media advertise unhealthy food. Establishing a sustainable food system is determined by consumer demand and media plays a negative role. Instead, media can deliver knowledge on healthy and environmentally friendly food. Suggested - There should be a media regulating policy related to the promotion of food. 6. In some areas of the country, such as upcountry, farmers have very limited land. Most land is been given to bigger plantation companies. Suggested - There have to be policy-level actions to address the land ownership to improve better land use and productivity. 7. With the changing weather patterns and intense droughts and torrential downpours, farmers find it difficult to stabilize their income. Technical knowledge related to adaptation methods and technology does not reach the lower segments. Suggested - Climate-smart agriculture to be promoted, technology should reach to the farmers continuously without stagnating at the officer level, there should be coordinated institutional solutions to manage climate change-related risks, knowledge of farmers about risk mitigation strategies should be expanded. 8. Losing peoples ownership in the food system. When food security and nutrition is highlighted without discussing the real actors of production, farmers lose their right and authority on farming matters. Also, consumers will end up having to eat whatever is supplied at the market. Suggested - Instead of food security which is a very narrow term, food sovereignty should be promoted, people maintained seed banks to be established at region levels, better accessibility to technical support and information. Local knowledge on sustainable, climate-resilient, healthy food production to be revived.237239241243247248249While agreeing to all ATs , there was one divergence that It has been pointed out that the so called multi stakeholder platform which is organizing the FSS, is not representative enough and consequently does not look at the food system with a wholistic approach. The food summit is focusing largely on corporate businesses and state interventions, and does not give enough attention to people’s engagement and peoples ownership for food productions.

2021-09-06 07:21:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42879/202

41112725

UNICEF’s food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) had to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual to make the process more age appropriate for younger audiences. Despite these amendments, all the Principles of Engagement were upheld. These core tenants are also critical in the implementation of a child-centered approach, which relies on participation, inclusivity, respect, diversity, and curating a safe space to share an array of lived experiences.Activities were designed to safeguard the interest of children and allow participants to freely explore ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions were deliberately broad and open to interpretation, like the discussion questions provided in the Convenors Reference Manual. Facilitators were trained to limit their influence and avoid judging participants’ responses, as per the facilitator trainings provided by the Summit team. A key aspect of the workshop was to gather children’s insights in an enabling environment so we can better understand what matters to them - remembering to respect that there are no right or wrong answers, as per the Principles of Engagement. A more detailed description of specific activities which reflect these Principles can be found in the workshop facilitation manuals which contain guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing creative and participatory activities with diverse children.These core Principles of Engagement are critical to ensure a safe space where all dialogue participants - especially children - can share their experiences, challenges, and visions, in an enabling environment, when it comes to food systems. Children’s opinions and insights are central to any discussion around building healthier and more sustainable food systems, and should be upheld at all times.

NoUNICEF committed to engage with and involve the voice of children and young people to inform the global and national narratives for the transformation of food systems in favor of nutritious, safe, affordable and sustainable diets. UNICEF hosted food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) in 18 countries across seven world regions. To accommodate this younger age group, UNICEF partnered with Western Sydney University (WSU) to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual so that it was more age appropriate. These dialogues used a distributed data generation method pioneered by Young and Resilient Research Centre at WSU in collaboration with UNICEF and other partners. The methodology has successfully been used in several international projects, including three companion reports to the State of the World’s Children (Third et al, 2017; Schmied et al, 2020; Fleming et al 2020). Working with UNICEF country offices, dialogues were conducted in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, UK, Turkey, Indonesia, Guatemala, China, Nepal, Netherlands, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Palestine, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Kenya, and Nigeria with children and adolescents aged 10-19. A set of workshop-based participatory activities were developed to explore children’s experiences of food poverty and climate change on their diets, with a focus on documenting children’s calls to action to underpin changes to their food systems. Workshops were rooted in the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and were implemented by trained representatives of UNICEF Country Offices and facilitating partners. The team developed a comprehensive workshop facilitation manual containing guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing a series of creative and participatory activities with diverse children. WSU trained facilitators to implement two or more workshops per country dialogue with children and adolescents aged 10-19. Workshops engaged children from a variety of socio-economic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. During the workshop-based dialogues, children worked in small groups to complete a series of fun and interactive activities designed to capture their experiences of food and the challenges to food systems. Activities included drawing, mapping, group brainstorming, and discussion. The activities explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change focusing on understanding how they view the importance of food in their lives, mapping their food systems and what barriers or vulnerabilities they experience with in their food systems and what actions they can take to reduce the impact of food systems on the changing climate. Finally, the workshops provided children with the opportunity to voice what they see needs to change so that everyone can eat nutritious food without harming the environment. Dialogues were implemented either face-to-face or online. Online workshops used Zoom and Miro boards (an online whiteboarding tool). The face-to-face version used a classic workshop setup in a single room with tables, markers, and paper-based worksheets. Activities were identical for both versions. Though most workshops were held online to comply with national pandemic-related restrictions, those that were held face-to-face followed national pandemic-related safety protocols. Once completed, if necessary, workshop responses were translated from the local language to English and uploaded to a secure data facility. Data were coded using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques. The findings provided here uphold this child-centered approach. Children voiced that they enjoyed the fact that the workshops were an opportunity for the participants to express themselves and share their opinions. This is reflected in comments captured below by participants during the workshops. The meeting was fruitful, and you listened to our voices. 'We had fun! I can speak what’s in my mind freely. The methodology - including child safeguarding processes - was approved by the Western Sydney University Human Ethics Committee (# H14363).

234238239240241242243244247248249251The workshop-based dialogues explored children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and lived experiences of their food systems, focusing on the issues of food poverty and climate change. Each country participating in the workshop-based dialogues conducted a minimum of two workshops with different participants; one workshop focused on food poverty and the other on climate change, enabling deep exploration of topics in the time available. Naturally, these topics and their discussions cut across all five Action Tracks. Workshop-based dialogues explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change through the following activities: Activity 1: This activity aims to surface what children think about food and what food means to them, this activity explores What children find appealing about food and what their aspirations are around eating to help inform aspects of food choice within their own food environments and systems. Children create a ‘food cloud’ by writing or typing foods they like and dislike. Activities 2 & 3: To explore their food systems, children drew a map of how food arrives on their plate, marking where their food is grown, how it is transported, and where it is bought and consumed. They then map the constraints in their food systems, as they relate to food poverty and climate change, and propose solutions to these constraints. Activity 4: This activity explores how children want to engage with these issues. Children were asked to explore what different people can do to help make sure that the foods we eat don’t negatively impact the environment. Using a series of different levels of circles from individual through to community and national levels of governance what actions can be taken in their food systems to create positive change? Activity 5: This activity generates children’s calls to action to address the impacts of food poverty and climate change on their food systems. Children write a leader to their leaders, outlining their call for change. Workshops concluded with a plenary discussion to draw our key insights. These workshops enabled children to contribute their insights and perspectives to the ongoing debates across all action tracks. They discussed challenges and proposed how to enhance their access to safe nutritious foods. They identified barriers to sustainable consumption patterns in their communities and suggested ways to shift behaviors. They identified that young people have a vital role to play in boosting positive production which, in turn, will contribute to more equitable livelihoods. And they called on governments to take concrete action to support vulnerable communities and to build the resilience and a brighter future for all children and adolescents around the world.235238239240241242243244247248249251Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. Food was delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. These responses suggest that food for children is a mix of the material and the aspirational. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely aspects like bitterness, smell, and unhealthiness when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children often focused on price; these desirable foods were simply too expensive. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and health effects (too much fat/sugar) also a factor. Some children could choose the food they ate, but some could not, whether due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking. For example, children in Zimbabwe emphasised that food affordability and availability got in the way of things they would like to eat. ‘Pork, expensive and hard to get’ Describe in under 5,600 characters including spaces Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. Food was delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. These responses suggest that food for children is a mix of the material and the aspirational. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely aspects like bitterness, smell, and unhealthiness when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children often focused on price; these desirable foods were simply too expensive. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and health effects (too much fat/sugar) also a factor. Some children could choose the food they ate, but some could not, whether due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking. For example, children in Zimbabwe emphasised that food affordability and availability got in the way of things they would like to eat. ‘Pork, expensive and hard to get’. Challenges to Food Systems One core activity in the consultations was food mapping. Children mapped a food system around them, visualizing how food moved from the farm to the plate. Overall children demonstrated a deep understanding of food production, especially when it was a local staple food or meal. Children then reflected on what the vulnerabilities or weak points in these systems were. The main vulnerability voiced by the children was poor availability of food. Poor availability was due to minimal stock in the markets, distance from the farming areas, and problems with food distribution. Access to food is also significantly affected by poverty and disruption to food production by season/natural disaster. Another predominant concern was the poor quality of food due to water pollution, use of artificial fertilisers, and unhygienic market conditions. These concerns highlight once again how interconnected food systems are, with economic (e.g. high food prices) and environmental (e.g. flooding, low crop yields) frequently overlapping. ‘limited refrigeration facilities lack of refrigerated trucks for transportation no specific or dedicated vehicles to ferry produce from fa[r]ms’. Strengthening Food Systems Children completed activities designed to provide concrete suggestions for change at different levels of society, from family to community, industry, and government. They also wrote a “postcard to the President,” outlining key changes that need to happen and how children could input into these shifts. Many children saw potential in empowering communities to grow their own produce and learn more about sustainability. Farms and farming also emerged as a frequent theme, with children suggesting it should be promoted as a vocation and supported with financial incentives and training. Proximity of both food production and food consumption, as mentioned above, was a key concern. In response, children stressed that farms and markets should be local and accessible, moving from ‘far away to being close’. Many of the childrens’ suggestions strongly link food security with food autonomy: import less, regulate more, and invest seriously in local farms and infrastructure, producing enough cheap, nutritious food for all. For respondents in Zimbabwe it was especially important that there be greater investment into farming, the building of infrastructure, economic development, and regulation of food prices to ensure affordability. ‘Should implement price control of healthy foods and increase wages of workers so that families can afford food’.236238239240241242243244247248249251Education: the UN should teach people about climate change, environmental protection, recycling, food systems; it should raise awareness of food inequality and show people the benefits of nutritious and sustainable practices, like eating seasonally “further promote socialization about climate change, the food systems, and the 2030 SDGs, so that the world community is more aware of the condition of the earth”236238239240241242243244247248249251Inclusion: the UN should listen to young people, create offline (e.g. forums) and online (e.g. platforms) spaces for them to share their views, collaborate with them, and involve them as government intermediaries “I hope UN continues to invite youths from various countries to participate in every activity because youths are the future leaders of nations. Let youths learn how to protect the world”236238239240241242243244247248249251Regulation: the UN should regulate food production, establishing laws to tackle global warming, keeping food producers accountable, auditing programs to ensure compliance, addressing plastic and deforestation, and controlling chemicals/pesticides “UN intervention to countries must be more aggressive. For example, an international Environmental Impact Analysis seems to need to be agreed. Auditing food producers must be conducted from upstream to downstream236238239240241242243244247248249251Support: the UN should support sustainable food production, strengthening infrastructure, enhancing distribution, and implementing programs that make food more affordable and accessible, especially for those most impacted by food poverty and climate change (e.g. indigenous communities) “support access to nutritious foods for low-income and vulnerable population”, “defend the rights of indigenous people”, “strengthen the supply chain of foods”237238239240241242243244247248249251Overall children were in agreement about the strengths and vulnerabilities of food systems, how to improve food sustainability, the issues that needed addressing, and the stakeholders that should be focused on. There were certainly different focal points. For example, some children focused on financial and educational support for farmers, while others focused on government legislation around food safety and food systems. But ultimately we see these as overlapping and supplementary, rather than divergent. To make food systems more sustainable and nutritious, a holistic approach will be needed involving a broad range of different actors and interventions.

2021-09-06 09:18:43205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23031/179

1282211212311113541442

The 7 key principles of engagement of the FSND was pursued during subnational dialogues. The recommendations for organizing FSND of the Handbook for member State Dialogues, Reference Manual for Food Systems Summit Dialogues were used to carry out national and subnational dialogues inter alia: Agenda, time frame, topics to be discussed, number of participants and number of groups for discussion. Participants were divided into 5 groups to discuss following subjects: 1. Impact (importance) of the food systems on different population groups, ecosystems, biodiversity and climate. (Food and Nutrition Security, Economy and Society, Land Use, Environment / Ecology); 2. Activity of different value chains (production) and problems of enterprises and individuals operating in this chain (Production, Processing, Maintenance, Distribution, Trade / Sales); 3. Factors, conditions that affect the diet / diversity of human food (availability and diversity of foods, food attractiveness and consumers’ habits; 4. Factors contributing in establishing local food systems / Factors contributing to the formation of food systems (biophysical and environmental, political, legislative, management, land, infrastructure, technical, socio-demographic factors, etc.); 5. Standards and regulations / requirements in food systems that affect and / or address the resolution of topics 1, 2, and 3. These can be rules / requirements in the areas of food, agriculture, health, social protection, environmental protection and climate change, education, trade, trade The participants were very active mostly from agriculture sector 6. Other topics as per participants proposal

Yes

2342382392402412422442452502511. Involve women and youth from vulnerable segments of the population in activities designed to protect the biodiversity in mountainous through their closer in involvement in the promotion of safe beekeeping; 2. Review the legal base to eliminate contradictions on agriculture and export diversification; 3. Application of the modern irrigation approaches such as drip irrigation and preventing fast water evaporation to use water resources more effectively and prevent environment form degradation; 4. Prevent excessive and improper use of agrochemicals and veterinary drugs and widely apply good agriculture, hygiene and manufacturing practices; 5. Enhance transport/road infrastructure to support food distribution to both domestic and export markets; 6. Engage completely all irrigated and rain feed lands, mostly Presidential and household plots; 7. Planning planting quality seeds and seedlings pursuant to the regional climatic peculiarities; 8. Provide scientific support for assessing land and animals fertility and adaptation of the seeds, seedlings and animals species to the country climatic conditions; 9. To support dehkan farms and food processors in improving their access to machinery parks and other modern technologies for processing, packaging and labeling of the produce; 10. Improve capacity of food control bodies in laboratory testing, categorization of the food operators and application of the risk based approach in carrying out control and inspection activities; 11. Introduction of the modern methods in processing agriculture products for instance drying and preservation of spring anion, fruits and some vegetables to mitigate losses; 12. Establish logistic centers in regions to support and promote collection and distribution of harvest which also support export of the agriculture products; 13. Increase number of storing facilities and 4quip them with refrigerators to prevent losses. For this also provide scientific support in good storing practices based on modern harvest and post-harvest technologies; 14. Widely apply internationally recognized standards and methodologies in food production such as ISO, GHP, GAP, IPM, HACC, Codex Alimentarus; 15. Facilitate widely trans-boundary trade by simplification customs procedures, reconstruction of roads; 16. Promote marketing of the agriculture products in domestic and international markets to enhance demand based production (for instance for spring onion, melon, watermelon, lemons, fresh, canned and dried fruits and vegetables);

2021-09-06 09:39:07205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22694/179

285158253215105212761147112

The participants were invited by invitation letter according to their eld of expertise, belongness to the food or agriculture other related sectors and wish to attend the dialogue. The participants were introduced with FSS goals and (tasks) and key principles to be pursued during dialogues through power point presentation in the local language. The attendance form for participants was shared and interpreted to ensure its proper understanding. All participants responded yes on understanding and following FSS principles.The participants agreed on giving respect to the different views and thoughts on challenges and attainments of the national food systems. Most of them were highly impressed by international movements toward changes anticipated for wellbeing and agreed on its urgency. However, they mentioned di culties in resolving some food systems-related challenges due to their complexity, by which they recognized its complexity. Most of the participants agreed on a multisectoral approach in addressing food systems challenges i.e. wider involvement of the public and private sector bodies like associations, government authorities, NGOs, Academia, and Food control bodies. The dialogue was carried out in a friendly environment and no prejudiced ideas or thoughts. The media source highlighting the event did not disclosure any privacy aspects of the participantTo have effective dialogue it would be expedient to enhance the invitee awareness of FSS goals, objectives, and principles in advance of the dialogue date. For this would be good to have a booklet or brochure to be shared among not only anticipated participants but also with key representatives of the national or regional agriculture sector, food industry etc

Yes

234238239240241242The dialogue run with discussion of the National Food Systems strength and weaknesses and ways to address them The discussions mostly focused on activities to be implemented for addressing prioritized challenges like legal framework, uni cation of small farms under cooperatives or associations to enhance their access to nance, machinery, water resources and release from tax pressure. Ne of the key pint of the discussion was gender inequality which also re ected in attendance of the dialogue (only woman). It was noted that due to intense labor migration women became dd fact and in some extend de jure farm owners and are less competitive with man headed farms that should be addressed by speci c state programme. Improving investment of agriculture sector and decreasing credit commissions, strengthening capacity of competent agencies responsible for food control. Introduction international standards like ISO, GAP, GHP Codex Alimentariues were also closely discussed by participants during group work session and their presentations2352382392402412421. Promote marketing of the agriculture products in domestic and international markets to enhance demand based production (for instance for spring onion, melon, watermelon, lemons, fresh, canned and dried fruits and vegetables); 2. Provide access farm owners, processing companies to the official statistic data to enable them to base production and processing agricultural products pursuant to the market demand; 3. Improve farmers and food processors literacy on finance management, national and international food quality and safety standards and sanitary and phytosanitary requirements; 4. To develop legal mechanism/framework for unification of small and medium dehkan farms under association or cooperatives or other structures to strength their capacity, competitiveness and sustainability; 5. Improve awareness of population on benefits of breast-feeding, diet diversification and food fortification mostly for women and children and responsible consumption; 6. Assessing management of food wastes generated in households, conventional; markets including fresh markets (bazaars), their disposal and ensure regular official data base on that; 7. Enhance fortification of the food (flour and salt) by vitamins and iodine to prevent stunting and endemic goiter and strengthen enforcing actions toward non-compliances Considering level of soil productivity and pest infestation in Tajikistan it is important to promote science based approach in proper use of agrichemicals and fertilizers to enhance production of agricultural foods. For this it is necessary to strength capacity of the national scientific institution including their laboratory network; 8. Review of the legal framework focusing on marketing and monitoring of the land use and improve farmers and producers/processors literacy on thatImproving livestock effectiveness by breeding agricultural species sustainable in Tajikistan climate conditions, Same approach should be applied in crops production; 9. Improve investment climate mostly government subsidies/grants. For instance 3% subsidies may increase production up to 30%; 10. Increase national food stock increasing storing capacity; 11. Management of the staple products prices in domestic market, indexation of the wages to enable access of the population (mostly marginalized population) to the staple products; 12. Prevent excessive use of pastures and introduction of the good pasture management practice; 13. Access to meet and its by-products is poor due to regular rise of process. Therefore it is necessary to access to these products by enhancing effectiveness of livestock and poultry production via production and import of animal feeds; 14. There is poor access of farmers to small machinery like small sized tractors, that is way there is need to address this challenge by making them available in machinery parks 15. Improve investment environment. Loans commission should not exceed 1%; 16. Improve activity of the farmers and producers/processors association The associations must be active in advocacy of framers rights, addressing challenges and have revolving funds to support its members if need be but not only to collect membership fee only; 17. The challenge of the farmers and producers finance and juridical/legal literacy should be improved by providing trainings; 18. Improve and streamline insurance procedures in agriculture and give flexibility to farmers on insurance payment (for instance divide payments by quarters or by months).

2021-09-06 10:32:32205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3455/179

2321471673151022172152312

The participants were invited by invitation letter according to their eld of expertise, belongness to the food or agriculture other related sectors and wish to attend the dialogue. The participants were introduced with FSS goals and (tasks) and key principles to be pursued during dialogues through power point presentation in the local language. The attendance form for participants was shared and interpreted to ensure its proper understanding. All participants responded yes on understanding and following FSS principles.The participants agreed on giving respect to the different views and thoughts on challenges and attainments of the national food systems. Most of them were highly impressed by international movements toward changes anticipated for wellbeing and agreed on its urgency. However, they mentioned di culties in resolving some food systems-related challenges due to their complexity, by which they recognized its complexity. Most of the participants agreed on a multisectoral approach in addressing food systems challenges i.e. wider involvement of the public and private sector bodies like associations, government authorities, NGOs, Academia, and Food control bodies. The dialogue was carried out in a friendly environment and no prejudiced ideas or thoughts. The media source highlighting the event did not disclosure any privacy aspects of the participantTo have effective dialogue it would be expedient to enhance the invitee awareness of FSS goals, objectives, and principles in advance of the dialogue date. For this would be good to have a booklet or brochure to be shared among not only anticipated participants but also with key representatives of the national or regional agriculture sector, food industry etc

Yes

234238239240241242244245246The dialogue run with discussion of the National Food Systems strength and weaknesses and ways to address them The discussions mostly focused on activities to be implemented for addressing prioritized challenges like legal framework, uni cation of small farms under cooperatives or associations to enhance their access to nance, machinery, water resources and release from tax pressure. Ne of the key pint of the discussion was gender inequality which also re ected in attendance of the dialogue (only woman). It was noted that due to intense labor migration women became dd fact and in some extend de jure farm owners and are less competitive with man headed farms that should be addressed by speci c state programme. Improving investment of agriculture sector and decreasing credit commissions, strengthening capacity of competent agencies responsible for food control. Introduction international standards like ISO, GAP, GHP Codex Alimentariues were also closely discussed by participants during group work session and their presentations2352382392402412422442452481. The Badakshan’s (GBAO), climatic features (winter lasts about 6-8 months), geography - mountainous nature, poor land fertility, availability of pastures, and scarcity of agri-lands stipulates prioritization of the livestock production (mostly yaks and fine-wool sheep), poultry, beekeeping, fishery rather than agri-plants production; 2. Quality of seeds such as wheat and potatoes and their adaption to the region’s climate is essential. Priority should be given to the seeds with short and medium vegetation period; 3. Demography changes mostly increasing population density requires more food which is impossible to cope with by the local farm capacity and region always will need import of food commodities form other regions; 4. Region’s geography and its remoteness makes the region highly dependent on the investment of the central government. This factor leads to higher prices of food commodities but meat compare with other regions which are 40 to 30% for staple foods; 5. The most expedient and cost effective option for the development of the region is using/developing its natural resources and tourism rather than developing agriculture, except for promotion of the livestock production; 6. There is an area of 1000 ha in Rushan district that can be used for production of seeds adapted to the regional climate; 7. The region is a convenient area for fruit production (apple, mulberry, figs, walnuts etc) which have specific taste and features. But there is a number of pests that can be an obstacle, which can be addressed through establishing pest management centers and implementation of Integrated Pest Management practices. This also enables the extension of local fruits to domestic and even export markets if their requirement will be introduced; 8. Demand for pulses is high in region therefore planting of pulses should be priority in arable lands; 9. Considering availability of condition for development of livestock production (about 97% of agri-lands are represented by pastures) it is necessary to animal feeds and feeding centers that may grow animals, slaughter in good sanitary condition and ensure safety of the meat and by-products; 10. Feeds must be safe and do not jeopardize animal health and further human health; 11. Available pastures are not well managed and sometimes animals go for grazing earlier than it is recommended which leads to their devastation. Therefore there should be an officially approved grazing schedule. These and other problems of pasture management must be addressed in the specific state-owned program; 12. For livestock development, there are a number of challenges such as wintering of agri-animals and feeds availability for wintering which is directly associated with short grazing time, about 2 months. This can be addressed by moving animal herds in the for wintering to areas of lower altitude (for instance Khatlon region) where winter is relatively warmer and feeds can be more accessible; 13. According to available information the prevalence of anemia amongst women of reproductive age and infants in the region is 40-46%, even 60% in some districts that are conditioned by poor diet diversity, inequality of food calories to the physical or age-related demands, and inadequate breastfeeding practices. That is why, enhancing awareness of the population on diet diversity, benefits of breastfeeding, rational infant feeding is essential. 14. The animal farms should be consolidated within cooperatives to ensure their sustainability and access to funds, farm machinery and revolving funds that can be established in such cooperatives; 15. The region lack of processing facilities. There is only milk processing facility. Establishing and further promotion of processing facilities for fruits processing, meat and milk processing is very beneficial for the region; 16. Poor roads infrastructure their bad conditions and impassiveness in winter are one of the influential obstacles in food accessibility; 17. The regional production can cover only 19% of the regional demand for wheat; 18. The region can cover 70% of its demand for potatoes but lack of storing facilities leads to 40% of the yearly harvest losses; 19. The region may self-sufficient by meat, poultry and fruits if invest on their storage, processing, streamline their trade (legalize middlemen practice). Some middlemen earn 2-5 times more than framers which demotivate framers to engage in agriculture; 20. There are more than 16000 farms most of them are small holding 00.2 – 0.2 ha lands. To enable their effectiveness there is need for their unification; 21. Poor control and monitoring of food placed in market due to lack of competent laboratories may pose a risk on consumers health; 22. All available challenges in the food systems of the region can be addressed locally only for 20% the rest depends on the central level involvement; 23. Availability of thermal springs should be used for establishing greenhouses which may provide domestic market with green and fresh vegetables: 24. Poor purchasing power of consumers in the region is main factor contributing in consumption of food of poor quality; 25. Consider international and local standards and requirements on production of food products and improve control of their safety; 26. Development of the comprehensive national food safety strategy can address many challenges of the food systems; 27. The region I disaster prone area and there are often flooding, avalanche, landslide which along with poor road infrastructure may have negative impact on food security in the region.

2021-09-06 16:45:41207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2015/203

999

The Dialogue was explicitly organized to support coordination and complementarity across the two key summits of the 2021 UN General Assembly: Food Systems Summit and the High-Level Dialogue on Energy. All participants were asked to identify deliverables that had triple food, energy, and climate benefits and that could be promoted in both summits, in addition to COP26. The event was also promoted across the stakeholder groups for both summits to facilitate awareness and ownership of the summits' nexus.In addition to its integration of content for the food systems and energy summit preparatory processes, the 36 speakers reflected geographic, gender, entity, and age diversity. Participants were also able to submit proposals for the outcome document directly to the organizers.Events should include hydrid/virtual participation to maximize inclusiveness.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The Dialogue sought to identify and promote deliverables that are applicable for both the Food Systems Summit and High-Level Dialogue on Energy, and with relevance for COP26.235238239240241242243244245246248249251Please see the attached outcome document.

2021-09-07 07:01:12204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43209/263

181899

UNICEF’s food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) had to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual to make the process more age appropriate for younger audiences. Despite these amendments, all the Principles of Engagement were upheld. These core tenants are also critical in the implementation of a child-centered approach, which relies on participation, inclusivity, respect, diversity, and curating a safe space to share an array of lived experiences.Activities were designed to safeguard the interest of children and allow participants to freely explore ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions were deliberately broad and open to interpretation, like the discussion questions provided in the Convenors Reference Manual. Facilitators were trained to limit their influence and avoid judging participants’ responses, as per the facilitator trainings provided by the Summit team. A key aspect of the workshop was to gather children’s insights in an enabling environment so we can better understand what matters to them - remembering to respect that there are no right or wrong answers, as per the Principles of Engagement. A more detailed description of specific activities which reflect these Principles can be found in the workshop facilitation manuals which contain guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing creative and participatory activities with diverse children.These core Principles of Engagement are critical to ensure a safe space where all dialogue participants - especially children - can share their experiences, challenges, and visions, in an enabling environment, when it comes to food systems. Children’s opinions and insights are central to any discussion around building healthier and more sustainable food systems, and should be upheld at all times.

NoUNICEF committed to engage with and involve the voice of children and young people to inform the global and national narratives for the transformation of food systems in favor of nutritious, safe, affordable and sustainable diets. UNICEF hosted food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) in 18 countries across seven world regions. To accommodate this younger age group, UNICEF partnered with Western Sydney University (WSU) to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual so that it was more age appropriate. These dialogues used a distributed data generation method pioneered by Young and Resilient Research Centre at WSU in collaboration with UNICEF and other partners. The methodology has successfully been used in several international projects, including three companion reports to the State of the World’s Children (Third et al, 2017; Schmied et al, 2020; Fleming et al 2020). Working with UNICEF country offices, dialogues were conducted in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, UK, Turkey, Indonesia, Guatemala, China, Nepal, Netherlands, Cambodia, Bangladesh, State of Palestine, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Kenya, and Nigeria with children and adolescents aged 10-19. A set of workshop-based participatory activities were developed to explore children’s experiences of food poverty and climate change on their diets, with a focus on documenting children’s calls to action to underpin changes to their food systems. Workshops were rooted in the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and were implemented by trained representatives of UNICEF Country Offices and facilitating partners. The team developed a comprehensive workshop facilitation manual containing guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing a series of creative and participatory activities with diverse children. WSU trained facilitators to implement two or more workshops per country dialogue with children and adolescents aged 10-19. Workshops engaged children from a variety of socio-economic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. During the workshop-based dialogues, children worked in small groups to complete a series of fun and interactive activities designed to capture their experiences of food and the challenges to food systems. Activities included drawing, mapping, group brainstorming, and discussion. The activities explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change focusing on understanding how they view the importance of food in their lives, mapping their food systems and what barriers or vulnerabilities they experience with in their food systems and what actions they can take to reduce the impact of food systems on the changing climate. Finally, the workshops provided children with the opportunity to voice what they see needs to change so that everyone can eat nutritious food without harming the environment. Dialogues were implemented either face-to-face or online. Online workshops used Zoom and Miro boards (an online whiteboarding tool). The face-to-face version used a classic workshop setup in a single room with tables, markers, and paper-based worksheets. Activities were identical for both versions. Though most workshops were held online to comply with national pandemic-related restrictions, those that were held face-to-face followed national pandemic-related safety protocols. Once completed, if necessary, workshop responses were translated from the local language to English and uploaded to a secure data facility. Data were coded using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques. The findings provided here uphold this child-centered approach. Children voiced that they enjoyed the fact that the workshops were an opportunity for the participants to express themselves and share their opinions. This is reflected in comments captured below by participants during the workshops. ‘The meeting was fruitful, and you listened to our voices. 'We had fun! I can speak what’s in my mind freely. 'Got the opportunity of expressing ourselves, which is also our right’ The methodology - including child safeguarding processes

234238239240241242244247248249251The workshop-based dialogues explored children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and lived experiences of their food systems, focusing on the issues of food poverty and climate change. Each country participating in the workshop-based dialogues conducted a minimum of two workshops with different participants; one workshop focused on food poverty and the other on climate change, enabling deep exploration of topics in the time available. Naturally, these topics and their discussions cut across all five Action Tracks. Workshop-based dialogues explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change through the following activities: Activity 1: This activity aims to surface what children think about food and what food means to them, this activity explores What children find appealing about food and what their aspirations are around eating to help inform aspects of food choice within their own food environments and systems. Children create a ‘food cloud’ by writing or typing foods they like and dislike. Activities 2 & 3: To explore their food systems, children drew a map of how food arrives on their plate, marking where their food is grown, how it is transported, and where it is bought and consumed. They then map the constraints in their food systems, as they relate to food poverty and climate change, and propose solutions to these constraints. Activity 4: This activity explores how children want to engage with these issues. Children were asked to explore what different people can do to help make sure that the foods we eat don’t negatively impact the environment. Using a series of different levels of circles from individual through to community and national levels of governance what actions can be taken in their food systems to create positive change? Activity 5: This activity generates children’s calls to action to address the impacts of food poverty and climate change on their food systems. Children write a leader to their leaders, outlining their call for change. Workshops concluded with a plenary discussion to draw our key insights. These workshops enabled children to contribute their insights and perspectives to the ongoing debates across all action tracks. They discussed challenges and proposed how to enhance their access to safe nutritious foods. They identified barriers to sustainable consumption patterns in their communities and suggested ways to shift behaviors. They identified that young people have a vital role to play in boosting positive production which, in turn, will contribute to more equitable livelihoods. And they called on governments to take concrete action to support vulnerable communities and to build the resilience and a brighter future for all children and adolescents around the world.235238239240241242243244247248249251Describe in under 5,600 characters including spaces Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. Food was delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. These responses suggest that food for children is a mix of the material and the aspirational. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely aspects like bitterness, smell, and unhealthiness when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children often focused on price; these desirable foods were simply too expensive. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and health effects (too much fat/sugar) also a factor. Some children could choose the food they ate, but some could not, whether due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking. ‘We have a choice, if I want avocado I get it’. Challenges to Food Systems One core activity in the consultations was food mapping. Children mapped a food system around them, visualizing how food moved from the farm to the plate. Overall children demonstrated a deep understanding of food production, especially when it was a local staple food or meal. Children then reflected on what the vulnerabilities or weak points in these systems were. The main vulnerability voiced by the children was poor availability of food. Poor availability was due to minimal stock in the markets, distance from the farming areas, and problems with food distribution. Access to food is also significantly affected by poverty and disruption to food production by season/natural disaster. Another predominant concern was the poor quality of food due to water pollution, use of artificial fertilisers, and unhygienic market conditions. These concerns highlight once again how interconnected food systems are, with economic (e.g. high food prices) and environmental (e.g. flooding, low crop yields) frequently overlapping. For children in State of Palestine, is was important that the food be of decent quality. Unique to this context, there were also concerns about refugees being able to access food and transporting food through occupation checkpoints. ‘Due to the trucks duty to serve many places, being the last place makes the food become bad, also the occupation checkpoints play a factor. Also if the farm uses chemicals on the produce itself, it affects us as the consumers’. Strengthening Food Systems Children completed activities designed to provide concrete suggestions for change at different levels of society, from family to community, industry, and government. They also wrote a “postcard to the President,” outlining key changes that need to happen and how children could input into these shifts. Many children saw potential in empowering communities to grow their own produce and learn more about sustainability. Farms and farming also emerged as a frequent theme, with children suggesting it should be promoted as a vocation and supported with financial incentives and training. Proximity of both food production and food consumption, as mentioned above, was a key concern. In response, children stressed that farms and markets should be local and accessible, moving from ‘far away to being close’. Many of the childrens’ suggestions strongly link food security with food autonomy: import less, regulate more, and invest seriously in local farms and infrastructure, producing enough cheap, nutritious food for all. For children in the State of Palestine, it was also important to deal with environmental considerations such as plastic use and CO2 production. ‘Use the electric cars as an alternative to reduce the exhaust fumes’.236238239240241242243244248249251Education: the UN should teach people about climate change, environmental protection, recycling, food systems; it should raise awareness of food inequality and show people the benefits of nutritious and sustainable practices, like eating seasonally “further promote socialization about climate change, the food systems, and the 2030 SDGs, so that the world community is more aware of the condition of the earth”236238239240241242243244247248249251Inclusion: the UN should listen to young people, create offline (e.g. forums) and online (e.g. platforms) spaces for them to share their views, collaborate with them, and involve them as government intermediaries “I hope UN continues to invite youths from various countries to participate in every activity because youths are the future leaders of nations. Let youths learn how to protect the world”236238239240241242243244247248249251Regulation: the UN should regulate food production, establishing laws to tackle global warming, keeping food producers accountable, auditing programs to ensure compliance, addressing plastic and deforestation, and controlling chemicals/pesticides “UN intervention to countries must be more aggressive. For example, an international Environmental Impact Analysis seems to need to be agreed. Auditing food producers must be conducted from upstream to downstream.”236238239240241242243244246247248249251Support: the UN should support sustainable food production, strengthening infrastructure, enhancing distribution, and implementing programs that make food more affordable and accessible, especially for those most impacted by food poverty and climate change (e.g. indigenous communities) “support access to nutritious foods for low-income and vulnerable population”, “defend the rights of indigenous people”, “strengthen the supply chain of foods”237238239240241242243244247248249251Overall children were in agreement about the strengths and vulnerabilities of food systems, how to improve food sustainability, the issues that needed addressing, and the stakeholders that should be focused on. There were certainly different focal points. For example, some children focused on financial and educational support for farmers, while others focused on government legislation around food safety and food systems. But ultimately, we see these as overlapping and supplementary, rather than divergent. To make food systems more sustainable and nutritious, a holistic approach will be needed involving a broad range of different actors and interventions.

2021-09-07 07:31:32205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43297/189

01807674101557575588510

In planning the dialogue, a structured program was developed. Key note speakers were oriented on the context of the dialogue prior to the dialogue. During the dialogue, the participants were oriented in the principles of engagement.

Yes

235249Key findings/recommendations from the dialogue include: i. There is a need to pertinently develop food systems as food insecurity seems to vary in the country. ii. The country needs to consider the multiplication and distribution of nutritious foods for its population. iii. Research must continue to play a role, especially in production and marketing iv. Food loss along the value chain is very high; there is a need for deliberate and intentional approaches to improve postharvest handling v. The urban poor face more food insecurity since they have low income and can’t afford food vi. Land ownership and utilization still has challenges to foster the development of food systems; the cost of land for production is high. Therefore, a lot in the policy environment needs to be done to favor production.

2021-09-07 08:10:18205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43094/189

13734686412357912108913

Yes

236The key findings/recommendations from this dialogue include: i. There is a need to address key bottlenecks in Uganda's food systems as identified in the regional and independent dialogues. ii. Low quality inputs, poor farming practices, limited markets, poor transportation and logistics, and land fragmentation have been identified as important bottlenecks in Uganda's food systems iii. There is a invitation to development partners to work with Uganda to address bottlenecks affecting food systems. iv. There is renewed emphasis on how to capitalize on the good climatic conditions of Uganda to make Uganda a perfect food basket for the region

2021-09-07 11:46:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43346/130

1678152323

UNICEF’s food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) had to adapt the method recommended by the Conveners Reference Manual to make the process more age appropriate for younger audiences. Despite these amendments, all the Principles of Engagement were upheld. These core tenants are also critical in the implementation of a child-centered approach, which relies on participation, inclusivity, respect, diversity, and curating a safe space to share an array of lived experiences.Activities were designed to safeguard the interest of children and allow participants to freely explore ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions were deliberately broad and open to interpretation, like the discussion questions provided in the Conveners Reference Manual. Facilitators were trained to limit their influence and avoid judging participants’ responses, as per the facilitator trainings provided by the Summit team. A key aspect of the workshop was to gather children’s insights in an enabling environment so we can better understand what matters to them - remembering to respect that there are no right or wrong answers, as per the Principles of Engagement. A more detailed description of specific activities which reflect these Principles can be found in the workshop facilitation manuals which contain guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing creative and participatory activities with diverse children.These core Principles of Engagement are critical to ensure a safe space where all dialogue participants - especially children - can share their experiences, challenges, and visions, in an enabling environment, when it comes to food systems. Children’s opinions and insights are central to any discussion around building healthier and more sustainable food systems, and should be upheld at all times.

NoUNICEF committed to engage with and involve the voice of children and young people to inform the global and national narratives for the transformation of food systems in favor of nutritious, safe, affordable and sustainable diets. UNICEF hosted food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) in 18 countries across seven world regions. To accommodate this younger age group, UNICEF partnered with Western Sydney University (WSU) to adapt the method recommended by the Conveners Reference Manual so that it was more age appropriate. These dialogues used a distributed data generation method pioneered by Young and Resilient Research Centre at WSU in collaboration with UNICEF and other partners. The methodology has successfully been used in several international projects, including three companion reports to the State of the World’s Children (Third et al, 2017; Schmied et al, 2020; Fleming et al 2020). Working with UNICEF country offices, dialogues were conducted in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, UK, Turkey, Indonesia, Guatemala, China, Nepal, Netherlands, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Palestine, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Kenya, and Nigeria with children and adolescents aged 10-19. A set of workshop-based participatory activities were developed to explore children’s experiences of food poverty and climate change on their diets, with a focus on documenting children’s calls to action to underpin changes to their food systems. Workshops were rooted in the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and were implemented by trained representatives of UNICEF Country Offices and facilitating partners. The team developed a comprehensive workshop facilitation manual containing guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing a series of creative and participatory activities with diverse children. WSU trained facilitators to implement two or more workshops per country dialogue with children and adolescents aged 10-19. Workshops engaged children from a variety of socio-economic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. During the workshop-based dialogues, children worked in small groups to complete a series of fun and interactive activities designed to capture their experiences of food and the challenges to food systems. Activities included drawing, mapping, group brainstorming, and discussion. The activities explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change focusing on understanding how they view the importance of food in their lives, mapping their food systems and what barriers or vulnerabilities they experience with in their food systems and what actions they can take to reduce the impact of food systems on the changing climate. Finally, the workshops provided children with the opportunity to voice what they see needs to change so that everyone can eat nutritious food without harming the environment. Dialogues were implemented using online virtual workshops in Nepal. Online workshops used Zoom and Miro boards (an online whiteboarding tool). Activities as described in the UN Food Systems, workshop manual (digital version) were followed during the dialogue process with adolescents. Once completed, workshop responses in English were uploaded to a secure data facility. Data were coded using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques. The findings provided here uphold this child-centered approach. Children voiced that they enjoyed the fact that the workshops were an opportunity for the participants to express themselves and share their opinions. This is reflected in comments captured below by participants during the workshops. ‘The meeting was fruitful, and you listened to our voices. 'We had fun! I can speak what’s in my mind freely. 'Got the opportunity of expressing ourselves, which is also our right’ The methodology - including child safeguarding processes - was approved by the Western Sydney University Human Ethics Committee (# H14363).

234238239240241242243244247248249251The workshop-based dialogues explored children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and lived experiences of their food systems, focusing on the issues of food poverty and climate change. Each country participating in the workshop-based dialogues conducted a minimum of two workshops with different participants; one workshop focused on food poverty and the other on climate change, enabling deep exploration of topics in the time available. Naturally, these topics and their discussions cut across all five Action Tracks. Workshop-based dialogues explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change through the following activities: Activity 1: This activity aims to surface what children think about food and what food means to them, this activity explores What children find appealing about food and what their aspirations are around eating to help inform aspects of food choice within their own food environments and systems. Children create a ‘food cloud’ by writing or typing foods they like and dislike. Activities 2 & 3: To explore their food systems, children drew a map of how food arrives on their plate, marking where their food is grown, how it is transported, and where it is bought and consumed. They then map the constraints in their food systems, as they relate to food poverty and climate change, and propose solutions to these constraints. Activity 4: This activity explores how children want to engage with these issues. Children were asked to explore what different people can do to help make sure that the foods we eat don’t negatively impact the environment. Using a series of different levels of circles from individual through to community and national levels of governance what actions can be taken in their food systems to create positive change? Activity 5: This activity generates children’s calls to action to address the impacts of food poverty and climate change on their food systems. Children write a leader to their leaders, outlining their call for change. Workshops concluded with a plenary discussion to draw our key insights. These workshops enabled children to contribute their insights and perspectives to the ongoing debates across all action tracks. They discussed challenges and proposed how to enhance their access to safe nutritious foods. They identified barriers to sustainable consumption patterns in their communities and suggested ways to shift behaviors. They identified that young people have a vital role to play in boosting positive production which, in turn, will contribute to more equitable livelihoods. And they called on governments to take concrete action to support vulnerable communities and to build the resilience and a brighter future for all children and adolescents around the world.235238239240241242243244247248249251Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. They described food as being delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely associated bitterness, excessive sweetness, and perception of unhealthy when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children reported price as the key barrier; these desirable foods were simply too expensive for them to regularly include in their diets. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and over representation of highly processed foods (high in fat/sugar) and under-representation of healthy food options also a factor. Some children reported being able to choose the food they ate, but some could not, due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking and meal provision. ‘Something that makes happy and gives energy.’ Challenges to Food Systems One core activity in the consultations was food mapping. Children mapped a food system around them, visualizing how food moved from the farm to the plate. Overall children demonstrated a deep understanding of food production, especially when it was a local staple food or meal. Children then reflected on what the vulnerabilities or weak points in these systems were. The main vulnerability voiced by the children was poor availability of food. Poor availability was due to minimal stock in the markets, distance from the farming areas, and problems with food distribution. Access to food is also significantly affected by poverty and disruption to food production by season/natural disaster. Another predominant concern was the poor quality of food due to water pollution, use of artificial fertilisers, and unhygienic market conditions. These concerns highlight once again how interconnected food systems are, with economic (e.g. high food prices) and environmental (e.g. flooding, low crop yields) frequently overlapping. ‘Less production in farms, lack of quality plants/seeds.’ Strengthening Food Systems Children completed activities designed to provide concrete suggestions for change at different levels of society, from family to community, industry, and government. They also wrote a “postcard to the President,” outlining key changes that need to happen and how children could input into these shifts. Many children saw potential in empowering communities to grow their own produce and learn more about sustainability. Farms and farming also emerged as a frequent theme, with children suggesting it should be promoted as a vocation and supported with financial incentives and training. Proximity of both food production and food consumption, as mentioned above, was a key concern. In response, children stressed that farms and markets should be local and accessible, moving from ‘far away to being close’. Many of the childrens’ suggestions strongly link food security with food autonomy: import less, regulate more, and invest seriously in local farms and infrastructure, producing enough cheap, nutritious food for all. ‘Government should provide easy loan for the farmers who want to start business.’236238239240241242243244247248249251At the end of the workshop, the children engaged in a whole-group plenary discussion, where we asked them the key messages they wanted to convey to the UN. Overall, children felt the UN was responsible for ensuring food security, environmental preservation and ensuring equality. This was tied to understanding people’s difficulties, with special consideration for places and groups that experience greater insecurity and marginalization. The UN was also seen as an entity responsible for collaborating globally to bring about social change. Four key themes emerged from our workshops: 1. Education: the UN should teach people about climate change, environmental protection, recycling, food systems; it should raise awareness of food inequality and show people the benefits of nutritious and sustainable practices, like eating seasonally “further promote socialization about climate change, the food systems, and the 2030 SDGs, so that the world community is more aware of the condition of the earth” 2. Inclusion: the UN should listen to young people, create offline (e.g. forums) and online (e.g. platforms) spaces for them to share their views, collaborate with them, and involve them as government intermediaries “I hope UN continues to invite youths from various countries to participate in every activity because youths are the future leaders of nations. Let youths learn how to protect the world” 3. Regulation: the UN should regulate food production, establishing laws to tackle global warming, keeping food producers accountable, auditing programs to ensure compliance, addressing plastic and deforestation, and controlling chemicals/pesticides “UN intervention to countries must be more aggressive. For example, an international Environmental Impact Analysis seems to need to be agreed. Auditing food producers must be conducted from upstream to downstream.” 4. Support: the UN should support sustainable food production, strengthening infrastructure, enhancing distribution, and implementing programs that make food more affordable and accessible, especially for those most impacted by food poverty and climate change (e.g. indigenous communities) “support access to nutritious foods for low-income and vulnerable population”, “defend the rights of indigenous people”, “strengthen the supply chain of foods”237238239240241242243244247248249251Overall children were in agreement about the strengths and vulnerabilities of food systems, how to improve food sustainability, the issues that needed addressing, and the stakeholders that should be focused on. There were certainly different focal points. For example, some children focused on financial and educational support for farmers, while others focused on government legislation around food safety and food systems. But ultimately, we see these as overlapping and supplementary, rather than divergent. To make food systems more sustainable and nutritious, a holistic approach will be needed involving a broad range of different actors and interventions. In Nepal, the area of divergence that emerged during the Food System Dialogue with adolescents are as follows: (1) Food Poverty Focus: Participants of the group expressed their divergent thoughts that price of nutritious and healthy food is not the only vulnerability in the sustainable food system, rather low level of awareness among end user for certain type of nutritious and healthy food (e.g. Ground Apple) is also another vulnerability. So, programmes focusing on building awareness of nutritious and healthy food is required for creating sustainable food system. (2) Climate Change Focus: The increase selection and consumption of highly processed and packaged foods is contributing to waste and pollution. Participants of the FSS dialogue with adolescents suggested to develop taxation policy that helps in promoting only nutritious and healthy food. Most adolescents expressed promotion of traditional foods (food plate including pulse/ legume, cereals, and fruit & vegetables) that are nutritious and healthy, and which are less likely to contribute to waste.

2021-09-07 13:09:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31374/98153189

9106223652381512231513233121233713596112476

The content was designed to contribute to the Summit's agenda as well as give the youth a voice. Opening remarks by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to the UNFSS and the young President of the Pan African Farmer Organization set the scene for a solution-oriented conversation testifying to the UNFSS commitment to empowering youth as changemakers. We recognized the main audience was rural youth therefore we intentionally addressed the complexity of topics to be discussed by inviting young leaders to introduce each discussion item with an inspiring intervention during the plenary, whereby they shared their firsthand experiences and lessons learned about what works for youth inclusion in food systems. This helped frame the thematic topics and set the pace of the group discussions that followed later where the young participants addressed key issues, promising solutions, and key recommendations. We recognized the complexity of youth challenges and role in agri-food system, as well as their heterogeneity, therefore we embraced multistakeholder inclusivity by inviting rural youth from diverse backgrounds and geographies: representatives of rural youth networks, leaders in farmer and youth in agribusiness organizations, diaspora youth, and young policymakers, along with regional representatives from the global UNFSS youth movement. The content was designed by our partners Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the East African Farmers Federation. We also received great support from the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) through their contribution of facilitators for the dialogue's focus group discussions.Commitment to the Summit and acting with urgency The dialogue was a means to have rural youth voices heard and key members of the UNFSS (United Nations Food Systems Summit) Advisory Committee were invited and committed to bring those youth experiences and recommendations up to the global Summit. On the other hand, the African Youth Agripreneurs (AYA platform) as a dialogue convenor, gathered the youth insights and recommendations as a basis to develop youth-tailored services in the short-medium term. Respectfulness Facilitators ensured that everyone had the chance to express his/her opinion and all participants listened attentively and built upon the input of others for collective sense-making. Building on the work of others A key role in the dialogue was played by keynote speakers and facilitators who were all youth selected for their relevant work, expertise, and/or advocacy role in agri-food systems. The event was a wonderful opportunity for participants to expand their network and build long-lasting connections both through the AYA platform and independently. Building trust The dialogue aimed to create a 'safe space' where youth could feel free to share ideas, concerns, or recommendations with their peers in a non-judgmental environment. Convenors and curators acted as mere facilitators and will continue to nurture such neutral spaces for rural youth to freely network, share and peer exchange.Encourage convenors to follow up the discussion and action plan discussed after the dialogue. This provides a sense of accountability among all the stakeholders involved, increasing a chance of success overall.

Yes

234241245246248249251The focus of the dialogue was to create dedicated venues for young people, particularly East African rural youth have their say, collectively set their agenda, and suggest their pathway towards more equitable and youth-friendly food systems. The dialogue adopted a gender and inclusivity lens to address the specific needs and priorities of young rural women and men. The dialogue achieved the following outcomes: 1. Community: Young agripreneurs, rural youth networks, and youth-serving organizations across East Africa were meaningfully engaged to share experiences, lessons learned, and solutions for youth inclusion in agri-food systems. 2. Advocacy: Voices of young rural women and men raised, and visibility given to their transformative role in agri-food systems. 3. Youth-led policy agenda: Recommendations and priority actions identified to strengthen youth agency as changemakers and builders of resilient and sustainable agri-food systems, with a focus on inclusivity and gender equality. The identified promising solutions/priority action areas and policy recommendations were on the following topics: 1. Networking and digital engagement 2. Access to finance and business support services 3. Gender equality and inclusivity 4. Accountability and political participation235241242243245246248249251There is a big capacity gap when getting into agriculture, especially across different value chain touchpoints and more importantly knowledge on policy. One of the actions stakeholders will take together is to deepen their engagement efforts with the youth to ensure access to information about agricultural policies and legal regulations is further deepened. The importance of forming new alliances among many organizations that work with young people to raise youth voices and initiate collective action was further stressed. Below are key priority action areas we identified: a) Set up networking opportunities that accommodate women’s needs (e.g., the timing of meetings) and be accessible in networks and rural settings their existing social networks (e.g., Chama in Kenya) can be leveraged. b) Create stronger farmer associations to be able to keep governments accountable, become aware of current legislation to be able to influence policies and regulations. c) Organizations running agripreneurship programs have dedicated calls for young women. This perspective boosts young women's participation in project calls/applications, therefore, giving priority to them. d) Increase knowledge access of existing policies, the art of policymaking, and advocacy through translation to local languages.236241242243248251Topic 1: Networking and digital engagement Below are some of the key issues highlighted by the youth with proposed solutions, priority action areas, and policy recommendations. Challenges highlighted: a) Capacity gap among youth running agribusiness b) Young people scattered in several digital platforms instead of a one-stop-shop. c) Gender digital gap and information asymmetry d) Farmers face difficulties in getting organized to have access to information about agricultural policies and legal regulations. Identified priority action areas for youth inclusion in networking and digital engagement: a) Peer-to-peer learning is a key solution to close the capacity gap among the youth. Digital platforms that encourage such activities are central to ensuring more youth have access to information that directly contributes to the growth of their businesses. Also, a well-encompassing platform that builds alliances among many organizations that work with young people to initiate collective action was found necessary. b) Encourage platforms to act as a broker between the youth and finance service providers will address the need for youth-tailored financial support. c) Create stronger farmer associations to be able to keep governments accountable, become aware of current legislation to influence policies and regulations. Examples included the social media tax bill in Uganda which negatively affected youth's access to digital technologies.236240241242243244245246248251Topic 2: Access to finance and business support services Challenges highlighted: a) Not all youth have professional knowledge needed and most of them are not professionally organized which is a requirement to access the right financing-Experts are needed to meet diverse types of training that will prepare youth to access the support services and relevant financing b) Lack of experience in business management (e.g., audited accounts) and businesses not having stable incomes which is usually a requirement to access financing c) Lack of proper documentation like formal registration, business plan preparation, tax compliance. There is a need for innovative financing mechanisms. d) Wrong socialization regarding access to finance - Youth do not think of going to a bank as they have been told that banks will not attend to their needs. We need training to change the mentality of youth. Demystify the process of getting access to financing e) Cost of production/manufacturing is extremely high: Cost of labour: from lack of qualified labour force or high turnover after training your own labour force. The cost of logistics: transportation costs are high hence affecting margins which have an implication on loan qualification. Lack of Access to the right inputs, and where available they are expensive. f) Climate change: extreme weather change increases instances of droughts, floods, pests which raises the risk profile of the agricultural sector. Identified priority action areas for youth inclusion in financial access: a) Institutions from GOVTs to NGOs (non-governmental organizations) need to champion access to factors of production for the youth agripreneurs. Youth lack access to factors of production - capital, land, etc. b) Develop Incubation centers for the youth: this helps the youth convert ideas to bankable businesses. The setting of such incubation centers is of paramount importance. Incubation facilities with value-adding capacity need to be made available to the youth as shared services where youth get user rights based on their needs. Also, access to business development services is key to helping them structure their agribusinesses formally. c) Train youth to be innovative, develop capacity, in the following areas: formalize businesses, production (using the right inputs and production techniques), keep records of production and access to markets etc. Value addition to increasing the value of goods and manage changes in climate. Youth need to give farming the attention it requires and stop doing it a side hustle. Make farming the main hustle. d) All stakeholders in the agri-food systems working with youth need to prioritize financial literacy - most youth lack financial literacy skills which prevent them from accessing available financing. e) Embracing mechanization - the initial cost outlay is high though the long-term benefits are clear. There is a need to have specialized financial products to address this. f) Collaboration and aggregation among youth farmers in the same sector to be able to achieve economies of scale to enable access to good market prices, reduce the cost of logistics and meet market demands. We recommend the financial institutions, governments, and policymakers to help increase access to funding and business support services in the following capacities: a) Avail forums where there is the exchange of information between financial institutions and the youth. Platforms like AYA (African Youth Agripreneurs) are a powerful tool to facilitate such an engagement. b) Set up a guarantee fund to help de-risk lending to the youth. c) Govt to fund, develop and/or subsidize sectors that serve agribusiness - e.g. cost of diesel, good roads, reducing taxes on transport vehicles, etc. d) Development and promotion of cottage industries where youth agripreneurs can do value addition and light manufacturing.236238241242246247249251Topic 3: Gender equality and inclusivity Challenges highlighted: a) Domestic work burden preventing young women meaningful engagement b) Registration of agribusiness enterprises by youth is important for them to be recognized. c) Focus sometimes too strong on women, men are forgotten in the gender discussion – but need to be educated on gender issues as well. d) Lack of strong record-keeping and savings, guidance is needed on how to do monthly savings and establish record keeping. Identified priority action areas for youth inclusion in gender equality and inclusivity: a) For agripreneurship support project/program, it would be great to have dedicated calls for young women. This perspective boosts young women's participation in project calls/applications, therefore, giving priority to them. b) Men need to be educated on gender issues and be involved in such discussions from the onset. c) Networks and groups that are formed need good governance that focuses on strengthening women in leadership/ raise capacity for leadership, especially of women. d) Provide support at the district/ parish level for women (and youth as well). This puts youth and women in the center because they are the main pillar of our community. We recommend financial institutions, governments, and policymakers to help improve gender equality and inclusivity in the following capacities: a) Property and land ownership among women. Work on the negative impacts of cultural beliefs; educate and strengthen them.236241242243246249251Topic 4: Accountability and political participation Below are some of the key issues highlighted by the youth with proposed solutions, priority action areas, and policy recommendations. Challenges highlighted: a) Corruption b) Lack of policies on utilization of available land (idle land) c) Restrictions to inter Africa Trade (Non-supporting policies) d) Lack of focus on youth-centered policies e) Lack of structure among rural youth in their respective local groups. f) Lack of transparency in government's activities with the youth. g) Lack of capacity building on policy: policy formulation and implementation. Identified priority action areas for youth inclusion in gender equality and inclusivity: a) Government's activities with the youth need to be more transparent. To advocate for this, the youth need to have clear work plans for the different formal groups and good partnerships with relevant institutions to give them more weight in their advocacy efforts against the government. b) Youth to be educated on policies pertaining to land ownership and usage of land (i.e idle land), value chain regulations, inputs, and services. c) Capacity building on policy: policy formulation and implementation. d) Increase knowledge access of existing policies, the art of policymaking, and advocacy through translation to local languages.237None

2021-09-08 03:13:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43231/88

847113186684

UNICEF’s food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) had to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual to make the process more age appropriate for younger audiences. Despite these amendments, all the Principles of Engagement were upheld. These core tenants are also critical in the implementation of a child-centered approach, which relies on participation, inclusivity, respect, diversity, and curating a safe space to share an array of lived experiences.Activities were designed to safeguard the interest of children and allow participants to freely explore ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions were deliberately broad and open to interpretation, like the discussion questions provided in the Convenors Reference Manual. Facilitators were trained to limit their influence and avoid judging participants’ responses, as per the facilitator trainings provided by the Summit team. A key aspect of the workshop was to gather children’s insights in an enabling environment so we can better understand what matters to them - remembering to respect that there are no right or wrong answers, as per the Principles of Engagement. A more detailed description of specific activities which reflect these Principles can be found in the workshop facilitation manuals which contain guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing creative and participatory activities with diverse children.These core Principles of Engagement are critical to ensure a safe space where all dialogue participants - especially children - can share their experiences, challenges, and visions, in an enabling environment, when it comes to food systems. Children’s opinions and insights are central to any discussion around building healthier and more sustainable food systems, and should be upheld at all times.

NoUNICEF committed to engage with and involve the voice of children and young people to inform the global and national narratives for the transformation of food systems in favor of nutritious, safe, affordable and sustainable diets. UNICEF hosted food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) in 18 countries across seven world regions. To accommodate this younger age group, UNICEF partnered with Western Sydney University (WSU) to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual so that it was more age appropriate. These dialogues used a distributed data generation method pioneered by Young and Resilient Research Centre at WSU in collaboration with UNICEF and other partners. The methodology has successfully been used in several international projects, including three companion reports to the State of the World’s Children (Third et al, 2017; Schmied et al, 2020; Fleming et al 2020). Working with UNICEF country offices, dialogues were conducted in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, UK, Turkey, Indonesia, Guatemala, China, Nepal, Netherlands, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Palestine, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Kenya, and Nigeria with children and adolescents aged 10-19. A set of workshop-based participatory activities were developed to explore children’s experiences of food poverty and climate change on their diets, with a focus on documenting children’s calls to action to underpin changes to their food systems. Workshops were rooted in the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and were implemented by trained representatives of UNICEF Country Offices and facilitating partners. The team developed a comprehensive workshop facilitation manual containing guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing a series of creative and participatory activities with diverse children. WSU trained facilitators to implement two or more workshops per country dialogue with children and adolescents aged 10-19. Workshops engaged children from a variety of socio-economic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. During the workshop-based dialogues, children worked in small groups to complete a series of fun and interactive activities designed to capture their experiences of food and the challenges to food systems. Activities included drawing, mapping, group brainstorming, and discussion. The activities explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change focusing on understanding how they view the importance of food in their lives, mapping their food systems and what barriers or vulnerabilities they experience with in their food systems and what actions they can take to reduce the impact of food systems on the changing climate. Finally, the workshops provided children with the opportunity to voice what they see needs to change so that everyone can eat nutritious food without harming the environment. Dialogues were implemented either face-to-face or online. Online workshops used Zoom and Miro boards (an online whiteboarding tool). The face-to-face version used a classic workshop setup in a single room with tables, markers, and paper-based worksheets. Activities were identical for both versions. Though most workshops were held online to comply with national pandemic-related restrictions, those that were held face-to-face followed national pandemic-related safety protocols. Once completed, if necessary, workshop responses were translated from the local language to English and uploaded to a secure data facility. Data were coded using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques. The findings provided here uphold this child-centered approach. Children voiced that they enjoyed the fact that the workshops were an opportunity for the participants to express themselves and share their opinions. This is reflected in comments captured below by participants during the workshops. ‘The meeting was fruitful, and you listened to our voices. The methodology - including child safeguarding processes - was approved by the Western Sydney University Human Ethics Committee (# H14363).

234238239240241242243244247248249251The workshop-based dialogues explored children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and lived experiences of their food systems, focusing on the issues of food poverty and climate change. Each country participating in the workshop-based dialogues conducted a minimum of two workshops with different participants; one workshop focused on food poverty and the other on climate change, enabling deep exploration of topics in the time available. Naturally, these topics and their discussions cut across all five Action Tracks. Workshop-based dialogues explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change through the following activities: Activity 1: This activity aims to surface what children think about food and what food means to them, this activity explores What children find appealing about food and what their aspirations are around eating to help inform aspects of food choice within their own food environments and systems. Children create a ‘food cloud’ by writing or typing foods they like and dislike. Activities 2 & 3: To explore their food systems, children drew a map of how food arrives on their plate, marking where their food is grown, how it is transported, and where it is bought and consumed. They then map the constraints in their food systems, as they relate to food poverty and climate change, and propose solutions to these constraints. Activity 4: This activity explores how children want to engage with these issues. Children were asked to explore what different people can do to help make sure that the foods we eat don’t negatively impact the environment. Using a series of different levels of circles from individual through to community and national levels of governance what actions can be taken in their food systems to create positive change? Activity 5: This activity generates children’s calls to action to address the impacts of food poverty and climate change on their food systems. Children write a leader to their leaders, outlining their call for change. Workshops concluded with a plenary discussion to draw our key insights. These workshops enabled children to contribute their insights and perspectives to the ongoing debates across all action tracks. They discussed challenges and proposed how to enhance their access to safe nutritious foods. They identified barriers to sustainable consumption patterns in their communities and suggested ways to shift behaviors. They identified that young people have a vital role to play in boosting positive production which, in turn, will contribute to more equitable livelihoods. And they called on governments to take concrete action to support vulnerable communities and to build the resilience and a brighter future for all children and adolescents around the world.235238239240241242243244247248249251Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However, many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. Food was delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. These responses suggest that food for children is a mix of the material and the aspirational. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely aspects like bitterness, smell, and unhealthiness when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children often focused on price; these desirable foods were simply too expensive. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and health effects (too much fat/sugar) also a factor. Some children could choose the food they ate, but some could not, whether due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking. ‘[Food] strengthens the body's immunity when you have exercised, or are taking a short break to continue sports activities.’ Challenges to Food Systems One core activity in the consultations was food mapping. Children mapped a food system around them, visualizing how food moved from the farm to the plate. Overall children demonstrated a deep understanding of food production, especially when it was a local staple food or meal. Children then reflected on what the vulnerabilities or weak points in these systems were. The main vulnerability voiced by the children was poor availability of food. Poor availability was due to minimal stock in the markets, distance from the farming areas, and problems with food distribution. Access to food is also significantly affected by poverty and disruption to food production by season/natural disaster. Another predominant concern was the poor quality of food due to water pollution, use of artificial fertilisers, and unhygienic market conditions. These concerns highlight once again how interconnected food systems are, with economic (e.g. high food prices) and environmental (e.g. flooding, low crop yields) frequently overlapping. ‘The ocean is contaminated and climate change. And inappropriate cooking method will contain pathogen Strengthening Food Systems Children completed activities designed to provide concrete suggestions for change at different levels of society, from family to community, industry, and government. They also wrote a “postcard to the President,” outlining key changes that need to happen and how children could input into these shifts. Many children saw potential in empowering communities to grow their own produce and learn more about sustainability. Farms and farming also emerged as a frequent theme, with children suggesting it should be promoted as a vocation and supported with financial incentives and training. Proximity of both food production and food consumption, as mentioned above, was a key concern. In response, children stressed that farms and markets should be local and accessible, moving from ‘far away to being close’. Many of the children’ suggestions strongly link food security with food autonomy: import less, regulate more, and invest seriously in local farms and infrastructure, producing enough cheap, nutritious food for all. ‘We think that the government needs to reduce import quotas, provide subsidies, training and rewards to local farmers so that they can survive and thrive.’236238239240241242243244247248249251At the end of the workshop, the children engaged in a whole-group plenary discussion, where we asked them the key messages they wanted to convey to the UN. Overall, children felt the UN was responsible for ensuring food security, environmental preservation and ensuring equality. This was tied to understanding people’s difficulties, with special consideration for places and groups that experience greater insecurity and marginalization. The UN was also seen as an entity responsible for collaborating globally to bring about social change. Four key themes emerged from our workshops: 1. Education: the UN should teach people about climate change, environmental protection, recycling, food systems; it should raise awareness of food inequality and show people the benefits of nutritious and sustainable practices, like eating seasonally “further promote socialization about climate change, the food systems, and the 2030 SDGs, so that the world community is more aware of the condition of the earth” 2. Inclusion: the UN should listen to young people, create offline (e.g. forums) and online (e.g. platforms) spaces for them to share their views, collaborate with them, and involve them as government intermediaries “I hope UN continues to invite youths from various countries to participate in every activity because youths are the future leaders of nations. Let youths learn how to protect the world” 3. Regulation: the UN should regulate food production, establishing laws to tackle global warming, keeping food producers accountable, auditing programs to ensure compliance, addressing plastic and deforestation, and controlling chemicals/pesticides “UN intervention to countries must be more aggressive. For example, an international Environmental Impact Analysis seems to need to be agreed. Auditing food producers must be conducted from upstream to downstream.” 4. Support: the UN should support sustainable food production, strengthening infrastructure, enhancing distribution, and implementing programs that make food more affordable and accessible, especially for those most impacted by food poverty and climate change (e.g. indigenous communities) “support access to nutritious foods for low-income and vulnerable population”, “defend the rights of indigenous people”, “strengthen the supply chain of foods”237238239240241242243244247248249251[WSU statement] Overall children were in agreement about the strengths and vulnerabilities of food systems, how to improve food sustainability, the issues that needed addressing, and the stakeholders that should be focused on. There were certainly different focal points. For example, some children focused on financial and educational support for farmers, while others focused on government legislation around food safety and food systems. But ultimately, we see these as overlapping and supplementary, rather than divergent. To make food systems more sustainable and nutritious, a holistic approach will be needed involving a broad range of different actors and interventions. [Country officers/facilitators statement] During the discussions, facilitators did not observe any prominent disagreement and/or opposing positions among participants. Their ideas were rather supplementary to one another and thus, provide a more comprehensive understanding of how adolescents perceived food systems in Indonesia. Different opinions on challenges occurring in each step of food systems were mainly due to the difference in adolescents’ living situations. However, we don’t see this as divergence, but a good depiction of the heterogeneity in challenges faced by Indonesia’s food systems.

2021-09-08 13:48:01205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43470/117

34131731191535124431531213381434

Organization of each RMI National Dialogue incorporated and reinforced the Summit Principles in a number of ways. All organizing team members were made aware of the Principles through the sharing of relevant materials, and these were borne in mind throughout the organization and execution of the Dialogues. Specifically, the RMI is a country on the front lines of climate change like few others, and one that very clearly recognizes the need to act swiftly with regards to sustainable development. This awareness of the need for action in specific relation to the nation’s food systems was integral to the organization of the National Food Systems Dialogues. The Dialogues were planned with an array of local stakeholders, ensuring that local culture and context was at the core of their planning, design and execution. The range of invitees reflects the recognized complexity of food systems in the RMI. Dialogue invitees were drawn from a cross-section of RMI society, including not only government officials from relevant agencies, but local farmers and fisherfolk, those involved in the buying and selling of foods for commercial and other purposes (e.g., institutional caterers), health professionals and NPO/NGO personnel. All dialogues were conducted in the context of current policies and legislation, and of previous and current relevant projects and initiatives. This was ensured through the delivery of relevant presentations preceding discussions at each Dialogue. Transparency has been central to the organization of the Dialogues, with the intent of the Dialogues and outputs from them clearly communicated to all invitees and attendees. Dialogue discussions were structured in such a way as to provide all attendees with a safe space to share their knowledge, perspectives and ideas.Execution of the RMI National Nutrition, Health and Food Safety Dialogue reflects the Principles in various specific ways. Commitment to the Summit was evident in the number of attendees and their engagement in the discussions being held; a wide range of perspectives were shared, and all were recorded. All discussions were held respectfully, with individuals given the space and time to share their points of view; this was the case in the smaller discussion groups and in the plenary group. In terms of the recognition of the complexity of food systems and how these relate to the issues of human health, nutrition and food safety, this was communicated via a detailed opening presentation, and was reflected in the diversity of attendees, which also reflects that the Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. In terms of complementing the work of others, the Dialogue allowed varied stakeholders to share their activities with a wide audience, with the potential to increase awareness of these and open doors for new collaborations. Finally, the outputs of the Dialogue are those of the group as a whole, with no attribution to any given individual, reinforcing the Principle of building trust.The planning and organization of the Dialogues, both in terms of their content and execution, were conducted with an understanding and appreciation of the Summit Principles. Planning the Dialogues centered around the specific needs of the RMI with topics and meeting styles initially developed to be locally relevant and appropriate. Dialogue plans were subsequently cross-checked with the Summit Principles to ensure their incorporation. In this way, national priorities were placed at the center of Dialogue planning to ensure they were meaningful and valuable, while the Summit Principles provided an underlying guide to support the development of Dialogues that responded to them.

NoThe organizing team developed three 3-hour RMI National Food System Dialogues. These focussed on a) Green Food Systems, b) Nutrition, Health and Food Safety and c) Blue Food Systems. All three Dialogues were conducted in the week of 23rd August 2021. The decision to conduct the Dialogues in this way was based upon an in-depth understanding of the current national food systems and their associated priorities, as well as the capacity of individuals to attend the Dialogues. The Dialogues were organized by the RMI national-level convener at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Commerce, supported by a team of consultants, relevant stakeholders from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Commerce, the Ministry of Health and Human Services and the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority to guide the individual Dialogues, and personnel from the Resident Coordinator Office in the Pacific. The development process involved in-depth collaborations and discussions between all team members to ensure all aspects of the Dialogues, from discussion content to logistical aspects, were comprehensively planned and efficiently executed. Three invitee lists were developed to reflect the content of the individual Dialogues. Invitees ranged from national-level government personnel to members of civil society engaged in different aspects of the food systems of the RMI. This enabled discussions to engage a range of people from those responsible for guiding national policy to those impacted by such policies. Prior to the Dialogues, invitees received an official invitation, a copy of the Dialogue agenda, relevant materials and a link to an electronic attendance form. Printed attendance forms were also provided at the Dialogues to ensure full completion and submission by all participants. Each dialogue presented the relevant national context in terms of the current status of food systems and the impacts of these in terms of economy, environment and social and human health, policies and legislation in place that relate to these systems and impacts, and examples of past or current innovations of relevance, including government-led, NGO-led, and individual-led initiatives. Discussions in each Dialogue were focussed around five key topics (specific to each Dialogue), with discussions under each topic guided by a number of key questions. These topics and questions were drafted by members of the organizing team and validated by the wider team, with particular input from national experts and relevant ministerial personnel. All topics were cross-checked against the Summit Action Tracks to ensure all Action Tracks were sufficiently incorporated into each Dialogue. The five discussion topics that formed the Nutrition, Health and Food Safety Dialogue comprised 1) The food we produce, 2) The food we eat, 3) Education/awareness, 4) Resilience and vulnerability, and 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19. Dialogue discussions were structured in a way to ensure all stakeholders had the opportunity to have their voices heard. Discussions were held in small ‘breakout’ groups, helping to prevent individuals from dominating the discussion. Feedback was then delivered by each group in the plenary setting, allowing for the sharing of all ideas and perspectives and affording the opportunity for additional comments and discussion as a single group. The Dialogues were structured to allow both in-room participation and online participation. This enabled the Dialogues to be accessible to as broad a group of stakeholders as possible, providing access both to stakeholders across the country (the RMI being an archipelagic nation including some 24 inhabited atolls) and to those for whom online access may not be possible.

234238239240241242244247248249251A 2018 Hybrid Survey examining non-communicable diseases identified that only 6.5% of adults in RMI eat a diet consisting only or mainly of local foods, with 37.4% eating mainly imported foods and 37.4% eating a balance of imported and local foods. Almost all adults eat less than the recommended five servings of fruit and vegetables per day. This report also identified that 27% of adults have diabetes, with a further 21% having pre-diabetes, and over 70% of adults are overweight or obese. A rapid scan of the RMI agriculture/nutrition nexus conducted in 2018 indicated that at least 90% of the RMI food supply chain is made up of imported goods. This document reports that numerous diet-related health issues have become prevalent in the RMI, including 35% of children between 48 and 59 months of age having stunted growth. The RMI Food Security Policy 2013 has as its goal “To ensure access to nutritious, quality, safe and affordable food for all Marshallese people at all times.” Five strategic action areas support this goal and broadly include stimulating sustainable local food production, strengthening access to nutritious food, education, facilitating efficient food distribution and building safety, quality and resilience food supply and production. In terms of food safety, an FAO Technical Cooperation Programme Strengthened Food Control in the Republic of the Marshall Islands was established in 2014. A 2017 mission under this program identified that, at that time, limited capacity and coordination between relevant agencies meant that the 2010 Food Act was not being effectively implemented. There were no food inspectors, and a responsibilities were being shared across agencies. Within this context, the National Nutrition, Health and Food Safety Dialogue explored the following five key topics: 1) The food we produce Questions to guide this discussion focussed on the contribution of locally produced foods to nutrition security and the factors limiting local food productions and manufacture. 2) The food we eat Questions to guide this discussion focussed on whether commonly eaten foods contribute to a nutritious diet, food preferences, and the issues related to local food production and accessibility of local foods. 3) Education/awareness Questions to guide this discussion focussed on activities to support production of local, healthy foods, the contributing factors to diet-related health problems and food safety systems and polices. 4) Resilience and vulnerability Questions to guide this discussion focussed on social inclusion in a nutritious food system, economic support for healthy, nutritious food production and sale, and policies and strategies to address inequity related to the accessibility of nutritious foods. 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19 Questions to guide this discussion focussed on the impact of COVID-19 on the food system and how such impacts can be addressed.235238239240241242243244245248249251The main findings from the RMI Nutrition, Health and Food Safety Dialogue are presented under the five topic areas. 1) The food we produce There are few farmers in the RMI, and the soil is too poor for extensive agriculture. There are some home gardens, but local food production is not contributing enough to nutrition security. The Canvasback Wellness Center is introducing box farming to rural and urban communities. Efforts are made to transport locally grown foods from the outer atolls to Majuro, but foods are limited to coconut, breadfruit and pandanus, local varieties of which are seasonal. The issue is one of scale; it is possible for individuals to be self-sufficient, but not enough is grown for consistent supply to markets and there is a reliance on imported foods. It is recognized, however, that increasing local food production will help deal with food-safety issues specific to transportation. Fish is abundant, however, it is often eaten alongside more convenient imported foods, rather than local produce. Ciguatera is a food-safety issue related to fish, particularly those caught near urban areas where development has led to toxic algal blooms. 2) The food we eat Rice and canned goods are the most commonly eater foods in urban and rural communities (where it might be expected that local foods would predominate). Local foods are seen as a luxury. Childhood stunting is more prevalent in rural communities, and there are limits to the coverage of vitamin A and folic acid supplement delivery in these communities. This may be the result of a lack of information about nutrition, limited knowledge on cooking non-seasonal foods, and convenience; cooking local foods is time consuming. More people are eating vegetables, but importing produce is costly and lengthy, with associated food-safety issues. The Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority buys fish from rural fisherfolk to sell in urban areas, and can ensure safety in ways that local transport routes cannot. These fish are often bought up by local restaurants, rather than individuals. There is also a need to consider food safety around school meals, with vendors often producing these in un-monitored domestic environments. Various policies regarding unhealthy foods, agriculture are food safety have been drafted and await endorsement and implementation. 3) Education/awareness There is limited general knowledge about healthy diets and growing and cooking healthy foods. It is recognized that healthy habits start with children, and the youth are one group identified as being potential change makers in terms of diets and nutrition. School gardens are being grown, with some already productive enough for children to take excess produce home. There were plans to build a garden in an outer atoll community to provide food for the local boarding school and the College of the Marshall Islands. The Ridge-to-Reef project has been encouraging the planting of non-seasonal breadfruit, to support year-round supply of traditional, nutritious food. One community-driven awareness activity is a Facebook group for home gardeners in Majuro to share knowledge. Training and resources are provided to support the development of these gardens. Food security is part of the University of the South Pacific Graduate Diploma on Climate Change, and graduate scholarships in Global Environmental Studies at Sophia University, Japan are open to RMI applicants. 4) Resilience and vulnerability It is recognized that farmers may grow enough food to support themselves and sell to neighbors, but production is too small-scale to support national food security. Plans are in place to increase food production on outer islands and increase the self-sufficiency of rural communities, and work is ongoing to in relation to the cultivation of drought and salt tolerant. A UN IOM project to build resilience in outer atoll communities includes home gardening, the intent being to ensure access to sustainable local food supplies. A project to draw up standards for the Public School System agriculture curriculum was started to support food security. Standards focused on reducing poverty and the right to grow and access healthy foods were co-created by a group inclusive of women, youth, elders, and the disabled community, Further funding is needed to complete this work. There has been no assessment of the impact of existing and prior activities to support food security to date. 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19 One major impact of COVID-19 on RMI’s food systems is the lengthening of quarantine for imported foods. While it usually takes around 21 days for importation of goods, this has lengthened to around 30 days for US imports. This has not only had an impact on the flow of goods to market, but also on food safety as food is remaining in transit for longer. Furthermore, the cost of importing foods has risen owing to impacts on global transportation and the reductions in food-related workforces at point-of-origin. As a result, air shipments of goods to supplement the food supply have been commissioned, which are themselves costly. Health and nutrition experts and practitioners are usually international personnel, and so the inability to travel to RMI has negatively impacted this sector.236238239242243244245248249251The RMI National Nutrition, Health and Food Safety Dialogue delivered outcomes in terms of specific ideas and innovations to be implemented to drive change within the RMI food system and also in terms of the recognition of specific needs and challenges that may not have been previously identified. These provide new avenues for consideration and future action. The identified Action Tracks and keywords represent the outcomes as a whole, rather than individual outcomes. 1) The food we produce Increasing and innovating in food production and supporting food safety The timely harvesting and processing of traditional foods, such as breadfruit and pandanuses was considered, with recognition that farmers may have neither the capacity nor equipment to process these foods for sale. This can result in a proportion of harvests going to waste. During the Dialogue a cooperative approach was discussed; one that has been shown to be successful in expanding the market for breadfruit in Hawaii and that may be viable in the RMI. In this system, farmers joining the cooperative are guaranteed a fair price for their crop, with any processing and marketing of goods handled by the cooperative, thus encourage the growth of such crops, reducing crop wastage and providing an opportunity for the development of value-added products. The Dialogue also identified that consumption of sea vegetables, e.g. seaweed, is very uncommon in the RMI. It was also recognized, however, that they present a nutritious and sustainable food source. Exploring sea vegetables as a viable food product was considered worthwhile, recognizing that influencing food preferences can be a long process. Also, the role of school gardens to increase children’s interest in growing and valuing healthy and locally grown foods was raised. The Canvasback Wellness Center, in partnership with the government and local stakeholders such as farmers cooperatives, is moving forward with different programs at the school and family level to implement house/school gardens and healthier diets, including supporting relevant legislation. Identified challenges Specific challenges that were identified as needing addressing included: • The lack of a certified laboratory in the RMI for the testing and labelling of foods for export and domestic consumption • Though growing root crops is recommended, it is not easy owing to soil conditions and high temperatures. There is therefore a need to support farmers with organized education, technology, tools and markets as a route to boosting production • Lack of land, water scarcity and soil conditions are the major identified challenges to growing and accessing fresh foods in the RMI2362382392422432442452482492512) The food we eat Transforming palettes “Transforming palettes” across society, i.e. assimilating novel or less commonly eaten foods into the diet, is necessary, as many people will not have tasted (or know how to prepare) many vegetables. In order to better integrate healthy local foods into people’s diets there is a need to become familiar with their flavors and how to cook them. It is essential that addressing this includes children, as they can be change makers, both influencing their families but also altering societal behaviors as they grow up. Initiatives to introduce vegetables into school meals have shown that children will often push the foods that they are not used to the sides of their plate. Therefore, coming up with recipes that incorporate vegetables in a way that they can’t be separated is necessary. Using the whole plant Developing campaigns to demonstrate how plant leaves can be incorporated into meals is a way to help reduce food waste and incorporate the nutritious and edible parts of plants that may otherwise be ignored into people’s diets. Innovative production Some hydroponics projects have been initiated, with one system intending to grow enough for the local store to incorporate this produce into their takeaway dishes. This type of project shows promise for replication in other localities. Identified challenges Specific challenges that were identified as needing addressing included: • There is a need for focus on programs for schools and young people as many children attending school are not sufficiently fed, and lunch programs currently do not provide adequate nutrition • School meal vendors are often families working in unregulated domestic kitchens, presenting a potential food safety issue that requires addressing • Ciguatera can be a problem. Ongoing, regular monitoring of fish is not currently in places, and this is needed to deal with this issue • Local and healthy foods are usually the more expensive, with many people unable to afford them • Know-how around food preparation and cooking is an issue raised by the participants that limits local food production and the inclusion of healthy foods in everyday diets.2362382392422432442452482492513) Education/awareness Promoting farming as a career Young people do not see agriculture as a viable future career option. There is a need to change this mindset by including agricultural science into the education system. It is recognized that to deliver sufficient agricultural education to a high enough level that will benefit the country as a whole, the offering of specific scholarships will be needed to attract students into the field. Awareness raising opportunities Churches host regular group activities and events where food is provided. Encouraging churches to incorporate healthy local foods into these gives the opportunity not only to provide a healthy meal to people but also to raise awareness about the importance of healthy, nutritious diets. The Summer Youth Convention held annually on Majuro was identified as an opportunity to reach RMI’s youth with educational messages around nutrition and food safety, as well as providing an opportunity to collaborate directly with church and your groups. There is a need to improve awareness of the importance of including healthy foods in everyday meals. The development of a food pyramid in Marshallese to be distributed to households was identified as a way of better communicating balanced, nutritious diets. Furthermore, a program of house-to-house visits would enable direct communication with new mothers with regard to infant nutrition. It was also identified that local governments and the private sector should be encouraged to play a larger role in raising awareness around nutrition and food safety amongst their communities. There are some programs carried out by the Canvasback Wellness Center, in collaboration with the Public School System, to deliver conferences and educational activities (such as cooking demonstrations that include healthy foods) that teachers and families are encouraged to participate in. Funding awareness interventions Resources to support awareness-raising interventions are limited. Discussions during the Dialogue suggested that a portion of funds received via taxation on tobacco could be directed to the Ministry of Health and Human Services to support new and ongoing interventions. Discussion also raised the fact that various pieces of legislation are being considered in relation to unhealthy foods such as high-sugar beverages. Identified challenges Specific challenges that were identified as needing addressing included: • Maintaining interest and awareness around activities driven by government ministries is an ongoing challenge. Programs and interventions require regular revitalization and improved communications • There is a need for greater nutrition expertise to be involved in the initiatives that are carried out by government and the Canvasback Wellness Center.2362382392422432442452482492514) Resilience and vulnerability It is considered that there is a need for government-driven activities, programs and awareness raising to establish an inclusive, healthy food system in the RMI that integrates local foods into markets. Gathering data The recognized lack of data regarding the impact of initiatives run by organizations such as the Taiwan Technical Mission Farm and the Canvasback Wellness Center on the health, nutrition and household welfare needs to be addressed. This requires addressing, and this data gathering should ensure a particular focus on women’s perspectives, being pivotal to family food choices and infant nutrition. Even though RMI have a Quarantine office, government officers need to be better equipped to conduct food safety checks. Identified challenges Specific challenges that were identified as needing addressing included: • The seeds used by initiatives such as the Taiwan Technical Mission Farm are commercialized hybrids that need to be repurchased every year. This general lack of available seeds needs to be addressed, as does the lack of composting, which is vital for improving and fertilizing soils • There is a recognized disparity between the goals and targets in relevant government policies and the on-the-ground activities to achieve those goals. There is, therefore, a need to address the challenge of limited policy implementation.2362382392422432442452482492515) The impact(s) of COVID-19 The food safety concerns that have arisen with the increased transportation times that the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in has led to the need for requests for quarantine protocols to be re-assessed. The impacts on food supply have also led to the recognition that more needs to be done to commercialize locally produced foods and food products.237No specific areas of divergence came to the fore during the Dialogue. The unique geography and environment of the RMI, and the limitations and opportunities that this presents, are well understood by all participants. There were no suggested activities or initiatives that led to a divergence of opinion and participants were cohesive in their views of the priorities related to health, nutrition and food safety in the RMI.

2021-09-08 14:09:24205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43466/117

297182235183134124131342

Organization of each RMI National Dialogue incorporated and reinforced the Summit Principles in a number of ways. All organizing team members were made aware of the Principles through the sharing of relevant materials, and these were borne in mind throughout the organization and execution of the Dialogues. Specifically, the RMI is a country on the front lines of climate change like few others, and one that very clearly recognizes the need to act swiftly with regards to sustainable development. This awareness of the need for action in specific relation to the nation’s food systems was integral to the organization of the National Food Systems Dialogues. The Dialogues were planned with an array of local stakeholders, ensuring that local culture and context was at the core of their planning, design and execution. The range of invitees reflects the recognized complexity of food systems in the RMI. Dialogue invitees were drawn from a cross-section of RMI society, including not only government officials from relevant agencies, but local farmers and fisherfolk, those involved in the buying and selling of foods for commercial and other purposes (e.g., institutional caterers), health professionals and NPO/NGO personnel. All dialogues were conducted in the context of current policies and legislation, and of previous and current relevant projects and initiatives. This was ensured through the delivery of relevant presentations preceding discussions at each Dialogue. Transparency has been central to the organization of the Dialogues, with the intent of the Dialogues and outputs from them clearly communicated to all invitees and attendees. Dialogue discussions were structured in such a way as to provide all attendees with a safe space to share their knowledge, perspectives and ideas.Execution of the RMI National Blue Food Systems Dialogue reflects the Principles in various specific ways. Commitment to the Summit was evident in the number of attendees and their engagement in the discussions being held; a wide range of perspectives were shared, and all were recorded. All discussions were held respectfully, with individuals given the space and time to share their points of view; this was the case in the smaller discussion groups and in the plenary group. In terms of the recognition of the complexity of food systems and how these relate to the issues of human health, nutrition and food safety, this was communicated via a detailed opening presentation, and was reflected in the diversity of attendees, which also reflects that the Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. In terms of complementing the work of others, the Dialogue allowed varied stakeholders to share their activities with a wide audience, with the potential to increase awareness of these and open doors for new collaborations. Finally, the outputs of the Dialogue are those of the group as a whole, with no attribution to any given individual, reinforcing the Principle of building trust.The planning and organization of the Dialogues, both in terms of their content and execution, were conducted with an understanding and appreciation of the Summit Principles. Planning the Dialogues centered around the specific needs of the RMI with topics and meeting styles initially developed to be locally relevant and appropriate. Dialogue plans were subsequently cross-checked with the Summit Principles to ensure their incorporation. In this way, national priorities were placed at the center of Dialogue planning to ensure they were meaningful and valuable, while the Summit Principles provided an underlying guide to support the development of Dialogues that responded to them.

NoThe organizing team developed three 3-hour RMI National Food System Dialogues. These focussed on a) Green Food Systems, b) Nutrition, Health and c) Safety and Blue Food Systems. All three Dialogues were conducted in the week of 23rd August 2021. The decision to conduct the Dialogues in this way was based upon an in-depth understanding of the current national food systems and their associated priorities, as well as the capacity of individuals to attend the Dialogues. The Dialogues were organized by the RMI national-level convener at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Commerce, supported by a team of consultants, relevant stakeholders from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Commerce, the Ministry of Health and Human Services and the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority to guide the individual Dialogues, and personnel from the Resident Coordinator Office in the Pacific. The development process involved in-depth collaborations and discussions between all team members to ensure all aspects of the Dialogues, from discussion content to logistical aspects, were comprehensively planned and efficiently executed. Three invitee lists were developed to reflect the content of the individual Dialogues. Invitees ranged from national-level government personnel to members of civil society engaged in different aspects of the food systems of the RMI. This enabled discussions to engage a range of people from those responsible for guiding national policy to those impacted by such policies. Prior to the Dialogues, invitees received an official invitation, a copy of the Dialogue agenda, relevant materials and a link to an electronic attendance form. Printed attendance forms were also provided at the Dialogues to ensure full completion and submission by all participants. Each dialogue presented the relevant national context in terms of the current status of food systems and the impacts of these in terms of economy, environment and social and human health, policies and legislation in place that relate to these systems and impacts, and examples of past or current innovations of relevance, including government-led, NGO-led, and individual-led initiatives. Discussions in each Dialogue were focussed around five key topics (specific to each Dialogue), with discussions under each topic guided by a number of key questions. These topics and questions were drafted by members of the organizing team and validated by the wider team, with particular input from national experts and relevant ministerial personnel. All topics were cross-checked against the Summit Action Tracks to ensure all Action Tracks were sufficiently incorporated into each Dialogue. The five discussion topics that formed the Blue Food Systems Dialogue comprised 1) The blue food we produce, 2) The blue food we eat, 3) The challenges of being on the front lines of climate change, 4) Resilience and vulnerability, and 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19. Dialogue discussions were structured in a way to ensure all stakeholders had the opportunity to have their voices heard. Discussions were held in small ‘breakout’ groups, helping to prevent individuals from dominating the discussion. Feedback was then delivered by each group in the plenary setting, allowing for the sharing of all ideas and perspectives and affording the opportunity for additional comments and discussion as a single group. The Dialogues were structured to allow both in-room participation and online participation. This enabled the Dialogues to be accessible to as broad a group of stakeholders as possible, providing access both to stakeholders across the country (the RMI being an archipelagic nation including some 24 inhabited atolls) and to those for whom online access may not be possible.

234238239240241242244247248249251A rapid scan of the RMI agriculture/nutrition nexus conducted in 2018 indicated that at least 90% of the RMI food supply chain is made up of imported goods. It also reports high levels of diet-related health issues in the RMI; up to 80% of the population are overweight or obese and 27% have diabetes. The rapid scan also recognises the urgent need for a whole of government, inter-agency, cross-sectoral response to reduce the level of both imported food consumption and nutrition-related non-communicable diseases, with fishers identified as key partners for achieving this. The RMI Food Security Policy 2013 has as its goal “To ensure access to nutritious, quality, safe and affordable food for all Marshallese people at all times.” Blue foods, which are rich in bioavailable nutrients, can play an essential role in this. The RMI Food Security Policy specifically identifies fish as being a very important component of the national diet, particularly in the outer islands. The security of village marine resources and the sustainable management of coastal and inshore fisheries and aquaculture are seen as being priorities for achieving food security. The RMI National Strategic Plan 2020–2030 includes Marine Resources as a pillar of economic development, with a goal of “Sustainable and Responsible use of Marine Resources.” This focuses solely on fisheries as a source of revenue through the selling of fishing licenses to commercial fishing companies, rather than small-scale and artisanal fishing. It is recognised that blue food resources hold not only economic benefits but are culturally and socially important supporting food security, employment and good nutrition. Within this context, the National Blue Food Systems Dialogue explored the following five key topics: 1) The blue food we produce Questions to guide this discussion focussed on the strategies in place to ensure healthy marine ecosystems that support sustainable stocks, innovative practices, limitations on local blue food production and processing, the availability of local blue foods, and challenges to export. 2) The blue food we eat Questions to guide this discussion focussed on the consumption of locally produced vs imported blue foods and food waste. 3) The challenges of being on the front lines of climate change Questions to guide this discussion focussed on food system-related climate adaptation strategies, and coping with climate change and environmental degradation in the short and long term. 4) Resilience and vulnerability Questions to guide this discussion focussed on social inclusion in the blue food system, economic inclusion in the blue food system, policies and strategies to address inequity related to blue food production and dealing with vulnerabilities within the RMI’s food systems. 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19 Questions to guide this discussion focussed on the impact of COVID-19 on the blue food system and how such impacts can be addressed.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main findings from the RMI Blue Food Systems Dialogue are presented under the five topic areas. 1) The food we produce Marine conservation practices have a long cultural history and various traditional and modern approaches are taken to support healthy ecosystems and stock. The Reimaanlok Framework is central to this, providing a pathway for community-led marine protected areas. Clam hatcheries have been established and fish aggregating devices deployed. The latter support safe off-shore fishing for artisanal fisherfolk, thus alleviating the fishing pressure on near-shore fisheries. A Protected Area Network Act has been established. Commercial fishing fleets are controlled by strict catch limits introduced after extensive discussions among the Parties to the Nauru Agreement. Fleets monitored using various techniques, including on-board solutions. It is considered that commercial fishing enterprises now understand their role in conserving fish stocks and the need for such measures to enable access to fishing grounds. Fines for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing can be as high as $1 million. An aquaculture program running since 2013 is farming moi, with a view to exporting the fish. Despite some challenges with brood stock maintenance, the project is continuing to develop, employing an entirely local staff. This project is expanding into rabbit fish and seaweed farming, with a focus on capacity building and gender inclusion. The seaweed-farming project has been established and engages women who have experienced income loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic damaging the sale of local craftworks. The intent of the project is to farm seaweed for local use and for export to Hawaii. This project also includes the teaching of necessary mathematics skills and the holding of cooking demonstrations. Drying seaweed provides a value-add aspect to the project. 2) The food we eat he most commonly eaten blue food in the RMI is tuna, both locally caught and canned, imported tuna. The MISCO Market (part of the Marshall Islands Service Corporation) in Majuro sells locally caught fish, the majority of which are snapper and grouper. This includes the sale of live grouper to restaurants. The market has also recently started exporting local reef fish to Hawaii to meet the demands of the Marshallese community there. It was noted that snapper, grouper and moi were also sold through the main supermarket, those this is no longer the case. The supermarket, supported by JICA, had held cooking demonstrations and provided recipe leaflets to support the consumption of local parrot fish. However, this program was discontinued with a change in supporting personnel. There remains a desire from the retail sector to support local fisherfolk by providing a venue for sales. It was noted that blue food waste is extremely limited. It was noted that instead of allowing food to reach the end of its shelf life, it is often used in meals for sale. Any other waste is fed to pigs or used as fish food. 3) The challenges of being on the front lines of climate change The Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority is conducting surveys to assess the impact of coral bleaching on fish production, however, this is currently at the baseline survey stage with a need for ongoing data collection in the future. Evidence from the scientific community suggests fish migratory patterns will change with oceanic thermal stress. There is also a recognized need to communicate climate change to local communities in an accessible way. The Reimaanlok Framework aims to reintegrate traditional management practices into fisheries management at the community level. This is needed as observations suggest that local fishers are catching less and different fish of smaller sizes. There is a need to corroborate these observations with data. Nationally-driven data collection is an area of focus as historically much data that has been generated by international parties has not been shared with the RMI government. The deployment of fish aggregating devices supports coastal ecosystem protection by providing a safe off-shore alternative for fisherman. 4) Resilience and vulnerability It was identified that many of the traditional approaches to resource management have disappeared over time and, while rural communities may live more traditionally, the tools have changed and that’s eroding traditional culture. The Reimaanlok Framework aims to address this and there are projects in place to re-establish the use of traditional fishing equipment. There is a recognized need for a cultural revival. In addition, building up a bank for RMI-generated data is also essential to support policy and decision making. The RMI Exclusive Economic Zone has been identified and all necessary data deposited with the United Nations under the Convention of the Law of the Sea. The intention being that the nation will always retain its waters despite the most extreme effects of climate change. Legal activities are also be undertaken to ensure this position can be asserted and defended. 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19 The main impact identified in relation to blue food systems relates to the commercial tuna industry, with changing regulations affecting the transportation of the tuna catch. From a food retail perspective, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in some inconsistency in the supply of goods.236238240241242243244245246247248249251The RMI Blue Food Systems Dialogue delivered outcomes in terms of specific ideas and innovations to be implemented to drive change within the RMI food system and also in terms of the recognition of specific needs and challenges that may not have been previously identified. These provide new avenues for consideration and future action. The identified Action Tracks and key words represent the Outcomes as a whole, rather than individual outcomes. Supporting traditional fishing practices The Dialogue identified the need for ongoing efforts to support a revival of traditional custom in relation to fishing and to support fisheries sustainability. There is a need for further expansion of the community-led marine protected areas established utilizing the Reimaanlok Framework. Within this Framework, the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority facilitates (rather than directs) the creation of a management plan to address the unique situations being faced by different communities. This helps promote ownership of the plans. The Reimaanlok process is therefore supporting the revival traditional fishing practices while bolstering them with management plans and legislation. Lastly, the Dialogue discussions considered opportunities for reviving educational programs in the retail setting in collaboration with the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, to encourage locals to consume more local blue foods through cooking demonstrations and the provision of recipes leaflets.236238240241242243244245246247248249251Expanding opportunities and building resilience The moi fish farming project that started is 2013 continues to develop. Ongoing development of moi project a seaweed. This project has expanded into seaweed farming, working directly with women to support household resilience in the face of lost income due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Women that may otherwise be engaged in craftware production for the tourist market can now generate income farming and preparing seaweed for local and export markets. There is much potential for the integration of sea vegetables into the food system of the Marshall Islands, with additional potential for finding non-food-based uses for them. Building resilience will also come from the maintaining of Marshallese culture and practices. There is a need for future focus on school curricula to ensure traditional knowledge isn’t lost further. There is also a desire by local retailers to work more closely with government and local fishers to provide a marketplace for local blue foods.236238240241242243244245246247248249251Building capacity Building capacity is necessary for two reasons. Firstly, to enable the RMI to fully participate in the actions necessary to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and secondly, to be able to nationally generate the data necessary to monitor a changing environment and assess the impacts of specific interventions. Also, there is a need to work with local fisherfolk to ensure the safe handling of foods in accordance with regulatory standards in order to improve the safety of local products.236238240241242243244245246247248249251A Marshallese response to climate change There is a need to establish a nationally-relevant understanding of what climate change means to the Marshallese Islands. This requires the communication of the need to respond to a global problem the origins of which are not local. This is all important in the context of developing necessary environmental management plans that address the environmental degradation that communities are seeing. The future of the RMI is contingent on what happens ‘on the ground’ and internationally to prevent being “drowned by the sea and starved by the barren land”. Numerous additional areas that are being addressed and need continued action were raised during the Dialogue: • Increasing community participation in resource management via the Reimaanlok Process • Establishing and safeguarding the quality of marine products for the export market • Streamlining processing procedures and monitoring, control & surveillance protocols for companies interested in exporting • Consolidating information collected into a database system from all exporting companies • Facilitating expansion of the Industry in all areas from harvesting/cultivation to marketing research • Establishing the link between markets, both domestic and international • Strengthening stakeholder participation • Engaging national and local partners to address issues identified under the National Ocean Policy • Improve communication/partnership between National Government, Local Government and the private sector • Building capacity at national and local levels • Facilitating infrastructure and equipment support • Strengthening policy frameworks and regulations.237No specific areas of divergence came to the fore during the Dialogue. The unique geography and environment of the RMI, and the limitations and opportunities that this presents, are well understood by all participants. There were no suggested activities or initiatives that led to a divergence of opinion and participants were cohesive in their views of the priorities related to health, nutrition and food safety in the RMI.

2021-09-08 14:28:46205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43464/117

13185119181161234224231135116144

Organization of each RMI National Dialogue incorporated and reinforced the Summit Principles in a number of ways. All organizing team members were made aware of the Principles through the sharing of relevant materials, and these were borne in mind throughout the organization and execution of the Dialogues. Specifically, the RMI is a country on the front lines of climate change like few others, and one that very clearly recognizes the need to act swiftly with regards to sustainable development. This awareness of the need for action in specific relation to the nation’s food systems was integral to the organization of the National Food Systems Dialogues. The Dialogues were planned with an array of local stakeholders, ensuring that local culture and context was at the core of their planning, design and execution. The range of invitees reflects the recognized complexity of food systems in the RMI. Dialogue invitees were drawn from a cross-section of RMI society, including not only government officials from relevant agencies, but local farmers and fisherfolk, those involved in the buying and selling of foods for commercial and other purposes (e.g. institutional caterers), health professionals and NPO/NGO personnel. All dialogues were conducted in the context of current policies and legislation, and of previous and current relevant projects and initiatives. This was ensured through the delivery of relevant presentations preceding discussions at each Dialogue. Transparency has been central to the organization of the Dialogues, with the intent of the Dialogues and outputs from them clearly communicated to all invitees and attendees. Dialogue discussions were structured in such a way as to provide all attendees with a safe space to share their knowledge, perspectives and ideas.Execution of the RMI Green Food Systems Dialogue reflects the Principles in various specific ways. Commitment to the Summit was evident in the number of attendees and their engagement in the discussions being held; a wide range of perspectives were shared and all were recorded. All discussions were held respectfully, with individuals given the space and time to share their points of view; this was the case in the smaller discussion groups and in the plenary group. In terms of the recognition of the complexity of food systems, this was communicated via opening presentations, and reflected in the diversity of attendees, which also reflects that the Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. In terms of complementing the work of others, the Dialogue allowed varied stakeholders to share their activities with a wide audience, with the potential to increase awareness of these and open doors for new collaborations. Finally, the outputs of the Dialogue are those of the group as a whole, with no attribution to any given individual, reinforcing the Principle of building trust.The planning and organization of the Dialogues, both in terms of their content and execution, were conducted with an understanding and appreciation of the Summit Principles. Planning the Dialogues centered around the specific needs of the RMI with topics and meeting styles initially developed to be locally relevant and appropriate. Dialogue plans were subsequently cross-checked with the Summit Principles to ensure their incorporation. In this way, national priorities were placed at the center of Dialogue planning to ensure they were meaningful and valuable, while the Summit Principles provided an underlying guide to support the development of Dialogues that responded to them.

NoThe organizing team developed three 3-hour RMI National Food System Dialogues. These focussed on a) Green Food Systems, b) Nutrition, Health and c) Safety and Blue Food Systems. All three Dialogues were conducted in the week of 23rd August 2021. The decision to conduct the Dialogues in this way was based upon an in-depth understanding of the current national food systems and their associated priorities, as well as the capacity of individuals to attend the Dialogues. The Dialogues were organized by the RMI national-level convener at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Commerce, supported by a team of consultants, relevant stakeholders from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Commerce, the Ministry of Health and Human Services and the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority to guide the individual Dialogues, and personnel from the Resident Coordinator Office in the Pacific. The development process involved in-depth collaborations and discussions between all team members to ensure all aspects of the Dialogues, from discussion content to logistical aspects, were comprehensively planned and efficiently executed. Three invitee lists were developed to reflect the content of the individual Dialogues. Invitees ranged from national-level government personnel to members of civil society engaged in different aspects of the food systems of the RMI. This enabled discussions to engage a range of people from those responsible for guiding national policy to those impacted by such policies. Prior to the Dialogues, invitees received an official invitation, a copy of the Dialogue agenda, relevant materials and a link to an electronic attendance form. Printed attendance forms were also provided at the Dialogues to ensure full completion and submission by all participants. Each dialogue presented the relevant national context in terms of the current status of food systems and the impacts of these in terms of economy, environment and social and human health, policies and legislation in place that relate to these systems and impacts, and examples of past or current innovations of relevance, including government-led, NGO-led, and individual-led initiatives. Discussions in each Dialogue were focussed around five key topics (specific to each Dialogue), with discussions under each topic guided by a number of key questions. These topics and questions were drafted by members of the organizing team and validated by the wider team, with particular input from national experts and relevant ministerial personnel. All topics were cross-checked against the Summit Action Tracks to ensure all Action Tracks were sufficiently incorporated into each Dialogue. The five discussion topics that formed the Green Food Systems Dialogue comprised 1) The food we produce, 2) The food we eat, 3) The challenges of being on the front lines of climate change, 4) Resilience and vulnerability, and 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19. Dialogue discussions were structured in a way to ensure all stakeholders had the opportunity to have their voices heard. Discussions were held in small ‘breakout’ groups, helping to prevent individuals from dominating the discussion. Feedback was then delivered by each group in the plenary setting, allowing for the sharing of all ideas and perspectives and affording the opportunity for additional comments and discussion as a single group. The Dialogues were structured to allow both in-room participation and online participation. This enabled the Dialogues to be accessible to as broad a group of stakeholders as possible, providing access both to stakeholders across the country (the RMI being an archipelagic nation including some 24 inhabited atolls) and to those for whom online access may not be possible.

234238239240241242244245247248249250251A rapid scan of the RMI agriculture/nutrition nexus conducted in 2018 indicated that at least 90% of the RMI food supply chain is made up of imported goods. This document reports that numerous diet-related health issues have become prevalent in the RMI, with up to 80% of the population being overweight, 27% having diabetes and 35% of children between 48 and 59 months of age having stunted growth. The RMI National Strategic Plan 2020–2030 reports that agriculture contributes just 4% to GDP. Agriculture forms one of the pillars for economic development within the strategic plan, thought there is also recognition that underutilized land is limited, soil conditions are generally poor. Alongside this plan, and a number of other policies including food security and trade policies, sits the RMI Agriculture Sector Plan 2021–2031. This Plan reports that in 2006 only 0.3% of the labour force were engaged in agriculture of forestry activities as their main economic activity, with the plan aiming to increase community level involvement in agriculture and increase national domestic food production. Numerous challenges are recognized, including limited water supply, loss of traditional knowledge and climate change amongst others. The goal of the Agriculture Sector Plan is “Resilient food, nutrition and livelihood security of Marshallese in the face of climate change” with a number of outputs identified to supports its achievement. These comprise minimizing environmental degradation, developing sustainable small livestock and crop production systems, increasing consumption of locally produced nutritious foods, improving biosecurity and marketing, improving the capacity of agriculture sector stakeholders and developing enabling policies and legislation. Within this context, the National Green Food Systems Dialogue explored the following five key topics: 1) The food we produce Questions to guide this discussion focussed on innovation in food growth and production, strategies to ensure healthy ecosystems that support sustainable food production, barriers to local food production, factors limiting local food growth and processing and the challenges to food export both within the RMI and internationally. 2) The food we eat Questions to guide this discussion focussed on the consumption of locally produced vs imported foods, the availability of local foods and food waste. 3) The challenges of being on the front lines of climate change Questions to guide this discussion focussed on food system-related climate adaptation strategies, and coping with climate change and environmental degradation in the short and long term. 4) Resilience and vulnerability Questions to guide this discussion focussed on social inclusion in the green food system, economic inclusion in the green food system, policies and strategies to address inequity related to food production and dealing with vulnerabilities within the RMI’s food systems. 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19 Questions to guide this discussion focussed on the impact of COVID-19 on the green food system and how such impacts can be addressed.235238239240241242243244245246248249251The main findings from the RMI Green Food Systems Dialogue are presented under the five topic areas. 1) The food we produce Very little agriculture takes place in the RMI and a low proportion of the population engages in agricultural work. Identified challenges to increased food production related to soil quality, limited water supply and drought conditions, which favour traditional foods such as coconut, breadfruit and pandanus, over diverse vegetable crops. Innovative approaches to agriculture, such as hydroponics and vertical gardening, were highlighted as ways of efficiently producing nutrient dense foods, but more innovation is needed. Importantly, maintenance of innovative approaches was identified as vital, with projects often being short-term or discontinued prematurely. Barriers to home gardening were identified, including a lack of space, unsuitable soil, salinity and a lack of proper tools, knowledge and skills. This is linked to cultural norms; home gardening has not been common practice among previous generations and so the necessary knowledge has not been culturally embedded. Relevant stakeholders include government agencies, farmers associations, educational establishments and projects supported by international partners. Together they are working to achieve a zero-waste closed circle agricultural system that supports sustainable self-sufficiency, community involvement and empowerment through delivery of seedlings and livestock to communities, education on farming techniques and cooking with novel vegetables, and mobile markets to enable access to healthy, locally grown foods. These initiatives have demonstrated success, but challenges are faced in relation to the use of single-season hybrid seeds, a lack of relevant value chain data and the need to scale-up best-practice activities and ensure that they endure. 2) The food we eat The vast majority of foods eaten in the RMI are imported with limits to the available local food and the wider choice imported foods offer. This was partly felt to be the result of a shift in societal roles. With increasing numbers of women in the workforce there is less time for food production and preparation, resulting on an increased reliance on imported and more convenient foods. There are, however, notable health problems associated with the high levels of consumption of imported processed food. It was noted that local foods are available in stores, and these sell out very quickly. There is recognition of the need to provide healthy school lunches, and the Public Schools System is working with the Majuro local government and Canvasback Wellness Center on the provision of nutritious school meals. In terms of food waste, there is a lack of accurate data. Anecdotally, food waste was identified as being predominantly from imported foods on the larger atolls. It was felt that the outer islands are likely to have a higher proportion of waste from local foods, by virtue of their availability. A key issue identified around food waste is the problem of packaging from imported foods; the environmental impact of a discarded coconut being negligible versus the impact of a discarded soft drinks can. 3) The challenges of being on the front lines of climate change The impacts of drought on food crops has been identified, including specifically coconuts. Climate change is impacting seasonality, with delayed harvest times, and resulting in the dropping of fruit before ripening. Increasing invasive species is of significant concern, as is damage cause by increasing frequency and severity of king tides. Climate change also threatens the security of freshwater sources owing to rising sea levels. Currently employed strategies to adapt to climate change include the use of mulching, to help retain moisture in the soil, and drip-bottle irrigation. In addition to adaptation measures, there are also concerns regarding the need to reduce the RMI’s CO2 emissions. 4) Resilience and vulnerability The innovation and knowledge of women was noted, with the One Island One Product campaign being identified as female-led. There is a need for effective streams of credit to support initiation and expansion of agriculture. Furthermore, the need for political will to engender change to support resilience was identified, particularly given the limited available resources. The need for a comprehensive social/economic/political plan that prioritizes resilience was raised. Traditional Knowledge is valued and is recognized for its role in enhanced resilience. 5) The impact(s) of COVID-19 Sales of certain food types have fallen. For example, during the pandemic churches have reduced the number of events and activities they hold, and families have scaled back gatherings, both resulting in a fall in demand for livestock. The reduction in tourist visitors has also negatively impacted sales of local foods. The RMI grants licenses to many fishing vessels to access its waters, the crews of which ordinarily come ashore and buy foodstuffs. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has curtailed this, with crews remaining aboard their vessels. It was also noted that capacity has been impacted owing to the closing of the nation’s borders; consultants have been unable to travel to the RMI and technical assistance has been lost. Food supplies were disrupted, but transportation to outer islands was maintained owing to the national purchase of new boats. However, maintaining the quality of transported foods requires addressing.236238239240241242244245246248249251The RMI Green Food System Dialogue delivered outcomes in terms of specific ideas and innovations to be implemented to drive change within the RMI food system and also in terms of the recognition of specific needs and challenges that may not have been previously identified. These provide new avenues for consideration and future action. The identified Action Tracks and key words represent the Outcomes as a whole rather than individual Outcomes. 1) The food we produce Increasing and innovating in food production In response to the recognized lack of knowledge and experience related to growing vegetables, the Dialogue concluded that there was a need for the promotion of traditional food crops such as coconut, breadfruit and pandanus, as well as non-traditional but native foods, and non-traditional way of using traditional foods, such as the production of flour from breadfruit. This is being done to some extent by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Commerce and the Taiwanese Technical Mission, who distribute seedlings. Where non-traditional crops are to be grown, moving away from the use of hybrid seeds, which must be re-purchased every season, is also necessary for this farming to be sustainable. There is also a need for capacity building in local communities to engage them to grow food through home gardening and encouraging sustainable practices through educational programs. This could be achieved through strategic collaboration for research/education training between public and private sectors. Lastly, limited space due to land tenure is a big challenge in RMI. Local production is locally sold at the supermarkets and farmers market, but it is very seasonal. Discussion highlighted the need for implementing a variety of crops that provide production year-round. It was mentioned that local production has dramatically declined due to a combination of factors such as global warming, overharvesting and a lack of effective resource management. Overcoming the current challenges of limited agriculture and limited local food supply will require an overall increase in production. For that, a national agricultural census needs to be performed. Specific ideas to support this included strengthening farmers’ and producers’ associations, utilising precipitation predictions to time the planting of short-term crops, ensuring adequate irrigation systems are available and maintained, implementing hydroponics, climate-smart agriculture techniques, a return to traditional ways of preserving food, and increasing composting activities (e.g. coconut husk cakes) to support soil improvement and growing success. There are opportunities for better linking of green and blue food system, for example through the use of fisheries waste as agricultural fertilizer.2362382392402412422442452462482492512) The food we eat Consumption of imported food The majority of food consumed is imported and includes food such as rice, eggs and chicken. There are several factors that influence food choices at the household level. Nowadays, many women have regular jobs that reduce the available time for food preparation and cooking, resulting in a preference for convenience food. Food preferences have also been highly influenced by western culture. Local products in markets It was highlighted in the discussions the importance of commercializing local production through markets, such as farmers markets, where the community can access local healthy foods at an affordable price. The private sector is committed to promoting agribusiness, but there is also a need to establish digital spaces to improve market access. Promoting traditional knowledge and skills In order to increase the levels of local food consumption the Dialogue discussions suggested that building capacity be essential to support an expansion of farming and home gardens. In particular the need for recording and maintaining traditional food preservation skills from community elders was recommended. Furthermore, re-establishing traditional food festivals will support this knowledge transmission. School gardens Some public schools have been growing school gardens, with the aim that these will become productive, and the harvested foods can be used in the preparation of school meals. Cookery demonstrations were delivered to some school staff in 2020 as an initial step towards this. National stock-take It was further suggested that a national ‘stock-take’ be undertaken in relation to food production and security, from both green food system and blue food system perspectives. Reducing food waste It is recognized that better sorting of waste is required, and that food scraps and waste should be used to make compost. The collection and composting of food scraps is being considered by the Majuro Atoll Waste Company. The Dialogue discussions also raised the possibility of encouraging schools to utilize foods that are close to their expiry in the production of school meals, as a route to helping reduce food waste. Imported food is a big contributor of waste in the RMI, especially non-biodegradable waste such as plastic that accumulates in the environment, but this needs to be managed from an innovative perspective to find solutions. In Majuro, 61% of the total waste generated is from households and 39% is from non-household sources such as shops, restaurants, businesses, and public institutions.2362382392402412422442452462482492513) The challenges of being on the front lines of climate change Importantly, it was identified that climate change is a cross-sectoral issue. Any climate-related policies, strategies etc., even if focussed on food systems, should be cross-sectoral in nature and should extend beyond RMI borders to engage the wider region. RMI has committed to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In order to achieve this it will be necessary to consider food transportation and refrigeration. Adaptation strategies A number of suggestions were made during the Dialogue discussions that were considered to be useful adaptation strategies. These included: • Coastal replanting to protect the land and soil • Increasing the use of hydroponic systems, including floating hydroponic rafts, and aquaponics systems • The provision of ecologically friendly farming tools and supporting increased composting were also highlighted • Promoting the use of mulching as a soil improver and to retain moisture • Promoting the use of drip-bottle irrigation to maximize limited water resources • Cultivating easy-to-grow and hardy/salt tolerant vegetables, including the cultivation of species and varieties commonly grown by some of RMI’s neighbors such as the Federated States of Micronesia • Implement financial mechanisms to support local farmers It was further suggested that there remains a need for developing a national food security strategy that supports the maximal levels of food independence for the RMI and, crucially, ensuring that this strategy be followed through on. In addition, a broad long-term climate strategy is required, with the suggestion that digitization of agriculture be explored in order to allow efficient, targeted irrigation and fertilizer application, as examples. It is noted that RMI produces low CO2 emissions but is affected critically by climate change. Therefore, while mitigation strategies are considered, adaptation strategies are the priority.2362382392402412422442452462482492514) Resilience and vulnerability In terms of creating a more integrated food system, there is a recognized need for inputs from a broader base of stakeholders. While training and outreach to farmers currently occurs at present, this needs to be increased. There is a need for a multistakeholder, holistic ridge-to-reef approach to improve the RMI food system. The vulnerabilities to agriculture are largely physical in the RMI; salt-spray, drought conditions and long-term sea-level rise. There is a need to establish seedbanks to ensure that local food crops aren’t entirely lost by disaster conditions such as seawater inundation and can be replanted. There is a general lack of interest in agriculture activities accompanied by limited expertise, and these present limiting factors to influencing and increasing agricultural production. Better integration of green food systems can be brought about with the establishment of night markets and farmers markets, making local foods accessible to a wider range of people. Loan programs and small grants for NGOs were identified as a way to help prepare for potential loss of food systems revenue as a result of climate change, and adequate credit facilities, such as small enterprise loans, should be available to individuals would help provide the enabling conditions for the establishment of small-scale food production. Women are central to decision-making about food, children’s nutrition etc. and are leaders and innovators in relation to food systems and producing local goods. Therefore, any conversations about agricultural development and innovation must be gender inclusive. Any approaches to agricultural development should also be inclusive of RMI youth. Development of “Early Warning Early Action” plans will enable the provision of timely information to people to allow them to respond and reduce the impact of specific hazards, such as natural disasters. Lastly, it was recognized that to implement strategies there is also a need for political will to support local initiatives.2362382392402412422442452462482492515) The impact(s) of COVID-19 Preparing for the future While the COVID-19 pandemic has not affected the RMI in the same ways that it has many other countries, its impact has been felt owing to the reductions in transportation into and around the country and the light it has shone on the reliance on imported food goods. The government of the RMI has recognized the potential impacts of this pandemic, and similar future global crises, particularly on those communities that are less well connected but that also normally rely on imported foods. To ensure that these communities are sufficiently prepared for further or future negative impacts on this transportation of foodstuffs, the government has approved the distribution of farming tools to the outer islands. This will help support local food production and so increase community resilience against the ongoing crisis or similar future crises. The impact that COVID-19 has had on tourism is also reflected in the commercialization of foodstuffs as tourists were a major market for local produce. Home gardening has been identified as an opportunity to increase independence and resilience against shocks such as that presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.237No significant areas of divergence came to the fore during the Dialogue. There was some suggestion of divergence between the retail sector and other sectors, with the former considering their contribution on a local level and with regard to the economic sustainability of business while the consideration of other sectors were more nationally-focused. That said, the unique geography and environment of the RMI, and the limitations and opportunities that this presents, are well understood by all participants. There were no suggested activities or initiatives that led to a divergence of opinion and participants were generally cohesive in their views of those green food system priorities in the RMI.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Green-Food-System-Dialogue-Agenda-30august2021.docxhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Green-Food-System-Case-Studies-from-RMI.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/RMI-FSSD-dialogue-questions-prepared-by-ISU-final-version-20august2021-2.docxhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/RMI-FSSD-Green-Foods-Presentation.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Marshall-Final-1-1.pdfhttps://www.sprep.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/RMI-Solid-Waste-Management-Majuro-2019-2023.pdf

2021-09-09 12:03:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/34342/23

311512427454147154665104

The dialogue was a day-long virtual event of five sessions on August 24, 2021, from 10:00 AM. to 08:30 PM organized by Eminence Associates for Social Development, and Bangladesh Civil Society Network for Promoting Nutrition (BCSNPN). A total of 31 participants attended the dialogue, which included the Food Systems Dialogue National Convener of Bangladesh, along with five members of parliaments, five government and national institutions high officials, six international non-government professionals, ten academicians. Four were from television and print media professionals. Each of these five sessions was consistent with an action track of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021. Therefore, all five action tracks were covered in the dialogue. Before each session, the dialogue's seven principles of engagement, five objectives, and some key milestones, et cetera was projected through a PowerPoint presentation. A concept note was prepared by incorporating the background, goals, principles of engagement and shared with the participants a week before the dialogue. Moreover, a reconfirmation email attaching the zoom link, guideline, and session presentation was sent two days before the main event. All these documents altogether had set up a pathway through which the discussions moved forward and ensured the incorporation, reinforcement, and enhancement of the Seven Principles of Engagement. The sessions are as follows: • Session One: How Can We Ensure the Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All? • Session Two: The Role of Women and Young People for Shifting the Diet Consumption Patterns towards Healthy and Sustainable Diets; • Session Three: Natural Food Production in Twenty-first Century: Obstacles and Opportunities; • Session Four: The Challenges and Chances for Decent Livelihood for the farmers and Other Food Workers in Bangladesh; • Session Five: Peoples’ Engagement for Tackling Vulnerabilities, Shocks, and Stress to Make the Food System Resilient.In each of the dialogue sessions, all the participants admitted that it was urgent to act on the food system because we are only nine years away from the deadline to achieve the SDGs. In this historical moment, the summit was acknowledged as a big opportunity for connecting together all the actors of the food systems and beyond, as well as generating innovative ideas for transforming the food systems. In the dialogue sessions, some of the participants came to know each other for the first time, which made that dialogue itself a platform for connecting people from diverse backgrounds. The dialogue invited multiple perspectives – often opposing ideas that took place and debated– on the food system while accepting the fact that the food system is a very complex issue. All the participants made commitments from the dialogue to initiate more integrated actions from their respective sectors to transform the food systems into a sustainable ones. They shed light on the indigenous technologies and methods of preserving seeds and crops, nurturing the soil and water, conducting eco-friendly agriculture et cetera, and recommend fusing them with the smart technologies in a way that would not make any harm to nature and health. Finally, it was acknowledged that all would endorse trust and surge enthusiasm to participate in the summit by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement, and implementation.The method of organizing an effective dialogue is projected in Food System Dialogue's gateway. Specifically, the convener's guidelines and the training modules are very impactful. I would recommend the dialogue conveners, who will be convening an independent dialogue, to go through these tools for a comprehensive understanding of the seven principles of engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249250251As we have organized five different sessions of on five action tracks, our major focus split into five session-specific action tracks. Yet, the action tracks were often cross-cutting with each other. Major Focus of Session One: (i) exploration of the structure and objectives of UN Food Systems Summit 2021, (ii) comprehensive understanding of hunger, undernourishment, resilience, healthy food, nutritious food, safe food, food access, food security, and food insecurity, (iii) discussion on decent price of food products and prevention of food wastage, (iv) exploration of the opportunities of engaging the youths with the food production system, (v) examining the prospects of ultra-poor population friendly food market system. Major Focus of Session Two: (i) exploration of the outcomes of production and consumption of industrialized foods, (ii) understanding the concepts of food transformation and wastage prevention, (iii) exploration of the ways of changing the traditional diet, (iv) examining the constraints for soil and water health, (v) the process of strengthening the safe food system authority, (vi) emphasizing on capacity building and awareness of the women and young people, (vii) opening up the importance of reshaping the market system. Major Focus of Session Three: (i) exploration of the adverse environmental and public health impact of using hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers, and insecticides, (ii) examining the prospects of adopting modern technology in the food system, (iii) challenges and opportunities of industrialized food production, (iv) importance of reshaping the market system, (v) necessity of the civil society organizations’ engagement. Major Focus of Session Four: (i) decent wages and working hours for the food system workers, (ii) health issues and occupational hazards of the food system workers, (iii) food system governance, (iv) roof-top agriculture, (v) Artificial Intelligence Agriculture or ‘Smart Farming’, (vi) safe and hygienic equipment for the food system workers, (vii) use of IoT or Internet of Things in the food system. Major Focus of Session Five: (i) major types and causes of shocks, vulnerabilities, and stresses, (ii) trade-offs and synergies in policy and action, (iii) capacity building to detect, adapt, prevent, and transform shocks, stress, and vulnerabilities, (iv) contextualization of the operational aspects, (v) role of the civil society organizations, (vi) climate-friendly policies and plans of actions, (vii) prevention of resource wastage, (viii) natural production.235238239240241242244245246247248249251By summarizing the discussions of all five sessions, the following finds are the key: of the dialogue: • Ensuring reasonable price for the food products, determining ceiling for the food price, prevention of the food waste, and processing surplus food into nutritious food items can be a solution to ensure access to safe and healthy food for all in Bangladesh; • A resilient market system is the cornerstone of a sustainable food system in Bangladesh; • The role of civil society organizations is inevitable in ensuring safe and nutritious food, shifting diet consumption patterns, nature positive food production, decent livelihood, and resilient food system; therefore, their capacity strengthening and inclusive programming can be an impactful solution. • As we cannot deny the reality of food industrialization and processed food in Bangladesh, focusing on the safe and nature positive environment in the industries and the urban food systems can be a game-changer; • The regulatory authorities in Bangladesh, which are responsible for ensuring food safety, safe environment of the fields and factories, needs to be strengthened under the leadership of relevant ministries, i.e., ministry of agriculture, ministry of food, ministry of law, ministry of state affairs et cetera; • Agriculture insurance has been proven as an effective solution for compensating the financial loss of farmers due to shocks, vulnerabilities, and stresses in the haor, char, hill tracks, coastal regions, and other hard to reach areas; • Artificial Intelligence (AI) agriculture or "Smart Farming" is the future of agriculture in Bangladesh; • The health issues and occupational hazards of the food system workers are neglected in national policies, which are to be addressed very seriously; • More than 900 billion dollars will be required to meet the expenses of achieving the sustainable development goal in the next nine years, the majority of which must be mobilizing from national income rather than international aid; • Finally, weak governance and legal system cannot bring any positive change in the food systems; therefore, strengthening the governance and legal system within the food system can be an effective strategy towards transforming the food systems in Bangladesh.236238244245246248249251Session One: How Can We Ensure the Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All? • A resilient market system should be developed in Bangladesh to ensure reasonable prices for the food products and prevent the wastage of precious food items; a price-ceiling can be a solution; • The food product should be traced from the beginning of its journey towards the consumers' kitchen to identify and mitigate food contamination and adulteration. The Bangladesh government should ensure the proper implementation of the legislation and improved awareness to end food adulteration in urban and rural areas; • Early yielding, floating cultivation, saline resilient crops, et cetera. should be adopted to tackle climate change shocks; • Agriculture insurance should be introduced to the farmers, especially in the haor, char, and flash flood areas, compensating them for any possible loss of crops, cattle, and fisheries resources; • Civil society organizations and government bodies should take initiatives to develop and strengthen eco-friendly crop cultivation, environment for healthy food production, and value-added food processing industries in Bangladesh; • Local resource-based regional industries, cold storage, and warehouses for perishable food items should be established locally; • The market systems should be digitalized to ensure the flow of authentic information among the producers, dealers, and consumers; • Ultra-poor friendly food market systems in slum areas should be developed to ensure safe and nutritious food for their families; • Finally, we should merge all our activities and initiatives towards a sustainable and resilient food system in Bangladesh.236239244245246251Session Two: The Role of Women and Young People for Shifting the Diet Consumption Patterns towards Healthy and Sustainable Diets • The Bangladesh Food Safety Authority should ensure a healthy environment in the production, cultivation, storage, and supply of food products; • Civil society organizations, youth organizations, and women organizations should strengthen their members' capacity to monitor food production, cultivation, storage, supply, and distribution; • The ministry of education and the department of health education in Bangladesh should provide young people and women with knowledge about nutrition and healthy diet patterns; • The government of Bangladesh should take commitments from the food industrialists, restaurants owners, fast-food shops, et cetera to engage in the production and distribution of healthy and nutritious food items; • The professional chefs are to be mobilized and empowered to develop a new healthy menu for their food shop, restaurants, and the community people; • The legislation system should be strengthened in Bangladesh to prevent contaminated and adulterated food production and distribution.236240244246247248249251Session Three: Natural Food Production in Twenty-first Century: Obstacles and Opportunities • Legal and governance systems should be introduced in the Bangladeshi food system to ensure the quality of the food products, both traditional and industrialized production, and in the storage, supply chain, and markets; • The food storage system should be modernized by fusing it with the traditional preservation system to make it efficient and eco-friendly; • Knowledge and skill development programs should be conducted among the farmers, retailers, supply chain actors, and young people to provide them evidence-based knowledge about the appropriate process of applying chemical fertilizers and pesticides, adverse effects of inappropriate use, food contamination, land and water contamination, climate change et cetera; • Adequate research initiatives should be taken to innovate, adapt, and upgrade safe technologies for the food system; • The indigenous seeds and crops of Bangladesh should be preserved, and the extinct crops should be revitalized to ensure diversity in our food production; • Civil society organizations and journalist forums should play a key role in monitoring the food systems and the agriculture, food, and other relevant ministries.236241244245246247248249251Session Four: The Challenges and Chances for Decent Livelihood for the farmers and Other Food Workers in Bangladesh • The Bangladeshi food system workers' health and occupational hazards should be addressed seriously to ensure their safe and healthy lives; • The Bangladesh government, private sector, and civil society organizations should give special attention to the food system workers' knowledge and skill development; • A robust market system has to be developed which will be friendly to safe and nutritious food for the consumers and decent livelihood for the workers in Bangladesh; • New innovative business ideas, like, rooftop gardening, smart farming, IoT in the food systems, should be adopted to make life easier for the food system workers; • The farmers should be strongly discouraged from selling their lands; instead, they should be linked to make partnerships with the industries for industrialized agriculture; • The livelihood of the food system workers should be linked with the minimum wage board; • Food system governance and legislation should be strengthened to provide adequate support and improved policies for improving the livelihoods of the food system workers; • Bangladeshi food system should consider entering the global markets in a more integrated manner with its unique products.236242244245246247248249250251Session Five: Peoples’ Engagement for Tackling Vulnerabilities, Shocks, and Stress to Make the Food System Resilient • Importance should be given to community mobilization and capacity building of the civil society organizations to detect, adapt, and prevent the shocks, stresses, and vulnerabilities and transform the food systems of Bangladesh when required; • In the global forums, the Government of Bangladesh should raise climate change issues and their economic consequences and mobilize the international communities; • The people of Bangladesh should stop wasting their resources and use them strategically; • Eco-friendly modes of production should be adopted to prevent more destruction to nature; • Cooperative farming can be restarted in vulnerable areas to make the food system resilient; • The expansion of the non-agriculture sector in the food systems, i.e., processed food, should be considered; • Agriculture insurance can be introduced to compensate for the economic loss due to shocks, stress, and vulnerabilities; • Economic empowerment initiatives should be taken to improve the financial condition of the vulnerable people of shock and stress-prone areas, i.e., haor, char, hill tracks, coastal regions in Bangladesh.237238239240241242244245246248Divergence aroused in the question of whether or not cooperative farming should be adapted to effectively tackle the outcomes of shocks, vulnerabilities, shocks. In this question, opposing opinions are observed. Some participants emphasized the revitalization of large-scale cooperative farming, and others had given importance on strengthen individual capacity. They remarked that this question needs to be explored further. In the question of shifting the diet consumption patterns, discussions were mainly on the health and nutrition issues. However, the chair of the session aroused the market management agenda remarking that the market system needed to be prioritized over the other agendas, as it is the cornerstone of the distribution channel. When it came to the financing for the activities to achieve the sustainable development goals, the participants stressed the mobilization of national resources, national regulation, and national capacity over international aid. In the questions of natural food production, the participants demand further exploration of this concept and methods for producing food in a nature positive way. Moreover, in-depth exploration was demanded on the health issues of the food system workers and the landless conditions due to mechanized agriculture. Finally, the participants contested capacity strengthening of the civil society organizations and community people for their more effective engagement in the food systems in Bangladesh.

https://fb.watch/7KIL0Zz8rw/https://fb.watch/7KIPy1ofoV/https://fb.watch/7KIR_eWMEE/https://fb.watch/7KITYMk9uJ/https://fb.watch/7KIV51wjYU/

2021-09-09 16:26:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26285/203

503313420303611111031611001216101311411

The organizing team has selected a group of young and motivated individuals already (or ready to be) projected into the realm of food systems and provided them with a safe space to discuss, openly and creatively, the way forward for a more sustainable and resilient future. As such, both the organizing team and the participants understand the need to act with urgency and are committed, either personally or professionally, to contribute to the vision, objectives and outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. The BoT participants aim to be agents of change and wish to contribute to the outcome of the FSS. David Nabarro’s intervention during the first BoT virtual meeting clearly inspired them and helped them better understand the process behind the Summit. In the organization of the Dialogue, the BoT organizing team made sure to embrace multistakeholder inclusivity by inviting participants from different countries, backgrounds and sectors, including but not limited to civil society, government, academia and the private sector. It must be pointed out, however, that the Dialogue has been organized and carried out with a focus on youth and on the European and Middle Eastern – Mediterranean regions. The facilitators were all part of the organizing team and has been briefed with attention to ensure the creation of a safe space conducive for dialogue based on respect and trust. A number of ‘principles’ for discussion were shared with the participants at the beginning of each session to foster this sense of inclusivity, mutual respect and trust. These included the need to complement the work of others, build on what the person before said, challenge only when you have an alternative to propose, and finally seek compromise in order to reach a unifying message.The Dialogue is part of a broader set of workshops and events organized by the Bites of Transfoodmation team that aim to take into account and discuss different aspects of food systems, recognizing their complexity. The Dialogue thus re-grouped and focused on all topics addressed during the previous seven workshops, namely narratives and advocacy; knowledge, connectivity and digitalization; habitats and proximity; diversity of food systems; renewed traditions and empowered culture; affordability and true value of food. A certain share of time has been dedicated to the unifying power of potentially divisive concepts. The Dialogue aimed to develop Lines of Action to implement the vision developed in previous workshops in the form of a manifesto, taking a holistic and systemic approach to food systems transformation. Yet, as the very name Bites of Transfoodmation suggests, the idea was to propose some ‘bites’ of change which are coherent and reflect the vision of the group. The principles of inclusivity, respect and trust were reflected in the design and roll-out of the Dialogue and have been an essential feature of the entire Bites of Transfoodmation process. The participants have not only been included in all stages of the project in a transparent and inclusive way but have been at its very center. A real sense of trust has been created along the way, and this could be witnessed during the Dialogue as the participants felt free to express their views openly, even when these did not necessarily reflect the views held by others.Thanks to the fact that there is a team working exclusively on the Bites of Transfoodmation project, a lot of information and knowledge sharing is able to take place both among the participants, and between the participants and the organizing team. The organizing team has ensured that various different avenues and spaces for exchange were created, both during and in the preparation phase of the Dialogues. This has definitely contributed to building trust as well as to keeping the momentum, engagement and commitment of the participants high. Our advice to other Conveners would be to make sure, if possible, that there is a strong point of contact between the Dialogue participants and the Conveners. This allows for participants' feedback and continued interaction after the workshops and Dialogue so that the ideas can be further refined, and knowledge further shared. Furthermore, it seems to be a valuable approach to choose participants with a diverse background in order to permit exchange about different realities, while working towards compromise and unifying elements.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251In the weeks preceding the retreat, the Bites of Transfoodmation team organized different consultative meetings with the participants of the retreat to assess their expectations regarding the event and more generally concerning the BoT community. Most participants' expectations were to create valuable connections and strong relationships between the members but also to find common ways in which the vision of the BoT Manifesto could be shared and implemented through various initiatives or projects. As in previous workshops, the focus of the retreat focused on the six paragraphs of the Manifesto which were combined for the occasion to create 3 groups as follow: • Life habits (Paragraphs 1 and 4): This group worked on rethinking more sustainable life habits through new narratives by advocacy and incentives that help develop renewed traditions thanks to intergenerational initiatives. • Habitats and well-being (Paragraphs 2 and 6): This group worked on reorganizing habitats and careers based on determinants of health and wellbeing, embedding the concept of true values of food and affordability. The group focused on norms and cities. • Food economy revisited (Paragraphs 3 and 5): This group worked on responding to the demand for personalized diets by reorganizing food economy on the basis of diversity, proximity, and interconnectivity.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251During the retreat the participants were asked to focus on the topics assigned to their group and to think or develop projects and solutions in order to concretize the vision of the Manifesto. The challenging task asked to the participants was to approach their ideas in a systemic way. To this aim, a set of 7 concrete lines of Actions were developed and participants were asked to consider them for each of their projects or ideas. Lines of Action aiming at transforming food systems towards: 1. Well-being Supporting initiatives that aim at wellbeing for all forms of life. In terms of food systems, it implies assuring that the true value of food is accounted, encompassing personalized diets and social determinants of health. 2. Governance (all) An evolution of soft and hard norms (labelling, marketing, food safety, land tenure, labour rights etc.) towards accountable, right-based and equal food systems. This implies policy reforms, a change in power relations and an acknowledgement of the nature of food as a public good. 3. Habitat A re-transformation of the physical structures sustaining food systems to ensure accessibility and avoid food deserts. It implies rethinking the way we produce, consume, urbanize, transform, and transport. 4. Innovations Fostering innovations -understood in a broad sense- that pave the way towards a new circular and regenerative social economy, based on the true cost of food and social proximity. 5. Interconnectivity and knowledge An improved use of interconnectivity, data and information systems to form the glue of the new social economic realities through, among others, hubs, e-commerce, shared knowledge and new toolkits. 6. Education and knowhow A stronger focus on next generations and an alignment of education and knowhow to the realities of complex systems, allowing to understand food as a system, through among others the development of new curriculum and cross-sectoral careers, and the normalization of intergenerational exchanges. 7. Finance Addressing financial and other economical investments or incentives to initiatives, projects and businesses that lead the way to the renewed food social economy. Change should be incentivized through risk analysis, blended finance and ESG at impact funds for example. Besides, members of the BoT had the opportunity to witness the interventions and interact with four high-level speakers during the retreat: Michael Fakhri, UN Special rapporteur on the Right to Food; Gilbert Houngbo, President of IFAD; David Nabarro, Special envoy on Covid-19 and FSS Dialogues Senior Advisor, and; Christian Frutiger, Head of Global Cooperation at the Swiss Agency for Development. Michael Fakhri stressed the need to take the Right to Food as an entry point in adopting a food systems perspective. He explained that the right to food is about people having agency in their food system. Food sovereignty should be sought as people should be able to define their relationships with their territory, community, land and resources. Mr. Fakhri alerted the community that the implementation of their vision could result in some who gain and some who lose and raised a few concerns regarding the Manifesto, in particular regarding the use of digitalisation and technology and their embedment in existing power dynamics. Second, Gilbert Houngbo stated that transformation requires disruption. He mentioned that younger generations are in a particularly good position to question and disrupt, as they have the energy and capacity to challenge authorities and put in question the status quo. He incited the group to be proactive and not to wait for everything to be clear before taking actions. The President stated that according to him the added-value of the Manifesto is the fact that it is the vision of an independent group who is apolitical and yet politically aware and able to come up with a unifying vision. Third, David Nabarro delivered a motivational and emotional message to the community on how to build around a clear pathway, to be aware that change is a process, to stick to their values and to move forward with humility. Finally, Christian Frutiger highlighted the importance of considering some key topics such as the One Health approach and the true value of food -even though its complexity in implementation- and suggested to focus the energy of the group on collective actions.236238239240243244249251Life Habits The group dealing with the topic “life habits”, bringing together two paragraphs of the Manifesto “Narratives and Advocacy” and “Renewed Traditions and Empowered Cultures”, worked on rethinking life habits in a more sustainable way. The idea was that through advocacy and incentives, new narratives could enable renewing traditions thanks to the development of intergenerational initiatives. The group highlighted the need to change our life habits in order to allow for a shift in consumption but also through the provision of information. The group started brainstorming by presenting projects that showed concretely how a change in habits could be reached. Some examples were the “keyhole garden” (a decentralized zero loss compost system), the “grocery helper” (guiding the consumer to choose healthy and environmental-friendly food), the “show me your fridge” (helping the consumer to use left-overs in the fridge by proposing some recipes). After discussions, the group agreed that the most important concept needed to shift our mindset was to improve food education. This includes making sure that people (children, teenagers, adults, and elderlies) understand where the food comes from, how it is produced, what its nutritional values are, in order to make informed decisions. During the Retreat the group developed a concept of “food education” (provision of information), introducing concepts of “intergenerational education” and “community-driven co-production” (activities). The group thought of different manners to make sure that food education was accessible to all age-ranges, considering circularity of food and zero-waste production, and ensuring social awareness and responsibility of choices.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251Habitats and Well-being Group 2 focused on “Habitats & Well-being” and had the task to support initiatives that aim at wellbeing for all forms of life. In terms of food systems, it implies assuring that the true value of food is accounted, encompassing personalized diets and social determinants of health, and re-transforming physical structures to ensure accessibility and avoid food deserts. It implies rethinking the way we produce, consume, urbanize, transform, and transport. The first session helped to identify the different perspectives of the group members and enabled successful communications. Then a first brainstorming took place on ideas of projects where Bites of Transfoodmation acted as a common narrative framework as well as a social platform/movement, always letting participants concretize and value the uniqueness of their personal projects. This allows the projects to share a similar trajectory while maintaining their own specificities. The goal of reconnecting urban and rural areas, and to make cities and societies more auto sufficient in terms of food and water and more sustainable in terms of planning was central for most of the projects proposed by the groups such as "the circular pizzeria"; the "wellbeing hubs" (worldwide hubs at the neighbourhood scale, which physically embody a narrative, a set of ideas and focus on collective intelligence to promote dialogue and integenerational exchanges); the "water innovation hubs" (hubs where local habits and actions can be positively influenced, by educating people on how to have more practical, innovative and sustainable water management solutions); the "future agriculture hub" (a platform facilitating exchanges between producers and consumers) or the "pre-urban tracks" (trucks transporting and storing products but also displaying techniques such as vertical farming and hydroponics). Another crucial point stressed by the group was the accesibility to healthy food in refugee camps with the idea to set some areas dedicated to vertical farming. The aim of this project is to enable refugees to grow and sell their own food, not only focusing on microgreens but also fruits and vegetables. This would allow for more personalized diets as well as allowing refugees to benefit in economic terms, for the food produced in the camps would be then sold in a food market at its real price/true value. The group ended in thinking that the BoT could be the soil that allows individual projects to grow, where diversity such as nationalities, cultures, and realities are always taken into account reaching a sort of diverse community/global village with the common aim to transform the future food systems. Two major points have been raised by the group: how should the projects be showcased? And how could projects be funded? An idea that was proposed is to have a booklet collecting and showcasing the different projects and financing them through crowdfunding. Moreover funds could be received on investment or donation basis, depending on the will of the person lending or investing. In that case, people giving money should have the possibility of seeing/following where the money is going. Yet, empathy should be practiced on both sides. The idea would be that people on the receiving end should be able to decide whether they want to receive money in the form of charity or loans . As a final remark the group highlighted the importance of assessing and understanding the needs of the local contextes where the projects are being implemented, but even more to empower and include the local communities to ensure the long-term sustainability of these projects.236238240241242243244245246247248249Revisited food economy Group 3 focused on « revisiting food economy » and had the task to work on responding to the demand for personalized diets by reorganizing food economy on the basis of diversity, proximity, and interconnectivity. The first session helped identify some critical notions related to this subject, such as the centrality of information, trust (transparency) and education. Issues such as greenwashing, holding stakeholders (incl. consumers) accountable, realising a human right approach, but also consumers’ behaviour were identified. Then a first brainstorming took place on ideas of projects bringing to life this revisited economy. The group decided to focus on three main themes: one on education with one project in Switzerland bringing children to the farms and one in Egypt organising cooking classes between locals and refugees; one on trust with a platform that would bridge producers and consumers virtually and when possible physically, using a financial mechanism rewarding sustainable production and consumption; and one on transparent supply chain through the use of a positive ranking index for ranking the transparency of firms and through a “subsidies for dummies” project that would communicate to consumers and producers about the subsidies. In the following sessions, the group developed these projects further and began to find synergies with the projects from the other groups.237This physical meeting came after months of virtual meetings where the focus was on what unites us and not what divides us in order to find a unified vision to implement. The result has been that for the first time there were no real areas of divergence between the participants, only different ideas on how to succeed in implementing the proposed projects and initiatives.

2021-09-09 17:01:29207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17206/203

12065254873461134116181111131428114525312152481210

Act with urgency: The Global Dialogue on Trade was designed to stress the importance of international trade for global food security, and the vital role it plays as a “means of implementation” of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The Dialogue was convened immediately prior to the UNFSS pre-summit to drive home the urgency of achieving a trade outcome both at the Summit, and the WTO’s 12 Ministerial Conference to be held at the end of 2021. Earlier this year, sixteen agricultural exporting nations, all of whom are WTO members, circulated a joint statement at the Summit calling upon the international community to reduce trade barriers and restrictions to trade in food that endanger global food security. Over half of these WTO Members were represented at this Global Dialogue. Commit to the Summit: The Global Dialogue on Trade was organized by the WTO Secretariat in collaboration with the UNFSS to demonstrate the WTO and the trade community’s commitment to the success of the Summit. Organisations participating in different summit action tracks were invited to participate in the ten different breakout rooms. National convenors were notified of the Dialogue. Be respectful: The Global Dialogue on Trade was designed in a way that would allow participants to address the multiple dimensions of sustainability; economic, social and environmental. To achieve this goal, it included participants from across sectors and engaged them in discussions under Chatham House rules. Recognize complexity: The ten breakout rooms of the Global Dialogue on Trade were designed to illustrate the many complex issues that the multilateral trading system is required to grapple with to tackle trade in food and agricultural products. Topics ranged from trade in food in times of crisis, all the way to trade and nutrition and the human right to food. Continued in next section...Continued from from previous question... Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The Global Dialogue on Trade was a by-invitation only event designed to ensure multi-stakeholder engagement, and was attended by 120 of its 130 invited participants who included: • Heads of major grain associations from across the globe • Heads of major farmer unions from across the globe • Heads of major farmers' associations from across the globe • Agri-busines CEOs from across the globe • Heads of important agricultural think tanks from across the globe • All major international organizations working on food and agriculture • WTO Ambassadors and high-level representatives (original invite went out to all group coordinators, subsequently replaced if unavailable) Complement the work of others: The goal of ensuring complementarity was achieved through the broad list of participants, and engagement of multiple stakeholders at the highest level. Build trust: To build the trust, the WTO Secretariat carefully curated the event. It invited expert facilitators for each of the ten breakout rooms, who were themselves selected from across different sectors of society (academics, think tanks, farmers, NGOs and more). In addition, all facilitators were well-known and well-respected individuals in their field. The WTO Secretariat worked carefully with facilitators on the questions that would be debated in each breakout room. The breakout rooms were held under Chatham House rules to allow for more open and frank discussions in a secure environment. Answer to "How did your Dialogue reflect specific aspects of the Principles?" The Principles were fully built-into and integrated into the design of the Global Dialogue on Trade and each of its breakout rooms. Assistance from the UN Summit Secretariat and the moderator (Dr. David Nabarro) and his office, proved invaluable.The WTO Secretariat would advise other Dialogue Conveners to allow themselves to be guided by the UN Summit Secretariat, that provides excellent orientation for these events. In addition, breakout room topics and questions must be reflected upon very carefully, and breakout room facilitators carefully selected. They must be well-known and well-respected individuals, so they are able to generate the required conversations and trust.

NoThe Global Dialogue on Trade departed from the Convenors manual in only one important way. Breakout room questions did not adhere to the generic questions listed in the manual but were carefully targeted to the topic of the room, and carefully selected and agreed with each breakout room facilitator.

234238239241242244247248249250The major areas of focus were reflected in the topics of the ten breakout rooms, which cut across all Summit Action tracks and Sustainable Development Goals and included: 1. International Trade in Food In Times of Crisis 2. Can the Reform of Agricultural Subsidies Contribute to Food System Transformation? 3. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA); The Way Forward 4. Trade Facilitation and the Cutting of Red Tape for Food System Transformation 5. Global Agricultural Value Chains 6. Realizing the Human Right to Food 7. Ensuring Sustainable Food Trade 8. Nutrition Security and International Trade 9. Food Security and International Trade 10. Food Safety and International Trade Under each of the breakout rooms, the Sustainable Development Goals relevant to each room were identified so as to carefully frame the discussions. In addition, a high-level opening and closing plenary allowed for a clear political signal to be sent by the WTO and UNFSS leadership on the need for international trade for global food security.235238239241242244247248249250The three main topics of discussion, by breakout room, included: 1. International Trade in Food In Times of Crisis • Can international trade in food be made more resilient in times of crisis? • How can food export restrictions best be addressed? • How can Global Food Value Chains (GVCs) be protected from disruption during crises? Facilitator: Shenggen Fan Senior Chair Professor College of Economics and Management China Agriculture University 2. Can the Reform of Agricultural Subsidies Contribute to Food System Transformation? • Are current agricultural subsidies enabling food system transformation? • What are current projections for global agricultural subsidies? • How can agricultural subsidies be repurposed to achieve the UN SDGs? Facilitator: David Laborde Senior Research Fellow International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 3. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA); The Way Forward • What are the most pressing reforms of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) for food system transformation? • Can current agriculture negotiations in the WTO deliver the required transformation? • What are the "trade-offs" between different areas of the agriculture negotiations, and how can they be addressed in a balanced and meaningful manner? Facilitator: Alexandre Guido Lopes Parola Permanent Representative of Brazil to the WTO & Other Economic Organizations in Geneva 4. Trade Facilitation and the Cutting of Red Tape for Food System Transformation • What are the pressing trade facilitation measures required in the area of food trade? • Can the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement reduce food waste? • Will border controls for internationally traded food move into the digital era? Facilitator: Trudi Hartzenberg Executive Director Trade Law Center (TRALAC) 5. Global Agricultural Value Chains • How much food moves through agricultural global value chains (GVCs), and are GVCs a growing phenomenon? • Is trade in services fundamental to the growth of GVCs? • What is the role of investment and competition policy in supporting GVCs? Facilitator: Joe Glauber Senior Research Fellow International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 6. Realizing the Human Right to Food • What does the right to food mean? • What type of governmental trade policies can best fulfil people’s right to food? • How can the international trade regime ensure fair and equitable food systems? Facilitator: Michael Fakhri, UN Special Rapporteur on Right to Food 7. Ensuring Sustainable Food Trade • How can the international trading system promote more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable trade in food? • How can trade policy help governments better manage climate-related shocks to the food system? • What are the key changes needed to promote more environmentally sustainable food trade? Facilitator: Carin Smaller Director, Agriculture, Trade & Investment International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) 8. Nutrition Security and International Trade • How can international trade contribute to better nutrition? What is the role of the CFS's newly adopted Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition? • What governmental policies are required to ensure positive outcomes between international trade and nutrition? • Are nutrition labels the way to go? Facilitator: Chris Hegadorn Secretary Committee on World Food Security (CFS) 9. Food Security and International Trade • How can international trade boost food security at the global level? • Under what circumstances can international trade undermine food security? • Which policies should be prioritized by WTO Members in a joint effort to ensure positive outcomes between international trade and food security? Facilitator: Arianna Giuliodori Secretary General World Farmers' Organisation (WFO) 10. Food Safety and International Trade • What is the role of international standards in food safety? • What new approaches can the international community offer to facilitate compliance of lower and middle-income countries (LMICs) with international standards? • How can unnecessary obstacles to trade be avoided in the food safety area? Facilitator: Jamie Morrison, Director Food Systems and Food Safety Division Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)236238239241242244247248249250Key outcomes of the Global Dialogue on Trade include: On process: • Continued multi-stakeholder dialogue on trade in food must go forward • Farmers must be at the table, whether in conversations on agri-food systems at the UNFSS or at the WTO On substance: • Agreement that international trade in food is critical for global food security, and that it acts as the transmission belt that moves food from the parts of the world with a surplus to the parts with a deficit • Agreement that international trade in food must be made more resilient in times of crisis, and that there is a need to continue to rely on and strengthen the G20’s Agricultural Monitoring and Information System (AMIS) which was created in the wake of the 2008 food price crisis • Agreement that current agricultural subsidies are not delivering the required food system transformation, and that there is a need for deeper reflection on how to repurpose these subsidies • Agreement that the WTO Agreement on Agriculture requires reform, and that WTO agriculture negotiations must be continued and must seek a balanced outcome by the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference (end 2021) • Agreement that the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement must be deployed to prevent food loss and food waste as food perishables travel across borders • Agreement that food and agricultural global value chains (GVCs) must not be disrupted and must be made more resilient, especially in times of crisis • Agreement that the “human right to food” has to reflect the adequacy, availability and accessibility of food, in particular to the poorest of the poor • Agreement that there is a need to internalize negative social and environmental externalities to make international trade more sustainable • Agreement that international trade can allow greater access to food and to a more diverse diet, but that it needs proper accompanying policies, including trade policy • Agreement that the trade and food security interlinkage is complex: that trade is necessary but not sufficient and that there is a need for complementary policies • Agreement that there is a need to continue to build international standards for greater food safety, but to ensure that the developing world is able to contribute to and to use these standards • Agreement on the need to promote trade digitalization and e-commerce237238239241242245247248249250Throughout the Global Dialogue on Trade, while participants tended to agree on the broad objectives and way forward for the international food trade, they tended to disagree once discussions came down to “how” achieve certain changes. There was disagreement on how to reform the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, how to repurpose global agricultural subsidies, how and whether to remove food export restrictions, how to achieve a balance between global and local food security, how to achieve the human right to food, how to internalize negative social and environmental externalities associated with international trade, how to ensure greater developing country participation in international trade and in the building of international food safety and nutrition standards, and more. The disagreements reflected a healthy debate that must continue to go forward, and that must continue to be inclusive and multi-stakeholder in nature. There was also concern and lively debate on whether Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and regionalism contribute to greater trade in food/or lead to a fragmentation of the global food market.

2021-09-10 20:10:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/37380/135

3820131921121182411314111144215

The event was organized using a multistakeholder approach. It also create an atmosphere of trust-building to the extent that the participants agreed to a WhatsApp group where the conversations can continue.Kaduna is one of the agricultural hubs in Nigeria. Bringing together thought leaders in the food systems was an act of urgency in the sense that no known platform had been recognized hitherto to have done that.Not really. The best approach is to have an unbiased mindset.

Yes

234246248The focus of the dialogue was to advance equitable livelihoods. Across the value chain, there's a large disparity. Post-harvest loss has been by far one of the most challenging processes for the food systems.235It was discovered that very little attention is been paid to the food system in Kaduna. Instead, the focus has been on the production and processing of agricultural products. Stakeholders are looking up to governments to ease the burden and prefer recommendations in the food systems.

2021-09-12 07:47:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43921/76

191941500

UNICEF’s food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) had to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual to make the process more age appropriate for younger audiences. Despite these amendments, all the Principles of Engagement were upheld. These core tenants are also critical in the implementation of a child-centered approach, which relies on participation, inclusivity, respect, diversity, and curating a safe space to share an array of lived experiences.Activities were designed to safeguard the interest of children and allow participants to freely explore ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions were deliberately broad and open to interpretation, like the discussion questions provided in the Convenors Reference Manual. Facilitators were trained to limit their influence and avoid judging participants’ responses, as per the facilitator trainings provided by the Summit team. A key aspect of the workshop was to gather children’s insights in an enabling environment so we can better understand what matters to them - remembering to respect that there are no right or wrong answers, as per the Principles of Engagement. A more detailed description of specific activities which reflect these Principles can be found in the workshop facilitation manuals which contain guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing creative and participatory activities with diverse children.These core Principles of Engagement are critical to ensure a safe space where all dialogue participants - especially children - can share their experiences, challenges, and visions, in an enabling environment, when it comes to food systems. Children’s opinions and insights are central to any discussion around building healthier and more sustainable food systems and should be upheld at all times.

NoUNICEF committed to engage with and involve the voice of children and young people to inform the global and national narratives for the transformation of food systems in favor of nutritious, safe, affordable and sustainable diets. UNICEF hosted food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) in 18 countries across seven world regions. To accommodate this younger age group, UNICEF partnered with Western Sydney University (WSU) to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual so that it was more age appropriate. These dialogues used a distributed data generation method pioneered by Young and Resilient Research Centre at WSU in collaboration with UNICEF and other partners. The methodology has successfully been used in several international projects, including three companion reports to the State of the World’s Children (Third et al, 2017; Schmied et al, 2020; Fleming et al 2020). Working with UNICEF country offices, dialogues were conducted in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, UK, Turkey, Indonesia, Guatemala, China, Nepal, Netherlands, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Palestine, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Kenya, and Nigeria with children and adolescents aged 10-19. A set of workshop-based participatory activities were developed to explore children’s experiences of food poverty and climate change on their diets, with a focus on documenting children’s calls to action to underpin changes to their food systems. Workshops were rooted in the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and were implemented by trained representatives of UNICEF Country Offices and facilitating partners. The team developed a comprehensive workshop facilitation manual containing guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing a series of creative and participatory activities with diverse children. WSU trained facilitators to implement two or more workshops per country dialogue with children and adolescents aged 10-19. Workshops engaged children from a variety of socio-economic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. During the workshop-based dialogues, children worked in small groups to complete a series of fun and interactive activities designed to capture their experiences of food and the challenges to food systems. Activities included drawing, mapping, group brainstorming, and discussion. The activities explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change focusing on understanding how they view the importance of food in their lives, mapping their food systems and what barriers or vulnerabilities they experience with in their food systems and what actions they can take to reduce the impact of food systems on the changing climate. Finally, the workshops provided children with the opportunity to voice what they see needs to change so that everyone can eat nutritious food without harming the environment. Dialogues were implemented either face-to-face or online. Online workshops used Zoom and Miro boards. The face-to-face version used a classic workshop setup in a single room with tables, markers, and paper-based worksheets. Activities were identical for both versions. Though most workshops were held online to comply with national pandemic-related restrictions, those that were held face-to-face followed national pandemic-related safety protocols. Once completed, if necessary, workshop responses were translated from the local language to English and uploaded to a secure data facility. Data were coded using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques. The findings provided here uphold this child-centered approach. Children voiced that they enjoyed the workshops as they were an opportunity to express themselves and share their opinions. This is reflected in comments captured below by participants during the workshops. ‘The meeting was fruitful, and you listened to our voices. 'We had fun! I can speak what’s in my mind freely. 'Got the opportunity of expressing ourselves, which is also our right’ The methodology - including child safeguarding processes - was approved by the WSU Human Ethics Committee (# H14363).

234238239240241242243244247248249251The workshop-based dialogues explored children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and lived experiences of their food systems, focusing on the issues of food poverty and climate change. Each country participating in the workshop-based dialogues conducted a minimum of two workshops with different participants; one workshop focused on food poverty and the other on climate change, enabling deep exploration of topics in the time available. Naturally, these topics and their discussions cut across all five Action Tracks. Workshop-based dialogues explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change through the following activities: Activity 1: This activity aims to surface what children think about food and what food means to them, this activity explores What children find appealing about food and what their aspirations are around eating to help inform aspects of food choice within their own food environments and systems. Children create a ‘food cloud’ by writing or typing foods they like and dislike. Activities 2 & 3: To explore their food systems, children drew a map of how food arrives on their plate, marking where their food is grown, how it is transported, and where it is bought and consumed. They then map the constraints in their food systems, as they relate to food poverty and climate change, and propose solutions to these constraints. Activity 4: This activity explores how children want to engage with these issues. Children were asked to explore what different people can do to help make sure that the foods we eat don’t negatively impact the environment. Using a series of different levels of circles from individual through to community and national levels of governance what actions can be taken in their food systems to create positive change? Activity 5: This activity generates children’s calls to action to address the impacts of food poverty and climate change on their food systems. Children write a leader to their leaders, outlining their call for change. Workshops concluded with a plenary discussion to draw our key insights. These workshops enabled children to contribute their insights and perspectives to the ongoing debates across all action tracks. They discussed challenges and proposed how to enhance their access to safe nutritious foods. They identified barriers to sustainable consumption patterns in their communities and suggested ways to shift behaviors. They identified that young people have a vital role to play in boosting positive production which, in turn, will contribute to more equitable livelihoods. And they called on governments to take concrete action to support vulnerable communities and to build the resilience and a brighter future for all children and adolescents around the world.235238239240247248249Describe in under 5,600 characters including spaces Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. Food was delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. These responses suggest that food for children is a mix of the material and the aspirational. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely aspects like bitterness, smell, and unhealthiness when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children often focused on price; these desirable foods were simply too expensive. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and health effects (too much fat/sugar) also a factor. Some children could choose the food they ate, but some could not, whether due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking. Food affordability was a key concern for children in Ghana, as it limited their ability to access food. ‘I like plantain but very expensive. The price keeps fluctuating every week. So we eat the food that is less expensive and same food everyday and that is not healthy’. Challenges to Food Systems One core activity in the consultations was food mapping. Children mapped a food system around them, visualizing how food moved from the farm to the plate. Overall children demonstrated a deep understanding of food production, especially when it was a local staple food or meal. Children then reflected on what the vulnerabilities or weak points in these systems were. The main vulnerability voiced by the children was poor availability of food. Poor availability was due to minimal stock in the markets, distance from the farming areas, and problems with food distribution. Access to food is also significantly affected by poverty and disruption to food production by season/natural disaster. Another predominant concern was the poor quality of food due to water pollution, use of artificial fertilisers, and unhygienic market conditions. These concerns highlight once again how interconnected food systems are, with economic (e.g. high food prices) and environmental (e.g. flooding, low crop yields) frequently overlapping. Strengthening Food Systems Children completed activities designed to provide concrete suggestions for change at different levels of society, from family to community, industry, and government. They also wrote a “postcard to the President,” outlining key changes that need to happen and how children could input into these shifts, with economic concerns about the high cost of living emerging as an important theme in Ghana. Many children saw potential in empowering communities to grow their own produce and learn more about sustainability. Farms and farming also emerged as a frequent theme, with children suggesting it should be promoted as a vocation and supported with financial incentives and training. Proximity of both food production and food consumption, as mentioned above, was a key concern. In response, children stressed that farms and markets should be local and accessible, moving from ‘far away to being close’. Many of the childrens’ suggestions strongly link food security with food autonomy: import less, regulate more, and invest seriously in local farms and infrastructure, producing enough cheap, nutritious food for all. ‘I would tell the president that the Economy is too bad, the prices are too high’. ‘The government should provide technologies and machines for farming to reduce the hard labor of farmers and also promote agriculture in Ghana’.236238239240241242243244247248249251At the end of the workshop, the children engaged in a whole-group plenary discussion, where we asked them the key messages they wanted to convey to the UN. Overall, children felt the UN was responsible for ensuring food security, environmental preservation and ensuring equality. This was tied to understanding people’s difficulties, with special consideration for places and groups that experience greater insecurity and marginalization. The UN was also seen as an entity responsible for collaborating globally to bring about social change. Four key themes emerged from our workshops: 1. Education: the UN should teach people about climate change, environmental protection, recycling, food systems; it should raise awareness of food inequality and show people the benefits of nutritious and sustainable practices, like eating seasonally “further promote socialization about climate change, the food systems, and the 2030 SDGs, so that the world community is more aware of the condition of the earth” 2. Inclusion: the UN should listen to young people, create offline (e.g. forums) and online (e.g. platforms) spaces for them to share their views, collaborate with them, and involve them as government intermediaries “I hope UN continues to invite youths from various countries to participate in every activity because youths are the future leaders of nations. Let youths learn how to protect the world” 3. Regulation: the UN should regulate food production, establishing laws to tackle global warming, keeping food producers accountable, auditing programs to ensure compliance, addressing plastic and deforestation, and controlling chemicals/pesticides “UN intervention to countries must be more aggressive. For example, an international Environmental Impact Analysis seems to need to be agreed. Auditing food producers must be conducted from upstream to downstream.” 4. Support: the UN should support sustainable food production, strengthening infrastructure, enhancing distribution, and implementing programs that make food more affordable and accessible, especially for those most impacted by food poverty and climate change (e.g. indigenous communities) “support access to nutritious foods for low-income and vulnerable population”, “defend the rights of indigenous people”, “strengthen the supply chain of foods”237238239240241242243244247248249251[WSU statement] Overall children were in agreement about the strengths and vulnerabilities of food systems, how to improve food sustainability, the issues that needed addressing, and the stakeholders that should be focused on. There were certainly different focal points. For example, some children focused on financial and educational support for farmers, while others focused on government legislation around food safety and food systems. But ultimately we see these as overlapping and supplementary, rather than divergent. To make food systems more sustainable and nutritious, a holistic approach will be needed involving a broad range of different actors and interventions.

2021-09-13 05:36:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27845/23395569878895101102123127130142145157168179180181183197199

138255243186078511815211122181197129296361693

The dialogue was co-organised by the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development and Pacific Island Farmer Organisations Network for 7th June. Leading up to the event, during the week long event of dialogue (the event on the 7th was the first of a 5-consecutive day event) and after the event, meetings were held between the organising partners to assess the ideas shared, how to improve from day to day on delivery which included time management, sequence of presentations, technical, as well as administrative, support. All involved were able to express their thoughts. During the actual event, participants were encouraged to share their thoughts, showcase examples from their communities/regions, and sufficient breakout rooms were organised so that people had a greater opportunity to express themselves. All thoughts were shared in the main meeting room after all returned from the breakout sessions, with contact details provided for further thoughts to be shared following the event. The final day of the 5-day event allowed all to hear and add to the thoughts shared from each day's dailogue. Following the event, debriefs included providing the necessary supplementary information for the necessary reports to be drawn up.Participants were encouraged throughout the dialogue to share their ideas at the appropriate time during the breakout sessions, and were reminded to be respectful to those who were speaking at any one time. Given that some regions had specific thoughts and issues to raise specific to their location, and to also accommodate the different languages from across Asia-Pacific, it was decided that breakout rooms would be assigned geographically. This resulted in participants from Asia being divided between 3 breakout rooms, and the Pacific had one room for all its participants. This format also allowed for multi-stakeholder inclusivity within each room.Collaboration is key, and the willingness to share information.

Yes

234240242244249251Agriculture has supported Asia Pacific communities for thousands of years, but in recent years, population growth, deforestation and the intensification of crop production for commercial purposes has threatened the very foundation of agriculture: the soil. Soil condition and fertility vary considerably across countries, with more fertile and productive soils found in volcanic lands and islands. The loss of soil fertility threatens the productivity of crops, and soil erosion through run-off into the sea is damaging the coral reefs on which island communities largely depend for their protein. Jon Barnett (2011) summed up the potential impact of climate change: ‘Climate change will adversely affect food systems in the region, including the supply of food from agriculture and fisheries, the ability of countries to import food, systems for the distribution of food, and the ability of households to purchase and utilize food. In these ways, climate change puts at risk the very basic and universal need for people in the islands to have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food at all times’ Agricultural products are a significant component of exports for many countries in the region and food production activities (agriculture and fishing) continue to employ the greatest percentage of the labour force, either in commercial enterprises, or more commonly, in self-sufficiency endeavors. This is despite the Asia Pacific region comprising the most environmentally vulnerable nations in the world. Natural disasters, such as cyclones, floods and droughts are not new to the region. However, the climate projections for the 21st century and beyond, suggest that extreme events such as heatwaves, droughts, tsunamis, typhoons and floods are likely to increase in frequency and intensity, projected rainfall and rainfall patterns are likely to create problems for a region already affected by droughts and floods, and cyclones, typhoons are most likely to increase in intensity. Extreme high tides and storm surges will probably continue to threaten low-lying flat lands and islands, as will the ongoing sea level rise, which will cause contamination of groundwater. It is vital therefore that the Asia Pacific region assesses the vulnerability of its agriculture sector, so that strategies can be developed both to cope with extreme climate events and improve the resilience of production systems to the changing climate. Vulnerability to climate change has different dimensions as the focus turns from plants, trees and animals through agricultural systems and landscapes, to individuals, households, communities and countries. Individual plants, trees and animals have vulnerabilities to changes in climate, which can be assessed by considering their physiological thresholds or limits within different emission scenarios. The vulnerability of agricultural systems can be modified by changing practices, such as altering planting dates, changing the mix of varieties or species, introducing innovative systems or reviving traditional practice weaved in with modern day sciences. Women tend not to have access to the key information and education critical for adapting to a rapidly changing climate (McOmber et al. 2013). This is due to many factors linked to tradition (in the Pacific) and work burdens. At best, this reduces their potential to contribute to household, community and national responses and at worst their vulnerability to extreme weather events is increased. It is crucial that women are fully involved in the development of climate change adaptation strategies and in capacity building related to climate change, as it is women who tend to remain behind to run farms and gardens when men move away to seek employment in urban areas. Understanding the gendered division of labour within Asia Pacific communities can assist in providing more in-depth understanding of community perspectives on changes to climate and the environment. It can also provide a useful entry point for harnessing specialized knowledge in developing strategies for adapting to climate change. Adaptation solutions must build on the diverse knowledge, priorities and capacities of both wo235240242243244249251• Likely impacts of climate change in the Asia Pacific region will amplify pressure on existing threats, particularly climate extremes. Enabling farmers to adapt to these extremes in the short to medium term will help future generations. The pragmatic approach is to address the existing threats while continuing to address knowledge gaps and identify future threats. • The comparative advantage for Farmer Organisations (FOs) in agricultural research and extension is that for agricultural research, a partnership between agricultural ministries, relevant public sectors and FOs will improve the depth & quality of agricultural research. For extension, FOs can effectively & efficiently complement the work of Government & Aid agencies by extending the outreach of support to farmers. • Improving access to seeds; learning farmer exchanges; technical assistance in upgrading seed production; new seed packaging to extend viability; hosting regional events focused on roundtable discussions for open pollinated seeds, breadfruit, soil learning, and off season vegetable production; Australian learning exchanges, development of traditional foods as orchard crops; farmer to farmer (F2F) technical exchanges; taking to the virtual platform to launch commodity specific content (such as the Breadfruit People), and climate adaptation webinars on agroforestry, soil health and food security; forgotten foods where traditional varieties are resilient to climate change, but farmers are forgetting how to grow them in the midst of commericalisation. • FOs are centrally placed to help extend the outreach of Government, aid agencies and other development partners to support the adaptation process; are in a position to identify the communities, farmers and farms in need of assistance; able to communicate to Government the type of assistance needed • Improving on the capacity of FOs to manage pests and diseases by disseminating the correct information on climate smart farming practice, providing the necessary resources to support those farmers in need, and ensure the close collaboration with Government and other stakeholders • Understanding soil in relation to climate change is important as artificial fertilisers represent external energy that simplify soil, reducing biomass and consequently tonnage of living organisms, making the soil more reliant no external energy • Climate Change is here, but mindsets need to be changed to develop production systems which place meals on the table, and avoid hunger • The strategies to employ for minimising damage to traditional crops during natural disasters, which can also bring floods. • Given their natural resilience to climatic conditions, traditional crops are grown, as are vetiver grass236238240242243244248249251Other initiatives, innovative solutions to the barriers & challenges to be recommended: - Focus on local food systems, including local wisdom in terms of cultivation, including pest management - Encourage ecological/agroecological/natural farming systems so as to promote sustainability/resilience - Practice continuous conservation of biodiversity, traditional seeds and local food - Analyse rainfall and design water saving/conservation mechanisms for harvesting water - Engage with policy makers to promote organic agriculture through the development of policies supporting climate mitigation and incentives for farmers to shift to organic farming - Invest in integrated, diversified organic farming systems where food for livestock is produced from within the farming system, rather than outsourcing - Consumption of traditional crops is present, but the commodity is not in retail shops, so recommend that the project work with retail shops and larger companies so the greater public may access these crops too236238240242243244248249251Specific strategies or innovations that have successfully addressed climate change related challenges of women and young farmers: - enhancing family farming and promotion of agroecology through community based seedbanks, and establishing community based enterprise where a portion of the revenue is invested in a fund, only accessible for climate emergencies. - Local seeds are important for organic farming/agroecology as they have a better adaption rate than hybrid seeds - Engage the youth in green technology and entrepreneurship - Use grafting of indigenous species, as evidence has shown that grafted local trees enjoy a better harvest - Soil protection is crucial, and chemical substances are to be avoided, by instead investing in micros technology to develop organic waste - Partnerships with Government on policy and programs is needed to ensure the general farming community and public are involved - Commodity specific communities, including virtual platforms, continue to be encouraged, such as the Breadfruit People in the Pacific236238240242243244245248249251Enumeration of ways to scale out & scale up implementation of the solutions, initiatives: - Provide subsidies to support farming families investing in agroecology - Funding and market accessibility can be provided through improving/strengthening climate change adaptation and strengthening the participation of women and young farmers in sharing through farmer to farmer exchanges or schools/rural training centres - Improve dissemination of information to the public about climate change mitigation and adaptation to better connect the community to other stakeholders, as well as create/develop the market for local organic products - Develop policy on improving the capacity of households to control resources, such as land ownership, so as to encourage production with creating any further damage to the environment; as well as for innovations and initiatives - Improve research/data and use for planning on a larger scale, especially for engagement with Government - Target audiences for education and capacity building, by seeking out youth and women too, so as to upskill in the area of organic farming/traditional knowledge and business skills to sell products and value add - Establish cooperatives, and work with the relevant ministries, especially the Ministry of Agriculture towards aligning/integrating agricultural activities - Encourage multi stakeholder partnership mechanisms at local & national level - Encourage home gardens for each family237238240242243244248249251The dialogue did not highlight areas of divergence, rather the ideas were aligned, and in some instances reflected the greater needs of the respective countries/communities. For instance, water conservation is important, but some regions required support on a greater scale than others.

2021-09-13 11:46:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43056/173

433761627

UNICEF’s food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) had to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual to make the process more age appropriate for younger audiences. Despite these amendments, all the Principles of Engagement were upheld. These core tenants are also critical in the implementation of a child-centered approach, which relies on participation, inclusivity, respect, diversity, and curating a safe space to share an array of lived experiences.Activities were designed to safeguard the interest of children and allow participants to freely explore ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions were deliberately broad and open to interpretation, like the discussion questions provided in the Convenors Reference Manual. Facilitators were trained to limit their influence and avoid judging participants’ responses, as per the facilitator trainings provided by the Summit team. A key aspect of the workshop was to gather children’s insights in an enabling environment so we can better understand what matters to them - remembering to respect that there are no right or wrong answers, as per the Principles of Engagement. A more detailed description of specific activities which reflect these Principles can be found in the workshop facilitation manuals which contain guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing creative and participatory activities with diverse children.These core Principles of Engagement are critical to ensure a safe space where all dialogue participants - especially children - can share their experiences, challenges, and visions, in an enabling environment, when it comes to food systems. Children’s opinions and insights are central to any discussion around building healthier and more sustainable food systems, and should be upheld at all times.

Yes

234238239240241242243244247248249251The workshop-based dialogues explored children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and lived experiences of their food systems, focusing on the issues of food poverty and climate change. Each country participating in the workshop-based dialogues conducted a minimum of two workshops with different participants; one workshop focused on food poverty and the other on climate change, enabling deep exploration of topics in the time available. Naturally, these topics and their discussions cut across all five Action Tracks. Workshop-based dialogues explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change through the following activities: Activity 1: This activity aims to surface what children think about food and what food means to them, this activity explores What children find appealing about food and what their aspirations are around eating to help inform aspects of food choice within their own food environments and systems. Children create a ‘food cloud’ by writing or typing foods they like and dislike. Activities 2 & 3: To explore their food systems, children drew a map of how food arrives on their plate, marking where their food is grown, how it is transported, and where it is bought and consumed. They then map the constraints in their food systems, as they relate to food poverty and climate change, and propose solutions to these constraints. Activity 4: This activity explores how children want to engage with these issues. Children were asked to explore what different people can do to help make sure that the foods we eat don’t negatively impact the environment. Using a series of different levels of circles from individual through to community and national levels of governance what actions can be taken in their food systems to create positive change? Activity 5: This activity generates children’s calls to action to address the impacts of food poverty and climate change on their food systems. Children write a leader to their leaders, outlining their call for change. Workshops concluded with a plenary discussion to draw our key insights. These workshops enabled children to contribute their insights and perspectives to the ongoing debates across all action tracks. They discussed challenges and proposed how to enhance their access to safe nutritious foods. They identified barriers to sustainable consumption patterns in their communities and suggested ways to shift behaviors. They identified that young people have a vital role to play in boosting positive production which, in turn, will contribute to more equitable livelihoods. And they called on governments to take concrete action to support vulnerable communities and to build the resilience and a brighter future for all children and adolescents around the world.235238239240241242243244247248249251Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. Food was delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. These responses suggest that food for children is a mix of the material and the aspirational. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely aspects like bitterness, smell, and unhealthiness when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children often focused on price; these desirable foods were simply too expensive. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and health effects (too much fat/sugar) also a factor. Some children could choose the food they ate, but some could not, whether due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking. ‘Always have to depend on farmers from some far away place.’ Challenges to Food Systems One core activity in the consultations was food mapping. Children mapped a food system around them, visualizing how food moved from the farm to the plate. Overall children demonstrated a deep understanding of food production, especially when it was a local staple food or meal. Children then reflected on what the vulnerabilities or weak points in these systems were. The main vulnerability voiced by the children was poor availability of food. Poor availability was due to minimal stock in the markets, distance from the farming areas, and problems with food distribution. Access to food is also significantly affected by poverty and disruption to food production by season/natural disaster. Another predominant concern was the poor quality of food due to water pollution, use of artificial fertilisers, and unhygienic market conditions. These concerns highlight once again how interconnected food systems are, with economic (e.g. high food prices) and environmental (e.g. flooding, low crop yields) frequently overlapping. ‘Natural disasters create food vulnerability.’ Strengthening Food Systems Children completed activities designed to provide concrete suggestions for change at different levels of society, from family to community, industry, and government. They also wrote a “postcard to the President,” outlining key changes that need to happen and how children could input into these shifts. Many children saw potential in empowering communities to grow their own produce and learn more about sustainability. Farms and farming also emerged as a frequent theme, with children suggesting it should be promoted as a vocation and supported with financial incentives and training. Proximity of both food production and food consumption, as mentioned above, was a key concern. In response, children stressed that farms and markets should be local and accessible, moving from ‘far away to being close’. Many of the childrens’ suggestions strongly link food security with food autonomy: import less, regulate more, and invest seriously in local farms and infrastructure, producing enough cheap, nutritious food for all. ‘Food supply should be available to every citizen and food should be with no added chemicals.’236238239240241242243244247248249251At the end of the workshop, the children engaged in a whole-group plenary discussion, where we asked them the key messages they wanted to convey to the UN. Overall, children felt the UN was responsible for ensuring food security, environmental preservation and ensuring equality. This was tied to understanding people’s difficulties, with special consideration for places and groups that experience greater insecurity and marginalization. The UN was also seen as an entity responsible for collaborating globally to bring about social change. Four key themes emerged from our workshops: 1. Education: the UN should teach people about climate change, environmental protection, recycling, food systems; it should raise awareness of food inequality and show people the benefits of nutritious and sustainable practices, like eating seasonally “further promote socialization about climate change, the food systems, and the 2030 SDGs, so that the world community is more aware of the condition of the earth”2362412422472482492512. Inclusion: the UN should listen to young people, create offline (e.g. forums) and online (e.g. platforms) spaces for them to share their views, collaborate with them, and involve them as government intermediaries “I hope UN continues to invite youths from various countries to participate in every activity because youths are the future leaders of nations. Let youths learn how to protect the world”2362382392402412422432442472482492513. Regulation: the UN should regulate food production, establishing laws to tackle global warming, keeping food producers accountable, auditing programs to ensure compliance, addressing plastic and deforestation, and controlling chemicals/pesticides “UN intervention to countries must be more aggressive. For example, an international Environmental Impact Analysis seems to need to be agreed. Auditing food producers must be conducted from upstream to downstream.”2362382392402412422432442472482492514. Support: the UN should support sustainable food production, strengthening infrastructure, enhancing distribution, and implementing programs that make food more affordable and accessible, especially for those most impacted by food poverty and climate change (e.g. indigenous communities) “support access to nutritious foods for low-income and vulnerable population”, “defend the rights of indigenous people”, “strengthen the supply chain of foods”237238239240241242243244247248249251Overall children were in agreement about the strengths and vulnerabilities of food systems, how to improve food sustainability, the issues that needed addressing, and the stakeholders that should be focused on. There were certainly different focal points. For example, some children focused on financial and educational support for farmers, while others focused on government legislation around food safety and food systems. But ultimately we see these as overlapping and supplementary, rather than divergent. To make food systems more sustainable and nutritious, a holistic approach will be needed involving a broad range of different actors and interventions.

2021-09-13 16:02:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41528/178

126112802020

The content was designed to contribute to the Summit's agenda as well as give the Syrian people a voice. It is not easy to manage an independent dialogue in an active conflict that has continued for a decade, so we decided to interview several families in their own homes on the same theme- of whether and to which extent sanctions affected food security. The main question asked was how were sanctions affecting them and what is their message be to the UN Food Systems summit? This is not simply a video, but a way to allow the Syrian people to express the extent of their suffering from unilateral coercive measures. What makes this video an important tool is for it to announce to all the world that Syrian People's lives matter and that the voice of Syrian civilians suffering from coercive unilateral measures should be heard. At the same time as we also discussed the negative impacts of economic sanctions on Human Rights, especially for the right to food. We utilized statistics published by the United Nations agencies and local organizations working with the UN to highlight the exponential increase in the price of essential food items since sanctions were imposed. The sanctions had clearly compounded the mal-effects of conflict. This is shown in the link to the video recorded for this meeting.Our dialogue has the intention to highlight the big gap in the UN Food Systems conference as far as food security in conflict zones is concerned. An issue that has been largely neglected in the international sphere, despite its significance, especially in case where countries in conflict zones are additionally subject to unilateral coercive measures. Hence this event was an important opportunity for participants to expand their opinions and share ideas and concerns about the negative impacts of economic sanctions on their daily lives and in particular on food security. Moreover, we also discussed how we might find a mechanism to protect the right to food of people living in Syria and how ongoing sanctions, a war-torn economy, and the effects of a depreciated Syrian pound have contributed to high numbers of acutely food-insecure Syrians. The Dialogue tried to reflect the suffering of millions of people some of whom were engaged in this Dialogue as illustrated by the discussion in the video. Those who were in the Dialogue meeting considered it as a vital window for civil society around the world and to the meeting of the United Nations Food Systems Security to ensure that they hear the voice of the citizens of Syria.Encourage conveners to follow up on the discussions and action plan discussed after the dialogue.

Yes

234238241242243245247The focus of the dialogue was to illustrate the negative impact of economic sanctions on the right to food, especially since Syrians are still suffering from the effects of conflict and a war-torn economy. Moreover, the Dialogue discussed ways that could be beneficial to provide sustainable solutions to food security. The Dialogue highlighted the difficulties, which the Livestock keepers are facing to buy standard quantities of cattle feed, which affects their productivity. Sheep and goat keepers face limited access to grazing land and high feed prices. In the poultry sector, producers of broilers and eggs are experiencing challenges in securing inputs, consequently creating massive fluctuations in the prices of broilers and eggs. Furthermore, food processors are facing higher costs of raw materials, transportation, fuel, and shortages of labor. The very poor purchasing power of Syrian households was one of the key points raised in the Dialogue. Despite the availability of food items in the markets, they remained unaffordable for Syrian families whose purchasing power has collapsed as a direct consequence of economic sanctions. The Dialogue achieved the following outcomes: - Formation of a Network of concerned citizens (both Syrians and some from outside) against unilateral coercive measures، which will meet regularly. - To continue to highlight the negative impact of coercive measures on the food security and the right to food of Syrians. - To make suggestions to the UN food Systems Security Organization of key issues arising from discussions in the video and in our Dialogue available here.235238243245247There was concern about the neglect at the international level of universal coercive measures on food security in Syria as well as food security in general in conflict zones. In the MENA region alone more than 200 million people are affected by the effects of coercive sanctions and also by conflict.236242243247Topic: The negative impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCM) on food security. - Consequences of UCM on the food security in Syria: 1- The collapse of purchasing power among Syrian Households. 2- High inflation and a collapse of the Syrian currency. 3- A serious lack of fuel needed for factories and for households. 4- Restrictions to imports of essential materials including fodder and agriculture materials. In addition, the unilateral coercive measures targeting the financial sector such as banks have a severely damaging effect on all sectors of the economy including on those so-called exempted items such as medicine and food other than causing price inflation. According to the WFP, food insecurity exists when people do not have adequate physical, social, or economic access to food. Syria has been in a protracted conflict for more than a decade. At the same time, Syria has been targeted by unilateral coercive measures, from western countries notably the US, the UK, and the EU, which have worsened people's lives in Syria and in the surrounding countries. All these factors have created obstacles for Syrians to earn their livelihood. As Syrian citizens, we would like to advocate the following key issues for consideration a. The humanitarian impact of any unilateral sanctions must be regularly reviewed and assessed through conducting a comprehensive investigation on the negative impact of these measures on human rights, on the UN’s sustainable development goals, and on food security in particular. b. Despite warnings from the WFP, OCHA, and FAO about the humanitarian situation in Syria, little research has been undertaken on the dangerous consequences of economic sanctions. There has not been any serious attempt made either by the EU or the USA to review or lift the unilateral coercive measures. We argue that this cannot be ignored anymore; millions are on the brink of famine. C. Widespread food insecurity cannot be dealt with through humanitarian aid alone. Syrian people need sustainable solutions. For example, restrictions on imports should be lifted together with some direct economic support for modest projects that will allow Syrians to provide food for themselves. D. Countries imposing sanctions need to compensate the Syrian people for losses caused by their political actions as, in the food and agricultural sectors. The food and agricultural sector needs to be neutralized from the impact of economic sanctions, with all needed inputs to be secured so as not to have to face mounting food insecurity. E. Unilateral measures may be taken by States or regional organizations ONLY in compliance with international legal standards: that is, they are taken with the authorization of the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. This can only take place in response to a breach of peace, a threat to peace, or an act of aggression. Otherwise, any measures taken against Syria need to be in full compliance with the rules of international law in compliance with international responsibilities. Otherwise, we damage the value of international law and collective security.237238241242247Despite the presence of diverse stakeholders, there were no major areas of divergence during the Dialogue. There was a broad consensus on the main issues. All participants agreed on the main findings of the Dialogue, especially on the necessity that the food and agricultural sector needs to be neutralized from the impact of economic sanctions, with all needed inputs to be secured so as not to have to face mounting food insecurity. There was also consensus on the ideal vision of a sustainable, equitable food system where all people can have access to nutritious and safely produced food that are the goals of the UN meeting on Food Systems security.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-negative-impacts-of-the-unilateral-coercieve-measures-on-the-food-security.pdfhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1p_SEEmeoR6ghiTfjk-VrhhL8AyRWGpOz/view

2021-09-13 19:45:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43872/152124275978828394154155156175184

350

The Caribbean Regional Dialogue was built around the idea of adding value existing policy processes, including the work of CARICOM Member States and their "Strategy for Advancing the CARICOM Agri-Food Systems Agenda," among others. There were preliminary meetings to this effect and communications materials were sent out ahead of the Dialogue that highlighted the complexities and trade-offs associated with food systems transformation issues in the Region and that reinforced the multi-stakeholder nature of the event. The principles were also highlighted in the introductions to the thematic sections of the Dialogue. To the extent possible, the Regional Dialogue incorporated the experience of several previous national and independent dialogues.As mentioned above, a key feature of the Regional Dialogue was to build on existing regional policy processes that call for the transformation of Caribbean food systems while at the same time calling attention to innovative ideas and approaches from participants, from a wide group of stakeholders, that can be adopted, replicated or expanded to support the transformation to a more sustainable path.

NoThe Regional Dialogue followed the standard method to some extent but did not use small breakout discussions. Several CARICOM Member States had organized their own national dialogues and some had not. Consequently, the Regional Dialogue was built around three thematic sessions, each with an introductory speaker, followed by open discussion. Participants included some who had experienced previous national or independent dialogues and others who were new to the process, representing their stakeholder group. Explicit attention in the organization of the event so that a great many voices were able to be heard.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The themes of the FSS are very familiar to CARICOM Member States and the Region has recognized the need to transform its food systems and findi innovative ways to achieve the SDGs through this transformation. As far back as the 2001, the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) called attention to the integrated nature of food system challenges and the need for the fundamental transformation of the agricultural sector towards market oriented, internationally competitive and environmentally sound production of agricultural products. Similarly, the 2010 Common Agriculturre Policy was explicit in recognizing that food and nutrition security is a multi-dimensional and multi-sector issue. It called for simultaneous, holistic and concerted action on a wide front, encompassing, production (agriculture, fisheries and forestry), food processing and distribution, health and nutrition, trade, infrastructure, social welfare, education and information and communication sectors. Considerable advancement has taken place since then, in particular on building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses in light of the impact of climate change. Ahead of the Dialogue, CARICOM Member States were working to finalize the “Strategy for Advancing the CARICOM Agri-Food Systems Agenda”. The Strategy recognizes that “the Region continues to face a myriad of challenges in developing a competitive agri-food system that can contribute to the achievement of its food security and economic goals. Challenges include high trade costs, vulnerability to climate change, environmental and external economic shocks, weak infrastructure, lack of modern and creative financing mechanisms, outdated extension services, limited application of technology and uptake of research and development. Consequently, the Regional Dialogue was organized around three thematic areas of particular importance to the food systems of the Caribbean: food security, climate resilience, and funding and financing. Each theme was introduced by a speaker who highlighted those elements that distinguish the Caribbean from other regions and offered propositions for change that are particularly important for the Region. Following this introduction, participants provided feedback on concrete experience that should be replicated or adapted and other proposals. A list of commentators was agreed ahead of time (in addition to anyone else who wished to comment) to ensure that all stakeholder groups would have the chance to speak. Following the design of Summit around the five Action Tracks, the Regional Dialogue discussed topics related to Action Tracks 1-4 (Ensure Access to Safe and Nutritious Food For All, Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns, Boost Nature-Positive Food Production at Scale, and Advance Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution) under the Food Security Theme. Action Track 5 (Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses) was discussed under the Climate Resilience thematic area, and cross-cutting issues relating to funding and financing issues under that Regional Dialogue thematic area.235238239240241243248249250251While it is not possible to cover all points raised in the rich discussion, it is important to highlight some of the salient topics that have particular relevance for the Caribbean Region. These include: 1. the importance of market integration and reaching the target of lowering the Region’s food import bill by 25 percent by 2025; 2. the recognition that most Members have limited land availability, ample marine resources and the need for greater productivity and income from green and blue economies; 3. the need for a societal shift to healthier diets through incentives, regulations and education; and 4. the urgency of making a strategic pivot in transforming food value chains to become more sustainable, increase value addition and move up the production chain for job creation and higher incomes. All of these are underpinned by: 5. concerns about equity and special attention to the needs of the most vulnerable so that all have access to the resources needed for food security and healthy lives. The input provided under the Regional Dialogue’s Food Security Thematic Area dovetail very well with the first four Food System Summit Action Tracks. In addition to more general comments reflecting the need to accelerate progress towards meeting the targets of SDG 2 and other SDGs, the more regionally focused issues raised during the Dialogue can be grouped under five points of regional consensus mentioned above. Furthermore, the Caribbean is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events, with recurring tropical storms that cause enormous damage to Member States’ economies. With the increasing threat of even more severe impact due to climate change, CARICOM Members are acutely aware of increasing climate-related threats and are committed to the transformation to a low-carbon development pathway. Speakers at the Regional Dialogue highlighted how farmers and fishers in the Caribbean are struggling to overcome the impacts of the COVID-19 global health crisis, the related economic slowdown and unprecedented weather shocks. The Region must confront these risks, which threaten the development of crops, agricultural systems and food and nutrition security. There was a clear consensus that the Region must make its food systems climate resilient to ensure sustained supply of food to all its people. In addition, CARICOM Member States recognize their obligation to safeguard the unique terrestrial and marine environments of the Region. This in turn leads to the urgency of enhancing biodiversity, including the revitalization of traditional crops, linked to the objective of healthy diets discussed above. Finally, Caribbean Member States and regional organizations have long recognized the benefits of a transformed food system, including increased incomes and improved livelihoods, job creation and improvements in human and environmental health. Member States have also long advocated the need for fair and predictable access to financing to address the challenges and implement the necessary changes. Transforming the food system will require significantly greater public financing as well as private capital from national, regional and international partners. Participants recognized that at the national level, the negative spiral of increasing indebtedness related, in many cases, to the periodic economic damage caused by hurricanes and other natural disasters that can reach as high as twice the level of annual GDP. At the individual or enterprise level there continue to be very low levels of financing available at acceptable terms for small producers, disadvantaged groups, youth and women, which reinforces inequities and limits the entry of new investors. CARICOM Members acknowledged that unlocking greater investment in a more sustainable food system will require policy reform and public support to encourage investment in regional food production, including both agriculture and blue food, target healthy foods through incentives and regulation as well as the creation of new financing instruments that foster inclusive models of investment.2362422432442452462482492511. The key points under the objective of market integration and reaching the target of lowering the Region’s food import bill by 25 percent by 2025 are as follows. There is a need to strengthen the food import substitution strategy, address transport and logistics issues across Caribbean states, remove non-tariff barriers for intra-regional trade and update trade legislation and regulations. Likewise, there is a need for increased systematic understanding and monitoring of national, regional and international market demand and increasing access to this information, including the implementation of an E-trade strategy for agriculture. 2. Under the heading of limited land availability, ample marine resources and the need for greater productivity and income from both, the following points were agreed. Greater investment is needed in technology development and innovation in fisheries, forestry and agriculture. This will include innovations in land and water management and the nexus with energy, the use of technology and emerging techniques to tackle issues of access to water (e.g., rainwater harvesting, aquaponics, hydroponics, climate smart greenhouses) and especially for small holder producers. Soil management improvement was highlighted by several speakers as was the opportunity to slash food loss and waste with multiple benefits for food security, the environment and incomes. Capacity development for using these technologies is necessary, including through appropriate communication and training channels, on approaches such as Good Agriculture Practices (GAP), Good Food Practices (GFP) and Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA). 3. Under the heading of the need to shift to healthier diets through incentives, regulations and education, the Prime Minister of Barbados stated that not all food is safe food and too much of the food that the population consumes cannot be considered as healthy eating. It is imperative that the Region set clear standards and policies that discourage importation of cheaper and less-healthy food options and promote the national and regional production and consumption of foods that go into a healthy diet. The Region will address obesity and constraints to reliable access to healthy diets by promoting home grown school feeding programmes to promote improved child nutrition. This is an example of needed incentives to buy locally and intra-regionally and to improve access to healthier foods grown locally, along with new educational and informational campaigns that promote healthy food consumption behaviours and practices. The actions will need to be matched with fiscal disincentives or other policies designed to reduce the production, importation and consumption of unhealthy foods. 4. With regard to the strategic pivot toward more sustainable blue and green food systems while increasing value addition, moving up the production chain for job creation and higher incomes, a number of policy and programmatic actions have been priortised by the Region through the new Agri-Food Strategy. These include fostering cooperation and collaboration involving all actors across the value chain and partnership with external support agencies, along with much greater investment in R&D and technology innovation, and strengthening institutional and regulatory frameworks that support innovation. It also requires efforts to promoting farming as a viable livelihood and income stream through the use of emerging techniques, identifying new markets and linked all this to a value chain approach. This will focus attention on new and emerging industries, including “blue foods”, strengthen linkages across value chain stakeholders and encourage new entrants to invest in the sector.236238239240241242244245246248249250251Practical suggestions to give force to Members' commitments that that emerged from the Regional Food Systems Dialogue include the following. Place greater emphasis on the expansion of climate smart agricultural practices and increase investment in research and development in these areas. This should include, among other things, greater use of climate data and supporting information as the basis for decision making in agriculture, along with modelling to improve understanding of the impact of climate change on priority crops and livestock. Increase the contribution of the agriculture sector to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to climate change commitments and utilize these to garner international funding support for food systems in the Caribbean. Put in place policies and programmes that encourage reduction of food loss and waste, increasing producer incomes and simultaneously decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. This will also target increasing utilization of cold chain technology and clean energy along the food supply chain. Develop financial instruments such as weather-related insurance schemes, like the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), along with additional, layered approaches to disaster risk financing at the national level. Further invest in comprehensive disaster risk management systems at the regional (CDEMA). Build on the extensive work done previously in Disaster Risk Management (DRM), including the development of the Regional Emergency Response Strategy and Action Plan for Agriculture, to strengthen the region’s efforts in agriculture DRM. Build on recent years’ success in scaling up social protection mechanisms in response to climatic and economic shocks and further strengthen the shock-responsiveness and adaptability of social protection programmes.236With regard to the thematic discussion on financing suggestions that emerged from the Regional Food Systems Dialogue include: Committing a targeted allocation of public spending towards agri-investment. Expanding the experience of some Member States in promoting explicit linkages between investments in the more dynamic sectors of the economy, such as tourism, with those in the green and blue economies. Learning from the experiences of Brazil and its Sustainable Agricultural Finance Facility, and others, and adapt the lessons in setting up a similar financial facility in the Region. Implementing mechanisms that provide equitable access to financial resources for investment along the value change for women, youth and under-served populations. Developing and implementing a Caribbean regional diaspora bond targeting investment in the food system. Providing fiscal incentives to promote greater investment in innovation in a more sustainable food system and healthy food. Encouraging greater private sector investment in sustainable food systems through blended finance or other de-risking mechanisms and support emerging technologies for small farmers (e.g. solar power, hydroponics, aquaponics, climate smart greenhouses, rainwater harvesting and storage) or that target small holder farmers/small-scale producer organizations. Promoting financial literacy among the public and educating the financial sector on opportunities within agriculture and food systems, in particular targeting job creation through the food system. Encouraging the development of a Climate Vulnerability Impact Investment Fund, a regional Financing Facility for SMEs and a global Food Loss and Waste Reduction Facility.

2021-09-13 20:14:59205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30567/47

801235231050301264666810565336558151210649

Bien avant la tenue de l’atelier de concertation national, une première réunion a été organisée par le Ministre de l’Agriculture, de la Pêche et de l’environnement le 11 juin 2021 avec les responsables des directions du Ministère pour annoncer la tenue du Sommet sur les systèmes alimentaires et les préparatifs à travers l’organisation des concertations nationales . Il a aussi nommé le directeur national de la Stratégie Agricole et de l’Elevage comme Coordonnateur National des concertations et lui a confié la mission d’organiser les concertations nationales. Le Coordonnateur National a procédé au recrutement d’un consultant national indépendant pour réaliser un diagnostic du système alimentaire national, proposer des recommandations et appuyer l’organisation des dialogues. Subséquemment un comité de soutien, constitué par les institutions impliquées directement dans le système alimentaire est mis en place. Quatre réunions ont été effectués de façon évolutive portant réflexion sur l’agenda, les thématiques devant faire l’objet des discussions, la désignation des facilitateurs et animateur, l’organisation de l’atelier de concertation et l’assistance au consultant national dans sa mission d’élaboration du rapport. Aussi ce comité a contribué à la préparation et diffusion des supports de communication pour annoncer et sensibiliser les populations sur le Sommet des systèmes alimentaires et le dialogue national. La participation aux sessions de formation organisées par l’équipe des Nations Unies en Charge du Dialogue pour la préparation des concertations a été réalisée afin de suivre conformément le manuel des concertations mis à disposition sur la plateforme du sommet.Nous avons informé les communautés de différentes îles du pays que ce dialogue pourra être utile dans les échanges au cours du sommet mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires et de la nécessité d’associer l’ensemble des parties prenantes concernées : experts, chercheurs, professionnels agricoles de l’ensemble des filières concernées, interprofessions, entreprises, associations de défense de l’environnement. Le principe d’inclusion était donc au cœur de ce processus. Il y a eu une combinaison de concertations nationales et insulaires, réunions et consultations individuels. La participation des chercheurs, des acteurs des filières, et des associations paysannes a permis de prendre en compte l’ensemble des enjeux, objectifs, intérêts et contraintes dans leur diversité et dans leur complexité, afin de définir des solutions appropriées. Pour avoir des résultats effectifs, il a été notifié dans l’invitation les thématiques de discussions afin que les directions, associations et institutions concernés puissent designer la personne adaptée. Les parties prenantes ont répondu présents et ont participé massivement au regard des thématiques ciblés car le système alimentaire est l’un des préoccupations majeurs des Comores.Importance de se donner le temps pour une consultation approfondie, en raison de l’insularité du pays, de l’hétérogénéité des populations et de leurs activités de base. En effet, les sujets sont complexes et ne peuvent pas être traités de manière sérieuse, appropriée et complète sans un processus comprenant plusieurs étapes et consultations. Importance de veiller à la bonne représentativité des acteurs (inclusivité).

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249L’axe majeur de la concertation portait sur l’amélioration de la production alimentaire à travers la définition d’une stratégie nationale visant à améliorer l’autosuffisance alimentaire en lien avec les 17 ODD. Les discussions sur l’approche des systèmes alimentaires d’ici 2030 ont permis de comprendre la vision des communautés comoriennes sur les systèmes alimentaires. En effet la projection pour une amélioration des systèmes alimentaires tient compte des difficultés constatés à leur niveau sur les questions de production, de disponibilité de terre cultivables, de conservation des produits frais, de transformation des produits locaux, de la gestion des déchets, de la pollution, de l’intensivité des activités de pêche, de la non diversification des aliments consommés et des régimes alimentaires sains . Les intervenants dans leur approche ont émis des idées qui pourraient impactés de façon positive leurs secteurs d’activité mais aussi fournir en quantité suffisante des produits alimentaires en vue d’améliorer les régimes alimentaires en lien avec les ODD, d’ici 2030. Ces solutions sont entre autres :  Le renforcement des capacités opérationnelles des structures d’encadrement ainsi que des coopératives des secteurs agroalimentaires pour veiller sur les missions de fourniture de services et d’appui-conseil sur tout ce qui a trait au développement rural et à la protection de l’environnement ;  La promotion, la sécurisation et le développement des espaces de production agricoles, pour mieux répondre aux besoins des exploitants producteurs en termes d’encadrement et de fourniture en semences améliorées et intrants ;  L’amélioration sanitaire des cheptels grâce à un meilleur contrôle des animaux importés aux frontières ;  L’amélioration de la qualité et de l’accès aux statistiques des principaux secteurs de production afin de mettre à jour les données existantes et aboutir à un état des lieux de la situation actuelle des productions ;  Le renforcement du plaidoyer auprès du gouvernement et des autres partenaires techniques et financiers afin de mobiliser plus de ressources devant permettre d’appuyer des innovations technologiques et la modernisation de l’agriculture et de la pêche en vue de lutter efficacement contre la pauvreté des populations et de renforcer leur résilience face aux différentes crises ;  La réutilisation des déchets agricoles pour le compostage, la production de biogaz et l’alimentation des animaux et une mise en œuvre des documents stratégiques et règlementaires élaborés pour sécuriser la production ainsi que les consommateurs.235238239240241242244246248249La concertation a permis l’élaboration d’une stratégie basée sur trois (3) axes stratégiques : i. Promouvoir l’intensification, la diversification et la commercialisation des productions dans les secteurs porteurs pour l’amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire, ii. Accompagner la gouvernance et la gestion durable des ressources naturelles et forestières et iii. Améliorer la qualité et l’accès aux statistiques des principaux secteurs de production. La concertation a aussi recommandé une mise en place d’une brigade nationale dont sa principale mission est de veuiller à la mise en œuvre du rapport sur les systèmes alimentaires, en travaillant conjointement avec les secteurs clés concernés en encourageant, à travers une sensibilisation et une communication, la prise des initiatives visant à la gestion durable des ressources naturelles (forêt, eau, biodiversité, sol, etc.) et à garantir une alimentation saine et de qualité à la population.236240248249Limites liées à l’amélioration des productions (agriculture, élevage et pêche) et interventions nécessaires Le groupe traitant cette thématique a fait les recommandations suivantes : • Professionnaliser le métier des producteurs • Mettre à disposition de semences diversifiées, résilientes et adaptés aux terroirs • Atténuer les travaux champêtres ; • Mettre en place une carte représentant les agroécosystèmes associés aux cultures adaptées en fonction de leurs conditions pédoclimatique ainsi que les itinéraires culturales ; • Elaborer une politique nationale de production de poulets de chaire en produisant de la provende à base des produits locaux aux Comores ; • Accentuer et généraliser l’insémination artificielle bovine et le croisement des caprins pour augmenter en quantité suffisante la viande et le lait. • Mettre en place une entreprise de pêche qui assurera la chaine de valeur des produits halieutiques ; • Former les producteurs sur les outils de résilience ; • Organiser les circuits de commercialisation et octroyer aux producteurs des magasins appropriés de stockage des produits agricoles et de pêche.236239240241246248Initiatives à prendre pour consommer les denrées alimentaires locales par rapport aux denrées importées dans l’alimentation. Valeurs et faiblesses des denrées locales Le groupe traitant cette thématique a fait les recommandations suivantes : • Mettre en place des moyens de stockage des produits ; • Appuyer la création et l’accompagnement des petits, et Moyens entreprises dans la transformation et conservation des aliments (accès aux infrastructures). • Faciliter la commercialisation et augmenter les points de vente ; • Promouvoir et sensibiliser la population comorienne sur la consommation des produits locaux • Améliorer la qualité des produits à travers le renforcement du système de management qualité ; • Sensibiliser les consommateurs sur les bienfaits des produits locaux par rapport à la santé ; • Modérer et contrôler les prix d’achat des produits • Mettre en place une base de donnée agricole pour l’archivage et la disponibilité des informations.236240241242244248250Maitrise des maladies animales et végétales émergentes pour une production saine et améliorée Le groupe traitant cette thématique a fait les recommandations suivantes : • Renforcer l’appui à la Recherche agricole • Mettre en place des stratégies de lutte contre les maladies • Renforcer les contrôles aux frontières et le réseau de veille sanitaire. • Implémenter un réseau de surveillance phytosanitaire qui Impliquera le secteur privé • Renforcer les capacités technique, financière et analytiques des laboratoires de santé animal et végétal ; • Créer des parcs de quarantaine • Sensibiliser les agriculteurs sur l’utilisation des produits phytosanitaires et des engrais chimiques modérément pour préserver la santé humaine. • Mettre en place des programmes vaccinaux pour les animaux ; • Instaurer des pharmacies vétérinaires ; • Sensibiliser les éleveurs sur les maladies et produits utilisés ;236240242243246249250Contraintes liés aux transformations agropastorales aux Comores et interventions nécessaires Le groupe traitant cette thématique a soulevé les contraintes suivantes : • Manque de données statistiques sur la qualité des produits et les pertes post-récoltes ; • Manque d’infrastructure de transformation et de conservation des aliments ; • Insuffisance de capacité technique pour la transformation ; • L’accès à l’énergie est discontinu et donc limite considérablement la transformation et la conservation ; • Difficulté de d’écoulement des produits transformés • Absence de politique de développement des filières agroalimentaires ; • Méconnaissance des documents disponibles sur la politique nationale de la qualité ; • Manque de professionnalisation des métiers des transformateurs ; • Absence de mécanisme de financement et appui aux petites et moyennes entreprises de transformation. • Absence d’entreprise de conditionnement et de paquetage des produits finis ; • Difficulté d’accès au crédit à travers les institutions financières (Bank)236238239240241243246249250Conditions d’une qualité nutritionnelle et accès à une nourriture saine à la population Le groupe traitant cette thématique a fait les recommandations suivantes : • Promouvoir la diversification des aliments nutritifs (takas, triboi) • Vulgariser le guide et la politique alimentaire • Sensibiliser sur la qualité nutritionnelle des produits locaux • Renforcer les conditions de conservation et d’entreposage (marché, supermarché) • Respecter la règle des 5 clés de la marmite (ménage, restaurant …) • Renforcer le contrôle qualité dans les marchés, supermarché… • Revoir les prix de l’eau et améliorer les moyens de conditionnement de l’eau (plastique en d’autres produits biodégradable et moins cher) • Améliorer l’accès de l’eau potable en milieu rural • Accompagner les entreprises de conservation existantes à se développer et produire plus • Equilibrer et diversifier les produits alimentaires locaux • Promouvoir l’analyse de la qualité des sols (afin de permettre la diversification et la décentralisation de la production alimentaire) • Mise en place d’une unité de suivi et évaluation des risques des produits importés • Accompagner les entreprises à restructurer les produits importés non-nutritifs • Valoriser les produits locaux à forte valeur nutritionnelle. • Assurer une chaine de production d’aliments diversifiés jusqu’à la fortification pour la prise en charge des enfants malnutries236239240241242244246249250Maitrise de la gestion des résidus alimentaires (déchets). Interventions nécessaires Le groupe traitant cette thématique a fait les recommandations suivantes : • Renforcer les ménages en mettant à leur disposition des équipements de stockage adéquats. • Mettre en place un schéma directeur pour une gestion durable et opérationnelle des déchets (tri, collecte, ramassage, transport vers des décharges contrôlées, traitement et valorisation). • Mettre en place une coordination de toutes les parties prenantes • Encourager la réutilisation et le recyclage des déchets alimentaires par des politiques, des mécanismes financiers et des équipements techniques appropriés pour la gestion des déchets. • Former les Agriculteurs sur la maîtrise des interactions des éléments fertilisants et des produits phytosanitaires. • Elaborer une réglementation spécifique à la gestion des déchets et mettre en application les textes existants. • mettre en place des plateformes de compostage. • Concevoir des technologies pour la réutilisation et le recyclage des déchets alimentaires comme engrais • Encourager et innover les ressources qui peuvent produire des engrais organiques • Développer des technologies qui permettront de réutiliser et de recycler les déchets organiques • Encourager l’emploie massif des engrais organiques dans de bonnes conditions de sécurité. • Réglementer les distributeurs et vendeurs d’engrais. • Mettre en place un mecanisme de partage de connaissances et d’informations entre les parties prenantes (Agriculteurs, commercants, producteurs d’engrais) sur la réutilisation et le recyclage des résidus alimentaires en tant qu’engrais. • Mettre en place un comité de suivie et évaluation des actions enterprises. • mettre en place une politique de recyclage des matières qui peuvent être utilisées comme engrais ; notamment la valorisation des effluents d’élevages.

2021-09-13 22:42:54205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38191/197

36423918187324251122115171251

As with the First National Dialogue on 20th July, the Vanuatu Government (Ministry/Dept of Agriculture) took the lead with inviting stakeholders from different sectors (Govt, CSO, Private Sector) and food system stages (production, processing. distribution, consumption) to take part in the Dialogue. The Co-Convenor and Resident Coordinator responsible for Vanuatu both emphasised, through their Dialogue Opening Addresses, the Summit Principles and encouraged all participants to freely express their opinions while respecting each others point of view. The Dialogue sessions and discussion topics were designed to encourage stakeholders from different sectors to freely share their thoughts and opinions. Furthermore, stakeholders were allowed to choose which discussion group fitted their knowledge and background. Discussions were facilitated by members of the Dialogue organising committee.The Dialogue reflected specific aspects of the Principles through: • Emphasising the urgency of transforming Vanuatu’s Food System to meet Vanuatu’s food and development needs at a time of unprecedented challenges and uncertainty • Ensuring that diverse stakeholders from different sectors of Vanuatu’s Food System were invited and welcomed to the Dialogue • Making it clear to all stakeholders that all voices and opinions were welcomed and were to be respected throughout the Dialogue • The Vanuatu National Statistics Office’s presentation of their latest findings from the 2020 National Housing and Population Census and a Food Security Baseline Study conducted for the National Sustainable Development Plan 2030. This reinforced the urgency for change and improving Vanuatu’s Food System. • The Department of External Trade’s presentation of their Review of unhealthy food imports and policies relevant to trade and nutrition provided a picture of the complexity of challenges with international trade in unhealthy foods and the need to engage a wide range of international and domestic stakeholders to address this. Overall, the Dialogue sessions encouraged stakeholders to openly share their unique experiences and opinions so that the complexity of Vanuatu’s Food System and the need to include diverse voices could be recognised and understood by all sectors.Using the latest research, data and policy initiatives (e.g., Vanuatu National Statistics Office and Dept of External Trade presentations discussed above) helped us to localise the issues and challenges and allow the stakeholders to proceed with discussions utilising all available information. Also, exploring and showcasing examples of best practice and innovation at the Dialogues creates opportunities to discuss possible pathways for strengthening and improving Food Systems in the future.

Yes

234238239240241The focus of our Dialogue was on: 1. Validation of discussion points from the National Dialogue convened on 20th July 2021 2. An update on the latest data on Vanuatu’s national population, population growth rate, sex ratio, age group ratio, and food consumption and food security levels 3. An update on the current state of international trade of unhealthy foods to Vanuatu and policies for managing this 4. An exploration of local Innovative initiatives currently underway in Vanuatu 5. An exploration of priority action points/levers of change across the Five Action Tracks Key Questions raised for discussion were: • Do you agree with the key points discussed in the First National Dialogue? Are there any changes, omissions, inaccuracies which you would like address? • What three key actions – in each of the Five Action Tracks – do you think would accelerate Vanuatu’s efforts to achieve its 2030 Food System Vision? In responding to these questions, participants were encouraged to review Vanuatu’s Gudfala Kakae Policy (Good Food) 2020-30 (GKP 2020-30), an existing Government Policy which the Vanuatu Government is using as the basis for examining and improving Vanuatu’s Food System.235238239240241242245246249The main findings emerging from this Dialogue was a collective agreement on: 1. Need to establish a Multi-Sectoral Food and Nutrition Committee to oversee the implementation of the Gudfala Kakae (Good Food) Policy 2020-30 and the Vanuatu National Nutrition Policy. 2. Need for Leadership, Coordination, and Commitment to strengthen multi-sectoral, multi-scalar, and multi-pronged approach to policy formulation and implementation. 3. Building on existing innovative and best practice initiatives currently being implemented by Govt, Private Sector and Civil Society stakeholders. 4. Utilising the expertise, experience, and networks of the Private Sector (and other non-government stakeholders) to effectively implement the GKP 2020-30. 5. Empowering and resourcing provincial and local level government officials and agencies to lead on the GKP 2020-30 Objectives and Strategies. 6. Need to increase the engagement and collaboration between government, private sector, and civil society. Particularly, around: innovative value-adding of local foods; research related to innovative value adding of local foods; and delivery of services related to the Gudfala Kakae Policy.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Topic 1 – Review and Validation of Dialogue One Inputs In reviewing and validating the outcome of the First National Dialogue (20th July), stakeholders proposed the following additional inputs: • There is an urgent need for Government ministries and partners to allocate adequate resources to implement the Gudfala Kakae (Good Food) Policy and other policies impacting on Vanuatu’s Food System. • Build resilience capacity to be able to respond effectively to compounding / widespread disasters e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, pandemics, cyclones and other climatic extreme events. • Introduce price control mechanism for local produce to ensure balance of affordability to consumers + adequate compensation for producers and others along the Food System value chain. • Ensure proper data management systems are in place to establish baselines and measure progress of policy objectives • Facilitate, promote and support the use of technology and innovative techniques across the food supply chain: food production, processing and transportation. • Review seasonal calendar of crops and coordination of farmers/producers to improve availability and variety of foods and ensure sales for farmers/producers. • Introduce regulations/policies to reduce supply and consumption of unhealthy foods and improve supply of healthy food. This includes ensuring imported food staples are fortified with essential micro-nutrients.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Topic 2 – Key Actions to Accelerate Gudfala Kakae (Good Food) Policy Vision & Objectives: Action Track 1 – Nutrition 1. Establish Multisectoral Food and Nutrition Committee to oversee implementation of GKP and VNNP. 2. Upscale nutrition specific and nutrition sensitive programs throughout the country. Action Track 2 – Diet 1. Data and information system- know what is available and where as well as vertical and horizontal communication. 2. Empower Provincial authorities to manage this system but it is important to develop capacity and ensure sufficient allocation of resources (finance) 3. Build on and enhance and strengthen existing initiatives discussed in previous sessions Action Track 3 – Nature 1. Encourage and promote agroforestry practices and intercropping of food crops and vegetables with trees – as currently delivered by Dept of Forestry 2. Promote silviculture practices involving trees and fishponds 3. Promote silvi-pastoral practices involving trees and livestock Action Track 4 – Livelihoods 1. Engage with and contract private sector to manage and deliver services and logistics to producers and farmers in innovative business-like manner. 2. Market identification by private sector businesses in compliance with market and international standards. 3. Empower people with private sector skills and knowledge to implement production value chain as well as provide appropriate mechanisation tools, equipment and opportunities to increase market access. Action Track 5 – Resilience 1. Leadership coordination and commitment to strengthen multi-sectoral, multi-scalar and multi-pronged approach to policy formulation and implementation. 2. Sustainable and resilient approaches to localised disaster response and recovery including intercropping and agroforestry. 3. More research in terms of climate impact and resilience in agriculture and that must also include social research.237238239241243246249250251The following areas will need further exploration in future Food System Dialogues: • Instituting a price control mechanism to ensure affordability of local, healthy produce/foods while also ensuring profitable income and decent livelihoods for local producers and stakeholders along the Food System value chain • Capturing local/traditional knowledge and practices into Food System transformation initiatives while also respecting local, cultural rules for maintaining ownership and secrecy of particular traditional knowledge and practices. • Putting in place policies and regulations on importation and manufacturing of unhealthy foods versus the interests of businesses and workers engaged in this sector. • Seasonal work opportunities in Australia and New Zealand absorbing the most able workers of Vanuatu vs lack of domestic income earning/generating opportunities.

2021-09-13 22:53:28205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42994/83

10215127166422232122222110221102132

Les ateliers de concertation du département du Nord d’Haïti se sont tenus à l’hôtel Villa Cana. Suite à une mise en contexte de l’activité effectuée par les responsables, les participants ont vite compris le bien fondé du travail collectif à entreprendre afin d’identifier les problèmes et proposer des éléments de solutions affectant positivement le système alimentaire national devant répondre favorablement à l’atteinte des ODD d’ici jusqu’à 2030. La majorité des acteurs présents sont d’avis qu’il faut renforcer les actions liées à la SAN au niveau du Nord. Ils ont vite compris qu’une seule journée de travail ne suffira pas pour aborder toutes les questions y relatives. Ils estiment qu’il s’agit d’une importante opportunité où chacun pourra s’exprimer et faire entendre ses principales revendications. La situation au niveau du Nord reste très préoccupante parce que très peu de travail de recherche a été effectué sur les causes qui ont contribué à affaiblir le système alimentaire actuel. Les pertes post récolte, le gaspillage de produits agricoles au temps de moisson et parfois l’accès difficile des produits aux points d’écoulement entravent la survie ou pérennité du système local. Pourtant, le nord dispose de fortes potentialités qu’on pourrait mettre en exergue. Prenons en seulement trois exemples. Le Nord dispose d’un port ouvert au commerce extérieur. Il existe un site balnéaire (plage Labadi) où transitent régulièrement des bateaux de croisière remplis de touristes qui doivent s’alimenter pendant leurs passages, Et en plus, on retrouve la Citadelle Laferière située en altitude qui est un monument historique classé par l’UNESCO : neuvième merveille du monde, exploitée pour des visites touristiques et pouvant aussi servir au montage de films.L’atelier a pu se réaliser grâce à l’appui des agents de liaison traditionnellement engagés par la CNSA pour conduire ses activités ordinaires liées à la SAN. Ces derniers ont distribué les courriers relatifs aux invitations et ont aussi multiplié les contacts pour atteindre les différents acteurs à venir prendre part à cet atelier de travail. Les différents secteurs de la vie de la communauté du Nord avaient pris part à cette concertation. Comme pour les autres ateliers, des médias locaux ont pu communiquer avec les responsables présents et les invités pour s’informer d’abord sur les raisons majeures nécessitant la réalisation d’un tel travail au niveau du département et aussi arriver à comprendre les retombées d’une telle initiative sur le futur de la collectivité septentrionale. L’ensemble des parties prenantes assez motivées ont effectué des échanges fructueux et très enrichissants. Elles ont pu réaliser un diagnostic rapide du système alimentaire existant et proposé des pistes d’actions devant favoriser l’atteinte des Objectifs de Développement Durables (ODD). Elles sont assez enthousiasmées pour visionner les transformations que devra connaitre cette communauté dans un avenir proche.

NoLes ateliers de concertation du Nord se sont déroulés en présentiel suivant cet agenda : Salutations- Prière Présentation de l’équipe d’animation/ facilitation Présentation des participants Lecture du mot du coordonnateur Présentation des objectifs de la rencontre et de la méthodologie Définition du concept Système Alimentaire Présentation des systèmes alimentaires en Haïti, le constat Constitution des groupes de travail Travail en ateliers restreints Retour en plénière et présentation des résultats d’ateliers L’atelier de concertation a été réalisé en trois étapes suivant une démarche préétablie ou fixée avec l’ensemble des acteurs : La première étape consiste d’abord à fournir aux participants un ensemble d’informations sur les systèmes alimentaires et d’explication sur le processus du Sommet et ensuite leur annoncer la démarche à suivre pour effectuer le travail du jour. Il s’agissait surtout de leur faire comprendre que le temps imparti pour l’atelier doit être bien valorisé et que tout devrait être effectué suivant une méthode accélérée de recherche participative qui consiste à collecter de manière consensuelle et très vite le maximum d’informations puis les traiter pour les traduire en de vrais programmes à exécuter pour l’ensemble du département afin d’atteindre la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle adéquate au niveau national. En fait, l’essence de la concertation se résume à un travail collectif qui vise à décrire le système alimentaire dans la communauté, identifier les potentialités et les faiblesses et enfin proposer des éléments de solutions pouvant être appliqués sans délai en vue de concourir à l’atteinte des ODD. La deuxième étape de l’atelier tire son ampleur du fait qu’il donne l’occasion à tous les participants non seulement d’observer mais surtout de prendre conscience que les Objectifs de développement durable (ODD) ne pourraient pas à l’avenir être atteints sans transformer les systèmes alimentaires et agricoles mondiaux. Les acteurs locaux ont réfléchi pour changer en profondeur le système alimentaire local appelé à devenir plus productif, résilient, durable et capable de fournir des aliments plus nutritifs et abordables. Chaque participant reste persuadé qu’il est avantageux que tous s’organisent en association pour mieux porter leurs revendications et les intégrer dans la politique du pays. Pour franchir cette étape les participants furent regroupés selon leur secteur d’appartenance et leur expertise en sept(7) groupes thématiques. Ils se sont penchés sur les enjeux du système alimentaire existant y compris les forces et vulnérabilités, ont exploré les options et opportunités de changement et ont déterminé des pistes d’action prioritaires pour le futur. Les sept groupes ont travaillé sur les thèmes suivants : Groupe 1 : Production végétale Groupe 2 : Stockage, Transformations et commercialisation des produits agricoles Groupe 3 : Services agricoles Groupe 4 : Santé Nutritionnelle Groupe 5 : Gouvernance et Genre, rôle et participation des femmes Groupe 6 : Questions environnementales : Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques Groupe 7 : Elevage et pêche L’animateur et les facilitateurs ont accompagné les participants pour les aider à mieux comprendre les thèmes et pour remplir le formulaire d’engagement. Un temps de 45 minutes a été accordé aux différents groupes pour produire leur réflexion. La dernière étape constitue la période de restitution dite plénière. Il revient donc à chaque groupe de présenter le travail accompli pour être validé par l’assistance. Cette période est répartie sur 90 minutes. L’opportunité est offerte à chaque participant de réagir pour infirmer, confirmer et enfin compléter les résolutions assorties qui devront recevoir l’engagement de tous. Ainsi il est certain que toutes les voix ont été entendues et qu’un large consensus ait été trouvé sur les sujets suivants comme : Accessibilité de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs Modes de consommation et de production durables Disponibilité des moyens de subsistance équitables

234238239240241242244Les transformations des systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD L’atelier de concertation étant un espace de débat et de résolutions prises sur de large consensus permettra au gouvernement haïtien de s'engager dans les questions de construction de systèmes alimentaires durables dans leur ensemble. Le thème majeur de la concertation défini par la CNSA s’arrange autour de la nécessité de transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD. Il s’agit d’une étude complète qui prend en compte les différents enjeux et questions clés en lien avec l’atteinte des ODD. Le cadre de référence, qui suit, nous aligne sur les enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux à la recherche de solutions durables et d’engagement. Des réponses aux différentes questions permettent une analyse profonde des différents aspects de la Sécurité alimentaire et Nutritionnelle (SAN) en Haïti. Cadre de référence 1- Enjeux nutritionnel : Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc.) actuels de la population ? Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production ? Pistes de réflexion : toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire ? Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires ? Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires ? Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés ? Comment organiser la logistique de distribution ? Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages ? Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés ? Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique : Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire Comment développer l’’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils etc.), les industries d’emballage ? Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ? Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?) Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ? Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ? Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels ? Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques ? Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels ? Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs ?235238241244245246247248251Les acteurs du Nord ont tracé la voie à suivre pour l’engagement et le leadership d’Haïti dans la transition vers un système alimentaire durable. Ils ont préconisé : Un développement accéléré et soutenu de l’agriculture en mettant en œuvre des politiques et des institutions efficaces dans le secteur agricole. Il faut offrir des incitations appropriées aux agriculteurs et garantir l’existence de conditions leur permettant d’avoir un statut légal. Les pouvoirs publics doivent mettre en œuvre des politiques macro-économiques saines de nature à faciliter la vente des produits agricoles aussi bien sur les marchés intérieurs que sur les marchés d’exportation, et mettre en place une infrastructure institutionnelle. Faudra-t-il prôner la normalisation des produits agricoles pour ne pas continuer à vendre certains produits par , par ou , etc mais définitivement en livres ou kilogrammes avec prix fixé par les ministères concernés. Un accompagnement des associations d’agriculteurs sur l’identification des zones géographiques prioritaires en besoin de structure de stockage en fonction des types de produits agricoles. L’Etat Haïtien devra mettre en place des structures de stockage prenant en compte les besoins par zone géographique (ville, section communale). Un appui et accompagnement aux associations d’agriculteurs à l’identification des méthodes innovantes ou modernes pour les structures de transformation. L’Etat Haïtien devra assurer la formation des associations aux méthodes de stockage innovantes et au système de stockage de produits agricoles aux besoins/exigences différenciés. Un contrôle de qualité des produits alimentaires à consommer (via un plan sanitaire) devra être établi par le MARNDR et le MSPP comme c’était le cas des années 86 et 87. La création des circuits de communication pour permettre aux informations de terrain de remonter et même d’identifier des projets susceptibles de rendre les services agricoles plus durables. Il revient à l’Etat central de mettre un cadre légal pour structurer l’exploitation. Les matériels d’exploitation agricole auront une assurance publique (service d’assurance). Les règles de marchés doivent inclure la protection sociale des producteurs vis-à-vis des risques. L’amélioration des systèmes alimentaires en Haïti en Investissant davantage autour de la SAN et en capitalisant sur les solutions proposées à travers des plans stratégiques liés à la politique et stratégie nationale de souveraineté et de sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle déjà validée par l’Etat haïtien. Les pratiques alimentaires de la population du nord seront améliorées par la mobilisation communautaire et la sensibilisation à grande échelle. Un Plaidoyer afin que l’Etat respecte son engagement envers la population du point de vue de l’accès aux aliments. Il travaillera à renforcer les capacités techniques et financières des agriculteurs par le biais du ministère de l’agriculture des ressources naturelles et de Développement rural (MARNDR), développer ou renforcer les systèmes d’irrigation. Une campagne de sensibilisation des jeunes qui doivent retourner pratiquer l’agriculture (agronomie) comme une profession à part entière. La subvention des quelques intrants agricoles (semences, engrais) comme c’était le cas des années 86 et 87. La formation et l’information de la population pour un changement sur leur mode de consommation. Il faut une prise de conscience de la société civile sinon dans les prochaines années, nous dépendrons directement de l’importation si rien n’est fait. En termes d’actions concrètes l’Etat doit : Changer sa politique de développement local, Renforcer la sécurité foncière, Encourager la production nationale, création des industries de transformation agricole, Sensibiliser la population sur l’importance et la valeur nutritive des produits locaux bios, Réguler le marché tout en renforçant la politique publique, Subventionner les produits locaux afin que toute la population puisse en avoir accès. Pour la pêche Former les pêcheurs afin de structurer les circuits de commercialisation (identification de marché) Aider à mettre en place de nouveaux moyens de pratiquer la pêche en termes de développement durable (Coopération Etat- Association- ONG) Aider les associations à utiliser les techniques de géoréférencement afin de localiser les dispositifs de concentration de poisson (DCP). Pour l’élevage : Accompagner/ former les organisations paysannes dans la mise en place, l’exploitation de parcelles fourragères Former les organisations à mieux appréhender/ intégrer la vaccination de leurs cheptels.236248Sujet de discussion1 : Production végétale L'Etat Haitien doit: mener plusieurs enquêtes sur la situation de la production, travailler à régulariser le statut des producteurs, mettre en place un centre de formation et de recherche, construire des routes, des centres de santé et moderniser l'agriculture. Il doit exister un vrai partenariat entre l’État et le secteur privé dans la mise en place des usines de transformation.236248Sujet de discussion2 : Production animale et pêche L’augmentation de la production animale passe par une meilleure disponibilité en eau pour abreuver les animaux et aussi pour produire assez de fourrage. Il faudra envisager aussi à rendre disponibles des vaccins pour les éleveurs à travers l'Unité de Protection Sanitaire du MARNDR et faciliter l'accès de carnet de vaccination pour le bétail et l'accès d'anneaux d'identification pour les bœufs tout en renforçant les structures locales (Casec, Asec) et les organisations locales impliquées dans la gestion de ce secteur très porteur dans l’économie nationale étant capable de réduire l’importation. Il faudra aussi réduire le vol des animaux dans les exploitations. Quant au secteur de pêche il faut : encadrer les pêcheurs, structurer les anciennes associations et en former de nouvelles. La pêche peut être organisée en fédération et coopérative afin de s’assurer de la bonne gestion des matériels de pêche et faciliter aussi la vente des produits des pêcheurs.236245249Sujet de discussion 3 Services agricoles L’Etat devra élaborer une politique agricole qui touche la réalité des exploitants en ce qui a trait au crédit agricole pour production et transformation de produits. Un partenariat public privé est à envisager pour le développement du Nord.236245249Sujet de discussion 4 Stockage, transformation et commercialisation Le développement de ce secteur passe par la mise en place de nouvelles infrastructures qui requièrent un large partenariat entre l’Etat et le secteur privé.236238Sujet de discussion 5 Santé nutritionnelle Bon nombres de gens et surtout les enfants souffrent de manultrition en Haiti. C’est dire que le corps ne reçoit pas tous les vitamines et éléments nutritifs dont il a besoin pour bien fonctionner. Le système de défense est faible, et la personne en question devient sensible à toute sorte de maladie, comme : marasme, kwashiorkor, obésité. Pour améliorer la situation, l’assistance encourage à promouvoir surtout en milieu rural, le « jardin lakou », un type de cultures à cycle court ( épinard, tomate, calalou, etc) qui fournissent assez d’ingrédients riches en éléments nutritifs indispensables à une bonne croissance.236246251Sujet de discussion 6 : Gouvernance et Genre, rôle et participation des femmes L’Etat est responsable de tout ce qui se fait dans le pays, il doit instituer des services de vérification pour tout produit venant de l’extérieur afin de protéger la nation. L’état devrait surveiller tout ce qui se fait dans le pays et encourager la création de richesses devant être redistribuées à la collectivité. Le secteur privé doit s’allier avec l’Etat pour créer des meilleures conditions de vie pour la population afin de mieux exploiter les ressources du pays, créer des emplois, construire des usines de transformation pour éviter les pertes post récoltes et mettre á disposition les produits en quantité et en qualité. Il est souhaité que les femmes s’intègrent dans les activités du pays á part égal.236239244Sujet de discussion 7 : Questions environnementales : Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques L’eau reste parfois un produit rare dans certaines régions du Nord à cause de la diminution des pluies. C’est signe que les changements climatiques sont omniprésents. Les gens encouragent le reboisement des mornes et suggèrent que l’Etat empêche les constructions anarchiques surtout dans les zones agricoles. Ils encouragent aussi que l’Etat accordent des bourses d’études à des étudiants dans le domaine de l’agronomie.237244245Les divergences sont apparues sur la meilleure méthode de contrer les variations saisonnières en influence sur les disponibilités alimentaires. . En fin de discussion, il a été compris que l’effet des variations saisonnières peut être contré au moyen du volume de production (recours au surplus de production pour satisfaire la demande au moment de faible production) et aussi au moyen de stockage agricole (réserves de semences résilientes et de produits agricoles pour temps de crise). En termes de divergences, sur la question des services agricoles, il est posé à quel niveau devrait être accessible le financement des équipements agricoles en termes de subvention. D’un côté, il était question de « boutique agricole » exclusivement et d’un autre cotée au niveau des quincailleries. Au final, il a été compris que ce serait dans l’intérêt de tous que ce soit possible aussi bien en « boutique agricole » qu’en quincaillerie. Sur le renforcement des secteurs au niveau local, il a été envisagé d’un côté que les structures d’ASEC et CASEC sont prioritaires. Cependant, d’un autre côté, il a été vu que former/ créer des unités de police communale pour le respect des normes est plus vital. Au final, il a été compris qu’il ne doit pas y avoir de choix que les deux options sont à considérer car l’une et l’autre sont aussi importantes.

2021-09-13 23:12:36205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32834/197

302171114167141221111821510182

The Dialogue was organised with the Vanuatu Government (Ministry/Dept of Agriculture) taking a lead with inviting 75 stakeholders from different sectors (Govt, CSO, Private Sector) and food system stages (production, processing. distribution, consumption) to take part in the Dialogue. Officials from the Ministry and Dept of Agriculture also engaged in preparatory sessions organised by the Food System Summit Secretariat and the UN Resident Coordinator’s Office. This led to emphasising the Summit Principles at the Dialogue and encouraging all participants to freely express their opinions while respecting others point of view. The Dialogue sessions and discussion topics were designed to encourage stakeholders from different sectors to freely share their thoughts and opinions. Furthermore, stakeholders were allowed to choose which discussion group fitted their knowledge and background. Discussions were facilitated by members of the Dialogue organising committee.The Dialogue reflected specific aspects of the Principles by: • Communicating the complexity and interconnectedness of the Food System and its impact on the environment, economy, and society as a whole • Communicating the key challenges of current Food Systems and the urgent need for transformative change in order to accelerate Vanuatu’s National Sustainable Development Plan 2030 and the 2030 SDGs • Including diverse stakeholders from different sectors and ensuring that all voices and opinions were respected throughout the Dialogue • Emphasising through the sessions, the complexity of Vanuatu’s food systems, the multiple programs already being implemented in this space and the need for the diverse range of stakeholders to properly coordinate and complement each other’s effortsCurrent crises and challenges served as a common cause to rally diverse stakeholders together through the Dialogues. The Global Food System Summit has come at a time when Vanuatu is still recovering from multiple disasters (Category 5 Cyclone, COVID-19 impacts, Volcano Ashfall) so this helped stakeholders work together to review, reflect on, and analyse the country’s Food System and explore pathways for improvements and building resilience during these crises. Vanuatu based its approach on its Gudfala Kakae (Good Food) Policy 2020-30. Using an existing Government policy and structure helps in instilling buy-in and commitment from government agencies and other stakeholders as the work is seen to be a continuation of local / domestic processes rather than an initiative being pushed from outside. Selecting a Convenor from the right Agency/Sector is also vital. The Ministry of Agriculture has been leading the efforts of recovery and food systems recovery in Vanuatu following the disasters mentioned above so it was the logical agency to lead on the Food System Dialogues in Vanuatu.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248251The focus of our Dialogue was on envisaging what Vanuatu’s Food System should look like in 2030 across each of the Five Action Tracks and exploring the issues, actions, and challenges that need to be addressed to achieve these. The Vision Statements for each Action Track were: 1. By 2030, Vanuatu’s Food System will ensure adequate production and supply of safe and nutritious food that is accessible to all people in Vanuatu. 2. By 2030, Vanuatu’s Food System will empower consumers to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable decisions regarding their diet. 3. By 2030, Vanuatu’s Food System will protect, manage and restore nature, while meeting people’s demand for healthy and nutritious food. 4. By 2030, Vanuatu’s Food System will support full and productive employment and decent work for all people engaged along the food value chain. 5. By 2030, Vanuatu’s Food System will be resilient and better able to respond to shocks and stresses induced by environmental, economic, or social events. Key Questions raised for discussion about how to achieve the five Vision Statements were: 1. What actions are urgently needed to achieve Vanuatu’s Vision for each Action Track? 2. Who should take these actions? 3. Who else needs to be involved? 4. How do we ensure these actions happen? 5. Ways in which progress could be assessed. 6. Challenges that might be anticipated as actions are implemented. In responding to these questions, participants were encouraged to review Vanuatu’s Gudfala Kakae Policy (Good Food Policy) 2020-30, an existing Government Policy which the Vanuatu Government is using as the basis for analysing and improving its Food System. The discussion in this session also helped to identify possible areas of tension and differences in viewpoints and approaches which will have to be addressed in the future.235238239240241242246249250The main finding emerging from this Dialogue was a collective agreement on: 1. Need to Strengthen the implementation and coordination mechanisms of the Gudfala Kakae (Good Food) Policy 2020-30 (GKP 2020-30). This includes financial and human resources. 2. Need to Communicate the GKP 2020-30 Objectives and activities to all sectors and stakeholders at national level down to provincial and community level – in appropriate language and communication formats 3. Need to Increase the engagement and collaboration between government, private sector, and civil society to implement the GKP 2020-30, particularly, around: innovative value-adding of local foods; research related to innovative value adding of local foods; and delivery of services related to the Gudfala Kakae Policy. 4. Need to undertake a comprehensive review of the GKP to update it for COVID-19 and other contextual changes since its 2020 launch.236238239240241242243244246249251Stakeholder feedback across the three key discussion topics is summarised below: Topic 1 – 2030 Vision for Vanuatu’s Food System • Strengthen community resilience and knowledge through education and training in healthy and resilient production, processing, and storage techniques and technologies. • Strengthen coordination, monitoring and implementation of workplans and actions. To be led by Vanuatu Government. • Increase investment in local / community food production and processing capacities. Exploring and developing strong Government partnerships and engagements with private sector and non-government entities to implement Gudfala Kakae Policy. • Improve alignment with resilient, healthy and appropriate cultural food production and processing practices, i.e., build on local knowledge of land use and biodiversity rather than focusing only on introducing new techniques and practices.236238239240241242243244245246249251Topic 2 – Key Actions to achieve 2030 Vision for Vanuatu’s Food System • Establish Committee recommended in Gudfala Kakae (Good Food) Policy to oversee coordination and implementation of the Policy. • Strategic partnership between government agencies and other sectors/agencies • Consolidation and alignment of all Government policies, strategies, and plans related to Food System • High level leadership, advocacy and engagement from Govt and Key Stakeholders • Targeted community promotion, advocacy, information dissemination using appropriate materials/language for local communities236Topic 3 – Key Challenges to achieving 2030 Vision for Vanuatu’s Food System • Information gaps at community level / dissemination of relevant information/knowledge to local communities using appropriate materials / language • Leadership in coordination and implementation of Government policies into concrete actions • Prevalence of and reliance on cheap, imported and unhealthy foods • Encourage and strengthen the sense of personal / community resilience. Not depending on handouts • Remoteness and geographic spread of islands and communities237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Areas of Divergence which emerged from the Dialogue were: • Transition to commercialised and new techniques of farming vs traditional farming practices. This will also bring the issue of land tenure and traditional custom land ownership, which is often a source of family and community disputes, to the forefront. • Making funding more accessible to local farmers vs Need for capacity building/training in financial management and developing special financial products to fit local contexts • Ensuring two-way engagement with local communities to avoid a one-way, top-down communication and introduction of new techniques and practices and enabling local communities to share lessons/information from their traditional knowledge and practices.

2021-09-14 07:08:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41087/203

2542817016582836443414351301543125104343471222872811113134354

The Dialogue was organized and delivered by the Alliance for Science in accordance with years of experience in collaborating with global academies and research centers focusing on agricultural biotechnology and connecting them with relevant stakeholders. Expert speakers were selected in the field of genome editing in both consumer and ingredient crops, nutrition policy, and consumer adoption of new food technologies. The opening presentation and discussion topics were designed to highlight the potential of the technology for food systems and the specific actions needed for gene editing to help achieve action track one, “Ensure Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All.” The organizing team worked diligently to invite individuals from diverse stakeholder groups, sectors, genders, and countries to facilitate an engagement that reflects the multiple aspects and perspectives of food systems, as well as their complexity. The order of the discussion and engagement was designed to allow participants to react to the link between the potential of the technology and real-world applications to allow a systems-wide solution presented by the speakers for action track one.The discussants in the Dialogue were chosen to reflect how the technology could navigate the complexity of food systems everywhere and allow global perspectives, in line with the principles of the Food System Summit. The Dialogue reflected this complexity by discussing not just the four traditional components of food security (availability, access, utilization, and stability) but also considered the nutritional value of food and the systemic factors that impact food systems. The Dialogue reflected the principle of inclusivity by engaging the Alliance for Science’s broad network of diverse stakeholders across the globe for ample participation. The organizers also used social media and online tools to engage groups outside of common networks to further promote inclusive conversations. The Dialogue had participants from Africa, Southeast Asia, Central and South America, Europe, and the United States. All discussions focused on the principle of “acting with urgency.” Discussants conveyed data that brought attention to the dire need for action across the globe. The need to prioritize access to safe and nutritious food was at the center of all discussions. The speakers’ positions were designed to allow a clear link between existing technologies and their potential for achieving the goals of access track one with urgency.We recommend that other convenors plan with ample time so they can circulate materials to participants in advance of the Dialogue. They should use online functions as much as possible, such as Zoom’s chat tool and breakout rooms, to facilitate discussions. It’s also useful to focus on a specific topic of engagement. Don’t just throw up a broad, blank check topic like, what can be done to transform food systems? In our case, we focused on genome editing’s role in addressing nutritional security in global food systems, and that clear focus was crucial to the Dialogue’s success.

No

234238239240242243244246248249The major focus of our Dialogue, “What Role Will Gene Edited Foods Play in Addressing Nutritional Insecurity?” was an exploration of action track one, which addresses “ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all” and how to achieve this goal through innovation as a lever of change. The Dialogue explored how to use innovations in crop and livestock breeding, such as CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome editing techniques, in ways that can add value to every process and person involved in growing, processing, and consuming food. Discussants presented and commented on the potential of genome editing and then looked at gaps and new approaches in the use of the technology to help us achieve SDG’s Target 2.1 and 2.2; “Safe and universal access to safe and nutritious food” and “End all forms of malnutrition,” respectively, in accordance with the general targets of action track one. Discussants also recognized that while genome editing and other new plant breeding technologies are an important component of food systems, there are many other aspects of food production and distribution, which must all work together to provide nutritional security. Nutritional insecurity is a pressing topic around the globe. Some nations struggle with widespread lack of access to nutritious foods and related hunger, while other nations are facing significant challenges related to increasing levels of obesity due to diets high in fats, sugars, and processed carbohydrates. Data from the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) show that 1 out of every 3 people in the world suffer from some type of malnutrition. An estimated 821 million people are unable to access enough calories to avoid chronic hunger. About 2 billion people globally do not consume enough of the vitamins and minerals they need to grow healthily. It is estimated that 1 out of every in 5 deaths globally are linked to poor diets. Every year, about 11% of the gross domestic product in Africa and Asia is lost to malnutrition. Also, overweight and obesity affect 2 billion people globally and the numbers are rising in virtually every country in the world. The reason we need genome editing is because 3 billion people worldwide cannot afford a healthy diet, according to the United Nations State of Food Insecurity Report, and 1.5 billion cannot afford a diet that is minimally nutritious. Genome editing eliminates the randomness of breeding, making rapid advances in plant breeding possible. For example, it would take more than 100 years to develop pit-less cherries through traditional breeding, but less than five years with genome editing. A lot of ongoing research could be scaled up to make these rapid advancements a reality. For example, IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) is trying to ascertain the nutritional benefits that can be derived from rice varieties that are available in the gene bank. This research could help make the nutritional benefits of genome editing reach the general population sooner. The upcoming Summit’s goal is to produce concrete measures on how to deal with food and nutritional insecurity. Accordingly, it should be ready to acknowledge genome editing technology as one of the tools that can help improve agriculture. The Food Systems Summit is an opportunity for us all to voice the belief that genome editing has great potential to benefit the world, and Africa in particular. We can link production to nutrition because food scarcity typically contributes to malnutrition. Genome editing has the potential to produce crops that are nitrogen use-efficient, more successful at photosynthesis, climate-resilient, resistant to insect pests and plant diseases, more nutritionally robust, and higher-yielding. We need to assess and develop concrete actions to harness the power of the technology to help us ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all.235238239240242243244248249The potential seems limitless for what can be done to improve nutritional security using genome editing and CRISPR. Genome editing is an emerging technology that gives geneticists power in to take specific actions within the genome. It is an area of work that has the potential to deliver wide-ranging positive change beyond its immediate focus. It can be used to create healthier diets by boosting nutrient content, improve or ensure consistent flavor in fruits and vegetables, and remove seeds and pits, making healthy food more convenient and nutritious to eat. This technology can also be used for climate resilience by rapidly adapting crops to changing environments and increasing carbon sequestration. The technology can also benefit the agricultural value chain by extending the shelf life of fruits and vegetables, reducing food waste, and adapting varieties to enable year-round production and thus increase availability in all our food systems. It can also enable safer working conditions by helping breed to crops that can be picked and processed more easily. Genome editing has important applications in fruits, vegetables, pulses, and whole grains, which are the foundation of nutritious diet. People in all countries do not consume enough of these foods, which can help to mitigate micronutrient deficiencies, non-communicable diseases, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Though these foods are potentially very affordable for everyone, they face challenges in terms of extended storage, wastage, palatability, and multi-season availability. Genome editing can improve crops to extend their shelf life, enable year-round production, and adapt to changing environments, among other benefits. Genome editing can arguably be used to improve the foods that people in all countries consume as part of a healthy diet. Overall, genome editing offers an accelerated pathway to more nutritious, safer, tastier, and more affordable fruits, vegetables, pulses, and grains. It’s going to take brave, bold, activist government actions for genome editing to reach its potential. Specifically, these actions should address the delays that hamper research progress and product development, such as an excessively stringent regulatory environment. Actions that promote science-based regulatory processes will support research and development of biofortified products. A regulatory environment that creates undue hurdles for biofortified products has impeded research on products that could really help deal with nutritional insecurity, such as a nutrient-dense eggplant. We need to act with urgency to remove regulatory barriers hindering the development of genome-edited crops. If we fail to support genome editing and instead rely upon conventional breeding, it will take us many more years to improve the nutritional value of our crops. Genome editing can ensure that healthy foods quickly reach consumers. Further, to allow genome editing to fulfill its potential, we also need to strengthen institutions, policies, and processes. We need to foster accountability and transparency among all actors. We also need to look at priorities that are emerging from the national and independent dialogues. For example, a country may wish to prioritize doubling vegetable production over the next five years. We need to consider what genome editing can do to help them achieve this target. Countries are very pragmatic. They will do whatever it takes to make safe and nutritious food available to all their population. They don’t have the luxury of choosing to eat organic or not organic, GMO or non-GMO, genome-edited or non-genome-edited. Their choice is to eat or not eat. So, we need to show how genome editing can efficiently and effectively respond to the needs and priorities of nations across the globe.236238239242243244248249What needs to happen for genome editing to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all? Genome editing is a process that borrows Nature’s tools. By following Nature's lead, we can empower farmers to feed their communities. However, enhanced nutrition is often the least important reason motivating food choices; people generally take a long list of other considerations into account, including cost, availability, cultural issues, impacts on nature, etc. Experiences in the summit action tracks shows that bold actions, which could be clustered under the three headings of a) desire; b) trust and c) access, are needed to confer gene editing with the social license to successfully integrate into the world’s food supply. In terms of desire, there is a need to communicate how consumers can benefit from genome editing, such as highlighting how these tools can produce fruits and vegetables with better taste, more stability, longer shelf life, lower price, etc. Consumers must want these products if they are to be successful. While farmer buy-in is critical to the widespread adoption of the technology, consumer acceptance is equally important. So, we must meet consumers where they are and communicate how this technology is linked to health and nutrition, as well as environmental benefits. Consumer desire is critical. In terms of trust, based on observations of the food systems processes, many people are positively influenced by genome editing’s potential to reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint. They want to be assured that genome editing can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote biodiversity, improve the nitrogen-carbon-phosphorous cycles, take the pressure off expanding into wild lands, reduce water and energy use, and empower smallholder farmers and local food systems. Showing how genome editing can address these issues will help drive widespread social acceptance. There is a particular need to communicate how gene-edited foods are nature-positive. It is important to highlight how gene editing is essentially speeding up a natural process. In terms of language, the term “nutritionally-dense crops” or similar language appears to resonate more effectively with consumers than “biofortified crops.” In terms of access, it is important to address the issue of intellectually property. Seeds must be affordable to smallholder farmers and for small- and medium-sized enterprises, as they are the backbone of global food systems. In low- and middle-income homes, much of the food consumed is purchased, according to World Bank data. Low- and middle-income homes buy at least two-thirds of what they eat. If they are purchasing food, they are interacting with small- and medium-sized enterprises in the value chain. Those are being supplied with food by small- and medium-sized producers. To support this existing system, the products produced through genome editing must be accessible to small- and medium-sized enterprises, producers, marketers, distributers, suppliers, cold storage operators and others across the food value chain. Moreover, public-private models of operation should be encouraged wherever possible, so long as they are well-designed, governed justly, and acting in the interest of the public good. It is also advisable to work with the United Nations and its programs. For example, the World Food Program could be a great incentive for the advancement of genome editing because it is already procuring biofortified foods. While private sector and industry participation is good, public–private partnerships tend to work better.236238240242243244248249How can gene editing help ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all in low- and middle-income countries? Genome editing can help those working to improve nutritional security in low- and middle-income countries through research into and development of more nutritious and healthy staples. In addition to developing healthier fruits and vegetables through genome editing, it’s important to also improve staple crops, which tend to comprise the bulk of the diets eaten in low- and middle-income countries. Additionally, the agricultural sectors in most low- and middle-income countries are centered around the production of staples. While it’s true that even in rural communities, most of the food consumed is bought, it is important to consider that much of what is produced is also consumed by those who produce it. Such is the case in the Philippines, where the cost of a nutritious diet can be lowered by a third or a half if people are able to produce their own food. And if they produce enough to sell the extra, then the cost of a nutritious diet is reduced even more. So, one clear value of genome editing is supporting the development of healthier staples in low- and middle-income countries. Ultimately, the prioritization of genome-edited crops depends very much on the country context, weather considerations, and other factors. For countries like the Philippines, discussants considered it important to start with genome-edited staples like rice and corn, which are widely consumed by the population.236238240242243244246248249How can we keep genome editing technology available and give innovation a chance to help us achieve nutritional security? Genome editing is an efficiency-increasing technology that has the potential to boost nature-positive production. We have a huge opportunity to apply genome editing technology to the genetic information about crops accumulated to date. Currently, we can determine the genome sequence of any crop, whereas ten years ago only a big corporations and institutions could access this information. Today, these sequences are relatively inexpensive and widely accessible, speaking to the ability of genome editing to democratize the process of plant breeding. Now that smaller institutions and companies are widely using the tools of genome editing, it will remain accessible and foster innovation in nutritional security. Now, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, low- and middle-income countries have ramped up their capacities in molecular biology, thus expanding their ability to employ the tools of genome editing. Scientists may not be currently engaged in genome editing, but they have the basic equipment and manpower to do so. With a little more training, it will be possible for low- and middle-income countries to perform genome editing and apply these innovations to their country-specific challenges of providing safe and nutritious food for all. Discussants agreed it is important to take a context-specific approach to all activities launched to address the key issues of trust, desire, and access. It is imperative that all local experts, and not just scientists, participate in determining how to meet their nation’s unique needs and the role that genome editing can play in addressing these challenges. We have a tremendous opportunity to get it right and use genome editing to address the global challenges of nutritional insecurity. Further, the needs of the people, not economic gain or profit motivations, should guide research priorities to meet the basic human right to safe and nutritious food.237238240242244246248249One area of divergence is that some participants think genome editing research should begin with fruits and vegetables, while others support an initial emphasis on staple crops. Both are important. However, the approach should be determined by country-specific context. Participants from Nigeria said that since genome editing has the potential to produce crops that are nitrogen use-efficient and higher yielding, research should begin speedily in those areas. In Nigeria, linking production to nutrition is key because many people suffer from food scarcity and malnutrition. So, if genome editing can enhance Nigeria’s crops and overall production, while fortifying foods with additional nutrients, then research and production should focus on crops that Nigerians consume. For instance, many Nigerians make a meal only of sweet potato. Their overall nutrition could be improved, and stunting reduced, if genome editing is used to fortify sweet potatoes with protein and/or vitamins. Participants from the Philippines noted that genome editing could be useful in improving the nutrient content of rice. The IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) is trying to ascertain the nutritional benefits that can be derived from rice varieties available in its gene bank. With genome editing, these new beneficial rice varieties could reach farmers and consumers much faster. Participants commented that malnutrition is a pervasive problem in the Philippines and while existing interventions exist, we need additional tools to improve the health of Filipinos. They stated their belief in the value of working together to improve the nutritional status of those at risk. Genome editing has the potential to improve the nutritional value of food crops that can be made available and accessible to many in a sustainable way, some participants said. Participants from Guatemala commented that record numbers of subsistence farming families are going hungry in their country. Health officials registered more than 15,300 cases of acute malnutrition in children under age five last year – up nearly 24% from 2018. It’s the highest number of acute malnutrition cases since 2015, when a severe drought destroyed harvests across Central America. In Central America, genome editing might be the banana’s only hope against a deadly fungus. Researchers are using the tool to naturally boost the fruit’s defenses and prevent the extinction of a major commercial variety. However, in terms of supporting nutritional security, participants commented that researchers should focus on staple foods like corn. Participants from the US wanted genome editing to focus on convenience and quality in fruits and vegetables, including pit-less cherries and non-browning apple. They noted the need to boost consumption of fruits and vegetables in the US to keep the population healthy, hence the push to prioritize those crops. Participants from Mexico commented that genome editing, coupled with traditional knowledge, can help strengthen native corn varieties (landraces) and their ability to adaptat to climate change, while reducing the nation’s dependence on corn imports. The indigenous people of Mexico have provided the guiding principles for research that can improve traditional varieties. They worked tirelessly to harness the power of nature to ensure the prosperity of their communities and Mexicans are proud to see modern scientists follow in their footsteps. Participants from Ghana wanted genome editing research to focus on popular crops like sweet potato. It is estimated that thousands of children in Ghana and Africa go blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency, making it the world’s leading preventable cause of childhood blindness. Some 50% of the afflicted children die within a year of losing their sight. Respiratory illnesses and infectious and diarrheal diseases in children also have been linked to vitamin A deficiency. Participants from Ghana noted that if sweet potato is improved with increased beta carotene (a precursor for vitamin A) content, it will help save the lives of millions of children. Another area of divergence was on how the technology should be introduced in various countries. Some participants noted that genome editing will succeed when introduced in large parts of the developing world and most countries. Others opined that genome editing will have only limited impacts on efforts to ensure access to healthy foods unless other socioeconomic and political issues are simultaneously resolved.

2021-09-14 10:20:09205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31545/161

Yes

2021-09-14 13:17:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19588/192

39821101623171213612151144612515

Act with Urgency We have organised our dialogue within the time frame to feed back into the UNFSS and as soon as was possible given delays and complications due to COVID. Commit to the Summit Our insights and findings from the dialogue will not only be feeding into the UNFSS, but also the creation of a food strategy for the city of Birmingham, alongside other pieces of consultation. We are excited to share our findings and learn from those of others through the UNFSS process. Be Respectful All facilitators received training ahead of the dialogue to allow diverse voices to contribute and ensure any divergences were captured and manged in a respectful way. We introduced the session with a short piece from a speaker who outlined the importance of equality, health and sustainability as a holistic approach to a complex system in which all can live and thrive. Recognize Complexity As above. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity We worked hard on a targeted, strategic approach to our invitations. We had some drop off on the day and didn't have as much representation from the private sector as hoped, in particular producers. However, in a super diverse city, we had a good mix of ethnicities. Complement the work of others As we have already undertaken a number of consultation projects in the city we worked not to replicate the questions and acknowledge this work and our findings in the introduction. Similarly, as there are other food system projects currently taking place in Birmingham we have communicated with one another to ensure we avoid stakeholder fatigue. Build Trust We are staying in contact with our attendees, being transparent about our process and keeping them involved in the process of developing our strategy.Captured above.Put thought and time into your participant list. This was a considerably longer task than anticipated, but we reached new people.

Yes

234239244246248249The title of our dialogue was 'How do we co-create a city with healthy citizens, a healthy food economy and a healthy environment?' We focused primarily on Action Track 2: Shift to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns We aimed to explore the holistic nature of our city food system. In our introductory session our speaker framed the issue with the following narrative, aiming to highlight the broad and inter-dependent definitions of 'healthy' and 'sustainable': What is a healthy food system? Healthy is not just about physical health, but the health of our environment, our communities and our economy. The pandemic has thrown issues of access, health and supply into the spotlight. Showing strengths and weaknesses. A lot of conversation around food in Birmingham is about health and access. We also have a climate and ecological emergency. What is a sustainable food system? Sustainability is not just about environment sustainability, but about sustaining our health, our communities and our economy. Furthermore, our health and the future of our businesses depend on a functioning environment – climate, soil, pollinators etc. Health and sustainability are hand in hand. We can’t have one without the other. We live in a world of interconnectivity and we can’t solve any of these issues in isolation. We need to work together and to do this we need to understand where we are all coming from. We are bringing together citizens, farmers, business owners, local policy makers and more. In our breakout groups we discussed the following questions, before consolidating the conversations around the 3 questions on the facilitator feedback sheets: Thinking about both yourself and the sector or groups you are representing today, what are your priorities for change in the city? What can you do and what do you need other groups to do to help you achieve these goals? Does sustainability feel relevant to you? If not, why not? What do you think could change this? If yes, why?235238239244245246249250urgent action education at every level from schools to communities to businesses focus on addressing food waste and creating circularity through composting systems within the city facilitation of growing in the city primarily through urban planning and integration into developments looking at financial levers sustainability including carbon and packaging nurturing a greater connection between local producers and the city the need for a systemic approach and a recognition of the multiple levels involved throughout, from individual behavior to population level, from the role of communities to the role of local and national governments, as well as mention of international activity multiple factors at play working in synergy and that actions and solutions were interdependent requires effort from multiple partners across every sector clear call for leadership and coordination, recognizing the roll that government has to play in facilitating and financing interventions. Roles of organisations and individuals: facility sharing sharing of expertise cross sector engagement essentially, a more joined up collaborative approach a shifting of mindsets and an establishment of a new norm. Time scales: impatience of those passionate about transformation was clear a time frame of 10 years and three years, many commented that this was not soon enough frustration that there was not support for existing initiatives and focus on scaling up their good work, and in some cases a sense of powerlessness to drive the change needed.

2021-09-14 16:10:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2641/120

17217131412211312221

MY World México, GreenPretzel y el Centro de Innovación Social y Seguridad Alimentaria iniciamos el diálogo con la idea de sumar a todos aquellos interesados con el impulso de los ODS, a través del análisis de los sistemas alimentarios locales en México. Invitamos a todos los actores posibles dentro del sistema alimentario de nuestra región, con la idea de tener una diversidad de opiniones que ayudaran a entender mejor los problemas que aquejan a los sistemas alimentarios locales en México. Invitamos a productores, pequeños comerciantes locales, organizaciones de productores, estudiantes, centros educativos, universidades, líderes de comerciantes, investigadores, medios de comunicación, gobiernos locales y consumidores. Solicitamos el apoyo de todos aquellos interesados en mejorar el sistema alimentario local con la idea de tener todos los enfoques, reconociendo la complejidad, siendo respetuosos de todos, con la idea de actuar con urgencia sobre las acciones, promoviendo la confianza para aumentar la participación de la mayor diversidad. Además, se realizaron varias reuniones de preparación del diálogo donde se discutieron los temas, se buscaron a los facilitadores, se organizó una capacitación a facilitadores, se generó un plan de trabajo para el diálogo y se dejaron tareas. También se inició una campaña de difusión en redes sociales de las organizaciones participantes.Los temas que abordamos en el diálogo como la educación alimentaria, la innovación, los campesinos, la oferta y demanda de productos locales y las mujeres, están alineados a los principios de la cumbre sobre sistemas alimentarios. Buscamos, con estos temas, adoptar un enfoque inclusivo y diverso, reconociendo la complejidad del tema y entendiendo que, si no actuamos para mejorar nuestros sistemas alimentarios locales, de forma inmediata, los problemas como la salud pública y la falta de alimentos saludables, provocarán fenómenos sociales difíciles de manejar en el futuro.Es importante tomar en cuenta cada uno de los principios con la idea de incorporarlos en cada uno de los temas específicos con la idea de obtener mejores ideas sobre cómo resolver los problemas tratados. Un enfoque inclusivo es fundamental por lo que debes invitar a una gran diversidad de ideas y soluciones.

Yes

234238239240241242245246247248249251Nuestro segundo diálogo lleva el nombre de “Hacia la sostenibilidad de los Sistemas Alimentarios locales y el diseño de políticas públicas en México” e intenta analizar cómo podemos impulsar acciones sostenibles e inclusivas que aminoren los problemas identificados en cada una de las cinco vías de acción planteadas dentro del primer Diálogo. En este sentido, se busca encontrar acciones, mecanismos y políticas públicas que mejoren los sistemas alimentarios locales en beneficio de la población más vulnerable en nuestro país. Los temas con los que esperamos abordar y discutir soluciones viables y sostenibles son: 1) Educación sobre alimentos nutritivos y salud. 2) Las y los campesinos y productores de alimentos como eslabón fundamental de los sistemas alimentarios. 3) La oferta, demanda y distribución de alimentos locales. 4) Los procesos de innovación en la producción de alimentos 5) Diversidad y perspectiva de género en los sistemas alimentos.235238239240241246247248249En la mesa 1 “Educación sobre alimentos nutritivos y salud” se plantearon como principales acciones sostenibles que permiten aminorar el desconocimiento sobre visión integral y multifactorial de los sistemas alimentarios, la falta de accesibilidad al conocimiento holístico, la desconexión, descontextualización y trastornos alimenticios y el deterioro ambiental, las siguientes: Colaborar desde la horizontalidad para generar espacios de escucha activa, afectiva y efectiva con las niñeces, las juventudes, las mujeres, los hombres y adultos mayores para mejorar los hábitos de consumo; difundir la importancia de adoptar modelos de alimentación sostenible tanto en medios de educación formal como informal, en medios de comunicación pública, recomendaciones institucionales de salud pública etc.; realizar cambios en los contextos que promuevan el acceso y deseo a otros modelos de alimentación (desde lo que se muestra en publicidad hasta las alternativas en mercados, comercios, restaurantes etc.), atendiendo a la ética, el arte y la dimensión emocional como elementos clave para promover otros modelos de alimentación justa y sostenible; promover la reflexión bioética que concientice sobre los impactos de los patrones alimentarios actuales, con especial énfasis en la crítica al antropocentrismo. En la mesa 2 “Los campesinos y productores de alimentos como eslabón fundamental de los sistemas alimentarios”, se proyectaron como principales acciones sostenibles que permiten aminorar el problema estructural de los sistemas de producción y consumo (la producción con un objetivo económico dejando del lado el objetivo social), las siguientes: diseñar políticas que promuevan las compras públicas a la agricultura familiar, así como la creación de políticas públicas dirigidas a la productividad y no solo a la sobrevivencia de los productores/as; mejorar el financiamiento al sector agrícola, disminuyendo las tasas de interés; Incluir a las y los campesinos en los marcos internacionales que les competen e impactan; En la mesa 3 “La oferta, demanda y distribución de alimentos locales”, se identificaron como principales acciones sostenibles que permiten aminorar la falta de espacios adecuados en cantidad y características para vender productos agrícolas locales, las siguientes: crear colectivos (cooperativas) de pequeños productores; generar un catálogo de proveedores (fechas, ubicaciones, datos) para poder contactar a los productores; promover acciones de responsabilidad social encaminadas hacia el consumo de productos locales; crear iniciativas de ley para que las cadenas comerciales tengan un % mínimo de producciones locales y sostenibles; desarrollar una plataforma digital para vincular a los productores con los consumidores y así evitar intermediarios; crear y fomentar los mercados alternativos. En la mesa 4 “Los procesos de innovación en la producción de alimentos”, se expusieron como principales acciones sostenibles que permiten aminorar la falta de innovación adaptada a las necesidades específicas locales de los pueblos y regiones de México y que se traducen en la ausencia de alimentos locales nutritivos y de calidad, las siguientes: aumentar la capacidad productiva agrícola de zonas urbanas y/o rurales mediante un sistema de cultivo altamente eficiente y libre de agroquímicos; operar un sistema de producción agroalimentaria adaptable a cualquier zona geográfica que permita obtener productos agroalimentarios inocuos con la más alta calidad nutricional; hacer uso de tecnologías innovadoras y una producción socialmente sustentable; reformular la producción de alimentos con base a normativas implementadas a nivel nacional. Y finalmente, en la mesa 5 “Diversidad y perspectiva de género en los sistemas alimentarios”, se encontraron como principales acciones sostenibles que permiten aminorar que la producción agrícola comercial sea una tarea principalmente masculina debido a que no se reconocen debidamente las aportaciones de las mujeres en la producción, alimentación y nutrición y no se cree en el potencial/capacidad de las mujeres de producir alimentos de calidad, y a que tienen mucho menos acceso que los hombres a la propiedad de la tierra, las siguientes: Implementar políticas públicas locales en materia de agricultura con perspectiva de género; Realizar conversatorios entre mujeres con el objetivo de compartir saberes para que ellas mismas se reconozcan como fundamentales en la producción alimentaria; Capacitar y brindar acceso a tecnologías de transformación alimentaria enfocado a mujeres; Diseñar e implementar programas de apoyo financiero para mujeres productoras; Involucrar a las instituciones educativas en los talleres y capacitaciones (respetando la cultura de cada comunidad); Impulsar el acompañamiento comunitario: nuevas formas de convivencia desde las escuelas, brindar herramientas a las escuelas para la resolución de conflictos, enseñar otras formas de relacionarse, un enfoque y perspectiva de género; y reforzar los derechos de las mujeres y niñas con el objetivo de reducir las desigualdades existentes en el campo.236238251Impulsar políticas públicas en seguridad alimentaria que tomen en cuenta los contextos y diferencias culturales, así como las relaciones de poder y desigualdades a transformar, no solo entre humanos (por clase, raza, género etc.) sino también hacia actores no humanos como los animales de otras especies que padecen de la discriminación y opresión especifica. Así mismo, se necesitan políticas públicas que difundan la importancia de adoptar modelos de alimentación sostenible tanto en medios de educación formal como informal, en medios de comunicación pública, recomendaciones institucionales de salud pública etc. Pero a su vez que se realicen cambios en los contextos que promuevan el acceso y deseo a otros modelos de alimentación (desde lo que se muestra en publicidad hasta las alternativas en mercados, comercios, restaurantes etc.), atendiendo a la ética, el arte y la dimensión emocional como elementos clave para promover otros modelos de alimentación justa y sostenible.236238239247248249251Diseñar políticas públicas que promuevan las compras públicas a la agricultura familiar, fortalezcan el Tejido social y la cohesión comunitaria, otorguen financiamiento viable para los pequeños productores, estén dirigidas a la productividad y no solo a la sobrevivencia de los productores/as.236238239241245246248249Diseñar políticas públicas dirigidas a vincular a los productores con los consumidores disminuyendo la brecha a través de la organización y formación de colectivos (cooperativas), además de generar un marco legal específico para desarrollar las capacidades de los productores e incrementar su producción. Llevar a cabo campañas de comunicación para conocer a productores y sus necesidades para poder establecerse en espacios físicos focalizados como exhibidores o haciendo uso de espacios existentes (mercados, restaurantes, tiendas, etc.)236238240241245246248249Diseñar Políticas Públicas a partir de las alianzas entre el sector rural, académico y gubernamental que impulsen el uso de tecnologías innovadoras y una producción socialmente sustentable. Mejorar la transferencia tecnológica al campo para incrementar la capacidad de producción, almacenamiento de los alimentos. Así mismo, es necesario regular las producciones y procesos en la industria alimentaria a través de sanciones o medidas para fomentar el cambio en la producción de alimentos por parte de las industrias236238241246247248249Implementación de políticas públicas locales en materia de agricultura con perspectiva de género, generando espacios entre mujeres donde puedan compartir saberes para que ellas mismas se reconozcan como fundamentales en la producción alimentaria, se capaciten y tengan acceso a tecnologías de transformación alimentaria.237238240241246247248249Las mesas de trabajo se llevaron a cabo con un gran nivel de discusión y puntos de vista sobre los temas planteados, no encontramos grandes áreas de divergencia, por el contrario, hubo consenso en la mayoría de las conclusiones. En general las divergencias encontradas fueron sobre cómo dar un enfoque más social a las acciones y políticas públicas para mejorar los sistemas alimentarios locales. Cómo la heterogeneidad del territorio y de las condiciones de las y los campesinos complican el diseño de acciones y políticas para su atención. Cómo atender los problemas de forma específica o ver el problema de forma sistémico. Cómo el sistema alimentario es un reflejo de las disparidades existentes en el sistema social o solo consecuencia de acciones en la política pública.

2021-09-15 07:15:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/25725/203

302172118135722743654538

The Dialogue strived to constitute a bridge between the biodiversity and food systems communities, with a view to mutually enhancing their processes and principles, to reach a common vision for sustainable food systems and flourishing biodiversity. In this sense, the event incorporated the Principles relating to multi-stakeholder inclusivity (bringing experts from various backgrounds and organizations), complementing the work of others (a synergistic approach to both the food and biodiversity challenges); and recognizing complexity (in particular the links between food production, food sovereignty and access to quality food, and the fight against biodiversity loss). With a focus of catalyzing synergies between the Convention on Biologidal Diversity and the Food Systems Summit, the Dialogue contributed to reaching a fruitful Summit, but also to sharing experiences and practices so that both communities benefit from its outcomes. Bearig in mind each actors' unique expertise, stances and priority ("Be respectful"), the Dialogue supported mutual trust and support amongst actors that seldom have the occasion to exchange views. Finally, the Dialogue underlined a need for bold, transformative change in both food systems and biodiversity, highlighting the urgency of reaching true sustainability, and for implementing strategy underpinned by science, whole-of-society approaches, good governance and ambition.This Dialogue had a specific focus and contribution to two of the UN Food Systems Summit: - Recognizing complexity: food systems and nature are intrinsically related. By shedding light on the relationship between biodiversity and agriculture, and the importance of reaching sustainable food systems to solve both the planetary crisis and reach global humn wellbeing and health, the Dialogue showed that food systems are embedded in the wider context of sustainability and nature governance. Understanding these dynamics and acting at a multi-factor level was described as the key enabling factor to a successful food systems transformation. - Act with urgency: the biodiversity and food systems crises require immediate and ambitious action. By uniting these two dimensions and underlining the momentum of 2021 as a cornerstone for international sustainable development (CoP15 of Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Food Systems Summit, CoP26 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) the Dialogue called for stakeholders to come together beyond silos and sectoral lines to recognize this emergency and join forces to find holistic, transformative solutions. Finally, the Dialogue also reflected multi-stakeholder inclusivity, by welcoming representatives from countries, the UN system, the private sector, youth, academia and other actors to reflect on the path to building common gorund for biodiversity and food systems action.

NoThe event was constructed as a conversation and panel discussion between representative of the food systems and biodiversity communities, around two main questions: a pathway to strong commitments to Nature and food convergence and action, and a cross-stakeholder discussion on solutions, implementation and the contribution of non-state actors. Participants had the occasion to listen to short presentation for each speakers on a question related to each of the two themes, then to ask questions directed to one or more of the panellists. Each speaker also had the possibility to address questions in written and elaborate in an open chat. the resulting discussion was lively and let various points of convergence appear, in particular: - interrelation and interdependence as a key feature of nature and food systems - the importance of triggering systemic change, however the recognition that this transformation results from complex processes, and that it will only be achieved with a wide movement across society; - the role of science and knowledge, including traditional, put to people's use; - a strong reminder about inclusivity, putting people's wellbeing to the centre and supporting those most vulnerable, while designign a system in which achieving accesible, nutritious food does not harm nature; - the unprecedented opportunity of 2021 to build convergence and start walking the transformative path; - the need to productively engage with stakeholders, in particular youth and the private sector as leaders, innovators and contributors to reaching our syustainability goals. Additionally, the webinar's was made available online, allowing it to reach a wider audience, with a positive feedback from various stakeholders who were not able to attend.

234239240243244245246249251This Dialogue focused on offering a space for a wide array of participants to become more familiar with the centrality of agri-food systems and the importance of their transformation in contributing to an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework. It aimed at shedding light on the convergence between agri-food systems and biodiversity agendas, and highlighted the role of a mutually-beneficial dialogue between both sectors, supporting informal conversations between negotiators, stakeholders and experts. The online session was divided in two sequences. The first one was focused on (1) introducing a state-of- play as to recent reports, initiatives and discussions on fostering mutually supportive goals and agendas within agri-food systems and biodiversity communities and (2) providing an overview of enablers for aligned ambitions and implementation, taking into account the contributions by all levels of government and all stakeholders. The second part highlighted opportunities and challenges to move this agenda forward, as well as triggers for transformative change.235239240246249From the discussion, various conclusions emerged, pointing towards a need to establish closer coordination and mutual support between the biodiversity and food systems communities, to reach all their objectives and the Sustainable Development Goals. It showed that the co-benefits arising from the sustainable use of biodiversity were key to ensuring food quality, access to nutrition and livelihoods, while also being a cornerstone to a nature-positive, carbon-neutral and equitable future. More particularly, participants suggested the need to: - Further enhance convergence and cooperation, and take a holistic approach to food, nutrition and nature; - Create science-based, actionable knowledge that can be applied both in the environmental and food production and consumption sector (metrics, models, levers, science-policy interface), using existing, traditional and new tools. - Support multi-level and multi-governance intervention, and win-win development programmes, from a common understading of the drivers of negative change, and the opportunities for positive action; - Foster positive financial flows, and tackle environmentally harmful subsidies, to direct resources towards nature- and food-positive activities; - Promote a paradigm shift by coming together beyond egos, interests and sectors for an equitable future un harmony with Nature

2021-09-15 12:50:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42087/203

1890198671101137693821011711641142181241023571121110327

The dialogue adopted the UNFSS Principles of Engagement throughout the planning and actual implementation of the dialogue. Purposeful and respectful interactions were conducted between various African Agri-Food Micro, Small, Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). The 189 (113 males 76 females) participants were drawn from 32 countries including United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, Italy, France Belgium, Ireland, Malawi, Kenya, Eswatini, Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Sierra Leon, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Somali, Guinea, India, Gambia, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Senegal, Liberia, Morocco, South Sudan and DRC Congo. This varied audience ensured the dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. The dialogue processes was supported by evidence generated from diagnostic and landscape analysis of African Agri MSMEs sector, survey targeting both MSMEs and supporter of MSEMEs. These enriched the dialogue and complemented others works on Food Systems transformation in Africa recognizing that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems. The creativity in the dialogue process included carefully selected discussants, multi-level discourse at both plenary and at chatroom levels in various cohort sessions that combined some action tracks. Both AU common position and RECs perspectives were presented to help with contextualizing the discussions. This multi-faceted approach promoted trust and motivated participants.The dialogue participants were of varied age groups, gender and were drawn from different stakeholder groups –micro, small, medium enterprises, and their supporters. The key speakers for the plenary session also represented diverse backgrounds, including but not limited to: UN bodies (FAO), AGRA, Financial institutions, International and Regional NGOs (including youth enterprises), African Union and Regional Economic Communities (RECs). This allowed for inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement processes and approaches to bring in diverse perspectives on accelerating food systems transformation in Africa through Agri-Food MSMSEs. The facilitated dialogue that involved both plenary presentations and cohort group discussions (in breakout sessions), provided opportunity for participants to freely contribute to the discussions and share their ideas/opinions/questions through the chats, and also voice their ideas in the breakout sessions. The bringing together of multi-stakeholders to interact and learn was key to fostering new knowledge and developing game changing solutions, while complementing and linking with the work of others such as Africa Union thinktanks work on Africa’s common position on UNFSS, FAO studies on Agribusiness in Africa and impacts of Covid-19 UNFSS Agri-SME Agenda on UNFSS (global Survey) and RAI Africa’s Agri- MSMEs Integrated Study (analytics and online survey). Dialogue participants mainly regulators and policy makers, investors, financial institutions, business development service providers, business incubators, as well technical experts were allowed to join the three cohorts based on their preferences, whereas discussants who were experts in different areas took the lead on deliberating on MSMEs issues and proposed game changing solutions and accelerator interventions in the five action areas, followed by facilitated discussions on what the future food systems would be like if these changes are implemented. The interplay among AU organs, RECs, Member states, NSAs and Private sector (Small and big players (like a regional Equity Bank of KenyaBy observing the principles of engagement, Dialogues purposively brings together a diversity of stakeholders, including voices that are rarely heard, e.g. micro enterprises who apparently control over 70% of food systems and provide an important opportunity for participants to interact, learn and innovate, and take action towards a better future for food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251This dialogue theme was “Accelerating Food Systems Transformation in Africa through Agri-Food MSMSEs”. The focus was synergies to accelerate Food system transformation based on the five action tracks and cross cutting issues of this MSMEs sector aimed at contributing to the articulation of an Africa’s Common Position on UNFSS and cross- fertilizing Member States positions on critical food systems by identifying and voicing concrete gaps and ideas on how MSMEs can work together to fast-track growth of their businesses in ways that accelerate Food Systems Transformation in Africa. Specifically, the dialogue mobilized MSMEs from different sectors and across the continent to generate current perspectives, aspirations and ambitions, and map the general trends, institutional, structural and policy bottlenecks impeding the functionality and viability of MSMEs in Africa; and in addition recommended key promising and emerging solutions that will fast-track required changes in the Food Systems in Africa. Among the identified bottlenecks were: Financing of MSMEs and access to credit - while the demand for agri-financing is very wide, identification of bankable MSMEs is difficult; infrastructure and governance issues of MSMEs; Entrepreneurial and business skills gap; inadequate access to research and innovation facilities and technologies (i.e. Production, Processing, Packaging, Storage & Distribution; unconducive business environment for MSMEs to compete and thrive (existing legal, regulatory, policies and taxation frameworks that are counterproductive to growth of agri-MSMEs); vulnerabilities due to impacts of climate change and Covid-19; vested interests within the MSMEs curtailing innovation; disadvantaged women and youth in growing their businesses due to lack of collateral; unsupportive food standards & their harmonization; inability to leverage on ICT and digital transformation to access markets and very high rates of youth unemployment and financing mechanisms which are not youth-friendly.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251a. MSMEs are important at every stage of the food value chain and for every commodity type. Therefore, MSMEs should be included in any public or private sector efforts to increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious foods. b. In transforming the food systems in Africa, MSMEs must not only look beyond innovation/ game changing solutions but think, speak and act as one voice. Their ability to accelerate food systems transformation is directly dependent on how they become successful in working together as collaborators in competition. A mindset-shift by MSMEs in the ‘way of thinking and doing’ business is sine qua non c. The MSME financing landscape has and continues to shift especially with climate change financing with opportunities for African producers and entrepreneurs such as the Green Climate Fund. Aggregation of smaller enterprise groups through associations/cooperatives presents as a more ‘bankable’ units for accessing such capital. d. MSMEs are facing myriad challenges such as weak food control systems, limited consumer’s purchasing power, lack of harmonized food regulations in the region and poor private-public partnerships. By providing simple, relevant and harmonized food standards, codes of practice and guidelines; Codex can play a crucial role in helping MSMEs to access markets and trade be it national, regional or international. e. The integration of Infrastructure development, urban planning and rural development provide opportunities to ensure consumers have access to affordable nutritious foods, support informal food vendors’ livelihoods, and reduce food loss. f. There is urgent need to localize food chains hence not entirely dependent outside components as recently exposed by covid-19 pandemic. This will build resilience to shocks and stresses, promote local consumptions and local industries while maintaining quality and food safety standards. Member states can learn from each other and harmonize policies and practice across the system, while maintaining integrity of local food systems. g. United Nations Agencies (FAO and the WTO) should provide governments with the means to establish a framework to facilitate trade on the basis of internationally agreed food standards such as through the joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission where governments establish science-based food standards. h. Engagement is required to resolve trade frictions that inevitably arise, and to keep trade rules up to date with current challenges. To participate and engage internationally countries need to invest adequately in food safety and food control; as well as develop domestic capacity to effectively coordinate between all stakeholders. i. There is need to feel the weight of the African Union Member States policy on enabling MSME Banking facilities. Countries need to be more deliberate at the national level; and each member state should focus on how to improve the productivity of the farmers and the MSMEs, by ensuring that the capacities of the development banks/ financial institutions are functioning as expected. j. Many enterprises have slowed down due to lack of appropriate technologies and infrastructure (i.e. Production, processing, storage, and distribution). Therefore, the African Member State governments should be deliberate to ensure that there are appropriate and specific technologies and facilities for each category of enterprise. k. Local Governments do not have sound data on local food systems even if local markets contain traditional produce, much of it is of high nutrient value and resilient to climate change stress. l. The dialogues will not end with the UNFSS; Africa will continue to capture real progress in implementation of the game changing solutions using indicators appropriate for measuring food systems sustainability, among them key measures for the natural environment and resilience. Mainstreaming new indicators in the CAADP Malabo biennial review template will be necessary to track implementation of the game changing solutions and domesticate hem into practice towards the transformation agenda m. Post UNFSS 2021, AGRA commits to progress working on policy actions and policy frameworks, aiming for systems change and positive and lasting transformation of the food systems.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Proposed interventions Outcomes Expanded markets Expanded trade volumes within the regions Entrenched regulation Uniform quality standards maintained across the region and Africa ICT & E-commerce engrained Inter country and SME trade opened up within the region Policy interventions • Fair trade policies and practices entrenched • Currency exchange barriers removed • Production and quality standards agreed Within region trade • Uniform regional trading rules put in place, applied and enforced • Trade quotas agreed and entrenched between member states • Export food types and diversity agreed and increased • Food production to fit the importer requirements quantities agreed and increased237238239240241242243244245246248249250251a. Africa is yet to have social dynamics integrated into the continent’s sustainable consumption discourse as the voice and agency of women and youth not being realized Involvement of youth to own, control and be accountable to the Food Systems process. However, the youth need to clearly state and demonstrate what they can do. .

2021-09-15 15:41:54205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38943/72

4231300182222414171164

Cette session de concertation était consacrée à un sujet relatif à la nutrition des personnes vivant avec le VIH. A cet effet, tous les acteurs impliqués dans ce dossier ont été conviés

Yes

234238240241243248249251Cette session avait pour thématique l’Alimentation source de santé et de bien-être des populations particulièrement vulnérables à cause des maladies : cas du VIH SIDA. Elle a enregistré la participation de Monsieur le Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage, de la Pêche et de l’Alimentation, Coordonnateur nationale desdites concertations et du Ministre de la Santé. Trois interventions ont permis d’introduire les débats. Celle du Ministre de l’Agriculture , du Représentant de l’ONUSIDA et du Ministre de la santé. Plusieurs autres intervenants ont pris la parole pour donner leurs avis et contributions afin de faciliter les échanges et d’enrichir la position nationale pour l’élaboration de la feuille de route. Les échanges de ce jour ont permis de faire ressortir les axes suivants: • Le besoin de poursuivre les concertations sous un format de proximité • Promotion d’une bonne alimentation saine et équilibrée • Maximiser les efforts d’accompagnement des jeunes par les formations • Développer le système de communication • Prendre en compte dans les projets agricoles, en tant que couches vulnérables, les personnes vivant avec le VIH • Accompagner la mise en œuvre du projet levier ‘’une paroisse-un champ ou une ferme’’ par le Ministère de l’Agriculture et la FAO • Développer et accroître la production locale pour assurer la sécurité alimentaire • Dynamiser le concept une seule santé (one health) • Formaliser la plateforme multi-acteurs235238239240241244248249251Au cours des échanges, quelques pistes de solution ont été proposées : -changement de paradigme en matière de statut des personnes vivant avec le VIH -promotion du respect des bonnes pratiques en matière de production afin de préserver l’intégrité de l’écosystème -Prise en compte dans les projets agricoles, en tant que couches vulnérables, les personnes vivant avec le VIH -Octroie des terres agricoles aux personnes vivant avec le VIH -Mise à disposition des réfugiés des terres pour les activités agricoles, commerciales etc -Prise en compte à la fois de la santé de l’homme, des animaux et de l’environnement : approche une seule santé (one health) -promotion de l’agriculture à forte productivité par la mobilisation des jeunes à travers : la digitalisation et la mécanisation de l’agriculture -Mise en place d'un environnement des affaires favorable -implication ferme des personnes vivant avec le VIH SIDA dans les activités agricoles ; -mise en place des jardins communautaires -prise en compte de tous les groupes de personnes ( bébés, enfants, vieillards..) dans le traitement de la questions de la nutrition -engagement de la FAO à poursuivre l’accompagnement de l’autonomisation des personnes vivant avec le VIH par la mise en place des petits potagers, la formatons sur les itinéraires techniques et la promotion des régimes alimentaires équilibrés. -accompagnement dans l’entreprenariat des personnes vivant avec le VIH -accompagnement de la mise en œuvre du projet levier ‘’une paroisse-un champ ou une ferme’’ par le Ministère de l’Agriculture et la FAO -organisation de la campagne de promotion sur le secteur agricole en vue d’inciter les jeunes et les femmes au retour à la terre -création des jardins communautaires pour améliorer l’alimentation des personnes vulnérables236Il faut noter que l’objectif de cette session est de recueillir les avis et observations des partenaires techniques et financiers dans l’optique d’enrichir la position nationale pour l’élaboration de la feuille de route. Les discussions de cette session ont permis d’aboutir aux résultats suivants : 1. Le rôle crucial de la société civile, ainsi que celui des Partenaires Techniques et Financiers, des personnes vivant avec le VIH dans le développement des systèmes alimentaires. 2. La bonne alimentation, élément transversal clé du développement durable 3. L’enjeu environnemental suite au dérèglement climatique (préservation de l’écosystème) 4. L’enjeu relatif à l’intégrité des écosystèmes 5. L’octroi des terres agricoles à ce groupe de personnes 6. L’apport nutritionnel du jeune enfant de 0 à 5 ans, des femmes enceintes et allaitantes 7. L’importance de l’allaitement maternel exclusif de 0 à 6 mois meme pour les femmes vivant avec le VIH 8. Une bonne alimentation est indispensable à la santé des personnes vulnérables (les sujets vivants avec le VIH, les femmes enceintes, les enfants de 0 à 5 ans 9. L’élaboration d’un guide alimentaire et nutritionnel 10. La prise en compte à la fois de la santé de l’homme, des animaux et de l’environnement : approche une seule santé (one health) 11. L’appel à l’engagement ferme des personnes vivant avec le VIH SIDA est fortement souhaité ; 12. L’élaboration d’un Mémo résumant tous leurs points de vue et recommandations pour transmission au SG du Ministère de l’Agriculture.

2021-09-15 19:40:46205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42577/190

55012241540193605520431311120250425010002101350902212953

Organization: a preliminary announcement, an event open for participation, opportunities of hybrid participation and onlinetranslation, engaging a wide range of stakeholders, an open dialogue and taking into account the views and comments of theparties, an emphasis on achieving the indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals in Ukraine, respect for the opinions of the stakeholders. Evidence-based information, discussingof laws and drafts of laws, analysis of current policy, high-level representation, including Deputy Minister of Agrarian policy and Foodof Ukraine, Deputy Minister of Economy, representatives of science organizations, NGOs and Business associations, etc.All the Principles of Engagement are implemented.

Yes

234238239243245246247248249250251Theme of the event: The role of balanced food in the current food system of Ukraine. First identified national priority areacorresponding to Action Tracks 1-2 "Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all" and "Shift to sustainable consumption patterns" Access to healthy food for all categories of the population; sustainable consumption; changes in gastronomic culture; reduction of food losses and food waste; food safety; recovery of HoReCa after a pandemic235238239241243245246247248249250Ukraine has its own centuries-old culinary culture, and it is important to find ways to help achieve sustainable development goals and introduce new approaches to the formation of a balanced diet for every Ukrainian, especially children. It is necessary to increase state aid to small farmers under soft loans. The need to comply with the established requirements for business processes and food safety, awareness of producers, especially in conditions where the responsibility for product safety lies with the manufacturer. The importance of resuming the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The need to develop a culture of production and compliance with the terms of the contract for small farmers, to pay attention to the importance of educational activities. The presence of unfair competition and food fraud (falsification) and the need to strengthen accountability and resolve these issues. Recovery of HoReCa after the pandemic through the involvement of small producers and the development of craft technologies. The need to work to raise awareness of Ukrainians about the quality of food. The need to improve legislation in the field of food waste and the urgency of the issue for Ukraine.236238239243245246247248249250251Healthy and varied food in sufficient quantities for everyone in Ukraine: improving the national school nutrition system, ensuring the availability and accessibility of special food products for people with partial food intolerance, increasing the proportion of fortified foods in accordance with WHO Recommendations on Vitamin and Trace Content in food products ”, development of a national system of responsible consumption, reduction of food losses and waste reduction, introduction of a traceability system of various value chains; Changing the culture of food consumption and recovery after the pandemic: increasing the market share of semi-finished and ready-to-eat products, ensuring post-pandemic recovery of the HoReCa segment, introduction of credit mechanisms to support HoReCa, restructuring of existing loans, support of initiatives to improve employee welfare related to food products, including HoReCa, gastrotourism and craft production, promoting the development of a national culture of wine consumption, increasing the consumption of Ukrainian wines.237238239243245246247248249250251The discussion is provoked by the need to combine the provision of a balanced diet and the purchasing power of the population, which was proposed to be carried out through special programs.

2021-09-15 22:27:48205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44188/83

820424827313213143113119344232

La Coordination Nationale de la Sécurité Alimentaire (CNSA) est l’organe chargé de la préparation du sommet mondial pour Haïti. Selon un calendrier élaboré par les responsables, des ateliers de concertation seront organisés au niveau des dix départements du pays en vue de potentialiser la participation des différentes couches de la société et de toutes les parties prenantes. Les ateliers du département du Nord-Est ont eu lieu le 10 et 11 juin 2021 à Ouanaminthe. Ils ont connu un taux de présence assez faible. Pour l’ensemble des communes, l’on n’a eu que 32 personnes présentes. En matière de diversité, la majorité des secteurs clés (producteurs, transformateurs, fournisseurs de services) étaient présents. Le Nord-est comporte deux grands blocs répartis en Haut Nord-est et Bas Nord-est respectivement catégorisés comme zone humide ou d’altitude supérieure et comme zone sèche ou de plaine.Les ateliers de concertation du département du Nord-est se sont tenus à Ouanaminthe une ville frontalière à la République Dominicaine (pays voisin partageant une même île). Beaucoup d’échanges commerciaux s’effectuent entre ces deux pays et créent donc une dynamique particulière pour l’ensemble de la région, au sein de cette ville. Les communes de ce département étant très éloignées l’une de l’autre, il a fallu l’apport des agents de liaison traditionnellement engagés par la CNSA à multiplier les contacts pour atteindre et inviter les différents acteurs à venir prendre part à cet atelier de travail. Malgré la faible présence, le travail a été très fructueux. Les participants bien animés et conscients du mécanisme nécessaire et inhérent pour apporter des changements au sein du système alimentaire ont bien décrit la réalité qui se présente à travers la spécificité dudit département. Au cours de l’atelier, plusieurs médias locaux ont pu communiquer avec les responsables présents et les invités pour mieux comprendre d’abord le bien fondé de ce travail qui se fait au niveau du département et aussi transmettre au grand public les informations clés sur le fonctionnement du système alimentaire haïtien tout en se questionnant sur les attentes ou retombées provenant des résultats de cette concertation. Les acteurs assez sensibilisés ont pu produire un diagnostic rapide du système existant et présenter un ensemble de propositions qui devraient favoriser l’atteinte des Objectifs de Développement Durables (ODD). Ils souhaitent une vraie prise en charge partagée dans la nouvelle gouvernance de l’action à entreprendre pour une réelle transformation au niveau du département.

NoLes ateliers de concertation du Nord-est se sont déroulés en présentiel suivant cet agenda : Salutations- Prière Présentation de l’équipe d’animation/ facilitation Présentation des participants Lecture du mot du coordonnateur Présentation des objectifs de la rencontre et de la méthodologie Définition du concept Système Alimentaire Présentation des systèmes alimentaires en Haïti, le constat Constitution des groupes de travail Travail en ateliers restreints Retour en plénière et présentation des résultats d’ateliers Dans l’ensemble, l’atelier de concertation est effectué en trois étapes majeures : La première étape consiste d’abord à fournir aux participants un ensemble d’informations sur les systèmes alimentaires et d’explication sur le processus du Sommet et ensuite leur annoncer la démarche à suivre pour effectuer le travail du jour. Il s’agissait surtout de leur faire comprendre que le temps imparti pour l’atelier doit être bien valorisé et que tout devrait être effectué suivant une méthode accélérée de recherche participative qui consiste à collecter ensemble et très vite le maximum d’informations puis les traiter pour les traduire comme de vrais programmes à exécuter pour l’ensemble du département en ce qui a trait à la SAN. En fait, c’est un travail collectif visant à décrire le système alimentaire dans la communauté, identifier les problèmes et proposer des éléments de solutions. La deuxième étape du travail est cruciale. C’est l’occasion où tous les participants conscients que les Objectifs de développement durable (ODD) ne pourraient pas à l’avenir être atteints sans transformer les systèmes alimentaires et agricoles mondiaux, réfléchissent pour remodeler le système alimentaire local appelé à devenir plus productif, résilient, durable et capable de fournir des aliments plus nutritifs et abordables. En ce sens, les participants furent regroupés selon leur secteur d’appartenance et leur expertise en six groupes thématiques. Ils se sont penchés sur les enjeux du système alimentaire existant y compris les forces et vulnérabilités, ont exploré les options et opportunités de changement et ont déterminé des pistes d’action prioritaires pour le futur. Les six groupes ont travaillé sur les thèmes suivants : Groupe 1 : Filières agricoles, Elevage, Pèche Groupe 2 : Stockage. Transformations et commercialisation des produits agricoles Groupe 3 : Fournisseurs d’intrants agricoles et d’équipements agricoles, Fournisseurs de services financiers, Prestataires de services de transport Groupe 4 : Santé Nutritionnelle, Consommation et nutrition responsable Groupe 5 : Genre et Gouvernance Groupe 6 : Questions environnementales: Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques Un temps de 45 minutes a été accordé aux différents groupes pour produire leur réflexion. La dernière étape constitue la séance plénière où tous les groupes disposés en assemblée choisissent chacun deux personnes qui, tour à tour, produisent le rapport de leurs réflexions pendant soixante (60) minutes. L’opportunité est offerte à l’assistance pour atteindre un large consensus sur les dispositions et aussi se concerter pour trouver de véritables engagements.

234238239240241242244245246249Les transformations des systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD L’atelier de concertation étant un espace de débat et de résolutions prises sur de large consensus permettra au gouvernement haïtien de s'engager dans les questions de construction de systèmes alimentaires durables dans leur ensemble. Le thème majeur de la concertation défini par la CNSA s’arrange autour de la nécessité de transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD. Il s’agit d’une étude complète qui prend en compte les différends enjeux et questions clés en lien avec l’atteinte des ODD. Le cadre de référence, qui suit, nous aligne sur les enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux à la recherche de solutions durables et d’engagement. Des réponses aux différentes questions permettent une analyse profonde des différents aspects de la Sécurité alimentaire et Nutritionnelle (SAN) en Haïti. Cadre de référence 1- Enjeux nutritionnel : Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc.) actuels de la population ? Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production ? Pistes de réflexion : toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire ? Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires ? Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires ? Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés ? Comment organiser la logistique de distribution ? Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages ? Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés ? Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique : Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire Comment développer l’’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils etc.), les industries d’emballage ? Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ? Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?) Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ? Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ? Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels ? Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques ? Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels ? Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs ?235238239244245248Les acteurs du Nord-est ont tracé la voie à suivre pour l’engagement et le leadership d’Haïti dans la transition vers un système alimentaire durable. Ils ont préconisé : l’accès aux équipements agricoles et équipements de pêche (bateau, matériels de pêche) à travers le crédit agricole, la formulation de politiques publiques pour la promotion des initiatives d’agro-industrie, d’élevage amélioré et de pêche industriels et/ou semi-industriels. Ce travail doit viser l’autosuffisance alimentaire en Haïti qui suppose un engagement concerté, à part équitable, d’institutions clés comme les ministères ayant respectivement pour mandat le secteur d’agriculture, les infrastructures, l’aménagement du territoire, et l’environnement. L’accessibilité à des produits alimentaires de qualité. La conservation (transformation de produits) est un sous-secteur en négligence qu’il faut renforcer par des politiques publiques de promotion de la modernisation des techniques de conservation ou de transformation. La démocratisation du crédit agricole et de pêche dont l’Etat devrait avoir le leadership dans la promotion de ce service, la mise en place de la Banque nationale de Développement Agricole (BNDA) au niveau de la Direction Départementale du Nord Est avec pour mandat : l’investissement pour les petites et moyennes productions et la création de nouvelles entreprises au sens de micro développement autant qu’au sens de macro développement est vivement attendue. La mise en œuvre de cadre légal régissant la relation haïtiano-dominicaine sur certaines pratiques et habitudes locales en termes de service de crédit agricole. A cet enseigne, il importe de réguler les coutumes tels que : Les producteurs locaux obtiennent des dominicains, un crédit en nature sous forme de semence en contrepartie d’une portion du volume de la récolte. Les producteurs locaux obtiennent le labourage de leurs champs par des dominicains avec des équipements à moteur dominicains. La mise en œuvre de politique publique pour la création de service d’assurance de production agricole, animale et de pêche compréhensive des spécificités régionales et locales (écosystème, climat, sècheresse). La disponibilité et l’accessibilité aux produits sains et nutritifs pour une alimentation équilibrée en faisant promotion pour des modèles de plats équilibrés et en renforçant l’éducation nutritionnelle. La gestion axée sur les résultats (GAR) au sein d’une gouvernance locale fonctionnant dans la transparence et capable de rendre compte aux communautés desservies.236244248249Production agricole et pêche Au dire des acteurs, l'État devrait : définir le profil type d'un producteur agricole, mettre en place des banques de semences, définir une politique sur la fertilisation, mettre un service de quarantaine dans les villes de province et renforcer la structure de protection des végétaux et des animaux. En partenariat public privé, il faudrait rendre fonctionnels les centres de formation agricole et y annexer un volet de recherche en agriculture et pêche.236245Stockage, transformation, transport et commercialisation L’Etat devrait encourager le développement de l'agro industrie en faisant promotion pour l’investissement privé, investir dans les infrastructures routières pour améliorer le transport, produire en quantité suffisante pour exporter.236245248Services techniques et financiers L’Etat devrait rendre disponibles en quantité suffisante les matériels agricoles (tracteur, moissonneuse, charrue) , investir dans les systèmes d'irrigation, centre semencier, mettre en place un dispositif de crédit agricole à des taux abordables, instituer un service d’assurance récolte pour les producteurs. Le secteur privé et les organisations devront aider les producteurs à trouver les intrants, former les producteurs, faire des plaidoyers pour forcer l'Etat à prendre ses responsabilités. Ce secteur peut aider dans le marketing pour la vente des produits locaux, accompagner les producteurs, investir dans l'agriculture, mettre en application les nouvelles techniques pour une amélioration de la production.236244245248Problématique de l’environnement : il est fortement souhaité de changer de stratégie dans la gestion des ressources en eau disponible, trouver des variétés de plantes cultivées qui s'adaptent mieux aux conditions actuelles. Il faut envisager de construire de nouvelles routes agricoles, rendre disponibles les intrants agricoles, diminuer le prix des produits locaux. Il est aussi demander d’élaborer une politique d’éducation environnementale.236238241Santé/nutrition Les acteurs encouragent les responsables à sensibiliser la population sur les bonnes façons de préparer à manger et aussi apprendre comment balancer les repas. Un support sur le planning familiale afin de contrôler les naissances est fortement recommandé. L’Etat pourrait subventionner les produits locaux pour faciliter leur accès aux petites bourses et enfin développer les cours de nutritions dans les écoles.236246Gouvernance Il n’existe pas de disposition légale en aménagement du territoire pour l’identification et la définition de zone/parc industriel ou semi-industriel. Les espaces d’exploitation agricole en périphérie des villes perdent en superficie face à l’expansion urbaine non contrôlée. Il faudrait réaliser un travail de zonage pour déterminer les terres à exploiter pour la production agricole et celles à utiliser pour les constructions d’habitats.237244Relativement à l’accessibilité et la disponibilité. Les autorités ainsi que les associations locales doivent avoir le leadership dans l’identification et la délimitation des espaces destinés à l’élevage afin que l’appui fourni par des ONG à ce secteur n’ait pas pour effet de nuire à la production végétale.

2021-09-17 09:47:15205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41129/32

3972681981208121218501052240557114501622015114134960264241393576012601910244516

A diverse range of stakeholders interacted to form opinions highlighted in this submission. Every opinion was recognised for the transformation and success of Botswana food systems. The aim of such a multi-faceted approach was the recognition that food systems are complex and require a systemic approach. The desire is to transform our consultations from previously parallel approaches to inclusive and participatory approaches that improve the already established processes of governance and allow the formation of new ones. Through this process, priorities of action were identified.Participants were from different sectors and stakeholder groups across the country, and from different age categories.Embracing the principles of engagement ensures collective accountability and collective action by all. It also creates a sense of ownership among different stakeholders, with regards to the priorities identified for action.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The interaction was organised around the five (5) Action Tracks. National policies and programs were evaluated for gaps and game-changing solutions were recommended.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Home-grown school feeding and supplementary feeding programs: Improved rural livelihoods and access to nutritious food. 4IR in food systems: Virtual markets, digitisation, e-services (including extension services), drones, etc. Climate-smart and conservation technologies: Reduced waste and pollution; improved human health. Adequate funding for climate-smart technologies. Optimisation of environmental resources in food systems: Indigenous food products and water. Laws that support implementation of policies: Management of divergent practices. Targeted and evidenced-based programs: Land allocation, production, commercialisation, financing, etc. Food safety processes: Consumer and environmental protection from harmful products. Development of infrastructure: Roads, storage, processing facilities, slaughter houses, accredited testing laboratories, etc. for a resilient and sustainable food system. Supply of inputs and implements: Vaccines, fertilisers, pesticides, equipment, etc. Capacity building of all the players in the value chains: Food safety, production, processing, entrepreneurship, marketing, retailing, finance, etc. Specialised programs for marginalised groups: Elderly, youth, women, remote area dwellers and people living with disabilities. Updated and harmonised laws, policies, strategies and processes: Single registry for beneficiaries of government programs. Effective extension and outreach programmes: Ratio of farmer to extension officer, ratio of extension officer to value chain and provision of resources for service provision. Outsourcing of extension services. Effective environmental protection: Effective waste management (agrochemicals, plastics, etc.). Protection of biodiversity. Encourage organic production practices. Traceability: From farm to fork. Effective pollution management: Green-house gases (GHGs) emissions. End-user focused research and development in the food system: Adequate funding and improved commercialisation of research outputs. Boost aquaculture: Reduction in GHGs especially methane from meat production. Standardised pricing models: Improved return-on-investment across value chains. Mindset change in food systems: Sustainable production and entrepreneurship. Production agriculture as a business, even for smallholder producers. Access to finance: Tailor-made financing for value chains, e.g. establishment of an Agribank in Botswana. Establishment of processing and value addition facilities: Reduction in postharvest loss and food waste .e.g. collection points country wide and establishment of technology parks. Strengthen Public Private Partnerships (PPPs): Improved investment across value chains. Access to markets: Improved livelihoods and improved GDP. Enact commodity cooperatives and associations: Enhance buy-in, distribution and access to markets. Seed funding for cooperatives and associations. Commercialisation and equity of all value chains: Diversity and reduction in food import bill. Real-time data collection and management: Better decision making and effective monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring and evaluation: Effective policies and programs. Holistic and complete value chains: Improve rural livelihoods and reduction in rural-urban migration. Decent jobs and wages for improved livelihoods. Cohesion of players along the value chain: Health and agriculture; producers and processors. Basic education school curriculum: Inclusion of entrepreneurship and climate-smart technologies. Production according to agro-ecological zones: Enhanced productivity and improved access to nutritious foods. Incentivize adherence to cropping plans.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251It is clear from the discussions that transforming food systems requires resources to build strong value chains. The harmonisation of processes plays a pivotal role in the success of food systems. Capacity building for all players in the food systems, as well as adequate funding are the foundation for the transformation. An inclusive, bottom-up approach will create the push to meet the urgency for the transformation.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251No.

2021-09-17 12:35:02205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/27829/36

15035971620129210250332106125232950585017622129517012131450

Afin de prendre en compte les principes qui régissent le Sommet, le Burkina Faso a intégré l’urgence d’initier des actions ultimes dans la vision de l’Agenda 2030. La Coordination des concertations a identifié toutes les parties prenantes des systèmes alimentaires à l’échelle du pays et les a conviées à cette concertation majeure pour leur implication et engagement dans ce processus complexe, multi acteurs. Cette première concertation a eu un portage politique élevé pour marquer l’engagement du pays vers la vision de l’agenda 2030. Les participants ont bénéficié de communications introductives sur les attentes du Sommet ainsi que les objectifs et les résultats attendus de la présente concertation.- Agir avec diligence : dès la désignation du Coordonnateur des concertations nationales ; les différentes concertations se sont déroulées sous son égide et ont abouti à la formulation de la Voie Nationale, qui prend en compte deux initiatives phares à savoir « assurer à chaque enfant en âge scolaire, au moins un repas équilibré par jour » et « produire un million de tonnes de riz par an ». Ces deux initiatives sont déjà en cours de mise en œuvre dans l’optique d’atteindre l’Agenda 2030. - S’engager pour le sommet : à travers des spots radios et télé, la coordination nationale des concertations a pu toucher un large public, ce qui a suscité un engagement massif des parties prenantes pour la préparation de la participation du Burkina Faso au Sommet. - L’inclusion de plusieurs parties prenantes : les parties prenantes viennent des structures de l’administration, des ONG et des PTF, des organisations de la société civile, et sont de catégories diverses : le secteur de l’agriculture, l’élevage, la pêche/aquaculture, l’apiculture, l’agroforesterie, l’éducation, la recherche scientifique, la communication, la transformation, le commerce, la santé, la nutrition, l’environnement, l’industrie, les financiers ; etc. Les parties prenantes ont été réparties en groupes de travail tout en tenant compte de leur secteur d’activités en lien avec les sujets de discussion. - Compléter le travail des autres : l’étude conjointe FAO UE CIRAD a été utilisée comme base pour faire l’état des lieux des Systèmes Alimentaires au Burkina Faso, et a guidé dans la formulation des thèmes des concertations. - Etre respectueux : le respect mutuel, la prise en compte de l’avis de tous sont promus avec également la considération des points non consensuels à l’issue des discussionsNéant

Yes

234238239245246249le thème central a été : "Les politiques nationales encouragent une production durable et une consommation d'aliments diversifiés, sains et nutritifs, accessibles à toutes les couches de la population au Burkina Faso"; puis décliné en 4 sous thème ci- après: 1-état des lieux des politiques nationales portant sur les Systèmes Alimentaires et leur état de mise en œuvre en vue d’identifier des leviers pour booster leurs impacts ; 2-les orientations stratégiques, politiques et de financements offrent les conditions nécessaires et indispensables de productions et transformation agro-sylvo pastorales, halieutiques et fauniques pour répondre aux besoins d’alimentation saine et nutritive, pour les générations actuelles et futures, notamment garantir l'accès à une alimentation saine et nutritive à tous. 3-les politiques nationales garantissent une accessibilité à une alimentation suffisante, diversifiée, saine et nutritive à toutes les populations, y compris les personnes vulnérables; 4-les politiques et dispositifs nationaux garantissent l’adoption de bonnes pratiques d’alimentation et de modes de vie sains par les consommateurs au Burkina Faso.235238239245246249Au terme de cette première concertation, les textes et politiques régissant le système alimentaire du Burkina Faso ont été passés en revue. A l’issue des travaux les acteurs ont retenus entre autres les points d’intérêts ou d’engagements suivants : • mise en application des exigences de la zone de libre-échange africaine dans la commercialisation des produits agro-sylvo-pastoraux et halieutiques, • la prise en compte de la vision des agendas 2030, 2063 dans la planification des interventions en lien avec les systèmes alimentaires ; • la nécessité d’adopter et de promouvoir l’agro écologie pour une production plus durable, plus résiliente et respectueuse de l’environnement, • l’urgence de développer les transports et infrastructures de stockage ; • le renforcement du contrôle pour garantir la qualité des produits ; • l’application rigoureuse des textes relatifs à la commercialisation des pesticides; • l’élaboration d’une stratégie sur la consommation des produits locaux ; ce qui renforcera par ailleurs la consommation des produits nationaux.236238239240245246249a) au titre du sous thème 1 (état des lieux des politiques nationales portant sur les Systèmes Alimentaires et leur état de mise en œuvre en vue d’identifier des leviers pour booster leurs impacts): l’application rigoureuse des textes règlementaires régissant les systèmes alimentaires, mise en application des exigences de la zone de libre-échange africaine dans la commercialisation des produits agro-sylvo-pastoraux et halieutiques ; ainsi que la prise en compte des différents agendas (agenda 2030 et agenda 2063) dans la planification; b) au titre du sous thème 2 (les orientations stratégiques, politiques et de financements offrent les conditions nécessaires et indispensables de production et transformation agro-sylvo pastorales, halieutiques et fauniques pour répondre aux besoins d’alimentation saine et nutritive, pour les générations actuelles et futures) : en notant une incohérence des textes sur le foncier, il a été proposé l’implication permanente de tous les acteurs concernés par la problématique du foncier. Aussi il est proposé l’application effective de la loi 038 sur le financement de la recherche en général et de la recherche Agricole en particulier ; c) au titre du sous thème 3 (les politiques nationales garantissent une accessibilité à une alimentation suffisante, diversifiée, saine et nutritive à toutes les populations, y compris les personnes vulnérables): la prise en compte de l’agro écologie (acteurs : Ministère en charge de l’agriculture et ses partenaires), le développement des transports et des infrastructures de stockage, le renforcement du contrôle pour garantir la qualité des produits constituent les principaux engagements des parties prenantes ; d) au titre du sous thème 4 (les politiques et dispositifs nationaux garantissent l’adoption de bonnes pratiques d’alimentation et de modes de vie sains par les consommateurs au Burkina Faso) : l’utilisation incontrôlée des pesticides doit être examinée pour une meilleure qualité des produits (acteurs : Direction de la protection des végétaux et du conditionnement) ; l’élaboration d’une stratégie sur la consommation des produits locaux pour renforcer la consommation des produits nationaux (Direction Générale de la Promotion de l’Economie Rurale).237Au cours de la présente concertation, il n’y a pas été fait mention d’une divergence majeure au sein des groupes de discussions ni au cours des travaux en plénière. Les points soulevés ont le plus souvent fait l’objet de consensus après les discussions.

2021-09-17 12:45:21205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31709/36

1170376118191263002020360406020302204020006034053138015132517212158

Afin de prendre en compte les principes qui régissent le Sommet, le Burkina Faso a intégré l’urgence d’initier des actions ultimes dans la vision de l’Agenda 2030. La Coordination des concertations a identifié toutes les parties prenantes des systèmes alimentaires à l’échelle du pays et les a conviées à cette concertation majeure pour leur implication et engagement dans ce processus complexe, multi acteurs. Cette première concertation a eu un portage politique élevé pour marquer l’engagement du pays vers la vision de l’agenda 2030. Les participants ont bénéficié de communications introductives sur les attentes du Sommet ainsi que les objectifs et les résultats attendus de la présente concertation.- Agir avec diligence : dès la désignation du Coordonnateur des concertations nationales ; les différentes concertations se sont déroulées sous son égide et ont abouti à la formulation de la Voie Nationale, qui prend en compte deux initiatives phares à savoir « assurer à chaque enfant en âge scolaire, au moins un repas équilibré par jour » et « produire un million de tonnes de riz par an ». Ces deux initiatives sont déjà en cours de mise en œuvre dans l’optique d’atteindre l’Agenda 2030. - S’engager pour le sommet : à travers des spots radios et télé, la coordination nationale des concertations a pu toucher un large public, ce qui a suscité un engagement massif des parties prenantes pour la préparation de la participation du Burkina Faso au Sommet. - L’inclusion de plusieurs parties prenantes : les parties prenantes viennent des structures de l’administration, des ONG et des PTF, des organisations de la société civile, et sont de catégories diverses : le secteur de l’agriculture, l’élevage, la pêche/aquaculture, l’apiculture, l’agroforesterie, l’éducation, la recherche scientifique, la communication, la transformation, le commerce, la santé, la nutrition, l’environnement, l’industrie, les financiers ; etc. Les parties prenantes ont été réparties en groupes de travail tout en tenant compte de leur secteur d’activités en lien avec les sujets de discussion. - Compléter le travail des autres : l’étude conjointe FAO UE CIRAD a été utilisée comme base pour faire l’état des lieux des Systèmes Alimentaires au Burkina Faso, et a guidé dans la formulation des thèmes des concertations. - Etre respectueux : le respect mutuel, la prise en compte de l’avis de tous sont promus avec également la considération des points non consensuels à l’issue des discussions.

Yes

234238239240244248le thème majeur est: " Les dynamiques de production, de diversification, de transformation, de fortification/ enrichissement, de conservation/stockage et de commercialisation garantissent une qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments au profit des populations". les sujets de discussions ont porté sur: 1-Les systèmes de production assurent la qualité des aliments produits au Burkina Faso pour la décennie à venir ; 2-La diversification de production assure une alimentation riche, saine et équilibrée au Burkina Faso dans les années à venir ; 3-Les modes de transformation améliorent la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments au Burkina Faso dans les années à venir ; 4-Les modes de fortification/enrichissement des aliments garantissent la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments au Burkina Faso ; 5-Les pratiques de conservations et de stockage des produits alimentaires conservent la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des produits au Burkina Faso dans un futur proche ; 6-Les circuits de commercialisations à l’échelle nationale, régionale et internationale permettent de conserver la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments au Burkina Faso; 7-Les consommateurs adoptent de bonnes pratiques d’alimentation et de mode de vie sain au Burkina Faso.235238240245246248249Les grandes conclusions de cette deuxième concertation sont les suivantes: - Le renforcement de la prise en compte de la production animale, ainsi que les questions foncières dans les systèmes de production ; - la nécessité de renforcer l’innovation dans le domaine de la production Agricole ; notamment le recours à la biotechnologie dans la mesure des dispositions de la politique nationale en la matière; - le renforcement de la transformation des produits locaux; - la réduction de la concurrence de certains produits importés vis à vis des produits locaux, notamment le riz; - la promotion de la consommation des produits locaux.236238239248249Sujet de discussion N°1 : Les systèmes de production assurent la quantité et la qualité des aliments produits au Burkina Faso pour la décennie à venir. Résultats majeurs: (i) La promotion de l’utilisation des solutions biotechnologiques dans les domaines agro-sylvo-pastoraux et halieutiques et (ii) la promotion de centres d’incubation d’entrepreneurs agro-sylvo-pastoraux et halieutiques. Sujet de discussion N°2 : La diversification de la production assure une alimentation riche, saine et équilibrée au Burkina Faso dans les années à venir ; Action prioritaires retenues : (i) développer et valoriser l’innovation pour tous les acteurs. Sujet de discussion N°3 : Les modes de transformation améliorent la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments au Burkina Faso dans les années à venir. Actions prioritaires retenues : (i) renforcer les capacités des acteurs et (ii) soutenir le secteur de l’agroalimentaire à travers des mécanismes de financement innovants. Sujet de discussion N°4: Les modes de fortification/enrichissement des aliments garantissent la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments au Burkina Faso; Actions prioritaires retenues : (i) détaxation des intrants pour la fortification/enrichissement et (ii) renforcement des capacités techniques et opérationnelles des acteurs des entreprises et des institutions. Sujet de discussion N°5 : Les pratiques de conservations et de stockage conservent la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des produits alimentaires au Burkina Faso dans un futur proche. Actions prioritaires retenues : (i) renforcer les capacités des acteurs sur les bonnes pratiques et (ii) mettre en place un fonds de garantie accessible aux acteurs du secteur privé. Sujet de discussion N°6 : Les circuits de commercialisation à l’échelle nationale, régionale et internationale permettent de conserver la qualité nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments au Burkina Faso. Actions prioritaires retenues : (i) renforcer le contrôle sanitaire et phytosanitaire et réprimer la fraude. Sujet de discussion N°7: Les consommateurs adoptent de bonnes pratiques d’alimentation et des modes de vie sains au Burkina Faso. Actions prioritaires retenues :(i) Promouvoir l’éducation nutritionnelle pour un changement de comportements et l’adoption d’habitudes alimentaires adéquates et des modes de vie sains.237238245Subventionner le secteur privé dans la réalisation des infrastructures de stockage et de conservation ;

2021-09-18 08:41:08204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/38994/87

115139751031152463513457431074211562

This dialogue mainly focus on the participation of women youth(Farmer group/Academia/Research/Agripreneur) and their experiences, views and suggestions towards their empowerment in Agriculture sector and food security. It is unique in respect that all participants(90%) and all panelists are women.The main aim of conducting this dialogue is to involve women youth to get an idea of actual involvement and difficulties faced by women in agriculture and allied aspects related to food security.My advice to other Dialogue Conveners is that they should try to involve maximum numbers of women, People living with disabilities in the process so that actual outcome can be recorded and all dialogue should be recorded and if possible it should be live in social media.

Yes

234238239241242244245246248249251The outcomes of the dialogue are as follows 1. There is an unanimous voice raised by all panelists and participants is that women are neglected in every respect starting from Participation, land holding and training about agriculture and allied aspects 2. Women are not financially independent 3. They are not properly trained about climate resilience 4. In one word it can be said that "They are exploited" 5. Some agripreneur who have attended also commented on various issues related to their role in Nation building and Food Security235238239240241242244245246248249251The main findings is that, women should be provided with a suitable ecosystem for their involvement in agriculture and allied aspects. Also they should be financially sufficient to run their own agribusiness starting from production to marketing. Another most important aspect is that women farmers should be given authority on land on which they are dependent and working day and night so as to produce good and qualitative food.236238239240242244246248249251The women who are devoting their maximum time and energy in food production, processing, marketing and also in preparing good and nutritious food should be given proper justice and they should come to limelight by Government by providing them proper training and financial security.237238239241242244245248249251Some participants also raised an issue relating to the awareness and literacy among women farmers and in that respect they commented that the involvement of students of School/College/University in spreading the awareness and to educate the women youth about various advanced technology related to climate change resilience and food processing, storage and marketing.

2021-09-18 09:14:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39841/87

154357979451036254175954271341565

The basic principle of this dialogue is to find out the best possible methods of ecosystem services for food security in Asian region. As the conditions are equal and equivalent with countries like Africa, invited speakers from Guatemala , Kenya, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan share their valuable research and practical experiences related to ecosystem services.This dialogue specifically focus on the holistic exploitation of ecosystem services for sustainable agroecosystem.I can suggest to other dialogue conveners to involve various topics related to scientific innovation and research so that it can be available as a knowledge base for all across the Globe.

Yes

234238239240241243244245246248249251The major focus of the dialogue is to 1. invite resource persons from various Asian countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Cambodia, Bangladesh, India so that true outcome can be accessed. 2. Scientific exploration about modern research on Ecosystem Services by statistical means 3. To know various nature based solutions utilized in various countries for the Food security 4. How to exploit holistically the various Ecosystem services/Nature based solutions235238239240242243244246248249251The key fidings are 1. Promotion of Ecosystem Services 2. Involvement of Academia/Students/Research/Scientific communities in the awareness process about nature based solutions 3. Promotion of Organic farming and sustainable waste management 4. Identification of major ecosystem services provided by indigenous tribal agroecosystem 5. Preservation of indigenous practices for sustainable agriculture.236238239240241242243244245246248249251The main outcome of the discussion is to aware all sectors starting from individual, women, youth about nature based solutions through ecosystem services.237238239240241243244246248249251Participants and panelists are not agreed on the issue related to various Government policies on subsidy as according to them by giving subsidy in chemical fertilizers, farmers are not interested to Organic fertilizers as they get chemical easily which is not good for sustainable agriculture.

2021-09-18 12:29:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/40158/87

947741186551163266593545212510117863

The basic principle of this dialogue is to analyze to what extent the food value chain is delinked due to Pandemic and to find out certain measures how to restore the broken food system for the development of rural ecosystem.The dialogue was very successful with respect to the principle adhered as all the participants and panelists openly discuss about the theme and suggested possible measures.As an Independent Convener I can suggest other conveners to try to include individuals from every sectors as more participation means more views and some positive values may come out of such open dialogue. I would suggest to make a provision of "Breakout Rooms" in every dialogue as it will give ample opportunity to all participants to take part in the discussion.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248250251The main focus of the dialogue are 1. To get a database 2. To analyze the effects of Pandemic on Food Value Chain 3. To know the extent of broken food system 4. Focus on Rural development through Climate Smart Agriculture 5. To get some positive suggestions regarding restoration of broken food system235238239240241242243244246248249250251The major findings are 1. Active participation of individuals of all capacities across the Globe 2. Open discussions on sustainable food value chain and the reasons of breakage 3. exact data about the financial loss to farmers(small/large) due to broken food supply chain 4. Role of Government to restore the damaged system not only giving subsidy but also need to be proactive in establishing the broken system through financial benefit as well as promotion of nature based solutions Globally. 5. Adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture is the need of the hour so as to face the challenges of climate change starting from production to storage and marketing 6. Promotion of locally produced food material be given preference in E Marketing 7. Development of Rural sector should be focused as a National Agenda and empowerment of Women, Youth and People living with Disabilities should given priority. 8. Linkage of Academia/Research/Students to the Broken Food System should be established with proper planning236238239240241242243244246248249251The major strength of this dialogue is the Breakout session in which all the participants and panelists discuss openly about the pros and cons of the food system and good suggestions come out of the discussions . One of them is adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture and marketing of locally produced food in E-Market platform.237238239240241242243244245246248249251Some participants also mentioned about poor administration of local Government in maintaining the broken Food Value Chain during the Pandemic, rather some NGO and local people specially Youth shows the commitment to save the farmers, PLD and other under nourished people. It can be rightly said Youth(Local) become the game changer in establishing the broken system. So the women, Youth need to be empowered both financially and technologically so that they can contribute their time and energy towards the around development of Rural sectors in a Sustainable way.

2021-09-19 05:39:23205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39472/97

48523173291995211912432571146456

The National Dialogue in Kazakhstan was organized with the assistance of FAO's Office of Partnerships and Liaison in Kazakhstan. About 50 people took part in the work of the National Dialogue, including representatives of central and local government bodies, non-governmental organizations, agricultural producers, agricultural scientists, small farmers, and other stakeholders. The moderator of the National Dialogue, Vice Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan Rustem Kurmanov voiced the principles of participation at the UN Summit on Food Systems, such as, act with urgency, Commit to the Summit, be respectful, recognize complexity, embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complement the work of together and build trust for all participants of the event in order to notify them. Involving each participant in the principles of the Summit, the Kazakh side ensured the strengthening of these principles.First of all, we organized a dialogue with the participation of different stakeholders, thereby facilitating the implementation of the principle of “Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity”. Participants in the National Dialogue noted that food systems are complex, closely related to human and animal health, land, water resources, climate, biodiversity, economy, and other systems and have a significant impact on them, and their transformation requires a systematic approach. The participants of the National Dialogue, realizing that the Summit promotes policies and practices for the production and consumption of food that are aimed at protecting and improving the health and well-being of people, as well as promoting the rational use of natural resources with respect for local cultures, discussed the sustainable development of the agri-food sector through the prism of the Agenda -2030. The main discussion was around the topic of determining the contribution of the Kazakh side to the Summit on Food Systems and the development of ways to transform food systems. During the dialogue, the participants actively complemented each other's proposals and initiatives. Thanks to the event, certain networking of the participants of the food system of Kazakhstan was created. As part of the National Dialogue, we made sure that this dialogue platform contributed to the establishment of new ties and opened up opportunities for collective progress, covering a different spectrum of opinions.Interaction and openness to dialogue are the best tools for transforming the national food system, taking into account modern changes and threats. The National Dialogue has shown that the creation of a platform for interaction for the participants of the food system can help to take preventive measures for some problems and contribute to the development of effective recommendations. We advise other organizers of the dialogue in the future to also apply the principles of the Summit in their work since they have proven their viability and received the support of the participants from the National Dialogue.

Yes

234238239242244245246248249The National Dialogue was aimed at a comprehensive study of the food system, the development of a Kazakhstani position for participation in the Summit. Participants agreed that it is important to develop the sustainability of the national food system. A sustainable food system can ensure food security and nutrition for all without compromising the economic, social, and environmental foundations and nutrition of future generations. Participants noted that it benefits from all aspects: it provides economic sustainability, society benefits from social sustainability, and it has a positive or neutral impact on the environment. Thus, the main focus of the National Dialogue was directed to the advantages and gaps of the national food system, as well as to discuss its transformation. As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres notes in his speech, it is unacceptable for hunger to increase when more than 1 billion tons of food is thrown into landfills in the world every year. The time has come to change production and consumption patterns, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reforming food systems is critical to achieving all the Sustainable Development Goals. In this regard, the participants in the National Dialogue expressed their hope that the Summit on Food Systems, which will be held at the highest level, will give a start to new decisive actions aimed at changing the methods of production and consumption of food in the world and making progress in the implementation of all 17 SDGs.235238239242243244245248249During the National Dialogue, representatives of non-governmental organizations and business associations proposed to create favorable conditions for increasing farms (up to 500 thousand workers), increase irrigated land and bring insurance subsidies to 80%, as well as introduce a mechanism for the correct distribution of pastures, since the lack of access for small family farms to pastures is an important issue in the development of Kazakhstan's food system. For its part, the Ministry of Agriculture announced the consideration of these proposals and in-depth study of these issues. Agricultural producers voiced the need to prepare them for the new challenges associated with climate change. Given the shortage of water, they especially focused on the need to develop drought-resistant crops. Thus, business representatives and agricultural scientists agreed on a separate site to discuss an increase in the acreage of drought-resistant profitable crops and the development of organic production in Kazakhstan. FAO experts voiced proposals on using the potential of small and medium-sized farms to reduce poverty, on the importance of increasing the acreage of leguminous crops, as well as on the need to update and record agricultural data in Kazakhstan through the prism of gender policy, and on the introduction of methods and technologies for restoring degraded pastures. Partnership and Liaison Office FAO in Kazakhstan and the Ministry of Agriculture of Kazakhstan agreed to jointly implement the voiced proposals within the framework of projects, including the FAO-Kazakhstan Partnership Program.236238239242243244245246248249Within the framework of the National Dialogue, two discussion platforms were organized, one on sustainable crop production, the other on sustainable livestock production. The following opinions/suggestions of the participants were collected on the discussion session "Sustainable Crop Production": Dauren Oshakbayev, an agrarian economist at the TALAP Center for Applied Research, Creation of an Interstate Council for the rational use of water resources in Central Asia (effective use of the potential of transboundary rivers, use of water-saving technologies, reduction of losses at canals, investments for the repair of canal infrastructures, institutional support for water resources management) Kairat Bisetaev, Chairman of ALEIP "Union of Potato and Vegetable Growers" Changing the agrarian policy of the Government of Kazakhstan, taking into account the challenges of climate change (combating desertification, restoring degraded land, preparing agricultural producers for climate change, measures of state support for agribusiness taking into account climate change) Sagymbek Altauly, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Higher Academy of Kazakhstan of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Kazakh Agrarian Technical University named after S. Seifullina An increase in the acreage of oilseeds (peanuts, sesame, mustard), an increase in the processing of crop products, and the provision of the domestic market Training of narrow-profile personnel for the agro-industrial complex Kairat Nazhmidenov, Head of FAO Office for Partnerships and Liaison in Kazakhstan Increase in the acreage of leguminous crops and development of organic production in Kazakhstan Darina Ostrikova, FAO Kazakhstan expert Creation and development of systems of wholesale distribution centers Victor Aslanov, FAO Kazakhstan expert Creation of a regional organization on food systems for the countries of Central Asia following the example of the Islamic Organization for Food Security On the discussion session "Sustainable Livestock": Tumenov Serik, Astana branch of the KazNII of the processing and food industry Problems of counterfeit goods production: adoption of organizational and economic measures at the international level Chemicalization of food and processing industrial products Sales problems for domestic agricultural producers of natural and organic products due to lack advantages over producers of non-natural products from neighboring countries Lack of an inclusive campaign when accepting products of agricultural producers by hypermarkets and supermarkets (the best conditions and shelf space are only for large agricultural producers) Lack of certification of pastures, development of agriculture in Kazakhstan, taking into account regional resources Dauren Oshakbayev, an agrarian economist at the TALAP Center for Applied Research, Application of innovative technologies in pasture management to adapt to climate change Zhubatyrov Askar, OIPiUL "Meat Union of Kazakhstan" Creation of favorable conditions for the expansion of farms (up to 500 thousand workers), increasing the export potential of Kazakhstan's beef to 2.4-2.8 million US dollars Increase in irrigated land Bringing insurance subsidies to 80% Zhanyl Bozaeva, FAO Kazakhstan expert Sustainable Pasture Management: Methods and Technologies for Restoring Degraded Pastures Aubakirov Almaty, ALE "Association of the Meat and Dairy Union of Kazakhstan" Correct distribution of pastures, lack of access of personal subsidiary plots to pastures Daniyar Kenzhegulov, FAO expert Kazakhstan Harnessing the Potential of Small and Medium Farms to Reduce Poverty Akmaral Sman, FAO expert Kazakhstan Updating and accounting of agricultural data in Kazakhstan through the prism of gender policy237238239242243244245246248249250The areas of disagreement were mainly related to the prioritization of directions and problems. Each side considered its problem as a priority. There were also differences regarding support for small farmers. One side of the participants believed that they produce products in small quantities and cannot play a key role in the food system. The other side is cited as an example that in Kazakhstan 50-70% of dairy and vegetable products are produced by personal subsidiary farms, and solving their problems should be a priority. Ensuring their access to pastures and the correct organization of the extension system can help to use the potential of small and medium-sized farms to reduce poverty. It is important to note that in Kazakhstan 41% of the population lives in rural areas, the gap between the incomes of urban residents and villagers is more than two times.

2021-09-19 07:51:12205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44680/83

38722921174135684214217231122711932

La Coordination Nationale de la Sécurité Alimentaire (CNSA), institution chargée de la préparation de la participation d’Haïti du sommet mondial des Systèmes Alimentaires, a élaboré un calendrier pour la réalisation d’ateliers de concertation dans les dix départements du pays. Cette démarche vise à assurer la participation des différentes couches de la société à la préparation du Sommet. Les sessions des ateliers du département du Sud-Est ont eu lieu les 8 et 9 juin 2021 à l’Hôtel Cap Lamandou.L’ateliers de concertation du département Sud-Est s’est tenu à Jacmel le chef- lieu dudit département en deux sessions avec deux groupes complémentaires de personnes (groupes réduits pour mieux respecter les consignes relatives au COVID-19). Ces sessions se sont réalisées à un moment critique de la vie nationale. En effet, les troubles socio-politiques auxquels Haïti fait face ainsi que les risques relatifs à la pandémie du COVID-19 a contraint les organisateurs a toujours profiter des fenêtres d’opportunité, marqués par des périodes de calme, lorsqu’ils se présentent et d’accélérer le processus. En vue de renforcer le niveau de participation, des dispositions ont été prises pour le lancement d’une campagne de sensibilisation autour de la tenue du sommet mondial. Cette campagne médiatique a permis aux responsables des organisations qui se sentent concernées de comprendre combien la participation de tous, à tous les niveaux, était attendue. L’inclusion de l’ensemble de parties prenantes a permis des échanges fructueux sur la complexité des systèmes alimentaires, la nécessité de prioriser des approches pluridisciplinaires et multisectorielles et le besoin d’une appropriation collective pour transformer les systèmes alimentaires et résoudre les problèmes. Elle a aussi permis des débats touchant tant à la gouvernance du sommet hiérarchique qu’à celle des niveaux opérationnels d’intervention. Par ailleurs, le processus de participation a servi à instaurer la confiance des acteurs dans les nouvelles voies de transformation des systèmes alimentaires. Ainsi, les acteurs ont été sensibilisés à la nécessité de s’engager et de participer à des actions urgentes et ciblées pouvant favoriser l’atteinte des Objectifs de Développement Durables (ODD)

NoLes deux sessions de concertation du Sud-Est se sont déroulés en présentiel, de 9h AM à 3h30 PM, à partir de l’agenda suivant: 1) Accueil et enregistrement 2) Mot de bienvenue et présentation des participants 3) Mot du coordonnateur De la CNSA 4) contexte de l'atelier et présentation du système alimentaire 5) présentation des thématiques 6) formation de groupes et travail en atelier 7) présentation et discussion des résultats en plénières 8) clôture Après l’ouverture et la présentation des participants, l’animateur et le facilitateur ont fait une présentation des systèmes alimentaires et du processus d’organisation du Sommet. Ces présentations furent suivies d’une courte période de questions. Pour passer à La période de travaux en ateliers proprement dite, une introduction a été faite de manière à indiquer aux participants la marche à suivre. Les participants furent regroupés selon leur secteur d’appartenance et leur expertise. Les groupes thématiques, se sont penché sur les enjeux du système alimentaire existant y compris les forces et vulnérabilités, ils ont exploré les options et opportunités de changement et ont réfléchi sur les pistes d’action prioritaires pour le futur.
 Par la suite, les participants ont travaillé en commun pour présenter les résultats des réflexions faites en atelier, ce qui a permis une mise en commun et la recherche d’engagement.

234238239240241242244246247Les questions mises en débat : AGRICULTURE Comment améliorer notre capacité de production alimentaire pour réduire l’importation ? Comment adapter notre système de production alimentaire à toutes les saisons de l’année ? Comment accroître le nombre d’usines de transformation de produits agricoles dont nous disposons ? Comment accroître notre capacité de production de viande, du lait et des œufs ? Comment développer la pêche en Haïti ? Comment obtenir plus d’intrants, de machines et d’équipements nécessaires à la production de l’engrais, d’insecticides, de pesticides, d’outils et d’emballage ? Comment améliorer notre capacité de stockage et de transport de marchandises et du bétail ? Comment stimuler les petites et les grandes entreprises qui investissent dans la distribution des denrées et des vivres alimentaires ? Comment obtenir plus d’argent à partir du crédit et de l’aide pour investir dans la production alimentaire ? SANTÉ Comment améliorer notre système de contrôle de qualité des produits ? Comment améliorer nos habitudes alimentaires et notre mode de consommation ? Comment améliorer les rapports entre le genre et les systèmes alimentaires ? ENVIRONNEMENT Comment obtenir des richesses à partir de la transformation des détritus et des déchets ? Comment préserver l’environnement dans la production agricole ? Comment réparer les multiples dégâts causés par la dégradation de l’environnement ? Comment s’adapter aux aléas des changements climatiques pour mieux les atténuer ? PROTECTION SOCIALE Comment obtenir une meilleure organisation de l’aide en période de perturbation ou de stabilité pour permettre aux plus vulnérables d’accéder à la nourriture ? Comment atteindre les plus vulnérables à partir d’une meilleure organisation du système d’aide (transfert d’argent et de nourriture, distribution de nourriture, cash et food for work) ? Comment améliorer le programme de distribution de nourriture aux écoles (financement, production et gestion).236244245248Production végétale Pour obtenir une meilleure production végétale, les paysans devront : bénéficier du support de l’Etat, en matière d’investissement ; respecter la vocation des sols ; renforcer les associations impliquées dans l’agriculture, par le biais d’appuis technique et financier; faciliter la capacité de stockage de l’eau de pluie des paysans ; rendre les semences locales et les systèmes agro-sylvo pastoraux disponibles ; encourager la production et l’utilisation de l’engrais naturel, notamment du compost ; augmenter leur niveau de connaissance sur des aspects, tels que la production du café, la disponibilité de l’eau, le crédit agricole, les semences et cultures adaptées ainsi que les produits phytosanitaires ; procéder à une évaluation pour les rendre capables d’éliminer les élevages libres (enclos, parc,…).236245Production animale Pour obtenir une meilleure production animale, les paysans devront : Avoir accès à des espèces améliorées et adaptées ; Créer des enclos et des espaces pour l’entreposage des déchets ; Fournir un appui technique aux éleveurs ; Faciliter l’accès au crédit agricole ; Assurer la disponibilité des médecins et des agents vétérinaires ; Encourager la formation des coopératives d’éleveurs ; Augmenter le nombre de troupeaux de bœufs, de cabris et de moutons de races améliorées ; Mettre en place un système d’accouplement de poules pour obtenir des pondeuses et des poulets de chair.236245248Pour développer la pêche, les pêcheurs devront : Bénéficier du support de l’Etat pour la conservation des produits de la pêche ; Améliorer la pêche artisanale et la pêche industrielle ; Fournir un accompagnement technique et financier aux pêcheurs ; Renforcer les associations de pêcheurs ; Créer un ministère spécifique à la pêche et une école de pêche dans chaque département du pays ; Mettre en place des usines pour la conservation et la transformation des produits de la pêche ; Privilégier les produits de la pêche locale dans les cantines scolaires du pays pour substituer au saumon et le hareng saur importés ; Industrialiser la filière de la pêche.236248Pour obtenir plus d’intrants, les producteurs devront : avoir accès à des machines et d’équipements pour la production d’engrais, d’insecticides, de pesticides, d’outils et d’emballage ; valoriser les matières organiques ; promouvoir les outils appropriés, les coopératives agricoles, le suivi régulier des infrastructures mises en place pour la production ainsi que les pratiques et techniques destinées à combattre les pestes ; augmenter les surfaces agricoles, la disponibilité des machines agricoles et le niveau de connaissances des producteurs sur l’humidité, le type d’emballage sec, les semences, les fruits, les légumes, les animaux, les œufs et le lait ; utiliser les structures de conservation. les équipements améliorés et les engrais bio ; faciliter l’accès à la formation, à la subvention, au crédit, aux visites d’échange et au transfert de connaissances ; établir les multiplicateurs de semences (formation, disposition, espaces agricoles) ; entreprendre une campagne de sensibilisation sur les pratiques agro-écologiques, le mode de transport ainsi que les avantages et les inconvénients découlant de l’utilisation des engrais chimiques et biologiques ; multiplier les unités de compostage ; encourager la mise en place des unités de fabrication et d’innovation d’emballage plus écologique ; améliorer l’état des routes agricoles ; concevoir un type d’emballage pour chaque produit ; Mettre en branle un processus de structuration des associations. Pour améliorer notre capacité de stockage de produits et de transport des marchandises, il importe de : sécher les produits agricoles à un taux d’humidité ne dépassant pas 11% ; Entreposer les produits agricoles dans des espaces aménagés appropriés pour stockage ; Utiliser des palettes pour mettre les produits agricoles dessus et ne pas les mélanger ; Améliorer l’état des routes agricoles ainsi que le matériel approprié.236238245- Transformation regrouper et renforcer des unités de transformation ; favoriser l’entreprenariat, le micro-crédit et l’accès aux outils de transformation ; procéder à un inventaire des produits transformables et exportables sur le marché international. - Transport aménager des routes agricoles ; promouvoir un transport adapté aux modes de production agricole. - Commercialisation fournir un appui technique aux associations de planteurs pour les permettre d’identifier d’autres types de marché ; développer des relations de partenariat ; adopter de nouvelles lois susceptibles de protéger le marché et les planteurs. - Consommation mettre en place un système de contrôle de qualité des produits ; établir un système de transformation des produits alimentaires ; promouvoir un mode de consommation locale. - Les services agricoles: services techniques, services financiers mettre en place un système de crédit pour les planteurs ; renforcer les capacités des planteurs à tous les niveaux.236Question liées à la santé Promouvoir la production locale, le service de quarantaine, la formation des agriculteurs sur les produits biologiques et l’observation sur leur mode d’utilisation chez les animaux et les humains ; Contrôler la qualité des produits depuis la plantation jusqu’à la consommation, le mode d’aménagement des marchés et la disposition des produits agricoles par rapport à leur valeur nutritive ; Renforcer les capacités des planteurs sur l’utilisation de l’engrais, le stockage et la conservation des produits ; Entreprendre une campagne d’alpha nutrition pour améliorer les habitudes de consommation ; Susciter la prise de conscience collective sur un meilleur système de consommation des produits et une diète alimentaire adaptée à nos mœurs et coutumes. Par exemple, nous vendons des produits locaux pour acheter des produits importés ; nous consommons trop de sucre industriel ; nous négligeons des aliments à valeur nutritive tandis que nous abandonnons nos habitudes alimentaires et les règles familiales de nutrition ; recourir à l’éducation et la formation pour sensibiliser les communautés, les écoles, les églises et les temples du vodou sur le fait qu’en matière d’alimentation, les hommes et les femmes ont les mêmes droits.236246Question liées à a gouvernance instaurer un système de protection sociale fiable et solide au profit des plus vulnérables pour réduire les inégalités ; Définir un programme national capable de s’adapter en période de crise et de stabilité’ Réaliser des séances de formation sur la création des richesses ; Mettre en œuvre une carte de sécurité sociale ; Promouvoir des relations de partenariat entre le PNCS et le MARNDR pour la production des fruits et légumes à travers la mise en place des jardins scolaires ; Encourager la consommation de la viande et du poisson à travers les cantines scolaires.236251Questions liées aux jeunes Prendre des dispositions pour encourager les jeunes à s’impliquer dans la création des richesses. Questions liées au genre Promouvoir continuellement l’équité de genre à toutes les étapes du processus pour combattre la discrimination.236Question liées à la formation Définir des modules de formation de toutes sortes pour les planteurs, éleveurs, pêcheurs,…236244Questions liées à l'environnement En ce qui concerne les questions liées à l’environnement, les points suivants sont à considérer : utiliser les fatras et les déchets pour produire de l’engrais et du gaz naturels ; Respecter la vocation des sols pour les adapter selon le type d’agriculture et leurs caractéristiques ; Promouvoir l’utilisation de l’engrais naturel sur l’engrais chimique ; Recourir à des techniques agricoles pour réduire l’érosion ; Fournir un appui technique en formation, en agronomes et en matériels ; Accorder priorité à l’agro-écologie, c’est-à-dire l’agriculture pratiquée sur les arbres ; Diversifier les espèces agricoles ; Entreprendre une campagne de reboisement, de conservation des sols (canaux de contour, murs secs, rampes vivantes) et de formation pour les cultivateurs. construire des impluviums pour irriguer les cultures ; Investir dans la construction d’infrastructures d’irrigation ; Diversifier les espèces (production ‘’etaje’’, Jaden lakou, terra preta, perma culture).

2021-09-19 08:09:45205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44691/83

136941344413114151594456421311215514152221212

La Coordination Nationale de la Sécurité Alimentaire (CNSA) est l’organe chargé de la préparation du sommet mondial pour Haïti. Selon un calendrier élaboré par les responsables, des ateliers de concertation furent organisés au niveau des dix départements du pays en vue de favoriser la participation des différentes couches de la société et de toutes les parties prenantes. Au niveau du département de l’Artibonite, cette concertation s’est déroulée pendant 2 jours. Les ateliers du haut-Artibonite se sont tenus aux Gonaïvesle 2 juin tandis que ceux du bas-Artibonite à St-Marc le 3 juin. Ils ont connu un taux de participation très élevé dépassant la moyenne de personnes attendues avec une représentativité majoritairement féminine.Le succès de la concertation dépend tant de la quantité que de la diversité des participants. En vue de renforcer le niveau d’adhésion au processus, des dispositions ont été prises pour le lancement d’une campagne de sensibilisation sur l’importance du sommet mondial et de l’implication effective des autorités haïtiennes. De plus, la CNSA a impliqué les parties prenantes très tôt au processus. Certaines ont été même autorisées à lancer les invitations aux participants relevant de leurs secteurs et/ou juridiction. Ce fut le cas du Ministère à la Condition Féminine et des Droits de la Femme (MCDF) qui a accompagné, de très près, le processus au niveau de l’Artibonite. L’inclusion de l’ensemble de parties prenantes a permis des échanges fructueux au cours des débats tant sur la complexité des systèmes alimentaires que sur le besoin d’une appropriation collective afin de parvenir à leur transformation. Par ailleurs, le processus de participation a servi à instaurer la confiance des acteurs de terrain dans les nouvelles voies à emprunter en vue d’atteindre cet objectif. Les acteurs étaient très motivés à entreprendre des actions urgentes et ciblées pour favoriser l’atteinte des Objectifs de Développement Durables (ODD). Certains s’étaient engagés à soutenir le processus de transformation de ces systèmes.

NoLes ateliers de concertation de l’Artibonite ont bénéficié de la présence physique des invités dans le respect des gestes barrières et des consignes de sécurité en lien avec le contexte actuel d’épidémie. De plus, ils se sont déroulés selon la chronologie des points suivants : • Salutations - Prière • Présentation de l’équipe d’animation/ facilitation • Présentation des participants • Propos de circonstance du coordonnateur • Présentation des objectifs de la rencontre et de la méthodologie • Définition du concept Système Alimentaire • Présentation des systèmes alimentaires en Haïti, le constat • Constitution des groupes de travail et partage des consignes • Travail en ateliers restreints • Synthèse en plénière et présentation des résultats d’ateliers. Globalement, le processus de concertation a enregistré trois grands moments : a) Les grandes présentations des orateurs en ouverture incitant au partage d’informations sur les systèmes alimentaires et fournissant des renseignements sur le processus du Sommet Mondial. Ces interventions furent suivies de longs débats. Les participants émettaient des opinions sur les différents systèmes alimentaires en faisant ressortir leurs forces et leurs faiblesses. Les réflexions qui ont été engagées sur la problématique de la SAN se basaient sur les informations dont disposent les participants en rapport avec la réalité de leurs zones et sur d'éventuelles actions que les agents de terrain auront à entreprendre dans le cadre de l'accompagnement à donner aux communautés locales. b) Le déroulement des ateliers proprement dite. L'introduction a été faite de manière à indiquer aux participants qu'après la phase du diagnostic, c'est la phase de recherche de solutions. En ce sens, les participants furent regroupés selon leur secteur d’appartenance et leur expertise. Cela a donné lieu à la constitution de trois groupes thématiques au sein desquels les participants, ont produit des réflexions sur les enjeux du système alimentaire existant y compris les forces et vulnérabilités, ont exploré les options et opportunités de changement et ont identifié ensemble des pistes d’action prioritaires pour le futur. c) La restitution permettant une mise en commun et la recherche d’engagement. Elle a offert l’opportunité de s’assurer que toutes les voix ont été entendues d‘une part et d’autre part de mettre de l’ordre dans les idées afin de faire ressortir les grands points de consensus sur les aspects suivants : - Modes de consommation et de production durables - Accessibilité à des aliments sains et nutritifs et à des moyens de subsistance équitables - Résilience aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress

234238239240241242244245246249Les transformations des systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD. L’atelier de concertation est un espace de débats et de résolutions devant permettre au gouvernement haïtien de s'engager sur des questions de construction de systèmes alimentaires durables. Le thème majeur aborde l’impérieuse nécessité de transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour l’atteinte des ODD. Il s’agit d’une étude complète qui prend en compte les différends enjeux et questions clés en lien avec l’atteinte des ODD. Le cadre de référence, qui suit, permet un alignement des enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux en termes de la recherche de solutions durables et d’engagement. Les réponses aux différentes questions ont permis une analyse approfondie des différents aspects de la Sécurité alimentaire et Nutritionnelle (SAN) en Haïti. Cadre de référence 1- Enjeux nutritionnel : Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable ➢ Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc) actuels de la population ? ➢ Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production ? Pistes de réflexion : toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire ? ➢ Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires ? ➢ Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires ? ➢ Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés ? ➢ Comment organiser la logistique de distribution ? ➢ Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages ? ➢ Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés ? ➢ Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique : Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ➢ Comment développer l’’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements ; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils, etc), les industries d’emballage ? ➢ Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ? ➢ Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?) ➢ Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? ➢ Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? ➢ Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ? ➢ Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ? ➢ Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? ➢ Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire ➢ Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels ? ➢ Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques ? ➢ Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels ? ➢ Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? ➢ Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs ?235242244245246249Les principaux résultats issus de la concertation au niveau de l’Artibonite se rapportent, en grande partie, à l’amélioration de la gouvernance (des systèmes alimentaires). Dès lors, la gouvernance apparait comme un élément transversal, touchant à tous les volets de la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle. Il conviendra donc de : ❖ Promouvoir l’utilisation de l’énergie solaire à grande échelle afin de réduire les incertitudes dans le fonctionnement des différents systèmes. ❖ Combler les gaps institutionnels et le manque de leadership administratif et technique des représentations départementales du MARNDR (Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural), et du MDE (Ministère de l’Environnement) afin de réduire le poids de la masse critique des produits alimentaires importés de la République Dominicaine, entrainant ainsi la démobilisation progressive des agriculteurs. ❖ Réguler la question de la situation foncière en permettant aux agriculteurs de se regrouper en association afin d’augmenter rapidement la production et d’agir positivement sur la disponibilité alimentaire. ❖ Dynamiser le contrôle de qualité par la vulgarisation et la mise en application des lois existantes traitant des droits des consommateurs et par le déploiement d’inspecteurs qualifiés avec mission de faire respecter l’application effective des lois. ❖ Garantir la protection sociale des groupes vulnérables (handicapés, femmes seules, familles monoparentales pauvres, jeunes démunis, paysans sans terre et sans métier, les exclus en général), à travers des programmes de : - protection et de sécurité sociale sur le moyen et le long terme, - accompagnement de proximité allant de repas journaliers, de soins de santé gratuits, d'emplois temporaires et durables, jusqu'à la construction de centres collectifs d'hébergement, et la mise à disposition de terres de l'État à des groupes vulnérables pour l'agriculture, la mise en place de petites entreprises familiales et collectives. Ce programme relèverait, au premier chef, du ministère des affaires sociales avec l'implication des autres structures étatiques, chacune en ce qui la concerne, ainsi que des collectivités territoriales et de la société civile au niveau local.236238239240245249Modes de consommation et de production durables L’augmentation de la production locale était au cœur du débat. Tous les participants ont manifesté le désir de voir le département Artibonite produire assez de riz et de légumineuses pour couvrir les besoins de l’ensemble du pays. Quoiqu’insuffisante, une certaine satisfaction a été enregistrée par rapport à la qualité de la production. En effet, les produits agricoles et animaliers haïtiens sont jugés meilleurs que ceux des régions environnantes en raison de l’utilisation limitée d’engrais chimiques. Toutefois, les producteurs doivent se méfier et exiger davantage d’encadrement de l’état haïtien afin de répondre efficacement à la demande de la population et autres. Les participants ont abordé la question de la concurrence déloyale entre produits locaux et ceux importés. Ils estiment que beaucoup de changements verront le jour quand les droits des consommateurs seront respectés. Les pistes d’action ont été présentées sous forme de plaidoyer pour la mise en place d’une politique agricole avec disponibilité de semence à prix réduit et l’utilisation d’engrais biologique à grande échelle, la création de centres de semences au niveau local (sections communales), un système d’irrigation fonctionnel, un système d’irrigation à énergie solaire et la mise en place de crédit agricole répondant au besoin spécifique et tenant compte de chaque secteur de production. En matière d’engagement, les participants estiment que la révision de la politique libre échange et le retour avec les magasins de l’état constituent des impératifs.236238241Accessibilité à des aliments sains et nutritifs et à des moyens de subsistance équitables Une synergie entre plusieurs ministères est à rechercher et/ou à mettre en place afin de garantir l’accessibilité de la population à des aliments sains et nutritifs. D’autres mécanismes de concertation doivent être aussi élaborés et mis en œuvre. Ces derniers doivent prendre en compte les niveaux de responsabilité absolue et ceux de responsabilité partagée. Il faut une adaptation du rôle de département de la santé avec une extension plus marquée sur le contrôle de la qualité des produits depuis la production de la semence, la conservation et la transformation des produits. Le Ministère de la Santé et de la Population (MSPP) devra orienter ses agents de santé communautaires vers la formation des producteurs ainsi que des consommateurs. Cette responsabilité sera partagée avec le Ministère de l’agriculture et du commerce. Le MSPP devra lancer aussi une campagne nationale de sensibilisation sur la nutrition en impliquant surtout les femmes et les enfants d’âge scolaire. Cependant, la population doit faire preuve d’auto responsabilité face à son destin. Les diverses organisations présentes doivent assumer leur mission et leur rôle dans ce processus évolutif. Elles doivent développer la culture de résultats et veiller à s’acquitter correctement de leur mandat/mission. Tout ceci fait appel à un engagement politique pour la mise en place d’un système alimentaire tourné vers l’exportation beaucoup plus que vers l’importation, pour la disponibilité quasi suffisante de produits de qualité et même de produits bio, propres à la consommation, et la stabilisation des prix.236242Résilience aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress Les systèmes alimentaires actuels sont loin de contribuer à une consommation et une production responsables. Certaines opérations et/ou certains comportements au niveau de la chaine alimentaire constituent des freins à son expansion. De plus, la région de l’Artibonite dans sa structuration expose les citoyens à des risques de dangers de toutes sortes. L’important est d’éveiller la conscience citoyenne de tout un chacun afin d’apporter sa contribution l’évolution du pays. Il convient aussi d’adopter des décisions et d’opter pour des moyens forts afin de : • Protéger l’environnement, par la valorisation des déchets c’est-à-dire le recyclage des déchets, notamment ceux en plastique pour la transformation en produits utiles et stimuler ainsi des revenus ; • Etablir et mettre en œuvre un plan réaliste d’aménagement territorial ; • Favoriser aux agriculteurs l’accès aux terres cultivables; • Définir des directives pour s’adapter aux problèmes liés au changement climatique ; • Aménager de nouveaux sites de décharges; • Mettre en place des directives contraignantes interdisant la construction sur les pentes (mornes), sur le littoral et/ou à proximité des rivières; • Revenir avec les amandes, imposées suite au non-respect des normes établis.237242Premier point de divergence : question de genre. La question de genre a fait objet de divergence. Certaines femmes estimaient qu’elles étaient encore marginalisées et que des actions visant à promouvoir leur indépendance et à démontrer leur importance ainsi que leur place dans la société, étaient à mettre en œuvre. Pour d’autres, ce débat est révolu; en effet, il y a eu beaucoup d’acquis dans ce domaine. Il revient aux femmes de prendre leur envol et de se faire valoir. Deuxième point de divergence : l’unité de vulnérabilité La notion de groupes vulnérables (femmes, enfants handicapés…), pour certains participants, n’est pas bien appréhendée. Elle permet de concevoir et d’implémenter des projets spécifiques pour des cibles bien identifiés. Cependant, il existe un risque de biais car les participants pensent que cette stratégie, dans les systèmes actuels, invite à construire des groupes de vulnérables à vie. Il importe donc, à cette phase des débats, de définir des critères permettant de classifier les personnes jugées vulnérables et d’identifier un processus de migration d’un individu vulnérable à un autre niveau, et vise versa. Cela incitera les gens (vulnérable un jour) à se prendre en charge. Les systèmes de protection sociale doivent donc être accessibles aussitôt que les critères de vulnérabilité sont remplis.

2021-09-19 15:30:54205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45065/83

5520314302541031352574461921234123122122

La CNSA, Coordination Nationale de sécurité alimentaire, en tant qu’instance d’aide á la décision destiné á influencer les politiques publiques dans le domaine de sécurité alimentaire, a reçu mandat et support nécessaires des autorités gouvernementales pour préparer le sommet sur le système alimentaire qui auront lieu le 23 septembre á New York. Un des ateliers du département de l’Ouest a eu lieu en présentielle le 8 Septembre 2021 á Moulin sur Mer sur la Côte des Arcadins. Un total de cinquante neuf (55) personnes était présent dont trente (30) hommes et vingt cinq (25) femmes, venues principalement des zones irriguées, les zones montagneuses ne sont pas vraiment représentées. Participation de treize secteurs et de parties prenantes avec un fort pourcentage dans l’éducation et le commerce, ce qui voudrait dire que le niveau est d’éducation est assez élevé que les messages de changement de comportement passeront sans grand difficultés. D’ailleurs l’assemblée réclame á travers tous les groupes de discussion des campagnes de sensibilisation pour pouvoir résoudre les principaux problèmes.L’urgence de la situation a été démontrée avec les conséquences pour le futur si rien n’est fait pour renverser la tendance. Les concertations doivent s’inscrire dans un registre plus global. Compte tenu de l’importance du système alimentaire et les conséquences de sa mauvaise gestion sur l’avenir du pays et de tout un peuple, un système d’alerte doit être mis en place afin de mieux sensibiliser la population pour une prise de conscience. Pour la préparation du sommet, tous les secteurs et parties prenantes étaient certes contactés mais ils n’ont pas vraiment eu le temps de bien s’imprégner du sujet comme il se devrait, pour le placer dans son véritable contexte. Il fallait respecter le délai. Ces principes d’engagements seront toujours valables. Chaque état membre doit faire en sorte de les intégrer, renforcer et améliorer pour une meilleure gestion de leur système alimentaire. Le concept étant nouveau, ces principes serviront de prémices pour mettre en place des systèmes alimentaires plus performants. C’est un travail de longue haleine qui ne peut s’arrêter avec un sommet, il doit faire partie de nos habitudes de vie quotidiennes car notre survie et celle des générations futures en dépendent.

Yes

234238239240241242244246249Les Objectifs de Développement Durable (ODD) ne pourraient être atteints sans transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour devenir plus productifs, écologiquement durables et capables de fournir des aliments plus nutritifs et abordables. Il s’agit d’une étude complète des systèmes alimentaires qui tient compte des cinq pistes d’action avec pour cadre de référence des enjeux nutritionnels, socioéconomiques et environnementaux. 1- Enjeux nutritionnel: Eradiquer la faim et assurer la santé nutritionnelle de manière durable. Quels sont les besoins alimentaires (Produits vivriers, protéines animales, fruits et légumes, etc.) actuels de la population? Comment combler les déficits actuels en matière de production? Pistes de réflexion: toutes les politiques/actions pour agir sur les contraintes à la croissance de la production alimentaire? Comment organiser les industries de transformation pour répondre à ces besoins alimentaires? Comment limiter ou contrer les variations saisonnières dans les disponibilités alimentaires? Quels systèmes permettent de garantir la conformité aux normes de sécurité et de qualité des denrées ou des produits transformés? Comment organiser la logistique de distribution? Quelles sont les habitudes/préférences alimentaires de ménages? Comment porter les ménages à changer d’habitudes alimentaires et quels sont les enjeux qui y sont associés? Comment rendre accessibles les aliments produits aux groupes les plus vulnérables ? 2- Enjeu socioéconomique: Stimuler une croissance inclusive à partir des transformations structurelles de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire Comment développer l’industrie des intrants agricoles (machines et équipements; fertilisants et pesticides et l’industrie d’équipements pour la transformation (machines, outils etc.), les industries d’emballage ? Comment intégrer / connecter les petites, les moyennes et les grandes entreprises dans la chaine de distribution alimentaire ? Quelles politiques d’infrastructures de distribution (moyens de stockage/conservation, de transports ?) Comment stimuler les investissements privés (investissements locaux et investissements étrangers ? directs) dans la transformation structurelle de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? Quelles politiques fiscales, commerciales et financières pour soutenir la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Quelles politiques de régulation compatibles à la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire (législation qui encadre la concurrence) ? Quelles politiques de formation professionnelle pour soutenir ces changements structurels ? Comment intégrer la problématique de genre dans la transformation de la chaine d’approvisionnement ? Quelles politiques de protection sociales pour les travailleurs dans la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire ? 3- Enjeux environnementaux : Promouvoir des comportements responsables dans la transformation de la chaine alimentaire Comment la dégradation de l’environnement et les changements climatiques affectent les systèmes alimentaires actuels? Quelles politiques d’adaptation aux changements climatiques? Quelles politiques de protection et de restauration des écosystèmes naturels? Quelles normes environnementales qui régissent les comportements des acteurs tout au long de la chaine d’approvisionnement? Comment protéger les groupes les plus vulnérables contre les effets des changements climatiques majeurs?235238239244245246L’état est présent dans toutes les communes et les sections communales á travers ses services déconcentrés mais il n’agit pas, il devrait avoir un meilleur service de communication. Un accord entre la société civile, le secteur privé des affaires et l’état devrait se faire pour une meilleure gouvernance. L’état devrait faire beaucoup plus de promotion pour la Banque Nationale de Développement Agricole. La population n’est pas au courant de l’existence de cette banque. Le département de l’ouest possède beaucoup de potentialités, plusieurs rivières, de plaines irrigables, des kilomètres de côtes etc. Groupe 1: Filières agricoles, Elevage, Pêche. L’augmentation de la production agricole passera par de l’encadrement technique des producteurs, pour le respect des calendriers agricoles, un zonage agricole avec le respect des zones par type de culture. Les ministères MARNDR, MTPTC doivent construire des infrastructures dans les zones irrigables et renforcer et ou réhabiliter les systèmes dans les zones les irriguées. Etudier les zones non irrigables afin de voir si elles peuvent avoir des retenus collinaires, des bassins de rétention d’eau de pluies pour les grandes périodes de sécheresse. L’augmentation de production de lait par la disponibilité de fourrage et de l’eau pour bien nourrir le bétail en tout temps. Doter les pêcheurs de matériels adaptés pour ne pas prendre de petits poissons et des équipements de sauvetage. Groupe 2 : Transformations des produits agricoles Banane, patate, manioc, arbre véritable, pois congo peuvent se transformer en farine. Des entrepreneurs pourraient étudier les possibilités pour doter les zones des infrastructures de transformation. Pour le lait augmenter la capacité de la structure déjà en place. L’état á travers les banques finance les activités, le MC, MARNDR contrôlent la qualité des produits Groupe 3 : Services financiers, Fournisseurs d’intrants et d’équipements agricoles, Prestataires de services de transport Le MARNDR devrait faire un inventaire des matériels agricoles existants et fonctionnels, les réparer, ensuite former des techniciens et doter les BAC des pièces de rechange pour la maintenance. Les organisations comptent doter leur localité de boutique pour faciliter l’accès aux intrants de qualités au moment opportun. Au niveau du crédit les membres de certaines organisations débutent un mutuel de solidarité pour avoir accès á un crédit á un faible taux. Groupe 4: Commerce Avec les différents problèmes sociopolitiques auxquels font face le pays, les routes deviennent inaccessibles ce qui affectent les marchés, le prix de revient et l’offre. Les produits ne sont pas disponibles dans les marchés, l’arrivage se fait de manière irrégulière et la qualité parfois laisse á désirer. Mais les modes de vente minoritaires, circuits courts, vente de produits á la ferme, et auprès des commerçants tendent á prendre de l’extension. Faut des plaidoyers au près des ministères de sécurité publique pour faire entendre nos voies contre le gaspillage des produits sur les routes. Groupe 5 : Santé nutritionnelle, consommation et nutrition responsable A cause de l’indisponibilité et du prix élevé de certains produits sur le marché les consommateurs sont obligés de recourir á des produits importés qui, parfois n’ont aucun contrôle de qualité. Les produits á haute valeur nutritive sont méconnus du public. Groupe 6: Gouvernance Le mode de gouvernance devrait être plus responsable et efficace pour faciliter une transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. Faire un état des lieux des pratiques alimentaires et ensuite sensibiliser les différents acteurs sur la notion de gouvernance alimentaire régionale. Groupe 7: Questions environnementales: Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques. Pour faire face au changement climatique chaque personne devrait développer une politique de lutte ; les producteurs doivent avoir d’outils nécessaires et indispensables á leur métier pour faire face aux aléas. Ainsi les ressources seront bien gérées. Le MDE, MARNDR doivent prendre des mesures pour informer la population sur les méfaits du changement climatiques et des catastrophes naturelles qu’ils engendrent longue période de sécheresse, inondation, éboulement, diminution de rendement de certaines cultures, pullulation d’insectes et de ravageurs etc.236245248Groupe 1 : Filières agricoles, Elevage, Pêche Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, La mise en œuvre d’un projet durable dans le secteur agricole qui prendra en compte les infrastructures d’irrigation, l’encadrement technique des planteurs; il créera beaucoup d’emplois directs et indirects, diminuera le taux de chômage, et facilitera la circulation d’argent. Les producteurs seront non seulement formés mais auront aussi les moyens financiers pour se procurer de matériels et intrants de bonne qualité pour leurs parcelles. Au niveau de l’élevage les actions directes sont formation d’agent vétérinaire, forage de puits pour l’abreuvement des animaux, construction d’abattoir moderne, cadre légale sur le transport d’animaux, renforcement de capacité des éleveurs sur la bonne gestion du bétail. Au niveau de la pêche acquisition de matériels et équipement, moyens de conservation, renforcement de capacité des pêcheurs sur la technique de pêche. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Les MTPTC, MARNDR, MDE, MAST et MF doivent faire sentir leur présence dans la mise de projet d’envergure avec des cadres compétents et honnêtes dans l’exécution des activités. Les organisations encourageront les éleveurs dans la gestion de pâturage amélioré, dans la préparation et la transformation du lait. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Présence des produits locaux dans les marchés Qualité et quantité de lait disponible Les rapports de suivi et contrôle des bailleurs, Les rapports de suivi des activités effectivement réalisées Niveau de production Taux de chaumage, niveau d’exode, L’analyse comparative de la situation d’avant et d’après.236246251Groupe 2: Transformations Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, Le MARNDR encouragera la construction d’infrastructures de transformation pour réduire les pertes et le gaspillage pour plus de disponibilité surtout des tubercules, arbre véritable. Le MTPTC construira des routes agricoles pour faciliter le transport des produits. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Les producteurs et les organisations locales seront mobilisés en vue d’apporter leur soutien, les ONG et le MF financeront les activités au travers des crédits bonifiés. Les jeunes deviendront des employés des agents de marketing et investiront leur temps dans la production et le reboisement. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Disponibilité des produits transformés sur le marché Diminution de gaspillage de tomate, arbre véritable etc. Présence des marchands ambulants de farine de féculents236245Groupe 3: Fournisseurs de services financiers, d’intrants agricoles et d’équipements agricoles, Prestataires de services de transport Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, L’accent devra être mis davantage sur l’accès au crédit, la mise en place de mutuelles de solidarités, les infrastructures d’irrigation, boutique d’intrants. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Les organisations s’emploieront à renforcer la cohésion entre les différents groupes et associations ; à s’investir dans des campagnes de sensibilisation des producteurs de consommateurs et surtout des fournisseurs des services tant public que privés ; à exercer des pressions intenses sur les instances étatiques pour qu’elles prennent leur responsabilité en dotant les zones d’institutions bancaires, de matériels et d’équipement excavatrices, tracteurs, en fournissant le crédit a des taux préférentiels Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Visite de terrain Publications des organismes prives et publics, (Pamphlets, feuillets, documents etc.) Forum Documentaires et commentaires des médias.236239Groupe 4 : Commercialisation Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, Rétablir l’autorité de l’état pour freiner l’insécurité pour débloquer les routes et les rendre accessibles, ce qui diminuera le coût de transport et par ricochet le prix de revient. Les produits arriveront sains et de bonne qualité à destinations à des prix abordables pour le consommateur. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Ministère de la défense à travers l’armée et la police mettront tout en œuvre pour rétablir la paix dans les circuits de commercialisation et de distribution. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Disponibilités des produits à l’endroit et au moment ou le consommateur souhaite l’acheter. Le niveau de satisfaction de la clientèle. Le niveau de bénéfices des marchands236239Groupe 5: Santé Nutritionnelle, Consommation et nutrition responsable Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, La sensibilisation de la population, la mise en place d’infrastructure de production ; la promotion de la consommation de produits locaux. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions L’organisation de campagne de sensibilisation sur les mesures à adopter pour protéger la santé des nourrissons, des femmes enceintes des adultes et des vieillards. La vulgarisation des aliments nécessaire á la santé avec un appui du MSPP et du MAST. L’organisation de journée porte ouverte sur la santé nutrition avec des techniciens du MSPP. La promotion de recettes culinaires Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Les organisation veilleront á ce que les actions portent des fruits en visionnant des documentaires produits par les réalisateurs de programmes conjoints de suivi et d’évaluation, lisant les pamphlets et les brochures de vulgarisation traduits en créole, en écoutant les media diffusant des informations sur les programmes réalisés. En procédant à des visites de santé et nutrition.236246Groupe 6 : Gouvernance Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, L’état doit créer des structures pour freiner les obstacles à la progression économique du pays. Nommer des gardes forestiers pour protéger ce qui reste de nos forêts et aires protégées, faire le zonage. Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Tous les ministères sont concernés en fonction de leurs rôles. Un mécanisme de gouvernance alimentaire locale adapté à chaque commune et section communale. Cependant le ministère de la communication organisera des campagnes de sensibilisation á travers les medias des spots publicitaires des journaux. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Les rapports de suivi; des visites de sites, le nombre d’émissions radiophonique réalisé; Changements de comportement, de mœurs.236244Groupe 7 : Questions environnementales: Consommation et production responsable, Changements climatiques. Les points de vue des participants sur les actions urgentes, Le changement climatique est un défi majeur. Les pauvres des pays pauvres sont les plus menacés parce qu’ils n’ont pas assez de connaissances, de moyens économiques et financiers, d’infrastructures sociales pour faire y face. Les actions urgentes: Campagne de sensibilisation pour l’adoption des mesures et plaidoyer sur l’importance de la qualité de l’air sur la santé : Elaborer un plan d’assainissement et de gestion de déchets ; Campagne de reboisement d’arbres à usage multiples ; Promouvoir des réchauds améliorés et ou à gaz /solaires pour diminuer la pression sur les arbres ; Renforcement de capacité des organisations Les personnes ou acteurs qui effectuent les actions Ces actions seront surtout menées par le MDE et le MARNDR, MC; les organisations aideront la population dans la gestion de déchets et la protection de l’environnement. Les moyens d’évaluation des progrès Changement de comportement des ménages L’état de salubrité des villes et commune Niveau d’importation avant et après La couverture végétale avant et après l’adoption de nouvelles mesures et projets Les rapports de suivi237244Des divergences de vue en termes d’approches apparaitront dans la mise en place des actions recommandées et dans l’analyse des résultats obtenus. Les représentants des différentes organisations ne s’entendent pas souvent sur les actions á mener sur les approches á privilégier ou sur les techniques á appliquer pour résoudre les problèmes auxquels ils font face. Cependant les participants prévoient des espaces qui se chargeront des conflits, des réunions dans les communautés ou de problèmes de tous genre seront débattus et au cours desquels les leaders chercheront un consensus á travers l’arbitrage et l’apport de nouveaux éclairages ou de recourir soit aux conseils des ainés ou notables, consultants d’expert ou techniciens en la matière ou l’arbitrage des autorités locales. Certains pensent qu’une amélioration du système alimentaire engendrait aussi des effets néfastes á l’environnement dans l’augmentation du nombre de motocyclismes et des effets bénéfiques pour le propriétaire et les consommateurs. Dans les zones d’accès difficiles les motos sont les seuls moyens de transport. Avec les bénéfices générés le producteur aura tendance á construire sur les espaces agricoles, donc le plan d’urbanisation est prioritaire, il doit être élaboré et mise en œuvre avant toute autre action sur l’amélioration du système alimentaire. Le changement climatique n’engendre pas que des effets négatifs, pour certaine plantes comme la mangue et l’arbre véritable, le changement augmente leur nombre de saison de production, depuis un certain temps elles donnent deux récoltes au lieu d’une. Il faut faire beaucoup plus de recherche sur le sujet.

2021-09-19 16:22:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26739/203

48212719428226

• Act with urgency • Commit to the Summit • Be respectful • Recognize complexity • Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity • Complement the work of others • Build trustWe structured this Dialogue to include perspectives from advocates, experts, policy-makers, enterprise, and stakeholder representatives, as well as representatives of UN agencies, and the FSS itself. This was done by selecting invitees to ensure this diversity of experiences, formulating discussion groups based on key challenges, and the need to link food system transformation to climate action. The discussion was also structured to highlight the value of working across systems, through innovative collaborations, and acknowledging the complexity of challenges connected to (and connecting) food and climate. The opening plenary urged participants to consider these complexities as areas of conflict and convergence where important solutions can be identified and developed. The key questions and process for developing substantive outcomes were designed to highlight areas of connection between ongoing parallel efforts, and needed additional innovation, in policy, practice, research, and finance. We encouraged discussion groups to speak openly to each other, with facilitators drawing out useful insights, but not attributing them to individuals or institutions. This was done to build trust, foster more detailed and engaged discussion, and create conditions for a more integrative synthesis of emerging insights coming out of the dialogue.As hosts, we would recommend preparing a blueprint for the meeting agenda, which can be circulated early in the process, and agreed by all, to maximize the degree to which planning inputs are substantive. We would also recommend identifying facilitators who are engaged with the subject-matter, versed in the nuances and ramifications of the challenge questions, and skilled in managing the rapid flow of discussion among impassioned, informed advocates and stakeholders, who may have conflicting views on substantive and procedural matters. Make sure to plan enough time for specific segments of a facilitated discussion, during the discussion groups segment, and provide pre-meeting preparation for facilitators on synthesizing disparate views, if conflicts cannot be resolved.

NoYes, we followed the recommendations found int he Convenors Reference Manual. The dialogue included an opening plenary, five facilitated discussion groups, and a closing plenary. Each discussion group addressed a specific challenge area, and then reported back during the closing plenary. Discussion was structured and facilitated to allow for diverging views to emerge, and to ask uncomfortable questions. Facilitators were asked to look for areas of convergence, and to test these points of convergence with discussants, before returning to brief the closing plenary. Overall, the Dialogue looked for ways to connect food system transformation, in line with the Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit, to climate action and national climate planning, toward the Paris Agreement. An outcome document was produced, based on participants’ inputs and the substance of the discussion groups. Participants were asked to share feedback and offer additions and revisions to the draft outcome, before it was finalized.

2021-09-20 03:25:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44942/203

577221172435776457113766588

The basic principle of organization of this dialogue is to aware the kid, student youth and all across the Globe about the importance of Good food and Healthy food, i.e about better living. Besides this the virtual sharing of healthy meal also shows the caring attitude and commitment towards good health.My dialogue specifies to the concept of GOODFOOD4ALL CAMPAIGN OF UNFSS where participants from about 9 countries from 3 continents where all shared their healthy food as per their culture.I as Convener can advice other conveners to include people from all sectors in their dialogue so that something good and positive suggestion can come out.

Yes

234238239240243244246249The main focus are 1. To involve people from all countries 2. About 115 participants from 9 countries attended with a plate of good food. 3. It us an unique event where all participants shared their virtual meal on common platform for the first time where all shared their views regarding good food 4. In this event the relation between good food and their culture was also reflected 5. One more thing is that family members of the participants also attended and shared their experiencess.235238239240243244246249The main findings are 1. Unity in diversity 2. Commitment towards spreading the awareness about GOODFOOD4ALL 3. It also shows cultural identity of about 9 different countries of 3 continents 4. Shows sense of caring by sharing the virtual shared meal. 5. Every participant mentioned about the importance of Good food and Good health 6. Some expressed the importance of vegetarian food and quoted some comments from Ayurveda.236238239240243244246249The outcome is the spreading of awareness about Good food and Good health. Spreading the cultural identity of each country Relation between Good Food and Culture Sharing is caring Good food and nutritious food boost our immunity All should coordinate and work unitedly for the fulfillment of SDG by 2030 Government of each country should promote the concept of GOODFOOD4ALL237238239240243244249In this dialogue there is no diverse views which is unique. All participants agreed on a common agenda i.e promotion of Good Food for all

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-802.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-803.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-804.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-805.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-806.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-807.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-808.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-809.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-810.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screenshot-811.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/100000639354735/videos/2034887489996610/https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BPFbyYRq0PzuTQDA9Ia9XDAGWAASOrR6/view?usp=sharing

2021-09-20 04:28:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32047/18

762235181106326151219115122217101111319

Throughout the organisation and planning of our independent Dialogue participants were made aware of the United Nations Food Systems Summit and the Principles of Engagement. The Principles of Engagement were considered and acted on in the following ways: Act With Urgency. Presentations and discussions at the Dialogue were expressly focused on emphasising the urgency of addressing food systems issues. Commit to the Summit. In planning and delivering the Dialogue our team ensured that the values and processes of the Summit were considered at all points and communicated effectively. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and complement the work of others. When inviting attendees and organising group discussions our team intentionally ensured a diverse selection of people across different sectors and experiences were included. Coming together to collaborate, debate and discuss ideas respectfully and transparently was crucial to the success of our Dialogue. Be Respectful and Build Trust. Participants were given the opportunity to introduce themselves and their interest in the Dialogue and Chatham House Rules were explained. They were also encouraged to connect via a live online whiteboard, Miro, that provided referrals to initiatives and programs as well as resources and research linked by participants. Discussions were moderated by a team of facilitators who encouraged constructive analysis and free critical thinking through empathic understanding of the diversity between participants. Recognise Complexity. The facilitators also guided the discussion with structured and organised questions relating to current issues in the food system, as well as solutions and calls to action in the Victorian and Australian context. Nuances of the food system and the interconnectedness of sectors were discussed in breakout groups where participants expressed the absence of cross-sectoral collaboration and involvement from all people working toward a better food system. Further, the strengths of having diverse visions for food justice and food security were discussed.Act with Urgency - Euahlayi elder Uncle Gillhar and First Nations Senator Lidia Thorpe opened the Dialogue with an urgent call to action to include Indigenous voices and understandings in all food systems and food security work. As detailed below, Senator Thorpe powerfully made the point that First Nations peoples, especially in remote communities but also in urban centres, are disproportionately impacted by high levels of food insecurity, dietary-related disease and ill-health, and early death. She stated that Australia must urgently achieve a Treaty with First Nations peoples, recognising their sovereignty and stewardship of Australia for thousands of generations, and that this Treaty will be the basis of the healing of both country and people, in all respects. Recognise Complexity/ Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - The number of participants (120) and varied presentations from First Nations representatives, research groups, civil society initiatives, and publicly-funded organisations fostered discussions in the Dialogue to see the nuances and complexities in the food system. The participants were from a range of food system backgrounds that meant the plenary had diverse and disparate themes. Complement the Work of Others - Participants were encouraged to share what was currently working within the food system when in breakout groups. When participants felt there were initiatives others may not have insight of, they linked these through the Zoom Chat and onto the resources in the live Miro board. Further, the presentation of both Australian Research Council’s Strengthening Local Food Systems Governance research and the release of the VicHealth Local Government Partnership program portrayed the systems level work already being undertaken.Recognise the settler-colonial reality and history of Australia (and similar countries) and the impacts this has on First Nations communities as well as the citizenry more broadly. Foreground First Nations leaders and representatives in the Dialogue. Clearly communicate the purpose of the UN Food Systems Summit and the Principles of Engagement. If delivering online make sure to provide attendees with opportunities to network, share their thoughts and feel comfortable. At our Dialogue this was done by including breakout room sessions with smaller group numbers to encourage fair discussion as well as using the application Miro to provide an online space for people to write down their thoughts. Ensure a diverse range of people are invited with differing backgrounds, positions and understandings of the food system. Acknowledge the critiques made of the Dialogue process and be sure these are addressed.

NoThe Dialogue (titled Fair and Healthy Food for All) was organised online via zoom, with a series of plenary presentations (see below) followed by breakout rooms in which 6-8 participants engaged in small-group discussions with a facilitator, using a structured conversation guide. Facilitators then reported back the substance of the discussions to a reconvened plenary. The report backs were simultaneously recorded on an online whiteboard using Miro software. The dialogue plenaries were recorded.

234238239240241242244246247248249Fair and Healthy Food For All was executed with a focus of providing a comprehensive exploration of Australian food systems. Exploring areas of First Nations food sovereignty, food security, Victoria’s food system, and the role of local governments in enacting positive change, this Dialogue provided a well-rounded analysis of food systems issues, as well as an exploration of the concrete actions that need to be taken to move forward an agenda of progressive change. The Dialogue was opened with Euahlayi Elder Uncle Ghillar and Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung Senator for Victoria, Lidia Thorpe. Uncle Ghillar and Senator Thorpe called for immediate recognition of First Nations culture and sovereignty as essential to address the serious disadvantage experienced by First Nations peoples as a result of dispossession and colonisation. Sen Thorpe commenced by stating that all participants are living and working on stolen land, and until there is a Treaty to address the issue of First Nations sovereignty the issues regarding health and food systems could not be truly addressed. She said that ‘My ancestors have lived sustainably on these lands for thousands and thousands of generations. Our country is a part of us, it’s in us, it’s who we are; and we rely on country for our basic survival needs.’ She noted that, as a result of living under a system imposed by colonisation ‘my people are the most likely in this country to run out of food. Aboriginal people experience food insecurity and go hungry in 2021, particularly those in remote communities’. Sen Thorpe called for decolonising the food system, and stated that ‘everyone can do their bit to decolonise.’ Uncle Michael Ghillar shared with attendees this story about the food cultures of First Nations peoples: “When the creators came and they created our society, we, the Euahlayi, the Gomeroi and the Wiradjeri, we were the same skin groups, and they all connected to an ecosystem and within that ecosystem, everything that lives within that single system, is family. In our case, we have the Nyungar, the Kurrajong tree - and that’s the mother of that ecosystem, and it grows on rocky ridges, on rocky soil. Within that system, we have all the food - not only do the humans have a relationship there, but all the different plants, and animals and birds down to the rivers.” Vivien Yii represented Australia’s Right to Food Coalition, formed in 2014, a civil society group that works towards integrated food policy that can ensure the right to food for all. The Coalition brings people together to challenge the norms perpetuating food insecurity and other inequities related to food and nutrition in Australia. Vivien also referred to important critiques of the UN Food Systems Summit, regarding the corporate-led agenda, the lack of transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms; and that counter mobilisations were taking place foreground the vision of small-scale producers and workers for a ‘human rights-based and agroecological transformation of food systems’. Nick Rose from Sustain: The Australian Food Network, a national sustainable food systems organisation and health promotion charity, provided an overview of the work of the Victorian Food Systems and Food Security Working Group, which formed in 2020 and brought together representatives of over 15 leading organisations, facilitated by VicHealth. Nick shared an overview of the Working Group’s efforts on the development of a consensus statement for food systems reform in Victoria, focusing on the role of local government, land use planning, and governance. These presentations provided the context for participants to engage in the breakout rooms, exploring the food system’s current strengths. In the afternoon, both The Australian Research Council presenting research on a Strengthening Local Food Systems Governance Discovery Project, and VicHealth introducing the Local Government Partnership program, provided an opportunity for focus on system-level work. Thus, there was a focus on cross-sectorial food systems work which advocates for what is already functioning, as well as focusing on methods for improvement and knowledge sharing.235238239240241242244246247248249251From this Victorian Independent Dialogue there came a number of findings and further issues to explore. The differing perspectives of presenters and participants allowed for small group discussion sessions to diverge and converge. Most consistent across the Dialogue was a recognised need for greater attention to be paid to sharing knowledge among food systems actors and establishing a common language which all food systems discussions can be founded in. Made apparent by Uncle Ghillar and Lidia Thorpe is the importance of telling people’s stories, especially those from diverse backgrounds and communities, with a strong focus as noted on First Nations sovereignty. There was great interest amongst many participants in addressing the knowledge gaps in food literacy education as a means to empower young people and marginalised groups to join the food systems conversation. Contributing to this, was the outcome of needing to create spaces where actors and activists can come together more regularly to ensure Australia’s food system organisations, individuals and communities can continue to collaborate and share. Other findings included the importance of community-led initiatives, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic as these localised responses to food systems issues are more flexible than larger scale government and charity structures which often do not reach isolated communities. Among the attendees there was a recognised need to empower local governments to take a direct role in food systems governance issues. Presentations from the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project and the VicHealth initiative Strengthening Local Government Partnerships further contributed to the discussion of local councils. The ARC discovery project revealed a number of barriers and enablers to local governments contributing to healthy, fair and equitable food systems. The main obstacle for local governments is the lack of funding and guidance provided to address state government plans and objectives. Presenting a solution to this issue is the VicHealth Strengthening Local Government Partnerships program which has been developed to support the improvement of children’s and young people’s health and wellbeing through the planning and delivery of municipal plans. This program has a central focus of implementing realistic changes in Victorian councils by delivering actionable modules geared towards healthy eating, physical activity and social connection. The Dialogue provided an opportunity for an in-depth exploration of the above issues and space to brainstorm solutions. Positive food systems action is multifaceted and requires a diverse approach from a wide variety of actors. It is not possible for one Dialogue to produce all of the solutions necessary to enact change. What is needed are further opportunities for all food systems voices to come together, share their experiences and thoughtfully consider Australia’s food system and the challenges it presents. There needs to be increased attention paid to First Nations led solutions and authority as well as other marginalised communities whose perspectives are often not included.236238239240241242244246247248249251Strengths and challenges facing the Victorian and Australian food system. Community initiatives and local solutions are recognised as key strengths in Victoria. They provide examples of diverse programs, projects and activities across sectors. These programs demonstrate how the food movement can be interdisciplinary at the grassroots level. Needs to be a greater effort to collaboratively develop and define food systems language, therefore addressing the issue of different sectors holding different understandings of terms making it difficult to unify projects and initiatives. In food security discussions the voices of those who have experienced it are often excluded. There is a vital need to incorporate and empower the stories of people who have lived through food insecurity and faced barriers to fair food access. At the Dialogue we were privileged to have participants who had experienced these challenges, providing invaluable insight. Local governments are often disempowered by state government policies, especially in regard to land use planning to prevent the over-representation of fast food outlets in both existing areas and new developments. Local governments lack time and capacity to conduct projects and actively address the food systems issues facing their community. State governments are considered to be a solution to issues facing local governments including providing more support, funding and commitment to addressing food systems challenges. They are most often absent from Victorian discussions of food systems policy and governance issues. A recognised gap in food education and literacy, children and young people are not provided with opportunities to engage meaningfully with food systems issues. A need for stronger advocacy for education programs that empower children and young people.236238239240241242244246247248249251Strongest players, addressing imbalances of power and working collaboratively to enact positive change. Some of the strongest players recognised included large food relief charities, supermarkets, governments of all levels, academic institutions and researchers, multinational food and agriculture companies, small businesses and community initiatives, consumers (especially those with buying power), fast food businesses, transport companies and water companies. It was recognised that some actors in the above list have created imbalances of power in Australia’s food system. As had been touched on previously, the Dialogue conversations revealed that if we are to address this inequitable distribution of power then we need to recognise the ecosystem of actors contributing to positively affecting different aspects of the food system. Food systems change currently occurs in silos with groups acting individually, there needs to be a shift to working strategically and in partnership.237238239240241242244246247248249The diversity of participants allowed a thorough and all-encompassing conversation about the challenges, positives, and opportunities for change within the Australian food system. Some participants felt that the movement is all too nice, and nothing is being disrupted, so long-term change cannot be achieved. The role of charity was felt to be always necessary by some participants and others felt big charities were unstable with supply and did not play enough of an advocacy role where they contributed to reproducing rather than addressing root causes. There was consensus among participants that had engaged in the discourse surrounding the UN Food Systems Summit that it may not in its entirety reflect the values, needs and opinions of smallholder farmers and producers. Instead, the summit is at risk of enclosing the conversation to technology-based solutions and intensification.

2021-09-20 13:32:23205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33994/54

51112617

Yes

234Summary of the national dialogue of the Czech Republic: The coordinator of the national dialogue in the Czech Republic was Mr. Jindřich Fialka, Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Food of the Ministry of Agriculture. A total of 220 actors across the agri-food chain were addressed in the national dialogue. Most of the subjects contacted were in the field of food processing (126), followed by the water and small government sectors (17), to those in the crop and animal production sector (11) or aquaculture (5). The basis for the national dialogue were existing strategies for the Ministry of Agriculture until 2030. The dialogue received extensive feedback and the original framework of topics has grown into an inspiring collection of suggestions that should be addressed in building sustainable food production systems.235The National Dialogue in the Czech Republic has generated the following weaknesses, which best correspond to the UN's sustainable development goals. The following areas were most discussed in the dialogue, so the need to address them is significantly emphasized by the professional public: • Dry areas, low water retention in the landscape • Decreasing soil quality due to lack of organic matter in the soil, soil compaction, lack of soil-improving crops, etc. and subsequent erosion • Weak consumer education • Insufficient transfer of knowledge, especially the use of results of science and research in practice.

2021-09-20 13:38:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8203/19203

3061471482930203126420911101210104830133612238121032012252754645101511141537

The dialogue was organised on the last day of the UN/Austria Symposium on Space Applications for Food System, that brought together academia, scientists, entrepreneurs and many other participants from more than 70 countries to discuss and demonstrate how space data and applications support food systems. For two days before the Dialogue, users of space applications presented their experience and experts discussed the role of space data and applications within the food value chain. The Symposium was wide-ranging, both in terms of topics addressed and diversity of attendees, with 333 registrations covering all age groups and all world regions. This diversity enabled a varied group of individuals to choose whether to participate in the Dialogue and about 30 individuals contributed actively to one or several discussion topics.Not applicableNo specific advice

Yes

234240242243244245248251The Dialogue was focused on five topics that were directly relevant to the audience of the UN/Austria Symposium on space applications for food systems. For each of the five topics, specific open questions were made available to participants well-ahead of the Dialogue, so they could prepare their contribution. Out of 333 persons registered to attend the Symposium, 30 chose to actively participate in one or more discussion topics. The five discussion topics were as follows: (1) Raising awareness - How to raise awareness of what space solutions can bring to farming/fishing communities? - What actions have worked in the past at national or regional level? - What information channels are used by the farming/fishing communities? (2) User requirements - How can academia and R&D institutes better understand the real needs of the user community and translate these needs into technical requirements? - What are the difficulties in moving from pilot projects to sustainable deployments of solutions? - How do users want to be more involved? (3) Financing for development - What are the difficulties faced by farmers seeking financing for adoption of technology to improve agricultural productivity? - What incentives and funding mechanisms could be put in place to mobilize resources (both public and private) in support of the deployment of technology in agriculture? - How to promote innovative financing solutions for investment in agricultural technology? What can we learn from successful examples? (4) Technology transfer - How can technologies used to produce food in space be brought to solve Earth-based problems in food systems? - What is required for spin-off initiatives to succeed? (5) Youth engagement - What actions can young people take to advocate for the use of space technologies in agriculture? - How can young people get involved themselves? Each group was in a position to discuss what had been presented during the sessions and panel discussions of the Symposium during the previous two days, as well as explore the participants' own experience.235240242243245248249251The user requirements and technology transfer groups raised the same four main recommendations: 1 – technology development would benefit from improved availability of funding for new initiatives, to reduce their risk. 2 – technology developers need first to understand users' needs, the context in which they operate, and what motivation they would have to adopt new techniques in their work. Agriculture schools and colleges have a role to play in raising awareness at all levels. 3 – the specific technical limitations of what can be provided need to be clearly communicated to users, and local capacity developed to use the technology autonomously. 4 – it is essential to keep the user interface simple The Financing group concluded that mobilising both public and private funds is critical to bridging the current financing gap and to scale-up the adoption of space-based technologies in agriculture, with three recommendations: 1 - Crowd-in private investments 2 - Increase collaborations to optimize use of public and private funds 3 - Investments in an enabling environment The youth group considers that the role of youth is to bridge the gap between people who are familiar with technology and those who are not, with two complementary approaches: 1 - Young people can take advantage of the multiple social media platforms, networks, and applications on mobile phones already available to promote and educate, not only users of the technology but also people active with the development of policy and legislation related to space technology and to agriculture. 2 - Beyond digital means, young people are also eager to be active directly, for instance conducting field research and having direct conversations with food producers, strengthening existing communities for more collaboration between educational institutions and cross-sector innovation. Outcomes of the Dialogue will be reported to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in 2022, as part of the formal report on the UN/Austria Symposium on space applications for food systems.236240242243248249The awareness, user requirements and technology transfer groups raised the same four main recommendations: 1 – availability of funding for new initiatives. In some countries, aversion to risk and lack of financial support for technical start-ups eager to develop applications of space technologies for food systems hampers their development. There is a role for government agencies in charge of space activities to support the development of their applications with pilot projects of new technologies that directly involve users. Afterwards, the incubation phase towards a sustainable business still needs support. It would be beneficial if, for instance, more space agencies, institutions and private entities had strategy funds for start-ups in the field of space applications, with low levels of bureaucracy to obtain access to such funding. Obtaining these conditions would require to raise awareness at government and policy level, but also to raise awareness towards consumers about how their food has been produced, so that consumers can choose more sustainable food and, thereby, impact the way it is produced in a demand-driven process. 2 – understanding of users needs Participants referred to the need for better communication between end users and those who develop technical solutions, as it is difficult to make information easy to understand for users of every sector of food systems, who are all different. Technology developers need to understand the environment and the conditions in which their users work. In this context, it is essential to develop prototypes and iterate with users throughout the development process, building partnerships with early adopters and champions for adoption of the new techniques. These early adopters are not necessarily young people, rather individuals with a mindset open to change, who can act as a bridge between technical experts and their own community. Overall, it takes time to build knowledge and local academic institutions need to develop capacity-building opportunities, with support from international organisations if required. Incentives need to be available for farmers to adopt a new technology, as adaptation to new techniques will require additional work; in some cases users see a direct, quantifiable and short-term benefit, but in other cases improvements are less straightforward and a subsidy might be required. It is essential to understand users’ motivation for new technology to be adopted. 3 – understanding of technical limitations of what can be provided In cases where satellite data is provided for free, interpretation of these satellite images into actionable information for food system stakeholders might still require specific expertise that is not readily available locally. In such cases, users do not have the ownership of the whole data processing process and depend on others; they need to be able to rely upon partners in their own country and not only organisations outside. A local eco-system around users of the technology needs to be built locally to make the use of that technology sustainable. In some cases, technical limitations remain the main obstacle to broader adoption of new techniques: although information might be provided to farmers at no cost, the data precision (for instance, when assessing nitrogen content in the soil) might still be inadequate, due to spatial and temporal limitations of the satellite imagery, to be directly applicable to improve agricultural yield. 4 – keeping the user interface simple The device or the information used by actors of food systems need to be as simple and as familiar as possible. It needs to be adapted to the conditions where the person works (e.g. outside, with a small screen, without access to electrical power). The solution developer needs to adapt this user segment to the need of the community. Reducing its cost would reduce the financial barrier to take-up of the technology; using mobile phones as user device is successful in several domains. Youth is very familiar with such a device and mobile phones are the most pervasive technology in many countries. Design of the user interface needs to remain simple to be successful.236240242245The Financing group considered the constraints facing innovators and farmers in accessing financing and concluded that mobilising both public and private funds is critical to bridging the current financing gap and to scale-up the adoption of space-based technologies in agriculture. The group arrived at the following three recommendations: 1. Crowd-in private investments a. Capacity building is critical to provide necessary skill transfer to financial institutions in order to better understand the space-technology for agriculture, analyze risks, and develop appropriate lending and other financial products. This also includes encouraging a shift in perception from viewing space start-ups as capital-expenditure intensive “deep space technology” to a digital firms where value creation lies in data collection and data analytics. b. Space-based technology is able to optimize use of resources to increase farm yield, forecast yield and monitor crop growth. The aggregated data and higher transparency would allow credit providers to mitigate the risk of non-repayment of loans and improve lending quantity and interest rates to farmers. The data is also useful for other downstream players such as insurance companies, financial institutions and agricultural companies. Investments in such “one-stop” technology should be boosted. c. A demand-driven business model for space start-ups that is sustainable and profitable should be promoted as it will attract private investment naturally. 2. Increase collaborations to optimize use of public and private funds a. To reduce transaction costs and risks, blended finance could be encouraged where concessional funds catalyze investments by other private investors. Also, support for first loss/guarantee funds for agriculture focusing on smallholder farmers could be promoted. b. Promote private-public partnerships by which governments could leverage private sector funding and management. c. Space agencies could cooperate with multi-lateral development banks to bring space-technology to the field. Space agencies would bring in the technical know-how while multi-lateral development banks could bring in funds and organize capacity building activities on the ground. An example is the European Space Agency Global Development Assistance (GDA) 3. Investments in enabling environment a. The policy and regulatory environment on data collection, analysis and usage of data (how will the data be used; who can use what data?) should be improved to enable the growth of data-driven space-technologies. b. Last but not least, there is a crucial need for public resources to finance essential public goods and services such as human capital, agricultural research, and enabling public infrastructure such as in internet connectivity.236240242251The youth group provided recommendations on young people's actions: 1 - Actions that young people can take to advocate for the use of space technologies in agriculture The group discussed education, and the need to raise awareness within the general public on how space technologies can benefit farmers. The concrete example of Central Europe was discussed, where the farming industry underwent major changes in recent years and more technology-savvy young farmers, who are very well educated in agricultural institutes, bring innovations to their daily work. In this region, technology is perceived positively, and the discussion focuses on how to incorporate new technology compared to old ones. Participants noted that, in Africa, many young women work in agriculture and would need better access to education and capacity-building opportunities to empower them. Most people have mobile phones but have no access to higher levels of technology such as computers or internet. Until government support can broaden accessibility of information and communication technology in the region, people need easy to use and accessible technology. In regions were advanced technology is available, such as autonomous agriculture machines or data integrated watering systems, food production systems and technical infrastructure need to be integrated, with a user interface easy to use such as apps on mobile phones. Regarding how to raise awareness, "Story-telling" is an effective way to convey information from farmers to policy makers and it would be important to strengthen scientific networks locally in addition. 2 - How can young people get involved themselves? An effective way to sharing information with and between young persons is to use mobile phones, who are seen as the most convenient and most ubiquitous interface. Beyond accessibility, the content needs however to be tailored to farmers or fishers in their local context, for instance provided in a local language. Many young people do not have access to land, to be in a position to influence of new space-based technologies could be adopted, young people would first need to be integrated into decision processed about how the land is managed. To do so, they need to integrate themselves into the community, with immersion into the local food systems eco-system; they can bridge the gap between people who are familiar with technology and those who are not. Young people are keen to be the interface that engages with local groups and users to understand their real needs and communicate in their language. Young people who study have been promoting the take-up of new technologies thanks to student organizations and scientific communities focusing on space applications, that are supported by professionals such as the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs acting as advisor. Young people are keen to use digital technologies but also to direct their energy into hands-on activities locally that do not require technology and might be resource-intensive, for instance conducting field research and having direct conversations with remote farmers to better understand what is needed.237Not applicable

2021-09-20 14:22:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42686/203

640202715204036814320001042005100131113311101012628

The dialogue adopted the UNFSS Principles of Engagement throughout the planning and actual implementation of the dialogue. Purposeful and respectful interactions were conducted between various stakeholder. The participants were drawn from the food supply chain, CSOs, Research and Innovation Agencies members of the European food Form, the members of the European Parliament intergroup RUMRA, the representatives of the International organizations and States Representations in Bruxelles. The event was also advertised on Twitter and LinkedIn providing all the information on how to attend. This varied audience ensured the dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity. The dialogue processes was supported by evidence generated from analysis of the villages at risk of isolations and depopulation at European Level. These enriched the dialogue and complemented others works on Food Systems transformation recognizing that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, digital, innovation, agriculture, landmark, tourism and food production and transformation.The dialogue foreseen different public and private speakers to understand the opportunities and issues to enrich the smart villages and their inhabitants at 360 degrees and with an holistic approach. This multi-faceted approach promoted trust and motivated participants.We understood the importance to act to ensure that the global innovation help the villages to become "smart" to enhance the sustainable food systems at local level. This could be done also creating measures that consider the importance of the digitalization in this context. By including a range of stakeholders and offering the chance to explore their work, the Dialogue demonstrated the implementation of the following principles; respect, complexity, multistakeholder inclusivity, and complementing others work. This Dialogue, clearly shown that solutions and actions must be tailored to local and regional realities. They have underscored that no one size fits all and that country action must be tailored to local contexts. It will be very important to promote coherence among different priorities within a very complex food system environment and securing the support of EU Member States and others in a period of time where a national approach to food is more politically appealing.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend.

Yes

234241243244246248249Our discussion focused on the concept of smart villages and how they contribute to the food industry, to the bio-economy, and to the promotion of rural tourism. During our discussion, we tried to answer to these four questions : 1. How important it is, for the development of smart villages, the combination of solid agricultural policies of promoting diversified rural economy with the provision of adequate rural infrastructure, and how is it possible to reach it? 2. How can we promote rural tourism in the EU? 3. What measures are needed to better protect and strengthen the housing and catering sector in rural areas? 4. Explore the role of rural tourism in the fight against rural exodus but also as an alternative source of income on the farm.235241243244246248249Conclusion n°1 : Rural areas suffer from a digital gap that need to be fulfilled to develop smart villages Conclusion n°2 : Digitalization in rural areas will be key in the future of rural areas Conclusion n°3 : Smart villages need to be part of horizontal policies and need more coordination from all levels of government Conclusion n°4 : In order to implement smart villages, adequate resources and funding are needed Conclusion n°5 : Strategies to develop smart villages need to take into account the specificities of rural areas Conclusion n°6 : Connection and transport between rural areas and urban areas need to be developed to contribute enhancing smart villages236238239240241242243244245248249Panel n°1 : What is the essence of Smart Villages in support of a sustainable food system and rural tourism development? The European and International Long-Term vision for Rural Areas Speaker n°1: Jorge Pinto Antunes, Member of the cabinet EU Commissioner Wojciechowski - While rural areas are key to achieving EU goals as they cover 80% of the EU territory and are home to 137 millions people, we need to address the challenges these areas face : rapid population decline + low GDP per capita - Preparatory action on smart rural areas in the 21st century of the European Commission = a real-life test in Europe on how to implement concretely smart villages. - Publication by the EU Commission of a communication on the long term vision for rural areas = very comprehensive approach - Innovation is key for the future of rural areas - Close cooperation between all levels of government is needed Speaker n°2 : Andrej Čuš, State Secretary of the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology of Slovenia - Tourism is key to the economy of Slovenia: - Covid-19 crisis helped further the transition to eco-tourism in Slovenia : an important number of measures has been implemented to support tourism stakeholders in the country and to emphasize the green dimension of tourism in the country - Efforts to develop the gastronomic sector in Slovenia: - Strengthen the tourism economy - Contributes to the local food supply - Promotes entrepreneurship - Contributes to the employment in many sectors Speaker n°3 : Radim Sršeň, European Committee of the Regions - Covid-19 crisis helped realizing that digital transformation of rural areas is much closer than it was before - More funding and resources are needed to develop smart villages - Smart villages should be part of horizontal policies - Need to develop the connection between urban and rural areas - It is not only with technologies that smart villages will develop but also with smart ideas, with social innovation - Necessity to make the food chain as short as possible Speaker n°4 : Maximo Torero, FAO Chief Economist - Need to address the issue of digital gap in all its dimensions : accessibility and capabilities - 4 accelerators to develop digital villages : real time data, innovation, technologies and complements - 3 dimensions are needed to build digital villages : - E-agriculture = improving productivity by using digital technologies - Digital farmer services = enhance farmers accessibility to different kind of social and economic services - Rural transformation = diversify the source of income from only agriculture for rural population236238239240241242243244248249Panel n°2 : Concrete ideas to make Smart Villages a reality Speaker n°1 : Birgit Grauvogel, Managing Director of the Saarland Tourist Office and DTV (German Tourism Association) and member of the DTV board - Digital solutions offer great opportunities for touristic services such as booking platforms - Necessity for smart villages to participate in such platforms - Rural areas can support short food chain by using local and regional food products --> need to create incentives for rural areas and SMEs in rural areas to use local products - Need to promote local markets - Need to promote culture in rural areas - Need of funding and resources Speaker n°2 : Peter De Franceschi, Head of ICLEI Brussels Office Global Food Program Coordinator - After Covid-19, authenticity and sustainability will be at the heart of tourism - With the rise of remote working = opportunities for small villages. - Importance of strong internet infrastructures - Need of a good connection between big cities and small villages - Increase interest in short food supply chains = digital platforms will contribute to shorten these food supply chains - Need to clarify the rules of public procurement Speaker n°3 : Marco Caprai, Owner of “Arnarldo Caprai” Winery. Member of the board of Confagricoltura and Chair of the R&I WG - Example of the development of tourism around agriculture in a small village - Need to develop infrastructures in rural areas : digital technologies, transports, building facilities237238239240241242245246249On the question of funding for the development of smart villages, some speakers called for more public funding whereas Mr. Pinto Antunes pointed out that investment could also come from the private sector.

2021-09-20 16:35:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/37759/203

1250455915608342752843422732133043

The goal of the UN Food Systems Summit is to develop bold new actions, solutions and strategies to accelerate progress towards the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), each of which are dependent on healthier, more sustainable and more equitable global food systems. The Summit will awaken the world to the fact that we all must work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food. As an intergovernmental organisation tracking the physical market for grains, oilseeds and rice, the IGC will hold an independent dialogue within the framework of the UN Global food summit to identify actions which could be introduced by the grains value chain to contribute to achieving a sustainable global food system. Participants: • IGC members; • Non IGC members; • International organizations; • Farmers representatives; • Representatives from the food / feed industry industries • Representatives from traders of grains ; • Research institutes).The first session allowed to set the scene for all participants and then the dialogue was open between participants and speakers. In order to allow a free discussion, the Chatham House rules were applied and no press in the room. Each participants get the same right to take the floor and the last session was only dedicated to the solutions to explore and in responding to the SDGs.Yes - WTO

Yes

234238242243245249250Agribulk commodities, such as wheat, maize, oilseeds and rice, represent more than 80% of the energy uptake for human consumption. The current five-year supply and demand projections for these commodities show an increase in demand, mainly due to demographic trends and consequently a growth in trade as there is very little new land available. Climate change will enhance the role of international trade as a central component of global food security, including the movement of calories from food-surplus to food-deficit countries in the wake of natural calamities. Throughout history, international trade has helped to reduce food insecurity by connecting regions with large populations and limited agricultural potential to regions with comparative advantages in agriculture, while also providing access to a more diverse and nutritious food basket. In the grains sector, the major exporters of these commodities are playing a crucial role in enhancing the resilience of the global food system. However, increased exports can put pressure on their domestic market (such as inflation of domestic food prices,) while the risks associated with climate change, such as rising sea-levels may threaten their logistical supply chains. These risks also impact importing regions, which may look to source their supplies from alternative suppliers or stimulate local value chains. The global market can play a significant role in supporting a nation’s food security not only when the local production capacity fails. However, many countries which rely on international supplies are also concerned about sudden increases in import costs, as well as shipping and logistical disruptions. These concerns may encourage countries to seek self-sufficiency, including increased domestic stocking requirements. Furthermore, restrictive import/export policies, spanning both tariffs and NTMs, as well as distortive subsidies for both the agricultural and the transportation sector, can hinder the free-flow of global trade. In the long run, less exposure to global trade would result in markets becoming less liquid, likely increasing price volatility and consequently increasing the risk for importers, including those countries unable to seek self-sufficiency due to generally unfavourable climatic conditions or a lack of arable land. Furthermore, there are also considerable fiscal costs associated with achieving self-sufficiency and, while local consumption may reduce food-miles, any calculation of emissions throughout the transportation process has to be offset against emissions from farming processes, which vary from producer to producer. And consumers will also continue to expect a varied diet.235243246249250The primary finding from the IGC’s webinar was that international trade in grains was vital for global food security. Wheat, rice and maize accounts for the majority of the world’s food consumption, while soyabeans are the primary protein source within animal feed. Furthermore, they are among the world’s most highly-traded products and international trade remains an essential tool for moving bulk grains from areas of surplus to areas of deficit. Secondary outcomes included the need to enhance trust in trade as a reliable supplier of food and to improve communication from the global grain trade with policy makers, consumers and other interested parties within the food system, in order to build knowledge and understanding of this indispensable sector. On food security, the webinar heard from multiple delegates on the dependence on international trade by several regions to meet domestic consumption requirements. It was noted that this was particularly relevant for lower-income consumers who commonly attain more than 50% of total calories from grains, due to their relatively high availability and low-cost. Specific regions that rely on trade were identified. Near-East Asia and North Africa were noted as being dependent on imports for the foreseeable future, as environmental constraints, such as a lack of arable land or low water availabilities, pose immense challenges in boosting local crop outcomes. Sub-Saharan Africa was also highlighted as, despite the potential for domestic production increases, rapid demographic changes including high population growth and urbanisation will keep the region reliant on international markets in order to meet rising consumption requirements. Far East Asia was also recognised as being reliant on trade as urbanisation and restricted options for expanded local planted area curtails local production growth prospects, while expanding economies and related dietary changes boosts uptake, including for non-traditional crops. The importance of international trade as a tool to respond to unforeseen circumstances such as local crop failures, a degraded security environment or natural disasters was also emphasised due to the ability of grains to be easily stored and transported from areas of surplus to areas of deficit, which is central for emergency response. Furthermore it was noted that due to population and economic growth in many import-dependent regions, trade in grains would need to expand over the coming decades in order to meet dietary requirements. Within the context of climate change, it was also noted that trade would become even more vital for food security over the coming decades, amid the potential for increased local production losses which would necessitate supplies from international markets to compensate for domestic shortfalls. Webinar participants agreed that the grains trade had responded well and demonstrated substantial resilience to the immense challenges posed by COVID-19, with the agribulk sector noted as the most resilient amongst all international trade sectors during the pandemic. However, it was further noted that confidence in international markets as a reliable supplier of food needed to be enhanced. Export restrictions were highlighted as contributing to an erosion of trust in markets, as a source of uncertainty for importers and as a major factor in incentivising countries to seek self-sufficiency. Although their use remains limited, the placing of restrictions on exports, particularly during times of emergency such as during COVID-19, demonstrated the importance of international discussions and coordination on trade distorting policy measures. In addition, improved harmonisation and streamlining of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, through utilising a science-based approach in multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations, were considered as a means of facilitate and improve the movement of agribulk products from areas of surplus to regions of deficit as quickly and efficiently as possible, and thus would boost confidence in trade. Logistical challenges, including potential disruptions in trade choke-points (for example as recently seen by the blockage in the Suez Canal) and recent gyrations in global container markets were also discussed as concerns for import dependent regions, with continued investments in such potential blockages regarded as important to enhance trust in markets. It was also noted that low-cost agri-bulk products (principally rice and pulses) were not being given priority in container ships over higher-valued goods, despite their value to food security. Another risk factor for markets that was highlighted was concentration – for example when only a small number of countries account for the vast majority of international exports – and thinness of trade - when only a small proportion of global production enters the international market. Both were linked to the potential of increased price volatility which could harm food security. On the theme of improving trust in markets, communication with policy makers, consumers and other food-system summit participants was also identified as being of growing importance. While it was recognised that some parties have developed a preference for localised supply chains within the global food system, it was hoped that dialogue would demonstrate the difficulties this would pose to the supply of grains around the world, and of the immense danger that any efforts to decrease liquidity in markets and create further concentration would constitute to food security, particularly f236With webinar delegates in agreement that international trade in grains is essential for meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 2 (zero hunger), suggested outcomes focussed on ways to improved resilience of the sector and build trust in global grain markets. Firstly, a key suggestion made by multiple delegates was to renew efforts to enable open markets through reinvigorating multi-lateral negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), in order to strengthen the international trade rule-book. Better utilisation of existing trade rules were likewise suggested. Within the context of climate change, open markets would enable grains to move from regions of surplus to regions of deficit as quickly, easily and efficiently as possible and markets would be better placed to respond to local or regional supply shocks. Proposed ways to enable a more open market place included the harmonisation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures and through removing trade-distorting subsidies, although the latter in particular was recognised as challenging. It was also noted that efficient international trade in grains is reliant on stability within the wider global trade system, with a free-flow of knowledge and services as well as industrial goods utilised in production and transportation of grains required for the sector to achieve maximum resilience. Furthermore it was noted that global trade tensions, including so-called ‘trade-wars’ are commonly harmful to the free-flow of grains and ideally should be avoided. Building chokepoint analysis into agricultural trade risk management was also highlighted as a means of enhancing trust and building a more resilient food system. It was also recommended that the risk to choke point disruptions would be mitigated by investments in infrastructure, as well as through the development of emergency sharing arrangements and the development of strategic grains storage. Improved use of satellite-based crop monitoring was also discussed as a way to increase early warning of potential crop failures and boost market resilience, including through increased use of crop insurance schemes. While it was noted that supply chains have always evolved and have been improving their sustainability for generations, further work towards increasing sustainability throughout the grain value chain from production to storage to manufacturing to transportation to packaging, consumption and waste was suggested. However, the concentration of the sector, including the fact the bulk of grain is traded by just four companies, was highlighted as an opportunity to quickly achieve transformative sustainability standards in production, transportation and distribution. A commitment to transparency and information sharing was reiterated as a major means to enhance market functioning and promote food security, such as has been developed through the Agricultural Marketing Information System (AMIS). Other suggestions included the potential cooperation between relevant inter-governmental organisations for the development of reporting tools, such as indices, which would better highlight and explain the importance of grain trade to food security.237238242243246249250With all participants, from both the public and private sectors and from a range of backgrounds and areas of expertise, emphasising the vital importance that international trade in grains plays in global food security, no major areas of divergence were noted.

2021-09-20 18:11:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43704/68

7569600003441

UNICEF’s food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) had to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual to make the process more age appropriate for younger audiences. Despite these amendments, all the Principles of Engagement were upheld. These core tenants are also critical in the implementation of a child-centered approach, which relies on participation, inclusivity, respect, diversity, and curating a safe space to share an array of lived experiences.Activities were designed to safeguard the interest of children and allow participants to freely explore ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions were deliberately broad and open to interpretation, like the discussion questions provided in the Convenors Reference Manual. Facilitators were trained to limit their influence and avoid judging participants’ responses, as per the facilitator trainings provided by the Summit team. A key aspect of the workshop was to gather children’s insights in an enabling environment so we can better understand what matters to them - remembering to respect that there are no right or wrong answers, as per the Principles of Engagement. A more detailed description of specific activities which reflect these Principles can be found in the workshop facilitation manuals which contain guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing creative and participatory activities with diverse children.These core Principles of Engagement are critical to ensure a safe space where all dialogue participants - especially children - can share their experiences, challenges, and visions, in an enabling environment, when it comes to food systems. Children’s opinions and insights are central to any discussion around building healthier and more sustainable food systems, and should be upheld at all times.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245247248249250251The workshop-based dialogues explored children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and lived experiences of their food systems, focusing on the issues of food poverty and climate change. Ethiopia like other countries participating in the workshop-based dialogues conducted a minimum of two workshops with different participants in three different cities; one workshop focused on food poverty and the other on climate change, enabling deep exploration of topics in the time available. Naturally, these topics and their discussions cut across all five Action Tracks. Workshop-based dialogues explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change through the following activities: Activity 1: This activity aims to surface what children think about food and what food means to them, this activity explores What children find appealing about food and what their aspirations are around eating to help inform aspects of food choice within their own food environments and systems. Children create a ‘food cloud’ by writing or typing foods they like and dislike. Activities 2 & 3: To explore their food systems, children drew a map of how food arrives on their plate, marking where their food is grown, how it is transported, and where it is bought and consumed. They then map the constraints in their food systems, as they relate to food poverty and climate change, and propose solutions to these constraints. Activity 4: This activity explores how children want to engage with these issues. Children were asked to explore what different people can do to help make sure that the foods we eat don’t negatively impact the environment. Using a series of different levels of circles from individual through to community and national levels of governance what actions can be taken in their food systems to create positive change? Activity 5: This activity generates children’s calls to action to address the impacts of food poverty and climate change on their food systems. Children write a leader to their leaders, outlining their call for change. Workshops concluded with a plenary discussion to draw our key insights. These workshops enabled children to contribute their insights and perspectives to the ongoing debates across all action tracks. They discussed challenges and proposed how to enhance their access to safe nutritious foods. They identified barriers to sustainable consumption patterns in their communities and suggested ways to shift behaviors. They identified that young people have a vital role to play in boosting positive production which, in turn, will contribute to more equitable livelihoods. And they called on governments to take concrete action to support vulnerable communities and to build the resilience and a brighter future for all children and adolescents around the world.235238239240241242243244245247248249250251Describe in under 5,600 characters including spaces Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. Food was delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. These responses suggest that food for children is a mix of the material and the aspirational. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely aspects like bitterness, smell, and unhealthiness when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children often focused on price; these desirable foods were simply too expensive. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and health effects (too much fat/sugar) also a factor. Some children could choose the food they ate, but some could not, whether due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking. For children in Ethiopia, short supplies of food and affordability were key factors, which prevented them from being able to access food they would like to eat. ‘Increase production, let the farmers supply directly to markets’ Challenges to Food Systems One core activity in the consultations was food mapping. Children mapped a food system around them, visualizing how food moved from the farm to the plate. Overall children demonstrated a deep understanding of food production, especially when it was a local staple food or meal. Children then reflected on what the vulnerabilities or weak points in these systems were. The main vulnerability voiced by the children was poor availability of food. Poor availability was due to minimal stock in the markets, distance from the farming areas, and problems with food distribution. Access to food is also significantly affected by poverty and disruption to food production by season/natural disaster. Another predominant concern was the poor quality of food due to water pollution, use of artificial fertilisers, and unhygienic market conditions. These concerns highlight once again how interconnected food systems are, with economic (e.g. high food prices) and environmental (e.g. flooding, low crop yields) frequently overlapping. Strengthening Food Systems Children completed activities designed to provide concrete suggestions for change at different levels of society, from family to community, industry, and government. They also wrote a “postcard to the President,” outlining key changes that need to happen and how children could input into these shifts. Many children saw potential in empowering communities to grow their own produce and learn more about sustainability. Farms and farming also emerged as a frequent theme, with children suggesting it should be promoted as a vocation and supported with financial incentives and training. Proximity of both food production and food consumption, as mentioned above, was a key concern. In response, children stressed that farms and markets should be local and accessible, moving from ‘far away to being close’. Many of the childrens’ suggestions strongly link food security with food autonomy: import less, regulate more, and invest seriously in local farms and infrastructure, producing enough cheap, nutritious food for all. Children in the Ethiopian sample suggested that key issues which needed to be fixed, included economic issues, political instability, infrastructure, and farming practices. ‘Fixup problems related to country economy...’236243244245247248249250251At the end of the workshop, the children engaged in a whole-group plenary discussion, where we asked them the key messages they wanted to convey to the UN. Overall, children felt the UN was responsible for ensuring food security, environmental preservation and ensuring equality. This was tied to understanding people’s difficulties, with special consideration for places and groups that experience greater insecurity and marginalization. The UN was also seen as an entity responsible for collaborating globally to bring about social change. Four key themes emerged from our workshops: 1. Education: the UN should teach people about climate change, environmental protection, recycling, food systems; it should raise awareness of food inequality and show people the benefits of nutritious and sustainable practices, like eating seasonally “further promote socialization about climate change, the food systems, and the 2030 SDGs, so that the world community is more aware of the condition of the earth” 2. Inclusion: the UN should listen to young people, create offline (e.g. forums) and online (e.g. platforms) spaces for them to share their views, collaborate with them, and involve them as government intermediaries “I hope UN continues to invite youths from various countries to participate in every activity because youths are the future leaders of nations. Let youths learn how to protect the world” 3. Regulation: the UN should regulate food production, establishing laws to tackle global warming, keeping food producers accountable, auditing programs to ensure compliance, addressing plastic and deforestation, and controlling chemicals/pesticides “UN intervention to countries must be more aggressive. For example, an international Environmental Impact Analysis seems to need to be agreed. Auditing food producers must be conducted from upstream to downstream.” 4. Support: the UN should support sustainable food production, strengthening infrastructure, enhancing distribution, and implementing programs that make food more affordable and accessible, especially for those most impacted by food poverty and climate change (e.g. indigenous communities) “support access to nutritious foods for low-income and vulnerable population”, “defend the rights of indigenous people”, “strengthen the supply chain of foods”237238239240241242243244245247248249250251Overall children were in agreement about the strengths and vulnerabilities of food systems, how to improve food sustainability, the issues that needed addressing, and the stakeholders that should be focused on. There were certainly different focal points. For example, some children focused on financial and educational support for farmers, while others focused on government legislation around food safety and food systems. But ultimately we see these as overlapping and supplementary, rather than divergent. To make food systems more sustainable and nutritious, a holistic approach will be needed involving a broad range of different actors and interventions.

2021-09-21 08:31:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31743/26277

514261460

Acting with urgency: Urgency was reflected on the selected topic, which is a burning issue for the food system in Greece, strongly affecting food quality, consumer choices and overall competitiveness of the agrifood sector. Commiting to the summit: Commitment to the UNFSS was reflected on all communication materials produced by the organisers (animation video, social media assets and posts, press release, Eventbrite page, Miro canvas) which ensured visibility of the UNFSS logo, hashtags, as well as dissemination of the five Action Tracks and objectives in the Greek language. Be respectful: Online meetings and a detailed brief for facilitators enabled the allocation of clear roles and the agreement of an online event etiquette which ensured active listening, respectful argumentation and co-creation throughout the Independent Dialogue. Recognise complexity: The experimental nature of the online co-creation process used for the Dialogue was identified early in the process, acknowledging limitations in terms of timing, technology and representativity of the participants in a co-creative discussion on Food Labelling for the first time in Greece. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Selection of a neutral Curator and guest speakers who shared insights from the policy, science, practice and civil society perspectives, as well as targeted invitations aimed to engage a wide range of food system stakeholders, considering both geographic, sectoral, gender and generational diversity. Complement the work of others: The topic was selected by recognised food actors from the politicy, science and activist sphere and was complementary to ongoing debates at national and EU level. Guest speakers acted as ambassadors of the Dialogue to decision making bodies, aiming to maximise impact and the sustainability of the Dialogue outcomes. Build trust: The Dialogue was organised by KOSMOS, a citizens initiative which is consistently advocating for the implementation of the SDGs in Greece and has gradually built trust with key sustainability champions in the countryThe Dialogue was based on a scientifically robust process curated by an interdisciplinary researcher and ensured the necessary political support of a Member of the European Parliament. A Focus Group of thematic experts was engaged in the organising team, ensuring diversity of opinions and insights to an admittedly complex topic, trust building across sectors and complementarity with ongoing research and political processes. The Principles of Engagement were reflected on the co-creation process, as well as the virtual facilitation tools that were used. Each discussion group was assigned a facilitator and a rapporteur, who received clear guidelines for successfully embracing their role: 1) Remember it’s not about them; 2) Provide meaningful questions instead of easy answers; 3) Practice active listening; 4) Help gather as many ideas as possible; 5) Remain objective. During group discussions, they welcomed participants, framed the topic and invited participants to share insights. After a first round of inputs, facilitators indicated emerging patterns of identified challenges and opportunities which led to concrete recommendations. Rapporteurs kept notes on the Miro whiteboard, ensuring that all inputs were adequately documented. The language and visual elements used in the communication materials of the Dialogue aimed to reflect the Action Tracks and objectives, while promoting an uncomplicated, inclusive and engaging setting for the discussion. Personal invitations addressed to key stakeholders by the organising team, wide press and social media visibility, the creation of a user-friendly online environment for the Independent Dialogue as well as a follow up with an evaluation questionnaire and the Dialogue outcomes were essential to boost engagement and build trust with participants. The Dialogue achieved the objective of putting Greece on the map of the UNFSS, while providing a safe space for unheard voices of key stakeholders to be heard, concrete challenges and opportunities to be documented and consensus on actionable recommendations to be reached.The Independent Dialogue requires careful planning of all organisational aspects (e.g. timing, tools, process design), taking into consideration the specificities of facilitating co-creation processes in virtual environments. The selection of the right day and time for hosting such an event is important, in order to engage the right stakeholders and ensure both quantitative and qualitative inputs to the Dialogue. The length of the event was consciously limited to two hours, acknowledging that a longer event during the Greek summer would significantly reduce the number of participants. Nevertheless, the evaluation questionnaire indicated that more discussion time would have been appreciated by most participants. Free online events tend to attract high registration numbers who do not necessarily convert into active participants on the day of the event. The event was organised assuming 50 percent no show up, and the methodology was set up in a flexible manner, so as to enable adaptation of group discussion numbers and size according to the actual number of participants connecting live. Our experience demonstrated that lower participation numbers can enable deeper interaction in smaller groups of 5-10 people, especially when break-out time is limited. The Dialogue was hosted on the popular online conferencing platform Zoom in order to facilitate sign in and online engagement. At the same time, the online whiteboard platform Miro was used for three group discussions, providing visual documentation of the key issues under discussion. Simultaneous use of such tools requires providing clear instructions during the plenary session and engaging a facilitator that can offer technical support in each discussion group. When engaging people of different levels of technological literacy, it is important to offer the option of following the discussion without having to log in to Miro, through the shared screen of the facilitator, and to foresee a “rapporteur” who keeps online notes while people exchange ideas.

Yes

234238239240241243244246247248249Creating food systems that provide healthy food to everyone today and in future generations without exploiting human or planetary resources is one of the greatest challenges of this century. Sustainability is multifaceted and food systems represent not only environmental factors (ecology), but are also sensitive to the health of the population today and in the future (nutrition, food security), and society as a whole (ethics and social welfare). Trust and transparency in the food system is essential for any sustainability intervention to be meaningful and motivate change in individuals or industries. Food Labelling Systems have the ability to accelerate the transition to sustainable and healthy food systems and a sustainable future, by increasing transparency along the food chain. They are themselves dynamic and complex, involving a multitude of changeable and inter-related activities, actors, and infrastructure from the production to the consumption and recycling or disposal of food. At every point there can be multiple environmental effects related to biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane), and the use of land, water, or other resources. All these factors complicate the ability to create a metric or index that can trace a product as it journeys through the food system to assess its environmental, health, or social impacts. Food consumption and dietary choices can make an important contribution to meeting current environmental challenges, informing the consumer in a way that can promote sustainable and responsible consumption. As a result, the development and use of sustainability labelling has the potential to play a role in moving towards sustainable and healthy food systems and a sustainable future, as outlined in the aims of the “Farm-to-Fork Strategy” and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The reach of food labelling is considerable and could increase public awareness of how food is produced and consumed. The Independent Dialogue convened in Greece in the context of the United Nations Food System Summit explored the issue of sustainable food labelling, under the lens of the Summit’s five interconnected Action Tracks. Being the only contribution of Greece to the UNFSS, the aim of the Independent Dialogue was to raise awareness of the Summit and the importance of food labelling in fostering sustainable food systems. Participants engaged in a participatory process on sustainable food labelling schemes that integrate the Summit’s five Action Tracks. To complement this process, a Public Survey (September to December 2021) is going to assess consumption habits and perceptions towards different food labelling systems in Greece. The outcomes of the Independent Dialogue and the results of the Public Survey are expected to provide useful insights for informing sustainable food system policy at the national and EU level.235238239240241243244246247248249The UNFSS Independent Dialogue in Greece has achieved three key objectives: 1) Direct contribution to the UNFSS as the only input from Greece. This is the first time that a perspective from Greece is officially submitted to a key UN sustainability event in an independent and bottom up manner.. In the absence of efforts to create awareness of the Summit by state officials, KOSMOS has developed a national Focus Group of experts to successfully organise the event according to UNFSS guidelines. 2) Bringing together diverse actors to discuss the role of Food Labelling in promoting sustainable food systems. This is the first public discussion on the topic of food labelling taking place in Greece, aiming to shed light on the existing key challenges and opportunities. The outcomes of the Independent Dialogue include concrete recommendations for advancing four UNFSS Action Tracks. These recommendations are applicable to Greece, but also have relevance to the international context of food systems sustainability. 3) Generating community-led insights for evidence-based policy making. This is the first time that an elected official from Greece (Member of the European Parliament) invites a citizen-led multi-stakeholder consultation connected to an official UN process. Through an open, participatory process and robust scientific support, the identified challenges, opportunities and recommendations provide useful insights for smarter and evidence-based policy making promoting sustainable food systems at the national and EU level. The intention of the organising team and the Focus Group of the Independent Dialogue is to continue convening as a Community of Practice, aiming to advance the UNFSS Action Tracks in Greece; generate new knowledge and evidence for the promotion of solutions for food systems sustainability; and advocate for better, evidence-based and science driven policy. In this context, it aims to launch an online Public Survey (September to December 2021) to assess consumer behaviours and perceptions on food labelling in Greece. The results of this Public Survey are going to be analysed and published in due course to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, therefore contributing to scientific knowledge and public awareness on the state of food systems in Greece. The Focus Group also commits to promote and expand the scope of the UNFSS Independent Dialogue, by addressing more topics and reaching out to diverse audiences in Greece and internationally. A report on the outcomes of the Independent Dialogue and launch of the Public Survey will take place during a dedicated event: “Thought for Food: Food Systems in the 21st Century”, taking place in Athens and online on September 24, 2021 under the occasion of the UNFSS taking place in New York.236238241243246247248249The role of Food Labelling in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all and advancing equitable livelihoods. Food is a life-giving element of every human on Earth, responsible for our nutrition and health. Millions of people work every day in the food system: whether it is in farms, in the sea, in logistics and supply chain management, in professional or home kitchens and even the street. Food is something much more than something that fills our stomachs, since the food economy is influencing the lives of billions and its performance is a key influencer of environmental sustainability, economic prosperity and social justice. Therefore, with its social and cultural dimensions, food is highly political, especially during periods of crises. The group discussion of the Independent Dialogue has identified a number of challenges, opportunities and recommendations for advancing the role of Food Labelling in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all and advancing equitable livelihoods. CHALLENGES - Difficulties observed in the certification process of small-scale producers, as a result of bureaucracy and lack of clear and consistent information available by official public authorities. - High certification costs cannot be afforded by all food producers or manufacturers, potentially generating inequalities and deficiencies in food labelling. At the same time, higher prices of certified products create the impression that they are luxury foods that can only be afforded by an elite and not by everyone. - Reduced awareness is connected to a lack of confidence towards certification agencies and the process of their accreditation. - Creation of short supply chains and direct connections between food systems stakeholders to reduce the consumption cost of healthy, nutritious food, while ensuring fair prices to the producers. - Aging farmer population and the associated digital gap is making the adoption of innovation and food certification and labelling schemes more difficult. - Need to democratise technological innovations, including ‘smart agriculture’ solutions, so they can benefit everyone and not just few technologically savvy producers and food systems actors. OPPORTUNITIES - Food labelling has the potential to promote consumer awareness on processes taking place in the different steps of food production, manufacturing and distribution. This can eventually have an effect in rewarding sustainable producers and manufacturers, while applying peer pressure for better controls and the elimination of unsustainable practices. - Better consumer awareness is connected to the need for harmonised terminology and a common language in communicating food certification, so that misunderstandings and false interpretations are avoided. - Technological innovations can strengthen transparency in the food certification process, promote synergies among diverse actors and efficiency in supply chains, while improving consumer access to sustainable and ethically produced food. RECOMMENDATIONS - Strengthening of the national Agricultural Knowledge & Innovation Systems (AKIS) to support food producers and other food systems actors in the transition towards sustainability, with emphasis on ethical production. - Promotion of Participatory Guarantee Systems for the development of local food supply chains and quality assurance systems, which promote resilience on the basis of active participation of stakeholders, social networking and knowledge exchange. - Support consumer awareness on food provenance, build trust and empower transparency by connecting food certification with digital producer profiles (i.e. QR codes, videos, mapping of farms) - Developing and expanding the role and scope of urban Agrifood Councils as liaisons between local authorities and citizens for the promotion of local, fair and sustainable food systems. - Empowering conscious and informed food choices through wide diffusion of information on food systems aspects, including familiarising consumers about food labelling and sustainability.236239243244246247248249The role of Food Labelling in shifting to sustainable consumption patterns. CHALLENGES - Building trust and strengthening the credibility of food labelling systems, by preventing misleading information and greenwashing practices observed by unsustainable and industrial food manufacturers. - Knowledge gaps are still observed among food chain actors on the role of food labelling and key sustainability criteria (i.e. meaning of labels, consequences and benefits of certain processes in human and environmental health). - Many food chain actors and consumers are still not familiarised with the use of ICT. Only mature and reliable technologies should be applied in food labelling systems, at a scale that can be adequately taken up by the sector. OPPORTUNITIES - Sustainable food labelling offers opportunities for the promotion of personalised diets and conscious consumption patterns in support of sustainable land use and farming practices. - Openly distributed information through appropriate food labelling is an integral part of sustainable consumption, by promoting a new approach to food and supply chains putting emphasis on local production-consumption systems, lower carbon footprints, trust and public engagement for improving individual food habits. - Strengthening traceability by integrating new open technologies in food certification and accreditation systems to enable wide diffusion of food supply chain information, including information on raw ingredients. RECOMMENDATIONS - Food labelling should enable sustainable food to become the easiest, most convenient and most affordable choice, with information conveyed in a way that is comprehensive and understood by everyone, including children. - Strengthening the role of formal and non-formal education in promoting food systems sustainability. Schools should introduce sustainable food education with the application of transformative learning concepts, equipping children with knowledge and skills to recognise and understand the food supply chain processes reflected on food labels. Non-formal education should focus on developing skills to all food chain actors with a special focus on consumer education on sustainable food labelling. - Upgrade the role of food labelling in creating new food sustainability cultures by connecting individual health with environmental safety and societal resilience. - Use of new technologies to increase direct connectivity and interaction among food systems actors. Special emphasis should be given to the potential of using personal mobile devices to promote consumer awareness and informed food choices (i.e. mobile applications and QR-codes linking to information on production and manufacture processes). - Promote transparency and the role of state controls in ensuring that food safety sustainability standards are publicly and clearly disclosed and regularly monitored for their performance in ensuring climate resilience, contributing to the national and local economies and reinforcing public health. The obligation to comply with environmental sustainability standards should not be left entirely to the “invisible hand” of the market, and market actors involved in food labelling schemes should clearly state any existing biases or conflicts of interests.236240243244246The role of Food Labelling in boosting nature-positive production. Food producers are holding the future of our food in their hands. They do not only support the competitiveness and sustainability of agricultural economies, but they are also the ultimate managers of our natural resources and the environment. Although they are a significant part of Greece's food supply chain, their incomes are under pressure and the countryside is becoming desolate. To accelerate the transition to sustainability, new actions and bold policies must be in place to ensure the future of food through a sustainable and fair production-consumption model. The group discussion of the Independent Dialogue has identified a number of challenges, opportunities and recommendations for advancing the role of Food Labelling in boosting nature-positive production. CHALLENGES - High costs related to food certification are preventing small-scale producers from presenting adequate food labelling in their products. - Gaps are observed in nature-positive food labelling schemes in Greece, i.e. there is no certification scheme for biodynamic or regenerative farming although early efforts for the introduction of new criteria exist. - Too many food labels might be overwhelming and confusing to consumers. There is a need for clear information about production practices to reach the consumer in an comprehensive and concise manner. - On-boarding food labelling schemes might generate scepticism to certain food producers who are resisting innovation. There is a need to build trust through increased transparency and awareness on the benefits of the certification process. OPPORTUNITIES - Supporting the transition to agroecology and organic farming and other forms of climate-resilient land use and agriculture systems. - Current high popular demand for nature-positive produced food is mainly manifested in the interest for agroecological and/or organic products from nature-positive farming systems. At the same time, consumers are also interested in the provenance of their food, with informed choices supporting shorter supply chains and local economies, where more benefit returns to their community. RECOMMENDATIONS - Financial support to small-scale, nature-positive food producers and manufacturers who cannot afford relevant certification, especially in view of new EU policies (e.g. Farm-to-Form Strategy) envisioning the increase of organic farming. - Create awareness on the positive effects and benefits of food labelling in support of agroecological and/or organic food that is produced in nature-positive farming systems. Consumers should be able to understand the production processes reflected on a food label. - Synergies with other sectors for mainstreaming food systems sustainability and nature-positive production, i.e. by integrating the UNFSS Action Tracks into cultural activities. - Introduction of stronger sustainability criteria in food labelling and relevant certification, i.e. biodiversity conservation and valorisation, local provenance, carbon footprint). - Introduction of more concise food labelling that is not overwhelming to the consumer and provides clear information about the production processes.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IndependentDialogueGreece_Table1.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IndependentDialogueGreece_Table2.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IndependentDialogueGreece_Table3.pnghttps://unfss-greece.eventbrite.comhttps://tinyurl.com/y5j8wkjc

2021-09-22 04:34:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39188/203

84111735192374618331431121211249128817117

Para incorporar y reforzar los 13 principios hemos realizado dos presentaciones los días 09/08/2021 y 10/08/2021 por zoom a las 6pm Hora Peruana, los flyers del evento su publicaron en Facebook, Twitter y Linkedin y se envió a sus respectivos emails el cuadro de los 13 Principios para dar a conocer antes del día principal, de igual modo los facilitadores durante el evento también les compartió el cuadro de los 13 Principios, se adjunta el cuadro como evidencia, durante el evento cada participante tiene que enfocar los 13 principios con los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible (0DS) o incorporar un principio numero 14 A.- Una ciudad sostenible y resiliente para tener una buena productividad en un sistema alimentario Tamara Quiroz Guzmán cd. Delicias Chihuahua - México Su enfoque con los Objetivos de desarrollo Sostenible (ODS11) Ciudades y Comunidades Sostenibles fueron con el Principio 3 (Salud de Suelo) Principio 9 (Valores Sociales y dietas), y Principio 13 (Participación) B.- La Ignorancia mundial está en cualquier tipo de género, que se desarrolla en la familia desde temprana edad, debemos ser empáticos para tener un mejor sistema alimentario y en la educación Su enfoque con los Objetivos de desarrollo Sostenible (ODS5) Igualdad de Género, fueron con el Principio 9 (Valores Sociales y dietas), Principio10 (Equidad), y Principio 13. (Participación) Fabián Romero Flores Tacna - Perú C.- Principio 6 Sinergia: No se ha dado importancias a los SAF (Sistemas Agroforestales) como sistema productivo como alternativa viable, económica, social, para los productores. Fomentar los SAF entre las comunidades o dueños poseedores de tierras y establecer más programas que garanticen el cuidado ambiental y sobre todo den alternativas al productor para una mejor alimentación y principalmente el bienestar social. Columba Martínez Hernández Ixtlán de Juárez Oaxaca México Reciclaje: Enfocado a ODS 12 Biodiversidad: Enfocado a ODS 15 Equidad: Enfocado al ODS 5 María Fernanda Olivas Guerrero Cd. Delicias Chihuahua – MéxicoSe refleja enfocar los 13 principios con 17 objetivos de desarrollo sostenible para concientizar a los gobiernos, sociedad civil y empresas privadas para un trabajo colaborativo para tener más acciones o soluciones en la década de la acción para no dejar a nadie atrás.En tiempos de COVID el aprendizaje de los 13 principios y los 17 objetivos de desarrollo sostenible es hora de actuar en la década de acción para no dejar a nadie atrás. Nuestro consejo es enfocar de las metas a las indicadores de los 17 Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para un aprendizaje del siglo XXI para una mayor ambición climática, una agricultura que vaya más allá de la mitigación y adaptación, el siguiente paso es una adaptación transformativa que va a enfocada a la transformación de la Agricultura.

Yes

234238239240244245246247248249251Tema Principal: Consumo Sostenibles con Soluciones basadas en la Naturaleza para garantizar alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos con enfoque a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. I.-En el tema principal nos enfocamos en el ODS 2 (Hambre Cero), ODS 12 (Producción y consumo responsables) y el ODS15 (Vida de ecosistemas terrestres) II.-Enfocaría la educación con un propósito de comunidades sostenibles resilientes productivas (ODS4) Educación de Calidad (ODS11) Ciudades y Comunidades sostenibles Tamara Quiroz Guzmán cd. Delicias Chihuahua – México III.-Enfocaría el desempleo en los jóvenes que impacta en el consumo (ODS8) Trabajo decente y crecimiento económico) María De Lourdes Tarango Arellanes IV.- Varios Participantes (Trabajo Colaborativo) Este tema es fundamental porque enfrentamos los problemas ambientales y de salud, en relación con los procesos de producción y consumo de alimentos. Producción y consumo que no afecte al medio ambiente. “Producción alimentaria sostenible” El proceso de suministro de alimentos debe ser funcional sin generar desperdicios y no afectar al planeta. (ODS 12) Producción y Consumo responsables, (ODS 13) Acción por el clima (ODS 3) Salud y Bienestar (ODS 17) Alianzas para lograr los objetivos (ODS 1) Fin de la Pobreza. Apoyar a los pequeños agricultores, para que generen diversidad de alimentos, considerando el clima, los suelos y el agua; y así reducir el hambre en la población más pobre. (ODS 1) Fin de la Pobreza, (ODS 2) Hambre Cero, (ODS 12) Producción y Consumo Responsables. Consumir alimentos nativos y sustentables que no afecten al ambiente y a nuestra salud: Verduras: espinacas, acelgas, calabaza tubérculos: camote, cereales: quinua, arroz, leguminosas: frijoles, habas, garbanzos semillas oleaginosas: linaza, ajonjolí. (ODS 1) Fin de la Pobreza, (ODS 2) Hambre Cero, (ODS 3) Salud y bienestar y (ODS12) Producción y Consumo Responsables Incidir en el consumo de alimentos sostenibles ya que ayudan a reducir la contaminación y usar menos agua, favoreciendo nuestra salud. (ODS 1)Fin de la pobreza, (ODS 2) Hambre cero, (ODS 3) Salud y Bienestar, (ODS6) Agua Limpia y Saneamiento y (ODS12) Producción y consumo responsables. Favorecer el consumo local, productos libre de químicos y concientizar sobre estos puntos a las comunidades. Desarrollar un enfoque latinoamericano, modelo de desarrollo desde las comunidades. (ODS11) Ciudades y comunidades sostenibles. Incentivar un Modelo de desarrollo basado en la calidad de la alimentación. (ODS 9) Industria Innovación e Infraestructura) Promover la creación de huertos urbanos donde las personas puedan acceder a alimentación de calidad, nutritiva y más barata. Fortalecer la vinculación con las autoridades, gobierno, universidades, diferentes instituciones alineado al (ODS 17) Alianzas para lograr los Objetivos. Promoción del consumo local y apoyar a los productores. Capacitar a las personas, instituciones y gobierno sobre los puntos comentados anteriormente alineados al (ODS 4) Educación de calidad. V.-Al respetar y conocer los ecosistemas logramos un mejor cambio para el mundo. ODS 4: Meta 4.7 e indicador 4.7.1 ODS 13: Meta 13.3 Indicador 13.3.1 ODS 14: Meta 14.1 Indicador 14.1.1 ODS 15: Meta 15.7 Indicador 15.7.1 ODS 16: Meta 16.1 Indicador 16.1.3 María Fernanda Olivas Guerrero Cd. Delicias Chihuahua – México235238239240244245246247248249251El ODS2 HAMBRE CERO se enfoca en los 3 pilares donde se interconecta o enfoca con los demás objetivos. Estamos en una Emergencia Climática Global, donde en todos los Países se ven afectados. 2.4 Asegurar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas de producción de alimentos y aplicar prácticas agrícolas resilientes. 2.4.1 Agricultura productiva y Sostenible 2.a Aumentar la cooperación Internacional 2.a.1 Gasto Publico Capacitar a las personas, instituciones y gobierno alineados al (ODS 4) Educación de calidad. 4.7 Conocimientos Teóricos y Prácticos para promover el desarrollo sostenible. 4.7.1 La educación para la ciudadanía y la educación para el desarrollo sostenible Producción y consumo que no afecte al medio ambiente. (ODS13) Acción por el Clima 13.3 Mejorar la educación, la sensibilización y la capacidad humana e institucional a la mitigación, adaptación y como nuevo la adaptación transformativa. 13.1.2 Numero de países que han comunicado una mayor creación de capacidad institucional e individual Fortalecer la vinculación con las autoridades, gobierno, universidades, diferentes instituciones alineado al (ODS 17) Alianzas para lograr los Objetivos. 17.16 Mejorar la cooperación regional e internacional Norte- Sur, Sur-Sur y triangular en materia de ciencia, tecnología e innovación y el acceso a estos y aumentar el intercambio de conocimientos 17.16.1 Numero de acuerdos y programas de cooperación en materia de ciencia o tecnología. ODS 15 Vida de Ecosistemas terrestres, opino que es muy necesario este ODS para la mejora de la vida humana, es tanto el daño que estamos creando hacia los animales por simple egoísmo de nuestra parte, y no vemos que los animales y los ecosistemas son parte fundamental del balance del mundo, pues con ellos logramos tener una vida más equilibrada y mejor, llevándonos a la paz y vida digna que tanto buscamos. María Fernanda Olivas Guerrero Cd. Delicias Chihuahua – México Promover una educación ambiental basada en la empatía y fundamentada en valores. Valorar el trabajo de los/las campesino(as). Andrea Venegas Sandoval Chiapas - México Capacitación social. Al tener capacitación social recurrimos a una empatía con el receptor, el cual tendrá una inclusión en su familia, en su dichosa estadía familiar, el capacitado, capacitará a su familia, incluyendo a su hijo, el cual funcionará como un soporte para el futuro social, esto me lleva al ODS, “acción por el clima”, cuando el progenitor esté capacitado, implementará sus propios ideales en la sociedad, creando cambios los cuales serán muy sustentables a lo largo de los años, creará ideas las cuales cambiaran el rumbo de nuestra naturaleza, realizando acciones que nos ayudarán a mejorar nuestra sociedad climática. Fabián Romero Flores Tacna – Perú236238239240244245246247248249251Aquellos que piensan que no tienen tiempo para tiempo para una alimentación saludable tarde o temprano encontraron tiempo para la enfermedad. Obrar responsable y sostenible, Alimentación y Nutrición Asegurada. Cuidar las cuencas en las zonas altas permite tener agua y mejorar la parte política en la legislación (ODS13) Acción por clima, (ODS16) Paz, Justicia e Instituciones Sólidas (ODS17) Alianzas para lograr los Objetivos. Antonio Apoyar a los pequeños agricultores, para que generen diversidad de alimentos, considerando el clima, los suelos y el agua; y así reducir el hambre en la población más pobre. (ODS 1) Fin de la Pobreza, (ODS 2) Hambre Cero, (ODS 12) Producción y Consumo Responsables. Capacitar a las personas, instituciones y gobierno alineados al (ODS 4) Educación de calidad. Una ciudad sostenible y resiliente para tener una buena productividad en un sistema alimentario y más agua para todos (ODS6) Agua Limpia y Saneamiento, (ODS8) Trabajo decente y crecimiento económico ODS11 (Ciudades y Comunidades Sostenibles). Tamara Quiroz Guzmán cd. Delicias Chihuahua – México Concientizar a la gente sobre la importancia de la nutrición alimentaria para el bienestar social y personal, de acuerdo a la gastronomía local y productos libres de químicos, de manera sostenible. (ODS9) Industria Innovación e Infraestructura (ODS3) Salud y bienestar (ODS2) Hambre Cero Columba Martínez Hernández Ixtlán de Juárez Oaxaca México Construcción de sistemas alimentarios saludables y sostenibles que respecten los limites biofísicos de los sistemas socioecológicos locales, que sustenten la soberanía alimentaria que conserven la biodiversidad a través de prácticas agroecológicas, y valoren los distintos saberes. Andrea Venegas Sandoval Chiapas - México El mundo es un nuevo futuro, un nuevo comienzo, el cual nosotros creamos. Somos una sociedad la cuál es efímeramente constante en los que nos propongamos, no dejemos que nuestras emociones nos consuman. ODS 1 ODS 8 y ODS 13 Fabián Romero Flores Tacna – Perú Como gobierno, dedicar gran parte del presupuesto nacional a la agroindustria regional y nacional; en síntesis, generar autosuficiencia agrícola. ODS 8 ODS 12 y ODS 17. Juan Diego Guillén Velásquez. Tacna – Perú El impulso a la educación ambiental, permite una agricultura sana, trabajo decente, reducción de contaminación y contribuye a un desarrollo económico y sostenible. ODS12 ODS8 ODS11 ODS13 Fabiola Iveth Ortega Montes Delicias, Chihuahua - México Con contratos de compra venta a productores se garantizan los precios justos Luisa Patricia Uranga Valencia Delicias Chihuahua – México Con una buena educación y el cuidado de la naturaleza se mejorara la nutrición de la población ODS2 ODS3 ODS15 Rocio Erika Bahamondes Pino236238239240244245246247248249251Ajuste a Principio 13 Participación activa Falta incluir instituciones de investigación y educativas. Ajuste Areas de Convergencia y/o Divergencia Nutrir a la gente (Nutrición Poblacional) Fomentar el rescate gastronómico cultural. Ajuste al Tema Principal Promover el consumo local mediante cursos y/o capacitación, etc. el consumo de productos naturales, resaltando el aporte nutricional Columba Martínez Hernández Ixtlán de Juárez Oaxaca México José Guillermo Almodovar Alvarado Durango – México John Alfonso Merino Yañac Lima Perú Bruno Fidel Carrasco Andrade Canton La Libertad Prov. Sta Elena – Ecuador Maria Teresa Huarcaya Lima – Perú Javier Bulnes Luque Cartagena España y México Marcela Vizcarra Maella Tacna – Perú Cyndi Paredes Peña Tacna – Perú Christiam Copaja Choque Tacna – Perú Alfonso Navarro Carvallo Tacna – Perú y Chile237238239240243244245246247248249251Clima y Biodiversidad Si no respectamos la naturaleza nos vemos afectados en el cambio climático Susana La fiscalización económica, a la hora de observar los indicadores se determina que no hay equidad e igualdad. Tamara Quiroz Guzmán cd. Delicias Chihuahua – México Clima y biodiversidad: Existen muchos monocultivos, introducción de especies exóticas y aprovechamiento de especies sin llegar a ser sostenible Producir alimentos o productos de necesidad básica, para las personas de manera más eficiente tomando en cuenta los recursos naturales sin llegar a dañar el ambiente Columba Martínez Hernández Ixtlán de Juárez Oaxaca México

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FAOSLIDES-1.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fao21.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fao22.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fao23.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fao24.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fao25.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fao26.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SECTOR.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fao7.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fao12.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4NJ1bIaH9g&t=249shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voEXFAbQHbg

Tema Principal: Consumo Sostenibles con Soluciones basadas en la Naturaleza para garantizar alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos con enfoque a los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. 2021-09-17 03:41:37https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FAOSLIDES.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FAOSLIDES1.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD_QLqf_Jcg&t=44s

2021-09-22 12:26:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39540/145

811323114301763130732220331114151112411141575

The UNFSS principles of engagement were applied in the design of the methodology, program flow, and selection of participants. Through member organizations of Scaling Up Nutrition-Civil Society Alliance Philippines (SUN-CSA PH), pre-dialogue focused group discussions were conducted with farmers, fisherfolks, and women’s groups in select municipalities. This enabled us to hear and gather insights from grassroots stakeholders even if only one or two of them could share their outputs at the virtual dialogue due to poor internet connection and technology barriers. Research and extension workers and program implementers joined the grassroots group representatives at the virtual dialogue. Around 61% of attendees work in the agriculture and nutrition sector where they represent various stakeholder groups, like small to medium scale farmers, small to multi-national businesses, local and international NGOs, academe, government institutions, private foundations and alliances, consumers, and the youth from rural, peri-urban, and urban localities. The main virtual dialogue included two technical presentations on: 1) food security and malnutrition problems in the Philippines; and 2) local data on food system drivers like socio-demography, economic situation, and access to agricultural input supply. These gave context to the ensuing discussions and emphasized the urgent need for collaborative actions to build more resilient local food systems. In the breakout discussions, participants talked, without prejudice, about the food system shocks and stresses they experienced related to climate change and Covid-19. Guide questions were designed to solicit local adaptation and mitigation strategies to combat these stressors and shocks with respect to local knowledge, context, and culture-specific innovations. Participants were asked of their commitments to help build resilient food systems in the next two to three years. They also identified existing partnerships, platforms, policies, and champions they could tap to pursue their commitment to build on the work of others.The Dialogue methods and invitation list were designed to be more socially inclusive of grassroots stakeholders who are often left behind in global events like this. We invited participants from a wide array of social, professional, and gender backgrounds to broaden the perspective during their discussion. The guide questions during the dialogue built the discussion towards what we can do in the immediate future to build more resilient food systems based on the lessons we have gained from our current food system stressors and shocks. It also served as a platform for grassroots stakeholders and professional development workers to learn of existing local innovations of other sectors and connect with other stakeholders for food systems transformative actions. Facilitators of the breakout discussions were oriented to be open and respectful of the different ideas that were shared by the participants. There were instances of varying opinions raised during the discussions but they were all heard and acknowledged. To minimize misunderstanding, the facilitators discussed definitions of common terms related to the respective groups they were facilitating. Participants were also encouraged to share their innovations/programs, especially their challenges, reflections, and learnings.It may be best to limit the discussion guide questions to two or three only, and the breakout session to 60 minutes, to give more time for plenary open forum. The open forum facilitator in the plenary should also be able to float discussion starter questions, based on what each group presented. These will give more space for initiating new partnerships across stakeholder groups. Invest time and resources to engage grassroots stakeholders and marginalized groups like women and youth via methodologies accessible to them. Make an effort to engage them since they may be shy to speak up, especially in a virtual dialogue. Although it is more tedious, they are among the fundamental actors of our complex food systems from which small positive changes could start and be scaled up; and, because they are the most vulnerable and severely affected by disruptions in our food systems. In the discussion groups, it is helpful to have one facilitator and a separate note taker to ensure that everything shared are captured – whether verbally or through the chat box. It is also helpful if the facilitator understands the local dialect of some of the delegates to enable them to express themselves in the language they are comfortable in. With Covid-19 still a major threat in most parts of the world, doing a blended style of dialogues may be considered to ensure safety and still maintain inclusivity. A virtual dialogue allows people from different parts of the country to participate, even though internet connection and facilities may be limiting. Therefore, there must be room for flexibility and provision of support for them. A face-to-face dialogue is especially helpful for grassroots stakeholders and it would be more helpful to have the support of their local government or local leaders when organizing the dialogue.

NoWe followed the recommended method but made some alterations. We also held a face-to-face focused group discussions (FGDs) with farmers, fisherfolks, and women’s groups in select municipalities. Conducted before the main dialogue, the FGDs were facilitated by member organizations of SUN-CSA PH: the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, Action Against Hunger, and International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. In the FGDs, participants watched a short video clip on Food Systems for Healthier Diets or did a reflection exercise to understand the Food System concept and their roles in the food system. Vulnerability, stress, shocks, and resilience were explained in the local language to set a common understanding. The UNFSS processes and objectives were also explained using the template from the Summit website. In 60 minutes, the participants discussed the following: 1) WHAT are the shocks and stress you’ve experienced and HOW were you affected by these? 2) HOW did you adapt to or mitigate these vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress? 3) HOW, in your capacity, can you contribute to building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress? 4) HOW could the government help to complement your existing innovations or proposed actions? Insights were collected as the grassroots stakeholders reflected on issues and their innovations. Three of them were selected to join the main dialogue. The main dialogue was convened by IIRR, in partnership with the Philippine Society of Nutritionist-Dietitians, Inc. (PSND), Philippine Coalition of Advocates for Nutrition Security (PhilCAN), SUN-CSA PH, and the PROLINNOVA Philippines Country Platform (PROLINNOVA). It was held virtually due to Covid-19 restrictions. Representatives from the youth, farmer and fisherfolk groups, research, extension and program implementors, and women’s groups were invited. In the main dialogue, the Philippines’ vulnerability to disruptions caused by climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic were explained. Hence, the dialogue focused on building local food systems resilient to such issues. The importance of engaging grassroots stakeholders was also emphasized since they are part of the smaller, local food systems that comprise the country’s complex food system. Three 10-minute presentations discussed the following: 1) the Food System Summit process and its five action tracks; 2) impacts of climate change and COVID-19 to our food system, and the economic and nutrition situation of the country before and during the pandemic; and 3) local data on socio-economic situation and access to agricultural input supply in select municipalities. The speakers urged that actions on the ground are more important than hundreds of dialogues combined. These presentations gave context for the discussions and called for the urgent need to collaborate to change how our food system is shaping, and redirect it to build resilience. The participants were then divided into four discussion groups: 1)Research, Extension and Program Implementers; 2)Farmers & Fisherfolks; 3)Women; and 4)Youth. Eighty minutes were allotted to discuss two sets of questions: Set 1 revolved around the questions discussed in the pre-dialogue FGDs and set 2 asked participants to identify a realistic commitment their organizations can make to help build the resilience of our food systems in the next two to three years. They were also asked to think of existing partnerships, platforms, policies, and champions they could tap to jumpstart their commitments. IIRR pitched for collaboration in its Gulayan sa Barangay (Nutrition-sensitive Community Food Production) Movement. The groups shared their outputs during the open forum. The moderator synthesized the current challenges and disruptions in our food systems into a framework (ANNEX 1) and cited some of the resounding commitments from the stakeholder groups. The framework emphasized that our food system could produce either positive or negative outcomes. Our commitments to help improve our resilience and scale out resilience-building innovations could help shape our food system towards sustainability and positive outcomes for the people, planet, and economy.

234238239242244246250The Dialogue was designed to catalyze discussion on how to build food systems resilience specifically against climate change and COVID-19-related stressors and shocks. Nonetheless, we also documented disruptions of other nature voiced out by the participants. The following are the top stressors and shocks frequently brought up across the different stakeholder groups, arranged from the most frequently mentioned: 1. Strong Typhoons 2. Disruptions in inputs and market supply due to COVID-19 related travel ban 1.1. Unemployment and business/operations shutdowns resulting from various COVID-19-related restrictions 1.2. Increased availability of highly processed foods from food aid and local markets (including and breastmilk substitutes from food donations) 1.3. Insufficient post-harvest storage and transportation facilities 1.4. Food insecurity brought by Covid-19 1.5. Insufficient supply of breastmilk for babies in key places like hospitals 1.6. Climate change affecting food production 4.1. Flooding 4.2. Landslide 4.3. Drought 4.4. Market sale and inputs price surges 4.5. Soil erosion and degradation resulting from unsustainable farming practices 4.6. Landlessness 4.7. Land conversion 4.8. Poverty Delegates from various parts of the country reckon experiencing more and increasingly stronger typhoons. They expressed that it destroys crops and livelihoods, undermining their efforts to produce and sell food, as well as community food production efforts like school gardening. It also impedes the transport of goods from one place to another. Along with degradation of natural resources, typhoons also damage fish breeding grounds through increased siltation. Participants also said that the COVID-19 community quarantine protocols disrupted supply chains. This exacerbated fluctuations in prices of inputs and commodities, especially fresh, perishable foods. As prices of goods increased, the purchasing power and access of consumers, especially for nutritious food, decreased due to sales losses, closure of businesses, and increased unemployment also resulting from the COVID-19 restrictions. Together with increased availability of highly processed foods and breastmilk substitutes from food aid and local markets, vulnerable groups are pushed further towards unhealthy and unsustainable consumption. Service delivery, research and humanitarian implementation were also hampered. All of these compounded and led to more people suffering from food insecurity, worsening health and nutrition status. Other food system stressors and shocks mentioned, although less prominently, include: I. Geophysical/meteorological ● Changes in seasonal patterns ● Red tide ● Taal Volcano eruption ● Loss of agricultural livelihoods II. Human-induced ● Disruption in research and data collection ● Separation of mother to infant due to confusing COVID-19 health protocols ● Marine habitat destruction ● Natural resource degradation ● Overfishing ● Conflict of business sector interest with breastfeeding promotion ● Change in socio-political leaders ● Trade policies favorable to influx of cheaper, imported food products (specifically coffee) ● Massive corruption ● Urbanization ● Spread of misinformation in social media; insufficient knowledge of general populace on food, nutrition, and sustainability ● Weak local government support on nutrition and agricultural needs (e.g., breastfeeding promotion and mainstreaming, farmers’ needs) ● Social discrimination (e.g., marginalization of farmers from market actors like middlemen, unequal access of women agricultural entrepreneurs to loans) ● Armed conflict ● Insufficient Irrigation infrastructure ● Consumer preference for imported vegetables III. Biological ● African Swine Flu235238239240242244248251Despite being in varying sectors, the commitments of the delegates fell under the following similar tracks: I. Train others to scale out resilience-building strategies and innovations: A. Climate-Smart Agriculture/Aquaculture (CSA) Delegates committed to scale out in their communities their innovations to adapt to climate change and COVID-19 impacts on our food systems. 1-Basiao Oyster and Mussel Fisherfolks Association (BOFA) committed to continue training other fisherfolks on the Raft Method - a climate-smart way of growing oysters. Samahang Magsasaka ng Barangay San Pedro 1, Sikap Coffee, Yakap at Halik Multi-Purpose Cooperative (YHMPC), and farmer-scientist Mr. Ed Silan also expressed their commitment to train fellow farmers on CSA practices such as crop and livestock diversification, rainwater collection, organic farming, and to keep their farms open for benchmarking visits. Sikap Coffee will continue facilitating learning exchanges with coffee farmers on new technologies for post-harvest processing of coffee. B. Community Savings and Credit Associations (COMSCA) COMSCA membership helped grassroots stakeholders develop financial resilience. It gives them access to loans to expand their livelihoods or recover from asset loss. The members of Samahang Magsasaka ng Barangay San Pedro 1 and the Barangay United Loans and Savings Association (BULSA) committed to invite more community members to join their COMSCA groups. Currently, BULSA members are mostly women but they expressed intent to invite men and youth as well. C. Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) EBF is a healthy and sustainable practice within the food system. Support groups like Breastfeeding Bicolanas, LATCH Los Baños, and Breastfeeding Care Center of the North (BCCN) commit to continue capacity-building activities and online learning-sharing exchanges among mothers on lactation and/or re-lactation practices. LATCH Los Baños is securing a long-term partnership with the Provincial Government of Laguna and the University of the Philippines-Los Baños (UPLB) to jointly implement Project BREAST (Breastfeeding as Response to Emergencies made more Accessible through Science and Technology) to jumpstart emergency-Infant and Young Child Feeding Practices (IYCF). They will conduct a province-wide training and re-training of community nutrition and health workers on proper IYCF during emergencies, including strengthening the local Human Milk bank they have established in Los Baños. II. Continue advocacy and awareness raising efforts on sustainable food production and consumption practices Youth organizations such as Slow Food Youth Network Philippines, Girl Scouts of the Philippines (GSP), OurND, and Masagana EcoFarms committed to continue efforts to promote and raise awareness on good nutrition habits, agrobiodiversity conservation, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and awareness and understanding of our Food Systems. They plan to do so via social media campaigns, podcasts, personalized dietary counselling, mainstreaming locally-available vegetables in menus offered, and other platforms. The commitment of GSP to raise awareness on Food Systems somehow matches the expressed need of some of the participants from the women and mother support groups – they hope there is a “one-stop shop” or repository where they can learn more about Food Systems and access relevant local-level data. The youth representatives from the Philippine Association of Nutrition & 4H Club committed to promote availment of needs-based health and nutrition extension services, and agro-entrepreneurship trainings offered by local governments, respectively. III. Conserve and propagate climate-resilient, local crops Women and farmer groups like First Pirico Farmer’s Association (FPFA), BULSA, YHMPC, and Farmer Scientists all expressed commitment to conserve and propagate climate-resilient, local crops by establishing community seed banks or Crop Museums in partnership with local governments, state colleges and universities, and NGOs. A Crop Museum is a decentralized nursery of climate-smart and nutrient-dense local vegetables that also serves as a learning hub for agrobiodiversity conservation. IV. Partnership building and collaboration with local government agencies and other organizations Almost all participating groups expressed they will explore and strengthen partnership with local governments and organizations to scale out their adaptation strategies. FPFA and the farmer COMSCA Group from Kidapawan, North Cotabato committed to partner with a local cooperative and the Office of Municipal Agriculturist (OMA) to expand their vegetable home gardening and tree planting activities. Samahang Magsasaka ng Barangay San Pedro 1 will partner with OMA to raise more resources for their community-shared facilities for raising native pigs while Modern Nanays of Mindanao commits to pursue its initial discussions with ThinkWell Institute about convening the various breastfeeding support groups in the Philippines. The Youth group announced plans to formally organize the dialogue’s youth delegates into a network of youth advocates for nutrition and sustainable food systems. They boldly called for other stakeholder groups who want to partner with them and support their committed actions. A few youth groups also committed to continue efforts to reduce food waste by collecting aesthetically rejected fresh produce and using it for community pantries and soup kitchens. BCCN also committed to continue serving as a watchdog to uphold the breastfeeding rights of women and children.236238239242244245246248249250251The participants mentioned a lot of food system shocks and stresses they experienced in recent years but they were able to develop adaptation and mitigation innovations to build their resilience. Climate change-related food system shocks & stresses usually damage the participants' livelihoods and assets and hampers transport of their produce, leading to fluctuations in price and supply of inputs and commodities. They adapted through the following: ●Adoption of Climate-smart agriculture and aquaculture practices such as: ○Planting windbreak trees ○Livelihood diversification with low and high-value aquafarming products and climate-resilient crops (like root & tuber crops) ○Installation of seawater exit canals towards the greater open water to let the algae (causing red tide) out of the fishing and aquaculture zones ○Mulching and raised planting beds ○Mangrove and forest rehabilitation ○Use of organic fertilizer and pesticides ●Installation of drainage slots and mini-dam or mini-impounding to control excess rain water and serve as water source during drought ●Development of climate change mitigation plans ●Accessing credit/loans from COMSCA groups ●Establishment of community vermiculture and composting facilities ●Organizing community members into support groups, farmer learning groups, or environmental stewards’ group ●Propagation and consumption of climate-resilient indigenous vegetables ●Selling of high-value aquaculture products to local consumers (albeit at a lower cost than export price) The COVID-19 pandemic also affected our local food systems such as disruption in supply chains, closure of businesses resulting in unemployment, hampered school, health service, and research operations, limited food access due to quarantine protocols, etc. The participants adapted by: ●Promoting and setting up community and backyard/home food gardening and promoting local vegetables for better food access amidst emergency situations and rapid urbanization ●Offering free online trainings/webinars and disseminating information materials on nutrition, livelihood activities, entrepreneurship, agripreneurship, breastfeeding, misconceptions about indigenous foods ●Setting up community pantries, or mobilizing local resources from general public to raise and distribute locally sourced fresh produce, health & nutrition information and food gardening materials ●Joining and inviting others into COMSCA or microfinance groups to access low-interest credit ●Collecting and re-distributing/donating excess food to impoverished communities ●Offering trainings on post-harvest processing technologies to reduce food waste ●Direct purchasing from farmers and fisherfolks through online platforms to help bridge the food supply chain gaps brought by the travel restrictions and market closures ●Setting up of human milk community depots: milk-sharing for infants needing breast milk supplementation and counselling for recipient families ●Follow evidence-based Maternal & IYCF practices during emergencies ●Meal planning and bulk buying for efficient and easy food preparation ●Transitioning research data collection activities into digital platforms ●Conducted corporate social responsibility activities during the pandemic Representatives of women and mothers’ support groups also raised concerns on human-induced stresses on the “First Food System” – breastfeeding. According to them, business/commercial interests affected nutrition messages. They took the following steps to protect and promote the right of mother and infants to breastfeeding amidst the pandemic and other emergency situations: ●Develop implementing guidelines to uphold adequate nutrition in the First 1000 days ●Strengthen community support and empower families and women on breastfeeding ●Conduct breast milk donation drive ●Network with mother support groups for re-distribution of donated human milk Some participants also voiced that they perform watchdog roles such as informing the local government on welfare status of communities and exposing corruption and demanding accountability from public officials to contribute in alleviating food system stresses caused by corruption and political issues.236238239242245248251Participants from various stakeholder groups expressed how they perceive the government could support and complement their local efforts to build resilience. These are summarized into five key functions: 1. Consolidate, coordinate and scale up good practices Participants deem it necessary to strengthen partnership with the government for additional support and guidance on their effort to build their resilience against food system shocks and stressors. They consider the government able and appropriate to harmonize and unify the various information management systems so that it is readily available at all levels (local, region, national). The delegates also think it is the role of the government to coordinate the efforts of various organizations working on specific target groups to unify and synergize interventions and prioritize the most vulnerable and reach far flung areas. One example of this is the partnership of LATCH Los Baños with the Provincial Government of Laguna and UPLB to establish community-engaged Human Milk Banks and to mobilize communities to prepare for and handle IYCF during emergencies. The government is seen as the appropriate institution to establish a platform for effective partnerships to facilitate institutionalization and scaling up of best practices for food system sustainability. There are already many good innovations, systems, and practices being done in the communities and local markets; they just need to be scaled up. 2. Policy and governance There are a lot of food system drivers that are beyond the control or influence of civil society stakeholders but under the authority of the government. For example, land conversion could be prudently managed through appropriate local government resolutions on land use. Trade and pricing policies hugely affect consumers and food producers, especially when supply of cheap imported alternatives becomes greater than local produce. Participants expressed hope for the government to control the prices of commodities and monitor fake imported products in favor of the consumers and local food producers. Relevant to the role of the government on scaling up resilience-building strategies, breastfeeding advocates expressed their request for the government to issue a policy on institutionalization of mother support groups in the communities like the policy on ensuring availability of community health and nutrition workers in every barangay. 3. Increase government investment Various civil society stakeholders also call for increased government investment on health and nutrition services, extension services, and personnel. They think it is appropriate for the government to invest in having “Agriculturist to the Barrios” – agriculture extension workers for every community, especially in last-mile areas. 4. Provision of Inputs, Infrastructure & Capacity Building activities The delegates perceive the government having a big role in providing essential agricultural infrastructure such as mini-dams, tractors and other heavy equipment. Specifically, they see the LGUs as key actors who can refer farmers in need of government support to national agriculture agencies if only they have a systematic profile of farmers in their municipality or city. This could also help in effective and efficient monitoring of aid given. The delegates also expressed the need to tap government agencies such as the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Science and Technology (DOST), and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to provide training for livelihoods and financial literacy among farmers and other vulnerable groups. 5. Accountability and transparency Last but not the least, the delegates clamor for accountability and transparency in our governments decisions and actions relevant to our food systems.237238239242246247250251There was no overt "conflict", but it is worth noting that one of the challenges faced by Breastfeeding advocates is the conflict of business sector interest, specifically of companies producing breast milk substitutes (BMS), with that of common good. Aid from BMS companies inevitably promotes BMS products that usually undermines the efforts of breastfeeding advocates to empower and equip women to continue breastfeeding even during emergency situations. The business sector expressed that they have been very active and involved in mitigating the impact of the pandemic on vulnerable groups but there is merit in considering how the BMS distributed, or at least the promotion of the brand, could discourage lactation or uplift the image of BMS over breastmilk. There was no further comment from the business sector on how they plan to align their efforts with the World Health Assembly targets on promoting exclusive breastfeeding for optimum child growth.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/UNFSS-Attachment-Annex.pnghttps://fb.watch/8aRfp0rXDr/https://www.facebook.com/events/854925311690298/?active_tab=discussion

2021-09-22 13:57:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42208/203

105

The panellists were chosen following multistakeholder and geographic representation. Presentations and discussions highlighted the complexity of the food systems and of cold chains.The dialogue brought together different perspectives on the cold chain and reflected multidimensional nature and complexity of the issue towards common understanding and complementarity.na

NoThe dialogue was designed in alignment with the methods and recommendations of the reference manual. There were two curators who also played the role of facilitators: one from UNEP Cool Coalition for Session 1 and one from UN FAO for session 2 Participants were appreciative of the performance of both curators/facilitators and richness of the dialogue. For additional details, please refer to Section 4

234238239242243244246248249The event aimed at highlighting the key role of sustainable food cold chains in ensuring food safety and security, reducing food waste and loss, mitigating and adapting to climate change preventing the depletion of the ozone layer. As such it related to several Action Tracks – AT1/ ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all; AT2/, shift to sustainable consumption patterns, and AT5/ 5 build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress - as well to the newly defined Action Areas of the UNFSS, in particular AA1/Nourish All People; and AA4/Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses. Another objective of the event was to demonstrate how the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, universally ratified multilateral environmental agreement, its Kigali Amendment, and its Rome Declaration on Sustainable Cold Chain Development can contribute to mobilizing and scaling up solutions for delivering sustainable cold chains. The Rome Declaration aims to foster exchange of information and strengthening cooperation and coordination among governments and other stakeholders in the area of the cold chain and the contribution of the cold to SDGs, and the Dialogue contributed significantly towards this objective.235238239242243244246248249A total of 20 organizations (from governments, farmer and industrial associations and international organizations) made contributions to the dialogue. They first discussed challenges related to the cold chain for food (and also vaccines) which demonstrated various facets of cold chains in the area of food and healthcare. The following key challenges in scaling up sustainable cold chain solutions in a meaningful way are as follows: 1) Poor awareness of food cold chains benefits among food chain and cooling sector actors at international and national level; 2) Access to cold chain is uneven both within countries and between developed and developing countries 3) A siloed approach to cooling and cold-chain development, resulting in a sub-optimal outcome, e.g. insufficient consideration to the close linkages between access to cooling and cold-chain services and access to sustainable, reliable and affordable energy; e.g. efficiency of sub-system instead of effectiveness of the entire system 4) Insufficient consideration to the multi-dimensional character of food cold chains development, resulting in benefits from food cold chains being available in a fragmented manner, e.g. the lack of coordination between the food and health sectors regarding the possibility to combine cooling action benefits ‘from farm to fork’ with those from “vaccine manufacturer to arm”. 5) Transition to from outdated and polluting existing technologies to ozone and climate friendly cold and energy efficient chain technologies due to the operational and commercial limitations of current more sustainable refrigerant options, insufficient skilled technicians in developing countries, underdeveloped or weakly implemented standards and regulations for safety and energy efficiency 6)Other identified challenges include paucity of robust evidenced based data and forecasts on impacts of food cold-chain, limited, research funding; 7) Projected growing project demand for more cold chains driven by the various factors which compounds these challenges but also present an opportunity. In the second part of the dialogue, the panelists presented various initiatives as scalable solutions for cold chains in the food sector and beyond. These included: -Overview of available more sustainable technologies (e.g. by Global Food Cold Chain Council, industries in EU and China), -Database model for cold chains to understand the cold chain extent in developing countries and to identify opportunities for expansion of cold chain benefits (e.g. by Bahrain and Paraguay with support of OzonAction), -Enabling strategies and policies to ensure better coordination and integrated approaches to cooling and cold chains for compliance with the MEAs (Montreal Protocol and Paris Agreement), agricultural development and achieving SDGs (e.g. India and EU) -Cooling for all needs assessments and National Cooling Action Plans (e.g India) -The Africa Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Cooling and Cold-Chain (Rwanda); -Best practices and lessons learned from projects on already available energy-efficient, low-global warming potential and ozone-friendly cold chains technologies and capacity building activities in specific sectors, i.e. supermarkets, including the role and instruments existing multilateral financial mechanisms to promote these solutions (UNIDO, AREA) -The role of the cold chain in health care ensuring more equitable and efficient roll of vaccinations programmes -Summary for policy-makers from case studies and status assessment on cold chains (Cool Coalition, CCAC,FAO, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP OzonAction). Participants agreed that sustainable cold-chains are key for improving human well-being, boosting economic growth and delivering socio-economic development through the SDGs, while simultaneously achieving the climate change targets of the Paris Agreement and Kigali Amendment to Montreal Protocol.236238239242243244246248249• Sustainable cold chain is critical for ensuring food safety and security, reducing food waste and loss, mitigating climate change and preventing the depletion of the ozone layer. • Further development of policies, strategies, plans and actions for sustainable cold chain needs: -robust systems-level thinking; - to enable logistics connectivity from farm to fork -needs-driven integrated approaches; -multistakeholder, multi-sectoral coordination; -cross-sectoral decision-making mechanisms; -collaboration at all stages of the sustainable cold chain development and implementation, including within the research community and through formal cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms within governments; and development partners, including the donor community; -robust data and sound comprehensive (including financial, economic, environmental, social and gender aspects) cost-benefit assessment are key to de-risk and optimize investments in sustainable cold chains • The Rome Declaration under the Montreal Protocol on “the Contribution of the Montreal Protocol to Food Loss Reduction through Sustainable Cold Chain Development” is an important platform for political commitments and actions for states and other stakeholders. Parties to the Montreal Protocol are encouraged to sign on to it if they have not yet done so. • The commitment to deliver on sustainable food systems transformation and sustainable cold chain solutions can help countries also deliver on the Kigali Amendment, the Paris Agreement and the SDGs. • Energy-efficient ozone and other climate-friendly technologies powered by renewable energy and integrated approaches and game-changing solutions approaches are needed for sustainable cold chain development. • Foster knowledge exchange at all levels, collection and dissemination of information and awareness raising on available and feasible solutions for developing sustainable cold chains are important. Initiatives such as the sustainable cold chain virtual exhibition, Global Food Cold Chain Status report, and further dialogues such as are useful tools in this regard. • Awareness raising required on a systems approach and multiple benefits of effective and sustainable food cold-chain • Technical assistance, capacity building and training required on use of cold-chain systems and low-GWP technology including deployment, operation and maintenance but also on logistics of an effective cold-chain • The synergetic benefits of sustainable cold chains to both the food and health sectors should be given due consideration in prioritising development programmes, in particular those related to post-pandemic response.237238239242243244246248249While there was some differences of opinion on what aspects to prioritise to scale up sustainable food cold chains, there were no major divergences as regards the challenges, ways to address them, and possible ways forward to make sustainable food cold chains happen for all.

2021-09-22 15:58:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/31377/203

1980321075061109854927142717212024923111173081513113365313

1. Act with Urgency: Disasters, conflicts and the global interconnected climate and biodiversity crisis, along with Covid-19, are exposing profound vulnerabilities in our food systems and societies in general. This Dialogue garners the latest thinking on how to understand, manage, mitigate and reduce multi-hazard risks and crises that threaten and affect the entire food system, from production to consumption, contributing to the rise in hunger and poverty. 2. Commit to the Summit: The Dialogue aims to contribute to the overall preparation of the FSS, and particularly Action Track 5 on resilience. Participants have identified the challenges, opportunities and good practices that have the greatest impact for building resilient food systems. 3. Be Respectful: Diversity and inclusion formed the foundation of the dialogue with open questions and smaller group work. Conversations between a diversity of stakeholders explored convergent and divergent views. 4. Recognize Complexity: Both our food systems and the systemic nature of risk are complex and interconnected. The discussions sought to unpack these complex systems into comprehensible elements with examples of risk management measures. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The Dialogue was open and actively sought the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including farmers, academia, climate and disaster risk management practitioners, UN agencies, donors, civil society, Indigenous People, women and youth voices, etc. 6. Complement the work of others: The interactive panel demonstrated how different institutions’ work can align behind the same common principle and convergence of narrative of actions. A main takeaway is that we cannot work in isolation. 7. Build Trust: Based on shared principles of accountability and transparency, the Dialogue provided a safe space for every participant to feel comfortable, using simple language in engaging and sharing their views and experiences.The whole concept and approach used to prepare and implement this global dialogue on resilience was based on the FSS principles. The Dialogue hosted a diversity of speakers and actors and tried to give more voices to farmer representatives who are on the frontline of multiple colliding crisis due to climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and COVID19 pandemic and other disasters and conflicts. The Dialogue was organized in a way to share and collect views from the numerous participants through more than 6 smaller group discussions and all addressing the same set of questions on: good practices, challenges and opportunities for multi-risk management in agri-food systems. The Independent Dialogue on resilience embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by including panel members with diverse expertise on agricultural resilience and sustainability, disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, food production, processing, distribution and consumption, finance, policies, and inclusivity. More than half were women and there was geographical balance across regions. The event brought together participants from these multiple sectors because UNDRR, FAO and WFO recognize the complexity of food systems and multiple and systemic risks, which requires all actors to understand the issue from a lens beyond SDG 2: Zero Hunger. Building inclusive, resilient and sustainable agri-food systems is central and urgently needed to deliver the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework and the overarching 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with all stakeholders' voices amplified.The Principles of Engagement are a critical component that can serve as the guiding ethical metrics for an engaging and inclusive dialogue. The FSS Principles of Engagement are also in line with those of the UN Common Guidance on Building Resilient Societies (available at: https://www.sparkblue.org/basic-page/un-common-guidance-helping-build-resilient-societies) and should be further promoted in the context of protracted crises and fragility situations in order to leave no one behind. It is therefore important to incorporate them early on in the Dialogue planning process, with a check-list of criteria and also advice on different types of tools or techniques for promoting open and participatory conversations, where no one feels excluded in the way conversations are facilitated and conducted.

Yes

234242244245246249250251The main focus of this Independent Dialogue was on the Action Track 5 on Resilience. An array of familiar and unfamiliar risks deriving from vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses are jeopardizing food systems and forcing millions to face hunger and acute food insecurity. Global crises such as COVID-19, the climate emergency, pollution, biodiversity loss and conflict are aggravating food insecurity and posing an existential threat to both humans and ecosystems alike. They starkly demonstrate the systemic nature of risk and the need for comprehensive risk management for strengthening resilience across systems, and especially for agri-food systems. Food systems are particularly vulnerable and at risk from various shocks (disasters, crisis or conflicts) and stresses (slower and often less visible threats or changes) with grave consequences, as the unfolding climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic are starkly demonstrating. When food systems fail, millions of people bear the consequences in terms of food insecurity, malnutrition, hunger, disruptions of value chains and livelihoods, with cascading impacts on health, education and the economy but also human rights, peace and security. Systemic risk threatens all pillars of sustainable development – social, environmental and economic – and hampers global progress towards achieving Agenda 2030. The UN Food Systems Summit - through its Action Track 5 on Resilience - offers a timely opportunity to focus on the multiple risks, crisis and fragilities underpinning food systems and to regenerate and transform these systems in order to better respond to the growing needs of people and ecosystems. To this end, comprehensive climate and disaster risk management is a critical means to making food systems – and agri-food production in particular – more resilient. Risk reduction can protect development investments in agriculture (including crops, livestock, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry), as well as markets and transportation, ecosystems, consumption and nutrition as well as child and maternal health. From production to consumption and disposal, the sectors and systems that support and connect food systems and food security are highly integrated. If risks at producer-level are not effectively managed, this can have cascading effects across all components of the food value chain, potentially leading to overall food system failures. Adopting a comprehensive risk management approach, including for climate resilience and a green COVID-19 recovery process, would deliver healthier, more resilient, inclusive and sustainable agri-food systems. Comprehensive risk management therefore plays a vital role for ensuring one of the basic human rights – the right to food, freedom from hunger and access and availability of healthy and nutritious and balanced diets. The Independent Dialogue convened by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), the World Farmers’ Organisation (WFO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) offered a unique opportunity to come up with concrete solutions and urgent transformative actions to mainstream comprehensive risk management approaches for resilient agri-food systems, which, in turn are vital for achieving the 17 SDGs and the targets of the Sendai Framework. More specifically, the Dialogue sought to unpack the systemic nature of risk in relation to food systems and encourage innovative thinking in identifying, managing and preventing the complexity of multiple and often cascading risks and crisis that threaten and affect the resilience of food value chains. Discussions centred on the intersections between disaster risk management and climate change adaptation in the agricultural sectors as a key solution towards disaster and climate-resilient and sustainable food systems, with farmers and youth at the centre of transformative action.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Overarching key messages of the Dialogue: 1. There is a widely-recognised need to better understand multi-hazard, complex and cascading risks in agri-food systems and adopt integrated and multidisciplinary approaches centered on the shift from crisis and disaster management to risk management for resilience. 2. We need to recognise risk prevention as an investment, not a cost. 3. A multi-hazard, comprehensive risk management approach is essential to tackle the mutually reinforcing impact of climate change and disasters on agricultural production and food value chains 4. Today, a suite of farmer-driven good practices and tools are available for comprehensive risk management in agri-food systems. Actors committed to building resilient agri-food systems need a shared narrative on resilience building in order to connect these risk management measures and build on synergies and complementarity by forging partnerships and collaborations on for example: risk monitoring and actionable early warnings, risk governance and capacity building, risk transfer (insurance and social protection), nature-based solutions, risk proofing of infrastructure, emergency preparedness, anticipatory action and response, etc . Specific messages from opening panelists: Sandrine Dixson-Declève - Co-Chair UN Food System Summit Resilience Action Track 5 and Co-President Club of Rome: Interconnected global crises are unfolding and we need to craft the mechanisms that need to be in place to deal with all these different emergencies. These are planetary emergencies and need to be addressed through risk management lens for resilience building, in line with the Paris Agreement, the Convention on biodiversity, the Sendai Framework, integrating all elements of the agriculture food value chain, from producers to consumers and for the overall achievement of the 2030 agenda. Mami Mizutori - Special Representative of the Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction and Head of UNDRR A thorough understanding of the contemporary risk landscape is key. Risks are interconnected, cascading, not linear and long lasting. We therefore need to transition from siloed approaches to risk management towards new, innovative multi-hazard, multi-disciplinary and multi-sector innovative risk management interventions. We need a paradigm shift, from managing disasters to managing disaster risk, through comprehensive risk management. Building resilience is also about identifying the most vulnerable, giving them a voice in the making and implementing of strategies for DRR. Communities need to be given a central role, through a whole-of-society approach. Arianna Giuliodori - Secretary General, World Farmers’ Organisation Farmers are resilient by nature. Their risk-coping strategies, ecosystem services and economic agency must be seen as part of the solution. In order to boost farmers’ pivotal economic, environmental and social role, partnerships are a game-changer. Rein Paulsen – Director, Office of Emergencies and Resilience, FAO The latest analyses from FAO and others signal a deeply concerning global rise in acute and chronic hunger and malnutrition. The convergence in our messages here today illustrate that this is an urgent issue which needs a transition from responding to crisis to managing risk, from crisis response to multiple risk management. We urgently need a shared understanding of the risk around us. We also need to recognise there is no magic bullet, but the need to bring together preventive, anticipatory action; we need to be able to absorb and adapt, as well as to transform agriculture and food systems, all essential for resilience building. Romina Cavatassi – Lead Economist and Head of Impact Assessment, IFAD Finance can be mobilized to support transformation by redirecting capital into a circular economy, moving beyond agriculture into a system approach that can include the whole food system and invest in environmentally sustainable models of agriculture and food systems. Integrating risks and building resilient food systems implies (i) coordination, (ii) innovation in blended finance and private sector involvement, (iii) include and expand CSO to guarantee ownership and sustainability over time; and (iv) incentives such as paying ecosystem services, loans with environmental conditions, insurance connected to environmental management. Vulnerabilities are higher for people that are often marginalised; therefore, transformation should ensure inclusion, putting nutrition at the center of transformation pathways. Terry Otieno – Youth Secretary, Kenya Red Cross Society and Global Focal Point, UN Major Group for Children and Youth 16-18% of the population of the world is youth and holds a unique potential to boost food systems transformation. An empowered youth can support resilient agri-food systems. The youth holds the key to transformative innovations for food systems resilience, including technological, policy, and cultural innovations. Breakout Groups: Six breakout groups discussed and shared their views around three same questions around main actions needed to build food system resilience. Acknowledging that we are not starting from scratch, the groups took stock of existing good practices as well as the challenges and opportunities to manage multiple risks along the food system. Below are the key takeaways from the lively discussion and summary made by each group.236242245248249Breakout Group 1 Good practices: There is a wealth of risk management, prevention, mitigation and reduction practices employed at farm, food value chain, local, country or regional level. Some examples are: - providing fortification of seed varieties - promoting diversification of livelihoods, agroforestry and value addition for better returns on investment - promoting consumer awareness for sustainable and climate-neutral production - targeting rural women - promoting natural infrastructure that conserves and enhances ecosystem functions Challenges: Food systems resilience is challenged by multiple factors: - resource constraints for targeted action - lack of dedicated policies - an overall gap in the understanding of risk along the food value chains and entire food system. - lack of functional safety nets or dedicated schemes such as climate insurance, land management practices or risk proofing of infrastructure - farmers’ risk-aversion Opportunities: There is a unique opportunity for the Food Systems Summit outcomes to be translated into practical actions. What is needed to strengthen food systems resilience is a package of actions that include: - scaling-up insurance, mentorship and longer-term engagement with farmers - promoting consumer awareness on safe, fair, climate friendly, nature positive and healthy food - risk-proofing of agricultural production and value chains - policy is paramount: need to improve local-level policy making and integrate it at the national, regional and global level - legislative measures are needed to promote human rights and environmental due diligence - engaging with the private sector to tackle risks in food systems - using climate funding to build a comprehensive risk management approach236242243244248249251Breakout Group 2 Good practices: Multiple projects and initiatives exist that are already boosting food systems resilience: - Agronomic practices such as greening, crop rotation, agroforestry, etc. - COVID-19 response programmes that target and deliver information to farmers - Communication and awareness campaigns on disaster and climate risk management - Public-private tools such as crop insurance, market observatories, etc. - Integrating risk management in agricultural business planning Challenges: Some of the challenges that cripple risk management for food systems resilience include: - Lack of coordination and inclusivity among farmers - Lack of adequate technology, training and financing for risk management - Costs of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction can be too high for farmers, especially for young farmers; - Shift of mindset to see prevention as an investment not a cost Opportunities: - Investing in knowledge and skills to grow farmers’ policy leverage at national level - Using the potential of the digital and online age to not leave anyone behind - Leveraging on the youth dividend for DRR solutions - Employing risk management practices to improve market stability - Acknowledging farmers’ central and active role in co-building resilient and sustainable food value chains236242243244245246248249Breakout Group 3 Good practices: There is a solid foundation of good practices for agricultural risk reduction and food systems resilience, that can be scaled-up and built on. These include: - Timely and reliable Early Warning Systems and dissemination of weather information to farmers - Holistic community-centred approaches that build resilience in a multi-disciplinary way through integrated technical, financial and social interventions - Risk-transfer mechanisms such as crop weather insurance - Multi-actor partnerships for agricultural risk management Challenges: The most notable challenges for building food systems resilience are centred around data, capacity, policy and fragility contexts. Most notably: - Insurance schemes need reliable, granular and timely data on loss and damage at household level, which is not readily available; gender-disaggregated data and geographical coverage present a particular challenge - Farmers lack capacity and need further support to implement disaster and climate risk management practices, environmental conservation, natural resource management techniques, etc. - Fragile contexts with chronic instability are particularly challenging and require tailored approaches for food security and safeguarding agri-food production. Opportunities: - Agroecology and approaches that value natural resources and local knowledge are key opportunities to scale-up food systems resilience - It is important to tackle the root causes of vulnerability to climate and disasters, which are often anthropogenic - Building partnerships and mainstreaming comprehensive climate and disaster risk management into all planning and policy processes, development interventions, NDC and SDG implementation, etc. - Having feedback mechanisms and impact assessments that involve farmers and other supply chain actors and allow for iterative improvements and adjustments of risk management measures.236242244245248249Breakout Group 4 Challenges: - Emphasis on disaster risk management in a multi-risk context: coping with compound disasters and complex emergencies - Using comprehensive risk management to also tackle slow-onset disasters, such as desertification, sea-level rise, drought, etc. - Lack of DRR technical capacities of farmers and communities. - Lack of forums or platforms for discussions and exchanges of good/best practices - Lack of resilient varieties for crop production - Risk management practices do not cover the entire value chain, which poses limitations to farmers when dealing with risk and disaster impact - Poor land management practices pose a challenge in many Sub-Saharan African countries Opportunities: - COP26 presents a key opportunity for discussion around comprehensive risk management for resilient food systems; farmers need to have a seat at the table during climate discussions - Micro-insurance offers a viable solution for farmers; financial and micro-credit institutions need to be involved in discussions about dealing with risk for building resilient agri-food systems.236242244248249251Breakout Group 5 Good practices: Multiple examples confirm that a variety of good practices for food system resilience exist at local and national level. These include: - Using science, research and development to provide evidence-backed solutions to the needs of farmers - fostering public-private partnerships to build community resilience through: extension services, digital information solutions, business development, trainings and risk management interventions Challenges: - Environmental and climate considerations are often not incorporated in development projects and interventions - Farmers should be seen as economic agents, with sound risk-coping strategies and ecosystem services form part of the essential solutions - Disaster response is prioritised over risk reduction Opportunities: Opportunities to build food systems resilience should focus on addressing the root causes of vulnerability, including: - Supporting women as key but vulnerable actors and exposed to different risks in agri-food production - Supporting peacebuilding as an essential component of resilience building - Moving from policy to implementation of comprehensive risk management actions - Bridging funding gaps and boosting absorptive capacities for comprehensive climate and disaster risk management projects/programmes236242243244248Breakout Group 6 Good practices: - Grassroots-level involvements with farmers are integrated in project delivery - Women’s network provides awareness and education on climate change and climate smart agriculture that can mitigate damage caused by climate extreme events. - Screening of local varieties and best performing seeds with local farmers and scientist together - Social/environmental/climate strategies integrate multiple risk management approaches across sectors - Ecosystem based adaptation as part of the broader set of Nature-based Solutions are critical multi-risk management tools or interventions Challenges: - Risk from chemical agriculture and GMO seeds and food safety with contamination of nutritious food along the value chain. - Issues on transhumance are not considered properly in the agri-food systems resilience - Farm-level adaptation practices have the potential to negatively impact the ecosystems - Centralisation of national meteorological agencies makes it a challenge to reach smallholder farmers on a sub-national level - Farmers are risk averse, the fear of failure is increased during current crisis and hindering opportunities for innovation. How to find ways to cushion and encourage the innovation process Opportunities: - Farmer organisations should communicate directly with other food value chain actors in order to allow local production to reach local markets - Improving access to technology - Ensuring that adaptation is always beneficial to the ecosystem - Improve access to climate finance, especially for those most at risk and vulnerable - Developing multi-stakeholder partnerships towards comprehensive risk management - Rise in legislative measures that promote both human rights and environmental due diligence. This is an opportunity to work with private sector to tackle risks from sourcing and productivity cycles237242The Global Dialogue on resilience demonstrated a high level of convergence and agreement among panelists and participants. There were no areas of divergences.

2021-09-22 16:38:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/30133/203

100

We organised this dialogue in respect of the Principles of Engagement of the UN Food Systems Summit, by ensuring that the topic discussed and the panel presentations contributed to the vision of the Summit, promoted sustainable food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, and embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity.The Dialogue focused mainly on nutrition and gender equality in food systems transformation through a rights-based approach. The Principles of Recognizing complexity, Embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, Complementing the work of others, and Building Trust were greatly reflected in the Dialogue as the panelists and participants were invited to contribute to the following objectives: 1) Promote good nutrition for women and girls, both as a critical pathway for resilience to COVID-19 recovery and to realize the fundamental human right to health and nutrition. 2) Catalyze support and understanding of the human right to safe, affordable, and nutritious foods and grow momentum for policy reform and coordinated health and food sector actions to accelerate progress towards the WHA targets to propel the nutrition agenda forward into 2021 and beyond, with women and girls at the center. 3) Inform Members States on how health and food systems work together to deliver good nutrition for all and inspire them to step up to the 2021 Year of Action agenda and announce bold, SMART commitments to women and girls’ nutrition at UNFSS and N4G Summit. Moreover, the principle of multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced by a diverse set of panelists, including: Terry Otieno, youth leader from Kenya; Kazi Zebunnesa Begum, Bangladesh SUN Country Focal point, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; Inger Ashing, CEO of Save the Children International and member of the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement Lead Group. As a well as diverse set of moderators experienced in bringing different perspectives in an inclusive way: Boitshepo Bibi Giyose, Senior Advisor food and nutrition security at NEPAD Agency; Saskia Osendarp, Executive Director Micronutrient Forum; Mike Khunga, SUN Youth Leader for Nutrition and member of the SUN Civil Society Organisation Nutrition Alliance in Malawi; Asma Lateef, Policy and Advocacy Lead, SDG2 Advocacy Hub Simultaneous interpretation into French and Spanish was provided to guarantee an inclusive participation from different parts of the world.We encourage all Dialogue Convenors to be mindful of diversity and inclusivity principles, ensuring the most vulnerable groups are meaningfully engaged in key processes and discussions that affect them particularly. We also invite Dialogue Convenors to ensure good governance and accountability are central to the discussions so that commitments are followed up on and connections made with other milestones such as the COP26 and processes such as the N4G commitment making registry.

NoThe Independent Dialogue with the International Coalition for Advocacy on Nutrition (ICAN) and Scaling Up Nutrition Civil Society Network (SUN CSN) co-organised a constructive multi-stakeholder dialogue between civil society, youth, Government, UN and the Private sector focusing on nutrition in women and girls, through three key pillars: women and the 1000 days window, human rights and accountability, and women as economic actors. The focus and agenda of the event were curated with the participation of and inputs from all the different constituencies. We set up a moderated panel session in plenary about the importance of addressing malnutrition amongst women and girls to support sustainable food systems, health, people and planet, followed by three breakout groups focusing on the selected cross-cutting themes related to women and girls’ nutrition. Facilitators of the breakout rooms were encouraged to create a safe, positive and engaging space allowing the different voices and perspectives to be heard. This meant in some occasions managing participants who tended to dominate the conversation to allow others to speak, ensuring different viewpoints to emerge in a meaningful way. The diversity of participants coming from different countries, socio-economic backgrounds, organisations and of different ages brought a multi-faceted approach to the discussion, including on the root causes of and solutions to address gender inequality and malnutrition from one context to another. The discussions underlined the complexity of these two interlinked issues, unearthing the need to address them in a multi-pronged and context-specific way. However, while one solution doesn’t apply to all, participants overall concurred to the urgency of addressing the issues concurrently and came up with consistent recommendations which are aligned between themselves, as well as with those shared by ICAN and SUN CSN in advance of the dialogue (see joint advocacy resource SEIZING MOMENTUM: Amplifying Nutrition at the UN Food Systems Summit, available at: https://thousanddays.org/wp-content/uploads/Seizing-Momentum-Amplifying-Nutrition-at-the-UN-Food-Systems-Summit_FINAL.pdf)

234238239240241242243245246247249251The UN Food System pre-Summit in July and Summit in September are key pledging moments along the N4G Year of Action and offer timely opportunities for Member States and other duty-bearers to announce new financial and policy commitments to help close the $8.7 billion annual gap that remains to drive progress against the 2025 World Health Assembly targets. The tragic consequences of malnutrition in women and girls are entirely preventable, and we have the evidence and tools to advance good health and nutrition in women and girls, and empower communities to prosper. The emerging solution proposals coming out of the UN FSS action tracks 1 and 2 that support ending anaemia, breastfeeding support, and promoting women’s leadership in food systems must be coordinated through both health and food systems to deliver effective impact for women and girls who are the most at risk of being malnourished. The UN Food Systems pre-Summit represented a key milestone in generating momentum towards the upcoming major pledge-making moments. Yet, while civil society recognises the efforts made in bringing gender and nutrition on the agenda, the opportunity to reinforce the linkages between the two issues and how to effectively address them through integrated health and food systems, was greatly missing. This needs to be addressed at the UNFSS itself, with major commitments stemming from the discussions, and proper alignment to the Nutrition Accountability Framework and commitment mobilisation towards N4G. For that purpose, the International Coalition for Advocacy on Nutrition (ICAN) and the Scaling Up Nutrition Civil Society Network (SUN CSN) convened a multi-stakeholder dialogue welcoming duty-bearers and key stakeholders across health and food sectors representing governments, civil society, and donors to this UN FSS Independent Dialogue who presented the multi-sectoral and double-duty nutrition actions to support SMART commitments towards the 2021 Nutrition Year of Action. The event convened a panel of a range of experts, advocates, and commitment-makers to discuss the coordinated solutions for delivering better nutrition and health for women and girls to realize the human right to good health and nutrition. Each breakout room examined the relevant Action Tracks of the Summit and links between the levers of change. The discussions in breakout rooms specifically focused on the following points: 1- Women and the 1,000 days window, The role of good nutrition for women Building better political and social environments to support good nutrition Opportunity to link in game changing solutions around breastfeeding and anaemia 2- Human Rights accountability, Reporting and accountability frameworks Outcomes of UNFSS and delivering on commitments Links with right holders - e.g. Educating smallholder farmers on their rights 3- Women as economic actors. Good nutrition and empowering women Education/health outcomes of women and girls Opportunity to link game changing solution around women’s leadership in food systems Women smallholders - prioritising their nutritional needs, support them in growing, selling nutritious foods, and their agency Investing in women-run SMEs/cooperatives in the food systems235238239240241242243245246247249251Overall, speakers and participants agreed to the need for elevating the role of nutrition and gender equality as key levers in the food systems transformation equation across the UNFSS agenda. Good nutrition requires a healthy and diverse diet that derives from healthy soils and biodiverse terrestrial and ocean ecosystems. Gender equality requires transformation in the power imbalances affecting women and girls, equitable service provision (food, health, education, etc.), and an end to harmful traditional and cultural practices, coupled with an enabling policy and legal environment where women and girls have agency of their choices and a space to exercise their rights. Orienting our food systems towards delivering good nutrition, and changing our mindsets in favour of women and girls, is thus healthier, more equitable and more sustainable for both people and the planet: a clear win-win across all agendas and a must-do to put all countries back on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. More specifically, breakout group discussions unearthed specific challenges and recommendations as summarised below: ​​1- Women and the 1,000 days window: The first breakout room discussed the importance of the 1,000 days window for women’s nutrition. They agreed on the health benefits of breastfeeding for women and children, and on the need to empower women, by making accessible all the information and scientific knowledge they need to make the best-informed decisions for themselves and their families, according to their own circumstances. The group also discussed social norms and behaviour change, and the common challenges, including the lack of accessibility of information at the community level, lack of translation, misinformation spread across social media and marketing that contradicts the value of breastfeeding in the 1,000-day window. The group specifically recommends governments to promote enabling environments for allowing women to make the best-informed decisions for their own health and for their families. 2- Human right and accountability: The second breakout group discussed the need for an effective accountability mechanism to track countries’ progress in the realisation of human rights, as part of their commitments to enhance food systems. It has been agreed that many countries have unfortunately not sufficiently promoted, fulfilled and realised the right to adequate food, and that nutrition interventions are often confused with tackling hunger. Malnutrition and hunger affect countries in many different ways: the groups discussed how overnutrition, undernutrition and anaemia affect populations differently. The group agreed that the existing accountability mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), are not sufficiently used to track progress on the right to adequate food, and are not adapted for being used at a country level. The lack of integration of human rights in the agenda of the UN Food System Summit was often mentioned. The group agreed that the affordability and availability of nutritious food, as well as the social and economic underlying causes of malnutrition and hunger, are the main issues to be solved, to achieve the realisation of the right to adequate food. The violation of farmers’ land rights and the issues of commercialisation and profits of nutritious food, which are not being shared appropriately with farmers and producers, have been raised as fundamental concerns that governments and the UN Food System Summit should address. 3 - Women as economic actors: The third breakout group discussed the barriers and solutions to women’s agency over their economic choices and perspectives, and the impact on nutrition. Participants covered issues faced by women when it comes to providing nutritious foods for their community and family, exacerbated by the impact of COVID-19. Women compose the majority of smallholder farmers and remain the most malnourished, which in turn affects their economic activity. In some contexts, women are not empowered or given the right to access income-generating activities or to manage household budgets. Cultural practices were also largely discussed as preventing women and girls playing a key role in decisions and productive assets. The other common challenge mentioned is the unequal access to education, disproportionately affecting girls who are still largely responsible for household chores and victims of harmful traditional practices such as child marriage. Lastly the lack of spaces for women to participate in decision-making processes at any level was also seen as a major barrier. The group agreed on common solutions and recommendations, to be tailored according to context. These can be found in section C.236238239240241242243245246247249251Recommendations: 1 Women and the 1,000 days window Educating women and youth on micro-enterprise opportunities in the food systems, technology and access to microfinance with educative resources Establishing climate-smart agro hubs that assist women smallholder farmers and women/youth food system entrepreneurs to produce high-quality foods for their local community ; and increase their own incomes and agency Enhancing nutrition education for women, including on the 1,000 days window, regardless of their level of education, as a way to sustain nutrition gains and supporting them to address the challenges they may face during this crucial time Promoting and providing breastfeeding support Strengthening collaboration between health systems and social protection interventions; and aligning nutrition health and social protection policies with food systems transformation to promote adequate nutrition Maintaining a balance between information from public health and commercial channels by involving women in the development of public health interventions at the community level Foreign aid and donors should always ensure that their interventions have the best possible understanding of the needs and cultural contexts of communities they work with Engaging men and boys in conversations addressing social and cultural norms preventing women to achieve a good nutrition status, and in the co-design of programs Learn from successful behaviour change campaigns to effectively address perceptions, and invest in formative research 2 Human right and accountability Government’s food system policies should make nutritious food more affordable and available to everyone instead of focusing only on ending hunger Governments should ensure that nutrition education is implemented at a national level Adolescent girls’ access to key nutrition information and services should be considered in the UNFSS The rights of land owners should be addressed as part of the Summit’s game changing solutions Commitments at the UNFSS should come with an accountability mechanism allowing civil societies to track progress made by governments, especially on human rights The private sector should respect the right to adequate food, by providing more transparent information on the content of their products More precise international legal instruments should be established to ensure that countries understand hunger and malnutrition, and what policy and interventions are needed to tackle them Existing accountability mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review, should be adapted to country level and should ensure that countries are held accountable to report progress against fundamental rights in food systems 3 Women as economic actors Create a safe and meaningful space for women and girls to engage in policy discussions and demand their rights through platforms at national and decentralised levels, including in governments and parliaments Protect children from entering the workforce. Most child labor happens in the agriculture sector so it is vital that children, particulalry girls, are protected from exploitative labor practices and incentivised to go to school Create viable career opportunities for young people, especially girls, including in the agriculture sector, to ensure sustainable food systems offer fair living incomes Raise awareness among men and boys for them to challenge social norms and champion gender justice Back gender-transformative awareness raising activities with accurate scientific research and data Promote traditional agricultural practices, with women at the heart of decision making, in the face of undue influence from large agricultural companies selling seeds and GMOs at competitive prices to the detriment of traditional agro-ecological practices Put the policy and legal systems in place to enable women farmers to access land, to safely sell their products, to access capital for investment in agriculture, and to challenge cultural norms. This would in turn encourage sustainable investments benefiting the economy at large. Provide a meaningful space for civil society to represent the voices of the most vulnerable groups237238239240241242243245246247249251In general, participants to the dialogue concurred on the challenges and solutions to promoting nutrition and gender equality. However divergences of views emerged between countries and contexts given these issues are very context-specific and dependent on local/national policies and traditional/cultural practices. For instance, maternity and breastfeeding policies differ from one country to another and therefore require a different response. The same applies to local regulations and cultural practices affecting women and girls’ nutrition (e.g. child marriage, education accessible to boys only or banned for pregnant girls, access to land policies, etc.)

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SUN-CSN_ICAN-joint-UNFSS-Dialogue-_Gender-equality-a-key-driver-to-enhancing-food-systems-and-good-nutrition_.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aab9Lml_TA0&feature=youtu.be

2021-09-22 17:30:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/37811/203

16603764231048803882029671439142121631926511320177

A multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach was adopted, with representatives from the following sectors: consumers' associations, food sector companies, non-profit foundations, academia and research institutes. Particular attention was paid to gender diversity. The speakers' inspiring best practices' examples show that positive changes are already happening along all the food supply chain and the empowerment of all stakeholders - from consumers to farmers - is on the rise.All the speakers recognise the urgency of action to reach the SDGs by 2030 and that such targets cannot be reached without a holistic approach and cooperation among all stakeholders. The speakers presented their work and best practices, showing their first-hand commitment to create a more sustainable and inclusive food supply chain. In their work, respect for the environment and people has proven to be a priority. Every intervention was complementary to the others: the role of consumers in fighting food waste and creating a more sustainable marketplace was linked to the role of companies in it, especially from the points of view of responsibility and governance. Talking about accountability, companies' footprint on the food supply chain can and must be measured to make the right decisions in terms of environmental strategies. Environmental-friendly approaches are proved to be very profitable for agri-food companies. One of the solutions to make this sector more sustainable is regenerative agriculture; projects around the world have already shown the positive effects of such practice, not only on the environment but also on human health.N/A

NoThe event was an online webinar. The curator introduced the framework of the Independent Dialogues as an important occasion to offer new gateways towards sustainable food systems and to explore new ways of working together, by encouraging collaborative actions. The objective of the webinar was to dig into the landscape of sustainability priorities in the food supply chain, working backward from the plate to the field, from fork to farm. The discussion started from Quantis' report "Dig In", a comprehensive report showcasing sustainable business priorities and strategies for food and beverage companies. Food waste was chosen among the report's subjects and further developed by the company Too Good To Go, whose core business is to connect consumers and producers to avoid food surplus and waste. The role of consumers in shifting to sustainable consumption models and, in particular, to a fairer and more sustainable marketplace was explored by Consumers International, the world's federation of consumer groups. On the other hand, companies' responsibility was addressed, especially in terms of sustainable corporate citizenship, as mentioned by The Earth Institute. The discussion followed with a deep dive in the agricultural sector, firstly by analizing its environmental impact and secondly by providing Mutti company's best practices. Its value proposition based on quality and sustainability has proven to have a positive impact on the environment and to be profitable too. An emerging agricultural practice, regenerative agriculture, was then analysed by the Rodale Institute to show its many advantages in terms of soil health, profitability and human health. The Regenerative Society Foundation presented a regenerative agriculture project called "Virtuous Agriculture" , which pursues the double benefit of healing people and the environment. Before the Q&As from the audience, the curator asked each speaker the following questions: which are the 3 main actions that businesses/civil society/governments have to take to build better food systems? Which are the priorities that need to be tackled? Which are the critical points that need to be solved?

234238239240243244246247249The Dialogue provided solutions to some current problems and challenges of the food supply chain and, in particular, in the agri-food sector. Currently, the agri-food sector is responsible for 28% of total GHG emissions and 80% of deforestation is a result of agricultural production. Moreover, climate change is putting a strain on natural resources: a higher volatility of crops and yields goes hand in hand with the loss of 10 million hectares of arable land every year, limiting the availability of natural resources. On the other hand, the world population is expected to grow by 25% by 2050, making increasingly harder to feed a larger population with few natural resources. At present 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition and yet 1/3 of the food production (40%, 2.5 tons) is wasted along the supply chain every year, with an enormous effect not only on food safety and the environment, but also on the economy: wasting food means wasting money and the resources - land, labour, fertilisers, electricity, water and fuel - used to produce it. Food safety, rising food price and the need for a more sustainable lifestyle are the top concerns and priorities for consumers all around the world. Luckily, some solutions to such challenges are already at hand. Generally speaking, there is not a unique solution or only one step in the food supply chain to take, rather a systemic, holistic approach must and can be adopted all along the food supply chain, in order to involve all stakeholders in the decision-making process and in the realisation of such process. For example, companies' sustainable strategies are proven to be rewarding and profitable for the companies themselves, especially when they go hand in hand with high quality products. A value proposition based on these two pillars can be achieved by adopting a long-term vision based on solid scientific-based solutions and innovation, by "walking the talk", by rewarding farmers who adopt best practices and by creating value for the consumers. At the same time, agricultural practices pursuing a double benefit of healing the environment and people's health are on the rise. An example is regenerative organic agriculture, which has found that increasing soil health means also increasing human health, thanks to higher nutritional qualities of food. Other advantages are: healthier waterways, +40% carbon sequestration, - 40% GHG emissions, -45% energy use, from 3-6 times more profitable than compared to conventional agriculture, higher levels of animal welfare and lower healthcare costs thanks to a reduced exposure to toxic chemicals. All along the food supply chain, adopting a science-based approach is key: companies cannot follow a sustainable path and take the right decisions without the support of data and metrics. These help companies to set science-based targets, to identify hotspots, measure progress, measure their impact on the supply chain. Once all data are collected, the company's path towards sustainability can be communicated, in order to create a strong engagement from the public through storytelling. Engagement is key also in other steps of the supply chain, such as food waste, which has been identified the no.1 solution against climate change. By creating a marketplace for food surplus, where oversupply and demand meet, companies and consumers are inspired and empowered to combat food waste, with impressive results. In the five years since the creation of such a marketplace, more than 90 million meals have been saved. This shows once again that cooperation among all players in the food supply chain, from fork to farm back to fork, is the only effective solution.235238239240243244246247248249Although progress has been made and many solutions are available and already adopted, there is still a lot that can be done to achieve a truly sustainable and inclusive food supply chain. First of all, climate change is changing natural balances and ecosystems so rapidly that mitigation is no longer the only solution; adaptation should become a top priority. In order to make the agri-food sector more resilient and healthier - both for planet and for people - regenerative agricultural practices should be more widespread, by means of higher investments, rewarding policies for farmers, access to land, technical assistance, research on the importance of soil health, and education of the general public to raise awareness about the complexity of agronomy and nutrition. Indeed consumers play an important role in creating a sustainable, fair and inclusive marketplace. This marketplace is based on 6 pillars: food affordability, food safety, healthy food, sustainability and regeneration by supporting local food systems, transparent labelling and protection of personal date for online purchases. To be the tipping point of this marketplace, they need to be empowered to do so by making sustainability easier to understand and to reach through trust. Trust in companies to focus on real and responsible value creation, to respect the environment and human rights, to ensure living incomes are available for all producers and actors in the value chain, to stop engaging in lobbying, litigation and tax activities which make the work of government and civil society more difficult. On the other hand, local, regional and national governments should provide incentives which facilitate companies and investors in taking steps which might not pay off in the quarterly term but will protect people and the planet in the long term. They should also set in place clear targets on reducing food waste and ensure there is public and private collaboration to scale available solutions.236N/A237N/A

https://youtu.be/iUWxee-oMcA

2021-09-22 17:31:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39405/203

25383563351232425773324854412234215164

Convenors developed the title and 10 strategic discussion topics and shared with the Planning team of the East African Community Think Tank Association (EACTTA). The title was accepted and each member selected his or her own discussion topic. Other discussion topics were shared to other individuals in other organisations in the region. The Convenors requested the facilitators to prepare a background paper for their discussion topics so that they could be shared with all participants before the date of independent dialogue on 10 September 2021. Thereafter, the Convenors sent out invitation directly to organizations, individuals, and also sent out invitation via social media, such as Twitter, to the public at large to invite them to register through a special google link, so that they could confirm participation in Dialogue on the specified date. 98 participants registered through Google link to participate in the independent dialogue. The nationalities of the participants that registered were: Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, DRC, Swaziland, Israel, Philippines, Botswana, Ethiopia, US and Germany. The Convenor shared with all participants the concept paper for the independent Dialogue. The concept paper theme was "What Eastern and Southern African Consumers need for future food systems". In addition, all background papers for all discussion topics and tentative programme for the event were also shared with participants. One day before the independent dialogue, the Convenors and curator held a virtual preparation/ rehearsal meeting with all facilitators. The Curator informed facilitators to observe principles of engagement during independent dialogue. On 10 September, the Virtual Independent Dialogue was held as per the programme. The number of participants were 40. The Curator proposed to the participants that the meeting be held in the main plenary and not go for breaking out rooms. The facilitators were asked to present their discussion topics in the main plenary.All participants were in agreement.We acted with urgency in announcing to hold our independent dialogue within one month so that we were able to organise and make contributions to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Our dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. It promoted new connections, and enable the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. Our dialogue promoted respect for one another, which is a foundation for genuine Dialogue. Our curator emphasised to participants in the Dialogue that they are expected to listen to each other and be open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Our dialogue promoted a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. We were aware that food systems is a cross cutting sector touching several sectors in the food chain from the farm to folk.I have the following advice for other Dialogue Convenors about appreciating the Principles of Engagement as follows: 1. Once the participant has registered to attend the dialogue, the convenor must take the initiative to communicate to the participant acknowledging and thanking them for registering for the UN FOOD SYSTEMS INDEPENDENT DIALOGUE. Also, it is important also to send any documentation to them in order for the participants to get prepared for the Dialogue such as concept paper, tentative programme and roles of participant, facilitators etc. It is also critical to send them information about this Zoom login details so that they save the date. This is very essential for building trust. 2. Dialogue Convenors must consider creating a consultation schedule with planning team, curator and facilitators early on. By setting timelines early and clearly communicating to participants, you increase awareness with participants and better prepare them for engagement. This also helps mitigate stakeholder angst over the feeling of not having enough time to prepare or respond during the particular consultation period. 3. Convenors must regularly communicate with participants. Communication is a key to gaining participants support. Issue regular emails updates and demonstrate to participants that their feedback has been received and noted. Showing participants how their feedback has been captured can go a long way. When participants feel like they’ve been heard, they’re typically much happier and more likely to support Post-Summit Independent dialogue series. 4. Convenors must provide multiple ways for stakeholders to share their input. To improve convenors relationships with participants, it is advised to give them more than one way to provide feedback. Participants want the opportunity to voice their opinions and this needs to be easy and accessible for them. 5. Convenors must preach respect and accommodate diversity all the time.

Yes

234238239240244246248249Major Focus: What Eastern and Southern Africans Consumers Need for future food systems The problems of agriculture and food production in Eastern and Southern Africa have been there for a longtime. These problems have been brought about partly by the ensuing food systems in these parts of Africa. In these regions, farmers and consumers are disconnected. The distance between food production to the consumers' table is getting longer. Consumers are not sure where the foods come from nor by whom their foods are grown. In order to solve these problems, the transition from the global food system to a local food system is imperative. In a local food system, farmers and consumers are connected and they can help each other through easier flow of information. The global challenges of current food systems are fairly well known, including intensification of farming systems, leading to significant erosion of ecosystems, soil quality and biodiversity. As a result, roughly 850 million people have been rendered food insecure. Food waste is high in the farms, storage, retail and consumers kitchens. Diets in many countries are moving towards high a proportion of livestock products due to reduced number of crops as a result of dwindling genetic diversity. Add to this climate change and water scarcity. It means the need for change towards more sustainable and equitable food systems, greater collaboration between different sectors and stakeholders will be key. Their collaboration will strengthen consumer protection, the right to adequate food, securing better nutrition, better production, better environment and better lives, leaving no-one behind. East African Community Think Tank Association (EACTTA) is a critical player in achieving SDG1 (No Poverty), 2 (Zero Hunger) and 3 (Good Health and Well-being) which is independently of national authorities but with the opportunity to formally connect into the Summit process through an official feedback mechanism. EACTTA will offer opportunities for all East and Southern Africans citizens to engage directly in proposing pathways towards sustainable food systems, exploring new ways of working together and encouraging collaborative action. EACTTA invited a broad range of stakeholders, including: • Those who work in roles that enable people to access food by growing, harvesting, packing, processing, distributing, selling, storing, marketing, consuming or disposing of food. • Those who work in sectors that shape food systems, including infrastructure, transport, financial services, information and technology. • Those who work in areas that influence or are affected by food system policies, including specialists in natural resources, the environment, the economy, culture, indigenous knowledge, policies, politics, trade, regulations and beyond. EACTTA Independent Dialogue sought to: (i) Mobilize policy makers, technocrats, academicians, development partners (local & international), farmers, transporters, food processors, hotel owners, food retailers and all stakeholders who are involved in the whole food supply chain within Eastern and Southern Africa to generate perspectives and pathways recommendations to improve food safety systems from the farmers to the consumers. (ii) Contribute to the realization of the EAC Food and Nutrition Security Strategy 2018-2022 and implementation of the Action Plan 2018-2023. (iii) Contribute to the AU Agenda 2063 and CAADP & AfCTA. (iv) Contribute to the attainment of the SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition by promoting sustainable agriculture).235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Main findings that emerged from our Dialogue a) Food access and nutrition as a universal right to all human beings and the need to protect vulnerable groups in the food chain; b) Need for sustainable and resilient policies/strategies on food production, distribution, storage, processing, quality control among others; c) Need for efficient transport and logistics systems to ensure affordable cost of food, stemming post-harvest losses and stabilize food market supplies; d) Need for preferential and targeted tax regimes and low-cost financing (or subsidies) for food production inputs to cushion food producers from cost spikes that lead to high cost of food; e) Need to deepen food production value chains to make the activity viable and attractive to investors; f) Need to address climatic and environment degradation, enhance water conservation, and increase investments in research to enable the development of resilient food crops and relook at the current policies on GMOs going forward; g) There is a need to educate producers on climate smart agriculture and to incentivize its uptake; h) Involvement of stakeholders in the development of effective food access policies, plans and strategies; i) Mapping of food consumption patterns to ensure alignment with the needs of consumers and policy effectiveness in food access; j) Addressing food quality standards and disposal of the food waste to ensure nutritional aspects and sanitary disposal of the food waste including strengthening the regulatory and inspection frameworks; k) Integrating developments in IT as they impact several aspects of access to food including logistics, marketing, pricing, demand and supply dynamics among others specifically adopting a value chain/systems approach to increase efficiencies from farm to fork; l) The space for Regional Economic Communities in the development of harmonized regional policies, strategies, plans, legal frameworks that streamline production, transportation, distribution, and access to food in wider markets within their respective member states; and the m) Need to address other challenges including border closures, peace and security issues, and non-tariff barriers among others that stifle food distribution and hence access.236238239240241243245249250251Trade policies (import and export) to facilitate access to affordable, safe and nutritious food for consumers while contributing to EAC/COMESA/SADC countries economic and commercial objectives Recommendations: The need for/to: a) regional trade policies harmonisation to deal with the issues on Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers/Technical Barriers to regional market access and trade; b) boost productivity and provide incentives to nurturing innovation for the development of priority regional agri-food value chains; c) regional harmonisation of food standards and quality assurance; d) foster strategic cooperation between private and public actors and among domestic producers, exporters, and policymakers; and e) create enabling environment for potential value chain actors (in terms of infrastructures, regulation, access to finance, insurance). Who should take these actions: a) EAC/COMESA/SADC Ways in which progress could be assessed:• a) Volumes and values of intra-regional trade in nutritious agri-foods; b) Reduced food imports from outside the region; c) Level of private sector investments in agri-food systems in the region; d) Level of small producers/SMEs integration into the agri-food value chains. Who should take these actions: a) Treat everyone as a stakeholder in food systems and final key stakeholder are CONSUMERS The call is for everyone to be involved; b) Value diversity and Engage inclusively An extension of treating everyone as a stakeholder is valuing diversity and engaging inclusively which are essential to achieve equity. c) Government responsible and accountability is critically National governments were most often identified as the primary actor to drive transformation. d) Engagement collaboratively in partnerships and CONSUMERS ARE KEY The Dialogues call for transformative partnerships, synergies, and alliances supported by multi-stakeholder platforms and networks and a need for all sectors and stakeholders to work together with governments toward food system transformation. Power imbalances will have to be acknowledged and managed. e) Empower excluded voices Women, Indigenous Peoples, smallholder farmers and other small-scale producers, and youth as needing and deserving special attention and engagement.236238239240241244246248251Discussion Topic: Knowledge Transfer for future food systems in Africa There is a quiet Green Revolution happening in Africa. It is not at the pace of that which occurred in America, Asia and Europe. However, the shoots are there. This revolution will succeed on the backbone of knowledge transfer. Against the backdrop of a rising population that is set to double every 25 years, this development is timely so as to strengthen the food systems so as to ultimately meet the food security and nutrition needs of Africa. A number of things will need to happen in the next few years: 1. A special focus on the smallholder farmer in knowledge transfer 2. Further harnessing the use of radio and digital media in knowledge transfer 3. A special focus on increasing youth participation in agriculture for employment, income and sustainability. 4. A special focus on women, especially in decision making in agriculture. 5. Utilising climate smart agricultural practices including harnessing water resources and employing moisture conservation practices. 6. Forming strong partners so as to support the smallholder farmers. An example from East-West Seed Knowledge Transfer 1. We (East-West Seed Knowledge Transfer: https://kt.eastwestseed.com) are already doing knowledge transfer work in the vegetable sector in Uganda, Tanzania and Nigeria (in addition to similar work in Asia). We also intend to do so in other African countries in future. Our Knowledge Transfer centers around building skills on profitable and sustainable agricultural technologies and practices. Leveraging a peer learning approach, local Technical Field Officers support key farmers to manage hands-on demonstrations showcasing improved production practices. These are used as ‘hubs of good practices’ to train neighboring farmers on key stages of crop production: ● Improved land preparation (including optimal layout and raised beds). ● Sustainable soil management (understanding soil as a living system) ● Improved seedling production (showcasing different systems of seedling production from improved open bed nurseries to the use of leaf pots and seedling trays). ● Effective pest and disease management (including safe and judicious use of pesticides). ● Effective nutrient management (correct type, placement and timing of fertilisers). 3 East-West Seed Knowledge Transfer Background information ● Use of trellising ● Use of mulching (rice straw and plastic) ● Water management ● Business management (variety selection, crop planning and farm record keeping). 2. We train agro-input suppliers for better product knowledge and increased access to inputs by farmers. 3. We carry out weekly market surveys that capture price trends. 4. We use an advanced monitoring app that is used to capture field and market data and also calculate rate of return that can be shared with farmers and other stakeholders. 5. We provide learning materials in hard copies and online (https://growhow.eastwestseed.com/) 6. We utilise the radio. For example, our weekly broadcast in Kaduna, Nigeria, reaches over 12 million listeners in 19 states. 7. Our special attention to youth and women will remain at the forefront of our work. 8. We are backed by our commercial company (East-West Seed) that produces and sells quality vegetables seeds. 9. We leverage our resources with those of like-minded organisations in order to have bigger impact and we will continue to do so. 10. This work is replicable by other organisations and can include all production systems/crops. The success of these actions can be measured by: 1. The sustainability of increased food production and marketing 2. Food and nutrition security in communities/countries 3. Increase in household incomes. 4. Increase in youth participation in agriculture 5. Increase in women decision making in agriculture. 6. Digital media use becomes widespread in agriculture. 7. Climate smart practices become the norm.236238239241243244246251Discussion Topic: How do EAC Transport Chains and Logistics Systems Contribute/Impact on Access to Food Background: Given the consensus on the centrality of transport chains and efficient logistics in all the aspects of access to food, the recommendations focus on issues around coordination, sustainability, capacity, interconnectivity, efficiency and resilience. a) Support to the Regional Economic Communities The critical coordination roles played by the RECs under the African Union in the implementation of efficient transport and logistics systems across the continent should be underscored. Constituent Governments should capacitate the RECs and commit to the implementation of all the priority projects, policies, strategies, legal frameworks agreed upon at the RECs and continental levels to improve infrastructure interconnectivity and efficiency to underpin access to food on the continent. b) Support for the expansion of rural roads networks and industrial capacities A call to the Governments to: i) set aside enhanced and dedicated budgets for the improvement and expansion of the rural transport networks and target to double their capacities in the next five years to support agricultural production and investments at that level. This will support the production, distribution and access to sufficient food quantities. ii) support industries that manufactures and add value to agriculture in the rural areas and construction of communal solar cold chains, for example, to conserve excess produce. c) Market liberalization and removal of non-tariff barriers Governments through their RECS should fast track the liberalization of transport and logistics services markets and remove non-tariff barriers to bring down the associated costs to trade and hence access to food. The governments could consider allowing cabbotage for transporters to reduce lengthy empty legs for trucks that penalize transporters and consumers. Airfreight transport costs remain high on the continent as a result of protected markets. Governments in Africa should implement the Single Air Transport Market (SAATM) arrangements to bring down the cost of air transport on the continent. d) Interconnectivity of Transport Networks Whereas African Governments have committed to realizing the development of major transport Corridors linking the continent, there are huge deficits as a result of missing interconnectors within modes and between modes. This deficit results in idle or lost capacities hence inefficiencies. Governments coordinated by their RECs should: i. fast track the construction of the key missing links on roads and railways transport corridors and prioritise the development of transport corridors on the navigable inland waterways that are cheaper to operate and maintain; and ii. Enhance digitalization and ensure efficient border crossings to underpin seamless transport chains, open up markets and enable efficient intermodal and multimodal transport systems. Hence, contribute to enhanced access to food. e) Sustainable Investment Strategies in the Transport Systems Governments to address alternative financing strategies to stem the over-reliance on the public sector to deliver transport infrastructure. Governments should: i. address the inordinately high costs of infrastructure delivery develop effective platforms to attract private sector investments ii. de-risk investments in the sector iii. ensure availability of maintenance resources iv. Address corruption in the procurement processes. These actions should translate to lower user charges expanded trade and cheaper access to food. f) Peace and Security in Enabling Seamless Transport Chains and Logistics. Governments should urgently address peace and security issues within their jurisdictions as they affect transport and logistics operations directly. It is a fact that large sections of linking corridors in Africa are sometimes closed for long periods due to attacks on trucks many a times transporting food to areas in distress. One of the key peace and security dividends is seamless transportation and logistics that should underpin access to food.236238239241243244247249251Discussion Topic: Consumer awareness, engagement, and empowerment can create sustainable innovations in food systems i) Consumer awareness: The need to: a) take consumers as a key component of sustainable food systems given that they are citizens, taxpayers, workers, children, parents - not just passive receivers - enable and drive food access change with their collective economic power; b) Ensure more transparency, higher ethical standards from food producers to enhance trust particularly in food safety. This needs to be matched by greater consumer awareness on issues of food safety and nutritious food. The private sector producers will respond to the market demand as well as to stricter enforcement of regulation of health and safety regulations. All food businesses should have to comply with basic standards of hygiene and good manufacturing practices; and c) Appreciate the increasingly globalized nature of the food supply chains and the possibilities to enhance and supplement national food access systems. ii) Consumer Rights: The need to respect/ensure the rights to: a) The satisfaction of basic needs of the populations - to have access to adequate safe and nutritious food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, public utilities, water and sanitation; b) To ensure safety for the populations against products, production processes and services that are hazardous to health or life; c) Choose and be able to select from a range of products and services, offered at competitive prices with an assurance of satisfactory quality; d) be heard and have consumer interests represented in the making and execution of government policy, and in the development of products and services; e) Redress to receive a fair settlement of just claims, including compensation for misrepresentation, low standard goods or unsatisfactory services. This requires that there is some mechanism for speedy redress either through a consumer association or other means. As we know legal redress through the courts is slow, cumbersome and expensive to the average individual consumer; f) Consumer be informed on the facts needed to make informed choices, and to be protected against dishonest or misleading advertising and labeling while being aware of basic consumer rights and responsibilities and how to act on them; g) A healthy environment to live and work specifically in places where consumers buy food that is non-threatening to the well being of present and future generations. iii) Technology The need to incorporate digitalization and new technology and their applications in all aspects of the food supply chain to achieve sustainability in the food supply and access chains. iv) Essential role consumers play in food systems In order for the consumers to be a part of, or contribute to, sustainable food systems, there is need to ensure/consider: a) affordability of sustainable and nutritious safe food on their tables. This should be a key concern for Governments. For example, Government can legislate on recommended retail prices and excessive profit making by processors/retailers. However, ultimately the actions needs to be at the level of the private sector; b) Education - Besides income, education level and access to information are likely to affect consumer concerns. Education or provision of information to help consumers make more informed choices is vital. This includes labeling and advertising which is accurate, verifiable and truthful, together with increased consumer awareness on what different information/certification mean; c) Gender - Women often are responsible for food in families and their engagement as stakeholders would be key to food access; and d) age - Young people may have more potential to change behaviour and are also more likely to think about sustainability of the food systems in the first place. Governments should engage the youth in designing food access systems. This could include in the school curriculum greater awareness of food safety and nutrition. (v) Enhancing the promotion of nutritious local diets that are accessible & affordable through campaigns and education (focus on existing policies);236238239241244249251Discussion Topic: The Future of Food Systems: A Consumer’s Perspective. Consumer Concerns and issues to address: a) Toxic Farm input From the WHO report (WHO, 2015), about 420,000 people die every year from food related ailments, 40% being children. Here in Africa, we have numerous challenges along the food value chain. For instance, some farm inputs at production level have proven to be harmful, posing health challenges that have contributed to the deaths. Other than health challenges, toxic farm inputs have for so long interfered with the ecosystem resulting to in reduction in farm produce. Consumers are, therefore, worried about availability of healthy food in the near future if the trend continues. b) Legal Frameworks Consumers, being the main stakeholders and drivers of this conversation, are concerned with the legal frameworks around food safety/security. There is need for existing laws to be improved and enforcement be actualized. This applies to manufactured food where standards are not adhered to. c) Food Waste/Loss Food loss and wastage along the value chain has been a challenge, forcing consumers to pay more for what they get in the market. It is time that how food is handled from production to the time it is in the plate be looked into. In the event there is surplus, proper storage facilities to be provided/recommended. Note that the ‘ugly’ or ‘deformed’ vegetables or any other farm produce should not be thrown away either. d) Consumer Education A successful leader should be one who is able to feed citizens and provide information through laid down government structures. It is unfortunate that most consumers are not aware of laws and regulations protecting them due lack of accurate and adequate information. This is why there is a clarion call on all stakeholders including top leaders to take consumer education seriously if the future of food systems is to be achieved. This will help reduce the amount of time put on boardroom meetings trying to find solutions for issues that can be easily addressed by consumers if only they are educated. Discussion Topic: Importance of organic bio capsule fertiliser to Improve Soil and Nutrient Management for future food systems In the next three years 1. Usage of Organic bio-capsule fertilizers (micro-organism) will help in doubling farmers income by three years (crop production increase by at least 50% & less to no use of chemical and other expensive products) 2. Improving soil fertility by adding live microbes in the soil 3. Nutrients rich food (highly nutritional value for humans and animals) 4. 0% chemical residue and 100% organic food produce 5. Cost effective in terms with chemical fertilizers 6. Export quality produce for farmers The success of these actions can be measured by: 1) The sustainability of increased food productions 2) Healthy / organic /nutritious food 3) Growing food in back of your house and gardens 4) Increase in income 5) Smart and effortless farming 6) Increase in participation236238239240241243244245246247248249Discussion Topic: Dependence on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) for Safe and Nutritious Food Production Recommendations: The need to/for: 1) improve on the formulation and harmonization of policies, laws, strategies and regulations (including governance & institutional reforms) on IWRM through a participatory approach with stakeholders; 2) enhance funding to improve on infrastructure for water storage to cater for floods and drought irrigation – for all-year-round productivity 3) effective political goodwill/ support in this key area; 4) strict catchment and transboundary water resources, wetland management and protection policies; 5) strict application of the user pays principle in water consumption and also waste management to avoid contamination of waterways Who should take these actions: a) Treat everyone as a stakeholder in food systems and final key stakeholder are CONSUMERS The call is for everyone to be involved; b) Value diversity and Engage inclusively An extension of treating everyone as a stakeholder is valuing diversity and engaging inclusively which are essential to achieve equity. c) Government responsible and accountability is critically National governments were most often identified as the primary actor to drive transformation. d) Engagement collaboratively in partnerships and CONSUMERS ARE KEY The Dialogues call for transformative partnerships, synergies, and alliances supported by multi-stakeholder platforms and networks and a need for all sectors and stakeholders to work together with governments toward food system transformation. Power imbalances will have to be acknowledged and managed. e) Empower excluded voices Women, Indigenous Peoples, smallholder farmers and other small-scale producers, and youth as needing and deserving special attention and engagement.236238239241243244245246247248249251Discussion Topic: Innovative solutions building closer connections between markets, consumer and producers. Recommendations: 1) Deeper integration-Cross border non-tarriff barriers that affect food distribution need to be tackled at a regional level. African Countries need to trade more with each other. (Take advantage of the AfCFTA with a market of more than 30 million people. 2) Data and Connectivity – Sub Saharan Africa should enhance the mobile internet adoption from the current 29% penetration at least nearer the global average of 49%. High cost of data and equipment still remains an issue and adds to the cost of doing business and trade hence imposes costs to food access; 3) Local Procurement- Governments in Africa should be encouraged to first exhaust procurement of local food products from the farmers before they consider importing products outside their countries and regions. 4) Access to cheaper financing to encourage value addition by the producer. Who should take these actions: a) Treat everyone as a stakeholder in food systems and final key stakeholder are CONSUMERS The call is for everyone to be involved; b) Value diversity and Engage inclusively An extension of treating everyone as a stakeholder is valuing diversity and engaging inclusively which are essential to achieve equity. c) Government responsible and accountability is critically National governments were most often identified as the primary actor to drive transformation. d) Engagement collaboratively in partnerships and CONSUMERS ARE KEY The Dialogues call for transformative partnerships, synergies, and alliances supported by multi-stakeholder platforms and networks and a need for all sectors and stakeholders to work together with governments toward food system transformation. Power imbalances will have to be acknowledged and managed. e) Empower excluded voices Women, Indigenous Peoples, smallholder farmers and other small-scale producers, and youth as needing and deserving special attention and engagement.236238239240243244246247249251Discussion Topic: Food Safety and Food Wastes in Hotels and Restaurants in E. Africa Recommendations: 1) East African Community (EAC) (and the African RECs) must formulate programmes on integrated education, training, and behavioural change on Food Safety and Food Wastage in Hotels and Restaurants; 2) Countries should undertake evaluation of effectiveness of their Public Heath Laws, Policies and Regulations in the hospitality sector especially in Food Safety issues along the food chain/ processes in hotels and restaurants targeting to attain National and International Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) certification; 3) Countries should tap on into Public/Private Partnerships on raising awareness among consumers and hotel proprietors on the matters of food safety and food wastes in hotels and restaurants; 4) Hotel proprietors should undertake comprehensive environmental controls on food waste in Hotels: dispose of waste to decay in landfills; 5) Countries should, through their relevant institutions, undertake an evaluation of the consciousness of food handlers and operators in hotels and restaurants, to minimize the unintended consequences from food hazards and risks related to food; and 6) Countries should assess the implementation of ‘EAC Criteria for Classification of Hotels’ and commit to sustain its implementation; Who should take these actions: a) Treat everyone as a stakeholder in food systems and final key stakeholder are CONSUMERS The call is for everyone to be involved; b) Value diversity and Engage inclusively An extension of treating everyone as a stakeholder is valuing diversity and engaging inclusively which are essential to achieve equity. c) Government responsible and accountability is critically National governments were most often identified as the primary actor to drive transformation. d) Engagement collaboratively in partnerships and CONSUMERS ARE KEY The Dialogues call for transformative partnerships, synergies, and alliances supported by multi-stakeholder platforms and networks and a need for all sectors and stakeholders to work together with governments toward food system transformation. Power imbalances will have to be acknowledged and managed. e) Empower excluded voices Women, Indigenous Peoples, smallholder farmers and other small-scale producers, and youth as needing and deserving special attention and engagement.236238239240243244246247248249251Discussion Topic: Agricultural and Food Policies to promote regional integration and production of affordable nutritious sustainable food in the market Background: By 2050, the world’s population will reach 10 billion people and global food demand will increase by 60%. This challenge is intensified by agriculture’s extreme vulnerability to climate change. The African continent is facing an existential food security crisis in light of this climate emergency: population is growing fast, and agricultural production cannot keep up due to the fact that less than 10% of arable land is irrigated, which means little insurance against erratic rains and climate shocks. Lack of irrigation puts at risk the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of smallholder farmers and their families across the continent, who remains hostage to climate variability. Therefore, food and agriculture policies are critical in influencing what foods are available and accessible to consumers. These policies influence trade across the borders and enhance regional integration. Agricultural policies need to support not only food security but also a diversity of products entering the market and affordable prices for nutrient-rich foods. The right policies can encourage research on improving productivity and quality of nutrient rich commodities, e.g. through biofortification, as well as policies that subsidize inputs and support extension services for production of nutritious foods. Policies focused on smalll holders farmers, especially women and youth, can support the supply of a greater diversity of nutritious foods in the households. Recommendations: It is recommended that Governments: a) Initiate and implement policies that support smallholder farmers, youth and women; b) Develop new policies in the four key domains, land and agricultural production, markets and trade systems, consumer purchasing power, and food transformation and consumer demand; c) Remove trade barriers to intra-regional trade in food and other agricultural commodities; d) Support and part finance regional institutions that support regional trade, quality and phyto-sanitary controls; e) Must set up ambitious targets for irrigation expansion and increased farm productivity; and f) Enhance participation of private sectors, academia, NGOs, civil societies in relevant decision-making bodies. g) Initiate, Support and strengthen policies for the production, processing and marketing of non- conventional/ indigenous foods like the edible insects. Who should take these actions: a) Treat everyone as a stakeholder in food systems and final key stakeholder are CONSUMERS The call is for everyone to be involved; b) Value diversity and Engage inclusively An extension of treating everyone as a stakeholder is valuing diversity and engaging inclusively which are essential to achieve equity. c) Government responsible and accountability is critically National governments were most often identified as the primary actor to drive transformation. d) Engagement collaboratively in partnerships and CONSUMERS ARE KEY The Dialogues call for transformative partnerships, synergies, and alliances supported by multi-stakeholder platforms and networks and a need for all sectors and stakeholders to work together with governments toward food system transformation. Power imbalances will have to be acknowledged and managed. e) Empower excluded voices Women, Indigenous Peoples, smallholder farmers and other small-scale producers, and youth as needing and deserving special attention and engagement.236238239240241242243244247249251Discussion Topic: Fair, safe and sustainable supply chains to ensure a responsible use of natural resources and reduction of food loss and plastic wastes making environment safe for future food systems for consumers. Background Globally, over 70% of plastic packaging is not recovered because it is either landfilled, mismanaged, or uncollected. That translates to approximately US$ 120 billion lost in the global economy after a short first use. By bringing together all sectors of society—individuals and organizations, public and private sector, the thinkers and doers—we can help solve the plastic waste challenge through collaboration. Recommendations: Governments are requested to: a) Introduce restrictions on use of single use and non-recyclable plastics. Needs to be linked to consumer education on use of plastic; b) Conduct comprehensive feasibility studies on plastic waste and construct new waste management facilities, to address the challenges as well as potential longer-term economic viabilities; c) Map the behavioral change of different stakeholders within the community to ensure that the waste management infrastructure being proposed will be sustainable for at least 20 years; d) Identify hotspots for pollution, conduct waste characterization studies to assess the sort of waste being generated by households, and understand how much is collected. e) Interest industry to the idea of a circular economy, to welcome plastic alternatives to replace some conventional building materials. Who should take these actions: a) Treat everyone as a stakeholder in food systems and final key stakeholder are CONSUMERS The call is for everyone to be involved; b) Value diversity and Engage inclusively An extension of treating everyone as a stakeholder is valuing diversity and engaging inclusively which are essential to achieve equity. c) Government responsible and accountability is critically National governments were most often identified as the primary actor to drive transformation. d) Engagement collaboratively in partnerships and CONSUMERS ARE KEY The Dialogues call for transformative partnerships, synergies, and alliances supported by multi-stakeholder platforms and networks and a need for all sectors and stakeholders to work together with governments toward food system transformation. Power imbalances will have to be acknowledged and managed. e) Empower excluded voices Women, Indigenous Peoples, smallholder farmers and other small-scale producers, and youth as needing and deserving special attention and engagement.237238239240241243244245246247248249250251A) Trade policies (import and export) facilitate access to affordable, safe and nutritious food for consumers while contributing to EAC/COMESA/SADC countries economic and commercial objectives: 1. Limited integration of small producers/MSEs into the agri-food value chains. Management: Organise and build the technical and organizational capacities of small food producers/SMEs and link them to larger firms/agri-businesses to enhance their market access and benefits; 2. As SMEs make up most firms in the region, deal with key constraints such as access to appropriate financial products to enhance their growth and participation in the regional agri-food trade; 3. Inconsistency policy implementation by Member States: Strengthen monitoring mechanism to detect the issues and design & fast track mitigation measures; 4. Strengthen information collection and dissemination about regional agri-food markets and requirements for exporting including standards. B) Knowledge Transfer for future food systems in Africa 1. Knowledge transfer creates a demand for access to quality inputs. The best way to manage this is to ensure partnerships with input providers during the knowledge transfer process. 2. Knowledge transfer increases productivity and this may overwhelm the market if not property planned. However, proper production planning and good linkages of farmers to markets can help to address this. 3. Knowledge transfer needs sustainability. Specific projects tend to have a shelf life. However the sustainability of the interventions can be achieved by a multi-stakeholder approach to knowledge transfer that utilizes the key players in the agriculture sector; the private sector, Government extension, NGOs, key farmers/Community Based Trainers. C) Importance of organic bio capsule fertilizer for future food system 1. Lack of awareness of micro-organism – Educate people 2. Make farming trendy by create awareness. 3. Break the belief/myth – You need lots of funding, land, fertilizers, chemicals etc. to do farming

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/UN-FOOD-SYSTEMS-PUBLISHING.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/264109825_A_Study_on_the_Consumers'_Role_in_the_Local_Food_System.https://www.cairn.info/revue-natures-sciences-societes-2017-1-page-1.htm.https://www.eac.int/agriculturehttps://www.comesa.int/https://www.sadc.int/https://consumergrassroots.org/

2021-09-23 01:14:12204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45650/203

999

N/A—See MethodN/A—See MethodSeek to engage civil society, farmers and women’s rights organizations not just as beneficiaries, but as agenda-setters and decision makers.

NoThere is growing recognition of the importance of increasing voice and power of smallholder farmers. Recent critiques and concerns voiced by civil society, farmer and women’s rights organizations, scientists and others over the UN Food System Summit centered on the Summit representing “Big Agriculture” interests, and the lack of voice and power on the part of civil society, in particular the absence of farmers and women’s rights organizations in constructing the plan, principles and content of the global Summit. The need is great for bottom-up, participatory, integrated, rights-based approaches to governance at all levels to address structural inequities in food systems organizations. Increased smallholder voice and power is also central to holding global food companies accountable for commitments to a more sustainable food system. Since 2018, IFAD has supported Oxfam’s initiative Inclusive Global Agri-food Supply Chains: Going ‘Behind the Brands’ from commitments to uptake. While Oxfam initially convened these dialogues independently of the UNFSS, the 'Behind the Brands' partnership with IFAD has made important contributions to inform the pathways the Summit prioritized to lead to equitable and sustainable food systems by 2030, in particular Action Track 4, Advance Equitable Livelihoods, by indicating key steps to address unequal power dynamics and advance rights-based approaches that amplify farmer voice and power. Starting 2013,The Behind the Brands (BtB) campaign called on the world’s 10 biggest food and beverage companies to adopt better sourcing policies and spurred significant commitments on women’s empowerment, land rights and climate change. Mars, Mondelez and Nestlé committed to tackling gender inequality in their cocoa supply chains. The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC), PepsiCo and others declared zero tolerance for land grabs in all their supply chains. General Mills and the Kellogg Company committed to science-based targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and eliminating deforestation in their sourcing. Oxfam advised and monitored companies on implementation of their commitments in key countries in the Global South, including Brazil, Ghana, Guatemala, India and Malawi. Implementation of global commitments requires policy and practice change from suppliers, especially agribusiness traders that dominate markets, yet have policies that lag behind those of their customers. Oxfam first assessed 7 agribusinesses’ policies in 2019. In 2020, Oxfam commissioned 4 external evaluations and updated the 2019 agribusiness scorecard, and used the evaluations to publish Shining a Spotlight: A critical assessment of food and beverage companies’ delivery of sustainability commitments. A major goal of BtB is to increase the voice and power of smallholder farmers, CSOs, farmers’ and women’s rights organizations on implementation of commitments. Oxfam teams in Brazil, Ghana, Guatemala, India and Malawi convened 11 private sector/CSO dialogues in the last year alone. These dialogues have placed farmer and women’s rights organizations in direct contact with companies, often for the first time (f.e. convenings bringing together rural fruit workers unions with BtB companies sourcing from Brazil). In addition to farmers, these convenings have engaged indigenous peoples (f.e. in bringing traditional leaders from farming communities in Malawi into the Large-Scale, Land-Based Investment platform). Before publishing the report, Oxfam also held an Opportunity to Comment period with all BtB brands and agribusinesses. In total, we engaged thousands of small-scale producers, more than 90 CSO partners, and over 40 sustainability and procurement leads within major companies making commitments. All together, Oxfam documented around 7 million smallholder farmers covered by of the sustainability commitments—demonstrating the potential for scale. The coronavirus pandemic is exacerbating inequality and has further exposed vulnerabilities in the food system, including a rise in acute hunger and loss of income for farmers. The BtB initiative also considers how to build more resilient supply chains in the era of disruption by covid.

234240241242243244245246247248249251The Behind the Brands (BtB) initiative focus was on transformation of the food system by challenging the world’s 10 biggest food and beverage companies to adopt stronger social and environmental sourcing policies and practices, based on significant commitments on women’s empowerment, land rights and climate change that benefit smallholder farmers. The initiative makes major contributions to Action Track 4, ‘Advance Equitable Livelihoods,’ and is relevant for Action Track 5, ‘Build Resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses,’ as well as Track 3, ‘Nature Positive Solutions.’ The BtB initiative worked to shift agri-food company sourcing away from exploitive models toward models that advance rural transformation, sustainable agricultural development, global food security and eliminate rural poverty. The project’s overarching objectives supported IFAD’s strategic priorities by encouraging improved multinational corporations (MNC) policies on climate, land, women, and smallholders, which if implemented, can help drive: more equitable inclusion of smallholders in value chains; the right to be heard; gender empowerment; more sustainable food production; fair sharing of natural resources; and increased financing for development for the millions of producers, workers and communities in supply chains. The overarching goal for the BtB was to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers impacted by global agri-food supply chains by shifting core business practices toward socially, environmentally, and economically responsible sourcing through progress on trackable commitments. This was pursued through a ‘critical friend’ approach with the ‘Big 10’, their subsidiaries and suppliers to implement their commitments. Oxfam’s critical friend approach involves collaborating on implementation of commitments while reserving the right to comment publicly when a company underperforms. The approach included four linked pathways: 1. Engage ten of the largest food and beverage companies on implementation of commitments recognized as significant during the BtB campaign phase: Mars, Mondelez and Nestlé: tackling gender inequality in their cocoa supply chains. The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo and others committed to zero tolerance for land grabs. General Mills and the Kellogg Company set science-based targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and eliminating deforestation in their sourcing). 2. Extend commitments to associated global agribusinesses, with a focus on suppliers/traders needed to implement policy commitments, including ADM, Bunge, Dreyfus, Barry Callebaut, Olam, Wilmar and Cargill 3. Drive transformative change, hold companies accountable, and create new models for change in five target countries where BtB company supply chains have an impact on smallholders and there are opportunities for the companies to transform industries. 4. Establish better food sector governance through investor engagement, civil society capacity and building an improved social criteria and measurement in standards and certification. Oxfam and partners worked to spur the transition of commitments to practice, from headquarter level to countries in the Global South, such as Brazil, Ghana, Guatemala, India and Malawi. Following the three-year implementation period (2018-2020), Oxfam commissioned 4 external evaluations (2 on women’s economic empowerment, and 1 each on land rights and climate change) and updated our 2019 agribusiness scorecard to assess the extent of progress. Most of the company commitments were on a 2020 timeline. 2020 represented an important accountability moment, as companies moved to make 2030 commitments as part of the “Decade of Delivery” for the SDGs. Oxfam participated or organized several dialogues around the findings of the report. Oxfam also engaged farmers and women’s rights organizations, civil society organizations, policymakers, experts and company representatives in dialogues at the national level in the Global South that demonstrate how to implement global sustainability commitments in practice, in a way that increases voice and power of civil society, farmers and women’s rights organizations.235240241242243244245246247248249251Through Behind the Brands (BtB) initiative, Oxfam has documented companies action on their 2020 commitments covering an estimated 7 million smallholder farmers Commitments are just the first step; real progress results from implementation in countries and through supply chains. On women’s economic empowerment, Oxfam found that companies have produced gender assessments and action plans of variable quality with persistent gaps in addressing gender equality in supply chains. On land rights, companies have made progress in adopting and utilizing available frameworks and guidance at the global and headquarters level, but implementation is uneven in supply chains and geographies, as the task becomes increasingly complex. On climate change, companies have made progress on delivering targets in line with a 2°C global warming scenario by addressing agricultural emissions and have also improved data and disclosure. Not all companies have kept pace with a 1.5°C global warming scenario, and serious action on deforestation remains elusive. Implementation of commitments requires policy and practice change from suppliers, especially large-scale agribusinesses. In our 2020 assessment, we have seen some small improvements in agribusiness scores, particularly in the ‘small-scale producers’ and ‘transparency and accountability’ themes. However, the divide between the top performers and those at the bottom is widening. Overall, we have found that while companies have taken important steps at the global level, progress stalls in translating those approaches to countries and through supply chains. There are positive innovations happening in key sourcing countries. Particularly promising are implementation efforts that are locally owned and involve engagement between multinational and national companies, civil society, labor unions and governments. Key blockages must be addressed – including by providing the right incentives and disclosing suppliers– to create change at scale. Transparency remains a core challenge. Companies largely treat transparency as a reporting requirement, rather than an opportunity to drive innovation and become more resilient through sharing and learning. Greater transparency in global supply chains paves the way for new business models that empower small-scale producers and workers. It enables stakeholders to tailor context-specific and locally relevant solutions that respond and adapt to complex local realities. Without transparency, companies cannot hope to meet their human rights due diligence obligations. Expectations that companies will meet these obligations continue to increase, driven by consumers, CSO’s, investors, employees, governments and inter-governmental bodies. On human rights performance, the gap between the goals we need to meet and actual practice remains very large. As a result, a number of countries, particularly in the European Union, are crafting new laws to require human rights due diligence across companies operating in Europe. Specific regulations for supply chain human rights issues are already legally binding in California (US), the UK, France and Australia. Since the start of Oxfam’s campaign to fix the broken global food system, some of the ingredients of progress are there, but transformative action by big corporations and governments remains to be seen. Oxfam has seen progress in company commitments that benefit smallholders. Prior to Behind the Brands, companies had demonstration projects to improve incomes of smallholders. However, most of these focused on improved productivity, were not under the umbrella of a policy or sourcing commitment and served as isolated islands of excellence in a sea of inequality. A more resilient global food system requires urgent, systemic change. This change demands a move away from current business models, which are founded on short-term profit maximization, towards more holistic ones which internalize social and environmental performance and good governance. During the next decade – already dubbed the ‘decade of delivery’ – we must make progress on the systemic drivers of this inequality to protect the only planet we have and to ensure that small-scale farmers and workers get their fair share of the value they create. The global pandemic brings an opportunity for industry to recognize workers’ and farmers’ true value, and has shown that doing so would minimize food supply chain disruptions and strengthen business continuity. A key next step is moving more companies towards Living Income / Living Wage commitments for farmers and workers in food supply chains, with time bound action plans and integration into the company business model and strategy. The best plans integrate climate and gender justice.236240241242243244245246247248249251During the Bend the Brands campaign and through their work on implementation, companies made progress on several fundamental issues touching the lives of people in the food system. But we did not see sufficient change in the entrenched issues that continue to drive inequality in supply chains. In the decade ahead – already dubbed the ‘decade of delivery’ by the United Nations – companies must make progress on the systemic drivers of this inequality, including climate change, to ensure that small-scale farmers, workers and communities maintain access to their resources and receive their fair share of the value they create. The events of the past year have only underscored the urgent need to tackle the global inequality crisis, from COVID-19 to climate disasters, to protests to end systemic racism and promote racial justice. While companies are becoming more aware of inequality and their contributions to it – and have continued to make commitments around human rights and sustainability – the food system is becoming increasingly concentrated. We have seen that farmers’ share of the end consumer price of a typical food basket has decreased by 44% since 1998, while input suppliers, traders, food manufacturers and supermarkets have all increased their share. The rights and livelihoods of the 2.5 billion people engaged in smallholder agriculture globally are at risk as more land is concentrated in the hands of the business elite, allowing them to capture the benefits from it. This global inequality crisis has seen the power and financial reward of big business and other owners of capital increase at the expense of ordinary people, including those who grow and process our food. Market concentration in the agri-food sector has reached new extremes in all areas of the food supply chain. Through the implementation phase covered in this report, Oxfam has worked with companies to develop models to implement global commitments, including efforts to drive progress deep into practice in the Global South. In so doing, we have tested several initiatives that serve to advance an inequality agenda. From these efforts, a vision for more equitable and resilient supply chains is emerging. In particular, this vision requires moving away from current business models, which are founded on short-term profit maximization, towards more holistic business models which value and internalize social and environmental performance and a greater voice for stakeholders in governance. It also means holding to account those who have the most power in the system. Foundational to this vision is that small-scale farmers, workers and their communities have greater influence over food value chains: that their rights are respected, they retain their land and resources, they receive a fair share of value, and they are more resilient to shocks caused by climate change, pandemics or other forces. In this new system, income rather than productivity is the benchmark for farmer-oriented support. There is greater equality and equity between men and women and for marginalized groups in food value chains, including in opportunities, in respect for rights, in pay, and in influence in political space. Companies champion system-oriented strategies to achieve scalable and sustainable change for entire communities, instead of predominantly undertaking resource intensive interventions targeted at specific groups of farmers. Governments around the world enforce laws and provide regulation to protect the rights of communities. Now is the time for the food sector to move from the gradual adoption of good practices toward faster, more fundamental transformation. As long as shareholder primacy takes precedence over social value, we will be stuck with partial solutions. Short-term profits and disproportionate shareholder returns are irreconcilable with investing in economically resilient supply chains or achieving true social and environmental sustainability.236240241242243244245246247248249251Real progress requires both industry-wide collaboration and individual leadership by companies. Leadership entails adopting systemic approaches to advancing equality in value chains, to working across intersectional issues, and to collaborating with all stakeholders to demonstrate that another way of doing business is possible. Realizing climate ambition requires not just investments in direct operations but also shifts in food and land-use systems to address the multiple and interlinked challenges of climate change, food security, farmer livelihoods and land rights. Companies that address these interlinked challenges and their underlying causes will be ahead of the curve in meeting the growing demand for stronger social and human rights performance. Governments and investors also need to take action to create a level playing field and strengthen human rights performance. The global pandemic brings an opportunity for industry to recognize workers’, women’s and farmers’ true value and reshape the global food system. More is at risk, and yet more is possible than ever before. A top priority should be a commitment to living income for farmers and living wage for farm and food workers, with timebound, measurable, action plans that include climate and gender justice. Specific discussion topics/action recommendations at the level of actor include: Companies Topic 1: A new way of doing business • Redefine corporate purpose (at the board level) to include a company’s stakeholders, including workers, consumers and affected communities, in addition to its shareholders. • Require non-financial objectives for companies’ strategy based on ESG criteria (i.e. the wellbeing of people, communities and the environment) and embed this in supplier management; monitor and publicly report on progress in suppliers’ performance; integrate policies into the KPIs of buyers, recognizing trade-offs and prioritizing positive environmental and social performance. • Exercise preferential sourcing from suppliers that safeguard the environment, guarantee a living wage/income and that give greater voice, power and value to workers, women and farmers through the ownership and governance structure of their business. • Make a commitment to eliminate commercial and trading practices that place undue levels of risk and pressure on suppliers to cut costs. This should include setting appropriate pricing based on sustainable production costs, and providing long-term, predictable and transparent contracts and payment terms for suppliers. • Implement commercial and trading practices that promote new business models, such as worker cooperatives, benefit companies and social enterprises, that protect and restore the environment, strengthen communities’ and women’s rights, and share value with employees or workers in the supply chain. Track results using gender-disaggregated data. • Ensure full transparency and traceability across supply chain tiers and extend supplier disclosure to the farm level.236240241242243244245246247248249251Topic 2: Human rights and transparency • Adopt a comprehensive and transparent human rights due diligence (HRDD) approach that engages rights holders meaningfully and applies a gender analysis throughout. • Embed human rights responsibilities in corporate governance and the company’s purpose, and ensure that respect for human rights is measured and managed, with regular progress reports issued by companies. • Create or participate in effective and operational-level grievance mechanisms for employees, workers and affected communities across supply chains and address barriers to access; ensure that suppliers do the same, and track progress. • Align government advocacy – including through lobbying and trade associations – to responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (and development and implementation of National Action Plans) and ambitions for Sustainable Development Goals. • Advocate for and engage with governments and peers to take necessary action to address land inequality and to ensure that smallholders secure their land titles.236240241242243244245246247248249251Topic 3: Climate justice • Accelerate the implementation of science-based emissions reduction targets aligned with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, prioritizing action in operations and in agricultural supply chains, with clear interim milestones and disclosure. • Eliminate deforestation and exploitation from supply chains. • Address climate risk supply chains by developing strategies that build the resilience of small-scale farmers and communities and drive value chains that give greater voice, power and value to workers and farmers. • Advocate for public policies that incentivize stronger climate action and support agricultural and land use models such as agroecology and landscape approaches.236240241242243244245246247248249251Investors Topic 4: More responsible finance • Elevate assessment of social risks and impacts to levels similar to those afforded to environmental and governance risks. • Align ESG policies with mainstream investment processes and risk management frameworks. • Become ESG stewards, actively engaging companies on ESG risk management and impact. • Signal the importance of commitment to gender equity and human rights across all companies in your investment portfolios. • Encourage companies to replace a shareholder primacy model with a stakeholder value one. • Ensure that environmental and social impacts (direct and indirect) are a priority for board-level oversight, and factor into assessment of management performance. • Use economic power to encourage the adoption of robust, national-level regulations that advance better corporate conduct on environmental and social issues across value chains.236240241242243244245246247248249251Governments Topic 5: Protect human rights vis-à-vis the private sector • Require that companies disclose human rights risks, support mandatory human rights due diligence across their supply chains and ensure legal accountability. • Require that companies pay living wages to workers and living income to smallholders, provide safe and healthy working conditions, and support collective bargaining rights and engagement with independent trade unions. • Support and implement the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGTs) and encourage companies to pursue business that secures land titles for small-scale producers. • Require paid leave and ensure that women have equal opportunities for advancement, and support women workers to raise their voices safely and effectively in company operations and supply chains. • Support the adoption of the United Nations Treaty on Business and Human Rights, in addition to ensuring that the UNGPs are being implemented nationally, for example through strong National Action Plans. This UN treaty should set binding standards on states, including recognizing that corporations have legal responsibilities with respect to human and labor rights and ensuring that these are observed in practice, with provisions for sanctions and access to grievance and remedy for affected parties.236240241242243244245246247248249251Topic 6: Encourage innovation that addresses inequality • Incentivize companies to democratize their ownership through mechanisms like profit sharing and employee-owned ownership plans, and build the solidarity economy by incentivizing the creation and expansion of cooperatives and other types of stakeholder-oriented enterprises.236240241242243244245246247248249251Topic 7: Climate-just pandemic recovery • Embed climate action at the heart of coronavirus recovery plans and accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon economy in a just and inclusive manner. This should include a robust roadmap for building a fairer and more sustainable food system that incentivizes sustainable agricultural and land-management strategies that center food security and land rights (forest protection, soil health, agroforestry, pastureland management) and strengthens the resilience of small-scale farmers. • Require companies to measure and report their greenhouse gas emissions and make climate-related financial disclosure mandatory across the economy in line with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations. • Hold companies legally accountable for their climate and environmental impacts, and the accompanying social and human rights violations. • Complement voluntary commitments on zero deforestation with demand-side regulations that prohibit the import of commodities linked to deforestation or the violation of FPIC.237240241242243244245246247248249251Since the start of the Behind the Brands implementation initiative, Oxfam has seen progress in company commitments that benefit smallholders. Over the course of dialogue with many different stakeholders over the course of the initiative, many stakeholders have held that some of the companies engaged in Behind the Brands have important demonstration projects underway that benefit smallholders and seek to improve their incomes. However, most of these focused on improved productivity, were not under the umbrella of a policy or sourcing commitment and served as isolated islands of excellence in a sea of inequality. This was only exacerbated by the pandemic, which accelerated the already significant socioeconomic, environmental, and governance risks in supply chains, and placed many farmers already low incomes in jeopardy. A positive sign is that we have seen important progress with companies setting policy and sourcing commitments that, taken together, mean that more than 7 million smallholders in the 17 major food and beverage and agribusiness company value chains are covered under the umbrella of a commitment. The pandemic has also increased awareness of the need to build greater resiliency in supply chains, in particular through increased farmer income; companies are thinking bigger and making bold new commitments. However, setting commitments is only the first step: implementation of these commitments necessitates that companies put sustainability at the core of their business models and strategy, which is increasingly seen as the most important emerging area of focus. Oxfam has been at the forefront of advancing this agenda. As opposed to engaging major food and beverage companies on individual demonstration projects that benefit smallholders, we have advocated for, secured and then helped shape company commitments that result in all smallholders in a company supply chain being under the umbrella of a commitment, including specific commitments on farmer income, climate, gender and land. We have also worked to hold companies accountable for implementing these commitments. And, we engage companies on demonstration projects and initiatives that are designed with the intention of demonstrating how global commitments can be implemented on the ground in the Global South. Through the initiative, we are at the forefront of ensuring that company approaches to improving lives and livelihoods of smallholder farmers are comprehensive, credible, and integrated into core business strategy and practice. A key next step is moving more companies towards Living Income / Living Wage commitments for farmers and workers in food supply chains, with time bound action plans and integration into the company business model and strategy. The lessons from the Behind the Brands implementation initiative are highly relevant for addressing some of the recent controversy over the UN Food System Summit representing “Big Agribusiness” interests, and the lack of voice and power on the part of civil society, in particular the absence of farmer’s and women’s rights organizations in constructing the plan, principles and content of the global Summit, underscores the growing importance of both increasing voice and power of smallholder farmers and their representative organizations and of holding the largest global food companies accountable. This has been a focus of Oxfam’s Behind the Brands implementation work, with a focus on amplifying the voice and power of local Civil Society Organizations, and farmer’s and women’s rights organizations, including unions, in engaging companies. As the debate around the UN Food System Summit demonstrates, it is not enough to undertake projects with farmers as beneficiaries; farmers need strengthened negotiating capacity and to have a seat in decision-making spaces. Oxfam has been able to make key advances to this end (for example, in bringing rural fruit worker unions into direct engagement with companies in Brazil). Oxfam hopes to further engage Summit participants in this agenda—and, as importantly, to help bring farmers and women’s rights organizations voices into the dialogue, with increased agenda-setting ability. Amplifying voice and power will be a major area of focus for Oxfam’s 2030 strategy.

2021-09-23 01:18:19https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/GlobeScan-SustainAbility-Leaders-Survey-2021-Report.pdfhttps://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/shining-a-spotlight/

2021-09-23 06:35:12204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/33751/109110203162

4212246103024813222421419110116112

This Dialogue had focus on the upcoming European Capitals of Culture, and the aim to bring together diverse range of stakeholders to discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with an educative “Edible School Garden” collaboration project. The foundation of this dialogue was the idea of the three European Capitals 2022 to take the lead to foster and accelerate sustainable food tourism and a societal inclusiveness through Agrarian Urbanism. It builds on two previous talks on the subject and was followed by a series of roundtable conversations. The Dialogue was organised and convened by Sustainable Gastro with the support of the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Nordic Talks and the Social Gastronomy Movement (SGM). This dialogue is a part of a series of three independent dialogues convened by Sustainable Gastro. In "European Capitals of Culture 2022 - Edible School Gardens”, we focused on Action Track 3, engaging communities in nature-positive production. We invited dissenting opinions and asked members of the task force to ensure we had as many perspectives engaged and represented as possible. Representation at this Dialogue was from: Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Singapore, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and USA.This Independent Dialogue project has been quite a journey with valuable insights, information and action points shared by everyone engaged. We consciously chose speakers committed to community development and principles of justice and equity in their work. We committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity and highlighting the complexity of problems and the solutions, from different perspectives; cultural, political, and educational. The Dialogue focused on all the topics that were addressed during the previous workshops, two Talks (panels), with a major focus on how edible gardens can empower local communities to share their cultural heritage with visitors while becoming portals to a global network. The final aim was to achieve some concrete Lines of Action towards an edible school garden project proposal. The principles of inclusivity, respect and trust were reflected in the design and roll-out of the workshops, Talks and the Dialogue and have been an essential feature of the entire process. The participants have not only been included in all stages of the project in a transparent and inclusive way but have been its very centre. A real sense of trust has been created along the way, and this could be witnessed during the Dialogue as the participants felt they could express their views freely and openly.Before organising our dialogue, we participated in several Independent Dialogues and met with other Dialogue conveners to learn from their experiences and better complement their approaches and outputs. This meant that we were able to offer something different, while adding to what had gone before. To be able to provide the participants with a background and understanding of our Dialogue topic, we had two live streamed Talks (panels). An approximately one hour Live Talk each day before the Dialogue session between three speakers and a curator (moderator) discussing the "Challenge" from two different perspectives; day one from the "Community Engagers" perspective and day two from the "Supporting Partners" perspective. These additions helped the speakers, the participants and all parties involved to understand and address the complexity of the challenge from different perspectives; cultural, political, and educational. Do not be afraid to advertise the dialogue to audiences you would not normally reach, this allows for different perspectives and enriches the discussion. The choice of the meeting chair and breakout facilitators is also important in this regard in attracting a different audience.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251During the Talks, the speakers shared experiences and knowledge of contributions to the food systems and detailed challenges. A second group, participants in the breakout rooms, discussed and considered actions within defined pathways in line with the UN Action Tracks. There were four primary focus areas for this dialogue that was divided in themes: Theme #1 – Tourism, Global Knowledge Transfer, Community Building, Cultural Heritage We need to rethink and redesign sustainable food experiences and culture in our cities, in order to raise the engagement level of the whole society. In 2022, we have three European Capitals of Culture cities (Esch2022, Kaunas2022 and NoviSad2022). How can these cities collaborate, and be the catalysts for upcoming Capitals of Cultures, through a participatory Edible School Garden project? Theme #2 - Education, Curriculum Design, Sovereignty While we can start food education at an early stage the food choices are generally made by the parents that might be counterproductive. What are the key components of community-centered and cross-generational edible school garden projects? Theme #3 - Inclusivity, Participation, Technology In order to make things happen, different stakeholders need to collaborate. Given the nature of edible school gardens, they are part of the infrastructure of educational institutions. How can we make sure that the entire ecosystem is inclusive and represents the same values? What are the key roles for successful community engagement? Theme #4 - Policymaking, (Food) Diplomacy, Measurements, Democracy Food diplomacy is the use of food as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation. How do we raise the question of food education through educative edible gardens and make it a priority on a city's strategy/agenda? How can regulatory design be an enabler of edible school garden projects and achieve sustainable change.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251City-adjusted farms are more successful than non-city-adjusted ones. More work is needed to identify the most impactful ways forward and the European Capitals of Culture have a valuable opportunity to contribute to developing smarter and more liveable cities; to start a new era of sustainable tourism and share best practises with other European markets and future European Capitals of Culture. Community-oriented urban gardening is an important part of many cultures and the creation of community and engagement spaces within city limits. Sustainable design, construction, and urban planning are also huge priorities for many regions, with an emphasis on using natural resources responsibly, efficiently, and renewably. The conversation around urban food systems is sophisticated and shows a deep awareness of the value of urban agriculture for both social wellness and food system sustainability. Some of the main findings were: • Food has become an uninteresting topic in the educational sector due to the public procurements of food. • It requires coheres act from the government level to implement edible gardens in every school with a concise framework. • Inequities need to be fixed before thinking of the concept of edible school gardens on how it can have a rich and robust community experience around food. • Centering joy in conversations about the design and policy making process • Run social enterprise within the school itself. A model that can be implemented is a social semi-commercial socially driven urban farm to produce food to the community and for the school community. • Build gardens with a purpose. Meaning going beyond the food production to give the garden an extension and a wider objective. • Students and teachers generally do not know the possibility that it is possible to grow food at school. They need to be informed and motivated. • Inspiring entrepreneurs, organisations, individuals, visitors and municipalities through call-to-action initiatives that help create more Urban Agrarian communities. • If we want specific people to be engaged, then they need to be part of the co-creating of the process. Engage the communities that will be using the resource in the design of the space in order for it to meet their needs. • To overcome the barrier of unwillingness to participate from the community, it’s fundamental to give them a voice and accessibility to the space. • It is necessary to use this potential of food cultivation to turn schools into cultural centres of local communities. • Should the gardens be at schools or just places of learning within communities? That allows for the resource to potentially be more accessible outside of school hours and maintained by entities outside of the schools. Learning can take place anywhere! • Engaging children and youth in life skills through edible gardens. • Introducing technology literacy, concepts of open source & data sensing by using sensors (light, humidity, sound) in the garden. • Include and rethink the role of the tourist in ways that it's no longer a visiting guest but someone that wants to be part of the community and participate actively. A participant and co-creator more than a traditional tourist.236238239240241242244246248249250251Facilitator: Bjorn Low, Executive Director at Edible Garden City, Singapore Topic 1 - Tourism, Global Knowledge Transfer, Community Building, Cultural Heritage How do we open source knowledge for other cities to replicate the success? • This can be applied to all different types of tourism (cultural heritage). It starts with education. In food tourism, an easy way to make change is to implement menu messaging in restaurants. Countries with shorter histories, or lots of expats? Or perhaps the indigenous knowledge has been lost? Co-collaboration with indigenous groups to bring to light indigenous knowledge. The dialogue might be hard given a complex history, but it's vital. Lack of trust and lack of understanding requires having everyone's voices heard and a part of the conversation regarding tourism. • Do you have to overcome these indigenous issues first? Oftentimes they are ignored: traditionally, destination management focused on tourists first, and assumed that locals would then recognize the benefits of local attractions and culture. But to be sustainable, local residents have to have a seat at the table from the beginning. • Easy replication actions! We also need to encourage locals to eat their own foods. However, there is not one main solution. There are some cross-cultural solutions as well. As long as you can offer something for different targeted groups, you can get very creative! There are a plethora of cultures within countries, and they all can be recognized. • Knowledge transfer is often across generations. Pride factors into this, and locals need to feel proud of their local culture, food, and heritage. Michelin star chefs are really helping in this regarding, by introducing more heritage ingredients. How do we spark this curiosity, pride, and motivation? Then the knowledge transfer will happen more naturally. Topic 2 - Future Visioning, Access, Equality, (Mental) Health, Mindfulness What would a school meal look like in 2030, if every schoolyard had a garden? • It would be purposeful. A sustainable reason, a cultural reason, a nutritional reason, FUN, etc. Self-grown food would help instil a sense of pride for children, but also knowledge. Fun also ties in with cultural nuance, so this can change depending on the place. It makes everything more meaningful. Sustainability can be fun and exciting, it’s not always-- if we don't eat this, we are going to die. • The importance of having gardens that are good for people, but also environment and animals as well. • If you orient your educational experience around a certain topic, tourists can share their own practices at home. So it’s not just a one-way exchange, but rather dual. • If the goal is to attract tourists, how many "labels" or layers do we need to give our food? Indigenous, home-grown, sustainable, eco, etc... to some extent, the health label is a double edged sword. You want to have a small imprint on the planet, and eat well, but the gatekeeping needs to be kept to a minimum. There are many different motivators for people to travel, and types of tourists. However, for sustainable tourism, it’s a given that there is a market for people seeking out "healthy" food tourism, especially regarding these community gardens.236238239240241242244245246247248249251Facilitator 1: Angela McKee Brown, Executive Director at The Edible Schoolyard Project, USA Facilitator 2: Dragana Djuric, Director at National Association of Parents and Teachers of Serbia Topic - Education, curriculum design, sovereignty How might edible gardens become instruments of applied knowledge and skills where students, parents, and educators can develop their food and agricultural literacy? • It's an opportunity for people to learn about other skills than just food and growing related ones, i.e., soft skills such as communication, collaboration, teamwork. They can also learn about life lessons. • When children are young, it is a great way to teach the children about vegetables and how to cook them, and then they bring it back home and also influence their parents. So “getting to parents through children”. • A lot of people have lost the habits of home cooking. • After school activities is also a nice way to bring parents to the school garden or a cooking class. This also increases their relationship to nature. What are the learning elements of these spaces? • In some space we have people that are employed specifically to teach children for gardening and to take care of the gardening. • Urban environment, natural spaces? Is it really possible, do we have the space. Idea of nature can be very foreign for some really low income areas. It is also really complicated to hire their own teachers, so getting a new teacher would be complicated as well. • Sometimes you can also have other teachers that can be taught how to cultivate and keep a garden. • Having the parents teach the teachers how to garden. Creating a sense of community and a breaking the barriers between parents and teachers. It would be important for the children to work in an environment where there is collaboration between these two most important role models! • Lack of access --> Design thinking? This is where there could be the steepest learning curve! • How do we have the Government to fund our edible school gardens? • We could have farmers welcoming and teaching children how to be around nature etc. Organise trips there. • Important for the Job Market for young adults to be interested in farming. What important skills are kids able to learn through edible school gardens? • Kids will be able to understand and develop strong relationships with nature where they can see that nature takes time and will be able to engage them in climate solutions. • It’s a different type of engagement, learning to use their body, and testing themselves physically, fine motor skills that are unique to engaging with nature. • Breaks children out of the traditional school design (industrial model of sitting in rows, strict discipline, sitting in desks). • 21st century skills in the garden (creativity, innovation, curiosity, collaboration). • Able to adjust to different learning styles. • No pressure to fail/pass --> a space where you can allow for neurodivergence. • Learning to care for their space. How to we engage all other members of the educational ecosystem? • We need to make steps slowly, quality over quantity. • Engaging a wide range of teachers. • Why is it important to grow your own food. • Science and art teachers. • If you bring the food from the garden into the cafeteria, it shows that the food in the cafeteria is not food. • What if school lunch workers were able to have more hours working in the garden and caring for students. • What will happen during summer breaks? Engaging college students? • Engaging parents to come teach teachers.236238239240241242243244245248249251Facilitator 1: Karine Paris, Coordinator Urban Gardening, CELL – The Transition Hub, Luxembourg Facilitator 2: Sally Bourdon, Action Researcher at Fab Lab Barcelona, USA Topic - Inclusivity, Participation, Technology How might edible gardens enable the young generation to achieve digital and financial literacy and develop a holistic approach to sustainable development? • Teaching the youth nature, physics and correlations with food systems sovereignty, giving them design thinking techniques. • Co-design from the very beginning, the idea, the location and so on. • How they see the work on land as well, we need to work on the farmers, the quality of work to make farming sustainable. • School trips to successful farms would improve the image of a farmer and kids can dream about that too. • Involving the whole community, the seniors as well. • Circular system for edible gardens, processing, and coming back to our houses (preserve/ferment/turn into powder). • Partnering agro with technology, connect farmers and chefs, take out the middle man, and maybe even use school kitchens. • Looking back to move forward! Learning from the past to improve through technology. What are some opportunities & challenges for educators to engage with tech in a school garden? • We need to start dreaming, but the whole cycle needs their engagement (youth and adults). • Holistic knowledge through first hand experiences, being involved in more than 1 part of the system. • The entire world should be dreaming about sustainable farmers, we don't exist without them. • Once you understand the whole path the ingredient had to go through before reaching your table you give it more value. • Youth is looking for opportunities in urban centers, how we create opportunities for successful farmer careers. • Positive experience for health, mental health, creates a community. • Edible garden in elementary school where they plant, harvest, transform what it is in the garden, ingredient is cheap, product has added value. • Safety starting from the quality of input, food safety is important at all stages.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Facilitator 1: Jennifer Avci, Founder & Project Development Manager at Sustainable Gastro, Nordic-Baltic region Facilitator 2: Julia Dalmadi, Director of Community Programs at Future Food Institute, Germany Topic - Policymaking, (Food) Diplomacy, Measurements, Democracy How might edible gardens be the catalysts of regulatory design to build equitable food systems? • We don't need new projects, we need to use what we have and exploit it. • We all have a connection to our food system at least in one way, because we all consume it. • Finding good food to eat is very difficult and expensive. Cooperative supermarket comes up as a solution; it empowered people to take charge of their food system. • How to scale out these initiatives: The most difficult issue is to make sure that all marginalised voices are taken into consideration when engaging in policy making. A platform is necessary to ensure these voices are heard (Civil Society), indigenous people, women, and small business ownership. They understand their needs and have better insight into solutions that might work. • Co-create and co-design is key to achieve real change. • Children are able to build conversations around food organically. • In order to create change in policy making we need to come up with creative solutions that allow all stakeholders to face the issues together and come up with solutions to them together. • Language integration (Speak food fluently) • Policy-making mind-set is short-term oriented. • At a municipality level it is important that projects are handled on a platform that allows for the continuity of the projects. • Ingredients: Clear financial plans, account for your resources, integrate technology in order to make the projects cheap and scalable, raise awareness in your communities and talk about the basics and openly share your solutions. • Create programs that lead to more interest of younger generations to engage in agriculture related professions. • Edible school gardens can give culinary confidence, product knowledge (Product ID, taste knowledge), culinary creativity (Recipe knowledge), and solution to unemployment issues. Consequently they solve food supply issues in communities’ dependant on others for food supply.237238239240241242244247250251Should we go back to the old ways, or move forward with the future? This is why intergenerational work is important, to prevent the total loss of cultural heritage. Young people are working against aspects of climate change and social issues that previous generations never had to deal with.

2021-09-23 14:25:49205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45756/144

55010325180352702809510550101040401823010810301010

Los Diálogos Nacionales desarrollados por el Perú durante los días 30 de junio y 1 de julio del año 2021 fueron organizados teniendo en consideración los Principios de actuación de la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios. En ese sentido, ha sido posible evidenciar lo siguiente: - Convocatorias amplias e inclusivas: a través de la participación de múltiples grupos de interés y de actores clave (Ministerios, entidades gubernamentales relacionadas con los sistemas alimentarios, Gobiernos Regionales, universidades, gremios de agricultores, exportadores, cocineros, etc.). - Consistencia y coherencia entre los objetivos de los Diálogos Nacionales con los objetivos de la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios: el debate, la colaboración y la búsqueda de soluciones desde la esfera nacional tuvo como propósito contribuir directamente al proceso de la Cumbre en la línea con su visión, objetivos y resultados finales. - Acción coordinada con otros espacios: tanto a nivel multisectorial (con diversos sectores de gobiernos) y territorial (con gobiernos subnacionales) para lograr una intervención comprehensiva y articulada respecto a los objetivos de los Diálogos Nacionales y la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. - Involucramiento de todos los actores bajo un mismo objetivo: se ratificó la urgente necesidad de generar cambios en los procesos de producción, distribución y consumo responsables, que promuevan la sostenibilidad y la conservación del medio ambiente. - Compromisos y seguimiento: se definieron compromisos con miras a implementar acciones y medidas que coadyuven al éxito de la Cumbre y a la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios en general, además de la necesidad de llevar a cabo el respectivo seguimiento.Los Diálogos Nacionales desarrollados por el Perú reflejan aspectos específicos de los Principios de actuación de la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios en los resultados obtenidos. En principio, se logró constatar que todos los actores comparten una visión clara de la necesaria y compleja transformación de los sistemas alimentarios, siendo conscientes al mismo tiempo de las limitaciones que enfrentan las políticas públicas en nuestro país debido, en gran medida, a que su diseño, implementación y financiamiento se desarrollan de manera sectorial y no bajo un enfoque sistémico e integral que articule a los actores en el territorio. Asimismo, los actores advierten que requiere propiciar un cambio estructural en las cadenas de suministro de alimentos para asegurar su provisión especialmente para las poblaciones más vulnerables, lo cual implica adoptar un enfoque inclusivo y participativo de actores locales a través del trabajo colectivo y articulado para la gestión del territorio desde la producción hasta el consumo. También es fundamental asegurar cambios en el comportamiento de los consumidores de manera que valoren más los alimentos saludables y nutritivos y, asimismo, puedan exigir que los alimentos provengan de ecosistemas conservados o recuperados. De otro lado, considerando la acción complementaria, se propone implementar una estrategia de protección social reactiva ante emergencias que asegure la acción colectiva a nivel familiar, comunitario y nacional, con miras a asegurar la provisión de alimentos en zonas urbanas y rurales, reconociéndose, además, la necesidad de integrar en los sistemas alimentarios a las organizaciones de apoyo local como actores clave para la provisión de alimentos, sobre todo en momentos de emergencia.Algunas sugerencias para otros convocantes de los Diálogos en cuanto a la valoración de los Principios de Actuación podrían ser las siguientes: Enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés: Motivar a los formuladores de políticas a que integren los sistemas alimentarios en sus estrategias nacionales de manera transversal, a fin de poder alcanzar una verdadera transformación, ya que si bien es cierto que todos los actores involucrados en la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios cumplen un rol específico, las políticas públicas determinan el curso de acción y decisión por parte de los Estados con la finalidad de transformar o modificar una situación determinada, y dar respuesta a necesidades y demandas de la población. Complementar la labor de los demás: Aprovechar las sinergias que podrían generarse a partir de las iniciativas públicas y privadas que proponen acciones innovadoras para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios, evitando que se implementan de manera aislada sin un enfoque integral. Reconocer la complejidad: Re-direccionar el accionar de los actores que forman parte del sistema alimentario y promover el desarrollo de acciones basadas en un enfoque sistémico y articulado, en lugar de iniciativas sectoriales y aisladas.

NoEl Perú desarrolló sus diálogos nacionales durante los días 30 de junio y 1 de julio del año 2021, que se denominaron “Sobre la mesa”. Estos diálogos ofrecieron una gran oportunidad para que las opiniones de los distintos actores (Ministerios, entidades gubernamentales relacionadas con los sistemas alimentarios, Gobiernos Regionales, universidades, gremios de agricultores, exportadores, cocineros, etc.) y partes interesadas sean parte de un espacio para el debate, la colaboración y la búsqueda de soluciones para un sistema alimentario sostenible que permite que sus bases sociales, económicas (y ambientales no comprometan su futuro desarrollo. A diferencia del método establecido en el TDR para los diálogos, en la organización de los Diálogos Nacionales “Sobre la Mesa” no se pudo incluir una Fase 2 de Análisis exhaustivos a todos los niveles, ya que se contaba con una restricción en el tiempo para la implementación de los mismos. Dicha restricción se originó debido a temas de coyuntura política en el país (elecciones presidenciales y cambio de gobierno), lo cual complicaba la convocatoria y desarrollo de Diálogos subnacionales (en ciudades, provincias u otras jurisdicciones). En ese sentido, al ser un evento completamente virtual se buscó invitar y acercar a la mayor cantidad de actores relacionados con los sistemas alimentarios en el país, es así que se remitieron invitaciones a líderes gremiales, asociaciones de productores/as, la academia, entre otros; solicitando que hagan extensiva la invitación a sus redes de contacto para participar de las actividades. Es importante mencionar que todos los participantes recibieron materiales de referencia por adelantado, en el kit de información se compartió el programa completo y resúmenes acerca de los sistemas alimentarios, los diálogos nacionales “ Sobre la Mesa” y de las vías de Acción . En cuanto a la ejecución de los Diálogos Nacionales, los dos días estuvieron compuestos por 1 panel de expertos por la mañana, 1 panel de líderes al mediodía, 3 talleres (paralelos) en la tarde y en la noche microponencias (presentación de experiencias exitosas de la sociedad civil). Ambos días el PANEL DE EXPERTOS se denominó “Hacia el 2030: Retos para el rediseño de los sistemas alimentarios”, el primer día desde la sociedad civil y el segundo desde la arena gubernamental. Respecto de la Fase 3 de Consolidación, intención y compromiso, la sistematización de los Diálogos Nacionales realizado con el apoyo de la FAO culminó con la presentación del documento denominado “Documento de Síntesis de los Diálogos Nacionales sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 –Sobre la Mesa”, el mismo que concluye expresando que: todos los actores que participaron en los diálogos consideran la necesidad de promover el desarrollo de acciones basadas en un enfoque sistémico y articulado, alejándose de iniciativas sectoriales y aisladas como se han venido desarrollando hasta la fecha. Finalmente, “Sobre la mesa” hizo énfasis en que el centro de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles es la persona (ejemplo: el/la productor/a o el/la consumidor/a), dado lo cual se requiere que todas las personas trabajen de manera colectiva para alcanzar los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles que el país necesita y se merece.

234238239240241242243244246247248249251El Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego, en alianza con el Ministerio de la Producción, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y las Agencias de las Naciones Unidas con sede en el Perú, organizaron los Diálogos Nacionales 2021 “Sobre la mesa” sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios, los días 30 de junio y 01 de julio del presente año en formato virtual, contando con la participación de más de 32 ponentes provenientes de la academia, el gobierno, organismos internacionales, sector privado y la sociedad civil y se registró más de 550 participantes en las sesiones de los diálogos. Estos Diálogos ha tenido como tema central realizar un análisis detallado de los sistemas alimentarios en el país, teniendo como guía las cinco Líneas de Acción de la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios para generar un intercambio que plantee intervenciones, consensos y respuestas que conduzcan a los actores participantes a sistemas agroalimentarios inclusivos, sostenibles y resilientes. Asimismo, “Sobre la mesa” buscar innovar las cadenas agroalimentarias para la transformación en el marco de los ODS y crear una gran oportunidad para definir objetivos conjuntos y de manera articulada que aseguren una nueva institucionalidad. Esta nueva institucionalidad requerirá de nuevos mecanismos de coordinación y el desafío está en generar esos mecanismos en el más alto nivel, pero también en los equipos técnicos, quienes tienen el rol de coordinar y articular espacios para la transformación rural. Es necesario desarrollar una mesa de trabajo de múltiples actores y generar un nuevo esquema de gobernanza con gobiernos locales.235238239240241242243244246247248249251En general, todos los actores que participaron en los diálogos consideran la necesidad de redireccionar el accionar de los actores que forman parte del sistema alimentario y promover el desarrollo de acciones basadas en un enfoque sistémico y articulado, alejándose de iniciativas sectoriales y aisladas como se han venido desarrollando hasta la fecha. Se reconoce que el centro de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles es la persona y que es trabajo de todas las personas trabajar de manera colectiva para alcanzar los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles que el país necesita y se merece. Entre los puntos más resaltantes desarrollados durante los Diálogos Nacionales se pueden mencionar los siguientes: • En la Vía de acción 1 “Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos”: se considera fundamental mejorar los servicios de asistencia técnica productiva sostenible y el acompañamiento a los productores agropecuarios de la agricultura familiar bajo un enfoque territorial. Asimismo, se propone mejorar los servicios logísticos relacionados al procesamiento y transporte de recursos hidrobiológicos para consumo humano, como asegurar cadenas de frío y plantas de procesamiento con menores costos. Se reconoce que la pesca tiene una orientación principalmente exportadora y que es necesario reorientar la actividad hacia el mercado doméstico. Además, la acuicultura sostenible tiene un gran potencial y debe ser impulsada para proveer a la población peruana de alimentos que provienen de los recursos hidrobiológicos. Finalmente, la implementación del programa Hambre Cero es clave para mejorar la oferta de productos nutritivos. • En la Vía de Acción 2, “Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles”: se considera clave acciones como la promoción de la agroecología y producir alimentos que aprovechen la biodiversidad del país para mejorar la oferta de alimentos sostenibles; además de la difusión de la importancia de una alimentación saludable a través inclusive, la enseñanza directa a través del sistema educativo. Asimismo, se propone generar mayor conciencia entre los consumidores sobre la procedencia sostenible de los alimentos y acerca del destino de los desechos y desperdicios que forman parte del sistema alimentario asegurándose que se reutilicen para la producción de alimentos a través de la generación de energía o producción fertilizantes orgánicos. • En la Vía de Acción 3 “Impulsar la producción positiva para la naturaleza” se propone mejorar las capacidades y servicios de regulación y control en torno a la deforestación y sobrepesca, además de impulsar sistemas de producción sostenibles a través de más información y asistencia técnica a productores. Trabajar bajo un enfoque territorial que reconozca no solo las particularidades de los ecosistemas sino también las técnicas ancestrales y adaptarlas para las necesidades actuales. por el lado de la demanda, los consumidores deben exigir que los alimentos provengan de ecosistemas conservados o recuperados. Esto ya sucede en mercados internacionales, por lo que la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios debe buscar que el mercado doméstico valore que se aseguren condiciones de sostenibilidad en la producción de alimentos. • En la Vía de acción 4 “Promover medios de vida equitativos” se reconoce que para transformar los sistemas alimentarios es necesaria la transformación del ámbito rural que incluya una mayor participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes en las actividades productivas para asegurar la sostenibilidad. En ese sentido, las medidas a implementarse deben asegurar la transformación de la Agricultura Familiar hacia una agricultura eficiente, sostenible, moderna y que no dependa de intermediarios, socialmente cohesionada y que protege la biodiversidad. Por lo cual, el trabajo articulado del Estado es necesario para la gestión sostenible del territorio y la producción. Un punto clave en este aspecto es el direccionamiento del presupuesto público. • En la Vía de acción 5 “Desarrollar resiliencia a las vulnerabilidades, los impactos y el estrés” es fundamental promover la creación de mecanismos para la gestión del territorio que permitan prever y reaccionar ante impactos adversos. Se propone implementar una estrategia de protección social ante emergencias que asegure la acción colectiva a nivel familiar, comunitaria y nacional, con miras a asegurar la provisión de alimentos en zonas urbanas y rurales. Para ello, es crucial no sólo mejorar los sistemas de información y de alerta temprana, sino también la gobernanza territorial a nivel local. Finalmente, el acceso a servicios básicos como agua segura, saneamiento y servicios de salud de primer nivel es fundamental.236238239240241242243244246247248249251Se reconoce que el sistema alimentario es complejo y demanda la intervención de muchos actores a nivel nacional, regional y local. Desafortunadamente, las políticas públicas que se implementan en el país y que buscan promover sistemas alimentarios sostenibles no están logrando sus objetivos, en parte debido a que su diseño, implementación y financiamiento se desarrollan de manera sectorial y no con enfoque sistémico e integral que articule a los actores en el territorio. Además, se reconoce la necesidad de garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos. Implica no sólo transformar los sistemas de producción de alimentos para producir más alimentos de mejor calidad nutricional, sino también propiciar un cambio estructural en las cadenas de suministro de alimentos para asegurar su provisión especialmente a las poblaciones más vulnerables. En la Línea de acción 1: Se requiere mejorar los servicios logísticos relacionados al procesamiento y transporte de alimentos que provienen de la agricultura, bosques y la pesca. En este último caso, asegurar cadenas de frío y plantas de procesamiento con menores costos es crucial, además, de promover la acuicultura sostenible. También, dotar a los productores de asistencia técnica para la producción, poscosecha, transformación y comercialización bajo un enfoque territorial y de sostenibilidad; además de articular las políticas sectoriales. Sobre la Línea de Acción 2: Difundir la importancia de la alimentación saludable a través de campañas de sensibilización e, inclusive, la enseñanza mediante el sistema educativo para reducir el consumo de productos industrializados, ultra-procesados y masivos y girar, al consumo local y producción en menor escala. También generar conciencia en los consumidores sobre la procedencia de los alimentos, promoviendo el consumo de productos nacionales y locales sostenibles y, siendo conscientes de la generación de desechos y desperdicios que forman parte del sistema alimentario. Los consumidores deben promover la economía circular y fomentar que los desechos orgánicos que surgen de su alimentación se reutilicen para la producción de alimentos. En la Línea de Acción 3: No sólo es necesario mejorar las capacidades y servicios de regulación y control en torno a la deforestación y sobrepesca, sino también impulsar sistemas de producción sostenibles a través de más información y asistencia técnica a los productores, incorporando el enfoque territorial que reconozca las particularidades de los ecosistemas y las técnicas ancestrales. Esto implica el desarrollo de sistemas de gobernanza territorial locales para la toma de decisiones sobre la gestión de los ecosistemas y la producción de alimentos. Por el lado de los consumidores deben exigir que los alimentos provengan de ecosistemas conservados o recuperados. En la Línea de Acción 4: La pobreza y la desigualdad son endémicas entre los participantes de los sistemas productivos de los sistemas alimentarios, específicamente en el ámbito rural. Para transformar los sistemas alimentarios es necesaria la transformación del ámbito rural; que incluya a las mujeres y los jóvenes para asegurar su sostenibilidad. En ese sentido, las políticas deben asegurar la transformación de la agricultura familiar para hacerla eficiente, sostenible, moderna y que protege la biodiversidad; para lo cual, el trabajo articulado del Estado a nivel local y el direccionamiento del presupuesto público es necesario. En la Línea de Acción 5: Promover la creación de mecanismos para la gestión del territorio que permitan prever y reaccionar ante impactos adversos. Se propone implementar estrategias de protección social reactiva ante emergencias que asegure la acción colectiva a nivel familiar, comunitario y nacional para asegurar la provisión de alimentos en zonas urbanas y rurales. Es crucial mejorar los sistemas de información y de alerta temprana, la gobernanza territorial a nivel local e integrar a los comedores populares y ollas comunes en los sistemas alimentarios. Finalmente, el acceso a servicios básicos como agua segura, saneamiento y servicios de salud de primer nivel es fundamental.237238239240241242243244246247248249251Durante los diálogos se ha evidenciado un número significativo de iniciativas públicas y privadas que proponen acciones innovadoras que promueven la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios; sin embargo, no se aprovechan sinergias entre ellas y, en la mayoría de los casos, se implementan de manera aislada sin un enfoque integral. En general, los participantes de los diálogos consideran la necesidad de redireccionar el accionar de los actores que forman parte del sistema alimentario y promover el desarrollo de acciones basadas en un enfoque sistémico y articulado, alejándose de iniciativas sectoriales y aisladas como se han venido desarrollando hasta la fecha. Se reconoce que el centro de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles es la persona y que es tarea de todas las personas trabajar de manera colectiva para alcanzar los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles que el país necesita y se merece.

2021-09-23 20:25:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45391/98

2101211265283

We ensured inclusivity while selecting participants who would make the conversation relevant and give constructive feedback. The convener ensured that the objectives and vision of the summit were deconstructed to the participants to enable better understanding and engagement as well as displaying the urgency of developing an action plan that will contribute to the transformation of food systems , food systems that will improve the health and wellbeing of young mothers and their infants.Our dialogue had a keen focus on inclusivity. The participants involved represented young mothers from a larger area who had similar experiences. It was also geared towards developing an action plan that is evidence-based and would be adopted by all stakeholders as part of committing to the Summit's objectives and vision as well the sustainability Agenda of 2030.The principles of Engagement serve a very important purpose in achieving sustainable food systems. Partnerships to complement each others work will help the communities better to realise a greater impact and change the narrative of food systems that don't work for the people.Organizations should strive to avoid zero competitiveness in this sector but instead work together to end Hunger through collaborative impact approach.

Yes

234238239241242244245247248249251The Dialogue focused on Nutrition of young mothers and their infants. The main focus was on how to improve nutrition for both mother and child,Malnutrition Awareness,Coping and managing Urban hunger. The dialogue highlighted issues related to breastfeeding, feeding children during/after sickness, feeding HIV/AIDS children under improving nutrition. Malnutrition awareness was also highlighted to share information about the status of Malnutrition, causes ,as well as come up with solutions on how to deal with and bridge the existing gaps that hinder prevention of Malnutrition, particularly on children under 5 years who are the most affected. Urban Hunger is a big contributor to lack of good nutrition of mothers and infants and therefore the dialogue highlighted how young mothers can cope with this as they provide nutritious diets for their children and them.235238241245246248249251There is need for different stakeholders to empower small-scale productions that will increase production to low-income areas in urban settings. This will in turn help in reducing the prices of food and creating accessibility for all. There is need to broaden the advocacy of right to food to ensure equitable systems for all.236241242246247249251Providing proper nutrition for young mothers and infants. -Local health centres should be equipped with information to educate young mothers on proper nutrition for free. The local Government should work with development partners to see the actualisation of this and this can be assessed through unplanned visits to the centres by other delegated groups/persons of interest to see if they are implementing. Poor coordination,corruption( asking people to pay for a free service),lack of enough personnel were foreseen as the possible challenges that will arise during implementation.236238239240241242248251Coping with Urban Hunger. - Adopting smart gardens. Since food is costly,young mothers decided they will adopt smart gardens that use very little space to grow vegetables to boost their diets. They will receive training and orientation on the best practices to ensure they get produce that will be sustainable in the long run. They will form small groups that will be accountable for this process. Theft,lack of motivation are the challenges anticipated.237238239241246247249251Some participants thought it was too ambitious and impractical to envision Sustainable food systems by 2030 and thought their needs to be an overhaul in Governance for this to work while others thought that the change would begin from citizens themselves and therefore its workable. Some participants still believe breastfeeding is not as important as feeding children food. They believe it's not enough. Nutrition needs alot of mitigating in Kenya and it's a bigger problem than highlighted while others felt it is under control.

2021-09-27 13:03:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44765/45

1196917121141022111122210

At the beginning of the dialogue, we recognised the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the goals of the Food Systems Summit. Then, we demonstrated the current issues of the sustainable agriculture and small-sclale food producers and its related approach based on tons of research we conducted. We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact upon, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. In addition, we invited related expertise to show us some valuable experience and some knowledge about sustainable agriculture and its importance in achieving food system transformation.The Dialogues empower stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. They are from all walks including small-scale food producer, large-scale food producer, professor and college student. They are all respect each other despite that they have different opinions, and they are willing to communicate and cooperate with each other to make a plan or give their integrated version about how to tackle the problems with small-scale food producer in achieving sustainable agriculture. Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with, amplifies, and accelerates these efforts where practicable; avoiding unnecessary duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches that deliver systems-level transformation in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives. We will work to ensure the Summit and associated engagement process will promote trust and increase motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement, and implementation.The content of the dialogue should be down to the earth. It should related closely to the participants in all walks, so that they can actively participate in this dialogue and contribute themselves better.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251It could be (i) a comprehensive exploration of food systems, especially the relation between food system transformation and SDGs (ii) an exploration of boosting the small and sustainable agriculture, (iii) examination of links between one or more of the Action Tracks and levers of change, (iv) give the plan of how to tackle the issues of small-scale food prooducer in achieving sustainable agriculture.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251a) the relation bwtween food system transformation and SDGs b) the relationship among healthy diet, public awareness, food market and small-scale food prooducer and agriculture2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511) food system is not only the process, it is a system that would affect all people despite its gender, nation or social status. 2) by improving public awareness of healthy diet and its strong relevance to sustainable agriculture, we can promoting the consumers' preference of food choice, thus the food market can drive small-scale food producer to turn to sustainable agriculture to improve their income. In that case, we also need government policy to support this small-scale food producers and give them enough subsidy.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251a) opportunities and challenges within small-sacle food producer in achieving sustainable agriculture, b) detailed and effective method of how to improve public awareness, c) successful examples of sustainable agriculture practice within small-scale food producers to follow, d) stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/131337029_2_Small-is-Big——可持续农业助力小农发展独立对话_26_26.xlsxhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/独立对话【反馈调查】－默认报告.docxhttps://pan.baidu.com/s/1X4RLVNFj10aG887U6Y77dw 提取码：lprfhttps://pan.baidu.com/s/1sro1w8odqxPcvsmBtA5IjQ 提取码：0p7bhttps://pan.baidu.com/s/1bFSe62cVT2MfuRcWSLbpow 提取码：inp7

2021-09-29 08:18:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42160/4575203

03110322007977016111011222362162252421932020153720162161105045714

This Food Systems Summit Independent Dialogue – “Innovative Partnerships and Value Co-creation” – explored how to engage a broad range of partnerships for scaling impacts of transforming food systems. Conducted in a hybrid form that combines online meetings via Zoom and live broadcasting and offline meetings at Beijing, the Dialogue included keynote speakers and interactive, breakout discussions with diverse participants from various sectors across the food system. Prior to the Dialogue, the convenors explained the “Dialogue Principles of Engagement” to ensure all participants would have the opportunity to embrace the Principles throughout the conversation. The Dialogue Curator also reminded all participants that following these principles is core to the discussion. This Dialogue benefited from discussions around three topics: Topic 1: Food system transformation, Topic 2: Food losses and wastes, and Topic 3: Digital innovation for agriculture, rural areas, and farmers. Each topic was structured in a combination of keynote speeches and discussions guided by a facilitator. Discussants are from an inclusive group representing different stakeholders working in the realm. Participants discussed opportunities and barriers to address as well as recommend actions for transformation towards a more sustainable and resilient food system. Throughout all the discussions, the Principles of act with urgency, commit to the summit, be respectful, recognize complexity, embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complement the work of others, and build trust were applied.The Dialogue followed the “Principles of Engagement,” with a significant focus on embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and complement the work of others. The Dialogue is hosted by the Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences (CAAS) and jointly organized with the Syngenta Group China (SGC), and Sinochem Agriculture Holdings (MAP & Digital). The organizers worked together to ensure the event included stakeholders from various sectors across the food system. This included academics for food systems, environment and ecology, representatives from IFAD, FAO, WFP and other relevant UN agencies, Thünen Institute (Germany), enterprises (e.g. Syngenta Group China, Nestle, and Alibaba), and industry associations (e.g. China Cuisine Association), farmers, education, media, and more. Particular attention was paid toward the inclusion of private sectors, and public-private partnerships. The convenors ensured that each discussion included various stakeholders to enable a rich discussion.No. The convenors thought that Food Systems Summit Dialogues Reference Manual was informative, thorough, and helpful throughout Dialogue planning and implementation.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250Under the theme of “Innovative Partnerships and Value Co-creation”, this Dialogue aims to bring together the best ideas and practices from the public and private sectors to cooperatively contribute to food systems transformation. Further, the Dialogue aims to promote a national narrative that highlights the importance of food systems in climate, nutrition, human, and other development priorities. This Dialogue is expected to share the spirits of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit at a global level, and to encourage the participates to build excitement for making commitments, especially from innovation partnerships, to transform our food systems for people, planet and prosperity. The Dialogue focused on the following three topics and the links between them:  Food system transformation  Food losses and wastes  Digital innovation for agriculture, rural areas, and farmers Dr. Nie Fengying, the Member of the United Nations Food Systems Summit Advisory Committee, acted as the convenor of the Independent Dialogue. Dr. Sun Tan, Vice President of CAAS, Dr. Agnes Kalibata, Special Envoy of the United Nations Food System Summit, and Mr. Erik Fyrwald, CEO of Syngenta Group, delivered speeches at the opening ceremony. Dr. Zhang Yahui, Director General of the International Cooperation Department of CAAS presided over the opening ceremony. Participants heard from speakers in the opening ceremony who highlighted their respective efforts to help achieve food systems transformation in China and in the world. • Dr. Sun Tan stated that China’s economy has entered a stage of high-quality development, but the food system transformation still faces challenges such as resource and environmental constraints, smallholder farmers’ access to large markets, frequent extreme weather, and food loss and waste. Strengthened capacity of food production towards low-carbon, healthy and green systems is inseparable from the support of science and technology. CAAS has officially launched the CAASTIP (CAAS International Science and Technology Innovation Programme). CAASTIP will gather international and domestic partners for collaborative innovation in agricultural science and technology, jointly promote the development of global agricultural science and technology, and help the transformation of the food systems and the development of green agriculture. • Dr. Agnes Kalibata highly appreciated China’s effort in organizing this Dialogue as well as other contribution to the Summit. She emphasized the focus on the partnership is very much in line with the focus of the summit being the people's summit, and also being a solution summit. She stressed that national pathways that are coming out of these dialogues, offers an opportunity for us to build stronger partnerships with government departments, but also with constituencies, producers, officials, and private sectors. She also encouraged people to make their commitments online for the summit and to take that decision to make changes. • Mr. Erik Fyrwald mentioned Syngenta group plans to improve soil health and improve carbon sequestration on at least 2 million hectares of farmland in China by 2023 – about 2 percent of the country's farmland. Syngenta group currently invests up to $2 billion a year across its business units for research to help farmers not only adapt to climate change, but become part of the solution to climate change. Through its Modern Agriculture Platform, Syngenta Group China has guided and supported farmers via modernizing their farms, connecting them to premium buyers, offering education and training and facilitating access to machinery and end markets. Apart from developing products that lower the chemicals needed to control weeds and insects, the company is also finding ways for organic farms, which create far less CO2 per acre than land cultivated by traditional methods, to both greatly lower their emissions and produce healthy foods.235238239240241242243244245246248249250Responding to the nature of “Solution Summit” of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, the main findings of the Dialogue is summarized as the major ideas and recommendations that recurred in most of the three topic sessions in this Dialogue. The participants identified the main challenges of China’s food systems: 1) Agricultural productivity growth has slowed down, but smallholder farming is still prevalent. 2) The triple burden of malnutrition (hunger, micronutrient deficiency, overweight and obesity). 3) Shortage of resources, degradation, and pressure from climate change. 4) Urban and rural inequality remains severe. 5) Food imports increase, increasing uncertainty in the global market. 6) Food losses and wastes increase. Main recommendations for food systems transformation include: 1) Technological innovation. Adjust the direction of agricultural technology research and give priority to the development of a multi-win technological innovation system. 2) Subsidy reform. Reform agricultural subsidy policies and innovate financial support methods. 3) ICT investment. Increase investment in rural information and communication infrastructure to comply with the trend of industrial digitization. 4) Institutional Innovation. Increase institutional innovation and build an efficient and inclusive food value chain. 5) Respect nature. Respect nature and protect the habitat of wild animals and plants. 6) Unimpeded trade. Maintain unimpeded trade and enhance resilience in the process of agriculture and food transformation. 7) Change behavior. Guide residents to change their behaviors to achieve a win-win situation between human health and the health of the earth. With respect to food losses and wastes, participants proposed the following measures 1) Technology and infrastructures of the food supply chains needs to be improved to prevent food loss. 2) Concrete actions should be taken to step up legislation, improve law enforcement and strengthen guidance on public opinion. 3) Consistent and systematic food loss and waste measurement, monitoring, and reporting mechanism needed to be established and implemented for evidence-based research. In a word, efforts should be launched on the supply chain to reduce loss and waste, so as to increase supply, better ensure food security and consumer health, and improve resource sustainability. As for digital innovation for agriculture, rural areas, and farmers, at present, the innovation of digital technology and biotechnology is the most active field, which has brought great opportunities for the modernization of China's smallholder agriculture. Digitization, networking and intellectualization will become the main directions and strategic focuses of China's agricultural modernization. In the next five or even 15 years, it will drive into the fast lane and achieve great development. It can be predicted that the rapid digital transformation of China’s agriculture will not only provide a broad market space for the world's digital technology and related enterprises, but also contribute to global food security, especially the “one country, one product” action launched by FAO. Global cooperation and public-private partnerships are critical to building more inclusive and resilient global food systems, ensuring the safety and stability of global supply chains, boosting agricultural productivity, and reducing global food loss and waste through financial and technical support, institutional reforms, technological advances and awareness building.236238239240241242243244245246248249Topic 1: Food system transformation Dr. Fan Shenggen, Chair Professor of College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Mr. Daniel Vennard, Chief Sustainability Officer, Syngenta Group, and Dr. Xu Yinlong, Professor of Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, CAAS, delivered keynote speeches at the Session of Food System Transformation. Mr. Jiang Yekui, Chief Sustainability Officer of Syngenta Group China moderated the session. Mr. Matteo Marchisio, IFAD China Representative, Mr. Wang Quanhui, Director of International Cooperation Department of Agricultural Ecology and Resource Protection General Station, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and Mr. Fatih Ermis, Director of Agricultural Service Department, Nestle China contributed in the Panel discussion. Generally, the participants agreed that China has started transforming and upgrading its food and agriculture sector, and have had great achievements. These mainly include: 1) Stable food supply for all residents. Having the 9% of the world’s arable land and 6.4% of the world’s freshwater resources to feed 20% of the world’s population. China’s annual grain production is above 650 million tons for 6 consecutive years. The supply of main agricultural products such as vegetables, fruits, meat, eggs and milk is sufficient, which contributes a lot to fight against the epidemic of COVID-19 since last year. 2) Poverty reduction. All the targets of poverty elimination in China have been accomplished. Specifically, 832 impoverished counties and 98.99 million rural poor populations have been lifted out of poverty. In July 1st this year, President Xi Jinping solemnly declared that China had built a well-off society in an all-round way and solved the problem of absolute poverty historically. China achieved the poverty alleviation goal of the United Nations 2030 agenda of sustainable development. 3) Pollution has been controlled and the ecological environment has been significantly improved. 4) Emergency response capabilities have been improved, for example, the response mechanism and measures for the COVID-19. 5) The level of opening up to the world continues to increase, for example, the Belt and Road Initiative. However, more actions need to be considered for implementation to address the potential challenges for the food systems. First, the government should consider establishing a new leadership group to coordinate policies and investments in the food system at the national and local levels. Second, the productivity of the entire food system need to be improved through more innovative science and technology which further requires more public and private investment and cooperation. Third, increase investment in restoring natural resources (such as land and water), in sustainable use of agriculture and food infrastructure (such as irrigation, transportation, etc.), and in reducing costs related to transportation, marketing, and food consumption. Fourth, promote institutional reforms to promote land improvement, help small farms upgrade or exit, expand machinery customization services, and develop more effective farmer cooperatives. Fifth, establish a modern agricultural product circulation system, "from farm to table", improve inclusiveness, efficiency, nutrition and food safety. Sixth, promote the transformation and sustainable development of the green food system, balance agricultural growth goals and sustainable development. Seventh, improve the social safety nets. Last, strengthen international cooperation to improve food security in China and the world.236238239243245246248249Topic 2: Food losses and wastes The Session of Food Losses and Waste was jointly developed by Dr. Jia Xiangping from CAAS and Dr. Felicitas Schneider from Thünen Institute, Germany. At the Session, Dr. Rosa Rolle (FAO), Dr. Felicitas Schneider (Thünen Institute) and Dr. Cheng Shengkui (CAS) delivered keynote speech regarding food loss and waste monitoring from Global, Germany, and Chinese perspectives respectively. Ms. Jia Yan, Project Policy Officer, WFP China Office moderated the session. At the global level, FAO has developed a food loss and waste analysis methodology, which can be applied across different regions of the globe. The objectives of the methodology is to identify and assess the main causes of food losses and to identify the solutions to reduce food losses with respect to the technical and economic visibility, but also looking at food quality and safety requirements, social acceptability, as well as the impact on the potential of impacting and the environmental sustainability. Essentially, the methodology includes six series of four major activities as the screening process, which involves desk work and a number of fields investigations. FAO has done applied this methodology across different regions of the globe in more than 88 different supply chains. A majority of these have been also focused in in the African context. Dr. Felicitas Schneider, who coordinates the Global Initiative Food Loss and Food Waste, presented the political, legislative and structural framework for monitoring food loss and food waste in Germany. As a member country of the United Nations and the European Union, Germany is obliged to collect and regularly report on its food loss and food waste. Voluntary cooperation with companies along the value chain is intended to create a better database for this purpose. The influence of concrete reduction measures on social, monetary and ecological aspects must be observed, emphasized Dr. Schneider, in order to obtain a basis for evidence-based policy recommendations. Dr. Shengkui Cheng shared the lasted estimates of Food Loss and Waste in China. The estimation shows annually a total of 349±4 Mt food produced for human consumption (27%) was lost or wasted in China. The largest amount of FLW in China is found at the postharvest handling and storage stage both for the total (159±3 Mt, 45%). The consumption stage also contributes substantially to the total FLW (17%, 59±1 Mt). Out-of-home food waste accounts for 13% of the total FLW, far exceeding household food waste (4%). He emphasized that food losses mainly caused by poor infrastructures and technology, while food wastes mainly due to people’s awareness and behavior. China has implemented a series of actions to reduce food losses and wastes. First, legislation. Anti-food Waste Law of the People’s Republic of China was enacted on April 29, 2021. The Law mainly regulate the responsibilities of catering service providers, catering takeaway platforms, tour operators, supermarkets and shopping malls, education administrative authorities and news media. Second, local & nongovernmental actions such as “empty plate” campaign, “N-1, N-2” ordering and Green Food Bank. Third, consumer education and advocacy by schools and media. Fourth, Science and technology actions such as building storage infrastructures for smallholders. In the following panel discussions, Jiaqi Huang (CAAS) identified the complex interrelationships in quantity measurement as well as the current gaps and methodological weaknesses in the Chinese data situation and advocated further international research cooperation in this direction. Ms. Tian Xiyan, the General Manager of Cooperation and Development from Alibaba Local Services Company, reported on the possibilities and the willingness of her company to motivate consumers and companies in the out-of-home sector to implement avoidance measures and thus contribute to a significant reduction of food waste. Mr. Bian Jiang, the Vice Chairman of China Cuisine Association highlighted the cultural impacts on food wastes in catering industry, and called for more actions in catering service and in public education.236238241242243245246248249251Topic 3: Digital innovation for agriculture, rural areas, and farmers In the Session of digital innovation for agriculture, rural areas, and farmers, Mr. Wang Xiaobing, Director of Information Center, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Areas, Dr. Chai Xiujuan, Professor of Agricultural Information Institute, CAAS, and Mr. Zhang Xiaoqiang, General Manager of Strategy & Development Department of MAP & Digital Division, Syngenta Group China delivered keynote speeches. The topics of speeches covered experience of China’s digital agriculture in developing agriculture, rural areas and farmers, Innovation and application of Digital Agricultural Technology driven by AI, and Digital driving the future and reconstructing China's agricultural industry chain, respectively. Dr. Nie Fengying, Deputy Director General of Agricultural Information Institute and Center for International Agricultural Research, CAAS, and Member of the Advisory Committee of the United Nations Food System Summit moderated the session. Ms. Fu Rong, Project Officer of FAO, Dr. Yin Changbin, Chief Scientist of the Team of Agricultural Resource Utilization and Regional Planning, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, CAAS, Mr. Mao Feng, Chief Brand Officer of MAP, General manager of China Green Food Corporation, CEO of Panda Guide, and Mr. Jiang Feng, Founder and Director of Longmijia contributed in the Panel discussion. The participants agreed that China has invested a lot in promoting agricultural digital transformation and has made great achievement. The main practices include: 1) Implementing the “Broadband Village” project. Benefited by the project, the basic support capacity of rural network has been significantly enhanced. By June 2021, the Internet penetration rate in rural areas had reached 59.2%, and the gap between urban and rural areas had been narrowed. 2) Promoting e-commerce in rural areas. A comprehensive demonstration of e-commerce in rural areas was implemented in 1258 counties across the country. At present, the e-commerce service stations have covered over 75% administrative villages in China. E-commerce, as a leader way and key in the development of e-agriculture, has become an important channel for the sales of agricultural products. 3) Setting smart agriculture experimental areas. The e-agriculture pilot project had been launched since 2017, focusing on field planting, protected horticulture, livestock and poultry breeding, aquaculture and big data construction along the whole industry chain of 15 key agricultural products. 4) Upgrading rural information service. Information service stations building in administrative villages provide farmers with public beneficial services such as law, policy, market and technology, as well as socialized services such as agricultural product sales and financial loans. At present, 454,000 village level information service stations have been built in China, covering more than 80% of the administrative villages. The participants also proposed some recommendations for digital development in rural areas in the future. First, fully apply the policy creation and planning guidance, such as national cyber development strategy, intelligent strategy and society national big data strategy. Second, improve internet infrastructure construction. It is crucial to continue to support for universal telecommunications services so that farmers can afford and take fully advantage of information services. Third, improving e-commerce development. Actions such as investing in the construction of cold chain and e-commerce industrial center, supporting entrepreneurs return to the countryside need to be incentivized. Fourth, promote innovation and application of big data. The government and enterprises should actively explore the application scenarios of smart agriculture and digital village, timely released and promoted new technologies, new products and new models of digital agriculture. Last, pilot demonstration and training is essential for the improvement of farmers’ digital literacy.237There were relatively few areas of divergence between participants in this Dialogue. In many instances, these resolved themselves as participants evolved their opinions over the course of the discussion.

2021-09-29 14:55:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43842/87

4126913711312131221721081

The dialogue was organized among the indigenous members of the village youth from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, skills and aspirations. This approach was taken to create a two way interactive dialogue to discuss the success stories, opportunities and challenges experienced by the rural youth in promoting 'sustainable value chains in food systems', 'entrepreneurship' and 'biodiversity conservation'. This dialogue engaged the participants to be confident and openly express themselves on various social issues within the rural community and our team guided the participants with viable sustainable suggestions available to them in general, which can be initiated individually, community as a whole or having some government intervention through Public-Private Partnership mode. The dialogue encouraged the participants to look forward to local entrepreneurship for enabling value food systems keeping in view of the locally available resources and thereby promoting sustainable agrarian methods as a means of livelihood.Act with Urgency: The urgency of action was reflected in our dialogue in the most conducive and convincing manner by committing to strategise a draft declaration on the topics discussed in the event. On 24 October 2021 i.e. the UN Day a meeting would be convened with the commitment makers from the village youth in the food value chain systems and biodiversity conservation to discuss, deliberate and finalise the draft declaration of Mawlynnong Youth Dialogue 2021. Be Respectful: Questions prepared by the convenors have been discussed with the participants; opinions and experiences of the participants were duly noted. The discussion leaders supervised the dialogue in a manner that was open, sensitive and had respect for the ideas and views of the participants on the agenda topics. Recognize Complexity: The event recognized the complexity of the subject of ‘Food Systems’ by discussing the close connection of agriculture, it’s allied activities and produce of the village through rural entrepreneurship. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The event had a multi-stakeholder presence as it was organized with the support of both the government and NGOs: Meghalaya Institute of Governance (MIG Shillong), Intellectual Forum Shillong, Yes We Can Youth Organization and King's College London (Hyderabad Alumni Chapter). Complement the work of others: During the dialogue, some participants shared their experiences during the training on mushroom cultivation at Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) Centre, Shillong, a government training centre for imparting vocational training to the practising farmers. It was appreciated that centres like KVK helped in the capacity building for farmers to ensure sustainable agricultural practices which complements the regular practise of the farming in the village by invoking entrepreneurial feat. Build Trust: The dialogue was committed to instil a sense of security, practicality among the participants and to provide the local community with the professional know-how that would empower the rural community of Mawlynnong. Therefore this contributeThe Principles of Engagement suggested by the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 provides a suitable blueprint for the Dialogue Convenors to initiate and prepare a ‘Dialogue’ event with the invited participants. These principles would be helpful for the conveners to be ‘mindful’ and ‘thoughtful’ about the values and principles behind a ‘Dialogue’ event. Perhaps also incorporate more principles that would be relevant in the dialogue context.

NoThe format of Dialogue is mentioned below which is not completely influenced by the Convenors Reference Manual. In view of the local interventions and dialogue culture, certain distinctive modifications have been made in organising the event. The dialogue commenced with a welcome address by Ms. Fidiarity Kharumnuid, Intellectual Forum Shillong. - Welcome address & Presenting Dialogue Theme - Remarks by local Village representative - Discussion Session facilitated by Ms. Fidiarity Kharumnuid, IFS; Mr. Darius J.M.T., IFS and Mr. Stephen Anurag P, Alumnus of King’s College London. - Entire gathering discussion on (1) value chains in food systems, (2) entrepreneurship and (3) biodiversity conservation A list of prepared questions by the organizers on the three discussion topics was asked, discussed and participants, in turn, shared their thoughts, views and experiences. - Suggestions and possible solutions and interventions for issues and challenges faced by the participants were shared by the organizers. - The questions were discussed and the response/ feedback holds divergent and convergent opinions from the participants were noted by the organizers and would be used to formulate a draft declaration within a time frame and later convene a meeting for developing an execution plan in consultation with all the necessary stakeholders. - Group Photo with SDG posters (Introducing SDGs for the first-time in the village by presenting the posters of all 17 Global Goals).

234238239240241242243244246248249Major Focus of the dialogue were: "Sustainable value chains in food systems" - Inquiring and understanding the rural economic activities with food and cultivation - Exploring pathways to improve the cultivation scenario in the rural area, - Exploring allied farming options like piggery, poultry, bee-keeping, etc. "Rural entrepreneurship" - Discussed the connection between rural entrepreneurship and food systems in the rural context. - Self-employment through rural entrepreneurship. - Local products promotion "Biodiversity conservation" - Underlying the importance of biodiversity conservation - Stressing the need for community development while keeping in mind biodiversity conservation235240241242"Overall findings" - Absence of technical know-how and guidance on the available new technology and assistance provided by various governmental agencies in the form of schemes, projects, assistance etc. - There is huge potential within this region for agrarian and allied activities and if promoted can pay dividends towards bringing stability in the communities livelihood and sustainable diversified food system. - The area had some cash crops (like broom plantation, betel nut and leaves, bay leaves, pepper and pineapple) which if promoted can also be a geographical indication to that particular region which will in turn promote the products and the local farmers can get a good value for their produce. "Subjective findings" - Mr Henry Kharrymba, a member of the youth in Mawlynnong village has expressed his interest and experience in developing bio-compost and solid waste management in the village by enabling collection, transport and proper dumping. - Mushroom cultivation has already been initiated by Ms Trinity Kshiar, Ms. Alice Larisakhonglam and Ms. Crosbina Khongthiem in the village however further interventions and support systems for soil testing and preservation of the produce needs to be addressed. - Bee-keeping has been one of the primary occupations of the villagers. To further promote the business, Ms. Dapshisha Dkhar sought to develop a marketing framework in support of this bee culture. - A food garden with all the locally cultivable crops and fruits and a mini-digital library was discussed to be developed possibly with CSR funding. - Mawlynnong, being regarded as the Cleanest Village in Asia, has one of the highest footfalls in tourism and entertainment. In view of this, the youth of the village have collectively decided to capture the business and develop a confectionery with local baked items.236240241244247248Outcomes for each discussion topic were: "Sustainable value chains in food systems" - The Need to develop a marketing framework in support of bee culture, mushroom, etc. - Technical support of soil testing and cultivation knowledge for edible mushroom growing. - The need for bakery training for some village members using locally baked items. "Rural entrepreneurship" - Self-employment through rural entrepreneurship was supported by the participants since Tourism revenue was impacted by COVID-19. - Training and guidance support for interested entrepreneurs. - Identifying the type of local business suitable for local village residents. - Technical knowledge to improve product value of locally derived products.237239240244247248249There areas of divergence during the Dialogue was noted in during the discussion of 'sustainable value chains in food systems' which are as follows: Exploring income avenues apart from rural tourism: The village of Mawlynnong, being Asia’s Cleanest Village is a great tourist attraction of the region. The COVID-19 pandemic affected revenue from the tourism sector in the Mawlynnong village and people of the village who excessively depend on tourism have shifted their occupation to growing cash crops like broom, betel nut and leaves and bay leaves. - Bee-keeping intervention: Bee-keeping (or apiculture) is a source of employment for some of the village youths of Mawlynnong. Some participants engaged in bee-keeping shared the need for a marketing framework in support of bee culture. This would encourage more village residents to take up bee-keeping as a source of income and thereby promote the honey product of the village. - Mushroom cultivation intervention: Mushroom cultivation was attempted by some village youths after undertaking training at a government training centre, it was found that the mushrooms did not grow well in the village soil perhaps due to the soil type or the climatic conditions. Some of the dialogue participants who attempted mushroom cultivation shared the requirement of soil testing and expert advice to find suitable interventions for mushroom cultivation in the village soil. - Confectionery intervention: The village of Mawlynnong, being Asia’s Cleanest Village has a big tourist footfall, in view of this the youth of the village have collectively decided to capture the business and develop a confectionery with local baked items. This would serve a means of income and employment for the residents of the village.

2021-09-29 21:50:40205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39997/129

This dialogue brought together 36 participants that represented actors from across the local food systems. A broad a range of stakeholders were invited to the dialogue that ranged from producers, retailers, civil society, environmental groups, government departments, state-owned enterprises, and other actors in the food sector. During the dialogue participants were divided into groups representative of the established action tracks. To capture wide experiences and contributions, participants were strategically placed in groups that coincided with their expertise or reflected their background in relation to their role within the local food system. Measures were taken to also include underrepresented stakeholders and ‘non-experts’ in each group to allow the sharing of new and diverse perspectives during the discussions. Divergent views were important to address the complexity of the local food system. Recognizing the complexity of the issue, The Chantam House Rule applied throughout the discussions in the break-out group to reinforce and create a safe space for the exchange of ideas so that novel ideas and solutions could be generated. Participants were further reminded that mutual respect must be adhered to and that this involved listening intently and being opened to contrasting views/opinions. Throughout the dialogue facilitators moderated the discussions and encouraged participants to actively engage and contribute their views. At the end of the dialogue session, all the participants were merged into one group to have a ‘reflection session’ where they were presented with a summary of the contributions made throughout the day and were allowed to share any further inputs/takeaway messages from the dialogueTo address the challenges and vulnerabilities of the local food systems in Nauru a multistakeholder approach was organized. • Act with urgency, embrace multistakeholder inclusivity, recognise complexity: To initiate the dialogue participants were presented with an ‘ice breaker’ that allowed them to share specifically the role that they play withing local food system and to further highlight a single challenge they face with their respective groups. This allowed participants to be recognize their role in the food system and recognized the interconnectedness of the food systems. Facilitators then used the inputs from the icebreaker to further explain to the wider group how food systems relate to all the 17 SDG’s and stressed the urgency to get back on track to achieve the 2030 target. • Commit to the Summit, Be respectful: The topics discussed in each break-out group were discussed in three groups and developed on the basis of the 5 action tracks of the FSS, also integrated was the priorities of Nauru’s Sustainable Development Strategy- 2019-2030 (NSDS). The NSDS is linked to UN agenda 2030 and the SDGs was used as a reference framework. In this national strategy four of the development goals directly related to food systems as highlighted below: • Development of domestic food production for food security. • Enhance resilience against the impacts of climate change that is inclusive of rehabilitating and restoring degraded land. • Access to quality education, both formal and non-formal. • Provision of enhanced social and infrastructure and utilities services This was integral in the design of the dialogue in order to link national priorities with the achievement of all SDGs since food systems are an essential lever that have a transversal impact both nationally and globally.It is especially important use method/format of dialogue that is conducive to diversity and inclusion- with particular attention to actors with differentiated backgrounds e.g public servants, community-based organization, grass root representatives. Communication is very helpful to ensure effective stakeholder engagement and participation. Therefore, where possible, facilitators and participants should be encouraged to communicate in the native language or local vernacular and provide translation where necessary to allow fair and interactive value to the dialogue session.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249For this purpose, the participants were invited to engage in BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS on a specific topic of importance for the transformation of the food system in Nauru. These discussions constituted the core of the event. This exploratory dialogue attempted to holistically analyse the challenges that exist in the local food systems in Nauru in order to raise awareness and propose new forms of joint actions that are drawn from a ‘bottoms up approach’. Constituting to the core of the dialogue, the 5 actions tracks were used to develop and topics and statements that highlighted the existing challenges in Nauru Food systems that derived from the inputs received at the first dialogue event – specifically pertaining to: Consumption patterns/Diet, Nutrition, Food Security (Agriculture & Fisheries), Livelihoods and Resilience to Climate Change. The statements – discussed in three groups – were developed on the basis of the FIVE ACTION TRACKS (ATs) OF THE FSS, the Nauru Sustainable strategy and the draft National Agriculture Sector Strategy. In this way, the dialogue also contributed to the discussion in Nauru on the development and implementation the institutional arrangements related to food systems. Participants were asked to use the statements to brainstorm on concrete actions to be undertaken by themselves or respective organizations/departments to overcome barriers to food system transformation. Following this, each group then developed 3 ambitious ‘vision’ statements to be realized within ten years and serving as a common goal for the discussion group, bearing in mind the synergies and trade-offs inherent to a food system transformation. This event constituted the third and last stage in the process of the multi-stakeholder National FSSD of Nauru. It built upon a first national workshop held on June 2021 during which participants addressed the challenges of their food systems and discussed concrete actions to support their transformation.235238239240241242244246248249250251The GROUP DISCUSSIONS allowed for a constructive and participatory discourse, and reached the following main results: • Participants called for the development and implementation of a holistic and cross sectoral Agriculture/food strategy and policy that would cover agriculture, nutrition, environment and public health. Some participants suggested revising the Food Pyramid, to integrate local staple foods. • In addition to policy measures, participants recommended to seize the momentum created by the preparations for the Food Systems Summit to establish a REGULAR DIALOGUE with a SYSTEMIC APPROACH at national level. Collaboration must take place with not only government departments but also local communities with special attention to vulnerable groups. This is to stimulate interest in the agriculture and small-scale fisheries sector in order to boost domestic food production. • Equitable access to resources for small scale producers also needs to be provided in the form of technical assistance to improve food production and microfinance schemes to encourage investment in the market. • 90% of land resources in Nauru has been degraded by Phosphate industry therefore the rehabilitation of land must be prioritized to make land available for agriculture. Water security is also another critical issue, and this must be addressed as a high priority issue to improve the productivity and sustainability of the food system. • Participants identified awareness raising as as another primary means to transform of our food systems. Of which involved the consistent and clear labelling of foods for imported products, increasing taxes on unhealthy foods, education on the food and nutrition nexus and sustainable agriculture. • Research, innovation and technology were considered crucial to transform the food systems, provided that they are adapted to the weather conditions, climate and soils in Nauru. The legal framework should better support the application of new technologies, including through entrepreneurship, and helping especially the youth to take up farming • One major suggestion to ADAPT to climate change consisted in developing early warning /forecasting systems for farmers and fishermen alike. There is a need for regular weather updates to support growers. PREPAREDNESS activities, such as early warning systems and forecasting, should be better communicated to producers, to adapt to climate change. • Agriculture vocational training in schools should integrate the topics of climate change and sustainability. • In terms of FOOD WASTAGE, legislation for consumer protection must be developed ie. BEST-BEFORE DATES to assess the edibility of food items . • School meal menus need to be revised in order for children to meet basic dietary requirement needed for optimal nutrition. This needs to be enforced- all food handler’s caterers should undergo medical food handler’s check-up, providing a food handlers certificate obtained from the Public health-Food Safety unit and attend a Food Safety and Nutrition training.236238239244246247248249250251Action Track 1 and 2 - Continue to encourage per community and household to have own kitchen gardens. Encourage family home garden and this way physical activity can be incorporated as well. • Education plays an important role, awareness of healthy locally grown products. Government to support local growers and market their products. • Food tax assessment is in the pipeline to address taxation on unhealthy food (sugar, salt, processed foods) along with Food Safety regulation will address labelling imported foods- this needs to be enforced • Governments can subsidize the cost of vegetables and healthy foods in the local supermarket that is state owned. • Education department needs to implement the use the Pacific food groups instead of the Australian version. The food group taught in school is not applicable to Nauru nor reflects what is accessible in the country . • Incorporate Agriculture (planting) in the curriculum; Education curriculum also needs to be consistent with the health/agriculture education. • School meal menus need to be revised in order for children to meet basic dietary requirement needed for optimal nutrition. This needs to be enforced for all food handler’s caterers- all need to undergo medical food handler’s check-up, providing a food handlers certificate obtained from the public health-Food Safety unit and attend a Food Safety and Nutrition training. The menu provided should be based on the food school food guidelines. • The Public health department needs to develop a more integrated approach to public awareness programmes being more robust. Already started with Nutrition month awareness using social media, TV, radio. Vision Statements: We envision our nation where everyone has access to good quality, nutritious food and understands the consequences of non-communicable disease burden- Committed to a stronger and healthier Nauru! 1) Access of Sufficient and Affordable nutritional adequate and safe food to all people including the vulnerable groups (people with disabilities, elderly, women and children). 2) We envision our nation where everyone has access to good quality, nutritious food and understands the consequences of non-communicable disease burden- Committed to a stronger and healthier Nauru! 3) To aspire the conservation, improvement and sustainability of natural resources of Nauru including land and water.236241243244245246247248249250251Action Track 4 - Develop and enact a policy for each household to have kitchen garden and plant a tree when building a house/building. By law, if you cut down a coconut tree you need to plant another one. - Use covid-19 as a means to move and raise ambition => Future stresses could bring even greater problems, hence need to be prepared now. - Apply the use of innovation and technology to develop different engineering methods for growing crops, eg. Salt tolerant crops, hybrids of crops in order to survive drought. - An emergency strategy needs to be made for in case a shock or economic crisis. Existing covid-19 taskforce needs to turn into an emergency taskforce that will manage crises brought about by disaster related events, pandemics, economic crises. -Social protection schemes and program need to be made to ensure vulnerable groups have access to healthy foods especially considering the NCD crisis and obesity levels in Nauru and the Covid-19 pandemic that has disrupted food supply chains. - Champions must be identified in each district to promote the Nauru’s national priorities as it relates to food security. - Existing policy and legislation that relates to food systems ( Food regulations, National Agriculture Strategy, RonAdapt and Environmental and Climate Change Act) need to be enforced. - Customary land tenure arrangements must be conducive to boosting food production. Lands Act needs to be revised so that rehabilitated land can be prioritized to grow food. -Government to purchase phosphate land from Government to turn it into a farm. Prioritize the rehabilitation of land to be used for agriculture in Nauru and incentive landowners with lease rentals. -Access to local markets and infrastructure must made for small growers e.g a central marketplace, state-owned supermarket can sell locally grown produce only at an affordable price. - Enforce a policy for each household to start a kitchen garden where tools and seeds are distributed by the Government including technical support to plant. This would be a fantastic strategy for COVID lockdowns. - Legislation to plant at least 2 fruit trees per household. Breadfruit trees – to be planted as this produces over 200 trees. Government can incentivise this by providing seedling to communities. - Reintroduce the use of traditional knowledge and skills to preserve food and the bartering system to sustain livelihoods. Vision Statements: • Advocate for trading using local produce to ensure sustainable livelihoods within the community. • Advocating a platform to ensure local skills and grown food to be shared within country. • To ensure a Holistic approach to food system transformation- issues should be the focus to better livelihood, starting with changing the mindset. • Strengthen partnership to grow sustainable livelihoods. • Nauru to push for a law to ensure every household should have a kitchen garden. • Rights and welfare of Nauru citizens should have access to correct knowledge236240242243244246247248249250Action Track 3 and 5 Two main problems that hinders resilience: Water Security and Land availability therefore the following considerations should be prioritized. EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS need to implemented • Use of media/radio/social media • Use of traditional knowledge on how to read the weather/tides etc LAND • Educate and involve communities especially children on forestry • Long term lease plans – For local farmers to grow mahogany trees, what they grow can be the for their own economic benefits • Forestry – Seed and growing it [50 mahogany trees] educate the children • Monitoring of the land especially the rehab lands WATER: To be well prepare before drought or any other event • To introduce treatment plants (like topside camps) such as Agricultural water • Have solar RO plants in communities where it they are accessible for all • Revisit and revive projects – instead of using water to use the fertilizers (compost toilets) • Government to build ‘Water conversion systems’ (brackish to fresh water) in communities • Fix the roads of isolated houses for tanker to have better access • To build an Atmospheric water turbine - To reduce the impacts of the problems based on the three main problems on the island; land, water and population by rehabbing the land, combat water issues and to control population. GOVERNMENT – • To have alternate during seasonal fishing (large families, families not working parents and only depend on the ocean exchange fish for canned food/pack of frozen goods) • provide reefer at ports for storage of frozen goods • enforce MPA on certain types of species/periods • Give back the lands to accommodate people (farm their own food etc) EDUCATION • Involve communities to understand the process agroforestry and rotation of crops system. • To grow fast growing root crops that can withstand all weather types (breadfruits –grows within 6months) • traditional knowledge on food skills (hands on at reef and land – survival skills) and incorporated into education system on food system. • Broad cast on social media/radio/television/outreach/workshop etc • LEARN from the older generation and use their traditional knowledge to develop a more resilient society. • Have zones for agroforestry and residential zones (to be able to identify and separate these. Nauru needs to revise the Master Land Use Plan. • Engage the private sector that are the major importers/retailers (Capelle and Eigigu). • Planning and Aid division – to release the information and to educate the community on how to access the funds through social media/radio • Public center for Green Finance by the government – enable the public to access the information on green finance and to provide assistance on how to apply and the information needed to access to the funds and project proposals. Have a directory that is easy to access this information. • Mainstream climate change into all the departments – Climate Change and National Resilience department and all other governments to collaborate through a multistakeholder approach to implement the strategy developed by the government to transform food systems. • Consult and work with other departments to develop with an overarching framework/policy that covers all the needs of all departments aligning them with climate change and food system Vision Statements: • LAND o To restore the mined out phosphate and aligned it with the Master Land Use Plan. o Revisit the Land use plan – to consultant landowners for their consent to use their lands (3-4 years) o Landowners to agree with plan to use their land (10 years time) • WATER – o Based on the priority in the Master Land Use plan o To build a water resevoir (4 years) o Sustainable fresh water supply aligned with the Master Land Use Plan (5years) o Clear pathway on development on private agriculture and government [sustainable agricultural water supply specially for private sector farmers and government to provide water tanks] (5 years time) POPULATION o To have a National family planning program inclusive of the community – NGO’s, Private sectors and churches (5 years time) EDUCATION o To strengthen community safety net [incorporate into education237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251- Policy and Institutional Framework- Participants agreed that the measures are to be put into place in the form of stronger regulations and polices to transform food systems. However, others argued that efforts should be focused on awareness raising and public outreach that focuses on personal responsibility in order to generate action and not to rely on governments and/or donor funded programmes to initiate change. - Healthy and Sustainable Diets – While many participants acknowledged that there is a need to increase awareness on healthy lifestyles, others objected that even with the dissemination and uptake of this information by the public the main challenge is the being able to afford healthy food options due to the exorbitant costs of imported food in Nauru. - Price control of Goods- This was identified as one of the major influences to purchasing decisions for Nauruans. Participants acknowledged that Nauruans spend most of their income on food, and that consumers are restricted to purchase healthier options due to high prices that fluctuate regularly. Others objected that consumer preferences are largely influenced by social media the internet and the availability of cheaper imported goods e,g snacks and sugar drinks that are way cheaper that healthier options e.g. Fruits and vegetables. - Healthy and Nutritious foods: Whereas many participants emphasised the need for information and awareness raising about healthy nutrition, others countered that there is no recognised definition of what sustainable (including healthy) diets in the context of the Pacific truly is. Participants also expressed the necessity to revise the Food Pyramid taught in schools to be revised to showcase foods local staple foods. - Overall, despite contrasting views majority agreed that bottom up and top-down processes along with initiatives at the regional and national level are all factors that are necessary to generate sustainable patterns of actions.

2021-10-01 08:48:50204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19321/203

1340126540111537645781322481225140251853441925515817552017

We reviewed the Principles to ensure they were addressed in the agenda design and participant engagement process. The Curator also emphasised a number of these Principle during his introductory remarks including the importance to listening to and understanding the viewpoints of all participants. We designed an interactive session giving everyone the opportunity to participate in plenary or via the discussion groups.‘Act with urgency’, ‘Commit to the Summit’ and ‘Recognize complexity’: The dialogue was framed as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit by highlighting the opportunity presented by a One Health One Welfare approach recognizing the complex interconnections between human, animal,and ecological planetary health and thus a need for systemic and integrated approaches to food systems transformation involving actors from across human health, animal health and those working on ecosystem/planetary health dimensions. ‘Be respectful’ and ‘Build trust’: We asked participants who were not designated speakers and panellists to share their insights and questions online via the chat functions, through breakout group discussions and through the use of Slido as an online platform. We asked participants to engage with each other and with the speakers in a respectful and constructive way. We informed participants that all input will be summarized as input to the Food Systems Summit and shared with participants. ‘Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity’: We explicitly sought to engage the participants from a wide variety of sectors – covering human, animal and planetary health dimensions. We also sought presenters and participants who from a wide variety of geographies with registrants from over 40 countries represented within our dialogues. ‘Complement the work of others’: We identified the theme of One Health One Welfare emphasising interconnections between human, animal and planetary health. 'One Health' is often defined as ‘an approach to designing and implementing programmes, policies, legislation and research in which multiple sectors communicate and work together to achieve better public health outcomes.’ One Health as a concept has gained significant traction in national and international settings and many actors highlight the opportunity it offers to strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration and action.The use on online polling is recommended as a way of ensuring participants are engaged through the dialogue. It is a great visual tool which provides real time results to questions posed to the participants. We found this particularly useful to glean participants feedback following the break-out group discussions. Rather than a report back from each group, which can take a lot of time with many groups, every participant has the opportunity for anonymised feedback and results can be collated quickly and efficiently. We used Slido.

NoWe spent a considerable amount of time to ensure we designed the dialogue so it was as interactive as possible, giving every participant an opportunity to engage – This was very well received by participants. The event started with an introduction by the Curator, Mark Driscoll from Tasting the Future. The use of the chat function was encouraged with all participants given the opportunity to introduce themselves at the start of the session. We used Chatham House rules as the basis for discussion. Slido was used an interactive real time web-based platform to pose questions at various points during the plenary discussion sessions. Our first two questions included: 1) When you hear the term 'One Health, One Welfare' what one word springs to mind? 2) Do you think One Health, One Welfare is getting enough attention in the Food Systems Summit? The first part of the dialogues involved 8 quick fire presentations from representatives covering various dimensions of animal, human and planetary health – as some initial ‘food for thought’ and as a way of stimulating discussions in the 8 breakout groups. To encourage active participation each breakout groups had between 8-10 participants and a dedicated facilitator. Each facilitator introduced themselves and then got each participant to introduce themselves too. The 50 minute break out discussion then focussed on 3 questions: 1) What are the opportunities to drive forward and operationalise a ‘one health, one welfare’ agenda, linking animal, human and ecosystem health in a post pandemic world? 2) What are the main barriers to a One Health and One Welfare approach and how can they be overcome? 3) What would be your food system summit call to action? Once all the breakout groups came back into plenary, instead of getting a report back from each group we used Slido, combined with the Chat function for those who could not access Slido, to give everyone an opportunity to report back. This was based on the following questions: 1) What are the opportunities to drive forward and operationalise a ‘one health, one welfare’ agenda, linking animal, human and ecosystem health in a post pandemic world? 2) What are the main barriers to a One Health and One Welfare approach and how can they be overcome? 3) What would be your food system summit call to action? This method created a rich array of information and feedback used as the basis for this report. The curator and convenor then led a short reflection session before the event closed.

234238239240241242244247249Alongside a human and ecological health crisis we confront an animal health crisis: Approximately 70 billion animals are farmed for food worldwide every year (60% of all mammals on Earth), the majority of which are produced under intensive livestock production systems with little, if any, animal welfare standards. These systems drive the increased use of antibiotics and are connected to the emergence of a range of zoonotic diseases, diminishing animal health, exacerbating the human health crisis, and contributing to the ecological health crisis. According to a 2021 Chatham House report, launched in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme and CIWF, the production of food is the primary cause of biodiversity loss globally – driven by the conversion of land for agriculture and the intensification of agriculture reducing the quality and quantity of available wildlife habitats. 'One Health' is often defined as ‘an approach to designing and implementing programmes, policies, legislation and research in which multiple sectors communicate and work together to achieve better public health outcomes.’ Traditionally areas of work in which a One Health approach is relevant includes the control of Zoonotic diseases (Diseases and infections that are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and humans. A zoonotic agent may be a bacterium, a virus, a fungus and includes flu, rabies, rift valley fever, Ebola etc) and combatting antibiotic resistance (when bacteria change after being exposed to antibiotics and become more difficult to treat). One Health as a concept has gained significant traction in national and international settings and many actors highlight the opportunity it offers to strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration and action. One Welfare extends the approach of (and partially overlaps) the One Health theme used for human and animal health. A One Welfare approach promotes the direct and indirect links of animal welfare to human welfare and environmentally friendly animal-keeping systems. It fosters interdisciplinary collaboration to improve human and animal welfare internationally. It helps to promote key global objectives such as supporting food security, sustainability, reducing human suffering and improving productivity within the farming sector through a better understanding of the value of high welfare standards. In this Dialogue, participants focussed on addressing a number of key questions: 1) What are the opportunities to drive forward and operationalise a ‘one health, one welfare’ agenda, linking animal, human and ecosystem health in a post pandemic world? 2) What are the main barriers to a One Health and One Welfare approach and how can they be overcome? 3) What would be your food system summit call to action? Dialogue Objectives: 1) Ensure better animal health and wellbeing outcomes are at the heart of the Food Systems Summit highlighting how animal health and welfare are intrinsically interlinked human and ecological health 2) Create support for an integrated, holistic approach to policy reform and coordinated action across food sectors, identifying food systems opportunities for better human, ecological and animal health 3) Using a couple of case studies from around the world, to demonstrate what ‘one health’ practice/policy reform is being practiced (would be good to identify a couple of case studies from the Global South for example). 4) Highlight opportunities presented by a ‘One Health, One Welfare approach and what this would look like in practice.235238239240241242244247249The following is a list of the main findings with regards to the opportunities for taking forward a One Health One Welfare Approach: - Many participants welcomed a focus on and highlight significant opportunities and advantages to a One Health One Welfare approach - as governments invest in new solutions to build post Covid-19 economies, there is an opportunity to focus and build narratives around the interlinkages between animal welfare (health), ecosystem health and human health. Some fear governments may squander the opportunity. - In some countries there is increasing political will. E.g., the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation and the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs launched PREZODE (PREventing ZOonotic Diseases Emergence), a new initiative to prevent future pandemics. - There is a need/opportunity to move One Health beyond a theoretical concept into something that is practical and tangible. There are lots of frameworks particularly at an international level, but these are often disconnected from the needs and realities of practitioners on the ground. - An opportunity to adapt One Health approach depending on the very different political contexts and priorities of a country. That it is important to develop tools for competent authorities to work together and that it is important to take the one health and one welfare idea to a broader public and to create a public pressure on industry and decision makers to influence the political agenda - There is an opportunity for a universally agreed definition of One Health, the principles that underpin it, and a framework, which can be adapted to meet the needs according to geography and culture. - Leveraging research and developing One Health strategies based on practical experience is key - There is a need for a One Health Systems approach that identifies those systemic interventions which address the root causes and underlying determinants which lead to better animal, human and ecosystem health outcomes. - There is a need to broaden the application of the One Health approach and encompass a broader range of ecologically mediated diseases, such as encompassing the agendas of AMR, malnutrition, epidemic preparedness, integrated surveillance systems, environmental health, food systems and food safety – which are all driven by and dependent on healthy ecosystems and both animal health and welfare. - Working in a multidisciplinary way will build bridges between individuals/organizations working on related issues and enable more impactful work - One Health presents an opportunity to understand how people value food, nature and a sense of place and avoid potentially damaging and polarising debates. There is often more that unites people across sectors, cultures etc. than divides them. - There is a need to incorporate environmental determinants in One Health policy and the links between One Health, Climate Change, and nature-based solutions. (Agroecological and regenerative forms of agricultural practice) - The need to strengthen national surveillance systems so they provide an early warning system for a range of human and animal diseases, including the underlying ecological conditions that drive disease emergence. - There is a need to invest in higher health systems with good animal welfare ensuring farmed animals enjoy a good quality of life. Some systems should be outlawed. We asked participants to highlight the main opportunities for ensuring a One Health One Welfare approach is taken forward within the Food Systems summit: - There is a need for policies that prevent and reduce antibiotic use in animal production. - Countries should commit to country level One Health action plans and collaborate internally on the implementation. - Farmers/producers/indigenous groups must be part of the story and we need greater levels of participation within the One health agenda. - The summit needs to focus on solutions that are more locally, culturally and geographically relevant - a one size fits all approach will not work. - To mainstream One Health, One welfare we need to reflect the true cost of food – out pricing systems and systems of agricultural needs to change to ensure high animal welfare standards subsidies supported by production systems that are regenerative - Online training is growing, it has the potential to support institutional training and education programmes to covering the one health one welfare concept. - There is a need to place more emphasis on trade and its importance in creating One health One welfare outcomes linked to trade standards and issues of fairness. - There needs to be better dissemination of science and ensure this is linked to meet the needs of different cultural contexts. One Health science is often driven by the Global North with little relevance to practitioners. - Putting animal welfare more central to the FSS is key to human health prevention and will be cost effective in the long term. - The need to link One health one welfare with the need to reduce meat consumption, particularly of animal-source foods from industrial/intensive livestock systems. - The need for greater recognition of one health- one welfare as guiding framework across all action tracks of the summit. - Food systems should consider all animals as sentient and critical to healthy and sustainable food systems. - One Health should be underpinned by a respect for life both human and animal, ideally through the UN and an animal welfare SDG. It was felt the post-pandemic era was fertile ground for this approach.236238239240241242244246247249Topic #1 - What are the main Barriers and Limitations to One Health, One Welfare Approach? - There is not an agreed and commonly used definition of One Health. - One health does not address take a holistic approach and make the links between improved animal welfare standards/better husbandry and the links between AMR/Zoonosis/environmental contamination. - Insufficient attention is paid to the One Welfare concept that enhances One Health - One Health is commonly perceived as addressing human health (achieving human health outcomes or managing disease) through the lens of animal and ecosystem health rather than as an opportunity to address the upstream determinants of human, animal, and ecological health together, exploring the interdependencies. Climate change for example is a threat to human health and this needs to be considered through the lens on One Health. - The need to broaden a One Health approach to include the triple burden of malnutrition and food security. - Plant Health is often missing from the One Health story but needs inclusion. - One health does not always recognise the connections between animal and human abuse and neglect. - Gaps in national public health surveillance systems pose a significant threat to health. Gaps in monitoring ecosystems, ecosystems services and wildlife/wildlife diseases were all highlighted (including the use of indigenous knowledge and social sciences). - Accessing national level data, across many dimensions (animal, ecological and human health) and across different farming systems can often be challenging. - Awareness and engagement of veterinary authorities in the field is often very low and needs to take place in many countries. There is still a weak connection between veterinary and human public health institutions. - The siloed approach between different government departments/ministries e.g. between health, agriculture, trade and environment. - A Siloed approach between One Health and One welfare – often it is either “health” or “welfare,” but these silos need to be broken down to work collaboratively and more impactfully. - One health research can be very theoretical – it needs to be done in a more practical way involving farmers, indigenous groups and local communities ( those with ‘Lived experiences’) so that it can be scaled up locally - Businesses can view One Health agenda as a threat rather then as an opportunity to align their own strategies to health, sustainability, nutrition, branding and marketing etc. Need to move from short term profit to long term value creation. - There is a need for more collaboration between NGOs, governments and projects on the agenda as there is a lot of reinventing the wheel. Multi-disciplinary projects are harder to implement but produce better results and hence the importance of getting the One Health framework right from the start. - There is a perceived false categorisation of humans as distinct from other animals. Ideally there should be addressing this binary classification. - It was felt that there was a lack of transparency on the realities of intensive livestock production systems in society with a rosy-view being perpetuated in marketing and education settings236238239240241242244246247249Topic #2 - What are the main Governance Challenges to One Health One Welfare? - A siloed approach to One health is still commonplace, particularly within governments, meaning One Health is often focussed on AMR/Zoonosis with the responsibility of health ministries rather than as a cross departmental issue. - Whilst more governments are looking at One health approach not all governments are – there is a need for greater civil society mobilisation around the One Health agenda. - There is not always much unity of approach at national and national levels when exploring One Health interventions. - There is a need for leadership from politicians and governments and businesses to ensure human, animal and ecosystem health are at the heart of policy. - As more One Health initiatives emerge, we need to be careful that systemic interventions are really being identified and therefore due diligence is required to ensure a systems diagnosis remains at the heart of a One Health approach. - Engaging people and organisations from the human health side (dealing with triple burden of malnutrition for example) is often weak within governance structures. - Many people working on One Health are experts in disease and health and do not necessarily include professionals covering wellbeing. - Scope of One Health – Many governance systems at national and international levels often define One Health around AMR and Zoonosis and therefore programmes can be limited in scope. - Governance mechanisms do not always focus on systemic drivers and shy away from sensitive issues – e.g., dealing with industrial farming systems and excessive meat consumption that drives antibiotic use. - There is often a disconnect between the theory and frameworks provided at international levels and the tools needed by local and/or national practitioners. - There is a need to bring the science on One Health together with participatory processes that identify the needs and challenges of local populations. The risks and benefits of One Health need to be defined by culture and geography and cant be mediated at an international level. - There is a need to understand local power dynamics when assessing local One Health dimensions and careful consideration needs to be given to the process of local engagement, so it is participatory and is based on the views and values of local actors. - There is need to engage actors beyond the clinical field (doctors and vets) engaging indigenous groups and citizen science, complimenting quantitative data with more qualitative data from the field. - There is a need to focus on a bottom-up approach and ensure any tools developed internationally are to be relevant locally to national and local level decision makers. One Health needs to be framed by practitioners themselves. - Sovereignty of national governments is paramount and there needs to be an effective formulation for governance structures across international and national scales.236238239240241242244246247249Topic #3 Systemic Food Systems Interventions for One Health One Welfare There is a significant opportunity to ensure a One Health approach and principles are embedded within the Food System Summit process and beyond. Food lies at the heart of human, ecosystem, and animal health and well-being. Participants agreed that our health and well-being are being impacted by our food systems - the way we grow, harvest, process, transport, market, consume, and dispose of food, through multiple and inter-related pathways. Today our industrial food systems are making us ill, are driving climate change and undermining the health and wellbeing of animals and of ecosystems and the essential services on which our own health and well-being depends. Two-thirds of farmed animals are reared in industrial systems that deprive them of the opportunity of a good quality of life and that do not respect them as sentient beings. This requires changes to our food production systems – from systems focussed on a producitvist, ‘feed the world’ minfdset which favours the production of homogenous nutrient rich foods to ones that produce a diversity of nutrient rich crops, using nature positive solutions such as those provided by regenerative or agroecological forms of agriculture. It also requires us to change our consumption habits, ensuring healthy, sustainable and culturally appropriate diets remain the norm. The issue of meat consumption and what we eat was also highlighted during the discussions – the need to eat less but better meats with significant reductions in meat consumption required in counties particularly in the global North/West. There was also lots of feedback on the need to focus on more plant-based proteins within diets with a focus on nutrient rich rather than energy dense foods. The need to transition from industrial farming systems to more regenerative and agroecological systems were considered to be key to transforming food systems. There was general agreement that 2021 offers a unique opportunity to build forward a more compassionate, resilient, fairer, healthier, and sustainable food systems, that will also engender and promote better animal welfare outcomes- with better human, ecological and animal health outcomes central to economic stimulus packages and policies that governments put in place to support post Covid economic recovery. A source of both past and future pandemics is industrial animal agriculture or factory farming. Keeping thousands of animals crammed and confined creates the perfect breeding ground for disease. Industrial agriculture is also a major driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, a consumer of more than two-thirds of the world’s antibiotics, and the biggest source of food waste. Participants agreed on the need for a new food systems paradigm and a shift of narrative putting the health of animals, people and the planet and the heart of food systems transformation.237238239240244247249A few concerns were flagged during the discussions including: - Some discussion on the role of businesses in One Health and how to use corporate power and influence for good than commercial interests, which prioritize profits over health and nutrition or those in businesses that weaken regulation for foods with high animal welfare/ environmental standards. - How broad should One Health be? There was general agreement on the need to expand to include dimensions of planetary health and to place animal welfare at the heart of the One Health agenda, but some concerns that if it is made too broad it could make it a bit meaningless and that planetary health should provide the umbrella.

2021-10-01 21:24:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43912/10112632333639407175879398115120134135203161170192194

551029364953519120101102101752252

I first registered my dialogue at the summit dialogue.org with the title that incorporate the principle of inclusion and diversity. Click this link to see the dialogue title https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43912/ the dialogue was registered as an online program but was implemented as a hybrid event so as to effect the principle of inclusivity and wider rich. Many, if not all of the grassroot women farmers/youth in developing countries are not online, because they lack internet, phones or computers to connect. At a later arrangement, we got a venue and the grassroot women and smallholder farmers were able to attend the event in person. Maria Oko a grassroot representative spoke extensively regarding their plight and what they had and continue to suffer in the hands of herdsmen. She also talk of how Covid-19 lay bare the sufferings of the grassroot women. The first speaker who is the convener spoke on the topic "Grassroots Women and Youth's Smallholder Farmers Inclusion on Building Food Resilience During Covid-19 and Beyond"(Speaker: Dorothy Onoja Titilayo). Then, the second speaker in person of Mr. John Ugwu O. spoke on "Financing Grassroot Women Smallholder Farmers, Challenges/Difficulties and the way forward." This report sited very interesting examples of women farmers who were supported financially and the ripple effects it produces. The Third speaker spoke on "Food wastage in the USA" where he presented videos of where and how food are wasted in the USA."(Speaker: Professor Fredrick Nwosu who stays in the US). The Fourth speaker who is the children and youth representative, spoke on "food wastage in Nigeria and how to Mitigate it"(speaker: Jaasiah Ofukondu Onoja). The final speaker was the student girls representative who spoke on the "effects of Covid-19 on the girl child." Outside the main speeches from the conveners and the co-conveners, there were various voices of grassroot women from different diversity calling on the world leaders to come and change the way the food system at the rural area is operating and its negative impacts on them.Our dialogues and actions reflects the 7 specific principles the United Nation Food System Summit principles of engagement in the following ways: 1. The Principle of Urgency: The urgent need to reach sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals was why the Dialogues was organized as contributions to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. To reach all levels, we make sure the dialogue was made a hybrid event. 2. Commit to the summit: The principle of practice what you preach account for De Doronos-Jay Limited's Grassroot inclusion in the dialogue and the previous campaigns in the rural areas by teaching them how to prepare safe food for consumption and for commercial purposes, click here https://web.facebook.com/dorothyonojae/photos/174786791247210 3. Recognize Complexity: All our dialogues are complex and has in it a unique diverse inclusion that embed PEOPLE and PLANET. 4. Engagement of Multi-Stakeholder: This accounts for why we make event a hybrid event inclusive of a voices from different ethnic background and stakeholders from countries and different geopolitical zones and communities in Nigeria so as to align with the title of the program which is plea for inclusion of grassroot women in the game change. 5. Respectful: The dialogue put into consideration the principle of respect and using stories and examples to lobby the leaders. 6. Complement the work of others: Even though our dialogues are original and beat the act plagiarisms, it try as much as possible to complement other works and with the experiences gained from attending other dialogues before ours was convened, coupled with the insights from the pre-summit, we did not try to go aboard on a different wide chase from then UNFSS principle of engagements. 7. Trust: The Dialogue process involves the facilitators and the curators as one of the dialogue convener who resides in the USA, was acting as Convener, facilitator and curator.Personally, to pull a successful UNFSS dialogue, I will advice other dialogue conveners to be conversant with the five action tracks thus: 1. Ensure safe and nutritious food for all. 2. Shift to sustainable consumptions and patterns 3. boost nature-positive production 4. advance equitable livelihoods and 5. build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. Then, the convener should chose his/her title in relation to one of the action track or more. Second. the convener should reflect in his/her dialogue, the 7 principles of engagement in his/her dialogue. Then, he/she Conceptualize how the dialogue can be carry out by reading all the laid down methodologies for convening a dialogue. Reading through the 7 principles which are i. Commit to the summit ii. The urgency iii. Be respectful iv. Recognize complexity v. Engage multi-stakeholder vi. Compliment other peoples work vii. Build trust Again, I will advice them to focus on the training materials and resources that the issue based coalition on sustainable food systems could offer for use in the central Europe and central Asia after choosing the type of dialogue from the three types of dialogue either from Member State, State or individual dialogue based on who you are, who you are representing or your outcomes. Next is the dialogue phases. you must ensure to pass the through the 3 phases of dialogue convening which are 1. Getting started with the dialogue convening planning. Making sure the checklist for phase 1 is at your discretion. 2. Implement your dialogue. To implement your dialogue, you need to have known the purpose of your dialogue, aims, target, who to opt in, your Co-conveners, supporters, Curators, Facilitators, Note takers and every plan as informed by the training materials. 3.Then, you finalize the country or the interactive imputes from participants for the UNFSS use. Note, your dialogue should have objectives, goals, time frame. If you are convening a dialogue for the voices of the vulnerable grassroot, it may be advisable to make the event hybrid for the grassroots to be fully represented

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Grassroots Women And Youth's Inclusion During Covid-19 and Beyond on Building Food Resilience and How to Avoid Food Wastage in Nigeria The program will focus on grassroot women Food Resilience and how to mitigate waste. It will include the following issues and highlights, but others. 1. How strong is the food tank and food production at the grassroot by women and youth girls? Their challenges, awareness, finances, rate of inclusion, challenges faced by women grassroot’ smallholder farmers, the extent to which their voices are heard and how can it be heard. Hardship faced from herdsmen destruction etc. 2. Food Wastage in Nigeria generally and cases of food waste in other countries e.g. America. The causes of food waste, the effects, the vulnerable groups. How to mitigate it, importance, the resultant positive impact, and outcomes of the solutions. 3. How Covid-19 had lay bare or exacerbated the suffering of grassroot women, youths and women smallholder farmers at the rural communities and other areas. 4. Gender Equality and its priority in the tackling of women issues both at the grassroots and the urban environments.235238239240241242243244245247248249251The main findings from the dialogue is that, there is the need to connect with the grassroot women and youth smallholder farmers. Taking directly from the world of Phumsile Ngukuka, the retired UN Women Secretary General, she said and I quote "Women and girls are not intrinsically vulnerable but their social, economic and political conditions make them susceptible to risks and vulnerabilities." Women and girls need to be included in the resiliency of food sustainability. All the discussion was majorly centered on women and youth vulnerability. The action that stakeholders in the food value chain needs to take together are for the stakeholders to come together with the urban women working with the grassroot women to improve their lives and find a landing ground to resolve the climate change issues that affect the rural women most. Such issues to be included in the discussions are; 1. Food Security Food security is a broad topic that covers the availability, accessibility, utilization and stability of food systems. Women farmers currently account for 36 to 90 per cent of all food production in developing countries, depending on the region. As a result of climate change, traditional food sources have become more unpredictable and scarce, leading to women’s loss of income and access to food. Women are also often excluded from decision–making processes regarding access to and the use of land and resources critical to their livelihoods. 2. Water Resources The increased frequency of floods and droughts has led to disruptions in freshwater supply, negatively affecting women and girls in particular, since they are often tasked with securing and managing water for daily domestic use. In developing countries, fetching water from distant sources is time-consuming, and the quantity retrieved is rarely enough to meet the needs of the household. Furthermore, since the water is not filtered, it can be contaminated and have adverse effects on the health and sanitation of women, girls and their families. 3. Health The effects of climate change on health include increased mortality and morbidity due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and drought. The risk to women’s health in particular increases as a result of water scarcity and contamination. 4. Effects of Changes in Human Settlements and Migration Patten. The Grassroots women and youths' smallholder farmers are calling on world leaders to action: 1. To Provide them with equitable decent work and livelihoods. 2. Include them in equitable political, social, and economic considerations 3. The rate of disasters experience by grassroots women and youths farmers should be reduced by protecting lives, livelihoods, homes, assets, basic services and infrastructures. Capacities includes networks, infrastructures, knowledge, skills and resources. 4. To become resilience and feel included, the grassroots women and youths should be able to advance in development processes, social networks and institutional partnerships that help women recognize and build on existing efforts that reduce the impact of the disasters. 5. Grassroots women and youth organizations and smallholder farmers put a lot of efforts to their work but the only thing they receive is clap. The disconnect between grassroots women and youth and the federal state should be removed. 6. Grassroots women and youths should be included in emergency responsiveness and national programs. 7. Grassroots women and youth’s successes should be scaled up. 8. Women and youths should be made agent of change in the society. 9. Advocacy and community based work should be jointly done. 10. Hunger has no place where people work in solidarity. 11. Grassroots women and youths’ smallholder farmers should be able to access direct finance or under the leadership of strong leaders like dialogue conveners, action track leaders and commitment makers in the united Nation Food System Dialogue. 12. Livestock sector reforms should be put in place. 13. There’s no one that is allergic to training, herdsmen should be trained in nomadic literacy and older herdsmen should be given adult literacy programs whereby they will look after their herds from the dawn to noon and be at the literacy centers by evening. 14. Gender Equality should be given priority across its six thematic coalitions in Agriculture. 15. Innovations. A participant in the virtual platform based in Uganda, presented this as voices of grassroot women from Uganda. Hear from her mouth some actions that needs to be taken Based on the observation with grassroot women below are my key remarks; • Value addition in agriculture • The power of associations/cooperatives as a platform for knowledge sharing; capacity building in terms of skills; Capital mobilization. • Mentorship in order to build the the necessary skill set for work ethics • Role of technology and e-commerce • Creating an enabling policy environment for the women and youth to enable them actively engage in processing business registration of business; taxes; • Creation of youth business incubation centers women and youth in grassroot areas • Industrial Park policies should also be provide for women and youths . The representative of the youth and children also has this to say. The youth and children farmers entrepreneurs representative also called on the world leaders to come and provide the necessary enabling ground, environmental improvement, finance and technical assistance that will help us in the reduction of food waste. Many other voices also called the attention of the world at the dialogue below.236238241242243244245246247248249250251How can Gender Equality, Climate Change, Decent Work for All, Technology and Innovation contribute to the food system value Chain? Professor Nwosu Contribution: Critical Elements in the recent universal controversy regarding food system value chain Gender equality is a native and random topic on line. The negative norms hold about feminist gender had limit women from being a factor in the the food system value chain. People who still hold such perception should change their believe so women can progress in the food system value chain. Climate change is an uncontrollable variable. Therefore, farmers should use old astrological systems to know when to farm aggressively ahead of changes. Decent work for all is more like a dream than reality. Different factors lead up to decent work. Infrastructure is one of them if not the most important factor. I think that a good food value chain and system is rather the element to contribute to decent work. Technology is simply the way we do things. We already have the technology to carry out food production. In he context of this discussion, technology would need to be improved. In other words, we can find ways and means to strengthen the processes we have and possibly make those systems better. We can make those processes better by also upgrading our farming tools and equipment. We can secure new and modern implements and deploy in food production. products, and outcomes. As a Gender Expert, I added this too. Successful stories of resilience and actions in favor of Gender Equality should be followed. 1. Grassroots women and youths should be included in emergency responsiveness and national programs. 2. Adequate best practices to support livelihood and improve s and youths' smallholder farmers business at the grassroot should be encouraged 3. The Technical and Technological good practices that led to cooperation and exchange of experiences between institutions should be encouraged. 4. Household Covid-19 loans should be given to feminist gender. 7. Grassroots women and youth’s successes should be scaled up. 8. Women and youths should be made agent of change in the society. 9. Advocacy and community based work should be jointly done. 10. Hunger has no place where people work in solidarity. 11. Grassroots women and youths’ smallholder farmers should be able to access direct finance or under the leadership of strong leaders like dialogue conveners, action track leaders and commitment makers in the united Nation Food System Dialogue. 12. Livestock sector reforms should be put in place. 13. There’s no one that is allergic to training, herdsmen should be trained in nomadic literacy and older herdsmen should be given adult literacy programs whereby they will look after their herds from the dawn to noon and be at the literacy centers by evening. 14. Gender Equality should be given priority across its six thematic coalitions in Agriculture. 15. Innovations. 16. Implication for literacy and educational best practices for women and youths at the grassroots should be enhanced 17. promoting empowerment of people in achieving poverty eradication should be replicated. 18. Youth and covid-19 response, recovery and implementation should be monitored.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251One of the dialogue that has an evident an data was the one presented by Mr. John Ugwu a retired banker and Financial Analyst and also a Co-convener in my dialogue. Hs words: When the Nigerian government provided seeds, water pumps, fertilizer and loans to farmers as a part of a national agriculture program, only few women, especially in the rural grassroot, were among the many beneficiaries. But women generally have capacity to manage and increase farm produce to reduce food shortage and take care of homes and families. The following two short stories will buttress this fact. Mama Segun, a widow, took over her husband’s cocoa farm in Ikare near Akure, Ondo State, after the death of her husband. Every year, she engages laborers to work on the farm and reap good harvest and money to take care of Segun and his siblings. Today, Segun is a graduate, with all his siblings, following the death of her husband, Ajuma Ajonye was farming her husband’s land in the Ugbugbu Akor, Orokam community in Benue State of Nigeria, where women do not usually inherit property or participate in decision making. She did not have access to weather information, but followed the advice of extension workers to practice crop rotation and secured critical resources from the agricultural program. Ajuma repaid her loan ahead of all the other farmers and doubled the amount of land she cultivated. As a result of the government’s services, Ajuma’s family’s nutrition improved significantly. In exchange for labor, she provided food to other women farmers who were not able to access land and government support. These stories demonstrate how support directed to women farmers can lead to positive ripple effects across households, communities and countries. Farmers like Mama Segun and Ajuma play a central role in reversing poverty and food insecurity, and building resilience in the face of climate change. Women smallholder producers are heavily engaged in domestic activities, which remain hidden economically. These dual roles in households and on farms mean that their empowerment can have a wider impact on communities and economies. Agriculture is more likely than any other sector to provide diverse opportunities for empowering women and reducing food shortage and climate vulnerability. However, women do not receive the same support as men farmers, who have more access to farming inputs such as land, fertilizer and technology; financial services such as loans and subsidiaries; and technical support such as weather information and training through extension services. These barriers result in women producing 20-30 percent less than men. Supporting women farmers is not simply about securing identical inputs for women and men, but ensuring that resources are line with women’s needs. Social norms and institutional constraints are significant barriers to many resources being effective for women. CHALLENGES/ DIFFICULTIES WOMEN SMALL GRASSROOT FARMERS FACE IN ACCESSING FINANCE/ INPUTS: Achieving the agriculture transformational change that Nigeria and of course Africa craves is one that can sustain the continent’s urgent food demands and the changing agricultural landscape will require clear understanding of the gender-gap blocking issues in the sector. Below is an account of the most pressing issues: a. Access to Productive Resources: It is widely known that grassroot smallholders women farmers tend to experience more constraints in accessing agricultural productive resources such as: - I. Access to Land: in most parts of Nigeria and Africa, women do not have inheritance rights to land. Unequal rights to land borne out of diverse statutes, religious, customary and local norms put women at a disadvantage poverty, and entrench gender inequality in Africa. Women represent less than 15% of agricultural landholders, livestock or other agricultural resources (that is, those who exercise management control over an agricultural holding as owners or tenants, or through customary rights). II. Access to Finance and Financial Services: Agricultural finance is among the most difficult type of finance to secure. Smallholders grassroot women farmers experience greater constraints than their male counter parts based on the following: • Perceived risk – That Agricultural loans to women are difficult to recover. Second, that there is usually no collateral security to fall back to, in case of default. And even if there are, the Forced Sales Value of such security will be worthless. Grassroot Smallholder women farmers operate in an environment particularly perceived as riskier than that found in other non African developing countries. Lack of Management capacities- African grassroot smallholder women farmers lacks the necessary Managerial capacity as rural dwellers with limited education to manage farms. Africa’s large population of rural dwellers with limited education has little or no access to financial services and is effectively unbanked. This segment of the population has had neither the opportunity for interaction with final institutions nor exposure necessary to develop skills for accessing formal credit. • Access to Banking Services. Location of Farm - Another adventitious explanation for prohibitive access to finance is the physical location of farms and distance from credit source. The distance between the borrower and the leader has an impact on the resulting borrower-bank relationship. Banks are reluctant to give loans to the grassroot smallholder farmers. The way forward and divergent views hold will be seen in later outcomes below.

2021-10-02 23:02:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/32164/203

2191010083242095100248018510102201505350211021607310515012901002001300

As an organisation, we recognise the urgency of analysing and transforming our food systems in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. We also recognise with utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the SDGs 2030 goals. We are committed to practising what we preach as an agric-based NGO and also to professionally make our commitment towards the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit. So we thought of a way to respectfully within our capacity, gather professionals, food heroes, scientists, policy makers, SMEs and farmers to promote food production policies and practices that will protect and improve health and livelihood of individuals, communities and the nation bearing in mind the complexity of the food system and its impact on humans, animals, land, water etc. The dialogue event built on and added value to existing processes and initiatives thereby broadening partnerships to transform the good sector and help consumers make informed choices about what to eat.The dialogue event was a commitment and a call to action in the light of: 1. Acting with Urgency in building resilient systems towards sustainable food systems in our communities. 2. Respect for one another even in the midst of divergent and detrimental points of view from attendees. 3. The dialogue convened at the table, diverse stakeholders from the business community, farmers, SMEs, NGOs, trade Unions, Scientists and policy makers working across the food system from production to consumption.

Yes

2342382392402412442492511. A Comprehensive lecture on Backyard Farming: A backyard Farm is a homestead garden intended to utilize the space around a house to grow vegetables and limited food crops. It is a subsistence method of farming where there is competition for agricultural lands which has forced many to establish fields on marginal lands far from the house, also, due to the situation of no access to farmland by some households. Further details about this can be found in one of the attachments. Session by: Mr. Gbenga Adeleke 2. The basics of Organic Farming with a practical session on how to produce Organic Fertiliser Using local resources like (i). Plastic Bowl, (ii). Saw Dust (iii). Sand (iii). Dry Plant stick and a measurable quantity of water. Session by: Mr. Moyegun Joseph 3. The Urgency of Transforming our Food Systems through Soilless Farming: This session was taken online via zoom as the guest couldn't make it to the venue. Session by: Farmer Samson Ogbole 4. Farmers Challenges towards delivering Sustainable Food Products with emphasis on Vegetables (Pumpkin Production). Session by Mr. Terhemen Aondoakaa 5. Access to Safe and Nutritious Food: Bringing Innovation into Agriculture and Achieving Food Security Using Thailand as Example of Innovation in Agriculture. Session by: Ms. Kanyanat Kongsamphan2352382392402412432442452462482492511. The need for the people to make informed choices about the type of food they eat which should be safe and nutritious and from a credible source. 2. The need for the people to embrace backyard Farming as an alternative and a sustainable means of raising crops and vegetables from the comfort of their homes thereby reducing cost of purchasing food items detrimental to their health and well-being. 3. The need for people to know how to produce what's safe and nutritious. 4. The fight against Food Insecurity is a fight for all and it starts with knowing what's safe and producing crops and vegetables using organic resources, this helps in making informed choices about Food. 5. Food Heroes should be at the fore front of all policies and laws governing production, processing and distribution of food.237238239240243244248Participants during the dialogue event held divergent views on the possibility of farming without the use of soil. In actual terms, it seemed impossible but all views were put to rest after the soilless farming session where the speaker took the session from his farm directly via zoom meetings.

2021-10-04 08:46:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39981/203

2008120006140121321125213145312

- We made sure to invite a diverse set of participants - The curator reminded everyone to be respectful, embrace diversity, actively listen & act according to these principles - Our facilitators were briefed in advance and everyone completed the 4SD training, so they made sure to incorporate the principles in each of our discussion groups- Even though we had some opposing views, everyone was recognized and treated respectfully - We followed a multi-stakeholder approach, inviting everyone involved “from farm to fork” - We built new connections, complemented each other’s work, and will keep discussing these topics via digital community platformsMake sure to always remind everyone of the principles

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The approach to innovation (the how) sometimes affects outcome & impact to a greater extent than the innovation itself (the what). Thought For Food, a global food and agri-tech innovation non-profit, focuses on embracing six key attitudes often found in next-generation leaders to unlock potential game-changing ideas and create inclusive and resilient food systems: 1. Openness: Embracing new experiences and diverse ideas and connecting seemingly unexpected dots to create new ideas and breakthroughs. 2. Collaboration: Willingness to dive into the possibilities of digital technologies and believe that anyone can collaborate on anything, anywhere, at any time. 3. Beginner’s Mindset (Curiosity): Holding on to playfulness and intrinsic curiosity. 4. Entrepreneurial Methods: Seeing opportunities in every challenge – in today’s world, it has never been cheaper or easier to take a risk in pursuit of a beneficial breakthrough. 5. Shared Purpose: Building emotional intelligence and resilience to unite among a cause. 6. Nurturing Communities: Emphasizing that relationships drive forward everything that we do – our support system revives and propels us forward during the hardest times. This Dialogue aims to bring together next-generation representatives from the public and private sectors together, alongside those from civil society organizations, to deep-dive into each of these attitudes facilitating game-changing innovation and to further iterate on the critical role of next-generation leadership in food systems transformation. Following the UN Food Systems Summit Pre-Summit in July and an initial Independent Dialogue in May between the European branch of Thought For Food and FoodDrinkEurope, an association representing the EU food and drink industry, this Dialogue further iterates on the critical role of next-generation leadership in food systems transformation. Discussion questions: - How does championing this attitude lead to innovation? - What potential impact can the widespread practice of this attitude unlock? - What are the limitations of enacting this attitude for our food systems – where does the approach not work? - How can we increase awareness of this attitude? - How can leaders in the UN FSS and beyond embrace this attitude to transform our food systems?235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Today’s young people – representing the largest youth population in human history – deserve a seat at the table when it comes to deciding on the future they will live in. Engaging youth isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do. The next generations bring forward new ideas, new worldviews and new approaches that have the power to unleash a tidal wave of innovation and positive impact. The problem is that finding spaces to meaningfully engage with next generation innovators without tokenizing their insights and involvement is limited. The UN Food Systems Summit Dialogues that have taken place in the lead up to the UN Food Systems Summit offer productive forums for discussions to happen, and their format is adapted to accommodate multi-stakeholder conversations. Meaningfully engaging with next-generation innovators is easy with the right mindset and tools. Here is what we can (and should) learn from next-gens – as covered in the forthcoming book, “The Changemakers Guide to Feeding the Planet”: 1. Seek nuance: This includes performing quick social media audits, being mindful of public-facing media, and encouraging new and underrepresented voices. 2. Flip dilemmas: Stand in another place – literally. Use a lense from another domain, explore scenarios and “what ifs?”, and change the pace of attention. 3. Build bridges: Be vulnerable, ask questions instead of providing answers, listen, swap shoes, and keep the bigger picture in mind.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Enabling Openness Openness is not inherent in the food and agriculture industry – there is a lot of inertia built into the system. Supply chains and procurement processes lack transparency, mistrust of certain food systems actors is commonplace, and the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of our food systems leading to doubling acute world hunger. Implementing openness, especially combatting perceived IP concerns, is not automatic, but can be worthwhile. A 2017 Boston Consulting Group Global Innovation Survey found that 77% of the best-rated innovators follow open innovation models, like Syngenta’s Open Data project or national trade openness. As well, allowing constructive openness in trusted environments ensures that our food remains safe to eat – openness and transparency are fundamental aspects of the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) framework. Embracing openness comes with the need to recognize and work through the differences of multi-stakeholder and cross-cultural environments like in our global food systems. We all represent different cultural, educational, and social experiences and different expertise. When we are open, we can do so much more. By understanding each other and recognizing other people’s values, we can design food systems solutions that are human-centered and implementable, creating much stronger, democratic, and healthier food systems.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Leading to collaboration Implementing openness effectively cannot be done alone – collaboration is key, but we first need to learn how to collaborate. Taking inspiration from the multi-stakeholder mobilization around COVID-19, where researchers, governments, health care, and other essential workers tirelessly fought at the forefront of the crisis to minimize its effects on the general public, our current food systems to require a similar, urgent approach from the global community. Next-generation innovations find it difficult to understand why certain stakeholders are hesitant around collaboration. Building restrictive barriers to entry for food systems involvement disincentivizes valuable perspectives, especially those from underrepresented groups like the next-generation, from getting involved – although they still do push for active engagement. It is on food systems actors as a whole to ensure the next-generation can freely express their positions – something we should celebrate and amplify. Especially since these innovators are our future food systems leaders, the ones for whom we build our future food systems.237238239240241242243245246247248249250251Openness, particularly in commercial innovation and solutions, may not marry well with the need to stay competitive (i.e. keep the innovation to yourself for a competitive edge). As well, truly inclusive collaboration is effortful and difficult to implement (finding solutions that cross the digital divide, engaging those in rural communities, respecting non-digital ways of working) and can impede progress and potentially limit impact - there is a trade-off between impact and inclusiveness.

2021-10-04 13:03:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44285/203

150

Our Dialogue covered a subject requiring urgent action. There is a growing body of evidence that ultra-processed foods are detrimental to human and planetary health. As ultra-processed diets have become more prevalent globally, the Summit must address the risk they pose to healthy, sustainable, equitable foods systems. Our Dialogue asked a number of experts to propose solutions that addressed these risks, recognising that a systemic approach might best address them, and sought attendee participation in discussion of them. Our Dialogue brought together a number of different speakers from varying fields of expertise and attendees from across the world from government, academia, industry and civil society. It championed existing work to address the health and nature crises posed by food systems and provided a safe and transparent environment in which to discuss ultra-processed foods.Our Dialogue reflected the urgency of addressing the impact of ultra-processed foods and diets on human and planetary health. It reflected the Summit’s vision of healthier, more sustainable and more equitable food systems to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Reflecting on the risks posed by ultra-processed diets to the health and well-being of individuals, communities and the good stewardship of natural resources, it brought together stakeholders from different fields of expertise to propose solutions to the crisis and invited attendee participation in the design of policy options to encourage transparency and motivation to act.

NoOur Dialogue was an online event held on Microsoft Teams from 12:00-13:15 BST on Tuesday 28th September. A registration system was set up using Eventbrite, which provided a summary of the event and details about how to join. It was advertised on the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) Dialogues’ web page, the Soil Association website, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram pages and at the Soil Association AGM. Invitations were also sent to stakeholder contacts in public health, government and civil society. We convened speakers from the Soil Association; First Steps Nutrition Trust; University College London; Food, Farming and Countryside Commission and Landworkers Alliance to present perspectives on ultra-processed foods and the UNFSS 'corporate capture' debate, proposing policies to address the over-consumption of ultra-processed foods and the industrialisation of farming. Presentations, in most cases accompanied by Powerpoint slides, were followed by a curated discussion with a Chair from the Soil Association informed by questions provided by Dialogue attendees. Questions were posed both in the Microsoft Teams chat or on Mentimeter and attendees could ‘like’ questions posed, enabling the most popular questions to be given priority by the Chair. Presenters’ microphones and videos were switched on during the event. Attendees had their microphones and videos switched off, to avoid technical difficulties. Attendees were sent an email following the event, thanking them for their participation and providing a number of materials linked to the event. The recording of the event will be made available via the Soil Association You Tube channel.

234238239240241242243244245246247249A growing body of evidence shows that ultra-processed foods can be detrimental to human and planetary health. As ultra-processed diets have become more prevalent globally, a wave of chronic disease has washed across the globe, and this health crisis has accelerated in parallel with the climate emergency and the destruction of the natural world. These crises demand an urgent response, but some food industry actors have sought to stymie such a response. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has warned that “corporate concentration of power remains the elephant in the room” at the UNFSS, with critics warning that industry lobbyists have sought to sway the UNFSS away from a robust stance on ultra-processed foods. Our Dialogue outlined and considered whether fears of corporate capture at the UNFSS were founded, and proposed policies needed to fix our increasingly ultra-processed planet.235238239240241242243244245246247249Our Dialogue added to the evidence that ultra-processed foods can be detrimental to human and planetary health. Systemic change is required to address the complexity of risks that they pose. A number of different options should be considered to encourage government action to address the over-consumption of ultra-processed foods. These include ‘front of product’ labelling to help consumers identify ultra-processed foods, similar to the approach taken in Chile; stronger regulations on the labelling and marketing of infant milks and foods marketed for up to three years of age; a tax on ultra-processed foods alongside investment in fruit and vegetable production and consumption and community food systems; support for low-income households to enable healthier diets and limits placed on corporate power over the right to food. Our Dialogue created an open and transparent forum in which to discuss a subject central to the considerations of Member States to the UNFSS. It brought together a range of stakeholders from different fields of expertise to present a range of views and proposed policy solutions with online attendees able to pose questions and comments on them to provoke discussion and debate. It is envisaged that the policies proposed and attendee reaction to them will form part of policy input by the Soil Association and others to the National Food Strategy and Good Food Nation recommendations proposed for England and Scotland, respectively. Further such stakeholder discussions are envisaged to collectively advance debate and refine possible solutions to the over-consumption of ultra-processed foods.236238243246249251Inappropriate marketing and UPFs in the diets of infants and young children Despite infant formula providing nutrition in the absence of breastfeeding, it is ultra-processed and has lower health outcomes than breastfeeding at a population level. Other ultra-processed formulas including “follow on milk” and “growing-up milk” are non-essential, expensive and contain a lot of sugar. An enormous array of snacks are also being marketed for babies, despite it not being recommended that babies under 12 months old are given any snacks. Pouches, jars and ready-meals for children are also marketed. Ultra-processed use in the early years is ubiquitous and has important health consequences, with formula-fed babies missing out on the protective properties of breastmilk. Ultra-processed foods may displace unprocessed and minimally processed food and drinks and poor quality diets in infants are associated with excess weight gain by school age. Commercial baby foods may encourage overeating and dental decay. A key driver of ultra-processed foods in the diets of infants and young children is inappropriate marketing by the baby food industry. Unfounded claims are made by the marketers of these products. Parents are being misled. Baby foods are marketed as being for use from four months, when public health guidance recommends introducing solids from six months. Processing also releases free sugars in fruit-based products. Stronger regulations were recommended on the labelling, marketing and composition of infant milks, foods and drinks marketed for 0-36 months old. Existing regulations should be meaningfully enforced and measures should be introduced to better support women to breastfeed.236238243245246248249Front of Package Labelling of UPF products The food industry is confined by the need to make a profit. Front of package labels are a necessary but not sufficient way of restraining the industry. The obesity pandemic is a disease caused by UPF. A range of different labelling systems exist around the world. In the UK there is the optional ‘traffic light’ system based on the idea of nutrient profiling of sugars, salt and fat. There is enormous variation in portion size attributed to these nutrients on package fronts and consumption is often higher than the portion size listed, increasing the figures attributed to each nutrient. Traffic light labelling is not helpful to parents or consumers. Nutritional information is mandatory but consumers should use the numbers displayed to guide food intake for it to be meaningful and humans don’t tend to eat by numbers. High fat, salt, sugar is a designation used by the UK broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, with no particular basis in public health. Chile has taken a very aggressive stance to its obesity pandemic. It’s Food Labelling and Marketing law requires front of package warning labels for foods that are high in sugars, saturated fat or sodium. This has resulted in profound changes in attitudes to food purchases. It also resulted in reformulation of many products such that the warning label could be removed, with other possible negative consequences such as the over-consumption of non-caloric sweeteners which may be as harmful as sugars. Tighter definitions of UPFs are therefore probably needed. Ultra-processed foods should be labelled according to the extent, level and purpose of its processing.236238239240241243244245246247249Ultra-processed foods. Why do policies focus on nutrients and what can be done? The food system is ever pushing us to towards more packaged and processed food. They are hard to turn down for a whole host of reasons, including their affordability, the marketing that keeps us coming back for more and the fact they are so convenient. Dietary recommendations, meanwhile, tell us to eat more whole foods, fruits and vegetables, nuts and pulses. The entire food system needs to be realigned so healthier, more sustainable foods are the affordable, widely available option. Most policies to date have focused on the nutrients in foods rather than the foods themselves for a number of reasons. Changing food systems would require a big, coordinated effort. Food companies hold a lot of power. Reformulation, where nutrients are reduced or changed in a product is easier to gain political support for than policies which aim to fundamentally change the way we eat. Reformulation allows business as usual. Reformulation has its limits. It depends on which nutrient is being reduced and what it’s being replaced with. There is good evidence that salt reduction has worked well but ingredients such as sugar and fat are going to be much harder to remove because they often play a functional and structural role in addition to taste. Substitutes used may not be much healthier and could be more damaging to the environment as the switch to palm oil in a lot of products has shown. Stark dietary inequalities exist in countries like the UK. Those on lower incomes are more reliant on ultra-processed foods and consume significantly fewer whole foods like fruits and vegetables. This has important negative impacts on health but also provides some important motivation for system change. Research with focus groups talking about the unaffordability of healthy food resulted in calls for the food system to work better for everybody and for government and big companies to be more fair. Policies should be reframed away from nutrients and towards whole system change, with a tax on ultra-processed foods, labelling ultra-processed foods, ensuring investment in fruit and vegetable production and consumption and in community food systems and support for low income households.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Ultra-processed foods, social justice and agroecology La Via Campesina is a network of small family farms working across the world, a huge social movement representing civil society. Ultra-processed food is at the heart of what’s wrong with the food system, from the ground up. Agroecology is a term defined by social movements to define the food system we want to see. It encompasses diverse farming systems that don’t rely on pesticides, encourage good soil health, limit the destruction of biodiversity and work to mitigate climate change. It’s also about the social matrix. How power fits into the food system is hugely important. Peasant farming uses local resources to produce whole grains within a diverse farming system connected to the landscape to feed the local community varied, nutrient rich diets. It also encompasses local markets and provides skills and livelihoods across the community. Industrialised farming for commodities destroys all of this. 80% of food security is provided by the peasant farmer web, while the industrialised food chain uses 70% of the agricultural resources. It is the industrialised system which creates ultra-processed foods, which people don’t actually need for their own good health and wellbeing. This system is highly wasteful. From the 1960s onwards, there has been a continuous destruction of local, diverse, traditional food structures and markets, knowledge and skills and our relationship with food. People used to eat so many different things. Now farmers are pushed into monoculture production to create products that are shipped all over the world. WTO rules means countries can’t protect their localised food systems. Corporate power has become more and more intrenched. Hard limits should be placed on corporate power with regard to their ability to influence policies linked to the right to food. The concept of free trade should be re-examined. Trade deals need to take into account their impact on small-scale farming. All countries should be able to have minimum support prices for products. They should have the power to influence corporate behaviour to protect the right to food.237238239240241242243244245246247249A diverse range of topics was discussed in relation to ultra-processed foods as a result of the varied fields of expertise from which the presenters came, as well as the questions and comments posed by attendees that helped informed discussion. While the focus of our Dialogue was on what the UNFSS should have done and what national governments should do to address the over-consumption of ultra-processed foods, our Dialogue presented concerns about the inappropriate marketing of UPFs and other snack products to infants and young children and how information on packages makes it difficult for consumers to understand what they are buying and how they should be eating it. It addressed reformulation, food inequalities and the destruction of small-scale, traditional agriculture at the hands of corporates focused on profit-making. Overall, our Dialogue exposed how the ultra-processed food system impacts particularly starkly on vulnerable groups, including babies and young children, low-income households and peasant farmers. Priority should be given to addressing the risks posed to these stakeholder groups in particular and on the Earth’s climate and biodiversity, which are under such enormous strain.

2021-10-05 14:55:35207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8034/203

1061141331475510320018411251171141613025335

This Dialogue was co-convened with the Food System’s Summit Secretariat team in order to fully embrace the Summit Principles of Engagement through their guidance in the Dialogue’s organization. The participant identification process was carefully curated to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and take into account Food Systems issues in multiple different contexts. Member State participation was sought by reaching out to 40 different countries, requesting the nomination of a technical expert from the ministry of Environment as well as a second ministry involved in Food Systems (Health, Agriculture, or Planning for example). Member States were identified through UNEP’s regional offices, ensuring proportional representation between each of UNEP’s 5 regions. UNEP’s Major Groups and Stakeholders representatives were briefed on the Summit Dialogue and invited to nominate 20 participants to invite from various groups such as Women, Youth, Farmers, and Indigenous Peoples. Other independent participants were also identified from the Private Sector and Civil Society. The Summit Secretariat also provided a list of Food Systems Champions to invite in order to ensure the broad representation of all stakeholder groups, farmers organizations in particular. Regarding the discussion groups, a broad consultation was carried out within UNEP to comment on the list of group topics, titles and guiding questions, in order to ensure all main Food Systems challenges were addressed and recognize the complexity of such Systems. These topics were then reviewed by the facilitators, each an expert in their relevant field and selected from different backgrounds in order to display a wide range of approaches in the feedback submissions from each group.This Dialogue reflected the principles of building trust and complementing the work of others by instigating conversations between actors who do not usually interact with each other and work towards bridging the gap between environment and agriculture. The Member State invitation process was designed to encourage different Ministries (Environment with another) addressing Food Systems within the same national context to engage which each other. Hosting a conversation between different ministries to find synergies and areas of convergence is the first step towards the creation of comprehensive and effective National Food Systems transformation pathway. Furthermore, Member State National Experts were placed in groups discussing topics they did not usually address, in order to foster “unusual conversations” and trigger new exchanges. During the feedback session, facilitators reported being pleasantly surprised to engage with a group in which they did not know any of the other participants, stemming conversations outside of their usual reach. This Dialogue also aimed to examine the interface between food, biodiversity, and climate, so as to build on existing efforts to ensure synergies between the Food Systems Summit and international processes surrounding climate, biodiversity, and desertification. United Nations experts involved in the Rio Conventions and relevant MEAs were invited to participate in the discussion and provide links to their respective mechanisms and agreements. This broad mix of participants created discussions between sectors and stakeholders who were not used to speak to each other, therefore building the start of trust, as defined by the principles, between actors from governments, civil society, the private sector as well as within the UN system itself, having exchanges on what part they can play, challenges they would like to see addressed and potential solutions to address these.The main challenge encountered during this Global Dialogue organization process was ensuring participants diversity throughout the 10 discussion groups. As participants were placed in groups outside of their discussion comfort zone, some expressed a wish to be redirected towards their preferred topic, or expressed difficulties engaging in the group. Technical glitches and unexpected participants also made the pre-assignment of discussion groups more challenging than expected and therefore did not guarantee balanced sector, stakeholder group, age range, gender, and geographical representation in each breakout room. In order to limit this concern for future Dialogues, we advise Dialogue organizers to: - Clearly inform participants on the nature of the Dialogue and their assignment to discussion groups. This will allow them to prepare to engage in different discussions than what they are used to and ensure a more lively and open discussion in the breakout rooms. - Limit the number of discussion groups and increase the number of group participants. We found that 10 different discussion groups with 10 participants was too spread out. By attempting to address 10 different aspects of Food Systems issues, we may have missed the opportunity to delve deeper into conversations and debates. Due to technical glitches, participants would also sometimes drop out of their discussion groups, leaving some groups with a small number of participants which did not represent a wide range of sectors. Assigning more than 10 participants per group would have created a buffer for these situations and ensure a good range of sector, stakeholder, and geographical diversity throughout the conversations.

NoThis Global Food Systems Dialogue was co-convened by Dr. Agnes Kalibata, UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy to the Food Systems Summit, and Inger Andersen, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. It was curated by Dr. David Nabarro and aimed to foster a greater ownership of food systems issues amongst key stakeholders in the environment sector as well as a better understanding of environmental concerns amongst food and agriculture systems stakeholders. This event examined the interface between food/biodiversity/climate, so as to build on existing efforts to ensure synergies between the Food Systems Summit and international processes surrounding climate, biodiversity, and desertification. The outcomes of this Dialogue will contribute to the Secretary-General’s Food Systems Summit and will be further explored at the resumed fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5) on Strengthening Actions for Nature to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The Dialogue followed the Summit Dialogues’ standardized approach to convening, curating and facilitating structured conversations among groups with different perspectives on how to get their food systems to work for the common good. The heart of the dialogue were the discussion groups, where a diverse set of individuals (up to 10 people) exchanged views on a pre-defined “discussion topic” which provided a positive vision for the future of our food systems, focused on a particular theme. All participants engaged as “equals”, under “Chatham House” rules. The event was carefully curated and facilitated to enable an exchange of views at the working and expert level, including points of divergence. The aim was not necessarily to arrive at consensus, but the process of exchanging perspectives facilitated an evolution in different stakeholders’ views. Participants were invited to take part in a technical discussion, and not present a national position. The number of participants was limited to 100-120 participants maximum, who were allocated to 10 groups of 6-10 individuals with diverse profiles. Participants included: • Experts with access to decision makers at the country and sector level. • National technical experts of 30 to 40 countries (1-2 per country), from relevant ministries including environment, agriculture, health, and planning. • Representatives of UNEP Major Groups and Stakeholders. • Other experts / professionals / diplomats who can play a key role in supporting the bridging of the food and environment agenda and foster linkages between the UN environment governance and food governance. The Dialogue event team identified 10 Discussion Groups, under 5 key themes: Behaviour change and sustainable food consumption; Climate- and nature-positive food production; Ecosystem restoration for nature and people; Sustainable and resilient recovery; Environmental governance and human rights. This allowed the inclusion of a mix of themes that address systems as a whole (e.g. nature-positive food production), and topics that zoom into a particular area as a specific entry point into food and ecosystems (e.g. soils; deforestation; food loss and waste…). 10 facilitators were selected from experts and professionals in their respective fields. Facilitators moderated the Discussion Groups in order for everyone to feel comfortable to speak openly and contribute constructively to the dialogue. Facilitators were asked to maintain a neutral stance on the topic, encouraging participants to express their views more than sharing their own. They were accompanied by a UNEP representative and a note-taker per Discussion Group in charge of supporting the facilitator in his/her role and capturing the main points raised by participants.

2342382392402432442452462472492502511. A transformation of global food systems is needed to positively impact nature and tackle current planetary and human health crisis. Food is central to our lives and it is also central to the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution that the world is currently facing. The global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss. Agriculture is a threat to the 85% of species at risk of extinction and close to 90% of the world's marine fish stocks are fully exploited, overexploited or depleted. Over the past 50 years, pollution by fertilizers, chemicals and pesticides and the conversion of natural ecosystems for crop production or pasture have been the principal causes of habitat loss. Anti-microbials in the environment and food value chains are a growing cause of human and animal death. As the world’s population is predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050, it is estimated that 70% more food calories will be needed. This will have an impact on our changing climate, with livestock currently contributing to 14.5% of GHG emissions and global food loss and waste generating annually about 8% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the complex relation between human, animal and ecosystems health. 75% of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic and evidence points to the biodiversity crisis as a contributory factor in the emergence of COVID-19. Food systems are also the backbone of human health: poor diets are the leading cause of death and often cause non-communicable diseases. “A transformation of food systems is central to the achievement of all 17 SDGs. From equity to education, from sustainable consumption and production to health, it has now become a matter of survival” (Inger Andersen, Executive Director, UNEP). 2. All of us need to come together to ensure nature-positive food systems – before and after the farm gate. Concrete action to transform our global diets, informed by national and cultural contexts and a reduction in food waste are critical to breaking the system lock-ins that have driven the intensification of agriculture and the continued conversion of native ecosystems to crop production and pasture. “We all need to eat to survive. Food that is a great connector, it's a universal language. Around the table we are equals, and, even more importantly, around the table we are together and ‘we are the revolution’” Chef Massimo Bottura (UNEP Goodwill Ambassador). Restoring 15% of converted lands in right places could prevent 60% of projected species extinctions. The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration will catalyse global action to prevent, halt and reverse the degradation of ecosystems on every continent and in every ocean. Limiting the use of harmful and polluting inputs, replacing monoculture with polyculture farming practices, promoting deforestation-free and nature positive supply chains, as well as truly accounting for nature’s values and costs could not only make our way of farming more sustainable, but would also increase coherence between global agreements and national and local level action, while embedding a ‘food systems approach’ throughout. 3. “Dialogues lead to surprising connections that have the power to change us all for the good” (David Nabarro, Curator of the Summit Dialogues) This Dialogue and the platform it offered as well as the multiple country dialogues planned in the build-up to the FSS and beyond are critical to unlocking the solutions to our triple planetary crisis by diving into the complexity using a food systems lens. “Let's use this Dialogue to think through how we can come together to cause systemic change in our food systems. Let’s build a real agenda for change. Change will only happen if we put nature at the centre of our financial and socioeconomic systems”. (Agnes Kalibata, UN SG’s Special Envoy). “Every event, every dialogue, every conversation we have in the run-up to the Food Systems Summit is an opportunity to ensure food is mainstreamed in the preparations of the three Rio Conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Desertification” (Susan Gardner, Director – Ecosystems, UNEP).2351. System thinking: the global food system is characterised by strong imbalances as well as incredible interconnections. Shifting the needle towards an approach where people and planet are placed at the heart will allow to break silos and address inequities, a fundamental step towards transformative change. 2. Rights and governance: the process of placing people and planet at the centre of sustainable food systems can be facilitated by taking a human rights approach which leaves no one behind while empowering local communities, women and young people. Applying a food systems lenses can strengthen environmental governance at global, national and local level. 3. Finding solutions: food systems dialogues have been an incredible opportunity to advance global exchanges on key issues such as nutrition, food waste and urban agriculture, as well as to focus on the health of specific ecosystems and its management. The Food Systems Summit will be a ‘solutions Summit’ and momentum must be kept to advance actions at all levels. 4. Valuing nature: the adoption and implementation of standards, metrics and accounts which take into consideration the real value of nature through the entire supply chain will be fundamental to advance the transformation towards sustainable food systems as well as to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.236A. Behaviour change and sustainable food consumption: 1. Healthy diets, nutritious food and new opportunities for farmers It may be too simplistic to say that the transition to a healthy sustainable diet may create opportunities for farmers, because farmers have different responsibilities not simply to produce a basket of a diet but producing crops that could then be part of nutritious diet. There are global and local food systems and power imbalances can be at several levels and across various places around the world. There are many barriers with regards to sustainable food production like the power imbalance, but it may also be because of trade and consumers for example in in high income countries demanding a lot of input from producing countries and therefore contributing to deforestation another environmental problem. The coin can be flipped by turning it into an opportunity if we buy directly from farmers so that a market can be created that could not only stimulate sustainable production on the farmers side but also help that farmer produce not just sustainably, but also possibly more output. The indigenous or local farmers play a key role in sustainable food production. We need diets which are healthy for human body as well as for the planet. Educating the farmers not only about the market systems but also about providing them with skills and knowledge to produce in a sustainable way. The fiscal policies (subsidies and taxes) could help in transitioning towards a healthy more sustainable diet. Good governance practices are required balance power relations and facilitate fair trade. The farmers need to be equipped with good tools and knowledge in order to not just know ‘How to produce?’, but also ‘What to produce?’ And at the same time, the consumers should know what to eat and from what source and what prices to pay? If we need to make these transitions, we need to look at barriers both on the producer’s and consumer’s side and create an enabling policy environment. National Food-based Dietary Guidelines are helpful tools that inform both consumers, producers and policy makers what is a healthy diet. There is a need specifically to look at small holder farmers for an enabling environment in order to be able to sustainably produce, but also to produce those items which are fit for healthy diet. We can make use of latest technologies in order to bring these transitions.236A. Behaviour change and sustainable food consumption: 2. Food loss and waste, behaviour change and circularity Food loss and waste is an issue on which there is significant interest and consensus on the need for action. The discussion group, comprising government, private sector and civil society and mainly non-specialists in the topic, considered how governments, businesses and individuals can be better supported in measuring and reducing their food loss and waste. Several areas for action were highlighted, including: • Expanding private sector collaboration for sustainable supply chains, together with government where possible • Securing cross-governmental collaboration (Ministries of Agriculture, Environment and others working together), giving coordinating mandate to one governmental office across Ministries. Executive-level political support helps support integrated approach. • Identifying meaningful stories and images to stimulate transformation and behaviour change (for example Switzerland shared that half of Swiss agricultural land is used to produce food that is thrown away.) • Reducing misunderstanding of and reliance on expiry dates, through consumer information, education and regulatory frameworks • Improving access to sustainable cooling and cold chains • Developing better systems for redistribution of surplus Considering how to support behaviour change, the group’s recommendations were to: make it personal, and within one’s own control; track individual food waste data; engage the retail and gastronomy sectors; and get portion sizes right (for both healthy diets and waste reduction). Also highlighted was the opportunity to use food packaging and labelling, QR codes or other technologies to spark the imagination that this food came out of an ecosystem. The role of youth in leading the way to transform household and family food behaviours was highlighted by the group (“food to a student is not cheap”), alongside a growing awareness that addressing food waste is a key way to reduce individual climate impact. Ministries of Education may have a role to play in developing national food waste prevention strategies. The critical role of women in purchasing and preparing food was considered. Finally, the need to raise awareness that consumer food waste is a global, not just a rich country issue was underlined, as this is not yet widely known, while supporting developing countries in taking action.236B. Climate- and nature-positive food production: 3. Deforestation-free supply chains Overall, the session touched on several topics within the agenda of deforestation-free supply chains and are categorized in three sections. 1. The importance of system shift: It is critical to look at the supply chains from systems perspective, and that system includes farmers, consumers, traders, dealers, private companies, financial institutions, policy makers and others. The system shift is critical, but it is also very complex at the same time. True cost accounting or natural capital accounting offers opportunities to integrate the full cost of food but several real challenges, such as ability and willingness of the consumers to pay across different countries as well as the complexity associated with true cost accounting, were discussed. How the subsidies are structured also needs a shift from incentivizing unsustainable land use conversion and extensive use of chemicals to promoting eco-friendly food systems. This point also underscores that we need to look at farmers not as enemies but as important partners whole livelihoods depend on agriculture and food systems. The system shift must strengthen rather than undermine their livelihoods. 2. Solutions: The role of finance is critically important in financing that shift in the sustainable food systems and that finance needs to be mobilized from both private and public sectors through effective mechanism. Agroforestry and regenerative production systems such as Silvopastoral could offer opportunities to not just reduce negative ecological impacts but could potentially create ecological benefits. At the same time, it will also be important to look at the carrying capacity for a sustainable livestock system and look at consumer behaviour change and heathy diets as approaches to shift the demand. Technology (machines) that could deploy agroforestry and regenerative systems at large scale will be important solutions to this system shift but still this remains in the testing and pilot phase. Finally, regulations underpin many of these solutions in a way that they create enabling conditions for consumers, companies, farmers, trader, and financial institutions to make that system shift. 3. Importance of a positive narrative: It is critical that rather than blaming farmers, companies, or countries, we listen to the concerns of different stakeholders, including those from producing countries, and find ways to work together to make this system shift in a collaborative way.236B. Climate- and nature-positive food production: 4. Oceans, waterways and aquatic foods The breakout session focusing on oceans, waterways and aquatic foods saw the participation of eight participants, including the facilitator, UNEP representative, and notetaker. The discussion revolved around fisheries, aquaculture, opportunities, and challenges in addressing aquatic conservation in food systems, with a focus on countries and regions. Among the key messages, the participants highlighted that: • When talking about fisheries, the narrative is usually negative. Estimates say that up to 50% of seafood is wasted and there are huge losses along the supply chain at both household and retail levels. • On the bright side, however, there is evidence showing that if managed sustainably, we can rebuild the global fish stocks. • Subsidies remain among the major challenges, especially for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). • There is a need for investments in small-scale fish production. • There is a need for involving fisheries’ representatives in dialogues and decision-making. From the food systems perspective, there is often a lack of data and/or no participation from this category. The participants agreed that there is a general disconnection when talking about food systems. People usually think about land-based food systems and forget about fisheries and aquaculture. There is also fragmentation: very often, fisheries and aquaculture fall under the management of different ministries with the consequence of creating silos. Food waste remains a major problem and, in many cases, there is a lack of country-level dialogue to support the voice of small producers. Subsidies remain a hot topic of discussion: participants agreed that in some instances they create more problems than solutions. However, in other cases, subsidies are needed to support sustainable aquaculture. Participants finally agreed that there is a need for knowledge and expertise sharing when it comes to fisheries and aquaculture. This is because the consumers want to do the right thing, but they often do not know how to do it.236C. Ecosystem restoration for nature and people: 5. Integrated land management and ecosystem restoration The group began by talking about language and terminology and recognized that that there are many terms that are considered to be part of integrated landscape management and sometimes is easy to get stuck in terminology which are often rooted in ideology. There is a need to overcome this debate and one possible way of doing so is to focus more on shared goals than on arguing about particular agricultural practices or technologies that might constitute this broad arena of integrated landscape management. Integrated landscape management can work when different stakeholders recognize they are part of the same system and they are able to articulate shared goals for improving the food system and the production practices in a particular landscape. In addition to shared goals, using a spatial framing for planning production systems and planning land use would help improve sustainable production systems. This can help create mosaics where lots of different variety of different land uses can support the multiple goals of diverse stakeholders in a particular region. So rather than assume, for example, that an area needs to focus on agroecology versus intensification, if we look at the pathway to sustainability, we may need some areas that are still focused a little bit more on intensification of management systems and intensification of external inputs at the same time. Moving towards a larger landscape approach is not going to rely on intensification, but rather more on agroecological approaches. Shared goals and the use a spatial framing to plan our transition into more nature-positive food systems were identified as key angles for accelerating change. A key barrier against moving in this direction is mitigating the risks that farmers are often saddled with in making these transitions. Moreover, there is a so-called missing middle between practitioners and policymakers in many cases. There are many laudable policies practices in place. However, the capacity building and the incentives to change are often lacking and subsidies as well as other harmful practices might hinder this important transformative process.236C. Ecosystem restoration for nature and people: 6. Urban farming and community involvement There was overall agreement during the discussions. Participants find urban and peri-urban farming systems (UPA) relevant as it contributes to food systems resilience and sustainability. UPA is important in the context of COVID-19, demography of urban areas, and people needing to eat healthy food. UPA increases access to seasonal fresh and nutritious food. It offers diversity for food basket based on local ingredients, since supermarkets offer globalized options. People that grow their own food are incentivized to reduce the use of pesticides and chemicals, and to eat seasonable food. UPA benefits mental health. It contributes to circular economy - by reducing food miles and closing loops - and to better use of urban land for producing food. UPA supports the New Urban Agenda, given its role as a protection of further development of built-up areas, for the quality of soils, mitigation of global warming, and urban-rural linkages. It improves livelihoods across the value chain. The challenges for UPA are: urbanization and urban sprawl; lack of policy support and integration of UPA into urban planning. Scarcity of natural resources (eg. water, soil). Lack of evidence on benefits and innovation types. Lack of inclusivity and incentives (eg. knowledge, economic, and access to resources). Not fully discussed was the challenges faced in climates with limited growing seasons; nor the costs of producing food year round, including if the objective is nutritional diversity and food security the types of foods that are currently highest value in high-tech containerized farms being micro-greens that offer limited contribution to local food security. The group agreed the following need to happen to upscale UPA and mentioned good practices: more research for options for innovations in resource management (eg. water use, more plant-based demand; etc.) and evidence on the socio-economic benefits. More policy support and incentives at local and national levels (eg. in UK, UPA to be mentioned in national policy). Integration in urban planning, to allow the use of unused plots and abandoned lands (eg. In Germany, people owing their plots to grow food). Governments can provide incentives to farmers and citizens through access to land, water, etc (eg. in Ethiopia the government cover the costs of water for the poor). School gardens could be upscaled to educate children, while the word of influencers can incentivize people to grow their own food (eg, in Georgia citizens started growing their own food due to the COVID-19 pandemic.). Demonstration projects help to show circular approaches, such as rooftop gardens in buildings, water recycling (eg. In Israel, sewage water is recycled for UPA). UPA needs to be inclusive, by providing right incentives for farmers and urban poor. Farmers require access to digital tools. Finally, UPA requires viable business models, with creation of markets for UPA products (urban farms supplying restaurants, supermarkets, etc), while countries can invest on UPA for substituting some of the need for importing food. All actors of the value chain should be involved, but especially, governments (local authorities, national ministries), the education system and children (given the impact of engaging at this stage of development); farmers; research institutes and universities; private sector (eg. social entrepreneurs, restaurants, the retails sector, etc), and citizens that can grow their own food.236D. Sustainable and resilient recovery: 7. One Health approach The “One health approach” in nature-positive food systems is very complex one. First, One Health has different priorities in different regions. In many developing countries meat consumption is increasing with increasing wealth especially in the urban population, and the focus is on developing better approaches to livestock. In Europe, the discussion focuses on agricultural subsidies which have been in favor of large agro-industrial business at the expense of small family-owned businesses and biodiversity. There is the challenge of feeding a growing human population while producing food in a sustainable way. Participants formulated the key message “One health at the heart of food systems” for increased health, increased production and increased ecosystem services, in other words, “healthy diets in healthy systems”. And this is one of the key questions, how to bring biodiversity and other co-benefits back into the food production. Regional approaches are one element, but also the cross sectoral nature and different levels are important: a key observation in this group was that decision makers often involve a few stakeholders in the dialogue on agricultural policy, and often these are the influential agro-industrial companies and not the individual farmers. Also, we do not have Ministries for One Health, and we often lack cross sectoral collaboration, and often this has ledled to situations where agricultural policies and subsidies have had adverse and unintended effects. And farmers are not being compensated for sustainable production and land management. For a successful transformation towards a more sustainable food production system we first need to understand the complex system with trade offs, potentially unintended negative impacts of policy decisions better and negative feedback loops better. The participants came up with the idea to create a dashboard to analsye feedback loops and trade offs.236D. Sustainable and resilient recovery: 8. Valuing nature An evaluation framework geared to what we want to achieve can be extremely powerful to address impacts along the value chain, especially if it takes an inclusive and economic narrative involving all beneficiaries and constituencies. In the case of Gabon, major human-wildlife conflicts have indicated that targeted perception shifts amongst the public are required for the adoption of pro-biodiversity policies. The case also needs to be made where certain species demonstrate value for ecosystems as well as for its contributing ecosystem services. It is therefore vital that not only the monetary value is highlighted, but also that the non-monetary intrinsic values of nature are recognised – “we can’t just do it with dollars”. Focus must be shifted from trade-offs towards win-win opportunities, such as agro-ecology and carbon neutral transitions. The co-benefits in eco-agri-food systems need to be clearly highlighted, and local and traditionally led solutions should be put forward as an opportunity. Climate funds and associated finance must also be directed to the countries requiring the most support. The eco-agri-food system must be understood in a fully inclusive way. The pathway towards a food system transition must be clearly mapped-out and must be just as it involves all different constituencies, to be able to discover win-win solutions. Participants also reflected upon the exclusion of agro-ecological approaches as a means of a sustainable food systems transformation. Establishing a coalition approach is vital to achieving sustainable impacts where best practices can be shared. The FSS enables youth involvement alongside the UN agencies and member states leading the Action Tracks; this model should be replicated more widely. The phrase “nothing about youth, without youth” must be mainstreamed in future dialogues of multilateralism and youth engagement in the post-COVID recovery. Globally, governments provide massive annual farm subsidies, much of which presents detrimental impacts on natural, social and human capital. Subsidies should be redirected towards regenerative farming and the uptake of alternative non-animal-sourced proteins, to perceive and assimilate the true value of food. Furthermore, the environment and agriculture ministries in Gabon are collaborating on a land allocation plan where the agricultural land is all compliantly managed and ecologically sensitive to forests and wildlife. Certification is required to obtain grants and ecological frameworks are being used as a lever to promote green investments. There is also a need to influence shifts to regulations in public procurement, such as introducing obligatory vegetarian catering in academic institutions, targeting mindset shifts to reshape future societies. “Given that the Global Nutrition Report says that our diets are the main burdens of disease, changing our habits would surely change our diets, and where better to start than in schools”.236E. Governance and human rights: 9. Linking Food Systems and Environmental governance Three main issues in relation to linking food systems and environmental governance were discussed: 1) The necessity of breaking silos between agriculture and the environment Participants discussed silos as a widespread problem. These silos exist from the local to national level. A number of solutions to this were discussed including establishing cross-sectoral governance that looks at food systems. For example, a food systems governance structure within a national government that looks at food systems from multiple perspectives to get a whole systems approach. This needs to expand beyond agriculture and environment to bring in health and finance sectors as well. Cross-sectoral governance is currently reactive (it happens in emergency situations) and needs to be proactive. This is not a one size fits all solution, but would need to be tailored to different contexts. 2) Bringing food systems into multilateral agreements In this area participants discussed the need to strike a balance between environmental and social issues to really build a resilient system. The need for better metrics was discussed as well as the need to develop standards across countries so that, for example, farmers can be rewarded for approaches like carbon farming. The need for countries to focus on GHG emissions linked both to production as well as consumption was seen as a key way to get more accurate accounting. Land was discussed as a critical focus that links food systems and environmental issues to a number of conventions (including biodiversity, climate, desertification). 3) Solutions that can happen over the next two to three years Number of ideas were shared that were seen as key ones to develop over the next few years. These included the idea, highlighted above, of building cross-sectoral teams focused on food systems governance building on the momentum coming out of the FSS. Another idea was that of developing metrics for agriculture across different regions. This would help to build global standards and feed into legally binding targets set through multilateral agreements.236E. Governance and human rights: 10. Right to Food and Earth Rights Discussion group No. 10 addressed several cross-cutting issues relating to the “right to food and earth rights.” The group’s vision was “women, youth, indigenous peoples and local communities have, at all times, access to safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food that is produced and consumed in harmony with nature, protecting and promoting environmental rights and indigenous peoples’ rights.” In summary, participants underscored that the right to food and the rights of nature are complementary rights and should be addressed synergistically, considering cultural norms, standards, and practices. Among participants there was no view about contradiction between right to food and right to earth. Moreover, participants expressed complementary views concerning the dimensions of the right to food and the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional communities (IPLCs), women, children, youth, and small-holder farmers. They underscored several challenges faced by these groups such as access to land, access to nutritious and culturally appropriate food, access to markets, access to seeds, adverse impact of industrial agricultural practices on food security, food sovereignty, land and water contamination from pesticides and other chemicals, lack of supporting policies that triggers rural youth migration, and commercialization of organic farming. As one participant highlighted, “lack of access to land can be considered as a form of discrimination against women.” (adapted) There was strong agreement about the role of women on food security and nutrition as well as and access to land for women. Considering these challenges, participants identified, inter alia, key concrete initiatives and priorities to achieve the group’s vision, as follows: • Take urgent, coordinated action to promote food systems transformations, identifying good practices and further developing the evidence base of nature-positive food systems’ contributions. • Create enabling environments and frameworks for sustainable agriculture, including regenerative agriculture, organic agriculture, and agroecology • Provide capacity-building opportunities for food system actors. • Generate more opportunities for youth in agriculture. • Facilitate access to information on food and environmental rights, fostering knowledge sharing among different stakeholders, including women, youth, and IPLCs. • Further research and discuss animal rights and animal welfare, identifying good practices and examples across different cultures and societies. • Further discuss human rights obligations of private sector, and the need of extraterritorial obligations of corporations. • Provide legal assistance to indigenous peoples and local communities. • Disseminate the outcomes of the global food system dialogues at the local, national, and regional levels, promoting cross-sectoral partnerships. Lastly, participants agreed that working in harmony with nature is crucial to achieving food system transformations. This transition should fully consider local knowledge and experiences, women’s contributions to nutrition, and the role of family farmers in promoting sustainable practices. When this is observed, it is a “win-win situation” for people, the planet, and ecosystems.237Describe in under 5,600 characters including spaces Participants in Discussion Group 1 commented on the statement ‘Healthy food and diet to provide opportunities to farmers’. Accordingly, the issue of opportunities is not related to the nutrition of the diet, but rather it depends on how the supply chain is organized and on how it distributes the value that is created. As long as the issue of equity and power balance is not addressed to allow a fair share for farmers, there will be little opportunities from them. Different perspectives between developed and developing countries were also highlighted by participants. On consumer choices, for instance, it was underlined that “It is very easy for the developed countries to say that they will only buy deforestation free commodities. But they should understand what impact it could have on developing countries, particularly on the farmers that depend on livestock for their livelihoods. This is particularly important with the current context in Brazil”. Moreover, it was also noted that “Eco-friendly products have a higher price tag, and majority of people in the developing countries, such as Thailand, can’t afford it. Therefore, eco-friendly products have remained accessible to the rich people only”. Finally, different views were expressed regarding the issue of subsidies, particularly in the fisheries sector. On the one hand, participants in Discussion Group 4 highlighted the importance of supporting industries, especially small-scale businesses and the ones involved in aquaculture practices. On the other hand, it was underlined that the use of subsidies in some areas of the world, like the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) undermines the balance of the fish industry. Participants also stressed the importance of protecting fish stocks and extending the area of marine protected areas.

2021-10-06 11:05:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42507/36115134

45827913015911111152529136612114

Acknowledging the complexity of food systems and the need to act with urgency, the Dialogue strived to provide a multi-stakeholder platform for actors from different communities of practice (e.g. rule of law, land rights, food sector). The goal was to identify practical solutions, based on rule of law principles and approaches, to inform urgent responses and actions across food systems for addressing the food security-climate-conflict nexus in the Sahel. To foster diversity and inclusiveness, individuals representing specific groups and stakeholders (including lawyers, representatives from local and national institutions, civil society representatives) were identified. IDLO (the Convenor of the Dialogue) relied on its network in the Sahel region to identify key stakeholders and participants. In addition, a stakeholder mapping exercise was conducted to identify and invite crucial stakeholders acting in the intersection between the rule of law and food systems in the Sahel. Diversity was also reflected in the selection of the speakers for the plenary session of the Dialogue, which involved representatives from governments, NGOs, as well as technical experts.-Act with urgency and Complement the work of others: the Dialogue sought to identify and encourage the exchange of best practices and ongoing actions across food systems that are being implemented to enhance food security and nutrition, while addressing key development challenges in the Sahel, including climate change and violent conflict. -Commit to the Summit: the Dialogue was an opportunity for actors involved to share national pathways and strategies that are being adopted in the framework of the Food Systems Summit. -Complexity / Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity/ Build trust: the Dialogue involved a wide and diverse range of stakeholders that brought to the discussion different perspectives on food systems transformation and on the challenges affecting food security and nutrition in the Sahel.It is important to ensure that Principles of Engagement are appreciated both in the planning and roll-out of the Dialogue. In this sense, the role of the Facilitators is essential to stimulate the conversation in breakout sessions and ensure that all voices are heard.

Yes

234238241242246247249251The Dialogue explored how current rule of law and governance gaps across food system in the Sahel undermine efforts to enhance food security and nutrition and the realization of the right to adequate food, in light of the most pressing constraints in the region: climate change, land degradation, access to land and other natural resources, and violent conflict. These include, for instance, the limited success of State and traditional institutions in ensuring equal access to land and other natural resources and providing effective and accessible dispute resolution pathways, with tensions escalating into violent conflict. Throughout the main panel discussion and the breakout sessions, the Dialogue examined the links between efforts to strengthen the rule of law across food systems in the Sahel (e.g. through policy and legal reforms, legal empowerment, and institutional capacity development), and strategies and actions to that contribute for a peaceful, equal and sustainable transformation of food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.235238241244246247249251-Food insecurity in the region is determined by intersecting factors, including poverty, insecure livelihood for vulnerable groups (such as smallholder farmers and pastoralist communities), poor access to agriculture technology, lack of financial resources and information, conflict and climate change -Representatives from national governments reported some ongoing initiatives and steps that are being undertaken to enhance food security and nutrition in their respective countries and highlighted the importance of undertaking revision of legal provisions to include the right to adequate food into national constitutions, and promoting agroecological practices. It was stressed that efforts to constitutionalize the right to food should be complemented by the set up of oversight mechanisms to monitor its implementation. -Human mobility and migration was cited as an important phenomenon to consider when addressing food insecurity and malnutrition in the region. -Access to justice, participatory processes, accountable and effective institutions were identified as crucial elements of the rule of law that can facilitate the implementation of Agenda 2030, while laying the ground for the fair and just transformation of food systems in the Sahel. -Participatory mechanisms were highlighted as crucial elements for transformation of food systems in the Sahel and to strengthen the right to adequate food for all. It was noted that fair and just transformation processes need the involvement of all stakeholders engaged in food systems, from production to consumption. -Concrete solutions were identified for rule of law-based approaches that can promote fair and equal transformation of food systems including: 1. Strengthening food systems governance through intersectoral and multilevel coordination- actors operating at local level have a determinant role in food systems governance since decisions affecting food systems are mostly implemented at local level. At the same time, it is important to build coordination at regional level in the Sahel. 2.Empowering local communities to actively participate and engage in food systems governance. In this respect, civil society organizations were highlighted as crucial target groups. 3. Land tenure and rights are crucial components of strategies to enhance food security and nutrition in the Sahel, while pursuing human security and climate change objectives. In this respect, both formal and informal institutions need to be involved in actions to strengthen land governance. 4. Integrating the right to adequate food in national Constitution and establish/strengthen oversight mechanisms to monitor its implementation236241244246247249251Discussion Topic: Land rights, conflict and food security Challenges - the main challenges reported in relation to access to land and natural resources are: youth migration, climate change, discriminatory social norms affecting women and youth, insecure land titling. It was also highlighted that the human security agenda in Sahel countries is often inconsistent with food security objectives. Actors - State actors at all levels, traditional leaders, land owners were cited as the most critical stakeholders to involve in efforts to strengthen land governance Solutions proposed and actions needed: 1. Build coordination between formal and informal tenure systems, by integrating traditional (customary) practices and norms into land governance and management plans (statutory regulations). The "Code Rural" in Niger, integrating traditional knowledge and norms, was reported as an example of best practice in this respect. 2. Legal empowerment targeting local communities and vulnerable groups on their rights to land. 3. Awareness raising for formal and informal authorities on the right to land of women and vulnerable groups236238241242246247251Discussion Topic: Access to justice and the right to adequate food Challenges: In the Sahel, justice systems are often far removed from local communities and the most vulnerable groups, due to economic and geographical barriers. Impunity contributes to exacerbate tension at local level, which escalate into violent conflict. Actors: Traditional and informal authorities were cited as key actors to be involved in efforts to enhance access to justice in the Sahel. It was noted that, when working with such stakeholders it is important to address discriminatory and patriarchal norms and practices perpetuated in informal systems. The role of women, as custodians of traditional knowledge and agricultural practices, was also stressed. Solutions proposed and actions needed: 1. Strengthen civil and administrative justice to prevent the escalation of tensions into violent conflict 2. Strengthen legal aid services to bring institutions closer to local communities 3. Constitutional reforms to integrate the right to adequate food into national constitution and establishment of national oversight institutions that monitor its realization. The right to seeds was also mentioned as a component of the right to food and the right to land.236238241244246247249251Discussion Topic: Impacts of climate change on food security and malnutrition Challenges: Climate change is affecting rainfall patterns in the Sahel, causing prolonged droughts, as well as floods, with negative impacts on agricultural yields. This is coupled by limited access to technology that could support adaptation to climate change. Solutions proposed and actions needed: 1. Establish national and regional platforms to foster bottom up and participatory approaches in policy and decision making related to early warning systems, climate change and sustainable agricultural practices, such as agroecology and nature-based solutions 2. Water and soil management was mentioned a key sector in addressing the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security in the Sahel. 3. Land reform 4. Support agroecology practices237N/A

2021-10-06 11:10:00204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42446/88

1960511133200101932303508210922251424210014110060375201921701311202042

The Independent Dialogue was organized in accordance with the convenor manual to ensure that the principles of engagement were incorporated, reinforced and enhanced. We recognized the complexity of Indonesia’s food systems and embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting multiple stakeholders, especially at the grassroot level, including youth, women and indigenous communities as listed in section 1. We divided the Indonesian archipelago into food system regions, grouping the participants into areas with similar food systems (e.g. big cities, Java and Bali, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Papua and Maluku and Nusa Tenggara). The dialogue also built on and add value to existing initiatives. Opportunity was given to the participants to share their stories, experiences, thoughts, initiatives and ideas on the transformation of food systems. The 2-day dialogue was jointly curated by eight organizations and one coalition. Considering the time difference across different Indonesia regions, the first day of the dialogue focused on issues in the western part of Indonesia and the second day of the dialogue mainly focused on issues in the eastern part of Indonesia. The first session of each dialogue covered statement and background information from the Ministry of Development Planning, particularly the Director of Food and Agriculture as the National Convenor for UNFSS. We also allocated time for group discussion (120 min) to collect as much information as possible from the participants. The participants were enthusiastic to share their stories, thoughts, criticism and ideas both directly and through Zoom chat, ensuring that all voices were heard.The Independent Dialogue specifically reflects the multi-stakeholder inclusivity aspect through the level of participation of grassroot representatives from different regions in Indonesia.The dialogues should uphold the principle of diversity to accommodate any specific context such as the context of archipelago in the case of Indonesia

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249250251The independent dialogue aimed at compiling stories and lessons learned from successful and less successful practices in the field as well as discussing potential solutions that suit Indonesia for the realization of a sustainable, healthy, fair and resilient food system. The dialogue provided a medium for food actors and stakeholders, especially at the grassroots level, including youth, women and indigenous communities, to share their experiences. Recognizing the complexity and diversity of local food systems in Indonesia, we divided the dialogue participants into several groups based on food system regions and/or characteristics e.g. big cities, Java and Bali, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Papua and Maluku and Nusa Tenggara. The discussions covered many aspects of the local food systems from biodiversity to food waste. Experiences and stories on practices and lessons learned in the local food systems in Indonesia were discussed, specifically covering the prerequisites or conditions for success and the recipe for failure. Some of the stories shared will be compiled in a book as short stories. This dialogue was also intended to complement the results of the member state dialogues organized by the National Convenor in April and August 2021.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251The participants agreed that to establish a sustainable food system, Indonesia must embrace the diversity of local food systems and acknowledge the unique complexity of each region, which requires unique solutions. Food systems in Indonesia are unique due to diversity in environment, biodiversity, tradition and food culture among the country’s communities. Food policies should also integrate many aspects such as social, culture, health and environment, in line with the spirit of the Sustainable Development Goals. Some of the main findings from the independent dialogue are: Consumption aspect There is a shift in the consumption of rice. Rice has become the main carbohydrate, which is partially contributed by the government’s program Raskin. Imported wheat, along with its by-products has become widely consumed in different regions, replacing a variety of local ingredients. Reliance on only one or two types of (imported) food makes us vulnerable to crisis in the event of global food price fluctuation. Low food and nutrition literacy are considered as the main contributors to this. Food producers prefer to sell the high quality food products and consume the low quality ones instead, including instant food. Children and youth, particularly, tend to consume fast food and ultra-processed food. This phenomenon also occurs in rural and indigenous communities. There is a lack of information on the diversity of local foods and their nutritional value to help the communities meet their nutritional needs. Even though the Indonesian government has issued the national dietary guideline “My Plate”, its dissemination has been limited. Massive campaign and education on local foods and their nutritional value as well as regulations and policies to support local food consumption and biodiversity protection are needed to address these issues. Production aspect Several issues discussed in relation to this aspect were: - Land conversion for various functions threatens food production. The conversion of a mangrove area not only threatens food security for coastal communities but also causes natural disaster - Crop failure due to climate change as well as biodiversity loss and environmental damage due to unsustainable production practices - Food and agricultural development in Indonesia remains limited to certain types of food, namely rice, corn and soybeans, which restrains the diversity of the food available at the local level - Land conflict: indigenous communities in particular face difficulties in accessing forests as their source of food - Low demand for local food in addition to logistical issues demotivates producers to preserve and grow local foods, which will lead to the loss of biodiversity Therefore, it is recommended for food policies and programs to consider the characteristics, potential and culture of the region. Producers should also be strengthened while climate change adaptation capacity needs to be improved. Meanwhile, national data should cover the availability of local food instead of focusing on certain commodities. The dialog participants also emphasized the importance of a marketplace, both modern market and traditional market, as the center for the direct marketing of local food products to the local communities.236238239240242243244247248249250251Big Cities The participants in this group agreed that low food and nutrition literacy are a few of the key contributing factors in big cities. The lower-middle class opts for foods in the lower price range, while the upper middle class’s choice is based on trends. Neither of these groups pays attention to the nutritional aspect. This is reflected in the consumption patterns of children and youth age 15-29, who tend to consume low fiber and high calories, sugar, salt and fat. This is exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, which further reduces access to food, especially for marginalized groups. On the other hand, the pandemic has increased awareness on the importance of a healthy diet. This can be seen as an improvement opportunity. Massive campaign and education programs on the right platform for different target audiences are needed along with innovation in processing and serving local and nutritious foods. In terms of production, urban farming will play an important role in food and nutrition security in big cities. In addition to policy and technological support, rebranding is needed for millennial farmers to attract the involvement of youth to sustaining the initiative. Several initiatives on food waste have been implemented by communities in urban areas. An example of the best practice is the food recue program, which collaborates with hotels, restaurants, bakeries and event organizers to distribute decent food to marginalized groups.236238239240241242244246247248249250251Java and Bali Java and Bali are suitable for rice cultivation. More than 50% of Indonesia's rice is produced in this region, which only makes up 7% of Indonesia's total land area. However, massive land conversion continues to occur along with expanding urban and industrial areas. Rural areas have been dealing with the issues of land conflict, environmental degradation and water crisis for a long time. Meanwhile, mangrove conversion into large ponds by companies has contributed to ecosystem damage in coastal areas. In addition, climate change, diseases in fish farms and policies unfavorable to small scale fishers contribute to decreased income of coastal communities. This situation is worsened by the lack of income diversification among producers. On the consumption side, participants highlighted the shift in the consumption of rice, wheat-based food products, ultra-processed food and fast food as the main issues in this region. Improved awareness and education on the potential and nutritional values of a variety of local foods along with local food processing innovations were some of the recommendations mentioned by the participants to address these issues. On the production side, strengthening the producers’ organization, improving the capacity of producers (including women and youth) and improving the use of ecosystem services were considered key to improving the livelihood of producers. Several best practices that have been implemented, such as agro-ecology, zoning-based farming system, integrated farming and consumers’ shift to local, healthy and sustainable food, need to be supported, promoted and replicated.236238239240241242244246249250Sumatra The main issue being discussed in the region is massive conversion of agricultural lands into oil palm plantations and mining areas, which threaten the food system. The participants recommended for government policies not only to focus on certain commodities (rice, corn, soya bean), but to also consider the local potential. The Riau Province in Sumatra is known as one of the biggest sago producers on peatlands. However, low demand for the product has made it difficult for the producers to market their products, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Ironically, the local community, including the producers, does not consume sago as their staple food. Rice remains their main source of carbohydrate as it is subsidized by the government through community food assistance. The participants also pointed out that ecological farming models need to be strengthened and a strong regulatory framework and campaign is needed to promote the shift to local food (sago).236238239240241242244246247249250251Kalimantan Land conversion was highlighted as one of the main issues that have transformed the social landscape of the community. Farmers have been forced to take jobs as mining workers as big companies monopolize the lands. Women slowly lose their roles in the food system due to reduced access to natural resources, especially land. In North Kalimantan, dryland and organic farming practices that are part of the local wisdom are supported and regulated by the local government, but acknowledgment and support remain lacking, particularly from the national government. According to the participants, a few key elements needed to support the production side are farmer organizations strengthening, added value generation for local foods and increased market access. On the consumption side, the biggest concern of the participants was the shift toward instant food and fast food, particularly among the younger generation. Therefore, massive campaigns and movements to promote local food are key to improve food sovereignty in the region236238239240241242244246249250251Nusa Tenggara With its unique ecosystem and climate, Nusa Tenggara has a wide range of local food sources from beans and corn to different cereals (sorghum, barley and barley). However, the participants mentioned that climate change has led to more extreme droughts, changing rain patterns and more intense pest and disease problems, which ultimately has caused a decrease in production. The shift in farming practice, such as the use of hybrid seeds, is threatening local seeds with extinction. In addition, the use of government-provided chemical fertilizers and pesticides has slowly eroded the community’s organic farming practices. The conversion of agricultural land and mangrove areas was also mentioned as one of the factors disrupting the ecosystem. As in other regions, the younger generation in Nusa Tenggara is no longer interested in agriculture due to the lack of economic incentives. Consumption of rice is also increasing among the people in the region. They also prefer instant food since it is considered more practical and cheaper compared to local food. It is ironic that an area with such high biodiversity and fisheries potential is still dealing with malnutrition, stunting and child mortality due to the lack of food literacy. Producers tend to sell their high-quality food products to buy rice or instant food. The participants agreed that food literacy should be prioritized by involving informal and religious leaders using cultural approach.236238239240242244248249Sulawesi Sulawesi is the largest island in the Wallacea Zone that houses the greatest land and marine biodiversity in Indonesia. However, similar with other regions, rice consumption has been increasing for source of carbohydrate instead of their local food. Awareness on the importance of consuming diverse and nutritious food is also very low. To lessen people’s dependence on rice, the participants suggested the "2 days no rice" program, in which rice is substituted by local food (sago, taro, cassava, sweet potato, banana). Policies for the protection of local food production zones (land and coastal) are also needed to prevent further conversion for various purposes. Decreased quality of agricultural lands due to the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides as well as the use of various hybrid seeds was also mentioned by the participants as a contributing factor on the production side.236238239240241242244246247249250251Maluku and Papua Maluku and Papua's local food systems are traditionally propped up by non-rice commodities. Sago and tubers, which naturally grow in the forest, are the main sources of carbohydrate apart from bananas. For some of the people living in this region, the forest serves as a “supermarket”, where they also catch animals as sources of protein. Maluku is an area that is rich in fish resources as a main source of protein. However, resources extraction, especially by large-scale fishing industries, has caused damage. Even with the rich biodiversity and local food in this region, increasing rice consumption is also seen in this region, contributed by government rice subsidy for poor households (‘Raskin’). In addition, lack of infrastructure and logistics has made local food prices more expensive. Low demand for local food has demotivated farmers to grow such crops. The shift in consumption patterns due to low food literacy has caused nutritional and health problems in the region, especially among children. The participants believed that support and political will from the government are key to mainstreaming local food through policies as well as promoting innovation by considering social and cultural aspects of the local people237238239240241242243244245246248249Several issues that were not covered in the discussions and need to be explored further are: • Food loss: promoting innovation and utilizing technology, program and policy to address the issue • Access to food for people with disabilities: how to ensure access to healthy food for this group • Enabling policy, environment regulation and incentive for start-ups and SMEs providing local, fair, healthy and sustainable food • Financing and investment for a healthy, equitable and sustainable food system • How to scale up best practices.

2021-10-06 12:34:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44811/113165

822483023743221748111122377

The moderator opened the dialogue by addressing the urgent topics in our food systems whilst the panelist shared their views on how individuals and organizations can play a role to improve the food systems. Panelist also discussed the impact of our current food systems on our climate and the foreseen changes if this is not well managed. Participants can also voice their opinion or questions through the chat box.The dialogue allowed us to better understand the existing challenges in the food systems and discuss on possible solutions. Though there might be varying opinions on how we should tackle the issue, panelists had a consensus that partnerships play a key role in making a change for good, amplifying our commitments and impact to the overall food systems.

NoThe Independent Dialogue was held over Microsoft Teams meeting where we invited industry leaders to share their views and ambitions on this topic. This dialogue serves as an overview for the upcoming series of dialogues that will be held throughout October to December 2021. The dialogue was promoted over several platforms, both internally and externally. Apart from the UN Summit Dialogue webpage, the independent dialogue was shared through our company website, Facebook page and Instagram. With this, we seek to amplify the importance of this topic to our stakeholders and the local market. During the dialogue, the Moderator and the Panelist drove the main conversations, and the wider participants could engage with their thoughts and questions via the chatbox.

234238239240242243244248The focus of the dialogue is to explore the most urgent topic in our region (Singapore and Malaysia) and how the different Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are intertwined. More than 4,000 tons of food waste in Malaysia are disposed daily but in fact, are edible. This has an impact to the environment as agriculture land were used to produce the food items and the production of methane from food waste is harmful to the eco-system. Landfills are also taken up by food waste. Panelists also discussed on how different stakeholders such as food manufacturers and the supply chain can make an impact to the Food System. Food manufacturers is placing a high emphasis on innovating nutritious products to the consumers while minimizing its environmental impact. Our food supply chain is vulnerable, especially highlighted during the pandemic, where the supply of food becomes uncertain. The discussion intends to find out how organizations can work together to build a resilient logistic system that matches the demand and supply of food at different times of the year.235238239240242243244248The future of food supply chain requires the availability of real-time data across the entire supply chain, from end-to-end. Real-time data must be provided in a way where stakeholders can easily understand and act. In addition, food supply chain requires the ability to predict demand based on both the historical data and taking the current situation into consideration. With the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology and machine learning, this can be made possible. A resilient food supply chain would also require the technology to predict and react to unforeseen circumstances. Majority of the food waste from manufacturers comes from the innovation process and the seasonal products, which have a shorter shelf life. Panelist also shared that consumers wants to know they can help to contribute to the environment and this plays a role in their decision making process. Along with trust and transparency, both internally and externally, this can help to strengthen our food systems. Collaboration can make a significant impact in addressing several aspects of the food systems. For instance, to ensure that the up and coming nutritious food such as plant-based protein are accessible for all (Track Action 1 and 2), including the less well-to-do, food manufacturers will need to increase their scale to lower the production cost. Collaboration comes into play to increase demand for the product. For instance, organizations can collaborate with well-known chains to promote the benefits of consuming the product. Meanwhile, individuals can also be an advocate by spreading a word-of-mouth. When the consumers replace their diets with these nutritious food, it increases individual’s nutrition intake while reducing the agricultural and environmental impact to the planet. This goes beyond the short-term goal of turnover but its educates consumers and achieving the long-term goal of sustainability. Firms with sustainable plans are highly sought after by investors. Adopting a sustainability initiative as part of the strategic plans helps to better respond to the consumers’ need, builds a purpose to the brand and attracts talents for long-term growth.236238244Food waste: While millions are living in hunger, food wastage continue to rise. Panelists agreed that food waste is a pressing issue and stakeholders in the value chain has a role to play to make the change. Not-for-profit organizations are making the change by converting edible food waste into meals, to reduce the starvation rate in the country. Food manufacturers can potentially collaborate with these organizations to bring nutritious food to the table of the less fortunate. In addition, food manufacturers require good communication strategy to educate consumers on how individual can play a role to protect the environment. At the same time, food manufacturers have to set the strict requirements for both the upstream and downstream channels to reduce food wastages.236239240246248Positive nutrition: With the increasing trend of healthy living, food manufacturers are also looking into offering healthier products. However, new innovations are often bounded by the lack of consumer demand and infancy of technology. Time and effort are required to educate consumers on the benefits of the innovation and the product must be easily accessible. Government can support sustainability by offering grants, subsidy or even tax-relief to companies so that these food products are affordable to the public.236242243248Resilience in food supply chain: COVID revealed the vulnerability of our food systems and the potential disruptions that are currently out of our control. Supply chain management can play a crucial role to reduce wastage that may be a result of miscalculation of demand, disruption of logistic, etc. However, we need a superior supply chain system that can make prediction of different scenarios and makes the best decision to ensure a steady stream of food supply at different times of the year. Hence, companies such as manufacturers need to embrace machine learning and adopt AI to make this possible. However, this often involves Technology, Teamwork, Talent and Capital.237240248Participants had the perception that investment firms look solely into the profit-and-loss of the company. In fact, the company’s sustainability plan is an important factor that is considered, even though these plans may be realized in five to ten years’ time. This meant that more companies should include sustainability in their growth strategy and as consumers, we can promote sustainability by supporting products that are from sustainable sources. As much as we understand the importance of consuming nutritious food, they are often pricier than other less-healthier alternatives. Companies are challenged by the need to lower the barrier to purchase and the need to make these products easily accessible.

2021-10-07 09:00:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43238/131

17512

UNICEF’s food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) had to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual to make the process more age appropriate for younger audiences. Despite these amendments, all the Principles of Engagement were upheld. These core tenants are also critical in the implementation of a child-centered approach, which relies on participation, inclusivity, respect, diversity, and curating a safe space to share an array of lived experiences.Activities were designed to safeguard the interest of children and allow participants to freely explore ideas and conversations. Therefore, questions were deliberately broad and open to interpretation, like the discussion questions provided in the Convenors Reference Manual. Facilitators were trained to limit their influence and avoid judging participants’ responses, as per the facilitator trainings provided by the Summit team. A key aspect of the workshop was to gather children’s insights in an enabling environment so we can better understand what matters to them - remembering to respect that there are no right or wrong answers, as per the Principles of Engagement. A more detailed description of specific activities which reflect these Principles can be found in the workshop facilitation manuals which contain guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing creative and participatory activities with diverse children.These core Principles of Engagement are critical to ensure a safe space where all dialogue participants - especially children - can share their experiences, challenges, and visions, in an enabling environment, when it comes to food systems. Children’s opinions and insights are central to any discussion around building healthier and more sustainable food systems, and should be upheld at all times.

NoUNICEF committed to engage with and involve the voice of children and young people to inform the global and national narratives for the transformation of food systems in favor of nutritious, safe, affordable and sustainable diets. UNICEF hosted food system dialogues with school-age children and adolescents (10-19 years) in 18 countries across seven world regions. To accommodate this younger age group, UNICEF partnered with Western Sydney University (WSU) to adapt the method recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual so that it was more age appropriate. These dialogues used a distributed data generation method pioneered by Young and Resilient Research Centre at WSU in collaboration with UNICEF and other partners. The methodology has successfully been used in several international projects, including three companion reports to the State of the World’s Children (Third et al, 2017; Schmied et al, 2020; Fleming et al 2020). Working with UNICEF country offices, dialogues were conducted in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, UK, Turkey, Indonesia, Guatemala, China, Nepal, Netherlands, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Palestine, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Kenya, and Nigeria with children and adolescents aged 10-19. A set of workshop-based participatory activities were developed to explore children’s experiences of food poverty and climate change on their diets, with a focus on documenting children’s calls to action to underpin changes to their food systems. Workshops were rooted in the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and were implemented by trained representatives of UNICEF Country Offices and facilitating partners. The team developed a comprehensive workshop facilitation manual containing guidance on recruitment of children, ethical and child safeguarding procedures, and detailed instructions for implementing a series of creative and participatory activities with diverse children. WSU trained facilitators to implement two or more workshops per country dialogue with children and adolescents aged 10-19. Workshops engaged children from a variety of socio-economic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. During the workshop-based dialogues, children worked in small groups to complete a series of fun and interactive activities designed to capture their experiences of food and the challenges to food systems. Activities included drawing, mapping, group brainstorming, and discussion. The activities explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change focusing on understanding how they view the importance of food in their lives, mapping their food systems and what barriers or vulnerabilities they experience with in their food systems and what actions they can take to reduce the impact of food systems on the changing climate. Finally, the workshops provided children with the opportunity to voice what they see needs to change so that everyone can eat nutritious food without harming the environment. Dialogues were implemented either face-to-face or online. Online workshops used Zoom and Miro boards (an online whiteboarding tool). The face-to-face version used a classic workshop setup in a single room with tables, markers, and paper-based worksheets. Activities were identical for both versions. Though most workshops were held online to comply with national pandemic-related restrictions, those that were held face-to-face followed national pandemic-related safety protocols. Once completed, if necessary, workshop responses were translated from the local language to English and uploaded to a secure data facility. Data were coded using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques. The findings provided here uphold this child-centered approach. Children voiced that they enjoyed the fact that the workshops were an opportunity for the participants to express themselves and share their opinions. This is reflected in comments captured below by participants during the workshops. ‘The meeting was fruitful, and you listened to our voices. 'We had fun! 'Got the opportunity of expressing ourselves, which is also our right’ The method - incl child safeguarding - was approved by the Western Sydney Uni Human Ethics Cie (#H14363)

234238239240241242243244247248249251The workshop-based dialogues explored children’s and adolescents’ perceptions and lived experiences of their food systems, focusing on the issues of food poverty and climate change. Each country participating in the workshop-based dialogues conducted a minimum of two workshops with different participants; one workshop focused on food poverty and the other on climate change, enabling deep exploration of topics in the time available. Naturally, these topics and their discussions cut across all five Action Tracks. Workshop-based dialogues explored children’s perceptions of food poverty and climate change through the following activities: Activity 1: This activity aims to surface what children think about food and what food means to them, this activity explores What children find appealing about food and what their aspirations are around eating to help inform aspects of food choice within their own food environments and systems. Children create a ‘food cloud’ by writing or typing foods they like and dislike. Activities 2 & 3: To explore their food systems, children drew a map of how food arrives on their plate, marking where their food is grown, how it is transported, and where it is bought and consumed. They then map the constraints in their food systems, as they relate to food poverty and climate change, and propose solutions to these constraints. Activity 4: This activity explores how children want to engage with these issues. Children were asked to explore what different people can do to help make sure that the foods we eat don’t negatively impact the environment. Using a series of different levels of circles from individual through to community and national levels of governance what actions can be taken in their food systems to create positive change? Activity 5: This activity generates children’s calls to action to address the impacts of food poverty and climate change on their food systems. Children write a leader to their leaders, outlining their call for change. Workshops concluded with a plenary discussion to draw our key insights. These workshops enabled children to contribute their insights and perspectives to the ongoing debates across all action tracks. They discussed challenges and proposed how to enhance their access to safe nutritious foods. They identified barriers to sustainable consumption patterns in their communities and suggested ways to shift behaviors. They identified that young people have a vital role to play in boosting positive production which, in turn, will contribute to more equitable livelihoods. And they called on governments to take concrete action to support vulnerable communities and to build the resilience and a brighter future for all children and adolescents around the world.235238239240241242243244247248249251Experiences of Food Children pointed out that food is fundamental for obtaining energy and sustaining life. Food is a primary need for survival, a basic requirement for growth and health. However many children also linked food with joyfulness and happiness. Food was delicious and to be enjoyed, sometimes with family. These responses suggest that food for children is a mix of the material and the aspirational. Children focused on taste, health, and affordability when talking about foods they liked and conversely aspects like bitterness, smell, and unhealthiness when talking about foods they disliked. When asked about foods they would like to eat but couldn’t, children often focused on price; these desirable foods were simply too expensive. Availability was also an issue, with foods not available in local markets, and health effects (too much fat/sugar) also a factor. Some children could choose the food they ate, but some could not, whether due to seasonal availability, price, or parents overseeing cooking. In the Netherlands, it appears that overall children are able to exercise agency over what they eat. ‘Yes [I have a choice], but in consultation. Yes if I buy it myself’. Challenges to Food Systems One core activity in the consultations was food mapping. Children mapped a food system around them, visualizing how food moved from the farm to the plate. Overall children demonstrated a deep understanding of food production, especially when it was a local staple food or meal. Children then reflected on what the vulnerabilities or weak points in these systems were. The main vulnerability voiced by the children was poor availability of food. Poor availability was due to minimal stock in the markets, distance from the farming areas, and problems with food distribution. Access to food is also significantly affected by poverty and disruption to food production by season/natural disaster. Another predominant concern was the poor quality of food due to water pollution, use of artificial fertilisers, and unhygienic market conditions. These concerns highlight once again how interconnected food systems are, with economic (e.g. high food prices) and environmental (e.g. flooding, low crop yields) frequently overlapping. In the Netherlands, children were particularly concerned about food systems damaging the environment and the ethical treatment of animals. ‘Stricter laws on CO2 emission’. “No more battery chickens! [literally: ‘bloated chickens’, in Dutch ‘lofkippen’”. Strengthening Food Systems Children completed activities designed to provide concrete suggestions for change at different levels of society, from family to community, industry, and government. They also wrote a “postcard to the President,” outlining key changes that need to happen and how children could input into these shifts. Many children saw potential in empowering communities to grow their own produce and learn more about sustainability. Farms and farming also emerged as a frequent theme, with children suggesting it should be promoted as a vocation and supported with financial incentives and training. Proximity of both food production and food consumption, as mentioned above, was a key concern. In response, children stressed that farms and markets should be local and accessible, moving from ‘far away to being close’. Many of the childrens’ suggestions strongly link food security with food autonomy: import less, regulate more, and invest seriously in local farms and infrastructure, producing enough cheap, nutritious food for all. Children in the Netherlands highlighted that it is important to make healthier food more affordable overall, and expressed concerns about the environment, such as CO2 production, which need to be addressed to strengthen food systems. ‘Make healthy food cheaper than unhealthy food and make it affordable for everyone’.236238239240241242243244247248249251At the end of the workshop, the children engaged in a whole-group plenary discussion, where we asked them the key messages they wanted to convey to the UN. Overall, children felt the UN was responsible for ensuring food security, environmental preservation and ensuring equality. This was tied to understanding people’s difficulties, with special consideration for places and groups that experience greater insecurity and marginalization. The UN was also seen as an entity responsible for collaborating globally to bring about social change. Four key themes emerged from our workshops: 1. Education: the UN should teach people about climate change, environmental protection, recycling, food systems; it should raise awareness of food inequality and show people the benefits of nutritious and sustainable practices, like eating seasonally “further promote socialization about climate change, the food systems, and the 2030 SDGs, so that the world community is more aware of the condition of the earth” 2. Inclusion: the UN should listen to young people, create offline (e.g. forums) and online (e.g. platforms) spaces for them to share their views, collaborate with them, and involve them as government intermediaries “I hope UN continues to invite youths from various countries to participate in every activity because youths are the future leaders of nations. Let youths learn how to protect the world” 3. Regulation: the UN should regulate food production, establishing laws to tackle global warming, keeping food producers accountable, auditing programs to ensure compliance, addressing plastic and deforestation, and controlling chemicals/pesticides “UN intervention to countries must be more aggressive. For example, an international Environmental Impact Analysis seems to need to be agreed. Auditing food producers must be conducted from upstream to downstream.” 4. Support: the UN should support sustainable food production, strengthening infrastructure, enhancing distribution, and implementing programs that make food more affordable and accessible, especially for those most impacted by food poverty and climate change (e.g. indigenous communities) “support access to nutritious foods for low-income and vulnerable population”, “defend the rights of indigenous people”, “strengthen the supply chain of foods”237238239240241242243244247248249251Overall children were in agreement about the strengths and vulnerabilities of food systems, how to improve food sustainability, the issues that needed addressing, and the stakeholders that should be focused on. There were certainly different focal points. For example, some children focused on financial and educational support for farmers, while others focused on government legislation around food safety and food systems. But ultimately we see these as overlapping and supplementary, rather than divergent. To make food systems more sustainable and nutritious, a holistic approach will be needed involving a broad range of different actors and interventions.

2021-10-14 20:59:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/46505/194

Yes

2021-10-15 02:25:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42147/41

252221231111122

Act with Urgency Our conference brought up a lot of topical issues and ideas. It talked about food insecurity and the drastic impact that it had on the general population of the world. These issues and ideas from this were reinforced by constant discussion about solutions and calls to actions. Build Trust - To increase motivation within our participants, we asked our speakers to incorporate the impacts of Youth activism, and potential calls for action. To further the participation of the participants beyond the conference, to make more impacts, we left them many links to volunteer, donate, or learn more about food insecurity. These links and ideas were ones that were constantly talked about during the conference and resonated with the participants. We also incorporated a very open discussion and environment for our fellow participants to openly speak in. With a lot of participation, and methods of communication (through Q&A’s, student feedback, breakout room activities), we fostered an environment where all opinions and ideas are welcome. Recognize Complexity: In the opening of the dialogue, we had a lot of speakers talk about the impact (local, regional, global, etc) of their professions on the lives of many and what they witness on a daily basis. Especially with connection- our indigenous elders talked about the interconnectedness of food, in indigenous culture, how it connects with water, land, biodiversity and animal health. Tushar Mehta (a physician speaker at our conference), gave a lot of statistics and came from a scientific background when addressing the complexity of food systems and how it is intertwined in the daily lives of many cultures globally. Complement the Work of Others: Throughout the summit, we addressed many key issues and recognized the efforts and importance of youth activism, talking about calls to action. With the speakers, we told them to heavily incorporate their careers and perspectives into their presentations, complementing their daily work on the frontlines of food insecurity.Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Complexity Our conference included a wide-range of speakers and professions, with a variety of perspectives. This wide-range of perspectives included a lot of student participants (located in the GTA), as well as our food summit speakers. For example, we had an indigenous elder (Cat Criger), who delivered the importance of food through an indigenous perspective and its origins. As well, we had a physician, (Tushar Mehta), who works as an emergency preparedness officer, who constantly experiences a lot of global perspectives in specific regions of the world. And lastly, we had an organizer at a local food bank (Sahar Ghafouri), who delivered the regional perspectives of food insecurity in urban areas (including Toronto). This helped deliver both a personal and professional side to this important conversation.Bringing in speakers from diverse backgrounds is one of the best ways to ensure you are embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity and recognizing and grappling with complexity. Choose a narrower focus or audience in order to ensure you are doing meaningful work that is complementing as opposed to repeating the work of others. Center the purpose of the event in your framing of the dialogue in order to commit to the work of the summit and have all of the participants recognize the end goal as well.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249251We explored three different issues surrounding food systems: 1) animal agriculture and the global environmental impact (ecological impact on climate, land, biodiversity from animal agriculture and a recommendation towards shift to whole plants foods as staple foods). 2) Root causes of food insecurity in Toronto (wealth inequality → high housing prices, etc.) and the roles that emergency food programs play in alleviating those issues (as a necessary but band-aid solution) 3) Indigenous food systems (pre-colonial food systems and Indigenous philosophies around food and sustainability as a framework for understanding the challenges and potential solutions in our current food systems)235238239240241242243244245246247249251There was major agreement on the role that wealth inequality had played in food accessibility. There were other miscellaneous discussions such as how the pandemic has affected food systems and about how the diversity of beliefs could impact/hinder us when finding solutions. We also talked about what youth could contribute to food systems. Individual actions we can take would be to 1) turn towards more whole plant-based diet, 2) plant food/pollinator-friendly gardens in our backyards, 3) educate our peers on food systems, 3) donate to and volunteer at food banks, 4) do any volunteering/work that helps relieve wealth inequality in our community236238239240241242243244245246247249251The Root Causes of Food Insecurity in Toronto & the Role Emergency Food Support Programs Play in Alleviating these Issues There are more emergency food programs in Canada than there are grocery stores/places to purchase food Poverty is the driver of food insecurity It is exacerbated due to housing insecurity, precarious jobs (gig economy), and the erosion of social assistance rates) 40% of food bank users have a post-secondary degree 41% of food bank users are single 8% are seniors (this number has tripled) Communities most impacted by COVID-19 mirror communities that are most impacted by food insecurity These communities often include Black people, Indigienous peoples, and people with disabilities Food banks are extremely reliant on private donations Numerous individuals typically only have $7 to spend on daily meals This makes it difficult to afford nutritious food, which would impact the health and wellbeing of individuals Also limits the selection (cannot purchase foods they like/want to eat) The Premier recently posted a tweet encouraging people to donate to food banks for Thanksgiving This is ironic when considering how their policies are in part responsible for the food security crisis Youth could donate to or volunteer at food banks, educate others on food insecurity, and continue caring about the issue236238239240241242243244246247Indigenous Perspectives on Food Security and Food Systems Explained the significance of The Dish With One Spoon If everyone only took what they needed, humans could live more sustainably and co-exist/share resources with other organisms Indigenous Peoples viewed all organisms as equals Processed food is ruining the diet that our [Indigenous] ancestors provided us ~ Cat Criger (guest speaker) “Even nature is telling us that sugar should not be a part of our diet” ~ Cat Criger (guest speaker) “I find it's crazy that processed food manufacturers design processed food for them to not be filling or satiating” ~ Julianne Ho (participant) People further up north don’t have much access to fresh foods, so they rely on processed foods When they do receive fresh food, it is very expensive Prior to colonization there were completely healthy, sustainable food systems present and food was eaten in moderation and never wasted Spoke about the Buffalo slaughter committed by colonizers as part of the genocidal project in what is currently Canada and how that was such a harmful and absurd practice because it completely toppled an entire food system (intentionally)236238239240241242243244245246247249251Animal Agriculture on Global Environment Impact The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer creating an even larger disparity in food system and economic systems Humans and livestock are becoming a larger and larger proportion of global biomass. Feed conversion ratio: Chicken are the most efficient animal (they don’t move, antibiotics, etc) 3-6kg plant protein to make 1kg of chicken protein 6-8kg for 1 kg of pig protein 10-18kg for 1 kg of cow protein Organic farming and grazing animals take even more land and calories (allowed to roam around, natural, slower growth) We make animals efficient through genetic engineering Breeding Gene modification The largest cause of land use change is animal agriculture Crops and grazing for animals Grazing only provides <2% of global protein while being the largest use of land Grazing also create methane emissions The goal is to have plant-based food that takes smaller land so the rest of the land can reforest, become a wetland again, and let the environment return Animal agriculture causes erosion and causes chemicals to run into water which then cause dead zones in bodies of water like the ocean 25-30% of greenhouse gases are from animal farming, which is larger than any form of transportation Global fish populations are plummeting We took 20 million tonnes in 1950 140 tonnes from ocean,60 million tonnes from aquaculture in 2016 Roughly 25000 to 70000 fish per second A large amount of plastic in the ocean is caused by the fishing industry. 362 megafauna species, 70% in severe decline 59% at risk of extinction Hunting is a large cause, as well as habitat loss An additional 4 billion people can be fed if animal agricultural land is converted to plant use today The Lancet EAT Commission: How to feed 10 billion people in 2050 Minimize ecological damage Increase human health Pulses and whole grains can become the main replacement for animal protein A lot of the most severe epidemics come from animal agriculture. As we breed these animals, we put them together and generate and spread viruses.237238239240241242243244245246247249251There were very few major areas of divergence, mostly the speakers and participants built off of each other's points and added their unique perspectives. The one main area of divergence was when two different speakers raised different issues as main concerns, one arguing that there is sufficient food to feed everyone, the problem is simply distribution and access to food, while another speaker suggested that with our current food models that rely heavily on animal agriculture we are unable to produce sufficient food for everyone.

2021-10-15 07:05:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44857/203

180782101085311112111134142252312112131

The principles were communicated significantly in advance of the dialogue, and also clarified through the opening plenary and guest speaker (Special Address). During the problem solving focus groups and solutions hackathon, the facilitator ensured to always remind the group of key principles and challenged participants to include them in their solutions.Specific aspects of the principles were reflected through the inclusive nature of the dialogue, unifying stakeholders from a very diverse set of backgrounds and specialisations. This was supported by clearly seeking to achieve progress on specific action tracks and SDGs, following the groups digestion of the Food Systems Summit.No.

Yes

234240241242244245246248249251Examination of links between one or more of the Action Tracks and levers of change. --------- As signatories of the Vision 2030 Plan of Action, we commit to produce actions and uphold values that bolster Africa’s agriculture and food systems. We commit to the preservation of our natural landscapes, using non-invasive, organic, non-genetically modified, non-chemical, and indigenous methods to intervene in areas that must be improved in order to move African food systems forward. We agree to look inward; to look into our own communities, economies, geographies, histories, and capacities at all times, and not to rely on externalisation of ownership, consultation, financing, or any other essential pillar as we produce projects to shape the future of African food systems. We encourage innovators and all parties involved to always seek community ownership of approved projects, aiming to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, women, and children first.235240241242244245246248249251An agreement on actions that stakeholders will take together (expressed as intentions or commitments -------- After the signature and ratification of the Vision 2030 Plan of Action, members will be added to the Vision 2030 communications list and receive a quarterly brief authored by the organising committee. The brief will feature progress on Vision 2030, including significant milestones and actions undertaken by signatories across the continent and around the world to achieve this objective. The organising committee agrees to carefully screen, shortlist, and select project proposals that satisfy the 5 priority areas of the Vision 2030 Plan of Action. Selected project proposals will then be entered into incubation, and upon incubation will be presented to all signatories as an optional engagement opportunity. Should a signatory opt to engage with the project, they will be included in the design thinking stages of the particular project, and consulted according to their area of expertise. In return for engaging with the project at such an early stage, the signatory will be duly credited as a project co-founder and co-owner. Approved project proposals that make it to the incubation stage will be managed independently of all other projects under this agenda unless clear synergies and collaborative opportunities are identified. However, some clear, unanimous project structuring and best practices will be stipulated and communicated with all signatories before the approval of Vision 2030’s first project.236240241242244245246248249251The group commits to create, curate, and support projects that advance the following priorities on the African continent for the next 9 years: 1. Free and equal access to agricultural education, especially for women and children, that teaches a. Sustainability and renewability, b. Indigenous land stewardship practices, c. Agricultural innovation; 2. Improved cross-sectoral and cross-industrial linkages that promote connectivity between any and all components of the African agriculture value chain, emphasising a. Clear and distinctive channels of communication between agricultural solution providers, smallholder farmers, agricultural gatekeepers, government and/or policymakers, market makers, and any other stakeholder group that facilitate the agriculture value chain, b. Connections to encourage co-creation with or full ownership of food system solutions by affected farming communities, c. The exchange of technical knowledge and capabilities in a way that is free, fair, and timely for smallholder farmers, d. The importance of leveraging ongoing intervention programs and networks even when fragmented our out of reach due to geographical, economic, or social constraints; 3. Pursuit of the nature based economy, in which both urban and rural areas can experience a full suite of pro-agriculture adaptations across a diverse range of sectors (e.g. services; tourism, leisure, entertainment, public goods) a. This should be a holistic approach that includes all communities and classes and industries already present in the economy without forging unoriginal or maladaptive ‘copy & paste’ strategies observed outside of the region, b. This should strictly avoid top-down and theoretic decision making, c. This should develop through community-led focus groups and consultation with consideration to current challenges; 4. Resolving Africa’s hundred-billion-dollar annual infrastructure financing gap as it applies constraints to agricultural logistics a. Supporting interventions that create communities of practice along tradable lengths of the continent and connect them to one another, b. Seeking efficiency and cost minimisation for intra-African trade through a mixed set of innovations; 5. Empowering socially oriented technological innovators, startups, and responsible businesses that resolve the ongoing harmonisation challenges between the different stages, components, and key stakeholder groups of the African agricultre value chain a. Seeking methods to advance the technologies created by signatories of this Plan of Action, including but not limited to water cleaning and filtration systems, coating, sensors, free WIFI.237240241242245The role of finance in Africa's food systems challenges was the main area of divergence. Participants held variegated views on the importance of development finance; however there was unanimous consensus that throwing money at the problem has never been enough to fix it.

2021-10-15 15:02:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/46594/194

40251010

The event was curated in two different main sections. First, presentation and discussion session and second, survey for the participants and other seed and food sector related peoples to know their opinion regarding seed system for the sustainable food system. In the seminar and open discussion session, we invited mainly agriculture graduate students, researchers, faculty members, and some industry people. There were forty participants in total. The seminar focused on the UN food summit, its objectives, and the importance of independent dialogue at the beginning, later discussed different seed systems, including production, processing, and distribution. In addition, we presented about formal seed system, informal seed system, and intermediate seed system along with their features. We discussed insights into sustainability for the food system from the global perspective. We presented and discussed seed systems' critical functions, including production and distribution of quality seeds, Innovation, regulation of seed ensures seed quality, and metrics to measure seed systems for sustainable food systems. Finally, we discussed some perspectives for sustainable seed systems such as seed saving, seed conservation, and sed sharing practices for sustainable food systems. After the discussion seminar, we prepared a set of questionnaires to know your opinion about what type of seed system can help the sustainable food system cope with climate change in the future. Seed innovation is the most critical factor for feeding the world. We need Innovation to meet and manage the numerous challenges, management to give us the focus and develop and execute production and delivery systems, and distribution from the global perspectives must be effective in a micro and macro situation. Though sustainability has many definitions, so sustainability is a multi-layered and multi arena.We found different divergent opinions among the participants. The opinion differs with the working sector such as academia, industries, and farming. Moreover, the opinions regarding the seed system and food sustainability differ n different countries. Overall, the solution needs to be manifold – much like a web – so that our food supply (seed supply) is not dependent upon only a few sources. Genetic diversity needs to be encouraged in our local and global policies, especially "flexible, hearty varieties" that are better able to deal with changes in or extremes in climate conditions. diversity enhancement programs at the local levels should be pursued and fostered. ( such as parish agents inviting local growers to share their seed samples from heirloom varieties, etc., and then encouraging the cultivation of these diverse kinds of crops/fruits/vegetables within their regions.

Yes

234249Seed is one of the most crucial elements in the livelihoods of agricultural communities. A seed system is critical for a sustainable food system, ensuring the availability of high-quality seeds of a wide range of varieties in time and affordable to farmers and stakeholders for crop production. However, the seed system varies among developed and developing countries. In several developing countries, farmers have not yet been able to fully benefit from the advantages of using high-quality seeds due to different factors, such as insufficient seed production, distribution, marketing, quality assurance systems, and other bottlenecks due to lack of good seed policy on critical issues including access to credit for input. This report provides a deep dive into the perspectives of people engaging in agronomy, plant breeding, and the seed sector about sustainable seed systems for the sustainable food system. Voice of the combination of these stakeholders and participants need to be heard for a sustainable food system. This report aims to identify ways to make a better seed system for sustainable food systems globally.235249Main Finding Based on the survey response, about 83.3 % of the participants were heard about UN food summit. The majority of the participants were from farming families. Around 22.2 % of the participants were beside the farming family. Similarly, around 79% of the participants were from the rural area. Participants worked in different crops, including wheat, corn, rice, soybean, lettuce, hay, alfalfa, sweet corn, and beans. In which more participants were working in wheat crop. Regarding seed sharing practices, 77.8% of the respondents knew about formal and informal seed sharing practices, and 17% knew only commercial seed practices. The majority of the participants agreed that seed sharing is a sustainable practice, and around 17% disagreed regarding seed sharing for sustainable agriculture. Similarly, two-thirds of the participants thought seed preservation or seed sharing helped in food security, biodiversity, and cultural identities. In addition, more than 60% of the participants thought that seed sharing practices affect the seed industry's economy. We found different opinions from participants from different sectors. The main finding is that collaboration with industry and farmers with appropriate government policy is needed for seed system for the sustainable food system. Only the informal system and formal systems could not be the solution; therefore, intermediate (participatory breeding approach) might help for a sustainable seed system. To feed the increased global population, climate innovative high yielding variety development is necessary, which can be done only by money invested research. Therefore seed sharing may provide resources, and the seed industry or breeding sector will develop a variety. Therefore, a sustainable seed system must be appropriately combined with research, policy, and collaboration among farmers and stakeholders.236249We found several different opinions for the significant discussion about the seed sharing practice and economic stability by farmers and industrial and future food sustainability. The primary discussion topic outcomes are summarized as follows. Role of research and extension Extension researchers should be at the forefront of the search for flexible and successful heirloom varieties, and the development of heirloom varieties (ones that create fertile vigorous seeds) should be fostered and encouraged region by region. Though seed sharing is viable for many smallholder and subsistence farmers, these two practices must co-exist because much of food security depends upon higher yields, which cost money to develop via research. The seed must be preserved, purified, and sold to farmers (quantity, quality). Participatory breeding approach and seed sharing Seed sharing is essential for the preservation of biodiversity and the economic wellbeing of small marginal farmers. There is a need for an integrated model where both farmers and private industry can benefit. The private industry should help form cooperatives to encourage participatory breeding efforts to develop high-yielding varieties suitable for their agroclimatic regions. Similarly, seed sharing can be good practice for species where Innovation is not essential. Where the Innovation is important, there needs to be an economic incentive for the developer to continue Innovation. Overall, Seed sharing helps in food sustainability by growing a same type seed in various geographical locations. Temperature, photo period requirements and genetic make of seeds might change over time. Therefore, seed sharing is a way for future food sustainability. Seed sharing approach with mutual benefit among farmers and industry Response: Sharing the seed of improved version of existing is beneficial from both sides. Farmers must share the improved varieties among themselves, and private industry needs to improve and demonstrate advanced version this create the competitive environment which is advantageous for both farmers and industries. To maximize the benefits of plant breeding, intellectual property protection is critical to encourage future investment in development of new cultivars. In addition, understanding that plant breeders are professional developers of new diversity and value, and farmers are professional users of this, to grow food, cooperation, and coordination between these two groups is essential. Seed sharing to preserve biodiversity and culture Seed sharing might be the one solution to what we currently see climate change cause erratic weather patterns, forcing crops to withstand extreme circumstances and new diseases. To combat this, we will need to continue providing better varieties designed to withstand heat, cold, drought, flooding, wind, and disease pressure. In this case, seed sharing as a net positive is in a similar gardening environment or specific heirloom crops. However, Seed sharing does not guarantee will help to make accessible quality seeds to the growers. One major component to increase yield is the quality seed. Incentivizing seed sharing among small farmers by big seed industries promotes biodiversity while also providing valuable germplasm to big companies which could be pivotal in frontier research. Therefore, seed sharing may help save the indigenous seeds to preserve diversity. Moreover, the commercial seed industry should be prioritized by the central sector of government rather than farmers. For example, in the Philippines, seed sharing between farmers makes seed accessibility sustainable, resulting in food sustainability. But most of the time, seed sharing is just a resilient practice whenever the seeds of variety that a farmer prefers are unavailable. For a long-term solution to seed access, the commercial seed industry should make their seeds readily accessible.237Here we summarized the divergence opinions is as follows: Collaborative scientific advancement: The best way to improve sustainability is through collaborative scientific advancements that allow for less environmental damage while providing profitability from farmers to consumers. While at the same time, having common sense regulation prevents extreme cases of soil and water damage. Seed development falls under Innovation and tomorrow's challenges globally. The goals of any definition of sustainability used today are essential to long-term success but must complement and allow for seed innovation, food production, and food delivery to billions of people in an affordable manner. Any part of sustainability that hampers creates unsustainability of the system. Each grower deserves to have an opportunity to obtain and plant good quality, a reliable seed of the crop they wish to cultivate. As long as this criterion could be satisfied, varied development, conditioning, storage, transport, and distribution models could be of value. Government policies and management The seed system must be based on the mutual expertise and recognition of the expertise of others, based on science and enabled by sound government policies. Seed development, management, and distribution must be the government agenda, especially in developing countries. We should disagree with sharing the seed (seed without economic cost), because it must have a price (tangible), and someone with knowledge has to maintain the purity and the individuality of the variety/seed. This issue is extremely important. Therefore, the government, policymakers, and stakeholders should make an initiative towards seed accessibility, management, and distribution, helping the farmers and the whole agriculture sector. Furthermore, research and extension workers should aim for profitable, resilient, and sustainable agriculture through responsive, balanced, environmentally sound, and partnership-based research, development, and extension. Moreover, the effort should be as global as possible but managed more locally, based on the regional climate and needs. Distribution of seed needs to be done carefully- as pest organisms can often come with seed source. If adaptive varieties of sed are shared to different world regions with similar climate conditions, this needs to be done with much care and oversite. Maintaining genetic variability and distribution The development of variety developed so that it lasted longer and possible to incorporate many genes that are as good as possible. The distribution of variety must be fragmented into both hands, public and private, to avoid monopolies. Moreover, variability maintaining depends on the crop, for the crop that has been in cultivation for long we need to maintain variability, so need seed sharing. For those crops, which is just starting for cultivation, we need formal sed production to give good standards into seed varieties. Research areas that are perhaps neglected regarding genetic diversity. In addition, Epigenetic differences among varieties of crops need to be further studied and applied to our understanding of diversity among food crops and their ability to thrive in changing climatic conditions. Farmers participation with research institute and industries Farmer's participation is vital for seed development, management, conservation, and distribution to accomplish a sustainable food production system. Research institute and industries should develop in participation to growers, and their evaluation in the grower's field would be best approach for the development and management of seed. While private industry's role in developing high-yielding crop varieties to secure world food production is important, lack of access to such improved varieties to small and marginal farmers in developing and underdeveloped countries due to the high cost of seed does not help increase food production on this planet. Therefore, an intermediate and hybrid system of seed systems is needed to develop a sustainable food production system. Money invested in research for commercial seeds It appears that the most incredible advances in seed development occur when users pay for seed. That income fund fuels Innovation with the developer. This "pay for seed" system is sustainable if value is created. Money invested research is utilized in developed countries, but more fraction of income is spent on food in many countries. Part of the issue is that so many people's livelihoods in developing countries are based off small parcels of land. In those cases, they can not produce enough grain on such a small parcel to pull themselves out of poverty. Therefore, sustaining the growing population will acquire money invested in research for commercial seeds and improve the efficiency of small shareholder farming operations and their respective supply chain. In addition, value chain development with incentives to each end user. The open-source genetics is an important part of a sustainable agriculture system. However equally important is a system that incentivizes research and Innovation for business. To develop the Innovation, a return on investment needs to be a part of the seed system. Intellectual property protection To develop the future see varieties in sustainable way, intellectual property protection is essential. A strong intellectual property protection allows plant breeders or seed developers to be rewarded for their efforts. Ultimately, which promotes research and development to enhance crop production and resource conservation.

2021-10-15 17:28:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42322/194

15056117604103110001010004010001100110010000202

My table was located at the Ithaca Farmers Market which is free to anyone to attend and was publicized to a range of stakeholders including university professors and students, local schools, NGOs, and farmers. I displayed some examples of culturally diverse cucurbits (squash, gourds, melons, cucumbers) with information on them and the summit to create a welcoming environment for people to come and share their concerns. I provided an online survey for people to provide input as well as listens to what consumers had to say and took notes.I was able to get input from a variety of stakeholders within and outside the Greater Ithaca area to get a wide range of concerns and needs. I had about 150 people stop by my table to tell me about their personal and communities difficulties and successes in finding or growing diverse produce, as well as many people who wanted to learn more about including unfamiliar produce into their diets.Keeping an open mind and being inclusive can lead to a better understanding of the needs of your food system. Following the Principles of Engagement can allow these important conversations to be more beneficial and get more out of them to meet the needs of your community.

Yes

234238239The major focus of the Dialogue was to reflect on the current diversity of produce in the greater Ithaca area including questions as: what produce are people looking for when they go to the grocery store, what produce are difficult to find or can community members not find, and are the foods community members want to buy affordable. This ties in with the United Nations Action Track 1 and 2. In relation to Action Track 1, the Dialogue focuses on ensuring access to produce that is appropriate for community members based on their cultural backgrounds and upbringings. Another focus is to bring more diverse produce into the diets of all community members, connecting to Action Track 2.235238239Overall I found that there is a need for accessible diverse produce within the Greater Ithaca area, New York State, and across the United States. At the community engagement portion of my dialogue, I was able to speak with consumers at the Ithaca Farmers market from the Ithaca area and beyond. There were several major findings I found. One finding what that there is not only a need for buying the product directly but also for buying seeds. Many people wanted to grow diverse produce in their home or community gardens but did not know of sources to purchase seeds for the crops they were looking to grow. Consumers were also looking for varieties that would do well where they lived that required few inputs, are open-pollinated so they could save seeds and are easy to grow in their backyards. Another finding was confusion in the common names of the produce. Many of these culturally important crops have multiple common names in several languages. This lead to some confusion on what crops people were looking for in their area. There seems to be a need to have more information available on common names of these crops from different countries and their corresponding scientific names for more clarity. There were also many consumers at the farmer market who were not familiar with the crops but interested in learning more or including them in their consumption patterns in the future.237238243Since this event mainly collected preliminary data on how consumers felt about the diversity and accessibility of produce in the Greater Ithaca area, it mainly was a reflection of consumers. There were varied views on how people felt about affordability and diversity. Many people agreed that this region has a diverse selection of products available but there were mixed opinions on its affordability and if people could find all the foods they wanted to consume. Only about half of the people were able to afford high-quality options of the foods they wanted to consume and about 25% of consumers survey could not even find the foods they wanted to consume in the Greater Ithaca area.

2021-10-21 13:22:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43324/23

832015453651363614126632

The independent dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food System Summit through an understanding of the scope of Research and Technological Intervention for a sustainable food system in Bangladesh. Organized by the Department of Food Technology and Rural Industries (DFT&RI)- Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU) and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), the Dialogue brought a diversity of stakeholders from livestock (Animal Husbandry and Veterinary), Fisheries, Agriculture, Food Processing, Nutrition, Agricultural Engineering, Cooperation and Marketing Environmental Science representatives- both from government and non-government sectors of the country working across in food chain from production to consumption.The dialogue began with familiarizing the participants through a keynote presentation on “Food System Approach for Food and Nutrition Security” by Prof. Dr. Shams-Uddin. He focused on the existing challenges of our food system due to demand and supply competition. He also opined the tools to tackle the challenges are innovative and sustainable technologies that are largely ensured by different issue-focused research. From the valuable discussion of Vice-Chancellor, BAU Managing Director, Small Farmers Development Foundation, Dean Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Member, Food Safety Authority and Key Note Speaker, it was concluded in such a way that, in ensuring access to sufficient safe and nutritious foods, research works and innovative technological interventions should be dedicated to: 1. Increasing yields of field crops, livestock and fisheries keeping the balance of our ecosystems such as balance among CO2, water, biodiversity and soil. 2. Reduction of hazardous practices including adulteration in the entire food supply chain. 3. Reduction of food loss and waste through effective post-harvest management, recycling management (Circular economy) and localized Food Banks in vulnerable areas. 4. Dietary transition and sustainable diet guidelines to reframe production. 5. Nutrition research in line with nutrigenomics, food fortification and smart food preparation. 6. Shifting from ultra-processing to medium & minimum processing and fresh preservation technology. 7. Food resilience: Capacity to withstand shock and to bounce back like we are doing now dealing with the COVID-19 Pandemic situation 8. Food sovereignty: Control of the small groups on the food supply.The dialogue convenor should take care of the fact that each participant can express their views. No one should discourage anyone from arguing or putting his/her viewpoint however skewed it may appear to be. Any view, might or might not be relevant, should be listened to with proper respect. The participants must adopt a Brainstorming approach to discuss every problem. So, we appreciate the principles of such participatory engagement.

Yes

234238243244246248249251Details are in the attached report235238243244246248249251Details are mentioned in the attached report237There were no major areas of divergence among participants.

2021-10-24 02:02:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44810/113165

6818503137361102217152825

The independent dialogue was organized to include panelists from a diverse background. This allows participants to learn more about the topic from different perspectives and to understand the constraints at different level of the food supply chain. The moderator began by emphasizing the importance and benefits of reducing food loss and waste, and the detrimental effects, if not properly managed. The intend is to inculcate the urgency to act on the issues now. Panelists also shared their views on how the issue can possibly be managed. Participants can also voice their opinion or questions through the chat box.The dialogue allows us to better understand the constraints from manufacturers and operators while we explore some of the possible solutions. Throughout the discussion, there were various methods to tackle the issue but we deep dived to the topic of partnership.NIL

NoThe Independent Dialogue was held over Microsoft Teams meeting where we invited professionals from various industries to share their views on this topic. The dialogue was promoted over several platforms. Apart from the UN Summit Dialogue webpage, the independent dialogue was shared through the company website, Facebook page and Instagram. This is to amplify the importance of this topic to all our stakeholders. During the dialogue, only the Moderator and the Panelist were screened while the chat box remains open for participants to express their thoughts and questions.

234239244248Food loss and waste happens throughout the entire food supply chain, both in upstream and downstream channels. 14% of the food were loss between harvest to retail while 17% of the global food production is wasted. In 2019 alone, there were a total of 931 million tons of food waste. Meanwhile, 2.73 billion people are facing moderate to severe food insecurity. There are lots of investments that goes into producing food and when food is loss or wasted, these resources such as water, land, energy, land and capital goes to waste. In addition, the disposal of food waste to landfills generates 8-10% greenhouse gases. If the condition continues to persist, we’re expecting the consumers to pay an increased price. The focus of this independent dialogue seeks to understand why food loss and waste happens and the challenges in reducing them. The dialogue attempts to also find out on the technologies available and the possible partnerships to resolve this issue. The discussion also seek to uncover the possibility of sustainable production while producing the reuse and recycling of food sources (Action track 2).235239243248Through the discussion, we better understand the difficulty of reducing food loss and waste from different perspectives, namely the operators, manufacturer, and solution provider. 1. Hospitality Industry (Operators): From the hospitality point of view, food loss and waste is not effectively measured and studied. Singapore government has provided several initiatives to promote the reduction of food loss and waste, in the form of grants for businesses to adopt sustainable practices. Even though Singapore has seen a reduction of food waste by about 10%, but recycling rate are comparative lower than other countries. There are several factors that may have contribute to this problem. Firstly, there are generally a lack of awareness on the importance of reducing food loss and waste, and the detrimental effects if not well-managed. Secondly, it is a challenge to perform demand forecasting, especially in current times, where the pandemic causes government to execute restrictions within the country. This results to inaccurate procurement and production which is a contributor to food waste. Meanwhile, operators also have difficulties in capturing food loss and waste data, which is essential for businesses to react and adjust to the market situation. Measuring food waste is difficult to execute as there are different types of food waste. In a typical kitchen, there are about 8 different food categories, which may be compostable, recyclable, repurpose, etc. Hospitality industry is enforcing the reduction of food loss and waste through technology and employee training. One can choose to adopt the Food waste hierarchy (Reduce at source. Separate and measure. Donate to others. Other divergence of food waste. Landfill) to make better decisions when the business is expecting food waste. 2. Manufacturing Industry: Similarly, manufacturers face a volatility of demand of food products from downstream channels, especially during the pandemic where some countries are going on lockdowns. This makes forecasting a challenge. In addition, the supply of food products is also affected due to shortage of containers and the change in shipping routes during the pandemic. Moreover, the manufacturing process may have food waste such as dosing inaccuracy, leftovers in the piping, etc. As much as manufacturers wish to extend the shelf life of products to counter the unpredictability of demand and supply, they are faced with the challenge from the end consumers, who steer towards consuming “natural” products with low or no preservatives. There are several ways to reduce food loss and waste in the upstream channels. For instance, manufacturers can consider product giveaway on the line, increasing production line efficiency and reducing the complexity of each product. As for the downstream channels, manufacturers can consider reducing their aging inventory through product repurposing, channeling across borders, co-developing new recipe with operators and charity. 3. Solution provider: There are two different types of food waste, namely, post-consumer waste and pre-consumer waste. Post-consumer waste is within control, where businesses can use enzymes or biodigester to convert the food waste into compose or water. Alternatively, compressor can help to extract the water beneath the food waste so that the remaining materials contributes less to the landfill. However, pre-consumer waste can be generated between the manufacturer and the operator in the supply chain. This is often more difficult to control due to the constraints in demand and supply of food products.236238239243244248Panelists agree that partnership is the way moving forward. Both manufacturers and operators can work with charitable organizations, to utilize products that have a shorter shelf life and “moves” slower. In addition, Manufacturers should closely with operators and end consumer to study their actual product usage (servings) so that products can be of an “optimal” size to ensure the entire content can be depleted before it reaches its shelf life. Partnerships can also happen between competitors, where businesses work as a community to resolve the problem collectively. Organizations can also work with universities through internships to reach out the younger generations to learn about innovations that may resolve the issue on food loss and waste.237239Indeed, diners constantly seek for variety of options. All-you-can-eat buffets drives volume and footfall into the F&B establishment. While operators in buffet establishments are now offering cook-to-order buffet, we do not expect all the F&B establishments to transit to cook-to-order buffet as it requires high amount of manpower. Nevertheless, buffets that are served ala minute reduces the amount of food waste produced. However, there are still countries which offers the traditional buffet, where diners pick the food they want over the serving tray. It is difficult to remove the buffet concept as there are sentimental value and consumers pays the price with an expectation. Operators can educate consumers not to overfill their plate and orders beyond what they can consume. For small operators, they can consider adopting the Food Waste Hierarchy, where reducing at source can help to resolve the bulk of the food waste issue.

2021-10-26 05:50:25204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/46737/23

71301720430414535225113355125

The Dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food Systems Summit through an understanding of the issues facing by the youth and mass population while it comes to the availability of healthy snacks, in terms of the pathway to sustainable food systems. Organized by BIID along with other co-organizers, the Dialogue brought a diversity of stakeholders from youth, adolescent, academia, government representatives, UN, development partners (I/NGOs), research organizations, civil society representatives working across the food chain from production to consumption.BIID Foundation, a social venture of Bangladesh Institute of ICT in Development (BIID) and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) organized the 2nd Independent Summit Dialogue. The dialogue was entitled as "Smart Snacks for Adolescents to Address Malnutrition: An Inclusive Business Model to Address Adolescent Nutrition in Bangladesh". Mr. Khaja Abdul Hannan, Convener of National Dialogue, UN FSS 2021 and Dr. Syed Mojibul Huq, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare were the Chief Guest. Each participant was asked to participate in a group discussion in three breakout groups and share their thoughts. Each group had a facilitator and a note taker, who together moderated the discussion. The key points made in each breakout group were presented by the respective facilitators at the closing plenary. Group 3- Regulatory and Administrative (focused at Policy Side)- suggested on "Supportive and Regulatory Measures to Promote Safe & Nutritious Food for Adolescents". The 2 hours' dialogue had 3 components, first 30 minutes was briefing and opening remarks, next 45 minutes were breakout session (3 Groups) with specific agenda and agenda led by Facilitators and final 45 minutes was group presentations, feedback and way forward. Around 70% of the adolescents from Dhaka, Narshingdi, Rangamati, Mymensingh, Chittagong, Pabna, and more, took part in the survey. Around 16 adolescents and youth, 20 food entrepreneurs, and 2 participants to discuss regulators' perspective, participated in the dialogue. Other than this, people from relevant work and industry were invited to join the dialogue as guests or as a participant.The importance of participatory approach in capturing the voice of a significant audience. It is also important to ensure that regional nuances and challenges faced by vulnerable groups are captured.

Yes

234238246248249251The dialogue started with the opening remarks by Dr. Rudaba Khondker, Country Director, GAIN. Mr. Mostafa Banna, Ministry of Food, shared his valuable remarks followed by Dr. Bulbul Islam, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. After the briefing and opening remarks, three categories of stakeholders were divided into three different breakout rooms as per below: Adolescents & Youth Representatives: This group of participants represented the demand side of the smart snacks. In this room the overall discussion took place focusing on the experience and expectation of the adolescents. The adolescents talked about their daily snack intake practices, what is available out there, what they are attracted to, the amount they prefer to spend on snacks, etc. The discussion ended with individual description of their dream snack item. Food Entrepreneurs: The group of the food entrepreneurs represented the supply side of the smart snacks. Present scenario of the healthy snacks’ availability, demand of it from the adolescents have been discussed in detail in this room. Also, the challenges they are facing in order to produce it, and required necessary support needed for producing nutritious food for adolescents have been discussed thoroughly by them. Regulatory and Administrative (Policy): The participants at the room of regulatory and administrative discussed on what supportive and regulatory measures are to be taken to promote safe and nutritious food for adolescents. Also, the different ways to engage government from local levels.235238245246251Primary objective of the dialogue was to build a strategic framework and hear from the key stakeholders to stimulate and support “Smart Snacks” as an inclusive business model. The secondary objective was to understand the adolescent perspectives (demand), also, challenges, scopes of regulatory support & incentivise, private sector engagement (supply) perspectives. The adolescent population in Bangladesh is almost one third of total population which is around 33 million, and a large portion of these adolescents are school going who used to avail street foods on regular basis. In recent days, adolescents are tending to avail more street foods (Open and packaged) to meet their regular appetite when they need to eat something which are very much unhygienic, poor food quality (nutrition value) as well as unhealthy. These street foods are tasty and less expensive which lure adolescents to aim for those. Adolescents nutrition status is very critical in Bangladesh and need proper attention from all relevant stakeholders. An inclusive and sustainable business model engaging private sector to invest in adolescent friendly snacks may be introduced to offer as a commercial product. The government can facilitate support in the value chain to ensure the product is cost affordable for all the adolescents through different incentives & supports. These snack items will be manufactured under a standard guideline, quality and nutrient enriched for adolescents. As commercial product, these also has to be tasty, attractive in package and most importantly extensive communication i.e. advertisements.236238249251Adolescents & Youth Representatives: The ideal snack item that came up after the group discussion of the adolescents was contained of these four must attributes – 1. Tasty 2. Eye-catchy 3. Affordable and 4. Nutritious. They also mentioned how the individual behavior change is needed to choose the nutritious snacks. They want more nutritious snacks options to be available in the market. Also, they think the traditional snacks like shingara, fuchka, can be made in a better and healthier way. For example, using good oil, maintaining hygiene, etc. Regarding this an adolescent named Meher Afroz Tisha from Viqarunnisa Noon School & College said, “For our dream snacks like Shingara, fuchka, if we can tell the shopkeepers or who are making these, to use good oil and vegetable in making these, then it should be healthier for us.”236238249251Food Entrepreneurs: As per the summary of the entrepreneurs’ discussion, a platform can be proposed where the nutritious snacks items can be listed ensuring good volume of customers, for better production and lesser cost. Ensuring good volume of customer of these smart snacks would lessen the cost and make it more affordable to everyone. One of the food entrepreneurs named Ms. Mehnaz Rahman Lira said, “Now all the parents and adolescents are very concerned about the nutritional value of the food.” According to their discussion, delivery system and food nutrition value assessment organizations should be connected with the platform to solve the delivery and nutrition value measurement challenges.236238249251Regulatory and Administrative (Policy): Through the group discussion in the regulators group, the engagement of government has been identified in 4 specific areas – 1. Field level engagement of the government by involving the sanitary inspectors 2. If government can facilitate some investment on the infrastructure facilities 3. The school meals that are present in the government schools can include these smart snacks item in the existing menu 4. The traditional snacks can be prepared in a better, healthier way with local government support. In the policy level, the regulations on the adolescent’s snacks must ensure that those processed/unprocessed foods are with less sugar and less salt. Dr. Rudaba Khondker, Country Director, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), pointed out about “How can we bring this in the policy makers’ platform to make sure that there is a standard solution to reduce the sugar and salt from the contents of the food that the adolescents are consuming, whereas they are processed or homemade.” It is also mentioned that the target group should include adolescents from both urban and rural area of Bangladesh. The smart snacks examples can be set in the government school level, and then to spread in the private schools too. Not alone government, but together with adolescents themselves, parents, school management and private sector to work together and establish this smart snack program. On regard to this Ms. Saiqa Siraj, Country Director, Nutrition International summarized as, “In participation of parents, school management, government subsidies and private sector, it will be a sustainable program, otherwise only through government funding, providing midday meals to this huge number of schools will not be possible.”237238249251There were no major areas of divergence among participants.

2021-10-28 11:57:12204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45432/1118355726276203165

4033737340140

Act with Urgency The disruptions to food systems caused by Covid-19 have exposed the vulnerabilities in food systems across many African countries. This called for swift response from Me to convene this dialogue for stakeholders and industry players! Commit to the Summit The outcome of the dialogue and discussions was to contribute to the overall preparation of the Food Systems Summit and by the end of the Dialogue period, Stakeholders and Participants will have identified the practices, avenues and policies that will have the greatest impact on the achievement of the desired future vision within their local food systems. Be Respectful The Dialogue took place in the form of discussions between a diversity of Stakeholders to explore convergences and divergent views on the guiding questions under discussions. Each participant was listened to, ideas and points were collectively welcomed. Diversity and Inclusion formed the foundation of the dialogue! Recognize Complexity Though Food Systems is complex in nature, the dialogue sort to unpack the systems in to smaller units thereby making each person fully grasp what is needed and better position, Food Heroes to contribute meaningfully! Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity Building on diversity and inclusion, we opened up to every stakeholder possible including, Farmers, Farmers Cooperative Financial Agencies etc. . Complement the work of others We cannot work in isolation when dealing with food systems. By working on a common goal and vision, we were able to address other underlying other global processes relevant to food systems. Build Trust Based on shared principles of accountability and transparency, we had an open and safe space for every to feel comfortable engaging with one another.Commitment to the Summit and acting with urgency The dialogue was a means to have farmers voices heard The dialogue convene, gathered the farmers insights and recommendations as a basis to develop farmers tailored services in the short-medium term. Respectfulness Facilitator ensured that everyone had the chance to express his/her opinion and all participants listened attentively and built upon the input of others for collective sense-making. Building on the work of others A key role in the dialogue was played by keynote speaker and facilitator who were all farmer selected for their relevant work, expertise, and/or advocacy role in agri-food systems. The event was a wonderful opportunity for participants to expand their network and build long-lasting connections to financial agencies. Building trust The dialogue aimed to create a 'safe space' where farmers could feel free to share ideas, concerns, or recommendations with their peers in a non-judgmental environment. Convener acted as mere facilitator and will continue to nurture such neutral spaces for rural youth to freely network, share and peer exchange.Yes-WTO

Yes

234240241244245246248The focus of the Dialogue was on: (i) environmental and economic shocks on African Food Systems caused by global pandemic (ii) examining gaps and functionalities of African Food Systems. (iii) access to funding for farmers and innovative ideas. (iiii) opportunities in the food industry. The focus of the dialogue was to create dedicated venues for farmers, particularly rural people have their say, collectively set their agenda, and suggest their pathway towards more equitable and farmers-friendly food systems. The dialogue adopted a gender and inclusivity lens to address the specific needs and priorities of rural farmers. The dialogue achieved the following outcomes: 1. Community: Young Agrienterpreneurs, rural farmers networks, and farmers-serving organizations across Ghana were meaningfully engaged to share experiences, lessons learned, and solutions for youth farmers inclusion in agri-food systems. 2. Advocacy: Voices of farmers rural women and men raised, and visibility given to their transformative role in agri-food systems. 3 farmers-led policy agenda: Recommendations and priority actions identified to strengthen farmers agency as changemakers and builders of resilient and sustainable agri-food systems, with a focus on inclusivity and gender equality. The identified promising solutions/priority action areas and policy recommendations were on the following topics: 1. Networking and digital engagement 2. Access to finance and business support services 3. Gender equality and inclusivity 4. Accountability and political participation.235240241244245246248There is a big capacity gap when getting into agriculture, especially across different value chain touchpoints and more importantly knowledge on policy. One of the actions stakeholders will take together is to deepen their engagement efforts with the farmers to ensure access to information about agricultural policies financial agencies and legal regulations is further deepened. The importance of forming new alliances among many organizations that work with farmers people to raise farmers voices and initiate collective action was further stressed. Below are key priority action areas we identified: a) Set up networking opportunities that accommodate farmer’s needs (e.g., the timing of meetings) and be accessible in networks and rural settings their existing social networks, Create stronger farmer associations to be able to keep governments accountable, become aware of current legislation to be able to influence policies and regulations. c) Organizations running Agripreneurship programs have dedicated calls for farmers. This perspective boosts farmer's participation in project calls/applications, therefore, giving priority to them. d) Increase knowledge access of existing policies, the art of policymaking, and advocacy through translation to local languages.236240241245246248Topic 1: Networking and digital engagement Below are some of the key issues highlighted by the farmers and proposed solutions, priority action areas, and policy recommendations. Challenges highlighted: a) Capacity gap among farmers runing agribusiness b) Young people scattered in several digital platforms instead of a one-stop-shop. c) Gender digital gap and information asymmetry d) Farmers face difficulties in getting organized to have access to information about agricultural policies, funding sources, and legal regulations. Identified priority action areas for farmers inclusion in networking and digital engagement: a) Peer-to-peer learning is a key solution to close the capacity gap among the farmers. Digital platforms that encourage such activities are central to ensuring more farmers have access to information that directly contributes to the growth of their businesses. Also, a well-encompassing platform that builds alliances among many organizations that work with farmers people to initiate collective action was found necessary. b) Encourage platforms to act as a broker between the fermers and finance service providers will address the need for farmers tailored financial support. c) Create stronger farmer associations to be able to keep governments accountable, become aware of current legislation to influence policies and regulations.237240241245246248Strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems Many were of the view that the vulnerabilities in food systems is due to bad governance whereas others also stated otherwise it is due to non-existent policies of what actually a food systems is Areas that need further exploration More participants had the notion that Food Systems was all about food. With experts in the dialogue, they were able to grasp few understanding of the general scope of food systems. This means more explorations and capacity building needs to be done to further educate and highlight the importance of a robust food systems to productivity and efficiency Practices that are needed for food systems sustainability. Some of the submitted different answers were good governance, youth inclusion, realistic policies, technology and education. Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized According to some participants, Youth must be the first prioritized whiles others made cases for Farmers as the first to be considered as without farmers, no food production.

2021-10-31 20:03:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/28650/262

8711713132231

To account for the variety of stakeholders who constitute them, we reached out to individuals from 5 different fields 1° Community-level groups 2° Scholars 3° Policy-makers 4° Youth groups 5° Retailers/market actors By inviting actors from various European countries and with conflicting positions, we also attempted to reflect the complexity of the topic. Additionally, we insisted on the anonymity of our guests’ inputs in this feedback, and we kept the discussion small to ensure everyone would dare to speak up. We also kept it “closed” (i.e. we did not stream it), to make the discussion a safe place for all to express their opinions (build trust).By organising our dialogue around the theme of short food supply chains (SFSC), we aimed to enrich the discussion on the topic, as we believe it has potential to promote good stewardship of natural resources, bring respect for local contexts to the fore, strengthen the resilience of local communities and improve the well-being of its individuals (be respectful). As a youth organisation, we made a conscious effort to invite young people to the table, as they get fewer opportunities to make their voices heard on the topic. In this, we strived to complement the efforts of others working on SFSC, to fill the gap in the field which had not been approached from a youth perspective in other dialogues and with a focus on urban-rural relationships.Start sending the invitations early if you want a variety of actors around the table, because certain categories of actors (in our case policy-makers, food retailers) have agendas that are more packed than others (scholars, youth groups, community groups). Sending out invitations late might harm representativity of a broad range of actors.

NoWe were planning on staying close to the methodology of the Convenors Reference Manual, but given the number of participants, we did not divide the guests into breakout rooms as we had initially planned to do. There were 6 of us from GCE. The dialogue lasted 2 hours, with a discussion of about 1h40. We did not have a single curator. Instead, one of us opened the dialogue with a short (less than 10 minutes) introduction speech presenting our organisation (Generation Climate Europe) and the topic and subtopics that were going to be discussed, as well as contextualising the dialogue in the broader UNFSS framework and exposing the desired outcomes of the dialogue. This introduction was followed by a round of presentation of all those present, including the organisators of the dialogue. The discussion itself was steered by 2 moderators who were supported by 1 technician who was writing questions in the chat box, keeping the time, etc.They ensured everyone contributed to the conversation and attempted to build bridges/run a red thread between the contributions of the different actors around the table. They also asked our guests questions to feed in the conversation and ensure the different topics we wanted to cover were discussed: 1° The environmental and economic sustainability of SFSC 2° Upscaling local solutions of SFSC 3° Encouraging youth engagement in SFSC We managed to create an environment of trust in which everyone felt confident to express their experiences and points of view. There was no still moment in which no one had anything to say. On the contrary, we sometimes had to guide our guests to the next point of discussion before the previous one had dried up. One of the two moderators closed the dialogue with a ~10 min conclusion bringing together the insights of all our guests. Points of divergence did arise, stemming from - The different geographic backgrounds of our guests (e.g. a guest from Poland found herself in a drastically different environment than guests from Italy, France, England in her efforts to promote SFSC). - Our guests’ different approaches to promote SFSC (e.g. a guest representing a vertical farm and relying on advanced technologies to enhance the productivity of the farm vs scholars more acquainted with organic/agro-ecological farming) Points of convergence also surfaced, notably on the efforts needed from governments and the need to cultivate a new understanding of food and to give it a more important place in our lives.

234238239242244248249251The dialogue tackled the ways to and problems identified to shorten Food Systems supply chains in Europe. This can be related to every Action Tracks, but more specifically with the first, second and fifth ones (Shift to sustainable consumption patterns and Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress). Our three main focuses during the dialogue were: 1° The environmental and economic sustainability of SFSC. The following sub- topics were discussed in detail here: a) Challenges faced when trying to grow local food in ways that limit harm to the environment while trying to be economically sustainable at the same time. b) Food affordability challenges and potential ways to ensure food remains affordable to everyone, including low-income citizen groups and vulnerable groups of people. 2° Upscaling local solutions of SFSC. The following sub-topics were discussed in detail here: a) Barriers to scaling up to achieve systemic change, and ways to improve upscaling. b) Types of policies (i.e. EU/regional/city level etc.) needed to support upscaling. c) Local solutions as a way to build resilience to vulnerabilities and shocks. 3° Encouraging youth engagement in SFSC. The following sub-topics were discussed in detail here: a) The role of youth and how to include youth in food supply chains. b) Ways youth can support in realising the benefits of short supply chains.2352392422442462482492511) Environmental and economic sustainability Need to involve all stakeholders, including civil society and consumers to achieve systemic changes. There is sometimes a trade-off between supplying local and sustainable goods: for a given cooperative, there is a dilemma between their desire to sell local and sustainable products only (while being aware that their customers will buy non-local, unsustainable products in supermarkets anyways), or propose sustainable products that are not local (also because sometimes a specific good is not produced locally following sustainable practices). Focus on consumers to change the supply chain. - As they currently lack knowledge about hidden costs of the supply chains, their empowerment is needed by informing them, notably through clear labelling of the products’ economic and environmental quality. - Re-giving food the importance it should have in our lives, enhancing public consciousness of its value → could reduce food waste and increase time/efforts/share of income dedicated to it. - A problem is that buying power remains the most important criterion (food security) for consumers. Financial tools could help internalise externalities in food production and guide citizens towards more sustainably produced food - Idea of differentiated VAT depending on product (e.g. taxing fruits/vegetables at 0%, meat at highest level) - Carbon pricing of food - Withdrawal/reduction of subsidies for ‘unsustainable agriculture’ (e.g. beef) -“Social security of food”: e.g. give an allocation to families that wouldn’t have enough resources to purchase sustainable food. - But: issue of the weight of lobbies Question of socio-economic fairness along the chain: a few retailers capture a lot of economic value at the expense of the many farmers 2) Upscaling local solutions More participatory democracy can mobilize actors around the transition towards more sustainable food systems, to get them thinking about it and engage them. - Foster the idea of a food policy, which already exists at local level, at European level. → Idea of a European food policy committee as a discussion platform involving all stakeholders: policy-makers, scientists, etc. - At a more local level, rural parliaments could be established as platforms/a space where rural people could express their opinions, to enhance cooperation between rural and urban areas. - Creations of hubs where farmers and consumers could meet. Cities: - Role of medium-size cities in connecting rural and urban areas - Role of eurocities to be the intermediate between smaller cities and European institutions Urban agriculture (e.g. viverein, Rome): Way to educate people about what it involves to grow food, the work it represents, and so the value of food more broadly. Moreover, it can also be a catalyser for change as it shows citizens how the system can be changed. We identified problematics resulting from the EU policy framework: - it can prevent sustainable public procurement (public school canteens) under competition law. There is no possibility to discriminate for local and sustainable food. - Also, European subsidies favour unsustainable agriculture (eg. for beef farming and milk, creating a huge food surplus due to subsidies). These subsidies for unsustainable agriculture should be discontinued or at least decreased. There is a need instead for Institutional support of cooperatives that are growing local and sustainable food. 3) Youth engagement in short supply chains We underlined the importance of sensibilisation of the work of farmers to young people: give new signals, that farmers have actually a social utility, to enhance interest in their work. Supporting connections between young farmers and more experienced farmers so that they can learn from each other. Creating new job opportunities to bring back people to rural areas is important. Educative projects needed from a young age to popularise projects like CSA and food coops among youth. Underlining the obstacles from conservative governments preventing young people to voice their interests. More generally, seeing youth not as protesters but as stakeholders would be a first step. Following the example of some European institutions and the local authorities of different cities, youth could be given an institutionalised way to bring its opinion to politicians.236Does not apply to us as we did not have any breakout rooms, the whole discussion was conducted with the whole group.237238239242243244246248Consumer responsibility: Although there was agreement on the need to change consumer behaviour, there was some extent of disagreement on the share of responsibility that should be borne by consumers. Some guests insisted that responsibility should not only be put on their shoulders but also on governments’ → can have a role to play in constraining food choices/big companies and in informing them, notably through regulating food marketing (e.g. banning greenwashing). Others highlighted that too little responsibilisation hinders change. Vertical farming: An asset or not? 1) Benefits: According to one of our guests personally involved in a vertical farming initiative - Can tackle restricted access to land - Enables land use savings and water savings - Control of the environment that happens in indoor farms seems especially promising In the face of climate change - According to a study from Wageningen University and Delft University technology (both in the Netherlands), production in vertical farms could reduce CO2 use by 67% (UAE) to 92% (NLD) compared with greenhouses. This figure is even higher for open field farming - Will become less expensive with economies of scale → finance should be unlocked to incentivise investments (costs of entry are high) 2) Critiques (put forward by other guests) - Which criteria was this study based on? - Remains expensive and energy-intensive. Economies of scale could occur in the next 5-10 years, making it affordable and less energy-intensive. - What about poorer countries that cannot invest in the technologies, etc. Relevance of discussing this at European level given geographic discrepancies questioned: Engagement of consumers varies, support of government too. Ambiguity between the need to raise the value of food to e.g. decrease food waste, and social equity.

2021-11-01 10:05:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/39156/203

0643331211184021231013900300010000000000202400000003018519

The independent dialogue was designed to incorporate and embrace the principles of engagement suggested. The whole promotion and the pre dialogue engagement phase of the dialogue aims to reach out to a broad and diverse set of participants, groups, organizations, and individuals to enrich and build a common platform. The materials developed for the independent dialogue emphasized those principles and encouraged all the registrants and participants to engage but fully respect the other's' positions and ideas. Group discussion facilitators were also reminded to emphasize these principles as part of their group facilitation. The independent dialogue was designed to reinforce the need and aim of ensuring a multi-sectoral approach to protecting, promoting, and supporting breastfeeding women and their children. The group works were also designed to raise a sense of urgency around the actions needed to build a food system built on breastfeeding as the foundational food system and women's protection and support to breastfeeding their children. The presenters, during the dialogue, provided a vast set of insights and knowledge to the various participants that built of the existing and emerging knowledge in the area.The independent dialogue reflected a large diversity of participants across the various sectors, including agriculture, education, communication, health, and nutrition from across the world. The environment and the facilitation of the dialogues encouraged participation with total respect and consideration of others' opinions and positions. Through the various phases of the dialogue, the dialogue's organisers were able to engage and ensure that all participants understood and agreed on the urgency to contribute and potentially influence the outcome of the Food System. All participants shared a common sentiment to ensure that breastfeeding, women and children and their rights are not neglected and ignored during the Food System Dialogues. There is a recognition that breastfeeding is the first sustainable food system and needs to be protected and supported. All the various activities of the dialogue reflected on the complexity of the issue at stake and the importance, among others, of the integration of the human rights framework in the conversation.The general and brief recommendation that the organizers would like to share with the convenors is that the dialogues need to be built embracing the principle of respect, multi-sectorial representation, and the participants' commitment to engage and develop their own positions and opinion on the matter being discussed.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Breastfeeding is the foundation of sustainable food systems. Yet, it is virtually ignored in food systems discourse. Consequently, infants and young children are effectively excluded from food systems thinking and action. This UNFSSD aimed to explore how to ensure the acknowledgement of breastfeeding as the original and universal first food system. It aimed to increase awareness and understanding of the role of breastfeeding as the most sustainable, localised and normative food system for delivering food security and nutrition to infants and young children. The Dialogue convened diverse groups to share transformative ideas, build alliances and align efforts to protect, promote and support breastfeeding across the 5 UNFSS Action Tracks, and to identify the most promising levers for generating systems-wide change. The guiding principle was the right to breastfeed for infants and young children and breastfeeding women. The first speaker, Dr Phil Baker, described the mother-child breastfeeding dyad as a sustainable on-demand food production system and the world's shortest food supply chain, which delivers unparalleled nutrition, safety and food security for children globally. Yet today's 'first-food systems' –that provide food for infants and children aged 0-36 months – are unhealthy and unsustainable because breastfeeding is often displaced by formula and commercial foods that are harmful to health and the environment. First-food environments, including health systems, retail environments, digital media, and governance, are subject to the baby food industry's predatory marketing and aggressive influence. A systems approach can identify leverage points for transforming first-food systems for health and sustainability. This will require policy actions to universalise maternity protection, regulate the marketing of commercial baby foods, and protect, promote and support breastfeeding. It will also demand re-thinking the core values and priorities of the system to prioritise the rights of mothers, children and the environment over the commercial freedoms of industry. Dr Arun Gupta discussed the silence on the risks of formula feeding, both for infants and women's health and for the environment. Measured in terms of fuel, water and resources used and the waste products created through production, transport and use, the formula is a disaster, not only for human health but for the environment too. By contrast, breastfeeding protects the health and the environment. Dr Gupta looked at policies and programmes that support breastfeeding and made recommendations for research, policy and advocacy. Dr Julie Smith discussed breastfeeding economics and how they should be used to make breastfeeding visible and valued. She described how the international rules for measuring GDP include the production of all food commodities, except breastmilk and home-produced foods. Yet, the rules allow for the inclusion of these products, which make sizeable contributions to food systems. Breastmilk is a valuable food commodity and should be counted in food statistics and the calculation of GDP. Conversely, the value of breastmilk not produced ("lost milk") should also be calculated. The current practice of excluding breastmilk means the substantial importance of breastfeeding is invisible and biases economic decisions and policymaking against women and children.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The overall conclusion of the dialogue and that the necessary activities Include the overarching message all the breastfeeding Bonuses addressing WICKED problems Of the Food System and a demand that breastfeeding is recognised as a whole system of nutrition, as well as nurturing and care that cannot be substituted by a commercial ultra-processed food product. Transform system values to recognise the importance of women’s contribution and the environment, and address the time poverty of women 1. Firstly, we need to change the underlying values of the food system as well as on other systems, Such as health and employment, which have failed to value women and out of date patriarchal systems, which deplete women and the environment and exploit animals, and fail to value women’s work, and ensure all have sufficient time budgets to enjoy free time Hold governments, health professionals and systems, and companies accountable for failure to protect the breastfeeding food system. 2. Secondly, we need to find new ways to hold governments, health professionals and Health Systems, and companies accountable for failing to protect, promote and support breastfeeding or even recognise its value; we must do this through insisting by investing in and resourcing baby-friendly hospital initiative code compliance and enforcement, Code compliance should be like tobacco advertising, and we should remove obstacles in the Health System during COVID 19 and take urgent action to end breaches of the WHO Code through digital marketing. We need to organise and align our groups with no conflict of interest to make strong demands on duty bearers 3. There need to be stronger demands made and wider sharing in society responsibility for breastfeeding to a more extensive range of groups whilst also an invigorating and resourcing, renew grassroots action and sharing knowledge, and identify and create political champions for change such as for baby-friendly hospitals, code implementation, maternity entitlements, whilst using economic research to identify and raise awareness of the dollars given to industry against breastfeeding, as well as the costs of not breastfeeding. Women to be resourced adequately for their productive roles in the Food System. 4. Women are resilient but need to be resourced to have real ‘choices’ as consumers, workers, and citizens. They are not a ‘free or cheap resource and are depleted. This means that there need to be a universal basic income and maternity entitlements and adequate resourcing of their needs as producers of care and food for infants and young children Get industry out of government 5. The power of industry in international and government policymaking must be ended, especially in breastfeeding, because the companies want to shape the tastes of young consumers from birth towards junk food, making them a consumer for life. Nowhere is this more evident than in Codex Alimentarius, and the use of Codex standards to make unnecessary products (like follow up and growing milks) marketable must stop. Governments are for citizens but have become agents of corporations trying to hold down prices/wages of small producers and women workers to increase profits rather than improve People’s nutrition and food security and the environment in which they live their lives. Baby food marketing to policymakers is part of industry influence that must end, including via UN agencies partnering with food and pharma companies. Level the marketing playing field for breastfeeding by stopping baby food marketing at every level Stop the marketing power of industry by enforcing compliance with strong regulation of baby food marketing and by fully funding citizens groups to deliver comprehensive grassroots marketing and promotion of breastfeeding as the first food system to develop, restore and protect breastfeeding cultures and enabling environments. The industry has immense power to shape social culture and undermine breastfeeding, and there is an urgent need to stop their influence of messaging in harmful ways to breastfeeding. Also, we need to reclaim the language and stop the marketing through regulation and through236238239240241244245246247248249250251Title: Breastfeeding and the food systems transformation agenda: towards healthy and sustainable first-food systems 1. Many are now calling for transformative food systems change. However, breastfeeding is too often neglected in food systems thinking, dialogue and action. This is a crucial omission to address, given the mother-child breastfeeding dyad is a remarkably sustainable on-demand food production system, and arguably the world’s shortest food supply chain – one that delivers unparalleled nutrition, safety and food security for the child – on a global scale. 2. Today’s ‘first-food systems’ – defined as the food systems that provision food for infants and children aged 0-36 months – are currently unhealthy and unsustainable, given breastfeeding is too often displaced by formula and other commercial foods that are harmful to health and the environment. First-food environments, including health systems, retail environments and digital media, are strongly influenced by the aggressive marketing of the baby food industry. The governance of infant and young child feeding too often favours commercial lobby groups. 3. A systems approach can help us to identify the most powerful leverage points for transforming first-food systems for health and sustainability. This will not only require policy actions to universalise maternity protection, comprehensively regulate the marketing of commercial baby foods, and other actions to protect, promote and support breastfeeding. It will also demand re-thinking the core values and priorities of the system itself, and especially giving priority to the rights of mothers, children and the environment over the commercial freedoms of industry.236239240242244246247248249250251The topic help highlight the role of IBFAN and BPNI that free from commercial interests are protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding. IBFAN has been working on the protection of breastfeeding ever since 1979, growing from 6 individuals to groups 160 countries; central to its work is implementing the International Code of Marketing for Breastmilk Substitutes and conflicts of interests. www.ibfan.org BPNI is a South Asia regional coordinating office and has been working in India since 1991 on breastfeeding protection, promotion, and support. www.bpni.org World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative( WBTi) is BPNI’s global initiative building a repository of policy and programmes worldwide. https://www.worldbreastfeedingtrends.org/ 2016 BPNI took the lead in the study of Carbon Footprints of formula feeding in 6 countries The discussion highlighted the various reasons breastfeeding is environmentally friendly, as it fulfils a child’s right to the highest attainable standard of health. Due to food and nutrition, food security during the first two years and almost guarantees child survival, healthy growth and development, makes sound ecological sense as a ‘Tree’ contributes to the sustainability of food systems. AND FORMULA IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, UNHEALTHY, ULTRA_PROCESSED, NOT SUSTAINABLE. The IBFAN report shows that each kilogram (kg) of milk formula generated 4 kg of (carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent) greenhouse gas during production. Over 2.8 million Tonnes of CO2 are produced from the 0.72 million Tonnes of infant formula sold yearly in just six countries, equivalent to 6 billion miles of car travel. The water footprint of infant formula is also problemati, with average water footprint of whole cows milk bei 940 L/kg; this translates in one kilogram of milk given about 200 g of milk powder, the water footprint of milk powder alone ~4700 L/kg. IBFAN and BPNI launched in 2004. The World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative (WBTi) assists countries to assess the status of and benchmarking the progress in implementing the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding in a standard way. It is based on the WHO’s tool for a national assessment of policy and programmes on infant and young child feeding. The WBTi assists countries to measure strengths and weaknesses on the ten parameters of policy and programmes that protect, promote and support optimal infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices. The WBTi also maintains a Global Data Repository of these policies and programmes. The unique web tool helps in colour-coding and scoring each indicator. The WBTi process stimulates local action, bringing people together and encourages collaboration and networking amongst critical organisations such as government departments, UN, health professionals, academics, civil society and other players (without conflicts of Interest). It assists in consensus building. Through use of the WBTi tool, countries work towards producing a “report card” and “report” that can be used to mobilise action at the local level by defining the gaps and recommendations for change. The report shows the average score and colour coding for each indicator on policy and programmes on a scale of 1–10. Most indicators fall into the yellow category, except for ‘‘health and Nutrition Care Systems’’(Indicator 5), with a slightly higher score (blue) and ‘fant Feeding during Emergencies’with with a lower score (red). The combined score of the 10 WBTi indicators related to IYCF policies and programmes is measured on a scale of 1–100. The combined average score for 84 countries is 59.9. Almost half of the countries (39) scored between 30 The following were the key recommendations from the topic: 1. Count Breastfeeding as the First Food System 2. Talk more about environmental impact and link with environmental groups. 3. Funding is critical to increasing breastfeeding rates and controlling marketing of baby foods-ensure through a firm resolution at World Health Assembly ($5 per child born and additional funds for maternity protection) 4. Research on the environmental impact of formula feeding at the national level may help in advocacy.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Breastfeeding economics and lost milk The world's food system is failing us and especially our children. It is failing to deliver on human rights. It is failing to deliver for the planet's ecological systems. An important reason is that global systems for measuring the food system and the economy reflect misguided and outdated principles about important and economically valuable. This is unfair and harmful to women and children, and planetary health. This presentation focussed on the international system, which governs economic measurement and sets rules for defining GDP. This system decides what is seen as economically valuable and prioritised by governments and international agencies. This system also shapes incentives and influences what is rewarded and profitable and what is not. It first outlined the basics of breastfeeding economics. Human beings are mammals. Milk helps build the highly adaptive immune system of human babies. It is the first vaccination against the disease. Breastfeeding and human milk are uniquely suitable for humans. When women and children cannot breastfeed sufficiently, for example, due to inadequate maternity entitlements, there are profound effects on human health and cognition and food security and nutrition. There are also costs on the environment and for animal welfare. These costs are not fully accounted for in market prices, which encourages excessive production and the use of commercial milk formula. The second part of the presentation summarises the international rules on how economic growth and food production is measured. The United Nations' national accounting system has been in place since the 1950s and its key element, GDP, excludes non-monetary production of goods and services. It counts commercial milk formula production, but not breastmilk produced, so when breastfeeding increases, GDP declines. Because breastfeeding is not visible in these statistics, its enormous economic value is not seen, and societal and fiscal resources are less likely to be invested. These rules allow for human milk to be counted if it is large enough and if there is a market price that can be used to value it, but no action has been taken. Using historical data, it can be shown that the economic value of breastmilk is very large. When breastfeeding declines, the lost food production is significant for the food and economic system. Still, women's loss of this uniquely value milk production for infants and young children go unnoticed. This system of measurement and accounting for economic value should be challenged as discriminatory against women and unhelpful to achieving a healthy and sustainable food system. Money is the language of policymakers. Breastfeeding is archetypal of women's crucial economic contribution. Unless breastfeeding is made visible in these critical statistics, international agencies and regulatory systems will expand global corporations' turnover and profit instead of working for people. By perpetuating the current harmful system, international agencies lose trust and credibility. To achieve healthy and sustainable food systems, what and how we value economic productivity and 'the economy must change, and this should start with valuing - and investing resources in – breastfeeding.236238239241242243246247249251Title: Breastfeeding as a ‘Resilient’ Food Security System: Celebrating…. And Problematizing Women’s Resilience in the face of chronic deprivation as well as emergencies. I will briefly touch upon as case studies - 1. breastfeeding and malnutrition, and 2. breastfeeding in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The discussion highlighted how to date women perform 76.2% of the total amount of unpaid care work, 3.2 times more time than men” (ILO). Still, only 40% reported substantial changes in outstanding care work in the first three months after childbirth. Childcare took up the bulk of women’s time, especially as they either took care of a child directly or remained responsible for a child over an average of 13.48 hours a day across the four countries 31 per cent reported giving up childcare to be able to engage in paid work. Several issues and concerns were shared, including but not limited to the medicalisation of a predominantly socio-economic problem with no recognition of community food systems such as breastfeeding and childcare as a possible intervention: thus, no investment, the Failure to recognise breastmilk as a critical source of protein and ‘count’ it in the treatment of SAM and the Failure to recognise breastfeeding as a health system in the prevention of childhood illnesses and mortality. Also, the attempts to introduce stand-alone magic bullet solutions of RUTF that often displace breast milk and, at the minimum, reinforce the ‘superiority’ of packaged foods over community-based products and may cause metabolic problems. Key recommendations were discussed and presented, including a universal implementation of the Maternity Protection [Convention, 2000 (No. 183)], a universally available childcare services and Child budgeting alongside gender budgeting with significant enhancements to both The key messages from the topic are as follows: 1. Breastfeeding is a resilient food system provided the facts below are taken into consideration: 2. Breastfeeding resilience relies entirely upon the status of time, energy, health, nutrition and general availability of women that are already chronically disenfranchised. 3. Maintaining the resilience of this food system demands a transformative structural and systemic shift to community-based solutions that are adequately237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The participants of the independent dialogue agreed that there is an urgent need to ensure that breastfeeding is recognized by all as the first sustainable food system. To do that we need to transform system values to recognise the value of women’s contribution and the environment, and address the time poverty of women 1. Firstly, we need to change the underlying values of the food system as well as on other systems Such as health and employment which have failed to value women and out of date patriarchal systems which deplete women and the environment and exploit animals, and fail to value women’s work, and ensure all have sufficient time budgets to enjoy free time Hold governments health professionals and systems and companies accountable for failure to protect the breastfeeding food system 2. Secondly we need to find new ways to hold governments health professionals and Health Systems and companies accountable will filing to protect promote and support breastfeeding or even recognize its value we must do this through insisting by invest in and resource baby friendly hospital initiative code compliance and enforcement and I to collection and a specially in the digital could see a code compliance should be like tobacco advertising they should also be obstacles removed in the Health System during COVID and action taken to end breaches of the who code through digital marketing Organise and align to make strong demands on duty bearers 3. There needs to be stronger demands made and wider sharing in society responsibility for breastfeeding to a larger range of groups whilst also an invigorating and Resourcing, renew grass roots action and sharing knowledge, and identify and create political champions for change such as for baby friendly hospitals, code implementation, maternity entitlements , whilst using economic research to identify and raise awareness of the dollars given to industry against breastfeeding, as well as the costs of not breastfeeding Women to be resourced adequately for their productive roles in the Food System 4. Women are resilient but need to be resourced so that may have real ‘choices’ as consumers as workers and as citizens. They are not a ‘free’ or cheap resource, and are depleted. This means that there needs to be a universal basic income and maternity entitlements and adequate resourcing of their needs as producers of care and food for infants and young children Get industry out of government 5. The power of industry in international and government policymaking must be ended, especially in the area of breastfeeding because the companies want to shape the tastes of young consumers from birth towards junk food making them a consumer for life. Nowhere is this more evident than in Codex Alimentarius, and the use of Codex standards to make unnecessary products (like follow up and growing up milks) marketable must stop. Governments are for citizens but have become agents of corporations trying to hold down prices/wages of small producers and women workers to increase profits, rather than improve People’s nutrition and food security and the environment in which they live their lives. Baby food marketing to policymakers is part of industry influence that must end including via UN agencies partnering with food and pharma companies. Level the marketing playing field for breastfeeding by stopping baby food marketing at every level Stop the marketing power of industry by enforcing compliance with strong regulation of baby food marketing, and by fully funding citizens groups to deliver comprehensive grassroots marketing and promotion of breastfeeding as the first food system in order to develop restore and protect breastfeeding cultures and enable environments. The industry has immense power to shape social culture and undermine breastfeeding and there is an urgent need to stop their influence of messaging in ways that are harmful to breastfeeding. Also, we need to reclaim the language and stop the marketing through regulation and through.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Oot-et-al-2021-First-Food-System-BF-in-Global-Food-Systems-Discussions.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Van-esterik-1999-Right-to-food-right-to-feed-right-to-be-fed.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Baker-et-al-Globalization-first-food-systems.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Baker-et-al-2020-First-food-systems-transformations-and-the-ultra-processing-of-infant-and-young-child-diets-Copy.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/smith-2018-Valuing-human-milk-in-GDP.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Smith-2019-Counting-the-cost-of-not-breastfeed.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/JP-et-al-Climate-Change-and-Infant-Formula-Production-JHL-2021.pdfhttps://genderinstitute.anu.edu.au/breastfeeding-where-healthy-and-sustainable-food-systems-begin

2021-11-01 17:03:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/46120/203194

10461812129

The Chipco Preserve Food Systems Dialogue was organized with an integrated, interdisciplinary, and exploratory approach oriented on sustainable food systems solutions. It embraced the Principles of Engagement for the Food Systems Summit with a diverse set of stakeholders with an array of experience. Given the backgrounds of the discussants, the Principles were inherent in the Dialogue and didn't require any reiteration during the event. The event was kept to a small audience in order to encourage a rich and engaging conversation.The Chipco Preserve Dialogue reflects key Principles in that we built upon peer-reviewed publications, studies, reports, and other credible information. We also considered established and pending socio-political aspects and their potential impacts on the issues. Through our discussants, we recognized the complexity of food systems from the viewpoints of field workers, consumers, small farm owners, educators, and diversified lenses such as gender, ethnicity, and more. Our commitment to the summit is evident in that the convenor, Chipco Preserve, is a small farm that practices the tenants of sustainable farming. Similarly, our Dialogue contributes to the Food Systems Summit and the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformations contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.I recommend Dialogue Convenors spend time and a great deal of attention considering their expectations. Even though you may organize material in a particular order, let it flow naturally and organically, so the flow of the discussion is not encumbered.

Yes

234239240242243244247249Chipco Preserve's Food Systems Dialogue was organized around the "shift to sustainable consumption patterns." We first considered methods of addressing food waste. We then discussed how the loss of topsoil will impact the future. We followed up with methods and considerations for rejuvenating topsoil to improve food systems outcomes.235239240242243244246248249Numerous findings emerged from our Dialogue highlighting (1) the need for integrity in food systems, (2) better policies that protect consumers (and a clearinghouse to track those policies), (3) a means to address the corporate destruction of small and medium farms, (3) the containment of GMO related practices to prevent bullying of non-GMO practices, (4) consideration of a tax credit from embracing a wild aesthetic, as opposed to mowing public land, (5) the need for a concerted effort to revitalize land and topsoil NOW, and (6) the containment of city sprawl that destroys natural habitat.236238239243249Our initial topic, Food Waste, discussed the slow rise of Zero Waste restaurants, the importance of composting, and farm subsidies offered for those who produce and do not produce food. There is an interest in potential public policies, including a tax credit for small food producers or composting. Bills introduced in the US House of Representatives (HR 4443 and HR 4444) move in this direction, although they have little chance of becoming policy. We noted that consumers aren't familiar with their options or how to address food waste personally. More targeted educational material would help inform consumers of potential courses of action and choices. Finally, participants identified the confusion of US food labeling, which could better educate consumers on how long food is edible, not just a "best by" date.236238239240241242243244246248249Our second topic included Topsoil Loss and Rejuvenation. Participants discussed the need for greater access to information regarding topsoil loss and methods of rejuvenating topsoil. Participants further discussed the degradation of topsoil through poor farming techniques and the overuse of agrochemicals and fertilizers. Food contamination due to poor farm management (such as an overabundance of arsenic in rice) is of grave concern. So too, the loss of small farms due to corporate farming (bullying, manipulation) is a shared concern. Lastly, the impact of climate change on growing seasons and the types of products are problematic. With the monopoly of monocultures on food production, climate change will further degrade biodiversity, and the impact of that loss on humanity is yet fully realized.237There were no areas of divergence that emerged during our Dialogue. Participants respected each other's contributions and built on them throughout the event.

2021-11-03 07:14:17204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/46755/23

308103163537104251034

The Dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food Systems Summit through an understanding of the issues facing by the youth to avail skill related to nutrition. Organized by BIID along with other co-organizers, the Dialogue brought a diversity of stakeholders from youth, adolescent, academia, government representatives, UN, development partners (I/NGOs), research organizations, civil society representatives working in youth development, food chain, nutrition, and education.The Dialogue began with familiarizing the participants with the context of the Food Systems Summit, the issues being discussed at the global level including the five action tracks and issues to be addressed in Bangladesh to ensure smart skills on nutrition for adolescents and youth. BIID Foundation jointly with Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) organized the 3rd Independent Summit Dialogue under Action Track 1 of UN Food Systems Summit. BIID Foundation, a social venture of Bangladesh Institute of ICT in Development (BIID) to foster economic and social development through sustainable business model & ICT enabled solutions. Mr. Zakir Hossain Akanda, Secretary (PRL), Ministry of Planning, Member (PRL), Planning Commission, joined the session as the Chief Guest. Ms. Miriam Shindler, Program Lead, Better Diet for Children, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), joined the dialogue as the Special Guest. Each group in the session had a facilitator and a note taker, who together moderated the discussion. The facilitator highlighted the focus of discussion in the group and requested participants to share their thoughts. The key points made in each breakout group were presented by the respective facilitators at the closing plenary, giving an opportunity for participants who had not been in a particular group to further share their thoughts/suggestions. Participants from relevant stakeholders including youth and adolescents, teachers and facilitators, and regulatory and administrative policy makers were invited to participate in the dialogue. Other than this, people from relevant work and industry were invited to join the dialogue as guests.The importance of participatory approach in capturing the voice of a significant audience. It is also important to ensure that regional nuances and challenges faced by vulnerable groups are captured.

Yes

234238248249251The focus for this dialogue is to develop a conceptual framework for a Nutrition Academy for adolescents and youth. Adolescents and youth can play important role for improvement of national nutrition status at community level, to make youth more competent to address malnutrition, institutional interventions to make them capable to understand nutrition in a better way, and build their skills to assess local nutritional challenges, identify solutions, design action points and engage & lead local level initiatives like gardening, smart cooking, mental health, use social media, healthy life style, awareness of safe & nutrition food and engage community. Based on experiences of Nutrition Club and Nutrition Olympiad, BIID Foundation along with partners foresee a Nutrition Academy can become a national institution to build smart skills for adolescents and youth. BIID already conducted several Design Camps as a part of Nutrition Olympiad activities which demonstrated the impact of such engaging interventions (Field visit, interaction with community and understanding agricultural works) to influence the participants.235238248249251The dialogue started with the introduction and opening remarks by Dr. Rudaba Khondker, Country Director, GAIN. Mr. Then the keynote speech has been presented by Dr. Nazma Shaheen, Professor, Institute of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Dhaka. After the keynote speech, three categories of stakeholders were divided into three different breakout rooms as per below: 1. Adolescents & Youth Representatives: In this room the overall discussion took place on the adolescents’ needs, challenges, solutions and expectations regarding the skills required to be nutrition leaders. The discussion was conducted focusing on few significant questions as given below: 1. What are the skills you think required to be a nutrition representative/leader? 2. In the current scenario how are you trying to adapt these skills? 3. What are the challenges you are facing in order to get these skills? 4. How do you think we can solve these challenges? 5. Would you be interested to participate in nutrition-based skill programs/trainings? 6. What type of platform do you consider to participate in the trainings (online, in person, other)? 7. What are your expectations regarding the nutrition-based skill programs? 8. What supports you think is needed to become the nutrition representative/leader starting from your locality? 9. List the most significant skills on which different training programs should be organized? 2. Teachers & Facilitators: The group of the teachers and facilitators had their very important discussion on the present and expected curriculum; challenges, support needed for facilitating different nutritional learning programs for adolescents and youth. The discussion was conducted around few pre-arranged questions on the specific topic as given below: 1. What is the current scenario of the different learning programs, skill development programs related to nutrition for adolescents and youth? 2. How interested the adolescents are towards these programs? 3. What platforms (in-person/virtual/others) are more accessible/preferable for these trainings/programs? 4. What challenges are there in terms of initiating or implementing these programs? 5. What support do you need to facilitate these different learning programs? 6. How best these learning programs can be designed in one platform? 7. What are the most significant training topics that will help adolescents and youth to become the nutrition representative/leader starting from their locality? 8. What is the nutrition curriculum situation at present? 9. What are your expectations about the curriculum structure and features? 3. Regulatory & Administrative (Policy): The participants at the room of regulatory and administrative discussed on supportive and regulatory measures to promote a Nutrition Academy to build basic nutrition skills for adolescents and youth to conduct regular learning programs.236238249251Adolescents & Youth Representatives: After the very interactive session among the youth and adolescents, two of them presented the overall findings and summary. They started by pointing out few important skills that are considered to be essential to be a nutrition leader according to them, these skills are – 1. Communication skills 2. Knowledge 3. Problem solving skills 4. Motivating others 5. Positive attitude. Different online workshops will be helpful keeping the present Covid-19 situation in mind. Through virtual platforms, debate and quiz on nutritional topics can be arranged, which covers skills like knowledge, communication, leadership, etc. A very interesting idea came up, to control individual health diet chart by taking it as a challenge individually. A list of challenges the adolescents are facing now to gain these skills have been mentioned as – 1. The pandemic 2. Social insecurity and gender discrimination 3. Negative criticism from society. The two solution they came up to overcome these challenges were said to be, firstly avoiding the negativities as much as possible, and secondly by being more confident and knowledgeable about the ultimate topic nutrition. The adolescents and youth shared about how this kind of sessions helps them not only to express their thoughts but also to hear from others too and learn from each other. An idea was proposed from them to involve the parents and teachers in few monthly/bi-monthly nutritional meetings, that will help the parents to understand the adolescents’ nutrition related activities better and support more. Also, as mother and father are the ultimate decision makers of a household, so if they are aware of the important nutrition related positivities and negativities, they would take the necessary decisions accordingly. This will effectively serve the overall purpose of the adolescents as the nutrition leaders. Having nutrition leaders in different layers like, area, sub-district, district levels has been suggested. Also, as leaders to talk about the nutrition related activities through different communication materials and events are to be considered. About the expectation from the trainings, Dipty Chowdhury, a youth leader of Act4Food Act4Change Global Pledge for UN Food System Summit Action Track 1, stated, “Our expectation will be our involvement, only one-sided format of training is very much discouraged, the trainings should be fun, interactive, directly involving the youth and adolescents.” They ended their presentation by an expectation of a digital platform that will be fully focused on the nutrition leaders’ program involving the youth and adolescents.236238248251Teachers & Facilitators: The teachers and facilitators summarized their group discussion focusing on the pre-arranged questions on the topic. They started by describing the present scenario of these skills training. They mentioned that there are few skill trainings that are available in the field but in a very small volume. They said about how important it is to get the adolescents’ interest in the field. The adolescents and youth are interested, but more measurable ways to be considered for communicating in order to engage them. Though physical trainings are usually more effective, but considering present Covid-19 situation, the virtual trainings also has its own positivities, as per their statement. The learning programs should be connected with Scout, Girls’ Guide, Nutrition Clubs, and other related associations’ programs. Different activities like arranging small events, gardening at schools and home can effectively engage more adolescents. As the adolescents, the facilitators’ group also mentioned the importance of involving the parents to fully serve the ultimate purpose of nutrition activities. Ms Madhure Majumder, Senior Assistant Teacher, Hafiza Khatun Girls’ High School, stated, “Through arranging workshop events, where demonstration of cooking procedure and skills, washing fruits and vegetables can be shown, it will be effective for engagement and better understanding.” The present nutrition scenario for the youth and adolescents needs to be taken very seriously and proper action plan to be implemented for making the situation better.236238249251Regulatory and Administrative (Policy): From the group discussion in the regulators group, few discussion points were sorted out and presented to everyone. It started by talking about the latest trend of today’s generation to be too much engaged in social media rather than real time activities, and how it is affecting their concentration by being a very big distraction. The importance of the overall learning process to be connected with local government level, and then national and global initiatives, has been mentioned. The students’ participation should be on a regular basis through different nutrition related events and activities. An idea of Nutri-Retreat came up through the discussion, which refers to the beyond nutrition aspects, like mental health to be added in the annual nutrition programs. The innovation process of the youth and adolescents to be targeted by incentivizing through different accelerator programs. Also, how these skills will benefit in the adolescents and youths’ future employment to be described. Not only working individually, but also the significance of working in a team coordination has been pointed out. An idea of creating an internship program that will help in their future professional career has been thought of for further planning and detailing. Multi sectoral, multi inter-ministerial stake to be considered in the overall program.237238249There were no major areas of divergence among participants.

2021-11-07 05:30:05https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Report_Independent-Dialogue-Smart-Skills.docx.pdf

2021-11-04 17:51:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44910/203

232149821425266567121117125115317526

The Dialogue was designed to share evidence with governments, private sector actors and other stakeholders of how food systems transformation can contribute to halting deforestation, including through country experiences at different scales. The Dialogue was designed to highlight the urgency of addressing agriculture - in particular globally traded agricultural commodities - as a driver of forest loss, to feature the diverse perspectives of local and national actors and to hear from experts and stakeholders on how integrated landscape approaches can support the design and implementation of ‘forest positive’ agriculture. In these ways, the Dialogue provided an opportunity to share strategies, ideas and innovations, as well as strengthen knowledge. To promote transparency and accessibility, this Dialogue was open to the public, and information about the Dialogue was circulated widely. Additionally, the Dialogue was held on the Zoom platform, and provided opportunities for interaction within the chat box and through Q&A. Interpretation was available in English, French and Spanish, and the organizers are translating the interventions into Portuguese. In preparation of the Food Systems Summit, this Dialogue sought to strengthen knowledge and provide space for open discussion, collaboration and trust building.The Dialogue was organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in collaboration with the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) and featured representatives of the agriculture and forestry sectors from Mexico, Côte d’Ivoire and Brazil as well as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU), both partners in the FSS coalition on Halting Deforestation and Conversion from Agricultural Commodities. The Dialogue presented governments and other stakeholders with approaches and tools for catalysing integrated landscape approaches and provided a space for discussing efforts and effective strategies for implementing inclusive forest-positive commodity value chains. It promoted actions by local and national governments, private sector actors, civil society and local communities to transform food systems, as these efforts contribute to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement and other national development and climate goals, including National REDD+ Strategies. The Dialogue recognized the complexity of food systems and the systematic approach required for their transformation, by incorporating a diverse range of perspectives, actors and experiences. Its major themes align closely with the vision, objectives, and projected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit, in particular Action Track 3 on Boosting nature-positive production. The Dialogue was designed to provide information not only to national governments, but also to private sector actors and community groups, thus embracing the Food Systems Summit concept of multi-stakeholder inclusivity.The Dialogue Convenors outlined clear deliverables, keeping in mind the Principles, as well as the desired outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. In preparation for the Dialogue, a concept note was developed, detailing the Dialogue’s aim and specific objectives and identifying the key questions the Dialogue would address. Through doing so, and in inviting a diverse range of speakers, the Convenors were fully able to contribute to the vision of the Summit, recognizing the complexity of food systems transformation and highlighting multi-stakeholder processes and approaches for such transformation. Thus the Dialogue Convenors suggest advanced planning of clear outcomes, in line with the aim and vision of the Food Systems Summit, and incorporating diverse perspectives when discussing food systems transformation, in order to appreciate the Principles of Engagement.

No

234240241242244245246248249250The Dialogue examined what role governments play in implementing integrated landscape approaches, which are key to advancing inclusive forest positive agriculture. This focus corresponds directly with Action Track 3 of the Food Systems Summit – Boost Nature-Positive Production. It was driven by four expected outcomes: - provide an overview of strategic trade-offs among forest conservation, sustainable forest and land management, food security, agricultural policies, climate change mitigation and adaptation; - share experiences and lessons learned from countries’ efforts to design and implement integrated landscape approaches for forest-positive agriculture and to align agricultural policies and investments to forest conservation and sustainable land management; - identify what role governments can play in advancing inclusive forest-positive agriculture through integrated landscape approaches, and how REDD+ is supporting these approaches; and - introduce the upcoming FAO technical paper on these topics.235240241242244245246248249250The Dialogue concluded that the reduction of land use change and promotion of ‘forest positive’ agriculture is critical to addressing the interlinked challenges of climate change, biodiversity, food security and global health. Country experiences, and the lessons shared by countries and subject matter experts alike, demonstrated that integrated landscape governance approaches and multistakeholder action is necessary to decouple deforestation from commodity production. The Dialogue found that governments have a key role to play in enabling forest positive commodity value chains, in four main action areas: 1) Enabling environment and enforcement of legality, 2) Transparent data and collaborative monitoring frameworks, 3) Capacity development and knowledge generation, and 4) Incentives and markets for forest positive agricultural products. The Dialogue further concluded that all stakeholders, and governments in particular, should keep in mind the following lessons in the development and implementation of their national pathways for food systems transformation: - There is a role for all actors (governments, private sector, civil society, communities) in halting deforestation in agriculture supply chains; concerted efforts and a multistakeholder approach that reconciles conflicting demands and seeks a common agenda is vital; - Policy alignment, cross-sectoral government coordination and collaboration is a key enabling factor, and must be institutionalized, including through national budgets; - Integrated land use planning, inclusion of farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples, and the security of tenure rights are important enabling conditions for sustainable public and private investment; - Sustained technical support and capacity development is crucial to supporting the adoption of forest positive production models; - Shared monitoring and information systems can be useful tools for planning and keeping track of progress made; - Finance (including incentives and innovative financing modalities) is necessary to fund food systems transformation.236N/A237N/A

2021-11-15 07:54:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/46460/203177

631141101303351533215521032333151055152

This national dialogue was set up to support the outcomes of the UN FSS and to contribute to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Act with Urgency). We wanted the dialogue to be relevant within the broader context of the Food System Summit while resonating with national stakeholders and fit within the overall ecosystem. That’s why we put at the center of the dialogue the question: how can we reset the food system from fork to farm based on scientific knowledge and innovation? (Commit to the Summit). The dialogue was made of two main sections: 1) speeches from different actors in the food supply chain (Recognize Complexity) and 2) an interactive open discussion among participants in smaller groups around 5 key themes followed by a plenary debriefing (Complement the work of others). This format allowed for everyone to voice her/his opinion while remaining open to the co-existence of divergent points of view (Be Respectful and Build Trust). When we put together the panel, we made sure that it represented a diverse range of stakeholders to allow the audience to see the challenges faced across the food system and how different stakeholders are developing and implementing innovative solutions to tackle these challenges. More specifically, speakers featured in the panel were from academia, government, non-profit startup accelerators and multinational companies. In addition, to ensure a fruitful and comprehensive discussion in the interactive part of the dialogue, we invited representatives of different stakeholders from the Swiss government, business, civil society and research as well as embracing inter-generational diversity by mixing students and C-suit level executives (Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity).The dialogue made clear that all stakeholders (academia, government, and private sector) in the food supply chain were aligned around the need for a transition of our current food system. Now was the time to take concrete actions aligned with the common goals identified in the Swiss Development Strategy: promote healthy, balanced, and sustainable diets; reduce food waste and losses; increase sustainability along the value chain; and improve resilience in the food system. In particular, speakers recognized the urgency and importance of increasing the speed of research and innovation across all aspects of our food system: agriculture science, plant-based products, packaging, consumer behavior… while not forgetting that solutions need to address the complexities of our food system in a holistic manner and that the transition must be a just one. To that end, speakers suggested that we must embrace diversity, unleash creativity, adopt a long-term thinking approach and work with younger generations.1) Keep it fast paced. The Dialogue should be upbeat; to do this we suggest ensuring speaker diversity and limited time (5-7 minutes). The objective is to trigger some thoughts and broad understanding of what is currently being done. 2) Have sufficient time for the interactive parts of the program, particularly if participants don’t know each other. Start by a round of introductions so that participants and facilitators can create links during the discussion.

Yes

234238239240244248The dialogue theme was ‘Innovation for Food System Transformation’. The discussion examined what needs to change so that we are producing and consuming sustainable and healthy diets by 2030 with relevance to the Swiss and global context. As well as how innovation can help to achieve these changes. In fact, the role of innovation is critical and will only rise in importance with the onset of climate change.235238239240244248251The Food System requires a transformation towards healthier diets for people produced in a way that maintains and replenishes natural resources. The scale and urgency of transformation needed requires everyone to join and play an active role: no individual or company is too small or too big to contribute to this transformation. A system approach with innovation at its core is needed. Yet, as the world looks for solutions, there are still many elements that need to be better understood in order to achieve an effective collaboration and co-creation across the value chain from fork to farm. - What is a food system? Many people talk about it but not many understand all its complexities which must include the economic and cultural aspects of scalable solutions. -What is a sustainable healthy diet? We do need to consider all dimensions: nutrition and health, economical dimension (affordability), social and cultural components (taste, pleasure, experience), and environmental sustainability. -What is the true cost of food? A holistic assessment of our food system, including environmental and social externalities, is necessary to understand where along the value chain lies the biggest potential for innovation / transformation. It would constitute a roadmap for food system transformation to be implemented considering the local context. An additional, complementary angle is to think at what concretely needs to change so that we will be producing and consuming sustainable and healthy diets in 2030. -We need product level innovation that considers the multiple characteristics of food: nutrition and health, taste, sustainability, and affordability. Food producers need to develop nutritionally high-quality products without compromising on taste and increasing diversity, particularly in terms of protein sources. -Consumers need to shift towards healthy, nutritious, and plant-based diets. This requires consumer education and the earlier we learn the better: nutrition and cooking classes should be part of school curricula while consumer communication should be clearer and more compelling. Translating complex science and biology in a way that the layman can understand it and is willing to listen to, linking it to trendy topics or lifestyles such as yoga… -New personalized tools to measure and assess health and healthy diets (which would include new methodologies, metrics, biomarkers…) should also be part of the solution. -The young generation needs to be enabled and empowered to bring their own ideas and build solutions. -Globalization and de-globalization are happening in parallel. Innovations need to be relevant, affordable, and adaptable to the local context without creating new environmental impacts downstream or cultural shifts. Stakeholders should take a medium to long term view when assessing the feasibility of innovations. Local sourcing, reducing food losses or food upcycling are promising strategies. We can’t just wait for consumers, farmers or producers to change, we have to start changing all together. The food system transformation needs to be consumer driven and driving consumers at the same time. As we move this agenda forward, we should not forget how crucial it is to enable and empower the young generation to be part of building solutions. One challenge is that younger generations in many parts of the world do not want to develop their careers in agriculture. Today’s young people believe that agriculture is a sector filled with outdated approaches, led by older generations and little future prospects. Agriculture as a sector needs a new culture that appeals to the mindset and ways of working of the next generations. How can we make the agricultural sector open and accessible, collaborative, entrepreneurial, purposeful, and impactful as well as community-oriented?236238244246248249Nutrition and affordability We need to 1) move away from increasing food quantity to increasing the quantity of quality food (avoiding excess of high sugar, salt or fat and adding more positive ingredients, e.g. micronutrients or fiber) according to Food-Based Dietary Guidelines and 2) further broaden the offer of nutritious plant-based products to divert from animal-based products (especially in high income countries). A big challenge is the difference in nutritional gaps between Low- and Middle-Income Countries versus High Income Countries. Part of the solution to close the gap is to improve Low- and Middle-Income Countries through partnerships in capacity building programs such as the Africa Leadership Initiative that foster collaboration and knowledge sharing across countries and stakeholder groups (business, government, academia and civil society).236239243244246248251Good health and wellbeing The first element that is needed is more scientific knowledge on healthy diets. We do not know enough about what defines and characterizes a healthy diet or what it means to stay healthy. We need to 1) build and leverage innovative tools to measure health and healthy diets at a personal level (methodologies, metrics, biomarkers…); 2) invest in longer term impact science; and 3) broader more efficient consumer education and communication around food to drive behaviors towards healthy and sustainable diets. “Food education” should be broad in scope and encompass nutrition, cooking, and sensory testing – an idea in this respect would be integrating nutrition and cooking classes in school curricula. We need innovative communication methods to translate complex science and biology in a way that is easily understood by the average consumer and in a way that encourages consumer’s engagement and interest. The consumer should be involved or even co-create these activities. Overall, as mentioned above, in order to achieve sustainable and healthy diets in 2030, all stakeholders need to play a role: consumers, industry, healthcare community, regulatory agencies… It’s about being consumer driven and consumer driving at the same time.236240243246248Industry, infrastructure, and innovation To kick-start the food system transform we need 1) a holistic and transparent assessment of the costs and value added across each step of the food supply chain. This includes the quantification of “hidden” environmental, sustainability and social aspects. This assessment will be critical to identifying the priority areas for the food system transformation. Then, 2) identify appropriate solutions taking a comprehensive approach since big impact can only be achieved with scale. Innovators will need to assess the food system through various lenses, including people who do not have access to sufficient and nutritious food when identifying these global solutions. Yet 3) we need to acknowledge that the implementation of identified solutions will differ depending on the local context. For example, while consumers in the developed world can pay more, those in developing countries cannot and “hidden” costs may need to be absorbed into the food supply chain. The ecosystem in Switzerland is broad - start-ups, academia, food retailers, technology, pharma - and has the capabilities to develop innovative solutions to the challenges faced by the food system. Greater collaboration on concrete projects among these actors is needed. The Swiss Food & Nutrition Valley can be “the glue” of this ecosystem but support from the government is critical, too.236239240243244248Climate action, responsible consumption and production In today’s world there is so much that needs to be considered when grocery shopping: is the product nutritious and healthy? Is it sustainable? Consumers need to have the right information to make the right choices. An efficient way of doing so is through index scores which capture several basic indicators in a simple and easy to understand measure – examples include “Nutri-score” and “Eco-score”. Yet, how to define the optimal criteria remains an open question. As things currently stand, the easiest and best way to have a positive impact on climate change through their food consumption is 1) for consumers to shifting away from meat-based diets in high income countries with excessive consumption; and 2) for producers to better utilize crops by-products. For instance, 1 kg of coffee yields 2-3 kg of coffee pulp which is currently being wasted. Nonetheless, an assessment at the local level needs to be carried out to validate that by-products use does not lead to negative environmental impacts and/or downstream cultural changes.236239244248Plant-based diets While many things need to change for consumers to shift their dietary patterns to healthier and more sustainable diets, an element that should never be compromised is taste: food must be tasty or it will not be accepted. Expanding the supply of nutritious plant-based products and diversifying protein sources were mentioned as strategies to improve the health of people and the planet. Several elements must change to achieve the shift in consumer attitudes and habits towards plant-based diets: 1) a wide range of choices with diverse protein sources, 2) better and transparent communication from producers and government to consumers and 3) plant-based alternatives must achieve price parity with meat. To do this, food producers should take responsibility for producing nutritionally high-quality products with a focus on increasing protein sources diversity. In addition, greater cooperation, and co-creation is needed across the value chain from farm to fork to understand the barriers that prevent farmers from producing plant-based proteins and for plant-based diets to become mainstream among consumers. Government support as well as an overall enabling environment are key to helping to address some of these barriers. In fact, some of the negative perception of plant-based alternative to animal-based products related to processing could be diminished with better communication, transparency, and education. All these changes must be culturally accepted and seen in cultural context. Solutions need to be tailored to local culture, context, taste, feasibility, and affordability (particularly in developing countries). Innovation that allows for greater food personalization could be game-changing.237239248250During the dialogue all stakeholders agreed that consumers need to be involved and listened to throughout this process of transforming the food system. Younger generations that are more value driven and that will be most impacted by the change must be enabled and empowered to build solutions. Yet, participants also acknowledged that many consumers are not in a position to make the right choices. Thus, to what degree can consumers really drive this transformation? To what extent should regulatory bodies and food manufactures be driving this transformation by influencing consumer behavior? To address the global food system challenges, food should be simultaneously nutritious and healthy, tasteful, sustainable, affordable and adapted to the local context. However, it is likely that new innovations will not be able to solve all these constraints at once. So, the question is which innovations should be prioritized? Participants had some diverging views on this, and the consensus reached was that we need to act on all fronts at the same time.

2021-11-15 15:29:08204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44396/203

3694070852015432152015625103580122

The Dialogue was designed to share evidence with governments, private sector actors and other stakeholders of how food systems transformation can contribute to halting deforestation, including through country experiences at different scales. The Dialogue reviewed existing guidance for due diligence in the agricultural sector and explored new legislative requirements for consumer countries that will ensure agricultural supply chains are not associated with deforestation. It also helped identify how the governments of producer countries can support the private sector, especially small and medium companies, in order to effectively respond to these emerging measures. Representatives from various countries and international organizations shared their lessons and experiences with due diligence processes, and other responsible business initiatives, in the agriculture and forestry sectors. In these ways, the Dialogue provided an opportunity to share strategies, ideas and innovations, as well as strengthen knowledge. To promote transparency and accessibility, this Dialogue was open to the public, and information about the Dialogue was circulated widely. Additionally, the Dialogue was held on the Zoom platform, and provided opportunities for interaction within the chat box and through Q&A. Interpretation was available in English, French and Spanish. In preparation of the Food Systems Summit, this Dialogue sought to strengthen knowledge and provide space for open discussion, collaboration and trust building.The Dialogue was organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in collaboration with the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) and featured representatives of the environmental and trade sectors from Costa Rica and Colombia, as well as representatives from the European Commission, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the World Cocoa Foundation, the Accountability Framework Initiative, the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Dialogue targeted the private sector, as well as country governments and other relevant stakeholders, presenting them with an overview of how due diligence processes in the agricultural sector can reduce risks, notably negative impacts on forests. It also provided a space for discussing efforts to improve due diligence, traceability and stakeholder engagement, not only in agriculture but also in the forestry sector. It promoted actions by local and national governments, private sector actors, civil society and local communities to transform food systems, as these efforts contribute to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement and other national development and climate goals, including National REDD+ Strategies. The Dialogue recognized the complexity of food systems and the systematic approach required for their transformation, by incorporating a diverse range of perspectives, actors and experiences. Its major themes align closely with the vision, objectives, and projected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit, in particular Action Track 3 on Boosting nature-positive production. The Dialogue was designed to provide information not only to national governments, but also to private sector actors and community groups, thus embracing the Food Systems Summit concept of multi-stakeholder inclusivity.The Dialogue Convenors outlined clear deliverables, keeping in mind the Principles, as well as the desired outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. In preparation for the Dialogue, a concept note was developed, detailing the Dialogue’s aim and specific objectives and identifying the key questions the Dialogue would address. Through doing so, and in inviting a diverse range of speakers, the Convenors were fully able to contribute to the vision of the Summit, recognizing the complexity of food systems transformation and highlighting multi-stakeholder processes and approaches for such transformation. Thus the Dialogue Convenors suggest advanced planning of clear outcomes, in line with the aim and vision of the Food Systems Summit, and incorporating diverse perspectives when discussing food systems transformation, in order to appreciate the Principles of Engagement.

No

234240241242244246249250The Dialogue examined how due diligence processes in the agricultural sector can help to reduce risks of deforestation and other related adverse impacts on people and forests. This focus corresponds particularly with Action Track 3 of the Food Systems Summit – Boost Nature-Positive Production. It was driven by three expected outcomes: provide an overview of existing guidance for private sector due diligence in agriculture and emerging legislative requirements in consumer countries to ensure responsible business conduct/due diligence in agricultural supply chains as they relate to forests and climate change; share experiences and lessons learned from producer countries’ experiences improving due diligence and traceability in the agriculture and forestry sectors; identify needs for technical support to actors in producer countries to effectively respond to emerging measures and strategically attract responsible investment.235240241242244246249250The Dialogue concluded that due diligence can be an efficient tool to achieve sustainable supply chains and reduce trade-offs between agriculture and forests, when implemented correctly. Country experiences, and the lessons shared by other invitees demonstrated that Government’s support is critical to boost initiatives undertaken by the private sector, in order to achieve deforestation-free supply chains. Setting up tools that facilitate stakeholder engagement and dialogue among all the participants of the value chain, from producers to industrials and traders, and including the civil society and public authorities, can be a key for success. Special efforts should also be made to spread technologies to improve traceability and national forest information systems, but also improve the development of platforms to facilitate information exchange. Regarding the possibility of regulatory frameworks making due diligence compulsory, participants stressed that legislation should apply to all players along the value chain to ensure sufficient traceability and transparency. Progress has already been realized in some countries, supply chains and existing systems, which demonstrates why products that are not linked to deforestation should be acknowledged by new regulations. The Dialogue also insisted on the importance of fixing practical aspects like definitions of monitoring and reporting methods (harmonized indicators and criteria for disclosure) to ensure policy effectiveness in halting deforestation. It concluded on the possibility to build upon the numerous existing initiatives, highlighting the urgent need to support small and medium producers and market participants to integrate the dynamics of responsible business conduct favorable to forests.236N/A237N/A

2021-11-19 12:14:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43910/113

7616573364025265256524

The independent dialogue was organized to include panelists from a diverse background. This allows participants to learn more about the topic from different perspectives and to understand the importance of positive nutrition. The moderator began by discussing with the panelists on the change in dietary behavior during the pandemic and explore on the possible collaboration that can promote healthy eating to the Malaysians. The intent is to inculcate the urgency to act on the issues now and explore the options available to meet this goal. Participants can also voice their opinion or questions through the chat box.The dialogue allows us to better understand the challenges from different stakeholders in the food chain as well as to understand some initiatives taken to promote the delivery of positive nutrition to the consumers. Throughout the discussion, there were various methods to tackle the issue, but we deep dived to the topic of partnership.NIL

NoThe Independent Dialogue was held over Microsoft Teams meeting where we invited professionals from various industries to share their views on this topic. The dialogue was promoted over several platforms, both internally and externally. Apart from the UN Summit Dialogue webpage, the independent dialogue was shared through the company website, Facebook page and Instagram. This is to amplify the importance of this topic to all our stakeholders. During the dialogue, only the Moderator and the Panelists are screened while the chat box remains open for participants to express their thoughts and questions.

234238246248Improving the individuals’ nutrition has been highlighted globally and is one of the keys to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (Good health and well-being). Obesity has become a common issue in Malaysia where 50% of the adults and more than 15% of the children are either overweight or obese. Moreover, one in five Malaysians are diabetic and three in ten are suffering from hypertension. This is highly correlated to the consumption behavior. For instance, 95% of the Malaysian adults are not consuming enough fruits and vegetables and 80% of them are also exceeding the sodium intake daily. Of course, the sugar that was consumed was also beyond what is recommended by the WHO. The focus of this independent dialogue seeks to understand the term 'positive nutrition' and the key approaches that different stakeholders in the food chain can do to incorporate the valuable nutrients into the consumers’ diet. (Action Track 1)235238248249From the Nutrition Society’s point of view, dietary pattern of the Malaysians have changed through the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many have seen the negative change in dietary pattern, there are also positive changes in some of the Malaysians’ diet. For instance, there is a growing awareness on the importance of nutrition such as consuming more nutritious food to build the immunity system against the external viruses. Some changes in behaviors include preparing meals at home, purchasing healthier food and increase the consumption of fruits of vegetables. However, there are also a group of people who has the knowledge of healthy eating yet choose not to practice it. They tend to prefer staying sedentary, have a high reliance on delivery platform and is often snacking. Lastly, the low-income families may have suffered the most during the pandemic. Jobs were lost and food, in general, no longer seemed to be within reach. From the Food Manufacturer’s point of view, the pandemic has caused an acceleration in areas such as health and nutrition where there are an increasing number of consumers that pays attention to the back-of-pack information such as the ingredients. This group of consumers tend to purchase only food which contains ingredients that they recognize. In general, there is a greater understanding on the ‘nutrients of concern’ and ‘nutrients of interest’. Consumers should be educated with the knowledge to read the nutritional labels to know what they are consuming as it makes an impact to their health. From the food operator’s point of view, the past 1.5 years has been an extremely favorable year for food deliveries companies, especially due to the pandemic. Apart from convenience, food deliveries solved the problem for individuals who cannot cook. As a food operator, the major consideration is to ensure that the food taste good while ensuring it is nutritious. Food operators should look for innovative food solutions and the scalability of production for healthy and nutritious ingredients so that there can be a balance between meeting business goals and making a positive impact to the people and environment.236238246248249The nutrients of concerns (negative nutrients) such as calories, sugar, salt, fats, cholesterol has been a problem in Malaysia for more than 30 years. Although we need to pay attention to these nutrients, it does not mean that they are to be omitted completely. Instead, individuals can still consume them in moderation. However, the responsibility lies beyond the consumers, but also to food operators and manufacturers. An option to manage the nutrients consumed is through the portion size. Food manufacturers has been working on reducing these “negative nutrients” such sugar and salt content while not compromising on the taste. Food manufacturers should avoid advertising to young children in attempt to increase their consumption. Instead, they should ensure that food items are within the WHO’s dietary recommendation for both the children and adults. They can also explore the fortification of 'positive nutrients' into food items. More attention should be placed on consuming these nutrients, such as dietary fibre, which can be found in fruits, wholegrains, etc. As consumers are selective in their food, countries with an abundance of fruits and vegetables may not equate to a healthy nation. For instance, anemia remains to be a major problem in Malaysia. Having a balanced diet is crucial and more education needs to be done on the topic of food. Understanding the different nutrients can better help individuals attain their goal being healthy, in a sustainable manner. Government regulations and product labelling can be introduced to help individuals make better choices. Food operators and manufacturers have the responsibility to be transparent and provide the nutritional information for the consumers.237238239246248Healthy foods are often perceived as expensive and less tasty. However, with food innovation and the chef’s culinary skills, healthy food can be nutritious yet tasty. Typically, 30% to 40% of the total cost is derived from the raw materials (ingredients). By going directly to the farms and manufacturers, food operators can potentially keep the cost of these ‘healthy’ ingredients within their budget. Alternatively, food operators can collaborate with manufacturers to ensure that the dish remains affordable to the consumers. It is worth to note that we should avoid riding on food fads and products with health claims that is are not proven. As consumers have different perception on the word ‘healthy’, it is crucial that education must be conducted to impart the nutritional knowledge to the general population. This can be done through a multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration. They can, and should, start from the younger generation, such as students. By collaborating with schools to offer talks, curriculum and redesigning of school canteen menus to inculcate this practice into a habit. Most importantly, actions must be put into practice on a long-term basis. As for the lower income group, they may not be willing to purchase premium food items which are perceived to be nutritious. Manufacturers and operators can build an item/dish using a more affordable raw material(s), yet meets the nutrients required by the body. While there is a difference between what the consumer wants (taste and affordability) as compared to the food operators’ (profit), the latter needs to understand that overemphasis on profitability might not be sustainable in the long run. Rather, doing good to the consumers and being customer-centric, is the key to ensure that the business remains sustainable. The challenge is to determine what the consumers want before they even know it themselves. In addition, food items must be packed in a manner that is acceptable to the consumers, both visually and affordability.

2021-11-25 11:55:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/43676/203

57

The discussions at this Independent Dialogue were facilitated in a respectful, holistic and pro-active approach. While put in place, the event was constantly reviewed in order to provide Facilitators, Curators and Participants with the maximum comfort, assistance and voice.The event brought together a wide range of stakeholders, covering different industries, geographies, and expertise. All Participants, Facilitators and Convenors included, had a direct field expertise in the main topic, to secure the legitimacy of the debate and the quality of the recommended outcomes. All details of the events were shared beforehand in a pre-read to ensure transparency. The questions for debate in the breakout rooms were also shared ahead of time. The organisers remained available to questions the whole length of the event preparation, during the event and afterwards. The organisations also provided pre-session rehearsals with the Facilitators, speakers and Curator in order to enhance coordination and fluidity of information flow. During the Independent Dialogue subgroup exchange, Facilitators made sure to present themselves, and asked everyone in their respective breakout groups to present themselves. Cameras on Zoom were up all the time, allowing a friendly and open discussion. During the debates, the Facilitators made sure every voice was heard from, asking for precisions and wrapping up main arguments to ease the continuity of the argumentation. The organisers also ensured that they had one Rapporteur per breakout room to ensure that all important comments were noted for the outputs document.- Conduct training sessions and dress-rehearsals so that all participants feel comfortable and ready - Share as much information as possible with participants ahead of the event for greater transparency and better discussions - Have a diverse range of speakers, facilitators and participants

Yes

234238239241Major focus The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has described the right to food as: “The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.” Yet many people are left behind with no adequate access to food. Approximately 840 million go to bed hungry and an estimated 3 billion people cannot afford a healthy nutritious diet. With the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, livelihoods have been compromised and affordability of healthy, nutritious diets is likely to become an even bigger issue as prior to the crisis. This and the UN FSS roadmap were the backdrop of the recent invitation-only stakeholder dialogue jointly organized by Tufts University and Nestlé on October 1st 2021. In total, 57 external participants from academia, NGOs, private sector, and UN leading organizations convened together. Setting the scene for the discussion were Prof. Eileen Kennedy, former dean and current professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, and Prof. Stefan Palzer, CTO at Nestlé. Systemic and local considerations Key speakers stressed that there is an imperative need for an evidence-based approach to policy and program development and implementation. They emphasized that these types of dialogues are important in making this happen and to focus on three key areas: (1) ‘what works?’: how do we prioritize the solutions and commitments set forward by the UN FSS dialogues in the short to medium term?; (2) ‘under what context?’: solutions need to take the local context into consideration to take decisions and the related tradeoffs; (3) ‘at what cost?’. Creative solutions to complex problems There is a need for a systems approach and a wide range of solutions to tackle this complex issue. This should include education of consumers, farmers and other actors. There is also a need to invest in technology which should include packaging and delivery, to avoid nutrient and food losses. Creativity, passion and pragmatism are integral in making this happen.235238239241Throughout the online dialogue, panellists, facilitators, as well as participants shared their insights on how to make nutritious diets more affordable, accessible, and adequate. This provided a powerful opportunity for participants to have a seat at the table and have their voices heard. Given the importance of including a diverse group of stakeholders in the discussion, we broke out into smaller groups for attendees to engage actively with each other and dive deeper in conversations to explore options for transforming food systems. Here are the main findings. The participants first discussed what the major barriers and corresponding levers were to making healthy diets affordable, accessible and adequate for everyone. 1. There is a lack of consumer knowledge around what constitutes a nutritious diet which presents a major barrier to placing value onto healthy foods. Education around nutrition is required across the value chain, from consumers to farmers. This can connect consumers to the value of food and thus the nutritional quality. 2. Socioeconomic considerations present a further barrier. For many people (3 billion people, 40% of world population), healthy diets remain beyond reach. Perishable and bulky foods (fish, veg) are more costly to produce, store, and transport, vs. starchy staples. Healthy foods are often more expensive, and many consumers do not have the time or resources to research healthy food choices. Participants stressed that the true price of food must be promoted throughout the value chain to provide better prices for farmers. In many supply chains, average earnings are far below a living income or wage. Women are by far the furthest from a living income/wage. Additionally, a lack of gender empowerment, inequality, and a gender pay gap in all countries present a major barrier. Woman and underrepresented pupils need to be put at the forefront of discussions. Small-scale farmers, food workers and their communities should have greater influence over food value chains and receive a fair share of value. 3. While some consumers simply cannot afford more healthy options, other choose not to. This is furthered by the marketing and attractive packaging of unhealthy products. Companies can align nutrition commitments with commercial policies and portfolio management. For example, by making healthy varieties their main/star products. Healthy products should not be premium but the norm. 4. Supply chain actors have a role to play as well. There is a need for more appropriate farming knowledge as basic research in agriculture remains rooted in old paradigms. Supply and distribution inefficiencies can lead to food waste, which is felt keenly in poorer populations. Further development of sustainable packaging can tackle food waste and reduce environmental impact. Sector-wide KPIs would give stakeholders a sense of direction and performance, incentivising business to prioritise bringing the consumer healthy and nutritious food. 5. Participants also delved further into political, local and cultural considerations. One size does not fit all and it is important to take into account local and regional differences. Each will have a different starting point and there is a need to understand local barriers, habits and cultures better. The role of cultural and religious practices needs to be taken into account and differs with each local context. Policies should stimulate local innovation, solutions, sourcing, entrepreneurship. Market led nutrition and the understanding of local consumers are important to provide relevant solutions. There is a need for cooperation between all actors and stakeholders, from smallholder farmers to those working with the public and consumers in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all and collectively move towards the 2030 SDGs. • Policymakers must take into account local and regional differences. Local barriers, habits, cultures and religious practices must be considered when legislating. • Government must lead and frame appropriate policies, ensuring that incentives are aligned, improving education and acting for cities and rural areas. • The private sector has a key role to play in proving access to information for consumers, and should not wait for regulations. • Academics must research trade-offs, food environments and consumer behaviour change, and universities should build on community engagement to bring academic expertise to programs. • In consumer engagement initiatives, it is important to include those who are directly affected by nutrition deficiencies, and who may not have a seat at the table: e.g. consumers in low-income countries and the Global South.236238241What are the major barriers and corresponding levers to making healthy diets affordable, accessible and adequate for everyone? Barrier: Lack of knowledge/ access to info There is a lack of knowledge around what a nutritious diet entails to consumers. Further, at universities, academics focus on teaching and research, but neglect community engagement, so that huge expertise is lost on the subject. Levers: Close the information and knowledge gap through better education. Education across the value chain from farmers to consumers; clear and transparent labelling on nutrition; encouraging companies to share their data so that approaches can be standardised; understanding local consumers and their knowledge of food, so as to adapt processes and products accordingly. Barrier: The socioeconomic resource gap Healthy foods are often more expensive, whilst affordable products are less healthy. Some consumers do not have the time or resources to inform themselves around healthy food choices. There is a lack of accessibility to nutritious and healthy foods, furthered by urbanisation. Women are disadvantaged in this area due to lack of empowerment, inequality, and pay gap in all countries. Levers: closing the income gap through financial levers. Lowering the price of healthy foods, or raising income for lower income groups; merging these measures would be better still. The true price of food must be promoted throughout the value chain to provide fair income for farmers. SMEs, small suppliers and farmers should be given easier access to capital, at low interest rates to enable proper investment. Barrier: Lack of demand for healthy items: Consumption habits are hard to change - this would require education and social innovation. A large proportion of consumers can afford a healthy diet, but opt against it. The marketing and packaging of unhealthy products is often more attractive, whilst the taste of affordable and nutritious foods can act as a barrier. Levers: engaging and incentivising consumers through better marketing and communications. Companies can align nutrition commitments with commercial policies and portfolio management. Communications with consumers must be gradual in order to successfully change habits. Manufacturers should work more closely with sales and distribution partners to better reach consumers with healthy and affordable products. Behavioural science should be used to reach consumers. Supply side and production barriers There is a lack of appropriate farming knowledge - basic research in agriculture remains rooted in old paradigms. There is a lack of alignment in nutrition and commercial policies within companies, whereby nutrition commitments are not always aligned with portfolio management. There has been a significant decline in new entries into the agribusiness. Supply and distribution inefficiencies lead to food waste which is especially felt in poorer populations. Levers: shift procurement and supply chain models. To tackle food waste, inefficiencies must be reduced, and sustainable packaging further developed. Supply chains should be shorter and less complex, and regional food systems must rely less on multinational corporations. Clear KPIs are needed for the ''Food Transition'' for climate change. Procurement models must shift to consider local contexts - local sourcing could increase the affordability of nutritious proteins at the local level. There is a clear opportunity for private sector action, regardless of policies. Barrier: Political, local and cultural considerations Local and regional differences must be considered, as areas have unique local barriers, habits and cultures. Cultural and religious practices must be considered in local contexts. Developing countries are often under-represented in the international food trade system. Levers: Policy incentives and role of government. Incentives for all actors across the food value chain must be aligned. Better data and policies are needed to manage the food environment, and to apply to local contexts. Policy makers can integrate nutrition into agricultural policies, to ensure farmers are incentivised.236238Area for discussion in breakout rooms: What is the role and the responsibility of the different stakeholders in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all and collectively move towards the 2030 SDGs? Government: Must lead and frame appropriate policies, ensure incentives are aligned, provide better education, act at city- as well as rural- levels. Government must set standards to protect the most vulnerable. Often, government does not have the knowledge. There is a need for a road map to study the food system in specific countries and how we define what people should be eating. The role of government is to gather knowledge and generate evidence based national plans. Private Sector: Industry has a key role to play in various stages ranging from portfolio management, R&D investments, micronutrient fortification, to shifting consumer behaviour through labelling and marketing. There is a significant opportunity for public/private sector collaboration to increase farmer access to expertise, skills, land and technology. The private sector can commit to ethical standards and continue the critical work such as improving crops, driving local innovation, optimizing supply chain, sourcing etc. The private sector has a key role to provide access to information for consumers, especially around health information. The food Industry should focus on reformulation. Academia: Academia can break down siloes and improve understanding of the true value of food. Academia has a role to play in researching trade-offs, food environments and consumer behaviour change. It can also enable the integration of nutrition into basic agricultural research, plus standardizing data collection and processing. Universities need to have more engagement with the community to bring academic expertise to programs. Consumers: Consumers need to be empowered to choose the right foods. It is important to include those who are directly affected by nutrition deficiencies, for example consumers in low-income countries.

2021-11-29 17:37:33204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/48920/98

780

In organizing the dialogue, 3 Youth led Agribusiness and Climate Networks in Africa we re engaged. These are Young Professionals for Agricultural Development (YPARD Africa), CAADP Youth Network, and The African Youth Initiative on Climate Change (AYICC). It was important that these Youth led networks work together to ensure a common voice on Food Systems for Africa. There was deliberate alignment of the Agenda to the 5 UNFSS Action Tracks. https://events.africayouthdialogue.com/concept-noteOur need to act with urgency conforms with the 2030 agenda which envisions a food secure Africa and the world. As young people in Africa, representing youth led organizations in agribusiness, we ensured a maintained focus on the 5 UNFSS Action Tracks. Our dialogue was attended by over 78 participants from the content and outside the continent who underscored the need to communicate the complexity of Food systems, as systemic as it is, to all stakeholders. Additionally, this dialogue explored the finding of Paper Reviews of each Action Track and realized a set of commitments in form of a Position Paper.There is need to ensure a multi-stakeholder approach. A Leave No One behind concept will achieve the Systemic Systems nature of Food Systems

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249250251The dialogue (i) established a roadmap for meaningful youth engagement with national governments and relevant stakeholders beyond the food systems summit, (ii) produced an Africa Youth in Agribusiness and Climate Change Position Paper /Advocacy and (iii) Framework on “The Pro-Youth Africa Food Systems We Want”235238239240241242243244246248249250251African Youth agreed to establish a unifying Network for Youth-Led Agribusiness and Climate Change Organizations. It is through this unifying network that African Youth will ensure active and targeted engagement in the policy environment that will deliver on the outcomes of UNFSS 2021.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/THE-POSITION-PAPER-AFRICAN-YOUTH-DIALOGUE-ON-FOOD-SYSTEMS_Final.pdfhttps://events.africayouthdialogue.com/concept-note

2021-12-03 16:01:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44044/111

303030

The independent dialogues were organized to bring together farmers representatives from different locations in Madagascar. We explicitly chose farmers representatives rather than different stakeholders as the small-scale farmers are often not heard within the food system actors. The dialogue gave them opportunities to make their voices heard on the issues that are pressing them most. Through the group discussions, participants had the opportunities to exchange with their peers and understand their state of the art on climate-related issues.Throughout the dialogues, the participants showed their commitment to foster a connection and combine forces to tackle and overcome their common issues and achieve their common goals, sustainable production and improved livelihoods. The discussion and exchanges reflected the mutual respect of their diversity as they saw it as an opportunity to learn rather than obstacles. With the facilitators and moderators, we committed to allowing everyone to speak freely and safely, and share their opinions within the group discussion as well as during the discussion outcomes’ summary.Organizing events with small-scale farmers and motivating them to engage in discussions requires patience and understanding for their perspectives and help them to relate the topic into their daily life so that everyone is on the same ground. It is critical to create an inclusive and supportive environment where everybody is encouraged and empowered to voice opinions freely. For the convener, it’s important to relate to participants regardless of educational or professional background and support bringing their opinions forward and motivate them to share their concerns related to their livelihoods in an unrestricted way.

Yes

234240241242244Smallholder farmers in developing countries like Madagascar are the backbone of food production and the most vulnerable to exacerbated climate impacts. However, many research findings to support farmer livelihoods are unable to provide practical solutions, mostly because the knowledge does not reach small-scale farmers. This is often due to a lack of understanding farmer issues, communicating through the wrong channels, or not providing the knowledge needed. As a consequence, weak policies have been persisting which perpetuate unsustainable agricultural practices, causing harm to the environment, and making it difficult to mitigate severe hunger and poverty among smallholders farmers. For our dialogues, we convened representatives of rice farmers from the central part of Madagascar in Antananarivo and representatives of vanilla and rice farmers from the north-eastern in Antalaha. The overall aim was to understand the issues that smallholder farmers are facing along with their needs to solve these issues. To have more targeted discussions, we focused on climate change impacts on crop management, yields, and livelihoods. With two separate workshops, we specifically aimed to i) identify their issues and knowledge needs and ii) the communication tools to best deliver this knowledge and to exchange with scientists, farmers and other stakeholders in food systems. To achieve these goals, we divided the dialogues into two topics: 1) issues and knowledge needs and 2) communication and technology. In the first part, the participants discussed the main issues related to climate impacts on crop production and livelihoods. With all the identified issues, we then help them to formulate the knowledge they require to solve the identified and the most pressing issues. In the second part, we aimed to understand the most effective way to contact the farmers and to disseminate the knowledge they need as identified during the first part to become more resilient to climate change and to improve their livelihoods. They also discussed the potential communication and knowledge transfer between farmers.235240241242244Based on the exchange during the dialogues, we found that both Rice and vanilla farmers in Madagascar are severely affected by climate change impacts. However, the impact of climate change varies from one community to another depending on the location. Nonetheless, the impacts are all related to the reduction of the yields in both crops when we asked the participants to do a retrospective for the last 5 to 10 years. Furthermore, the yield decreases have then impacted livelihood with an increase in hunger and poverty for many households based on the discussion outcomes of the representatives. With the various issues mentioned by the farmers' representatives, their needs in terms of knowledge were also reported and they reiterate the urgency of these needs to solve the most pressing issues they have. Overall, the knowledge needs are mainly related to the agricultural techniques that can help them to mitigate the impact of climate change, preferably through in-person training.236240241242244Topic 1: Challenges related to climate changes and needs in terms of knowledge to solve the issues During the first part of the dialogues, we guided the farmers to discuss and exchange about the issues related to climate change that they are commonly facing. For rice farmers, all the participants reported that the agricultural calendar, more specifically, the growing season calendar has been changed. This has therefore made it difficult for them to know when to start planting seeds for instance. Moreover, participants also reported that the increasing heat and the lack of rain have made soil drier, the seeds are not growing as usual, and pest pressure has increased, which reduces their yields. In terms of livelihood support, faced with drought, farmers often lack support in terms of equipment or materials that can help them for instance for irrigation. Moreover, they are lacking financial support or assistance during the lean season or when the year is very unproductive (e.g. extreme drought or severe flood and no yield at all). For vanilla cultivation, farmers also encounter problems related to climate namely drought or heavy rain, affecting pest pressure and plant physiology. In addition, Often drought decreases the soil quality quickly and reduces yield within a short time. In sum, extreme changes in the weather threaten vanilla plants in many different ways from pest to disease and the fragility of the liana and all these affect the quantity and the quality of their yield in general. Besides climate-related issues, vanilla farmers also are facing issues caused by environmental degradation. In this sense, farmers reported that for instance loss of forests has affected the vanilla plantations, in general, as they perceived the soil quality has deteriorated rapidly and the kind of pests that diseases that are damaging their crops are increasing rapidly. Faced with these challenges, farmers discussed and shared their needs in terms of knowledge to overcome the issues themselves. In overall farmers reported their needs in terms of techniques and materials that can help them to become more resilient to the effect of climate change at the same time maintain or even increase yields. Topic 2 : Communication and knowledge transfer channels Amongst a plethora of information, almost all farmers reported that they have an internet network where they live. However, the actual use of the internet remains a luxury that many farmers cannot afford. This is mainly due to the cost of equipment (e.g. smartphones) and the cost of internet bundles per se. Indeed, Madagascar is one of the countries where the internet is highly expensive. Nonetheless, few participants said that few farmers use the internet occasionally but not enough to get the information or knowledge they need. In general, the most effective way to communicate directly with farmers and for researchers to pass on knowledge or findings to solve the problems mentioned above is through phone calls and face-to-face meetings at the local level.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/List-of-participants.docxhttps://www.tomcwanger.com/about-3-5

2021-12-04 10:48:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45373/203

103347532631039219322917522852

The principle of engagement of this dialogue as per Action track 2 i.e holistic consumption of food particles so that wastage will be les as it has been reported that about 45-57% food are wasted worldwide. So I as convener tried to aware the Global population about prevention of food loss.This dialogue consists of individuals from various sector starting from farming to economist, a thorough discussion was made among all participants to find out a solution to prevent food loss so that the hungry people can get food.Yes, My advice to my fellow convener is that they should involve people from all possible sectors in their dialogue process so that some positive solution may come out at the end.

Yes

2342382392402442452462491. All participants agreed that we are mainly responsible for food loss and unknowingly we are depriving the hungry people from food 2. Some suggested for holistic consumption of food 3. Some NGO proposed to work towards the supply of excess food found in various social activities by rich people. 4. All are agreed to consume holistically so as to prevent food loss.235238239240241243244246247249251The main findings are 1. All should take a pledge for sustainable consumption 2. Excess food should be distributed among poor and hungry people so as to achieve SDG1 and 2 3. A strong Policy to be framed in Government level for all offices/social gatherings/function organizers like marriage or any other related activities mentioning that no license will be given if they violate the guidelines of prevention of food loss.2362382392402412442462472492511 One outcome of this dialogue is to frame a common action for prevention of food loss and equitable livelihood 2. Another outcome is that NGO should involve in distribution of excess food that are being reported by rich people to poor and hungry people 3. There should education starting from School level about holistic consumption of food so that the children can act accordingly at their youth stage237238239240244246249251In this dialogue process there is no specific divergent issues as all agreed upon a common strategy for prevention of food loss by any means.

2021-12-04 11:17:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45369/203

5226653761669152110475111177

The dialogue mainly adhered to Action track 5 i.e we should prepare our poor farmer to fight with any stress due to climate change and hunger.My dialogue reflects the equitable distribution/supply of user friendly technology/research among all farmer youth across the Globe through PFTMy sincere advice for my fellow dialogue convener is that they should focus in such themes which are really applied to social upliftment of our downtrodden people.

Yes

234238240241242243244246248249250251The major focus of this dialogue is to make available the technologies/research/ innovations from lab to land so that poor farmer can get a simplified technoligy for agricultural developments. Also the involvement of student youth in this process will surely give an opportunity for the student youth in inclusivity to eradicate Global hunger.235238240242243244246248249250251The main findings is that all the findings/innovations/literature related to technology/research/achievements in academic and scientific arena should be available free for the local people involved in agriculture and other allied sectors. It should also be farmer friendly technology in simplified version for the empowerment of women and youth. They can also be economically strong which can prevent farmer suicide cases across the Globe due to climate change.236238240242243244246248249250251The outcomes are 1. There should be PFT patent free technology transfer policy across the Globe in Agriculture, Climate change and food processing sector so that poor youth(men, women and PLD) can be benefitted and can empowered with updated technology in combating climate change issues in their agricultural production process.237238240242244245246248249250There are no specific diverged issues in this dialogue process.

2021-12-05 05:19:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45349/203

1134695774210872551051061088

The dialogue focusses on the resource recycle, improved technology, better economic status, reduction of agro-wastes and other related resources through circular economy.My dialogue reflects the issues related to improvement of circular economy as this is the process through which the waste resources can be introduced holistically to the main system .My suggestions to my fellow conveners is that they should involve all sectors in the dialogue process for a thorough discussion on a specified theme for better outcome.

Yes

234239240241242243244245246248249250251The major focus of this dialogue are 1. on recycling of waste resources 2. improved technology to be developed Globally 3. Holistic selection of the waste resources to be chosen for recycling 4. To improve the economy of farmers 5. Policy to be framed by Government with regard to familiarize the circular economy235239240241242244245248249250251As far as this dialogue is concerned farmers and agroecological researchers put forth their views on recycling of various agro-waste and other related items in a sustainable way so as to prevent loss of resources. As the data shows more resources are wasted than the production, so more focus was given on the recycling of useful portion of agro-resources for improving the circular economy.236239240242243244245248249250251The outcome of the dialogue are 1. All participants lay stress on reuse of resources sustainably for a strong economy 2. In this process wastage will be less 3. The selection of waste material to be recycled should be carefully choosen so as to avoid any health hazards 4. More focus are given on recycle of nature based products 5. Circular economy is the need of the hour237238239240242244245246248250251No specific divergence observed in the dialogue process

2021-12-05 05:46:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45357/203

4432297530395521102587

My dialogue is based on the principle of involvement of student youth across the Globe for a dramatic change in society through their knowledge sharing on climate change, proper technology, helpfulness sense, awareness techniques and pursuance.My dialogue reflects the real issues related to the empowerment of student youth in terms of proper knowledge, sense of social awareness, right motivation and scope in decision making process.My suggestions for my fellow dialogue convener is that they should focus more on student based concepts and their involvement in social security and food security isssues.

Yes

234238240241242243244246248249251The major focus of this theme are 1. Proper database of Student youth across the Globe 2. Empowerment of Student youth in terms of Knowledge, sense of social awareness 3. Motivation of the student youths 4. scope for Agri-preneurship in addition to study 5. Involvement of student youth in every decision making process of Government235238240241242243244246248249251The main findings are 1. Student youth are the backbone of any country 2. They should be empowered with proper knowledge and techniques 3. They should motivated properly 4. Student youth can be given priority in all decision making process236238239241242243244246248249251The outcomes are 1. All participants, mainly students and local people put forth their concerns about the awareness of various themes among people of civil society and particularly farmers and indigenous people. 2. Role of student youth is a major resource 3. Student youth can be game changer in food security process 4. Energetic youth are the need of the hour237238239241242244246249251There is no specific diverged opinion on the theme

2021-12-10 02:15:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/48707/165

50192832723213331116331

The independent dialogue was organized to include panelists from a diverse background. This allows participants to learn more about the topic from different perspectives and to understand the importance of positive nutrition. The moderator began with a poll question to find out more about the behavioral changes from the pandemic and subsequently sharing the key statistics of Singaporean’s health status. Panelist also shared some of the initiatives that the organization is practicing before discussing on the possible collaborations to achieve a healthier nation. The intent is to inculcate the urgency to act on the issues now and explore the options available to meet this goal. Participants can also voice their opinion or questions through the chat box.The dialogue allows us to better understand how organizations from different industries can play a role in promoting nutritious food to the nation. Panelist also shared the obstacles that they encounter, and some strategies to overcome the hurdles. Throughout the discussion, there were various methods to tackle the issue, but we deep dived to the topic of partnership.NIL.

NoThe Independent Dialogue was held over Microsoft Teams meeting where we invited professionals from various industries to share their views on this topic. The dialogue was promoted over several platforms, both internally and externally. Apart from the UN Summit Dialogue webpage, the independent dialogue was shared through the company website, Facebook page and Instagram. This is to amplify the importance of this topic to all our stakeholders. During the dialogue, only the Moderator and the Panelists are screened while the chat box remains open for participants to express their views and questions.

234238243The survey conducted between 2019-2020 has shown that the number of chronic diseases in Singapore has rose compared to the last survey in 2017. The number of Singaporeans suffering from diabetes has increased to 9.5%, while 1 in 3 Singaporeans have hypertension and 4 in 10 have high blood cholesterol. Unfortunately, obesity rate across all age group has also risen, while majority were contributed by the male population. The focus of this independent dialogue seeks to understand the awareness of Singaporeans towards good nutrition and how the stakeholders in various industries can contribute towards building a healthier nation (Action Track 1).235238243246From the poll results, majority of the respondents pointed out that they have increased usage of food delivery platforms and a substantial number of audiences also practices cooking at home during the pandemic. Manufacturers pointed out that there is a surge in demand for products to improve personal hygiene and healthier foods, along with supplements. Nutritional supplements continue to be a fast-moving product during this period and consumers are constantly searching for food items that can increase their immunity, such as Vitamin C. Plant-based products has also become a trend as there is an increasing number of individuals who wants to be healthier and consuming in a sustainable manner. While food delivery is on the rise, many Singaporeans began cooking their meals as they get inspirations from social media platforms. This is also aligned with the poll results. Some of the food operators have already began emphasizing on nutritious food before the pandemic. While many may have put on weight during the pandemic, there is another group of people who started practicing a healthier lifestyle. Many realized the importance of nutritious food and there is an increased demand for vegetables, grains and plant-based food. However, there might still be a lack of food knowledge among Singaporeans. For instance, fruits are often perceived to be healthy but excess sugary fruit juices in actual, is not favorable to the body. The government took a well-rounded approach to bring the population towards a healthier nation. Food programs are targeted at children to adults and the seniors, specifically. For instance, food programs target at seniors emphasizes on increasing calcium and protein intake. The government also works with the manufacturers of packaged food to introduce the Healthier Choice Symbol program (HCS), which is widely recognized by the public. Moreover, the government also offers grants to food manufacturers and food operators to promote the research and development on nutritious food and encourage them to offer healthier food options. To reduce the sugar intake among Singaporeans, the government will be introducing new regulatory measures for pre-packed sugar-sweetened beverages which includes a grading system and advertisement restrictions.236238239248Food manufacturers have been working on offering nutritious products to the consumers. By ensuring that the nutritional values of the products adhere to the global standards, consumers can make better choices and have a positive impact to both their health and well-being. The company emphasizes heavily on plant-based products since it promotes a sustainable consumption pattern. Some of the food operators have proven that nutritious food can remain to be tasty. The in-house dietitian can work closely with the Chef team to tweak both the ingredients and the recipe to ensure that the dishes meet the dietary requirements of the consumers. Food operators are encouraging consumers to consume less animal protein, to move towards a plant-forward diet by replacing them with plant-based protein. However, this must be performed progressively since the population has been accustomed to animal protein. A good way to introduce plant-based protein is to incorporate them into local dishes since they are more widely acceptable. It is challenging for manufacturers to reduce the nutrients of concerns such as sugars and fats because of the limitations in the current technology. These nutrients have chemical properties that contributes to the food item. For instance, sugar allows ice cream to have its structure. Manufacturers will need the support from external parties to continue to offer nutritious food to the local community. Partnerships are essential to make this positive change. Partnerships can also be in the form of training to educate other food operators in promoting nutritious food.237238The government programs aim to inculcate healthy dinning from young. By increasing the accessibility of healthy food in school, students can start the habit of healthy consumption. Through offering grants, the government incentivizes businesses to reformulate their products and menu in attempt to increase the accessibility of nutritious food to the nation. By adopting the government initiatives, food operators can rethink and innovate new menu to excite its consumers. While ‘Work from Home’ has become the new norm and snacking at home becomes inevitable, food manufacturers can help the consumers in the portion control by ensuring that the products meet the nutritional standards. Food operators can review the current recipes and substitute the ingredients with other sources that are higher in nutritional content. With the increase in demand for quick meal options, the fast-food chains have been growing substantially. Even though they are often perceived to be ‘less nutritious’, they can still be consumed moderately by selecting the correct combination. Fast-food operators can also offer more options for the consumers such as pairing with food items such as salad for a set meal.

2021-12-10 16:56:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/44410/203

32921211612848132405563514840836334

The Dialogue was designed to share evidence with governments, private sector actors and other stakeholders of how food systems transformation can contribute to halting deforestation, including through country efforts to use climate finance as a catalyst for scaling ups. The Dialogue was designed to highlight financial opportunities (for example blended finance, concessional finance, and result based payments) to use public leveraging instruments to develop forest-positive agriculture. The Dialogue presented financial opportunities to support forest positive agriculture. It also shared country experiences and revealed how public funds can leverage and de-risk private investments that ultimately support national climate, biodiversity, and sustainable development objectives. To promote transparency and accessibility, this Dialogue was open to the public, and information about the Dialogue was circulated widely. Additionally, the Dialogue was held on the Zoom platform, and provided opportunities for interaction within the chat box and through Q&A. Interpretation was available in English, French and Spanish. In preparation of the Food Systems Summit, this Dialogue sought to strengthen knowledge and provide space for open discussion, collaboration and trust building.The Dialogue was organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in collaboration with the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) and featured representatives of the forestry/agriculture/environment/finance sectors from Argentina and Indonesia, as well as representatives from the private sector (Fondaction) and other UN-affiliated organizations (Green Climate Fund, United Nations Environment Programme). The Dialogue presented participants with knowledge of financial opportunities to scale up forest positive agriculture, such as REDD+ results- based funding, to develop forest-positive agriculture. It discussed the role of climate finance and other financial solutions in scaling up forest positive agriculture within the private sector. It also promoted knowledge sharing by providing an overview of the financial opportunities to finance forest positive agriculture and related innovative financial mechanisms. The Dialogue recognized the complexity of food systems and the systematic approach required for their transformation, by incorporating a diverse range of perspectives, actors and experiences. Its major themes align closely with the vision, objectives, and projected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit, in particular Action Track 3 on Boosting nature-positive production. The Dialogue was designed to provide information not only to national governments, but also to private sector actors and community groups, thus embracing the Food Systems Summit concept of multi-stakeholder inclusivity.The Dialogue Convenors outlined clear deliverables, keeping in mind the Principles, as well as the desired outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. In preparation for the Dialogue, a concept note was developed, detailing the Dialogue’s aim and specific objectives and identifying the key questions the Dialogue would address. Through doing so, and in inviting a diverse range of speakers, the Convenors were fully able to contribute to the vision of the Summit, recognizing the complexity of food systems transformation and highlighting multi-stakeholder processes and approaches for such transformation. Thus, the Dialogue Convenors suggest advanced planning of clear outcomes, in line with the aim and vision of the Food Systems Summit, and incorporating diverse perspectives when discussing food systems transformation, in order to appreciate the Principles of Engagement.

No(there were no discussion groups)

234240241242244246248249250The Dialogue explored the theme of climate finance opportunities to foster forest-positive supply chains. This focus corresponds directly with Action Track 3 of the Food Systems Summit – Boost Nature-Positive Production. The Dialogue was guided by 4 expected outcomes: provide an overview of opportunities to use climate finance, including REDD+ results-based payment mechanisms, to develop forest-positive agriculture; provide an overview of how carbon finance can de-risk and incentivize private sector investment in forest-positive agriculture, conservation and restoration of forests; provide an overview of the innovative financial opportunities to improve access to forest-positive finance, including concessional finance and blended finance; share experiences and lessons learned from countries’ efforts to utilize climate and nature-based finance as a catalyst for scaling ups and implement forest-positive agriculture, and demonstrate how this supports national climate ambitions and transformational change.235240241242244246248249250The Dialogue concluded that there is an urgent need to scale up finance into nature-based solutions, and the promotion of ‘forest positive’ agriculture is critical to addressing the interlinked challenges of climate change, biodiversity, food security and global health. Country experiences, and the lessons shared by countries and subject matter experts alike, demonstrated forthcoming finance opportunities to halt deforestation. The Dialogue found six main actions to scale up public and private financial efforts to mitigate the negative consequences of commodity production on forests: 1) Policy coherence, including fiscal reforms, strategic investments, and repurposing of subsidies; 2) Innovation by pursuing new investment mechanisms; 3) Strategic use of national/international public investments to strengthen enabling conditions; 4) De-risk private investment and mobilize additional finance; 5) Carbon market/REDD+ results-based finance to foster positive agriculture; and 6) Redirect private sector investments to forest positive agriculture through addressing/eliminating deforestation risks in the existing investments of corporate and financial institutions. The Dialogue further concluded that all stakeholders, and governments in particular, should keep in mind the following lessons for effectively using financial opportunities to halt deforestation: Concessional finance and Blended finance opportunities to de-risk and leverage private sector investment; Pursue innovative financial mechanisms, including combining various financial instruments (e.g., grant, loan, green bonds, revolving fund, subsidy, taxation, etc.); Partnership and platforms for the common agenda are key to coordinate various stakeholders, with competing objectives, working in the same landscape; Seek carbon farming and environmental market opportunities to support smallholders and local governments (e.g., carbon market, result-based payment, payment for ecosystem services, etc.); Finance activities that strengthen the enabling conditions to foster forest-positive supply chains (e.g., sufficient regulatory, legal, and financial systems and commitments, clear land ownership, traceability system, etc.); and Redesign and redirect national budget and private sector investments into sustainable supply chains.

2021-12-17 22:36:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/49161/194

5647101101227147172183

Since the start of the Zero Hunger Pathways Project Dialogue series, which began in March 2021, steps have been taken to incorporate, reinforce, and enhance the Summit’s Principles of Engagement. This included discussions to increase awareness of the Principles among Co-chairs and Working Group Members, integration of the Principles into the audience curation and outreach process, and using the Principles to inform the Dialogue format, including sharing the principles of engagement with session moderators of breakout sessions in preparation for their session, and verbal reinforcement of the Principles throughout. Dialogue 4 was planned using feedback provided previously through anonymous surveying of past dialogue participants, and Working Group members were asked to reach out to colleagues and stakeholders with relevant expertise, in order to complement the work of others and ensure a productive, respectful, inclusive discussion that was committed to the summit.Zero Hunger Pathways Project Dialogue 4 acts on the urgency of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by using a systems approach to address hunger in the United States. Recognizing how innovations can be scaled to help eliminate hunger for larger populations helps create short and long term solutions to hunger and food insecurity. In order to achieve SDG # 2 by 2030, the Zero Hunger Pathways Project acknowledges that actionable, scalable, and innovative solutions are needed. Business as usual will return us to pre-pandemic rates of food insecurity that were unconscionably high to begin with. Dialogue 4 Commits to the Summit by working towards a report that will outline social, policy and technical recommendations to reach Zero Hunger and identifying education, engagement, and research activities the SDSN USA coalition and partners can undertake to reach Zero Hunger in the United States by 2030. This dialogue connects stakeholders, seeks input from a variety of perspectives, and identifies ways to move forward collectively and creatively. By opening up breakout rooms for open discussion, moderated by trained facilitators, the dialogue created an environment of respect, multi-stakeholder inclusivity, and trust. Dialogue 4 brings in stakeholders and experts with many different backgrounds, recognizing the complexity of these systems. Presentations at the start of the program provided case studies, and discussions in breakout rooms built off and complemented work that has already succeeded in taking interventions and innovations to scale.Advice for other Dialogue Convenors about appreciating and fulfilling the Principles of Engagement include: accepting that not all discussions will come to consensus in the given time; embracing the differences in opinions; asking for feedback from participants, including on logistical points such as dialogue time, location, and length; and encouraging moderators and facilitators to bring their expertise and experience while also trying their best not to take sides in order to respect and elevate the perspectives of all participants. Additionally, it may take additional time and effort to ensure stakeholders are identified to participate, but ensuring individuals whose expertise is relevant to the conversation are included yields a more productive discussion and more robust recommendations.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249The Zero Hunger Pathways Project (ZHPP) is a collaboration that applies a systems approach to end hunger in the United States. The collaborative aims to chart equitable, resilient, and sustainable pathways to profoundly improve availability, accessibility, utilization and stability of healthy food for all. Dialogue 4: Taking Innovations to Scale sought to focus on the hunger crisis in the United States by engaging participants in identifying innovative anti-hunger initiatives from across the U.S and discussing what is necessary to scale these innovations. Examples of innovations taken to scale that were explored in the dialogue include the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty Meals-to-You program, and the World Hunger Relief, Inc. Produce Prescription Project. All action tracks are included in this exploration.235238239240241242243246248249Identifying best practices and successful, scalable community-based interventions is a useful approach to combating hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity. Experts at the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty have many examples of doing just that, and provide a blueprint for building scalable models. For an issue as complex as hunger and poverty, it would be difficult to solve alone. No one organization or even one single sector is going to be able to address the effects of hunger and poverty by themselves. While scalable models are built and interventions are identified, there may be missing steps that prevent it from moving to scale. Crucial to scaling interventions is that these projects are multi-sectoral and collaborative, often including government, NGO, non-profit industry, or faith based stakeholders. Additionally, there are three keys to scalability: research, practice, and policy. 1. Research must be informing and evaluating the intervention, and retrieving up-to-date information on a daily basis to determine the worthiness in scaling to different communities. 2. The area of practice needs to be committed to embed work and test in close proximity to communities on a daily basis in order to accurately identify the problems and the contributing aspects of hunger and food insecurity. Solving hunger and food insecurity from a distance does not work. The component of practice when scaling innovations highlights the importance of being embedded in communities and having the work to be in conversation with researchers in real time. 3. As most large-scale interventions to end hunger are influenced by various policies, it is critical to make policy a core component. The area of policy needs to look at specific federal or global policy, or develop new policy focused initiatives. Experts from the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty highlighted a project of theirs called Meals-to-You, which began as a Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty pilot program in 2019 to provide nourishing, shelf-stable meals through the mail to families in rural areas across Texas to address rural hunger or hunger in very remote areas in the country during the pandemic.The Meals-to-You model led the U.S. Department of Agriculture to call on Baylor’s assistance during the COVID-19 public health crisis. In partnership with the USDA, McLane Global and PepsiCo, the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty scaled the program nationally providing 5 million meals to rural schoolchildren in 38 states and Puerto Rico. The organization World Hunger Relief Produce Prescription Program also presented their model, which provides community members with healthy produce. Starting off as a pilot, the program now collaborates with four Waco Family Medicine clinics. Doctors at these clinics can connect those who could benefit from the program with boxes full of fresh boxes of produce twice a week. These boxes are filled with seasonal veggies and a recipe in English and Spanish.236238239240241242243244246248249250The overarching discussion topic was answering the following questions: What innovative anti-hunger initiatives address equity, healthy diets, resilience, and sustainability? What needs to happen to scale these initiatives? What are challenges to addressing intersecting issues in one initiative? What is needed to encourage innovation and interdisciplinary approaches? Answers included the following, framed by the 3 three keys to scalability: research, practice, and policy. Anti-hunger initiatives need to ground their work within practice. Participants advocated for those partaking in anti-hunger initiatives to do this by building relationships with external and internal partners and the populations hunger and food insecurity initiatives seek to support. The areas of research, practice, and policy are key components when looking to scale solutions to end hunger. Research must be informing the initiative, evaluating different initiatives, and retrieving up-to-date information to determine the worthiness in scaling to different communities. The area of practice needs to be committed to embed work in close proximity to communities on a daily basis in order to accurately identify the problems and the contributing aspects of hunger and food insecurity. The area of policy needs to look at specific federal or global policy, or develop new policy focused initiatives. Co-creative efforts are needed. It is vital to empower those who have experienced hunger and food insecurity by seeking out their expertise and stories. Identify who the story tellers are to create effective science policy communication. The best storytellers are not the academics and experts of the field, but the people who live within and experience the systems. Initiatives need to empower communities and give those impacted the opportunity to take ownership of their intervention. Increasing local efforts and incentivizing local agriculture to support their surrounding communities can empower those experiencing hunger and food insecurity. Growing locally will help local health and the local economy. Community efforts can include implementing biodiversity, engaging the youth with agriculture, creating community gardens, and installing peer groups so that those impacted have easy access to learn about food systems and listen or share lived experiences. Gaps in hunger and health, as well as hunger and policy, need to be identified. Connections between biodiversity, sustainability, and long-term health and wellbeing should also be made more clear. Individuals and families impacted would benefit from being able to implement diet-related changes by understanding that health-related issues are possibly contributed to what they are eating. Participants highlighted the disparities in income spent on food and income spent on healthcare and if healthcare is addressed, income and health can be allocated to healthy food diet habits and change in patterns in food desserts. Equity with hunger and food insecurity should be addressed by getting to the root causes such as systemic racism with farmers of color. Participants highlighted and advocated support for the SB. 300 Justice for Black Farmers Act that aims to address historic discrimination in federal farm assistance and lending within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that has caused Black farmers and their families to lose millions of acres of farmland and billions of dollars of intergenerational wealth. Creating projects with the four pathways (equity, health, resilience, sustainability) in mind is important for achievement of SDG 2. However, there will likely be tradeoffs between these pathways. While some innovations maximize one core value, innovative opportunities may not maximize all values simultaneously, but as efforts and evaluations are made the balance of core values will be more identifiable.237238239240241242248249250Though these innovations are essential for community members and can provide short term solutions to the long term problems of food insecurity and malnutrition, dialogue participants still pointed out that root causes of hunger still need to be addressed in order to create interdisciplinary pathways to long term resilience, sustainability, health, and equitability. The Zero Hunger Pathways Project continues to develop a systems approach that also takes into account poverty, health outcomes, and other factors. However, many dialogue participants see value in local innovations and interventions, and promise in scaling these innovations to reach more people and increase effectiveness. The dialogue also included discussions of planning projects with the core values in mind and how to tackle such tradeoffs during project development and management. Some dialogue participants shared the thought that “you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”, as ensuring all core values are met can create roadblocks and slow down progress.

2021-12-28 01:42:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/48705/113165

732149332411164736514

The independent dialogue was organized to include panelists from a diverse background. This allows participants to learn more about the role of palm oil and its impact to the environment. Panelist also shared some of the existing initiatives before discussing on the possible collaborations towards a sustainable sourcing of palm oil. The intent is to inculcate the urgency to act on the issues now and explore the options available to meet this goal. Participants can also voice their opinion or questions through the chat box.The dialogue allows us to better understand how organizations from different industries can play a role in reducing the environmental impacts when using palm oil. Panelist also shared the obstacles that they encountered, and some strategies to overcome the hurdles. Throughout the discussion, there were various methods to tackle the issue, but we deep dived to the topic of partnership.NIL

NoThe Independent Dialogue was held over Microsoft Teams meeting where we invited professionals from various industries to share their views on this topic. The dialogue was promoted over several platforms, both internally and externally. Apart from the UN Summit Dialogue webpage, the independent dialogue was shared through the company website, Facebook page and Instagram. This is to amplify the importance of this topic to all our stakeholders. During the dialogue, only the Moderator and the Panelists were screened while the chat box remains open for participants to express their views and questions.

234239244Palm oil was first introduced into Malaysia in 1875 and in 2005, palm oil became the most consumed oils and fats globally. There are some special qualities in the palm oil which makes it difficult to be replaced. For instance, palm oil is used in cooking oil as it is non-GMO, stable in high temperature, nutritionally balanced and many more. The same oil is also present in palm-based oleochemicals, which is the main ingredients for cosmetics products. Till date, the plantation of palm oil imposes several issues, such as the labour involved, and the inefficient usage of fertilizer and herbicides. The focus of this independent dialogue seeks to understand the importance of palm oil, its impact to the environment, the current initiatives and possible partnerships, towards achieving a sustainable production of palm oil.235239244246250As the population continues to increase, the global production of palm oil has soared tremendously. These production facilities are often located in tropical countries and usually in areas with high level of poverty. Palm oil is more popular than other cooking oils because of its productivity in output. For instance, palm oil has a yield of 3 tonnes per hectare, as compared to soybean which yield 0.5 tonnes per hectare. If we were to substitute palm oil with other cooking oil, it will shift the same problem to other parts of the world. In the last 40 years, the number of animals living in the forest has decreased substantially, mainly due to deforestation. Even so, the demand of palm oil is expected to continue rising in the coming years. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, RSPO, has a set of principles and criteria which comprises of legal, economic, environmental, and social aspects that members must adhere to. This defines how the production of palm oil is to be done in a sustainable manner. However, the challenge often, is to incorporate conservation with development. As nations develop, there are bound to have a negative impact to the environment. The objective is to conserve the existing environment as nations progresses.236239244246249RSPO acts as a third-party certification body that links the businesses with the producers that are practices sustainable production. This is especially helpful as the demand for sustainable palm oil has been growing. With a credited certification body, businesses will be assured that the producers deliver the product as per specifications. Moreover, there is a growing number of businesses who are also working towards ‘deforestation-free’ supply chain, whereby they only purchase from palm oil producers who no longer practices deforestation. However, because RSPO is yet a mandatory requirement, it is difficult to prevent the non-RSPO producers from deforesting. As a consumer, we can make the change by supporting sustainably-sourced palm oil, so that producers would be obliged to join RSPO and to adhere to the rules, minimizing global deforestation. Moreover, government policy on land use can make a huge impact to the industry, especially on palm oil producers who are not a member of the RSPO. This allows the producers to carefully select the areas of plantation under a specific set of criteria, preventing the inferior areas from being deforested and being left unused. In addition, conserving plots of land to protect the endangered species.237239244246248249As the RSPO-certified palm oil tends to cost higher, food operators can control their costs by purchasing palm oil in bulk (high volume), achieving the economies of scale. Alternatively, food operators can partner with local suppliers to introduce the sustainable products to the consumers. Government intervention such as the Malaysia Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) certification, is a regulation in Malaysia. This makes it mandatory for the producers to ensure that they comply to the criteria of the MSPO, otherwise their license will be revoked. Although MSPO may not have the same set of criteria as the RSPO, it is still a step for producers to achieve a sustainable production of palm oil. In the past, RSPO certification is something foreign to the producers. As the demand for sustainably-sourced products grew, this certification has now become a default for businesses in pitching for projects/contracts. Since the certification requires some operational tweaks for the palm oil producers, businesses can work hand-in-hand with producers towards achieving the RSPO certification.

2022-01-04 08:07:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/26819/32

9613933212051441181056191252362611831313433211631629

We wrote a Concept Note which not only provides details on the topic, but we incorporated the principles of engagement (specifically: being respectful to everyone, acting with urgency, building trust, complementing each other's work to build synergies that strengthen our food systems and embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity). We highlighted in the Concept Note how each invitee should be mindful of the principles as they listen in and contribute to the dialogue in their varying capacities. We also made mention of this in our email invitations. In the start of the Dialogue, our Curator Jessica Mmola highlighted each principle to further reinforce their importance in fulfilling our discussion objectives.Everyone adhered to the principles by respectfully embracing all opinions and solutions shared in giving them due consideration. By the end of the dialogue, there was a lot of contact sharing for people to effectively form synergies.They will help your dialogue run smoothly as they create an inclusive environment for open conversation and a safe space to explore different ideas, even if they are from different perspectives. The principles encourage healthy debate and healthy dialogue for problem solving and to unite in our plight to strengthen our food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244248249250251The focus was for an exploratory discussion on what place Indigenous and Alternative foods (as in edible insects like Ants, Termites, Crickets, and Mophane Worm) have in Botswana's food system. The objectives of the conversation were to explore ideas with the potential to make our food system more nutritious, dependable, and lucrative using these foods by bringing forward solutions that are: a) Smart (Involving more ‘tech’ to make processes from farm to fork more efficient to minimize production losses and to make affordable products) b) Climate Friendly (Climate-friendly practices from farm to fork) c) Sustainable (strong enough to meet the demands of National Food Security) The dialogue also explored ways in which the addition of technology in agriculture can help expedite the process and minimize losses. The main questions were: How will Botswana sustain nutritious and reliable food systems as the pressure to feed growing populations increases? Can we turn to use foods that occur naturally to augment our cultivated food systems and diversify our diets without undue pressure on the environment? In our dialogue, we explored this topic from each of the five Action Tracks for wider exploration while exposing links between key players to strengthen the food system. The following questions are what we focused on in each action track: 1. Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all - How can we make indigenous and alternative foods affordable and more accessible to all? - What are the nutritional benefits of including indigenous food and insects in our diets, especially across tribes [tswii, phane, flying ants]? 2. Shift to sustainable consumption patterns - How do we control the over-gathering and overconsumption of these foods? - What government laws, regulations and penalties are in place? 3. Boost nature positive production - What constraints do food producers such as smallholder farmers and small-scale enterprises face in the food value chain? - What opportunities can solve their problems (e.g. workshops that teach on drones detecting soil fertility or plant disease outbreak or pests) - Can we encourage environmental tax penalties to protect and regulate indigenous food harvesting and production as a way to collect tax and regulate natural resource abuse? 4. Advance equitable livelihoods The goal is to create productive employment and decent work for all people in the food value chain and enable entrepreneurship. Here we want to focus on improving the livelihoods of people in villages and smallholder farmers who usually farm and provide these raw materials. Most especially, we want to focus on youth inclusion. Youth need not view food production at any level in the value chain as a second rate job. - How can we show young people the huge opportunities in the industry? - How can we attract them? - Can we allow their new methods and technology into the existing system? - How can we increase the value of indigenous foods through processing for export? - What international trade opportunities since the Africa Free Trade Area can we identify? 5. Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress - How do we protect our food sources so as to not deplete them; what regulations does the government enforce to this effect? - Are there safe food storage places to stockpile these foods during their off-seasons?235a) Strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems Issue: Disunity in the food system could slow down processes from farm to fork Solution: The Botswana Natural Products Association will help key players be accountable and review processes. More dialogues could bring people together to review the food system and make changes going forward. b) Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized. Issue: Lack of government price restrictions results in high prices at the harvesting level; affecting manufacturers' pricing model and therefore, costs are pushed onto the customer. Solution: The hope is to take this up with the government and create policies and restrictions surrounding the matter. Manufacturers and harvesters can work together to improve the quality and price of the product ultimately236239243249251Unifying and strengthening local value chains by: a) Creating synergies through dialogues and online expos to close gaps in the value chain between harvesters and manufacturers. b) Registering harvesters, manufacturers, and retailers in the Botswana Natural Products Association database for easy contact access among key players and encourage partnerships. c) Keeping companies that produce local foods accountable by the Botswana Natural Products Association maintaining contact and accountability with them and introducing shared projects. Increased research in the area of indigenous foods to harness more of their power. a) ‘Wild Plants For a Sustainable Future’ by Kebadire K. Mogotsi, Tiziana Ulian, Cesar Flores, Rafael Lira, Avhatakali Mamatsharaga, Patrick Muthoka, Samodimo Ngwako, Desterio O. Nyamongo, William Omondi, Abdoul K. Sanogo, Sidi Sanogo, and Efisio Mattana is a research book on indigenous foods and their uses that addresses the UN sustainable development Goals to ‘end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all’. This is a book that can aid the research needed to explore more of our indigenous foods will create workshops with practical applications for capacity building and knowledge sharing. Sustainable harvesting policies a) These can be created by National Agriculture & Development Institute and Botswana Community Based Organizations Network and agreed upon endorsed by the government. b) Natural resource and technical committee of rural development council can influence policy and make research easier for sustainable harvesting, semi-processing, and supplying manufacturers with these semi-processed raw materials. Securing funding for activities a) The Botswana Natural Products Association in conjunction with community building bodies such as rural development council, NGO Council, ‘Ntlo ya Dikgosi’ (House of Chiefs) and Poverty Eradication to secure funding to set up semi-processing centers in each community to help communities process their yield of harvested indiginous foods to add value to them before selling to manufacturers. b) The Rural Development Council is currently working on indigenous food product prototypes to be commercialized. c) Technology transfer for building processing factories and practical workshops on the commercialization of indigenous products. d) Intentional farming of indigenous foods to curb over-gathering. e) Building consumer demand through marketing campaigns that celebrate alternative and indigenous food.236240243245246248249The constraints food producers such as smallholder farmers and small-scale enterprises face in the food value chain are: - lack of government support and intense independence on food production - lack of funding support - government bureaucracy across African continent - high input costs leading to low profits - struggles with exporting products across countries and internationally - lack of infrastructure - insufficient political support and youth involvement - lack of markets and water access - perception versus approach in which government perceives agriculture has the work of the farmer only and does not get engaged in the actual physicality - governments have a top-down approach The opportunities that could solve their problems: - provision of subsidies to deal with water access to drill boreholes - make agriculture sector attractive to attract youth with appropriate marketing campaigns - effective and efficient land use for agriculture - subsidies for production and maintaining production e.g. covering weeding costs - building infrastructure such as roads - use of drones like managing and checking harvesting of honey from hives - integrating insects as compost - move towards partnerships - adopt a more bottom-up approach between authority and farmers - UN Red in Nigeria to detect disasters such as drought - governments have a top-down approach, so the solution is to give a more bottom-down approach - reduce taxes as they only lead to impoverished societies Contributions our organizations can make: - advocating for smart technology - sharing knowledge and empowering each other - extensive study of what is going on the ground to see what's going on (get real-time data to use for studies) - government looking at the environment to make it more conducive and safeguard resources236242244245246248249What actions in the next 3 years will have the greatest impact on the discussion topic? - Building resilience: we have 3 main aspects to look into when we talk about resilience. These are challenges, commitment & control. - Reinforcement of already existing storage. - Providing different storages for different types of food so that all types of food are catered for. - Technology: management of farms can now be made accessible and available using our day-to-day gadgets, for example, Barulaganyi App which is designed to help farmers track their livestock. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? - Developing strong policies: the ministry needs to enforce existing policies and develop new ones which are beneficial to the nation at large. - Engaging the youth in summits that talk about food security and safety. - Documentation of ideas and opinions of different stakeholders in dialogues. What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? - Low/ lack of rainfall: the solution is to resort to underground water sources and the use of new and improved irrigation systems - Lack of income: the government should lessen funding criteria - Lack of knowledge: offer training to the youth and adults Contributions from our organizations: - Raising awareness about smart farming, climate-friendly crops, and livestock, sustainable farming methods. - Host more dialogues to get fresh ideas from the youth across the world. - Share information with relevant stakeholders, to assist with funding and marketing236238246247248249Solutions posed were: - Educate Batswana and find a champion, a leader, and representative - Alignment of policies to promote synergy - Protect small producers by price regulations - Encourage international Franchisers to include indigenous foods in their menus - Focus on tech in agriculture to involve the youth236241245247Solutions posed were: - Advancing equitable livelihoods from farm to fork - To make all aspects of producing to consuming in the value chain more lucrative - The general consensus was that more attention needed to be paid to branding and packaging to attract all consumers. Maungo Craft products were an example of international standard packaging. - Gaining knowledge positions us internationally; Local Enterprise Authority offers businesses classes that can be marketed more for business development. Continuous education also offers affordable courses at the University of Botswana for business development - Increased marketing to make indigenous foods more attractive237246a) Strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems, Issue: Disunity in the food system could slow down processes from farm to fork. Solution: The Botswana Natural Products Association to help key players be accountable and review processes. More dialogues could bring people together to review the food system and make changes going forward. b) Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized. Issue: Lack of government price restrictions results in high prices at the harvesting level; affecting manufacturers' pricing model and therefore, costs are pushed onto the customer. Solution:The hope is to take this up with the government and create policies and restrictions surrounding the matter. Manufacturers and harvesters can work together to improve the quality and price of the product ultimately

2022-01-10 12:15:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/46669/203

19725514837256021289122312154211131469111272621283621

The five convenors paid careful attention to ensuring that the Summit principles of engagement were fully incorporated in the organization of this dialogue. The urgency to act for accelerating progress on the achievement of the SDGs in the Mediterranean by 2030 was strongly highlighted, as well as the need to recognise the complexity of food systems. Multi-stakeholder inclusivity was also embraced, with a gender-balanced participation of representatives from diverse stakeholder groups on all shores of the Mediterranean and beyond. The facilitator of the roundtable panel ensured respect and trust among all participants, including members of the audience, who were actively engaged through the Zoom chat and Q&A session. This Dialogue acted as a catalyst of people, organizations, governments and existing networks that have the potential to join forces and bring concrete impact on the ground, leading food systems in the Mediterranean towards sustainability, ultimately advancing regional progress on the 2030 Agenda. All participants embraced the principle of acting with urgency and in a coordinated and collaborative manner. They were all committed to contribute to the Food Systems Summit’s follow-up, moving forward with transformative actions for the concrete implementation of a food systems approach in the Mediterranean.The design of the dialogue reflected the principles of complexity, respect, trust and inclusivity. The roundtable discussion provided very rich inputs, with experiences being shared on the participatory formulation and implementation of national pathways for food systems transformation. The speakers and panellists were all given the opportunity to voice their opinions equally and inclusively. Participants came from 34 different countries across the Mediterranean and beyond, and belonged to more than 15 different stakeholders groups. The dialogue served its purpose of highlighting the importance of coordination across and within countries for the achievement of common solutions for shared goals, highly relevant in the context of the Summit’s vision and areas of action, while taking into consideration local specificities and cultural aspects. The dialogue was also an opportunity for stakeholders to connect to the SFS-MED Platform, an initiative aimed at fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration, policy support and investment for sustainable food systems transformation in the Mediterranean. The SFS-MED Platform is co-developed by the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Secretariat of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), in collaboration with the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA), and as an affiliated project of the One Planet Network’s Sustainable Food Systems Programme (OPN-SFSP).Bringing together stakeholders groups with different perspectives and influence on the food system can be challenging, but it is also a crucial opportunity to capitalize on ideas emerging from possible areas of divergence, and to create synergies and partnerships on areas of consensus.

NoThis dialogue was conceived as the third in a series convened under the framework of the SFS-MED Platform. The discussions held in the first dialogue in April 2021 (https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6814/) mostly focused on common actions and solutions for more sustainable food systems (i.e. “what” is needed); while the second dialogue in June 2021 (https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15756/) pivoted on four main crosscutting means of implementation or “enablers” (i.e. “how” to implement the actions). The first two dialogues served as inputs for Mediterranean countries and stakeholders in their preparation towards the Summit and formulation of the national pathways. A summary of the discussion from the first two dialogues is available in the executive brief “Accelerating Food Systems Transformation in the Mediterranean” (https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CB7166EN, also available in Arabic and French). The aim of this third dialogue was to take stock of regional and national efforts in support of the follow-up to the Summit, as well as exchange on the way forward and identify opportunities for collaboration in the implementation of the pathways. In their opening remarks, OPN-SFSP and PRIMA emphasized how the Summit created a wave for food systems transformation that is now moving forward, and which requires a multi-stakeholder approach and strong cooperation in line with SDG17 and the G20 Matera Declaration on Food Security, Nutrition and Food Systems. Then, FAO presented the findings of a stocktaking exercise of national and independent dialogues convened in the Mediterranean region, which was authored by FAO, CIHEAM and UfM (https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb7978en). The most interactive session was a roundtable discussion and live Q&A session where Member State Dialogues Convenors from 4 Mediterranean countries engaged with 4 stakeholders’ representatives from the civil society, private sector, finance and research/academia. The convenors chose the panellists to ensure an adequate balance in gender, geographical and stakeholder type representation. The moderation of the FSSD Senior Advisor, Dr David Nabarro, enabled the panel discussion to be highly participatory. Attendees had the opportunity to raise their questions and provide their perspectives through the Zoom chat box, which were answered live by the event organizers and panellists. Moreover, the event had live interpretation in English, French and Arabic to ensure multilingualism.

234The major focus of the Dialogue is to build a way forward for stronger regional collaboration on food systems transformation (FST) in the Mediterranean region after the Summit, stimulating consensus around the relevance of multi-stakeholder partnerships to address common challenges and take advantage of shared opportunities. Hence, the exchange of views among the four Member State FSS Dialogues Convenors (Albania, Egypt, Italy and Turkey) and the four stakeholders’ representatives – Arab Women Organization (AWO), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT-Food), and BETA Technological Center of the University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia – pivoted around the following key points. 1) Do the findings of the stocktaking of Mediterranean Summit Dialogues reflect stakeholders’ priorities? 2) How to foster the development and implementation of national pathways? 3) How can regional collaboration support the UNFSS follow-up process in the Mediterranean? 4) Which actions/initiatives can be taken to best operationalize the UNFSS outcomes in the Mediterranean? The Dialogue outcomes highlight: • The urgency of implementation and monitoring of national pathways towards FST to be enhanced by multi-actors cooperation and inclusive SFS governance (also at local/sub-national level). • The importance of exchanges around the Mediterranean – between and within countries and across sectors – to transfer innovation and knowledge. The SFS-MED platform is considered a key initiative to foster effective collaboration on FST in the Mediterranean. • The need to create synergies between the UNFSS national pathways and ongoing strategies and action plans and existing monitoring frameworks being implemented at country level. • A call for the private sector to engage in transformative actions through more sustainable business operations, driving innovation and technological advancements, through effective partnerships with public sector, civil society and research/academia. • A call for international and national financial institutions to stimulate innovation through tailored financing and investments mechanisms that make sustainability more affordable. • The consideration of FST as an opportunity to empower the most vulnerable groups, enhancing entrepreneurship, creation of new job types, knowledge and technology transfer, and social inclusion.235The main findings that emerged from the Dialogue are summarized as follows: i) The SFS-MED Platform offers a unique opportunity to bring together Mediterranean stakeholders to support implementation and monitoring of concrete actions and pathways for FST in this region, as well as to foster the establishment of a Community of Practice on SFS. The Platform will open a space of exchange across the Mediterranean in view of scaling up good practices and advancing concrete solutions to tackle the current challenges facing FST in the region. ii) The stocktaking exercise identified a set of shared priorities that emerged as common to most countries in the region, considered as entry points regarding what to transform in the Mediterranean food systems. These are: green and circular economy; blue and circular economy; sustainable management of land and water in the context of climate change; the Mediterranean diet as a lever for sustainable consumption and production and healthy diets; cities and rural–urban food systems as drivers of change; equitable and inclusive development of rural livelihoods; resilience; and trade and food safety standards. iii) Adapted financing solutions are conducive to sustainable investments and growth around food systems. The sustainable finance of FST will enhance investments in green, circular and blue economy models able to provide eco-friendly, healthy and affordable food for the Mediterranean communities. iv) The private sector and innovation centers are called upon to disseminate new and affordable technologies, while making them more accessible through capacity building and awareness raising schemes. Innovation projects and initiatives can promote cross-fertilization between science, policy and business about FST in the Mediterranean region. Evidence-based solutions to achieve SFS should be up-scaled through the region, promoted by multi-stakeholder partnerships. v) The creation of networks between local, national and international stakeholders is conducive to inclusive governance and ownership of FST. Women empowerment and engagement in FST through increased access to knowledge, technology and leadership is necessary for creating economic and social development opportunities. vi) In order to leverage the strategic role of the Mediterranean diet for FST in the region, CIHEAM Bari is organizing the Third World Conference on the Revitalization of the Mediterranean Diet, to be convened in Bari (Italy), in September 2022.236Member State FSS Dialogues Convenors praised the efforts of the SFS-MED Platform in offering a unique opportunity to gather stakeholders with different but strongly converging mandates to foster sustainable and inclusive development for the Mediterranean region. It is important to continue the dialogue and build consensus on collaboration of stakeholders at national and regional level, and promote cooperation between countries for the implementation of joint projects. This is in line with the G20 Matera Declaration, which is a milestone in the global agenda for food security, nutrition and food systems. In this context, panellists referred to the potential role of the UN to establish guidelines for the implementation of national pathways. Similar to the SFS-MED Platform, countries are involved in several international fora, with the aim to maintain the focus on key interconnected concerns including water scarcity, climate change and food and nutrition security. National Convenors described their national dialogue process as the best expression of the network of actors jointly committed to build a robust food diplomacy, with the endorsement of high-level political entities (e.g. at presidential and prime minister levels). The engagement of private sector actors as drivers for the implementation of projects aligned with the strategies of blue, green and circular economy was strongly emphasized. Such extensive and participatory consultations resulted in the formulation of national pathways for FST, identifying actions and priorities. Key focus areas mentioned included the promotion of the Mediterranean diet and the agri-tourism sector as a fundamental tool to valorise the cultural dimension of food and food-related traditions, improve local economies and livelihoods through ecosystem-based solutions. Other themes common to several pathways are the balanced use of natural resources, environmental protection, digitalization of agro-food value chains, food quality and safety, the One Health approach and food loss and waste reduction. Attention is paid also to the development of communication plans to promote public-private partnerships and multi-sectorial and multi-stakeholder approaches. Multi-stakeholder inclusiveness and innovation in agro-food are also of paramount importance to foster FST in the Mediterranean region. Moreover, several countries are integrating and identifying synergies between their national pathways for FST and the monitoring framework of existing national plans and strategies, based on SDG targets (e.g. Egypt’s Haya Karimah (“Decent life”) programme, which aims at improving rural livelihoods in the whole country). The next steps at country level will include, for some countries, the establishment of a multi-stakeholder national coordination mechanism to lead the pathway’s implementation; while for other countries, it will focus on prioritizing actions in the pathway and discussing potential sources of finance through focus group meetings. To maintain a high-level of engagement in the implementation process, multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral coordination needs to be complemented by donors, financial institutions and the private sector in technical and financial terms. [Continues in next box]236[Continued from previous box] Stakeholders’ representatives enriched the discussion with insights about the key role of sustainable finance, innovation and inclusive governance. Panellists emphasized how innovative and sustainable financing operations can promote FST by helping companies to become financially stronger while they expand the sustainability of their businesses, making them more energy efficient, and investing in circular economy. Key instruments include equity investments coupled with advice and support for sustainable growth, the provision of financing for capital expenditures as well as the integration of grant elements into loans with the aim to stimulate energy and water efficiency. Finally, technical assistance to businesses encourages the use of new technologies and processes that reduce their environmental impact. Development financial institutions should find the right mix between financial feasibility and sustainability, to help successful businesses go the extra mile and have a positive impact on the country and society where they operate, making investments more inclusive. The implementation of innovation projects and initiatives is key to promote cross-fertilization between science, policy and business about FST in the Mediterranean region. These projects and initiatives enable to scale-up and mainstream results, engaging public and private stakeholders, policy-makers, consumers and the society in general. The involvement of local and territorial stakeholders through the creation of working groups on SFS and the implementation of communication plans may enable to establish a common roadmap or a line of actions to achieve FST in the Mediterranean. More gender balance in entrepreneurship and innovation in the agri-food sector is needed, adopting gender-sensitive measures that consider the fragile situation of women, especially those living in rural areas, which has deteriorated after the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, empowering women in rural areas should be achieved by creating economic and social development opportunities. It is crucial also to work with women leaders in national institutions to raise awareness and knowledge of women on climate change, natural hazards and food security, which would enable them to be prepared to prevent and overcome these challenges. In terms of opportunities, civil society should enhance the interest of women in technology and provide access to affordable technological tools for fostering FST in rural areas. Networking is key to extend and disseminate scientific knowledge to the wider population, making the transformation more inclusive and sustainable. Finally, consumers in both cities and rural areas are the main drivers for achieving sustainable consumption patterns in the region and revitalizing the Mediterranean diet. The role of the Mediterranean diet as a lever for sustainable consumption and production was also emphasized in relation to issues of affordability of and access to healthy foods, making them more attractive, especially for youth and children. To prevent and reduce children’s obesity, governments and in particular cities, should focus on school canteens to improve food education, food habits and consumption patterns. Moreover, the Mediterranean should become the “vegetable garden” of Europe and a leader in enhancing the consumption of vegetable-based proteins. Sustainable management of land and water in the context of climate change is also a crucial point to achieve FST, for example through regenerative agriculture and by increasing efforts to build water smart-industries and societies in Mediterranean countries.237No significant areas of divergence emerged during the Dialogue.

2022-01-10 16:02:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/42219/45

37

Cooperating NGOs in China and connect people through Wechat

Yes

234239240248250Guest Speakers share: 1. Significance of traditional food of ethnic minorities for the transformation of China's food system 2. The importance of Indigenous nutrition and traditional food systems and their worldwide research and Application 3. Study on traditional food of ethnic minorities in Yunnan Province 4. Research status of nutrition and traditional food of ethnic minorities in China 5. Kazak traditional food and use 6. Uygur traditional food and use 7. Blang traditional food and use Panel discussion: 8. How to combine ethnic minority food with commerce to achieve sustainable economic development? 9. Problems and solutions in using traditional food? 10. How to collect, record and develop the traditional diet of ethnic minorities?235239240248249250Overall research status in China At present, the research on nutrition and food of ethnic minorities in China is mainly concentrated in schools, including primary and secondary schools; Focus on BMI, undernutrition, and overnutrition; in general, the undernutrition rate has been decreasing and the overnutrition rate has been increasing; There are few studies on the factors affecting diet; Lack of interdisciplinary research, lack of combination with traditional medicine and behavior. In general, ethnic minority groups with more population tend to have more related publications; ethnic minority groups only living in a specific region are perceived as unique ethnic groups and can gain more attention on research; ten ethnic groups lack research: Tajik, Xibo, Tatar, Hezhe, Uzbek, Gelao, Menba, Lhoba, Russian, and Gaoshan. Nutrients are generally lacking; Nutrition status has improved significantly in recent years. The obesity rate of Han majority nationality is generally higher than that of ethnic minorities, and the malnutrition rate of Han nationality is generally lower than that of ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities mainly have three dietary structures: fishing and hunting food: Hezhe, Oroqen, Jino, Dulong, etc; Animal husbandry: Tibetan, Mongolian, Kazak, Yugur, etc; Mainly agricultural rice: Dong, Miao, Dai, Yao, etc. Yunnan characteristic food (academic discovery) Ethnic minorities in Yunnan have the custom of eating flowers, including rose, plantain flower, Canary flower, azalea, bitter thorn flower, seaweed flower, Tangli flower, etc. Flowers are rich in amino acids, a variety of micronutrients, and vitamins, as well as active proteases, nucleic acids, flavonoids, and other active substances. There are more than 250 kinds of wild edible fungi in Yunnan, accounting for half of the world. Wild fungi contain fat, protein, carbohydrates, crude fiber, a variety of minerals, and vitamins, which have high nutritional and health care value. Such as Boletus, ganba, chicken fir, Tricholoma matsutake, etc. Ethnic minorities in Yunnan eat a large number of insects. It can supplement nutrients such as high protein and micronutrients. Most edible insects contain 28 kinds of free amino acids and 8 kinds of amino acids necessary for the human body. It is also rich in Vitamin A, D, E, B1, B2, B12, and other vitamins; Calcium, potassium, phosphorus, zinc, iron, magnesium, manganese, selenium, and other trace elements. It also contains high-energy phosphorus-containing compounds ATP, cytochrome c, coenzyme Q, and a variety of hormone substances. Including bamboo insects, grasshoppers, acid ants, silkworm pupae, etc. Other findings Not just the ethnic minorities, the impact of fast food culture on the diet of ethnic minorities is also an impact on the diet culture of the Han majority. The Han nationality is also in the process of modernization, and the cooking environment is disappearing. There are no conditions for traditional cooking, and great changes are taking place. With the process of commercialization, many things are changing, and the culture itself is being impacted by modern civilization and gradually disappearing. At present, a kind of adventure exploration has gradually made the minority food materials in remote areas appear in people's vision, and began to explore the sales and profits in the broader Chinese market. It is better to use the novelty and public interest of most people to broaden the market than only to protect and develop the traditional food and food culture. Because moving from rural areas to cities, moving from pastoral areas, and the change of national policies, the change of ethnic minorities' eating habits is far more than that of the Han nationality. Ethnic minorities' youth can accept the traditional diet at home. After going out of his hometown, the traditional diet of ethnic minorities was lost. Minority guests share Kazak people eat a lot of dairy products and meat products. Dairy products include milk, milk tea, milk yogurt, yogurt pimples, butter, milk skin, horse milk, horse milk wine, etc. Dairy products are rich in vitamins and micronutrients. It can improve intestinal colonies, strengthen the stomach and spleen and prevent enteritis, diabetes, and so on. Meat products include beef, horse meat, mutton, etc. The cooking method is stewing or air drying (it can be eaten the next year). There are also some characteristic foods with cultural value. For example, wurezi porridge. There are seven kinds of raw materials, including flour, bone, and meat, rice, millet, milk pimple/yogurt, water, and salt. The porridge represents the longing for a better life. Uyghurs eat a lot of coarse grains, such as corn. Coarse grains contain more unsaturated fatty acids, which have therapeutic effects on the normal metabolism of fat and cholesterol, coronary heart disease, arteriosclerosis, and reducing hyperlipidemia. At the same time, Uyghurs like to eat pilaf. Pilaf is a very nutritious food. Mutton oil, onion, carrot, and rice are multi-vitamin supplements, especially carrot, which is called "little ginseng". Characteristic foods include fennel, which has the effects of promoting Qi, relieving pain, strengthening the stomach, and dispersing cold (Chinese Medicine). It is mainly used for stomach cold pain, abdominal cold pain, dysmenorrhea, hypochondriac pain, colic pain, testicular hydrocele, schistosomiasis, etc. Turnip has the effects of appetizing Qi (Chinese Medicine), promoting dampness and detoxification. It is mainly used to treat food accumulatio237239240241244246248Possible measures and limitations Traditional food is mainly distributed in a certain area, which is not well-known and widely used. For the promotion of traditional food, we should break the nationality with communication, use the developed logistics economy to overcome regional restrictions, and form a regional characteristic business network. Specific methods include: 1. Carry out relevant activities in universities to publicize traditional diet and promote young groups to share traditional food among friends 2. Set up a national chain of traditional ethnic food restaurants 3. use new media, live by voice, and TikTok. 4. Make a documentary about traditional food 5. Emphasizing the efficacy of food may not be beneficial to the protection of traditional culture in the long run. Traditional food can be promoted from the taste of food or other aspects. In the process of mass production of ethnic minority traditional food, we need to find the most acceptable, the most representative of national culture, find the most distinctive, and export cultural image by relying on differentiation. Why people buy special products in a place is to experience the local culture. For areas with serious desertification in Northwest China, residents of big cities have more opportunities for green plants and medical services. In rural areas, there are mainly beef and mutton, less vegetable intake, less medical treatment, high blood pressure, hyperglycemia, tooth loss, and the physical condition is not as good as that in rural areas. Need to change? How to change? Need government policies? Strengthen the supermarket medical system? Or tourism? Business? After the commercialization of local food, such as Yunhai Cuisine, a Yunnan food chain, the food you can eat is similar in appearance but different in reality. Optimized and improved. How can it be accepted by the public and ensure its authenticity? How to balance? The promotion of an ethnic minority diet can be combined with local tourism culture. However, at present, tourist groups combined with ethnic minority food culture in the market are positioned as high-quality products, and the audience is also middle and high-end income groups that can accept the price. If we want to go in this direction, the audience who can publicize food culture is very limited. Very localized food, going out also needs to overcome the physiological and physical differences of people. For example, people will be poisoned by wild fungicides. Use them with caution. In the process of promoting traditional food, we also need to consider the limitations of traditional food. Many traditional foods are rooted in local culture and customs. They are not necessarily suitable for all other people. The unprocessed traditional food of ethnic minorities is unacceptable to most tourists. Now the air-dried yak meat on the market caters to the market through other cooking methods and added seasonings. Only by changing it can it have popularization value. At the same time, changes in lifestyle and taste will bring changes in people's demand for food. Therefore, we should innovatively use traditional food materials to make traditional cooking methods keep pace with the times so that the promotion of traditional food can make people's diet more rich, diverse, and balanced. Controversial topic What is a sustainable food system? Is it the same in different regions? Further discussion and definition are needed. According to the current popular viewpoint of sustainable development, most of the food of ethnic minorities living on animal husbandry is meat, without vegetable dishes, which is unsustainable and contrary to the concept of plant-based recipes. But in fact, the carbon emission of Tibetan areas dominated by animal husbandry is not high. Natural animal husbandry and industrial intensification are actually much worse. Since Tibet is located on the plateau, it is difficult to determine the extent of environmental damage from an environmental point of view by forcibly planting and promoting the concept of a plant-based diet that is not suitable for cultivation in Tibet, or transporting vegetables to them. For meat transported from far away, excessive meat consumption should be replaced by a plant-based diet. We should have different attitudes towards different nationalities and different lifestyles. It cannot be absolute. It is overbearing to judge what food is sustainable by the value of mainstream nutrition. Behind this, we need to consider the debate of nutritional reductionism, genetic differences, public acceptance, and the rationality of nutrition as all standards. Whether to accept the standard of judging nutrition and whether to accept the mainstream green concept is essentially a problem of the cognitive system. For example, Tibetans, focusing on animal husbandry, are group factors rather than individual choices. There are historical factors and a strong locality. Moreover, in ethnic medicine, such as Chinese medicine and Tibetan medicine, both of them have their own way to define how to eat food in a healthy way and have diet-based treatment. We need to consider it rather than adopt Nutrition which is from the western cognitive system.

2022-01-14 19:59:26204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/47119/203

13402512531

To support the UN system’s efforts towards eliminating hunger, and to underscore the interlinkages between SDG 2 and the rest of the goals, i held a capacity building Dialogue for medium-scale farmers in December 2021 last year. with partners/expert on food security, particularly the ministry of food and agriculture Ghana, in the context of rural development were invited to join as panelists to discuss this urgent and multidimensional issue. Local farmers were part of the panel as well as the interactive audience. A special effort was made to include young people in the discussion, as well. The event also served as a Food Systems Summit Dialogue aligned with Action Track 4—Advance Equitable Livelihoods and Boost nature-positive production. To enhance engagement, the event was held both online and in person.Our Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by including in the panel representatives of the UN system, the private sector, civil society and, especially, farmers. All panelists treated each other with respect including during the preparatory meetings when they were invited to meet and Furthermore our Dialogue built on the ongoing work of the UN System.Create inclusive and respectful opportunities and platforms to exchange knowledge; including inclusive language and frameworks that are culturally relevant and receivable.

Yes

234238240241244245246248251Eradicating hunger and achieving food security remain major challenges to humanity and to sustainability. At the global level, hunger and food insecurity were on the rise in 2021. An estimated 25.9 per cent of the global population – 2 billion people were affected by moderate or severe food insecurity in 2021, an increase from 22.4 per cent in 2014, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that there are nearly 690 million people in the world who are hungry, or 8.9 per cent of the world population – up 10 million people in one year and nearly 60 million in five years. and the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the problem. Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture and about a quarter of the world’s productive lands are degraded. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 aiming to zero hunger, along with other closely associated SDGs such as those targeting poverty eradication and climate action. To support the UN system’s efforts towards eliminating hunger, and to underscore the interlinkages between SDG 2 and the rest of the goals, experts and professionals on food systems, population trends and rural development will be invited to join as panelists to discuss this urgent and multidimensional issue. The event also will serve as a Food Systems Summit Dialogue aligned with Action Track 4—Advance Equitable Livelihoods235238240241244245246248251Overall, panelists stressed the importance of access to food as a fundamental right for all people and an inextricable part of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Both food producers and consumers carry responsibility to create a more equitable food system and further noted that food producers also suffer from poverty and hunger, arising from inequalities and injustices. In order for food systems to be more inclusive, sustainable and healthy, further efforts are needed to 1) create jobs, 2) raise incomes across food value chains, 3) reduce risks for those most marginalized within the system, and 4) increase value distribution. Additionally, there must be special attention paid to gender equality in food systems, including the need to provide more opportunities for women in agricultural value chains, such as access to land, markets and decisions. Furthermore, panelists highlighted how the three components of the “livelihood-nutrition-environment triangle” are key to eradicating both hunger and poverty and said that moving agricultural production from input-intensive to knowledge-intensive systems and expanding employment efficiency and diversity into value chains are the two priority actions to ensure a positive and harmonious triangle.236238240241244245246248251Key takeaways from Panel 1: The impact of COVID-19 and population movement on food system livelihoods The first panel discussed recent trends and challenges for ensuring sustainable food system livelihoods from a macro perspective, in particular the impact of population movement and the COVID-19 pandemic on food systems in developing countries. With regard to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food system livelihoods in developing countries, panelists noted that digital tools and people’s solidarity were key to remain resilient during the pandemic. the pandemic was felt through the weakening of national food demands and the closure of many businesses such as caterers and hotels, which led to excess of food production by local farmers. However, people remained resilient by utilizing IT tools to enable “direct selling” by small agricultural producers to local consumers, which ensured many women farmers to continue their businesses and promoted youth participation as digital mediators of food value chains. Growth of urban populations is further advanced by the fact that, overall, farms are becoming larger in scale and more mechanized, which is causing declines in demand for agricultural labor and is pressuring many rural farm workers to find alternative labor opportunities in urban areas. In response to a question by the audience regarding the vulnerability of export-based food systems—an element exposed during the pandemic—panelists stressed that countries must ensure more inclusive, transparent, resilient and environmentally friendly agricultural supply chains, both at global and local237238240241244245246248251The panelists strongly emphasized that more training is needed for their generation, to keep up with changing digital technologies and not miss opportunities because of lack of finance or because class is canceled because of the pandemic.

2022-01-25 20:42:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/45600/203

31031891016150950012100110410006510000460102000101001

Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: This dialogue was designed to bring together a range of stakeholders to surface perspectives on action-oriented research priorities to support a shift toward equitable and sustainable food systems that contribute toward climate action in the next decade. Commit to the Summit: The dialogue aimed to support the vision for sustainable food systems by surfacing priorities and recommendations for action research in adapting food systems. Act with Urgency: This event aimed to identify barriers to action and opportunities to overcome them through collaboration across disciplines and stakeholder groups — and how the Adaptation Research Alliance, its members and other actors collaboratively could seize these priorities/opportunities. The Alliance builds on the United Nations 2019 Call for Action and is intended to provide the pioneering science and technical expertise to inform and underpin the work of the Adaptation Action Coalition. Be Respectful: We briefed all facilitators to ensure everyone would have space to contribute to the discussion, and that all views would be welcomed, understood, and discussed. Build trust: We designed the dialogue to ensure a safe space to communicate, share, and collaborate. A digital platform was selected as a tool to support everyone's participation (both in writing and verbally) and shared decision making (voting).Recognize Complexity: We took a 2-stage approach, consisting of a survey widely distributed followed by a virtual dialogue with multiple stakeholders representing different perspectives (scientists and academics, knowledge brokers, and practitioners, among others), that surfaced priorities and recommendations for action research in adapting food systems. Build trust: The dialogue was designed to be open and transparent. For transparency, the organizers shared the raw (anonymized) data from the preliminary survey. The methodology for processing the preliminary data was explained. The breakout group discussions of the dialogue allowed participants to consolidate, debate, and refine the data. Breakout discussions allowed everyone to be actively engaged, so all played a role in defining key priorities and identifying priority actions. Complement the work of others: The whole spirit of this event was about identifying priority areas for solutions-oriented action research where collaboration is needed to seize those opportunities. Therefore, collaboration implies complementing the work of others, and this was reinforced in the way the small group discussions were designed.The Dialogue Convenors should read the convenor guidance to ensure the event is designed in alignment with the Principles of Engagement. The dialogues should be designed to ensure outcomes are as useful to participants as they are to dialogue convenors.

Yes

234238240241242243Our Dialogue focused on surfacing priorities and recommendations for action research in adapting food systems. The dialogue was the second part of a wider two-step consultation process. A full Chair's Summary from this process can be found here: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/60830. French and Spanish translations are also available.235238240241242243Healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems are essential for food security, and highly sensitive to the impacts of climate change. They also have the potential to play a key role in mitigating and adapting to climate change. Seven priority areas related to food systems were identified in this dialogue: • Transforming food systems • Transitions toward agroecology • Supporting healthy and sustainable diets • Justice, equality, and inclusion in food systems • Supporting the resilience of smallholder farmers • Anticipatory planning for climate risk in food systems • Reducing emissions in food systems The dialogue also noted the absence of some important priorities, including a focus on how we might transform food systems through a better understanding of market demands for increased protein (in particular, meat), and a focus on economic incentives to move towards agroecology. Cross-cutting observations for consideration: • the enormous scale and cost of adapting food systems in the context of climate change, which will demand considerable investment and a transformation in thinking; • the need to consider the pros and cons and ideal circumstances for international collaboration, taking into account that adaptation is essentially local and that collaboration carries transaction costs in terms of time and effort to coordinate action research across diverse actors; • a request that the Adaptation Research Alliance (ARA) document and share the learning from across different research collaborations and experiences; • the urgent importance of understanding and communicating risks and uncertainties, and using risk assessments for decision-making - as a starting point for every project; and • the need to think holistically, rather than addressing each priority as a silo. In chairing this dialogue, IDRC notes its value in exploring which priorities best lend themselves to action research, and which require collaboration. It will nonetheless be important for the ARA to also draw from evidence reviews in designing its research support agenda.236240243246Below are the findings for each of the seven action research priority areas surfaced through the Dialogue: Priority 1- How to transform food systems Proposed focus: The role of multi-stakeholder governance and cooperation across sectors in scaling innovations and increasing transparency and equitable participation in value chains. Why is this important? Transforming innovation systems to deliver impacts at scale and making knowledge and innovation more accessible and actionable to farmers should be a priority. Research in this area would accelerate the deployment of demonstrated technologies and shed light on innovative financing mechanisms to scale new approaches and harness the power of the private sector. We need to better understand how to shift power dynamics and the status quo to transform food systems. Understanding the impacts of this bundling approach is vital for building systemic resilience against climate. Opportunities for action The consultation surfaced 33 opportunities that can be characterized as a set of approaches to exploring food system transformation that focus on the drivers, process and intended “destination” of transformation. 1. Understand the different motivations, drivers, incentives of different food system actors - and those of researchers - and test key leverage points for changing these incentives. For example: • Explore market incentives to support national exports that use sustainable practices. • Develop guidelines for large supermarkets around minimum share of local supply. • Direct market linkage to reduce food prices and reduce the exploitation of small farmers (such as by eliminating intermediaries or creating cooperatives that will increase farmers’ bargaining power). 2. Ensure the PROCESS of transformation is participatory, and that stakeholders, including underrepresented groups (indigenous communities, women, smallholder farmers, low-income households) are aligned to address the root causes of systemic problems. This entails: • Research that adopts a systematic perspective, doesn't reproduce power inequalities, and values local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge; and • Research on the best ways to link farmers (and other often ignored groups of producers such as pastoralists and urban/peri-urban farmers), businesses, governments, and donors to work in the same direction despite their different motivations, drivers, and decision-making processes. 3. Clarify the “destination” - what should we be aiming for in new food systems? Focus on what would bring about a climate resilient and food secure future for all, in each specific context and globally. This includes: • Understanding the trade-offs (such as between adaptation and mitigation, or between food security and food sovereignty) and context specificity, acknowledging that there are different types of farmers and therefore different pathways for transformation; and • Socializing narrative on what it takes to transition to a healthy and sustainable food system, such as reducing meat and unhealthy food consumption; improving environmental regulation in agriculture; engaging all of society; and adopting a wholesale ‘end-to-end’ approach across food systems, from ‘farm to fork’.236240244Priority 2 - How to transition toward agroecology Focus: Practical research to identify the conditions and drivers to achieve the agroecological transition needed to contribute to soil regeneration and food systems that are more sustainable, equitable and climate resilient. Why is this important? Agroecology has the potential to contribute to both adaptation and mitigation of climate change; it would enhance food security at the national level while promoting greater inclusion by benefiting smallholder households and indigenous small producers. Opportunities for action Building on a total of 30 opportunities for action identified through the survey and virtual workshop highlighted the need for funding to support alliances that would broadly engage around the urgent need to shift towards agroecological production, given its contribution to both human resilience (through nutrition, health and social benefits) and natural resilience (preserving soils, biodiversity, and ecosystem services). As part of this paradigm shift, national policies need to promote climate resilient and sustainable food systems, rather than focusing only on for-profit commercialisation of food products. Within the research and policy community, there is a need to build consensus around the central principles of agroecology, getting past the terminology to reduce polarization. To support transition at the farm level, a focus on research-into-use opportunities, such as integrating agroecological production within extension services, will help farmers apply new knowledge and techniques. At the popular level, there is a need to promote collective action and education demanding healthier and sustainable diets. Research must be transdisciplinary and participatory, ensuring leadership from marginalized groups. This may be advanced through collaboration with agroecological and food sovereignty-focused civil society movements around the world, such as Via Campesina, the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, and IFOAM Organics. In terms of research focus areas, the dialogue surfaced a number of opportunities, including: • developing monitoring and accountability systems (including development of metrics) that track health and environmental outcomes of food system policies; • protecting local knowledge, seed biodiversity, plant genetic resources through farmer seed exchanges, and participatory technology development; • generating evidence on the economic advantages of agroecology, and developing business models to make the case for agroecology at scale; and • understanding agroecology trade-offs (and potential ‘triple wins’) for people, nature, and climate in LDCs with context-specific evidence.236238239244246249250Priority 3 - How to support healthy and sustainable diets Focus: Incentives for healthy consumption patterns of sustainably produced food, including plant-based food and low agrochemical inputs Why is this important? The participants highlighted the health and environmental advantages of a plant-based diet and the potentially high impact of wide-scale adoption of more sustainable and health diets. Opportunities for action A total of 43 opportunities were identified, focusing largely around four key areas of potential action: 1.Institutional procurement There is a need to build on existing interventions to ensure that procurement programs (like for school food) meet the joint goals of enriching diets and sourcing food sustainably. This is very relevant for Asia and Africa. Given potential commercial interest in procurement programs, these must be designed with care to ensure the desired nutritional and environmental outcomes. It will be important to research the effectiveness of program design and consider carefully which food system actors need to be included. For equity purposes, decision-making cannot involve only government officials or private businesses, but must also include community representatives - particularly those who are food insecure. 2. Food policy bundle (incl. taxes, subsidies, labelling, marketing regulation) This focal area would aim to create a more enabling policy and regulatory environment – helping to shape demand for more sustainable and healthy diets while also addressing supply-side factors. It may involve, for example, dismantling elements of trade agreements that undermine the competitiveness of sustainable local farmers. The objective is to have macro-level regulatory and economic policy tools that would influence the consumption and supply of not only food products, but also carbon emissions and agricultural inputs (fertilizers, water, and land). This would make the resource allocation in food systems more environmentally sustainable and improve health and equity outcomes. The aim would be to make unhealthy and unsustainable products more expensive than healthy sustainable foods. 3. Building narratives that support a shift to healthy, sustainable diets Addressing food insecurity, dietary quality, and environmental sustainability requires multi-sectoral action and negotiating trade-offs (like between the returns to farm labour and profits for private enterprise, and between food quality and prices). Given the many actors and their incentives, standard critiques that delay action - like the cost of transitioning to healthy diets and the potential impact on private industry of regulations - can be barriers to change. These need to be countered by creating narratives on why and how to make the shift to healthy sustainable diets (like by illustrating the co-benefits for environment and health, and opportunities to increase wages for low-income food system workers). Such narratives can help create an incentive structure to shift industry practices for farmers, agri-business, and vendors towards better nutritional and ecological outcomes. Creating these narratives will require support for advocacy and civil society mobilisation, incl. through investigative journalism that exposes the powerful interests that support unhealthy food systems and reports on the health, economic, and environment impacts of industrial agriculture. 4. Increasing the diversity of food sources (incl. traditional and local and sustainable foods) Multiple food systems can co-exist. We need to expand the reach of food systems that incorporate diverse food sources while addressing food insecurity and ensuring food accessibility, availability, and affordability - which all depend on well functioning global value chains. Increasing this diversity demands understanding the mechanisms for change - how, for instance, increasing the supply of a particular crop involves trade-offs between farmer incomes, land use, and dietary diversity. It also requires understanding the political economy of the relevant food system and how the integration of global food value chains interacts with requirements for ensuring food sovereignty.236241242247249251Priority 4 - How to promote justice, equality, and inclusion in food systems Focus: Combatting food insecurity for vulnerable groups and supporting collective action for food sovereignty and more equal access to healthy and sustainable food for all. Why is this important? This is a cross-cutting priority that intersects with all other areas for action research on food systems, and is instrumental to advancing progress on the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019) finds that empowering and valuing women increases their capacity to improve food security has a multiplier effect, contributing to poverty reduction, food security, and better nutrition for families and whole communities. Opportunities for action The consultation surfaced 29 opportunities which, through discussion, crystallized around three key research opportunities: 1. Address how research is carried out in food systems for more inclusive and just outcomes. This entails engaging all actors in the food system, including women and marginalized groups, through a highly collaborative approach — building coalitions and collective action through the research process itself. This includes an emphasis on rights-based approaches. • Support research that drives and scales collective action and resilience practices, such as by linking researchers to civil society groups working on food sovereignty (among other areas), and explore ways to incentivize food producers to embrace resilience and nutrition rather than only mass production. • Understand the behavioural factors that underpin social change processes, such as by focussing on knowledge translation, engaging youth, and improving education on climate change and food systems. • Intentionally integrate justice, equity, and decolonizing lenses into every stage of research to drive food system transformations that support the most vulnerable. • Prioritize transdisciplinary and participatory research that combines traditional, local, and Western knowledge systems. 2. Link social policy goals and related support measures (such as social safety nets and access to finance) to climate and agricultural policy through incentives. • Focus incentives for transforming food systems on tackling the root causes of inequality. Such incentives might include, for example, measures that help overcome powerful business interests and ‘growth at any cost’ economic models, or that link local producers with community groups serving the vulnerable. • Target subsidies to promote agroecological production that meets food, social, and ecological goals, and discourage environmentally harmful practices. • Create voucher systems that link people with limited means to local food systems. 3. Address the structural and systemic exclusion of marginalized groups, removing institutional and governance barriers they face, and increasing their access to and influence over decision-making. • Take a rights-based approach, including respect for the tenure and land claims of Indigenous groups. • Move beyond action research toward a rights-based approach that prioritizes legal empowerment of marginalized groups. For example, entrench the right to a healthy environment in law, thereby providing legal recourse for marginalized people. • Use education to inform grassroots groups pressuring elected leaders to shift policy. • Integrate analysis of power relations into food systems research to reveal vested interests and engage influential actors in food system change.236240242244Priority 5 - How to support the resilience of smallholder farmers Focus: Promote locally produced and consumed food and increase the access of smallholder farmers to markets and to climate adaptation and mitigation options. Why is this important? Enhancing the welfare and resilience of smallholder farmers in the context of climate change is essential for food and nutrition security. Opportunities for action From a total of 34 opportunities identified, discussion focused on three key areas of potential action: 1. Help smallholder farmers access markets and grow their incomes. Markets-related action research can facilitate smallholder farmers’ access to markets, helping them grow their incomes and achieve both financial and food security. The two main research opportunities are: • institutional innovations in terms of how market actors, particularly smallholders, collaborate; and • exploring what kinds of markets support different kinds of smallholder farmers. We can also explore what happens to markets and how they respond in crises, and how to support well functioning markets where transportation links are minimal, especially during and after crisis situations such as conflicts or climate-related disasters. Digital communications - particularly of market-relevant information (like climate services, commodity prices, or market access information) – are increasingly important. It’s also important to explore innovations to address value chain disruptions considering the range of different market actors – including smallholders - affected by such disruptions. Research around markets should include a comprehensive and systemic approach to food production and distribution (e.g., local food system platforms linking food production, transport, commercialization, and consumption). Smallholder farmers should also have access to climate advisories, early warning systems, and adaptive safety nets to reduce risks coming from climate variability and extreme events. Gender considerations are important to ensure the care burden and time poverty of women farmers are addressed to enable them to participate in markets. It is also critical to explore alternative opportunities for income generation through economic diversification programs. 2. Promote e-commerce and other mechanisms to facilitate direct interactions between consumers and producers. Rapid e-commerce growth in certain countries during the pandemic caused disruptions for farmers. While e-commerce offers important opportunities, it also poses risks to small farmers. How can we increase smallholder farmers’ access to this technology and help them tap its strength in connecting with consumers? Many do not have access to the connectivity and infrastructure required. There are also big regional - and gender - differences in access. E-commerce can support income growth for smallholder farmers, but it requires appropriate linkages among different actors involved. In other contexts, NGOs or other entities may be better suited to this role. Context-specific research can shed light on how best to facilitate these linkages. There is a clear opportunity for action research and policy influence to find innovative ways to make these digital technologies more user-friendly to both men and women farmers and more accessible to youth, which could motivate their renewed participation in agriculture and food production. 3. Enhance information access, training and capacity development for smallholder farmers. For smallholder farmers to be relevant and profitable in the current competitive environment, continued education, timely knowledge access, and training emerged as important. Farmers need further training and information in such areas as climate-smart (climate-resilient) crops and practices, sustainable agronomic practices, and financial management. Developing and implementing well designed training programs for agricultural extension workers who can adapt knowledge to local contexts for smallholders to understand and implement, is another area of research opportunity. Supporting peer learning and bridging research-into-use through digital tools are other opportunities.236242243247Priority 6 - How to plan for climate risk in food systems Focus: Adapting to extreme and slow on-set changes through rapid learning, foresight, and sustainable agricultural practices. Why is this important? Climate change and extreme events pose a wide range of human and economic costs, including famine. Focusing on reducing climate risk in food systems would benefit local governments and those engaged all along the food supply system. Opportunities for action From a total of 27 opportunities identified, the three priority action areas are: 1. Create storylines (socialization in public discourse) to communicate narratives that support transformation in a complex system. This would entail improving communication: • between government ministries and departments, to help to surface trade-offs. Irrigation, for example, may reduce risk in terms of agricultural productivity, but may increase risk in the water sector, or the health sector; • with consumers - who are shifting their diets or may want to do so - on the implications of their choices; and • with various actors along the value chain, incl. between extension service providers and farmers. This links with the need for capacity development, including the capacity to better communicate, if better narratives need to be co-developed. There is a need to better communicate risk, in a timely manner, in ways understood by communities, and to explain how to feasibly reduce risk. Too often risk awareness is not followed by action, or is communicated too late, or without risk management options that communities can afford. Key actors should be mobilized, including civil society, in demanding justice in the way risk is managed and communicated. 2. Assess climate risks and opportunities along value chains. There is also a need to better understand risks, underlying factors, and uncertainties and to improve risk assessments for decision-making. Such assessments should be conducted at the beginning of projects, not at the end. Assessment must include risks triggered by actions aimed at reducing other types of risk. Risk needs to be assessed along all parts of the food system value chain, including how risk is unevenly distributed among actors. This entails co-assessing climate risks, with all stakeholders, taking into consideration who uses or needs to use the information, and fine-tuning the information accordingly. o Use system thinking to assess how risk travels along value chains, how it is altered across actors, its ripple effects, and implications of our actions. o Better understand how risks are distributed, in type, timing, and magnitude: Are there equal risks across the value chain? Where are the weaker parts of each value chain, in different contexts? Can we better target our interventions based on this knowledge? Will minimizing risk in one part of the value chain increase risk in another, or for other people? o Strengthen the link between risk assessments and solution identification. While risk assessments are well developed, we can't say the same about solution identification, which should be based on equally robust technical assessments. 3. Overcome the ‘last mile’ challenge in the delivery of climate services. This demands major investments in proactive climate risk management strategies, including early warning and adaptive safety net programs that have the potential to secure more resilient livelihoods for millions of farmers in low- and middle-income countries. To help user communities and countries cope with climate change, climate services need to be easily accessible to all. Research can play an important role in understanding how to overcome this ‘last mile’ challenge in the delivery of climate services. It is important to note, however, that not all risks can be foreseen by better climate services. There are components of risk linked to structural weaknesses of food systems, which may similarly present shocks, as happened with COVID-19. Some of these shocks may be addressed in part through actions – such as changing agricultural practices and shifting diets - proposed under other priority research areas.236240243244248249Priority 7 - How to reduce emissions in food systems Focus: Use of low carbon technologies and methods that regenerate and protect soils and water while reducing food loss. Why is this important? Survey respondents highlighted the significant contributions of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions, and the related impact that carbon-intensive industrial agricultural practices have on both soils and people — increasing poverty and vulnerability in fragile contexts. Opportunities for action This priority identified in survey responses was not selected for synthesis discussion by workshop participants. Nonetheless, the consultation generated more than 40 potential opportunities for action. These have been aggregated as follows: 1. Support agricultural practices that reduce emissions and mitigate impacts on soils. • Support the diversification of farming practices, including agroforestry and agroecology, permaculture, and others that help to reduce emissions and increase carbon sequestration. • Research soils across different farming and landscape systems to show the change needed for healthy soils (which reduce emissions and enable climate resilience). 2. Tackle the economic underpinnings of carbon intensive farming. • Conduct cost-benefit and investment return analyses on agroecological systems, and use the results to advocate for change in agri-business models. • Address private sector interests, lobbying and disincentives to adopting low-carbon food systems. • Explore the use of taxes and subsidies to incentivize sustainable, regenerative local food production, and discourage high-emission production. • Reduce the costs of healthy diets. • Create incentives for companies to measure and curtail food loss and waste. • Deploy public private partnerships. 3. Use policy and regulatory reforms to reduce emissions. • Identify and scale tools and policies to improve transparency and accountability within the commodity supply chains that are driving high emission production. • Develop regulation and incentives to reduce food waste, such as by encouraging smaller portion packaging, recycling, or increasing food waste disposal costs. • Use regulation and enforcement, together with real-time remote sensing, to secure and enforce protection of high-carbon landscapes. • Implement "demand-side" policies that incentivize "supply-side" changes, such as food labelling systems that inform consumers on emissions and water use in food. 4. Invest in innovation. • Rethink existing investment in agricultural research and innovation to focus more on climate-resilient, low-emission technologies and practices. • Pressure large financial sector agencies to finance corporations that invest in low carbon foods. • Explore market-based approaches to incentivize farmers’ adoption of climate-smart technologies that also enhance their livelihoods. 5. Reduce carbon intensive value chains. • Shorten and diversify supply chains for greater resilience within food systems. • Look at emissions in post-harvest, post-production segments of value chains, such as through food loss, transport, storage, and infrastructure. • Develop early warning and information management systems to reduce food loss. • Ensure every adaptation project has access to mitigation experts who can help evaluate whether the adaptation changes proposed will increase or decrease emissions. 6. Bridge knowledge gaps on emissions reduction among various stakeholders. • Foster knowledge sharing to ensure innovations reach farmers. • Engage high-level policymakers in dialogue on emissions reduction in agriculture – giving them confidence to address it in their Nationally Determined Contributions. • Support platforms and dialogues at local and regional levels to build policy capacity within governments and extension services. • Improve our understanding on trade-offs and how to minimize them, such as when improving the diets of marginal communities entails more carbon-intensive infrastructure development. • Educate and organize the public on food loss and their right to safe, secure, healthy food, so that they start demanding low-emission, low-input and fairly produced food.237242243The seven priority areas related to food systems that were presented for discussion in the dialogue were surfaced by nearly 40 survey respondents in the weeks leading up to the dialogue. Some of the dialogue participants noted the absence of some important priorities, including a focus on how we might transform food systems through a better understanding of market demands for increased protein (in particular, meat), and a focus on economic incentives to move towards agroecology. Note that the seven priority areas are not ranked, and neither the survey nor the dialogue asked that these be weighed against one another to reach any consensus around order or prioritization. While not areas of divergence per se, the dialogue flagged a number of overlapping areas among priorities, including that aspects of several priorities link with agroecology and that justice, equality and inclusion must be seen as cutting across all the other priorities. This highlights the need to think holistically, rather than addressing each priority as a silo. Similarly, some participants highlighted the need to think about how we do research differently, rather than just identifying research gaps and priorities. This would entail new ways of rewarding scientists to motivate, support, and reward participatory and transdisciplinary research; better understanding how research can support transformation; and ensuring the people we are trying to help are engaged in the research process. In a post-dialogue debrief, IDRC organizers reflected on gaps in representation in the overall consultation process. Some regions (MENA and Asia-Pacific in particular) and stakeholder groups (mainly research users) were underrepresented. ARA and others that use the findings from this consultation process should consider other validation steps to ensure research directions reflect the needs of producers, consumers, and farming communities, not just the perspectives of funders and researchers. There was also some unevenness in the distribution of expertise. Some group conversations included leading experts. For them the gap was less on what to do (they felt there was clear agreement on what works) but how. And while social and economic trade-offs rippled across many priorities, we did not have many economists present, so there was no discussion in, for example, the agroecology group, on economic incentives, while in the discussion of healthy sustainable diets, two of the four participants were economists. This likely skewed the selection and elaboration of proposed actions.

2022-02-01 16:51:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/41917/203

12312146381604573516850100132011301881002911111001103008106000208125

We followed the recommendations of the UNFSS for both design and hosting, with multiple facilitators in breakout groups who were trained in inclusive dialogue methods before the event, ensuring that everyone in each breakout group had the opportunity to contribute and speak. Our Dialogue was organised with a careful focus on generating as wide as possible inclusion of the many different stakeholders who are involved in developing different approaches, specifically agroecology and regenerative agriculture, to food systems. We sought to include perspectives from corporate representatives, farmers from the developed and developing nations, academics, activists and scientists. We ensured that these diverse groups were represented in our speaker panel also. Diversity was the cornerstone of our approach to upholding the Principles of Engagement, since in this way we could ensure respect for multiple perspectives, and embrace the complexity of the global food system. We had a range of experts from both the global north and south, developed and developing nations including the regions of EU, USA, and Africa (not wider due to time constraints).We reviewed the Principles to ensure they were addressed in the agenda design and participant engagement process. The Curator also emphasised the importance of listening to and understanding the viewpoints of all participants. We designed an interactive session giving everyone the opportunity to participate in plenary, via the chat and via the discussion groups. On specific aspects of the Principles: Be respectful’ and ‘Build trust’: We asked participants who were not designated speakers and panellists to share their insights and questions online via the chat functions, through breakout group discussions and through the use of Slido as an online platform. We asked participants to engage with each other and with the speakers in a respectful and constructive way. ‘Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity’: We explicitly sought to engage the participants from a wide variety of sectors. We also sought presenters and participants from a wide variety of geographies. .The use on online polling is recommended as a way of ensuring participants are engaged through the dialogue. It is a great visual tool which provides real time results to questions posed to the participants. We found this particularly useful to glean participants feedback following the break-out group discussions. Rather than a report back from each group, which can take a lot of time with many groups, every participant has the opportunity for anonymised feedback and results can be collated quickly and efficiently. We used Slido. Additionally education and preparation of facilitators in inclusive dialogue is an essential part of upholding the Principles of Engagement Working with any speakers or provocateurs to help them understand the level of language and detail that would be most advantageous for a diverse stakeholder audience is helpful.

NoWe spent a considerable amount of time to ensure we designed the dialogue so it was as interactive as possible, giving every participant an opportunity to engage. The event started with an introduction by the Curator, Jenny Andersson from Really Regenerative CIC. The use of the chat function was encouraged with all participants given the opportunity to introduce themselves at the start of the session. We used Chatham House rules as the basis for discussion. Slido was used an interactive real time web-based platform to pose questions. Our introductory question used to engage participants was: What does regenerative agriculture mean to you? The first part of the dialogues involved four quick fire presentations from representatives covering various perspectives of regenerative agriculture as some initial ‘food for thought’ followed by an audience Q&A. Another four quick fire presentations were followed with another audience Q&A. These quickfire introductions were a way of stimulating discussions in the breakout groups. To encourage active participation each breakout group had between 8-10 participants and a dedicated facilitator. Each facilitator introduced themselves and then got each participant to introduce themselves too. The break out discussion then focussed on 4 questions: 1. How can regenerative agriculture scale? What needs to happen to enable regenerative agriculture to become a key pillar of a sustainable food system? 2. What currently restricts or hinders that ability to scale? 3. What more needs to be done to define and monitor the benefits and outcomes of regenerative agriculture? How does your work contribute? 4. What technologies would aid or hinder us in scaling agro-ecology and regenerative agriculture? A training session had been held in advance with facilitators in order to brief them on the importance of ensuring that all group participants had an opportunity to speak and to share their opinions. Additionally several of the facilitators attended the excellent training courses organised by the UN FSS dialogue team. Once all the breakout groups came back into plenary, instead of getting a report back from each group we used Slido, combined with the Chat function for those who could not access Slido, to give everyone an opportunity to report back. This method created a rich array of information and feedback and was well received by participants.

234238239240241242243244246248249Our Dialogue focused on how the world could approach scaling regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology for the benefit of human, planetary and animal health and welfare, with a wide global audience that included a range of interests in agro-ecology and regenerative agriculture. During the Dialogue we aimed to:- • Highlight the perspectives of those already engaged in regenerative agriculture approaches including regenerative farmers and global food businesses. • Discuss the key constraints holding back the wide adoption of regenerative agricultural practices. • Explore how to create increased global support for an integrated, holistic approach to policy reform across the food system value chain in support of regenerative agriculture. • Discuss recommendations for accelerating the emergence of regenerative agriculture as a key pillar of a sustainable food system.235238239240241242243244245246248249Overall the whole group highlighted the complexity of addressing this subject, with an inter-disciplinary and interconnected approach across multiple systems required to make progress. The key findings included: A Systemic Approach: the opportunity to scale regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology requires an inter-connected and inter-disciplinary approach across global organisations, businesses and national institutions, land management, livestock management, international trade and tariffs, support institutions such as finance/insurance/banking, and government policy. Policy: international and national policy is insufficient in most countries to support a transition to regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology. Significant changes in agricultural subsidies from industrial to organic/regenerative/agro-ecology, transparent supply chain tracking, consistent and clear labelling, education of industry, farming and consumer communities to create demand, innovative trade agreement policy to promote food produced in this way were all cited as high value approaches. Best Practice vs Uniqueness: there is recognition that improved sharing of data and best practices would be helpful to farmers worldwide. That is tempered by the recognition by almost all participants that regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology are philosophies that require different implementation dependent on the kind of land system being worked, and the culture in which it is operating. There is urgent need for further discussion on how to approach best practice and simplification to encourage adoption and the need to recognise ecological and cultural uniqueness in different parts of the world. The issue of integration of livestock into land regeneration schemes is also a geographic/ecology / cultural issue which requires further discussion and definition. In some parts of the world, livestock integration is essential for soil health; in other parts driven by the cultural practice of always including meat in human diets. Land: urgent discussion and agreement on global land use would be helpful. Global and national agreements on geospatial mapping and protecting some landscapes from agriculture entirely in the future would be helpful. Greater access to land ownership and management for young people and indigenous peoples with deep knowledge of these kind of agricultural practices is a common thread, as well as including the latter in educational systems worldwide. Definitions: there is a sense that there is still too much ambiguity between what is agro-ecology and what is regenerative agriculture which is confusing for grassroots farmers around the world. There is also a perceived gap between the global south and global north as to whether these approaches incorporate social justice as well as ecological and business transformation which is reflected in the definitions. Greater clarity is required from the UN, in the food system in general on what is common on the approach, in simple language, and further clarity on which organisations support what approaches. Finance/Banking/Insurance: there are not sufficient policies or products in place on a global or national level to support the transition to regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology. There is a requirement to educate the finance, banking and insurance community about the approach, the timeframe and challenges of transformation, so that the appropriate products and services that support farmers and food businesses can be developed. Research/Data/Metrics: there is insufficient research published and available outside the USA to validate the outcomes of the transition to regenerative agriculture. The research and data that is available has insufficient visibility. A global coalition between academic and agricultural research organisations to gather and publish data in different continents, respecting the different challenges of land and culture, is considered valuable. The need for a true cost accounting approach to food production as global and national policy was mentioned frequently. Support for Farmers: support for farmers to make a transition from industrial farming is inadequate on a worldwide basis. Key needs that must be addressed include: • educating farmers on the economic, ecological and social benefits of regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology • developing business models that work in different land systems and cultures that demonstrate how farmers can successfully make a viable transition from one system to another • more cost-effective access to consulting support - ideally free and highly regular - to consistently build farmer knowledge and confidence • support to break the industrial cycle and to combat the narratives of existing supplier networks to which farmers are tied that support industrial agriculture, such as feed suppliers, nutritionists, veterinary suppliers A Culture of Trust; Transparency The lack of a culture of trust between farmers and global businesses and institutions was frequently remarked upon. Creating an atmosphere of collective respect, mutuality and trust is considered essential to moving this agenda forwards. Establishing common language, common goals, common metrics and designing opportunities that reflect collaborative advantage over competitive advantage were all proposed as approaches. Developing more open food networks, common and open-source opportunities to share narratives and outcomes in the field, a global and national way to access information that can be trusted, are all needed.2362382392402412422432442452462482492511. How can regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology scale to become a key pillar of sustainable food systems? The approach to scale requires a complex, multi-step process across a wide range of different stakeholders to bring the approach to mainstream acceptance. The following pathways are considered critical: - • reconciliation of the perceptions that a) regenerative agriculture is western-centric and does not consider the socio-economic component of agriculture in the global south and b) regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology cannot on its own produce enough food for global needs and can only ever be a niche player • research and data to support the efficacy of the approach in delivering volume food production • research and data, more widely shared, to support the efficacy of the approaches in soil restoration and health • science-based evidence to influence policy and investment • an international and national education programme which covers not only farmers and agriculture, but politicians, the finance and investment system, and the insurance system, as key structural support • consumer education to drive demand for regeneratively produced produce, which would also have to include better tracking and tracing of produce, and a global/national system of clear labelling • platforms which share current best practice and success both internationally and nationally but which also recognise that the application of these practices has no perfect blueprint and must reflect the uniqueness of the landscape in which it is being practiced, the local culture and the ‘state of readiness of the local market/industry • a globally agreed approach to true cost accounting • appropriate business models for farmers to make a viable transition for their country/terrain which must include long term financial support, appropriate incentives, training and outcome measurement • large scale demonstration farms that are easily accessible on different continents/in different regions • global agreement to hold certain lands in perpetuity for non-agricultural conservation of nature236238239240241242243244245246248249251What constraints are holding back the scaling of agro-ecology and regenerative agriculture? • Lack of globally agreed definitions that can support farmers in different geographic locations • Conversely lack of flexibility in mindsets which mean we seek tight definitions, best practice and are uncomfortable with ambiguity of complex systems • Perception that regenerative agriculture is western-centric and does not consider the socio-economic component of agriculture in the global south • Perception that regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology cannot on its own produce enough food for global needs and can only ever be a niche player • The supply chain structure that has eroded smaller farms in favour of large-scale production and monocultures • Knowledge gaps regarding the potential of regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology to provide a viable business model in farming communities • Economic affordability of transition for farmers in many parts of the world • Lack of viable financial support for farmers, either through banking/finance/loans, insurance products, long term investment for change • Affordability and demand for regeneratively farmed produce in developed nations • Widely different labelling, production and slaughter systems for livestock • Lack of widely available or agreed impact measurement systems to prove viability and measure carbon sequestration, footprint236238239240241242243244245246248249251. What more needs to be done to define and monitor the benefits and outcomes of regenerative agriculture? • Set up farmer networks in different geographies and contexts for peer-to-peer learning and sharing of best practices and outcomes. No cookie cutter approaches are possible, all processes for defining and monitoring benefits and outcomes need to be contextual. • Define several different social and ecological contexts worldwide in which regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology produce economic benefits for farmers, community and ecology. Profile and share best practices across these. What does successful regenerative agriculture look like in South Africa vs Far Northern Queensland vs Argentina vs Spain; can we create bioregional models of regenerative agro-ecology? • Increase transparency initiatives across the board. Organisations need to share data about the improvements made through using regenerative agriculture practices transparently and widely • Wider discussion and agreement of what should be measured in each system: what should be measured for soil, what for water, what for nutrient levels in food, what for productivity, what for financial viability of farms, what for biodiversity? Is a simple set of metrics possible in such a complex system? • Can partnerships with national landowners in different countries be developed through collaborations and policy - for example the National Trust in the UK, the USA government in terms of National Parks or such as the government of Tanzania’s investment in agro-ecology projects - where large-scale land-based projects could be created? • Develop a clearer global narrative to which the UN, food organisations and governments can sign up so that the approach is not captured by the existing food system.236238239240241242243244245246248249What technologies would aid or hinder us in scaling agro-ecology and regenerative agriculture? • Geospatial monitoring can help to determine how well/poorly landscapes are doing in terms of soil health, biodiversity and reforestation. • Satellite, drone and other digital approaches can be used to monitor soil health, biodiversity and reforestation and drive funding towards farmers improving land management • Collaborative land management is made possible by satellite monitoring technology - whether that is through large scale herd management across vast landscapes, or reforestation. What is needed to maximise the potential of emergent technology is collaboration across landowners, governments and global food stakeholders. • Labelling technology to track and trace source and provenance is not maximised in the food system.237238239240241242243244246248249251Simplification vs Complexity: there is considerable demand for simplicity in this field, whether that is simplifying terminology and language, simplifying measurement systems, labelling systems, or simplifying complex supply chains. The demand for simplification has an alter ego called recognition of complexity. As much as there is demand for simplicity, there is also recognition that scaling regenerative agro-ecology can not be made simple due to the wide variety of approaches it includes, the vast differences in its application depending on landscape, culture and market. Valuable next steps would be a UN-led exploration on what it is possible to simplify to engage with broader audiences and stakeholder groups, and where the need is education in complexity to enable people to cope with the ambiguity (no cookie cutter approaches or simple best practice models) that is inherent in complex system change. Organisations with greater capacity to manage complexity are much more easily able to absorb ambiguity than small scale farmers. Standardisation and Best Practice vs Localised Uniqueness This is a further reflection of the above issue. Global economies are build on standardisation and best practice because these approaches are what makes it possible to generate a certain kind of scale which is built on homogenisation. The kind of scale that is possible for regenerative agri-ecology is not this kind of scale. It is finding processes that enable scale from a different approach. It will be scaling on an ecosystem level rather than a global level. Therefore it will be critical to define how these approaches can work most effectively in specific ecosystems, cultures and markets and follow this approach to scale rather than global certification and standards. This might mean approaches for vast grasslands, arid steppes, coastal wetlands, temperate forests etc and also by socio-economic regions. During the presentations and discussions the restoration of the link between animals and the land emerged as a core principle of regenerative agriculture for many. Good grassland systems for raising animals were advocated by many in view of the environmental and animal welfare benefits. However, there was disagreement from others. Several participants argued that there is an enormous difference between regenerative animal agriculture and ‘regenerative veganic agriculture’. One stated, for example, that ‘’veganic agriculture is good for the planet and the climate whereas regenerative animal agriculture is used as a public relations point to give cover to the animal foods industry’’. There were differing viewpoints on future food systems. Some argued that we should move to predominantly plant-based food systems with less and better animal-source foods from grazing animals that benefit the environment, livelihoods and animal welfare. Others argued for transition to 100% plant-based diets freeing up land currently used for animal agriculture for rewilding. With respect to health, some argued that meat from grazing animals is healthier than meat from industrially reared animals, whereas others argued for a vegan diet on health grounds.

2022-02-16 09:52:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/48585/10232939458788102113114123127130139145173180199

21931333861362363574151810767123114272724410

The Dialogue empowered stakeholders in Asia to participate in the discussion on practical enablers and existing cases on improving the shift to sustainble food consumption and healthy diets in Asia, as a follow up to respond the key area of UNFSS Action Track 2 on shifting to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns. The Dialogue aimed to enrich existing knowledge and identify opportunities to promote sustainable and healthy diets in Asia through engaging wider stakeholders from government, business community, civil society and academia working across the sustainble food consumption and healthy diets in Asia, into the discussion on: - Practical enablers that enhance healthy and sustainable diets in Asia - Challenges and solutions that will encourage transformation towards more sustainable food systems and promote sustainable and healthy diets - Existing best practices that showcase impactful yet easily implementable solutions/actions that can bring about radical changes in the way we consume as a society.The dialogue was organized by EU SWITCH-Asia RPAC in partnership with UNEP, TERI School of Advanced Studies (SAS) and AIT based on the concept of Farm-to-Fork and focusing on ensuring healthy and sustainable diets for the low-income households in Asia. A baseline survey report on status of sustainble food consumption and healthy diets in Asia had been finished before the dialogue. Based on that, the agenda was disigned and speakers were identified. In order to get a productive discussion, a detailed question list for panel discussion and break-out groups were disigned in advance and open with the participants with a summary paper of sustainble food consumption in Asia as a discuss background paper. The dialogue brought both nominated regional experts in policy, technology, business and education and the variety of stakeholder from public in order to diversify and expand perspectives that lead the collaboration and innovation. - Regional experts from government, academia and CSOs (invitation based registration) - Any stakeholder who have motivated to contribute and to learn towards sustainable food consumption and healthy diets (open registration)It is key to collabrate with professional teams both in the technical fields and in the IT supporting fields to prepare and organize the dialogue, and have regular weekly working meetings before the dialogue. The professionality of TERI School of Advanced Studies (SAS) and the experience of IT supporting from AIT made the regional dialogue happen successfully.

Yes

234239244246248249The EU-funded SWITCH-Asia programme aims at supporting the development of green economy and the transition towards a low-carbon, resource-efficient and a more circular economy in Asia promoting economic growth while decoupling it from environmental degradation. The SWITCH-Asia Regional Policy Advocacy Component (RPAC), implemented by United Nations Environment Programme, is designed to strengthen the dialogue at regional, sub-regional and national policies on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) and thereby contributing to green growth and reduction of poverty in Asia. In spite of the fact that Asia is the largest contributor of global food production, yet it is home to a large portion of the world’s poor, hungry and food insecure people. Food accessibility remains one of key challenges in the region especially among the low income households. There is rapid urbanization over large parts of Asia and currently about 50% of the population lives in urban area. Studies have shown that urbanization influences both quantity and diversity of food consumption (Bhartendu et al., 2020) while risks such as climate change, natural disasters, price volatility, etc., impacts the food accessibility of the lower income households. In Asia, increasing food consumption by a growing population, together with changing dietary habits, poses an immense challenge for the global food system and is associated with health and environmental impacts, such as diseases due to unhealthy diets, increasing use of harmful chemicals to increase production, and increasing food wastage. Shifting to more sustainable food consumption patterns would greatly contribute to food systems transition in the context of Asia towards a sustainable, equitable, resilient and nutritious food system. Improving access to food and facilitating a transition towards healthier and sustainable diet is an essential aspect of green growth and sustainable development in the region. Policy and evidence-based, regenerative, innovative and technological solutions is urgently needed across Asia to overcome the diversity of problems that exist in meeting the challenges of food systems transformation. A Sub-Regional Dialogue: Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption in Southeast and Northeast Asia through Farm-to-Fork Concept, held by RPAC in partnership with Asian Institute of Technology on 14 September 2021, shared insights on food consumption patterns, policies and ways towards sustainable food consumption in Asia. Among which, healthy and nutritious diets for the vulnerable population were highlighted as one of priority areas in Asia to transform food consumption patterns, while technology, innovation, and policy were addressed as important tools. In this context, RPAC in partnership with the TERI School of Advanced Studies and AIT organized the Regional Dialogue - Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption and Shift to Healthy Diets in Asia through Farm to Fork Concept, held on 27 Jan. 2020 virtually via Zoom. The dialogue was based on the concept of Farm-to-Fork and further discussed sustainable food consumption with focuses on ensuring healthy and sustainable diets for the low-income households, with key stakeholders and experts in the region to gather first hand insights. Practical enablers, challenges and sollutions towards sustainable food consumption and healthy diets in Asia were shared through panel discussion and case studies, followed by detailed break-out group discussions. The dialogue documented the farm to folk strategy, addressed the challenges of sustainable food systems, and recognized the inextricable links between healthy people, healthy societies and healthy planet. It was highlighted that the regional dialogue on promoting sustainable food consumption and the shift to healthy diets in Asia is timely and will help in better understanding and identifying various mechanisms to which the shift to healthy diets can take place.235239244246248249Practical enablers, challenges and solutions towards sustainable food consumption and healthy diets were shared through panel discussion and case studies, followed by 4 detailed break-out discussion groups in the aspects of business, technology, policy, and capacity building and awareness. It is highlighted that all these aspects are equally important and they have to be looked at together and supports are needed from all stakeholders. Improvement of sustainable and healthy diets and access to healthy diets especially for vulnerable in Asia are equally significant to address the challenges of sustainable food systems. The following key insights and information were shared in the opening remarks and keynote speeches: 1. Sustainable consumption and production and circularity of food systems are key to achieve the global goals. 2. The food systems contribute almost a quarter of GHG emissions. 3. The EU's Farm to Fork strategy is a comprehensive principle and systemic approach that seeks harmony between the local and the global supply and demand in the long term trends and unpredictable crisis, aiming at coherence across the many pillars of the EU Green Deal. The ambition is to transform the whole food system from seeds and farms down to food waste, on both the supply and demand sides. 5. All systems including ecosystems, human population, farming, agro-industries and food distribution are interconnected. Hence solutions need to be holistic and integrated. 6. Industrialization and global supply chains have allowed for food production to be revolutionized into a global business opportunity. The industrial agriculture has corroded the planet because of its injudicious ecological practices like mono cropping, systematic erosion of soil and biodiversity and the local food systems. 7. The world’s disproportionate dependence on just three crops: maize, rice, and wheat, and that the deepening climate change crisis is changing the nutritious values of all crops just with a nutritious profile of rice going down. Dr. Chubamenla Jamir, TERI School of Advanced Studies, shared initial findings of a baseline study on the food consumption pattern of low income households in Asia, specifically focusing on South, Southeast and East Asia, conducted in collaboration with SWITCH-Asia RPAC. The key findings are summairzed below: 1. From 2000 to 2018, there has been an increase in the calorie consumption in all the three sub-regions of South, Southeast and East Asia, and there's also been an increase in the fat and protein consumption. However, the protein consumption is quite low, much less than recommended although Asian countries are the largest producers of different food items in the world. 2. More than half of all the undernourished people in the world live in Asia. It is noted that both undernourishment and over-nourishment such as fat remain challenging to Asia, like in most parts of the world. 3. There is also an intrinsic linkage between dietary factors and culture in Asia. However, there is a shift from traditional and local food towards more of processed foods, especially in the urban areas leading to increased consumption of macronutrients, especially fats and sugars, which lead to higher health risks. 4. The complexities and differences between the lower income households and the urban middle class or higher class were highlighted. Hence, there cannot be a one- size-fits-all solution for addressing these issues. 5. The fruits and vegetable present opportunities for transitioning towards healthier diets, which are still consumed in very low quantities much lower than the required the recommended quantities. The principles of organic and natural farming should be promoted in Asia as they can improve accessibility to healthier food. 6. It is also very important to promote traditional and local food which is sustainable and nutritional. Key findings from the Panel Discussion – Practical enablers towards sustainable food consumption and healthy diets in Asia 1. In terms of business, the challenges are that fruits, vegetables and animal source foods are high value crops and are also high risk, so farmers are hesitant to invest and produce them. The low tech, sustainable and locally appropriate technologies, which can be used quite widely, will cut food loss and help nutrition sensitive processing, so that the nutrients don't leak out when you process it and make it available across seasons. 2. In terms of policy, the transition pushing back towards healthy food environment requires stakeholder participation and requires systemic changes. The government in any country is the biggest initiator of change and thus it is key to analyse what factors influence the government to lead food environment policy (FEP) processes. Funding or financial support through government grants and subsidies is important. 3. In terms of technology, for the low HDI countries and in many Asian countries, industry engagement or support with innovative technology support, e.g. data technology, as well as monitoring and accountability system aspects need to be factored into ensuring success. 4. In terms of capacity building and educcation, enhancement must focus on all value chain actors. The competencies and capacities for sustainable food system have to be both systemic and disciplinary.236239248Group 1: Business. The group discussed various business stakeholders such as large farms, social entrepreneurship and how they face challenges related to technology, financing and capacity. The main feedback and insight include: ⁻ The group discussed how big sustainability standards can bridge the gap between farmers and consumers by giving certificate of trust. ⁻ The role of Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) was discussed focusing on social local enterprises. The group highlighted that policy support is important for such enterprises. ⁻ Changing consumer behavior is important for creating the pull for businesses. ⁻ The group also discussed willingness to pay and affordability as important factors. The break-out group discussion was moderated by the facilitator through inviting participants to provide ideas or share information to the specific questions designed. Below we summarized the key feedback received from the participants during the group discussions. Q1: What type of best business case studies are there in Asia (that help in improving diets of low-income households) 1. Community based platform to sell local seasonal food direct from farmers 2. E-commerce delivery platform for organic food or eco-labeled food 3. Service on renting land for household in country side 4. Companies that are utilising agri waste and fermentation based technologies to produce fungi based and plant based products at a fraction of cost of their animal-derived counterparts 5. Government funded projects to assist the low income groups at a much individual level as to assist with local business establishments 6. Investing in compiling disaggregated information and learning focused training programs for farmers Q2: Who are the key stakeholders? 1. Communications for consumers (the willingness and choices of consumers will affect what kind of food product will be offered in the market) 2. Local community (especially the country-side) to empower and involve them (either as a business partner or labour source) 3. Financing agencies 4. Public funding for open access research in sustainable food innovation such as alternative protein that can diversify our protein sources 5. Policy makers providing policy support and incentives to businesses to adapt products into formats for the bottom of the pyramid 6. Agencies working in communities’ changing and near to farmers.236239248Group 2: Technology The group discussion started with a case study based on Gravity Goods Ropeways (GGR) in Nepal and explained about how route based technology was used to transport goods and how it really helped all the stakeholders in that particular ecosystem. The group discussed how and what technologies can help in improving diets of low-income households in Asia, with communities’ engagement. The main feedback and insight include: ⁻ The group discussed that there is no one-size-fits-all model and it depends on each case. ⁻ The group participants shared various technologies, for example, a lot of digitization models are there to enable access of nutritious food to people. ⁻ It was also mentioned that the right technology is very important and that has to be supported by government. Hence, the role of government and policy is equally important for application of technology. All aspects are equally important and they have to be looked at together and support is needed from all stakeholders. ⁻ Further, a lot of participants also shared innovative ideas. They discussed about AI based technologies which have been used today to access to sufficient and nutritious food. ⁻ In terms of social media, one of the participants shared how social media like Instagram can be used to deliver specific nutritious food. ⁻ The importance of crop insurance was discussed. It was also highlighted to provide good networks to farmers at the ground level, so that they can also reach out to technologies predicting crop weather. ⁻ Grid systems were also discussed which has a lot of bearing on the utilization. The break-out group discussion was moderated by the facilitator through inviting participants to provide ideas or share information to the specific questions designed. Below we summarized the key feedback received from the participants during the group discussions. Q1: What type of technologies can help in improving diets of low-income households in Asia? 1. Clean Energy can enable access power and also can lead to other development outcomes. 2. A great Equalizer, e.g. Micro-hydropower in Nepal. Q2: What techs used so that farmers can sell their produce online? 1. In the context of Nepal, at the moment, there are not many ways to do so for the farmers. It is hard to have access to electricity and mobile networks, in the case of high hills. Farmers can be indirectly helped by market actors and the government agencies. Q3: Are there any specific technologies that can be upscaled to a larger context in Asia? 1. Clean electricity can be upscaled to a larger context in South East Asia via Hydroelectricity. 2. Meteorological technologies such as Agri Drones can be upscaled for the benefit of the farmers. It would result in optimum usage of inputs in farms not only helping the farmers but the soil as well. 3. While digitization provides some benefit to farmers, but they have least power in the supply chain. Most of the income in the sector is directed towards market intermediaries and other players in the supply chain rather than the farmers. 4. Usage of social media. 5. Crop Insurance assisted by satellite monitoring. 6. AI and IOTs can be upscaled for the benefit of food consumption. Decentralized approach can be adopted in order to scale up. 7. Digitization models: Access to safe and nutritious foods must be emphasized in South Asia. Q4: How can communities better participate in benefit from technologies and improve their nutritional security? 1. Help of cooperatives and other local community groups to reach grassroots. 2. Focus should go towards marketing that encourage healthy eating practices. For example, in Kyrgyzstan, app to develop Nutritious meal planning for families. 3. Business analytics can be used to understand the market. Manipulation, monitoring of relevant parameters can be used to improve demand. 4. Data collected showed that consumers tend to choose healthier local alternatives when informed about the available foods, through a promotion of Local foods via android apps in Canada. Such strategies can be adopted in order to promote traditional or neglected foods to improve food security.236239245249Group 3: Policy The group discussion started with a case study presentation from Bhutan. Bhutan is facing challenges and barriers of climatic change and terrain. The country is working on a five-year plan focusing on water, food and nutrition security. Government is one of the major stakeholders. Still the country has some very great policies of the school feeding programs running in the country. The importance of bringing the safe food for the children were highlighted. The group discussed what and how policy initiatives drive sustainable food consumption. The main feedback and insight include: ⁻ It was noted that farmers should be incentivized to produce nutritious crops such as fruits and vegetables and animal based foods. For these crops, pricing policy is very important and this is especially in case of highly perishable foods. ⁻ The group discussed that governments should help farmers to get adequate price for the high risk crops. ⁻ Up skilling the capacity of the extension workers and knowledge dissemination about healthy foods were mentioned by most participants. ⁻ Digital literacy of farmers and consumers is equally important. The good infrastructure to support the farmers were also highlighted in the discussion. ⁻ The two components to be taken care of by the policymakers for healthy diets emphasized by the group were: 1) accessibility to all and; 2) supporting farmers in crop diversification. The break-out group discussion was moderated by the facilitator through inviting participants to provide ideas or share information to the specific questions designed. Below we summarized the key feedback received from the participants during the group discussions. Q1. What policy initiatives that drive the transition towards improved food consumption in Asia? 1. Incentivizing farmers for switching to healthy food production 2. Pricing policy. Fruit and vegetable consumption has not increased to an optimum level which is the direct result of lack of availability and affordability along with production, shared by one participant. One participant laid focused upon lack of economic access in India of fruits and vegetables. 3. Adequate Storage 4. Road Infrastructure for connecting the farmers with the market 5. Taking both ‘farm to fork’ and ‘fork to farm’ approach - working with farmers and consumers 6. Food labelling 7. One participant shared a policy case in China. China issued a new food safety law in 2015 to ensure improved better food production, distribution and inspection and reduce food waste. 8. Regional diversity must be acknowledged in implementing local food policies. Q2: Do feeding programmes for children an effective measure for improved nutrition and better development of children? 1. It is a good initiative but not sure how much reaches to the children and how much somewhere else. How to make that effective is the question.236239248251Group 4: Capacity building and awareness The session started with a case study on the Anganwadi work that is being done in Rajasthan. It is an excellent insight about how it is done at the localized level, and capacity building at the grass-root level is so important to ensure the malnutrition levels come down and create much more awareness. It also shows that women empowerment is an overarching intervention across and how it has helped. The group discussion encapsulated the whole umbrella of the different kinds of stakeholders at different levels, and the kind of capacity building programs and the awareness at each level at a systemic and a personal level. The main feedback and insight include: ⁻ At the consumption level, the group discussed how it is important for the learnings from the research community to come to the community level and how it can be practiced further, so that it can enhance the nutritional levels and also revive some of the traditional knowledge that already exists. ⁻ There were also some very interesting studies on reducing food waste shared, for example a study done in China which use data to create awareness on reducing food waste among restaurants and consumers. Throughout, it was discussed how it is extremely important not just for the government to take up initiative, but also for different stakeholders from bottom to up to start these kinds of dialogues and initiatives. ⁻ Further, participants shared how social media is used to reach out to more people like minded people who would want to come and volunteer. Although those are not formal structures, the kinds of informal structures also play very important roles in creating awareness, and eventually help one realize that there's a need for capacity building of these kinds of people who want to contribute at their own personal levels. The break-out group discussion was moderated by the facilitator through inviting participants to provide ideas or share information to the specific questions designed. Below we summarized the key feedback received from the participants during the group discussions. Q1: Who are the key stakeholders? 1. Local government sectors, 2. Researchers, 3. Tourism Sectors (Homestays) 4. Youth Organizations 5. Mid-day meal relevant stakeholders Q2: Briefly, what are the key areas of a capacity building required to shift wards healthy and sustainable diets in your geographical region and hence your country? And what type of capacity building programmes can facilitate this shift? 1. Sensitize the local communities about the nutritional value about the local landraces which are actually said to be Nutri-densed food. 2. Capacity building especially for the younger generation. 3. Women's agency and training on nutrition. 4. Training incentivizing farmers for switching to healthy food production. 5. Digital literacy for the farmers is very important. Q3: What are the areas in which awareness programmes are needed to shift towards healthy and sustainable diets in Asia? And what type of awareness programmes can facilitate this shift? 1. Benefiting from the local resources which are easily available around the region. 2. Promote local food which can help the local communities in improving economy as well as improve the nutrition in their daily diet. 3. Media especially social media influences food choices. Leveraging media for bringing about behavioral change. 4. Awareness must be spread among Low Income and Marginalized groups.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/FlashReport-FarmtoFork-dialogue-final-updated.pdfhttp://switch-asia.eu/event/promoting-sustainable-food-consumption-and-the-shift-to-healthy-diets-in-asia-through-farm-to-fork/

2022-03-20 18:51:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/49974/203

454204058116011

The dialogue was build in the following way: We started with a panel of 3 speakers in a moderated discussion. The speakers were selected based on gender, background, stakeholder group, and age. Everyone from the participants could ask questions and contribute to the discussion. These discussion groups were again moderated to ensure a safe space where everyone could speak up. The participants were invited prior to the dialogue, to register their names and interest so we could monitored to ensure a diverse group. fortunately, many participants show up, Participants contact/ personal details were taken for fellow ups.We act with urgency: The dialogue will be a contribution to the SDGs. Commit to the dialogue and embrace multi-stakeholder: With this dialogue the goal was to have a diverse group of stakeholders, sectors, ages, genders, etc. The expert panel with which the dialogue started had a diverse age range, sector background and stakeholder background. Also the participants of the dialogue were from diverse groups as was shown with the registration. fortunately, many participants show up. Be respectful and build trust: To promote respect within the group, all moderators were explained to give every participants the change to speak and share their thoughts in a safe space. Participants were explained to that pictures will be used for the feedback form. Also, with divergent points of view, these were specifically highlighted. Complexity: We highly recognize complexity and therefore invited many different stakeholder from all parts of the community. They all have their own experiences and thoughts on the systems. In addition, examples from participants were asked to complement on their knowledge and work1. Having at least registration of 90 people and expecting a 80% show-up. 3. Have a minimum of 5 experts in a panel discussion.

Yes

234238240241242244245246248249250251Session Objective: • Identifying solutions to overcoming barriers to technologically supported regenerative agriculture transition This dialogue was curated to discuss the following: • Highlighting challenges with resilience in agricultural business, implementation of innovative solutions, and barriers in adopting technological and market solutions. • Identify solutions for the implementation of, and improved access to innovative, inclusive, fair, and sustainable development for all. • Describe ideas towards constructive, inclusive and mutual cooperation and partnership between researchers, farmers, and government along the value chain. • Determine key areas of action towards more resilient, fair, social, and healthy food systems. Main findings of the dialogue: The Independent Dialogue was participatory and participants came from different institutional and stakeholder groups to deliberate on the future of food and suggested actions towards transnational food systems adopting new technologies, leveraging existing solutions and blending action best impact standards with society approach for inclusive participation to achieving The Objectives of The Food Systems Summit and overall objective of SDG 2 while sustaining the planet, promoting innovation, improving global food safety and conserving natural resources through adaptive use of resources (SDG 12). The discussion also addressed specific interconnected SDGs and suggested actions to adopting best impact standards in the food systems value chain and across all other action tracks.235240241242244245246248249250251Issues addressed in the Main Session Discussions - One of the issues in Africa and other (developing) countries is that the governments promise subsidies for innovations, also in times of this pandemic. However, money doesn't reach the farmers efficiently and gets stuck somewhere in the top-down process. A solution for this is a system where the subsidies can be monitored or controlled, maybe via cooperatives or larger farmers communities to get a stronger voice compared to all the smallholder farms individually. Another issue is digital traceability. Now it is unclear where products that consumers buy exactly come from. With a passport (for example a QR-code) on a product, you create certain transparency on where a product comes from and what it contains. With a clear view of the production chain and ingredients of a product, the consumers will be more aware of what they buy. In both issues, block chain can offer major benefits by improving transparency. - Often technology is developed outside of the country where it is intended to be used. Most of the farmers know the context in which they work than most of the technology developers. Farmers also have a different idea of priorities and problems that can be supported with technology. This creates trust issues and a lack of adoption of technology. In addition, in big countries, farms can be found in regions all over the country, which all deal with different climate conditions. When new technologies are introduced in farming within these countries, it might be wise to adapt training for the farmers on their specific region. As the climate conditions might affect how to implement a certain technology in your work. Look in this to new business models and co-creation in the process of technology development. It is important to work with the rest of the supply chain and investment should also be in training local people with skills to manufacture, repair and maintain the technology. Making these solutions locally-led and adaptive are great practices and building multi-actor partnerships and strengthening links between different actors (including farmers, supply/value chain actors, local and national government, private sector, financial institutions, telecommunications providers, research institutions etc.236238240241242245246248249250251What solutions already exist on AgTech Innovation, Digital Transformation in disaster and risk prevention for a resilient and shockproof food system? 1. We need to address the growing demand for food while using significantly fewer resources 2. Climate-smart practices are being used to combat disasters a. Most farmers are practicing agroforestry and other methodology with positive results 3. FinTech solution for inclusive social coverage and financial inclusion to rural farmers a. Normally it takes many months for repayment. Now with mobile technology and weather forecasting, insurance firms or governmental insurance firms can pay quicker (by verification of GPS and sending confirmed pictures) 4. Agro-meteorological advisory through mobile apps (Seasonal Rainfall Prediction) 5. Normally farmers grow in Ghana what they are used to plant 6. Information could tell climate trends for the community 7. Information could inform about market trends 8. For example, one has a Major and Minor season in Ghana. Farmers grow paddy stable crops and additional vegetable crops like big onions but require not heavy rain 9. Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning to predict best crops on best soils by aggregating relevant databases from satellites, soil measures, weather stations. 10. Soil measurements for higher quality (biodiversity, carbon, nutrient content). Higher carbon content will help to retain the water, which is good for heavy rain or droughts. 11. Blockchain for food monitoring and traceability via blockchain and sealed products. 12. Agrovoltaics solutions for energy-efficient solutions like irrigation systems, biomass processing and growing biofertilizers 13. Food visibility by blockchain for confirming the flow of products. This improves food safety away from bulk products and could link to consumers that can pay higher.237240242245247251There was some discussion on trust in technology. Although most believe that small-holders but also other stakeholders want to stick to what they know and that there is lack of education. However, another problem that was addressed was that most often technology is produced somewhere else and then most money goes to marketing and not educating the people in the areas to use the technology or maintain it. Also, the technologies often do not prioritize the main problem because it is not developed in co-cooperation with the community. Internet entrance was mentioned as a crucial point to empower small-holder farmers. However, the main question is how to make internet accessible to them. More research is needed on this. More research is needed on new business models and effective ways for co-operation in the process of technology development. It is not only education, but also working together and understanding main priorities in the food community.

2022-03-21 10:33:57205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/49614/115

5802322112142160103331286422032341156347940601703010002

La concertation sur les systèmes alimentaires du site de Ségou a regroupé 7 régions (Bandiagara, Dioïla, Douentza, Mopti, San, Ségou et Sikasso) sur 19. Elle a regroupé une soixantaine de participants durant la journée du 25 Novembre 2021 sous le leadership du gouverneur de la région de Ségou avec ses services techniques, administratives. Les thématiques traitées ont été les 5 pistes d’action et deux ateliers thématiques. Atelier thématique 1 : Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eaux (GIRE et le Projet de Gestion Durable des Terres et des Eaux) en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires. Atelier thématique 2 : Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne en matière de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments et de l’alimentation saine (moins salé, moins sucré, et moins huileux) dans les zones rurales, péri urbaines et urbaines en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires. Deux outils ont été utilisés. Le model défis et la méthode d’évaluation participative avec 5 questions : Question 1 : Avons-nous accompli ce que nous avions prévu de faire par thématique ? Question 2 : Qu’avons-nous appris de cette expérience de mise en œuvre de la thématique au Mali (sur ce qui marche et sur ce qui ne marche pas) ? Question 3 : Avons- nous fait œuvre utile durant ces années de mise en œuvre ? Question 4 : Que Changerons nous d’ici 2030 pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires surtout au niveau locale (PDESC) par thématique ? Question 5 : Comment comptons -nous utiliser les résultats de cet atelier thématique ? Le processus de concertation s’est déroulé en trois phases : - L''introduction des travaux de groupe autour des éléments (présentation sur le système alimentaire, le model défis, l’approche de l’évaluation participative des thématiques, les mandats des travaux de groupe - Les travaux de groupe sur les 2 ateliers thématiques et les 5 pistes d’action qui ont été marqués par les discussions avec le respect des 7 principes - La restitution des travaux de groupe.Lors des travaux de groupe la facilitation a permis de gérer le temps et de mettre le focus sur les 7 principes :  Agir sans délai : Le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires ( SA) pour le Mali est de la 1ère urgence pour réduire significativement la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire, nutritionnelle avec un travail décent.  Prendre des engagements : Avec la culture de responsabilité de renforcement des SA jusqu’au niveau déconcentralisé et décentralisé.  Respecter : A travers l’écoute de l’ensemble des acteurs présents en vue de prendre en compte leurs besoins essentiels pour avoir un système alimentaire durable et résilient d’ici 2030.  Prendre acte de la complexité des enjeux : La grande diversité de la problématique du renforcement des SA requière des analyses spécifiques par secteurs et par niveau administrative pour proposer des approches adéquates et adaptées aux besoins et au contexte spécifique de chaque zone. Les concertations présentent cette opportunité pour forger le partenariat autour de la gestion de la problématique liées aux SA  Associer toutes les parties prenantes : Le profil des acteurs des régions participantes a été faite en vue de satisfaire au mieux ce besoin de faire participer toutes les parties prenantes. Le Mali a une grande expérience de l’approche multi acteurs, multi-sectorielle car il dispose depuis 2013 des plates formes multisectoriels depuis le niveau central jusqu’au niveau décentralisé. Les concertations sur les SA ont permis de renforcer ces acquis.  Compléter l’action des autres parties prenantes : Le renforcement des SA se fera en s’inscrivant dans les politiques et stratégies de lutte pour la croissance et la réduction de la pauvreté pour l’atteinte des 17 ODD à travers le CREDD 2019-2023, avec les PTF.  Instaurer la confiance : La vision du Mali qui est « un Mali reconnu comme le grenier de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et avec des grandes potentialités agrosylvopastorales dans toutes les communes, cercles et régions ne peut se faire sans confiance qui sera surtout baser sur la bonne gouvernance avec ses 4 pratiques clés.Les conseils à donner aux autres Coordinateurs de concertations sur l’évaluation des principes d’engagement sont relatifs dans un premier temps à l’aspect organisation et le facteur temps, c'est-à-dire : - Prendre suffisamment de temps pour la phase préparatoire ; - Informer à temps les participants au moins une semaine avant l’atelier ; - Envoyer les TDR et autres documents à l’invitation et à temps ; - Augmenter la durée de l’atelier de 2-3jours pour assortir un travail fiable ; - Décentraliser l’atelier dans les différentes régions ; - Revoir la durée de la concertation au moins 2 jours ; - Maintenir le caractère inclusif et participatif de tous les secteurs sensibles aux systèmes alimentaires; - Cadrer les thématiques selon les spécificités et réalités du milieu. - Remettre documents finaux de la concertation aux participants.

NoL’atelier dans sa globalité a été organisé par le ministère de la santé et du développement social à travers la cellule de coordination de la nutrition en suivant quelques droites lignes à savoir: L’élaboration des termes de références (TDR), formulation et mobilisation d’une équipe de facilitateur composée de cinq cadres, identification et choix sur une localité pour la tenue de l’atelier, formulation et acheminement des lettres d’invitation pour les parties prenantes (Administration, participants). Après l’étape administrative l’équipe de facilitateur a procédé à l’élaboration d’un projet d’agenda pour bien cadrer l’atelier, la révision documentaire (les termes de références des concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires, les deux thématiques, les cinq pistes d’actions…). Déroulement des travaux de l’atelier des concertations régionales sur les systèmes alimentaires : En outre les participants ont reçu des cahiers de participants dans la salle (chemises, blocks notes, bic, copie des cinq pistes d’actions et copie de l’agenda). Ouverture officielle de l’atelier : Elle a été marquée par l’intervention du Conseiller au développement du gouverneur de la région de Ségou qui a d’abord salué et souhaité la bienvenue au nom du gouverneur de la région aux participants et à l’équipe de facilitateur pour leur disponibilité, suivi par les mots de bienvenue du représentant du Directeur Régional de la Santé de Ségou. Enfin le Conseiller au développement du gouverneur de la région de Ségou a déclarée ouvert les travaux de l’atelier à la date du jeudi vingt et cinq novembre 2021. A la suite de ces deux interventions, il y a eu la présentation des participants à travers un tour de table. Les participants ont observé la pause-café comme prévu dans l’agenda de l’atelier. D’abord, il y a eu la présentation des termes de références (TDR) sur les systèmes alimentaires et l’introduction sur les systèmes alimentaires. La présentation des deux thématiques et une série de discussion. Pour les travaux de groupes sur les deux thématiques les 5 questions de l'évaluation participative ont été utiliser . Les facilitateurs ont procédé à la répartition des participants en deux grands groupes entre deux salles, chaque groupe était composé d’un président ou une présidente, un rapporteur et les membres. La thématique 1 a été traité par le groupe 1 et la thématique 2 a été traité par le groupe 2. Restitution des travaux de groupes thématiques : après les travaux chaque groupe a présenté ses résultats, après une discussion et propositions d’amélioration les résultats ont été validés par des acclamations cela a été suivi par la pause déjeuner. Introduction des pistes d’action du système alimentaire Les cinq pistes d'actions ont été présentées et expliquées de manière édifiante par l’équipe de facilitation pour la compréhension des participantes et participants. Les facilitateurs ont procédé à la répartition des participants en cinq groupes de travail entre cinq salles, afin de traiter respectivement les pistes d’actions. Les travaux de la concertation régionale sur les systèmes alimentaires ont pris fin vers 17h50mn. En plus du model défis de Management Sciences for Health de USAID qui a été utilisé pour les 5 pistes d'action; la méthode évaluation participative avec ses 5 questions a été utilisée pour les 2 ateliers thématique. A savoir: Question 1 : Avons-nous accompli ce que nous avions prévu de faire par thématique ? Question 2 : Qu’avons-nous appris de cette expérience de mise en œuvre de la thématique au Mali (Sur ce qui marche et sur ce qui ne marche pas) ? Question 3 : Avons- nous fait œuvre utile durant ces années de mise en œuvre ? Question 4 : Que Changerons nous d’ici 2030 pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires surtout au niveau locale (PDESC) par thématique ? Question 5 : Comment comptons -nous utiliser les résultats de cet atelier thématique ?

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les journées de concertations régionales de Ségou ont regroupé outre Ségou, les régions de Douentza, Bandiagara, Mopti, San, Sikasso, Koutiala et Dioïla. Elles ont enregistré la participation effective desdites régions sauf Koutiala. Ces concertations avaient comme objet de proposer une feuille de route détaillée des actions pour la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables prenant en compte la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire, l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs en vue de contribuer à la participation de qualité du Mali au sommet International des systèmes alimentaires du systèmes des nations unies. Il s’agissait spécifiquement de (i) Présenter le contexte général du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali ; (ii) Présenter des efforts de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires du gouvernement du Mali et ses partenaires techniques et financiers face aux crises multiformes qui sévissent au Mali depuis plus d’une décennie ; (iii) Accélérer l’atteinte des divers résultats de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires maliens en assurant une cohérence, Alignement/ mainstreaming , Complémentarité et la synergie entre les politiques sectorielles et multisectorielles existantes (Politique de Sécurité Alimentaire et Nutritionnelle, Politique de Protection Sociale, Politique Nationale de Nutrition) et entre les mécanismes de coordination existants ; (iv) Echanger sur les principes clés du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires à travers des portes d’entrée ou de sortie comme : la chaîne d’approvisionnement alimentaire ; l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs, la création de l’emploi, la lutte contre la pauvreté, la promotion du genre, le changement climatique, les rôles et responsabilités de chaque partie prenante dans la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables ; (v) Concevoir une feuille de route détaillée du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables. Pour réaliser efficacement l’objet de ces concertations de Ségou, un examen complet des Systèmes Alimentaires a été fait à travers des travaux de groupe sur deux thématiques que sont (1) capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eaux (GIRE et le Projet de Gestion Durable des Terres et des Eaux) en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires. (2) capitalisation de l’expérience malienne en matière de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments et de l’alimentation saine (moins salé, moins sucre, et moins huileux) dans les zones rurales, péri urbaines et Urbaines en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires. Aux termes de ce double exercice participatif multisectoriel facilités par l’équipe de facilitation nationale des résultats enregistrés ont été obtenus en prenant en considération la situation spécifique des 08 régions du groupe de Ségou en termes de données géographiques, environnementales, climatiques, économiques, organisationnelle ; sociales. C’est ainsi que des propositions pertinentes et réalistes ont été formulées par le groupe de Ségou. Ces propositions contribueront à alimenter la position du Mali lors du sommet Mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Piste 1 : Intensifier le reboisement par la plantation d’arbres de préférence fruitiers ; Aménager et sécuriser des marres ; Utiliser adéquatement les matériels agricoles ; Protéger les berges du fleuve Niger ; Interdire le dragage du fleuve lors de l’exploitation de l’or ; Favoriser l’installation des jeunes par l’accompagnement en matériels de travail. Piste 2 : Identifier les barrières en vue d’élaborer le cadre de changement de comportement pour des modes de consommation durables ; Améliorer la synergie entre les secteurs primaire, secondaire et tertiaire d’une part et, entre les acteurs, qui interviennent sur les mêmes filières et chaînes de valeur d’autre part ; Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques alimentaires pour éviter les gaspillages à tous les niveaux de la chaine alimentaire ; Promouvoir l’Energie verte dans le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients au Mali; Renforcer le financement durable pour l’aménagement des périmètres Agricoles et la maitrise totale des eaux ; Développer des mécanismes de transformation, de conservation et stockage durable des aliments à forte valeur nutritive d’Agriculture en lien avec les modes de consommation durables ; Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques AIC (Agriculture Intelligente face au climat) ; Renforcer la compétence des paysans dans l’utilisation rationnel des intrants ; Renforcer la capacité des producteurs en transformation primaire ; Renforcer la capacité des agriculteurs par l’accompagnement en acquisition de matériels de travail ; Piste 3 Améliorer le financement de la recherche pour stimuler une production respectueuse de la nature à tous les niveaux de la chaine de valeur; Renforcer les capacités de résilience des communautés et des collectivités pour une production respectueuse de la nature ; Renforcer la capacité de productions pour consommation pour les petits producteurs permettant l’accès à une alimentation nutritive sans perdre la biodiversité ; Promouvoir des activités de gestion durables des terres et des eaux depuis le CREDD 2019-2023 jusqu’au niveau des PDESC ; Renforcer l’utilisation rationnelle des pesticides et des engrais chimiques; Promouvoir les cultures biologiques en valorisant les produits agro écologiques; Renforcer les capacités des femmes et des filles dans la promotion de l’agro écologie ;Vulgariser les énergies renouvelable, les foyers améliorés et l’utilisation des gaz. Piste 4 : Rendre accessible les terres agricoles aux femmes et aux jeunes; Appliquer effectivement la loi d’Orientation Agricole et Foncière; Intensifier l’aménagement des terres agricoles; Renforcer les capacités des acteurs sur les techniques culturelles; Organiser des cadres concertations entre les différents acteurs; Favoriser la création des unités de transformation; Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent; Renforcer l’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements 11 renforcer institutionnellement les OP, Renforcer les capacités de rendement des filières en faveur des femmes et des jeunes pour l’autoproduction; Développer des chaines de valeurs pour des produits à forte valeur nutritive d’Agriculture et des produits forestiers non ligneux; Favoriser l’accès des parcelles aux femmes, jeunes. Piste 5 Utiliser les données historiques de la gestion des crises pour prévenir les crises alimentaires et nutritionnelles, les chocs et les stress dans les zones à risques; Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent en accélérant la mise en œuvre du RAMU, l’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements ; renforcement institutionnelle OP, le renforcement des capacités suite aux crises; Mettre en place des groupes d’autodéfenses (formation et dotation) ; Renforcer et encadrer la capacité les forces autodéfenses sur terrain, Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs primaire, secondaire et tertiaire d’une part et, entre les acteurs, qui interviennent sur les mêmes filières et chaînes de valeur d’autre part; Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients; Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients, Renforcer le plateau technique de santé à tous les niveaux de la pyramide sanitaire, Réduire considérablement le taux d’intérêt des prêts accordés aux femmes par les institutions financières. Thematique1: gestion intégrée des ressources en eaux Initier des projets Hydro-agricole sur toute l’étendue du territoire surtout Douentza, Dioila, San et Badiangara; Initier des projets programmes de plantation d’arbre ; Encourager l’investissement personnel ; Faire la promotion de nouvelle technique de culture ; Promouvoir la transformation des produits Agricoles ; Multiplier les unités de transformation des produits Agricoles ; Valoriser l’agriculture intensive ; Diminuer l’utilisation des engrais chimiques ; Multiplier les retenues d’eau ; Développer la pisciculture, l’apiculture et l’aquaculture ; Promouvoir la production de la fumure organique ; Promouvoir l’entreprise Agricole familiale ; Diminuer le coût de la redevance eau. Thematique1: sécurité sanitaire des aliments Homologuer des produits phytosanitaires pour les producteurs ; Utiliser rationnellement des produits chimiques; Vulgariser les bonnes pratiques de poste récolte/conditionnemen236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Piste 1 : Intensifier le reboisement par la plantation d’arbres de préférence fruitiers ; Aménager et sécuriser des marres ; Utiliser adéquatement les matériels agricoles ; Protéger les berges du fleuve Niger ; Interdire le dragage du fleuve lors de l’exploitation de l’or ; Favoriser l’installation des jeunes par l’accompagnement en matériels de travail. Piste 2 : Identifier les barrières en vue d’élaborer le cadre de changement de comportement pour des modes de consommation durables ; Améliorer la synergie entre les secteurs primaire, secondaire et tertiaire d’une part et, entre les acteurs, qui interviennent sur les mêmes filières et chaînes de valeur d’autre part ; Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques alimentaires pour éviter les gaspillages à tous les niveaux de la chaine alimentaire ; Promouvoir l’Energie verte dans le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients au Mali; Renforcer le financement durable pour l’aménagement des périmètres Agricoles et la maitrise totale des eaux ; Développer des mécanismes de transformation, de conservation et stockage durable des aliments à forte valeur nutritive d’Agriculture en lien avec les modes de consommation durables ; Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques AIC (Agriculture Intelligente face au climat) ; Renforcer la compétence des paysans dans l’utilisation rationnel des intrants ; Renforcer la capacité des producteurs en transformation primaire ; Renforcer la capacité des agriculteurs par l’accompagnement en acquisition de matériels de travail. Piste 3 Améliorer le financement de la recherche pour stimuler une production respectueuse de la nature à tous les niveaux de la chaine de valeur; Renforcer les capacités de résilience des communautés et des collectivités pour une production respectueuse de la nature ; Renforcer la capacité de productions pour consommation pour les petits producteurs permettant l’accès à une alimentation nutritive sans perdre la biodiversité ; Promouvoir des activités de gestion durables des terres et des eaux depuis le CREDD 2019-2023 jusqu’au niveau des PDESC des communes, cercles et régions; Renforcer l’utilisation rationnelle des pesticides et des engrais chimiques; Promouvoir les cultures biologiques en valorisant les produits agro écologiques; Renforcer les capacités des femmes et des filles dans la promotion de l’agro écologie ;Vulgariser les énergies renouvelables, les foyers améliorés et l’utilisation des gaz. Piste 4 Rendre accessible les terres agricoles aux femmes et aux jeunes; Appliquer effectivement la loi d’Orientation Agricole et Foncière; Intensifier l’aménagement des terres agricoles; Renforcer les capacités des acteurs sur les techniques culturelles; Organiser des cadres concertations entre les différents acteurs; Favoriser la création des unités de transformation; Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent; Renforcer l’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants , Renforcer les capacités de rendement des filières en faveur des femmes et des jeunes pour l’autoproduction; Développer des chaines de valeurs pour des produits à forte valeur nutritive d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et des produits forestiers non ligneux; Favoriser l’accès des parcelles aux femmes et jeunes. Piste 5 Utiliser les données historiques de la gestion des crises pour prévenir les crises alimentaires et nutritionnelles, les chocs et les stress dans les zones à risques; accélérer la mise en œuvre du RAMU, l’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements ; renforcement institutionnelle OP, le renforcement des capacités suite aux crises; Mettre en place des groupes d’autodéfenses (formation et dotation) ; Renforcer et encadrer la capacité les forces autodéfenses sur terrain, Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs primaire, secondaire et tertiaire et, entre les acteurs; Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients; Réduire considérablement le taux d’intérêt des prêts accordés aux femmes237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Au cours des concertations régionale du groupe de Ségou, trois points majeurs de divergence ont émergé essentiellement. Ils sont relatifs à : • La volonté politique, • Le coût de la redevance eau, • La pertinence et la pérennisation des projets. S’agissant de la volonté politique certains participants trouvaient qu’elle n’est pas suffisante pour impulser l’élan nécessaire en vue d’avoir les résultats escomptés. Face à ce point de vue, il a été opposé le fait que la volonté politique se caractérise par la prise des mesures législatives, règlementaires, les directives, ou autres orientations sous forme de document de politique, la mobilisation des ressources de l’Etat pour l’action, la mobilisation des partenaires techniques et financiers, visant à donner une suite aux engagements des autorités. Or dans le contexte malien les domaines inclus dans le Système alimentaire sont nantis de politiques, de plans, de textes, d’existence de partenaires, ont été les arguments pour indiquer qu’il n’y a pas de manque de volonté politique. Pour la redevance eau, la divergence résidait dans l’appréciation du coût. Dans la zone Office du Niger, il est de 60 000 Fcfa/ha/saison, ce qui s’avère élevé pour certains participants et serait à l’origine de la limitation d’exploitation des rizières pour certains exploitants à pouvoir d’achat déjà faible. Certains autres participants ont trouvé que le montant est même dérisoire compte tenu du coût élevé de l’aménagement qui résulte de son utilisation. En synthèse l’atelier a convenu de voir à la baisse cette redevance compte tenu du pouvoir d’achat des paysans et surtout du faible rendement actuel des champs mais aussi de la volonté de l’Etat à promouvoir ce secteur. Concernant les Projets de développement, le point de divergence était en rapport avec leur pérennisation, leur pertinence. Ainsi compte tenu du constat général selon lesquels les projets de développement ne sont pas pérennes, certains participants ont trouvé qu’il faut changer la façon de faire en impliquant les bénéficiaires depuis la conception et tenant compte de leur priorité. D’autres participants ont suggéré de prévoir obligatoirement dans la conception de chaque projet de développement la stratégie de sa pérennisation. Dans tous les cas pour éviter cette insuffisance, il a été recommandé d’initier désormais les projets de développement dans les plans de développement social et économique de la commune (PDSEC).

2022-03-21 10:41:07205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/49636/115

4710201735120511326122170200111005110031400002612000008

La concertation sur les systèmes alimentaires du site de Koulikoro a regroupé 6 régions (Koulikoro, Kayes, Kita, Nara, Nioro et Bougouni) durant la journée du 25 Novembre 2021 sous le leadership du gouverneur de la région de Koulikoro . Les thématiques traitées ont été entre autres les 5 pistes d’action et deux ateliers thématiques (i)Atelier de capitalisation de l’utilisation des NTIC dans l’agriculture urbaine et péri urbaine des grandes villes du Mali en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali (ii) Atelier de capitalisation sur l'implication des organisations paysannes féminines dans le développement des systèmes alimentaires. Deux méthodes ont été utiliser le model défis de management science for health en 7 étapes et l'évaluation participative avec ses 5 questions: Question 1 : Avons-nous accompli ce que nous avions prévu de faire par thématique ? Question 2 : Qu’avons-nous apprise de cette expérience de mise en œuvre de la thématique au Mali (Sur ce qui marche et sur ce qui ne marche pas) ? Question 3 : Avons- nous fait œuvre utile durant ces années de mise en œuvre ? Question 4 : Que Changerons nous d’ici 2030 pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires surtout au niveau locale (PDESC) par thématique ? Question 5 : Comment comptons nous utiliser les résultats de cet atelier thématique ? L'atelier de concertation s’est déroulé en trois phases :  D’abord l’introduction des travaux de groupe autour des éléments (présentation sur le système alimentaire, le model défis, l’approche de l’évaluation participative des thématiques, les mandats des travaux de groupe et les principes de facilitation des concertations) suite à ces présentations les participants et les facilitateurs ont été répartis en groupe de travail;  Les travaux de groupe sur les 2 ateliers thématiques et les 5 pistes d’action qui ont été marqués par les discussions avec le respect des 7 principes  La restitution des travaux de groupe Les travaux des concertations régionales sur les systèmes alimentaires ont pris fin vers 18h.Lors des travaux de groupe la facilitation a permis de gérer le temps et de mettre le focus sur les 7 principes :  Agir sans délai : Le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires ( SA) pour le Mali est de la 1ère urgence pour réduire significativement la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire, nutritionnelle avec un travail décent.  Prendre des engagements : Avec la culture de responsabilité de renforcement des SA jusqu’au niveau déconcentralisé et décentralisé.  Respecter : A travers l’écoute de l’ensemble des acteurs présents en vue de prendre en compte leurs besoins essentiels pour avoir un système alimentaire durable et résilient d’ici 2030.  Prendre acte de la complexité des enjeux : La grande diversité de la problématique du renforcement des SA requière des analyses spécifiques par secteurs et par niveau administrative pour proposer des approches adéquates et adaptées aux besoins et au contexte spécifique de chaque zone. Les concertations présentent cette opportunité pour forger le partenariat autour de la gestion de la problématique liées aux SA.  Associer toutes les parties prenantes : Le profil des acteurs des régions participantes a été faite en vue de satisfaire au mieux ce besoin de faire participer toutes les parties prenantes. Le Mali a une grande expérience de l’approche multi acteurs, multi-sectorielle car il dispose depuis 2013 des plates formes multisectoriels depuis le niveau central jusqu’au niveau décentralisé. Les concertations sur les SA ont permis de renforcer ces acquis.  Compléter l’action des autres parties prenantes : Le renforcement des SA se fera en s’inscrivant dans les politiques et stratégies de lutte pour la croissance et la réduction de la pauvreté pour l’atteinte des 17 ODD à travers le CREDD 2019-2023, avec les PTF.  Instaurer la confiance : La vision du Mali qui est « un Mali reconnu comme le grenier de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et avec des grandes potentialités agrosylvopastorales dans toutes les communes, cercles et régions ne peut se faire sans confiance qui sera surtout baser sur la bonne gouvernance avec ses 4 pratiques clés.Les conseils à donner aux autres Coordinateurs de concertations sur l’évaluation des principes d’engagement sont relatifs dans un premier temps à l’aspect organisation et le facteur temps, c'est-à-dire : - Prendre suffisamment de temps pour la phase préparatoire ; - Informer à temps les participants au moins une semaine avant l’atelier ; - Envoyer les TDR et autres documents à l’invitation et à temps ; - Augmenter la durée de l’atelier de 2-3jours pour assortir un travail fiable ; - Décentraliser l’atelier dans les différentes régions ; - Revoir la durée de la concertation au moins 2 jours ; - Maintenir le caractère inclusif et participatif de tous les secteurs sensibles aux systèmes alimentaires; - Cadrer les thématiques selon les spécificités et réalités du milieu. - Remettre documents finaux de la concertation aux participants. Et surtout l'utilisation du model défis de management science for health pour les pistes d'action : Etape 1 : Examiner la mission des services régionaux et les services du niveau opératoire avec les participants de la concertation Etape 2 : Créer la vision : « le Mali, reconnu comme le grenier de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et avec des grandes potentialités Agro-sylvo- pastorale, halieutique et agroforesterie dans toutes les communes, cercles et régions. Un Mali ou chacun, partout, est l’abri de la faim, de la malnutrition Etape 3 : Expliquer les cibles du CREDD 2019-2023 avec les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Etape 4 : Evaluer la situation actuelle Etape 5 : Définir ensemble les obstacles et les causes profondes de la contre performance Etape 6 : Définir notre défi par piste d’action sous forme de questions « Comment allons nous parvenir aux résultats souhaités par pistes d’action compte tenu des obstacles à surmonter ? » Etape 7 : Sélectionner les actions prioritaires par piste d’action

NoL’atelier dans sa globalité a été organisé par le ministère de la santé et du développement social à travers la cellule de coordination de la nutrition en suivant quelques droites lignes à savoir: L’élaboration des termes de références (TDR), formation et mobilisation d’une équipe de facilitateurs composée de cinq cadres, identification / choix sur une localité pour la tenue de l’atelier, formulation et en cheminement des lettres d’invitation pour les parties prenantes (Administration, participants). La phase préparatoire pour l’équipe de facilitateurs : en premier lieu l’équipe s’est présentée à la direction régionale de la santé (DRS de Koulikoro) afin de présenter les objectifs, le contexte et les résultants attendus sur la mission, ensuite l’équipe de facilitateur conduit par un représentant de la direction régionale de la santé (DRS de Koulikoro) se sont rendu au gouvernorat pour une visite de courtoisie, faire visé les ordres de missions. Aussi, y présenté les objectifs, le contexte et les résultats attendus sur la mission et sollicité leurs accompagnements. Apres l’étape administrative l’équipe de facilitateur a procédé à l’élaboration d’un projet d’agenda pour bien cadrer l’atelier, la révision documentaire (les termes de références des concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires, les deux thématiques, les cinq pistes d’actions…). Déroulement des travaux de l’atelier des concertations régionales sur les systèmes alimentaires: Ouverture officielle de l’atelier Elle a été marquée par l’intervention du Conseiller au développement du gouverneur de la région de Koulikoro qui a d’abord salué et souhaité la bienvenue au nom du gouverneur de la région aux participants et à l’équipe de facilitateur pour leur disponibilité. Suivi par les mots de bienvenue du représentant du Directeur Régional de la Santé de Koulikoro et en fin par le discours du Conseiller au développement du gouverneur de la région de Koulikoro qui déclare ouverts les travaux de cet atelier le jeudi vingt et cinq novembre 2021. Après ces deux interventions Il y a eu un tour de table suivi des présentations sur les termes de références (TDR), les systèmes alimentaires et les deux thématiques. Travaux de groupes sur les deux thématiques : les facilitateurs ont procédé à la répartition des participants en deux grands groupes entre deux salles. La thématique 1 a été traité par le groupe 1 et la thématique 2 a été traité par le groupe 2. La méthode d'évaluation participative a servi d'outil pour le traitement des 2 thématiques. Restitution des travaux de groupes thématiques : après les travaux chaque groupe a présenté ses résultats, après une discussion et propositions d’amélioration les résultats ont été validés par l’atelier. Les cinq pistes d'actions ont été présentées et expliquées. - Piste d’action n° 1 : Garantir l’accès de tous à des aliments sains ; - Piste d’action n° 2 : Passer à des modes de consommation durables ; - Piste d’action n° 3 : Stimuler une production respectueuse de la nature ; - Piste d’action n° 4 : Promouvoir des moyens de subsistance équitables ; - Piste d’action n° 5 : Renforcer la résilience face aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs et au stress. Travaux de groupes sur les cinq pistes d'actions: Les facilitateurs ont encore procédé à la répartition des participants en cinq groupes qui ont chacun restitué leur travaux en plénière. Le model défis a servi d'outil pour le traitement des 5 pistes d'action. A noté que l’animation des différents groupes a été assurée par les facilitateurs durant le processus.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les journées de concertations régionales avaient comme objectif de proposer une feuille de route détaillée des actions pour la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables prenant en compte la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire, l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs en vue de contribuer à la participation de qualité du Mali au sommet International des systèmes alimentaires du systèmes des nations unies. Il s’agissait spécifiquement de (i) Présenter le contexte général du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali ; (ii) Présenter des efforts de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires du gouvernement du Mali et ses partenaires techniques et financiers face aux crises multiformes qui sévissent au Mali depuis plus d’une décennie ; (iii) Accélérer l’atteinte des divers résultats de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires maliens en assurant une cohérence, Alignement/ mainstreaming , Complémentarité et la synergie entre les politiques sectorielles et multisectorielles existantes (Politique de Sécurité Alimentaire et Nutritionnelle, Politique de Protection Sociale, Politique Nationale de Nutrition) et entre les mécanismes de coordination existants ; (iv) Echanger sur les principes clés du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires à travers des portes d’entrée ou de sortie comme : la chaîne d’approvisionnement alimentaire ; l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs, la création de l’emploi, la lutte contre la pauvreté, la promotion du genre, le changement climatique, les rôles et responsabilités de chaque partie prenante dans la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables ; (v) Concevoir une feuille de route détaillée du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables au Mali. Pour réaliser efficacement l’objectif de ces concertations, un examen complet des Systèmes Alimentaires a été fait à travers des travaux de groupe sur deux thématiques que sont (1) capitalisation de l’utilisation des Nouvelles Technologies d’Information et de Communication dans l’agriculture urbaine et péri urbaine des grandes villes du Mali en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali. (2) capitalisation sur l'implication des organisations paysannes féminines dans le développement des systèmes alimentaires. À la suite les participants du groupe de Koulikoro ont été répartis en cinq groupes de travail pour proposer des actions après avoir fait l’état des lieux sur cinq pistes d’actions. Aux termes de ce double exercice participatif multisectoriel facilités par l’équipe de facilitation nationale des résultats enregistrés ont été obtenus en prenant en considération la situation spécifique des 06 régions du groupe de Koulikoro en termes de données géographiques, environnementales, climatiques, économiques, organisationnelle; sociales. C’est ainsi que des propositions pertinentes et réalistes ont été formulées par le groupe de Koulikoro.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Piste 1: Instituer les assurances agricoles. Valoriser les produits de cueillettes. Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs primaire, secondaire et tertiaire d’une part et, entre les acteurs, qui interviennent sur les mêmes filières et chaînes de valeur d’autre part. Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique et le partenariat public privé. Améliorer la Cohérence des politiques, des programmes, projets et initiatives de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali. Renforcer la qualité et la quantité des ressources humaines des chaines de valeur des produits alimentaires à forte valeur nutritive d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et de l’agroforesterie. Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent. Renforcer la sécurité sanitaire des aliments à tous les niveaux de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaires. Piste 2: Identifier les barrières en vue d’élaborer le cadre de changement de comportement pour des modes de consommation durables. Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs primaire, secondaire et tertiaire d’une part et, entre les acteurs, qui interviennent sur les mêmes filières et chaînes de valeur d’autre part. Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques alimentaires pour éviter les gaspillages à tous les niveaux de la chaine alimentaire. Promouvoir l’Energie verte dans le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients au Mali. Renforcer le financement durable pour l’aménagement des périmètres Agricoles et la maitrise totale des eaux. Développer des mécanismes de transformation, de conservation et stockage durable des aliments à forte valeur nutritive d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et de l’agroforesterie en lien avec les modes de consommation durables. Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques AIC (Agriculture Intelligente face au climat) producteurs en transformation primaire. Renforcer la capacité des agriculteurs par l’accompagnement en acquisition de matériels de travail ; Piste 3 Promouvoir le reboisement. Mener des actions de lutte antiérosives (cordon pierre, digues, diguettes, les barrages de retenu d’eau etc.). Restaurer les zones dégradées. Utiliser des semences certifiées hâtive. Piste 4: Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent : L’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements ; renforcement institutionnelle OP, le renforcement des capacités, renforcement des filets en faveur des femmes et des jeunes pour l’autoproduction. Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs primaire, secondaire et tertiaire d’une part et, entre les acteurs, qui interviennent sur les mêmes filières et chaînes de valeur d’autre part. Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique à travers le partenariat publique privé. Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Développement des chaines de valeurs pour des produits à forte valeur nutritive d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et des produits forestiers non ligneux. Piste 5 Utiliser les données historiques de la gestion des crises pour prévenir les crises alimentaires et nutritionnelles, les chocs et les stress dans les zones à risques. Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent : L’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements ; renforcement institutionnelle OP, le renforcement des capacités suite aux crises. Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs primaire, secondaire et tertiaire d’une part et, entre les acteurs, qui interviennent sur les mêmes filières et chaînes de valeur d’autre part. Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique à travers le partenariat publique privé. Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Promouvoir l’approche NEXUS : Urgence-Résilience-Développement avec des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Organiser les foires électroniques. Organiser les ventes groupées à travers les coopératives de commercialisation de produits Agricoles. Promouvoir les séances de cuisines pour les femmes rurales dans leurs milieux. Thématique 1 : NTIC • Renforcer l’implication de tous acteurs, • Faire une large diffusion des informations sur l’utilisation des outils, • Rendre accessible les outils de l’information, • Mettre en place des mécanismes de coordination entre les différents intervenants • Adapter les outils d’information à la réalité paysanne. Thématique 2 : l'implication des OPF dans le développement du SA • Informer, sensibiliser les consommateurs afin d’améliorer les habitudes alimentaires ; • Améliorer les pratiques culinaires ; • Améliorer les pratiques culturales ; • Renforcer la gouvernance au sein des organisations féminines. • Intensifier l’information, l’éducation la communication autour de l’autonomisation de la femme236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Piste 1 : Instituer les assurances agricoles. Valoriser les produits de cueillettes et animaux. Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs I; II et III et entre les acteurs, . Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les SA durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique et le partenariat public privé. Améliorer la Cohérence des politiques, des programmes, projets et initiatives de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali. Renforcer la qualité et la quantité des ressources humaines, des chaines de valeur des produits alimentaires à forte valeur nutritive d’Agriculture. Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent. Renforcer la sécurité sanitaire des aliments à tous les niveaux de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaires. Piste 2 : Identifier les barrières en vue d’élaborer le cadre de changement de comportement pour des modes de consommation durables. Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques alimentaires pour éviter les gaspillages à tous les niveaux de la chaine alimentaire. Promouvoir l’Energie verte dans le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients au Mali. Renforcer le financement durable pour l’aménagement des périmètres Agricoles et la maitrise totale des eaux. Développer des mécanismes de transformation, de conservation et stockage durable des aliments à forte valeur nutritive d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et de l’agroforesterie en lien avec les modes de consommation durables. Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques AIC (Agriculture Intelligente face au climat) producteurs en transformation primaire. Renforcer la capacité des agriculteurs par l’accompagnement en acquisition de matériels de travail. Piste 3 Promouvoir le reboisement. Adopter de bonnes pratiques culturales. Mener des actions de lutte antiérosives (cordon pierre, digues, diguettes, les barrages de retenu d’eau etc.). Restaurer les zones dégradées. Utiliser des semences certifiées hâtive. Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques de la gestion durable des terres et des eaux. Piste 4: Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent : L’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements ; renforcement institutionnelle OP, le renforcement des capacités, renforcement des filets en faveur des femmes et des jeunes pour l’autoproduction. Améliorer l’articulation entre les I; II; III et entre les acteurs. Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique à travers le partenariat publique privé. Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Développement des chaines de valeurs pour des produits à forte valeur nutritive d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et des produits forestiers non ligneux. Piste 5 Utiliser les données historiques de la gestion des crises pour prévenir les crises alimentaires et nutritionnelles, les chocs et les stress dans les zones à risques. Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent : L’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements ; renforcement institutionnelle OP, le renforcement des capacités suite aux crises. Promouvoir l’approche NEXUS : Urgence-Résilience-Développement avec des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Organiser les foires électroniques. Organiser les ventes groupées à travers les coopératives de commercialisation de produits Agricoles. Promouvoir les séances de cuisines pour les femmes rurales dans leurs milieux.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Au cours des concertations régionales du groupe de Koulikoro, trois points majeurs de divergence ont émergé essentiellement. Ils sont relatifs à : • La mauvaise gouvernance foncière ; • La volonté politique ; S’agissant de la mauvaise gouvernance foncière : Pour certains, la mauvaise gouvernance foncière est l’octroi des parcelles aux plus riches (par des dizaines d’hectare) et pour d’autres, c’est l’inégalité de partage des terres ; Pour la volonté politique certains participants trouvaient qu’elle n’est pas suffisante pour impulser l’élan nécessaire en vue d’avoir les résultats escomptés. Face à ce point de vue, il a été opposé le fait que la volonté politique se caractérise par la prise des mesures législatives , règlementaires, les directives, ou autres orientations sous forme de document de politique, la mobilisation des ressources de l’Etat pour l’action, la mobilisation des partenaires techniques et financiers, visant à donner une suite aux engagements des autorités. Hors dans le contexte malien les domaines inclus dans le Système alimentaire sont nantis de politiques, de plans, de textes, d’existence de partenaires, ont été les arguments pour indiquer qu’il n’y a pas de manque de volonté politique.

2022-03-21 10:41:52205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/49676/115

580242292142160103331286422032341156347940601703010002

La concertation sur les systèmes alimentaires du site de Gao a regroupé 3 régions (Gao, Kidal, Ménaka) durant la journée du 25 Novembre 2021 sous le leadership du gouverneur de la région de Gao Les thématiques traitées ont été entre autres les 5 pistes d’action et deux ateliers thématiques:  Atelier thématique 1 : Organiser un atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne sur l'alimentation scolaire basée sur la production locale (cantine scolaire) en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires.  Atelier thématique 2 : Organiser un atelier de capitalisation et de promotion des produits locaux à haute valeurs nutritives d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et des produits forestiers non ligneux dans les zones post conflit et victimes de catastrophes naturelles. Deux méthodes ont été utiliser le model défis de management science for health en 7 étapes et l'évaluation participative avec ses 5 questions: Question 1 : Avons-nous accompli ce que nous avions prévu de faire par thématique ? Question 2 : Qu’avons-nous apprise de cette expérience de mise en œuvre de la thématique au Mali (Sur ce qui marche et sur ce qui ne marche pas) ? Question 3 : Avons- nous fait œuvre utile durant ces années de mise en œuvre ? Question 4 : Que Changerons nous d’ici 2030 pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires surtout au niveau locale (PDESC) par thématique ? Question 5 : Comment comptons nous utiliser les résultats de cet atelier thématique ? L'atelier de concertation s’est déroulé en trois phases :  D’abord l’introduction des travaux de groupe autour des éléments (présentation sur le système alimentaire, le model défis, l’approche de l’évaluation participative des thématiques, les mandats des travaux de groupe et les principes de facilitation des concertations) suite à ces présentations les participants et les facilitateurs ont été répartis en groupe de travail;  Les travaux de groupe sur les 2 ateliers thématiques et les 5 pistes d’action qui ont été marqués par les discussions avec le respect des 7 principes  La restitution des travaux de groupeLors des travaux de groupe la facilitation a permis de gérer le temps et de mettre le focus sur les 7 principes :  Agir sans délai : Le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires ( SA) pour le Mali est de la 1ère urgence pour réduire significativement la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire, nutritionnelle avec un travail décent.  Prendre des engagements : Avec la culture de responsabilité de renforcement des SA jusqu’au niveau déconcentralisé et décentralisé.  Respecter : A travers l’écoute de l’ensemble des acteurs présents en vue de prendre en compte leurs besoins essentiels pour avoir un système alimentaire durable et résilient d’ici 2030.  Prendre acte de la complexité des enjeux : La grande diversité de la problématique du renforcement des SA requière des analyses spécifiques par secteurs et par niveau administrative pour proposer des approches adéquates et adaptées aux besoins et au contexte spécifique de chaque zone. Les concertations présentent cette opportunité pour forger le partenariat autour de la gestion de la problématique liées aux SA.  Associer toutes les parties prenantes : Le profil des acteurs des régions participantes a été faite en vue de satisfaire au mieux ce besoin de faire participer toutes les parties prenantes. Le Mali a une grande expérience de l’approche multi acteurs, multi-sectorielle car il dispose depuis 2013 des plates formes multisectoriels depuis le niveau central jusqu’au niveau décentralisé. Les concertations sur les SA ont permis de renforcer ces acquis.  Compléter l’action des autres parties prenantes : Le renforcement des SA se fera en s’inscrivant dans les politiques et stratégies de lutte pour la croissance et la réduction de la pauvreté pour l’atteinte des 17 ODD à travers le CREDD 2019-2023, avec les PTF.  Instaurer la confiance : La vision du Mali qui est « un Mali reconnu comme le grenier de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et avec des grandes potentialités agrosylvopastorales dans toutes les communes, cercles et régions ne peut se faire sans confiance qui sera surtout baser sur la bonne gouvernance avec ses 4 pratiques clés.Les conseils à donner aux autres Coordinateurs de concertations sur l’évaluation des principes d’engagement sont relatifs dans un premier temps à l’aspect organisation et le facteur temps, c'est-à-dire : - Prendre suffisamment de temps pour la phase préparatoire ; - Informer à temps les participants au moins une semaine avant l’atelier ; - Envoyer les TDR et autres documents à l’invitation et à temps ; - Augmenter la durée de l’atelier de 2-3jours pour assortir un travail fiable ; - Décentraliser l’atelier dans les différentes régions ; - Revoir la durée de la concertation au moins 2 jours ; - Maintenir le caractère inclusif et participatif de tous les secteurs sensibles aux systèmes alimentaires; - Cadrer les thématiques selon les spécificités et réalités du milieu. - Remettre documents finaux de la concertation aux participants. Et surtout l'utilisation du model défis de management science for health pour les pistes d'action : Etape 1 : Examiner la mission des services régionaux et les services du niveau opératoire avec les participants de la concertation Etape 2 : Créer la vision : « le Mali, reconnu comme le grenier de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et avec des grandes potentialités Agro-sylvo- pastorale, halieutique et agroforesterie dans toutes les communes, cercles et régions. Un Mali ou chacun, partout, est l’abri de la faim, de la malnutrition Etape 3 : Expliquer les cibles du CREDD 2019-2023 avec les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Etape 4 : Evaluer la situation actuelle Etape 5 : Définir ensemble les obstacles et les causes profondes de la contre performance Etape 6 : Définir notre défi par piste d’action sous forme de questions « Comment allons nous parvenir aux résultats souhaités par pistes d’action compte tenu des obstacles à surmonter ? » Etape 7 : Sélectionner les actions prioritaires par piste d’action

NoL’atelier a été organisé par le ministère de la santé et du développement social à travers la cellule de coordination de la nutrition en suivant quelques droites lignes à savoir: L’élaboration des termes de références (TDR), formulation et mobilisation d’une équipe de facilitateur composé de cinq cadres, identification choix sur une localité pour la tenue de l’atelier, formulation et acheminement des lettres invitation pour les parties prenantes (Administration, participants). La phase préparatoire pour l’équipe de facilitateur: (i)la visite de courtoisie aux autorités administratives et politiques (ii) L'élaboration d’un projet d’agenda avec toutes les parties prenantes , et (iii)la révision documentaire (les termes de références des concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires, les deux thématiques, les cinq pistes d’actions…). Déroulement des travaux de l’atelier . Ouverture officielle de l’atelier a été marquée par deux allocutions (Maire de la Commune urbaine de Gao, le chef de la délégation de facilitateurs et de modérateurs), suivi du discours d'ouverture du représentant du gouverneur (le directeur de cabinet du gouverneur de la région de Gao). A la suite de ces interventions, il ya eu le tour de table de présentation des participants suivi de la présentation des termes de références (TDR) sur les systèmes alimentaires et l’Introduction sur les systèmes alimentaires La présentation des deux thématiques Travaux de groupes sur les deux thématiques : les facilitateurs ont procédé à la répartition des participants en deux grands groupes entre deux salles La thématique 1 a été traité par le groupe 1 et la thématique 2 a été traité par le groupe 2 par la méthodologie d'évaluation participative. Restitution des travaux de groupes thématiques : après les travaux chaque groupe a présenté ses résultats, après une discussion et propositions d’amélioration les résultats ont été validés par consensus Travaux de groupes sur les cinq pistes d'actions: Les facilitateurs ont encore procédé à la répartition des participants en cinq groupes qui ont chacun restitué leur travaux en plénière. Le model défis a servi d'outil pour le traitement des 5 pistes d'action. A noté que l’animation des différents groupes a été assurée par les facilitateurs durant le processus.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les journées de concertations régionales du site de Gao ont a regroupé 3 régions (Gao, Kidal, Ménaka). Ces concertations avaient comme objet de proposer une feuille de route détaillée des actions pour la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables prenant en compte la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire, l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs en vue de contribuer à la participation de qualité du Mali au sommet International des systèmes alimentaires du systèmes des nations unies. Il s’agissait spécifiquement de (i) Présenter le contexte général du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali ; (ii) Présenter des efforts de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires du gouvernement du Mali et ses partenaires techniques et financiers face aux crises multiformes qui sévissent au Mali depuis plus d’une décennie ; (iii) Accélérer l’atteinte des divers résultats de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires maliens en assurant une cohérence, Alignement/ mainstreaming , Complémentarité et la synergie entre les politiques sectorielles et multisectorielles existantes (Politique de Sécurité Alimentaire et Nutritionnelle, Politique de Protection Sociale, Politique Nationale de Nutrition) et entre les mécanismes de coordination existants ; (iv) Echanger sur les principes clés du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires à travers des portes d’entrée ou de sortie comme : la chaîne d’approvisionnement alimentaire ; l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs, la création de l’emploi, la lutte contre la pauvreté, la promotion du genre, le changement climatique, les rôles et responsabilités de chaque partie prenante dans la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables ; (v) Concevoir une feuille de route détaillée du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables au Mali pour faciliter la participation du Mali au Sommet International des Nations Unies sur les systèmes alimentaires durables. Pour réaliser efficacement l’objet de cette concertation, un examen complet des Systèmes Alimentaires a été fait à travers des travaux de groupe sur deux thématiques que sont (1) Organiser un atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne sur l'alimentation scolaire basée sur la production locale (cantine scolaire) en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires. (2) Organiser un atelier de capitalisation et de promotion des produits locaux à haute valeurs nutritives d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et des produits forestiers non ligneux dans les zones post conflit et victimes de catastrophes naturelles. À la suite les participants ont été répartis en cinq groupes de travaux pour proposer des actions après avoir fait l’état des lieux sur cinq pistes d’interventions. Il s’agissait de : (i) Piste d’action n° 1 : Garantir l’accès de tous à des aliments sains et nutritifs ; (ii) Piste d’action n° 2 : Passer à des modes de consommation durables ; (iii) Piste d’action n° 3 : Stimuler une production respectueuse de la nature ; (iv) Piste d’action n° 4 : Promouvoir des moyens de subsistance équitables ; (v) Piste d’action n° 5 : Renforcer la résilience face aux vulnérabilités, aux chocs. Aux termes de ce double exercice participatif multisectoriel facilités par l’équipe de facilitation nationale des résultats enregistrés ont été obtenus en prenant en considération la situation spécifique des 3 régions du site de Gao en termes de données géographiques, environnementales, climatiques, économiques, organisationnelles et sociales.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Piste 1: Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs I; II; III et, entre les acteurs, ; Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique et le partenariat public privé ; Améliorer la Cohérence des politiques, des programmes, projets et initiatives de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali ; Renforcer la qualité et la quantité des ressources humaines des chaines de valeur des produits alimentaires à forte valeur nutritive d’Agriculture; Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients ; Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle; Aménager plus de superficie cultivable ; Organiser des rencontres inter et intra-communautaires ; Améliorer l'accès sécurisé des femmes à la terre et aux biens non fonciers ; Améliorer l'accès des femmes aux services financiers ; Piste 2: Identifier les barrières en vue d’élaborer le cadre de changement de comportement pour des modes de consommation durables ; Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs I; II; III et entre les acteurs ; Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques alimentaires pour éviter les gaspillages à tous les niveaux de la chaine alimentaire ; Promouvoir l’Energie verte dans le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients au Mali; Renforcer le financement durable pour l’aménagement des périmètres Agricoles et la maitrise totale des eaux ; Développer des mécanismes de transformation, de conservation et stockage durable des aliments à forte valeur nutritive d’Agriculture ; Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques AIC (Agriculture Intelligente face au climat) ; Développer les réseaux entre les producteurs, entre consommateurs et entre producteurs et consommateurs ; Piste 3 : Améliorer le financement de la recherche pour stimuler une production respectueuse de la nature à tous les niveaux de la chaine de valeur ; Renforcer les capacités résilience des communautés et des collectivités pour une production respectueuse de la nature ;Renforcer la capacité de productions pour consommation pour les petits producteurs permettant l’accès à une alimentation nutritive sans perdre la biodiversité ; Promouvoir des activités de gestion durables des terres et des eaux depuis le CREDD 2019-2023; Renforcer l’utilisation rationnelle des pesticides et des engrais chimiques ; Promouvoir les cultures biologies en valorisant les produits agroécologiques ; Renforcer les capacités des femmes et des filles dans la promotion de l’agroécologie ; Promouvoir le reboisement; Piste 4: Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent : L’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements ; renforcement institutionnelle OP, le renforcement des capacités, renforcement des filets en faveur des femmes et des jeunes pour l’autoproduction ; Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs I; II; III et entre les acteurs; Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les SA durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique à travers le partenariat publique privé ; Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients ; Introduire et améliorer les races animales et semences améliorées; Promouvoir le plein emploi productif et un travail décent pour tous les acteurs de la chaine de valeur alimentaire ; Valoriser la pisciculture; Respecter la loi 052 donnant accès aux femmes à la terre Piste 5 Utiliser les données historiques de la gestion des crises pour prévenir les crises alimentaires et nutritionnelles, les chocs et les stress dans les zones à risques; Tirer parti des systèmes sociaux de protection sociale en vue de réduire la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle avec un travail décent ; L’accès des petits producteurs aux intrants et équipements ; ; Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique à travers le partenariat publique privé ; Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients ; Promouvoir l’approche NEXUS : Urgence-Résilience-Développement avec des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients ; Promouvoir utilisation des intrants agricoles (semences améliorées) ; Promouvoir les cultures de contre saison ; Redynamiser les banques de céréales ; Promouvoir le système de réseautage.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Thematique1: Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne sur l'alimentation scolaire basée sur la production locale (cantine scolaire) en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires • Suivre régulièrement les activités d’alimentation scolaire ; • Intégrer des cantines scolaires dans les PDSEC ; • Renforcer la couverture en cantines scolaires dans toutes les zones vulnérables • Renforcer la formation, l’éducation, l’information et la sensibilisation sur la nutrition et les Pratiques Familiales Essentielles (PFE) pour prévenir la malnutrition ; • Mettre en valeur des chaînes de production ; Thématique 2: Atelier de capitalisation et de promotion des produits locaux à haute valeurs nutritives d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et des produits forestiers non ligneux dans les zones post conflit et victimes de catastrophes naturelles.  Promouvoir les semences adaptées au milieu ;  Faire plus d'aménagement hydroagricole ;  Mécaniser du système agricole ;  Améliorer les infrastructures pastorales ;  Aménager les parcours pastoraux ;  Promouvoir les unités de transformations et de commercialisation des produits locaux (abattoirs,…)  Améliorer la qualité et la quantité des produits transformés ;  Maitriser la chaine de valeur des différents secteurs pour valoriser et commercialiser les produits ;  Développer la synergie d’action des acteurs inter ou intra sectoriel.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Au cours des concertations régionale du site de Gao, trois points majeurs de divergence ont émergé essentiellement. Ils sont relatifs à: • la volonté politique; • la pertinence et la pérennisation des projets. S’agissant de la volonté politique certains participants trouvaient qu’elle n’est pas suffisante pour impulser l’élan nécessaire en vue d’avoir les résultats escomptés. Face à ce point de vue, il a été opposé le fait que la volonté politique se caractérise par la prise des mesures législatives , règlementaires, les directives, ou autres orientations sous forme de document de politique, la mobilisation des ressources de l’Etat pour l’action, la mobilisation des partenaires techniques et financiers, visant à donner une suite aux engagements des autorités. Hors dans le contexte malien les domaines inclus dans le Système alimentaire sont nantis de politiques, de plans, de textes, d’existence de partenaires, ont été les arguments pour indiquer qu’il n’y a pas de manque de volonté politique. Concernant les Projets de développement, le point de divergence était en rapport avec leur pérennisation, leur pertinence. Ainsi compte tenu du constat général selon lesquels les projets de développement ne sont pas pérennes, certains participants ont trouvé qu’il faut changer la façon de faire en impliquant les bénéficiaires depuis la conception et tenant compte de leur priorité. D’autres participants ont suggérer de prévoir obligatoirement dans la conception de chaque projet de développement la stratégie de sa pérennisation. Dans tous les cas pour éviter cette insuffisance, il a été recommandé d’initier désormais les projets de développement dans les PDSEC.

2022-03-21 10:42:38205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/49733/115

1350898272010332146521024473216012350401314193130019300210300

La concertation nationale sur les systèmes alimentaires à Bamako a regroupé les différents services centraux du gouvernement, la société civile, les organisations paysannes, les organisations de femmes, le secteur privé, les académiciens/recherches, les Organisations Non Gouvernementales (ONG) et les Partenaires Techniques et Financiers durant les journées du 22, 23 et 25 Novembre 2021. Les thématiques traités ont été entre autres : Le 22 Novembre 2021 :  Atelier pour l’analyse approfondie du rapport de la Réflexion Stratégique Faim zéro du Mali en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires.  Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eaux (GIRE et le Projet de Gestion Durable des Terres et des Eaux) en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires. Le 23 Novembre 2021 :  Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne en matière de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments et de l’alimentation saine (moins salé, moins sucre, et moins huileux) dans les zones rurales, péri urbaines et Urbaines en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires.  Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de promotion des filières porteuses d'emploi des jeunes et femmes. Le 25 Novembre 2021 : Les 5 pistes d’action Deux outils ont été utilisés. Pour les 5 pistes d’action le model défis en 7 étapes de management science for health. Pour les ateliers thématiques, l'outil utilisé a été la méthode d’évaluation participative avec 5 questions. L'atelier de concertation s’est déroulé en trois phases :  Introduction des travaux de groupe (présentation sur le SA, le model défis/approche de l’évaluation participative, les mandats des travaux de groupe)  Travaux de groupe sur les ateliers thématiques /5 pistes d’action  La restitution des travaux de groupe.Lors des travaux de groupe la facilitation a permis de gérer le temps et de mettre le focus sur les 7 principes :  Agir sans délai : Le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires ( SA) pour le Mali est de la 1ère urgence pour réduire significativement la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire, nutritionnelle avec un travail décent.  Prendre des engagements : Avec la culture de responsabilité de renforcement des SA jusqu’au niveau déconcentralisé et décentralisé.  Respecter : A travers l’écoute de l’ensemble des acteurs présents en vue de prendre en compte leurs besoins essentiels pour avoir un système alimentaire durable et résilient d’ici 2030.  Prendre acte de la complexité des enjeux : La grande diversité de la problématique du renforcement des SA requière des analyses spécifiques par secteurs et par niveau administrative pour proposer des approches adéquates et adaptées aux besoins et au contexte spécifique de chaque zone. Les concertations présentent cette opportunité pour forger le partenariat autour de la gestion de la problématique liées aux SA.  Associer toutes les parties prenantes : Le profil des acteurs des régions participantes a été faite en vue de satisfaire au mieux ce besoin de faire participer toutes les parties prenantes. Le Mali a une grande expérience de l’approche multi acteurs, multi-sectorielle car il dispose depuis 2013 des plates formes multisectorielles depuis le niveau central jusqu’au niveau décentralisé. Les concertations sur les SA ont permis de renforcer ces acquis.  Compléter l’action des autres parties prenantes : Le renforcement des SA se fera en s’inscrivant dans les politiques et stratégies de lutte pour la croissance et la réduction de la pauvreté pour l’atteinte des 17 ODD à travers le CREDD 2019-2023, avec les PTF.  Instaurer la confiance: La vision du Mali qui est « un Mali reconnu comme le grenier de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et avec des grandes potentialités agrosylvopastorales dans toutes les communes, cercles et régions ne peut se faire sans confiance qui sera surtout baser sur la bonne gouvernance avec ses 4 pratiques clés.Les conseils à donner aux autres Coordinateurs de concertations sur l’évaluation des principes d’engagement sont relatifs dans un premier temps à l’aspect organisation et le facteur temps, c'est-à-dire : - Prendre suffisamment de temps pour la phase préparatoire ; - Informer à temps les participants au moins une semaine avant l’atelier ; - Envoyer les TDR et autres documents à l’invitation et à temps ; - Augmenter la durée de l’atelier de 2-3jours pour assortir un travail fiable ; - Décentraliser l’atelier dans les différentes régions ; - Revoir la durée de la concertation au moins 2 jours ; - Maintenir le caractère inclusif et participatif de tous les secteurs sensibles aux systèmes alimentaires; - Cadrer les thématiques selon les spécificités et réalités du milieu. - Remettre les documents finaux de la concertation aux participants. Et surtout l'utilisation du model défis de management science for health pour les pistes d'action : Etape 1 : Examiner la mission des services régionaux et les services du niveau opératoire avec les participants de la concertation Etape 2 : Créer la vision : « le Mali, reconnu comme le grenier de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et avec des grandes potentialités Agro-sylvo- pastorale, halieutique et agroforesterie dans toutes les communes, cercles et régions. Un Mali ou chacun, partout, est l’abri de la faim, de la malnutrition Etape 3 : Expliquer les cibles du CREDD 2019-2023 avec les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients. Etape 4 : Evaluer la situation actuelle Etape 5 : Définir ensemble les obstacles et les causes profondes de la contre performance Etape 6 : Définir notre défi par piste d’action sous forme de questions « Comment allons nous parvenir aux résultats souhaités par pistes d’action compte tenu des obstacles à surmonter ? » Etape 7 : Sélectionner les actions prioritaires par piste d’action

NoL’atelier dans sa globalité a été organisé par le ministère de la santé et du développement social à travers la cellule de coordination de la nutrition en suivant quelques droites lignes à savoir : L’élaboration des termes de références (TDR) et autres documents, formation et mobilisation d’une équipe de facilitateurs, identification du lieu pour la tenue de l’atelier, l’état des salles avec le respect des mesures barrières contre COVID, formulation et acheminement des lettres invitation pour les parties prenantes. Pendant les phases préparatoires l’équipe de facilitation et les différents services lead ont procédé à l’élaboration d’un projet d’agenda pour bien cadrer l’atelier, la révision documentaire (les termes de références des concertations sur les systèmes alimentaires, les quatre thématiques, les cinq pistes d’actions…). Les quatre ateliers thématiques ont été tenus en deux jours, avec deux ateliers tenus simultanément par jour selon le plan suivant : Le 22 Novembre 2021 : 1. L’atelier d’analyse approfondie du rapport de la réflexion stratégique faim zéro du Mali en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires : atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eaux (GIRE et le Projet de Gestion Durable des Terres et des Eaux) en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires ; 2. Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eaux (GIRE et le Projet de Gestion Durable des Terres et des Eaux) en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires. Le 23 Novembre 2021 : 1. L’atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne en matière de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments et de l’alimentation saine (moins salé, moins sucre, et moins huileux) dans les zones rurales, péri urbaines et Urbaines en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires. 2. L’atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources humaines (Filières porteuse d’emploi). Le 25 Novembre 2021 : La concertation nationale a traité les cinq pistes d’action. - L'ouverture a été marquée par les interventions du coordonnateur national sur les systèmes alimentaires, de la représentante du commissariat à la sécurité alimentaire et la représentante des PTF. Ensuite Il y a eu la présentation des participants à travers un tour de table. - Les présentations ont porté sur les TDR, les systèmes alimentaires, l’introduction des travaux de groupe sous forme de mandats sur les ateliers thématiques, les pistes d’actions. Après les facilitateurs ont procédé à la répartition des participants en groupes de travail (2 groupes pour chacun des ateliers thématiques et un groupe pour chaque piste d’action). - Les travaux de groupe et les restitutions ont pris fin vers 17h30.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les journées de concertations nationales avaient comme objet de proposer une feuille de route détaillée des actions pour la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables prenant en compte la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaire, l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs. Il s’agissait spécifiquement de (i) Présenter le contexte général du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires au Mali ; (ii) Présenter des efforts de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires du gouvernement du Mali et ses partenaires techniques et financiers face aux crises multiformes qui sévissent au Mali depuis plus d’une décennie ; (iii) Accélérer l’atteinte des divers résultats de renforcement des systèmes alimentaires maliens en assurant une cohérence, Alignement/ mainstreaming , Complémentarité et la synergie entre les politiques sectorielles et multisectorielles existantes et entre les mécanismes de coordination existants ; (iv) Echanger sur les principes clés du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires à travers des portes d’entrée ou de sortie comme : la chaîne d’approvisionnement alimentaire ; l’environnement alimentaire et le comportement des consommateurs, la création de l’emploi, la lutte contre la pauvreté, la promotion du genre, le changement climatique, les rôles et responsabilités de chaque partie prenante dans la mise en œuvre des systèmes alimentaires durables ; (v) Concevoir une feuille de route détaillée du renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables au Mali. Pour réaliser efficacement l’objet de ces concertations, un examen complet des Systèmes Alimentaires a été fait à travers des travaux de groupe sur 4 thématiques et les 5 pistes d’actions. Aux termes de ces exercices participatifs et multisectoriels des propositions pertinentes et réalistes ont été formulées.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251L’atelier d’analyse approfondie du rapport de la réflexion stratégique faim zéro du Mali en lien avec le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires • Faire en sorte que: 70% des ressources soient destinées au niveau communautaire, 20% au niveau régional et 10% au niveau national ; • Renforcer le partenariat intersectoriel pour la mobilisation des ressources pour mieux aborder les questions sur les systèmes alimentaires (élaboration d’un plan commun…) ; • Promouvoir avec plus d’équité tout le processus de la chaine de valeur des SA (Production, transformation, conservation, commercialisation, consommation) ; • Integer dans la stratégie existante de Protection sociales les petits producteurs et les exploitants familiaux ; • Mise en place des initiatives locales de valorisation des produits locaux accessibles aux petits producteurs et aux exploitants familiaux ; • Faire des plaidoyers auprès des décideurs à tous les niveaux pour matérialiser les réflexions sur le système alimentaire ; • Encourager l’intégration des questions de systèmes alimentaires dans les plans de développement nationaux; • Promouvoir les initiatives locales (mobilisation fonds local d’investissement via les collectivités, les mairies…); • Restituer ces résultats à tous les niveaux ; • Partager les expériences soutenues pour développer des mécanismes plus pérennes de mobilisation des ressources financières au niveau local ; • Integer les interventions nutritionnelles aux projets et programmes de sécurité alimentaire en se focalisant sur l’amélioration des régimes alimentaires • Encourager la vulgarisation des bonnes pratiques de nutrition via des outils communication au niveau locale; • Soutenir les programmes d’autonomisation des femmes au niveau locale renforçant leurs capacités sur l’amélioration d’une alimentation saine, diversifiée et suffisante ; • Faciliter l’accès aux crédits agricoles et au fonciers ; • Faire en sorte que chaque secteur contribue à l’atteinte des objectifs globaux à travers l’amélioration des indicateurs sectoriels en matière de SA; • Améliorer les infrastructures (routières, énergétiques et commerciales) ; • Encourager la création d’unité industrielle de transformation ; • Mener un plaidoyer de haut niveau pour la mise en œuvre des recommandations formulées ; • Etendre la protection sociale au monde agricole (assurance agricole, crédit agricole); • Mieux articuler les interventions de SAN et celles de protection sociale ; • Un cadre unique de coordination (CCN, CSA, Protection sociale) avec un cadre commun de résultat ; • Partager les résultats issus de ce processus avec l’ensemble des parties prenantes ; • Aider les entreprises agro-alimentaires de petite et moyenne taille dans l'offre d'intrants et la commercialisation des produits agricoles ; • Engager le secteur privé en général dans la réduction des pertes et gaspillages alimentaires le long de la chaîne de valeur ; • Engager le secteur privé dans l’amélioration de la qualité et de la valeur nutritionnelle des produits ; • Mettre en œuvre les engagements en vue de l’atteinte des agendas (2030, 2063 Union Africaine, Initiatives sous régionales G5 sahel). Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources en Eaux (GIRE et le Projet de Gestion Durable des Terres et des Eaux) • Sensibiliser, Informer et renforcer les capacités des acteurs ; • Prendre en compte cette thématique des Systèmes Alimentaires dans les PDESC, CROCSAD, CCLOCSAD, CCOCSAD. • Tenir régulière le Conseil Supérieur de l’eau. • Améliorer le mode de gestion de l’eau. Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne en matière de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments et de l’alimentation saine (moins sale, moins sucre, et moins huileux) dans les zones rurales, péri urbaines et urbaines • Elaborer un plan d’action pour la promotion du contrôle sanitaire au niveau des différents maillons de la chaine alimentaire ; • Renforcer les capacités des acteurs de la chaine de valeur sur la production, le stockage, le transport, la commercialisation, la transformation, l’approvisionnement et la distribution des aliments au niveau local ; • Faire des plaidoyers auprès des décideurs pour renforcer les actions dans le cadre de la sécurité sanitaire et nutritionnelle des aliments • Créer les cadres de concertation entre les différents acteurs de la sécurité sanitaire et nutritionnelle des aliments ; • Promouvoir des sélections variétales sensibles à la nutrition. • Faire la promotion des produits locaux fortifiés. Atelier de capitalisation de l’expérience malienne de la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources humaines (Filières porteuse d’emploi) • Mettre en place un système d’approvisionnement continu des zones déficitaires comme la bande sahélienne • Créer des structures de conservation pour éviter le gaspillage et la mévente lors des périodes de grande production/récolte ; • Organiser les producteurs maraichers en vue d’échelonner leur production sur l’année ; • Faciliter l’accès des jeunes aux crédits agricoles et aux systèmes d’assurance agricoles ; • Partager les résultats issus de ces consultations avec l’ensemble des parties prenantes ; • Elaborer un plan de suivi de la mise en œuvre des recommandations issues des concertations sur le système236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Piste 1: Lutter contre l’insécurité et les conflits communautaires. Concevoir, adopter et mettre en œuvre un plan stratégique d’accès à une alimentation saine et nutritive. Améliorer l’articulation entre les secteurs I, II, III et entre les acteurs qui interviennent sur les mêmes filières et chaînes de valeur. Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les SA durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique et le partenariat public privé. Améliorer la cohérence des politiques, des programmes, projets et initiatives de renforcement des SA au Mali. Renforcer la qualité et la quantité des ressources humaines des chaines de valeur des produits alimentaires à forte valeur nutritive d’agriculture, d’élevage, de la pêche et de l’agroforesterie. Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des SA durables et résilients. Renforcer la sécurité sanitaire des aliments à tous les niveaux de la chaine d’approvisionnement alimentaires. Piste 2: Sensibiliser la population sur les avantages de la consommation des produits locaux à forte valeur nutritive. Faciliter l’obtention du certificat de mis en marché des produits alimentaires locaux. Organiser les transformateurs autour d’une faîtière. Identifier les barrières en vue d’élaborer le cadre de changement de comportement pour des modes de consommation durables. Promouvoir l’Energie verte dans le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients au Mali. Renforcer le financement durable pour l’aménagement des périmètres Agricoles et la maitrise totale des eaux. Développer des mécanismes de transformation, de conservation et stockage durable des aliments à forte valeur nutritive d’Agriculture. Promouvoir les bonnes pratiques AIC (Agriculture Intelligente face au climat). Piste 3 Sensibiliser et former la population pour atteindre le CSC. Améliorer la gouvernance à tous les niveaux. . Renforcer les capacités résilience des communautés et des collectivités pour une production respectueuse de la nature. Renforcer la capacité de productions pour consommation pour les petits producteurs sans perdre la biodiversité. Promouvoir des activités de gestion durables des terres et des eaux depuis le CREDD 2019-2023 jusqu’au niveau des PDESC des communes. Renforcer l’utilisation rationnelle des pesticides et des engrais chimiques. Promouvoir les cultures biologies en valorisant les produits agroécologiques. Renforcer les capacités des femmes et des filles dans la promotion de l’agroécologie ; Piste 4: Veillez à l’application des textes et règlements. Créer des emplois dans les zones rurales en faveur des femmes et des jeunes. Promouvoir l’entreprenariat des jeunes/femmes dans le secteur de l’agriculture. Favoriser la création d’unités de transformation, stockage et conservation. Favoriser la consommation des produits locaux (accès à moindre coût). Développer le partenariat entre les institutions financières et les jeunes entrepreneurs. Renforcer le système d’assurance des entreprises agricoles. Renforcer l’engagement du secteur privé pour les systèmes alimentaires durables et résilients en partenariat avec la recherche académique à travers le partenariat publique privé. Renforcer les pratiques de la bonne gouvernance de l’approche multisectorielle et multi acteurs des SA durables et résilients. Développer des chaines de valeurs pour des produits à forte valeur nutritive d’Agriculture. Piste 5: Renforcer la libre circulation entre les zones de production et de consommation. Renforcer les capacités des acteurs à toutes les échelles. Organiser des campagnes de reboisement. Subventionner et vulgariser le gaz. Créer des ouvrages hydrauliques. Procéder au dragage des cours d’eau. Rendre effective l’application de LOA. Utiliser les données historiques de la gestion des crises pour prévenir les crises alimentaires et nutritionnelles, les chocs et les stress dans les zones à risques. Promouvoir l’approche NEXUS : Urgence-Résilience-Développement avec des SA durables et résilients.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Au cours des concertations Nationales, deux points majeurs de divergence ont émergé essentiellement. Ils sont relatifs à : • Appropriation de l’AMM (l’Autorisation de Mise sur le Marché) par la FENATRA • Volonté politique S’agissant de l’AMM la FENATRA trouvait son obtention longue et difficile par contre les services techniques (INSP et DNSV) insistaient sur la nécessité de respecter les différentes étapes en vue d’avoir les résultats escomptés. S’agissant de la volonté politique certains participants trouvaient qu’elle n’est pas suffisante pour impulser l’élan nécessaire en vue d’avoir les résultats escomptés. Face à ce point de vue, il a été opposé le fait que la volonté politique se caractérise par la prise des mesures législatives, règlementaires, les directives, ou autres orientations sous forme de document de politique, la mobilisation des ressources de l’Etat pour l’action, la mobilisation des partenaires techniques et financiers, visant à donner une suite aux engagements des autorités. Or dans le contexte malien les domaines inclus dans le Système alimentaire sont nantis de politiques, de plans, de textes, d’existence de partenaires, ont été les arguments pour indiquer qu’il n’y a pas de manque de volonté politique.

2022-03-21 11:48:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/49777/203

253219110151211211125711121614

1. Create on this site fot taking part of independent dialogue 2. Published to our social media 3. Broadcast the info 4. Share link to register 5. Presenting the event and collect all inspirationThis reflect to local food security (Indonesia) from Historical Cultural Perspective, We tried to invite food archaeologist expert to give materials about this condition according to gastronomy, human ecology.I think this space is very delightful so everybody can participate, it was awesome method for me as indigenous people with low internet access but, its easy to operate it.

Yes

234239243244246247249251For Opening We tried to remember : Global trends ✓ Global warming ✓ Climate change ✓ Global freezing ✓ Sea level rise ✓ Emission ✓ Poverty and starvation Regional trends ❖ Pollution ❖ The extinction of species ❖ Deforestation and degradation ❖ Depletion of natural resources ❖ Poverty and starvation Local trends ➢ River pollution ➢ Domestic waste ➢ Flooding ➢ Reducing biodiversity ➢ Depletion of natural resources ➢ Shortage of food stuff Human ecology: historical-cultural evidence (Prehistoric Era) such as : 1. Paleolitic : When: 600k y.a. (late Pleistocene) Type of culture: Pacitanian • Hand axe • Flakes Ngandongian • Animal bone tools Human: • Meganthropus paleojavanicus • Pithecanthropus erectus • Homo soloensis Mesolitic : When: 10k y.a. (Holocene) Where: Sumatera, Java, Borneo, Celebes, Flores, etc. Type of culture: • Hunting and gathering • Nomad and semi- nomad, cave shelters • unpolished stone and bone tools • Rock art (religion?) • Kjokkenmodinger • Grinding stone Human: Homo sapiens Neolitic : When: 3,000 BC-4 AD Where: Sumatera, Java, Bali, Borneo, Celebes, Moluccas, Papuan, etc. Type of culture: • Food producing (domestication and agriculture) • Polished stone • Earthenware (pottery) • Jewelry • etc Human: Homo sapiens sapiens Human Ecology: Cultivation ecology (alternative) • Shifting cultivation/outer island agriculture • Depend on fallow land (masa bera) and forest • Social stratification and communalism • Homogeny and closed community Local Security Food: Changing mindset ? • Indonesia consist of many local culture and unique ecology • Adaptability and socially acceptable • ‘Move from rice to other staple food’ (Artocarpus sp., Metroxylon sp., etc) • Diversified substitute plants and food (e.g. agroforestry with terracing system) • Develop home-garden intercropping system • Develop hydroponic, vertical garden and rooftop garden in urban area235239243244246247249251Human Ecology: coastal ecology (alternative) • Community develop skill and technology to adapt in coastal environment • Depend on season • Social stratification and communalism • Heterogenic and open Human Ecology: Vegetable-garden ecology (alternative) • Dominated by vegetables crop • Pesticide booming and intensified agriculture • Social stratification and communalism • Heterogenic and opened society The homegarden provides benefits for the household and the environment. o Carbon density obtained from plants and soil o Biodiversity of various types of plants ,additional nutrients and income by selling crops and livestock . o Site recycling with household compost and open space for drying the crops.236238239240244246247248251during dialogue many participant suggest ethnic diet and ethnic food guideline so that they can share with family member and make short food system chain. Fast food still exist, but indigenous and local food more valuable for sustainable gastronomy and future food with innovation. Four Participants interested to create home garden with polyculture system and permaculture. We signed Social Movement to get more impact from food heritage with hashtag (#FridayBackToLocalFood) (#SaturdayGardening)2372382392402442462472481. Small Farmer 2. Medium Agriculture Enterprise 3. Social Enterprise 4. Community Development 5. Food Policy Employee

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/IMG_20220321_184820.jpghttps://youtu.be/kRrprXCH910https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SsX0WTuOJ9qi071C2S-8t5nfcm3EnN_lh5JYalAmo44/edit?usp=drivesdk

2022-03-22 13:10:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/49438/203

911617920121210143211211

The Dialogue was organized with each of the Principles in mind at every stage. As a continuation of side events held at other global summits, including the UN Food Systems Summit, this Dialogue has been embedded in Summit processes and Principles from the beginning. While the focus was on small-scale producers (including, farmers, fishers, ranchers, etc.), stakeholders from INGOs, research agencies, farmer organizations, and others were included in the planning and execution of the Dialogue. It was very important for us as organizers to build trust with our main stakeholder group, small-scale producers, by ensuring they had as much space as possible to share their thoughts and guide discussions. We continue to consult and include producers in the outcomes of the Dialogue.In order to recognize complexity, we considered farmers not only as producers and economic actors but also consumers who have the right to safe and nutritious food. They must also maintain the sovereignty to decide which production practices work best for them while being provided with information on sustainable and cost-effective options. The language and aims of the Dialogue build upon pre-existing and negotiated texts and data which are relevant to smallholders’ needs as well as the important role of government, aid and non-governmental organizations, and other development actors.Convenors should use the Principles as general guidelines not only in preparation but also execution. They relate to the subject matter of the Dialogue as well as the practical and logistical elements as well. It is especially important to be respectful of all participants and provide a safe space to share ideas.

Yes

234238241243244245248249251This Dialogue represents a collaboration with smallholder farmers on their policy priorities that should be included in a call to action to stand with smallholder farmers and be accountable for tangible results. The call to action, which will be circulated for sign on from all stakeholders, will encourage policy makers to recognize the critical role smallholders play as entrepreneurs in building sustainable and resilient food systems. Smallholders are at the center of local, national, and regional food systems but they continually face food insecurity and poor nutrition.235238240241242243244245248249250251The Dialogue confirmed that smallholders want and need farmer-facing policies of which farmers contribute to the formulations and implementation. We continue to hear calls for more productive partnerships, access to direct funding, equal opportunities for and inclusion of women, increased market access, strengthening of farmer organizations, increased investments in mitigation and adaptation strategies, and data suited to smallholders’ needs.236238240241242243244245248249250251On the Farm This breakout session focused on the types of policies, interventions and services that are needed to support small-scale farmers improve the production capacity of their farms in light of the challenges they face. The discussion in this room highlighted the need for support for commercialization including direct financing, inclusion of smallholder farmers at planning and implementation stages of policy, and partnerships with diverse actors. In addition, smallholders will experience the brunt of climate change land conservation partnerships to protect farmers’ land and biodiversity will allow the combination of outside and farmer expertise. Finally, agricultural activities need to be modernized and mechanized to entice youth.236238240241242243244245248249250251Food on the Move The breakout session will focus on the challenges small-scale farmers face accessing markets and food value chains. This topic concluded that there is a lack of representation of farmers who need more platforms and better networks to collaborate with governments, investors, and the private sector. Farmers will need to think of themselves as profitable entrepreneurs that are part of a bigger system. Improved access to pricing information, equipment, and other capacity building techniques will help them fulfill this role. Women and youth face more barriers which make it even more difficult for them to establish themselves in the food system. Strengthening farmer organizations can allow farmers of all kinds to increase their power as actors in the value chain.236238240241242243244245248249250251Empowering the Excluded This breakout session will focus on the support that small-scale farmers need to reduce poverty and food insecurity, increase education, and strengthen capacity. These goals can be reached through direct financing to ensure that funds are used as intended and in the best interest of the farmer. Partnerships can create an enabling environment of good policies that support smallholders as well as provide education and training on how to maximize resources and knowledge. Farmers are aware of environmental changes and the challenges they will pose. They require climate smart support to adapt. Ultimately, structures dedicated to advocacy can ensure there is follow up for all smallholder farmer-related work.237241Some participants expressed concern that this would not provide immediate assistance for smallholders.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Consensus_BackgroundInfo.pdfhttps://sdg2advocacyhub.org/actions/new-consensus-smallholder-farmers

2022-04-04 22:25:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50106/132

346151218265891218100500001510701000310

Please see our IAFSD Summary Report March 2022.Please see our IAFSD Summary Report March 2022.Please see our IAFSD Summary Report March 2022.

NoPlease see our IAFSD Summary Report March 2022. We have been able to get attendance to a good series of 5 Independent Aotearoa Food System Dialogues. Over this time people have come and gone and those who remain after the near two years, are from a very diverse range of stakeholders who are still giving their time for free to each dialogue. Given the issues each Table has identified are so serious and we have a level of intimacy per Table now, it has been decided to drop the Chatham House Rules (see the Report). Another reason for this to provide ease of management for the Facilitators'. Their Feedback Forms are so 'on point' and we need to work at pace and to 'keep moving'. The work and outcomes coming out is incredible and real momentum is picking up.

234240243244246247248Bedding down the kaupapa/objectives for each of the 4 Breakout Tables involved now after a series of 5 dialogues.235The main finding was a subsequent meeting asked for between two of the breakout tables, so that duplication is not taking place within the work we are doing and the national body of work being done. Please see our IAFSD Summary Report March 2022.236Please see our IAFSD Summary Report March 2022.

2022-04-05 13:28:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/37613/203

615381624222

To provide for meaningful conversation and the consolidation of action-oriented discussion, the Dialogue featured a combination of small, thematic group discussions and plenary conversations. The Dialogue began in a plenary session, with an invocation for spiritual harmonization to ground the conversation before introducing the background and objectives of the consultation to sensitize participants to opportunities for engagement at the Summit. The Dialogue then proceeded into three thematic groups of eight to twelve participants with guiding questions on their respective topics and an experienced moderator(s) to facilitate inclusive and action-oriented discussions. Methodology: The three independent thematic dialogues included youth -- moderated by Ms. Margaret Tunda Lepore, women -- moderated by Hindou Oumoru; and traditional knowledge holders -- moderated by Dr. Kanyinke Sena. The online webinar format of the Dialogue also featured English or French language translation to account for the linguistic diversity of Indigenous Peoples across Africa and provide for open and inclusive dialogue. To structure conversation in each independent thematic dialogue, ILEPA also provided guiding questions ahead of the Dialogue. To ensure the independent thematic dialogue sessions concluded with critically considered and actionable policy proposals; each moderator also promoted interactive conversation and encouraged participants to highlight solutions to raised areas of concern. These questions were also adapted to the context in each thematic dialogue session, identifying stakeholders, mechanisms, and issues that were most relevant to participants.Embrace Multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The Dialogue facilitated the participation of African Indigenous peoples in the regional independent dialogues, convening African Indigenous youth, women, and men including elders from Anglophone and French-speaking North, Central, West, and East Africa. Also, representatives from the Traditional Knowledge resource center - academician/researchers, of the National Museums of Kenya (NMK), were in attendance. Recognize Complexity: The Dialogue did recognize the difference between the Traditional Knowledge Systems and the modern food systems. There was recognition of the difference in the approach within the different systems and their complexities, for instance, the IPs Traditional food system was communal and all the community members were responsible for ensuring that the environment from which they got their food is well protected. The community-Based Monitoring Systems continue to be a great avenue through which the community maintains its food system. Be Respectful: During the dialogue. The views and opinions of all the participants were welcomed. Recognition and Respect were also given to the other food systems which are different from the Indigenous Food System. Efforts were made to encourage all the participants to contribute.The principles of engagement are crucial and integral in the organization of any dialogue as they influence the quality of outputs of the dialogue; ensure inclusivity, facilitate rich harvesting of ensures and build solidarity in emerging areas of convergence.

Yes

234239240241242244247249251i) The Dialogue served as a platform to encourage new modalities for collaborative action for Indigenous Peoples across and within the African Region. ii) Concretize the right to food and food systems in the continent by presenting perspectives related to food systems that reflect the distinct experiences of Indigenous people from various regions of Africa iii) Clearly articulate the dynamics of the food crisis in the African region, identifying challenges and opportunities for Indigenous Peoples. iv) Aim to develop collective and regionally responsive recommendations ahead of the summit.235241242247249251The Dialogue revealed constituent-specific concerns such as land rights for women and cross-cutting matters that emerged in each independent thematic dialogue, such as intergenerational issues and the importance of preserving ancestral knowledge. The White Wiphala Paper Indigenous Peoples Food Systems supports the distinct yet converging nature of the food crises for Indigenous peoples, calling for the Summit to use an intersectionality lens. In real terms, Dialogue participants across the thematic sessions expressed collective interests while calling for land rights regimes, enhanced and targeted funding mechanisms, and governance that recognizes the needs of Indigenous women and pastoralists as groups with distinct challenges. In developing the global Indigenous Peoples’ position to the Summit Secretariat, policymakers must also consider the distinct regional barriers to implementing international and national provisions for the protection of Indigenous food systems in Africa. In particular, participants in the thematic dialogue on women called for governments to recognize the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), specifically provisions relevant to the food systems of Indigenous people such as Articles 3, 18, 20, and 26 that acknowledge the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples to lands, territories, and resources, the rights of Indigenous Peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, and to pursue their self-determined development. The women’s thematic dialogue session, in particular, called on the Kenyan government to recognize the ruling by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 2017 on the evictions of Ogiek people from their ancestral lands in the Mao Forest and implement remedial action, as outlined in the judgment.236238241242243245247Women Thematic Group Recommendations: ● The health crisis stems from our lack of living in harmony with nature. We need capacity building and upscaling for smallholder agricultural practices in line with Indigenous traditional knowledge to protect our food and identity at the grassroots level. ● Many communities around the world do not embrace traditional food systems and Indigenous technology in Indigenous food systems. As a tool to fight food insecurity and hunger, acknowledging the traditional food production system is crucial. Despite including various traditional practices for environmental preservation, pastoralism, and seasonal food production, for example, are not meaningfully recognized or included in curricula.236239242244247251Traditional Knowledge Holders Recommendations: ● Loosen restrictions on the use of medicinal herbs among Indigenous peoples as they are central to Maasai health and nutrition in Kenya and Tanzania, alike. Indeed, these herbs are often used as substitutes for lost nutrients when people lack diverse foods. Traditionally, these are soul foods that, in African food heritage, are significant to cultural values. ● Traditional consumption practices leave no one hungry. Among pastoralists and hunter-gatherers, food production has been communal rather than individual. Thus, sharing with neighbors and other community members during times of surplus and receiving during times of deficit has been traditionally conducive to ensuring that everyone has equal access to food. ● Pastoralism is one of the most sustainable modes of farming – and food systems – on the planet. Indeed, it is traditionally the extensive herding of livestock over rangelands. ● Hunter-gatherers managed their forests areas to ensure the availability of roots, fruits, leaves, barks of trees, and wildlife life. Recognition and strengthening of these systems would be critical. They practiced seasonal, vertical migration in forests areas year-round. During warmer months, they move up the montane forests and during colder months they moved to the lower grounds. The migrations were informed by the abundance of flowers for honey and wildlife which also followed the seasons. Recognition of traditional knowledge on food would therefore be key to safeguarding food and nutrition.236240244249Youth Recommendations: ● Improving Indigenous people's products and food value chains to enhance livelihoods; creating direct market linkages between farmers and consumers. ● As agricultural technology upgrades local productions to advance seed-saving and improve high yields, we must focus on socio-economic yet culturally sensitive approaches to ensure that traditional foods are not being genetically altered.237240241242245247251Contemporary Western relationships with food systems no longer celebrate the food itself. Historically, food systems were a spiritual and cultural part of nearly all humans’ daily lives. As agricultural technology upgrades local productions to advance seed-saving and improve high yields, we must focus on socio-economic yet culturally sensitive approaches to ensure that traditional foods are not being genetically altered. COVID-19 Recovery Plans must address the distinct needs of Indigenous peoples, particularly Indigenous women, related to land rights, food security, and community production. Thus, land tenure issues for Indigenous women in Africa are crucial, as Indigenous women can lead to the growth of sustainable, organic, and climate-resilient agriculture. Although Indigenous women hold crucial knowledge and are critical stakeholders in preserving ecosystems, they are left behind. Women are key knowledge holders in our food systems, from production to transformation. Indigenous people, and Indigenous women, in particular, must be included as early stakeholders in the decision-making process -- from the planning to design to implementation and supported economically and socially. To implement these recommendations to the UN Summit on Food Systems, participants in the women's thematic dialogue called for programs designed by Indigenous peoples, particularly women, and a dedicated funding mechanism to implement the programs. The lack of recognition for communal land drives many Indigenous farmers to production methods with adverse environmental and health outcomes. It also accelerates deforestation by contributing to the marginalization of Indigenous farmers -- stakeholders with a traditional role in protecting ecosystems. As 90% of meat in Kenya and Tanzania still comes from Indigenous peoples, traditional methods are stressed and must adapt in a way that allows them to sustainably expand production. Must ensure that (1) there is enough livestock to provide for the community before (2) selling on external markets. Traditional consumption practices leave no one hungry. Among pastoralists and hunter gatherers, food production has been communal rather than individual. Thus, sharing with neighbors and other community members during times of surplus and receiving during times of deficit has been traditionally conductive to ensuring that everyone has equal access to food. Governments must recognize sustainable pastoral systems and their social, economic, and environmental contributions to regional food systems, ensure knowledge transfers to the next generation, and prioritize Indigenous peoples' organic food and traditional seed bank. As a part of this recognition, the voices of Indigenous pastoral farmers must be included in decision-making.

2022-04-27 09:02:14205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50291/200

4603261700291663125061024000012122111263001280401016

Act with urgency: The discussions were focused on the most urgent interventions especially since Yemen has many competing priorities. This was ensured by setting these priories at the beginning of the event and then elaborating on the actions to address them. Commit to the Summit was ensured through developing the event’s materials (the presentations and working groups’ tools. The contents were taken from the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit. Also, the outcomes of the event were aligned and connected with the expected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. All the participants are technical people with close perspectives on the local dynamics, culture and contexts. The participants were encouraged to be mindful of the practical solutions and game-changers with relevance to the local capacities, dynamics, culture and contexts. Recognizing complexity was critical through linking the direct and underlying causes and taking into consideration the impact on humans, animals, marines and plans. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity was reflected by looking into the topics from a multi-sectoral approach. Complementing the work of others was ensured through supporting the existing mechanisms and systems and making sure they are strengthening. Building trust is the core of the dialogues. The proposed national coalitions are space for a trust-building approach.Trust-building is the first step in Yemen. Not only between the government actors but also between the government and partners from the national NGOs and business sector as well as the UN and INGOs.Principles of Engagement should be translated into actions and implementing mechanisms.

Yes

234239243244245246247248249251The national dialogues focused on: (i) a comprehensive exploration of food systems, (ii) than an exploration of the Action Track 2 (iii) examination of links between all the Action Tracks.235239243244245246247248249251The AT2 is more focused on a healthy diet and healthy and safe food and environment. So, with regard to public health, the technicians stress the need to expand the scope of the provision of a healthy diet in the health sector to include all vulnerable groups by strengthening nutrition interventions in hospitals and supervision of kitchens in hospitals; As well as providing therapeutic and tube feeding and nutritional supplements to patients as well as building the capacity of the health staff to link nutrition with therapeutic protocols. Also, they reiterated the need to strengthen food safety interventions, control children's food, and promote environmental health interventions. On the other hand, the focus was on school-age children and the importance of school meals and the awareness-raising on a healthy diet. The dialogues focused on the following axes: building national systems, by strengthening infrastructure, information, communication, coordination and learning; eradicating hunger in Yemen; promoting access to nutritious and healthy food, especially for the most vulnerable groups such as women (mothers and adolescents), children and the elderly and demonstrating the long-term impact of improving women’s and children’s health, education, and participation in the economy and society; promoting food safety, as well as raising the demand for healthy and nutritious food, and changing behavior and practices that promote healthy nutrition. Therefore, they suggested the following national working groups, to launch these interventions. Thematic Priority: Providing lifelong nutrition, health education and awareness raising  School Meals Working Group;  Hospital Nutrition Working Group;  The Higher National Committee for Awareness of Healthy Nutrition;  National Working Group for Children Food.236239243244245246247248249251The participants suggested the following national working groups, to launch these interventions. Thematic Priority: Providing lifelong nutrition, health education and awareness-raising  School Meals Working Group;  Hospital Nutrition Working Group;  The Higher National Committee for Awareness of Healthy Nutrition;  National Working Group for Children Food; Thematic Priority: Ensuring food safety from a multi-sectoral perspective  National Working Group to Monitor the Use and Impact of Agricultural Pesticides;  The National Committee for Regulating Food Safety.237239243244245246247248249251The areas of divergence were:  The fragmented actions by the national NGOs, international actors and UN agencies in the country;  The lack of coordination and communication between the international actors and UN agencies with the governmental institutions;  The impact of the war and political conflict on the public institutions’ capabilities and so the weak capacities of the public (government) institutions;  The weak political commitments toward the sustainable and strategic interventions, policies and programs in the country;  The gap between the political and technical levels within the public institutions (gap in the political will, commitment and knowledge);  The lack of fund for the priority interventions.

2022-04-27 09:17:35205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50272/200

5608252010372042840432281200132104410183011381303016

Act with urgency: The discussions were focused on the most urgent interventions especially since Yemen has many competing priorities. This was ensured by setting these priories at the beginning of the event and then elaborating on the actions to address them. Commit to the Summit was ensured through developing the event’s materials (the presentations and working groups’ tools. The contents were taken from the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit. Also, the outcomes of the event were aligned and connected with the expected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. All the participants are technical people with close perspectives to the local dynamics, culture and contexts. The participants were encouraged to be mindful to the practical solutions and game-changers with relevance to the local capacities, dynamics, culture and contexts. Recognizing complexity was critical through linking the direct and underlying causes and taking into consideration the impact on humans, animals, marines and plans. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity was reflected through looking into the topics from the multi-sectoral approach. Complementing the work of others was ensured through supporting the existing mechanisms and systems and making sure they are strengthening. Building trust is the core of the dialogues. The proposed national coalitions are space for a trust-building approach.Trust-building is the first step in Yemen. Not only between the government actors but also between the government and partners from the national NGOs and business sector as well as the UN and INGOs.These principles should be translated into actions and implementing mechanisms.

Yes

234238243244245246247248249251The national dialogues focused on: (i) a comprehensive exploration of food systems, (ii) than an exploration of the Action Track 1 (iii) examination of links between all the Action Tracks.235238243244245246247248249251the dialogues identified a number of priority themes that, when acted upon, will constitute a transformative path towards a sustainable, resilient and equitable food system. The priority thematic areas that emerged from the national dialogues in Yemen took the form of a group of Working Groups that the participants in the national dialogues agreed on the need to establish as mechanisms for advocacy, follow-up, and implementation. The main focus was to find mechanisms that enable actors to reach out to the most vulnerable groups. In Yemen, the humanitarian crisis is at its highest level. So, the participants were eager to help people directly with less focus on policies. For this purpose, the participants focused on tracking the most impactful interventions to help people. They agreed that the recent focus should be on creating working groups to start working on the main issues that have a great impact on people. Eventually, around 15 working groups (national coalitions) were suggested. The focus was more on the agriculture and fisheries interventions. Therefore issues like promoting food safety, along the value chains of food systems (from seed to fork); supporting national public policies and strategies to strengthen food control and interventions (from production to consumption); promoting effective integration and coordination through strategic partnerships between government, local communities and international partners to build sustainable food systems; were the main discussion areas. The national Working Groups represent a nucleus for global and regional communication and partnerships with similar and related Working Groups at the regional and global levels. These national Working Groups are the result of an urgent need at the national level; it is also an extension of international efforts to achieve sustainable development goals. These Working Groups focus on targeting the following core areas: (i) agricultural and fisheries investments: focus on improving access and availability and reducing food insecurity; (ii) economic development: focus on increasing investment and productivity while taking advantage of diversified sources of funding; (iii) empowering the most vulnerable (women and children): (iv) Strategic Development Partnerships: transparent policies, government effectiveness, and effective partnerships between multiple sectors, public and private, community and international partners in infrastructure development; (5) human capacities: addressing human development, particularly population health and education; and (6) quality: food safety from seed to table.236238243244245246247248249251The participants focused on establishing these national working groups; Thematic Priority: Expanding social protection  National of Social Protection Mechanisms and Zero Hunger;  Government-subsidized bread Working Group; Thematic Priority: Expanding/Increasing the quantity and quality of agricultural and fishery products  The Supreme Council for achieving food self-sufficiency;  National Working Group to Increase Domestic Agricultural Production;  National Working Group to support the agricultural and fisheries investment environment;  National Working Group of Governmental Support for the Fishermen;  National Working Group to Support Integrative Agriculture (Aquaculture).237238243244245246247248249251The areas of divergence were:  The fragmented actions by the national NGOs, international actors and UN agencies in the country;  The lack of coordination and communication between the international actors and UN agencies with the governmental institutions;  The impact of the war and political conflict on the public institutions’ capabilities and so the weak capacities of the public (government) institutions;  The weak political commitments towards the sustainable and strategic interventions, policies and programs in the country;  The gap between the political and technical levels within the public institutions (gap in the political will, commitment and knowledge);  The lack of fund for the priority interventions.

2022-04-27 10:04:23205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50283/200

560233201401623565101040000412111000224000400201026

Act with urgency: The discussions were focused on the most urgent interventions especially since Yemen has many competing priorities. This was ensured by setting these priories at the beginning of the event and then elaborating on the actions to address them. Commit to the Summit was ensured through developing the event’s materials (the presentations and working groups’ tools. The contents were taken from the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit. Also, the outcomes of the event were aligned and connected with the expected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. All the participants are technical people with close perspectives on the local dynamics, culture and contexts. The participants were encouraged to be mindful of the practical solutions and game-changers with relevance to the local capacities, dynamics, culture and contexts. Recognizing complexity was critical through linking the direct and underlying causes and taking into consideration the impact on humans, animals, marines and plans. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity was reflected by looking into the topics from a multi-sectoral approach. Complementing the work of others was ensured through supporting the existing mechanisms and systems and making sure they are strengthening. Building trust is the core of the dialogues. The proposed national coalitions are space for a trust-building approach.Trust building is the first step in Yemen. Not only between the government actors but also between the government and partners from the national NGOs and business sector as well as the UN and INGOs.These principles should be translated into actions and implementing mechanisms.

Yes

234242243244245246247248249251The national dialogues focused on: (i) a comprehensive exploration of food systems, (ii) then an exploration of the Action Track 5 (iii) examination of links between all the Action Tracks.235242243244245246247248249251The problem to be addressed: Translating the solutions into collaborative actions to support the resilience of food systems with focus on: Strengthen the capacity and resources of national systems to be able to monitor and assess the shocks and fragilities, and strengthen their resilience, including the resilience of farmers, women, youth and micro, small and medium enterprises to effectively participate along the entire food system from production to consumption, providing them with tools, techniques and advisory services needed to enhance their engagement with the private sector; managing risk and security at all levels - the individual, society, government, and systems; coordinating policies, programs and investments (including aid) among all stakeholders, with governments at the fore; explore blended finance and public-private partnerships (PPP) to mobilize funding for under-resourced initiatives to bring about positive change in food systems; develop monitoring and evaluation systems to monitor, measure and evaluate interventions; identify harmful agricultural practices such as excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides and excessive irrigation that contribute to soil degradation, soil alkalinity and erosion and threaten sustainable food systems as well as identify harmful marines practices.236242243244245246247248249251Thematic Priority: Building strategic collaboration and partnerships across sectors and multi-stakeholders Food Policy Dialogue Forums (Food Security Secretariat) Thematic Priority: Scaling up the national readiness for food systems’ positive transformations and responding to emergencies and shocks. The National Working Group to Build National Capacities to Respond to Emergencies and Shocks.237242243244245246247248249251The areas of divergence were:  The fragmented actions by the national NGOs, international actors and UN agencies in the country;  The lack of coordination and communication between the international actors and UN agencies with the governmental institutions;  The impact of the war and political conflict on the public institutions’ capabilities and so the weak capacities of the public (government) institutions;  The weak political commitments toward the sustainable and strategic interventions, policies and programs in the country;  The gap between the political and technical levels within the public institutions (gap in the political will, commitment and knowledge);  The lack of funds for the priority interventions.

2022-06-09 18:00:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50344/203

6305252673625245412024326123133158110214111

The principles of the Summit have guided the Dialogue since its preparation. An important effort has been made to invite different profiles: consumers, farmers, NGOs, companies, retail, veterinarians, agronomists, other professionals, researchers, representatives of public administrations, communication professionals, political representatives, etc. The Dialogue was held in a climate of trust and respect. In order to register for the Dialogue, an invitation was sent listing the principles of the Summit, and it was mandatory to mark that the principles had been read and understood to participate in the Dialogue.In the distribution of participants by discussion rooms, it was tried that the profile of the participants was also different within each room. The Chatham House rule applied throughout Dialogue. The facilitators ensured that everyone had an opportunity to participate and express their opinion. All participants expressed their opinions in a respectful manner and were listened to. The high-level presentations, by Mr. Samuel Juárez, Special Advisor at the General Secretariat for Agriculture and Food of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Convenor of the National Dialogues in Spain of the National Dialogues for the UN Food Systems Summit.; Mr. Juan Prieto, Counsellor of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Permanent Representative of Spain to the FAO; and D. Javier Sierra, Counsellor of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the Permanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations Office and International Organizations in Geneva were inspiring and served to remind us of the importance of the Summit and its principles.We suggest that the profiles of those invited to the Dialogue should be as different and inclusive as possible, besides having high-level speakers who open the Dialogue with inspiring presentations that serve to open the debate towards more sustainable, resilient and inclusive food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244248249251The pork sector plays a fundamental role to achieve healthier, more resilient, equitable, inclusive and sustainable food systems and, therefore, to achieve the 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which is why the meeting was convened the Food Systems Summit in 2021. With this Dialogue, the pork sector wants to contribute to the achievement of these objectives, transferring to society its commitment to the creation of more sustainable and resilient Food Systems, and to continue feeding the world while protecting the planet. Therefore, with this INTERPORC Dialogue, it seeks to give continuity to the first Dialogue organized in 2021, entitled "The livestock-meat chain and its compliance with the SDGs: future challenges." On this occasion, however, the topics covered are delved into and go further, based on the current state of the sector and the progress made to achieve a climate-neutral sector by 2050 and even more committed to sustainability in its triple aspect: environmental, economic and social. Nowadays, there is a complex food system made up of a wide variety of elements that we must take into account: social, economic, environmental, consumer demands... In this sense, the dialogue also analyzes the role that meat must play in any balanced diet, environmental requirements, the role of pig farming in rural areas, the progress made in areas such as innovation, food safety, traceability and the way in which these are strengthened through the support of new technologies. The Dialogue promoted by INTERPORC in 2022 takes place within a framework of very profound changes in the approach to global Agrifood Systems as a consequence of the successive crises that have been occurring, and have made the governance of food systems more difficult. But it is still essential to ensure the supply of food to a population in a strong growth process, in optimal conditions of price, quality and affordability. The COVID-19 Pandemic has led to a growth in hunger, malnutrition, inequality and poverty in the world. This has been intensified even more as a result of Russia's war against Ukraine, which has caused serious negative impacts on the availability of raw materials, fertilizers and energy, and the consequent increase in production costs and prices. Added to this are climate change, African swine fever, migratory tensions, transformations in geopolitical environments, etc. In this context, world trade constitutes a fundamental element to ensure the provision of affordable food in all types of markets; so that, in the future, it will be essential to reconcile food sovereignty with global agri-food chains, sustainability with production, agroscience with information and collective intelligence, etc. In summary, the need for strong food systems has become evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which the Spanish pork sector has maintained its commitment to providing the world with a healthy source of protein, despite the restrictions of the pandemic. The tragedy of the war in Ukraine has made the need for food security even more relevant. With this Dialogue, therefore, we want to encourage the sector's capacity to contribute to continue feeding the world, but also to protect the planet.2352382392402412422432442482492502511. Food is a basic public good that must be defended against any type of restriction 2. Meat and meat products are an indispensable part of sustainable food systems That is because of its nutritional qualities, its affordability, for the role of the sector in the structuring of rural territories, and because they suppose the economic survival of many families. They are essential in achieving SDG2, zero hunger, and in the fight against malnutrition. 3. The European Union (EU) is unequivocally committed to sustainability The EU has very demanding environmental regulations and projects to promote Sustainable Food Systems, in which the white pork sector is already immersed and firmly committed. 4. Sustainability in its triple aspect is essential in achieving sustainable Food Systems Any production process is sustainable when it is maintained over time. For pork production to be maintained over time, it needs to guarantee social, economic and environmental sustainability. The social one means that the people who carry out the activity have their needs and expectations met just like the rest of the population. Also not leaving anyone behind, and encourage the work of young people and women. Adequate remuneration for their work and their investment is the basis of economic sustainability. The environmental one involves guaranteeing that all the resources they use can be regenerated and the impacts on the soil, water and air are minimised. 5. The pork sector is a guarantee of triple sustainability in rural areas The pork sector is a guarantee of the sustainability and a keeper of the rural environment, its biodiversity and natural and cultural heritage. Livestock farming promotes socioeconomic development and provides employment opportunities for young people, in addition to giving life to towns, which makes it essential in the fight against depopulation. 6. Both intensive and extensive farming in Europe guarantee the highest quality of products and the highest animal welfare. The pork production model implemented in the EU, and in particular, in Spain, is the most advanced and demanding in the world, and does not depend on the type of production -extensive or intensive-, but on the quality of production and health animal. The Spanish pork sector has spent years applying new precision feeding technologies and handling practices that increase the quality of life of the animals. 7. The pork sector is firmly committed to the stablished objectives in the 2030 agenda The sector has supported the 2030 Agenda through the Interprofessional for several years. It has assumed the same sustainability commitments as the rest of the economic activities within the framework of the strategies of the European and Spanish authorities. The population need to be put above everything else. We will only be able to maintain our activity in the different areas of the world if the ecosystems, as we know them, are maintained, and that requires a global vision of sustainability. 8. The pork sector contributes to eradicating hunger and malnutrition in the world The sector provides an affordable protein with a high nutritional value, especially important in developing countries, where it allows the economic survival of many families, and contributes to the fulfillment of SDG 2 and fights against malnutrition. 9. Pork meat and pork products must be included in a healthy and balanced diet and nutrition Pork meat and pork products are essential in a balanced diet along with other foods, and cannot be dispensed with due to their nutritional properties, based on responsible consumption. The Mediterranean Diet guarantees a balanced diet and nutrition, based on the combination and rational consumption of natural foods, of plant and animal origin. 10. The pork value chain must guarantee sustainability in Food Systems The white pork value chain has improved its efficiency in recent years, making full use of all the resources intrdouced in the value chain. 11. Socioeconomic importance of the pork sector, especially for the rural environment The pork sector is one of the main engines for generating employment and wealth in Spain, especially in rural areas where, besides direct jobs, it generates opportunities for other related sectors and guarantees the existence of family farming. 12. Global Food Chains and Food Sovereignty The globalization of food systems has resulted in the configuration of global and interdependent food chains that must ensure the proper functioning of the value chain and to do so in an increasingly sustainable manner. The international situation and the necessary reduction of the environmental impact require the strengthening of food sovereignty policies that guarantee the rapid, safe and efficient access of the population to basic foods, such as meat and pork products. 13. Importance of communication, information and “reputation” crises in the pork sector The pork sector faces continuous reputational crises. It must intensify proactive and positive communication supported by science. It is a priority to transmit to society its work in caring for the environment, animal welfare or innovation, among other aspects.236238239240242243244248251SUSTAINABILITY 1. Any production process is sustainable when it is maintained over time. Pork production, in order to be maintained over time, needs to guarantee social, economic and environmental sustainability. Social sustainability means that the people who carry out the activity have their needs and expectations met in the same way as the rest of the population. An adequate remuneration for their work and investment is the basis of economic sustainability, being something that the consumer must know and recognize. Environmental sustainability involves guaranteeing that all the resources used can be regenerated and the impacts on the soil, water and air are minimized. 2. The white pork production value chain supports the UN 2030 Agenda and has assumed the same environmental sustainability commitments as the rest of the economic activities within the framework of the strategies of the European Union and Spanish authorities. Participants believe that people must be considered before everything else. In our Spanish environment, maintaining activity in rural areas, in the medium and long term, will only be possible if our ecosystems and natural resources are preserved and, at the same time, the viability of the economic activities carried out there is guaranteed. 3. The Spanish white pork sector has been involved in improving its efficiency and sustainability. The application of precision feeding in pig farms is being a strategic tool. Among the measures applied, the following are highlighted: the adequacy of the feed supplied to the types of animals; reducing dietary protein levels or inorganic phosphorus levels; or the proper management of manure. A fact that proves this effort is the reduction of GHG emissions. There are areas in Spain where the concentration of farms is high, although it is below other European ones. All farms, regardless of size, should be given a chance to improve. Its activity has been authorized and promoted in the past. 4. The white pork sector is under significant regulatory pressure. This means high economic investments. In addition, from certain environments we are being stigmatized as a polluting activity. These facts discourage producers and, especially, young people, who stop seeing the pig sector as an attractive place to work in the future. Nobody can be left behind. 5. The white pork sector, in its primary production phase, has been efficient for years. Our challenge is to measure environmental impacts with a comprehensive tool. It is considered necessary to carry out a life cycle analysis, which incorporates all the environmental categories, to identify the specific points in which the improvement activities must be prioritized. The need to work on GHGs is evident, but we must not forget other elements such as nitrogen or phosphorus. 6. In terms of GHG, the need to maintain an increasingly efficient supply chain is recognized, which guarantees to be free of deforestation, with an increase in local raw materials and production models that promote the development of the circular economy. The rest of the chain also has to contribute, although it is in a process of improving energy efficiency, use of energy from renewable sources and use of by-products. Innovation is key. 7. The opinion of reducing meat consumption to reduce emissions has been commented. The opinion of the room is to follow the recommendations of objective science. The Mediterranean diet integrates vegetable and animal products. Meat has been and will continue to be a fundamental nutritious and sustainable food in our diets. It is important to analyze the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods that are proposed as alternatives to meat.236238240242243244248249251ANIMAL WELFARE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1. Animal welfare is equivalent to production quality and animal health. The European production model is the most demanding in the world in terms of animal welfare and the Spanish pork sector carries out measures beyond the regulations on its own initiative. According to several scientific studies, from a nutritional point of view there is no difference between meat from extensive and intensive production, although there is some from a sensory point of view. Both types of production are optimal for feeding society with quality meat. 2. Higher animal welfare reduces stress, and that leads to higher productivity. Animal welfare is a multifactorial concept, so a change in any factor affects the physical and emotional state of the animal. Currently, there is a debate of the balance between productivity and animal welfare: improving animal welfare, productivity is improved, so the sector is trying to achieve it. Both aspects are closely linked and neither of them should be ignored. It is even added that there cannot be a high or low degree of animal welfare, but rather animal welfare or discomfort. In this sense, the Spanish pork sector has been working for years on the application, for instance, of handling practices (especially in the handling of farrowing houses) that enhance the development of the natural behavior of pigs. 3. In part, sustainability is the result of exercising animal welfare. Future changes in European regulations on animal welfare, under the framework of the "Farm to Fork" strategy of the "Green Deal" will represent a major challenge that the pork sector will have to face. But these changes must be carried out in a sustainable manner and maintaining the triple sustainability: social, economic and environmental. World policies must change, and for this, science must be the base that guides political decisions on animal welfare and sustainability. 4. The growing disconnection of the urban world with the rural world generates that society is influenced by the lack of knowledge of the true functioning of the rural environment and the pig sector in terms of animal welfare. In turn, this has repercussions on political and even scientific decisions. Therefore, it is emphasized that the new animal welfare regulations must always be based on science, and not on emotions. In this sense, the role of farmers, professionals in rural areas, and veterinary and agricultural university professionals is also key to defending the work they carry out on a daily basis in animal welfare, to support these political decisions and, in addition, also inform about their work in protecting the rural environment. On the other hand, the importance of society being more aware of animal welfare is also highlighted, and for this reason consumers are increasingly asking for more information. With seals such as the "Welfare Commitment Certified" seal all that work and effort is shown to consumers, serving as a connecting element. 5. Through the optimization and self-demand to which the Spanish pork sector is subjected in terms of animal welfare, health is improved and the spread of diseases is prevented. The work of the veterinarian in his role of control and eradication of diseases is essential to protect health and prevent the appearance of zoonoses. 6. Sometimes it is intended to see pork production as a problem in rural areas. However, the idea of the need that is part of the solution in the sustainable use of natural resources is transferred. The European “Farm to Fork” strategy proposes to replace inorganic fertilizers with organic and local ones. The production of manure can contribute to this solution. The recent crisis in the prices of inorganic fertilizers has shown that other sources of fertilization of agricultural soil must be sought, and technology and innovation must be the way to commit to this transition. The change in the idea of manure as a by-product of great use is key.236238239240242243244248251NUTRITION AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS 1. Foods of animal origin are a very rich source, unique in some cases, of several micronutrients (essential) and bioactive compounds, and their restriction can lead to health problems without regular and constant supplementation. The elimination of meat would not be optimal because it contains essential nutrients and so, in this sense, it has been determined that is part of a balanced diet, along with all kinds of food. The high biological value of the proteins provided by meat has been highlighted, based on responsible consumption. 2. Sometimes it is difficult to standardise amounts of consumption, it depends on the consumer profile and their nutritional requirements (office work, physical work, athletes...). In this regard, it is considered that it is more efficient to educate the consumer so that he chooses freely according to routine or custom, and also based on his economic options. On how to direct to the consumer, the livestock-meat chain has to segment the market it is targeting, and adapt to its dynamics. 3. Decisions must have a scientific basis. There is numerous scientific evidence that supports the need for nutrients in meat for adequate nutrition and proper development and health status, in different consumer groups (special emphasis on children, women, athletes...). Human evolution has taken place with the consumption of meat. Also, necessary to reformulate certain meat products (salt, fat, protein excess...) and to establish some didactic procedure. 4. It is important to define how scientific evidence is communicated to the consumer, not only focusing on nutritional or health effects, but also on the negative impact on the environment that the absence of livestock would have. They are different topics and to focus on the message according to the audience is needed. The more and more types of consumers we have nowadays makes more complex. Alarmist messages or headlines cannot be launched at society, they must be verified and supported by science. Consumers must also be aware of his responsibility when it comes to eating well or badly. 5. Food is pleasure and enjoyment and has a cultural component. There is an excess of information, at least in Spain, so it would be consistent to seek balance in combining foods. 6. In the future, to create consumption habits (nutrition, pleasure, abundance and current variety that is not compromised) and find consumer confidence (through scientific guidelines, agri-food Associations and information disseminators) is considered necessary. 7. Making global forecasts for the future due to the uncertainty and current situation is complicated, but the SDG 12 Sustainable consumption and production must be born in mind. All the links in the animal protein production chain have their responsibility and task in this regard.236238240241242243249251ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT OF LIVESTOCK ACTIVITY 1. The Spanish pork sector is economically essential, due to the creation of direct employment and for its generation of wealth. 2. From an economic point of view, the pork sector provides an affordable protein with a high nutritional value, especially important in developing countries, where it is a source of wealth that allows the economic survival of many families, especially the most vulnerable, and contributes to the fulfillment of SDG 2, zero hunger, and to fight malnutrition. 3. Agriculture and livestock must be closely linked. Much of the land used to grow livestock food is not fit for human food production, so livestock contribute to putting that land to use, and to circular economy. 4. The Spanish pork sector is key in the fight against depopulation, since it contributes to establishing population and providing rural areas with other infrastructures and services that they would not have otherwise. Without pork, many towns in areas such as Aragón or Castilla y León would be depopulated. 5. The pork sector provides employment to a high percentage of women and young people in rural areas, where job opportunities are scarce. In addition, the presence of livestock in rural areas preserves natural and cultural heritage. 6. The majority of the Spanish pig sector is formed by family farms, whether they are integrated or not. The integration model is a successful model that guarantees the survival of family farming (along with the cooperative model). But there must be co-responsibility between integrator and integrated. 7. In general, belonging to the pork sector is a source of pride in Europe. In Spain, this has not been transmitted to society, which is disconnected from the rural world. The sector must transfer its good work to the consumer, and improve its image (including the image of the farm buildings themselves, planting trees, etc.). 8. In the short-medium term, the integral management of manure is a challenge. But there are economically profitable solutions: recycling the manure water, deodorized fertilizers, compost for biogas... Manure is a by-product, not waste. In the future, it could be a very important source of income. 9. The globalization of food systems has become in the configuration of global and interdependent food chains that must ensure the proper functioning of the value chain and to do so in an increasingly sustainable way. At the same time, the international situation and the necessary reduction of the environmental impact of the activity require the strengthening of food sovereignty policies that guarantee a fast, safe and efficient access of the population to basic foods, such as meat and pork products. 10. In Spain, food sovereignty in pigs is assured. The sector exports a large part of its production, and that allows us to feed a large part of the world and contribute to SDG 2. The proximity model is valid for a few products, and for sparsely populated areas, it is a market niche. But it is the industrial model the one that is allowing to feed the world. In addition, it is not always more sustainable to produce closer, especially considering that Europe is the territory in the world that produces with the greatest guarantees of sustainability. 11. Production needs to be done where it is more efficient. The Spanish pork sector is very efficient in meat production. This has taken more than 20 years, making it a difficult model to replicate in other countries. 12. The generational change in pigs is assured in Spain. But to guarantee this, and attract more young people, the sector has to remain economically profitable and improve working hours (which requires farms, of a minimum size, to ensure staff turnover). 13. The commoditization of food has created a problem. The need for the work of farmers to be well paid is highlighted. 14. In conclusion, the contribution of the pork sector is essential for achieving triple sustainability: economic, social and environmental.236238240241242243244248251COMMUNICATION 1. Due to its very nature, the pork sector carries out its activity mainly in rural areas, and this has created a geographical barrier in its relationship with national opinion leaders and the media that influence public opinion, which focus on large population centers. This lack of communication with urban society has led to a lack of awareness of livestock activity and the advantages of consuming animal proteins and has created the way for 'stories' by groups opposed to the consumption of meat that unjustifiably and unfoundedly criticize both the activity as well as the product, with arguments with little scientific basis, neither in the field of health or nutrition, nor in the field of environmental sustainability, nor in relation to animal welfare. 2. The sector faces great reputational risks. We are in a very polarized environment in which users only seek to confirm their own opinions and not get to know other different voices. This facilitates the dissemination of fake news and campaigns against the livestock-meat sector. The sector must combat it with truthful, contrasted and transparent information, more proactive communication and greater investment in communication. And, at the same time, communication must be humanized and moved through the real and inspiring stories of people in the sector. 3. The agri-food sector in general, and the livestock-meat sector in particular, carries out excessively reactive and defensive communication, losing its effectiveness. The sector has a pending task to better manage time, communicate proactively, get to know our audiences and adapt both in formats and messages to each of them based on the 'barriers' they have in terms of meat or the perception of the sector. For this, the sector needs to provide itself with relevant content and to be backed by science, so that there may be authorized voices outside the sector that support it. 4. It is necessary to work to a greater extent on communication towards the youngest segments of the population, since their information consumption is very different compared to other age segments. Currently, the younger audience is not a target for brands and it is a territory that we must occupy and work on media such as TikTok, Twitch, etc., in which they interact, talk or get information. Likewise, it is necessary to adapt to their language, their times and their way of being and thinking. For this it is essential to know them well and understand them. 5. The new information technologies offer immense opportunities for the pork sector to disseminate its real work and everything it contributes to society; but at the same time, these new channels facilitate the fast spread of fake news, false myths or self-serving disinformation, procedures which we must adequately fight using information and communication tools that allow us to generate and keep updated a correct and complete knowledge of the livestock-meat sector and their products. 6. Communication has its own rules and the pork sector must know them thoroughly to capture the attention of society. To do so, citizens must be known and listened to, create attractive messages to spread their positive values, adapt to the most appropriate formats and times for each of their audiences, and measure the impact of their communication actions in order to introduce improvements. 7. It is essential to give visibility and recognition to farmers and industrializing and marketing operators that are part of all Food Systems, as they are the main supports and managers of the sustainability of such systems; and the "depersonalization" of the vast collective that makes up the different food chains must be prevented by all means. Communication needs to be humanized, and to move through the real and inspiring stories of people in the sector.237238240243248NO IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES TO HIGHLIGHT Just a remark in one of the discussion rooms: 1. Production of pork meat for export. The starting point for everyone is the same: the world's population wants to consume meat as their income levels increase. A participant comments that perhaps it does not make sense to produce meat in Spain to export to third countries, due to the impacts that can be associated with the transport of raw materials and products. Other participants justify this system based on the economy and the environment. Regarding the economy because, in an open and globalized economy, the movement of goods and services is based on economic efficiency, production specialization and costs. The example of automobiles, electronic equipment or meat is mentioned. The environmental reasons are based on the efficiency of the pork production process in Europe in relation to other countries. In the case of Spanish white pork, specialization has allowed us to be very efficient in the use of all kinds of resources, as shown, for instance, by the data on emissions per kg of product. The conclusion is that the impacts need to be measured to compare.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Monograph_INTERPORC-Dialogue-on-UN-FSS.pdfhttps://interporc.com/https://www.bienestaranimalcertificado.com/animal-welfare-certified/https://transparentesnoinvisibles.es/https://letstalkabouteupork.com/https://meatthefacts.eu/https://redganaderocarnica.es/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X21000160https://interporc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Monograph_INTERPORC-Dialogue-on-UN-FSS.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13544/official-feedback-13544-es.pdf?t=1621593518

2022-07-06 14:40:17204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50140/203

0733173025391250011501001165020130000000244217000040228

Planning and preparation were conducted through a series of discussions between the three hosts - Bayer, Clim-Eat, and the World Famers’ Organisation. Diverse stakeholders were also consulted for their input and suggestions. Discussions between the co-conveners focused on the complexity of food systems; the significant impact on human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy, and other systems; and the necessity for a systemic approach to transformation. By focusing on an immediate and pressing issue - the devastating effects of geopolitical instability in Eastern Europe and beyond - planners emphasized the imperative to act with urgency; commit to the vision, objectives, and final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit; and embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity while advancing solutions on the ground. Speakers and facilitators who were involved in the planning as well presenting and facilitating included people in senior positions with NGOs such as the WBCSD, the World Health Organization, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, the Global FoodBanking Network, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA),Gates Foundation, Arctic Basecamp and the Coalition on Nature-Positive Innovation, as well as Clim-Eat, and the World Farmers’ Organisation; and senior executives from Bayer Crop Science, Rabobank, Unilever, and DSM.Each breakout group facilitator was provided guidance in advance of the Dialogue regarding the Principles: to act with urgency, commit to the Summit, be respectful, recognize complexity, embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complement the work of others, and build trust. David Nabarro, Strategic Director 4SD, initiated the dialogue by stressing the value of having diverse views, noting the importance of respecting everyone’s view and valuing disagreement. It was noted that the discussion would be an opportunity to listen and learn from one another in order to collectively identify synergies and solutions. Rodrigo Santos, President, Bayer Crop Sciences, spoke of the value of being together with people from such diverse backgrounds. Mr. Santos also addressed the three simultaneous crises of food, climate, and social; the opportunity to transform food systems, and Bayer’s bold investment of $160 million to support smallholder farmers aligned with its strategy. Lisa Moon, President and CEO of the Global FoodBanking Network, discussed the problem of food loss, especially at a time of a global humanitarian crisis and the formidable engagement in communities worldwide to support 60,000 local food banks that distribute food to 40 million people annually. Maria Carolina Fujihara, Founder and CEO, SINAI Technologies Inc., addressed the importance of innovation and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Dr. Theo de Jager, President of the World Farmers’ Organisation, addressed the importance of multi-stakeholder inclusivity to address the food system, including price increases as a result of geopolitical tensions. At the end of the breakout sessions, Dr. Agnes Kalibata, the U.N. Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to the 2021 Food Systems Summit, emphasized the Summit principles and the importance of addressing the SDGs. The Summit principles were also reflected in the facilitators’ report outs in the last segment of the Dialogue. The panel discussion was curated by Dr. Dhanush Dinesh, Founder of Clim-Eat, who emphasized the principles, in particular multi-stakeholder inclusivity.It is important for hosts and conveners to engage with diverse stakeholders from the outset - particularly in determining the theme and breakout group topics, as well as groups and individuals to be invited. This ensures that a variety of perspectives are considered in planning meaningful discussions that respect the urgency, complexity, and multi-stakeholder nature of solutions, actions, and collaboration, as well as the importance of building trust. It is important to be clear in all communications with co-hosts, facilitators, and participants about the importance of acting with urgency, committing to the Summit, recognizing the complexity of food systems, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complementing the work of others, and building trust.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247248251Hosted by Bayer, Clim-Eat, and the World Farmers’ Organisation at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2022 in Davos, this Dialogue brought together over fifty global leaders representing diverse stakeholder groups, including farmers, researchers, international organizations, and businesses from across Asia, the Americas, the European Union, and Africa. Participants who attended in Davos, in addition to some online guests, came together to discuss next steps in implementing the actions that were established at the UN Food Systems Summit. Following high-level presentations, participants split into five groups for intensive, facilitated discussions to plan next steps to advance food systems transformation. The dialogue’s objectives were to: • Identify key flagships to advance action for key themes related to food systems, including food security. • Provide a space for stakeholders to share, learn, and act with a view to fostering new actions and partnerships and amplifying existing initiatives. • Explore how key cross-cutting levers of change such as human rights, finance, innovation, and the empowerment of women and youth can be mobilized to meet the UN Food System Summit’s objectives. The MAJOR FOCUS topics from the group discussions were: 1. Transform food systems to become climate-smart and nature-positive. Climate-smart, nature-positive innovations can be transformational by sustainably managing food production systems to the benefit of nature and people (SDG12); increasing input efficiencies, minimizing externalities, improving soil health and increasing yields, reducing food loss and food waste, maximizing biodiversity and ecosystem functions (SDG 15); improving livelihoods (SDGs 1 and 10); and enhancing resilience to climate change (SDG 13). Low- and middle-income countries are a priority as these solutions will help them to leapfrog the agricultural development curve, delivering benefits for people, nature, and climate. The needs of small-scale farmers are also vital; they are at the frontline of catastrophic impacts of climate change, nature loss, deepening poverty, and a widening inequality gap. 2. Advance equitable livelihoods and value distribution for women. Gender gaps in land ownership are particularly stark. In most countries, between 70% and 90% of landowners are men, and 29 countries deny female spouses and daughters the same inheritance rights. As a result of unequal food systems, women are more vulnerable to shock induced food insecurity. It is vital that women have access and rights to resources by addressing the policy, institutional, and legislative barriers. 3. Develop commitments, action, and partnerships with the private sector. The workplace is an opportunity to reach millions of people in the food and agriculture value chains as well as in other industries and the public sector. Workforce nutrition delivers proven benefits for employers, workers, and communities as it contributes to healthier lives of citizens, improved commercial results, and more stable labor relations. The private sector is also a valuable resource to finance innovation and technology, incentivize farmers to maintain and repair soil, address the needs of smallholder farmers, use data and tech to scale up payments for ecosystems services, and incorporate the price of food into the true costs to nature. 4. Invest in research and development for innovation. Agriculture has been a major driver of climate change and nature loss. Enabling a successful transformation will require investments in research and development for innovation. While the World Bank estimates that around USD 56 billion is spent every year on agricultural research and development, investment does not typically focus on innovation, nor are investments done in a way that ensures uptake and adoption of innovation or considers the need to take actions that address climate change, nature loss, hunger, and other development objectives. Reorientation towards innovation, overall growth of public investment in agricultural research and development, and a focus on farmers’ livelihoods are therefore critical to meeting the SDG agenda.235238239240241242244245246247248249251ACTIONS 1. Engage the private sector to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all through workforce nutrition programs, encourage financial investments in research and innovation to advance finance innovation and technology, incentivize farmers for maintaining and repairing soil, address the needs of smallholder farmers, use data and technology to scale up payments for ecosystems services, and incorporate the price of food into the true costs to nature. 2. Focus on smallholder farmers who are at the frontline of catastrophic impacts of climate change, nature loss, deepening poverty, and a widening inequality gap – and are bearing disproportionate costs compared to other food systems actors. 3. Address gender inequities. As a result of unequal food systems, women are more vulnerable to shock induced food insecurity. Increasing women’s access and rights to resources and addressing the policy, institutional and legislative barriers as well as shifting harmful norms can enable equality, resulting in greater food security and better nutrition. 4. Unlock the widespread adoption of regenerative management practices, given the growing and interwoven challenges of malnutrition, poverty, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Such practices have the potential to deliver a larger diversity of plants and animals to a growing population without degrading the functional integrity of ecosystems while meeting the nutritional needs of current and future generations. BUILD PARTNERSHIPS 1. Between NGOs, the private sector, research institutions, and farmers. 2. With women. 3. With farmers associations. 4. With consumers. 5. With the private sector, to bring innovation, digital technology, finance, and insurance products to farmers, especially smallholder farmers. 6. With governments, legislators, and policymakers to address gender inequities.236238239243245247251Discussion Topic, Group 1: Nutrition By 2030, workforce nutrition is improved to millions of workers in the food and agriculture value chains. This discussion was facilitated by Rebecca Marmot, Unilever. ACTIONS 1. Use the workplace and supply chain as entry points to directly reach millions of workers and farmers across the food and agriculture value chains, as people spend more than one third of their lives at work. Investment in workforce nutrition remains a relatively untapped platform to tackle malnutrition. 2. Support the nutrition of workers and farmers through programs that increase access to and knowledge of good nutrition practices. Best practices from companies show that it is necessary to: • Use the WNA Scorecard to conduct a self-assessment exercise that will help them understand where they can improve their programs, set SMART goals and build a clear and comprehensive strategy to achieve them. • Seek partnerships to exchange best practices and make this happen. • Dare to connect with external organizations who can help them on their way. • Include and empower ambassadors for their workforce nutrition program who can hear and vocalize the needs from workers on the ground. • Recognize that employees are also consumers. To get inspiration from the frontrunners in the field, interested organizations are welcome to check out the Workforce Nutrition Case Study Booklet published by WNA. BUILD PARTNERSHIPS 1. With the private sector, especially those bold, who support workforce nutrition by investing in programs that work from their organizations through their supply chains. Workforce nutrition is an essential tool that delivers proven benefits for employers, workers, and communities. 2. With the Workforce Nutrition Alliance that was launched by The Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) in October 2019. The workplace is an opportunity to provide healthier diets for millions of workers and farmers. The Alliance is working to bring access to and knowledge about healthy nutrition to over three million employees in organizations and supply chains by 2025 and over ten million by 2030 worldwide. The Alliance has developed publicly available and user-friendly tools and resources to help employers develop impactful workforce nutrition programs to employees and indirect workers throughout their operations and supply chains.236240241243244245247248Discussion Topic, Group 2: Nature By 2030, nature-based solutions are adopted across the world by farmers through appropriate rewards. This discussion was facilitated by Giulia Carbone, World Business Council for Sustainable Development. ACTIONS 1. Mainstream innovation in the agricultural sector that will be instrumental to farmers’ knowledge and needs 2. Make innovation farmer driven, based on their needs and knowledge for their benefit and the benefit of their natural ecosystems 3. Provide financing for farmers for maintaining and repairing soil. 4. Focus on smallholder farmers as well as large farmers. 5. Make biodiversity an asset class and ensure funding. 6. Use data and tech to help scale up payments for ecosystems services. 7. Customize parameters and criteria for farmers’ access to credit and insurance with specific standards that may differ from those applied to other sectors. It is crucial that innovative financing models consider the timing of the agricultural cycle. 8. Map land according to productivity to help low productivity farmers shift to other products or ecosystems services. 9. Incorporate into the price of food the true costs to nature. BUILD PARTNERSHIPS 1. With farmer’s organizations to help close the gap between farmers and the scientific and private sectors – they can act as catalysts to meet farmer’s requirements and needs and act as in intermediary between farmers and the public and private sector by providing advisory services, innovation brokerage, and training to farmers to increase awareness and boost the adoption of innovations. 2. With banks, for capturing investors on biodiversity. 3. With investors, for providing patient capital for biodiversity over the longer term. 4. With consumer groups, to manage demand with a better understanding of the seasonality of crops.236238239240243244245246248249Discussion Topic, Group 3: Innovation By 2030, more than half of investment in agricultural innovation provides end-to-end solutions that support the SDGs related to food, climate, and environment. This discussion was facilitated by Tania Strauss, World Economic Forum and Herman Betten, DSM. ACTIONS 1. Create more inclusive ecosystems with solutions such as urban farming, hydroponic farming, and community gardens. 2. Incentivize farmers to work on regenerative agriculture. 3. Increase yield and nutritional value of food with food fortification and technology in business models and measure and demonstrate the value of food fortification to society. 4. Leverage biotechnology from the private sector and disseminate knowledge. BUILD PARTNERSHIPS 1. Engage all stakeholders that make up an enabling environment for a thriving system. 2. Involve actors beyond the food value chain, such as: • Insurance, financial services including (digital) payment, technology and digitalization • Consumer marketing to increase demand for nutritious products • Education and training • Government engagement and public policy236241245246249251Discussion Topic, Group 4: Gender By 2030, female farmers in agriculture are empowered and equipped with the skills to work sustainably, helping to better support entire communities. This discussion was facilitated by Lisa Moon, Global FoodBanking Network, and Vanessa Adams, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). ACTIONS 1. Ensure equitable roles, responsibilities, opportunities, and choices, and that in countries, communities and households, individuals are equipped to participate in local, global, and regional food systems activities in a meaningful, dignified, and equitable way. 2. Focus on four levers of gender equality and empowerment: a. Expand women’s agency. b. Increase access and rights to resources, services, and opportunities. c. Eliminate systemic, institutional, and legislative biases against women. d. Shift harmful and constraining gender norms. 3. Provide women with access to finance. 4. Build women’s agency, increasing access and rights to resources and addressing the policy, institutional, and legislative barriers as well as shifting harmful norms. BUILD PARTNERSHIPS 1. With private sector, to play a role in investing in digital infrastructure. 2. Between women and agribusiness leadership networks. 3. With men, as influencers to drive change. 4. With international organizations, NGOs, private sector, and academia working in sub-coalitions to advance: • The Global Food Systems 50/50 Initiative • The integration of gender transformative approaches (GTAs) in relevant policies, programs, and systems. • The establishment of a Global Data Hub to make food systems data and available on one platform • Anemia Alliance 5. With Canada, France, USA, Finland Sweden, FAO, IFAD, SEWA, IFPRI, CARE, among others.236242244248Discussion Topic, Group 5: Resilience By 2030, 100 million farmers have adopted regenerative agriculture practices, supported by 1 billion consumers who demand and support products coming from regenerative agriculture. This approach improved production, resilience, and provided livelihood opportunities. This discussion was facilitated by Ben Valk, Rabobank and Gail Whiteman, Artic Basecamp. ACTIONS 1. Promote regenerative agriculture as an opportunity to equip farmers to absorb and recover from shocks and stresses to their agricultural production and livelihoods (short term and long term, predictable or non-predictable shocks). 2. Increase farmer adoption of regenerative management practices, given the growing challenges of malnutrition, poverty, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Adoption is low, as farmers often have limited access to information about new technology and what it means for them. Such practices have the potential to deliver a larger diversity of plants and animals to a growing population without degrading the functional integrity of ecosystems while meeting the nutritional needs of current and future generations. 3. Position agriculture and food systems as a large-scale solution provider of environmental benefits, while supporting livelihoods. This includes farming methods moving beyond resource efficiency and into ecological restoration through practices such as conservation tillage, cover cropping and rotations, agroforestry and other forms of diversification, mobile animal shelters and pasture cropping, farmer-managed natural regeneration, integrated pest management, precision nutrient management, and various soil and water management techniques that minimize the loss of soil structure and biodiversity and maximize its capacity to recycle nutrients and store water and carbon. These practices also minimize mechanical, chemical, and biological activities that can damage long-term soil health and produce negative offsite effects. BUILD PARTNERSHIPS 1. With private sector investment is vital. 2. With farmer organizations and associations. 3. With research institutions and NGOs.2372501. Areas of divergence were mostly related to the balance of attention to the various levers for change. Individuals were more, or less, passionate about particular approaches depending on their institutional affiliations, experiences, and perspectives. For example, private sector executives addressed opportunities where they could contribute most significantly, like workforce nutrition; and people who worked most closely with farmers emphasized the threats to livelihoods and remedies for economic development. This was in fact the value of having people from diverse sectors present concerns and potential solutions from their respective perspectives. Throughout, however, participants adhered to the summit principles of engagement, including recognizing complexity, embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, complementing the work of others, and building trust. The in-person nature of the Dialogue helped to foster respect among participants. 2. Another area of divergence related to the feasibility of coordination among such large sectors and institutions - from the private sector, to small holder farmers, NGOs, and regional governments. This concern led to meaningful discussions of ways to overcome the challenges to align efforts.

ACTIONS 1. Mainstream innovation in the agricultural sector that will be instrumental to farmers’ knowledge and needs 2. Make innovation farmer driven, based on their needs and knowledge for their benefit and the benefit of their natural ecosystems 3. Customize parameters and criteria for farmers’ access to credit and insurance with specific standards that may differ from those applied to other sectors. It is crucial that innovative financing models consider the timing of the agricultural cycle. BUILD PARTNERSHIPS 1. With farmer’s organizations to help close the gap between farmers and the scientific and private sectors – they can act as catalysts to meet farmer’s requirements and needs and act as in intermediary between farmers and the public and private sector by providing advisory services, innovation brokerage, and training to farmers to increase awareness and boost the adoption of innovations.2022-06-30 18:12:05

2022-07-31 10:09:36205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50842/200

520003272002003616005453352340110312320232526850222320623045

Act with urgency: The discussions were focused on the most urgent interventions specially that Yemen has many competing priorities. This was ensured by setting these priories at the beginning of the event and then elaborating on the actions to address them. Commit to the Summit was ensured through developing the event’s materials (the presentations and working groups’ tools. The contents were taken from the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit. Also, the outcomes of the event was aligned and connected with the expected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. All the participants are technical people with close perspectives to the local dynamics, culture and contexts. The participants were encouraged to be mindful to the practical solutions and game-changers with relevance to the local capacities, dynamics, culture and contexts. Recognize complexity was critical through linking the direct and underlying causes and taking into consideration the impact on human, animals, marine and plans. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity was reflected through looking into the topics from multi-sectoral approach. Complement the work of others was ensured through supporting the existing mechanisms and systems and making sure they are strengthening. Build trust is the core of the dialogues. The proposed national coalitions are space for trust-building approach. The events have been meticulously prepared to ensure broad participation of all relevant partners from government, local NGOs as well as UN agencies. The methodology of brainstorming, extensive discussion, analysis of the current situation and identification of difficulties as well as solutions were also adopted. The organization of events was in coordination and active participation of the coordinating bodies in the government that have the highest influence on national policies, and they were involved for the purpose of supporting the implementation of the outputs and enhancing ownership of the outputs among all participating partiesTrust building is the first step in Yemen. Not only between the government actors but also between the government and partners from the national NGOs and business sector as well as the UN and INGOs. Also, the ownership of the outcomes was reflected by ensuring the inclusive participation of some decision makers.These principles should be translated into actions and implementing mechanisms.

Yes

234239243244245246247248249250251Within the 3 areas of AT2: Food Environments, Food Demand; Food Waste. The focus was more on these fields: empowering the most vulnerable (women and children): demonstrating the long-term impact of improving women’s and children’s health, education, and participation in the economy and society; Strategic Development Partnerships: transparent policies, government effectiveness, and effective partnerships between multiple sectors, public and private, community and international partners in infrastructure development; human capacities: addressing human development, particularly population health and education; and quality: food safety from seed to table.235239243244245246247248249250251The most important general conclusions centered on the nutrition of children and vulnerable groups. So is food safety along value chains (from seed to table). The need for funding to implement the interventions; As well as the cooperative partnership between all stakeholders and stakeholders.236239243244245246247248249250251Thematic Priority: Providing lifelong nutrition, health education and awareness raising 1.1 National Task-force on School Meals; 1.2 National Task-force on Hospital Nutrition; 1.3 The Higher National Committee for Awareness of Healthy Nutrition; 1.4 National Task-force for Children’s Healthy Food. Thematic Priority: Ensuring food safety from a multi-sectoral perspective 4.1 National Task-force on Community Management to Monitor the Use and Impact of Agricultural Pesticides and fertilizers; 4.2 The National Task-force on Food Safety; 4.3 The National Task-force on Limiting Food Loss and Waste.237239243244245246247248249250251The many competing priorities in the country and the weakness of public services in all sectors led to attempts to present each sector as a top priority. However, managing events ensures that all sectors are presented with their importance, as well as finding points of contact between sectors where everyone can work and complete to achieve common goals. However, there is consensus on the importance of reaching vulnerable people first and as a top priority, followed by supporting policies that ensure the sustainability of interventions.

2022-08-01 10:00:55205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50853/200

55023617003718054333523331067113104225552504213501300490

Act with urgency: The discussions were focused on the most urgent interventions specially that Yemen has many competing priorities. This was ensured by setting these priories at the beginning of the event and then elaborating on the actions to address them. Commit to the Summit was ensured through developing the event’s materials (the presentations and working groups’ tools. The contents were taken from the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit. Also, the outcomes of the event was aligned and connected with the expected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. All the participants are technical people with close perspectives to the local dynamics, culture and contexts. The participants were encouraged to be mindful to the practical solutions and game-changers with relevance to the local capacities, dynamics, culture and contexts. Recognize complexity was critical through linking the direct and underlying causes and taking into consideration the impact on human, animals, marine and plans. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity was reflected through looking into the topics from multi-sectoral approach. Complement the work of others was ensured through supporting the existing mechanisms and systems and making sure they are strengthening. Build trust is the core of the dialogues. The proposed national coalitions are space for trust-building approach.Trust building is the first step in Yemen. Not only between the government actors but also between the government and partners from the national NGOs and business sector as well as the UN and INGOs.These principles should be translated into actions and implementing mechanisms.

Yes

234242243244245246247248249250251Introduce the Food Systems Dialogues (FSDs) and N4G Summit and what is expected from the participant countries; explain the AT5’s vision, objectives and direction, and enable national government and stakeholders from the private sector and civil society to engage in the issues of constructing sustainable and resilient food systems in the coming decade. • Introduction to the Food System Dialogues, the Track Action 5; • Generate a menu of game-changing solutions; • A systemic and nexus approach (multi-system, multi sectoral, multilevel, and multi-stakeholder); • A twin-track approach linking emergency response to sustainable development by leveraging the humanitarian-development-peace nexus; • Local and national ownership and political leadership with context-specific approach; • Strong and robust local food systems; with transformative innovations. • Sensitize government, private sector, CSOs, and other actors to take action in line with such solutions; and • Public advocacy tools to create a national movement for the outcomes of the AT5.235242243244245246247248249250251- Rehabilitating/building national systems, by strengthening infrastructure, information, communication, coordination and learning; - Eradicating hunger in Yemen is possible if the local resources invested; - Raising the demand for healthy and nutritious food, and changing behavior and practices that promote healthy diet; - Promoting access to nutritious and healthy food, especially for the most vulnerable groups such as women (mothers and adolescents), children and the elderly; - Promoting food safety, along the value chains of food systems (from seed to fork); - Increasing the agricultural and fisheries investments: focus on improving the accessability and availability and reducing food insecurity; - Empowering the most vulnerable (women and children): demonstrating the long-term impact of improving women’s and children’s health, education, and participation in the economy and society; - The resilience of food systems in the face of crises; - Promoting effective integration and coordination through Strategic Development Partnerships between government, local communities and international partners; - Sustainable funding mechanisms from local and innovative resources.236242243244245246247248249250251Priority topic : Expanding social protection: - National Task-force on Domestic Food Industries; - National Task-force on Home Economics (family and consumer Sciences); Priority topic: Expanding the scale and quality of agricultural and fishery products: - National Task-force for the Protection from Qat’s Effects; - National Water and Environment Task-force; - National Task-force on Innovation for Food; Priority Theme: Building strategic collaboration and partnerships across sectors and multiple stakeholders: - Food Policies Dialogue Forums; Priority Theme: Scaling up the National Readiness for Positive Transformations and Responding to Emergencies and Shocks: - Task-force on Building National Capacity to Respond to Emergencies and Shocks; Priority Theme: Sustainable financing for comprehensive and sustainable development: - National Task-force to Ensure Sustainable Financing Mechanisms for Comprehensive Development;237242243244245246247248249250251The many competing priorities in the country and the weakness of public services in all sectors led to attempts to present each sector as a top priority. However, managing events ensures that all sectors are presented with their importance, as well as finding points of contact between sectors where everyone can work and complete to achieve common goals. However, there is consensus on the importance of reaching vulnerable people first and as a top priority, followed by supporting policies that ensure the sustainability of interventions.

2022-08-02 08:27:12205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50868/200

510043512003714084144213351203543204125163401103501200340

Act with urgency: The discussions were focused on the most urgent interventions specially that Yemen has many competing priorities. This was ensured by setting these priories at the beginning of the event and then elaborating on the actions to address them. Commit to the Summit was ensured through developing the event’s materials (the presentations and working groups’ tools. The contents were taken from the vision and objectives of the Food Systems Summit. Also, the outcomes of the event was aligned and connected with the expected outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. All the participants are technical people with close perspectives to the local dynamics, culture and contexts. The participants were encouraged to be mindful to the practical solutions and game-changers with relevance to the local capacities, dynamics, culture and contexts. Recognize complexity was critical through linking the direct and underlying causes and taking into consideration the impact on human, animals, marine and plans. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity was reflected through looking into the topics from multi-sectoral approach. Complement the work of others was ensured through supporting the existing mechanisms and systems and making sure they are strengthening. Build trust is the core of the dialogues. The proposed national coalitions are space for trust-building approachTrust building is the first step in Yemen. Not only between the government actors but also between the government and partners from the national NGOs and business sector as well as the UN and INGOsThese principles should be translated into actions and implementing mechanisms.

Yes

234238243244245246247248249250251The main focus is on exploring game-changing solutions which will be collected and developed through the three work streams of the AT1 and tailored to local contexts, including cultural, social and economic aspects, the specific political economy of food, how food systems function, the existence and level of implementation of policies and regulations, institutional capacities and constraints on the ability of consumers on changing what they eat. The problem to be addressed: Translating solutions into collaborative actions to support the resilience of food systems in Yemen with focus on:  Fostering investment in holistic food systems approaches that address the prosperity of people and the environment in Yemen;  Addressing inequalities – structural, social and gender – in access to and use of resources, knowledge, assets, technology and markets/value chains;  Strengthen the capacity and resources of farmers, women, youth and micro, small and medium enterprises to effectively participate along the entire food system from production to consumption, providing them with the tools, techniques and advisory services needed to enhance their engagement with the private sector;  Managing risk and security at all levels - the individual, society, government and systems;  Coordinating policies, programs and investments (including aid) among all stakeholders, with governments at the fore;  Explore blended finance and public-private partnerships (PPP) to mobilize funding for under-resourced initiatives to bring about positive change in food systems;  Enabling systems to mitigate instability, shocks and stresses;  Develop monitoring and evaluation systems to monitor, measure and evaluate interventions;  Identify harmful agricultural practices such as excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides and excessive irrigation that contribute to soil degradation, soil alkalinity and erosion and threaten sustainable food systems.235238243244245246247248249250251•The fisheries Sector in Yemen is a promising sector that can be relied upon to contribute to the revival of the national economy, enhancing food security and raising the level of nutrition in Yemen. •The government is seeking to implement a package of priorities to increase local production and ensure sustainable livelihoods for fishermen and coastal communities that enable them to recover and be more resilient to resist future economic shocks. •Social Protection Sector pursues policies aimed at integrating a range of nutrition-sensitive programs: enhancing healthy diet practices; •Review social protection mechanisms is required in Yemen; •To expand the scope of nutrition in schools by expanding the provision of school meals in addition to distributing biscuits to students and providing nutritional supplements for adolescent girls. •To rehabilitate health facilities in schools, providing safe water and a healthy environment to limit the spread of diseases. •Increase agricultural growth rates to achieve food and nutritional security; •Combat poverty through increasing the local production of food commodities for consumption and marketing; •Ensure sustainable livelihoods for farmers, Fishermen and rural and coastal communities with a focus on women; •Improve and diversify sources of nutrition, increase dependency on natural micronutrients, access to food, and improve the relationship between consumers and food sources; •Reduce food waste and loss and promote Circular Food Systems for regenerative production. •Sustainable funding for sustainable development in Yemen should be explored by donors and partners; •Review the current funding mechanisms and explore options for improving the government entities’ capacities; •Exploring the local innovative financing resources; •Expand/explore partnerships with financial instruments and mechanisms. More focus on: •Funding and financing green and circular economy solutions •Financing for Development •Regional initiatives This FSDs on AT1 was the finalization of events in Yemen. The participants expressed their great admiration for the organization of the event and its unique management style. They also emphasized that they benefited greatly from all the discussions that took place, which represented a source for renewing their ideas and working mechanisms. They stressed that their role will be pivotal in adopting the outputs in their sectors, supporting their implementation, promoting and introducing them to their decision makers. The facilitators in the working groups ensured to allow everyone to come up with ideas and consensus around solutions. After extensive discussion and brainstorming during the plenary session, everyone expressed their views, fears and hopes. The dialogues were a free space for all that resulted in solutions that represent top priorities for the transition towards healthy, safe and sustainable food systems. It is worth noting that the organization of events was in coordination and active participation of the coordinating bodies in the government that have the highest influence on national policies, and they were involved for the purpose of supporting the implementation of the outputs and enhancing ownership of the outputs among all participating parties.236238243244245246247248249250251Priority topic: Expanding social protection - National Task-force on Social Protection Mechanisms and Zero Hunger - National Task-force on Subsidized brown Bread Priority topic: Expanding the scale and quality of agricultural and fishery products - National Task-force to achieve food self-sufficiency - National Task-force to Increase Domestic Agricultural Production - National Task-force to Support the Agricultural and Fisheries Investment Environment - National Task-force for Government Support to Fishermen - National Task-force to Support Aquaculture/Aquaponic Priority Theme: Sustainable financing for comprehensive and sustainable development - National Task-force to Ensure Sustainable Financing Mechanisms for Comprehensive Development237238243244245246247248249250251The many competing priorities in the country and the weakness of public services in all sectors led to attempts to present each sector as a top priority. However, managing events ensures that all sectors are presented with their importance, as well as finding points of contact between sectors where everyone can work and complete to achieve common goals. However, there is consensus on the importance of reaching vulnerable people first as a top priority, followed by supporting policies that ensure the sustainability of interventions.

2022-11-03 04:40:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50696/33

1821249918181317

In this independent dialogue, we aimed to bring together key small-scale stakeholders representatives from the cocoa sector of Southern Bahia, Brazil, from smallholder collectives and cooperatives, to non-government associations. Our main criteria for inviting representatives to participate in this dialogue was that they should voice smallholders’ collective knowledge and information needs related to climate change mitigation. Through our discussions, representatives had the opportunity, for the first time in some cases, to connect and openly discuss climate-related issues affecting their daily farming activities.We observed that through the open format dialogue, representatives showed willingness to collaborate with each other, and to jointly tackle shared problems. Also, representatives showed a strong commitment to facilitate avenues of communication between them for sharing information, knowledge and tools that help improve farm climate change resilience. Further, representatives showed mutual respect toward their cultural, ethnic and political differences, highlighting the importance of this diversity to tackle their mutual farming issues. In general, the representatives’ leadership style during the event facilitated respect and free speech, which encouraged everyone to participate in the discussions.A key element for convening a successful dialogue is to always remain proactive with participants, allowing everyone to share their views regardless of their social, political or cultural background. More specifically, in some cases, there will be participants raising their voices with ease, while others will find it difficult. For the latter, it is important to provide them with confidence, and a safe atmosphere to engage in dialogue with others. It is also important that conveners remain impartial within the opinions raised in the rounds, and facilitate the discussion without interfering (with their opinions and knowledge) in the flow.

Yes

234240241242244In this dialogue, we convened cocoa farmers representatives in Southern Bahia, Brazil as the region remains the top producer of cocoa in the country. Our overall objective was to determine the most effective way to contact the farmers and to disseminate the knowledge they need for improving their livelihoods. We also facilitated a dialogue to understand smallholder farmers issues related to climate change on crop management, yields, and livelihoods, along with the knowledge needed to solve these issues and ensure that the knowledge disseminated by scientists match to their needs. Therefore, we divided the dialogue into two parts: 1) Communication and knowledge exchange using technology: Here, we aimed to understand the most effective way to contact the farmers and to disseminate the knowledge they need to improve their livelihoods as identified below. We also discussed the potential communication and knowledge transfer between farmers. 2) Farmers Issues and information needed: Here, participants discussed the main issues related to climate impacts on crop production and livelihoods. This information will then be used to formulate knowledge requirements that will help them to tackle their most pressing issues.235240241242244In general, representatives agree in sharing similar views related to the information, knowledge and communication challenges they are currently using, being the internet the most important tool. According to representatives, one of the major challenges for smallholders lies in creating communication bridges to government, industry and researchers. They argued the need to promote communication to other stakeholders, in particular for reaching scientific based information (researcher stakeholder), financial support (government stakeholder), and better selling prices for their cocoa (industry). Representatives also show interest in having communication with other farmers from different cultures and countries, but the language barrier remains the main limitation. Overall, representatives agreed on sharing the same farming and production problems related to climate change, in particular strong weather fluctuations heavily affecting production as pest and disease outbreaks proliferate. Major actions need to be taken, and many representatives provided several agroecological management examples ongoing within the farmers representing, but financial supports, extension services are strongly needed.236240241242244Communication and knowledge exchange using Technology: During the dialogue we were able to observe that representatives shared similar views on the channels to reach farming information, being messaging apps, internet and non-government association the most common. Most representatives agreed that having access to the internet, most commonly through mobile phone data-services, was helpful to communicate between farmers, associations and share relevant information facilitating their farming activities. Representatives shared their interest in having direct contact with other stakeholders, such as government, industry and researchers, while they agreed that most communication channels are difficult to access or not existing, generating dependance to others (e.g. middle man in case to commercialize their cocoa to industry, or lack of knowledge of government financial support). Representatives showed interest in also creating communication bridges between farmers of other cultures and countries, being the language barrier the only limitation.236240241242244Farmers Issues and information needed : In general, all representatives reported facing farming and cocoa productivity issues related to climate change, specifically, they stressed out that strong weather fluctuations, prolonged droughts or heavy rainfall greatly affect production of cocoa. In most cases, important issues are pest related, as they perceive outbreaks being more common under these weather fluctuation conditions. Most representatives are already establishing mitigation strategies to improve farm resilience to climate change, being crop diversification, soil protection, integrated pest control, and organic fertilizers the most commonly discussed. However, representatives mention the lack of financial support (such as credits), or difficulties to access them, from funders and governments to invest in climate-related mitigation.237Not identified in this dialogue.

2023-05-24 11:58:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/50999/19

3810280000000005211362

By using the Convenors Reference Manual right from the start of the event planning process, we included the Principles over the whole National Food Systems Process. Some examples where we reinforced and enhanced the principles are described in the following. Due to our work on the topic of the transformation of the food system and organizing an FSD we recognise the utmost urgency of this topic (principle 1), as well as recognizing complexity (principle 4) due to the many different levels of governance and stakeholders we tried to consider by the invitation process. During the Food Systems Dialogue we frequently repeated that participants should communicate respectful (Principle 3).As an example for how we reflect specific aspects of the Principles, we included the expertise of multi-stakeholder right from the start, also by defining the overall topic of the Dialogue, as well as the discussion topics. In Austria the 10 health targets aim to operationalize the Health-in-All-Policies approach, target 7 “healthy and sustainable nutrition available for all” particularly addressed food systems. For each of the 10 targets, a corresponding cross-sectoral working group has been established. The heads of working group on health target 7 – representing Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture as well as Ministry of Climate - were actively involved in the groundwork of the Dialogue. This guaranteed the transfer of knowledge and expertise from the very beginning on.The Principles could be used as a guidance for the whole process and by always reminding the whole organization team, it could be helpful in terms of the preparation and the execution of the Food systems Dialogue

Yes

234238239244249The Competence Center Climate and Health (CCCH) at the Austrian National Public Health Institute is working on Co-Benefits on Climate and Health, with a recent focus on aspects of healthy and sustainable food systems. CCCH organised a National Independent Food Systems Dialogue aiming to bring together national stakeholders in the field of nutrition, agriculture, policymaking, science and communication together. By targeting the action Track 2 (Shift to sustainable consumption patterns) and considering a system-thinking-approach we invited stakeholders to identify future steps and perspectives in terms of “Steps towards a healthy, sustainable and fair food system in Austria in 2030”. The Dialogue is overlapping with other FSD-Action Tracks (e. g. ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all). We designed five discussion groups and covered as many topics as possible in terms of the food system in Austria. The titles of the discussion groups where: • In 2030, Austria has achieved the common and intersectoral goal of being a European leader in the field of nutrition-related co-benefits. • In Austria, all people will be equally able to meet their food needs in a healthy and sustainable manner in 2030. • A nationwide supply infrastructure will ensure that in 2030, healthy and sustainable food will be the easiest choice for consumers. • Healthy and sustainable food systems are the foremost principle of the Austrian supply chain in 2030. • In 2030, social cohesion is at the forefront of a cross-cultural and cross-generational food culture.235238239241243244246249For the necessary transformation of the food system, it is fundamental to act in a coordinated and well-balanced way in terms of definitions and intersectoral cooperation. This means: • The development of a homogenized/agreed set of indicators for planning, monitoring and evaluating • Capacity building at all levels among all players in the food system, including policy-makers (from production to the trade) • Since nutrition and eating having a strong social dimension, enjoyment should be considered when speaking about the food system • A curriculum with different topics on health (e. g.) nutrition) should be implemented as early as possible, starting in kindergarten or primary school up to high school • Aiming in maximising cost truthiness and transparency to make the healthy and sustainable choice the easier one, this is meant in terms of appropriate taxation and subsidization. • Communal catering functions as a major lever in offering a healthy, sustainable and fair food approach and this should be used meaningful fro policy-makers • Developing measure to reduce avoidable food waste236239243246249TOPIC 1 "Intersectoral food system" • A cross-sectoral and commonly agreed definition of food systems would be useful to establish a common sense on micro and macro level • Definition should relate to EU specifications • Stakeholders should have knowledge on their impact on and role in sustainable food systems • Public procurement should be a good practice example • A set of indicators to monitor national food systems is needed • Discussion on concept of regional origin of food: is not necessarily climate-friendly; what is considered to be regional within very small country236238245246249251TOPIC 2 “Affordability” • It is necessary to provide appropriate infrastructure (markets, direct marketing, food boxes) to make healthy and sustainable nutrition accessible • The cost-true pricing of products (climate, health and social) is immediately necessary to cover aspects of human and animal health and the environmental aspects • Taxes/vouchers could be a supportive short-term measure for a healthy and sustainable diet • Next to vouchers, community catering is seen as essential in a short-term perspective to increase affordability • In addition, food literacy is mentioned as an important topic to improve food patterns (e. g. how to shop, how to store, etc.)236241246248249TOPIC 3 “Sustainable supply infrastructure” • During the discussions it could be identified, that community catering is a essential lever in terms of sustainable supply infrastructures • Large community caterers have the potential influencing many groups of the population and have different effects there (e. g. protecting the elderly against malnutrition, improving food literacy among children and young people) • Large community caterers can additionally support local and seasonal product choice. • Municipalities have a special role, due to the power on framework conditions (in terms of zoning) • Production conditions and marketing channels are shaped by zoning and therefore also by the governance (subsidies for communal direct marketing, delivery services and support of communal catering would be necessary) • Municipalities could intervene in a formative way (in schools, kindergartens, farmyards, etc.) • Quality standards for the online food market has been discussed as well.236239245246249TOPIC 4 “Food production and trade” • Health Literacy is the basis for responsible decisions when buying food (e. g. development of health literacy in schools) • Austria should take on an international pioneering role in research an innovation (know-how must be available and shared) • Cooperation between production, trade, and the public sector is especially important for being successful. • The retail sector plays an important role in advertising and therefore persuading consumers to choose healthy and sustainable products (cooperation with this sector is mandatory) • The conflict of interest between production, trade, the public sector and consumers has been discussed (for example economic interests are often in the foreground).236238239247249251TOPIC 5 “Social food environment” • Nutrition is more than the satisfaction of nutritional needs, moreover it is an emotional topic and creates identity (should always be kept in mind) • Nutrition and eating often takes place in social contexts and this consideration can be helpful when designing initiatives • In terms of communication it is necessary to “pick people up” from their starting points (need for target group orientation) • The different nutritional cultures should be appreciated and respected when planning strategies, initiatives, and so on. • As early as possible the food literacy should be improved (starting in kindergartens and schools). • In general, the group discussed the extension of nutrition competence to enjoyment competence237Divergences were hardly identified in working group discussion. Possibly, this is a positive outcome of the cross-sectoral health targets, which were established 10 years ago. In general it was hardly possible to find divergences. One group tried to discuss potential divergences by cooperating with other stakeholders, not attending the Dialogue and they came up with the issue of funding for different nutrition-related initiatives/ programmes. Calls for proposals for projects on food topics (e. g. health promotion) are not based on common criteria, or the often desired interdisciplinarity is not visible on the part of the funding bodies (ministries do not fund through joint calls). It is difficult for initiators to obtain permanent funding for the mentioned projects/ initiatives, and in general, projects often do not find their way into regular operations. The divergences within different organizational frameworks seem to be possible challenges here.

2023-12-23 18:07:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/51862/203

3172431222328

Chipco Preserve's approach to organizing its food systems dialogue at Saint Leo University, aligned with the principles of engagement for the Food Systems Summit, demonstrated a comprehensive and inclusive strategy. Understanding the critical need for swift action to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, Chipco Preserve's Dialogue was a proactive contribution to the Food Systems Summit. The discussion crafted tangible pathways for transforming food systems, directly supporting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Chipco Preserve ensured that their Dialogue was a true embodiment of the Summit's vision and objectives. From local stakeholders to global experts, participants were encouraged to integrate the Summit's goals into their personal and professional lives. This commitment was evident in the forward-thinking nature of the Dialogues, which fostered new connections and innovative approaches to collective action. The Dialogue was grounded in respect for diverse perspectives and local contexts, emphasizing policies and practices that enhance health and well-being and respecting cultural nuances. This respectful approach ensured a platform where divergent views coexisted. Acknowledging the intricate nature of food systems, the Dialogue embraced a systemic approach, highlighting the interconnections between food systems and various other sectors, such as health, climate, and economy. This recognition of complexity enabled a more holistic discussion of potential actions and their implications. A key feature of Chipco Preserve's Dialogue included many stakeholders. This inclusivity united business leaders, civil society members, educators, and students. The Dialogue valued diverse perspectives, including indigenous knowledge and scientific evidence, ensuring a rich tapestry of insights. Chipco Preserve's Dialogue was not in isolation but built upon existing global efforts related to food systems aimed to amplify and accelerate these efforts, avoiding duplication while fostering innovative efforts and creative thinking for systemic transformation.The Dialogue organized by Chipco Preserve reflected specific aspects of the Principles of Engagement in several distinct and impactful ways: The Dialogue was structured to address the immediate challenges facing global food systems. By focusing on actionable solutions and emphasizing the need for swift implementation, the discussions mirrored the urgency called for in the Principles. This was evident in setting short-term goals and deadlines for initiatives that align with the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Participants in the Dialogue were informed about the objectives of the Food Systems Summit and encouraged to integrate these goals into their ongoing projects and initiatives. This commitment was reflected in the way discussions were steered toward how individual and collective actions could contribute to the broader vision of the Summit. Respect for diverse viewpoints was a hallmark of the Dialogue. Participants were encouraged to listen actively and consider perspectives that differed from their own. This approach ensured that the Dialogue was a platform for sharing ideas and understanding and respecting the complex socio-cultural dynamics that influence food systems. The Dialogue acknowledged the multifaceted nature of food systems. Discussions delved into how food systems are intertwined with other critical areas like climate change, economic policies, and social justice. This recognition of complexity led to more nuanced conversations about potential solutions and their broader implications. The Dialogue was inclusive, bringing together diverse stakeholders, including farmers, policymakers, academics, and representatives from non-governmental organizations. This diversity ensured that the Dialogue benefited from a wide range of experiences and expertise, reflecting the principle of multi-stakeholder inclusivity. The Dialogue was mindful of existing efforts and initiatives in food systems. It sought to build upon these efforts rather than duplicate them, complementing and extending the work already being done in this field.Key pieces of advice for other Dialogue Convenors on appreciating and effectively implementing the Principles of Engagement include: (1) Before convening a dialogue, ensure a thorough understanding of the Principles of Engagement. Recognize how each principle contributes to a successful and impactful dialogue. This understanding will guide the planning and execution of the dialogue. (2) Make sure all participants know these principles from the outset. Clear communication about the dialogue's purpose, expectations, and guiding principles helps set the right tone and fosters a shared understanding among participants. (3) Actively work to create a space where all voices are heard and valued. This means reaching out to a diverse range of stakeholders, including those who are often underrepresented. Consider language barriers, cultural differences, and accessibility to ensure inclusivity. (4) Promote an atmosphere where participants are encouraged to speak and listen actively to others. This can be facilitated through structured activities that promote empathy and understanding, such as roundtable discussions or small group breakouts. (5) Acknowledge and embrace the complexity of the issues at hand. Avoid oversimplification and encourage participants to consider the various dimensions and interconnections of the topics discussed. (6) Establish ground rules that promote respect and civility. Ensure that participants feel safe expressing their opinions without fear of disrespect or reprisal. This can be achieved by setting clear expectations for conduct and having a plan to address any breaches of these expectations. (7) Recognize disagreements as a natural part of any dialogue, especially on complex issues. Guide these disagreements constructively, ensuring they contribute to deeper understanding and innovative solutions rather than conflict. (8) Be transparent about the dialogue's goals, processes, and outcomes.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249Our Dialogue centered on a comprehensive exploration of food systems, particularly emphasizing the interplay between the five action tracks of the Food Systems Summit. This exploration aimed to dissect and understand the multifaceted nature of food systems, their current challenges, and their potential transformative strategies. The Dialogue was structured to delve into each action track, examining their individual contributions and interdependencies and how they collectively drive systemic change. The Dialogue began by addressing the critical issue of food security. Discussions focused on strategies to eliminate hunger and malnutrition, ensuring that everyone, regardless of their socio-economic status, has access to healthy and nutritious food. This track explored innovative agricultural practices, food distribution networks, and policy interventions that can reduce food insecurities. The role of local and global supply chains in ensuring consistent and equitable food distribution was also examined. A second discussion addressed the need for a global shift towards more sustainable consumption patterns. It involved reducing food waste, promoting dietary shifts towards more plant-based foods, and the role of consumer awareness and behavior in driving these changes. The Dialogue explored how education, policy, and market-based approaches can incentivize sustainable consumption. The third focus area dove into increasing agricultural productivity while enhancing environmental sustainability. This included practices like regenerative agriculture, agroecology, and technology integration in farming. The Dialogue examined the balance between increasing food production and preserving biodiversity, soil health, and water resources. The fourth track focused on ensuring that food systems support equitable and fair livelihoods. The Dialogue explored how food systems can be restructured to provide fair economic returns, safeguard worker rights, and ensure gender equality. Discussions also covered the role of smallholder farmers and indigenous communities in the food system and how their knowledge and rights can be protected and promoted. The final action track discussed building resilience in food systems. This involved preparing for and responding to environmental, economic, and health-related shocks. The Dialogue examined strategies for creating more resilient supply chains, improving emergency food distribution systems, and the role of technology and innovation in predicting and mitigating risks. Much of the Dialogue explored the interconnections and synergies between these action tracks. It emphasized that progress in one area often influences outcomes in another. For instance, nature-positive production methods can contribute to more resilient food systems, while equitable livelihoods are essential for sustainable consumption patterns. Throughout the Dialogue, there was a strong emphasis on considering regional and cultural contexts in implementing these action tracks. Solutions that work in one part of the world may not be applicable in another, and respecting local knowledge and practices is crucial. The Dialogue involved various stakeholders, including policymakers, farmers, business leaders, academics, and civil society representatives. This inclusive approach ensures that the discussions are grounded in real-world experiences and that the strategies developed are practical and implementable. Finally, the Dialogue was structured to be outcome-oriented. Each session concluded with a set of actionable recommendations, which are compiled into a comprehensive report. This report is intended to guide policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders in implementing changes that can transform food systems in line with the objectives of the Food Systems Summit.235238239240241242243244245246247248249The Food Systems Dialogue, a comprehensive forum designed to address global food systems' multifaceted challenges and opportunities, yielded several key findings. These findings encompass a range of issues, from food labeling and waste to the necessity of systemic thinking and the impact of climate change on food systems. Here's a detailed overview: 1. Need for Better and More Accurate Food Labeling: One of the primary outcomes of the Dialogue was the importance of better and more accurate food labeling. Participants highlighted that consumers often face confusion due to misleading or inadequate information on food packaging. The need for transparent, easy-to-understand, and comprehensive labeling was stressed. This includes clear information on ingredients, nutritional content, sourcing, and environmental impact. Such labeling not only aids consumers in making informed choices but also encourages producers to adopt more sustainable and ethical practices. 2. Reducing Food Waste: The Dialogue brought to light the critical issue of food waste, a significant global problem. Discussions revealed that a substantial amount of food produced is wasted due to various reasons, including inefficient supply chains, overproduction, and consumer behavior. Strategies to reduce food waste were discussed, focusing on improving food storage and transportation, encouraging responsible consumer behavior, and finding innovative uses for food that would otherwise be discarded. The importance of government policies and private sector initiatives in tackling food waste was also emphasized. 3. Minimizing Single-Use Plastics: The environmental impact of single-use plastics, particularly in packaging and food service, was another key finding. Participants agreed on the urgent need to reduce reliance on single-use plastics, advocating for more sustainable alternatives. This includes the development and use of biodegradable materials and the promotion of reusable and recyclable packaging solutions. The role of policy interventions, such as bans or taxes on single-use plastics, was also discussed as a means to drive change. 4. Embracing Systems Thinking: A significant insight from the Dialogue was the necessity of adopting a systems thinking approach to address the complexities of food systems. This approach recognizes the interconnectedness of various elements within food systems, including production, distribution, consumption, and waste management. By understanding these interdependencies, more holistic and effective solutions can be developed. Systems thinking also helps identify leverage points where interventions can have the most significant impact. 5. Impact of Climate Change on Food Systems: The Dialogue underscored the profound impact of climate change on food systems. Climate change threatens food production through extreme weather events, changing precipitation patterns, and increased pest and disease prevalence. Discussions focused on the need for adaptive and resilient food systems to withstand these challenges. This includes diversifying crops, adopting climate-smart agricultural practices, and ensuring water efficiency. The importance of reducing the food system's own contributions to climate change through reduced greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable land use was also a key topic. Cross-Cutting Themes: Across these findings, several cross-cutting themes emerged. These include the importance of collaboration across sectors, the need for innovation in technology and practices, and the role of education and awareness in driving change. The Dialogue also highlighted the importance of equity and inclusivity, ensuring that solutions are accessible and beneficial to all, particularly marginalized and vulnerable communities. The Food Systems Dialogue brought forth a comprehensive set of findings that address critical aspects of global food systems. From improving food labeling and reducing waste to tackling the challenges of single-use plastics and climate change, the Dialogue set the stage for actionable steps towards more sustainable, resilient, and equitable food systems. Adopting a systems-thinking approach was crucial in understanding and addressing the complexity of these issues effectively.236238239240241242243244245248249Action Track 1 of the Food Systems Dialogue focused on critical global food systems issues. The dialogue explored various aspects, including meeting food needs, addressing food waste, the role of urban farming, the impact of climate change on food production, and the significance of food labeling and systems thinking in solving food-related challenges. Meeting Food Needs: The dialogue emphasized the importance of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. It discussed innovative agricultural practices, efficient food distribution networks, and policy interventions to reduce food insecurities and ensure equitable food distribution. Food Waste and Fairness: A major point of discussion was how food waste complicates the challenges of global hunger and environmental degradation. The dialogue highlighted the need for strategies to reduce food waste, such as improving food storage and transportation, promoting responsible consumer behavior, and finding innovative uses for food that would otherwise be discarded. Urban Farming: Urban farming was identified as a key solution to alleviate pressures on increasing food production due to urbanization. The dialogue covered the benefits of localizing food resources, such as reduced reliance on imported food, health benefits from fresher produce, and a smaller carbon footprint due to decreased transportation distances. It also discussed efficient farming in urban areas, like vertical farming and rooftop gardens, and the role of technology in revolutionizing urban farming. Climate Change Impact: The dialogue underscored the profound impact of climate change on food production. It focused on the need for adaptive and resilient food systems that withstand environmental, economic, and health-related shocks. Strategies for creating more resilient supply chains and improving emergency food distribution systems were also discussed. Food Labeling: The importance of better and more accurate food labeling was stressed. Clear, comprehensive labeling helps consumers make informed choices and encourages producers to adopt more sustainable and ethical practices. Systems Thinking in Food Solutions: The necessity of adopting a systems thinking approach was a significant insight. This approach recognizes the interconnectedness of various elements within food systems and helps in developing holistic and effective solutions. Food Archetypes and Symbolism: The dialogue also delved into the historical and cultural significance of food. It explored how different civilizations and cultures have ascribed symbolic meanings to food, from ancient civilizations like Egypt and Greece to modern eras marked by industrialization and world wars. The symbolism of food in religious practices, art, and socio-economic contexts was discussed, highlighting how food has been a powerful tool in expressing cultural values, beliefs, and social dynamics.237There were no glaring areas of divergence between participants.

2024-01-12 18:16:08204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/51932/5126277136167

10015205015

The Dialogue was organized by Green Growth Platform and AgFutura Technologies, supported by Cities2030 project and funded by EU Horizon 2020. Cities2030 project continuously promotes participation in the (FSDs). In this context, an Independent FSD was conducted in Skopje, North Macedonia on the 14-15 November 2023. It was locally based and locally led by North Macedonian partners, GGP and AGFutura. It was an excellent opportunity to connect experts from the region, interact, discuss and share experiences regarding the use of Digital Technologies in Sustainable Food Systems. The Dialogue was properly prepared, planned and promoted. Participants were invited. Green Growth Platform was the official Convenor of the Dialogue, and a Representative from AGFutura technologies was the host and Master of Ceremonies on the day (Curator). The Facilitators were chosen and prepared accordingly. Discussions were organized in 2 round tables. The standard dialogue format was used. There were 3core elements: opening plenary to frame the focus for the Dialogue; 2 discussion groups on specific topics, and closing plenary including a report back from each facilitator and the master of the ceremony. The main objective of the Dialogue was to bring together regional actors (farmers, policymakers, academia, advisors and tech providers) with different interests in food systems, so that they can interact and appreciate each other’s perceptions and views on the digital transition and its impact on sustainability in the food systems and thus with joint efforts contribute to food systems transformation.The principles of engagement were respected, different stakeholders’ groups were represented in the participants so the inclusiveness was guaranteed, all stakeholders were committed to the dialogues, recognizing the complexity and importance of the topic- use of digital technologies in food systems, respecting each other’s different perspectives and complementing each other’s work, with a final effect of fostering and inspiring their mutual collaboration and networking.The main advice is to follow the guide for successful preparation of the Dialogue, consult with diverse stakeholders to decide the focus of the Dialogue and invite key actors from different stakeholder groups.

Yes

234238240243244245246248249251The main focus of the Dialogue on "Digital Technologies in Sustainable Food Systems" was the role of digital technologies in enhancing the sustainability of food systems. Some of the primary topics of discussion included: Technological Readiness: Assessing the readiness of the agri-food sector to support a technological transition. This involves a multi-stakeholder approach that includes the perspectives of farmers, policymakers, tech providers, advisors, and academia. Comparative Analysis: There was a comparison of agri-food systems between the European Union and the Western Balkans to understand the differences and similarities in terms of digital technology integration and sustainable practices. Digital Technologies in Agriculture: The event explored the opportunities and challenges associated with the implementation of digital technologies in primary agricultural production and how these technologies can impact sustainable food systems. Stakeholder Perceptions and Approaches: Discussions were held to understand how various stakeholders perceive digital transition and its impact on sustainability. Insights were provided from different perspectives including that of progressive farmers, tech providers, and policymakers. Tech Sessions: Specific sessions focused on how digital technologies contribute to achieving sustainability principles, with examples from Switzerland, England, Hungary, Greece, Serbia, and North Macedonia. Technologies discussed included remote sensing, decision support systems, variable-rate technologies, yield monitoring, and GPS tractor navigation.235238240243244245246248251The main findings of the Round table 1: Readiness of the agri-food sector in the Balkan region to support technological (digital) transition for sustainability, was to understand the current state of the agro food sector and its capacity to comprehend, accept and implement new technologies that will contribute for compliance to the EU agriculture and improve the business results of the sector. In this round table different stakeholders’ representatives participated: government, tech providers, donors, research and academia. The main outcomes and findings of the discussion suggest that it is very important to understand the real situation in the eco system of the agro food sector in order to develop a reform or a measure to be successful. The solution for technological transition needs to be consistent to the real needs and the technological readiness of those that drive the sector and those that create the enabling environment for the sector. The main findings of the Round table 2: Transforming the Agri-Food Systems - EU vs Balkan (Multi stakeholder perception and approach) was to present the state and the perception of key stakeholders on the operational level of the agro food system. The main representatives from farmers, academia, tech providers, and policy makers as key operational actors in the digital transition participated in the discussion. Through the experience of progressive farmers that use digital technologies in agriculture combined with examples in regional countries such as Slovenia and Croatia, an insight of the level of awareness and the perceptions for the opportunities and challenges of those that are directly involved in the agro food system was generated. The gap between the actual users of modern technologies in agriculture and those that support this process has been definitely present since the transition in the region. Understanding those that implement or support implementation of modern technologies in agriculture, their specific socio economic and behavioral needs is essential for success in digital transition. The specific tech sessions were dedicated to Digital technologies for achieving sustainability principles. Relevant experts from Switzerland, England, Hungary, Greece, Serbia and North Macedonia presented their technological solutions. Digital technologies play a crucial role in achieving sustainability principles by enabling organizations and individuals to monitor, manage, and mitigate their environmental impact, increase resource efficiency, and make informed decisions. Through the implementation of monitoring (remote sensing technologies), decision support (variable-rate technologies (VRT), yield monitoring, DSS, GPS tractor navigation, cloud computing), and communication technologies it’s possible to achieve the cross-cutting agricultural sustainability principles: biomass production; climate change mitigation and adaptation; biodiversity conservation; soil protection and human health.237238240243244245246248249251From the key experts’ perspective, Macedonian and Balkan agro food sector are moderately prepared to accept and implement modern technologies such as digital agriculture in the context of sustainable food systems. The main identified challenges regarding the widespread adoption of digital technologies are related to the limited awareness, high initial costs, lack of digital literacy among farmers and the lack of adequate digital infrastructure. In relation to the compliance with European Markets and regulations, meeting and maintaining high-quality and safety standards required by the European market can be challenging for smaller producers; ensuring the traceability of products from farm to table; adapting to environmentally sustainable practices and complying with EU regulations on issues like pesticide use and water management. Common challenges for farmers and donors in overcoming current development bottlenecks in the national and regional agro-food sector are limited access to finance, resistance to adopting new technologies, inadequate rural infrastructure, limited access to markets, policy and regulatory issues, capacity building issues, land ownership, social and gender equity, data and information access. Additionally, biggest challenge among food operators to achieve more rapid technological modernization are investment barriers, regulations related to safety, labeling, and traceability, and tailored solutions. The academia recommends and supports better representation of digital agriculture in higher education programs through interdisciplinary approach: incorporating digital agriculture concepts into existing programs, developing specialized courses or dedicated degrees in precision agriculture or agricultural technology. The impact of digital technologies on young agronomists and farmers is generally positive, empowering them with skills and tools for more efficient and sustainable agricultural practices. However, overcoming challenges related to technology access and digital literacy is essential for widespread adoption and success. Familiarity with digital agriculture opens doors for young professionals to explore entrepreneurship in agricultural technology startups. Also, digital agriculture supports sustainable farming practices, aligning with the preferences of environmentally conscious consumers. General trends in the use of drone technologies in agriculture are precision agriculture, crop monitoring and management, mapping and surveying, livestock monitoring. Larger, more technologically advanced farms may be more aware of and receptive to these technologies. Farmers are generally willing to invest in technologies that offer tangible benefits such as increased productivity, cost savings, and improved decision-making. The willingness to pay may be influenced by factors such as farm size, available budget, and the perceived return on investment. Additionally, the eco system is not enough fertile and supportive to overcome current challenges in the agro food sector through digital agriculture. The current applicative part of the academia in context of digital technologies in agriculture should be enhanced in order to transfer modern complex knowledge to those that directly work with farmers (advisors), or to the farmers themselves. Young farmers are motivated to delve into digital technologies for agriculture due to their higher awareness of the transformative potential these tools have in enhancing efficiency, sustainability, and overall farm management. While digital technologies bring tremendous value, challenges such as the initial cost of adoption, the need for training, and ensuring data security must be considered. However, the opportunities for increased efficiency, sustainable practices, and improved market competitiveness far outweigh these challenges. The government departments responsible for agriculture, rural development, or technology adoption in the agricultural and food sector are supporting the digital transition of this sector in the region with dedicated programs offering financial incentives, subsidies, or grants but there is still place for improvements in adding new specific measures covering bigger number of beneficiaries with higher amount for support.

2024-01-25 05:39:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/52070/45

0158216016313

In organizing this independent dialogue, our objective was to bring together representatives of rice farmers from Huanghu Town in the Yuhang District of Hangzhou. The participants were rice farmers from family farms, agricultural cooperatives, and government agricultural management departments. To incorporate, reinforce, and enhance the principles of food system summit – independent dialogues, we designed a comprehensive agenda that included specific steps and activities. We facilitated an open discussion and ensured that every participant's voice was heard. Our main criteria for inviting representatives to participate in this dialogue was that they should voice smallholders’ collective knowledge and information needs related to climate change mitigation. Through our discussions, representatives had the opportunity to connect with other farmers and openly discuss climate-related issues affecting their daily farming activities.We adopted an open dialogue format. At the initial stage of the discussion, , representatives of rice farmers approached our questions with some caution and did not respond very enthusiastically. However, as we gradually empathized that their perspectives are highly needed and we inquired about the challenges they face in the process of rice cultivation, they began to speak freely. The representatives of rice farmers expressed a willingness to collaborate and collectively address the issues. In summary, we respected the contributions of the rice farmer representatives during the workshop, encouraging everyone to freely participate in discussions.Based on our independent dialogue, we suggest that facilitators adopt an active, proactive, and sincere approach when organizing an event involving farmers. Facilitators who are proactive and active can foster in-depth communication by understanding participants' needs in advance, preparing relevant agendas, and actively asking questions during the event to encourage meaningful exchanges. Additionally, it is crucial to establish genuine communication and trust by sharing our own perspectives and experiences, breaking the ice, and inspiring interaction among participants. Additionally, to ensure fairness, maintaining a neutral stance without favoring any particular viewpoint is essential to treat each opinion equally. Creating an open space, free from judgment and criticism, will enable participants to express their views more freely. Most importantly, attention should be given to the diversity of participants, respecting and understanding their cultural and professional backgrounds to ensure that everyone feels included and understood.

Yes

234240241242244In this dialogue, we convened representatives of rice farmers from Huanghu Town in the Yuhang District of Hangzhou. The choice of Huanghu Town is significant as it serves as a pilot for the "Future Rural Experimental Zone" in Zhejiang Province, emphasizing a commitment to green development. This aligns seamlessly with the action direction proposed by the United Nations Food Systems Summit, focusing on "promoting production with positive impacts on nature and advancing fair livelihoods." Our overarching goal is to identify the most effective ways to communicate and exchange knowledge with farmers, understand the most pressing issues that small-scale farmers are facing, and determine their knowledge needs to address these challenges. Therefore, we structured the dialogue into two parts: (1) Communication and knowledge exchange using technology: We aim to transform small-scale farmers into innovators in agricultural production through effective knowledge transfer, positioning them as key participants in the nationwide transformation of the food system. (2) Farmers Issues and information needed: Participants discussed the impact of climate on crop management, yields, and livelihoods. Based on this relevant information, we formulated knowledge requirements tailored to help them address the most urgent challenges they currently face. This not only involves promoting equitable livelihoods but also improves farmlands resilience to shocks, and pressures, enabling farmers to better adapt to changing environments and enhancing the sustainability of their agricultural practices.235240241242244In general, representatives of rice farmers from Huanghu Town in the Yuhang District of Hangzhou reached several significant agreements during the dialogue: a) Importance of Government Support: All representatives emphasized the crucial importance of government support and promotion in addressing the challenges they face. This may involve providing more resources, technical supports, and policy measures to tackle challenges such as climate change. b) Direct Contact and Knowledge Sharing: Representatives unanimously expressed a desire to establish direct contact with researchers, government officials, and industry organizations through various means. This reflects their aspiration to gain more knowledge and resources. c) Learning and Cross-Cultural Communication: The participants in our dialogue also expressed a willingness to learn from farmers cultivating other crops, indicating a desire for cross-disciplinary learning. Simultaneously, they acknowledged potential language barriers when communicating with farmers from other countries, which need to be addressed through innovative approaches to facilitate cross-cultural agricultural knowledge exchange. d) Impact of Climate Change: Representatives generally agreed on the impacts of climate change on the rice cultivation process. They believed that more knowledge and skills are needed to address issues related to climate change, such as pest and disease control, weather forecasting knowledge, and participation in agricultural insurance and safety net. This emphasizes the need for climate adaptability and implementation of sustainable agricultural practices. e) Government Subsidies and Support: Representatives emphasized their need for government subsidies and supports, highlighting the crucial role of the government in providing economic and policy-level supports. In summary, these findings reveal the common challenges faced by representatives of rice farmers and provide valuable insights for future collaboration and policy formulation.236240241242244(1)Communication and Knowledge exchange using Technology: During the dialogue, notable observations were made concerning rice representatives' perspectives on channels for accessing agricultural information. The most common channels identified were the internet, Official agricultural sensitization, and cooperative training. It is encouraging to note that, in most cases, representatives found it convenient to establish communication with government officials, industry organizations, and researchers. The majority of representatives expressed the belief that the optimal way to acquire knowledge from researchers, government bodies, and industry associations is through on-site guidance by professionals. In situations where face-to-face communication is not feasible, a consensus among representatives highlighted the utility of the internet, especially WeChat, which is the most popular social networking platform in China, and the use of direct phone call for facilitating communication and contact between farmers and researchers, industry associations, and government organizations. Additionally, most representatives expressed a willingness to learn from farmers in other countries, although language barriers were identified as a limiting factor. (2)Farmers Issues and information needed: In general, representatives highlighted that climate change has exacerbated pests and diseases issues, leading to increased costs for crop managements. They also expressed the need to acquire knowledge about weather, pests and diseases prevention, and to participate in agricultural insurance programs. Beyond climate-related concerns, all representatives raised issues related to high costs of agricultural inputs and labor. To address these challenges, there was a collective desire among representatives for technology training to learn relevant mechanical skills. The goal is to use machinery as a cost-effective alternative to manual labor, aiming to reduce costs associated with agricultural inputs and labor.

2024-02-03 16:33:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/51875/71

4636721514373

A respectful frame was set up between aprticipants. The introduction of the Dialogue focused on the issue's complexity and urgency.The dialogue had various stakeholders participating, from the same territory but with different political views and agenda. The small number of participant was a strength when it came to building trust by fostering interconnexion and knowledge.

Yes

234239240242244248249The dialogue put focus on the link between biowaste and urban agriculture in city region food systems (CRFS). With ne French legislation coming into action, field operators need to gain skills and knowledge to implement short circuit use of biowaste in order to create positive and circular impact.235239240242243245246249The notion of biowaste speaks little to citizens. The advantage of bio-waste is that its recovery is directly visible, when it comes to selective sorting there is now distrust (scandal of sorting mixed with the rest, etc.) The problem is obviously financing, whether for selective sorting or for green waste Municipalities must present a food waste and green waste management plan (current diagnosis, courses of action, strong commitment to the operation of composting points) A technical study regarding biowaste is crucial to understand its territory, where the deposits are, the needs... and then the sociological study is also very important to understand its population.236239242243244249250faced with the numerical objectives for recycling municipal waste, how do we quantify the this biowaste, how we count the biowaste to include these figures in recycling and not in elimination of waste ? There is a data issue to properly promote the work carried out. the same goes for reducing the use of green waste by wastewater treatment plants (legal obligation) energy recovery is not the best solution, especially in our region with very calcareous soils which need these contributions of green waste to amend the soil Thus we identify the problem of the status of the crushed material which is considered waste if we dispose of it: this is a problem encountered by the metropolis with its Martigues storage site / Florian was confronted with this problem in terms of advocacy with the ministries in Paris / this has been the subject of consultation for a year and a half, but at present the legal framework poses a problem: it's a policy gap236239242244246251The need to break down barriers has been identified during the dialog : between territories that have merged, between the city and the metropolis, between the 92 cities, between services, between complementary actors. It's much better when the desire to treat this waste comes from citizens and is not the result of external mobilization. But we have to go through it if we want to generalize things, we have to find cores, driving groups for each site, each initiative to build momentum and sustainable change.237239241242243246250Regarding citizen empowerment on this topic the participants had different views: - some pushed for massive citizen mobilization as a necessary and powerful tool to massify change and make it sustainable - some were much more pessimistic about citizen engagement on the biowaste topic, using examples of low engagement regarding selective waste management as cautionary tale

2024-03-04 09:44:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/52221/71

25251033132475555155

The dialogue consisted of 3 thematic groups around 3 key actors of access to land in our region : Terre de Liens, Métropole Aix-Marseille and SAFER. The workshops were framed to recognize the complexity of the issue of land access, promote a multi stakeholder approach (different stakeholders invited with different viewpoints). The tone was respectful.The key of our dialogue was really the multi stakeholder approach and the complexity. Indeed, the land access issue is complex anywhere in Europe but it is the most crucial question in our region. The students, future farmers, are confronted to this issue everyday when they think about their future installation. The different stakeholders invited reflected the different approaches when it comes to tacking this issue, as an individual but also as a group.Identify the most prominent ones for your dialogue, and use it to frame the dialog and its key aspects.

NoThe amont of participants and the place of the dialog made us adapt. We conducted 3 thematic groups after the introduction part. Every group assisted the 3 experts table and shared their 3 key insights for every theme. Then a plenary conclusion was made with another guest speaker.

234238240241244246249250(iv) Other specific theme: Reflection on the challenges related to increasing urbanization and the preservation of agricultural land in urban and peri-urban areas. Discussion on alternative economic models, such as peasant groceries, aimed at supporting local farmers and promoting sustainable food consumption.235238240241242243244246249250Difficulty in accessing agricultural land due to land pressure and high land prices in PACA. Young farmers face financial difficulties related to land acquisition and often find themselves primarily working to repay loans. Leasing and land stewardship are considered as interesting alternatives to land purchase, offering long-term security and regulated rents. Terre de Liens, SAFER, and the Aix-Marseille Metropolis are implementing initiatives to facilitate access to agricultural land and promote sustainable practices. Political and administrative obstacles hinder agricultural installation projects and the protection of agricultural land. There is a growing demand for tools to preserve agricultural land, especially in times of land speculation and urbanization. Peasant groceries are seen as promising alternative economic models to support local farmers and promote sustainable food. The importance of collaboration among various stakeholders, including associations and public institutions, to address challenges related to land access and food sustainability.236238240241242244246248249Terre de Liens (TDL) Overview: TDL, a citizen movement established 20 years ago, addresses installation challenges and land access issues, allowing citizens to purchase shares enabling land acquisition to combat urban sprawl. Advantages of Leasing/Stewardship: Leasing and land stewardship, particularly in the region, offer long-term security and regulated rents, providing an alternative to land ownership due to high land prices. Participant Insights on Property Ownership: Participants expressed a desire for property ownership, viewing it as linked to transmission but acknowledged challenges in practice. TDL's Role in Land Preservation: TDL's citizen engagement is recognized as important in land preservation, providing a viable alternative for acquiring land through SAFER calls for applications. Collective Projects and Benefits: Joining collective initiatives, notably TDL, offers practical experience and knowledge sharing, fostering collaboration and support. Preference for Terre de Liens: Participants favor TDL over similar organizations, recognizing its effectiveness and authenticity. Other Notable Mentions: Mention of companies and associations following TDL's model, and discussions on specific initiatives such as SCIC Terre Adonis and the situation of Vallon des Douces. Overall, the workshop highlighted the significance of TDL's approach in addressing land access challenges and promoting sustainable agriculture practices, emphasizing the importance of community engagement and collective action.236240241242243244246248249Regional Agricultural Land Market Specifics: High Pressure: Agricultural land under pressure due to speculation and urbanization, with significant price discrepancies across regions. Average Prices: French agricultural land averages €6000/ha, whereas in Bouches-du-Rhône (BDR) it's €17,000/ha, with even higher prices in urbanized areas like Marseille (€50,000/ha) and Aubagne (€80,000/ha). Lack of Tools: Limited tools to combat land abandonment, despite considerable land availability. Interacting with SAFER in Land Search: Criteria for Greenlighting a Proposal: Comprehensive proposal, backed by agricultural organizations, realistic business plan, and emphasis on the agricultural project. SAFER Website: Checking weekly for listings and directly contacting SAFER advisors for inquiries. Demands and Suggestions: More Comprehensive Calls for Applications: Request for more detailed information in calls for applications to ease the process for applicants. Emphasizing Eco-Models: Advocating for recognition of diverse eco-agricultural models in urban areas and their viability criteria. Other Remarks: Lack of Preemption Tools for Houses: Highlights the need for tools to preempt houses to prevent urban sprawl. Collaboration with Local Authorities: Acknowledgement of the role of local authorities in zoning and urban planning. Initiatives like Terre de Liens and Terre Adonis: Acknowledgment of their importance in land access and management. The workshop participants emphasized the challenges of land access, high prices, and the need for more effective tools and collaboration to address these issues.236238239240244248249250Metropolitan Actions and Initiatives: Inventory of agricultural assets to assess lands for potential cultivation. Completed installations: 5 in Ste. Marthe, 1 in Maussanne (11th arrondissement), and an ongoing project in Barbière near Pennes-Mirabeau and St. Victoret. Planned Installation: 2 agricultural lots totaling 4.5 hectares in Cuges-les-Pins, with calls for applications expected by year-end. Circuit Shortening Efforts: Operation of two producer markets in Plan de Campagne and La Barasse, with plans for a third in Marseille. Future projects include automatic distributors, producer stores, and markets, including participation in the Provence Agriculture Fair. Upcoming Metropolitan Innovations in Municipal Support and Zoning: Limitations on Zoning: Metropolitan area lacks authority over Agricultural Protection Zones (ZAP), with decisions resting with municipalities. However, the metropolitan area provides advisory opinions. Challenges with ZAPs: Some landowners resist cultivation post-ZAP designation, hoping for future reclassification as buildable land. Future Project: Providing technical expertise to municipalities. Political Obstacles: Political factors may hinder project progress, exemplified by potential zoning changes for housing needs like Parc de l'Etoile. Interacting with the Metropolitan Area in Land Search: Installation Criteria: Emphasis on food production, organic practices, short supply chains, sustainability, and environmental leases. Encouraging Municipal Collaboration: While not considered particularly helpful due to limited metropolitan influence. Participant Highlights: Political Influence Hindering Progress: Participants noted bureaucratic delays and limited available hectares within the metropolitan area. Perception of Installations: Viewed as showcases with limited project depth and insecure land tenure. Importance of Local Food Production: Emphasized the need to improve local food self-sufficiency. Challenges with the Vallon des Douces: Lack of funding for land acquisition, primarily due to structural issues with existing buildings. Additional Remarks: Concerns about agricultural import-export imbalances and the need for local food production. Updates on incubator projects, pending installations, and water reuse initiatives in Cuges-les-Pins. Access to calls for applications through the agricultural chamber network.237238240241242243244246247248249250251Ownership vs. Lease: Discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of land ownership versus leasing, particularly in relation to agricultural viability and sustainability. Role of Organizations (TDL, SAFER, Metropolitan Area): Varied perspectives on the effectiveness and limitations of organizations such as Terre de Liens (TDL), Société d'aménagement foncier et d'établissement rural (SAFER), and the Metropolitan Area in addressing land access and agricultural development. Land Use Policies (Zoning, Land Preservation): Debate over the impact and effectiveness of zoning regulations, particularly Agricultural Protection Zones (ZAP), and land preservation policies in facilitating or hindering agricultural activities and land access. Government Intervention and Support: Discussion on the role of government intervention and support, including the provision of subsidies, technical assistance, and regulatory frameworks, in promoting sustainable agriculture and addressing land access challenges. Financial Constraints and Economic Viability: Diverging opinions on the financial constraints faced by agricultural projects, including the affordability of land, access to funding, and economic viability in the context of sustainable agriculture. Community Engagement and Collaboration: Varying perspectives on the importance and effectiveness of community engagement, collaboration with local authorities, and collective action in addressing land access issues and promoting agricultural sustainability. Policy Implementation Challenges: Debate surrounding the challenges and obstacles in implementing land use policies, including bureaucratic delays, political considerations, and conflicts between different stakeholders' interests. Local Food Systems and Food Sovereignty: Discussion on the significance of local food systems, food sovereignty, and the promotion of sustainable agriculture in addressing food security concerns and reducing dependency on imported goods. Innovations and Solutions: Exploration of innovative solutions, such as land-sharing arrangements, alternative land tenure models, and technological advancements, in overcoming land access barriers and promoting sustainable agricultural practices. Evaluation of Past Projects and Initiatives: Assessment and critique of past projects and initiatives aimed at addressing land access issues, including their successes, failures, and lessons learned for future interventions.

2024-06-06 10:24:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/52399/51

3012271614521582101431

The Dialogue was organised by the Development Agency of the City of Velika Gorica - VE-GO-RA and Inventive Solutions Ltd. from Velika Gorica, supported by Cities2030 project and funded by EU Horizon2020. Cities2030 project continuously promotes participation in the FSDs. Independent FSDs were conducted in Velika Gorica, Croatia on May 23rd 2024. It was locally based and led by Croatian partners, the Development Agency VE-GO-RA and Inventive Solutions Ltd. Dialogue focus was aimed at "Food is not waste" initiative that created an opportunity to gather cities in the Zagreb county so we can revolutionize our approach to food consumption, emphasizing sustainability, efficiency, and responsible management. The Dialogue was properly prepared, planned and promoted, invitations went to all the cities in Zagreb county as well as nearby municipalities. VE-GO-RA was the official Convenor of the Dialogue and Inventive Solutions was the Curator of the Dialogue. The Facilitators were chosen and prepared for the Dialogue. The conference was divided into three sessions, the presentation of the "Food is not waste" initiative and the Voluntary Agreement. Presentation of the signatories of the Voluntary Agreement, and their current and future activities. The Cities2030 project was presented and its connection with the UN Agenda Food2030, the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, and the initiative of inviting all the surrounding cities to sign agreements and collaborate on topics was explained. The conference was attended by representatives of City Offices from Zagreb county related to the topic, representatives of city institutions, private initiatives related to environmental protection and nutrition, and Agriculture experts.The principles of stakeholder engagement were meticulously upheld, ensuring inclusivity by representing diverse stakeholder groups among the participants. All stakeholders demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the dialogues, recognizing the intricate nature and paramount importance of the topic: 'Food is Not Waste' Initiative: Voluntary Agreements with Cities and Counties. They exhibited mutual respect for differing perspectives and synergistically complemented each other’s efforts, ultimately fostering collaboration and inspiring networking opportunities.The primary recommendation is to adhere to the guidelines for effective Dialogue preparation. Engage with a wide range of stakeholders to determine the Dialogue’s focal points, and extend invitations to key participants from various stakeholder categories.

Yes

234238239243244245246248249The main initiative of the Dialogue "Food is Not Waste Initiative: Voluntary Agreements with Cities and Counties" was the Cities2030 role in enhancing Food System solutions. VE-GO-RA and Inventive Solutions have been actively working on establishing a food system in the city of Velika Gorica for the past three years as part of the Horizon2020 research project Cities2030. Recognizing the importance of waste prevention and reduction, we have embraced the Ministry of Agriculture’s initiative “Food Is Not Waste.” As one of the project’s activities, we invited collaborative action through a Voluntary Agreement, which has already been positively received by our City. The signing of this agreement is scheduled for the final conference of the Cities2030 project in September. The Voluntary Agreement on waste prevention and reduction, titled “Together Against Food Waste,” is signed by the Ministry of Agriculture and representatives from food producers, processors, retailers, hospitality, scientific and academic communities, local and regional government units, nonprofit organizations, initiatives, and associations. Signatories voluntarily commit to efforts to reduce food waste by 30% until 2028 within their business processes, food donation, and active communication with consumers. The agreement encompasses the entire chain of action, from food production and processing to households. Mr. Emil Tuk from the Department of Urban Nutrition of the City of Zagreb and Ms. Gordana Matasin from the Administrative Department for Agriculture, Rural Development, and Forestry of Zagreb County presented to us the current and future activities and the issues faced by existing signatories. At the conference, Velika Gorica LAB also presented the Milan Urban Policy Pact and its methodology, as well as its connection to the Cities2030 project and the Voluntary Agreement initiative of the Ministry of Agriculture, along with the “Food Is Not Waste” project. We are pleased that participants expressed interest in this event, which aims to increase awareness of signing this agreement, whose primary goal is to prevent and reduce food waste. No plan can succeed without the involvement, connection, and participation of all necessary stakeholders. Therefore, we invited representatives from food producers, processors, retailers, hospitality, scientific and academic communities, local and regional government units, nonprofit organizations, initiatives, associations, and companies to participate in this essential initiative. The purpose of such agreements, including the conference’s goal, was to present and encourage collaboration and dialogue among various stakeholders focused on preventive activities, surplus food redistribution, and all other efforts contributing to the effectiveness of waste prevention in the food system. The agreement also represents a contribution to socially responsible and socially sensitive business practices by stakeholders, particularly the local government.235238239243244245246249The Dialogue titled "Food is Not Waste Initiative: Voluntary Agreements with Cities and Counties" yielded several significant conclusions and initiatives aimed at enhancing food system solutions within the City of Velika Gorica. Below are the key findings and agreements that emerged from this Dialogue: Key Findings and Conclusions: Establishment of New Connections: The Dialogue emphasized the importance of establishing new connections between various stakeholders within the food system. This includes food producers, processors, retailers, the hospitality sector, scientific and academic communities, local and regional government units, nonprofit organizations, initiatives, and associations. The collaborative approach is seen as vital for the success of the waste prevention and reduction initiatives. Agreement on Actions and Commitments: A significant outcome of the Dialogue was the Voluntary Agreement titled "Together Against Food Waste," which has garnered a positive reception and commitment from the City of Velika Gorica. This agreement is scheduled to be signed at the final conference of the Cities2030 project in September. The signatories of this agreement voluntarily commit to reducing food waste in their business processes, donating food, and actively communicating with consumers. The comprehensive nature of this agreement covers the entire food chain, from production and processing to household consumption. Exploration of Food Systems: The Dialogue highlighted the need to explore specific aspects of food systems in greater depth, particularly focusing on waste prevention and reduction. The presentation of the Milan Pact on Urban Food Policy and its methodology, as well as its connection to the Cities2030 project, provided valuable insights into effective strategies and policies for urban food systems. Main Initiatives: City's Role in Food System Solutions: The City of Velika Gorica's active role in enhancing food system solutions was a central theme, not only for our city but for all local counties and municipalities. The main initiative was to gather surrounding policymakers and encourage them to embrace this initiative and present all available resources and tools to achieve that goal. The city's involvement in the Horizon2020 research project Cities2030 and its commitment to the Ministry of Agriculture's “Food Is Not Waste” initiative underline its dedication to sustainable food practices. Voluntary Agreement on Waste Prevention and Reduction: The "Together Against Food Waste" agreement involves a broad coalition of stakeholders committing to concerted efforts to reduce food waste. This voluntary agreement stands as a testament to the collective responsibility and shared commitment of diverse actors within the food system. Raising Awareness and Encouraging Collaboration: The Dialogue successfully increased awareness about the importance of signing the Voluntary Agreement and fostered a collaborative spirit among participants. The event served as a platform to encourage dialogue and collaboration among various stakeholders, aiming to enhance the effectiveness of preventive activities and surplus food redistribution. Socially Responsible Practices: The agreement and the Dialogue highlight the importance of socially responsible and socially sensitive business practices. By committing to these practices, stakeholders contribute to the broader goal of sustainable and ethical food systems. Overall, the Dialogue underscored the necessity of involving all relevant stakeholders in the fight against food waste and the importance of collaborative efforts to achieve a significant and lasting impact.237238239244245246249From the main Policymaker perspectives, it was realized that the main focus point of the Dialogue, and that is preventing and fighting food waste, requires collaboration that should be initiated from the top (local authority) and connect all main stakeholders within the City limits that are working in the area regarding environmental protection and waste management, as well as channelling educative materials and tools towards the public, educations systems and spreading and sharing the acquired knowledge towards other cities and regions. Within the cities, we can see separate departments that are already fighting food waste on some level within their work frame, but incorporating all those departments, institutions and other important stakeholders regarding the topic, in one "Working group" that works together on the same goal, is much more efficient path in achieving the goal that we all strive towards, and that is preventing and fighting food waste. Regarding the whole City Food Systems, that project Cities2030 is working on through their Living and Policy Labs, are also facing the same challenges as the initiative mentioned above. They require collaboration and unity of many stakeholders within the City government and municipalities, city institutions and other relevant stakeholders. The weakness in implementing activities important for the entire food system comes from the disconnection of city offices, institutions and all relevant stakeholders important for the food system to function well and to have all its activities under one common item, which is the Food System. The creation of such a prerequisite is crucial for the further development and increase of the efficiency of the production system, short supply chains - distribution chains of delivery and recycling of food, with cities as the bearers of the activity. What was found through this research project, and what showed as correct through the Dialogue discussion between the participants, was the big spectrum of various initiatives, projects and examples of good practices that can thrive if Cities, as holders of Food Systems (when established), are better connected and collaborate in their activities. Being a part of Cities 2030 projects, collaborating with many European countries, on different levels of Food System development, and also connecting with other projects related to food, was the first step in acquiring the necessary knowledge to move forward and start the process of establishing a Food System. Knowledge and key findings in the project gave us the main inputs for the proposal towards our City for the establishment of such systems locally and hopefully to be transferred as a good practice towards the rest of the region and country. Regarding this, we have presented the possibilities, difficulties and possibilities to the rest of the surrounding cities and offered our assistance to start their activities in the right direction. To simplify, we all need access and collaboration between cities, municipalities and Counties so we can be better connected in various initiatives aimed at similar topics in order to work together more efficiently for the same common goals we have at a Country level. As we can see from the dialogue participants, who were mostly policymakers and city representatives, is that we share a common issue with disconnected activities, and signing a Voluntary agreement as one part of the Food System is the right step in a city organization and collaboration between key stakeholders and then also a collaboration between cities, counties and regions.

2025-11-25 14:16:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/53333/262

381211132018201236111131111021223

The Dialogue was designed in such a way that it would embody the UNFSS Principles of Engagement through the creation of a safe, inclusive and multi-stakeholder environment, hence, involving representatives of different groups (age, gender, country, professional background). The dialogue revolved around the idea of learning as a team rather than debating. Participants, representing such professional backgrounds as research, journalism, academia, civil society, and local practitioners, were divided into groups to ensure balanced participation and diversity. The facilitators guided discussions by encouraging all participants to speak from their experience and professional insights. Through the applied technique, all participants had time to express their ideas, and no one was left behind. The Dialogues included structured reflection sessions. With the experience every participant brought with them, it was possible to reinforce grounding discussions that had both evidence and cultural realities. Hence, fostering mutual respect across disciplines and geographies. The participants were exploring the interconnections between nutrition, production, heritage, and aquatic food systems, creating and supporting systems thinking. Transparency was also ensured through the final presentations facilitated by the group rapporteurs. The Dialogue was a key moment of collaborative reflection within the SWITCH (Project number: 101060483) network and the celebrations marking the 15th anniversary of UNESCO’s recognition of the Mediterranean Diet.The Dialogue embodied the set Principles of Engagement. First of all, it recognised the complexity through the link between cultural heritage and regenerative agriculture, nutrition, and blue food systems. Secondly, it embraced inclusivity. Participants were encouraged to speak from their personal food-systems experience (professional and personal) and cultural knowledge. The third criterion, building trust, was applied by making the space open for disagreement and bringing confidence to all participants. Lastly, every participant was acting with urgency by spotting immediate opportunities for education, community action and awareness. Hence, it gave a push to sustainable food transitions in real terms.We would recommend other Dialogue Convenors to pay close attention to the group composition by bringing together participants with different professional and personal backgrounds, as well as from different age and gender groups. Hence, encouraging them to learn from unfamiliar perspectives as well as facilitating conversation instead of debates. Moreover, we would advise reminding participants about the importance of divergence. Therefore, reducing defensiveness and allowing more creative thinking about what future food systems might look like. Another key point of conveying the Dialogue is to offer clear guidelines on reflecting all voices in the outcomes of the discussions. Moreover, convenors can see the benefits from supporting the younger participants or early-career professionals, whose perspectives and expertise enrich the conversations, but sometimes might be underrepresented.

Yes

234238239240242243244245246248249250251The Food Systems Dialogue “Food, Culture, Community: A Living Heritage in the European Food Transition”, organised by the Future Food Institute in Pollica on November 15, 2025, as part of the SWITCH Project (Project number: 101060483). The dialogue aimed to explore the ways food systems across Europe could shift toward being more sustainable and fair, while staying connected to local cultures. The dialogue embraced the links between nutrition, agroecology, sustainability in blue ecosystems, and traditions around living food heritage. The main goal centred on defining real steps that could facilitate change in the stakeholder behaviour, including consumers, producers, institutions, and policymakers. What is more, the conversation aimed to protect ecosystems and build up community health in the process. The Dialogue was preceded by SWITCH sessions (presentations and research), including “Eat Well, Stay Well, Save the Plate: The Mediterranean Diet and the Longevity Algorithm” and “Healthy Oceans, Healthy Lives”, which offered scientific and cultural framing for the later working-group discussions. The Dialogue displayed that transforming food systems should not be limited to just technological solutions. Culture, education, and governance are incredibly crucial as well. The participants stressed that sustainable change can be realised when healthy diets feel both reachable and appealing to people. It is also supported by farming methods that help rebuild ecosystems instead of wearing them down. Moreover, marine and freshwater resources have to be handled sustainably. All of these actions are then supported by the traditions around food that tie communities together, keeping them alive and engaged. One key topic, which can be seen in every conversation, was to adapt the societal view on the sustainable food systems shift from quick wins (for example, easy access and low prices) to a long-term perspective. There should be actions towards creating a lasting balance, sustainability, and purpose. One of the steps towards it includes guiding people, regular people and professionals. The change should also be supported by policies and the market setup. Overall, the Dialogue aimed to link the various fields of the food system and explore how education, policy, financial measures, and community involvement can act together to facilitate the change to healthy and sustainable nutrition for everybody.235238239240242243244245246248249250251Participants came to understand cultural perspectives on food as a resource rather than a challenge. It has been demonstrated that these perspectives can significantly contribute to sustainable practices in innovative ways. Elements such as living heritage can influence behaviour by reconnecting people with the underlying reasons for food, including taste, identity, and seasonal variations. Education has emerged as the most significant means of achieving this, evident in school curricula and community initiatives. Labelling and dissemination of culinary knowledge also play a role. Participants emphasised the importance of addressing larger issues, such as the lack of financial support for small-scale food producers. Public awareness of sustainable farming practices and information on sustainable fishing and nutrition remains limited. The group emphasised the need to strengthen connections between various stakeholders involved, including researchers, local groups, teachers, and food producers. They discussed establishing learning spaces that promote environmentally friendly choices. The discussion led to several main points that were shared by all participants: 1. Education plays a crucial role in transforming food systems for the better. Speakers emphasised the importance of teaching about nutrition and food traditions, as well as the need for literacy on sustainability to be spread throughout society. This includes children and their families, farmers, shoppers, and even policymakers. This type of education empowers people to choose foods that promote health and help maintain balance in the environment; 2. Market-based incentives and rewards can influence consumer and producer behaviour. Ideas for systems that recognise restaurants for using high-quality ingredients that are sustainable over time have been suggested. Loyalty programs in stores could award points for purchasing healthy, locally sourced products. Public procurement for institutions such as hospitals and schools could focus on seasonal meals that are less harmful to the environment. Such measures could contribute to making healthy, sustainable choices the norm; 3. Agroecology and sustainable farming are essential for maintaining strong ecosystems and supporting livelihoods. Practices such as crop rotation and multi-functional land management stand out as effective approaches. These practices help restore natural life by reducing soil disturbance, promoting tree planting, and facilitating animal grazing. They also contribute to carbon sequestration and reduce the use of harmful chemicals from factories. However, there are concerns about the costs of implementing these practices, as well as the difficulty in certifying them. This highlights the need for financial support and knowledge sharing to facilitate widespread adoption; 4. Similarly, managing marine and freshwater ecosystems requires immediate action to address threats such as overfishing and the impact of large factory boats on biodiversity. Ensuring sustainable practices in these areas is crucial for the well-being of local communities and the long-term sustainability of these resources; 5. Developing skills and training programs for those responsible for setting regulations and enforcing regulations is crucial for achieving sustainable outcomes. Laws and regulations play a significant role in shaping how these resources are managed over time; 6. Food heritage contributes to sustainability by providing it with real meaning and a sense of our identity. Traditions surrounding home cooking and eating in groups reinforce this. By valuing what is in season and acquiring cooking skills, waste is reduced, and harm is also minimised. Promoting these practices in schools and public spaces can reverse the trend towards convenience foods. Throughout these discussions, one clear theme emerged: changing food systems works best when sustainability is seen as something people desire, not something imposed upon them. This approach improves health and preserves cultural heritage. Nature remains safe, and more people can find ways to make a living. Participants stressed that such initiatives as SWITCH (Project number: 101060483) can be perceived as a bridge, connecting policy, science, and community-led engagement. Food culture then becomes an active driver of sustainability. The Dialogue emphasised the significance of networks, which can translate high-level research (for example, presented by project partners in nutrition, marine science, and environmental health) into community action and behavioural change. The Dialogue strengthened the value of the SWITCH network in facilitating shared spaces, which incorporate scientific knowledge and evidence, a high level of youth engagement, cultural heritage, and community-based innovation. Their interaction, hence, accelerates the transformation of European food systems.236240242243244245248249250First topic: Regenerative Agriculture. How can agroecological and regenerative practices act as a catalyst for thriving rural communities and resilient European food systems? Agroecological and regenerative approaches can be a catalyst for the success of rural communities and the resilience of European food systems. The participants agreed that regenerative agriculture has the potential to restore ecosystems and revive rural economies simultaneously. However, its adoption is constrained by financial risks, regulatory uncertainties, and limited public awareness. The participants emphasised the importance of agroecological practices, such as crop rotation, multifunctional land management, agroforestry, rotational grazing, and reduced tillage, which help reverse soil degradation, improve water retention, protect biodiversity, and reduce reliance on external inputs. The group emphasised that the transition to regenerative agriculture must provide socioeconomic benefits for farmers and land managers to be sustainable and scalable. Urgent actions are clearly evident. One of them involves increasing dedicated financial support and transition funding for farmers adopting agroecological practices. Another action calls for the development of harmonised and credible carbon and soil certification systems, which would monetise ecosystem services and increase investor confidence. Additionally, knowledge transfer needs to be strengthened through demonstration farms, extension services, and open-access data platforms. The communication of regenerative benefits to consumers also needs improvement to strengthen market pull. Several groups have responsibility in this regard. Policymakers at the EU and national levels need to take action. Universities and agricultural research centres play a crucial role, while ministries of agriculture also have duties in this area. Farmers' associations and cooperatives can also contribute. Progress assessment relies on specific indicators. Soil health is a crucial factor, encompassing carbon content, biodiversity preservation, and erosion control. The adoption of carbon credits and soil certification programs demonstrates progress. A reduction in monoculture farming also serves as an indicator. Participation in farmer training and peer learning activities indicates engagement. Despite these positive developments, barriers and challenges persist. Financing limitations for transitional stages pose a challenge. The complexity of regenerative practices for farmers adds to the difficulty. Public understanding of ecosystem services is limited, slowing progress. Lack of clear economic incentives in the early stages of transition remains a concern.236238239243248249251Second topic: Nutrition. What actions and innovations can drive community-led shifts toward dietary habits that support human well-being and environmental health? Discussions emphasised that nutritional changes should not be based on restrictive messaging, but rather on empowering communities with knowledge, meaning, and balanced information. Participants emphasised that dietary sustainability can be achieved when it is relevant to culture, easy to implement, and aligned with wellbeing rather than guilt. Schools and families were identified as pivotal spaces for forming food literacy and habits, but broader societal mechanisms such as media and trusted digital channels also need to shift toward evidence-based and culturally relevant communication. Urgent actions include integration of nutrition literacy and food systems education into school curricula for all age groups, development of dietary guidelines that balance health and cultural identity, and creation of practical, hands-on learning opportunities in schools and communities, such as cooking workshops, seasonal meal challenges, and food labs. The responsible stakeholders are: government health authorities, education ministries, universities and research institutions, educators, food media, and communication channels. In order to measure the progress, it would be crucial to decrease the prevalence of nutrition misinformation, increase dietary diversity scores, increase student awareness of food origin and seasonality and participation in cooking and food literacy programs. However, some potential barriers include competition from conflicting nutrition narratives and influencers online, pressure of time constraints on families, lack of engagement among young people outside of formal education settings and financial barriers to accessing healthy food in some households.236238239249250251Third topic: Living Heritage. How can living heritage serve as a cultural driver to inspire sustainable food transitions across Europe? Participants emphasised that sustainable transition can be more easily achieved when food practices are based on identity, enjoyment, and community values. Living heritage, including culinary traditions, the transmission of recipes between generations, seasonal community meals, and shared eating rituals, was seen as a valuable resource against the high-waste and high-convenience food system. By recognising heritage as an asset, rather than simply nostalgia, communities can rediscover low-impact practices such as home cooking, food preservation, and the revival of traditional “fast foods”, which are nutritious and require minimal processing. To promote this shift, urgent actions are needed: Encourage intergenerational knowledge exchange about cooking in educational and community settings; Support community programs, festivals, and food workshops that showcase traditional preparation methods and seasonal ingredients; Develop storytelling platforms to connect producers with consumers and highlight the significance, history, and environmental benefits of food. The discussion prioritised schools, municipalities, cultural organisations, community kitchens, youth groups, and food heritage organisations as key responsible actors. The key progress indicators could be the increased participation in community-based food events and workshops, increased demand for seasonal and locally produced foods, and a decrease in avoidable food waste due to the rediscovery of traditional cooking and preservation techniques. Nonetheless, potential challenges are the increasing loss of traditional flavours and skills, reliance on mass-produced processed foods, socioeconomic barriers that prevent access to diverse foods, and limited institutional recognition of food heritage as an important aspect of sustainability.236239242243246249250Fourth topic: Blue Foods. What is the role of blue food systems in shaping sustainable and equitable food futures for coastal communities in Europe? The discussions acknowledged that marine and freshwater resources are strategically significant for food security and livelihoods. However, their long-term viability depends on effective management of ecosystems rather than solely on consumer choices. Industrial fishing practices, lack of transparency, and limited consumer awareness create a mismatch between seafood demand and ecological limits. Participants emphasised that empowering policymakers with scientific knowledge can create the regulatory framework necessary for the sustainable use of these resources in the long term. This, in turn, would enable responsible access for local communities. The urgent actions should focus on strengthening transparency regarding fish sustainability, stock levels, and supply chain origins, integrating scientific data and ecosystem insights into policy formulation and decision-making, and enhancing public awareness of responsible fishing practices and consumption of both commercial and non-commercial species in marine and freshwater environments. Hence, the change should involve marine research organisations, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), ministries of fisheries and coastal development, scientific advisory boards, media outlets, and community communication platforms. The undertaken actions should focus on improving the availability and accessibility of certified sustainably produced seafood, increasing consumer awareness regarding ocean-friendly dietary choices, introducing fishing quotas and measures to control illegal fishing, and adopting sustainability training programs across regulatory bodies. However, it is crucial to anticipate such barriers as the complexity of marine ecosystems and their stock assessments, limited consumer understanding of the health of the ocean, economic pressures on fisheries, and globalised seafood trade, which limits visibility into the practices and origins of products.237238239240242243244245246249250During the dialogue, participants expressed a shared commitment to establishing sustainable and equitable food systems in Europe. However, there were several differences in opinions regarding the most efficient ways to achieve this transformation. These divergences reflected different perspectives on the cultural factors influencing food behaviour, the rate of change, the scope of interventions, and the interests of stakeholders that should be prioritised. One of the main areas of disagreement concerned the role of cultural heritage in sustainable food transitions. Some participants viewed heritage as a valuable resource, arguing that traditional diets, seasonality, low-waste cooking methods, and local food production systems provide a blueprint for restoring biodiversity, promoting healthier diets, and reducing environmental impact. They believed that reconnecting communities to the origins and history of food could strengthen environmental stewardship and support rural economies. Others adopted a different approach, arguing that, although cultural heritage can contribute to sustainability, it should not become a hindrance to scientific progress or inclusive diets that address contemporary health concerns and social realities. The disagreement did not call into question the significance of heritage itself, but rather how it should be incorporated into forward-thinking strategies. Differences also emerged regarding the pace of the transition. Some argued for rapid, systematic interventions, including strict environmental standards, financial incentives linked to verified climate performance, and regulations that accelerate the shift away from unsustainable production models. They argued that delaying action increases climate and biodiversity risks and disadvantages future generations. Others have warned that accelerated, top-down measures may provoke resistance among farmers, manufacturers, or consumers who lack the necessary resources or knowledge to adjust. From this standpoint, long-term behavioural change must be grounded in education, capacity building, and cultural acceptance. Stimulus-based and community-led approaches were preferred over regulatory pressure, both to guarantee fairness and to enhance public ownership of the transition. The main disagreement concerned not the necessity for change, but rather whether the most efficient path is structural and immediate or educational and gradual. A third area of divergence focused on the scope of transformation. Some participants emphasised systemic levers – finance, trade regulations, certification systems, and national policies – because they argued that only large-scale interventions could shift market dynamics rapidly enough to ensure food systems compatible with climate change. Others emphasised grassroots innovations – intergenerational knowledge transfer, community kitchens, school-based food education, and local food identity – as being more responsive to people's needs and better able to create lasting behavioural change. These perspectives were not mutually exclusive, but rather, the disagreement centred on which approach should drive investment and policy focus in the short term. Further divergence emerged regarding the prioritisation of stakeholders. Some argued that farmers and fishers should remain the primary beneficiaries of transition pathways given their central role in maintaining ecosystems and rural livelihoods. Others emphasised the importance of consumers, particularly young people, in shaping the long-term viability of sustainable food production models through changes in demand. A third view emphasised the role of public institutions in leading the transition process, emphasising that sustainability cannot solely depend on individual or sector-specific initiatives. Despite these differences, there was a consistent theme throughout the Dialogue: participants viewed divergences not as obstacles, but as sources of innovation. They recognised that cultural, regulatory, educational, and economic approaches can coexist and support each other. Instead of converging on a single approach, the Dialogue highlighted a shared willingness to adopt multiple solutions that address Europe's diverse food systems, community identities, and environmental challenges. What is more, the SWITCH (Project number: 101060483) framework was perceived as an example of the convergence of diverse scientific disciplines and cultural perspectives. Altogether, they contribute to the innovation within sustainable food transitions.

2025-12-27 12:31:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/53297/127

420

The Food Systems Forum 2025 was organized as a dialogue-first platform (not a conventional conference) to reflect the UN Principles of Engagement. Inclusivity and respect were built in through broad representation—SMEs, producer groups, CSOs/CBOs, humanitarian agencies, researchers, youth and women-led networks, development partners, and regional actors. Burmese–English interpretation enabled meaningful participation across local and international stakeholders. To embrace complexity and systems thinking, the programme intentionally linked food safety, nutrition security, climate resilience, digital tools, and finance across plenaries and breakouts, avoiding siloed conversations. Participatory formats (especially fishbowl and roundtable discussions) created space for multiple viewpoints and real-time exchange rather than one-way presentations. Equity and power-awareness were reinforced through facilitation guidance: hosts were asked to actively draw in voices from smaller enterprises, community practitioners, women, and youth, so discussions were not dominated by institutional authority. Sessions also acknowledged Myanmar’s fragile operating context, allowing lived realities to shape priorities. To strengthen openness and trust, the Forum maintained a neutral, non-prescriptive environment—focusing on shared understanding, practical constraints, and what is feasible under uncertainty. Finally, the Dialogue was action-oriented: rapporteurs captured practical recommendations from each session, consolidated into cross-cutting findings and follow-up pillars to guide continued collaboration beyond the event.The Food Systems Forum 2025 reflected the UN Principles of Engagement through both its design choices and facilitation practices. Inclusivity and mutual respect were reflected in the diversity of participants and formats. SMEs, farmers’ organizations, CSOs/CBOs, humanitarian actors, researchers, youth and women-led networks, and development partners engaged on equal footing. Dialogue formats emphasized listening and exchange, rather than formal presentations, reinforcing respect for lived experience alongside technical knowledge. The Principle of embracing complexity was reflected by applying a food systems lens throughout the programme. Dialogues intentionally connected food safety, nutrition, climate resilience, finance, and digital innovation, highlighting interdependencies rather than isolated solutions. Fishbowl discussions and cross-sector panels allowed participants to explore how shocks cascade across value chains and communities. Equity and power-awareness were addressed through facilitation approaches that prioritized voices often underrepresented in formal policy spaces. Facilitators were guided to actively invite input from SMEs, community practitioners, women, and youth, and to recognize structural constraints faced in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. The Dialogue emphasized openness and trust-building by maintaining a neutral, non-prescriptive environment. Rather than aiming for consensus or policy declarations, sessions focused on shared understanding, practical constraints, and honest reflection—creating space to discuss sensitive issues such as regulatory gaps, market breakdowns, and donor contraction. Finally, the Principle of action orientation was reflected through structured synthesis. Key insights and recommendations were documented by rapporteurs and consolidated into follow-up pillars, providing clear pathways for continued collaboration, learning, and pilot action beyond the event.Yes. From our experience, the Principles of Engagement are most effective when treated as design disciplines, not abstract values. First, design for listening, not presenting. Choose formats that prioritize exchange—such as fishbowl discussions, roundtables, or facilitated small groups—so participants contribute as peers rather than audiences. This naturally reinforces respect, inclusion, and openness. Second, embrace complexity deliberately. Avoid organizing sessions around narrow themes or sectors. Food systems challenges are interconnected; structuring dialogues to surface linkages between production, nutrition, markets, climate, and trust leads to more honest and useful conversations. Third, be conscious of power dynamics. Convenors should brief facilitators to actively invite voices from SMEs, community practitioners, women, youth, and frontline actors. Without this, discussions tend to default to institutional or technical authority, unintentionally undermining equity. Fourth, create psychological safety. A neutral, non-prescriptive environment—where the goal is understanding rather than consensus—encourages participants to speak candidly about constraints, failures, and trade-offs, especially in fragile or conflict-affected contexts. Finally, plan for continuity. Dialogue should not end when the event closes. Assign rapporteurs, synthesize insights, and translate them into clear follow-up pathways or collaborations. This reinforces the principle that dialogue is a process, not a one-off event. In short, appreciating the Principles of Engagement means embedding them into how dialogue is structured, facilitated, and carried forward—so they shape behaviour, not just intent.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248250251The Food Systems Forum 2025 was designed as a comprehensive exploration of food systems, with a strong emphasis on examining linkages across multiple Action Tracks and levers of change, rather than addressing any single track in isolation. The Dialogue applied a food systems lens to Myanmar’s current realities, recognizing that nutrition insecurity, food safety risks, climate shocks, market fragmentation, and institutional weakness are deeply interconnected. Rather than organizing discussions strictly by Action Track, the Forum focused on how different parts of the food system interact under stress, and how resilience can be built through coordinated, trust-based approaches. Key areas of focus included: • Nutrition security (Action Track 1), particularly the deterioration of household diets, child malnutrition, and constraints in delivering safe, nutritious foods in conflict-affected and climate-vulnerable areas. Dialogues examined the role of local production, SMEs, community networks, and market-based mechanisms in sustaining nutrition outcomes when humanitarian pipelines are constrained. • Food safety and quality systems (Action Track 2), explored not only as a public health issue but as a foundation for market confidence, competitiveness, and nutrition. The Forum examined gaps in regulatory enforcement, testing capacity, certification costs, and consumer awareness, and how trust-based and peer-driven quality systems are emerging to fill institutional voids. • Climate resilience and primary production (Action Track 5), with a strong focus on how climate shocks cascade across crops, livestock, and aquaculture. Dialogues emphasized integrated and circular production systems, low-tech climate-smart practices, soil health, organic inputs, and localized service provision as scalable resilience pathways. • Market systems, digital tools, and enabling environments (levers of change), including the role of digital platforms, data, finance, and coordination mechanisms in improving extension services, market transparency, risk management, and inclusion of smallholders, SMEs, women, and youth. Across all themes, the Dialogue explicitly examined linkages between Action Tracks, highlighting that progress in nutrition, climate adaptation, and sustainability is not possible without parallel improvements in food safety, markets, trust, and coordination. A unifying focus of the Forum was the concept of trust as an enabling infrastructure — how, in fragile and low-institutional contexts, trust-based relationships, peer monitoring, and multistakeholder platforms are increasingly sustaining food system functions and enabling resilience. In summary, the Dialogue did not seek to prioritize one Action Track over others. Instead, it focused on understanding and strengthening the interdependencies between Action Tracks and levers of change, generating system-level insights and practical pathways for building resilient, nutrition-secure, and climate-adaptive food systems under conditions of uncertainty.235238239240241242243244245246248250251The Food Systems Forum 2025 revealed a food system under severe and overlapping stress, yet one that continues to function through adaptive relationships, local innovation, and informal coordination. Several clear findings emerged across dialogues. 1. Fragmentation—not lack of effort—is the core systemic constraint. Stakeholders across nutrition, food safety, primary production, markets, and digital services are actively responding to crisis conditions, but largely in isolation. The Dialogue highlighted an urgent need to reconnect actors who have been operating in silos, including SMEs, community organizations, humanitarian agencies, researchers, and market actors. Participants consistently emphasized that resilience depends less on new standalone interventions and more on stronger coordination mechanisms and shared operating spaces. 2. Nutrition security is deteriorating rapidly, and local solutions are now indispensable. Participants confirmed accelerating malnutrition, especially among children and women in conflict-affected and climate-vulnerable areas. Humanitarian pipelines are increasingly constrained by access limitations, funding contraction, and reliance on imported products. A key finding was that local production and localized delivery of safe, nutritious foods—supported by SMEs and community networks—are no longer optional but essential for sustaining nutrition outcomes. 3. Food safety has shifted from a compliance issue to a national resilience and competitiveness priority. Dialogues revealed that weak enforcement, high certification costs, and limited testing capacity undermine both public health and market confidence. At the same time, producers who prioritize food safety early tend to sustain quality, nutrition, and consumer trust over time. Participants agreed that food safety is a foundational enabler, linking nutrition, markets, and long-term resilience, and requires pragmatic, trust-based approaches in low-institutional contexts. 4. Climate shocks cascade across interconnected production systems. The Forum confirmed that crops, livestock, and aquaculture are deeply interdependent. Climate-induced disruptions in one sector rapidly transmit risks to others—through feed quality, disease, prices, and nutrition outcomes. The Dialogue identified integrated and circular production models, soil health, organic inputs, and low-tech climate-smart practices as viable, scalable responses when supported by coordination and extension. 5. Trust has emerged as a functional substitute for weakened institutions. In contexts where formal regulation and oversight are constrained, participants described how trust-based relationships, peer monitoring, shared standards, and transparent information exchange are already sustaining food system functions. These informal mechanisms act as transitional governance structures, enabling coordination, quality assurance, and market continuity. 6. Digital tools can enable coordination, but only if grounded in trust and local realities. While digital innovation remains underutilized due to connectivity gaps and low trust, the Dialogue identified clear opportunities for offline-first tools, youth intermediaries, cooperative data governance, and practical value delivery (e.g., advisories, market information, traceability). 7. Dialogue must translate into continued collective action. Rather than consensus declarations, participants converged on the need for ongoing collaboration, pilots, and shared learning pathways. This resulted in agreement around follow-up pillars focused on multistakeholder convergence, trust-based quality systems, circular and localized production loops, and sustained Forum-to-Field engagement. Overall, the Dialogue concluded that resilience in Myanmar’s food systems is emerging not from stability, but from adaptive, trust-enabled coordination. Strengthening these connections now is critical to preventing humanitarian stress from hardening into long-term systemic failure.236238239243244248250As Food Systems Forum has more than 20 dialogues in the form of roundtables, panels, fishbowls etc. to have more concised entry for this feedback form, the discussion topics are clustered according to the Forum 3 tracks (Food Safety, Nutrition Security and Climate Resilience + Mekong CREATES Agri-food Systems Forum). Outcomes of discussions under the track: Food Safety Discussions under the Food Safety track converged on the recognition that food safety in Myanmar is no longer a narrow compliance issue, but a foundational pillar for public health, nutrition security, market confidence, and system-wide resilience. Several key outcomes emerged. Urgently needed actions Participants emphasized the need to shift from a certificate-driven approach to a practice-based food safety culture, particularly among SMEs. Priority actions include: strengthening Good Hygiene Practices (GHP) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) at factory level; improving access to affordable, context-appropriate testing for chemical, physical, and microbiological hazards; enhancing food labelling literacy; and embedding food safety considerations earlier in product development rather than as an afterthought. Given institutional constraints, dialogues highlighted the importance of trust-based and peer-supported quality systems as transitional solutions. Who should take these actions SMEs and food processors are central actors and must internalize food safety as a business and ethical responsibility. Technical institutions, laboratories, and service providers should support this shift through advisory services, testing, and capacity building. Retailers and buyers play a critical role by clearly communicating requirements and supporting gradual compliance pathways. Development partners and industry associations were identified as key enablers, particularly in reducing cost barriers, supporting shared infrastructure, and facilitating coordination where regulatory oversight is weak. How progress could be assessed Participants agreed that progress should be measured not only by the number of certificates issued, but by observable improvements in practices and outcomes. Suggested indicators include: adoption of basic GHP/GMP practices; frequency and transparency of product testing; reduction in food safety incidents and recalls; improved consistency of product quality; increased acceptance of local products by modern trade and institutional buyers; and growing consumer confidence in locally produced foods. Anticipated challenges Key challenges include the high cost of certification and testing, limited availability of accredited laboratories, shortages of skilled food technologists, and low consumer awareness. SMEs face particular difficulty balancing compliance costs with thin margins. Inconsistent enforcement and fragmented governance further complicate implementation. Participants cautioned that without pragmatic, staged approaches, food safety requirements risk excluding small producers rather than improving overall system safety. Overall, the Food Safety dialogues concluded that investing in practical, trust-enabled food safety systems is one of the highest-impact interventions for strengthening nutrition outcomes, market resilience, and long-term competitiveness in Myanmar’s food system.236238239241242243244245246248250251Outcomes of discussions under the track: Nutrition Security Discussions under the Nutrition Security track highlighted that Myanmar is facing a rapidly deepening nutrition crisis, driven by the convergence of conflict, climate shocks, market breakdowns, and shrinking humanitarian space. Participants consistently emphasized that nutrition outcomes can no longer rely solely on traditional aid delivery and must be supported by local production, market-based mechanisms, and community-level coordination. Urgently needed actions Key actions identified include strengthening local availability of safe, nutritious foods, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant and lactating women, and displaced households. Participants stressed the need to support SMEs and community producers to supply nutrient-dense foods that meet basic safety and quality requirements. Improving linkages between primary production, processing, and institutional buyers (e.g. school feeding and community nutrition programmes) was identified as critical. Nutrition-sensitive approaches—integrating food safety, affordability, and cultural acceptability—were seen as essential, alongside better nutrition awareness at household and community levels. Who should take these actions Local SMEs, producer groups, and community organizations were recognized as frontline actors in sustaining nutrition delivery under constrained conditions. Humanitarian agencies and development partners were seen as key enablers, particularly in setting standards, providing technical guidance, and facilitating market-based pathways where feasible. Multistakeholder platforms and networks were identified as important coordination mechanisms to align actors across production, processing, distribution, and consumption. How progress could be assessed Participants agreed that progress should be tracked through practical and outcome-oriented indicators, including improved availability of affordable nutritious foods in local markets; increased participation of local suppliers in nutrition programmes; improved consistency and safety of locally produced nutrition products; and qualitative improvements in household diet diversity. Where feasible, monitoring of child and maternal nutrition trends was also highlighted as important, while acknowledging data constraints. Anticipated challenges Key challenges include declining purchasing power, rising input and logistics costs, limited technical capacity among local producers, and strict requirements for institutional procurement that are difficult for SMEs to meet. Donor contraction and access constraints further limit scale and continuity. Participants cautioned that without adaptive approaches, there is a risk of widening gaps between humanitarian standards and local production realities. Overall, the Nutrition Security dialogues concluded that resilient nutrition outcomes in Myanmar depend on combining local production, localized delivery, and coordinated support, rather than relying on fragmented or purely external solutions. Strengthening these linkages was seen as urgent to prevent further deterioration of nutrition outcomes.236239240242243244245246248250251Outcomes of discussions under the track: Climate Resilience Discussions under the Climate Resilience track confirmed that climate change is now a systemic risk multiplier across Myanmar’s food system, affecting primary production, food safety, nutrition outcomes, and livelihoods simultaneously. Participants emphasized that resilience can no longer be addressed at the farm level alone, but must be built across interconnected crop, livestock, and aquaculture systems, and along value chains. Urgently needed actions Priority actions identified include scaling climate-smart and nature-positive production practices that are practical, affordable, and locally adaptable. These include improved soil health management, organic and circular inputs, integrated crop–livestock–aquaculture systems, better post-harvest handling, and low-tech risk-reduction measures to address climate-induced quality losses (e.g. aflatoxin and disease). Participants also highlighted the need to strengthen localized extension services, farmer-to-farmer learning, and access to timely climate and market information to support adaptive decision-making. Who should take these actions Primary producers and producer groups are central actors, but cannot act alone. Local service providers, SMEs, and input suppliers were identified as key enablers for scaling climate-resilient practices. Technical institutions, researchers, and development partners were seen as critical for validating practices, supporting capacity building, and facilitating access to tools and knowledge. Multistakeholder platforms were highlighted as necessary to coordinate actions across sectors and avoid fragmented interventions. How progress could be assessed Participants agreed that resilience should be assessed through tangible and practice-based indicators, rather than abstract commitments. Suggested measures include adoption of climate-smart practices, improvements in soil and water management, reduced production and quality losses during climate shocks, stabilization of yields and input costs, and improved continuity of supply across seasons. Cross-sector indicators—such as reduced feed quality risks and more stable availability of animal-source foods—were also highlighted. Anticipated challenges Key challenges include limited financial capacity among smallholders, high upfront costs for some practices, weak extension coverage, and inconsistent access to inputs and services. Climate volatility itself makes planning difficult, while fragmented markets reduce incentives for long-term investment. Participants also noted that without coordination, isolated climate interventions risk shifting risks from one sector to another rather than reducing system-wide vulnerability. Overall, the Climate Resilience dialogues concluded that resilience must be built through integrated, localized, and coordinated approaches, combining nature-positive practices with market and knowledge support. Strengthening linkages across production systems was seen as essential to prevent climate shocks from cascading into broader food and nutrition crises.236238239240241242243244245246248250251Outcomes of discussions under the track: Mekong CREATES Agri-food Systems Forum Discussions under the Mekong CREATES Agri-food Systems Forum highlighted the importance of regional learning, cross-border cooperation, and innovation exchange in strengthening national food system resilience. Participants emphasized that Myanmar’s challenges—climate stress, market fragmentation, SME capability gaps, and nutrition insecurity—are shared across the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), and that regional collaboration offers practical pathways for adaptation and scale. Urgently needed actions Key actions identified include strengthening regional knowledge exchange on climate-resilient production, food safety practices, SME upgrading, and digital agri-food solutions. Participants emphasized the need to document and adapt proven approaches from across the Mekong region—such as inclusive business models, farmer–SME linkages, and market-oriented resilience strategies—to Myanmar’s context. Piloting cross-border learning initiatives, joint capacity-building activities, and innovation showcases was seen as a priority to accelerate adoption while avoiding duplication. Who should take these actions Regional institutions, such as Mekong-level platforms and research organizations, were identified as key convenors and knowledge brokers. National partners—including private sector actors, SMEs, producer organizations, and technical institutions—were seen as critical implementers and adapters of regional insights. Development partners play an enabling role by supporting coordination, learning exchanges, and pilot initiatives that bridge regional expertise with local implementation. How progress could be assessed Participants agreed that progress should be assessed through practical collaboration outcomes, rather than policy alignment alone. Suggested indicators include the number and quality of regional knowledge exchanges, joint pilots or demonstrations launched, SME participation in regional learning initiatives, and evidence of adapted practices being applied locally. Improved linkages between regional innovation providers and national actors were also identified as an important marker of success. Anticipated challenges Key challenges include differences in policy environments, market maturity, and institutional capacity across Mekong countries. Limited resources, language barriers, and travel or coordination constraints may also slow exchange. Participants cautioned that regional models cannot be transferred wholesale and must be carefully adapted to Myanmar’s fragile operating context. Overall, the Mekong CREATES dialogues concluded that regional collaboration is a strategic enabler of resilience, offering Myanmar access to tested ideas, networks, and innovations. When combined with strong local ownership and adaptation, Mekong-level engagement can significantly strengthen Myanmar’s agri-food system transformation under uncertainty.237238239240241242243244245246248250251The Food Systems Forum 2025 surfaced several important areas of divergence, reflecting the complexity of Myanmar’s food system and the diverse realities faced by different actors. These differences were constructive and helped clarify where further dialogue, evidence, and experimentation are needed. 1. Speed versus rigor in food safety and nutrition standards Participants shared divergent views on how quickly food safety and nutrition standards should be applied. Humanitarian agencies and large buyers emphasized the non-negotiability of strict standards to protect public health, while SMEs and local producers highlighted the risk that rapid enforcement could exclude smaller actors due to high costs and limited technical capacity. This divergence underscored the tension between safeguarding consumers and ensuring inclusive market participation, pointing to the need for phased and adaptive compliance pathways. 2. Localization versus scale in nutrition delivery There were differing perspectives on how far nutrition interventions should rely on local production. Many participants stressed that local SMEs and community networks are essential to sustaining nutrition outcomes under access and funding constraints. Others cautioned that local systems may struggle to meet volume, consistency, and safety requirements at scale. This divergence highlighted the need to better define where localized solutions are most effective and where complementary external supply remains necessary. 3. Climate adaptation priorities at farm versus system level Participants broadly agreed on the urgency of climate resilience but differed on where to prioritize action. Some emphasized farm-level practices and inputs, while others argued that without improvements in markets, storage, extension, and coordination across sectors, farm-level gains would not be sustained. This revealed a divergence between intervention-focused and system-wide approaches to resilience building. 4. Role of regulation versus trust-based mechanisms Views differed on the extent to which informal, trust-based coordination should substitute for weakened formal institutions. Some participants saw peer monitoring and voluntary standards as practical transitional solutions in fragile contexts, while others warned of risks related to uneven quality, accountability, and consumer protection. This divergence highlighted the need to explore hybrid models that combine trust-based practices with gradual institutional strengthening. 5. Digital transformation versus accessibility and trust Participants diverged on the readiness of digital tools to support food systems coordination. Technology providers and younger actors emphasized the potential of digital platforms for extension, traceability, and finance. Others stressed constraints such as limited connectivity, low digital literacy among older farmers, and mistrust of data use. This pointed to the importance of inclusive, offline-first, and value-driven digital solutions. 6. Prioritization of stakeholders under constrained resources There were differing views on which stakeholders should be prioritized when resources are limited. Some emphasized the most vulnerable households and conflict-affected communities, while others stressed sustaining SMEs and market actors as a means of preserving system functionality. This divergence reinforced the need for balanced approaches that protect vulnerable populations while maintaining productive capacity. Overall, the areas of divergence did not signal disagreement on goals, but rather different perspectives on pathways, sequencing, and trade-offs. Participants broadly agreed that these differences warrant continued exploration through pilots, evidence generation, and sustained multistakeholder dialogue.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Executive-Summary_FSF2025.pdfhttps://www.foodsystemsforum.com/